United States v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education Appendix Vol. 3
Public Court Documents
August 21, 1969 - October 14, 1971
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. United States v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education Appendix Vol. 3, 1969. 91299ed0-c79a-ee11-be37-000d3a574715. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/2d3b87c2-a2d8-4675-aff8-aa0e17f67d89/united-states-v-scotland-neck-city-board-of-education-appendix-vol-3. Accessed October 08, 2025.
Copied!
APPEN D IX
Vol. I ll (pp. 788-1155)
I n T h e
OJmtrt nf % Inttefc
O c t o b e r T e r m , 1971
No. 70-130
U n it e d S t a t e s o f A m e r ic a ,
Petitioner,— v.— ’
S c o t l a n d N e c k C i t y B o ar d o f E d u c a t io n , e t a l .,
Respondents.
No. 70-187
P a t t ie B l a c k C o t t o n , e t a l .,
__v __ Petitioners.
S c o t l a n d N e c k C i t y B o ar d o f E d u c a t io n , e t a l .,
Respondents.
o n w r i t o f c e r t io r a r i t o t h e u n it e d s t a t e s c o u r t
ON a p p e a l s f o r t h e f o u r t h c ir c u it
PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI FILED APRIL 22, 1971
AND MAY 20, 1971
CERTIORARI GRANTED OCTOBER 12, 1971
I n T h e
Bnpttm (Cmtrl uf tlrr Intirit BtnUn
O c t o b e r T e r m , 1971
No. 70-130
U n it e d S t a t e s o f A m e r ic a ,
Petitioner,
S c o t l a n d N e c k C i t y B o ar d o f E d u c a t io n , e t a l .,
Respondents.
No. 70-187
P a t t ie B l a c k C o t t o n , e t a l .,
Petitioners.
•v.—
S c o t l a n d N e c k C i t y B o ar d o f E d u c a t io n , e t a l .,
Respondents.
o n w r it o f c e r t io r a r i t o t h e u n it e d s t a t e s c o u r t
ON APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
i n d e x t o a p p e n d i x
Page
Certified copy of docket entries_______________________________ 1
Complaint __________________________________________________________ 26
Plaintiff’s notice of motion and motion for a preliminary
injunction ______________________ ______________________________ 39
Plaintiff’s notice of motion and motion for leave to join an
additional party defendant and to file an amended com
plaint ____________________________________________________________ 41
Response to plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction,
motion for leave to join an additional party defendant,
and motion to file an amended complaint ___________________ 43
Answer of all defendants with the exception of Halifax
County Board of Education __________________________________ 47
Page
Response to plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction,
motion for leave to join an additional party defendant,
and motion to file an amended complaint--------------------------— 51
Answer of Halifax County Board of Education----------------------- 56
Notice of hearing by Judge B u tler----------------------------------------- 60
Order that Clerk file amended complaint and U. S. Marshal
serve copies upon defendants-------------------------------------------------- 61
Amended complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- 62
Answer to amended complaint by all defendants except Hali
fax County Board of Education------------------------------------------ 69
Answer of defendant Scotland Neck Board of Education------ 72
Transcript of hearing on August 21-22, 1969------------------------- 76
Deposition of Ferd Harrison---------------------------------------------------- 96
Deposition of C. M. Moore, J r .------------------------------------------------ 117
Deposition of Craig Phillips---------------------------------------------------- 153
Deposition of W . Henry Overman------------------------------------------- 218
Deposition of Henry Harrison------------------------------------------------- 365
Deposition of Frank P. Shields----------------------------------------------- 419
Deposition of Aubrey Powell--------------------------------------------------- 460
Deposition of F. Boyd Bailey--------------------------------------------------- 493
Affidavit of J. L. Pierce------------------------------------------------------------ 580
Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- 585
Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 2 ----------------------------------------------------------- 587
Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- 679
Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 5 ---------------------------------------------------------- 681
Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 7 ----------------------------------------------------------- 683
Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 8 ----------------------------------------------------------- 684
Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 9 ----------------------------------------------------------- 686
Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 1 0 ----------------------------------------------------------- 687
Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 1 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- 688
Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 1 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- 727
Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 1 4 ----------------------------------------------------------- 746
Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 1 7 _______________________________________ 759
Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 1 8 _______________________________________ 761
Order dismissing certain defendants-------------------------------------- 788
Memorandum opinion of Judge Larkins_______________________ 790
Amended answer of the Scotland Neck City Board of Edu
cation _________________________________________________________ 793
ii INDEX TO APPENDIX
INDEX TO APPENDIX iii
Page
Motion of defendant Scotland Neck City Board of Educa
tion that order be entered modifying temporary injunc
tion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 798
Order allowing Scotland Neck City Board of Education to
use private donations for expenses and fees incurred_____ 800
Motion of Robert Morgan, Attorney General of North Caro
lina, to intervene in this action in behalf of the state of
North Carolina, as party defendant________________________ 801
Order allowing intervention of Robert Morgan, Attorney
General of North Carolina, in behalf of the state of North
Carolina _____________________ 804
Answer of Robert Morgan, Attorney General of North Caro
lina, in behalf of the state of North Carolina_______________ 806
Order allowing motion of Halifax County to be dismissed
as to the question of constitutionality of the Act creating
Scotland Neck U nit___________________________________________ 812
Answer to plaintiff’s interrogatories by defendant Halifax
County Board of Education_________________________________ 814
Memorandum opinion and order of Judge Larkins__________ 923
Order amending order of 1 1 /2 4 /6 9 ____________________________ 925
Motion for leave to intervene by additional plaintiffs Pattie
Black Cotton and Edward M. Francis, public school teachers
of Halifax County, and others ____________________________ 926
Transcript of hearing on December 17, 1969__________________ 931
Memorandum opinion and order allowing motion to inter
vene ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 994
Complaint in intervention______________________________________ 1000
Answer of defendant Scotland Neck City Board of Educa
tion to the complaint in intervention_______________________ 1029
Answer to complaint in intervention by board of county
commissioners of Halifax County____________________________ 1046
Answer of defendant Halifax County Board of Education
to the complaint in intervention____________________________ 1051
Order that motion of defendants that effective date of imple
mentation be delayed until on or about 6 /1 /7 0 is allowed;
“ Proposed Interim Plan” of defendant Halifax County
Board of Education be implemented by board no later
than 6 /1 /7 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1058
Opinion and order that further implementation of Chapter
31 of the 1969 Session Laws of North Carolina is perma
nently enjoined _______________________________________________ 1062
iv INDEX TO APPENDIX
Page
Judgment that Chapter 31 of the 1969 Session Laws of
North Carolina creating Scotland Neck Administrative
Unit is declared to be unconstitutional and null and void.
Defendants, their respective officers, agents, etc., are
permanently enjoined from all further proceedings pur
suant to said statute-------------------------------------------------------------- 1085
Amended order, amending order of district court dated
5 /18 /70 _______________________________________________________ 1086
Notice of appeal by Scotland Neck City Board of Education .. 1087
Notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit by Robert Morgan, Attorney General
of North Carolina, North Carolina State Board of Educa
tion, and Dr. A. Craig Phillips, State Superintendent of
Public Instruction__________________________________________ - 1088
Motion of defendant Halifax County Board of Education for
further amendment to “Proposed Interim Plan” --------------- 1089
Plaintiff’s response to defendant’s motion to amend interim
desegregation plan approved May 19, 1970-------------------------- 1092
Defendant Scotland Neck City Board of Education’s Answer
to motion of Halifax County Board of Education--------------- 1094
Plaintiffs’ in intervention opposition to defendant’s motion
to amend interim desegregation plan approved May 19,
1970 __________________________________________________________ 1096
Order denying motion of defendants to amend the order
of May 19, 1970, with respect to the operation of Scotland
Neck School and Brawley School (Judge Larkins)------------ 1098
Affidavit of W . Henry Overman dated September 15, 1970
(Enrollment Statistics)______________________________________ 1100
Affidavit of W . Henry Overman dated December 2, 1970
(Enrollment Statistics)______________________________________ 1102
Opinion and judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit dated March 23, 1971________________ 1104
Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit in Wright V. Council of the City of Emporia, March
23, 1971 _____________________________________________________ 1119
Order staying the mandate dated April 21, 1971_______________ 1151
Order of Supreme Court of October 12, 1971 allowing certi
orari in No. 70-130___________________________________________ 1152
Order of Supreme Court of October 12, 1971 allowing certi
orari in No. 70-187_________________________-_________________ 1152
Affidavit of W . Henry Overman dated October 14, 1971 (En
rollment Statistics)___________________________________________ 1153
Halifax County map indicating the school districts and dif
ferent schools-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1155
788
[Caption Omitted]
ORDER
LARKINS, District Judge:
This cause coming on to be heard before the Court on
a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the plain
tiff pursuant to the provisions of Sections 407(a) and
(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as codified, 42
U.S.C.A. §§ 2000c-6(a) and (b) seeking to restrain the
defendants from giving any force or effect to the provi
sions of Chapter 31 of the North Carolina Session Laws
of 1969, an Act to establish a separate administrative
unit for the operation of the public schools of the Town
of Scotland Neck, North Carolina; and due notice hav
ing been given to the defendants; and the Court having
considered the evidence and the argument of counsel and
being fully advised in the premises; and it appearing to
the Court that effectuation of the terms of the Act will
result in the operation of the schools of Scotland Neck,
North Carolina, and Halifax County, North Carolina, on
a racially discriminatory basis to the irreparable dam
age of the United States and the Negro pupils of Halifax
County; and it further appearing to the Court that no
injunctive relief as to effectuation of the provisions of
Chapter 31 is being sought against the defendant Hali
fax County Board of Education; and that the defendants
Ferd L. Harrison, as Mayor of the Town of Scotland
Neck, J. A. Andrews, F. G. Shearin, J. I. Walston, D. E.
Josey, Jr., as members of the Board of Commissioners of
the Town of Scotland Neck, and the Town of Scotland
Neck, a body corporate, are not proper parties to this
action;
It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DE
CREED:
THAT the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the de
fendants Ferd L. Harrison, as Mayor of the Town of
Scotland Neck, J. A. Andrews, F. G. Shearin, J. I. Wal
ston, D. E. Josey, Jr., as members of the Board of Com
789
missioners of the Town of Scotland Neck, and the Town
of Scotland Neck, a body corporate, be, and the same
hereby is allowed; and
THAT the defendant Scotland Neck City Board of
Education and its officers, agents, employees and suc
cessors are hereby enjoined from giving any force or
effect to the provisions of Chapter 31 and from taking
any action pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 31 pend
ing a final determination on the merits of the issues
raised in the present action; and
THAT pursuant to the provisions of Rule 65(c) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no security shall
be required of the plaintiff, United States of America;
and
THAT this ORDER shall become effective as of 12:00
Noon on Monday, August 25, 1969; and
THAT a Memorandum Opinion subsequently will be
filed in this action; and
THAT the Clerk shall serve copies of this ORDER
upon all counsel of record, and the defendants.
Let this ORDER be entered forthwith.
,/s/ John D. Larkins, Jr.
J o h n D. L a r k i n s , J r .
United States District Judge
/ s / Algernon L. Butler
A l g e r n o n L. B u t l e r
United States District Judge
Raleigh, North Carolina
August 25, 1969
[Caption Omitted]
MEMORANDUM OPINION
790
LARKINS, District Judge:
This Court entered its ORDER on August 25, 1969,
effective at 12:00 noon. The Clerk served copies of said
ORDER upon all defendants and counsel of record.
Pursuant to said ORDER this MEMORANDUM
OPINION is filed in support of said ORDER and is in
cluded therein by reference.
This cause coming on to be heard before the United
States District Judges for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, and being heard upon the motions of plaintiffs
and additional plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction
and for a declaratory judgment; and due notice having
been given to all defendants; and the Court having con
sidered the evidence, the stipulations, the briefs and argu
ments of counsel, and being fully advised in the premises,
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On March 3, 1969, the General Assembly of North
Carolina ratified a measure designated Chapter 31, Ses
sion Laws of North Carolina 1969, creating the Scotland
Neck City Administrative Unit in Halifax County to
operate the public schools in said unit; providing that
all public school property located within the unit should
become the property of the unit; providing for a sup
plemental tax levy, and directing a special election to
authorize the establishment of said unit and the levying
of said tax. The voters approved said proposals.
2. The Board of Education of the Scotland Neck City
unit permits transfers of students in and out of said
units. Scotland Neck City has established a tuition
charge of $100.00 a year for the first child in a family,
$25.00 for the second child, $25.00 for the third child,
and each subsequent child per family free, for all stu
dents transferring into said unit.
3. During the school year 1968-69, all the public
schools of Halifax County were operated by the Halifax
791
County Board of Education. There was a total of 10,655
students. The racial composition of the county school
system was approximately as follows: White, 2,357
(2 2 % ); Negro, 8,196 (78% ), and Indian, 102.
4. The Scotland Neck City unit has approximately
695 resident students: White, 399 (57.4% ); Negro, 296
(42.6%). The school facilities within the unit will ac
commodate approximately 1,000 students. Since the cre
ation of the City unit under the 1969 Act, 350 Whites,
and 10 Negroes have transferred from the county schools
into the City unit; 44 Negroes in the eleventh and twelfth
grades have transferred from the city to the Brawley
High School in the county system. The net effect on the
City unit for the school year 1969-70 is as follows:
White, 759 (74%) ; Negro, 262 (26%).
5. The racial composition of the county school system
as a result of the creation of the administrative unit, and
taking into consideration the net effect of the transfers
in and out of the systems, is as follows: White, 1,598
(17%) ; Negroes, 8,186 (83%) ; Indian, 102.
792
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties and of
the subject matter of this proceeding.
2. Without determining the constitutionality of Chap
ter 31 of the 1969 Session Laws of North Carolina, the
Act in its application creates a refuge for white stu
dents, and promotes segregated schools in Halifax County.
3. The Act impedes and defeats the Halifax County
Board of Education from implementing its plan to com
pletely desegregate all of the public schools in Halifax
County by the opening of the school year 1969-70.
4. Unless the defendants are enjoined, the plaintiffs
will suffer immediate and irreparable injury by the de
privation of their constitutional rights.
/ s / John D. Larkins, Jr.
J o h n D. L a r k i n s , J r .
United States District Judge
Raleigh, North Carolina
August 25, 1969
793
[Caption Omitted]
AMENDED ANSWER
The defendant, The Scotland Neck City Board of Edu
cation, a body corporate, answering the Amended Com
plaint, alleges and says:
1. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph
1, Claim One, the answering defendant is not sufficient
ly informed concerning the averments contained therein
from which to form a belief and hence denies same.
2. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of
Claim One are admitted.
3. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph
3, Claim One, it is admitted that the defendant Halifax
County Board of Education (hereinafter the Halifax
County Board) is a body corporate, organized and exist
ing under the laws of the State of North Carolina, and
it has a duty under North Carolina law to operate a
public school system in Halifax County, North Carolina
other than in the Town of Scotland Neck.
4. That the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of
Claim One are admitted.
5. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of
Claim One are admitted.
6. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of
Claim One are admitted.
7. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph
7, Claim One, the answering defendant is not sufficiently
informed concerning the averments contained therein
from which to form a belief and hence denies same.
8. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of
Claim One are admitted.
9; That the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of
Claim One are admitted.
10. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 10
of Claim One are admitted.
11. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 11
of Claim One are admitted.
12. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph
12 of Claim One it is admitted that the Scotland Neck
794
Board has hired a Superintendent of Schools and is pre
pared to open its schools for students on August 28,
1969, and it is further admitted that the vast majority
of the students who will attend the schools of the Scot
land Neck City Administrative Unit during the 1969-70
school year attended schools operated by the Halifax
County Board during the previous year; all other alle
gations contained in Paragraph 12 are denied.
13. The allegations and averments contained in Para
graph 13, Claim One are denied.
14. The allegations and averments contained in Para
graph 14, Claim One are denied.
15. The allegations and averments contained in Para
graph 15, Claim One are denied.
16. It is admitted that unless restrained by order of
the Court this answering defendant will continue to give
full force and effect to the provisions of Chapter 31; all
other allegations contained in Paragraph 16 are denied.
17. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph
17 of Claim Two, which realleges Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 7
and 8 of the Claim One, this defendant answers said
paragraph in the same manner as above.
18. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph
18, Claim Two, the answering defendant is not suffi
ciently informed concerning the averments contained
therein from which to form a belief and hence denies
same.
19. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph
19, Claim Two, the answering defendant is not suffi
ciently informed concerning the averments contained
therein from which to form a belief and hence denies
same.
20. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph
20, Claim Two, the answering defendant is not suffi
ciently informed concerning the averments contained
therein from which to form a belief and hence denies
same.
21. The allegations and averments contained in Para
graph 21, Claim Two are denied.
22. The allegations and averments contained in Para
graph 22, Claim Two are denied.
795
FIRST FURTHER ANSWER
For a First Further Answer to the Plaintiff’s amend
ed complaint this Defendant alleges and says:
1. The Statute (North Carolina Session Laws 1969,
Chapter 31) hereafter called the “ Statute,” the consti
tutionality of which is here challenged by the Plaintiff,
followed a long established North Carolina legislative
precedent and pattern of the formation of a special ad
ministrative school unit within a county consisting usual
ly of a municipality. There are in North Carolina, ex
clusive of Scotland Neck, fifty-two special municipal ad
ministrative school units.
2. The Statute created a special school administrative
unit; the boundaries of which were designated as the
municipal boundaries of the Town of Scotland Neck.
Within the geographic boundaries of the Town of Scot
land Neck there now reside approximately 751 students
of school age; 56.86 percent of which are white and
43.14 percent of which are negro. Classroom facilities
within the town limits can accommodate approximately
812 students; 784 of which are accommodated by per
manent facilities and 28 of which are accommodated by
a mobile classroom.
3. The Statute provides, as conditions precedent to
the formation of the unit, a vote of the people in Scot
land Neck approving both the formation of the unit and
the imposition of a school tax of 50 cents on the dollar
of taxable property valuation in the town.
4. By election held pursuant to the Statute, the peo
ple of Scotland Neck approved both the formation and
the imposition of the special school tax.
5. The resident school population is sufficient to con
stitute an efficient separate school administrative unit,
and the special tax funds will enable the Defendant to
offer to its resident students an educational system
which is greatly superior to that heretofore enjoyed by
them and superior to that which would be available to
them if there were no such tax. Defendant made ar
796
rangements to operate such an improved school system
in Scotland Neck for the school year 1969-1970.
6. On August 25, 1969 there was issued a temporary
injunction in this cause, preventing Defendant from tak
ing any further steps in connection with the operation
of a school unit until the final determination of the
merits of this cause.
7. The single issue in this case is the constitutionality
of the Statute. The issue is not the propriety or the
legality of whatever might, from time to time, be the
plan or plans of operation under the Statute.
8. It is the present intention of this Defendant, and
this Defendant makes this continuing representation,
that, if and when there is removed the temporary in
junction barrier preventing operation under the Statute,
Defendant will confine its student body to those students
residing within the geographical limits of the town of
Scotland Neck, plus or minus such student transfers as
may be in conformity to the law and/or Court order or
orders applicable to Defendant, and in conformity to a
plan of limitation of transfers to be prepared by De
fendant and submitted to this Court.
797
WHEREFORE, this Defendant respectfully prays
that:
1. The Court declare to be constitutional Chapter 31
of the 1969 Session Laws of North Carolina;
2. The Court dissolve the temporary injunction here
tofore issued in this cause on the 25th day of August,
1969;
3. The Court retain jurisdiction of this cause for the
receipt of a plan of transfer to be submitted by the
Defendant to the Court and for the hearing of any ob
jection that may be filed thereto.
C. K i t c h in J o s e y
/ s / William T. Joyner
W il l ia m T. J o y n e r
/ s / Walton K. Joyner
W a l t o n K. J o y n e r
Attorneys for the defendant,
Scotland Neck City Board
of Education, a body cor
porate
798
MOTION
Now comes the defendant, the Scotland Neck City
Board of Education, a body corporate, by and through
its attorney, C. Kitchin Josey, and respectfully shows
unto the Court:
1.
That at 12 o’clock noon on the 25th day of August,
1969, an order was entered in this cause enjoining this
defendant “ from taking any action pursuant to the pro
visions of Chapter 31 (of the 1969 Session Laws of
North Carolina) pending a final determination on the
merits of the issues raised in the present action.”
2.
That prior to the entering of the above mentioned
order this defendant in its official capacity and in ac
cordance with the laws of the State of North Carolina
under its then policy accepted students that lived out
side the school administrative unit boundaries on a tui
tion basis receiving approximately $11,656.53 from the
parents of such tuition students. Of this amount, $2,-
970.66 was expended by this defendant for obligations
incurred prior to the entering of the above mentioned
order.
[Caption Omitted]
3.
That the defendant, the Scotland Neck City Board of
Education, desires to repay in full the parents of the
students who have previously paid in these tuition funds.
4.
That the Scotland Neck City Board of Education has
heretofore incurred certain legal expenses in connection
with the defense of this cause and the said defendant
expects to incur certain additional expenses until this
matter is finally determined.
799
That this defendant has been offered certain private
donations from citizens in this area and particularly the
citizens of the Town of Scotland Neck for the purpose
of repaying the parents of the tuition students and for
the purpose of defraying expense of defending this law
suit.
WHEREFORE, this defendant prays the Court that
an order be entered modifying the temporary injunction
order of August 25, 1969, to the effect that the defend
ant, the Scotland Neck City Board of Education, be al
lowed to receive donations from private sources and to
use such funds, together with the tuition funds now in
its hands, for the repayment of the amounts heretofore
paid by parents of tuition students, and further that
said Board be permitted to use said privately donated
funds for the purpose of legal expenses and fees in
curred and to be incurred until this matter is finally
determined.
This the 12th day of September, 1969.
5.
/ s / C. Kitchin Josey
C. K i t c h i n J o s e y , William T.
Joyner and Walton K. Joy
ner, Attorneys for the Scot
land Neck City Board of
Education
[Caption Omitted]
ORDER
800
This cause coming on to be heard on a Motion by the
defendant, the Scotland Neck City Board of Education,
a body corporate, for a modification of the order of pre
liminary injunction heretofore entered by this Court at
12 o’clock noon on August 25, 1969, to the effect that
certain funds now in said defendant’s hands and certain
private donations be authorized for use by said defend
ant to repay certain parents of tuition students and for
authority to use said privately donated funds for the
purpose of defraying legal expenses in connection with
the defense of this cause;
And it appearing to the Court that the requested modi
fication of said temporary injunction is proper and said
Motion should be allowed;
IT IS NOW, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED
AND DECREED that the defendant, the Scotland Neck
City Board of Education, be allowed to receive dona
tions from private sources and to use such funds, to
gether with the tuition funds now in its hands, for the
repayment of the amounts heretofore paid by parents of
tuition students, and further that said Board be per
mitted to use said privately donated funds for the pur
pose of legal expenses and fees incurred and to be in
curred until this matter is finally determined.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall
serve copies of this Order upon all counsel of record.
Let this Order be entered forthwith.
/a / Algernon L. Butler
CHIEF UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE
,/s/ John D. Larkins, Jr.
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE
801
MOTION OF ROBERT MORGAN, ATTORNEY GEN
ERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO INTERVENE
IN THIS ACTION IN BEHALF OF THE STATE
OF NORTH CAROLINA, AS PARTY DEFENDANT.
Robert Morgan, Attorney General of North Carolina,
in behalf of the State of North Carolina, hereby moves
the Court for leave to intervene in this action in order
to assert the defenses of the State of North Carolina,
as set forth in the proposed Answer of which a copy is
hereto attached, on the grounds and for the reasons, as
follows:
1. That Applicant, Robert Morgan, is the duly elected
and qualified Attorney General of the State of North
Carolina, and makes this application to intervene in this
action in behalf of said State of North Carolina; that
North Carolina is one of the States that compose the
United States of America and exercises such powers and
duties as set forth in its Constitution and Laws enacted
by its General Assembly and in accordance with the
Constitution of the United States.
2. That this motion to intervene in this action by the
Attorney General of North Carolina is made in behalf
of said State of North Carolina (hereinafter referred
to as: Applicant) pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the same being Rule 24; that this application
is made as a matter of right in that the constitutionality
of one of the acts or statutes of said State is involved
in said action; that applicant may be bound by any judg
ment entered by the Court in this action, and applicant
is entitled to adequate representation on the question of
the constitutionality of said State act or statute; that
applicant is also entitled to intervene in this action in
the discretion of the Court and as a permissive interven
tion in that the plaintiff relies upon the allegation of the
unconstitutionality of an act or statute of this State as
a part of its claim; that there is a common question of
law and fact as the constitutionality of said State law or
[Caption Omitted]
802
act is drawn into question and if said intervention is al
lowed, as herein requested, the same will not unduly de
lay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the
parties.
3. That the act of the General Assembly drawn in
question as to its constitutionality in this action is Chap
ter 31 of the Session Laws of 1969, which became effec
tive on the 3rd day of March, 1969; that a copy of said
act is attached to the amended complaint of the United
States of America and is hereby referred to as a part
of this motion; that the plaintiff alleges that said act
and its implementation is in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and
this is denied by the applicant; that applicant, if allowed
to intervene in this action, will allege and assert that
said act is valid and that its result is to establish a city
board of education similar to many other city boards of
education throughout the State of North Carolina and
which have been established for many years; that if said
act is held by the Court to be invalid and unconstitutional
the status and establishment of all other boards of edu
cation, both city and county, will be put in jeopardy.
4. That applicant accepts the status of this action as
heretofore developed but reserves the right to except to
any evidence orders, rulings or proceedings that may be
made or entered, or heretofore made and entered, con
trary to the constitutional validity of said act or statute,
and the right to argue in support of the validity of said
act or statute; that applicant agrees to be bound by the
temporary injunction heretofore entered in this cause but
reserves the right to move that same be vacated by the
Court.
5. That annexed hereto, in accordance with Rule 24
(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is a proposed
pleading entitled: “Answer of Robert Morgan, Attorney
General of North Carolina, in behalf of the State of
North Carolina, in Intervention.” The applicant moves
the Court that said pleading be deemed the appearance
of applicant in support of the constitutionality of the
act of the General Assembly of North Carolina, and in
opposition to all pleadings and motions of the parties
803
hereto that have been or may be made herein insofar as
said pleadings and motions are based on the contention
that said act of the General Assembly of North Carolina
is in any respect, or in any application, unconstitutional.
WHEREFORE: Applicant prays the Court that an
order be entered herein allowing applicant to intervene
in this action as a party defendant and that his proposed
answer be filed as a pleading in this action; that this
motion be brought on before the Court for hearing on
October 24, 1969, at the Federal Courtroom in Raleigh,
North Carolina, or at such other time as may be con
venient and as ordered by the Court.
/ s / Robert Morgan
Attorney General of
North Carolina
/ s / Ralph Moody
Deputy Attorney General of
North Carolina
P. 0. Box 629
Justice Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
804
ORDER ALLOWING INTERVENTION OF ROBERT
MORGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH
CAROLINA, IN BEHALF OF THE STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA.
This cause coming on to be heard upon the Motion of
the Attorney General of North Carolina that he be al
lowed to intervene in this action as an Intervenor-De-
fendant in behalf of the State of North Carolina; and
It appearing to the Court that there is involved in this
action a question as to the validity and constitutionality
of an Act of the General Assembly of North Carolina;
that this is a question of public interest throughout the
State and involves the right of the State to create a pub
lic school administrative unit; that it is a legal possibil
ity that the State of North Carolina may be bound by
the judgment entered by the Court between the parties
plaintiff and defendants as this action now stands; that
there is a common question as to the validity of a similar
statute involved in the Warren County case which is con
solidated with this case; that the defendants in this ac
tion rely upon the validity of Chapter 31 of the Session
Laws of 1969, enacted by the General Assembly of North
Carolina:
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
BY THE COURT: That as a matter of right, or in the
alternative, in the discretion of the Court, as a permis
sive right, the Attorney General of North Carolina, in
behalf of the State of North Carolina, be, and he is here
by allowed, to intervene in this action as a party inter-
venor-Defendant, and that he be allowed to file his An
swer which is attached to the Motion herein filed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT:
That said Intervenor-Defendant shall accept the status
of this action as it now stands and shall be bound by the
Temporary Restraining Order heretofore entered in this
cause with the right to adopt the objections, exceptions
and motions in this cause that have heretofore been en
[Caption Omitted]
805
tered by the other defendants and to support the validity
of Chapter 81 of the Session Laws of 1969, as enacted
by the General Assembly of North Carolina.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT:
That the Plaintiff be allowed to file such responsive plead
ing to the Answer of the Intervenor-Defendant as it shall
deem to be advisable.
This the 31 day of October, 1969.
/a/ Algernon L. Butler
Chief Judge of the District
Court of the United States
for the Eastern District of
North Carolina
/aj John D. Larkins, Jr.
Judge of the District Court
of the United States for the
Eastern District of North
Carolina
A True Copy, Teste:
Sa m u e l A. H o w a r d
Clerk
By /a/ [Illegible]
Deputy Clerk
806
ANSWER OF ROBERT MORGAN, ATTORNEY GEN
ERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, IN BEHALF OF
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA— INTERVEN-
OR-DEFENDANT.
The Intervenor-Defendant, Robert Morgan, Attorney
General of North Carolina, in behalf of the State of
North Carolina, answering the original and amended
complaints, filed herein, alleges:
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
1. The Intervenor-Defendant has not knowledge or in
formation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
Paragraph 1 of the original complaint, and, therefore,
denies the same.
2. The allegations of Paragraph 2 of the original com
plaint are denied.
3. The allegations of Paragraph 3 of the original com
plaint are admitted.
4. The allegations of Paragraph 4 of the original com
plaint are admitted.
5. The allegations of Paragraph 5 of the original com
plaint are admitted.
6. That the Intervenor-Defendant is not concerned
with the matters alleged in Paragraph 6 of the original
answer and neither admits or denies the same.
7. The Intervenor-Defendant is not concerned with the
matters alleged in Paragraph 7 and is not required to
answer same.
8. The Intervenor-Defendant is not concerned with the
matters alleged in Paragraph 8 and is not required to
answer same.
9. The allegations of Paragraph 9 of the original com
plaint are admitted.
10. The Intervenor-Defendant has not knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
Paragraph 10 of the original complaint, and, therefore,
denies the same.
[Caption Omitted]
807
11. The allegations of Paragraph 11 are admitted.
12. The Intervenor-Defendant for lack of knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the truth of Para
graph 12 of the original complaint denies the same.
13. The allegations of Paragraph 13 are denied.
14. The allegations of Paragraph 14 are denied.
15. The allegations of Paragraph 15 are denied.
CLAIM TWO
16. That Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 of this Answer
are re-alleged as Answers to this Claim and incorpo
rated herein by reference as if fully set forth and alleged
herein.
17. For lack of knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of allegations 17, they
are denied.
18. The Intervenor-Defendant alleges that he is not
required to answer Paragraph 18 of the original com
plaint since they are concerned with matters of adminis
tration.
19. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 19 of the
original complaint the Intervenor-Defendant alleges that
neither the State, the State Board of Education, or the
State Superintendent of Public Instruction has any legal
authority to fix attendance areas, assign pupils to the
various facilities of the public school system, or to adopt
or implement plans of desegregation; and except as here
alleged said paragraph is denied.
20. On information and belief, said paragraph is de
nied.
21. The allegations of Paragraph 21 are denied.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1. Answering Paragraph 1 of the amended complaint,
it is admitted that the Attorney General of the United
States attached to the original complaint his certification
as therein shown; that it is a condition precedent to the
bringing of this action that there shall be secret com
plaints made to the Attorney General of the United
States; that any action based upon secret complaints is
808
void, invalid and unconstitutional and a violation of the
due process clause and the equal protection of the law
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution
of the United States; that the provisions of 42 USC
2000c-6(a) and (b) are unconstitutional and void in that
said provisions purport to confer jurisdiction upon Fed
eral Courts to entertain actions based upon secret com
plaints, discriminate in favor of one ethnic group as
against another ethnic group by furnishing government
attorneys to one group as against another group, fur
nish costs and expenses in favor of one group as against
another group, and thus create an invidious discrimina
tion in favor of one group of citizens as against another
group of citizens in violation of the Fourteenth Amend
ment of the Constitution of the United States; and ex
cept as herein alleged said paragraph 1 of amended com
plaint is untrue and is denied.
2. The allegations of Paragraph 2 of the amended
complaint are untrue and are denied.
3. The allegations of Paragraph 3 are admitted.
4. The allegations of Paragraph 4 are admitted ex
cept it is denied that such action should lawfully be main
tained.
5. The allegations of Paragraph 5 are admitted.
6. The allegations of Paragraph 6 are admitted.
7. That the Intervenor-Defendant has not knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations of Paragraph 7, and, therefore, denies
the same.
8. The allegations of Paragraph 8 are denied for lack
of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of same.
9. The allegations of Paragraph 9 are admitted.
10. The allegations of Paragraph 10 are admitted.
11. The allegations of Paragraph 11 are admitted.
12. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 12 on in
formation and belief, Intervenor-Defendant admits that
the Scotland Neck City Board of Education hired a Su
perintendent of Schools and prepared to open its schools
for the school year beginning in the Fall of 1969; that
809
except as herein admitted the allegations of Paragraph
12 are denied.
13. The allegations of Paragraph 13 are denied.
14. The allegations of Paragraph 14 are untrue and
are denied; further answering said paragraph, Inter-
venor-Defendant alleges that it is untrue that the size
and pupil enrollment should control the size of the edu
cational administrative unit; that large educational units
with marching bands, football teams, gymnasiums and
many social and athletic events and numerous extracur
ricular activities are desired by those who still worship
the outworn creed and bankrupt philosophy of so-called
progressive education in which system actual imparting
of knowledge and instruction of the pupil is lost in the
shuffle; that in many cases the smaller unit furnishes
better financing, better instructors and graduates a stu
dent of high caliber who completes his college education;
it is further alleged that the people have the constitu
tional right to determine the type of administrative unit
they desire and not theoretical so-called educators who
desire a bureaucratic, dictatorial public school system
under their complete control; that the Federal Govern
ment has no constitutional right, under the guise of con
stitutional interpretation, to determine the type and size
of the school administrative unit that the people of the
State shall have and use.
15. The allegations of Paragraph 15 are untrue and
are denied; further answering said paragraph, the In-
tervenor-Defendant alleges that Chapter 31 of the Ses
sion Laws of 1969, is a constitutional and valid act of
the General Assembly of North Carolina and is within
the scope and authority of said General Assembly; that
county and city boards of education as the proper agen
cies of administering the public schools of the State have
been in force and effect since the School Machinery Acts
of 1933 and 1935 and there is some 160 to 180 such ad
ministrative units established in the State; that there
are administrative school units in the State that are as
small, and some slightly larger, as the Scotland Neck
City Administrative Unit and they have operated for some
years; that the Scotland Neck City Board of Education
810
has never had the chance to administer its school system
and constitutional attack on its proposed or future ad
ministration is nothing but speculation and conjecture;
that no constitutional attack of this nature can be made
until the practical results of such administration are
available; that if Chapter 31 of the Session Laws of 1969,
is unconstitutional and invalid then the stability of every
school administrative unit in the State of North Caro
lina is endangered and subject to attack if the members
of the black race are dissatisfied and displeased with its
boundaries and enrollment limitations and it will take a
Federal decree to settle every boundary and attendance
area; it is again denied that Chapter 31 of the Session
Laws of 1969, is unconstitutional and invalid or that it
violates any provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States and it is alleged
that those who pay the largest part of the taxes that
support the public school system of the State should have
some voice in public school administration.
16. The allegations of Paragraph 16 are untrue and
are denied.
CLAIM TWO
17. That the answers to Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8
of Claim One of this Amended Complaint are here re
alleged in this Claim and are made a part hereof by ref
erence.
18. That the Intervenor-Defendant has not knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations of Paragraph 18, and, therefore, de
nies the same.
19. That the allegations of Paragraph 19 relate to the
Halifax County Board of Education and this Intervenor-
Defendant does not know what alternative methods of
pupil assignment are available for this county unit, and,
therefore, denies said Paragraph 19.
20. That Intervenor-Defendant does not know what
the Halifax County School Administrative Unit has failed
and refused to do nor what plan of desegregation it has
failed to adopt, and, therefore, denies said paragraph 20.
811
21. The allegations of Paragraph 21 are untrue and
are, therefore, denied.
22. The allegations of Paragraph 22 are untrue and
are denied.
WHEREFORE: having fully answered, the Intervenor-
Defendant prays the Court:
(a) That Chapter 31 of the Session Laws of 1969,
enacted by the General Assembly of North Carolina, be
declared to be constitutional and valid.
(b) That this action be dismissed and the Temporary
Restraining Order heretofore entered in this cause be
dismissed.
(c) That such other and further relief be granted by
the Court as may be proper and just.
/ s / Robert Morgan
Attorney General of
North Carolina
/s / Ralph Moody
Deputy Attorney General of
North Carolina
P. 0. Box 629
Justice Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
812
[Caption Omitted]
ORDER
This cause coming on to be heard before the Court on
a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the plain
tiff seeking to restrain the defendants from giving any
force or effect to the provision of Chapter 31 of the
North Carolina Session Laws of 1969, an Act to estab
lish a separate unit for the operation of the public schools
of the town of Scotland Neck, North Carolina and there
being also before the Court a motion by the defendant,
Halifax County Board of Education, that it be dismissed
from that portion of this action dealing with the consti
tutionality of the Scotland Neck Act as said defendant
was not a party to the creation of said Scotland Neck
Unit; and it appearing to the Court that said defend
ant, since it was not a party to the creation of said
Act, should not be put to the expense of defending this
action in this Court or in any subsequent appeals, if any
there be, as said defendant is already before the Court
charged with violation of the Civil Rights Act and will
be bound by the orders of this Court to comply with all
the laws, state and federal, affecting the public schools
in Halifax County;
It is therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DE
CREED:
THAT the motion of the defendant that it be dis
missed from this action is allowed insofar as the ques
tion of the constitutionality of the Act creating the Scot
land Neck Unit is concerned. Said defendant will no
longer be required to defend or appear in subsequent
actions involving only the constitutionality of the Act
creating said unit, but said defendant is not relieved
from the other parts of this action involving its violation
of the Civil Rights Act, but shall comply with the orders
of this Court, and orders of any Appellate Court or the
Supreme Court of the United States of America, as they
may effect the operations of the public schools of Halifax
County.
813
THAT this ORDER shall become effective as soon as
it is executed by the Court.
Let this ORDER be entered forthwith.
This the 3rd day of November, 1969.
,/s/ John D. Larkins, Jr.
J o h n D. L a r k i n s , J r .
United States District Judge
A l g e r n o n L . B u t l e r
United States District Judge
Raleigh, North Carolina
October __, 1969
Plaintiff ’s Exhibit # 3 8
Civil Action No. 1128
814
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES TO
DEFENDANT HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION
October 28, 1969
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
NORTH CAROLINA
WILSON DIVISION
Civil Action No. 1128
U nited States of A merica, plaintiff,
v.
Halifax County Board of Education, a body corpo
rate, and the Scotland Neck City Board of Edu
cation, a body corporate, defendants.
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES TO
DEFENDANT HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION
/
815
APPENDIX
Questions Page
1 ______________________________________________ 1
2 ________________________________________________ 6
3a _______________________________________________________ 9
3b _______________________________________________________ 28
3c _______________________________________________________ 48
3d _______________________________________________________ 49
4a _______________________________________________________ 54
4b _______________________________________________________ 96
5a _______________________________________________________ 98
5b ______________________________________________________ 100
6 ________________________________________________ 103
7 _ __________ 104
sa z z z z z z z z z ------------------------------------------- ios
8b _____________________________________________________ 107
8c _____________________________________________________ 107
9a ______________________________________________________ H I
9b ______________________________________________________ H I
9c ______________________________________________________ H I
9d _____________________________________________________ 112
10 ______________________________________________ 114
11 ______________________________________________________ H5
1 1 a, b __________________________________________________ 1^0
19 140
u m
14 _______________________________________________________ 143
15 ______________________________________________________ 145
16 ______________________________________________________ 147
17 150
18 I Z _ _______________________________________________ 151
19 160
20 _____ _________ ____________________________________ 161
21 _______________________________ 163
22 ________________________________________________ 164
23 ________________________________________________________ 169
816
1. Please state the name, location, grades served, date
of construction and any substantial additions, and at
tendance zone lines for each school in defendant’s school
unit for the 1969-70 school year. I f there are no present
attendance zones, describe the lines for the zones for the
last year before they were eliminated, and state what
year that was. If possible, please show as much of this
information as practicable on a map, such as a general
highway map prepared by the North Carolina Highway
Department.
1. The names of schools, grades served, date of con
struction and substantial additions for the schools in
Halifax County Unit in the 1969-70 school unit are
shown on the attached form. (See attached sheet No. 1).
The location of these schools are shown on the attached
map (See attached map No. 1).
There were no attendance zones during the 1968-69
school year except for pupils in grades 7 and 8 who were
transferred to predominantly white schools as follows:
. Grades 7 and 8 from John A. Chaloner School to
William R. Davie School.
. Grades 7 and 8 from Mclver School to Aurelian
Springs School.
. Grades 7 from Inborden Elementary School to En
field School.
. Grades 7 and 8 from Brawley School to Scotland
Neck School.
There are no attendance zones for the 1969-70 school
year.
School Grades Served
Aurelian Springs 1-12
Route 2,
Littleton, N. C.
Bakers Elem. 1-8
Route 1, Box 103
Scotland Neck, N.C.
Brawley School 1-12
Scotland Neck
North Carolina
Dawson Elem. 1-8
Scotland Neck
North Carolina
Eastman 1-12
Route 2,
Enfield, N.C.
Enfield Graded 1-12
Enfield, N.C.
Date of Construction Date of substantial additions
1922— 4 classrooms
Auditorium
1959— 10 classrooms
1 Library
1925— 4 classrooms, 1 library
1929— 5 classrooms, library
1934— 6 classrooms
1935— 1 classroom, 1 shop
1948— Gym-Cafeteria
1959— 3 classrooms
1961— 3 classrooms, 1 Cafe-
torium
1926— 8 classrooms
1 Library
1938— 4 classroom
1 Music Room
1947— 1 classroom
1 shop
1948— 20 classrooms
Library
Auditorium
Cafeteria
Gym
1937— 8 classrooms
1942— 2 classrooms, 1 shop
1951— 5 classrooms, 1 library
1955— 5 classrooms
1960— Gymntorium, 4 class
rooms
1968— Cafeteria
1957— 6 classrooms
1960— 10 classrooms, 1 li
brary, Cafetorium
1949— Gymtorium
1953— 5 classrooms, 1 library
1956— -7 classrooms
1959— 13 classrooms, 1 li
brary
1968— Cafetorium
1952— 1 classroom, 1 shop
817
School Grades Served
Everetts Elem. 1-8
Route 1,
Roanoke Rapids, N.C.
Hollister Elem. 1-8
Hollister, N.C.
Inborden Elem. 1-8
Enfield, N.C.
Inborden High 9-12
Enfield, N.C.
J. A. Chaloner 1-12
Roanoke Rapids
North Carolina
Mclver High 1-12
Littleton, N.C.
Date of Construction Date of substantial additions
1958— 14 classrooms
Library
1960— 6 classrooms, Cafe-
torium
1960— 13 classrooms 1966— Cafetorium, Library
1948— 12 classrooms
cafeteria
1951— 5 classrooms
library
1924— 5 classrooms
library
auditorium
1925— 6 classrooms
1954— 2 classrooms
1956— 2 classrooms, library
1960— 12 classrooms
1969— Cafetorium
1955— 3 classrooms, Gym-
torium
1961— 1 classroom, 1 shop
1938— 4 classrooms
1940— 1 classroom, 1 shop
1941— 7 classrooms, cafeteria
1942— 1 classroom
1944— 1 music room
1945— Gymnasium
1950— 2 classrooms
1955— 6 classrooms
1958— 9 classrooms, library
1930— 4 classrooms
1941— band room, 1 class
room, 1 shop
1948-—Gymnasium
1954— 2 classrooms, library
1959— 8 classrooms
1964— 6 classrooms
1968— cafetorium
818
School Grades Served
Pittman Elem. 1-8
Route 3,
Enfield, N.C.
Scotland Neck School
Scotland Neck, N.C.
1-12
Thomas Shields
Hobgood, N.C.
1-8
Tillery Chapel Elem.
Tillery, N.C.
1-8
White Oak 1-8
Route 2,
Enfield, N.C.
Wm. R. Davie 1-12
Eoute 1 ,
Roanoke Rapids, N.C.
Date of Construction Date of substantial additions
1959— 15 classrooms
library
1960— cafetorium, 1 class
room
1903— 12 classrooms
library
1957-—6 classrooms
1932— 4 classrooms
1959— 10 classrooms
1923— cafeteria, 8 class
rooms, library
1939— 1 Home Ec. Lab., 2
classrooms, 1 shop,
Gymnasium
1949— 1 classroom
1954— 4 classrooms, auditor
ium
1960— 4 classrooms, cafe
teria, library
1958— 4 classrooms
1961— library, cafetorium
1957— 6 classrooms
1962— 1 classrooms, library,
cafetorium.
1966— 1 classroom, library,
cafetorium.
1940— 11 classrooms
1 library
auditorium
1952— 4 classrooms, library
1953— 1 shop, cafeteria, gym
nasium.
1955— 5 classrooms
1958—4 classrooms
1961— 2 classrooms
820
^ W|v.£
'M yh /
K S"\ 4L fV ‘8
-laui (*«'♦*»<.
t »V O «!»TION
AiNUN AN U
W ^ »lN T *H O *N T
HALIFAX
-* e m w * «^ u r8 ^
821
2. Please describe any changes in the number, names,
locations, grades served or attendance zone lines of the
schools in defendant’s school unit since the beginning of
the 1964-65 school year.
2. Changes in school organization since the beginning
of the 1964-65 school term are as follows:
a. John Armstrong Chaloner School formerly in
Roanoke Rapids City School Unit, by order of offi
cials of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. De
partment of Health, Education and Welfare, by
agreement between the Boards of Education of Roa
noke Rapids City School Unit and the Halifax County
School Unit and by action of the State Board of
Education began operating as a part of the Halifax
County School Unit at the beginning of the 1966-67
school year. This school had been operating to serve
approximately 80% who were living within the Hali
fax County Unit. Approximately, 190 students or
20% living within the boundaries of Roanoke Rap
ids City Administrative Unit transferred to other
schools in the Roanoke Rapids Unit.
b. Hobgood School, grades 1-8, was closed at the
end of the 1966-67 school year. By choice, elemen
tary students have been attending Scotland Neck
School from the beginning of the 1967-68 school year.
The Scotland Neck School attendance area for grades
1-12 became the same as the attendance area for
the grades 9-12. (See map attached, No. 1).
c. Upon closing the high school department of the
Haliwa School in Warren County, approximately 70
students in grades 9-12 who live near Hollister in
Halifax County transferred to schools in Halifax
County at the beginning of the 1967-68 school year.
The elementary department of the Haliwa School
was closed at the end of the 1968-69 school year and
approximately 140 students grades 1-8 who live in
Halifax County transferred to schools in Halifax
County.
2. (d) Upon closing grades 1-5 of the Littleton School
in Warren County at the close of the 1968-69 school term
822
approximately 60 students who live in Halifax County
were transferred to Halifax County Schools. (See at
tached map No. 1).
3. (a) Please state the enrollment in each school by
grade and race for the 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-
68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 school years, and for any other
school year in which there was any desegregation of
pupils in the system.
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL: Aurelian Springs
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
1 30 20 25 26 25 3 16 (20)2 21 28 17 28 25 25 (17)13 23 23 25 1 16 1 28 19 (2 1 )4 26 28 20 1 28 1 20 23 (19)5 31 27 23 21 1 29 1 18 (23) i6 29 33 23 1 25 19 27 (15)1
7 36 28 30 1 24 1 25 53 18 (12 )8 37 39 26 29 2 22 64 25 (15)Spec. Ed. (12 )9 38 46 38 17 31 22 31 23 14 (22)310 27 33 42 14 29 17 26 18 29 (14)411 33 25 35 11 38 13 31 13 25 (16)312 24 30 23 12 26 14 36 10 24 (12)1
TOTAL 365 360 326 58 321 72 317 186 263 232
W— White
NW=Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment -figures were determined at different times during the school year.
COMMENTS:
823
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
SCHOOL: Bakers
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
1 49 42 39 36 27 36
2 44 49 37 42 34 29
3 52 39 41 31 36 39
4 47 41 36 37 29 39
5 45 41 33 39 43 27
6 43 49 41 34 38 45
7 43 47 56 36 33 34
8 42 37 44 49 34 35
Spec. Ed. 18 18 20 15 9
9
10
11
12
TOTAL 383 363 347 319 283 284
W =W hite
NW=Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment figures were determined at different times during the school year.
COMMENTS:
824
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL: Brawley
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
1 65 61 63 48 60 50
2 67 61 52 50 59 54
3 70 62 54 49 54 53
4 71 66 55 56 49 55
5 72 70 58 55 66 42
6 66 74 75 58 61 52
7 69 68 73 82 48
8 61 68 70 80 56
Spec. Ed. 18 18 18 35 15
9 221 234 218 232 288 247
10 161 170 192 157 182 184
11 112 1 11 143 141 154 152
12 104 96 106 108 118 124
TOTAL 1157 1159 1177 1151 1106 1117
W =W hite
NW =Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment figures were determined at different times during the school year.
COMMENTS:
825
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C. a
SCHOOL: Dawson
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
1 80 67 66 56 49 39
2 70 74 62 56 51 42
3 72 68 67 54 51 41
4 83 61 60 59 48 48
5 77 75 62 55 59 39
6 62 71 73 60 50 52
7 54 55 66 63 62 48
8 64 49 52 56 63 54
Spec. Ed. 16 14 16 26 27
9
10
11
12
TOTAL 562 536 522 475 459 390
W =W hite
NW=Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment figures were determined at different times during the school year.
COMMENTS:
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL: Eastman
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
1 71 61 54 57 50 46
2 63 62 63 50 58 56(1)
3 76 62 53 68 41 48
4 59 63 65 42 65 49(1)
5 74 50 59 55 46 51
6 75 63 54 63 54 46
7 67 69 65 55 59 54
8 54 56 63(7) 64 59 59
Spec. Ed. 42
9 147 138 158(1) 158(3) 167(2) 137
10 113 124 118 139(3) 146 158(1)
11 93 92 104 107 108 122
12 76 88 88 101 97 105
TOTAL 968 928 952 965 952 976
W =W hite
NW =Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment figures were determined at different times during the school year.
COMMENTS: ooto
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL: Enfield Graded
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
1 42 3 31 4 26 3 30 6 35 2 15 1
2 43 33 12 29 5 24 7 27 5 20 4
3 42 37 1 33 9 30 7 27 5 18 7
4 44 36 31 4 33 9 31 6 18 6
5 45 42 29 4 37 6 34 10 19 7
6 42 44 37 5 30 5 32 7 28 8
7 35 41 47 4 42 7 31 123 23 20
8 41 37 1 40 2 47 7 47 6 16 17
Spec. Ed. 11 10 11
9 33 39 8 35 3 40 1 45 5 26 9
10 52 2 28 11 33 6 30 5 31 2 32 7
11 40 1 43 14 28 12 35 7 34 1 17 3
12 37 35 8 40 10 26 10 28 5 24
TOTAL 505 6 456 59 419 67 404 77 402 177 256 89
W =W hite
NW=Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment figures were determined at different times during the school year.
COMMENTS:
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL: Everetts
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
1 89 96 76 83 56 57
2 66 78 83 63 66 46
3 86 70 65 77 62 66
4 67 91 58 62 67 56
5 82 69 69 55 57 72
6 70 73 58 61 50 47
7 67 67 64 51 60 50
8 71 70 56 52 36 55
Spec. Ed. 18 16 24 11
9
10
11
12
TOTAL 598 614 547 520 478 460
W =W hite
NW=Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment figures were determined at different times during the school year.
COMMENTS:
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C. o
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL: Hobgood
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 *1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
1 10 13 7
2 14 8 9
3 10 16 8
4 10 6 15
5 15 15 9
6 8 15 13
7 15 10 13
8 10 12 10
Spec. Ed.
9
10
11
12
TOTAL 92 95 84
W =W hite
NW =Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment figures were determined at different times during the school yew.
•COMMENTS: School closed and pupils attended Scotland Neck School.
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL: Hollister
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Spec. Ed.
9
10
11
12
TOTAL 386 377 375 361 331 331
53 46 38(8) 51 31(5) 45(5)
55 42 41(5) 30(3) 42(3) 27(3)
44 57 32(5) 44 36(2) 40(4)
57 46 59(4) 45(4) 40(4) 4453 56 48(6) 42(5) 37(2) 30(3)
44 48 38(6) 53(2) 36(6) 25(7)
45 43 41(4) 37(3) 45(2) 35(6)
35 39 38(2) 40(2) 36(4) 32(10)
13(2)
W =W hite
NW=Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment figures were determined at different imes during the school year.
COMMENTS:
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL: Inborden
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
1 158 152 142 127 136 108
2 161 145 140 127 115 136
3 139 154 138 143 123 98
4 129 137 138 130 146 111
5 168 126 121 139 136 138
6 131 165 136 116 145 131
7 124 123 136 132 15 168
8 99 119 118 137 133 58
Spec. Ed. 18 16 16
9 134 113 158 192 219 213
10 120 95 105 89 114 108
11 80 74 87 80 68 94
12 63 62 67 57 68 52
TOTAL 1506 1465 1504 1485 1418 1431
W =W hite
NW=Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment figures were determined at different times during the school year.
COMMENTS:
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL: John Armstrong Chaloner
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
1 71 64 64 70
2 61 75 61 52
3 76 54 70 57
4 51 75 52 62
5 67 57 74 44
6 59 61 62 59
7 84 73 55
8 64 71 42
Spec. Ed. 18 19 10 16
9 88 91 92 70
10 80 68 74 70
11 62 72 63 59
12 71 57 58 56
TOTAL 852 837 680 712
W =W hite
NW =Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment figures were determined at different times during the school year.
COMMENTS:
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following' Years
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
00CO
SCHOOL: Mclver
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
1 60 63 54 47 51 50
2 53 57 51 53 50 49
3 68 63 48 56 51 53
4 65 53 50 54 47 52
5 70 64 50 50 51 46
6 60 58 58 47 52 54
7 60 59 43 63 64
8 60 49 49 46 43
Spec. Ed. 19 15 15 6 10 15
9 78 93 82 87 89 85
10 101 65 73 76 75 68
11 84 87 52 44 56 61
12 53 74 64 53 40 50
TOTAL 831 800 689 682 572 690
W =W hite
NW =Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment figures were determined at different times during the school year.
COMMENTS:
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
SCHOOL: Pittman
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
1 80 64 61 74 58 39
2 81 73 51 53 56 47
3 67 73 70 68 53 61
4 74 62 56 50 56 43
5 80 65 62 61 45 52
6 78 75 61 52 57 35
7 68 75 68 59 33 39
8 70 60 69 61 46 35
Spec. Ed. 18 16 16 15
9
10
11
12
TOTAL 598 547 516 494 420 366
W =W hite
NW=Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment figures were determined at different times during the school yean-.
COMMENTS:
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
00co
0 5
SCHOOL: Scotland Neck
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
1 60 59 2 51 1 73 6 68 2 51 3
2 50 62 2 60 1 56 2 67 6 63 3
3 67 58 54 3 59 1 52 2 69 7
4 61 71 51 2 65 4 59 2 48 2
5 67 71 69 3 64 6 76 6 59 8
6 63 71 56 1 73 2 59 3 77 7
7 71 67 69 3 72 1 59 68 61 7
8
Spec. Ed.
72 69 54 3 78 5 63 85 50 13
9 85 87 1 81 2 64 5 78 4 67 13
10 65 89 76 8 74 4 58 8 76 12
11 71 61 2 76 2 80 7 73 1 58 3
12 65 67 1 56 1 71 3 74 6 62
TOTAL 797 832 8 753 30 829 46 786 193 741 78
W =W hite
NW=Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment figures were determined at different times dwring the school year.
COMMENTS:
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL: Thomas Shields
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
17
1 59 50 29 29 29 26
2 43 43 34 28 21 20
3 36 36 30 32 23 19
4 50 35 35 35 24 20
5 48 45 32 31 24 28
6 41 39 43 28 28 27
7 40 35 31 23 18 19
8 38 29 29 29 20
Spec. Ed. 16 16
9
10
11
12
TOTAL 355 312 263 251 203 176
W =W hite
NW =Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment figures were determined at diffecent times during the school year.
COMMENTS:
837
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
SCHOOL: Tillery Chapel
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
1 54 49 49 43 28 34
2 35 42 39 41 43 26
3 50 33 40 34 39 38
4 38 47 35 34 34 36
5 43 38 43 29 29 32
6 43 44 39 36 28 30
7 42 42 40 33 39 25
8 35 41 38 34 32 36
Spec. Ed.
9
10
11
12
TOTAL 340 336 323 284 272 257
W =W hite
NW=Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment figures were determined at different times during the school yexvr.
COMMENTS:
838
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL: White Oak
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
1 53 47 49 48 48 50
2 39 46 40 47 41 35
3 47 53 36 35(1) 38(2) 1 36
4 35 39 51 39 31 35
5 59 41 34 45(1) 35 39(1)
6 47 55 46 33 39 39
7 45 34 53 36(2) 24 39(1)
8 28 39 32 45(2) 30 29
Spec. Ed.
Q
16
1 0
11
12
TOTAL 353 354 341 334 304 1 304
W =W hite
NW=Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment figures were determined at different times during the school yewr.
COMMENTS: Ooco
<x>
Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
SCHOOL: William R. Davie
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W NW
1 84 96 2 95 5 92 12(1) 79 8 62 16
2 72 88 88 5 77 4 89 10(1) 73 10 (1 )
3 96 83 2 78 6 86 6(1 ) 70 5 84 13
4 82 107 2 82 7 71 7 78 7(1) 72 11
5 72 82 2 97 6 78 8 78 10 79 16(1)
6 58 69 72 23 99 6 79 6 70 16
7 76 54 2 73 9 63 22 101 69 65 17
8 73 72 7 58 10 64 15 56 87 88 28
Spec. Ed. 13 14 17 8 5 11
9 72 83 6 78 21 76 13 79 19 64 39
10 71 67 7 72 19 62 20 48 14 54 19
11 68 55 8 50 13 45 14 58 13 41 22
12 46 66 42 7 39 10 37 14 48 12
TOTAL 883 936 38 902 131 860 139 852 264 805 232
W =W hite
NW=Negro or Indian
( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools
Enrollment figures were determined at different times during the school year.
COMMENTS:
841
3. (b) Please state the average daily attendance in
each school by grade for the year 1968-69 and the first
reporting period of 1969-70.
(c) Please state the total expenditure per pupil in
each school in the system for each of the years 1964-65
through 1969-70, and state whether said figure is based
on enrollment or average daily attendance.
3. (b) Average daily attendance in each school by
grade for the year 1968-69 and the first reporting period
of 1969-70. (See attached sheets).
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL Aurelian Springs
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1 27 33
2 24 39
3 27 40
4 19 41
5 28 43
6 19 44
7 68 31
8 73 41
Special Education
9 48 37
10 41 43
11 39 41
12 43 35
Total 456 471
842
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
SCHOOL Bakers Elem.
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1 27 34
2 36 28
3 36 37
4 26 37
5 42 26
6 36 43
7 31 31
8 30 32
Special Education 1 —
9
10
11
12
Total 265 268
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL Brawley
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1 58 25
2 57 26
3 53 26
4 48 25
5 62 21
6 60 29
7 — 30
8 — 25
Special Education 2 8
9 204 118
10 163 88
11 142 73
12 110 57
Total 959 551
843
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL Dawson Elem.
