Estes v. Dallas NAACP Appendix
Public Court Documents
May 1, 1979
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Estes v. Dallas NAACP Appendix, 1979. 9bdde323-b19a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/3c9e7f71-c699-4c2d-bb4a-fd93a29fae3f/estes-v-dallas-naacp-appendix. Accessed May 03, 2025.
Copied!
APPENDIX
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1978
No. 78-253
NOLAN ESTES, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
versus
METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF THE DALLAS
N.A.A.C.P., ET AL.
No. 78-282
DONALD E. CURRY, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
versus
METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF THE DALLAS
N.A.A.C.P., ET AL.
No. 78-283
RALPH F. BRINEGAR, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
versus
METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF THE DALLAS
N.A.A.C.P., ET AL.
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI FILED AUGUST 14,
AUGUST 19 AND AUGUST 19, 1978
CERTIORARI GRANTED FEBRUARY 21, 1979
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1978
No. 78-253
NOLAN ESTES, ET AL„
Petitioners,
versus
METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF THE
DALLAS N.A.A.C.P., ET AL„
Respondents.
No. 78-282
DONALD E. CURRY, ET AL„
Petitioners,
versus
METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF THE
DALLAS N.A.A.C.P., ET AL„
Respondents.
11
No. 78-283
RALPH F. BRINEGAR, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
versus
METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF THE
DALLAS N.A.A.C.P., ET AL.,
Respondents.
«
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
INDEX
Chronological List of Relevant Docket
Entries .............................................
Page
___1
Memorandum Opinion, Filed July 16,
1971 ................ ................. .................. Brinegar
Pet.App.A-1
Order permitting NAACP to intervene,
Filed August 25, 1975 ........................
Opinion and Order, Filed March 10,
1976 .............................. .......................
13
Estes
Pet.App.4a
Supplemental Order, Filed March 15,
1976 ............................................ ....... Estes
Pet.App.45a
i
Supplemental Opinion and Order, Filed
April 7, 1976 .......................................... Estes
Pet.App.46a
Final Order, Filed April 7, 1976 .......... Estes
Pet.App.53a
Supplemental Order, Filed April 15,
1976 ............................... ............... . . Estes
Pet.App.121a
Supplemental Order, Filed April 20,
1976 ................................................... Estes
Pet.App.126a
Page 4 of Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of
Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs,
Filed April 30, 1976 ......................... ...................... 14
Page 3 of Memorandum Opinion (Re at
torneys' fees and costs), Filed July 20,
1976 .................................... ................................... 15
Supplemental Order Changing Atten
dance Zones of James Madison High
School and Lincoln High School, Filed
August 18, 1976 ........................... . Estes
Pet.App.127a
Opinion of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Filed
April 21, 1978 ................................... . . Estes
Pet.App.130a
INDEX (Continued)
Page
INDEX (Continued)
Page
Judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Dated
April 21, 1976 .......................................................... 16
Letter from Clerk of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
advising the Court had denied Petition
for Rehearing, Dated May 22, 1978 . . Estes
Pet.App.146a
Motion for Stay of Mandate in the Unit
ed States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, Filed May 26, 1978 .. . Estes
Pet.App.148a
Order of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denying
Motion for Stay of Mandate, Filed
August 14, 1978 ...................................... .............. 16
Quotation of language prepared by
Petitioners Brinegar, et al., referring
to one or more of the opinions, orders,
decisions or judgments of the lower
Courts and where it may be found;
said language designated by that party
to be included in the Appendix ........................ .. 1'
Quotation of language prepared by
Petitioners Curry, et al., referring to
one or more of the opinions, orders,
decisions or judgments of the lower
V
Courts and where it may be found;
said language designated by that party
to be included in the Appendix .......................... 19
Quotation of language prepared by
Respondents Tasby, et al., referring to
one or more of the opinions, orders,
decisions or judgments of the lower
Courts and where it may be found;
said language designated by that party
to be included in the Appendix ..................... 20
Quotation of language prepared by
Respondents Tasby, et al., referring to
the fact that a Petition for Certiorari
was filed by Petitioners Estes, et al., to
review the decision of the Court of
Appeals reported at 517 F.2d 92 (5th
Cir. 1975); said language designated
by that party to be included in the
Appendix ........ ................... . .................. 20
Quotation of language prepared by
Respondents Tasby, et al., referring to
the fact that the above-mentioned
Petition for Certiorari was denied and
where denial is reported; said lan
guage designated by that party to be
included in the Appendix
INDEX (Continued)
Page
20
Trans. App.
Pages Pages
Excerpts from Transcript of Proceedings:
INDEX (Continued)
Testimony of Dr. Nolan Estes,
Witness on Behalf of Defen
dants
Direct Examination . . . . . . . 62 21
Cross Examination ............ 278 36
Re-Direct Examination . . . . 404 37
Testimony of Kathlyn Gilliam,
Witness on Behalf of Plaintiffs
Cross Examination ........ ... 54 40
T e s t i mo ny of Dr. Jose
Cardenas, Witness on Behalf of
Plaintiffs
Cross Examination . . . . . . . 333 44
Testimony of Dr. Charles V.
Willie, Witness on Behalf of
Plaintiffs
Cross Examination ............ 134 50
Testimony of Yvonne Ewell,
Witness on Behalf of Plaintiffs
Direct Examination ............ 192 59
Cross Examination . .......... 213 65
Testimony of Edward B. Clout-
man, III, Witness on Behalf of
Plaintiffs
Direct Examination ............ 231 70
Cross Examination . . . . . . . 329 75
V ll
INDEX (Continued)
Trans. App.
Pages Pages
Testimony of Dr. Charles
Hunter, Witness on Behalf of
NAACP-Intervenors
Direct Examination . . . . . . . 6 92
Cross Examination . 106 96
Testimony of Dr. Josiah C.
Hall, Jr., Witness on Behalf of
the Court
Direct Examination . 123 100
P r e - T r i a l H e a r i n g re
Educational Task Force of the
Dallas Alliance and Court
permitting Educational Task
Force to intervene as Amicus
Curiae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 103
Testimony of Dr. Paul Geisel,
Witness on Behalf of the Court
Direct Examination . . .. 2 122
Cross Examination . . . . 50 132
Examination .......... ....... . . . 369 155
Testimony of Susan Murphy,
Witness on Behalf of Brinegar-
Intervenors
Direct Examination . . . . . . . 332 163
T estimony of Ram Singh,
Witness on Behalf of Brinegar-
Intervenors
Direct Examination . . . . . . . 357 168
viii
INDEX (Continued)
Trans. App.
