Traynham v. County School Board of Halifax County, Virginia Brief for Appellants
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1969

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Traynham v. County School Board of Halifax County, Virginia Brief for Appellants, 1969. e331fc7d-c69a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/26aaccd9-9692-4feb-89b3-090732e14a6f/traynham-v-county-school-board-of-halifax-county-virginia-brief-for-appellants. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Copied!
BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13,626 B R E N D A LEE T R A Y N H A M , e t c ., et a l ., Appellees, v. C O U N TY SCH OOL BO A R D O F H A L IF A X CO U N TY, V IR G IN IA , et a l ., Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Danville Division F red erick T . G ra y Williams, Mullen & Christian 510 United Virginia Bank Building Richmond, Virginia 23219 D on P. B ag w e ll Halifax Virginia Counsel for Appellants Page Statem en t Of T he Issues P resented F or R eview ................... 1 Statem en t Of T h e Case (A ) The Nature of the Case.............. ................. ........ -..... ........ 2 (B ) The Course of the Proceedings ........................................... 2 (C ) Disposition in the Court Below ..................................... .... - 3 (D ) Statement of Facts................................................................. 3 A rgum ent I. Is Not The Evidence Conclusive That Halifax Has No Alternative To Freedom Of Choice? ........—------------------ 4 II. Under The Facts And Circumstances Of This Case Should The School Board Have Been Permitted To Retain Its Freedom Of Choice Plan? ....................... ........ . 5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS A ppendix (Exhibits To Defendants’ Answer to Interrogatories) TABLE OF CASES Betts v. County School Board of Halifax County, 269 F.S. 593 (W.D. Va. 1967) ............................. ......................... - .............. 2 Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 ............... ......................... -........................................ 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 Hawthorne v. County School Board of Lunenburg County, 4th Circuit, No. 13,284, July 11, 1969 ......................................-..... 5 Monroe v. Bd. of Commrs., City of Jackson, 391 U.S. 450 ........... 6 Raney v. Bd. of Ed. of the Gould School Dist., 391 U.S. 443 ..... 6 Walker v. County School Board of Brunswick County, 4th Circuit, No. 13,283, July 11, 1969 ............................................................. 5 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13,626 BR E N D A LEE T R A Y N H A M , e t c ., e t a l ., Appellees„ v. C O U N T Y SCH O OL BO AR D OF H A L IF A X CO U N TY, V IR G IN IA , et a l ., Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Danville Division BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The issues presented for review will be discussed in the inverse order o f their appearance in the statement filed and will appear herein as follows: I. Is not the evidence conclusive that Halifax has no workable alternative to freedom of choice? II. Under the facts and circumstances of this case should the School Board have been permitted to retain its freedom of choice plan ? 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE (A) The Nature Of The Case This is a school desegregation case arising after the Green decision but arising in a county which had been the situs of earlier school litigation which had resulted in the implementation o f a court approved “ freedom of choice” plan. The decision o f the District Court approving the freedom of choice plan in the earlier case became final. See Betts et ah v. County School Board of Halifax County, 269 F. S. 593 (W .D . Va. 1967). There is no evidence that the freedom of choice plan has not been fairly administered but there remain schools in the district attended only by members o f the Negro race and others attended only by members of the white race, giving rise to a presumption that the district operates a dual school system. The defendant school board maintains that it cannot successfully be charged with discrimination while it is fairly administering a court ordered plan; that abandon ment of freedom of choice will lead to the withdrawal o f large numbers o f white children from the system, and that at this time, it has no alternative which would not be detri mental to the educational system. ( B ) Course Of The Proceedings The complaint herein was filed on November 20, 1968. The School Board of the City of South Boston, which was originally made a party defendant, was dismissed. On De cember 16, 1968, all remaining defendants filed Motions to Dismiss and Answers. On April 5, 1969, the matter 3 was heard before District Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr. The court announced its findings o f facts and conclusions o f law at the close of the hearing, denied the motions to dismiss, enjoined the defendants to “ disestablish the exist ing dual school system” and to replace it with a “ unitary system” and to “ dissolve the historical pattern o f segre gated faculties.” The court invited the parties to file plans within 21 days. The defendants filed a plan o f operation which was ap proved on June 5, 1969. (C) Disposition In The Court Below The District Court entered an order enjoining defend ants to disestablish the dual school system, including the faculty, and invited the filing of plans to accomplish that end. The defendants filed a plan which was approved and noted an appeal. (D) Statement Of F acts The facts essential to the plaintiff’s case are all contained in the responses to interrogatories. (See Appendix to this brief.) They reveal that the county operates 14 elementary schools, o f those schools 3 were attended exclusively by white students, 5 were attended exclusively by Negro stu dents, the remaining 6 were attended respectively by 175 white, 40 Negro; 369 white, 9 Negro; 485 white, 12 Negro; 184 white, 1 Negro; 305 white, 14 Negro and 178 white, 14 Negro. Out o f a faculty of 222 teachers, 120 white and 102 Negro, each school faculty was integrated to some degree with 15 Negro teachers teaching in predominantly white schools and 28 white teachers teaching in Negro Schools. 