Keyes v. School District No. 1 Denver, CO. Appendix Vol. 1

Public Court Documents
July 16, 1969 - July 22, 1969

Keyes v. School District No. 1 Denver, CO. Appendix Vol. 1 preview

Cite this item

  • Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Keyes v. School District No. 1 Denver, CO. Appendix Vol. 1, 1969. 5cf839ff-b99a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/229ae690-39df-4c7a-8b0f-59a6631613d9/keyes-v-school-district-no-1-denver-co-appendix-vol-1. Accessed July 03, 2025.

    Copied!

    APPENDIX
Volume 1— Pages l a  to 480a

Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1971

No. 71-507

WILFRED KEYES, ET AL., 
PETITIONERS,

—v.—

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, 
DENVER, COLORADO, ET AL.

ON W R IT  OF C ERTIO RA RI TO T H E  U N IT E D  STA TES 

CO U RT OF A PPE A L S FO R T H E  T E N T H  C IR C U IT

CERTIORARI GRANTED JANUARY 17, 1972 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED OCTOBER 8, 1971



INDEX TO APPENDIX

Volume I
PA G E

Docket Entries —....... ................................................. la

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Declara­
tory Judgment........... ..... ..................................... . 2a
Exhibits annexed to Complaint:

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3—Resolution 1520 .......   42a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4—Resolution 1524 .............  49a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5-—Resolution 1531 .............  60a

Motion for Preliminary Injunction..............     71a

Answer of Defendants Amesse, Noel and Voorhees,
J r .............................................................................   73a

Hearing on Preliminary Injunction July 16-22, 1969 85a

T estim ony

(M in u t e s  oe H earing on P relim inary  I n ju n c t io n  
J uly  16-22, 1969)

Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:
Rachel B. Noel—

Direct ...............................................    85a
Redirect ..........   104a

A. Edgar Benton—
Direct ..................   108a
Cross ................    121a
Redirect ..............        123a



11

Paul 0. Klite—
Direct ....... ................
Yoir Dire ...................
Cross ...... ...................
Redirect ...... .............

James D. Voorhees, Jr.— 
Direct ........................

George E. Bardwell—
Direct ........................
Voir Dire ......... .........
Cross ..........................

Robert D. Gilberts—
Direct ........................
Cross ..........................
Redirect .....................

Defendants’ Witnesses:
Gilbert Cruter—

Direct ........................
Voir Dire ..................
Cross ..........................

Howard L. Jolm son-
Direct ...... .................
Cross .........................
Recross ......................

Robert Gilberts—
Direct ........................
Cross .........................
Redirect ....................
Recross ......................

PAGE

126a, 133a
.....  132a
.....  139a
.....  142a

143a

151a,191a
.....  185a
.....  193a

227a
252a
255a

208a, 214a
.....  213a
.....  216a

256a
302a
369a

376a
393a
408a
414a



Richard Koeppe—
Direct ......... ........... ............... ........... .....419a, 437a
Voir Dire ________ ____ ____ _____ ___  436a
Cross ........................................ ..................... 438a

Preliminary Injunction ............. .................................  452a

Memorandum Opinion and Order of District Court 454a

Opinion of Court of Appeals dated August 5, 1969 .... 455a

Supplemental Findings, Conclusions and Temporary 
Injunction by District Court ....... .......................... 458a

Opinion of Court of Appeals dated August 27, 1969 459a

Order ...... ........... ................ .......................... ...............  463a

Opinion by Brennan, J. on Application for Vacating 
of Stay .......... ................................. .................... 464a

Opinion of Court of Appeals dated September 15,
1969 ........... ..........- ..................................................  467a

Answer ................ .......................................................  470a

Memorandum Opinion and O rder....... .................. 475a

I l l

PAGE



Volume 2

(M in u tes  oe T rial on M erits ,
F ebruary 2-20, 1970)

PAGE

Minutes of Trial on Merits, February 2-20, 1970 .... 481a

Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:
Paul Klite—

Direct ..................................481a, 493a, 502a, 523a,
530a, 533a, 537a

Voir Dire ..................................... 491a, 502a, 522a,
528a, 532a, 536a

Cross .............................................................  564a
Redirect .......................................................  621a

Lorenzo Traylor—
Direct ...........................................................  579a
Cross .............................................................  607a
Redirect ........................................................ 621a

Gerald P. Cavanaugh—
Direct ......................................     626a
Cross ....................................................... ...... 646a
Redirect ........................................................ 652a
Recross ..................................................   655a

Mary Morton—
Direct ...........................................................  656a
Cross .............................. ............................... 660a

Marlene Chambers—
Direct ..................................................... 665a, 671a
Voir Dire ......................................................  670a
Cross .............................................................  676a
Redirect ........................................................ 681a
Recross .........................................................  682a



V

Palicia L ew is-
Direct .................................    684a
Cross ....................................    693a
Redirect ................................      696a
Recross ................       696a

Mildred Biddick—
Direct ...........................................................  697a

PA G E

George E. Bardwell-
Direct .......................... 700a, 703a, 707a, 716a, 727a,

757a, 769a, 790a, 798a
Voir Dire .................... ........702a, 707a, 715a, 726a,

755a,767a, 786a,791a
Cross  ..........................................................  800a
Redirect ........................................................ 818a

George L. Brown, J r . -
Direct ...........................................      857a

Dr. Dan Dodson—
Direct ......................................................    1469a
Cross .............................................................  1493a

Defendants’ Witnesses:
Robert L. Hedley—

Direct .................
Voir Dire ............

Lois Heath Johnson—
Direct .................
Cross ...................
Redirect ..............
Recross ............

,820a, 834a 
......  833a

..... 893a
......  922a
..... 955a
.....  956a



YX

Palmer L. Burch—
Direct ...........................................................  963a
Cross .............................................................  978a
Redirect ...... ........................................1023a, 1030a
Recross ..........................................................  1025a

PA G E

Volume 3

William Berge-—
Direct .....................     1033a
Cross .................................................... -.......  1051a

James C. Perrill—
Direct ..........................................................- 1076a
Cross .............................................................  1083a
Redirect ........................................................ 1100a
Recross ..................................................   1101a

John E. Temple—
Direct ....................................... 1101a, 1115a, 1129a
Voir Dire .............................................1112a, 1128a
Cross - ....................................... ..............-....  1131a

Jean McLaughlin—
Direct .............................................- -.......- 1131a
Cross ........... -............................ -..................- 1146a
Redirect ....................................................... - 1150a

Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—-
Direct .................................................. - -  1150a
Cross .............................................................  1189a
Redirect ........................................................ 1210a

Lidell M. Thomas—
Direct .......................................................— 1214a
Cross .............................................................  1239a
Redirect .........................................- -.......  1252a
Recross .........................................................  1253a



Charles Armstrong—
Direct ...........................................................  1254a
Cross .............................................................  1289a

Kenneth Oberholtzer—
Direct ...........................................................  1299a
Cross .............................................................  1393a
Redirect ........................................................ 1463a

Memorandum Opinion and Order of District Court .. 1514a

V ll

PA G E

Volume 4
(M in u t e s  of H eaeing  on R e l ie f , M ay 11-14, 1970)

H e a r in g  on R elie f, M ay  11-19, 1970 ......    1515a

Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:
James Coleman—

Direct ........ ......................................... 1516a, 1526a
Voir Dire ...................................................... 1520a
Cross .......   1552a
Redirect - .....    1561a

Neal Sullivan—
Direct ...........................................................  1562a
Cross ......   1588a
Redirect ..............    1598a

George Bar dwell—
Direct ..........................   1602a
Cross ..................................................    1664a
Redirect ........................................................ 1683a

William Smith—
Direct ...........................................................  1688a
Cross .....................................................    1698a



vm

Robert O’R eilly-
Direct .................................................. 1910a,1925a
Yoir Dire ......................................................  1920a
Cross .......... -.................................................  1942a
Redirect ............   1968a

Defendants’ Witnesses:
Robert D. Gilberts—

Direct ............................     1706a
Cross ................................................ -......... - 1763a
Redirect ......................................................   1834a
Recross ..............................    1842a

James D. Ward—
Direct ..........   1844a
Cross .....- ......................................................  1868a

George Morrison, Jr.—
Direct ...........................................................  1874a
Cross ..................    1892a
Redirect ........................................................ 1896a

Albert C. Reamer—
Direct ..........     1897a
Cross ............................................................   1905a

Decision Re Plan or Remedy by District Court ......... 1969a

Final Decree and Judgment..................     1970a

Defendants’ Notice of Appeal .................................... 1978a

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal......... ..............   1979a

PA G E

Decision by Court of Appeals on Motion for Stay, 
etc............................................................................... 1981a



IX

Decision by U. S. Supreme Court on Stay, etc..........  1984a

Opinion of Court of Appeals dated June 11, 1971 ..... 1985a

Judgment of Court of Appeals dated June 11, 1971 .. 1985a

Decision by Court of Appeals for “Clarification of 
Opinion” ............ ............ .............................. ..... .....  1986a

Order Granting Certiorari............................... .......... 1988a

I ndex to E x h ib its  A ppears i n  E x h ib it  V olume

PAGE



c f v n ,  H o c K i iT  *  " f\€PJS/\ L  -  7 ,  ;
UNITED STATES I ' I S T aICT ■CO-’l t l '   ̂ ‘" v "  f

Jury demand date:

i \  C. Form No. 105 Rev. f  . 0

* i
TITL‘D OF CASE

t  c n: t  c A , /
ATTORNEYS '  * *•’ ‘ W /

6 - 1 9 - 6 9  6 / 8 / 7 0

UII.FKFD KEiF.S, i n d i v i d u a l l _ x  ?>rtd o n :b e h a l f  o f  CHRISTI For plaintiff:
KEYJSSj a m in o r ;  CHRISTINE A. COLLEY, i n d i v i d u a l l y  and ■BARNES & JENSEN
on b e h a l f  o f  KRIS M. COLLEY and MARX A. WILLIAMS, C r a i g  S .  B a r n e s  7
m i n o r s ;  IRMA J .  JENNINGS, i n d i v i d u a l l y  and on b e h a l f 2 4 3-0--Soufch-Un-i v-er-s-i-ty—B-l-vd. , / f  j f ' J :.
o f ’RHONDA 0.  JENNINGS, a m i n o r ,  ROBERTA R. WADE, i n - D e n v e r ,  C o l o r a d o  89-2-1-0 S y / ' J '  La-.
d i v i d u a l l v  and on b e h a l f  o f  GREGORY L, UA.DE.a m in o r ; T e l :  - 7 -4 4 - 6 4  5 5 -  ,??J> •‘Z Y Y Z  /  .
EDWARD J .  STARKS, J R . ,  i n d i v i d u a l l y  and on b e h a l f  o f
DENISE MICHELLE STARKSJ a m i n o r ;  JOSEPHINE PEREZ, i n - G o r d o n  G.  G r e i n e r  7 \
d i v i d u a l l v  and on b e h a l f  o f  CARLOS A. PEREZ, SHEILA R 5 0 0  E c f u i t a b l e  B u i l d i n g
PEREZ and TERRY J .  PEREZ, . m i n o r s ; MAXINE M. BECKER D e n v e r ,  C o l o r a d o  8 0 2 0 2  ________ ______
i n d i v i d u a l l y  and on b e h a l f  o f  DINAH L. BECKER, a  mine: ; T e l : 2 9 2 - 9 2 0 0
EUGENE R. WEINER, i n d i v i d u a l l y  and on b e h a l f  o f
SARAH S. WEINER, a  m in o r . J  a  c k  G r  e  e n b  e  r  g Sc J a m e s  M. N a f c r i t t . __J T1

\ C o n r a d  K.  H a r p e r  ..... ........ . ....
1 0  Co l u m b u s _ C i r c l e . , ________________ 1_________

vs New York , . . . . .New..York._. l0 0 1 9_._A__ 1__________ _

. SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, DENVER, COLORADO; ( c o n t .  o n  n e x t  p a g e )

. THE BOARD O? EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE,
DENVER, COLORADO; 3.  WILLIAM C. BERGE, i n d i v i d u a l l y For defendant: - t
and a s  P r e s i d e n t ,  Board o f  E d u c a t i o n ,  Schoo l  D i s t r i < •t  /Vf'b / A ' - K . - '  A\
Number One, Denver ,  C o lo r a d o ;  4 .  STEPHEN J ,  KNIGHT, y i / / ST” ■ S r  fV-v-’ >'v  / /» ,"  i /- •

- ' JR . , i n d i v i d u a l l y  and a s  Vice  P r e s i d e n t ,  Board o f . >)i: -uy-- v-v,-.. .
E d u c a t i o n ,  School  D i s t r i c t  Number One, D e n v e r ,C o l o - f p ,  p  - {jc j ->
r a d o ;  5 .  JAMES C. PERRILL, 6. FRANK K . -S0UTHW0RTH,

. JOHN It. AMESSE, 8. JAMES D. V00RHEES, J R , ,  and b x  ALL DENIS. EXCEPT V onrhnes ,  Amesae & Kps
RACHEL B. NOEL, i n d i v i d u a l l y  and a s  members ,  Board ft  • Mm. K. b i s  __ _____
o f  E d u c a t i o n ,  School  D i s t r i c t  Number One, Denver , ______ Dvr-Club  Bldg-.-...... ......
C o l o r a d o ;  1C. ROBERT D. GILBERTS, i n d i v i d u a l l y  and ' Denver  P 'Coloy: ;244r5475 . .on.a>_./.o<q>__________
a s  S u p e r i n t e n d e n t  o f  S c h o o l s , School  D i s t r i c t
Number One, Denver ,  C o lo r a d o , A ttys.. .  f o r  1 ater_vexii u g.. H e f t s  .  .Y T L iA ts jx c  _

_A 1 lec[ed violation of civil rights. Action
for dec1aratorv judgments on whether the
school board_ is donying s'orne children____
equal educational opportunities.

Charlfts_E ._Brega _and_Rober £-4SU-- Sfi; 
2301 F irst National Dank Building 
Denver, Colorado 30202 292-9000^

NAME OK 
. RECEIPT NO. REG. DISD.

J .£ „ 7 0

0 .0

_____ ^ ~ v -- .y

?}■  d 7 : '7 .~ ,0 . . .  jY '7 7

> o

/*  _____

A ;  -A / m - h b l /

Y f / y - ' L Y Z
.... . 7 O L —

....... / :

...;___ B  r  A t .  /xJ> . 4 ,
____Z .. ,» ««

‘. — 6 .



J f

F



r-

Wilfred "eyes, et al 
vs

School District Number One, et a1

DATE
9 6 9
•19

5/27 _v/_

7/3 MOTION o f  P l t f s .  f o r  Temporary  R e s t r a i n i n g  Ord e r
7/1.

7/11

7/14

/ jo  -kici-rk-k

P R O C E E D IN G S

COMPLAINT
Summons issued
Motion for Prelininary Injunction
H e a r in g s Pre  1 rm ina ry  I n j u n c t i o n . , . O r .  d c re d  : B o t h S i d  es  to_._s.ubmit  1 i  s.t o f .

Exh i b i t s  & ■wi t n 2 s,ses w l t h i n  10 d ays  from t h i s  d a t 1 fegk—tO_J&&t_Jlear ing_  
d a t e  In  J u l y ,  e od 6 / 3 0 / 6 9

innrine;  fUTDl he Tempor a r y  Re s t r a i n in g  Orde r . .  .Arguments:  oLJlQ.urifieJL.
M a t t e r  c o n t i n u ed t o  l a t c -r  t im e .  Re c g a s .  eod..7/8./_69------------------------

P r e l i n i n a r y  L i s t  o f  E x h i b i t s .

. .Ordered t_

PI t f  £
R e p o r t e r ' s  T r a n s c r i p t  o f  p r o c e e d i n gs h e l d on 6 / 27 /69

Date Order or 
Judgment Noted

-H .

M a rsh a l* s  r e tu r n  on S e r v ic e  by s e r v in g  W. C. Se rg e  .Pr e.sidc.nt..._BQar.cL o f —E ducation ., 
Sch o o l D is t  #1 & P e rso n  a l l y S  t _ep.li en_ J .  Kn i  c j i  t.,.. J r  _ J  arm s_iL—P e e r i l l  »_Er ank. X .

____Southw or t h ,  Jo h n  H. / m a sse . J a n e s D. Vo o rh e e s , J r . . Rac.he.l_R—No e l a n , L R o b art...-
D, G i l b e r t s ,  Duka W. D u n b a r , A t t y ._Genciral^Q.r_&tr,t2L_.Qf_CQla..on_j6/20/.69------------

MOTION o f  Ra f t s ,  f o r  E n l a rg e m e n t—QlLTisie__ _ _____________________________________________
.Bearii^i„(vTD0_0xdMrM^.D2l:ts^Juo.ti.csx..lo^XnLargBTfiant_o.hXim-e_w±thin_^whiclrTQ-Tile
___a n s w e r s i s  Grani.e.cL_^_____________________

7 /15

7 / 16

S igne d  (BED) 0 r der.JEor_Enlarg&g:an£-Of-
___a n sw e r s  or.. o_tharKls .a_plead—-e.o.d_ZVl4/63_
P l t f s ,  P r e l i m i n a r y  L i s t  o f  Wit n e s s es______

_D a f t  s _h a_v.e_nn.til_7V.23-/ 6S._tO- T i l  e_

P l t f s .  P r e l i m i n a r y  Memo, o f  Law.
C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e . _________________________ _______________________________________
ANSWER OR nSPTS. .TORN H. AMKSSF., RAfSLFJ^^, JjQEX&-J^.lSS__D —JVOOMEEX—JR . 

o f  S e r v i c e .  ___ _ _____________ _____________________________
,Cert

P l t f s .  P roposed  F i n d i n g s  o f  F a c t

7-1.7

7 / 18

7 /  21 
7/22

T r i a l n t o  C our t 1 s t  D a y . . , Wi t n e s s e s  . . . E x h i b i t s . r e c e s s ,  eod 7 / l 7 ./6i3_
D efe n d a n t s '  P r e l i r a in a r y  Li s t  o f  Ex h i b i t s
D e f e n d a n ts ' Pr e l im in a r y Li s t ..o f  W itne; ; e s
S i g n ed (VIED) Order  f o r  Pro d u c t i o n  o f  D ocuT ';.en t^ .._ead ,llZ lB /.6 j_________________
T r i a l  t o  Co u r t  fWED ) . . . 2 n d  D a y . W i t n e s s e s  . J_JEx.h.ibit.S^-r&C.es.S--t.Q V / l ft/JaiL

7 /2  l*'<v*

7 / 2 2

7 /28_ 

7/29

Tr i a l  t o  C ou r t  (NED). . . 3 rd  Day. . .Wi t n e s s e s  . .  .Exhlh.it.s.^jcec.e.5.s._tQ—7 - / 2 l / M __________
T r i a l  t o  Cou r t  fWBDl. . . 4 t h  D ay . .  .Wit n e s s e s . .  . E x h i b i t s  si^ntls_sllbm i.tJ:fc.d-£t

t a k e n  u n d e r  a d v i s e m e n t . eod 7 /23 /69 .
D e f t s .  P r e l i r a i n a r y Me-mo . o f  Law ___
De f t s ._P r o p o s ed Conc lu s io n " ,  o f  Law
D e f ts  - Amendments t o  P r e l i m i n a r y Findings_oJ:.-Pa,-Cl_&L_S-naplercjaiit a l_ P r o p o s e d _ E lu d in g

o f  F a c t ____________________ _______________________________ ___________ _____________ ______ ____
S t i p u l a t i o n  o f  F a c t s  as. t o  P a r t i e s .to„..the_Cfl.s.e.__________ —---------------------------------------
TrLy._To...CoAi.rt^X795D) „̂.„.3.Lh-DayJ_._,Tindlngs_ o..f.T.cact_A.TOjicliislonr.„O.X.La.v;,"5_P.l.tfs

M otion  f o r  Pi:.elirdng,ry_Iti.iunc_tj.p.n—shQ.uld.Jb.e_&-hexfib-y_ia_GRAKTEIl— -Or.derod.
P . l t f . s c o u n s e l  t o  p r e p a r e  an o r d e r ___Order& d.t-JD a£ts^-H Q t.ion._fo.c_a_stay.„is_

JSRANIE0_( 10...Ray ..S.t.6tyX—.. Recs s. s —.aod..7123/.6 2 -
Copy o f  O f f i c i a l ' T r a n s c r i p t  Volume V o f  p r o c e e d ings  h e l d  o n , 7 / 2 2 / 6 9 _____ _____ ___
O b j e c t l o n s  t o  Form__o f  P r e l i m i n a r y  I n j u n c t i on______________ ________________ __________
S t i p u l a t i o n  f o r  e x t e n s i o n  of  t ime  f o r  d e f  t s ._t o  f i l e  p l e a d ings. ,  to. ..& . i n c l u d i n g ,

8 / 1 4 / 6 9 .  ....... ........ __  ~ ~ ____~_______ J__________________ _____ - _______ _____
Signcd  (WEI)) Ordor  f o r  En l a r g e m e n t  o f  T ime ,  g r a n t i ne, n e x t  above ,  s t  i puj._afci.Qn_. 

. , ~ -f f~2S/(>9. ______ ____________________________ _______ ____ — .------—
P l t f s  . Su p p le m e n ta ly  L i s t  o f  E x h i b i t s . _ a nd Wi t n e s s e ;  
Defts..,_S.up.p_l.eiBenfhry— L i s t  ..of E xh ih i  t s
S i g n ed (WED) p r e l i m i n a r y  I n  j u n c t i o n ,  t h a t  . temporary. ,  i n j u n c t i o n .  .i:L.Rr.nnfeel £t_.tp. .
__ _ c o n t i n u e  d u r i n g t h e  pendency  o f  t l . i s  su i  t  &, u n t i l  . a c t i o n  j.s._tric.d ..oft. i t s „ t n n r i  .s_

- J n e  f t Z ^ r a n t e d  10'  days -  from. I Z  £ t e r -  7 '23 fb  9 -f o r  • n^ e a l  «  r e  view, , .pod. .?  / 2 9 / 6 9
NOTICE OF APPEAL

8 9 5 0 .DO (com



KT AL" WILFRED KEE.8%
VS.

SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, ET AL

v c  n o  Rev. Civil p o c k e t  C on tinuation  ' ‘ -  @

date
1969

..... ' PROCEEDINGS D ate  Order or
Judgment Notei

7/31 A p p l i c a t i o n  f o r  S ta y  o f  P r e l i m i n a r y  I n j u n c t i o n  f i l e d  by a l l  D e f t s .  except .  James
D. Voorhees ,  J r . ,  John  H. Amesse,  and P,achel B. N o e l ,

.H ea r ing  (WED) A p p l i c a t i o n  f o r  S t a y . , .O r d e re d  : Aon l i c e t  i o n  i s  DENTED. . . Tcrnoorarv
s t a y  i s  GRANTED.. . W r i t t e n  o r d e r  t o  f o l l o w ,  eod 7 / 3 1 / 6 9

871, - Si.ened (WED) Memorandum O p i n i o n  &. O r d e r ,  t h a t  t h e  M ot ion  f o r  p r e l i m i n a r y  i n i u n c -
t i o n  i.s G r a n te d ,  eod 8 / 4 / 6 9

8 /6 P l a i n t i f f s  MOTION f o r  H e a r i n g  on Remand and R e q u e s t  f o r  Immedia te  H e a r in g  and
-Jp f o r  Temporary R e s t r a i n i n g  O r d e r .
'T IT MANDATE. . . 10 th  C i r c u i t . . .Remanding c a s e  t o  Judge  D o v l e .

876 H e a r in g  WED on M ot ion  f o r  H e a r i n g  on Remand and f o r ’ Temporary R e s t r a i n i n g  o r d e r .
M a t t e r  c o n t i n u e d  to  8 /7

8/7 H e a r i n g  (WED) M ot ion  on Remand f o r  Temporary R e s t r a i n i n g  O rd e r  GRANTED u n t i l
8 :0 0  a .in. 8 / 1 5 / 6 9  o r  f u r t h e r  o r d e r  o f  C o u r t .  M a t t e r  on Remand t a k e n  u nde r
a d v i s e m e n t .

S inned  (WED) Temporary R e s t r a i n i n g  O r d e r .  S igned  1 2 : 2 0  p . n .

!1
7T;t
| 03 Mo t ion  o f  d e f t s  t o  d i s m i s s . . .  C e r t  o f  M a i l i n g

- i i D e f e n d a n t s '  B r i e f  on Remand
8-14 Copy r e p o r t e r ' s  t r a n s c r i p t . . . p r o c e e d i n g s  on 8 - 7 - 5 9

Signed  (WED) S u p p le m e n ta l  F i n d i n g s ,  C o n c l u s i o n s  and Temporary I n j u n c t i o n  and
O p in ion  as  t o  A p p l i c a b i l i t y  o f  S e c t i o n  4 0 7 ( a )  o f  fie. C i v i l  R i g h t s  Act  o f  1964
eod 8 -1 4 -6 9

-18 NOTICE OF APPEAL ■
Appearance  Bond on Appeal
A p p l i c a t i o n  o f  d e f t s .  f o r  S t a y  o f  P r e l i m i n a r y  I n j u n c t i o n

.Hearing; .(TfSD) 1 - I o i i n n  f o r  S t a y .  . .  O r d e r e d  M o t i o n  . f o r  S t a y  i s  d e n i e d
3 - 1 9 R e c e i p t  f r o m  U .  S .  C o u r t  o f  A p p e a l s  f o r  r e c o r d  o n  a p p e a l
8/25 R e p o r t e r ' s  T r a n s c r i p t  o f  p r o c e e d i n g s  h e l d  on 8 / 7 / 6 9

Memo, i n  S u p p o r t  o f  M otion  to  D i sm is s  f i l e d  by D e f t s .
3 /26 Deposit ion o f  R o b e r t  Dubois  G i l b e r t s .

E x h i b i t s  on n e x t  above d e p o s i t i o n A  ,7}
9/5 P l t f s .  Memo. Oppos ing  D e f t s .  M otion  t o  D i s m i s s . . .  C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e .
9 /10 R e p o r t e r ' s  T r a n s c r i p t  o f  p r o c e e d i n g s  h e l d  on 8 / 6 / 6 9

Reply Memo, i n  S u p p o r t  o f  Motion  to  D i s m i s s . . . C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e .
9/11 H e a r in g  (WED) M ot ion  t o  D i s m i s s . . .  O r d e r e d : M ot ion  i s  Denied ,  P l t f  c o u n s e l  to  p rep : r c

an O r d e r . . . O r d e r e d : D i s c o v e r y  to  be co m p le te d  i n  60 d a y s ,  eod 9 / 1 5 /6 9 /-•
9/2  6 Order  L e t t i n g  P r e  T r i a l  C o n f e re n c e  f o r  1 1 / 4 /6 9
9-29 S t i p u l a t i o n  f o r  e x t e n s i o n  o f  t i m e .

S ig n e d  (USD) O rde re d  t h a t  d e f e n d a n t s  h a v e  u n t i l  1 0 -6 -69  t o  f i l e  an  answer  h e r e i n
E n t r y  o f  A ppe a ranc e  o f  K e nne th  H. Wonraood f o r  d e f e n d a n t s . T

. 1 0 / 3 R e p o r t e r ' s  T r a n s c r i p t ,  D e f t s  Motion, t o  D i s m i s s , o f  p r o c e e d i n g s  h e l d  on fl 9 / 1 1 /6 9

10/6
_JBp:pne:At;xd,.s:<72x2KS$$SOTi:x?5%X52;:s’;'ar.i4i;n^3xh<2fchnn55x-872v(f;.9

ANSWER o f  a l l  d e f t s .  e x c e p t  D e f t s .  7 ,  8 & 9 . . . C e r t ,  o f  M a i l i n g
*9/15 C e r t ,  copy from C o u r t  o f  A n n e a l s  t h a t  t h e  M ot ion  i s  Denied & f u r t h e r  p r o c e e d i n g s

on t h e  a p p e a l  a r e  h e l d  i n  ab e y an c e  u n t i l  f u r t h e r  o r d e r  o f  C o u r t .  u s d
10/17

—JL0/JL7
W r i t t e n  I n t e r r o g s .  by C e r t a i n  D e f t s  t o  be Answered by P l t f s . y
Signed  (WED) Memorandum O p i n i o n  and  O rde r  t h a t  m o t i o n s  t o  d i s m i s s  f o r  f a i l u r e  to.

______D e n i e d . .  . D e f t . h ave  15 Days from 9 / 1 1 / 6 9  "to f i l e  Answer.

....10/1.7.
Signed  1 0 / 1 6 / 6 9 .  eod  1 0 /2 0 /6 9

P l t f s .  F i r s t  SAt o f  I n t e r r o g a . . . .  C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e .
__ 1.07 .JFJLtfs ^_Eixst_H.y.t.iop f o r  P r o d u c t i o n  o f  Documents . . .  C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e ,

MOTION t o  I n t e r v e n e  a s  D e f t s .
.TENDEREDANSWER AN D.j - R O S S  CLAIM CF TNTHRVENORS

_10/21... —C o n f e s s i o n  .o f  _ A1 l _ l j a f t o .  e x c e p t  D e f t s .  7,  8 6 9 o f  Motion  t o  I n t e r v e n e .  . .C e r t .M a i r r
-1.0724__ C o p t ._o f  K a i l ! e g  Mot ion  t o  I n t e r v e n e  & T ende red  Answ er . HJ2L. f '

......... . ...  'V 1 r '?



SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, 
DENVER, • COLORADO, KT A L . ,

v s .

PA T H
1969

PR O C EE D IN G S

10/29

10/30

MOTIONS o f  Al l  D e f t s .  E xc e p t .  7 , 8  & 9.. .f .Qr_Or:ders_Pr.otGCting_De£tS- ,- . iP- the.JEro.duct ion
_____  o f  Dogtmants  t . . C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e . ____________________________________ ________________
D e f t s .  o f  a l l  L e f t s .  Exc e p t  7 , 8 & 9 t o  I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . .  . C e r t . _Ql_SexvJ.ee.,________
P l t f s .  P r e l i m i n a r.y_Lis_t_ o JLJ:tilxn.e_s.£.es_ft_Exhibits_________________________________ ________
P l t f s .  Ob j e c t i o n s  t o  "W r i t t e n  In te rm gs^_by_C ex ta in_ . .D a i : t s__ta_b.e_A.nawered.by_Pl t£ .

__ . . . C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e . ________________ ________ _________ :___________________ ;____________

11/3

P l t f s . Second MOTON f o r  P r o d u c t io n  o f  Do cumen t s ,  
Pltfs.,_5_e.c<md_Sxt_o.f_lntexxQg.ai:oxiea._to._D.afi:s.^.-....C.e.xtu_QLf_S.e.rvjj£fe.
MOTION o f  D e f t s .  e x c e p t  7,  8 & 9 t o  Vac a t e  P re  T r i a l  & T r i a l  S e t t i ngs . . Cer t . _o f
______ Serv.i c e .____________________________________________________________ ______ :______________
P l t f s .  Th i rd  Mo t i o n  f o r  P r o d u c t i on o f  Documents  
P_Ltfs^_Anawsr^_t.Q_lTitexx<iifS^_^JTexf^.o.f_S2Xvlce. 
P i t  fs_,_ I n t e r r o g s . ,  t o  l n t e r v e n o x  Ce;c
P l t f s .  R e v i s e d  L i s t  o f  E x h i b i t s

■Ce r t ,  o f  Se r v i c e .

of Servi 
C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e

ce,_

1 1 / 4 __ i S t  i p u l  a t  i o n  t h a t  P I t  f  s .  w i l l  r.ot  o b j e c t  t o  I n t e r v e n t i o n
Jl 1 / 3 * * * .Me.rao .  i n . .Si iD.o.ox. .Obj-.eot loxr ,_t£>_J[atexx£g8_._________ _—
11/4
11/3

Date Order .
Judgment Kf

11 /5 .

11713

11/13
11/14
1.1 / 1 7__

11/18

11/20
11/2 J

11/25

11/28

D e f t s  _cxc e p t  Voor h e e s ,  J r  . Ain e s s e & N o e l ,  Answers  t o I n t e r r o g s . . . . C e r t  Mai l i n g
MOTION o f  De f t s . e x c e p t  Am e s s e ,  Noe l  & Voorhe.es,  J r .  f o r  Co s t  Bond . . C e r t ._Ser v i c e
P l t f s .  P r e  T r i a l  Memo ____
J o i n t  R e p o r t _ o n _ S t a t u s  o f  O b j e c t i o n s  t o  D i s c o v e r y
Pr e T r i a l C o n f e re n c e  (HEP) . .  . O r d e r e d :  Mo t io n  o f  De f t  .^.tLQ__in.tarv£na..is.  G r a n te d

O r d e re d :  C o u n s e l  t o  p r e p a r e  an  or d e r . . . D e f t s . Mo t i o n  f o r  a  co s t  bond Ordered 
t o  be  h e a r d  a t  a  l a t e r  t i m e . . .Or d e r e d : D e f t s . M ot ion  f o r  c o n t i n u a n c e  o f  p r e -
t r i a l  c o n f e r e n c e  i s  GRANTED & w i l l  b e. h e l d  on 1 1 / 2 5 /6 9  . .  .O rde re d  : F u r t h e r ____
h e a r i n g  t o  be h e a r d  1 1 / 1 3 / 6 9 .  ’cod 1 1 / 0 /

D e f t .  Memo. B r i e f  i n  Suppo r t  of- M o t ion  f o r  C os t  Bond, a l l  de f t s .  ex c e p t  Am esse ,  
Noel  & V o r h e e s ,  J r .

Supp le m e n ta l  J o i n t  Rep o r t  on S t a t u s  o f  D i s c o v e r y _________ ______________________
H e a r in g  (WED’) D i s c o v e r y  St a t u s . .  . D i s c o v e r y  p±Ghleas_.r.aso.lvftd_A. *.u-f t t e n o ^ d e r  wi l l
_______ be p r e p a r e d by c oun s e l . . .O rde r e d : Mot i o n  f o r  Cost  bnnd h e l d  i n  ___ __
_______ o r d e r e d:  Poe Tr i a l  t o be_h£ld_l i /25u/ .69._&_£at—f o r  T r i a l t o  Cour t  at- 1 / 3 /JO.
_______ ef ld_ . i l /14 /o2____________________________________________________________________________
Signed  (TrgDl Or d e r  Mot i on t o  I n t e r v e ne a s  D e f t s .  i s  G r a n t e d ,  eod 1 1 / 1 4 / 6 9________
R e p o r t e r s Tr a n s c r i p t  o f  p r o c e e d i n gs h e l d on 11 / 5 / 6 9_________ r_________________________

ANSWER OF DEFTS . EXCEPT Noel.,  Arr.esse & V o orhe e s ,  Jr. to  Cr o s s C laim o f  I n t e r v e n e r 
____. . .Cert, o f  M a i l i n g ____________ ___________________ __________ :____________________

Memo. o f  Dc .f ts .  i n  R e p ly t o  P l t f s .  Pr e l i m i n a ry  Memo, o f  Law 
P l t f s .  Cone f u s i o n s o f  L a w ___________________________ ____________
I n t e r v e n i n g  D e f t s .  1 s t  S e t  o f  I n t e r r o g s .
MOTION o f  I n t e r v e n i n g  D e f t s .  t o  D i s s o l v e  P e l i m i n a r y  I n j u n c t i o n__ - ~ ‘ ' .. Y" " “** ... ...... .
MOTION o f  I n t e r v e n i n g  D ef t ,  f o r  P r o d u c t io n  o f  Documents . . . C e r t . o f  M a i l i n g_

_I n t  e ry e  n i n e  D e f t s .  I n t e r r o g s -  t o  t h e  Def t  _____ ;___ __________ :_________ .__ _______
S u p p le m e n ta l  Ansviers t o  P l t f s .  1s t  Se t  o f  I n t e r r o g s , ______ _______ ________________
Supp lem ent a l  Answer s  t o  P l t f s .  Second s e t  o f  I n t e r r o g s .  _____________ __________
Pre T r i a l  Con f  >. cr.ce (WED) . . . T r i a l  t o Co u r t . . .  .10  t o  15 Day s . .  . F i l e d  I n s t a n t e r  

________1 . S i g n ed ..TED Orde r  Auth o r i s i ng P r o d u c t o n &. c opy ing__________________ _______
________ 2 t Deffs_._ p r e t r i a l  Memo.__ _______ __________ ____ __________ ■ ______ ________
______  3 . I n t e r v e n i ng Def t s __ Pre  T r i a l  Memo_:______ ______ ___________________________ ____
_______ 4 . P l t f s .  Second Re v i s ed___l i s t  o f E x h i b i t s . . .  . O r d e r e d : A t t y s  have  1.5 days  t o

____ f i l e  r e s u mes o f  t h e f r .  w i t n e s s e s . Orde r e d :  P l t f s .  t o  p r e p a r e  a  n o t i c e  t o b
_ f>ub 1 ished_ r e j _  a d d i t  i o n e l i n t e r v e g o r r . . . .O rde re d  :_Add i t l o n a l  v?i t n e s n e s  & HxO

____ ___h l b  j t  s __t.o_ b e . s.ubiai t  t e d  _ by _ 1 2/2  4 / 6 9  . . . / P e r t h  c r_ he a r l n .. s e t  f o r  1 2 / 1 /  69 ■ 31 /26
C e r t  • o f  Mail  i n g  f o r  I n t e r v e n i n g, L e f t s . Pr e  T r i a l  Memo,  f i l ed 11 7 2 5 / 6 9 ___
Def t s  ♦ O b j e c t i o n s  t o  JSvidrjace _ & . . .Exhibi ts  _ I  n t ro d t t c o d  a t  t h e  F r e l i mlpa ry ; l^-Um c t l c n  

H e a r i n g . . . C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e .

rr

j _ i _ _

'69



W . U-: r t  K ; ..... - ;
VS.

SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, ET AL

D. C. 110 R ev. Civil D ocket C on tinuation

DATS
1969

PROCEEDINGS r t u  . 
Ju.;

7/31 A p p l i c a t i o n  f o r  S t a y  o f  P r e l i m i n a r y  I n - j u n c t i o n  f i l e d  by a l l  D e f t s .  exceot . .lament
D. V o o rh e e s ,  J r . ,  J ohn  H. Amessa, and Rache l  B. N oe l .

^ H e a r in g  (NED) A p p l i c a t i o n  f o r  S t a y .  . .O r d e r e d :  A p p l i c a t i o n  i s  DENTED. , Tr. ; : - , n r v , .
s t a y  i s  GRANTED.. . W r i t t e n  o r d e r  t o  f o l l o w ,  eod 7 / 3 1 / 6 9 —

8 / l* _ S igned  (WED) Memorandum O p in io n  6 O r d e r ,  t h a t  t h e  Motion  f o r  p r e l i m i n a r y  i n i i m e - ■

t i o n  i s  G r a n t e d ,  cod 8 / 4 / 6 9 --*----

8 / 6 P l a i n t i f f s  MOTION f o r  H e a r i n g  on Remand and R e q u e s t  f o r  Imm edia te  H e a r in g  and
irk-k'k f o r  Temporary  R e s t r a i n i n g  O r d e r .

8 /7 MANDATE.. . 10 th  C i r c u i t . . .Remanding c a s e  t o  Judge  Dov1«
----

(*** 8 / 6 H e a r i n g  WED on M o t io n  f o r  H e a r i n g  on Remand and  f o r  Temporary R e s t r a i n i n g  orHerT
M a t t e r  c o n t i n u e d  to  8 /7

8 /7 H e a r i n g  (WED) M ot ion  on Remand f o r  Temporary R e s t r a i n i n g  Orde r  CSAFtfEu u n t i l
8 : 0 0  a .m .  8 / 1 5 / 6 9  o r  f u r t h e r  o r d e r  o f  C o u r t .  M a t t e r  on Remand t a k e n  unde r
a d v i s e m e n t .

S igned  (WED) Temporary  R e s t r a i n i n g  O r d e r .  S igned  1 2 :2 0  p. ia .
8-13 M otion  o f  d e f t s  t o  d i s m i s s . . .  C e r t  o f  M a i l i n g ........

*8-11 D e f e n d a n t s '  B r i e f  on Remand
8-14 Copy r e p o r t e r ' s  t r a n s c r i p t . . p r o c e e d i n g s  on 8 - 7 - 6 9

S igne d  (WED) S u p p l e m e n ta l  F i n d i n g s ,  C o n c l u s io n s  and Temporary I n j u n c t i o n  and
O p i n i o n  a s  t o  A p p l i c a b i l i t y  o f  S e c t i o n  4 0 7 ( a )  o f  t ie  C i v i l  R i g h t s  Act  o f  1.964
eod 8 - 1 4 -6 9

8-18 NOTICE OF APPEAL ' ~
Appea rance  Bond on Appeal
A p o l i c a t i o n  o f  d e f t s .  f o r  S t a y  o f  P r e l i m i n a r y  I n j u n c t i o n
H e a r i n g :  CM.EIL)l U a t i a n .  f o r  S t a y .  . .  O r d e r e d  M o t i o n ,  f o r  S t a y  i s  d e n  t d

8 - 1 9 R e c e i p t  f r o m  U .  S .  C o u r - t  o f  A p p e a l s  f o r  r e c o r d  o n  a p p e a l
8 /25 R e p o r t e r ' s  T r a n s c r i p t  o f  p r o c e e d i n g s  h e l d  on 3 / 7 / 6 9

Memo, i n  S u p p o r t  o f  M otion  to  D ism is s  f i l e d  by D e f t s .
8 /2  6 Deposi to r)  o f  R o b e r t  Duboi s  G i l b e r t s .

E x h i b i t s  on n e x t  above  d e p o s i t i o n / -" -
9 /5 P l t f s .  Memo. O ppos ing  D e f t s .  M ot ion  t o  D i s m i s s . . .  C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e
9 / 1 0 R e p o r t e r ' s  T r a n s c r i p t ' o f  p r o c e e d i n g s  h e l d  on 8 / 6 / 6 9 .

Reply  Memo, i n  S u p p o r t  o f  Motion  to  D i s m i s s . . .  C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e .
9/11 H e a r in g  (WED) M o t io n  t  o D i s m i s s . . .  O r d e r e d : M otion  i s  Denied ,  P l t f  c o u n s e l  to  prep..-. r e

an  O r d e r . . . O r d e r e d : D i s c o v e r y  to  be com ple ted  in  60 d a y s ,  eod 5715769
\  9 / 2 6 O rde r  S e t t i n g  P r e  T r i a l  C o n f e r e n c e  f o r  1 1 / 4 /6 9

9-29 S t i p u l a t i o n  f o r  e x t e n s i o n  o f  t i m e .  .
S i g n e d  (WED) O r d e re d  t h a t  d e f e n d a n t s  h a v e  u n t i l  10’-6 -6 5  t o  f i l e  atk 'o h s v a r ”l i e f e i n ~
E n t r y  o f  A p p e a r a n c e  o f  K e nne th  M. Worsucod f o r  d e f e n d a n t s . "7;/  "

_ 1 0 / 2 R e p o r t e r ' s  T r a n s c r i p t ,  D e f t s  M ot ion  to  D i s m i s s ,  o f  proceedings}”T e l t r t c r f  f T s / r t / f S

10 /6 ANSWER c f  a l l  d e f t s ,  e x c e p t  D e f t s .  7,  8 & 9 . . .C o v t ,  o f  M a i l i n g
****9 /15 C e r t ,  copy from C o u r t  o f  A p p e a l s  t h a t  t h e  M ot ion  i s  Denied & f u r t h e r  p ro ce e d in g ' s

_on t h e  a p p e a l  a r e  h e l d  i n  a be yanc e  u n t i l  f u r t h e r  o r d e r  o f  C o u r t  . ' l u r F "
10/17 W r i t t e n  I n t e r r o g s .  by C e r t a i n  D e f t s  t o  be Answered by P l t f s .

_ I Q / 17 . S igned  ..(WED/ Memorandum O p i n i o n  and O rd e r  t h a t  m o t i o n s  t o  d i s m i s s  f o r  f a i l u r e  t o
. . S t a t e  a ..Claim. Ora D e n i e d . .  . D e f t . h ave  15 Days from 9 / 1 1 / 6 9  t o  f i l e  Answer.

_ _ .....S igne d  1 0 / 1 6 / 6 9 .  eod 1 0 /2 0 /6 9
10/17 P l t f s .  F i r s t  S b t  o f  J n t e r r o g s . . . .  C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e .

_____10 /2  'L. __P . i t f i r s . t . I ' . o . t . i o n . _ f o r . . P r o d u c t  ion  o f  Documents . . .  C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e .
MOTIONto I n t e r v e n e  a s  D e f t s .

__________ __ _TENBERElL.AlTSV2iR._AND CLAIM OF INTERVFN0R3
_____1 0/2.1.. _ .Confess ion .  _Q.f__A.ll. . D a r t s ,  e x c e p t  D e f t s .  7,  8 6 9 o f  Mot inn  t o  i n t e r v e n e .  . .C e r t .M a i 1.
____ l.Q/24__ _CiO.Lt_*__Qf_Maj l i n g  Mot ion  to  I n t e r v e n e  L Tende red  Answer. T Z



vs .
SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE e t  a l

D ;C . 110 Rev. Civil P o ck e t Contfixu&lJon

DATK
1969

PROCj TIDING 3 I>ate Or* : 
JuvlRtnfn' j

_ 1 1 / 2 8 — P l t f s .  Response  to  M o t io n  t o  D i s s o l v e  P r e l i m i n a r y  I n j u n c t i o n  f i l e d  by I n t e r v e n o r s
C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e .

C e r t ,  o f  M a i l i n g  S'. inolem.ental Anse.rs to  P l t f s . F i s t  s e t  o f  I n t e r r o g s  ■ .

12/1 H e a r in g  (WED) O r d e re d :  Upon o r a l  moton  o f  I n t e r v e n e r ,  t h i s  m a t t e r  i s  c o n t i n u e d
eod 1 2 / 2 / 6 9  . . .

12/2 I n t e r v e n i n g  D e f t s .  Answers  t o  I n t e r r o g s  P ropounded by P l t f . . . . C e r t  o f ' M a i l i n g
12/3 P l t f s .  P a r t i a l  Answers A O b j e c t i o n s  t o  I n t e r v e n i n g  D e f t s .  F i r s t  S e t  o f  I n t e r r o g s , T

to  t h e  P l t f s . . . .  C e r t  o f  S e r v i c e . —

1W/4 F u r t h e r  P re  T r i a l  C o n f e re n c e  (WED). . .  I n t e r v e n e r s  E x h i b i t s  A.B .C .D & E marked
--:

F i l e d  I n s t s n t e r  . “ — -

S igne d  (WED) O rd e r  Re C l a s s  A c t i o n  and N o t i c e  o f  P e n d in g  o f  C l a s s  A c t i o n
eod 1 2 / 4 / 6 9

12/5 Answers o f  a l l  Daft;,'-.,.. .except  Vobrhess . , .  . J r^-Aivasae & M o e t  t o . c e r t a i n  I n t e r v e n o r s
- -------

I n t e r r o g s .
12 /8 9b l e c t i o n s  t o  I n t e r r o g s .  by I n t e r v e n o r s  t o  B a f t s .  . . - .C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e .
12 /8 P l t f s _  . . A d d i t i o n a l  . t o  Tjfi.tcrvgnnxs. J n f e r r . o g f . ,  :R e s v o e ■ oJLErcnacted Tes t imony  

.......  o f . . . P l t f s  • W i t n e s s e s  . , . C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e .
. _ 12/10 Si  g w  1 (WEB) Qr.dgx Ba_..Clays A c t i o n ,  t h a t  p l t f s .  may m a i n t a i n  t h i s  a c t i o n  as  a c I ju

_ .. . . a c t i o n . . . . a _ . N o . f i . c e  i n  t h e  fo rm a t t a c h e d  be p u b l i s h e d  i n  The Rocky Mt.Kews
A. in_thc_JD-3nver P o s t ,  f o r  3 c o n s e c u t i v e  d a y s ,  eod A / t  1 2 /1 1 /6 9

12/11 P l t f s .  R e q u e s t s  f o r  A d m iss io n s  o f  O r i g i n a l  D e f t s . . . .  C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e .
12/12 . R e p o r t e r s  P a r t i a l  TrrvasQxi.pt. c f  p m a e M i n g s  h e l d  o n l 2 / l / 6 9

R e p o r t e r s  . T r a n s c r i p t  (P ro  T r i a l ..Conff iraxca.)  J i e i d  on 1 1 / 2 5 /6 9
12/15 I n t e r r o g s .  t o  D e f t .  Rac.haal  B. M e a l . . .  C e r t ,  o f  M a i l i n g

I n t e r r o g s .  t o  D e f t .  J o h n  H. A r a e s s e . . . . C e r t ,  o f  M a i l i n o
I n t e r r o g s .  t o  D e f t .  James D. V o o r h e e s .  J r . . . . C e r t ,  o f  M a i l i n g

12/17 Resume o f  E x p e c te d  T es t im o n y  o f  P o s s i b l e  I n t e r v e n o r s ’ s W i t n e s s e s  . . C e r t ,  o f  M a i l .
12/23 ( A l l  D e f t s .  E x e e o t  V o o r h e a s .  J r . j  Arnaese &. Noel  A d d i t c n a l  Answers  t o  P l t f s .  2nd

s e t  o f  I n t e r r o g s . . . .  C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e .
A l l  D e f t s .  E x c e p t  V o o r h e a s , J r . ,  Amesse & K e e l  A d d i t i o n a l  Answers  t o  I n t e r v e n o r s ’

I n t e r r o g s . . . .  C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e .
Vll D e f t s .  e x c e p t  V o o r h e a s .  J r . .  Amesse A Kos l  Answers  t o  P l t f s .  1 s t  s e t  o f  in te r ro - .

. . . C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e .
A l l  D e f t s .  E x c e p t  V o o r h e a s .  J r . .  Amesse A Noel  Response  t o  P l t f s .  R e q u e s t s  f o r

A dm iss ions  o f  D e f t s . . . . C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e .
D e p o s i t i o n  o f  George  E. B a r d v a l l

___  12/30  . MOTION o f  I n t e r v e n i n g  D e f t s .  f o r  Leave'  t o  Check o u t  A copy P l t f s .  E x h i b i t  #83
_Sig.nfi.d_ (WEDl...Granting M o t i o n . n e x t  a bove .
S igned  R e c e i p t  f o r  P l t f s .  E x h i b i t  83

.....___1 2 /30 ...E.rii„JN:.LaL.Co;nf.crfei\c£v.TWXD) O r d e r e d :  T r i a l  d a t e  o f  1 / 5 / 6 9  i s  v a c a t e d  A r e s e t  t o
- .........1 /12 /2 .0___.wri t. ton. . .order t o  f o l l o w ,  eod 1 2 /3 0 /6 9

P l t f s .  Complete  Pre  T r i a l  L i s t  o f  E x h i b i t s  A W i t n e s s e s  . . C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e .
D e f t s .  MOTION f o r  O rd e r  P o s t p o n i n g  Date  o f  Commencement o f  T r i a l

.. . 1 2 / 3 1 D e p o s i t i o n  o f  Theodore  R. W h i t e ,  J r .  • '
JDeft.s.._Se.cond_._Se.t  .of  A d d i t i o n a l  Answers t o  P l t f s  2nd s e t  o f  I n t e r r o g s . . .  . C e r t .

o f  S e r v i c e .

__ l./2.Z.Z.0._
-Dcf.t.s ,...Acld.ltion-i 1 _ A n s w e rs ._ to . . I n te rve no rs  I n t e r r o g s .

Answer o f  D a f t .  John  H. Amesse t o  I n t e r r o g s .  t o  I n t e r v e n i n g  Deft:?.  C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i r e

_____1 /6 ____

_Aa3iy5X.._oJL.Te.ft^J.ames._D. V o o r h e a s , J r .  t o  I n t e r r o g s .  o f  i n t e r v e n i n g  D e f t s  . C e r t  .Se :vi  ce
Ans.V7.ers c£. De£t*_R.i£hcl  B, Noel  t o  I n t e r r o g s .  o f  I n t e r v e n i n g  D e f t s .  C e r t .  S e r v i c e  
J l e a r  ip.pg_..(WED)._Pl tTs_..Motioi^ f o r  C o n t in u a n c e  o f  T r i a l  Date .. .  . O r d e r e d ; W i l l i a m  Ris

----- -------

— --------- GrantecL.1 cay. i_to_.en t  a t:_h i&_ c ppe ax. e.tic.e_n $. .De f  t_s. . C o u n s e l . . . O r d e r e d :  T r i a l  Data
______ of  . .1 /12 /7 0  ..is . .vacated  A w i l l  be s e t  a a l a t e r  t im e ,  eod  1 / 7 / 7 0

l

1/9
1/12

S ig n e d  ■■'(W3D) O rd e r  t h a t  T r i a l  s h o u l d  coKwence on 2 / 2 7 / 6  ~ e c t f 'T / T 2 7 7 0 "
D e f t s .  Suimnaries o f  E x pe c te d  Tes t im ony  o f  l i e f  t s . W i t n e s s e s  V77Cer t . o f  S< i v i c o — --------

(OVER)



* - SCHOOL DISTRICT LUMBER ONE, 
DENVER, COLORADO, ET A L . ,

v s .

PATH
1970
1/15

PROCEEDINGS Date Order or 
Judgment Noted

D e p o s i t i o n  o f  Paul. D. E l i t e •

1 / I  5 D e f t s ,  A d d i t i o n a l  Answers  . 'to. Jntery.e.tLQ£s.'„Inl;.Grxc?fts^ ^Csr.t_,..„Qf S e r v i c e ^  _ . -----
D e f t s .  A d d i t i o n a l  Answers  t o  I n t e r v e n e r s  I n t e r r o g s . . . .  C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e .

1/22 D e f t s .  A d d i t i o n a l  Answers  t o  P l t f s .  I n t e r r o g s . . . .  C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e .
1/26 S t i p u l a t i o n  R e l a t i n g  t o  A u t h e n t i c i t y  o f  P l t f s .  E x h i b i t s . . . . , X*'
1/28 I n t e r v e n i n g  D e f t s .  L i s t  o f  W i t n e s s e s  & L i s t  o f  E x h i b i t s . . .  C e r t . o f  M a i l i n g  -
1 /BO D e f t s .  Complete  P r e t r i a l  L i s t  o f  E x h i b i t s  A W i t n e s s e s . . .  C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e .
7 /? I n t e r v e n e r s .  Q b j e c i i m x i n  to_Empf iS£d Q r d e r _ P l _ 1 2 / l / , 6 9 .h e a r i n g . ^ .  ,-Cs.rtJ o.f H a i l i n g :
2/2 D e p o s i t i o n s  o f  Kenne th  E. O b e r h o l t z e r ,  A l b e r t a  jM, J e s s e r  A Mary U, Morton .

q / o n c i  ('WED') P re  T r i a l  O r d e r . . .  T r i a l  t o  C o u r t . . . 20 t o  25 Days .  eod 2 / 3 / 7 0
S ig n e d  /WED) S u p p l e m e n ta l  P r e t r i a l  O r d e r ,  eod 2 / 3 / 7 0
P l t f s .  T r i a l  B r i e f
T r i a l  t o  C o u r t  /WED). . . 1 s t  Day. . . W i t n e s s e s . . .  E x h i b i t s  . . .  R e c e s s . eod 2 / 3 / 7 0

2/3 D e p o s i t i o n  o f  A.,_Edgar  Renton ..........  .......... _.................. ......... .............. -......... N. ...................
T r i a l  f-o Court- fw r » \ . .  . 2nd  Day. .  . W i t n e s s e s  . . .  E x h i b i t s . . .  r e c e s  s . cod  2 / 4 / 7 0

2 / 4 T r i a l  t o  C o u r t  /W E D ) . . , 3 rd  D a y . . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . r e c e s s . eod 2 / 5 / 7 0
2 /5 T r i a l  at. O' C o u r t  /WED) . .  . 4 t h  Day. . . W i t n e s s e s  . . . E x h i b i t s  . . . r e c e s s  . eod  2 / 6 / 7 0
2 /3 R e p o r t e r ' s  T r a n s c r i p t  o f  p r o c e e d i n g s  h e l d  on 1 2 / 3 0 /6 9
2 /6 S ig n e d  (WED) O rde r  A u t h o r i z i n g  P r o d u c t i o n  A Copying o f  C e r t a i n  R e c o r d s . . .  s i g n e d

2 / 3 / 7 0 .  eod 2 / 6 / 7 0
T r i a l  t o  C o u r t  /WED). . .S t h u D a v i . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . r e c e s s ,  eod 2 / 9 / 7 0

2/11 M a r s h a l ' s  r e t u r n  on C i v i l  Subpoena t o  P ro d u c e  Document o r  O b j e c t  (12)
2 /9*** T r i a l  t o  C o u r t  / W E D ) . . . 6 th  B a v . . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . r e c e s s ,  cod 2 / 1 1 / 7 0

2 /1 0 T r i a l  t o  C o u r t  /W E D } . , .7 th  Day . . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . .  r e c e s s  eod 2 / 1 2 / 7 0
2 /11 T r i a l  t o  O.cmrt /WED) , . .8  t h  Bay . . .  . W i t n e s s e s . .  . E x h i b i t s  . . .  r e c e s s  ..cod 2 / 1 2 / 7 0
2 /13 M a r s h a l ' s  r e t u r n  on C i v i l  S u b p o e n a . t o  P roduce  Document o r  O b j e c t
2 /1 6 T r i a l  t o  C o u r t  (W E D ) . . . 9 th  d a y . . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s  . . . . r e c e s s  eod 2 / 1 7 / 7 0
2 /2 4 D e f t s .  Memorandum B r i e f

2 /17*** T r i a l  t o  C ou r t  /WED). . . 10 th  D a v . . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . r e c e s s ,  cod 2 / 2 5 / 7 0
2 /18 T r i a l  t o  C our t  (W E D ) . . . 1 1 th  D a y . . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . r e c e s s ,  eod 2 / 2 5 / 7 0
2 /1 9 T r i a l  t o  C our t  /  W ED) . .12 th  Day . . . W i t n e s s e s . . .  E x h i b i t s . . .  r e c e s s . cod 2 / 2 5 / 7 0
2 /2 0 T r i a l  t o  C our t  (WED). . .  13 th  Day. . . W i t n e s s . . .  r e c e s s  eod 2 / 2 5 / 7 0
2 /2 4 R e t u r n  on C i v i l  Subpoena
2 /2 4 T r i a l  t o  C o u r t  (WED) . . .  1.4th Day. . .  C l o s i n g  A rg u m en t s . . .  O rde re d  rCounsa l  have  10 day; '

t o  f i l e  a d d i t i o n a l  B r i e f s . , . M a t t e r  s t a n d s  s u b m i t t e d  A i s  t a k e n  u n d e r  a d v i s e -
r i a n t . eod 2 / 2 5 / 7 0 /inZiS r-\

3/5 S igned  (WED) Order  t h a t  D e f t s .  be g r a n t e d  an  e x t e n s i o n  o f  t ime  t o  3 / 9 / 7 0  t o  f i l e
w i t h  C our t  t h e i r  Rep ly  B r i e f  A a l s o  t h e i r  P ro p o s ed  F i n d i n g s  o f  F a c t  A Con-
e l u s i o n s  o f  Law. eod 3 / 6 / 7 0 Z

3 /6 I n t e r v e n i n g  D e f t s .  P r oposed  F i n d i n g s  o f  F a c t . . . C e r t ,  o f  M a i l i n g
3 /1 0 ANSWER to  P l t f s ,  S u p p le m e n ta l  B r i e f

D e f t s .  P r o p o s e d  F i n d i n g s  o f  F a c t . . . C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e .
3/11 C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e  o f  n e x t  above .
3/21...... _ S igned  (WED) Memorandum O p in ion  A O r d e r . . . F i n a l  Judgment  w i l l  be e n t e r e d  a f t e r  a . /  . _

TOeatin^-i iAh-COuaaeL. ' id.Jthin t h e  n e x t  30 d a v s .  eod 3 / 2 4 / 7 0
4 /1 6 M e e t in g  o f  Counse l  Re : I n j u n c t i o n . , , F i l o d  I n s t a n t e r :  D e f t s ,  P roposed  J u d g m e n t . . .

O r d e re d :  F u r t h e r  h e a r i n g  on 5 / 1 1 / 7 0 .  a l lov ;  2 d a y s ,  eod 4 / 1 7 / 7 0 v/
4 /27 H e a r in g  (WED) I n fo rm a l  H e a r in g  Re: P ro p o s ed  R e s o l u t i o n s .  eod 4 / 2 8 / 7 0

Copy o f  R e s o l u t i o n
5 7 1 P t f s ,  Reply B r i e f  and S u p p le m e n ta l  B r i e f

I n t e r v e n i n g  D e f t s .  Memorandum B r i e f .
5 /5 MOTION o f  I n t e r v e n i n g  a t t o r n e y ' s  t o  w i t h d r a w . . . C e r t  o f  S e r v i c e ,

j {\ 1 D a f t s .  P roposed  p l a n . . . C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e .
■--- ------- _ P t f s . Memo f o r  the. H e a r in g  on R e l i e f . . .  C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e .



WI2,i. ...X' » Lu O j C- C. X
V S .

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 ,  e t c . e t  n l 'V.. .

D. C. 110 R ev. Civil D ocket C on tinuation

{* - /  • i v

.. f ■ '

*' DATE
1970

; PROCEEDINGS Date o 
Judgrt^j

5 /11 TRIAL TO COUItT (WED) 15 th  d a y . . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s .
5/12 TRIAL TO COURT (WED),16th D a y . . . W i t n e s s e s , . . E x h i b i t s . eod  5 / 1 4 / 7 0 .... -
5 /13 TRIAL TO COURT (WED) 17 th  d a y . . .W i t n e s s e s  . . .  E x h i b i t s ___ eod 5 / 1 4 / 7 0

5 /1 4 J? i£ned  (WED) Orde r  a l l o w i n g  C h a r l e s  F. Brega a n d R o b e r t  E. Temper t o  w/draw as
c o u n s e l  f o r  I n t e r v e i n i n g  D e f t s . . . e o d  5 / 1 4 / 7 0

TMAL TO COURT (llED^ 18 th  Day. . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s .  . .O r d e r e d :  M a t t e r  t a k e n —

u n d e r  a d v i s e m e n t . . . eod 5 / 1 5 / 7 0 ---—..

P l a i n t i f f ' s  C o n f e re n c e  Memorandum.. . C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e . —
5/15 MOTION o f  The B u i l d i n g  Commit tee  o f  t h e  F a c u l t y  o f  Manual  High  S choo l  f o r  l e a v - —

t o  F i l e  Amicus C u r i a e  B r i e f . -—___.

S ig n e d  (WED) O rde r  A l l o w i n g  above  m o t i o n . . . eod 5 / 1 5 / 7 0 7i m-
5 /21 S igne d  (WED) D e c i s i o n  P.e Pier,  o r  Remedy. . . e o d  5 / 2 3 / 7 0  ( 2 5 >o k s )

c* A s / 1 4 .Marsha I d t u r n ,  .on S.uhp.aanz. - -r-
6 / 4 P l t f s ,  M o t ion  t o  Attend t h e  C om pla in t  f o r  Pe rmanen t  I n j u n c t i o n  6, D e c l a r a t o r  Tvdu "

i n  t h i s  A c t i o n . . .Co ,r t .  o f  S e r v i c e  1 ' .. .

6 / a S i c o s d  Qmp) F i n a l  Dec ree  & Ju d g m e n t ,  w i t h  t h i s  o r d e r  The O r d e r s  &. doeiruggy;  cenv^ -
t a i n  :d i n  fch s t p  i n i o n  o f  5 / 2 1 / 7 0  A 3 / 2 1 / 7 0  art:: i n c o r n o v A t e d  l - a r v l n ,  t h i s ...

.............rh,. 11 . l i a  Fi.-anl . R d x y e u t , t h e r e  he ir ,  ; no fm 'tb v .r  s u b s t v n t i v  < r,.Aimer
t o  d e c i d e  there-  i s  n e t  j u s t  ctMnie f o r  d e l a y  6  t h e  e n t i r e  w e t t e r  can  re : ;  be
e p p a a i o d .  eod  6 / 1 1 / 7 0

6 / 1 6 IlOTIOiif o f  £ ? . f t § . , jgnce i i t  . J a m s  D, V c y r h a e s .  J r . , J ohn  11. Amoasa A Rachel  R.
- - fe r  T i B ^ r . « r y .  &£ 1‘l m L  ttesxfMi & . Jude  : A n t tJ5Jl Car  tu o f  S e r v i c e .

6 /16 NOTICE. OF AEZEA1l_£q t ...all__.def„ts^_..£xcent: d e f t  s . 7 . 8 . 9 .
. . 6 /1 7  _ .Cy...,Nat±C.&—mai.ljpd t o  Hm. WhltJ-.ukp.r and p H  r m m c o l

6 /19 —— —.fej ii / )_hat ioa. .  to.— _2l&££&* n a t i o n  i s  D e n ie d .  . „t?ri t t i»n Order
S.Q f o l l o w ,  cod  6 / 2 2 / 7 0 "

- P l t f r . ^ l ; i a X I i 2 ^ e r _ E e d u c . t i e a .  o f  Tirea_j&ar T r a n s m i s s i o n  o f  P e e re d
6 / 2 4 NQ.I.I.CJRQE 4PIAEAL_(.CE.QS8 -APPEAL 1
6 /25 Cy N o t i c e  m a i l e d  t o  Wm. W h i t t a k e r ,  C l e r k ,  U.S.  C our t  o f  A pnea ls  and opposin' -'

. ____c o u n s e l .
Signed  (WED) O rde r  G r a n t i n g  P t f s  Motion f o r  R e d u c t io n  o f  Time f o r  T r a n s m i s s i o n
-  a£_Be.cor,d..on...App-eal----- Jlejto.rd—t£L_bjw t r a n s m i t t e d  J u l v  17,  1970.
S_Lgne.cL_(WEn) o r d e r  Denying D e f e n d a n t s '  Motion f o r  S t a y .

6/7.6 _ _ELe.ceipt from. Court.  o f  A ppea ls  fox. Record .on Apneal
7/20 Motion f o r  E x t e n s i o n  o f  Time f o r  T r a n s m i s s i o n  o f  Record .

Sigaed_(TJFJl)—0xd.ex-.Gr an t i n s  ex tens. i  .o.n_ o f  - t ime  t o  J j i ly  2 4 ,  1970.
/ 7/7.4 R e p o r t e r ' s  T r a n s c r i p t  o f  p r o c e e d i n g s  h o l d  on 6 / 1 9 / 7 0

7 /24 R e p o r t e r ' s Tr/c - c r i p :  of p r o c e e d i n g s  _held 5711/70  (Vo.l ume Toni v)
V 2 J _ Receipj :—jLrom_-C.oxir.t_ o.f. A p p e a l s ..£ur_Supplemenln.  1 Record on Appea l

Re.pjart.eri s .  X r a n a c r i p t x a f  _p.r.O-C.eeding,sdield 5 / 1 3 / 7 0  (Volume I I J9/11 . S t i p u l a t i o n  .to Amend F i n a l  M c r e e  A..Judgiaenl: e n t e r e d  on 7 7 8 /7 0
.. ._8igned_(WEj3)_..Order.. A'4.e.nding RjjxalJiecxce...Am-.J_utdgaient s e e  f i l e d ,  eod 9 / 1 4 / 7 0

____ 10/22 . .t o  AisetKL-Qr-Supp/Lorcon,t_JudgmanIt. C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e
M.QXIOjL_£L£— —LQ-S.£riHv.C_I.5l.t,£-S-e_M o t io n  to  Around o r  rf-

- . . ____ o f  - H a i l i n g
10 /2  7 J l H M l g a .  ° n  .Hgt iong , .  ( ^ S D ) . O r d e r  ed : M otion  o f  P l t f s ,  t o  be  f i l e d  i n  C i r c u i t  c o u r t

___ _____ £ ,L A ppc ,a lp .  cod 1 0 / 2 8 / 7 0  ~  .............  ‘
- 1 2 / 2 8 .j?ltf§.«—M0T2QH-fee Si’p.plegientpi  O r d e r s . , .  C e r t , o f  S e r v i c e1971 ~ _

1/4 LOIlO.v o f  D e t t s .  t o  S t r i k e  P l t f s .  Motion  f o r  S u p p l e m e n ta l  O r d e r s . . .  C e r t . o f  S a r v i r 0 »
—...------. . .__ co ^ l t f s .  M otion  f o r  S u p p l e m e n ta l  O r d e r s . . .  Car t . o f  S e r v i c e .
____ 1/14  . -ilv.l.Ricci-XvElQ— SrP-P.l<y»cnt.?. 1 _ 0 rde . r c da . . . W i t n e s s .  . . O r d e r e d :  B e r t s .  t o  r e p o r t  t o  t h e
---------------- -- — ...—.... Cour t . .  1 n ...3(Lilay,s...as to .  i t s  p l a n s .  P l t f  c o u n s e l  t o  p r e p a r e  an o r d e r ,  r e c e s s .
----------___ L._______ c o d ,  1 /1 4 /7 1
___  1 /20 AASliefI O r d e r ,  same a s  hea r ing ,  on 1 / 1 4 / 7 1 .  cod ] / ' * l /7 1

/  wvol-)



DATE
1971

PROCEEDINGS Date Order or 
Jud^mout Xg,*'.

2/16 I n t e r i m  R e p o r t . . .  C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e .
2 /2 4 P l t f s .  C o n s o l i d a t e d  MOTIONS for. F u r t h e r  S u p p l e m e n t a l  O rde r  & f o r  H e a r i n g .  . .

C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e . /  .
3 /4 Response  t o  P l t f s .  C o n s o l i d a t e d  M ot ions  f o r  (1). F u r t h e r  A u p p le m e n la l  O r d e r s

(2)  H e a r in g  . . .  C e r t . .of S e r v i c e , y /
3 /17 H e a r i n g  (WED) Judge  Doyle & c o u n s e l  d i s c u s s i n g  m i s c e l l a n e o u s  m a t t e r s  p e r t a i n i n g

.j t o  t h i s  c a s e ,  eod 3 / 1 7 / 7 1
3/18 1 R e o o r t  c o n t a i n i n g .  a l t e r n a t i v e  /Plans. f .or  . I m p l e m e n t a t i o n  o3L_C_Qiuit_Dx!ier_._. . . .C e r t . . -of

S e r v i c e .  . . . . .  . _ . . ___ . __ _____ . .. . __ ___  . -...... ......  ... __ _________
3/22 H e a r in g  (WED) E x h i b i t s . . . O r d e r e d ; S e t  f o r  f u r t h e r  h e a r i n g  on 5 / 1 4 / 7 1 . . . R e c e s s . . .

eod 3 / 2 4 / 7 1 .

3/29 Hnnv n f  O rde r  f rom U. S ,  C o u r t o f  A p p e a l s  g r a n t i n g  d e f t s .  m o t i o n  f o r  a s t a y  o f  the
f i n a l  d e c r e e  and "judgment

1/28 H e a r in g  (WED) O r d e re d :  t h e  May 14 h e a r i n g  t o  s t a n d . .  .R e c e s s  . . . eod 4 / 2 8 / 7 1 . * .
/14 H e a r i n g  (WED) P ro p o s ed  P l a n s  . . .  E x h i b i t s . . . W i t n e s s e s  . . .  O r d e r e d : M a t t e r  c o n t i n u e d  to

5 / 1 9 / 7 1 .  eod 5 / 1 7 /7 1
3/14 P l t f s .  Memo, f o r  5 /1 4 /7 1  H e a r i n g  t o  S e l e c t  the. P l a n s  t o  be Implemented i n  S e p t ,  71.
5/19 H e a r in g  (WED)Re: P r o p o s e d  P l a n s , . . E x h i b i t s . . . W i t n e s s e s . . .R e c e ss  t o  5 / 2 4 / 7 1 . . .

eod 5 / 2 0 / 7 1 .
5 /  2 L P i l e d  h’’ Norms Mae N o b l e r  Ana I t e m s  t e  S c hoo l  I  n t r e .g r  a t  i o n  P lan
3/24 H e a r in g  (WED) Re;  P l a n s . . . W i t n e s s e s , . . E x h i b i t s . . . Judge  Dovle c o n c lu d e s  A d i r e c t s

t h a t  P l a n  C be a d o p te d  bv t h e  Schoo l  Board A p u t  i n t o  a c t i o n  as  soon as
p o s s i b l e ,  r e c e s s ,  eod 5/25/71

5 /25 W ithd raw al  o f  A ppea rance  o f  A t t y .  C r a i g  S. B a rnes  f o r  P l t f ,  . . .  C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e .
6 /23 MOTION o f  P l t f s .  f o r  D e s e g r e g a t i o n  P l a n  . . .  C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e .
6 /29 S t i p u l a t i o n  t h a t  P r e l i m i n a r y  I n j u n c t i o n . .  A F i n a l  Judgment  and Decree  be m o d i f i e d
6 /29 Response  t o  M ot ion  f o r  D e s e g r e g a t i o n  P l a n . . . C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e .
7/7 Mandate r e c e i v e d  from U. S. C our t  o f  A p p e a l s . . .  The T r i a l  c o u r t  i s  d i r e c t e d  t o  r e -

t a i n  i u r i s d i c t i o n  o f  t h e  c a s e  f o r  t h e  p u r p o s e  o f  s u p e r v i s i n g  t h e  imp]eme.nta-
t i o n  o f  t h e  p l a n , w i t h  f u l l  power t o  c h a n g e ,  a l t e r  o r  amend t h e  p l a n  in  the
i n t e r e s t  o f  j u s t i c e  A to  c a r r y  o u t  t h e  o b j e c t i v e  o f  t h e  l i t i g a t i o n  as  r e f l e c t e .1.1
by t h i s  o p i n i o n .

2 / 1 9 P p o o - f p , - 1 s P a r t i a l  of: p r o c e e d i n g s —h e l d —o n  5 / 1 4 /7 1  . . . . .  _ . . . . A-
7 /28 S igned  (WED) O rde r  Re M ot ion  f o r  D e s e g r e g a t i o n  P l a n . . . O r d e r e d : M ot ion  d e n ie d  w i t h o .it

P r e j u d i c e  t o  p l t f s .  r i g h t s  t o  r e f i l e  i t . . . e o d  7 / 2 9 / 7 1 .
3 /1 0 S ig n e d  (WED) Orde r  on Bottom o f  S t i p u l a t i o n  f i l e d  6/2.9/71 t h a t  t h e  S t  inn l  ar.i on i s

Approved A„ an ..Order i s  here))  v n n i e t o d  di r .ee  t i n g _ t h  a t  .the..... t e n  is... & c o n d i t i o n s  o f
th e  S t i m u l a t i o n  be a r r i e d  o u t .  eod 8 / 1 0 / 7 1

8 /3 0 R e p o r t e r ' s  P a r t i a l  T r a n s c r i p t ,  commencing 3 / 2 2 / 7 1
9 /8 H e a r i n g  (WED). . . W i t n e s s e s . , . O r d e r e d : P l a n  PA" i s  t o  be  p u t  i n t o  e f f e c t  by 11/1 /71

. . . P l t f s .  c o u n s e l  t o  p r e p a r e  an o r d e r ,  eod 9 /9 /7 1
9/27 Aigned_(WED) Order.. .Re_.DMregregaiirin 0 f_l ial le .t . t_ .A Sf/adman. JE le ta ru ta ry  S c h o o l s ,  f o  he

... a c c o m p l i s h e d  nfl_J_a£Ls.c .thap__llZgZZ/L___oil, o r  bo / o r e  10 /8 /71  d e f t s .  s h a l l  p r e s e n t
_.t P  t h e ..Co:rct..de.hal.l„s o J L l l i e . . p i c a  to. _bn._imp_l cmer tod  sm  1 1 /8 /7 1 . . .  . r a c i a l  & .e thn ic

___ C e ns  use  f__oi.ud.eji t s _  ivt_i  a e _ g i 0 ^ap]iic__.ar_e a s ..u n d e r  ...plan A, i n c l u d i n g  Monfhel lo._A.__
____t o  be cornuFeted _p.rlor_.fo p r t e r e i i t a i c i r . o f . thc...p la ir .on..  10/&/.7.1, .eo<l 9 /28 /71

10/7 MOTION o f  D e f t s .  f o r  S t a y . . . C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e ,
NOTICE OF APPEAL by D e f t s .

10/8 ...Hallo 11 -  Si._e.dman D eseg re  g a t  i o n  P l a n . . . C e r t . o f  S e r v i c e .  . . . .
10/15 S t i p u l a t i o n  Re Hal l e f t -S t e e lm a n  P l a n

.Signed _(1>|E.D)._Order . t h a t __pr.evj.ons .Order. Re : . . .Pe3.egrati.oii . o f . .H a l l e i h  and Steduian
____ E l e m e n ta r y  Seliools, .  i s . . .modi f ied t h e . . s p e r i  f i  c_ d e t a i l s . . o f  " P l a n  A" a s  m o d i f i e d
........ ..in....the Ha lle±.t-=R.tedmun_ P l a n  s h a l l  be-dove.  Ion; .-d-no-.l ;U;or_ than  12/1 / ' / 1 end

1 0 / 1 9 / 7 1 .
11/8 S t i p y l a  t i o n  _2.or...Di stars s a l  of.. Appeal . ,  p u r s u a n t  l o - P u l e  4 2 ( a )  ______________________  ___

__________________________________________CONTimiKP_______________________________________________



V S •

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. L, e t c . ,  e t  a l
D. C. 110 K>jv . Civii D ocket C on tinuation

DATE
1?21

PROCEEDINGS I>utj (" 
Judxuv

11 /8 S igne d  (WED) O rde r  D i s m i s s i n g  A p p e a l ,  eod 1 1 /1 0 /7 1 —11/10 MOTION o f  A p p l i c a n t s  f o r  I n t e r v e n t i o n  f o r  L i m i t e d  I n t e r v e n t i o n
Memo. Ln S u p p o r t  o f  n e x t  above M otion

^ l e a d i n g  i n  I n t e r v e n t i o n
Request  f o r  Im m ed ia te  C o n f e r e n c e  or  H e a r in g
10TI0N o f  A p p l i c a t n s  f o r  I n t e r v e n t i o n  f o r  L i m i t e d  A d m iss ion
l e r t .  o f  S e r v i c e .

11/18 dopy o f  l e t t e r  on f i l e  t h a t  t h i s  c a s e  has  been  r e a s s ig n e d ,  t o  Judge. F i n e s i l v e r .
11/23 Signed (SGF) O r d e r  R e g a r d in g  M ot ion  t o  I n t e r v e n e . . .  O r d e r e d : t h a t  c o u n s e l  of  r e c o r d

are. d i r e c t e d  t o  f i l e  any  s t a t e m e n t s  o f  p o s i t i o n  and memo, i n  o p p o s i t i o n  o r
s u p p o r t  o f  m o t i o n  to  i n t e r v e n e  on o r  b e f o r e  1 2 / 8 / 7 1 . . . I n t e r v e n o r  a p p l i c a t n s
a r e  d i r e c t e d  t o  r e s p o n d  t o  a l l  memoranda on or  b e f o r e  1 2 / 1 3 / 7 1 . . .  t h e  m a t t e r  w i 1i
be s e t  f o r  h e a r i n g  a f t e r  r e c e i p t  o f  a l l  memoranda i f  i t  i s  deemed n e c e s s a r y . . . ~
eod 1 1 / 2 6 / 7 1 .

S igne d  (SGF) O rd e r  D i r e c t i n g  F i l i n g  o f  S t a t u s  R e p o r t . . . O r d e r e d : t h a t  c o u n s e l  a r e
d i r e c t e d  to  subm i t  w i t h i n  20 days  a s t a t u s  r e p o r t  on t h i s  c a s e . . . e o d  1 1 / 2 6 /7 1 . /

1276 _ P l c f s .  Memo, i n  O p p o s i t i o n  t o  T N te r .ven t ion  . . .  C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e .
12 /8 AsueaneOt fQiL.Es. tsa3i 0.tl_of T i n a  . that ._ . . r .pp l ican ts  f o r  T r i t e r v e n t i n n  may have  t h r u

1 2 / 1 7 /7 1  t o  f i l e  r e p l y  . _ _ . , _ . . _ ..... _ .
'.Signed_XS.GI0- O rd e r  on bo t to m  of.. n e x t  .e.boAte. .̂ g r a n t i n g . . e o d  12 /8 /7 1
D a f t s .  Memo, i n  O p p o s i t i o n  t o  M otion  t o  I n t e r v e n e  . . .  C e r t ,  o f  S e r v i c e .I -cs

I r” R e p o r t e r ' s  T r a n s c r i p t  o f  p r o c e e d i n g s  commehcingS/14 /71 .
12 /14 MOTTON-.of.n.ef on... K x.tensi.an xxf.Time f o r r  f i l i a c  .Us,-. S,tai.us.JRep,OXitM:o A i n c lu.cl.int

1 2 / 2 1 / 7 1 .
S igne d  (SGF) O rd e r  t h a t  t h e  t im e  f o r  f i l i n g  t h e  s t a t u s  r e p o r t  i s  e x t e n d e d  t o  £,

i n c l u d i n g  1 2 / 2 1 / 7 1 .  eod 1 2 /1 6 /7 1 — .....
12 /16 Re.p.LY_JB.ris£_of AupJo'caiiLs . f o r  I n t e r v e n t i o n .  „__ Cent.. m£ S e r v i c e ,
12/21 S t a t u s  R e p o r t I

S ig n e d  (SGF) O rde r  t h a t  m o t i o n  t o  i n t e r v e n e  i s  d e n i e d . . . e o d  1 2 / 2 2 / 7 1 . 1
12/22 R e p o r t e r ' s  T r a n s c r i p t  o f  p r o c e e d i n g s  commencing 5 / 1 4 / 7 1 /  ' I

1
1/27. . . , P l t f s .  MOTION f o r  o r d e r  R e l e a s i n g  t h e  Record

S ig n e d  (SGF) O rde r  t h e  C le rk  o f  Cour t  i s  a u t h o r i z e d  to  r e l e a s e  t h e  r e c o r d  in  t h e I
a c t i o n  t o  Gordon G. G r e i n e r  f o r  a p e r i o d  o f  10 davs s t a r t i n g  1 / 2 7 / 7 2 .  eod 1/3' U 2 ....

R e c e i o p t  f o r  A c t i o n
N 2/1 L e t t e r  on f i l e  f rom U, S. C o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s  t h a t  Supreme Court '  g r a n t e d  c e r t i o r a r i
; 2 /9 JOINT CONSOLIDATED'MOTIONS R e l a t i n g  t o  t h e  Record

S ig n e d  (SGF) O rd e r  R e g a r d in g  Record
2 /18 c o p i e s  o f  e x h i b i t s  o f  L e f t s .  Numbered 1 t h r o u g h  12

____ •
v,__
_______

__ __ ___
*-..-__ ,
*-• *__ ____

----



la

Docket Entries



2a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and D e c la ra to ry
Judgment

(Filed June 19, 1969)

1st th e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F ob t h e  D istrict  of Colorado 

Civil Action No. C-1499

W ilfred  K eyes , in d iv id u a lly  a n d  on  b e h a lf  o f C h r ist i 
K eyes, a  m in o r ; Ch r ist in e  A. C olley, in d iv id u a lly  an d  
on  b e h a lf  o f K ris M. C olley a n d  M ark A. W illia m s , 
m in o rs ;  I rma J. J e n n in g s , in d iv id u a lly  a n d  on  b e h a lf  
o f R honda  0 .  J e n n in g s , a  m in o r ;  R oberta R. W ade, 
in d iv id u a lly  a n d  on b e h a lf  o f Gregory L. W ade, a m in o r ; 
E dward J. S tarks, J r ., in d iv id u a lly  an d  on b e h a lf  o f 
D e n ise  M ic h e ll e  S tarks, a  m in o r ;  J o se ph in e  P erez, 
in d iv id u a lly  a n d  on b e h a lf  o f Carlos A. P erez, S h eila  
R. P erez a n d  T erry J. P erez, m in o r s ; M axine N. 
B ecker , in d iv id u a lly  a n d  on b e h a lf  o f  D in a h  L. B ecker , 
a  m in o r ;  E u g en e  R. W e in e r , in d iv id u a lly  and  on b eh a lf  
o f S arah S. W e in e r , a  m in o r,

Plaintiffs,
vs.

S chool D istrict N um ber  O n e , D enver , Colorado; T h e  
B oard of E ducation , S chool D istrict  N um ber  O n e , 
D enver , C olorado ; W illia m  C. B erge, individually and 
as President, Board of Education, School District Num­
ber One, Denver, Colorado; S t e p h e n  J .  K n ig h t , J r ., 
individually and as Vice President, Board of Educa­
tion, School District Number One, Denver, Colorado; 
J ames C. P err ill , F rank  K. S o u th w o r th , J o h n  H.



3a

A m esse , J ames D. V oorhees, J b., and R a ch el  B. N oel, 
individually and as members, Board of Education, 
School District Number One, Denver, Colorado; R obert 
D. G ilberts, individually and as Superintendent of 
Schools, School District Number One, Denver, Colorado,

Defendants.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

I. JURISDICTION
A. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the defendants from, main­

taining, requiring, continuing, encouraging, and facilitat­
ing separation of children and faculty, on the basis of race, 
and further, from unequal allocation of resources, services, 
facilities, equipment, and plant on the basis of race. Plain­
tiffs also request specific injunctive relief pertaining to 
certain resolutions passed and enacted by defendant Board 
of Education, especially Resolutions No. 1520, 1524, and 
1531. Copies of said Resolutions are attached to this com­
plaint.

B. Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment under 
Title 28, Section 2201 for the purpose of determining ques­
tions of actual controversy between the parties, to w it:

1. The question of whether the rules, regulations, reso­
lutions, policies, directives, customs, practices, and usages 
of the defendants and each of them in denying, on account 
of race, color, or ethnicity, to the minor Negro and Hispano 
plaintiffs and other Negro and Hispano children residing 
in the school district, educational opportunities, advan­
tages, and facilities afforded and available to Anglo chil­
dren of public school age similarly situated in the school 
district, are unconstitutional and void, as depriving said



4a

plaintiffs of equal protection of the law in contravention 
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States.

2. The question of whether the rules, regulations, reso­
lutions, policies, directives, customs, practices, and usages 
of the defendants and each of them in denying to the plain­
tiffs who attend schools substantially segregated on the 
basis of race or ethnicity and other children residing in the 
school district the advantages, educational benefits, intel­
lectual stimulation and practical preparation for a multi­
racial world afforded by providing an integrated education 
to other children of public school age similarly situated in 
the school district are unconstitutional and void as depriv­
ing said plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws in con­
travention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu­
tion of the United States.

C. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 
Title 28 U.S.C. Sections 1343(3) and (4). This is a civil 
action authorized by law and arising under Title 42, 
Section 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Con­
stitution of the United States.

D. All individual defendants reside within the District 
of Colorado; defendant School District is a body corporate 
organized and existing under the laws of the State of 
Colorado, CBS §123-30-1 (1964). Venue is therefore 
proper in this District under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 
1391(b) and (c).

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



II. PAETIES

Complaint for Permanent- Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

A. Plaintiffs:
1. Plaintiffs Wilfred Keyes, Christine A. Colley, Irma 

J. Jennings, Roberta E. Wade, Edward J. Starks, Jr., 
Josephine Perez, Maxine N. Becker, and Eugene E. 
Weiner, are adults, citizens of the United States and the 
State of Colorado, and residents within School District 
Number One, Denver, Colorado.

