Gantt v. Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina Appellant's Appendix

    In t t^  8>tnU& (Emtrt nf Appmb
F ourth  C ircu it  

No. 8755

In t h e

H arvey B. ...Gantt , a minor, by his father 
and next friend, C h r isto ph er  Ga n tt ,

Appellant,
— v . —

T h e  Clem son  A gricultural C ollege of S o u th  Carolina, 
a public body corporate; E. M. C ooper, etc., et al.,

Appellees.

APPELLANT’S APPENDIX

D errick  B ell 
Of Counsel

C onstance B aker  M otley 
J ack Greenberg

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

M a tth ew  J .  P erry 
L inco ln  C. J e n k in s , J r .

1107% Washington Street 
Columbia, South Carolina

D onald J ames S ampson 
W il l ie  T. S m it h , J r.

125% Falls Street 
Greenville, South Carolina

Attorneys for Appellant



INDEX TO APPENDIX
PAGE

Complaint .......................... ...... ........... .......................  la

Motion for Preliminary Injunction .............. ............... 10a

Affidavit of Harvey B. Gantt in Support of Motion 
for Preliminary Injunction .................................... 12a

Answer ....... ......................... ....................... .... ..........  15a

Affidavit of E. C. Edwards in Opposition to Motion 
for Preliminary Injunction .......... .........................  22a

Affidavit of Jesse T. Anderson in Opposition to
Motion for Preliminary Injunction ......... ...........  26a

Testimony of Hearing on August 22, 1962 .............. 28a
Plaintiffs’ Case

Introduction of Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1-33 ....... . 32a
Dr. E. C. Edwards ............................................... 44a
Harvey B. G antt..................... ...... .................... 66a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibits:

No. 1 ................................................................. 77a
No. 2 ..................................       78a
No. 3 ...........     79a
No. 4 ..........      80a
No. 5 ........       81a
No. 6 ........       82a
No. 7 .........      83a
No. 8 ..............       84a
No. 9 ..............................    85a

7



11
PAGE

Plaintiffs’ Exhibits (cont.):
No. 10 ..........     86a
No. 11  .................     88a
No. 12 ..................   89a
No. 13 ...............    92a
No. 14 ...........      94a
No. 15 ..................    95a
No. 16 .........        96a
No. 17 ...........................................................  98a
No. 18 ...........................................................  99a
No. 19 ...........................................................  100a
No. 20 ...........................................................  101a
No. 21 ......................................................   102a
No. 22 ....         104a
No. 23 .........................     106a
No. 24 ..............................     107a
No. 25 .....................       108a
No. 26 .........         109a
No. 27 ..................................    111a
No. 28 ....................          112a
No. 29 ....................................   113a
No. 30  ...........................................................  115a
No. 31 ........................      116a

Deposition of Kenneth N. Vickery:
Direct ........................................    117a
Cross .........................................    146a

No. 32 .        163a
Deposition of Mrs. Rebecca Mack Connelly:

Direct ....................................................  164a
Cross ....................................     178a
Redirect .....................................    181a

No. 33 ...    187a
Opinion and Order ........    191a



I n  t h e

Imttti States ifetrtrt (Ennxt
F ob t h e  W estern  D istrict oe S o u th  C arolina 

A nderson D ivision  

Civil Action No. 4101

H arvey B . Ga n tt , a  m in o r, b y  b is  f a th e r  
a n d  n e s t  f r ie n d , Ch risto ph er  Ga n tt ,

—vs.-
Plaintiff,

T h e  Clemson  A gricultural C ollege op S o u th  Carolina, 
a  public body corporate; R. M. C ooper, President of the 
Board of Trustees of The Clemson Agricultural College 
of South Carolina; E dgar A. B row n , J ames F. B yrnes, 
C harles E. D a n iel , W in c h ester  S m it h , R obert R. 
Coker, J ames C. S e l f , R obert L. S toddard, P aul Quat- 
tlebaum , J r ., W . G ordon M cCabe, J r ., W . A. B arnette , 
A. M. Quattlebaum  and L. D. H olmes, Members of the 
Board of Trustees of The Clemson Agricultural Col­
lege; K e n n e t h  N. V ickery , Registrar of The Clemson 
Agricultural College of South Carolina; and J. T. 
A nderson , Superintendent of Education of the State of 
South Carolina,

Defendants.

Complaint

1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 
the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 
1343(3). This is a suit in equity, authorized by law (Title



2a

42, United States Code, Section 1983), to be brought to 
redress the deprivation, under color of any statute, ordi­
nance, regulation, custom or usage of any State, of any 
rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitu­
tion of the United States. The rights, privileges and im­
munities sought to be protected by this action are rights, 
privileges, and immunities secured by the due process and 
equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States and by Title 42, 
United States Code, Section 1981, as hereinafter more fully 
appears.

2. This is a proceeding for a preliminary and permanent 
injunction enjoining the registrar of The Clemson Agri­
cultural College of South Carolina, hereinafter referred 
to as Clemson College, his agents, employees and suc­
cessors, and all persons in active concert and participation 
with him, from refusing to consider the applications of 
Negro residents of South Carolina for admission to Clem­
son College upon the same terms and conditions applicable 
to white applicants; and from failing and refusing to 
expeditiously act upon applications received from Negro 
applicants; and from refusing to approve the applications 
of qualified Negroes for admission to Clemson College 
solely because of the race and color of such applicant, and 
from subjecting Negro applicants to conditions, prerequi­
sites, interviews, delays and tests not required of white 
applicants; and from making the attendance of Negroes at 
Clemson College subject to terms and conditions not appli­
cable to white students attending the Clemson College; 
and from failing and refusing to advise Negro applicants 
promptly and fully regarding their applications, admission 
requirements, and status as is done by the registrar and

Complaint



3a

Complaint

Ms assistants in the case of white applicants; and from 
requiring the applicant to state his or her race in applying 
for admission to Clemson College; and from continuing to 
pursue the policy, practice, custom and usage of limiting 
admissions to Clemson College to white persons.

3. This is a class action brought by the named plaintiff, 
Harvey B. Gantt, by Christopher Gantt, his father and next 
friend, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other Negro 
residents in the State of South Carolina who are similarly 
affected and restricted by the policy, practice, custom and 
usage complained of herein. The minor plaintiff is a high 
school graduate, a Negro citizen of the United States, and 
of the State of South Carolina, residing in the City of 
Charleston, South Carolina, and who by reason of such 
citizenship, residence and education is eligible to apply for 
admission to Clemson College now limited to white stu­
dents. The adult plaintiff is also a citizen of the United 
States and of the State of South Carolina residing in the 
City of Charleston, South Carolina. The members of the 
class on behalf of whom the plaintiffs sue are likewise 
citizens of the United States and of the State of South 
Carolina residing in the various cities and counties of the 
State of South Carolina who are likewise eligible to apply 
for admission to Clemson College by reason of their citizen­
ship and residence in the State of South Carolina and 
previous requisite education. The plaintiffs, and the mem­
bers of the class on behalf of which they sue, are all simi­
larly affected and restricted by the policy, practice, custom 
and usage of limiting admission to Clemson College to 
white students. The members of this class are so numerous 
as to make it impracticable to determine all of the members 
of the class and to bring them each individually before this 
Court, but there is a common question of law and fact



4a

involved in this case which affects the plaintiffs and all of 
the members of the class alike, and common relief is sought 
by the minor plaintiff for himself and for all members of 
the class. The named plaintiffs fairly and adequately repre­
sent the members of the class on behalf of which they sue.

4. a. The Clemson Agricultural College of South Caro­
lina, hereinafter referred to as Clemson College, is a public 
body corporate, created under the laws of the State of 
South Carolina.

b. Defendant R. M. Cooper, is President of the Board 
of Trustees of Clemson College.

c. Defendants Edgar A. Brown, James F. Byrnes, 
Charles E. Daniel, Winchester Smith, Robert R. Coker, 
James C. Self, Robert L. Stoddard, Paul Quattlebaum, Jr., 
W. Gordon McCabe, Jr., W. A. Barnette, A. M. Quattle­
baum, and L. D. Holmes, are members of the Board of 
Trustees of Clemson College.

d. Defendant Kenneth N. Vickery is the duly appointed 
and acting registrar of Clemson College. He has the au­
thority to receive applications for admission to Clemson 
College, to consider such applications, to approve or reject 
such applications, and to admit qualified applicants to 
Clemson College.

e. Defendant Jesse T. Anderson is Superintendent of 
Education of the State of South Carolina and is required 
to expend funds appropriated for public education by the 
General Assembly of South Carolina to segregated institu­
tions only.

5. The minor plaintiff has filed two applications for 
admission as a student in Clemson College. Plaintiff is a

Complaint



5a

resident of Charleston, South Carolina, and has completed 
his sophomore year at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 
His first application for admission as a student in Clemson 
College was filed in January, 1961. Plaintiff was thereupon 
advised that since the South Carolina Regional Educational 
Board is paying the difference in cost between in-State and 
out-of-State enrollment his application was returned to him. 
A copy of the letter received by plaintiff from the registrar 
is attached hereto and marked Exhibit (1). Plaintiff there­
upon resubmitted his application and advised the registrar 
of his desire to attend Clemson College. On February 17, 
1961, plaintiff was advised that his application was being 
placed with the pending applications. A copy of this letter 
is attached hereto and marked Exhibit (2). On April 26, 
1961, plaintiff wrote the registrar of Clemson College in­
quiring as to the status of his application. On May 9, 
1961, plaintiff was advised by the registrar that as of that 
date no application from any prospective transfer students 
had been processed. A copy of this letter is attached hereto 
and marked Exhibit (3). Plaintiff informed the registrar 
of Clemson College that though he was enrolled in another 
institution, he desires to attend Clemson College. On June 
7, 1961, the defendant Kenneth N. Vickery, registrar of 
Clemson College, wrote plaintiff, setting forth certain 
things plaintiff would have to do immediately in order to 
have his application considered. A copy of this letter is 
attached hereto and marked Exhibit (4). Plaintiff com­
plied with the requirements set forth in the second and 
third paragraphs of said letter, and pursuant to the re­
quirement set forth in paragraph 1 of said letter, applied 
to the college entrance examination board for the exam­
inations enumerated therein. Plaintiff is informed that 
other applicants were admitted to Clemson College subject

Complaint



6a

to receipt of the scores of examinations administered by 
the college board. Plaintiff was advised by a form letter 
over the signature of the registrar that his application 
could not be processed in time for the beginning of the 1961 
school term on September 8, 1961. This letter also con­
tained a summary of the things that it was claimed by the 
registrar that plaintiff had not done up to that time. A 
copy of this letter is hereto attached and marked Exhibit 
(5). Plaintiff was thereafter advised by letter dated Octo­
ber 13, 1961 that he would be required to file another appli­
cation should he desire to attend Clemson at a subsequent 
time. A copy of this letter is hereto attached and marked 
Exhibit (6). Plaintiff filed a new application for admission 
to Clemson on December 6, 1961 and said application has 
been pending since that time. Plaintiff has made several 
inquiries concerning the status of said application but it 
has not yet been acted upon. On May 21, 1962, a letter, 
transmitting a copy of the Clemson College catalog was 
sent to plaintiff and plaintiff was advised that his appli­
cation could not be acted upon until all necessary informa­
tion had been submitted. A copy of this letter is hereto 
attached and marked Exhibit (7). On June 13, 1962, plain­
tiff presented himself in person to the registrar and sought 
to be personally interviewed by college officials. Plaintiff 
was advised that the interview could not be given until the 
transcript of his latest grades at Iowa State University 
had been received at Clemson. The latest transcript of 
plaintiff’s grades at Iowa State University was sent to 
Clemson on June 13, 1962. On June 26, 1962, plaintiff 
sent a telegram to defendant, Kenneth N. Vickery, request­
ing that his application be favorably acted upon and that 
he be given an interview immediately.

The plaintiff has not been granted admission to Clemson 
College although he is fully qualified for such admission

Complaint



7a

and has met all requirements for such admission and al­
though white students who applied after plaintiff applied 
and whose academic records are inferior to those of the 
plaintiff have been admitted. The admission of the plain­
tiff has been denied by the registrar of Clemson College 
solely because of the race and color of plaintiff and pur­
suant to the policy, practice, custom and usage of limiting 
admissions to Clemson College to white persons only. This 
policy has been pursued by the registrar over a long period 
of years and has been concurred in by the president of 
Clemson College and other college officials. This policy has 
been pursued by the registrar and the other college officials 
in their official capacities while acting under color of the 
authority conferred upon them by the laws of the State 
of South Carolina and the authority conferred upon them 
as officials of Clemson College. The existence of this policy 
is a matter of common and historical knowledge and is in 
accord with the policy of the State of South Carolina. This 
policy has resulted in irreparable injury to the plaintiff 
and the denial of his admission to Clemson College solely 
because of his race and color violates rights secured to him 
by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

6. Plaintiff alleges that with respect to the minor plain­
tiff’s application and the denial of his admission by the 
registrar, the administrative remedies provided by the 
rules and regulations of Clemson College and of the State 
of South Carolina are inadequate to grant the relief re­
quested by him, namely, admission to Clemson College 
without discrimination on account of race and color for 
the school term beginning, 1962, and an injunction enjoin­
ing the policy, practice, custom and usage of excluding all 
qualified Negroes from Clemson College is necessary. 
Plaintiffs have therefore commenced this proceeding for

Complaint



8a

a preliminary and permanent injunction. There is no other 
speedy or adequate remedy at law which plaintiffs may 
pursue in order to secure minor plaintiff’s admission to 
Clemson College for the school year beginning September, 
1962. Any other remedy to which they might be remitted 
would result in such uncertainty and delay as to cause 
further irreparable injury and vexation. And any other 
remedy other than this class action for injunction would 
result in a multiplicity of suits by other members of plain­
tiffs’ class.

W herefore , plaintiffs pray that this Court take juris­
diction of this case, grant a speedy hearing of their motion 
for a preliminary injunction, and after such hearing, en­
join the defendants, their agents, employees and successors 
and all persons in active concert and participation with 
them, from refusing to consider the application of the 
minor plaintiff, and other Negro residents of South Caro­
lina, for admission to Clemson College, now limited to 
white persons, upon the same terms and conditions appli­
cable to white applicants seeking admission to said College; 
and from failing and refusing to act expeditiously upon 
applications received from Negro residents of the State of 
South Carolina; and from refusing to approve the applica­
tions of qualified Negro residents of the State of South 
Carolina for admission to Clemson College solely because of 
the race and color of the Negro applicants; and from sub­
jecting Negro applicants to requirements, prerequisites, 
interviews, delays and tests not required of white applicants 
for admission; and from making the attendance of Negroes 
at Clemson College subject to terms and conditions not 
applicable to white persons; and from failing and refusing 
to advise Negro applicants promptly and fully regarding 
their applications, admission requirements and status as is 
done by the registrar and his assistants in the case of white

Complaint



9a

applicants; and from requiring the applicant to state liis or 
her race in applying for admission to Clemson College; and 
from continuing to pursue the policy, practice, custom and 
usage of limiting admissions to Clemson College to white 
persons.

Plaintiffs pray that after a final hearing in this case, this 
Court will enter a permanent injunction similarly enjoin­
ing the registrar, his agents, employees, and successors and 
all persons in active concert and participation with him.

Plaintiffs further pray that this Court, upon entering 
the injunction above requested, further enjoin the defen­
dants from closing Clemson College and from doing any 
act designed to frustrate the Order of this Court by making 
compliance with its terms impossible.

Plaintiffs also pray that this Court will grant them such 
other, further, additional or alternative relief as to a court 
of equity would appear to be necessary and just and grant 
them their costs herein.
June 30, 1962.

M a tth ew  J .  P erry

L inco ln  C. J e n k in s , J r .
1107% Washington Street 

Columbia, South Carolina
D onald J ames S ampson

W ill ie  T. S m it h , J r.
125% Palls Street 

Greenville, South Carolina
J ack Greenberg

C onstance B aker M otley 
10 Columbus Circle 

New York 19, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
(Duly verified.)

Complaint



10a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F oe t h e  W estern  D istrict of S o u th  Carolina 

A nderson D ivision

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

[ same t it l e ]

Plaintiffs move this Court for a preliminary injunction 
enjoining the defendant The Clemson Agricultural College 
of South Carolina, hereinafter called Clemson College, its 
Registrar, Kenneth N. Vickery, their agents, servants, 
employees and all persons in active concert and participa­
tion with them from refusing to consider the applications 
of the minor plaintiff and other Negro residents of South 
Carolina for admission to Clemson College, now limited to 
white persons, upon the same terms and conditions appli­
cable to white applicants seeking- admission to said college; 
and from failing and refusing to act expeditiously upon 
applications received from Negro residents of the State of 
South Carolina for admission to Clemson College solely 
because of the race and color of the Negro applicants; and 
from subjecting minor plaintiff and other Negro applicants 
to requirements, prerequisites, interviews, delays and tests 
not required of white applicants for admission; and from 
making the attendance of plaintiff and other Negroes at 
Clemson College subject to terms and conditions not appli­
cable to white persons; and from failing and refusing to 
advise plaintiff and other Negro applicants promptly and 
fully regarding their applications, admission requirements 
and status as is done by the registrar and his assistants in 
the case of white applicants, and from requiring the appli­



11a

cant to state liis or her race in applying to Clemson College; 
and from continuing to pursue the policy, practice, custom 
and usage of limiting admissions to Clemson College to 
white persons, as contrary to the due process and equal 
protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, on the 
ground that:

1. Unless restrained by this Court, defendants will con­
tinue the acts complained of;

2. Such action by the defendants will result in irrepa­
rable injury, loss, and damage to the plaintiffs as more 
particularly appears in the verified complaint and the 
affidavit of Harvey B. Gantt, plaintiff, attached hereto;

3. The issuance of a preliminary injunction herein will 
not cause undue inconvenience or loss to the defendants, 
but will prevent irreparable injury to plaintiff.
June 30, 1962.

M a tth ew  J .  P erry 
L inco ln  C. J e n k in s , J r.

1107% Washington Street 
Columbia, South Carolina

D onald J ames S ampson 
W ill ie  T. S m it h , J r.

125% Falls Street 
Greenville, South Carolina

J ack Greenberg 
C onstance B aker M otley 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction



12a

Affidavit o f Harvey B. Gantt in Support o f Motion 
for Prelim inary Injunction

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F ob t h e  W estern  D istrict oe S o u th  Carolina 

A nderson D ivision  

Civil Action No................

[ s a m e  t i t l e ]

H arvey B. Ga n tt , b e in g  f ir s t  d u ly  sw orn , dep o ses  an d  
s a y s :

1. He is the minor plaintiff in the above action.

2. This is an action for interlocutory and permanent 
injunction to restrain defendants from refusing to act upon 
plaintiff’s application for admission to the Clemson Agri­
cultural College of South Carolina, hereinafter called 
Clemson College, and from subjecting plaintiff and other 
Negroes to tests, interviews and other requirements not 
imposed upon white applicants, solely because of their race 
and color, and from failing and refusing to admit plaintiff 
and other qualified Negro applicants to Clemson College 
solely because of their race and color.

3. Plaintiff is a resident of the City of Charleston, 
South Carolina and a citizen of the United States. Plain­
tiff is also a high school graduate and possesses all the 
requirements for admission as a student at Clemson Col­
lege.



13a

4. Clemson College is a public institution, supported by 
the State of South Carolina; Kenneth N. Vickery is the 
duly appointed Registrar of Clemson College and is author­
ized to act upon applications of persons desiring to attend 
Clemson College; J. T. Anderson is the duly elected Super­
intendent of Education of the State of South Carolina and 
is required by the laws of the State of South Carolina to 
expend all monies appropriated for colleges and institu­
tions of higher learning on a basis of racial segregation; 
and the remaining defendants are Trustees of Clemson 
College.

5. On or about December 6, 1961 plaintiff filed his appli­
cation for admission to Clemson College. Previously, 
plaintiff had filed an application for admission to Clemson 
College in January, 1961 and in spite of his efforts at com­
pliance with all known requirements for admission, plaintiff 
was not advised of its rejection until after the beginning of 
the 1961 school term. Plaintiff has made numerous in­
quiries concerning the status of his last filed application 
and has complied with the requirements for admission by 
furnishing copies of his transcripts of his high school 
grades and of his grades at Iowa State University where 
he is presently enrolled as a student pending acceptance 
at Clemson College. Plaintiff has not been informed of the 
status of said application and has not been accepted as a 
student.

6. Plaintiff is informed that the defendants are acting 
pursuant to a long standing practice, custom and usage of 
not admitting Negroes as students at Clemson College be­
cause of their race and color and in furtherance of their

Affidavit of Harvey B. Gantt in Support of Motion
for Preliminary Injunction



14a

Affidavit of Harvey B. Gantt in Support of Motion 
for Preliminary Injunction

plan to accept white students only. The policy, practice, 
custom and usage of limiting admission to Clemson College 
to white persons only is unconstitutional and cause plain­
tiff and other Negroes similarly situated to suffer ir­
reparable injury and harm on account of the enforcement 
thereof.

7. Plaintiff and other persons similarly situated will 
continue to suffer irreparable injury and harm each day 
the above policy, practice, custom and usage remains in 
force unless defendants be enjoined from enforcing same.

H arvey B . Gantt 

(Sworn to June , 1962.)



15a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F oe t h e  W estern  D istrict of S ou th  Carolina 

A nderson D ivision

Answer

[ same t it l e ]

The Defendants, answering the Complaint, allege:
1. The jurisdiction of this Court is acknowledged.

2. It is admitted that The Clemson Agricultural College 
of South Carolina is a body corporate under South Carolina 
law and that the individual Defendants hold the respective 
offices as alleged except that Robert L. Stoddard resigned 
as a Member of the Board of Trustees of Clemson College 
upon his election as Mayor of the City of Spartanburg, 
South Carolina, and that W. A. Barnette is deceased; that 
no successors to them have been elected and that the eleven 
(11) others named in the Complaint compose the Board of 
Trustees of Clemson College as now constituted.

3. Clemson College is conscious of the cost to its stu­
dents and their parents and to the State of South Carolina 
of attendance at college and of the fact that ill-prepared or 
incapable students who fail their courses do so at expense 
not justified by accomplishment. The College has, as is 
common practice in the field of higher education, imposed 
conditions upon college enrollment designed to eliminate 
so far as is practicable students not likely successfully to 
pass its courses. These conditions, changed from year to



16a

year as experience lias dictated, are published in its annual 
catalog, copies of which are widely circulated to South 
Carolina high schools, to accredited colleges and to indi­
viduals who request them. Provisions of the catalog declar­
ing the entrance requirements effective for the college 
years 1961-62 and 1962-63 are attached hereto as Exhibits 
“A” and “B” respectively. It has been the experience of 
Clemson College that substantially all applicants genuinely 
desiring the opportunity of a college education at Clemson 
have had easy access to the applicable Clemson College 
catalog and have had no difficulty in understanding its 
requirements.

4. A student doing creditable work at an institution of 
higher learning is not encouraged to transfer to another. 
This general policy is approved of and followed by Clem­
son College. There is little uniformity in the classification 
of courses of instruction and in curriculum requirements of 
the different colleges. A student transferring from one to 
another in most cases loses credit for work taken at the 
former school against the degree requirements of the sec­
ond school. Clemson College would feel derelict if it did 
not counsel with each prospective transfer student as to 
this in his own interest.

5. The Plaintiff, Harvey B. Gantt, whose race, residence 
and citizenship as alleged is admitted, indicated an interest 
in attending Clemson College by his letter dated July 19, 
1959, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “C”. In re­
sponse thereto, he was furnished the necessary informa­
tion and an application card on July 21, 1959, as shown by 
Exhibit “D”. He did not apply for admission to Clemson

Answer



17a

as a freshman nor at any time did he submit a transcript 
of his high school record.

6. By letter of November 2, 1960, attached as Exhibit 
“E ”, the Plaintiff again expressed interest and was written 
the letter attached hereto as Exhibit “F ” with an applica­
tion card enclosed. The application card completed (Ex­
hibit “G”) was sent to Clemson College in January, 1961, 
and was returned to the Plaintiff with the letter appearing 
as Exhibit (1) in the Complaint. The application card was 
returned to Clemson College with a letter, a copy of which 
is attached as Exhibit “H”. The Plaintiff made no effort 
to furnish the information required by Clemson College 
for the processing of applications, and in response to in­
quiry was written the letter dated June 8, 1961, referred 
to in the Complaint as its Exhibit (4), but not appearing 
therein and attached hereto as Exhibit “I ”. This letter was 
acknowledged by Plaintiff’s letter of June 17, attached as 
Exhibit “J ”. Within a reasonable time thereafter Clemson 
College received a transcript of Plaintiff’s academic record 
at Iowa State University and a statement of his honorable 
discharge from that school.

7. The Clemson College session to which Plaintiff had 
applied for admission began on September 8, 1961. The 
College received no notice that the Plaintiff had taken 
steps to perfect his application until it received, on or about 
August 31, 1961, the results of the College Entrance Exam­
ination Board tests taken by the Plaintiff during the month 
of August. On August 31, 1961, the Defendant K. N. 
Vickery, as Registrar of Clemson College, notified the 
Plaintiff by form letter appearing as Exhibit (5) to the 
Complaint that, for the reasons indicated on the form, he

Answer



18a

would not be accepted as a student for the term beginning 
September 8, 1961. This form letter, marked to indicate 
applicable provisions, was sent to all transfer student ap­
plicants whose applications were then pending and incom- 
pleted. Plaintiff was clearly advised as to the effect of the 
cancellation of his application by the letter appearing as 
Exhibit (6) to the Complaint. By letter dated November 
13, 1961, attached as Exhibit “K ”, Plaintiff requested an­
other application card which was furnished to him, and it 
was completed as shown in Exhibit “L” and sent to Clemson 
College with Plaintiff’s letter of December 6, 1961 (Ex­
hibit “M”).

8. Plaintiff did not submit the supporting information 
known by him to be required before his application could 
be considered. In order that he be fully informed as to all 
requirements for admission, he was sent another copy of 
the College catalog, with the letter appearing as Exhibit 
(7) to the Complaint. Although this letter stated, “The 
College cannot act on any application until the necessary 
information has been submitted in full”, Plaintiff on June 
13, 1962, appeared at the office of the Defendant K. N. 
Vickery, allegedly for an interview, though he knew or 
ought to have known that a transcript of his work at Iowa 
State University for the year then ended had not been sub­
mitted in support of his application. Such transcript was 
mailed to Clemson College by Iowa State University under 
date of June 13, 1962, and received by the College a few 
days thereafter. Plaintiff inquired as to the status of his 
application by telegram on June 26, 1962 (Exhibit “N”) 
and was notified on June 28 (Exhibit “0 ”) that his appli­
cation was being processed.

Answer



19a

9. Since, as shown by the transcript of his work at Iowa 
State University, Plaintiff has satisfactorily completed two 
(2) years work toward a degree in Architectural Engineer­
ing, the natural assumption was that if he is sincere in 
seeking a degree in an architectural field he will be con­
cerned as to the credit he will receive at Clemson for his 
work at Iowa State University toward a Clemson degree 
in Architecture, Clemson not offering a degree in Archi­
tectural Engineering. Due to the difficulty in evaluating 
the work done at the other insttiution, the Dean of the 
School of Architecture of Clemson College, in the normal 
processing of Plaintiff’s application, wrote him by letter of 
July 2, 1962, attached as Exhibit “P ”. Clemson College 
has not received the information requested therein and 
cannot intelligently determine whether it is in the interest 
of the applicant or the College that he be accepted as a 
transfer student until that information is submitted. The 
failure of the Plaintiff to comply with this request prevents 
the further consideration of and processing of his applica­
tion.

10. It is specifically denied that the application of the 
Plaintiff to attend Clemson College has been denied. It is 
admitted that other applicants who first submitted Appli­
cation Cards after December 6, 1961, have been accepted 
but Defendants show that in each such case the information 
required for the processing of and consideration of the 
application has been promptly and completely furnished. 
Defendants deny that there has been any failure to act ex­
peditiously upon the application of Plaintiff or anyone else, 
and show that any lapse of time which may seem to Plain­
tiff to indicate delay in the consideration of his application 
has been caused by Plaintiff’s own delay in furnishing the

Answer



20a

necessary information required by Clemson College of all 
applicants for admission.

11. It is specifically denied that this is or can be prop­
erly termed a “class action” in that no other person, whose 
situation is similar to that of the Plaintiff, has applied for 
admission to Clemson College, and that Christopher Gantt, 
who is sometimes referred to in the Complaint as a Plain­
tiff, is not shown to be a Plaintiff herein in his own right 
and stands without relation to the Defendants in this case, 
other than as father and next friend of the Plaintiff himself.

12. It is specifically denied that the Defendant J. T. An­
derson, Superintendent of Education of the State of South 
Carolina, has any duty, responsibility or privilege with 
relation to Clemson College or the funds appropriated for 
its support by the General Assembly of South Carolina.

13. It is specifically denied that the Defendant Kenneth 
N. Vickery, as Registrar of Clemson College, has the sole 
and independent authority to receive and act upon applica­
tions for admission to Clemson College, but shows on the 
contrary that Mr. Vickery is an employee and official of 
Clemson College and as such is given discretion and the 
duty to act or advise as to action to be taken on applica­
tions for enrollment under the policies established by the 
Board of Trustees and the administration of the College.

14. Each allegation of the Complaint not herein ad­
mitted is denied.

W herefore , the Defendants pray that the Complaint be 
dismissed.

Answer



21a

July 28, 1962
D a n iel  R. M cL eod 

Attorney General 
Hampton Office Building 

Columbia, South Carolina 
Counsel for J. T. Anderson, 
Superintendent of Education 
of the State of South Caro­
lina.

W illiam  L. W a tkin s

Watkins, Vandiver, Freeman &
Kirven

207 North Main Street 
Anderson, South Carolina 

Attorneys for Defendants 
other than J. T. Anderson

(Duly verified.)

N ote : Exhibits attached to Answer omitted. Introduced as 
Exhibits and printed infra.

Answer



22a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F oe t h e  W estern  D isteict  op S ou th  Carolina 

A nderson D ivision

Affidavit of R. C. Edwards in Opposition to
Motion for Preliminary Injunction

[ same t it l e ]

S tate op S ou th  Carolina )

C ounty  op O conee )

P ersonally appeared before me R. C. Edwards, who, 
being sworn, says that he is the President of The Clemson 
Agricultural College of South Carolina, a Defendant in 
this case; that the Defendant Kenneth N. Vickery was, 
during most of the period involved in this matter, Registrar 
of Clemson College, but that in a recent reorganization of 
the office his title has been changed, without any significant 
change in his duties, to Director of Admissions and Regis­
tration; that in such office he does not have the sole and 
independent authority to receive and act upon applications 
for admission to Clemson College but, on the contrary, has 
discretion and the duty to act and advise as to action to be 
taken on applications for enrollment under the policies 
established by the Board of Trustees and the administration 
of the College. That deponent, by virtue of his office, is 
familiar with the policies and practices of the College as to 
the consideration of applications for enrollment in Clemson 
College and has access to and has reviewed the file regard­
ing Harvey B. Gantt and is familiar with the details thereof.



