Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief
Public Court Documents
March 9, 1962
16 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief, 1962. b29d196e-d2fd-f011-8406-7c1e526962fd. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/3588b766-608c-4639-8022-0b0cc7099575/plaintiffs-supplemental-brief. Accessed February 21, 2026.
Copied!
R
l
.
a
PO
i
e
i
i
any a oh
i
,
i
amiss
a
—
—
_
—
,
i
A
a
.
-
se
c
a
F
t
a
A
A
E
S
E
a
4
¢
8
hos
¥
#
y
l
w
e
y
3
?
pH
¥
%
»
A
1
x
e
d
i
4
dull
¥
¥
5
gl
uw
i)
bod
i
i
i
»
4
a
5
§
5
§
?
®
Joi
a
:
B
w
ER
"
W
e
d
h
a
h
y
v
y a
a
?
.
i
o
F
h
d
4
3
w
0]
&
F
g
u
d
.
:
7
x
B
o
"
®
id?
ows
o
w
od
Lr
®
i
a
.
A
N
d
w
?
3
-
A
—
—
E
E
.
.
.
—
"
.
.
A
L
—
—
—
by
.
h!
.
.
C
R
—
—
xl
A
=
E
E
E
E
E
R
N
E
a N
B
A
A
E
E
T
E
E
H
A
BR
A
A
s
e
S
O
ois
-
E
y
.
—
E
H
,
—
S
,
L
i
i
a
—
,
€
ms
R
e
—.._."_set
e
e
.
i
r
.
=
esmamhmne
a
t
:
otis
i
4
*
.
5
Fi
i
a
4
3
s
n
¥
}
r
,
od
.
4
v
w
I
5
.
-
;
td
a
B
0
8
i
y
#
»
4
2
v
*
T
O
N
A
A
R
r
t
e
ms
=
T
E
R
S
T
E
R
R
r
e
t
e
"
2
§
i.
i b
e
A
i
®
A
"
a
#
:
4
b
R
E
N
a
]
¢
®
E
{
i
3
i
#
.
A
4
4
#
3
“
oy
f koola
&
"
»
-
he
¥
a
;
#®
a
4,
3
5
3
fi;
#
;
f
*
i
ol
®
i
®
2
;
3
*
H
“
¥
a
¥
]
5
4
#
&
x
§
$
%
&
%
3
¥
4
3
A
-
R
R
,
o
n
a
—
a
s
a
a
—
-
a
a
a
l
EE
R
L
a
.
.
.
=
E
h
.
.
.
a
_
i
?
ov
C
|
=
oO
a
a
:
a
(5
w
it
§ 3 ; k :
: Ki
gt
ig
E
E
—
—
—
—
e
e
—
_
—
a
—
e
y
&
rH
}
Le
4
&
] 3
er
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
hid
y
2
d
ae
“
p
*
%
]
az
@
i
3
»
vl
&
wi
&
—
_
.
_
.
™
s
oe L
L
.
A
c
s
.
.
.
U
.
S
.
.
.
.
.
t
s
P
S
A
p
l
E
R
:
E
E
E
E
e
R
S
E
E
A
E
O
I
E
T
A
T
E
S
A
R
S
ene
a
e
S
I
s
t
B
e
,
r
a
]
bh
o
u
po
%
‘
o
N
i
i
wird
_
,
"
y
p
W
i
w
J
re
i
»
il
Hoary
’
i ay
i
k
e
s
a
n
a
l
W
w
ee lh
¥
o
s
:
£
5
£
w
ww
‘
¢
%
‘
§
w
B
E
%
s
‘
jut
&
AE
J
p
E
B
x
a
3
n
4,
B
R
.
»
5
.
&
’
;
%
4
&
;
;
4
&
N
; ¥
5
ih 3
as 7
w
i
hott
Jar
a
c
l
e
Ee
—
I
F 3
¥
i od ws ail the; is A —-—— ak 3
pe
fe
i
¥ §
4 SI Per be SH 5 es SPARS 30
Eo
oh mR sw
a
.
.
.
ia
A
O
—
—
—
xs
X
E
H
e
a
E
E
E
E
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
;
w
a
l
:
¥
"
v
"
8
4
a
4
8
Fi
}
wh
i
,
&
i!
A
¥
N
:
L
:
”
i
N
“8
w
L =
H
4
5
;
{
¥
ho
1
4
4
~
3
&
'
3
Ei
§
#
'
¥
X
-
™
{
i
c
a
4
4
J
GH
i
%
#
&
x
Fd
J
,
iy
{
¢
{
§
wid
:
;
J
»;
3
.
—
h
&
n
p,
‘
:
3
~
G
y
5
x
A
"
k
oo
n
.