2. Plaintiff children who sue by their parents and next 
friends, are minor children, citizens of the United States 
and the State of Colorado, and residents within School 
District Number One, Denver, Colorado.

a. Plaintiff Christi Keyes, a minor, sues by her parent 
and next friend, Wilfred Keyes; she will attend Hallett 
Elementary School (10.1% Anglo, 84.4% Negro, 3.7% 
Hispano) beginning in September, 1969. They are Negro.

b. Plaintiff Kris M. Colley, a minor, sues by his parent 
and next friend, Christine A. Colley, and is a resident 
of an attendance area detached from the attendance area 
of East High School by provision of Resolution No. 1520 
described hereinafter. If action is taken to implement the 
recision of said resolution, he will attend East High School 
(53.7% Anglo, 39.6% Negro, 5.8% Hispano) in September, 
1969. They are Negro.

c. Plaintiff Mark A. Williams, a minor, sues by his 
guardian and next friend, Christine A. Colley, and is a 
resident of an attendance area detached from the atten­
dance area of Smiley Junior High School by Resolutions



No. 1520 and 1524 described hereinafter. If action is taken 
to implement the recision of said resolutions, he will attend 
Smiley Junior High School (23.6% Anglo, 71.6% Negro, 
3.7% Hispano) in September, 1969. They are Negro.

d. Plaintiff Rhonda 0. Jennings, a minor, sues by her 
parent and next friend, Irma J. Jennings, and is a resident 
of an attendance area detached from the attendance area 
of Cole Junior High School by Resolution No. 1524. If 
the recision of said resolution is implemented, she will 
attend Cole Junior High School (3.8% Anglo, 72.5% 
Negro, 22.2% Hispano) beginning in September, 1969. 
They are Negro.

e. Plaintiff Gregory L. Wade, a minor, sues by his 
parent and next friend, Roberta R. WTade, and is a resident 
of an attendance area detached from Barrett Elementary 
School by Resolution No. 1531 described hereinafter. If 
action is taken to implement the recision of said resolu­
tion, he will attend Barrett Elementary School (0.3% 
Anglo, 96.9% Negro, 1.9% Hispano) in September, 1969. 
They are Negro.

f. Plaintiff Denise Michelle Starks, a minor, sues by 
her parent and next friend, Edward J. Starks, Jr., and 
is a resident of an attendance area detached from Philips 
Elementary School by Resolution No. 1531. If action is 
taken to implement the recision of said resolution she will 
attend Philips Elementary School (55.3% Anglo, 36.6% 
Negro, 5.2% Hispano) in September, 1969. They are 
Negro.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



7a

g. Plaintiff Carlos A. Perez, a minor, snes by Ms parent 
and next friend, Josephine Perez, and will attend West 
High School (54.7% Anglo, 4.6% Negro, 39.8% Hispano) 
beginning in September, 1969. They are Hispano.

h. Plaintiff Sheila R. Perez, a minor, snes by her parent 
and next friend, Josephine Perez, and will attend Baker 
Junior High School (15.4% Anglo, 10.0% Negro, 73.1% 
Hispano) beginning in September, 1969. They are Hispano.

i. Plaintiff Terry J. Perez, a minor, snes by his parent 
and next friend, Josephine Perez, and is a student at 
Greenlee Elementary School (19.1% Anglo, 25.0% Negro, 
54.5% Hispano). They are Hispano.

j. Plaintiff Dinah L. Becker, a minor, sues by her 
parent and next friend, Maxine N. Becker, and is a student 
at Merrill Junior High School (98.2% Anglo, 0.3% Negro, 
0.8% Hispano). They are Anglo.

k. Plaintiff Sarah S. Weiner, a minor, sues by her 
parent and next friend, Eugene R. Weiner. Prom January 
through June, 1969, she was a participant in a voluntary 
enrollment plan and was a student at Hallett Elementary 
School (10.1% Anglo, 84.4% Negro, 3.7% Hispano). She 
has been informed by defendants that there may or may 
not be space available at said school in September, 1969, 
and therefore does not know what school she can attend. 
They are Anglo.

3. Plaintiffs bring this action in their own behalf and 
in behalf of others pursuant to Rule 23(b) (1) (B), 23(b) (2) 
and 23(b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



8a

(a) The class which the plaintiffs represent is so 
numerous that joinder of all members thereof is 
impractical; said class consists of:
(i) All those school children, who by virtue of 

the actions of the Board complained of in 
the First Cause of Action will be attending 
segregated or substantially segregated schools 
and who will be forced to receive an unequal 
educational opportunity beginning in Sep­
tember, 1969;

(ii) All those school children, who by virtue of 
the actions or omissions of the Board com­
plained of in the Second Cause of Action will 
be and have been attending segregated schools 
or substantially segregated schools, and who 
will be and have been receiving an unequal 
educational opportunity.

(b) There are questions of fact and law common to 
all members of the class represented by plaintiffs, 
namely:

(i) Whether in fact the members of said class, 
by virtue of the actions of the Board com­
plained of in the First Cause of Action will 
be attending segregated or substantially 
segregated schools, and will be forced to 
receive an unequal educational opportunity, 
and, further, whether in law such actions of 
the Board are unconstitutional and void;

(ii) Whether in fact the members of said class, 
by virtue of the actions or omissions of the

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



9a

Board complained of in the Second Canse of 
Action will be and have been attending 
segregated or substantially segregated schools 
and will be and have been receiving an un­
equal educational opportunity, and further, 
whether in law such actions and omissions 
of the Board are unconstitutional and void.

(c) The claims of the individual minor plaintiffs are 
representative and typical of the class, in that 
each such plaintiff reflects and illustrates either 
or both of the types of deprivation complained 
of in the First and Second Cause of Action.

(d) Said individual minor plaintiffs will fairly and 
adequately represent and protect the interests of 
the class, in that said plaintiffs and the class share 
common objectives and purposes in presenting the 
issues framed herein, and in seeking a declaration 
of their constitutional rights.

(e) The prosecution of separate actions by individual 
members of the class would as a practical matter 
be dispositive of the interests of other members 
not parties to the adjudications, and would sub­
stantially impair their ability to protect their 
interests.

(f) The parties opposing the class, i.e., the defendants 
herein have acted and have also refused to act 
on grounds generally applicable to the class, as 
more fully appears herein in the First and Second 
Cause of Action, and the final injunctive relief 
and declaratory relief sought herein will apply 
to the class as a whole.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



10a

(g) The questions of law or fact common to the mem­
bers of the class predominate over any questions 
affecting or relating only to individual members 
of the class, and proceeding by way of this class 
action is superior to any other alternate means 
available, if any, for the fair and efficient adju­
dication of the controversy and the granting of 
adequate relief; thus the only alternative would 
be the prosecution of separate suits relating to 
each school within the District, but no adequate 
relief could be formulated for the constitutional 
defects of the school system as a whole under 
such a piecemeal approach, nor would the differ­
ences between schools be significant enough to 
justify such a multitude of suits.

B. D efendants:

All defendants are sued individually and in their official 
capacities:

1. Defendant School District Number One, Denver, 
Colorado, (hereinafter “School District”) is organized and 
exists under the laws of the State of Colorado. (Colorado 
Revised Statutes, §§123-30-1 et seq.) (1964).

2. Defendant Board of Education of School District 
Number One, Denver, Colorado (hereinafter referred to as 
“Board” or “Board of Education”) is organized and exists 
under the laws of the State of Colorado, CRS § 123-30-3 
(1964); the Board is composed of seven school district 
directors, elected to such office by electors residing within 
the boundaries of the School District; said Board is vested

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



11a

with all powers delegated to a board of education or to a 
school district by law, and is required to perform all duties 
required by law; CRS § 123-30-3 (1964).

3. Defendant William C. Berge is President of the said 
Board of Education; defendant Stephen J. Knight, Jr., is 
Vice President of said Board of Education; defendants 
James C. Perrill, Prank K. Southworth, John H. Amesse, 
James D. Yoorhees, Jr., and Rachel B. Noel are school di­
rectors and members of said Board of Education.

4. Defendant Robert D. Gilberts is Superintendent of 
Schools of School District Number One, Denver, Colorado 
(hereinafter “Superintendent”). He is the executive offi­
cer of the Board of Education and is charged with the 
responsibility of maintaining, managing, and governing the 
public schools in the School District, in accordance with 
the rules, regulations, resolutions, policies, directives, cus­
toms, practices, and usages established by defendant Board 
of Education. III.

III. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

General  F actual A llegations

A. Defendant Board of Education on or about January 
30, 1969, upon recommendation of the Superintendent, 
passed and enacted Resolution No. 1520, making certain 
changes in the attendance areas of certain secondary schools 
in the School District. Said Board of Education stated in 
said Resolution that such changes were designed to im­
prove educational opportunity in the public schools by 
revising and thereafter stabilizing the racial and ethnic 
composition of pupil memberships in such schools. Schools

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



12a

affected by said Resolution and racial composition of such 
Schools in September, 1968, were: East High School 
(53.7% Anglo, 39.6% Negro, 5.8% Hispano); South High 
School (87.3% Anglo, 0.2% Negro, 12.2% Hispano); 
George Washington High School (96.0% Anglo, 2.9% 
Negro, 0.8% Hispano); Hill Junior High School (96.1% 
Anglo, 1.5% Negro, 1.3% Hispano); Smiley Junior High 
School (23.6% Anglo, 71.6% Negro, 3.7% Hispano).

B. Plaintiff Kris M. Colley, the son of plaintiff Christine 
A. Colley, is a resident of an attendance area which was 
detached from the attendance area of East High School 
(53.7% Anglo, 39.6% Negro, 5.8% Hispano) and assigned 
to George Washington High School (96.0% Anglo, 2.9% 
Negro, 0.8% Hispano) under Resolution No. 1520; if action 
is taken to implement the recision of said Resolution, he 
will attend East High School in September, 1969, and the 
racial composition of both schools will remain substan­
tially as quoted. If Resolution 1520 is implemented the 
racial composition of these schools will be: East High 
School 68.0% Anglo, 25.0% Negro, 7.0% Hispano, George 
Washington High School 87.0% Anglo, 12.0% Negro, 1.0% 
Hispano.

C. Defendant Board of Education on or about March 
20, 1969, upon recommendation of the Superintendent, 
passed and enacted Resolution No. 1524, making additional 
changes in the attendance areas of certain secondary schools 
in the School District in order to further implement the 
aforesaid Resolution No. 1520. Schools affected by said 
Resolution and racial composition of such schools in Sep­
tember, 1968, were: Smiley Junior High School (23.6% 
Anglo, 71.6% Negro, 3.7% Hispano); Merrill Junior High

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



13a

School (98.2% Anglo, 0.3% Negro, 0.8% Hispano) ; Grant 
Junior High School (85.4% Anglo, 4.5% Negro, 9.3% 
Hispano); Kunsmiller Junior High School (90.3% Anglo, 
0.3% Negro, 8.8% Hispano); Hill Junior High School 
(96.1% Anglo, 1.5% Negro, 1.3% Hispano); Thomas Jef­
ferson Junior-Senior High School (99.2% Anglo, 0.3% 
Negro, 0.2% Hispano); Hamilton Junior High School (no 
figures available at this time); Cole Junior High School 
(3.8% Anglo, 72.5% Negro, 22.2% Hispano); Byers Junior 
High School (92.5% Anglo, 0.6% Negro, 5.7% Hispano); 
Bishel Junior High School (75.0% Anglo, 0.3% Negro, 
24.4% Hispano); Kepner Junior High School (70.7% 
Anglo, 1.7% Negro, 27.5% Hispano).

D. Plaintiff Mark A. Williams, the ward of plaintiff 
Christine A. Colley, is a resident of an attendance area 
which was detached from the attendance area of Smiley 
Junior High School (23.6% Anglo, 71.6% Negro, 3.7% 
Hispano) and assigned to Hill Junior High School (96.1% 
Anglo, 1.5% Negro, 1.3% Hispano) under Resolution No. 
1524; if action is taken to implement the recision of said 
Resolution, he will attend Smiley Junior High School in 
September, 1969, and the racial composition of both schools 
will remain substantially as quoted. If Resolutions No. 
1520 and 1524 are implemented the racial composition of 
these schools will be.- Smiley Junior High School 72.0% 
Anglo, 20.0% Negro, 8.0%Hispano; Hill Junior High 
School 81.0% Anglo, 17.0% Negro, 2.0% Hispano.

E. Plaintiff Rhonda O. Jennings, the daughter of plain­
tiff Irma J. Jennings, is a resident of an attendance area 
which was detached from the attendance area of Cole Junior 
High School (3.8% Anglo, 72.5% Negro, 22.2% Hispano)

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



14a

and assigned to Kepner Junior High School (70.7% Anglo, 
1.7% Negro, 27.5% Hispano) under Resolution No. 1524; 
if action is taken to implement the recision of said Resolu­
tion, she will attend Cole Junior High School beginning in 
September, 1969, and the racial composition of both schools 
will remain substantially as quoted. If Resolution No. 
1524 is implemented the racial composition of these schools 
will be: Kepner Junior High School 69.0% Anglo, 4.0% 
Negro, 27.0% Hispano, and Cole Junior High School 6.0% 
Anglo, 64.0% Negro, 30.0% Hispano.

F. Plaintiff Dinah L. Becker, the daughter of plaintiff 
Maxine N. Becker, is a resident of an attendance area as­
signed to Merrill Junior High School, (98.2% Anglo, 0.3% 
Negro, 0.8% Hispano) and will attend said school in Sep­
tember, 1969.

G. Defendant Board of Education on or about April 25, 
1969, upon recommendation of the Superintendent, passed 
and enacted Resolution No. 1531 making changes in the 
attendance areas of certain elementary schools in the School 
District. Said Board of Education stated in said Resolu­
tion that such changes were designed to stabilize the racial 
and ethnic composition of pupil memberships in these 
schools and further the integration of the Denver Public 
Schools and improve educational opportunity in such 
schools. Said Resolution No. 1531 also contained provisions 
for removal of mobile classroom units from Stedman Ele­
mentary School, and provided transportation for pupils 
previously therein to Denison, Force and Schenck Elemen­
tary Schools. The schools for which attendance areas were 
changed and their racial composition as of September, 
1968, were: Montclair Elementary School (92.7% Anglo,

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



15a

2.5% Negro, 3.2% Hispano); Philips Elementary School 
(55.3% Anglo, 36.6% Negro, 5.2% Hispano); Ashley Ele­
mentary School (85.8% Anglo, 6.4% Negro, 5.8% Hispano) ; 
Palmer Elementary School (91.7% Anglo, 4.9% Negro, 
1.7% Hispano); Park Hill Elementary School (71.0% 
Anglo, 23.2% Negro, 3.9% Hispano); Steck Elementary 
School (86.1% Anglo, 10.7% Negro, 1.0% Hispano); Steele 
Elementary School (85.0% Anglo, 6.6% Negro, 7.6% 
Hispano); Whiteman Elementary School (88.1% Anglo, 
8.0% Negro, 2.6% Hispano); Moore Elementary School 
(79.3% Anglo, 8.3% Negro, 8.9% Hispano); Montclair An­
nex Elementary School (98.1% Anglo, 1.9% Negro, 0.0% 
Hispano); Barrett Elementary School (0.3% Anglo, 96.9% 
Negro, 1.9% Hispano); Carson Elementary School (90.3% 
Anglo, 6.7% Negro, 0.8% Hispano); Asburv Elementary 
School (88.9% Anglo, 5.7% Negro, 3.9% Hispano).

H. Plaintiffs Christi Keyes and Mark Keyes, the chil­
dren of plaintiff Wilfred Keyes, are residents of an un­
changed attendance area assigned to the Hallett Elemen­
tary School (10.1% Anglo, 84.4% Negro, 3.7% Hispano) 
and will attend said school in September, 1969. I.

I. Plaintiff Gregory L. Wade, the son of Roberta R. 
Wade, is a resident of an attendance area detached from 
Barrett Elementary School (0.3% Anglo, 96.9% Negro, 
1.9% Hispano) and assigned to Carson Elementary School 
(90.3% Anglo, 6.7% Negro, 0.8% Hispano) under Resolu­
tion No. 1531; if action is taken to implement the recision 
of said Resolution, he will attend Barrett Elementary School 
in September, 1969, and the racial composition of both 
schools will remain substantially as quoted. If Resolution 
No. 1531 is implemented the racial composition of these

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



16a

schools will he: Barrett Elementary School, 73.0% Anglo, 
24.0% Negro, 3.0% Hispano, Carson Elementary School, 
78.0% Anglo, 20.0% Negro, 2.0% Hispano.

J. Plaintiff Denise Michelle Starks, the daughter of Ed­
ward J. Starks, Jr., is a resident of an attendance area of 
Philips Elementary School (55.3% Anglo, 36.6% Negro, 
5.2% Hispano) which was altered to become a part of the 
attendance area for Palmer Elementary School (91.7% 
Anglo, 4.9% Negro, 1.7% Hispano) under Resolution No. 
1531; if action is taken to implement the recision of said 
Resolution, she will attend Philips Elementary School in 
September, 1969, and the racial composition of both schools 
will remain substantially as quoted. If Resolution No. 
1531 is implemented the racial composition of these schools 
will be: Philips Elementary School, 70.0% Anglo, 22.0% 
Negro, 8.0% Hispano, Palmer Elementary School 81.0% 
Anglo, 15.0% Negro, 4.0% Hispano.

K. To implement the aforesaid Resolutions No. 1520, 
1524, and 1531 defendant Board of Education has required 
defendant Superintendent to initiate a purchase of twenty- 
seven (27) school buses. In addition the defendant Super­
intendent substantially completed steps designed to imple­
ment such Resolutions in September, 1969, including initia­
tion of in-service training for over eight hundred (800) 
faculty and staff, preparation of class schedules, schedules 
of course availability, pupil assignments, space assign­
ments, transportation utilization and other actions.

L. On May 20, 1969, pursuant to regular statutory re­
quirements two new members were elected to seats on the 
defendant Board of Education, these being defendants

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



17a

James C. Perrill and Frank K. South-worth.. Defeated in 
the same election were two incumbent members of the Board 
of Education who had voted for passage of the aforesaid 
Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531. The victorious candi­
dates, defendants Perrill and South worth, had campaigned 
on slog'ans such as “Against Forced Busing! ” “For Neigh­
borhood Schools!” and promised, if elected, to vote for re- 
cision of the aforesaid Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 
1531. Said slogans and promises intensified racial polariza­
tion within the School District,

M. Having seated its two newly elected members, de­
fendant Board of Education on June 9, 1969, passed by a 
vote of 4-3, three motions rescinding each of the three 
Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531.

N. If defendants are permitted to implement the mo­
tions to rescind Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, as by 
implementing substitute resolutions now or hereafter 
passed by the Board, such implementation will or may en­
tail modification or cancellation of said presently-existing 
purchase order for twenty-seven school buses; modification 
or recision and destruction of all work already accom­
plished with regard to prior implementation of the now- 
rescinded Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531; e.g., class 
assignments, pupil assignments, space assignments, sched­
ules for utilization of transportation facilities, which if 
destroyed will irreparably injure the minor plaintiffs and 
others similarly situated, as follows: In the event that 
this Court should ultimately decide to grant to plaintiffs 
the permanent relief prayed for herein, such relief will 
not be possible for the school year beginning September, 
1969, unless during the pendency of this action the status

Complaint for Perm-anent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



18a

quo is maintained; i.e., unless the contracts, schedules and 
assignments already prepared to implement the now-re­
scinded Resolutions are retained. If the status quo is not 
maintained, the minor plaintiffs and their classes will be 
segregated and forced to receive an unequal educational 
opportunity during the school year beginning September, 
1969, as is more fully detailed herein in paragraphs A 
through M.

O. If Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 are not rein­
stated and implemented, and if the motions for recision 
and any substitute resolutions or motions are not declared 
unconstitutional and void as depriving said minor plain­
tiffs and those similarly situated of equal protection of 
the laws in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment 
of the Constitution of the United States, said plaintiffs and 
those similarly situated will be irreparably harmed and 
injured because they will be segregated on the basis of race 
and ethnicity, and forced to attend schools which will be 
segregated, and which would not be segregated if Reso­
lutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 were reinstated and imple­
mented, resulting in their being forced to receive an un­
equal educational opportunity during the school year 
beginning September, 1969, and for subsequent years 
thereafter, as is more fully stated in paragraphs A through 
P herein.

P. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, adequate or com­
plete remedy to redress the wrongs and illegal acts com­
plained of herein, other than this suit for injunctive relief. 
Any other remedy to which plaintiffs and those similarly 
situated could be entitled would be atttended by such 
uncertainties and delays as to deny substantial relief,

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



19a

would involve a multiplicity of suits, cause further ir­
reparable injury, and occasion damage, vexation and in­
convenience, not only to plaintiffs, and those similarly situ­
ated, but to defendants as well.

First Count
A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and 

every allegation contained in the General Factual Allega­
tions of this First Cause of Action.

B. The recision of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 
will have the effect of encouraging private acts of racial 
discrimination and is therefore a derogation of the minor 
plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection of the laws under the 
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United 
States.

Second Count
A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and 

every allegation contained in the General Factual Allega­
tions of this First Cause of Action.

B. In rescinding Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 
defendant Board members were motivated by racial and 
ethnic considerations.

C. Negro and Hispano plaintiffs, and the classes which 
they represent, view the actions of said defendants in 
rescinding these Resolutions as a significant defeat of their 
attempt to obtain equal educational opportunity and the 
equal protection of the laws for all Negro and Hispano 
students in the School District.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



20a

Thibd Count
A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and 

every allegation contained in the General Factual Allega­
tions of this First Cause of Action.

B. Prior to the passage of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 
and 1531, the pupil population of the schools affected 
thereby were substantially segregated on the basis of race 
or ethnicity.

C. If Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 had been 
implemented the effect would have been to substantially 
relieve the actual segregation of the pupil populations of 
the schools affected thereby.

D. In rescinding these resolutions the defendant Board 
members voting in favor of recision, and, therefore, the 
defendant Board itself, were motivated by a desire to 
maintain, require, and facilitate the racial and ethnic 
separation which existed in the schools affected prior to 
the passage of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, and 
which would have been significantly alleviated by the 
Resolutions rescinded.

F ourth Count
A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and 

every allegation contained in the General Factual Allega­
tions of this First Cause of Action.

B. By the recision of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 
1531 defendants Board and Board members knowingly

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



21a

reassigned children whom it had previously designated 
to receive an integrated education to schools which will 
as a result of the Board’s action be substantially segre­
gated, and thus resegregated such children on the basis 
of race and ethnic origin.

Fifth Count
A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and 

every allegation contained in the General Factual Allega­
tions of this First Cause of Action.

B. Prior to the passage of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 
and 1531, the pupil populations of the schools affected 
were substantially segregated on the basis of race and 
ethnicity, and those schools with predominantly Negro or 
Hispano populations were providing unequal educational 
opportunity due to the fact that such schools were (on the 
average for all Denver schools) assigned less-experienced 
faculty, had higher drop-out rates, were assigned and 
allocated a disproportionately large number of Negro or 
Hispano faculty, had a disproportionately large number 
of mobile units, and had pupil memberships derived from 
generally lower economic status.

C. Implementation of the aforesaid Resolutions No. 
1520, 1524 and 1531 would have resulted in substantial 
alleviation of the racial and ethnic segregation in such 
schools.

D. The benefits which would have accrued from integra­
tion under Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 would have

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



22a

significantly eliminated the existing inequalities in educa­
tional opportunity as set forth in paragraph B above, and 
the recision of those resolutions therefore operates to deny 
minor plaintiffs an educational opportunity equal to that 
accorded students in schools the pupil population of which 
are not predominantly Negro or Hispano.

Sixth Count
A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and 

every allegation contained in the General Factual Allega­
tions of this First Cause of Action.

B. Prior to the passage of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 
and 1531 the pupil populations of the schools affected 
thereby were substantially segregated on the basis of race 
or ethnicity.

C. If Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 had been 
implemented the effect would have been to substantially 
relieve the actual segregation of the pupil populations 
of the schools thereby affected.

D. By reinstating the racial and ethnic separation 
existing in the affected schools prior to the passage of 
Resolutions 1520,1524 and 1531, and by assigning plaintiffs 
and the class they represent to those segregated schools 
to which they would have gone had Resolutions No. 1520, 
1524 and 1531 never been passed, defendants have acted 
to deny plaintiffs an equal educational opportunity by 
implementing and effectuating a policy the effect of which 
is to confine plaintiffs to schools which because of the

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



23a

recision will be actually segregated on the basis of race 
or ethnicity.

PRAYER FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

A. Wherefore, plaintiffs, in behalf of themselves and 
those similarly situated, pray as follows:

1. That defendants, and each and every of defendant 
School District’s officers, agents, servants, em­
ployees and each of them, and all other persons 
in active concert or participation with them be, 
preliminarily during the pendency of this action 
and permanently thereafter, restrained and en­
joined
(a) from in any way interfering with, modifying, 

cancelling or rescinding the purchase order 
for said twenty-seven school buses;

(b) from destroying, changing or otherwise modi­
fying, in any manner whatsoever, or relocating 
all those documents, contracts, schedules, or 
other writings and memoranda relating or 
pertaining to the implementation of Resolu­
tions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531.

(c) from taking any action or making any com­
munication to faculty, staff, parents or students 
during the pendency of this action or before 
permanent orders are issued by this Court 
which would make it impossible or substan­
tially more difficult, to proceed with the 
implementation of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



24a

and 1531 at the start of the school year in 
September, 1969, with the exception that de­
fendants shall not otherwise dnring such time 
be prevented from simultaneously preparing 
for the implementation of alternate or addi­
tional plans concerning the matters described 
herein as they so desire.

2. That those motions passed by defendant Board 
rescinding Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, 
and resolutions, policies, directives, plans and 
actions passed, enacted or implemented by defen­
dants or any of them attempting to further the 
purposes of said rescinding motions or to prevent 
the full and complete implementation of Resolu­
tions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 be declared null and 
void and of no force and effect whatsoever as a 
denial of equal protection of the laws guaranteed 
by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution 
of the United States.

3. That defendants be required to implement fully 
and completely the provisions, plans and actions 
outlined in Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 
beginning in September, 1969, and further that 
defendants be forever enjoined from acting to 
nullify, modify, delay, or deny to plaintiffs or 
others similarly situated the equal educational 
opportunity guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States.

4. That the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, ad­
judge and decree that:

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



25a

(a) The actions of defendant Board in rescinding 
Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, have 
denied to the minor plaintiffs who are Negro 
or Hispano and other persons similarly situ­
ated, educational opportunities, advantages 
and facilities equal to those afforded and 
available to Anglo children in schools un­
affected by such recision, and that said actions 
are unconstitutional and void, as depriving 
said plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws 
in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States;

(b) The actions of defendant Board in rescinding 
Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, have 
denied to the minor plaintiffs who are Anglo, 
and other persons similarly situated, the ad­
vantages, educational benefits, intellectual 
stimulation and practical preparation for a 
multiracial world afforded and available to 
those Anglo children attending racially bal­
anced and integrated schools within the school 
District, and that such actions are unconstitu­
tional and void, as depriving said plaintiffs of 
equal protection of the laws in contravention 
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu­
tion of the United States.

B. That plaintiffs recover their costs, and for such other 
and further relief as may to the Court appear proper.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



26a

IV. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

F irst Count
A. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference each and 

every allegation of the First Cause of Action herein.

B. By the following described acts, among others, defen­
dants and/or their predecessors have over the years and 
are at present deliberately and purposefully attempting to 
create, foster and maintain racial and ethnic segregation 
within the School District:

(1) With full knowledge of the existence of racially 
and ethnically segregated residential patterns, and 
with full knowledge that the superimposition 
thereupon of a so-called “neighborhood school” 
policy would result in significant racial and ethnic 
segregation in the School District reflective of said 
segregated residential patterns, said defendants 
adopted and continue to maintain such a neighbor­
hood school policy with the intent, purpose and 
effect of creating, fostering and maintaining ra­
cially and ethnically segregated schools.

(2) Over a period of years and on repeated occasions 
said defendants have created, altered and enforced 
certain school attendance area boundaries with the 
purpose, intent and effect of creating, fostering 
and maintaining racial and ethnic segregation with­
in the School District.

(3) With the purpose, intent and effect of creating, 
fostering and maintaining racial and ethnic segre­

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



27a

gation of the Denver public schools, said defen­
dants during certain years have allowed certain 
Anglo children optional transfer outside of estab­
lished school attendance areas, in contravention of 
said defendants’ existing published policies and 
resolutions, with no apparent purpose other than 
that of encouraging, promoting and continuing the 
segregation of the Anglo students from Negro 
and/or Hispano students.

(4) With the purpose, intent and effect of creating, 
fostering and maintaining racial and ethnic segre­
gation in the School District, said defendants have 
assigned Negro and Hispano faculty and staff to 
those schools having predominantly Negro and 
Hispano pupil populations, thereby furthering, 
confirming and solidifying the racially and 
ethnically segregated character of those schools.

(5) As certain schools within the School District have 
undergone transition to gradually increasing pro­
portions of Negro and/or Hispano pupil popula­
tions, said defendants have created optional atten­
dance areas which were consciously and inten­
tionally designed to promote and allow transfer of 
Anglo pupils to predominantly Anglo schools and 
thereby to retain and confine Negro and/or His­
pano pupils to schools of predominantly Negro 
and/or Hispano pupil populations.

0. These various actions of said defendants have effected 
in the School District a significant segregation of pupils by 
race and ethnicity, as evidenced by the following facts:

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



28a

(1) In September, 1968, of the 63,385 Anglo students 
in the public schools in the School District, 37,539, 
or 59%, were in 43 schools the pupil population of 
which were over 85% Anglo.

(2) In September, 1968, of the 13,639 Negro students 
in the public schools in the School District, 8,451, 
or 62%, were in 15 schools the pupil populations 
of which were over 85% Negro and/or Hispano.

(3) In September, 1968, of the 18,611 Hispano students 
in the public schools in the School District, 9,360 
Hispanos, or 50.2%, were in 35 schools the pupil 
populations of which were over 50% Negro and/or 
Hispano.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

Second Count
A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and 

every allegation contained in their First Cause of Action 
and subparagraphs C(l), C(2), and C(3) of the First Count 
of this Second Cause of Action in so far as those subpara­
graphs allege the existence in the School District of actual 
segregation on the basis of race and ethnicity.

B. By the following described acts, among others, de­
fendants or their predecessors have allocated to those 
schools in the School District whose populations are pre­
dominantly Negro and/or Hispano resources substantially 
inferior to those allocated to schools with predominantly 
Anglo pupil populations:

(1) Defendants and/or their predecessors have pro­
vided predominantly Negro and Hispano schools



29a

with physical plants, equipment, materials, sup­
plies and curricula inferior to that provided to 
schools with predominantly Anglo student pupil 
populations.

(2) Defendants and/or their predecessors have allo­
cated and assigned a disproportionately large num­
ber of less-experienced faculty to those schools in 
the School District with predominantly Negro or 
Hispa.no pupil populations, while at the same time 
allocating and assigning a disproportionately large 
number of more-experienced faculty to schools 
with predominantly Anglo pupil populations.

C. By providing those schools having predominantly 
Negro and Hispano student populations with resources 
inferior to those allocated to predominantly Anglo schools, 
defendants and/or their predecessors have in the past and 
are at present denying students attending those schools, in­
cluding plaintiff Sarah 8. Weiner and those similarly situ­
ated the equal protection of the laws by providing them 
with an educational opportunity unequal to that provided 
by other schools in the School District.

Third Count
A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and 

every allegation contained in their First Cause of Action, 
except in so far as they may be construed to allege an intent 
on the part of defendants and/or their predecessors to seg­
regate the School District’s pupil population on the basis 
of race and ethnicity.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



30a

B. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and 
every allegation contained in subparagraphs C(l), C(2) and 
C(3) of the First Count of this Second Cause of Action, in 
so far as those subparagraphs allege the existence in the 
School District of actual segregation on the basis of race 
and ethnicity.

C. Defendants and/or their predecessors have adopted 
and continue to maintain a “neighborhood school” policy 
which effects the assignment of students to schools accord­
ing to a geographic limitation, and results in the racial and 
ethnic segregation of students as is shown by the facts in­
corporated in paragraph B above.

D. By the creation and maintenance of a school system 
segregated on the basis of race and ethnicity, defendants 
and/or their predecessors have and will continue to deny an 
equal educational opportunity to those students assigned to 
schools which are predominantly Negro and/or Hispano, 
and to deny equal protection of the laws to such students 
and to plaintiffs and other members of the classes which 
they represent.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

Foubth Count
A. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference each and 

every allegation of their First Cause of Action.

B. Defendants and/or their predecessors originated and 
defendants continue to administer throughout the School 
District various systems of pupil ability grouping referred 
to hereinafter as the “track systems”.



31a

€. Under these systems students are purportedly classi­
fied according to ability to learn and then assigned either 
to a regular or accelerated educational program and cur­
riculum.

D. The effect of the application and administration of 
these track systems has been the segregation and separation 
of students on the basis of race and ethnicity and the denial 
to the minor Negro and Hispano plaintiffs, and those simi­
larly situated, an educational opportunity equal to that 
offered Anglo students of comparable ability and qualifica­
tions.

PRAYER FOR SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

A. Wherefore, plaintiffs, in behalf of themselves and 
in behalf of those persons similarly situated, pray as 
follows: 1

1. Under the First Count of this Second Cause of 
Action,

(a) That defendants, and each of them, be perma­
nently enjoined and restrained from directly or 
indirectly continuing, maintainig, requiring, pro­
moting or encouraging, through their rules, regu­
lations, resolutions, policies, directives, customs, 
practices and usages, the segregation and separa­
tion by race and ethnicity of the pupils of the 
schools within the School District.

(b) That defendants be required to submit to this 
Court, within a time which is both reasonable 
and certain, and which would allow sufficient

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



32a

time for implementation of such program for the 
beginning of the school year commencing on or 
about September 1, 1970, a comprehensive plan 
for the School District as a whole, and for each 
school therein where such condition exists, which 
will effectively:

(i) Remove the segregation and separation of 
school children by race and ethnicity within 
and among such schools;

(ii) Afford and ensure to every school child, 
regardless of race or ethnicity, and regardless 
of the school which such child attends, an 
equal educational opportunity;

(c) That defendants, and each of them, be perma­
nently enjoined and restrained:
(i) From any further creation, alteration or 

enforcement of any boundaries for any school 
attendance area that is intended to or does 
in fact discriminate on the basis of race or 
ethnicity as between school children within 
the District.

(ii) From any further creation or enforcement 
of optional areas or zones or permissive pol­
icies which are intended to or do in fact dis­
criminate on the basis of race or ethnicity as 
between school children within the District as 
to the right of optional transfer outside of 
established school attendance areas;

(iii) From any further utilization or adoption of 
policies regarding the assignment of faculty

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



33a

or staff which are intended to or do in fact 
assign faculty and staff to schools on the 
basis of race or ethnicity, thereby furthering 
and solidifying the racial and ethnic char­
acter of such schools.

(d) That the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 
adjudge and decree that the actions of defendants 
in purposefully and knowingly creating and main­
taining the segregation and separation by race 
and ethnicity of the school children within the 
District are unconstitutional and void, as depriv­
ing plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, of 
equal protection of the laws in contravention of 
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States.

2. Under the Second Count of this Second Cause of 
Action,

(a) That defendants and each of them be permanently 
enjoined and restrained from directly or indi­
rectly continuing, maintaining, requiring, pro­
moting or encouraging through their rules, regu­
lations, resolutions, policies, directives, customs, 
practices and usages the unequal allocation of 
resources which is intended to or does in fact 
discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity as 
between school children within the District.

(b) That defendants be required to submit to this 
Court, within a time which is both reasonable 
and certain, and which would allow sufficient time

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



34a

for implementation of such plan by the beginning 
of the school year commencing in September, 
1970, a comprehensive plan for the School District 
as a whole, and for each school therein where 
such conditions exist, which will effectively:
(i) Remove any existing disparity in the re­

sources allocated to such schools; and
(ii) Afford and ensure to every school child, 

regardless of race or ethnicity, and regard­
less of the school which such child attends, 
an equal opportunity to attend schools which 
from the standpoint of facilities, faculty and 
staff, are in fact equal or as nearly so as is 
practical and feasible under the circum­
stances.

(c) That defendants and each of them be permanently 
enjoined and restrained:

(i) From adopting or continuing any policy 
which is intended to or in fact does result 
in an unequal allocation of such resources 
as physical plant equipment, materials, sup­
plies and curricula among and between 
schools on the basis of race or ethnicity, or 
which discriminates on the basis of race or 
ethnicity as between school children within 
the District.

(ii) From any further policy regarding the assign­
ment of faculty or staff which is intended 
to or does in fact assign less-experienced or

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



35a

less-qualified faculty or staff to schools which 
are predominately Negro and/or Hispano in 
their racial and ethnic composition.

(d) That the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 
adjudge and decree that the actions of the de­
fendants in allocating resources among and be­
tween schools within the District with the effect 
of allocating inferior resources to those schools 
which are predominately Negro and/or Hispano 
in their racial or ethnic composition, are uncon­
stitutional and void as depriving plaintiffs and 
those persons similarly situated of equal protec­
tion of the laws in contravention of the Four­
teenth Amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States.

3. Under the Third Count of this Second Cause of 
Action,

(a) That defendants, and each of them, be perma­
nently enjoined and restrained from directly or 
indirectly continuing, maintaining, requiring, pro­
moting or encouraging, through their rules, regu­
lations, resolutions, policies, directives, customs, 
practices and usages, the segregation and separa­
tion by race and ethnicity of the pupils of the 
schools within the School District.

(b) That defendants be required to submit to this 
Court, within a time which is both reasonable 
and certain, and which would allow sufficient time 
for implementation of such program for the begin­

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



36a

ning of the school year commencing on or about 
September 1, 1970, a comprehensive plan for the 
School District as a whole, and for each school 
therein where such condition exists, which will 
effectively:
(i) Remove the segregation and separation of 

school children by race and ethnicity within 
and among such schools;

(ii) Afford and ensure to every school child, 
regardless of race or ethnicity, and regardless 
of the school which such child attends, an 
equal educational opportunity;

(c) That defendants, and each of them, be permanently 
enjoined and restrained from any further creation, 
alteration or enforcement of any boundaries for 
any school attendance area that is intended to or 
does in fact discriminate on the basis of race or 
ethnicity as between school children within the 
District.

(d) That the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 
adjudge and decree that the actions of defendants 
which resulted in the actual segregation and sep­
aration by race and ethnicity of the school children 
within the District are unconstitutional and void, 
as depriving said plaintiffs, and those similarly 
situated, of equal protection of the laws in contra­
vention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con­
stitution of the United States.

4. In the alternative, under the Third Count of this 
Second Cause of Action, that defendants be required to

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



37a

submit to this Court, within a time which is both reasonable 
and certain, and which would allow sufficient time for im­
plementation by the beginning of the school year commenc­
ing in September, 1970, a comprehensive plan for the School 
District as a whole, and for each school therein where such 
condition exists, which will effectively:

(a) Mitigate, to the greatest extent possible and feasi­
ble under the circumstances, the segregation and 
separation of school children by race and ethnicity 
within and among said schools;

(b) Minimize, to the greatest extent possible and feasi­
ble under the circumstances, the adverse effects 
upon equal educational opportunity caused by the 
segregation which remains.

5. Under the Fourth Count of this Second Cause of 
Action,

(a) That defendants, and each of them, be permanently 
enjoined and restrained from directly or indirectly 
continuing, maintaining or applying the existing 
track system or any other ability grouping, test or 
device which is either intended to or does in fact 
discriminate between pupils on the basis of race 
or ethnicity or which is either intended to or does 
in fact accord Negro and Hispano students an edu­
cational opportunity unequal to that accorded 
Anglo students of comparable abilities and qualifi­
cations.

(b) That the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 
adjudge and decree that the actions of defendants 
in creating, applying and administering the exist-

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



38a

mg “track systems” which both in fact discrimi­
nates against Negro and Hispano students and 
denies said students an educational opportunity 
equal to that accorded Anglo students of compar­
able abilities and qualifications are unconstitutional 
and void, as depriving plaintiffs, and those simi­
larly situated, of equal protection of the laws in 
contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States.

B. That plaintiffs recover their costs and for such other 
and further relief as may to the Court appear proper.

B arnes & Jensen
By /s/ Craig S. Barnes 

Craig S. Barnes
2430 South University Blvd., 
Denver, Colorado 80210 
Tel.: 744-6455

/s/ Gordon G. Greiner 
Gordon G. Greiner

500 Equitable Building, 
Denver, Colorado 80202 
Tel.: 292-9200

Jack Greenberg,
James M. N abrit, III,
Conrad K. H arper,

10 Columbus Circle,
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



39a

Address of Plaintiffs:

Wilfred Keyes 
2651 Ivanlioe St.,
Denver, Colorado

Christine A. Colley 
3052 Krameria St.,
Denver, Colorado

Irma J. Jennings 
e/o Craig S. Barnes 
2430 S. University Blvd.,
Denver, Colorado

Roberta R. Wade 
2719 Cook St.,
Denver, Colorado

Edward J. Starks, Jr.
2322 Monaco Parkway,
Denver, Colorado

Josephine Perez 
1154 Kalamath St.,
Denver, Colorado

Maxine N. Becker 
1356 Sonth Elm St.,
Denver, Colorado

Eugene R. Weiner 
1484 South Eudora St.,
Denver, Colorado.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment



40a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

Of Counsel:
Susan G-. Barnes, Esq.,
7000 West 14th. Avenue,
Denver, Colorado 80215

Robert T. Connery, Esq.,
500 Equitable Building,
Denver, Colorado 80202

Harold A. Haddon, Esq.,
American National Bank Building, 
Denver, Colorado 80202

William H. Lewis, Esq.,
1839 York Street 
Denver, Colorado 80206

Robert Bruce Miller, Esq.,
3216 Arapahoe Avenue,
Boulder, Colorado 80302

Grail E. Oppenneer, Esq.,
Western Federal Savings Building, 
Denver, Colorado 80202

James W. Schroeder, Esq.,
1700 Broadway,
Denver, Colorado 80202

Lawrence W. Treeee, Esq.,
500 Equitable Building,
Denver, Colorado 80202



41a

Richard E. Young, Esq.,
1700 Broadway,
Denver, Colorado 80202

State of Colorado,
City and County of D enver, s s .

E ugene R. W einer, being duly sworn, deposes and says 
that he is one of the plaintiffs in the within action; that he 
has read the foregoing Complaint and knows the contents 
thereof; that the same is true to his own knowledge, except 
as to matters therein stated to be alleged on information and 
belief, and that as to those, he believes them to be true.

/ s /  E ugene R. W einer

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of June, 
1969.

Witness my hand and official seal.

/ s /  M argaret P. A pperson 
Notary Public 

My commission expires: 
May 22, 1972

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

(Seal)



42a

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint 
(R esolution 1520)

Approved by the Board of Education 
on January 30, 1969

W hereas, pursuant to the Resolution of this Board of 
Education passed on May 16, 1968, and numbered 1490, 
in response to the subsequent specific direction of this 
Board of Education, and in accordance with Article VIII, 
Section 2 of the By Laws of this Board, the Superintendent 
of this School District has proposed certain changes in 
the boundaries of the attendance areas of certain secondary 
schools of this School District, which changes are one of 
the steps designed to improve educational opportunity 
in the public schools of this District by revising and there­
after stabilizing the racial and ethnic composition of pupil 
memberships in such schools;

W hereas, this Board of Education did receive said 
proposals of the Superintendent for study and action and 
did order that the citizens of this School District be given 
an opportunity to express their views on said proposals 
at a public hearing; and

W hereas, this Board of Education, having heard the 
views of the citizens of this School District on the pro­
posed changes in attendance areas and boundaries; having 
considered traffic patterns, distances, housing patterns, 
school building capacities, optimum pupil memberships for 
the schools concerned, pupil achievement data, the need 
for providing transportation to pupils and the cost thereof,

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3



43a

and current policies of the Board of Education regarding 
the provision of transportation for pupils; and having 
otherwise informed itself on the questions presented by 
the said proposals, Finds that, because of the housing 
patterns in the City and County of Denver, East High 
School and Smiley Junior High School contain growing 
numbers of pupils of racial and ethnic minorities; that a 
reduction of such numbers is desirable as one of the steps 
to improve educational opportunity in such schools; and 
that the changes in the attendance areas as proposed by 
the superintendent are consistent with the foregoing and 
as hereinafter set forth herein, will reasonably accomplish 
such reduction and thereafter stabilize the racial and 
ethnic composition of pupil memberships in these schools; 
and that such changes are in the public interest.

Now t h e r e f o r e , i t  is r e s o l v e d  by the Board of Educa­
tion of School District No. 1 in the City and County of 
Denver and State of Colorado that, effective as of the 
opening of school in September of 1969, the boundaries 
of the attendance areas of the following secondary schools 
in this School District be, and they are hereby, changed 
as follows:

1. The following described area shall be detached from 
the E ast H igh School attendance area and shall 
become a part of the South H igh School attendance 
area.
Beginning at the intersection of the Union Pacific 
Railroad tracks and Clayton Street, thence: Easterly 
along the railroad tracks to Colorado Boulevard, 
South on Colorado Boulevard to East 32nd Avenue,

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint



44a

West on East 32nd Avenue to Fillmore Street, 
North of Fillmore Street to East 40th Avenue, West 
on East 40th Avenne to Clayton Street, and North 
on Clayton Street to the point of beginning.

2. The following described area shall he detached from 
the South H igh School, attendance area and shall 
become a part of the E ast H igh School attendance 
area.
Beginning at the intersection of Logan Street and 
the centerline of Cherry Creek, thence: South­
easterly along the centerline of Cherry Creek to 
Alameda Avenue, West along Alameda Avenue to 
South Logan Street, and North on Logan Street to 
the point of beginning.

3. The following described area shall be detached from 
the George W ashington H igh School attendance 
area and shall become a part of the South H igh 
School attendance area.
Beginning at the intersection of South Colorado 
Boulevard and East Arizona Avenue, thence: East 
on Arizona Avenue to South Dahlia Street, South 
on South Dahlia Street to the City Limits, North­
west along the City Limits to the Colorado and 
Southern Railroad tracks, Westerly along the Col­
orado and Southern Railroad tracks to South 
Colorado Boulevard, and North on South Colorado 
Boulevard to the point of beginning.

4. The following described area shall be detached from 
the E ast H igh School attendance area and shall

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint



45a

become a part of the George W ashington H igh 
School attendance area.
Beginning at the intersection of Ivanhoe Street 
extended and Interstate Highway 70, thence: East­
erly on Interstate Highway 70 to Syracuse Street 
extended, South on Syracuse Street extended and 
Syracuse Street to East 32nd Avenue, West on East 
32nd Avenue to Monaco Boulevard, South on 
Monaco Boulevard to Montview Boulevard, West 
on Montview Boulevard to Jasmine Street, South 
on Jasmine Street to East Colfax Avenue, West 
on East Colfax Avenue to Ivanhoe Street, and 
North on Ivanhoe Street to the point of beginning.

5. The following described area shall be detached from 
the George W ashington H igh School attendance 
area and shall become a part of the E ast H igh 
School attendance area.
Beginning at the intersection of East Colfax Avenue 
and Ivanhoe Street, thence: East on East Colfax 
Avenue to Jasmine Street, South on Jasmine Street 
to East 6th Avenue, West on East 6th Avenue to 
Colorado Boulevard, South on Colorado Boulevard 
to East Alameda Avenue, West on East Alameda 
Avenue to the centerline of Cherry Creek, North­
westerly along the centerline of Cherry Creek to 
Steele Street, North on Steele Street to East 7th 
Avenue, East on East 7th Avenue to Colorado 
Boulevard, North on Colorado Boulevard to East 
8th Avenue, East on East 8th Avenue to Grape 
Street, North on Grape Street to East 14th Avenue, 
East on East 14th Avenue to Holly Street, North

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint



46a

on Holly Street to East Colfax Avenue, and East 
on East Colfax Avenue to tlie point of beginning.

6. The following described area shall be detached from 
the H ill, Junior H igh School attendance area and 
shall become a part of the Smiley Junior H igh 
School attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East Colfax Avenue 
and Kearney Street, thence: East on East Colfax 
Avenue to Yosemite Street, South on Yosemite 
Street and Yosemite Street extended to East 1st 
Avenue extended, West on East 1st Avenue ex­
tended and East 1st Avenue to the west boundary 
the United States Air Force Reservation, North 
on the west boundary of the United States Air 
Force Reservation to the north boundary of the 
United States Air Force Reservation, East on the 
north boundary of the United States Air Force 
Reservation to Quebec Street, North on Quebec 
Street to East 6th Avenue, West on East 6th Avenue 
to Kearney Street, and North on Kearney Street 
to the point of beginning.

7. The area known as Montbello which was annexed to 
the City and County of Denver by Ordinance No. 
262, Series of 1965, of the Ordinances of the City 
and County of Denver and State of Colorado, shall 
remain in the E ast H igh School subdistrict and in 
the Smiley Junior H igh School subdistrict.
Unless otherwise specified, references to city streets 
and avenues as boundaries shall be taken as refer­
ring to the centerlines of such streets and avenues.

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint



47a

I t i s  f u r t h e r  r e s o l v e d  that, consistent with the fore­
going, the Superintendent is hereby directed to make the 
following recommendations by March 10, 1969, for con­
sideration and action by this Board at its regular March 
meeting:

1. To recommend further changes in the boundaries 
of the Smiley Junior High School attendance area which 
will detach therefrom attendance areas sufficient in size 
to include approximately 850 pupils who would otherwise 
attend Smiley Junior High School and designate such 
detached areas as attendance areas for other junior high 
schools within this School District, all effective with the 
beginning of school in September, 1969.

2. To recommend whether or not each area so detached 
from the Smiley Junior High School attendance area shall 
continue as part of its present senior high school atten­
dance area or he designated as part of the attendance 
area for another senior high school within this School 
District.

3. To make such other recommendations as he shall 
deem necessary or desirable in order to carry out the 
intent of this resolution.

I t i s  f u r t h e r  r e s o l v e d  that the present policies of this 
School District regarding provision of transportation for 
secondary school pupils to and from school remain in full 
force and effect, except, that from and after September, 
1969, those senior high school pupils residing in the area 
bounded by Clayton Street, the Union Pacific Railroad 
tracks, Colorado Boulevard and East 32nd Avenue and 
herein assigned to South High School effective September,

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint



48a

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

1969, shall he provided with transportation to and from 
South High School without charge to them.

I t i s  f u r t h e r  r e s o l v e d  that those pupils entering their 
senior year of high school in September of 1969, and who 
reside in the senior high school attendance areas changed 
by this resolution shall have the option of attending the 
senior high school of the attendance area in which they 
continue to reside or the senior high school which they 
attended at the close of the 1968-1969 school year, which 
option shall be exercised in accordance with procedures 
prescribed by the Superintendent of this School District.



49a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4 

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint
(R e so lu tio n  No. 1 5 2 4 )

Approved by the Board of 
Education March 20, 1969

W hereas, this Board of Education by its Resolution 
Numbered 1520 and passed on January 30, 1969, directed 
the Superintendent of this School District to make certain 
recommendations for consideration and action by this 
Board;
W hereas, in accordance with said Resolution 1520 and 

Article VIII, Section 2, of the By Laws of this Board, the 
Superintendent has recommended changes in the boundaries 
of the attendance areas of Certain of the secondary schools 
of this School District; and
W hereas, this Board of Education has considered the 

recommendations of the Superintendent, finds them in ac­
cord with the purposes and intent of said Resolution No. 
1520, and finds that such changes are in the public interest;

Now Therefore, It Is R esolved by the Board of Educa­
tion of School District No. 1 in the City and County of Den­
ver and State of Colorado that the boundaries of the at­
tendance areas of the following junior high schools in this 
School District be, and they are hereby, changed as herein­
after specifically provided; that on and after the opening 
of school in September of 1969 all 7th, 8th and 9th grade 
pupils from time to time residing in such changed attendance 
areas are hereby assigned to the junior high school of such 
changed attendance areas as follows:

1. The following described area shall be detached from 
Smiley Junior H igh School attendance area and as here­
inabove provided shall become a part of M errill Junior 
H igh School attendance area.



50a

Beginning at the intersection of the Union Pacific 
Railroad tracks and Clayton Street, thence: Easterly 
along the Railroad tracks to Dahlia Street, South on 
Dahlia Street to East 35th Avenue, West on East 35th 
Avenue to Cherry Street; South on Cherry Street to 
East 30th Avenue, West on East 30th Avenue to 
Colorado Boulevard, North on Colorado Boulevard to 
East 32nd Avenue, West on East 32nd Avenue to Fill­
more Street, North on Fillmore Street to East 40th 
Avenue, West on East 40th Avenue to Clayton Street, 
and North on Clayton Street to the point of beginning.

2. The following described area, shall be detached from 
Smiley Junior H igh School attendance area and as here­
inabove provided shall become a part of Grant Junior 
H igh School attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of the Union Pacific Rail­
road tracks and Dahlia Street, thence: Easterly along 
the Railroad tracks to Forest Street, South on Forest 
Street to Thrill Place, West on Thrill Place to Dahlia 
Street, and North on Dahlia Street to the point of 
beginning.

3. The following described area shall be detached from 
Smiley Junior H igh School attendance area and as here­
inabove provided shall become a part of Byers Junior H igh 
School attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 35th Avenue and 
Cherry Street, thence: East on East 35th Avenue to 
Dahlia Street, South on Dahlia Street to Thrill Place, 
East on Thrill Place to Forest Street, South on Forest 
Street to East 28th Avenue, West on 28th Avenue to 
Dexter Street, North on Dexter Street to East 30th

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint



51a

Avenue, West on East 30th. Avenue to Cherry Street, 
and North on Cherry Street to the point of beginning.

4. The following described area shall be detached from 
Smiley Junior H igh School attendance area and as here­
inabove provided shall become a part of K unsmillbr Junior 
H igh School attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of the Union Pacific Rail­
road tracks and Forest Street, thence: Southeasterly 
along the railroad tracks to Ivanhoe Street extended, 
South on Ivanhoe Street extended and Ivanhoe Street 
to East 29th Avenue, West on East 29th Avenue to 
Forest Street, and North on Forest Street to the point 
of beginning.

5. The following described area shall be detached from 
Smiley Junior H igh School attendance area and as here­
inabove provided shall become a part of H ill Junior H igh 
School attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of Interstate Highway 70 
and Ivanhoe Street extended, thence: East along Inter­
state Highway 70 to Locust Street extended, South on 
Locust Street extended and Locust Street to East 29th 
Avenue, West on East 29th Avenue to Ivanhoe Street, 
and North on Ivanhoe Street and Ivanhoe Street ex­
tended to the point of beginning.

6. The following described area shall be detached from 
Smiley Junior H igh School attendance area and as herein­
above provided shall become a part of H amilton Junior 
H igh School for 7th and 8th grade pupils and Thomas 
Jefferson Junior-Senior H igh School for 9th grade pupils 
residing therein from time to time.

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint



52a

Beginning at the intersection of Interstate Highway 70 
and Locust Street extended, thence: Easterly along 
Interstate Hig*hway 70 to Syracuse Street extended, 
South along Syracuse Street extended and Syracuse 
Street to East 26th Avenue, West along East 26th Ave­
nue to Locust Street, and North on Locust Street and 
Locust Street extended to the point of beginning.

7. The following described area shall be detached from 
Cole Junior H igh School attendance area and shall be­
come a part of Smiley J unior H igh School attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 54th Avenue and 
the Burlington Bailroad tracks, thence: East on East 
54th Avenue to Colorado Boulevard, South on Colorado 
Boulevard to Vasquez Boulevard, Southwest on Vas- 
quez Boulevard to East 46th Avenue, West on East 
46th Avenue to the Burlington Bailroad tracks, and 
Northeast along the Burlington Bailroad tracks to the 
point of beginning.

8. The following described area shall be detached from 
H ell Junior H igh School attendance area and shall become 
a part of the attendance areas of H amilton Junior H igh 
School and Thomas Jeeeerson Junior-Senior H igh School 
effective as of the opening of school in September of 1969, 
and thereafter all 7th and 8th grade pupils from time to 
time residing therein shall attend H amilton Junior H igh 
School: all 9th grade pupils from time to time residing 
therein shall attend Thomas Jefferson Junior-Senior H igh 
School.

Beginning at the intersection of East Kentucky Avenue 
and the centerline of Cherry Creek, thence: Easterly 
along East Kentucky Avenue and East Kentucky Ave-

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint



53a

irue extended to the east side of South Dayton Street, 
North on South Dayton Street to East Alameda Avenue, 
Northeasterly on East Alameda Avenue to South 
Havana Street, South on South Havana Street to the 
Highline Canal, Southeasterly along the Highline 
Canal to South Fulton Street, South along South Ful­
ton Street to the boundary line of the City and County 
of Denver as it now exists, East along said boundary 
line to South Geneva Street, North along South Geneva 
Street to the said boundary line of the City and County 
of Denver, East along said boundary line to South 
Havana Street, South on South Havana Street to East 
Mississippi Avenue, West on East Mississippi Avenue 
(not including the Cunningham School Site) to the 
Parker Hoad, Westerly along the said boundary line of 
the City and County of Denver to South Quebec Street, 
South on South Quebec Street to South Quebec Way, 
Southeasterly on South Quebec Way to East Louisiana 
Avenue, West on East Louisiana Avenue to South 
Quebec Street, South on South Quebec Street to East 
Florida Avenue, West on East Florida Avenue to the 
centerline of Cherry Creek, and Northwest along the 
centerline of Cherry Creek to the point of beginning.

9. The following described area shall be detached from 
M errtt.t, Junior H igh School attendance area and shall 
become a part of the attendance areas of H amilton Junior 
H igh School and Thomas Jefferson Junior-Senior H igh 
School effective as of the opening of school in September 
1969, and thereafter all 7th and 8th grade pupils residing 
therein shall attend H amilton Junior H igh School; all 9th 
grade pupils residing therein shall attend Thomas Jeffer­
son Junior-Senior H igh School.

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint



54a

Beginning at the intersection of East Florida Avenue 
and South Monaco Boulevard, thence: East along East 
Florida Avenue to South Quebec Street, South on South 
Quebec Street along the City Limits to East Yale Ave­
nue, West on East Yale Avenue to South Kearney 
Street, North on South Kearney Street to the center- 
line of the Highline Canal, Northwesterly along the 
centerline of the Highline Canal to the intersection of 
East Ilitf Avenue and South Ivanhoe Street extended, 
North along South Ivanhoe Street extended and Ivan­
hoe Street to East Evans Avenue, East along East 
Evans Avenue to South Kearney Street extended, 
North along South Kearney Street extended and South 
Kearney Way to East Jewell Avenue, East along East 
Jewell Avenue to South Leyden Street, North along 
South Leyden Street to East Mexico Avenue, East 
along East Mexico Avenue to South Monaco Boulevard, 
and North along South Monaco Boulevard to the point 
of beginning.

I t I s Further Resolved that, the attendance area of 
H amilton- Junior H igh School for all 7th and 8th grade 
pupils shall be the attendance area of Thomas Jeeferson 
Junior-Senior H igh School as of September 1968, and 
those attendance areas described in the foregoing Sections 
Numbered 6, 8, and 9.

I t I s F urther R esolved that the attendance area of 
Thomas Jefferson Junior-Senior H igh School for all 9th 
grade pupils shall consist of the attendance area of the 
Thomas Jefferson Junior-Senior H igh School as of Sep­
tember 1968, and those attendance areas described in the 
foregoing Sections Numbered 6, 8, and 9.

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint



CITY tIMITS g



55a



56a

I t I s Further R esolved that, on and after the opening 
of school in September 1969 the boundaries of the atten­
dance areas for the following junior high schools in this 
School District be, and they are hereby, changed as follows:

A. The following described area shall be detached from 
Cole Junior H igh School attendance area and shall become 
a part of B yers Junior H igh School attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 35th Avenue and 
York Street, thence: South on York Street to East 33rd 
Avenue, West on East 33rd Avenue to the alley between 
High Street and Williams Street, North along the alley 
between High Street and Williams Street to East 35th 
Avenue, and East along East 35th Avenue to the point 
of beginning.

B. The following described area shall be detached from 
Cole Junior H igh School attendance area and shall be­
come a part of K unsmiller Junior H igh School attendance 
area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 34th Avenue and 
York Street, thence: East along East 34th Avenue to 
Elizabeth Street, South on Elizabeth Street to East 
28th Avenue, East on East 28th Avenue to Steele 
Street, South on Steele Street to East 26th Avenue, 
West on East 26th Avenue to York Street, and North 
on York Street to the point of beginning.

C. The following described area shall be detached from 
Cole Junior H igh School attendance area and shall be­
come a part of R ishel Junior H igh School attendance

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

area.



57a

Beginning at the intersection of East 34th Avenue and 
Elizabeth Street, thence: East on East 34th Avenue to 
Fillmore Street, South on Fillmore Street to East 32nd 
Avenue, East on East 32nd Avenue to Steele Street, 
South on Steele Street to East 31st Avenue, West on 
East 31st Avenue to Elizabeth Street, and North on 
Elizabeth Street to the point of beginning.

D. The following described area shall be detached from 
Cole Junior H igh School attendance area and shall become 
a part of K epner Junior H igh School attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 31st Avenue and 
Elizabeth Street, thence: East on East 31st Avenue to 
Steele Street South on Steele Street to East 28th Ave­
nue West on East 28th Avenue to Elizabeth Street, and 
North on Elizabeth Street to the point of beginning.

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint



58a

(See Opposite) HŜ



;>
 c

i



59a



60a

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint 
(R esolution No. 1531)

W h e r e a s , pursuant to the Resolution of this Board of 
Education passed on May 16, 1969, and numbered 1490, in 
response to the subsequent specific direction of this Board 
of Education, and in accordance with Article VIII, Section 
2 of the By Laws of this Board, the Superintendent of this 
School District has made a proposal for stabilization of 
memberships of elementary schools in Northeast Denver 
and for further integration of the Denver Public Schools 
which proposal suggests, among other things, certain 
changes in the boundaries of the attendance areas of cer­
tain elementary schools of this School District as one of 
the steps designed to improve educational opportunity in 
the public schools of this District;

W h e r e a s , this Board of Education did receive said pro­
posal of the Superintendent for study and action and did 
order that the citizens of this School District be given an 
opportunity to express their views on said proposal at pub­
lic hearings set for that purpose; and

W h e r e a s , this Board of Education, having heard the 
views of the citizens of this School District on the said pro­
posal of the Superintendent; having considered racial and 
ethnic composition of pupil memberships in the elementary 
schools of this District, traffic patterns, distances, housing 
patterns, school building capacities, optimum pupil mem­
berships for the schools concerned, pupil achievement data, 
potential quality of the instructional program, the need for 
providing transportation to pupils and the cost thereof; 
availability of time and staff to develop programs, com­
municate with parents and children, and to orient the per­
sonnel involved; and having otherwise informed itself on

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5



61a

the questions presented by the said proposal, F inds that, 
because of the housing patterns in the City and County of 
Denver, certain elementary schools in Northeast Denver 
contain growing numbers of pupils of racial and ethnic 
minorities; that a reduction of such numbers is desirable 
as one of the steps to improve educational opportunity in 
such schools; and that the proposal of the Superintendent 
is consistent with the foregoing and, as hereinafter set 
forth, will reasonably accomplish such reduction and there­
after stabilize the racial and ethnic composition of pupil 
memberships in these schools and further the integration 
of the Denver Public Schools; and that the adoption of the 
said proposal is in the public interest;

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

Now T h e r e f o r e , I t I s R e s o l v e d  by the Board of Educa­
tion of School District No. 1 in the City and County of 
Denver and State of Colorado that the Superintendent is 
directed to develop plans in accordance with the concept of 
the Elementary School Complex as generally outlined in 
his report heretofore received by this Board of Education 
and entitled “Planning Quality Education,” and to initiate 
implementation of such plans commencing with the opening 
of school in September of 1969, for the following two group­
ings of elementary schools of this District to be known as 
Complex 1 and Complex 2 respectively:

Complex 1 Complex 2
Ashley
Carson
Hallett
Montclair
Montclair Annex
Palmer

Ashland
Barnum
Boulevard
Brown
Cheltenham
Colfax



62a

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

Complex 1

Philips
Steck
Teller

Park Hill

Complex 2
Cowell
Eagleton
Edison
Fairview

Whiteman Newlon
Perry

I t I s Further R esolved that, effective as of the opening 
of school in September 1969, the boundaries of the atten­
dance areas of the following elementary schools in this 
School District be, and they are hereby, changed as follows: 

The following described area shall be detached from 
the M ontclair E lementary School area and shall become 
a part of the Philips E lementary School area:

Beginning at the intersection of East 16th Avenue and 
Kearney Street, thence; East along East 16th Avenue 
to Monaco Parkway, North on Monaco Parkway to 
Batavia Place, East on Batavia Place to Oneida Street, 
South on Oneida Street to East Colfax Avenue, West 
on East Colfax Avenue to Kearney Street, and North 
on Kearney Street to the point of beginning.

The following described area shall be detached from 
the Philips E lementary School area and shall become a 
part of the A shley E lementary School area:

Beginning at the intersection of East 29th Avenue 
and Oneida Street, thence; East on East 29th Avenue 
to the alley between Olive and Pontiac Streets, South 
along the alley between Olive and Pontiac Streets to 
East 26th Avenue, West along East 26th Avenue to 
Oneida Street, and North along Oneida Street to the 
point of beginning.



63a

The following described area shall be detached from the 
Philips E lementary School attendance area and shall 
become a part of the Palmer E lementary School atten­
dance area:

Beginning at the intersection of East 26th Avenue 
and Kearney Street, thence; East along East 26th 
Avenue to Niagara Street, South on Niagara Street to 
East 23rd Avenue, West on East 23rd Avenue to 
Leyden Street, North on Leyden Street to East 25th 
Avenue, West on East 25th Avenue to Kearney Street, 
and North on Kearney Street to the point, of beginning.

The following described area shall be detached from the 
Park H ill E lementary School area and shall become a 
part of the Steck E lementary School area:

Beginning at the intersection of East 26th Avenue 
and Clermont Street, thence; East on East 26th Av­
enue to Dexter Street, South on Dexter Street to East 
25th Avenue, West on East 25th Avenue to Clermont 
Street, and North on Clermont Street to the point of 
beginning.

The following described area shall be detached from the 
Park H ill E lementary School area and shall become a 
part of the Steele E lementary School area:

Beginning at the intersection of East 26th Avenue and 
Colorado Boulevard, thence; East on East 26th Av­
enue to Clermont Street, South on Clermont Street 
to East 25th Avenue, West on East 25th Avenue to 
Colorado Boulevard, and North on Colorado Boulevard 
to the point of beginning.

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint



64a

The following described area shall be detached from the 
Palmer E lementary School attendance area and shall be­
come a part of the P hillips E lementary School atten­
dance area:

Beginning at the intersection of East Louisiana Avenue 
and South Oneida Street, thence; East on East Lou­
isiana Avenue to South Quebec Street, South on South 
Quebec Street to East Florida Avenue, West on East 
Florida Avenue to South Oneida Street, and North on 
South Oneida Street to the point of beginning.

The following described area shall be detached from the 
W hiteman, M oore, M ontclair, and M ontclair A nnex E le­
mentary Schools attendance areas and shall become a part 
of the Barrett E lementary School attendance area.

All of Lowry Air Force Base, east of Quebec Street, 
within the limits of the City and County of Denver.

The following described area shall be detached from the 
B arrett E lementary School attendance area and shall 
become a part of the M ontclair E lementary School at­
tendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 32nd Avenue 
and Steele Street, thence; East along East 32nd Av­
enue to Jackson Street, South on Jackson Street to 
East 31st Avenue, West on East 31st Avenue to Gar­
field Street, South on Garfield Street to East 30th 
Avenue, West on East 30th Avenue to Monroe Street, 
South on Monroe Street to East 29th Avenue, East on 
East 29th Avenue to Garfield Street, South on Garfield 
Street to East 28th Avenue, West on East 28th Avenue 
to Cook Street, North on Cook Street to East 29th

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint



65a

Avenue, "West on East 29th Avenue to Steele Street, 
and North on Steele Street to the point of beginning.

The following described area shall he detached from the 
B arrett E lementary School attendance area and shall be­
come a part of the W hiteman E lementary School at­
tendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 34th Avenue and 
Steele Street, thence; East on East 34th Avenue to 
Monroe Street, South on Monroe Street to East 32nd 
Avenue, West on East 32nd Avenue to Steele Street, 
and North on Steele Street to the point of beginning.

The following described area shall he detached from the 
B arrett Elementary School attendance area and shall be­
come a part of the M oore E lementary School attendance 
area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 36th Avenue 
and Jackson Street, thence; East on East 36th Avenue 
to Colorado Boulevard, South on Colorado Boulevard 
to the north boundary of the Clayton College property, 
West on the north boundary of the Clayton College 
property to Jackson Street, and North on Jackson 
Street to the point of beginning.

The following described area shall he detached from the 
Barrett E lementary School attendance area and shall 
become a part of the Carson E lementary School atten­
dance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 29th Avenue 
and Steele Street, thence; East on East 29th Avenue 
to Cook Street, South on Cook Street to East 28th

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint



66a

Avenue, East on East 28th Avenue to Monroe Street, 
South on Monroe Street to East 26th Avenue, West on 
East 26th Avenue to Steele Street, and North on Steele 
Street to the point of beginning.

The following described area shall be detached from the 
B arrett E lementary School attendance area and shall 
become a part of the A sbtjby E lementary School atten­
dance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 36th Avenue and 
Garfield Street, thence; East on East 36th Avenue to 
Jackson Street, South on Jackson Street to the north 
boundary of the Clayton College property, West on 
the north boundary of the Clayton College property 
to Monroe Street, North on Monroe Street to East 
35th Avenue, East on East 35th Avenue to Garfield 
Street, and North on Garfield Street to the point of 
beginning.

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint



36TH AVf



67a



68a

I t i s  f u r t h e r  r e s o l v e d  that the Superintendent is di­
rected to take steps to establish pre-primary educational 
programs in the schools of the North-Central portion of 
the District in September 1969, as proposed in his said 
report “Planning Quality Education.”

I t i s  f u r t h e r  r e s o l v e d  that the Superintendent is di­
rected to develop and institute plans and programs to make 
Hallett Elementary School a demonstration integrated 
school as of September 1969, by use of voluntary transfer 
of pupils with transportation provided by the District.

I t i s  f u r t h e r  r e s o l v e d  that the Superintendent is di­
rected to continue the present practices of transporting 
pupils from Stedman Elementary School to relieve over­
crowding at that school, and to obtain the reduction of a 
number of pupils attending the Stedman Elementary School 
necessary to permit removal of mobile classroom units 
from that school by providing transportation for such pu­
pils to Denison, Force, and Schenck Elementary Schools.

It is f u r t h e r  r e s o l v e d  that the present practice of trans­
porting pupils from Smith Elementary School to Alcott, 
Asbury, Doull, Force, McKinley, Moore, Slavens, and Steele 
Elementary Schools be continued.

I t i s  f u r t h e r  r e s o l v e d  that, for the purpose of improv­
ing education and furthering of integration the schools 
included in Elementary School Complex 5 as described in 
the report “Planning Quality Education” that such schools 
be grouped for cooperative planning with the elementary 
schools of other elementary school complexes as follow, or 
with such other or different schools as the Superintendent

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint



69a

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

may designate from time to time, utilizing the criteria of 
ratio of school and group memberships, racial composi­
tion of memberships, potential for educational and social 
improvement, and school facilities; that such cooperative 
planning shall be accomplished by the local schools included 
within such groupings through planning committees com­
posed of school staff members, P.T.A. representatives and 
other citizens in the community; that such planning com­
mittees shall be selected and shall operate under rules 
and regulations prescribed by the Superintendent; that 
any cooperative plans so developed shall be mutually agreed 
upon by such committees prior to implementation thereof; 
and that implementation of such cooperative plans may be 
undertaken by the Superintendent within the limitations 
of law and the policies of this Board of Education,

Schools Grouped With
Schools in Complex 5 Complex 5 Sch
Crofton Bradley
Harrington Pitts

Slavens
University Park

W yatt Bromwell
Moore
Stevens

Columbine Godsman
Gilpin Goldrick

Gust
Sabin
Schmitt
Traylor



70a

Schools Grouped With
Schools in  Complex 5 Complex 5 Schools

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

Whittier Asbury 
Lincoln 
Eosedale 
Thatcher 
Washington Park

Mitchell
Stedman

Denison
Donll
Force
Johnson
Schenck

Smith Ash Grove 
Cory
Ellis
Fallis
Knight
McMeen



71a

Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(Filed June 19, 1969)

C ome N ow the Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, and move 
the Court for a preliminary injunction enjoining the de­
fendants, and each and every of the defendant School 
District’s officers, agents, servants, employees and each of 
them, and all other persons in active concert or participa­
tion with them be, preliminarily during the pendency of 
this action and permanently thereafter, restrained and 
enjoined

(a) from in any way interfering with, modifying, can­
celling or rescinding the purchase order for said 
twenty-seven school buses;

(b) from destroying, changing or otherwise modifying 
in any manner whatsoever, or relocating those 
documents, contracts, schedules, or other writings 
and memoranda relating or pertaining to the im­
plementation of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 
1531.

(c) from taking any action or making any communi­
cation to faculty, staff, parents or students during 
the pendency of this action or before permanent 
orders are issued by this Court which would make 
it impossible or substantially more difficult to pro­
ceed with the implementation of Resolutions No. 
1520, 1524, and 1531 at the start of the school year 
in September, 1969, with the exception that de­
fendants shall not otherwise during such time be 
prevented from simultaneously preparing for the 
implementation of alternate or additional plans 
concerning the matters described herein as they 
so desire.



72a

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

As grounds therefor plaintiffs incorporate herein by 
reference the allegations contained in their Complaint and 
further allege that certain of the defendants have been 
directed to and are in fact implementing the recision of 
Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, and the substitute 
Resolutions therefor, and in addition have been directed 
to review the school bus purchase contract; that unless 
plaintiffs are granted preliminary relief, said implemen­
tation and review by the defendants may destroy, alter, 
modify, revoke or otherwise irreparably injure or prevent 
reinstatement and implementation of Resolutions No. 1520, 
1524 and 1531. Plaintiffs will thereby sustain immediate 
and irreparable injury and damage for which they have 
no adequate remedy at law. This motion will be made and 
based upon the pleadings, records and proceeding herein.

Barnes & Jensen 
By /s/ Craig S. Barnes 

Craig S. Barnes 
Denver, Colorado 80210 
2430 South University Blvd., 
Tel.: 744-6455
/s/ Gordon G. Greiner 

Gordon G. Greiner 
500 Equitable Building, 
Denver, Colorado 80202 
Tel: 292-9200
Attorneys For Plaintiffs



73a

Answer of Defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel 
and James D. Vooriiees, Jr.

(Filed July 16, 1969)

Come N ow defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel 
and James D. Voorhees, Jr., individually and as members, 
Board of Education, School District Number One, Denver, 
Colorado, and for answer to plaintiff’s Complaint admit, 
deny and state:

I
Admit the allegations of Article I. Jurisdiction.

II
Admit the allegations of Article II. Parties.

III
For answer to the First Cause of Action:
1. Admit the General Factual allegations of the First 

Cause of Action.

2. Admit the allegations of the First Count.

3. As to the Second Count:
A. Admit the allegations referred to in paragraph A.
B. Answering paragraph B, deny that these answering 

defendant Board members participated in the reeission of 
Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 and state that their 
acts in voting ag*ainst reeission were motivated by the edu­
cational needs of the children of Denver. Further answer­
ing, these answering defendants are not advised as to the 
motivation of those defendant Board members voting to



74a

rescind Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 in so acting 
but that said Board members have stated repeatedly to 
these defendants that they so acted because of a mandate 
from the people of the City of Denver requiring said de­
fendants so to act, and in order to restore the confidence 
of the people of Denver in the Board of Education so that 
a bond issue may be passed.

C. Admit the allegations of paragraph C.

4, As to the Third Count:
A. Admit the allegations referred to in paragraph A and 

the allegations of paragraphs B and C, except that these 
answering defendants allege that the pupil populations of 
East High School, Phillips Elementary School and Park 
Hill Elementary School were not, prior to the passage of 
Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, substantially segre­
gated on the basis of race and ethnicity, but that the pupil 
populations of said schools, without the passage and im­
plementation of said resolutions, would inevitably and pre­
dictably have become segregated on the basis of race and 
ethnicity.

B. Answering paragraph D of the Third Count, these 
answering defendants are not advised as to the motivation 
of those defendant Board members voting in favor of re- 
cission except as reflected in their statements quoted herein 
in answer to paragraph B of the Second Count. Further 
answering, admit that racial and ethnic separation existing 
in the schools affected prior to the passage of Resolutions 
No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 would have been significantly al­
leviated by the implementation of such resolutions.

Answer of Defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James D. Voorhees, Jr.



75a

5. Admit the allegations of the Fourth Count, except that 
these answering defendants deny that they acted as alleged 
in paragraph B.

6. As to the Fifth Count:
A. Admit the allegations referred to in paragraph A and 

the allegations of paragraphs C and D.
B. Answering paragraph B, admit that the pupil popula­

tion of the schools affected by Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 
and 1531 were, or were inevitably becoming, segregated on 
the basis of race and. ethnicity and admit the remaining 
allegations of paragraph B, except that these answering 
defendants deny that assignment of large numbers of 
Negro or Hispano faculty is in and of itself a necessary 
cause of unequal educational opportunity where such teach­
ers are qualified and experienced, unless the presence of 
concentrations of such teachers is viewed by the students 
as a confirmation and reinforcement of the separate and 
segregated racial or ethnic character of such schools.

7. As to the Sixth Count, admit the allegations thereof, 
except that these answering defendants deny that they 
acted as alleged in paragraph D and allege that the pupil 
populations of East High School, Phillips Elementary 
School and Park Hill Elementary School were not, prior 
to the passage of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, 
substantially segregated on the basis of race or ethnicity 
but that the pupil populations of such schools without the 
passage and implementation of said resolutions would in­
evitably and predictably have become segregated on the 
basis of race and ethnicity.

Answer of Defendants John E. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James- D. Voorhees, Jr.



76a

8. For further affirmative answer to the First Cause of 
Action, these answering defendants state:

(A) The increasing urbanization of American society has 
produced educational problems for big city public school 
systems (including Denver) unique to this time and place 
and not subject to solution by traditional educational pat­
terns of staffing, of attendance, of curriculum, and of facil­
ity needs. These inadequacies in urban public education are 
generally not recognized, or if recognized, are not accepted 
by the majority population.

(B) Unmet, these new urban educational problems result 
in inevitable and substantially irreversible educational in­
equality for a large and increasing number of American 
urban children, a high proportion of whom are from racial 
or ethnic minorities and/or are the products of the sub- 
culture of urban poverty. In Denver the fact of such in­
equality is demonstrated by differences between and among 
schools in standard achievement scores, the incidence of 
dropouts, differences as to individual course offerings, the 
quality of teaching and numbers of faculty transfers, school 
discipline, the degree of motivation and achievement in 
students, and other observable factors.

(C) The presence of large numbers of children affected 
by educational and learning disabilities caused by race, 
ethnicity and/or poverty in any school reduces, and may 
substantially eliminate, the effect in such school of any 
known remedial or compensatory programs which are eco­
nomically feasible.

(D) Against this background and upon the professional 
recommendation of its Superintendent of Schools as being

Answer of Defendants JohnH. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James D. Voorhees, Jr.



77a

educationally valid, defendant Board of Education enacted 
Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531. Its intent, in so act­
ing, was to begin to meet and to overcome the conditions 
stated herein which had resulted and are now resulting in 
grossly unequal educational opportunity for many children.

(E) Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 were adopted 
after citywide publicity, public hearings (including tele­
vision presentations), neighborhood meetings and wide­
spread opportunity for interested and concerned citizens 
to comment. Comments communicated to defendant Board 
of Education in public meetings and to these defendants 
both publicly, and privately, were in general favorable to 
the educational purpose and intent of said resolutions, but 
were critical of them for non-educational reasons, among 
which were:

(a) On one hand, that the resolutions represented only 
a token approach to the problems of the School 
District, and on the other, that some alleged con­
stitutionally protected right of parents to select 
the school their children should attend was threat­
ened.

(b) That in individual cases the resolutions might re­
sult in inconvenience to individual citizens.

(c) That the resolutions did not reflect the will of the 
majority of the people of the School District and 
were being imposed upon the majority by a vocal 
and dangerous minority as a sociological experi­
ment.

(d) That the resolutions represented an interference 
on the part of the School District with the right of

Answer of Defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James. D. Voorhees, Jr.



78a

citizens to purchase and reside in residences of 
their choosing.

(e) That the resolutions would require Anglo children 
to attend school with minority children and would 
subject such Anglo children to an inadequate edu­
cational opportunity and/or the possibility of 
physical harm. Certain parents of minority chil­
dren affected by the resolutions also expressed 
fears for their children in primarily Anglo schools.

(f) That the resolutions and their implementation 
would require expenditure of School District funds 
for transportation, which expenditure was stated 
to be unnecessary and uncalled for.

(F) Few, if any, objections asserted that the educational 
purpose of the resolutions was improper.

(Gr) The decision of defendant Board of Education to 
adopt and thereafter to implement Besolutions No. 1520, 
1524 and 1531 was made after the most careful balancing 
of the objections presented, against the known existence of 
the conditions requiring change, in order to begin to equal­
ize the educational opportunities of those many children 
not now receiving equal opportunity. The programs estab­
lished by said resolutions were and are deemed education­
ally sound, economically feasible and conceptually valid for 
the alleviation of educational inequalities in this School 
District, and were recommended for such purpose by the 
Superintendent of Schools and his staff. They represent 
a beginning, at various levels and with various approaches, 
of the development of programs designed to meet the pe­
culiar learning problems of children disabled from achieve­

Answer of Defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James. D. Voorhees, Jr.



79a

ment by the fact of minority racial or ethnic isolation and/ 
or isolation by the culture of poverty.

(H) No viable alternative to said resolutions has been 
proposed by those defendant members of the Board of 
Education who voted to rescind said resolutions, except to 
propose certain minimal voluntary programs. Such a pro­
posal appears to constitute on the one hand recognition by 
the present majority of this Board that educational in­
equality exists in the public schools of this District, and at 
the same time limits solutions designed to establish equal­
ity of opportunity to those approved by a majority of the 
electors of this District, such majority comprising, in gen­
eral, persons not affected by the problems which require 
solution.

(I) The apparent assumption on the part of many citi­
zens and of the majority Board members voting to rescind 
said resolutions that the resolutions represent the first step 
toward a program of total racial and ethnic balance 
throughout the School District is not justified by any 
past Board action; said resolutions represent an attempt 
to ascertain on a broad pilot basis whether and to what 
extent integregation of pupil populations does result in 
equalization of educational opportunity and are designed 
to develop and prove the validity (or invalidity) of various 
programs and approaches to the unmet needs of modern 
urban education.

(J) These answering defendants submit that failure to 
implement Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 in Septem­
ber of 1969 will, in addition to the consequences alleged in 
plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action, effectively terminate any 
possibility of material improvement in the unequal educa­

Answer of Defendants John E. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James- D. Voorhees, Jr.



80a

tional opportunity now offered to a large number of mi­
nority racial and ethnic children in the Denver public 
schools and will, therefore, in a real sense, condemn very 
many children of this School District to continuing inequal­
ity in the education available to them.

W h e r e f o r e , these answering defendants, having fully 
answered plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action, pray that the 
Court grant the relief prayed for in plaintiffs’ Prayer for 
First Cause of Action, except that no recovery of costs 
be adjudicated against these defendants.

For answer to the Second Cause of Action:
1. As to the First Count:

A. Incorporate herein by reference their answer to the 
First Cause of Action.

B. Answering paragraph B, admit that the acts described 
in paragraph B have resulted in and have maintained racial 
and ethnic segregation within the School District but deny 
that said acts were taken deliberately and purposely by 
these answering defendants to create, foster or maintain 
racial and ethnic segregation.

Further answering the allegations of paragraph B of the 
First Count, these answering defendants:

1. Admit that the use of a so-called “neighborhood 
school” attendance policy results, and has resulted, 
in significant racial and ethnic segregation in the 
School District, reflective of segregated residential 
patterns but deny that they acted with respect to 
any “neighborhood school” policy with the intent 
and purpose to create, foster and maintain racially 
and ethnically segregated schools.

Answer of Defendants JohnU. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James D. Voorhees, Jr.



81a

2. Admit that school attendance area boundaries have 
been created, altered and enforced with the effect 
of establishing and maintaining racial and ethnic 
segregation within the School District but deny that 
they acted with respect to said boundaries with the 
purpose and intent of creating, fostering and main­
taining racial and ethnic segregation within the 
School District.

3. Admit that historically from time to time optional 
attendance areas have been established for various 
schools within the School District but deny that 
said optional attendance areas are or at any time 
were in contravention of the defendant Board of 
Education’s existing published policies and resolu­
tions ; deny that these answering defendants par­
ticipated in the establishment of any optional at­
tendance area; and deny that any optional attend­
ance areas were applicable only to Anglo children,

4. Admit that historically a disproportionate number 
of Negro and Hispano faculty and staff have on 
occasion been assigned to those schools having pre­
dominantly Negro and Hispano pupil populations; 
admit that such assignments may have further con­
firmed and solidified the racially and ethnically seg­
regated character of such schools; but deny that 
these answering defendants acted with respect to 
such assignment of Negro and Hispano faculty and 
staff with the purpose and intent to create, foster 
and maintain racial and ethnic segregation in the 
School District.

5. Admit that historically optional attendance areas 
have from time to time been created for certain

Answer of Defendants JohnH. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James D. Voorhees, Jr.



schools undergoing transition to gradually increas­
ing proportions of Negro and/or Hispano pupil 
population; deny that these answering defendants 
participated in the establishment of any optional 
area; and admit that optional areas may have had 
the result alleged, that is, the retention and confine­
ment of Negro and/or Hispano pupils to schools of 
predominantly Negro and/or Hispano pupil popu­
lations.

C. Admit the allegations of paragraph C of the First 
Count.

2. As to the Second Count:

A. Incorporate by reference their answer to the First 
Cause of Action and their answer to paragraph C of the 
First Count of the Second Cause of Action.

B. Answering paragraph B :

1. Admit that certain schools in predominantly Negro 
and Hispano attendance areas may have physical 
plants, equipment and curricula inferior to some 
schools with predominantly Anglo student pupil 
populations but deny that all predominantly Negro 
and Hispano schools have physical plants and 
equipment inferior to that provided to schools with 
predominantly Anglo student pupil populations 
and deny that to their knowledge inferior mate­
rials and supplies have been furnished to predomi­
nantly Negro and Hispano schools.

2. Admit that in certain schools with predominantly 
Negro or Hispano pupil populations there has been

Answer of Defendants JohnH. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James- D. Voorhees, Jr.



83a

a disproportionately large number of less experi­
enced faculty assigned and at the same time, as to 
certain schools with predominantly Anglo pupil 
populations, that there has been a disproportion­
ately large number of more experienced faculty 
assigned.

C. Answering paragraph C, admit that schools provided 
with resources inferior to other schools do provide for the 
students assigned to such schools an educational oppor­
tunity unequal and inferior to that provided by other 
schools in the School District.

3. As to the Third Count:
A. Incorporate by reference their answer to the First 

Cause of Action.
B. Incorporate by reference their answer to paragraph 

C of the First Count of this Second Cause of Action.
C. Admit the allegations of paragraph C.
D. Admit the allegations of paragraph I).
4. As to the Fourth Count:
A. Incorporate by reference their answer to the First 

Cause of Action,
B. Answering paragraph B, admit the existence in cer­

tain schools of the School District of various systems of 
pupil ability grouping.

C. Answering paragraph C, admit that among other cri­
teria used in ability grouping is the ability to learn, and 
admit that classification as alleged may result in assign­
ment to regular or accelerated educational programs in 
individual courses.

