Judgement and Opinion

    _ % (h 

  

t & 1 T 
puree feC Vv 

Huited States Court of Appeals fH p ) ee Gd FIFTH CIRCUIT 
bet 7 

WEE SE OFFICE OF THE CLERK ROOM 408 - 400 ROYAL ST. 
CLERK NEW ORLEANS, LA. 70130 

July 3, 1969 

1 
’ 

Mr, Robert C, Thomas, Clerk 
PV. 8. District Court 
Pp, O. Box 789 
Jackson, Mississippi 39205 

NCS 28030 and 28042 - United States v. 

Hinds County School Board, et al, 
Tt Bem SEN Gon TW Gm EAR GRD Swe Sa GE EU EVE Ghel FERS Weis Sal SS BUD DUE een Sel GD WMS Be Bean WHS Geel GMO ST SUN EA Sew GO SEE EU TH EN See Ta So Te 

Dear Mr, Thomas: 

The Court has this date rendered its opinion in the 
above cases directing that the mandate issue forthwith, 

Accordingly, I enclose a certified copy of the judgment 
of this Court, issued as and for the mandate, together 
with a copy of the opinion. A copy of the opinion is 
also being forwarded to all counsel in the case, 

Please advise what arrangements you would like made to 
have the record returned to your office, 

Please acknowledge receipt, 

Very truly yours, 

EDWARD W, WADSWORTH, Clerk 

/ 2 J ¢ 
a / ff / Ir 2 / 

By 0, an 
Gilbert F. Ganucheau 
Chief Deputy Clerk 

  

GFG: jab 

Encls. 

cc & copy of opinion to: 
Counsel listed on attached pages, 

 



  

Hon. Robert E. Haube S) 
‘United States Attorney 
P, 0. Box 191 
Jackson, Mississippi 39205 

Hon. Robert C. Cannada : 
P. O. Drawer 12350 : 
Jackson, Mississippi 39205 

Hon. John M. Putnam 
P, O. Box: 2075 
Jackson, Mississippl 39205 

Hon, M: M. Roberts 

Pe OO, Box: 870 

Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39401 

Hon, Howard L. Patterson, Jr. 
Pe O. Box 805 
Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39401 

Hon. Thomas H. Watkins 
P., O. Box 650 
Jackson, Mississippi 39205 

Hon. L. P. Spinks 
DeKalb, Mississippi 39238 

Hon. John Gordon Roach 
P.0.: Box 506 

McComb, Mississippi 39648 

Hon. R. Brent Forman 
Pe O. Box 1377 

Natchez, Mississippi 39120 

Hon. Richard D. Foxworth 
* 216 Newsom Building 
Columbia, Mississippi 39429 

. Hon, Philip Singley 
+ 203-04 Newsom Building 

Columbia, Mississippi 39429 

Hon. Robert Goza 
Canton, Mississippi 39046 

Hon. W. S. Cain 
133 South Union Street 
Canton, Mississippi 39046 

Hon. Joe R. Fancher 
Pe O. Box 2u5 

Canton, Mississippi 39046 

 



Hon. Thad Leggett, III 
Pe O. Box 307 
Magnolia, Mississippi 39652 

Hon. William B, Compton 
P.O. Box 845 
Meridian, Mississippi 39301 

Hon. Robert B, Deen, Jr. 
P, O. Box 888 
Meridian, Mississippi 39301 

Hon. Herman Alford 
24 Center Avenue 
Philadelphia, Mississippi 39350 

Hon. laurel G. Weir 
P. 0. Box 150 
Philadelphia, Mississippi 

Hon. Ernest L. Brown 
Macon, Mississippi 39341 

" Hon. Harold W. Davidson 
Carthage, Mississippi 39051 

Hon. Maurice Dantin 
P., 0. Box 604 
Columbia, Mississippi 39429 

Hon. J. D. Gordon 
Liberty, Mississippi 39645 

Hon. William D. Adams 
P. OO. Box 521 
Collins, Mississippi 39428 

Hon. John K. Keyes 
Collins, Mississippi 39428 

Hon. Cary C. Bass, Jr. 
Pe O. Box 625 
Monticello, Mississippi 3965.4 

Hon. A, -F, Summer 
Attorney General 
New Capitol Building 
Jackson, Mississippi 39205 