4 The two high schools, which are operated by the defend ant, committee o f control, made up o f members from the Halifax School Board and the City of South Boston School Board, were attended— one by 1,741 Negro students, the other by 1,895 white students and 82 Negro students. The faculties o f the two high schools are made up of 14 white and 71 Negro teachers in the school attended only by Negro students, and 87 white and 8 Negro teachers in the other school. There is one faculty member of a third race in the latter school. The defendants cannot deny the existence o f a dual system. The defendant’s evidence, like that in the Lunenburg and Brunswick cases decided by this court on July 11, 1969, is that large numbers o f the white children will flee the system if a system other than freedom of choice is re quired and that funds to build essential improvements will be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain if the schools are totally integrated. ARGUMENT I. Is Not The Evidence Conclusive That Halifax Has No Alternative To Freedom Of Choice? The Superintendent of Schools, Udy C. W ood, the man who has fairly administered the freedom of choice plan and who administered the “ efforts to desegregate their faculty consistent with the teachers’ qualifications” (see Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law ), testified as to the care which should be exercised in placing teachers in integrated positions and the fact that completing the process o f inte grating faculties will require time. ( App. 60) He also testi fied as to the growing private school movement in the area 5 which would operate to drain away from the public school large numbers of white students. (App. 67) He testified that since the New Kent case, he and his staff have given “ a considerable amount o f thought and study, prayerful consideration to how we could work this out.” He did not know how it could be worked out “ so that it would be a work able program under the present handicap that we now have.” (App. 80, 81) It should be noted, however, that Mr. W ood ’s fears grew, not out o f fear of refusal o f the people to obey the law so much as from his understanding of the hard political reality. The School Board must look to the Board of Super visors for funds. One of the most difficult portions of the task of integrating the schools centers around the over crowded high schools and Mr. W ood said that the integra tion o f schools will make it doubly hard for him to obtain funds for the needed junior high schools. (App. 79, 80) No witness contradicted this sincere man who is trying to preserve an educational system where “ it is like selling sand in the desert to get money, local money.’ ’ (App. 79) II. Under The Facts And Circumstances Of This Case Should The School Board Have Been Permitted To Retain Its “Freedom Of Choice” Plan? Counsel here are not unmindful o f the Green case nor are they unaware of the similarity between this case and the Lunenburg and Brunswick cases (Nos. 13, 283 and 13,284 decided on July 11, 1969). But as this brief is written, they are also not unmindful that the predictions o f large withdrawals of white students in a number of V ir ginia counties are no longer mere “ theoretical possibilities” but disturbing facts. Counsel can advise school boards o f similar cases but school boards must, and do, respond with what they believe sincerely to be in the overall best interest of their educa tional system. This school board has faithfully followed a freedom of choice plan ordered by the court, the procedures of which were tailored by the experts o f the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Because that plan does not “ work” , they are charged with discrimination and required to take actions which in their best judgment will work to the detriment of their system. Naturally they appeal-—despite cases to the contrary— in the hope that somehow the court will recognize that in certain areas, in certain cases, the theoretically available alternatives will not work and that some weight will someday be given to the judgment of those who in the end must do the job. W e deem it appropriate to repeat, as applicable to Hali fax, a short portion of what was said in the briefs for Brunswick and Lunenburg School Boards: “ The plaintiffs have sought to meet their burden of proof by merely introducing the statistical information supplied by the defendants in response to interrogatories. Indeed, the plaintiffs offered no witnesses at all. “ Defendants concede that in the light o f Green v. County School Board o f New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 88 S. Ct. 1689; Monroe v. Board of Commissioners of the City of Jackson, 391 U.S. 450, 88 S. Ct. 1700 and Raney v. Board of Education of the Gould School District, 391 U.S. 443, 88 S. Ct. 1697, all of which were decided by the Supreme Court o f the United States in May of 1968, the existence of all colored schools casts upon them the burden o f establish ing that their freedom of choice plan is superior to any other plan in its prospects for the earliest possible end to the dual system. W e submit that the evidence in this case 7 is uncontradicted that freedom of choice is the only plan which promises to work in Lunenburg- County. “ In the Green case, supra, the Supreme Court spelled out the duty o f local school boards. Time and again since that decision school boards have had cited a sentence from the opinion: ‘The burden on a school board today is to come for ward with a plan that promises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work nozv.”'