Answer of Defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James D. Voorhees, Jr.



84a

D. Answering paragraph D, admit that under certain 
circumstances the application and administration of sys­
tems of ability grouping may result in the denial to stu­
dents subject thereto of an educational opportunity equal 
to that offered to other students but deny that such ability 
grouping will always afford an unequal educational oppor­
tunity as between the minor Negro and Plispano plaintiffs 
and Anglo students of comparable ability and qualification.
W herefore, having fully answered the Second Cause of 

Action these defendants pray that the relief prayed for in 
plaintiffs’ Prayer for Second Cause of Action be granted, 
except that should the Court order that any comprehensive 
plan be submitted as prayed in paragraph A l.(b) and/or 
paragraph A 3.(b) thereof, these defendants suggest that 
any such plan should be educationally sound and should be 
implemented within a time schedule fixed by the Court, 
and except that no recovery of'costs be adjudicated against 
these answering defendants.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ R achel B. N oel 

Rachel B. Noel
/s/ John H. A messe 

John H. Amesse
/s/ James D. V oorhees, Jr. 

James D. Voorhees, Jr.
(Addresses of the Answering Defendants omitted) 

* * * * *
(Certificate of Service omitted)

Answer of Defendants John It. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James D. Voorhees, Jr.



85a

Hearing on Preliminary Injunction July  16-22, 1969

[253 * * *
R a c h e l  B. Noel, a witness called by and on behalf of 

Plaintiffs, having been first duly sworn was examined and 
testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner:

The Court: Give us your name and address,
please.

The Witness: Rachel B. Noel, 2601 Adams.

By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Mrs. Noel, you are one of the Defendants in this case? 

A. Yes.
Q. You’re a member of the Board of Education of 

School District Number 1? A. Yes.
Q, And how long have you been a member of the Board 

[26] of Education? A. I was elected to the Board in 
May 1965.

Q. What was your current address? A. 2601 Adams. 
Q. How long have you lived at that address, Mrs. Noel? 

A. About ten years.
Q. So you moved there in approximately 1958? A. 

Right.
Q. In 1958, Mrs. Noel, did you have any children going 

to the elementary schools of the Denver School District? 
A. Yes, I did. I had two children attending Park Hill 
School.

Q. Now during the course of your residence or during 
the course of their progress through elementary school 
was there any change made in the school of their at­
tendance? A. My daughter was in second grade when



86a

she went to Park Hill and she attended second, third and 
fourth grades, but when she went to fifth grade Barrett 
School had been built and she completed her elementary 
education at Barrett.

Q. Barrett opened in 1960! A. 1960.
Q. Do you recall approximately what the racial com­

position of Park Hill Elementary School was back in 1958 
and 1959? A. Predominantly white.

[27] Q. And when Barrett opened, do you recall whether 
or not it was predominantly Anglo or predominantly Black? 
A. Predominantly Black.

Q. So then your child was sent from an integrated school 
to a segregated school? A. That’s right.

Q. How if at all, Mrs. Noel, did that event affect your 
awareness of school board policy? A. "Well, it was very 
clear that when she started to Park Hill School in the 
second grade and she was being transported to Park Hill 
School by a bus, at that time the bus was just taking— 
was taking at least half and half if not more ’white kids to 
Park Hill School, and in the course of the time she was 
attending, and I would say as I can recollect, a year or 
year and a half, more Black kids were riding that bus to 
Park Hill School, and it seemed very clear to me and to 
many other parents that Barrett School was built—Dis­
cussions began about it being needed because so many 
Black kids were coming into Park Hill School, the bus 
was practically carrying Black kids to Park Hill School 
and Barrett School was built at that time. It just seemed 
so clear to us that this was the reason.

Q. Now, Mrs. Noel, with respect to your daughter’s 
change in school, from Park Hill School, which was inte­
grated to the Barrett School, which was segregated, did 
that event [28] lead you to any sort of an appraisal or

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct



87a

an awareness of differences in the educational programs 
at those two schools? A. Well, my daughter told me—- 
she was in the fifth grade at Barret School when she 
entered, when Barrett opened; that she was having the 
same thing in the fifth grade that she had had in the 
fourth grade at Park Hill during several conversations 
with her about not having much homework or not seem­
ingly having much interest. And I went to school and 
I talked to the teachers—to her teacher and I talked to 
the principal and—as a parent, trying to find out what it 
was. I  sat in on the classes. And I wanted to see what 
it was. And to the best of my judgment and certainly 
my great concern based on her statements to me—it seemed 
that she was not getting what she should have gotten and 
-what she would have gotten at Park Hill since she was 
having the same thing over in the fifth grade as she had 
had in the fourth.

Q. Now7 that event occurred sometime in 1960 with the 
opening of Barrett School? A. Right.

Q. Within the next two years, Mrs. Noel, did any other 
event occur that again raised the issue of whether addi­
tional new schools be built in northeast Denver? A. Pm 
sorry. I didn’t get the first part of your question.

[293 Q. Between 1960 and 1962 was there any proposal 
of the School Board which again, as had Barrett, brought 
into focus the question of whether new schools should be 
constructed in northeast Denver? A. It was at that time 
—the then superintendent of schools recommended the 
building of a junior high school at 32nd and Colorado which 
is the Barrett side, actually.

Q. Was there any community concern over that propo­
sal? A. There was great community concern, not only in

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct



88a

the Black community but throughout the city that the day 
that school opened it would be a segregated school.

Q. Mrs. Noel, did that concern lead to any affirmative 
action by the Board in 1962? A. The Board of Education 
appointed a special committee on equality of educational 
opportunity in November I believe of 1962.

Q. Is it not a fact, Mrs. Noel, that you served on that 
committee ? A. I  was a member of that committee ?

Q. Now how long approximately did the committee de­
liberate? A. Let’s see, the report was presented in 1964. 
So, it’s about 18 months.

Q. What sort of responsibilities were given to this special 
committee? [30] A. The committee was asked to look 
throughout the school system concerning equality of edu­
cational opportunity with special reference to racial and 
ethnic factors.

Q. During the course of its deliberation, Mrs. Noel, while 
the committee was deliberating, did the Board of Educa­
tion formulate any new policy with respect to the racial 
characteristics of the schools? A. This policy 5100 was 
formulated by the Board after the recommendations to the 
Board of Education from our committee had been made.

Q. Does policy 5100 set forth in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 
which you now have in front of you— A. Yes.

Q. Was policy 5100 passed by the Board at the request 
of this special committee? A. Yes.

Q. Was that one of the recommendations of the com­
mittee? A. Yes.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would move the 
introduction of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1.

The Court: Do you have any objection?

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct



89a

Mr. Craig: Your Honor, we have already stipu­
lated to the admission of that exhibit.

The Court. Very well. It’s received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 received in 

evidence.)
[31] The Court: I t hasn’t been before. Those 

stipulated exhibits I think the order should provide 
they are all received and you can draw up a list 
when you have an opportunity for both sides, Mr. 
Kerr.

The Clerk: Yes, Your Honor.

By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Mrs. Noel, the next exhibit is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 20G 

which is also, Your Honor, one of the stipulated exhibits.
Calling your attention, Mrs. Noel, to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 

20, during the course of its deliberations did the com­
mittee come to any kind of conclusion as to whether or 
not it made any difference whether the segregated schools 
were segregated by force of law or simply by intent1?

Mr. Craig: Your Honor, I ’m going to object to 
that question. I think the exhibit speaks for itself 
and the result of a deliberation of that committee.

The Court: True. Sustained.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I  might point out—
The Court: I ’ll read the report.
Mr. Greiner: Well, it’s a hundred some pages 

long and I was trying to point out the particular 
aspects of the report upon which we will rely, Your 
Honor.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—-Direct



90a

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

The Court: Well, that’s different. You go ahead. 
Are you going to have her sum it up?

Mr. Greiner: Yes, Your Honor.
[323 The Court: Do you object to this?
Mr. Craig: I  do object, Your Honor. I object to 

the witness just reading back what the report says.
The Court: May I take a look at it?
Mr. Craig: Your Honor, I think counsel can point 

to the sections in which he relies in his summary of 
this case.

The Court: That’s better, I think. Why don’t you 
just call her attention to the recommendations and 
the conclusions that you wish to bring forward?

Mr. Greiner: That was my intention, Your Honor.

Q. Mrs. Noel, directing your attention to Page 6 of the 
report did the committee reach any conclusion whether 
there was a possibility of unequal educational opportu­
nity existing due to the fact of segregation in the schools? 
A. Yes, it did.

Q. In summary, Mrs. Noel, what was the committee’s 
conclusion? A. That there was in Denver real possibility 
of unequal educational opportunity because of the exis­
tence of clusters of minorities, racial and ethnic groups 
within the city.

Q. Now during the course of its deliberations, Mrs. 
Noel, did the committee consider the Board’s—-the School 
Board’s boundary policies? [333 A. Yes, it did.

Q. Mere those policies then in writing? A. They were 
not in writing at the time the committee was investigated.

Q. Did the committee make any recommendation to the 
Board as to whether or not those policies should be re­
duced to writing? A. Yes, it did.



91a

Q. Was that recommendation followed? A. This rec­
ommendation was followed.

Q. Again, Mrs. Noel, calling your attention to Page A-5 
of the exhibit, did the committee reach any conclusions as 
to whether because of segregation, whether the cause of 
segregation had any effect upon the detrimental effect of 
that segregation?

Mr. Craig: I ’m going to make the same objec­
tion. I think Page A-5 speaks for itself.

The Court: True, but he is just calling attention 
to the fact that it did make a recommendation. I 
don’t think we’re in any trouble yet. Overruled.

Mr. Craig: My point is, if the testimony para­
phrases what the report says then we could have 
some conflict, and I think we ought to stick to what 
the report does say.

The Court: Well, we will see what it’s leading to.

Q. Do you have the question in mind, Mrs. Noel? E34] 
A. I  think as I look at this that the statement in 1954, the 
United States Supreme Court stated that segregated edu­
cation is inherently unequal education. And that there 
was ample authority for such a statement. While the Court 
in that instance was concerned with segregation estab­
lished by law—

The Court: Is she reading from the report now?
Mr. Greiner: Yes.

A. —the committee is persuaded that the statement can 
correctly be made where de facto segregation and minor­
ity races occur because the factors which—the most obvi­
ous of which is a pattern of housing restriction.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct



92a

Q. So then the commission’s conclusion was that the 
cause of the segregation didn’t make any difference? A. 
That’s right.

Q. Calling your attention to Page D-12 of this report, 
Mrs. Noel, in the course of its duties, did the commission 
have occasion to examine the Board’s policy regarding the 
assignment of minority teachers? A. Yes, it did.

Q. What conclusions did the committee reach regarding 
these policies of the Board? A. The committee felt be­
cause of the great and high proportion of minority teach­
ers and in minority schools that there was a policy of 
assigning them to schools that had high [35] percentages 
of minority population. And there is a table—or there 
should be—that shows this very definite—

Q. That’s at Page 36 in the appendix of the exhibit? 
A. Yes, I  think it is.

Q. And that shows the concentration of minority teach­
ers in minority schools? A. Right.

Q. Mrs. Noel, in view of that conclusion of the com­
mittee, did it make any recommendations to the Board? 
A. Yes, it did. The committee recommended that the 
Board of Education should establish—this is the first 
recommendation in this group—and enforce a policy that 
requested teachers of minority background, that they will 
be assigned throughout the system.

Q. Was that recommendation accepted by the Board? 
A. I  don’t believe that that is a part of the policy in 
regard to teachers—teacher assignments today. However, 
this was a recommendation.

Q. Mrs. Noel, I ’d like to call your attention to Plain­
tiffs’ Exhibit 26. This I  don’t believe has been stipulated 
to, Your Honor. And, I would ask you if you can identify

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct



93a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 26? A. This is Denver School policy 
employees’ change of assignment, 1617(a).

Q. That’s a policy 1617(a). Now, can you tell from 
E36J the exhibit, Mrs. Noel, when that policy was adopted 
by the Board?

Mr. Craig: Yonr Honor, at this point I  just want 
to interrupt to state that this is a policy—this policy 
is incorporated in Exhibit 20 which we believe we 
have agreed to the admission of.

Mr. Greiner: Fine.

A. The date is April 1st, 1963.
Q. So then this was the policy on teacher assignment 

that was in existence when your committee made this con­
clusion about the assignment of minority teachers? A. 
Yes, because this report was issued in 1964.

Q. And there has been no change in policy 1617(a) since 
the issuance of your report? A. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Greiner: I take it then, Your Honor, that 
Exhibit 26 will be received?

The Court: Well, it’s part of Exhibit 20 he says 
and stipulated to.

Mr. Craig: Yes, Your Honor, we didn’t think it 
necessary to stipulate to these individually if 
they’re part of another exhibit.

The Court: We will receive 26 anyway.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 26 was re­

ceived in evidence.)

[373 Q. Mrs. Noel, can you tell us then after the report 
of this special committee, what actions the Board took

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct



94a

which again brought up for the community’s consideration 
the issue of whether schools in northeast Denver-—whether 
there should be built new school? A. Well, to the next 
concern of the Board of Education in regard to building 
new schools, as I remember, was the building of the addi­
tion to Hallett School.

Q. That’s an elementary school? A. That’s an elemen­
tary school. And discussions concerning this began soon 
after I became a member of the Board.

Q. And that was in— A. In 1965.
Q. In May? A. I think it began in June.
Q. Now again, what was the concern about building an 

addition to Hallett School? A. The Superintendent had 
recommended that eight classrooms should be added to 
Hallett because of its overcrowdedness and I felt that this 
would be adding more classrooms—would be really mak­
ing more space for segregation and opposed it on those 
grounds.

Q. Now at that time in 1965 was Hallett a predomi­
nantly a Negro school? [38] A. Hallett was becoming- 
growing more predominantly Negro every day.

Q. Now did that community concern, Mrs. Noel, about 
those additions to Hallett—and by the way those addi­
tions were built were they not? A. Yes.

Q. Did that concern lead to the formation of another 
study committee? A. The concern about Hallett—there 
was also a request for additions to Stedman. There was 
a realization of overcrowdedness at both Hallett and Sted­
man, and in addition, Smith Schools. And the fact that 
they were predominantly segregated and all of this I 
think in the discussions about what to do led to the 
appointment by the Board of another committee called 
the Advisory Council.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct



95a

Q, Do you recall approximately when that committee 
was appointed? A. Let’s see. In 1966, I  think.

Q. Handing you what’s been received into evidence as 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 21, Mrs. Noel, that is the report of this 
committee which you have been describing? A. Yes.

Q. The Advisory Council? A. The Advisory Council 
on equality of educational opportunities.

[39] Q. Now was any particular charge given or any 
set of responsibilities defined by the Board of Education 
with respect to the responsibilities of this Advisory Coun­
cil? A. In the charge the Advisory Council was asked 
to advise the Board-—recommend to the Board about loca­
tion of new schools and additions in northeast Denver. 
And about changes in policies the Board had in this re­
gard.

Q. Mrs. Noel, through that report, Exhibit 21, how did 
the Council answer those questions which were put to them 
by the Board?

Mrs. Craig: Your Honor, I’m going to object to 
that question again. It isn’t clear that Mrs. Noel 
was a member of that Council, and again the report 
speaks for itself.

The Court: True. But, am I going to have to 
read all these? Eventually I  suppose I  am, but as 
I understand it she’s just going to call attention to 
the recommendations of the Council, is that correct?

The Witness: That’s correct, as I understand it.
The Court: On the opening of new schools? I ’ll 

permit her to do that.
The Witness: In the answer to the charge on Page 

84, the Committee came to the conclusion that no 
schools should be built in northeast Denver until 
plans are developed to implement Paragraph 1(b)

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct



96a

of Policy 21-C and Policy 4, 5100, and this calls 
attention to consideration of £40] the ethnic and 
racial characteristics of the school population mak­
ing it to the extent of a heterogenous school com­
munity in the consideration of the building of new 
schools and the fact that the continuation of the 
neighborhood schools has resulted in the concentra­
tion and reduction of this concentration, should be 
considered in the location of new schools.

Q. Now, Mrs. Noel, during the period of 19—

The Court: Well, what happened? What hap­
pened to Hallett?

The Witness: The additions were built to Hallett. 
And, I  voted against it.

The Court: Go ahead.

Q. During the period 1960, Mrs. Noel, through today, 
what in general has been the trend of racial composition 
in northeast Denver? A. The schools are becoming more 
segregated.

Q. Can you think of some example, and Pm referring 
you now to Page 7 of the report where there is detailed 
some of the rather dramatic changes that occurred at such 
schools as Stedman, Hallett and Barrett? A. This refers 
to the rapid change in the student population, rapid racial 
change composition of the student population at Stedman 
and at Stedman, in 1960, there were four percent Negroes 
in the total student population.

[41] Q. At Stedman? A. Yes. In 1966 the pupil pop­
ulation was then 89 percent Black.

Q. What is it today, Mrs. Noel? A. My guess is 99

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct



97a

percent Black and 44/100. And there is another state­
ment also I ’d like to call attention to, in October in 1960 
at Hallett there was less than one percent and in October, 
1966 the pupil population at Hallett was about 75 percent 
Black. Today I would judge that that is in the 90 percent 
category.

Q. So then this trend has continued over this whole 
period and still continues today? A. Yes.

Q. Now the 1967 report, did it make any recommenda­
tions as to possible method by which the Board could al­
leviate the segregated—the segregation which it found to 
exist ? A. It made a recommendation of a study of an 
educational park as I  recall and there was some other rec­
ommendations in regard to cultural and arts programs.

Q. Now about this time was the Board considering pro­
posing a bond issue to the electorate in Denver? A. Yes.

Q. With respect to that bond issue was there a proposal 
for a program which might have served to relieve some 
of the segregation in the schools? [423 A. Yes as a part 
of the bond proposal there was presented to the electorate 
in 1967—in the fall of 1967, in the middle of the school 
concept as envisioned in the proposal would have allevi­
ated some of the segregation in the schools in northeast 
Denver.

Q. Those middle schools would have drawn their stu­
dents from a wider geographic area? A. Yes, from a 
wider area and transportation was to be involved.

Q. What happened to that bond issue proposal? A. 
Well, the bond proposal was defeated.

Q. Was it close? A. No, not really.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this time I would 
like to call the Court’s attention to Plaintiffs’ Ex­
hibit 24 which has already been received.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct



98a

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

The Court: Very well.

Q. Now from the time that the bond issue was defeated, 
Mrs. Noel, was that in the fall of 1967? A. Yes, 1967.

Q. Was there any other affirmative step between the 
fall of 1967 and the spring of 1968 taken by the Board to 
relieve this problem of segregation? A. There was con­
tinued pressure from parents in northeast Denver par­
ticularly Smiley about the need for [43] relief for that 
school and the growing segregation at that school and 
there was a proposal in the consideration of Hamilton 
Junior High that students from Smiley could be bused 
for an addition at Hamilton, as I recall.

Q. That was busing out from Smiley to Hamilton? A. 
Right.

Q. And was that going to do anything to help integrate 
Smiley? A. No, this was one-way busing into the new 
junior high school. It would have relieved the overcrowd­
ing at Smiley but the school would have remained segre­
gated.

Q. So as late as 1967 and 1968 the Board had still not 
built a new junior high school to serve northeast Denver? 
A. No.

Q. During the course of that period did the Board re­
ceive proposals from the Division of Planning and Engi­
neering Services with respect to the location of such new 
schools? A. Yes.

Q. Are Exhibits 22 and 23 examples of such proposals? 
A. Yes.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, these exhibits have also 
been stipulated into evidence.

The Court: Very well.



99a

Q. Mrs. Noel, was there any one event that occurred in 
April of 1968 which had an impact upon the future actions 
£44] of the Board with respect to this problem! A. I 
would have to say there were two events: one was the 
death of Martin Luther King and the second wras the in­
troduction of the resolution in regard to a plan for inte­
grating the schools of Denver, and the reason I say two 
events is because the death of Martin Luther King and 
the meaning of that event to me as a member of the School 
Board, I think is of great importance because I felt that 
as a Black person in a policy making position, as well as 
Black people throughout this country, needed to see that 
equality of opportunities was available in this country. 
My role as a School Board member—I felt affected or 
should affect those Black children in these schools and I 
felt integration was important and because of that I in­
troduced the resolution.

Q. Mrs. Noel, the resolution you refer to was Number 
14901 A. Yes.

Q. And that’s Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2. Well, Mrs. Noel, 
what did 1490 do with respect to School Board policy! 
A. I felt that it would implement a policy really that we 
already had, 5100, that had to do with equality of educa­
tional opportunity and that it really would make it real, 
would make it meaningful. And this direction to the Su­
perintendent to draw up a plan for integrating the schools 
was then directed in order to bring about this. There are 
[453 two parts to this resolution. Part two is clarified in 
regard to certain points. That had to do with the plan.

Q. With regard to those points, Mrs. Noel, did 1490 
recognize the effect of the continuance of the neighborhood 
school policy! A. Yes.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct



100a

Q. What would that effect have been? A. It would 
have been more concentration, more segregation.

Q. Now also with respect to Policy 1490, Mrs. Noel, 
was there any indication in that policy regarding the 
desirability of integration? A. You mean 5100? Yes.

Q. Now with respect to 1490, your own resolution, was 
there an equation of integration with equality of educa­
tional opportunity? A. This was a part of the under­
standing of what it meant.

Q. So 1490 was introduced. Was it later passed by the 
Board? A. It was passed by the Board in May of 1968.

Q. And were there public hearings or meetings with 
respect to 1490? A. There was.

Q. Prior to its passage? [463 A. Yes, and great public 
interest and comment.

Q. So then under that it became the Board’s official 
policy that the integration of the schools was one of the 
objectives of the Board? A. In the acceptance of the res­
olution in this regard, by a vote of five to twro. Then the 
Board did in my view set then on a course toward inte­
gration.

Q. That was in May of 1968? A. Right,
Q. Now between May 1968 and the fall of 1968 that was 

the period during which Dr. Gilberts was developing the 
plan which he had been directed to propose? A. Right, 
the resolution stipulated that the plan was to be presented 
to the Board—submitted to the Board no later than Sep­
tember 30.

Q. Now calling your attention, Mrs. Noel, to November 
of 1968, going back in time for a moment, in October of 
1968, the Superintendent presented his report? A. Yes, 
October 10, 1968.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct



101a

Q. Now that was merely a report of an overall pro­
posal for the integration of Denver schools? A. It was 
his plan in response to the direction of 1490.

Q. Now by the simple presentation of that report were 
there any affirmative steps taken to integrate any particular 
[47] school? A. There was a beginning implementation 
of the proposals from the Superintendent based on his 
plan.

Q. So that then in November of 1968 the Superintendent 
was directed by the Board to come up with a more specific 
proposal? A. I was not present at that November meet­
ing, but as I recall the minutes, the Superintendent was 
asked—and it was in regard to what was going to happen 
in February that would need to be approved by the Board. 
As part of his plan only some parts of it were to take 
effect in the second semester and it was in this regard 
that he was asked to bring in these more specifics.

Q. Mrs. Noel, with respect to the minutes of the meet­
ing of the Board of Education, are minutes taken at 
those meetings? A. Yes.

Q. And are they then prepared and in written form? 
A. Yes.

Q. I’m handing you what has been marked for identifi­
cation as Exhibits 28, 29 and 32 and ask you if you can 
identify these.

The Court: Are those minutes?
Mr. Greiner: These are the official minutes. I 

really don’t understand why the Defendants can’t 
authenticate [48] their own minutes, Your Honor, 
but—

Mr. Creighton: Well those were the ones we got 
at 9:30 last night. We haven’t looked at them but

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct



102a

certainly they may go in as authentic. We consider 
it admissible here.

The Court: Very well. Exhibits 28, 29 and 30 
are received.

Mr. Greiner: The other one I believe was 32, 
Your Honor.

The Court: And 32.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 28, 29, 30 and 

32 were received in evidence.)

Q. Mrs. Noel, was the policy of the school board with 
respect to school attendance area boundaries reduced to 
writing? A. Yes.

Q. And is that policy reflected in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 23? 
A. Yes, in 33.

Q. 33. Pardon me.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, again we would in­
troduce Exhibit 33 which is in effect the neighbor­
hood school policy of the district.

Mr. Creighton: That, Your Honor, is part of 
Exhibit 23 previously agreed to. That may go in. 

The Court: We will receive it.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 33 was received 

in evidence.)

[49J Q. Then finally, Mrs. Noel, with the giving of those 
instructions to the Superintendent is that the event then 
which began the process which ultimately led to resolu­
tions 1520, 1524 and 1531? A. That’s correct.

Mr. Greiner: Thank you, Mrs. Noel. Your witness.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

* # * #



103a

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Cross

[493 * * *

Cross-Examination by Mr. Craig:

Q. Mrs. Noel, during your direct examination you 
testified as to your daughter’s educational experience in 
both. Park Hill and Barrett Elementary Schools. A. 
Right.

Q. Where did she later go to junior high school? A. 
To Smiley.

Q. Where did she later go? A. To East.
Q. East Senior High School? A. Yes.
Q. And has she graduated from East? A. Yes.
Q. Has she been admitted to college? [50] A. Right. 
Q. Which college is she— A. She attends Smith 

College.
Q. Has she graduated from Smith? A. No, she was a 

freshman last year.
Q. Could you give us your general impression of her 

academic achievements there at Smith? A. Well—
Q. Was it good, bad or poor or— A. It was good. 

I wished it had been better.
.u. jj.IP  Tf w  w  w

[51] * * *
Q. Mrs. Noel, you testified as to the proposal of the 

administration I believe to build a junior high school at 
East 32nd and Colorado Boulevard. To your knowledge, 
has that school been built? A. No.

Q. Have any other junior high schools been built since 
1962 in this city? A. Well, Jesse Hamilton has been 
built.

Q. And where is Jesse Hamilton located? [52] A. I 
don’t know the exact address; East Dartmouth and 
something.



104a

The Court: I  beg your pardon1? Where!
The Witness: East Dartmouth. I don’t know 

what the crossing street is. It’s way out in south­
east Denver.

Q. Has the Board approved plans and is it in the pro­
cess of building or planning another new junior high 
school in southeast Denver? A. Also in southeast Denver, 
yes.

Q. Do you know if the Board has any present plans to 
build any new Junior high schools in northeast Denver? 
A. Present plans?

Q. Yes. A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Do you know if there are present plans to utilize 

escess capacity in these new junior high schools to relieve 
some of the junior high schools in northeast Denver? 
A. Yes.

#  # # #  #

[541 * * *

Q. Mrs. Noel, you testified that in your opinion there 
was a trend in northeast Denver toward more segrega­
tion in the schools and Hallett Elementary School in 
particular. Can you tell us whether or not it was true 
that at the same time there was a parallel change in the 
racial composition of the residential area of that part 
of the city? A. Bight.

* # # # #
[ 56]  * * *

Redirect Examination toy Mr. Greiner:

Q. Mrs. Noel, you mentioned in answer to the question, 
what is a segregated school. Some of the indicia of a

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



105a

segregated school. What are some other indicia? Do 
segregated schools have for example higher drop out 
rates? A. I  neglected to mention that. That’s one of 
the—

Q. They do? A. That’s one of the measurable—
Q. They tend here in Denver to have less experienced 

teachers ?

Mr. Craig: Tour Honor, I’m going to object to 
the form of the question that counsel is using. I 
believe they’re leading and he has called Mrs. Noel 
as his witness.

The Court: Overruled.

Q. You may answer the questions, Mrs. Noel. Do they 
£57] have less experienced teachers? A. By and large 
this is true.

Q. Do they have fewer teachers with say more than 
ten years experience? A. I think this is correct.

Q. Do they have fewer children going on to college, 
Mrs. Noel? A. This is correct.

Q. So I take it that your daughter’s example is not 
typical of what happens to minority children in this 
country? A. I would say the percentages are different.

Q. That’s all reflected in the drop out rate for minority 
children, is it not? A. The percentages are higher in the 
drop out rate for minority children.

Q. Mrs. Noel, the 1964 report was unanimous, was it 
not? A. Yes.

Q. Now in reaching that unanimity was it necessary 
to reach any compromises on language? A. Yes, in the 
discussions of the committee as a whole, and this is what

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



106a

this report is, a result of these discussions of the com­
mittee as a whole. The discussions were free and com­
plete and so that all points of view were considered. And 
in the acceptance of the wording, in many cases there 
was a feeling by some that it should be stronger wording 
or [58] weaker and a more acceptable word than was 
used.

Q. Now, Mrs. Noel, with regard to the addition of 
Hallett, I believe you said that your quarrel with that de­
cision was it kept those children in a segregated school. 
A. Yes, and it made more space for segregation.

Q. Does the same effect, the same confinement effect 
obtain when mobile units are brought into a segregated 
school! A. Yes.

Q. Also with respect to new additions that are being 
constructing in the Park Hill area, is there not now the 
building of a new addition to the new Park Hill Elementary 
School! A. Yes.

Q. So that is another case, another instance where there 
has been some additional construction? A. Yes.

Q. With respect to the mobile units in northeast Denver 
school, is it fair to say, Mrs. Noel, that there are more 
mobile units in that area than in any other area of the 
city? A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any idea approximately how many are 
being used there? A. Not really. I think there are twelve 
now at Stedman. Not Stedman, I mean Smith.

[59] Q. Smith is predominantly Black? A. About 99 
percent Black. I believe there are four still at Stedman. 
I ’m not positive.

Q. Are you aware of any mobile units at Anglo schools 
in northeast Denver, such as Ashley, for example? A. 
I ’m not aware of them.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



107a

Q. Now, counsel inquired about the trend in the racial 
composition of the neighborhood. Mrs. Noel, when did the 
direction of that trend become apparent? A. At the build­
ing of Manual High School.

Q. Approximately when was that! A. That began in 
1950; in the 50’s. Now, I’m not certain of that date.

Q. Now, when you came on the school board in 1965, 
was the school board aware of this trend? A. Yes.

Q. Did the school board make any changes in its policies 
in view of its awareness of this trend? A. Well, the 
consideration of racial and ethnic factors was a part of 
the policy and this is policy .1222-0, I think is the number.

Q. Mrs. Noel, since you have been on the Board, do 
you recall any school attendance area boundary changes 
in northeast Denver which have had the effect of improv­
ing the racial composition of the school affected? £60] A. 
Boundary changes?

Q. Up until the time of the passing of these resolutions. 
A. I don’t recall any.

Mr. Greiner: No further questions.
The Court: What is a mobile unit?
The Witness: I t’s a separate unit that holds one 

classroom and teacher and I think up to thirty 
students can be in there. I t’s located close to the 
school building.

The Court: They have some at Gove? Are those 
mobile units?

The Witness: Those were I think supposed to be 
when they were first put in. You were talking about 
the things still there. But, these I ’m talking about 
can be really moved.

The Court: I  see.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



108a

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

[61] * * *
A. Edgar Benton, a witness, called by and on behalf of 

plaintiffs, having first been duly sworn, was examined and 
testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes:

The Court: Please state your name and address.
The Witness: My name is A. Edgar Benton, 901 

Race Street, Denver, Colorado.

By Mr. Barnes:
Q. Mr. Benton, were you ever a member of the Board of 

Education of School District No. 1, a defendant in this ac­
tion! A. I was.

Q. Will you give the dates during which you were a 
member! A. I  was elected in May, 1961 and served until 
May, 1969.

Q. You were on the Board then during the period de­
scribed by Mrs. Noel in the previous testimony! A. I  was.

Q. And you were on the Board in the Fall of 1968 [62] 
when Dr. Gilberts, the superintendent, presented his plans 
in response to 1490! A. Yes.

Q. The date of that presentation was approximately Oc­
tober 10, 1968! A. That’s correct.

Q. What was the response of the Board following that 
presentation!

The Court: What do you mean! Did they approve 
it or what—

Q. Did they approve and enforce the plan in its en­
tirety! A. Dr. Gilberts presented his plan not for en­
forcement or for approval at that time, but for considera­



109a

tion and study by the Board of Education and by the com­
munity so the Board not officially at that time, but I  think 
informally received Dr. Gilberts’ report for consideration 
and for evaluation, and this led to a series of conferences 
with the superintendent and other meetings for purposes 
of the consideration and evaluation of the report.

Q. Did this lead to action by yon at the meeting of the 
Board, November 21st, 1968! A. Oh, the meeting indicated 
the question which had been presented to the Board for its 
consideration stemming primarily from interested parents 
in the Park Hill area and [63] particularly the Smiley 
Junior High School area, was what steps could be taken 
effective in the Spring semester of 1969 to alleviate not 
only the overcrowding but also the intensified segregation 
at Smiley Junior High School. In response to that re­
quest and concern of the citizenry of that area, I  sug­
gested not in the form of a motion but in the form of a 
suggestion to the superintendent for his consideration that 
there might be a possibility of alleviating the problem at 
Smiley by removing some of the Black children from 
Smiley and putting those children in non-segregated schools 
and replacing them with children already riding buses then 
being transported to Hill Junior High School, Merrill 
Junior High School and perhaps some others. So the ef­
fect of my suggestion would have been to reduce the pop­
ulation at Smiley and to improve the racial balance at 
Smiley. Dr. Gilberts indicated he would consider this sug­
gestion and report to the Board.

Q. During that period of time, Mr. Benton, that you were 
on the Board, had there been prior discussion of the prob­
lems at Smiley! A. The problem at Smiley came forcibly 
to the attention of the Board of Education in 1962 when 
Dr. Oberholtzer, the then superintendent, made his sugges­

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



110a

tion for consideration by the Board that a new Junior 
High School be built at 32nd and Colorado and the Smiley 
problem, as it were, was a [643 matter of constant concern, 
consideration and attention by the Board from that time 
through the present period, really.

Q. Have there been expressions—was there evidence of 
citizenry concern throughout this period? A. Yes, there 
was constant evidence of concern on the part of the citizens 
in the community with the need for the Board of Educa­
tion to take action to deal with intensifying segregation at 
Smiley Junior High School and the overcrowding that was 
present there.

Q. You say there was constant concern by the Board 
about this problem since 1962? What do you mean by that? 
A. By that I mean that the matter was constantly before 
the Board for its consideration. It represented a difficult 
question for the Board which the Board of Education had 
not previously had to consider and the debate which oc­
curred I would say was a constant debate. That isn’t to 
say it occurred on every occasion when the Board of 
Education was either in formal or informal session, but it 
continued to be one of the dominant elements of the Board’s 
activity during that period to debate. The debate was not 
only constant; it was of an interesting characteristic in 
that it ranged all the way from fairly mild dialog to very 
vigorous confrontation of viewpoints among members of 
the Board.

Q. Were the educational disadvantages of segregation 
discussed in those meetings? [653 A. The educational dis­
advantage of segregated education were always urged by 
members—certain members of the Board as a basis for 
modifying Board policy with respect to the school and the

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



111a

schools generally, and therefore the debate often involved 
a consideration of the disadvantages of segregated schools.

Q. Now, throughout this period, what had been the racial 
composition of Smiley Junior High School! A. I can’t 
recall of course the precise percentages but it’s my recol­
lection that at the outset of this consideration Smiley was 
predominantly Anglo in its pupil composition. But it was 
changing at a progressive rate by significant percentages 
each year to the point where it has now achieved which I 
understand to be perhaps 70 percent Black in its composi­
tion. So that this was a progressive rate of change from 
predominantly Anglo to predominantly minority school.

Q. And throughout this period was there not only con­
sideration by the Board of the problem, hut were there 
expressions of interest from the citizenry! A. Yes. I 
think it would be fair to say that a common presentation at 
meetings of the Board of Education would be delegations 
of citizens and organizations from the Park Hill area calling 
the Board’s attention to the unresolved problems of de­
clining educational opportunities in the Park [66] Hill 
and particularly Smiley area.

Q. During this period in your judgment, had any ef­
fective acts or were there any effective steps taken to 
prevent the gradual segregation of Smiley Junior High 
School! A. There were steps taken and I suppose if one 
tried to look at the seven year period in its totality, one 
could see the significance of steps which at the time seemed 
perhaps very minor. I would say that one of the first steps 
that was important was the creation by the Board of the 
special study committee appointed by the Board I believe 
in 1962. The deliberations of that committee, the involve­
ment of the citizenry, the recommendations made by it was 
an important step to sharpen the focus of the understand­

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



112a

ing of the school district of the problem. Following upon 
that, and certain limited steps taken by the Board in re­
sponse to that report, I think the creation of the advisory 
council was a continuing effort to improve the quality of 
insight which the Board of Education had with respect to 
these questions. Now specifically in my view, one of the 
most significant steps that the Board took as a result of 
this important study that it was engaged in was the policy 
which had been previously testified by Mrs. Noel which 
precluded additional school construction in northeast 
Denver. This was important because it stated as a matter 
of public policy of this community that we would not create 
additional capacity in that [67] area with the increasing 
racial segregation of the neighborhood for increased segre­
gated education.

Q. In Smiley Junior High School itself, by November 
21st, 1968, state if you recall the approximate racial com­
position. A. I would think it would have been approx­
imately 70 percent Black and perhaps four or five percent 
Hispano. The balance would have been Anglo.

Q. So that in spite of the continuing concern of the Board 
and the citizenry over the years described, Smiley had 
still become substantially segregated! A. That’s correct. 
The Boards had really been as I have indicated in the form 
of continuing study, continuing education, continuing infor­
mation rather than specific concrete tangible steps that 
would lead to an alleviation of the condition.

Q. And your suggestion of November 21st was a specific 
tangible step to alleviate that condition! A. That’s correct.

Q. Following the receipt of your suggestion by the super­
intendent, what were the next steps taken by the district 
and the superintendent concerning Smiley Junior High 
School? A. It was my understanding that Dr. Gilberts

A. Edgar Benton—■for Plaintiffs—Direct



113a

and his staff were engaged in a careful evaluation; not just 
of the suggestion I had made for his consideration, but of 
other £683 alternatives that would achieve substantially the 
same result; namely, the reduction of the pupil population 
at Smiley and the alleviation of the adverse racial balance 
in the school. And that during the period from November 
21 through the month of December, Dr. Gilberts and his 
staff were engaged in this investigation and this study.

Q. And did this study result in recommendations to the 
Board? A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Benton, I hand you what have been marked as 
Plaintiff’s Exhibits 3, 4-A, 4, 5, and 5-A and ask you if 
you can identify those.

The Court: He doesn’t have to if they’re already 
identified and admitted.

Mr. Barnes: They are admitted.
The Court: We don’t have to do it again. That’s 

the whole purpose of this preliminary identification; 
the agreement as to authenticity. If you want him 
to refer to any of them or testify from them, you may 
do that.

Do you have a question concerning those?
Mr. Barnes: Yes, Your Honor. I ’m just formulat­

ing my question.

Q. Mr. Benton, what was the first of these resolutions 
or—or these recommendations which was offered by the 
superintendent? £693 A. I believe resolution 1520, Plain­
tiff’s Exhibit 3, would have been the first recommendation 
that the superintendent presented to the Board.

Q. And to what did that pertain? A. This pertained 
to certain secondary schools, notably East High School and

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



114a

Smiley as a point of focus with, incidental relationships to 
other schools.

Q. What was the action of the Board upon receipt of 
that recommendation ? A. As was typical of the Board of 
Education during my tenure, the Board received these res­
olutions for consideration and evaluation and in connection 
with that the valuation I believe there were conferences 
held among members of the Board and the superintendent 
and the administrative staff in which the details of this 
resolution were considered and evaluated and my recollec­
tion is also that there were at least one—perhaps more— 
public meetings where the public had an opportunity to 
present its views with respect to these matters.

Q. Following the presentation that is contained in 1520, 
were there further presentations made to the Board con­
cerning junior high schools and elementary schools? A. 
Yes, there were two other resolutions of importance here; 
one was resolution 1524 which I believe represented a fur­
ther implementation of resolution 1520, and resolution 
C70] 1531 which related to certain elementary schools.

Q. Resolution 1524 was with regard to implementation 
in the junior high schools? A. That’s correct.

Q. So that a discussion began beginning in January of 
1969 concerning the contents of these resolutions presented 
by the superintendent. Can you tell the Court whether 
there were also public hearings concerning resolutions 1524 
and 1531 ? A. There were public hearings relating to both 
of those as I recall. And I might add that I  believe there 
was also consideration of perhaps of a highly general 
nature given to these matters during the month of Decem­
ber, 1968.

Q. Does 1524 contain a plan pertaining to Smiley Junior 
High School? A. It does.

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



115a

Q. And does 1531 contain a plan pertaining to Barrett 
Elementary School? A. It does.

Q. In your judgment were these two schools the focus 
of these resolutions? A. Well, Smiley I think was the 
focal point at the secondary level because of the fact that 
Smiley had been a school of concern to the district and to 
the community for a number of years. The difficulties of 
maintaining and even £71] creating equality of educational 
opportunity there had not been resolved satisfactorily. 
Smiley, because of its profound impact upon the Park Hill 
area, which it serves, was important. It was important be­
cause it’s one of the major contributing schools to East 
High School, which of course is important to the whole com­
munity so that Smiley because of its historical importance 
and its then importance in terms of its relationship to 
the high schools and to the residential areas of Park Hill, 
was the matter of principal concern in resolution 1524. 
This produces of course the junior high schools’ problems; 
whether they are resolved or not, has an impact on the ele­
mentary schools. And in order to maintain the beneficial 
changes at Smiley Junior High School contemplated by 
resolution 1524, it was necessary to make certain adjust­
ments at the elementary level so that schools—the ele­
mentary schools and Park Hill feeding into Smiley would 
bear an appropriate educational relationship to Smiley.

Q. One of these elementary schools was Barrett Ele­
mentary School? A. One of the schools was Barrett. And 
Barrett I believe was selected for inclusion, I think not 
originally recommended by Dr. Gilberts but subsequently 
included in his recommendation, the concern being that the 
profound impact of segregated schools in Denver was not 
only in Park Hill but also in the residential areas to the 
west of Park Hill and £72] that as a means within the

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



116a

limits of physical and personal capability of drawing those 
schools into the comprehensive solution of segregated 
schooling in Denver, Barrett was included because it was 
geographically contiguous to the Park Hill area which was 
a matter of principal focus and it was a small school which 
did not pose the more serious problems of money and per­
sonnel that would have been perhaps involved if other 
larger schools had been included.

Q. Were Barrett and Smiley the only segregated schools 
in the system! A. No.

Q. So that this was not a plan involving all the segre­
gated schools in the school district? A. Clearly not.

Q. Was it a drastic step forward in your judgment? A. 
It was not a drastic step forward. It was in the discussion 
relating to resolution 1531 that I urged that Gilpin School, 
which is located substantially further to the west of Barrett, 
in near the so-called Five Points Area of Denver—that 
that school be included because of its location in the heart 
of the ghetto, as it were. I  felt that Dr. Gilberts’ recom­
mendation was not only not drastic but was not fully ade­
quate to cope with the problem as it existed in the com­
munity.

Q. Now, were there supporting documents that the [733 
superintendent presented which implemented or described 
the implementation of resolutions 1520, 1524 and 1531 ? A. 
My recollection is that there were such documents.

Q. And those are contained in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4-A and 
5-A? A. That’s correct.

Q. And the resolutions themselves are Plaintiff’s Ex­
hibits 3, 4 and 5 ? A. Correct.

Q. You have stated that there were public hearings. 
Can you give an idea of the scope of the contribution of the 
public to the Board’s consideration? A. The public hear­

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



117a

ings were held as has been customary in the school district 
each time a secondary school boundary is changed. This 
I  understand to be the traditional practice of the district, 
going back many many years. And these hearings were or­
dered for that purpose to give the public an opportunity 
to respond so that there was an opportunity for any inter­
ested citizen to appear before the Board and present his 
views with respect to the wisdom or lack of wisdom in­
volved in the adoption of the proposed boundary changes. 
It had not been customary in the school district as I  un­
derstand it to have public hearings when elementary schools 
are bounds changed. These are ordinarily changed by 
[74] the superintendent as an administrative matter and 
do not require Board action and therefore the Board cus­
tomarily has not had hearings. But, because of the par­
ticular public interest in this question and the notoriety 
that it had achieved in the community, it was determined 
that it would be appropriate to have a public hearing with 
respect to 1531 even though traditionally it would not 
have been indicated.

Q. Were such things as educational and psychological 
and economic factors considered and offered for considera­
tion by the public? A. There was a broad variety of 
testimony as it were presented to the Board in these pro­
ceedings. Individual citizens spoke in their own behalf 
about the educational and the other significance of the 
Board’s proposed action. There were representatives of 
groups including professional groups of doctors, psychi­
atrists, psychologists, social workers; the clergy was there 
and representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and all 
these groups were in strong support of the proposed action 
of the Board on the three items indicated.

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



118a

Q. Were the resolutions eventually passed! A. The res­
olutions were eventually passed. I might say I did not 
create the impression in my testimony that there was no 
opposing testimony at these hearings. There were individ­
uals who opposed the resolutions and there were also rep­
resentatives for the most part of neighborhood organiza­
tions [75] from southeast and southwest Denver. But, the 
resolutions were adopted by the Board of Education in all 
three cases I believe by a vote of five to two.

Q. And were you voting with the majority! A. I  was 
a member of the majority!

Q. What general objective was behind these resolutions 
with regard to Smiley and Barrett! A. The objective was 
the creation and maintenance of equal educational oppor­
tunity for the children involved. They were founded upon 
the superintendent’s recommendations. They were based 
upon his professional judgment that they were reasonable. 
They were within the physical and administrative personnel 
capabilities of the district and they were designed to reduce 
the concentration of minority children in those schools so 
that the program could be improved and the quality of ed­
ucation could be raised.

Q. Would the racial composition of those schools have 
been changed! A. The racial composition of Barrett 
School would have been changed from approximately 100 
percent Black to approximately 80 percent Anglo effective 
September, 1969, and at Smiley—I believe these figures are 
approximately correct—the racial balance would have 
changed from about 70 to 75 percent minority to approx­
imately 70 to 75 percent Anglo, in September, 1969.

£763 Q. What was the general objective behind these 
resolutions with regard to East High School and Philips 
Elementary School and Park Hill School! A. Let me

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



119a

speak first to Philips and Park Hill. Both of those schools 
were integrated schools. However, there were disturbing 
trends to the principals, to the faculty, to the citizenry 
that unless aggressive and thoughtful action was taken 
by the school district that they would become perhaps at 
a slower rate but nevertheless they would become segre­
gated schools. So the purpose of the resolution with re­
spect to those two schools was to insure the maintenance 
of the integrated education where it existed, this being 
consistent with one of the principal elements of Dr. Hil­
berts’ plan to be presented to the Board, that is to say, 
the stabilization of neighborhoods through the mainte­
nance of integrated education where it existed. Now, .East 
High School came to be a critical point of focus for the 
Board of Education because of its realization that East 
was becoming Black in its pupil composition by signifi­
cant percentages each year and that unless some interven­
tion was made through Board policy and administrative 
practice, East High School reasonably could be predicted 
to become another Black high school in Denver. The Board 
concluded—the superintendent I believe concurred—that 
it was in the best educational interest of the students at 
East High School as well £77] as in the best interests 
of this community to not permit East High School to 
become a Black higii school. Therefore, resolution 1520 
as it related to East High School was proposed and adopted.

Q. Was the racial composition of these schools affected 
by these resolutions? A. Yes, I don’t have the percen­
tages in mind with respect to Park Hill and Philips, but 
the effect of the resolution would have been to reduce the 
number of Black children in both schools and to increase 
the number of Anglo. At East High School, which I be- 
live presently is approximately 40 percent Black, there

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



120a

would have been in September, 1969, a reduction of the 
Black population by significant amounts and then a pro­
gressive reduction of the Black population in succeeding 
years.

Q. What was the objective of the Board with regard to 
Stedman Elementary School? A. Stedman Elementary 
School I  believe would have been affected by the resolution 
primarily through the elimination of certain mobile units 
and the transportation of children from Stedman to cer­
tain Anglo schools I believe primarily in southwest Den­
ver. So the effect of the resolution I believe that Stedman 
would not have been to improve the racial balance par­
ticularly but to reduce the population at Stedman and I 
might say as I indicated earlier in my testimony £783 
the schools directly affected by the resolutions were those 
that had been indicated. The incidental effect of this 
resolution if it were to be implemented would have been 
to have integrated a substantial number of additional 
schools in other parts of the city which are presently near 
100 percent Anglo. In other words the schools would have 
had a significant minority population had the resolutions 
been carried out.

Q, What methods were employed by the Board to ob­
tain these objectives? A. Primarily the modification of 
attendance area boundaries and the use of transportation, 
both long established administrative practices of the school 
district.

Q. Now, Mr. Benton, I direct your attention to Plain­
tiff’s Exhibit C-3 and ask you to state whether the Board 
specifies their considerations and the conclusions with re­
gard to educational purposes that were to be achieved by 
these resolutions? A. Yes, I  would say this is reflected 
in the resolution. These resolutions were all based as I

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



121a

understood it upon a careful and extensive professional 
evaluation of the educational problem and the educational 
solutions represented here and by a policy determination 
by the Board of Education that that professional judgment 
was competent. I think those considerations are reflected 
in the language of the resolution.

[79] * * *
Cross-Examination by Mr. Craig:

*  *  #  #  *

C813 Q. I believe you testified that there was a trend 
in some of these schools at least toward increasing segre­
gation as you used the term? A. Yes.

Q. Was there also a parallel change in the racial com­
position of the neighborhoods of these schools at the same 
time? A. Yes, there was. There was a change in the neigh­
borhood.

Q. So could we say that the result of the—or the [82] 
cause of the change in the composition of the schools was 
the result of the change in the neighborhood? A. Well it 
was a result of more than that. It was a result of rigid 
adherence to the so-called neighborhood school policy which 
precluded the policy of alleviating in the schools the impact 
of increasing segregation in the neighborhood. It wasn’t 
just the increase of the neighborhood segregation that pro­
duced the results; it was the inability until resolutions 1520, 
-24 and -31 of the Board of Education to make a judgment 
that it would intervene in that process and cause it not to 
be inevitable but cause it to be amenable to education 
decisionmaking.

Q. Do you see as one of the purposes of these resolutions 
to the role of schools as an instrument in creating social 
change in the community? [83] A. I  was momentarily dis­
tracted, Mr. Craig. Could you repeat the question?

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Cross



122a

Q. Do you see as one of the purposes of the resolution 
as it relates to the role of the school, as using the school 
as an instrument for social change in the community! A. 
Well, this question raises I think a very fundamental issue 
and that is what is the purpose of education. I take it that 
one of the essential purposes of education, public and pri­
vate, is to have an impact upon humanity in the form of 
the individual who is involved in the formal process of 
education. So that what he learns or does not learn in 
school ought to have a significant bearing on what he does 
or does not do; what he thinks or does not think; what he 
believes or does not believe, as a citizen and as an adult. 
So that to create and maintain an effective program of 
education in the schools, so that true equality of educa­
tional opportunity exists for the development of the poten­
tial of all people who are subjected to the process of educa­
tion, ought to have—must have a beneficial impact on the 
community; on society. If it doesn’t have, then the game 
isn’t worth the candle. And that we are engaged in a 
massive and irresponsible expenditure of public resources 
that perhaps could be better put elsewhere. So there is a 
distinct relationship between what you are able to do in 
the schools and what ultimately you are able to do with 
mankind. Now, I’m not sure that’s responsive to your [84] 
question.

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Cross

The Court: I’m not either.
The Witness: If not, I apologize.
The Court: Does that answer your question!
Mr. Craig: I’m not sure it is either, Your Honor, 

but I think it is—-it has touched on it.
The Court: I gather from your question that you 

wanted him to say whether he views using schools 
as an instrument or weapon to bring about social 
change, generally. Is that what you asked him ?



123a

Mr. Craig: That’s essentially what I asked him.
The Court: In other words, it is just part of an 

overall plan to change the system? Is that what you 
wanted him to answer?

Mr. Craig: Yes, Your Honor, that’s essentially 
what I wanted to ask.

The Court: Did he answer that?
Did you answer that?
The Witness: I  believe I did, Your Honor, but if 

additional comments are indicated, I’d be glad to—
The Court: I  don’t care.
The Witness: I’d be glad to accommodate the 

Court or counsel.
The Court: Maybe he wishes to ask another ques­

tion.
Mr. Craig: I believe the witness’ philosophy on 

that [851 was covered in the answer.
No further questions, Your Honor.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Barnes:

Q. Mr. Benton, is there any statement within the resolu­
tions that we have been discussing, 1520, 1524 and 1531, 
which requires racial balance in the schools in the school 
district? A. I don’t recall any such statements.

Q. Mr. Benton, you spoke in response to a question by 
Mr. Craig of the deterioration of the schools in northeast 
Denver. Was the Board aware of this deterioration? A. 
Yes, I think the Board was aware during this entire period 
from 1962 on, the fact that academic achievement was de­
clining in some schools; was chronically low in others. I 
suppose it wasn’t made as dramatically clear to the Board 
as perhaps—in the past as it was when Dr. Gilberts, upon 
assuming the superintendency, released the standard test 
scores on a school by school basis and this enabled not only 
the board but I think the community for the first time to

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



124 a

make a very clear judgment as to the deteriorating and 
chronically deteriorated quality of education in segregated 
schools.

Q. Is the neighborhood school policy the only method of 
assignment which can be used by a board of its students? 
[86] A. You mean in general terms?

Q. Yes. A. No, there have been many other policies that 
have been adopted by the School Board and implemented 
by them in other communities.

Q. Keeping in mind the awareness of the Board of the 
deterioration of the school we have been considering, what 
was the effect of the choice of their policy for the assign­
ment of students? A. Well, this policy as I understood from 
Dr. Gilberts’ recommendation was among alternatives per­
haps that might have been selected.

Q. Let me clarify my question. What was the effect of 
the choice of the neighborhood school policy by the Board 
on the deterioration that you described? A. I’m sorry. Well, 
my view was that—and I think this was the view shared 
by the majority of the Board, by the members of the Board 
—that the adherence to the neighborhood school policy 
without modification and without any attempt to intervene 
in this process of changing neighborhood, therefore, impact 
upon the schools was to maintain and perpetuate the decline 
in education and the absence of true educational oppor­
tunity—equality of opportunities.

Q. Is there any statute requiring the Board to adopt the 
neighborhood school policy? [873 A. I’m aware of none.

Mr. Barnes: I have no further questions.
Mr. Craig: No further questions.
The Court: You may step down.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: We will take our noon recess now and 

resume at two o’clock.

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



125a

(Whereupon, the trial recessed at 12:25 p.m. and 
resumed at 2:10 p.m.)

The Court: One of the spectators complained that 
nobody can hear. I think probably the public does 
have some interest in hearing what the witnesses 
say. We have never had any trouble with aceoustics 
in this courtroom before. It’s built as a soundproof 
room and I don’t see why we should have this diffi­
culty here today. I  think the lawyers ought to speak 
up and the witnesses. Now, if you have to get further 
back, why, do so. But, encourage them to raise their 
voices just a little bit. They don’t have to yell but 
they can speak up, you know. Make themselves heard. 
Now, somebody filed a special motion to be heard. 
I think it ought to be made clear that this is no legis­
lative body. It’s not an administrative tribunal. We 
don’t allow the citizenry to be lobbyists. We will not 
receive any petitions or letters. I would like to make 
that absolutely clear right here in the outset. We 
are seeking out the truth on the merits of this case 
and it’s an [88] ordinary lawsuit in which we do it 
by adversary method. We don’t allow the public to 
participate, nor the newspapers. We will do our very 
best to find the merits and then decide the case upon 
those merits. But, we’re not going to hear from the 
public and I ’m not going to receive any letters from 
anybody. My wife will intercept them at home and 
my secretary will intercept them here. They will not 
be read. If they contain any threats, of course, to 
the interference of the administration of justice, we 
will deal with them when the case is over.

Very well. Proceed.
Mr. Greiner: Before proceeding with calling our 

next witness which is Dr. Paul Klite, you will recall

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



126a

that at the hearing on June 27 the Court asked coun­
sel to submit proposed findings of facts and conclu­
sions of law. We have prepared on behalf of Plain­
tiffs certain proposed findings of fact and I would 
like to submit them to the Court and opposing counsel 
at this time.

The Court: Very good.
Mr. Greiner: Our next witness will be Dr. Paul 

Klite.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Paul D. K lite, a witness called by and on behalf of 
Plaintiffs, having been first duly sworn was examined and 
testified as follows:
Direct Examination £89] by Mr. Greiner:

The Court: Give us your name and address,
please.

The Witness: Paul D. Klite. My address is 1434 
Birch Street.

The Court: How do you spell your last name! 
The Witness: K-l-i-t-e.

By Mr. Greiner:

Q. Dr. Klite in order to assist Plaintiffs’ counsel have 
you prepared certain exhibits for presentation in this 
case! A. Yes, I have.

Q. I ’d like to first direct your attention to what’s been 
marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7. This is one of the ex­
hibits, the authenticity of which is admitted. And I wonder 
if you would just briefly describe for us what Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit 7 and the overlays attached thereto illustrate with 
respect to the effect of these resolutions upon first of all 
the senior high schools. A. May I leave the witness box 
to show that!

Q. Yes.



127a

The Court: Are the qualifications of the witness 
Klite admitted!

Mr. Greiner: Tour Honor, he is not here as an 
expert witness and he is not going to render any 
expert testimony. He is simply going to state what 
the objective data, the numbers of students to be 
moved and the racial [90] compositions, and so 
forth.

A. This map which is a 1966 boundary map of the senior 
high schools shows three high schools affected by Resolu­
tion 1520; East, South and George Washington. The pres­
ent boundaries and those which obtained until the time 
of the resolutions, are depicted in black on the map. The 
overlay, Exhibit 7A, shows the effective resolution 1520 
on these three senior high schools. In red are depicted 
areas that had been within the East High district. This 
area would be moved to South. This area to the east 
would be moved to George Washington. In green, are 
two areas that had been part of the George Washington 
district. This would be moved to East and this to South. 
And in yellow is an area from South High School that 
would be moved to East High.

Q. Pardon me, Dr. Klite. With respect to the areas 
of red which were detached from as I understand it, East 
High School, can you tell us anything about the racial 
composition of those areas? A. Well, the predominant 
racial composition of both these areas is Negro. The pre­
dominant racial composition of the remaining three areas, 
that is, those detached from George Washington and South, 
are Anglo.

Q. So then the Blacks were being bused away from East 
and to predominantly Anglo schools? A. That’s correct.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct



128a

[91] Q. And certain Anglos at those schools were being 
bused back to East High? Is that correct? A. That’s 
correct.

Q. Are the numbers of students involved reflected on 
the overlay? A. Yes, they are. In this area there are 
141 students, and in this area 249. And in effect removing 
from East, approximately 390 students. To East, would 
come 195 students from George Washington and 172 stu­
dents from South, a total of approximately 367 pupils. 
And then 100 switched to South from George Washington.

Q. Now while I still have you on your feet, Doctor, 
why don’t we consider Exhibit 8 which I believe pertains 
to the junior high schools.

Dr. Klite calling your attention first to Exhibit 8, would 
you identify what is depicted on that exhibit? A. This 
is a 1967 boundary map of the junior high boundaries. 
In blue are listed the names of the schools affected by 
Resolution 1520 and 1524. Ten of the junior high schools 
are so affected. It looks like this is 11 of the junior high 
schools so affected. The first overlay shows the main 
thrust of Resolutions 1520 and 1524 as they pertain to 
junior high schools.

Q. That’s Exhibit 8A? A. Yes, that’s correct. In green 
are depicted areas [92] that will be detached from the 
Smiley Junior High School boundary and changed to be 
part of the boundaries of other junior high schools across 
the city. These are color coded on this overlay in green, 
indicating the schools to which these children will be 
transported. The numbers in each of these areas are in­
dicated and a code letter for the receiving school. For 
example, in this area 200 children from Smiley will now 
be switched to Merrill. The other junior high schools 
also affected by this movement with the numbers of stu­

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct



129a

dents to be transported are listed. In yellow, is listed an 
area south of the present boundaries of Smiley Junior 
High School which is Colfax Avenue which will not be­
come part of the Smiley Junior High School area. In 
red are depicted areas from Cole Junior High School that 
will be detached to other schools across the city. These 
are color coded in red. These students for example would 
go to Smiley. Thirty-three students to Byers and 110 
students to Ivunsmiller, 46 students to Kepner and 36 
students to Rishel. There is one other aspect to the move­
ment of students among the junior high schools and this 
is shown in the next overlay, Exhibit 8B. This shows 
the adjustment of population in two of the southeast Den­
ver schools; 100 children presently assigned to Hill will 
now be switched to Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Sim­
ilarly, 200 students from the Merrill area will be switched 
to Thomas Jefferson and Hamilton.

[933 Q. Those are provisions that pertain only to the 
sending of Anglo students to Anglo schools? A. That is 
correct.

Q. Then is there a similar exhibit prepared with respect 
to the effective Resolution 1531 on the elementary schools? 
A. Yes. This is Exhibit 9. Exhibit 9 is a 1967 boundary 
map of the elementary schools of Denver, Colorado and 
coded in yellow are the 17 elementary schools affected by 
Resolution 1531. The first overlay, Exhibit 9A, depicts 
the changes that were made at Barrett School. The area 
in green was in the Barrett boundary, was detached from 
the Barrett area and sent to five other predominantly 
Anglo schools across the city. This is depicted by the 
arrows showing students to Moore, 42; students to Mont­
clair, 100; to Whiteman, to Carson, and to Ashley; a total 
of slightly more than 300 students than detached from

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct



130a

the Barrett area. Brought to the Barrett area was an 
area containing 225 students in the Lowry Air Force Base 
area who had been going to Montclair and Whiteman. 
They would now be assigned to the Barrett area and 42 
students from Moore to Barrett, to balance the 42 from 
Barrett to Moore.

Q. So then there would have been two Anglos sending 
schools and the Anglos sent to Barrett would have been 
balanced by Negroes sent from Barrett into those other 
receiving schools'? [943 A. Well, two sending areas; one, 
the Moore School area and the other, the Lowry Air 
Force Base area. Exhibit 9B shows a second aspect of 
Resolution 1531. This is the busing of students from Sted- 
man Elementary School to three schools in southwest .Den­
ver, Force, Denison, and Schenek. They would receive 
60, 30 and 30 pupils respectively.

Q. This is strictly one-way busing, is that correct? A. 
That’s correct.

Q. No whites are being bused back instead? A. That’s 
correct.

Q. Do you recall what the racial composition of Stedman 
was prior to these resolutions? A. Stedman is greater 
than 95 percent Negro.

Q. And after the resolutions the Negro racial composi­
tion changed? A. Not appreciably, no.

Q. So this was to relieve overcrowding? A. This was 
what the purpose of removing the four mobile units from 
Stedman. There are approximately 235 I believe or some­
where in that neighborhood students presently being bused 
from Stedman because of overcrowdness. This is an ad­
ditional busing of 120 students from Stedman.

The next exhibit overlay 9C, shows additional aspects 
of Resolution 1531 pertaining to elementary schools. This

Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct



131a

exhibit depicts the steps that are being taken to [953 
stabilize the membership in the Park Hill and Philips 
Elementary School district. In Park Hill School for exam­
ple, as depicted in yellow, 70 students will be detached 
from Park Hill area and put in the Steele attendance area. 
Thirty in this small yellow, spots to the Steck area,

Q. Those are Negro students? A. We don’t know the 
exact racial or ethnic makeup of the students to be bused. 
For assumption purposes, however, these students have 
been considered to be Negro. A block by block census is 
not available to know the exact racial and ethnic member­
ship of these students. In the Philips area depicted in 
red is an area to he detached to Palmer containing 50 stu­
dents. In red here is an area detached to Ashley contain­
ing 30 students. Two other changes are in the Philips 
area, an area north of Colfax from Montclair is detached 
to Philips and an area in southeast Denver that had had 
children transported to Palmer is now moved to the Philips 
area to equalize the 50 students detached to Palmer.

Q. Thank you, Doctor. I think you can return to the 
witness box.

Dr. Klite, turning your attention first to the effect of 
these resolutions upon the senior high school schools which 
were depicted in Exhibit C, as I understood your testi­
mony the principal high school to be affected was East 
High School? [96] A. East High School is the focus of 
the resolutions.

Q. Calling your attention to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 70, does 
that exhibit reflect what the racial composition at East 
High School would be under Resolution 1520? A. That is 
correct. It shows that East High School would have ap­
proximately 25 percent Negro population under Resolu­
tion 1520.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct



132;a

Q. Now turning your attention to what’s been marked 
for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 71) does that ex­
hibit purport to reflect what the racial composition of 
East High will be under the recision of 1520? A. Yes, it 
does.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, this was one of the 
exhibits I believe which counsel had some question 
concerning.

Would you wish to examine on voir dire or I can 
establish a foundation for it.

Mr, Creighton: I think if you will let me ask a 
couple of questions, you will understand our prob­
lem with this.

Mr. Greiner: I know what your problem is.

Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Creighton:

Q. Mr. Klite, what figures do you—how do you arrive 
at your figures on what you call post recision proportion? 
A. Since there would be no boundary changes we have as­
sumed that the racial and ethnic composition of those three 
[973 high schools would be what it was in 1968.

Q. So that when you say post recision or after recision, 
you’re using last year’s figures? A. That’s correct.

Q. Are you taking into account the alternative planning 
the School District made under Resolution 1533? A. We 
have not until a few days ago had the figures of the numbers 
of students who had volunteered to be transported. There­
fore those figures are not taken into account in these figures.

Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, so long as it’s un­
derstood by the Court that post recision data here 
really represents last year’s racial figures and pro­
portions, this may go in.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct—Voir Dire



133a

Mr. Greiner: I think I might also—it might also 
save time, Your Honor, to note that this same fac­
tual premise is present with regard to Plaintiffs’ 
exhibit 8D and 9E. And these then would be intro­
duced with the same understanding.

Mr. Creighton: With that understanding they may 
be introduced, Your Honor.

The Court: Yery well. What’s the number of that 
one!

Mr. Greiner: 7D.
And then, there is 7C and then there is 8D and 

9E, Your Honor.
[981 The Court: Very well. All of those three 

will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 7C, 7D, 81), 

and 9E were received in evidence.)

Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Continued):
Q. Calling your attention, Dr. Klite, to Plaintiffs’ Ex­

hibit 7D, that exhibit does purport to show what the racial 
composition of East High School -will be is Resolution 1520 
is rescinded! A. Yes.

Q. What is shown there? A. It shows that East High 
School will be 54 percent Anglo and 40 percent Negro with 
7 percent Hispano.

Q. Do we have a large graph that depicts this change? 
A. Yes, we do. We prepared Exhibit 7E which demon­
strates with a two color code the percent Negro and His­
pano population of the three subject high schools. In red 
under Resolution 1520; in yellow after recision of that res­
olution. It shows that the Negro population, Negro and 
Hispano population of East High School is above 40 per­

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct



134a

cent if the resolution is rescinded and it is close to 30 per­
cent in 1969 with implementation of the resolution. I 
might add that the school district projects that by 1971 
the percent of Negro and Hispano of East High School 
will be about 25 percent.

[993 Hr. Klite, this then was one of the stabilizing moves 
as described by Mr. Benton in his testimony this morn­
ing? A. Yes, it was and I think that can best be demon­
strated with Table Exhibit 7F which shows the percent 
Anglo enrollment at the three subject senior high schools 
from 1963 to 1968. In 1963 East High School was 83 per­
cent Anglo. It was in 1968 54 percent Anglo, showing a 
marked decrease in the number of Anglo students at that 
school. The racial and ethnic composition of the other two 
subject high schools was more stable.

Q. This then demonstrates that East High School is a 
school in transition?

Mr. Creighton: Objection, Your Honor. That’s 
leading.

The Court: Sustained. I  think we can draw that 
inference, anyway, from the facts,

Q. Calling your attention next, Dr. Klite, to the effect 
upon the junior high schools, as I recall Mr. Benton’s testi­
mony the primary focus here was on Smiley Junior High 
School? A. That is correct. Exhibit 8C shows the ten 
subject high schools estimated of ethnic and racial com­
position under Resolutions 1520 and 1524.

Q. What does it show then for Smiley Junior High 
School [1003 under the resolutions? A. It shows Smiley 
to be 72 percent Anglo.

The Court: You’re referring to 8C?
The Witness: 8C, yes, sir.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct



135a

Q. At 72 percent Anglo and what percent Negro? A. 
Twenty-three percent Negro and five percent Hispano.

Q. Have yon also prepared an exhibit Hr. Klite, that 
purports to project what the racial composition of Smiley 
Junior High School will be should these resolutions be 
rescinded ? A. Exhibit 8D shows that without implementa­
tion of the Resolution 1520 and 24 as projected from the 
1968 attendance, Smiley would be 24 percent Anglo and 
72 percent Negro.

Q. So then the effect of the resolution in the recision 
would be just to completely reverse the racial composition 
that’s at Smiley, is that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. Have you also prepared a bar chart, Doctor, that il­
lustrates that change? A. Yes, Exhibit 8E, which again 
depicts the percent Negro and Hispano enrollment at the 
ten subject junior high schools. In red under implementa­
tion of Resolutions 1520 and 24 and in yellow without im­
plementation of these resolutions. One can see that the 
declining order is the red bars. Cole [101] is affected in 
terms—essentially unaffected in terms of its percent Negro 
and Hispano by the resolutions. Smiley is the school with 
the most dramatic effect decreasing, as has been pointed 
out, the Negro population from 72 to approximately 25 
percent. The other subject high schools—junior high 
schools of the city would increase their Negro and Hispano 
population under these resolutions by the busing from 
Smiley and Cole.

Q. Doctor, have you also prepared an exhibit that shows 
the changes in racial composition of the subject junior 
high schools over the years? A. Yes, Exhibit 8H for the 
ten subject junior high schools shows the percentage Anglo 
enrollment from 1963 to 1968. It shows that Smiley was 
46 percent Anglo in 1963. By 1968 it was 24 percent Anglo.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct



136a

Cole Junior High was ten percent Anglo in 1963 and four 
percent Anglo in 1968. The other junior high schools have 
shown quite stable percentage of Anglo over the period of 
six years from which data is available.

Q. Doctor, turning your attention next to the impact of 
Resolution 1531 upon the subject elementary schools, have 
you prepared any exhibits that depict the racial composi­
tion of those elementary schools under Resolution 1531? 
A. Exhibit 9D lists the number and percent Anglo and 
Negro and Hispano enrollment for the 17 subject junior 
high [1021 schools. And it shows that under Resolution—

Q. Pardon me. Did you say junior high? A. —subject 
elementary schools. Excuse me. Under the Resolution 1531 
each of these schools with the exception of Stedman would 
have between 70 and 85 percent Anglo enrollment. Sted­
man would have five percent Anglo enrollment. Stedman, 
you recall, is the school from which Negro schools were 
bused from—

Q. That’s one-way busing for overcrowding? A. Yes.
Q, Doctor, as I  recall Mr. Benton’s testimony, it was the 

primary focus of 1531—that was up on Barrett. Could 
you tell us what the racial composition of Barrett would 
be under Resolution 1531 ? A. Barrett would be 73 percent 
Anglo, 24 percent Negro, and three percent Hispano.

Q. Now Mr. Benton also testified that there was to be 
some stabilization at two of the other elementary schools. 
Could you identify those for us? A. Park Hill and Sted­
man in turn under the resolutions—Park Hill would be 79 
percent Anglo and Philips 70 percent Anglo.

Q. Doctor, you also prepared an exhibit which pur­
ports to depict the effect of the resolutions upon the 
racial composition of the subject elementary schools! 
£1033 A. Yes, Exhibit 9E which shows that Barrett would

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct



137a

have zero percent Anglo and 97 percent Negro population; 
that Philips would have 55 percent Anglo enrollment in­
stead of the 70 percent under the resolution; that Park Hill 
would have 71 percent Anglo instead of 79 as under the 
resolutions, and that the—among the other subject schools, 
there would be either ten or 11 that would have greater 
than 85 percent Anglo enrollment.

Q. Now, Doctor, have you also similarly prepared an ex­
hibit depicting the differences before and after the resolu­
tions at the subject schools? A. Yes, Exhibit 9F which 
shows the percent Negro and Hispano enrollment at the 
subject elementary schools under Resolution 1531 and after 
reeision. Stedman not being appreciably affected by these 
facts, the major effect being at Barrett School which would 
change from a 70 percent Anglo school to a zero percent 
Anglo school and Philips which would change from a 30 
percent Anglo school—correction—30 percent minority 
school to a 45 percent minority school. Park Hill would 
change from approximately 20 percent Negro and Hispano 
to a little more than 30 percent Negro and Hispano. The 
other schools averages are listed in the last column.

Q. Then finally, Doctor, calling your attention to Plain­
tiffs’ Exhibits 97 and 98, have you also had occasion [104] 
to prepare a composite table showing certain data for all 
of the schools of the school district? A. Yes.

Q. Of what was the source of the data? A. Are you 
referring to these two exhibits?

Q. Yes. A. These are copies of the estimated ethnic 
distribution of pupils for all of the schools in the school 
system that has been issued each year by the school sys­
tem since 1963.

Q. So these then are tables that have been prepared by 
the school district? A. That is correct.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs'—Direct



138a

Mr. Greiner: Do you have any objection?
Mr. Creighton: No objection.
The Court: What are the exhibit numbers?
Mr. Greiner: That’s 97 and 98, Your Honor.
The Court: They will be received.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 97 and 98 were 
received in evidence.)

Q. And then, finally, Dr. Klite, have you also prepared 
a table that shows the change of the ethnic composition of 
the subject elementary schools over the years with respect 
to their racial composition? A. Exhibit 91 depicts the 
racial and ethnic composition [105] of the 17 subject ele­
mentary schools from 1963 to 1968. It shows that Barrett 
School was two percent Anglo in 1963 and in 1968 it was 
zero percent Anglo. Under Resolution 1531 it would be 73 
percent Anglo. It also shows that Stedman was a predom­
inantly Negro and Hispano school in 1963 and has remained 
so. It also shows that the Anglo population of Park Hill 
and Philips, which was 98 and 97 percent, respectively, in 
1963, has decreased to 71 percent for Park Hill and 55 per­
cent for Philips by 1968. The other schools are relatively 
stable on this chart.

Mr. Greiner: We have no further questions of the 
witness, Your Honor.

And for the record, we do offer each of these ex­
hibits, which I understand have been received.

The Court: They are all received.
Mr. Creighton: I  wonder, Mr, Greiner, if you 

could just list the exhibits you have just offered for 
the record and for my notes.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct



139a

Mr. Greiner: Yes. The exhibits are the following: 
7, 7A, C, D, E, and F ; 8, 8A, B, C, D, E and H; 
9, A, B, C, D, E, F and I ; and 97 and 98.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 7, 7A, 70, 7D, 
7E, 7F, 8, 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D, 8E, 8H, 9, 9A, 9B, 
90, 9D, 9E, 9F, 91, 97 and 98 were received 
in evidence.)

[106] Cross-Examination by Mr. Creighton:

Q. Dr. Klite, when you were testifying as to racial com­
position from time to time, were your statements based 
exclusively on school district figures f A. That’s correct.

Q. And as of what date were these school district figures 
when you were speaking to the racial compositions in the 
various schools at the time 1520, 24 and 31 wei*e passed? 
A. The source data for the 1520, 24 and 31 comes from 
the resolutions themselves and from the review volume, 
XLIX, of April 1969 and the review volume which is called 
XLX, I think it should be fifty, for May of 1969, and sup­
plemented by a special report with Assistant Superinten­
dent Armstrong.

[107] Q. Do you know when you received that verbal 
report? A. That report was given to Dr. George Bard- 
well by Dr. Armstrong sometime within the last month.

Q. And you got it from Dr. Bardwell? A. Correct.
Q. Have you made any inquiry as to the certainty of 

these figures, or to put it another way, as to whether these 
were estimates and if so within what ranges they were 
estimates? A. I have used the school administration’s 
figures. I  have not inquired at length as to how they 
obtained the estimates.

Paul D. Klite-—for Plaintiffs—Cross



140 a

Q. Are there mileage scales on your map, Dr. Clyde? 
A. That map has a scale of 2.7 inches equals 1 mile.

Q. You’re looking at 9-C, are you not? A. That’s right.
Q. Do all of the larger maps have that same scale? 

A. The three maps that have been introduced as Ex­
hibits 7, 8 and 9 do, yes.

Q. Have you measured off—It could be done by anyone 
with a little patience, I think—but have you measured off 
mileages or distances in terms of miles as between any 
of the schools where you’re drawing arrows here? [108] 
A. No, I have not.

Q. But it would be possible with a measuring device 
and a scale given to determine that from that document, 
would it not? A. An estimate of it, yes.

Q. Dr. Clyde, not only in the three specific exhibits we 
discussed with reference to the post-rescission ethnic data 
in which you said you recall that, that really was synony­
mous with last year’s ethnic data, not only with respect 
to those three exhibits; but is it fair to say, Doctor, that 
whenever you have spoken this afternoon of post-rescis­
sion racial and ethnic data you’re speaking of last school 
year’s figures? A. That is correct. The changes that 
might occur within a given school year from population 
changes reflect the 1969 attendance. We have no way of 
knowing—I have no way of knowing at the present time.

Q. Did you make any inquiry into the school district’s 
methodology in making its projections and determinations 
of these ethnic figures? A. Well, we assumed, for ex­
ample, if I may give you an example—

Q. All right. What did you assume, Doctor? A. That 
every student detached from the Smiley area was Negro 
and that every student brought to the Smiley area [109] 
was Anglo. By making that assumption we came to the

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Cross



141a

same percentage figure that the school administration had 
figured and published in the review.

Q. And referring to your high school exhibit, and I 
won’t unveil it for this colloquy, but you understand, Dr. 
Clyde, that it’s only in the case of the high school stu­
dents in the Harrington Elementary district area that 
busing is provided? A. Well, the review of May 1969 
lists 875 pupils will be transported at the Senior high 
level. Now, 875 turned out to be the total number moved 
among those boundary changes.

Q. East High School boundary changes? A. Yes, sir. 
High school boundary changes. And, they’re listed in the 
official publication of the Denver Public Schools as being 
transported. I believe we have a copy of that.

Mr. Greiner: We do have Exhibits 10 and 11, 
which are what he is referring to.

Mr. Creighton: Yes, let’s put them in at this 
point, Mr. Greiner.

The Court: All right. They are received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 10 and 11 

were recived in evidence.)

Q. I  call your attention to the gate-fold, I suppose 
[1103 it’s called, in Exhibit 10, under Senior High. It 
speaks of 141 pupils from areas which I earlier called the 
Harrington area busing to South. Is there any other bus­
ing mentioned in that explanation? A. Not in that expla­
nation, but in the following months’ explanation all of the 
students were listed as being transported.

Q. What is your understanding, Mr. Clyde, of the amount 
of busing provided in connection with the East High 
School aspect of 1520? A. Well, there are these two fig­
ures and I don’t know which one is correct.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Cross



142a

Mr. Creighton: You may examine.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this time we would 

go ahead and offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 10 and 11 
which have been authenticated by the defendant.

The Court: Do you have any objection to 10 and 
11?

Mr. Creighton: No, as I indicated before, they 
may be admitted.

The Court: They will be received.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Greiner:

Q. Did you state, Doctor, that under a projection by the 
School District as to what the expected racial [1113 com­
position of Smiley would be? A. Yes, I did.

Q. And that was for what year? A. I t’s published in 
the review. I don’t recall whether it was 1969 or ’71 or 
both. If I  could see a copy of that exhibit I could tell you.

The estimate for 19—for September 1969 is 72 percent 
Anglo; 23 percent Negro; and 5 percent Hispano.

Q. Now, you have also I think referred to a projection 
by the School District with respect to East High School 
that is not reflected in these exhibits. A. Yes.

Q. What was the result of that projection? A. Their 
estimate for East in the Exhibit 10 is 68 percent Anglo 
in 1969 and 88 percent Anglo in 1971. This later figure 
was in error and is corrected in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 11 
which shows the 1971 racial composition at East to be 
estimated at 73 percent Anglo.

Q. Now in reference to the question raised on cross- 
examination, Doctor, about the post-rescission figures, with 
respect to the trend in the racial compositions at these 
neighborhoods which have been reflected in the exhibits, 
what is the trend in these areas?

Paul D. K lite~for Plaintiffs—Redirect



143a

Mr. Creighton: Objection, Your Honor. There 
has been no trend reflected in the exhibits or other 
testimony.

[112] Mr. Greiner: I beg to differ. We have got 
three exhibits, Your Honor, that show from 1963 
to 1968 exactly what that trend was.

The Court: Well, he may testify—
Mr. Creighton: That was in schools. I thought 

your question was residential.
Mr. Greiner: I ’ll change my question to schools.

Q. What is the trend in the schools, Doctor? A. The 
trend at East High School, Smiley Junior High School, 
Philips Elementary, Park Hill Elementary, has been to­
wards increasing Negro population. Barrett Elementary 
is already a zero percent Anglo and can’t get any lower.

Q. Now taking into consideration that trend, Doctor, 
was that trend reflected in the post-rescission figures that 
are reflected in these exhibits? A. No, they were not.

Q. And in fact we have gone back to September of 1968? 
A. That is correct.

Q. Considering the trend in those schools, Doctor, does 
the September 1968 data tend to understate the Negro 
compensation in these schools after rescission? A. It very 
well might.
[113] * * *

Janies. D. Voorhees, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct

J ambs D.Yoob.hb.es, J r., a witness called by and on be­
half of plaintiffs, having been first duly sworn, was exam­
ined and testified as follows:



144a

Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes:

The Court: Give us your name and address.
The Witness: James D. Voorhees, Jr, 170 Down­

ing Street, Denver, Colorado.

By Mr. Barnes:

Q. Mr. Voorhees, are you presently a member of the 
Board of Education and a defendant in this case? A. I 
am.

Q. When did you first come on the Board of Education? 
A. After the election in May of 1965.

Q. Prior to that time did you serve in any capacity for 
the Board of Education? A. I was on and for a time was 
chairman of a special study committee investigating qual­
ity of education opportunity in public schools.

Q. And that’s the report of that special study [114] 
Committee—that’s what has been identified as Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit 20 in this cause, I think. Is that this report? A. 
Yes, it is.

Q. Mr. Voorhees, have you had a change in position with 
regard to the question of equal education opportunity in 
segregated schools? A. Yes, I  believe I have had such a 
change.

Q. And has this evolution occurred during the time you 
were on the Board? A. Yes, it has.

Q. W’ere you one of the members on the Board who 
voted in favor of the integration resolutions which are 
the subject of this discussion? A. I was.

Q. And does your position represent where you changed 
to in this evolution? Does your vote represent where you 
changed to in this evolution? A. Yes, I  think that would 
be a fair statement.

James D. Voorhees, Jr,—for Plaintiffs—Direct



145a

Q. What is your position with regard to the availability 
of equal educational opportunity in segregated schools'? 
A. I  think that based upon what I have observed and found 
out the probabilities of equal opportunity are reduced and 
may be entirely eliminated in racially or ethnically segre­
gated schools.

£1153 Q. What were the factors that led to your coming 
to that conclusion1? A. Well, at some point, and I couldn’t 
pinpoint it exactly, it became apparent to me that some­
thing was wrong in the manner in which the educational 
establishment was treating, and the result that it was 
getting from this group of children that we are now talk­
ing about, and I would include as well the children who 
might be considered as the product of a subculture of 
poverty, as you know there is an incidence of, between 
poor and minority children.

At some point it became quite apparent to me that the 
results that were available in terms of achievement and 
pure education, I suppose, to these children were not the 
same results that were available to the children of the 
Anglo—primarily Anglo and middle class which makes up 
the great majority, of course, of the students in the school.

I suppose what crystallized this change more than any­
thing was the release by the Superintendent sometime last 
fall, I believe, of some test scores—comparative test scores 
which indicated to me a direct correlation between con­
centration of poor children, minority children, and low 
achievement as compared to other schools where these 
conditions were not present.

Q. Mr. Voorhees, I hand to you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit [1163 
83, which I believe has already been stipulated to as to 
its authenticity and admitted, and ask you if that is a 
sample of the kind of compilation concerning achievement 
test scores to which you refer? A. It is.

James D. Voorhees, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



146a

Q. Mr. Voorhees, is the composition of the School Board 
the same today as it was at the time the integration resolu­
tions were passed? A. No, it is not.

Q. What brought about that change? A. An election 
held on May 22nd of this year which resulted in two new 
members, Mr. Southworth and Mr. Perrill, being elected 
to the Board.

Q. Might that have been May 20? A. May 20. Excuse 
me.

Q. In your judgment what were the focal subjects at 
issue in the campaign?

The Court: Oh, brother.
Do you object to that question?
Mr. Craig: Yes, I  do, Your Honor. I don’t think 

this is a proper question to ask of a lay witness.
The Court: Sustained.

Q. Following the election, did the School Board hold 
conferences with regard to actions on these resolutions? 
A. It held at least one at which I was present and [117]
I think it may have held another one in which I was present. 
My calendar shows two such conferences. And then there 
was a third conference which—at which I was not present

Q. Was there any in-depth discussion of the educational 
benefits of these resolutions at the conferences you at­
tended? A. No, there was not.

Q. Was there any in-depth discussion of the educational 
benefits that would accrue from the rescission of these 
resolutions? A. No, there was not.

Q. Did the Superintendent take a stand with regard to 
the rescission of these resolutions? A. It is my recollec­
tion that he indicated that he would not be in favor of

James D. Voorhees, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



147a

such rescission; that he did feel they were sound and ed­
ucationally—that the resolution were sound and were ed­
ucationally viable and were a step forward in solving some 
of the needs of this district.

Q. What was the reason that was given for the rescis­
sion of these resolution? A. As I remember, the then 
majority, the new majority of the Board indicated that 
they had received a mandate from the voters of the peo­
ple of the City and County of the school district, to re­
scind. They also indicated that rescission was necessary 
in order to restore [118] the confidence of the people of 
Denver in the School Board so that the bond issue could 
be passed.

Q. Did the Board then meet on June 9, 1969, and take 
action with regard to the integration resolution? A. Yes, 
it did.

Q. What did it do? A. It rescinded the three resolu­
tions, 1520, 1524 and 1531.

Q. Did it do that by motion or by resolution? A. It 
did that by motion and resolution on each separate resolu­
tion.

Q. Was a subsequent resolution then offered? A. Yes. 
I think there were several that won a substitute resolution 
identified as 1533 was offered. And then it seems to me 
there were two or three others having to do with volun­
tary programs and individual schools.

Q. I hand you what has been marked as Plaintiffs’ Ex­
hibit 6A and ask you if that is the Resolution 1533? A. 
It appears to be it.

Mr. Barnes: This has also been stipulated to as 
to its authenticity, Your Honor.

The Court: Very well.

James D. Voorhees, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



148a

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6A was re­
ceived in evidence.)

Q. Were you one of the ones who voted against the [1193 
passage of Resolution 15331 A. Yes.

Q. What was the vote on that resolution! A. It was 
four in favor and three against.

Q. The Court has heard previous testimony concerning 
the passage of 1490, Mr. Voorhees, I think, before you 
were here. Are you familiar with that resolution? A. 
Yes.

Q. How did you vote on that resolution? A. I voted 
for that resolution.

Q. Does Resolution 1533 act, in your judgment, to ac­
complish the aducational objectives of Resolution 1490! 
A. I can’t see how it does, no.

Q. Mr. Voorhees, have you filed an answer to this cause? 
A. Well, yes, Mrs. Noel and Dr. Amesse and I filed an 
answer today.