Hon, Robert S., Reeves 
258 E, Bay St, 
Magnolia, Miss, 39652  



‘Hon, Charles Clark (@) 
Cox, Dunn & Clark, 

~ Attorneys at Law 
Deposit Guaranty National Bank 

Building 
Suite 1741 
Jackson, Mississippi 39201 

‘Hon. Reuben Anderson 
538 1/2 North Farish 
Jackson, Mississippi 39202 

Hon. Herman C. Glazier 
506 Walnut Street 
Rolling Pork, Mississippi 39159 

Hon. J. Wesley Miller 
LOl Pine Street 
Rolling Fork, Mtselesinnt 39159 

Hon. Richard T. Watson 
Woodville, Mississippi 39669 

Hon. Henry W. Hobbs, Jr. 
YP. O, Box 3556 
Brookhaven, Mississippi 39601 

Hon. Charles H. Herring 
Meadville, Mississippi 39653 

Hon, Calvin BR, Xing 
106 Mulberry Street 
Durant, Mississippi 

Bon, G. Milton Case 

114 West Center Street 

Canton, Mississippi 

Hon. Thomas H. Campbell, Jr. 
P., O. Box 35 
Yazoo City, Mississippi 

Hon, Walter R, Bridgforth 
P. CO, Box 48 
Yazoo City, Mississippi 

Hon, John C, Satterfield 
P., O, Box 466 : 
Yazoo City, Mississippi 

Hon, H. W, Hewitt 
P, O, Box 426 
Meadville, Miss.  



  

» 
Hon, J, E. Smith 

111 South Pearl Strect 

Carthage, Mississippi 

Hon, Robert E, Covington 
Jeff Carter Building 
Quitman, Mississippi 

Hon, Tally D, Riddell 
P, 0, Box 198 
Quitman, Mississippi 

Hon, Melvyn R, Leventhal 
5385 North Farish Street 
Jackson, Mississippi 39202 

Hon, Jack Greenberg [29¢ ~§¢ 3597) 
10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019 

‘Hon, David D, Gregory 
Attorney 
U. S. Department of Justice 
Washington, D, C. 20530 

 



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

AE —————— = na $8 Pte 5 

Nos, 28030 & 23042 

  

  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Ve 

HINDS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, et al., 
Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No. 4075(J3)) 

  

BUFORD A, LEE, et al., 
Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

Vv. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Defendant-Appellant, 

YY. 

MILTON EVANS, 
Third Party 
Defendant-Appellee. 

(Civil Action No. 2034 (H)) 

  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 

. Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Ve . 

KEMPER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, et al. 
Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No. 1373(E)) 

  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Ve. 

NORTH PIKE COUNTY CONSOLIDATED 
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No, 3807(J))  



  

  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Vv. 

NATCHEZ SPECIAL MUNICIPAL SEPARATE 
SCHOOL, DISTRICT, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No. 1120(W)) 

  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Ve. 

MARION COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 
Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No, 2178(H)) 

  

JOAN ANDERSON, et al., 
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

, laintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, 

V. 

THE CANTON MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 
and THE MADISON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No, 3700(J)) 

  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Ve. 

SOUTH PIKE COUNTY CONSOLIDATED 
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 

; Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No, 3984(J)) 

 



  

BEATRICE ALEXANDER, et al., 
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

Ve 

HOLMES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., 
Defendants- Appellees, 

(Civil Action No. 3779(J)) 

  

BOY LEE HARRIS, et al., 
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

V. 

THE YAZOO COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., 
Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No, 1209(W)) 

  

JOHN BARNHARDT, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

Ve. 

MERIDIAN’ SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al,, 
Defendants- Appellees. 

(Civil Action No, 1300 (E)) 

  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Ve. 

NESHOBA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 
Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No. 1396 (E)) 

  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Vv. 

NOXUBEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 
Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No, 1372(E))  



  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

. Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Ve. 

LAUDERDALE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, ef al.,, 
Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No. 1367(E)) 

  

DIAN HUDSON, et al., 
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, 

Ve. 

. LEAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, et al., 
Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No, 3382(J)) 

  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Ve 

COLUMBIA MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL, ef al., 
Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No. 2199(H)) 

  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Ve 

AMITE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.. 
Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No. 3983 (J))  



  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Ve 

COVINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 
Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No. 2148 (H)) 

  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Ve. 

