Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education Court Opinion

    swANN v. cEARLor:r;"ffi*:,T.IT:*:ARD of EDucArroN rzet

of Reynolds v. sims to elections for mem- city board of education' It is denied

bers of school boards. I see nothing in with respect to the interim board' De-

the powers of this particular permanent fendants' cross-motion for summary

cltl. boa.d which would justify this court judgment is granted with respect to the

in ignoring that trend. The board has interim board. It is denied with respect

broad powers to run the city schools' to the permanent city board'

The fact that the statutory scheme con- Settle order and judgment on notice'

templates a certain amount of autonomy

in the boards of the community districts w AT>tl's' l/ q: 
:,ry0'#1* q

does not deprive the city board. with I [ 
^--@ J. E L 'y

which we are here .oncerrred. of overall eary----- L irp t)
control. The fact that the city board has

no taxing power does not seem to me to

be crucial. The same was true of the

board in Stricktand,, which a three-judge
court nevertheless held to be invalidly Jarnes E. SIilAIIN' et al"

constituted. Plaintiffs'

t5l It is unnecessary to expand this

opinion by a reiteration of the reasons

for the one man' one vote doctrine' They

have been fully explained in the Supreme

Court cases. The only question here is

whether the doctrine applies to the per-

manent city board created by this stat-

ute. I believe that it does' Accord-

ingly, I hold that the method of election

specifietl in Section 2590-b(1) (a) is in-
valid in that it deprives plaintiff of the

equal protection of the laws guaranteed

to her by the Fourteenth Amendment' A
declaratory judgment to that effect will
be entered.

Under the statute, the permanent city
board is to be elected on the first Tues-

day of May 1970. The successful candi-

dates are to take office on July 1, 1970'

I will not at this time issue an injunction
against the holding of that election' The

le islature of New York should be af-
forded an oPPortunitY to amend the

statute in order to comply with constitu-

tional requirements. The court will re-

tain jurisdiction of this action so that if
no such amendment is forthcoming' aP
plication may be made to the court for
appropriate relief.

The CEABL(IIIE-MECKLENBT'B,G
BOABD OF. EDUCATION et al"

Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 1974.

United States District Court
W. D. North Carolina,

Charlotte Division.
Aug. 15, 1969.

School desegregation case' The Dis-

trict Court, McMillan, J., held, inter alia,

that school desegregation plan including
programs for faculty desegregation and

itorlng of seven all-black schoile' and

assigning their pupils to outlying white
schools demonstrated board of educa-

tion's acceptance of duty to desegregate

schools at eartiest possible date and

would be approved for one year with di-
rection that plans be presented for im-
plementation of goal for next school year

of complete desegregation of the entire
system to maximum extent possible'

Order in accordance with oPinion'

See also D.C., 306 F.SuPP. 1299.

l. Schools and School Distrlcts €13
See Delozier v. Tyrone Area School where opening of schools was im-

Board,suyr&istricklandv'Burns,szr-minentandwhereboardofeducation's
pra. school desegregation plan included both

Plaintiff's motion for summary judg- substantial action and genuine assurance

ment is granted to the extent indicated of sustained effort toward prompt com-

above with respect to the permanent pliance with law of land, plan would be



SwANrv'CEAB,LoTTE-MECKLENBuR,GBoAR,DoTEDUCATIoN1,!293
(lite ts ii06 F.SuPP' l:91 (1Ctigl

BrockBarkley,WilliamJ.Waggoner,Theschoolclosingissuehasprovoked
weinstein, waggoner. Sturges & odom, strident protests from hlack citizens a\d , ,'-
charlotte, N. c., Robert llorgan, Atty. from others; evidence sho'*'ed that an P

Gen., Ralph ]Ioody, Deputy Atty' Gtn'' estimated 19'000 names are listed on a

and -\ndrew A. \.anore. Staff Atty., petition tienouncing the plan as unfair

State of North Carorina, Baleigh, N. c., and discriminatory. The signers add

for defendants. their own brand of protest to that of the

21.000 whites who last )Iay (though pro-

ORDER testing their acceptance of the princi-

MclrrLLAN, District Judge. 3[:-t".'-'t:"fl"ff1';*,:il",i"i";1'X;
pRELIIIINARY SUMMARY transportation except to schools of indi-