Pages Pages
Testimony of William Darnell,
Witness on Behalf of Brinegar-
Intervenors
Direct Examination ........... 377 174
Testimony of Robert Lee
Burns, Witness on Behalf of
Brinegar-Intervenors
Direct Examination . . . . . . . 400 190
Testimony of Evelyn Dun-
savage, Witness on Behalf of
Brinegar-Intervenors
Direct Examination ........... 15 191
Testimony of Rene Martinez,
Witness on Behalf of the Court
Direct Examination . . . . . . . 361 196
Excerpts from Transcript of
Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion
for Further Relief .................. 82 198
Excerpts from Transcript of
Called Hearing of judge Taylor . 2 205
Excerpts from Transcript of
Proceedings of February 24,
1977
Testimony of Dr. Nolan Estes,
Witness on Behalf of Defen
dants
Direct Examination ............ 5 216
INDEX (Continued)
Defendants' Exhibit No. 1 — Map
(Reduced in size) .................... 219
Defendants' Exhibit No. 2 — Map
(Reduced in size) ........... 220
Defendants' Exhibit No. 3 — Map
(Reduced in size) .................... 221
Defendants' Exhibit No. 11,
Page
pages 1 and 2 — Dallas In
dependent School District Stu
dent Assignment Plan for
Elementary and Secondary
Schools ................. 222
Defendants' Exhibit No. 13 —
Historical Enrollment of Dallas
Independent School District . 224
Defendants' Exhibit No. 17 —
Minutes of Called Board
Meeting of Dallas Alliance . . 226
NAACP's Exhibit No. 2, pages 6
through 8 — Proposed Plan for
D esegregation . 230
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 16, pages 2,
9, 34, 36, 38, 39 and 41 — Plain
tiffs' Desegregation Plans A
and B .................................. .. 234
X
Court's Exhibit No. 9 — Letter
from Dallas Alliance Education
Task Force dated March 3,
1976 ...................... . ............... 250
Hall's Exhibit No. 5, pages 14
through 19 — A Potential Plan
for Compliance with Rulings
for Operating Schools in
Dallas, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Curry's Exhibits 6 through 9 —
INDEX (Continued)
Page
The Effect of Court-Ordered
Busing on White Flight (Reduc
ed in s iz e ) ..................... 260
Brinegar's Exhibit No. 6, pages vi
and 27 — Report No. 2 of East
Dallas Demonstration . . . . . . . 265
Certificate of Service . .............. 268
I
In the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
EDDIE MITCHELL TASBY, et al
versus CA NO. 3-4211-C
DR. NOLAN ESTES, et al
Chronological List of Relevant Docket Entries:
DATE PROCEEDINGS
10- 6-70 — Plaintiffs' Complaint
10-15-70 — Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
10-26-70 — Defendants' Answer
7- 2-71 — James T. Maxwell's Motion to Intervene
(Proposed Intervener's Complaint at
tached)
7- 9-71 — Donald E. Curry, Gerald A. Van Winkle,
Joe M. Gresham, Edmund S. Rouget and
Robert A. Overton, individually and as
next friends for their children, Motion to
Intervene as Defendants with Affirmative
Pleas (Defenses and Claims in Interven
tion attached)
7-12-71 — Opposition and Objections of the Defen
dants to Interventions
7-16-71 — Memorandum Opinion
7-22-71 — Order Allowing Intervention as Defen
dants: that Donald E. Curry, Gerald A.
2
Van Winkle, Joe M. Gresham, Edmund S.
Rouget and Robert A. Overton have leave
to intervene in this cause and hereby made
a party Defendant to this cause.
8- 6-71 — Notice of Cross-Appeal on behalf of
Defendant-Intervenors Donald G. Curry,
et al.
8- 9-71 — Supplemental Order for Partial Stay of
judgment: (1) Par. 10-B of 8-2-71 judg
ment, pertaining to pairing/grouping of
Kimball, Carter and South Oak Cliff High
Schools; (2) Par. 10-C providing for the
satelliting of students from Hassell,
Browne, Wheatley, Ray, Frazier, Carr,
Anderson, Dunbar, Arlington Park, Ty
ler and Carver elementary school zones —
into high schools, as shown on Appendix
A of the Judgment; (3) Par. 11-B of said
Order pertaining to junior High Schools
and pairing Atwell, Browne, Hulcey,
Storey and Zumwalt; (4) Par. 11-C also
pertaining to junior High Schools and
pairing Stockard, Edison and Sequoyah;
and (5) Par. 11-D pertaining to satelliting
students from Hassell, Harris, Arlington
Park, Tyler, and part of Carver into junior
High Schools, as shown on Appendix B of
said Order, be and the same are hereby
stayed unto 1-10-72, and students assign
ed in the satellite zones by the August 2nd
Order are to be reassigned by the Board of
Education to appropriate High and Junior
High Schools, taking into consideration
capacity and establishment of a unitary
school system. In all other respects the
August 2nd Judgment shall remain in full
force and effect.
8-12-71 — Motion to Intervene as Defendant by the
City of Dallas
8-16-71 — Defendant-Intervenors Donald G. Curry,
et al Designation of Contents of Record
on Appeal
8-17-71 — Supplemental Opinion Regarding Partial
Stay of Desegregation Order
8-17-71 — Transcript of Proceedings (Vols. I, II, III,
IV and V) with exhibits:
PX-1 thru 5, . . .
8-31-71 — Order granting permission that the City
of Dallas to intervene herein as defendant,
adopting the Answer of the Defendant
Dallas Independent School District as its
own with like effect as if fully repeated
8- 5-75 — The Metropolitan Branches of the Dallas
N.A.A.C.P/s Motion to Intervene
8-14-75 — Opposition and Objections of the Defen
dants to Intervention of the Metropoli
tan Branches of the Dallas NAACP
8-14-75 — Motion to Intervene by Strom, et al.
8-14-75 — Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion
to Intervene (by Strom, et al)
8-21-75 — Opposition and Objections of the Defen
dants to the Intervention of Dr. E.