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1 42 37
2 45 40
3 45 38
4 43 45
5 52 35
6 44 46
7 49 43
8 55 48
Special Education 12 14
9
10
11
12
Total 387 346
844
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL Eastman
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1 47 44
2 53 52
3 38 47
4 59 46
5 40 45
6 49 41
7 53 52
8 49 53
Special Education — 15
9 140 132
10 122 129
11 93 106
12 89 95
Total 832 857
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
845
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL Enfield Graded
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1 34 15
2 32 24
3 30 24
4 35 23
5 42 25
6 37 20
7 138 42
8 48 33
Special Education — —
9 46 30
10 32 38
11 33 20
12 29 23
Total 536 317
846
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
SCHOOL Everetts Elementary
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1 53 55
2 63 45
3 57 66
4 63 53
5 50 66
6 48 45
7 54 46
8 34 49
Special Education
9
10
11
12
13
Total 435 425
847
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL Hollister Elem.
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1 34 45
2 42 29
3 35 42
4 41 40
5 34 30
6 36 30
7 41 36
8 34 37
Special Education — 12
9
10
11
12
Total 297 301
848
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
SCHOOL Inborden Elem.
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1 124 103
2 100 128
3 108 92
4 126 104
5 121 126
6 128 118
7 — 150
8 109 53
Special Education 13 14
9
10
11
12
Total 829 888
849
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
SCHOOL Inborden High
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Special Education
9 160 177
10 75 96
11 57 82
12 63 46
Total 355 401
850
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
SCHOOL John A. Chaloner
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1 66 68
2 59 51
3 69 56
4 49 61
5 69 44
6 58 57
7 — 54
8 — 39
Special Education 13 10
9 80 62
10 66 66
11 57 55
12 56 47
Total 642 670
851
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
SCHOOL Mclver
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1 47 48
2 47 46
3 49 50
4 43 49
5 49 41
6 46 49
7 — 56
8 — 39
Special Education — 13
9 76 76
10 67 62
11 50 56
12 37 44
Total 511 629
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
SCHOOL Pittman Elem.
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1 50 33
2 50 42
3 47 55
4 48 39
5 37 46
6 46 32
7 30 33
8 39 32
Special Education
9
10
11
12
12 11
Total 359 323
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
853
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
SCHOOL Scotland Neck
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1 66 53
2 70 66
3 54 74
4 59 49
5 76 63
6 61 81
7 117 65
8
Special Education
140 64
9 77 75
10 62 84
11 68 60
12 76 60
Total 926 794
854
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
SCHOOL Thomas Shields Elem.
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1 25 17
2 20 25
8 20 20
4 22 20
5 23 20
6 26 27
7 15 27
8 18 18
Special Education
9
10
11
12
13
Total 182 174
855
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
SCHOOL Tillery Chapel Elem.
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1 25 32
2 39 24
3 35 37
4 33 33
5 27 31
6 25 28
7 37 24
8
Special Education
9
10
11
12
28 35
Total 249 244
856
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
SCHOOL White Oak
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1 42 47
2 36 33
3 38 27
4 29 33
5 30 36
6 32 34
7 22 35
8 23 27
Special Education
9
10
11
12
12 4
Total 264 276
Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years
857
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Halifax, N. C.
SCHOOL William R. Davie
GRADE 1968-69
First Month
1969-70
1 79 75
2 96 74
3 77 91
4 86 77
5 86 85
6 81 84
7 159 77
8 137 111
Special Education — —
9 88 112
10 56 70
11 64 60
12 48 59
Total 1057 976
858
(c) Please state the total expenditure per pupil in each
school in the system for each of the years 1964-65 through
1969-70, and state whether said figure is based on enroll
ment or average daily attendance.
3. (c) The total expenditure per pupil in each school in
Halifax County Unit for each of the years 1964-65
through 1969-70 is not available. There are no records
kept of expenditures by school. This task would be im
possible. The total expenditures per pupil average daily
attendance are as follows:
State Federal Local Total
1964-65 256.73 11.74 32.69 301.12
1965-66 279.79 30.12 37.43 347.34
1966-67 307.66 97.74 39.29 444.68
1967-68 328.39 121.70 42.58 492.67
1968-69 321.82 120.81 84.02 526.69
1969-70 365.28 111.67 80.45 557.40
Approximated from approval local budgets, estimated Federal
ESEA Title I Funds, and estimated State Funds.
3. (d) Please state for each of the school years 1964-
65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, the
number by race of pupils (I) who reside outside of the
defendant’s school unit and attended school within the
unit, and (II) who reside within the unit and attended
school outside the unit. For each such inter-unit trans
feree, please state the school unit of residence, the school
unit of attendance, and, for such transferee during the
present year, the school said pupil would attend should
the inter-unit transfers cease. Please state a brief sum
mary of any agreement under which inter-unit pupil
transfers occur, and the location of any correspondence,
notes, minute entries or other writings comprising, or
containing information about, said agreements.
859
3. (d) ANSWER:
Approximate Number of Students Who Reside
Outside of the Halifax County School Administrative
Unit and Attend School Within the Unit
No. of Pupils School Unit School
Year by Race of Residence Attended
1964-65 75 (white) Roanoke Rapids City Wm. R. Davie
40 (Negro) Martin County Thomas Shields
20 (Negro) Martin County Brawley
10 (white) Martin County Hobgood
4 (white) Martin County Scotland Neck
1965-66 75 (white) Roanoke Rapids City Wm. R. Davie
30 (Negro) Martin County Thomas Shields
10 (Negro) Martin County Brawley
5 (white) Martin County Scotland Neck
1965-66 75 (white) Roanoke Rapids City Wm. R. Davie
10 (Negro) Martin County Thomas Shields
5 (Negro) Martin County Brawley
7 (white) Martin County Scotland Neck
1967-68 75 (white) Roanoke Rapids City Wm. R. Davie
10 (Negro) Martin County Thomas Shields
5 (Negro) Martin County Brawley
7 (white) Martin County Scotland Neck
1968-69 75 (white) Roanoke Rapids City Wm. R. Davie
10 (Negro) Martin County Thomas Shields
5 (Negro) Martin County Brawley
1969-70 75 (white) Roanoke Rapids City Wm. R. Davie
860
3. (d) ANSWER (Continued):
Approximate Number of Students Who Reside
Within the Unit but Who Attend
School Outside of the Unit
Year
No. of Pupils
by Race
School Unit
of Residence
School and School Unit
Attended
1964-65 220 (Indian) Halifax County Haliwa-Warren County
160 (White) Halifax County Little ton-Warren County
800 (Negro) Halifax County Chaloner-Roanoke Rapids
City
1965-66 220 (Indian) Halifax County Haliwa-Warren County
155 (White) Halifax County Littleton-Warren County
790 (Negro) Halifax County Chaloner-Roanoke Rapids
City
1966-67 215 (Indian) Halifax County Haliwa-Warren County
155 (White) Halifax County Littleton-Warren County
1967-68 150 (Indian) Halifax County Haliwa-Warren County
150 (White) Halifax County Littleton-Warren County
1968-69 140 (Indian) Halifax County Haliwa-Warren County
150 (White) Halifax County Littleton-Warren County
1969-70 75 (White) Halifax County Littleton-Warren County
If the inter-unit pupil transfer policy would cease the
approximately 75 white pupils who live in the Roanoke
Rapids City School Unit but are attending school at Davie
School in Halifax County would be required to attend a
school in the Roanoke Rapids School Unit. The school to
which they would be assigned is probably Rosemary
School, since this school is the nearest to the residence of
most of the elementary pupils.
If the inter-unit pupil transfer policy would cease the
approximately 75 white pupils now attending Littleton
School in Warren County would be given a choice of
attending any school in Hailfax County. It cannot be de
termined what school in the County they would attend
under the free-choice school plan now in operation.
Most of the inter-unit transfers developed historically
over a period of years and no records or agreements are
available. Records of the closing down of the Haliwa
861
High School at the close of the 1966-67 school year and
the closing down of the Haliwa Elementary School at the
close of 1968-69 school year are a part of the records
that have been forwarded to the U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare. The transfer of Chaloner
School from the Roanoke Rapids City Administrative
Unit to the Halifax County Unit occurred at the close of
the 1965-66 school year and all records of this transfer
which enabled students residing in Halifax County to
attend a school within the County are a part of the rec
ords of the U. S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare.
The students attending Littleton School have historical
ly attended this school (30 years or more) and agree
ments between the two Boards of Education or school
officials are not readily available. In the case of the Mar
tin County students attending the Halifax County
Schools, this situation developed because of the proximity
of our schools to the Martin County line. The same
would be true concerning students attending Littleton
School, since the Littleton School is located on the line
dividing Warren and Halifax County.
4. (a) Please state the number of regular classrooms in
each school, the grades each classroom serves, the capacity
of each classroom, and the basis upon which the capaci
ties of the classrooms are determined. State by type the
number of classrooms in each school specially adapted or
equipped for commercial, scientific and agricultural
courses, and the capacity of each of these rooms.
(See attached forms)
4 (a) Attached are floor plans of each school showing
the grades or subjects taught and the capacity of each
classroom.
The capacity of each classroom is relative to the type
of class used in each. The county sets as a maximum the
guidelines set up by the North Carolina Department of
Public Instruction in its standards for accreditation
though the rooms may be able to hold many more stu
dents. The primary grades usually hold (30) thirty, the
elementary grades contain (35) thirty-five, the high
school classes usually have (35) thirty-five in the aca
demic classes and as many as (50) fifty in band or
862
chorus, physical education or typing or any other special
course.
4. (b) QUESTION:
Please state whether the school unit has used
mobile classrooms at any time since the beginning of the
1964-65 school year, and, if so, state the number and ca
pacity of the mobile classroom used at each school for
each year since that time.
4. (b) ANSWER:
Mobile units have been used by the Halifax Coun
ty School System for the purpose of relieving the over
crowded classroom circumstances of many of the schools.
These mobile units have been transferred from one school
to another and in accordance to their needs.
(Attached is a form showing the location, dates
of use and capacity of each mobile unit.)
MOBILE CLASSROOMS USED BY HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS FROM 1964-65— 1969-70
Year 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity
Schools No. of each No. of each No. of each No. of each No. of each No. of each
Aurelian Springs 2 40 2 40 1 40
Bakers
Brawley 2 40 8 40 10 40 11 40 4 40 9 40
Chaloner 2 40 2 40
Dawson
Davie 4 40 7 40 8 40 9 40 14 40 13 40
Eastman 2 40 6 40 9 40 10 40 8 40 12 40
Enfield 3 40
Everetts
Holister 1 40
Inborden Elem. 1 40 10 40 13 40 13 40 4 40 6 40
Inborden High 6 40 6 40
Mclver 2 40 2 40 1 40
Pittman 1 40 2 40 1 40
Scotland Neck 9 40
Shields
Tillery
White Oak 2 40 1 40 1 40
Total 9 39 46 46 50 50
864
5 (a) Attached is a list of the total number of full
time teachers, by race, at each school in the unit for each
school year from 1964-65 to 1969-70.
SCHOOL
NUMBER OF FULL TIME TEACHERS
1964-1965 1965-1966 1966-1967 1967-1968 1968-1969 1969-1970
N W N W-I N W N W N W N W
Aurelian Springs 16 17 18 17 5 18 4 20
Bakers 12 12 12 12 11 1
Brawley 39 40 42 43 40
Chaloner * * 34 33 29 29 1
Dawson 15 18 17 16 15 2 15 2
Eastman 31 32 35 33 1 36 2(1) 38 2
Enfield 25 25 25 1 21 4 22 2 20
Everetts 16 21 19 18 19 1 18 1
Hollister 11 11 11 12 12 13 1
Inborden Elem. 30 28 36 35 31 34 1
Inborden High 12 14 14 14 16 1
Mclver 29 28 27 28 26 29
Pittman 16 17 18 17 17 15
Scotland Neck 30 1 32 1 32 4 34 10 34 2 33
Thomas Shields 11 10 11 9 9 6 1
Tillery Chapel 9 10 10 10 11 11 1
White Oak 10 11 11 11 12 10 2
Wm. R. Davie 34 1 39 1 42 2 40 9 37 9 34
Hobgood 4 4 4 _____CLOSED.... —
TOTAL 241 109 254 117 299 121 299 113 312 118 235 119
oo
0 5cn
* (Chaloner) was in the Roanoke Rapids City Unit during the 1964-65, 1965-66 School Year
I Indian
866
5 (b) Please state the number of other professional
personnel, teachers’ aides, par-time teachers, secretaries,
cafeteria employees and janitorial personnel by race at
each school for each of the school years 1968-69 and
1969-70.
SEE ATTACHMENTS
Question 4 Part (B)
1968-69
School T. Aides P. T. Teachers Janitorial Secretaries Cafeteria Total
W N W N W N W N W N W N
A. Springs 1 none 1 2 1 7 10 2
Bakers 3 none 2 1 7 13
Brawley 8 none 3 1 10 22
Dawson 5 none 3 1 1 5 1 14
Eastman 7 none 3 1 12 23
Enfield Graded 1 1 none 3 1 1 5 3 9
Everetts 4 none 3 1 5 13
Hollister 3 none 2 1 5 11
Inborden High 2 none 1 1 4
Inborden Elem. 7 none 3 1 11 22
J. A. Chaloner 5 none 3 1 7 16
Mclver 5 none 3 1 8 17
Pittman 4 none 2 1 5 12
Scotland Neck 2 1 1 4 1 3 8 8 12
Thomas Shields 3 none 2 1 5 11
Tillery Chapel 3 none 2 1 5 11
White Oak 4 none 2 1 6 13
William R. Davie 1 1 none 3 1 13 15 4
Total 5 65 1 2 46 4 14 25 104 37 229 ooa>
-q
Question 4 Part (B)
1969-70
School T. Aides P. T. Teachers Janitorial Secretaries Cafeteria Total
W N W N W N W N W N W N
A. Springs 2 none 1 1 1 7 11 1
Bakers 3 none 2 1 5 11
Brawley 6 none 3 1 11 21
Dawson 4 none 2 1 1 6 1 13
Eastman 6 none 3 1 9 19
Enfield Graded 1 1 none 2 1 1 5 3 8
Everetts 4 none 3 1 5 13
Hollister 3 none 2 1 5 11
Inborden High 1 none 3 1 5
Inborden Elem. 7 none 3 1 12 23
J. A. Chaloner 3 none 3 1 7 14
Mclver 3 none 3 1 6 13
Pittman 3 none 2 1 5 11
Scotland Neck none 4 1 3 6 4 10
Thomas Shields 3 none 2 1 6 12
Tillery Chapel 3 none 2 1 5 11
White Oak 3 none 2 1 6 12
William R. Davie 3 1 none 3 1 11 15 4
Total 6 54 none 1 45 4 14 23 99 34 212
868
869
6. Please state the teaching schedule for each member
of the faculty at each school for the 1969-70 school year,
his race, his certification, and his score on the National
Teachers’ Examination. This schedule should include the
subject and grade taught and the hour of the class.
Please state the number of students enrolled and, if pos
sible, the average daily attendance for each class.
(See Portfolio)
7. Please state the number of teachers, by race and
by school, who have been newly hired and who have
started teaching in the defendant’s school unit each of
the school years from 1964-65 to 1969-70, the certifica
tion of each teacher, and the grade and subject to which
each teacher has been assigned. State also the number
of teachers, by race and by school, who have left employ
ment, or who have been transferred from one school to
another, in the defendant’s school unit for each of the
above school years. Please describe the manner in which
new teachers are employed including full details of the
recruiting program and the nature of any authority
given to or used by principals, school committees, or
others in the hiring process.
(See Portfolio)
8. (a) Please state the name of each teacher and staff
member (even though no longer employed by the defend
ant’s school unit) who indicated a willingness to teach or
work across racial lines and the steps taken to assign
each such teacher across racial lines. Please state what
steps, if any, have been taken to encourage teachers and
staff members to teach and work across racial lines (in
cluding polls), the name o f each teacher so encouraged,
by whom encouragement was given and the results there
of.
ANSWER: Beginning in the fall of 1964, teachers
and other staff members were approached by the Halifax
County Central Office Staff and encouraged to teach
across racial lines. In 1965 and in at least one succed-
ing year a survey was conducted to determine the will
ingness of the teachers to teach across racial lines. Few
teachers indicated a willingness to change schools. (Ap
870
proximately 6 each year stated they would accept such
assignment, but would not volunteer). Both direct and
indirect approaches were made to encourage teachers to
choose to teach children of a race different from their
own.
It is impossible to give the names of the teachers ap
proached or the person whom they were approached by
during the past 6 years, since no records were kept of
the conversations. Every new teacher employed was ask
ed whether he or she would be willing to accept a teach
ing assignment in a school of a different race.
The results of the concentrated effort are shown by the
steady increase in the number of teachers teaching across
racial lines:
Halifax County
8. (b) QUESTION:
Please state the number of workshops, meetings,
training institutes or similar programs, attended by the
school unit’s teachers and other professional staff mem
bers of both races, and for each such program, its loca
tion, the inclusive dates, number of staff members by
race in attendance, the topic matter or purpose of such
program, and the sponsor(s).
8. (b) ANSWER:
The Halifax County School System has conducted
well planned in-service education programs for its pro
fessional and non-professional staff. Each program has
been developed to increase their understanding of issues
and problems of education, to improve their methods of
teaching various subjects, and in general, to keep their
Year
Teachers Employed in a School
Where Their Race in in Minority.
1964- 65
1965- 66
1966- 67
1967- 68
1968- 69
1969- 70
0
2
4
12
35
23
871
thinking and their teaching effective. These programs in
volved the Negro and Caucasion races. (Please see at
tached sheets for explanations and descriptions of In-
Service Programs).
8. (c) QUESTION:
Please state the number of workshops, meetings,
training institutes or like programs for staff personnel,
which dealt wholly or in part with desegregation of pu
pils or faculties, or both, to which the staff members of
the school unit were invited or could have attended, and
which are not listed elsewhere in your answers to those
interrogatories. State for each such meeting the inclusive
dates, purpose or topic matter, the number of staff per
sonnel by race who attended and if no staff personnel at
tended, the reasons why said staff members were not in
attendance.
8. (c) ANSWER:
A series of conferences and meetings were con
ducted during the 1967-68 and 1968-69 school term that
dealt in part with the desegregation of pupils in the
schools. Representatives from each of the high schools
participated in these conferences and the sessions were
held on rotation basis, including all of the high schools of
the County.
Topics included for discussion were:
1. Better Communication Between Students, Fac
ulty, Parents, and Community
2. Meaningful Relationship with Members of the
Opposite Race and
3. Involvement of All Students in School Activities
The number of participants in these conferences
varied from one session to another and according to the
size of the schools involved. Approximately thirty persons
participated in each session with a racial composition of
about eighteen (18) Negroes and twelve (12) Caucasions.
Each participant from the schools involved dis
cussed with their local faculty and student body the is
sues considered in their county-wide meetings.
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
WORKSHOPS, MEETINGS, INSTITUTES ATTENDED BY TEACHERS & OTHER PROFESSIONAL STAFF
FROM 1964-65 — 1969-70
No. Attended
Titles Dates Location *N **c Sponsor
Techniques of Teaching
June 13,
July 1, 1966
Inborden School
Enfield 57 10
County
ESEA
Title I
Improvement in Reading
June 13,
July 1, 1966
Inborden School
Enfield 76 10
County
ESEA
Title I
Modem Mathematics
June 13,
July 1, 1966
Inborden School
Enfield 22 4
County
ESEA
Title I
Arts, Crafts and Music
June 13,
July 1, 1966
Inborden School
Enfield 65 5
County
ESEA
Title I
Audio Visual Aids
June 13,
July 1, 1966
Inborden School
Enfield 16 9
ESEA
Title I
Pupil Evaluation
June 13,
July 1, 1966
Inborden School
Enfield 10 4
County
ESEA
Title I
872
Modem Methods of Teaching
June 13,
July 1, 1966
Inborden School
Enfield 66 8
County
ESEA
Title I
Unit Teaching in The Elementary School
Aug. 21-25
1967
Aurelian Springs Sch.
Littleton 20 10 County
School Administration of Testing Programs
October
1967
Inborden School
Enfield 16 4
ESEA
Title I
Teacher Aide Workshop
August
1967
Inborden School
Enfield 65 15
ESEA
Title I
Music Workshop
October
1967
Inborden School
Enfield 22 6
County
ESEA
Title I
Study of the Disadvantaged Child
October
1967
Inborden School
Enfield 40 2
ESEA
Title I
Reading in The Junior High School
October
1967
Inborden School
Enfield 18 7
ESEA
Title I
Problems in Educational Administration
October
1967
Inborden School
Enfield 18 7
County
ESEA
Title I
00-a
OS
00-q
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
WORKSHOPS, MEETINGS, INSTITUTES ATTENDED BY TEACHERS & OTHER PROFESSIONAL STAFF
FROM 1964-65 — 1969-70
No. Attended
Titles Dates Location *N **c Sponsor
Techniques of Teaching
October
1967
Inborden School
Enfield 26 5
County
ESEA
Title I
New Ideas in Teaching High School Science
April
1968
Inborden School
Enfield 12 3
County
ESEA
Title I
Mental Hygiene in the School
April
1968
Inborden School
Enfield 27 4
County
ESEA
Title I
Elementary Science Workshop
April
1968
Inborden School
Enfield 17 0
County
ESEA
Title I
Home-Community Relations
April
1968
Inborden School
Enfield 54 26
County
ESEA
Title I
Modem Math for Elementary Teachers
April
1968
Inborden School
Enfield 18 7
County
ESEA
Title I
Teacher-Teacher Aide Workshop
June 1968
Aug. 1968
Dawson School
Scotland Neck 75 18
ESEA
Title I
Personality Development, Behavior Disorders,
Therapeutic Measures, and Intergroup Conflict
Resolutions
Sept. 17, 1968
April 15, 1969
Dawson & Pittman
Schools 115 27
County
ESEA
Title I
March 1-
Communications and A. V. Materials and Equipment April 12, 1967
Dawson &
Aurelian Springs
Schools 12 5
County
ESEA
Title I
Desegregation Workshop
Nov.-Dee., 1968
July-Aug., 1969
Eastman
Aurelian Springs
Davie
Brawley
Enfield Graded
Raleigh 98 72
County
ESEA
Title I
Edu. Leader
ship Center
* Negro
** Caucasian
00
-qOl
876
9. (a&b) Please state the bus number, the length of
the route, and the race of the driver of each school bus
serving each school in the district during the 1969-70
school year, and the number of students of each race
riding each bus. Please attach a description of the route
of each bus and, if possible, a map or maps showing the
routes of all the school buses in the district. Please state
how many miles of each school bus route coincide with
the route of a bus serving a school attended predomin
antly by students of the opposite race.
Since the Halifax County School system is not fully
integrated, we operate a partial dual transportation sys
tem. This means that in the majority of the cases a sepa
rate transportation system is provided for negro and
white students. However, this does not always apply be
cause a student has the right to ride any bus that will
transport him to the school of his choice. Therefore, the
same "percentage of integration exist in the transportation
system as exist in the Halifax County School Adminis
trative Unit.
The school bus drivers are selected from the schools
that they attend. In most instances this would mean that
negro drivers would be driving buses to negro schools
and white drivers to predominately white schools. How
ever, exceptions exist on this point because some negroes
that attend predominately white schools have been select
ed as drivers without discrimination.
9. (c) Please state whether there is any residential seg
regation by race in the school unit. Please identify and
give a general description of any areas in the unit which
are wholly or predominantly uniracial. If pupils now in
the system are assigned to existing schools on a unitary
geographic basis, and disregarding any possible with
drawal of white pupils as a result of integration, would
the pupil population of any school be wholly or substan
tially uniracial?
Yes, residential segregation does exist in the Halifax
County Administrative Unit. In the rural areas of Hali
fax County two of the three races of people are dispersed
throughout most of the county. The Haliwa Indians, the
third race of people living in Halifax County, reside
predominantly in the Hollister section. The only areas of
the County which has residential segregation would be
areas in and around Roanoke Rapids, Enfield and Scot
land Neck which does have sections of all white and all
negro residents.
In answer to the question of whether a school would
remain wholly or substantially uniracial, the reply is yes.
This is true because certain sections of the county are
so heavily negro populated that any system of education
that we have devised would not bring about integration
in these areas. This statement may sound contridictory
to previous statements about racial dispersement in the
rural areas, however this can be explained by the high
percentage of negro residents living in Halifax County.
9. (d) Please state the schools of any other adminis
trative unit served by buses or drivers of the defendant,
the number of each such bus, the number of pupils by
race transported to or from each such school, and a brief
summary of any agreements, resolutions or minutes un
der which said service is provided. Please state the name,
address and any official positions of persons known to
you who have information about this arrangement.
The fourteen school buses that serve the Weldon Ad
ministrative Unit are titled to the Halifax County Board
of Education. This was done on the recommendation of
the North Carolina State Board of Education. The Hali
fax County Maintenance Department provides mainte
nance and fuel to these buses but exercises no control
over their operation.
10. Please state what courses are currently taught at
each school, and what courses are proposed to be taught
for the 1970-71 school year. If any of the courses are not
given evey year or are given only one semester each
year, please indicate that fact.
(See Portfolio)
11. Please state what organized athletic programs,
bands, or other extracurricular activities under school
auspices are operated at each school, and the number of
students, by race, participating in each sport or activity
at each school.
878
To answer this question, I refer you to the following
sheets which include all the School’s Athletic schedules,
the number of players envolved and their racial compo
sition; bands and their composition by race; and, all the
clubs at each school and their composition by race.
WILLIAM R. DAVIE SCHOOL
Route 1, Box 191
Roanoke Rapids, N.C. 27870
1969-1970 Football Schedule
Date Opponent Home Away
Sept. 5 Norlina X
Sept. 12 Wakelon X
Sept. 19 Warrenton X
Sept. 26 Gaston X
Oct. 3 Weldon X
Oct. 10 Littleton X
Oct. 17 Oxford Orphanage X
Oct. 24 Murfreesboro X
Oct. 31
Nov. 7
(Open)
Louisburg X
WILLIAM R. DAVIE
1969-70 Basketball Schedule
Friday, December 5 (Open)
Tuesday, December 9 Gaston
Friday, December 12 Aurelian Springs
Tuesday, December 16 Warrenton
Friday, December 19 Norlina
Friday, January 2 Enfield
Tuesday, January 6 Murfreesboro
Friday, January 9 Littleton
Tuesday, January 13 Weldon
Friday, January 16 (Open)
Tuesday, January 20 Gaston
Friday, January 23 Aurelian Springs
Tuesday, January 27 Warrenton
Friday, January 30 Norlina
Tuesday, February 3 Enfield
Friday, February 6 Murfreesboro
Tuesday, February 10 Littleton
Friday, February 13 Weldon
880
W. Henry Overman, Superintendent
Halifax, N. C. 27839
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Board of Education
C. M. Moore, Jr., Chm.
Mrs. J. C. Shearin
W. Carlos Burt
Board of Education
C. H. Leggett
Mrs. A. L. Williams
A. G. Wilcox, Jr.
J. I. Walston, Jr.
WILLIAM R. DAVIE SCHOOL
Activity
Football
Basketball (boys)
Basketball (girls)
Monogram Club
Future Homemakers of America
Science Club
Future Farmers of America
Library Club
Student Council
Future Teachers of America
Beta Club
White Negro Total
19 10 29
9 5 14
9 3 12
20 5 25
18 13 31
11 3 14
61 14 75
22 3 25
20 8 28
23 10 33
11 1 12
881
Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina 27870 *
Basketball Schedule
for
1969-1970
JOHN A. CHALONER SCHOOL
Date Opponent Location
November 7, ’69 Phillips Battlesboro, N. C.
November 11 Mclver Roanoke Rapids, N. C.
November 18 Inborden Roanoke Rapids, N. C.
November 21 Phillips Roanoke Rapids, N. C.
November 25 Eastman Enfield, N. C.
December 2 Inborden Enfield, N. C.
December 5 W. S. Creecy Roanoke Rapids, N. C.
December 9 C. S. Brown Winton, N. C.
December 12 Perquimans Winfall, N. C.
December 16 Gumberry Roanoke Rapids, N. C.
December 19 Henderson Institute Henderson, N. C.
January 2, ’70 C. S. Brown Roanoke Rapids, N. c .
January 6 Mclver Littleton, N. C.
January 9 Henderson Institute Roanoke Rapids, N. c .
January 13 Eastman Roanoke Rapids, N. C.
January 16 Swift Creek Red Oak, N. C.
January 20 Swift Creek Roanoke Rapids, N. c .
January 23 Perquimans Roanoke Rapids, N. c .
January 27 R. L. Vann Ahoskie, N. C.
January 30 Brawley Scotland Neck, N. C.
February 3 R. L. Vann Roanoke Rapids, N. c .
February 6 Gumberry Gumberry, N. C.
February 10 Brawley Roanoke Rapids, N. c .
^February 13 W. S. Creecy / Rich Square, N. C.
* Subject to change
All home games will begin at 7 :30 p.m.
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
W. Henry Overman, Superintendent
Halifax, N. C. 27839
Board of Education Board of Education
C. M. Moore, Jr., Chm.
Mrs. J. C. Shearin
W. Carlos Burt
C. H. Leggett
Mrs. A. L. Williams
A. G. Wilcox, Jr.
J. I. Walston, Jr.
JOHN A. CHALONER
Activity Negro Students
Future Farmers of America 40
Future Homemakers 40
Glee Club 22
Science Club 15
School Patrol 20
Basketball 30
Student Government 30
Introduction of Vocation 65
* Please note all participants and negro
McIVER HIGH SCHOOL
A. Farmer, Principal
883
Littleton, North Carolina
27850
McIVER SCHOOL
Clubs
Journalism Club 28
FFA 100
FHA 72
Student Gov’t 18
Athletics
Boys Basketball 22
Girls Basketball 17
Cheerleader 6
* Please note that all of these participants are negro.
McIVER BASKETBALL SCHEDULE
1969 November 4 Oak City Boys and Jayvee Home Tuesday
November 7 Oak City Boys and Jayvee Away Friday
November 11 Chaloner Boys and Girls Away Tuesday
November 14 Eastman Boys and Girls Home Friday
November 25 Swift Creek Boys and Jayvee Away Tuesday
December 5 Inborden Boys and Girls Home Friday
December 9 Swift Creek Boys and Jayvee Home Tuesday
December 12 Speight Boys and Jayvee Away Friday
1970 January 6 Chaloner Boys and Girls Home Tuesday
January 16 Inborden Boys and Girls Away Friday
January 23 Speight Boys and Jayvee Home Friday
February 6 Eastman Boys and Girls Away Friday
February 17 Tournament Boys and Girls Away Tournament
February 18 Tournament Boys and Girls Away Tournament
884
885
Working Organizations
October 23, 1969
BRAWLEY HIGH SCHOOL
Organizations No. Enrolled
Student Council Officers and Representatives 45
Library Club 15
Honor Society 11
F. F. A. 41
F. H. A. 20
Football Team (Travel Team) 28
Basketball (Boys) Not Selected Yet 38
Basketball (Girls) Not Selected Yet 26
Girl Scouts 43 (Elem.)
Boy Scouts 25
* Please note that all of these participants are negro.
/s / J. C. Bias
886
BRAWLEY HIGH SCHOOL
Football Schedule 1969-70
September 13
18
26
October 3
10
17
25
31
November 7
C. S. Brown at Ahoskie
Windfall at Scotland Neck
R. L. Vann at Ahoskie
South Ayden at Scotland Neck
Open Date
W. S. Creecy at Scotland Neck
(Homecoming)
W. S. Creecy at Rich Square
Patillo at Scotland Neck
Henderson Institute at Scotland Neck
/s / J. C. Bias
887
December
January
February
Basketball Schedule
1969-70
2 W. S. Creecy at Rich Square
5 Gumberry at Gaston
9 R. L. Vann at Scotland Neck
12 C. S. Brown at Scotland Neck
16 West Martin at Oak City
19 Eastman at Scotland Neck
30 Inborden at Scotland Neck
2 R. L. Vann at Ahoskie
6 W. S. Creecy at Scotland Neck
9 Open
13 Perquimans County at Winfall
16 West Waring at Scotland Neck
20 C. S. Brown at Hinton
23 Open
27 Eastman at Enfield
30 J. A. Chaloner at Scotland Neck
3 Gumberry at Scotland Neck
6 Perquimans County at Scotland Neck
10 J. A. Chaloner at Roanoke Rapids
13 Inborden at Enfield
17
BRAWLEY HIGH SCHOOL
/ s / J. C. Bias
888
W. Henry Overman, Superintendent
Halifax, N. C. 27839
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Board of Education
C. M. Moore, Jr., Chm.
Mrs. J. C. Shearin
W. Carlos Burt
Board of Education
C. H. Leggett
Mrs. A. L. Williams
A. G. Wilcox, Jr.
J. I. Walston, Jr.
AURELIAN SPRINGS HIGH SCHOOL
Activity White Negro Indian Total
Chorus 55 20 75
Student Government 17 4 21
Beta Club 12 4 16
Yearbook 10 5 15
Future Farmers of America 41 3 23 67
Future Homemakers of America 48 5 23 76
Cheerleaders 10 1 11
Monogram 70 70
Pep Club 53 5 58
Athletic squads and schedule not complete.
889
W. Henry Overman, Superintendent
Halifax, N. C. 27839
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Board of Education
C. M. Moore, Jr., Chm.
Mrs. J. C. Shearin
W. Carlos Burt
Board of Education
C. H. Leggett
Mrs. A. L. Williams
A. G. Wilcox, Jr.
J. I. Walston, Jr.
INBORDEN HIGH SCHOOL
Activity Students
Basketball 45
Monogram Club 45
National Honor Society 10
Future Farmers of America 133
Future Homemakers of America 101
Journalism 9
Student Government 22
Science Club 31
French Club 12
* Please note all participants are negro.
T. S. INBORDEN SCHOOLS
P. 0. Box 457
Enfield, North Carolina 27823
C. WILLIAMSON
H igh School Principal
Telephone 445-5400
L. M. WILLIAMS
Elementary Principal
Telephone 445-3525
October 20, 1969
INBORDEN HIGH SCHOOL
Basketball Schedule
Dates Teams Sites Players
November
4 Carver (Pinetop) Home Varsity and Jr. V.
7 OPEN
11 Swift Creek (Whitakers) Away Varsity & Jr. V.
13 Conetoe (Conetoe) Away Varsity & Jr. V.
14 West Martin (Oak City) Home Varsity & Jr. V.
18 Chaloner (Roanoke Rapids) Away Varsity & Girls
21 Gumberry (Gumberry) Home Varsity & Girls
890
December
2
5
6
9
12
16
19
30
Chaloner (Roanoke Rapids)
Mclver (Littleton)
Speight (Wilson)
Speight (Wilson)
Conetoe (Conetoe)
Eastman (Enfield)
Gumberry (Gumberry)
Brawley (Scotland Neck)
January
6
9
13
15
16
24
27
30
West Martin (Oak City)
Eastman (Enfield)
Pattillo (Tarboro)
Carver (Pinetop)
Mclver (Littleton)
Pattillo (Tarboro)
Phillips (Battleboro)
Springfield
February
3
6
10
13
Swift Creek (Whitakers)
Springfield
Phillips (Battleboro)
Brawley (Scotland Neck)
Home Varsity & Girls
Away Varsity & Girls
Home Varsity & Jr. V.
Away Varsity & Jr. V.
Home Varsity & Jr. V.
Away Varsity & Girls
Away Varsity & Girls
Away Varsity & Girls
Away Varsity & Jr. V.
Home Varsity & Girls
Home Varsity & Jr. V.
Away Varsity & Jr. V.
Home Varsity & Girls
Away Varsity & Jr. V.
Away Varsity & Jr. V.
Home Varsity & Girls
Home Varsity & Girls
Away Varsity & Girls
Home Varsity & Jr. V.
Home Varsity & Girls oo
892
W. Henry Overman, Superintendent
Halifax, N. C. 27839
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Board of Education
C. M. Moore, Jr., Chm.
Mrs. J. C. Shearin
W. Carlos Burt
Board of Education
C. H. Leggett
Mrs. A. L. Williams
A. G. Wilcox, Jr.
J. I. Walston, Jr.
EASTMAN HIGH SCHOOL
Activity Negro
Band 70
Choir 79
Student Government 30
Crown and Scepture Club 40
Social Science 50
Library Club 30
Student Handbook 30
Dramatics 30
Debating 30
Future Farmers of America 124
Future Homemakers of
America 90
40
Activity Negro
Future Bus Leaders 35
Vocational Club 73
Cheerleaders 18
Girls Athletic Association 24
French 30
Patrol 70
Commercial 35
Band Boosters 42
Athletic Boosters Club 45
Charm and Culture Club 20
Bus Drivers 20
English Club 50
Science 50Math
893
BASKETBALL GAMES
FOE
1969-70
EASTMAN HIGH SCHOOL
School Date Where
1. Swift Creek Nov. 4, 1969 Here
2. Springfield Nov. 7, 1969 There
3. Speight Nov. 11, 1969 There
4. Mclver Nov. 14, 1969 There
5. Open Nov. 18, 1969
6. Springfield Nov. 21, 1969 Here
7. Chaloner Nov. 25, 1969 Here
8. West Martin Nov. 26, 1969 Here
9. Open Dec. 2, 1969
10. Canetoe Dec. 5, 1969 There
11. Pattillo Dec. 9, 1969 There
12. G. W. Carver Dec. 12, 1969 Here
13. T. S. Inborden Dec. 16, 1969 Here
14. Brawley Dec. 19, 1969 There
15. Chaloner Dec. 31, 1969 There
16. Canetoe Jan. 2, 1970 Here
17. G. W. Carver Jan. 6, 1970 Here
18. T. S. Inborden Jan. 9, 1970 There
19. Open Jan. 13, 1970
20. Pattillo Jan. 16, 1970 Here
21. Open Jan. 20, 1970
22. Phillips Jan. 23, 1970 There
23. Brawley Jan. 27, 1970 Here
24. Phillips Jan. 30, 1970 Here
25. West Martin Feb. 3, 1970 There
26. Mclver Feb. 6, 1970 Here
27. Speight Feb. 10, 1970 There
28. Swift Creek Feb. 13, 1970 There
894
W. Henry Overman, Superintendent
Halifax, N. C. 27839
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
Board of Education
C. M. Moore, Jr., Chm.
Mrs. J. C. Shearin
W. Carlos Burt
Board of Education
C. H. Leggett
Mrs. A. L. Williams
A. G. Wilcox, Jr.
J. I. Walston, Jr.
SCOTLAND NECK SCHOOL
ACTIVITY NEGRO WHITE TOTAL
Football 4 22 26
Basketball 7 20 27
Bus Drivers 14 14
Cheerleaders 9 9
Jr. Varsity Cheerleaders 1 8 9
Scotsman Staff 15 15
Beta 12 12
Jr. Varsity Football 9 13 22
Monogram 4 45 49
Jr. Varsity Basketball 7 8 15
Pep Club 5 45 50
Bagpipers 12 12
Baseball 4 15 19
Track 8 16 24
Golf 7 7
Student Government 5 15 20
SCOTLAND NECK
1969-70 Football Schedule
August 29
September 5
September 12
September 19
September 26
October 3
October 10
October 17
October 24
October 31
Murfreesboro
Northampton
Williamston
Wakelon
Edenton
Gates County
Ahoskie
Louisburg
Plymouth
Hertford
896
SCOTLAND NECK
1969-70 Basketball Schedule
December 2 Enfield
December 5 William H. Davie
December 12 Tarboro
December 16 Enfield
December 26-27 Holiday Festival
January 6 Ahoskie
January 9 Gates County
January 13 Edenton
January 16 Plymouth
January 20 Perquimans
January 23 Williamston
January 27 Northampton
January 30 Ahoskie
February 3 Gates County
February 6 Edenton
February 10 Plymouth
February 13 Perquimans
February 17 Williamston
February 20 Northhampton
February 24-27 Conference Tournament
897
TENTATIVE
SCOTLAND NECK SCHOOL
GOLF SCHEDULE
1969
7 White
March 17
March 24
March 31
April 10
April 14
April 21
April 28
Sectionals
March 26
April 2
April 9
April 16
April 23
at Plymouth
at Scotland Neck
at Williamston
at Ahoskie (No match Easter Monday—
Play on Thursday)
at Bertie
at Edenton
at Scotland Neck— Tournament
May 5
TRACK SCHEDULE
1969
Scotland Neck and Gates at Northhampton
Plymouth, Pasquotank and Scotland Neck at Ahoskie
Williamston and Hartford at Scotland Neck
Northampton, Plymouth and Scotland Neck at Edenton
Plymouth and Scotland Neck at Bertie
Estimated
16 Whites
8 Colored
898
11. (a) Have Negro pupils at desegregated schools
ever been denied permission to participate in any athletic
or extracurricular activity, because they have not been
enrolled at such schools long enough, or for any other
reason? Please provide details.
In answer to the question of whether any negro has
been deprived of participation in athletic contest or extra
curricular activities in a desegregated school, the answer
is no. In fact, they have been encouraged to do so.
11. (b) Please state for each organized sport the
schools scheduled for play during 1969-70, and indicate
whether each such scheduled school is historically white
or historically negro. Please state the dates of all open
ings in athletic schedules which have not been filled to
date. For any sport in your unit which is not scheduled
for at least one-third of the games with teams historical
ly of the opposite race, please indicate the reason why a
greater proportion of games with teams of the opposite
race cannot be scheduled.
The High School athletic schedules in Halifax County
are scheduled in most cases within the Athletic Confer
ence that a particular school is a member of. This means
that negro schools have schedules with historically negro
schools and predominately white schools with historically
white schools.
The reason that open dates in the schedules cannot be
scheduled with teams of the opposite race is because the
conference controls the schedule.
12. Please state how the expenses of operating the
programs named in answer to Question 11 are met, and
how and by whom uniforms and equipment are paid for.
ANSWER: All programs named in Question 11 are
operated with money raised in one or more of the follow
ing ways:
a. Pupil membership dues;
b. Gate receipts at athletic contests;
c. Fund-raising events such as “ Fall Festivals” ;
d. Other student sponsored fund-raising activities
such as magazine or picture sales;
e. Donations by community athletic “ booster clubs” .
899
In none of the extra-curricular activities or athletic con
tests have County, State or Federal tax funds been used
to pay the expense of operating any of the programs.
13. Please state whether each school in the defendant’s
school unit has a library, and how many books are in
each library. If a library is in a school which has both
elementary and high school students, the total number
of books in the library, the number appropriate for use
by elementary school students and the number appropri
ate for use by high school students. If contributions of li
brary books have been made by private individuals or
groups, please furnish details as to the date, amount, and
recipient school with respect to each such contribution.
SEE ATTACHMENT
Question 13
All eighteen (18) schools in the Halifax County School
Administrative Unit have a library. Listed below are the
schools, their organizational pattern, and the number of
books in the high school library (grades 9-12), and the
number of books in the elementary library (grades 1-8).
These figures were taken from each principal’s annual
report that was submitted to the N. C. Department of
Public Instruction in May of 1969.
The Central Administrative Office does not have any
records to indicate that any private individual or group
have made any contribution of library books to any school
library in the Halifax County Administrative Unit.
900
Number
Organizational
School Pattern
Books
Elementary
Library
Number Books
High School
Library
Total
Library
Books
Aurelian Springs 1-12 2,256 1,824 4,080
Bakers 1-8 2,746 2,746
Brawley 1-12 4,097 4,694 8,791
Dawson 1-8 3,923 3,923
Eastman 1-12 4,338 3,554 7,892
Enfield Graded 1-12 2,467 2,800 5,267
Everetts 1-8 5,383 5,383
Hollister 1-8 4,250 4,250
Inborden High 9-12 3,876 3,876
Inborden Elementary 1-8 6,330 6,330
John A. Chaloner 1-12 6,197 3,264 9,461
Mclver 1-12 2,956 3,935 6,891
Pittman 1-8 3,976 3,976
Scotland Neck 1-12 5,643 3,252 8,895
Thomas Shields 1-8 2,861 2,861
Tillery Chapel 1-8 3,117 3,117
White Oak 1-8 2,915 2,915
William R. Davie 1-12 6,345 3,218 9,563
Total 69,800 30,417 100,217
14. Please state which schools in the unit are accred-
ited, and the year in which they were first accredited,
by:
(a) The North Carolina Department of Public In
struction; and
(b) The Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools
901
SCHOOL ACCREDITATION FOR HALIFAX COUNTY
SCHOOLS
Aurelian Springs
Bakers
Brawley
Chaloner
Dawson
Eastman
Enfield
Everetts
Hollister
Inborden
Mclver
Pittman
Scotland Neck
Thomas Shields
Tillery Chapel
White Oak
William R. Davie
* Provisionally Accredited
Year First Accredited
By N. C. Dept, of Pub. Inst.
ELEM. HIGH SCHOOL
1955 1926
1968 -------
1968* 1936
1934
1962 -------
1968* 1931
1939 1920
1968 -------
1954
1968* 1941
1968 -------
1950 1920
1967 -------
1968 -------
1968 -------
1954 1941
Presently Halifax County has no schools accredited by The
Southern Association of College and Schools—
902
15. Please state when the school unit first officially
adopted a freedom of choice plan of student assignment.
Please state what steps, if any, the school unit took to
disestablish its dual system of schools prior to the adop
tion of the freedom of choice plan indicated above. Please
state whether and when consideration was first given to
adoption of a unitary zoning or pairing plan as disting
uished from a freedom of choice plan, and indicate, so
far as possible, what educational or other considerations
led to the adoption of a freedom of choice plan.
15. Freedom of choice plan of student assignment for
all pupils in all grades was first officially adopted by the
Halifax County Unit on August 18, 1965, and became
effective for the 1965-66 school year.
The first step to disestablish the dual system of schools
took place on August 3, 1965. (See answer to question
16 and attached excerpts from Minutes of the meeting of
Halifax County Board of Education held on August 17,
1964).
Consideration was given to adoption of a unitary zon
ing and pairing plan as distinguished from a freedom of
choice form on August, 1968 after the U. S. Department
of Justice had declared that the operation of schools on a
freedom of choice plan had not resulted in the disestab
lishment of a dual system of schools. (See answer to ques
tion 22, page 166).
It was considered at the time that freedom of choice
was first adopted that this method would comply with the
1964 Civil Rights laws, would bring about a more orderly
transition to a unitary school system.
16. Please state (a) when the first Negro student ap
plied to attend an all-white school in your unit; and (b)
when the first Negro student was admitted to a formerly
all-white school and the number of Negro students who
applied and the number who were admitted to formerly
all-white schools at that time.
16. (a) The first Negro student applied to attend an
all-white school in Halifax County Schools on June 3,
1964.
903
(b) The first Negro student was admitted to a former
ly all-white school at the beginning of the 1964-65 school
year. Seventeen Negro students made application to a
formerly all-white school, Enfield School, during the sum
mer of 1964. Three students withdrew their applications
before action was taken by the Halifax County Board
of Education. Six students were assigned and the appli
cations of eight students were disapproved in accordance
with the Policy adopted by Board of Education. All six
students who applied in grades 1, 10, 11 and 12 were as
signed. Applications of eight students in grades 4, 5, 8
and 9 were not approved. (See excerpts from minutes of
Halifax County Board of Education, August 17, 1964.)
Excerpts From Minutes of the Meeting of the Halifax
County Board of Education Held on August 17, 1964.
“ The following resolution was offered by C. H. Leg
gett, seconded by J. D. Whitehead and passed:
WHEREAS, the Halifax County Board of Educa
tion has received a number of Applications for
Change of Pupil Assignment from Inborden School
to Enfield Graded School; and
WHEREAS, the Board had given full consideration
to each Application for Change of Assignment; and
WHEREAS, the Board desired and sought to adopt
an orderly plan of reassignment that would be for
the best interest and general welfare of each pupil;
and
WHEREAS, the Board at its last regular meeting
held on August 3, 1964, pursuant to a verbal agree
ment adopted at said meeting and upon Application
for Change of Assignment made by their parents
did reassign to the Enfield Graded School pupils in
Grades 1, 10, 11, and 12, who had been assigned
to Inborden School; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to enter into its min
utes the plan verbally adopted at the meeting held
on August 3, 1964. Now therefore, be it
904
RESOLVED, that the Halifax County Board of
Education adopt as a plan for the 1964-65 school
term the consideration of all Applications for Change
of Pupil Assignment for pupils in grades 1, 10, 11,
and 12, provided the legal residence of said pupils
is within the attendance area of the school for which
assignment is requested and, provided further that
said Application for Change of Assignment have
been submitted to and received by the Halifax County
Board of Education in accordance with “ Rules and
Regulations Governing Assignment and Enrollment
of Pupils” , adopted on May 4, 1956, and amended on
May 7, 1957; and be it further
RESOLVED, that should this plan prove feasible
the Board of Education shall give consideration to
the addition of one or more grades to the plan dur
ing the 1965-66 school term and other grades during
subsequent school terms.”
17. Please state whether any white students in the
school uint have attended or are currently attending a
formerly all-Negro school, and, if so, how many, when,
and at which school or schools.
ANSWER: To the best of our knowledge one white
student is attending a formerly all-Negro school. The
student is in grade four at White Oak School.
18. Please describe any increase or decrease in the
geographic area within the jurisdiction of the defend
ant’s school unit from 1964 to the present, except the
changes brought about under authority of Chapter 31,
1969 Sessions Laws. For each such change give the other
person, governmental unit, or school administrative unit
involved, the schools or other properties involved, the lo
cation, amount of acreage, number of classrooms, num
ber of each type of non-classroom structures, number of
pupils by race, number of teachers by race, and amount
of funds transferred. Please indicate with respect to
your answers to the aforesaid question the school admin
istrative unit(s) from which transferred, and the school
administrative unit (s) to which transferred. Please state
a brief summary description of leases, agreements, cor-
905
respondenee, notes, minutes and other writings relating
to or containing such changes, and the name, address
and any official position of persons known to be in pos
session, custody or control of such writings. Please state
the name, address and any official position of any person
not an employeed of the defendant, known to you who
possesses information about any increase or decrease in
the geographic area of the defendant’s jurisdiction from
1954 to the present.
18. Decrease and increase in the geographic area
within jurisdiction of the Halifax County School Unit
are as follows:
(a) All area consisting of the town of Halifax
and surrounding territory was transferred from the
Halifax County Administrative Unit and annexed
to the Weldon City Administrative Unit at the be
ginning operation in the Weldon City Administra
tive Unit. The schools, land and buildings located
in this area were transferred by a favorable vote of
the qualified voters within the annexed area by an
election held on June 23, 1956.
School Location Acres
Class-
Rooms
Halifax Elem. Halifax 6 4
Andrew
Jackson Halifax 1 4
Pea Hill Near Halifax 3 y2 4
Allen Grove Near Halifax 2 3
<x>o
0 5
Other Funds
Structures Students Teachers Transferred
Auditorium
& Lunchroom
74 W 3 W None
None 183 N 4 N None
None 145 N 4 N None
None 46 N 4 N None
907
(b) The school site consisting of 10 acres adja
cent to the Halifax County School Unit was trans
ferred from the Roanoke Rapids City Unit and an
nexed to the Halifax County Unit by the State
Board of Education upon joint request and agree
ment betwen the Boards of Education of Roanoke
Rapids City Unit and Halifax County Unit on July
1, 1966.
The John Armstrong Chaloner School, located in Roa
noke Rapids was the only school in this area. The land,
building and contents were transferred by Lease Agree
ment between the two Boards of Education. (See Lease
Agreement and refer to answer to Question 2 ). There
are 37 classrooms, gymnasium, auditorium and a resi
dence occupied by a member of the school faculty. Seven
hundred ninety (790) students and thirty-six (36) Ne
gro teachers were transferred.
Upon agreement by the Roanoke Rapids Board of Edu
cation and the Halifax County Board of Education, the
State Board of Education transferred the sum of $70,-
150.70 from State Schools Facilities Fund from the Roa
noke Rapids City Unit to the Halifax County Board of
Education.
The lease agreements, correspondence, notes, minutes,
and other writings relating to these charges are in pos
session of W. Henry Overman, Superintendent, Halifax
County Schools, and Dr. A. Craig Phillips, State Super
intendent of Public Instruction and Secretary of the
State Board of Education.
908
THIS LEASE AND AGREEMENT, made and entered
into this the 1st day of July, 1966 by and between the
Roanoke Rapids Graded School District, party of the
first part, and the Halifax County Board of Education,
party of the second part.
WITNESSETH:
That subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter
set forth, the party of the first part does let and lease
unto the party of the second part the following described
lot or parcel of land located in Roanoke Rapids Town
ship, Halifax County, North Carolina, together with the
Buildings located thereon and the personal property lo
cated in said buildings, to-wit:
All that tract or parcel of land situate in the City
of Roanoke Rapids, Halifax County, North Caro
lina adjoining the lands of C. A. Wyche, Chockoyotte
Creek and the lands of J. A. Chaloner, and more
particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at
the Southwest corner of the lands of C. A. Wyche
and running N. 36° W. 960 feet to an oak post,
thence S. 54° W. 603 feet to a hickory post on
Chockoyotte Creek, thence down main run of said
creek to a pine post on said creek, thence N. 54° W.
816 feet to the point of beginning, containing 10
acres, more or less; it being all of the identical real
property and improvements Constituting the present
John Armstrong Chaloner School Campus.
The terms and conditions of this lease are as follows:
1.
This lease shall begin on July 1, 1966 and shall con
tinue until the 30th day of June 1967, and the consid
eration and rental; moving from the party of the second
part to the party of the first part shall be the payment
of the sum of one ($1.00) Dollar per annum.
* * * *
North Carolina
Halifax County
909
and the further payment of the annual insurance pre
miums on the aforesaid buildings and personal property.
2.
In the event that the parties hereto desire to renego
tiate the lease from year to year, the Halifax County
Board of Education must notify the Roanoke Rapids
Graded School District at least ninety days prior to June
30th of any given year of its desire to continue the terms
of this lease, and the Roanoke Rapids Graded School Dis
trict shall give its reply within fifteen days from the date
of notification of its decision as to this proposed renewal.
3.
The party of the first part shall carry fire and ex
tended coverage insurance on the buildings located on
said property and on its personal property located in
said buildings and the party of the second part shall re
imburse the party of the first part semiannually for the
costs of said premiums, such reimbursement to be made
within thirty days from the date of receipt of an invoice
from the party of the first part.
4.
It is agreed that the party of the second part shall
pay all of the usual operating costs during the tenure
of this lease, including water, lights and other utilities.
5.
It is agreed that during the term of this lease that
two Mobile Classroom Units owned by the first party
shall remain on the premises to be used by the party of
the second part in addition to the other buildings and
equipment, and that one activity bus belonging to the
party of the first part shall remain on the premises for
use of the pupils who attend John Armstrong Chaloner
School.
910
It is agreed that the items of equipment and furni
ture that shall remain on the premises during the tenure
of this lease shall be determined by the respective super
intendents of the party of the first part and the party
of the second part.
7.
The party of the second part agrees to assume all lia
bility for any damage to the personal property that re
mains upon the leased premises during the tenure of this
lease.
8.
The party of the second part agrees to maintain the
buildings located on said premises, in as good a state of
repair as they are at the date of this indenture and to
deliver up the same at the end of the term in as good
order and condition as they are at this date, reasonable
wear and tear, fire and other unavoidable casualty, or
Acts of God excepted.
9.
It is further agreed that the party of the first part
may inspect the property periodically and effect any nec
essary repairs if the party of the second part shall fail
to make such repairs within a reasonable time, it being
understood that any such repairs or upkeep shall be paid
for by the party of the second part.
10.
It is further understood and agreed that, during the
term of this lease, the party of the second part shall
indemnify and hold harmless the party of the first part
from any loss or expense whatsoever that might accrue
or result from personal injury or damage arising out of
the operation of John Armstrong Chaloner School or out
of any of its activities, including but not limited to
those involving the aforesaid activity bus.
6.
911
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the said parties have
executed this contract in duplicate originals, one of which
is retained by each of the parties, this the day and year
first above written.
Roanoke Rapids Graded
School District
By / s / George Nethercutt
Chairman
A ttest :
/ s / J. W. Talley
Secretary
Halifax County Board
of Education
A ttest:
/ s / W. Henry Overman
Secretary
912
Before me, Lucille R. Dickens, personally appeared
J. W. Talley, being by me duly sworn, says that he
knows the common seal of the Roanoke Rapids Graded
School District, and is acquainted with George Nether-
cutt, who is Chairman of Roanoke Rapids Graded School
District, that he, the said J. W. Talley, is the Superin
tendent of Roanoke Rapids Public Schools, and is Ex-
Officio Secretary of Roanoke Rapids Graded School Dis
trict; and that he saw the Chairman sign the foregoing
instrument, and that he, the said secretary, affixed said
seal to said instrument, and that he, J. W. Talley, signed
his name in attestation of the execution of said instru
ment in the presence of the said Chairman of the Roa
noke Rapids Graded School District.
This the 14th day of September, 1966.
North Carolina
Halifax County
,/s/ Lucille R. Dickens
Notary Public
My commission expires:
[Illegible]
913
Before me, Doris W. Netherland, personally appeared
W. Henry Overman, being by me duly sworn, says that
he knows the common seal of the Board of Education of
Halifax County and is acquainted with C. M. Moore, Jr.,
who is Chairman of Board of Education of said County;
that he, the said W. Henry Overman, is the Superin
tendent of Public Schools of Halifax County, and is Ex-
Officio Secretary of Board of Education, and that he saw
the Chairman sign the foregoing instrument, and that
he, the said secretary, affixed said seal to said instru
ment, and that he, W. Henry Overman, signed his name
in attestation of the execution of said instrument in the
presence of the said Chairman of the Board of Education
of said County.
This the 14 day of September, 1966.
North Carolina
Halifax County
,/s/ Doris W. Netherland
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Spt. 9, 1968
914
19. Please state what surveys concerning the school
unit, in addition to the survey published in December
1968, have been made by the North Carolina state edu
cational officials since 1963, and give the dates and the
subject matter of them. Please state the number of (a)
maps and (b) school organization plans which were pre
pared by employees of the defendant since the date on
which the 1968 survey was conducted and which pertain
to school desegregation or reorganization of schools, but
do not include the final map and plan sent to the plain
tiff’s counsel on February 7 and 10, 1969.
ANSWER: There have been no surveys related to
school desegregation or reorganization made by the North
Carolina state educational officials since 1963, with the
exception of the study conducted by the Division of School
Planning of the State Department of Public Instruction
in 1968. You have copies of the 1968 survey.
The only map and school organization plan ever pre
pared and presented to the Halifax County Board of
Education by these employees other than free-choice plans
was the map and organizational plan which the Board
approved and submitted to you on February 7 and 10,
1969.
20. Please state whether any new school buildings
have been constructed, and whether any substantial ad-
ditions have been made to any existing schools, since the
beginning of the 1964-65 school year, and what new con
struction is presently planned, if any. Give the details
of all such construction, including the name and location
of the school involved, the dates or projected dates of
the beginning and completion of the work, and the func
tion, number and capacity of the rooms involved.
SEE ATTACHMENTS
915
Question 20
No new schools have been constructed by the Halifax
County Schools since 1964. However, the board is in the
process of planning for the construction of a new con
solidated high school to serve all the high school students
in the northwestern section of Halifax County. This
school will be located on N. C. 48 about six miles north
of Aurelian Springs.
Listed below are the schools where major additions
have been constructed by the Halifax County Board of
Education since 1964.
School
Function of
Additional Construction
Brawley Food Service Facility
(Approx. 7525 sq. ft.)
Eastman Cafetorium
(Approx. 7524 sq. ft.)
Hollister Cafetorium
(2,400 sq. ft.)
Hollister Library (1,200 sq. ft.)
Mclver Six (6) Primary Classrooms
Each classroom has 950 sq. ft.