~ “ But those who attribute to Green a condemnation o f freedom of choice per se err, as do those who conclude that the emphasized now meant total and complete desegrega tion of the school system immediately! After the oft quoted phrase the Supreme Court, in Green, went on to say: ‘The obligation o f the district courts, as it always has been, is to assess the effectiveness o f a proposed plan in achieving desegregation. There is no universal an swer to complex problems of desegregation; there is obviously no one plan that will do the job in every case. The matter must be assessed in light of the cir cumstances present and the options available in each instance. It is incumbent upon the school board to establish that its proposed plan promises meaningful and immediate progress toward dis-establishing state- imposed segregation. It is incumbent upon the district court to weigh that claim in light of the facts at hand and in light of any alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more promising in their effectiveness. Where the court finds the board to be acting in good faith and the proposed plan to have real prospects for dismantling the state-imposed dual system ‘at the earli est practicable date’, then the plan may be said to pro vide effective relief.” (Emphasis added) 8 “ Thereafter, the Supreme Court went on to say: ‘W e do not hold that freedom of choice can have no place in such a plan. W e do not hold that a freedom of choice plan might of itself be unconstitutional, al though that argument has been urged upon us. Rather, all we decide today is that in desegregating a dual sys tem a plan utilizing freedom of choice is not an end in itself.’ (Emphasis added) “ And further on: r. . . There may well be instances in which it can serve as an effective device. Where it offers real promise of aiding a desegregation program to effectuate conver sion of a state-imposed dual system to a unitary non- racial system there might be no objection to allowing such a device to prove itself in operation. . . .’ (Em phasis added)” W e simply ask, in the light o f conditions existing in many school districts today, can the plaintiffs sustain a charge of discrimination with a mere numerical chart? Can the Court ignore the testimony of the Superintendent who has faithfully discharged the plan which the court directed and who has tried to integrate his faculty? Can the court take “ judicial notice” that other plans will work when there is clear evidence that in many localities deep trouble is already evident under those “ other plans” ? The court in this case invited the plaintiffs as well as the defendants to file a plan. The plaintiffs offered nothing. The defendants have filed one-—not because they think it will work, but because it is the best they can do and they pray it will work. Believing, as they do, that freedom of choice, slow though it has been in advancing toward the goal of the elimination of the dual system, is the soundest approach, the defend ants respectfully request that they be permitted to return 9 to that system for the benefit o f the total educational pro gram in the county. CONCLUSION W e respectfully submit that the evidence in this case, while disclosing a dual system, also discloses that freedom of choice is the only workable plan available to the defend ants and its continued use should be approved. Respectfully submitted, C o u n t y S chool B oard of H a l if a x C o u n t y , U dy C. W ood, D iv is io n S u p e r in t e n d e n t of S chools an d C o m m it t e e for C on trol of H a l i f a x C o u n t y H ig h S ch ool an d M ar y B e t h u n e H ig h S chool Appellants F red erick T. G r a y , E sq u ire Williams, Mullen & Christian 510 United Virginia Bank Building Richmond, Virginia 23219 D on P. B a g w e l l , E sq u ire Halifax, Virginia Counsel for Appellants EXHIBIT A H A L IF A X C O U N TY SCH O OL BO ARD November, 1968 School Enrollment Teachers White Negro . Other. White Negro Other Clays Mill 0 505 0 6 17 0 Clover 175 40 0 10 2 0 Cluster Springs 369 9 2 13 2 0 Halifax 485 12 0 16 2 0 Sydnor Jennings 0 437 0 5 14 0 Meadville 0 408 0 6 13 0 Rosa 184 1 0 7 2 0 Scottsburg 305 14 0 11 2 0 Sinai 0 623 0 6 20 0 South of Dan 0 635 0 5 23 0 Turbeville 178 14 0 8 2 0 Virgilina 161 0 2 8 1 0 Volens 310 0 0 11 1 0 Wilson Memorial 194 0 0 8 1 0 T otal Co. E le m . 2361 2698 4 120 102 0 Grand T otal Is 5063 EXHIBIT B H A L IF A X CO U N TY -SO U TH BO STO N C ITY JO IN T BO ARD OF CO N TRO L Attendance Records for Month Ending November 27, 1968 Enrollment Teachers School White Negro Other White Negro Other Bethune H.S. (Co.) 0 1485 0 Bethune H.S. (City) 0 256 0 T otal 0 1741 0 14 71 0 Halifax Co. H.S. (Co.) 1498 70 12 Halifax Co. H.S. (City) 397 12 0 T otal 1895 82 12 87 8 i G rand T otal 1895 1823 12 101 79 i EXHIBIT D Name of School Grades Capacity Clays Mill 1-7 610 Clover 1-7 255 Cluster Springs 1-7 395 Halifax Elem. 1-7 550 Meadville 1-7 470 Rosa 1-7 200 Scottsburg 1-7 310 Sinai 1-7 630 South of Dan 1-7 745 Sydnor Jennings 1-7 420 Turbeville 1-7 255 Virgilina 1-7 225 Volens 1-7 270 Wilson Memorial 1-7 195 Halifax County H. S. 8-12 1772 Mary M. Bethune H. S. 8-12 1353 EXHIBIT E 5. a. Near center o f county. b. Approximately 60 classrooms with accompanying facilities to accommodate about 1700 pupils in the 8th and 9th grades. c. As soon as possible. d. Based on present ratio o f white and Negro pupils residing in the county, approximately 50% white and 50% Negro; i.e., approximately 850 white and 850 Negro pupils.