Thomas Strom, et al.
3
8-21-75 — Plea in Intervention of Dr. E. Thomas
Strom, Charlotte Strom, et al
8-21-75 — Letter from attorney John W. Bryant re
questing addition of certain persons to
motion to intervene as parties to this
cause
8- 25-75 — Order that Dr. E. Thomas Strom, et al,
and the Metropolitan Branches of the
NAACP be permitted to file their respec
tive Pleas of Intervention and become par
ties in this cause
9- 3-75 — Complaint of Intervenors The Metro
politan Branches of the National Associa
tion for the Advancement of Colored Peo
ple
9- 9-75 — Motion to Intervene of Ralph F. Brinegar,
Wallace H. Savage, Evelyn T. Green,
Craig Patton, Dr. John A. Ehrhardt and
Harryette B. Ehrhardt, Richard L. Rod
riguez and Alicia V. Rodriguez, Mr. and
Mrs. Salomon Aguilar, Marjorie M.
Oliver, Mr. and Mrs. Ruben L. Hubbard,
Robert L. Burns, Dr. Percey E. Luecke, Jr.,
Dale L. Ireland and Barbara J. Ireland, and
Evelyn C. Dunsavage.
9-10-75 — Brief of East Dallas Residents in Support
of Motion to Intervene
9-10-75 — N.A.A.C.P/s Proposed Plan for Desegre
gation
9-10-75 — Dallas Independent School District Stu
dent Assignment Plan for Elementary and
Secondary Schools.
9-15-75 — Opposition and Objections of the Defen
dants to the Intervention of Ralph F.
Brinegar, et al.
9-17-75 — Order granting motion for leave to inter
vene filed by Ralph F. Brinegar, Wallace H.
Savage, Evelyn T. Green, Craig Patton,
Dr. John A. Ehrhardt and Harryette B.
Ehrhardt, Richard L. Rodriguez and Alicia
V. Rodriguez, Mr. and Mrs. Salomon
Aguilar, Marjorie M. Oliver, Mr. and Mrs.
Ruben L. Hubbard, Robert L. Burns, Dr.
Percey E. Luecke, Jr., Dale L. Ireland and
Barbara J. Ireland, and Evelyn C. Dun-
savage, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated
9-18-75 — Intervenors' (Curry, et al) Motion in Op
position to Findings Not Based on
Evidence and Request for Production of
Data and Documents
9-24-75 — Plea of Intervention by East Dallas Resi
dents (Ralph F. Brinegar, et al)
9-26-75 — Order that Dr. Josiah C. Hall be and is
hereby appointed as expert advisor to the
court in the techniques of school desegre
gation
9-26-75 — DISD's Student Assignment Plan for
Elementary and Secondary Schools with 7
maps as exhibits.
9-26-75 — DISD's Corrections on student assign
ment plan
5
10- 7-75 — Interveners Dr. E. Thomas Strom's
Standards for Consideration in Formu
lating Plans for Additional School Deseg
regation
11- 14-75 — Letter dated November 12 ,1975 from the
Court of Appeals Stating: We have re
ceived a certified copy of an order of the
Supreme Court denying certiorari in the
above cause. This court's judgment as
mandate having already been issued to
your office, no further order will be forth
coming.
12- 29-75 — Court Appointed Advisor Hall's Deseg
regation Plan, with map
1- 12-76 — Plaintiffs' Proposal to Desegregate the
Dallas Independent School District, with
Maps
2- 17-76 — Desegregation Plan of Dallas Alliance, and
received comments of James W. Rutledge
(attached to Plan). Also received com
ments of black representatives (attached
to Plan)
2- 20-76 — Order that the Education Task Force of
the Dallas Alliance be granted the status
of Amicus Curiae for purpose of present
ing their ideas and/or Plan for desegrega
tion of the Dallas Independent School Dis
trict. Copies distributed in courtroom.
3- 3-76 — Letter from Jack Lowe, Sr. to Hon. W. M.
Taylor, Jr. transmitting revised plan of the
Dallas Alliance Education Task Force
6
3-10-76 — Memorandum Opinion and Order (. . .
that the modified plan of the Educational
Task Force of the Dallas Alliance filed
with the Court on March 3, 1976 is here
by adopted as the Court's plan for re
moval of all vestiges of a dual system re
maining in the Dallas Independent School
District and the school district is directed
to prepare and file with the Court a stu
dent assignment plan carrying into effect
the concept of said Task Force plan no
later than March 24, 1976)
Copies distributed to counsel in court
room
3-15-76 — Supplemental Order (. . . some questions
have arisen regarding the Court's adop
tion of the Dallas Alliance's plan. So that
there is no misunderstanding . . . the
Court intended by the order of March 10,
1976 to adopt the concepts suggested by
the plan of the Educational Task Force of
the Dallas Alliance. The staff of the school
district shall take these concepts and adapt
them to fit the characteristics of DISD.
The Court recognizes that during this
process, a certain amount of flexibility is
necessary. The Court expects the school
district to put into effect the concepts of
the Dallas Alliance plan. The specifics of
the desegregation plan for the DISD will
be embodied in the Court's final order
7
which will be entered in approximately
two weeks)
3-24-76 — Dallas Independent School District, A
Student Assignment Plan Carrying Into
Effect The Concept Of The Educational
Task Force Of The Dallas Alliance
3-26-76 — Dallas Independent School District's Mo
tion to Alter or Amend March 10, 1976,
Opinion and Order
3- 29-76 — Defendant DISD's Resolutions and Pro
posal On Non-Student Assignment Con
cepts
4- 1-76 — Addendum To Student Assignment Plan
by DISD.
4- 2-76 — (Mullinax, Wells, Mauzy & Babb) Plain
tiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Costs
4- 5-76 — (Dallas Legal Services Foundation) Plain
tiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs
4- 7-76 — Final Order . . . in order to carry out the
concepts embodied in the desegregation
plan of the Educational Task Force of the
Dallas Alliance, the School Board of the
Dallas Independent School District is or
dered and directed to implement the fol
lowing items: Major Sub-Districts . . .