23a

That Clemson College has not refused to consider the 
application of Harvey B. Gantt or any other negro upon 
the same terms and conditions as are applicable to white 
applicants seeking admission to said College; that Clemson 
College has not failed or refused to act expeditiously upon 
applications received from negro residents of the State 
of South Carolina for admission to Clemson College solely 
because of the race and color of the negro applicants; 
that Clemson College has not subjected Harvey B. Gantt 
or any other negro applicant to requirements, prerequisites, 
interviews, delays and tests not required of white applicants 
for admission; that Clemson College has not made the 
attendance of Harvey B. Gantt or any other negro at 
Clemson College subject to terms and conditions not ap­
plicable to white persons; that Clemson College has not 
failed or refused to advise Harvey B. Gantt or any other 
negro applicant promptly and fully regarding their applica­
tion, admission requirements and status; that Clemson 
College has imposed no policy, practice, custom or usage 
as to admission to Clemson College which does not apply 
to all races equally; that the Application Card adopted and 
used by Clemson College for the purpose of obtaining 
basic preliminary information from those showing interest 
in enrollment at Clemson College has among the blanks 
provided thereon a space for the indication of the race of 
the applicant, which information is sought of all applicants 
for admission, regardless of race.

That Harvey B. Gantt submitted to Clemson College a 
completed Application Card in January, 1961, a copy of 
which is attached to the Answer in this case as Exhibit 
“G” ; deponent is informed and believes that said Harvey 
B. Gantt knew that his application could not be processed

Affidavit of R. C. Edwards in Opposition to Motion
for Preliminary Injunction



24a

until lie had furnished other information, including the 
result of College Entrance Examination Board tests, but 
that Harvey B. Gantt failed and refused to submit to 
such tests from the time of the filing of his application card 
in January, 1961, until some date unknown to deponent 
in the month of August, 1961; that the results of said 
tests were not communicated to Clemson College until on 
or about August 31, 1961.

The opening of the September, 1961, semester was then 
only some eight (8) days away. There were more than 
fifty (50) transfer applications pending. It was not possible 
that any substantial portion of these could be processed to 
completion in advance of the opening day and, there being 
no basis for selection among them, all were cancelled by 
form letter dated August 31, 1961 (Exhibit (5) to the 
Complaint), Plaintiff being notified by such letter of said 
action. The applicants affected were by such action enabled 
to plan and continue their education without interruption.

That Harvey B. Gantt requested another application card 
by letter dated November 13, 1961, which was completed 
by him as shown in Exhibit “L” to the Answer and sent 
to Clemson College with Plaintiff’s letter of December 6, 
1961. That thereafter Harvey B. Gantt, except by an in­
quiry letter dated April 28, 1962, which sought information 
already furnished to him, showed no further interest and 
made no effort to complete the furnishing of information 
required and known to him to be required for the processing 
of his application until June 13, 1962, when he appeared in 
person upon the Clemson College Campus; that on June 
13, 1962, the said Harvey B. Gantt knew or ought to have 
known that the transcript of his work then completed at 
Iowa State University and the evidence of his good stand­

Affidavit of R. C. Edwards in Opposition to Motion
for Preliminary Injunction



25a

ing at that University had not been furnished to Clemson 
College, the furnishing of such information being a require­
ment of Clemson College well known to Harvey B. Gantt.

That the application of Harvey B. Gantt for admission to 
Clemson College by transfer from Iowa State University 
has not been acted upon, because of the failure of Harvey 
B. Gantt to furnish evidence of certain of his work at Iowa 
State University for evaluation and his failure to confer 
with the Dean of the School of Architecture at Clemson 
College for an analysis and evaluation of his completed 
work, the procedure commonly applied to students apply­
ing for transfer to the School of Architecture and applied 
without regard to race or color.

That the processing of the application of Harvey B. 
Gantt was necessarily suspended at this point due to the 
pendency of this case. That he has met the requirements 
of Clemson College as to the score received on his College 
Entrance Examination Board test and as to his good stand­
ing at Iowa State University, but, by the institution of this 
hostile action, terminated the processing of his application 
prior to an evaluation of his work accomplished at Iowa 
State University and before any consideration had been 
given to his general and personal fitness for acceptance at 
Clemson College according to standards applied to all ap­
plicants, regardless of race or color.

Affidavit of R. C. Edwards in Opposition to Motion
for Preliminary Injunction

R . C. E dwards

(Sworn to August 16,1962.)



26a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
P oe t h e  W estern  D istrict of S ou th  Carolina 

A nderson D ivision

Affidavit of Jesse T. Anderson in Opposition to
Motion for Preliminary Injunction

[ same t it l e ]

S tate of S ou th  C arolina )

County  of R ichland  )

P ersonally appeared before me Jesse T. Anderson, who, 
being duly sworn, says that he is a defendant in the above 
cause and that he is the duly elected, qualified and acting 
Superintendent of Education of the State of South Caro­
lina; and in such capacity his jurisdiction, authority and 
duties are limited to the public school system of the State 
of South Carolina, which system does not embrace institu­
tions of higher learning of this State; that additionally he 
serves ex officio as a member of the Boards of Trustees or 
Board of Visitors of certain institutions of higher learning 
of this State but that he does not serve upon the Board 
of Trustees of Clemson College and has no connection with 
that institution nor with any college of this State which 
is a land grant college;

That he has no authority over the distribution or expen­
diture of monies appropriated for colleges and institutions



27a

Affidavit of Jesse T. Anderson in Opposition to Motion 
for Preliminary Injunction

of higher learning, and the laws of the State of South 
Carolina do not vest in him any discretion as to the 
expenditure of money appropriated for colleges and institu­
tions of higher learning;

That his only authority with respect to institutions of 
higher learning within this State is by virtue of ex officio 
membership upon the governing body of certain of such 
institutions, and that Clemson College is not one of such 
institutions.

J esse T. A ndebson 

(Sworn to August 15,1962.)



28a

Testim ony

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F oe t h e  W estern  D istrict  oe S ou th  Carolina 

(A nderson D iv isio n )

[ same t it l e ]

Greenville, S. C. 
August 22, 1962

B e f o r e  :

H onorable C. C. W y c h e ,
United States District Judge.

A p p e a r a n c e s :
J e n k in s  & P erry 

Attorneys at Law 
1107% Washington Street 

Columbia, S. C.
By: Lincoln C. Jenkins, Esq.

Matthew J. Perry, Esq.
D onald J ames S am pson , Esq.

Attorney at Law 
Greenville, S. C.

W ill ie  T. S m it h , Esq.
Attorney at Law 

Greenville, S. C.



29a

Appearances

Mbs. Constance B aker M otley 
Attorney at Law 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, N. Y.

For the Plaintiffs;

W a tk in s , V andiver, F reem an  & K irven  
Attorneys at Law

Anderson, South Carolina
By: T. Frank Watkins, Esq.

Wrn. Law Watkins, Esq.
D a n iel  R. M cL eod, Esq.

Attorney General 
State of South Carolina 

Columbia, S. C.
Wm. L. P ope, J r ., Esq.

Assistant Attorney General 
State of South Carolina 

Columbia, South Carolina
For the Defendants.

—2—
Jb A  JS.TF TP TV* W

(On call of case, both sides announced ready to proceed.)
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, this is the case of 

Harvey B. Gantt and others against Clemson Agricultural 
College, of South Carolina, and others. At this time—

The Court: For the information of counsel, I have read 
the Complaint; I have read the Answer and the Affidavits 
attached to both and read the exhibits and read the Request 
for Admissions and all the papers that have been filed so 
far. I have not read any depositions. I just give you that 
information so—there’s no use to take up time reading the 
pleadings.



30a

Mr. Perry : Thank you, your Honor.
The Court: I have already read them.
Mr. Perry: First of all, your Honor, may I present to 

the Court at this time Mrs. Constance Baker Motley, a 
member of the bar of the State of New York and of the 
Supreme Court of the United States and, I believe, of vari­
ous Federal Courts in the Fourth and Fifth Circuits. And 
we move her admission for the purjjoses of this ease.

The Court: Motion granted.
Mr. Perry: Thank you, sir.
The Court: All right. Proceed.
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, you having read the pleadings, 

at this time, may we offer in evidence the various exhibits
—3—

which are appended to the Complaint and to the Answer? 
I believe that in order that we might proceed in an orderly 
fashion, we ought have them received in evidence at this 
time and marked for identification.

The Court: Very well.
Mr. Wm. Watkins: If the Court please, it has been pro­

posed that some original letters and copies of original let­
ters be introduced in evidence at this stage. We have no 
objection to it. It seems to us that perhaps the verified 
pleadings with the exhibits attached are already before 
the Court, and that perhaps the introduction of specific ex­
hibits into evidence is something that should come at a 
hearing of the whole case on the merits. We have no ob­
jection to having these papers, copies of which are on the 
pleadings, introduced in evidence and marked as exhibits; 
but we see no particular advantage in doing so if the Court 
will consider the exhibits attached to the verified pleadings 
as—

The Court: What’s the purpose of offering the originals 
when copies are already attached to the pleadings ?

Offering of Exhibits



31a

Mr. Perry: Even though they are attached to the plead­
ings, your Honor, I do not believe that they are in evidence.

The Court: Well, I can consider them all for motion pur­
poses. Go ahead and introduce them, if you wish.

Mr. Perry : Thank you, sir. At this time, then, we offer
—4—

in evidence the letter of Harvey B. Gantt to Clemson Col­
lege, Office of Admissions, dated July 19, 1959. We have 
here a copy which was appended to the defendant’s Answer, 
and marked, “Defendants—

The Court: You don’t have the original?
Mr. Perry: We do not have the original, your Honor.
Mr. Watkins: This is a photocopy, sir. The original is 

in the files at the college and will be presented at the trial of 
the case.

The Court: One thing I am against is photocopies. I 
can’t read them.

Mr. Perry: This one is very legible, your Honor.
The Court: That’s about the first one I ever saw that 

was legible. Anyway, introduce them.
Mr. Perry: Thank you, sir.
The Court: Attach them all together and give them to 

the court reporter to mark as a group.
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, we would like them 

marked individually, in order that we might make appro­
priate references to them.

The Court: Give them to her and let her mark them, 
“A,” “B,” “C,” “D,” “E,” “F,” and so forth.

Mr. Perry: They contain notations of various exhibits
—5—

and we suggest that be crossed out and the appropriate no­
tation be marked there.

Offering of Exhibits



32a

(Copy of letter of Harvey Gantt to Clemson Col­
lege, July 19, 1959, received into evidence as 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.)

(Copy of letter, R. J. Berry to Mr. Harvey Gantt, 
July 21, 1959, received into evidence as Plain­
tiff’s Exhibit 2.)

(Copy of letter, Harvey Gantt to Office of Regis­
trar, Clemson College, November 2, 1960, re­
ceived into evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3.)

(Copy of Letter, R. J. Berry to Mr. Harvey Gantt, 
November 8, 1960, received into evidence as 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4.)

(Copy of “New Student Application, The Clemson 
Agricultural College” received into evidence as 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5.)

(Letter of K. N. Vickery, Registrar, to Mr. Harvey 
Bernard Gantt, January 19, 1961, received into 
evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6.)

— 6—

(Copy of letter, Harvey B. Gantt, to Mr. K. N. 
Vickery, February , 1961, received into evi­
dence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7.)

(Letter of K. N. Vickery, Registrar, to Mr. Har­
vey Bernard Gantt, February 17, 1961, received 
into evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8.)

(Letter of K. N. Vickery, Registrar, to Mr. Har­
vey B. Gantt, May 9, 1961, received into evidence 
as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9.)

Offering of Exhibits



33a

(Copy letter, K. N. Vickery to Mr. Harvey Ber­
nard Gantt, June 8, 1961, received into evidence 
as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10.)

(Copy letter, Harvey B. Gantt to Mr. K. 1ST. Vick­
ery, June 17, 1961, received into evidence as 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 11.)

(Copy form letter, K. N. Vickery, to Mr. Harvey 
Bernard Gantt, August 31, 1961, received into 
evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12.)

—7—
(Letter, K. N. Vickery to Mr. Harvey B. Gantt, 

October 13,1961, received into evidence as Plain­
tiff’s Exhibit 13.)

(Copy letter, Harvey B. Gantt to Mr. K. N. 
Vickery, November 13, 1961, received into evi­
dence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 14.)

(Copy letter, Harvey B. Gantt to Mr. K. N. Vick­
ery, December 6, 1961, received into evidence as 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15.)

(Copy “New Student Application, Clemson Col­
lege, received into evidence as Plaintiff’s Ex­
hibit 16.)

(Letter, K. N. Vickery to Mr. Harvey B. Gantt, 
May 21, 1962, received into evidence as Plain­
tiff’s Exhibit 17.)

(Copy telegram, Harvey B. Gantt to K. N. Vick­
ery, received into evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
18.) (June 26,1962.)

(Copy telegram, K. N. Vickery, to Mr. Harvey B. 
Gantt, June 28, 1962, received into evidence as 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 19.)

Offering of Exhibits



34a

Offering of Exhibits

— 8— ■

(Copy letter, Harlan E. McClure, Dean, to Mr. 
Harvey B. Gantt, July 2, 1962, received into 
evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 20.)

(Letter, Harlan E. McClure, Dean, to Mr. Harvey 
B. Gantt, July 2, 1962, received into evidence as 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 21.)

(Copy letter, Harvey B. Gantt to Mr. Harlan E. 
McClure, Dean, July 13, 1962, received into evi­
dence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 22.)

(Letter, Watkins, Vandiver, Freeman & Kirven to 
Mr. Matthew J. Perry, July 24, 1962, received 
into evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 23.)

(Copy letter Matthew J. Perry to Mr. William L. 
Watkins, July 26, 1962, received into evidence as 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 24.)

(Copy Requirements for Admission, Clemson Col­
lege, received into evidence as Plaintiff’s Ex­
hibit 25.)

(Requirements for admission received into evi­
dence as Plaintiff’s Exhibits 26, 27, 28, 29, and 
30.)

—9—
Mr. Perry: We now offer them in evidence.
The Court: They are already marked.
Mr. Perry: Thank you. Those exhibits contain in addi­

tion to items of correspondence between the plaintiff Harvey 
Gantt and officials at Clemson College, they contain also 
copies of the applicable rules of admission, which now pre­
vail at Clemson College.

The Court: One, he said, pertains to applicable rules.



35a

Mr. Wm. Watkins: Yes, sir, I understood it was going 
to be letters attached to the Complaint and the Answer.

Mr. Perry: I ’m awfully sorry; I did not—
The Court: I thought it was just correspondence.
Mr. Perry: I did not intend to mislead, your Honor, and 

I beg the Court’s pardon. We did, of course, hand in also 
the copies of the applicable rules, which are appended to 
the defendants’ Answer. We, of course, thought them to 
be pertinent and that your Honor ought have them before 
you.

Mr. Watkins: Oh, it is an exhibit to the Answer?
M'r. Perry: That’s correct.
Mr. Watkins: No objection.
The Court: All right. Proceed.

— 10—

Mr. Perry: At this time, we should like to offer in evi­
dence the deposition of Mr. Vickery, the Begistrar of Clem- 
son College, which I believe—

The Court: Do you have it, Mr. Clarke? Any objection to 
the form?

Mr. Watkins: No objection to opening it.
The Court: Let the Clerk open it and submit it to counsel.
Mr. Watkins: It has not been read by Mr. Vickery, and 

the reading and signing of it has not been waived.
The Court: Submit it to counsel.
Mr. Watkins: If the Court please, the original was not 

submitted to the witness as the rule requires. I have sent 
my copy to him and he has seen it, and I don’t know—my 
copy wasn’t received until Monday morning.

The Court: I will admit it, subject to Mr. Vickery’s read­
ing it and signing it.

Mr. Watkins: Perfectly agreeable.

Offering of Exhibits



36a

The Court: And making any corrections he thinks should 
he made.

Mr. Watkins: Yes, sir.
Mr. Perry: At this time, we should like to offer in 

evidence—
The Court: Do you want to mark it in evidence ?

(Deposition of Kenneth 1ST. Vickery received into 
evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31.)

— 11—

Mr. Perry: At this time, we would like to offer in evi­
dence the deposition of Mrs. Rebecca Connelly, the Ad­
ministrative Assistant to the South Carolina Regional Ed­
ucational Board.

The Court: Open it and submit it. Has it been signed?
Mr. Watkins: She has signed it. There is one word I 

think is probably in error, and I think we can correct that 
by agreement.

(Deposition of Mrs. Rebecca Mack Connelly re­
ceived into evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32.)

Mr. Perry: At this time, we should like to offer in evi­
dence a copy of the Rules and Regulations governing out- 
of-state aid for the State of South Carolina, which rules 
have been identified by Mrs. Connelly in the taking of her 
deposition.

Mr. Watkins: If the Court please, we think this is 
irrelevant. We have objections to certain parts of the depo­
sitions and to the entire matter of Mrs. Connelly’s deposi­
tion. This is the rules—set of rules—Mrs. Connelly testi­
fied have been followed by her office. She states—and 
I think this is correct—they have not been filed with the 
Secretary of State, as required by South Carolina law. 
And yet, I don’t want to delay this by too much interrup-

Offering of Exhibits



Offering of Exhibits

— 12—

tion on questions like this. If this becomes relevant, we 
question the legal effect of these so-called rules on the 
ground that they have not been filed with the Secretary of 
State and published, as required by South Carolina law. 
Anri we object to her deposition and the whole field of 
evidence as irrelevant to this case, subject to its being 
connected up at some later point. This is an agency over 
which the college has no control and no interest whatever.

The Court: What do you say, Mr. Perry?
Mr. Watkins: These rules apparently have not been 

published.
The Court: What do you say, Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, first of all, may we say that 

the fact that the rules have not been properly registered 
with the office of the Secretary of State is of no moment; 
that the fact that they are published and pursued by the 
South Carolina Regional Educational Board, as has been 
testified by Mrs. Connelly, is evidence of the policy which 
her office is following, and, hence, ought be received in 
evidence and considered by this Court as evidence of the 
policy of the State of South Carolina, which is now being 
pursued.

The Court: I  will admit it subject to the objection; and 
if I  conclude that it is not material, or objectionable, I will 
strike it out.

—13—
Mr. Perry: May I point out to your Honor that in the 

letter of Mr. Vickery to Mr. Gantt, dated, I believe, Jan­
uary 17, 1961—January 19, 1961, the—Mr. Vickery stated 
to Mr. Gantt that, “On inquiry, we find that you are receiv­
ing from the South Carolina Regional Educational Board 
and expect to continue to receive it, provided you qualify,



38a

the difference in cost between in-State and ont-of-State 
enrollment.”

The Court: Let me see that document you introduced in 
evidence just a minute.

Mr. Perry: The copy of Mr. Vickery’s letter!
The Court: No, I don’t want to see any copy. I want to 

see the original.
(Document handed to Court.)
The Court: I think this paper is competent. Admit it. 
Mr. Perry: Thank you, sir.

(Rules and Regulations Governing Out of State 
Aid for the State of South Carolina, received 
into evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 33.)

Mr. Perry: We should like to call to the attention of the 
Court Acts and Joint Resolutions of the State of South 
Carolina for 1948, Act Number 860, which provided for 
the establishment of the pact between certain states therein 
enumerated, of which the State of South Carolina was a

—14—
party; and this Act, of course, is the statutory basis for 
the South Carolina Regional Educational Board.

The Court: Any objection! Let it be admitted.
Mr. Perry: May we also request that your Honor take 

note of the following Code sections of the State of South 
Carolina: Section 22-201, which provides for the acceptance 
of the Clemson devise and bequest.

The Court: All right.
Mr. Perry: In the establishment of Clemson College; 

Section 22-202, of the Code of Laws, which provides for 
the establishment and the location of Clemson College. We 
should like your Honor to take note of Section 22-3, of

Offering of Exhibits



39a

the Code of Laws of the State of South Carolina, which re­
quires for the closing of the institution involved, upon any 
student being ordered by Court order to be accepted by 
such school, within the State of South Carolina.

The Court: What do you say to that!
Mr. Watkins : That is a statute on the books.
The Court: My recollection of the rule is I can take 

notice of all statutory laws of South Carolina without it 
being introduced, but I will let you introduce it.

Mr. Perry: I was not introducing it. I  was merely call­
ing it to your Honor’s attention.

The Court: I  see.
Mr. Perry: Likewise, Section 22-3, Subparagraph 1,

—15—
which provides that in the event a Court orders a person 
admitted to any college of the State, other than South 
Carolina State at Orangeburg, that, as a consequence, 
South Carolina State College is directed to close its doors.

These are all statutes now prevailing in the State of 
South Carolina; and we should simply like your Honor 
to take note of them.

The Court: Very well.
Mr. Perry: We should like at this time to call as a wit­

ness Dr. Edwards, President of Clemson College.
Mr. Watkins: If the Court please, I would like at this 

time to know just how the Court is going to proceed. I 
assume that this is relevant to the motion for preliminary 
injunction. The Court has before it a discovery motion 
and also a motion based on requested admissions. I  assume 
we are proceeding now on the motion for preliminary in­
junction. I t’s my understanding that the Court has the 
decision as to what evidence it will receive and how it will 
receive evidence relative to this Petition.

Colloquy.



40a

Dr. Edwards is here; he is available as a witness; we 
have not thought this would be a full dress trial of the 
many issues of the case, are not prepared to present—to 
bring other witnesses on our behalf. We have submitted 
affidavits and have agreed to the receipt in evidence of 
these depositions, though one was only taken two days ago.

— 16—

The Court: Did you have any notice they were going 
to present witnesses here today?

Mr. Watkins: The only notice I had was that Mr. Perry 
asked me last Thursday whether Dr. Edwards would be 
present, and I told him he would. And he said he might 
want to call him as a witness, and I told him he would be 
available.

But it has been our understanding that the Court itself 
directs what evidence it will receive in matters involving 
motion for preliminary injunction. And we would be glad 
to know what the scope of the inquiry is going to be.

The Court: What do you say to that? I have got only 
a short time to hear these motions here, and I don’t want 
to go into the trial of the case on the merits by any means.

Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, of course, we take 
the position that we are entitled to present evidence in 
support of the motion.

The Court: I think I have got something to say about 
the limits of it. You have got your affidavits; you have got 
your depositions. Of course, in the Mississippi case, they 
took oral testimony by consent. It was agreeable to the 
parties that they could supplement your motion for pre­
liminary injunction—or their motion for preliminary in-

— 17-

junction by offering oral testimony. I had hoped to get 
through with this thing by one o’clock today. If I don’t,

Colloquy



41a

1 will have to come back tomorrow. How long will this 
testimony take, do you think?

Mr. Perry: I should not think that it would take very 
long, your Honor; and, of course, Mr. Edwards is possibly 
the only witness—

The Court: Of course, you could have taken his deposi­
tion just as you did the others, as far as that is concerned.

Mr. Perry: Of course, in the institution of the discovery 
proceedings, we did not discover until we took Mr. Vickery’s 
testimony—deposition—that we might want to proceed with 
Dr. Edwards. And, of course, had time permitted, we might 
have taken his deposition.

The Court: How many other witnesses do you wish to—
Mr. Perry: We would also like your Honor to observe 

on the witness-stand the plaintiff Harvey B. Gantt. I  do 
not anticipate that the examination of both Dr. Edwards 
nor Mr. Gantt would take very long. I certainly expect that 
your Honor will be able to conclude this hearing within 
the time which you have suggested.

The Court: What do you say?
Mr. Watkins: If the Court please, I think if we are

- 18-

going into the full case, each one of these witnesses will 
probably be on the stand for a half a day.

The Court: Here’s what I was thinking about: in other 
words, if I permit you to offer witnesses, I will have to 
give bim an opportunity to offer reply witnesses.

Mr. Perry: Yes, sir, I certainly agree that that is the 
case.

The Court: Then, I would have to continue this hearing 
to another date. You told me down in Charleston you 
wanted—as a matter of fact, you had the—I don’t know 
what you might call it. You might say you had the nerve

Colloquy



42a

to send me a proposed order to set the date immediately 
for the hearing of this motion. I told you I would set it 
as quick as I could, which I have done. Of course, I thought 
that was—your ambition was to dispose of this as quick 
as you could. And I was trying to cooperate with you. 
However, if you are going to offer evidence, I would cer­
tainly give them an opportunity to offer evidence in reply 
to it, which would take another time. I don’t know when 
I could do it. I have set aside today-—started Monday to 
hearing all motions, including yours. At that time, you 
also told me you were going to make a motion for—to be 
permitted to examine the records in the Clemson office. 
I haven’t seen any such motion. I told you I would give 
you a hearing on that motion immediately, if you recall

—19—
my words. But the Clerk said no such motion has been 
filed so far as he knows.

Mr. Perry: Yes, sir, there is such a motion pending.
The Court: When was it filed?
Mr. Perry: We do not need it today, however, your 

Honor. I think in view of what we are prepared to show 
today, we do not need that today.

The Court: Here’s what I am trying to convey to you: 
in other words, what you are doing, you are just delaying 
my decision on your motion for preliminary injunction, by 
my giving them an opportunity to reply to your testi­
mony you present here. If you want to do that, okay.

Mr. Perry: Well, your Honor, of course, the only thing 
I have to say to that is that Dr. Edwards is president of 
the institution and is—

The Court: Why couldn’t you have taken his deposi­
tion? And another thing I told you, if you recall: that I 
would like for you to make all the discovery proceedings

Colloquy



43a

that you intended to make immediately and I would notify 
the other side to do likewise. You remember that too, don’t 
you!

Mr. Perry: Yes, sir, I most certainly do. Your Honor, 
we have, of course, proceeded in part. We have not, of 
course—

The Court: I  will let you examine Dr. Edwards; pro-
— 20—

vided, I  will give the other side an opportunity to offer 
any testimony they might make in reply here today, by 
oral testimony.

Mr. Perry: All right, sir.
The Court: Let him come around.
Mr. Watkins: If the Court please, is the whole case 

open now?
The Court: I mean, if Dr. Edwards testifies, you can 

offer any evidence you see fit at a later date, that I will 
set for hearing, to deny his testimony. Do you want to 
say something?

Mrs. Motley: Yes, I would like to address the Court 
with respect to this: it’s our understanding that we are 
entitled to a hearing of our motion for preliminary injunc­
tion.

The Court: I am giving it to you right now.
Mrs. Motley: The defendants had notice of this hearing, 

which means that they should have come prepared to put 
on any evidence that they wanted the Court to receive at 
this time.

The Court: They are entitled to—these hearings are 
generally—customarily in my district—I don’t know about 
your state of New York; I have never held Court there. 
I have held Court in Philadelphia quite a number of times 
and also in New Jersey quite a number of times. But

Colloquy



44a

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff—Direct

— 21—

the practice here is that—motions of this kind—-yon serve 
on them the affidavits you intend to use at the hearing. 
And I have never taken oral testimony of witnesses be­
fore in this kind of hearing. That being true, that being 
the custom, if you want to swear Dr. Edwards now, I will 
give them an opportunity to reply to it. That’s my ruling.

Mrs. Motley: May I finish addressing the Court with 
respect to this?

The Court: Sure.
Mrs. Motley: I have not had one of these hearings in 

New York; and my experience, therefore, is not based on 
that, but on a number of similar hearings in these cases. 
And I have a specific case in mind—

The Court: I am talking about my custom in the Western 
District of South Carolina, and I am going to abide by that 
in your case as well as all other cases coming into this 
Court. I am going to treat them all alike.

Mrs. Motley: Well, I am relying on Rule 65, your Honor.
The Court: I have already made my ruling. If you want 

to swear Dr. Edwards, I will give them an opportunity, a 
reasonable time, to reply to it. Proceed.

Mr. Perry: We call Dr. Edwards.
The Court: All right. Let him come around.

— 22—

Dr. R. C. E dwakds, f i r s t  b e in g  d u ly  sw orn , te s tif ied  as 
follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Perry:

Q. State your full name. A. Robert Cook Edwards.
Q. Dr. Edwards, you are the President of Clemson Col­

lege, I believe! A. That’s right.



45a

Q. How long have you served in this capacity? A. I 
served as acting President from June 10, 1958, until April
9, 1959. And I was elected President on that date, and I 
have served subsequently.

Q. Prior to that time, were you affiliated in any capacity 
with Clemson College? A. From July 1, 1956, until June
10, 1958, I served as Vice-President for Development of 
Clemson College.

Q. Prior to that time, what employment did you have, 
sir? A. I was employed in the textile industry in South 
Carolina.

Q. You had been a resident of South Carolina for some 
years ? A. I have been a resident since returning to South 
Carolina in March, 1946, when I was relieved from active 
duty at the end of World War Two.

—23—
Q. Dr. Edwards, in connection with your duties as the 

President of Clemson College, do you sit and engage in 
the deliberations of the Board of Trustees of the college? 
A. I do.

Q. Dr. Edwards, when, to your knowledge, has the Board 
of Trustees ever discussed the admission of Negroes to 
Clemson College? A. The Board of Trustees has never, to 
my knowledge, in the period of time that I have been at 
Clemson, discussed this matter until it met officially on July 
19,1962, to consider the Complaint that was filed by you on 
J  uly 7.

Q. What, if anything, was decided by the Board in terms 
of policy regarding the admission of Negroes at that meet­
ing? A. That meeting was not concerned with such policy. 
It was concerned with a consideration of the Complaint as 
filed by the plaintiff and a discussion of the proposed An­
swer, which was filed by the college attorney some days 
later, on July 29,1 believe.

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—-for Plaintiff—Direct



46a

Q, Sir, you were present at the testimony which the 
Registrar, Mr. Vickery, gave on deposition last Thursday, 
were you not? A. That’s correct, yes, sir.

Q. You heard all of his testimony? A. I did.
Q. You recall that Mr. Vickery stated that formerly there

—24—
existed in the State of South Carolina and there was a 
custom which was pursued by Clemson College, which pro­
vided for the exclusion of Negroes from that institution. 
Do you recall such testimony? A. Mr. Perry, I  do not. 
The deposition is in evidence. I don’t recall Mr. Vickery 
having made any such statement. I would certainly have to 
—I have not read the deposition. I don’t recall it.

The Court: You can’t have one witness pass upon 
what another witness said.

Mr. Perry: I was merely asking if he recalled 
that, your Honor, not asking him to pass upon it. 

The Witness: Your Honor, I do not.
The Court: That wouldn’t have any effect on what 

he said anyhow. His deposition is in evidence. I will 
go by what he said, not what this witness under­
stood him to say. Go ahead.

By Mr. Perry.

Q. Dr. Edwards, has the Board of Trustees ever dis­
cussed the pending application of Harvey B. Gantt at 
Clemson College prior to the meeting to which you have 
just referred? A. At no time prior to the 19th of July, 
1962, the Board has not discussed it.

Q. What, if anything, did they say on the 19th about 
his application? I have reference to the meeting that you 
have just referred to. A. Well, the discussion of the

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff—Direct



47a

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff-—Direct

—25—
meeting on July 19, 1962, was concerned entirely with 
the discussion of the Complaint which you filed, and the 
college attorney’s suggestions about the draft of a proposed 
Answer to your Complaint. I sat in the meeting. The 
bulk of the discussion had to do with the legal matters 
involved and was dealt with almost exclusively by Mr. 
Watkins as the college attorney.