3
N
,
ig
#
w
%
:
4
i
i’
§
g
3
:
%
:
i
:
4
;
;
.
o
3
3
n
4
f
i
.
§
=
W
i
3
&
soy
D
-
o
n
:
#
.
3
S
n
g
3
x
§
$
3
B
E
4
¢
4
=
4
g
e
¥
3
i
4
¥
&
&
3
.
y
a
a
tL
%
5
{
|
AEN,
£
‘
w
i
y
5
#¥
[
3
‘
k
i
l
4
3
J
:
3
‘
ie
3
W
w
§
'
‘
hee
3
#
%
a
.
£
§
:
&
:
hi
od
;
0
:
¥
h
ki
4
:
u
4
:
#
¥
£
i
#
:
,
h
.
.
]
“
&
J
3
»
A
=
Ho
p
*
$
&
<
T
a
—
—
—
—
o
—
t
—
—
a
E
E
a
,
.
,
.
a
d
t
—
—
p
h
—
-
io
-
—
—
E
E
H
H
E
R
E
E
A
H
W
H
E
A
R
A
A
I R
e
a
o£ 3 4
a
.
B
L
,
=
OC b
k
o
u
cally declare that the practice of designating and plan- f
o
b
.
specif
ning schools as "Negro" and "white" schools, including converting
schools from all-white to all-Negro use, and selecting school
sites in accord with the segregated pattern, are inconsistent
to eliminate assignments on the b
e
yr
ad
Oo
po
s
i
with the Board's obl
basis of race and the segregated system which has been created
by the State.
While a strict and literal compliance with the Court's
5
-
o
D
order of May 1960, providing for a start of desegregation at
first grade level, would have resulted in substantially more
desegregation than has occurred under the defendants' pupil
assignment procedures, that defendants should now be required to
abolish segregation in all schools and at all grade levels,
|
-
fo
d
h
n
0
]
-
4
—
43
)
a
|
D
ho
w
a
4
0
c
d
o
c
r
e
_
—
"
A
d
(g¢
]
B
o
w
e
d
w
i
l
e
mination of segregation at only
the first grade level cannot begin to remedy the gross inequality
of opportunity for Negro and white pupils in the school system,
It is further apparent that the pupil assignment procedures used
3
are inadequate to eliminate segregation from the system generally,
and that they merely effect a token desegregation, leaving the
basic pattern of racial assignments unchanged.
It is furthex submitted that should the Court determine
that the defendants' present assignment practices are invalid as
a permanent arrangement, that the Court should not approve them
\ even as interim OF temp ora ary meas ures, in the manner followed in
—
.
Fl
*
“
B
®
o
h
f
£
.
5
g
2
o
t
#
-
r
b
e
t
e
»
“
oO
a
§
A
T
I.
a
fr
hi
s
&
a
d
-
—
i
e
a
po
pr
ot
-
de
Re
D
e
n
s
6}
0
4
5
)
V
v
=
W
h
o
|
~
t
f
h
program is plainly inadequate to eliminate the serious inecquali=-
ties in educational opportunities for Negroes and whites in the
system, The placement plan is not even inconsistent with a
pe
v
I
.
E
e
,
e
h
.
~
-
aa
le
EE
—
L
I
Le
—
a
r
h
.
-
-
—
-
-
—
-
—
—
E
E
.
y|
d
d
3
evs
{
§
"
i
y
a
i
’
¢
“
»
&
:
&
|)
i
%
.
*
-
7d
“
a
2
x
3
$
7
:
#
3
$e
»
of
F
E
W
*
”
e
3
a”
d
n
Es
#
:
¥
J
bd
¥
{
’
"
bs
t
‘
:
w
e
&
»
™
i
¥
R
4
4
.
5
he
%
8
*
£
fond
X
\
.
“ w
“
;
.
®
|
¢
*
.
-
£
L
a
o
g
&F
bo
¥
:
‘
i
a
%
2
a:
Bog
Dale
y
hl
E
w
h
u
e
4
A
o
¢
y;
:
’
3
3
gee
§
+
4
{
y
or
v
on
B
e
y
A
¥
¥
¥
¥
;
"
,
»
—
—
—
“
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
R
I
E
E
A
E
I
a
A
A
A
A
—
—
a
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
=
T
E
:
a
W
e
S
D
Hy
he
—
.
-
.
.
A
EN ¥
reek Sa
a“
»
y
$i -»
B
g
Sy
hb
|
%
y
-
.
&#
LF pi
o
s
ha
a
he
i
4
}
i
os
#
wu
po
I 5 ) W
S
E
—
—
i
,
-
Ma ? SAR a atl a