Pursuant to this court's June 20, 1969 vidual choice' Another 800 white Paw

order, 300 F.supp. 1381, the defendants Creek petitioners have joined in protest

submitted on July 29, 1969 an amended against a part of the plan under which

plan for desegregation of the charlotte- some 200 fifth and sixth grade pupils

Mecklenburg schools, including a highly woul'l be assigned to re-opened wood-

significant policy statement accepting land' a now unused (and formerly black)

for the first time the Board's affirma- school' comment from people who have

tive constitutional duty to desegregate not studied the evidence tends to ignore

students, teachers, principals and staffs the law-the reason this question is be-

"at the earliest possible date." on Au- fore a court' for decision-and to concen-

gust 4, 1969, a report was filed in connec- trate on public acceptance or what will

tion with the plan. A hearing was con- make people happy' A correspondent

ducted on August 5, 1969. The plan is who signs "Puzzled" inquires:

before the court for approval ' "If the whites don't want it and the
blacks don't want it, why do we have

tll Because the schools must oPen

September 2, and, because the Board's

plan includes both substantial action and

genuine assurance of sustained effort to-

ward prompt compliance with the law of
the land, the plan of operation, for 1969-

70 only, is approved and as indicated be-

low, the defendants are directed to pre-

pare and file by November 17, 1969' de-

tailed plans and undertakings for com-

pletion of the job of desegregating the

schools effective in September, 1970'

THE A}IENDED PLAN-AND
ITS RECEPTION

The plan proposes' among other things'
to close seven old all-black inner-city
schools and to assign their 3,000 students

to various outlying schools, now predom-

inantly white, mostly in high rent dis-

tricts.
This technique of school closing and

reassignment has been employed in doz-

ens of- school districts to promote school

desegregation. It is not original with
the local School Board.

to have it?"
The answer is, the Constitution of the

United States.

THE CONSTITUTION-THE LAW OF
THE LAND-REQUIRES DESEG'
REGATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS

North Carolina reportedly refused to
ratify the United States Constitution un-

til the Bill of Rights had been incorpo-
rated into it. The Fourteenth Amend-

ment to that Constitution, now part of
the Bill of Rights, guarantees to all citi-
zens the "equal protection of laws"' In
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U'S'
483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954)'

349 U.S. 2s4.75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L'Ed. 1083

(1955), the Supreme Court held that ra-
cial segregation in public schools produc-

es inferior education and morale, re-

stricts opportunity for association, and

thus violates the equal protection guaran-

ty of the Constitution and is unlawful'
In Green v. New Kent County School

Board, 391 U.S. 130, 88 S.Ct. 1689' 20

L.Ed.2d 716 (1968)' and two other simul-



L294 306 PEDER,AL SUPPLEMENT
SWANN v' CEA

able HEW "guidelines"
President's administratc
affairs, and dubious

statements of other o

[1*t rv placed, are irrel'

.iituiionut rights of th

case. AIso irrelevant I

its. of the Vice Presir

dulY in this area) to

audiences, and the no

ings of citizens who e:

if-the school segregal

.lrnPt" matter of Polii

short-term Public oPtt

Attorney General of 1

he has just filed the

tion suit of all--agair
of Geotgiat Segrega

oublic schools, whetht

white, and regardless
or don't want to staY

As the SuPreme Cour

.. :r * d the vita
tutional PrinciPles
vield simPlY becau

rvith them'"

THE SCHOOL BOI
REPRESENTS

PROG

Against this bacl

new PIan is reviewe

1. The most obv

element in the Pla

Board has reversed

cepted its affirmati
to desegregate Pu1

oals and staff mer

tossible date"' Il
*t "tu PeoPle livt
where they go to st

their education' at

maY be necessary i

It has recognized
not do the job; t

lines, PerhaPs whc

ing or clustering '

Puter technologY I

tusiness methods
sidered in the di

constitutional du'

'l

taneous unanimous decisions, the Su-
preme Court held that school boards have
the alfirmatiae duty to get rid of dual
school systems, to eliminate "black
schools" and "rvhite schools," and to op-
erate "just schools." The Court said:

"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."
(Emphasis on the wotd"nou)" was put
in the text by the Supreme Court.)