Student Assignment Criteria Within Sub-
Districts . . . the K-3 Early Childhood Ed
ucation Centers . . . the 4-8 Intermediate
and Middle School Centers . . . 9-12
Magnets and High Schools . . . Special
8
Programs . . . Majority to Minority
Transfer. . . Minority to Majority Trans
fers . . . Curriculum Transfers . . . Trans
portation . . . Changes in Attendance
Zones . . . Discipline and Due Process . . .
Facilities . . . Personnel . . . Accounting
System and Auditor . . . Tri-Ethnic Com
mittee . . . Retention of jurisdiction: To
the end that a unitary school shall be
achieved by the DISD, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas
retains jurisdiction of this case)
4- 7-76 — Supplemental Opinion and Order
4-15-76 — Supplemental Order correcting clerical
errors in the student assignments made in
the Final Order per the attached Appen
dix . . . incorporated in and made a part of
the Final Order of April 7, 1976
4-20-76 — Notice of Appeal by Oak Cliff Branch and
the South Dallas Branch of the Dallas
N. A.A.C.P. from judgment entered April
7, 1976
4-20-76 — Supplemental Order sustaining Motion
of Plaintiffs to Alter or Amend (the judg
ment entered April 7, 1976 . . . ordered
that the . . . judgment, Sec. VI, subsec
tion 2 on page 11, be and hereby is amend
ed to read as follows: "2. English-as-a-
Second Language (ESL) programming
shall be expanded as rapidly as possible to
serve all students who are unable to ef-
9
fectively participate in traditional school
programming due to inability to speak and
understand the English language.
Emphasis shall be given to expanding ESL
programming in grades 7-8 and 9-12")
4-22-76 — Defendant DISD's Notice of Cross-
Appeal from April 7, 1976 Judgment
4-22-76 — Notice of Appeal by the John F. Kennedy
Branch of the Metropolitan Branch of
NAACP from the Student Assignment
Portion of the final judgment entered on
April 7, 1976
4-22-76 — Plaintiffs' Thelma Crouch, Ruth Jeffer
son, Bobbie Cobbins, Ludie Cobbin and
Richard Medrano Notice of Appeal from
Judgment entered April 7, 1976
4-23-76 — Interveners, Donald E. Curry, etal Notice
of Cross-Appeal from the Final Judgment-
Order entered April 7, 1976
4-26-76 — Notice of Cross Appeal by Plaintiffs Tasby
and Medrano from Student Assignment
Portions of Judgment entered April 7,
1976; in filing this notice of Cross Appeal
Ricardo Medrano withdraws his prior
Notice of Appeal filed on April 22, 1976.
(in forma pauperis)
4-30-76 — Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Costs
7-20-76 — Order that the DISD pay the following
named claimants the amounts set oppo
site their names: Sylvia M. Demarest (to
10
be paid to Dallas Legal Services $66,792;
Edward B. Cloutman III $32,514 . , . that
the motion of the DISD to set aside order
taxing costs against defendants and in
favor of plaintiffs is hereby denied
7- 20-76 — Memorandum Opinion
8- 9-76 — Transcript of Proceedings (6) (six vols)
held February 2, 1976. No exhibits
8- 9-76 — Transcript on Hearing on Motions held
September 16, 1975
8- 9-76 — Transcript on Hearing held December 18,
1975. No exhibits.
8-18-76 — Supplemental Order Changing Attend
ance Zones of James Madison High School
and Lincoln High School (. . . that the
Court's Final Order of April 7/ 1976, in
cluding Appendix A thereto, be and the
same is hereby changed, altered and
amended as follows: (a) Students in grades
9, 10, 11 and 12 residing in the Charles
Rice Elementary School attendance zone
are assigned to Lincoln High School and
(b) Students in grades 9,10, 11 and 12 re
siding in the Paul L. Dunbar Elementary
School attendance zone are assigned to
James Madison High School)
11- 1-76 — Transcript of Proceedings (3 vols) of Vol.
VII
11-15-76 — Transcript of Proceedings (3 vols) Vol.
VIII. No exhibits. (Held February 27,
1976)
11-19-76 — Transcript of Proceedings (3 vols of Vol.
IX). (No exhibits) Held March 3, 1976.
11
12
1- 5-77 — Transcript of Proceedings (Vol. X) held
March 5, 1976. No exhibits.
4-25-77 — Transcript of Proceedings of Hearing of
Defendants' Motion for Approval of Site
Acquisition, School Construction and
Facility Abandonment held February 24,
1977.
10-26-77 — Argument and Submission, United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
10-29-77 — Motion (of Curry, et al) to File Post Sub
mission Memorandum on the Issue of the
Law of the Case
4-21-78 — Opinion of the United States Court of Ap
peals for the Fifth Circuit in Nos. 76-1849,
77-1752 and 77-2335
4- 21-78 — judgments of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in each case
5- 5-78 — Petition for Rehearing (The Dallas Inde
pendent School District), United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
5- 5-78 — Petition for Rehearing En Banc of
Appellees-Cross Appellants Donald E.
Curry, Et Al, United States Court of Ap
peals for the Fifth Circuit
5-22-78 — United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit's Letter Advice to Counsel in
No. 76-1849 Denying Petition for Re
hearing and Rehearing En Banc
5-26-78 — Motion for Stay of Mandate (The Dallas
Independent School District), United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cir
cuit
8-14-78 — Order of the United States Court of Ap
peals for the Fifth Circuit denying motion
of appellees, Dallas Independent School
District, et al., for stay of mandate.
13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
EDDIE MITCHELL TASBY, et al.,
Plaintiffs
versus No. CA 3-4211-C
DR. NOLAN ESTES, et al.,
Defendants
Filed: Aug. 25, 1975
ORDER
On this the 25 day of August, 1975, came on to be
heard the motions of Dr. E. Thomas Strom, et al., and
of the Metropolitan Branches of the Dallas NAACP
that they be permitted to intervene in the above styled
matter and this Court having heard evidence and argu
ment of counsel is of the opinion that they should be
granted;
14
It is therefore ORDERED that Dr. E. Thomas Strom,
et al., and the Metropolitan Branches of the NAACP be
permitted to file their respective Pleas of Intervention
and become parties in this cause.