Q. For the purpose simply of identifying to the Court 
the position taken to that answer, can you state what your 
prayer is? A. Our prayer as to the first count is that 
the relief requested be granted. Our prayer as to the 
second count—

Q. Just as to the first count is all. That will do.

[1203 Mr. Barnes: Your Honor, Plaintiffs’ Ex­
hibit 6 is on the—is the official publication of the 
Board and the minutes of the meeting of June 9, 
1969, and it has been admitted as to its authenticity. 
We would like to offer it at this time.

The Court: Do you have any objection?
Mr. Craig: May I examine that exhibit?

James D. Voorhees, Jr.—for Plaintiff's—Direct



149a

The Court: Surely.
Mr. Craig: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: It will be received.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 was received 
in evidence.)

Q. Mr. Voorhees, was the content of Resolution 1533 dis­
cussed in conferences prior to June 9, 1969? A. Not at 
any conference at which I was present.

Q. When was the first occasion that you saw Resolution 
1533? A. It was at our places in the form in which it 
was enacted when the meeting opened.

Q. Were there subsequently public hearings to discuss 
the content of that resolution? A. No, except at Board 
meetings. It was a public meeting.

Q. Were there statements at the Board meeting concern­
ing the resolution? [121] A. By Board members. I  have 
a recollection which the minutes would perhaps confirm 
that a request was made that persons present be permitted 
to discuss it before it was voted on, and it’s my recollec­
tion that that was not permitted.

Q. Approximately how many people testified at that time 
concerning this resolution? A. From the public? I  don’t 
believe any public presentation was made before the mo­
tion was called for a vote.

Mr. Barnes: No further question of this witness, 
Your Honor.

Mr. Craig: Your Honor, may I suggest we have 
about ten minutes’ recess at this time to check our 
cr os s-examination ?

The Court: Very well. Let me know when you’re 
ready, Mr. Craig.

James D. Voorhees, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



150a

(Whereupon, the trial recessed at 3 :10 p.m. and 
resumed at 3:27 p.m.)

Mr. Craig: Your Honor, we have no questions of 
the witness.

Mr. Barnes: I would like to direct one more ques­
tion to the witness, if I may.

The Court: You may.

By Mr. Barnes:
Q. Mr. Voorhees, I believe you [122] testified earlier 

about your opinion as to the effectiveness of Resolution 
1533 to achieve the intended results of Resolution 1490. 
Would you state, please, why you think Resolution 1533 
is inadequate to achieve the goals of 1490? A. Well, ba­
sically because it is a voluntary proposal, and it seemed 
to me that the possibilities of achieving any kind of sta­
bilization, particularly in a school that is as troubled as 
Smiley, for example, or maybe East, maybe Barrett, or 
maybe any of those resegregated elementary schools of 
Park Hill on a voluntary basis was nil. I thought of that 
resolution as a sort of a sop to the community and I didn’t 
think it would be effective even in that category.

Mr. Barnes: Thank you. I have no further ques­
tions of this witness, Your Honor.

The Court: Well, the thrust of it was to seek 
voluntary exchanges all the way along the line?

The Witness: Yes, Your Honor, that’s about what 
it says.

The Court: But it said aside all of these boundary 
changes that had been adopted.

The Witness: They had already been set aside. 
This 1533, as I remember it, was in lieu of the

James D. Voorhees, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



151a

specific provisions of the three resolutions that are 
here in question.

The Court: I take it that it would depend upon 
[1233 the ability of the administration to persuade 
students in these other elementary and junior high 
schools to transfer the minority—to the so-called 
minority schools?

The Witness: Yes, Your Honor. It would depend 
on that, which I think is an absolute impossibility, 
and I don’t think people are going to volunteer 
individually to transfer their children—Anglo par­
ents—to a school that is not going to he an integrated 
school when their child arrives. It would also, of 
course, have required the making of room in those 
schools by the transfer of minority children out of 
those schools, which is equally different on a volun­
tary basis.

The Court: Very well.
Mr. Barnes: We have no further questions.

# # # # #
[124] * * *

G eobge E. B abd w eel , a witness called on behalf of plain­
tiffs, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testi­
fied as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes:
The Court: Please state your name and address 

so the reporter can hear it.
The Witness: George Bardwell, 2201 South Harri­

son, Denver, Colorado.
The Court: What is your occupation?
The Witness: I am a mathematician and statisti­

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

cian.



152a

The Court: Where do you work?
The Witness: University of Denver, sir.

By Mr. Barnes:
Q. Dr. Bardwell, have you had [125] occasion to make a 

study of population movement and property values in the 
Park Hill area of Denver? A. Yes, I have.

Q. I show you what has been identified as Plaintiffs’ Ex­
hibit 38, and I don’t think that’s one of the ones to which 
the stipulation went.

Mr. Creighton: No, it was not. I t was in your 
series submitted to us last night, but we have had 
a chance to look at this, Your Honor, and we have no 
objection to its going in.

The Court: May I see it, please.
This was prepared by the Community Relations 

Committee of the City and County of Denver?
The Witness: Yes, that’s right, sir. I served as a 

consultant to the Commission on Community Rela­
tions.

The Court: You prepared it for that agency?
The Witness: I  did.
The Court: And it’s dated April 1966?
The Witness: That’s right, sir.
Mr. Barnes: I  am not going to ask him questions 

from this, Your Honor, but it indicates a study in 
the background—

The Court: You just want me to read it, is that 
right ?

Mr. Barnes: It indicates a background knowledge 
[126] to which Dr. Bardwell will testify.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs-—Direct



153a

The Court: Maybe Ms testimony will spare me the 
burden of reading the whole thing, or, point up the 
highlights.

By Mr. Barnes:

Q. Dr. Bardwell. I hand you what has been identified as 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 92 and ask you if you have had occasion 
to prepare a table which purports to show the assignment 
of probationary teachers and teachers with no previous 
Denver Public School experience, and teachers with ten or 
more years’ Denver Public School experience as they relate 
to the subject elementary schools.

Mr. Creighton: What number was that, please ?
Mr. Barnes: 92.
The Witness: Excuse me. It’s of senior high 

schools.
The Court: This is the assignment of teachers 

with reference to their previous experience? Is that 
what you are talking about?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Your Honor.

Q. What is the source of the information contained in 
this table? A. This table was compiled from a set of IBM 
printouts that were supplied to us by the Division of Per­
sonnel Services of the Denver Public Schools.

Q. What does the table purport to show? [1273 A. 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 92 shows the three senior high schools 
subject to Resolution 1520, East, George Washington, and 
South. It shows the percentage of the total teachers at 
those schools who have probationary status, no previous 
Denver Public Schools school experience, and the propor­

George E, Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



154a

tion of teachers with ten or more years of Denver Public 
School experience.

#  %  %  *  #

E130] * * *
By Mr. Barnes:

Q. Dr. Bardwell, what does Exhibit 92 show with regard 
to the percent of probationary teachers at East High 
School, George Washington, and South? A. I t shows in 
the year 1968 that the percentage of probationary teachers 
at East of 34 percent, which was double that at George 
Washington and also at South.

Q. Does it show with regard to the percent of those 
[131] teachers with no previous Denver Public Schools 
experience in those three schools? A. It shows a pattern 
very similar to that indicated for probationary teachers by 
which 17 percent of the 128 teachers at East had no pre­
vious Denver Public School experience, and that percentage 
is almost double that at George Washington and more 
than double that at South.

Q. Mr. Bardwell, I hand you what’s been identified as 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 93 and ask you what that purports to 
show. A. This exhibit is similar to the preceding exhibit 
showing probationary teachers as a percent of teachers 
with no previous Denver Public School experience—as a 
percent, and teachers with ten or more years’ Denver 
Public School experience for the Junior High Schools 
under Resolutions 1520 and 1524.

Q. What is the source of the information of that data?
A. The source for this is identical to that of the previous 

exhibit, a series of IBM tables, printouts, entitled, The 
Study of Years of Experience in Denver Public Schools, 
Contract Teachers, by School, Division of Personnel Ser­
vices.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



155a

Mr. Barnes: I would like to offer Plaintiffs’ Ex­
hibit 93 into evidence.

Mr. Creighton: Same objection as to Number 92.
£132] The Court: The same ruling.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, what is the percent of probationary 
teachers that are at Cole Junior High School shown on your 
table? A. The percentage of probationary teachers is 66 
percent.

Q. How does that compare with Hill Junior High School? 
A. Hill Junior High School has 34 percent probationary 
teachers. Therefore, by simple calculation, Cole has double 
the percentage of probationary teachers as does Hill.

Q. Nearly double? A. (No answer.)
Q. Turning your attention to Smiley Junior High School, 

what is the percent of probationary teachers shown there? 
A. Here, the figure is very similar to that at Cole in which 
63 percent of the 98 teachers at Smiley are on probationary 
status, and that again is nearly double that at Hill.

Q. And are these disproportionate percentages consistent 
for those same schools for the columns you have listed for 
the previous teachers experience and teachers with ten 
years or more experience? £133] A. Yes, they are.

Q. For example, what does the table show with regard to 
the teachers of ten or more years experience at Hill and at 
Smiley Junior High School? A. Here, the comparison is 
even more dramatic. In the case of Smiley we have 7 per­
cent of the teachers having 10 or more years of Denver 
Public School experience, while at Hill there are 36 percent. 
This means that there are about five times the percentage 
of experienced teachers at Hill than at Smiley.

Q, Dr. Bardwell, I  hand you what has been identified 
as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 94 and ask you what that purports to 
show. A. This is a—is similar to the preceding two ex-

George E, Bardwell—-for Plaintiffs—Direct



156a

Mbits, 92 and 93, showing the probationary teachers with no 
previous Denver Public School experience and teachers 
with ten or more years of Denver Public School experience; 
the experience expressed as a percent for those elementary 
schools that are affected by Resolution 1531 for 1968.

Q. What is the source of that exhibit? A. The source is 
identical to that of the preceding two exhibits, the IBM 
printouts which are a study of the years of experience of 
Denver Public School teachers.

Mr. Barnes: I  offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 94, Your 
Honor.

[1343 Mr. Creighton: Same objection.
The Court: Overruled.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 92, 93 and 94 
were received in evidence.)

Q. Dr. Bardwell, would you take that through the com­
parison by way of example of two schools on that table, 
Palmer and Philips, all the way through. A. Turning our 
attention first to Palmer, we have a total number of teach­
ers of 16. The proportion or percentage of probationary 
teachers at Palmer is 13 percent. At Philips, we have 26 
teachers. The proportion of probationary teachers at Phil­
ips is 58 percent. This means that at Palmer, compared to 
Philips, we have roughly four times the percentage of pro­
bationary teachers at Philips than we do at Palmer. For 
those teachers that have no previous Denver Public School 
experience, Palmer has 6 percent. Philips, on the other 
hand, has 27 percent, which means again that we have about 
4 times the percentage of teachers at Philips that have no 
previous DPS experience as compared to that at Palmer.

Similarly, for those teachers who have ten or more years 
of experience at Palmer we have 75 percent of those teach­

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



157 a

ers in the so-called experienced group. On the other hand, 
at Philips we have 15 percent of those teachers of 10 or 
more years of Denver Public School experience. [1353 
Here, the comparison of the two percentages is 15 for 
Philips, and Palmer 75. Six times the percentage—excuse 
me, five times the percentage.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I hand you what has been identified as 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 96 and ask you what that purports to 
show. A. Exhibit 96 is a distribution by race and eth­
nicity of classroom teachers expressed as a percent for 
the elementary schools, junior high schools and senior high 
schools on September 23, 1968.

Q. What is the source of the information contained in 
that—what’s the source of that table? A. The source of 
that table is a mimeographed handout given by the Division 
of Personnel Services of the Denver Public Schools.

* # #  « *

[1363 * * *
Q. Dr. Bardwell, turning your attention to the third page 

of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 96, what does that show with regard 
to the percent of Negro teachers in the school district in 
elementary schools? A. It shows that about 8.5 percent 
of elementary teachers are Negro.

Q. Turning your attention to Barrett School, what is the 
—what does the exhibit show to be the Negro percent of 
teachers in that school? A. At Barrett, 52.6 percent of the 
teachers are [137] Negro.

Q. As compared to an average distribution of 8.5 per­
cent? A. As compared to an average distribution for all 
elementary schools in the district of 8.5 percent.

Q. What does the exhibit show with regard to Stedman 
School? A. With regard to Stedman, 21.1 percent of the 
teachers are Negro compared to 8.5 percent for the district 
as a whole.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



158a

Q. Dr. Bardwell, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 26 has already 
been offered and received, and I would like to show it to 
you, Dr. Bardwell. Will you look at it to refresh your 
memory as to what Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 26 is. A. I t’s Den­
ver Public Schools Policy, 1,617A, dealing with the change 
of assignment for employees. And the policies thereof.

Q. What does it show with regard to the control by the 
School District of Denver of teacher assignments? A. It 
shows here that a request for change of assignment cannot 
always be granted because the employee is not qualified 
for the existing vacancy nor the transfer from the present 
school or department would not serve the best interests 
of the program or district.

Q. What does it show with regard to the relevancy of 
[138] seniority in the assignment of teachers?

Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, if this witness is 
going to interpret policy, I  will object. If he is go­
ing to read certain portions to highlight them, I sup­
pose it is all right. Is this what you are doing?

Mr. Barnes: I ’m not even going to ask him to 
read that; just state in general what the policy—

The Court: Well, he may answer.
Mr. Creighton: I object.

A. The policy of seniority with regard to this exhibit here 
is that seniority is a factor in transfer of a teacher and 
that that transfer should be taken—should take cognizance 
of the probationary status of a teacher in considering 
transfer.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, what does the policy 1617A show as to 
the possibility for changes in teacher assignment on the 
enrollment—when the enrollment of a school is changing? 
A. It permits a consideration of transfer of teachers, when

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



159 a

the enrollment — when there is a change of enrollment; 
where there may be a transition perhaps in the school itself.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I  direct your attention again to Plain­
tiffs’ Exhibit 20 and ask you to look at page D13 and state 
what the finding reflected there is of the special [139] com­
mittee—what it was about, on the assignment of Negro 
teachers. A. The conclusion of the committee was that 
a large proportion of Negro teachers were assigned to 
schools that had a high proportion of Negro students.

Q. What did the study committee say with regard to 
the relevance of race in the assignment of teachers? A. 
They recommended to the Board of Education that—

Q. Before getting to the recommendation, Dr. Bardwell, 
if we could interrupt and direct your attention to page D13, 
next to the last paragraph, what was the finding concern­
ing the relevance of race in the assignment of teachers?

Mr. Creighton: I ’ll object unless he reads the 
designated part.

The Court: All right.

Q. Would you read that paragraph? A. “As a result of 
its interviews the committee is convinced that race has been 
relevant in the assignment of teachers. It appears that the 
administration has been extremely reluctant to place Negro 
and Spanish American teachers in predominantly white 
schools because of concern with possible lack of acceptance 
on the part of a white neighborhood and a realistic assess­
ment of the possible lack of support by some principals 
and faculties.”

[140] Q. Dr. Bardwell, directing your attention to page 
D14—

The Court: I  have received this material upon 
the theory that it supports your contention some-

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



160a

what that the alleged segregated schools do not come 
up to standards and are inferior. We are not, I take 
it, in this suit concerned with the rights of teachers, 
are we?

Mr. Barnes: We are concerned with the acts of 
the School Board, Your Honor, which tend to—

The Court: We’re not going to review every sin 
that they have committed, yon know. I  mean, we are 
concerned with a limited number of these alleged 
wrongs. That’s all. And only as they pertain to your 
suit. I  just don’t think they should he used as an oc­
casion to air every grievance that yon have got. So, 
you are going to have to justify this teacher evidence 
somewhat, I think.

As I say, this is the question running through my 
mind, and—Is there some presumption or inference 
that standards of teachers are not up to standards, 
do you think? Do you maintain that?

Mr. Barnes: Not at all, Your Honor.
The Court: Why do you make such a point of 

that?
Mr. Barnes: It is our contention that the assign­

ment of teachers is a conscious act taken by the 
School Board which in this case has resulted in con­
centration of teachers [141] by race and ethnicity 
which could not have been done accidentally and that 
this last exhibit that I have on this point—we can 
show that this condition existed.

The Court: Does it violate the rights of the 
plaintiff, you think?

Mr. Barnes: The intentional confirmation and 
solidifying of segregation in the schools, does, Your 
Honor.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



161a

The Court: That isn’t what I asked you.
Mr. Barnes: If there is evidence that the School 

Board has acted and is acting to confirm the segre­
gated character of a school by assigning Negro 
teachers to Negro schools, that is evidence of an in­
tent which can give rise to an inference concerning 
their other action.

The Court: Very well.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I  hand you what has been identified 
as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8G and ask you to state what that 
purports to show. A. This is a chart showing the con­
centration of Negro and Hispano teachers in the junior 
high schools subject to Besolution 1520 and 1524 in 1968.

Q. What is the source of the information contained in 
that table? A. The source of the information in this 
table is again the ethnic and racial distribution of class­
room teachers from a handout by the Division of Personnel 
Services of the E142] Denver Public Schools.

Mr. Barnes: I  offer the Exhibit 8G into evidence.
The Court: Do you have a copy of it?
Mr. Creighton: Yes, we were supplied copies 

last Saturday, and we spot checked these numbers 
and they appear to be in conformity with ours. I  
will have some comment on the form, but I have no 
objection to its admission.

The Court: The exhibit is received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8G was received 

in evidence.)

£143] Q. What does this table—what does this bar chart 
show with regard to the concentration of teachers at

George E. Bardwell— for Plaintiffs—-Direct



162a

Smiley Junior High. School? A. It shows that in the 
case of Smiley and from reading the chart itself, it would 
appear that this is a bar of a height of 23 teachers while 
in the case of Cole there is 37 teachers. The remaining 
schools under the resolutions that are affected, Kepner, 
Kunsmiller, Hill, Grant, Merrill, Byers and Rishel, the 
corresponding numbers for these schools, Kepner, about 4; 
Kunsmiller, about 3; Hill, about 3; Grant, perhaps 2; 
Merrill, one; Byers, zero; Rishel, zero.

Q. What is the predominant racial concentration of 
Byers, Rishel, Merrill, Grant, Kunsmiller and Kepner? 
A. These are predominantly Anglo schools.

Mr. Barnes: Your Honor, I  see that counsel for 
the defendants has a copy of Exhibit 8-G which was 
supplied to him on Saturday and which we found an 
error on. So I think he’d better see the original. 
I t  has a different figure with regard to the number 
of students in Smiley than the one we supplied him 
on Saturday.

Mr. Creighton: What is that figure ?
Mr. Barnes: Dr. Bardwell testified it was about 

23 teachers, I  think.
The Witness: Yes, about 23.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I hand you what’s been identified as 
[144] Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8~F and ask you to state what 
that purports to show? A. This is a tabular distribution 
comparing the concentration of Negro and Hispano teach­
ers in the junior high schools that are subject to Resolu­
tions 1520 and 1524. It shows for each of the junior high 
schools, Byers, Cole, Grant, Hill and the rest, the percent­
age—the percent of Negro and Hispano students and simi­

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



163a

larly the number of Negro and Hispano teachers. The per­
cent of Negro and Hispano students is shown before and 
after the recission of Resolutions 1520 and 1524 and those 
figures are similar to the ones that were introduced in 
evidence before by Dr. Elite.

Q. What does it show with regard to the number of 
Negro and Hispano teachers in Smiley Junior High School? 
A. It shows that there are 23 of the total of 80 teachers 
for all these junior high schools are at Smiley, and 37—

Q. That’s 80' Negro and Hispano teachers? A. Yes. 
Eighty Negro and Hispano teachers in these junior high 
schools that are subject to these resolutions. Twenty-three 
of these teachers are at Smiley. Thirty-seven at Cole. 
Which means that the proportion of Negro and Hispano 
teachers at Smiley and at Cole is about three-fourths or 
three out of four of the Negro and Hispano teachers in 
those ten junior high schools are located in Smith and Cole.

[1453 Excuse me. Smiley and Cole. I ’m sorry.
The Court: This is a total of how many?
The Witness: A total of Negro and Hispanos. A 

total of 80 Negro and Hispano teachers, and I might 
add to that, if I  may, that—

The Court: Sixty of them are at these two
schools? Right?

The Witness: Excuse me, sir?
The Court: Sixty of the 80 are at Smiley and 

Cole?
The Witness: That’s right.
Mr. Barnes: I’d like to offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 

8-F into evidence.
Mr. Creighton: May I  look at it?
The Court: That’s what he has been testifying: 

from?

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



164a

Mr. Barnes: Tour Honor, I forgot to offer it.
The Court: It becomes academic at this point.
Mr. Creighton: I  want to record an objection to 

this exhibit and the explantion of it on the grounds 
of relevancy.

The Court: Where did these figures originate!
The Witness: Excuse me, sir!
The Court: Where did these figures originate?
The Witness: These originated from the Denver 

Public Schools, sir; from their published material 
from the Division of Personnel Services.

[146] The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8-F was re­

ceived in evidence.)

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I hand you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 94 and 
ask you to state what that purports to show!

The Court: Are you familiar with this one?
Mr. Creighton: I ’m asking for it. This is one we 

were handed last night, probably.
The Witness: Excuse me, Mr. Barnes. It’s 9-H.
Mr. Barnes: I  beg your pardon. 9-H.
Mr. Creighton: We have had this one since Sat­

urday. And, Your Honor, I want to make the same 
comment which we made as to the parallel one in 
the secondary schools—and my comment was that I 
recall it may be admitted.

The Court: Very well. I t will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9-H was re­

ceived in evidence.)

Q. Dr. Bardwell, what does this Exhibit 9-H show with 
regard to the concentration of Negro and Hispano teachers

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



165a

in Stedman and Barrett Schools? A. This is a bar chart 
showing the concentration of Negro and Hispano teachers 
in the elementary schools subject to Resolution 1531 and 
for Stedman it shows by height on that particular bar of 
about 11 teachers at Stedman who are Negro and Hispano 
and about 10 teachers at Barrett who are Negro [147] and 
Hispano.

Q. What is the general racial composition of those two 
schools? A. These two schools are predominantly Negro.

Q. Dr. Bar dwell, I offer you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9-G and 
ask you to state what that purports to show? A. 9-G is a 
distribution—a tabular distribution of the number of Negro 
and Hispano teachers and students in the elementary 
schools that are affected by Resolution 1531. It shows a 
comparison of the number of Negro and Hispano teachers 
in each of those elementary schools as well as the percentage 
of Negro and Hispano students before and after the recision 
of Resolution 1531.

Q. What’s the source of that information in that exhibit? 
A. Again, the source of the information for teachers is the 
estimated ethnic distribution of classroom teachers from 
the Division of Personnel Services in 1968.

Mr. Barnes: I  offer Exhibit 9-G into evidence.
Mr. 'Creighton: Objection on the grounds of rele­

vancy.
The Court: May I  see it, please ?
It will be received.
You are free to study it and cross-examine later, 

even, if you’re not prepared. If you wish to attack 
these figures, I  mean.

[148] Mr. Creighton: Thank you, Your Honor. I 
understand.

George E. Bar dwell—-for Plaintiffs—Direct



166a

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9G was received 
in evidence.)

Q. Dr. Bardwell, what does this exhibit show with regard 
to the number of Negro and Hispano teachers in Barrett 
Elementary School? A. At Barrett there are 10 Negro 
and Hispano teachers.

Q. What does it show in regard to the Negro and Hispano 
teachers at Stedman Elementary School? A. In Stedman, 
there are 11.

Q. What is the total number of Negro and Hispano 
teachers in the subject schools? A. In the 16 subject 
schools, Montclair, and Montclair Annex have been com­
bined in this table, there are 39 Negro and Hispano teachers. 
In Stedman and Barrett, 21 of these are concentrated, or 
over half of the Negro and Hispano teachers are located 
in the two schools, Stedman and Barrett, out of the total of 
16 schools.

Q. What is the racial composition—what would be the 
racial composition of Barrett Elementary School if the 
recision were implemented? A. Barrett Elementary is 
99.7 percent Negro and Hispano.

Q. What would it be under Resolution 1531? A. 'Twenty- 
seven percent.

[149] The Court: What kind of a grouping of 
elementary schools are you talking about here in 
Exhibit 9G-?

The Witness: 9G?
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: Yes, in the case of Montclair and 

Montclair Annex, Montclair is a much larger school 
than the annex; around 660. In the case of Mont­
clair Annex, it’s about one hundred eighty.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



167a

The Court: But these are schools all of which are 
located in the northeast area or—

Mr. Barnes: They are the schools, Your Honor, 
which are affected by Resolution 1531.

The Court: They’re all over town; southeast?
Mr. Barnes: That’s correct.
The Court: And south central and north central?
Very well.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, turning your attention now to Barrett 
Elementary School, when did that school open? A. Bar­
rett Elementary School opened in 1960.

Q. Have you prepared a map which shows Barrett Ele­
mentary School? A. May I leave the stand?

Q. Yes. Would you leave the stand and show the Court 
the map? That is identified as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 40? A. 
Yes, this is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 40.

[150] Q. What is the source of the map? A. The source 
of the map is the 1960 boundary map of the elementary 
schools given to us by the Denver Public Schools.

Q. Now, have you drawn any extra lines on the map? 
A. Yes, we have. We have identified here two schools, the 
importance of which will come out in just a moment; Teller 
and Steck. This is City Park here. This is 26th Avenue. 
This is Colorado Boulevard in which there is a fairly heavy 
black line drawn through here.

Q. All of those lines are superimposed on the map, the 
source of which was what? A. The 1960 boundary map of 
the Denver Public Schools; elementary boundaries. 

* * > # # #
[153] * * *

Q. Dr. Bardwell, where is the location of Barrett School 
on that map? A. Barrett School is located on the over­

George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



168a

lay which—in which this has been pasted to plastic and 
this is the location of Barrett School here. It abuts Col­
orado Boulevard. At least the playground abuts Colorado 
Boulevard, and this is 36th Avenue here.

Q. What is the boundary of Barrett School as shown? 
A. The Barrett School District?

The Court: The school was completed and opened 
in 1960?

The Witness: In 1960.
Mr. Barnes: The boundaries are shown on this— 

on this original map and we will have to offer that 
overlay in evidence.

[1543 The Court: We will receive that, too.

Q. All right. You can use the overlay. You can take it 
out again.

What is the location of the school itself corresponding to 
the boundary drawn around the school as shown on that 
exhibit? A. The boundary of the school itself is indicated 
in red here. The boundary of the school district is indi­
cated as the outline of the yellow portion and one will 
note here that the school’s location reaches to the elemen­
tary boundaries themselves to the extreme eastern portion 
of that particular district. This being Colorado Boulevard 
right here.

Q. What is the . underlying residential composition of 
that neighborhood as shown by the census tract informa­
tion? A. In 1960, the year in which Barrett opened its 
doors to the children, the census tract, 36C, was shown to 
be 73 percent Negro. In census tract 36B, which contains 
the northern portion of Barrett Elementary School, the 
racial composition was 51 percent Negro. On the other

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



169a

hand, across Colorado Boulevard, which is the dividing 
line here between these two portions, we see that, by tak­
ing the census material, the census statistics from the 
enumeration district, that the area shown in 'white was 6 
percent Negro, just across from Colorado Boulevard. It 
might be worthwhile to point out here that Colorado 
Boulevard itself also extends E1553 down through Teller 
and Steck. However, Colorado Boulevard goes down 
through the middle of Teller and it also goes down through

not quite the middle, but at least down through the 
middle portion of Steck itself.

Q. But Colorado Boulevard serves as a boundary be­
tween Barrett School and what other school located to 
the east? A. Stedman School would be located in this 
area here.

Q. And those are 1960 census tract figures? A. 1960 
census tract figures. That’s right, sir.

Mr. Barnes: This is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 40, Your 
Honor. If you want to look at it or I ’ll just give 
it to Mr. Kerr—

The Court: Very well.

Q. What was the capacity of Barrett School when it 
opened, Dr. Bardwrell? A. The capacity of Barrett when 
it opened was 480, but this provided for two special ed­
ucation rooms of about 301 spaces. So this would make an 
effective capacity less special education of about 450.

Q. Is that a comparatively large or small school? A. 
I t’s a comparatively small school.

Q. What is the general size of land upon which the 
school—the school land upon -which this school is built, 
if you know? A. I ’d have to check out the size or the 
site for E156J this particular—

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs■—Direct



170a

Q. Let me restate my question.
Does the smallness of site dictate the smallness of the 

school in this case? A. I wouldn’t think so here because 
this site looks to be reasonably large.

Q. I’m talking about the actual site upon which the 
school is built; the playground site? A. Oh, the play­
ground itself—I’m not certain whether or not this is com­
patible with the site size.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, turning your attention to Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit 42 which you have there and which we have another 
copy here, will you state what that purports to show? A. 
Yes. At the time that Barrett opened its doors in 1960, 
the percentage enrollment in Barrett was about 89.6 per­
cent black or Negro. Stedman Elementary School, located 
on the eastern portion here of Colorado Boulevard in the 
white area, had a capacity of around 660 and it was over 
capacity by about 18 percent, having about 742 students in 
that year.

Q. Is that shown on the bar graph? A. And that in­
formation is depicted on the bar graph here in which we 
have indicated that Barrett School opened at 100 percent 
capacity. Stedman, however, was operating at about 118 
—120 percent over capacity.

*  * # #  *

[158] * * *
Q. Do you have another comment, Dr. Bardwell? A. 

Yes, I would. I  think it might be pointed out here, Your 
Honor, that in the case of Stedman School, which is lo­
cated primarily in this area that is predominantly white, 
in comparison to the area over here which Barrett served, 
that Stedman in 1960 at the time Barrett opened its com­
position of enrollment was about 85 percent Anglo and

George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



171a

if one keeps in mind here that Barrett itself opened up 
at 90 percent or 89.6 percent black.

The Court: You already pointed that out, hadn’t 
you?

Hasn’t he already testified to this ?
Mr. Barnes: We won’t ask him to do it again, 

Your Honor.
The Court: Good.

By Mr. Barnes:

_ Q- Dr- Bardwell, turning your attention to Plaintiffs’ Ex­
hibit 50,1 ask you to state what that purports to show? A. 
Yes, this exhibit has been prepared from the source maps 
of the Denver Public Schools representing this part of 
the City of Denver. This is the part of the so-called Park 
Hill section. This is Park Hill Elementary School boundary 
in 1961. This is Stedman Elementary School in 1961. 
This is Hallett. This is Smith. This is Ashley, Philips, Mont­
clair and Montclair Annex, and Montclair being located 
[1593 here. The annex is located over here. The shaded 
areas are optional areas as of 1961, and optional between 
Stedman and Park Hill. This shaded area here is located 
between Hallett and Philips—this was optional between 
Hallett and Philips, this shaded area here, which was an 
optional area between Montclair and the annex and—

Q. What is the source of that exhibit? A. The source 
of the exhibit except for the names which have been put 
on over here by ourselves is the 1961 boundary map of the 
Denver Public Schools.

# # # * #
[1623 *  *  #

Q. Mr. Bardwell, I  direct your attention to Plaintiffs’

George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



172a

Exhibit 51, a bar graph, and ask you to state what that 
purports to show? A. This shows that for the schools, 
Stedman—and Stedman is located here—Smith, and Smith 
is located here, serving these boundaries; Hallett is here 
and corresponds to this right here; and Park Hill corre­
sponds to this particular area. It shows that in 1961 Sted­
man was over capacity—or was over capacity by the follow­
ing amount. Its capacity was 630 and the total enrollment 
at that time was 742 and computation shows that it was 
about 20 percent over capacity. Smith, on the other hand, 
in 1961 was under capacity. It had, for example, capacity 
of 960 with three special education units, and its enrollment 
however, was 909. In Hallett, it is almost at capacity. It 
has a capacity of 510 and an enrollment of 495, and this is 
about 99 percent capacity. On the other hand, in Park 
Hill we have here an enrollment of 709, a capacity of 
660. It is in excess capacity of about 10 percent.

Q. What is the source of the information in that exhibit? 
A. The source of the information in this exhibit—[163]
I m sure I have it here—is the report, a study of pupil
population, school boundaries, February 1962—excuse me_
also pupil transportation, school buildings, Denver Public 
Schools, February, 1962.

Q. Published by— A. Published by the Denver Public 
Schools.

Mr. Barnes: I  offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 51 into evi­
dence.

The Court: Do you object?
Mr. Creighton: That standing objection.
The Court: The objection will be overruled. I t will 

be received.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 51 was received 
in evidence.)

George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



173a

Q. Dr. .Bardwell, were there changes in boundaries pro­
posed in 1961? A. Yes, there were. There were a number 
of boundary changes proposed in 1961 and this overlay— 

Q. That is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 53? A. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 
53. The boundary changes that were proposed by the Su­
perintendent at that time and the source of the informa­
tion that we have on this is the study report submitted to 
the Board at that time, indicated that the Superintendent 
proposed that this area here that is located just east of 
Park Hill Golf Course be removed from [164] Stedman and 
placed in Smith, that the area that is just west of Hallett 
shown here, which is now a part in 1961 of Stedman, be 
removed from Stedman and placed in Hallett. The optional 
area between Stedman and Park Hill, the Superintendent 
proposed that that be placed in Park Hill. The optional 
area between Hallett and Philips, it was suggested that 
that be placed in Philips.

The optional area here between Whiteman and Mont­
clair was proposed—it was proposed that that be placed in 
Montclair. Similarly, the area just south of Park Hill 
which was in Park Hill at that time, it was proposed to put 
that into Palmer and the Albion School, which is a small 
school discontinued about 1962, it was proposed—that was 
phased out. But that that be attached to Park Hill.

Q. What’s the source of that information? A. The 
source of that information comes about in two ways, the 
examination of the study report to the Board in 1962—

Q. Is that study report Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 52? A. Yes, 
it is.

Mr. Barnes: We would like to recall to the stand 
Dr. George Bardwell.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

[1753 * * *



174a

Dr. George Bardwell, called as a witness by the plain­
tiffs, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand 
and further testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes:
Q. Dr. Bardwell, you are going to need to testify from 

the chart. Doctor, have you prepared Exhibits 52, 53, 54, 
51 and 56 and 55, 57 and 58? A. Yes, I have.

Q. Would you identify those exhibits and state the source 
of the information on each? A. Exhibit 50 is a 1961 bound­
ary map of the Denver Public Schools for the areas shown. 
Exhibit 53 are the proposed boundary changes, February, 
1962. These boundary changes are shown in yellow. Ex­
hibit 51 is a capacity utilization bar chart. Exhibit 54 is a 
boundary map in 1962.

[176] The Court: What was 51 again? What did 
you call 51?

Q. What did you call 51? A. 51 is a bar chart showing 
capacity utilization of the four schools, Stedman, Smith, 
Hallett and Park Hill.

The Court: Derived from what source, he asked 
you?

The Witness: Yes, this capacity utilization chart 
has been derived from the source indicated here, 
“Report—-A Study of Pupil Population, School 
Boundaries, Pupil Transportation, School Buildings, 
Denver Public Schools, February, 1962.”

The Court: Go ahead.
The Witness: All right, you have 53, sir?
The Court: Yes.

George E..Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



175a

Q. Exhibit 54 is a boundary map? A. Exhibit 54 is a 
boundary map of the 1962 boundaries of the same schools 
shown in the preceding exhibit, showing the effect of the 
boundary changes in 1962. Exhibit 56 is a capacity utiliza­
tion bar chart showing the effect of the boundary changes 
in 1962, and Exhibit 58 is a graph showing the estimated 
Anglo enrollment.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—-Direct

The Court: Hold up, just a minute. I have to 
identify these in my notes or they don’t mean a thing 
to me, so just slow down a little bit.

The Witness: Right, sir.
£1773 The Court: 56 is a capacity utilization 

chart, showing the effect of 1962 boundary changes, 
right ?

The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Is that correct?
The Witness: That’s right, sir.
The Court: All right, let’s go to the next one.
The Witness: And the source on 56 is again the 

report and recommendations to the Board of Educa­
tion, School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, by a 
special study committee on equal educational oppor­
tunity, and this is dated—this is an appendix to that 
report. Exhibit 58 is the estimated Anglo enrollment, 
1962. It is a graph.

Q. The source for that? A. Yes.
Q. What is the source? A. And the source of this is re­

ports of racial and ethnic distribution of students for the 
years 1963, 64, 65, and division of personnel services, Den­
ver Public Schools, information for 1960 derived from U.S. 
Bureau of Census.



176a

Q. Do you have 551 Have you identified that? A. There 
is no 55. Excuse me, 55 shows an overlay of the boundaries 
not changed in September, 1962. Exhibit 57 shows the 
Negro population in the Stedman school district by enumer­
ation district in 1960.

Q. And enumeration district is a category of the U.S. 
£1783 Census information? A. Yes, enumeration district 
is a small geographical area that the Bureau of the Census 
uses to control the census enumeration.

Mr. Barnes: I would like to offer Exhibits 53, 54, 
51, 56, 55 and 57 and 58 into evidence.

Mr. Creighton: I think the Court knows our objec­
tion. The basis is remoteness and irrelevancy to all 
of these.

The Court: I take it your purpose in offering these 
is to show that in 1962 there was presented to the 
Board of Education a plan which would have to some 
degree reversed the trends which have been going 
on and that this plan was rejected? Is this what you 
are saying?

Mr. Barnes: That is it in part, Your Honor. We 
intend to show that the only portions of that plan 
which Avere not accepted were those which would 
have transferred black children into predominantly 
white schools, and those with regard to the Stedman 
school district, which was at that time the black 
school in that area.

The Court: What’s your overall object? That’s 
what I asked you. I  think I understand what the 
graphs were seeking to illustrate. In relationship 
to the issues that we are trying, just so the record 
will be clear, what’s your goal in offering these?

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



177a

£1793 Mr. Barnes: Your Honor, we are inter­
ested in showing a pattern of historic acts which 
lends meaning and substance to the rescission itself 
which are consistent with it and which will go cir­
cumstantially to show two things: One, intent on 
the part of the Board in rescission, and second, a 
net effect over the years intensifying and isolating 
segregation of schools in this part of town.

The Court: Well, Exhibits 50 through 58, noting 
the objection, will nevertheless be received, and this 
may prolong the trial, and if you have to respond 
to this material, why, if you hadn’t anticipated it, 
why, this is a risk we will have to take, I guess.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 50 through 58 
were received in evidence.)

Q. Doctor, would you comment on what those exhibits 
show, beginning chronologically? A. Yes, Exhibit 50, 
showing the original boundaries of the school district in 
1961, the hatched area showing the optional areas between 
Stedman and Park Hill, between Hallett and Philips, 
between Montclair Annex and Whiteman. In 1962, Super­
intendent Oberholtzer made certain proposals before the 
School Board, which I indicated in yellow. It is interest 
to note that in each case of the proposed boundary change, 
these areas tended to be detached and indicated the direc­
tion in which they would become detached, all of these 
changes going [180] south and west in this direction.

Q. East, I think. A. What?
Q. South and east? A. South and east. At the time, 

in 1961, Stedman was overcrowded to the extent of 18 
percent. Smith was undercrowded. It was below capacity.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



178a

Hallett was slightly below capacity and Park Hill was 
slightly over capacity. The Board adopted each of those 
changes except two in number—three in number. Those 
three that were not adopted bounded the elementary school 
district of Stedman, which at the time we had estimated 
on the basis of Exhibit 58 was between 35 and 50 Anglo. 
The effect of the Board’s actions in making those boundary 
changes with respect to capacity are shown in Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit 56, in which we note that Stedman was still at 
the same—to the same extent over capacity before and 
after the boundary changes. Smith declined somewhat in 
actual utilization of its capacity, considerably below capa­
city at that point. Hallett was brought up to capacity 
and Park Hill enrollment then exceeded the capacity of 
the school.

To illustrate the distribution of the Negro population 
in Stedman, which is the school on which attention is 
focused, we see that by enumeration district, this being 
Stedman Elementary School District here, that there was 
a tendency by these boundary changes, or the lack of 
making [181] these boundary changes to aggravate and 
intensify the containment of the Negro population in 
Stedman at that time.

Here, by enumeration district, we find that the Black 
area is between 16 and 20 percent Negro. The surrounding 
areas that are hatched are between four and five percent 
Negro. The remaining part of this exhibit, the remaining 
school districts being clear, were less than three percent 
Negro in 1960.

Q. And the boundary changes which were effected per­
tain to those areas which were less than three percent. 
A. Yes, they do, sir.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



179 a

Q. I believe you related yesterday the number of Negro 
students in Stedman in 1961. A. There is an estimate 
here in Stedman in 1961, an estimate here of between, oh, 
around 60 percent Anglo, which would make it about 40 
percent Negro.

Q, Doctor, I  hand you—I guess we will point out on 
the board—we need another board. Doctor, have you pre­
pared Exhibits 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 75 and—well, stopping 
at 75. A. Yes, I have.

Q. Would you identify those exhibits and the sources 
from which they are taken? A. Yes, Exhibit 70 is a map 
of the Park Hill schools being considered in 1963. This 
is an official boundary map [182] of the Denver Public 
Schools.

The Court: The year 1963, you say?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Very well.

A. (Continued) Exhibit 71 is an overlay showing the 
boundary changes for those schools in 1964. Exhibit 72— 
the source on that, sir, is the 1964 boundary map of the 
Denver Public Schools. Exhibit 72 is an official boundary 
map of the schools in 1964 of the Denver Public Schools.

The Court: Hold up. Any members of the press 
have to sit outside of the rail. We reserve this 
space in here for the lawyers and for the principal 
witnesses. I don’t know whether there is anybody 
here or not, but if there is, why, I  will have to ask 
you to retire. Go ahead.

A. (Continued) Exhibit 72 is a portion of the official 
boundary map of the Denver Public Schools in 1964.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



180a

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Exhibit 73 is an overlay which portrays by school year 
date the location of mobile units in the elementary schools. 
Exhibit 75 is a graph showing the Anglo enrollment in 
1963 and 1964 on a percentage basis for the seven schools 
being considered. Exhibit 76 is an illustration of the 1964 
changes and the corresponding estimates of the percentage 
Negro in those boundary changes, as well as the percentage 
Negro population in the elementary school district.

Q. What is the source of the census information on 
[183] Exhibit 76? A. The source of the census informa­
tion on 76 is the 1966 census study that I prepared and 
by subtracting from the 1966 census figure information 
on length of residency, between two years and under, the 
figures were derived in each of the yellow areas as so 
indicated.

Q. Is there any other information on any of these ex­
hibits which was not issued by the Denver Public Schools? 
A. All of the remaining information are official records 
of the Denver Public Schools.

Q. Doctor, I  hand you Exhibit 101 and ask you to 
identify that. A. Yes, this is a tabulation entitled “Mobile 
Classrooms Costs , which indicates the date of purchase 
and location of the mobile units located in the Denver 
Public School district.

Q. Where did you obtain that document? A. This 
document was obtained from Dr. Armstrong’s files several 
days ago. I personally took this out of his files and had 
it duplicated.

Mr. Barnes: We would like to offer Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibits 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76 and 101.

Mr. Creighton: We make the objections to all of 
these on the grounds of relevancy, Your Honor, and



181a

in addition, as to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 76, we object 
on the grounds £184] there has been no foundation 
laid to show the admissibility of the estimates and 
figures shown thereon.

The Court: Well, what do yon propose to illus­
trate with this!

Mr. Barnes: Your Honor, this evidence is offered 
to show the concentration of Negro students as they 
increased in 1964 and 65 in mobile units in Stedman 
and Smith, Hallett, and to a lesser degree in Park 
Hill and Philips, and offer to show that the 
boundary changes intensified the segregation in 
Hallett and schools which became segregated in that 
year.

I t also tends to show the general movement of 
boundaries continuous from the last series to the 
south and east in advance of the inward movement 
of the Negro population.

The Court: Well, there are no boundary changes 
depicted here, are there, in these exhibits?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Your Honor, these are a series 
of boundary changes which occurred in 1964.

The Court: Oh, 71 show that!
Mr. Barnes: That’s correct.
The Court: When did you see these?
Mr. Creighton: Excuse me, Your Honor?
The Court: When did you see them?
Mr. Creighton: When did I see these exhibits? 

We finally got them the night before this hearing 
commenced, [185] about 9:30.

Mr. Barnes: I think these were supplied to 
counsel Saturday, Your Honor,

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs-—Direct



182a

Mr. Creighton: I beg your pardon. These were 
supplied last Saturday, and these were part of the 
series it had been suggested might not be used, but 
the fact is we have had them during that time and we 
object to them as to whether they fairly relate to the 
figures the school district possesses, and on that 
ground these are properly based on our figures, ex­
cept for 76.

The Court: Are they going to prejudice you in the 
defense of your case?

Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, it simply expands the 
scope of this hearing back to actions taken by other 
boards in 1964 and 65 in this instance. I  think IVe 
explained we feel the narrow issue is what this 
School Board did this spring. No, I don’t think it is 
going to prejudice us. It just means we have got 
perhaps more to deal with in this hearing.

The Court: Very well, they will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 70, 71, 72, 73, 

75, 76 and 101 were received in evidence.)
The Court: I  think, though, we ought to make an 

inquiry about where we are going here. Have you 
changed your plans? Have you now decided to throw 
everything but the [1861 kitchen sink into this hear­
ing, or including the sink?

Mr. Barnes: No, Your Honor, there are 116 schools 
in the district and this evidence relates only to those 
schools which were involved in these resolutions and 
in the rescission and which the resegregation of 
which will be accomplished if the rescission is imple­
mented.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



183 a

There are examples of optional transfers and 
boundary changes and examples also of schools 
which are far more segregated than these, which we 
intend, to offer in the main hearing. There is a great 
deal more, but in a hearing of this kind, when we need 
to prove intent circumstantially, it seems to us to be 
relevant to offer all that relates to these schools.

The Court: Then, you will complete your presenta­
tion as to the Park Hill School in this hearing, 
really!

Mr. Barnes: That’s correct, Your Honor. We do 
not anticipate any substantial more degree of evi­
dence about Park Hill. We have investigated that as 
well as we can with the possible exception of optional 
transfers, discriminatory transfers, from the Park 
Hill area, the evidence of which we haven’t got com­
plete at this time.

The Court: Very well.
Mr. Barnes: There may also be, I  am reminded 

by counsel, some curriculum differences, but we don’t 
know of those at this time.

[1873 Q. Doctor, will you explain what the exhibits that 
you have on the board show! A. Yes, a number of obser­
vations flow from these exhibits. Beginning with the 1963 
boundaries as they exist, we notice—

Mr. Creighton: Excuse me, Your Honor, the wit­
ness was asked what they show and not to make 
observations, and I believe he ought to understand 
that.

The Court: Well, I don’t know whether he is re­
sponding or not so far. I can’t tell. We will just have 
to test him out. Go ahead.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



184 a

A. (Continued) These exhibits show, beginning- with Plain­
tiffs’ Exhibit 70, the original 1963 boundaries of the school 
district. In 1964, these boundary changes were proposed. 
I t  is noted here that in each instance each boundary change 
have a general direction of being detached in a school in a 
more northern part, the more westerly part, so that the 
general direction of the detachment is in a southeasterly 
direction.

If one compares the percentage Negro in Stedman, Hal- 
lett, Philips and Park Hill, it is noted that in each of the 
instances of the detachment that the percentage Negro is 
smaller than the actual area to which the boundary change 
was originally states in 1963. This is true for Stedman, in 
which Stedman is 43 percent. The area detached to Hallett 
is five [188] percent. And Hallett, the area is 25 per­
cent as an entire area. I t is 20 percent in population, the 
area that is detached. Similarly, for the optional area of 
Stedman, four percent to two percent and the same pattern 
reveals itself when we examine the collection of the bound­
ary changes that were suggested in 1964. This was in re­
sponse to the very massive movement of the Negro popula­
tion into the Park Hill area from the period 1960-1966. The 
net consequence of this was that in each instance, Stedman, 
Smith, Hallett, Philips, Park Hill actually, and Montclair, 
the percentage Anglo enrollment declined from 1963 to 1964, 
and in fact in the case of Hallett dropped from 65 percent 
Anglo enrollment to around 40 percent by 1964.

The response then for this movement into the Park Hill 
area was the building of a substantial number—in fact, 28 
of the mobile units out of the 29 in the school district at 
that time, were located in the Park Hill area, as shown in 
Exhibit 73. Here, we find that twelve units were placed in 
Smith, four units in Hallett, four in Park Hill, in 1965. In

George E. Bardivell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



185 a

the preceding year, four units were placed in Philips and 
four units were placed in Stedman, suggesting that the 
response here was—the response to this Negro movement 
in population was the concentration of the school popula­
tion, further concentrated by the use of mobile units.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I  hand you what have been identified 
[ 1 8 9 ]  as Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 7-Gr, 9 - J  and 8-1, and ask you 
to identify those. A. 7-Gr is the graph of a segregation 
index for the senior high schools from 19 6 3  to 1968 , showing 
the effect of the rescission of Resolution 1520  on those 
senior high schools. Attached to that exhibit is an explana­
tion of a mathematical foundation for the construction of 
this index. Exhibit 8-1 is a similar graph for the junior high 
schools subjected to Resolutions 1520  and 1524 , and 9-J is 
a similar photograph applicable to the elementary schools 
subject to Resolution 1531 .

Q. What is the source of the figures or the information 
that went into the making of those graphs? A. The basic 
statistical information has been derived from the distri­
bution of students by race and ethnicity, from the division 
of personnel services, in 1963 to 1968.

Mr. Barnes: I would like to offer Plaintiffs’ Ex­
hibit 7-Gr, 8-1 and 9-J.

Mr. Creighton: If I may voir dire, it is just pos­
sible we will want these admitted ourselves, Your 
Honor.

Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Creighton:
Q. Dr. Bardwell, your explanation of your methodology 

is a two-page explanation, is it not, in mathematical termi­
nology? [190] A. It is.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire



186a

Q. As a non-mathematician I’m trying to understand this. 
Do I understand, Dr. Bardwell, what you have done here is 
show in a graphic form the extent to which a school popu­
lation departs in its ethnic proportions from an ideal 
school, or I  should say a hypothetical school, which repre­
sents the ethnic proportions of the school district as a 
whole! Is that what it does? A. That’s right, sir.

Q. What are those ethnic proportions of the school dis­
trict as a whole which you used ? A. Abstractly, and these 
are at each end of the spectrum in which a totally segregated 
school then would have an index of 100, a totally desegre­
gated school would have an index of zero.

Q. Yes, but my question was, what was the hypothetical 
sub-district that this compared? A. In the case of a sub­
group of schools that would have a segregation index of 
100, let’s say, this would mean that all of the students that 
were Anglo would be confined to a certain set of schools 
and all of the students that were minority, namely Negro 
and Hispano, would be confined to another set of schools.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, do I understand that you—you have 
£191] got to know your methodology and decide about this 
—did you start off with a hypothetical city-wide sub-district 
which—I’m using figures from my recollection—which 
would be something on the order of eight or ten percent 
Negro, ten or twelve percent Hispano, and the balance 
Anglo? Is that what you started with? A. Well, no, if 
we start here then with a segregation index of zero—

Q. What would that kind of school have? A. Then, this 
would constitute that abstract situation in which in each of 
the schools in a sub-district there would be the same pro­
portion in those schools as would be reflected in the district 
as a whole. I  might add that this is much like a cost of liv­
ing index, in which one establishes the base, let’s say, 1957

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire



187a

to 1959 prices. This is equal to 100, and one would like to 
know what departure from that particular index—whether 
or not prices decreased or increased. You have an objective 
way of comparing a very large mass of data, bringing it 
down into a single index, which provides a very convenience 
and very meaningful way of analyzing a very complicated 
concept like segregation.

Q. This may prove to be that kind of approach, but it is 
just not clear to me, Doctor. You speak of sub-schools, and 
I will take Exhibit 7-G, the one first mentioned. By sub­
schools, you mean which? Senior high schools? [192] A. 
We mean in this case East, George Washington and South.

Q. Now, you have lumped them all together. A. As a 
group.

Q. And compared it with the School District No. 1 as a 
whole. A. That’s right, sir.

Q. Do I understand you to say that these three schools 
lumped together depart from what you called the abstract 
sub-district on the order of 40 to 50 during the period in­
volved? A. I will trust your reading of the graph on that.
I assume, yes, that’s right.

Q. And if the three school districts, sub-districts, lumped 
together, had exactly mirrored the ethnic ratios of the city 
as a whole, it would have been zero? A. That’s right.

The Court: I don’t think you ought to go into the 
merits of these on a voir dire examination. You are 
ascertaining method or testing, I  suppose, the ac­
curacy of the exhibit.

Mr. Creighton: Well, if we understand—
The Court: I  mean, I do not think it is proper to 

cross-examine him on them on whether they are—

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire



188a

Mr. Creighton: Well, these have been offered, 
Your Honor, and—-

[193] The Court: —at this time. Eventually, I 
suppose you will have a full opportunity to cross- 
examine every aspect of them, but this is preliminary 
examination to determine whether they are authentic, 
sufficiently so to justify their being received.

Mr. Creighton: Well, I’m going to object to the 
office of the exhibit on the grounds that it is not 
relevant to the issues in this hearing.

The Court: You think that further questioning 
will have brought about the results that you more or 
less held out to us that you agreed to their being 
received if you have some opportunity to question1?

Mr. Creighton: Well, Your Honor—
The Court: WTere you disappointed in his answers ? 

It seems to me you agreed with everything he said.
Mr. Creighton: Well, if I may go a little bit 

further?
The Court: I just don’t know what you had in 

mind.
Mr. Creighton: Well, I hope I can discover that 

the methodology here is such that we can agree that it 
shows fairly what is in issue in this hearing, and I 
am still inquiring about his methodology in produc­
ing this exhibit.

The Court: Well, go ahead then.

Q. Now, this relates only to school populations? [194] A. 
That’s right. Populations, that’s right.

Q. And the terminal here on each of these exhibits is 
1968? A. That’s right.

George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire



189 a

Q. What school year do you mean by that? A. That 
would be the school year 1968-69.

Q. This past year? A. That’s right, sir.
Q. And 67 would be the year before that? A. That’s right.
Q. And the data— A. Now these are the only data, of 

course, that are available on the school district, as you 
know, that gives a breakdown by race and ethnicity. In fact, 
the only figures available from the school district extend 
from 1963 to 1968, in which the year .shown at the bottom 
refers to the school year beginning in September of that 
year. Presumably, it begins in September.

Q. I think I have only one more question. You have 
shown one part of your diagram here, rescission of resolu­
tion—I think it refers to 1520 in the case of Exhibit 7-G 
for 1968, which you tell us is last school year—Have you 
again assumed that next fall is going to have last year’s 
racial composition under rescission of the resolution? A. 
I’m making the assumption here from the School [195] 
Board figures and the review of the composition and our 
own calculations from that.

Q. Well, you understand, Dr. Bardwell, that the school 
district has not projected the effects of the new plans? A. 
And the racial composition of each of these schools, the 
assumption being made had that plan been in effect in 
1968-69 school year, this could be the effect on the segrega­
tion index for those sub-schools.

Q. Oh, you— A. Otherwise, it wouldn’t—
Q. If 1520 had been in effect during the last school year, 

it would have produced the Black line, is that what you 
are saying? A. That’s right.

Q. But, that’s not what the school district’s figures say. 
A. These are derived from directly those—

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire



190a

Q. Don’t the school district’s figures say that implementa­
tion of 1520 would result next year in certain estimated 
ethnic patterns? A. That’s right.

Q. And I am just trying to establish what rescission of 
resolution is based upon, what assumptions? A. The rescis­
sion of the resolution is based upon the [196] ethnic and 
racial distribution of those students of each of the sub­
schools under the resolution and the Black line which de­
parts and shows the index of around 25 would be based on 
the assumption that in order to have a means of comparison 
the year 1968 was shown, what the effect of that resolution 
would be upon pupil membership.

Q. For last year or next year? A. For 1968-69. In other 
words, had the resolution itself been in effect.

Q. Last year? A. That’s right.
Q. It would have produced the Black line? A. That’s 

right. In other words, if we are to have a meaningful com­
parison on a time basis, instead of projecting the racial 
composition under the rescission of the resolution, the in­
formation is much more accurately reflected if we use the 
racial composition had those racial compositions been in 
effect during 1968-69, and what we are attempting to show 
here by this graph is a depiction of the magnitude of the 
effect of the rescission on comparable periods of school 
populations at a single point in time.

Q. What I’m trying to get you to admit, I  think, Dr. 
Bardwell, is that you have applied 1520 to last year’s school 
year rather than next year. A. Absolutely.

[197] Q. And when you say rescission of resolution, 
that’s your way of showing last year’s figures. A. That’s 
right, last year’s figures.

Mr. Creighton: All right. We have no objection.

George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire



191a

The Court: Well, they will he received, 7-G, 8-1 
and 9-J.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 7-G, 8-1 and 
9-J were received in evidence.)

Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes (Continued):
Q. Would you explain what graph 7-G shows! A. What 

graph 7-G shows is a segregation index for the senior high 
schools which is fairly flat over the period 1963 to 1967, 
lying between about 45 and 50 percent, and in 1967 where 
we make the comparison for the resolution before and 
after rescission, that we show that we—on the basis of 
1968 enrollment figures that the segregation index would 
be about 50, that the effect of the resolution on the 
segregation index is to decrease that index to a value 
of around 28.

Q. What does the exhibit show with regard to the 
changes which occurred in the segregation index in the 
years 1963 and following! A. Would you repeat the 
question!

[1983 Q. What changes occurred, if any, in the years 
1963 and following in the segregation index up to the point 
of implementation of the integration resolution! A. I  
think it is clear from the graph, Mr. Barnes, that this 
index shows that the degree of segregation for these 
particular schools remains fairly constant for the period 
1963 to 1967, between a value of about 45 to 50.

Q. Handing you Exhibit 8-1, what does that show! A. 
This is a corresponding graph of the segregation index 
for the junior high schools that are affected by these two 
resolutions, and again in 1963 an approximate value for 
this index is around 63, and again it remains between the

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



192a

value of around 63 to 70 over the period 1963 to 1967. 
Based upon the 1968 school enrollment figures and the 
distribution by race and ethnicity, we would have then a 
segregation index on that basis of around 63 to 64. The 
effect of the resolution is to decrease that index on the 
basis of that same year comparison to a value of around 
35, so the degree of segregation compared to what we 
would have under the rescission of the resolutions around 
65 would be decreased to about 35 under the resolution.

Q. Handing you Exhibit 9-J, what does that show! 
A. 9-J is a similar graph for the elementary schools, in 
which there have been, starting in 1963, a gradual trend 
from about 82 down to about 65 in 1967 of the segregation 
£1993 index. In 1968, comparing the two values for the 
elementary schools under the resolutions, we would find 
that the 1968 enrollment would show an index of around 
60. The effect of the resolutions would decrease this index 
to a value of about 43, so there have been a decline in that 
sense of about 17 percentage points in the segregation 
index under the resolutions, and this would give an ap­
proximate effect of desegregating, the desegregating effect 
of the resolutions for the elementary schools.

Q. Referring back to Exhibit 7-G-, 8-1 and 9-J together, 
do they reflect any other substantial desegregation of the 
impact equivalent to that achieved under the resolutions! 
A. No, they do not.

Q. Do these Exhibits 7-G, 8-1 and 9-J pertain simply 
to the sub-schools under the resolutions! A. They do.

# # # # #

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct



193a

George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross

[ 200]  *  *  *

Cross-Examination by Mr. Creighton:

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I plan to go through several exhibits 
that you introduced more or less in the order that you 
introduced them. I would like first to discuss Exhibit 8-F 
with you. I hand you the exhibit. This shows, does it not, 
and I might cite for the Court’s benefit this exhibit is 
labeled as showing relationship between ethnic compositions 
of certain junior high schools and the number of Negro and 
Hispano teachers in those schools—Dr. Bardwell, the first 
column after the school name shows what the school district 
projects as the percentage of Negro and Hispano students 
in those schools next fall if 1520 and 1524 have been imple­
mented. A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the next column which you call “After Rescission” 
is in fact what those schools have in the way of ethnic 
proportions last school year, according to the school dis­
trict’s figures? A. That is correct.

Q. And, finally, in the third column, you have put not a 
percentage but the absolute number of teachers, have [201] 
you not! A. That is right.

Q. Taking Smiley, for example, you have noted that there 
are 23 Negro and Hispano teachers there, according to 
school district figures last year. A. That’s right.

Q. Do you know what that would be as the percentage 
of total number of teachers there? A. I have that in another 
exhibit. This amounts to—I will have to—

Q. Do you know at the moment? A. No, I  do not.
Q. If I suggested to you that the same information you 

have been using shows that last year there were 96 teachers 
at Smiley, would you accept that as probably the figure? 
A. If I am not held to it.



194a

Q. And as a mathematician, it would be about what per­
cent? A. It would look to be about 25 percent.

Q. As a matter of fact, isn’t it at best a misnomer to 
label this “concentration of Negro and Hispano teachers” ? 
Wouldn’t a percentage have shown that better? A. Well, 
not necessarily, sir, because what we are talking about 
here, and I think this is a fair depiction of the information, 
we are talking about the number of Negro [202] and His­
pano teachers located in those subject schools. Now, since 
there are 80 of these teachers altogether, then it seems to 
be a fair representation of the information to show in which 
schools those particular teachers are in fact concentrated, 
and I can’t think of a better word for it. This would mean 
that 37—

Q. By concentration, then you are not talking about 
concentration at a particular school, but these particular 
schools? A. Yes, that’s all we are comparing in this exhibit 
are the subject schools under the two resolutions.

Q. All right, I’m going to hand you next Exhibit 8-G, 
which again shows as you have labeled it “concentration” 
and here again you have used and these are in the same 
junior high schools, are they not? In fact, Dr. Bardwell, 
isn’t what you have done in 8-G is simply make a bar graph 
out of those absolute numbers on the right hand column? 
A. That’s exactly what was done, that’s right.

Q. You are calling it there again concentration of teach­
ers? A. That’s right.

Q. Do you happen to know the total number of teachers, 
say, at Kunsmiller or Hill? A. I  have those in my records 
and I—if you would like me to—

[203] Q. Well, from your present knowledge of all of 
these figures, Dr. Bardwell, would it be fair to say if this 
bar graph were shown as percentages rather than absolute

George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Gross



195a

numbers, the percentage of Negro and Hispano teachers at, 
say, Kunsmiller and Hill would be higher relatively to 
Smiley and Cole than here shown? A. If we take the num­
ber of teachers, and they tend to be fairly uniform among 
the subject junior high schools, then whether one uses num­
bers or percentages it’s really immaterial, but it is true, as 
I recall the figures generally, that Cole and Smiley do have 
more teachers generally than some of the other junior high 
schools shown here, so the percentages would decrease these 
bars somewhat. The extent to which this decrease occurs, 
I  am not willing or able to testify.

* * * • #
[204] * * *

Q. Let’s start with 40, the base exhibit, where you have 
shown percentages which you say are taken from census 
tract data for 1960. A. I  might say here—

Q. No, let me frame a question, please. Did you further 
refine the two census tracts to the west of Colorado Boule­
vard by enumeration districts ? A. This information here—

Q. Did you or did you not, please. [205] A. No, I  do not 
believe we did.

Q. How many enumeration districts are in those areas 
marked 51 percent and 73 percent? A. In this case, if my 
recollection is correct, there are two enumeration districts 
from the census tract 36-C and there are—

Q. Let me interrupt. 36-C is the one shown as 73 percent? 
A. As 73 percent.

Q. And the one marked 51-C is census tract number what? 
A. And census tract 36-B is 51 percent.

Q. Now, those census tracts are broken down into enu­
meration tracts, aren’t they? A. That’s right.

Q. And you are telling me there are how many in each 
of those ? A. It is my recollection, so I can’t be held to that.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross



196a

Q. Yes. A. It is my recollection that there are two here.
Q. Yon are indicating 36-C? A. 36-C. I think there are 

two here, and there are two here, but I  can’t-—
Q. You are indicating for that answer 36-B, are you not?

[206] A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. Do you recall what the enumeration tract showed as 

far as percentage? A. I  will have to go back to my notes. 
I don’t know that I have them here. They are in large 
bound books that are just simply too bulky to carry around, 
but I would be more, than happy to furnish the information.

Q. Were these two enumeration tracts studied intensively 
in the preparation of your report on Park Hill? A. No. 
Well, yes, the information that was extracted from the 
census reports of the 1960 census tract of Park Hill is the 
36-C and 36-B. This is the so-called Clayton Park area of 
the city, in which there was a large area of movement of 
Negroes toward Colorado Boulevard.

Q. You considered these two in your Park Hill survey? 
A. No, I considered more than that.

Q. But you did consider these? A. That’s right.
Q. Isn’t it possible, Dr. Bardwell, that if you had broken 

these two census tracts down by enumeration district you 
would have found differing percentages in the several enu­
meration districts? A. Oh, this is quite true.

Q. And isn’t it possible basing this question really on 
your report that the westward, the westerly enumeration
[207] tracts, in each of these, would have higher Negro 
percentages than the easterly? [208] A. I think this is 
generally true, but I caution you when you deal with a 
smaller area, smaller subjects, on enumeration districts, 
like this, that one can be fooled in the sense that certain 
of these enumeration districts will show, for instance, a 
higher percentage of Negro than census tract as a whole

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross



197a

and not necessarily in the path of the migration of the 
Negro families during that period.

This is particularly true in the northern part of this 
area.

Q. But, there would be differences? A. Oh, yes, there 
would be differences.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I don’t mean to keep you on your feet 
any longer than necessary, but I must move to your next 
series which involves some displays. May we have the 50 
series ?

Let me call your attention, Dr. Dardwell, to Exhibit 57, 
which is an overlay, is it not? Here, you did use enumera­
tion districts, did you not? Here, you did use enumeration 
districts, did you not? A. Yes, we—

Q. That’s all, that was my question. Do I understand 
that the green portion of the Stedman—the two green por­
tions, the dog leg and the rectangle, in the Stedman district 
— A. These three here, this one and this one and this one?

[209] Q. Well, they are—the one on the south is con­
tiguous, is it not? A. Yes.

Q. Those two green portions, overly, do they not, largely 
areas in which there is generally speaking a low percentage 
of Negro population by enumeration district in 1960? 
A. That’s true, only part of the—

Q. Then, Dr. Bardwell—

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, might the witness be 
allowed to finish his answer?

The Court: Yes.

A. I  might point out, Mr. Creighton, that unfortunately 
enumeration district population in 1960 is the smallest 
subunit of population we could possibly get and, there­

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross



198 a

fore, to apply that population directly to the green areas 
we have used those enumeration districts which were 
our most appropriate, most applicable, because those are 
the enumeration districts that are coextensive, as best 
we can, with the green areas that we have; that’s right.

Q. But if I  heard the first part of your response, you 
agreed that the green areas overlie largely white areas. 
A. That’s right.

Q. And, therefore, to have moved them to Smith and 
Hallett would have been to take substantial largely white 
[2103 pupils according to your methodology out of Hallett 
or out of Stedman and into Smith and Hallett? A. I am 
not certain I  can say that. At least, it would be part of 
this area here. You see, I do not know exactly what blocks 
are assigned to this particular green area. What this is 
is a general depiction showing that the entire Park Hill 
area, the area that was coextensive with Stedman, was 
by far more or higher percentage Negro than any other 
part of Park Hill. What would have happened in par­
ticular with these particular green areas going out into 
Smith or from Stedman to Hallett from here to Park 
Hill is largely an unknown factor. One would have to 
estimate this in some way. It could well be, and in fact 
from my census I can assert that the area in which many 
of the Negro families moved first into Park Hill in the 
early stages or early parts of 1960 was precisely in this 
area here with respect to the green area right here.

Q. You are indicating the northerly green area in the 
Stedman district? A. Yes, but, nevertheless, in terms of 
time this area here was essentially the first area in which 
Negro concentration became higher than other parts of 
Park Hill.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I am not sure I  understand to what

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross



199a

extent yon are willing to interpret this, but I will ask this 
question once more. Isn’t it true from that exhibit that 
[2113 if the green areas had in fact been moved from 
Smith and Hallett it would have subtracted largely white 
circles from the Stedman school? A. I cannot say that. 
I cannot say that, no.

Q. Would you admit that is a possibility, one of the 
possibilities? A. Obviously, yes.

Q. Now, Dr. Bardwell, let me direct your attention to 
your Exhibit 58. I  believe you told us that the point on 
the upward axis—what’s that called? A. This is called 
the ordinate, “Y” axis.

Q. “Y” axis? The points on the “Y” axis for 1960 
are taken from the census ? A. Yes.

Q. And the points on that axis for 1963, ’64 and ’65 are 
taken from school district data? A. That’s right.

Q. What you are trying to show here, as I understand, 
is what might have been the case in 1962, for which you 
don’t have that kind of data. A. Yes.

Q. And you put some rectangles there opposite the “Y” 
axis for the several schools? How did you determine 
those rectangles? A. From a mathematician’s point of 
view, a [212] mathematician would simply draw one single 
line through the points.

Q. That would be called interpolation? A. Yes. Here, 
we wanted to give our analysis the widest latitude that we 
possibly could, and, here, for example, in the case of 
Stedman, even though Stedman at that particular time in 
1962, according to our estimates, was between 30 and 45 
percent Anglo, that the analysis still stands. In other 
words, the analysis itself is firm enough, even allowing 
a wide latitude of error in the estimates of the Anglo 
population for each of those schools.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross



200a

Q. You have determined for yourself the latitude of 
error that you want to admit to by the rectangular bars? 
A. Well, some common good sense goes into this, from 
my knowledge of population movements.

Q. And this in turn is based on your study of Park 
Hill? A. Well, a number of other studies, as well, that 
there is something inherent in the fundamental nature of 
sociological populations that one does not have when you 
have evidence as compelling as this to have the inter­
mediate years between ’63 and ’60 to go all over the chart. 
Things just don’t happen that way. They don’t happen 
in natural sciences or sociology, either.

Q. Even assuming the lower limits of your margin 
£2133 of error, is it fair to say that the decline in Anglo 
enrollment peaked out in 1962, and that thereafter the 
decline rate modified consistently? A. Well, I am not 
quite sure I know what you mean by peaked out.

Q. Bottomed out, I  should have said. A. Well, it is 
still, of course, declining.

Q. Yes, but at a lesser degree. A. It would have to, sir, 
because you can’t have less than zero percent Anglo.

Q. I suppose not. A. No. In other words, you would 
be going off the graph here, of course, if you were to 
have a continuing series of—if the interpolation were 
extended in a straight-line manner as you are perhaps 
implying, then you would go below zero percent Anglo, 
and that, of course, is impossible.

Q. Now, you do not have to extrapolate after ’63 because 
you have data. A. That’s right.

Q. May we have your 70 series? And where is 76, Dr. 
Bardwell? A. Bight here.

Q. In the lower left of that display? A. Lower left.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs-—Cross



201a

Q. Now, the arrows, will you tell us again, the [2141 
arrows represent what? A. Want me to illustrate? The 
arrow here, for example?

Q. You are referring to Hallett and Phillips. A. Refer­
ring to Hallett school district and the boundary change 
in the southeast part of Hallett, in which the figure on. it 
is 20 percent.

Q. Yes, what does that mean? A. This 20 percent 
means that our estimate here of the proportion of the 
Negroes in that particular area—-

Q. That’s your professional estimate? A. That’s right.
Q. Excuse me, go ahead. A. That the proportion of 

Negroes that were transferred out of Hallett because of 
that boundary change into Philips was 20 percent.

Q. 20 of the previous Hallett percentage? A. No. No, 
sir. 20 percent Negro.

Q. You mean of those moves, 20 percent was Negro? 
A. That’s right, sir.

Q. What is the largest figure in the Hallett subdistrict, 
25 percent? A. 25 percent refers again to estimates as 
best we can determine.

Q. Prom what, Dr. Bardwell? [2153 A. Well—
Q. Prom what dates? A. Well, this 25 percent again 

is from the 1966 census, or, I mean census of Park Hill.
Q. That is your census? A. That’s right.
Q. Your census indicates to you that Hallett subdistrict 

had 25 percent Negro in 1964? A. That’s right.
Q. After the move or before? A. No, this was before 

the change. In other words, the entire district, subdistrict 
of Hallett, before this boundary change was actually made, 
is 25 percent.

Q, All right. A. Similarly, for the other subdistricts 
as well.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross



2 0 2 a

Q. All right, then, taking yonr example, the Hallett to 
Philips arrow, yon figure that 20 percent of those moved 
were Negro? A. That’s right, sir.

Q. Doesn’t your ’66 report show that there are higher 
concentrations of Negro residential patterns in the north­
ern part of the Hallett district at that time than in the 
southern part? A. In this part up in here, yes, that’s 
true, as far as the area is concerned, that’s right. It may 
not [216] extend over to this area here. It is only in this 
part in here that we are talking about, but in general 
the northern tier of the areas that were in that 1966 study 
do show a higher proportion of the Negro residents.

Q. So, if something oft the southern tier of Hallett 
would be moved to Philips, it would I suppose on that 
data involve a lesser percentage of black children than 
the district as a whole? A. Well, we are depicting in 
this information as accurately as is conceivable from the 
only possible source I know, and that is from my 1966 
census, and those data indicate with the smallest sub­
district that I have in that information that this is the 
20 percent out and this is 25 percent corresponding to the 
entire district.

Now, in terms of the precise location, we could go back 
to the individual blocks and determine that precisely, 
but this is an enormous task.

Q. Doesn’t your 1966 data indicate, for example, the 
south and east part of Philips district was almost totally 
white at that time residentially? A. That’s right.

Q. Therefore, movements to the contiguous areas of 
Montclair and Ashley would necessarily on that metho­
dology move only white children? A. You mean actually 
here?

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross



203a

12111 Q. From Philips to Ashley. A. Yes, that’s right. 
Q. Moving from that part of the Philips district? A. 

That’s right.
Q. And no other part of the Philips district was con­

tiguous to Ashley, was it? A. Well, yes, this part in here, 
northerly, the northern part of the boundary changes.

*  *  # *  *

[218] # *
By Mr. Creighton:

Q. Dr. Bardwell, still with reference to the 70 series and 
particularly to Exhibit 71, that shows changes in the school 
district in fact made in the elementary schools for the 
school year 1964 and 1965, does it not? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that was after the receipt by that Board of the 
March 1st, 1964, special study committee report, was it 
not? A. That’s right.

[219] Q. Are you familiar with that report? A. I  am. 
Q. Would it be fair to say that that report says, with 

respect to mobile units—

The Court: By the way, what’s the exhibit num­
ber?

Mr. Creighton: This is Exhibit 20, Your Honor.

Q. —that the committee approves the use of mobile units 
temporarily to relieve overcrowding. However, care should 
be taken that these facilities should not become permanent. 
Is that your recollection of the recommendation? A. Some­
thing to that effect. I don’t know the exact wording and 
perhaps I  ought to see it.

Q. Certainly. I ’m showing the witness Page BIO of 
Exhibit 20.

George E. Bardwell—̂for Plaintiffs—Cross



204a

Is that a satisfactory statement of the study committee’s 
recommendation? A. Yes.'

Q. And in your 1966 study, Dr. Bardwell, and that for 
the Court’s reference is Exhibit 38, wasn’t one of your 
observations from your data that there had been, during 
the period you substituted up to 1966, and particularly in 
the years immediately preceding 1966, in the area we’re 
talking about, there had been a rapid immigration particu­
larly to the northern part of this area of Negro families; 
that these Negro families had on the average more school 
children per [2203 family than the white families they 
apparently replaced? A. (Nods affirmatively.)

Q. And this happened very rapidly? A. Yes, this 
points up the variation in the percentages here shown 
in population statements here of 43 percent while, for ex­
ample, 43 percent of the population in 1964 was Negro at 
Stedman, yet, on the other hand, the proportion of Negro 
students at Stedman was 85 percent and the difference in 
that percentage reflects that.

Q. That rapid change? A. The difference between per­
centage of Negro families and the percentage of students.

Q. There was a rapid change not only of racial composi­
tion but of family size? A. There was.

Q. Do you think the use of mobile units—

The Court: Was this a trend that was apparently 
at some earlier times?

A. A trend?

The Court: Yes.
The Witness: The trend had been manifested 

starting in 1960, in which one finds—and we’re talk­
ing about Park Hill as a whole—that the popula­
tion may remain stable for that entire period of time,

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Gross



205a

the same number of people in Park Hill over the 
six-year period, but the number of Negro [2213 
persons increased from 520 to 12,200 in the span of 
six years.

Q. Do you have any knowledge as to the deployment of 
mobile units in the elementary schools involved in this 70 
series today? A. Yes.

Q. Are there mobile units at Ashley, for example? A. 
Yes. I have forgotten how many units at Ashley, and if my 
recollection is correct there are two. But at Smith we still 
have and even after this long period of time, after 1964, 
which is a period of over five years, we still have mobile 
units at Smith, four at Stedman, and four at Hallett. Park 
Hill only within the past few months—only in the past few 
months have the mobile units been removed from Park Hill. 
Still, the same four mobile units at Philips and so, since 
the 1964 report indicated the mobile units ought to be 
temporary in nature, here we have the same mobile units 
extending still today.

Q. Have there been any permanent facilities built in 
this area during this period; this time? A. The most recent 
one is the—yes, there have been some additions at Park 
Hill. This is as Mr. Armstrong informs me in the past 
year, the Park Hill addition has been made of around 300.

Q. Three hundred what? [2223 A. Three hundred spaces; 
so, increased capacity.

Q. Do you know whether those are classrooms? A. Yes, 
classrooms.

Q. Finally, Dr. Bardwell, referring to your segregation 
indices, which are Exhibits 7G, 91 and 81, I believe you can 
resume the witness stand—let me take the one that pertains 
to the most schools first, and that is Exhibit 9J.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross



206a

Would you like to have it in front of you? A. Yes, please.

Mr. Creighton: Perhaps, Your Honor, those three 
exhibits I  just mentioned, if I  could have them.

Q. I hand you, Dr. Bardwell, Exhibit 9J. On voir dire I 
didn’t discuss this with you, Dr. Bardwell, so I must ask 
you what pool of schools, what group of schools did you 
use to construct this exhibit? That is to say, what segre­
gation index as shown for what schools? A. These are the 
17 elementary schools that we have used as coming under 
the effect of the Resolution 1531. They include such schools, 
for example, as Stedman, Ashley, and the numbers of 
schools we have indicated in previous exhibits. I could list 
you—give you a precise list of those, if you like.

Q. Well, it’s 17 elementary schools? A. That’s right.
Q. And I suppose, if you narrowed your focus to one 

[2233 school at a time, an all-white school would have a 
segregation index of 100, would it not? A. That’s right.

Q. And an all-black school would have a segregation 
index of 100? A. That’s right.

Q. So that when you start lumping schools together, all- 
white schools tend to raise the average, and all-black schools 
tend to raise your index? A. That’s right. If the index is 
applied, for example, to a school like Stedman, then it’s a 
segregation index.

Q. Just to Stedman. Let’s apply the index to Stedman. 
A. If the resolution itself were rescinded, then the segre­
gation index for Stedman would climb to 100. That means 
from the current status of Stedman, assuming the resolu­
tions are in effect, would be a segregation index applied to 
Stedman very close to zero. Yet, if the resolutions were 
rescinded, then this segregation index for Stedman would 
he. I think, fairly close to 100.

George E. Bar dwell— for Plaintiffs—Cross



207a

Q. It would remain 100. When you . say rescinded, you 
mean remain the same as last year? A. If you want to put 
it that way, sir.

Q. But with respect to 17 schools as a whole, is it fair to 
say that this shows a steady—that 9J shows a steady £2243 
decline in the segregation index during the years you have 
shown, even— A. That’s right, except for the period 1966 
to 1967.

Q. That would be the school years of what ? A. This 
would be the school year 1966 to 1967; 1967 to 1968; and 
1968 to 1969; the school year beginning in September 
indicated by the year at the bottom of the chart.

Q. I see. A. But—

The Court: Did you finish your answer?
The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: Go right ahead.

A. I was about to indicate that while there was a sub­
stantial decline in the segregation index from 1963 to 
1965, that that segregation index is leveled out appreciably 
so that for the period 1966 to ’68, it has remained almost 
constant.

Q. A little bit down, is it not? A. Well, that is random 
variation.

Q. Tour exhibit shows a little bit down. A. I t’s random 
variations for the most part.

Mr. Creighton: I believe that’s all I have, Dr.
Bardwell. Thank you.

#  #  #  #  #

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross



208a

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Direct 

[2283 * * *
Gilbert Cruter, a witness called by and on behalf of 

defendants, having first been duly sworn, was examined 
and testified as follows:

[2293 Direct Examination by Mr. Quinn-.

The Court: Give us your name and address 
and occupation.

The Witness: My name is Gilbert Cruter. I ’m a 
teacher—I mean, an administrator with the Denver 
Public Schools, and my address is 2875 Monaco 
Parkway.

Q. Mr. Cruter, can you give your job title with the 
Denver Public Schools currently? A. Executive Director 
for School Community Relations.

Q. Could you explain to the Court briefly the function 
of that office? A. Basically, my particular responsibility 
is directly to the Superintendent and I advise the Super­
intendent on human relations and integration issues and 
help to design and implement programs to meet school 
system requirements.

Q. How long have you held your present position, Mr. 
Cruter? A. Since 1964.

Q. When was that particular office created? A. The 
office was created in 1964 as a result of a recommendation 
from the study committee that was set up in 1962 and 
did a two-year study on recommendations of the Board 
which was the creation of this advisory committee and 
the office was set up as a result of their recommendations.

[2303 Q. Do other school districts in Colorado currently 
have similar offices within their administrative structure?



209a

A. To my knowledge, there is only one and that is the 
Littleton School District, which has an office or a person 
who serves in a capacity similar to mine but doesn’t neces­
sarily function the same way.

Q. Could you briefly relate to the Court your personal 
background, particularly your professional background, 
Mr. Cruter? A. Well, academically, I have a Master’s 
degree in education. I have been associated with the 
Department of State as a cultural affairs officer from 
1961 to 1963. I have taught at Southern University in 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, as directer of health and educa­
tion, and I have served as congressional liaison officer 
for the agency for international development in Wash­
ington, D.C. And I have worked with the public schools 
since 1946 with a brief two-year leave of absence—well, 
actually, I have had three leaves of absence from the 
Denver Public Schools, to work in foreign service.

Q. Is one of your formal duties—does it have to do 
with teacher recruitment? A. Yes.

Q. Would you explain that to the Court? A. Well, as 
I indicated before, it’s my responsibility to advise the 
Superintendent on these particular matters [2313 because 
we were trying to secure some Negro teachers and I took 
it upon myself, with the advisement of the Personnel 
Director at that time, who was Howard Johnson, who is 
now the Deputy Superintendent, to visit Negro colleges 
which I had had some familiarity with in view of the fact 
that I had taught at Southern University and so, starting 
two or three years ago, this is the third year, I recruited 
at approximately 17 schools which were primarily Negro 
colleges throughout the South.

This is the reason—the reason we did this is because 
this was a fertile field for educators that had been un­

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Direct



210a

tapped by the Denver schools. Now, we do recruit from 
white institutions and we pick up what Negro recruits in 
education we can from those particular areas, as well.

Q. How do you conduct this recruitment, just briefly? 
What is your method of recruiting? A. Well, many of 
the people who have eui'rently been working in the depart­
ments I either knew or have known previously. And so 
many of my contacts have been made directly with them. 
I  also work primarily through the placement department, 
but also have side contacts, too. And then they tend to 
provide me with the names of individuals whom they 
think would fit into the Denver school system.

As you know, there is a great deal of recruitment of 
Negro graduates at the present time because of—well, 
£2323 recruitment, I should say, by industry, business 
and government and so on, and so, consequently, the 
students you get is rather small because, consequently, 
you can’t compete on the salary level that—with that of 
business and industry.

Q. Have your efforts, however, been successful to some 
degree? A. Yes, they have been. The first year was a 
primary—primarily a year of contact in which we were 
trying to lay the groundwork, so I think we probably got— 
I would estimate around 15 teachers that particular year. 
The second year I went down—and I was more or less 
more knowledgeable about the recruiting thing—the first 
year, incidentally, we didn’t take any contracts with us; 
merely a letter of commitment. The second year I took 
the contracts with me. I issued 50 contracts and we wound 
up with, I think, around 39 or 40 teachers. This last year 
we again took out contracts with us as well as letters 
of intent for those who couldn’t make up their mind, and

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—-Direct



211a

I had them sign the contracts that particular time, and 
I think we have, according to the latest information I have 
from Personnel Department, roughly 36 teachers out of 
some 40 that I  had given contracts to.

Q. Those would be teachers who would be beginning 
employment in the fall of this year? A. That’s right.

Q- Do other school districts carry on this type of 
[233] recruitment? A. This I  couldn’t say except that 
we have worked closely with Jefferson County and we 
have had one person who accompanied me this year to 
recruit teachers for the Jefferson County school system.

Q. Mr. Cruter, are you familiar with the plan which 
has been referred to as the Hallett Plan or sometimes 
the Hallett Demonstration Integrated School Plan! A. 
Yes.

Q. Could you explain to the Court what that is and 
what its origin was? A. Basically, the origin of the 
Hallett Plan was that a group of people from University 
Park School wanted to give their children an integrated 
experience and they selected Hallett as a school that had 
comparable socioeconomic levels with their particular 
school. So, as a result, there were some 45—50 youngsters 
who volunteered to go into Hallett and some 45 youngsters 
left Hallett in order to go into University Park and other 
schools.

Q. Is that a continuing program? A. Yes. It has top 
priority right now in view of the recent action of the 
Board and we are concentrating all our efforts in this 
area in order to try to—

The Court: Would you keep your voice up a little 
bit more.

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Direct



212a

[234] A. We’re concentrating all onr efforts in this area 
at the present time to provide an integrated experience 
for the people who work to avail themselves of the Hallett 
program, both from the Hallett area and also from—some 
35 schools that are located within the south, southeast and 
southwest area of the city.

Q. Could you explain some of the means that have been 
utilized to implement this plan? A. Yes. We have met 
with the principals of the 35 schools involved. They, in 
turn, have sent out letters to parents, indicating that the 
volunteer open enrollment was available for the Hallett 
School. They have, for the purpose of efficiency, I guess— 
well, I won’t say I guess—but I will say for the purpose 
of efficiency we have divided the 35 schools into clusters 
based upon geographic proximity to one another and have 
set up recruitment committees within those particular 
clusters. We have done the same thing in the Hallett area 
in which we have divided the area into blocks with the 
map indicating the number of youngsters in each block 
and have set up block committees made up primarily of 
people or parents whose children were bused out the first 
part of January at the time that the University Park and 
Hallett projects were started.

Q. Have there been any other means of publicizing this 
plan? [235] A. Yes, we are putting out another publica­
tion which will be out the 21st which is called the 
Volunteer Open Enrollment Dialogue, which is a summary 
or summation of all of the things that have taken place 
since the closing of school. We also had some radio 
announcements about the volunteer education. Mr. Lyons’ 
office in Public Education is designing some advertisements 
to go into newspapers at a later date to try and see if we

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Direct



213a

can’t get more people interested in volunteer enrollment.
Q. Can you identify Mr. Lyons? A. Mr. Lyons is the 

director of the office of public information for the schools.
Q. Mr. Cruter, I hand you a document which has been 

marked Defendants’ Exhibit C and plaintiffs’ counsel has 
been furnished a copy of that. Can you identify that 
document? A. Yes, this is a copy of the material which 
will go into the first publication sheet which is at the 
printers at the present t i m e,

Q. When will that be sent? A. It will be mailed out 
Monday.

Q. And to whom will that be sent? A. This will go to 
the parents involved and currently involved in open 
enrollment programs as well as interested [236] parents 
within the seven clusters that we have set up.

Mr. Quinn: I ’d like to offer Defendants’ Exhibit C 
in evidence.

Mr. Greiner: May we have a brief voir dire ex­
amination, Your Honor?

The Court: Yes.

Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Greiner:

Q. Mr. Cruter, did you personally prepare Defendants’ 
Exhibit C? A. The staff and myself, yes.

Q. What about the statistics that are reflected in 
Defendants’ Exhibit C? Where did this come from? 
A. These are the latest publications on at least—our 
latest insofar as up to date, July 15, of the request to 
Hallett by the people in the seven clusters, that is, by 
the parents in the seven clusters that we have set up 
and also, the request to leave Hallett and it gives you

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Direct



214a

those who were involved prior to the close of schools, 
that is, those who were involved in January to June pro­
ject, and the additional ones that we have acquired since 
that time.

Q. Approximately when was Defendants’ Exhibit C 
prepared, Mr. Cruter! A. That has been in preparation 
for the last week.

Mr. Greiner: We have no objections, Your Honor.
[2373 The Court: It will be received.

(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit C was re­
ceived in evidence.)

The Witness: May I finish?

This has been in preparation since the last week hut 
it has been an accumulation of information that we have 
prepared ever since the close of school.

Direct Examination by Mr. Quinn (Continued):
Q. Mr. Cruter, I  now—

The Court: When did you start planning to send 
out such a document?

The Witness: Beg pardon, sir?
The Court: When did you start your planning 

to send out such a document? When did you decide 
that such a document would he—

The Witness: At the time that the Superin­
tendent directed us as a result of Board action 
since Hallett was given top priority then we started 
our planning in this particular respect to see about 
trying to enlist as many volunteers as possible to

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Direct



215a

make this a pilot demonstration of an integrated 
school.

The Court: When did yon first decide to send out 
a communication?

The Witness: This was done just before the close 
[238] of school. This is part of the planning 
process.

The Court: But the preparation was not com­
pleted or not started until a week ago?

The Witness: No, the final documentation was 
not done until a week ago.

The Court: Very well. Go ahead.

By Mr. Quinn:

Q. Mr. Cruter, I hand you another document which has 
been marked Defendants’ Exhibit B and ask you if you 
can identify that document? A. This is a letter that was 
sent by Mr. Berge, President of the Board, to the Ellis 
parents to request—to solicit their participation involved 
in open enrollment plan.

Q. Do you know to whom that letter was sent? A. This 
went to all the parents in the Ellis School District—sub- 
district.

Q. Can you give the location of the Ellis School, ap­
proximately? A. This is a—-I can’t give you the exact 
address but is a school in the southeast area of the city.

Q. And was this letter a part of the Hallett Plan which 
is being implemented through your office? A. Yes, be­
cause the Ellis parents, as well as the other parents in the 
cluster, wanted a statement from the Board President 
indicating what their particular response [2393 would be

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Direct



216a

for this particular plan. So this was the reason for the 
letter.

Mr. Greiner: I don’t mean to interrupt hut we 
have no objection to the introduction of that exhibit.

The Court: It will be received.

(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit B was re­
ceived in evidence.)

Mr. Quinn: I  have no further questions of this 
witness, Your Honor.

Cross-Examination by Mr. Greiner:

Q. Since 1964, Mr. Cruter, you have served in the 
capacity of Director of Community Relations for the 
school district? A. No.

Q. Since what date? A. 1966.
Q. This position was created in 1964, is that correct? 

A. That’s right.
Q. Now, is it fair to say, Mr. Cruter, that certainly one 

of the functions of your job is to communicate with the 
Negro community? A. No, my job is to represent the 
entire school district and this just happens to be one ele­
ment of it.

Q. Let me put it another way. In the course of your 
[240] job, do you in fact communicate with the Negro 
community? A. Yes, I do.

Q. Now, does that communication include listening as 
well as talking? A. That’s right.

Q. Well, since you have been Director since 1966, can 
you tell me whether or not there has been a growing con­
cern in the Negro community over the continuance of 
segregated schools for Negroes? A. Yes, there has been.

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Cross



217a

Q. Now, as I understand your efforts with respect to 
the Hallett program, it is to—what is the ultimate objec­
tive at Hallett? It is to change a black school into a white 
school, is it not, predominantly? A. No, it’s not to change 
a black school into a white school. I t’s to provide an in­
tegrated school setting in which you would have approxi­
mately a fifty-fifty ratio.

Q. Are you familiar with Eesolution 1533, Mr. Cruter? 
A. Yes, I  am.

Q. 1533 has some figures in it, does it not, as to what 
the hope is at Hallett? A. Yes.

The Court: What’s the exhibit number, please?
Mr. Greiner: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6A, Your Honor.

Q. Mr. Cruter, doesn’t Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6A indicate 
[2413 that the ultimate objective at Hallett is an exchange 
of some 500 students? A. Yes.

Q. Now, as I  understand the statistics on Defendants’ 
Exhibit B, to date you have received 158 essentially Anglo 
requests to go into Hallett and 100 Negro requests to leave 
Hallett, is that correct? A. That’s right.

Q. So you are a little short on the objectives set out 
in 1533? A. That’s right.

Q. I  notice that—do you, by the way, have Defendants’ 
Exhibit B in front of you, Mr. Cruter? A. No.

Mr. Greiner: I meant C. Pardon me.

Q. At the bottom of Page 2 of Exhibit C, it states that 
there are 33 Anglos who were going to continue in the 
program at Hallett. Did you speak personally with each 
of those Anglos, Mr. Cruter? A. No, I haven’t.

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Cross



218a

Q. How did you arrive at this conclusion? A. Well, 
they had indicated—there were cards that were sent out 
prior to the close of school for those who wanted to— 
requesting those who had been attending Hallett whether 
they wanted to continue.

[2423 Q. Mr. Cruter, exactly when were those cards 
sent out? A. Well, I couldn’t give you the exact date 
on it.

Q. When did school close, Mr. Cruter? A. The 6th 
of June.

Q. 6th of June? A. Yes.
Q. So that those cards then were sent out before the 

Board rescinded these resolutions, is that correct? A. 
Well, I  can’t say that because I had nothing to do with 
the sending out of the cards.

Q. But you do know that the cards were sent out before 
school closed? A. Yes.

Q. Now, what is the fact with respect to your statistics 
showing the Negroes who are to continue in a program at 
Hallett? A. This was the same process.

Q. So, in other words, based on data that took place 
before the Board rescinded these resolutions you are con­
tinuing to assume a continuing 46 participation at Hallett? 
A. So far as we know, this will be the status of those 
who want to continue to go.

Q. Now, Mr. Cruter, are you generally familiar with 
what I  will describe as the two basic purposes of the 
resolutions which were rescinded? Would you agree that 
the [2433 first purpose was the stabilization of schools 
in transition such as Phillips, Park Hill, and East High 
School?

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Gross

Mr. Quinn: Your Honor, I  think we’re getting



219a

outside the scope of direct examination.
The Court: True.
Mr. Greiner: Well, I think what Mr. Cruter’s 

testimony relates to, Your Honor, is essentially the 
issue of whether the substitution—of the eff ect of the 
substitution of 1533, and I don’t think we can 
properly judge the effectiveness of 1533 unless we 
consider what was going to he done under the 
rescinded resolutions.

The Court: To my mind he was called only to 
testify concerning this one program, as their wit­
ness. But when you get beyond that, I think you’re 
calling him as your witness.

Do you wish to do that?
Mr. Greiner: I  have no objection to doing it; 

Your Honor. I might say, though, that Hallett was 
just one of the voluntary programs under 1533 and 
I would like to inquire to see whether Hallett is 
not in fact the one that has so far demonstrated 
the most, in quotes, “success.”

The Court: All right. Go ahead.

Q. Now, there is also a voluntary aspect under 1533, 
is there not, Mr. Cruter, with respect to voluntary open 
enrollment at some of these other Park Hill elementary 
schools? [2441 Yes, there is.

Q. Such as Stedman, Smith, Park Hill, Hill, Phillips and 
so forth? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What’s been the response for voluntary open enroll­
ment from the Anglo community, Mr. Cruter, in a school 
such as Phillips, for example? A. This I couldn’t answer 
because the person who has that information is Dave 
McWilliams who has that particular responsibility. So

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Cross



220a

I couldn’t give you any information as to what the re­
sponse has been from those particular schools.

Q. You have been working solely on the Hallett pro­
gram? A. That’s correct.

Q. Now, you mentioned a recruitment, Mr. Cruter, of 
Negro teachers, did you not? A. Yes.

Q. And I understand that at least your involvement 
in that program of recruitment began some three years 
ago? A. That’s correct.

Q. So that the figures for Negro teachers in the school 
district for 1968-1969—that would reflect how many of the 
three years of that recruitment? A. Would you restate 
that question? When you say reflect, are you talking 
about the number of people I have interviewed or are you 
talking about the number of people who [245] were em­
ployed.

Q. Who were employed. A. I would say roughly about 
18 percent of the total number employed at both secondary 
and elementary level. In other words, this averages out 
about 39—36 to 39 per year.

Q. I  think I can ask the question more directly Mr. 
Cruter. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 95 shows, for example, a total 
of 191% Negro teachers in the elementary schools in 
Denver, does it not? A. Yes, that’s right.

Q. And that’s for the school year 1968? A. That’s 
right,

Q. Now, that’s 191-% out of 2,260* total for the ele­
mentary schools? A. (Nods affirmatively.)

Q. Now, out of that 191%, Mr. Cruter, how many of 
those were some of your new recruits you described? A. I 
don’t have that breakdown. I couldn’t give you that. The 
only thing I can say is that I  know how many were em­
ployed each year that I went out to on the recruiting. The

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Cross



221a

year of 1968-1969, there were 39 employed, according to the 
information I received from the personnel office. And of 
the 1969-1970, there were 36 employed.

Q. I  am sorry. I misspoke. When I said Exhibit 95—-
[246] it is in fact Plaintiff’ Exhibit 97. If you will just 
examine that. Is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 97—does that indicate 
that there are still some Anglo schools that have no 
Negro teachers? A. That’s right.

Q. Now, how many Negro teachers are you trying to 
recruit, Mr. Cruter? A. Well, I think you put me in a 
situation where I can’t answer because I’m really not 
directly associated with personnel. We’re just trying to 
recruit teachers.

Q. Well, I take it from your description that your func­
tion is to recruit Negro teachers, is it not? A. No, I took 
it upon my—I felt that one of the functions of my parti­
cular office was to at least try and bring back some in­
tegration so this is how I happened to get involved in 
recruiting teachers. Pm not a person who works in per­
sonnel.

Q. Now I believe you indicated that part of your job 
was to talk with and listen to Negroes in the community, 
is that correct? A. That’s right.

Q. Can you report to us on the basis of your recruit­
ment experience in the Hallett program, Mr. Cruter, how 
the Negro community reacted to the rescission of these 
resolutions ? A. I ’d like to put it on a much broader basis 
than that if I may.

[247] Q. That’s fine. A. Because I think that the 
impact in the communities that we have had to deal with 
or have been dealing with has been one of defeat, rejec­
tion, insofar as the volunteer open enrollment plan is

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Cross



222a

concerned. We liave just started our process of trying 
to go block by block to recruit people out of the Hallett 
area and we have mixed reactions on this.

Q. Now, that intense recruiting as I understand it— 
have you been participating in that! A. Part of it, yes.

Q. I  take it since you’re going to Africa next week that 
you will not be participating any further? A. We have 
a staff that will still continue that.

Q. When is that recruitment program going to end? 
A. We hope to have a pretty good report on it by the 
15th of August.

Q. Now, last year in Hallett, under the exchange pro­
gram there which was voluntary, there was a mutual ex­
change of approximately 50 students? A. Yes.

Q. Now, did the Black students in your opinion, Mr. 
Cruter, who remained at Hallett—did they receive the 
benefits of an integrated education there at Hallett? A. 
That is something I can’t answer because I haven’t been 
that closely connected with the school. I would say that
[248] there were those who feel—I think we have in the 
community those who feel that a predominantly integrated 
school is beneficial and those who still feel a segregated 
school is beneficial. I  think you’ve got two factions you 
have to consider.

Q. Now, Mr. Cruter, let me ask the question another 
way. Under the voluntary program last year, did Hallett 
become an integrated school? A. It depends on how you 
define integration.

Q. Let me ask you—before the program began, Mr. 
Cruter, approximately what was the percentage of Negro 
composition at Hallett? A. I  would say it was about 85 
percent.

Gilbert Cruter—for DefendcmtsnrCross



223a

Q. And at the height of the voluntary open enrollment 
program last year, Mr. Crater, approximately what was 
the Negro percentage at Hallett? A. Well, it was re­
duced. The reduction was very small. So, if you’re going 
to base it on a 50/50 or a racial balance, I  would say it 
was not an integrated school.

Q. Well, would you say it went from about 85 percent 
Negro to say 80 percent Negro? A. Something like that, 
yes.

Q. In your communications with Anglo parents, Mr. 
Crater, with regard to the Hallett program, have any 
Anglo parents indicated to you that they might be willing 
to send their children to Hallett if it was going to be a 
predominantly Anglo [249] school, but that they would 
not be willing to send their children to Hallett if it re­
mained under this program a predominantly Negro school? 
A. No, I haven’t heard that.

Q. Have you in fact talked with some Anglo parents? 
A. Yes.

Q. And you have not run into that kind of a condition? 
A. No.

Q. Do you recall whether or not that kind of a condition 
existed with respect to the voluntary open enrollment 
program in the second semester of 1969? A. I t’s hard 
for me to even answer that because at this particular 
time I was not as deeply involved in that process as I am 
at the present time.

Q. Mr. Crater, I hand you what’s been marked for 
identification Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 37-A through G and ask 
you if you can identify those. A. Yes, I have seen these 
before.

* *  *  #  #

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Cross



224a

Gilbert Gruter—for Defendants-—Cross

[250] * * *
Q. With respect to 37-B, which is the second page, Mr. 

Crater, of that series of exhibits, is that not a request for 
voluntary open enrollment at Hallett school? A. Bight.

Q. Is there not a condition stated there with respect 
to that participation? A. That’s right.

Q. What is the condition, Mr, Crater? A. Provided 
that Hallett becomes 60 to 65 percent Anglo as of 1/27/69, 
and that insofar as possible minority race children re­
place charges of University Park. We further do not be­
lieve volunteer open enrollment to be a realistic solution. 
Open enrollment is merely a farce. I might add this in­
formation does not come to my office.

The Court: What document is this?
[251] Mr. Greiner: 37-B.
The Witness: This goes to Mr. MeWilliam’s office 

and therefore I would not be aware of or be ap­
prized of that particular statement.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer that 
series of exhibits at this time.

Mr. Quinn: We would object to the offer insofar 
as it relates to comments that are based on these— 
without some indication of who put them there 
or what the purpose was. This is purely hearsay. 
If there’s to be any question of those comments 
themselves—-

The Court: I don’t believe Mr. Crater has testi­
fied to the source of these documents.

Q. Mr. Crater, do you know whether or not these ex­
hibits come from the files of the school district? A. Yes, 
they come from the files of the school district.



225a

The Court: And these are responses to this 
effort!

The Witness: Yes.
Mr. Greiner: This was the earlier efforts.
The Witness: This is prior to the close of school.
The Court: Are you offering them on some kind 

of a testimonial basis; that is, for the truth of the 
statements that are contained in them!

Mr. Greiner: No, Your Honor, I ’m offering them 
only to show that certain parents did place certain 
conditions of [252] racial composition upon their 
willingness to participate in voluntary open enroll­
ment. I ’m not offering for example 37-B for the 
truth of the proposition that open enrollment is 
merely a farce.

Mr. Quinn: Your Honor, I don’t see the mate­
riality of them on that basis; somebody’s personal 
opinion.

The Court: I suppose we can receive them cir­
cumstantially to show that there has been reaction 
to this effort.

Mr. Quinn: In a very indirect way.
The Court: But I  don’t believe that we can accept 

these statements on any testimonial basis; but that 
they are purely hearsay. Is that all right?

Mr. Greiner: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q. Mr. Cruter, with respect to the Hallett school do 
you have any information or opinion how the Negro com­
munity views such a segregated school? A. The Hallett 
area as well—and I think we need to say that this is about 
the Black area in general, the Negro area in general; they 
wanted integrated education and they wanted quality 
education.

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Cross



226a

Q. Pardon me, Mr. Cruter, but do they tend to equate 
those two things? A. I think they do. And the idea is 
that they don’t want to be placed in a situation in which 
they’re not going to be received by the particular com­
munity in which their child [253] will be or in other words 
there is a feeling of comfortableness and security that any 
parent feels for his school, just as a white parent feels 
about his child going into a Black community, the Black 
community feels the same thing about his child going into 
a white community. There are those who feel that there 
are certain benefits that will occur because of the oppor­
tunities to be associated with other children; to be able 
to live in a multi-racial society. I have had remarks made 
on both the black side as well as the white side indicating 
the necessity for a racial mixing. And because they 
recognize the fact that with the world getting smaller 
and with our recent exploits with the moon, that our 
youngsters are going to have to learn to live in a multi­
racial society. There are also those who I think we have 
to look at it on the other side too—there are those who 
feel also that probably their child is getting a good educa­
tion in a segregated school simply because their previous 
experience has been one of a segregated school so there­
fore they feel that they got something out of it and that 
he wants to continue it.

Q. You’re talking about the parent’s education? A. I ’m 
talking about the parent’s education. So I think this has 
some bearing on it too. But, by and large, children I think 
tend to profit from the experiences that they gain from 
their peers, and if they are in a racially mixed situation 
I think they materially profit from it both academically 
[254] as well as socially.

* *  # # #

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Cross



227a

[263] R obebt I). G il b e b t s , c a lle d  a s  a  w itn e s s  b y  th e  
p la in t i f f s ,  b e in g  f i r s t  d u ly  s w o rn , o n  Ms o a th  te s t i f ie d  a s  
f o l lo w s :

The Court: For the record, give us your name 
and address and occupation.

The Witness: My name is Robert D. Gilberts. 
I  live at 6495 Happy Canyon Road.

Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Gilberts, you are one of the defendants in this 

action! A. Yes.
Q. And you are the Superintendent of Schools of School 

District Number 1? A. Yes.
Q. You have been such, serving as Superintendent in 

this district, since approximately August 1, 1967! A. 
Yes.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, I  would like to take you back in time 
to the passage of the Noel resolution. Do you recall when 
this was passed! A. This is Resolution 1490!

Q. That’s correct. A. May 1968.
Q. So you were here then when that was passed! 

[264] A. Yes.
Q. Upon the passage of the Noel resolution, were you 

directed by the Board to prepare a comprehensive plan 
for the integration of the Denver schools! A. Yes.

Q. And you did prepare such a plan, did you not! 
A. Yes, I  did.

Q. Does that plan have a title that we might use con­
veniently for reference! A. We have a copy of it here, 
“Planning Quality Education, Proposal for Integrating 
the Denver Public Schools.”

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



228a

Q. How many months was that plan under development ? 
A. We had approximately sixty days, working days.

Q. And you, as I  understand it, obtained the services 
of outside consultants to help you? A. Yes, we did.

Q. And that was Jack Dempsey and Associates? A. 
Together with a firm from California, that’s Davis, 
McConnell and Ross on, who worked with him.

Q. I understand that during this development period 
you and your administration made a determined effort or 
definite effort to get inputs of ideas from various sources 
throughout the community, did you not? A. Yes, in that 
limitation of time we did the best £2653 we could.

Q. And are some of those inputs reflected in the final 
product? A. Yes, they are.

Q. Now, that plan, “Planning Quality Education,” that 
was introduced to the electorate here in Denver approxi­
mately when, Dr. Gilberts? A. First part of May—or, 
excuse me—first part of October of last fall.

Q. Was that the televised presentation that you have 
reference to? A. Yes, it was.

Q. Now, shortly after your televised presentation, you 
received a further direction from the School Board -with 
respect to implementation.

Q. Well, the plan which we presented in October was 
a conceptural approach to dealing with the problem. It 
outlined in fairly broad terms various approaches we 
thought could be used to approach these problems here 
in Denver. It was not the kind of plan that would give 
the finite details of solutions in each of these areas. There­
fore, it was necessary for us to begin planning in terms 
of specific elements of this book. The element that we 
began planning on initially was the one which related 
to the stabilization of schools in Northeast Denver.

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



229a

[266] Now, that was a normal part of the planning 
process. I  don’t recall that there was any specific direc­
tion or that there may have been an identification on the 
Board’s part that this was the first area they wanted to 
work in.

Q. Did that identification then take place sometime in 
November of 1968, to your recollection? A. Yes, I  would 
estimate that would he about the time.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, so there is no confusion, as I under- 
stant it, you used the general term “stabilization” to in­
clude both the program of improving the percentage 
composition of such schools as Philips, Park Hill, and 
East, you include that act as well as the complete reversal 
of the racial compositions at Barrett and Smiley Junior 
High Schools? A. Yes, in this peripheral area around 
the Park Hill area, those two were included.

Q. Now, then, did you then during the course of the 
development of this plan for stabilization receive more 
inputs, so to speak? A. Yes.

Q. And you met with the School Board on this point? 
A. We began having a series of conferences working out 
the elements of this plan shortly after this presentation. 
I  can’t say exactly when, but within a week or two, 
[267] I  believe. In addition to that, we had some public 
hearings where people had a chance to comment. We also 
set up some idea centers around the city where people 
had a chance to visit with us about the proposals and make 
additional suggestions.

Q. As I recall a statement in your deposition, it was 
that you considered some fourteen different alternatives 
during this process. A. Actually, there were 14 plans 
sufficiently finite so that they could be presented as options. 
I  am sure there were many more ideas.

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



230a

Q. All right, then, as I  understand it, the first finite 
recommendation to the School Board which you and your 
staff presented was reflected in Resolution 1520, is that 
correct? A. Yes.

Q. And that pertained primarily, did it not, to a senior 
high school and a junior high school, namely East and 
Smiley? A. Yes.

Q. Now, there is a feeder relationship, is there not, 
from Smiley into East? A. Yes.

Q. Was this why those two schools were selected? 
A. Yes.

£2683 Q. They were all—at least, with respect to East 
High School, this had been identified as a school in transi­
tion? A. Yes.

Q. And by that you meant that there had been over the 
years a gradual decline in its Anglo population, is that cor­
rect? A. That’s true.

Q. Now, Smiley, as I understand it, at this point in time 
was already approximately 75 percent Negro, is that cor­
rect? A. I recall that as being approximately true.

Q. So you felt that you had to do something about the 
racial composition at Smiley if the improvement of the 
racial composition at East was going to have any longevity, 
is that correct? A. This was one of the factors, yes, sir.

Q. So that the first proposal then was 1520. Do you recall 
approximately when 1520 was formally presented to the 
Board of Education? A. January, I  believe, 1969. I  am 
sorry, I  can’t recall the precise date on it.

Q. Well, the Board didn’t pass 1520 at the meeting at 
which it was first presented; is that correct? A. That’s 
right.

[269J Q. What happened then, Doctor? A. There was a

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



231a

public hearing on the presentation and it was acted upon 
at the subsequent board meeting.

Q. And approximately how long did that take? A. I can’t 
be absolutely certain, but it seems to me it was in the 
vicinity of a two-week period.

Q. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3, Dr. Gilberts, would indicate that 
1520 was passed on January 30; is that correct? A. Yes.

Q. All right, now, after the passage of 1520, Dr. Gilberts, 
was some further detail necessary in order to implement 
the general proposal reflected in 1520? A. Yes, it was.

Q. And did that then lead to the development of Reso­
lution No. 1524? A. Yes.

Q. And that’s Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4? A. Right.
Q. Now, how long was it then between the passage of 

1520 and the presentation to the Board of 1524, do you 
recall? A. Again, I can’t be absolutely certain, but I would 
estimate within about a two-week period, the presentation 
of this, because this, too, is presented at one meeting and 
acted upon at another, I  believe.

£270] Q. And there was also a public hearing which was 
with respect to 1524, was there not? A. Yes, I believe there 
was.

Q. Now, in general, 1520 and 1524 treated the secondary 
schools which have been focused upon, is that correct? A. 
That’s correct.

Q. Now, was it also necessary because of the feeder rela­
tionship between these schools to do something about the 
elementary schools, in your judgment? A. That was our 
judgment.

Q. Now, in order to effect that objective, did that lead 
then to the development of Resolution 1531? A. Yes.

Q. And that’s Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5? A. Yes.
Q. Now, how long—-just a moment. I take it that in the

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



232a

development of your overall plan, “Planning Quality Edu­
cation”, that you considered the elementary schools as well 
as the junior high schools and senior high schools, did you 
not? A. In terms of this element of that plan?

Q. Yes. A. Well, in the basic document we merely indi­
cated that certain steps would be necessary in order to 
attempt to £2711 stabilize those schools in Northeast Den­
ver. It was not spelled out in detail. We did not have the 
time to qualify what kind of steps we thought would be 
necessary at the time the plan was presented.

Q. But I take it your plan did look at one of the alternate 
types of action which might be taken, and one of the items 
was the stabilization of schools, was it not? A. Yes.

Q. Now, Doctor, was 1531 passed by the Board when it 
was on the day of its first formal presentation to the Board? 
A. No, it was not.

Q. Again, was there a special public meeting with respect 
to 1531? A. Yes, there was.

Q. Now, with respect to these public meetings, I  take it 
that one of the purposes of those meetings, Doctor, was to 
accept, to receive, rather, the comments of the community 
with respect to these proposals, was it not? A. Yes, the 
hearings were primarily to receive from members of the 
community their feeling about the plan as it had been 
presented before.

Q. And you attended each one of those hearings or meet­
ings? A. Yes, I  did.

£2723 Q. I take it there must have been some people 
that spoke out against each of these resolutions in the meet­
ings? A. There were.

Q. And were also proponents of these resolutions? A 
Yes.

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



233a

Q. Did yon make any judgment in your mind as to what 
the balance of the “fors” and “againsts” were!

Mr. Jackson: Objection, it calls for a conclusion 
in an area I  don’t think is truly relevant in this par­
ticular area, Your Honor.

The Court: I am inclined to agree with it. I  don’t 
see where that makes any difference.

Mr. Greiner: Well, let me approach it another 
way.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, with respect to the statements by mem­
bers of the community that took place—I am focusing now 
only on these three public meetings—did you feel from 
participating in those meetings that the community was 
against these resolutions?

Mr. Jackson: I make the same objection, Your 
Honor.

The Court: What’s the purpose of this?
Mr. Greiner: I think I can show it in another way, 

Your Honor.

[273] Q. Did they level out—

The Court: Well, if I knew what you were trying 
to establish, I  would be in a better position to rule.

Mr. Greiner: I am just trying to find out from 
the witness, Your Honor, what he felt the level of 
community acceptance was for these plans.

The Court: For what purpose?
Mr. Geiner: My next inquiry is going to be—
The Court: Where is it germane to anything we

Robert D. Gilberts■—for Plaintiffs—Direct



234a

are hearing here? Let’s suppose he formed an opin­
ion one way or the other.

Mr. Greiner: My next question, Your Honor, 
would be whether it made any difference to him as 
to whether or not there was a level of community ac­
ceptance for these plans.

The Court: Are you seeking to show something 
in the nature of bias of the witness?

Mr. Greiner: Not a bit; not at all.
The Court: Well, then, I  don’t see where it would 

affect us at all.
Mr. Greiner: Well, I think, Your Honor, that the 

witness will agree with us that the matter of com­
munity acceptance—

The Court: Are you trying to show that his view­
point was wholly unbiased and even so, why is that 
[274] important, unless it would affect his credibility 
as a witness?

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, what I  am trying to 
show from this witness is that community acceptance 
was one of the facts which he felt was relevant and 
material in the development of these plans. That’s 
all.

The Court: Well, you can ask him that.

Q. Is that right, Dr. Gilberts? A. Certainly, general 
community acceptance was a major factor in our consider­
ing what we would recommend. I would hesitate to say 
that we drew those conclusions completely from any one 
source of communications, hearings being only one of those.

Q. I recall that one of the resolutions has a statement, 
does it not, something about the level of community ac­
ceptance? Perhaps I am wrong. I guess I am wrong. I  am 
sorry.

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



235a

Then, Dr. Gilberts, I take it that after these public meet­
ings that the Board went ahead and passed each of these 
three resolutions; is that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. The passage of those resolutions was not unanimous 
by the Board? A. That’s correct.

Q. Keeping in mind the various inputs that went into 
£2753 the development of these plans, Dr. Gilberts, is it 
fair to say that you supported each one of these resolutions? 
A. Yes, I  did.

Q. As a matter of professional judgment, you felt that 
they would achieve their intended purposes? A. We had 
hoped so. They were our best judgment as to how we 
might approach the solution to attempting to stabilize the 
enrollment in these schools.

Q. I  take it that there were the—that you must have con­
cluded as a matter of professional judgment that the 
stabilization of these schools was important? A. Yes, we 
did.

Q. Now, that was from an educational viewpoint? A. I 
think it was very heavily from the point of view of the 
communities themselves and the kind of composition of 
population within those communities. We had hoped as a 
side benefit to this kind of stabilization we would provide 
ourselves with a broader base upon vdiich we could test 
some of the hypotheses that are related to the question of 
whether or not an integrated education in effect does pro­
vide a better level of education for children.

Q. Now, I take it, Dr. Gilberts, that you recognized that 
there may be some relationship between the fact that a 
school which is segregated predominantly minority, some 
relationship between that fact and the quality of education 
[276] at that school, in terms of, for example, achievement? 
A. I  would be a great deal more sure about the relationship

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



236a

of socioeconomic cloth and academic level at a school 
rather than the racial relationship to that factor.

Q. Of course, in Denver, there is a closer relationship 
between race and socioeconomic levels ? A. I don’t believe 
I  have data that would allow me to accept that.

Q. You don’t accept that as a proposition? A. I don’t 
believe I could state that with absolute knowledge it is true 
or to what degree it is true.

Q. After these resolutions were passed, did you and your 
staff take further measures looking toward the implementa­
tion of the steps? A. Yes, immediately.

Q. Could you relate some of the things that were done? 
A. Well, at the senior high school level it became necessary 
for us to identify youngsters who were going to be affected 
by changes in boundary and by transportation to provide 
preparing for them in the new schools they would be at­
tending. This involved a registration of these youngsters 
for classes next year and the building of a program to ac­
commodate those elections. That, of course, related to the 
need of differing numbers of staff members with different 
£2/7] kinds of academic qualifications or specialties in these 
schools, so it was necessary to reassign teachers, because we 
did affect numbers of pupils in these schools as well as just 
changing pupils.

It was also necessary for us to begin planning in the 
general area of a program the kind of changes in educa­
tional programs that we might implement in the schools to 
hopefully increase the quality of education within all of 
them.

Transportation began to be examined, although the de­
tails in this obviously could not be done until later in the 
summer, because this would be a part of the overall pro­
gram which included voluntary open enrollment, with trans­

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



237a

portation provided as well, and there is a possibility of 
interrelating these transportation systems, and until that 
was done we could not get into that in great detail.

We began talking about what we could do in terms of 
school-community relations, perhaps as a result of this to 
improve the climate in the communities of receiving schools, 
preparation of pupils and so forth. At the elementary level, 
the problem was not as complex because of the self-con­
tained nature of the classroom. There it was pretty much 
a matter of identifying the number of pupils to be moved, 
notifying them of the movement, the school to [278] which 
they would be moved, and looldng at the teacher require­
ments.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 18, I believe it is, is 
here before you. It is in evidence. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 18 
reflects some of the teacher assignments in the secondary 
schools, does it not? A. It appears to.

Q. Now, was there not also in connection with 1520 and 
1524—for implementation, was it not also necessary to 
purchase some additional school buses for the district? 
A. I t was.

Q. And Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 12 is a reflection of that bus 
purchase contract? A. Yes.

Q. Now, I take it that after the recision of these three 
resolutions that the administration then began taking steps 
for the implementation of 1533, is that correct? A. Well, 
a good portion of Resolution 1533 was embodied in the 
other resolutions, and, therefore, some of the planning 
which was related to those elements just continued. We 
didn’t change Hallett School, as an example of the one you 
discussed this morning. It was a plan which began under 
the original resolution and was a continuing part of this 
one, so they continued. There was a need, obviously, to

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



238a

reschedule the youngsters in the schools to [279] which 
they would be assigned in the fall and to reexamine the 
teacher staffing in these schools.

Q. Now, for example, around Barrett School, the atten­
dance area for Barrett School had been redrawn, had it not, 
under 1531? A. We had identified some elements in the 
Barrett School area which would be reassigned to other 
schools in the district.

Q. So that was a matter of geographic carving up of the 
attendance area? A. It was a geographical identification 
by block.

Q. What happened upon the recision of 1531? A. Those 
youngsters that had been scheduled for assignment to other 
schools were reassigned to the Barrett School.

Q. And the place of their residence once more became a 
part of the Barrett attendance area, is that correct? A. 
Correct.

Q. Now, I understand, Dr. Gilberts, that there is a rela­
tionship between transportation of the pupils affected and 
the ability of some of these receiving schools to receive the 
students, is that correct, who were detached from these 
other schools? A. Will you state that question again? 
I ’m not sure I understand it.

Q. I  take it, for example, that in order to get a [280] 
child that had been in the Barrett area down to Steele, as 
is indicated here—this happens to be Stedman—from Sted- 
man to Steele, that’s quite a distance, is it not? Some sort 
of transportation had to be provided? A. Yes.

Q. Now, did that corollary between transportation and 
the implementation of 1531 exist in every instance? A. 
1531?

Q. That’s the elementary school. A. No, there were

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



239a

some boundary changes that affected the school of residence 
as well. They were fairly minor.

Q. Now, can you give us an example of what you have 
reference to? A. Well, as I recall, in the Park Hill area, 
there were several little pieces reassigned there. I  again 
will have to look at—I guess I  have a map here.

Q. You have reference to Exhibit 11? A. I’m looking at 
Exhibit 11, yes. This indicates some boundary changes 
around the Philips School, Hallett School and the Park Hill 
School.

Q. Was there then through those boundary changes an 
exchange or reassignment of the children in those schools 
between those schools? A. Well, they were assigned from, 
say, the Park Hill District to another district, yes.

[281J Q. Now, in order to implement that reassignment, 
was it necessary to bus the child? A. No, it was not.

Q. And yet, even that aspect of 1531 got rescinded, is 
that correct? A. The entire resolution was rescinded; in 
the sense that those were changed, yes.

Q. Now, you will recall, I am sure, Dr. Gilberts, that there 
was a School Board election in May of this year. A. Yes.

Q. Did the question of these resolutions—was it one of 
the issues in this School Board election?

Mr. Jackson: I am going to object to that, Your 
Honor. I don’t think this witness has been qualified 
to testify as to issues in the election and I fail to see 
how it has any relevancy to the hearing on the pre­
liminary injunction.

The Court: Well, if it does, we can take judicial 
notice of it.

Q. My only point was, Dr. Gilberts, that shortly after 
the results of that election were known, did you then learn

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



240a

that the Board was going to consider the recision of 1520, 
1524 and 1531? A. After the new board had been installed 
there were several sessions during which time we discussed 
these E282J resolutions and looked at several alternatives 
that might be used.

Q. I  take it the answer to my question is yes? A. Yes, 
after the new Board was installed.

Q. And was the educational value of the then existing 
resolutions discussed during those sessions? A. Yes, I be­
lieve it was.

Q. Was the educational value of what might happen if 
there was a recision discussed? A. Yes, I  believe that was 
discussed.

Q. During the course of these discussions, Dr. Gilberts, 
was the actual language of 1533 before the group ? A. No, 
it was not.

The elements that eventually appeared in this resolution 
I believe were discussed from time to time within these 
conferences.

Q. To the best of your recollection, Dr. Gilberts, when 
was the first time that there was a document which we can 
say was 1533? A. At the first regular meeting of the new 
Board of Education.

Q. That would be on June 9, 1969? A. The date of the 
passage of that resolution. I  am sorry, I  can’t recall the 
date just exactly.

Q. I think that I can assure you that it was June 9th, 
[283] 1969. Now, so that was the first time that the Board 
had before it the actual language of 1533, is that correct? 
A. In that form, yes.

Q. Now, the school election took place on approximately 
May 20th? A. Yes.

Q. And the Board meeting at which recision took place

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



241a

was on June 9, is that correct? A. You indicated the date. 
I accept this, if you have the date there.

Q. So, there was about a three-week period, is that cor­
rect? A. Approximately, yes.

Q. How many meetings were held at which you attended 
during this three-week period? A. I believe that we had 
three Board conferences.

Q. Do you recall the duration of each of those con­
ferences ? A. I  would say they ranged from an hour and a 
half to two and a half hours.

Q. Do you recall whether each of those conferences was 
attended by all seven members of the Board? A. No, there 
were some members missing at these meetings.

Q. Now, is it a fair characterization of our position 
[284] in these conferences, Dr. Gilberts, that you were 
opposed to the recision of these resolutions? A. I felt the 
recommendations that had been made were ones that I  could 
recommend, and, therefore, I maintained my position.
Q. Dr. Gilberts, are you familiar with the concept of the 

common school? A. The which?
Q. The common school? A. Well, I  can think of several 

characterizations of a common school.
Q. Is it fair to say that when public education was being 

formulated in this country that the common school was 
the basic concept of our public education? A. Yes, that was 
at least the theoretical concept of what the school was or 
was supposed to have been.

Q. School was a mixing pot ? A. This is what the litera­
ture describes as being the philosophical objective of it. 
I ’m not sure the evidence will sustain that particular 
position.

Q. Now, as the concept of the common school was applied 
to growing metropolitan areas, it no longer became possible, 
did it, to have just one school for a community? A. Well,

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



242,a

that was a problem initially in many of the urban centers, 
such as New York, and some of the larger eastern [285] 
cities. There was never one school in those cities.

Q. But perhaps there might have been one high school, 
for example—in not New York City? A. Yes, this, of 
course, was a highly selected educational institution at 
that time which very few people attended.

Q. Do you see any relationship, Dr. Gilberts, between 
what I  believe the school district refers to as the neighbor­
hood school policy and the concept of the common school? 
A. Well, 1 think that there is similarity between many 
of the schools at that point in history which was—were 
at that time classified as common schools and some of 
the same problems we have presently in the large cities 
of the nation. There have always been socioeconomic 
stratifications within the large cities and schools that were 
established within those cities did not reflect the total 
spectrum of socioeconomic class. Therefore, I  suppose 
from their point of view schools in large cities today are 
probably more similar than dissimilar.

Q. I  take it, Dr, Gilberts, if I understand your testimony 
correctly, that you felt that the stabilizing measures in­
herent in these three resolutions were important in order 
to improve communications between the various racial 
and ethnic groups of this city? A. That certainly was 
one of the aspects that I  felt [286] was important and 
is important.

Q. And I take it that you felt that you had to begin 
somewhere in improving these communications, is that 
correct? A. Well, the reason for selecting the northeast 
area of the city was because it was quite apparent that it 
was an area in transition and that there was possibility 
that by taking these steps that we recommended that we

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



243a

may have been able to contribute in some way to the 
continuing resegregation in that area. Now, there is a 
body of research available that indicates that once a school 
reaches a certain point in composition—one figure that’s 
used is 30 percent—there tends to be a rapidly increasing 
curve of segregation. There is a question of whether or 
not that is cause or effect, of course, whether it merely 
reflects the occurrence of change within the communities 
or whether or not it causes or interrelates, both causing 
and reflecting.

Q. You were in court this morning when we were dis­
cussing the racial composition of Stedman School, were 
you not, in connection with the 1964 boundary changes! 
A. Yes.

Q. You will recall that the neighborhood of the Stedman 
District was represented to be some 45 percent Negro, 
is that right! A. At that point in time, I  believe this 
is the figure E287] they used.

Q. And yet the school population of Stedman School 
was about 85 percent Negro, is that right! A. These 
were the figures I believe presented, but I have no personal 
knowledge of them.

Mr. Jackson: I am going to object, if the Court 
please, to this line of questioning. The witness testi­
fied he came to this city in 1967. Counsel is attempt­
ing to inquire as to matters in 1964. If he is 
attempting to go through the testimony of the 
previous witness, I believe the exhibits are in and 
we can look at those.

The Court: Overruled.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, that’s merely an example of statistics 
I  just cited to you. That’s merely an example of how the

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



244a

neighborhood changes when it is within transition. Let 
me— A. Be specific, will yon, please!

Q. Let me be more specific. As Negroes move into the 
neighborhood, is it not true, Dr. Gilberts, that the first 
Anglos to leave generally are those with school-age 
children?

Mr. Jackson: Objection. I t calls for a conclusion.
The Court: If he knows, he can answer. Over­

ruled.

A. I ’m not sure I do know. I  don’t believe I know as 
a matter of fact that this is true.

Q. You would also know then that the last Anglos to 
leave are the older whites with no children in school? 
[288] A. This would follow if the first assumption is 
correct.

Q. Might that not explain why the racial composition 
of the school would run ahead of the racial composition 
of the neighborhood? A. Could very well.

Q. You will recall, Dr. Gilberts, a discussion we had 
during your deposition concerning certain characteristics 
of these segregated schools, certain objective indicia which 
they seem to share in common? A. I recall in general.

Q. Did we discuss such things as a higher dropout rate 
generally in a segregated school? A. Yes, and I believe 
I kept inserting into that testimony this is true of lower 
socioeconomic areas and whether we do identify it as 
strictly a racial characteristic or socioeconomic character­
istic is questionable.

Q. There also tended to be lower teacher experience at 
the segregated school? A. I indicated I thought there 
might be exceptions to that but that generally that 
true.

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

was



245a

Q. That there generally tended to be more new teachers 
at the segregated schools?

The Conrt: Are yon asking him what he said 
before? Or what his testimony is now?

[2893 Mr. Greiner: What his testimony is now.
The Court: If you know.

A. I thought he was making a statement. I  am sorry.
Q. The question is, does there tend to be more new 

teachers, Dr. Gilberts, at these segregated schools?

The Court: You mean in Denver?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, sir, these segregated schools, 

Stedman, Smith, Hallett, Barrett.
The Court: Well, you heard the testimony.

A. There are. However, I  have some question about those 
data. They include the years of experience in Denver 
and we do hire a good many teachers with experience 
outside of the school system and they are placed, many 
of them, in those areas. I ’m not sure just to what degree, 
counting total experience, there are more beginning teach­
ers in that area with lesser experience than other parts 
of the city.

Q. I  take it from your earlier comments, Dr. Gilberts, 
that you do not feel that there is a direct relationship 
between the integration of the school population and 
improvement of the achievement of the minority group in 
that integrated environment, is that correct? A. What 
kind of improvement in the minority group? Academic 
improvement, is that what you are talking about?

Q. Yes, sir. A. I have seen no evidence that would lead

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



246a

me to believe [2903 there is an absolute relationship be­
tween the two.

The Court: You are familiar with it? Are you 
thinking of standards, achievement standards are 
equal in the segregated schools?

The Witness: No, what I am saying, Your Honor, 
is that in the research that I  have read where they 
have tried to control on one hand for socioeconomic 
class and then to make comparisons for achievement 
and do the same thing based on race, there is no 
correlation that is of any substantial nature where 
race is related to achievement. There is some sub­
stantial determination in terms of the socioeconomic 
class in terms of achievement.

Q. Have you read a publication—

The Court: You don’t think then that segregation 
per se produces a lower level or standard?

The Witness: Well, sir, I  believe that there are—
The Court: Or that integration makes a contribu­

tion to—
The Witness: I  believe integration is important, 

but I believe it is important from the point of view 
of opening and breaking down some of the barriers 
of communication we have in our society. I think 
that can be reasonably well established. When one 
begins talking about the relationships between that 
process and the academic achievement, we have an 
extremely difficult area in which to research and 
the [2913 materials that I  have read over the years 
and recently reviewed show clear indication that

Robert D, Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



247a

there is such a relationship. I  would hope that there 
is and one of the reasons why we have increased 
the base of integration through plans that we have 
proposed would be to give us a broader base upon 
which to continue to test that hypothesis.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, does part of the literature which you 
have read in this area include a report of the United 
States Commission on Civil Rights issued in 1967? A. 
Yes.

Q. Entitled “Racial Isolation in the Public Schools”? 
A. Yes.

Q. Now, Dr. Gilberts, isn’t there rather conclusive proof 
that segregation in fact retards the learning processes 
of the minority child?

Mr. Jackson: Your Honor, I  don’t know if they 
have intended to call this witness as an expert wit­
ness, but, certainly, we are getting into a field that 
appears to call for expert testimony and I don’t 
see that it is particularly relevant in this fashion 
at this particular hearing from this witness.

The Court: Overruled. As I understand it, he 
is seeking to refresh his recollection or discredit 
him, I ’m not sure which, but he is referring to some 
official report, I  take it, and asking him if he is 
familiar with it [2923 and if it states a particular 
thing.

Are you able to answer the question?
The Witness: Only in a general way, Your

Honor. I  would have to look at the document to 
be sure, but my recollection is—I don’t think I can 
look at 300 pages or whatever it is in a short period

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



248a

of time here—that in this document there was an 
assertion that there was—

The Court: Mr. Greiner is always giving some­
body a hook to read during the course of the trial.

Mr. Greiner: Part of the educational process, 
Your Honor.

The Witness: I am afraid it is not possible for 
me—would you identify the place for me in there?

The Court: You want him to search it out, too?
The Witness: I  believe that the document in­

dicates that, or, asserts that there is definitely a 
relationship between the segregation and lower 
achievement or lower achievement in the schools, 
but I don’t recall that it specifically sorted out all 
of the other independent variables that could have 
a part of this and then establish racial isolation 
in and of itself as an absolute factor in the lack 
of achievement.

Q. One of the other items referred to in this report was 
the psychological damage imposed on the minority child 
in the segregated school.

[293] Is your opinion of that conclusion of the report 
similar? A. I don’t consider myself a sufficient expert to 
judge that absolutely. I do have a feeling that certainly 
this may he an extremely important factor in terms of the 
youngster’s own concept of himself and his feelings of 
importance and his ability to be motivated and to succeed. 
I  think it is a factor, yes.

Q. Now, yon are aware, I know, Dr. Gilberts, that in 
Browne against Board of Education, the United States 
Supreme Court recognized that psychological damage, did 
it not?

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



249a

Mr. Jackson: I ’m going to object to the counsel 
asking the witness what the Supreme Court has 
said on a case.

The Court: There is no assurance that it is 
gospel. Overruled, that particular facet. In other 
words, supposing he has read that! Are you aware 
of it?

The Witness: Yes, sir, I am.
Mr. Greiner : What I am getting at—
The Court: Well, we take judicial notice, though, 

of what the Supreme Court has said.
Mr. Greiner: What I am trying to get, Your 

Honor, is superintendent notice of it.

Q. Now, that finding of the Supreme Court was in a 
[2943 so-called de jurie case, is that correct? A. That’s 
correct.

Q. That’s where the state had by law maintained a 
dual school system, one for whites and one for blacks? 
A. Yes.

Q. Is there something that you read, Dr. Gilberts, that 
indicates to you that the psychological damage is different 
in the two situations, de jurie on the one hand, de facto 
on the other ? A. I  can’t say there is anything that I  have 
read that might lead me to believe that, but I  might add 
to that the court has refused to draw the same conclusion 
in the case of de facto.

Q. I won’t take you into the area of the law, Dr. Gilberts. 
I  will leave you there. I take it from your comments that 
you have no particular training in sociology or psychology, 
is that correct? A. I  have a minor in social psychology 
for my Ph.D.

Q. When did you receive that? A. ’61.

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



250a

Q. Now, under 1533, Dr. Gilberts, I  believe there is, 
as you mentioned, to be a continuation of certain of the 
programs that were included in, for example, Resolution 
1531, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

£295J Q. Isn’t the essential difference between the res­
cinded resolutions and 1533—can’t you state those to fall 
into about three areas? The rescinded resolutions made 
the transportation aspect mandatory, isn’t that correct? A. 
In 1533?

Q. In 1531. A. Yes.
Q. Now, there were also some voluntary programs under 

1531, for example, as I recall, Hallett School? A. This was 
one of them, together with voluntary open enrollment and 
the idea of grouping some of the schools in North Central 
Denver and iNortheast Denver with schools in Southeast 
and Southwest and so on.

Q. But that’s a point in common between the two ? A. Yes.
Q. And what we are focusing on now are the differences. 

A. I’m sorry.
Q. So mandatory transportation is one of the differences, 

is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And another difference is in the actual attendance 

areas for particular schools, is that not also correct? A. 
Yes.

Q. Are there any other major differences in your opinion? 
[2963 A. I  believe those cover the major differences.

Q. What about the difference of the effectiveness, Dr. Gil­
berts, with respect to the objective of stabilization here in 
Northeast Denver? Is 1533 in your opinion going to be as 
effective as 1520, 1524 and 1531? A. Well, I suppose that’s 
a matter that might be debated. One can look at short term 
and long term—

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct



251a

Q. Well— A. — accomplishment.
Q. Let’s start looking at, first, short term. September 2, 

1969, Dr. Gilberts— A. I don’t believe that we will be able 
to accomplish everything that we have indicated in that 
short a term under the new resolution.

Q. The school district has had a program, has it not, of 
voluntary open enrollment ? A. Yes, as a matter of totally 
free choice on the part of the parents.

Q. Has voluntary open enrollment in Denver ever inte­
grated a school? A. I don’t believe it has ever had a good 
chance and, since it has been promoted and designed, had 
programs that would attract people into it. It has only 
been in operation actually since last January, and, there­
fore, I don’t believe the test is adequate yet.

[2971 Q. Our objective at Hallett, as I recall, is to get 
500 children involved in the exchange program. A. This 
was in the original resolution, I believe. Five hundred— 
yes, you had that document out this morning. I think you 
verified that.

Q. Yes, it was Exhibit 5A. It was your report to the 
Board on implementation of 1531. A. Yes.

Q. Now, has the target at Hallett changed? Is it no 
longer a mutual exchange of 500 children? Is that what 
you indicated? A. We would certainly like to achieve that, 
if possible.

Q. Mr. Cruter indicated that you had between 100 and 
150 at this point, is that right? A. Yes, after one week of 
the campaign that we have just initiated.

Q. Didn’t the initiation of that program start on July 7, 
Dr. Gilberts? A. Yes, it did.

Mr. Greiner: No further questions.

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs<—Direct



252a

Cross-Examination by Mr. Jackson:

Q. Dr. Gilberts, the goal of 500 in the exchange on the 
Hallett program is composed, is it not, of 250 Negroes 
[2983 moving out of the school and 250 whites coming 
into the school1? A. Yes, I believe that’s true.

Q. So, we are not talking about a wholesale shift of 
500 students out of the school and 500 back into the 
school? A. I don’t believe so.

Q. And under the present status report as Mr. Cruter 
advised us this morning, we are somewhere over the 200 
figure then? A. In both directions, yes.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, much mention was made of the public 
hearings which were held following the introduction of 
Resolution 1520, Resolution 1524 and Resolution 1531, and 
the question was asked as to whether they were discussed 
at these public meetings.

Were they the only matters that were discussed at these 
meetings in terms of their specifics? A. Well, the dis­
cussion was not controlled absolutely. There were a 
number of other items that were brought into it, but these 
were the primary items.

Q. The programming and the steps taken by the school 
district to implement the Resolutions 1520, 24 and 31, you 
testified as to certain of the wrork that had been done in 
that area. Is there any carryover value to other programs 
[2993 of the work which has already been done in this 
area? A. Yes, in those areas that were consistent be­
tween the two resolutions, certainly, there is a lot of carry­
over value.

Q. And there were—oh, excuse me. A. And there are

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Cross



253a

some other programs which will be implementing it. I 
think there will be some carryover, too.

Q. And there was a great deal in. common between the 
1520, 24 and 31 programs and the program under 1533? 
A. Yes, other than those items we mentioned were 
eliminated.

Q. Yon were asked on direct examination whether or 
not the boundary changes had been approved by the Board 
m the Northeast Denver area, the ones which did not 
involve any great distance of travel on the part of students 
that involved going into Phillips and from Phillips out 
to—or from the Stedman area into Ashley and around 
in that area. That boundary change had been agreed upon, 
is that correct, by the Board in their resolutions? A 
Yes.

Q. Had these children actually changed their schools? 
Had they actually gone to the new schools ? A. No, sir.

Q. There had been no movement at all? £300] A. No, 
sir.

Q. There was just a planning move which had taken 
place at that time? A. Yes.

Q. Now, referring to the teachers that might on occasion 
be found in schools where there is some concentration 
of minority children and the fact that on occasion there 
are teachers present who have less experience than others 
and are classified as beginning teachers, I  didn’t under­
stand your testimony to be that the beginning teachers 
were any less qualified than other teachers?

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, could we establish 
which of us can lead this witness? I object.

The Court: He may.

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Cross



254a

Mr. Greiner: Pardon?
The Court: The rules are clear.
Mr. Jackson: The rules are clear—excuse me?
The Court: Yes, just keep your remarks this 

way. I  think he can ask him any questions, cross- 
examination, really, even though it may be a friendly 
witness.

Mr. Greiner: Thank you, Your Honor.
The Court: Go ahead.

A. There is no total relationship, I do not believe between 
the experience and ability of the teachers, although cer­
tainly, experience is a factor.

[301] Q. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that a begin­
ning teacher would have to be then less qualified? A. Not 
necessarily, no.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, I believe you testified that Resolution 
1533 in its present form first appeared at the Board meet­
ing on June 9, 1969, is that correct? Assuming that’s the 
date the resolution was passed? A. Yes, assuming that, 
yes.

Q. But the programs contained in 1533 have in fact 
been before the Board on a number of other previous 
occasions had they not? A. Yes, they were a part of the 
other resolutions.

Mr. Jackson: I have no further questions, Your 
Honor.

The Court: Do you have anything further? 
* * ' # # #

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Cross



255a

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Redirect 

[301] * * *
Redirect Examination by Mr. Greiner:

Q. Dr. Gilberts, I am handing you what is in evidence as 
Defendants’ Exhibit (I The second page thereof depicts 
the total number of students who have volunteered for the 
Hallett program. A. Yes.

Q. What’s the total! A. 258.
Q. And that’s how many are going to Hallett! [302] A. 

158 are indicated here.
Q. How many are coming from Hallett? A. 100 are indi­

cated here.
Q. Well, is that possible, Dr. Gilberts? A. Well, this is 

not the point at which this will be applied and this is merely 
a progress report and there is no indication of whether or 
not these are the figures that will be used finally.

Q. But I think you would agree, would you not, that until 
50 more children transfer out of Hallett there is only going 
to be 100 Anglo children going in, would you not? A. I ’m 
not sure that I could agree to that. There may be some 
additional space at Hallett that could provide for a few 
additional whites. I am not sure.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, would you agree with the general concept 
that I  have just stated? A. In general, yes.

Q. Now, so that there is no confusion, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 
5A, that was prepared by you or your staff? A. This is one 
of those that we had at the deposition?

Q. Yes. A. It appears to be, yes.
Q. On Page 10 of Exhibit 5A, there is described the Hal­

lett program on 1531, is that correct? A. Yes.
[303] Q. And does it not provide for 500 Anglos going in

and 500 Negroes going out? A. You are right.
Q. Now, has that goal changed? A. As I indicated before, 

we hope to attain that.
*  # # # #



256a

[360] * * *
H oward L. Johnson, a witness called by and on behalf 

of defendants, having first been duly sworn, wTas examined 
and testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Creighton:

The Court: Give us your full name and address 
and occupation, please.

The Witness: Howard L. Johnson, 1130 South 
Franklin Street, Denver, Colorado. Deputy Super­
intendent of Schools.

*  #  *  *  #

[361] * * *
Q. (By Mr. Creighton) Mr. Johnson, what is your 

present employment! A. I am Deputy Superintendent of 
the Denver Public Schools.

Q. How long have you been employed by Denver Public 
Schools ? A. I have been employed for the Denver Public 
Schools since September 1930.

Q. And is that a common name for School District 
Number 1, the City and County of Denver! A. Yes, sir.

*  *  #  #  #

[365] * * *
Q. And under these noninstructional, nonbusiness ad­

ministrative duties, what are some of the duties you had 
there! A. They are pretty largely in the form of certain 
directives having to do with the schools, maybe in regard 
to certain bulletins, approval of certain noninstructional 
activities within the schools, the general interpretation of 
policies established by the Board of Education and the 
administrative staff.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



257a

Q. Did these noninstructional administrative duties in­
clude matters relating to the transfer of pupils! A. Yes, 
this part came under the pupil personnel services.

Q. And did those noninstructional administrative [3663 
duties include matters pertaining to school subdistrict 
boundaries? A. Yes, until such time as the planning and 
engineering services were establishes, and roughly it was 
included in my responsibility until approximately two 
and a half to three years ago, at which time there was 
a cooperative effort as this duty became more of planning 
and engineering.

However, I  had the responsibility during the period 
from approximately 1960 until, I  would say, 1965, 1966.

Q. And during your ocupancy of that office from 1965 
or ’66, as you have testified, until you left that particular 
office last year in ’68, school subdistrict boundary matters 
were handled largely by whom again? A. Largely by 
me, and even during that period of time until our recent 
reorganization of a year ago I worked very closely with 
that office in regard to certain aspects.

Q. With what office? A. With the office of the assistant 
superintendent for planning and engineering.

# # #  #  #

[3673 * * #
Q. Has there been, then, a difference in the function 

of the deputy superintendent under the new organization 
as compared with the organization that obtained between 
1960 and ’68? A. Yes. The difference is pretty largely 
th is: the deputy superintendent position prior to 1968 was 
identified as one of the assistant superintendents who 
assumed the authority of the Superintendent during his 
E368] absence and then assumed certain top level adminis­

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



258a

trative authority as delegated by the Superintendent; 
whereas, under this arrangement there is a specific job 
description in regard to the responsibilities of the deputy 
in coordinating the activities day to day in these six de­
partments or divisions.

Q. And when in this time span we have been covering 
did the present superintendent, Dr. Gilberts, take up his 
duties? A. Dr. Gilberts assumed his duties on August 1, 
1967.

Q. Mr. Johnson, you indicated that prior to last year 
when you were superintendent of personnel services, 
among your duties were those relating to the recruitment 
of teachers, is that right? A. That is correct.

Q. In this connection, are you familiar with the policies, 
if any, of the school district relating to teachers ? A. Yes, 
I am acquainted with it.
[368A] Q. Mr. Johnson, there is in evidence in this case 
an exhibit, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 26, which is Policy 1617A. 
Would you tell us the effective date of that policy? A. 
This policy became effective in April 1, 1963.

Q. Now, since the effective date of that policy, has 
there been any change in the policy or its equivalent as it 
affects teachers? A. Yes, there has been this change, in 
this respect; that this policy on the basis of classified 
personnel—

Q. Now, you might explain to the Court what you mean 
by classified personnel. A. Classified personnel would be 
the so-called non-teaching or non-certificated personnel. 
It would include such as bus drivers, custodians, lunch­
room workers, clerical help, those individuals who are not 
licensed by the school as certificated teachers.

Now, as a result of an agreement that was signed be­
tween the School District No. 1 or through its Board of

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



259a

Education and the Denver Classroom Teachers Associa­
tion who had gained recognition of the city as the official 
representative of teachers, on April 8th, 1967, this agree­
ment was put into effect and adopted by the Board of 
Education and it includes this policy.

Q. Excuse me, Mr. Johnson. I have handed you Ex­
hibit—an exhibit marked Defendants’ Exhibit E. Is that 
the [3693 agreement you are referring to, that you’re 
speaking off A. That is the agreement.

# * *  #  *

[3703 * * *
Mr. Greiner: We have no objection, Tour Honor.
The Court: It will be received. What’s the 

number of that!
Mr. Creighton: Defendants’ Exhibit E.

(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit E was re­
ceived in evidence.)

Direct Examination 'by Mr. Creighton (Continued):
Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, you said that nonclassified teach­

ers were not affected by Exhibit E. A. Non-certificated, 
or as we call them, classified employees. They are termed 
non-certificated. We use the classified, and the other group 
of certificated people being called certificated personnel.

Q. But the teachers’ agreement, did it affect the pre­
viously existing policy, 1617A? A. Yes, it had this effect, 
that there were some items in this agreement which, of 
course, supersede Policy 1617A that probably are a little 
bit—probably clarified to a greater degree in teachers’ 
rights in cases of transfer, assignments and so forth, and 
consequently I  would say it is £3713 defined more clearly 
as it relates to employee relationships.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



260a

Q. Are you familiar with this agreement? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you direct our attention to the section of it 

having to do with teacher transfers? A. Yes, on Page 25 
of the agreement, Article 14, and under the heading of 
“Transfer,” would include the matters as it relates to 
teachers—to transfers of teachers in this case, not all 
certificated personnel, only classroom teachers; those in­
dividuals of this—that this group would represent in nego­
tiations with the Board of Education.

Q. Are there any portion of Policy 1617A which now 
control the teacher transfer arrangement? A. No, on the 
basis of the signed agreement between the Board of 
Education and Denver Classroom Teachers Association, 
any articles in this agreement supersede those of policies 
stated elsewhere.

Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, do transfers apply to teachers 
presently hired—presently employed by the district? A. 
Yes, it is.

Q. Now, do they apply—does this transfer policy then 
apply to teachers who have not yet commenced employ­
ment with this district? A. No, the agreement such as it 
relates to transfer—this relates only to the teachers 
presently hired—presently employed by the district? A. 
Yes, it is.

Q. Now, do they apply—does this transfer policy then 
apply to teachers who have not yet commenced employ­
ment with this district? A. No, the agreement such as it 
relates to transfer—this relates only to the teachers 
presently employed. As of [3723 September 1, 1969, at 
the beginning of the work for teachers, a contract year, 
this agreement will apply to them immediately as of that 
date.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



261a

Q. Could you outline for the Court the way in which 
the present transfer policy under the Exhibit E operates? 
A. Yes, if you are referring to Article 14 on the basis 
of transfer, I think there are about four or five items that 
need particular attention and one is the principal criterion 
for consideration of a request for transfer—is whether 
or not the request will result in the best educational 
program for the school district. A request for transfer 
will not be granted if a teacher does not qualify for the 
existing vacancy. That is one section.

Another section is 14-2-2, that the best educational pro­
gram results from the selection of a school faculty which 
is well balanced in terms of teachers’ experience, general 
background, and competency, and careful consideration 
will be given to each of the above when filling vacancies.

Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, are those general principles incor­
porated in the previous policy, 1617A? A. That is correct, 
and this would be the general criteria on principle we work 
under on this particular basis with the understanding that 
we would discuss with personnel regarding that important 
part.

Q. And what is the next important factor that you 
[373] have identified under transfer policy? A. There are 
about three important factors as we think of transfer: a 
request by a teacher for transfer, and it is outlined here, 
but rather than reading from here I can define it a little 
bit more clearly.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would object to 
the witness interpreting the exhibit. I  think the ex­
hibit states what the policy is.

The Court: Very well, Let him read it.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



262a

A. And in reading from Article 14, “That not later than 
April 20 of each school year . . Now, these are trans­
fers requested by the teacher. “Not later than April 20 
of each school year, the superintendent shall have posted 
in the office of each school a list of the known vacancies 
which will occur during- the following school year.

“14-3-2, Teachers who desire a transfer to another build­
ing shall file a request on the appropriate form, with the 
superintendent not later than May 1 of each year. Requests 
on file prior to the posting of vacancies will also be con­
sidered. If a transfer is to be made the teacher and the 
administrators concerned will be notified in writing of the 
new assignment. Except in unusual cases teachers who are 
to be transferred will be notified before May 20.

“14-3-3, Not later than May 20 of each school year the 
superintendent shall have posted in the office of each [3741 
school a supplemental list of known vacancies which will 
occur during the following school year.

“14-3-4, Not later than June 1 of each school year teach­
ers may file applications for transfers to positions listed 
on the supplemental list of vacancies. Requests on file pre­
vious to the posting of vacancies will also be considered. 
If transfer is to be made the teacher and the administrators 
concerned will be notified in writing of the new assignment. 
Except in unusual cases, teachers who are to be transferred 
will be notified in writing before the close of the school 
year.

“14-3-5, No assignments of new teachers in the school 
system shall be made until all pending requests for trans­
fers have been processed. If a teacher does not wish to be 
considered for vacancies which occur in the summer, the 
teacher must cancel his request for transfer in writing.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



263a

“14-3-6, In considering a request for transfer the con­
venience and wishes of the individual teacher will be hon­
ored to the extent they do not conflict with the instruc­
tional requirements and best interests of the school district.

“14-3-7, If more than one teacher has applied for the 
same position, the teacher best qualified for that position 
shall be appointed. Qualifications being substantially equal, 
seniority in the school district shall control.
£375] A. (Continued) “14-3-8. All requests for transfer 
on call in the Superintendent’s office shall be destroyed on 
October 31 of each year. All renewals or new requests for 
transfer must be filed on or after November 1 of each 
school year.

“14-3-9. Nothing in this article shall prevent a teacher 
from requesting a transfer at any time.

“14-3-10. On or about June 15, the Superintendent shall 
make available to the Association a system-wide schedule 
showing names of all persons who have been transferred 
and the nature of such transfers. A supplemental listing 
of transfers and their nature shall be made available to 
the Association by the end of August.”

Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, you have covered the part of this 
agreement relating to transfers requested by teachers, have 
you not? A. That is correct,.

Q. Now', then, isn’t there a section covering transfers 
that the administration wishes to effect? A. Yes, sir, and 
this refers to Article 14, Section 4, following immediately 
after that, my previous statement, and this is, “Transfer 
Requested by Administration.”

The Court: I  think I will let him summarize this.
[3763 Mr. Greiner: I don’t think I wmuld even 

object to that, Your Honor.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



264a

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

Q. If yon would, then, please summarize how adminis­
tration-initiated transfers work. A. Yes, we have some 
situations where the administration may request a trans­
fer. A good example of this would be that the enrollment 
or the membership in a school should be less than our 
anticipated membership for that school and it is necessary 
to transfer from a school to another school because we 
have overstaffed a particular school. There may be other 
reasons, but this is the one that is most common, and in 
this respect, if this is to be for the following school vear, 
then this should be done prior to June 1st. However, a 
provision is given that if we find the emergency situation 
in September we still reserve the right to request transfer 
of the teacher. Then the transfer will be made only after 
a meeting between the teacher involved and the Superin­
tendent’s designee, and at this time the teacher must be 
notified regarding the reason that we requested his transfer.

In the event that the teacher objects to the transfer, 
then he can immediately notify the Association, and then 
the Superintendent or his designee will then meet with 
the teacher and the Association’s representative to discuss 
this matter, and, of course, this discussion is [377] neces­
sary or it could become a grievance filed by the teacher 
and the Association.

Now, at the time then, after it is discussed with the 
teacher, if it is agreeable, then a list of all open positions 
at that time must be available to the teacher, and then 
the teacher may indicate in the order of his preference 
the school that he wishes to be transferred to. So, really, 
it provides that this teacher cannot be taken from one 
school and said that the teacher is now in School A. He is 
convinced that there is a legitimate reason for his trans-



265a

fer. So, lie acknowledges that. But we cannot take him 
from School A and move him directely to School B with­
out giving him the other possible schools where we have 
vacancies for which he is qualified.

If there are three schools requesting the same qualifica­
tions, there are three vacancies, we must give him the 
opportunity to go to School B, C or D, as the case may be, 
and he then is entitled to make his choice.

Q. Turning back to the transfers initiated by the teacher 
himself or herself, does that impose any limitations or 
qualifications on the administration’s ability to make a 
determination of where the teacher goes! A. You will 
note in the wording that it indicates the qualifications of 
a teacher. You will also recall that [3781 earlier I  stated 
for the best interests of the school district. To the extent 
that we do give a feasible answer to that teacher regarding 
the transferring of one teacher over another and explain 
that we think it is for the best interests of the program, 
we do have or are empowered to do this, but not without 
answering to the teacher or if necessary to the Associa­
tion, if they object that we are dealing with the teacher 
unfairly, but it does give us the privilege of transferring 
—of indicating to the teacher to go to a certain school.

Now, of course, if the request is made by the teacher, 
then, of course, that first section does not apply, because 
this is only where the teacher requests.

Then, of course, he requests for a specific position.
Q. Then, are teacher preferences a factor in deter­

mining who gets transferred where? A. I t is a very im­
portant factor.

Q. Is teacher seniority a factor ? A. Yes, that is written 
in the agreement, that seniority shall prevail, assuming 
that all other qualifications are similar.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



266a

Q. Was that seniority feature in the previous policy, 
1617-A? A. It referred to it, but it is not as direct in 
[3793 the statement. It is referred to that seniority shall 
prevail, and that has been the practice and procedure for 
years.

Q. Notv, Mr. Johnson, when you finish up this transfer 
process, the dates you have indicated it happens, is there 
a time during the school year when there are unfilled open­
ings that need to be filled with teacher personnel? A. Yes, 
if you will note that we attempt to fill these vacancies 
upon request of teachers prior to June 1st, so there is a 
period, really, that extends from June 1st to about Sep­
tember 1st, and in unfortunate years may even extend to 
the first day of school. But we have been fortunate in 
this respect, and during this period of time we had these 
vacancies that are a result of retirement and resignations 
and some unusual situations where we may have vacancies 
during the summer, and, then, of course, these are the 
vacancies that have not been requested for filling by the 
staff who were there during the previous year.

Q. Are projected enrollment changes a factor? A. It 
is not only overall projected enrollment changes, it could 
be projected enrollment changes in each of our 116 schools, 
because very often the mobility of population can affect 
a school as much as 50 to 60 pupils [380] just through the 
movement and the transiency even within the city.

Q. Now, how do you go about filling these vacancies? 
A. These vacancies must be filled by new applicants and 
teachers who are hired. Some of them are hired in the 
spring of the year because we anticipate from year to 
year so many vacancies. Some of them must be hired 
during the summer months, if we have failed to fill these 
positions or the estimated positions.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



267a

Q. During the last several years, Mr, Johnson, what 
has been the size of this new teacher assignment matter? 
How many teachers? A. It is necessary for us to hire 
from 500 to 700 new teachers each year. We have roughly 
a turnover in our staff for an average of from 12 to 14 
percent a year, which is quite consistent with other large 
cities in the United States.

Q. Do you know anything about the extent of experi­
ence of these new teachers you must bring into the system 
each year? A. Yes.

Q. All right. A. As far as experience is concerned, and 
I will have to give the approximate number, although I am 
within [381] one or two percent, on the basis of our 
elementary teachers. Approximately 42 percent of those 
teachers have had previous teaching experience, one or 
more years. In the secondary schools, we find that the 
experience—we do have a higher percentage that runs 
approximately 39 percent of our new teachers have had 
previous teaching experience.

Q. Would these be classified in some of your classifica­
tions as teachers without previous Denver Public School 
experience? A. That is correct. As far as listing these 
teachers on the basis of experience, we usually list them 
as having previous Denver Public School experience. The 
experience gained outside, we do not count this in our 
normal format of indicating experienced or inexperienced 
teachers, and these individuals are given benefit on the 
salary schedule for a portion of their outside experience, 
but they are not listed as experienced Denver Public School 
teachers.

Q. Do you know anything about the extent of the non- 
Denver experience of these 39 to 43 percent that come to 
you having had experience? A. I personally do not have,

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



268a

but in the personnel services staff there is a very close 
examination of this previous experience in regard to rec­
ommendations made by [382] previous administrators as 
well as the subject matter area, extracurricular activities, 
sponsorship, and all of this type of evidence does come 
to members of the personnel services staff.

Q. In regard to these new teachers, what is the School 
District looking for in the way of new teachers today? 
A. We are looking primarily for individuals who are 
sympathetic with children, understanding of children’s 
problems, their ability to be able to discipline with reason, 
have the necessary control over the individual, be able to 
work within the community and to work—and their ability 
to work with parents. And, then, of course, in addition 
to this, and we have to recognize the necessity of the most 
modern teaching methods and also their knowledge of sub­
ject matter in a particular area.

At this particular time, however, we have come to the 
conclusion that probably the knowledge of subject matter 
and this type of skill is important, but it is not as impor­
tant as the sensitivity of a teacher in working with children.

Q. How do you seek out teachers with sensitivity or 
training in sensitivity? A. Well, of course, we have quite 
an extensive recruiting program, starting about the first 
of December of [383] the previous year, in hiring teachers 
for September, and this continues with a great deal of 
vigor and force until about the first of May, and very often 
we are able to hire the bulk of these people by April or 
May, and, of course, in attempting to gain these, these are 
all personal interviews.

Contrary to what is done in some areas of employment, 
we do not consider a teacher an applicant until such time 
as he has been personally interviewed by a member of our

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



269a

staff, has submitted even prior to that interview his tran­
script of record, his recommendations from his previous 
employer, and all of the data submitted to our office.

Then the personal interview takes place and at that 
time he is considered an applicant, and then it is pretty 
largely a comparative matter of determining upon the 
basis of the personal interview as well as the materials— 
it is a comparative matter of selecting these roughly five
to six hundred teachers—it may vary from year to year_
out of somewhere in the neighborhood of about 3,000 of 
these formal applicants.

[3843 Q. Has the school district done anything through 
the source of these newly-trained teachers, the teaching 
colleges, to improve what you’re seeking? A. Yes. In 
fact, this, I  think—I think this is brought pretty definitely 
to our attention on the basis that there are certain things 
we are looking for in teachers today that were not re­
quirements for an education degree.

Many of us who have been in education over a period of 
years, we receive quite a heavy dose of methodology, should 
we say, and subject matter. And I think the institutions of 
higher learning went on for years overlooking some of 
the important things, sociology and many of these things. 
And we made it a point a few years ago to contact 55 
institutions of higher learning with whom we had had our 
greatest contact requesting certain types of courses to be 
put into colleges. We also requested that we needed to do 
more from the standpoint of practice teaching or student 
teaching in having these individuals work with a lower 
socioeconomic group, the culturally deprived. And I am 
happy to say that—and we haven’t gotten 100 percent on 
this—but we have found very close cooperation. For in­
stance, the student assigned by the Denver Public School

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



270a

System by institutions of higher learning in this state— 
the majority of them are now doing their student teaching- 
in so-called target area schools.

* #  #  #  #

[3913 Q. Specifically in the area that we have just been 
discussing of teachers Mr. Johnson, I refer you to Page 
D8 of this Exhibit 20, at the top of the page. Would you 
read that—or let me ask you, is the recommendation there, 
No. 2, one that fell within your responsibility! A. That’s 
D8, No. 2. “A  minority background should be considered 
as an asset in the recruitment of teachers in the Denver 
Public School System in that larger number of well- 
qualified teachers of Negro, Spanish-American and Asian 
backgrounds; standards of training, personalities, and 
abilities shall never be lowered or raised because of a 
minority background.”

Now, Mr. Johnson, has the school district and specifically 
your office responded to that recommendation! A. Yes. 
We have responded to this recommendation. I  think it is 
evident in this respect. The increase in the number of 
minority teachers that we now have in the Denver Public 
Schools. Number two, the emphasis that is placed upon 
recruitment of teachers in minority background and this 
particularly is making certain that we have a very close 
coverage of those institutions in the United States which 
have a large Hispano group in the college or university.

Number three, we moved further than just making con­
tacts with the institutions of higher learning where we 
knew there were a large percentage of Negro and Hispano 
[3923 students. But we moved deliberately into about 12 
of the large Negro universities and colleges in the South. 
And then, also, utilized members of our own staff—our staff 
who were Negro or Hispano to make these contacts.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



271a

Q. Was Mr. Crater involved in this? A. Yes, Mr. Cra­
ter was primarily involved in recruiting with the southern 
universities and colleges.

Q. When did this response commence with respect to the 
1964 recommendation? A. It really commenced in 1965 for 
the September recruiting because, as wre went through these 
155 recommendations, we put—we began implementing im­
mediately those that we felt could be handled in this respect 
and we substituted in our recruiting plans, we substituted 
other people to make these recruiting trips. We also sub­
stituted other—certain other schools and eliminated some 
that we had not been quite as well successful with in our 
recruitment in order to achieve all of these 155 recommenda­
tions.

Q. Since 1965, do you have any evidence or measure of 
results in that regard? A. Yes. We have evidence in this 
respect, that at the present time we have in the Denver 
Public Schools approximately 400 certificated employees, 
that is, teachers who are of the Negro group. We have ap­
proximately 100 who are of the Hispano group. Roughly 
50 to 75 orientals, and [3933 so this would total altogether 
somewhere in the neighborhood of 575 to 600 individuals 
of these ethnic groups.

Q. That’s as of now? A. As of this last September.
Q. How does that compare historically since 1965? A. 

In 1965 we had approximately 275 to 300 Negroes. The 
Hispano group was approximately 50, and oriental group 
was about the same. So I would say there has been an ap­
preciable increase in those numbers.

Q. Mr. Johnson, would you read the next recommendation 
on Page D8? It’s No. 3. [394] A. Accredited colleges and 
universities throughout the country, not merely those close 
to Colorado, should be objects of a more aggressive re­
cruitment effort.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants-—Direct



272a

Q. Is your previous testimony a fair description of what 
you did to respond to that? A. Let us say in this respect 
it was fair, that we did try to move in the areas, thinking 
of the recruitment of the minority group. We did extend 
our boundaries for recruitments slightly, but not exten­
sively. We extended slightly in the East going into Indiana, 
Ohio, Illinois, and then we did move in the direction of 
making more contacts with eastern universities and col­
leges, and this was tied in with professional meetings of our 
group.

Then as far as the South is concerned, I have explained 
that. We have previously recruited in the Midwest to a 
great degree, and we did go into New Mexico, Arizona and 
Utah and recruited there. We have studied very closely the 
matter of recruitment in California, Oregon, Washington, 
and also the far East. This matter—

Q. By that, you mean the eastern states? A. Eastern 
states, yes, sir. Now, in this particular business, this school 
business is very similar to private industry. It is a law of 
supply and demand, and I think we must be careful that we 
are not wasting a great deal of recruiting money going into 
places where we know we may be [395] outbid already on 
the basis of a thousand to two thousand dollars on the 
beginning salary. However, as the reports will show, we 
do hire many teachers, quite a number of teachers, from 
California. We do hire some from New York State, and so 
on, but we have been concentrating upon more in the Mid­
west, the Rocky Mountain area, and the South and our 
Central states.

Q. Do you have any other data or indication that this 
recruitment has produced a more geographical diversity 
in your input? A. Yes, it has that, and I think part of it 
is due to the recruitment. However, I think a great deal

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



273a

is due to the fact that we send out a great amount of litera­
ture. Every institution in the United States gets our litera­
ture, even though our recruiters aren’t there. Last year, as 
I recall, in the teachers we recruited last year they gave 
us their home addresses, that is their place of residence, 
and we recognized some of this may have been the parents 
and they moved on to teach for the year, but 46 states were 
represented and Canada was represented; so we have teach­
ers who indicate that their homes are in 46 out of the 50 
states.

Q. Mr. Johnson, would you read the next recommendation 
of the study committees, number 4! A. Yes. “The ad­
ministration group in charge of recruiting teachers should 
include representatives of minority [396] groups in Den­
ver,” and this—

Q. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Johnson. You have 
mentioned, of course, Mr. Cruter alluded to his activities. 
In addition to that, has the administration taken steps in 
’65 to respond to that? A. Yes. we have, by using both 
Negro and Hispano recruiters.

Q. And in terms of comparative numbers between now 
and ’65, has there been a change in the numbers of minority 
persons involved? A. In recruiting?

Q. What? A. You mean in recruiting?
Q. In recruiting, yes. A. Well, it has increased defi­

nitely on the basis of total number. Unfortunately, we have 
not used—we have not used the minority group prior to 
that particular time. There were one or two reasons for it, 
and pretty largely that we didn’t have the manpower and 
we hesitated a great deal in using individuals who were 
assigned to the other jobs. We were using specifically the 
personnel people.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



274a

Q. Have minority recruiting personnel proved effective! 
A. Yes, I think they are effective. I don’t think [397] that 
we need to look at it particularly from the standpoint of 
numerical value on the basis of numbers as much as it is the 
fact that I think the image is going out that we are inter­
ested in top-flight minority group teachers, and I think 
that this is paying dividends. I think that as Mr. O uter 
told me he found that his trips into the South are more 
valuable—

Q. That would be hearsay. A. That would be hearsay.

The Court: Well, he told us that.
The Witness: That’s right.

Q. Would you turn to page D-10 of Exhibit 20 and read 
the recommendation that appears at the bottom of that 
page. A. “The Board of Education and administration 
should work actively in concert with other school systems 
throughout the country to impress upon teacher training 
colleges the importance of preparing teachers to teach all 
children, including children of different ethnic and racial 
background, and the type of child we are characterizing 
here as disadvantaged culturally. It should be made clear 
that such training should be a plus factor in selection in 
the Denver system.”

Q. Was this recommendation part of your responsibili­
ties? A. Part of it. A dual responsibility along with [398] 
the Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services, 
Dr. Hinderman,

Q. Do you know what response the administration of 
the district made to this? A. Yes, in this respect, that Dr. 
Hinderman and his associates contacted these institutions 
of higher learning and discussed the background in regard

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



275a

to the offerings of colleges and universities for prospective 
teachers. We likewise, as we sent our people on recruiting 
trips, met with deans of colleges as well as the placement 
directors to discuss this matter of the necessary training 
of teachers to be better fitted to work with the culturally 
deprived.

Q. Do you see any evidence of results of this program? 
A. Yes, I see evidence. Again, you may indicate this as 
hearsay, because this is difficult to measure from the stand­
point of any valid tests or measurements, except this, that 
we do get the report from our principals and we also are 
receiving from the community generally, parents and 
others, the quality and understanding of many of newT 
teachers—

Mr. Greiner: Pardon me, Your Honor, I think I 
will object to this question on the basis of hearsay, 
what reports he has received from other people.

[3993 The Court: Overruled.

Q. You may proceed. A. I think I have advanced my 
point, and that is on that basis.

The Court: Reports have been good. Go ahead.

Q. Mr. Johnson, you indicated that your—or, let me ask 
you this, have your duties involved any responsibilities with 
respect to the use of mobile units in the school district? 
A. In this respect, that is, the department of personnel 
services has the responsibility of working with budgetary 
services on increasing enrollment and so forth. To that 
degree, why, we did have the responsibility of recommend­
ing to the Superintendent the need for some means of al­

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



276a

leviating the crowded conditions in certain schools and 
there to that extent. However, the bulk of the responsibil­
ity of purchasing and so on is in the division of planning 
and engineering, and in these cases the result of a recom­
mendation of the Superintendent and the other staff mem­
bers regarding the needs.

Q. Do you know when the district first started using 
mobile units? A. I would say about 1962, as 1 recall, the 
first year of the mobile unit. ’62 or right about that time. I 
am inclined to believe—I would say ’64, because I think 
[400J that Dr. Armstrong had a part in the purchase of 
those, so I think it was later, and he took office in ’62.

Q. Mr. Johnson, I will hand you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 101, 
which has been received in evidence. A. That’s right.

Q. Do you happen to be familiar with that display? A. 
Yes, I am, and I note that my date was correct, 1962. Yes, 
I am acquainted with this.

Q. Are you familiar with the study committee’s recom­
mendation with respect to mobile units, which came two 
years later, obviously? A. Yes.

Q. What was the recommendation? A. Their recom­
mendation largely was that they indicated that mobile units 
were a possibility and that we should—we should move in 
the direction of utilizing any means to relieve what they 
considered to be crowded situations in certain schools.

Q. Now, this Exhibit 101 indicates that mobile units were 
in the first year of employment sent where? A. The first 
year they were sent to the following elementary schools: 
Doull, Wyatt, Wyman, and Greenlee.

Q. That was 1962? A. That was in 1962.
Q. What was the next year they were installed? [401] 

A. Then in 1964 then there was a movement of some of

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



277a

these because they were not necsscary, and there was also 
a purchase of some additional units, and sent to Philips, 
’64, and in 1965 to Smith School, and then also in late ’65 
to Park Hill School, and also Hallett School.

Then, we found that the decrease in enrollment in certain 
areas made it possible to move some of these. For instance, 
Doull School that had received the first mobile unit, we were 
able to move that to Eagleton to offset an increase there, 
and also in 1967 it was possible because of a lower member­
ship at Hallett Elementary School to move two of those 
units to Ashley Elementary School.

Q. Has the use of mobile units given you any additional 
flexibility? A. Well, yes, it does. I think probably taking 
the first school on the page, Doull School was a very good 
example, and we had a heavy membership at Doull School. 
It was predicted that Doull School membership would be 
reduced, and our predictions proved to be correct, and so 
consequently on this particular basis we did not go to the 
expense of an extra classroom and so on, and we were able 
to utilize that mobile unit in other schools, and so there is 
this flexibility, and it may not only be on the basis of mem­
bership. It could be on a special program flexibility.

The Court: These units are single classrooms?
[402] The Witness: Pardon, sir?
The Court: Are these units single classrooms?
The Witness: Yes, they are single classrooms.
The Court: What are they, prefabricated?
The Witness: Yes, prefabricated.
The Court: They can be disassembled and moved 

somewhere else?
The Witness: Yes. It is not quite as simple as 

that because there is the matter of electricity, the

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



278ai

various utilities, and so on. So it is not quite as 
mobile as we normally think of a house trailer.

* #  #  #  #

£4033 * * *
By Mr. Creighton:

Q. Mr. Johnson, as a matter of fact, I was about to ask 
you about these mobile units and to describe them. Are 
these classroom facilities? A. They are classroom facili­
ties built purposely for this particular use.

Q. Do you know how satisfactory they are for this pur­
pose of classroom units? A. We are in the impression 
that they serve very satisfactorily; at least, the reports that 
we get from, teachers that use them, that generally they are 
well satisfied with them.

The Court: I  take it that they are an interim 
facility that you utilize until your plans materialize 
to build new schools; is that right? Until the popu­
lation becomes set in an area so that you know 
what your needs are going to be?

The Witness: That’s correct, Tour Honor. They 
are a temporary facility and for flexibility purposes.

Q. Do in fact these units have any advantages over other 
types of classrooms? A. I  think probably teachers and 
pupils that wish to be isolated from the run of the regu­
lar school, the hallways and so on, that this would be an 
advantage.

[404] Q. Do they impose any limitation in class size? 
A. Only to this extent: that they are set for the normal 
class size, and normally the pupils—the number of pupils 
in these particular facilities usually number 25 to 30 pupils

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants-—Direct



279a

and they handle that particular number very well. They 
do have air conditioning. They have the necessary public 
utilities that are necessary in close proximity.

#  #  #  #  *

[4083 * * *
Q. Please refer to Exhibit 20 at page D-14, Dog-14. 

Please read Recommendation 1 that appears on that page. 
A. “The Board of Education should establish and enforce 
a policy that qualified teachers of minority backgrounds 
will be assigned throughout the system.”

Q. Now, was that recommendation assigned to you! A. 
That would have been assigned to me as Assistant Super­
intendent for Personnel Services.

Q. Do you know what the School District has done 
[4093 since ’64 to respond to that recommendation! A. 
The Superintendent, the previous Superintendent as well 
as the present Superintendent, has indicated that we should 
move in this particular direction, and we have to the best 
of our ability, assigning teachers of minority backgrounds 
throughout the system, and as of last fall we had a minor­
ity teacher in every secondary school and minority teacher 
in 77 out of the 91 elementary schools.

Q. So the interaction of your policy and the teachers’ 
agreement impose any limitations on what you would oth­
erwise do here! A. It would impose this limitation on an 
individual basis, but I  don’t think that it would impose 
it from the standpoint of the overall mass movement of 
any type. It can be realized that the agreement does indi­
cate that if the administration requests the transfer of a 
teacher, the teacher is in position to question the transfer, 
so it places that limitation on it.

Q. Since 1964, has there been measurable—

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



280a

The Court: Well, other than this, you just assign 
them without regard to whether they are minority 
people or not in the various parts of the town?