LAWRENCE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 
Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No. 2216 (H)) 

  

JEREMIAH BLACKWELL, JR., et al., 
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

Ve. 

ISSAQUENA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., 
. Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No, 1096(W)) 

  

UNITED- STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Ve. 

WILKINSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 
Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No, 1160(W)) 

  

CHARLES KILLINGSWORTH, et al., 
: Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

Ve 

THE ENTERPRISE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT 
and QUITMAN CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No. 1302(E))  



  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ° 

. Vv . 

LINCOLN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 
Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No, 4294 (J)) 

  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Ye 

PHILADELPHIA MUNICIPAL SEPARATE 
SCHOOL, DISTRICT, et al., 

: Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No, 1368(E)) 

  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Ve 

FRANKLIN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 
: Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No. 4256(J)) 

  Ld 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of Mississippi 

  

(July 3, 1969) 

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, THORNBERRY and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.  



pl » 
PER CURIAM: 

As questions of time present such urgency as we 

approach the beginning of the new school year September 

1969-70, the court requested in advance of argument that 

the parties submit proposed opinion-orders modeled after 

some of our recent school desegregation cases, We have 

drawn freely upon these proposed opinion-orders. 

These are twenty-five school desegregation cases 

in a consolidated appeal from an en banc decision of 

the U. §. District Court for the Southern District of 

Mississ These cases present a common issue: 

whether the District Court erred in Renrovis the. con~- 

ined use by these school districts of freedom of 

choice plans as a method for the disestablishment of 

the dual school systems. 

The plaintiffs’ position is that the District 

Court erred in failing to apply the principles announced 

in recent decisions of the Supreme Court and of this 

Court. om 

These same school districts, along with 

were before this Court last year in Adams v. 

403 £.24 131 (5th Cir., 1968). The were there 

remanded with instructions that the district courts 

determine: 

(1) whether the school board's existing 
plan of desegregation is adequate "to 

convert [the dual gystem) £0 a unitary 
system in which racial discrimination 
would be eliminated root and branch" 
(2) whether the proposed changes will 
result in a desegregation olan that 
"promises realistically to work now." 

oh I 

ana’  



403 F.24 

would be 

applied: 

If in a school district there are 
still all-Negro schools or only a 
small fraction of Negroes enrolled in 
white schools, or no substantial 
integration of faculties and school 
activities then, as a matter of law, 
the existing plan fails to meet 
constitutional standards as estab- 
lished in Graen, 

Ibid. 

In all pertinent respects, the hits in these cases 

are similar. No white students has ever attended any 

traditionally Negro school in any of the school districts. 

Every district thus continues to operate and maintain its 

all-Negro schools, The record compels the conclusion that 

to eliminate the dual character of these schools alterna- 

tive methods of desegregation must be employed which 

would snelide such methods as zoning and pairing, 

Not only has there been no cross-over of white 

students to Negro schools, but only a small Fraction of 

Negro students have enrolled in the white schools. ‘he 

highest percentage is in the Enterorise Consolidated 

School District, which has 16 percent of its Negro 

students enrolled in white schools~-—-a degree of desegre- 

gation held to be inadequate in Green v. County School 
  

Board, 391 U. 5. 430 (1968). The statistics in the 

remaining distr.cts range from a high of 10.6 percent 

in Forrest County +o a low of 8.0 percent in Heshoba 

8,  



and Lincoln Counties. For the most part school activi- 

ties also continue to be segregated, Although Negroes 

attending predominantly white schools do participate on 

teams of such schools in athletic contests, in none of 

the districts do white and all-Negro schools compete in 

athletics. 

These facts indicate that these cases fall squarely 

within the decisions 9f the Supreme Court in Green and 

its companion cases and the decisions of this Court. 

See United States v. Greenwood Municipal Separate School 
——— ln     

District, 406 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1969); Henry v. Clarks 

dale Municipal Separate School District, No. 23,255{(5%h 
  

Cir., March 6, 1969); United States v. Indianola Municipal 
    

Separate School District, No. 25,655 (5th Cir., April 11, 
  

1969); Anthony v. Marshall County Board of Education, 
  

  

  

Bo. 26,432:(5th Cir., April 15, 196%); Hall v. St. Helena 

Parish. School Board, No. 26,450 (5th Cir., Hay 28, 1969); 
  

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 
tas a rt wn   

No. 26,886 (5th Cir., June 3, 1969); United States v.   