Isl W. M. TAYLOR, ]R.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
(Number and Title Omitted)
Filed: April 30, 1976
PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND CO STS
* *
[4] Finally, the plan adopted by the Court in its order
of March 10, 1976, together with Supplemental Opin
ion and Orders dated April 7, 1976 and April 15, 1976
adopt and/or incorporate almost every precept propos
ed by plaintiffs for student assignment and non
student assignment features of the remedy. The
DISD's contention that plaintiffs have not prevailed in
this litigation is simply constructed out of whole cloth.
* *
15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
(Number and Title Omitted)
Filed: Jul. 20, 1976
MEMORANDUM OPINION
* *
[3] The DISD suggests next that plaintiffs are not the
prevailing party in this litigation. The Court finds this
assertion untenable. Plaintiffs prevailed on the liability
issue when the Court held on July 16, 1971, that the
DISD was not operating a unitary school system. On
appeal to the Fifth Circuit from the Court's Order of
August 2, 1971, the United States Court of Appeals
sustained the plaintiffs' claims and rejected every con
tention of the DISD other than faculty assignment
ratios. Finally, the plan adopted by the Court on March
10, 1976, and Ordered to be implemented on April 7,
1976, and April 15, 1976, incorporated almost every
precept proposed by plaintiffs for both student assign
ment and non-student assignment remedies.
* *
16
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 76-1849
D. C. Docket No. CA3-4211-C
EDDIE MITCHELL TASBY and
PHILLIP WAYNE TASBY,
by their parent and next friend,
SAM TASBY, ET AL„
Plaintiff s-Appellants
Cross-Appellees,
METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF THE DALLAS
N.A.A.C.P.,
Plaintiffs-Intervenors
Appellants-Cross Appellees,
versus
DR. NOLAN ESTES, ET AL„
Defendants-Appellees
Cross Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
17
Before COLEMAN, TjOFLAT and FAY, Circuit
Judges.
Filed: Aug. 16, 1978
JUDGMENT
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of
the record from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, 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 in this cause be, and the same
is hereby, affirmed in part and reversed in part; and
that this cause be, and the same is hereby remanded to
the said District Court in accordance with the opinion
of this Court;
It is further ordered that defendants-appellees pay
the appellants' costs and appellants pay the costs of
appellee, Highland Park; all other parties are to bear
their own costs.
April 21, 1978
ISSUED AS MANDATE: AUG 15, 1978
18
A true copy
Test: EDWARD W. WADSWORTH
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Isl KIM B. DAVIS
Deputy
Aug. 15, 1978
New Orleans, Louisiana
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
(Number and Title Omitted)
Filed: Aug. 14, 1978
ORDER:
The motion of APPELLEES, DALLAS INDEPEN
DENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. for stay of the
issuance of the mandate pending petition for writ of
certiorari is DENIED.
Isl GERALD B. TJOFLAT
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT
JUDGE
19
Quotation of language prepared by Petitioners Brinegar, et al.
"Memorandum Order filed July 16, 1971, is
printed as Appendix A to Petitioners
Brinegar's Petition for Writ of Certiorari to
the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.
"Opinion of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dated April 21,
1978, is printed as Appendix C to the Petition
of Nolan Estes, et al's Petition for Writ of Cer
tiorari (pages 130a-146a)."
Quotation of language prepared by Petitioners Curry, et al.
"The opinions, orders and judgment of the
District Court are set forth in Appendix "B" to
the Petition for Certiorari of Nolan Estes, et
al. (pages 4a-129a) and are reported in part at
412 F.Supp. 1192. The opinion of the Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is set forth in
Appendix "C " to the Petition of Nolan Estes,
et al. (pages 130a-146a) and is reported at 572
F.2d 1010.
"The prior opinions, orders and judgment of
the District Court which are relevant to the
issues now presented are found at 342 F.Supp.
943 and consist of the following:
20
(a) Memorandum Opinion (July 16,
1971);
(b) Memorandum Opinion on Final
Desegregation Order (August 17,
1971);
(c) Supplemental Opinion Regarding
Partial Stay of Desegregation Order
(August 17, 1971)."
Quotation of language prepared by Respondents Tasby, et al.
"The opinion of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Tasby v. Estes, on
appeal from the July 16, 1971 orders of the
trial court, is found at 517 F.2d 92 (5th Cir.
1975)."
Quotation of language prepared by Respondents Tasby, et al.
"That a Petition for Writ of Certiorari was
filed by Petitioners Estes, et al., from the opin
ion of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit cited immediately above."
Quotation of language prepared by Respondents Tasby, et al.
That Certiorari was denied by the Supreme
Court of the United States in Estes, et al. v.
Tasby, et al., and such denial is found at 423 U.S.
939 (1975)."
21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
EDDIE MITCHELL TASBY, ET AL
versus No. CA-3-4211-C
DR. NOLAN ESTES, ET AL
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
VOLUME I
Filed: August 9, 1976
[60] DR. NOLAN ESTES,
one of the Defendants, being duly sworn, testified as
follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WH1THAM:
[62] Q Now, with respect to those figures then in
the intervening months between the August figures
and the [63] December figures you lost what percent of
your Anglo students?
A There was a loss of one percent in Anglo
students between the August enrollment figure date
and the December 1st date.
Q And with respect to the difference in student
percentages between the August and December dates
with respect to the black student population, what
change occurred?
A There was more than a one and a half of one per
cent increase in black population between August and
December.
Q And with respect to the Mexican-American pop
ulation, did it change?
A There was four-tenths increase between the
August and the December dates for Mexican-
Americans.
Q Now, Dr. Estes, is Defendant's Exhibit Number
10 a copy of the Board of Education's Plan submitted
pursuant to the Court's request?
A Yes, sir, it is.
Q And is Defendant's Exhibit Number 11 a copy of
the Board's Plan submitted to the Court pursuant to
the Court's request only reflecting the calculations bas
ed on the new student population figures we have dis
cussed?
A Yes, sir, it is.
[64] MR. WHITHAM:
Judge, for the record we will introduce in evidence or
offer in evidence Defendant's Exhibits 10 and 11.
THE COURT:
They are admitted.
2 2
Q Dr. Estes, again, directing your attention to
paragraph 1.2 of the Board's Plan.
A Yes.
MR. WHITHAM:
For the record, Judge, I would like to have it so I don't
search for the exhibit each time, can it be understood if
we now refer to the Board's Plan we are making ref
erence to Defendant's Exhibit Number 11 for point of
reference in the record?