The Witness: Yes, we do. However, in the case 
of transfers it is necessary that the teacher request 
the transfer. That is, unless we go to the teacher 
and—

E410J The Court: Well, I  think we ought to focus 
on the evidence. We have evidence here that these 
people are unduly concentrated in some of the North­
east Denver elementary schools particularly.

The Witness: Your Honor—
The Court: I  mean, we had a good deal of evi­

dence here the other day. I don’t know if you were 
here or not. Is there a tendency of this kind?

The Witness: Yes, Your Honor, this is correct 
in this respect, that there are many of these North­
east Denver schools that have a greater number of 
Negro teachers in these schools than we do else­
where in the city, and then as far as the distribu­
tion of these teachers, as I spoke, in 77 of 91, this 
is a matter of one or two teachers being in those 
situations.

Now, the point I  am making is that we are stress­
ing a greater distribution of these teachers through­
out the city, but it is necessary that any teacher 
who wishes to be transferred to any other part of 
the city, of course, must do this pretty largely on 
the basis of this agreement and request such trans­
fers. We had not had a large number of requests 
in this direction.

The Court: Well, my question is, why, if you 
pay no attention to whether these teachers are mi­

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



281a

nority, they end up concentrated in Barrett and 
Stedman and these £4113 other Northeast Denver 
schools ?

The Witness: I think part of this is due to we 
have a greater turnover of teachers in those par­
ticular areas, and then as far as the reassignment 
of teachers are concerned we do discuss with teach­
ers regarding assignments and we find that some­
times there is a reluctance on the part of the Negro 
teachers to want to go into other schools. However, 
we are having a better success in this respect than 
formerly.

# # # # #

Q. Please read Recommendation No. 4 on page 214. 
[4133 * * #

Q. Please read the next recommendation, No. 5 on that 
page. A. “After a transitional period, during which the 
other recommendations of this committee are implemented, 
particularly with respect to training in human relations, 
no teacher, probationary or permanent, should be assigned 
to teach in a school containing substantial numbers of 
culturally-disadvantaged children unless his preparation, 
experience and/or personal qualifications demonstrate the 
probability that he will be successful in teaching culturally- 
disadvantaged children.”

Q. Do you know what the district has done in response
[414] to that since 1964? A. I would say that the district 
has attempted to meet this. Although, again, I  think it’s— 
the statement is so worded that no teacher should be 
assigned to teach in a school containing substantial num­
bers of culturally-disadvantaged children, I think it would 
stand to reason that I  would have to indicate that on the

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



282a

basis of assignment, there may have been some misassign- 
ments or—remember, that we have so many new teachers, 
and consequently it may be that when we make a state­
ment that the individual, his preparation, experience and 
personal qualifications—now, it’s entirely possible that his 
personal qualifications would thus demonstrate this but on 
the basis of preparation, experience and so on that this 
teacher may have had—

Q. When you speak of assignment, you’re speaking of 
this input each year! A. That’s correct. So, as I  say, I 
don’t think you could say that all teachers assigned here 
have all three of these qualities anymore than they would 
have in assignment in other parts of the city. I would say 
that it’s the attempt to look very closely at these pepole 
who are assigned in a culturally-disadvantaged area or 
in any other area of the city.

Q. Do you make this same effort of screening, I  suppose 
in the case of transfers—in negotiating and discussing
[415] transfers! A. I  would say a. greater effort is made 
at the time of the placement of the teacher when he is new 
than on the basis of transfer. But an attempt is made in 
both cases.

Q. Would you please read No. 6 on D15! A. “A sys­
tematic program should be established by the administra­
tion to encourage teachers in schools attended by cultur­
ally-disadvantaged children and to emphasize affirmatively 
the personal rewards and satisfactions gained by teachers 
who work in such schools.”

Do you know if any response has been made by the 
district to that recommendation! A. I would say that a 
response has been made but a great deal more needs to 
be made. I  think the greatest response in answer to that

Howard L. Joh,nson~for Defendants—Direct



283a

recommendation lias been, made through our workshops 
and school community relation programs of various types 
and where contacts have been made with some four or 
five hundred teachers during the year through our school 
community—our Department of School Community Rela­
tions. I  frankly think this must be a concerted job of all 
teachers as well as administrators. We did meet with 
teachers in this particular area, the city, a matter of two 
years ago, working with Mr. Cruter in school community 
relations to see what we could do to build up the advan­
tages in working with these children.

[416] Q. Please read the next one. A. No. 7, “In policy 
statements adopted by the Board and by the administra­
tion, it would be made clear that teacher preference as to 
assignment is subordinate to other criteria and that each 
qualified teacher in the system is expected to be able to 
teach and to be prepared to teach in any school where 
the administration thinks he can be most effective.”

Now, Mr. Johnson, that speaks of the word assignment, 
which I believe in your context means the new teacher 
to the district. A. That is right.

Q. Where you don’t have a transfer situation and teacher 
preference involved. A. Uh-huh.

Q. Were new teachers who are strictly speaking assigned 
—has the district responded to this suggestion? A. 
Responded in this manner. That probably the assignment 
of teachers is probably more a personal matter working 
with the individual teachers and discussing their assign­
ment as they move than it is to just bluntly assign them in 
a particular area. For instance, at the time that we recruit 
teachers we do not give the teacher any indication of a 
specific assignment. We are assuming that we are recruit­
ing teachers—

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



284a

[417] The Court: I think what was asked is 
whether the Board has abided by this recommenda­
tion, that is, in respect to laying down policy. Isn’t 
that all the question is?

Mr. Creighton: Yes.

Q. Has this been made a part of a policy—a formal pol­
icy? A. There is no formal policy in this respect, as we 
speak of a formal policy. But it is a practice, and the Board 
of course is very interested in this type of assignment as 
is the administration.

Q. Please read No. 8. A. “Teachers should be assigned 
or transferred to the elementary or secondary schools with 
major consideration given to their qualifications for teach­
ing at a certain level.”

Q. Now, did this require any change in practice? A. I 
think that it required a change in this respect; that there 
was a closer examination—probably on major and minor 
subjects. It is very interesting—we have some cross-overs 
between elementary schools and particularly on the basis of 
homemaking teachers who have had a major particularly in 
childhood education and so on. And I think it has made the 
Personnel Services watch more closely the qualifications 
and credentials of these people. When [418] teachers 
apply, they do this very often—they realize that there is a 
greater turnover in elementary education. The teacher may 
be primarily qualified in a subject area in secondary schools 
but may make known, where we ask the question in what 
particular level do you wish to teach, they make the state­
ment, elementary. Then I think there was a tendency, that 
as we looked at the credentials, we found out they were 
qualified for elementary, that greater care should have been 
given in this respect, and I think the fact that this was

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



285a

brought to our attention, I think this—I think there has 
been a closer scrutiny from the standpoint of those creden­
tials of individuals who may have had some background 
who were qualified in elementary but had not necessarily 
taken their undergraduate work in this respect.

Q. Please read No. 9. A. “So that it will not be used 
as an excuse for careless placement or perpetuation of 
assignment, contrary to these recommendations, the resi­
dence of a teacher should have nothing to do with assign­
ment except in unusual cases.”

Q. Plas there been any response to that recommendation? 
A. I think, so far as assignment of teachers are concerned 
in the Denver Public Schools, that is, the original assign­
ment of teachers, I don’t think there was too much viola­
tion of this and probably when teachers had indicated a 
preference, and where they seemed well qualified, I think 
[419] the teacher was given a little bit the benefit of the 
doubt. However, there have been very few instances. How­
ever, there have been some unusual cases where a teacher 
may be assigned close to a home situation. But this is not 
our practice. In fact, if this comes up as a reason for a 
request for transfer, it is usually not granted.

Q. The next recommendation deals with teacher aids. 
Had you been using teacher aids prior to the recommenda­
tion? A. Very few teacher aids were used prior to this 
recommendation. This is partly due to two things, one 
was—it was pretty largely a matter of finance, and I don’t 
think at that particular time that we were sophisticated 
enough to use teacher aids. However, I do think that as a 
result of the inroads that were made by the use of federal 
funds, in which we were able to get certain types of aids 
in working with the teachers themselves in community 
work, we did set up certain criteria for the use of teacher

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



286a

aids. So, whereas, about 1964, we had practically no teacher 
aids, we have right in the neighborhood of 400 now. These 
are used in direct aids to the individual teachers, are used 
in the playgrounds, lunchrooms, hall duties various types 
of assignments; audiovisual aids. So in this respect this 
is being implemented and we believe that it needs greater 
study because not only— We are utilizing teacher aids to 
the best of our ability through no fault of the [4203 teach­
ers or the principals—but I do think it does need additional 
work. But the administration and the Board both concur 
that this is a direction we should move. But it is compara­
tively new, not only in Denver but in many school districts 
in the cities—or, the United States. Excuse me.

Q. Please turn to Page D18. Please read the first rec­
ommendation there. A. These are your recommendations 
to principals?

Q. Yes. A. “Principals should become familiar with the 
community resources, cultural background and socioeco­
nomic conditions of the community in which their schools 
are located.”

Q. Has the district taken any steps to respond to that 
recommendation? A. Yes, they have taken steps and I 
think this has been the move in the right direction. It was 
formerly assumed that principals of course would become 
familiar, but I think now the basis of again much of the 
work that has been done in our workshops for principals 
and others, that we are making strides forward in this 
respect, particularly in community visitation and so on. 
But there was one that not only appears here but appears 
elsewhere in this report, but this is one that—that we are 
striving very [4213 diligently to make the principal recog­
nize that this is an important responsibility for him.

Howard L. Jolnnson—for Defendants—Direct



287a

Q. Please read the next recommendation. A. “In addi­
tion to human relations training, principals as a prerequi­
site to assignment should have demonstrated a capacity 
to respect, to understand and to communicate with chil­
dren and parents in more than one type of neighborhood.”

Q. Now, what did that mean and what, if anything, did 
the district do? A. I think that probably what is meant 
on this,—as you know of the committee report, it was 
pretty largely this, that very often principals were as­
signed to a greater degree on the seniority basis, and I 
don’t think they were as concerned about the children and 
the parents in any more than one type of community. I 
think there was a tendency prior to the assignment of 
principals of various ethnic groups, that is, a greater num­
ber of them that here were principals who had served 
primarily in a white community, with administrators, but 
were assigned to communities where other ethnic groups 
were the major groups, and they didn’t prove to be success­
ful. And this is an emphasis upon that very thing; that 
they should have this background and that we should take 
particular care in respect to these assignments, and we 
have attempted to do that, and it’s been done in a number 
of ways. We have a greater number of minority group 
[422] principals, administrators and so on, who do under­
stand these problems much better and likewise I think, as 
a result of the answer to the previous statement in the 
service training workshops and so on, I  think we are 
developing a greater supply of people. But, this was a 
very emphatic thing on the part of the study committee 
and we are certainly looking at this.

Q. Please read recommendation No. 3 at the bottom of 
that page. A. “The job responsibility of principals in 
elementary schools particularly in schools where substan­

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



288a

tial numbers of culturally-disadvantaged children attend, 
should be analyzed and assistant principals with qualifica­
tions similar to those recommended for principals should 
be assigned in order to permit the principals to give ample 
supervision and assistance to teachers.”

Q. Did the district implement that recommendation? 
A. Implemented it in this respect; that the job descrip­
tions for all administrative personnel was received after 
this particular report and it is not only a matter of re­
view and job descriptions at that time, but upon the ad­
vent of a new superintendent a matter of two years ago, 
it has been reemphasized that this entire matter of job 
descriptions, the entire responsibility of staffing the indi­
vidual school now is being looked at again.

[423] Q. Please turn to D21 and read Recommendation 
2 and then please tell us briefly, because I think you have 
touched on it before, what the district is doing there. A. 
“As rapidly as possible all administrative personnel should 
participate in training in human relations. Such training 
should be an important consideration in all future appoint­
ments to administrative positions.”

And, as you indicated, I did touch upon this before. And 
it has really been given very serious consideration as we 
appoint new administrators in the Denver Public Schools.

Q. What techniques or devices do you use for this? A. 
You are speaking now of the evaluation or are you speak­
ing of the training ?

Q. Of the training. A. The training is handled pretty 
largely through the Department of School Community Re­
lations, working with a committee of teachers who are 
very interested in this area and we are requiring that 
principals and administrators attend such types of pro­
grams. In fact—and this is not only at the administrative

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



289a

level of the principal; this is from the superintendent on 
down. The superintendent and his immediate staff par­
ticipated in such type of workshops last—this last school 
year.

Q. What was that workshop called? [424] A. Mr. Cruter 
now prefers to call it more in the field of human relations, 
although it originally had the name of Sensitivity Training.

Q. Would you turn to Page E12 and note Recommenda­
tion No. 3. Was that under your responsibility? A. 
“Teacher should be encouraged to make more home visits 
with time allowed in order to work more effectively with 
parents and in motivating pupil learning.”

So far as this specific recommendation is concerned, this 
really came through the Division of the Instructional Ser­
vices because it pertained to the involvement of programs 
right within the school. But I do know that at least this 
was investigated a great deal.

[425] Q. And has it been stressed since 1964? A. It 
is constantly being stressed. In fact, this is a very im­
portant factor.

Q. This discussion of community involvement reminds 
me, Mr. Johnson, I neglected to ask you in connection 
with the mobile units, in determining whether to use mobile 
units did the administration consult with the parents in 
the area affected? A. In most instances, in fact, let us 
say this, the mobile unit was usually the means that was 
used to relieve overcrowding in a particular school and it 
usually resulted after a series of meetings wuth the school 
administrators, teachers and parents within a community, 
because the mobile unit became very closely related to the 
change in boundary lines, transportation or mobile unit 
or double sessions.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



290a

That is, it usually originated on that particular basis 
with the result that the mobile unit began to gain favor.

Q. Among whom? A. Among parents, administrators 
and others, in order to eliminate the double sessions par­
ticularly. That is, they did not wish the double sessions. 
And, of course, we were in position from the standpoint of 
the financing—this appeared to take care of some unusual 
situations. Some parents were aware of this and in nearly 
all instances [4263 the mobile unit was then decided to 
be the most feasible, but usually with this one provision, 
we don’t want them forever and be sure they are mobile 
and not permanent.

Q. Do you recall the limitation in the guideline that 
you read from the board motion guideline you mentioned? 
Do you recall a suggestion there about transportation? 
Was the use of mobile units considered as an alternative 
to transportation? A. Yes, normally these were lumped 
together. Very often it was transportation or double ses­
sions, recognizing the mobile units are—that is, they are 
costly, and so, consequently, this extra class in this respect 
in the early days of the mobile unit, it finally came into the 
picture where it became another matter, and with the result 
that we found that the mobile unit in most instances ap­
peared to be a better solution, that is at least in the eyes 
of the parents, than transferring the pupils from the school 
or going on the double sessions, so the mobile units I think 
became the lesser of what they considered to be certain 
evils.

Q. In your office, do you have occasion to know about 
individual school or building capacities and the ratings 
thereof ? A. Let me say that in my office, in my office as 
assistant superintendent, I was acquainted with them, and 
as [4273 deputy superintendent I also am acquainted.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



291a

This normally is handled through the planning and engi­
neering, but I am generally acquainted with some features 
of this. But we must recognize that when we speak of 
building capacities we are going into detail other than 
just to say that a building is “X”—will handle “X” number 
of students.

Q. Well, do you know whether the district had rating 
capacities for its buildings? A. Yes.

Q. Do you know how these are arrived at? A. Yes.
Q. How? A. The rating capacities—and this is char­

acteristic over the country in trying to establish a formula 
that is used, and that is on the basis of 30 pupils per class­
room, and this is a formula that is used as a beginning to 
determine this, and as we use the so-called rated capacities, 
a building is listed on this particular basis, and normally 
arrived at on the 30-pupils-per-classroom basis.

Q. You mean that a building’s capacity is as simple as 
this, that you count:—its rated capacity— A. That’s right.

Q. And you count the number of classrooms and multiply 
by 30? [428] A. Yes. We want to recognize here we are 
talking about two things. You are talking about normal 
capacity, in which you arrive at 30 pupils per classroom, 
and when I made the statement I was acquainted with it, 
this is the case. I am acquainted with it.

Now, whenever you determine the capacity of any build­
ing in this city, there are many other things to be taken 
into consideration, and, consequently, these are taken into 
consideration knowing that no school building will prob­
ably ever have the exact normal capacity; however, it is 
something to start with on the basis of indicating this is 
the normal capacity when we speak of a building generally.

Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Johnson. The data that is 
available about our buildings as to capacity, is that the

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



292a

rated capacity? A. That’s what we call the normal ca­
pacity or rated capacity.

Q. That’s the multiple— A. This is the figure 30 times 
the number of classrooms.

Q. It is nothing more than that? A. It is nothing more 
than that, because from that particular point it means that 
planning and engineering, the division of education, and 
others have to look very £4293 closely at this building. It 
stands to reason that a building that was built in 1912 has 
certain peculiarities to that particular age than the build­
ing built in 1968. There are many things to be taken into 
consideration, and these are taken into consideration, and, 
consequently, we have the normal stated capacity which is 
very important for all of us to know, the formula type; 
but we must look very closely at this and it is possible 
that a building may have a stated normal capacity and, 
frankly, because of certain conditions and not only the 
conditions of the facility but the conditions of the educa­
tional program, that building cannot handle its normal 
capacity.

Q. Its rated capacity? A. That’s right, and there are 
other buildings because of the type of programs and be­
cause of the structure of the building it is entirely possible 
that that building can handle quite favorably 8 to 10 per­
cent more than that.

*  *  #  $  #

£4303 * * *
Q. Mr. Johnson, I am going to get before you again 

Exhibits 33 and 34, which are subdistrict boundaries poli­
cies and pupil assignment policies, respectively, that have 
been introduced in evidence by the plaintiffs, and which 
bear on the general matter of subdistrict boundaries, and 
then I would like to have you pick up that ’64 committee 
report, Exhibit 20.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



293a

Let me ask yon preliminarily, to clarify this, did your 
office as assistant superintendent of personnel matters 
from 1960 until the revamping last year include matters 
relating to those two resolutions which I just handed you 
and the general matters of subdistrict boundaries! A. 
Generally, this Policy 1222-C relating to school district 
boundaries, we have looked at the various things we men­
tioned in the type, size and facility of this school, the 
pupil capacity of the school, school-age groups, [4313 and 
so on. This policy emphasizes to a greater extent and 
brought in there at this particular time the ethnic and 
racial characteristics of the school population, making to 
the extent possible a heterogeneous school community. Anri 
then there is more stress upon the mobility and levels of 
educational attainment.

Q. More in respect to when? A. That is, this policy 
emphasizes this to a much greater degree.

Q. Why I asked— A. Than just the working guidelines 
we had formerly before this policy was adopted. However, 
the type and size of facilities at the building, the pupil 
population, natural features and the urban features and 
so on, were taken into consideration when we designed 
boundary lines in order to establish the membership within 
a given school to as great a degree as possible. However, 
it wasn’t always possible to follow exactly on this and as a 
result sometimes we would have to forego some of the 
criteria in this respect.

Q. Well, Mr. Johnson, you have mentioned 1222-C. A. 
Yes.

Q. Now, as to 1226-B, when did that become effective? 
A. Policy 1226-B was effective on February 3, 1966, and 
this also came—these two policies—

Q. Is that A or B? [432] A. This is A.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



294a

Q. 1226-A? A. A.
Q. That became effective when? A. That became effec­

tive on February 3, 1966.
Q. And that related to what? A. These were out­

growths—
Q. No, the resolution or the policy relates to what mat­

ter? A. The assignment and transfer of pupils.
Q. Now, that policy and the other one were policies that 

your particular assignment as a superintendent required 
you to follow; is that right? A. That is correct.

Q. Now, please get out Exhibit 20 and turn to page A-6. 
* * * * *

[4333 * * *
Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, please read that Number 1 recom­

mendation on page A-6 of Exhibit 20. A. “The Board of 
Education should formally adopt the statement of policies 
which shall govern the establishment of school boundaries 
and the location of newly constructed schools and additions 
to existing schools. Two, the Board of Education should 
establish school boundaries in accordance with the neigh­
borhood principle as herein described (subject to the ex­
ceptions stated in the committee’s recommendation as to 
pupil transfer hereafter set forth.)”

[434] Q. Please, let’s take these separately. Recom­
mendation No. 1, was that in your bailiwick? A. That was 
in my bailiwick along with Recommendations to the Super­
intendent and other administrative staff members. They 
were done largely as the result of Superintendent’s coun­
sel working together.

Q. What did you do about Recommendation No. 1? A. 
There was a presentation to the Board on the basis of the 
policy that that’s before us here, the establishment of 
school boundaries.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



295a

Q. And you read Recommendation No. 2. Did the Board 
respond with a policy statement! A. That is correct, that 
the Board responded that this policy statement as such 
establishes school boundaries in accordance with neighbor­
hood principles as herein described and then with the ex­
ceptions that come a little bit later.

Q. Now, then, I am going to No. 3. Will you read that? 
A. “In addition to the unwritten rules which have hereto­
fore controlled the establishment of boundaries and the 
location of schools, the adopted policy of the Board of 
Education in these matters should include acceptance of 
responsibility to minimize the effects of de facto segrega­
tion and the recognition that wherever possible and as a 
[4353 matter to be considered of equal weight with guide­
lines presently used, boundaries shall be set so that the 
neighborhoods thereby established will represent to the 
extent possible a heterogeneous school policy.”

[436J Q. Now, then, taking those three recommenda­
tions as a group, can you tell us what the school district 
has done to respond to those? A. In this respect the school 
district has established this policy and took it—as it refers 
here to the unwritten rules, which I have indicated were in 
existence before and established the ethnic and racial char­
acteristics of school population, making to the extent 
possible—

Q. You’re reading from what? A. I ’m reading now 
from 1222-C, so the Board of Education in taking these 
unwritten rules that we had formerly operated under had 
moved in fulfilling the request of the committee, and insert­
ing this particular statement upon the ethnic and racial 
characteristics.

Q. Now. then, Recommendation 4 on page A-7 of Ex­
hibit 20, I  think I can fairly say recommends that the

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



296a

Board having- adopted officially the written policy should 
review the validity of existing school area boundaries in 
terms of that policy. Was that done? A. You must re­
member that this policy now became effective on Feb­
ruary 3. It was done on the basis of the last boundary 
changes that were made at that time—at that particular 
time. These particularly included George Washington 
boundary changes and so on. So far as a formal review 
of this policy, and being brought before the Board, [437] 
it has not been changed since that particular time. How­
ever, on the basis of changes in boundaries, likewise we 
have had no boundary changes as such.

Q. You tell us the boundary policy was adopted Feb­
ruary 3, 1966? A. That is correct.

Q. Now, was there any interim policy statement to guide 
you in relation to boundaries between the receipt of Ex­
hibit 20, this report, and the formal adoption of Policy 
1226? A. You’re speaking now of the 1226, Assignment 
of and Transfer of Pupils? Or, 1222?

Q. Well, Mr. Johnson, to refresh your memory, please 
look at what we have said is Exhibit 102, the policy state­
ment.

Appearing at page 104 of Exhibit 21. What is that? 
A. This was the progress report to the Board of Education 
by the Superintendent, and on May 6, 1964, and this was 
a statement relating to the progress of recommendations 
of the committee, and in here various items were brought 
to the attention of the Board of Education for things 
that had to be done in this respect. Among those—

Q. What we’re calling Exhibit 102, and what you have 
described as a progress report, does that contain a [438] 
general policy statement? A. No, in this particular exhibit 
it’s a statement in regard to a summary of what’s been

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



297a

done about the recommendations relating to the adminis­
tration and organization in which the optional areas were 
discontined.

Q. But on the first page of that, Mr. Johnson, it starts 
out, “General Policy Statement.” I ’m referring to Exhibit 
102. It refers essentially to the first page of that exhibit. 
Are you familiar with that? A. Yes, I am familiar with 
this. This is a statement made by the then superintendent 
of schools, Dr. Oberholtzer, to the Board of Education as 
it conformed—

Q. What date? A. This was prepared on May 6, 1964. 
And the Board had accepted this statement.

Q. What does it relate to? A. This relates pretty 
largely to the attitude of the Board of Education and the 
Superintendent of Schools and his staff as it relates to the 
equality of educational opportunities and so on.

Q. Do you relate it to boundary lines? A. It relates to 
boundary lines in this respect; that it refers to the con­
tinuation of the neighborhood schools, has resulted in con­
centration of some minority, racial and ethnic groups in 
some schools; reduction of some [4393 concentrations, and 
establishment of a heterogeneous and diverse group in 
schools desirable to achieve equality of educational oppor­
tunity. This does not mean the abandonment of the neigh­
borhood school principle but rather the incorporation of 
changes or adaptations which result in a more diverse or 
heterogeneous racial and ethnic school population, both for 
pupils and for school employees.

Q. Now were you guided by this in your activities relat­
ing to the boundary changes in the adoption of Policy 
1226-A? A. Yes. In fact, the superintendent and his staff 
brought this to the staff’s attention constantly, that these 
were some of the things that we must consider in changing

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



298a

boundary lines as it related to the neighborhood school 
principle. But, also, the necessity of a more heterogeneous 
population within these various schools.

The Court : Well, what tangible steps were taken 
to implement this number 3, this recommendation 
that there should be minimization to the effect of 
segregation! Did this just pass resolutions! Did 
they do anything about it! I mean, what have you 
got! What tangible thing can you point to!

The Witness: Your Honor, in this respect, to 
the boundary line changes—that came up after that, 
and relating to both the neighborhood school prin­
ciple and in an [440] attempt to get more hetero­
geneous school population I think probably a good 
example of this would be the extension of the George 
Washington High School boundary lines further 
north. This happens to be one that came in, and 
whenever boundary line changes were essential, 
consideration was given to the two ideas, the one 
of more heterogeneous school population, and the 
second one on the basis of the neighborhood school 
principle which would appear to be in conflict, but it 
is one that had to be judged both ways. So it was 
utilized in the change of boundary lines.

The Court: Well, did you achieve any reduction 
in the segregation!

The Witness: Yes, using as a good example the 
George Washington change. This did bring more 
Negro students into George Washington. I t did not 
bring a tremendous change in numbers but there 
were some slight changes made, Your Honor. But, 
not a tremendous change.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



299a

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct 

By Mr. Creighton:

Q. Referring to Exhibit 20 and the recommendations 
on A-7, Recommendation No. 4, I think I can paraphase 
that it urged you to consider—I beg your pardon—speak­
ing now of 5, which is on page A-10. This one suggest-— 
well, I’ll let you read it because it is a little detailed. A. 
You’re speaking at the botton of the page, now?

Q. Yes. [441] A. “The Board of Education should sup­
plement its present transfer policy by the adoption of a 
plan of limited open enrollment generally in accordance 
with the procedures discussed above. The plan adopted 
by the school system in Detroit is suggested as a model.”

Q. Did the district in fact create an open enrollment 
policy? A. Yes, such policy was created and adopted by 
the Board of Education.

Q. Is that particular policy still being implemented? 
A. Let’s say that this is a carryover of the result of the 
limited open enrollment—this is still being implemented. 
For instance, individuals who had taken advantage of the 
limited open enrollment policy will continue in the schools 
in which they are registered if they so desire. So, to that 
extent. But, there are no new pupils in the limited open 
enrollment policy.

Q. Has this policy been supplanted by another? A. 
This policy would more or less be supplanted in this re­
spect, that the new policy provides transportation for these 
pupils in certain schools.

[4423 Q. What is the new policy called? A. The new 
policy is the open enrollment, rather than limited; whereas, 
the other was a limited open enrollment. This is an open 
enrollment with a transportation policy.

The Court: WRat does it mean?



300a

The Witness: It means this; that wherever there 
is a space in any school in the city a pupil may re­
quest enrollment in that school with transportation 
provided by the school district if the ethnic—if the 
ethnic or integrated factor in that school is improved 
through the transfer; meaning that a child attend­
ing a predominantly white school may be trans­
ported to available space in a school that is pre­
dominantly Negro.

Q. Provided that school child is what race! A. Is of the 
white race; into the Negro school, or vice versa. So, 
whereas the limited open enrollment policy did not have 
the limitation of improving integration, the purpose has 
two new features in that it improves and must improve 
integration and secondly there is transportation.

Q. Now, is the mechanics of that—either of those enroll­
ment policies—is that in your specific department? A. No, 
this would be in the Division of Education and under Pupil 
Services.

Q. Please turn to A13.

The Court: Well, as a practical matter, there 
[443] would be no openings unless students in these 
other schools desire to go to minority schools, is 
that correct? I mean, in the present crowded condi­
tions of the facilities, as a realistic matter?

The Witness: Your Honor, in most instances, now 
with the overcrowding in the minority schools, it 
would be necessary for this transfer to be from the 
minority schools to the primarily Anglo schools 
unless we get sufficient number out of those schools

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct



301a

to provide vacancies for the white students to move 
in.

The Court: How about the Anglo schools? Are 
there openings in those schools, should minority- 
people wish to go there?

The Witness: Yes, there are some available spaces 
in there. I ’m not in a position to give you the exact 
number at the moment, because, as I say, this is in 
pupil services. But they have issued to the prin­
cipals the number of spaces that are available in 
these schools and consequently the parents of those 
pupils may bid for those spaces and be transported 
and enter the schools. But, as you stated, the great­
est problem we have now is a large pupil population 
in Northeast Denver where we do have predomi­
nantly Negro students. And this is one of the points 
that we have been working on. I  think that Mr. 
Crater did indicate the Hallett situation which is 
the only one we were able to work on until [444] 
such time as we have a settlement.

The Court: You’re not going to finish with him, 
anyway, today, are you?

Mr. Creighton: I may be nearer the end than I 
think.

The Court: With that assurance, we will bear 
with you; that guarantee.

Q. I was about to ask you about that recommendation
on Page A13. Would you just read that and tell us_A.
“Optional areas should be fully eliminated at the earliest 
possible date.”

And that was accomplished by resolution of the Board 
of Education shortly after this report.

TIoivard L. Johnson■—for Defendants—Direct



302a

Q. On Page BIO, Recommendation No. 1. Please read it. 
A. “The principal policy of providing classroom facilities 
where they are needed because of increased population 
should be continued.”

Q. Has that been followed as a matter of policy1? A. 
Well, to this extent, to the extent that we have been able 
to provide the classroom space in those areas. Then, of 
course, we must refer back to a resolution which did affect 
the building of any new facilities in Northeast Denver. 
And so, consequently, that would have effect on this, al­
though in some other instances, this policy has been [445] 
followed on the basis of population.

# # # # #

[450] * * *
Cross-Examination by Mr. Greiner:

Q. Mr. Johnson, as I understand it, on July 1, 1950, you 
became the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Ser­
vices. A. That is correct.

Q. At that time, who was your immediate superior? A. 
Dr. Kenneth C. Oberholtzer, Superintendent of [451] 
Schools.

Q. And there was a direct communication between you 
and Dr. Oberholtzer then? A. That is true.

Q. Now, what departments or divisions were under your 
supervision as the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel 
Services? A. Only the Department of Personnel Services 
as such.

Q. Now, as I understand it, that included employee per­
sonnel? A. Correct.

Q. And that includes teachers, does it not? A. Yes.
Q. Pupil personnel? A. Yes.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



303a

Q. And as I understand it, your responsibilities included 
the assignment of pupils and teachers to various schools! 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it also included the transfer of pupils and teach­
ers from one school to another? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it also included the establishment of school at­
tendance area boundaries ? A. Let me amplify that in this 
respect, that this [452] particular assignment was given 
to me in my office. However, the recommendation of school 
boundaries is made by the Superintendent and all staff 
members participated in recommendations to the Superin­
tendent.

Q. Now, would that same comment hold true with re­
spect to the establishment of optional zones of attendance? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. So, you would work on that, in that area, along with 
Hr. Oberholtzer, is that correct? A. Well, Dr. Oberholtzer 
and any other members of the staff that he would assign 
to this, and it included other assistant superintendents as 
well as other staff members.

Q. Now, did your duties as superintendent with respect 
to personnel also include keeping track of school popu­
lation? A. Only in this respect, that the Department of 
Budgetary Services made the necessary surveys and also 
kept the data concerning attendance and those were then 
referred to the Division of Personnel Services.

[453] Q. I take it then that when a school became over­
crowded or became underutilized, that you acquired knowl­
edge of that fact, is that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. Now, did your duties include the working of new 
schools into the existing system, the assignment of pupils 
to these schools? A. Yes, sir, this would be true.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



304a

Q. Did it also include the utilization of vacancies created 
when a new school was built and opened? A. That is 
correct. In consultation with other members of the staff.

Q. And it also included the placing of these mobile units, 
is that correct? A. This would be correct.

Q. And as I understand it, you also supervised the 
limited open enrollment program that was instituted in—- 
When was that instituted? A. That was instituted in 1964.

Q. In September? A. In September of 1964.
Q. And that program also came under your department? 

A. Correct.
Q. Now, did you also administer the voluntary open 

enrollment program that was instituted in January of this 
year? [454] A. I assisted in this respect, as Deputy 
Superintendent at calls of meetings. However, this par­
ticular program now is under the Department of Pupil 
Services; that is, it’s in the Department of Education. 
However, again, matters of this type are usually con­
sidered to be staff matters and there are many of us who 
were included. However, it is specifically in that depart­
ment now.

Q. Now, you will recall Policy 1222C regarding school 
subdistrict boundaries ? A. Yes.

Q. I take it the administration or the implementation of 
that policy was also under your jurisdiction? A. Only to 
the extent that the assignment of preliminary reports to 
the superintendent’s office after consultation with other as­
sistant superintendents would be submitted to the super­
intendent’s office and he, in turn, would submit it to the 
Board of Education.

Q. Now, you also recall Exhibit 34 of Policy 1226A re­
lating to the assignment and transfer of pupils? A. Yes, 
sir.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants-—Cross



305a

Q. I take it that that policy was also under your juris­
diction, is that correct? A. In the same manner as I 
stated for the other policy.

Q. Now, as to such matters,—well, take for example 
when a new school opened. How were the details of what 
students £455] were to go to that new school—how were 
those details developed ? A. A new school being opened— 
there would be consultation with other assistant superin­
tendents regarding the usability of that school. Immedi­
ately we would assume two things: one, the school is be­
ing opened in that area probably because it’s a newly an­
nexed area and has no schools. So, consequently, we would 
investigate the pupil population in that area.

If the school built in the city, beyond the annexations, 
then it undoubtedly was built because of overcrowTding of 
other schools and then a survey would be made of the stu­
dents living in the immediate area:—geographic area who 
were attending other schools.

Q. Then I take it your staff would create a certain pro­
posal for the filling of the new school, is that correct? 
A. That’s correct.

Q. And that proposal then would be sent upwnrd to 
Dr. Oberholtzer? A. That is correct.

Q. And except for boundary changes, was this same 
development of programs and proposals—ŵ as it always 
under your supervision by your staff? A. Yes, mine was 
more or less of a coordinating arrangement and I was held 
responsible to see that the materials £4563 were pulled to­
gether and submitted to the superintendent.

Q. Now, as I  understand it, you became the Deputy 
Superintendent of Schools wdten? A. In June, 1968.

Q. So then you were in your present capacity when the 
preparation of 1520, 1524 and 1531 was under way? A. I 
was Deputy Superintendent of Schools.

Howard L, Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



306a

Q. And did you participate in the development of those 
resolutions? A. To the extent that the superintendent re­
quested this. But most of these—the general work of the 
superintendent’s preliminary report of a year ago of quality 
education fell pretty largely in the area of two other de­
partments : one was the division of planning and engi­
neering, and the department of research. And the director 
and assistant superintendent—or the assistant superin­
tendent and director, respectively, of those two divisions 
and departments were held responsible for the coordina­
tion, and I participated as a staff member.

Q. I take it then you wouldn’t characterize your par­
ticipation in the development of these resolutions as being 
extensive? A. Only to the extent that other staff members 
who were called upon for assistance.

Q. Now, I also understand that until you became the 
Deputy Superintendent of Schools you were in charge of 
the [4573 transfer of pupils and teachers from school to 
school, is that correct? A. Members of my staff were. 
I was the administrative head of the department. I  per­
sonally did not make those transfers, but members of my 
staff did, and administratively, I was responsible.

Q. Did your duties include keeping track of the quality 
level at various schools; quality of the educational pro- 
gram? A. No, this prior to this September, or really 
this September general reorganization, this came under 
the Division of Instructional Services, the quality of educa­
tion ; anything to do with the actual instructional programs 
in the school. Mine "was pretty largely of an administrative 
nature and personnel.

Q. Do you ever consult with that division, oh, for ex­
ample, relating to the question of teacher transfers as it 
might affect the quality of a particular school? A. Yes.

Howard L, Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



307a

Q. I noted in the 1964 committee report which is Ex­
hibit 20— Perhaps you would like to have that handy. 
There was a finding in that report, was there not, Mr. 
£458] Q. (Continued) There was a finding in that report, 
was there not, Mr. Johnson, concerning the assignment 
of teachers? A. Yes. sir.

Q. And did not that report also conclude that perhaps 
one of the reasons why there apparently were predom­
inantly minority teachers in minority schools is the fact 
that some principals were hesitant in accepting minority 
teachers in their schools? A. I do not recall that state­
ment being in the report.

The Court: What is that? Exhibit 20?
The Witness: Yes, Your Honor.

Q. I call your attention to Page D-13 in Exhibit 20, the 
last full paragraph at the bottom of that page— A. You 
are speaking of the next to last paragraph?

Q. Yes. A. It reads, “As a result of its interviews, the 
committee is convinced that race has been relevant in the 
assignment of teachers.” Then it goes on to say, “It ap­
pears that the administration has been extremely reluctant 
to put Negro and Spanish-American teachers in predom­
inantly white schools because of concern with the possible 
lack of acceptance on the part of a white neighborhood. 
In a realistic assessment of a possible lack of support by 
some principals and faculties—” and my point was that it 
[4591 indicates that “it appears that the administration—” 
I thought that you had indicated this was the specific state­
ment or recommendation.

Q. Well, now, I take it you are familiar with some of 
the problems that cropped up during this time period of 
assigning Negro teachers in Anglo schools, are you not?

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



308a

A. That’s correct, and I have recognized that problem ever 
since I became—since the period of time I became Assistant 
Superintendent for Personnel Services until leaving that 
assignment a little over a year ago.

Q. Do I mean to infer from your answer, Mr. Johnson, 
that you in the course of those assignments never ran 
across a lack of support by some principals! A. I never 
had a direct statement from a principal that he would re­
fuse a teacher of a minority group. I do think that there 
have been—that it has been necessary for us to push to 
the extent that we could to get minority teachers or at­
tempt to have at least one minority teacher in each school. 
We have also run into situations where the question of 
the number of minority teachers in a school was brought 
to our attention.

Q. In what respect! Too many or too few! A. In both 
instances. There are principals who have asked for minority 
teachers and because of transfer policies, availability and 
so on, we have not been able to place [460 J minority teach­
ers in those schools. There have been some problems 
existing that principals were aware that probably there 
were too many minority teachers in a school and attempts 
have been made to solve that, and we are still moving in 
the implementation of that.

Q. Well, let’s look at the teacher transfer policies then, 
Mr. Johnson. As I understand it, from your testimony on 
Friday, Exhibit E, which is the Denver Teachers Associa­
tion Contract, primarily now controls the question of 
teacher transfers. A. Yes, this is the policy adopted by 
the Board of Education in agreement with the Denver 
Classroom Teachers Association regarding transfers, so 
that, therefore, it is Board of Education policy relating to 
teacher transfers.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants-—Cross



309a

Q. Now, as I understood your testimony, Exhibit E 
expired some time in April of this year! A. Let us say 
this, that the agreement was signed on April 6, as I  recall, 
1967, with the provision that there would be an election 
to determine whether that association would continue as 
the recognized representatives of the teachers and in an 
election they were elected. However, now, as refers to 
the agreement, that there is a matter of negotiations that 
went on, and as a result of those negotiations this agree­
ment wa,s drawn up and ratified by the Board of Education, 
and upon that ratification it became [461] policy and that 
still continues for the time being until such time as the 
Board of Education makes any changes, and as a result of 
this summer’s negotiations there probably will go before 
the Board of Education sometime in September or October 
for ratification, because the salary schedule is an important 
feature of the agreement.

Q. Am I correct in assuming that the teacher transfer 
portions of that contract are not being renegotiated? A. 
At the present time I cannot say whether there is any 
negotiation for a change in this policy or not. I  am not 
in the negotiating session and, consequently, we have not 
come up with any specific tentative agreements, so in the 
meantime this policy prevails.

Q. Referring, if you will, to Exhibit E, Page 25, 14-2-1, 
on that page it talks about transfers which will result 
in the best educational program for the school district, 
is that correct? A. Yes, you are referring now to 14-2-1, 
did I understand you?

Q. That’s correct. A. Yes.
Q. Now, I take it you have been administering the 

transfer of teachers under this contract, which is Exhibit 
E? A. The administration—however, this authority has

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants-—Cross



310a

£4621 been delegated to directors in division of personnel 
services and to the Executive Director of personnel services 
as of last September.

Q. Well, now, that would be a year approximately after 
this contract went into existence! A. That is correct.

Q. So, yon have administered it for at least one year! 
A. Yes, at least one year, that is correct.

Q, Now, in your administration of this policy, have you 
considered it consistent with the best educational program 
for the District to transfer Black teachers from. Black 
schools to Anglo schools! A. As it refers to this first 
statement, 14-2-1, remember this refers specifically to re­
quests for transfers, and in this particular case it is a 
question of whether or not these requests will be granted.

Q. Pardon me, I believe you are in error, Mr. Johnson. 
These are general principals. A. Yes.

Q. That control transfer, are they not! A. They control 
transfers, that’s correct.

Q. And transfers requested by a teacher are covered 
by subsection (3). A. That is correct.

Q. So these are general principals, is that correct? 
[463] A. That’s correct.

Q. Now, what about the transferring of Black teachers 
from Anglo to Black schools? Do you have any policy 
about that ? A. Black teachers from Anglo to Black 
schools? I don’t think that the matter of the ethnic group 
enters in except in our desire to get a greater distribution 
of Negro teachers into the white schools. However, I think 
it would be consistent and certainly not fair to a Black 
teacher who happened to be in an Anglo school if he had 
sufficient reasons and so on that he should not be hurt. 
However, we would discourage this if at all possible and 
we have—I can think of only one instance at the present

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



,311a

time where a Black teacher was transferred from a Anglo 
school to a Black school. There may be others, but I am 
aware of one.

Q. And I assume that certainly one of the reasons for 
that policy is that there are in fact so few Black teachers 
in the Anglo schools, is that correct? A. Proportionately, 
this is true, and we are constantly endeavoring to get more 
Black teachers into Anglo schools.

Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, what about the transfer of Anglo 
schools to black schools? A. The same would prevail, but 
unfortunately we do not have many requests in this 
respect.

[464] Q. We are still talking about general principals, 
are we not, Mr. Johnson? A. We are.

Q. Now, then, if you would refer to Subsection (2) 
14-2-2,1 take it that—and, again, this is a general principal, 
is it not? A. That is correct.

Q. One of your general principals is to achieve a faculty 
which is well balanced, is that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. And the criteria are in terms of experience, general 
background and competence, is that correct? A. That is 
correct, and we are—

Q. Now, is a balanced racial composition in a school’s 
faculty—is that an objective of your administration? A. 
It is one of the objectives, along with all the other criteria.

Q. It just didn’t happen to be mentioned in 14-2? A. 
That is correct.

Q. Is distribution of minority teachers throughout the 
District also an objective? A. A distribution to the extent 
that it does assist in a better educational program. I could 
amplify it in this respect, that we recognize the fact that 
in schools that are predominantly Black we believe that we 
need a greater number [465] of Black teachers because

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



31?a

I think there’s a better understanding in this respect. 
Now, the exact proportion is very difficult to arrive at and 
again I think this is very important. Likewise, in the 
Anglo schools I  think it is exceedingly important that there 
be a minority teacher, not as much from the standpoint 
of direct contact with the students as the assistance that 
such teacher would give to other members of the faculty 
and better understanding of the philosophy of the Denver 
Public Schools as it works toward a better ethnic relation­
ship.

E4663 Q. Now, it also says the fact that it should be 
well balanced in terms of expense, does it not, Mr. John­
son! A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then why are there so many inexperienced or less 
experienced teachers in such black schools as Smiley and 
Cole, Barrett and Stedman! A, I think you are taking this 
on the basis of these general principles, and we agree on 
these general principles, but I  think it is necessary to go 
into the entire Article 14 as it relates to transfer, and one 
of the reasons it is pretty largely this—

Q. Pardon me, Mr. Johnson, but my time is somewhat 
limited. You’ll have an opportunity to be reexamined by 
your counsel. I  believe you have answered my question.

Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, I  think the witness 
should be permitted to fully answer.

The Court: Yery well. Do you have something 
you wish to add?

The Witness: Yes, I  would, Your Honor. I would 
like to add this: that we must recognize this agree­
ment as a total agreement and consequnetly when 
vacancies occur in the Denver Public Schools 
through resignation or through retirement, all of

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



313a

those known vacancies must be posted twice, in the 
spring of the year, in May and June. And any 
teacher in the Denver Public Schools has a privilege 
of making a [4673 request to fill that, vacancy and 
this is in accordance with the agreement, and it also 
states in this agreement, referring to Article 14-3-5, 
no assignment of new teachers in the school system 
shall be made until all pending requests for transfer 
have been processed. So consequently these teachers 
are not requesting transfer to certain schools in the 
district.

Q. The black schools, is that correct? A. That’s right. 
I wouldn’t say necessarily the black schools. I think prob­
ably there is a greater number in lower socioeconomic 
areas so I would not specify black schools as such. But I 
think they get established in a particular community and 
when these schools are listed, there is not a request for 
transfer. Now, consequently, after this first go-around of 
vacancies occurs, then we have additional vacancies and 
we have vacancies that are set up on the basis of the 
previous request for transfer. Now, again, the experienced 
teachers in the school system have an opportunity to re­
quest those vacancies which leaves us then with the only 
vacancies in the school system at the time we go into the 
summer months, which are many of these vacancies that 
have not been bid for by teachers. Now it is necessary to 
have manpower in those schools so, consequently, we do 
proceed then in filling those vacancies to the best of our 
ability.

Very often during this period of time we counsel with 
some teachers and ask them to fill certain spots so that we 
can [4683 get this well-balanced staff. And sometimes we

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



314a

are successful. Now, with these vacancies in the summer­
time it is necessary that we fill them with new teachers of 
the Denver Public Schools and in our attempt to equalize 
educational opportunities we do attempt to assign older 
teachers who have had experience in the outside—outside 
the city in the schools, but again, we are not as successful 
as we would like to be because we suffer the same in Den­
ver as other large cities where roughly—under this there 
is turnover of teaching staff each year and this means we 
are handicapped in this respect.

So I thank you for being able to add this, but I think it 
is very important, that we assume that this article is taken 
in total rather than a portion.

Q. Now, I take it you did have my question in mind, 
didn’t you, Mr. Johnson, and that was why such schools 
in particular, Smiley and Cole, Barrett and Stedman, have 
such a high proportion of black teachers. Now, I thought 
that the gist of your answer was that there were two points 
to it, the first, that there is a greater transfer out from 
those schools, is that correct? A. I would say there is a 
greater request for transfer from those schools and we 
attempt to control it to the best of our ability, but with 
this agreement it stands to reason unless we counsel the 
teachers—unless the teachers are counseled to remain— 
we do have an agreement with the [469] Teachers Asso­
ciation.

Q. You’re not telling me you counsel the black teachers 
and ask them to remain? A. That we counsel with the black 
teachers to ask them to remain?

Q. Right. A. I wouldn’t say we never do. I think there 
are some black teachers in certain of these schools that 
are almost indispensable to those schools because of their 
knowledge of the situation and the community and so on.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



315a

But we do counsel with some of them to transfer to Anglo 
schools where we are of the opinion they can be of assis­
tance there.

Q. You also counsel them, as I understand it, with the 
experienced teachers in those schools and ask them to stay, 
is that correct? A. It may be the experienced teacher—- 
let us say that we take all things into consideration—ex­
perience is very important in the teaching profession, but 
not always a most important factor for a specific teaching 
position.

Q. Well, for example, Mr. Johnson, isn’t an experienced 
teacher better able to handle disciplinary problems that 
might arise in these schools? A. I  wish that I could say 
yes to that. I don’t think it’s always true. I think we have 
some experienced teachers who do not do as well as first- 
year teachers in this respect. £4703 I think it is generally 
known that experience would assist the teacher in this re­
spect, having had certain situations before. But I would 
not make a blanket statement that experienced teachers 
are better disciplinarians than first-year teachers.

Q. Mr. Johnson, as I  understand it, then, you try to get 
the experienced teachers in the black schools to stay, but 
you are not always successful? A. That is correct.

Q. And that is one of the reasons why we have lower 
teacher experience in the black schools, is that correct? 
A. I  think this would be correct.

Q. And the other reason, as I  understand it, is you do 
have these transfers out and you don’t have as many 
transfer-in requests? A. That is correct.

Q. So you end up with vacancies in those black schools? 
A. (Nods affirmatively.)

Q. And the only personnel left to fill those vacancies 
just happens to be the brand-new teachers, is that right?

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



316 a

A. That is correct. Excuse me, if I may, but not only the 
transfer-outs, it’s also the resignations from the teaching 
staff that I mentioned before, that adds to this particular 
problem.

Q. Now, I seem to recall your mentioning a statistic that 
[4713 in the elementary schools the teachers with no pre­
vious DPS experience may be a misleading characterization, 
is that correct? A. I  didn’t say that it was misleading. I 
merely indicated that a first-year teacher in the Denver 
Public Schools is not necessarily an inexperienced teacher 
in the profession because, as we speak of probationary 
teachers, this refers strictly to Denver Public School experi­
ence. It would not include experience in other districts.

Q. Now, this experience could have been gained in any 
place, couldn’t it; urban or rural, in other school districts? 
A. That is correct.

Q. And is there any reason to believe that the experi­
enced portion of no previous DPS experience teachers in 
the black schools is any higher than it is in the white 
schools? A. I’m sorry. Will you repeat that, please?

Q. Well, as I understand it, some of these new school­
teachers are experienced. A. Yes.

Q. Is there any effort made to place these experienced 
new teachers in the black schools ? A. Yes. There is the ef­
fort on the part of my position as an individual indicating 
to the executive director of Personnel Services that we 
should take a look at this background and experience and 
also the age element where it has [4723 an opportunity to 
offset other qualifications. Also, in these schools, our Per­
sonnel Services people consult very closely with principals 
in those particular areas in there and assist to build a better 
staff in those areas, and I would say they are given greater 
opportunities probably in the selection of teachers than

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



317a

other principals in the city. However, we are trying1 to 
strengthen even this. I think the principal should have more 
voice in the assignment of teachers in his school.

Q. Now, I take it you would have records which "would 
reflect the fact that some of these new teachers coming into 
these black schools are in fact experienced? A. Yes, there 
would be evidence in their application blank and the recom­
mendations and the certification of previous experience. 
We would have that.

Q. And you would have that for each of these individual 
schools we’re talking about, wouldn’t you; Barrett, Smiley— 
A. So far as teacher background, yes, we would have that.

Q. Now, as I understand it, teachers with seniority get 
preference as to transfer, is that correct, under Exhibit E? 
A. Let us say again, in accordance with this, teachers with 
seniority are given the preference. However, there are 
these other items in Article 14 that are taken into considera­
tion. However, a teacher who has seniority has a perfect 
right to ask our Director of Personnel Services why they 
are not [473] given a transfer because of seniority and it 
is essential in accordance with that agreement that the 
teacher be given an explanation, and it may be for any num­
ber of reasons that the teacher is not transferred even 
though he may have seniority.

Q. Now, the seniority aspect—could that be another fac­
tor which leads to the result of less experienced teachers in 
black schools? A. Yes, I  think the seniority factor would 
lead to this.

Q. Calling your attention then to Page 26 of Exhibit E, 
Mr. Johnson, Section 14-3-6, it speaks there in terms of 
considering the conveniences and wishes of the individual 
teacher, does it not? A. Yes.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



318a

Q. I take it that that doesn’t reflect what might he called 
a neighborhood teacher policy, does it? A. Let us say this, 
that the statement here indicates that they will be honored 
to the extent they do not conflict with the instructional re­
quirements and best interests of the school program. Let 
us say this, that a teacher who requests such transfer indi­
cates to our Personnel Services that there may be some 
reason that they want to be in a specific school, then what 
we are really saying here, that certainly on the basis of 
good personnel relationship with [474] employees—Cer­
tainly, a contented employee and a happy employee is very, 
very important. So, consequently, if this can be done on the 
basis of not being in conflict with the instructional program 
of the Denver Public Schools, I think it has been done.

In other words, good personnel policy indicates that it is 
the responsibility of those people in charge of personnel or 
the administration of schools to have a happy staff to the 
greatest degree, and if an individual is forced absolutely 
contrary to some legitimate reason and it’s not in conflict, 
certainly, I think this is consistent with good relationships.

Q. Well, now, this convenience of teacher aspect, that 
would apply to even a brand-new teacher once he was hired, 
would it not? A. It doesn’t apply in accordance with this 
agreement from the standpoint of the agreement. The 
agreement does not cover the new teacher. However, it 
does not alter good personnel relationships.

Q. Well, now, is my understanding- right then that Ex­
hibit E doesn’t cover probationary teachers ? A. This Ex­
hibit E covers the matters pertaining to teachers of the 
Denver Public Schools unless otherwise stated from the 
standpoint of recruitment and so on, and there are no points 
in here that refer to a teacher before he [475] is employed 
in the Denver Public Schools.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



319a

Q. Well, isn’t a probationary teacher an employee of the 
school district? A. A probationary teacher is, after he 
has begun his service with the Denver Public Schools.

Q. That’s what I ’m talking about. A. I  thought you 
were talking about newly-recruited teachers.

Q. I ’m talking about those in the course of his three-year 
probationary period? A. He is represented by this agree­
ment, yes.

Q. Now, this convenience factor, would it be something 
that would be taken into consideration in considering the re­
quest of an Anglo teacher to transfer out of a black school? 
A. Normally we would not transfer these individuals out 
of a black school if we refer to the principles of this par­
ticular case, depending, of course, upon other matters of 
competency.

Q. Well, Mr. Johnson, I’m talking now about a situation 
where that is the fact; where you’re considering the trans­
fer application of an Anglo teacher out of a black school.

Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, I want to make note 
of an objection to this form of questioning. We don’t 
know what counsel means by black school or white 
school. I think this has got to be with somewhat more 
precision.

[4763 Q. Mr. Johnson, do you know what I mean by black 
school, sir? A. I think you’re referring to a school that has 
a large number of Negro students. However, I don’t know 
whether you’re basing this upon percentages or not. We 
normally speak of these schools, where we have a large 
number of culturally-deprived pupils or target area schools, 
because the points you’re referring to do not necessarily 
refer to schools that are entirely or largely populated by

Hoivard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



320a

Negro pupils. It could be Spanish-American pupils or it 
could be Anglo pupils. And I ’m assuming that you’re refer­
ring pretty largely to schools where we have culturally- 
deprived pupils.

Q. I ’m talking about black schools, Mr. Johnson, because 
it’s the black schools that we’re focusing on in this particu­
lar hearing.

Now, I believe I have a question pending and the question 
is, when you are considering a transfer request from an 
Anglo teacher in a black school who wants to transfer out 
of that black school, is 14-3-6 one of the criteria that are 
employed in judging that Anglo teacher’s transfer? A. It 
would be employed there, and also your previous—

[477] Q. The answer to my question is yes? A. The 
answer is that they be given the same consideration as 
any other teacher with seniority prevailing.

Q. If you would refer then to Exhibit 26, over on Page 2, 
Paragraph 8, Exhibit 26 is Policy 1617-A, is it not, Mr. 
Johnson? A. That is correct,

Q. And 1617-A is supposedly the School Board’s policy 
on teacher transfer, is it not? A. No, the School Board 
policy on teacher transfer is this agreement which super­
sedes all policies regarding teacher transfer.

Q. All right, now, look at Page 2, Paragraph 8, Exhibit 
26, if you would. That Policy 1617-A provided, did it not, 
that certificated teachers were to wTait three years before 
applying for a transfer? A. That is correct.

Q. Well, is it still the policy of the district, Mr. Johnson? 
A. It is not the policy of the district. They may apply in 
accordance with this agreement. HowTever, again, seniority 
would normally prevail in this respect.

Q. Three years is the period of probation, is it not, 
Mr. Johnson? A. Tes.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



321a

£4783 Q. Now, is there anything in Exhibit E, the 
teacher’s contract, about how long a certificated teacher 
is to remain in a particular school before he transfers 
or requests a transfer? A. It indicates in here that 
seniority shall prevail and the interpretation of that, of 
course, is that on the basis of the transfer we do feel that 
a teacher probably should continue serving in the same 
school for a period of at least two to three years and that 
was the intent of the previous policy of the Board of 
Education.

Q. Well, Mr. Johnson, I ’m a little confused. Take a 
teacher who has been at a school for one year, who is certif­
icated. Is the fact that he has only been at that school for 
one year still one of the factors that you consider in passing 
upon his application for transfer? A. Yes, I think it 
would be considered, and I think in the ease of that teacher 
of one year I think the recommendation of our personnel 
services would be that this teacher should not be trans­
ferred at that particular time unless there be some other 
circumstances for the best interests of the educational 
program.

Q. But 1 take it under 1617-A when that was in full 
bloom, that it would take a rather exceptional circum­
stance, would it not, for a certificated teacher to be able to 
transfer out of a school in less than three years ? [479] A. 
Yes, it would, and I think this is also the case under the 
present—the existing agreement with DCTA.

Q. Do you think the teachers agree with you on that, 
Mr. Johnson? A. Well, let us again refer to the fact that 
it is—that we do have some other things in here, and even 
if this teacher—whether this teacher had one year ex­
perience or nine years experience, this agreement is so 
written that we can bring to the attention of the teacher

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



322a

the fact that this policy was written for the best interests 
of the educational program as it related to all teacher 
transfers, and I am certain that the—that this point could 
be brought up through the Denver Classroom Teachers 
Association by the teacher if they objected, but I am like­
wise certain that in our anxiety to attempt to hold a staff 
in a particular school then probably they would recognize 
this.

Q. All right, let’s then turn to 14-4 on Page 27 of Ex­
hibit E. These then are the general criteria for transfer 
requests initiated by the administration, are they not? 
A. Yes. Yes, sir.

Q. As I understand your testimony on Friday, such 
administration initiated requests under Exhibit E have 
impressed in them certain options to the subject teacher, 
is that correct? A. That is correct.

[480] Q. For example, when you ask a teacher to 
transfer out of a school into another school, you also have 
to give him an available—a list of available other options, 
is that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. And then what happens if he opts for one of those 
other options, rather than the one you had selected him 
for? A. I think we would again have to give him a definite 
reason why we wanted him in a specific situation and he 
would certainly have the recourse of a grievance if he did 
not feel that we had been fair.

Q. So, I take it this then is one of the—one of the factors 
that sort of ties your hands, for example, in transferring- 
out some of these concentrations of Black teachers in the 
Black schools, is that correct? A. I  don’t think this would 
necessarily tie our hands in this respect, because if these 
teachers had seniority and requested transfers—

Howard L. Johnson—-for Defendants—Cross



323a

Q. Pardon me, we are talking about administration 
initiated requests, Mr. Johnson. A. Oh, in this particular 
—in this particular request, if we were to transfer a teacher 
out of these schools, any of these schools that you are 
mentioning, then it would be necessary for us to give them 
a list of the vacancies throughout the city.

£4813 Q. And you expect that they would ask—well, 
what do you expect to happen in such circumstances? A. 
Well, I think you are asking me a question here—we would 
have to know the individual. Who is the individual? If 
you could specify the background of the individual that 
requested this, what his ideas may be, I  could give you 
the answer probably on a guess as to the type of school 
that he would want and so on, but to just ask me point 
blank on any individual I couldn’t begin to realize what 
he may request.

Q. Mr. Johnson, has your administration ever used 14-4 
to even attempt to transfer a Black teacher out of a 
Black school? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How often? A. I’m not in a position to tell you 
that number for this reason, as I related earlier these are 
handled by the Director of Personnel Services, but I do 
know of at least two cases of this type.

Q. When did that take place, Mr. Johnson? A. We had 
one within the period of the last year, year and a half. 
We had another one a matter of about four or five years 
ago before this agreement came into being-.

Q. Well, that one four or five years ago isn’t even 
relevant to my question. A. That is correct. It would 
be relevant to the old [482J policy.

Q. So, you have had one attempt by this administration? 
A. I  stated that I  know of one. However, we must re­
member that the Directors of Personnel Services, ele­

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



324a

mentary and secondary, handle these transfers, and they 
do not report to the Deputy Superintendent or to the 
Superintendent regarding these. These are handled at that 
level.

Q. Well, a year and a half ago you weren’t the Deputy 
Superintendent, were you, Mr. Johnson? A. That is cor­
rect and at that time they were not referred to the Assistant 
Superintendent unless there was some conflict.

Q. Well, let’s turn then, Mr. Johnson, to the hiring of 
new teachers. As I understand Mr. Cruter’s testimony, in 
1968 there were approximately 686 new teachers hired by 
the District. Does that sound about correct to you? A. 
Yes, it would be approximately that number.

Q. And about 39 of these were Negroes, is that right? 
A. I don’t know the exact number at the moment, but 
I would imagine on the basis of new teachers hired this 
would not be too far from being correct.

Q. You don’t mean you have some sort of quota, do you, 
Mr. Johnson? A. No, sir, but I know what experience has 
brought us over a period of years.

[483] Q. You could tell us from your records, could 
you not, Mr. Johnson, just how many of these new Negro 
teachers just happened to end up in Black schools? A. 
Yes, our personnel services would have such records in 
the assignment of all new teachers.

Q. As I understand your testimony, each new teacher 
applicant is given an in-depth interview, is that correct? 
A. That’s correct.

Q. How long does this interview last? A. This inter­
view—I think when we speak of in-depth, I think there 
are two parts of it. One is a close examination of the 
application of the teacher, the references, the gathering 
of references, the transci’ipts and other pertinent informa­

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



325a

tion. The interview vary in length of time—I am speaking 
now of the actual face to face contact—and probably wmuld 
run 15 minutes to a half an hour.

Q. Would you say that most of your applicants—well, 
you tell me, out of your applications received, approxi­
mately what percentage of applicants get to the point 
where they have a personal interview? A. Well, as far 
as the applicants are concerned, any individual who has 
submitted his complete folder—that’s the application blank, 
transcript of credits, names of references—and our gather­
ing of those references and this data must be on hand first. 
On this basis, all individuals [484] who have submitted 
that information are entitled to an interview.

Q. Now, you mentioned on Friday some of the char­
acteristics of the teachers which you are looking for with 
respect to the teaching of the urban culturally deprived 
child. Do you recall that testimony, Mr. Johnson? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Now, is this personal interview—is this one of the 
devices that you used for making this determination? A. 
It is one of them, along with the others.

Q. Well, what others do you use in this particular re­
gard? A. The general background, previous experience, 
recommendations of other people and statements by the 
teacher at the time that-—-written statements that he may 
include in his folder or with his folder.

Q. Now, I believe you also stated on Friday, Mr. John­
son, that last year the School District had some 3,000 ap­
plications from new teachers. A. Approximately that num­
ber.

Q. About how many of those received one of these in- 
depth interviews? A. I  would say that all of those that 
answered the schedule for interviewing. When we speak of

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



326a

this 3,000, these are individuals who have been interviewed. 
They have [485] all their complete files and have been 
interviewed, because we do not consider an individual an 
applicant until such time as he submits such file and has 
been interviewed, so I would say 100—approximately 100 
of these.

Q. All right. Three thousand of them. How many of 
those interviews took place on college campuses, for ex­
ample? A. I  would imagine that on college campuses that 
there were probably 35 to 40 of the colleges that were 
visited.

Q. And your recruiting year runs from what month to 
what month? A. Usually starts about the middle of No­
vember and—November, December, usually in the Colorado 
colleges, and then during the months of January, February 
and March and April.

Q. So, November through April? A. I t’s really about 
the middle of November or first of December. It varies, 
depending upon the schedules being arranged through the 
colleges and universities.

Q. Now, how many people are employed in the personnel 
department who participate in this interviewing process? 
A. In the personnel department, we have about five—five 
individuals in Personnel Services per se who participate 
in this. In addition to this, principals, directors and others 
are called upon to assist in interviewing, and I would [4863 
imagine last year as I  recall Personnel Services submitted 
a list of about 20 principals and directors who were in­
cluded some way or other in recruiting.

Q. Is my understanding correct, Mr. Johnson, that 
presently the personnel department employs no Negroes? 
A. That is not entirely correct. As of this last spring, 
we made a transfer of a Negro to that department in re-

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



gard to certain activities of Personnel Services, However, 
he is not listed at the present time under personnel, budget- 
wise, but the transfer is to be made the new budget year, 
and in the meantime the Division of Education is carrying 
this individual, but he is now under the direction of the 
Director of Personnel Services,

Q. How many Negro recruiters are there? A. The 
Negro recruiters that are listed for last year, as I recall 
there were three, four, that were listed.

Q. Is Mr. Cruter one? A. Mr. Cruter is one.
Q. Mr. Ward another? A. Mr. Ward is another.
Q. Who are the other two? A. Mr. Oliver, as I  recall, 

is on the list, and I was under the impression that Mr. 
Small was called upon. I would not vouch for that, so let 
us say these three.

Q. All right, now, you mentioned the fact that you 
[487] recruited in 12 southern teacher colleges, is that 
correct? A. I did not mention that, but I think that is 
correct. I said we did recruit in southern colleges and 
universities. I don’t recall the exact number. I may have, 
but I am not certain—

The Court: I think Mr. Cruter stated that.
Mr. Greiner: I  am sorry.

Q. But that is a fact, Mr. Johnson? A. That’s approxi­
mately the number, yes.

Q. Do you know what the background of teacher grad­
uates from those schools is, Mr. Johnson? Let me be more 
specific. For example, do they come from an urban or a 
rural environment? A. I think probably the composition 
of such colleges and universities would be very similar to 
other private colleges in the United States, a combination

Hoivard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



328a

of both. I would presume that probably in the southern 
universities, as is true of—or, the southern colleges, as 
well as is true of the northern, I  imagine there are quite 
a large number of rural students. This seems to be the 
case in most colleges of this nature.

Q. Now, when we are talking about these southern teach­
ers colleges, Mr. Johnson, am I right in assuming that 
we’re talking about Negro teacher colleges? A. That is 
correct.

Q. Now, how many of the graduates from those col­
leges, [488] Mr. Johnson, come from an integrated educa­
tional background? A. I  don’t know. I am speaking, of 
course, in the case of secondary school experience. I pre­
sume this is what you are referring to.

Q. Their prior public school experience. A. That I 
would not know.

Q. And these teacher colleges are primarily all Black, 
are they not? A. Yes, that is the ones that you are re­
ferring to, although we have many institutions where they 
are both.

Q. Now, I believe that you stated that in 19—well, as of 
September, 1968, you had increased the number of Negro 
teachers to approximately 400 in the school system, is that 
correct? A. That would be certificated people in the school 
system. As I recall, the latest figure I have is just short 
of that, about 394, the figure that I recollect, roughly 400.

Q. The figure that I have is 322. A. Have you included 
the administrators in this particular group, because we 
are referring to certificated employees?

Q. Oh, I  see, I believe your testimony concerned only 
teachers? A. Yes, I  was speaking of certificated people.

Q. So you have got 322 Black teachers, is that correct? 
[489] A. I don’t know the exact number. I only know the 
total number of certificated employees.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



329a

Q. In September of ’67 you bad about 311 Black teachers? 
A. That sounds to be approximately right.

Q. And in 1965 you had 273 and a half Black teachers? 
A. That would be correct. Let me explain the half. One 
half, maybe it would be a half teacher in a school but 
may have one half other assignment.

Q. He works half days, is that right? A. Would work 
half days or half in another division.

Q. Now, in 1965 do you know approximately what per­
cent of all teachers were Negro in Denver? A. I would 
imagine approximately 7, 8 percent,

Q. And as of September, 1968, do you know whether 
that percentage has gone up or gone down? A. I would 
say it is approximately the same because of the increase 
in the number of teachers.

Q. Now, there has been an increase in the number of 
Black teachers, is that right? A. That’s correct.

Q. From 273 and a half to 322, and there has also been 
a similar increase, has there not, overall in the number of 
teachers hired by the schools? A. That is true.

E4903 Q. So, today you don’t have percentage-wise more 
Black teachers than you had back in ’65? A. I  would 
imagine it is approximately the same.

Q. Now, again, I believe you have Exhibit 20 in front 
of you. Would you turn please to Page D-13. Now, this 
committee was formed in 1962, is that correct, the com­
mittee that issued this report? A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Now, during the course of their studies and delibera­
tions, did that committee or members thereof meet with 
you, Mr. Johnson? A. Members of the committee met with 
me. I did not meet with the committee as a whole.

Q. Now, this committee says here that it is convinced

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—-Cross



330a

that race has been relevant in the assignment of teachers, 
is that correct1? A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Now, did that—and this was yonr department? A. 
That’s correct.

Q. Now, who was actually doing the assignment of new 
teachers, say, back in 1963 and ’64? A. The direct assign­
ments of those new teachers would have been made by the 
directors of elementary personnel, director of secondary 
school personnel services, in consultation with other staff 
members, principals, as well as [491] instructional staff.

Q. When did they leave? A. When did they leave?
Q. Yes, are they still assigning teachers? A. They are 

still assigning teachers, that is correct.
Q. Now, there has been an improvement, has there not, 

Mr. Johnson, in the distribution of Black teachers through­
out the school district? A. Yes, there is apparent improve­
ment on the basis of Black teachers being assigned to 
other schools and we are moving in the direction of at­
tempting improvement in certain schools.

[492] Q. From the standpoint of the administrator of 
this system, and of this redistribution, if you will, what is 
your objective in that redistribution? What are you do­
ing? A. We see the necessity for teachers of various ethnic 
groups working very closely together and the fact that a 
school is the closest unit that we have, we believe that a 
majority group teacher, being in the midst of that par­
ticular faculty, can assist a great deal as the faculty is 
working on projects relating to minority. And we think 
it is also well worthwhile for pupils in the school to have 
an opportunity to associate with the teacher minority 
group if they happen to be of the Anglo ethnic group.

Howard L. Johnson^—for Defendants-—-Cross



331a

Q. So there are two purposes, one is to give, say, the 
Anglo teachers a little more knowledge about the Black 
teacher and the other is to give the Anglo students a little 
more knowledge about the Black teacher? A. To the extent 
we can. We must recognize, however, that unless they are 
in a special assignment that probably it would he pretty 
difficult for a teacher to have contact with very many 
Anglo students because of class size and so on.

The Court: Nevertheless, I assume you feel it’s 
important. That was the question.

The Witness: Yes, we feel that it is important. 
We’re working in that direction.

£4933 Q. Well, Mr. Johnson, do you feel, having say 
one Negro teacher in an Anglo school satisfies that objec­
tive? A. No, sir. I do not feel that it satisfies it. And 
we’re working as diligently as we can in the direction of 
getting more minority group teachers, and we have worked 
very diligently in this respect. But, unfortunately, we do 
need qualified applicants and we’re trying desperately to 
get them.

Q. Now, Exhibit 20 was issued on March 1, 1964? A. Yes.
Q. That was some five years ago ? A. Yes.
Q. And there is still 27 elementary schools with no black 

teachers, is that correct? A. Yes, that’s approximately 
correct. You’re speaking now of black teachers and not 
minority teachers ?

Q. That’s right. A. Yes.
Q. If you use all minority rather than just black, then 

it goes down to what? About 22 with all minority teach­
ers? A. It would be less than that. I  think the most 
recent counts we have would be roughly about 15.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Gross



332a

Q. Would you please turn then to Page D15 in Exhibit 
20 and I have particular reference to Paragraph 7 on that 
page.

Have you found that?
[494] A. Yes, sir.
Q. That’s one of the recommendations of the committee, 

is it not! A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it says that in policy statements adopted by the 

board and the administration it should be made clear that 
teacher preference as to assignment is subordinate to other 
criteria? It says that? A. That is correct.

Q. And it also says that each qualified teacher in the 
system is expected to be able to teach and to be prepared 
to teach in any school where the administration thinks he 
can be most effective, is that correct? A. That’s the state­
ment.

Q. Now, is there somewhere in the written policies of 
the district where this recommendation has been adopted? 
A. Not exactly as stated here, no. This is not correct. 
However, when we say expected to be able to teach and to 
to be prepared to teach in any other school, I  would say 
the criteria used in recruiting would bear this out; that 
an individual— For instance, when teachers are hired by 
the Denver Public Schools they are hired to teach in the 
Denver Public Schools and not for a specific school. And, 
consequently, in the interviewing, in the background of 
those individuals, we assume that the individual is able to 
teach [495] and prepared to teach in any school.

Q. So I take it you have—you feel you have adopted 
this policy, this recommendation? A. I  would say that to 
the extent that this is one of the criteria for the selection 
of teachers from the standpoint of his willingness to do 
this, this is correct.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



333a

Q. And I then can assume that, for example, when you’re 
having one of these interviews with a prospective Negro 
teacher, that you discuss with him whether or not he 
would be willing to teach in an Anglo school? A. That is 
correct.

Q. And the same would hold true with respect to a pros­
pective Anglo teacher as to his willingness to teach in a 
black school? A. Yes. However, let me amplify it in this 
respect. This is the thought of the question. However, it’s 
easy to answer yes or no. I think that a good interviewer 
must look deeper into this rather than ask the question 
pointblank because you will get the answer definitely in 
the direction you want.

Q. You will get the right answer? A. You’ll get the right 
answer, that’s right. So, consequently, let me say this is 
one of the purposes of the interviews, to find this out. But 
it is not asked the direct question, whether he would be 
willing to teach in an £496] Anglo school or whether they 
would be willing to teach in the other. I think it’s im­
portant that this information be gained because, frankly, 
we do not want teachers in the Denver Public Schools, 
whether it’s an Anglo teacher teaching in an Anglo school 
or whether it be a black teacher in a black school, who 
does not have the sincere objective in the direction of good 
relationship—good racial relationship. I think this is detri­
mental—just as detrimental to have an Anglo teacher in 
an Anglo school who has a dislike for other ethnic groups. 
I think he could do as much harm there as he would do 
even if he were assigned in a minority school.

Q. I don’t think that anyone would disagree with you, 
Mr. Johnson. But I thought you told me you actually 
asked these questions in the course of your interviews and 
I take it you do not? A. That’s the reason I amplified this.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



334a

I said this is information that we want. I  purposely ampli­
fied it to say that you wouldn’t get the answer you want 
by just asking the question directly.

Q. How do you go about obliquely getting this infor­
mation if you don’t get it directly? A. Pretty largely on 
the basis of asking about the background experience that 
they have had; finding out their relationships with various 
organizations within the community, their college activi­
ties, whether or not these are groups [4973 in which we 
consider the human relations is of the highest order and 
so on. There are many leading questions that would vary 
with the particular applicant and the leads he gave you.

Q. Yhat kind of background would, for example, lead 
your interviewer to conclude that the Anglo—that an 
Anglo would be willing to teach in a black school, for 
example? A. Well, we have many requests of many Anglos 
for teaching in black schools.

Q. But not quite enough? A. Not quite enough. But 
we have these. I  think probably, on the basis of the back­
ground as recorded from a college or university regarding 
the sociology courses they may have, the type of student 
activities they participated in, whether they are graduates 
of a school that may have a reputation as being a well- 
oriented school from the standpoint of racial relations, 
and particularly an integrated college or university, and 
these are some of the things. Although we can find the 
quality teacher we want probably in strictly the Negro 
school or strictly the Anglo school, but we must do it with 
care.

Q. Sociology is generally a required course, isn’t it, 
Mr. Johnson? A. We are thankful that recently this is 
getting to be [498] required. However, this was not neces­

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



335a

sarily a requirement of education graduates a few years 
back. We find that the colleges and universities are mov­
ing in this direction and it’s one of the reasons I think that 
the academic background of our newer teachers in the 
school system or any school system is of a better nature.

Q. I believe you indicated earlier that these black 
schools, Smith, Stedman, Barrett, Hallett—

Mr. Creighton: I object to that characterization, 
Your Honor.

The Court: Well—
Mr. Creighton: He can call them by name.
The Court: I don’t think it’s practical. I think 

he ought to have some way to refer to these schools 
in a group. Do you have any suggestions?

Mr. Creighton: Yes, majority black; majority 
white.

The Court: Well, if that would make you feel 
better. Be assured that we are not going to be in­
fluenced by any characterizations here. We’re seek­
ing out the true facts.

Mr. Creighton: I  am mindful we are making a 
record, too, Your Honor.

The Court: Beg pardon?
Mr. Creighton: I’m mindful that we’re making a 

record, too.
£4993 The Court: Well, I  will leave it to you, Mr. 

Greiner, to work this out.
Mr. Greiner: I’ll do my best, Your Honor.

Q. Mr. Johnson, these majority black schools, they have 
a greater turnover of teachers, I believe you indicated, is 
that right? A. Yes. I  would say that the schools that you

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



336a

mentioned probably have a greater turnover of teachers, but 
not necessarily so. I can think of two of those schools that 
probably does not have a greater turnover.

Q. Which ones! A. I  think that you included Hallett 
there, for instance, and I think Hallett—I think Hallett 
probably has less turnover than the average in the city, 
although I would want to check my records on that par­
ticular point.

The Court: You told us earlier that there were 
more vacancies on the faculty in those schools than 
in other schools.

The Witness: Your Honor—
The Court: That you have a problem of filling 

vacancies all the time in these schools.
The Witness: Yes, Your Honor, but I brought out 

the point that vacancies exist in the summer, filling 
them with these new teachers. We have vacancies 
throughout the city, but they are filled during the 
months of May and June— [5003 or April and May 
by our experienced teachers who have requested 
transfers. That’s the reason we have a greater num­
ber of vacancies in this particular area. That is 
correct.

By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Now, the 1964 report focused on a concentration of 

black teachers in the black schools, is that correct, Mr. 
Johnson! Or, pardon me. In the majority black schools! 
A. Well, in some instances, it so happens there are schools 
that show a majority of black teachers but I believe, if my 
recollection is correct, I  think Phillips is a school—and I

Howard L. Johnson-—for Defendants—Cross



337a

don’t believe this is one we have attempted to get a Negro 
or Spanisii-American teacher in—I believe that’s a good 
example.

Q. Phillips is an integrated school, is it not! A. Well, I 
think on the basis of percentagewise, it depends on what you 
call an integrated school.

Q. It’s predominantly Anglo! A. Well, then, we might 
move to Hallett. Hallett, I  think, has—I think that out of 
that faculty they have, I  think, three teachers. So I would 
say that it doesn’t hold true. Although I would concur with 
you generally, I would concur with you generally that we do 
have a concentration in a number of those schools. That’s 
correct.

Q. I think you would be working to reducing the concen­
trations of black teachers in these majority black or [501] 
predominantly black schools. A. I would say that we are 
attempting to do this. That is correct.

Q. Now, you mentioned Hallett. I see that in 1965 Hallett 
had one black teacher and that in 1968 it had three. A. 
That is correct. And I think probably on the basis of pro­
portion, and I ’m not certain of the proportion that we 
should have for the best interests of the school—but we do 
know that this has helped the faculty.

Q. Barrett in 1965 had eight black teachers and today it 
has 10, is that correct? A. And the proportion would be 
about the same. I think they are roughly—I think about 
fifty percent.

Q. Well, according to my figures in 1965 Barrett had 20 
teachers and today it has 19, Mr. Johnson. A. That is 
right.

Q. And Smiley is another example, isn’t it? Ten black 
teachers in 1965, 23 today, is that right? A. That is cor­
rect.

Howard L. Johnson—-for Defendants—Cross



Q. Cole is another one. Twenty-seven in 1965 and 31 
today. A. I would say all the figures that you are stating 
I think generally are correct. I  do not have the figures be­
fore me and I am assuming that you have those from a re­
liable source.

[5023 Q. Then I take it your efforts to reduce the con­
centration of Negro teachers in predominantly black schools 
hasn’t been very effective, has it, Mr. Johnson? A. Not as 
effective as we would like to have it. But we have been ef­
fective in incorporating a greater number of black teachers 
in the Anglo schools.

Q. We touched briefly on—It was discussed briefly in 
your testimony on Friday concerning building capacity. 
Do you recall that testimony? A. I  think the question was 
asked of me regarding the formula of the 30 pupils per 
classroom.

Q. And that is what’s known as rated capacity, is that 
right? A. Yes, sir, it could be called a rated capacity or 
normal capacity.

Q. And it is the rated capacities which are published bv 
the school district, is that right? A. They are published 
in this lespect; that this is the figure that is used by Plan­
ning and Engineering for the reports that go to the Board 
of Education.

Q. Well, it goes to the public, too, doesn’t it? A. The 
public-—it has access to these records. But it is of a con­
sistent manner in setting the normal capacity of a school.

Q. Well, now, then, I take it that there is also another 
[5033 kind of capacity and this is arrived at by more sub­
jective criteria, is that correct? A. This is not necessarily 
numerical or published capacity. There are many things
taken into consideration at the time that a building_when
this building is used. For instance, we do know that there

338a

Howard L. Johnson-—for Defendants—Cross



339a

are some older buildings that probably have 30 or maybe to 
a greater capacity. We know there are many situations 
where 30 is probably a lower figure than we have. But in 
addition to this particular thing the physical structure, the 
special programs in the building, the types of things that 
our division of education wishes to utilize the building for, 
would be all taken into consideration.

Q. But now I take it that wasn’t the gist of your testi­
mony on Friday, that a school, for example, such as, oh, 
Barrett School or Smith School, with 12 mobile units or 
Stedman School with 4 mobile units—I take it you agree 
those schools are currently overcrowded, is that right? 
Over capacity? A. No, I don’t think that I wmuld concur 
entirely with this, for this reason: that we have made 
attempts to relieve those schools through various means 
such as transportation out of those communities. You have 
already indicated the mobile units. And I think we are 
maintaining educational programs in many of those schools 
probably that would have [504] fewer pupils per class­
room than the others; double sessions are sometimes used, 
and the extended school day.

Q. Would you agree, Mr. Johnson, that when you are 
dealing with these predominantly minority schools that 
rated capacity generally overstates their actual capacity? 
A. I  think that could be a generalization, yes.

Q. And a good example of that is Smiley, isn’t it? Smiley 
has a rated capacity of 1,635 students. Last year it had 1,553 
students. Is that correct? A. That is correct.

[505] Q. Yet, it was on double sessions? A. It was on 
double sessions upon the request for certain special pro­
grams, additional personnel and so on, so this is correct. 
Smiley is one good example.

Q. I  believe you mentioned limited open enrollment.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants— Cross



340a

This was a program that began in September of 1964? A. 
That is correct.

Q. And this was begun, was it not, at about the same 
time that the optional attendance zones were expanded? 
A. Yes, at the same time, as I  recall.

Q. Now, it is true, isn’t it, that limited open enrollment 
had no racial balancing conditions attached to it? A. That 
is correct.

Q. And under limited open enrollment the student had 
to supply his own transportation? A. That is correct.

Q. And this was the policy then of the district until 
what? November of 1968, is that correct? A. Yes.

Q. So that was the policy for some four years ? A. That 
is correct.

Q. Would you agree, Mr. Johnson, that limited open en­
rollment with no transportation provided by the school 
district made it somewhat easier for Angles to participate 
in the program than it did Blacks? [506] A. No, I would 
not agree on that. Largely for this reason, that there is 
no stipulation regarding the ethnic factor. There is no 
transportation, but for reasons stated there was an op­
portunity for the Black students to request the open en­
rollment to schools not too far away and many of them 
did. It also enabled those white students who wished to 
go to the schools in the northeast Denver area an oppor­
tunity for them to take advantage of it, so I don’t think 
that it would indicate one way or the other from the stand­
point of their ability to take advantage of this. In fact, 
this was the purpose of the limited open enrollment in 
1962, because we had many requests for parents to trans­
fer their children to certain schools.

Q. Well, now, you would agree, would you not, Mr. 
Johnson, that limited open enrollment really didn’t serve

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—-Gross



341a

to integrate any particular schools, did it? A. Yes, I think 
it served to integrate. I don’t have the exact figures before 
me, but I do know that it did serve to integrate certain 
schools. I think probably a good example of this, because 
I had referred it to George Washington extention of 
boundary line, George Washington, at the same time that 
the boundary line was changed, there was an integration, 
and I believe at the present time there is somewhere be­
tween 85 and 100 Negro students in George Washington 
as compared with roughly ten pupils at the time [507] 
prior to this open enrollment. I  use this only as one ex­
ample and—but, there are others, so I think that the point 
is that it serves the purpose both ways, but I think it 
would be a mistake to say that it had no effect.

Q. Mr. Johnson, limited open enrollment could be used, 
could it not, by an Anglo student in a transitional school, 
one that was going from Anglo to majority Blacks, could 
be used by that student to get out of that school and go to 
a predominantly Anglo school, could it not? A. Yes, the 
limited open enrollment would provide this. There is no 
stipulation regarding the ethnic factor.

Q. And, in fact, some Anglos used the limited open en­
rollment for just that purpose, did they not? A. There 
was evidence that many of them used it to go from a pre­
dominantly Anglo school to another predominantly Anglo 
school. Likewise, we found there was a great deal of 
transfer in the northeast Denver area on schools that had 
similar proportions of Blacks by Black students, merely 
requesting transfer from school to school there, so it was 
working both ways. There seemed to be no exact pattern 
in this respect.

Q. Do you have any question in mind, Mr. Johnson? 
A. Do I have your question in mind? As it refers to the

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



342a

opportunity for an Anglo to move to another Anglo and 
a Black to another Black?

[508] Q. That’s the one. Now, what’s the answer to 
that question? A. Anglo to Anglo?

Q. An Anglo in a predominantly Black school trans­
ferring to a predominantly Anglo school. A. It would he 
possible under that arrangement.

Q. I asked you if it was not in fact done, Mr. Johnson. 
A. I  don’t know that-—not to any great degree that I  can 
recall, because I think that in an limited open enrollment 
we found that more people usually stayed pretty well 
within the confines. The numbers involved citywide would 
indicate that there was no great number, and as I recall 
a proportionate number of Negro pupils who requested 
it was almost as many as Anglos, although they consti­
tuted only about 15 percent of the population of the city, 
so I—

Q. Well, Mr. Johnson, I am handing you what has been 
marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 99, and on Page 4 that ex­
hibit reflects, does it not, the number of transfers received 
by Montclair School. A. That is correct.

Q. Yes, sir. How many came from Stedman, Mr. John­
son? A. Five from Stedman.

Q. How many came from Montclair Annex?

Mr. Creighton: I object, Your Honor, until this 
exhibit is offered and admitted.

[509] The Court: Hasn’t it been received yet?
Mr. Greiner: It hasn’t been received?
Mr. Creighton: No.
The Court: What number is it ?
Mr. Greiner: Number 99, Your Honor.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



343a

The Court: I have no record of it having been 
received.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

Q. Can you identify Exhibit 99 for us from the front 
page? Exhibit 99 was prepared by the Division of Per­
sonnel Services, is that correct, Mr. Johnson? A. Yes, 
this evidently—September 16, 1966—

Q. So this was prepared by your Department, is that 
correct? A. Evidently was.

The Court: Do you consider it authentic?
Mr. Creighton: This is one we—
The Court: He says his department prepared it.
Mr. Creighton: Yes, if I may, let me look at it.

It is authentic, I am sure,
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer 99.
Mr. Creighton: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.

(Whereupon Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 99 was re­
ceived in evidence.)