Q. Dr. Edwards, are you aware of any written policy 
of the Board of Trustees of Clemson College concerning 
the admission of Negroes to the institution? A. We have 
no such policy. We have an admissions policy that was 
entered in evidence, the policy adopted June 5, 1961, which 
you are thoroughly familiar with.

Q. What is the policy now prevailing with reference to 
admission of Negroes at Clemson College? A. Admission 
policies of Clemson College are designed and predicated 
on the basis of admitting qualified students; no reference 
to race in the admissions policy.

Q. Has the Board ever discussed race in any of its 
meetings at which you were present? A. Not to my 
knowledge, no, and I have attended every meeting of the 
Board since 1956 when I became affiliated with the college.

Q. Have you ever received any instructions from the 
Board concerning the admission of Negroes? A. I  have 
not.

—26—
Q. Dr. Edwards, under existing policy at Clemson Col­

lege, are you permitted to accept Negroes? A. Mr. Perry, 
we have never had a completed application from a Negro 
student. We have never been faced with that situation, 
and I would cross that bridge when I came to it.



48a

Q. Dr. Edwards, I wonder if yon would give me a more 
responsive answer to that last question.

Mr. Watkins: If the Court please, I think that is 
a complete answer.

The Court: I think he answered the question. You 
can repeat your question, however, and ask him to 
answer it again.

Mr. P erry : May I request that the question be—
The Court: No, I don’t do that. What did you 

ask him?
Mr. Perry: The question was whether present 

policy at Clemson College, as he understands it, 
permits the admission of a Negro applicant?

The Court: You can answer that, Doctor.
The Witness: I repeat the answer, your Honor, 

that we have not had a completed application from 
any Negro student; and, as a consequence, I have 
not had that problem to face. I can simply state,

—2 7 -
in addition to that, that the admissions policies that 
are a matter of record—they are publicly published 
—make no reference whatsoever to race in the selec­
tion of students to be admitted to Clemson College.

The Court: What he asked you is th is: do you 
have a policy with reference to the admission ot 
Negroes to Clemson College? Answer that “Yes” 
or “No.”

The Witness: We have no policy relating to that 
specific question, your Honor.

The Court: That answers the question.

Q. Dr. Edwards, are you aware of the communication 
which went forward from Dean McClure, of the Depart­

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff—Direct



49a

ment of Architecture, to the applicant Harvey B. Gantt 
on July 2, 1962! A. Yes, sir, I  am.

Q. You are aware, sir, that in that letter, Dean McClure 
stated that he wanted to evaluate some of Mr. Gantt’s work 
out at Iowa State where he is presently enrolled! A. I 
am well aware of that, yes, sir.

Q. Dr. Edwards, is the evaluation of credits earned in 
other institutions an admission policy at Clemson College! 
A. I t’s a very definite part of the admissions policy in 
the case of transfer students. As you are well aware, 
Mr. Gantt has completed two years of work at Iowa State; 
he has made a better than average academic record at 
Iowa State.

—28—
The Court: He didn’t ask all about that. Just 

answer his question. He answered your question 
and has gone off on something you didn’t ask him 
about. Go ahead.

By Mr. Perry'.

Q. Can you tell us, sir, how long does it take to evaluate 
one’s record as earned at other institutions! A. I would 
state that normally it would be done in a period of perhaps 
24 hours after the information was available.

Q. Dr. Edwards, what is the requirement now prevailing 
at Clemson College with reference to the scheduling of 
interviews of prospective applicants! A. A student making 
application for admission would have to first have success­
fully passed the entrance examination; he would have had 
to have submitted a transcript of all work completed at 
the institution or institutions previously attended; and he 
would have to be eligible to return to the institution from

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff—Direct



50a

which he sought to transfer, as the three basic require­
ments. We would then evaluate, in the case of a transfer 
student, his academic standing in the curriculum in which 
he would seek to enroll at Clemson, as contrasted to the 
curriculum that was being pursued at the institution from 
which he sought to transfer. We would schedule the inter-

—2 9 -
view, based upon the development of all the information 
that would come from it. The most important single factor, 
however, relating to the interview factor, relates to a de­
termination very accurately with the student of his class 
standing at Clemson versus his class standing from the 
institution he is seeking to transfer from.

Q. Do all these factors indicate a man’s fitness to be 
accepted as a student or do they rather have to do with 
what his given classification will be once he is enrolled? 
A. I would say the answer is it has a very definite bearing 
on both.

Q. How does it have any bearing on the matter of ad­
missions, sir? A. Mr. Perry, normally, a student trans­
ferring from one institution to another has a very basic 
reason for doing so, and it becomes most unusual, if the 
information at hand would indicate that a student is per­
haps going to lose as much as a year’s credit in the trans­
fer. We have a very clear responsibility to see to it that 
the student understands precisely what will be required 
of him at Clemson to complete the work for a degree, and 
we would not accept any transfer student without having 
that clear understanding with him.

Q. What is the interview requirement, Dr. Edwards? I 
think I understood that you stated an interview cannot be 
scheduled until the application is complete in all other 
respects. What does the interview consist of? A. Well,

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff—Direct



Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff—Direct

- 3 0 -
in the admissions policy that you are familiar with, you 
will note that under Item 4, we call attention to the fact 
that there are a great many intangible factors that are 
not indicated in entrance exam text results and other 
matters. Nobody has yet been able to find a way, for 
example, to measure motivation. We are interested at 
Clemson in having in our student body students who are 
qualified academically to pass the work required of students 
at Clemson; who are genuinely interested in an education; 
and who are, in our judgment, going to be good students 
among the family of Clemson students.

Q. Now, the interview which you have just mentioned, is 
this given to all persons applying for admission to Clem­
son? A. It is not. I t ’s given anytime that we have reason 
to assume that such an interview would be beneficial to 
the student and beneficial to the institution in determining 
his qualifications for admission.

Q. Generally, what standard guides you in determining 
which of the applicants to schedule interviews for, as 
against others? A. The factors would inevitably be deter­
mined on the basis of a review of all the other information 
that would have been reviewed in considering the student’s 
application: his academic record and all other factors that 
I have previously referred to.

—31—
Q. Now, those were the general things. Now, specifically, 

sir, could you tell us precisely what about any given per­
son’s application determines that that person ought to be 
interviewed? A. Well, let’s take a specific case. We have 
had—and I am sure will have others—students whose 
record otherwise would appear to be satisfactory; but on



52a

the back of the transcript would be confidential informa­
tion from the high school that that student attended; or 
in the case of a transfer student, the college or university 
attended. If there were evidences of things that we needed 
to look into so indicated, we would most certainly feel 
obliged and responsible for making such checks as were 
necessary.

Q. Has your administration determined that an inter­
view is necessary in the case of the pending application 
of Harvey Gantt? A. Mr. Perry, his interview had not 
been—his application—I’m sorry—his application had not 
been completed to a point that such a decision would have 
been made. As indicated in Mr. McClure’s letter, the inter­
view and the request for his work, portfolio of work in 
design, completed at Iowa State, would be examined and 
he would be counselled with regarding procedures at Clem- 
son in the School of Architecture; and when that step had 
been completed, we would then have been in a position

—32—
to determine whether or not an interview was indicated. 
I couldn’t say today whether we would or would not have 
insisted upon an interview.

Q. So that you have not yet determined in the case of 
Mr. Gantt’s application whether an interview was in fact 
necessary? A. No, we had his application—the processing 
of his application had not proceeded to the point that we 
could have made that determination.

Q. When would it normally have proceeded to this point? 
A. Following his visit with Dean McClure and the sub­
mission of the requested portfolio of creative design work 
referred to in Mr. McClure’s letter of July 2.

Q. President Edwards, have you personally reviewed the 
pending application filed relating to Mr. Gantt? A. I have.

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff-—Direct



53a

Q. Do you see anything in that file at this time which 
indicates the necessity for an interview? A. I have seen 
nothing in his file at this point that would indicate that 
he isn’t a very good student. And I have not determined 
and have not passed judgment on whether or not we would 
require an interview.

Q. So you still do not actually know whether the inter­
view itself will be pursued? A. I do not know and could 
not determine until we have arrived at that point, as I

—33—
indicated a moment ago.

Q. Who makes the decision to schedule an interview? 
A. It would be normally recommended by Mr. Vickery as 
Dean and Director of Admissions and Registration.

Q. Mr. Vickery would normally make that decision him­
self? A. He would normally review the record and would 
determine whether or not he felt there were something that 
indicated an interview relating to admission was indicated.

Q. Sir, do you personally know how long the applica­
tions of Harvey Gantt have been pending? A. I am 
familiar with Mr. Gantt’s file dating back to the beginning 
in January, 1961, yes, sir.

Q. You are aware, then, that he filed an application in 
January, 1961? A. Iam.

Q. And a subsequent application in December, 1961? 
A. Yes.

Q. You are also aware that he has never been inter­
viewed? A. That’s right. I am aware of the fact that 
he came to Clemson on June 13 of this year for an inter­
view. He did not indicate to us he was coming; and when 
he arrived, his transcript was not there and obviously 
there was no basis for us to discuss with him admissions,

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff■—Direct



54a

because we had not received a record of his 1961-62 
academic year’s work at Iowa State.

—34—
Q. Did we understand you, sir, to say that the inter­

view itself was to determine intangibles as—unrelated to 
the matter of record in another institution ? A. The inter­
view relating to admission would deal specifically with 
those matters covered in Item 4 in the admissions policy, 
of which you have a copy.

Q. And those are intangible matters and not the matter 
of grades earned at another institution, are they? A. 
That’s right, yes, sir.

Q. So that on the occasion of his visit, he actually could 
have been interviewed with reference to the miscellaneous 
factors contained in Item 4 of the admissions policy, couldn’t 
he have? A. Well, he couldn’t have been interviewed by 
me, because I happened not to be on the campus that day.

Q. Who conducts the interviews? A. Mr. Vickery con­
ducts interviews; I conduct interviews, depending on the 
circumstances. I talk to a great many students and a 
great many parents of students.

Q. Can other persons in Mr. Vickery’s office conduct in­
terviews? A. Yes, under certain conditions.

Q. Was it possible, in terms of the time involved, to 
have conducted the interview of Harvey Gantt on June 13? 
A. Mr. Perry, Mr. Gantt could have been interviewed,

—35—
but policy prohibits such when the application isn’t com­
pleted. What good purpose would have been served in 
taking the time, as busy as these people are, interviewing 
a student, when his application isn’t processed or hasn’t 
been processed to the point where a useful purpose could 
be served?

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff—Direct



55a

Q. I believe you said that of course you are familiar 
with the file. Did not the file contain previous transcripts 
of his grades'? A. We had transcript of Mr. Gantt’s work 
for the 1960-61 academic year submitted late June or early 
July, 1961.

Q. Did the transcript indicate a fairly good academic 
record at Iowa State University? A. It did.

Q. I believe a moment ago you described that transcript 
as indicating above average? A. Unquestionably, yes, sir.

The Court: What was that answer?
The Witness: Unquestionably above average, your 

Honor.
The Court: Go ahead.

Q. Couldn’t you have interviewed him on the basis of 
his previously known academic record? A. We could have, 
but policy again doesn’t—we operate Clemson on the basis, 
of policies and procedures. And we might be able to do 
many things that we don’t because policy doesn’t indicate 
that that’s the way to run the institution.

—36—
Q. Who—now, I believe you stated—did I understand 

you to state that Mr. Vickery schedules the interview after 
it has been determined that an interview is necessary? 
A. Mr. Vickery would normally contact the student to 
indicate to him when the interview would be scheduled, yes.

Q. How long does it normally take for an interview to 
be conducted, assuming one has been scheduled? A. I 
would state that on the average, 30 minutes to an hour, 
perhaps, of actual interview time.

Q. As of this time, as I understand your testimony, no 
decision has yet been reached that an interview is necessary 
of Mr. Gantt? A. That is correct, yes, sir.

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—-for Plaintiff—Direct



56a

Q. On August 31, 1961, in the form letter which was sent 
out from the Registrar’s Office, Mr. Vickery noted as one 
of the bases for cancelling Mr. Gantt’s pending application 
that the interview had not been completed! A. That is 
correct.

Q. When was a decision reached with reference to his 
then pending application to schedule an interview! A. 
Mr. Perry, this form letter that you refer to was sent to 
more than 50 applicants who were transfer students whose 
applications were pending and not yet completed. And 
in every instance, each application’s form letter—each

- 3 7 -
applicant’s form letter had indicated, just as was true in 
the case of Mr. Gantt’s letter, those items that are in the 
admissions policy that were not yet completed. Now, the 
fact that the check-mark stating that the interview was 
not yet complete was checked was not an indication neces­
sarily that an interview would be required later. I t’s 
simply an indication that the policy on applications pro­
vides these steps, and these were the steps that were not 
yet completed on August 31, 1961.

Q. Then, why was the application then pending can­
celled on August 31 if no interview- had been found neces­
sary as of that time! A. It was cancelled for the reason 
stated in the letter of August 31, which I believe is com­
pletely self-explanatory. I t ’s a matter of evidence and it 
has been admitted.

Q. The letter itself refers to the fact that the interview 
is incomplete. As I understand you, no decision had been 
reached to schedule an interview! A. That is one item 
in the letter. The letter—if you take it out of context, you 
might make that interpretation, but let’s don’t take it out 
of context, please.

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff—Direct



57a

The Court: Anything further?
Mr. Perry: Yes, sir, if your Honor would indulge 

me. I would like to allow Dr. Edwards to refresh 
his mind with a copy of the letter to which we now 
refer. (Hands copy to witness.)

—38—
Q. I hand you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12, which is the form 

letter which was sent out on August 31, 1961, and I ’ll ask 
you to look it over a moment before I proceed with fur­
ther questioning. What did the application of Mr. Gantt 
lack at that time which prevented his being accepted as a 
student! A. The entrance exam test scores were received 
after we had arrived at the cutoff point for accepting 
additional transfer students whose applications were in­
complete. We indicated in this letter, under Item 3(b) 
that his test scores wTere received too late to allow sufficient 
time for the Director of Admissions to complete investiga­
tion of other requirements for admission; and then under 
Item 4, personal interview was incomplete.

The Court : Mr. Perry, all that’s in evidence al­
ready. What you are doing, you are repeating what’s 
already in evidence.

Mr. Perry: Pm awful sorry—
The Court: What’s the purpose of that? How’s 

that? I mean, that’s in evidence; I can read it as far 
as that’s concerned.

Mr. Perry: I t ’s our purpose to arrive at the 
manner in which the cutoff date came; when it came.

The Court: You can ask him about that. Go 
ahead.

Mr. Perry: All right, sir.

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff-—Direct

—39—



58a

Q. Dr. Edwards, prior to the letter of August 31, 1961, 
which was sent out from the Office of the Registrar, had 
applicants been advised of a cutoff date? A. We were 
dealing with transfer students on an individual basis 
right through the summer. It just so happens that in the 
year—

The Court: That’s not what he asked you. He 
said, had a cutoff date been given at that time? 
I think he is entitled to an answer to his question.

The Witness: The answer is “Yes.”

Q. In what way were they notified, sir? A. They were 
notified individually. A number of them prior to that time, 
on August 31, every incomplete application from a transfer 
student was advised by letter exactly like this with the 
appropriate items checked; and they varied for each in­
dividual student.

Q, Prior to August 31, in what way was this information 
communicated to the applicant, Harvey B. Gantt? A. It 
was not communicated to him in any way other than this 
letter, because that was the first time we had occasion to 
so advise him.

Q. I believe you said that this letter does not mean 
that an interview had been scheduled but not completed? 
A. That’s correct.

—40—
Q. Had Mr. Gantt ever been advised that an interview 

was necessary before the letter of August 31? A. He was 
advised by letter dated June 8 of the material needed for 
admission, and my recollection is that Mr. Vickery indi­
cated in the last paragraph of his letter that if other 
information was needed, he would be advised. I am not-—

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff—Direct



59a

I would have to refresh my memory of the exact contents 
of the letter, but it’s also, your Honor, in evidence, one of 
the exhibits.

Mr. Perry : Your Honor, I would like to hand 
to Dr. Edwards a copy of the letter to which he now 
refers. (Copy of letter handed witness.)

Q. Does that letter set forth any requirement other than 
the three requirements therein set forth? A. Well, it does 
not, no. It says, Items 1, 2, 3, and indicates if you want 
your application to be considered, you furnish this in­
formation promptly.

Q. Does the letter contain any information that an in­
terview would be necessary? A. This letter does not.

Q. To your knowledge, was Mr. Gantt ever told that an 
interview would be necessary before the form letter of 
August 31 went out? A. I am not sure that he was.

Q. And in that letter, I believe that you have stated
—41—

that even though the letter says, “Interview not complete,” 
that that isn’t really what it meant? A. I didn’t say that 
at all.

Q. I ’m awfully sorry. I did not mean to misquote you. 
What did you say? A. I said that the item was checked 
in the letter as indicating the items of the current admis­
sion policy, which was then in effect, which had not been 
completed; and was an indication that the interview had 
not been completed. It was not a prejudgment that an 
interview was necessary or that it would be scheduled. 
It was simply an indication of the four basic points re­
quired to complete and comply with our admissions policy.

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff—Direct



60a

Q. May I ask you, sir, can you tell us how many ap­
plicants have been interviewed for the term beginning 
September, 1962? A. Mr. Perry, I couldn’t tell you the 
exact number, but I can assure you the number is sub­
stantial. I would say certainly not less than 50 and per­
haps closer to a hundred.

Q. You do not— A. I don’t—

The Court: Says he doesn’t know.

A. I don’t interview all of them. I  don’t know. But there 
have been a significant number and all of the transfer 
students similarly situated as Mr. Gtantt’s case have been 
interviewed.

—42—
Q. Were these interviews conducted by you or by other 

persons? A. They were conducted by other persons.
Q. I  see. Do you know, sir, how many pending applica­

tions you have for the term beginning September, 1962? 
A. At the moment?

Q. Yes, sir. A. Mr. Perry, we probably have at the 
moment six hundred or so in various states of completion. 
All of the incomplete transfer student applications that 
are not completed will be cancelled tomorrow; and fresh­
men, who are students graduating from high school, who 
have not completed their applications, still have some ad­
ditional time to comply or to complete. All of these people 
were notified several—oh, perhaps three weeks ago.

Q. In what manner, may I ask? A. In a form similar 
to this. It was not a two-page letter. It was one of these 
double-portion postal cards where we tell the student that 
unless—if he intends to complete his application, indicate 
immediately; otherwise, his application is going to be can­

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff—Direct



61a

celled. These—this follow-up letter is clearing up this 
body of some five or six hundred incomplete applications 
still pending.

Q. This is the first year you have advised pending ap-
—43—

plicants that unless you complete your application within 
the next three weeks— A. No, sir, this is standard prac­
tice. I t’s been going on for years.

Q. But, did I understand your prior testimony to be 
that in 1961, no notification other than the letter of August 
31 was sent out? A. We are connecting two things that 
are not connected. Let me clarify the point. As far as the 
Admissions Office is concerned, in dealing with graduates 
from high school, who are applying for admission as fresh­
men, we always have a body of applications that are in 
various states of completion. Periodically—let’s assume 
applications that were filed back in March or April that 
nothing has happened further by July 15. We will take 
that group and say to them: Complete your application 
or we are going to cancel it. Now, this is standard practice 
to clear out and have us know where we stand, because all 
institutions today are plagued with the problem of multiple 
applications. The student will apply maybe to eight or ten 
institutions. We are interested in knowing which ones are 
seriously interested in attending Clemson and to get those 
students enrolled if they are qualified.

Q. Are applicants presently required to state their race 
in the application form provided by Clemson College?

—44—
A. The application card that we use today is the same 
one that has been in use for years and it does have a space 
provided where race is indicated.

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff—Direct



62a

Q. When it was discovered that Harvey Gantt is a 
Negro, what communication did you have with Mrs. 
Rebecca Connelly, of the South Carolina Regional Educa­
tional Board? A. On a routine visit to Columbia, I stopped 
by Mrs. Connelly’s office to inquire if the State of South 
Carolina through her office had any information and whether 
or not his—the difference in cost between out-of-state and 
in-state tuition was being paid by the State, and I learned 
that it was.

The Court: Anything further ?
Mr. Perry: Pardon me, sir.
The Court: Go ahead.

Q. In the event you were given a present opportunity 
to complete the application of Harvey B. Gantt, how long 
would it take? A. That would be entirely in Mr. Gantt’s 
area of control.

If he can present the material Dean McClure requested 
and visit with him and have an understanding with him 
about his academic standing at Clemson, his application 
can be completed in fairly short order. I would say it 
would be entirely up to Mr. Gantt. It would not be up to 
us as to how long it would take.

—45—
Q. Is it not a fact that Mr. Gantt has offered to provide 

Mr. McClure with the information he has requested? A. 
Following Mr. McClure’s letter of July 2, I believe on July 
13, as I recall the date, Mr. Gantt indicated his willingness—

Mr. Watkins: If the Court please, this is a matter 
that occurred after suit was brought. We have taken 
the position throughout that the issues in this case

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff—Direct



63a

must be determined as to the date suit was brought, 
at least to the point of joining issue. If the Court 
in its equity jurisdiction directs certain things be 
done, it will certainly be done. But as far as the 
status of the case for the argument, for the purpose 
of the argument, we think it’s got to be the date suit 
was brought. And they are bringing in things that 
happened since then.

The Court: What do you say to that, Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry: We think, your Honor, that since this 

is a Court of equity, that your Honor has the right to 
consider all matters which are now pending. This 
would, of course, include the letter which Harvey 
Gantt sent in reply to Dean McClure’s letter, in 
order that your Honor might determine what the 
equities are.

The Court: Well, what’s before me is your motion
for preliminary injunction.

—46—
Mr. Perry: The injunction speaks for the future, 

sir.
The Court: How’s that?
Mr. Perry: The injunction speaks for the future. 

This is what we are requesting, and we feel that 
the communication which was sent by the plaintiff in 
answer to—

The Court: M’y recollection is that you also include 
-—did you or not include in your motion that his 
application be passed upon—“Yes” or “No”?

Mr. Perry: Yes, sir.
The Court: You did include that in—is that in­

cluded in your motion, that the college give him an 
answer whether they are going to take him or not?

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff—Direct



64a

Mr. Perry: Yes, sir.
The Court: I think in view of that, it would be 

competent.

By Mr. Perry:

Q. Do you remember the question, sir?
(At the direction of the Court, the reporter read 

the pending question and the partial answer of the 
witness.)

“Q. Is it not a fact that Mr. Gantt has offered to 
provide Mr. McClure with the information he has 
requested? A. Following Mr. McClure’s letter of 
July 2, I believe on July 13, as I recall the date, Mr. 
Gantt indicated his willingness—”

—47—
(The witness continued the answer.)

A. -—indicated his willingness to provide the information 
requested.

The Court: That answers it.

Q. Was this accepted by Mr. McClure?

Mr. Watkins: If the Court please, this is all 
covered by the exchange of correspondence between 
my office and the office of the counsel for the plaintiff.

The Court: I think most of it—
Mr. Watkins: That’s the evidence of it.
The Court: I think a great portion of the evidence 

is covered by correspondence—exhibits in evidence. 
Of course, I have let you go ahead and do it; but

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff—Direct



65a

since that’s covered, I can determine it by the cor­
respondence. If you want an answer, I will let him 
answer.

Mr. Watkins: I  don’t know whether this witness 
knows, because—

The Court: If he knows the answer. If you don’t, 
say you don’t know.

The Witness: I don’t know the answer, your 
Honor.

The Court: He says he doesn’t know. That answers 
it. Anything further ?

Q. So far as you know, has the interview been held?
A. To my knowledge, no.

Mr. P erry : That’s all, your Honor.
—48—

The Court: Any cross-examination?
Mr. Watkins: No questions.
The Court: All right. Next witness.
Mr. Perry: Plaintiff calls Harvey B. Gantt to 

the stand.
The Court: Bring him around.
Mr. Watkins: If the Court please, I want to say 

now that my cross-examination of this man is going 
to last—it seems to me the case is wide open. I t’s 
not restricted by any motion. It will take two hours.

The Court: I have ruled he’s got a right to present 
him; however, strictly speaking, I think the Federal 
Rules require you to confine your cross-examination 
to matters brought out by him. As I understood Mr. 
Perry, he said he wanted to introduce the witness, 
so I could take a look at him.

Dr. Robert Cook Edwards—for Plaintiff—Direct



66a

Mr. Perry: Yes, sir, principally, and to ask Mm 
one or two questions.

The Court: I can look at Mm and look at him 
without his testifying. He’s a right nice-looking boy. 
Go ahead.

—49—

Harvey B. Gantt—for Plaintiff—Direct

H arvey B. Ga n tt , first being duly sworn, testified as 
follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Perry:
Q. State your full name, please. A. My name is Harvey 

Bernard Gantt.
Q. Where do you live, Mr. Gantt! A. Charleston, South 

Carolina.
Q. How old are you! A. I am nineteen years.
Q. Are you presently enrolled in college! A. Yes, I am. 
Q. Do you desire to attend Clemson College! A. Yes, 

Ido.
Q. You stated that you are presently enrolled. Does 

this mean that you enrolled during the summer also! A. 
No, I  am not enrolled during the summer.

Q. You are enrolled at what institution during the winter 
sessions! A. I am enrolled at Iowa State University, in 
Ames, Iowa.

Q. When have you applied to enter Clemson College as a 
student! A. Do you mean my first application!

Q. You might state both of them.
—50—

Mr. Watkins: If the Court please, they are in 
evidence.

The Court: All of that is in evidence. I can’t take 
up the time of the Court going through all that. His



67a

application is in evidence and everything connected 
with it. Now, if yon have got anything yon want to 
add to that which is already in evidence, I will permit 
you to do so; otherwise, I am not going to take np 
the time of this Court repeating what’s already in 
evidence by his letters and applications.

Mr. Perry: Thank yon, your Honor. We will try 
to abide by it.

By Mr. Perry:

Q. Mr. Gantt, are you ready to comply with all require­
ments which you have been advised about as a prerequisite 
for entering Clemson College? A. Yes, I am.

Q, Have you brought with you the portfolio, which Dean 
McClure referred to in his letter of July 2, 1962? A. Yes, 
I  have a portfolio. I should say here that it is not a com­
pleted portfolio; but I have a sufficient amount of my work 
that he might be able to evaluate, I believe.

The Court: I didn’t understand. Did you say it 
was complete or not complete? You said something 
about completing. Talk louder.

The Witness: It is not a complete portfolio.
The Court: Talk a little louder so that I can hear 

you.
—51—

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Go ahead.

Q. Why is it not a complete portfolio of your work at 
Iowa State College? A. There are rules and regulations 
at Iowa State University in which a student submits his 
work; and in some cases, all of it is not returned to the

Harvey B. Gantt—for Plaintiff—Direct



68a

student. However, I have some of my work, but most of it 
and a great deal of it has been kept by the university.

Q. Are you prepared to present what you have to Dean 
McClure and other officials at Clemson College? A. Yes, 
I am.

Q. Are you prepared to engage and participate in any 
other interview which they desire to schedule? A. Yes, 
I am.

Harvey B. Gantt—for Plaintiff—Direct

Mr. Perry: That’s all, your Honor. You may 
examine.

Mr. Watkins: Could we have a moment’s recess, 
your Honor?

The Court: Sure. Take a recess. You can go down. 
(Recess.)

* JA. -5fe Jfc -34?W W TP W

—52—
The Court: How many more witnesses do you 

have?
Mr. Perry : Mr. Gantt is our last.
The Court: Do you want to take up your motion 

also to inspect the records? You want to take that 
up?

Mr. Perry: We do not feel we need that at this 
time. We have another proposal we would like to 
make after they come back.

The Court: I want to get rid of all motions, when 
they come back. I want to get rid of all motions 
you’ve got today.

Mr. Perry: Yes, sir.
The Court: If I can.
Mr. Perry: We feel if your Honor accepts favor-



69a

ably our suggestion, we may not need the other, and, 
of course—

The Court: I couldn’t say right now.
Mr. Perry : I know, your Honor, because we would 

like to make it after they get—
The Court: Bring the witness back. Any cross- 

examination ?
Mr. Watkins: For the purpose of this motion for 

preliminary injunction, we have no questions of the 
witness.

The Court: All right. You can stay down. Any­
thing further ?

— 53—
Mr. Perry: Indulge us a moment, please, your 

Honor, in view of this.
The Court: Sure. Sure.
Mr. Perry: We have no more witnesses. We have 

a proposal which we would like to make in open Court 
and allow counsel to state their position to you. 
Would you like to hear the proposal now or the 
argument ?

The Court: Well, I will dispose of the question of 
the evidence. After hearing the plaintiff and the 
president of the college testify, I will agree with 
your situation. I don’t think that they should be 
permitted to prolong this hearing by giving them 
time to reply to that testimony. I am going to with­
draw that part of my ruling. And I am not going 
to give them any time to reply to the oral testimony 
here. Now, what is your proposition?

Mr. Perry: Your Honor, as we understand the 
testimony of President Edwards and of Mr. Vickery, 
the Registrar, there seems to be an indication that

Colloquy



70a

Colloquy

the pending application of Mr. Gantt is not complete 
and that were they permitted to complete it without 
this action, that perhaps it might have been com­
pleted.

The Court: I know what you are going to say. 
I am a little ahead of you. But I think probably that 
should be submitted to counsel privately and see if 
you can agree on that. I mean, to make a proposition

- 5 4 -
like that in open Court here, I don’t think that that is 
—and require them to make an answer—you can con­
fer with them. If you reach an agreement and 
stipulation, it’s perfectly agreeable to me. But that’s 
my trouble, being a judge and a trial lawyer so long, 
I anticipate what a trial lawyer is going to do before 
he gets through.

Mr. Perry: Yes, sir. We had in mind, your Honor 
—of course, the—

The Court: I know what you had in mind.
Mr. Perry: The matter is quite important, we 

think, and—
The Court: I agree with you, but I am saying I 

believe you should take it up with them and see 
whether or not you all can reach an agreement about 
that first. I  mean privately.

Mr. Perry: Would your Honor indulge us a mo­
ment for such a conference ?

The Court: Sure, I would. Sure.

(Hearing suspended for conference between at­
torneys.)

(Counsel returned to open Court.)
The Court: All right, proceed.



71a

Mrs. Motley: May it please the Court, we met with 
the defendants, and we were unable to reach an 
agreement—

The Court: All right.
—55—

Mrs. Motley: —on the matter of acting—
The Court: I  know what you want. No use to go 

into that.
Mrs. Motley: What we’d like to do is say to the 

Court, before ruling on our motion for preliminary 
injunction, we feel that since this is an equity mat­
ter and that the Court has the power, to direct the 
defendants here to act upon this application. The 
president said that all he needs to do is look at this 
portfolio, which the young man has, of his work. He 
doesn’t know whether there’s going to be an inter­
view until he does so. We think that the Court ought 
to direct him to look at that portfolio. He said he 
could do it in a day. And then determine whether 
he has to interview the man and interview him and 
either accept or deny him. Now, the record now 
shows—and they claim that they have no policy of 
discrimination, that they are ready to accept this 
man, that all he has to do is present his portfolio; 
so we say that in the interest of equity, this Court 
should require that that be done. And when they 
have done that, it may be that this Court doesn’t 
have to rule; they may have accepted him. And if 
they have rejected him, then it’s clear that they 
have rejected him.