THE COURT:
Yes.
Q Directing your attention again to the Board's
Plan, Dr. Estes, would you please look for the illustra
tion of the percentages for the first grade? Do you
remember where the first grade is located?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you have what percent of Anglo first
graders in the District?
A At the first grade level we have 36.7 percent
Anglos in the School District.
Q What percent of kindergarten students do you
have in the District that are Anglo?
[65] A 34.8 percent kindergarteners are Anglos.
* *
[66] Q By the time they reach the eleventh and
twelfth grades many times they have passed the com
pulsory [67] attendance age of going to school anyway?
A The largest dropout rate between the ninth and
eleventh grades is when students reach the compulsory
attendance age.
Q Now, in your mind, as an expert and adminis
trator of the Dallas Independent School District and
elsewhere have you been able to arrive in your staff at a
projection as to what the total enrollment by race
would be in the Dallas Independent School District in
the year 1980 based on your experience as a school ad
ministrator in Dallas?
A Yes, sir, we make annual projections.
Q What is the projection of the ethnic composition
of the Dallas Independent School District in 1980?
A Based on our projections which uses, of course,
enrollment for the past five years, as well as other fac
tors, we estimate that the percentage of Anglo enroll
ment in 1980 will be 26 percent of the total school pop
ulation as opposed, of course, to the 41 percent at the
present time.
Q All right. What will be your projected black
enrollment in 1980?
A Our black enrollment in 1980 will be 57 percent
as opposed to 44.5 percent at the present time.
Q What would be your projected Mexican-
American [68] enrollment in 1980?
A Based on our projection the Mexican-American
would represent 18 percent of our total enrollment in
1980 as opposed to 13.4 percent at the present time.
Q Dr. Estes, let us, before we go further with the
Plan, in order that the parties might know and the
Court, could you give me your experience as a school
24
man and school administrator since you became
employed in the school business and please begin with
your first employment in the school business and bring
me up-to-date.
A My first employment was in 1950, '49 and '50
when I joined the staff of the Bruni Independent School
District as a high school science and math teacher. I
moved from there into the Service, and after receiving
a master's degree at the University of Texas joined the
staff at Waco.
Q You have a master's degree in what, Dr. Estes?
A In school administration.
I was in the Waco Independent School District as an
elementary teacher and then later as a principal.
In 1959 I went to Chatanooga, Tennessee as the
assistant superintendent for instruction.
In 1962 I went to St. Louis County, Riverview Gar
dens, as superintendent of the schools.
* * * *
[7 1 ] Q Dr. Estes, I will hand you what has been
marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit
Number 13 and I will ask you if you can identify that as
an exhibit representing historical enrollment in the
Dallas Independent School District for the years given?
Can you identify that exhibit?
A Yes, sir.
MR. WHITHAM:
Your Honor, we will offer in evidence Defendant's
Exhibit Number 13.
25
26
THE COURT:
It's admitted.
Q Dr. Estes, please look at Defendant's Exhibit 13,
in order to help the Court and the parties perhaps
follow the calculations shown thereon, you have begun
with the school year '69-'70, have you not, and ended
with the school year 1975 as of October?
A Yes, sir.
Q That represents how many school years?
A That represents five school years.
Q Now, in making the calculations shown on the
exhibit I noticed that there has been a subtraction of
kindergarten students from each total figure shown,
do you see that?
A Yes, sir.
[76] Q And does Defendant's Exhibit Number 1 en
titled Racial Composition reflect the racial composition
on a map of the student population in the Dallas In
dependent School District as believed between black
and white students?
A Yes, sir.
Q With respect to the color code, the orange color
represents the location of black students in the year
1960?
A That's correct.
Q The yellow colored area on Defendant's Exhibit
Number 1 represents the location of white students in
1960?
27
A That is correct.
Q Now, that far back separate figures were not
kept with respect to Anglos as distinguished from
Mexican-American students, were they not?
A That's right.
Q Do you know of your own knowledge the ap
proximate composition of the Mexican-American stu
dent body in that year?
A The only difference in that map would be what
[77] we call Little Mexico or Short North Dallas around
the Travis Elementary School and one section around
Juarez and Douglass in West Dallas.
Q To that extent, the Mexican-American popula
tion would be shown in the yellow area on the map?
A That's correct.
MR. WHITHAM:
Am I free to move up here, Your Honor?
THE COURT:
Oh yes, sure.
Q Did I also ask you, Dr. Estes, to cause to be
prepared that would reflect the current residential
patterns of the students within the Dallas Independent
School District?
A Yes, sir.
Q And is that shown on Defendant's Exhibit
Number 2?
A It is.
Q And by students, we're talking about those
enrolled in the school, not those of school age who
might reside within the Dallas Independent School Dis
trict?
A That's right.
Q Now, with respect to the color codes shown on
Defendant's Exhibit Number 2, what student body
population is reflected by the area in yellow?
A The only remaining predominantly white [78]
population.
Q What student body population is reflected in the
area colored pink?
A That is a naturally integrated area representing
minority and Anglo.
Q And what is the student body population
reflected in the dark orange color shown on Defen
dant's Exhibit 2?
A The dark orange represents predominantly
Mexican-American or black enrollment.
Q Now, when we get to parts of further explana
tion of the School District's Plan and we happen to
refer to those parts of the Plan and I believe it's part
three on the integrated map, if I follow my index cor
rectly. We have referenced generally to the area shown
in pink on Defendant's Exhibit 2, is that correct?
A That is correct. I believe it's area four, the
naturally integrated areas.
Q The naturally integrated areas, I'm sorry.
In further testimony you give with respect to the
School District's Plan, when we talk about the pairing
and clustering of the remaining Anglo students or the
predominantly Anglo areas with certain minority
areas, what area or color code on the map has ref
erence to the location of those Anglo students?
28
29
[79] A Two areas, the remaining white population
is reflected by the yellow colored area —
Q Let me stop you right there. Then in that part of
the School District's Plan pairing the predominantly
Anglo area, this map and its yellow area shows the loca
tion of those Anglo students?
A Yes, that's right.
Q When there is a pairing of the Anglo students
under the Board's Plan with certain minority areas of
the School District, those minority areas paired with
the yellow area are found in various locations within
the dark orange area, is that correct?