For years people of this communitY
and all over the south have quoted wist-
fully the statement in Briggs v. Elliott,
D.C., 132 F.Supp. 776 by Judse John J.
Parker (who at his death was one of my
few remaining heroes) that though the
Constitution forbids segregation it does

not require integration. Passage of
time, and the revelation of conditions
which might well have changed Judge
Parker's views if he had lived, have left
Judge Parker's words as a landmark but
no longer a guide. The latest decision on
this subject by the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals (which is the court that first
reviews my actions) contains this state-
ment:

"The famous Briggs v. Elliott dictum

-adhered 
to by this court for many

years-that the Constitution forbids
segregation but does not require inte-
gration. (132 F.Supp. 776, E.D.S.C.
1955) is now dead." Hawthorne v.
County School Board of Lunenburg
County, Virginia, 413 F.2d 53, Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals, July 11,

1969.

[2,3] "Freedom of choice," as this
court has already pointed out, does not
legalize a segregated school system. A
plan with freedom of choice must be
judged by the same standard as a plan
without freedom of choice-whether or
not the plan desegregates the public
schools. The courts are concerned pri-
marily not with the techniques of assign-
ing students or controlling school popu-
lations, but with **heths'r those tech-
niques get rid ol segregation ol children

in public schools. The test is pragmatic,
not theoretical.

CONTINUED OPERATION OF SEG-
REGATED PUBLIC SCHOOLS IS
UNLAWFUL

The issue is one of law and order. Un-
less and until the Constitution is amend-
ed it is and will be unlawful to operate
segregated public schools. Amending the
Constitution takes heavy majorities of
voters or lawmakers. It is difficult to
imagine any majority of Supreme Court,
of Congress or of popular vote in favor
of changing the Constitution to say that
public school pupils may lawfully be kept
in separate schools because they are
black. A community bent on "law and
order" should expect its school board
members to obey the United States Con'
stitution, and should, encourage them itt
eaerA 'nlooe they make toward stuh cottv
pliance. The call for "law and order" in
the streets and slums is necessary, but
it sounds hollow when it issues from
people content with segregated public
schools.

The question is not whether people likc
desegregateil wbtic schools, but **hat the
law requires of those who operate them*

THE DUTY TO OBSERVE THE CON-
STITUTION AND DESEGRE.
GATE THE SCHOOLS CANNOT
BE REDUCED OR AVOIDED BE.
CAUSE OF SOOTHING SAYINGS
FROM OTHER GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS NOR OUTCRIES
FROM THOSE WHO WANT THE
LAW TO GO AWAY

t4l The rights and duties of the par'
ties to this suit are in this court for de'

cision according to lato-.not according to

HEW guidelines or public clamor. The

, court and the school board are bound by

the Constitution. So are the tegi'slatiae
anil erecutitte braruhes of goaemrne*t'
No one in Washington or Raleigh or local

government is above or beyond the Con-

stitution. None have power to change it
except by Iawful means. None have or
claim the power to interfere with the

courts in cases like this one. The malle'



$
tt

SWANN v' CEARLOTTE-UECKLXNBUB'G BOABD Or EDUCATION 1295
(litc rrs 3lD !' strpp ii$1 I t1)ti9)

able HEW "guidelines" put out by. the iake lightly the Board's promises and the

president,s atlministrator't'* .J,r.uiiorr.t Board's undertaking of its aifirmative

affairs. end ,lubious interences from 'luty under the Constitution and accepts

statementsot'otherrliiicials,hower,'ertheseessrrrSl]Ce:j.itfaeevalue.They
highlyplaced'areirreleventioihet.on.are.infact,theConclusionswhichneces.
stitutionai rights or it" p"titt in this saril-v follow *'hen any group of women

case. Also irrelevant are soothing say- 
"na 

'*t" of goorl faith seriously study

ingsofiheVicePresident(rvhohasnothisproulemuith.knouledgeofthefacts
duty in this area) to 

-ur".t-ti" political ;i t;" this scltool ;vstem and tn liglt't of

audiences, and the not-so-soothing say- the lau ol the lan"d'

ings of citizens *to 
"iron"ously 

talk as 2. In the second place, by the follow-

iftheschoolsegregationissuewerelincactionstheBoardhasdemonstrated
simple matter "f ;;;i;;i f'"t'u'" und its" acceptance of its stated new policies:

.tort-t".* public opinion. As for the 
i;,61 a) Thedesegregationof fac-

f:*:"1.:; ffi : :',l: it':l, ti. il1!i' :n* *1",t* : x,:i *T::'J T:t:
;;"";:ii::,"'ld'"ffi ::Ji1:*it!i:'ii'fr if ',"iifr ::'il"T,:l:;""fr"'1#il:

lf'X l:T:i';,:1,:'.:Tr'*:,*"Ji:I^:: cailv exceeded its goar' It is assumed

or don't want to .r"i ,rr.i, i,-'"r"*tg HrJt:":Hlr'I?irtT,i'.""Tril: :X';
es ttt" Supreme Court said in Broum II: that the goal for 19?0-71 will be that

.. )r * r( the vitality of these consti- faculties in all schools will approach a

tutional principtet tannot be allowed to ratio under which all schools in the

yield simply rtto* of tlisagreement system will have approximately the

rvith them." tot" p'oportion of black and white

teachers.