Mclver Cafetorium
(Approx. 9,009 sq. ft.)
Beginning
Date of
Project
Completion
Date of
Project
Number and
Capacity of
Room
Involved
1967 1968 Designed to
feed 800
1967 1968 Designed to
feed 800
1965 1966 Designed to
serve approx.
300
1965 1966 Designed to
serve approx.
300
1963 1964 Designed to
serve approx.
150 students
1968 1969 Designed to
serve approx.
600 students
916
White Oak Cafetorium (2240 sq. ft.)
White Oak
White Oak
Inborden
Library (1228 sq. ft.)
Classroom (819 sq. ft.)
Cafetorium (6650 sq. ft.)
(under construction)
1
1965 1966
1965 1966
1965 1966
Designed to
serve 300
students
Designed to
serve 300
students
Designed to
serve 30
students
Designed to
serve approx.
1000 students
917
918
21. QUESTION:
With regard to any construction currently underway
or planned, as set forth in the answer to question 20,
please state whether its probable effect upon the dises
tablishment of the dual school system in the unit was
considered and, if so, describe in detail the nature of the
consideration given and of the determination made.
21. ANSWER:
A new comprehensive high school is being planned
that will consolidate the William R. Davie, Chaloner, Me
Iver and Aurelian Springs High Schools. When this
building is completed it will eliminate the dual school
system for high school students in the Northwestern sec
tion of Halifax County who are in attendance at the
above county schools.
This will be the only high school operated by the Hali
fax County School System in this section of the County
and will serve all high school students in this area.
The approximate racial composition planned for this
school is fifty-four (54%) per cent Negro and forty-six
(46%) per cent Caucasion.
Pupils attending this school will have a greater variety
of course offerings and a better balance of programs of
student activities.
In planning for the construction of this high school a
special committee was appointed by the Board of Edu
cation to include Board of Education members, Advisory
School Board members, PTA members, the Superintend
ents and his staff, to study, plan and make recommenda
tions for this construction.
A public hearing was conducted for the purpose of
giving the general public a chance to register their com
plaints and suggestions.
22. Please describe in detail what, if any, changes have
been made in the operation of the school unit since 1954
as a result of any court decisions, statutes, or adminis
trative regulations or guidelines pertaining to desegrega
tion. Please identify the particular decision, statute,
regulation or guideline in response to which such change
was made.
919
22. Integration began in Halifax County School Ad
ministrative Unit at the beginning of the 1964-65 school
year when six Negro students were assigned to and at
tended the Enfield School, formerly an all-white school.
Other students were allowed to attend any school in the
school system provided they were in first, tenth, eleventh,
twelfth, applied within a stated time or moved from
another school unit.
After the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
schools were operated in 1965-66 school year under free
dom of choice plan prepared by the local school unit and
approved by the U.S. Office of Education. During the
1966-67 and 1967-68 school years the schools operated
under freedom of choice plans and guidelines prepared
by the U. S. Office of Education.
On July 2, 1968, Mr. Francis Kennedy, Attorney for
Civil Rights, United States Department of Justice, visited
our office and stated that the Department of Justice had
received a complaint concerning the operation of schools
in the Halifax County School Administrative Unit.
On July 30, a letter was received from Mr. Stephen
J. Poliak, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Divi
sion, U. S. Department of Justice, stating that the com
plaint had been made by Negro parents residing in Hali
fax County School Unit; that the investigation revealed
insufficient steps had been taken by the Halifax County
School Unit to disestablish the dual system of schools
and̂ that ̂the Halifax County Board of Education should
advise within ten days the steps the Board was prepared
to eliminate the conditions described.
Representatives of the Board of Education conferred
in Washington, D. C. with representatives of the Civil
Rights Division of the U. S. Department of Justice, and
the Board representatives were told that substantial prog
ress in both students and teachers must be made toward
desegregation of the school system at the beginning of
the 1968-69 school term and that a plan must be sub
mitted to completely desegregate the school system not
later than the 1969-70 school year.
The Board of Education submitted a proposal that
would transfer approximately 600 additional students
920
and 20 additional teachers to schools other than their
predominant race at the beginning of the 1968-69 school
term; to take further steps for the 1969-70 school year;
and for complete desegregation of the school system not
later than the 1970-71 school term.
After receipt of notification that the U. S. Department
of Justice had rejected the original proposal of the Board
of Education unless the plan provided for complete de
segregation and complete compliance with the provisions
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 at the beginning of the
1969-70 school year, the Board submitted another plan
that provided for the transfer of 7th and 8th grades
from three all Negro schools (approximately 397 addi
tional students) to predominantly white schools; the
transfer of 7th grade from one all Negro school (ap
proximately 116 additional students) to a predominantly
white school; to transfer 18 additional Negro teachers
from all Negro schools to predominantly white schools;
to assign the transferred students and teachers to classes
without regard to race or color; and to present a plan
on or before March 15, 1969 for complete disestablish
ment of the dual school system and complete compliance
with the provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 at the
beginning of the school year, 1969-70.
By letter dated August 22, 1968, Mr. Stephen J. Pol
iak accepted the revised plan submitted by the Board of
Education.
During September, 1968, the Division of School Plan
ning of the N. C. Department of Public Instruction made
a survey of the school unit and made its report on De
cember 2, 1968. This report is on file with the Division
of School Planning.
The recommendations in the Survey Report, sugges
tions and recommendations submitted by various indi
viduals and groups throughout the County have been
taken into consideration.
A series of Board of Education meetings, regular and
special, have been held during December, January and
February for considering a plan to be presented to the
Justice Department.
921
An unofficial visit by Board Attorney, C. Kitchin Josey,
Associate Superintendent Ben F. Currin and I was made
to Washington on February 6th during which we dis
cussed with officials in the Justice Department some of
the recommendations and suggestions that had been made
to the Board of Education. On February 8th, the Board
of Education adopted a plan and submitted that plan
to the Justice Department on February 10 for their
consideration.
On March 3, 1969, a letter was received from Mr.
Jerris Leonard, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights
Division, stating that “ he had reached the conclusion that
the plan does not comply with the requirements of the
Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
and that I therefore cannot consent to its implementa
tion.”
In meeting held on March 3, 1969 the Halifax County
Board of Education took action to operate schools be
ginning with the 1969-70 school year on the basis of free
dom of choice for every student.
23. Please state in detail what, if any, non-racial ad
ministrative difficulties, unrelated to community atti
tudes, would be encountered should the school unit aban
don its free choice plan and implement a school desegre
gation plan based on pairing or zoning or both. Please
also state the time estimated to resolve these difficulties.
Please state whether a new plan based on “ pairing” or
“unitary geographic attendance zones” could be complete
ly implemented at mid-year of the 1969-70 school year,
either for the high schools or the elementary schools, or
both, and state in detail all of the facts, if any, making
conversion to such a plan at such a time impracticable.
ANSWER: Non-racial administrative difficulties that
the Halifax County School Unit will encounter if they
change from a free choice school plan to a new plan of
school organization either “pairing” or “ unitary geo
graphic attendance zones” at mid-term of the 1969-70
school year:
922
a. Some pupils would have to be re-assigned a
different teacher and a different school during the
middle of the school year. This is not believed to be
educationally sound nor psychologically desirable for
the children involved.
b. Teachers would be inconvenienced by being as
signed to another school which may be further from
their residence.
c. State accounting procedures, whereby each
teacher is assigned a budget position number by
school, would be most confusing when the new teach
er assignments are made.
d. Bus routes would have to be determined for
107 buses. An example of this difficulty was seen
when it took four days to set up a 10-bus transpor
tation system for the Scotland Neck School at the
beginning of the year.
e. Moving the numerous textbooks and library
books, audio-visual equipment, furniture, vocational
equipment, athletic equipment, and instructional sup
plies would be a herculean task.
f. Scheduled athletic events could not be fulfilled
if high schools are paired.
To convert to any new plan of school organization at
mid-term would in our opinion require closing down
school for several weeks in order to avoid complete chaos.
It would probably require closing school longer than two
weeks to insure an orderly transaction.
It has been estimated by members of the central ad
ministrative staff that at least 3 to 6 months of concen
trated planning would be needed in order to hope for
any measure or orderly school operation if there are
major changes in the schools’ organization.
923
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
LARKINS, District Judge:
The Court having conducted a Pre-Trial Conference
in Chambers in the Federal Building at Trenton, North
Carolina on Monday, November 3, 1969, and having
considered and decided all motions pending therein, and
having requested that the parties present the issues to
be determined by the Court, and the plaintiff having
proposed an Interim Plan in accord with the State School
Survey which plaintiff now finds legally acceptable, the
Court thereupon took under advisement plaintiff’s mo
tion for immediate implementation in accord with Alex
ander v. Holmes County Board of Education, ------- U.S.
------ , 24 L.Ed.2d 19, 90 S .C t.-------, [No. 632], (5th Cir.,
October 29, 1969), the Court directed that the Board
meet and reconsider the Interim Plan recommended by
the State Division of School Planning of the State De
partment of Public Instruction, to become effective at
the end of the present semester and notify the Court
within 30 days;
The Court now having received from counsel for the
defendants, under date of November 21, 1969, and hav
ing considered a nine-page report entitled, “ Problems and
Difficulties Involved in the Implementation at Mid-Year
of the Interim Plan Recommended by the State Division
of School Planning of the State Department of Public
Instruction,” together with a Summary Of Reasons For
Not Implementing The Interim Plan At Mid-Year In
The Halifax County Schools, together with a letter ad
dressed to the Court dated November 21, 1969 by the
Chairman of the Halifax County Board of Education, a
copy of a letter dated November 7, 1969 from A. Craig
Phillips, State Superintendent of Public Instruction to
Mr. Henry Overman, Superintendent, Halifax County
Schools, and a letter from the Scotland Neck School
signed by J. S. Wooten, Jr., Principal, Scotland Neck
{Caption Omitted]
924
High School and Board members and others dated No
vember 14, 1969;
It is now therefore ORDERED and DIRECTED that
the Board of Education of Halifax County submit on or
before December 15, 1969 a Plan to terminate the pres
ent dual school system in Halifax County at once and
to operate only unitary schools in accord with the pro
visions of Beatrice Alexander, et al. v. Holmes County
Board of Education, et al., ------- U.S. -------, 24 L Ed 2d
19, 90 S.Ct. -------, ![No. 632], (5th Cir., October 29,
1969).
It is FURTHER ORDERED and DIRECTED that a
hearing upon said Plan shall be held in Raleigh, North-
Carolina in the United States Courtroom, Thursday, De
cember 18, 1969 and all counsel are notified to be present.
,/s,/ John D. Larkins, Jr.
John D. Larkins, Jr.
United States District Judge
Trenton, North Carolina
November 24, 1969
925
ORDER
This Court having ordered the defendant Halifax
County Board of Education, on November 24, 1969, to
submit a plan to terminate the present dual school sys
tem in Halifax County at once and to operate only uni
tary schools in accord with the provisions of Alexander
v. Holmes County Board of Education, ------- U.S. -------,
24 L. Ed. 2d 19, 90 S. Ct. ------- (No. 632 October 29,
1969), by December 15, 1969, and it appearing that the
Court will need statistics in order to evaluate the pro
posed plan and determine whether or not it meets con
stitutional standards, it is therefore ORDERED, AD
JUDGED and DECREED that this Court’s Order of
November 24, 1969 be amended as follows:
The Board of Education of Halifax County is further
directed to submit along with its plan on December 15,
1969, to terminate the present dual school system in Hali
fax County, projected statistics for student bodies and
faculty by race and school, and a map depicting any
proposed zones or attendance areas for each school. The
clerk is directed to serve copies of this order on all
counsel of record.
/ s / John D. Larkins, Jr.
John D. Larkins, Jr.
United States District Judge
{Caption Omitted]
Trenton, North Carolina
This 4th day of December, 1969.
926
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
[Caption Omitted]
The applicants; PATTIE BLACK COTTON and ED
WARD M. FRANCIS, public school teachers of Halifax
County; and RODNEY BENNETT, a minor, by his
father and next friend, LANELL BENNETT; ATTIE
BUTLER and BESSIE BUTLER, minors by their par
ents and next friend, Mr. and Mrs. ALLEN BUTLER;
CURTIS CAINE, WILLIE CAINE, and JOSEPH
CAINE, minors, by their mother and next friend, Mrs.
LIZZIE E. CAINE; LEORY CHERRY and TIMMY
CHERRY, minors, by their mother and next friend, Mrs.
THERESA CHERRY; ANDREW COFIELD, a minor,
by his mother and next friend, Mrs. MARTHA ANN CO
FIELD; FRANKLIN COTTON, CAROLYN COTTON,
REGINALD COTTON, BETHEL COTTON, ANNIE
COTTON and ARCHIE COTTON, minors by their grand
mother and next friend, MRS BLANCHE COTTON;
LARRY DANCY a minor, by his mother and next friend,
Mrs. MARY LOU DANCY; GEORGETTA DAYE
and CURTIS DAYE, minors by their mother and
next friend, Mrs. ANELIZA DAYE; LILIA DEMP
SEY, JERONE DEMPSEY, GLADYS DEMPSEY and
CURTIS DEMPSEY, minors, by their parents and
next friend, Mr. and Mrs. WILLIAM DEMPSEY;
VICKIE DELOATCH, a minor by her parents and next
friend, Rev. and Mr. C. M. Deloatch; LAFETTE
DICKINS, a minor, by his mother and next friend, Mrs.
MARY L. DICKINS; FRED DOUGLAS, a minor, by
his grandmother and next friend, Mrs. ANNIE SMITH;
WILLIAM EARL, a minor, by his grandmother and
next friend, Mrs. LENORA WHITAKERS; DOSHIA
EVANS, MIMIE EVANS, LISA EVENS and JAMES
EVANS, minors, by their parents and next friend, Mr.
and Mrs. JAMES EVANS; GEORGETTE HALL and
DOUGLAS HALL, minors, by their parents and next
friend, Mr. and Mrs. JOHN HALL; JEAN HANNON,
TRUDY HANNON, LUCILLE HANNON, JOYCE HAN
NON and MARY HANNON, minors, by their mother
and next friend, Mrs. EIZABETH HANNON; DIANE
927
HEIKE, DORA HEIKE and JIMMY HEIKE, minors,
by their grandmother and next friend, Mrs. MARGARET
HEIKE; CYNTHIA HILL, CHERYL HILL, REID
HILL and VALERIE HILL, minors, by their father and
next friend, JESSIE R. HILL; ARTWOOD JONES, a
minor by his mother and next friend, Mrs. LUCILLE
JONES; JEFFERY JONES and MATTIE JONES,
monors, by their mother and father as next friend, Mr.
and Mrs. ARTHUR JONES; YVONNE JONES and
MATTIE JONES, minors, by their mother and next
friend, Mrs. LOSSIE JONES; MARILYN KNIGHT, a
minor by her mother and next friend, Mrs. CLASSIE
KNIGHT; CHARMANGE LOFTON, a minor, by her
mother and next friend, Mrs. ROSA J. LOFTON: EDDIE
PERKINS and MATTHEW PERKINS, minors, by their
father and next friend, CLINTON PERKINS; CHARLES
PITTMAN and BRUCE PITTMAN, minors, by their
father and next friend, OLLIE PITTM AN: JIMMY
PITTMAN, a minor, by his mother and next friend, Mrs.
MINNIE PITTMAN; HENRY POWELL, a minor, by
his mother and next friend, Mrs. EULA MAE POWELL;
EMMA POWELL, a minor, by her mother and next
friend, Mrs. EMMA POWELL: SYBIL RANDOLPH, a
monor, by her mother and next friend, Mrs. HELEN
RANDOLPH; WILLIAM REID, PECOIS REID, GWEN
DOLYN REID and ANGELA REID, minors, by their
parents and next friend, Mr. and Mrs. PERCY REID;
RAYMOND SMITH, JR., a minor, by his mother and
next friend, Mrs. ORAL LEE SMITH; RICKY SMITH,
a minor, by his parents and next friend, Mr. and Mrs.
CLEVELAND SMITH; DONALD WHITE, ERNEST
WHITE and DONALD WHITE, minors by their par
ents and next friend, Mr. and Mrs. ERNEST WHITE;
CARLTON WHITAKERS, DONALD WHITAKERS and
EARL WHITAKERS, minors by their mother and next
friend, Mrs. CARRIE WHITAKERS: SPENCER WIL
LIAMS, JR., LORI WILLIAMS and JOSEPH WIL
LIAMS, minors by their father and next friend, Rev.
SPENCER WILLIAMS; All residents of the area and
Town of Scotland Neck, and ERNEST L. ALSTON, a
minor, by his grandparents and next friend, Mr. and
928
Mrs. TOM M. ALSTON; GREEN BANKS, WINFRED
BANKS, DENNIS BANKS, CYNTHIS BANKS and
SAMUEL BANKS, minors, by their parents and next
friend, Mr. and Mrs. ROBERT E. BANKS; BARBARA
D. GAINS, a minor, by her parents and next friend, Mr.
and Mrs. SAM D. GAINS; ALONZA MILLS, DENNIS
MILLS, JAMES MILLS and ANGELA MILLS, minors,
by their parents and next friend, Mr. and Mrs. ALEX
ANDER MILLS; BURTON PRICE, DONNA PRICE
and CARSIE F. PRICE, minors, by their parents and
next friend, Mr. and Mrs. BALDY D. PRICE, JR., all
residents of the LITTLETON-LAKE GASTON SCHOOL
DISTRICT in Littleton Township, Halifax County,
North Carolina, on behalf of themselves and all other
black or Negro Public School Teachers, Parents and Stu
dents similarly situated, and pursuant to Rule 24 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, move the Court for
leave to intervene as PLAINTIFFS in the above entitled
action in order to assert the claims set forth in their
proposed Complaint of which a copy is hereto attached;
and in support of this Motion, the applicants respectfully
represent unto the Court as follows;
1
That the applicants claims and contentions and those
of the main action have questions of law and facts in
common and the relief sought by the applicants may be
granted as part of the relief the Plaintiff is entitled to
in the main action rather than to have the same resolved
in separate actions upon the same ground of complaint,
to wit; the policy and practice of discriminating against
the applicants and members of their class on the basis of
race and color in the creation of separate school districts
and in the operations and administration of the Halifax
County Public Schools as affecting both black teachers
and pupils.
2
That the main action and Complaint by the United
States of America, represent the applicants but the rep
resentation does not include certain available grounds of
929
complaint that may be asserted in the cause and which
the applicants desire to be asserted in order to be entitled
to relief based upon events that transpired subsequent to
the filing of the Complaint by the U. S. Government and
to present additional views in support of the claim of
the United States of America.
3
That the applicants, through THE EASTERN COUN
CIL ON COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, representing twenty-
five eastern North Carolina counties, opposed the cre
ation of the school separation districts, by opposing The
Scotland Neck School Separation Bill; the Littleton,-Lake
Gaston Separation Bill and the Warrenton School Separa
tion Bill, Chapters 31, 628 and 578, 1969 Sessions Laws,
upon racial and constitutional grounds when the bills
were being considered by the State Legislature and de
sire to show unto the Court the racism in the enactment
of the bills as part of the legislative history of the same.
4
That the applicants are informed and believe and so
allege that the State of North Carolina, through its At
torney General, has moved to intervene in the main ac
tion and the applicants desire that the Court and the
State of North Carolina consider the matters asserted in
the proposed Complaint on the ground that the State of
North Carolina owes a duty to the applicants to help re
lieve the applicants from the matters complained of in
the proposed complaint attached hereto.
/ s / James R. Walker, Jr.
James R. W alker, Jr.
501 West 3rd Street
Weldon, N. C.
Samuel S. M itchell
1261/2 E. Hargett Street
Raleigh, N. C.
Attorneys for Applicants for
Intervention.
930
NORTH CAROLINA
HALIFAX COUNTY
VERIFICATION
JAMES R. WALKER, JR., being first duly sworn, de
poses and says; that he is one of the attorneys for the
foregoing applicants for intervention; that as attorney,
he and Samuel S. Mitchell have powers of attorney from
each of the adult applicants and the next friend of the
minors; that under said power of attorney, they have the
authority to represent the applicants in this matter and
to file action on behalf of each of the applicants as listed
and named in the Motion and the proposed complaint in
intervention; that he has read and knows the content of
the foregoing Motion to intervene; that the same is true
of his own personal knowledge, except those matters
stated and alleged upon information and belief and as
to those matters, he believes it to be true.
/ s / James R. Walker, Jr.
James R. W alker, Jr.
Affiant.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1st day of No
vember, 1969.
/ s / Helen C. Lewis
Helen C. Lewis, Notary Public
My Commission Expires March 6, 1970
931
* * * *
[17] HENRY L. HARRISON, called as a witness by
the defendant Scotland Neck City Board of Education,
having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows:
DIRECT-EXAMINATION
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q Mr. Harrison, will you give the Court your full
name, please, sir?
A Henry Lee Harrison.
Q Mr. Harrison, where were you educated?
A I was educated in Scotland Neck, North Carolina,
and then went on to North Carolina State University.
Q You attended public school in Scotland Neck?
A Yes, sir.
Q At that time was it a part of the county unit?
A No, sir. That was a city administrative unit dur
ing those years.
Q Now, have you served on the Halifax County Board
of Education?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long?
A I was appointed to the Halifax County Board of
Education in September of 1955 and served until Decem
ber of 1968.
Q At the time that you went on the board, how many
schools were there in the county system?
[18] A There were approximately 63 schools in Hali
fax County.
Q And today how many are there, approximately?
A Seventeen, sir.
Q Now, when was the last county-wide school bond
issue in Halifax County?
A The last one was the state school bond issue.
Q I mean the last county school bond issue.
A The last county school bond issue was in 1957—
May of that year, I believe.
Q And how much was that school bond issue for?
A Well, the school bond issue was to net the three
units in the county $3-million. The school board as such,
932
all three school boards as such determined the needs of
the county at $4-million $300-thousand, but we arrived
at a plan on a pay-as-you-go basis that we would sell
$3-million and maintain a capital outlay rate to provide
the other pay-as-you-go for $l-million $300-thousand.
Q Now, when you say the “ three units,” what units
do you refer to?
A I refer to Weldon, Roanoke Rapids, and the Hali
fax County unit.
Q And what was the annual capital outlay budget
rate in the county at that time?
A The rate at that time, Mr. Josey, was 60$ [19]
capital outlay per $100.
BY JUDGE BUTLER:
Q That 60 ̂ was simply the debt service on these
bonds?
A Capital outlay is debt service, sir. No, sir. Now,
when the bonds were voted, the agreement was that the
60 ̂ rate was to be maintained, the debt service to be
taken out of the 60 ̂ and the remainder of the capital
outlay of that 60 ̂ to the $1,300,000 pay-as-you-go part
of that.
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q Now, what did you and the other members of the
county school board do to get this bond issue passed?
A Well, I personally spoke on two radio stations
throughout the county; I spoke to a number of clubs in
and around the City of Scotland Neck, Women’s clubs,
the Lions, Kiwanis, and people of that nature, and cam
paigned on the basis that this rate would be maintained,
and that we were not $3-million short, but $4-million
$300-thousand short in our building program.
Q Now, what was the approximate total vote in the
county on these school bonds?
A Approximately 4,000 votes.
Q And approximately how many votes for and how
many against?
A There were about— it was carried by 388 votes in
[20] the county.
933
Q Out of around 4,000 total votes, it was carried
only by 300 votes?
A About 388, yes, sir.
Q And how did Scotland Neck go on that bond issue?
A Scotland Neck voted for it by a majority of 155
votes.
Q And approximately what percentage of the total
vote is there in Scotland Neck or was at that time?
A Oh, I would say approximately 10%.
Q So that Scotland Neck voted 155 of the total ma
jority in the entire county of 388; isn’t that correct?
A That’s correct. In that bond issue, Mr. Josey,
there were only four precincts out of seventeen that voted
for the bond issue.
Q What in relationship to rural and town precincts
—how did that stand on the vote?
A Well, the majority of the rural precincts voted
against it. In fact the City of Roanoke Rapids and the
City of Scotland Neck were the ones that really carried
it. Now, I think Enfield had a small majority too for it.
BY JUDGE LARKINS:
Q This was in May of ’57?
A May of 1957, yes, sir.
[21] BY MR. JOSEY:
Q Now, what did the county commissioners do shortly
thereafter concerning the tax rate, after the passage of
the bond issue?
A Well, after the passage of the bond issue, the
county commissioners— when we presented our budget to
them for the coming year, we had the 6Oh capital outlay
rate.
Q When you speak of “we,” you are talking about
the Halifax County Board of Education?
A Well, all three boards appeared together before the
county commissioners. We were using the 60 ̂ capital
outlay rate as the basis for beginning to repay these
bonds and to meet this pay-as-you-go basis. The county
commissioners said, well, you can’t spend all of this
money at this time, and said, “ Rather than raise taxes,
934
would you let us use 10$? of your capital outlay funds for
revaluation,” which was the first revaluation that I know
of in Halifax County, “ and we will repay it back.” Re
luctantly the boards agreed to that and had them to
adopt a resolution, which is still in their minutes and
records, I believe, concerning that. However, this money
has never been repaid nor has the 60 ̂ capital outlay
been maintained since 1957.
Q In fact, it has been gradually decreasing ever since
that time?
[22] A Yes, sir.
Q Now, out of the 1957 bond issue, how much ap
proximately did the County Board of Education get of
that $3-million?
A Approximately $2-million, sir.
Q From 1957 until today, how much of that county
bond money has ever been spent on any facility within
the corporate limits of the Town of Scotland Neck?
A None.
Q I believe there was a state-wide school bond issue
in 1963, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And do you recall approximately how much money
the Halifax County school administrative unit obtained
from that state bond issue?
A Approximately $l-million, sir.
Q How much, if any, of that state school bond money,
that million dollars, was spent on facilities within the
corporate limits of the Town of Scotland Neck?
A None has been spent there. In fact, that money is
still under Dr. Pierce’s control, although I understand it
has been obligated to go to outside.
BY JUDGE BUTLER:
Q When was that money made available?
A Right after the state-wide bond issue in 1963, sir.
[23] Q And none of it has been spent?
A Well, I think the county has spent probably $100,-
000 on maybe one or two projects. I think the county
superintendent could give you those figures. I believe
the figure that is remaining in Raleigh today is approxi
mately $827,000 or thereabouts.
935
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q Now, what are the conditions of the buildings and
classrooms there in the Town of Scotland Neck since your
tenure on the Halifax County Board and today?
A Well, when I went on the county board, or rather,
when we went into the county system— when the Scot
land Neck unit went into the county system, our build
ings were comparatively new, compared to the remainder
of the county units; and for a number of years they
were working to bring up the standards of the other
schools around. Now every survey that has come since
I have been a member of this board has stated that the
facilities in Scotland Neck were the worst of any in the
county. In fact, out of all the classrooms available in
Scotland Neck, the last 1968 survey shows that only four
are standard.
Q And all others are below standard?
A Are below standard— substandard.
BY JUDGE LARKINS:
Q How many are there?
[24] A There are about 28, sir.
BY JUDGE BUTLER:
Q Now, I don’t know that this has anything to do
with this hearing, that is, my question, but I am curious.
Mr. Harrison, if Halifax County has approximately
$900,000 in money available for school construction since
1963, and there is a need for expenditure of money for
that purpose, has any effort been made on behalf of the
people of Scotland Neck to prize some of that money out
of the board of education or the county commissioners or
whoever has it?
A Yes, sir, there has.
Q And I assume without success.
A Well, sir, in 1966 I appeared along with members
of the Halifax Cqunty Board of Education in Dr. J. L.
Pierce’s office, Division of School Planning, in Raleigh,
on two separate occasions, at which time we requested
that $750,000 of that money be turned over to build an
integrated high school in 1966 in the Scotland Neck area.
Q No legal action was taken?
936
A No, sir, we didn’t take any legal action. They
refused to do it on the basis that they felt they had some
things up in the other parts of the county which were
more important right then, your Honor.
Q But as I understand you, the money hasn’t been
spent anywhere?
[25] A It’s sitting there right now as far as I know,
yes, sir.
Q Well, while they have been holding this money, has
there been any effort made to have any bond elections
in the county?
A No, sir, because of this fact now: In their recom
mendation to our board for this consolidation program
that is before you or the survey that Mr. Kennedy has
presented, they recommend a $4-million bond issue, your
Honor. That is the maximum extent of the entire county.
The entire county is only taxable for school bonds at
$5,500,000. We are still paying on the last $3-million;
we owe a million and a half; so, therefore, $400,000 is
the maximum we can tax ourselves.
Secondly, that same report recommends in current ex
pense in capital outlay an increase of 53 ̂ in taxes when
that thing is adopted county-wide. Now, I want you to
understand that that includes not only Halifax County,
but the Roanoke Rapids and the Weldon units, too, have
to participate to get that kind of money. And even at
that, sir, there will be a $600,000 deficit which will have
to be accumulated in a sinking fund for two years be
fore we would have enough money to build two consoli
dated high schools in Halifax County.
JUDGE BUTLER: All right. Thank you, sir.
[26] BY MR. JOSEY:
Q Now, after these efforts of you and other people in
the Scotland Neck area in 1963, was there planning
begun at that stage for a separate school administrative
unit in the Scotland Neck area?
A Each year after 1957, with our budget request we
presented to the county commissioners of Halifax County
a brief, showing how much our tax was cut last year
from the 60 ,̂ and brought it up each year and requested
937
that those monies be restored in each budget. I know
until 1963 that figure at that time had amounted to over
$800,000.
Q That was with the county commissioners.
A That’s right. And seeing at that time that we were
not getting our fair and proportionate share of all the
funds that we should be getting and that I couldn’t see
any possibility of other funds, we began looking to a city
system in 1963 when Mr. Charles Fleming was principal
down there, in order to determine if we couldn’t im
prove and get better facilities for our school.
Q Now, is Mr. Charles Fleming here today as a wit
ness and listed as a witness?
A Yes, sir, I believe he is.
Q And to your knowledge did he then, together with
the local school committee and you and others, begin to
plan for the adoption of a separate city unit, and in fact
[27] introduced a bill in the legislature in 1965?
A That was the beginning of it, yes, sir. And it cul
minated after study with the district school committee,
advising with the district school committee, the principal,
myself and oher interested citizens, we decided— after
securing all the data that we could from the various
people around, we decided that we would get our pro
rata share better if we were in a city system; and so we
began to organize in 1963 to get a city system.
Q In the legislature of 1965 was there a bill intro
duced to create a separate unit in Scotland Neck.
A Yes, sir, there was a bill introduced in the 1965
legislature requesting a city system for Scotland Neck,
naming the members to the board and their terms, and
I believe we had on that thing two Negro citizens at that
time.
Q And what happened to that bill?
A Well, that bill was introduced by our representa
tive that lived in Scotland Neck at that time in the
lower house, and it passed the lower house without any
trouble whatsoever. When it got to the senate, appar
ently the senator from the upper end of the county didn’t
concur—
938
MR. KENNEDY: Objection to what the senator ap
parently didn’t concur in.
A (Continuing) In any event, it did not get through
the senate. I presume pressure was brought to bear by
[28] outside interests.
MR. KENNEDY: Objection to his assumption.
JUDGE BUTLER: Yes, yes.
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q At any rate, it failed to pass the senate; is that
correct?
A That’s correct, sir. To my knowledge it never got
on the floor of the senate I don’t think.
Q Now, after the failure of that bill in 1965, I be
lieve you have already testified in answer to a question
of Judge Butler that you, together with other members
of the county school board, went to Dr. Pierce’s office?
A I didn’t hear you, sir.
Q I said I believe you have already testified to the
next sequence of events, and that is that you and other
members of the school board, some of them, with Mr.
Overman, the superintendent, went to Dr. Pierce’s office
in Raleigh to try to get this integrated high school built
with the funds there, and that was turned down?
A That’s correct, sir.
Q Then in 1968 did you and others begin planning
again to introduce a bill, the bill which is now before
this court, for a separate city unit?
A Well, at some time between 1963 and this time,
we had had figures on how much money had been ex
pended in [29] Scotland Neck and had compared it on a
comparative basis, if we had gotten our proportionate
share, our allocated share such as a city unit would have
been, how much it would be; and it happened in that
3-year period that we would have gotten three times
more money than we did get. The people were still dis
satisfied. They waftted new facilities; they wanted their
curriculum improved; they were becoming worried about
the teachers, and they just wanted something done. And
so they were on me every time I turned around. And
finally we decided that the city system, incorporating
939
the people that wanted it, which was the City of Scotland
Neck, the corporate limits of the City of Scotland Neck,
was what we would pursue.
Q And based on that, rather than to go into detail—
and I believe it is in your deposition— you and others
then went to Tryon, North Carolina, and went over the
thing with Mr. Dussenbury, the superintendent?
A Yes, sir. We looked into the smallest school sys
tem in the state to be sure that we would have enough
have, we went to the smallest school system and com
pared budgets to be sure that we would be financially—
funds; after we arrived at the amount of funds we would
compared budgets, curriculums too, to be sure that we
would have enough money to operate.
[30] BY JUDGE LARKINS:
Q Mr. Harrison, how did you arrive at the conclu
sion that the establishment of a city system would en
able you to get more funds? Did you have reference to
these county bond funds?
A I have reference to any funds, sir. In the city
school system your county-wide tax program is pro-rated
on a per-student basis. For instance, suppose you have
a million dollars coming in in county current expense,
county capital outlay. All right, the million dollars— if
Roanoke Rapids has 10,000 students or 5,000 students or
2.000 students, they get their proportionate part of that
money on a pro rata student basis; the county gets its
part on a pro rata student basis. Now, our county is
65 miles wide, and we have approximately 12,000 to
13.000 students. We get it on a per-student basis, but it
is not spent, sir, on a per-pupil basis.
JUDGE LARKINS: All right. You may proceed.
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q State whether or not you and others then appeared
before the legislative committees, and this bill was even
tually passed with a vote of the people?
A That’s correct, sir.
MR. JOSEY: Your witness.
[31]
940
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. KENNEDY:
Q Mr. Harrison, twice in your testimony this morn
ing you referred to a trip to Raleigh to see Dr. J. L.
Pierce in 1966 to build what you and your attorney
called an integrated high school?
A That‘s correct.
Q Are you familiar with the written proposal that
was submitted in November of 1965?
A Fairly familiar, yes, sir. I have seen it. It’s been
a good while since I have seen it.
MR. KENNEDY: May I approach the witness, your
Honor?
JUDGE LARKINS: Yes, sir.
Q I will show you now what has been marked and
introduced as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 14 which reads at
the top, “ North Carolina School Facilities Program, 1963,
Form SP-2, Summary of Proposed Construction.” Would
you look at that, please, and tell us if that is the pro
gram proposal that you were talking about with Dr.
Pierce?
A Yes, sir. On Page 2 of that form it shows that
we requested in 1966, $750,000 for the Scotland Neck
high school building and gymnasium.
Q Is it not true that approximately a mile or less
from the Scotland Neck high school there is another high
[32] school?
A Yes, sir.
Q And that is Brawley high school, is it not?
A That’s correct.
Q Slightly larger than Scotland Neck high school,
isn’t it?
A Yes, sir.
Q But there have never been any white children that
have attended that, have there?
A Not to my knowledge, sir.
Q It’s all-Negro, isn’t it?
A Yes, sir.
Q And it’s just outside the city limits, isn’t it?
A It’s outside the city limits, yes, sir.
941
Q I’ll ask you to look at this Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 14
again and ask you if there are any suggestions in that
report that the Brawley high school would be included
in the building of the high school that you referred to at
Scotland Neck?
A A lunchroom for Brawley would, yes, sir. They
did not have a lunchroom of any type at that time over
there.
Q Referring to the third page of this exhibit, is
there a section on the form which asks, “ Name of schools
this project will replace” ?
[33] A That’s right, yes, sir.
Q Would you please read what is typed in after that,
please?
A “ Replace obsolete high school building and gym
nasium.”
Q And this is for Project No. what?
A Two.
Q And is Project No. 2 the $750,000 that you re
ferred to for Scotland Neck high school?
A That’s correct.
Q What was the method of assigning children to
school in 1965-66?
A Freedom of choice, sir.
Q Had there been any pairing of grades between
Brawley and Scotland Neck?
A No, sir, not that I know of.
Q Did this program for new construction at Scot
land Neck provide for the possible pairing of grades
between Brawley and Scotland Neck?
A Well, nobody had ever mentioned pairing of grades
at that time, Mr. Kennedy. Everything prior to that
time operated on a freedom of choice. I think that was
the law of the land. However, when I appeared before
Dr. Pierce, his question to me was this: “ Mr. Harrison,
are you sure the people are ready for an integrated
school in your area?” [34] And I said, “ I’m sure they
will be. They need the facilities badly. They are willing
to do their part and do what’s right.”
Q Let me show you Page No. 4 of the exhibit— No.
942
VIII, subparagraph A. Roman numeral VIII— doesn’t
that read “ Long-range plans for this school” ?
A Yes, sir.
Q And under subparagraph A is “ Probable enroll
ment” ?
A Yes.
Q What is the figure for enrollment in high school in
September 1965?
A 305 students.
Q And the projected enrollment for September 1975
at the same school?
A 370.
Q A difference of some 65 students?
A That’s right.
Q Do those figures include additional Negro children,
or white children, or can you tell?
A Well, the school, if it were going to be built, I
think you will find somewhere in there that it says it’s
to be built where it can be extended or enlarged as
needed. Those facilities were not complete facilities to
start with, because at that time you couldn’t build a
complete high school for $750,000, you know as well as
I do, Mr. Kennedy. [35] But when you have approxi
mately $l-million to be divided among 65 miles of schools,
and 7 people sitting on the board, and it looks like the
money is getting away, you can imagine what is taking
place.
Q Would you read subparagraph B for the Court,
under section VIII, “ Long-range plans” ?
A “ No consolidation anticipated at this time. Prob
able increase in enrollment due to integration in 1966.”
Q Did you know of any plans to integrate the Scot
land Neck school at that time with the Brawley school?
A No, sir.
Q Scotland Neck was to remain separate and apart
from Brawley?
A As far as I know, both schools were to remain
under a freedom of choice plan, yes, sir.
Q You are familiar, I’m sure, with the School Sur
vey of 1968 for Halifax County by the State Department
of Public Instruction, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 2?
943
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you familiar with the recommendations of the
interim plan?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do those recommendations include a change in the
grade structures both at Scotland Neck and at Brawley
school?
[36] A Yes, sir.
Q And as a result of that change, to make Scotland
Neck teach grades 10 through 12 for the general area of
the southeastern part of the county?
A That’s correct.
Q And to have Brawley teach grades 8 through 9 for
the children in that area?
A That’s correct.
Q This is a type of consolidation, isn’t it?
A Yes, sir, that is a type of consolidation. That’s
in 1968, sir.
Q So the recommendations for 1968—
A Now, this figure you are giving me is 1966 over
here.
_ Q So that the 1968 survey recommendations are a
bit more far-reaching than the 1965?
A That’s right, than freedom of choice, yes, sir,
you’re right.
Q Is there any freedom of choice that you know of
in the interim plan recommendations of the Halifax
County Survey?
A No, sir, I don’t think there is any freedom of choice
there.
Q But freedom of choice was the basis of assignment
in 1965 when the proposals were made to Dr. Pierce?
[37] A That’s right, sir.
Q Are you aware that the Attorney General of the
State of North Carolina has made a ruling with respect
to the question of whether the Scotland Neck school sys
tem could share in the proceeds of the 1963 bond issue?
A I have heard that, yes, sir.
Q Do you know that he has ruled that Scotland Neck
could not share in the proceeds from the 1963 state
school bond issue?
944
A I know that he has ruled that. I think that can
be questioned, though, later.
Q Pardon me.
A I don’t agree with it.
Q I’m sorry, your comment before that I didn’t catch.
You say you are going to challenge it?
A I didn’t say we were going to challenge it. I say
I think it could be challenged.
Q Do you know of any legal actions brought to chal
lenge that?
A Oh, no. No.
JUDGE LARKINS: Anything further?
MR. KENNEDY: One moment, your Honor.
BY JUDGE LARKINS:
Q Mr. Harrison, have you examined the proposed
plan of the Halifax County Board of Education that was
submitted [38] on Monday of this week?
A No, sir, I haven’t studied that, sir.
BY MR. KENNEDY:
Q Mr. Harrison, what educational advantages, if any,
would there be with a high school in Scotland Neck of
305 children over a consolidated high school in Scotland
Neck of double that figure?
MR. JOSEY: Objection, your Honor, on the 305. I
don’t know where he got that.
MR. KENNEDY: The 305 figure was the enrollment
in September of 1965 at the Scotland Neck school.
A You are still talking about this same Exhibit 14,
I t/ciks it
JUDGE LARKINS: He is still talking about this
same exhibit, I take it— 14, Page 2, 3, and 4.
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, sir.
JUDGE LARKINS: Overruled.
MR. JOSEY: I will withdraw the objection.
A It wasn’t limited to 305. It said there the provi
sions would probably have to be enlarged because of inte
gration.
Q But the projected—
A Now, I felt this: if the new high school were [39]
built, our good colored friends we have there in town
945
would come on to school with us. It didn’t bother me—
that angle of it— at all.
Q You read to the Court that the projected enroll
ment for September 1975 was 370?
A Yes, sir. Well, that’s Dr. Pierce’s or somebody’s
thinking up there. I don’t think he knows any more
about what the projected enrollment of that school is go
ing to be than any of these people over here, in 1975.
Q Are you familiar with C. M. Moore, Jr.?
A Yes.
Q Who is he?
A He’s chairman of the Halifax County Board.
Q Does this appear to be his signature at the bottom
of that form?
A That’s right.
Q And does this appear to be the signature of Mr.
W. Henry Overman, the superintendent and secretary?
A Yes. I’m sure those people had reasons for sign
ing that. They were projected from somewhere. But we
have had those figures projected and turned around on
us since I have been on the board, one time to my own
knowledge.
Q Well, just answer my other question: Do you know
of any educational advantages of children in a high
school of either 305 or 370 over a high school of some
three or [40] four grades and 750 children?
A Yes. More individual attention for one thing;
closer relationship with the parents. And I think you
can do things in a small school experimentally that you
can’t do in a large school experimentally. I think you
can control your children better. You’ll find that the
majority of your schools that are having your big trou
bles now, anyway, are your larger schools. I think that’s
an asset to a small school. We have had some right big
men come from our little bitty small school down there,
and I’m sold on it, that’s all; I just think we can do a
lot for them.
Q Do you know of any professional educators of the
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction who
946
share your views on the relative merits educationally of
a 370-pupil high school over a 750-pupil high school?
A Oh, well, I wouldn’t know what they think, no,
sir. I don’t think that figure was even ever discussed,
though, in the meeting with Dr. Pierce; I don’t think he
said a word about it.
Q Are there any reasons why a high school of the
projected size under the 1965 projection of 370 children
would be better for the whole county school system than
would be a consolidated high school of twice that size?
A Oh, yes, there could be reasons why they would
[41] be better. I understand that they are building them
smaller up north every day now, according to some of
my reading.
MR. KENNEDY: No further questions.
CHARLES E. FLEMING, called as a witness by the
Scotland Neck City Board of Education, having been
duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT-EXAMINATION
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q Mr. Fleming, what is your full name?
A Charles Eaton Fleming.
Q Mr. Fleming, where do you live now?
A My home now is in Cleveland, North Carolina,
near Salisbury.
Q And what do you do?
A I am principal of the West Rowan High School.
Q And how long have you been there at the West
Rowan High School?
A This is my fifth year there.
Q Mr. Fleming, were you at one time principal of
the Scotland Neck school?
A That’s true. I was there from 1962 until 1965—
three years.
Q And during the time that you were there, were you
[42] involved in any studies that you and others made
947
in connection with the creation of a separate school unit
for the Scotland Neck area?
A Yes, sir. There were a number of different re
quests, primarily from the district school committee, and
I did attempt to get some factual information for them.
Q And when was the earliest that you recall that
the discussions took place concerning this possibility and
the studies?
A The earliest date that I can document was May
22, 1963. According to the minutes of the local district
school committee, that was the meeting date with the
school committee and the local members on a survey com
mittee. And I do remember at the conclusion of this
review of the survey that had been made, there was a
discussion of the possibilities of a city system.
Q Subsequent to that time did you in fact gather
data on the possibilities of creating a separate school
unit for the Town of Scotland Neck area?
A I did. I was being asked questions on just what
kind of a school program could we have as a city system
opposed to what we already had, and so I attempted to
get some information of a factual nature that could
answer those questions.
Q What did you get? What did you then do?
[43] A One of the first things I did was to send out
letters to a number of other high schools requesting their
class schedules, and I think there were 8 or 10 schools
that were contacted in various parts of the state. Two
of thê schools that were contacted were ones that were
operating without a supplemental tax and were about
the same size as the proposed school between Enfield and
Scotland Neck. _ After getting those schedules back, I did
make a tabulation of the offerings that they had and the
offerings that we had, and came up with the conclusion
that there would be very little to gain so far as course
offerings were concerned in a consolidation with Enfield.
Q Was that a proposal at one time of the people of
Enfield to have the two schools, Enfield and Scotland
Neck, consolidated and put about 10 or 12 miles out in
the country?
A That’s true, yes, sir.
** * *
948
[48] BY MR. JOSEY:
Q Now, Mr. Fleming, at that time did you obtain
certain data from Mr. Overman, the superintendent of
the Halifax County schools?
A I did obtain some data from Mr. Overman, that’s
correct.
Q Basically what was the nature of the data that
you obtained from him?
A Well, I received a copy of the county budget and
also received a reply to one or two requests asking about
specific expenditures. For instance, the amount for heat
and water and coal and that sort of thing, at Scotland
Neck.
Q Now, did you also contact and make a visit to Dr.
Hammack who was at that time Mr. Hammack and the
superintendent of the Weldon City schools?
A I did go to see Dr. Hammack, and I believe that
[49] was in the fall of 1968, and talked with him about
the advantages and disadvantages in a small city unit
which he was in at that time.
Q Is Dr. Hammack here today, and is he now super
intendent of the Elizabeth City schools?
A Elizabeth City and Pasquotank County, I believe.
He is present.
Q Now, based on the gathering of that data, did you
make a formal report in writing with some conclusions
to the local district school committee of Scotland Neck
on or about January 1965?
A I did send out a mimeographed sheet to the mem
bers of the school committee and in that sheet gave them
some figures on the amount of current expense money
that the unit would have received by law if it had been
a city unit. I also gave them some figures on the money
that had actually been spent there by the county.
Q And how did the figures that you came up with
compare, that is, the figures that were actually spent in
the Scotland Neck area under the county system, and
those that would have been spent had the unit been a
separate unit?
A Under current expense money as a city unit, the
unit would have received from the county $122,848; and
949
the current expense money that had actually been spent
there [50] was $96,743, which showed that the school
would have received $26,000 more as a city unit than
had actually been spent while it was a county unit.
Q Now, that was for current expense?
A Current expense. In capital outlay funds the unit
would have received $47,166; and the amount of capital
outlay funds that had been spent— and this figure that
I am fixing to give you was an average figure for the
past three years at that time— was $17,462, which
showed a difference of $29,000.
Q That’s on an annual capital outlay?
A Annual capital outlay budget, yes, sir.
BY JUDGE BUTLER:
Q What was the difference you say? $147,166 that
they would have received for capital outlay purposes and
an average over a 3-year period of $17,462 that was
actually spent, the difference was what?
A Your Honor, as a city unit, the unit would have
received $47,166. But they had actually received $17,-
462, a difference of $29,703 approximately.
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q So that had it been a city unit, it would have re
ceived almost three times as much annually on capital
outlay than it actually had received; isn’t that correct?
A Than they actually had received for the three [51]
previous years.
Q Now, how long did you say you were there in Scot
land Neck?
A Sir, I was there three years, 1962 to 1965.
Q And compared to other school committees and school
leadership, how would you compare the efforts of the
people of Scotland Neck with other units that you have
worked with in your career?
MR. KENNEDY: Objection. I’m not sure we know
what the other units are.
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q What other units have you been connected with?
950
A I was principal of what is now the Madison-Mayo-
dan city schools, the Halifax County schools, the Cleve
land County schools, and the Rowan County schools.
Q Go ahead.
A I can say in all earnestness that there was a gen
eral interest in Scotland Neck, interest on the part of
the people in their schools that I have not seen in that
degree of interest in any of the communities that I have
served in; and there was a good deal of local participa
tion, local interest, and I found that the people were
willing to pay for anything that could be gotten to im
prove the schools.
MR. JOSEY: Your witness.
[52]
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. KENNEDY:
Q Mr. Fleming, you mentioned a bill that was intro
duced or that you worked to get some facts on that was
introduced in 1965. Do you have a copy of that bill in
the papers that you have with you?
A The Enabling Act of ’65?
Q Yes, sir. The proposal, yes, sir.
A Yes, sir, I do.
Q Are you familiar with the townships that that bill
would have included or the schools that that bill would
have included?
A I am somewhat familiar.
Q What schools would have been included in that
unit which was proposed in 1965 to the state legislature?
A I believe, of course, the Scotland Neck, the Brawley
High School, Bakers School. I’m not sure what else.
Q May I show you a map that appears on Page 6 of
the 1968 survey and ask you if you could help identify
the schools that would have been included in the 1965 pro
posal?
A I can give you that from this Enabling Act, I
think. This is the precincts; it does not list the schools
specifically. This gives the boundaries of the proposed
school district.
951
Q In order to save some time, could I suggest that
[53] in addition to Scotland Neck and Brawley that
Bakers School would have been included?
A. That’s tru©
JUDGE LARKINS: Yes, he said Bakers.
BY JUDGE LARKINS:
Q How about Dawson?
A Dawson would have been included, yes, sir.
BY MR. KENNEDY:
Q How about Tillery Chapel?
A I believe so.
Q And Thomas Shields?
A I believe so.
Q And a school which is now no longer in existence,
Hobgood?
A I’m not certain about Hobgood, whether that was
included in this first Enabling Act or not.
Q But Inborden and Enfield were not included, is
that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q It’s true, isn’t it, that freedom of choice was the
basis of pupil assignment at that time, in 1965?
A I believe that’s correct.
Q Do you know the approximate number of children
that would have been included?
A I believe it was about 2800 and some students that
[54] would have been included.
BY JUDGE LARKINS:
Q Would it be fair to say that that proposed district
in ’65 would have taken almost half of the geographical
territory of the county, every school east of Enfield? Be
cause you have named Tillery Chapel, Dawson, Bakers,
Scotland Neck, Brawley, and Thomas Shields.
A Your Honor, I believe it would be something less
than half the county, I can’t say positively.
MR. KENNEDY: Excuse me. For the Court’s in
formation, your Honor, if you are referring to Page 6
of our exhibit—
952
JUDGE LARKINS: Yes, that’s what I had reference
to.
MR. KENNEDY: — there’s another school that was
in existence at the time, Hobgood, that was in that gen
eral area which is no longer being operated by the school
system.
JUDGE LARKINS: Where would Hobgood be with
relation to Scotland Neck?
MR. JOSEY: Your Honor, it was right next to
Thomas Shields. They were pretty close together.
BY MR. KENNEDY:
Q Mr. Fleming, when you were reading to the Court
[55] some figures for current expenses and capital out
lays, were you reading from a piece of paper?
A Yes, sir, I was.
Q May I look at that, please?
A Yes, sir.
Q With the Court’s permission, would you read the
last paragraph from that paper, please?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is that dated January 25, 1965?
A That’s correct.
Q It’s from you to the Scotland Neck school commit
tee?
A That’s correct, sir.
Q Would you read the last paragraph, please?
A “ One will notice that the schools in the proposed
unit would receive more money as a city unit than they
are receiving as part of the county unit. The explanation
for this is that the county unit has been spending its
money on the basis of greatest need rather than on the
basis of equal distribution. This is the policy of most
boards and no one is at fault.”
Q Thank you, sir. And were you the author of that
statement?
A Yes, sir.
Q Going back for one moment to the admission of
[56] 2800 pupils approximately in the then proposed unit,
how many of those were black and how many white; do
you recall?
953
A I have a breakdown here, I believe, that’s accu
rate, by schools. Scotland Neck: 824 would have been
white at that time. Hobgood: 95 that would have been
white. Brawley: 1181. They would have been black.
Bakers: 374 black. Thomas Shields: 369. And I believe
2843 students that would have been anticipated in that
unit at that time.
Q Would you give us Tillery Chapel?
A I believe that that was not included, as I remember
in this first Enabling Act.
KENNEDY: Thank you, sir. No further questions.
REDIRECT-EXAMINATION
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q Let me ask this. He asked you about the Hobgood
school, whether it was included. It is your recollection
that Hobgood was included in the first draft of the bill,
and that they came and said that they didn’t want to be
in it because of the tax and asked to be dropped from
the bill, and that the final bill that was introduced in
the legislature did not include Hobgood; isn’t that cor
rect?
A I believe you are correct about that and was the
reason I had some hesitancy. I remember it was in
cluded at [57] first, but I am inclined to think it was
not included when the bill was introduced.
MR. JOSEY: All right. That’s all.
DR. BENJAMIN P. HAMMACK, called as a witness
by the defendant Scotland Neck City Board of Education,
having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows:
DIRECT-EXAMINATION
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q Would you give the Court your name, please, sir?
A Benjamin Paul Hammack.
954
Q Is it Doctor Hammack?
A Yes, that’s right.
Q Where do you live, sir?
A Elizabeth City, North Carolina.
Q What is your job at the present time?
A I am superintendent of the Elizabeth City-Pasquo-
tank County schools.
Q And prior to that time, what was your position?
A I was superintendent of the Weldon City adminis
trative unit.
Q And approximately how large was the Weldon City
unit at the time you were there, the approximate total
number of students?
[58] A Well, it averaged during that time about 2,400
students.
Q And how long were you superintendent of that unit?
A Nine years and one month.
Q And what position did you hold prior to that time?
A Prior to going to Weldon, I was at Duke Univer
sity as a graduate assistant for one year, and prior to
that I had served as a principal in the Raleigh city
schools for 6 years, as a principal for two years in the
Kannapolis city schools, and as principal for one year in
the Cabarrus County schools. Prior to that I was a high
school teacher in Gaston County for five years.
Q What degrees do you have, sir?
A I have a B.A. Degree from Furman University
and a Master of Education and Doctor of Education de
grees from Duke University.
Q Now, Dr. Hammack, back sometime in 1963 were
you contacted by Mr. Fleming who was principal of the
Scotland Neck City school at that time?
A Yes, I was.
Q And did you have a visit with him?
A He came to my office, visited me in my office.
Q What was the stated purpose of that meeting?
[59] A He was seeking information regarding city
administrative units for the purpose of— I understood
he was getting this information for Mr. Harrison and
the members of his committee.
Q And what information at that time did you give
him?
955
A I remember giving him a copy of our budget, that
is, the administrative unit budget. I also remember giv
ing him a copy of the budget I prepared for the indi
vidual schools, alloting money to the individual schools
on a per capita basis. I may have given him other docu
ments, I don’t recall at this time. And then we did dis
cuss in general the advantages and disadvantages of a
small city administrative unit.
Q What in your opinion are the advantages of a
small city administrative unit, if there are any?
A Well, I think it depends upon the particular situa
tion. At that time I felt as though in Weldon we had
a better school system, able to give our children a better
education than if they had been a part of the county
school system.
Q And why was that?
A Well, we had more funds per student than the
county.
Q And where did they come from?
[60] A We had a local supplemental tax.
Q During that 9 years, in general were you familiar
with the general conditions and circumstances of the Hal
ifax County system?
A Well, Mr. Overman and I worked very closely to
gether, but I really didn’t know too much about their
school system as a whole. But as we discussed the situa
tion, knowing what we could do in Weldon and knowing
what they were not doing in the county, I was of the
opinion that we were giving our children a better edu
cation.
BY JUDGE LARKINS:
Q Is that the only reason you decided— from addi
tional revenue from the Weldon taxation?
A Well, the additional revenue made it possible for
us. For example, with these funds we were able to supple
ment the teachers’ salaries extra, and at that time in
fields such as mathematics and science, by having funds
for extra teachers’ supplement, we were able to fill these
positions with well-qualified people. If we had not had
these funds, we would not have been able to do it. Also,
956
we were later able to vote a local salary supplement for
all teachers. It was only $100 a year, and that’s mighty
little money, but it was increased later on to $200, and
we believed this was an important morale factor with our
teachers, and we did think that this was a move in the
right [61] direction. Also in 1962 we stopped charging
the students any fees to attend the school. We felt like
this was a very important move on our part. Also, we
were able to establish a very good Industrial Arts De
partment which we felt was a real accomplishment.
Q There are three things, then: salary increase of
$100 to $200 a year.
A Well, there was no supplement at first. We started
with $100 and then later on, recently, increased it to
$200. Also, in the area of school supplies we were able
to, I feel like, adequately supply our teachers and stu
dents with supplies; for instance, several teachers com
mented to me that they had much rather be with us than
with the county because of the school supplies.
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q Were you in a position to more closely supervise
the students as a superintendent than in a unit, say like
Mr. Overman with 11,000 students— and supervise the
teachers?
A It’s my opinion that the duties of a superintendent
are such that neither Mr. Overman nor I are able to
supervise the teachers, I’m afraid. I mean the duties are
such. I know his duties were such that he couldn’t, and
in my case I had very little time, actually, to get into
the classroom with the teachers.
[62] Q Would you say you knew your teachers indi
vidually?
A I’m sure that I knew my teachers. I would be
lieve that I knew my teachers more intimately, person
ally, than he did. I should say this: The first 5 years I
was in Weldon as superintendent, I also had to serve as
principal of the Weldon High School, and there at that
school I did know those teachers real well.
Q Now, at the conferences that you had with Mr.
Fleming or in the conferences that you had with any of
957
the Scotland Neck people at that time, was there any
mention of race that motivated this school bill or this
study?
A No. Most of my information regarding the situa
tion came from Mr. Fleming’s wife, Mrs. Dorothy Flem
ing, who was serving at that time as our Attendance
Counselor.
Q For the city system of Weldon?
A Well, she actually served, I believe, all three sys
tems in a cooperative endeavor. On several occasions she
discussed with me the interest in Scotland Neck for a
separate administrative unit, and I recall that she said
that the people were very concerned about this, that they
said they slipped up and let the ’63 legislature adjourn
without action that they should have had at the ’63
legislature, and they were anxious to get everything in
order for the ’65 legislature.
* * * *
[65] BY MR. JOSEY:
Q Will you give the Court your name, please, sir?
A Hugh D. Randall.
Q And where do you live, sir?
A Hendersonville, North Carolina.
Q What is your position?
A Superintendent of the Hendersonville City schools.
Q How long have you been superintendent of the
Hendersonville City schools?
A Fifteen years.
Q And prior to that where were you?
A I was principal of the Orlando schools in Orlando
for three years, Lewiston-Woodville School for two years,
and I taught for a year in Franklin County.
Q And where did you attend college?
A I did a Bachelor of Science at Wake Forest and
then a Master of Arts at Wake Forest College.
Q How many students are there in the Henderson
ville City unit?
A The present enrollment is about 1,900 to 2,000.
Q And approximately how many of those are Negro?
A Ten to twelve percent of them, I guess.
958
Q Now, what county is Hendersonville in?
A Henderson County.
Q What percentage would you say, approximately,
are [66] Negro in the surrounding county?
A I would have to guess. It’s much lower. Probably
three or four percent.
MR. KENNEDY: Objection to his guessing.
JUDGE LARKINS: Well, that’s his best estimate.
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q There is a lesser percentage of Negro to white in
the surrounding county than there is in your city unit,
isn’t that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Now, what advantages, if any, are there in your
opinion in a small city unit— Strike that.
Do you have a supplementary tax?
A Yes, sir. We levy 50 ̂ on $100 valuation.
Q And state whether or not in your opinion there are
some advantages to a small unit as compared to a unit
of approximately 7,000 or a unit of 10,000 which Mr.
