Brief of Appellees

     [||908aec99-63f9-4104-a7a4-dd507c843ec8||] IN THE = 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

  

No. 74-1201 
  

| JAMES E. SWANN, et al., 

ee {hig Appellees, 

i A 3 | 

| THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG | 
BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., 

| fh Defendants, 

and A, 

‘He 'D.. TAYLOR, ‘et al.; {ii ./ 

Additional Defendants 
and Appellants. 

  

On Appeal from the United States District Court for 
the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division 

  

BRIEF OF APPELLEES 

  

J. LeVONNE CHAMBERS 
Chambers, Stein, Ferguson & Lanning 
951 South Independence Boulevard 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 

JACK GREENBERG 

JAMES M. NABRIT III 

NORMAN CHACHKIN 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Appellees.  



Preliminary Statement 

Issue Presented 

Statement of the Case 

Argument 

THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDIC- 

TION AND PROPERLY ENJOINED FURTHER 

PROSECUTION OF THE STATE COURT 

PROCEEDING WHICH WOULD DEFEAT 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT AND 

PREVENT IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS 

JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS 

Conclusion 

ADPENAl Less verstsssssvnsssnsrscsners
sssrsenscsscssrnstnns 

(Transcript of Proceedings of December 1.0, 1973 

with Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 through, 12) 

 



CITATIONS 

Cases 
  

Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board 

188 EF. Supp. 816 AE Del ae 1000) oe ete eects nssvnnesnse 

Green v. County School Board of New Kent County 
391 D.2, 430 Sil pen ENG i SEA eT ee le 

lemon.v. Bossier Parish School Board 

444 F.2d 1400 (5th Cir, 1971) ci cvvecnnevessnsnsnns 

Louisiana v. URIted StateS. vee visas soses 

364 U.S. 500 (1960), affirmed 365 U.S. 569 (1961) 

Lynch v. Snepp 
472 F.2d 769, 761, nn, 1 {4th Cire 19273) ci ov veerene 

Meredith v. Fair 

328 Pe28 586 (5th Clr. 1962) (ent DANCY veces eres 

Mitchem v. Foster 
407 U.S. 225 E10 7 2) ii anne vs ss es ates nvessivesnenesn 

Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education 
402 U.S: 47 orl ten Oe NR a ee i i 

Moses v. Washington Parish School Board 
456 F.24 1285 {5th Cir. 1972). a 0 0 0 ¢ © 0 ¢ © ¢ ¢ 0 00 ee Oo 0 0 oC 

Jackson Municipal Separate School District 
{5th Cir, 19692), rev'd. in part 

{1970) cand suis 

Singleton v. 
419 F.24 1211} 
396 U.5. 290 

Smith v. North Carolina State Board of Fducation and 

Raleigh City Board of Education, 
F.Supp. (Z.D.N.C., Civil No. 2572, 1971)... 

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education 

311 F.Supp. 265 (ND NuCys 1970) suv vevnernesnsnensni 
312 PSurd. 503 (HD. Nelo 1970) cv cet vsnnisnevsnccei 

328 P.8upp. 1326 {(N.DuNuCo¢ 19371) vets tenvossstesnness 
334 P.Supp. 623 (H.DNeCs 1971) sarnsssrsssnsnscncnes 
362 F.8Upp, 1223(107 3) nenensnsrssvieesrnvsssennssensne 

ii 

Page 

  

11 

12 

A
A
O
 

OY
 

WO
 

OY
 

 



113 

Page 

Swann Vv. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education 
369 F.24 29 (4th Cir. 1066) i here st sterner irre 6 

431 P.24 138(4%th Cir. 1970) sun vrsnvonvesnansvionnenn 6 
453 P.24 1377 {4th Cir.l1872) us invnsnsimessnaveernnescs 6 
489 F.28 966 (2th Cir.1974) ce vevnnsvvovssnscnsaenves 6 

402 U.S. 1 (107) si sass ts i ests sts s ernest sanrines 4, 6 

402 V.S. 18-21 {107 1) eset snssnnnsssusesenntsnsneuns 7 

402 U.S 43 E1071) «css cvverstnavrsnsnssnssssaccenns 9, 11 

Thomason v. Cooper ; 
254 F.24 808 (8th Ciy. 1958) seen nsnssssssevcscsnsnns 9 

United States v. Peters 

(U.S) 5 Cranch 115, 136 {IB09) cot ee vtss ct ccntnenns 9 

United States v. Sunflower County School District 
430 F.24 839 {5th Cir, 1070) sts iis ansssnnnnnsranonne 7 

United States v. Tunica County School District 
421 -F.28 1236 (58th Cix. 1970) cov vers oeverenencens the 7 

 



IN THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

  

NO. 74-1201 
  

JAMES. E. SWANN, et al., 

Appellees, 

Vv. 

CHARLOTTE “MECKLENBURG BOARD 

OF EDUCATION, et al., 

Defendants, 

and 

HH, D. TAYIOR, et al., 

Additional Defendants 

and Appellants. 

  

BRIEF OF APPELLEES 

  

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

This appeal is by a group of parents in the Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg School System who were enjoined by the District Court 

from prosecuting a state court proceeding which the District 

Court found involved part of the same issues involved in this 

proceeding. The District Court stated: 

 



"The issue by the State Court proceeding 

will require a determination that there 

has or has not been discriminaton against 

black students in the assignment of 

students within the various classes and 

that the present efforts of the Board to 

eliminate the effects of past racially 

discriminatory practices do or do not 

violate the constitutional rights of 

vhite students. "1 think these two may 

be two sides of the same coin and can see 

no rational way how the subject matter, 

however the decision may ultimately be 

made, can be separated from the basic 

issues of racial discrimination and relief 

involved in Swann. 

The Board of Education should not be 

put to defending the same basic issues in 

two proceedings in two different courts nor 

subjected to possibly conflicting orders. 

If the additional parties defendant desire A 

to be heard on the issue they can intervene 

in this proceeding. ' 

The Court enjoined further prosecution of the state court 

proceeding, but held that the parties may, if they desire, assert 

their claim of racial discrimination against white students by 

intervention in the Swann proceeding. The appellants contend: 

(1) that the issue raised in the state court proceeding is 

not involved in Swann; and (2) that 28 U.S.C. $2283 prohibits 

the injunction issued by the District Court. We respectfully 

submit that the District Court properly enjoined further 

prosecution of the state court proceeding under 42 U.S.C. $1983, 

38 U.8.C. 82283 and the dscigions of this Court and the Suprene 

Conrt.  



ISSUE PRESENTED 

Where a District Court has acquired jurisdiction of a 

proceeding challenging racial discrimination by school officials 

in the operation and administration of public schools and has 

proceeded to order into effect various plans for the elimination 

of such past and present practices, may the District Court 

enjoin a state court ruoaeoding raising basically the same 

issues which may defeat, obstruct or delay the jurisdiction, 

judgments and orders of the Digtrict Court. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

4 

This proceeding has been pending since 1965 and involves 

the efforts of black parents to have enjoined racially discrimina- 

tory practices by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Board in the 

operation and administration of the school system. In 19655 

the District Court enjoined further racially discriminatory 

practices by the Board. In various orders by the District Court 

since 1969, the Board has been directed to implement plans 

which would eliminate all vestiges of past and present discrimina- 

tory practices, including the assignment of students to and 

within schools, the employment and assignment of teachers, the 

location and construction of schools and all other areas of 

  school desegregation which the Supreme Court in Green v. County 

school Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968) and 
  

 



will 

reaffirmed in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 
  

402 U.S. 1 (1971) held must necessarily be considered. 

on October 15, 1973, ten parents filed a proceeding in 

the Mecklenburg County Superior Court challenging the recent 

efforts taken by the Board to eliminate racial discrimination in 

the assignment of students to the exceptionally talented classes 

of the various schools. - The exceptionally talented classes 

were initially instituted by the Board in 1961 as a part of. a 

1/ 
State program authorized by N. C. Gen. Stat. 115-307. The 

program is now known as the Talents Development Program and 

will be referred to hereinafter as TDP. 

Because of the substantial exclusion of black Sidenty 

from the program, the United States Department of Health, 

Education and Welfare in 1973 requested that the Board adopt 

nonracial criteria for the selection of students for TDP. By 

  

1 
Yn. Gen, Stat. §115-307 provides: 

" (2) The term 'exceptionally talented child! 

means a pupil in the public school system of 

North Carolina who possesses the following 

qualifications: 

a. A group intelligence quotient of 120 

or higher; 

bP. A majority of marks of A and B, 

c. Emotional adjustment that is average 

or better, 

d. Achievements at least two grades above 

the State norm, or in the upper 10% of 

local norms of the administrative unit, and 

e. Shall be recommended by the pupil's teacher 

or principal. 

The State Board is authorized to change the fore- 

going criteria fox qualifications as an exceptionally 

talented child, if deemed necessary, provided the 

gaulifications shall be uniform in application."  



memorandum agreement, the Board and HEW agreed that for the 

1973-74 school year, students would be selected for the 

program pursuant to criteria which would not discriminate 

against black students. (See Appendix, p. 92A, 937A) 

The proceeding filed in the state court alleged that the 

criteria instituted by the Board for TDP would discriminate 

against white students pod prayed for a declaratory judgment 

and an injunction enjoining the continued use of the criteria. 

Because the state proceeding might result in resegregation 

of the TDP classes and would obstruct and prevent the Board 

from implementing plans for complete desegregation of ae school 

system, the plaintiffs movad the District Court. on November 13, 

¥973-to add the state court plaintiffs as additional parties 

defendant. The plaintiffs herein further moved for a show 

cause order as to why the state court proceeding should not be 

enjoined (26a-30a; 405-413). The Digtrict Court ordered that 

the state court plaintiffs appear on December 10, 1973 and show 

cause why the state court proceeding should not be enjoined. 

The Court conducted hearings OD December “10, 1973 and 

following the hearing entered a Memorandum and Order finding 

that the state court proceeding raised some of the same basic 

issues involved in Swann and enjoined further prosecution of 
—— 

the proceeding. However, the state court plaintiffs were 

authorized, if they desired, to intervene to present their 

 



contentions in Swann. 

The state court plaintiffs filed notice of appeal from 

the Order on December 19, 1973. 

ARGUMENT 

THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDIC- 

TION AND PROPERLY ENJOINED FURTHER 

PROSECUTION OF THE STATE COURT 

PROCEEDING WHICH WOULD DEFEAT 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT AND 

PREVENT IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS 

JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS. 

1. The issues raised in the state court proceeding 

£] 

involved some of the same basic issues previously determined 

  

  

by the District Court and plans of desegregation being implemented 
  

pursuant to the District Court Orders. 
  

Following the filing of this action in 1965, the District 

Court enjoined the Board to cease operating the school system 

on a racially discriminatory basis. The Court further ordered 

specific steps to eliminate these practices. In 1969 and by 

subsequent orders, the District Court ordered additional relief. 

See 369 F.2d 29 (4th Cir. 1966);311 P.8upp.265 (W.D.N.C. 1970); 

A31 P.24 128 (4th Cir. 1870); 402 u.s. 1 (1971); 328 P.Supp. 

1346 (W.D.N.C. 1971); 453 7.24 1377 (4th Cix. 1272; 334 PF. 

Supp. 623 (W.D.N.C. 1971): 362 F.Supp. 1223 (1973), affirmed, 

489 P.2d 966 (4th Cir. 1974). 

 



The plaintiffs have sought by this proceeding the 

complete elimination of all vestiges of past and present 

discrimination. The Supreme Court noted in Green v. County 
  

school Board of New Kent County, supra, that school desegrega- 
  

tion cases raise issues of discrimination in all aspects of the 

operation of the schools. See also Swann, 402 U.S. at 18-21. 

This includes the RET of students, the employment and 

assignment of teachers and school personnel, the locaion of 

schools, transportation, extra curricular activities and 

every facet of the school operation. Clearly the assignment 

of students within classes and their selection for TDPjare 

matters also included. See Moses v. Washington Parish School 
  

Board, 456 F.24 1285 (5th Ci:. 1972); Lemon v. Bossier Parigh 
  

School Board, 444 F.24 1400 (5th Cir, 1971); United States 
  

  

v. Sunflower County School District, 430 F.2d 839 (5th Cir. 
  

1970); United States v. Tunica County School District, 421 
  

F.2d 1236 (5th Cir. 1970); Singleton v. Jackson Municipal 
  

Separate School District, 41° £.28 1211 (5th Cir. 1969), rev'd. 
  

in part 396 U.8. 290 (1970). 

The TDP classes are principally for children who are 

determined to be exceptional and "gifted". These classes are 

designed to give children more varied and elective courses than 

the regular academic program. The criteria and procedure 

 



previously used by the Board excluded substantial numbers of 

winds children. Students were found to be segregated within 

racially mixed schools. In an effort to eliminate the discrimina- 

tory selection of students for TDP, HEW and the Board agreed to 

2/ 
apply the criteria set out in the statute in a manner which 

would desegregate the classes. The state court plaintiffs 

challenged this Shaadi effort. They contended that the 

procedure followed by the Board in seeking to eliminate 

discrimination in the program would discriminate against white 

students. In short, the state court proceeding challenged the 

efforts employed by the Board and directed by the Distfict Court 

and by HEW to remove all vestiges of past and present racial 

discrimination. As the District Court noted, there is no 

rational way to separate the issue raised in the state court 

action from that previously considered and involved in Swann. 

See also Smith v. North Carolina State Board of Education and 
  

Raleigh City Board of Education, F.Supp. (£.D.¥.C., 
  

Civil No .-.2572,:1%%L) a. 

2. Having acquired jurisdiction, the District Court was 
  

authorized by statute to enjoin state court proceedings in aid 
    

of its jurisdiction and to protect and effectuate its judgments 
  

and orders. 
  

42 U.S.C. §1983 is now recognized as an express exception 

2%. Gen. Stat. $115-307., 

 



  
to 20 u.g.c. §2283., 'Mitchem Vv. Poster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972), 

Although the Site ddt Court in Mitchem reaffirms the requirement 

that District Courts weigh comity, equity, federalism and other 

policy considerations that have long governed injunctions 

against state court proceedings, the jurisdiction Of he Court 

to enjoin executive, legislative or judicial action of a state 

which attempts to deprive the Court of jurisdiction or to 

interfere with implementation of its orders is clear. Bush v. 

Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F.Supp. 916 (E.D.La. 1960) 
  

(three-judge court), stay denied, Iouisiazna v. United States, 
  

161 0c. 500 (1080) | Artivued 355 0.3. 569 (1961); United 

States 'v. Peters, U.S.) 5 Cranch 115, 136 (1809); Swann v. 
  

  

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 312 F.Supp. 503 

(W.D.N.C. 1970) (three-judge court), affirmed, 402 U.S. 43 

(1971); Thomason v. Cooper, 254 F.2d 808 (8th Cir. 1958) ; 
  

Meredith v, Fair, 328 F.2d 586 {5th Cir. 1962) (en banc). 
  

We are not here involved with a proceeding seeking to 

enjoin a pending state court proceeding with no prior jurisdic- 

tion in the District Court. The District Court has had jurisdic- 

tion of this matter since 1965 and has been proceeding with 

efforts to eliminate the denial of constitutionally protected 

rights. Part of the relief directed by the District Court was 

clearly being challenged by the state court proceeding. A 

decision by the state court that the efforts taken by the Board  



-10~ 

to eliminate discrimination within the TDP classes would 

violate the constitutional rights of white children , would 

clearly present the kind of problem that the exceptions provided 

in 28 U.S.C. §2283 were designed to prevent. Such a decision 

would constitute, in effect, an overruling by the state court 

of a decision by the District Court and affirmed by this 

Court and the United Sotias Supreme Court. It would further 

impair or prevent implementation of the relief directed by 

the District Court. 

The appellants contend that the issue of TDP classes 

was not before the District Court. They argue that the 1969 

Order had found no discrimination in the TDP; that Swann involves 

only one aspect of education, the Zions of children to be 

assigned to school on a nonracial basis; that no statute 

authorizes the injunction in aid of the District Court's juris- 

diction nor to protect or effectuate its judgments. 

The 1969 Order of the Court made no reference to the TDP 

classes. The Court there considered ability groupings which 

the plaintiffs alleged perpetuated segregation within classes. 

The Court made no inquiry of the procedures or criteria of the 

Board for selecting students for TDP. The Court, in 1965 and 

1970, specifically enjoined the Board from continuing any further 

racially discriminatory practices. As indicated above, this 

clearly applied to the assignment of students to school as well  



.11- 

as to classes within the schools. It is specious to contend 

that a Board may continue to segregate students within classes, 

although it is enjoined from assigning students to schools on 

the basis of race. The agreement between the Board and HEW 

was simply to implement the injunctive orders of the Court 

covering all aspects of the operation and administration of the 

schools. 

42 U.S.C. §1983 authorizes the injunction issued by the 

District Court. Moreover, the injunction may be sustained as 

necessary in aid of the Court's jurisdiction and to protect and 

  effectuate its judgments and orders. Bush v. Orleans Parish 
4 

School Board, supra; Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of 
  

Education, 312 F.Supp. 503 (W.D.N.C. 1970), affirmed, 402 U.S. 43: 
  

twnch v. Sneppg, 472 P.24 762,761, In. Lia (dth: Clr. 1973): 
  

"it should be noted (that the state court 

injunction did not purport to interfere 

with the jurisdictionof the federal court 

in implementing a unitary school system 

in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, see 

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of 

BAuca., 402 :U.8.:3,:8) S.Ct «wr1267,28-L., 

Ed.28 554 (1971). Thus tne district court 

had no occasion to act, ag it surely could, 

in aid of ite jurisdiction, which is 

another exception contained in the anti- 

injunction statute." (Emphasis added.) 

  

The District Court here specifically found that the relief 

sought by the state court plaintiffs would interfere with its 

judgments and orders.  



~12-~ 

The state court presents basically the same problem 

considered by the District Court and the Supreme Court in 

Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 47 
  

(1971). The School Board throughout the Swann proceeding has 

challenged the various orders of the Court directing relief 

against further racially discriminatory practices. It has 

filed only a per functory response to the state court proceeding 

(30a-34a) and to the motion of the plaintiffs seeking to stay 

the state court action. During the hearing in the District 

Court on plaintiffs' motion, the Board responded only that it 

would comply with the orders of both courts, but would not like 
# 

to be put to defending the same issue in two different courts 

which might result in conflicting orders. It has filed no 

responsive brief on this appeal. As the Supreme Court noted 

in Moore, the state court action here would not present a 

case or controversy with both parties seeking basically the 

same relief. Should the state court proceeding be allowed to 

continue under such circumstances, it would effectively deprive 

the plaintiffs in Swann of the relief they have obtained over 

this protracted litigation. None of the principles of equity, 

comity, federalism or any of the other policy considerations 

against staying state court proceedings would warrant denial 

of the injunctive relief directed by the District Court. The 

relief directed was necessary to preserve the jurisdiction of 

the District Court and to effectively implement its orders.  



~13~ 

Additionally, the relief directed was expressly authorized by 

statute. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, we submit that the District 

court Order should be affirmed. 

Respectfully submitted, 

  

  

Chambers, Stein, Ferguson & Lanning 

951 S. Independence Boulevard 

Charlotte, North Caroljna 28202 

JACK GREENBERG 

JAMES M. NABRIT 111 

NORMAN CHACHKIN 

10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Appellees 

 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that he has this day 

served a copy of the foregoing Brief of Appellees on counsel 

for appellants by depositing a copy of same in the United 

States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: 

Bugh J. Beard, Jr., Esq. 

411 Law Building 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

William W. Sturges, Esd. 

Weinstein, Sturges, Odom, 

Bigger and Jones 

810 Baxter, Street 4 

charlotte, North Carolina 28202 

This 10th day of May, 1974. 