THE SCHOOL BOARD'S NEW PLAN...NBPNNSENTS 
SUBSTANTIAL

PROGRESS

Against this background the Board's

new plan is revierved:

1. The most obvious and constructive

"t"."nt 
in the plan is that the School

g"".a has reversed its field and has ac-

.-"pt ; its affirmative constitutl:tl-9lil
to desegregate pupils, teachers' prt-lc'.

.rf. l"i staff members "at the earliest

i]..iii" a",.." It has recognized that

;;;;; people live should not control

;;;;; ttev'go to school nor the quaiitv.of

i;;;;-"i";";on, and that transPortation

-", f. necessary to comply with the law'

t'i-i""-r..ognized that easy methods vrill

ildo thelob; that rezoning of school

lines, perhaps wholesale; pairing' group-

il;; clustering of schools: use of com-

pu-ter t.ct nology anrl all available modern

irair,... methods can and must be con-

;id;."J in the discharse of the Board's

constitutional duty' This court does not

b) The closing of seven schools and

the reassignment of 3,000 black pupils

to schools offering better education'

c) The reassignment of 1,245 stu-

dents from several overcrowded pri-

marily black schools to a number of

outlying predominantly white schools'

d) The announced re-evaluation of

the program of locating and building

and improving schools, so that each

project or site will produce the "great-
est degree of desegregation possible'"

e) The Board correctlY and con-

structively concluded that the so-called

"anti-bussing law" adopted by the

General Assembly of North Carolina

on June 24, 1969, does not inhibit the

Board in carrying out its constitution-
al duties and should not hamPer the

Board in its future actions' Leaving

aside its dubious constitutionality (if
it really did what its title claims for
it), the statute contains an express ex-



1296 306 TEDEB,AIJ SUPPLEMENT

ception which renders it ineffectual in
that it does not prevent "any transfer
necessitated by overcrowded conditions
or other circutnstances which in the
sole discretion of the School Board re-
quire reassignment."

f) The elimination without objec-
tion of the former provision which had
the effect of inhibiting transfer rights
of black would-be athletes.

g) Quite significantly, the Board
calls upon the Planning Board, the
Housing Authority, the Redevelopment
Commission and upon real estate inter-
ests, local government and other inter-
ested parties to recognize and share
their responsibility for dealing with
problems of segregation in the commu-
nity at large as well as in the school
system.

h) The proposals for programs of
"compensatory education" of students,
and for teacher orientation and ex-
change of activities among black and
white students. The court assumes
that these somewhat varuely stated
ideas will become imple.aented with
concrete action.

t7l 3. The Seoen School Problem.-
The Board plan proposes to close Second
Ward High School, Irwin Avenue Junior
High School and five inner-city elemen-
tary schools (five of which were already
marked for abandonment) and to reas-
sign their 3,000 students to outlying
white schools. This part of the plan has
struck fire from black community leaders
and some other critics. Counsel for the
plaintiffs contend that it puts an uncon-
stitutional and discriminatory burden up-
on the black community with no corre-
sponding discomfort to whites. One
spokesman for a large group of dissent-
ing and demonstrating black citizens was
allowed to express his views at the Au-
gust 5, 1969 hearing. Threats of boy-
cotts and strikes have been publicized.

This part of the plan is distasteful, be-
cause all but 200 * of the students being

reassigned en masse are black. It caa
Iegitimately be said and has been elo-
quently said that this plan is an affront
to the dignity and pride of the black
citizens. Pride and dignity are impor-
tant. If pride and dignity were all that
are involved, this part of the plan ought
to be disapproved. The court, out of
forty-year memory of four years o(
transportation on an unheated Model-T
school bus thirteen miles each way from
a distant rural community to high school
in a "city" of 4,000, is fully aware how
alien and strange are the sensations ex-
perienced by a school child who is hauled
out of his own community and into 8
place where the initial welcome is uncer-
tain or cool.