Q. Now, where were we? We were with five transfers 
£510] from Stedman and one from Montclair Annex, is 
that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. Now, handing you what has been marked for iden­
tification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 100, I ask you if you can 
identify that? A. Yes, I imagine this would be released 
at the same time.

Q. Exhibit 100 was also prepared by your department? 
A. Yes, I would think so.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer Ex­
hibit 100.



344a

Mr. Creighton: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.

(Whereupon Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 100 was re­
ceived in evidence.)

Q. Now, I believe that Exhibit 100 shows the racial and 
ethnic characteristics of students participating in the 
limited open enrollment program, does it not, Mr. John­
son? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, if you will refer to the Montclair I believe it 
is, how many of those six students transferring into to 
Montclair were Anglos, Mr. Johnson? A. To Montclair 
would be four.

Q. Four out of six, right? [5113 A. Four out of six.
Q. Now, did you have anything to do with the volun­

tary enrollment program that began in the second semester 
of this past school year? A. In consultation with other 
members of the staff, yes, sir.

Q. That was passed by the Board in November of 1968? 
A. That is correct.

Q. Now, when the Board passed that, was it your under­
standing that the administration was to encourage par­
ticipation in voluntary open enrollment? A. It was to 
encourage in the voluntary, that is correct.

Q. Was the administration to offer any assistance in 
the establishment of voluntary open enrollment program? 
A. That is correct.

Q. Well, what did the administration do, Mr. Johnson, 
in those regards? A. The administration members of 
the staff moved forward in trying to implement that at 
a very late time in the school year, at a school semester, 
trying to achieve this for the date I believe of the second

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



345a

semester of January 25th, with the Christmas intermission 
included at that particular time.

Q. Were letters sent out to parents telling them [512] 
about voluntary open enrollment? A. As I recall, those 
were prepared by the school-community relations, and 
they were contacted, yes, and the Division of Education 
also had contacted principals regarding letters.

Q. Is Plaintiff's’ Exhibit 36 the form letter that was 
used by the administration? A. This came out of the 
Division of Education, but I have seen this particular 
letter, yes.

Mr. Greiner: Is 36 in evidence ?
The Court: No.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer Ex­

hibit.
Mr. Creighton: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 36 was re­
ceived in evidence.)

Q. Now, other than the mailing of Exhibit 36, Mr. John­
son, what did the administration do? A. Well, the re­
port that I had on this, contacts were made with—to the 
administrative directors of elementary education and sec­
ondary education with the principals that they move for­
ward as fully as they could toward the implementation of 
this particular plan.

Q. Did your department, Mr. Johnson, receive any [513] 
requests for assistance from parents trying to establish 
VOE programs? A. They weren’t directly by my depart­
ment but I know one situation where I discussed the mat­
ter with a group of parents.

Howard L, Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



346 a

Q. What school was involved? A. As I recall, I am 
not certain of the exact school. These parents indicated 
they represented a number of schools in southeast Denver 
and Hallett School.

Q. These were Anglo parents? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they wanted to get together some Anglo stu­

dents and voluntarily open enroll them in Hallett School, 
is that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. And what did they ask you to do, Mr. Johnson? A. 
They asked us to move forward on the basis of assisting 
them to get as I recall about 300 or 400 parents and they 
wanted to send a letter out right after the principal had 
sent out a letter indicating that they were interested in 
gaining these parents, but they had a couple of stipula­
tions in the letter and one on the basis that there would 
be these transfers if Hallett could be predominantly an 
Anglo school. That is, it would be more than 50 percent.

Q. Well, now, Mr. Johnson, this letter that this [5143 
group of Anglo parents wanted the administration to 
send out, that was going to Black parents, was it not? 
A. No, I think there was a letter that went out to Black 
parents. I don’t recall that the letter they had—although 
I think that they were working with a group from Hallett 
School in addition, but the letter they discussed with me 
was one to go to white parents encouraging them to sign 
up to go to Hallett School.

Q. Now, did you get a similar request from a group 
of Hallett parents for administrative assistance? A. I 
think that there was a—you are now asking questions 
that were directly related to the Division of Education 
and the Division of School-Community Relations. I was 
not involved in that except as I would be as Deputy Super­
intendent and knowing about it. Now, I can tell you gen­

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants— Cross



347a

erally in this respect, but I did not work directly with 
them. The only direct involvement I had was that at the 
time that the parents in southeast Denver came into the 
administration building to see the Executive Director for 
Elementary Education. He asked me if they could meet 
with me and I met with them and discussed that letter. 
Now, I know that there are many other letters. I know 
there was a great deal of involvement, but this did not 
come directly through me.

Q. You personally received no communications from 
[5153 Black parents at Hallett? A. I ’m not aware of 
direct communications you mean. I am aware, however, 
that the Black—that the parents in Hallett were working 
through the Executive Director of Elementary Education 
and School-Community Relations to establish this program. 
Now, I do not recall a direct request to me on this, but 
I  was aware of this situation and, frankly, this was a part 
of our attempt to gain integration between the schools 
of southeast Denver and Hallett.

Q. Now, what the Hallett parents wanted, was it not, 
was to find one Anglo school where under YOE all of those 
Black children transfer to? A. I don’t know the particular 
details. I  understand that the Hallett parents who were 
interested in this wanted to Transfer in order to relieve 
and make room for the Anglo parents.

Q. Well, it was just the other side of the coin of the 
University Park program was it not? A. That’s correct.

Q. Now, what help did they receive, Mr. Johnson? A. 
They received the help of the principal. They received 
the help of the Department of Elementary Education and 
also the school-community relations to the extent it was 
possible at that late date and would not confuse the entire 
issue. The concern that our administrators had at that

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—-Cross



348a

[5163 particular moment was not with the plan. They were 
heartily in favor of the plan but it was the confusion that 
was existing, particularly when one of the stipulations 
was that there be sufficient number of white parents who 
accept this and a sufficient number to exchange and this 
happening really during the early part of December, in 
fact, I am not—the Board of Education at its regular meet­
ing on November 21-—I see no date on this communication 
from elementary education, but we know that this was 
an attempt to get this entire thing done within a—prior 
to January 27 opening of school, so, consequently, there 
was a time element here that was almost impossible to meet, 
particularly with the stipulation that there had to be this 
balance and the number involved was almost impossible 
and our staff members had some indication and I think 
it was stipulated that there should be about 300 Anglo 
parents and 300 Negro parents, and as far as an exchange 
was concerned, to the extent that it be possible, I think 
our staff cooperated, but they couldn’t cooperate on the 
basis of saying, “We will go right up until a week or so 
before the second semester and if we don’t get them, then 
the whole thing is off.” You can’t operate and program 
children in a school on that basis, so I think it was a 
matter of how far this should go. There was no question 
regarding the importance of this. The question was is it 
administratively feasible at that late date to do it?

£5173 Q. When did you get this request from the Anglo 
parents? A. As I stated to you, I did not have the request. 
The request was—

The Court: When did it come in?
I think we will take a recess.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants— Cross



349a

(The Court recessed at 3:11 o’clock p, m.)
E518J (Following a recess, the hearing resumed 

at 3:31 p.m.)
The Court: I think, if you could just listen to 

the thrust of his question and try to respond directly. 
I mean, to the essence of the question, it would be 
easier for you and easier for us, too, you know.

The Witness: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: Just listen to what he is seeking’ to 

obtain. You have to concentrate on that rather than 
pick the outer fringes of the question and respond 
to that, you know. Go right to the center of it, if 
you can.

The Witness: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: Good.

Q. (By Mr. Greiner) You will recall, Mr. Johnson, that 
we were discussing a request by white parents to make 
Hallett. a sort of a target school for voluntary open enroll­
ment, were we not? A. Yes.

Q. And you have in front of you Exhibit 36. And do 
you recall when Exhibit 36 was mailed to the parents? 
A. No, sir.

Q. It was mailed, I assume, prior to the Christmas vaca­
tion, was it not? A. I’m not certain. It did not come 
under my direction.

Q. Now, as I recall, you said you had a meeting with 
[519] some of these University Park parents, is that 
correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And approximately when did that meeting take place? 
Was it in early January? A. I don’t recall the date on 
that. I’m inclined to believe that it was earlier than that;

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



350a

that it was probably prior to the Christmas or the winter 
intermission.

Q. Now, I take it that these white parents were asking 
the administration to help them in publicizing the fact 
that Hallett was to be a target school, isn’t that correct? 
A. That is correct.

Q. Now, was there any discussion during that conver­
sation regarding what you believe to be your responsibility 
as to whether or not you were to encourage voluntary open 
enrollment? A. Yes, there was, and we indicated that we 
had this responsibility.

Q. Do you recall that Mr. Barnes was present at that 
meeting? A. I’m sorry. I don’t recall who was at the 
meeting, but there were two gentlemen and it’s entirely 
possible it may have been Mr. Barnes. As I recall, the 
group consisted of three or four ladies and two gentlemen, 
as I recall. And I don’t think I could give you the names 
right at the moment although I ’m inclined to believe—now 
that I see Mr. Barnes—[520] that he was at the meeting.

The Witness: Were you?
Mr. Barnes: (Nods affirmatively.)

A. I think I recognize Mr. Barnes as being one of the 
gentlemen and there were two of the ladies that I knew, but 
I  can’t place them by name right at the moment, but I  have 
had discussions with them on previous occasions.

Q. You didn’t state at that meeting that your only re­
sponsibility was simply to announce the program and that 
you had no authorization to encourage it? A. I did not 
make such statement; that we did not have responsibility. 
Because this was definitely a matter that we should push 
forward, but I did question the particular communication

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



351a

they wished to send in conflict with other communications 
that were going out and the matter of timing.

Q. Now, the general policy of voluntary open enrollment, 
Mr. Johnson, was to achieve some sort of racial balance, 
was it not? A. Let us say this, that the purpose was to 
achieve integration in the Denver Public Schools at that 
particular time. That was our intent; to move as far as we 
could toward integration and, if racial balance could be 
achieved, that was it. But it was our understanding we were 
working for integration.

Q. Well, maybe I don’t understand. What do you mean 
[521] by integration as you use that term? In Hallett, for 
example? A. Well, Hallett—

Q. How would you integrate Hallett? A. As far as in­
tegration is concerned, this must be—there must be, of 
course, some integration of whilte pupils into Hallett and 
likewise some of the Negro pupils out of Hallett. Now, I 
think that, in addition, as we speak of integration, I think 
there are many factors and that is a complete understanding 
as we—of the various ethnic groups and so on. A great deal 
of integration can be done in other ways other than actual 
contact. And I think that the integration of Hallett would 
be the result of having probably that proportion of various 
ethnic groups, that particular type of curriculum; that 
type of program that would bring about the thing we’re all 
striving for.

Q. Hallett was 95 percent black at the time, is that right? 
A. I believe that figure is—It is high. I don’t remember the 
exact percentage.

Q. In fact, as I recall, there was one Anglo child in Hal­
lett at the time, is that right? A. I can’t testify to that, 
but I  know there were very few.

Q. Well, again, returning to my original question, Mr.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



352a

Johnson, how many Anglos would you have had to put into 
£522] Hallett in order, as you use the term, to integrate 
Hallett ? A. I think this is pretty largely the matter of the 
advisory committee of Hallett parents working with the 
principal staff generally to determine what they would con­
sider to be a good composite figure to get this particular 
job done from the standpoint of teaching through integra­
tion.

Q. How many letters did this committee want you to 
send out, Mr. Johnson? A. As I recall, it was a single 
communication that I remembered; just one communication, 
and that being from the parents in the southeast, to the 
southeast parents.

Q. To how many parents was that letter to be sent? A. 
I  think they were under the opinion that—they were hoping 
that the principal would send them out and I took it that 
they wanted them to all parents in that particular area. 
But it would be a number of those schools in that area; four 
or five schools involved.

Q. Well, did the principal send them to you to get au­
thority for that mailing? A. No, sir.

Q. Did the principal make the mailing? A. I ’m not 
aware of it.

Q. In Exhibit 36, in fact, is it not—its’ the only one—the 
only written communication sent out to the parents on a 
voluntary open enrollment at that time? [5231 A. I cannot 
testify to that because, again, this is sent by the Executive 
Director and remember, we are now in the field of Division 
of Education and it was handled in that particular area and 
not through the Deputy Superintendent’s office. I  was aware 
of it in my position as Deputy Superintendent in generali­
ties.

Q. Well, let’s talk about mobile units, shall we, Mr. 
Johnson? A. Fine.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



353a

Q. As I understand it, you said that when the mobile 
units were placed in Northeast Denver they were placed 
there with the concurrence of the parents, is that right? A. 
Let us say they were placed there on the basis of having 
consulted with the parents,

[524] Q. Well, were the parents in favor of the place­
ment of those mobile units? A. I think that the provision 
under which the mobile units were placed there were a 
number of possibilities and these possibilities would be 
such as this: would you prefer double sessions? Would you 
prefer extended school day? Would you prefer our at­
tempting to go on this basis? Transportation out or mobile 
units? So, it was more or less of an alternate plan rather 
than specifically asking them about mobile units as such.

Q. How did you describe this alternate of busing out, Mr. 
Johnson? That was one of the alternatives discussed? A. 
It was, and in these particular meetings that—at that time 
I  attended as the Assistant Superintendent in charge of in­
struction to that meeting, who had discussed this with the 
parents. There was two of us in attendance and only at one 
school was I in attendance and that was at Smith Elemen­
tary School.

Q. Smith, is that the one with 12 mobile units ? A. That 
is the one with 12 mobile units.

Q. When did that meeting take place? A. I cannot give 
you the exact date. However, it was—let’s see, I  was there 
approximately three years ago. I would say during 1966.

[525] Q. You have Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 101 in front of 
you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When does it show on Page 2 the first mobile unit 
going into Smith? A. 1965.

Q. Now, does this mean that you are talking about— 
was that before there were any mobile units in Smith?

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



354a

A. As I recall, the meeting that we are talking about I 
think was after the first group of mobile units in the 
school.

Q. After you had put in six in ’65? A. Yes.
Q. Then you put in six more in ’67 ? A. Yes.
Q. Pardon me, ’66. A. ’66. I am inclined to believe that 

the meeting that I am talking about—I’m inclined to be­
lieve that they had mobile units at Smith at that particular 
time and it has been the result of the principal having 
worked with the parents and others in the community. It 
was before we put in the large number.

Q. Now, did you tell me that the parents preferred 
mobile units over double sessions, is that right? A. In 
attending the meeting I attended I would say, number one, 
the parents did not appear as though they [526] wished 
to be transported out of the area. They preferred the 
neighborhood schools.

Q. Mr. Johnson, you heard my question. Do you have 
it in mind? A. I do not.

Q. The parents expressed a preference for mobile units 
over double sessions? A. As I recall, they did.

Q. And the parents expressed a preference for mobile 
units over extending class days, did they not? A. As I 
recall, they did.

Q. All right, now, we will get down to the transpor­
tation, Mr. Johnson. Now, what did you tell them about 
transportation? A. Well, this was presented by the prin­
cipal prior to our particular meeting and the meeting was 
to have the parents there to discuss this matter of trans­
porting out. The statement that was made was that if 
they were interested in transportation we -would designate 
certain schools in the city where they would be trans­

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



355a

ported and those schools—we had a general list, but no 
specific schools in mind at that particular time. What we 
were interested in finding out was whether or not they 
wished to be transported.

Q. Well, now, how many schools were on that list, Mr. 
Johnson? 1527] A. There were approximately 12 schools 
in—primarily in south and southeast Denver.

Q. And what we were talking about then was the pros­
pect of transporting approximately 180 students? A. De­
pending on if they wanted to eliminate the—it would have 
been more than 180, because in addition to mobile units 
they were overcrowded. I don’t think an exact number 
was—but, later, as we moved into it, we had asked for 
somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 students.

Q. Well, now, as I understand it, Mr. Johnson, this 
meeting took place at a time when Smith already had six 
mobile units? A. As I recall.

Q. And when the administration was considering put­
ting in six more, isn’t that right ? A. That is right.

Q. So, your conversation was, “You want six more 
mobile units or do you want transportation out?” That 
was the subject, was it? A. This was generally the subject. 
That is, which would you prefer, because they were over­
crowded.

Q. So we are talking about at least 180 and perhaps 
more? A. That is correct.

Q. Now, of the 180 children minimum that were to be 
[528] transported, did you offer to transport them to only 
one or two or three schools? A. No, they were—the schools 
available were listed. We had a certain number. We did 
not have that much space in one or two schools. It had to 
involve at least eight or ten schools.

Howard L. Johnson-—for Defendants—Cross



356a

Q. So you had to split them upf A. We had to split 
them up because of lack of space in any single school.

Q. You had no schools down in here that were being 
underutilized? A. Not to that extent that we could take 
that many pupils.

Q. Some schools became underutilized in 1967, did they 
not? A. Underutilized to this extent, that they could take 
possibly 20 to 30 to 40 pupils, but not to the extent that 
we had, that number, until such time as the building pro­
gram was completed in south and west Denver, and then 
there was two schools, namely University Park and Asbury 
Schools, where these pupils had been attending, and when 
the Frank Traylor Elementary School was opened this 
did give us space in those schools but probably more space 
in Corey than any one other school.

Q. Now, back in ’66 when you attended this meeting, 
E529] Mr. Johnson, were those Negro parents told that 
the receiving schools under the transportation which was 
being offered, did they ask were there going to be any 
reception programs in those receiving schools? A. Yes, 
they were told this because our department of school- 
community relations had been working on similar pro­
grams.

Q. And they were told that there would be some sensi­
tivity training at those receiving schools? A. That is 
correct.

Q. Were they told, Mr. Johnson, how bad the achieve­
ment was at Smith? A. I don’t recall any statement being 
made to that effect.

Q. That wasn’t released publicly until October of ’68, 
isn’t that correct? A. The test scores were released in 
1968.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



357a

Q. Now, even in 1964, and I call your attention to Ex­
hibit 20, which I believe you cited for the proposition of 
the committee approved use of mobile units, there were 
some conditions, weren’t there, attached to the committee’s 
approval of mobile units? A. The only conditions that I 
can recall that were attached were the conditions that 
these were not to become permanent, a permanent part of 
the education plans. They [530] were to facilitate it at 
the time of emergencies.

Q. Yet, according to Exhibit 101, some of the mobile 
units placed in northeast Denver in 1964 are still there, 
aren’t they? A. Well, of course, it is then a matter of 
what constitutes permanency on this and they are still 
continued there because there is a need for two things. 
One is the fact that we have an excessive number of pupils 
in certain schools there. The other one is that particularly 
at Smith School they were left there because—even though 
we had relieved the membership as related to the capacity 
—that thre are not special programs going on in those 
mobile units, and that is the reason, and I think probably 
the mobile unit is very worthwhile for a special type of 
program.

Q. Well, Mr. Johnson, didn’t you tell me just a moment 
ago that Smith is still overcrowded? A. Not if we were 
to take normal capacity and include the mobile units.

Q. Was there any provision under the resolutions which 
have now been rescinded for increasing the transportation 
out of Smith? A. Only to the extent that we do promote 
to a great degree the voluntary open enrollment plan and 
make some other provisions.

Q. Excuse me, Mr. Johnson, I  am talking about 1531. 
£531] Do you know what 1531 is? A. Yes, that’s a previous 
resolution that was rescinded, is that—

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



358a

Q. That’s correct. A. Yes.
Q. Didn’t 1531 contemplate the elimination of some of 

the mobile units at Smith? A. 1531 from the standpoint 
of reduction in membership, yes, that is correct.

Q. So, if you reduced the membership further you could 
get along without those mobile units? A. Depending upon 
the special programs.

Q. Oh, you couldn’t have the special programs? A. The 
programs at Smith School are of such a nature at the 
present time that they probably need normal capacity of 
over the 30 to one room, so it would necessitate a move­
ment of a greater number of pupils in this respect.

Q. Now, there are 12 mobile units there today? A. 
There are—yes, that is correct, there are 12.

Q. Well, even 1533 talks about removing part of those. 
A. That is correct.

Q. And there isn’t going to be any increase in the special 
programs, is there, Mr. Johnson? A. We hope that we can 
accomplish both and that would be to relieve the member­
ship and continue the special programs.

[5323 Q. Now, this conditional acceptance of mobile 
units in the committee report—at the time that report is­
sued, there were only eight mobile units in all the City and 
County of Denver, is that right, Mr. Johnson, referring to 
Exhibit 101? A. Well, the mobile units, according to this 
report—there were—

Q. Eight? A. A total of eight in this area, yes.
Q. And none of them were in northeast Denver, were 

they, Mr. Johnson? Read off the schools. A. Dowell, Wy­
att—

Q. Now, Dowell is down here? Wyatt is up here? A. 
Wyman.

Howard L. Johnson—-for Defendants—Cross



359a

Q. That’s over in here somewhere. A. That’s right, and, 
excuse me, Wyatt had three and Greenlee three.

Q. Where is Greenlee? A. In West Denver.
Q. So, there were none in northeast Denver! A. That is 

right.
Q. And then shortly after this report was issued north­

east Denver got quite a batch of mobile units didn’t they? 
A. That is right.

£533] Q. How many? A. Well, Philips received four, 
Smith the original six, Park Hill three, Hallett two, and 
then Smith’s additional six, from the period of September, 
1964 and on.

Q. So, by the time we got to September, 1968, the total 
mobile units in Denver had gone from eight to 28 or 29? 
A. Twenty-nine.

Q. How many of those 28 or 29 were then in northeast 
Denver? A. Out of the northeast Denver group, there 
would have been 21 of these as I  count them.

Q. Maybe you’d better count again, Mr. Johnson. A. I 
have 21.

Q. All right, so 21 out of 28 wmre in northeast Denver? 
A. That is the figure I  have.

Q. As of September of ’68? A. Yes.
Q. Now, I believe you mentioned that there were some 

units at Hallett? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many? A. Hallett had two of these, two of 

these units.
Q. They got two in November of ’65? A. November of

’65.
Q. I believe you mentioned on Friday that the units [534] 

were removed at Hallett because Hallett student member­
ship had declined? A. Well, then, there was some addi­
tions there, that is correct.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants— Cross



360a

£535] Q. There were eight new classrooms built at Hal­
le tt, were there not, Mr. Johnson! A. That is right.

Q. And that is when the mobile units got moved? A. As 
I  recall, that is correct.

Q. Now, would you say that today the attitude of the 
residents up in Northeast Denver are a little less favorable 
to the use of mobile units?

Mr. Creighton: Objection. No indication he knows 
what the attitude might be.

The Court: He may. We will find out.

A. No, sir, my answer would be I don’t know the attitudes, 
specifically.

Q. You knew them back in 1965 and 1966? A. At that 
time there was contact with the parents and they had indi­
cated the desire to use them.

Q. You knew them back in 1965 and 1966? A. At that 
time there was contact with the parents and they had indi­
cated the desire to use them.

Q. And you have no indication that they are less desir- 
ble now than they were then? A. I  have no indication.

Q. Now, even as early as 1967, weren’t there requests for 
busing out of certain of these Northeast Denver schools to 
relieve overcrowding? A. I think the Stedman School— 
we had some requests at Stedman School.

Q. That’s the only one? [5361 A. That was the only 
one that indicated a specific request for busing at that 
time.

Q. How about Phillips? A. Phillips School was a school 
that became overcrowded in—I don’t recall the year—two 
years ago, and we had taken some pupils out of Hallett 
to relieve Hallett and then we did consult with the principal

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



361a

and the parents and those pupils in that area were trans­
ported to Southeast Denver.

Q. How about Smith? A. And the same thing happened 
at Smith. There was quite a concerted effort on the part 
of our school community relations department working 
with parents and many of the parents in that particular 
area did work and we transported out of Smith.

Q. Now, actually, ever since February 2, 1966, the dis­
trict has had a policy, namely, 1223, has it not, concerning 
the busing of students out to relieve overcrowding? A. 
Yes, that’s been a policy and the practice—we also had 
the practice prior to that time.

Q. Now, at Stedman today, as I understand it, there are 
about 286 students being bused out? A. That’s approxi­
mately the number.

Q. But there is still four mobile units at Stedman? A. 
That is correct.

Q. And at Smith there are 214 students being bused out, 
[5373 is that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. But there are still 12 mobile units at Smith? A. 
That’s correct.

Q. And at Phillips, you have some busing out? A. Yes. 
Q. Thirty, as I understand it, students to Ashley, and 

50 to Palmer? A. I believe that’s the number, although 
I don’t remember the exact schools.

Q. Is Phillips School overcrowded, Mr. Johnson? A. 
Phillips at the present time is beginning to get back to 
capacity that they can handle with mobile units.

Q. You’re busing 100 students out of Park Hill School? 
A. That is correct.

Q. Is Park Hill School overcrowded, Mr. Johnson? A. 
Park Hill, I  think, with the 100 being transported, I think 
the program at Park Hill is a very efficient program.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



362a

Q. Now, you mentioned in your testimony the Doull 
School was a good example of how mobile units are used. 
Do you recall that testimony? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Doull is down here, is it not? A. Yes, in that area.
Q. And I believe you said that Doull—that it was 

E538] expected that Doull student enrollment would 
decline? A. That is correct.

Q. And that’s why the mobile units were brought in to 
cover this temporary situation? A. That was our attempt.

Q. Well, I  take it that is not your meaning, Mr. Johnson, 
that it is expected that the student population in Northeast 
Denver is going to decline? A. We doubt very much that 
it will decline.

Q. So there is really not much of a corollary between 
what happened at Doull and what’s happening in Northeast 
Denver, is there? A. Not from the standpoint of ex­
pectation.

Q. Now, do you consider the presence of mobile units 
to be an indication of overcrowded schools? A. Mobile 
units are a facility to be used in the case of an overcrowded 
school.

Q. Are these schools then schools which have an excess 
number of students? A. That is correct.

Q. Now, you recall, do you not, that guideline that the 
Board of Education passed in June of 1967 regarding the 
construction in Northeast Denver? A. Yes.

Q. And you recall that there was another facet of that 
[539] guideline, was there not, that concerned transporta­
tion? A. The guideline centered around the—no addi­
tional building in that particular area. But, on the basis of 
getting relief, and, of course, transportation, transporta­

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



363a

tion or double sessions would be the only provision that we 
could have.

Q. Pm handing you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 29—

Mr. Greiner: Is 29 in evidence ?
The Clerk: Yes, it is.

Q. —which is in evidence, Mr. Johnson. Page 15 thereof 
contains the exact language, does it not, of this guideline? 
A. Yes. You’re referring to the specific statement that 
“follow existing Denver Public Schools Policy 1222C and 
1226A with the additional guidelines, no new building or 
additions in Northeast Denver, transportation of excess 
students to other instructional schools in the district”? 
Those voting yes were—-

Q. It passed, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. Now, that was in June of 1967? A. That was June 

29 th.
Q. And by that time we had 12 mobile units at Smith? 

A. They were there at that time.
Q. And we had 4 mobile units at Stedman? [540] A. 

That is correct.
Q. And I think we had some mobile units at Phillips, 

too, didn’t we, then? A. At Phillips we had two, as I 
recall.

Q. And those schools had excess students? A. That is 
correct.

Q. And it was the policy of the Board to bus out those 
excess students, is that correct? A. That is right.

Q. Now, you didn’t take it though that that policy guide­
line—that that guideline had anything to do with the 
removal of those mobile units? A. It was not stated, how­
ever, I  think it was referred to that we were to transport

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



364a

and try to equalize—to lower the membership in that par­
ticular area and transport elsewhere if possible.

Q. That objective wasn’t achieved, was it, Mr. Johnson? 
A. No, sir, it was not achieved.

Q. You mentioned the opening of Traylor School. A. 
Yes.

Q. That’s a school in Southwest Denver? A. The very 
southwest part of the city.

Q. It opened in January of 1968? A. Yes, sir.
Q. With a capacity of approximately 750 students? [541] 

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Before Traylor was opened—and Traylor is right 

here, is that right? (Indicating on Exhibit 7.) A. That is 
correct.

Q. Now, before Traylor was opened, where did all of 
the students dowm in this area go to school—elementary 
school? A. Those pupils were transported to University 
Park.

Q. Now, just a minute. Let me find University Park. 
A. I think it’s directly below South High School.

Q. All the way from here over to here. All right. How 
many of them were at University Park? A. I  imagine 
University Park had around 350 or 400 of those.

Q. Were they also at Corj'-? A. University Park and 
Asbury, those groups particularly, although we had some 
from that general area to Cory as well. They were all in­
volved in the Southwest Denver transportation. Cory was 
involved in Asbury.

Q. So you had Asbury, University Park and Cory? A. 
Yes.

Q. And altogether about how many students did those 
three schools have, Mr. Johnson? A. I would imagine in 
the final—

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



365a

Q. From Southwest Denver? A. From Southwest Den­
ver, there were approximately [5423 800—roughly 800 
pupils; 750 to 800.

Q. Okay. Now, up here in Smith, you had 12 mobile 
units? A. Yes, sir.

Q. About 360 children? A. Yes.
Q. And at Stedman you had 4 mobile units? A. Yes, 

sir.
Q. About 120 children? A. About that.
Q. When Traylor opened, all of these students that you 

have described at Asbury, Cory and University Park, they 
were—they went to Traylor, is that right? A. Yes.

Q. Didn’t that open up a few vacancies, Mr. Johnson, 
at a school like University Park? A. Yes, sir, it did.

Q. About 350 vacancies? A. Yes, approximately that, 
although those schools, as a result of the Southwest Den­
ver, were slightly overcrowded. But I would say roughlv 
350. y

Q. You had about 40 vacancies at Cory? A. Forty 
about, at Cory.

Q. And about how many at Asbury! A. Probably about 
—roughly 100 on the basis of [5433 capacity.

Q. So that is nearly 400—nearly 500 vacancies down 
there? A. I  would say approximately 500 as a result of 
that.

Q. Now, it’s also true, isn’t it, that you had some slight 
overcrowding at some predominantly Anglo elementary 
schools in this area? A. We had some there.

Q. And you relieved some of this overcrowding in these 
predominantly Anglo schools by transferring Anglos—a 
few to Asbury, some to University Park and some to Cory, 
is that right? A. That is right.

Q. Now, this was also the time when you started busing

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



366a

36 black children from Phillips, isn’t it? A. Yes, 36 would 
he the approximate number.

Q. And they were all sent to University Park? A. That 
is correct.

Q. Now, even after you adjusted the balancing here, 
the over capacity and underutilization of those Southeast 
Denver schools, Cory, University Park and Asbury, how 
many spaces did you still have left, Mr. Johnson? A. In 
addition to this, we had an excess number on the basis of 
new annexations in the Southeast—in Southeast Denver 
and part of those spaces were utilized in these schools 
[544] on transportation again across the city. I  think at 
the present time we do have available space in University 
Park. We hope some in Asbury and some in Cory and 
these are some of the schools that we are hoping to use 
on the basis of voluntary enrollment.

Q. But you had about 350 predominantly black children 
up here in Northeast Denver ? A. That is correct.

Q. In overcrowded schools? A. That is right.
Q. And you had an opening down here of about 500 

spaces, is that right? A. I think that’s a little high when 
we consider—but let’s say—

Q. About 500? A. About.
Q. And you got 36 of those black children down here 

to University Park, is that right? A. That is correct.
Q. And a few more, I  think—about 40 more from Phil­

lips into another one of these schools? A. Into University 
Park, Cory School, Smith School. That is correct.

Q. And all the other black children were left up there, 
is that right, Mr. Johnson? [5453 A. That is right, and—

Q. All right. Now, you mentioned in your testimony on 
Friday—you will recall that the policy that the Board 
passed about improving the ethnic distribution at schools

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



367a

by means of boundary changes. A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is Policy 1222C, isn’t it? A. That is correct.
Q. And that is in evidence as Exhibit 33.
Now, 1222C says the policy of making, to the extent 

possible, a heterogeneous school community— A. That’s 
one of the items in the policy.

Q. Now, I believe you cited as an example of that a 
boundary change between East and George Washington 
High School? A. That is correct.

Q. That boundary change involved, did it not, what had 
previously been an optional area between East and George 
Washington? A. As I recall, a portion of it was, and 
then a small portion of it was formerly in East District.

Q. Now, the area that we’re talking about—this is the 
area right up here, isn’t it? A. Yes, sir.

The Court: Right where? I mean, what’s the 
street?

[546] Q. Do you recall what street it is? A. I don’t 
have it before me but it went up to 32nd, the official boun­
dary line, as I recall.

Q. That is correct. Did it go down as far as Colfax? 
Is it from Colfax to 32nd? A. Approximately Colfax.

Q. And this area had been predominantly an optional 
transfer area between East and GW?

Mr. Creighton: Excuse me, Your Honor. Would 
counsel indicate with a little more precision both 
for the record and for me over here when he indi­
cates.

Q. This area that you have described between Colfax 
Avenue and 32nd, shown here on Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7, that

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



368a

was an optional area between East and George Washington 
High Schools? A. Yes, the majority of it was. However, 
it also encompassed some area that was formerly East.

Q. All right. Now, the boundary change you’re talking 
about was that the northern boundary of George Washing­
ton was moved from Colfax up to 32nd? A. Yes.

Q. And you stated that that was a change, as I  recall, 
that contributed to a heterogeneous school community, is 
that correct? A. I  indicated this was a move in that 
direction. And, £5471 if I may amplify this particular 
point-—

Q. Well, I ’ll give you a chance to answer the questions. 
A. Yery good.

Q. Now, the elementary schools in this area that got 
picked up in the George Washington boundary—what ele­
mentary schools served that area, Ashley? A. Ashley 
would have been one.

Q. Montclair? A. And Montclair—part of Montclair.
Q. Ashley and Montclair are predominantly Anglo 

schools? A. Yes, sir.
Q. They were then, weren’t they ? A. They were at that 

time.
Q. This boundary change was effective in September of 

1964? A. In 1964 it went into effect.
Q. Now, is it fair to characterize that neighborhood that 

got brought into George Washington in 1964 as being a 
predominantly Anglo neighborhood, Mr. Johnson? A. At 
that time.

Q. Do you recall how many Negroes there were in George 
Washington High School before that boundary change? 
A. Before that boundary change, as I recollect, we had 
about 10' Negroes in George Washington in about 1963.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross



369a

[548] Q. Tour recollection is pretty good. Yon liad 9, 
Mr. Johnson.

Now, after that boundary change, do yon have any rec­
ollection of how many Negroes there were in George Wash­
ington? A. I don’t know immediately after the boundary 
change.
; [549] Q. 1964? A. 1964, I would imagine probably 
around 20 or 25, and now about 85.

Q. Tour recollection is very good. It went from nine to 
20 and this was a boundary change that you believe con­
tributed to the heterogenous school community, is that 
right? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Greiner: No further questions.
#  #  #  #  *

[5853 * * *

Recross-Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Mr. Johnson, with respect to that boundary change 

at George Washington and East—- A. Yes, sir.
Q. We covered the fact yesterday, I believe, that that 

boundary change added eleven Negroes to George Wash­
ington. A. I don’t recall the exact number but it was 
somewhere in the neighborhood of ten to twenty.

Q. I  think we failed to cover the fact, didn’t we, that it 
added 205 Anglos to George Washington? [586] A. There 
was an increase. I don’t recall the exact number.

Q. And George Washington today is still about 96 per­
cent Anglo, is that correct? A. Yes, approximately 96 
percent.

Q. Now, I beileve with respect to the junior high schools, 
on redirect examination you testified, Mr. Johnson, that 
the purpose of the Cole-'Smiley boundary changes was

Howard L. Johnson■—for Defendants—Recross



3.70a

again to add to the heterogeneity of the populations in 
those two schools, is that correct? A. I had included one 
other school and that was Gove. That was a combination 
of Gove, Smiley and Cole, three schools involved.

Q. Let’s focus on Smiley. It is my understanding in 
1963 Smiley was 46 percent Anglo, is that correct? A. I 
believe that is correct.

Q. And in 1964 it was 40 percent Anglo? A. About 40 
percent.

Q. And in 1963 Cole was 10 percent Anglo? A. Approx­
imately.

Q. And after the boundary change it became 9 percent 
Anglo? A. I t would have remained about the same.

Q. So those boundary changes made those schools 
blacker, did they not? [5873 A. Let’s say there is no 
reason they should be blacker because we did take quite 
a number of the Negro students into Gove. However, dur­
ing this period of time there was certainly an increase 
in the populaton in those areas and Negro population. It 
was not the result necessarily of boundary change; it was 
the result of mobility into those areas that caused it, be­
cause we did take—we did take a percentage of those black 
students from that particular area and put them in Gove 
and increased it, so I  would say proportionately that be­
cause of the increased population, the black population, 
this would be true, and the main effort at that particular 
time, as has been since that time, is to relieve the mem­
bership of Smiley Junior High School, as well as Cole.

Q. Well, Mr. Johnson, you don’t mean to tell me, do you, 
that it was even thought that as a result of the boundary 
change there would be more Anglos in Smiley or more 
Anglos in Gove? A. As I indicated in my statement that 
the real—the primary purpose of the boundary changes

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Recross



371a

in 1964 was a resolution passed by the Board. At the same 
time that the boundary lines were changed, this resolution, 
stating that we should eliminate all optional areas, this 
was the primary purpose of the boundary change in 1964, 
to eliminate the optional areas.

[588] Q. You testified, Mr. Johnson, that when Traylor 
opened up, it created some 500 spaces in the Southeast 
Denver schools, is that correct? A. I  indicated that there 
were approximately that number that wrere transferred 
from the South Denver schools back to Frank A. Traylor, 
yes.

Q. Now, you had some other students in annexed areas 
that you had to accommodate, is that correct? A. That is 
correct.

Q. So you put them all in the Southeast Denver schools, 
is that right? A. In the schools named, South and South­
east Denver.

Q. Well, now, I—and those schools are overcrowded to­
day? A. You are speaking of the schools generally in that 
area or are you specifying these three schools ?

Q. Well, Exhibit R shows that University Park is some­
what overcrowded, is that right? A. Yes, on the basis of 
normal capacity, slightly.

Q. Even today, is University Park overcrowded to the 
degree that Stedman is overcrowded? A. No, sir.

Q. There aren’t any mobile units at University Park, 
are there? A. Not at the present time.

[589J Q. How about Cory, Mr. Johnson? A. No mobile 
units.

Q. And it’s not nearly half as overcrowded as Stedman, 
is it? A. That’s correct.

Q. What about Asbury, Mr. Johnson? A. That is cor­
rect.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Recross



372a

Q. Any mobile units at Asbury? A. No mobile units at 
Asbury.

Q. I direct your attention to what’s been marked for 
identification as Defendants’ Exhibit 89. Can you identify 
that exhibit for us?

Mr. Creighton: 89 ?
Mr. Greiner: 89.
Mr. Creighton: That’s plaintiffs’ exhibit.
Mr. Greiner: Pardon me, Your Honor. Force of 

habit.

A. I can’t identify this as an exhibit as such. It appears as 
though this is a plaintiffs’ statement and taken from sources 
of three sources. So I don’t recognize the exhibit as such, 
but I assume that the data included came from those 
sources. This is the first time I have seen this particular 
statement.

Q. Do you recognize the sources? A. (No answer.)
[5903 Q. They are all from the public schools system, 

aren’t they? A. Yes, I recognize the sources. Evidently 
there is a typographical error on one of these, if the source 
is stated correctly, and that is that there is no office of the 
Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Services as of 
May 1, 1969.

Q. That’s right. That should probably be 1968. A. 
Well, I don’t know whether the date is incorrect or whether 
the title is incorrect. That is, it would be the Executive 
Director for Personnel Services. So either the date is in­
correct or the title of the office is incorrect. I ’m not sure 
which.

Q. What does that Exhibit 89 purport to show, Mr. John­
son? A. 89 purports to show the L.O.E., which would be 
Limited Open Enrollment.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Recross



373a

Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, now that we know 
what this exhibit is about, it seems to me it goes 
beyond the scope of redirect. This is limited open 
enrollment. This has been covered earlier.

The Court: Well, true, but—
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Plaintiffs’ Ex­

hibit 89 for the purpose of showing that in Septem­
ber of 1968 according to this exhibit there were 482 
extra seats in £591] Anglo schools, even after the 
absorption of all of these annexed areas, and we 
offer it for that purpose.

The Court: I think it’s relevant in view of the way 
the examination has gone. I  mean—-

Mr. Creighton: It wasn’t apparent.
The Court: On redirect you introduced some fresh 

facts today, I take it, that had not been referred to 
at all.

So it will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 89 was received 

in evidence.)

By Mr. Greiner:
Q. With reference then to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 89, Mr. 

Johnson, how much under capacity is there stated there 
for the listed schools'? A. It is listed here 482.

Q. What is the average percent of Anglo enrollment in 
those schools, Mr. Johnson? A. This exhibit shows 93.

Q. And how many Anglos are being bused into those 
schools ? A. 1,071.

Q. And how many Negroes are being bused into those 
schools? A. 121.

Q. Now, I call your attention, Mr. Johnson, to what’s 
been marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 90,

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Recross



374a

[592J purporting to show the limited open enrollment space 
in predominantly Negro or Hispano elementary schools in 
1968. Can you identify that exhibit for us? A. Not the 
exhibit as such, and I have the same comment as I had on 
the other—regarding the other one.

Q. And Exhibit 90 shows the spaces in the minority 
schools whereas Exhibit 89 showed the spaces in the Anglo 
schools, is that correct? A. That’s correct.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Exhibit 90.
The Court: Has Mr. Creighton seen this?
Mr. Greiner: Yes.
Mr. Creighton: Well, let me look at it. I  don’t 

seem to have it.
No objection.
The Court: 90 will be received.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 90 was received 
in evidence.)

Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 90 shows, does 
it not, that in September of 1968 there were 270 spaces 
available in the minority schools. A. It shows this, yes, 
sir.

Q. How many of the Anglo children from the annexed 
areas, Mr. Johnson, were placed in those vacancies? A. 
(No answer.)

[593] Q. None. Isn’t that right, Mr. Johnson? A. I  do 
not recall that wre have any annexations— Normally, annex­
ations have been in the Southwest and Southeast Denver 
area, as I recall.

Q. Well, isn’t it true, Mr. Johnson, that when you were 
trying to accommodate the children from annexed areas, 
these are Anglo children, are they not, Mr. Johnson, basi­
cally ? A. Basically.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Recross



375a

Q. Now, when you were trying to accommodate those 
children, how far did you bus them? A. We attempted to 
bus them to the nearest elementary school that had vacant 
spaces.

Q. Some of those bus rides were as long as ten miles, 
weren’t they, Mr. Johnson? A. I think the longest one 
was from Southwest Denver to the Asbury, University 
Park, Steele and Cory.

Q. In response to a question from the Court, Mr. John­
son, you indicated, as I understood it, that some of the ele­
mentary schools in Southeast Denver were on double ses­
sions, is that correct? A. Had extended days.

Q. Pardon me? A. Extended days, and double sessions; 
an overcrowding.

Q. What is the difference between an extended day and 
a double session? [594] A. An extended day is very often 
accomplished by starting the school day slightly earlier in 
the day and extending’ longer, as in contrast with actually 
two groups of students coming at a particular time.

Q. Now, how many of those Southeast Denver Anglo ele­
mentary schools were on extended days in— What is the 
appropriate time to look at this? In January, 1968, as op­
posed to September of 1968? A. I would say that the ap­
propriate time would be to—I imagine that the height of 
this would probably be in about 1966-1967, from the stand­
point of the greater number.

Q. Well, I thought you told the Court, Mr. Johnson, that 
when Traylor opened up and that was in January of 1968, 
is that right? A. That’s correct.

Q. That you had Southeast Denver schools on double 
sessions. Now, is that or is that not the fact? A. That is 
an incorrect statement on my part. They were overcapacity. 
There were no double sessions.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Recross



376a

Q. And there were not even any extended sessions, were 
there, in January of 1968? A. There were some in the 
kindergarten group.

Q. Where, Mr. Johnson? A. I can’t state right at the 
moment.

Q. You said that Steele was overcrowded. [595] A. It 
was necessary to relieve Steele of further crowding be­
cause we had reached the capacity.

Q. How overcrowded was Steele, Mr. Johnson, in Sep­
tember of 1968? A. I don’t have the figures before me but 
I  know it was necessary to eliminate transportation into 
Steele, and we were able to take some of those pupils and 
keep them in the Southwest Denver schools.

Q. How many mobile units did you put in at Steele to 
relieve that overcrowding? A. There were no mobile units 
in that area.

Mr. Greiner: No further question, Your Honor.
Mr. Creighton: No questions.

*  #  #  *  #

Mr. Jackson: Call Dr. Robert Gilberts.

R obert Gilberts, [596] recalled as a witness by and on 
behalf of defendants, having previously been duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Jackson:

The Court: You have already been sworn, Doctor.
Just take the witness stand.

By Mr. Jackson:

Q. Dr. Gilberts, what is your present position with the 
Denver Public Schools? A. I’m the Superintendent of 
Schools.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct



377a

Q. And would you describe briefly for the Court, please, 
your responsibility in that position? A. My responsibility 
is to administer the Denver Public Schools within the gen­
eral guidelines of the Board of Education’s policy and 
within that context, to provide the best possible quality of 
education to all the students in the school district.

Q. How long have you been superintendent in the Denver 
Public Schools? A. From August 1st, 1967,

Q. And what was your employment prior to that? A. 
I was Superintendent of Schools in Madison, Wisconsin.

* #  #  #  #

£5973 * * *
By Mr. Jackson:

Q. Dr. Gilberts, as you heard, there is one comment on 
this that I placed thereon that reflects current membership 
in a national committee, FAASA. Would you explain to 
the Court and counsel what that means? A. This is a 
national commission from the American Association of 
School Administrators to look at the state of preparation 
of school superintendents throughout the United States and 
to make recommendations for changes in programs.

[598] Q. And you are presently a member of that com­
mission? A. Yes.

Q. And what is the number of members on that com­
mission? A. I believe there are nine members on that com­
mission.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, how do you personally view the position 
of the Superintendent of Schools in Denver today? A. Well,
I  think that the Superintendent of Schools in any urban 
center today is faced with a rather major problem of look­
ing at how one might reconstitute the entire processes of 
education for children in order to improve its effectiveness

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct



378a

and certainly a major element is that—of that is dealing 
with the problems of underachievement in those schools 
that have been referred to in this trial.

[5991 Q. I  think it is important for you to advise the 
Court as to how you would define the word “integration” 
as we have heard it. A. I would accept Dr, Dodson’s 
definition that integration is a psychological willingness 
of people to accept people of all races without prejudice.

Q. Does this then form a part of your general overall 
view of restructuring the educational process! A. Yes, it 
does. I think this is extremely important in dealing with 
the problems in our entire society.

Q. Do you identify any particular problems in this area! 
A. Yes, there are many problems in this area, the prob­
lems of how one best goes about accomplishing this in a 
city the size of Denver or any city, for that matter. There 
is tremendous diversity of opinion as to how one can 
accomplish this end. There are those who believe the only 
way it can be done is through racially balancing the schools. 
There are others who feel that other kinds of systems and 
techniques can be used to provide vehicles for modifying 
the values and attitudes of people within the school system.

Q. Would you describe briefly some of these other sys­
tems! A. Well, I  believe that within the entire process of 
[6001 education there are many possibilities for doing 
this. We have within our school system, presently several 
programs that are under operation as the result of the 
advisory committees, one being the cultural arts program, 
the cultural understanding being the second one, wherein 
youngsters are given the opportunity to look at arts and 
various kinds of cultural contributions of people from 
different backgrounds and to understand their origins and

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct



379a

the meaning of them and to relate one to another in some 
physical proximity.

I  believe Dr. Dodson indicated that he felt, also, that it 
was necessary for a youngster—

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I do object to this 
witness summarizing what Dr. Dodson has said.

Mr. Jackson: If the Court please, I believe the 
witness is merely attempting to answer the question 
in relation to the facts of this case.

The Court: Overruled. We may proceed.
The Witness: I lost my track. I forgot where I 

was going at the time.

Q. You were discussing other systems for achieving this. 
A. I  talked about the cultural arts program and cultural 
understanding programs, which are examples of ways in 
which this can be accomplished.

Oh, and I certainly accept the fact that some kind [601] 
of physical proximity of youngsters in this process is ex­
tremely important as a vehicle for accomplishing these 
changes in attitudes and values that are so necessary in 
our society.

Q. You mentioned racial balance, Dr. Gilberts. How does 
this fit into your view of the problem? A. I  do not believe 
that racial balance as such is necessarily the only answer 
or the only approach to achieving integration as I have 
defined it. I think there are many other ways and I think 
that certainly the schools are not the only institution in 
our society that have responsibility of achieving that end, 
though we do have a major role, I believe, to play in that 
process.

Q. Is there, in your opinion, any one approach that must

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct



380a

of necessity be successful? A. No, I don’t believe that there 
is any one approach that can be successful. I think condi­
tions are so varied in these United States that there must 
be a number of ways in which the solution to this problem 
can be undertaken. If one assumes that there is only one 
approach, for instance, racial balance as such, then many 
of our major cities are already lost. There is no possibility 
of changing them. And I personally or professionally am 
not willing to accept that as an end.

Q. After your arrival in Denver in 1967, Dr. Gilberts, 
[602] Resolution No. 1490 was subsequently passed by the 
Board of Education, was it not? A. Yes.

Q. And what was your specific responsibility under that 
resolution? A. Well, this resolution called upon me to 
present a comprehensive plan for the integration of the 
Denver Public Schools by September 30th, I believe it was, 
and there were a number of other kinds of considerations 
within that resolution, which were added to provide some 
kind of guidance in developing that plan.

Q. Subsequent to that resolution, did you prepare such 
apian? A. Yes, I  did.

Q. You have before you what has been marked for 
identification purposes as Defendants’ Exhibit D. Can you 
identify that? A. This is the copy of the plan which was 
presented to the Board of Education and to the community 
in the early part of October.

Q. And this is the plan which you submitted to the Board 
in response to the Resolution 1490? A. Yes, it is.

Mr. Jackson: At this time, we would offer Defen­
dant’s Exhibit D, Your Honor.

[6033 Mr. Greiner: We have no objection, Your 
Honor.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct



381a

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

The Court: D is received.

(Defendants’ Exhibit D was received in evi­
dence.)

Q. Dr. Gilberts, would you describe generally the con­
cept of your plan now received as Defendants’ Exhibit D? 
A. Well, in devising this plan, we looked at the overall 
problems of an urban center and all the kinds of systems 
that we thought we could identify that might contribute 
to the improvement of the general quality of education 
throughout the school system, and the major portion of 
this, as I  indicated before, was providing for experiences 
that would be integrating in nature and provide for inte­
gration in the Denver Public Schools.

Basically, we took a look at the format of education in 
an urban center. One of the major problems, I  believe, 
in the restructuring of education in urban centers is tak­
ing a look at the way in which the schools relate to the 
publics that they serve. One of the major difficulties in 
large school systems, it is my opinion, is the remoteness 
with which the school functions in the community, so we 
began taking a look at a way in which we could restructure 
the organization of our schools to enhance opportunities 
for integration, ways of involving the community in the 
operation of their schools, and at the same time restructur­
ing the [604] physical school organization to provide 
better educational kinds of experiences for children. We 
had felt that the proximity of the school and the relation­
ship of the school as one of the basic institutions in the 
community to those people it serves is an extremely im­
portant one.

There is a very interesting article that came out after



382a

this plan had been developed, written by Dr. Dioxydis, 
who is an internationally-known and renowned city plan­
ner, in the mid-December, 1968, issue of the Saturday 
Evening Review. The basic thesis of this article was that, 
since the beginning of time, man has up until recently 
enhanced the opportunities of man to relate to additional 
institutions and to additional individuals, but only recently 
have we begun removing some of the more immediate 
kind of institutional relationships which are important in 
an urban setting and life for all of us. Therefore, we looked 
at ways in which we could devise an organizational struc­
ture, not as the result of this article, but using the same 
general concept, which would provide for expanding op­
portunities for children to relate in different ways to the 
education institution and at the same time, as indicated, 
provide for integrating experiences within our school 
system.

Within this kind of structure, we provided for the re­
organization of schools to press out the decision making 
responsibility further from the superintendent’s office, to 
[605] allow the teachers, principals and community mem­
bers more effectively to influence the kinds of decisions 
that were made in determining educational programs, and 
hopefully through that to provide a closer sense of rela­
tionship between community and staff and students with 
the school itself. This restructuring also involved the re­
organization of kinds of services that might be provided 
through the school.

We felt, for example, that many of the community agen­
cies presently operating independently might very well be 
coordinated through this kind of an organizational struc­
ture and that many of the services that presently are oper­
ating quite independently and sometimes causing many

Robert Gilberts—-Recalled—for Defendants—Direct



383a

gaps in services that are necessary to people and sometimes 
overlap, that through this organizational structure we 
might effect that.

We also provided within that organizational structure, 
keeping consistent with what we felt was important in the 
reorganization, such as proximity, geography, number of 
schools, size, et cetera provided opportunities for planning 
new kinds of educational opportunities within these struc­
tures which would enhance general education as well as 
trying to get at the integrational opportunities that I know 
are important.

Q. When you speak of the integrational opportunities, 
are you referring now to the opportunities as consistent 
with [606] the definition which you have just given this 
morning? A. Yes, I  am.

Q. So the plan then is really a proposal for quality 
education as opposed to any finite, refined plan for spe­
cific movement? A. Yes, the entire plan was a conceptual 
type of plan and in the period of time in which we had to 
produce this, which I believe I indicated was about sixty 
working days during the summer months when a good 
many staff members were not available to us, and this is 
always a difficult time to put something like this together, 
we did not spell out all of the details, all of the concepts 
that are included within it, and there is a great deal of 
work, for instance, in refining the concept of the complex 
as a functional unit within the school system, as well as 
many other elements within the plan.

Q. Directing your attention, Dr. Gilberts, to Page 32 of 
Exhibit D, what general heading is contained on this 
particular section? A. “The Elementary Model School 
Complex.”

Q. And would you explain, please, generally, what that

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct



384a

concept is? A. Well, I  think that if one would refer to the 
schematic just after Page 35, that it would describe this. 
It really is a grouping of schools or a consortium or 
[607] whatever you would like to call it within which we 
would provide a special supporting educational center for 
special educational opportunities. In addition to this, these 
schools would become a part of administrative units so 
that educational programs could be planned both within 
the schools and between the schools and could be coordi­
nated at the local level with a complex structure. We had 
expected within this complex to develop many kinds of 
supporting and exemplary educational programs that we 
felt could lend support to all the concepts we were talking 
about, integration certainly being one of them, but also 
the general improvement of educational experience for the 
youngsters within these complexes.

We saw the opportunity here within the organizational 
structure to begin involving in an advisory way, more 
effectively in an advisory way, I should say, the members 
of the community that are affected within these complexes 
and to leave the complex director a good deal of latitude 
in terms of decision making as it related to programs 
within these schools. Obviously, the superintendent’s office 
and supporting staff would make a contribution to both 
planning and supervision and evaluation. Within this cen­
ter we have identified a number of items that we thought 
might be relevant. Now, as we get into our specific plan­
ning, we may find others more imporant. We may find 
that we want [608] to change the configuration of this as 
we look at it. I assume there will be some differences 
between complexes around the city in terms of needs of 
those areas.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct



385a

Q. Did you in your planning tentatively divide the 
elementary schools of the city into various groupings or 
complexes? A. Yes, we did.

Q. Directing your attention to the map which appears 
between Pages 107 and 108 of Exhibit D, Dr. Gilberts, can 
you identify that portion of the exhibit for us? A. Yes, 
these were the tentative identifications of complexes 
throughout the city, grouping schools in the best way we 
felt we could to accomplish all of the purposes that we 
had set forth as being important.

The Court: What exhibit is this?
Mr. Jackson: Exhibit D, Your Honor.
The Court: Still Exhibit D?
Mr. Jackson: Yes.

Q. Now, Dr. Gilberts, directing your attention to Plain­
tiffs’ Exhibit 6, and in particular to Resolution No. 1533, 
which appears at the back of that exhibit, would you please 
read for the Court, Point 1 of that resolution? A. “Super­
intendent is directed to continue the development of plans 
in accordance with the concept of the elementary school 
complex as outlined in his report entitled [6093 ‘Planning 
Quality Education’ heretofore received by this Board of 
Education and to initiate voluntary implementation of such 
plans commencing with the opening of schools in Septem­
ber of 1969 for the following groups of elementary schools 
of this district to be known as Complex 1 and 2.”

Under Complex 1 is a list of schools that were included 
in it and under Complex 2 the same.

£610] Q. Are those groupings of schools as contained 
in Resolution 1533 the same as are shown on the maps 
which we have previously alluded to in the Exhibit D 
occurring between Pages 107 and 108? A. Yes.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct



386a

Q. What is the specific purpose of this particular com­
plex arrangement as shown here in Point 1, Dr. Gilberts? 
A. Well, the purpose is to begin the more detailed plan­
ning of the organization and operation of these complexes. 
It is a concept that needs a great deal of development and 
we felt that these two complexes would provide us a basis 
for organization and planning and testing.

Q. Is the Point 1 in Resolution 1533 consistent with 
your overall planning of quality education? A. Yes, it is.

Q. And will this involve the community in any way? 
A. Yes, it will.

Q. Generally, in what respect will the community itself 
become involved in this—in these complexes? A. We in­
tend to involve the community in all the organizational 
elements, that being a part of all—first of all, in the plan­
ning process. One of the parts of the planning process is 
to identify an effective way of involving the community in 
a continuing basis in the terms of general operations of 
these complexes and the schools within them.

E611] Q. Directing your attention, Dr. Gilberts, to Point 
4 of Resolution 1533, would you read that for us, please? 
A. “For the purpose of improving education and further­
ing the integration of schools included in elementary school 
complex 5, as described in the report ‘Planning Quality 
Education,’ such schools shall be grouped for cooperative 
planning with the elementary schools of other elementary 
school complexes as follows, or with such other or differ­
ent schools as the superintendent may designate from time 
to time, utilizing the criteria of ratio of school and group 
memberships, racial composition of memberships, potential 
for promoting educational understanding, and utilization 
of school facilities; that such cooperative planning shall 
be accomplished by the local schools included within such

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct



387a

groupings through planning committees composed of school 
staff members, P-TA representatives, parents and other 
citizens in the school community; that such planning com­
mittees shall be selected and shall operate under rules 
and regulations prescribed by the superintendent; that 
any cooperative plans so developed shall be mutually 
agreed upon by such committees prior to the implementa­
tion thereof; that implementation of such cooperative 
plans may be undertaken by the superintendent within the 
limitations of law and the policies of this Board of Educa­
tion; and that participation by individual families shall be 
optional.”

[612] And then it lists the schools in Complex 5 and 
those that they are grouped with.

Q. And the listing of schools in Complex 5—it’s the 
same as that shown on our map, again, in Exhibit D? A. 
I  believe so. I ’m not—yes, I believe it is.

Q. Now, was this matter of pairing specifically proposed 
in your overall plan for quality education? A. No, it was 
not. This particular proposal came out of the discussions 
that were held with the members of the community and 
Board of Education. It was something that we could 
embark upon immediately. In my plan I had recommended 
that the schools in Area 5 be operated at the pre-school, 
kindergarten, and primary levels with the students in the 
fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth grades trans­
ported out to other schools within the city. Manual High 
School in that area at the same time being developed as a 
special magna type school, which we are proceeding with 
at the present moment. But this was not something that 
could be accomplished immediately. It would require some 
additional facilities rather than waiting until we had

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct



388a

money through a bond issue to accomplish it, this was 
something that we could do right now.

Q. Is the objective under this pairing concept the same 
as under the complex concept as contained in Point I  of 
this resolution? [613] A. No, not exactly. The planning 
here will be done jointly with the schools involved in this. 
However, it will be on a school-to-school basis rather than 
on an organized intermediate kind of administrative unit.

Q. Is the pairing concept as contained in Item 4 here 
consistent with your overall plan? A. Yes.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, generally speaking, are there any other 
educational programs within your plan, Exhibit D, which 
provide for enhanced educational opportunities in inter­
racial communication? A. Yes, there are quite a number. 
We have talked in this plan about the need for changing 
curriculum to provide for general application of knowl­
edge and information with respect to minorities in our 
culture. We have had proposed in this a ballerette outdoor 
education center which we hope to have space for approxi­
mately a thousand pupils at a time which will be, we hope, 
in the very near future; a live-in kind of educational set­
ting. We are now in the process of working on that. We 
have the land and are working in the development of it, 
both program and facilities. We have proposed an expan­
sion of cultural arts kind of program within the context of 
this plan. At the junior high school level we talked also 
about a complex arrangement very much like we have at 
the elementary level. The senior high school level [614] 
—we have made a recommendation that there be a secon­
dary school complex dealing with specialized educational 
offerings both general and vocational and technical to 
which students from all the senior high schools throughout 
the entire city—to which the students from all the senior

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct



389a

high schools throughout the city could go. I think there are 
probably a number of other minor elements in there, too. 
There are many, many ideas.

Q. Now, Dr. Gilberts, directing your attention once 
again to Eesolution 1533, I’d like to direct your attention 
to Paragraph No. 5 in that resolution and ask you if you 
would read that to the Court, please. A. “The present 
practices of transporting pupils from the attendance areas 
of schools of this district deemed to be overcrowded in 
other schools of this district, whenever necessary to relieve 
such overcrowding, be continued.”

Q. Would you explain the purpose of this to the Court, 
please? A. Well, the purpose of this is to allow us the 
latitude to move youngsters from facilities that are over­
crowded to other facilities where we have space. And it is 
our intention to pursue this particular policy throughout 
the city. I might throw in here an example as Mr. Johnson 
was talking about the readjustment of space throughout 
the central part of the city. Before this plan was put out, 
[615] another reason was to provide spaces in more schools 
to be utilized for both voluntary and for the relief of over­
crowded schools. However, the Eesolution 1490 intervened 
before any such plan could be undertaken.

Q. The determination as to when a school is overcrowded 
within the context of this paragraph, is that based on the 
strict formula approach that we have heard? A. No, I 
believe it’s been discussed also as a matter of looking at 
the kind of program that we feel is necessary for that 
school and then judging the amount of space, classroom 
space that is necessary for pupils to implement that pro­
gram.

Q. Now, Dr. Gilberts, directing your attention for a 
moment to Defendants’ Exhibit P, which is before you,

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct



390a

can you identify that document? A. Yes, it’s the Board 
minutes of April 25, 1968.

Mr. Jackson: At this time, Your Honor, we’d like 
to move the admission of Defendants’ Exhibit P.

Mr. Greiner: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: P will be received.

(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit P was re­
ceived in evidence.)

Q. Dr. Gilberts, directing your attention to Page 5 of 
those minutes at the bottom of the page, would you read 
what appears there to the Court, please? A. The last 
paragraph?

[6161 Q. Yes. A. “Superintendent Gilberts referred to 
Resolution No. 1486, adopted on January 18, 1968, by the 
Board which authorized funds for the purpose of provid­
ing accommodations for the junior high school pupils of 
the district and for relieving crowded conditions at Smiley 
Junior High School. He read from the resolution as fol­
lows :

‘Now, therefore, be it resolved by this Board of Educa­
tion that upon the payment of all amounts and obligations 
incurred or to be incurred by this school district in con­
nection with site acquisition, construction and equipping 
of Jessie M. Hamilton Junior High School, not less than 
80 percent of the capital reserve fund of this school district 
and such amounts as may be recorded therein from time 
to time shall next be expended for the provision of neces­
sary facilities for the specific purpose of providing relief 
from the excessive pupil population of Smiley Junior High 
School and for the general purpose of assisting in the 
accommodation of junior high school pupils of the school

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct



391a

district. Such facilities will be located in a manner so as 
not to contribute to the further increase of de facto segre­
gation.’ ”

Q. Did you make specific recommendations to the Board 
based upon that resolution? A. Yes, I  did.

Q. Would you explain to us what those were, please? 
[617] A. Well, I recommended that there be an initial 
twelve classrooms added to Jessie M. Hamilton immedi­
ately to provide relief for Smiley in the second semester; 
also to provide some relief for Hill Junior High School. 
I  also recommended that a new high school be built at 
East Florida and South Quebec after which is now named 
Place Junior High School, which would provide further 
space for the relief of junior high schools in the area and 
the opening of spaces for the further relief of Smiley as 
a junior high school and also possibly Cole.

Q. Now, were those recommendations acted upon by the 
Board? A. Yes, they were.

Q. And what were the results? A. It wras approved.
Q. Now, was any actual busing of students from Smiley 

accomplished when Hamilton opened? A. Yes, it was.
Q. And do you recall the number? A. I believe that all 

told from the Smiley area there was somewhere between 
250 and 300 pupils transported to both Jessie M. Hamilton 
and Thomas Jefferson High Schools.

Q. The Place Junior High School, I believe you referred 
to as the other high school at Florida and Quebec? A. Yes.

[618] Q. That is in the construction process, is that 
right? A. I t’s in the bidding process right now. We hope 
to have it opened during the 1970 school year sometime.

Q. Will that provide any additional space for busing 
further students from Smiley? A. Yes.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, referring you back once again to Para­

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct



392a

graph 5 of Resolution 1533, is there any other additional 
busing taking place at this time for the purposes of reliev­
ing the overcrowded conditions of the schools? A. We’re 
moving students from Stedman Elementary School, I  be­
lieve—that’s been mentioned. We are moving students 
from Phillips Elementary School. Students are being 
moved on a voluntary basis from the Smiley Elementary 
School.

Q. And where are these students being transported to? 
Which area of the city? A. To the south, general south. 
And south central area.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, directing your attention to Paragraph 6 
of Resolution 1533, would you read that for us, please? A. 
“The superintendent is directed to proceed with plans to 
reduce the pupil population of Stedman Elementary School 
to the extent that the four mobile units now located at that 
school may be used where needed in other schools of this 
district by soliciting approximately 120 voluntary pupil 
transfers from Stedman School to other elementary [619] 
schools of this district having space available and with 
transportation provided by the district.”

Q. Can that same process be utilized to relieve other 
schools where there are mobile units? A. Yes, it can.

Q. Is it your intent to proceed in that direction? A. 
Certainly, as we can and as space is available and as one 
considers the overall space requirement needs for the 
entire city. Before a great deal can be done in this area 
it is going to be necessary that we have funds for addi­
tional facilities.

Q. Referring again to Exhibit D, your plan for planning 
quality education, do you have figures within that plan 
relating to the capital construction cost to fully implement 
that plan? A. We had an estimate. We tried to quantify

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct



393a

it as best we could within that particular frame of what 
fiscal dollar requirements would be necessary to implement 
this plan so that people would have some measurement of 
that.

Q. Can you find those figures? A. They’re in the back 
here. I believe the total is on Page 99—where we have all 
of the phases included and throughout the entire plan we 
estimated at that time approximately $126,900—excuse me. 
$126,910,000. And this was an estimate.

[6203 Q. Generally speaking, Dr. Gilberts, is Resolution 
1533 consistent with your overall plan of achieving quality 
education? A. Yes.

Mr. Jackson: No further questions.

Cross-Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Gilberts, under 1520, 1524 and 1531, did you as 

superintendent prepare some statistics as to how many 
children would receive an integrated education under those 
resolutions? A. Yes, we did.

Q. Do you recall the total number—what the total num­
ber was? A. Pm sorry, I don’t without looking at the 
record.

Q. These wrere published in the reviews, were they not? 
A. I believe so.

Q. I am handing you what’s been marked for identifica­
tion as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 and 11 and ask you, first, with 
respect to 10 if you can identify that for the Court, please? 
A. Yes, this is a publication of the school system summar­
izing the secondary elements of the plan.

Q. And then Exhibit 11, as I  understand it, summarizes 
the elements of the plan in the elementary schools, is that 
correct? [621] A. Yes.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross



394a

Q. And these exhibits were prepared by the school dis­
trict? A. Yes.

Q. And the review is designated the official publication 
of the Denver Public Schools? A. Yes.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Plaintiffs’ Ex­
hibit 10 and 11.

Mr. Jackson: Your Honor, according to my rec­
ords, they have already been received.

[622] Mr. Greiner: Now, which exhibit—pardon 
me, is that correct?

The Court: That is correct.
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Greiner: Excuse me.

Q. Which exhibit has the data to which I referred on the 
total number of students who would be integrated under 
these resolutions? A. I thought that Exhibit 11 had it, 
but I don’t—

The Court: Which one was that?

A. (Continuing) Oh, yes, here it is on the front page.
Q. Which exhibit do you have reference to? A. Exhibit 

11.

Q. And what is stated there, please? A. It says, “This 
plan will provide integration for 10,102 elementary pupils 
in 22 schools by the reassignment of 2,001 additional 
pupils.”

Q. Now, have you developed a similar statistic, Dr. Gil­
berts, for Resolution 1533? A. No, I  have not.

Q. Do you have any idea what that statistic would look 
like? A. It would be impossible to even estimate that at 
this time until we have these programs in operation.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross



395a

[623] Q. Is it safe to assume, Dr. Gilberts, that it’s going 
to be substantially less in September of ’69? A. Yes, I 
think—

Q. Than it would have been under these resolutions? A. 
On a short term basis I think it will be less. On the long' 
term, it is another question.

Q. You discussed your view of what integration means, 
Dr. Gilberts. At what point in your mind does a school 
become segregated? A. Well, I don’t believe that I  have 
any particular figure in which it becomes segregated. I  
have defined integration as a social or psychological proc­
ess. Integration—or segregation, I suppose, might be the 
opposite of that. I am not sure. That is, a psychological 
feeling of the opposite of an integrated feeling, but I don’t 
have any particular number at which I would attach a 
segregated school.

Q. Well, let’s take a look at some of the target schools 
under the rescinded resolutions. Is Barrett a segregated 
school? A. Barrett has about 90 some percent black 
youngsters in it, I believe.

Q. That would just about meet anybody’s definition of a 
segregated school, wouldn’t it, Dr. Gilberts? A. I  would 
think so.

Q. What about Smiley? It is what? Seventy-five percent
[624] black? A. I believe that is correct.

Q. What percent Hispano, do you recall? A. About 12 
is my recollection; I could be wrong.

Q. About what percent Anglo is Smiley? A. Seven or 
eight percent.

Q. Pardon? A. Seven or eight percent. This is an esti­
mate on my part. I am not sure. I would have to see the 
figures.

Q. It has over a 90-pereent minority population? A. 
True.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross



396a

Q. Is that a segregated school? A. I  assume it would 
be by most people’s definition.

Q. Now, as I understand the complex program as illus­
trated in Defendants’ Exhibit D, which is the Gilberts plan, 
isn’t it true that one of the defined complexes would have 
a predominantly minority composition?

Do you have that in front of you? Please refer to Page 
108 of Exhibit D. I have specific reference to Area 5. A. 
Would it have a predominantly minority population?

Q. Yes, Dr. Gilberts. A. My recommendation for Area 
5 was the transportation of pupils from that area, as I  
indicated, in the intermediate and junior high school grades, 
the development of a magnet school at Manual, and then I 
had also planned to make [625] attractive the pre-school— 
primary program, so I would assume that, if I could have 
accomplished those ends, it would not have been a segre­
gated area. It would have been an integrated area.

Q. Well, look at the two extreme right-hand columns on 
Page 108. Doesn’t that purport to show the proposed com­
plex population, the percent minority and percent Anglo? 
A. As it stands, without having made the modifications I 
have talked about, because this would not be the percentage 
if we could do those.

Q. Now, without modification, the racial composition of 
Area 5 would be 97 percent minority and approximately 
two percent Anglo? A. I believe that’s correct.

The Court: Wait a minute, when you speak of 
the transportation, you mean that contemplated in 
these resolutions, 1520, 24 and 31?

The Witness: No, sir, in the plan. In the plan I 
proposed that Area 5 would have all students in the 
intermediate and junior high school grades trans­

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Gross



397a

ported out of Area 5 into other schools, Southeast 
and Southwest Denver primarily.

Mr. Greiner: Further along that regard, Your 
Honor, there is an asterisk of some type, isn’t there, 
next to the two-percent Anglo for Area 5, Dr. Gil­
berts?

[626] The Court: Yes.
The Witness: Yes.

Q. And if you will refer down, what does that asterisk 
designate? A. “Transportation will be required to main­
tain integration.”

Q. So, you’re going to have some mandatory busing? A. 
This is what I proposed, yes.

Q. Not voluntary busing? A. No.

The Court: This comports with 1533?
The Witness: No, sir, it does not. The element 

for Area 5 because of necessity here of having addi­
tional space to implement this was the pairing of 
schools in Area 5 with groups of schools southeast 
and southwest, and that’s something we can begin 
on next fall, but in the long range, if the Board will 
approve this plan that I have, it will provide for the 
movement of those youngsters in this area out of 
those schools to other schools where we have space.

The Court: Essentially 1531 disapproves the use 
of busing to bring about segregation, doesn’t it?

The Witness: To bring about integration?
The Court: Integration.
The Witness: It requires that those programs that 

are identified with it be voluntary, yes.
£627] The Court: So, this would require changing 

policy ?

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross



398a

The Witness: Yes, it would, if this were to he 
implemented.

The Court: If you were to carry out this particu­
lar plan, I  take it?

The Witness: Yes, it would.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, do you have Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6A in 
front of you? That’s Resolution 1533. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would you refer to Paragraph 5 on Page 4 of that 
exhibit, please? A. Paragraph 5? Yes.

Q. That paragraph talks about transportation out to re­
lieve overcrowding? A. Yes.

Q. And I take it that, under Paragraph 5, the transpor­
tation out of Phillips would be continued? A. Yes.

Q. Is that today or in September was that Phillips bus­
ing* out voluntary or mandatory? A. It is mandatory.

Q. And is there some busing out at Park Hill? A. I 
don’t believe there is. I think that was a misstatement 
yesterday.

Q. I am sorry. Is there any busing out at Barrett? 
[628] A. Not on a compulsory basis.

Q. There is some busing out at Stedman, is there not? 
A. Yes.

Q. And that’s also on a mandatory basis? A. Yes.
Q. There is no busing out at Smith—or, is there? A. 

There is, but that’s on a voluntary basis.
Q. Well, now, Paragraph 5 that I drew your attention to, 

that talks about mandatory busing out to relieve over­
crowding, doesn’t it? A. Yes.

Q. Isn’t that the purpose of that? A. Right.
Q. How does that square with Paragraph 6 on the next 

page ? Why is the further busing out to relieve overcrowd­
ing at Stedman going to be voluntary rather than manda­

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross



399a

tory! A. I imagine that it was stated that way as a mat­
ter of Board policy and in their wisdom they felt this is 
what should be done, and my job is to implement it.

Q. Doesn’t the Board have a policy, 12220, I believe it is
or, pardon me, 1226A—a policy that’s been in existence 

since 1966, I believe,— A. In terms of the transportation 
to relieve overcrowding?

Q. Yes. E629J A. I believe so.
Q. And that policy calls for mandatory busing, does it 

not, Dr. Gilberts, not voluntary? A. I do not believe it is 
stated in quite those terms, but it allows for the identifica­
tion of youngsters to relieve overcrowding for transporta­
tion.

Q. Now, under the complexes proposed in the Gilberts 
Plan, Defendants’ Exhibit D, at what point in a child’s 
school life does he begin to participate in the complex pro­
gram? Isn’t it at grade four? A. Not necessarily. This 
has not been identified as yet and will be part of the final 
process.

£6303 Q. You’re telling me it’s going to be earlier? A. 
It might be.

Q. You don’t know yet? A. No, the planning has not 
been done so I don’t know.

Q. Well, weren’t these two complexes the subject of Reso­
lution 1531, Dr. Gilbert? A. Yes.

Q. And that was passed in April of this year? A. Yes.
Q. And your planning hasn’t progressed very far since

then? A. No. Educational planning is ra ther complex and
involves a lot of people and a lot of time.

Q. Now this pairing concept that you had reference to 
that is contained in 1533, what sort of opportunities for 
integration, Dr. Gilbert, are implicit or inherent in that 
pairing plan? A. Here again there are many kinds of

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross



400a

programs, I believe, that can be developed within these 
schools. We are here involved on the—with the type in­
volved ; the teachers and principals and parents of various 
school areas to identify programs that are educationally 
sound and are acceptable within these communities so we 
can get maximum participation in them. Again, these are 
in the process of [631] being considered by schools; some 
of them have already done some planning. I  couldn’t enu­
merate what all their ideas have been up to this particular 
point but I am sure there will be many kinds of approaches 
taken.

Q. So, again, the plans under the pairing are today not 
very well defined? A. Well, I  couldn’t say for sure. They 
may be very well defined in some schools but I  couldn’t tell 
you what they are in each of the schools.

Q. Well, now, does pairing include the concept of, say, 
fourth graders from School A going to fourth grade in 
School B ? A. It could conceivably.

Q. Does it? A. It could, I say.
Q. Are any plans such as that on the drawing board? A. 

As indicated, I don’t know what the specific plans are in 
each of these schools; therefore I couldn’t answer that.

Q. Now that would require some transportation? A. 
Yes.

Q. And yet participation in the pairing is made optional; 
is that right? A. Yes, sir. This is the same way in which 
it is handled in the cultural program, yet, we have about a 
99.9 [632] percent participation in it.

Q. Pardon? A. In the cultural arts program where it 
is left to be optional with parents, here, we have an ex­
tremely high percentage of participation in those offered 
the opportunity. My figure of 99.9 percent is a personal

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross



401a

estimate. I don’t have the exact figures on that but I  know 
it should be very high.

Q. It is very clear, though, that, for example, if there is 
to be a mixing of a particular class, say the fourth grade, 
it shall be optional? That’s the same way 1533 reads, isn’t 
it? A. That’s right.

Q. Well, now, when you testified earlier in this case, Dr. 
Gilbert, you told me what the concept was behind Resolu­
tions 1520, 1524 and 1531. As I understood it it was to 
achieve some stability in the schools of northeast Denver 
begnning in the elementary schools and culminating in 
East High School which is now a transitional school. A. 
Yes, this was our major objective.

Q. And very clearly I think you recognized, did you not, 
that it wouldn’t do much good to change the racial compo­
sition at East High if you didn’t also stabilize the composi­
tion at Smiley? A. Well, these were all interrelated and 
any effect £633-3 in one would have a continuing effect in 
the higher grades.

Q. And likewise it wouldn’t do much good to change the 
racial composition at Smiley unless you stabilized the racial 
composition of the elementary schools that were feeding 
into Smiley, is that correct? A. Yes; as I  say, they are all 
interrelated.

Q. Well, Dr. Gilberts, do you honestly believe that 1533 
is going to be—going to accomplish that objective? A. I 
think I  also indicated in the testimony that it’s a little early 
to tell whether or not this kind of an approach will really 
attract the kind of participaiton that we feel will be neces­
sary to do this. I believe that in the overall context of the 
approach that we indicated in this general plan, that the 
involvement of people who are going to be a part of these 
plans is extremely important and—that is, as a part of

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross



402a

changing attitudes of the community, a certain amount here 
of involvement and salesmanship in terms of the schools’ 
part is going to be necessary.

I believe the participation of people who do this willingly 
will be a lot more productive in terms of definition of inte­
gration than those who are put into situations who feel 
personally they are not acceptable to them.

[634] Q. Dr. Gilberts, you are telling me that mandatory 
integration is bad? A. No, I ’m not saying that. I  am say­
ing that the other approach, I  think, has some real merits 
and something that needs to be tested, and we are in that 
process.

Q. That’s the only thing you are testing currently, isn’t 
it? As between mandatory and voluntary? A. Well, actu­
ally a good number of ideas in this plan are not being 
tested currently because we have not proceeded with plan­
ning far enough to do that; have not gotten full approval 
from the Board for the entire plan.

Q. That you’re not telling me, are you, Dr. Gilberts, that 
mandatory integration achieved by boundary changes, 
achieved by cross-busing—you’re not telling me that that 
doesn’t achieve the purpose that you set out to achieve in 
the three rescinded resolutions, are you? A. I did indi­
cate in my testimony that we have some indication that 
those kinds of changes would stabilize the community. But, 
whether they will or not, is something yet to be determined.

The Court: Well, this is a secondary approach to 
mandatory busing, anyhow, isn’t it?

The Witness: I don’t understand, Your Honor.
The Court: I suppose that these resolutions, the 

ones in suit here, were the primary policy provisions 
[6353 with respect to attempted integration of these

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Gross



403a

northeast Denver area schools?
The Witness: In that particular area, yes, sir.
The Court: Now, when those are wiped out, why, 

you have a second approach. But, it also involves 
mandatory busing.

The Witness: Some of it does, yes.
The Court: And it couldn’t succeed, I don’t sup­

pose, without it?
The Witness: Well, sir, I think that still remains 

to be seen. I have the feeling that if we can develop 
the kind of program that I think we can, develop 
the kind of community system of communication 
that will be necessary, I believe that we can promote 
a good deal of integration.

The Court: There will be no interracial relation­
ships, will there?

The Witness: Yes, there will be.
The Court: Where will they come from?
The Witness: Because I think in the programs 

we are talking about, the example given by the attor­
ney here is one that could occur, where schools, 
grades, may exchange within these schools for differ­
ing periods of time. There may be other kinds of 
educational experiences, [6363 field trips, et cetera, 
that may provide that kind of basis as well. It will 
take a shorter-term kind of experience.

The Court: But this is all on a voluntary basis.
The Witness: Yes, so far as—
The Court: This would be another variation of 

this regional approach of yours; on a voluntary 
basis, communication.

The Witness: I suppose in some sense—although, 
this is a quite different kind of concept in terms of

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross



404a

the operation of the complexes in this pairing of 
area 5 in the southeast and southwest schools.

The Court: We will take a short recess.
(Whereupon, the hearing recessed at 10:52 a.m.)
[637] (The court reconvened at 11:10 o’clock 

a.m.)
Mr. Greiner: If it please the Court.

By Mr. Greiner:

Q. Dr. Gilberts, as I  understand Resolution 1533, does it 
provide for the desegregation of any school? A. If the 
voluntary enrollment plans work as we hope, it could pro­
vide for that. There is more specific provision for the 
special demonstration program at the Hallett School, 
which we hope to have a major effect upon the members 
of minority youngsters in that particular school.

Q. But. the YOE is voluntary, is it not? A. Yes.
Q. And the Hallett program is to be voluntary? A. Yes, 

it is.
Q. So, there is no mandatory desegregation under 1533? 

A. Except—
Q. You understand what I mean by desegregation? A. 

Now, will you define it for me?
Q. Under 1533, is there any mandatory program whereby 

any of these schools in northeast Denver which are now 
predominantly minority are going to change to predomi­
nantly Anglo schools? A. No, there is no such mandatory 
requirement.

Q. Well, aside from the busing out aspect for the [6383 
purpose of relieving overcrowding, under 1520, 1524 and 
1531, approximately how many students were to be man- 
datorily bused? You might refer to Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 
10 and 11.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross



405a

The Court: He said 2,000 more than are presently 
being bused at one time.

Mr. Greiner: Yes, I would like to also leave the 
busing out for overcrowding from that figure, Your 
Honor, is my purpose, if it’s possible.

A. I don’t believe that is possible, but the number, as I 
recall, was additionally approximately 2,000 pupils being 
bused.

The Court: About 12,000 altogether.
The Witness: Being bused in the total school 

system, approximately.

Q. That’s 12,000 out of what 95,000? A. Approximately.
Q. Now, as I  understand it, under Resolutions 1520, 1524 

and 1531, the new—

The Court: Do you have 1533 before you there, 
Dr. Gilberts?

The Witness: Yes. Would you like it?
The Court: If you please.
The Witness: It is in the back of that.
Mr. Greiner: I think we have it as a separate 

exhibit.
[639] The Court: I am sure you have. I think it 

is one of the earlier numbered exhibits, and I  un­
doubtedly have it noted.

Mr. Greiner: Yes, it is Exhibit 6A. Did the Court 
have a question?

The Court: No, not right now. Thank you.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, as I  understand it, under 1520, 1524 
and 1531, the object or the subject of this manadtory bus­

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross



406a

ing program would have been both Anglos and Negroes, 
is that not correct? A. That would have been both Anglos 
and Negroes transported, yes.

Q. This is what is known colloquially as a cross-busing 
program? A. I  am sorry, I do not believe I have seen a 
good definition of cross-busing. I wouldn’t classify it as 
that.

Q. Pardon? A. I  wouldn’t classify it necessarily as 
cross-busing.

Q. Let’s not get hung up on a term. I take it there were 
white students sent into black schools. A. Yes, schools 
that were formerly black, predominantly Anglo when the 
transition was made.

Q. That’s how they got predominantly Anglo, because 
£6403 you were busing Black into them? A. Right.

Q. At the same time busing blacks out of them? A. 
True, but not to the same schools.

Q. In other words, it wasn’t a totally mutual exchange 
from school to school. A. Right.

Q. Now, on your 1531, as I understand it, Dr. Gilberts, 
aside again from busing to relieve overcrowding, there is 
no mandatory busing, is there? A. No.

Q. There are no Anglos being bused into white schools. 
Anglos being bused into black schools? A. On a manda­
tory basis?

Q. Right. A. No.
Q. So, if there is to be any reduction, for example, if 

Barrett is to go from a predominantly black school to a 
predominantly Anglo school as was contemplated under 
1531, that’s all going to be done voluntarily? A. Yes.

Q. And is it also true, Dr. Gilberts, calling your atten­
tion now to the busing to relieve overcrowding, the busing 
to relieve overcrowding under 1533, is that essentially the

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross



407a

same as it was under 1531? [641] A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. And that’s what I would call one-way busing. Just 

black out; is that correct? A. We have that kind of bus­
ing, of course, in other parts of the city, where we have 
to transport youngsters for other requirements, too.

Q. That doesn’t have anything to do with 1533! A. Yes, 
it does, because that’s a general provision that we will still 
utilize that policy, not just in that area but other areas 
of the city, too, I  assume.

Q. You mentioned the cultural arts program, Dr. Gil­
berts. A. Yes.

Q. Now, as I understand it, would you tell the Court 
please how many days a week a student participates in 
the cultural arts program? A. I am sorry, I can’t recall 
just exactly what the schedule is on that.

Q. Well, I hand you what has been marked as Defen­
dants’ Exhibit P. That is the description, is it not, of the 
cultural arts program? A. Yes.

Q. Does it say for how many days a week a student is 
to participate? A. Yes.

[642] Q. How many days a week is it? A. Two one- 
half days a week for one term.

Q. One term? A. One semester.
Q. And is transportation provided by the District? 

A. Yes.
Q. Where do they hold these cultural arts programs? 

A. We are presently holding them at two locations. The 
Gilpin Elementary School is one.

Q. That’s up here in the core area, is it? A. It is on 
the west side slightly there.

Q. Right here? A. Yes.
Q. So it is north central in the core area. All right. 

One at Gilpin. Where is the other one? A. I  am sorry,

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross



408a

it has slipped my mind. I can’t recall. I  don’t see it on 
these.

Q. This program lasts for a semester, is that correct! 
A. Yes.

Q. And it involves only students in the sixth grade, 
that’s also correct, is it not? A. Yes, so far.

Q. And it is on a voluntary basis? A. Yes.
[643] Q. And you have got a 99 percent participation 

in that program, is that right? A. Off the top of my 
head, estimate.

Q. Well, approximately? A. Approximately.
Q. And you think that is similar to what I was talking 

about in mixing grades under pairing? A. No, I  said that 
it was a program that can contribute to the definition of 
the integration that Dr. Dodson used and I used.

Mr. Greiner: I  have no further questions.

[643-A 3 Redirect Examination by Mr. Jackson:
Q. Dr. Gilberts, there was a question as to the racial 

composition at Smiley which was raised. I’d like to direct 
your attention once again to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10, the 
bottom of Page 2—

The Court: I  read that. I  think the numbers are 
less than indicated. Is that what you’re going to 
bring out?