Jefferson County Board of Education, No. 27,444 (5th 
  

Cir., June 26, 1969); United States v, Choctaw County 
  

  

Board of Education, 5 Cir. 1969, F.2a (No, 27, 297, 
  

July 1, 1969); United States v. The Board of Education 
  

  

of Baldwin County, 5 Cir. 1969, F. 24 (No. 27,281; 
  

July 1, 1969); United States v. The Board of Education of 
  

  

the City of Bessemer, 5 Cir. 1969, F.2d 
  

(Nos. 26,582; 26,583; 26,584, July 1, 1969), The proper 

“3  



conclusion to be drawn from these facts is clear fron 

the mandate of Adams v. Mathews, supra: "as a matter of 
  

law, the existing plan fails to meet constitutional 

standards as established in Green," 

 



We hold that these school districts will no 

lotoer be able to rely on freedom of choice as the 

method for disestablishing their dual school Sys-— 

tems. 

This may mean that the tasks for the courts 

will become more difficult. The District Court 

itself has stated that it "does not possess any of 

the training or skill or experience or facilities 

to operate any kind of schools; and unhesitatingly 

admits to its utter incompetence to exercise or 

exert any helpful power or authority in that area." 

And this Court has observed that Ses "are not 

educators or school administrators." United States 
  

    

v. Jefferson County Board of Pducation, suprs at 
re —— 

855. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate for the 

Court to require these school boards to enlist the 

assistance of experts in education as well as 

desegregation; and to require the school boards to 

cooperate with them in the disestablishment of their 

dual school systems.  



With respect 

progress has been 

Separate District 

County a level of 

to faculty desegregation, little 

2/ 
made. Although Natchez-Municipal 

has a level of 19.2% and Lawrence 

10.6%, seven school districts have 

less than one full-time teacher per school assigned 

across racial lines. In the remaining systems, fewer 

than 10 percent of the full-time faculties teach in 

schools in which their race is in the minority. PFaculties 

must be integrated. United States v. Montgomery County 

Board of Education, No. 798, at 8 (Sup.Ct., June 2, 1969), 

Minimum standards should be established for making 

substantial progress toward this goal in 1969 and finish- 

ing the job by 1970. United States v. Board of Education 

of the City of Bessemer, 5 Cir., 1968, 396 F.2d 44. 

Choctaw County, supra; Baldwin County, supra. 

 



[— b Sif 

The Ccurt on the motion to summarily reverse or 

alternatively to expedite submission of the case 

filed by the Government and the private plaintiffs 

concluded that fundamental constitutional rights of many 

persons would be jeopardized, if not lost, if this Court 

routinely calendared this case for briefing and argument 

in the regular course. Before we could ever 

opening of the school year September 1969-1970 would have 

gone by. With this and the total absence of any new issue 

even resembling a constitutional issue in this much 

litigated field, we therefore concluded that the appeals 

should be expedited. | Full arguments were had and 

representatives from every District were heard from. In 

the course of these arguments, several contentions were 

made as to which we make these additional specific 

comments. ga 

Based upon opinion surveys conducted by presumably 

competent sampling experts, testimony of school 

administrators, board members, and educational experts, 

the School Districts urged, and the District Court found 

in effect, that the failure of a single white student 

to attend an all-Negro school was due to the provisions 

of our Jefferson decree which in effect prohibited school 
  

—6m  



  

4 
pl 

authorities from influencing the exercise of choice 

by students or parents. We find this completely 

unsupported. This record affords no basis for any 

expectation of any substantial change were the provision 

modified. 

Based upon similar testimony, the School Districts 

urged a related contention that the uncontradicted 

statistics showing only slight integration are not a 

reliable indicator of the commands of Green. This 

argument rests on the assertion that quite apart from 

a prior dual race school system, there would be concen-' 

tration of Negroes or white persons from what was described 

as "polarization." To bolster this, they pointed to 

school statistics in non-southern communities. Statistics 

are nn course, the whole answer, but nothing is as 
: a 

emphatic as zero, and in the face of slight numbers and 

low percentages of Negroes attending white schools, and 

no whites attending Negro schools, we find this argument 

unimpressive. 