Kennedy mentioned.
A Yes, sir, I think we enjoy some advantages as a
small unit. I would first say one of the advantages is
our participation with the parents and citizens that actu
ally control the schools. We have much better partici
pation than larger units, percentagewise. Of course, par
ents can get involved and do and very much easier than
[67]they can in a larger situation.
Q Is that sometimes a headache for a superintendent?
A It can be. But after all, the schools belong to the
people at home, and we encourage involvement. And it
has been my experience that large systems have trouble
involving many, many people; we can do it much easier.
Percentagewise, students can participate in more activi
ties. You have a larger percentage playing football, and
you have a larger percentage of the student body in
student activities, you have a larger percentage of the
student body in social activities, you have more class
officers percentagewise in students, cheerleaders, and
everything else that students like to participate in. A
959
larger number of your students percentagewise are in
volved. And I think the biggest advantage to us is the
instructional program. That’s what we operate the schools
for anyway. We like to think that the more individual
attention we give a child, the more advantages the child
will have. As a consequence we employ 18 additional
teachers over and above what the state allots. It’s purely
for the purpose of reducing the teacher’s load.
We pay a supplement to teachers from our local tax
sources to recruit only teachers with A Certificates or
better. We are able to maintain the Southern Association
[68] of Accreditation for all schools.
Q All schools in your system?
A All schools in our system, primary through high
school. I am sure I couldn’t do this with too many
children in too large a system. I can’t see any way pos
sible. I talk this over quite often with people who are
having problems in larger systems who are working with
the same thing. Sheer volume and numbers just over
whelm you when you undertake a few of these things
that I consider advantages.
Q Since you have been there these fifteen years, has
the Hendersonville city system become fully integrated?
A We must be in our fifth or sixth year, yes, sir.
Q And what advantages, if any, do you feel exist
in a small unit in dealing with the problems of integra
tion, if you do?
A As I mentioned earlier, more student participation
in social activities as well as school activities; more read
ily to accept— and I don’t know the correct term— more
readily to accept integration or mixing socially at dances
and school affairs where you have smaller numbers of
pupils.
Q What do you attribute that to?
A I attribute it mostly to community involvement
where parents know parents regardless of race, where
[69] children know one another, and above all teachers
know pupils by their names. They do not have to disci
pline pupils by saying, “ Hey, you,” or talking to them as
a group but can call them by their names. I think we
have better control over social affairs by that sort of
960
relationship. So I think the size there has some definite
advantage.
MR. JOSEY: All right, sir. Your witness.
MR. KENNEDY: We have no question of this wit
ness.
VERNON L. DUSSENBURY, called as a witness by
the defendant Scotland Neck City Board of Education,
having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows:
DIRECT-EXAMINATION
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q Give the Court your name, please, sir.
A Vernon L. Dussenbury.
Q Mr. Dussenbury, where—
MR. KENNEDY: Excuse me, if the Court will al
low me, the last witness Mr. Randall also testified at
some great length at the August hearing.
JUDGE LARKINS: That’s what we are looking [70]
at now.
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Dussenbury also testified at
the August hearing, and I wonder if this is not some
what cumulative?
JUDGE BUTLER: Well, at the August hearing when
Mr. Hugh Randall was called to the stand, it was an
nounced that his testimony would be 95% cumulative.
Now, Mr. Dussenbury is with the Tryon City Schools,
has 853 students, the smallest unit in the state, ranks
near the top of the list in quality. He gets supplemental
funds, local supplemental funds, for the students, and so
forth.
We have a pretty good record of what they testified
to.
MR. JOSEY: I merely tender him then, your Honor,
if Mr. Kennedy has any questions.
MR. KENNEDY: No questions, sir.
JUDGE BUTLER: You may stand aside, Mr. Dus
senbury.
961
JUDGE LARKINS: Call your next witness.
MR. JOSEY: Mr. Shields.
All of the City School Board of Scotland Neck come
around, please, and be sworn.
[71] JUDGE BUTLER: Now call the names of these
witnesses that are now being sworn, please.
MR. JOSEY: Mr. Frank Shields, Chairman of the
School Board; Mrs. William Holloman, member of the
school board; Mr. Walter Anderson, member of the school
board; Mr. A1 Burke, member of the school board; and
Mr. Aubrey Powell, member of the school board.
JUDGE LARKINS: All right, administer the oath.
(Whereupon, the witnesses named above were duly
sworn by the Clerk.)
MR. JOSEY: Mr. Shields, will you take the stand,
please.
You other members, please, just have a seat there m
the jury box.
FRANK P. SHIELDS, called as a witness by the de
fendant Scotland Neck City Board of Education, having
been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT-EXAMINATION
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q I believe you are Mr. Frank P. Shields, and you are
Chairman of the Scotland Neck City Board of Education,
is that correct?
A. Yes sir.
[72] Q ’ Now, Mr. Shields, I believe your deposition
has been taken by the Government or the plaintiff in this
action back in, oh, July of 1969; is that correct?
A Yes sir.
MR. JOSEY: If your Honor please, I would like to
announce at this time that we do not propose to go into
anything here, but mainly two things that have occurred
since that time.
962
JUDGE LARKINS: All right. When was that depo
sition taken, Mr. Kennedy?
MR. KENNEDY: July 24, 1969, your Honor.
JUDGE LARKINS: Very well. You may proceed.
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q Now, Mr. Shields, I show you here what purports
to be a copy of the defendant Scotland Neck City Board
of Education’s FIRST FURTHER ANSWER that was
filed sometime in September, I believe. Would you look
at that, please, and be sure that is a copy of it.
A Yes.
Q Now, Mr. Shields, although that was not verified, it
was filed by your attorneys. I’ll ask you if in fact you
and other members of the school board, prior to the time
that this First Further Answer was filed, met and dis
cussed this First Further Answer, and you and the school
[73] board agreed that these were the facts, and that
the representations made there were in fact true, and
that you would abide by them; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And that you stated there that, “ Within the geo
graphic boundaries of the Town of Scotland Neck there
now reside approximately 751 students of school age;
56.86 percent of which are white and 43.14 percent of
which are Negro.” Aren’t those the figures that this
school board is cognizant of?
A Yes.
Q And you also stated there that, “ The resident
school population is sufficient to constitute an efficient
separate school administrative unit, and the special tax
funds will enable the Defendant to offer to its resident
students an education system which is greatly superior
to that heretofore enjoyed by them and superior to that
which would be available to them if there were no such
tax.” And that, “ Defendant made arrangements to oper
ate such an improved school system in Scotland Neck
for the school year 1969-1970.” And you do now swear
that that is the intention of the board, and that the
board is cognizant of that fact?
A Yes.
963
Q And I’ll ask you if this statement is true and
[74] was discussed with the board and is still yours and
the board’s representation to the Court:
“ It is the present intention of this Defendant, and
this Defendant makes this continuing representation,
that, if and when there is removed the temporary in
junction barrier preventing operation under the Statute,
Defendant will confine its student body to those students
residing within the geographical limits of the Town of
Scotland Neck, plus or minus such student transfers as
may be in conformity to the law and/or Court order or
orders applicable to Defendant, and in conformity to a
plan of limitation of transfers to be prepared by De
fendant and submitted to this Court.”
I ask you if that wasn’t in fact discussed with this
board, and that the board agreed that that was what they
are willing to represent to the Court and do so at this
time?
A Yes.
Q And didn’t you also ask that, “ The Court retain
jurisdiction of this cause for the receipt of a plan of
transfer to be submitted by the Defendant,” or the Scot
land Neck City Board of Education, “ to the Court and
for the hearing of any objection that may be filed there
to” ?
A Yes.
Q Didn’t you also as a city board of education—
[75] will your Honor give me just one minute?
JUDGE LARKINS: Yes, sir.
BY JUDGE LARKINS:
Q May I inquire, Mr. Shields, what is the capacity
of the Scotland Neck facilities to which you say there is
being projected an enrollment of 751 students?
A I couldn’t say exactly, Judge Larkins, but there
are now in attendance there about— somewhere between
880 and 850 students. And I would say it would accom
modate up to— well, in the permanent classrooms prob
ably 900.
JUDGE LARKINS: You may proceed.
964
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q I show you here the defendant Scotland Neck’s
Exhibit 4 and ask you if that is in fact a copy of a
newspaper advertisement which you and the members of
this school board ran for two separate weeks in the Scot
land Neck Commonwealth in the early part of October of
this year?
A Yes.
MR. KENNEDY: Your Honor, we have no objection
to the authenticity. We admit the authenticity of all of
these exhibits.
JUDGE BUTLER: Has that been marked and iden
tified?
[76] MR. JOSEY: Yes, sir, it has already been intro
duced. This is just another—
JUDGE BUTLER: What is the exhibit number?
MR. JOSEY: No. 4.
JUDGE BUTLER: That’s Defendant’s Exhibit 4?
MR. JOSEY: Yes, sir.
Q What I would like to ask you is if in that adver
tisement did you notify the entire population of the Town
of Scotland Neck that the district of this city administra
tive unit, the Scotland Neck School, “ embraces all chil
dren of school age living in our Scotland Neck Commu
nity. It is contemplated by the Statute, it is required by
law, it is the intent of this Board that every child living
in this community shall be treated just the same, re
gardless of race, creed or color. There will be no segrega
tion under our operation.
“ The basic school population of our community would
be approximately 57% white and 43% Negro. We do not
know of any complaint which has ever been made any
where of such a ratio.
“ Transfers out of or into the Scotland Neck Schools
would be made in accordance with a plan or plans of
transfer to be prepared by our board and filed with the
Court, in order that any objections to such plans could
[77] be made to the Court and heard by it. _
“ Every operation of our Board would be in the plain
est kind of spotlight, in the spotlight of public opinion
and the spotlight of Court observation.
965
“ It is the firm intent of our Board, and the firm in
tent of the people of Scotland Neck, to make our new
School District work, to make ours an outstanding school,
not a ‘segregated school,’ not an ‘integrated school,’ but
just a school ‘for all of our children without regard to
race, creed or color.’
“ It is our firm conviction that the successful operation
of ‘just a school’ would be good for our community of
Scotland Neck, good for our County of Halifax, good for
our State and good for our Nation. The welfare of
Scotland Neck, and possibly its survival, depends upon
the success of just such a school.”
Isn’t that what you published in the paper, you and
members of the board?
A Yes.
Q And is that your present intention, and do you
represent that to the Court at this time under oath?
A Yes, that is my intention and as far as I under
stand it is the intention of every member of the board.
Q And all members are here with you at this time?
A All members are present.
[78] Q And what is your present appraisal of the
sentiment in the community of Scotland Neck in accept
ing and operating the school as you and the board have
set forth?
A I feel that the community wants it. I feel that
they are willing to accept the plan as outlined. I think
they are willing to support the school, and their purpose
is that they want a better education for their children
there in Scotland Neck.
MR. JOSEY: All right, sir. Your witness.
MR. KENNEDY: No questions, your Honor.
BY JUDGE LARKINS:
Q Did you receive any response to this?
A Yes, sir. It was an appeal for donation of funds
to finance our fight here in court, and we have received
a good response I think from it.
JUDGE LARKINS: Very well. Call your next wit
ness.
MR. JOSEY: I would like at this time, your Honor
to—
966
If these members of the board agree with what Mr.
Shields has said, hold up your hand.
I would like for the record to show that each member
of the board held up his hand.
I would like to tender those other four witnesses, the
members of the Scotland Neck [79] School Board to this
Court and to the Department of Justice.
MR. KENNEDY: No questions.
JUDGE BUTLER: Take a recess until 2:30.
AFTERNOON SESSION
Wednesday, Dec. 17, 1969
MR. JOSEY: That is the evidence for the defendant
Scotland Neck City Board of Education, if your Honor
please.
MR. KENNEDY: Your Honor, if I may be permitted
to offer one witness in brief rebuttal for the Government.
JUDGE BUTLER: Very well, sir.
DR. ROBERT PITTILLO, called as a witness by the
Government in rebuttal, having been duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT-EXAMINATION
BY MR. KENNEDY:
Q Will you please state your name and occupation?
A Robert Albert Pittillo. I am Associate Professor of
Education at Duke University.
Q Would you tell us something about your profes
sional background, please?
[80] A I did all of my schooling in North Carolina. I
began teaching in the little town of Battleboro in the
eastern part of the state, and I taught for the Dependent
Schools for seven years.
967
BY JUDGE BUTLER:
Q At what schools?
A Dependent Schools, Okinawa, Austria, Germany. I
taught in Durham County. I was assistant superintend
ent for five and a half years in Raleigh, North Carolina;
my job was Director of Instruction. And I was superin
tendent of schools, Lynchburg, Virginia, for a year and a
half, and then I came to Duke University.
Q And do you hold your doctorate?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you done most of your major work in school
administration?
A Yes. My doctorate was in School Administration,
and that is what I teach.
Q Are you familiar with the report of the Governor’s
Study Commission for the public school system in North
Carolina?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you a consultant to the commission?
A Yes.
Q Have you studied the sections in the Governor’s
[81] Study Commission Report? And for identification
I am referring to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 11. Have you
studied the sections in there on School Organization for
Public Education?
A Yes.
Q Do you agree that the statements in there— Do you
generally agree with the statements that are set out there
with respect to recommended school organization for pub
lic education?
A Yes.
MR. JOSEY: I’m sorry. What section is that?
MR. KENNEDY: Section 3, I believe, Mr. Josey.
Part 3— Organization for Public Education. It begins on
Page 140.
Q Are you familiar with those sections in the report
—and if you would like to refer to it, I can pass it to you
—on the recommended minimum number of pupils recom
mended for a school system?
A Yes. Are you talking about the systems now?
968
Q Yes. School administrative units, yes, sir. I be
lieve that section begins on Page 163 under Local School
Organization.
A Yes. On Page 163 here it refers to a North Caro
lina State Education Report of 1948, and I am in agree-
[82] ment with that. This is a part of this.
Q I see. And on Page 164 carrying over to Page 166,
do you agree with the nine factors of the Education Com
mission of the states which are listed there, 164 to 166?
A Yes.
Q Do you have an opinion as to the minimum size—
minimum number of pupils in a high school that would
enable a school system to offer a comprehensive education?
A Yes, I have.
Q What is that figure, sir?
A Well, I think— in my judgment it should be from
1,000 to 1,500 as nearly as possible.
Q Are we talking about a 4-grade high school?
A Yes, 9 through 12. Now, as near that as possible.
I think with 750, a minimum of 750, it is economically
feasible to have a reasonably comprehensive high school.
The feasibility of it has to do with economics.
Q Has some of your professional background been
concerned with the study of the feasibility and the cost
effect of high schools of the minimum size of 750?
A Yes.
Q Can you very briefly tell the Court and us what
you mean by a comprehensive high school?
A I think of a comprehensive high school as a school
[83] that offers all children a realistic opportunity for
success in a worthwhile program. Pm talking about
mentally retarded children, children who are classified
generally as slow learners, as well as the academically
able child. Pm speaking, too, of the child who will go
to the university as well as the child who will go to the
factory or the farm, as the case may be. I think of the
comprehensive high school as offering the child a com
petitive education, not just competitive in his community,
because we don’t know where he is going to live, but so
he can compete on a broad basis and work in whatever
community he may wish or may choose to work in.
969
Q Do you have an opinion as to the recommended
minimum number of courses that such a comprehensive
high school ought to provide?
A Well, the authorities in this area tend to use some
measures that I agree with in part, McClurkin being one
from Peabody.
Q Is that Dr. W. D. McClurkin who is cited in the
Governor’s Study Commission Report?
A Yes. He says that it should be three times the
number of courses required for graduation. I think that
is too few. I would think in terms of numbers that you
should offer 60 or more courses in a comprehensive high
school. It ranges— in North Carolina I believe we have
[84] one school that offers over 120 courses, according to
the Governor’s Study Commission Report.
Q Now, with respect to the minimum number of
children in a school unit as set out in the Governor’s
Study Commission Report, do you know of any school of
professional educational thought in this state that dis
agrees with that recommendation?
A Would you please state that question again?
Q Well, with respect to the minimum number of
pupils that a school unit should have— and I think that
Dr. McClurkin refers to 10,000 which the commission
approves of— do you know of any school of educational
thought or any educational experts in this state who dis
agree with that recommended minimum standard?
A Yes.
Q Who are they?
A Well, some of us— I have some friends who are pro
fessional acquaintances who are superintendents in small
districts, and they don’t agree with the 10,000. Generally
speaking, the authorities who are writing in the field and
teaching consider 10,000 as a minimum number for an
efficient school district. If you have 10,000 to 25,000 or
30,000, you can operate an efficient school district in my
judgment.
Q Are you also familiar with a survey done under
[85] the allspices of the North Carolina Department of
Public Instruction for the Halifax County unit in 1968?
A Yes.
970
Q Were you a member of that survey team?
A Yes, I was.
Q Were the recommendations for the interim plan
contained in that survey made with a view to furthering
or advancing the educational opportunities for all the
children in the Halifax County unit?
A Yes. That was our unanimous feeling.
Q And did the recommendations in the interim plan
foresee or drive at establishing two comprehensive high
schools in Halifax County?
A Yes.
Q Is it not your opinion that this would increase the
educational opportunities for the children?
A Unquestionably. Yes, sir.
Q Is there any recommendation at all in the plan
that there be a smaller, separate school system created
in Halifax County?
A No, sir.
Q Have you ever consulted with other school systems?
A Yes, I have.
Q About educational problems?
A Yes, sir.
[86] Q Have you ever recommended to them that there
be separate small school systems created?
A No, I have not.
Q Dr. Pittillo, just to clarify one point, when you
were referring to the 750 pupils as a minimum number
for a feasible school, you were referring to a 4-grade
high school, weren’t you?
A Yes.
MR. KENNEDY: I have no further questions, your
Honor.
JUDGE BUTLER: Excuse me one minute at this
point.
BY JUDGE BUTLER:
Q It is my understanding that when you referred to
750 students for a 4-year high school, you used the words
“ economically feasible.” Do you put any stress on the
word “ economically” as contrasted with other factors?
971
A Yes, sir, your Honor, because you can have a com
prehensive high school of 50 students if you are willing
to have one pupil in one class. But what I am talking
about is having a broad range of opportunities for stu
dents, in languages and in all areas, vocational programs,
your science programs, and operate at an optimum level
so that you can maximize the efficiency of your teachers
and the equipment you have in your building. That’s
what I [87] meant by this.
JUDGE BUTLER: All right, you may cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q Now, Dr. Pittillo, you say you were a member of
the group that made the survey for Halifax County in
1968?
A Yes, sir.
Q I believe that was probably presented to the board
for the first time sometime in the middle of December
1968; is that correct?
A I don’t know. I didn’t participate in the presenta
tion to the board. But as I recall, it was sometime in
there.
Q And I believe the ultimate plan was to put two
high schools in the county system, one up basically in
the northwest section and one in the southeast section;
is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the school in the southeast section, do you
recall whether or not a location was determined for that?
A As I recall now, we were trying to locate it—we
didn’t look at the land or anything of this sort, but we
just put it on the map in terms of where it would logic
ally fit in terms of the students. We used population
[88] distribution maps and this sort of thing, but we
tried to center it reasonably within the center of the stu
dent population and geographically too.
Q I believe that was located generally in the Dawson
community, do you recall, between Enfield and Scotland
Neck somewhere in that area?
972
A That sounds reasonable, but I don’t recall that,
Q And even if the Scotland Neck City unit were to
be upheld and was to operate as a separate unit, I’ll ask
you if it isn’t true that there would still be enough high
school students— Enfield, Brawley, Inborden, and other
high school students in the same area that you proposed
to have a comprehensive high school in spite of Scotland
Neck not being in that unit? Isn’t that correct?
A I’m not sure. I would guess so, because as I recall
— and I have not looked at the report except very briefly
one small section of it. As I recall, we were talking about
approximately 1200 students there. I may be wrong.
Now you are talking about removing 300, is that right—
removing less than 300.
Q Yes, probably less than 300.
A You would have— I would judge in Scotland Neck
you would have a little over 200 in grades 9 through 12.
Q And so that you would still have a number which
you consider sufficient to have a comprehensive high
school?
[89] A Yes, sir.
Q Now, isn’t it true that the plan that you and—
Strike that. Was Dr. Pierce on this committee with you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Of course, he had actually taught as a teacher and
as a principal there in Scotland Neck some years ago;
isn’t that correct? Did you know that?
A I think I recall that now.
Q As a football coach and that sort of thing. Did you
know that?
A You are refreshing my memory. I’m not sure.
Q But he was extremely familiar with the conditions
in Halifax County; you knew that?
A Yes.
Q And the plan which you and Dr. Pierce and this
group in the 1968 survey came up with required approxi
mately $4.3 million in funds in order to accomplish the
program of the two consolidated high schools; isn’t that
correct?
A Again you are pinning me down to numbers that
I— if I could see the report, I could verify them. (Re
port handed to witness) What page is that on?
973
Q I’m not sure.
MR. KENNEDY: Your Honor, I think the report will
speak for itself as to what was recommended there.
[90j JUDGE BUTLER: Well, it would be helpful if
he could point it out.
MR. KENNEDY: If I may suggest that the witness
turn to Page 13 at the top, there is a discusion there
of financial organization.
A We saw an immediate need for two new secondary
schools at the estimated cost of $4.2 million. These would
be, in our view, truly comprehensive high schools offering
a broad range of courses, academic, vocational, across the
board, and programs for mentally retarded as well.
Q Now, what did you or your committee recommend
as to how this money was going to be raised?
A Well, a part of it was in hand, as I recall, and the
remainder would have to be raised by a bond issue.
Q The part of it that was in hand was about $800,-
000; isn’t that correct?
A I think that’s right.
Q So it was necessary to raise about $3.4 million?
A That sounds reasonable.
Q And of course that would require a special bond
issue?
A Yes.
Q And your committee determined at that time with
the bond indebtedness of the County of Halifax, that that
[91] was more than the law would permit; isn’t that cor
rect?
A Well, if it’s in here, it’s correct. But I don’t recall
that. I thought that we stayed within the debt service
limit.
Q And do you know or did you know that there are
two other units, administrative units, in the County of
Halifax?
A Yes, we took that into account.
Q And of course the entire county, including Roanoke
Rapids and Weldon, would have to vote on this bond issue,
wouldn’t they?
A Yes, sir.
Q So that politically it would have had to have been
a vote of the majority of the people of the entire county,
974
not just the ones in the residency of the Halifax school
administrative unit?
A That’s right. But the bond issue would not have
to carry all three districts.
Q But don’t you know that more than half of the
voting population in Halifax County reside in Roanoke
Rapids and Weldon?
A I didn’t know that.
Q And of course you nor any member of your com
mittee had any other suggestions as to how to raise this
money. I mean there was no other money available as
far as you knew [92] other than a bond issue in the
county?
A I think that’s right.
Q And you say that a high school that is properly,
substantially financed can have a comprehensive program,
but it takes more money per student, the overhead is
greater, is basically what you are saying, isn’t it?
A It’s far greater in a very small school. As a matter
of fact, the per-pupil cost may be double in some in
stances.
Q Well, do you know that under the Scotland Neck
City administrative unit that the per capita expenditure
of local funds will be more than doubled, do you know
that, over what they are under the Halifax County sys
tem?
A The per-pupil expenditure?
Q Yes.
A The total per-pupil expenditure?
Q Of local funds.
A Oh, that’s not what I was talking about when I
said the per-pupil expenditure might be double in a very
small high school. It might well double in a very small
high school if you attempted to offer a comprehensive
program. That’s the total per-pupil expenditure.
BY JUDGE BUTLER:
Q When you say “ a very small high school,” could
you give us some approximate figures as to the number of
[93] pupils in the school in which the per capita expendi
ture would be doubled as contrasted with another specific
size school?
975
A Your Honor, I couldn’t be accurate on that, I’m
sorry. But I would guess that when you drop below 300
in a 4-year high school that your per pupil expenditure,
in order to offer such courses as physics, chemistry, and
a broad range of advanced academic courses as well as
vocational, that you would have classes of five or six
students. You have eleven or twelve sometimes in a
school of 800 or 900. And if, say, 16% of your student
body is taking physics and you have 300 children— or
if you have a class of a hundred, you would only have
a physics class of 16, and that’s twice as expensive on a
teacher basis as a class of 32, though you wouldn’t nor
mally run a physics class of 32.
BY MR. JOSEY:
Q Now, Dr. Pittillo, isn’t it true that a number of
the smallest units in this state, such as Tryon, such as
Hendersonville, rank substantially above, academically,
a number of the units that are large such as 10,000 or
11,000 such as Halifax County, in many academic stand
ards?
A I have not seen the comparisons that you are mak
ing, but I would guess that’s reasonable.
Q And isn’t it basically because of, maybe, the [94]
additional funds that are poured into these smaller units
by local supplements that they can from a practical stand
point raise in a small area?
A That could be part of it, yes. The clientele makes
the difference too.
Q That is, the competency of the teachers, the com
petency of the superintendents, would certainly have some
thing to do with that, wouldn’t it?
A Yes. The total expert leadership that you could
give to a district is extremely important in my judgment
in the opportunities that the students have, and I don’t
think all of that expert leadership can come from one
person.
Q But if you have more funds to hire people, you can
normally speaking, generally speaking, get a better quali
fied and more competent individual, can’t you?
A Yes, sir.
976
Q And of course teachers’ supplements, superintend
ent supplements, payable from local funds is one of the
inducements to enable these smaller units to get more
competent persons?
A That is important. The kind of school that the
teacher can teach in is extremely important.
Q Isn’t it true that there are problems that are cre
ated or exist to a greater extent in a large unit, in [95]
a large high school, that may not exist in a smaller more
closely supervised high school today, particularly in the
last five or six years?
A I’m not sure about that. I think where the prob
lems— some of the greatest things that are being done in
this state that I have witnessed this year in all these
problems, and particularly integration problems, are being
handled quite well in very large high schools or relatively
large high schools of 1200 or 1500 students. But by the
same token, you have had some difficulties in large
schools.
MR. JOSEY: I believe that is all.
MR. KENNEDY: We have no further questions, your
Honor.
* * * *
[104] (Whereupon, evidence was heard in Civil Action
No. 1482, Raleigh Division, Turner, et al versus
Warren County Board of Education, et al, and The
Warrenton City Board of Education; the Littleton-
Lake Gaston School District, et al.)
On Thursday, December 18, 1969, after the morning
recess, Col. Joyner made the following argument on be
half of the Scotland Neck City Board of Education:
[105] JUDGE BUTLER: Colonel Joyner, you are now
recognized for the purpose of the argument.
COL. JOYNER: Thank you sir. If it please the
Court, let me say first that the defendant, Scotland Neck
City Board of Education, is content with the record which
we have made. We have no complaint there. We are ap
977
preciative of the time which has been given us to argue
this case, and I’ll say that I would not have offered to
speak at all and would not have requested as much time
as forty minutes if I had not thought that this was a
matter of tremendous importance and if I had not thought
that what I would say would be of interest to the Court
and of assistance to the Court in reaching a decision
which may moderate some of the acrimony about schools
and may be a step forward in reaching the result desired
by the Supreme Court as expressed in the Green cases.
I am not going to burden the Court with much about
the matters of evidence about the situation in Scotland
Neck and the matters before the legislature. They are
in the record. We will file a brief which will cover most
of those points. I think it will cover most of the points
that I am going to discuss; therefore, I doubt if it is
necessary for the members of the Court to make notes
unless there are some things that they wish specifically
to record.
[106] This is an exceedingly unusual case. I have read
many cases and I have never found one exactly like it.
I don’t know of any case on the books that so nearly fits
into the pattern which seems to be required by the series
of Green cases.
I am going to end up by stating my conclusion that the
most favorable situs for curing the inertia or fears which
defeated freedom, of choice is the small community school
with a nearly even racial balance and with widespread,
enthusiastic community support will prove that Scotland
Neck is a proving-ground for a realistic theory of tre
mendous importance.
The main thrust of my argument is an analysis of the
series of Green cases, May 17 or 27, 1968. Those are the
critical decisions governing the issue in this case, and I
think that we must bring our case within those decisions.
The main thing that will be argued today will be not
the question of school policy. We insist that that is a
matter for legislative decision. The legislature has spoken
on that; and whether it’s wise or unwise to set up small
school districts or to try to get very large, consolidated
districts is a matter of State policy, and State policy must
978
be elastic and it must respond to conditions as they oc
cur. And it could very well be that as [107] conditions
exist today, racial conditions, rebellion conditions, condi
tions as to what should be put into a school and how
much the school should be devoted to social activities and
how much to work, they are matters that change and
they are matters that may well justify action toward the
establishment of small schools in local communities where
the people— as Mr. Powell, the Negro member of the Scot
land Neck Board says, “ The people can have more in
fluence on the schools. They can be felt.” Mr. Powell
moved back from New York, works in Rocky Mount, and
lives in Scotland Neck, because he feels that he can work
better and live better in a small community. That’s one
of the features of this case.
Now let me go very hurriedly over some of my notes,
beginning before 1969. And I am going right straight to
the main issue of this case. Before 1969 we thought that
freedom of choice offered a fine settlement of the racial
school issue. That’s the only settlement that is a perma
nent, possible settlement, because it gives the freedom for
which this Nation stands; and freedom of choice is the
desired end, and we thought that that had disposed of
the matter. But we found that that didn’t dispose of the
matter. And Pm not quarreling with what the Supreme
Court did, but the Supreme Court in the Green cases
went very deep, and I have never seen any [108] an-
anlysis that goes quite as deep as I think this Court will
have to go.
The Supreme Court said it is not sufficient to destroy
and knock out the State law that requires segregation.
That gives the opportunity. We thought that when you
opened the doors of the school to anybody that would
come in regardless of race, that that answered the Brown
cases. That was the destruction of the legal barrier. As
I understand the Supreme Court in the Green case, it
said that the legal barrier which has been imposed in the
past has left a structure which will have to be changed,
and that structure that was caused because of that legal
barrier is the Negro school and the white school; and the
proof, as I understand the Green case, the proof that
979
freedom of choice has not worked is that after two or
three years in the Virginia and Arkansas and Tennessee
cases— there was the Green case and two other cases de
cided the same day— that where a lot of students had a
choice, that the white students in the prior white schools
did not shift to the Negro schools, and very, very few of
the Negroes shifted to the white schools.
Now, in the Green case they said that what had been a
Negro school and after freedom of choice was still 85%
Negro, was still a Negro school. They said in [109] the
Raney case the same thing. They said in the Monroe
case that the same existed where there were only 80%.
As a matter of fact, the words they used in the Monroe
case was that with 80%, just something more than 80%
remaining Negroes, it was still— and I quote— “com
pletely a Negro school.”
Now, what I am going to conclude with is that if this
Statute is stricken down, you are not going to be able to
have one single unitary school, because the percentage is
going to be 80% or more Negroes in the county school
district, and the only way you can have a unitary school
in the county school district is to establish this as a
unitary school. And this will be a model. But I am get
ting a little ahead of myself.
Let me go back to the Green case. The Green case says
—and this is the final gist of what it says. It says the
burden on a school board today is to come forward with
a plan that promises realistically to work, and promises
realistically to work now. I want to underscore that. I
think that is the key phrase.
There are in my opinion two turning points in this
case. The first turning point occurred when the Scotland
Neck City Board of Education filed its First Amended
Answer after the August hearings. In the August hear
ings this Court had pointed to two things to which it
[110] did not give its approval. Number 1: that approxi
mately 300 white students had come in from outside the
Scotland Neck districts and about 90 Negro students had
gone out, and the Court was worried about what it called
“a white refuge.” It also was concerned about the tui
tion, the amount of the tuition. We took counsel on that
980
and filed the First Further Answer. We then ran a pub
lic advertisement signed by all of the members of the
school board. And we have presented witnesses here who
were accepted, and on these points were not asked a
single question by the Government or by the Court. When
they said that we propose to run a unitary school confined
only to the residents of Scotland Neck, that will mean a
unitary school with 57% white and 43% Negro; and we
will confine transfers to those which may be according
to a plan approved by the Court. So the handling of
transfers, the handling of tuition, are matters within
the Court’s breast. And what we are talking about is an
entirely different thing than we were talking about in
August.
Incidentally, let me say that Mr. Kennedy was gra
cious enough yesterday afternoon to give me a 32-page
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and
Proposed Order. I read it last night. It is a skillful
document produced by able men. But in that total docu
ment there is not one reference to the First Further
[111] Answer or to the advertisement that was run.
There is not one reference to the placing of the transfers
and tuition in the hands of the Court. As a matter of
fact, that document would have this Court say— and ex
cept for time, I would point the paragraphs out, but I
haven’t got time. That document would have this Court
sav— and he’s speaking as of today— would have this
Court say that the Statute would siphon off approxi
mately one-third of the white students in the Halifax
County School District. That would mean that it would
siphon off approximately 750 or 800 students. Now, that’s
speaking in terms of August. That’s not speaking in
terms of December. And he would have this Court say
just that in his Findings, and he completely ignored that
one turning point.
The other turning point is the Green case. Now, bear
in mind that the Court had said that those schools did
not meet the criteria of unitary schools, because they
were still completely Negro schools. Now, they say that
a plan that is proposed must promise realistically to
work, and promise realistically to work now. Now, that
is said by the Supreme Court of the United States. In
981
the first place I am not going to permit myself to be
lieve that that Court said something that it did not be
lieve, and in the next place I know that that Court is ex
ceedingly skilled in the use of words. Now, what does
[112] “ realistically” mean? As defined in an Oxford
Dictionary, an old one, realism is, quote, “ Dealing with
things as they are.” Webster: “ Realism is preoccupation
with fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and
the visionary.” So the Supreme Court has said to deal
with things as they are and to discard the impractical
and the visionary. And I propose, if I can do so, to
argue this case realistically and not theoretically.
But let’s look at the Green case. The Green case said
that when freedom of choice did not work. It didn’t an
alyze completely, but it did have a statement in there
that very plainly indicated the reasons they thought it
had not worked. And that is what I would pray that this
Court consider and think about very deeply. Why didn’t
freedom of choice work? It didn’t work in the three cases
in the Green case; it didn’t work in Scotland Neck, be
cause we came up after three years of freedom of choice
and we had less than 10% Negroes in the Scotland Neck
School. And the Green case very plainly says and refers
—and we will refer to that in the brief and give the page
citation— that only those Negro parents or only those
Negro students had transferred who were courageous
enough, and I underscore the word “ courageous”— cour
ageous enough to go against the established precedent,
the precedent established under long compelled segrega
tion.
[113] In the opinion in the Green case there is a foot
note which gives about half a page copying a report
from the Department of Health, Education, and Wel
fare in which they assign alleged reasons why the chil
dren did not exercise freedom of choice: because freedom
of choice failed— and that’s obvious; I didn’t think it
was necessary to say that— because the children or their
parents, the parents of the Negro children, did not see
fit to take advantage of the opportunity, and the white
parents and children did not take advantage of the op
portunity to shift to a Negro school. So it was a ques
982
tion of choice. And in this listing as a footnote in the
Green case, the first reason is fear— fear of retaliation.
Now, what we are now dealing with is not a question
of law, it’s not a question of fact; it’s a question of
attitude. Freedom of choice failed because of attitude,
and it failed because of the attitude which was certainly
impelled by fear to some extent, required courage, and
a large degree of inertia was present. And, therefore,
the only thing that you can say toward which the Green
case is directed, is a change of attitude. What is needed
is a convincing frame of mind, a frame of mind in the
Negroes convinced that they can attend a truly mixed
school, a unitary school, and they can attend it in peace
and contentment and with educational profit. That must
be [114] the attitude toward which the Green case is
directed. And the white students must have the same
attitude that they can attend unitary schools, mixed
schools, and they can attend with safety and content
ment and with educational profit.
Now, what the Green case says to me is that that
attitude is what caused freedom of choice to fail; and
in order to permit freedom of choice to succeed, that
attitude must be changed. And if and when that atti
tude— I’ll strike out the “ if,” because we can’t contem
plate the horror of a situation where that attitude isn’t
changed. When that attitude is changed, then freedom
of choice can be restored and this Country can again be
a free Country, and parents and children will be free
to exercise their own option.
We are caught now in an inconsistent situation. In
a country where freedom is our motto and where every
body is crying “ Freedom,” we are denying children free
dom of choice. Now, I’m not complaining about it; I’m
not saying that the Green case isn’t sound when it said
that the cause of the failure is attitude, that the children
were lacking courage to take advantage of their oppor
tunity. But we must change that attitude. Now, how
are you going to change an attitude? You can’t change
an attitude with a sledge hammer or with an injunction.
You’ve [115] got to change something in the mind. You
can change an attitude only by starting to work with
983
individuals. And when you work with individuals, that
means people, persons, living in a community.
Now, what is possible in this case? How can you get
a change of attitude in Halifax County which will lead
the Negroes to be content to go to mixed schools and
lead the white children content to go to mixed schools?
Well, I say the only way you can change the attitude is
by trying it. And how are you going to try it? Well,
the best way to try it and the best place to try it is in
a school where the races are nearly equally mixed. If
they are not mixed, then you haven’t had a real demon
stration of the ability of the Negro children and the
white children to get along together. Because if you’ve
got in the neighborhood of 75% to 80% white, you’ve
got a white school, you haven’t got a unitary school. If
you’ve got 75% or 80% Negro, you’ve got a Negro school.
So I say that the best place to start to change that atti
tude and to take the desired step forward is in a small
community.
I refer again to some language in the Green case. The
Green case says in substance that where freedom of
choice has not worked— and bear in mind in the Green
case they had one big white school here and another big
Negro school there— where freedom of choice has not
worked, [116] a look must be had to other expedients
such as zoning. Well, that’s precisely what we are doing
here— zoning. We are taking a county where it would
be impossible to establish anything except predominantly
Negro schools. That is the County Board situation— 78%
Negro. And there has been a zoning which has been
confined to the city limits of Scotland Neck, and it ap-
plies_ only to the children living and raised in that com
munity; and the result of that zoning is the remarkable
situation that hasn’t existed in any case that I have
seen of almost a perfect ratio for demonstration of the
lack of the need for fear. Now, you not only have that
perfect situation there, but you’ve got a very unusual
community. I know of no case that has come up with
the proof of what Scotland Neck has as a community,
and that is a community that is determined to make
this work. The community is behind this effort. It’s up
984
to Scotland Neck to prove to Halifax County, to prove
to the State, that in an eastern county in Eastern North
Carolina you can have a successful, harmonious mixed
school with the ratio nearly even. And they are deter
mined to make it work, they are determined to maintain
the contact between the parents and the teachers and the
administration and the students; they can preserve or
der. I’m not saying it will work, I don’t know whether
it will or not. But I am saying this: I am saying that
under the [117] conditions that are proven, looking at
them realistically, you’ve got a better chance of demon
strating the feasibility of a mixed school in Eastern
North Carolina than you would have in any other possi
ble arrangement in the Halifax County School Board of
Education territory.
Now, I said I felt the duty to myself and to my client
and to this Court to argue this case realistically. Now,
what are the realistics? What is realism about what’s
going to happen if this Statute is stricken? The record
is replete with evidence, deplorable, to be deplored, but
almost sure to happen that there will be a mass move
ment of white students from Scotland Neck to private
schools; such a mass movement that your percentage in
the county of white students will be lowered. And you
are going to come out— if this is stricken down, and you
try to have mixed schools in that Halifax area, you are
going to come out almost certainly with a ratio greater
than 80% which the Supreme Court has said are all-
Negro schools, and you will not have any satisfactory
demonstration in that area and in that county that white
students and Negro students can go together peacefully
and with contentment and with pride.
Now, I deplore that situation; the people of Scotland
Neck deplore that situation. The evidence is replete that
one of the objectives in the passage of this [118] Statute
— this comes from Mr. Harrison, it comes from the
Chairman of the Board. One of the objectives was to
forestall the movement which has already started toward
private schools. Now, I don’t think it needs any proof.
I think that the members of this Court are thoroughly
familiar with the extent of that movement. It’s going
985
on everywhere. I’m not saying that there isn’t a place
in our system for private schools; I think there is; but
the place primarily is for unusual children, either ex
traordinarily brilliant or extraordinarily slow. There is
a place for private schools. But if the private schools
suddenly grow and grow as it now appears that they
are going to grow, then the public schools in North Caro
lina are going to be practically destroyed. That’s the
dilemma that this Court faces.
There has already been— it’s in our newspaper arti
cles, and the Court knows it: There has already been
a very decided tendency on the part of people through
out this State to vote against school taxes. If you look
at it realistically, they take the attitude that they are
fed up with public schools run by the United States
Government or the United States Courts. You recently
saw a vital bond issue in Wilson County utterly de
feated; you have seen a bond issue in Wake County and
the City of Raleigh that was of vital importance, and
neither board of [119] education has the courage to sub
mit it to a public vote now.
The private school situation is a dreadful alternative,
but it’s one. Now, the Government in its argument, in
it’s brief, says that according to law you cannot retard
integration because of the threat of private schools, and
passes it off that way as though the problem wasn’t here.
But the Supreme Court says “ realistically,” and says
that the plan must promise realistically to work now.
You can’t have a plan unless you do consider the private
schools. And what I am saying is that with this Scotland
Neck plan, you’ve got the potential of the only demon
stration which the Green case says must be had in order
to remove those fears that have prevented or have caused
freedom of choice to fail; and this is the only chance
they’ve got.
There were a lot of other things that I wanted to
cover, but I am about through. You have been very pa
tient, and I am beginning to tire. I have already com
mented on the turn of this case when the First Further
Answer was filed, in which we said, Here is a unitary
unit and that expansion may be only as the Court may
986
approve. I have already commented on the fact that the
Government has blinked that fact and in its 32-page
brief hasn’t even referred to either the First Further
Answer, to the [120] advertisement that was run, or to
that chairman that was on that stand, Mr. Shields, or
to those four school board members over there. I do call
attention to the fact with respect to Mr. Shield’s testi
mony and with the other members, including the Negro
member Mr. Powell, who voted by raised hands that they
concurred in Mr. Shield’s testimony, the Government
asked them not one single question. Does that mean
that the Government isn’t interested in the local com
munity, is not interested in the local conditions, is not
interested in the community support, is not interested in
the objectives of a school committee? And I might say
— and I say this not with apology, but with reservations
— that I think the Court was convinced of what they
said. _ The Court asked them not one question, except one
question as to the capacity of the school, as I recall it.
I also comment on the fact that, although you have a
tremendous document about the intervention before you,
we have proceeded through the injunction hearing, we
have proceeded through this hearing, and the Govern
ment hasn’t called a single Negro resident of Scotland
Neck or a single Negro resident of Halifax County to
the stand in the Scotland Neck case. Now, we had one.
We put Mr. Powell on the stand. We swore him in and
had him testify by raised hand that he agreed with Mr.
Shields. [121] The Government asked Mr. Powell not
one single question.
Now, I am about through, but I do want to say this:
I f you are realistic— and you must be realistic; the Su
preme Court has said you must, and reason and logic
and justice says that you must— you’ve got to look at
this Scotland Neck community. I think this evidence
shows, and the depositions show, that you have an un
usual community in Scotland Neck. I think the evidence
shows that their views, I think, are the right views.
They ̂ recognize that the future of this Country, and
certainly the future of Scotland Neck, depends upon co
operation and understanding and good relations between
987
the Negroes and the whites. They know that the whites
in Scotland Neck need the Negroes. The Negroes in Scot
land Neck know that they need the whites. Both races
need the high degree of self respect, mutual respect and
cooperation; and we offer here and now to prove it in
Scotland Neck. As I say, I don’t know what the result
will be, but I say that you’ve got a better chance of
proving the undoing— and I’m glad to say the courts
have stopped talking about integration. They have start
ed talking now about the “ undoing of the relics of State-
imposed segregation.” And you’ve got the best chance
here of undoing those relics than you have had in any
place that I have known of, and that you can have in
Eastern North Carolina. I have a very great deal of
deep feeling about [122] that. I married a girl who was
from a Scotland Neck family, and for 34 years I spent
some of the happiest days of my life there. They are my
people. I have danced at their weddings and have helped
them bury their dead. And I implore you to give them
a chance.
This Court, I say, has a tremondous opportunity and
a dreadful responsibility. You have the opportunity of
taking a step forward toward good relations, a step to
ward removing the remnants of State-imposed segrega
tion, removing the fear on the part of students to shift
or to go to mixed schools. You’ve also got the dreadful
danger that if this Statute is stricken down, the people
of Scotland Neck and the people of North Carolina are
going to be so disappointed and so frustrated that the
racial relations will not be improved; they will be greatly
worsened. And because of the knowledge of this Court,
of North Carolina and its people, that total responsibility
rests on just two district judges. It doesn’t rest on the
Circuit Court of Appeals, it doesn’t rest on the Supreme
Court of the United States; because you know the peo
ple, you know the conditions. And I say to you that I
am convinced that a decision upholding this Statute
would not only be a great step in the improvement of
racial relations, which is absolutely necessary in our
whole Country; not only a good step in that direction, but
[123] it would relieve this Court of a great burden and
988
would make its path easier in the administration of the
law.
Thank you very much for your kind attention.
JUDGE BUTLER: Col. Joyner, this Court, as you
are aware, feels the burden of its responsibility in this
case as well as in other similar cases, very keenly. Judge
Larkins and I have some dozen or more of these cases
involving, of course, different situations, different coun
ties, different ratios. When we come to geographical
zoning within counties, we have zones that reflect differ
ent ratios. And it is of great concern to the judges who
bear the responsibility for the decisions.
Now, we have the responsibility to try, as best we can,
to apply the constitutional principles as we understand
them.
Now, we have been discussing largely the result of
this Act with respect to a certain area surrounding Scot
land Neck and the resident students within that area.
Now, what effect would upholding the constitutionality
of this Act have upon other students within the confines
of Halifax County for whom this Court must, of course,
give the same consideration? What are the results to
the other students and the educational system in the
remaining portion of the county?
[124] COL. JOYNER: Well, I have very strong opin
ion on that. I have the opinion that the thing that all
of the students in the Halifax County school distirct need
most is the demonstration to them that Negro students
and white students can get along peaceably and profit
ably in a school, and that you cannot have that demon
stration except by this special school district.
I think it would have this effect: I think that if it
succeeds— and it’s got the best chance of succeeding of
any other mixed school— if it succeeds, the other children
in Scotland Neck in the other schools, where there are
80% Negroes and 20% white, will be spurred on by the
observation of the success in the Scotland Neck School.
I think the white students will be more content to go to
the predominantly Negro schools. I think the Negro stu
dents will be more tolerant of the white students be
cause of what they see in Scotland Neck. I think the
989
people in the county will be more willing to continue to
live in the county. And I think this, your Honor: I
think that other people, other white people if you please,
will be willing to move into the county. And if you
don’t do something to stop the flight of white students
to private schools, you are going to have a situation just
like you have in Washington, D. C. And I think it would
improve the [125] atmosphere throughout the whole
county. It would show them that the United States Gov
ernment is interested in dealing realistically with a prob
lem in approving a demonstration that the two races can
work together. And I think it would have a very bene
ficial effect. I think, on the other hand— and now I am
just repeating myself— if you don’t do that, it is going
to have a very bad effect. I don’t think there is any
question but that a mass movement of white students
from a predominantly Negro school in a Negro county
is going to stop the growth of that county. It’s going
to almost destroy their public schools, and people are
not going to move into the county. I think the fate of
the county hangs on this decision.
JUDGE LARKINS: May I supplement what Judge
Butler said in his inquiry? You may not be aware of
it, but at the conclusion of this case, I have set a hear
ing for the Halifax County Board of Education upon
its plan which has been submitted which follows the
recommendations of the State School Survey Plan which
was filed December 1, 1968. Among the papers which
were submitted to me is correspondence between Mr.
Lunsford Crew, Senator Crew, representing the county,
and the State School Survey team, in which he asks them
to reexamine the recommended interim plan of Decem
ber 1, 1968, and bring it up to date; and he was success
ful in getting a very prompt reply, which [126] is in
the record. He has attached to the proposed plan a map
of Halifax County which will show the projected school
population in the various schools in the county, many of
which result percentagewise 98% black and 3% white.
This plan was approved by the Government at the pre
trial conference which you attended in my office when
Mr. Kennedy announced that this plan was then ac
ceptable, and this is the plan which the board has now,
I would say reluctantly, submitted to the Court, but it
is at least the plan that has met the approval of the
Department of Justice.
Now, following what Judge Butler says, if you look
at this map that Mr. Crew has attached to the plan
which shows the results of it, to uphold the Act creating
the Scotland Neck School District and confining it to
the geographic confines of the town, would result in a
greater disproportion than if it were not adopted. Be
cause you will find that immediately on the outside
where some family may live, as I can conceive, a family
living right outside the confines of the town whose eaves
might drip over into the town would be deprived of ad
mission into the Scotland Neck School and may have to
go many miles distance to a school unless, as you propose,
this Court take each application for admission and pass
upon them, which would be very burdensome.
[127] COL. JOYNER: No. Our suggestion is a plan
to be submitted to the Court, and the Court then could
provide general regulations which would prevent such
distortion as the Court desired to prevent. You could
limit the transfers. And about the question of the Scot
land Neck plans, if the Court should approve the consti
tutionality of this Statute, I doubt if Scotland Neck
could get into operation before September. Now, that
I don’t know, but that would be my idea. And the strik
ing down of this Statute is going to increase the ratio of
Negroes, unquestionably, because there are going to be
a great many white students that will leave Scotland
Neck and possibly other parts of the county, but I’m
speaking of Scotland Neck. And I think involved here
is the preservation of the public schools and the preserva
tion of the city and the preservation of the county. I
think you are going down the drain if your schools go
down the drain.
JUDGE BUTLER: Have you given any consideration
to the schools in Halifax County outside of the Scotland
Neck city administrative unit?
COL. JOYNER: I thought I had talked about them
a great deal. I have given a lot of consideration to it.
I think that they will be no worse off proportionately,
990
991
and they will be much better off if they see a mixed
school [128] set up in Scotland Neck and working.
JUDGE BUTLER: In other words, the example which
you say would be set by this harmonious relationship
within this administrative unit would benefit the county
from a psychological standpoint?
COL. JOYNER: Yes, sir, it certainly would. It
would help to remove the one thing which has caused
freedom of choice to fail, and that is fear.
JUDGE LARKINS: Well, wouldn’t that be predicated
upon the some 250-odd Negro students who now reside
within the confines of the Town of Scotland Neck stay
ing in?
COL. JOYNER: It contemplates that very definitely.
JUDGE LARKINS: Have you through Mr. Powell
had any assurance that these parents and children would
be satisfied with that?
COL. JOYNER: Your Honor, I am reasonably sure
they would not be satisfied, because they want to con
tinue to go to an all-Negro school. Now, I say that is
just exactly what the unanimous court in the Green case
said; that if freedom of choice doesn’t work— and it
hasn’t worked, because the Negroes haven’t transferred
to Scotland Neck— if freedom of choice doesn’t work,
you may have to go to some plan such as zoning. Now,
when you go [129] to zoning, as I understand what they
meant by going to zoning, you draw an area and you
say, Now, all the children in that area must go to the
schools in that area, which incidentally I think is the
best thing that can happen to students— to go to school
where they live. But I undoubtedly think that to start
with there are a lot of Negro parents that won’t be
satisfied. I know there are a lot of white parents that
won’t be satisfied. But I am saying that the Scotland
Neck community is prepared to help work down those
satisfactions and have a truly unitary school that will
promise realistically to work now. And I say that’s the
only way you are going to get it.
JUDGE LARKINS: Well, let me refer you to the
proposed plan which I will hear, I hope sometime today
or at least tomorrow; and this is the State School Sur
992
vey Plan which was submitted a year ago but which
has now been projected. It may be subject to some change.
But here’s what I direct your attention to. Let me only
inject this: that if the plan is acceptable— and the De
partment of Justice announced in October that it was—
the Scotland Neck Schools would be the tenth through
the twelfth grades with 482 Negroes, 198 whites, with
a capacity of 675, and transfers total 680. So you have
the exact capacity to take care of them. Brawley, one
through nine, you would [130] have— now, of course,
these are projected figures— 304 Negroes, 284 whites, for
a capacity of 944 with transfers and assignments of 907.
So you would have full capacity. In the ninth grade
there would be the greatest disproportionment with 252
Negroes and 67 whites.
Now, this proposed plan would encompass not only all
of Scotland Neck, but Brawley and the Bakers School
which would be some distance east outside of Scotland
Neck. But in this proposed plan Bakers, one through
eight, would have 357 Negroes and only 9 whites. And
on the other side of the outside of Scotland Neck you
would have Dawson just to the west, grades one through
eight, with 388 Negroes and 60 white. So regardless of
what happens to Scotland Neck, immediately to the east
and immediately to the west you are going to have al
most a 90-10 ratio in Dawson and worse than that at
Bakers with 357 to 9. And as you move on out in the
county, about the only one that I can find where your
theory as you advance it would be Aurelian Springs, 250
to 377.
So as Judge Butler has indicated, what’s going to
happen to the children in the remainder of the county
if this Scotland Neck Bill is found to be constitutional
and stands, affecting only the children who happen to be
fortunate enough to reside— their parents— in the Town
of Scotland Neck?
[131] COL. JOYNER: I think I am repeating myself
now, your Honor, but I think that what will happen, if
you look at it realistically, is only good. I think that
the declaring of this Statute constitutional is not going
to impair the percentage of white students attending the
993
schools in the district outside of Scotland Neck. I think
it is not going to impair that. Because I think if you
declare it unconstitutional, many of those students are
not going. I think that it can’t hurt them, and I think
it may help them very much to have a neighboring place
where they can see members of both races working to
gether harmoniously. And that’s what we are really
striving for.
JUDGE LARKINS: I didn’t want to belabor you
with this. But percentagewise you would have about the
same relation here with the Brawley and Scotland Neck
schools under this plan as you would have in the Town
of Scotland Neck.
COL. JOYNER: No, sir. In the first place, where
you’ve got a much higher relationship than Scotland
Neck’s, you’ve got two other very great drawbacks.
You’ve got several very great drawbacks. In the first
place, you’ve got the drawback of artificially busing stu
dents out of the Scotland Neck area into another area
for the purpose of creating a ratio. And you are arti
ficially [132] busing students into Scotland Neck. In
the second place, you are not going to have those ratios.
I think if you are realistic about it, you can look at the
counties that have private schools, and you can look at
the record in this case and you know that many of those
white students that are carried from Scotland Neck to
the neighboring Negro schools are going to private
schools. In the third place— and I think probably this
is the most important— you are not going to have the
determination in the Scotland Neck area or in the other
areas of the parents and of all of the citizens to make
the plan work.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken from 1:00 P. M.
until 2:00 P. M.)
* * * *
994
[Caption Omitted]
M e m o r a n d u m O p in io n a n d Order
LARKINS, District Judge:
This cause came before the Court upon the filing of
the plaintiff’s complaint on June 16, 1969 attacking the
constitutionality of Chapter 31 of the North Carolina Ses
sion Laws of 1969, a local act which carved out of the
Halifax County, North Carolina school system a separate
administrative unit for the operation of the schools in
Scotland Neck, North Carolina. In its complaint, the
plaintiff also challenge the constitutionality of defendant
Halifax County Board of Education’s pupil assignment
plan on the grounds that the plan failed to establish a
unitary nonracial school system as required by the man
date of the United States Supreme Court.
Now before this Court for its consideration is a Motion
for Leave to Intervene filed by Pattie Black Cotton, Ed
ward M. Francis and others, two public school teachers
in Halifax County and a number of minor school children
of the Scotland Neck City School System and the Littleton-
Lake Gaston School System on behalf of themselves and
all other black or Negro public school teachers, parents
and students similarly situated. The intervenors, for
reasons known only to themselves, waited until the morn
ing of December 17, 1969, the day on which this Court
had scheduled a trial on the merits of the constitutional
questions presented in this action, to file their motion.
They name as parties the original defendants and the fol
lowing proposed additional defendants: Mr. W. Henry
Overman, Superintendent of the Halifax County Schools;
the Board of Commissioners of Halifax County, a public
body corporate; the Scotland Neck City Board of Educa
tion, a public body corporate, and Franklin B. Bailey,
Superintendent of the Scotland Neck City Schools; the
Littleton-Lake Gaston School District, a public body cor
porate, and Russell N. Manning, Superintendent of the
Littleton-Lake Gaston School District; and the North
Carolina State Board of Education, a public body cor
995
porate, and Dr. Craig Phillips, North Carolina State
Superintendent of Public Instruction.
In their motion, the intervenors show the Court that
the contentions in their complaint have questions of law
and fact in common with the contentions of the plaintiff
in this action and that the relief sought could be granted
as part of the relief given the original plaintiff. They
also show that the United States as plaintiff has not
set forth certain available grounds for complaint that oc
curred subsequent to the filing of the complaint. The mo
tion also states that the prospective intervenors opposed
the passage of the local acts creating separate school dis
tricts in Halifax and Warren Counties and that they now
desire to show the racial motivations behind the passage
of those acts.
In their proposed 32-page complaint the intervenors
seek injunctive relief against the operation of the separate
administrative units and against the assignment of stu
dents and faculty on the basis of color along the same
lines as prayed for in the original complaint filed by the
United States. They also seek to have the black teachers
treated in accord with a national Code of Ethics adopted
by the National Education Association and seek injunc
tive relief against the termination of contracts and cer
tain operational and curriculum changes. They wish to
have declared unconstitutional the local acts passed by
the North Carolina legislature and the alleged policy of
punishing black teachers who take disciplinary action
against white students.
The intervenors also show the Court that Pattie Black
Cotton, a Negro teacher, has been subjected to charges
which “ have created doubt and uncertainty as to (her)
professional, legal and ethical rights.” Specifically, it is
alleged that she was subjected to criminal sanctions for
assaulting a white student with a ruler and was required
to appear at a hearing which would determine whether
she would be entitled to continue her employment. It is
also alleged that a white teacher testified at this hearing
in violation of the professional Code of Ethics.
The complaint also states that the plaintiff Edward M.
Francis, a Negro, was a Trade and Industrial teacher in
996
the Town of Scotland Neck from 1967 until June 3, 1969,
at which time his employment was terminated because of
the creation of the Scotland Neck administrative unit and
the consequent elimination of certain trade courses from
the curriculum of the Scotland Neck schools. The Halifax
County school system is still operating the school but has
failed to re-employ the prospective plaintiff.
The complaint additionally defines the positions of the
proposed defendants and states the alleged grounds upon
which they should be made parties to the action. There is
also a lengthy discussion on the background and circum
stances surrounding the passage of the local acts which
created the separate administrative units.
At the hearing on the constitutional issues on December
18, 1969, this Court requested that Mr. James R. Walker,
Jr., counsel for the intervenors submit a concise statement
in which he set forth the reasons for which he sought inter
vention and why the interests of the prospective interven
ors were not being adequately represented by the United
States. On December 19, 1969, counsel filed a two-page
document entitled “ Further Contentions For Interven
tion” which essentially summarized some of the conten
tions in the complaint and stated that the intervenors had
additional information that had not been brought to the
attention of the Court, that the intervention would not be
a burden since the factual allegations are matters of rec
ord, that the questions raised by Pattie B. Cotton may
be deferred as a separate matter and that the applicants
for intervention are persons affected by the Court’s deci
sion and are persons who must help implement any deci
sion the Court might make.
On December 19, 1969, during a hearing on the pro
posed plan of desegregation submitted by the Halifax
County Board of Education this Court read into the rec
ord the “ Further Contentions” submitted by counsel for
the prospective intervenors and directed that responses to
the Motion for Leave to Intervene and the “ Further Con
tentions” be filed by Tuesday, December 22, 1969. The
Court received responses as follows: On December 22nd,
the Court received the response of the North Carolina
State Board of Education and Dr. A. Craig Phillips; on
997
December 23rd, the Court received the response of the
Halifax County Board of Education, the Intervenors Re
ply to Objections to Intervention and a telephone call
from counsel for the Board of Commissioners of Halifax
County requesting an extension until January 1, 1970, in
which to respond to the motion; on December 24th, the
Court received the response of the Scotland Neck City
Board of Education; on December 26th, the Court re
ceived a Memorandum in Opposition from counsel for the
United States. After consideration of the pleadings, the
Court set oral argument on the objections to the proposed
intervention to be heard on Friday, January 2, 1970, at
12:00 noon in Chambers at Trenton, North Carolina, and
directed the Clerk to send notices to that effect to all par
ties and counsel of record.