  

  

t¥orney for Appellees 

 



APPENDIX 

 



1A 

      

ee em ee ee. 
pe
t 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT CF THE UNITED STATES 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Charlotte Division 

JAMES E. SWANN, et. al, 

  
and 

| 

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

Defendant, 
) ~ CIVIL NO. 1974 

: 

) 
) 

Hg. D. TAYLOR, EOWARD M. RING, ) 

13 JOINNY L. RITCH, SR., J. E. ) 

JAMES and MRS. OTIS B. EOUGH, ) 

) 
) Added Defendants. 

e
m
 

m
t
t
—
—
—
 

      or
y 

0.0
) 

  
Transcript of Proceedings 

December 10, 1673     
22 

n
r
 
n
—
 

23 

24           
      
  

  

          ————r 

EveLYN S. BERGER 

| 
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

| 
US. DISTRICT COURT 

-HARLOTTE, N. C. 

!  



91
] 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

ro
 3 

fe
t =
 bw)
 

It
 

I»
 

    

        
  

    

    

  

      

  
                    

    

1l. 

12. 

    

: f E 

Staff ¢ 

Letter 

Talent 

Compo 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

Talent 

Char lotte-Mecklenburg 

Leslie Bob 

a. Betty Stovall 

bitt 3 

® 

summary to H.E.W. 

mary OF SAT 

summary to H.E.W. 
£r cm H.E. We. 

elopment Program 

pevelopn nent Program 

Development Program 

De velo) pment Program 
Pa d= 

osition 

3 ~ TN ooo w ap ry \ » = 

Develcpment Program 

oy uN d= BJ le 
icin 

Develcpment 2 

Program 

0
 

11 

20 

Program 

Racial Composition 

Racial Composition 

1973-74 Enrollment 

Grade Level Rac cial 

crade Level Racial 

    
EVELYN S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

UU. S. DISTRICT COURY 

CHARLOTEIE, N. C.      



a 2 

  
  

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

18 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 
        

plaintiff - Julius L. Chambers, Esq. 

Attorney x Law 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

James EF. Lanning, Esq. 

Attorney at Law 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

Defendant - william W. Sturges, Esq. 

" Attorney at Law 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

2dded Defendants - Hugh Joseph 

Attorney at Law 

Charlotte, 

This matter cane for on 

i0, 1273,:8¢L 

Honorable James B. Judge, 

following proceedings were had, to wit: 

COURT: This is 

of Education to seek 

several plaintiffs 

a State court to be made parties in 

cause why they should not be restrained 

the State court suit. I'm locking at th 

the order directs the plaintiffs in the 

Beard, 

North Carolina 

hearing and was heard 

North Carolina, before the 

without a jury. 

a motion 1 

an order requiring 

who have filed a suit against the Board 

this 

ye order but 

  

"3 of FJ Esq. 

and the 

n the Swann versus 

case and to show 

from proceeding with 

I think 

anit 0 

      
EVELYN S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 

CHARLOTTE, N. C.   
 



4 A 

  

  

    

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

4 

show cause why they should not be restrained from proceeding | 
{ 

{ 

with the State court suit. Do you gentlemen have any agreemen 1t 

between yourselves or understanding as to who goes first in 

these circumstances? 

MR. CHAMBERS: No, sir. 

COURT: I think, just for the sake of informa- 

tion, I'm going to put the burden on the petitioners to go 

first and show why the defendants should be made parties. 

I'm not making a ruling of who has the burden of satisfying 

the Court, but I think that may be the most orderly way to 

proceed. 

‘MR. CHAMBERS: We have one or two witnesses that 

we would like to call for the purposes of identifying some 

documents that we want to introduce at this hearing. 

Is there any question about the authentic 

ity of the documents? 

MR. CHAMBERS: I don't think that Mr. Beard has 

had a chance to see them. We didn't have a chance to get them 

fromthe Board beforehand. I think we can establish the authen- 

ticity with the witnesses we have subpoenaed. 

COURT: All right. Suppose you go ahead, then. 

IESLIE ROEBBITT, 
  

Hh
 

po
e 

re
 

witness called by the plaintiff, having been t duly 

sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 

    
      EVELYN S. BERGER 

GEFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
U. S. DISTRICT COURT 

CHARLOTTE, N. C.    



do 

* 

  

  

10 

31 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

DIRECT FYAMINATION   

5 8TY IIA MITTIN 
YI I Ci? J uf Ld > © 
  

0
 

Will you state your name, please? 

W. Leslie Bobbitt. 

Dr. Bobbitt, you are employed by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

In what capacity? 

Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Support. 

Would vou explain what that involves, Dr. Bobbitt? 

I'
S 

I
s
 

[W
H 

(2
3 Organizationally, it involves responsib 7 for the 

sections of the school system responsible for guidance, 

psychology, school social work, pupil rights and respon- 

sibil es and pupil assessment. 

Are you involved with the Board's operation of the talent 

and development program formerly known as the Special 

Abilities and Talents Program? 

Yes 

Would you tell the Court what the talent development 

program is? 

MR. BEARD: Objection. 

COURT: What's the reason for the objection? 

MR, BEARD: I question the relevance of this to 

the question of whether these plaintiffs should 
        EveLyn S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
U. S. DISTRICT COURT 

CHARLOTTE, N. C.    



i 1
 t 

        

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

1% 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25       

Q. 

A. 

be enjoined from conducting a suit. 

CCURT: Overruled. 

Briefly, the talent development program is designed to 

discover and develop the full range of talents the childre€ 

possess. 

Is it generally a program that tries to work with what we 

laymen refer 5 as gifted children? 

Gifted in the broad sense. 

IIow long has the Board been operating this program? 

T believe since 1963. I could be incorrect on that, hut 

it's in that general area. « 

During 1971-72, did the Department of Health, Education 

and Welfare have any conferences with you or with your 

office regarding the Special Abilities and Talents Program 

buring 1971-722 

Yes. 

I don't recall that they did. 

Did they during 1970-71? 

Not that I recall. 

Did they during 1972-737 

what was the purpose of that conference, Dr. Bobbitt? 

The purpose of the--I'm sorry, did you say Civil Rights 

or B.E.W.? 

“J
 

n 

  

Evelyn S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

U. S. DISTRICT COURT   CHARLOTTE, N. C.  



  
  

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

  

Q. 

We had had no contact with H.E.W, 

Have you had any contact with the office of Civil Rights? 

The office of Civil Rights, correct. 

That is an agency of BRE.W., isn't it? 

-« 

Yes, sir. I wasn't sure of which phase of it you meant. 

Yes, we did have contact with Civil Rights in H.E.W. 

And what was the purpose of that conference? 

The purpose was to--for them to investigate the degree to 

which we had abided by the guidelines that they had set 

out or had been set out in regard to our assurances of 

action for qualification for the Emergency School Aid Act 

funds [J] 

Did the Civil Rights division of H.E.W. indicate that an 

insufficient number of black students were being assigned 

to this program? 

It was their opinion that this was true. 

How many conferences, if you know, did you have with H.E.W{ 

with regard to the program? 

In total, up to the present time, you mean? 

Up to the present time. 

Well, were the discussions ever reduced to writing? Did 

you have correspondence with H.E.W. regarding them? 

‘exy little correspondence. 

Did you bring with you this morning some correspondence or 
      EVELYN S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
U. S. DISTRICT COURT 

CHARLOTTE, N. C.    



(0.
4 

>
 

oy Jom 

  
    

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

jo
 

Les
 

> LJ 

information regarding this program and your conferences 

Yes. There is a summary of the conferences, both physical 

and by phone, and such documents as my office presented. 

I show vou a document dated March 28, 1973, and ask you if 

you would tell the Court what that is? 

This is a request from the Health, Education and Welfare 

Department in Atlanta asking for certain information re- 

garding discrimination against children in the operation 

of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. 

I show you another document... ! 

There's more to that. 

All right, go ahead. 

Joined to this--no, I'm sorry, that's all. There are 

attachments in addition to the letter. 

Dr. Bobbitt, would you look at these three documents here 

and tell me whether those are the attachments? 

This is a summary of contacts with the office of Civil 

Rights that we had made for other purposes and thought ic 

might be useful in tying together all the information you 

seem to want for this purpose. This is information we 

- 

Abilities and Talents Program. Th [5]
 

oH
 again is a swmmary of 

» conference that was held with the Civil Rights people. ] 
© 

1
 would like to identify these documents in the order that 
    

      EvELYN S. BERGER 
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

CHARLOTTE, N. C.    



9A 

    
  

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Q. 

A. 

vou refer to them. The letter from H.E.W. dated March 28, 

1973, we would like to identify as plaintiff's exhibit 1, 

The staff summary we would like to identify as plaintiff's 

exhibit 2. The data prepared by the staff for HE. W, to 

show what the Special Abilities and Talents Program was 

about we would like to identify as plaintiff's exhibit 3. 

And the second summary of the staff we would like to iden- 

tify as plaintiff's exhibit 4. Now, Dr. Bobbitt, would 

you look at this. letter from H.E.W. dated June 3, 1973, 

and tell the Court what that letter is about? 

MR. BEARD: Your Henor, could we request a copy 

of this information? 

COURT: Would you give copies to Mr. Beard? 

MR. CHAMBERS: Your Honor, we don't have copies 

with us. I'll be glad to duplicate a copy and 

give it to him.. Would it be possible for him 

£0 use these now for purposes of examining this 

witness? We subpoenaed these records from the 

Board and they brought only one copy with them. 

COURT: All right. 

What is the letter of June 3, 19732 

This is a letter from the Department of Health, Education 

Welfare in Atlanta to Dr. Jones notifying him that the 

Char lotte-Mecklenburg schools had, by that time, met the 

requirements of the Civil Rights assurances for eligibilit 
          Everyn S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 
CHARLOTTE, N. C.    



  

  

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Ae 

Q. 

A. 

for Emergency School Aid Act funds and the conditions 

under which this approval had been granted. 

Does that letter refer to an agreement between H.E.W. 

and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools as to how the Specia 

Abilities and Talents Program will be operated? 

Yes--well, rot how it will be operated but the bases on 

which, some gui 3s lines for assignment of pupils. 

Assurances that there will be no racial discrimination 

in the various classes? 

The range within which racial representation would fall. 

Now, how much money would the Board lose if H.,E.W. decided 

that it was not in compliance with Title 6? 

I don't know. 

Do you know how much money you are receiving now from the 

government? 

The total school system? 

The total school system. 

No, I don't, 

Do you know how much money you are receiving now from the 

school system for the operation of the Special Talents and 

I do not know that figure. 

MR. CHAMBERS: We would like to identify the 

letter of June 3rd as plaintiff's exhibit 5. 

Now, Dr. Bobbitt, you do not have with you personally the 
      EVELYN S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
U. S. DISTRICT COURT 

CHARLOTTE, N. C. 

  
 



-10- 

    
  
  

Yl 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

e
e
 

—
—
 
e
e
 

A. 

      

n of students in the talents development 

H 0 Pt
e 

fo
 

I
E
 

0 | Q {2
 

fe
te

 

Tr
 

| 0 

program, do you? 

No, 1 do not. 

Do you have with you the number of teachers by race assig WO
 jo
 

[§)
 

to this program? 

No, I do not, personally. 

Have you had 3 hide to look at the complaint that was 

filed by several parents in the Mecklenburg County Superior 

Court challenging the way that you have been operating the 

-alent development program for this year? 

Yes, I have. \ 

Does it challenge the way that you have been assigning 

students pursuant to the agreement with H.E.W.? 

It seems to me that it does 

MR. CHAMBERS: Your Honor, we have attached =a 

copy of the complaint filed in the State court 

to the motion that we filed here asking that the 

Court add the adult plaintiffs in that case as 

parties defendant here, and the copy of that 
- 

de 4 

Il 

Se
 

0 the answer that was 

filed bv the State court plaintiffs we are trying 
fo 

2 : 

to 24d here, and we would like to call that tO 

the Court's attention. 

COURT: All right. 

MR. CHAMBERS: I have no further questions of 

  

EvelLYyN S. BERGER 
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

UU. 5S. DISTRICT COURT 

CHARLOTTE, N. C.    



  
    

10 

11 

12 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

BA» RITA 
idle BEARD: 

Dr. Bobbitt, 

"OURT: Any questions of Dr. Bobbitt, Mr. Beard? 

MR. BEARD: Yes, Your Honor. 

ROSS EXAMINATION od \Sr 10S aed 2d 1 BA 
  

- ® 
  

[
 a
 

® 

Dr. Bobbitt, concerning this letter of March 23rd and your 

agreement with H.E.W., was the agreement with H.E. NW. 

ordered by this Court? 

HO. 

What did E.E.W. complain of with regard to your assignment 

of students to the talent development program? 

They felt, basically, that the talent development program 

had been a program for whites and that we had discriminatec 

against blacks in assigning students or in declaring 

eligibility of students for this program. 

Had you discriminated against blacks? 

MR. CHAMBERS: Objection. 

COURT: Well, I don't know that the question is 

competent for purposes of this motion, but I'll 

hear the answer if Dr. Bobbitt wants to make it. 

7ell, that's a very complicated guestion and would demand 

a very complicated answer. 

COURT: If it's that complicated, we won't go 

RIT TIER 
MR. BEARD: Your Honor, I would then raise an 
  

      Evelyn S. BERGER 
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 
CHARLOTTE, N. C.    



  

  

  

10 

11 

12 

14 

15 

16 

1% 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

objection and request that the answer be read 

into the record in any event. I feel this is 

highly relevant and if not to this question it 

is probably the most relevant question. 

COURT: Well, I don't suppose it will take more 

than a few minutes to hear what Dr. Bobbitt 

wishes to say about it and we can go on from 

there. Go ahead. ; 

May I ask a question of you, sir, and ask what you mean by 

discrimination? I find it difficult to cope with the 

question unless I know what your concept of discrimination 

is. 

pid you make use of racial criteria of any sort in deter- 

mining whether or not a person who is a student should be 

admitted or not admitted, or offered admission or not 

offered admission, to the talent development program or 

any of its predecessors? 

By racial criteria, do you mean we would lock at a child 

and say, "You are black and you can't come in" and "You 

No, we did not do that. 

Do you know of any other definition of discrimination 

other than the cone which I gave you? 

Oh, yes. 
      EVELYN S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
U. 'S. DISTRICT COURT 

CHARLOTTE, N. C.      



  

  
  

10 

31 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Q. 

A. 

Q. 

A. 

. Could you 

about whet 

sorts of ¢ 

people. T 

measures d 

that quali 

least by s 

I can give 

Os. Key Why 

There is a 

guess it's 

ently by ¢ 

you 

i a 3 eh a 
I can't anzwe 

Under what 

If you kno 

the specific statute? 

Ww it. 

please give them? 

is where the complexity comes in. Generally 

le field of measurement there is much discussion 

her measurement instruments to determine all 

haracteristics of people are valid for all 

here is generally a feeling that almost all such 
«© 

iscriminate against people who are not white, 

urban people. 80 this would. discriminate 

1 who do not fall in that category to the extent 

fication is determined by such measurements. At 

ome definitions, that would be diseriminaticn. 

you another. 

don't. you, sir? 

general acceptance, I think, of the fact--or, I 

an opinion--that pecple discriminate inadvert- 

heir subjective evaluations. 

say that subjective evaluations are more liable 

discrimination than objective measurements? 

I don't know, 

from development program, does it receive funds 

of North Carolina? 

authority does it receive the funds? 

      Evelyn S. BERGER 
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

CHARLOTTE, N. C.    



~14 

  

  

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

  

I can't tell yon. 

Does it receive funds under the provisions relating to the 

education of exceptionally talented children? 

Yes, I believe that's the title of the legislation or the 

statute. 

Does it--are you familiar with Section 307 of Chapter 115 

exceptionally talented child? 

I think TI 2m. 

This is the one that starts off talking about an I.Q. of 

120 or higher, a majority of marks of A and B. 

Uh, huh, 

Do you believe that the measurement called "a group 

intelligence quotient" is discriminatory? 

MR, CHAMBERS: Objection. 

It nay well SETion k disdse me. 

MR. CHAMBERS: I'll withdraw the objection. 

COURT: You want to join in the objection, Mr. 

MR. BEARD: Right now I might want to. 

COURT: I tell you, I think if we can get on 

to the question I have to decide, we'll probably 

save a little time. It seems to me that the 

question this morning is not whether grounds for 

relief has been stated agains yy ct
 

4 o 4%
 Mm 0 4
 

+
4
 

(4)
 

        EVELYN S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

U. SS. DISTRICT CCURT 

CHARLOTTE, N. C. 

  
 



  

  

  

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

  

proposed to be made additional 

whether the prosecution of this suit and a 

judgment by the State court, whatever that 

orderly handling of what remains of the segrega- 
- 

tion case by this Court because as I remember 
< 

reading the complaint in the newspapers--I, 

frankly, haven't read it thoroughly enough to 

know what it contains fully-~this suit makes 

allegations which would require the defendants 

to ignore whatever sanctions the present judg- 

ment against them might require them to observe. 

I‘mtalking about the School Board. Now, isn't 

that the question before me this morning. 

Yes, sir. 

COURT: I don't mean to cut off your examination 

of Dr. Bobbitt, but I think maybe he has opened 

enough for us all to see 

let's go on to something else. 

harlotte-Mecklenburg 

the definition of exceptionally 

co ITAMTITDS o 

wi sv 2A AI ad Lad @ I have 

School Board comply with 

talented child found in 

No further questions. 

no further questions. 
      Evelyn S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 

CHARLOTTE, N. C. 

  
 



    

  

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

COURT... Thank you, : Dr. Bobbitt, 

MR. CHAMBER Your Honor, I would like to offer 

in evidence plaintiff's exhibits 1 through 5. 

COURT: All right, let them be received. 

MRS. BETTY STOVALL 
  

a witness called by the plaintiff, having first been duly 
I'S 

sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 

sr 
ole 

DET TYR MTIMNAMTON 
DIRECT PPV MINA & ION 
  

  

A. 

2 Will you state your name, please? 

Mrs. Stovall, are you gEployed by the Charlotte-Mecklenbur 

vg ww: 1 se RP PENG | { 
Board of Education? 

And would you tell the Court what your job duties require? 

I am a director of the talent development program, formerl 

known as the Special Abilities and Talents Program. It is 

my duty to identify and place children into a program whic 

is designed to take care of the needs of talented children 

* 3 

Did you bring with you this morning the racial composition 

vou do have that? 

V7   
h 

| 
I 

          Evelyn S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 

CHARLOTTE, N. C.    



  

  
  

  

A. (Whereupon, the paper w 

This is cur elementary 

and teachers. This is 

teachers go to the scho 

high school program wit 

each class. 

ratio, black-white 

COURT: Is the talent development program a 

3 . - 1 -~ - . 

riting is handed to Mr. Chambers.) | 

progr with the number of classe 

an itinerant program where the 

ols. This is the junior and seniox 

h the children and the teachers in 

compilation of the years with the 

  
    

9 part of the local klenburg public school 

10 system? 

11 A, Yes, it ls. % 

12 COURT: And it's funded by a combination of 

13 City, County, State and Federal revenue? 

14 A. Not federal. It is funded by the State Department for 

15 Exceptional Children and from the local system. 

16 | COURT: So ag far as this particular program is 

| 
17 |) oncerned, it doesn't have any federal funding 

| 

18 except to the extent that it is a part of the 

19 | same school administration? 

20 A. That is true with the exception of one year when we had 

21 one person part of the year but that was not continued. 

22 COURT: The children who attend the talent develop 

23 ment program are regular school age children? 

24 A. They are. 

25 COURT: At what age do they get into that program? 

Evelyn S. BERGER     OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

u. S. DISTRICT COURT   CHARLOTTE, N.C. 

 



1.5 

      
      

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

[Se A. We have a few children in the itinerant resource program 

who are in the first grade and there are children in zll 

grade levels. 

COURT: All right, thank you, Mrs. Stovall. 

Oh, I should have asked, how many children do 

you have in this program all put together, at 

the predint time? 