However, this part of the plan is not
compulsory. Students who want to re-
main in the comfort of their familiar
area may elect to attend the Zebulon
Vance School instead; alternatives are
also provided for the junior high school

students.

Moreover, as one of the attorneys re-

marked at the first hearing in a discus-

sion about reassignments and school

busses: "The question is really not one

of 'bussing' but whether what the child
gets \Mhen he gets off of the bus is worth
the trouble."

I personally found the better education
worth the bus trip.

Despite their undoubted importance'
pride and dignity should not control over

the Constitution and should not outweigh
the prospects for quality education of
children. The uncontradicted evidence

before the court is that segregation in

Mecklenburg County has produced its in'
evitable results in the retarded educs'
tional achievement and capacity of segre'
gated school children. By way of brief
illustration a table follows showing the

contrasting achievements of sixth grade

students in five of the closed schools

r The 200 sturlents being relssigned from Paw Creek to Woodlnnd rrre white.

SWANN v' CI

(Bethune' Fairview, l

"xander 
Street and I

AV

( Bethune
(AshleY Park
(Fairview
(Westerly Hills
(Isabella WYche

(MYers Park
(Alexander Strt
(Shamrock Gart

(Zeb Vance
(Park Road

This alarming cot

is obviously not knt

generallY.
It was not fullY I

fore he studied the

It can not be ex1

of cultural, racial
without honestlY
segregation.

The degree to w
vade all levels of
accomPlishment ir
relentlesslY demon

Segregation Prt

tion, and it m

whether the schoo

modern and air-c

It is PainfullY
education" can n'

school', segtegati
bariler to qualit!

As hoPeful relir
ture is the unco'

the three or fou
some for each sic

ing exPerience o
the schools of B
exPerts and ad

that transferrin
children from b

with 70% or m

duced a drama
306 F.suop.-82



swANN v' cEARLorrE-MECKLx*y:n,,::*D 
or EDU0ATIoN l2g7

(lite rs :il)ti L' Supp' 1:191 t Ll)ti9)

rsabeua fili;lllf 
"";i;; -"i 

the schoors,:"- J:::":iick 
stu-

i 9"illl""I::I1"": ;:f "it"Ii'lii^"' ;;;"";';. ;"in g to be transrerred :

exander Street and

AVERAGE ACHIEVE}IENT TEST SCORES

sr-rtn c&-rPE=19$:s9

( Bethune
(AshleY Park
(Fairview
(WesterlY Hills
(Isabella WYche
(MYers Park
(Alexander Street
(Shamrock Gardens

(Zeb Vance
(Park Road

ALlll. lVlI (Word
( Math ) Meaning )

.11 41

Db

42 39

52 57

40 38

58 73

34 40

53 56

39 42

58 66

SP.

45
61

46
61

41
80

45
57

:18

7L

LANG.
34
62

38
61

34
84

38
62

34
75

a

Thisalarmingcontrastinperformancerateofprogressandanincreaseinthe
is obviousry not known ro schoor patrons :l':m:*:f,tm'; *l*iiT"il#ff;
generalty. . .r,- ^^..-* r-ra_ i] ;;;;ii... There was no contrary

,"1f::l*,::"J,I1:x;::Ji::i:':H ""'i""" 
iin this svstem 7t% or the

* can nor be explained solelv in terms :;i::'i"t:;;:'ffi1':t"ilfi.:lt
"f';rj;rr;i, 

racial or family backsround 
icv and the uncontradicted testimony of

;t,r*;';;;tly facing the impact of ii; ."r"ri"rendent show that serious ar-

sesresation. r.---! ^^F ffi;;;;;;;-are being made to rvelco.me'
"'";;;;;tt"e to which this contrast per- ;;,.;^;;; rebuff' the transferees 'into
,";;""11-;Js of academic activitv.and ;ii^;;;-i;ctivties. rhis is something

".."*ii.i,*ent 
in segregated schools is il;;;;l;rortant'

,"i".rtf"..tv demonstrated'

sesresation produces inrerior educa- ."*,1,|]fl"T:Hilll, fJ$:'Jit ;X:
ti;."^;;;' ii 