The Court: There are two sides to the proposi­
tion. I can’t as a judge direct you to tell your client 
to go there for an interview. Let me get through,

Motions



72a

Motions

- 5 6 -
now. I am passing on your motion. I can’t direct 
your client to go ahead and have an interview. I 
can’t do that. That’s up to him. He can do it if he 
wants to. Neither can I direct them what to do about 
the matter. This is a lawsuit and the only thing 
before me now is passing upon your motion for 
preliminary injunction, on the evidence produced; 
therefore, I cannot direct your client to go for an 
interview and I can’t direct the defendants to inter­
view him. Now, whether your client wants to go for 
an interview, that’s up to you and him.

Mrs. Motley: May I—will the Court permit me to 
point out that this—

The Court: I tell you what you probably haven’t 
got in New York that we have in our jurisdiction—

Mrs. Motley: This was done in the University of 
Georgia ease.

The Court: Let me get through.
Mrs. Motley: I ’m sorry. I thought you had—
The Court: I say, we have a rule here, and 

whether it’s a good rule or a bad rule, we have a 
rule, District Court Rule, in this Court for the East­
ern and Western Districts of South Carolina, that 
says that unless the judge cares to hear further 
argument, he will—if the judge cares to hear further 
argument, he will let you know. If he doesn’t, he 
will let you know. So, that’s my ruling on the matter. 
I  don’t care to hear any further argument on it.

—57—
Mrs. Motley: All right, thank you, your Honor. 

I  didn’t understand—



73a

The Court: That’s our rule; that’s our District 
Court Rule.

Mrs. Motley: I ’m sorry. I didn’t know you were 
cutting off argument.

The Court: As far as I ’m concerned, I would be 
delighted to hear you make an oration here, because 
your associate counsel, Mr. Perry, has bragged on 
you powerful strong. And, as a matter of fact, I 
asked him yesterday was he as good as you a re ; and 
he said, “No,” wasn’t anybody as good as you are. 
So—that’s my ruling anyhow. Now, it’s up to you 
whether you tell your client to go and present him­
self for an interview. I t’s up to them whether they 
do it. Because I can’t—this Court—this is litigation. 
I can’t—I have got to take the case as it is. If I 
deny your motion for preliminary injunction, then, 
of course, that question may be raised if I try it 
on the merits. All right. That’s my ruling anyhow.

Proceed with the argument. How much time do 
you want to argue this? Or do you want to submit 
it on written briefs ?

Mr. Perry: We’ll submit it, your Honor, if that’s 
agreeable with the—

The Court: You had better confer and see whether
—58—

you all agree. I  sometimes have lawyers disagree 
amongst themselves about procedure.

Mr. Perry: Your Honor, of course, I believe you 
had before you everything that we have to present; 
and we respectfully request the Court to rule on the 
motion—

The Court: I ’m going to.
Mr. Perry: —without the necessity of submitting 

briefs.

Motions



74a

The Coart: No, I  want briefs on it. In fact, this 
is a most interesting case. I don’t know of any 
exactly like i t ; and I would like to have briefs. How 
much time do you want!

I have got to take time to review this record 
and the testimony taken here today, as well as all 
the exhibits and the depositions, and it will develop 
into quite a record. (Off the record.) I  want to give 
it some careful consideration. And, by the way, you 
might not know it, but this is not the only case I 
have to decide. I just got back from Charleston, 
where as you know I ’ve been, with a big Admiralty 
docket, and I brought lot of those home with me.

Mr. Perry: We’ll be glad to present any memoran­
dum required by the Court within five days, if that’s 
satisfactory.

The Court: Five days ?
—59—

Mr. Perry: Yes, sir.
The Court: Five da}rs? Is that agreeable to you? 

Give each side five days.
Mr. Watkins: If the Court please, could we have 

five days after receiving theirs ?
The Court: You can exchange briefs and both 

of you reply to the other, if you wish. Do it any 
way you see fit. Anyway agreeable to you is agree­
able to me.

Mr. Jenkins: If the Court please, we should like to 
point out that our primary aim here is to get this 
young man in school in September.

The Court: How’s that?
Mr. Jenkins: Our primary aim here is to get the 

plaintiff in school in September.

Motions



75a

The Court: You don’t have to tell me that.
Mr. Jenkins: Yes, sir, I would like to say in view 

of the fact that—
The Court: You don’t have to tell me what your 

primary aim is. You said so in your pleadings.
Mr. Jenkins: —the new term begins, I would like 

to point out, September 6—
The Court: I said I will give you five days each 

to draw a brief. What do you want to say?
Mr. Jenkins: I am trying to get cleared on whether 

—what the time period is.
—60—

The Court: Five days, each side. Five days to 
each side to file a brief; and if either side wants to 
reply, say so now.

Mr. Watkins: I am certain we will want the right 
to reply, sir.

The Court: All right, in order to save time, I 
suggest you exchange briefs and both of you reply 
to the other’s brief within two days. Is that agree­
able?

Mr. Watkins: Yes, sir. Today is Wednesday. We 
will file briefs on—

The Court: I won’t count Sunday. Briefs will be 
due Tuesday.

Mr. Watkins: Tuesday, and reply briefs two days 
thereafter.

The Court: Two days thereafter.
Mr. Frank Watkins: Two days is mighty short, 

if the Court please.
The Court: (Off the record.) Anything further?
Mr. Perry : That’s all for the plaintiff.

Motions



76a

The Court: You don’t want to take any other 
motions up at this time, as I understand?

Mr. Perry: No, sir.
The Court: Do you have any motions you want 

to take up at this time 1
Mr. Watkins: No, sir, we have given notice under

- 6 1 -
Rule 36 of our objections to certain Requests for Ad­
missions, but we see no reason—

The Court: You don’t want to take that up?
Mr. Watkins: No, sir.
The Court: All right, the Court will take it under 

advisement.
(Hearing concluded.)

Motions

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the aforegoing constitutes a true 

and correct transcript of proceedings had at the stated time 
and place.

August 24,1962

M iriam  S. H en r y ,
U. S. Court Reporter 
Western District of S. C.



77a

17 Lames Street 
Charleston, S. C.

July 19, 1959

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1

Clemson College 
Office of Admissions 
Clemson, S. C.

Dear Sir:
I would like to obtain a bulletin on your school of engi­

neering. I am interested in a degree in architecture, there­
fore I would like to obtain all necessary information such 
as expenses, prescribed courses, requirements, etc.

student
I am a high school A here in Charleston and I expect 

to graduate in 1960. I am definitely interested in a course 
in Architecture and I am considering your school as a pos­
sibility.

Will you please send this information as soon as possible. 
It will be highly appreciated.

Yours truly,

/ s /  H abvey G-antt



78a

July 21, 1959

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2

Mr. Harvey Gantt 
17 Lames Street 
Charleston, South Carolina

Dear Mr. Gantt:
We appreciate your interest in Clemson College. Under 

separate cover we are sending a copy of the latest Clemson 
Catalog which includes detailed information of interest to 
new students. Please note carefully the entrance require­
ments as listed in the catalog, particularly as concerns 
entrance examinations and transcripts. Please allow 30 
days for delivery.

Enclosed is an Application Card which may be used in 
making application for entrance to Clemson. All applica­
tions returned to the Registrar’s Office will be given careful 
consideration and the applicant will be notified when a 
reservation has been made.

You will find the costs of attending Clemson, require­
ments for entrance, and major courses offered in the cata­
log. If, after studying the catalog you have further ques­
tions we shall be happy to answer them for you.

The Architecture curriculum is discussed in detail on 
pages 118-121 of the catalog. A leaflet is enclosed for your 
information.

Yours very truly,

R . J. B ebby

Director of Admissions

RJB dbg 
Enclosures



79a

4433 Lincoln Hse.
Friley Hall
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
November 2, 1960

Office of Registrar 
Clemson College 
Clemson, South Carolina

Dear Sir:

Will you please send me a bulletin for the 1960-61 school 
year. I  should like the bulletin to include the different cur­
riculum and the cost of attending Clemson for one year. 
Also I ’m asking that you send me some applications for 
admission next semester or the fall of ’61.

If possible, may I have this information by the 20th of 
November. Thank you for your cooperation.

Yours truly,

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3

/ s /  H arvey Gantt



80a

CLEMSON COLLEGE 
Clem so n , S ou th  Carolina

OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR

November 8, 1960

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4

Mr. Harvey Gantt 
4433 Lincoln Hse.
Friley Hall
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa

Hear Mr. Gantt:
We appreciate your interest in Clemson College. Our sup­
ply of the current catalog is exhausted and you may expect 
to receive a copy of the new edition upon publication in 
late April, 1961.
Enclosed is an Application Card which may be used in 
making application for entrance at Clemson. All applica­
tions returned to the Registrar’s Office will be given careful 
consideration and the applicant notified when a reservation 
has been made.

Very truly yours,

R. J. B erry 
Director of Admissions

RJB/tsb
Enclosures
[ E m b l e m ]



PLEASE FEINT
Name of Student semm...............cmn r^̂ CrTrst Nam®) (Mlddlo Nam©) (Last Nam©)(Last Nam©)

Parent or Guardian (f jjrat Nam®) (Middl® Ncmb) (Last Nam®)

U L m m a s m iMail Address

c m i £ s r w :___ $ £ r “ * ‘Q f c t x s a i d .
(Ctiy) '  (Stalo) (County)

tUfae 4Hciu*nn (Agricultural filailt-ge
NSW STUDENT APPLICATION

T m t e r t # * * * * * * -(Qttr) , j. * (Stat®) ic&wir)
Oats of ~Xfai£fW m i  m Data you desire C jO y r“

graduation ,,..  JJzpJBL to eater C len tsonuefuJL -, . M .; (Ysg) . (Month! (Y®«)
Have you attended collage? J f i l s L -  If to, give the name and address of 
the institution you *1£*ndad

_—  Data last attended J.9 £ 6 r £ t l -

E __ _______
M ------------
E E _ _ ______

; Transcript Boceivod

Fes Ofilco Use

A ccep ted

: IBM Coda
Student
Number-----

•High
School™—.—

State.—------

County-------
Entrance 
Data—.— - 
Student 
Status--------

K yow are currently enrolled in another college 1® r * /  t , -- ■.
give date present quarter or semester ends t< i

8 t j J O j f l —  . -  r^ N L
Occupation of Parent pr .Guardian _ J £ l A 1 MI i  J l i \M  .11..,

Pate 
birth

Have you served in the Armed *,/_ If go, give•
forces of the’ United States? i f c Service No.

Pates of 
Service. -—— ’ 19—*. to — — — ML 

(Month) (Month) ’

Chi ck whether ,
you are single ju_ or m arried ___

If church member, what © k K y  s e  r  If not member,
your denomination? J r i l t  .i  H i . ... what preferaace? .

y ^ U I£ d I i l |L jIndicate the major course you desire to tak e .

I '
P c  you  w ish  a g lace  re s e rv e d  to r  yo u  to  th e  d o rm ito rie s?  Y a# . No.

Signature S i

Far Office Use

Birth-_____ ___
Parent's 
Oo©u»a. —____
Veitti ».n
Status—____
Marital
Status— ___ _
Church
Pref___ _

kei,. 
rVesidenca— 
S(ex----- -

Card flees iv@4

Plata Cat

i f ,  S. DISTRICT C 0tJR T



81a

P la in t i f f ’s Exhibit 5



82a

CLEMSON COLLEGE 
Clbm sox , S o u th  Carolina

OFFICE OF TH E REGISTRAR

January 19, 1961

Mr. Harvey Bernard Gantt 
4433 Lincoln House 
Friley Hall 
Iowa State University 
Ames, Iowa

Dear Mr. Gantt:
Your application for entrance in September, 1961, lias 

been received.
On inquiry, we find that the South Carolina Regional 

Education Board is paying, and expects to continue to pay 
provided you qualify, the difference in cost between in-state 
and out-of-state enrollment.

In view of the above and your satisfactory progress at 
Iowa State University, we are returning your application.

Very truly yours,

/ s /  K. N . V ickery  
K. N. V ickery  
Registrar

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6

Enclosure
KNV/1
[ E m b l e m ]



83a

4433 Lincoln House 
Friley Hall
Iowa State University 
Ames, Iowa
February ,1961

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7

Mr. K. N. Vickery 
Registrar 
Clemson College 
Clemson, South Carolina

Dear Mr. Vickery:

I have received your letter of January 19, 1961 in which 
you returned my application for entrance as a student to 
Clemson in September, 1961.
It is true that I have been receiving assistance from the 
South Carolina Regional Education Board representing the 
difference in cost between in-State and out-of-State enroll­
ment. However, I especially wish to attend Clemson Col­
lege. Since I am a citizen of South Carolina, and since 
Clemson is a State supported institution, I believe I have a 
right to attend Clemson College.
In view of the foregoing, I am herewith returning my appli­
cation and am requesting that it be processed for entry as 
a student in September, 1961.
I shall appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible.

Very truly yours,

/ s /  H abvey B. Gantt 
Harvey B. Gantt



84a

CLEMSON COLLEGE 
Clem so n , S o u th  Carolina

February 17,1961

OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR

Mr. Harvey Bernard Gantt 
111 Cannon Street 
Charleston, South Carolina

Dear Mr. Gantt:
Receipt is acknowledged of your application for transfer 

from Iowa State College to Clemson. Your application is 
being placed with the pending applications.

Yours very truly,

/ s /  K . N. V ickery

K. N. Vickery, Registrar

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8

KNV :lle
[ E m b l e m ]



85a

CLEMSON COLLEGE 
Clem so n , S ou th  Carolina

OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR

May 9,1961

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9

Mr. Harvey B. Gantt 
4433 Lincoln House 
Friley Hall 
Iowa State University 
Ames, Iowa

Dear Mr. Gantt:

In response to your letter of April 26, I beg to advise 
that of this date no applications from any prospective 
transfer students have been processed.

Yours very truly,

/ s /  K. N. V ickery

K. N. Vickery, Registrar

KNV :11c
[ E m b l e m ]



86a

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10 

June 8,1961

Mr. Harvey Bernard Gantt 
111 Cannon Street 
Charleston, South Carolina

Dear Mr. Gantt:
Receipt of your letter of May 29 is acknowledged. The 

requirements of Clemson College for admission by transfer 
from another college are fully set forth in the College cata­
log, two copies of which were mailed to you, and in the 
printed instructions which accompanied the application 
blank which you have filed. To repeat, the requirements 
include the following items:

1. Satisfactory scores on the College Entrance Examina­
tion Board tests, including the scholastic aptitude test and 
achievement tests in English composition and intermediate 
mathematics. If you have taken these examinations, you 
may request the College Board, Box 592, Princeton, New 
Jersey, to forward your scores to this office.

2. An official transcript of your academic record to date 
at Iowa State University, including entrance credits.

3. A statement from Iowa State University that you are 
entitled to an honorable discharge from that University, 
and that you are eligible to return to that institution next 
semester.

Clemson College cannot process your application until 
all of this information has been submitted, and our records 
do not indicate that we have received any of the above items.



Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10

If you want your application to be considered, please see
that this information is received in this office as soon as
possible.

Yours very truly,

/ s /  K. N. V ickery

K. N. Vickery, Registrar

KNV :lle



88a

111 Cannon Street 
Charleston, South Carolina 
June 17,1961

Mr. K. N. Vickery, Registrar 
Clemson College 
Clemson, South Carolina

Dear Mr. Vickery:
Thank you for your letter of June 7, 1961 in which you set 
forth information which Clemson requires of transfer stu­
dents before applications can be passed upon. In response 
to your letter I state the following:

1. I am taking the necessary steps to take the College 
Entrance Examination Board Tests, including the Scho­
lastic Aptitude Test and Achievement Tests in English 
Composition and Intermediate Mathematics. My scores will 
be forwarded to you within the time required by your rules.

2. I have requested that an official transcript of my aca­
demic record to date at Iowa State University, including my 
entrance credits, be forwarded to you immediately.

3. I  have also requested that a statement be forwarded 
to you from Iowa State University to the effect that I am 
entitled to an honorable discharge from that school and 
that I am eligible to return to that institution next semester. 
I shall make every effort to furnish the information which 
you have requested without delay. Meanwhile, if there are 
any other requirements which I should meet in connection 
with my desire to enter Clemson, I shall appreciate your 
so advising me.

Very truly yours,
/ s /  H abvey B. Gantt 

Harvey B. Gantt

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 11



89a

THE CLEMSON AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE 
A. & M. College of S o u th  Carolina 

Clemson, South Carolina

August 31,1961
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR

Mr. Harvey Bernard Gantt 
111 Cannon Street 
Charleston, South Carolina

Dear Mr. Gantt:

Your incomplete application for admission to Clemson 
College for the 1961-62 session, as a transfer student from 
Iowa State University has been pending since February 7, 
1961.

As a new student at Clemson, you would be expected to 
report for matriculation on September 8, 1961; hence it is 
impractical for this office to complete the XJroeessing of your 
application in time to meet this deadline. For the reason 
or reasons indicated below we are sending you this letter 
in order that you may know the status of your application 
and that you may plan, if you so desire, to return to Iowa 
State University. We realize how important it is to you 
that your college education not be further interrupted.

SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS WHICH MUST BE 
MET BY AN APPLICANT WHO IS A TRANSFER STU­
DENT. THE ITEMS CHECKED ARE THE DEFI­
CIENCIES RELATING TO YOUR APPLICATION:
1. Applicant must furnish transcripts indicating all aca­

demic work taken at institutions previously attended.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12



90a

(a) Transcripts not received.........................................
(b) Academic record unsatisfactory.............................

2. Applicant must be eligible to return for the next semes­
ter (or quarter) to the institution he last attended.

(a) Your are ineligible to return t o ............................
(b) Information as to your eligibility to return to ......
..................... is not available...........................................

3. To be eligible for admission to Clemson, applicant must 
have taken both the morning and afternoon portions of 
the College Entrance Examination Board tests. The 
average of scores achieved on the SAT portion (verbal 
and quantitative) and on the English and Mathematics 
placements tests, must equal or exceed the minimum 
acceptable score for transfer students.

(a) Entrance Examination Scores not received.........
(b) Entrance examination scores received, but too 

late to allow sufficient time for the Director of 
Admissions to complete investigation of other re­
quirements for admission. V

(c) Entrance examination score below the minimum
required for admission. ................ .......................

4. In determining the acceptability of an applicant as a 
member of the Clemson College student body there are 
a number of intangible factors that are important but 
are difficult to measure. Nevertheless, the college will 
attempt to assess these factors by all possible means. 
These factors concern character, maturity, motivation, 
contribution to student life, amenity and obedience to

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12



91a

authority and salutary rules of discipline and emotional 
stability. Where any of these factors are in question, 
the college will obtain additional data on them by any 
of the following methods: interviewing the potential 
student; interviewing the parents; interviewing the 
leaders of the community where the potential student 
resides.

(a) Personal interview incomplete. V
(b) Applicant failed to keep scheduled appointment

for interview............................................................
(c) Interview unsatisfactory.........................................

Sincerely yours,

/ s /  K. N . V ic k e r y

K. N. Vickery, Registrar

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12



92a

CLEMSON COLLEGE 
Clem so n , S o u th  Carolina

OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR October 13, 1961

Mr. Harvey B. Gantt 
4433 Lincoln House 
Iowa State University 
Ames, Iowa

Dear Mr. Gantt:
As you were advised by form letter dated August 31, 

1961, your incomplete application for admission to Clemson 
for the semester beginning in September, 1961, was can­
celled for the reasons indicated. We advise you further 
that all pending applications which were not completed 
prior to the beginning of the Pall semester from all appli­
cants were likewise cancelled. We have no record of any 
application now pending for your admission at any future 
entrance date.

You may apply for admission at the beginning of any 
subsequent semester. It will not be necessary for you to 
retake the College Entrance Examination Board Tests. All 
other requirements must be met including a transcript of 
your college work completed to the time of requested en­
trance at Clemson, and evidence of your good standing at 
the college from which you seek to transfer.

When all material required has been submitted and 
processed, you may, under established admission policy, 
be called for personal interview before final decision is 
made. The interview will not be scheduled until your appli-

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 13



93a

cation is otherwise complete. The application must have 
been completed in time to permit the scheduling of the 
interview prior to the requested entrance date.

Yours very truly,

/ s /  K. N. V ickeey  
K. N. Vickery 
Registrar

KNV :so 

[ E m b lem ]

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 13



Plaintiff’s Exhibit 14

4433 Lincoln House 
Friley Hall 
Iowa State University 
Ames, Iowa
November 13, 1961

Mr. K. N. Vikery 
Registrar 
Clemson College 
Clemson, South Carolina

Dear Mr. Vickery:
I have received yonr letter of October 13, 1961. When 
I received yonr form letter dated August 31, 1961 I got 
the impression that my application was still being con­
sidered. However, your letter of October 13, 1961 seems 
to indicate that my application has been cancelled.
I do wish to enter Clemson as soon as possible. Since 
I have already applied for admission, it seems that my 
original application would be enough and I am asking that 
you consider it an application for the next ensuing and 
subsequent semesters and school terms. However, if this 
is not possible, please send me an appropriate application 
form in order that I may file it without any further delay. 
I shall appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible.

Very truly yours,

/ s /  H arvey B. Gantt

Harvey B. Gantt



95a

4433 Lincoln House 
Friley Hall 
Iowa State University 
Ames, Iowa 
December 6, 1961

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15

Mr. K. N. Vickery, Registrar 
Clemson College 
Clemson, South Carolina

Dear Mr. Vickery:
In accordance with your instructions, I have completed 
the application form which you recently forwarded to 
me and am herewith returning it to your office. I  will 
cause a copy of my transcript of work to be completed 
during the present period at Iowa State University as 
soon as it is ended. I will also obtain a statement from 
the appropriate officials of Iowa State University concern­
ing my eligibility to return to that institution.
In the event this application is not processed in time for 
the beginning of the next semester at Clemson, please 
consider it an application for the next ensuing and sub­
sequent semester or school term and that it be considered 
a continuing application. As I have stated to you in 
several previous letters, I am very desirous of attending 
Clemson College. I therefore urge that this application 
be given prompt attention.

Very truly yours,

/ s /  H arvey B. Gantt

Harvey B. Gantt



96a

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 16

(See opposite) SSIr'



\ ^ /a/
PLEASE PRINT

Name of Student i m u m   &&nmmi  t _(Ftr*S Nob**) (Mlddi* Maw®)
Parent or Guardian

(First H am ^l (MkUUs Horn®)

Home Address _4JU_, ....& i :

( la s t  Korn®)

jM & ffiE L
(Last Name)

(City)

(P. O. Bos, R-F.D. Of Strwrtj

_ C M m u S & m sL .
(Staie! (County)

Name of High 
School Attended

Fes Offic« Us*

E
M
EE
Transcript

Accepted
• C U E W S O N  C O L L K ' G C

HEW STUDENT APPLICATION
____________ -

Address of High School m .
(City) t (Slot®) (County)

0  V ^ L t a - J E n e t t - J S f c #  to enter Clemscn
(Memfe) (Y«pri (Mcmth) (Year)

Have you attended college? If so, give the name and address of
the institution you attended ------ _____— _

■ J ' j  Date last attended

IBM Ced*
Student
Number-------

Seao o Jl .

State-

County—  
Entrance Date.___
Student 
Status____

If you are currently enrolled in another college _
give expected date ©I final enrollm ent--- -------M - i g l i -

D ite  of , , ,  w ,  Place of tse*f*aL am
birth birth , Sex J H —. Race m~~~

ClccuiptsticrFi of 1?̂ rm t or Cil usi rd.an ......—  „ " . ...(s

Have vou served on active duty 
In the U. S. Armed forces _

Dates of

If so, give 
Service No.

activs «#rvl«M8
(Month)

IS . to
Check: /

IS—  Single tjjr Mark.'

If not member,

U

If church member, what „  * D r - +* “ Ul *<«=•»»«. 
is your denomination? ..DtA t J lM — what preference?

Indicate the major course you desire ta take
t

Do you wish a place reserved for,you in the dormitories? Yes j / No

Signature-
fi ?IhSLAh iiL__

F o r O ffice Uss«
Birth-_______
Parent's
Occupa---------
V eteran
Status._______
Marital
Status——
Church
P re f. ______ —
Majsr
Pref_________
R esidence_____
S ex _________
H.S. R a n k ___

Card H®c®ive<£

Plaia Cut



97a



98a

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 17

CLEMSON COLLEGE 
Clemsost, S o u th  Carolina

OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR

May 21,1962

Mr. Harvey B. Gantt 
4433 Lincoln House 
Friley Hall 
Iowa State University 
Ames, Iowa

Dear Mr. Gantt:
Your letter of April 28, 1962, has been received. A 

catalog of Clemson College, in which admission require­
ments are fully stated and explained, is being sent to you 
under separate cover.

Of course, the College cannot act on any application until 
the necessary information has been submitted in full.

Yours very truly,

/ s /  K. N. V ickery  
K. N. V ickery  
Director of Admissions 
and Registrations

KNV:lle
[ E m b le m ]



99a

P la in t if f ’s E x h ib it  1 8

(Western Union Telegram)

1962 JUN 26 PM 4 30

A GNA054 (A CMA506) PD-COLUMBIA SOCAR JUN 
26 352P EST
K N VICKERY REGISTRAR
CLEMSON COLLEGE CLEMSON SOCAR 
AM INFORMED TRANSCRIPT OF MY GRADES FOR­
WARDED TO YOUR OFFICE JUNE 13 1962 REQUEST 
MY APPLICATION TO CLEMSON BE FAVORBLY 
CONSIDERED AND I BE GIVEN INTERVIEW IM­
MEDIATELY REPLY WITHIN 48 HOURS PLEASE 
HARVEY B GANTT 111 CANNON S CHARLESTON 
SC—431 PM.



100a

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 19
(Western Union Telegram)

June 28, 1962

Mr. Harvey B. Gantt 
111 Cannon Street 
Charleston, S. C.

Betel June 26. Transcript received. Your application along 
with all others pending completion is being processed in 
manner we advised during your visit to this office on June 
13. You will be advised date for interview as soon as other 
details relative to your application have been completed.

K. N. Vickeby 
Director of Admissions 
and Begistration



101a

July 2,1962
Mr. Harvey B. Gantt 
111 Cannon St.
Charleston, S. C.
Dear Mr. Gantt:

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 20

The transcript of your record at Iowa State University has 
been handed to the School of Architecture for analysis and 
evaluation. As, in every case of transfer, there is some 
difficulty in determining the equivalence of courses at an­
other school with courses required for a degree in Archi­
tecture at Clemson. This problem is made more difficult 
by the fact that Iowa State University is on the quarter 
system and we must convert quarters of work into se­
mesters of work.
To assist us in the evaluation we must see a portfolio of 
your work in architectural design and drawing at Iowa 
State University with an indication of the duration of the 
exercises submitted. You may submit any other creative 
work you care to show. The more complete this portfolio 
is the better our evaluation can be.
At the time you submit this to us, or as soon as convenient 
thereafter, we recommend that you come to Clemson for a 
conference. This conference will have to do with the 
standards and procedures of the School of Architecture 
and will not be a substitute for the pre-acceptance inter­
view provided by college admissions policies. I will be 
away from the campus from time to time during the 
summer. Please write or telephone for an appointment 
before coming.

Sincerely,
/s /  H arlan E. M cClure

H arlan E. M cClu re , Dean 
School of Architecture

HEM :ss
cc: K. N. Vickery, Registrar



102a

THE ARCHITECTURAL FACULTY OF 
SOUTH CAROLINA

SCHOOL OP ARCHITECTURE

CLEMSON COLLEGE
CLEMSON SOUTH CAROLINA

July 2,1962
Mr. Harvey B. Gantt 
111 Cannon St.
Charleston, S. C.

Dear Mr. Gantt:
The transcript of your record at Iowa State University has 
been handed to the School of Architecture for analysis and 
evaluation. As, in every case of transfer, there is some 
difficulty in determining the equivalence of courses at an­
other school with courses required for a degree in Archi­
tecture at Clemson. This problem is made more difficult 
by the fact that Iowa State University is on the quarter 
system and we must convert quarters of work into se­
mesters of work.

To assist us in the evaluation we must see a portfolio of 
your work in architectural design and drawing at Iowa 
State University with an indication of the duration of the 
exercises submitted. You may submit any other creative 
work you care to show. The more complete this portfolio 
is the better our evaluation can be.
At the time you submit this to us, or as soon as convenient 
thereafter, we recommend that you come to Clemson for a 
conference. This conference will have to do with the 
standards and procedures of the School of Architecture

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 21



103a

and will not be a substitute for the pre-acceptance inter­
view provided by college admissions policies. I  will be 
away from the campus from time to time during the 
summer. Please write or telephone for an appointment

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 21

before coming.

Sincerely,

/&/ H arlan E. M cClure

H arlan E. M cClu re , Dean 
School of Architecture

HEM :ss
ec: K. N. Vickery, Registrar



104a

111 Cannon Street 
Charleston, South Carolina 
July 13, 1962

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 22

Mr. Harlan E. McClure, Dean 
School of Architecture 
Clemson College 
Clemson, South Carolina

Dear Dean McClure
I am in receipt of your letter of July 2, 1962. As you 

probably know, I have instituted an action against the 
College in order to secure admission as a student. Tour 
letter arrived at about the time my attorneys were filing 
the action.

Please advise me as to whether, in view of my pending 
suit, you will wish me to comply with your letter. I certainly 
want to do everything possible to secure admittance to 
Clemson and will cooperate fully with you and other officials 
to that end.

In the event I can still comply with your letter, please 
schedule an appointment for me to attend the conference 
which you refer to in the third paragraph of your letter. 
If it is satisfactory with you, I will bring with me part of 
my work in architectural design and drawing at Iowa State 
University. It will be rather impossible for me to present 
all of my work because of certain procedures and regula­
tions at Iowa State. A great deal of the work that we 
students submit is held by the Department of Architecture. 
However, some of the work has been returned and this I



105a

would be most happy to present to you. I will also furnish 
any other information you need to evaluate my work at 
Iowa State.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 22

Sincerely,

H arvey B. Gantt

cc: Mr. K. N. Vickery, Registrar 
Clemson College, Clemson, S. C.



106a

(Letterhead of Watkins, Vandiver, Freeman & Kirven, 
Anderson, South Carolina)

July 24,1962
Mr. Matthew J. Perry 
Attorney at Law 
1107% Washington Street 
Columbia, South Carolina

R E : Gantt vs. Clemson College, et al.
Dear Mr. Perry:

You will have observed in the newspaper account of 
a recent Clemson Board meeting that we will represent the 
College and such of its officers as are defendants in the 
above case.

Since suit was brought, your client has written to Dean 
McClure in reply to his letter of July 2. In view of the 
fact that the administrative remedies of the College are 
under attack in this case, it would seem to us to be highly 
inappropriate that there be any further consideration of 
your client’s application while the litigation is pending. 
We also think it most appropriate that all communications 
between our clients be through their attorneys. This will 
explain why we have advised Dean McClure not to reply 
to the letter.