The essence of the objections on the part of those par
ties opposing the intervention is that the motion is not
timely and that the interests of those seeking interven
tion are being adequately represented by the United States
as plaintiff. The opponents cite Rule 24 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure relating to intervention. They
also suggest that there are no questions of law or fact in
common with those of this action with respect to those as
pects of the proposed complaint in intervention which
deal with issues not already presented in the action. The
opponents further argue that to permit intervention
would cause undue delay and prejudice to the existing
parties in that the intervenors had the information nec
essary for the preparation of their motion several months
prior to the time they actually filed it and yet waited
until the day on which the Court was commencing the
trial on the merits to present their claims. The memor
andum submitted by the United States suggests that the
contentions relating to certain individual faculty members
or former faculty members are the only ones on which
the proposed plaintiffs are not now receiving adequate
representation and that these contentions present no im
mediate problems. Therefore, suggests the Government,
these contentions could be taken under advisement without
necessitating a delay in this Court’s rendering a decision
on the desegregation and constitutional aspects of the
case.
998
In rebuttal, the proponents of the intervention contend
that delay is not a valid reason for denying intervention
since the case has been pending only six months and the
other matters could be decided immediately without
denying intervention. They suggest that they are neces
sary parties and the real parties in interest and point
out that they are seeking relief and damages not prayed
for in the original complaint.
At the hearing on January 2nd, this Court was inform
ed that notices had been sent to all parties and counsel
of record except Mr. William McLean, attorney for the
Littleton-Lake Gaston School District. The Court directed
that he be served with the motion and the complaint in
intervention and that he be given five days from January
2nd in which to file a response. The Court talked with
Mr. McLean by telephone on January 7th and was in
formed that a response had been deposited in the mails
on January 6th. The response was received on January
8th at which time the matter became ready for this
Court’s ruling.
After a full consideration of the pleadings and oral ar
gument of counsel, this Court concludes that the pro
posed complaint in intervention does raise some questions
with respect to the status of some faculty members that
were not raised in the original complaint and that should
properly be considered as relevant to this action. The
Court also feels that to allow the intervention would not
unduly prejudice the rights of the other parties to this
action. Therefore, the Motion for Leave to Intervene shall
be allowed.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE, in accordance with the foregoing,
it is:
ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Intervene be,
and the same hereby is, allowed;
FURTHED ORDERED that the original defendants
and the additional defendants named in the complaint in
intervention are hereby ordered to answer or otherwise
plead within 20 days in accordance with Rule 12 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
999
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a
copy of this MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
upon all counsel of record.
Let this ORDER be entered forthwith.
/ s / [Illegible]
[Illegible]
United States District Judge
TRENTON, NORTH CAROLINA
January 9th, 1970
l[Caption Omitted]
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
FIRST COUNT
1
That the Intervening Plaintiffs admit each and all of
the allegations of the Original Complaint herein and adopt
the same as if herein made and in addition thereto, the ,
Plaintiffs allege as follows:
JURISDICTION
2. The jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to
Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1342, this being a suit in equity
authorized by law, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983,
to be commenced by any citizen of the United States or
other persons within the jurisdiction thereof to redress
the deprivation under color of statute, ordinance, regula
tion, custom or usage of a State of rights, privileges and
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the
United States. The rights, privileges and immunities
sought herein to be redressed are those secured by the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Four
teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.
Jurisdiction of the Court is also invoked under Title
28, United States Code, Sections 2201 and 2202, this being
a suit for a Declaratory Judgment declaring the rights
privileges and immunities and the unconstitutionality of
State statutes and actions as will hereinafter appear.
3. This is a proceeding for a temporary restraining
order and a permanent injunction as follows;
1. enjoining the Halifax County Board of Educa
tion, the Littleton-Lake Gaston School District, the
Scotland Neck City Board of Education and their
members and their Superintendents from issuing or
enforcing any order or directive individually or in
concert, requiring the plaintiff-students or any other
students similarly situated, to attend any school or
submit to any school administrative unit other than
1000
1001
the Halifax County Board of Education and schools
operated by the Halifax County Board of Education
and,
2. enjoining the Halifax County Board of Educa
tion and its members and Superintendent and all
other persons acting in concert or participation with
them or at their direction from continuing the policy,
practice, custom and usage of discriminating against
the plaintiff-students and teachers and members of
their class because of race or color, in the assignment
of students and teachers and in the hiring, assigning,
dismissing or refusing to hire teachers and other
school personnel in the Halifax County School Ad
ministrative Unit on the basis of race or color.
3. Enjoining the Halifax County Board of Educa
tion from condoning, encouraging, accomodating or
acting in concert with white parents and teachers in
denying to Negro or black teachers in integrated
schools, the ethical treatment and professional respect
and regard for professional rights and responsibilities
as accorded white teachers and as required to be ac
corded to all teachers by the standards of the Code
of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted by
the National Education Association, and
4. Enjoining the Halifax County Board of Educa
tion from terminating teaching contracts or refusing
to rehire teachers based upon the creation of the Scot
land Neck and the Littleton-Lake Gaston School Dis
tricts hereinafter complained of.
5. Enjoining the Halifax County Board of Educa
tion from refusing to offer Trade and Industrial
Courses previously offered and terminated as a re
sult of the creation of the new school districts in
Halifax County as hereinafter complained of.
6. Enjoining the Halifax County Board of Educa
tion from ceasing to control and operate any of the
schools or school plants previously operated and need
ed by the county for the operation of its schools and
conveyed to the new school districts solely because
of the needs of the newly created school districts.
And this is a proceeding for a Declaratory Judg
ment declaring the following:
1002
a. The Act of the North Carolina General As
sembly, Chapter 31, 1969 Sessions Laws, creating the
Scotland Neck City Board of Education and Adminis
trative Unit, void and unconstitutional for reasons
hereinafter given.
b. The Act of the North Carolina General Assemb
ly, Chapter 628, 1969 Sessions Laws, creating the
Littleton-Lake Gaston School District and Adminis
trative Unit, void and unconstitutional for reasons
hereinafter given.
c. That any legislative act which achieves its pur
pose of creating school district lines drawn in such a
manner as to include the largest number of white
students and to exclude the largest number of black
or Negro students as an legislative eifort to encour
age and foster continued segregation on the basis of
race or color in the operation of the public school of
North Carolina, is void and unconstitutional.
d. That the Act and actions of the Scotland Neck
City Board of Education and the Halifax County
Board of Education and the North Carolina State
Board of Education, in extending the school district
line or boundary of the Scotland Neck City School
District so as to only include the plant and property
of the County operated Scotland Neck Junior High
School, is void and unconstitutional for reasons here
inafter given.
e. That the policy, practice, and pattern of the
Halifax County Board of Education in subjecting
Negro or black public school teachers in inte
grated schools, to frivolous, arbitrary and malici
ous “ CHARGES” and to administrative “ Hearing”
as part of the enforcement of the UNWRITTEN
LAW against black teachers, which law punishes
for the Negro or black teacher exercising disciplinary
authority against students of the opposite race, being
void and unconstitutional for reasons herein given.
4. That the Plaintiff, Pattie Black Cotton, is a Negro
or black public school teacher and a citizen of the United
States and the State of North Carolina. She is 27 years
1003
of age and presently resides with her husband and two
children in Northampton County, North Carolina. That
she has six years of teaching experience, the last four of
which were with the Halifax County Board of Educa
tion with the past two years having been assigned to
the WILLIAM R. DAVIE SCHOOL, being the first
black teacher employed in the Elementary Department
thereof and is currently assigned to a teaching position
at the WILLIAM R. DAVIE SCHOOL near Roanoke
Rapids, North Carolina. That Plaintiff, Pattie Black
Cotton possesses all the necesary qualifications for teach
ing in the public schools of the State of North Carolina
but has been the subject of criminal “ Charges” and Ad
ministrative Charges” which have created doubt and un
certainty as to the profesional, legal and ethical rights of
the Plaintiff and other black teachers similarly situated
where actions reflecting on the abilities and status of
the teacher and her competency are based on violations
of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession and
for the purpose of satisfying racists elements among
some parents and teachers.
5. That the Plaintiff, Edward M. Francis, is a Negro
or black citizens of the United States and the State of
North Carolina, residing in Enfield, Halifax County,
North Carolina. That from 1967 until his contract was
terminated by letter dated June 3rd, 1969, he was a
Trade and Industrial Teacher in the Town of Scotland
Neck. That Plaintiff, Edward M. Francis possesses all of
the qualifications for continued teaching of trade courses
in Halifax County but is presently unemployed by Hali
fax County solely because of the creation of the Scot
land Neck City Administrative Unit and the resulting
loss of certain trade courses needed by and applied for
by students in the Scotland Neck area as will herein
after appear. That Plaintiff, Edward M. Francis has
applied to Halifax County for other employment but has
not been employed.
6. That the Plaintiff, Rodney Bennett, a minor, by
his father and next friend, Lanell Bennett and the other
34 families listed in the Motion to Intervene and in the
entitlement above as Scotland Neck Residents, are resi
1004
dents within the Town limits of Scotland Neck with the
exception of Vickie Deloatch, a minor, by her parents
and next friend, Rev. and Mrs. C. M. Deloarch who are
outside the Town limits at the edge of Town. That all of
the minors and their adult next friend are Negroes and
citizens of the United States and North Carolina and
Halifax County.
7. That the Plaintiffs, ERNEST L. ALSTON, a
minor, by his grandparents and next friend, Mr. and
Mrs. Tom M. Alston and all other minors and their
adult next friend listed in the Motion to Intervene
and in the above entitlement as residing in the Littleton-
Lake Gaston School District in Halifax County, Littleton
Township, are residents of the newly created school
district, and all are citizens of the United States and
of North Carolina and the adult friends are tax payers
in Halifax County.
8. That the Defendant, HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION, is a public body corporate, organized
and esisting under the laws of the State of North Caro
lina. The Defendant Board maintains and generally
supervises the public schools of Halifax County Adminis
trative Unit, acting pursuant to direction and authority
contained in the State’s Constitution and statutory pro
visions. As such, the Board is an arm of the State of
North Carolina, enforcing and exercising State laws and
policies. Among its duties, the Defendant Board assigns
students to the various public schools and hires and
assigns teachers and professional school personal to
duties in the Halifax County Administrative Unit.
That by special act of the North Carolina Legislature,
to wit: Chapter 31, 1969 Session Laws creating the
Scatland Neck Administrative Unit and by Chapter 628,
1969 Sessions Laws, which created the Littleton-Lake
Gaston School District, the Defendant Board is given
additional duties as set forth in the 1969 legislative
acts hereinafter complained of.
That the Defendant, W. Henry Overman, is Superin
tendent of the Halifax County Schools and has been such
for more than 20 years. That as Superintendent, he is
charged with the duty, among others, of recommending
1005
teachers and professional personnel for duties and assign
ment of students to the various schools in the Halifax
County School System.
9. That the Defendant Board of County Commissioners
of Halifax County, pursuant to the laws and Constitu
tion of the State of North Carolina, is charged with pro
viding funds for the construction and maintenance of
buildings, property and facilities necessary for the oper
ation of the school system in Halifax County and with
securing and expending monies to supplement those
monies allocated and disbursed by the State of North
Carolina for the operation of the schools. That De
fendant Board of County Commissioners of Halifax Coun
ty is given special duties pursuant to the special acts of
the 1969 North Carolina General Allembly, to wit: Chap
ter 31, 1969 Sessions Laws creating the Scotland Neck
City Administrative Unit and Chapter 629, 1969 Sessions
La2s creating the Littleton-Lake Gaston School District
as hereinafter complained of.
10. That the Defendant, Scotland Neck City Board of
Education, is a public body corporate by virtue of Chap
ter 31, 1969 Sessions Laws as hereinafter complained of.
The Defendant, Franklin B. Bailey, is the elected Super
intendent for the Scotland Neck City Schools.
11. That the Littleton-Lake Gaston School District, is
a public body corporate by virtue of Chapter 628, 1969
Sessions Laws as hereinafter complained of. The Defend
ant, Russell N. Manning is the duly elected Superintend
ent of the Littleton-Lake Gaston School District.
12. That the Defendant, North Carolina State Board
of Education, is a public body corporate of the State of
North Carolina, and is charged, by virtue of the State
Constitution and the laws of the State of North Carolina,
with general supervision and administration of the edu
cational funds for all of the local boards of the State, in
cluding the Halifax County Board, the Scotland Neck
City Board and the Littleton-Lake Gaston Board of Edu
cation or District and with the division and creation
of local boards into administrative units; and the appor
tionment and division of the State funds and all funds
provided by the Federal Government for assistance to
1006
educational programs in the State which are administered
by local boards; the authority is given to accept, reecive
use or reallocate to local boards, any federal funds or aids
that may be appropriated now or hereafter for the en
couragement and improvement of any phase of the free
public school program, which in said defendant’s discre
tion, is beneficial to the operation of the public schools of
North Carolina; and is given AUTHORITY TO ALTER
THE BOUNDARIES OF ANY ADMINISTRATIVE
UNIT, and authority to provide for the enrichment and
strengthening of educational opportunities for all school
children of the State and to allot teachers to all local
boards of education of the State; authority to allot cleri
cal assistance to the various local boards of the State;
authority to determine teacher, principal and school per
sonnel certification; authority to provide library resources,
textbooks and other instructional resources for the vari
ous local boads; authority to direct and approve gener
ally, school construction for the schools and additions in
the various school systems of the State; and authority for
allocation of school buses and approval of bus routes for
the various school systems of the State.
13. That the Defendant, DR. A. CRAIG PHILLIPS,
is the duly elected State Superintendent of public in
struction of the State of North Carolina, who is the ad
ministrative head of the public school system of the State
and pursuant to the laws of the State of North Carolina,
is a member and the Secretary of the State Board of
Education. He is charged with organizing and establish
ing the State Department of Public Instruction in order
that he may supervise and administer the publis school
system of the State of North Carolina. He is charged with
making recommendations to the Governor and the State
Board of Education concerning public education within
the State of North Carolina and with administering the
instructional policies and programs of the State Board of
Education.
14. That the above named Plaintiffs bring this action
on their own behalf and on behalf of other teachers and
students similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
(b) and Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
1007
There are common questions of law and fact affecting
the rights of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
who are seeking an educational system in Halifax County
free of racially discriminatory practices, policies, customs
and the artificial racial quota achieved by the creation
of new school district lines and school units herein com
plained of, who are so numberous as to make it imprac
ticable to bring them all individually before the Court
but there are common grievances arising out of common
wrongs and common relief is sought herein for each class
and members of the class. That the claims and defenses of
the Plaintiffs are typical of the claims and defenses of the
class and classes and that the Plaintiffs fairly and ade
quately represent the interest of the class and classes.
15. What the Plaintiff, Edward M. Francis, was teach
ing the trade of carpentry at the Scotland Neck High
School from 1967 until his teaching contract was termi
nated solely because of the creation of the Scotland Neck
City Administrative Unit herein complained of. That the
letter terminating said Plaintiff’s teaching contract was
received June 5, 1969 and reading as follows:
“ Mr. Edward M. Francis
305 Bell Street Ext.
Enfield, N. C.
Dear Mr. Francis;
DUE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
SCOTLAND NECK SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE
UNIT, THE HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF ED
UCATION IN MEETING HELD ON MAY 5, 1969,
DIRECTED THAT YOU BE NOTIFIED THAT
YOUR EMPLOYMENT IN THE HALIFAX COUN
TY SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT TERMI
NATED AT THE CLOSE OF THE 1968-69
SCHOOL TERM. THIS ACTION HAS BEEN
TAKEN IN ORDER THAT YOU MAY FEEL
FREE TO APPLY FOR AND ACCEPT EMPLOY
MENT IN THE SCOTLAND NECK UNIT.
If you desire to teach in the Halifax County Ad
ministrative Unit during the 1969-70 school year,
1008
please indicate this by filling out and mailing to
the office of Superintendent of School, Halifax, N. C.
the enclosed application form. The application will
be considered in the same manner as all teachers are
employed.
Because of the fact that we shall be filling vacan
cies in the Halifax County School Unit as early as
possible, I shall appreciate it if you will return the
application form at once and not later than the close
of the school term, if you desire employment in the
Halifax County Unit.
I wish to express appreciation for the service you
have rendered while employed in the Halifax County
Administrative Unit and for the contribution you
have made to the educational program.
Sincerely yours,
S/W . Henry Overman,
Superintendent
Halifax County Schools”
WHD:ar
Enclosure
and that said Plaintiff applied for a teaching position with
the Halifax County Unit as directed but has not been
employed.
16. That the Halifax County Board of Education is
currently operating the Scotland Neck Schools pursuant
to a temporary Order of this Court but refuses and fails
to re-employ the Plaintiff, Edward M. Francis and re
fuses and fails to offer to the students the trade course
previously offered.
17. That the Plaintiffs, Edward M. Francis and the
minor student Plaintiffs described in Paragraphs 5, 6 and
7 above, have suffered irreparable damage and injury
and a invasion of their constitutional rights by the crea
tion of the Scotland Neck City Administrative Unit and
the Littleton-Lake Gaston School District and will con
tinue to suffer damages and injury unless the creation of
1009
said units is declared unconstitutional and their operation
permanently enjoined by this Court.
18. That the 1969 Session of the North Carolina Gen
eral Assembly, in order to encourage, provide for and to
perpetuate racial secregation in the black belt counties
of eastern North Carolina, set a precedent and created a
new State policy of establishing entremely small school
administrative units out of county administrative units
where there is a large black or Neegro population and to
establish the lines of the new districts in such a manner
as to include the largest number of white students and
to exclude the largest possible number of black or Negro
students, and pursuant to said new policy, did enact into
lav/, new school separation districts or units for adjoing
Halifax and Warren Counties in Eastern North Carolina.
19. That the 1969 Session of the North Carolina Gen
eral Assembly, pursuant to said policy, enacted laws
creating two new school administrative units from the
Halifax County Administrative Unit by carving out of the
eastern section of the County, the Scotland Neck City
Administrative Unit with district lines co-extensive with
the boundaries of the Town of Scotland Neck and on the
western part of the county, carving out the Littleton-
Lake Gaston School District with lines including the
Town of Littleton and parts of Halifax and Warren
Counties. A third new unit was carved out of the War
ren County Administrative Unit and given boundary lines
commensurate v/ith those of the Town of Warren ton.
That all of the enactments were opposed in the State
Legislature by the Plaintiffs through the EASTERN
COUNCIL ON COMMUNITY AFFAIRS as will herein
appear.
20. That the Scotland Neck School separation was
known as House Bill No. 22 and was enacted into law on
March 3rd, 1969 by statute known as “ Chapter 31 1969
Session Laws” , hereafter referred to as “ Chapter 31” .
That the said statute became effective and operative on
April 8th, 1969 as a result of a favorable vote in a refer
endum or special election held on said date. That the
school board of the unit and its Superintendent are De
fendants in this action.
1010
21. That the Littleton-Lake Gaston School separation
District was known as Senate Bill 446 and was enacted
into law on the 26th day of May, 1969, by the statute
known as “ Chapter 628, 1969 Session Laws” , (hereafter
referred to as “ Chapter 628” .) That the said statute be
came operative and eifective on July 22nd, 1969 as a re
sult of a favorable vote in a referendum or special election
held on said date. That the Littleton-Lake Gaston District
and its Superintendent are parties Defendant in this ac
tion.
22. That the Warrenton City School District separa
tion was known as House Bill 639 and was enacted into
law on the 23rd day of May, 1969 by statute known as
“ Chapter 578, 1969 Session Laws” . That said statute
became operative and effective on July 1st, 1969 as a re
sult of a favorable vote in a referendum or special elec
tion held and had on said date, and that said Act is under
attack in Alfred Turner et al vs Warren County Board
of Education et al, Civil Action No. 1432, which case also
attacks the Littleton-Lake Gaston District herein attacked.
23. That each of the newly enacted school separation
statutes to wit: “ Chapter 31” , “ Chapter 628” , and “ Chap
ter 578 of the Sessions Laws” , provides that upon becom
ing effective, all county school properties located within
the new unit, the new administrative unit and all monies
allocated for schools within the new unit and all other
school properties located within the new unit, shall be
come the properties of the new unit “ By Force Of This
Act” . That each of the acts provided for a supplemental
tax of not more than fifty cents (.50^) on each one hun
dred dollars of the assessed value of the real and personal
property taxable in the portion of the new unit. Each of
the new units passed the tax supplement in the special
election held for the unit.
24. That the Board of Commissioners and County
Board of Education of Halifax County are given duties
and responsibilities under “ Chapter 31 and Chapter 628
of the 1969 Session Laws” and are Defendants in this
action.
25. That the Scotland Neck Administrative Unit will
have an estimated 193 Negro or black students of which
1011
the above named Plaintiff-students of Scotland Neck are
members of the class and along with an estimated 736
white students, will form the total student body of the
newly created Scotland Neck School Unit.
26. That the Plaintiff-students listed in the above Title
are residents of the Littleton-Lake Gaston District and
part of an estimated 200 Negro or black students within
the jurisdiction of the Littleton-Lake Gaston School Dis
trict, who along with an estimated 400 hundred white
students, will compose the entire student body of the Lit
tleton-Lake Gaston School District.
27. That each of the school separation units complained
of, to wit: The Scotland Neck City Unit, “ Chapter 31” ,
the Littleton-Lake Gaston Units, “ Chapter 628” , and the
Warrenton City Unit, “ Chapter 578” , will have a total
enrollment of less than one thousand students when fully
operative, including the transfer of white students under
the tuition plan of the units and that the ratio of students
by race in each unit will be 4 to 1 in favor of the white
students while the ratio by races in the respective counties
is 4 to 1 in favor of the Negro or black students and that
due to the smallness of each of the units, each is finan
cially and educationally unsound.
28. That the racism of the school separation units here
in complained of was known to the State Legislature when
the statutes were Bills before the Legislature. That the
Plaintiffs, through the Eastern Council On Community
Affairs, opposed each of the statutes as Bills before the
Legislature. That on February 19th, 1969, the Scotland
Neck Separation Bill known as “ Chapter 31” and House
Bill 22, was opposed before the Senate’s, Finance Com
mittee as being racists, a copy of the opposition is hereto
attached and marked as EXHIBIT “A ” . That by letter
dated February 25, 1969 the council requested a hearing
before the Education Committee of the Senate but the Bill
was enacted into law by by-passing the Education Com
mittee of the Senate to avoid the Bill being defeated in
the committee because of racism and lack of educational
merit. That on April 30, 1969, The Littleton-Lake Gaston
School District, “ Chapter 628, as Senate Bill No. 446” ,
was opposed as being racists, a copy of the opposition is
1012
hereto attached and marked as EXHIBIT “ B” . That on
May 14th, 1969, “ Chapter 578, as House Bill No. 639”
creating the Warren ton City School District, was opposed
by the Eastern Council on Community Affairs as being
racists, upon the same grounds appearing in the attack
against the other Bills, which argument is hereto attached.
29. That on or about the 5th day of June, the Defend
ant North Carolina State Board of Education, following
the consent and requests of the Defendants Scotland Neck
City School Board and the Halifax County Board of Edu
cation, extended the boundary lines of the newly created
Scotland Neck District to include the boundary and school
plant of the Scotland Neck Junior High School, owned
and operated by the Halifax County Board of Education
and operated as one of the four integrated schools in
Halifax County during the 1968-69 academic year. That
by this action, two of the three schools in the Scotland
Neck City School District have been taken over by and
conveyed to the newly created Scotland Neck City School
District and that not enough school plants are left in the
county to meet the needs of the students left in the County
Unit, being mostly of the Negro or, black students, race.
30. That a controversy exists as to the rights of cer
tain public school teachers to continue their contract with
the Halifax County Board of Education, and the right of
students within the newly created school district units
to remain in and with the jurisdiction of the Halifax
County and the constitutionality of the acts of the North
Carolina General Assembly creating Scotland Neck City
Administrative unit, “ Chapter 31” and the act creating
the Littleton-Lake Gaston School District, Chapter 628
and the action of the North Carolina State Board of Edu
cation in extending the boundary lines of the Scotland
Neck City Unit to include County property and school
plant owned by the Halifax County Board of Education
and needed by the County for the Negro or black student
remaining in the County Unit.
31. That unless such school separation acts are declared
unconstitutional by this Court, the North Carolina Gen
eral Assembly will continue to enact racists school statutes
which gerrymander new school district school lines in
1013
such a manner as to include and provide for the largest
possible number of white students while excluding the lar
gest possible number of Negro or black students and un
less restrained and enjoined by this Court, the Defendant
Boards of Education and Boards of County Commission
ers will continue to give force and eifect to the provisions
of the statutes complained of herein, to wit: “ Chapter 31,
Chapter 628, and Chapter 578 of the 1969 Sessions Laws”
and extend the boundaries thereof to take from the re
spective counties, school property and buildings belonging
to and being operated by the county boards of education,
all in violation of violation of the right of the Plaintiff
students and teachers as guaranteed and secured to them
by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Con
stitution.
32. That the North Carolina Statute, “ Chapter 31,
1969 Sessions Laws” , creating the Scotland Neck City
Administrative Unit and the North Carolina Statute,
“Chapter 628, 1969 Session Laws” , Creating the Little-
ton-Lake Gaston School District Administrative Unit and
“Chapter 578 of the Session Laws” , creating the War-
renton City Administrative Unit, are all void and un
constitutional as enacted by the North Carolina General
Assembly and as applied to the Negro or black people in
Eastern North Carolina and the Plaintiffs herein as af
fected students and teachers, for the same are in conflict
with and repugnant to the Due Process and the Equal
Protection of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution for reasons as follows:
1. That the North Carolina Legislature, by enacting
the Scotland Neck School Separation Bill and the Little-
ton-Lake Gaston School Separation Bill and the Warren-
ton School Separation Bill, as “ Chapter 31, 628, and 578,
1969 Sessions Laws” , intended to deny and did deny to the
Negro or black students in Halifax and Warren Counties,
an opportunity for public school integration as required
by Federal Law by cutting off and withdrawing the white
students from the county school system and providing
for the segregation of white students in small school units
which are protected from the black majority by newly
created school district lines drawn in a manner so as to
exclude the majority of the Negro or black students and
1014
to include the majority of white students in the county
district area.
2. That the North Carolina Legislature, by enacting
“ Chapter 31, 628, and 578, 1969 Sessions Laws” , created
miniature school districts with an artificial white majority
students body in the Towns of Scotland Neck, Littleton
and Warrenton in Halifax and Warren Counties in East
ern Carolina and provided a means and method of white
students in Halifax and Warren Counties avoiding school
integration being required of county schools by admission
to the new school units upon the payment of a tuition fee
which white parents will pay for school segregation and
which Negro or black parents are unable to pay or unwill
ing to pay for as an additional expense of public educa
tion.
3. That the North Carolina Legislature, by enacting
“ Chapter 31, 628 and 578, 1969 Sessions Laws” , creating
new school district lines in Halifax and Warren Counties,
arbitrarily, capriciously and unreasonably created minia
ture school districts with lines including the residences of
the student plaintiffs and removing the student-plaintiffs
from the county unit or district where members of the
student-plaintiffs in the newly created unit or district
where students of the white race are in a 4 to 1 majority
as artificially created by the Legislature gerrymander
ing school district lines for the purpose of perpetuating
racial segregation in violation of and contrary to Due
Process of Law.
4. That the North Carolina Legislature, By enacting
“ Chapter 31, 628, and 578, 1969 Sessions Laws” , creating
and including the student-plaintiff within miniature school
districts, arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably de
prived the student-plaintiffs and other Negro students, of
the benefits and the advantages of the larger county unit,
including school personnel, programs, activities, and cur
riculum afforded by the larger school units and placed the
student-plaintiffs in a miniature school district with a
white majority student body with educational disadvan
tages, including limited school personnel, activities, pro
grams and curriculum and with financial burdens of a
supplemental taxes to support continuing racial segrega
tion for the white students in the newly created school
units.
1015
5. That the State Legislature, by enacting “ Chapter
31, 628, and 578, 1969 Sessions Laws” , re-established and
reiterated a state policy of giving first choice and priority
where members of the white race are involved as a ma
jority race and caused the State Board of Education and
the Halifax County Board of Education to deprive the
Negro or black students of Halifax County of the use and
benefit of the Scotland Neck Junior High School, operated
by the County Board as an integrated school, and to sur
render the Junior High School to the newly created Scot
land Neck City School Board by extending the district
lines of the City Board and school district to include coun
ty property outside the town limits of the Town of Scot
land Neck and to include the Scotland Neck Junior High
School, all for the purpose of providing for and continuing
the racial segregation achieved in the creation of the
Scotland Neck City Administrative Unit.
6. That the State Legislature, by enacting Chapters 31,
628 and 578, 1969 Session Laws, reversed the State Policy
of consolidating small school units in order to achieve
better economy and educational advantages only afforded
by larger school units and estabilshed a new policy for
counties where there is a large Negro or black population,
with the new policy being to create MINIATURE and
racially fixed school units with lines of the District so
drawn that the unit will foster and perpetuate racial seg
regation in the public schools in the State of North Caro
lina.
SECOND COUNT
33. That for the SECOND COUNT of this Complaint,
the Plaintiff, Pattie Black Cotton, re-alleges Paragraphs
1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 12, 13 and 14 of the First Count above in
this Complaint and hereby incorporates the same in this
paragraph to the same extent as if herein fully set out.
34. That the Plaintiff, Pattie Black Cotton, is and has
been a victim of white racism prevalent in Halifax Coun
ty to an unusual degree and affecting the operation of the
schools and the status of Negro or black teachers assigned
to integrated schools in Halifax County. That racism in
Halifax County has caused the Plaintiff and other black
1016
or Negro teachers to be denied privileges and immunities
of public school teachers and equal protection of the school
laws and to suffer and endure criminal and administra
tive “ Charges” for the violation of the UNWRITTEN
LAWS forbidding Negro or black teachers from exercis
ing their rights under public authority to discipline school
children who happen to be members of the opposite race.
35. That the Plaintiff, Pattie Black Cotton, and other
Negro or black public school teachers in Halifax County
are entitled to the same rights, privileges and immunities
when assigned to an integrated school as in a segregated
public school and are entitled to the equal protection of
State laws for public school teachers, particularly so much
of North Carolina General Statutes 115-146 as reads as
follows;
“ IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF ALL TEACH
ERS TO MAINTAIN GOOD ORDER AND DISCI
PLINE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE SCHOOLS.
_____________ PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS IN
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THIS STATE MAY
USE REASONABLE FORCE IN THE EXERCISE
OF LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO RESTRAIN OR
CORRECT PUPILS AND MAINTAIN ORDER.
NO COUNTY OR CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION
OR DISTRICT COMMITTEE SHALL PROMUL
GATE OR CONTINUE IN IN EFFECT A RULE,
REGULATION OR BYLAW WHICH PROHIBITS
THE USE OF SUCH FORCE AS IS SPECIFIED
IN THIS SECTION” .
36. That the Plaintiff, Pattie Black Cotton and other
Negro or black public school teachers in Halifax County,
N. C., are entitled to the same rights, privileges, immuni
ties and professional regard as are required by the CODE
OF ETHICS OF THE EDUCATION PROFESSION as
adopted by the NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL ASSOCI
ATION and the Associations of the State of North Caro
lina, a printed copy of the 1968 edition is hereto attached
and marked as EXHIBIT “ C” .
37. That notwithstanding the professional status and
authority given the Plaintiff by the North Carolina School
1017
Laws, the Halifax County District Court, on July 22nd,
1969, convicted the Plaintiff under the UNWRITTEN
LAWS upon a criminal “ Charge” made against the Plain
tiff by a white parent of a student in the Plaintiff’s class
room who had engaged in an affray therein;
“ The undersigned, Mrs. Marvin W. Tanner, upon
information and belief, being duly sworn, complains
and says that at and in the county named above and
on or about the 6th day of May, 1969, THE DE
FENDANT NAMED ABOVE DID UNLAWFUL
LY, WILFULLY and MALICIOUSLY ASSAULT
MARVIN TANNER, A CHILD OF TEN YEARS
OF AGE WITH A DEADLY WEAPON, to wit; A
RULER, BY HITTING HIM ACROSS THE HIP
TEN TIMES”
and that the Halifax County District Judge found the
Plaintiff “ Guilty” and pronounced Judgment imposing a
sixty day (60) jail term upon the Plaintiff which was
suspended upon the condition that the Plaintiff “ Pay a
fine of $50.00 and costs of the court” from which judg
ment, the Plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of
Halifax County and the cause is pending in that Court.
38. That on May 27th, 1969 and while the Plaintiff
was in performance of her teaching duties at the inte
grated William R. Davie School operated by the Defend
ant, Halifax County Board of Education, the Defendant,
W. Henry Overman, Superintendent of Halifax County
Schools, appeared in person and delivered to the Plaintiff
a letter, a copy of which is hereto attached and marked
as EXHIBIT “ D” , containing the following administra
tive “ Charges” against the Plaintiff:
“ (1) Failure to teach and grade pupils properly in
your classes.”
“ (2) Neglectful about teaching methods by refusing
to answer questions and to give help when
asked by pupils.”
“ (3) Refusing to let children eat lunch as punish
ment.”
“ (4) Staying out of classroom for long periods of
time.”
1018
“ (5) Failure to introduce new subjects in a manner
that is understood by a majority of the class.”
“ (6) Creating an atmosphere of fear in the class
room causing students to be afraid to ask
questions because they might be ridiculed” .
and that the letter gave the purpose of the charges as
“ The Halifax County Board of Education will conduct a
hearing to determine whether or not you will be dismissed
from your present employment as a teacher in the Halifax
County School System as provided for in N. C. G. S. 115-
145” .
39. That a hearing upon the above named charges was
held by the Halifax County Board of Education on the
12th day of June, 1969 at which time the Defendant,
Halifax County Board, permitted a white school teacher
from the same William R. Davie School where the Plain
tiff is employed, to appear before it and violate the Code
of Ethics of the Education Profession to the harm and
injury of the Plaintiff in that the Board permitted and
encouraged (Mrs.) Elizabeth Mockaday to disregard the
professional status of the Plaintiff and herself as public
school teachers at the WILLIAM R. DAVIE SCHOOL
and to violate PRINCIPAL 111 (Commitment to the
Profession) particularly SECTIONS 2, 4, and 8 thereof as
appears in EXHIBIT “ C” hereto attached and reading
as follows:
“ 2. SHALL ACCORD JUST AND EQUITABLE
TREATMENT TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE
PROFESSION IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR
PROFESSIONAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIB
ILITIES.”
“ 4. SHALL WITHHOLD AND SAFEGUARD IN
FORMATION ACQUIRED ABOUT COL
LEAGUES IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOY
MENT.”
“ 8. SHALL NOT KNOWINGLY DISTORT EVAL
UATIONS OF COLLEAGUES.”
and that a Transcript of said hearing was made and con
tains some of the false evaluations and statements of Mrs.
1019
Elizabeth Hockaday and others concerning the Plaintiff
as a black or Negro public school teacher and that Plain
tiff has not been informed of any decision of the School
Board and she is uncertain as to just what effect the false
and unethical statements will have on her future em
ployment and professional rating as a public school teach
er in Halifax County if left unchallenged and shown to
be professional unethical.
40. That the “ Charges” set forth in Paragraph 38
above were delivered to the Plaintiff by the Defendant
Superintendent in person in the Defendant’s visit to Plain
tiffs classroom and the said “ Charges” were made and
prepared after criminal “ Charges” were brought against
the Plaintiff. That both the criminal Charge and the ad
ministrative charges were brought for the purpose and at
the time to create fear and insecurity in the black teachers
in integrated schools and are frivolous, malicious totally
without cause and result in harassment and vexation to
the Plaintiff and other Negro or black public school teach
ers in Halifax County and serve the cause of creating
racial destruct and discord in the WILLIAM R. DAVIE
SCHOOL COMMUNITY and promote the growth of the
newly organized private school in the school community; to
wit; THE HALIFAX ACADEMY.
41. That the Plaintiff, Pattie Black Cotton is currently
employed by Halifax County and assigned at the William
R. Davie School operated by Halifax County Board of
Education and is now in her third year at the school.
42. That the Defendant, HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION, through its Superintendent and AREA
COUNCILS, will continue to file and hear arbitrary, friv
olous and malicious administration “ Charges” against
Negro or black public school teachers in yielding to pres
sure from white racists in Halifax County to subject
black teachers to harassment, vexation and professional
degradation and to use Administrative “ Charges” and
criminal “ Charges” and hearings as a means of dis
missing black or Negro Public School Teachers from Hali
fax County School System, unless enjoined and restrained
by this Court.
43. That the Plaintiff, Pattie Black Cotton, as a Negro
or black public school teacher in an integrated public
1020
school, is uncertain as to her rights, privileges and im
munities and as to the duty owed to her and other black
teachers by white public school teachers in the same school
and school system and she is uncertain as to the applica
tion of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as
a legal standard where members of the profession are of
the opposite race and as to the application of the Code of
Ethics of the Education Profession as a legal standard
where members of the profession are of the opposite race
and as to the application of the Code of Ethics of the
Education Profession to the boards of education and ad
ministrative officers where black teachers in integrated
school are the subject of “ Charges” and community re
sentment of integrated schools.
44. That a CONTROVERSY exists between the Plain
tiff, Pattie Black Cotton, as a member of the Negro or
black race, and the following;
A. The Defendant, HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION and the Plaintiff as to the duties
owed to the Plaintiff by the Halifax County Board
of Education in protecting the Plaintiff from un
professional conduct of white teachers in violation
of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession
and as to the application of the Code of Ethics of
the Education Profession to boards of education.
B. The white or members of the Causasian race
who are public school teachers in an integrated pub
lic school and the Plaintiff, and other Negro or black
public school teachers as to the duties and profes
sional respect owed to the Plaintiff and others in the
same school and profession as measured by the Code
of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted by
the National Education Association and State As
sociations.
C. That a controversy exists as to the application
of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as
a legal standard for the measurement of profession
al conduct and relationship between black or Negro
Public School Teachers and the boards of education
and the Public School Teachers of the Opposite Race.
1021
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray as follows:
1. That the Court declare that the Act of the North
Carolina General Assembly, Chapter 31, 1969 Session
Laws, creating the Scotland Neck City School Adminis
trative Unit, is void and unconstitutional for reasons
stated in the Complaint.
2. That the Court declare that the Act of the North
Carolina General Assembly, Chapter 628, 1969 Sessions
Laws, creating the LITTLETON-LAKE GASTON
SCHOOL DISTRICT, is void and unconstitutional for
reasons stated in the Complaint.
3. That the Court declare that the Action of the
Scotland Neck City Board of Education and of the Hali
fax County Board of Education and of the North Caro
lina State Board of Education, in extending the original
lines or boundary of the Scotland Neck School Adminis
trative District to include and encompass the Scotland
Neck Junior High School located in the County School
District, is void and unconstitutional for reasons stated
in the Complaint.
4. That the Court declare that the policy, practice
and pattern of the Halifax County Board of Education
in subjecting black or Negro public school teachers in
integrated schools, to frivolous, arbitrary and malicious
“Charges” and “ Hearings” , as punishment for the vio
lation of the UNWRITTEN LAW which forbids black
persons from exercising public authority and discipline of
persons of the opposite race, are void and unconstitution
al for reasons stated in the Complaint.
5. That the Court declare that Negro or black public
school teachers in integrated schools are entitled to the
same professional respect and ethical treatment by the
school board and white public school teachers as is estab
lished and practiced by members of the teaching profes
sion in segregated schools and between persons of the
same race or color and that the Plaintiff, Pattie Black
Cotton, is entitled to have other teachers to show the
same regard for her professional rights, privileges and
imunities as is required by and measured by the stand
ards of ethics of the Code of Ethics of the Education
Profession as adopted by the National Education Asso
1022
ciation and the state teachers associations in the State
of North Carolina.
6. That the Plaintiff, EDWARD M. FRANCIS, is
entitled to re-instatement as a public school teacher be
cause of the unconstitutionality of the Scotland Neck
City Administrative Unit for reasons stated in the Com
plaint and that he be reinstated in the same or comparable
teaching position as he held prior to the Scotland Neck
school separation and his dismissal and that he be award
ed compensation for expenses and loss of wages incurred
as a result of his wrongful dismissal.
7. That this cause be advanced on the docket for im
mediate hearing and after such hearing, the Court pre
liminarily and permanently enjoin the following:
A. The Defendant HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION and its members and Superintend
ent;
1. From issuing or enforcing any order or
directive individually or in concert with the
Scotland Neck City Board of Education or the
Littleton-Lake Gaston School District, requir
ing the Student-Plaintiffs or any other students
similarly situated, to attend any public school
or to submit to any school administrative auth
ority, other than the Halifax County Board of
Education.
2. From acting individually or in concert
with or participation with or at the direction
of others, in continuing the policy, practice,
custom and usage of discriminating against the
student-plaintiffs and teachers in the Halifax
County schools and the members of their class
because of race, creed or color, particularly in
the assignment of students and teachers and in
the hiring and dismissing of teachers or in re
fusing to hire them and other school personnel
in the Halifax County Administrative Unit on
the basis of race, creed or color.
3. From condoning, encouraging, accomodat
ing or acting in concert with white parents and
1023
teachers in Halifax County in denying to the
Negro or black public school teacher in inte
grated public schools, the same ethical treat
ment and accord of professional respect and
regard for professional rights and responsibili-
ilities as accorded white public school teachers
and as required by the standards of the Code of
Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted
by the National Education Association and
State associations.
4. From terminating teaching contracts or
refusing to rehire teachers whose contracts
were terminated solely because of the creation
of the Scotland Neck City Administrative Unit
or the Littleton Lake Gaston School District.
5. From refusing to offer Trade Courses and
other courses previously offered in the county
system and terminated solely as a result of the
creation of the Scotland Neck City Administra
tive Unit or the Littleton-Lake Gaston School
District.
6. From ceasing to operate and control the
property of the Halifax County Schools and the
school plant known as the Scotland Neck Junior
High School and included in the extention of
the school district lines of the Scotland Neck
City Administrative Unit.
7. From failing and refusing to consider the
black or Negro parents and teachers in the for
mulation of school zone lines, grade consolida
tion or both in order to completely desegregate
all the public schools in the Halifax County
School System within the time specified by the
Court.
8. To completely desegregate all teachers
and school personnel in the school system so
that the percentage of Negro and white teach
ers and school personnel in all schools in the
county school system will approximate the num
ber of Negro and white teachers in the school
system.
9. To discontinue and eliminate and and all
other practices and customs in the Halifax
County School System based on race or color.
10. From performing any of the acts or du
ties required by Chapter 31 of the Sessions
Laws, 1969, creating the Scotland Neck City
Administrative Unit or Chapter 628, creating
the Littleton-Lake Gaston School District.
B. The Defendant, BOARD OF COUNTY COM
MISSIONERS OF HALIFAX COUNTY;
1. From performing any of the duties re
quired of it by Chapters 31 and 628 of the 1969
Sessions Laws Creating the Scotland Neck and
the Littleton-Lake Gaston School Districts.
2. From continuing to authorize, sanction or
encourage practices, programs and activities, in
cluding school construction and additions, de
signed to continue the racially segregated Public
Schools in Halifax County, North Carolina.
3. From continuing to disburse funds to fi
nance facially segregated practices and policies
in the Halifax County School system or which
tend to perpetuate racial segregation in Halifax
County, North Carolina.
4. From failing and refusing to take affirma
tive steps and actions to compel the elimination
of the racially discriminatory practices in the
Halifax County Public School System.
C. The Defendant, SCOTLAND NECK CITT
BOARD OF EDUCATION and its Superintendent
as follows;
1. From performing any of the functions,
acts or duties required by Chapter 31, Sessions
Laws, 1969, North Carolina General Assembly.
D. THE LITTLETON-LAKE GASTON SCHOOL
DISTRICT and its Superintendent, Defendants
herein;
1. From performing any of the functions acts
or duties required of it by Chapter 628 of the
1025
1969 Sessions Laws of the North Carolina Gen
eral Assembly.
E. The Defendant, NORTH CAROLINA STATE
BOARD OF EDUCATION and DR. A. CRAIG
PHILLIPS, Superintendent of Public Instruction;
1. From allocating any teachers, principals
and other school personnel or from continuing to
allocate teachers, principals and school personnel
or to disburse any State or Federal Funds to
the school district units created by the North
Carolina General Assembly, Statutes Chapter 31
and Chapter 628 creating the Scotland Neck
City Administrative Unit and the Littleton-
Lake Gaston School District
2. From continuing to authorize, sanction or
to encourage the practices, programs and activi
ties designed to continue racially segregated
schools in Halifax County, North Carolina.
3. From continuing to allocate teachers, prin
cipals and school personnel to the Halifax Coun
ty Board of Education in such a manner as to
encourage or permit racial employment or as
signment of such personnel;
4. From continuing to disburse State and
Federal funds to finance racially segregated
practices and policies in the Halifax County
Schools or in a manner that will perpetuate or
which tends to perpetuate such practices and
policies.
5. From failing and refusing to take affirma
tive steps to compel the elimination of racially
discriminatory practices in the Halifax County
Public School System.
8. Plaintiffs further pray that necessary or permissi
ble Defendants be made parties to this action as follows:
W. HENRY OVERMAN, Superintendent of Hali
fax County Schools;
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
HALIFAX COUNTY, a public body corporate;
1026
SCOTLAND NECK CITY BOARD OF EDUCA
TION, a public body corporate, and FRANKLIN
B. BAILEY, Superintendent of the Scotland Neck
City Schools;
LITTLETON - LAKE GASTON SCHOOL DIS
TRICT, a public body corporate, and RUSSELL N.
MANNING, Superintendent of Littleton-Lake Gas
ton School District;
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDU
CATION, a public body corporate, and DR. A.
CRAIG PHILLIPS, North Carolina State Superin
tendent of Public Instruction.
9. Plaintiffs further pray that pending the full and
complete desegregation of the Halifax County School'
System, that the Court retain jurisdiction of this cause;
that the Plaintiffs be awarded their costs herein, includ
ing reasonable counsel fees and be granted such other
and further relief as to the Court may appear equitable
and proper.
This 1st day of November, 1969.
Respectfully submitted
,/s,/ James R. Walker, Jr.
James R. W alker, Jr.
501 West 3rd Street
Weldon, North Carolina
Samuel S. M itchell
126% East Hargett Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
1027
VERIFICATION
PATTIE BLACK COTTON, being first duly sworn,
deposes and says; that she is a public school teacher in
Halifax County and is a Plaintiff in the foregoing Com
plaint in Intervention; that she has read and knows the
contents thereof; that the same are true of her personal
knowledge, except those matters stated and alleged upon
information and belief, and as to those matters, she be
lieves them to be true.
/s./ Pattie Black Cotton
(Mrs.) Pattie Black Cotton,
Affiant.
sworn to and subscribed before me
this 1st day of November, 1969
/&/ Helen C. Lewis
Notary Public
My Commission Expires March 6th, 1970
1028
NORTH CAROLINA
HALIFAX COUNTY
VERIFICATION
EDWARD M. FRANCIS, being first duly sworn, de
poses and says; that he is a resident of Enfield North
Carolina and a former teacher in the Halifax County
School System and is a Plaintiff in the foregoing Com
plaint in Intervention; That he has read and knows the
contents thereof; that the same are true of his own
personal knowledge, except those matters stated and al
leged upon information and belief, and as to those mat
ters he believes them to be true.
/ s / Edward M. Francis
E dward M. Francis, Affiant.
Sworn to and subscribed before me
this 12 day of November, 1969
/ s / Cherry E. Clarke
Notary Public
My Commission Expires March 22, 1971.
1029
[Caption Omitted]
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT SCOTLAND NECK CITY
BOARD OF EDUCATION TO THE COMPLAINT IN
INTERVENTION AND AN AFFIRMATIVE PLEA
THAT THE COURT PRESERVE THE PRESENT
STATUS OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE IN THE
SCOTLAND NECK SCHOOL PENDING THE FI
NAL DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES IN THIS
CAUSE
FIRST COUNT
1. To the Intervener-Plaintiffs adoption of the allega
tions of the original Complaint in this cause, this De
fendant repeats its pleadings in defense thereto includ
ing its Answer and Amended Answer and First Further
Answer heretofore filed.
2. This Defendant denies that the Intervener-Plain
tiffs can invoke or have invoked properly the jurisdiction
of this Court in any matter affecting this Defendant
except the constitutionality of Chapter 31, 1969 Session
Laws of North Carolina. Except as herein admitted as
to the jurisdiction of this Court on the constitutional
question the allegations of paragraph 2 are denied.
3. It is admitted that this is a proceeding seeking to
restrain the defendant as is alleged in sub-section 1 of
paragraph 3 of the Intervener Complaint.
With respect to the sub-heads 2, 3, 4 and 5 it does not
appear that they are directed against or affect this De
fendant. To the extent that they may be directed against
this Defendant they are denied.
With respect to sub-paragraph 6 of paragraph 3 it
appears that the seeking of the injunction there described
is based on the premise that the constitutionality of the
statute creating the Scotland Neck School District is
upheld. Accepting that premise, this Defendant denies
the propriety of granting the injunction sought.
With respect to the description of the proceedings for
a declaratory judgment in sub-paragraph A, B, C, D
and E of paragraph 3 this Defendant denies any and
all of said such allegations of fact and such conclusions
of law as are there stated against this Defendant and
1030
denies the propriety of the granting of any one or more
of the prayers for declaratory judgments therein de
scribed.
4. This Defendant does not have knowledge or infor
mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of paragraph 4 and therefore denies same.
5. This Defendant does not have knowledge or infor
mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of paragraph 5 and therefore denies same.
6. This Defendant does not have knowledge or infor
mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of paragraph 6 and therefore denies same.
7. This defendant does not have knowledge or infor
mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of paragraph 7 and therefore denies same.
8. That the allegations of paragraph 8 are admitted.
9. That the allegations of paragraph 9 are admitted.
10. The allegations of paragraph 10 are admitted ex
cept that Franklin D. Bailey, who had been employed
by this Defendant as Superintendent of the Scotland
Neck City Schools was released from employment after
the Preliminary Injunction was signed in this cause.
11. The allegations of paragraph 11 are admitted ex
cept that this Defendant has no information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the allegations relative
to Russell N. Fanning and therefore denies same.
12. It is admitted that the North Carolina State Board
of Education is an agency of the State and exercises
such powers and duties as provided by the Constitution
and laws of the State of North Carolina; that except as
herein admitted Paragrph 12 is denied.
13. It is admitted that the Defendant, A. Craig Phil
lips, is the duly elected Superintendent of Public In
struction, and that he exercises such powers and duties
as provided by the Constitution and laws of the State
of North Carolina; that except as admitted the allega
tions of Paragraph 13 are denied.
14. The allegations of paragraph 14 are denied.
15. This Defendant has no knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allega
tions of paragraph 15 and therefore denies the same.
16. This Defendant has no knowledge or information
1031
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allega
tions of paragraph 16 and therefore denies the same.
17. The allegations of paragraph 17 are denied.
18. The allegations of paragraph 18 are denied.
19. The allegations of paragraph 19 are denied.
20. The allegations of paragraph 20 are admitted.
21. The allegations of paragraph 21 are admitted ex
cept that this defendant has no knowledge or informa
tion as to whether the making of the Littleton Lake
Gaston School District and its Superintendent parties
has been accomplished.
22. The allegations of paragraph 22 are admitted.
23. The allegations of paragraph 23 are admitted.
24. The allegations of paragraph 24 are admitted.
25. The allegations of paragraph 25 are denied.
26. This Defendant has no knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of para
graph 26 and therefore denies same.
27. The allegations of paragraph 27 are denied.
28. The allegations of paragraph 28, as therein al
leged, are denied.
29. The allegations of paragraph 29, as therein al
leged, are denied.
30. The allegations of paragraph 30 are de»ied.
31. The allegations of paragraph 31 are denied.
32. The allegations of paragraph 32 are denied.
SECOND COUNT
33. This Defendant here adopts and again alleges its
answers to paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 12, 13 and 14 of
the First Count in the Complaint and hereby incorpo
rates the same in this paragraph.
34. This Defendant has no knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of para
graph 34 and therefore denies same.
35. -44. The allegations of the Intervener’s Complaint
contained in paragraphs- 35-44 inclusive do not relate to
any issue between Intervener-Plaintiffs and this Defend
ant and, therefore, it is not required that this Defendant
answer them. If this Defendant should be required to
answer them, it would allege that it has no knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations and would deny them.
1032
FIRST FURTHER ANSWER AND AN AFFIRMA
TIVE PLEA THAT THE COURT PRESERVE THE
PRESENT STATUS OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE
IN THE SCOTLAND NECK SCHOOL PENDING
THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES
IN THIS CAUSE
For a First Further Answer and an affirmative plea
that that Court preserve the present status of school
attendance in the Scotland Neck School pending a final
determination on the merits of the constitutional issue
raised in the present action, this Defendant alleges and
says:
1. The major relief sought by the Intervener-Plain
tiffs against this Defendant is a Court declaration that
Chapter 31 Session Laws of the General Assembly of
North Carolina for the year 1969 violates the Constitu
tion of the United States. The Intervener-Plaintiffs seek
to support their claim of unconstitutionality by incorrect
allegations of fact and unsound statements of law. The
objectives stated by Intervener-Plaintiffs in their com
plaint would, if achieved, be in plain violation of the
Constitution of the United States.
2. The 1969 Legislative Act creating a new school
district defined its geographical limits as the lines en
compassing the entire City of Scotland Neck. There were
no new lines drawn.
3. The Act provided that it was to become effective
only if the voters of Scotland Neck approved a school
tax of $.50 on each $100.00 of property valuation in the
City of Scotland Neck. The voters of Scotland Neck
approved that tax.
4. At the time of the passage of the Act there were,
and at this time there are, residing in the City of Scot
land Neck approximately 800 children of school age. They
are divided racially, approximately 57% white and 43%
black. The school buildings within the corporate limits
of Scotland Neck will accommodate, without crowding,
approximately 830 students. The residential racial pro
portions of the population in Scotland Neck were achieved
by natural free choice of residence by individual families
1033
and not in any way by legally imposed racial segregation.
5. The Scotland Neck City Board of Education has,
by its pleading, in this case and by its evidence hereto
fore taken, requested this Federal Court, upon approval
of the constitutionality of the statute, to retain jurisdic
tion of the cause in order that the transfer of any stu
dents into or out of the Scotland Neck School should be
within the view and under the supervision of the Court
and subject to objection by interested parties and a hear
ing. There can be no disturbance of the racial propor
tions by transfer except as may be approved by the Court.
6. The defendant Scotland Neck City Board of Edu
cation and the great majority of the residents in Scot
land Neck are determined, if permitted by this Court,
to operate an improved school for all of the children of
school age living within the boundaries of the City of
Scotland Neck. It is their firm intent and purpose to
operate such a school without any regard whatever to
race and to treat every child alike, regardless of race,
creed or color. It is their purpose and intent to operate
a truly unitary school in Scotland Neck. It is the infor
mation and belief of the members of the Scotland Neck
City Board of Education that such a unitary school will
have the careful and interested attention of the people
living in Scotland Neck; that it will have their enthu
siastic support and will have the benefit of the determi
nation of the people of Scotland Neck to make the uni
tary school work and to make it work now.
7. The success of the operation of a public school, in
which there is no racial discrimination, under conditions
as they exist today, can be assured best by the securing
of strong community support. Without such community
support, a public school cannot be successful.
8. The best interests of the children living in a com
munity are served by the opportunity to attend a public
school conducted in that community.
9. The children living within the boundaries of the
City of Scotland Neck, both white children and black
children, are entitled as a matter of right to have the
opportunity to go to the public school in that community.
To deny that right to any Scotland Neck child because
1034
of his race would violate the Constitution of the United
States.
10. Children who are living within the boundaries of
the County of Halifax school system, before the enact
ment of the statute in question, were divided racially in
ratio of approximately 80% black and 20% white. It is
the objective of the Intervener-Plaintiffs that the Court
shall declare the statute creating the Scotland Neck school
district unconstitutional and shall order the School Board
of the county system to so divide and transport the chil
dren that in every school in the County system there
shall be a ratio of 80% black and 20% white. That would
mean, of necessity, that many white children would have
to be transported by bus from their homes in Scotland
Neck to distant schools outside of Scotland Neck, and
that many black students would have to be transported
by bus from their homes far beyond the boundaries of
Scotland Neck to the school within the boundaries of
Scotland Neck. Neither the white students and their
parents, nor the black students and their parents, desire
this. A great majority of them are greatly opposed to it.
The accomplishment of the objective of the Intervener-
Plaintiffs would be the assigning and the transporting
of children to schools on a basis solely of race. It is the
declared law of this country that a unitary school shall
be conducted regardless of race and that the objective
is not to make any distinctions because of race. The as
signment and the transportation of school children based
solely on the color of the skin is a discrimination con
demned by the constitution of the United States.
11. To bus a student, white or black, from his resi
dence and away from a school in his residential commu
nity to a school many miles away, against the wishes of
his parents and contrary to the best interests of the child
and solely because of the color of his skin, is an act con
trolled completely by racial orgin. It is an act drawing
only racial lines. It is an act which will increase racial
consciousness and tend to breed racial animosities. It is
racial discrimination condemned by the constitution of
the United States and so held unconstitutional uniformly
by all of our Courts until some recent difficult to under
stand decisions.
1035
12. To assign and to transport children to schools far
beyond their residential district schools solely because of
race is so contrary to public policy and to the common
sense which is the basis of common law as to offend the
public sense of justice and create devastating doubts
about the administration of justice.
13. The policy of pupil assignment and lengthy pupil
bussing solely because of race will damage seriously and
threaten to destroy the schools and even the social and
governmental fabric of Scotland Neck, of Halifax County,
of the State of North Carolina and of the United States
of America. The inevitability of the incurring of such
damage is assured by the fact that the Department of
Justice and other agencies of the United States are not
seeking to apply or to enforce in all geographical areas
of the United States the policy of assigning and trans
porting students from community to community in order
to achieve a predetermined racial mixture.
14. We have here, in this case an encouraging situa
tion where a community earnestly desires to conduct in
that community a unitary community public school with
out regard to race, creed or color, and where there is a
realistic promise of success now. If such success could
be achieved in the Scotland Neck School District there
would result great benefit fo[r] the surrounding commu
nities and counties and more ready acceptance of the con
viction that racially mixed schools in those communities
may be made to work satisfactorily.
15. The geographical zoning for a completely unitary
school, as was contemplated by the legislation and as is
promised by this Defendant, is just the kind of integra
tion which was first contemplated and described as the
ideal to be achieved in the opinion of the Supreme Court
in the first Brown case (347 US 433 at page 495) where
the Court directed that the attorneys in the case present
to the Court in the future (the second Brown case) argu
ments on the point described by the Court as follows:
“4. Assuming it is decided that segregation in public
schools violates the Fourteenth Amendment
“ (a) would a decree necessarily follow providing that,
within the limits set by normal geographic school dis
1036
tricting, Negro children should forthwith be admitted to
schools of their choice, or
“ (b) may this Court, in the exercise of its equity
powers, permit an effective gradual adjustment to be
brought about from existing segregated systems to a sys
tem not based on color distinctions?