'makes little rlirference #;r;;;,;;k children from an inferior

irli"in*'in. sctrool is trot ana decrepit or 
educational environment into a better ed-

modern and air-conditioned. ucational environment for the purpose of

It is painfullv apparent that "qualit{ ;;;r"b;g with the constitutional re-

education" can not ii-'t it a segregateq ;;t;;;ni of equal protection of laws'

ffi: X ,;;il":r::::{,:;.to'sreates.t t8l rhe choice or how to do the job

As hoperur rerier asains! thi: g'1T.1':; 4*#*i*:t:"' 
the Schoor Board

li'J,f,#:,'ff::':ii:.,,".t'fiI'[":ii:'i te] rhe Boa:d has wide discretion in

some for each side,;;';i. very interest- .tio.ing *"thods; manv effective meth-

ins experien." ot tj.,"-ri*inisirators of il-;;described in the evidencq; the

the schools ot Srti;;o.-N-.*'V".t. Th: .""rit art, is simplv to pass on the le-

experts and aamiii:i;;;;;; "ii ."g1""9 ;;;;;"i iil' Board's actions' It appears

thar transferri., ;;;;;p.iuil"g"a 
-uru.r. 

t";';;1,;;";that.the improvement in the

children from uracil ;;;"; lrio ..troot, .ir.",r* "t 
4'200 school children is the

with?0%ot*o'"*t'itettua"ntgnlo-"'""t""ttobviousresultoftheBoard's
duced a dramatic improvement in the nr""'"ilt'i"n for 1969-70' and that this

lo5 F SUPP -82



1298 306 TEDERAL

is more important constitutionally than
other considerations which have been ad-
vanced.

It is not the intention of this court to
endorse or approve any future plan which
puts the burden ot' desegregation prima-
rily upon one race. However, there is
not time before September 2, 1969 to do

a complete job of reassigning pupils;
the plan is a step toward more complete
compliance with the law; the court re-
luctantly votes in favor of the 4,200

school children and approves the plan on
a one-year basis.

THE IVIAJOR TASK LIES AHEAD
THIS FALL

[10] The big job remains to be done.

After implementation of the current
plan, further large scale faculty trans-
fers will still be necessary. Sixteen
years after Brown v. Board of Education,
some thirteen thousand school children
will remain in black or nearly all-black
schools. llost white students will re-
main in substantially all-white schools.
The failure of the plan to deal with those
problems of course can not be approved.
The failure of the plan to include a time
table for the performance of specific ele-
ments of the program of course can not
be approved, Felder, et al. v. Harnett
County Board of Education, et al., 409

F.zd 1070 (4th Cir., 1969). These mat-
ters must be covered by specific instruc-
tions to the Board.

All findinss of fact in the previous
orders of April 23, 1969, and June 20,
1969, and the supplemental findings of
June 24, 1969, are incorporated herein to
the extent that they are consistent with
the findings, conclusions and orders here-
in reached and given. All evidence at all
hearings is considered in reaching these
conclusions.

ORDER
1. The policy statement of the Board

is approved.

2. The faculty desegregation program
is approved.

[fl] 3. The plan to desegresate pu-
pils by closing seven all-black schools and

SUPPI,EMENT

assigning their pupils to outlying white
schools is approved only t.1) with grert
reiuctance. (2) as a one-year. temporary
arangement, and (3) with the distinct
reservation that "one-way bussing" l,ians
for the years after 1969-?0 rvill not be

acceptable. If, as the school superintend-
ent testified, none of the modern, facul-
ty-integrated, expensive, "equal" black
schools in the system are suitable for de-

segregation now, steps can and should be

taken to change that condition before the
fall of 1970. Unsuitability or inadequacy
of a 19?0 "black" school to educate 1970

white pupils will not be considered by the
court in passing upon plans for 1970 de-

segregation. The defendants contended
and the court found in its April 23, 1969

order that facilities and teachers in the

various black schools were not measura-
bly inferior to those in the various white
schools. It is too late now to expect the
court to proceed upon an opposite as'
sumption.

4. The plan to reassign 1,245 students
from presently overcrowded black schools

is approved.

5. Reassignment of the Paw Creek

students to Woodland is aPProved.

6. The proposals of the Board for re-

structure of attendance lines; for consid'
eration of pairing and grouping schools;
for review of the construction programs;
and for support programs, student ex-

change and faculty orientation are ap-

proved in principle, although for lack of
specific detail and time table they are

not approved as presented.

7. The Board is directed to PrePare
and present by November 1?, 1969, the

following:
(1) Plan for complete faculty deseg-

regation for 1970-71.