Yours very truly,

W a tk in s , V andiver, F reeman  & K irven

By / s /  Wm. L. Watkins 
Wm. L. Watkins

WLW/MM

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 23



107a

July 26,1962
Mr. William L. Watkins
Watkins, Vandiver, Freeman & Kirven
Attorneys at Law
207 North Main Street
Anderson, South Carolina

EE: Gantt v. Clemson College, et al.
Dear Mr. Watkins:

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of July 24, 1962. 
We advised our client to answer Dean McClure’s letter 
because his letter was written at about the same time the 
suit was being filed. Mr. Gantt especially wanted Dean 
McClure and other officials to understand his willingness 
to submit to requirements of the college.
We agree, however, that it will be appropriate that all 
subsequent communications be through the attorneys.
Thanking you, I am

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 24

Very truly yours,

MJP:a
M atth ew  J. P ekby



108a

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION
Entrance Requirements. The minimum requirements for 

entrance to Clemson include graduation from an accredited 
high school with at least 16 units and a satisfactory score 
on the entrance examination. In addition to these minimum 
requirements, the student’s academic preparation, rank in 
class, and recommendation of the high school principal 
may be used in appraising the eligibility of the student 
for admission.

Students planning to attend Clemson are advised to plan, 
if possible, their high school programs to include in their 
preparation the following units:

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 25

CLEMSON COLLEGE RECORD—1960-1961
(Catalog for 1961-1962)

English .............. ..........  4 Geometry .....................  1
Algebra .............. ..........  2 Physics ................ ........ 1
Chemistry .......... ........... 1 Trigonometry __ ........%

It is appropriate for students planning to enroll in 
Agriculture and Pre-Medicine to include biology in their 
science program.

Effective in 1964, college algebra and trigonometry will 
no longer be included in the Clemson Engineering cur- 
riculums. The first mathematics course applicable toward 
an Engineering degree after that date will be analytic 
geometry.



109a

P la in tiff’s E xh ib it 2 6

CLEMSON COLLEGE RECORD—1960-1961
(Catalog for 1961-1962)

36 Information

In addition, students may qualify for entrance in one 
of the following ways:

(1) Satisfactory scores on the College Board entrance 
examination and a South Carolina High School Certificate 
(by certificate examination).

(2) Satisfactory scores on the College Board entrance 
examination and completion of a minimum of 12 high school 
units. Students in this category are required to make 
scores on the entrance examination which will place them 
in the upper one-fourth of the freshman class at Clemson.

(3) Students who make satisfactory scores on the Col­
lege Board entrance examination and who meet the fol­
lowing requirements may qualify for entrance with ad­
vanced standing:

Work that has been completed in other colleges with a 
grade one letter grade higher than the lowest passing- 
grade will be carefully considered and evaluated in terms 
of equivalent courses in the curriculum at Clemson selected 
by the student. The applicant must present for considera­
tion: (a) a statement of honorable dismissal from the 
institution last attended, (b) an official transcript of his 
record, including entrance credits, and (c) an official state­
ment that he is eligible to return to the institution last 
attended. College credits given by transfer are provisional 
and may be cancelled at any time if the student’s work is 
unsatisfactory. A student coming from another institution



110a

must spend at least his last year in residence at the College 
before he is eligible to apply for a degree.

Application Forms. Forms to be used in applying for 
admission to the College may be obtained by writing the 
Registrar, Clemson College, Clemson, South Carolina.

Entrance Examinations. All candidates for admission to 
Clemson College on the undergraduate level must take the 
College Entrance Examination Board tests including the 
Scholastic Aptitude Test given in the morning session and 
the achievement tests in English Composition and Inter­
mediate Mathematics given in the afternoon session.

South Carolina applicants may secure a Bulletin of In­
formation and an application for the tests from their local 
high school principals or guidance counselors. Should this 
literature not be available at the high school, the applicant 
should write to College Entrance Examination Board, P. 0. 
Box 592, Princeton, New Jersey, requesting a Bulletin 
of Information for administration in South Carolina of 
the Scholastic Aptitude Test and Achievement Tests.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 26



111a

Requirements for Admission 37
Out-of-state applicants should contact their local high 

schools or College Entrance Examination Board, P. 0. 
Box 592, Princeton, New Jersey, for a Bulletin of In­
formation concerning the national administration of these 
tests. Out-of-state applicants are cautioned that the re­
quired achievement tests are given on only four of the 
six dates for national administration of the tests.

All applicants are reminded to forward applications for 
the entrance examinations as indicated in the Bulletin of 
Information, and not to Clemson College.

The following points are important:
(1) Be sure to list Clemson on your application for the 

entrance examinations as one of the schools to receive your 
examination scores.

(2) Pass or fail reports will not be issued from Clemson 
unless an official application for entrance is on file in the 
Registrar’s Office.

(3) Tour entrance examination application should be in 
the hands of the College Entrance Examination Board not 
less than four weeks prior to your chosen examination 
date.

(4) Up to five weeks is required for College Board to 
furnish examination scores, and you should schedule your 
entrance examination at an early enough date to allow 
ample time for your scores to be received prior to your 
planned entrance date.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 27

CLEMSON COLLEGE RECORD—1960-1961
(Catalog for 1961-1962)



112a

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION
Entrance Requirements. The minimum requirements for 

entrance to Clemson include graduation from an accredited 
high school with at least 16 units and a satisfactory score 
on the entrance examination. In addition to these minimum 
requirements, the student’s academic preparation, rank 
in class, and recommendation of the high school principal 
will be used in appraising the eligibility of the student for 
admission.

Students planning to attend Clemson are advised to plan, 
if possible, their high school programs to include in their 
preparation the following units :

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 28

CLEMSON COLLEGE RECORD—1961-1962
(Catalog for 1962-1963)

English .............. ........... . 4 Geometry ..................... 1
Algebra .............. .............. 2 Physics ................ ........ 1
Chemistry......... . ........... 1 Trigonometry ..... ......... %

It is appropriate for students planning to enroll in 
Agriculture and Pre-Medicine to include biology in their 
science program.

Effective in 1964, college algebra and trigonometry will 
no longer be included in the Clemson Engineering and 
Industrial Management eurriculums. The first mathe­
matics course applicable toward an Engineering or In­
dustrial Management degree after that date will be analytic 
geometry.



113a

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 29

CLEMSON COLLEGE RECORD—1961-1962
(Catalog for 1962-1963)

40 Information
In addition, students may qualify for entrance in one of 

the following ways:
(1) Satisfactory scores on the College Board entrance 

examination and a South Carolina High School Certificate 
(by certificate examination).

(2) Satisfactory scores on the College Board entrance 
examination and completion of a minimum of 12 high school 
units. Students in this category are required to make 
scores on the entrance examination which will place them 
in the upper one-fourth of the freshman class at Clemson.

(3) Students who make satisfactory scores on the Col­
lege Board entrance examination and who meet the follow­
ing requirements may qualify for entrance with advanced 
standing:

Work that has been completed in other colleges with a 
grade one letter grade higher than the lowest passing grade 
will be carefully considered and evaluated in terms of 
equivalent courses in the curriculum at Clemson selected 
by the student. The applicant must present for considera­
tion: (a) a statement of honorable dismissal from the insti­
tution last attended, (b) an official transcript of his record, 
including entrance credits, and (c) an official statement that 
he is eligible to return to the institution last attended. 
College credits given by transfer are provisional and may 
be cancelled at any time if the student’s work is unsatis­
factory. A student coming from another institution must 
spend at least his last year in residence at the College 
before he is eligible to apply for a degree.



114a

In order for a transfer student to be considered for en­
rollment, his complete application, including test scores, 
transcripts and statement of eligibility, must be on file in 
the Admissions Office at least two weeks prior to the date 
of desired matriculation. Exception will be made only in 
the case of a student enrolled in another college who is 
applying for mid-year entrance. For admission in Septem­
ber 1962 these materials must be submitted not later than 
August 23.

Application Forms. Forms to be used in applying for 
admission to the College may be obtained by writing the 
Office of Admissions and Registration, Clemson College, 
Clemson, South Carolina.

Entrance Examinations. All candidates for admission 
to Clemson College on the undergraduate level must take 
the College Entrance Examination Board tests including 
the Scholastic Aptitude Test given in the morning session 
and the achievement tests in English Composition and 
Intermediate Mathematics given in the afternoon session.

Applicants may secure a Bulletin of Information and an 
application for the tests from their local high school prin­
cipals or guidance

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 29



115a

Requirements for Admission 41
counselors. Should this literature not be available at the 
high school, the applicant should write to College Entrance 
Examination Board, P. 0. Box 592, Princeton, New Jersey, 
requesting a Bulletin of Information for administration 
of the Scholastic Aptitude Test and Achievement Tests.

All applicants are reminded to forward applications for 
the entrance examinations as indicated in the Bulletin of 
Information, and not to Clemson College.

The following points are important :
(1) Be sure to list Clemson on your application for the 

entrance examinations as one of the schools to receive your 
examination scores.

(2) Pass or fail reports will not be issued from Clemson 
unless an official application for entrance is on file in the 
Office of Admissions and Registration.

(3) Tour entrance examination application should be in 
the hands of the College Entrance Examination Board not 
less than four weeks prior to your chosen examination date.

(4) Up to five weeks is required for College Board to 
furnish examination scores, and you should schedule your 
entrance examination at an early enough date to allow 
ample time for your scores to be received prior to your 
planned entrance date.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 30

CLEMSON COLLEGE RECORD—1961-1962
(Catalog for 1962-1963)



116a

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31

I n  th e

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
F or t h e  W estern  D istrict of S o u th  Carolina 

A nderson D ivision

H arvey B. Ga n tt , a Minor, by his Father and 
Next Friend, C h risto ph er  Ga n tt ,

Plaintiffs,
— v s—

T h e  Clem son  A gricultural C ollege of S o u th  Carolina, 
a Public Body Corporate; R. M. C ooper, President of 
the Board of Trustees of the Clemson Agricultural 
College of South Carolina; E dgar A. B row n , J ames F. 
B yrnes, C harles E. D a n iel , W in c h ester  S m it h , R obert 
R. C oker, J ames C. S e l f , R obert L. S toddard, P aul 
Quattlebaum , J r ., W . G ordon M cC abe, J r ., W . A. 
B arnette , A. M. Q uattlebaum  and L. D. H olmes, Mem­
bers of the Board of Trustees of The Clemson Agri­
cultural College; K e n n e t h  N. Y ickery , Registrar of 
the Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina, and 
J .  T. A nderson , Superintendent of Education of the 
State of South Carolina,

Defendants.

Before Jos. C. Cordell, Notary Public, at the United 
States Court House, Anderson, South Carolina, on Thurs­
day, August 16th, 1962, at 10:00 o’clock A. M.



117a

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct 

A p p e a r a n c e s
For Plaintiffs:

M a tth ew  J. P erry, Esq.,
L inco ln  C. J e n k in s , J r., Esq.,
W il l ie  T. S m it h , J r., Esq.,
D onald J ames S am pson , Esq.

For Defendants:
W a tk in s , V andiver, F reem an  & K irven ,

By: Wm. L. W a tk in s , Esq.
Wm. L. P ope, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General.

Jos. C. Cordell,
Reporter.

—2—
Mr, K e n n e t h  N. V ickery , being first duly sworn, testi­

fies as follows:

Examination by Mr. Perry:
Q. Your name is Kenneth N. Vickery? A. Right.
Q. Mr. Vickery, what is your official position at Clemson 

College? A. I am Director of Admissions and Registra­
tion at Clemson College.

Q. How long have you been so employed? A. Well, this 
particular title, only during this past year.

Q. That is toy, Director of Admissions? A. Right.
Q. Have you been Registrar for longer than this period? 

A. Yes I have.
Q. How long have you served as Registrar? A. I have 

served as Registrar since 1955.



118a

Q. Prior to 1955 were you employed by Clemson College? 
A. I have been employed in the Registrar’s office at Clem­
son since 1938.

Q. And you gradually moved up the line until now you 
are the Director of Admissions? A. Right.

Q. Mr. Vickery, as Director of Admissions, what is your 
official duty with reference to acting upon applications 
of new and transfer students? A. I do not have the sole 
and independent authority, but I have the discretion and

—3—
the duty to act or advise as to action to be taken on all 
applications under the college admission policies which are 
adopted by the Board of Trustees and the Administration.

Q. Sir, are those policies set forth in this catalog of 
which I have a copy? A. Yes, and in other publications.

Q. What are those other publications? A. There is a 
publication sent to high schools in the state outlining the 
additional policies, or implementing these policies which 
are stated in the catalog.

Q. What is the title or what do you call that publication, 
please, sir? A. These are published in the Registrar’s 
Office Newsletter.

Q. Does that Newsletter come out pursuant to any regu­
larly scheduled method? A. In the Fall of each year con­
cerning requirements for the coming year.

Q. Now, the information which is included in that News­
letter, is it the result of a meeting of the Board of Trus­
tees? A. Well, the last Newsletter included on the back 
page is a verbatim copy of the policies adopted by the 
Board of Trustees.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



119a

Q. And as I understand, that Newsletter is sent out 
each Fall! A. It has been, as I recall, for two years. We

—4—
initiated this several years ago.

Q. Yon initiated it about when, sir? A. As I recall, this 
one last Fall was the second one, I believe.

Q. That is the Fall of the school year beginning 1961- 
1962? A. Right.

Q. And previous to that you directed one for the school 
year which began in 1960-61? A. As I recall, we did, yes.

Q. Prior to that you did not send out any such News­
letter? A. No.

Q. Is this Newsletter sent out to all of the high schools 
in the state ? A. It is sent to the high schools with whom 
we deal, who send us students to Clemson.

Q. Does that include all of the high schools that are 
located within the borders of South Carolina? A. No, it 
would not.

Q. What schools are not included, please, sir? A. It 
would not include the schools that have not sent us students.

Q. Which schools do you draw your students from, 
please, sir, generally? A. Generally, they are, of course, 
confined to the upper state.

Q. So that no lower state schools received these News­
letters? A. The ones from upper state schools, of course,

—5—
send more. Those nearer to the college send more students 
to Clemson.

Q. Do I understand that you do not send this Newsletter 
to high schools in the lower part of the state? A. Yes, 
we do, those that have been sending students to Clemson.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



120a

Q. Generally, do you send a Newsletter to all of the 
white high schools in the state! A. I ’m not sure on that 
point. Probably so. I didn’t personally send them out.

Q. Does your office have a mailing list of the schools to 
which you do send the list! A. We use a mailing list.

Q. There is such a mailing list on file in your office! A. 
Yes.

Q. Now, Mr. Vickery, are there any Negro high schools 
on the mailing list which your office sends, or to which 
this publication is sent? A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Now, as I understand, the Newsletter is sent prin­
cipally to high schools within South Carolina? A. Eight,

Q. Are any such lists sent out of the state? A. Only 
upon request. This is also made available to anyone else 
in South Carolina upon request.

Q. I understand, but so far as the annual mailing list is
— 6— ■

concerned, the procedures which you have just outlined 
prevail, do they not? A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Vickery, do you know the official position of the 
State of South Carolina with reference to attendance and 
publicly owned and operated schools? I have reference to 
the attendance by persons of a different race.

Mr. Watkins: I would like to register an objec­
tion to that as calling on the witness for a conclusion, 
a statement of a legal proposition that he would not 
be qualified to state.

Q. Do you know of such a policy, sir? A. I only know 
that our own admissions policy under which I operate 
carries no mention of race.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



121a

Q. My question was with reference to whether you know 
of any state-wide policy! A. There has been a question 
about the policy in this state and I have no opinion as to 
what the policy is.

Q. Do you know that Clemson College is maintained by 
the State of South Carolina for white persons only! A. 
To my knowledge, it is not maintained for white persons 
only. That’s not stated anywhere, to my knowledge.

Q. Sir, have you ever had occasion to acquaint yourself 
with the laws of the state with reference to segregated 
education and how some of these laws have been repealed?

—7—
Mr. Watkins: I object to that. The laws speak for 

themselves, and this is not the subject of opinion evi­
dence.

A. I have not personally studied them. I am aware of 
newspaper accounts.

Q. Mr. Vickery, a moment ago you stated in response to 
one of my questions that Clemson College has no stated 
racial policy in its rules and regulations. Did I understand 
you to so testify? A. Eight.

Q. Can you tell me, sir, what the custom has been with 
reference to admissions of persons of different races? A. 
It has not been restricted to white persons.

Q. To your knowledge, has any Negro ever attended 
Clemson College? A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Do you know anything at all about a custom which 
relates to the exclusion of Negro applicants to Clemson 
College? A. Not having had a Negro applicant to complete 
an application, I have no reason to have knowledge of such 
a case, if there is such a custom.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



122a

Q. Is the matter of race of the applicant ever discussed 
by you in your official capacity with other persons, other 
officials of the College? A. Yes, as the race of foreign 
students would be discussed.

—8—
Q. Where do these discussions normally occur, sir? Does 

it occur in the President’s office or does it occur in the 
meeting of the Board of Trustees or does it occur in your 
own office? A. I have no knowledge of discussing it with 
the Board of Trustees. I do not attend. Would you relate 
this to specific cases?

Q. I  was wondering first of all whether in all cases this 
was done and, of course, in a moment I will come to the 
specific applicant. If you would prefer, we will go to the 
specific applicant, and I might say, sir, here again I have 
no desire to be too general. If a question is stated too gen­
eral, I will invite you to so state to me and I will be glad 
to rephrase it so that we can get along fine. Then, coming 
to the pending application of Harvey Gantt, first of all, 
is it not true that all persons applying to Clemson College 
must state their race? A. That’s correct.

Q. How was this item entered on the application form? 
That is to say, was it the work of the Registrar’s Office 
or the Board of Trustees who ordered this placed upon the 
application form? A. That preceded my time in the office.

Q. I suppose it has been a requirement that applicants 
state their race over a number of years prior,to 1938? A. 
Right.

—9—
Q. When Harvey Gantt applied, did he not state on the 

application form that he is a Negro? A. He did.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



123a

Q. Now, what discussion did you have in the official 
family of Clemson and with other persons concerning 
Harvey Gantt’s race? A. This was discussed, as I discuss 
many other cases, with members of the Administration. 
This was discussed because I am not unaware of litigation 
in other states. This is a case of a student who was doing 
above average work in a top flight school elsewhere and 
in being transferred, faced the possibility of extending his 
time or possible loss of credits. We also felt from infor­
mation submitted this and another application were in­
stigated, so this was discussed.

Q. So that when you ascertained that Harvey Gantt is 
a Negro, this fact did place you on inquiry? A. Yes.

Q. Would you kindly name all of the persons or officers 
to which you directed inquiries concerning Harvey Gantt’s 
pending application? A. Well, I discussed it in the Presi­
dent’s Office.

Q. What decision was reached as a result of that dis­
cussion? A. We continued to follow the College admissions 
policy as adopted by the Board of Trustees.

Q. Did you not direct an inquiry to the Office of the South 
Carolina Regional Education Board concerning Harvey

— 10—

Gantt’s pending application? A. As I recall, not originally. 
I had had contact with them.

Q. When did you first do so, sir? A. I do not recall the 
date.

Q. Did you do so after you and the President of the 
College discussed this matter? A. As I recall, some con­
siderable time thereafter.

Q. Now, sir, Mr. Vickery, I would like to show you De­
fendant’s Exhibit G which is a copy of the first application

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vichery—for Plaintiff—Direct



124a

which Harvey Gantt forwarded to your office. Are you 
able to tell us from looking at that application when it was 
first received in your office1? A. No.

Q. Was it received in your office in the month of January, 
1961? A. It appears to be the one, as I recall, that was 
received in January of ’61.

Q. Do you have any way of knowing how long it took 
you to reply to Mr. Gantt’s application with the accom­
panying letter, if there was one? A. No, I do not recall.

Q. Do you recall that on January 19, 1961 you wrote a 
letter to Mr. Gantt in which you returned the application 
and made other observations? A. Yes, this appears to be 
a copy of my letter of January 19,1961.

— 11—

Q. Do you have any knowledge of how many days elapsed 
between the receipt of the application itself and the reply 
you directed on January 19, 1961? A. As I recall, perhaps 
two to three weeks.

Q. How many conferences did you have with other offi­
cials with reference to this application before you directed 
the reply of January 19, 1961? A. There were conferences, 
but how many and on what dates I have no record or cannot 
recall.

Q. Were there several such conferences? A. I really 
don’t recall whether there were several or not.

Q. Was there more than one? A. I  would question what 
you would call a conference, whether it would be limited 
to any one meeting or not, I don’t recall frankly how many.

Q. Do you recall whether there were conferences in which 
two or more persons discussed this pending application? 
A. I’m sure there were, but I can’t give you the dates.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



125a

Q. Do you recall having a telephone conversation with 
Mrs. Rebecca Connelly who is the Administrative Assistant 
in the Office of the South Carolina Regional Education 
Board concerning this application? A. I  have had con­
versations with Mrs. Connelly. I do not recall that I had 
one at that time with her.

Q. Let me show you again the copy of the letter which
— 12—

you wrote on January 19, in order that you can refresh 
your memory and I believe that in that letter you stated 
that “on inquiry we find that the South Carolina Regional 
Education Board is paying and expects to continue to pay, 
provided you qualify, the difference in cost between in-state 
and out-of-state enrollment.” Do you recall that letter, 
sir? A. Yes.

Q. What inquiry did you have reference to in that letter, 
sir? A. I had information that he was receiving out-of- 
state aid.

Q. Can you recall what that information was and the 
source of it? A. Well, simply the fact that he was a spon­
sored student on a Southern Regional Education plan and 
that he was enrolled there.

Q. How did you happen to make the inquiry to Mrs. 
Connelly about this application, sir? Was this a result of 
conferences between you and the President? A. Perhaps 
it was.

Q. What importance did you attach to the fact that 
Harvey Gantt was receiving out-of-state assistance? A. 
As I stated previously, this is an instance of a student who 
is doing above average work, in a recognized school, and 
it would seem on the surface to have no advantage in trans­
ferring. In fact, perhaps a disadvantage, resulting in loss 
of credit and extension of time, and so forth.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



126a

Q. Did you know anything about how well he was doing
—13—

at Iowa State University at the time you received his 
application! A. I assume, since they continued to pay Mm, 
that he was doing—

Q. But you did not receive at that time along with his 
application a copy of his transcript of previous grades! 
A. No, but I am familiar with the admission standards gen­
erally, that they are a reputable institution, and I presume 
if he remained there he would do satisfactory work.

Q. Did the inquiry which you directed to the Regional 
Education Board have anything to do with the admission 
requirements of Clemson College? A. No, not that I recall.

Q. Can you state to us, sir, why the inquiry was made? 
A. Again, this is in the interest of admissions policy 
which would work best for the student.

Q. Are like inquiries made on behalf or as the result 
of the receipt of other applications at Clemson? A. I have 
not had a similar situation, as I recall, although this Board 
does send veterinary students out of state, and so forth.

Q. Can you state to us, sir, approximately how many 
applications from possible transfer students that Clemson 
receives during the year that Harvey Gantt tendered his 
application? A. Which year?

Q. As I recall, his application was sent to your office in 
January of 1961 and in the application he stated a desire 
to enter Clemson in the Fall term of 1961. Can you recall

—14—
the number of applications from other would-be transfer 
students for this period? A. Oh, I  would say approxi­
mately 150 to 200.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



127a

Q. Did yon make similar inquiries on account of the 
application of any of the other would-be tranfer students? 
A. To my knowledge, there were none similarly situated.

Q. What do you mean by similarly situated? A. To my 
knowledge, none were sponsored by the Regional Educa­
tion Board.

Q. But you did not know that he was sponsored until 
you inquired, did you? A. Perhaps not. I don’t recall.

Q. Did you know that Harvey Gantt was a Negro when 
you directed the inquiry to the Board? A. Yes.

Q. Is this why you inquired as to whether he was being 
sponsored? A. Yes, I would say so.

Q. Mr. Vickery, you stated that no applications from 
Negro applicants have been completed. Can you state to 
us how many applications your office received at about the 
time Harvey Gantt applied? A. You mean for September 
of 1961?

Q. Yes, sir, and I have reference to Negro applicants. 
I believe you previously answered as to other applicants. 
A. I recall only two.

—15—
Q. Can you recall, sir, whether you have had other ap­

plications since you have been affiliated with the Office of 
Registrar at Clemson College? A. Others have filed appli­
cation cards over the years. None have completed their 
applications.

Q. Going back to the Regional Education Board, sir, 
do you have any official relationship with that Board? A. 
None.

Q. Have you ever served as a member of it? A. No.
Q. Is any official of Clemson College, to your knowledge, 

on that Board? A. Not to my knowledge.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



128a

Q. Yon said that you have had other application cards 
from other Negro applicants during the period from 1938 
during which you have served in the Registrar’s Office, 
Are you able to say approximately how many there have 
been?

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N.Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct

Mr. Watkins: I  want to record an objection. I 
don’t see the relevancy of that to the Gantt case and 
I object to this as irrelevant.

A. To my recollection, I would say five or six have filed 
application cards.

Q. And do you recall why those applications were not 
completed, if you know? A. No, I  have no knowledge.

-— 16—

Q. Do you recall what kind of official replies were sent 
to the other applicants, the other Negro applicants? For 
instance, were the applications returned to them?

Mr. Watkins: Our objection covers this whole 
area of questioning.

A. I do not recall because sometime in there I was not 
responsible for admissions and I wouldn’t be competent 
to say.

Q. Were there any such applications received and acted 
upon by you, either as Registrar or in some other capacity? 
A. Yes.

Q. Can you recall what official reply was sent to the 
applicant or how the application was treated? A. They 
were notified, as I recall, of our long term custom.

Q. And what was the substance of that notification ? That 
is to say, essentially what did you inform the applicants?



129a

A. I can’t recall because this has been, as I recall, some 
years.

Q. "What was the custom that they were informed about? 
A. Well, they were, of course, notified of the admissions 
policy of the College.

Q. I believe you stated a moment ago that they were 
notified about the long term custom. A. And that the state 
operated a college in Orangeburg for Negroes.

Q. Can you tell us what custom you stated to those appli­
cants ?

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct

Mr. Watkins: I object to this on the ground that 
the witness is being asked to testify as to a content

—17—
of a paper that obviously was written several years 
ago and the paper itself is the best evidence of that.

Q. As I understand, of course, on those few applications 
which you personally had to do with, you have stated that 
you advised the applicant of the long standing custom, 
since, of course, you are the person who gave them such 
a notice or stated the custom. I ’m simply asking you what 
custom did you notify them about? A. As I stated pre­
viously, these occurred over a period of years and I do not 
recall the exact content.

Q. But you mentioned that you did state to them that 
there was a long standing custom. Now, what custom do 
you now have reference to? A. Well, then, again I might 
emphasize the point that these related to the time that 
the state then operated separate facilities in Orangeburg.

Q. Separate facilities by reason of the fact that Negroes 
and whites were not permitted to attend the same schools?



130a

A. Well, just that there were different facilities offered at 
Orangeburg.

Q. But I would like to get the rest of the custom, sir. 
Were Negroes at that time accepted as students at Clemson 
College? A. There were none.

Q. Well, was this a part of the custom that you had
—18—

reference to? A. There were none, since none had com­
pleted an application.

Q. But you have said, sir, that you informed them about 
a long standing custom and I would just like for you to 
tell us what this custom was. A. The custom was that 
Negroes attended the Orangeburg facilities.

Q. And not Clemson? A. There were none at Clemson. 
Q. And they were excluded from Clemson by custom, 

were they not? A. I can only say that there were not any 
at Clemson at that time.

Q. And as I understand, you did inform them about the 
long standing custom? A. On attending Orangeburg where 
separate facilities were available.

Q. Are copies of this correspondence on file in your office ? 
A. Not in my office that far back, that I recall.

Q. In what capacity were you serving at that time when 
you directed communications of this kind? A. At various 
times during this long period over a number of years, I 
can’t pinpoint dates, I was Director of Admissions, As­
sistant Registrar and Registrar.

Q. The records which I have just inquired about, my 
question is are copies of those records now available any­
where on the Clemson premises? A. We do not retain old 
correspondence in the Registrar’s office of applicants who

- 1 9 -
do not enroll. I do not have the copies.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



131a

Q. Has it been destroyed? A. We only retain admission 
correspondence for a short period of time, approximately 
two years.

Q. And after two years they are destroyed? A. If they 
did not enroll then the files are destroyed?

Q. In what manner are they destroyed? Are they burned 
or do you know? A. I don’t know. We are talking about 
now twenty-seven or twenty-eight hundred applications a 
year, sixteen hundred admissions and, of course, naturally 
it would be impossible to store all these. We keep them for 
approximately two years and then make way for new ones.

Q. Now, then, as I understand your testimony, sir, for 
a long period of time there was a custom prevailing at 
Clemson College by which Negroes wrere not accepted as 
students. Is that the way I understand your testimony? 
If not, I ask you to rephrase it as you believe you gave it. 
A. I can only state factually that during this period no 
Negro applicant completed his application and, therefore, 
there were no Negroes enrolled.

Q. But I believe that you also stated, sir, that you in­
formed the applicants that you had to do with of a long 
standing custom and did not the custom which then pre-

— 20—

vailed prohibits the completion of the applications ? A. As 
I understand it, that was a custom in the state at one time.

Q. It remained the custom until about when, sir? A. 
I ’m not familiar with the change in state laws.

Q. Have you ever been advised that the policy of this 
state is now changed and that you may act upon the appli­
cations of Negroes? A. I have not been advised in recent 
years that we could not accept.

Q. But you do know that this was the custom formerly? 
A. Formerly.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



132a

Q. And you were never advised of any change in the 
official policy of Clemson College? A. But new policies 
have been adopted and it wouldn’t be necessary that I be 
advised. New policies had been adopted which omitted any 
reference to race.

Q. Since you are Director of Admissions, would not any 
policy affecting admissions normally be communicated to 
your office? A. Yes.

Q. Has any such policy been announced to your office 
since you have been Director of Admissions? A. The afore­
mentioned policy adopted in 1961 would seem to me to 
supersede any previous written or unwritten policy.

Q. You mean to say that you received a policy announce­
ment in 1961 that you could act upon Negro applications?

— 21—

A. No, but that is the complete admissions policy as adopted 
by the Trustees in 1961 and it omits any reference to race.

Q. Were you specifically told that you may now act upon 
applications from Negroes? A. Not specifically.

Q. Can you now accept a Negro applicant at Clemson 
College as Director of Admissions? On your own, as Di­
rector of Admissions, do you have that authority? A. As 
far as I know, I follow the stated policy and we are inter­
ested in accepting and admitting qualified students.

Q. May I request now that you give a more direct reply 
to that question? Do you know whether you may now 
accept a Negro as a student? A. I do not know that I can­
not. I have not been told I could not accept one.

Q. But you do know that formerly you would not have 
been able to do that? A. That was the custom in the state 
for some years.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



133a

Q. And you have not been told any different from that, 
have you? A. But I have been given a different written 
policy book which supersedes anything I might understand 
about the situation.

Q. Mr. Vickery, before we took our short recess, I be­
lieve you mentioned a newly written policy under which 
you are now operating? A. Yes.

— 22—

Q. And do you have reference to the admissions policy 
which was adopted by the Board of Trustees on June 5, 
1961? A. Ido.