In the same vein is the contention similarly based 

on surveys and opinion testimony of educators that on 

stated percentages (e.g., 20%, 30%, 70%, etc.), integration 

hy 

 



of Negroes (either from influx of Negroes into white 

schools or whites into Negro schools), there will be an 

exodus of white students up to the point of almost 100% 

Negro schools. This, like community response or hostility 

or scholastic achievement disparities, is but a repetition 

of contentions long since rejected in Cooper v. Aaron, 

1958, 358 U.S. 1, S.Ct, L.Ed, : Stell v. RR   

Savannah-Chatham County Bd. of Ed., 5 Cir., 1964, 333 

F.2d 55, 61; and United States v,. Jefferson County Bd. of 

Bd., 5 Cir. , 1959, F.28 [No. 27444, June 26, 1969]. 

 



® » 
The order of the District Court in each case 

is reversed and the cases .are remanded to the 

District Court with the following direction: 

l. These cases shall receive the highest 

priority. 

2. The District Court shall forthwith request 

that educators from the Office of Education of the 

United States Department of H=2alth, Education and 

Welfare collaborate with the defendant school boards 

in the preparation of plans to disestablish the dual 

school systems in question, The disestablishment 

plans shall be directed to student and faculty 

assignment, school bus routes if transportation is 

provided, all facilities, all athletic and other 

school activities, and all school location and construg.. 

tion activities, The District Court shall further 

require the school boards to make available to the 

Office of Education or its designees all requested 

information relating to the operation of the school 
Eat 
»? 

» 

systems. 

3. The board, in conjunction with the Office 

of Education, shall develop and present to the District 

Court before August 11,1969, an acceptable plan of 

‘desegregation. 

4. If the Office of Education and a school 

board agree upon a plan of desegregation, it shall 

be presented to the District Court on or before  



August 11,1969. The court shall approve such plan 

for implementation commencing with the 1969 school 

year, unless within seven days after submission to 

the court any party file< any objection or propos-d4 

amendment thereto alleging that the plan, or any 

part thereof, does not conform to congtitubionel 

standards. 

5. If no agreement is reached, the Office 

of sitoanion shall present its proposal to the 

District Court on or bafore August 11,1969. The 

Court shall approve such plan for implemsntation 

commencing with the 1969 school year, unless 

within seven days a party makes proper showing 

that the plan or any part thereof does not conform 

to constitutional standards. 

6. For plans to which objections are made 

or amendments. suggested, or which in any event 

the District Court will not approve without a hear- 

ing, the District Court shall hold hearings within 

five days after the time for filing objections and 

proposed amendments has expired. In no event later 

than August 21, 1969. 

7. The plans shall be completed, approved, 

and ordered for implementation by the District 

Court no later than August 25, 1969. Such a plan 

shall be implemented commencing with the beginning 

of the 1969-1970 school year.  



® ® 
8. ‘Because of the urgency of formulating 

and approving plans to be implemented for the 1969Y- 

70 school term it is ordered as follows: The 

mandate of this Court shall issue immediately and 

will not be stayed pending petitions for rehearing 

or certiorari. This Court will not extend the 

time for filling pstitions for rehearing or briefs 

in support of or in opposition thereto. Any 

appeals from orders or decrees of the District 

Court on remand shall be expedited, The record 

on any appeal shall be lodged with this court and 

appellants' brief filed, all within ten days of 

the date of the order or decree of the district 

court from which the appeal is taken, Appellee's 

brief shall be due ten days thereafter, The 

court will determine the time and place for oral 

argument if allowed. The court will determine 

the time for briefing and for oral argument if 

allowed, No consideration will be given to the 

fact of interrupting the school year in the event 

further relief is indicated. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS 

 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appeliant, 
Ve. 

HINDS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL, 

Defendants-Appellees. 
Nos. 28030 and 28042 

FOOTNOTES 
  

1/ Illustrative are the following tables, corrected to the latest 
available data furnished and checked by counsel, in the cases in which 
the Government is a party showing the racial character of the schools 
in each district and the enrollment by race: 

RACIAL CHARACTER 
  

Total Number All- All- Predominantly 
District of Schools Negro White White 
  

  