(2) Plan for student desegregation
for 1970-?1, including making full use

of zoning, pairing, grouping, cluster-
ing, transportation and other tech'
niques, complete with statistics and

maps and other data showing precisely

what (subject to later movement of pu-

pils) the assignment of PuPils and

teachers will be for the year 1970-71'

having in mind as its goal for 197G-71

!.FANN v' Cl

the r:-;lete deseg

tire -'.::em to th
poss:. 'i. (The I

Boa::': :ePort tha

rega:.i "vhen 
it h

of a :--:ority race

is r:: :,ecePted bY

ther ::: Board nol

guii.i cY such a

as :-.+: here referl
"Pc;:--::al"-Possit
Cou:::. two-thirc
desea::gate its scl

hate :'lw done,

shou-,i be able to
u'ill :.' iollow suit

r.i -\ detailed
plere rith figure
tion :sd nature

Pro;::: ProPosed'
effa: this Projer
exps.-:d to have

deseireSating th

8. Since a mid'
orove ='rst desira
rected ;ending fu:

not to livest itsell
rent arrangements
contrcl'lver real es

have :r the Seeond

9. Jurisdiction

Jrmes E. SWA

The CEABII)T
BO.IRD OF I

De
Ctv' '

United Sta
W. D. I\

Charlr
No

SuPPlementar
Dt

School deset

trict Court, Mcl

/o\g.y



SWANN v. oEABLoTTE-MEoRI.T:NBuR,G BoARD oF EDUoATIoN 1299
Cite es i!06 F.StIt)P. 1:99 { 19ti9)

the complete desegregation of the en- preme court's prohibition against exten-

tire s1'siem to r:he maximum extent sion of time for effective desegregation

possible. (The assumption in the of schools in )Iississippi school case lvas

Boarci,s report th:rt a school is deseg- binding upon united States District
regated rvhen it has as many as 10% Court for the Western Dist'rict of North

of a ,ninorit-v race in its student body Carolina and the Charlotte-)Iecklenburg
is not accepted by the court. and nei- Board ot Education, and barred exercise

ther the Board nor the court should be of the court's usual discretion in such

guided by such a figure.) "Possible" matters'

g. Since a mid-city high school may Freedom of choice does not make a

prove most desirable, the Board is di- segregated school system lawful.

rected pending further orders of court
not to divest itserr or any rand, options, '' 

t"*frfr,1iifftTj 
T,Ti:fr:l1.tit,-

::lt,: flil: T;i'::, n *i: :f ,ffi ;,'i J; ffi Hl ;'-,*i J.1 # if ::1 n 
"' 

1;:1,::: T;
have in the Second Ward area. the school board nor of federal district

9. Jurisdiction is retained. court.

as used here refers to educational-not
"political"-possibility. If Anson

County, two-thirds black, can totally
desegregate its schools in 1969, as they
have now done. Illecklenburg County
should be able to muster the political
will to follow suit.

(3) A detailed report showing, com-

plete with figures and maps, the loca-

tion and nature of each construction
project proposed or under way, and the
effect this project may reasonably be

expected to have upon the program of
desegregating the schools.

James E. SWANN et al., Plalntilfs'
v.

The CEARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG
BOARD OF EDUCATION et al"

Defendants.
Clv. A. No. 10?4.

United States District Court
W. D. North Carolina,

Charlotte Division.
Nov.7, 1969.

SupplementarY OPinion and Order
Dec.1, 1969.

School desegregation case. The Dis-

trict Court, ]IcMillan, J., held that Su-

Decree accordingly.

1. Courts €96
Supreme Court's prohibition against

extension of time for effective desegre-
gatiorr of schools in Nlississippi school

case was binding upon United States
District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina and the Charlotte-
]Iecklenburg Board of Education' and

barred exercise of the Court's usual dis-
cretion in such matters.

2. School,s and School P;ttrrists €13

Supplementary OPinion

4. Schools and School ai"histr5 €13
School board had burden to desegre-

gate schools and to show that any deseg-

regation plan that they proposed would
desegregate the schools.

5. Schools and School pistr11qts Fl3
Racial segregation in public schools

is unlawful even though not required nor
authorized by state statute.

6. Schools and School p1"6aists O=13

Acts of school boards perpetuating
or restoring segregation of the races in
schools are de jure, unlawful discrimina-
tion.

7. Schools and School Districts F13
A plan of geographic zoning which

perpetuates discriminatory segregation
is unlawful.