Q. When was this new policy printed and distributed? 
A. As I recall, it was in mimeographed form sometime that 
summer. Then it was printed and distributed as a part of 
the Registrar’s Newsletter but there were mimeographed 
copies available prior to that time, as I recall.

Q. What does the date December, 1961 in the lower right- 
hand corner of the printed admissions policy mean? A. 
As I recall, this was when it was recommended by the 
management consultants who drew it up.

Q. Would you like to reconsider that answer, sir? As 
I look at the top of the form, it says that it was adopted 
A. I ’m sorry.

Q. Now, then what does that date mean? A. This was 
the date of the Newsletter.

Q. December, 1961 was when the Newsletter went out? 
A. Right.

Q. And I believe now that when you sent out copies of 
your bulletin, copies of this new admissions policy are in­
serted into the printed bulletin and mailed to any person 
desiring to secure a copy of same? A. Right.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff ̂ -Direct



134a

Q. Are you aware of the deliberations of the Board of
—2 3 -

Trustees which preceded the statement of this policy! A. 
No, I was not a party to the deliberations.

Q. Do you know why this new policy was made! A. To­
ward implementing selective admissions. This is a general 
trend throughout the country, of improving admission 
standards that are for the benefit of the student and for the 
benefit of the colleges as they become more crowded. It 
behooves colleges to make the best selections possible. This 
policy was drawn up after, as I understand it, the manage­
ment firm reviewed several other college admissions poli­
cies.

Q. Was the pending application of Harvey Gantt a factor 
in the making of this policy! A. To my knowledge, it was 
not. This was done by a firm doing a management study 
of the Registrar’s Office at that time.

Q. Was this new policy formed in order that Harvey 
Gantt’s application could receive a different treatment than 
that which the first application had already received! Did 
you hear the full question and did you understand it! A. 
Repeat the question.

(Question read.)

Q. Do you understand it now, sir! A. I did not draw up 
this policy. I say it was done by a management consultant 
firm and to my knowledge it was not related to any par­
ticular applicant.

Q. But you have stated that prior to the adoption of this
—24—

new policy the custom was that Negro applicants were

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



135a

directed to the South Carolina State College at Orange­
burg!

Mr. Watkins: I don’t think that is the substance 
of his. prior testimony. I think he should be asked 
when he was aware that it changed from the old 
policy that we are talking about, but I don’t think 
he should be asked that this made some change in 
the old policy.

Q. Prior to the adoption of the policy by the Board of 
Trustees on June 5, 1961, a copy of which you have in 
your hand, what was the custom and usage with reference 
to the receipt of applications by Negroes! A. Of course, 
this is pertinent only if there were applications and there 
were not always applications in this period. As I remarked 
earlier, in the late ’40’s, in fact even in the early ’50’s, 
there was a separate but equal facility in the state, as I 
understand. There was no written policy such as this prior 
to June 5, 1961 with the exception of that which appeared 
in the catalog.

Q. Was the old policy of separate but equal facilities 
which you have just now mentioned ever officially changed 
by the Board of Trustees as far as you know, in the form 
of any written policy! A. I have no knowledge of it.

Q. Well, do you regard the policy which was announced
—25—

on June 5, 1961 as a change in the old policy! A. As it 
relates to other aspects of admissions, yes. Admissions are 
constantly involving—

Q. How about the requirement of race! A. I have had 
no previous printed official statement, not since I ’ve been 
Registrar.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff-—Direct



136a

Q, Does this particular policy make any reference to 
race? A. No.

Q. So that the announced policy of the college has not 
changed, has it? A. As published in the catalog, no.

Q. Nor in the separate admissions policy which is ap­
pended to the catalog? A. No.

Q. Going now back to the correspondence which you had 
with Harvey Gantt, again referring to your letter of Jan­
uary 19, 1961, I believe you have stated that upon learning 
that Harvey Gantt was a Negro you made an inquiry to the 
Regional Education Board. Am I correctly quoting your 
previous testimony? A. I received information from the 
Regional Education Board.

Q. And this was the result of an inquiry which you di­
rected to them. Is that correct? A. It was the result of 
an inquiry, yes.

Q. An inquiry which you made to them. Is that correct?
—26—

A. I do not recall that I  made the original inquiry.
Q. Do you know whether anyone else connected with 

Clemson College made the original inquiry? A. Yes.
Q. Who made the inquiry, please? A. President Ed­

wards made the inquiry.
Q. And do you recall what conversation you had with 

President Edwards after he made this inquiry? A. I don’t 
recall the conversation which was approximately 18 months 
ago. We converse many times on many admissions policies.

Q. Do you know what the Regional Education Board is? 
A. I have no knowledge of their function. I know what 
the Southern Regional Education Board is in general, but 
what the exact function of the State Office is, I am not 
qualified to say.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



137a

Q. Now, sir, will you please state for us what the function 
of the Regional Education Board is!

Mr. Watkins: I object. The statute that creates 
it and the agreement referred to describe the or­
ganization and I don’t think it is a matter of the 
opinion of any witness.

A. It has many facets and only a few of them I am ac­
quainted with, having just attended a conference sponsored 
by them on admissions. I am acquainted with that aspect.

Q. Can you please tell us about that! I  understand this
—27—

is subject to the objection by your counsel. A. Well, this 
related only to better selection, better prediction equations, 
if you will, which will enable us to make better selections, 
reduce the drop-out rate with which all colleges are con­
cerned these days. That’s my almost total interest in and 
knowledge of their functions.

Q. Did I understand you to say that some of your vet­
erinary students at Clemson received out-of-state aid from 
the Regional Education Board! A. That’s my understand­
ing, yes, since South Carolina has no school of veterinary 
medicine.

Q. The whole state of South Carolina does not! A. No.
Q. Clemson does not! A. Clemson does not.
Q. And persons desiring to study veterinary medicine 

at Clemson are referred to institutions in other states and 
they may obtain expenses which represent the difference 
between in-state enrollment and out-of-state enrollment 
from the Regional Education Board! A. There is a dif­
ferential. I am not familiar with the dollars and cents 
value, but they operate on a quota system.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



138a

Q. Do persons desiring to avail themselves of this out- 
of-state scholarship aid file applications with your office? 
We are speaking of the veterinary people at Clemson who

- 2 8 -
desire to go elsewhere? A. No.

Q. They do not? A. No.
Q. Does your office direct them to the State Regional 

Board? A. We have very little, if any contact with this 
plan. They might actually be attending college in another 
state but be residents of South Carolina.

Q. And they receive assistance from this Board by reason 
of their having to go out of the state? A. If they enter a 
veterinary school they would be under a quota which is 
allocated to the state, as I understand.

Q. You stated, sir, that you have just come from a con­
ference sponsored by the Regional Education Board. Do 
you annually attend such conferences? A. This was not 
an annual affair.

Q. Are the conferences held pursuant to any regular 
plan? A. No, not to my knowledge.

Q. Have you attended other conferences? A. No.
Q. This is the first such conference you have attended? 

A. They will vary. The subject of the conference will vary 
from year to year and the locations will vary. They cover 
a wide facet, mental health and many other areas.

Q. Now, Mr. Vickery, you say that President Edwards
—29—

made the initial inquiry to the Regional Education Board 
of South Carolina. Thereafter, did you make a subsequent 
inquiry and did you have a conversation with Mrs. Connelly 
concerning the pendency of Gantt’s application? A. I have 
had numerous conversations with Mrs. Connelly.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



139a

Q. Numerous conversations with her with reference to 
Harvey Gantt’s pending application! A. Some were re­
lated to Harvey Gantt, yes.

Q. Can you state for us approximately how many of your 
conversations were related to Harvey Gantt’s pending ap­
plication! A. No, I cannot.

Q. Were there more than two! A. I would assume so.
Q. Were there as many as five! A. I  don’t recall.
Q. I ’m just trying to get the approximate number. You 

say you assume there were more than two such conver­
sations! A. Yes.

Q. Were there more than three! A. I don’t know.
Q. But you said you did assume there were more than 

two! A. Yes, I would think so.
Q. And there could possibly have been three or four or 

five! A. Possibly.
Q. And in addition to the conversations which you had

—30—
with Mrs. Connelly concerning the pendency of Harvey 
Gantt’s application, I believe you have stated that President 
Edwards had a conversation with her! A. That is my un­
derstanding.

Q. And that his conversation preceded your first con­
versation with her! A. That’s my recollection, yes.

Q. Mr. Vickery, after you returned Harvey Gantt’s ap­
plication to him with your letter of January 19, 1961, 1 
believe he resubmitted the application, did he not! A. Yes.

Q. And thereafter you and he had several exchanges of 
correspondence! A. Right.

Q. And I believe that you on several occasions informed 
him that the application was pending but had not been acted 
upon! A. Yes.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery-—for Plaintiff—Direct



140a

Q. So that there were occasions on which Harvey Gantt 
inquired about the status of his pending application, were 
there not? A. Yes.

Q. And on several occasions you acknowledged receipt 
of his communications and observed to him that no appli­
cations from transfer students had been acted upon? A. 
That’s correct.

Q. I would now like to refer to your letter to Harvey
—31—

Gantt dated June 8, 1961. Do you recall your letter to 
Harvey Gantt dated June 8, 1961? A. Yes, I do.

Q. And you stated to him at that time a number of things 
which he had not done which would have to be done before 
his application could be considered? A. That’s correct.

Q. Without repeating the content of your letter ver­
batim, I believe that you listed three things which he had 
not done which he would have to do before the application 
could be considered. First, he had to take the college en­
trance examination board tests which he had not previously 
taken ? A. Right.

Q. Secondly, he had to give you an official copy of his 
transcript for the period just preceding? A. That’s correct.

Q. Third, he had to obtain from Iowa. State University 
a statement that he was entitled to an honorable discharge 
and would be eligible to return at the next year? A. That’s 
correct.

Q. Thereafter did Harvey Gantt reply to your letter and 
set forth the steps he had taken to comply with the terms 
of your letter? A. Yes.

Q. Did each of the three subparagraphs of his letter state 
affirmativelv what action he had taken in an effort to com-

—3 2 -
ply with the provisions of your letter? A. Yes.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



141a

Q. Did you thereafter receive the results of the college 
entrance examination board tests? A, Yes, I did, within 
days or within approximately a week of the opening of 
school.

Q. Now, prior to that time did you receive copies of his 
transcript of his academic records? A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall approximately when you received those? 
A. Not the transcript, no, I do not recall.

Q. Did you receive them within a reasonable time after 
the receipt of the letter which he wrote you on June 17? 
A. I assume they were received sometime in July.

Q. Did you also receive a statement from a proper official 
at Iowa State University to the effect that Harvey Gantt 
was entitled to an honorable discharge and that he would 
be eligible to return to that school the next semester? A. 
As I recall, this is part of a transcript which is a standard 
form.

Q. Going back to your letter of June 8, 1961, were the 
three things which you enumerated in your letter to Harvey 
Gantt, your letter of June 8, 1961, were these three things 
that would be required of Harvey Gantt in order to have 
his application considered for the school term which began

—3 3 -
in September, 1961? A. They were all a part of the ad­
missions requirements, but as the letter reads, the require­
ments include the following items. Other items were not 
necessarily excluded. All of these were necessary, yes.

Q. In Harvey Gantt’s letter to you dated June 17, did he 
not state to you in the last paragraph thereof, “I shall make 
every effort to furnish the information which you have 
requested, without delay. Meanwhile, if there are any other 
requirements which I should meet in connection with my

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



142a

desire to enter Clemson, I shall appreciate your so advising 
me.” Do you recall that? A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall whether you directed a reply to him 
in which you replied to that specific part of his application, 
of his letter? A. I do not recall another reply. However, 
I must point out that he had been dilatory submitting en­
trance examination scores. They could have been taken 
in July and they weren’t taken until August and, therefore, 
did not arrive until days before the opening of school.

Q. Did you at any time before your letter to him dated 
June 8, make any reference to the particular areas in which 
his application was deficient? A. No, our normal practice 
is that if and until he submits scores, we don’t process the

—3 4 -
application. This in itself will eliminate many applications 
and under press of work, this is our first screening level. 
Scores must be received before we continue. This is a 
point that eliminates many students.

Q. So, as I understand, Harvey G-antt did comply with 
all of the items which you listed in your letter of June 8, 
1961 although the results from his college entrance exami­
nations scores were not received until the latter part of 
August? A. Right.

Q. Why was not his application acted favorably upon 
then, since it was received in time for the beginning of the 
school term? A. At the time it was received, this was just 
days prior to the opening of school, dormitories were then 
crowded and there was a waiting list and we did not have 
time in the office to process additional transfer students 
which involved evaluations and required considerable 
amount of attention which ordinary high school graduates 
do not. This is a general requirement of all colleges and

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



143a

they restrict transfer students on a cut-off date in order 
to take care of this evaluation and placement and schedul­
ing, and so forth.

Q. Was Harvey Gantt ever advised previous to the form 
letter which your office sent on August 31, 1961 that there 
is a cut-off date beyond which no applications can be acted 
upon? A. No, not to my knowledge, but local situations

—3 5 -
will dictate dormitory facilities that is impossible to fore­
see.

Q. Do all Clemson students live in dormitories? A. No.
Q. What percentage of your students do not live in the 

dormitories? A. Twenty-five per cent, thirty per cent.
Q. Then the crowding of dormitories would not neces­

sarily be the sole criterion, would it? A. No, the main 
objection to late transfers, and this year, by the way, it 
is August 23, is the necessity of evaluating all these transfer 
applicants. They have to be handled individually, the 
courses evaluated and schedules arranged for.

Q. Have any of your prospective transfer students for 
this year already been advised as to when the cut-off date 
is? A. Very definitely. I t’s printed in the catalog. They 
have been written for the entire year.

Q. Now, you have listed some other requirements which 
Harvey Gantt did not come up to and I ’m referring now 
to your letter of August 31, 1961, the form letter which 
was directed to Harvey Gantt, On August 31, 1961 your 
office advised Harvey Gantt on a form letter of two things 
which he had not done, which could not permit you to 
consider his application. On the second page of the form 
you have checked under paragraph three, subparagraph B, 
“Entrance examination score received but too late to allow 
sufficient time for the Director of Admissions to complete

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff-—Direct



144a

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct

—3 6 -
investigation of other requirements for admission.” What 
other requirements for admission did there remain which 
had not been complied with? A. As indicated below, an 
interview was required. As I mentioned earlier, we did 
not have time to evaluate his transcript. We make no 
evaluation of transcripts until the scores are in and the 
scores are received about the 29th or 30th, as I recall, and 
the school opens on September 6, I believe, last year, new 
students and with one man handling admissions of fourteen 
hundred students, you could see it was a most impossible 
task of evaluating these transcripts which require several 
hours each.

Q. I would like to inquire how many people comprise the 
staff in the office of the Director of Admissions? A. This 
is a combined office that combines registration functions 
and admissions. I t ’s hard to delineate, but there is one man 
who is Admission Supervisor and three stenographers at 
present. Last year there was a half-time man and approxi­
mately two stenographers who handled all this.

Q. How many new students enrolled in the term which 
began September, 1961? A. As I recall, approximately 
1300.

Q. Those applications had been received in your office 
over a period of how many months ? A. Oh, at least a year 
prior.

--37:--
Q. Were all of them that far in advance? A. No, I said 

from that period. I would say at least a year before.
Q. And coming over towards the date of September 8, 

1961, about when were they mostly grouped? Were they 
mostly grouped around high school graduates? A. Yes.



145a

Of course, the high school students were not accepted until 
the records were in which was primarily in June.

Q. And this requirement of a personal interview applies 
to everyone, does it not? A. No, it’s a permissive policy 
as adopted by the Trustees here. Whenever the college 
thinks it is advisable, the college may require an interview 
or they can make other requirements of an applicant.

Q. So that the requirement of a personal interview is 
not invoked against all applicants? A. Not all applicants. 
It is invoked against some applicants without regard to 
race.

Q. And the scheduling of these interviews is done by 
what process ? That is to say, does your office or does some 
official connected wtih your office schedule the interview, 
or is it left to the student to schedule the interview? A. 
Well, if the college felt the interview was desirable after 
all other application procedures had been met, then a letter 
would be written.

—38—
Q. Was any letter ever written to Harvey Gantt inform­

ing him that an interview would be conducted at any given 
time? A. No, but I must remind you, however, that he 
didn’t complete the examination requirement until about 
a day prior to this. We don’t take these applicants seri­
ously at this time of year unless we have already received 
scores on them. Very few people take an examination in 
August for a September entrance. Generally, the August 
examination is for people who are applying for the follow­
ing year.

Q. Who is the interview scheduled by and conducted by? 
A. Members of the Registrar’s Office.

Q. Has your office ever set up an interview for Harvey 
Gantt? A. No.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct



146a

Q. His last application has been pending since December, 
1961, has it not? A. That’s when he first applied, as I 
recall.

Q. And I believe that a similar exchange of correspon­
dence has occurred between yon and he during which time 
he has inquired about the status of the application? A. 
Right.

Q. And in response you would usually inform him that 
no pending application for transfer students had yet been 
acted on? A. Let me explain the policy here now. The fact 
that he had applied the year previously would make no 
difference this year. He had re-enrolled in college. We do

—39—
not consider any transfer student who is currently enrolled. 
We don’t have his file and final grades. We cannot be sure 
that he will be eligible to return there, is one of the require­
ments, so therefore any time a student re-enrolls, he post­
pones the consideration of his application.

(Short Recess)

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct

Mr. V ickery resumes the stand and testifies fu rth e r as 
follows:

Examination by Mr. Perry.

Q. Mr. Vickery, can you tell us approximately how many 
transfer students were accepted at Clemson for the term 
which began September, 1961? A. I would guess approxi­
mately seventy-five.

Q. In all of this instances, about when did the transcripts 
for the preceding year arrive at your office? A. Generally, 
in June before the school year.



147a

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Direct

Q. Had all of those persons already taken the entrance 
examination test! A. Not all of them. There were some 
examinations in July and those scores were received about 
the end of July, as I recall, but I would say that the ma­
jority had already taken the examinations in the Spring 
or the preceding Fall. This is a requirement we have had 
at Clemson since 1955 and the entrance examination re-

—40—
quirement is generally well known.

Q. And none of the other factors can be considered until 
the results of the entrance examination board tests are 
received! A. That’s been our general policy that we don’t 
consider a serious applicant until he qualifies on this first 
step.

Q. Was there a time in which to schedule the interview 
for Harvey Gantt after the receipt of the entrance exami­
nation scores! A. Yes, there were days in there that we 
weren’t available to interview anyone with the press of 
enrollment that week.

Q. Was any other officer or official of the school made 
available to conduct the interview! A. No one that is con­
nected with admissions, not that I know of.

Q. Could anyone not connected with admissions have 
made an interview! A. Yes, I suppose someone in Archi­
tecture perhaps would be qualified to conduct the interview.

Q. But as I understand, no such interview was sched­
uled! A. No interview was scheduled.

Q. Mr. Yickery, as I understand, Harvey Gantt’s ap­
plication still has not been acted upon! A. That’s right. 
All action was terminated when the complaint was filed.

Q. You received a copy of Dean McClure’s letter to 
Harvey Gantt dated July 2, 1962, did you not! A. Yes.



148a

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Cross

—41—
Q. And did you also receive a copy of Harvey Gantt’s 

letter to Dean McClure which was forwarded after that?

Mr. Watkins: Objected to as something that oc­
curred after suit was brought.

Q. Did you receive a copy of that? A. Yes, I recall that 
I did.

Q. But as you say, the institution of the suit effectively 
served to cut off all such correspondence? A. Bight.

Q. As I understand, there was a reply to Dean McClure’s 
letter? A. Yes.

Cross Examination by Mr. Watkins:

Q. Mr. Vickery, what is your exact title at the present 
time? A. I am Director of Admissions and Begistration. 

Q. Director of Admissions and Begistration? A. Bight. 
Q. In other words, you were Begistrar for some time 

prior to this recent change in title? A. That’s right.
Q. The change in title was made, I believe, after advice 

was received from management consultant for the oper­
ation of the office? A. That is correct.

Q. Generally speaking, can you tell any difference in
—42—

your job, whether you are called Begistrar or Director of 
Admissions and Begistration? A. No. Most people still 
refer to it as Begistrar.

Q. Even on the campus? A. Bight.
Q. I t’s a title you have a hard time getting rid of? A. 

Bight.
Q. You referred to this Newsletter that you say was 

sent out about the last two years. Is that an old medium



149a

of communication or a new one? A. Well, in previous 
years we have had from time to time information sent to 
the high schools. It is to our advantage to work closely 
with counselors and principals in order that they know our 
requirements, and this particular form is a new form.

Q. And I believe you use it to report to the high schools 
how the students with different test scores and different 
high school grades have progressed in college? A. That is 
right. It includes a profile, as the term is used, a profile 
of student examination scores.

Q. Do you know where the mailing list for the auto­
matic distribution of that originates? Do you prepare the 
list or do you use a list prepared by another agency? A. I 
believe we’ve been using a list prepared by the State De­
partment of Education.

—43—
Q. And you have stated that that is available upon re­

quest and has been furnished to many who have requested 
it? A. Many counselors visit the office and take away 
numerous copies.

Q. How about the college catalog, or I believe you called 
it bulletin? A. Record.

Q. Is that what we laymen would call a college bulletin 
or catalog? A. Catalog. Record is the mailing permit.

Q. And, of course, all college catalogs as this one includes 
information on the completed year and information about 
the year to follow? A. Yes.

Q. Is that widely distributed? A. Yes, it is.
Q. Do you know whether or not it lists the mechanical 

requirements for making; application at Clemson College? 
A. Yes, it does.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Cross



150a

Q. And what mechanical steps are listed in the catalog? 
A. To make the application, furnish the examination scores, 
and there is a table in there that the student might be ex­
pected to have in terms of units, and then, of course, in 
the case of a transfer student, he must furnish the applica­
tion card, the scores, to be eligible to return.

—44—
Q. Is that widely circulated? A. Yes, it is.
Q. Is it furnished on request? A. It is.
Q. Do you know about how many copies are published 

each year? A. Last year, as I recall, 12,500.
Q. In some recent years I think you ran out before the 

demand was filled? A. This is common among colleges 
today.

Q. Is your office in fairly frequent contact with the office 
of Mrs. Connelly in Columbia? A. Yes, I would say we are.

Q. You have testified as to turn or more conversations 
you have had with her relating to the Harvey Gantt case. 
Do you mean to say that these were conversations relating 
only to that case or was this case mentioned, or was Har­
vey Gantt mentioned in a conversation relating also to 
other matters affecting your office and hers? A. I don’t 
recall, but it could have been in a conversation relating to 
other matters. I do recall the last conversation I had with 
her a few weeks ago concerned a student who was attend­
ing dental school under the Southern plan, and she wished 
a transcript for this boy.

Q. Does she or not from time to time have to consult you 
as to the course of instruction offered at Clemson and the

- 4 5 -
cost of an in-state student taking it? A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. There were several questions on direct examination 
addressed to you regarding a long standing state policy.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Cross



151a

Will yon expand a little bit on your testimony and tell us, 
if you can, to approximately what date such a policy had 
been in effect and what the state policy, as you understand 
it, has been since that time and particularly any policy 
applying to your office before the policy was put in written 
form by the Board of Trustees. A. I mentioned an earlier 
date, the earliest date I can recall that was applicable in 
this case, which was 1948. At that time we had the sepa­
rate but equal facilities policy in this state.

Q. Was that related to the well published and well known 
decisions of the United States Supreme Court? A. Which 
I understand was terminated by that decision of the Su­
preme Court.

Q. Now, what has been the policy applicable to your office 
since 1948? A. Since then I have had no policy which re­
stricted admissions on account of race.

Q. Since that time has your office refused to accept the 
application card of any person on account of race? A. I 
do not recall refusal to accept an application.

— 46—
Q. Do you recall whether application cards submitted to 

your office and revealing on the face of it that they were 
submitted by a Negro, do you recall whether they were 
accepted and processed as other applications were or were 
rejected, or otherwise treated differently? A. As I recall, 
they were filed and treated as other cases.

Q. Mr. Vickery, when an application card is received with 
the information of the name and age and residence, the 
school attended and the course desired at Clemson, when 
the application card is received, does it receive any process­
ing at that time? A. Only the application card. If the 
applicant has previously been sent information, then it is

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Cross



152a

simply filed. We are sure he is aware of the other require­
ments which he must meet.

Q. Now, reference has been made to a letter from Harvey 
Gantt to you in the Spring of 1961—letter of April 26—and 
your response on May 9 when you advised, “As of this date 
no applications from any prospective transfer students 
have been processed.” Do you recall any other inquiry that 
you received from Harvey Gantt from January, 1961 other 
than that one, until his letter in June of 1961? A. I don’t 
have all these copies.

Q. I believe you wrote the letter that I just quoted from 
on May 9, 1961 and then the next correspondence, I  be­
lieve, was Mr. Gantt’s letter of May 29? A. Eight.

—47—
Q. You are familiar with the letters attached as exhibits 

either to the complaint or to the answer? A. I am.
Q. Those letters are substantially all the correspondence 

between you and Mr. Gantt? A. Substantially, yes.
Q. In talking about this written admissions policy 

adopted by the Board of Trustees in June of 1961, you 
mentioned the term “drop-out rates.” Let me ask you 
whether drop-out rates had anything to do with the promul­
gation of that rule and why had it become an important 
problem? A. This was a problem nation-wide and we had 
taken our admissions program and improved it step by step. 
In 1955 it required entrance examination, required that 
high school graduates were accepted on the basis of their 
high school diploma.

Q. Why is all of this important, Mr. Vickery? Why do 
you worry whether or not it is better to stay in school or 
flunk out? A. I t’s important not only to the school because 
of the space involved; it’s important to the state because 
of the money involved; and it’s important to the student

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Cross



153a

because it’s his time and his money to an extent that is 
being lost if he is misplaced in college.

Q. Are these procedures established for considering ap­
plications designed to reduce the drop-out rate? A. They

—4 8 -
are.

Q. Do they stay the same from year to year? A. No.
Q. Are you improving in your ability to predict whether 

or not an applicant can do the college work or now? A. 
We are and we will change next year to a better and more 
proven method of predicting success or failure in college.

Q. Was there any particular study that influenced the 
adoption or was any particular discovery of excessive drop­
outs that sort of dictated this revision of your admission 
procedures? A. We had made many continuous investiga­
tions ever since we had entrance examinations because the 
entrance examination has been raised each year since 1955 
until last year, the score requirement, and we have con­
stantly been studying the group just ahead to see what was 
happening to those that we were admitting, but just above 
the cut-off point, and then prior to last year we instigated 
a study of high school records with a view of incorporating 
previous scholastic work in this prediction. We instigated 
a study of principals’ recommendations and there we found 
this most revealing that students by and large who were 
not recommended failed miserably in college.

Q. You say it is bad for the student to accept him and 
then have him fail. I t’s bad for the parent who is paying 
his fees at the time of his failure? A. Eight.

—49—
Q. And it’s bad for the state who pays a part of the ex­

pense for each student? A. Right.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Cross



154a

Q. Now, how does it affect the college and the scope of 
its work and the number of students that it can train? A. 
Naturally, the college is limited in its facilities and in the 
facilities which the state can furnish, and these policies 
are aimed to make the most efficient use of these available 
facilities.

Q. Suppose student “A” drops out in October, can you 
replace him by accepting a student whom you didn’t have 
room for on the first of September? A. For all practical 
reasons, that space goes unused for the remainder of that 
school year. True, some students are admitted in the middle 
of the year but they do not replace all who graduate and 
drop out.

Q. So, is that the purpose of the procedural entrance re­
quirements? A. Yes, because I mentioned earlier a con­
cern for the student. Admissions to colleges today are such 
that if a student attends one college inappropriately and 
is misplaced and fails, then he finds it extremely difficult 
to continue his education in another accredited institution.

Q. Has your experience of operating under these rules 
approved by the Board in June of 1961 been beneficial

—50—
statistically or not? Has it improved or not, your reduc­
ing of the drop-out rate? A. I am sure it has been benefi­
cial.

Q. Was the adoption of that rule and the application of 
it as far as you know related in any way to the question of 
the race of the applicant? A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Has it been applied by you in any way discrimina- 
torily placed upon race? A. We have handled all applica­
tions meticulously in order to avoid any unfairness.

Q. Let us go now to August 31, 1961 when you addressed 
a form letter to Mr. Gantt. Did that letter very clearly re­

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Cross



155a

veal that it applies to transfer students? A, That is cor­
rect.

Q. Is there any practical difference in the consideration 
of the applicant who wants to enter a freshman class from 
high school and the consideration of an applicant who 
wants to transfer from another college? A. I ’ll say very 
definitely. Transfer applicants have had previous college 
experience. They have varying reasons for wishing to 
transfer. Many times there has been a failure at a previous 
institution or they have not found that work suitable.

Q. Does it take more office time or less office time to con­
sider the application of a transfer student? A. It requires

—51—
considerably more time to evaluate the process of a trans­
fer applicant.

Q. On August 31, 1961 do you recall approximately how 
many applications you had for transfer that had not been 
processed and where the applicant had not been finally 
accepted or rejected? A. As I recall at the time this form 
letter, of which this is a copy, was sent to approximately 
fifty-two students and then the following day or days there 
were a few additional letters mailed.

Q. Was this letter forwarded with appropriate notations 
on it to all applicants for transfer then pending and incom­
plete, regardless of race? A. They were.

Q. You were asked whether an hour might have been 
available for interviewing Harvey Gantt. Was the time 
available to review the records and interview all fifty-two 
and fifty-three of these applicants? A. No, I would say 
not.

Q. Was there any way to select which of the fifty-two or 
fifty-three would be crowded into time when an hour could 
be found? A. No.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Cross



156a

Q. Mr. Vickery, I believe you testified that the applica­
tion of Harvey Gantt has not been denied or refused? A. 
Correct.

Q. In the handling of his application and correspondence
—52—

with him dealing with it, has there been any intentional 
delay on your part? A. No.

Q. You testified that there were times when your under­
staffed office was quite busy. Are you able in many cases 
to get out a letter, a particular letter other than a form 
letter, in less than a week or ten days or so? A. At this 
particular time when this transcript was received in late 
June, you must recall that this is a time when all tran­
scripts come in from high schools and over a thousand of 
them, and we are also beginning summer school for which 
we are responsible for registration. We are also busy 
checking all current student records for deficiencies. We 
write individual letters to those people and all that has to 
come in because we want to get them in summer school, 
so June is an extremely busy month and there will be some 
unavoidable delays in the month of June.

Q. Are you able to use form letters in dealing with 
transfer students? A. No, not to the extent that you can 
deal with high school transfers.

Q. They do not fit themselves into the categories as well, 
do they, sir? A. No, they do not. Most transfers are ex­
tremely concerned about credit and placement they will 
receive and classification.

—53—
Q. There seems to be a considerable volume of corre­

spondence between you and Mr. Gantt. Is it normal for a 
person interested in attending Clemson College to have to

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Cross



157a

write as many letters asking for routine information as he 
has found it necessary to write? A. No, it is not normal.

Q. In the case of the average person, if there is such a 
person, is it the experience of your office that that informa­
tion as to requirements for application and enrollment are 
easily understood by him, or is it your experience that the 
average one has difficulty? A. I ’ll say it is easily under­
stood.