A. I will need to have my own folder, if I may, please, to 

give information about that. 

COURT: I don't need to know the exact number. 

I just wanted to get an approximation. 

A. In the elementary program there are approximately 4,186 

children: in the secondary program approximately 3,889. 

COURT: So you have got a little over 8,000 all 

together? 

A. That is true. 

COURT: Roughly ten or eleven percent of the 

students in the whole program are in this 

particular part of it? 

COURT: Is the talent development program some 

special attention which occupies a portion only 

of the school day or is it a full-time division 
~ 

of the school operation? 

B.
, 

i. 
- 

» It is part-time. The students only come to these classes 
  

      EVELYN S. BERGER 
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 

CHARLOTTE, N. C.    



  

  
  

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

or have the attention of the teachers a part of the day or 

a part of the week. 

COURT: O. K. Do you have any further questiongd 

MR. CHAMBERS: Yes, Your Honor. I wanted to 

identify these documents. Plaintiff's exhibit 

number 6 we would like to identify as a document 

Neaded “Talent Development Program, Racial 

Composition, Secondary Teachers and Students” 

showing these racial compositions for 1970-71, 

1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. 

COURT: That's the junior high and ‘senior high? 

MR. CHAMBERS : Yes, Your Honor. Plaintiff's 

oxhibit 7 is a document headed "Talent Develop- 

ment Program, Racial Composition, Elementary 

Itinerant Resource Program for 1873-74." 

COURT: Why do you have that title, "Itinerant 

Regource Program"? Is that the traveling 

teachers? 

MR. CHAMBERS: Plaintiff's exhibit 8 is a docu- 

ment het ded, "1973-74 Enrollment, Talent Develop 

ment Program." 

COURT: That is the current year? 

MR. CHAMBERS: Yes, Your Honor. Plaintiff's 

exhibit 9 is a document headed, “Talent Develops 

ha 
¥ 

i 

ent 

            Evelyn S. BERGER 
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

U. S. DISTRICT COURT   CHARLOTTE, N. C. 

 



  

LT 

    
  

  

  

    

1 | Grade Level Racial Composition." This consists 

9 | of four pages showing the racial composition 

| .( 
3 | for 1970-71 through 1973-74. That's for junior 

| 

4 high schools. And plaintiff's exhibit 10 is a 

5 document headed, "Talent Development Grade Level 

| 
6 Racial Composition of Students" for 1670-71 

7 through 1973-74 for the senior high schools. 

8 Q. Mrs. Stovall, have you had any conferences. with representa- 

9 tives of the Civil Rights Division of H.E.W.? 

10 A. Directly, no, none. 

1d Q. You didn't have any correspondence from them? 

12 A. Not directly, no, sir. 

13 MR. CHAMBERS: I have another document headed, 

14 vcharlotte-Mecklenburg School Racial Composition 

15 of Talent Development Classes for 1972-73 and 

16 1973-74", which we would like to identify as 

17 : plaintiff's exhibit 11, and another document 

18 which we would like to identify as plaintiff's 

19 exhibit 12 headed, "Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 

20 December 6, 1973, Estimated Cost, 5.A.7. Progran.” 

21 I have r.» further questions. 

22 CROSS EXAMINATION 

23 BY MR, BEARD: 

24 Q. Mrs. Stovall, when are students normally admitted or offered 

25 admission to the S.A.T. Program in the junior high schoolg? 

EveLyn S. BERGER 
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 

CHARLOTTE, N. C.       
 



Yn 

  
  

    
    

        

1 | A. In the spring of the year that they are in the sixth an 

D) | Q. Would this be in May, right before school ends, or a we 

3 | earlier? 

4 | A. Usually we begin the process of getting identifications 

5 | in in February and the papers come in in March and the 

6 | classes are pale up and delivered to the schools usually 

7 the latter part of April or in May. Sometimes we are 

8 delayed and it's later in May. 

9 Q. Ma'am, are you familiar with plaintiff's exhibit 5? 

10 A. Yes, I know what this is. 

11 Q. Were any students admitted or offered admission to the 

  
    
  

  

12 S.A.T. talent development program pursuant to this letter? 

13 A. Yes. 

14 Q. When were they admitted? 

15 A. They were admitted during the summer of 1973. 

16 Q. Are students normally admitted to the S.A.T. Program in 

17 the fanior high schools when they are in the seventh, eighth 

18 || or ninth grades for the next year? 

19 || A. If there is a vacancy in the classes, then, yes, Wwe do. 

20 OQ. But you do not normally create vacancies? 

21 A. What do you mean ky create vacancies, please? 

29 0. Is it normal that a class will be expanded or increased 

23 so that there will be more people in the s.A.T. program 

24 in a given class passing through in the eighth grade than 

25 there were in the seventh? 

Evelyn S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 

CHARLOTTE, N. C.                           
 



5 

  

      
  

            
            

1 {| A. Not to a great extent. There may be if there is room in 

2 | the class, but normally the seventh grade moves to the 

3 eighth grade unless there is some reason for a child not 

4 continuing. 

5 0. Vere the classes increased this summer, the summer of 1973? 

6 A. They vere. : 

7 Q. Why? 

8 A. Because we were asked to improve the racial balance in the 

9 3.5.7. classes and in order to do this we added other 

10 children. 

11 Q. What was the race of the children you added? * 

12 A. Black. 

13 GQ. In all cases? 

14 A. In nll cases. 

15 Q. Did each of these children meet the same qualifications as 

16 children previously admitted? 

17 MR. CHAMBERS: Objection, Your HOnor. I don't 

18 think that that is really the subject matter 

19 that we are here today to consider. We are 

20 simply here, as the Court indicated earlier, fOr 

21 determination of whether the Court should enjoin, 

22 the parties from proceeding with the State court 

23 | matter because it might interfere with the roard's 

24 implementation... 

25 COURT: I might have brought this on myself when 

Evelyn S. BERGER 
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 

Wate halk 
 



-23- 

  
  

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

no
 

(p
} 

A. 

A, 

I called on you to tell us what you had in mind 

when you filed this motion, and cross examinatioh 

is germane to the direct examination and the 

exhibits, so for a little while I am going to 

allow the cross examination. 
< 

7ill you repeat’ the question, please? 

Ww
W COURT: - He said, did the children. admitted in ths 

summer and fall, did they meet the same standards 

as the previous ones? 

Not all. N 

Do you have a waiting list, ma'am, of persons waiting to 

be admitted to the talent development pede 

In some schools, yes. 

Do your records, whether you have them here or not, show 

the qualifications and the criteria used to admit these 

persons to the 5.A.T. talent development program? 

Do I have records of the waiting list children? 

COURT: Somebody let me see the exhibits from 

about 6 und 7 through 12. 

(Whereupon, the exhibits are handed to the Court.) 

What criteria, ma'am, do you use for deciding who shall be 

admitted to the S.A.T. program and, first, what criteria 

did you use up until the decision which is recorded in 
      EVELYN S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
U. S. DISTRICTZEQURT   
 



25A 

    
  

  

          

- 

| | 
| 

1 plaintiff's exhibit 5, which I just showed you, the decision 

2 | to comply with H.E.W. guidelines? 

S MR. CHAMBERS: Your Honor, without belaboring 

4 the matter, I would like for the record to 

5 reflect that we have not gone into discovery 

6 with respect to the Board as to the criteria 

7 that it applied previously and the criteria that 

8 it applies now for selecting students for the 

9 S.A.7. Program. We submit that the procedure 

10 that has been followed previously has discrimi- 

11 nated against black students and we think that 

12 is a matter that should be before the Court at 

13 some subsequent hearing. 

14 COURT: Gentlemen, I am going to hear a little 

15 more examination from Mr. Beard 'if he wishes to 

16 | pursue it, but I think it must be apparent to 

{ 

17 all the lawyers here that I'm not sitting here 

18 thiz morning to decide whether or not, in fact, 

19 || there has been discrmination. It's apparent 

20 from the questions that the issues that the 

21 plaintiffs in the State court suit raised are 

22 issues which certainly ought to be handled in 

23 this court if they get to court--~they might not 

24 come to court--but the nature of the controversy 

25 is whether there has or has not been discrimination 

Everyn S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

U.S DISTRICT COURT       
 



Be 26A 

  

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

no
 

$)
 

  

or is or is not being discrimination in the 

conduct of the talent development program. I 

think the question of whether to arouse all of 

that into this one suit is the question before 

me. The question before me is not whether there 

ie or is continuing to be any unpropriety in the 

operation of the program. Do you agree with 

that, Mr. Beard? 

MR. BEARD: I would maintain that the issue 

before the Court here is whether the relief 

sought by the plaintiffs in the State court will 

in any way, conflict with the order which Your 

Honor has granted in the Swann case, or whether 

it will deprive jurisdiction of this court which 

it may exercise in the Swann case. 

COURT: If I understand it, the question which 

I have to face first 1s whether under the so- 

called anti-injunction statute a restraint con 

the State court action is or may be necessary 

to protect the jurisdiction of this court or to 

effectuace the judgments of this court, and 

assuming, if you get past that question, whether 

the injunction is barred by the--what is it, 

2281-~0r 2283, and then you have the question of 

whether, in fact, a restraint ought to be made. 
      EveLyN S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
U. S. DISTRICT COURT 
CHARIOTTE & ~   
 



27A 7A 

  

  

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

13 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

4
 That's the question ag I understand it. Do 

understand it correctly? 

MR. BEARD: I believe so. 

COURT: Well, I think I have heard many times, 

as a contention and at one time there was a lot 

of law cited to that effect that if you make a 

special arrangement in favor of black students 

you discriminate against white students, in the 

school context. Haven't the courts pretty well 

passed that point? I thought that was the whole 

Y : 
meaning of this original decision of the Supreme 

Court in the Swann case, that there are some 

things that need to be done to correct past dis- 

crimination which may, in practical application, 

not be liked by other races, Tuk in spite of 

that there is a duty to do, some of what I 

believe Mrs. Stovall said they are doing. 

MR. BEARD: Your Honor, I would maintain first 

that I do not believe that was ordered by the 

Supreme Court in Swann or ordered by Your Bonor 

in any ocher orders in Swann and, secondly, that 

it is not a duty to 40 this in this sort of. a 

program. While it may be a duty... 

CCURT: Isn't this a question that cannot be 

decided without reviewing or having in mind the 
          Evelyn S, BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
U. S. DISTRICT COURT 

LLIADI ATTY OL Lad 

  
 



28A 

    
  

            

= se — pi 

1 considerations that this Board is very much 

3 | involved with in the Swann case? HOw can you 

3 divorce this major fragment of the school 

4 administration from the judgment, whatever it 

5 wag, in the Swann case? 

6 MR. BEARD: Your Honor, I would maintain that 

7 it is completely separate and independent, and 

8 when we come to the presentation of my argument 

9 before this Court I will try and convince you of 

10 | that. At the present time I would rather see 

: ‘ 

i | what remains of Mr. Chambers' evidence before 

12 j I go on to argue against it. 

13 COULT: Well, have you about finished with Mrs. 

14 Stovall? 

15 MR. BEARD: I would like to get that one 

16 question in, what are the criteria that were 

17 used? That question and the question of what 

18 criteria are presently being used will be ny 

19 last questions, Your Honor. 

20 COURT: Go ahead. 

21 A. The criteria that we use in referring youngsters to the 

22 8s. A.T. progrem is a wide band of criteria, no cone item of 

23 which is to be the determining factor. We ask for a 

24 report on test scores, the 1.Q.. the score on paragraph 

25 meaning, arithmetic coacepts; we ask for grades; we ask 

| Evelyn S. BERGER 

| OE Ltias Bice   
 



-28~ 29A 

    

  

1 for a teacher recommendation. We also ask for evaluation 

2 of the teacher's and the school's opinion of the child's 

3 level of motivation, attitude toward work, curiosity and 

4 creative thought. We also ask for thirteen other pieces 

5 of information concerning skills and skills development. 

6 We also ask folk their indication of interest or particular 

7 talent that the teacher in the school sees that the children 

8 have. This is all put together on a Stanine basis and the 

9 average of that places the child in a ranking order for 

10 placement in the class. 
¢ 

11 Q. This was the criteria used prior to 2pril lst of this year? 

12 A. This is the criteria used prior to placement this year. 

13 Q. Hag this been changed since April? 

14 A. It has not been changed. 

15 Q. Have children been admitted out of the particular order? 

16 A. Out of the order we have given you? 

17 | Q. Yes, out of the order of their averages. 

18 | A. Yes, some black students have been put in out of order So hs © 

19 MR. BEARD: Thank you very much, ma'am. 

20 MR. CHAMBERS: I have no further questions, Your 

21 Honor. 

29 | COURT: Thank you, Mrs, Stovall. 

23 |i MR. CHAMBERS: Your Hmor, I would like the record 

24 to reflect that we have not... 

25 COURT: What is it that you plan to show further? 
    

fverLyn S. BERGER 

| OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER     ! UJ... S. DISTRICT COURT 

 



20 304 

  

  

        

1 MR. CHAMBERS: You mean from Mr. Waddell? 

2 COURT: Yes, 

3 MR. CHAMBERS: I think he has some exhibits we 

4 want to intrcduce. I'm not sure. No, we have 

5 no further witnesses. 

6 COURT: All right. 

7 MR. BEARD: We would request that the plaintiff 

8 be ordered to deliver copies of the exhibits 

9 6 through 12 to the defendants--these defendantg-- 

* | as soon as possible. . 

11 COURT: All right. They are required to do 

12 ; that under the rules. How soon can you deliver 

13 the copies? 

14 MR. CHAMBERS: Your Honor, we can do it in a day. 

15 We just need to take them and Xerox them. 

16 COURT: All right. 

17 MR. CHAMBERS: Again, I would like for the record 

18 to reflect with respect to Mrs. Stovall's testi 

19 meny, we have not completed discovery of the 

20 Board and staff. We have challenged in the 

21 | motion and will challenge before the Court if 

22 the Court in some subsequent time decides to 

23 rule on it, the constitutionality of the manner 

24 in which the special development talents prograrn 

25 has been administered by the Board. 
EVELYN S. BERGER 

es 
 



“30 31A 

    
    

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

no
 

$3
] 

COURT: Well, as I said a while ago, I am not 

here today to try the constitutionality of the 

actions of the Board as reflected in the talent 

develcpment program, but I have heard some of 

this evidence merely to confirm what is obvious 

from the pleadings that the issues presented by 

the motion are squarely and inextricably involved 

in the Swann case. I don't see how you can reac 

a different conclusion. 

MR. CHAMBERS: Your Honor, 1 quite agree with 

what the Court said. I recall back in an order 

where the Court looked into the various matters 

throughout the history the Court has specificall 

enjoined the Board from continuing any further 

discriminatory practices in the operation and 

administration of the schools. 

COURT: I'm not going to pretend the Swann litio 

gation never cccurred. It's still very much 

alive. I would have to pretend it doesn't exist 

in order to reach & different conclusion. 
~ 

~ 

MR. CHAMBERS: We have no further evidence, if 

the Court has no further questions of us. 

COURT: I have no further questions. Mr. Beard] 

4 ™ ry - 

MR. BEARD: Your Honor, we would like to bring 

*h 

        Evelyn S. BERGER   OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

 



-3)]- 324 

  

  

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

gerved us with a summons, a document which is 

up before Your Honor and bring to Your Honor's 

attention, first, cur motion to dismiss for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted. We would like to point out some of 

the following facts and matters which are already 

a matter of record. The plaintiffs served the 

defendants with the following documents: They 

apparently the original complaint in the Swann 

case, a copy of a motion for further relief in 

the Swann case, an order to show cause and an 

order. No other documents were served on these 

defendants. The summons mentions these defen- 

dants in the caption, it gives their names. 

The complaint mentions the Board of Education 

in the caption and in paragraph 4 of the 

complaint it notes no other defendants whatso- 

ever. It mentions a claim against the Board of 

Education for official racial discrimination 

not involving the S$.A.T. Program, not involving 

discrimination in advance programs whatscever. 

Ld 

It mentions a motion for further relief which, 

La
n 

| 

itself, takes care of only the Board of Educatigd 

ag a defendant. It 28Ks yelief only against 

the Board of Education and while it does make 
    

       EveLyn S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

U. S. DISTRICT COURT        



32 

  

    
  

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

  

some discussion of the advanced classes, it does 

not discuss the lawsuit in the State court which 

is entitled, "Taylor vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

poard of Education." The order which was served 

on us adds these defendants--Mr. Taylor and 

others--as defendants. It allows the plaintiffs 

to amend their complaint to add these defendants 

T+ orders the summons and complaint and a copy 

of the order which I am mentioning be served on 

these defendants. It orders a copy of the 

various pleadings be served on me as counsel for 

these defendants and recites certain facts in th 

preamble to the order with regard to these defen 

dants, which facts we deny. It orders us to show 

cause--the show cause order has the following 

mentions: It orders these defendants--Mr. Taylor 

and others--appear and show cause why these 

defendants ought not be enjoined from further 

prosecution of Taylor against Board of Education. 

Tt orders a copy of that order served upon these 

defendants. It recites allegations by the plain 

tiffs that the State court suit would interfere 

with previous ordera of the Court and defeat the 

jurisdiction of this Court. No such allegationg 

have ever been served upon these plaintiffs--or 
            EvelYN S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
nC TODIoXE HIRT   
 



33 

  

    
  

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

these defendants-~plaintiffs in the State court. 

Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

state that an action begins with the filing of a 

complaint with the court; no cemplaint mentioning 

these defendants has ever been filed with the 

ancl Rule 8(a) states that pleadings shall 

contain a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief 

and the demand for relief to which he deems him- 

self entitled. Your Honor is far mpre familiar 

with these rules than I am. I would point out 

that neither the swamons, compiaint, motion fox 

further zelief, order, or the order to show 

cause states any allegations of facts about or 

related to these defendants. The orders recite 

facts. They recite these to have been alleged 

but the other paper writings that have been 

served on these defendants make no such allegatic: 

I would point out to the Court that one does not 

answer orders of the Court, one obeys them. We 

can't file a pleading which says, "Now comes 

the defendants answering the order of the Court 

* 

and allege and say that we deny the orders of the 

Court.” We have to obey them, we can't answer 

them. And even if the recited facts and the ordédrs 
          

po
e 

rm
 

  

EveLyN S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER   
 



—3h 

  

  

  

(3
 ] 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

| 

of the Court were supposed to be answered, they 

are insufficient to tell us what we're being-- 

what the plaintiffs claim we did. 

COURT: Maybe I read it differently than you 

did, but I started out with the understanding 

that this was a motion to add additional parties 

and that the request in that motion was that 

the plaintiffs in the State court proceedings 

be allowed to intervene in the Swann case if 

they desire to challenge the operation or 

administration of the talent development program. 

MR. BEARD: Would vou run that by me again 

please? 

COURT: I'm reading to you from the motion that 

wags filed in the case upon which the order was 

MR. BEARD: Well, Your Honor, I have received 

that motion, or the information contained in 

that motion, through gossip with your secretary, 

I have never received it any other way. It has 

not been served on any of these plaintiffs in 

the State court who are defendants here. 

COURT: Is what you are saying simply that the 

order did not require that the motion be served 

gE oi} a upon the plaintiffs? 
        

Everyn SS. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER   
 



36A 
3G 

  
  

  

1) 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

no
 

(5
) 

  

P
P
A
R
 

MR. BEARD: No, Your Honor, I am maintaining 

that there has been no complaint filed in this 

case. 

COURT: I'm talking about the motion. 

MR. BEARD: No, sir. 

COURT: was a motion served on you? 

MR. BEARD: No, sir. Mr. Chambers served upon 

my plaintiffs in the State court--defendants 

here-~several--a conglemeration of documents 

but no complaint concerning them. Therefore, we 
% 

would suggest that this action be dismissed as 

to these defendants and if the Court deems 

proper that the plaintiff be granted leave to 

plead anew. At the present time these pleadings 

do not state a claim against these defendants. 