Mr. Jackson: No, Your Honor. As I understood 
it there was some question as to whether it was 90 
percent Negro or—

The Court: Seventy-five was the testimony. But 
it’s seventy-one, I  think, or sixty-eight.

Mr. Jackson: Sixty-seven; 27 percent Anglo and—

Robert Gilberts-—Recalled—-for Defendants—Redirect



409a

Well, so long as the Court understands, there is 
no need to—

The Court: I think I got that from the document 
here.

Mr. Jackson: Yes, I was referring specifically, 
Your Honor to Dr. Gilberts’ testimony here.

The Court: All right.
Mr. Jackson: I  have nothing further.
The Court: I get the feeling from what you have 

said that you’re not convinced that integration is 
essential to quality education or alleviating any kind 
of a problem?

[6443 The Witness: No, I have not said that, 
Your Honor.

The Court: You think there are substitute mea­
sures that are just as good.

The Witness: I think there are many ways of 
going about what I have defined and what Dr. Dod­
son defined as integration. I think, certainly, this 
matter of physical presence, as he indicated, and 
as I  have talked about, too, can be an extremely 
important part of that, but I don’t believe there is 
any particular form in which that kind of presence 
has to exist.

The Court: Now you’re talking about comnranity 
integration?

The Witness: No, I’m talking about school inte­
gration.

The Court: Well, I thought that you endorsed a 
program which would not call for any pupil inte­
gration except as it can be accomplished on some 
voluntary basis.

The Witness: No, sir. My program that I en­

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Redirect



410a

dorsed involved, of course, the subject at hand here 
today, together with a number of other kinds of 
systems that I  wanted to test to see whether or 
not we could accomplish those ends.

The Court: I  had thought you approved, if nec­
essary, a voluntary busing program even in con­
nection with this regional matter as a part of it?

The Witness: Yes, sir, we did—

C6453 Q. So you don’t think then pupil integration is 
really an important and essential aspect?

The Witness: I’m not sure that it is absolutely an 
essential. At least, as one looks at it from the point 
of view of racial balance. I indicated in my earlier 
testimony that there is no evidence that integration 
per se has an effect, let’s say, upon the achievements 
of youngsters. I  believe that integration is important 
in the process of changing the attitudes and values 
of these kinds of things which are essential today in 
our society, but I do not believe that that particular 
change or that objection has to be accomplished, 
let’s say, through racial balance, which has been 
substituted here extensively. I think there are other 
ways of doing it. I think other ways of modifying 
attitudes—there has always been this very heated 
debate across the entire country. In addition to that, 
I think some rather substantive changes are neces­
sary in the change of process of education. Dr. Dod­
son referred to this as well. I don’t agree with the 
factors he wrote out as cliches are unimportant in 
the process of education. They are important. I do 
tend to agree that we have used them as excuses

Robert- Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Redirect



411a

more than we should. And that we get into the whole 
area of modifying the processes of education there 
is some extremely important substantive changes 
that are necessary that relate both to the children 
and the community.

[646] And unfortunately we in education have a 
great deal to learn along these lines and I don’t be­
lieve we can put all our eggs in one basket for solu­
tions. We have got to try as many different ap­
proaches to this problem as we can and this is why 
we have such a range in this particular proposal 
of approaches to this.

The Court: Well, you do not predict that there 
will be anything in the nature of racial violence as 
a result of voluntary busing?

The Witness: No, sir, not in the definition that 
was given in the earlier parts of the trial, the ap­
proximation of percentages throughout all the 
schools—

The Court: I get the impression also that the 
community won’t accept this voluntary busing un­
less it is in an atmosphere of a balanced school.

The Witness: I  think, sir, that that is definitely a 
factor at the present time. I think there are a great 
number of attitudes that need to be changed and I 
think that the schools in their particular domain have 
a great deal of responsibility in formulating ap­
proaches that will begin helping modify those.

The Court: So this is an obstacle right at the 
outset, I suppose.

The Witness: Yes, sir, I think it is.
The Court: The white community won’t send a 

E647] minority of white students into a Negro 
school, of which the population is—

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Redirect



412 a

The Witness: I  think that’s true. However, I  
wonder if, for example in this area of pairing schools 
in the north central with southwestern and south­
eastern schools, if we can get the involvement of 
parents and youngsters in the process of considering 
mutual problems; whether or not some of those atti­
tudes can’t be changed. I believe that they can be 
and I believe that we can develop some kinds of 
techniques that will reassure individuals both 
through the development of programs that make 
sense to parents as well as getting them more ac­
quainted with some of the problems. And this is the 
question which can only be determined by a trial.

The Court: What is your program for accom­
plishing this?

The Witness: Well, as I indicated, I think there 
are many kinds of—the basic problem is one of com­
munication, understanding of the difficulties. This 
is the basic problem, I think, between communities. 
We believe that there are ways that we can iden­
tify, or means that we can identify where we can 
get members of each of these communities together, 
to look at these problems, to discuss them, to learn 
to understand one another’s viewpoints and, through 
this process, to begin to identify elements of pro­
grams which £6481 could involve the interchange of 
pupils on many different bases. This really is the 
foundation it seems to me of that kind of approach. 
And it’s an opportunity to begin approaching people 
on the basis of understanding problems through 
contacts.

Now, maybe this is an overambitious objective. 
I  think not. If it can be done this way I think the

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Redirect



413a

results in terms of the definition of integration that 
I have used and that I)r. Dodson used is probably 
going to be more successful than any other kinds.

The Court: I t’s too late to accomplish any sub­
stantial integration by changing school boundaries, 
I  take it? Have you approached it in that manner?

The Witness: Yes, sir. It is very difficult be­
cause of the concentration of these youngsters both 
Hispano and black in those areas of the city and 
the overlapping of these areas. There are not 
enough adjacent areas into which these youngsters 
can be changed in order to accomplish what we 
would like to do. It has to go beyond that and has 
to involve a broader population base than those that 
are contiguous enough to do what you’re discussing.

The Court: Now this is going to intensify, as 
time goes on, if the trend is not reversed?

The Witness: Yes, sir. It is likely to intensify. 
And the question is, how does one intervene in that 
process. [6493 And so far as I ’m aware, there has 
been no system which has been identified at this 
point that has intervened effectively. Now, there 
are those who feel they have identified things that 
could do this but I think they’re all open to question. 
We feel that the things that we have identified and 
in the process of this plan and I ’m sure there are 
other ways, too, will have as much of a chance of 
doing that as any approach. But, obviously, there 
are people who feel differently about it.

The Court: Do you have anything further?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, just a few more questions, 

Your Honor.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Redirect



414a

Recross-Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Gilberts, you mentioned some of these pilot pro­

grams that are going on in the minority schools. A. I  
don’t recall that I did.

Q. You said that there was special programs being 
conducted at certain schools. A. I was talking about cul­
tural arts and cultural understanding.

Q. Well, there are compulsory educational programs, 
are there not? A. Yes.

Q. Would you identify for us, please, Plaintiffs’ [650] 
Exhibit 35? A. This is a report to the Board of Educa­
tion, Extension of Pilot Programs in Elementary and Sec­
ondary Schools.

Q. By whom was this prepared, Dr. Gilberts? A. It 
was prepared in 1963 and 1964, I assume, by the staff of 
the school system.

Q. What does it purport to discuss, do you know? A. 
Would you like me to go through it item by item and talk 
about them?

Q. No, I  just want to identify it for the record. A. Well, 
it appears here that there are four major categories in 
curriculum and instruction, vocational-technical education; 
cultural and human relations education; in-service pro­
grams for personnel; and extension of pilot programs in 
schools.

Then they go on and list documents and talk about some 
of those programs in the elementary and secondary 
schools. I  notice an item in here as being one of those 
items you’re talking about.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, Exhibit 35 has been a report on prog­
ress and results in one of these pilot compensatory pro­
grams, is that correct? A. I ’d have to read it to be sure. 
I ’m not personally familiar with this document.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Rec.ross



415a

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Recross 

£6513 Q. Take your time.

Mr. Jackson: If the Court please, I think that at 
this point I will interpose an objection. This is a 
matter that we did not discuss on direct examination. 
The exhibit itself talks in terms of a period of time 
prior to Dr. Gilberts’ arrival in the city. He has in­
dicated to counsel he is not familiar with the docu­
ment and has not had an opportunity to read it, and 
I would object to any further questioning along this 
line at this time.

The Court: Do you think he should have an oppor­
tunity to read it first? We will give him that oppor­
tunity.

The Witness: Sir, there is a good deal of technical 
material in here in terms of the evaluation and so 
on which I don’t believe I can read very quickly.

The Court: Okay. Well, then, we will sustain the 
objection for the time being. Maybe at a later time 
you would want to call him back. I don’t think that 
he should be called upon to spend a lot of time—

Mr. Greiner: I think, Tour Honor, we can ap­
proach  it in a different Avay.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, you described to the Court some of the 
programs I believe that, are contemplated or in the planning 
stage, the objective of which, as I understand it, was to 
oAmrcome the Ioav levels of achievement that exist in some 
of these predominantly minority schools, is that correct? 
[652] A. Yes, in several different Avays. I have talked 
about this general complex approach with some changes 
that are necessary there. I  haAm not talked about specific 
plans.



416a

Q. Well, I  take it that there are so-called compensatory 
educational aspects that—are there not, of the Gilberts 
Plan. Exhibit D ? A. There certainly will be as it develops. 
There are not as yet.

Q. Does 1533 provide for any particular compensatory 
educational programs, Dr. Gilberts? A. Well, in the con­
text of the complex, I assume that there is an assumption 
that these kinds of plans will be developed by the Board, 
I’m sure, just as it has been by you.

Q. Now, as I understand 1533, these complexes—there 
is going to be no desegregation in the schools, is that right? 
A. I don’t believe that you can make that assumption. The 
complexes have been designed in such a way as to get the 
best kind of composition within these complexes that we 
possibly could. And I assume that, within the development 
of these programs there will be elements that will provide 
for integration.

[653] Q. Weil, is that going to require mandatory trans­
portation, Dr. Gilberts? A. Until those programs are de­
veloped and designed, I don’t believe I can answer that 
question.

Q. We just don’t have the details yet, do we? A. That’s 
right.

Q. Now, Dr. Gilberts, with regard to these compensatory 
educational programs, you keep referring to Dr. Dodson’s 
definition of integration. Didn’t he say that the first step 
is first you mix them up and then you start the integration 
process? A. That was his statement, yes, I  believe.

Q. First, you have got to have the mixing of the bodies? 
A. That was his opinion, yes.

Q. Now, there is evidence, is there not, Dr. Gilberts, as 
far as the educational benefits that can be derived through

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Recross



417a

integration? A. Such as what benefits are you referring 
to?

Q. Well, I  have reference to what I  believe has been 
marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 27, a report by the United 
States Commission on Civil Rights, published in 1967, 
“Racial Isolation in the Public Schools.” A. Yes.

Q. Does this report treat the subject of [654] compensa­
tory education programs versus integration!

Mr. Jackson: If the Court please, I  am going to 
object to questions regarding this particular exhibit. 
My records do not show this exhibit as in evidence, 
and if it were tendered I would object to it.

The Court: He is not seeking to introduce it. He 
is cross-examining with respect to it, going to the 
credibility on the question of necessity for physical 
integration. I think it is proper. It may be that Dr. 
Gilberts will say that he is not familiar with the 
passage involved or that he hasn’t read the report. 
If he does, that’s the end of it.

A. I have read the report and I am generally familiar with 
what’s in it, but I would have to look it over to talk about 
any specific points.

Q. Well, do you recall four programs that are described 
in the report, one at Syracuse, New York, one at Berkeley, 
California, one at Seattle, Washington, and one at Phila­
delphia, Pennsylvania? A. I am familiar with the Syra­
cuse, the Berkeley—I am not absolutely certain about the 
Philadelphia or the Seattle one.

Q. Now, those programs generally did what, Dr. Gil­
berts? They had a segregated school to begin with, isn’t 
that right? [655] A. Well, let’s take them one by one.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Recross



418 a

Let’s talk about Syracuse first. Syracuse began develop­
ing plans for attacking some of the problems of the core 
city back about six or seven years ago. Dr. Barry, with 
whom I am personally familiar, in Cincinnati, developed 
a plan of satellite complexes of elementary schools in order 
to begin replacing some of the older schools in the city. 
These complexes were on the periphery of the school sys­
tem. This was a proposal.

1 believe that the first one of those complexes is just now 
in the process of construction.

Q. I do not believe you are talking about what I have 
reference to, Dr. Gilberts. A. Well, refresh my memory.

Q. I am talking about the Madison area project. A. 
That was the transportation of black students from core 
area schools out to two or three—-

Q. Anglo? A. —Anglo schools on the periphery of the 
city.

Q. What did they do? And then the segregated school 
from which those students came remained, did it not? They 
didn’t close that? A. They didn’t close that school, no. 
There were small numbers of youngsters involved, as I  
recall.

Q. They tested those youngsters left behind and [6563 
they tested the youngsters bused out into white schools, 
didn’t they, Dr. Gilbert? A. Yes, they did.

Q. What did they find? Oh, pardon me, and the children 
that were left remaining in the black school, they were 
made the object of intensive compensatory educational 
programs, were they not? A. I am sorry, I just don’t 
recall the actual details of that particular case, but if you 
say so I will accept that. I just don’t remember.

* * # # #

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Recross



419a

[658] Richard Koeppe, called as a witness by the defen­
dants, being first duly sworn, on his oath testified as fol­
lows :

The Court: Give your name and address for the 
record.

The Witness: My name is Richard Koeppe. I live 
at 8679 East Kenyon Avenue, Denver, Colorado.

The Court: How do you spell your last name!
The Witness: K-o-e-p-p-e.
The Court: You live where!
The Witness: 8679 East Kenyon Avenue.
The Court: All right.

Direct Examination by Mr. Craig:
Q. Please state your occupation, Dr. Koeppe. A. Cur­

rently the Assistant Superintendent in Charge of the Divi­
sion of Education for the Denver Public Schools.

Mr. Craig: Your Honor, we have identified as 
exhibits Dr. Koeppe’s background information and 
vital statistics, which counsel for the plaintiff has 
seen.

Mr. Greiner: It has been submitted, Your Honor, 
and we have no objection to it.

The Court: All right, have it marked and it will 
be received.

[659] Mr. Craig: Defendants’ Exhibit IT.
The Court: All right.

(Defendants’ Exhibit IT was received in evi­
dence.)

Q. Dr. Koeppe, have you ever been a teacher in any

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct



420a

public school system? A. Yes, I taught in the Milwaukee 
Public Schools from 1956 to 1958.

Q. At what level? A. Junior high school, grades 7, 8 
and 9.

Q. At any other level? A. I served as a counsellor on 
a part-time basis in senior high school, grades 10' through 
12, for approximately 12 years.

Q. Would you briefly describe your responsibilities as 
Assistant Superintendent for the Division of Education. 
A. I am basically responsible for maintaining and en­
hancing the instructional program of the Denver Public 
Schools and in that capacity have' within the division six 
departments, the Department of Elementary Education, the 
Department of Secondary Education, the Department of 
Adult and Vocational Education, and Department of In­
structional Services, Department of Badio and Television, 
and Department of Pupil Services.

Q. Dr. Koeppe, were you in the courtroom, at the time 
[6603 Dr. Gilberts testified this morning? A. Yes, I  was.

Q. Did you hear him allude to certain existing educa­
tional programs within the Denver Public Schools which 
provided and enhanced opportunity for interracial com­
munication and understanding? A. Yes, he alluded to a 
number of them.

Q. Would you please describe the programs. A. Well, 
one that he alluded to was the early childhood education 
program primarily as it relates to a dimension in Planning 
for Quality Education and also as it relates to Complex 
Area Five. In one way, this is a new program starting 
this fall. In another way, it is not new. The preschool 
program has primarily been under the Head Start, which 
is OEO money under the Denver Opportunity.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct



421a

There also were follow-through programs, some of which 
are a full-day program through OESA, Title I. This fall 
we are going to completely fund by DPS three childhood 
education centers. Basically at this time we will work on 
either half-day or full-day involvement with four-year-olds. 
There shall be an attempt to involve the parents of these 
youngsters. We are deliberately selecting children where 
parents both don’t work or at least one parent is available 
to become involved in the program. We also under this 
arrangement will have the teachers in the centers under 
[661] objective administrative supervision of the honorary 
schools in the area, which means they will attend faculty 
meeting's with the other teachers, which is not true under 
Head Start.

The Court: Will you keep your voice up?

A. (Continued) We will have the teachers under the Early 
Childhood Education Centers under the administration of 
the schools in the area, which means they will in turn 
attend faculty meetings and be considered part of that 
faculty. It will give our teachers or kindergarten teachers 
an opportunity to observe the early childhood education 
centers in operation.

Q. Do these programs offer any opportunity for inter­
racial communication? A. Well, at this time we are start­
ing on a small scale because we are really going to work 
out our curriculum and procedures especially with the 
parents and so forth. We are going to be working pri­
marily, and I would say exclusively, with minority young­
sters, but our intention is, based on our experience with 
the programs, to expand them possibly to the point where 
they would be of such a nature as to attract youngsters

Richard Koeppe-—for Defendants—Direct



422a

from the Anglo and possibly Hispano areas of town, but 
not for the 1969-70 school year.

Q. Do you know if the Board of Education has placed 
[662] any special emphasis on these programs? A. Well, 
it was the—as I mentioned, it was in the report, “Planning 
Quality Education,” and I believe it is also in one of the 
recent resolutions passed by the Board.

The Court: The Head Start programs are tilled 
to capacity with minority youngsters, aren’t they?

The Witness: Yes, they are.
The Court: So, there are no openings for even 

other minorities?
The Witness: This is right. This is really an 

expansion of that.

Q. Dr. Koeppe, I hand you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6, which 
is admitted in evidence, and direct your attention to Res­
olution 1533 contained therein, and ask you whether you 
can identify in that resolution any special emphasis on 
these programs. A. Yes, Item 3 of the resolution states 
that the Superintendent is directed to take steps to estab­
lish preliminary educational programs in the schools in 
the north central portion of the district in September 1969, 
as proposed in the said report, “Planning Quality Educa­
tion.”

[653] Q. Dr. Koeppe, we won’t go over the same ground 
that Dr. Gilberts has covered, except where we might add 
something.

Mr. Craig: Dr. Gilberts has identified Defendants’ 
Exhibit F, a brochure on the cultural arts program, 
and we would offer that in evidence at this time.

Mr. Greiner: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: F  is received.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct



423a

(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit P was re­
ceived in evidence.)

Q. Can you add anything to Dr. Gilberts’ description of 
that program? A. I think a point of correction—the office 
for the cultural arts program is located at Gilpin School. 
The actual arts programs are located at Fairview School. 
We have four teachers at Fairview School and four teach­
ers at Ebert.

Due to the additional program planning that is going on 
for Fairview School, we in all likelihood will have to move 
that center to another school for this fall. The staff is 
currently looking at that. So we will have the office—the 
office will stay at Gilpin. One of the centers will stay at 
Ebert and one at Fairview will have to be moved to another 
elementary school.

I might mention in terms of expansion, we do have hopes 
for expansion of this program even without additional fa­
cilities. For example, since its inception the staff [6641 
taught youngsters for four days a week. And the fifth day 
was used to work with the consultants and the artists that 
were brought in to do planning and so forth and the staff 
now feels they have been at this sufficiently long that they 
can actually run the program five days rather than four, 
and whether we can begin this September or not, we don’t 
know, but somewhere in the near future we will be running 
it five days a week rather than four.

Also, we do have in the 1970' budget four additional 
teachers for the cultural arts program. This is based 
strictly on the assumption that we’re going to find addi­
tional facilities somewhere in the district, but I ’m hopeful 
that when a bond proposal is put together for submission 
to the Board, one of the components included therein will

Richard Eoeppe—for Defendants—-Direct



424a

be a true, full-blown cultural arts program which will be 
a separate facility specifically for this program and that 
at that time we can involve, of course, many more young­
sters than we do at the present time.

Q. What youngsters are eligible to participate A. I 
think the superintendent mentioned this program is in 
the—is in operation at Grade 6.

There is another correction I would like to make. I  be­
lieve the 98 percent that he referred to was—the program 
is optional. I t’s offered to parents in selected schools and 
approximatly 98 percent of those who have the opportunity 
[665] sign up for it. I think the percentage of youngsters 
actually involved in the program is considerably less. I 
think, because of our limited facilities and so on we fully 
only involve something like 60 or 70 percent of the current 
sixth-graders. But it’s basically at the sixth-grade level. 
The groups that are brought together—he was correct—we 
brought together two half days a week, I  think it’s for a 
quarter, however, and not a semester. I  think they rotate 
four different groups through the centers. And each group 
is composed of one-third Negro, one-third Hispano, and 
one-third Anglo youngsters. The media of art, drama and 
music is used in the presentations and also some of the 
artists in the community are brought in as instructors.

Q. I believe Dr. Gilberts mentioned a program of teach­
ing about minorities. Can you expand on that a little bit? 
A. Well, Denver, like most urban centers a number of 
years ago received requests from minority populations that 
they be included more accurately in the teaching of the 
history of this country. And Denver, like most urban areas, 
adopted two basic strategies in trying to reply to this re­
quest : one was to develop specialized elective courses that 
dealt with the history of the minorities; for example, the 
history of the Afro-American or the Negro, for example,

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct



425a

in this country. This program, to my knowledge, was de­
veloped [6661 during last summer and, I think., started for 
the first time the second semester of this year, in the sum­
mer high schools and exactly how many it wall he next fall 
and where, I  don’t know.

The other basic strategy that we followed like other ur­
ban centers was to give increased prominence or give some 
prominence is probably more accurate, but hopefully sig­
nificant appropriate prominence to the contributions in 
minorities within the required courses as—such as Ameri­
can History, Grade 8, and U.S. History at Grade 9. Of 
course, the development of materials has been a slow proc­
ess and we’re moving ahead on this, and along with this we 
have carried out in-service work with teachers either our 
own or in concert with local universities and colleges.

Q. Dr. Koeppe, are you acquainted with the Hallett Ele­
mentary School voluntary exchange program? A. Yes, 
somewhat.

Q. What is the purpose of that program? A. Well, the 
purpose of the program, I think, is somewhat indicated in 
the title that is used in the resolution to make Hallett a 
demonstration integrated school and the purpose is, of 
course, to integrate Hallett, and in the process integrate a 
number of other elementary schools in the district.

Q. Are you acquainted with the administrative goals 
[667] set up for the beginning of school year in September, 
1969? A. Yes, in a general sort of way. My recollection 
of this is that when the goal was first proposed to the Board 
of Education for their consideration the number 500 was 
used and I think it was used in terms of an ultimate goal 
that would have to be arrived at to make Hallett an inte­
grated school. The number, goalwise, was never included 
in either Resolution 1531 or 1533, and the use of the term

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct



426a

“administrative goal” is a correct one. The major respon­
sibility for carrying out the integration of Hallett Elemen­
tary School resides with the office of School Community 
Relations, and right at the very outset it was Mr. Cruter’s 
feeling that in terms of this fall, 300 might be a more 
appropriate number. And now that we have gotten into it 
a bit we feel that perhaps 250 or maybe 200 is more real­
istic for this fall, but we’re working on it throughout next 
year and, based upon our experience this year, we hope to 
have the 500 in by the fall of 1970. That’s my understand­
ing of the goals.

Q. Are you advised as to the progress in obtaining volun­
teers for that program? A. Yes. I consulted with Mr. 
Cruter—members of his staff and my staff—that we know 
where we stand numberwise because there are implications 
for possible staff shifts.

Q. I hand you what’s been marked as Defendants’ Ex­
hibit G for identification. [668] A. This is an interde­
partmental memorandum dated July 18th from Mrs. Arch- 
uletta, who is the supervisor in the office of School Com­
munity Relations, to me, which gives me a status report of 
the number of volunteers into Hallett and out of Hallett 
as of July 18th.

Q. Would you read the total from that exhibit of the 
volunteers?

Mr. Greiner: Pardon me, Your Honor. I don’t 
believe the exhibit has been offered.

Mr. Craig: We will offer it now.
Mr. Greiner: May I see it?
Mr. Craig: I think I provided you with a copy.
Mr. Greiner: I  have no objection.
The Court: Exhibit G is received.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct



427a

(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit G- was re­
ceived in evidence.)

The Witness: Your question again, Mr. Craig?

Q. Would you read the total to Hallett? A. 163.
Q. And the total from Hallett? A. 104.
Q. Would you consider that an encouraging report in 

view of your goals? A. I would to the extent that in 
terms of the recruiting in the Hallett area, this was just 
really begun, to my knowledge, £6693 on Monday, I think, 
two weeks ago. And we—I think the intention of the office 
of School Community Relations is to run about a five or 
six-week block-to-block, door-to-door campaign, and Mrs. 
Lewis, who has been very instrumental in getting a num­
ber of volunteers out of the Smith Elementary School, has 
been employed, again, as of two weeks ago, to head up this 
project, and it is her estimate that we can reach the 200 
to 250 mark by August sometime.

Q. Now, Dr. Koeppe, when will the persons who have 
applied for this program be notified whether or not their 
requests will be accepted? A. As I recall, the persons 
who were on voluntary open enrollment last fall, those 
who have requested a continuation, are to be notified on 
or about August 1st and those who are new requests will 
be notified on or about August 11.

Q. Are these notifications prepared by persons under 
your supervision? A. Yes, they are prepared by the office 
of Attendance of Pupil Records, which is part of the Pupil 
Services Department.

Q. Dr. Koeppe, I  hand you what’s been marked as Defen­
dants’ Exhibit H and ask you if you can identify it? A. 
Yes. This is a request for a continuation of Sara Wenger 
at Hallett, Grade 3. She was at Hallett, Grade 2, last year.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct



428a

And the second attachment is an approval to £670] con­
tinue on voluntary open enrollment to improve integration, 
a standard form, again dated August 1st, and this is ready 
for mailing.

Q. It has not yet been mailed? A. No, it has not.

Mr. Craig: We offer Defendants’ Exhibit H.
Mr. Greiner: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: II is received.

(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit H was re­
ceived in evidence.)

By Mr. Craig:

Q. Dr. Koeppe, are you also acquainted with the so-called 
voluntary open enrollment program other than the Hallett 
program? A. Yes. It’s the application of that to the 
Hallett situation, actually.

Q. How does that plan operate? A. Well, it basically 
allows individuals who are interested in transferring from 
one school to another to do so provided certain conditions 
are met; one, that there is room in the school to which the 
youngster desires to go, and, secondly, his presence will 
both improve the racial balance of the sending and receiv­
ing schools, and if these conditions are met, the request is 
granted and transportation is provided.

Q. When did this program first go into effect? [6713 
A. The Board adopted this at its November meeting this 
year and the first time it really went operational was the 
second semester of 1968-1969.

Q. Do you know how many pupils took advantage of this 
program in the second semester of 1969? A. As I recall, 
approximately 850 students were transferred at the semes­
ter under this policy.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct



429a

Q. Dr. Koeppe, I .hand you Defendants’ Exhibit I  and 
ask you if you can identify that? A. Yes. This is an 
interdepartmental communication from myself to Mr. Mc­
Williams, who is director of the office of Attendance and 
Pupil Records, also dated July 18th, and it gives me a 
status report on voluntary open enrollment—really, two 
aspects of it: one, the number of continuing requests and 
the number of new requests, and the total of July 18th, 
and also a report on the number of spaces that appear 
available for this fall for this program.

Mr. Craig: We would offer Defendants’ Exhibit I.
Mr. Greiner: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: It’s received.

(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit I was re­
ceived in evidence.)

The Court: Are you going to have him testify 
from it?

Mr. Craig: Yes, Your Honor.
E672J The Court: What’s he going to say about 

it?
Mr. Craig: He’s going to testify as to what it 

says in terms of numbers of spaces open for open 
enrollment.

The Court: Okay. Proceed.

Q. Calling your attention to the spaces provided for 
open enrollment in the senior high schools, how many 
available spaces are there in the senior high schools? A. 
There are 505 available.

Q. How many are available in the junior high schools? 
A. 725.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct



430a

Q. And, according to this exhibit, how many are avail­
able in elementary schools? A. Actually there are two 
parts to that report: one is dated in Mr. McWilliams’ 
handwriting, May, 1969, which shows 1,081, and in the 
cover to the attachments he indicated that the available— 
the total spaces available at the elementary level are ap­
proximately 1,300.

Q. And does that exhibit give the total number of vol­
untary open enrollment applications received as of the 
date of the exhibit? A. Yes, it does. I t indicates that, 
as of this date there are 836 new applications.

Q. Does it also include those continuing voluntary open 
enrollment? A. Yes, 541.

[673] Q. Has the administration actively solicited vol­
unteers for this program? A. No. The only exception is 
the Hallett program and we have not, pending the decision 
in this hearing.

Q. Dr. Koeppe, I hand you—

The Court: May I see that, please?

Q. —Defendants’ Exhibit J  and ask you if you can 
identify that? A. Yes. This is a copy of a form letter 
which will go out to students who would have been affected 
by 1520, encouraging them to consider taking advantage of 
the voluntary open enrollment plan.

Q. Doesn’t this letter also apply to those who were in­
volved in Resolutions 1524 and 1531? A. Yes, there are 
actually quite a few variations of this letter because it 
had to be modified depending upon what school area he 
was going to.

[674] Q. Now, were these letters prepared by persons 
under your supervision? A. Yes, signed by David R.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct



431a

McWilliams. Again, it was under Ms direction and super­
vision.

Mr. Craig: We offer Defendant’s ExMbit I.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ ExMbit I  was re­

ceived in evidence.)

Q. Now, Dr. Koeppe, are these letters ready to be mailed 
whenever you are permitted to do so? A. Yes, to my 
knowledge there are approximately 4,000 of these ready 
to be mailed.

Q. Now directing your attention to Defendants’ Exhibit 
I  again, I will hand you a copy. Can you tell us how many 
of those spaces in the senior high schools are open for or 
would improve integration if a Negro were to transfer. 
A. Well, the senior high schools listed, you would have 
to subtract the spaces at East and at Manual High School, 
that’s 50 and 75, is 125'—approximately 475 or 480 spaces 
would be available for Negro transfers.

Q. And the same question as to junior high schools. 
A. At the junior high school level I believe all 725 would 
be available spaces to Negro pupils.

Q. How many spaces would be available at the elemen­
tary school level? [675J A. Of the 1300, approximately 
900 would be available.

Q. :So, have you kept a total on the total number of 
spaces at all levels? A. 900 and 725, 16, 25 and—about 
2,000 spaces.

Q. Then, would you have to subtract the number of 
spaces for which you already have voluntary open enroll­
ment applications? A. Yes, you would only have to sub­
tract the new voluntary open enrollment inasmuch as the 
continuing in most cases are already counted as staying at

Richard Koeppe~for Defendants—Direct



432a

that school, so you would have to subtract 836 from 2,000, 
and that would give you the spaces still available as of 
today, or as of Friday.

Q. So, assuming all these spaces were filled by voluntary 
transfers from Negro and other minority pupils, would 
this free up a similar number of spaces for transfers by 
Anglos A. Well, that—not completely, because as I 
think has been mentioned on previous occasions, the schools 
from which the Negro youngsters would be coming are 
ones in which we are intending to either maintain a lower 
enrollment or actually reduce it further, so if we were to 
get 2,000 Negro youngsters out of these schools it wouldn’t 
in turn open 2,000. It would be 1,000 or 1200, I don’t know 
what [676] the number would be but it wouldn’t be a 
one-for-one exchange.

Q. But, assuming all these spaces were filled by trans­
ferring Anglo pupils, would that free up a similar number 
for additional minority pupils? A. Right, you would get 
a snowballing effect, because you would again have spaces 
elsewhere. This is one reason for the late date of notifying 
parents of the acceptance of the request because if we 
made the decision in June we might have to say no. On 
the other hand, if we have a child coming out of that 
school we could say yes, so we have to wait until all the 
data is in and take a look at it. But, yes, we free the space 
and the numbers would continue to snowball.

Q. Carrying this on to a theoretical conclusion, would 
this process repeat itself until there would no longer be 
any pupils in the Denver School System eligible for trans­
fer? A. In theory, yes.

Q. And what would you call this plane? A. Oh, racial 
balance, I suppose, in the schools. Integration. Racial 
balance.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct



433a

Q. Dr. Koeppe, I call your attention to Plaintiffs’ Ex­
hibit 6, the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Edu­
cation of June 9, 1969, and ask you to read the part
[677] starting with “B” on page 10. A. On voluntary 
open enrollment, it says, “It was moved by Mr. Southworth 
that in addition to the existing voluntary open enrollment 
policies with transportation provided that—” Is that the 
place ?

Q. Yes. A. “which includes all schools in the district, 
superintendent and staff be directed to develop and ini­
tiate concentrated and effective plans and programs de­
signed to achieve the voluntary exchange of pupils now 
residing in the Smiley Junior High School and East High 
School attendance areas with pupils now residing in the 
attendance areas of South, Thomas Jefferson, and George 
Washington High Schools, provided that such exchanges 
in school assignment result in improved understanding and 
integration both in the sending school and in the receiving 
school, that such plans and programs be made effective 
as soon as feasible and by the opening of school in Sep­
tember of 19691, if possible, and if not by the commence­
ment of the second semester of 1969-70 school year, and all 
such exchange programs shall be with transportation pro­
vided by the District.”

The motion was—then it has a roll call.
Q. Passed? A. Was seconded by Mr. Perrill and then 

there was a roll call.
[678] Q. Do you know the purpose of this motion? A. 
The purpose, of course, I  think is also stated in the motion 
itself, and I think it is an attempt to do voluntarily what 
1520 and 24 had done, to stabilize the schools at East and 
at Smiley and to bring about integration and understand­
ing.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct



434a

Q. Now, Dr. Koeppe, have you received any information 
as to the implementation of this motion? A. Yes, one 
communication from the superintendent.

Q. I hand you what has been marked as Defendants’ 
Exhibit K and ask you if you can identify it. A. All 
right, this is the memorandum from the superintendent to 
a number of persons in the central office and it is dated 
June 12, and the subject is staff meetings on Tuesday, 
June 10, regarding modification of plans as a result of 
Board of Education meeting on June 9, and it deals with a 
number of things.

Mr. Craig: We offer Defendants’ Exhibit K.
Mr. Greiner: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Exhibit K is received.

(Whereupon, Exhibit K was received in evi­
dence.)

Q. Dr. Koeppe, would you read paragraph 4 on page 2 
of that exhibit? A. “Regarding the resolution which calls 
upon us to £6793 devise special intensive programs for the 
voluntary transfer of pupils in the East and Smiley areas 
together with South, George Washington and Thomas 
Jefferson junior and senior high school areas, we will 
spend the summer in laying out a plan which will involve 
such organizations as the student council and P-T.A. that 
have volunteered to help. Our objective will be to have 
this plan completely laid out so that in the fall of this 
year we can involve the principals, teachers and other 
people in this program during the first semester with our 
target being the implementation of it the second semester. 
This in no way implies that we will not encourage or con­
sider voluntary enrollment by pupils in these schools un­

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct



43

der the existing open enrollment with transportation pro­
vided policy. It is felt to be quite important that this pro­
gram be well designed and well planned so that we are 
successful in its implementation. It was thought that too 
great a risk would be run in trying to implement this pro­
gram in the first semester, that failure in our efforts here 
might have serious effects on our future ability to pro­
mote these programs. It was indicated we ought to have 
this program sufficiently completed by November 1st so 
that we know how many people will be participating.”

Q. Dr. Koeppe, are you now working on the imple­
mentation of the planning directed in that communication? 
A. We haven’t specifically started on this, but we [6803 
intend to early next month. Mr. Liddell Thomas, who is 
currently principal at South High School, as of August 
1st will become the Assistant Executive Director of Sec­
ondary Education, and he has already been notified that 
one of his first priorities upon assuming this position will 
be to follow up on this directive from the superintendent.

We have also alerted other staff members such as Mr. 
Boom, who work with our student councils and others, 
that we will be doing this during the month of August, so 
that we are ready to put it in operation during September 
and October to do our intensive recruiting.

Q. Dr. Koeppe, do you have any opinion as to the pos­
sibility of success of such a plan? A. Well it is really 
very difficult to say. Out of the 850 that volunteered for 
the second semester this past year, I think something like 
250 or 300 were at the secondary level. I  don’t think we 
got really very much requests at the junior and senior 
high school level for this fall simply because 1520 has sort 
of precluded that. These schools were not eligible then 
for voluntary open enrollment. We have some indication

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct



436a

that among the student bodies some of the most concerned 
and interested in bringing about integration are the senior 
high school students and they all seem to have a bit more 
influence over their parents than certainly elementary chil­
dren. I think with a [6813 properly executed program 
with involvement of the students themselves it could be 
successful, but I  just really don’t know. We have to wait 
and see.

Q. Dr. Koeppe, Dr. Gilberts has already mentioned the 
Balarat proposal, the Balarat Outdoor Education Center, 
and I hand you what has been marked as Plaintiffs’ Ex­
hibit L and ask you if you can identify it. A. Yes, this is 
a as stated, “a Proposal to the Board of Education, the 
Balarat Site, Development of an Outdoor Education Cen­
ter for the Denver Public Schools,” and prepared in this 
form for September 1968.

Mr. Craig: We will offer Exhibit L.
Mr. Greiner: May I ask just one or two questions?
The Court: That’s Exhibit M?
Mr. Greiner: This is L, Your Honor.

Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q* Kr. Koeppe, the Balarat Site, when is that to be put 

in effect? A. Of course, in stages. We actually have a 
group of 30 youngsters on site there this summer, living 
in tents, preparing trails, preparing campsites and so forth. 
We have budgeted for 125 day trips to this site and back 
during 1969-70 and we are in the process now of working 
with the [682] Division of Planning and Engineering to 
decide exactly where permanent facilities will be con­
structed as Balarat, but I assume it will be several years

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants— Voir dire



437a

before it becomes fully operational, but we are really just 
beginning the planning stage.

Mr. Greiner: Well, Your Honor, I  object on the 
basis of relevancy. I  don’t see how the presence of 
what is being described in Defendants’ Exhibit L 
is going to have any effect on the fact of the rescis­
sion of these resolutions and the immediate impact 
in September of ’69, so we would object.

The Court: May I see it, please?
Mr. Craig: Your Honor, the purpose of offering 

this exhibit is the same as the other programs that 
we have mentioned, that one of the purposes of this 
program is to offer opportunities for interracial 
communication, and I just wanted to bring that 
point out.

The Court: The exhibit will be received.
(Defendants’ Exhibit L was received in evi­

dence.)
The Court: Do you wish to see it? Do you need 

it?
Mr. Craig: No, Your Honor. I believe Dr.

Koeppe has a copy.

[683J Direct Examination by Mr. Craig (Continued):
Q. Dr. Koeppe, directing your attention to page 4, would 

you just list by heading the various purposes of this out­
door educational center? A, Educational, scientific, cul­
tural and socio-economic, recreational.

Q. Then, would you come back to page 5 and read para­
graph 1 under “Cultural and Socioeconomic.” A. “To pro­
vide a site in which pupils from throughout the metropoli­

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct



438a

tan area can congregate away from the atmosphere in which 
prejudice breeds, one in which children of all races and 
economic backgrounds can meet in an atmosphere conducive 
to the development of understanding and respect for each 
other.”

Q. Has this program been given any top priority in terms 
of implementation? A. Yes, it is definitely a very high 
priority item, but as I said, our basic characterization of 
what we are going to be doing at Balarat during 1969-70 is 
planning, with some programs going operational. I  men­
tioned the group up there this summer, plus the 125 trips 
being planned during the year, and that’s what we will be 
doing during ’69-’70.

Mr. Craig: I have no further questions of [684] 
Dr. Koeppe at this time.

*  #  *  *  #

[685] * * *
Cross-Examination by Mr. Barnes:

Q. Dr. Koeppe, I  believe you testified to the early child­
hood education centers which are maintained an operated 
by the Denver Public Schools. A. That will be.

Q. That will be? A. Right.
Q. Have any of these programs gone into effect as of this 

time? A. Not those that are fully funded by DPS, no.
Q. How many children do you expect will be involved 

when they do go into effect? A. I would guess in the 
neighborhood of 75 to a hundred.

Q. When do you first expect those programs to go into 
effect? A. September of this year.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross



439a

Q. And as of this date you have no results from any such 
program undertaken in the past? A. Not that I ’m aware 
of.

Q. Turning your attention to the cultural arts [686] 
program which you described, do you recall from what rec­
ommendation that proposal arose? A. I believe a program 
similar to what finally became the cultural arts was sug­
gested in an advisory committee report to the Board.

Q. That would be the report of the advisory council on 
the equality of equal educational opportunities in Denver 
Public Schools? A. I believe so.

Q. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 21? A. (Nods affirmatively.)
Q. Directing your attention to page 53, to the last para­

graph, does it state there what the objectives of the cul­
tural arts program are? A. Yes, it does.

Q. And the concept of that committee.
Would you read the first sentence. A. I t says, “The 

objective would be to develop in each child the fullest po­
tential for creativity and appreciation while striving to 
stimulate general enthusiasm for education in those who 
are not now being fully motivated or receptive to the 
present standard curriculum being offered by the Denver 
Public Schools. Moreover, it was hoped there would be 
enhancement of broader understanding, a greater degree 
of cultural integration, and participation in meaningful 
activities involving intergroup [6873 relationships among 
pupils. . .”

Do you want me to go on?
Q. No, you can stop there.

The Court: What’s he referring to? Exhibit 21?
Mr. Barnes: Yes, this was Exhibit 21.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross



440a

Q. The cultural arts program which you describe is at 
least in part in response to the recommendation that is 
contained in this Exhibit 21? A. Apparently.

Q. What are the offerings of the cultural arts program? 
A. As I  understand it, they present instructions through 
four basic media: the art, drama, music and dance. These 
are either presented at the centers at Fairview and Ebert 
or youngsters are taken to various places in the com­
munity to take part in these programs.

Q. I show you Defendants’ Exhibit F and ask you to 
look at the paragraph there which is entitled, “What do we 
do?”

Do you see that paragraph? A. Yes, I  do.
Q. Does that list among other things that the contents 

of the cultural arts program will be to watch a play? [688] 
A. Yes.

Q. Dance with Russian scarves? A. Right.
Q. Joust with poles? A. (Nods affirmatively)
Q. Now, is that program—do you think that’s going to 

be effective in establishing motivation with regard to the 
standard curriculum pursuant to the advisory council rec­
ommendation? A. It might actually be too early to de­
termine that. I  don’t think the cultural arts program—It 
went into effect in 1967 and one of our problems with the 
program due to limited facilities has been relating the 
experience in the cultural arts center to the regular cur­
riculum. One of the real problems has been that the regu­
lar teachers have not been really aware of what the cultural 
arts program has done and they really haven’t been able to 
participate in it.

Our intention is, once we get a cultural arts center, the 
regular classroom teacher will actually attend the center 
with the youngsters and observe what they are doing so

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross



Mia

that there can he a greater relationship between the two. 
This is one problem we have right now.

[689] Q. Is there any serious thought that the courses 
and the offerings that are described there will result in 
higher achievement test scores in the predominantly black 
schools? A. I  think the word that was used in the ad­
visory council spoke of motivation and I think went be­
yond motivation to assume that this in turn might then 
bring about better achievement, yes.

Q. Turning your attention to the Hallett Elementary 
School project which you described, as I understand it 
their project was to he entirely voluntary, is that correct? 
A. Yes, it is.

Q. And as originally initiated it was to include a total 
of a thousand students, 500 in and 500 out? A. Eight.

Q. You testified that estimate is now down to a hoped- 
for 100 or 200. A. Well, you would have to double that, 
too.

Q. Eight, 400. A. Eight, possibly 500.
Q. Is there any relationship between the drop in your 

expectation of the participation in this program and the 
effect of the rescission of the integration resolutions? 
[690] A. First of all, let me state that I never made the 
expectation of 500. That number was put into the pro­
posal when it went to the Board of Education. To my 
knowledge that was put in there by the division of plan­
ning and engineering as an estimate of what it would take 
to racially balance the school. Our division was not con­
sulted as to that number nor was the office of school and 
community relations, and I think for that reason no num­
ber was put in either resolution. And I think the first ex­
pectation that either that office or our division had of what

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross



442a

we could accomplish by this fall, we would not have said 
500 ourselves.

Q. But that was a recommendation of the superinten­
dent at that time? A. Yes, it was, and the second part of 
your question? I am sorry, I have forgotten.

Q. The second part was whether you saw any relation­
ship between the drop in your estimate of the participation 
in that program and the effect of the rescission of the 
resolutions. A. I don’t think so. I think Mr. Cruter and 
members of our staff would have felt if we could have 
accomplished 250 to 300 given the time we have and the 
time of the year, the fact that the school was not going 
to be in session during July and August, I still think we 
would have set [691] that goal.

Q. As I understand it, all white parents who participate, 
who volunteer, are notified their children will be sent to 
Hallett. A. No, no one has been notified, no, because in 
order to make this plan operational it is contingent on get­
ting a like number out of Hallett to vacate the seats.

Q. The school to which the children will be sent is 
identified? A. Yes.

Q. Is the same identification given to the black parent 
who is going to send his child out for the other part of the 
Hallett program? A. Not to the same extent. We are, 
as I recall, trying to recruit through approximately 30 
elementary schools in southwest, south central and south­
east Denver, and in turn we are trying to vacate significant 
numbers of spaces in approximately 8 of these schools, so 
we are trying to pick what Mr. Cruter has called focal 
schools so that we can tell the parents at Hallett that it is 
very likely that they could have the option of going into 
one of these eight schools rather than have them con­
sider 30.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross



443a

Q. But, at the present time they are being told it may be 
one of somewhere between eight and thirty schools? A. I  
think our strategy is to talk at this time [6923 about the 
eight and not thirty, and we are quite hopeful to concen­
trate on the eight because we know this is what is of con­
cern to the Negro parent sending out his child.

Q. It affects the way it works? A. Yes.
Q. Part of the program depends upon the ability of 

parents to conceive the school their child will be going to 
attend? A. That is correct.

Q. One of the difficulties at the present time is that the 
black parent cannot actually see the school his child might 
attend? A. That is correct.

Q. Have you received requests from white parents that 
a single white school, predominantly Anglo school, be 
identified as a target school to which Hallett children could 
go? A. Yes, I  can’t recall whether we have g*otten it from 
Anglo or Negro, but I know we have gotten them.

Q. One of these suggestions was, was it not, that white 
children presently being transported to University Park 
be diverted to other southeast Denver schools, that Uni­
versity Park be made a target school for Hallett children? 
A. You say that was suggested?

[693] Q. Yes. A. Yes, I believe it was.
Q. According to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 89, which I believe 

is in evidence, there are 482 spaces in Montclair Annex, 
Pitts, Cory, Ellis, Denison, Traylor, Asbury, Slavens, Car- 
son and (xoldriek, is that correct? A. I am not familiar 
with the document.

(Counsel handed document to witness.)
Of course, now, this is data as of 1968, and the data I 

reported on this morning was data as of the present.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross



444a

Q. Is there some way in which that data should be 
modified? A. Which data?

Q. This data,. A. Well, I think the memorandum that 
I  got from Mr. McWilliams indeed supersedes this one. 
That’s the data which we have to work with now.

Q. How many spaces do your data say you have got in 
southeast Denver schools? A. The memorandum that I 
have from Mr. McWilliams gave only totals, and it I  think 
listed the schools hut did not break down spaces by schools.

Q. That would be Defendants’ Exhibit I? A. Yes.
[694] Q. Taking that exhibit, then, Mr. Koeppe, that 

exhibit states, does it not, the figures for spaces available 
under voluntary open enrollment? A. Right.

Q. In various high school areas? A. Right.
Q. Does that exhibit show that there are 34 elementary 

spaces in George Washington High School area? A. No, 
it doesn’t. It really has two parts to it. Are you referring 
to this 35?

Q. Yes. A. Of course, the totals for this particular 
document total to the 1,081, and Mr. McWilliams indicates 
that in redoing this we have actually got 1,300 and he 
doesn’t—and these are the schools in which the 1,300 
exist, but he doesn’t have any numbers attached to them, 
so I  don’t know for a fact how many exist.

Q. But there is a breakdown by schools, is there not? 
A. As of May, and I assume there is now, but it is not 
itemized here.

Q, As of May, how many spaces were there available in 
George Washington High School area? A. 34.

Q. How many were there in the South High School
[695] area? A. 73.

Q. And how many in the Thomas Jefferson School area? 
A. 103.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross



445a

Q. By quick arithmetic I  get about 210 total for those 
spaces. Does that seem about right? A. Right.

Q. So that by the School District’s own figures, there 
were at least 210 spaces available in southeast Denver 
schools in the elementary schools, were there not? A. In 
early May, yes.

Q. Right. Now, according to Defendants’ Exhibit R, 
there were or there are 501 students being bused into 
University Park, is that correct? A. Yes.

Q. And 210 of those students could have been reassigned 
to spaces which you show are available under voluntary 
open enrollment, could they not? A. That’s possible.

Q. So the parents have suggested to you that these 
spaces be made in a single target school made a fairly 
reasonable suggestion, did they not? A. Well, a couple 
of things have to be taken into account. One is the fact 
that spaces, the data that Mr. [6963 McWilliams had, is 
broken down by grade and the totals on Exhibit R are 
exactly that, so that we might have youngsters who would 
come through University Park in theory to the South High 
area, yet, for example, if there are many that are third 
graders we have only four spaces for third graders and 
seven spaces for sixth graders, so it would have to be 
broken up in detail.

Another problem is simply the matter of transportation 
out, transportation out of the geographic areas. We might 
do this in one or two buses going from a given school to a 
given area, but if we transport from a given area to a 
larger number of schools it compounds the setting up of 
the transportation; but the total number of spaces you 
alluded to is accurate, but by grade level it may not be.

Q. Do I understand correctly that prior to January 
1968 children were transported all the way from south­

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross



446a

west Denver in the Traylor School all the way across to 
University Park? A. Yes, I understand you,

Q. iSo that the distance involved in transportation would 
be hard to extend would it not? A. Right.

£6973 Q. And we’re talking about spaces available now 
in Southeast Denver to which children from the Southeast 
Denver annexed areas might be diverted, are we not? A. 
(Nods affirmatively.)

Q. So the transportation is not really the crux of that 
redistribution problem, is it? A. I really am not compe­
tent to comment on that. That’s in Mr. Olander’s area and 
I don’t know what complication this would have caused.

Q. Based on your reflections just now on the requests 
of these parents to have these children rediverted and 
create this target school at University Park where Hallett 
parents could send their children, do you have any more 
detailed explanation of why those parents were turned 
down? A. No, I  don’t.

Q. As I understand it, the Hallett Elementary School 
is the only school area—the only area where the intensive 
recruiting is being* done for participation in the voluntary 
program? A. That’s correct.

Q. I t’s not being done in any other elementary school? 
A. Oh, it’s being done in elementary schools of South, 
Central and Southeastern. You’re talking about pre­
dominantly black elementary?

Q. Yes, but those are children who are being recruited 
[698] to go to Hallett? A. Right.

Q. I t’s not being done with regard to any other target 
school like Hallett? A. That’s correct.

Q. Is it being done in any junior high school? A. Not 
at this time.

Q. Any senior high school? A. Not at this time.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross



447a

Q. So that intensive recruiting effort which was de­
scribed earlier is an effort confined to a single elementary 
school, is that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. Turning your attention to voluntary open enrollment 
programs in general, Dr. Koeppe, I believe that the De­
fendants’ Exhibit I shows that there were 1,081 spaces 
in the senior high school areas when that exhibit was 
prepared? A. That 1,081 is the elementary spaces.

Q. Elementary spaces. You’re right.
And, as I understand it, that cover letter now says that 

there are something like 1,300 such spaces? A. That’s 
correct.

Q. How many children, Dr. Koeppe, are located in the 
mobile units at Smith Stedman and Phillips? Do you re­
call how many mobile units there are? [6993 A. No.

Q. Would 22 sound about right? A. Recalling from 
yesterday’s testimony, yes, I guess it would.

Q. There would be about 30 children in each mobil unit? 
A. Probably not that high. Probably more like 25.

Q. Or something less than 660 children in those mobile 
units, then, is that correct? A. That’s close, I ’m sure.

Q. And you have got something like 1,300 voluntary 
open enrollment spaces by your own figures in Southeast 
Denver? A. Some of these, of course, have been re­
quested—we have requests at this time for 397 of those 
under the new voluntary open enrollment.

Q. Why don’t you transfer the children who are in the 
mobile units and confined in this area of town to those 
spaces, Dr. Koeppe? A. To do this would—I really don’t 
know. I hadn’t thought of that strategy, first of all, and it 
would preclude, of course, any use of voluntary open en­
rollment. It would literally take the space. It could knock 
out Hallett’s plan.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross



448a

Q. Do you regard the mobile units in Northeast Denver 
as permanent? A. I  personally don’t, no.

Q. You have been made aware, have you not, by parents 
[700] in that area of their desire to have the mobile units 
closed? A. Some parents, yes.

Q. And it is the policy, is it not, of the Board to trans­
port children for the purposes of relieving overcrowding? 
That’s stated in 1533, is it not? A. Bight, it is.

Q. Now, turning to the effects of voluntary open en­
rollment on the problems in Northeast Denver, one of the 
problems to which the integration resolutions addressed 
themselves is the problem of stabilization of schools in that 
area, isn’t that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. Isn’t it true that the voluntary open enrollment pro­
gram has a random effect? A. In that it is voluntary.

Q. Right. A. Yes.
Q. In that each of the parents makes his own decision 

about to which school his child will be sent? A. That’s 
true to an extent. It depends upon the recruiting proce­
dure that is used. For example, if we intensively recruit 
door-to-door we might limit that to a given geographical 
area of a subdistrict which is in terms to our advantage 
in picking up children for busing.

Q. Now, on the policy it is stated children can be [701] 
moved to any school where it will improve the racial bal­
ance, isn’t that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. So a parent may decide to go to Traylor, as well as 
Phillips, might he not? A. That’s right.

Q. So as a result of the random choices of all the parents 
involved, there may be no concentrated effect in Northeast 
Denver, isn’t that correct? A. That could happen.

Q. What does that do to your expectation to Northeast 
Denver to be stabilized? A. I  don’t see—

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross



449a

Q. Well, under the resolutions there was an attempt to 
stabilize the concentration in the Northeast Denver area. 
Will this have any predictable effect on that? A. You’re 
talking about getting youngsters out of Northeast Denver; 
not getting youngsters into Northeast Denver.

Q. That effect is random, too, is it not? A. Eight, but 
both have to occur for stabilization to take place.

Q. Eight. Now, as I  understand it, the voluntary open 
enrollment program has been made know  to students 
through letters to the parents issued by principals, is that 
right? A. That was true at the beginning of the second 
[702] of that last year, yes.

Q. And program counselors have told the students about 
it? A. It’s possible. I don’t know that they have been.

Q. Have you not made any effort to counsel the students 
on the advantages or disadvantages of voluntary open en­
rollment? A. We haven’t at the secondary level as I  
mentioned in my testimony this morning because of the 
existence of 1520. I  also testified this morning that we 
have every intention of doing that exact thing during 
September and October in the secondary schools of North­
east Denver and teachers and so forth.

Q. Voluntary open enrollment was in effect, wasn’t it, 
in the spring of this year? A. It was.

Q. And it was enacted last November? A. That’s right.
Q. So there was plenty of opportunity to tell the coun­

selors that the program was in effect and that children 
could take advantage of it. A. Bight, but 1520 was passed 
in January, which made that effort unnecessary.

Q. As to those schools? A. That’s right.
[703] Q. Did it make it unnecessary as to the rest of 

the school district, Dr. Koeppe? A. No.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross



450a

Q. Well, has any thought been given to the problem of 
gearing up voluntary open enrollment programs each 
year? A. Well, I  think there is—in essence, we’re going 
to have to take a step at a time in our efforts and our 
efforts at this time are geared for doing what we can at 
Hallett this fall and doing what we can at the secondary 
schools for the second semester of 1969-70 and learning 
from these experiences.

Q. Would you not have to do the same each year—the 
same thing each year in order to get full participation? 
A. I t’s possible but, of course, it’s our hope that as we get 
persons involved in these types of programs, if they prove 
to be beneficial and successful, that these persons will in­
deed join with us and help us sell the program rather than 
relying solely on ourselves. And we have gotten consider­
able assistance from the few that have volunteered up to 
this point. So it’s a matter of selling in many ways.

I can recall a group of students from East, for example, 
putting on an assembly program, to another high school 
to encourage youngsters to come to East and this sort of 
thing. So when you talk about recruiting and selling, this 
has to be done in many, many ways and I think perhaps 
£704] Mr. Cruter outlined for you on Thursday, I think 
it was when he testified, that to use radio, television, and 
newspapers, and the youngsters and P-TA, and whatnot, 
and we simply haven’t had time and we haven’t had the 
right time of year to involve that number of people.

Q. Well, you did have all spring. A. For what?
Q. To recruit people for voluntary open enrollment. 

A. Eight.
Q. What’s the purpose, Dr. Koeppe, of voluntary open 

enrollment? A. I think it’s indicated in the policy itself; 
to bring about integration in Denver Public Schools and 
better understanding between the races.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross



451a

Q. Is there any educational purpose? A. I  think this 
would be one of the objects of education, also. I don’t see 
that these things are incompatible.

Q. Not necessarily incompatible, but they are consistent 
with the purposes of the school district, are they not? A. 
Yes, they are.

Q. Does not voluntary open enrollment transfer from 
the school district to the parents this educational decision? 
A. Perhaps that particular aspect of it does, but there 
are other programs that can supplement voluntary open 
[7053 enrollment, such as the cultural arts and Balarat 
and secondary center.

Q. Is there any educational advantage to integration, 
that decision must be made entirely by the parents, is that 
correct? A. Under voluntary open enrollment, yes.

Q. So that you have abdicated any authority on that 
possibility? A. I  have?

Q. The school district. A. It could be interpreted that 
way, I  guess.

Q. Now, would it be fair to say that one of the problems 
in predominantly black schools is the problem of educa­
tional motive? A. Yes.

Q. Do those who lack motive to achieve in school have 
the motive to participate in voluntary open enrollment? 
A. I don’t know. I would tend to think not.

Q. There’s sort of a logical inconsistency there, isn’t 
there, Dr. Koeppe? A. I  didn’t understand.

Q. Asking those who suffer from the problem to recog­
nize it and perceive how to solve it. A. This could be.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross

Mr. Barnes: No further questions.



452a

Preliminary Injunction
(Filed July 29, 1969)

This matter having come on for hearing on the motion 
of plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction, and the Court 
having heard the testimony of the witnesses, having re­
viewed and considered the exhibits in evidence herein, 
and having heard the statements of counsel:

The Court finds that:
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter 

of this action under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1343(3) and 1343(4). 
This is a civil action authorized by law and arising under 
Title 42 TJ.S.C. Section 1983 and the Fourteenth Amend­
ment of the Constitution of the United States;

2. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties herein;

3. Plaintiffs and the classes which they represent have 
no adequate remedy at law;

4. Unless this preliminary injunction issues, plaintiffs 
and the classes which they represent will suffer irreparable 
injury;

5. Plaintiffs and their classes have demonstrated a rea­
sonable probability that they will ultimately prevail upon 
the merits on a full trial herein.

Based on the Court’s oral findings and conclusions of 
July 23, 1969, it is

Ordered, A djudged and Decreed that the motion for a 
temporary injunction should be and the same is hereby 
granted. The defendants, their agents and servants are



453a

Preliminary Injunction

enjoined and restrained, during the pendency of this ac­
tion, from any conduct which would modify the status 
quo as it existed prior to June 9, 1969, in respect to ac­
quisition of equipment, destruction or relocating of docu­
ments, writings and memoranda, and from any action 
which would seek to implement Resolution 1533 insofar 
as the said Resolution would rescind integration policies 
which existed on June 9, 1969, and prior thereto, and 
insofar as it would adopt policies which would have the 
effect of restoring the segregation which existed prior 
to the enactment of Resolutions 1520, 1524 and 1531.

This temporary injunction shall continue during the 
pendency of this suit and until the action is tried on its 
merits.

Defendants are granted ten days from and after July 23, 
1969, for the purposes of seeking an appeal or review of 
this ruling.

Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 29th day of July, A.D. 
1969.

By the Court:
/s /  W illiam E. D oyle

W illiam E. D oyle, Judge 
United States District Court



454-a

Memorandum Opinion and Order of District Court
(Dated July 31, 1969)

Reprinted in Appendix to Petition 
for Certiorari, pp. la-19a

See 303 F. Supp. 279



455a

Opinion of Court of Appeals
(August 5, 1969)

July Term, A ugust 5t h , 1969

Before the Honorable Alfred P. Murrah, Chief Judge and 
Honorable Jean. S. Breitenstein and Honorable John J. 
Hickey, Circuit Judges

404-69

School D istrict N umber O n e ,
D enver, Colorado, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

W ilfred K eyes, et al.,
Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the District of Colorado.

This case is before the court on the motion of the ap­
pellants for a stay of a preliminary injunction. That in­
junction after ordering the Board of Education to refrain 
from conduct “in respect to acquisition of equipment, 
destruction or relocating of documents, writings and memo­
randa” prohibits any action

“which would seek to implement Resolution 1533 insofar 
as the said Resolution would rescind integration pol­
icies which existed on June 9, 1969, and prior thereto, 
and insofar as it would adopt policies which would 
have the effect of restoring the segregation which



456a

existed prior to the enactment of Resolutions 1520, 
1524 and 1531.”

We doubt that the order is sufficient to satisfy the re­
quirements of Rule 65(c), F.R. Civ. P., that every injunc­
tive order “shall be specific in terms.” The reference to 
“policies” would seem to require definition.

We interpret the intent of the order to be that the Board 
of Education must comply with, and operate under, the 
policies expressed in Resolutions 1520, 1524 and 1531. This 
interpretation conforms to that of the counsel who have 
briefed and argued the matter. If this interpretation is 
correct, we are presented with a problem that was neither 
presented to nor considered by the district court. If the 
interpretation is not correct, the injunctive order lacks the 
required specificity.

The problem is that Resolutions 1520, 1524 and 1531, as 
we understand them and as counsel present them, seeks 
to achieve racial balance by requiring the transportation 
of pupils or students from one school to another. Title IV, 
§407(a), 42 U.S.C. §2000c(6)(a), of the 1964 Civil Rights 
Act, contains the following proviso:

“provided that nothing herein shall empower any offi­
cial or court of the United States to issue any order 
seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by 
requiring the transportation of pupils or students from 
one school to another or one school district to another 
in order to achieve such racial balance, or otherwise 
enlarge the existing power of the court to insure com­
pliance with constitutional standards.”

The quoted language is on its face a limitation on the 
power of a federal court to achieve racial balance by trans-

Opinion of Court of Appeals



457a

portation of children from one school to another. Nothing 
to which our attention has been called in the record shows 
that this statute was either called to the attention of, or 
considered by, the trial court.

The question of the applicability and effect of the statute 
should be considered, in the first instance, by the trial court. 
We express no opinion in regard thereto. We decline to 
consider and determine a question of such importance on 
this application for a stay and on the basis of the record 
presented to us.

The procedural aspects of the case concern us. We credit 
all parties with a good faith desire to reach a wise solution 
of the problem posed by the desirability of achieving the 
requisite racial balance in the schools. A simple grant of 
the stay would prolong the litigation because then we 
would have to consider the appeal on its merits. The re­
mand of the case at this time will enable the trial court to 
consider and act on the problem which is presented by the 
record before us.

Accordingly, the order granting the preliminary injunc­
tion is vacated and held for naught. The ease is remanded 
to the district court for further proceedings.

W illiam L. W hittaker, Clerk

By: /s/ A nne M. Cahst 
Deputy Clerk

Opinion of Court of Appeals



458a

Supplemental Findings, Conclusions 
and Temporary Injunction by District Court

(August 14, 1969)

Reprinted in Appendix to Petition 
for Certiorari, pp. 20a-43a

See 303 F. Supp. 289



459a

Opinion of Court of Appeals
(August 27, 1969)

Before Honorable Alfred P. Murrah, Chief Judge and 
Honorable Jean S. Breitenstein and Honorable John J. 
Hickey, Circuit Judges

School D istrict N umber O n e ,
D enver, Colorado, et al.,

Appellants,
No. 432-69

v.

W ilfred K eyes, et al.,
Appellees.

This matter is before the court on the motion of the 
defendants-appellants for a stay of the preliminary in­
junction issued by the district court on August 14, 1969. 
The injunction changes the attendance areas of various 
Denver schools to alleviate the racial segregation which 
the district court found to exist. It will require, indirectly 
if not directly, the transportation of students over greatly 
varying distances to and from contiguous and non-con- 
tiguous attendance districts.

The district court conducted an extensive hearing and 
entered carefully prepared findings of fact and conclusions 
of law. Although the findings of fact are contested by the 
appellants, we accept them for the purpose of our con­
sideration of the case at this time. They represent a pains­
taking analysis of the evidence presented. They establish 
a racial imbalance in certain named schools. From the facts 
found, the district court either made a conclusion or drew



460a

an inference, that the jure segregation exists in named 
schools. Its grant of the temporary injunction is grounded 
on the premise that there is de jure segregation. In the 
time permitted, we are unable to make an examination of 
the record and the law to determine whether the inference 
is reasonable or the conclusion legally justifiable.

The ease presents the questions of (1) whether the 
neighborhood school concept shall yield to compulsory in­
tegration which will be achieved by the transportation of 
students to and from contiguous and non-contiguous at­
tendance districts, and (2) whether such transportation 
may be ordered by a federal court in the light of the pro­
visions of § 407(6) (a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
11 TT.S.C. § 2000c-6(a). The same questions are presented 
in Nos. 433-69, 434-69, and 435-69. An opinion in those 
cases is filed concurrently with this opinion.

The questions are important and difficult of resolution. 
This was recognized by the trial court. Its decision may be 
correct. We are in doubt. The parties impress upon us 
the need for prompt action. The Denver schools are sched­
uled to open on September 2. In the time permitted, we 
are unable to come to a conclusion whether the plaintiffs- 
appellees will prevail on the merits or are likely to prevail 
on the merits.

We are oath to disturb a preliminary action taken by an 
experienced trial judge. We must decide whether the pub­
lic interest is best served by the maintenance of the status 
quo or by the acceptance of the injunctive order.

We note that the hearing did not encompass all of the 
issues tendered by the complaint; that the defendants- 
appellants have not answered but have a motion to dismiss 
pending; and that the trial court specifically reserved cer­
tain matters “pending consideration of this action at the

Opinion of Court of Appeals



461a

trial on the merits.” We are impressed with the idea that 
the important and difficult questions presented should not 
be determined on an application for a preliminary injunc­
tion or in a manner which affects some but not all of the 
Denver schools. We question the piece-meal consideration 
of a city-wide problem. See the opinion filed today in 
Dowell v. Board of Education.

The United States Supreme Court has forbidden racial 
segregation in the schools and has demanded that deseg­
regation be accomplished with all convenient speed. This 
mandate must be followed. In a metropolitan area like 
Denver, the attainment of the objective is closely allied to 
sociological and economic problems which do not lend them­
selves to judicial solution. Any plan of desegregation or 
integregation which is devised either by a court or by an 
administrative agency must depend for its success on the 
understanding cooperation of the people of the area. Such 
understanding and cooperation is perhaps more likely to 
result from actions taken after a full trial on the merits 
than on action which of necessity is hurried because taken 
on an application for a preliminary injunction.

On balance we believe that the public interest is best 
served by a maintenance of the conditions existing before 
the action was brought until the trial of the case on the 
merits and the entry by the district court of such final 
judgment as it deems appropriate. In recognition of the 
seriousness of the problem and the desirability of prompt 
action, we assure the parties that an appeal from a final 
judgment herein will be expedited and will be heard by 
the full court. See also Dowell v. Board of Education, 
supra.

The maintenance of the status quo requires the con­
tinuation of that portion of the preliminary injunction

Opinion of Court of Appeals



462a

which restrains the defendants-appellants from actions with 
respect to “acquisition of equipment, destruction or reloca­
tion of documents, writings and memoranda” related to the 
School Board Resolutions mentioned therein. Otherwise, 
the preliminary injunction issued by the United States Dis­
trict Court in its cause No. C-1499 entitled Wilfred Keyes, 
et al., v. School District Number One, Denver, Colorado, 
et al., is stayed and shall be of no force and effect until 
the further order of this court.

A true copy

Teste

William L. Whittaker
Clerk, U. S. Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit

Opinion of Court of Appeals

By: / s /  .......... . ? ?
Deputy Clerk

Dated: August 27, 1969



463a

Order

Supreme Court of the U nited States 
No. .......... , October Term, 1969

W ilfred K eyes, et al.,

vs.
Applicants,

School D istrict N umber One, 
Denver, Colorado, et al.

U pon Consideration of a motion submitted by the ap­
plicants to vacate an order of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued in this case on Au­
gust 29, and to reinstate the order of the United States 
District Court for the District of Colorado issued on Au­
gust 14,

It Is H ereby Ordered that the motion is granted, the 
order of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the order 
of the United States District Court is reinstated.

/s /  W illiam J. B rennan 
Acting Circuit Justice

Dated this 29th day of August, 1969.



464a

Opinion by Brennan, / .  on Application for 
Vacation of Stay

Supreme Court oe the U nited States 
October Term, 1969

W ilfred K eyes, et al.,
Applicants„ 

v.

School D istrict N umber One,
Denver, Colorado, et al.

[August 29, 1969]
M r. Justice Brennan, Acting Circuit Justice.
In this school desegregation case I am asked to vacate 

a stay by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit of a 
preliminary injunction entered by the District Court for 
the District of Colorado. The preliminary injunction has 
the effect of requiring partial implementation of a school 
desegregation plan prepared by School District No. 1, 
Denver, Colorado and then rescinded by that Board after 
changes in membership followed a school board election.

The Court of Appeals issued the stay pending decision 
of an appeal taken by the School Board from the pre­
liminary injunction. I  have concluded that the stay was 
improvidently granted and must be vacated. An order 
of a District Court granting or denying a preliminary 
injunction should not be disturbed by a reviewing court 
unless it appears that the grant of the injunction was an 
abuse of discretion. Alabama v. United States, 279 U. S.



465a

229 (1929). Where a preliminary injunction has issued to 
vindicate constitutional rights, the presumption in favor 
of the District Court’s action applies with particular force. 
'The Court of Appeals did not suggest that the District 
Court abused its discretion. On the contrary, the Court 
of Appeals expressly stated that the District Court’s find­
ing of fact “represent a painstaking analysis of the evi­
dence presented. They establish a racial imbalance in cer­
tain named schools. From the facts found, the District 
Court either made a conclusion or drew an inference, that 
de jure segregation exists in named schools. Its grant of 
the temporary injunction is grounded on the premise that 
there is de jure segregation.”

The Court of Appeals nevertheless stated that it “must 
decide whether the public interest is best served by the 
maintenance of the status quo or by the acceptance of the 
injunctive order,” since the time before the Denver schools 
open on September 2 was insufficient to permit an examina­
tion of the record to determine whether the District Court 
correctly held that this was a case of de jure segregation. 
It may be that this inquiry was appropriate notwithstand­
ing the presumption in favor of continuing the prelimi­
nary injunction in force. But the reasons given by the 
Court of Appeals for striking the balance in favor of the 
stay clearly supplied no support in law for its action. I t 
was not correct to justify the stay on the ground that con­
stitutional principles demanded only “that desegregation 
be accomplished with all convenient speed.” “The time for 
mere ‘deliberate speed’ has run out. . . .” Griffin v. County 
School Board, 377 U. S. 218, 234 (1964). “The burden on a 
school board today is to come forward with a plan that 
promises realistically to work, and promises realistically 
to work now.” Green v. County School Board, 391 U. S.

Opinon by Brennan, J. on Application for Vacation of Stay



466a

Opinon by Brennan, J. on Application for Vacation of Stay

430, 439 (1968). The obligations of the District Court was 
to assess the effectiveness of the School Board’s plans in 
light of that standard. Id., at 439. Since the Court of 
Appeals not only was unable to say that the District 
Court’s assessment was an abuse of discretion, but agreed 
that it “may be correct,” the stay of the preliminary in­
junction was improvident.

The Court of Appeals also seems to have based its action 
on the premise that public support for the plan might be 
developed if any order awaited final hearing; the Court of 
Appeals stated that a plan of desegregation “must depend 
for its success on the understanding cooperation of the 
people of the area.” But the desirability of developing 
public support for a plan designed to redress de jure 
segregation cannot be justification for delay in the im­
plementation of the plan. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1 
(1958).

I therefore grant the application, vacate the Order of 
the Court of Appeals, and direct the reinstatement of the 
Order of the District Court.



467a

(September 15, 1969)
Before Honorable Alfred P. Murrah, Chief Judge, and 
Honorable Jean S. Breitenstein and Honorable John J. 
Hickey, Circuit Judges

O pin ion  o f  Court o f  A ppeals

School D istrict N umber One, 
D enver, Colorado, et al.,

No. 432-69
Appellants,

v.

W ilfred K eyes, et al.,
Appellees.

This matter is before the court on the motion of the 
defendants-appellants that the court amend its August 27, 
1969, order by specifically holding that the district court 
abused its discretion in the grant of its August 14, 1969, 
preliminary injunction.

The record before us at the time of our order showed 
that Colorado has not, and never has had, any state im­
posed school or residential segregation. No discrimination 
in school transfers was either shown or claimed. No gerry­
mandering was shown or claimed. The district court’s 
findings of de jure segregation, or a dual system, were 
confined to a small number of schools and were based on 
the failure or refusal of the School Board to anticipate 
population migration and to adjust school attendance dis­
tricts to alleviate the imbalance resulting from such pop-



468a

illation shifts. We believed that in the circumstances 
public policy favored a maintenance of the status quo 
until the problem could be considered and determined on 
a city-wide basis.

The situation has now changed. Our stay was vacated 
and the preliminary injunction restored. The schools have 
opened in compliance, so far as we know, with the re­
quirements of the preliminary injunction. Any change now 
ordered would have a disruptive effect on the students, 
the teachers, and the general school administration. Again 
looking at the problem from the standpoint of public pol­
icy, we are convinced that, for the present, we should not 
disturb the preliminary injunction.

The resolution of the issues is of great public importance. 
All persons in interest are entitled to be heard. We direct 
the attention of the district court and of counsel to the 
fact that in the litigation concerning the Oklahoma City 
schools we permitted the intervention of persons having a 
litigible interest. During the argument of the motion under 
consideration, we were told that the case in the district 
court is going forward expeditiously and that a trial date 
in November of this year has been set tentatively. In the 
circumstances we believe that further proceedings on this 
appeal should await the disposition of the case on its 
merits. We hope that the case may be promptly tried on 
the merits and decided. We renew the statement that the 
court of appeals will expedite any appeal. Nothing con­
tained herein, or in the August 27, 1969, order, shall be 
taken as an expression of opinion by this court on any 
issue that may be presented in the trial and determination 
of the merits of the case.

Opinion of Court of Appeals



469a

The motion is denied and further proceedings on the 
appeal are held in abeyance until the further order of the 
court.

Dated: September 15, 1969

A true copy 

Teste

William L. Whittaker
Clerk, II. S. Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit

By: /s/  Joyce R. Stuck 
Deputy Clerk

Opinion of Court of Appeals



470a

Answer
(Filed October 6, 1969)

In the U nited States D istrict Court 
For the D istrict op Colorado

Civil Action No. C-1499

Now C ome all Defendants herein, except Rachel B. Noel, 
John H. Amesse and James D. Voorhees, Jr., by their 
attorneys, Henry, Cockrell, Quinn & Creighton, and Ken­
neth Wormwood, and for their answer to the complaint 
allege:

First D efense
The complaint fails to state a claim against said Defen­

dants upon which relief can be granted.

Second D efense
Defendants expressly deny any allegation of the coim 

plaint which charges or implies that they discriminate 
against Plaintiffs or any other child within Defendants’ 
jurisdiction on the basis of race, color or ethnicity; Defen­
dants expressly deny any allegation of the complaint which 
charges or implies that educational opportunity afforded 
to the children within Defendants’ jurisdiction is based 
upon race, color or ethnicity; Defendants expressly and 
categorically deny that any of their actions referred to in 
the complaint have deprived Plaintiffs or any other person 
within Defendants’ jurisdiction of equal protection of the 
law.



471a

Answer

Third D efense
Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in 

the complaint except as follows:

I. Jurisdiction
As to those allegations hereunder which describe what 

is sought by Plaintiffs by their complaint, Defendants are 
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a be­
lief as to the truth thereof; and Defendants expressly 
deny that this Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants 
and the subject matter of this action.

II. Parties
1. Defendants admit, based upon the records of Defen­

dant School District: that the minor Plaintiffs are citizens 
of the United States of America and are, except for Plain­
tiff Gregory L. Wade, as to whom Defendants have no 
current information indicating that said Plaintiff is pres­
ently enrolled in school in this school district, citizens of 
the State of Colorado and residents within School District 
No. 1; that, except for Plaintiffs Gregory L. Wade and 
Rhonda 0. Jennings, the places of residence of the minor 
Plaintiffs are at the addresses of their respective parents 
and aunt stated at the foot of the complaint; and that the 
minor Plaintiffs, except Plaintiff Gregory L. Wade, are 
now (October, 1969) attending schools as follows:

Christi Keyes 
Kris M. Colley 
Mark A. Williams 
Rhonda 0. Jennings 
Denise Michelle Starks

Hallett Elementary 
Hill Junior High 
East High
Kepner Junior High 
Palmer Elementarv



472a

Answer

Carlos A. Perez 
Sheila R. Perez 
Terry J. Perez 
Dinah L. Becker 
Sarah S. Weiner

Merrill Junior High 
Hallett Elementary

West High 
Baker Junior High 
Greenlee Elementary

Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 
2, 3 and 4 of Part B nnder this heading. As to Defendant 
School District, its full corporate title is School District 
No. 1 in the City and County of Denver and State of 
Colorado, it is created pursuant to Articlie XX, §7, of the 
Colorado Constitution and operates pursuant thereto and 
to the general school laws of the State of Colorado.

2. Defendants allege that they are without knowledge 
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 
those allegations in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part A under 
this heading, except those admitted in the preceding para­
graph, and therefore deny the same.

Defendants admit that Defendant Board of Education 
passed and enacted Resolutions Nos. 1520, 1524 and 1531 
on the dates alleged; that the minor Plaintiffs, on the date 
of the commencement of this action, resided within the 
attendance areas alleged; that Defendant Board of Edu­
cation has, prior to the commencement of this action, initi­
ated the purchase of 27 school buses; and Defendants ad­
mit the allegations contained in the first two sentences of 
Part L and all of Part M under this heading.

III. First Cause of Action



473a

Answer

IV. Second Cause of Action
1. As to the allegations contained in the complaint un­

der the Second Cause of Action, to the extent that such 
allegations incorporate by reference allegations of the 
First Cause of Action, Defendants incorporate herein by 
reference their answer to such allegations hereinabove set 
forth.

2. As to the other allegations in the complaint under 
said Second Cause of Action, Defendants allege that De­
fendant School District has established school attendance 
area boundaries on the basis of nonracial criteria which 
result in the assignment of pupils to schools generally 
nearest their places of residence, but expressly deny that 
any attendance boundaries have ever been created or al­
tered with the intent of segregating pupils because of race 
or with that effect.

3. Defendants admit that in some schools in the School 
District pupils are grouped, in some courses, according 
to ability in those courses and irrespective of race or 
ethnicity, but Defendants deny that any such ability group­
ing segregates or separates pupils on the basis of race or 
ethnicity or denies to any pupil an equal educational op­
portunity, and deny that such grouping constitutes a 
“track system” as alleged.

W herefore , Defendants pray that the complaint be dis­
missed, that the preliminary injunction heretofore entered 
herein be dissolved, that judgment be entered herein in 
favor of Defendants and against the Plaintiffs, that De~



474a

Answer

fendants recover their costs herein, and for such other 
and further relief as may to the Court appear proper.

H enry, Cockrell, Quinn & Creighton
By /s/ V ictor Quinn

1415 Security Life Building 
Denver, Colorado 80202 
Telephone: 244-6075

/ s /  K e n n e t h  M. W ormwood 
Kenneth M. Wormwood 
810 Symes Building 
Denver, Colorado 80202 
Telephone: 244-5475
Attorneys for all Defendants ex­
cept John H. Amesse, Rachel B. 
Noel and James D. Voorhees, Jr., 
in their individual capacities.

[Certificate of M ailing Omitted]



475a

Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Filed October 17, 1969)

1st th e  U nited  S tates D istrict  C ourt 
F or th e  D istrict op C olorado

Civil Action No. C-1499

This M atter having1 come on to be heard on Septem­
ber 11, 1969, upon the motions of certain of the defendants 
herein, and the Court, having considered the briefs filed 
herein, and having heard the statements of counsel, hereby 
finds and orders as follows:
Nature of the Action

This is a civil action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 
wherein jurisdiction of the subject matter is founded upon 
28 U.S.C. <§ 1343(3). Plaintiffs bring this suit as a class 
action to redress the alleged deprivation of their rights 
under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment, maintaining that defendants have unlawfully segre­
gated minority Negro and Hispano children in the public 
schools of the Defendant District. The relief sought is 
solely equitable in nature, being an injunction against the 
continuation of the allegedly segregated schools through 
the requirement of a plan for desegregation of said schools.

Moving Defendants
The moving defendants are :
School District No. One, Denver, Colorado;
The Board of Education of School District No. One, 
Denver, Colorado;



476a

William C. Berge, Stephen J. Knight, Jr., James C. 
Perrill, Frank K. Southworth, John H. Amesse, James 
D. Voorhees, Jr., and Rachel B. Noel, in their official 
representative capacities as members of The Board of 
Education of School District No. One, Denver, Colorado; 
William C. Berge, Stephen J. Knight, Jr., James C. 
Perrill and Frank K. Southworth, in their individual 
capacities; and

Robert D. Gilberts, individually and as Superintendent 
of Schools of the District.

Motions Presented

The movants premised their motion upon two major 
points: (1) that § 1983 does not create a cause of action 
against either (a) the District, because it is a “munic­
ipality” and under the holding of Monroe v. Pape, 365 
II.S. 167 (1961) not a “person” as that term is used in 
§ 1983 j1 (b) the individual defendants in their official rep­
resentative capacities, because such a claim would be the 
equivalent to a suit against the School District itself,1 2 and 
(c) the defendants as individuals, because, as such they 
are powerless to grant the relief requested. Secondly, de­
fendants asserted that since there was no cause of action 
there was no subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

142 U.S.C. § 1983 provides.-
“Every person, who, under color of any statute, ordinance, 
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, sub­
jects, or causes to be _ subjected, any citizen of the United 
States . . .  to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or im­
munities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable 
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or 
other proper proceeding for redress.” (Emphasis added).

2 See Markless v. Sweeny, 38 Law Week 2007 (S.D. Tex. 1969) 
discussed infra.

Memorandum Opinion and Order



477a

§ 1343(3). However, defendants have abandoned this latter 
point, and properly so.1

For the reasons set forth below, this Court concludes 
that the contentions are without merit and that the mo­
tions should be denied.

School District No. One was created by Article XX, § 7 
of the Colorado Constitution, and is governed by the gen­
eral school laws of the State as to its operation, the elec­
tion of members of its Board of Education, etc. However, 
the District has cited no authority for the proposition that 
it is a “municipality” ; it is simply a governmental agency 
of the State.

In Monroe v. Pape, supra, relied upon by defendants, 
the Court had before it a claim for damages under § 1983 
against the City of Chicago for the actions of city police 
officers which abridged plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. The 
Court, after carefully reviewing the legislative history of 
the Act of 1871 concluded that Congress did not intend 
to bring municipal corporations within the ambit of § 1983.

Several factors lead this Court to the conclusion that 
the holding of Monroe should not be extended to exclude 
the School District or the defendants in their official ca­
pacity from § 1983. Since the Monroe decision the Supreme 
Court has considered numerous cases under § 1983 which 
involved governmental agencies and officers, without ques­
tioning whether there was a cause of action: Rinaldi v. 
Yeager, 384 U.S. 305 (1966); Baker v. Carr, 369 H.S. 186 
(1962); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 H.S. 533 (1964); WMCA v. 
Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (1964); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. 
Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969); Lucas v. 
44th General Assembly, 377 U.S. 713 (1964); Raney v.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

1 Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946).



478a

Board of Education of Gould School District, 391 U.S. 443 
(1968).

Secondly the legislative history relied upon by the Court 
in Monroe shows that the concern of Congres was about 
the imposition of vicarious liability for damages upon a 
city, county or parish. There is nothing in that history 
which supports the contention that every other type of 
state or local governmental agency was also to be ex­
cluded. In fact such an exclusion would practically render 
§ 1983 meaningless as a means to afford affirmative relief, 
particularly equitable relief, for the deprivation of Con­
stitutional rights. In Monroe it was recognized that the 
creation of such affirmative relief was one of the objectives 
of the Act. Id. at 196-98, concurring opinion of Justices 
Harlan and Stewart.

Thirdly at least two Courts of Appeals which have con­
sidered this question have held that Monroe does not apply 
except where damages are being sought against a defen­
dant such as a city, county or other municipal corporation. 
In Schnell v. City of Chicago, 407 F. 2d 1084 (7th Cir. 
1969) newsmen brought suit under §1983 for injunctive 
relief against the City, the superintendent of police and 
unidentified police officers to prevent interference with the 
plaintiffs’ rights to gather and report news. Belying on 
Monroe the trial court dismissed the suit for failure to 
state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding 
that since the suit only sought equitable relief, Monroe 
did not apply. See also Adams v. City of Park Ridge, 
293 F. 2d 585 (7th Cir. 1961). The Fifth Circuit reached 
the same result in United States v. City of Jackson, Miss., 
318 F. 2d 1 (5th Cir. 1963), as did the District Court for 
the Southern District of Alabama in United States v. Clark, 
249 F. Supp. 720 (S.D. Ala. 1965).

Memorandum Opinion and Order



479a

Harkless v. Sweeny, supra, involved a suit for damages 
and reinstatement brought by Negro school teachers under 
§ 1983 against the school district, the superintendent of 
schools and the members of the school board, both in­
dividually and in their official capacities. The trial court 
dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim as to the 
district and the individual defendants in their official ca­
pacities relying primarily upon the Monroe case and several 
trial court opinions.1 This Court has considered the Mark- 
less case and the cases therein relied upon, and has con­
cluded that insofar as it pertained to equitable relief, that 
case gave too broad an application to Monroe. We believe 
the better authority to be such cases as Adams v. City of 
Park Ridge, and United States v. City of Jackson, Miss., 
supra.

Since we have held Monroe inapplicable to an entity such 
as the School District, there is similarly no compulsion to 
exclude these defendants either in their official or individual 
capacities from the meaning of “persons” under §1983. 
Accordingly, it is hereby

Ordered, A djudged and D ecreed that the motions to dis­
miss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 
granted be and hereby are denied.

Defendants shall have 15 days from September 11, 1969, 
to file an answer herein.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

1 Johnson v. Hackett, 284 F. Supp. 933 (B.D. Pa. 1968) ; Baxter 
v. Parker, 281 F. Supp. 115 (N.D. Fla. 1968); Glaney v. Parole 
Board, 287 F. Supp. 34 (W.D. Mich. 1968).



480a

Memorandum Opinion and Order 

Dated this 16 day of October, 1969.

B y the Court

A pproved as to F orm :

N
William E. Doyle 

United States District Judge

/* /
Gordon G. Greiner 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

H enry, Cockrell, Quinn & Creighton 
By ............................ ..................

Attorneys for Defendants

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