  
  

pe
d Amite 

Canton 
Columbia 

Covington 
Forrest 

Franklin 

Hinds 

Kemper 

Lauderdale 

Lawrence 

leake 
Lincoln 

Madison 

Marion 

Meridian 

Natchez-Adams 

Neshoba 

North Pike 

Noxubee 

Philadelphia 
Sharkey-Issaquena 
Anguilla-Line 
South Pike 

Wilkinson 

nN
 

A
W
W
A
 

N
N
N
O
U
O
D
D
I
I
I
U
T
U
N
D
 
W
W
I
 

N 
g
L
 

jo
 

N
N
N
 

W
O
R
 

0
0
H
 
I
A
N
W
N
 

N
O
 
M
W
R
 

W
N
 

CO
 
C
O
L
O
 

DN
 

It
 

= 
| 

DN
) 

Id
 

1 
N
I
 

I 
=
 

1 
N
I
 

DN
) 
O
d
 

po
d 

po
d 

QO
 

hd
 

pe
d 

OO
 

= 
D
I
 

| 
D
N
D
N
 
N
=
N
M
O
I
W
W
N
N
 

 



5 . Cont'd - Footnote 3/ bl » 

ENROLLMENT BY RACE AND PERCENTAGE OF 
NEGROES IN WHITE SCHOOLS 
  

1968-1969 Enrollment Negroes in White Schools 
Distri ct 
  

Amite 

Canton 
Columb 
Coving 
Forres 

Frankl 

Hinds 

Kemper 

Lauder 

Lawren 

leake 

Lincol 

Madiso 

Marion 

Meridi 

Natche 

Neshob 

North 

Noxube 

Philad 

Sharke 

Anguil 
South 

Wilkin 

ia 

ton 

t 

in 

dale 

ce 

n 

n 

an 
z-Adams 
a 
Pike 

e 
elphia 

y-Issaquena 
la-Line 

Pike 

son 

Negro White 
  

2,649 
3,440 

912 
1,422 

480 
1,029 
7,409 
1,896 
1,572 
1,263 
1,568 

941 
3,198 
1,082 
3,974 
5,509 

591 
632 

3,002 
406 

1,241 
769 

1,73% 
2,032 

  

1,484 
1,352 
1,553 
1,968 
3,085 
), 124 
6,559 

786 
3,060 
1,889 
1,950 
1,149 
1,128 
1,741 
5,805 
4,496 
1,875 

708 
829 
923 
603 
207 
994 
689 

Number Percentage 
  

63 
4 

60 
89 
81 
38 

481 
11 
26 
32 
67 

oS 
41 
34 

95 
11 

104 
30 
46% 
55 

fo
d 

W
o
L
 

OO
 

nN
 

DN
 
J
O
O
 =
A
 

Rs 

D
N
 p
d 

® 
LJ
 

® 
LJ

 
LJ

 

N
O
R
 
I
N
W
=
O
N
=
~
W
N
W
L
I
A
 W

D 

Note: There is a disagreement over proper accounting for some 
special classes which, for these purposes, we consider 
unimportant. 

pe
d 

oo
 

S
R
I
 

3 
Q
I
N
 
F
U
R
 

=
 

OQ
) 

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
]
 

 



" 

| 2 A 4 

Contd - Footnotes 

  

  

  

2/ The latest corrected figures (see Note 1 supra) are: 

Full & part Full time desegre- Part time desegre- 
time teachers gating teachers gating teachers 

District Negro White Negro White Negro White 
H 

Amite 95 66 0 0 0 0 
Canton 120 81 3 11 i; o 
Columbia 43 7) 5 4 0 4 
Covington 64 103 3 3 1 o 
Forrest 43 122 4 3 1 2 
Franklin 44 45 3 4 1 1 
Hinds 295 281.9 22 0 
Kemper 68 45 0 1 0 3 
Lauderdale 82 131 8 3 0 0 
Lawrence S50 81 10 4 0 3 { 
leake 87 90 0 3 0 5 
Lincoln 38 "74 0 0 0 0 
Madison 147 66 0 8 0 1 
Marion 48 96 4 6 0 0 
Meridian 180 317 8 17 4 10 
Natchez-Adams 484 0 0 40 53 
Neshoba 35 86 0 3 0 2 
North Pike 26 30 1 2 1 2 
Noxubee 135 61 6 1 0 0 
Philadelphia 25 46 0 0 0 2 
Sharkey-Issaquena 71 31 0 0 0 0 
Anguilla-Line . 0 0 : 0 0 
South Pike 78 52.8 2 3.3 0 2 
Wilkinson 97 39 0 6 0 0 

Xd