They don't state any claim, period. 

COURT: Well, the motion before the Court is that 

injunction be issued and that the State court 

plaintiffs be allowed an opportunity to file a 

complaint as intervenors in the Swann case. 

MR. BEARD: Your Honor, I'm informed that the 

order has already been entered. 

COURT: What order. 

MR. BEARD: An order which was served.. 

COURT: The order to show cause? 

      
      EvetyN S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER   
 



10 

il 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24   

  
  

  

  

35 37A 

  

  

MR. BEARD: 

I was told was signed on the 29th of November 

which ordered, adjudged and decreed that H. D. 

Taylor and others be and they are hereby added 

  as additional parties defendant and it is ordered 

that. the plaintiffs be and they are hereby grant 

leave to add these parties as parties defendant 

and the order with copies of the complaint and | 

summons be served on the added parties defendant, 

together with a copy of this order. It is also 

€ 

ordered that I be served with a large conglomera- 

tion of orders and opinions of this Court and 

we have served upon the plaintiffs and filed a 

motion to dismias this case. 

COURT: Well, I think you are right, the questian 

is not the making of the parties but... 

MR. BEARD: We have been made parties but no 

complaint has been filed that concerned these 

defendants, and therefore... 

Let me catch up with you. The order tO 
& 

show cause why an injunction shouldn't be entere 

staying further prosecution of the proceedings 3 

the State court--that's what we're here for now, 

PST NTA R 
MI CEP = JY e936 BLE 4 IT have filed a motion... 

COURT: No such order could have been made withaut 

| 
| 

No, an order entitled "Order", which 

7)
 

      
  

Evelyn S. BERGER     OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
= PE es  



a
 

A>
} 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

20 

21 

22 

37 
38A 

  
  

making them parties in some fashion in this case 

MR. BEARD: But an order of that sort cannot be+- 

a preliminary injunction cannot be entered when 

no complaint has been filed, and we would main- 

tain that that which has been filed and served 

on tiave defendants is not a complaint. It is 

a conglomeration of documents which do not state 

anything with regard to these defendants. 

COURT: If you will read them you will find they 

gtate a lot of facts that bear on this case. 

MR. BEARD: And we have filed a motion to dig- 

ca 3 a am a : 14 Rg N 
aq A <3 ¥ } =F LPTs) ~ Ra bi al <Q en de - ems wo a moan oy §o 

miss and we would 4pprecad te a ruling ur that 

grant preliminary injunction, for the Court i: 

to deny the motion to dis smiss. 

MR. CHAMBERS: Prior to the Court's signing of 

these orders that are referred to, I called Mr. 

Beard and told him that the Court might hear this 

matter on today and I forwarded to him-~at least 

I thought my secretary did--a copy of the draft 
- 

- 

order along with the motion that we had £11 

-he motion but the orders. 

MR. CHAMBERS: Well, I thought a motion was 

                    forwarded along with it and as I recall, when 
  

Evelyn S. BERGER 
cricial COURESREPORIER      



39A 

  

    

  
    

      

38 

| 

1 | ' the orders that were filed were served by the | 

| 
: ’ ; f 

2 | Marshal a copy of the motion was included with 

te ah 
3 that, too. If all he is talking about is that 

4 he hasn't received a copy of the motion that we 
| 
| 
| 

5 filed in November, we are prepared to Sve him 

| 

6 an additional copy of the motion at this time. 

7 MR. BEARD: Your Honor, we would maintain that 

8. in order to make us parties defendant, that 
i 

| 
complaint must be amended. It cannot be amended 

| 

10 simply by serving upon us a conglomeration of 
i 

1 motiens and orders which do not necessarily 

la gtate facts... 

13 COURT: Mr. Beard, let me find out if you have 

‘a . 
14 any comment on the merits of the case, that is, | 

| 

15 whether this suit in the State court deals with | 
| 

li 
i 

16 the same people and the same issues that are | 

17 still under the jurisdiction of this Court in | 
| 

18 ~ ™ Be $ yu & I 

+he Swann case. Do you say they have nothing te | 
| 

19 Yr vai aide. pyres zy’ | 
do with that case? | 

20 MR. BEARD: Yes, sir. In the first place, I would 

2 
[3 Pe [) 

i point out the following: That we have filed with 

22 OUX.e. 

23 COURT: Let me interrupt just a moment before 

24 you go further. Are all twelve of the jurors ir 

= ; : 

a the case we were trying Friday in the courtroom 

EVELYN S. BERGER   AH "POR a Al 2 R     

  

It      



40A 

  
  

| 

(Following a brief pause to permit the Court to | 

speak to the jury, the proceedings continued.) | 

3 | COURT: As I understand the complaint you have | 

filed in the State court suit, it raises the 

© 

| 

{ 

| 
5 | question of racial discrimination, it alleges | 

| 

i 

| 

i 

| racial discrimination against white students. 

{ 

7 Isn't that the gist of it? 

8 MR. BEARD: That and violations of the statute 

9 involved in this case which is 115-307. We | 

10 maintain racial discrimination violates the 

11 statute. | 

12 COURT: You could say that a complaint by one | 

13 group that there is discrimination against the 

14 black children ought to be handled by a different | 

15 court than a complaint by another group that says |   
16 there is discrimination against white children 

  
    

7 | but I have trouble seeing how you can separate 

18 |i it. Certainly all the contentions have been | 

19 | vigorously urged at every stage of the... 

20 MR. BEARD: But not with regard to the S.A.T. 

21 program. The only allegations with regard to 

22 the S.A.T. Program were... 

23 COURT: I added up the figures a while ago. 

24 There are currently 9539 children. This is 

A 25 about twelve percent of the populat jon Of the |     
Evelyn S. BERGER 

| 

 



41A 

  

      
  

  

  

      

Fe 

1 | : local schools and it is apparently a right high 

2 | visibility part of the program. I can't see how | 
| | 

3 | rationally you can separate them. 

4 MR. BEARD: In the first place, in the Swann case | 

5 Your Honor separated them. Your Honor said when | 

8 1 it is mentioned in the motion for further relief, 

7 i. your Honor, in the next order on that which was | 

8 your order, I believe, of April 23, 1969, which | 

9 wag the first one, I believe, the oldest one | 

10 gerved upon me by Charbers and I agsume the | 

11 first one Your Honor wrote, Your Honor stated | 

12 on page 1367 concerning advanced sections, | 

13 "few black students are in the advanced sections | 

14 and most are in the regular or slow sections. | 

15 Assignments to sections are made by the various | | 

16 schools, based not on race but on the achieve- | 

17 ment of the individual student in a particular | 

18 subiect. There is no legal reason why faster 

19 oneg in a particular subject should not be 

20 allowed to move ahead while slow learners are 

21 rought up along at their own pace to avoid 

22 frustrations. It is an educational rather than 

23 a legal matter to say whether this is done with 

24 the students all in one classr om or separated 

 — 25 into groups.” Your Honor, I would maintain that 

i Evelyn S. BERGER 
OFFICIAL COURT.REPORTER        



  

  

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Do
 

(1
   

“5 @ Your Honor has already ruled against Mr, 

Chambers' assertions 

COURT: The nature of the ruling is not what we 

are talking about here. The subject of the rul 

was questions of discrimination in the operatic: 

of the schools and these guestions have not hee 

brought before me in the last four and a half 

years and I would be happy if they are not, but 

there 1s no need to vulcanize one lawsuit abo 

one school board and one group of chi ldren. 

MR. BEARD: Your Honor, I would trad in 

the first place, that we are not vulcanizing the 

lawsuit; that the lawsuit has not contained any 

order, any finding of facts other than the one 

I just read to you concerning the S.,A.T. or 

advanced program; that we are not violating any 

order of this Court by bringing this lawsuit... 

COURT: No, you have not viclated any order of 

this Court by bringing the suit. That's not 

the question. 

MR. BEARD And the School Board would not viols 

’ ~ § [3 

any order of this Court if it 4id as these 

plaintiffs request them to do. The School Boaxc 

could obey the law and act on a rational, non- 

discriminatory basis without violating any law 

  
ing | 

| 
A 

| 
| 

3 

  
    
  

   

Evelyn S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

1 © CS YN BA Talal RRs          



43A 

        

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

18 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

  

within the problem that is represented by the 

of this land, without violating any order of this 

. 

Court and without violating the spirit of any 

  
order of this Court. Since it can do this, Your 

Honor cannot stop a lawsuit in the State court. ES 

| 
| 

Wn
 

- 0
 rr
 

Sail 
p
o
 

eb
 

en
 

sr
 

i 
Te

 
le

 

£ the laws WR
 

Your Honor can only stop a lawsuit 

seeks relief which ig in direct contradiction 

to one ©f Your Honor's orders. The cases whi 5
 

= 

I have heard that Mr. Chambers has cited in th: po
 

motion of which I spoke earlier, are all concern- 

ing lawsuits in which the State coprt was asked | 

cr the State court ordered one of the parties ta 

In me on - oT ROP | FR ov wo - = 
vinlate ie rea aras. VOMIT, Aer e bis

 | 

0 4 (B
F {0 re
 p) h y 

has been no such ordex. There has been no matter 

of any sort brought before this Court. The 

closest it came was a finding by Your Honor that 

there was no discrimination against blac in the 

ES S.A.T. Program. And I would suggest this precludes| 

the Court from changing its mind now, recalling 

its findings of fact of four years ago. and 

finding anew that we are violating an order which 

COURT: Well, I don't think the merits of the 

controversy are before me, but it does seem to 

1tter that is totally includegd 

  

  
= 

  

         EveLyN S. BERGER 
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

3   [aN] Lo oll        



  

  

Fe 
44 A 

  
  

($
y 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

1%7 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23   

Swann case. It involves 

students or however many 

I guess it 1s, of the stu 

another ten or twelve percent who want in, so it 

seens to involve at least 

in the Mecklenburg County 

versy about race, and whi 

something less than a mic 

precise issue, I don't se 

different view without ha 

these plaintiffs could fi 

» N 
svat mA dd An 
A A ad 2 

plaintiffs couldn't file 

other court and we would have the Scheol Baard 

spending all of its time 

having trouble, any of th 

minded Rds ahstt $+ pan, Te 
attitude about the problem. 

Sturges has any enlightenment on this. 

1% on va To i 
4 Lali you ri 

"yg 1 T 34 ba +1 ml 
ute here. I don't think 

4 ~, "ry Path] program is before you. I 

of whether the school sys 

criminated in 

would have to concede that the subject matter, 

this program is before 

lig fifteen percent of the 

it is~--twelve percent, 

dents and apparently 

a fourth of the students 

schools and a contro- 

le that may be taking 

roscopic 

e how you can take a 

ving tter chaos, If 

le a suit in one court 

1 reason why other 

a similar suit in some 

VE
 in court and the court; 

em, reaching a ccherent 

$e PLE wp 
It me see 1 Mr. 

the merits of the 

don't think the question 

tem hag or has not diss 

yon. I 

      

      EveLyN S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER    



  

  

~~ 4 - 

  
  

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

to wit, discrimination, whether it is against 

5
 blacks or against whites, is intertwined in t wn

 

problem and, of course, the Board of Education 

will abide by any order that is issued in the 

cause, whether it be by the State court or 

= 4 whether it be by the Federal court. I would say 

however, that I hope we would not be in a position 

where we have conflicting orders and have to hay 

some resolution of that. 

MR. BEARD: Your Honor, I would point out that ¢ 
g 

relief which we have sought, both the preliminar 

relief which we hope to get and the permanent 

relief, seeking nothing in conflict with the 

orders of this Court. And I do not believe tha 

Mr. Chambers has introduced any order of this 

Court which,.. 

COURT: Suppose there had never been any order 

filed in the Swann case and you had come into 

the State court with this suit after the Swann 

case was filed, what would have been the orderly 

thing for this Court to do? 

MR. BEARD: The orderly thing for this Court to 

do would have been to ignore it. In the Swann 

case the complaint seeks desegregation of schoo 

desegregation of teachers and an end to othe 

$ 

IT
 

    

  

    Evelyn S. BERGER   OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER   



10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

LOA 

  
      

      

  
a
 

| 

  

  

                                

    
  

racial discrimination. This is basically what 

the original prayer for relief and the prayer 

for further relief requests. We ask an end to 

racial discrimination in the S.A.T. Program. 

his is a different program and Your Honor has 

stated many times that you do not mean to run 

the school system and we are maintaining upon 

ctate grounds, & provision in the State Const itu 

of this State, that ce rtain things thet the Schog 

noard is doing is in violation of the statute. 

ve not gotten into, directly, the question 

of racial discrimination exc ept insofar as 

racial discrimination 1s a violation of the 

State statute. We have not asked that busing 

be stopped or that the order that there be 

ne predominantly black schools be rescinded. 

we are not asking that any order of this Court 

be violated. 

COURT: Suppose I had a hearing on this and 

heard the evidence On the merits and reached 

the conclusion that H.E.W. was right? 

MR. BEARD: Your HOnor may make any supposition 

vour Honor wishes. 

COURT: What would be the problem, then, about 

      

      

| 
| 

| 
| 

| 

| 
I 

tion, a statute enacted by the General Aagsembly 

4 

i 

re 

          

    

      

EVELYN S. BERGER 

QrFiCiAL COURT REPORTER     

1 

 



LTA 

ly G- 

  
EE 

10 

11 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

21 

22 

23 

24 

  

  

  

  

[1 - - # y 

having the case pending in two courts? 

ry ~ wr = ¥ $ : Le ny = art 5 By 

IR. BEARD: The point is that no such hearing 

has been made and no such hearing would be ger- 

mane to the relief requested by Swann. In any   
event, in order for a preliminary injunction to 

« 
issue out of this Court it is necessary that the o

 

harm to be done by these defendants must be 

immediate and irreparable, and we would point out 

that even if we secured the injunction we have 

sought, that we would not oust any of the »nresent 
or 5 io 

narticipants in the talent development program 
; in po 

already have the proper ratio and a final injunction 

and order are not presently before any court. St 

the harm is neither immediate or irreparable. 

We would mainly maintain that this Court has no 

jurisdiction to issue such an order because such 

an order is nct necessary to effectuate any 

present judgment of this Court or to protect 

We would further point out that at least part 

of this case is on appeal and that Your Honor may 

v well be deprived of any jurisdiction over 

the Swann case because of that matter. 

Q > pw Ls. ad a x. A - — - 4 - hy 2 

COURT: Well, that may be, but we have to deal ii 
  

          EveLyN S. BERGER 

OF FiCiAL COURT RCPORTER     
 



| 
LBA 

| -47- 

    

  

what is now instead of what might be. I think 

an order restraining the prosecution of the 

state court suit ought to be entered and I 

4 request that counsel prepare such an order and 

  6 finding appropriate facts which conclude that 

| 8 and others, deals with a problem which involves 

9 | classes of something like twelve percent of the   
10 |i students and involves as hopefuls at least another 

L1 

11 sizeable proportion of the students; that the   
nrogram under debate is a part only of the daily 

pr LN
} 

13 routine of the students involved in the talent 

14 development program; that it's financed and mangged 

15 by the same School Board and that it raises 

oi
 

16 questions of alleged racial discrimination against           17 white children which, if they procure the relief 

| 
| 

: Te 4 ? 4 ol £43 3 e . Ye = 

18 | sought, will require a judgment that there has noc 
J | 3 

| 

w 

19 been racial discrimination against the black | 

pn, I. -. {A de Yu ES . ES sad = pg B IFS mt Aime £ 

20 children. I think those two may be two sides Of 

a
t
 ’ 

Ry 
] 

h
i
 

od
 

0 
4 

a
l
.
 

iv
 

21 the eame coin. And there is no rational 

  
+ oy 3 ne , # >} 2 - Re fo $a - 3 ~~ ey 2 

22 { can see how the subject matter, however tne 

pa Sa wd Non msdee , =. rs a. ge vin 3 grad 2 

23 decision may ultimately be made, can be =eparated 

25 
        

Evelyn S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER     
  

  



  

-d 8 49A 

  
  

  
7 

10 

1} 

12 

13 

14   
15 

- 16 

= 17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

intend to do in this. 

MR. BEARD: Your Honor, have the motions that the 

defendants, the plaintiffs in the State court 

action, made, been denied? 

MR. CHAMBERS: Since the defendant raised the 

question about service of some amended complaint 

we will be glad to prepare an amended complaint 

to incorporate... 

COURT: I would suggest you read the rule book 
5 

and see if you have been doing it all according 

to Moyle. Looking at the order, the order did 

not call for the service upon the defendant--the 

new defendants--of a copy of the original motion 

and I just suggest you make such check of the 

file as is necessary to make certain that every-~ 

body has all the papers he needs. 

CHAMBERS: Would the Court Permit us to 

withdraw the exhibits that have been introduced 

in order to Xerox them and give Mr. Beard 

copy of them? 

MR. BEARD: Counsel for these defendants has 

absolutely no objection. 

MR. CHAMBERS: I would like the record to 

reflect that we have tendered in evidence 

4 

[#5
] ( 

  

       EveLyN S. BERGER 

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER   11 SC DISTRICT CAULIRT    

  

     



50A 

  
            

    
  

  

£y 

ee 
: — = m—— 

plaintiff's exhibits 1 through 12. 

    

    
              — 

—e—————————————————                     
Evewyn S. BERGER 

  

  



     

  

  

     

    
        

      

      

    

    

ti eA Tg Mad “oor, 

t 
: / : i = 

pr RAS ge hor, ow : ; ’ ‘ : - . . 48 L - . 

SESE, 
Tv - vow? 

“ew any Troha $5 7% Te" rhe ir lg WIRE re Bi - 

< 

< a . i 4 a) i) ’ : i 1! A - - hy oi ei \ 51A 

i PLANIITICR 
. >" 

TL | an. “0. ¢.- . Co SR “we 

¥ AlJITI=FE'S 
oe re ware Oo Gia us . a ie. - . ., ) Li we ov. 

Berit 
S > 5 - a . - z hg fA \ -r # 2 Ee - {., - PS vl f I, ii a 

LATi dl oon oe i fae Tala oy fan - . tm ah Ak Aa 22 

a  ) -* ro ™ are Sx - . ~. a Tie - : ~- (OV Ry 

bh] 
‘ 

I hb § N i - - - 
. ” ZF Ae 

- " 
. el . ro ae - : -Y » . a 

! TA i . . NN. 

ried Thad PRA LT aa 3 D022 0 Te 

LI yb oe, ry ETL brs Cai Mo ai 

' 
ve - ¥ 

A » 
bl - : 

v4 Ss oy . a LT a Pe Ol oP nay A WANDS 

- ' ~ = - . ts fy . i Re Pa i e -, rl 
Yn = . - ~ 

N* ST . yy . wT a ar aid p . irs . 

Y Ea > x - BEN oi. mt 
- ey re in ATES rd 

. i Yon Y 

. 3 ” . 4 4 . Pe 
2 

gi L xt tem SAAT, ali el CHEE ~3 win 2 eS Lew I} . 

eat v kJ 

. . 2 — wr YE lin 
Re 

pot a en — TY, FE Pe etl WE a - pom av J 8 TI mS, PRREPP RE LE od uth 34 
2 . *s 

‘ nl i -— PRPS ou i% | dT Sof MEA «vi. anabier gin Frived  o¥ nt -" hi . ; oo $: on , 

of of Lo . - Sine AEE os ra dh TE Gi JE ord = ygtroa 

ou ain 
i - au Ft 0 - a 

oa 

) REE ‘ Ni Cie! ey vx STRIZT N.C. -— eS pups La he . : . To 

JN ; le - a 
= 

or C arjevys : . : yo 

1 i 4 : i ATLANTA, aah dirt hS —— ie ay Te, We wpteon 7 > ’ . 3 nyt a2 ven 

- a 
“ 

aco PE — wl ’ ' - » . : Laer 

CFO W Pct bu dr VO 
TEs fopame To , : . 