A Yes. You skip over the naturally integrated areas
to the orange areas.
Q All right. So that when you pair the remaining
Anglos with certain minorities you have in effect pair
ed students who are Anglo in the yellow area with cer
tain minority students in the —
A Predominantly minority area.
Q — predominantly minority areas shown in dark
orange and you've skipped over the naturally in
tegrated area shown in pink that lies between them —
A That's correct.
Q — is that correct?
Now, when we get to that part of the [80] School Dis
trict's Plan dealing with those minority schools that
will remain one race schools, those remaining one race
schools will be found in varying parts of the color code
orange on Defendant's Exhibit Number 2, is that cor
rect?
30
A That's correct.
Q Did I ask you to cause to be prepared a map —
THE COURT:
Let me ask a question with reference to — Dr. Estes,
to Exhibit Number 1, Map Number 1: Do you have the
census figures for that year nineteen —
THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir, we have the scholastic census for that year.
THE COURT:
Do you know approximately what it is?
THE WITNESS:
No. Offhand I don't have that information. We can
get that, however.
THE COURT:
All right, go ahead.
Q Did I ask you to cause to be prepared a map that
would reflect the growth for a three-year period
broken down by 1960, 1965 and 1970 of the growing
black scholastic population within the Dallas Indepen
dent School District?
A Yes, sir.
Q Then did I ask you also to cause to be made on
[81] that same map a showing, graphically, of areas to
day that in 1965 were composed of at least twenty-five
percent black students?
31
A Yes, sir.
Q And did I also ask you to show on that map the
areas in 1975 that are at least twenty-five percent
Mexican-American in the Dallas Independent School
District's scholastic population?
A Yes, sir.
Q And did I also ask you to show on that map the
area that the School District finds to be at least twenty-
five percent minority combined, that is twenty-five
percent of either black or Mexican-American or both?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, with respect — is all of that reflected on
Defendant's Exhibit Number 3?
A Yes, sir, it is.
Q Now, in using the figures we there talk about —
again, we are talking about students attending the
Dallas Independent School District, not total eligible
scholastics by reason of age or the right to attend
school.
A That's correct.
Q Now, with respect to the black population on
Defendant's Exhibit Number 3, those areas shown as
green [82] on Defendant's Exhibit Number 3 represent
the location of the black population in 1960, is that cor
rect?
A Yes, sir, that's right.
* *
[85] MR. WHITHAM:
This is known as the John Field attendance area,
should you need to know that.
And which particular schools are served —
THE WITNESS:
That would be the John Ireland-Hawthorne area.
Q (Continuing by Mr. Whitham) So by looking at
this map you can show growth patterns of minority
areas as shown on Defendant's Exhibit 3 as they now
might be reflected in total color schemes on Defen
dant's Exhibit Number 2?
A That's correct.
MR. WHITHAM:
We offer in evidence Defendant's Exhibits 1, 2 and 3,
Your Honor.
THE COURT:
They're admitted.
MR. WHITHAM:
Your Honor, if I failed to do so, I offer in evidence
Defendant's Exhibit 13, the historical enrollment
pattern. Mr. Cloutman was kind enough to tell me I had
not offered that.
THE COURT:
All right. I thought it was admitted, but it is admitted
again if —
32
Q Now, Dr. Estes, with your testimony today
together with the historical enrollment patterns of the
School District, Exhibit 13 together with the maps,
Plaintiff's Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 (sic) that will contain the
evidence of the change in ethnic patterns within the
[86] Dallas Independent School District showing the
matter with which we are concerned?
A Yes, sir, over the past fifteen years.
33
* * * *
[103] Q And all that anyone would need to do is take
[104] the material compiled in the Board's Plan and
compare the numbers on Defendant's Exhibit 5 and
they would be able to tell what students from what
schools are to go to school together under the Board s
Plan?
A That's correct.
MR. WHITHAM:
Does the Court have any question about the num
bering system or the assignments?
THE COURT:
No.
Q Now, with respect to fourth and fifth graders in
the naturally integrated area, the yellow hatched area,
those students continue to attend their neighborhood
schools, do they not —
A Yes, sir.
Q — under the Board's Plan?
A Under the Board's Plan they would continue to
go to their neighborhood school as they do now.
Q So the Board s Plan does not contemplate
transporting children or reassigning them if they are
within the yellow hatched or naturally integrated area?
A Yes, the Board's Plan doesn't disturb any of the
naturally integrated areas in the city.
Q Therefore, if a child attends school in what is a
pink area on Defendant's Exhibit 2, that child is not in
volved in further transportation and the concept of the
neighborhood school is preserved in those parts [105]
of the School District colored in pink?
A Yes, sir, because they're already integrated.
Q All right —
THE COURT:
Then the neighborhood school concept is preserved
in grades K through 5?
THE WITNESS:
Through six.
THE COURT:
Six.
THE WITNESS:
Or seventh in some instances.
THE COURT:
I see.
MR. WHITE!AM:
If the Court will look in the School Board's Plan of
the integrated neighborhoods of part four, Your
3 4
Honor, you will see that some of those buildings
currently serve even K-7.
THE COURT:
I see.
MR. WHITHAM:
In that grade configuration, whatever it is, con
tinuous.
THE COURT:
I see.
MR. WHITHAM:
If that answers that question.
THE COURT:
I see.
Q Now, with respect to fourth and fifth graders in
the part of the Board's Plan known as part seven
described as a certain part of the predominantly
minority parts of the School District, you have ref
erence to an area shown on Defendant's Exhibit 5 and 6
that is green hatched and brown hatched, is that cor
rect?
[106] A Yes, sir, that's correct.
35
[218] CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLOUTMAN:
36
★ * *
[278] Q So you have thirty-two hundred and fifty
minority students you anticipate will be integrated on
what basically is a voluntary basis next year?
[279] A In the initial implementation of the Plan.
Q And you expect that to increase to ten thousand?
A We would expect that to increase considerably
over the next three years; as much as ten thousand,
yes.
Q So by my rough subtraction that leaves you with
roughly forty thousand minority students not involved
in any integrated atmosphere?
A That would be close to correct.
MR. CLOUTMAN:
Excuse me, Your Honor, one second.
THE COURT:
Okay.