16. A unitary Scotland Neck School, contemplated by
the North Carolina statute and promised by this De
fendant, is just the kind of solution to the problem of
integration as was recommended with approval by the
Supreme Court of the United States in the leading case
Green v. School Board of New Kent County (391 US
430 at page 441 May 27, 1968) where it recommended
. . for illustration zoning, promising speedier and
more effective conversion to a unitary nonracial system
17. If, during the pendency of the final determination
of the constitutionality of the Scotland Neck statute,
there is granted the relief sought herein either by the
Plaintiff or by the Intervener-Plaintiffs and if as a re
sult thereof, the racial balance now existing between stu
dents living within the boundaries of Scotland Neck are
changed and distorted so that the racial balance in the
Scotland Neck School will be shifted to a very large black
majority, irreparable injury will be done to the school in
Scotland Neck and to those persons whose interests are
represented by this Defendant. The people of Scotland
Neck will despair of the conduct in that community of
a satisfactory school. They will become alarmed by the
threat of the developments as described in such publica
tion as an article in the Monday, January 26th issue of
“ The National Observer” , copy of which is attached to
this First Further Answer as Exhibit A. A subsequent
adjudication of constitutionality of the Scotland Neck
Statute would not repair the damage done in the interim.
WHEREFORE, this Defendant prays:
1. That the statute establishing the Scotland Neck
School District be declared constitutional and that this
defendant be authorized to proceed, at the earliest feasi
ble time, to carry out its duties pursuant to that statute
and
1037
2. That, pending the final determination in the highest
Court of Appeals to which the case may be taken of
the question of the constitutionality of the Scotland Neck
Statute, this Court abstain from ordering or approving
or permitting the changing or the disturbing of the pres
ent existing status with respect to the schools in Scot
land Neck and the attendance of children of school age
living in Scotland Neck or at this time attending the
schools in Scotland Neck.
3. That, after the filing of such replies as one or
more of the several parties hereto see fit to make to the
allegations contained in the foregoing First Further An
swer or after the time for replying to same has expired,
this Defendant be afforded the opportunity to be heard
on the following matters:
A. The prayers for temporary relief sought by the
Plaintiff-Intervener insofar as said prayers affect this
Defendant;
B. Any other prayer for temporary relief which may
be set forth in replies to the First Further Answer here:
inabove;
C. The prayer for abstention by the Court as sought
in the First Further Answer hereinabove.
,/s/ William T. Joyner
W illiam T. Joyner
P. 0. Box 109
Raleigh, North Carolina
,/s/ Walton K. Joyner
W alton K. Joyner
P. 0. Box 109
Raleigh, North Carolina
,/s/ C. Kitchin Josey
C. K itchin Josey
Scotland Neck
North Carolina
Attorneys for Defendant
Scotland Neck City Board
of Education
1038
E xhibit A
DOUBTS GROW ABOUT SCHOOL INTEGRATION
Washington, D. C.
A new word has entered the debate over segregation
and integration in the nation’s public schools: resegrega
tion.
In dozens of cities, schools and school systems once al
most entirely white are turning increasingly nonwhite.
This trend, produced by the familiar exodus of whites to
the suburbs and nonwhites to the inner cities, has been
going on for more than 30 years.
Only now, however, is it becoming a matter of prime
concern to Federal officials. A new Federal school survey
shows that racial isolation exists in every section of the
country and that its growth is most rapid in the big
Northern cities. This fact is raising new doubts among
many long-time integrationists about the wisdom of try
ing to enforce desegregation in the schools. Items:
v0 Several years ago, the Cleveland Board of Educa
tion searched the city for a new high-school site that
would permit optimum racial integration. They settled
on a neighborhood of modest owner-occupied homes near
the suburb of Shaker Heights that was 60 per cent white,
40 per cent black. But when John F. Kennedy High
School opened in 1965, 95 per cent of its pupils were
black. “ There’s no question the decision to open that
school accelerated the departure of whites,” says Mrs.
Conella Coulter Brown, administrative assistant for the
Cleveland schools.
v0 Edmondson High School on the west side of Balti
more was 80 percent white when it opened in 1957.
Today there are 25 whites out of its student population
of 2,700. “ This is a well-kept-up residential area,” says
assistant principal Margery W. Harriss. “ But once the
school turned half-black, it turned rapidly almost 100
per cent black. The whites just moved out or took their
children elsewhere.”
_ ^ Heavy Negro migration gave the District of Colum
bia’s schools a Negro majority as early as 1950— four
1039
years before the Supreme Court’s watershed desegrega
tion decision. In 1970, with the schools 95 per cent non
white, middle-class Negroes are fleeing— just across the
boundary to neighboring Prince George’s County, Mary
land. The interesting thing about Prince George’s enroll
ments this year, however, is not that the number of new
blacks is up but that the number of new whites is down.
No one knows exactly why, but one administrator muses:
“ The whites are moving to other Washington suburbs
rather than to Prince George’s.”
In city after city in the North, the story is the same:
Schools once all or nearly all white are drawing non
whites in increasing numbers. When they reach a “ tip
ping point” of 30 to 50 per cent, the whites move out
and the schools become rapidly almost entirely nonwhite.
The extent of resegregation in the North has never
been known with any certainty. But the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) undertook a
survey of the racial composition of 90 per cent of the
school districts in the country during the 1968-1969
school years, and fed the returns into a high-speed com
puter. The results, released Jan. 4, portray a system of
segregated education that knows no regional boundaries.
The survey shows, for example, that 5 out of 10 Ne
groes outside the South attend schools 95 to 100 per cent
Negro, as opposed to 7 out of 10 Negroes in the 11
Southern states. Only 25 per cent of the Negroes out
side the South attend majority-white schools, as con
trasted with 18 per cent of the Negroes in Southern
schools.
The survey shows too that 10 of the largest 20 city
school systems in the country have majority Negro enroll
ments. In 16 of those systems, 60 per cent or more of
the Negroes go to schools 95 to 100 per cent Negro—
almost totally segregated.
A Stennis Challenge
Federal officials say they are deeply troubled by the
extent of segregation the survey has uncovered. Sen.
John Stennis, Mississippi Democrat, first previewed the
1040
findings in a series of speeches in December, in which he
challenged the Government to pursue desegregation in
the North with the same vigor it is pursuing desegrega
tion in the South. “ If segregation is wrong in the public
schools of the South,” he argued, “ it is wrong in the
public schools of all other states.”
Mr. Stennis made the point in arguing that the Gov
ernment should ease up on its efforts to promote desegre
gation of schools. Leon E. Panetta, HEW’s chief civil-
rights officer, on the other hand, told Congress two
months ago that the answer is not to make segregation
legal in the South but to pass legislation making it ille
gal everywhere.
* * * netta reflected on the emerging pattern of resegre
gation in America and said: “ Nobody really is consid
ering what the answers to this situation are, and whether
there aren’t new injustices resulting from rectifying
gross past injustices.”
Ever since the Supreme Court held in 1954 that state-
supported racial segregation was a denial of equal edu
cational opportunity, the courts have been trying to undo
the vestiges of the South’s dual school system. With the
passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Justice De
partment and HEW joined the battle to force recalci
trant school districts to adopt plans of racial balance.
Turning Attention North
In the past two years, both agencies have begun turn
ing their attention to school discrimination outside the
South, but only a handful of non-Southern districts have
been cited for discrimination. This is because racial
separation in Northern districts is generally regarded as
de facto segregation, a result of housing patterns, rather
than— as in the South—de jure, the result of official law
or policy.
Last week, in the second of seven suits filed by the
Justice Department in non-Southern districts, a Federal
district court ordered the Pasadena, Calif., school board
to put into effect by next September a desegregation plan
that would give none of its schools a nonwhite majority.
The district— 30 per cent black, 58 per cent white, and
1041
12 per cent other minorities— was accused of discrimi
nating in the making of school district boundaries, teach
er assignments and in other ways.
So far, few courts have held that the existence of de
facto segregation itself is proof of discrimination, and
the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue. Yet the
disparity continues between what is forbidden in the
South and what is tolerated in the North, and the pat
tern of Northern separation begins to look more like its
Southern counterpart.
For example, 17 Florida school systems, with two-
thirds of the state’s pupil population, are currently under
Federal court orders to desegregate, two of them by Feb.
1 under a Supreme Court order. Seventy-two per cent
of the Negro students in Florida attend schools in which
Negroes constitute 95 to 100 per cent of the enrollment.
Yet 72 per cent of the Negro students in Illinois, ac
cording to the HEW survey, also attend schools with 95
to 100 per cent Negro enrollment, and there are no court
orders compelling desegregation in Illinois. In fact, it
can be argued there is more segregation in Illinois than
in Florida. Theoretically it should be easier for Illinois,
where Negroes make up 18 per cent of the student popu
lation, to place Negroes in majority-white schools than
for Florida, where they make up 23.2 per cent. Yet
there are proportionately more Negroes in majority-
white schools in Florida (23.2 per cent) than in Illinois
(13.6).
It seems likely that the courts will not for long be able
to postpone consideration of such discrepancies in the
application of national law. For a few Southern school
districts, which have desegregated in accordance with the
law, now find themselves victims of resegregation, os
tensibly as a result of shifting housing patterns. One
such district is Atlanta, where integration began eight
years ago as the result of court suits initiated by the
NAACP and other civil-rights groups.
Two Escape Routes
Since that time, 25 schools that were formerly all-
white have turned predominantly black, as white par
1042
ents have followed one of the two legal escape routes
open to them: a private school or a home in the suburbs.
Today, the school system, predominantly white before
integration, is two-thirds black, but adjoining, suburban
school systems are 80 to 95 per cent white.
I f this appears to be de facto segregation Northern-
style, Atlanta— because it had a dual school system until
recently— is nonetheless still subject to a Supreme Court
order of Jan. 14, requiring desegregation of schools in
Georgia and four other Southern states by Feb. 1.
Southerners have long been grumbling about what they
wryly refer to as “ this dual system of justice” (one for
the North, another for the South), and they are begin
ning to organize to combat it. Last week, Florida’s Gov.
Claude Kirk appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to set
national desegregation standards that would affect all 50
states. And the attorneys general of Louisiana, Missis
sippi, and Alabama announced a joint legal effort de
signed to ensure that “ the same rules for administration
of public schools” imposed by the Federal courts in the
South “ apply to all other states.”
The forces attempting to undermine enforced desegre
gation will get an unexpected assist next month with the
publication of a book by Harper & Row, which challenges
the Constitutional basis of court-ordered integration.
Entitled The Supreme Court and the Idea of Progress,
and written by Yale University’s Alexander M. Bickel, a
Constitutional law authority of impeccable credentials
among civil-rights advocates, the book is an expanded
version of the Holmes Lectures, which Professor Bickel
delivered at Harvard Law School in October.
In a chapter on the Supreme Court’s desegregation
rulings, Professor Bickel argues the Court, beginning
with the history-making Brown v. Board of Education
decision in 1954, should have contented itself with find
ing that legally enforced school segregation is uncon
stitutional.
Dubious Sociology?
In going beyond that principle to argue that separate
educational facilities are inherently unequal, says Pro
1043
fessor Bickel, the Court based its reasoning on dubious
sociology and a parochial view of American education,
which holds that education’s main duty is to promote as
similation. As a result, says Mr. Bickel:
“ In most of the larger urban areas, demographic con
ditions are such that no policy that a court can order,
and a school board, a city, or even a state has the capa
bility to put into effect, will in fact result in the fore
seeable future in racially balanced public schools.”
Enforced desegregation, in other words, will merely
force more whites into the suburbs or into private schools,
leaving, Professor Bickel argues, only the poor— black
and white— in the city schools.
It should be noted that there are many successful ex
periments in racial desegregation of schools. Several
dozen Northern school districts, according to HEW esti
mates, have achieved full and voluntary integration by
such techniques as altering attendance zones, busing, and
pairing of students to achieve racial balance. In White
Plains, N.Y., for example, a quota system introduced in
1964 has not resulted in an exodus of whites. No school
may have more than a 30 per cent or less than a 10
per cent enrollment of minority-group students.
But such plans, officials say, generally work in small
or medium-size cities (White Plains’ population: 65,000),
where the population is stable and the blacks are in the
minority. They often require, in addition, a rare degree
of local leadership.
Central cities, on the other hand, experienced an in
crease of 2,400,000 in the Negro population between
1960 and 1968, and a decline of 2,100,000 in the white
population, according to Census Bureau figures. While
the figures are open to various interpretations, they
nonetheless make it clear that great numbers of whites
do not consider integration a primary social goal.
Changing Nonwhite Attitude
Integration seems to be losing its attraction among
nonwhites as well, at least as a short-run goal. Civil-
rights leader James Farmer, now a high Nixon Admin
1044
istration official, said recently he has stopped trying to
“ sell Negro audiences on integration.” The reason:
“ They don’t agree on it any more.”
In Philadelphia, where 60 per cent of the Negro school
children attend schools that are 95 to 100 per cent Negro,
officials report waning enthusiasm for busing black stu
dents to white schools to relieve overcrowding. “ The
people want to go to their neighborhood school,” says
school spokesman Robert S. Finarelli. “ It’s the state,
not local people, pressing us for a desegregation plan.” ̂
The educational argument for integrated schools is
based on the premise that minority-group children make
their greatest achievement gains in an integrated en
vironment. Numerous studies over the years, including
the mammoth Coleman Report, issued by the U.S. Office
of Education in 1966, have documented this thesis.
Conversely, there is relatively little information to in
dicate that spending more money in black schools in
the slums does much good. “ Most experiments in im
proving ghetto education have, quite frankly, been fail
ures,” says a U.S. Office of Education official.
That is why Government “ integrationists” are so dis
turbed by the new findings of racial resegregation in
the public schools. Leon Panetta, HEW’s 31-year-old
civil-rights chief, throws up his hands and shrugs. “ We
need a congressional examination of this whole question
of the results of integration,” he says. “ In the mean
time, we do what the law says we should do.”
— Mark R. A rnold
RACIAL ISOLATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
(1968-69 School Year)
1045
City
Negro %
of total
students
% Negroes
in majority
white
schools
% Negroes
in 95-100%
Negro
schools
D.C. 93.5 0.9 89.2
CHICAGO 52.9 3.2 85.4
LOS ANGELES 22.6 4.7 78.5
NEW YORK CITY 31.5 19.7 43.9
HOUSTON 33.3 5.3 86.4
BALTIMORE 65.1 7.7 75.8
DALLAS 30.8 2.1 82.2
PHILADELPHIA 58.8 9.6 59.8
INDIANAPOLIS 33.7 22.4 52.9
BOSTON 27.1 23.3 33.6
PITTSBURGH 39.2 21.3 42.7
KANSAS CITY, MO. 46.8 14.0 67.3
BUFFALO 36.6 27.0 61.1
OKLAHOMA CITY 21.8 12.5 79.7
ST. LOUIS 63.5 7.1 86.2
ATLANTA 61.7 5.4 90.0
ORLEANS PAR., LA.
(NEW ORLEANS) 67.1 8.8 81.2
NEWARK 72.5 2.1 75.8
GARY, IND. 61.6 3.1 80.8
ROCHESTER, N.Y. 28.9 45.6 12.1
FRESNO, CALIF. 9.0 15.8 72.5
OMAHA, NEB. 18.1 20.5 38.3
(Source: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare)
1046
[Caption Omitted]
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION BY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
HALIFAX COUNTY
FIRST DEFENSE AND PLEA OF FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF
CAN BE GRANTED
1. That no claim upon which relief can be granted
is stated against this defendant in respect to:
(1) The allegations in respect to the constitutionality
of Chapters 31 and 628 of the 1969 Session Laws
of North Carolina;
(2) The allegations in respect to the alleged transfer
of the Scotland Neck Junior High School prop
erty or;
(3) The allegations of Pattie Black Cotton, Edward
M. Francis and other black teachers similarly
situated;
The said allegations constituting these causes of
action being directed at the alleged acts of the Hali
fax County Board of Education and the only relief
sought, except a ruling on the constitutionality of
said Chapters 31 and 628, being against the said
Halifax County Board of Education.
SECOND DEFENSE
1. That the allegations of paragraphs one, two and
three of the Complaint in Intervention are denied.
2. That this defendant has not knowledge or informa
tion sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of paragraphs four, five, six and seven of
the Complaint in Intervention and, therefore, denies
same.
3. The allegations of paragraph eight of the Complaint
in Intervention are denied; except that it is admitted that
the Halifax County Board of Education is organized
under the laws of the State of North Carolina and exer
1047
cises such powers and duties as are granted by the laws
of said state; that the Scotland Neck Administrative
Unit and the Littleton-Lake Gaston School District were
created by Acts of the legislature of the State of North
Carolina and that W. Henry Overman is Superintendent
of Schools of Halifax County.
4. The allegations of paragraph nine are denied; ex
cept that it is admitted that the Board of Commissioners
of Halifax County exercise such powers and duties as
are provided by law.
5. The allegations of paragraph ten are denied; ex
cept that it is admitted that the defendant Scotland
Neck City Board of Education is a public body corpo
rate.
6. The allegations of paragraph eleven are denied; ex
cept that it is admitted that the defendant Littleton-Lake
Gaston School District is a public body corporate.
7. The allegations of paragraph twelve of the Com
plaint are denied; except that it is admitted that the
North Carolina State Board of Education is an agency
of the State of North Carolina and exercises such pow
ers and duties as provided by the Constitution and laws
of the State of North Carolina.
8. The allegations of paragraph thirteen of the Com
plaint are denied; except that it is admitted that the
defendant A. Craig Phillips is the duly elected Super
intendent of Public Instruction and that he exercises such
powers and duties as provided by the Constitution and
laws of the State of North Carolina.
9. That the allegations of paragraph fourteen of the
Complaint in Intervention are denied.
10. That this defendant has not knowledge or infor
mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of paragraphs fifteen and sixteen of the Com
plaint in Intervention and, therefore, denies same.
_ 11* That the allegations of paragraphs seventeen and
eighteen of the Complaint in Intervention are denied.
12. That the allegations of paragraph nineteen of the
Complaint in Intervention are denied; except that it is
admitted that the General Assembly of 1969 established
the Warrenton City Administrative Unit, the Littleton-
1048
Lake Gaston School District, and the Scotland Neck Ad
ministrative Unit, as appears in the Acts establishing
same, and that these enactments were opposed in the
General Assembly by the Eastern Council of Community
Affairs.
13. That this defendant has not knowledge or infor
mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of paragraphs twenty, twenty-one, twenty-
two, twenty-three and twenty-four of the Complaint in
Intervention and, therefore, denies same; except that it
is admitted that the enactments of the Legislature of
the State of North Carolina are of record and speak for
themselves.
14. That this defendant has not knowledge or infor
mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of paragraphs twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-
seven, twenty-eight, twenty-nine and thirty of the Com
plaint in Intervention and, therefore, denies same.
15. That the allegations of paragraphs thirty-one,
thirty-two, thirty-three, thirty-four and thirty-five of the
Complaint in Intervention are denied.
16. That this defendant has not knowledge or infor
mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of paragraphs thirty-six, thirty-seven and
thirty-eight of the Complaint in Intervention and, there
fore, denies same.
17. That the allegations of paragraphs thirty-nine and
forty of the Complaint in Intervention are denied.
18. That this defendant has not knowledge or infor
mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of paragraph forty-one of the Compaint in
Intervention and, therefore, denies same.
19. That the allegations of paragraph forty-two of the
Complaint in Intervention are denied.
20. That this defendant has not knowledge or infor
mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of paragraph forty-three of the Complaint in
Intervention and, therefore, denies same.
21. That the allegations of paragraph forty-four of
the Complaint in Intervention are denied.
1049
WHEREFORE, defendant Board of County Commis
sioners of Halifax County prays:
1. That the said cause of action alleging Chap
ters 31 and 628 of the 1969 Session laws of North
Carolina are void and unconstitutional, and the said
cause of action alleging the wrongful transfer of
the Scotland Neck Junior High School property, and
the said cause of action alleging discrimination
against Pattie Black Cotton and other black teachers
similarly situated, all three, he dismissed as against
the defendant Board of County Commissioners of
Halifax County for the reason that no claim upon
which relief can be granted is stated against this
defendant in any of the above three causes of action.
2. That the First Defense be treated as a com
plete bar in respect to any relief as against this
defendant and in the event the said First Defense
is not sustained that the Second Defense be treated
as a complete defense on behalf of this defendant
and that this action be dismissed as against this
defendant, Board of County Commissioners of Hali
fax County.
3. That this defendant have and recover its costs
and have such other and further relief as the Court
deems to be proper and just.
/s / Ron B. Parker
Ron B. Parker
Parker & Dickens
Attorneys at Law
102 S. Railroad Street
Infield, North Carolina 27823
Telephone No. 445-3652
Attorney for Board of County
Commissioners of Halifax
County
1050
N orth Carolina
Halifax County
VERIFICATION
Harry A. Branch, being duly sworn says:
That he is Chairman of the Board of County Com
missioners of Halifax County; that he verifies this An
swer; that he has read the foregoing Answer; that the
same is true to his own knowledge except as to matters
therein stated upon information and belief and as to
such matters he believes it to be true.
/ s / Harry A. Branch
Harry A. Branch
Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners of
Halifax County
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 16th
day of February, 1970.
/ s / Nelda C. Herbert
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: Jan. 4, 1971
1051
[Caption Omitted]
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, HALIFAX COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION TO THE COMPLAINT IN
INTERVENTION AND AN AFFIRMATIVE PLEA
THAT THE COURT DELAY FURTHER AND FI
NAL DETERMINATION OF ALL OTHER ISSUES
RAISED HEREIN PENDING FINAL DETERMI
NATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
ACT CREATING THE SCOTLAND NECK CITY
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT AND ALSO
DELAY ANY FURTHER ORDER FOR IMPLEMEN
TATION OF ANY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION
PLAN UNTIL JUNE 1, 1970.
FIRST COUNT
1. To the Intervener-Plaintiffs adoption of the allega
tions of the original complaint in this cause, this de
fendant repeats its pleadings in defense thereto including
its Answer and Further Answer and Prayer heretofore
filed.
2. This defendant denies that Intervener-Plaintiffs
have invoked properly the jurisdiction of this court and
therefore denies the allegations of this paragraph.
3. It is admitted that this is a proceeding seeking to
restrain this defendant as is alleged in sub-sections 1-6
of Paragraph 3, but the allegations of each paragraph
are denied.
With respect to the proceeding for a Declaratory Judg
ment in sub-paragraph a, b, c, d, and e of Paragraph 3,
this defendant was in no way responsible for the enact
ment of the acts of the General Assembly referred to in
sub-paragraphs a, b, and c, and denies the allegations of
sub-paragraphs d and e.
4. It is admitted that the plaintiff, Pattie Black Cot
ton, is a black public school teacher, a citizen of the
United States and the State of North Carolina and has
been and is still a teacher with this defendant, but de
nies the other allegations of said paragraph.
5. It is admitted that the plaintiff, Edward M. Fran
cis, is a negro and a citizen of the United States and
1052
the State of North Carolina and a former teacher em
ployed by this defendant, but the other allegations of
this paragraph are denied.
6. This defendant does not have knowledge or infor
mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of Paragraph 6 and therefore denies the same.
7. This defendant does not have knowledge or infor
mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of Paragraph 7 and therefore denies the same.
8. The allegations of Paragraph 8 are admitted.
9. The allegations of Paragraph 9 are admitted.
10. It is admitted that the defendant, Scotland Neck
City Board of Education, is a public body corporate, but
this defendant is without knowledge or information suffi
cient to form a belief as to the truth of the other allega
tions and therefore denies the same.
11. It is admitted that the Littleton-Lake Gaston
School District is a public body corporate, but this de
fendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the other allegations
of this paragraph and therefore denies the same.
12. It is admitted that the North Carolina State Board
of Education is an agency of the State and exercises
such powers and duties as provided by the Constitution
and laws of the State of North Carolina; that except
as herein admitted Paragraph 12 is denied.
13. It is admitted that the Defendant, A. Craig Phil
lips, is the duly elected Superintendent of Public In
struction, and that he exercises such powers and duties
as provided by the Constitution and laws of the State of
North Carolina; that except as admitted the allegations
of Paragraph 13 are denied.
14. The allegations of Paragraph 14 are denied.
15. It is admitted that the plaintiff, Edward N. Fran
cis, was teaching and that his teaching contract has been
terminated, but the other allegations of this paragraph
are denied.
16. It is admitted that Halifax County Board of Edu
cation is currently operating the Scotland Neck Schools,
but the other allegations of this paragraph are denied.
17. The allegations of Paragraph 17 are denied.
1053
18. The allegations of Paragraph 18 are denied.
19. It is admitted that the 1969 Session of the North
Carolina General Assembly enacted laws creating three
new school administrative units, but the other allegations
of Paragraph 19 are denied.
20. The allegations of Paragraph 20 are admitted.
21. The allegations of Paragraph 21 are not denied.
22. The allegations of Paragraph 22 are not denied.
23. The allegations of Paragraph 23 are not denied.
24. The allegations of Paragraph 24 are admitted.
25. The allegations of Paragraph 25 are denied.
26. This defendant has no knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of Para
graph 26 and therefore denies the same.
27. This defendant has no knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of Para
graph 27 and therefore denies the same.
28. This defendant has no knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of Para
graph 28 and therefore denies the same.
29. The allegations of Paragraph 29, as therein al
leged, are denied.
30. The allegations of Paragraph 30 are denied.
31. The allegations of Paragraph 31 are denied.
32. The allegations of Paragraph 32 are denied.
SECOND COUNT
33. This defendant here adopts and again alleges its
answers to Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 12, 13 and 14 of
the First Count in the Complaint and hereby incorpo
rates the same in this paragraph.
34. The allegations of Paragraph 34 are denied.
35. The allegations of Paragraph 35 are not denied.
36. This defendant has no knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of Para
graph 36 and therefore denies the same.
37. This defendant has no knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of Para
graph 37 and therefore denies the same.
38. The allegations of Paragraph 38 are admitted.
1054
39. It is admitted that a hearing was held on June
12, 1969, and that Mrs. Elizabeth Hocksday appeared as
a witness, but the other allegations of Paragraph 39 are
denied.
40. The allegations of Paragraph 40 are denied.
41. The allegations of Paragraph 41 are admitted.
42. The allegations of Paragraph 42 are denied.
43. The allegations of Paragraph 43 are denied.
44. The allegations of Paragraph 44 are denied.
FIRST FURTHER ANSWER AND AN AFFIRMA
TIVE PLEA THAT THE COURT DELAY FUR
THER AND FINAL DETERMINATION OF ALL
OTHER ISSUES RAISED HEREIN PENDING FI
NAL DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
ALITY OF THE ACT CREATING THE SCOTLAND
NECK CITY SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT
AND ALSO DELAY ANY FURTHER ORDER FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY SCHOOL DESEGRE
GATION PLAN UNTIL JUNE 1, 1970.
For a First Further Answer and an affirmative plea
that the court delay further and final determination of
all other issues raised herein pending final determination
of the constitutionality of the act creating the Scotland
Neck City School Administrative Unit and also delay any
further order for implementation of any school desegre
gation plan until June 1, 1970, this defendant, alleges
and says:
1. That there is a misjoinder of causes of action sought
by the Intervener-Plaintiffs against this defendant in
that the issue involving the constitutionality of the Leg
islative Act creating the Scotland Neck City School Ad
ministrative Unit is entirely separate and unrelated to
the hiring and firing of teachers and to the CODE OF
ETHICS OF THE EDUCATION PROFESSION as
adopted by the National Education Associations and the
Associations of the State of North Carolina.
2. The Intervener-Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief
in this court as they have failed to exhaust their admin
istrative remedies as set forth by rules, regulations and
1055
Public Laws with respect to the employment of teachers
and their administrative remedies for the alleged viola
tions of the CODE OF ETHICS of the Education Asso
ciation as adopted by the National Education Associations
and the Associations of the State of North Carolina.
3. That this defendant cannot be held accountable for
any violation of the CODE OF ETHICS among teachers,
this being a matter solely between the Associations and
the teacher alleged to have violated the Code or any part
thereof.
4. That the Public Laws of North Carolina prescribe
procedures to be followed for the firing or removal of
teachers, which administrative procedures have not been
followed or exhausted, though they would provide ade
quate relief.
5. That the Public Laws of North Carolina provide
that State and County school officials shall decide the
curriculum to be offered in each school, and this author
ity has not been supplemented or supplanted by the fed
eral courts.
6. That the alleged criminal action against Pattie
Black Cotton is still pending in the Superior Court of
Halifax County and has not been finally adjudicated or
appealed from. That said criminal action is a criminal
matter and cannot be properly joined in this action.
7. That the question of the re-instatement of Edward
M. Francis cannot be finally determined until the consti-
tiutionality of the Scotland Neck City School Administra
tive Act is finally adjudicated. That the final determina
tion of the constitutionality of that Act, plus the rapidly
shifting population in the public schools of Halifax
County, may increase or decrease, the demand for teach
ers and require a re-assignment of teachers, or non
renewal of a teacher’s contract, depending on the number
of students and the curriculum needs at that time. Thus
it is now impossible to finally determine the employment
of Edward M. Francis and any other teachers that might
be affected.
8. That since the filing of the motion to intervene by
the Intervener-Plaintiffs, and the Court’s order allowing
intervention, drastic changes have occurred, and will con
1056
tinue to occur in the immediate future, in the policies,
guidelines, Rules and Regulations in the Justice Depart
ment; in the Department of Health, Education and Wel
fare; in the Congress; and, perhaps in the Supreme
Court rulings; all of which are evident in the actions of
Congress, statements of the Attorney General, statements
of the President of the United States and the Vice Presi
dent of the United States. That these changes have cre
ated and will continue to create hope for the preserva
tion, improvement and re-establishment of the Public
Schools, and particularly neighborhood schools, through
out the nation, and particularly in Halifax County.
That there is nothing in this case, from any of the
parties, showing that transfers in mid-term are educa
tionally sound, necessary or helpful, but there is volumi
nous evidence that integration would decrease, and ir
reparable damage done to all children if transfers are
made in mid-term. That the parents of school children
of Halifax County, through their new found hope and
belief, that a solution acceptable to all races will result,
from the joint efforts of the Congress, the President, the
Vice President, the courts and the members of the Presi
dent’s Cabinet and the new Commission recently appoint
ed by the President of the United States and chaired by
the Vice President, would now be more adamant if
changes were made in mid-year.
That the delay of the date of implementation until
June 1, 1970, would allow a culmination and crystaliza-
tion of the efforts of the various branches of government
above set forth, and allow final and definitive decisions
of the federal courts, thus allowing this court and this
defendant to formulate new and final plans that would
be in the best interest of all parties to this suit, and par
ticularly to all the school children of Halifax County.
1057
WHEREFORE, this defendant prays:
1. That the court grant the prayers of this defendant
as set forth in its original Answer which prayers are
numbered 1 through 5 and incorporated herein by refer
ence.
2. That the relief sought by the Intervener-Plaintiffs
be denied, and their each and every claim be dismissed
as to this defendant.
3. That the court delay until June 1, 1970, or until
later if the Court desires, any date of implementation for
any plan of integration now before the court, or later
submitted to the court, or devised by the court.
,/s/ W. Lunsford Crew
W. Lunsford Crew ,
Attorney for the Defendant,
Halifax County Board of
Education
1058
[Caption Omitted]
ORDER
LARKINS, District Judge:
This cause coming on before the Court upon Plaintiff’s
second claim for relief, wherein Plaintiff seeks to require
the Halifax County Board of Education to desegregate
its school system on a basis other than freedom of choice,
said issue in the second of two claims in the instant ac
tion having been severed by the Court; said cause is now
before the Court separately for the determination of the
Court.
SUMMARY
Pursuant to the oral directive of the Court upon a
hearing of the issues raised by the first and second claims
in the instant action on August 21-23, 1969, the Defend
ant Halifax County Board of Education filed, on October
15, 1969, a proposed plan for the desegregation of its
schools on a basis other than “ freedom of choice” .
At a pre-trial conference held by this Court in cham
bers at Trenton, North Carolina, on November 3, 1969,
counsel for Plaintiff stated orally their objections to De
fendant’s proposed plan; said objections being: (1) that
the plan still used freedom of choice in the assignment
of pupils; (2) that the minority to majority transfer
system was not acceptable; (3) that the faculties were
not desegregated; and (4) that the plan failed to pro
vide a terminal date.
Thereupon, the Plaintiff moved that the Court order
the Defendant to adopt and implement immediately the
“ Interim Plan” prepared by the North Carolina Depart
ment of Instruction.
The Court, taking the motion under advisement, di
rected that the Plaintiff’s objections to the plan proposed
by Defendant and the motion be submitted in writing
within three or four days and directed that the Halifax
County Board of Education inform the Court within
thirty days why the “ Interim Plan” could not be imple
mented at mid-year.
1059
On November 21, 1969, the Court received a nine page
report and summary of the reasons why the “ Interim
Plan” could or should not be implemented at mid-year.
On November 24, 1969, this Court entered an Order
directing that the Halifax County Board of Education
submit on or before December 15, 1969, a plan to termi
nate the present dual school system being operated in
the county at once.
A hearing was scheduled by the Court to be held in
the United States Courtroom in Raleigh on Thursday,
December 18, 1969, at 9:30 A.M.
The Court amended the Order on December 4, 1969, to
require of the Defendant that it submit with its plan on
or before December 15, projected statistics for student
bodies and faculty by race and school, and a map depict
ing any proposed zones or attendance areas for each
school.
On December 15, 1969, this Court received from W.
Lunsford Crew Esquire, counsel for the Halifax County
Board of Education, a letter with enclosures including:
copies of the original Interim Plan; copies of an amend
ed Interim Plan; a map showing projected statistics for
student bodies by race and proposed attendance zones;
copies of projected statistics for faculty by race; and a
resolution by the Halifax Board whereby they adopted
the Interim Plan and requested that the State Division
of School Planning make any modifications it might
deem necessary.
The changes proposed in the amended Interim Plan
do not relate to the four suggested attendance zones set
up in the original “ Interim Plan” or any other major
aspects of said plan. Rather the amended portions relate
only to grade origin and space usage in the individual
schools.
Mr. Crew’s letter indicated that the Board had decided
that they were not able to come up with a plan that
would be superior to the plan proposed by the State
Division of School Planning; and that this was the rea
son for its adoption by resolution thereof.
However, counsel for Defendant Halifax County Board
did again request that the effective date of the plan be
1060
delayed until the end of the current school year— that
date being on or about June 1, 1970.
The above-mentioned letter was read into the Record
at a Hearing of the matter by the Court on December
19, 1969 in Raleigh, North Carolina and counsel for the
Plaintiff were apprised of the contents thereof.
Defendant’s reasons for asking delay of implementa
tion included the alleged “ irreparable damage to the
education of the children” which would result from an
earlier enforcement.
At the Hearing on December 19, 1969, Mr. Charles K.
Howard, counsel for Plaintiff, again requested that the
Court order Defendant to implement this revised Interim
Plan at mid-year and in no event later than January
31, 1970.
Upon a full Hearing of the issues concerning the pro
posed desegregation of the Halifax County Schools, the
Court having heard counsel for the Government and
counsel for the Defendant, Halifax County Board of
Education, adopted the proposed amended Interim Plan
of the Halifax County Board of Education. A determina
tion of the effective date of implementation of the plan
was reserved by the Court pending determination of other
matters involved in this action.
FINDINGS OF FACT
It appears to the Court that an implementation of the
proposed interim plan of the Defendant Halifax County
Board of Education at mid-year or at any time before
the completion of the school year would have at least
endangered if not in actuality irreparably damaged the
quality of education received during the school year by
all of the children of the County; be they Negro, Ameri
can Indian or Caucasian. And the Court is mindful that
these individuals are its most important consideration.
Therefore, it appears to the Court, that the request of
the Plaintiff, taken as a Motion, should be denied, and
that the request of Defendant Halifax County Board
of Education, taken as a Motion, that the effective date
of implementation be delayed until the end of the school
1061
year— that date being on or about June 1, 1970, should
be allowed.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE, in accordance with the forego
ing, it is:
ORDERED, that the Motion of Defendant be and the
same is hereby, Allowed; and that the “ Proposed Interim
Plan” of the Defendant Halifax County Board of Edu
cation as prepared by the North Carolina Department of
Instruction, subject to the secondary amendments of the
Board included in their proposal to this Court, the same
having been adopted by the Court be Implemented by the
Board no later than June 1, 1970.
FURTHER ORDERED, that the Motion of Plaintiff
for immediate implementation at mid-year be, and the
same is hereby Denied; and,
FURTHER ORDERED, that the Clerk shall serve
copies of this ORDER upon all counsel of record.
,/s/ John D. Larkins, Jr.
John D. Larkins, Jr.
United States District Judge
Trenton, North Carolina
May 18th, 1970
1062
[Caption Omitted]
OPINION AND ORDER
LARKINS, District Judge
SUMMARY
The subject of this opinion and one of the primary
issues in this case is the constitutionality of Chapter 31
of the North Carolina Session Laws of 1969,1 a local act
which carved out of the Halifax County, North Carolina,
school system a separate administrative unit for the oper
ation of the public schools in Scotland Neck, a town with
a population of approximately 3000 located in the south
eastern section of Halifax County. The plaintiff contends
that the act is unconstitutional and that its implementa
tion should be permanently enjoined because the act is
inconsistent with the State’s duty under the Equal Pro
tection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to dis
mantle its dual school system. Defendants Scotland Neck
City Board of Education and the State of North Carolina
contend that the act is not violative of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution as inter
preted by the Supreme Court of the United States.
This controversy came before the court upon the filing
of plaintiff’s complaint on June 16, 1969, attacking the
1 Plaintiff, in its complaint, also challenged the constitutionality
of defendant Halifax County Board of Education’s pupil assign
ment plan on the grounds that the plan failed to establish a unitary
non-racial school system as required by the mandate of the United
States Supreme Court. Furthermore, the status of the Haliwa
Indians in the new arrangement of school systems was raised by a
complaint in intervention permitted to be filed by this Court on
October 30, 1969, on behalf of the several hundred Haliwa Indians
residing in Halifax and Warren Counties. Another third-party
complaint in intervention, filed as of January 9, 1970, by order of
this Court by two black public school teachers in Halifax County
and a number of minor school children residing in the Scotland
Neck City School System and the Littleton-Lake Gaston School
System, made certain allegations about the treatment of black
students and faculty members by the Halifax County Board of Edu
cation. None of the questions raised by these additional allegations
have yet been ruled on by the Court.
1063
constitutionality of Chapter 31 of the Session Laws of
1969 and seeking to require the Halifax County Board
of Education to desegregate its school system. Following
a three-day hearing on plaintiff’s motion for a prelimi
nary injunction in Raleigh, North Carolina, this court,
on August 25, 1969, entered a Memorandum Opinion and
Order enjoining the Scotland Neck City Board of Educa
tion additional defendants and its officers and agents, etc.,
from taking any further action pursuant to the provisions
of Chapter 31 pending a final determination on the mer
its of the constitutional questions raised by plaintiff’s
challenge of the act.
On October 30, 1969, this Court allowed certain named
Haliwa Indians to intervene and on November 3, 1969,
this court entered an Order allowing Robert B. Morgan,
Attorney General of North Carolian, to intervene as a
defendant on behalf of the State of North Carolina.
On January 9, 1970 the court allowed the motion for
leave to intervene on behalf of Pattie Black Cotton, Ed
ward M. Francis and others, and ordered additional de
fendants named therein to plead within 20 days. This
court scheduled a hearing on the merits of the constitu
tionality of Chapter 31 and similar questions in the case
of Turner et al. v. Warren County Board of Education
et al., No. 1482, Raleigh Division, for Wednesday, Decem
ber 17, 1969. A trial on the merits in this case and the
Turner et al v. Warren County Board of Education et
al case was conducted by this court on December 17 and
18, 1969. Following the trial, this court carefully con
sidered the transcripts, exhibits, briefs, depositions and
arguments of counsel; and, now being fully advised in
the premises, the court makes the following Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Scotland Neck, a small town with a present population
of approximately 3000, is located in the southeastern
corner of Halifax County, a rural and agricultural re
gion of North Carolina which has a predominantly black
population. The population of the town itself is approxi
mately 50% white and 50% black.
1064
The schools within the corporate limits of Scotland
Neck were operated as a city administrative unit until
1936 at which time they became part of the Halifax
County unit pursuant to a procedure authorized by the
General Statutes of North Carolina.2 The construction
of the elementary school in 1903 and the high school in
1923 was financed entirely by local funds.
Following the consolidation with Halifax County in
1936, the schools of Scotland Neck were operated as part
of a dual school system, completely segregated, until
1965, at which time the Halifax County Board of Edu
cation adopted a freedom-of-choice plan for the assign
ment of pupils. The county maintained the freedom-of-
choice assignment plan for the next three years during
which a few black students attended formerly all-white
schools and no white students attended formerly all
black schools. For example, during the 1967-68 school
year, all of the white students and 97% of the black stu
dents attended schools previously maintained for their
own races. In that year, 10 of the 450 teachers in 18
schools were assigned across racial lines. About 35 black
students attended the Scotland Neck schools during the
1967-68 school year.
On July 27, 1968, the United States Department of
Justice, pursuant to its authority under Title IV of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, sent the Halifax County Board
of Education a “ notice letter” which advised that Halifax
County had failed to disestablish its dual school system
and that additional steps should be taken for the Board
to be in compliance with the United States Supreme
Court’s decision in Green v. School Board of New Kent
County, 391 U. S. 430, 88 S. Ct. 1689, 20 L. Ed. 2d 716
(1968). Negotiations ensued between the attorneys for
the Justice Department and the Halifax County School
Board, and a tentative agreement was reached whereby
the Board would disestablish the dual school system by
the commencement of the 1969-70 school year and would
implement certain intermediate steps at the beginning
2 Formerly Article 18, Chapter 136, Public Laws 1923, now North
Carolina General Statutes §§ 115-74 through 115-78.
1065
of the 1968-69 school year. The Justice Department
agreed to withhold suit in consideration of the promises
made by the Board.
The negotiations and the Board’s promise to desegre
gate its schools were well-publicized in the local press.
The newspaper in Scotland Neck reported on August 9,
1968, that the county had been ordered to end its dual
school system and that there were several forms of grade
organization, such as zoning or pairing of schools, which
would be more effective than the freedom-of-choice plan
as a means of converting to a unitary non-racial school
system. The portion of the agreement which affected the
Scotland Neck schools, that is, the proposed combining
of the seventh and eighth grades of the previously all
black Brawley school, just outside the corporate limits of
Scotland Neck, with the all-white junior high, was also
publicized in the Scotland Neck newspaper on August 16,
1968.
On or about July 1, 1968, in anticipation of their ob
ligation to comply with the Green decision, the Halifax
County Board of Education asked the North Carolina De
partment of Public Instruction to conduct a school survey
to determine the steps necessary for the Board to meet
its desegregation obligations and to recommend “ the
most effective organizational patterns for the county
schools in order to insure the best education possible for
the children.” The survey, prepared in response to the
request, was completed in December 1968. It recom
mended as an Interim Plan a combination of geographic
zoning with grade reorganizations at some schools, in
cluding the pairing of the predominantly white Scotland
Neck school and the all-black Brawley school with respect
to certain grades. The Long Range plan suggested the
construction of two new consolidated high schools to be
financed by a proposed four million dollar bond issue. The
survey also recommended that the county schools be con
solidated with the schools in the city units of Roanoke
Rapids and Weldon (two city administrative units also lo
cated within Halifax County). The Halifax County
Board of Education subsequently declined to implement
the plan which would have resulted in a majority of
1066
black students in 17 of the 18 schools in the Halifax
County system.3
The legislative bill proposing the creation of a sepa
rate administrative unit for the schools of Scotland Neck,
according to its proponents, was designed in response to
Scotland Neck residents’ dissatisfaction with the way in
which the Halifax County Board of Education had al
lowed the schools in Scotland Neck to deteriorate. Only
one county-wide school bond issue had passed since 1936,
and that was in 1957. At that time, the separate units
in Roanoke Rapids and Weldon, on a per-pupil basis, re
ceived a total of $1,020,000, and Halifax County received
$1,980,000 for capital outlay. None of the proceeds of
the bond issue was spent on any schools within the cor
porate limits of Scotland Neck. If the Scotland Neck
schools had been operated as a separate unit at that time,
the unit would have received approximately $190,000 as
its proportionate share of the bond proceeds.
In 1963, as a result of the latest state-wide bond
issue, the Halifax County Board of Education received a
total of $950,000 as its proportionate share of the pro
ceeds. Mr. W. Henry Overman, Superintendent of the
Halifax County schools, testified on deposition that none
of this money had been spent or committed for any school
within the corporate limits of Scotland Neck. (Over
man’s Deposition, pp. 184, 187). He also testified that
Halifax County has gradually reduced the annual capital
outlay tax for the schools from 63 cents per $100 valua
tion in 1957 to 27.5 cents per $100 valuation in the latest
fiscal year. (Overman’s Deposition, pp. 204-205).
In 1963, some of the leaders of Scotland Neck began
to formulate plans for the creation of a separate adminis
trative unit for the schools of Scotland Neck but were not
able to crystallize these plans into a legislative bill prior
to the expiration of the 1963 session of the North Caro
lina legislature. In 1965, the proponents of a separate
3 Mr. Franklin P. Shields, a resident of Scotland Neck and
chairman of the Scotland Neck City Board of Education, testified
on deposition that he felt public opinion was against the Interim
Plan because the people did not generally understand it, because
they were generally opposed to change of any kind and because there
were administrative difficulties in implementing the plan. (Shields’
Deposition, pp. 18-23).
1067
administrative unit did formulate a bill which would
have provided for a separate unit for the administration
of the schools in Scotland Neck and the four surrounding
townships and would have provided for a supplemental
tax of 25 cents on each $100 valuation throughout the
new school district. The bill passed the House of Repre
sentatives but was defeated by the Senate, and it was the
opinion of many in the Scotland Neck area that the de
feat had been caused by the pressure of individuals
residing in the townships outside the corporate limits of
Scotland Neck.
In 1966, prompted by Mr. Henry Harrison, the only
resident of Scotland Neck who was a member of the Hali
fax County Board of Education, a delegation consisting
of Mr. Harrison, Mr. C. M. Moore, chairman of the
Halifax County Board of Education, and Mr. Overman,
Superintendent of the Halifax County schools, met with
Dr. Pearce and some other staff members in the office of
the North Carolina Superintendent of Public Instruction,
the Division of School Planning, to get approval for the
construction of a new high school and gymnasium in
Scotland Neck to replace the old high school and the
building being used as a combination auditorium and
gymnasium. The new facilities would have been com
pletely integrated. The Halifax County Board of Educa
tion supported the requested construction for Scotland
Neck, but it was not approved by the Division of School
Planning. (Overman’s Deposition, pp. 178-180).
In 1968, the leaders of Scotland Neck again began to
make plans for the creation of a separate administrative
unit for the operation of the Scotland Neck schools. This
time they planned to limit the boundaries of the new
district to the town limits of Scotland Neck because of
the feeling that it was the residents of the area outside
Scotland Neck who had contributed to the defeat of the
bill in 1965. In November, 1968, a group consisting of
Frank Shields, the future chairman of the Scotland Neck
City Board of Education, C. Kitchen Josey, Henry Har
rison, and Thorne Gregory, the State representative from
the area, visited the Tryon City unit, at that time the
smallest school unit in the State with 828 students en
rolled during the 1968-69 school year. At that time, 974
1068
pupils were attending the schools within the corporate
limits of Soctland Neck, and it was expected that, with
transfers, any new administrative unit would have ap
proximately the same number of pupils. It was felt that
the Tryon City school was superior to any school in Hali
fax County, ranking 4th out of 160 units in the State in
percentage of high school graduates attending college,
31st in pupil-teacher ratio and 12th in library books per
pupil. The tax base of Tryon was approximately the
same as the tax base of Scotland Neck, and the Tryon
unit also had a supplementary tax of 50 cents per $100
valuation. The group received a copy of the Tryon bud
get and the curriculum and discussed with the Tryon
officials the amount of money needed to operate the sys
tem. The trip was primarily to study the financial feas
ibility of creating the separate unit in Scotland Neck
(Shields’ Deposition, pp. 11-12, 59-60). The Scotland
Neck leaders talked to no other professional educators
(with the exception of State Superintendent Craig Phil
lips, who opposed the creation of a new unit) and con
ducted no other studies before proposing the introduction
of a bill in the State legislature. (Henry Harrison’s
Deposition, pp. 57-9).
The actual bill creating the separate unit in Scotland
Neck was drafted by the North Carolina Attorney Gen
eral’s office and was introduced as House Bill No. 22.
After receiving the approval of the House Education
Committee, the House Finance Committee and the Senate
Finance Committee, the bill passed both houses by a sub
stantial majority and was ratified as Chapter 31 of the
North Carolina Session Laws on March 3, 1969.4
4 The actual title of Chapter 31 was:
AN ACT TO IMPROVE AND PROVIDE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF
A HIGHER STANDARD FOR THE RESIDENTS OF SCOTLAND
NECK IN HALIFAX COUNTY. TO ESTABLISH THE SCOT
LAND NECK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT, TO PROVIDE
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN
SAID ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT, TO LEVY A SPECIAL TAX
FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF SAID ADMINISTRATIVE
UNIT, ALL OF WHICH SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE AP
PROVAL OF THE VOTERS IN A REFERENDUM OR SPECIAL
ELECTION.
1069
Chapter 31 was a local act which authorized the crea
tion of a separate public school administrative unit to
be known as the Scotland Neck City Administrative Unit
pending approval by a majority of the voters of Scotland
Neck in a special election to be held on April 8, 1969. The
act also provided that, upon such approval, a special
tax of 50 cents per $100 valuation be levied on property
within the corporate limits of Scotland Neck, the school
properties within the new system and all funds allocated
for the operation of such schools be transferred from the
Halifax County Board of Education to the new system
and that the Mayor and Board of Commissioners of
Scotland Neck be required to appoint a Board of Educa
tion to administer the new system.
Chapter 31 became operative on April 8, 1969, upon
the approval of a majority of the voters of Scotland
Neck. Of the 1305 registered voters, in a large turnout,
813 voted for approval, and 332 voted against the act.
(Ferd Harrison’s Deposition, pp. 16-21).
There was a mixed reaction to the bill by educators
and the people of Halifax County. Most of the white
leaders of Scotland Neck supported the bill. Mr. W.
Henry Overman, Superintendent of the Halifax County
Schools, was opposed to the bill. (Henry Harrison’s Depo
sition, p. 12). Negro groups, specifically, one led by a
Reverend Deloatche, generally opposed the bill, (Deposi
tion of Aubrey Powell, black member of the Scotland
Neck school board, p. 18). Craig Phillips, State Super
intendent of Public Instruction and the only profes
sional educator to testify against the bill in the legisla
ture, opposed it on the grounds that it was contrary to
the trend of consolidating school districts, (Phillips’ Depo
sition, p. 23), and because the number of students in the
unit would be less than the number which he thought
should be a minimum for the efficient operation of a
school unit. (Phillips’ Deposition, pp. 58, 59, 87-88).
Following approval of the act by the voters of Scot
land Neck, the Mayor and Board of Commissioners of the
Town appointed a five-member Board of Education. The
Board then hired Franklin B. Bailey as superintendent,
approximated the student enrollment for the 1969-70
school year and hired teachers. The Board also had a
1070
preregistration for students, established a curriculum, set
up an athletic program and assigned teachers. At a
two-day instruction session for teachers which began on
August 18, 1969, the Board announced that new teachers
should report on August 26th and that the students should
report for the commencement of the school year on Au
gust 28th. The supplementary tax of 50 cents per $100
valuation was levied by the Board of Commissioners and
the Town Tax Collector was instructed to collect it.
(Ferd Harrison’s Deposition, p. 22).5
At a joint meeting of the Halifax County and Scotland
Neck school boards in June, the Halifax Board agreed
to lease the Junior High School building which was just
outside the boundaries of the new district to the Scotland
Neck Board for one dollar per year. The Halifax Board
has a similar arrangement with the Roanoke Rapids
school unit with respect to the Chaloner school. The
lease from Halifax County to Scotland Neck was first
discussed at a joint meeting of the two boards in April
or May. (C. M. Moore’s deposition, pp. 25-26). The
lease arrangement amounted to extending the boundaries
of the Scotland Neck unit to include approximately 10
additional acres, and the extension was approved by the
State Board of Education on June 5, 1969. (Deposition
of Franklin B. Bailey, Superintendent of the Scotland
Neck system, pp. 19-20, Overman’s Deposition, pp. 63-
64).
One controversial aspect of this case is a transfer plan
devised by the Scotland Neck Board of Education where
by students would be allowed to transfer into or out of
the Scotland Neck unit to and from the Halifax County
unit.6 Under the plan a student could transfer into the
5 The collection of the tax of course when this Court’s preliminary
injunction was entered against further implementation of Chapter
31. Much to the credit of the citizens of Scotland Neck, the sup
porters of the bill have financed this litigation by voluntary dona
tions contributed in response to a solicitation in the S co tla n d N e c k
C o m m o n w ea lth , the local newspaper, on October 10, 1960.
6 Both the Roanoke Rapids and the Weldon city units have similar
transfer plans, but, recently, restrictions have been placed on the
number of students permitted to transfer from Halifax County into
the two systems. (Overman’s deposition, pp. 166-169).
1071
system if he paid a fee which would compensate for the
supplemental tax being paid by the parents of those
students residing within the corporate limits of Scotland
Neck. One hundred dollars would be charged for the first
child in a family; $25 for the next two children; and the
rest of the children in a family would be allowed to trans
fer in free of charge. As of August 25, 1969, 350 whites
and 10 blacks had applied for transfer into the Scotland
Neck system, and 44 black 11th and 12th graders had
applied to transfer out of the Scotland Neck unit to at
tend the all-black Brawley High School.7 8 Because of the
controversial nature of the transfer plan and the charge
that the plan permitted the Scotland Neck system to be
come a refuge for white students or “white island,” coun
sel for the Scotland Neck Board of Education in its
First Further Answer attached to an Amended Answer
filed on September 3, 1969, said the Scotland Neck unit,
if permitted to operate, would limit its student enroll
ment to those students residing within the corporate
limits of Scotland Neck plus or minus any transfers that
may be permitted by law and that would be in accord
ance with a plan to be approved by this Court.®
The result of the creation of a separate administra
tive unit for Scotland Neck was to carve out of the
Halifax County unit a smaller school district. Without
the transfer system, there are 399 whites and 296 blacks
of school age within the corporate limits of Scotland
Neck. This does not include the children who would have
entered the first grade in the fall of 1969. The Scotland
7 Counsel for the Scotland Neck City Board of Education ex
plained that the transfer of these black students in the 11th and
12th grades would be permitted only for the next two years in
order to allow the students who had bought class rings, participated
in athletics or had been chosen to leadership positions to remain
in the all-black Brawley High School.
8 I f the school district itself were found to be constitutional, it
would not be difficult to fashion an acceptable transfer plan by
either limiting transfers in and out such that the black-white
ratio would be the same after accepting transfers or by accepting
an equal number of blacks and whites. The problem of finding
enough black students who could afford the transfer fees might
be met by charging the paying transferees a higher fee.
1072
Neck system would have been an integrated system
throughout with black students comprising 42.6% of the
student enrollment. There is one black member on the
five-member school board, and the faculty would also be
integrated. The effectuation of the proposed transfer
plan would have created approximately the same ratio of
white to black students that prevailed during the 1968-69
school year. In 1968-69, 786 whites attended Scotland
Neck schools. Of those, 399 resided within the corporate
limits and 387 resided outside Scotland Neck. With the
transfer system as originally adopted, the net effect would
have been to have 759 white students (74%) in the
schools of Scotland Neck and 262 black students (26%).
The school facilities under the jurisdiction of the new
unit will accommodate about 1,000 students.
The effect of the new unit on the other students in the
county would be to leave the Halifax County unit with
fewer whites in its school system. During the 1968-69
school year, the Halifax unit had a total of 10,655 stu
dents, of which 2,357 (22%) were white, 8,196 (77%)
were black and 102 (1%) were Indian. The racial com
position of the Halifax unit, with the originally proposed
transfer system, would be as follows: white, 1,598
(16% ); black, 8,186 (83% ); Indian, 102 (1% ). If the
transfer system were not allowed or if a transfer system
were devised which assured a larger number of black
students in the Scotland Neck unit, the figures and per
centages of course would change accordingly. Mr. Over
man, Superintendent of the Halifax schools, testified on
deposition that the Interim Plan proposed in the 1968 sur
vey prepared for the Halifax County system could still
be implemented even if the constitutionality of the Scot
land Neck district were upheld. (Overman’s Deposition,
pp. 144-151). He also testified that Halifax County would
still get the same amount of money per pupil from State,
Federal and local sources and that the county would have
an even better pupil-teacher ratio in certain areas of
instruction.
One of the principal questions in passing on the con
stitutionality of Chapter 31 relates to the motivation of
the proponents and supporters of the Scotland Neck leg
islation. The plaintiffs contend that the motivation be
1073
hind the passsage of the act was simply a desire to de
crease the proportion of black students in the Scotland
Neck schools. The defendants submit that the primary
reason for the legislation was a desire on the part of the
people and leaders of Scotland Neck to increase the
quality of education in the Scotland Neck schools. After
closely scrutinizing the record and after carefully con
sidering the arguments of counsel, this Court is of the
opinion that the following motivating forces were re
sponsible for the design of the legislation creating the
separate Scotland Neck school district: (1) the desire to
improve the educational level in the Scotland Neck schools,
the present conditions in those schools having been
brought about by a lengthy history of neglect and dis
crimination with respect to financial allocations to the
Scotland Neck schools by the Halifax County Board of
Education; (2) a desire on the part of the leaders of
Scotland Neck to preserve a ratio of black to white stu
dents in the schools of Scotland Neck that would be ac
ceptable to white parents and thereby prevent the flight
of white students to the increasingly popular all-white
private schools in the area; (3) a desire on the part of
the people of Scotland Neck to control their own schools
and be in a position to determine their direction with
more finality than if the schools were a part of the Hali
fax County system. In ascertaining such a subjective fac
tor as motivation and intent, it is of course impossible for
this Court to accurately state what proportion each of the
above reasons played in the minds of the proponents of
the bill, the legislators or the voters of Scotland Neck,
but it is sufficient to say that the record amply supports
the proposition that each of the three played a significant
role in the final passage and implementation of Chapter
31.
There is lengthy testimony supported by the historical
treatment of the Scotland Neck schools by the Halifax
County Board of Education to the effect that the primary
reason for the new district was that the people of Scot
land Neck felt they could have a better education system
if they could have a separate school district, levy a sup
plemental tax upon themselves and exert more local con
1074
trol over the operation of the schools within the corpo
rate limits of the town. Mr. Aubray Powell, the black
member of the new Scotland Neck school board, testified
on deposition that he thought the bill originated because
the people of Scotland Neck thought it would provide a
better education for their children. (Powell’s Deposition,
pp. 5-6). Mr. Powell said that the question of the private
schools was never discussed among the school board of
Scotland Neck and that the issue had never been men
tioned to him. Dr. Craig Phillips said in his deposition
that after discussing the bill with Josey, Harrison and
Shields he was convinced that the major point of dis
cussion and the reason for the proposed bill was “ simply,
concern about the quality of education for the youngsters
involved in Scotland Neck.” (Phillips’ Deposition, p. 15).
Mr. Henry Harrison, a strong proponent of the improve
ment of the Scotland Neck schools, testified that the
people of Scotland Neck merely tried to improve the edu
cation of all the children, both black and white, and that
it was his understanding that under the administration
in the new school district, the dual school system would
be abolished. (Henry Harrison’s Deposition, pp. 40-41).
Mr. Overman, Superintendent in Halifax County, in dis
cussing the reasons behind the bill proposed in 1965, said
that its purpose was to give the people of Scotland Neck
more control over their schools and enable them to have
a supplementary local tax. (Overman’s Deposition, pp.