: . 

sr CT OF ™C rs 

7) RIGILVAL TIRESLR 

Ale Snr wr 3 ) DSI 9D 
; i 

4 
: 

- --— -— 

— ~~ 
1} y. 

i) fa 
fe 

n and WM Te 
« a Tel 

A 

Pr. Palle—3 ade nf alton 
v pd SET 35 i 

= 

Coermmoet mo mm A mm 
ar al . : 

Arab pie te whe ibed Sur Sesundteise 

~ -r on ~; 

= . (43 
< 

nn ~ AY 3 Ti 
; Ho, Funky 

Chor lcroa-teocklonotTy Board : § ranges 
nl i 4 i ‘gy 

2 Deemed 

- L. / /1 

Oa id abel pe 
. ¥ 

L ed 

: -. 
» 

- 

-y LE 

i. 

. 

P.O. Zox 139 

; 
- 

- . f 

-—eY py —e neo as EA wr Pow; 
: 

{ha=lptte,
 pe} 28201 

vr 
RV 

. 
> 

iY 
z - 

. 

- - 
i bol 

> 

3 . FO 

be Rep 2 

us iN 
* HL 

Pear Xr. Jecomes: 
2 biales” ’ : ch 

7 
A = N; 

” ¥ Zz NY 

- 

: = 
: Mor. = SE 

ow -~ ah 4 - < . 
- = 

[a PE SOP a, ons] a ——— > - 
5 LR 

_. Dg bk-ce ToonivEl Foo. coplicz2lcn {z=4 I==t=z ei 3 ch 19) for - 

amy ~~ a—— Pa TY ren co en TY Lads ASN N - 

- 

- A Cy 2 ey 
 — ta o———— School Dd NE” Ady FS 

Sie * 
iy 

3 
oe | on 

4 F od pe: | POSSE J 1 

. 

— o- 
sy —— 

; “> 

In o=3zT to CoTpisil OTT —o—icy of your ddsTTict’S eltzibility 

. len + 23 i. EEE, «—— a— a> Im w= Ps SR 

| Cem TemBima ptr TLE PTO yy A ~=p2285?y $258 T° thtaln Fs 

~~ oy A282 men) Con omen ~~ Pd i - - 

cortalin pddll tal 4péom=orion 38 fplliceae 
: 

" i > 2 ~ 112-—- cr— 128 HA bY 
3 

a, CMepyimiostion ATa5C Chil3-zn 450: 125.2¢(DH {LY {5 

A Hits did : 

2 
- - - - Pal 

- 

; : A, Awrvica or TST =a11 1572 C2ivl1 Dichts SoTUTY 

——" EEN IED yy —~) Ye * YL | 1 Teal~~nd al fe 
= Sao. 

: - le oe rnd far § md ome — tmnt wh oP pombe WO 4 PUD RR 
sate > 

p 

ew 
- ™ Eh DI a IP IY nmmmn 4 IP 

Teas 

Tacially Temas Ta-n1n [12325 2 23 choise. : Si Breer 

k . Sh. 

- 

ie > 3 o 
3 - 2 

igi Poponca throa 122005 ost, 1 will Aa TocooTITy I0T : 

E 
; + I pune ge MDa, I A - “ly Co ee 

: 

| : 
Tp i Be pp ge Dep po prep lec Toe ores

 - PUSS (oo 

Y 

3 - sewn Yee fry $31 T YHeAd neq D tn1 3 

i jn the ozclooed “ooo oily T~plztod ond “oc. 

= 
~~ LR mmm I — yd wy Frm PE BY 

Ides ifisDHie LL cs cucsticmmelTe 07 rho SChoDAS 

7 23 - lion SR Riis 

” 

| 
on Lz rrr aod -— he ® 

WE ene z an AY wp r yee) 

| B. There zre 25,820 {32 wercent) black of 79,812 

<r) m— — mr Rw a ru 1 2 -— . ~ ~ 4 ~~~ 

students SUTCoILSS Sonu io Cur 2istrict, as shown 

| 
-— - - - - ~~ 3 - 1 - Cc -y ~~ [re -5 

| by jour Fall 1973 Ciel Rights Survey fom Gs/CR 101. 

~~ 2 md py 
PE — "Ln “ 

. ,. Your coplicolioaa 3-=C ehge there e 1,503 {77 —=preent) 

| 1 Cc ry PL Le Avvo 3mm) Sem mA nd 

blinck of 2,371 STLLTLes 4 rieazhlie Jiomrally Slt . 

. 
i 5 ~~ - PU eo - Teer—4 

~ Y 3 

i 
closes. Danse ‘O12 AC 2Tinc usec SF Whilars 

aE. ~~ ra SY -— T w= ~~ 
Je = 3 WN on —~ a —y 

geodents in thoce C.8SID235, ~~ -311. te ooCesoiTy OT 

2 

: - & wns nel 3 2. i — ty —— £ oly 
. 

you «0 Tas thy ToT wel3 = prfyipd 2 eqesatopaiieps le Pr re 
: ~ 

2 Pr. 

4 : oy i. 0 BEN p oy a a dh B= - : : . 

IE enclosed Sannin) Elvzaticn wots? fn Chilo os 
. 