Q. And do you know whether a Clemson College record 
was ever furnished to Mr. Gantt? Do you know whether 
he ever requested one or received one other than the one 
in May of 1962? Do you have any knowledge of one earlier 
than that? A. I feel certain that one was but I have no 
record of it. We don’t keep a record of the catalogs but 
I feel sure it is a matter of practice to send every appli­
cant a catalog.

Q. If he ever requested one, was it sent to him, as far 
as you know? A. It was.

Q. In your opinion, from your knowledge of the handling 
of Mr. Gantt’s application, has Mr. Gantt been discrimi­
nated against for any reason? A. I testified previously

—54—
we handled it with the utmost care to avoid any discrimina­
tion or semblance of unfairness.

By Mr. Perry:

Q. Mr. Vickery, the form letter of August 31, 1961, does 
your office use a form similar to that each year at the cut­
off period? A. No, but we have pushed up our admissions 
schedule this year and we don’t have this last minute back­
log. We have told people not to take the examination in 
August and if their scores come in at the last minute, we 
have this cut-off date of August 23rd in the catalog. We

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Cross



158a

hope to avoid last minute transfer students. There will be 
some, but very few.

Q. Prior to 1961, did your office use such a form letter? 
A. I do not recall a similar form letter.

Q. And you have been in the office since 1938? A. That 
is correct.

Q. This form was actually promulgated then for the 
cut-off period which is evidenced on the date of this letter, 
that is to say, August 31, 1961? A. That is correct.

Q. You say that this application has not received any 
different treatment than that accorded other applications. 
Were inquiries made on behalf of the other applicants to 
the South Carolina Regional Education Board, as to all 
of the other applicants ? A. No.

—55—
Q. In what way is Harvey Gantt’s application now defi­

cient? A. At the time the complaint was filed, this termi­
nated all consideration of his application. The evaluation 
of his work has not been finally evaluated and confirmed. 
We have a serious situation in architecture this year which 
we had to turn away many candidates for the School of 
Architecture and we think it essential that he be inter­
viewed and his class work be reviewed in order that we 
may determine how he will fit into our curriculum inasmuch 
as we do not generally work with people from Iowa State. 
Other architectural candidates have been interviewed and 
their work examined.

Q. Now, sir, does the matter about which you have just 
testified have to do with admissions or does it have to do 
with whether he will be given appropriate credits for work 
done at Iowa State? A. In Architecture this year it will 
be one and the same on account of the crowded conditions.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Cross



159a

Q. Suppose lie wanted to come in and wipe his slate clean 
by giving up all of Ms credits at Iowa State. Would that 
have anything to do then with the issue of admissions as 
contrasted to evaluation of credit earned in other institu­
tions? A. We would still consider him a transfer student. 
He would still have to qualify as a transfer student even

—55a—
though he might be willing to begin anew.

Q. Based upon this young man’s record as you know it, 
do you regard him a qualified applicant? A. His record is 
satisfactory, yes. His record at Iowa State is satisfactory.

Q. Is not his record at Iowa State above average? A. 
Not being that familiar with Iowa State’s standards, I would 
not be a judge of that.

Q. How do they compare with the records of other trans­
fer students that you have had occasion to observe? A. I 
have made no systematic evaluation of other transfer ap­
plicants. They vary from course to course, but his work 
there—naturally, he has passed his work and it is reason­
ably satisfactory, as I see it.

Q. Do not the grades shown on his transcript show a 
fairly intelligent young man? A. They do.

Q. Now, is the School of Architecture in question the 
only School of Architecture in the State of South Carolina? 
A. It is.

Q. Now, sir, do you normally discuss with President 
Edwards the pendancy of all applications, severally? A. 
No, not all but there have been other occasions. I would 
say weekly there are occasions on which we discuss applica­
tions.

Q. Mr. Vickery, as I understand, as Director of Admis-
—56—

sions you have the authority, assuming Harvey Gantt dem­

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Cross



160a

onstrates that he is qualified, to enter Clemson as a student, 
you have the authority to accept his application. Is that 
correct?. A. I testified earlier under these policies I have 
the discretion to either act or advise as to action to be taken 
on qualified applicants.

Q. Normally, what course is pursued with reference to 
other applicants? A. Normally, they are accepted.

Q. By you, or rejected by you? A. Or by the office or 
other officers.

Q. Are you prepared to act favorably upon the applica­
tion of Harvey Gantt in the event his application is satis­
factorily completed? A. I am prepared to act in accord 
with these policies, provided his admission process is com­
pleted.

Q. Are you prepared to do so without having to confer 
with other officials of Clemson and of the State of South 
Carolina? A. In view of this litigation, I would naturally 
confer with other officials.

By Mr. Watkins:
Q. On the present status of Harvey Gantt’s applica­

tion, could you say whether he is applying to enter the 
School of Architecture as a freshman or as a sophomore or 
as a junior or in any other particular level? A. Due to

—57—
differences in the curriculum at Clemson and at Iowa State 
as regards architectural design, no I am not qualified. This 
is something a layman finds extremely difficult.

Q. Could you as Registrar of Clemson College accept 
for enrollment any student who has done work at another 
college without knowing whether he was going to be a fresh­
man, sophomore or a junior? A. I could, I suppose, but 
it would be inadvisable.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Cross



161a

Q. Is that something that is normally determined before 
final action is taken on an application! A. I think this is 
something that the student normally wants determined him­
self prior.

Q. Would you accept a graduate of another school as a 
freshman in Clemson College to repeat the same work he 
had completed satisfactorily at another school! A. I would 
be inclined to raise a question as to why the transfer and 
what are the other reasons underlying the request for a 
transfer.

Q. Have you ever accepted for enrollment at Clemson 
College a person who had completed considerable work at 
another school satisfactorily without an evaluation of his 
work and a conference with him after you had received 
the basic information as to his qualifications? Have you 
ever accepted one without having a chance to review that 
or having the department head in the applicant’s field re-

—5 8 -
view his work? A. There perhaps have been over the 
years. Just sheer mechanics makes this difficult, particu­
larly late applicants, but my impression is that, by and 
large, most of the transfers come to see you before they 
even make an application.

Q. Would you ever accept an applicant for enrollment at 
Clemson College disregarding the work he had completed 
at another school, another school of higher learning, dis­
regarding for any consideration the work he had accom­
plished? A. If he had attended another college, we would 
consider him as a transfer student.

Q. And in that case, give consideration to the work he 
had done and evaluate that work? A. That’s correct.

Q. And that transcript would be a part of his permanent 
record? A. It would be a part of his permanent file.

(Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned.)

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31
Kenneth N. Vickery—for Plaintiff—Cross



162a

—58a—
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31 

CERTIFICATE

S tate of S ou th  Carolina )
County  of R ich lan d  )

I, Jos. C. Cordell, a Notary Public in and for the State 
of South Carolina, certify that I did have Mr. Kenneth 
N. Vickery to appear before me at 10:00 o’clock A. M., on 
Thursday, August 16th, 1962, at the United States Court 
House, Anderson, South Carolina; that I duly swore the 
said witness and cautioned him to tell the truth, the whole 
truth and nothing but the tru th ; that the foregoing pages 
constitute a true and correct transcript of his testimony 
given at that time and place.

I certify that I am not of counsel or kin to any of the 
parties to this cause of action, nor am I interested in any 
manner in its outcome.

In w i t n e s s  w h e r e o f  I have hereunto set my hand and 
seal this 18th day of August, 1962.

Notary Public for South Carolina



163a

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32

I jST T H E

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F oe t h e  W estern  D istrict oe S o u th  Carolina 

A nderson D ivision  

Civil Action No. 4101

H arvey B . Ga n tt , a  m in o r, by h is  f a th e r  an d  
n e x t fr ie n d , C h risto ph er  Gantt ,

Plaintiffs,
-—vs—

T h e  Clem son  A gricultural C ollege of S o u th  Carolina, 
a public body corporate; R. M. C ooper, President of the 
Board of Trustees of the Clemson Agricultural College 
of South Carolina; E dgar A. B row n , J ames F. B yrnes, 
C harles E. D a n iel , W in c h ester  S m it h , R obert R. 
C oker, J ames C. S e l f , R obert L. S toddard, P aul Quat- 
tlebaum , J r., W . Gordon M cCabe, J r., W . A. B arnette , 
A. M. Quattlebaum  and L. D. H olmes, Members of the 
Board of Trustees of The Clemson Agricultural College 
of South Carolina ; K e n n e t h  N. V ickery , Registrar of 
The Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina; 
and J. T. A nderson , Superintendent of Education of the 
State of South Carolina,

Defendants.

Deposition of Mrs. Rebecca Mack Connelly, taken before 
Paul C. Blanchard, Notary Public of and for the State of 
South Carolina, on Monday, August 20th, 1962; at 2 :00



164a

o’clock P. M.; at the Federal Court House, in Columbia,
South Carolina.

A p p e a r a n c e s
For the Plaintiffs:

Mr. L inco ln  J e n k in s , of the firm  of 
Jenkins and Perry, Attorneys at Law.

For the Defendants:
Mr. D a n iel  E . M cL eod, Attorney General for the 

State of South Carolina, and M e . W m . L. P ope, 
Assistant Attorney General for South Carolina.

— 2 —

Mr. McLeod: Mr. Jenkins, before this witness is 
sworn, I ’d like to enter an objection. I ’d like to enter 
an objection to the taking of this lady’s testimony on 
the grounds that the same is irrelevant, and not ger­
mane to the issues raised in this suit.

Mr. Jenkins: Now, before we go any further, do 
we agree to waive the signing of the testimony!

Mr. McLeod: I ’d rather not waive it.

Whereupon Mrs. R ebecca M ack C onnelly , being first
working? A. Yes sir.

Questions by Mr. Jenhins:
Q. Mrs. Connelly, would you state your full name please?

A. Mrs. Rebecca Mack Connelly.
Q. State where you are employed, and in what capacity?

A. I am Administrative Secretary of the State Regional
Education Board.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mach Connelly—for Plaintiff—Direct



165a

Q. Would you care to outline, generally, what your duties 
are, Mrs. Connelly? A. I administer aid to students study­
ing out of the state.

Q. From all practical purposes—for all practical pur­
poses, you actually run the agency here in South Carolina? 
A. Do I actually run the agency?

Q. Yes, from all practical purposes. A. While I  actually 
process the applications and administer the aid, but I work 
for the Board.

Q. Yes. The Board more or less leaves to you the actual 
handling of applications and the sending out of whatever 
aid is given? A. Yes sir.

— 3—

Q. Do you handle all applications which come from the 
office for aid? A. I do.

Q. How long have you been employed by this agency? 
A. Since 1958.

Q. 1958. In the same capacity in which you now are 
working? A. Yes, sir.

Q. This is a State Agency, isn’t it? A. It is, sir.
Q. Do you know whether it gets its authority through 

Acts number 860, approved April 3rd, 1948?

Mr. McLeod: I want to object to that. That’s a 
leading conclusion. I think it’s a matter of law, 
rather than a matter of opinion of the witness.

Q. Is your agency set up so that it has a right to promul­
gate rules and regulations by which it will be run? A. I 
think it is. The rules and regulations which we have were 
adopted from the State Aid Committee, and we have used 
those.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mach Connelly—for Plaintiff—Direct



166a

Q. I show you a copy of Rules and Regulations Govern­
ing Out of State Aid for the State of South Carolina, and 
ask you whether those are the rules and regulations under 
which your office operates! A. It is, sir.

Q. I ask you, Mrs. Connelly, whether you have any other 
rules and regulations other than these for the operation of 
your office! A. Yes, we have a program which covers cer­
tain fields that are not offered in South Carolina, with the 
stipulation naming the fields of study, and the amount of 
aid that the student may receive. But they are not in a 
printed form as rules and regulations.

—4—
Q. Is it possible that you could make available for coun­

sel a copy of those additional aids for operation of the 
office! A. I should think so.

Q. I wonder if, at this time, you would care to enu­
merate a few of these fields of—that those— A. Of study?

Q. Yes, fields of study! A. Dentistry, medicine, veter­
inary medicine, physical therapy, occupational therapy, 
landscape, architecture, optometry—I don’t know if I cov­
ered all of them or not, but that’s some of them. You said 
some of them.

Q. Sure. Now are those all fields of study where we do 
not have any school in South Carolina at all—state sup­
ported—offering that same type training? A. That is 
correct, sir.

Q. Now these rules and regulations which you have iden­
tified here today apply in a situation where there are cer­
tain state supported schools in South Carolina offering 
certain educational opportunities and fields of study where 
we may have at least one other state supported school which 
does not offer those, is that correct? A. That is right.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mach Connelly—for Plaintiff—Direct



167a

Q. Does the State of South Carolina make annual appro­
priations for the operation of your office? A. They do.

Q. In offering out of state aid, you offer financial aid, 
is that correct? A. Yes sir.

Q. And does the State of South Carolina make appro­
priations for this financial assistance which is given to out 
of state—for out of state aid? A. That is the appropria-

—5—
tion we made for financial aid.

Q. You get no funds other than from the State of South 
Carolina, or do you? A. We do not.

Q. What is the over all purpose of the agency for which 
you work? A. The over all purpose?

Mr. McLeod: I want to enter an objection to that 
on the grounds that it’s a matter of law rather than 
conclusion to be expressed by this witness.

Q. Would you care to answer, Mrs. Connelly? Subject 
to the objection of counsel? A. I would not.

Q. Do you knowr the answrer, Mrs. Connelly? A. I don’t 
believe I do.

Q. The number one rule under this set of rules and regu­
lations which we have mentioned is as follows: “Scholar­
ships may be granted to study courses which are not offered 
at South Carolina State College at Orangeburg, but which 
are offered at State supported institutions -within the State 
of South Carolina which are not available to negro stu­
dents.” Is that correct? A. That is correct, sir.

Q. Do you know that South Carolina State College in 
Orangeburg is a State supported college to which negroes 
attend? A. I do.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs, Rebecca Mack Connelly—for Plaintiff—Direct



168a

Q. Do you know that under the laws of South Carolina, 
only negroes attend that school'?

Mr. McLeod: I object to that on the grounds that 
it’s a legal conclusion.

Q. Subject to counsel’s objection, will you answer the
—6—

question, Mrs. Connelly? A. No sir, I  don’t know, cause—
Q. You do not know? A. No sir, I do not know any of 

the legal angles of it.
Q. Do you know that South Carolina State College is a 

State supported school in South Carolina? A. Yes sir.
Q. Do you know that it is the only State supported 

school in South Carolina that is on a college level or above 
offering education to negro students? A. At the present 
time it’s the only State supported school in South Carolina 
that negro students attend.

Q. Yes. Now we are talking, of course, of school above 
the high school level. A. Yes, yes.

Q. There are, of course, other State supported institu­
tions within the State of South Carolina offering higher 
education? A. That is true.

Q. Now, to your knowledge, do these other State sup­
ported institutions, other than South Carolina State Col­
lege at Orangeburg, offer any educational advantages to 
negroes? A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Do you knowT whether any negro student attends any 
State supported school in South Carolina, other than the 
school at Orangeburg, South Carolina—the college? A. 
Not that I know of.

Q. Is a primary purpose of your organization to provide 
state aid for negro students who are citizens of South Caro­

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mack Connelly—for Plaintiff—Direct



169a

lina, who desire to follow certain courses of study which 
are not offered at South Carolina State, at Orangeburg,

—7—
but which are offered to other persons, at other State sup­
ported schools?

Mr. McLeod: I object to that on the basis that 
it’s a conclusion of law, and that this witness is not 
competent to express an opinion as to what the 
purpose of the establishment—of the Regional Edu­
cational Board is, but it calls for a conclusion of law 
rather than a statement of opinion by this witness.

Q. Subject to the objection of your counsel, Mrs. Con­
nelly, I will repeat the question and ask that you answer. 
Is a primary purpose of the agency for which you work to 
provide financial assistance to negro citizens of South 
Carolina who wish to follow courses of study not offered 
at South Carolina State College, but which are offered to 
members of other races in other state supported schools 
in South Carolina? A. No, it is not. We offer aid to 
both white and colored students.

Q. Yes ma’am. Now the aid that is offered to white stu­
dents—do you offer aid to white students—out of state aid 
—to follow courses of study which they are able to secure 
at State supported schools in South Carolina? A. We do 
not.

Q. You do not. So that all of the aid—out of state a id -  
offered to white students is offered for courses of study 
which they cannot get at any State supported school in 
South Carolina? A. That is true.

Q. Now, with reference to negro students—is it not a 
fact that you offer out of state aid to negro students to

Plaintiff ’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mach Connelly—for Plaintiff—Direct



170a

follow courses of study which they cannot get in South 
Carolina in a state supported school? A. Not altogether, 
sir. They are covered under the program that the white 
students are covered under also. If they want to study in

—8—
dentistry, veterinary medicine or medicine, those are not 
offered in South Carolina, but the negro students are cov­
ered under that, or if they want to study optometry, phys­
ical therapy, occupational therapy, any of the other fields, 
they are covered.

Q. Yes. Now in those fields which you have just men­
tioned, of course, are not offered to any student in South 
Carolina, white or colored? A. That’s true.

Q. Now then, let us go to this situation. Is it not a fact 
that there are courses of study offered to white students 
in white supported institutions in South Carolina that are 
not offered at South Carolina State College in Orangeburg? 
A. That is true.

Q. Now, does not your office furnish out of state aid for 
negro students who cannot obtain at South Carolina State 
College certain courses of study, but those same courses 
of study are offered to white students in other white insti­
tutions in South Carolina? A. That’s true.

Q. And those are other white—State supported institu­
tions to which we refer, is that not a fact? A. Yes sir.

Q. Now my original question was, is it not a primary 
function of your office to offer aid—State aid—out of state 
aid—to negro students who cannot obtain in South Caro­
lina, courses of study which are offered in South Carolina 
to white students?

Mr. McLeod: I object to the question on the same 
grounds, that it’s inadmissible in that it calls for a

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mack Connelly—for Plaintiff—Direct



171a

legal conclusion. The witness should not be called 
upon to express an opinion as to the purpose of an

—9—
agency as created by State Law.

Q. Subject to the objection, Mrs. Connelly, will you an­
swer the question! A. No sir, I can’t.

Mr. Pope: Do you want him to repeat the ques­
tion? Do you understand it?

A. Yes, I understood the question, but I—
Q. Do you know the answer to the question, Mrs. Con­

nelly? A. No sir, I don’t.
Q. Do you know off hand, Mrs. Connelly, the number 

of students, white and negro, now receiving out of state aid ? 
A. When you say now, do you mean ’62-’63, or the ’61-’62 
session?

Q. Let us take the ’61-’62 session. A. I would say ap­
proximately, oh, between 600 and 650.

Q. 600 and 650. Would that include those who are now 
in summer school? A. It would include those up through 
the last day of June.

Q. The last day of June, 1962? A. Correct sir.
Q. Bear in mind, I ’m not familiar with school termi­

nology, and school years. Persons who are now studying 
in out of state summer schools, would they be in the ’62-’63 
session, or ’61-’62 session? A. Well, it would depend on 
which session they attended. They have what they call 
a post session, and a regular session. And if they regis­
tered in June and their forms came in before the last day 
of June, why then they would be under the ’61-’62 session.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mach Connelly—for Plaintiff—Direct



172a

But those coming in after the first day of July of ’62— 
they would be covered under the ’62-’63 session.

Q. So that there are about 600 to 650 persons covered 
under the session beginning September 1961 and running

— 10—

through June 30th, 1962? A. Correct.
Q. Of this number of 600 to 650 persons, can you state 

off hand, the approximate number that are white and the 
approximate number that are negro? A. Let me think just 
a moment. I would say approximately 400 negroes.

Q. Approximately 400 negroes. Do you know how many 
of those negroes are enrolled in courses of study which 
are not offered in any State supported school in South 
Carolina? Such as optometry, dentistry, medicine, etc. 
A.Would you repeat that question please? I missed the 
first part.

Q. Sure. Would you state, approximately, the number 
of negroes out of that approximate 400 number that are 
enrolled in courses of study which are not offered in any 
State supported school in South Carolina, either to white 
or colored? A. I would say 33 or 34.

Q. 33 or 34. So that would mean then, approximately 
360 to 370 negroes out of that 400 who are now receiving 
out of state aid, are enrolled in courses of study that are 
not offered in South Carolina State College, but are offered 
at other State supported colleges and schools in South 
Carolina? A. Would you repeat that please? I ’m sorry.

Q. Do I understand then, your testimony to be that there 
are approximately 360 to 370 negro students now receiving 
out of state aid, who are pursuing courses of study which 
are not offered at South Carolina State College in Orange­
burg, but which are offered at other State supported schools 
in South Carolina? A. Yes sir, that’s correct.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mach Connelly—for Plaintiff—Direct



173a

Q. Now Mrs. Connelly, you presently are involved in 
the administering of out of state aid to 600 to 650 students.

— 11—

Of that number, according to your memory, approximately 
400 are negro, and of that number of 400, approximately 
360 to 370 are enrolled in courses of study which they can­
not receive in South Carolina, in a State supported school.

Mr. McLeod: I object to the form of the question. 
I t’s not stated in a form in which the witness can 
answer it without the assumption of certain legal 
conclusions.

Q. May I rephrase the question then? Do you spend 
approximately the same amount of time processing one 
application as you do another? A. I do sir.

Q. Approximately the same? A. Yes.
Q. And for the 1961-’62 session, you are processing the 

applications and the assistance for about 370 negroes who 
are receiving study in out of state schools, which they 
cannot receive in a state supported school in South Caro­
lina?

Mr. McLeod: I  object to that question on the same 
ground, that it calls for a legal conclusion.

Q. Subject to the objection, will you answer the question, 
Mrs. Connelly? A. I ’m afraid I don’t understand it well 
enough to try to answer it.

Q. I was merely trying to sum up what you had said. I 
was not trying to mislead you in any way. As I understand 
it, you have said that you spend approximately the same 
amount of time processing and handling one application,

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mack Connelly—for Plaintiff—Direct



174a

as you do another. That you are presently handling about 
600 to 650 applications, that of the 650, approximately 400 
are negro. Of the 400 negro, approximately 360 to 370 
are following courses of study in out of state institutions 
which they cannot get at South Carolina State College in 
Orangeburg. Is that correct? A. That is true.

— 12—

Q. And also your statement was those same courses of 
study are offered in white institutions in South Carolina, 
but are not offered to negroes. Isn't that true? A. Well, 
normally negroes don’t attend those schools.

Q. Yes. So in fact, there is no course of study offered 
to them in a South Carolina State supported school then?

Mr. McLeod: I object to that on the grounds it’s 
a legal conclusion. It calls for a legal conclusion on 
the part of the witness.

Q. We will ignore that question and go back to our 
primary question. We have now summed up the number 
of persons receiving out of state aid. We have agreed that 
you spent as much time with one, approximately, as an­
other. Now then, if you spend time processing the applica­
tions of 370, 360 to 370 negroes who cannot—who are not 
able to receive the same course of study which they are 
now studying in South Carolina, but those same courses 
of study are offered in white schools, and you spend ap­
proximately—spend time with approximately 200 to 250 
white persons receiving out of state aid—you then spend 
the majority of your time processing applications of 
negroes for out of state aid, following courses which are 
not offered in South Carolina State College, is that true? 
A. That is true at the present time.

Plaintiffs Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mach Connelly—for Plaintiff—Direct



175a

Q. Yes. Now, since 1958, would you say that that same 
thing applies—the same amount—a larger proportion of 
your time is spent handling negro applications, than is 
handling white applications? A. Did you say since ’58?

Q. I believe you said you’d been employed there since 
’58, 1958? A. That’s true sir.

Q. Now since your employment have you spent the
—1 3 -

majority of your time processing and handling negro appli­
cations? A. Well, let me say this. Maybe I gave an 
incorrect answer which I didn’t intend giving. I have been 
working with this organization since ’58, but we did not 
take over this program of aid for the negro students until 
’59—it was handled by Dr. Turner at State College in ’58. 
But in July of ’59 it was turned over to our office.

Q. So then for only three years then, have you handled 
the application of negroes? A. lTes.

Q. That explains then, some of the contradictory evi­
dence I received of persons in— A. I didn’t intend, you 
know, giving an incorrect answer, but I just—it was in ’58 
that I started.

Q. 1 see. Now then, since ’59, when the negro applica­
tions were turned over to your office, would you say that you 
had spent the majority of your time handling their appli­
cations, rather than white applications?

Mr. McLeod: Just a moment, Mrs. Connelly, I 
want to enter an objection to this line of testimony 
on the ground that it’s irrelevant and has no bearing 
whatsoever on the issue in this case.

Q. Now then, subject to objection—to your objection, let 
me ask a question—will you answer the question? A. No 
sir.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mach Connelly—for Plaintiff—Direct



176a

Q. Do yon have any knowledge of an application for 
out of state aid made by Harvey Gantt to attend Iowa State 
University? A. I have, sir.

Q. He presently is, I believe, attending Iowa State Uni­
versity! A. Well, I don’t know that he’s in summer school, 
but—

—14—
Q. Yes, I meant during the 1961-’62 session? A. That’s 

correct, sir.
Q. Mrs. Connelly, have you had any inquiries made to 

you from any school official in South Carolina, with refer­
ence to Harvey Gantt’s receiving out of state aid? A. I 
have, sir.

Q. Would you care to state from what schools those 
officials are from? A. Clemson College.

Q. Do you know approximately when some inquiry was 
made of you from Clemson College, with reference to 
Harvey Gantt? A. I believe it was in January of, I guess 
it was ’60.

Q. January of 1960? A. I think so, I can’t remember 
the year definitely that Dr. Edwards contacted me.

Q. And Dr. Edwards is President of Clemson College, 
is he not? A. He is, sir.

Q. Since 1960, January, have you had any other in­
quiries from Dr. Edwards with reference to Harvey Gantt, 
that you can recall? A. Yes I have. I think he contacted 
me probably once after that, and then Mr. Vickery con­
tacted—

Q. Mr. Vickory, who is Director of Admissions and Reg­
istration at Clemson College? A. Yes, normally I call him 
the Registrar, but he has another title, I don’t know what 
it is.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mach Connelly—for Plaintiff—Direct



177a

Q. Yes, and we ascertained that last week. He said he 
was in a dual capacity now, I believe. Wasn’t primarily, 
if we recall it, the Eegistrar. Would you care to state 
the nature of the conversation between you and Dr. Ed-

—15—
wards with reference to Harvey Gantt! A. I ’ll be glad to, 
as well as I can remember. I t’s been a pretty good while.

Mr. McLeod: Let me enter an objection to this 
on the ground that it’s irrelevant and hearsay.

Q. Subject to the objection, Mrs. Connelly, would you 
answer the question as near as you can recall! A. And 
how did you ask that question! What—

Q. The question was, would you care to state the sub­
stance and nature of the conversation between you and 
Dr. Edwards, with reference to Harvey Gantt! A. Well 
he just wanted to know if Harvey Gantt, if I had an 
applicant by the name of Harvey Gantt who was receiving 
aid through my office, and I told him that I did have.

Q. Now on the couple of occasions, that was generally 
what—about what he asked! A. He wanted to know if Mr. 
Gantt was still receiving aid, yes.

Q. Now would you care to state the nature of the con­
versation between you and Mr. Vickery, with reference to 
Harvey Gantt! A. Same thing.

Q. Same thing! A. Yes sir.
Q. Now then, was there more than one conversation with 

Mr. Vickery! A. Yes sir, but I couldn’t remember exactly 
how many.

Q. And they would be since January of 1960, as near as 
you can recall! A. Yes sir, but I talked with Mr. Vickery

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mack Connelly—for Plaintiff—Direct



178a

a good bit about students, and actually I couldn’t tell you 
when I talked to him in regarding Mr. Gantt because I

—16—
contacted him quite frequently regarding students.

Q. Was there anything significant about Dr. Edwards 
calling you about this particular student? A. No.

Q. Does he have other occasions to call you about other 
students? A. He does, sir.

Q. And you attached no particular significance what­
soever to that conversation? A. No sir, I made no note 
of it—no notation or anything, because, like I say, why I 
contact him or Mr. Vickery quite frequently.

Q. Did Dr. Edwards or Mr. Vickery comment on the race 
of Harvey Gantt during any conversation with you? A. 
The race?

Q. Yes. A. No sir.
Q. Is it possible that your office could supply me with 

a couple more copies of these rules and regulations? A. 
Well be glad to.

Q. I have no further questions.

Cross Examination Questions by Mr. McLeod-.
Q. Mrs. Connelly, are these rules and regulations filed 

with the Secretary of State? A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. I want to enter an objection to all reference to the 

rules and regulations on the grounds that they are not 
filed with the Secretary of State in accordance with the

—17—■
Statutory provisions of this State. Mrs. Connelly let me 
ask you, on your applications for student aid—Mr. Jen­
kins, all this is subject to my objection to the general 
examination of this witness.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mack Connelly—for Plaintiff—Cross



179a

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mach Connelly—for Plaintiff—Cross 

Mr. Jenkins: I understand.

Q. On the application for the state aid, does the race 
of color of the applicant appear anywhere on there, or 
is there any reference made? A. It does not.

Q. Do you perform the administrative duties of this 
agency, is that your capacity? A. It is, sir.

Q. Do you receive, in the normal course of your working 
day, and working year, many inquiries from various col­
leges throughout the state? A. I do.

Q. You receive them fairly constantly? A. Yes sir, 
and various organizations.

Q. You have, as I understand it, about 600 to 650 stu­
dents operating under this state aid plan, receiving assis­
tance from you, is that right? A. That’s right.

Q. And approximately how many of those are colored 
and approximately how many are white? A. Well, I ’d 
say about 400 colored.

Q. And 200 to 250 white recipients of state aid? A. Yes 
sir.

Q. Mrs. Connelly, let me ask you, with respect to Harvey 
Gantt, has he been receiving assistance for some period 
of time? A. He has, sir.

Q. Do you know, approximately, when he first applied
—18—

for assistance or state aid? A. It was for the 1960 session.
Q. When is his most recent application to receive state 

aid? A. Well, he requested renewal application hi July 
for the fall quarter, at our—that application hasn’t been 
filed with us. They don’t file them until they register.

Q. With respect to courses that are not offered at State 
College, but are offered at other colleges and universities



180a

in this state, have any white students made application for 
assistance in that regard? A. I didn’t understand the first 
part of your question.

Q. Well, let me see. Does your program apply to white 
and colored students alike? A. It does, when the fields of 
study are specified.

Q. Yes ma’am. Have you discriminated consciously in 
your work, with respect to race or color of any applicant? 
A. None whatsoever. I have helped the colored more 
with their applications, in—

Q. Do you have more applications from colored than 
you do from white? A. Yes sir, I do.

Q. You mentioned Harvey Gantt—you mentioned his 
application in July, is that July of 1962? A. Correct, sir.

Q. Have you made notes of the periods in which he has 
made application for aid heretofore? A. Have I made 
notes?

Q. Notes of the times when he had made application for 
assistance from your agency? A. Yes sir.

—19—
Q. Did he make an application for state aid in May of 

1960? A. Yes sir, I checked my files, and it shows that he 
made it in May.