172-176). He also cited the decrease in the annual capi
tal expenditure outlay tax from 63 cents to 27.5 cents
per $100 valuation. (Overman’s Deposition, pp. 204-205).
The testimony and the candid admissions of counsel also
indicate that the desire to preserve an acceptable white
ratio in the school system was a factor behind the pas
sage of the act. Mr. Harrison stated that he told the
legislature that white children were going to private
schools and that something needed to be done to retain
the support of the white people for the public schools.
(Henry Harrison’s Deposition, p. 18). Mr. Shields and
Mr. Overman both testified that they felt that integration
would encourage the growth of the all-white private
schools. (Overman’s Deposition, pp. 217-218, Shields’
1075
Deposition, pp. 70-71). Mr. C. M. Moore said that it was
his opinion that the independent school system would be
a better alternative than the private schools. (Moore’s
Deposition, pp. 18-19). Mr. Shields testified to the same
thing and said that most of the adults in Scotland Neck
held the same opinion.
(Shields’ Deposition, pp. 23-26).
One factor which the plaintiff has attempted to use
as proof that the bill will produce an inferior school
system and that, therefore, it could not have been put
forth for educational reasons is that there is substantial
opinion among educators that there are considerable edu
cational advantages to be derived from the greater ef
ficiency and better allocation of resources frequently as
sociated with the operation of school units with larger
numbers of pupils. However, the Court feels impelled to
consider the points raised by the arguments of counsel
for both sides because of the great amount of effort put
forth by both sides to show why the proposed school dis
trict in Scotland Neck might or might not be better than
the Halifax County system out of which it was carved.
Many educators agree in general principle with the
suggestion made in the report of the Governor’s Study
Commission9 that the merger of administrative units is
a desirable thing because it frequently leads to the in
creased efficiency in the operation of the public schools.
Mr. Overman testified that the North Carolina Teacher’s
Association approves the suggested number of 9,000-10,000
as a desirable pupil population and the suggested mini
mum of 3,500-4,000 in the size of school units as recom
mended on page 164 of the study commission’s report.
(Overman’s Deposition, p. 72). Dr. Craig Phillips is
also firmly committed to the policy of consolidation and
9 The Report of the Governor’s Study Commission on the Public
School System of North Carolina is a 302-page report prepared
by a 17-member commission appointed by Governor Dan K. Moore.
The report was submitted December 3, 1968, and was prepared
in response to the question “How best can the people of North
Carolina meet their obligation to provide full educational opportuni
ties for their children?” In conducting the study, the commission
consulted experts, conducted research and visited a number of
schools.
1076
the advisability of reaching a 5,000 student population
unit if possible and testified that the number of units in
North Carolina has declined from a peak of 177 to the
present number of 155. (Phillips’ Deposition, pp. 35-36).
Further argument against the educational advantages
of the new district is that the Scotland Neck school board
did not actually make any plans to use the additional tax
money for teachers’ supplements. The only proposed
change in salaries was to give the superintendent an
$1800.00 per year supplement. There were plans to set
up a curriculum study program in the fall of 1969 to de
termine which courses would be of most benefit to the
students in the Scotland Neck system, but the only
planned changes in the school curriculum for the 1969-70
school year was the elimination of the music course and
some trade courses. (Powell’s Deposition, pp. 23-24).
There were no studies made prior to the introduction of
the bill with respect to the educational advantages of the
new district, and there was no actual planning as to how
the supplement would be spent although some people as
sumed it would be spent on teachers’ supplements.
The thing which makes it difficult for this Court to
base its conclusions on the quality of education in the new
unit is that there is so much conflict in the testimony.
For example, Craig Phillips, although endorsing the trend
toward mergers of school units, testified that he would
ascribe very strongly to the statement on page 29 of the
school survey of 1968M that “ the one best single deter
minant in the quality program of education is the finan
cial factor. . . .” He testified that many of the smaller
units do turn out a better product than the larger units
and that he was aware that units in the 823-2,000 pupil
category rank higher in many significant categories than
some of the larger units. (Phillips’ Deposition, pp. 93-
95). This Court also, in examining the rankings of the
various schools with respect to many categories, notes
that the smaller schools do rank higher in some rather 10
10 A survey of the Halifax County schools prepared in September,
1968, by a seven-member committee under the supervision of the
Division of School Planning in the North Carolina Department of
Public Instruction and the direction of Dr. J. L. Pierce, Director.
significant categories and that the Halifax County unit
ranks near the bottom in a number of the categories.111
Another factor worthy of mention is the plaintiff’s in
troduction into evidence of several newspaper articles
which discuss a supposed motivation for the bill. The
articles taken from the Raleigh News and Observer, sug
gest that racial considerations, and not a concern for
better education, motivated the legislation. For example,
on February 2, 1969 the newspaper wrote that Halifax
County Negroes outnumbered whites, that the reverse
existed in Scotland Neck and that Halifax County Ne
groes had opposed the bill. On February 14, 1969, the
11 The Profile of Significant Factors in Education in North
Carolina, a ranking of school administrative units prepared in
July, 1968, by the Statistical Services Division of the North Caro
lina Department of Public Instruction, shows that the Halifax
system, the Tryon City system (smallest unit in the state), and
the Tyrrell County system (small rural agricultural county) rank,
in relation to the 166 units in the state and in the following cate
gories, as follows:
1077
1. % of classroom teachers
with graduate certifi-
Tryon Tyrrell Halifax
cates, Table 1, p. 1
2. % of professional staff
paid entirely from local
59 98 120
funds, Table 4, p. 18
3. % of classroom teachers
with maximum experience for
54 87 135
pay purposes, Table 5, p. 17
4. % of classroom teachers with
no prior experience, Table
14 5 84
6, p. 21
5. % of high school graduates
entering college, Table 7,
160 38 12
p. 25
6. % of h. s. grads, entering
trade, business or other
4 134 162
schools, Table 8, p. 29
7. Pupil to staff ratio, Table
86 63 123
14, p. 49
8. Per pupil expenditures of
local funds, Table 24,
31 69 138
p. 89 48 109 125
1078
paper commented editorially that the bill provided for
an “ educational island” dominated by whites and on Feb
ruary 22, 1969, suggested that if the bill passed, it would
encourage other school districts to provide similar legis
lation. This Court has chosen to admit the newspaper
articles for the purpose of showing that they did appear
and not for the purpose of showing the truth of the in
formation contained in them.12
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Three legal principles are applicable to an analysis of
the constitutional issues now before this court. The first
is that any federal court should be hesitant to declare a
state statute unconstitutional. As stated in Phillips Pe
troleum Company v. Jones, 147 F. Supp. 122, 125 (D.
Okla., 1955) (three-judge court) :
“ Federal jurisdiction, though existent, will not be
exercised to strike down a state statute unless it is
clearly and palpably unconstitutional upon its face,
the enforcement of which will cause immediate and
irreparable harm to the complainant, as to which
there is no legal or administrative remedy. . . .”
I cites omitted]
There is similar language in numerous other cases, but,
for reasons which need not be considered at this time,
the principle has not been applied extensively in cases
involving race, civil rights or school desegregation; and
the principle is therefore of limited relevancy in resolving
the questions now under consideration.
The second applicable principle relates to what the
Supreme Court and the lower courts have said about
what school boards and state and local school officials
must do to guarantee black students their constitutional
12 Although there is authority for admitting the newspaper
articles to show legislative intent where there are no other reports
made contemporaneously with the passage of the act, e.g., United
States v. Louisiana, 225 F. Supp. 353, 375 n. 59 (E. D. La., 1963)
(three-judge court), this Court has chosen to limit the admissibility
of the articles as stated.
1079
rights in the area of school desegregation. The relevant
cases here would appear to be Brown v. Board of Educa
tion (Brown I ), 347 U. S. 483, 98 L. Ed. 873, 74 S. Ct.
686 (1954), Brown v. Board of Education (Brown II),
349 U. S. 294, 99 L, Ed. 1083, 75 S. Ct. 753 (1955),
Green v. New Kent County School Board, 391 U. S. 430,
20 L. Ed. 2d 716, 88 S. Ct. 1689 (1968), Alexander v.
Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U. S. 19, 24
L. Ed. 2d 19, 90 S. Ct. 29 (October 29, 1969). As this
Court reads and interprets these relevant opinions, it
would seem that the Supreme Court is concerned about
establishing school systems which operate and assign their
students to a particular school without regard to the
student’s race or color. Justice Brennan, speaking for
the Court in the Green decision said the following:
“ It was . . . dual systems that 14 years ago Brown
I held unconstitutional and a year later Brown II
held must be abolished; . . . 391 U. S. at 435, 20
L. Ed. 2d at 722.
and
“ The transition to a unitary, non-racial system of
public education was and is the ultimate end to be
brought about; . . ” 391 U. S. at 436, 20 L. Ed. 2d
at 722.
Brown II used the phrase “ racially nondiscriminatory
school system” and Green used the phrase “ unitary non-
racial school system” as the description of that which
the constitution requires.
The requirement that school systems must be nonracial
was injected with an air of immediacy by the Green de
cision in May, 1968. An even stronger demand for de
segregation now was made in October, 1969, when the
Court, in a per curiam opinion, Alexander v. Holmes
County Board of Education, stated that the “ all deliber
ate speed” standard was no longer applicable and that
“ . . . the obligation of every school district is to termi
nate dual school systems at once and to operate now
and hereafter only unitary schools.” 24 L. Ed. 2d at 21.
1080
As of the entry of this Opinion and Order the Su
preme Court has failed to give an exact definition of a
unitary nonracial school system. Although the Supreme
Court has condemned gerrymandering, freedom-of-choice
plans, free-transfer plans, and racially identifiable schools,
student bodies or faculties which to retain the vestiges
of the segregated dual system, no case has been brought
to the attention of this Court (with the possible exception
of the recent Georgia case) which requires any specific
ratios of blacks to whites in a classroom, school or school
district. Despite newspaper articles and perhaps some
district court opinions to the contrary, the Supreme Court
has not yet required bussing or population changes to
effect particular black-white ratios in the schools. The
emphasis of the Court has been on the nature of the
school system and how it treats and assigns its students
and faculty members. The Supreme Court has not yet
concerned itself with the actual numbers of blacks and
whites attending school together except where the num
bers or percentages reflect that the school system is as
signing its students or faculty or making some decisions
on the basis of the race of the individuals involved.
The third legal principle relevant to the analysis of
this case is that stated in Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364
U.S. 339, 5 L. Ed. 2d 110, 81 S. Ct. 125 (1960) that
“ acts generally lawful may become unlawful when done
to accomplish an unlawful end.” In that case, the Su
preme Court invalidated an Alabama statute which had
redefined the boundaries of the City of Tuskagee to re
duce the black vote. Legislative manipulation to affect
the constitutional rights of blacks has been a familiar
practice in several southern states in recent years, two
examples being found in Hall v. St. Helena Parish School
Board, 197 F. Supp. 649 (E. D. La., 1961), and Poin
dexter v. Louisiana Financial Assistance Commission, 275
F. Supp. 833 (E. D. La., 1967), aff’d, 389 U. S. 571, 19
L. Ed. 2d 780, 88 S. Ct. 693 (1968), two cases by three-
judge courts which struck down attempts by the Louisi
ana legislature to continue a segregated public school
system under the guise of assistance payments to private
school students.
1081
Applying this principle to the assignment of pupils,
the case of Haney v. County School Board of Education
of Seveir County, 410 F. 2d 920 (8th Cir. 1969), be
comes relevant. In that case, plaintiffs challenged the
existence of an all-black school in one district of the
county and an all-white school in a different district of
the same county. The district court dismissed the com
plaint on the grounds that the districts had not been
created for the purposes of denying plaintiffs their con
stitutional rights and were therefore valid. The court
of appeals reversed the district court on the grounds that
the creation of the districts, in accordance with a statu
tory reorganization of Arkansas schools in 1948 in ac
cordance with the then-existing Arkansas law, was un
constitutional because the 1948 law required Arkansas
schools to be segregated and the boundaries of the school
districts were obviously drawn to continue the segregated
schools. In this Court’s opinion, the holding in the Haney
case was simply that the maintenance of segregated
schools cannot be justified “ simply because of pre-Brown
geographic structuring of school districts.”
Also demonstrative of the Gomillion principle is the
Supreme Court decision in Monroe v. Board of Commis
sioners of the City of Jackson, Tennessee, 391 U. S. 450,
20 L. Ed. 2d 733, 88 S. Ct. 1700 (1968), in which the
Supreme Court struck down a free-transfer plan which
enabled a child, after first registering at the assigned
school in his attendance zone, to transfer to the school
of his choice if space were available. The Court objected
to the plan on the gorunds that it delayed the conversion
to a unitary nonracial system where, after three years
of operation under the plan, all of the whites remained
in the white school and 80% of the blacks remained in
the black school.
Perhaps the two most relevant, but still distinguishable
cases are two district court decisions rendered within the
last few months in Virginia and Arkansas. In Burleson
v. County Board of Election Commissioners of Jefferson
County, No. PB-69-C-65 (E. D. Ark., September 22,
1969), an opinion by District Judge J. Smith Henley, the
plaintiffs, residents of the Dollarway School District,
1082
challenged the implementation of the results of a local
election which would have permitted the Hardin area
of the district, a noncontiguous area with a 99%-white
student population, to be severed from the district, The
court enjoined the implementation of the election on the
grounds that severance would impede the Dollarway
School Board’s efforts to comply with that court’s order
to integrate the schools and because the Board would
have had difficulty in finding white teachers v/ho would
teach in the district if blacks greatly outnumbered whites.
Also, the district would have lost some operating funds
and there were no schools or other facilities in the Hardin
area available for the school children in that area.
The second case is Wright v. County School Board of
Greensville County, No. 4263 (E. D. Va., August 8,
1969), a decision by District Judge Robert R. Merhige.
In that case, the Greensville County School Board was
in the process of carrying out a court-ordered plan of
desegregation, and the City Council and other officers of
the City of Emporia, on July 9, 1969, convened a special
meeting to establish a separate city school system. On
July 10th, the mayor sought to buy or lease from the
county the school buildings located within the city. At a
July 14th meeting, after hearing the mayor express his
dissatisfaction with the proposed plan of desegregation
for the county, the City Council unanimously decided to
instruct the City School Board to take steps to establish
a separate school division for the city. On July 23rd,
the City Council adopted a resolution requesting the State
Board of Education to authorize the creation of a sepa
rate school division. The City School Board notified the
county board that no city children would attend the
county system thereafter and that the city would no
longer share the costs of the county system. The plan
of operation proposed by the City of Emporia would have
afforded those students residing outside of the city the
opportunity to attend the city schools on a “ tuition-no
transportation” basis. The members of the City School
Board offered no assistance to the county board in the
submission of a plan of desegregation to the district
court.
1083
The district court found as a matter of law that the
City School Board, as successor to the Greensville County
Board, was required to disestablish racial segregation in
the school system in accordance with the plan approved
by the court. The establishment and operation of a sepa
rate school system would have been an impermissible
interference and frustration of the court’s order.
Application of the constitutional case law to the issue
before this Court, the separation of the Scotland Neck
school unit from the larger Halifax County unit, creates
a more difficult question than this Court has been able to
find in any of the questions presented in the earlier cases.
With the transfer system as it was originally proposed,
this Court would probably have less difficulty in finding
the scheme unconstitutional, because the Scotland Neck
school district in view of the economics of the situation,
that is, the inability of blacks to afford the transfer
fees, would become a refuge or haven for those white
students in the county who wished to escape the real or
imagined disaster of a substantial black majority in the
Halifax County System. Now that the defendant Scot
land Neck City Board of Education, in its First Further
Answer of September 3, 1969, has agreed to either elimi
nate the transfer system or adopt a system which would
comply with the Board’s constitutional obligations, the
question has become even more difficult. What this Court
is now faced with is assessing the results of the creation
of the new unit strictly in terms of the effect it has on
the relationship of those students residing within the
corporate limits of Scotland Neck and those residing in
Halifax County. The creation of the new unit does take
some of the white students out of the Halifax County
unit and thereby does reduce the proportion of whites
in a school system already top-heavy with black students.
It is apparent that Chapter 31, of the Session Laws
of 1969 was enacted with the effect of creating a refuge
for white students of the Halifax County School system,
and interferes with the desegregation of the Halifax
County School system, in accord with the plan adopted
by said Board to be implemented on or before June 1,
1970.
1084
THEREFORE, this Court’s findings of fact that the
legislative bill creating the district was at least par
tially motivated by a desire to stem the flight of white
students from the public schools, the Court must find
that the act is unconstitutional and in violation of the
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment and must
enter permanent injunctive relief for the plaintiff.
Since the record in this case conclusively shows that
the Act of the General Assembly creating the Scotland
Neck unit in Halifax County serves no State interest
and prevents the Halifax County Board of Education
from complying with the orders of this court issued in
protection of constitutional rights, it is the court’s opin
ion that Chapter 31 of the North Carolina Session Laws
of 1969 is unconstitutional. A judgment in accordance
with this opinion will be entered by the court.
ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with the forego
ing, it is:
ORDERED that the further implementation of Chap
ter 31 of the 1969 Session Laws of North Carolina be,
and the same hereby is, permanently enjoined; and,
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve copies of this
OPINION and ORDER upon all counsel of record.
Let this ORDER be entered forthwith.
,/s,/ Algernon L. Butler
Chief Judge
United States District Court
,/s/ John D. Larkins, Jr.
United States District Judge
May 23, 1970.
1085
JUDGMENT
Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence, briefs
of counsel and oral arguments, the Court, for the rea
sons set forth in its Opinion and Order filed herein,
ORDERS:
1. That Chapter 31 of the Session Laws of North
Carolina 1969 creating the Scotland Neck Administra
tive Unit is declared to be unconstitutional and null and
void.
2. That the defendants, their respective officers,
agents, servants and employees be, and they are hereby
permanently enjoined from any and all further proceed
ings pursuant to said statute.
This 23 day of May, 1970.
[Caption Omitted]
,/s/ Algernon L. Butler
Chief Judge
United States District Court
/ s / John D. Larkins, Jr.
United States District Judge
1086
AMENDED ORDER
For good cause shown, it is hereby ordered that the
“ Proposed Interim Plan” of the defendant, Halifax
County Board of Education as prepared by the North
Carolina Department of Instruction, subject to the sec
ondary amendments of the Board included in their pro
posal to the court be amended by changing on Page 2 of
said Interim Plan under District 4 that portion which
reads “ Aurelian Springs, Chaloner, and Mclver— Use
the combined 95 teaching stations to house pupils in
grades 1-9 in their respective locations of the district.
Everetts— This school (20 classrooms) is recommended
for grades 1-8 only.” to read as follows: “Aurelian
Springs, Everetts, and Mclver— Use the combined 85
teaching stations to house pupils in grades 1-8 in their
respective locations of the district.”
It is further ordered that the Order of this court dated
May 18, 1970 is amended to read as follows:
“ ORDERED that the Motion of Defendant be and the
same is hereby, Allowed; and that the “ Proposed Interim
Plan” of the Defendant Halifax County Board of Edu
cation as prepared by the North Carolina Department
of Instruction, subject to the secondary amendments of
the Board included in their proposal to this Court, and
any subsequent amendments approved by this Court, the
same having been adopted by the Court be Implemented
by the Board no later than June 1, 1970.
FURTHER ORDERED, that the Motion of Plaintiff
for immediate implementation at mid-year be, and the
same is hereby Denied; and,
FURTHER ORDERED, that the Clerk shall serve
copies of this AMENDED ORDER upon all counsel of
record.
/ s / John D. Larkins, Jr.
John D. Larkins, Jr.
United States District Judge
Trenton, North Carolina
June 1st 1970
[Caption Omitted]
[Caption Omitted]
NOTICE OF APPEAL
1087
Notice is hereby given that Scotland Neck City Board
of Education, a body corporate, defendant above named,
hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit from the final Judgment entered
May 26, 1970, declaring Chapter 31 of the 1969 Session
Laws of North Carolina unconstitutional and from the
Order entered May 26, 1970, permanently enjoining Chap
ter 31 of the 1969 Session Laws of North Carolina.
,/s/ C. Kitchin Josey
C. K itchin Josey
105 West 11th Street
Scotland Neck, North Carolina
/ s / William T. Joyner
W illiam T. Joyner
,/s/ Walton K. Joyner
W alton K. Joyner
906 Wachovia Bank Building
Raleigh, North Carolina
Attorneys for Defendant
[Caption Omitted]
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIR
CUIT BY ROBERT MORGAN, Attorney General of
North Carolina; NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD
OF EDUCATION and DR. A. CRAIG PHILLIPS,
State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Notice is hereby given that Robert Morgan, Attorney
General of North Carolina, the State Board of Education
of North Carolina and Dr. A. Craig Phillips, North
Carolina State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the
State Defendants above named, hereby appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
from the Opinion and Order entered by the District Court
of the United States for the Eastern District of North
Carolina in this cause (No. 1128— Civil), dated May 23,
1970, and signed by Algernon L. Butler, ..Chief Judge of
the United States District Court, and by John D. Lar
kins, Jr., United States District Judge, and from the
Judgment in said cause also dated May 23, 1970, signed
by said Algernon L. Butler, Chief Judge of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District, and John
D. Larkins, United States District Judge, which said
Judgment was entered by virtue of the Opinion and
Order above referred to. Said Appeal is entered under
the applicable section of the United States Code allowing
such appeals and applicable Rules of Civil Procedure.
This the 1st day of July, 1970.
,/s/ Robert Morgan
Attorney General of
North Carolina
,/s,/ Ralph Moody
Deputy Attorney General
,/s/ Andrew A. Vanore, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General
1089
MOTION
Now comes the defendant, Halifax County Board of
Education, and respectfully moves the Court:
That the “ Proposed Interim Plan” of the defendant,
Halifax County Board of Education, as prepared by the
North Carolina Department of Instruction, subject to the
secondary amendments of the Board included in its pro
posal to this Court and subject to an amendment to said
Plan as ordered by this Court on June 1, 1970, be fur
ther amended as concerns District I and in accordance
with a Map of said District, which Map is attached here
with as “ Exhibit A,” as follows:
Pupils in grades one through eight living in Dis
trict I will be assigned to the elementary school lo
cated in the attendance zone in which they live. Ele
mentary schools located in District I are Bakers,
Brawley, Dawson, Tillery Chapel, Thomas Shields
and Scotland Neck.
Pupils in grades nine through twelve living in the
elementary attendance zones of Bakers, Brawley,
Dawson, Tillery Chapel and Thomas Shields will be
assigned to Brawley School and those living in the
Scotland Neck elementary attendance zone will be
assigned to Scotland Neck School. The Scotland
Neck elementary attendance zone would be restricted
to the present city limits of the town.
The movant, Halifax County Board of Education, gives
as its reasons for making this Motion as follows:
The Scotland Neck City Board of Education, one of
the defendants in this action, has given Notice of Appeal
in one of the causes of action in this case in which this
Court declared the act creating the Scotland Neck City
Administrative Unit unconstitutional and enjoined the
Scotland Neck City Board of Education from taking any
action authorized by the Statute. To carry out the exist
ing Interim Plan for District I as heretofore ordered by
[Caption Omitted]
1090
this Court, the Halifax County Board of Education must
immediately make substantial changes to the physical
plants of the Scotland Neck School as well as the Braw
ley School; such as removing desks, blackboards, toilet
facilities, library and text books for grades one through
nine from Scotland Neck School and placing them in
Brawley School and changing these same facilities for
grades ten through twelve at Brawley School and placing
them in the Scotland Neck School. Some vocational and
commercial courses heretofore taught at Brawley School
will be taught in Scotland Neck and hence some of the
equipment and instructional material incidental to the
teaching of these courses will be removed from Brawley
School and placed in Scotland Neck School and some
equipment and instructional material will be removed
from Scotland Neck School to Brawley School. Renova
tions for laboratories, libraries, classrooms, shops, etc.
will be required and moving of equipment necessary.
Varsity athletic equipment as well as high school extra
curricular activities and supplies must be removed from
Brawley and space made available therefor in Scotland
Neck School. Most staff and faculty connected with
grades one through nine in Scotland Neck School must
be assigned and transferred to other schools and most
of the staff and faculty connected with grades ten through
twelve in Brawley School must be assigned and trans
ferred to Scotland Neck.
In the event that the Appellate Courts find the Statute
creating the Scotland Neck City Administrative Unit
constitutional, the reverse of the above would cause great
expense and inconvenience.
It is the opinion of the Halifax County Board of Edu
cation that if the Plan under the present Order of the
Court is implemented a substantial number of the staff
and faculty originally hired by the Scotland Neck City
Administrative Unit may not remain with the Halifax
County Board of Education and may not be available for
employment by the Scotland Neck City Board of Educa
tion upon that Board’s being duly constituted and opera
tive.
1091
It is further the opinion of the Halifax County Board
of Education that if this Motion is allowed there will in
fact be more integration of the races in District I be
ginning in the fall of 1970 than there will in fact be
under the present Plan and Order of the Court.
The Halifax County Board of Education further moves
the Court that the above requested amendment to said
Plan and Order of the Court be effective immediately and
remain in effect through the school year during which a
final determination of the constitutionality of the Statute
creating the Scotland Neck City Administrative Unit is
rendered in the highest Court of the United States to
which an appeal is taken.
This the 24th day of June, 1970.
,/s/ W. Lunsford Crew
W. Lunsford Crew
Attorney for Defendant,
Halifax County Board of
Education
1092
[Caption Omitted]
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MO
TION TO AMEND INTERIM DESEGREGATION
PLAN APPROVED MAY 19, 1970
The United States objects to the motion of the Halifax
County Board of Education filed with the Court on June
25, 1970, which proposes to amend the Order of May 19,
1970, with respect to the operation of the Scotland Neck
School and the Brawley School. Under the present Order
Scotland Neck is to serve grades 10-12 and Brawley to
serve grades 1-9 in the same attendance area henceforth.
The Halifax County Board of Education (hereinafter the
Board) now proposes to retain both Scotland Neck and
Brawley as twelve grade facilities serving separate at
tendance areas, pending a ruling of the Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on the appeal taken from
this Court’s Order of May 26, 1970, by the Scotland Neck
City Board of Education and the Attorney General of
North Carolina. The appeal seeks a reversal of this
Court’s Order permanently enjoining the further imple
mentation of Chapter 31 of the 1969 Session Laws of
North Carolina which established Scotland Neck as a
separate administrative unit for the operation of the pub
lic schools in Scotland Neck. The United States objects to
the motion on the following grounds:
1. In substance, the motion of the Board is a motion
to stay implementation of that part of the Court’s Order
of May 19, 1970, which relates to the operation of the
Scotland Neck and Brawley Schools. Accordingly, the
motion is in direct conflict with current judicial stand
ards requiring the immediate implementation of desegre
gation plans 'pendente lite. Stays of court orders which
would result in the continued operation of dual schools
are uniformly denied. Alexander v. Holmes County Board
of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1959); Carter v. West Feli
ciana School Board, 396 U.S. 290 (1970); Nesbit v.
Statesville City Board of Education, 418 F.2d 1040 (4th
Cir. 1969) (en banc) (per curiam) ; Whittenberg v.
School District of Greenville County, 424 F.2d 195 (4th
Cir. 1970); Swann v. Charlotte-Macklenburg Board of
Education, F.2d , No. 14,517 (4th Cir., decided
May 26, 1970); Green v. School Board of the City of
1093
Roanoke, Virginia, F.2d , No. 14,335 (4th Cir.,
decided June 17, 1970); United States v. School Board of
Franklin City, Virginia, F.2d , No. 14,276 (4th
Cir., decided June 11, 1970); Brewer v. The School Board
of the City of Norfolk, Virginia, F.2d , No. 14,544
(4th Cir., decided June 22, 1970). The pairing of Scot
land Neck and Brawley required by the Order of May
19, recognizes that as separate twelve grade facilities
these schools retain the trappings of dual schools based
on race. If granted, the Board’s motion would result in
a continuation of the dual school system for the students
attending these schools until “ such time as a final de
termination of the constitutionality of the statute creat
ing the Scotland Neck City Administrative Unit is ren
dered in the highest Court of the United States to which
an appeal is taken.” (Board’s motion, p. 3). Such a
result is constitutionally impermissible.
2. The administrative problems the Board asserts it
will encounter in implementing that part of the May 19
Order relating to the pairing of the Scotland Neck and
Brawley Schools, may not serve to delay the vindication
of constitutional rights. Alexander v. Holmes County
Board of Education, supra; Carter v. West Feliciana
School Board, supra; Whittenberg v. School District of
Greenville County, supra; Coppedge v. Franklin County
Board of Education, 293 F. Supp. 356 (C.D.N.C. 1968),
aff’d 404 F.2d 1177 (4th Cir. 1968).
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Court
deny the motion of the Board to amend the Order of
May 19, 1970, as modified by the Order of June 2, 1970.
Plaintiff further prays that the Court grant a hearing on
Plaintiff’s objections to the Board’s motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Brian K. Landsberg
Leslie D. Smith
Robert Dempsey
Attorneys
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530
1094
ANSWER TO MOTION
Now comes the defendant, Scotland Neck City Board
of Education, in Answer to the Motion of the Halifax
County Board of Education dated the 24th day of June,
1970, and says that it does not object to said Motion and
joins with the defendant, Halifax County Board of Edu
cation, in requesting the Court that said Motion be al
lowed for the reasons that:
If the Motion is not allowed, the physical school plant
of this defendant must be almost completely revamped
with all of the desks, toilet facilities, blackboards, books,
instructional aids and extracurricular activities equip
ment of grades one through nine being physically re
moved and reinstalled in plants outside the Scotland Neck
City Administrative Unit and the space now occupied
by these classes being physically converted for use by
senior high school students and their activities; all of the
staff and faculty which were connected with grades one
through nine during the past year would be assigned to
a school outside the Scotland Neck City Administrative
Unit and many of whom would probably not accept such
reassignment and would be thereafter unavailable to
teach in the public school and not be available for re
assignment to the Scotland Neck City Administrative
Unit if the Unit is ultimately found to be legally con
stituted; this defendant has not only given notice of ap
peal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit but has heretofore filed a Motion with such Court
requesting that the appeal be heard at the earliest pos
sible date; based on the evidence presented at the trial
of the case against the Scotland Neck City Board of
Education and on the Findings of Fact by the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina and on the applicable law involved, it would ap
pear that there are reasonable expectations that the law
creating the Scotland Neck City Board of Education and
its school unit will be held constitutional and in all re
spects lawful; in the event that said Statute is held con
[Caption Omitted]
1095
stitutional and the Scotland Neck City Administrative
Unit becomes operative and the Motion is not allowed, a
tremendous expense would be required by the Scotland
Neck City Board of Education to recondition its school
plant to properly provide for students in classes one
through twelve; in addition, such decision of the Appellate
Court may well come in the middle of a school term and
such physical repairs as necessary would interrupt the
education of the students for such a period of time as the
repairs would require; a similar expense and interrup
tion of classes would be experienced by certain schools
of the Halifax County Board of Education; if the Motion
is allowed and the Appellate Court finds the Scotland
Neck School law constitutional, there would be no neces
sity for any changes in physical plants either by the
Halifax County Board of Education or the Scotland Neck
City Board of Education, there would be no expense in
volved and the education of the students would not be in
any way interrupted, and for the most part the staff and
faculty of the Scotland Neck School as well as certain
schools of the defendant, Halifax County Board of Edu
cation, would be undisturbed; in addition to the above
reasons, it is clear from the evidence in the Scotland Neck
School case that even if the Statute creating the Scotland
Neck School is found to be constitutional, enthusiastic
support of all citizens of the town of Scotland Neck will
be necessary in order to operate the City system of Schools
with approximately an equal number of white and black
students, and if this Motion is not allowed and the Schools
of the town of Scotland Neck are physically and psycho
logically broken up, the future support of the citizens
may well be more difficult to attain.
This the 14th day of July, 1970.
/ s / C. Kitchin Josey
C. K itchin Josey, One of the Attorneys
for the Defendant, Scotland Neck
City Board of Education
1096
PLAINTIFFS’ IN INTERVENTION OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND INTERIM
DESEGREGATION PLAN APPROVED MAY 19th,
1970.
Plaintiffs in Intervention, PATTIE BLACK COTTON,
EDWARD M. FRANCIS, public school teachers, and
black students in District 1, inside and outside of the
Town Limits of Scotland Neck, N. C., join with the
Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in opposi
tion to the Motion of the Defendant, HALIFAX COUN
TY BOARD OF EDUCATION, filed with the Court on
June 25th, 1970 and proposing to Amend the Order of
the Court entered May 19th, 1970 with respect to the
operation of the Scotland Neck School, located inside of
the Town Limits and the Brawley School, located at the
edge of the Town Limits outside the Town of Scotland
Neck. The Plaintiffs in Intervention object to the De
fendant Board’s Motion upon the following grounds:
1. That the Map, Exhibit “A ” to the Motion of the
Defendant, shows six (6) schools inside of District No.
1 and 658 white students to be assigned within the Dis
trict and the assignment, if the amendment is allowed,
being 399 or about 2/3 of the white student body, for the
Scotland Neck School inside the Town Limits with only
about 1/3 of the white student body being assigned to
the other 5 schools where black students would in any
event, constitute the largest number and made to con
stitute an even larger number by the limiting of white
students inside of the Town Limits to the school located
within the small town.
2. That the limiting of the school zone to the small
student body inside of the Town of Scotland Neck as
proposed by the Motion of the Defendant Board, would
cause a continuation of the loss of Trade Courses and
Teachers resulting from the small unit created by the
school separation act declared unconstitutional by the
Court and would prevent the re-instatement of teachers
[Caption Omitted]
1097
and Trade Courses terminated as a result of the crea
tion of the small school district declared unconstitutional.
3. That the approval of the Motion of the Defendant
School Board, would give sanction and encouragement to
faculity employment and assignment based upon race
and color of the teacher and the majority of the student
body and would deprive both students and teachers of the
desegregation required by law.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs in Intervention, pray
that the Court deny the Motion of the Defendant School
Board to amend the Order of May 19th, 1970 as amend
ed by order of the Court on June 1, 1970.
Respectfully submitted,
James R. Walker, Jr.
501 West 3rd Street
Weldon, N. C.
Samuel S. Mitchell
126% East Hargett Street
Raleigh, N. C.
N By James R. Walker, Jr.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs in
Intervention.
1098
ORDER
LARKINS, District Judge:
This cause coming on before the Court upon defend
ants’ motion, filed June 25, 1970, to amend the Order of
May 19, 1970, with respect to the operation of the Scot
land Neck School and the Brawley School District I of
the Interim Desegregation Plan prepared by the North
Carolina Department of Instruction, subject to the sec
ondary amendment of the Board, which was adopted by
the Court on December 19, 1969.
Under the present Order, Scotland Neck is to serve
grades 10-12 and Brawley to serve grades 1-9 in the
same attendance area. The defendants propose to retain
both Scotland Neck and Brawley as twelve grade facili
ties serving separate attendance areas pending a ruling
of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
on the appeal taken from this Court’s Order of May 26,
1970, by the Scotland Neck City Board of Education and
the Attorney General of North Carolina. The appeal
seeks a reversal of this Court’s Order permanently en
joining the further implementation of Chapter 31 of the
1969 Session Laws of North Carolina which established
Scotland Neck as a separate administrative unit for the
operation of the public schools in Scotland Neck.
A hearing on the motion of the defendants was held
on July 21, 1970. Due consideration having been given to
the motion of defendants, the documents filed with the
Court, and the oral arguments of counsel for the United
States, the Halifax County Board of Education, and the
Scotland Neck City Board of Education respectively, it
is hereby ORDERED as follows:
The motion of the defendants to amend the Order of
May 19, 1970, with respect to the operation of the Scot
land Neck School and the Brawley School is hereby De
nied; and,
[Caption Omitted]
1099
FURTHER ORDERED, that the Clerk shall serve
copies of this ORDER upon all counsel of record.
/s,/ John D. Larkins, Jr.
John D. Larkins, Jr.
United States District Judge
Raleigh, North Carolina
July 21, 1970
1100
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
W HENRY OVERMAN, SUPERINTENDENT
HALIFAX, N. C.
September 15, 1970
NORTH CAROLINA
HALIFAX COUNTY
W. Henry Overman, being duly sworn, says that:
1. He is Superintendent of Schools of the Halifax
County School Administrative Unit, Halifax, N. C.
2. And that he has on September 15, 1970 received
reports from all principals of schools in the Halifax
County School Administrative Unit giving the lat
est enrollment of pupils by races as follows:
School and Grade White Negro Indian Total
Aurelian Springs (K 8) 318 583 6 907
Bakers (1-8) 0 266 0 266
Brawley (1-9) 226 650 0 876
Dawson (1-8) 26 421 0 447
Eastman (8-12) 0 709 68 777
Enfield (9-12) 63 418 481
Everetts (1-8) 309 406 0 715
Hollister (1-7) 0 283 138 421
Inborden (1-8) 52 1130 0 1182
Mclver (1-8) 0 565 0 565
Pittman (1-7) 2 443 2 447
Scotland Neck (10-12) 91 524 0 615
Thomas Shields (1-8) 39 222 0 261
Tillery Chapel (1-8) 10 209 0 219
White Oak (1-7) 2 302 21 325
Wm. R. Davie (9-12) 302 585 0 887
1440 7716 235 9391
/ s / W. Henry Overman
1101
Presented to Court of Appeals by appellants, without
objection, 9/16/70.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15 day of
September, 1970.
/ s / Doris W. Netherbord
Notary Public
My commission expires: 9-9-75
1102
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
W. Henry Overman, Superintendent
Halifax, N. C. 27839
December 2, 1970
NORTH CAROLINA
HALIFAX COUNTY
W. Henry Overman, being duly sworn, says that:
1. He is Superintendent of Schools of the Halifax
County School Administrative Unit, Halifax, N. C.
2. And that he has on December 2, 1970 received
reports from all principals of schools in the Halifax
County School Administrative Unit giving the
latest enrollment of pupils by races as follows:
School and Grade White Negro Indian Total
Aurelian Springs (k-8) 324 562 6 892
Bakers (1-8) 0 266 0 266
Brawley (1-9) 212 670 0 882
Dawson (1-8) 23 419 0 442
Eastman (8-12) 0 690 62 752
Enfield (9-12) 66 423 0 489
Everetts (1-8) 333 385 0 718
Hollister (1-7) 0 270 151 421
Inborden (1-8) 54 1117 0 1171
Mclver (1-8) 0 572 0 572
Pittman (1-7) 2 446 2 450
Scotland Neck (10-12) 93 538 0 631
Thomas Shields (1-8) 34 229 0 263
Tillery Chapel (1-8) 10 209 0 219
White Oak (1-7) 2 308 22 332
Wm. R. Davie (9-12) 300 636 0 936
1453 7740 243 9436
/s / W. Henry Overman
WHO:ar
HOB
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 2nd day of
December, 1970.
/&/ Doris W. Netherland
Notary Public
My commission expires: 9-9-75
1104
[Caption Omitted]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilson. Alger
non L. Butler, District Judge, and John D. Larkins,
Jr., District Judge.
(Argued September 16, 1970)
Before BOREMAN, BRYAN and CRAVEN,
Circuit Judges.
(Reargued December 7, 1970 Decided March 23, 1971)
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, SOBELOFF,
BOREMAN, BRYAN, WINTER, CRAVEN and
BUTZNER, Circuit Judges sitting en banc, on
resubmission.
William T. Joyner and C. Kitchin Josey (Joyner & Howi-
son, and Robert Morgan, Attorney General of North
Carolina, on brief) for Appellants; and Brian K. Lands-
berg, Attorney, Department of Justice (Jerris Leonard,
Assistant Attorney General, David L. Norman, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, and Francis H. Kennedy,
Jr., Attorney, Department of Justice, and Warren H.
Coolidge, United States Attorney, on brief) for Ap
pellee United States of America; and James R. Walker,
Jr., (Samuel S. Mitchell on brief) for Appellees Pattie
Black Cotton, et al.
CRAVEN, Circuit Judge:
The Scotland Neck City Board of Education and the
State of North Carolina have appealed from an order of
the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis
trict of North Carolina entered May 23, 1970, declaring
1105
Chapter 31 of the 1969 Session Laws of North Carolina
unconstitutional and permanently enjoining any further
implementation of the statute.1 We reverse.
Chapter 31 of the 1969 Session Laws of North Caro
lina,2 enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly
1 This is one of three cases now before the Court involving the
“carving out” of part of a larger school district. The others are
Alvin Turner v. Littleton-Lake Gaston School District, ------- F.2d
------- (No. 14,990) and Wright v. Council of City of Emporia,-------
F .2d ------- (No. 14,552).
2 Chapter 31 is entitled and reads as follows :
AN ACT TO IMPROVE AND PROVIDE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
OF A HIGHER STANDARD FOR THE RESIDENTS OF
SCOTLAND NECK IN H A LIF A X COUNTY, TO ESTAB
LISH THE SCOTLAND NECK CITY ADM INISTRATIVE
UNIT, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADM INISTRATION OF
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN SAID ADM INISTRATIVE UNIT,
TO LEVY A SPECIAL T A X FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
OF SAID ADM INISTRATIVE UNIT, ALL OF WHICH
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE
VOTERS IN A REFERENDUM OR SPECIAL ELECTION.
Section 1. There is hereby classified and established a public
school administrative unit to be known and designated as the
Scotland Neck City Administrative Unit which shall consist of the
territory or area lying and being within the boundaries or corporate
limits of the Town of Scotland Neck in Halifax County, and the
boundaries of said Scotland Neck City Administrative Unit shall
be coterminous with the present corporate limits or boundaries of
the Town of Scotland Neck. The governing board of said Scotland
Neck City Administrative Unit shall be known and designated as
the Scotland Neck City Board of Education, and said Scotland
Neck City Board of Education (hereinafter referred to as: Board)
shall have and exercise all of the powers, duties, privileges and
authority granted and applicable to city administrative units and
city boards of education as set forth in Chapter 115 of the General
Statutes, as amended.
Section 2. The Board shall consist of five members appointed by
the governing authority of the Town of Scotland Neck, and said
five members shall hold office until the next regular municipal
election of the Town of Scotland Neck to be held in May, 1971.
At the regular election for Mayor and Commissioners of the Town
of Scotland Neck to be held in May, 1971, there shall be elected
five members of the Board, and three persons so elected who receive
the highest number of votes shall hold office for four years and
the two persons elected who receive the next highest number of
votes shall hold office for two years, and thereafter all members
1106
on March 3, 1969, provided for a new school district
bounded by the city limits of Scotland Neck upon the
approval of a majority of the voters of Scotland Neck
in a referendum. The new school district was approved
by the voters of Scotland Neck on April 8, 1969, by a
vote of 813 to 332 out of a total of 1,305 registered
of the Board so elected, as successors, shall hold office for four
years. All members of the Board shall hold their offices until their
sucessor (sic) are elected and qualified. All members of the Board
shall be eligible to hold public office as required by the Constitution
and laws of the State.
Section 3. All members of the Board shall be elected by the
qualified voters of the Town of Scotland Neck and said election
shall be held and conducted by the governing authority of the
Town of Scotland Neck and by its election officials and pursuant
to the same laws, rules and regulations as are applicable to the elec
tion of the municipal officials of the Town of Scotland Neck, and
the results shall be certified in the same manner. The election
of members of the Board shall be held at the same time and place
as applicable to the election of the Mayor and Board of Commis
sioners of the Town of Scotland Neck and in accordance with the
expiration of terms of office of members of the Board. The mem
bers of the Board so elected shall be inducted into office on the
first Monday following the date of election, and the expense of the
election of the members of the Board shall be paid by the Board.
Section 4. At the first meeting of the Board appointed as above
set forth and of a new Board elected as herein provided, the
Board shall organize by electing one of its members as chairman
for a period of one year, or until his successor is elected and
qualified. The chairman shall preside at the meetings of the
Board, and in the event of his absence or sickness, the Board may
appoint one of its members as temporary chairman. The Scotland
Neck City Superintendent of Schools shall be ex officio secretary
to his Board and shall keep the minutes of the Board but shall
have no vote. I f there exists a vacancy in the office of Superintend
ent, then the Board may appoint one of its members to serve
temporarily as secretary to the Board. All vacancies in the mem
bership of the Board by death, resignation, removal, change of
residence or otherwise shall be filled by appointment by the gov
erning authority of the Town of Scotland Neck of a person to serve
for the unexpired term and until the next regular election for
members of the Board when a successor shall be elected.
Section 5. All public school property, both real and personal, and
all buildings, facilities, and equipment used for public school pur
poses, located within the corporate limits of Scotland Neck and
within the boundaries set forth in Section 1 of this Act, and all
records, books, moneys budgeted for said facilities, accounts,
1107
voters. Prior to this date, Scotland Neck was part of
the Halifax County school district. In July 1969, the
United States Justice Department filed the complaint in
this action against the Halifax County Board of Educa
tion seeking the disestablishment of a dual school system
operated by the Board and seeking a declaration of in
papers, documents and property of any description shall become
the property of Scotland Neck City Administrative Unit or the
Board; all real estate belonging to the public schools located within
the above-described boundaries is hereby granted, made over to,
and automatically by force of this Act conveyed to the Board from
the County public school authorities. The Board of Education
of Halifax County is authorized and directed to execute any and
all deeds, bills of sale, assignments or other documents that may be
necessary to completely vest title to all such property to the Board.
Section 6. Subject to the approval of the voters residing within
the boundaries set forth in Section 1 of this Act, or within the
corporate limits of the Town of Scotland Neck, as hereinafter
provided, the governing authority of the Town of Scotland Neck,
in addition to all other taxes, is authorized and directed to levy
annually a supplemental tax not to exceed Fifty Cents (50^) on
each One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars of the assessed value of the
real and personal property taxable in said Town of Scotland Neck.
The amount or rate of said tax shall be determined by the Board
and said tax shall be collected by the Tax Collector of the Town of
Scotland Neck and paid to the Treasurer of the Board. The Board
may use the proceeds of the tax so collected to supplement any object
or item in the school budget as fixed by law or to supplement any
object or item in the Current Expense Fund or Capital Outlay
Fund as fixed by law.
Section 7. Within ten days from the date of the ratification of
this Act it shall be the duty of the governing authority of the
Town of Scotland Neck to call a referendum or special election upon
the question of whether or not said Scotland Neck City Adminis
trative Unit and its administrative board shall be established and
whether or not the special tax herein provided shall be levied and
collected for the purposes herein provided. The notice of the special
election shall be published once a week for two successive weeks in
some newspaper published in the Town of Scotland Neck. The
notice shall contain a brief statement of the purpose of the special
election, the area in which it shall be held, and that a vote by a
majority of those voting in favor of this Act will establish the
Scotland Neck City Administrative Unit and its Administrative
Board as herein set forth, and that an annual tax not to exceed
Fifty Cents (50(f) on the assessed valuation of real and personal
property, according to each One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) valu
ation, the rate to be fixed by the Board, will be levied as a supple-
1108
validity and an injunction against the implementation of
Chapter 31. Scotland Neck City Board of Education was
added as a defendant in August 1969, and the Attorney
General of North Carolina was added as a defendant in
November 1969. On August 25, 1969, the District Court
issued a temporary injunction restraining the implemen-
mental tax in the Town of Scotland Neck, for the purpose of sup
plementing any lawful public school budgetary item. A new regis
tration of voters shall not be required and in all respects the laws
and regulations under which the municipal elections of the Town
of Scotland Neck are held shall apply to said special election. The
governing authority of the Town of Scotland Neck shall have the
authority to enact reasonable rules and regulations for the neces
sary election books, records and other documents for such special
election and to fix the necessary details of said special election.
Section 8 . In said referendum or special election a ballot in form
substantially as follows shall be used: VOTE FOR ON E:
( ) FOR creating and establishing Scotland Neck City Adminis
trative Unit with administrative Board to operate public schools of
said Unit and for supplemental tax not to exceed Fifty Cents (50^)
on the assessed valuation of real and personal property according to
each One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) valuation for objects of school
budget.
( ) AGAINST creating and establishing Scotland Neck City
Administrative Unit with administrative Board to operate public
schools of said Unit and against supplemental tax not to exceed
Fifty Cents (50^) on the assessed valuation of real and personal
property according to each One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) valu
ation for objects of school budget.
I f a majority of the qualified voters voting at such referendum
or special election vote in favor of establishing Scotland Neck City
Administrative Unit, for creation of administrative Board to oper
ate public schools of said Unit and for special supplemental tax as
herein set forth, then this Act shall become effective and operative
as to all its provisions upon the date said special election results
are canvassed and the result judicially determined, otherwise to be
null and void. The expense of said referendum or special election
shall be paid by the governing authority of the Town of Scotland
Neck but if said Unit and Board are established, then said Town
of Scotland Neck shall be reimbursed by the Board for said expense
as soon as possible.
Section 9. All laws and clauses of laws in conflict with this
Act are hereby repealed.
Section 10. This Act shall be in full force and effect according to
its provisions from and after its ratification.
1109
tation of Chapter 31, and thereafter on May 23, 1970,
made the injunction permanent. The District Court rea
soned that Chapter 31 was unconstitutional because it
would create a refuge for white students and would in
terfere with the desegregation of the Halifax County
school system.
It is clear that Chapter 31 is not unconstitutional on
its face. But a facially constitutional statute may in
the context of a given fact situation be applied unfairly
or for a discriminatory purpose in violation of the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick
Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886). We cannot judge
the validity of the statute in vacuo but must examine it
in relation to the problem it was meant to solve. Poin
dexter v. Louisiana Financial Assistance Commission, 275
F. Supp. 833 (E.D. La. 1967).
I.
The History of School Desegregation in Halifax
County and the Attempts to Secure a Separate
School District for the City of Scotland Neck
For many years until 1936, the City of Scotland Neck
was a wholly separate school district operating inde
pendently of the Halifax County school system into which
it was then merged. Both the elementary and the high
school buildings presently in use in Scotland Neck were
constructed prior to 1936 and were financed by city
funds.
Halifax County operated a completely segregated dual
school system from 1936 to 1965. In 1965, Halifax
County adopted a freedom-of-choice plan. Little integra
tion resulted during the next three years. Shortly after
the Supreme Court decision in Green v. County School
Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, in May of
1968, the Halifax County Board of Education requested
the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction to
survey their schools and to make recommendations re
garding desegregation of the school system.
In July 1968, the Justice Department sent a “ notice
letter” to the Halifax County Board notifying them that
1110
they had not disestablished a dual school system and that
further steps would be necessary to comply with Green.
After negotiations with the Justice Department, the
Halifax County Board agreed informally to disestablish
their dual school system by the beginning of the 1969-70
school year, with a number of interim steps to be taken
in the 1968-69 school year. As part of the interim steps,
the seventh and eighth grades were transferred from the
Brawley School, an all-black school located just outside
the city limits of Scotland Neck, to the Scotland Neck
School, previously all-white.
The results of the North Carolina Department of Pub
lic Instruction survey were published in December of
1968. It recommended an interim plan and a long range
plan. The interim plan proposed the creation of a unitary
school system through a combination of geographic at
tendance zones and pairing of previously all-white schools
with previously all-black schools. Scotland Neck School
was to be paired with Brawley School, grades 1-4 and
8-9 to attend Brawley and grades 5-6 and 10-12 to attend
Scotland Neck. The long range plan called for the build
ing of two new consolidated high schools, each to serve
half of the geographic area composing the Halifax County
school district. The Halifax County Board of Education
declined to implement the plan proposed by the Depart
ment of Public Instruction and the Justice Department
filed suit in July 1969.
Paralleling this history of school segregation in the
Halifax County school system is a history of attempts on
the part of the residents of Scotland Neck to obtain a
separate school district. The proponents of a separate
school district began to formulate their plans in 1963,
five years prior to the Green decision and two years
prior to the institution of freedom-of-choice by the Hali
fax County Board. They were unable to present their
plan in the form of a bill prior to the expiration of the
1963 session of the North Carolina Legislature, but a
bill was introduced in the 1965 session which would have
created a separate school district composed of Scotland
Neck and the four surrounding townships, funded par
tially through local supplemental property taxes. The bill
1111
did not pass and it was the opinion of many of the Scot
land Neck residents that its defeat was the result of op
position of individuals living outside the city limits of
Scotland Neck.
At the instigation of the only Halifax County Board
of Education member who was a resident of Scotland
Neck, a delegation from the Halifax County schools at
tempted in 1966 to get approval for the construction of
a new high school facility in Scotland Neck to be oper
ated on a completely integrated basis. The proposal was
not approved by the State Division of School Planning.
After visiting the smallest school district in the state
to determine the economic feasibility of creating a sepa
rate unit for the City of Scotland Neck alone, the pro
ponents of a separate school district again sponsored a
bill in the Legislature. It was this bill which was even
tually passed on March 31, 1969, as Chapter 31 of the
Session Laws of 1969.
II.
The Three Purposes of Chapter 31
The District Court found that the proponents of a
special school district had three purposes in mind in
sponsoring Chapter 31 and the record supports these
findings. First, they wanted more local control over their
schools. Second, they wanted to increase the expenditures
for their schools through local supplementary property
taxes. Third, they wanted to prevent anticipated white
fleeing of the public schools.
Local control and increased taxation were thought nec
essary to increase the quality of education in their
schools. Previous efforts to upgrade Scotland Neck
Schools had been frustrated. Always it seemed the needs
of the County came before Scotland Neck. The only
county-wide bond issue passed in Halifax County since
1936 was passed in 1957. Two local school districts oper
ating in Halifax County received a total of $1,020,000
from the bond issue and the Halifax County system re
ceived $1,980,000. None of the money received by Hali
fax County was spent on schools within the city limits
1112
of Scotland Neck. If Scotland Neck had been a separate
school district at the time, it would have received $190,-
000 as its proportionate share of the bond issue. The
Halifax County system also received $950,000 in 1963 as
its proportionate share of the latest state-wide bond issue.
None of this money was spent or committed to any of
the schools within the city limits of Scotland Neck. Hali
fax County has reduced its annual capital outlay tax
from 63 cents per $100 valuation in 1957 to 27.5 cents
per $100 valuation in the latest fiscal year. In order for
the referendum to pass under the terms of Chapter 31,
the voters of Scotland Neck had to approve not only the
creation of a separate school district but in addition had
to authorize a local supplementary property tax not to
exceed 50 cents per $100 valuation per year. Despite
such a political albatross the referendum was favorable,
and moreover, the supplementary tax was levied by the
Scotland Neck Board at the full 50 cent rate.
III.
White Fleeing— The Questionable Third Purpose
But it is not the permissible first purpose or the clear
ly commendable second purpose which caused the District
Court to question the constitutionality of Chapter 31. It
is rather the third purpose, a desire on the part of the
proponents of Chapter 31 to prevent, or at least diminish,
the flight of white students from the public schools, that
concerned the District Court. The population of Halifax
County is predominantly black. The population of Scot
land Neck is approximately 50 percent black and 50 per
cent white, and the District Court found that the pupil
ratio by race in the schools would have been 57.3 percent
white to 42.7 percent black.
A number of decisions have mentioned the problem of
white flight following the integration of school systems
which have a heavy majority of black students. Monroe
v. Board of Commissioners of the City of Jackson, 391
U.S. 450, 459 (1968); Brunson v. Board of Trustees of
School District No. 1 of Clarendon County, ------- F.2d
------- (4th Cir. 1970); Walker v. County School Board
1113
of Brunswick County, 413 F.2d 53 (4th Cir. 1969);
Anthony v. Marshall County Board of Education, 409
F.2d 1287 (5th Cir. 1969). All of these cases hold that
the threat of white flight will not justify the continuing
operation of a dual school system. But it has never been
held by any court that a school board (or a state) may
not constitutionally consider and adopt measures for the
purpose of curbing or diminishing white flight from a
unitary school system. Indeed it seems obvious that such
a purpose is entirely consistent with and may help imple
ment the Brown principle. It is not the purpose of pre
venting white flight which is the subject of judicial con
cern but rather the prices of achievement. If the effect
of Chapter 31 is to continue a dual school system in
Halifax County, or establish one in Scotland Neck, the
laudable desire to stem an impending flow of white stu
dents from the public schools will not save it from con
stitutional infirmity. But if Chapter 31 does not have
that effect, the desire of its proponents to halt white
flight will not make an otherwise constitutional statute
unconstitutional.
In considering the effect of Chapter 31 on school de
segregation in Halifax County and Scotland Neck, it is
important to distinguish the effect of Chapter 31 from
the effect of a transfer plan adopted by the Scotland
Neck Board of Education. The effect of the transfer
plan was to substantially increase the percentage of white
students in the Scotland Neck schools. But the transfer
plan is solely the product of the Scotland Neck Board of
Education and not Chapter 31. Therefore the effect of
the transfer plan has no relevance to the question of
the constitutionality of Chapter 31.®
8 Appellees argue that the creation of the transfer plan is evi
dence that the intended effect of Chapter 31 was to preserve the
previous racial makeup of the Scotland Neck schools. We disagree.
We are concerned here with the intent of the North Carolina
Legislature and not the intent of the Scotland Neck Board. In
determining legislative intent of an act such as Chapter 31, it is
appropriate to consider the reason that the proponents of the act
desired its passage if it can be inferred that those reasons were
made known to the Legislature. There is evidence in the record
to show that the three purposes that the District Court found were
1114
The District Court held that the creation of a sepa
rate Scotland Neck school district would unconstitutional
ly interfere with the implementation of a plan to desegre
gate the Halifax County schools adopted by the Halifax
County Board of Education. We hold that the effect of
the separation of the Scotland Neck schools and students
on the desegregation of the remainder of the Halifax
County system is minimal and insufficient to invalidate
Chapter 31. During the 1968-69 school year, there were
10,655 students in the Halifax County Schools, 8,196
(77%) were black, 2,357 (22%) were white, and 102
(1% ) were Indian. Of this total, 605 children of school
age, 399 white and 296 black, lived within the city limits
of Scotland Neck. Removing the Scotland Neck students
from the Halifax County system would have left 7,900
(80%) black students, 1,958 (19%) white students, and
102 (1% ) Indian students. This is a shift in the ratio of
black to white students of only 3 percent, hardly a sub
stantial change. Whether the Scotland Neck students re
main within the Halifax County system or attend sepa
rate schools of their own, the Halifax County schools
will have a substantial majority of black students. Nor
would there be a per pupil decrease in the proceeds from
the countywide property taxes available in the remain
ing Halifax County system. The county tax is levied
on all property in the county and distributed among the
various school districts in the county on a per pupil
basis. In addition, the Superintendent of Schools for
the Halifax County system testified that there would be
no decrease in teacher-pupil ratio in the remaining Hali
fax County system and in fact that in a few special
areas, such as speech therapy, the teacher-pupil ratio
may actually increase.
intended by the proponents of Chapter 31 were presented to the
Legislature. However, there is nothing in the record to suggest
that the Legislature had any idea that the Scotland Neck Board
would adopt a transfer plan after the enactment of Chapter 31
which would have the effect of increasing the percentage of white
students.
We will discuss the transfer plan later in a separate part of
the opinion.
1115
Nor can we agree with the District Court that Chap
ter 31 creates a refuge for the white students of the
Halifax County system. Although there are more white
students than black students in Scotland Neck, the white
majority is not large, 57.3 percent white and 42.6 per
cent black. Since all students in the same grade would
attend the same school, the system would be integrated
throughout. There is no indication that the geographic
boundaries were drawn to include white students and
exclude black students as there has been in other cases
where the courts have ordered integration across school
district boundaries. Haney v. County Board of Educa
tion of Sevier County, 410 F.2d 920 (8th Cir. 1969).
The city limits provide a natural geographic boundary.
There is nothing in the record to suggest that the greater
percentage of white students in Scotland Neck is a
product of residential segregation resulting in part from
state action. See Brewer v. School Board of the City of
Norfolk, 397 F.2d 37 (4th Cir. 1968).