5 
apr SHY. NN LT Re Eg 

weit 

! with I3-Toi=2 Means ilil25 fo} Side a pales 4) L - > 2 i - 

= mre 
em ere 

WA a 
» - 

: “e © vay - 

. ig ‘ - 

ay ~e fT) “Sng | ot : nd ey : 

~~~ Fora 03/02 101 2.70 chen that. heat 

3 ~~ gg rl nn Bem --— ny PUTO Se ey | Sony 
Z 

—1 

SRG EION TS a a Wha 

LPN B® Bi TN mm my 
xr | 59 

| fe 
| 

> Pall" 

 



  

> EE  @ . 
: = . . * . : 

. » 

: 4 oy “ 3 t - ~e oY ol ‘ ’ 

» - % ’ - . -t, 
. Az, Wag NL 5 n ’ in erly x y 

“. So = i - -et vv 
a . > 

ak ' - Ey 3] 4 - ' 4 Pr A - 

LR eR i eral ik : 
. at - bY 

od . 7 Nd - 

' ow : - x og : 
[i 3 Fat UF i Tl i ! od 

. x.y . . . p vant Ee . - ‘ . 

Ee ae ® < * 
. - : . 

PA 4 = - so ie 
. . . . - 

Er. : a . 
wn" dg. ity & - . . 

airy ny BG A i >" po . neti Say r 3 . 

Ey * - roe 7 Th fig 
oe Pd hg 

” a - a, - 

a 
i 

. . . . on 2 

oi Wei JR . 4 Et tl, ar HE wi NE hry Re (Ne ar 

Py v - - . - LS ~ - , Pe . - . ~~ ie Joa 
. 

- ~ bd 
Be 

rd 0. -e * a. Xin a i rs ., oy . a ‘y= tr RL : g . 

nl - - : : ep 7 Eat Te EA BS es 

: - -. . 
. 

. - - 

Thos . . 

- . s , »- » aw a . vv Yoon ‘ 5 . a 

c . o 

- : ‘ . 

bg. Se Lo PU oq al . . 
A Pg >» , . . R Eg 

. 
od 

Ke a - « > - ~ 

- 
a — 3 

. by rT ‘= 2 Fad - ¥ 24 a J = 

A 

=~ - PE Gr ‘ : 

Ye Say Jos 
a VIR HT theta Sop 

————y 

b . - copr “vi 4 jd 

» 
. ou. -*. 

- - hm $n Mia y_ - 

SEE dh lei po INT 

» 
- 

- - 

* . . “we . 

As 

. 
~ 

- 

- 

VY - 

» - 
. 

5 - - . 

- . . . 

= 
oD 3 oma? -2 4 nyse 2 Arment nme Sa i 2NY mn 

> NS aims dumb A wr J a 
4 te 

A 
~~ Nay mn pmo ge vd my A———n I~] BE a — y} 

~4 
- 

3 -mtalissudontny onpell Slits PITT TS 

3 ao —— ——— > tyr Fnall~—t=n een meh p— LC ~ 

with EA [. 45) 9% i 01a aD OR as 

(2) The reason oT gach punichzznt.: 

a zcgulred before : 

: {3) Thar formal 
mn 

gi a stzdent can o2 

| G 
is!

 
i 

ph SPS POSS 

a ceheool MSoord e=eorcise 

Ps - -5 

doit ~—y vhich 
~~ 

- md 

A 

    

! coor each cose 
ip 4 
PY 

} | 
| He £5) To you review commmm=tsm =] czlsdo] 

cctio—s have resulted fc such revicsse. 

i : ; 
3 d i 

hi 
Pe 

— x 

{5) Does the cohsrl croc oiler dmAleridngnl 

133 ,rtendd Al-emdwm teeny Sone —~d/or 

PR A hh I emen wyt 

Pe at -— SR 
GBESSRS REEDSNEES J — a — 

. 
> Bem mow 

meelns? =F me a} tT -~e - 

. * ropagalindenghl Dire MOL TG = Dek niet. a Ag — 211 

> 
remy em 
| ts 

oe 53 a ™ - 
- 

} . = my: - ny > ——— BE om ~~ EL JEpSSS—— | ~~ 2? - a 

| 
fn 

a = rat Cd errata odd » 

3 EAA n —— my Ty ———ry -_n ne] vm ——t ~~ 

pS bn fe wD at Naudia, Nar dp Stan at fd OF ater 

| 

oes oh rey cin me vem Fo --— —— Oa 4 

recently, Aide —et tae PC and licies 

a - - at ~ —- 3D 

ond why were they coingld: 

{7) If hers ares 
rd to d3 with regar 

(8) Ecw is rou solicy 

to those a 2 

Yieo— —- Bn gp— ta Pe a T re ~~ rhs -— in = —— A m— of the - te 

lore Toll es cara 23325100 «wv de aa oes CIES x nga cle 

a a 3 ~ 1 ~>>ro 
Ld Ny pf - > Lea I ON al A mam TT amt an] H 

cf man? wt = am—— rod Pee GE JC) “te a rf arnt 3 PO ® In 46 | Mm alebele 

CC al £272 pry, Bmee Tai ~3 AL - £rN Fens oe IN wg PEE Fs 

iaidy do arma Ara bn Vd Be at 4 oar —— bo = 
POPES SE alos yg 

asrt~ 
~3=r3 rss AMR 

0 rw EJ. SN GON. ge SELEY ny TS 3 oman 

8 oom sas 4 PE PR © YoCOSE5i 0s OL JS ttn dad
e” off 4 rue 6 

- 

Ye . ~ ° 

PY ot ot PE ae 0d I ets 1 -~ Sem Rf oem——~ 

Cornel oC Cluvame- trast THiS aeewdmmenw a Xs 

- 
. 

: 
in Cod 7 

’ 

~~. “. 

. . 

. 
rat i 

- 
ELE 

-3 th 

- - 
YT» wey 

- 

< . Te sr > eS 

“. : 

2 . - | ? 

& 

- - a A ~~. ~5 
- . - 

es 

if 

- 2 
- 

: = 
] WEN 

-« . 

- - 

ts y 

” 

n - . 

. 

ov 

. - >» . . 
. » 

- 

-¥ 

. 
* 

. 

   



  

. 

o£", 
/ = . 

“ pA 
~ . 

SE. $ twig “5 ~ LL .e PIR . 53A 

» - 4 
. . 

. 

yo . -. 

0 PE “ » L Fa . 0 ? 

. . . " - * 

v 
* t 0%, 2 

P - ‘ 

- 

- - A 

.- . 
. . 

. ’ 

~ . ~ . . . 2 in ay 

- 
: . 

i 

. 
. EY - ”- ~~ . = ad | “rv - »  ] . | hd 

2 of ? 

i pg j ¢ of Th 2 ’ LS Ea - 

2.” i. a, set? b, = 
4 SY v 

tr, .SOYYemd HM. SES i : Sats TN 
doer . 

BOR 

* sw. dia . 
. . 

Ten yy 3 
. Fr. - 

bo * 

. @ Cu 
- 2 . . - - 

: 

3 i. te. ' ‘ . 

. 
2 PN : . aA o; 

- = 

t 

, o- rn, ene. 4 € coe een pr vam om do grams PS tat = 1 
4 

In a i - a Yeu deve poise’ Cool, 
ram eal 

erozion in this matter. 

Sincorely yours, 

DL Aen 

Recicoal Civil 23gnts SirectorT 

Office for Civil Rights 

re: (Chiof Stata School Cffice   

 



  Far mn Y tr 
A Lal © 2 

AY ~e-m—doT Vem = by mem 

—— nmr So A AS J 

Teed
 

bh Toop y Pars 

  

PPR hE Dota - Te — - 

- ot 
a FOPNISS Yd 

Bas my ~~ —Te TT ~ 

SY ezrs o> ni Ti=h 

IV a, Saal Ian yu ih 

peep Rey rn Sn i —-—2 at fy 

ny 34 
Clinic Rich 
PP 5, Mn 6s. ty | A bib | 

Coal allo STRLOT Zish 

A 
rt A 

hinting 

Hy 

Cm ~~ ~~ Tt ——— 
Rid 1 

- 6 ent © 

$3 en Bm ie. I | 

Tgp fy pile af GREE 

NO ar Pn 
ct rave 3 

aver & T meaatta 
nic 

- 3 
: s i - 

- A 

- 

- 
ig 

Ni 

? . 

2 > = 

: Ss -—ii% 
Ss . 

< - 
i 

\ 2 
vs 

3 
: 

* 

- 
. 

2 - 2 ? Fae 
‘ 

: 
. . Jie 

ln 
. 

. 3 oi» 

Xe 

- 

hg 

-~ 

    

  

 



- 

< 

’ 
“
a
i
e
?
 

“. 
r
v
 

r
y
 

oT) 
, 

: 

’ 
’ 

N 
Gif 

te 

Er 

‘ 

B
r
 

Bow, 
a
 

p
e
 

. 
H
E
R
S
 
p
t
 

pa 
a
 

; 
J
 

a
e
 

iE 
A
!
 

A 
«’ 

. 
“
a
y
 

; 
3 

Bi 
. 

2
 

J
e
l
,
 

e
l
,
 

{ 

Nee 
P
i
l
l
 

2 
A 

E
F
 

8
)
 

*, 

. 
ii 

pl 
gi 

Sl 
or 

5
 

: 

a
t
e
 

e 

0
)
 

T
h
 
W
E
 

£.d 
h
y
 

C
d
 

AS 

Vein 
® 

i“ 
s 

i 
E
Y
E
 

Soot 
L
i
p
 

in, 

. 
sv 

o
o
f
 

ih 

LE 
LY 

¢ 
a 

2
 

. 
f
l
 

(x4 

«a? 
ow 

0 

r.} 
Q 

; 
v
i
 

e
e
d
 

a
y
 

43 
: 

a
 

a
 

J
 

i; “ 

i 
9 

L
C
i
?
 

tet 

4
 

—~ 
4
 

® 
bs} 

i: 
t 

«1 
43 

2! 

v 
{ 

. 
-
y
 

J
 

{ 
. 

. 
r 

: 
{ 

{ 
; 

ri 

~
 

: 
X 

Ln 

}: 
I 

qQ 
vv 

+ 
W
e
 

2 
Y
a
 

2 
4 

9) 
o
t
,
 

{ 
IN 

A
 

2
 

q 
. 

ry) 

V
e
g
 

a
 

» 2
3
M
,
 

i 

~
 

~ 
3 

9] 

ad 
is 

i 
“ 

\ 
le 

“
4
 
A
g
 

N
 

o 
[8 

s
o
r
i
 

pe] 

v
i
»
 

. 
i
e
 

fw A 

re 
« 

O 
& 

oA 

1 
W
C
 

pH 
a 

ww 
0 

as 
rt 
w
a
y
 

w
o
 

ot 

: 
Q
Q
 

Sy 

i 
a) 

fed 
Sb 

" 
fa 

— 

(4 
42 

WA 
po 

<
1
}
 

o
—
 

O 

i 
Bg 

J
 

J 
0 

v
c
 

CJ) 
3
 

ol 3 
iB 

wi 
vl 

3
%
 

ty 

id 
4 

tv 
13 

3 
N
e
W
 

3
 

() 
=+« 

4) 

v3 
$4 
G
e
 ud 

ny 
tl 

2 
e; 

0 

Go 
tw 

Je 
b4 

. 
ry 

oy 
od 

n
o
e
 

*3 

2) 
rm 

Ratt 
s 

«J 
o
l
 

e
n
d
o
 

t
v
'
9
D
 

wd 
43 

w 
© 

=
 

J
C
 

0
9
 

I
R
R
 

og 
2
9
 

be 
0) 

03 
Q 

rt 
"i 

= 

{3 
=a 

i
r
 

wo 
eed 

Ga 
tn 

L
i
n
t
 

Q 
~t 

=
 

ty 
Vi 

o! 
~4 

f 
3 

e
t
)
 

3 
spf 

S
A
S
 

ord 

ord 
P
E
T
E
R
 

L
o
o
e
 

FR 
To 

nt 
L
E
V
 

2 
) 

[7 
Bla 

BR 
"J 

G
4
 

fl 

[oVREY 
I 

ty 
be 

(: 
7 

Ye 
WU 

3 
2 

u4 
44 

yg 
rt 

i] 

®~ 
0 

i 

r
r
 

H
Y
 

fio 

oe 
n
A
 

Q 

-
 
O
O
 

J 

0 
43 

dL 
r) 

ihe 
IS 

TELY 

[4A 
17) 

bo) 
ui 

1S) 

» 

4
 

2 :T C3 ast bi 

& 

of any ©x< ng place= 3 Vt 3 8 Yo. bof 2 

a refervel pProcesSe 
ng a 2 

PS sayeth da 

Niue is 
es 

ord 

hi 

ms 
. 

om excent if h SS - 
Yost * TOT 

ve ama. TACP 
oA snc - 

crv 

fier oDV 
2 ~ 

aad mow 

-— Se Up 

Nn 
ord *

 

0 10} 

4
 

AR 
c
e
 

¢d | 
y | ™~ 

1] 

fh 1 
t) 

0 
OB (9) 

3 ¢ 
vd 

tv 
or 1) 

0 
cr 

4
 

oJ I
d
 Q 

£3 
ord 

OO 
NM 

wl LY 

+o 
i
t
 

WJ 

| 
£3 
ord 

of a” 
$4 

N
 

—
 

Q 
[9] 
$
n
 

H
Y
 

J 
a 

$4 
A 

ry 
v4 

A 0 
t= 

ort 

° 

a
 4 

wn (a8) 
“rd 

[@Y] 
(9) 
-
 0} 
J
 (©) 
—
 +d 

W td 
LJ 

gl 
f1 

ui 

wt 
0 

12 
rd 

J J ¢) 
Ss 

s
O
 [48] 

nn 
W 

(1 

r
i
 m
o
d
 

[
I
 

p
f
 

wo 
©
 

3) 
34 

n
n
 

is 
ord 

C
A
 

S
u
 

rd i DIE 
=
 

od $e 
7) 

TO 
oY) 

4 
Hab 

kJ) 
ry PH 

—
 

Q 
Mm 

KH 
ort 

(&) 

c 
Nn 

(
w
v
 

wn. 
OU 
4
 

& 
o
h
 

0
4
 

(W] 

p
e
 

(V)) 
3
 

O
Q
 

mle [J 

PO 

LJ 

« 
&
 (01 

(le) 
c) 

THE 
atin 

© 
wo 

a
H
 

3 
0 

eo uh 
S
a
f
 

wd 
LJ) 

(¥] 

o
y
 

0 

vi 
O
W
N
 

8} 

H
L
 

1 
o
d
 

€) 
W
u
 

(09) 
< 

0
 

(J) 
YI 

oh 
ed 

©
 

O 
+
 

r
i
n
 

gE 
CO 

ip 
W
 

*2 
irl 

ti 
[4+] 

= 
u
 

"
e
q
 

6 
0 

ri 

R
R
L
 

I 
2) 

2 
he? 

eed 
$2 

=) 
Gird 

5: 

P
l
a
y
 

4) 
)+ 

s
o
f
)
 

34 

\) 
>
 

i 

CY 
ed 

ol 

3: 
LD) 

i
 

¢) 

ie 
ood 

. 
+
d
 

w
y
!
 

Uy 
L
T
)
 

af 
8 

4
r
d
 

J 
4d 

[oY] 

p
L
 

g
o
o
g
 

fe 
ord 

ord 
[4] 

CQ) 
4 

Pe] 

4 
0 

© 

De 
$3 

94 

R
E
)
 

Bla) 

 



¥ 
tint 

~ 
ad 

©
 

| 
;
 

.. 
: 

“1 
- 

Y
a
y
 

« 

we! 
' 

PY) 
. 

a 
he 

4 

v
B
 

3 
: 

0 

[1 
1, 

% 
. 

«9 
t 

fF 
20 

% 
Fy 

i
y
 

> 
[oy 

r 
‘ 

V
e
t
 

8 
‘ 

’ 
3
 

i
j
.
 

A 

5 
5 

¢ 
t
g
 

Lo 

r 
& 

- 
[3] 

“ 
39 

E
r
 

«? 
[o'd 

2 
5 

“ 
2
 td 

0) 

. 
fe! 

i
 

-4 
Ts 

Lo) 

«3 
3 

0 

ih 
b 

a
 

£1 
(a 

[@) 

£) 
4
 

(%)] 

{4 
0 
LT] 

Pi 

TAT 11.7 

et A 

of 

bal Tal 

a 

hs} 
3 of 

BM fetm tl 1. y) in0T it 1 ha VO 
. ee 

(100 porceat —inority ¢ 

ities. - 
» ‘aetiv 

;, 

oe of th: 

@ gralje level having the 

ceschool (ss). 

or identity cf the $Y mem 
PR be 

S an tle or it 1 —~ 

alone. 

ir 

courise. 

rscticnal of 2 

os of the toscher. 
55, on of the cl 

entifizbility of these 
on cor io An expla 6. 

-glosce 

wn ™s11T2 
oan 205 SES 1 XY 

— 

£8 antd ~ = 

Ly LVL 

o 7 a Kl 

WS et I\ < —- Plo—4 Ui BREE 2S 
hd - 

ES 

evn 

Thi ~~ ~a 3c Baerm=3L3 
0 Bonin aia 

~~ 
- 

lct 
tod, proviiz a ITZ: 

Aa > 

 



    
 
 

LJ 
o 

‘ 

my 

: 

0}, 
(: 

od 

t
h
 

: 
( 

Y 
F
R
 

PS 

i
h
 

A 
| 

T
E
 

| 

4 

' 
oe 

(0 
x
T
 

A 
TR 

--) 

a
t
o
 

) 
y
o
 

ty 

vr 
l
e
 

‘
e
y
!
 

ri 
f
d
 

oi 
SHEE 

7 

J
E
 

poy 
ord 

Yo 
tiEmee 

ry. 
2% 

Wo 

=) 
hog 

; 
PEA 

H
R
 

e
y
 

5 
t
e
e
 

ie 
a
y
 

E
R
Y
 

t: 
CD 

$4 

k
t
 

E
e
 

iW] 
te, 

inact 
b 

Ww 
2) 

, 

AE 
oo 

J
t
 

IR] 
! 

0
)
 

uw 
QL 

. 

To NN 2] 
“
h
e
 

ny: 
¥ 

1
 

{i 
v4 

i 

g
w
 

uot 
ghm 

ly 
Lpaal 

IS 
no 

W
d
 

i! 

bh 
Q 

ar 
tit 

2
a
 

f
T
 

R
E
S
.
 

0 
: 

a 
Gh 

L
e
e
 

ml 
© 

o
l
 

z 

d
o
)
 

ty 
- 

4
 

cl 
og) 

uh 
a
 

9) 

iy 
J
e
 

= 
2 

iF 
T
n
 

d
e
y
 

& 
0
.
3
 

A
 

. 
[SF] 

A
g
 

R
S
L
 

o
h
 

F
i
e
 

TURE 
TY 

SERS 
$) 

1) 
f, 

wi 
3» 

A
 

C
a
h
 

3 
% 

J 
” 

u, 
cy 

vr 
¢ 

oO 
h
o
o
n
 

a
=
!
 

A 
ced 

RQ) 

qf 
0 

—
 

4 
al 

aT 
J 

3 
t
e
d
 

J 

3
 

~~ 
$) 

3 
Ff 

a
 

3
3
'
S
 

Ww 
3
.
4
 

; 

1%) 
HY 

ga 
(
o
'
s
 

M
0
)
 

4 
Pe] 

9] 
0n 

te 
OQ 

ted 
vy 

Tey 
ok) 

SS 
EE 

SR 
2) 

4
 

oy 
P
U
E
S
 

a 
e
y
 
a
 

4) 
tL. 

0 
Pe 

: 

. 

f¢ 
U 

od 
to 

u
m
 

iey 
4 

“ 
{} 

2 

Ps 
5
7
°
 

o
e
 

2 
t
r
a
n
 

ti 
i} 

J
 

3 
HE 1° 

o
t
 

VE 
T
I
E
R
 

vy 
Q
T
 

3 

. 

- 
‘Y 

SH 
r
e
n
 

S
h
a
s
 

. 
T
h
E
 

+ 

~
3
 

w
s
 

Hg 
03 

~
 

Ma 
4
 

[3 
LJ 

: 
34 

3
 

)
 

| 
9) 

\ 
iy 

| 
or 

. 
. 

’3 
‘
,
 

\ 
A
p
 

> 
- 

{.) 

~- 
- 

i
r
o
m
 

w
e
 

a
e
d
 

n
a
d
 

) 
r
e
a
 

bt, 

2 
i
e
d
 

i
w
r
t
 

deed 
Sd 

py 
4
 

t
y
)
 

E
a
 

ANE 
J
o
e
 

ie 
Jwela 

a
h
 

w
a
t
t
)
 

( 
: 

£2 

vd 
ni 

fr 
Ta 

viet 
pest 

vA 
) 

14 
7) 

my 
Joaooed 

R
E
 

1
.
 

r) 
: 

Gm 
i 

BE 
od 

(HOLY 
th 

W
e
 

4 
ti 

0 
" 

tha 
TE 

- 
ry 
a
H
 

‘: 

-
 

wd 
“A 

4 
C
o
 

to 
+A 

vy 
3
 

“ns 

- 
eed 

: 
’ 

b} 
LJ 

‘ 
: 

w
d
 

4d 
: 

r
o
o
 

' 
. 

bs 
a
b
s
 

y 

jr 48 
go 

2 
ae 

. 
' 

‘ 
J 

LY 
go 

ad 
to 

LTR 
| 

. 
‘ 

e
y
 

: 
' 

p, 
a 

Te 
‘ 

a 
3
 

CL 
." 

J 
: 

: 
3 

' 
©. 

0 
; 

r, 
4
 

> 
+ 

- 
e 

4
 

de 
PR 

v
4
 

\ 
5
3
 

H 

p
r
e
t
 

oo 
E 

= 
yor 

de 
0 

o
f
)
 

“y 
9] 

KY 

34 
7% 

Pt 
DIET 

a 
n
o
 

E
E
 

9 
, 

w
e
 

, 
ald 

ov 
G
E
 

Se 
we 

Pe 
PO 

a 
| 

tH 

ay 
Cir 

MOF col 
Re 

SN 
C
s
}
 

¢% 
C3 

“Uy 
+4 

"4 

e
l
 

J 
+ 

vA 
rio 

e
e
d
 

OA 
+3 

w
e
t
)
 

o
t
e
 

13 
, 

ry 
my 

lib 
ty 

Sd 
t13 

32 
wd 

Hd 
cy 

Ad 
7) 

J 
3 

rr 
ade 

© 
J 

}. 
a
 

Yall, 
Q 

poooed 
0 

r) 

Co 
% 

k
o
 

: 
~ 

0 
8
 

3 
| 

"
 

v.45. 
2 

J 
ry 

ad 
3 

ted 
Cu 

Bed 
Eg 

po! 

od 
= 

w
l
 

ALR 
OL 

A 
wi 

Lh 
$4 

2% 
0} 

< 
“ 

Bt 
ud 

X4 
to 

. 
Bl 

| 
AO 

1) 

pt 
8 

rth 
»o 

$2 
re 

ve 
Te 

OB 
od 

(B] 
Corin 

Tee 
(§] 

' 

t+ 
Co 

orn 
a3 

T
a
 

3 
o 

Ye 
Bh 

ad 
N 

33 

B
a
 

A
R
 

en 
TR 

a
i
g
 

nO 
r) 

AG 
1 

ad 
: 

M
d
 

4 
[= 

ll 
rs? 

BY 
i 

Fy 
a 

S
E
L
 

3 

a 
~3 

tt) 
v4 

«cy 
Yeo 

f 
3) 

yl 
Wh 

wo 
P 

) 
VE 

7
 

BIR 
i
h
 

te 
J
W
 

2; 
E
D
 

Ne a
 

Lo 
Fel a 

4 
Cis 

+> 

0 
B
l
o
 

a 
e
n
d
 

y 
1
a
 

1a 
1 

ob 
v [4 

Pe 
JOE 

BE 2 
Pr 

R
O
W
 

HE BS 
ae 

eed 
FAT 

(0 
a
 

2a] 

r 

 



  

  

en ; 58A 

oP) EatudIT 2 5 2 

(+, gd 
. - 

  

of conference with Betty Stovall and E. BE, Waddell 

on implementation of administrative guidelines as it pertains to 

SAT classes. and Civil Rights requirements, 

1. Reviewed administrative guidelines as communicated to 

Superintendent, June 3, 1973, from the Departnent of 

Health, Education, and Welfare, 

es. ‘We concur that the puidelines arc rcasonable but we 

agree that we need more time for full implementation, 

5. Items #2 and #3 of the puidelines can better be 

implemented as the school system implements item #1, 

4, Mrs, Stovall is putting all effort possible to implement 

’ the guidelines. Illowever, the guidelines were given to 

her after SAT identification for the 1973-74 classes 

had been completed, 

5: The process is icomplicated further because students and 

parents have ‘already iheennotified of their acceptance 

to the 1973-74 proaran, 

6. livery coffort will be made to continue to veerult black 

students for the program: | 

a. Additional examination of records. 

b. Additional communication sent to principals re- 

questing specific identification of more blacks, 

C.:Counselorscand teachers have been requested to 

re-exanine records for additional black students. 

 



d, Other nethods will be considered, such as =-=--- 

(1) Letting parents of black students know more about 

the SAT program 

(2) TV program 

{3) Mcct with groups that are interested in promoting 

excellence in education 

or All black students that have heen reccommended have heen 

: invited to tho program, 

3. A package containing letters and materials sent to 

principals is available to support procedures and effort 

nade to recruit students, | 

9, Iv is our opinion that there will be no unsurmountable 

problems in implementing fully the SAT program for the 

1974-75 school year in keeping with the approved 1973-74 
— 

Civil Rights Guidclines, 

Implementing the guidelines is further complicated in that we 

do:not have:our 1973-74 pupil assignment approved by the courts, 

Class size of SAT classes is in keeping with the class size 

of cach school which gives very little lee-way for adding students 

after assignments have been accepted, 

Teachers for SAT classes come from our regular teacher 

allotment. so to: add additional classes is almost impossihle after 

teacher allotments: gre made to individual schools. 

We communicated with Mr. Mark Clement, Civil Rights Office 

in Atlanta, and discussed with him by telephone some of the problems 

listed above and explained to him what we were doing. 

  

59A



Alternate Options to Mecting Theso. Guidelines: 
  

A. Eliminate the SAT Prooram, 
  

1. We would create a community furor and particularly 

this vear in as much as students have been 

assigned and students accepted. 

2. This would be no guarantee that we would not lose 

federal Funds on other bases, Example:--lLast 

Ycar we lost it on reasons not SAT. 

3. More than 3,000 students are affected by this 

| program, 

4. To eliminate this program will climinate an 

option that needs to be available to meet the 

needs of many children. 3 

One of the basic purposes of education is to help children 

cvaluate and develop the best within them and this is one of the 

major goals of the SAT progran, 

B.® The next option is to restruct the SAT program 

limiting it to elective courses only, 

RECOMMENDATION . 
  

In keeping with the Civil Rights Guidelines and after the 

telephone conversation on Wednesday, June 13, 1973 with Mr. Mark 

Clement concerning our SAT program as it pertains to Civil Rights 

Guidelines, it is my rccommendation that we continue the SAT 

program. as being planned for the 1973-74 school year, 1 an 

60A 

 



confident, after our conference, that our track record at the 

end of the 1973-74 school year will be far better than ever 

before, I am willing to defend our SAT program as it pertains to 

the 1973-74 Civil Rights Guidelines if it becomes necessary, 

I would like to further suggest that the principals be 

informed of the Civil Rights Cuidelines at our next principals’! 

meeting, Principals have been informed, 

< 

rm 
6-14-73 

 



. a : . = ; feo ey : . EN AA C3) 433 

and Talents pupils are selected on the basis of 

  

voy 1. lore 

DAT. 

4 2. Stan 

a. 
. oe 5 » b. 

3 LJ Ave T 

4. Teac 

: 3. 
. De. 

Ca 

d. 

- 

e-Thornd lke stanine (elementary 

{VR+NA) stanine (sceondary jprade 

ford Achipcveoment Test 

Paragranh meaning stanine 

Arithmetic concepts stanine 

age of all nrades for the previo 

her evaluation of: 

Motivation 

Work attitude 

Curiosity 

Creativity 

rrades) 

Ss) 

us two years 
+ 

5. Teacher evaluation of status in regard to: 

a.. 
b. 

Ce 
d. 
€. 

Reading x1. 

Paragraph writing Rn 
Crarmar a : k. 

1. 

Mm. 

Spellin 

Punctuation 

Critical judgment 

Organizational proficiency 

Following directions 

Research ability 's 

Emotional maturity 

f. Arithmetic application n. Physical maturity 

£. Penmanship 0. .:80cial maturity 

h. Oral reporting Said 

: All factors are expressed in terms of stanines, some being grouped 

for final ccoputation. es 

Initial screening is accomplished through two means: 

1. Standardized test scores 

2. Teacher reccrmendation of pupils whose talents donot appear in 

testing procedures 

Pupils are ranked and offered slacen ent in turn from the highest 

renking until all places are filled. 

Few black pupils gualifv for SAT placement through the regular 

identification procedure. t is well known that standardized tests ar 

usually biased in favor of middle classed urban vhiecng, | It isi coually well 

keown that blacks, pcnerallv, have suffered from inadequate home and community 

stimulation os well as finding less stimulation and cpportunities for 

aeolersint of abilities through education. 

Therefore, for several vecars teachers and principals have been asked 

to seek out black pupils who show premise of potential in the identification 

factors or when thev think would feel reascnably comfortable and adecguate 

with a raoancaable chance of success in SAT placement. Thus, at the besinning 

of the school woar; fow If anv SAT cloczes lack for black pupils. As the year 

prozroases, come ask to have rerular placcormont hocause they think SAT placenmen 

is not appreonriate for them, others yield to poor pressure vvhich admonishes 

them to cet cut of "white classes 2nd nol Uo bother with all that work, Fa 

feuer are evaluated as inadcouate and not rocormcnded for placement a sceond 

wear, So that by this time of year ccme classes have boecme less black or all 

 



63A 

> 
i 

a- 

hasis 

rained, 

the 

ay. (neve 

rograms in 

>~ 
[SS 

ed pupils 

a 

0 

some do 

. -< 
Ae 

The purpose 

T teacher is to make the pupil 

Fp 

he 

- 

- x 

to new 

and scend some 

dentif 

to 

portion of + 
¥ 

ni 

ned to 

™ dav. 

rooular classes. 

ds 

pils i 

two perio 

hey arg e 

assig 

t 

. 
Ld 

< 
[9 4 

T 
4 

= 
i 

experiences 

d 

s are selected, 

be 

4d zach pe 

No 

f 

ay 

10 

dis 

m how to make the best use of 

i0r a 
- 

. 

~ 
2 a 

i 

mn 

than one 

h 

nO 

re assigned to a class f 

~~] A Aexy 
Cnuary 

S 

Ab 

Dore 

+ 

~ 
Ca 

-~ 
~ 

> - } 
tealn 

. 

At 

Len Bo Taian Bac) | 
I ESOACEPN 

try 
9 208 

~ 
Sn 
Vie 

~~ 

e school year. 

“De 

AT pronrams differ G 
-~ 

T pupils are plac 

1001 

A 
£\ 

1 for 

S 
v a 

oO. go to 

1, 
[SE 

~nrt 
Od 

y 

& Silo 

~-rbha 

1 . 
wis 

Ela a 

3 

 
 

to the contrary. 

Am mmr 

~ yy 
[S 

1 

“~~ 

~~ 

. 

Hh 

> Repo Wa $0 Watt 16 of § 4 

< 

"! 
BE 

3. 

v= ~~ 
- 

Oo 
| Sd 

[8 

> al 

£ 

he elem 

v 

(e} 

All 

- 

ininum 

T 

Seconda 

acl 
—— 

2. 

-- 

[08 gsvaton 
Sokal io ll G8 J 

 



 
 

644A 

*0 erry 
ve —J 

oY 

nears 

- 1%, o> 
cmpute rankings 

REE 
sed 

to 

Aan 1 

nt Li 

Tg 

pila 

shiny 

 
 

Oy 

OS 

3 and 

Cla 
Co Avs ssid? 

vuLldd 

PROT ET 

vied 
JUSFEEWR | 

MES 
A 

ILLS 

-— ~~ .-yy 
Lo 

V « 

ol ARR 

Cal Ci 

~ 

Scwe OI 

) 

FOREN 

Tn fAarm- ,- 

LOS SY 

- 
vend 

Ia) 

the 

axe 

-—aqrr Sa) 

’ 

Warn 

. ~ 
Auld 

> 

ON 

cecal 

. 

“0 
Can Fy Lv Ray 

. 

A ern 

- 

- n= 

Adda aan 

ANd sn 

v 

- — 

  

3 te - 

"w. 

10N. SAT avalunt 

Cadlin 
~ele 

  

for 

Ji r 

3 
“i 

ao -14 
< 

e 
1 ~~ 

a Cait 

- =x { 
rt 

PO SE 
-— - 

a 

 
 

il 

  

LE amt nan 
~ aN V2 as 

22h 
“ur 

Lilo vus 

3 

of 

4 C + 2 
| 

Jal 
. 

ta 

— 
/ 

é 

J me. J 

AATNY 

.e NN ~~ J J 
La 

ol aw 
LVRS SRO 4 

4 

5 
{ i 

 
 

~ 

107 

a 

nn 

 
 

en ~ 
[SRW | 

ar ean 
> 

~~ 
=o 

«1 
Cas 

h } ad 

ac 

5 

- 
-~ 

r 
Y 

LX NE 
bi aE OR 1B Bi ag eh he 

TO) O 

0 

> 

4&4 

££ i 4. 

Hamme a 

~~ 
2 aY 

Anh reer 
SAIS © Bir 

. Eh EEE 

~ ged Am 

L209 

fF 

a tatbanod 

~ re ' 

oh Told 

PETAR Bon 

. 
PN Ree 
4 a han 

~~~ 

Le ~ 

. — ad 

on -— 

“mai 

- 

eoeediemry 

LW mtvemna 
~~ 

~ aaa 

 



   B/4// 5 EXHIBIT 
wa 

65A 

  

  
  

The Department of Management's involvement with the 

Civil Rights office in Atlanta concerning SAT Program 

began Thursday, May 17, 1973, when Mrs. Dean received a 

call from Mr. Tom Fagan in Washington, D.C., concerning | 

Planning Grant for an Educational Park. His conversation | 

indicated that the proposal had been funded but that the 

school system had not been cleared by the Civil Rights 

office in Atlanta, : | 
| 

Mrs. Dean called the Civil Rights office and talked | 

with Mr. Clement and Mr. Toney to discuss the problem that 

was causing the project not to be funded. Mrs, Dean talked | 

with Mr. Clement, llead of the Atlanta office, and Mr. Toney, | 

his assistant, They informed us that it had to do with the | 

assignment of students to classes. 