Q. Did he receive it? A. He did, sir. He received aid 
every time that he applied for it.

Q. Was that, did it continue for a period— A. For two 
years.

Q. Up until the present time? A. For two years he’s 
received aid.

Q. Did he make application for state aid on May 29, 
1961? A. He did.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mach Connelly—for Plaintiff—Cross



181a

Q. Did he make application for state aid on December 4, 
1961! A. He did, sir.

Q. And he, I believe, made application, as you said, for 
state aid on July 8, 1962! A. ’62, but that one hasn’t been 
filed.

Q. During that period of time while he was receiving 
assistance, he was a student at Iowa State University! A. 
Yes sir.

Q. What’s the status for this present application for 
state aid! Has it been processed! A. No sir, it has not, 
because on a renewal application, it is not filed until the 
student registers.

Q. I see. A. Because the Registrar has to fill it out, the 
courses that he’s taking, and the tuition and fees.

Q. I have nothing further.
— 20—

Re-examination by Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Just a couple of questions, Mrs. Connelly, you say 

that these rules and regulations have never been filed with 
the Secretary of State! A. I said not to my knowledge.

Q. To your knowledge! A. Frankly, I don’t know 
whether they have or not, but I don’t think they have.

Q. Yes. A. Because they were drawn up by Dr. Turner 
and his state aid committee, and if they were filed, they 
should have been filed then, see. Cause we never have filed 
them, we just adopted them from them.

Q. You don’t know, really know, whose job it is to file 
these rules and regulations, do you! A. No sir, I don’t. 
If it’s mine, they didn’t tell me so.

Q. I understand. Do you sometimes have applications 
from white students desiring out of state aid to follow

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mach Connelly—for Plaintiff—Redirect



182a

courses of study which they can get at state supported 
schools in South Carolina? A. Yes sir, I do—quite fre­
quently, but—

Q. Now what happens? A. I mean, actually, I don’t have 
an application. I wouldn’t say that, but I have a request 
for an application.

Q. Certainly. A. But I  just know that they’re not cov­
ered under our program unless they’re studying in some 
particular field that’s not offered in our state.

Q. So inasfar as white students are concerned, if the 
courses of study are offered in the state, then they cannot 
receive out of state aid through your office? A. That’s

A l­
right sir.

Q. Do you know generally, the courses of study offered 
at various state supported schools here in South Carolina? 
A. I do, it overlaps quite a bit.

Q. Yes. So that it is possible when an applicant makes 
inquiry concerning out of state aid and he states what 
courses of study he wishes to follow, you can determine 
whether that course of study is offered in South Carolina, 
can’t you? A. Yes sir.

Q. I believe you answered in response to a question from 
Mr. McLeod that the application for out of state aid makes 
no reference to race, is that true? A. Not to my knowledge, 
it doesn’t.

Q. However, it is possible, is it not, for you to determine 
the race of the applicant by the course of study which he 
desires to pursue, is it not possible?

Mr. McLeod: I object to that on the grounds that 
it’s a conclusion that it’s self-evidently, and not one

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mach Connelly—for Plaintiff—Redirect



183a

that’s subject to the opinion of this witness. I under­
stood you to say that she could determine the race 
of the applicant by the course of study that he 
wanted to pursue?

Mr. Jenkins: That’s correct, sir.
Mr. McLeod: Well, I object to the question on the 

grounds, first, that it’s irrelevant, and it’s a matter 
that is self-evident and not subject to the opinion of 
this witness.

Q. Now subject to the objection, Mrs. Connelly, will you 
answer the question?

Mr. McLeod: Do you understand the question?
— 22—

A. No, I—
Q. May I say this? Mr. McLeod asked you whether the 

application form carries any reference to race, and you 
answered— A. It does not.

Q. The answer was no. I  asked you whether you received 
inquiry from white persons desiring out of state aid, when 
they can secure that aid right here in South Carolina, and 
you answered that question. I asked you whether you know, 
generally, the courses of study offered in state supported 
schools here in South Carolina. The question, I think, that 
was objected to follows in this manner, that even though 
the application form itself makes no reference to race, the 
form does require, I believe, that the person state—the 
applicant state that he cannot receive such aid at South 
Carolina State College, and that aid—I don’t mean a id -  
course of study rather, and that such a course of study is 
offered at such and such another college. Am I correct in

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mack Connelly—for Plaintiff—Redirect



184a

that? A. No, he doesn’t have to state that he can’t receive 
it at State College on the application. He has to underline 
the state supported school offering the course that he is 
going to take, but he doesn’t have to state that he can’t 
receive it at State College.

Q. Yes. Well now let me ask you this. I have never seen 
one of these forms, I don’t believe. Does the form list the 
names of all of the state supported schools? A. Except 
State College.

Q. Except State College. And then the applicant will 
underscore what school or schools in South Carolina offer­
ing this course of study? A. Yes sir. And we omitted 
State College because it would be confusing to the appli­
cant, and they would underline State College, when actually

—23—
the course wouldn’t be offered at State College. So we 
omitted that one on purpose, to help them to keep from 
confusing the applicant.

Q. Yes. Now through this same procedure, which we 
have just outlined, you determine the race of the applicant, 
do you not? A. No I don’t. Frankly, the race is determined 
before the applicant ever receives an application. In their 
request for an application, normally they say, “I am a negro 
student, at such and such a school.”

Q. That is not required by your agency, is it? A. It is 
not, no sir. But normally they state that, or they say “I 
cannot receive the course or the degree that I am seeking 
in South Carolina, it is not offered at State College”, in 
their application request—request for application, but on 
their application form they note their high school if they 
are doing—if they are not doing graduate work, see. If 
they are doing graduate work they name their degree that

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mack Connelly—for Plaintiff—Redirect



185a

they have, and the school that granted the degree, and from 
those things yon can tell the race, but we don’t ask for the 
race.

Q. Yes. I have no further questions.

Mr. McLeod: Nothing further.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32
Mrs. Rebecca Mach Connelly—for Plaintiff—Redirect

Rebecca Mack Connelly

Sworn to a n d  S ubscribed before 
me th is ..............  d a y  of August, 1962.

......................................................  (L. S.)
Paul C. Blanchard
Notary Public in and for South Carolina

(My commission expires at the pleasure 
of the Governor of the State of South 
Carolina.)

—24—
—CERTIFICATE—

I, Paul C. Blanchard, a Notary Public in and for the 
State of South Carolina, do hereby certify that Rebecca 
Mack Connelly, the deponent named herein, was by me 
first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, in the above entitled cause, now 
pending in the United States District Court for the Western 
District of South Carolina.

I further certify that the foregoing deposition was re­
ported by me sten©graphically and afterwards reduced to 
typewriting by me, and the preceding twenty-three (23)



186a

pages is a true and correct record of the testimony given 
by said witness.

I further certify that the Deponent was represented at 
the hearing of said deposition by her counsel, Mr. Daniel 
R. McLeod, Attorney General for the State of South Caro­
lina, and that the Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Lincoln 
Jenkins, Esq.

I further certify that said deposition was taken on behalf 
of the Plaintiff, commencing at 2:00 o’clock, P. M., on the 
20th day of August, 1962, in the Federal Court House Build­
ing, at Columbia, South Carolina, pursuant to Notice, and 
pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the 
District Court of the United States.

I further certify that I am a disinterested person in the 
said cause of action, and that I have held the said depo­
sition in my possession until placed by me in the United 
States Mail, properly addressed and with sufficient postage, 
to the Clerk of the United States District Court, for the 
Western District of South Carolina.

In w i t n e s s  w h e r e o f  I have hereunto set my hand and 
seal, this 21st day of August, 1962.

/ s /  P aul C. B lanchard 
Paul C. Blanchard,
Notary Public for South Carolina

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32

[Seal]



187a

SOUTH CAROLINA REGIONAL EDUCATION BOARD 
Room 506, Palmetto State Life Building 

Columbia, S. C.

R u les  and R egulations Governing  Ou t -oe-S tate Am 
eob t h e  S tate oe S o u th  Carolina

The following rules and regulations shall govern the 
administration and granting of scholarships for study at 
out-of-state institutions:
1. Scholarships may be granted to study courses which 

are not offered at South Carolina State College in 
Orangeburg, but which are offered at state-supported 
institutions within the State of South Carolina which 
are not available to Negro students.

2. Application forms should be secured from the State 
Regional Education Board Office, Room 506, Palmetto 
State Life Building, Columbia, South Carolina. The 
initial application shall consist of two forms—Form 1 
to be filled out, signed and sworn to before a notary 
public by the applicant and returned directly to the 
State Regional Education Board Office; and Form 2 
which should be taken to the institution the applicant 
plans to attend to be completed by the registrar and 
financial officer and returned to the State Regional 
Education Board Office immediately after the student 
registers.

3. The applicant must be a citizen and resident of the 
State of South Carolina at the time of application, at 
the time of the grant, and during the time of study.

Plaintiff’s E xhib it 33



188a

4. Initial applications should be made far enough in ad­
vance of the term the applicant wishes to study by 
returning Form 1 in sufficient, time to allow the appli­
cation to be processed, and notification given regarding 
decision as to the field before the student enters the 
chosen institution. Renewal applications should be re­
quested within the dates specified and returned to the 
office of the State Regional Education Board immedi­
ately after the applicant registers. Failure to submit 
application at the proper time may cause forfeiture 
of the right to be considered for aid.

5. Applications to study in the fall session must be filed 
between June 1 and August 1; for the spring session 
between October 15 and December 10; and for the 
summer session between April 1 and June 1.

6. Application should be made to cover only one semester 
or quarter, or summer.

7. Renewal application form should be secured from the 
State Regional Education Board Office to be filed for each 
succeeding term, within the dates specified by the rules 
and regulations. An official transcript should accom­
pany the renewal application with grades for the pre­
ceding term, or the certification on the renewal blank 
filled out by the registrar should give such information 
regarding grades and courses.

8. Recipients of out-of-state aid must do satisfactory work 
and have the registrar, where there have been failures, 
notify the office when such failures have been overcome 
or work done to satisfy requirements in the subject or

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 33



189a

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 33

subjects. No aid will be granted until all failures have 
been overcome.

9. The applicant should give specific information as to 
the out-of-state institution he plans to attend, the name 
of the courses and the degree toward which he is to 
study. No basic change should be made in such in­
formation without the knowledge and consent of the 
State Regional Education Board Office.

10. It is the duty of the applicant to ascertain and supply 
the State Regional Education Board Office with the 
name of the institution in South Carolina which offers 
similar courses to the ones desired to pursue at an 
out-of-state institution and to list these similar courses, 
if requested by the State Regional Education Board.

11. Although an applicant may receive approval of his 
application, no grant nor payment will be made until 
the out-of-state institution submits Form 2, or Form 
1A in the case of renewals, which the registrar and 
financial officer are to complete and return to the State 
Regional Education Board Office.

12. Due to changes in curriculum offerings, it may be that 
a recipient who received aid for one period may not 
be eligible for aid another year, or, that an applicant 
who did not qualify for aid one year may be eligible 
another year.

13. No grants will be retroactive.

14. The amount of the scholarship grant will be determined 
as follows:



190a

(a) The difference between the amount of tuition and 
fees charged in the South Carolina state-supported 
institution which offers similar courses and that 
charged at the out-of-state institution which the 
applicant is attending.

(b) In calculating the amount of out-of-state aid allow­
ance will be made for one round-trip transporta­
tion fare, coach or bus, each semester, and one 
round-trip transportation fare for summer school, 
not to exceed $75.00 for any one period. The al­
lowance for transportation fare will be included 
in the total amount of the grant.

(c) No allowance will be made for books and equip­
ment, nor for board, lodging and other personal 
expenses.

15. Checks to cover grants will be made payable to the 
school the applicants are attending.

16. Veterans of World War II receiving Educational 
Benefits from the Federal Government shall not be 
eligible for out-of-state aid toward tuition and fees 
but will be eligible for the differential of railroad coach 
fare. Veterans of the Korean War shall be eligible for 
the differential in tuition, fees and railroad coach fare.

17. Out-of-state aid will be granted only for the purpose 
of attending an accredited institution located within 
the continental limits of the United States.

18. No student may receive in excess of $500.00 during a 
State fiscal year.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 33



191a

Opinion and Order 

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F ob t h e  W estern  D istrict of S ou th  Carolina 

A nderson D ivision

[ same t it l e ]
----- ---- --------------------- —^ ---------  ------ -----------------------

This is an action by plaintiff, a nineteen year old negro 
resident of Charleston, South Carolina, against defendants, 
seeking a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants 
from denying him admission to The Clemson Agricultural 
College of South Carolina solely on account of his race.

The suit was commenced on July 7, 1962. On the same 
date the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction 
asking that the defendants be enjoined as set forth in the 
motion for preliminary injunction. The defendants filed an 
answer to the complaint on July 30, 1962. The complaint 
and the answer were duly verified. The motion for pre­
liminary injunction was heard by me on August 22, 1962, 
the attorneys for the parties stating at the hearing of the 
motion for preliminary injunction that they did not wish 
any other pending motion heard at that time.

In the meantime, plaintiff’s attorneys had taken depo­
sitions of the Registrar of Clemson College and the Ad­
ministrative Assistant of the South Carolina Regional 
Education Board, and had submitted Requests for Ad­
missions and had filed a motion to produce and to permit 
plaintiff to inspect and to copy all correspondence and 
other records in the Registrar’s office at Clemson College 
pertaining to all persons who have applied for admission



192a

to said college since January 1, 1961, and to permit plain­
tiff: to enter the office of the Registrar of Clemson College 
at Clemson, South Carolina, and to inspect and to copy 
the foregoing documents upon the ground that “Defendants 
have the possession, custody and control of the foregoing 
documents, all of which constitute or contain evidence 
relevant and material to the issues involved in this action 
as is more fully shown in the affidavit of one of plaintiff’s 
attorneys hereto attached. (Emphasis added)

At the hearing plaintiff’s attorneys were granted per­
mission to introduce oral testimony and the President of 
Clemson College and the plaintiff were called as witnesses. 
They introduced in evidence the depositions of the Regis­
trar of Clemson College and the Administrative Assistant 
of the South Carolina Regional Education Board, and cer­
tain correspondence between the parties and other exhibits.

Written briefs on the motion for preliminary injunction 
were duly filed by the attorneys for the parties within the 
five days allowed.

The rules governing the granting of a preliminary in­
junction are well established and have often been stated. 
They are: “The award of an interlocutory injunction by 
courts of equity has never been regarded as strictly a 
matter of right, even though irreparable injury may other­
wise result to the plaintiff. Compare Scripps-Howard 
Radio v. Federal Communications Comm’n, 316 IT. S. 4, 10 
and cases cited. Even in suits in which only private in­
terests are involved the award is a matter of sound judicial 
discretion, in the exercise of which the court balances the 
conveniences of the parties and possible injuries to them 
according as they may be affected by the granting or with­
holding of the injunction. Meccaro, Ltd. v. John Wana- 
maker, 253 U. S. 136, 141; Rice & Adams Corp. v. Lathrop,

Opinion and Order



193a

278 U. S. 509, 514.” Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 
440.

“The action of the District Court on a motion for pre­
liminary injunction is not predicated upon an anticipated 
determination of issues of fact or questions of law which 
may be involved in the case. Consequently, where the 
granting of a preliminary injunction would give to a plain­
tiff all the actual advantage which could be obtained by 
the plaintiff as a result of a final adjudication of the con­
troversy in favor of the plaintiff, a motion for preliminary 
injunction ordinarily should be denied.” Selchow v. Righter 
Co. v. Western Printing <& L. Co., 112 F. 2d 430, 431 (CA 
7,1940).

“The purpose of an injunction pendente lite is to guard 
against a change in conditions which will hamper or pre­
vent the granting of such relief as may be found proper 
after the trial of the issues. Its ordinary function is to 
preserve the status quo and it is to be issued only upon a 
showing that there would otherwise be danger of irrepa­
rable injury. Community Natural Gas Co. v. City of Cisco, 
5 Cir., 65 F. 2d 320. While it may be granted to restore the 
status quo ante, it ought not to be used to give final relief 
before trial. Sims v. Stuart, D. C., 291 F. 707; Securities & 
Exchange Commission v. Torr, 2 Cir., 87 F. 2d 446.” United 
States v. Adler’s Creamery, 107 F. 2d 987, 990 (CA 2, 1939).

“But the trial court should exercise its discretion in such 
manner as to safeguard the interests of both parties and it 
may be improvident for it to grant a preliminary injunction 
which permits the plaintiff to obtain an undue advantage 
by acting while the hands of his adversary are tied by the 
writ, or where the preliminary injunction gives the plaintiff 
essentially all the actual advantage which could be obtained 
from a final adjudication.” Moore’s Federal Practice, Yol.

Opinion and Order



194a

7, page 1628, citing the following cases, Corica v. Ragen 
(CA 7, 1944) 140 F. 2d 496, 499; Foundry Services v. 
Bene flux Corp. (CA 2, 1953), 206 F. 2d 214; see Selchow & 
Righter Co. v. Western Printing £  Lithographing Co. (CA 
7, 1940) 112 F. 2d 430.

A mandatory injunction, especially at the preliminary 
stage of proceedings, should not be granted except in rare 
instances in which the facts and law are clearly in favor of 
the moving party. Miami Beach Federal Sav. and Loan 
Ass’n v. Callander, 256 F. 2d 410 (CA 5, 1958); O’Malley v. 
Chrysler Corp., 160 F. 2d 35 (CA 7, 1947); see also, W. 
A. Mach, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 260 F. 2d 886 (CA 
7,1958).

“The purpose of the preliminary injunction is to preserve 
the status quo until the rights of the parties can be fairly 
and fully investigated and determined by strictly legal 
proofs and according to the principles of equity. Blount v. 
Societe, 6 Cir., 53 F. 98; Kings County Raisin & Fruit Co. 
v. United States Consol. Raisin Co., 9 Cir., 182 F. 59. * * * 
the granting of a preliminary injunction is an exercise of 
a very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except 
in a case clearly demanding it. New York Asbestos Mfg. 
Co. v. Ambler Asbestos Air Cell Cov. Co., 3 Cir., 102 F. 
890; Barker Painting Co. v. Brotherhood of Painters, 3 Cir., 
15 F. 2d 16; Murray Ilill Restaurant v. Thirteen Twenty 
One Locust, 3 Cir., 98 F. 2d 578.” Meiselman v. Paramount 
Film Distributing Corp., 180 F. 2d 94 (CA 4,1950); Sinclair 
Refining Co. v. Midland Oil Co., 55 F. 2d 42, 45 (CA 4, 
1932).

On an application for preliminary injunction, the court 
is not bound to decide doubtful and difficult questions of 
law or disputed questions of fact. General Electric Co. v. 
American Wholesale Co. (CA 7, 1956), 235 F. 2d 606. “As

Opinion and Order



195a

a prerequisite to the issuance of an interlocutory injunction, 
the moving party must show a clear right to relief. There 
must be no disputed issues of fact. Citizens Coach Co. v. 
Camden Horse R. R. Co., E. & A. 1878, 29 N. J. Eq. 299, 
806, Ferraiuolo v. Manno, 1948, 1 N. J. 105, 108, 62 A. 2d 
141; Anders v. Greenlands Corp., Ch. 1954, 31 N. J. Super. 
329, 339, 106 A. 2d 861.” Charles Simhin & Sons, Inc. v. 
Massiah, 289 F. 2d 26, 29 (CA 3, 1961).

In the motion for preliminary injunction in this case the 
plaintiff asks this Court to enjoin the defendants during the 
pendency of the action from refusing to consider the ap­
plications of the minor plaintiff and other Negro residents 
of South Carolina for admission to Clemson College, now 
limited to white persons, upon the same terms and condi­
tions applicable to white applicants seeking admission to 
said college; and from failing and refusing to act expe­
ditiously upon applications received from Negro residents 
of the State of South Carolina for admission to Clemson 
College solely because of the race and color of the Negro 
applicants; and from subjecting minor plaintiff and other 
Negro applicants to requirements, prerequisites, interviews, 
delays and tests not required of white applicants for ad­
mission; and from making the attendance of plaintiff and 
other Negroes at Clemson College subject to terms and 
conditions not applicable to white persons; and from failing 
and refusing to advise plaintiff and other Negro applicants 
promptly and fully regarding their applications, admission 
requirements and status as is done by the registrar and 
his assistants in the case of white applicants, and from 
requiring the applicant to state his or her race in applying 
to Clemson College, and from continuing to pursue the 
policy, practice, custom and usage of limiting admissions 
to Clemson College to white persons, as contrary to the

Opinion and Order



196a

due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth 
Amendment, on the ground that:

“1. Unless restrained by this Court, defendants will con­
tinue the acts complained of; 2. Such action by the defen­
dants will result in irreparable injury, loss, and damage to 
the plaintiffs as more particularly appears in the verified 
complaint and the affidavit of Harvey B. Gantt, plaintiff, 
attached hereto; 3. The issuance of a preliminary injunc­
tion herein will not cause undue inconvenience or loss to 
the defendants, but will prevent irreparable injury to 
plaintiff.”

While the preliminary injunction prayed for in the motion 
under consideration would apply to “other Negro residents 
of South Carolina”, “other Negro applicants” and “other 
Negroes”, the record before me does not relate to any negro 
other than the plaintiff’s application for admission to Clem- 
son College. Plaintiff failed to develop through the deposi­
tion of the Registrar or the testimony of the President of 
the College any evidence that any other negro person is 
in a situation in any way similar to that of the plaintiff.

In opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction 
the defendants filed an affidavit of the President of Clemson 
College in which he denied that the college refused to 
consider plaintiff’s application upon the same terms and 
conditions applicable to white persons; denied subjecting 
plaintiff to requirements not required of white persons; 
denied making the attendance of plaintiff subject to terms 
and conditions not applicable to white persons.

There is evidence in the record that the attention of the 
plaintiff was repeatedly called to the provisions of the 
published catalog; there are several references in the 
Registrar’s deposition as to the restatement of the ad­

Opinion and Order



197a

mission policy adopted by the Board of Trustees of Clemson 
College on June 5, 1961, and that this policy carries no 
mention of race; that interviews are required of a great 
number of applicants regardless of race; that plaintiff 
was asked to follow the publicized rules relating to all 
applicants; evidence was submitted that the processing of 
plaintiff’s application for acceptance in September, 1961, 
was cancelled on August 31, 1961, along with more than 
fifty others, because of lack of time for processing for 
entrance in September. As to the time consumed between 
the receipt of the transcript of plaintiff’s work at Iowa 
State University after June 13, 1962, and the date of the 
commencement of this suit, evidence was submitted that 
the transcript of plaintiff’s work was received during the 
time the high school records of freshmen applicants were 
received; that it had progressed to the point of the evalua­
tion of his college credits by July 2, 1962; since two months 
then remained before the opening of school, defendants con­
tend that they were not guilty of unreasonable delay. There 
is no evidence and no allegations, except in the conclusions 
of the pleader, that any application for any other student, 
whatever his race, was processed more speedily than the 
application of the plaintiff.

Evidence was submitted that every inquiry of the plain­
tiff was answered. There is no evidence that any white 
applicant received different treatment. As to the policy 
of Clemson College, the Registrar in his deposition testified 
that Clemson College has not been restricted to white 
persons but that to the best of his knowledge no negro has 
attended Clemson College, no negro yet having completed 
an application to attend. It is true that the Registrar’s 
testimony admits a prior policy under which a negro ap­
plicant would not have been received. Defendants claim

Opinion and Order



198a

that at that time Clemson College had the right to rely 
on the doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 41 L. 
Ed. 256, 16 S. Ct. 1138, as long as it was not overruled. The 
evidence before me at this preliminary stage in the proceed­
ings is that no person has been refused admission to 
Clemson College or otherwise discriminated against on 
account of race since the pronouncement of the United 
States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 
U. S. 294, 99 L. Ed. 1083, 75 S. Ct, 753.

The material allegations of the complaint in support of 
the motion for preliminary injunction were also denied by 
the verified answer.

As stated before, the evidence is that no application of 
the plaintiff for enrollment as a student at Clemson College 
has been denied, that the application filed in January, 1961, 
looking toward enrollment in September, 1961, was can­
celled on August 31,1961, because the necessary information 
was not received in sufficient time before the opening -of 
school to permit the officials of the college time for orderly 
processing before the commencement of the school term; 
plaintiff’s application for enrollment in 1962, has not been 
denied. On July 2, 1962, the Dean of the School of Archi­
tecture, wrote the following letter to the plaintiff: “The 
transcript of your record at Iowa State University has 
been handed to the School of Architecture for analysis and 
evaluation. As, in every case of transfer, there is some 
difficulty in determining the equivalence of courses at an­
other school with courses required for a degree in Archi­
tecture at Clemson. This problem is made more difficult by 
the fact that Iowa State University is on the quarter sys­
tem and we must convert quarters of work into semesters 
of work.

Opinion and Order



199a

“To assist us in the evaluation we must see a portfolio of 
your work in architectural design and drawing at Iowa 
State University with an indication of the duration of the 
exercises submitted. You may submit any other creative 
work you care to show. The more complete this portfolio 
is the better our evaluation can be.

“At the time you submit this to us, or as soon as con­
venient thereafter, we recommend that you come to Clemson 
for a conference. This conference will have to do with the 
standards and procedures of the School of Architecture and 
will not be a substitute for the pre-acceptance interview 
provided by college admissions policies. I will be away from 
the campus from time to time during the summer. Please 
write or telephone for an appointment before coming.”

Instead of complying promptly with the request con­
tained in this letter, plaintiff on July 7, 1962, filed this suit 
for mandatory injunction, together with his motion for a 
preliminary injunction.

The plaintiff on July 13, 1962, acknowledged receipt of 
the Dean’s letter of July 2, 1962, after the suit had been 
commenced on July 7, 1962, as follows: “I am in receipt of 
your letter of July 2, 1962. As you probably know, I have 
instituted an action against the College in order to secure 
admission as a student. Your letter arrived at about the 
time my attorneys were filing the action.

“Please advise me as to whether, in view of my pending 
suit, you will wish me to comply with your letter. I certainly 
want to do everything possible to secure admittance to 
Clemson and will cooperate fully with you and other officials 
to that end.

“In the event I can still comply with your letter, please 
schedule an appointment for me to attend the conference 
which you refer to in the third paragraph of your letter.

Opinion and Order



200a

If it is satisfactory with you, I will bring with me part of 
my work in architectural design and drawing at Iowa State 
University. It will be rather impossible for me to present 
all of my work because of certain procedures and regula­
tions at Iowa State. A great deal of the work that we 
students submit is kept by the Department of Architecture. 
However, some of the work has been returned and this I 
would be most happy to present to you. I will also furnish 
any other information you need to evaluate my work at 
Iowa State.”

This letter was delivered to the attorneys for Clemson 
College and they wrote attorneys for the plaintiff on July 
24, 1962, as follows: “You will have observed in the news­
paper account of a recent Clemson Board meeting that we 
will represent the College and such of its officers as are 
defendants in the above case.

“Since suit was brought, your client has written to Dean 
McClure in reply to his letter of July 2. In view of the 
fact that the administrative remedies of the College are 
under attack in this case, it would seem to us to be highly 
inappropriate that there be any further consideration of 
your client’s application while the litigation is pending. We 
also think it most appropriate that all communications be­
tween our clients be through their attorneys. This will 
explain why we have advised Dean McClure not to reply 
to the letter.”

Attorneys for the plaintiff replied to the letter of the 
attorneys for defendants on July 26, 1962, as follows: 
“Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of July 24, 1962. 
We advised our client to answer Dean McClure’s letter 
because his letter was written at about the same time the 
suit was being filed. Mr. Gantt especially wanted Dean 
McClure and other officials to understand his willingness to 
submit to requirements of the college.

Opinion and Order



201a

“We agree, however, that it will be appropriate that all 
subsequent communications be through the attorneys.”

At the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction 
the plaintiff testified:

“Q. Have you brought with you the portfolio, which 
Dean McClure referred to in his letter of July 2, 1962! 
A. Yes, I have a portfolio. I should say here that it is 
not a completed portfolio; but I have a sufficient amount 
of my work that he might be able to evaluate, I  be­
lieve. * * *

Q. Why is it not a complete portfolio of your 
work at Iowa State College! A. There are rules and 
regulations at Iowa State University in which a student 
submits his work; and in some cases, all of it is not 
returned to the student. However, I have some of my 
work, but most of it and a great deal of it has been 
kept by the university.

Q. Are you prepared to present what you have to 
Dean McClure and other officials at Clems on College! 
A. Yes, I am.

Q. Are you prepared to engage and participate in 
any other interview which they desire to schedule? 
A. Yes, lam .”

The evidence submitted and the verified complaint and 
the verified answer disclose that there are material issues 
of fact in dispute. On the state of the record in this case 
at this time, it is impossible to determine whether there 
has been any discriminatory action on the part of the college 
in the consideration of plaintiff’s application for admission. 
Plaintiff’s right of action rests upon the contention that, 
in the consideration of his application for admission, the 
defendant institution has discriminated against him because 
of his race. To sustain such position on his part, the

Opinion and Order



202a

plaintiff relies almost entirely upon the correspondence 
between him and various officials of the college, and the 
inferences to be drawn therefrom. The defendant institu­
tion denies, in reply, through affidavits and verified plead­
ings, that it has discriminated against the plaintiff on 
account of his race and asserts affirmatively that his applica­
tion has been consistently processed and handled in the 
same manner and with the same standards as all other 
similar applications received by the college. The real ques­
tion thus revolves about whether plaintiff’s application 
was treated in the same manner as all other like applica­
tions. Whether defendant’s position is accurate or not must 
be resolved by reviewing the treatment given the other 
applications by the responsible officials of the college. This 
can only be done when the record incorporates the evidence 
of such treatment. At this stage the record is barren of 
such essential evidence and I cannot, therefore, find that 
the rights of the plaintiff to relief have been clearly estab­
lished or that the plaintiff has shown ample reason why a 
preliminary injunction should be issued in this case.

Plaintiff’s counsel apparently recognized this and noticed 
a motion to permit an inspection and review by plaintiff 
of all the college’s records on the consideration of all 
applications similar to the plaintiff’s on the ground that 
“defendants have the possession, custody and control of the 
foregoing documents, all of which constitute or contain evi­
dence relevant and material to the issues involved in this 
action as is more fully shown in the affidavit of one of 
plaintiff’s attorneys hereto attached”. (Emphasis added.) 
In this affidavit counsel stated “Plaintiff needs access to 
all applications which have been received by Clemson Col­
lege since the date of his first application which was filed in 
January, 1961 in order to discover the manner in which

Opinion and Order



203a

applications other than his were treated and in order that 
he may obtain relevant evidence in support of his petition. 
The above items are in the possession of defendants and 
are necessary to a full and complete consideration of this 
case.” (Emphasis added.) However, plaintiff did not press 
this motion before the hearing on the motion for preliminary 
injunction and at the hearing of the motion for preliminary 
injunction counsel stated that they did not wish it heard 
at that time.

On the incomplete record before me, I cannot make the 
findings of fact required for the issuance of a preliminary 
injunction in this suit. The determination of plaintiff’s 
claim of discrimination must therefore await the develop­
ment of all the relevant and material facts upon the trial.

It is, therefore, Ordered, That the motion for preliminary 
injunction be and the same is hereby denied.

C. C. W y c h e

United States District Judge

Opinion and Order

Dated: September 6,1962. 
Spartanburg, South Carolina.