From the history surrounding the enactment of Chap
ter 31 and from the effect of Chapter 31 on school deseg
regation in Halifax County, we conclude that the purpose
of Chapter 31 was not to invidiously discriminate against
black students in Halifax County and that Chapter 31
does not violate the equal protection clause of the Four
teenth Amendment.
Appellees urge in their brief that conceptually the way
to analyze this case is to “ view the results of severance
as if it were part of a desegregation plan for the orig
inal system.” We do not agree. The severance was not
part of a desegregation plan proposed by the school
board but was instead an action by the Legislature re
defining the boundaries of local governmental units. If
the effect of this act was the continuance of a dual school
system in Halifax County or the establishment of a dual
system in Scotland Neck it would not withstand chal
lenge under the equal protection clause, but we have
concluded that it does not have that effect.
But assuming for the sake of argument that the ap
pellees’ method of analysis is correct, we conclude that
the severance of Scotland Neck students would still
1116
withstand constitutional challenge. Although it is not
entirely clear from their brief, appellants’ apparent con
tention is that the variance in the ratio of black to white
students in Scotland Neck from the ratio in the Halifax
County system as a whole is so substantial that if Scot
land Neck was proposed as a geographic zone in a de
segregation plan, the plan would have to be disapproved.
The question of “whether, as a constitutional matter, any
particular racial balance must be achieved in the schools”
has yet to be decided by the courts. Northcross v. Board
of Education of Memphis,-------U .S .-------- , 90, S. Ct. 891,
893 (1970) (Burger, C.J., concurring). In its first dis
cussion of remedies for school segregation, Brown v.
Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955)
(Brown II), the Supreme Court spoke in terms of “prac
tical flexibility” and “ reconciling public and private
needs.” 349 U.S. at 300. In Green v. County School
Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968), the
court made it clear that the school board has the burden
of explaining its preference for a method of desegrega
tion which is less effective in disestablishing a dual school
system than another more promising method. Even if we
assume that a more even racial balance throughout the
schools of Halifax County would be more effective in
creating a unitary school system, we conclude that the
deviation is adequately explained by the inability of peo
ple of Scotland Neck to be able to increase the level of
funding of the schools attended by their children when
the geographic area served by those schools extended
beyond the city limits of Scotland Neck.
Our conclusion that Chapter 31 is not unconstitutional
leaves for consideration the transfer plan adopted by the
Scotland Neck School Board. The transfer plan adopted
by the Board provided for the transfer of students from
the remaining Halifax County system into the Scotland
Neck system and from the Scotland Neck system into the
Halifax County system. Transfer into the Scotland Neck
system were to pay $100 for the first child in a family,
$25 for the next two children in a family, and no fee for
the rest of the children in a family. As a result of this
transfer plan, 350 white students and 10 black students
applied for transfer into the Scotland Neck system, and
1117
44 black students applied for transfer out of the system.
The net result of these transfers would have been to have
74 percent white students and 26 percent black students
in the Scotland Neck system. We conclude that these
transfers would have tended toward establishment of a
resegregated system and that the transfer plan violates
the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amend
ment.4 See Monroe v. Board of Commissioners of the
City of Jackson, 391 U.S. 450 (1968).
We reverse the judgment of the District Court holding
Chapter 31 unconstitutional, and remand to the Dis
trict Court with instructions to dissolve its injunction.
The District Court will retain jurisdiction to consider
plans of integration proposed by Halifax County Board
of Education and by Scotland Neck Board of Education.
4 Perhaps it should be noted that in the school board’s amended
answer filed on September 3, 1969, it withdrew the original transfer
plan and represented to the District Court that it intended to
allow only such transfers as “may be in conformity to the law
and/or Court order or orders applicable to Defendant, and in con
formity to a plan of limitation of transfers to be prepared by
Defendant and submitted to this Court.”
1118
APPENDIX E
JUDGMENT
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14,929
U nited States of A merica, and Pattie Black Cotton,
Edward M. Francis, Public School Teachers of
Halifax County, et al ., appellees
v .
Scotland N eck City Board of E ducation, a Body
Corporate, appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina
This cause came on to be heard on the record from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, and was argued by counsel.
On consideration whereof, It is now here ordered and
adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the said
District Court appealed from, in this cause, be, and the
same is hereby, reversed; and the case is remanded to
the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis
trict of North Carolina, at Wilson, with instructions to
dissolve its injunction and retain jurisdiction to consider
plans of integration proposed by Halifax County Board
of Education and by Scotland Neck Board of Education.
Samuel W. Phillips,
Clerk.
A True Copy, Teste:
Samuel W. Phillips,
Clerk.
By Diane Hudson,
Deputy Clerk.
1119
APPENDIX B
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
No. 14552
Pecola A nnette W right, et al ., appellees
v.
Council of the City of E mporia and the Members
Thereof, and School Board of the City of E m
poria and the Members Thereof, appellants
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond
Robert R. Merhige, Jr., District Judge
Argued October 8, 1970— Decided March 23, 1971
Before Haynsworth , Chief Judge, Boreman, Bryan ,
W inter, and Craven, Circuit Judges sitting en banc *
John F. Kay, Jr., and D. Dortch Warriner (Warri-
ner, Outten, Slagle & Barrett; and Mays, Valentine,
Davenport & Moore on brief) for Appellants, and S. W.
Tucker (Henry L. Marsh, III, and Hill, Tucker &
Marsh; and Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit, III, and
Norman Chachkin on brief) for Appellees.
CRAVEN, Circuit Judge: In this case and two others
now under submission en banc we must determine the
extent of the power of state government to redesign the
geographic boundaries of school districts.* 1 Ordinarily, it
would seem to be plenary but in school districts with a
history of racial segregation enforced through state ac
* Judge Sobeloff did not participate. Judge Butzner disqualified
himself because he participated as a district judge in an earlier
stage of this case.
1 The other two cases are U n ited S ta te s V. S co tla n d N e c k C ity
B o a r d o f E d u c a tio n , ------- F. 2d ------- , Nos. 14929 and 14930 (4th
Cir. ------- , 1971) and T u r n e r V. L i t t l e t o n -L a k e G a s to n S ch o o l D is
t r i c t , — F. 2 d ------- , No. 14990 (4th C ir .------- . 1971).
1120
tion, close scrutiny is required to assure there has not
been gerrymandering for the purpose of perpetuating
invidious discrimination.
Each of these cases involve a county school district in
which there is a substantial majority of black students
out of which was carved a new school district comprised
of a city or a city plus an area surrounding the city. In
each case, the resident students of the new city unit are
approximately 50 percent black and 50 percent white. In
each case, the district court enjoined the establishment
of the new school district. In this case, we reverse.
I
If legislation creating a new school district produces
a shift in the racial balance which is great enough to
support an inference that the purpose of the legislation
is to perpetuate segregation, and the district judge draws
the inference, the enactment falls under the Fourteenth
Amendment and the establishment of such a new school
district must be enjoined. See Gomillion v. Lightfoot,
364 U.S. 399 (1960). Cf. Haney v. County Board of
Education of Sevier County, 410 F. 2d 920 (8th Cir.
1969) ; Burleson v. County Board of Election Commis
sioners of Jefferson County, 308 F. Supp. 352 (E.D.
Ark.) aff’d ------- F. 2d -------, No. 20228 (8th Cir. Nov.
18, 1970). But where the shift is merely a modification
of the racial ratio rather than effective resegregation
the problem becomes more difficult.
The creation of new school districts may be desirable
and/or necessary to promote the legitimate state inter
est of providing quality education for the state’s chil
dren. The refusal to allow the creation of any new
school districts where there is any change in the racial
makeup of the school districts could seriously impair the
state’s ability to achieve this goal. At the same time,
the history of school integration is replete with numer
ous examples of actions by state officials to impede the
mandate of Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294
(1955) (Brown II). There is serious danger that the
creation of new school districts may prove to be yet an
1121
other method to obstruct the transition from racially
separated school systems to school systems in which no
child is denied the right to attend a school on the basis
of race. Determining into which of these two categories
a particular case fits requires a careful analysis of the
facts of each case to discern the dominant purpose of
boundary realignment. If the creation of a new school
district is designed to further the aim of providing qual
ity education and is attended secondarily by a modifica
tion of the racial balance, short of resegregation, the
federal courts should not interfere. If, however^ the pri
mary purpose for creating a new school district is to
retain as much of separation of the races as possible,
the state has violated its affirmative constitutional duty
to end state supported school segregation. The test is
much easier to state than it is to apply.
II
Emporia became a city of the so-called second class on
July 31, 1967, pursuant to a statutory procedure estab
lished at least as early as 1892. See 3 Va. Code § 15.1-
978 to -998 (1950) ; Acts of the Assembly 1891-92, ch.
595. Prior to that time it was an incorporated town
and as such was part of Greensville County. At the time
city status was attained Greensville County was operat
ing public schools under a freedom of choice plan ap
proved by the district court, and Green v. County School
Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968), in
validating freedom of choice unless it “ worked,” could
not have been anticipated by Emporia, and indeed, was
not envisioned by this court. Bowman v. County School
Board of Charles City County, 382 F. 2d 326 (4th Cir.
1967). The record does not suggest that Emporia chose
to become a city in order to prevent or diminish integra
tion. Instead, the motivation appears to have been an
unfair allocation of tax revenues by county officials^
One of the duties imposed on Emporia by the Virginia
statutes as a city of the second class was to establish a
school board to supervise the public education of the
city’s children. Under the Virginia statutes, Emporia
had the option of operating its own school system or to
1122
work out one of a number of alternatives under which
its children would continue to attend school jointly with
the county children. Emporia considered operating a
separate school system but decided it would not be prac
tical to do so immediately at the time of its independ
ence. There was an effort to work out some form of
joint operation with the Greensville County schools in
which decision making power would be shared. The
county refused. Emporia finally signed a contract with
the county on April 10, 1968, under which the city school
children would attend schools operated by the Greensville
County School Board in exchange for a percentage of
the school system’s operating cost. Emporia agreed to
this form of operation only when given an ultimatum by
the county in March 1968 that it would stop educating
the city children mid-term unless some agreement was
reached.
At the same time that the county was engaged in its
controversy with Emporia about the means of educating
the city children, the county was also engaged in a con
troversy over the elimination of racial segregation in the
county schools. Until sometime in 1968, Greensville
County operated under a freedom of choice plan. At that
time the plaintiffs in this action successfully urged upon
the district court that the freedom of choice plan did not
operate to disestablish the previously existing dual school
system and thus was inadequate under Green v. County
School Board of New Kent County, supra. After con
sidering various alternatives, the district court, in an
order dated June 25, 1969, paired all the schools in
Greensville County.
< Also in June 1969, Emporia was notified for the first
time by counsel that in all probability its contract with
the county for the education of the city children was void
under state law. The city then filed an action in the
state courts to have the contract declared void and noti
fied the county that it was ending its contractual rela
tionship forthwith. Parents of city school children were
notified that their children would attend a city school
system. On August 1, 1969, the plaintiffs filed a supple
mental complaint seeking an injunction against the City
Council and the City School Board to prevent the estab
1123
lishment of a separate school district. A preliminary in
junction against the operation of a separate system was
issued on August 8, 1969. The temporary injunction
was made permanent on March 3, 1969.2
The Emporia city unit would not be a white island in
an otherwise heavily black county. In fact, even in Em
poria there will be a majority of black students in the
public schools, 52 percent black to 48 percent white.
Under the plan presented by Emporia to the district
court, all of the students living within the city boun
daries would attend a single high school and a single
grade school. At the high school there would be a slight
white majority, 48 percent black and 52 percent white,
while in the grade school there would be a slight black
majority, 54 percent black and 46 percent white. The
city limits of Emporia provide a natural geographic
boundary for a school district.
The student population of the Greensville County
School District without the separation of the city unit is
66 percent black and 34 percent white. The students
remaining in the geographic jurisdiction of the county
unit after the separation would be 72 percent black and
28 percent white. Thus, the separation of the Emporia
students would create a shift of the racial balance in
the remaining county unit of 6 percent. Regardless of
whether the city students attend a separate school sys
tem, there will be a substantial majority of black stu
dents in the county system.
Not only does the effect of the separation not demon
strate that the primary purpose of the separation was
to perpetuate segregation, but there is strong evidence to
the contrary. Indeed, the district court found that Em
poria officials had other purposes in mind. Emporia hired
Dr. Neil H. Tracey, a professor of education at the Uni
versity of North Carolina, to evaluate the plan adopted
by the district court for Greensville County and compare
it with Emporia’s proposal for its own school system.
Dr. Tracey said his studies were made with the under
2 The decision of the court below is reported as Wright v.
County School Board of Greensville County, 309 F. Supp. 671
(E.D. Va. 1970).
1124
standing that it was not the intent of the city to resegre
gate. He testified that the plan adopted for Greensville
County would require additional expenditures for trans
portation and that an examination of the proposed budget
for the Greensville County Schools indicated that not
only would the additional expenditures not be forthcom
ing but that the budget increase over the previous year
would not even keep up with increased costs due to in
flation. Emporia on the other hand proposed increased
revenues to increase the quality of education for its stu
dents and in Dr. Tracey’s opinion the proposed Emporia
system would be educationally superior to the Greens
ville system. Emporia proposed lower student teacher
ratios, increased per pupil expenditures, health services,
adult education, and the addition of a kindergarten pro
gram.
In sum, Emporia’s position, referred to by the district
court as “ uncontradicted,” was that effective integration
of the schools in the whole county would require in
creased expenditures in order to preserve education qual
ity, that the county officials were unwilling to provide
the necessary funds, and that therefore the city would
accept the burden of educating the city children. In this
context, it is important to note the unusual nature of
the organization of city and county governments in Vir
ginia. Cities and counties are completely independent,
both politically and geographically. See City of Richmond
v. County Board, 199 Va. 679, 684 (1958); Murray v.
Roanoke, 192 Va. 321, 324 (1951). When Emporia was
a town, it was politically part of the county and the peo
ple of Emporia were able to elect representatives to the
county board of supervisors. When Emporia became a
city, it was completely separated from the county and no
longer has any representation on the county board. In
order for Emporia to achieve an increase in school ex
penditures for city schools it would have to obtain the
approval of the Greensville County Board of Supervisors
whose constituents do not include city residents.
Determining what is desirable or necessary in terms
of funding for quality education is the responsibility of
state and school district officers and is not for our deter
1125
mination. The question that the federal courts must de
cide is, rather, what is the primary purpose of the pro
posed action of the state officials. See Developments in
the Law—Equal Protection, 82 Harv. L. Rev. 1065
(1969). Is the primary purpose a benign one or is the
claimed benign purpose merely a coverup for racial dis
crimination? The district court must, of course, consider
evidence about the need for and efficacy of the proposed
action to determine the good faith of the state officials’
claim of benign purpose. In this case, the court did so
and found explicitly that “ft ] he city clearly contemplates
a superior quality education program. It is anticipated
that the cost will be such as to require higher tax pay
ments by city residents.” 309 F. Supp. at 671. Notably,
there was no finding of discriminatory purpose, and in
stead the court noted its satisfaction that the city would,
if permitted, operate its own system on a unitary basis.
We think the district court’s injunction against the
operation of a separate school district for the City of
Emporia was improvidently entered and unnecessarily
sacrifices legitimate and benign educational improvement.
In his commendable concern to prevent resegregation—
under whatever guise— the district judge momentarily
overlooked, we think, his broad discretion in approving
equitable remedies and the practical flexibility recom
mended by Broivn II in reconciling public and private
needs. We reverse the judgment of the district court
and remand with instructions to disolve the injunction.
Because of the possibility that Emporia might insti
tute a plan for transferring students into the city sys
tem from the county system resulting in resegregation,3
or that the hiring of teachers to serve the Emporia
school system might result in segregated faculties, the
district court is directed to retain jurisdiction.
Reversed and remanded.
3 A notice of August 31, 1969, invited applications from the
county. Subsequently, the city assured the district court it would
not entertain such applications without court permission.
1126
SOBELOFF, Senior Circuit Judge, with whom WIN
TER, Circuit Judge, joins, dissenting and concurring
specially: In respect to Nos. 14929 and 14930, United
States v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education, ------ -
F. 2d ------- (4th Cir. 1971), and No. 14990, Turner v.
Littleton-Lake Gaston School District, ------- F. 2d -------
(4th Cir. 1971), the two cases in which I participated,
I dissent from the court’s reversal in Scotland Neck and
concur in its affirmance in Littleton-Lake Gaston. I
would affirm the District Court in each of those cases. I
join in Judge Winter’s opinion, and since he has treated
the facts analytically and in detail, I find it unnecessary
to repeat them except as required in the course of dis
cussion. Not having participated in No. 14552, Wright
v. Council of City of Emporia,-------F. 2 d -------- (4th Cir.
1971), I do not vote on that appeal, although the views
set forth below necessarily reflect on that decision as well,
since the principles enunciated by the majority in that
case are held to govern the legal issue common to all
three of these school cases.
I
The history of the evasive tactics pursued by white
communities to avoid the mandate of Brown v. Board of
Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955), is well documented.
These have ranged from outright nullification by means
of massive resistance laws1 and open and occasionally
violent defiance,2 through discretionary pupil assignment
1 See Duckworth V. James, 267 F. 2d 224 (4th Cir. 1959) ;
Bush V. Orleans Parish School Bd., 188 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. La.
1960), aff’d per curiam, 365 U.S. 569 (1961); Bush V. Orleoms
Parish School Bd., 187 F. Supp. 42 (E.D. La. 1960), aff’d Per
curiam, 365 U.S. 569 (1961) ; Aaron V. McKinley, 173 F. Supp.
944 (E.D. Ark. 1959) ; aff’d sub nom., Faubus V. Aaron, 361 U.S.
197 (1959) ; James V. Almond, 170 F. Supp. 331 (E.D. Va. 1959),
app. dis., 359 U.S. 1006 (1959) ; Harrison V. Day, 200 Va. 439, 106
S.E. 2d 636 (1959) (decided the same day as James V. Almond,
supra) .
2 See Cooper V. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958); Armstrong v. Board
of Education of City of Birmingham, Ala. 323 F. 2d 333 (5th Cir.
1963), cert, denied sub nom., Gibson V. Harris, 376 U.S. 908 (1964) ;
1127
laws3 and public tuition grants in support of private
segregated schools,4 to token integration plans parading
under the banner “ freedom-of-choice.” 5 One by one these
devices have been condemned by the Supreme Court:
[T]he constitutional rights of children not to be dis
criminated against in school admission on grounds
of race or color declared by this Court in the Brown
case can neither be nullified openly and directly by
state legislators or state executive or judicial offi
cers, nor nullified indirectly by them through eva
sive schemes for segregation whether attempted
“ ingeniously or ingenuously.” Cooper v. Aaron, 358
U.S. 1, 17 (1958).
Neither these agencies, nor school boards, nor local com
munities have the right to put roadblocks in the way of
effective integration. The Court has declared that “ the
obligation of every school district is to terminate dual
school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter
only unitary schools.” Alexander v. Holmes County
Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 20 (1969).
Today, I fear, we behold the emergence of a further
stratagem— the carving out of new school districts in
order to achieve racial compositions more acceptable to
the white community. The majority frankly acknowl
edges the “ serious danger that the creation of new school
district may prove to be yet another method to obstruct
Brewer V. Hoxie School District No. 46, 238 F. 2d 91 (8th Cir.
1956); Holmes v. Danner, 191 F. Supp. 394 (M.D. Ga. 1961), stay
denied, 364 U.S. 939 (1961).
3 See Northcross v. Board of Education of City of Memphis,
302 F. 2d 818 (6th Cir. 1962) ; Manning V. Board of Public
Instruction, 277 F. 2d 370 (5th Cir. 1960) ; Gibson V. Board
of Public Instruction, Dade County, Fla., 272 F. 2d 763 (5th
Cir. 1959) ; Orleans Parish School Board V. Bush, 242 F. 2d
156 (5th Cir. 1957) ; United States Commission on Civil Rights,
Civil Rights USA— Public Schools, Southern States, 2-17 (1962).
4 See Griffin V. County School Board of Prince Edward County,
377 U.S. 218 (1964) ; Hall V. St. Helena Parish School Board, 197
F. Supp. 649 (E.D. La. 1961), aff’d, 368 U.S. 515 (1962).
5 See Green V. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1968) ; Raney
V. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 443 (1968) ; Monroe V. Board of
Commissioners, 391 U.S. 450 (1968).
1128
the transition from racially separate school systems to
school systems in which no child is denied the right to
attend a school on the basis of race,” Emporia, supra at
4. However, the court fashions a new and entirely in
appropriate doctrine to avert that danger. It directs
District Courts to weigh and assess the various pur
poses that may have moved the proponents of the new
school district, with the objective of determining which
purpose is dominant. District Courts are told to inter
cede only if they find that racial considerations were
the primary purpose in the creation of the new school
units.® I find no precedent for this test and it is neither
broad enough nor rigorous enough to fulfill the Consti
tution’s mandate. Moreover, it cannot succeed in at
taining even its intended reach, since resistant white
enclaves will quickly learn how to structure a proper
record— shrill with protestations of good intent, all con
sideration of racial factors muted beyond the range of
the court’s ears.6 7
If challenged state action has a racially discriminatory
effect, it violates the equal protection clause unless a
compelling and overriding legitimate state interest is
demonstrated. This test is more easily applied, more
fully implements the prohibition of the Fourteenth
Amendment and has already gained firm root in the law.
The Supreme Court has explicitly applied this test to
state criminal statutes which on their face establish racial
classifications. In 1964, striking down a Florida crimi
nal statute which forbade a man and woman of different
races to “habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime
6 The majority’s test as stated in E m p o r ia , su p ra , is as follows:
“Is the primary purpose a benign one or is the claimed benign
purpose merely a cover-up for racial discrimination?”
7 The impracticability of the majority’s test is highlighted by
the dilemma in which the District Judges found themselves in
S co tla n d N e c k : “In ascertaining such a subjective factor as
motivation and intent, it is of course impossible for this Court
to accurately state what proportion each of the above reasons
played in the minds of the proponents of the bill, the legisla
tors or the voters of Scotland Neck * * *. U n ited S ta te s V. H a li fa x
C o u n ty B o a r d o f E d u c a tio n , 314 F. Supp. 65, 72 (E.D.N.C. 1970).”
1129
the same room,” the Court stated in an opinion written
by Justice White:
Normally, the widest discretion is allowed the leg
islative judgment * * *; and normally that judg
ment is given the benefit of every conceivable cir
cumstance which might suffice to characterize the
classification as reasonable rather than arbitrary
and invidious. [Citations] But we deal here with a
classification based upon the race of the participants,
which must be viewed in light of the historical fact
that the central purpose of the Fourteenth Amend
ment was to eliminate racial discrimination emanat
ing from official sources in the States. This strong
policy renders racial classifications “ constitutionally
suspect,” Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499; and
subject to the most “ rigid scrutiny,” Korematsu v.
United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216; and “ in most cir
cumstances irrelevant” to any constitutionally ac
ceptable legislative purpose, Hirabayashi v. United
States, 320 U.S. 810, 100.
McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 191-92 (1964).
Thus, the Court held that the proper test to apply in
that case was “ whether there clearly appears in the rele
vant materials some overriding statutory purpose requir
ing the proscription of the specified conduct when en
gaged in by a white and a Negro, but not otherwise.”
Id. at 192 [emphasis added]. To the further argument
that the Florida statute should be upheld because ancil
lary to and serving the same purpose as an anti-mis
cegenation statute presumed valid for the purpose of the
case, the Court replied:
There is involved here an exercise of the state
police power which trenches upon the constitutional
ly protected freedom from invidious official discrimi
nation based on race. Such a law, even though en
acted pursuant to a valid state interest, bears a
heavy burden of justification, as we have said, and
will be upheld only if it is necessary, and not merely
rationally related, to the accomplishment of a per
missible state policy. Id. at 196 [emphasis added].
1130
There were no dissents in the McLaughlin case. The
two concurring opinions serve to underline and buttress
the test applied by the majority. Justice Harlan, joining
the Court’s opinion, added:
I agree with the Court * * * that necessity, not
mere reasonable relationship, is the proper test, see
ante, pp. 195-196. NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S.
288, 307-308; Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558, 562;
Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 147; Thornhill
v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 96; Schneider v. State, 308
U.S. 147, 161, 162, 164; see McGowan v. Maryland,
366 U.S. 420, 466-467 (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
The fact that these cases arose under the princi
ples of the First Amendment does not make them
inapplicable here. Principles of free speech are car
ried to the States only through the Fourteenth
Amendment. The necessity test which developed to
protect free speech against state infringement should
be equally applicable in a case involving state racial
discrimination— prohibition of which lies at the very
heart of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Id. at 197. Justice Stewart, speaking for himself and
Justice Douglas, expressed the view that the majority’s
test did not go far enough as applied to a criminal stat
ute because no overriding state purpose could exist.
* * * I cannot conceive of a valid legislative pur
pose under our Constitution for a state law which
makes the color of a person’s skin the test of wheth
er his conduct is a criminal offense. * * * I think it
is simply not possible for a state law to be valid
under our Constitution which makes the criminality
of an act depend upon the race of the actor.
Id. at 198.
Three years later the Court dealt with a Virginia
statute prohibiting interracial marriages. The statute
was determined to be unconstitutional under the Mc
Laughlin test, expressed here in these terms:
At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause
demands that racial classifications, especially sus
1131
pect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the “ most
rigid scrutiny,” Korematsu v. United States, 323
U.S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be
upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the
accomplishment of some permissible state objective,
independent of the racial discrimination which it was
the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate.* * *
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose
independent of invidious racial discrimination which
justifies this classification.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 11 (1967) [emphasis
added]. Justice Stewart filed a separate concurring
opinion— reiterating his belief that there could never
be a sufficiently compelling state purpose to justify a
criminal statute based on racial classification. Id. at 13.
Although McLaughlin and Loving dealt with criminal
statutes and express racial classifications, numerous
lower court decisions apply the strict “ compelling” or
“ overriding” purpose standard in the civil area as well
as the criminal, and extend its application to facially
neutral state action which, in reality, is racially dis
criminatory in its effect. The definitive case is Jackson
v. Godwin, 400 F. 2d 529 (5th Cir. 1968), in which Judge
Tuttle meticulously and exhaustively examines the lower
court cases, including those “ which have struck down
rules and regulations which on their face appear to be
non-discriminatory but which in 'practice and effect, if
not purposeful design, impose a heavy burden on Negroes
and not on whites, and operate in a racially discrimina
tory manner.” Id. at 538-39 [emphasis added]. He con
cludes his analysis with this formulation of the constitu
tional standard:
In both the areas of racial classification and
discrimination and First Amendment freedoms, we
have pointed out that stringent standards are to be
applied to governmental restrictions in these areas,
and rigid scrutiny must be brought to bear on the
justifications for encroachments on such rights. The
State must strongly show some substantial and con
1132
trolling interest which requires the subordination or
limitation of those important constitutional rights,
and which justifies their infringement, [citations];
and in the absence of such compelling justification
the state restrictions are impermissible infringements
of these fundamental and preferred rights. Id. at
541.
The most recent application of the “ compelling and
overriding state interest” test is to be found in the
Fifth Circuit’s decision in Hawkins v. Town of Shaw,
F. 2d (5th Cir. 1971). The plaintiffs, Negro residents
of Shaw, Mississippi, alleged racial discrimination by
town officials in the provision of various municipal serv
ices. The District Court dismissed the complaint, apply
ing a test akin to that used by the majority in this case:
“ If actions of public officials are shown to have rested
upon rational considerations, irrespective of race or pover
ty, they are not within the condemnation of the Four
teenth Amendment, and may not be properly condemned
upon judicial review.” Haivkins v. Town of Shaw, 303
F. Supp. 1162, 1168 (N.D. Miss. 1969). The Fifth Cir
cuit reversed, pointing to the standard set forth in
Jackson v. Godwin, supra, and stating, “ In applying this
test, defendants’ actions may be justified only if they
show a compelling state interest.” Haivkins v. Town of
Shaw, F. 2d (5th Cir. 1971) (slip opinion at 3).
In Hawkins the Fifth Circuit specifically considered
the relevance of the defendant’s “ intent,” or “purpose”
as the majority in our case would label it. Conceding
that “ the record contains no direct evidence aimed at
establishing bad faith, ill will or an evil motive on the
part of the Town of Shaw and its public officials,” Id.
at (slip opinion at 12), the court held: “ Having deter
mined that no compeling state interests can possibly
justify the discriminatory results of Shaw’s administra
tion of municipal services, we conclude that a violation
of equal protection has ocurred.” Id. at (slip opinion at
13) [emphasis in original text].
Just as Shaw’s administration of municipal services
violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection,
so too does the creation of the new Scotland Neck School
1133
District.8 The challenged legislation carves an enclave,
57% white and 43% black, from a previously 22%
white and 77% black school system.9 No compelling or
overriding state interest justifies the new district, and
its formation has a racially discriminatory effect by allow
ing the white residents of Scotland Neck to shift their
children from a school district where they are part of
a 22% minority to one where they constitute a 57%
majority.
The prevailing opinion draws comfort from the fact
that the new school district, because all children in the
same grade will attend the same school, will be “ inte
grated throughout.” I dare say a 100% white school
district would also be “ integrated throughout.” The rele
vant question is what change in degree of integration
has been effected by the creation of the new district.
Here the change is an increase in the percentage of
white pupils from 22% to 57%. The Constitution will no
more tolerate measures establishing a ratio of whites
to blacks which the whites find more acceptable than it
will measures totally segregating whites from blacks.
The 35% shift here is no less discriminatory because it
is a shift from 22% to 57% than if it were one from
65% to 100%.10
The majority opinion makes the puzzling concession
that:
If the effect of this act was the continuance of a
dual school system in Halifax County or the estab
8 Since even the majority concedes that the Littleton-Lake
Gaston School District must be enjoined as a racially discriminatory
scheme in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, I do not discuss
the facts of that case.
9 One percent of the pupils in Halifax County are Indians.
10 Judge Winter properly emphasizes in his separate opinion that
the effect of the new school districts must be measured by com
paring “the racial balance in the preexisting unit with that in
the new unit sought to be created, and that remaining in the
preexisting unit after the new unit’s creation.” Focusing, as do
I, on the 3 5 % increase in the white student population of the
new Scotland Neck School District, he quite correctly notes that
“ [a] more flagrant example of the creation of a white haven,
or a more nearly white haven, would be difficult to imagine.”
1134
lishment of a dual system in Scotland Neck it would
not withstand challenge under the equal protection
clause, but we have concluded that it does not have
that effect.
The situation here is that the Act sets up in Halifax
County two school systems, one with a 50:43 white to
black ratio and the other with a 19:80 white to black
ratio, in place of one school system with a 22:77 white
to black ratio. Thus, the Act constructs a dual school
system in Halifax County by the simple expedient of
labeling the two sets of schools as separate districts.
The majority does not explain why the Act can create
a dual school system in Halifax County if it could not
continue a dual system there. Nor do they explain why
the Act can establish a dual school system in Halifax
County if it could not establish one in Scotland Neck.
Obviously no explanation is possible and the legislation
severing the Scotland Neck School District fails to meet
the test of the equal protection clause.
II
Even if I accepted the majority’s formulation as the
proper doctrine to control these cases, which I certainly
do not, I think their test is misapplied in Scotland Neck.
The court accepts at face value the defendants’ assertions
that local control and increased taxation were the domi
nant objectives to be fulfilled by the new district, with the
ultimate goal of providing quality education to the stu
dents of Scotland Neck. The facts plainly are to the con
trary and demonstrate that, in projecting the new district,
race was the primary consideration. The District Court
specifically found that a significant factor in the creation
of the new school district was
a desire on the part of the leaders of Scotland
Neck to preserve a ratio of black to white students
in the schools of Scotland Neck that would be ac
ceptable to white parents and thereby prevent the
flight of white students to the increasingly popular
all-white private schools in the area.
1135
United States v. Halifax County Board of Education,
314 F. Supp. 65, 72 (E.D.N.C. 1970). The defendants
do not contest this finding.11
What starkly exposes the true purpose impelling the
redistricting adventure and belies the professions of
lofty objectives is the transfer plan initially adopted
by the Scotland Neck City Board of Education.12 Under
that plan, parents residing within Halifax County but
outside the newly fashioned district could place their
children in the Scotland Neck Schools by paying a fee
ranging from $100 to $125. The use of transfer plans
of this nature as devices to thwart the mandate of Brown
v. Board of Education, supra, has not been uncommon,13
and the majority here has no difficulty in recognizing
that the Scotland Neck transfer plan was a contrivance
to perpetuate segregation. Initial applications for transfer
under the plan were received from 350 white and only 10
black children in Halifax County. The net result would
have been a racial mix of 74% white, 26% black in the
Scotland Neck School District, contrasting with 82%
black, 17% white, 1% Indian, in the rest of Halifax
County. Thus the transfer plan would have operated di
rectly contrary to the obligation to desegregate the schools
11 The defendants assert instead that the prevention of white
flight is a legitimate goal. However, the Supreme Court in
Monroe V. Board of Commissioners, 391 U.S. 450, 459 (1968),
has directly addressed itself to this argument, and rejected it out
of hand: “We are frankly told in the Brief that without the
transfer option it is apprehended that white students will flee
the school system altogether. But it should go without saying
that the vitality of these constitutional principles cannot be
allowed to yield simply because of disagreement with them.”
Brown II at 300.
See also Brunson V. Board of Trustees of School District No. 1
of Clarendon County, 429 F. 2d 820 (4th Cir. 1970) ; Anthony V.
Marshal County Board of Education, 409 F. 2d 1287 (5th Cir.
1969). The defendants’ candid admission serves only to empha
size the dominant racial considerations behind the whole scheme.
12 Although the School Board later abandoned the transfer
plan, its initial adoption nevertheless reflects the Board’s intentions.
13 See Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, 391 U.S. 450 (1968) ;
Gross V. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 683 (1963).
1136
of Halifax County and distinctly evidences the design
of the Scotland Neck School Board to bring into existence
a white haven.
Curiously enough, despite its condemnation of the
transfer plan, the court declares the plan not relevant
in assessing the intent of the North Carolina legisla
ture in enacting Chapter 31, since there is no evidence
in the record to show that the legislative body knew
a transfer plan would be effected. This reasoning is
fallacious for legislators are not so naive and, in any
event, are chargeable with the same motivations as the
local communities concerned. The relevant inquiry under
the majority’s test is into the purposes for which state
action was taken and, as Judge Winter observes in his
separate opinion, when dealing with statutes designed
to affect local communities, one must look to the localities
to determine the purposes prompting the legislation.14
The size of the new school district in Scotland Neck
is also a crucial factor to be taken into account in
judging the genuineness of the alleged goal of quality
education. The Report of the Governor’s Study Com
mission on the Public School System of North Carolina
favors the consolidation of school districts to increase
efficiency in the operations of the public schools, and
suggests 9,000-10,000 as a desirable pupil population,
with 3,500 to 4,000 as a minimum. Scotland Neck’s
minuscule new school district for 695 pupils— one fifth
of the suggested minimum— is an anomaly that runs
directly counter to the recommendation of the Study
Commission that schools be merged into larger admin
istrative units. Moreover, if quality education were the
true objective and Scotland Neck resdients were deeply
concerned with increasing revenue to improve their schools,
14 Moreover, as the District Court noted, local newspapers, in
cluding the Raleigh News and Observer, suggested that racial
considerations, and not a concern for better educational, motivated
the legislation. For example, on February 14, 1969, a month
before Chapter 31 was enacted, the Raleigh Neivs and Observer
commented editorially that the bill provided for an “ educational
island” dominated by whites and on February 22, 1969, suggested
that if the bill passed, it would encourage other school districts
to resort to similar legislation.
1137
one might have expected that in-depth consideration
would have been given to the financial and educational
implications of the new district. However, the District
Court found that:
[t]here were no studies made prior to the intro
duction of the bill with respect to the educational
advantages of the new district, and there was no
actual planning as to how the supplement would be
spent although some people assumed it would be
spent on teachers’ supplements.
United States v. Halifax County Board of Education,
314 F. Supp. at 74.
Also highly relevant in assessing the dominant pur
pose is the timing of the legislation splintering the Hali
fax County school system. During the 1967-68 school
year the Halifax County School District maintained ra
cially identifiable schools, and only 46 of the 875 stu
dents attending the Scotland Neck school were black.
The next school year, under prodding by the Department
of Justice, the Halifax County Board of Education as
signed to the Scotland Neck school the entire seventh
and eighth grades from an adjacent all-black county
school, and promised to desegregate completely by 1969-
70. A survey by the North Carolina State Department
of Education in December 1968 recommended an integra
tion plan which provided that 690 black and 325 white
students should attend the Scotland Neck school. It was
only then that the bill which later became Chapter 31
was introduced into the General Assembly of North Caro
lina in 1969. The fact that the Scotland Neck School
District was not formed until the prospects for a unitary
school system in Halifax County became imminent leads
unmistakably to the conclusion that race was the domi
nant consideration and that the goal was to achieve a de
gree of racial apartheid more congenial to the white
community.15
15 It is also noteworthy that while the Scotland Neck community
claims that it had not been accorded a fair allocation of county
school funds over a period of years, this apparently became
intolerable only when the Department of Justice exerted pressure
for immediate action to effectuate integration.
1138
The court’s incongruous holdings in these two cases,
reversing the District Court in Scotland Neck, while
affirming in the twin case, Littleton-Lake Gaston, cannot
be reconciled. The uncontested statistics presented in
Scotland Neck speak even louder in terms of race than
the comparable figures for Littleton-Lake Gaston. The
white community in Scotland Neck has sliced out a pre
dominantly white school system from on overwhelmingly
black school district. By contrast, the white community
in Littleton-Lake Gaston was more restrained, gerry
mandering a 46% white, 54% black, school unit from a
county school system that was 27% white, 67% black.16
The majority attempts to escape the inevitable implica
tions of these statistics by attributing to the North Caro
lina legislature, which severed the Scotland Neck School
District on March 3, 1969, benevolent motivation and
obliviousness to the racial objectives of the local white
community. Yet the majority unhesitatingly finds a
discriminatory purpose in the similar excision of the new
Littleton-Lake Gaston School District by the same leg
islators only one month later, on April 11, 1969. The
earlier statute no less than the later provided a refuge
for white students and maximized preservation of segre
gated schools. The record and the District Court’s opin
ion in Scotland Neck, no less than the record and the
opinion in Littleton-Lake Gaston, are replete with evi
dence of discriminatory motivations. On their facts the
two cases are as alike as two peas in a pod.
Judge Bryan soundly recognizes the discordance in the
two holdings of the majority. The resolution he pro
poses is to reverse in both cases. This would indeed cure
the inconformity, but at the cost of compounding the
error. The correction called for lies in the opposite di
rection— affirmance in both cases.
III
16 Six percent of the pupils in Warren County are Indian.
1139
If, as the majority directs, federal courts in this
circuit are to speculate about the interplay and the rela
tive influence of divers motives in the molding of separate
school districts out of an existing district, they will be
trapped in a quigmire of litigation. The doctrine for
mulated by the court is ill-conceived, and surely will
impede and frustate prospects for successful desegre
gation. Whites in counties heavily populated by blacks
will be encouraged to set up, under one guise or an
other, independent school districts in areas that are or
can be made predominantly white.
It is simply no answer to a charge of racial discrim
ination to say that it is designed to achieve “quality
education.” Where the effect of a new school district
is to create a sanctuary for white students, for which
no compelling and overriding jurisdiction can be offered,
the courts should perform their constitutional duty and
enjoin the plan, notwithstanding professed benign ob
jectives.
Racial peace and the good order and stability of our
society may depend more than some realize on a convinc
ing demonstration by our courts that true equality and
nothing less is precisely what we mean by our pro
claimed ideal of “ the equal protection of the laws.” The
palpable evasions portrayed in this series of cases should
be firmly condemned and enjoined. Such examples of
racial inequities do not go unheeded by the adversely
affected group. They are noted and resented. The hu
miliations inflicted by such cynical maneuvers feed the
fires of hostility and agravate the problem of maintain
ing peaceful race relations in the land. In this connection
it is timely to bear in mind the admonition of the elder
Mr. Justice Harlan, dissenting in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163
U.S. 537, 560 (1896);
The destinies of the two races, in this country, are
indissolubly linked together, and the interests of both
require that the common government of all shall not
permit the seeds of race hate to be planted under
the sanction of law.
IV
1140
I dissent from the reversal in Nos. 14929 and 14930,
United States v. Scotland Neck City Board of Educa
tion, -------F. 2 d -------- (4th Cir. 1971), and concur in the
affirmance in No. 14990, Turner v. Littleton-Lake Gaston
School District,------ F. 2 d ------- (4th Cir. 1971).
ALBERT V. BRYAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: For
me there is here no warrant for a decision different
from the Scotland Neck and Emporia determinations.
This conclusion derives from the majority’s exposition
of the fact parallel of these cases with the circumstances
of Littleton-Lake Gaston. The identicalness irresistibly
argues a like disposition— reversal of the judgment on
appeal.
WINTER, Circuit Judge, dissenting and concurring
specially: I dissent from the majority’s opinion and con
clusion in No. 14,552, Wright v. Council of City of Em
poria, -------F. 2 d -------- (4 Cir. 1971), and in Nos. 14929
and 14930, United States v. Scotland Neck City Board of
Education, ------- F. 2 d ------- (4 Cir. 1971). I concur in
the judgment in No. 14990, Turner v. Littleton-Lake Gas
ton School District, ------ F. 2d ------- (4 Cir. 1971), and
I can accept much of what is said in the majority’s
opinion. There is, however, a broader basis of decision
than that employed by the majority on which I would
prefer to rest.
Because the majority makes the decision in Emporia
the basis of decision in Scotland Neck and distinguishes
them from Littleton-Lake Gaston, I will discuss the
cases in that order. I would conclude that the cases are
indistinguishable, as does my Brother Bryan, although I
would also conclude that each was decided correctly by
the district court and that in each we should enjoin the
carving out of a new school district because it is simply
another device to blunt and to escape the ultimate reach
of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954),
and subsequent cases.
1141
While the legal problem presented by these cases is a
novel one in this circuit, I think the applicable legal
standard is found in the opinion of the Supreme Court
in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County,
391 U.S. 430 (1968). In rejecting a “ freedom of choice”
plan under the circumstances presented there, the Court
articulated the duties of both a school board and a dis
trict court in implementing the mandate of Brown:
The burden on a school board today is to come for
ward with a plan that promises realistically to work,
and -promises realistically to work now.
* * * *
Where the courts find the board to be acting in good
faith and the proposed plan to have real prospects
for dismantling the state-imposed dual system “at
the earliest possible date,” then the plan may be said
to provide effective relief. Of course, the availa
bility to the board of other more promising courses
of action may indicate a lack of good faith; and at
the least it places a heavy burden upon the board
to explain its preference for an apparently less ef
fective method, [emphasis added.]
391 U.S. at 439.
In each of the instant cases, following a protracted
period of litigation, a plan designed finally to institute
a unitary school system was jeopardized by the attempt
of a portion of the existing school district to break away
and establish its own schools. I think the advocates of
such a subdivision bear the “heavy burden” of persua
sion referred to in Green because, as in that case, the
dominant feature of these cases is the last-minute pro
posal of an alternative to an existing and workable in
tegration plan. Factually, these cases are not signifi
cantly dissimilar from Green. Each act of secession
would necessarily require the submission and approval
of new integration plans for the newly-created districts,
and thus each is tantamount to the proposal of a new
I
1142
plan. And while the act giving rise to the alternative
approach here is state legislation rather than a proposal
of the local school board, the fact remains that the mov
ing force in the passage of each piece of legislation 1 was
of local origin. Few who have had legislative experience
would deny that local legislation is enacted as a result
of local desire and pressure. It is, therefore, to local
activities that one must look to determine legislative in
tent.
Application of the “ heavy burden” standard of Green
to the instant case is also supported by considerations
of policy. In an area in which historically there was a
dual system of schools and at best grudging compliance
with Brown, we cannot be too careful to search out and
to quash devices, artifices and techniques furthered to
avoid and to postpone full compliance with Brown. We
must be assiduous in detecting racial bias masking under
the guise of quality education or any other benevolent
purpose. Especially must we be alert to ferret out the
establishment of a white haven, or a relatively white
haven, in an area in which the transition from racially
identifiable schools to a unitary system has proceeded
slowly and largely unwillingly, where its purpose is at
least in part to be a white haven. Once a unitary sys
tem has been established and accepted, greater latitude in
redefinition of school districts may then be permitted.
Given the application of the Green rationale, the re
maining task in each of these cases is to discern whether
the proposed subdivision will have negative effects on the
integration process in each area, and, if so, whether its
advocates have borne the “heavy burden” of persuasion
imposed by Green.
II
EMPORIA SCHOOL DISTRICT
The City of Emporia, located within the borders of
Greensville County, Virginia, became a city of the second
1 In Emporia, the implementing legislation for the separation
already existed; however, the local people alone made the choice
to exercise the option which the statute provided.
1143
class on July 31, 1967, pursuant to a statutory proce
dure dating back to the 19th Century. While it had the
state-created right at that time to establish its own school
district, it chose instead to remain within the Greens
ville County system until June, 1969. It is significant
that earlier in this same month, more than a year after
it had invalidated a “ freedom of choice” plan for the
Greensville County system, the district court ordered
into effect a “pairing” plan for the county as a further
step toward full compliance with Brown and its progeny.
The record amply supports the conclusion that the
creation of a new school district for the City of Emporia
would, in terms of implementing the principles of Brown,
be “ less effective” than the existing “pairing” plan for
the county system. In the first place, the delay involved
in establishing new plans for the two new districts can
not be minimized in light of the Supreme Court’s state
ment in Green that appropriate and effective steps must
be taken at once. See also Carter v. West Feliciana.
School Board, 396 U.S. 290 (1970); Alexander v. Holmes
County Bd. of Ed., 396 U.S. 19 (1969). Secondly, as
the district court found, the separation of Emporia from
Greensville County would have a substantial impact on
the racial balance both within the county and within the
city. Within the entire county, there are 3,759 students
in a racial ratio of 34.1% white and 65.9% black. With
in the city there are 1,123 students, 48.3% of whom are
white and 51.7% are black. If the city is permitted to
establish its own school system, the racial ratio in the
remainder of the county will change to 27.8% white and
72.2:% black.2 To me, the crucial element in this shift is
not that the 48.3%-51.7% white to black ratio in the
2 As part of the establishment of the new system, the Emporia
school board proposed a transfer plan whereby Emporia will accept
county students upon payment of tuition. The record does not
contain any projection of the number of county students who
would avail themselves of the plan although in argument counsel
was candid in stating that only white parents would be financially
able to exercise the option. The transfer plan was quickly abandoned
when it became apparent that it might not earn the approval of
the district court.
1144
town does not constitute the town a white island in an
otherwise heavily black county and that a shift of 6%
in the percentage of black students remaining in the
county is not unacceptably large. Whenever a school area
in which racial separation has been a historical fact is
subdivided, one must compare the racial balance in the
preexisting unit with that in the new unit sought to be
created, and that remaining in the preexisting unit after
the new unit’s creation. A substantial shift in any com
parable balances should be cause for deep concern. In
this case the white racial percentage in the new unit
will increase from 27.8% to 48.3%. To allow the crea
tion of a substantially whiter haven in the midst of a
small and heavily black area is a step backward in the
integration process.
And finally, the subdivision of the Greensville County
school district is “ less effective” in terms of the princi
ples of Brown because of the adverse psychological effects
on the black students in the county which will be occa
sioned by the secession of a large portion of the more
affluent white population from the county schools. If the
establishment of an Emporia school district is not en
joined, the black students in the county will watch as
nearly one-half the total number of white students in
the county abandon the county schools for a substantially
whiter system. It should not be forgotten that psycho
logical factors, and their resultant effects on educational
achievement, were a major consideration in the Supreme
Court’s opinion in Brown.
In my mind, the arguments advanced by the residents
of Emporia in support of their secession from the county
school system do not sustain the “heavy burden” imposed
by Green. The essence of their position is that, by estab
lishing their own schools over which they will exercise
the controlling influence, they will be able to improve
the quality of their children’s education. They point to
a town commitment to such a goal and, in particular,
to a plan to increase educational revenues through in
creased local taxation. They also indicate that they pres
ently have very little voice in the management of the
county school system. Although, as the district court
1145
found, the existence of these motives is not to be doubted,
I find them insufficent in considering the totality of the
circumstances.
While the district court found that educational con
siderations were a motive for the decision to separate,
it also found that “ race was a factor in the city’s deci
sion to secede.” Considering the timing of the decision
in relation to the ordering into effect of the “pairing”
plan, as well as the initial proposal of a transfer plan,
this finding is unassailable. Green indicates that the
absence of good faith is an important consideration in
determining whether to accept a less effective alternative
to an existing plan of integration. The lack of good
faith is obvious here.
When the educational values which the residents of
Emporia hope to achieve are studied, it appears that the
secession will have many deleterious consequences. As
found by the district court, the high school in the city
will be of less than optimum size. County pupils will
be cut off from exposure to a more urban society. The
remaining county system will be deprived of leadership
ability formerly derived from the city. It will suffer from
loss of the city’s financial support, and it may lose teach
ers who reside in the city. To me, these consequences,
coupled with the existence of the racial motive, more
than offset the arguments advanced by the residents of
Emporia. The separation, with its negative effects on
the implementation of the principles of Brown, should
be enjoined.
I ll
SCOTLAND NECK SCHOOL DISTRICT
As the majority’s opinion recites, the history of re
sistance to school desegregation in the Halifax County
school system parallels the history of the attempts on
the part of the residents of Scotland Neck to obtain a
separate school district. The significant fact is that in
spite of otherwise apparently cogent arguments to justify
a separate system, the separate system goal was not
realized until, as the result of pressure from the United
1146
States Department of Justice, the Halifax County Board
agreed to transfer the seventh and eighth grade black
students from the previously all-black Brawley School,
outside the city limits of Scotland Neck, to the Scotland
Neck School, previously all-white. Chapter 31 followed
thereafter as soon as the North Carolina legislature met.
It is significant also that the Halifax County Board re
neged on its agreement with the Department of Justice
shortly before the enactment of Chapter 31.
The same negative effects on achieving integration
which are present in the Emporia secession are present
here. Although the City of Scotland Neck has already
submitted a plan for its school district, delay will result
in devising such a plan for the remaining portion of
Halifax County. The racial balance figures show that
the existing county system has 8,196 (77%) black stu
dents, 2,357 (22%) white students, and 102 (1%) In
dian students. Within the city system, there would be
399 (57.4%) white and 296 (42.6%) black, while the
remaining county system would be comprised of 7,900
(80%) black, 1,958 (19%) white and 102 (1% ) Indian.
The difference between the percentage of white students
within the existing system and the newly-created one for
Scotland Neck is thus 35%. A more flagrant example of
the creation of a white haven, or a more nearly white
haven, would be difficult to imagine. The psychological
effects on the black students cannot be overestimated.
The arguments advanced on behalf of Scotland Neck
are likewise insufficient to sustain the burden imposed
by Green. Even if it is conceded that one purpose for
the separation was the local desire to improve the edu
cational quality of the Scotland Neck schools, the record
supports the conclusion of the district court that race
was a major factor. If the basic purpose of Chapter 31
could not be inferred from the correlation of events con
cerning integration litigation and the attempt to secede,
other facts make it transparent. As part of its initial
plan to establish a separate system, Scotland Neck pro
posed to accept transfer students from outside the cor
porate limits of the city on a tuition basis. Under this
transfer system, the racial balance in the Scotland Neck
1147
area was 749 (74%) white to 262 (26%) black, and the
racial balance in the rest of Halifax County became
7,934 (82%) black, 1,608 (17%) white, and 102 (1%)
Indian.® This proposal has not yet been finally aban
doned. In oral argument before us, counsel would not
tell us forthrightly that this would not be done, but
rather, equivocally indicated that the proposal would be
revived if we, or the district court, could be persuaded
to approve it. I cannot so neatly compartmentalize Chap
ter 31 and the transfer plan as does the majority, and
conclude that one has no relevance to the other. To me,
what was proposed, and still may be attempted, by those
who provided the motivation for the enactment of Chap
ter 31 is persuasive evidence of what Chapter 31 was
intended to accomplish.
In terms of educational values, the separation of Scot
land Neck has serious adverse effects. Because Scotland
Neck, within its corporate boundaries, lacked sufficient
facilities even to operate a system to accommodate the
only 695 pupils to be educated, it purchased a junior
high school from Halifax County. This school is located
outside of the corporate boundaries of Scotland Neck.
The sale deprives the students of Halifax County, out
side of Scotland Neck of a school facility. The record
contains abundant, persuasive evidence that the best edu
cational policy and the nearly unanimous opinion of pro
fessional educators runs contrary to the creation of a
small, separate school district for Scotland Neck. A study
by the State of North Carolina indicates that a mini
mally acceptable district has 3,500-4,000 pupils.
On the facts I cannot find the citizens of Scotland
Neck motivated by the benign purpose of providing ad-
3 There is apparent error in the computations made by the
district court in this regard. The district court found that the
net effect of the transfer plan would be to add 350 white students
to the city system. Added to the resident white students (399),
the total is 749, not 759 as indicated in the opinion of the district
court. The district court’s figure of 262 black students in the city
under the transfer plan (a net loss of 34) appears correct. But
when these two totals are subtracted from the figures given for
the existing county system in 1968-1969 (2,357 white, 8,196 black
and 102 Indian), the effects on the county are as shown above.
1148
ditional funds for their schools; patently they seek to
blunt the mandate of Brown. Even if additional finan
cial support for schools was a substantial motive, the
short answer is that a community should not be per
mitted to buy its way out of Brown. Here again, the
“heavy burden” imposed by Green has not been sus
tained.
IV
LITTLETON-LAKE GASTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
The majority’s opinion correctly and adequately dis
closes the legislative response to court-ordered compliance
with Brown and its progeny. That response was the
creation of the Warrenton City School District and the
Littleton-Lake Gaston School District. The overall effect
of the creation of the Littleton-Lake Gaston district, the
proposed tuition transfer plan, and the creation of the
Warrenton City district (an act enjoined by the district
court and not before us) would be to permit more than
4 out of 5 white students to escape the heavily black
schools of Warren County. Even without the transfer
plan, the racial balance in the Littleton-Lake Gaston
district would show nearly 20% more white students
than in the existing Warren County unit. To permit
the subdivision would be to condone a devastating blow
to the progress of school integration in this area.
Despite the assertion of the benign motives of remedy
ing long-standing financial inequities and the preserva
tion of local schools, I agree with the majority that the
“ primary” purpose and effect of the legislation creating
the Littleton-Lake Gaston school district was to carve
out a refuge for white students and to preserve to the
fullest possible extent segregated schools. Aside from
questions of motivation, the record shows that the new
district was established to accommodate a total of only
659 students, despite state policy to the contrary and
expert opinion that its small size rendered it educational
ly not feasible. And, as the majority indicates, there is
no evidence that the residents of the Littleton area have
been deprived of their proportionate voice in the opera
1149
tion of the schools of Warren County. In short, there is
a complete absence of persuasive argument in favor of
the creation of the new district.
While I agree that the injunction should stand, I dis
agree that injunctive relief should be granted only when
racial motivation was the “primary” motive for the crea
tion of the new district. Consistent with Green, we
should adopt the test urged by the government in Scot
land Neck, i.e., to view the results of the severance as
if it were a part of a desegregation plan for the original
system— that is, to determine whether the establishment
of a new district would, in some way, have an adverse
impact on the desegregation of the overall system. By
this test the injunction would stand in the Littleton-Lake
Gaston case, as well as in each of the two other cases,
because in each of the three there is at least some racial
motivation for the separation and some not. insubstantial
alteration of racial ratios, some inherent delay in achiev
ing an immediate unitary system in all of the component
parts, and an absence of compelling justification for
what is sought to be accomplished.
BUTZNER, Circuit Judge: This appeal involves the
same case in which I decided questions concerning the
school board’s compliance with the Fourteenth Amend
ment when I served on the district court.* While the
details differ, the same basic issues remain— the validity
of measures taken to disestablish a dual school system,
to create a unitary system, and to assign pupils and
faculty to achieve these ends.
Title 28 U.S.C. §47 provides: “ No judge shall hear
or determine an appeal from the decision of a case
or issue tried by him.”
* See Wright v. County School Bd. of Greensville County, Va.,
252 F. Supp. 378 (E.D. Va. 1966). Two other opinions were not
published.
1150
Recently, Judge Craven carefully examined this statute
and the cases and authorities which cast light on it. He
concluded that he should not sit on an appeal of a case
in which he had participated as a district judge when
the ultimate questions were the same: “ what may a
school board be compelled to do to dismantle a dual sys
tem and implement a unitary one, or how much school
board action is enough?” See Swann v. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 431 F. 2d 135, (4th Cir. 1970).
Following the sound precedent established by Judge
Craven, I believe that I must disqualify myself from
participating in this appeal.
1151
[Caption Omitted]
Stay of Mandate
The motion to stay our mandate pending application
for certiorari is allowed on the following conditions:
(1) That appellees (in the district court) file their
petition for writ of certiorari on or before May 21,
1971, and, if possible, prior thereto, and that said
appellees proceed with all posible diligence to prose
cute their petition to the end that it may be consid
ered by the Supreme Court of the United States be
fore the end of its current term;
(2) With the consent of the United States, the
district court injunction is modified so as to allow
certification and levy, but not the collection, of taxes
for the Scotland Neck City Board of Education.
This 21st day of April, 1971.
FOR THE COURT:
/s>/ J. Braxton Craven, Jr.
United States Circuit Judge
1152
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 70-130
United States, petitioner,
v.
Scotland Neck City Board of Education et al .
Order A llowing Certiorari. Filed October 12, 1971.
The petition herein for a writ of certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
is granted. The case is consolidated with No. 70-187 and
a total of one and one half hours is allotted for oral ar
gument.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 70-187
Pattie Black Cotton et al ., petitioners,
v.
Scotland Neck City Board of Education, et al .
Order A llowing Certiorari. Filed October 12, 1971.
The petition herein for a writ of certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is
granted. The case is consolidated with No. 70-130 and a
total of one and one half hours is allotted for oral ar
gument.
1153
HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS
W. Henry Overman, Superintendent
Halifax, N. C. 27839
October 14, 1971
NORTH CAROLINA
HALIFAX COUNTY
W. Henry Overman, being duly sworn says th at:* 1
1. He is Superintendent of Schools of the Halifax
County County School Administrative Unit, Hali
fax, N.C.
2. And that he has on October 7, 1971 received re
ports from all principals of schools in the Halifax
County School Administrative Unit giving the lat
est enrollment of pupils by races as follows:
School and Grade White Negro Indian Total
Aurelian Springs (K-8) 383 611 8 952
Bakers (1-8) 0 241 0 241
Brawley (1-9) 174 659 0 833
*Dawson (1-8) 32 405 0 437
Eastman (8-12) 1 686 70 757
Enfield (9-12) 34 433 0 467
Everetts (1-8) 264 415 0 679
♦♦Hollister (1-7) 1 264 151 416
Inborden (1-8) 48 1035 0 1083
Mclver (1-8)
Northwest at
0 508 0 508
Wm. R. Davie (9-12) 249 632 0 881
Pittman (1-7) 1 421 2 424
Scotland Neck (10-12) 70 515 0 585
Thomas Shields (1-8) 37 227 0 264
Tillery Chapel (1-8) 9 214 0 223
White Oak (1-7) 2 319 23 344
1255 7585 254 9094
* One Oriental student included in White
** One Spanish Surnamed American student included in White
1 This affidavit is not part of the record in this case. However,
petitioners have no objection to it, and therefore, it is included
here for the Court’s consideration.
/ s / W. Henry Overman
W. Henry Overman,
Superintendent
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of
October, 1971.
,/s/ Doris W. Netherland
Notary Public
My commission expires 9-9-75
ft U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1971 450281 303
MAINTENANCE MAP HALIFAX COUNTY north carouna 083