We had three problems: 

1. School system's lack of policy of assignment of 

students to class 

2, Racial imbalance of SAT classes 

3. Racial imbalance of EMR classes 

Communication in these arcas had been carried on between 

Dr. Bobbitt and the Civil Rights office related to The Basic 

Grant which was also being held up by the sanc division for 

the same reasons. Mrs, Dean brought this matter to the 

attention of Dr. Joncs and Dr. Bobbitt, Mr. Waddell was out 

of town but was informed by telcphone by Mrs. Dean, 

 



A confercnce was arranged to be held in the Atlanta 

Civil Rights office on the following Monday, May 21, 1973 

for Mr. Waddell, Dr. Bobbitt, and Mrs. Dean. The conference 

was arranged for 10:00 a.m. Dr. Bobbitt could not attend 

the 10:00 a.m. conference, but did arrange an afternoon 

conference on the same day. 

Mys. Dean and Mr. Waddell attended the confercnce in 

Atlanta and after discussing the problems for four hours 

or more, it was agreed that 

1. the problen surrounding EMR classes had been 

explained and the Civil Rights office would 
< 

accept our explanation for the year 1973-74, 

2.1 it would be necessary to formulate regulations 

pertaining to assignment of pupils for the 

1973-74 school year. 

3, adjustment be made in racial mix of the SAT 

classes or eliminate the SAT classes. 

The deadline for the final decision on funding for these 

projects was the following Wednesday, May 36, 1973. 

It was agreed that we come back to Charlotte, meet 

with our staff and Superintendent and call Mr. Clement 

immediately following the meeting. 

We returned, discusscd the matter with Dr. Jones and 

the LCxccutive Staff. The Exccutive Staff formulated a 

statcment that we felt we could carry out and not be 

The Staff instructed Mr. Waddell 
damaging to our progran, 

  

66A



67A 

to call Atlanta to sce if the statcment would be accepted. 

The call was made immediately, with other staff members 

present, and the statement rcad to oy Clement, (Sce copy 

attached) Mr. Clement made a suggestion in the wording, 

which was acceptable with the staff, and stated that they 

would accept the statement, We agreed to forward the state- 

ment to the Atlanta office and we did the same day. : The 

Atlanta office agreed WE approve the statcment and notify 

Washington by telephone (in order to meet the deadline which 

was the next day), that they would approve Charlottes 

Mecklenburg for funding. Call made and funding approved. 

On Monday morning, prior to going to Atlanta, 1 con- 

ferred with Mrs. Betty Stovall, Director of SAT program, We 

discussed problems we faced and secured background information 

for the Atlanta meeting. 

At a later date Dr. Jones requested that Mrs. Stovall 

and Mr. Waddell get together to work out problems surrounding 

the SAT program and the agreement made with the Civil Rights 

office in Atlanta. (Copies of the summary of this meeting 

are attached.) 

On June 15, a memorandum was sent to all secondary 

principals from Dr. Jones, Dr, Bobbitt, and Mrs. Stovall 

explaining the guidelines. (Copy attached) 

Im eo | 

Enclosures 
: 

 



1 ivl ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES TOR ASSIGNMENT OF STUDENTS TO CLASSES 
  

(1); The Charlotte - Mecklenburg School System will assign 

( ) 

rm 

students to required classes on a heterogencous basis, 

Assignment to SAT classes in grades 7-10 will be on a 

non-racially identifiable basis. (A class that varies 

20 percent or more from the racial balance Of the grade 

Or School), Inprades 11 ‘and 12 every effort will Se 

made to recruit blacks for the SAT Program within the 

current (1972-73) SAT identification process, 

68A 

 



  
(eo 0 

a 40 id or BAS a et 

  

   

  

é - SERIE 

fi PLAINTIFE'S § 
| i EXHIBIT | 

: L § “ay ype 1 

i TT — ; TALENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 

A a ’ ~L fifo ] A ' ¢. iy 

SS A | : RACIAL COTOSITION 
Es a SECONDARY TEACHERS AND STUDENTS 

  

  

  

  

  

Black White. 

Teachers | students Teachers | Students 

1870-71 15 314 104 2914 

1971-72 17 234 106 3351 

1972-7 13 315 105 3407 

1973-74 20 : 680 117 3889 
:       
  

All secondary teachers are designated by the local principal from 

his staff. 

  

RACIAL COMPOSITION OF STUDENTS BY GRADE LEVEL 

1970-71 throush 1973-74 
  

  

% 

i 1970-71 Black White 
Grade 7 37 650 

8 66 577 
9 88 591 

10 54 454 
11 43 443 
12 26 198 
Total 314 2914 

1971-73 
Grade 7 48 727 

8 49 706 
9 54 634 

10 41 531 
11 29 539 

12 13 218 
Total 234 3351 

1972-73 
Grade 7 94 699 

8 54 739 
9 57 695 

10 38 587 
11 41 484 

12 _12 _203 
Total 296 3407 

  

 



RAC1AL COMPOSITION — 

Talent - 

1970-71 - 

East Mecklenburg 

Cai laget 

Hard ing 

Independence 

Mvers Park 

North Mecklenburg 

Olvnpic 

South Mecklenburg 

West Charlotte 

West Mecklenburg 

Total 

1971-72 

East Mecklenburg 

Garinger 

Harding 

Independence 

Myers Park 

North Mecklenburg 

Olympic 

South Mecklenburg 

West Charlotte 

West Mecklenburg 
Total 

1972-73 

East Mecklenburg 

Garinger 

Hard ing 

Independence 

Myers Park 

North Mecklenburg 

Olympic 

South Mecklenburg 

West Charlotte 

West Mecklenburg 
Total 

1973-74 

  

East Mecklenburg 

Garinger 

Harding 

Independence 

Myers Park 

North Mecklenburg 

Olympic 

South Mecklenburg 

West Charlotte 

West Mocklenburg 

Total 

10th 
Black White 

L 
1 

a 
-
-
 

ol 
p
t
 

wl 
ol
 

—
1
 

-
 

: 
-
]
 

p—
- 

=
i
 
W
r
H
E
N
=
N
D
N
D
=
N
N
 

~yolopment- Teach . . Senior High Schools 

evelopment. Teachers Senjor High Schools 

Blac 

Qo
 

2 

  

- 
— 

rt
 
C
E
I
V
E
U
R
V
E
 

CE
 
R
T
 

Cf
 

et
 

N
H
N
 

N
N
N
N
N
 

Ee
 

od
d 

B
i
n
 
N
H
 

W
W
N
 

=
 
N
N
 

Page 1 of 1 

2 
ol 

ol 

pe
t 

—
 

p
o
 

“
A
 
I
E
E
E
 

E
S
 

| 
-
 

ee
 

pu
b 

eh
 

pt
 

DN
 

IN
} 

Ps
 

et
 

pt
 

pt
 

nN
 

I.
 

(a
d 

e
r
o
 

mn
 

wt
 
h
m
m
 

12
 

00
 

00
) 

—t
 
P
e
r
m
 
m
m
m
 

m
p
 

70A 

  

   

    

 



Talent Development - Teachers - 

1970-71 

  

Albemarle Rd 

Alexander 

Carmel 

Cochrane 

Coulwood 

Lastway 

Alexander Crgham 

Hawthorne 

Kennedy 

McClintock 

Northeast 

Northwest 

Piedmont 

Quail Hollow 

Randolph 

Ranson 

Sedgefield 

Smith 

Spaugh 
Williams 

Wilson 
Total 

1971.72 

Albemarle Rd 

Alexander 

Carmel 

Cochrane 

Coulwood 

Eastway 

Alexander Gresham 

Hawthorne: 

Kennedy 

McClintock 

Northeast 

Northwest 

Piedmont 

Quail Hollow 

Randolph 
Ranson 

Sedgefield 

Smith 

Spaugh 

Williams 

Wilson 

RACIAL COMPOSITION 

Junior Hich Schools 
  

7th 
Black White 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

. 2 

: 1 

1 

1 

l 

2 

l 
1 

 } 
1 

l 

- 1 
4 19 

1 
7. 

1. 
1 

1 

1 

} 

1 

3 

2 

l 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 
l 

1 
5 

1 
a 3 

Total 3 20 

8th 
Black White 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

l 

2 

1 
| 

1 

l 

2 

1 
1 

1 

l 

1 

— ky 
4 19 

l 
1 

1 

} 

1 

1 

: 3 

1 

l 

2 

3 
1 

1 
1 

2 

1 

1 1 

1 

1 

1 
6 18 

  

   
Yape } of 2 

9th 
BR 

  

lack White 
1 1 

1 

1 

3 

1 
1 

2 

1 

bap | 
2 

l 

1 
1 

1 

2 

3 
1 : 

l 

1 

1 

— =1 
5 20 

1 
1 

1 

l 
 § 

1 

2 

; 
1 

2 

v j § 

1 
1 

4 

2 

1 
1 

1 

1 

“ 3 
4 20 

71A 

  

 



Page 2 of 2.794 

a
a
n
 

Ff 1AL COMPOSITION 
Talent Development - Teachers - Junior High Schools 

  

  

1672-73 
th 8th 9th 

Black White Black White Black White 

  

i 
A
A
A
I
 

Albemarle Rd 
1 1 

Alexander 

Carmel 

Cochrane 

Coulwoced 

Eastw ay 

Alexander Graham 

Hawthorne 

Kennedy 

- McClintock 

Northeast 

Northwest 

Piedoont 

Quail Hollow 

Randolph 

Ranson 1 

Sedgefield r 2 1 

Smith 1 

Spaugh 1 } 1 

Williams 1 

Wilson : : 1 

  

AN
) 

pt
 

pe
t 

pd
 

bd
 

pe
t 

ed
 

BN
D 

NN
) 

pb
 

pt
 

bt
 

ed
 

ND
 

pd
t 

pt
 

pd
 

pt
 

pt
 

et
 

BN
D 

et
 

—t
 

pd
 

t
s
 ND
 

po
d 

  
t
p
 

pt
 

3 > 

Total 3 22 5 

1973-74 
Albenarle Rd 

Alexander 

Carrel 

Cochrane 

Coulwood 

Eastway 

Alexander Graham 

Hawthorne 

Kennedy 

McClintock 

Northeast 

Northwest 

Piedmont 

Quail Hollow 

Randolph 

Ranson 1 

Sedgefield 

Smith 1 

Spaugh 
1 1 

William 1 1 

Wilson ae 1 au 21 1 

Total 3 26 S 21 8 20 

N
L
D
 

td
 

0d
 

be
 
L
D
N
)
 

bd
 

pd
 

pd
 

pt
 

pd
 

LD
 

4
 

pt
 

N
N
 

et
 

bd
 

pt
 

pd
 

= 
ND
) 

pt
 

a
 

pt
 

po
 

pe
t 

pet
 

ND)
 

 



    

   

  

| 
4 

% 

: 

H 

| 

LS; re om 

: 

PLAINTIFE 5 ) EXHIBIT © 

TALENT DEVELOrMENT PROGRAM - RACIAL COMPOSITION 
———— — ——   

    

vious Tap\V 
ES -n pa EE EE EE I 

        

  1TINSR ANT RESOURCE PROGRAM 
  

1973-74 12 Teachers - 73 Schools - 347 TD Class 
  

es = 
ee —— 

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

Stack Whire 

L Teachers Students Teachers J Students 

iu 1970-71 1789% 7 

1971-72 1 . 2088% 10 

1972-73 1 10,551 ** 9 

1673-74 1 784 11 4,186     
  

# Blacks and Whites combined. 

** Blacks and Whites ccmbined. includes a number of classrooms where 

teacher asks for demonstrations and in-service. 

itinerant teachers go to all elementary schools not more than one day 

a we ek and teach a series of 45 minute classes during that day. 

Weg 
7&4 

3 EF 
tL &$0 

RYT em Ee 

AR 

 



Page 1 of 3 

      

  

     
     

   
   

ELEMENTARY ITINERANT RESOURCE PROGRAM 

          

   

1973 - 1974 
i 

lt {nervant Number of _ Students 

School _Yeacher _Classes Black white  Tntal I 

v Briarwood Worrell S 3 S54 54 

Plaza Rd. n 5 9 48 57 

uX Highland he 5 12 38 50 

Shamrock 
4 « S 10 47 57 

Villa Heights ny 5 22 80 102 

Ogklawn " Ss 12 20 82 

30 68 337 405 

Beverly Woods Bundy 6 10 67 7) 

" gy " 3 5 32 3? 

Hunt ingtowne Farms Jy 6 12 66 . 78 

Starmount 
i 5 4 60 64 

" 
n 2 3 27 30 

Pineville 
" 4 4 39 43 

" " 4 4 39 \ 43 

Bruns 
i 6 3 73 80 

" 
n 2 5 33 38 

Olde Providence " 4 40 80 120 

" " is 1 10 20 30 

n n " 1 10 20 30 

" 1 
1 

21 
to 2 2. 

45 114 558 672 

Davidson Holland 
11 65 76 

Cornelius 
" 

4 45 49 

Huntersville 
H 

1 48 49 

Derita 
i 

2 47 49 

Statesville Rd " 
18 SO 68 

1} 35 46 

Long Creek " 

Myers Park Coffield 

Eastover 
9 

Selwyn 

Dilworth 

Elizabeth 
n 

Sedgefield 
i" 

N
|
 

nN
 

: 

N
R
W
 
S
S
D
S
 

w
i
r
 

s
h
o
 

&
 

n
n



Page 2 of 3 

      

  

ltincrant Number of _ Sturonts | 

SCHOOL Jesgher ~~ 'Gloswee Blak Thies Total ] 

Tuckaseegee Gamble 7 13 83 96 | 

University Park 4 14 35 122 157 | 

Paw Creek 4 9 29 38 | 

Pawtucket o 2 3 21 24 | 

Berryhill " 2 3 + 9 27 | 

& i ! 2 30 32 

= Oakdale is _Hh 47 ZY 120 

35 oo M2 382 494 

¥ Baringer McKinney ©, 5 9 58 67 

Enderly Park y 3 11 26 37 

Lakeview " 3 4 3 36 

Westerly Hills " 3 6 30 36 

Optional School 6 8 71 13 

Ashley Park " _S 10 «S3 «63 

25 48 270 318 

Montclaire Ferguson 5 5 47 52 

Amy James " 4 9 49 58 

Nations Ford " 5 5 38 43 

Pinewood ’" 6 8 57 ' 65 

Steele Creek Y 5 5 45 50 

Marie Davis is Ss _ 4 47 5 

: 30 36 283 319 

First Semester: 

Double Oaks Tripp 3 8 94 102 

Lincoln Heights i 3 20 91 111 

Bain " hg 7 _ 938 105 

21 35 283 318 

Second Semester: 

ldlewild Tripp (To be determined after January 18, 1974) 

Albemarle Rd. " 

Clear Creck 1 

Devonshire 

  

Hickory Grove J, Barton 5 6 69 25 

Ogkhurst " 5 6 60 66 

Midwcoed i 5 20 48 68 

Merry Oaks " 6 2 64 66 

Windsor 2ark gy 5 3 61 64 

Winterfield " 5 3 _61 _b4 

1 40 363 403 

 



276A 

Page 3 of 3 

  

Itinerant Number of __ Students 

SCHOOL Teacher Classes Black White Total 

Sterling Rd. J. Hunter 6 20 72 : 92 

Collinswood 
jo 6 20 62 82 

Wilmore 
" 6 20 57 77 

Sharon " 3 12 La 56 

Park Ra 1 3 18 40 58 

I Cotswold 
i 3 36 _54 _90 

217 126 329 455 

Hidden Valley Addie Crayton 5 17 58 75 

Thomasboro 4 b 7 32 33 

Druid Hills " 7 16 95 111 

Newell 
" 6 13 77 30 

Allenbrook 
i 3 _1} _43 _54 ; 

25 6% 305 369 

Chantilly Rebecca Hall 3 5 29 34 

Billingsville " 2 5 35 40 

First Ward " 4 7 41 % 48 

Rema Rd iy 5 8 80 88 

Matthews " 13 43 350 393 

Lansdowne (2nd semester)’ co. - Lo lap 3 

/ 68 535 603 

TOTAL NUMBERS 
Loo Students 

Elementary 1rinerant Resource Classes Blacks Whites Total 

      

  

  

  

347 784 4,186 4,370 

 



  

  

  

  

Ps ads Sir es Bn LB ERE 

an Eu \ 

717A 

i PLAINTIFF'S +o 
Pace 1 of 5 

{ EXHIBIT § 
ge of 

é 1% i 
-arr oh Sie oh ¥ 3 AN « ve + 

> 

3 > H 1973-7% ENBOLLMENT - TALENT DRVELOPMEM] 

4 4 

  

NUMBER OF STUDENTS 

SCHOOL GRAVE CLASSES BLACK HITE TEACHER 

Albemarle Rd. 7 1 6 29 Smalling - W-F 

8 1 7 28 Gadsden B-F 

9 1 B_ _27 Cox B-F 

3 21 84 

Alexander 7 1 6 27 Harry W-F 

|. 
8 1 6 25 Tulbert W-F 

9 1 4 32 Strong W-F. 

3 16 84 

As Ge 7 2 S 27 Reardon W-F 

6 20 

8 2 5 25 Johnston W-F 

S 24 

9 2 6 25 Yarborough W-F 

2 29 

“6 29 150 . 

Carmel 7 3 5 19 Vandiver W-F 

: 3 17 Clark W-M 

3 18 Bundy W-F 

8 2 6 23 Pierce W-F 

IA 27 Powell W-F 

9 2 4 23 McClary B-F 

5 23 Carmichael W-F 

7 30 150 

Cochrane 7 ed 11 SO Wilson W-F 

9 52 

8 2 6 27 McKenzie W-F 

5 27 

9 2 5 26 S. Byrd 

7 24 

iy 43 206 

Cculwood 7 1 8 25 Stimson W-F 

8 1 6 21 Thonas W-F 

9 _¥ 24 Sheeks W-F 

3 

 



  

SCHOOL GRADE CLASSES 

Eastway 7 1 
8 1 

9 

% 

Hawthorne 7 1 

8 1 

9 1 
3 

Kennedy 7 < 

8 2 

9 1 
*See next page for McClintock 

Northeast 7 A 
8 1 

9 1 
3 

Northwest 7 I 
8 1 

9 1 
3 

Piedmont ? 2 

8 2 

9 2 

6 

Quail Hollow 7 3 

8 3 

9 3 

9 

STUDENTS 

Si
e 

re 
o
d
 

r—
 

S
I
O
 
W
H
E
 

~
i
s
W
w
e
s
s
s
V
m
o
U
O
 

>
 

  

   

  

Page 2 of § 78 A 

TEACHER 

M.A.Barrett W-F 

R.Baughman W-F 

E. Ball W-F | 

M. Furr W-F 
A 

C, Smith W-F 

B. McFarland W-F 

D, Bowman B-F 

Webber W-F 

Walker W-F 

Clark W-M 

Grooms W-M 

. Britton W-F 

Pulliam W-F 

Pethel B-F 

Gray W-M 

% 

Moseley W-M 

McClure W-F 

Lutz B-F 

A. Abee W-F 

D. Springs B-F 

L. Haigler W-F 

Denton W-F 

Whitaker W-F 

Patterson W-M 

Mitchell W-F 

Mitchell W-F 

Montgomery BM 

Tyson W-F 

Wall W-F 

Wall F-F 

 



SCHOOL 

Randolph 

Ranson 

Sedgefield 

Smith 

Spaugh 

Williams 

Wilson 

(*Belongs on Page 2) 
McClintock 

  

  

n STUDE...S 
GRADE CLASSES BLACKS WHITES 

7 2 3 26 

3 27 

8 2 8 26 

6 31 

9 2 6 29 

’ _6 2S 
6 30 164 

7 1 6 26 

8 1 8 24 

. 1 _26 
3 37 76 

7 2 4 24 

3 26 

8 2 5 21 

4 24 

9 2 6 21 

: _6 _20 
6 28 136 

7 1 7 25 

8 1 6 26 

9 1 3 _26 
3 ‘18 137 

J 2 5 22 

2 15 

8 } 3 19 

9 W _6 _24 
4 16 80 

7 1 4 24 

8 1 12 13 

9 1 23 _16 
3 19 53 

7 1 2 29 

8 1 8 24 

9 1 _6 wk 
3 13 15 

7 3 2 24 

5 2 

4 26 

8 3 6 26 

6 18 

A 26 

9 3 3 26 

2 25 

Soin '3 _28 
9 35 220 

~ Fishman W-F 

Papa 3} of 5 79A 

TEACHER 

   
     
    

   

    

  

   
    

Shuman W-F 

Cormwell W-M 

Clark W-F 

Hall W-F 

Massey W-F 
ore W-M 

Borders B-F 

2hillips W-F 

Myers W-F 

Fishman 

Ward W-F 

Ward 

Waggoner B-F 

Wallace B-F 

Se. Allen B-F 

Dg Griffin W-F 

Ee Crump W-F 

Dan FarisW-M 

Dan Faris 

M. Steele W-F 

Stickley W-F 

Blakeney B-F 
Linder W-F 

Miller B-F 

Carroll W-F 

Hutchins W-F 

Waugh W-F 

Hartsell W-F 

Robfogel W-F 

Pittman W- F 

Shriner W-F 

Freeman B-M 

Ellerbe W-F 

McCauley B-F 

Hood W-F 

Kelly W-F



SCHOOL 
cast 

Garinger 

Hard ing 

Independence 

Myers Park 

GRADS 
lV 

11 

12 

10 

11 

12 

10 

11 

12 

10 

11 

12 

10 

11 

12 

CLASSES 
[A 

w
l
 

&
~
 

~d
 

fr
e 

2
}
 

1 
9 

C
I
O
 

NN
 

© 
rm

 
r=
 

= 
N
W
 

pd
 

(o
p)
 

NUMBER OF STU.Lo.NTS 
BLACK WH1 
  

= 

  

C
i
r
r
u
s
 

NN
) 

r=
 

[o
a]

 

ol Wmi
s
S
 

LL
 

W
n
W
w
 
d
&
E
&
N
 

—
 

(9%
) 

[3%
] 
D
n
 

r
a
s
 

2 
a
 

Ww
 

(©
) 

a
l
e
 
O
m
 

O
t
a
 
O
O
W
o
O
o
 

[S
) 

™N
 

880A 
Page 4 of 5 

TIIACHER 

N. Stout W-F 

Chesnut W-F 

Treece W-F 

Susan Smith W-F 

Susan Smith 

M. Gragg W-F 
M. Gragg W-F 

Travis W-F 

Travis 

Hawn W-F 

Hawn 

Fitzsimmons W-F 

Huntley W-F 

J. Withers W-F 

Buchan W-F 

Chavis B-F 

Bumgarner W-M 
Lingerfelt W-F 
L. Davis B-M 

M., J. Powell UW-.F 

McGregor W-4 
Belch H-M 

Belch 

Wallace W-F 

Wallace W-F 

Watsan W-F 

Watson 

Conger W-M 

Layton W-M 

Layton 

Dotts W-F 

Dotts 

Dotts 

Sawver 

Martin W-F 

Hinson W-F 

E. long W-F 

 



    

: 

SCHOOL GRADE CLASSES BLACK WHITE TOTAL i 
) 

Nortn 10 2 2 24 M. Smith W-F | 

8 21 Bratton B-F : 

11 4 0 30 M. Smith W-F 

0 29 Suftt W-F i 

3 17 Sujit W-F 

. 26 Maye W-F 

12 i 3 oy Mott W-F 

7 18 154 

Olympic 10 3 4 19 Choate W-F 

— 
’ 5 25 Choate W-F 

0 15 Short W-F 

11 1 0 23 R. A. Williams W-F 

12 0 - oi 
& 9 82 

South 10 2 3 2 S. Kessler W-F 

a 25 S. Kessler W-F 

11 4 0 33 Morris W-F 

0 27 D, Jackson W-F 

2 15 Morris W-F 

| 
0 19 D.c Jackson WsF 

12 1 1 _24 B. Flynt W-F 

| 
7 12 170 

| West Charlotte 10 5 & 23 Ingold W-F 

br 
5 20 Coffey W-F 

5 25 Coffey W-F 

S 26 McSpadden W-F 

6 20 McSpadden W-F 

11 2 2 20 Bell B-F 

0 29 Webb W-F 

12 1 2 ys Sutherland W-F 

8 29 179 

| West Mecklenburg 10 2 0 12 J, Fitzsimmons W-M 

\ 
5 25 Turpin W-F 

| 11 2 5 23 Norwood W-M 

5 23 Pearson W-M 

12 8 22 D. Russell W-M 

   



  

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL. 
GRADE LEVEL RACIAL 

STUDENTS 

TALENT DEVELOPMENT 

WMPOSITION ff 

  

  
  

    
  

  

  

    

    
    
              
  
      
    

  

  

        
  

  

  

  
  

          
  

    

  
  

  

  

  

    

  

  

  

  
      
      

      
      

    

    

  

  

  
  

    

  

  

  
      

1970-71 

 Blacs nhit Black ite y Black Albemarle Road ! Se 31 
Alexander | 0 28 0 29 
Carrel ] 0 30 | 5 21 
ochrane | 1 25% | 4 22 

Coulweod : 1 24 | 1 27 

mastway ©) 25 0 25 
S1exander Graham 2 62 [ 61 

Hawthorne 8 25 | 6 32 

Kennedy 3 22 7 9 

McClintock 1] 51 5 4b 
Nantheast 0 25 0 29 

Northwes 4 21 4 10 

Piedmont 1 25 i 0 21 
Quail Hollcw 0 53 2 26 

Randolph P10 61 2 57 

Ranson 1 23 2 19 . 
Sedcefield | 2 25 0 23 0) 
Smith 0 32 ! 2 27 

Spaugh ae 14 | 8 19 4 
Williams 6 26 7 20 10 
Los wg 26 4 22 1 

|     

    

  

    
   



TALENT . ELOPMENT ‘ 

    

  
    

    

  
  

      
    

  
  

  

  

  

          

    
  

  

      
  

  

  

      
    

  

  

  
  

      
  

  

        

JUNIOR HIGH SCIlOOLo . GRADE LEVEL RACIAL CO:9OSIT ION 

STUDENTS 
1971-72 

7 8 9 
, Black hite slack white | Black White 

Albemarle Roag 2 24 | 3 27 7 21 

Alexander | 2 26 0 35 1 28 

earre) | 0 51 2 55 0 42 

\ Cochrane 7 61 — 1 39 2 23 

| Coulweod } Z..1 5 23 2 io 
i bastway : 5 | 24 2 30 3 26 

1exanzer Graham | 1 35 1 64 0 | 64 

Hawthorne 7 22 5 28 4 30 
kenneay 1 21 0 26 2 18 

McClintock 1 53 1 50 ! 60 

Northeast 0 29 0 16 0 28 
Northwest 2 13 2 14 5 14 

Piedmont 3 + 20 3 22 2 | 22 | 

Quail Hollow 0 50 3 45 7 19 | 
Randolph Ta 53 5 53 6 50 
Ranson | 1 22 2 25 1 30 
Sedgefield | 0 54 4 49 4 26 

Smith | 0 33 1 a 29 0 29 
Spaugh | 1 - 24 | 0 14 0 22 

Hilliamws 3 28 2 28 4 27 

t’ilson | 5 25 2 24 3 19 

3 | 
|   

  

  
 



TALENT DEVELOPMENT 84A 

  

  

      

  

    
    

    
        
  

  

  

  

    
      

  

    

    

    

  

  

      
      
  

  

    

  
  

  
  

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ; GRADE LEVI ACIAL COMPOSITION 

STUDENTS 
1972-73 

7 8 9 

Albemarle Road (ie HRs | gt he | Black thie 

Alexander | 3 25 0 30 « ol 

arrel | 5 45 0 44 4 56 

ochrane 6 55 4 53 2 35 

Coulwood fs 21 5 26 5 21 

Fastway frist oe 4 23 i 2 28 1 30 

[ flgonder Graham 7 SO 1 62 0 61 

Hawthorne 6 19 5 20 7 23 

Kennedy 3 26 i 1 25 1 25 

fplcClintock 4 59 1 63 0 65 

Northeast 3 26 0 29 0 : 19 

Northwest 3 25 8 22 5 32 | 

Pledmont 5 24 | 3 28 7 21 

Quail Hollew 7 S51 1 56 4 51 

Randoloh Ps 53 Ba 5 56 | 2 51 | 
[ | 
Ranson 3 26 2 | 27 - 3 22 

Sedaefielqd 6 41 4 45 2 : 28 

Smith 3 27 0 30 1 29 

Spaugh fev, 24 0 17 4 17 

hi11sems 7 21 4 2} 4 25 

19ilson ret 18 5 22 2 21 

|         
  

    

  
 



1{ TON OF TALENT DEVELOPMENT cL SES IN 

RACIAL COM iD 
: 

CHARLO TT Hh - MECKLENDURG SCHOOLS 1973-74 

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS   
  

  

  

  

GCrele 7? Grade 8 Grade § 

T i 
: f 
| Black White |. Black thite ! Blark hive 

an ere 
& td : i 

i 
‘ 

| 
t 

zalbemarle 322d 6 29 I 7 28 g 27 | 

1 3 ai 

Fi 
N 

| 

i 1 

h 
§* 

| } 

nlexancer 2 3 f 25 4 32... | 

| 

[} 

  
3: 10 50 9 ot 0 

  

  

  

    
  

  

    

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

    

  

    

      
  

     



  

  

  

    

  

  

  

  

    

    

            

~ a: 
Rota 

E6A | Che oy gl fi 2 PLAT, TAL DEVELOPMENT 
b “iH EXpimier 9 4 GRADE LEVEL RACIAL COMPOSITION SENIOR HIGH SCIOOLS i: Nahr | Shane STUDENTS 

} : -71 Sona, oo { f 20 d 1970 7 

So 0 

Black White J) Black white | Black | White 

Bast Mecklenburg ! 4 38 | 0 32 0 32 
I | 

Garinger silg 43} 14 34 . - 
| re L = : 

i 

| Harding 2 21 3 22 2 48 
| : 2 

Independance 2 20 2 22 2 18 

Myers Park 6 59 5 91 0 16 
| 

i 
North Mecklenburg | 29 2 32 3 25 i 

Olympic 2 48 0 58 1 35 

South Mecklenburg 1 37 go 42 2 20 

West Charlotte 19 24 g 13 15 5 

West Mecklenburg ! 5 52 2 19 1 29     
  

  

    
 



    
  

  

  

SENIOR HICH SCHCOL 

TALE™™ DEVELOPMENT 
GRADE LEVE 2ACIAL COMPOSITION 

STUDENTS 
SD re — 

  

  

  

  

          
  

  
    

  

    

  

  

  

      

BRITS $1971.72 

10 11 12 
Black | white | 3lack od White Black white 

East Mecklenburg | 
: 0 53 1.0 88 0 34 
Dim 4 

Garinger 5 Ct EE 46 3 14 

Harding : 2 59 0 37 3 21 I 

Independence 4 29 0 77 2 20 

ya 
Myers Park 0 116 0 86 3 19 

f 
North Mecklenburg | 5 17 1 31 0 30 i 

: x Olympic 3 37 2 45 0 25 

South Mecklenburg 0 44 5 57 0 16 

fd 

West Charlotte 2 36 4 10 1 15 

West Mecklenburg 8 \ 42 12 49 6 36       
    

87A 

 



  

  
  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  
      
  

  
  

      
      

! 

i 
TALENT DEVELOZIL . 

b 

rn Ww GCT . GRADE LEVEL RACIAL CO!OSITION 
ENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS STUDENTS 

| 

re Sear 1972-73 | 

10 11 12 | 

BA Black white | Diack tice ~preBlack White | 

i 

East Mecklenburg '@ 2 57 | 0 53 0 15 | 

: \ 
| 

—— 
| 

Garinger 1°15 4 |} 1 12 2 19 

Go i 
: ; 

| Harding Pb 3:1, 3 60 0 18 

Independence ' lig 78 4 £0 0 24 

Myers Park | 3 92 0 53 0 11 

| 
I 

North Mecklenburg ! g HE 51 9 S58 1 33 

i 

| Y 

Olympic LE} 27 2 21 0 25 

South Mecklenburg 2 48 0 22 1 22 

West Charlotte 3 19 5 37 2 14 

| West Mecklenburg | 6 43 13 48 5 21   
  

      
 



ji 89A 

  

  

  

    
  

  
  

  

  
  

  
  

  

  
  

      

        

RACIAL COMPOSITION OF TALL... DEIVILOPMENT CLASSES IN 
CHARLOTTE 1XCXLINIURG SCHCOLS 1973-7 

SINIOR NICH SCHOOLS Page 2 

: Crade 10 Crade 11 Grade 12 : 

Black White Black, Waite | Bigcw i Waite 

| | 9 ast Mecklenbu 6 76 1 35 : 2 ji ¥ fg (Advanced {Placerent) 

| | | 
| 

b ' : 
Garinger ; 11 : 44 6 30 53. 24 

3 : | 
: i 

| | 
Harding 6 3213 wi HEC 

| | 
I { é 

o = 
! | 

Incependence i 10 56 2 47 0 | 2} 

(Advanced Placement) 
5 

Myers Park 6 84 1 | 48 0 11 
| | 1] 

| | | r 
| North Mecklenburg 10 45 5 54 3 7 

| ; | 
| f | | | 

| | | 
Olympic 9 48 0 23 | 1 | 15 

: KAdvanced Elacexant) 

| - | 

South Mecrlenburs : 9 52 2 53 | 2 23 
; | ] 

| 
| : ; 

Best Charlotte 19 87 2 39 2 15 

| 
i 

| i i : 

) : | Vest Mecklenburg | 6 24 5 23 | 8 y 22 
: { - : 

| : 1 ! 
! 

. | 

TOTALS, 92 553 27 = 380 26 200 

     



    

System-wide by Grades: 

CHARLOTTE -MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS 

RACIAL COMPOSITION OF TALENT DEVELOPMENT CLASSES 

= 

  

  

CRADES 
12 Total 

  

  

YEASN 

  1972-73 

| 

5 BY. Wh. Bi. wh. Ol, vn,’ Bi, Wn, Bl, Un, 

| 

| 
54 om {fst 739) 57 60s | 38 sa7 Lay send vs 201 284 3407 

      
  

; } 

1973-74 169 831 {178 734{ 165 760 Loz 732 i390 ol 26 19d SRO 3868 

; | | 
; CHANCE +75 +132 $124 -5|+108 +85 | +65 r145 | Co 2116 +Ys =z 1e385 4461 

. § :     

  

  

    
   



    

LAL ITIF FE 5 4 O1A 
pera tiny T 4 
CRARCidnAE 

ny
 

a 

i 

Bl 
p
g
a
e
a
 

an
e 

Ba
gs
an
e,
 
MJ
. 

o
a
 AM 

BT
N 

S
A
E
 

SRL
 
R
A
 

  

  

  

£4 i] 
is 4 

i 

| NCT— = and chariot te-Maecklenburge Schools 

December 6, 1973 

Estimated Costs SAT PROGHAD 

§ 

Stat Local Federal Total 
——— — i 

hb ZA) NR } - N ~ - - i 3 1970-71 213,557 .O0 65,235.7 - 343,682.71 

| 1971-72 £92,68..00 68,792.63 10,901.00 372.371 43 

| 1972-73 320,575. 75,320.19 - 395,895.19 

| | 1973-74 433,LL47.00 85,559.60 - 519,046.60   
Costs fort eachers assigned SAT classes at the Junior or Senior High 
School level are estimated at one-sixth of salary. 

  

  

  
    
 



  
        

tel CHARLOTTE - MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS 
\ y 
0) S Pig EDUCATION CENTER 

POST OFFICE DOX 149 

CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA 
28201 

October 5, 1973 

¥r. BR, laoar Clements, Chief 

£lementary cad Secondayy Nducation Branch 

Office for Civil Rights : i 

separtment of Health, Education and Welfare i 

680 Peachirce, Ne We. 

Atlante, Georgia, 30323 - 

ear Mr. Jlements: 

This is in response to vour request for a progress report on the Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg Schools! implementation of the administrative guidelines agreed upon 

for the assignment of pupils to required courses and to the Talent Development 

(formerly SAT) program, : BTS 

eminated to all secondary school principals under the 

signature of the Superintendent on June 15, 1973. Elementary principalg were 
given notitication at a inion staff meetings Subsequently the guidelines were 

discussed a general staff meeting and at other smaller principals meetings. 

The guidelines were ik 

0
 

w
n
 

In regard to guideline 1; - "Students assigned to required clssses will be 
assigned on a heterogeneous basis! the following progress report is made: 

1c All elementary school principa 

classes on a heterogeneous bas 
classes for chilaren with learn 

-. mental retardation, emotional di eg, autism, etc, 

2. - Yost secondary school reports are not yet in, but those submitted indicate 
heterogencous assignment of pupils to classes in required subjects. 

rt that all pupils are assigned to 
t for a small number of self contained 

sabilities, orthopedic handicaps, 

c 

SAT classes, grades 7-10, will be assigned ln regard to guideline 2; "Students in 5 
so that no class deviates orye than 207, plus or mings, from the racial ratio of 

the grade or school,” the following progress report is made: 

le #& memorandum was sent to all secondary principals during the summer . 
explaining that: 

8: 1t was under 
1973-74 had 

bs adjustments shou 
guideline, . oe 

ce No white student would be remove i from the program to admit a black 

student. 

d. 1n case of completely filled classes, two solutions were suggested: 

cod that Talent basvelopment class assignments for 
d a tudents notified. 

d be made as soon as practical to conform to the 

Q.
 

(1) Establish additional classes to accomodate increased enrollment. 

(2) Increase the size of the classes). . 

es L.rincipals and counselors should examine student records closely to 

 



SE S
E
E
 

H
e
 

p! 

  

  

    

2° 934 

identity all stwlents, vlack or white, who showed undeveloped potential. 

Ihev were urped, especially in the case of black students, to seek 

evidence from non-traditional sources. 

2, The cuidelines were Jdiscussed at subsequent meetings of principals. 

3. 3 meget on progress lovard implementation of this guideline has been 

v . | -] 

mage 19 the Buard of 

1a vecard 10 guldelive 4; "ivory elfort will he made by the digtrict to v ] 

recruit blacks dn prades 11 and 12 for the 5a progran,” the following progress 

i 

1. ltems 1 throush 3 above apply equally to this guideline. ilowever, 

] 1 
Slave no svoviiic ratio was required, liom le ©. VES emphasized, 

Takles marked page 1, 2 and 3 attached indicate the statistical 

result of effcrts to implement guidelines 2 and 3. 

Yours sincerely, 

aE # 
/ gt : ; ’ Sai : ™, 7s , 

A y he) rd 
-— NE <3 rE id ft 7 2 ne 

Rolland W. Jones’ 
Superintendent © . & 

WL5/1rs : Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools [||908aec99-63f9-4104-a7a4-dd507c843ec8||]