Q (By Mr. Cloutman) Doctor, just for my own pur
poses and for comparison, can you or do you know the
Dallas Independent School District's ethnicity by pop
ulation as opposed to student enrollment?
A I don't. I'm assuming it's about twenty-five or
thirty percent black, ten to fifteen percent Chicano and
the remainder Anglo.
Q Would you estimate it would approximate the
population breakdown by ethnicity of the City of
Dallas?
A That's right.
MR. CLOUTMAN:
Thank you. I don't think we have any further
questions at this time, Your Honor.
37
* *
[399] RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITHAM:
* *
[404] Q Now, the Dallas Independent School Dis
trict from the maps in evidence appears to be some
thing less than a rectangle. Do you have any idea of its
dimensions from its furtherest northernmost point to
its furtherest [405] southernmost point?
A It goes to the County line in the north and all the
way to the County line in the southeast or ap
proximately there and this distance is approximately
thirty-five miles from the northwest to the south
eastern part of the district.
Q And do you know approximately how far it is
from what's called the southwest quadrant in Oak Cliff
just below Hulcy junior High School to the northern
most point near the Dallas County line?
A Yes, that's about twenty-five miles.
Q Do you know the approximately total square
miles in the Dallas Independent School District?
A Yes, sir. We occupy three hundred fifty-one
square miles within the nine hundred square mile
County.
Q Now, you do not have an actual population cen
sus of just the Dallas Independent School District, do
you?
A No, we do not.
Q Do you know the approximate population of the
City of Dallas as a total?
A As I remember, eight to nine hundred thousand
is the population of the City of Dallas.
Q And of that total do you know what percent you
serve as to that part of the Dallas Independent [406]
School District lying within the City of Dallas?
A I would estimate we serve eighty percent of the
students living in the City of Dallas and in our school
district.
Q The boundaries of the City of Dallas and the
Dallas Independent School District are not conter
minous are they?
A Unfortunately they are not conterminous.
Q Please turn to Defendants' Exhibit Number 12, if
you would, to page 1 and let's be sure we are together as
to certain confusion about the number of so-called one
race schools that will remain under the board's plan.
A All right.
Q As I look at page 2 of Defendants' Exhibit
Number 12 under the third column predominantly
38
minority schools, I see that there are forty-two atten
dance zones that will remain predominantly one race.
A That's correct.
Q Do you see that figure?
A Yes, sir.
Q We are agreed there will be forty-two atten
dance zones that remain one race under the board's
plan, is that correct?
A Correct.
39
* *
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
VOLUME II
(Number and Title Omitted)
Filed: August 9, 1976
■ k it
[2] KATHLYN GILLIAM,
called as a witness in behalf of the Plaintiffs, being duly
sworn, testified as follows:
[49] CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITHAM:
40
* * ★ ★
[54] Q You were just trying to give the Judge your
experiences, not the experiences of the Tri-ethnic
Committee?
A Correct.
Q Now, how many times have you run for the
board of education of the Dallas Independent School
District?
A I ran twice, once unsuccessfully.
Q And then following the establishment of single
member trustee districts you were elected, were you
not?
A Exactly.
Q And you have had for some time an interest and
concern for education in Dallas for its children, is that
correct?
A That's been my life's work as an adult.
Q And you have sought to carry out that work as a
member of the board of trustees, have you not?
A Correct.
Q And when you would seek the office of trustee in
elections, would you make it known to voters your con
cerns about education in the Dallas Independent School
District?
A Correct.
4 1
[57] Q Would like any of your rights to be a policy
[58] maker for the Dallas Independent School District
taken away from you?
A I would not, not only my rights as a board
member but any of my rights, my rights as a citizen.
Q Your rights as a board member?
A Yes.
Q You don't want anyone to take those away from
you, do you?
A Correct.
Q No one, is that correct?
A That's correct, I do not want my rights as a board
member or any other rights taken away from me.
Q You want to exercise fully your rights as a
trustee of the Dallas Independent School District?
A Right.
Q And are you satisfied that you will continue to
exercise your policy making obligations on the Dallas
Independent School District as your good conscience
dictates?
A Yes.
Q How is the board now composed racially? Could
you describe the racial composition of the board?
A Two blacks, one Mexican-American and six
Anglos.
Q Now, do you actively speak up when board [59]
policy is under consideration on behalf of black citizens
within the Dallas Independent School District?
A Not only do I speak up on behalf of black citizens
in the DISD, I speak up in terms of what I think is just
and fair and right.
Q All right. Who is the other black member of the
board?
A Dr. Emmett Conrad.
Q Does Dr. Emmett Conrad also speak up for the
black patrons of the DISD?
A Yes, and others, too.
Q Others, too?
A Yes.
Q Who is the Mexican-American member?
A Roberto Medrano.
Q Does he speak for the Mexican-American
patrons of the Dallas Independent School District?
A And others.
Q And others?
A Yes.
Q Do the white members of the board of education
speak up for their constituents and patrons of the
Dallas Independent School District?
A And others.
Q And others?
[60] A Yes.
Q On the board of education at this time there is a
good bit of give and take to resolve the issues of the day,
is there not?
A Quite a bit of conversation.
Q That s right. Now, not all views that any one
trustee ever advances at any given point always carries
the day, does it?
A 1 hat's the idea of democracy.
Q You win some and you lose some?
A Yes.
4 2
4 3
Q Right.
A Yes.
Q Now, to the extent that you win some and you
lose some that's how public bodies' policy making
decisions ultimately get carried out, is it not?
A That's correct.
Q In your judgment do you feel that you are as ac
tive and ardent a spokesman for the black position in
Dallas as anyone you can conceive at this time?
A Well, I would not like to compare myself to
anybody else.
Q Do you feel that you're an effective spokesman
for the black patrons of the Dallas Independent School
District?
[61] A I feel that I do my best.
* * k *
[257] JOSE A. CARDENAS,
the witness having been duly sworn by the Court,
testified on his oath as follows:
* * k
[326] CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. MARTIN:
44
[333] THE WITNESS:
Counselor asked the question in deposition, would
fifty percent constitute a significant proportion? He is
interpreting my answer, which was " y e s ” , to mean that
fifty percent of the people in Dallas are satisfied, or the
minority people or the Mexican American people in
Dallas, or the ones l talked to are dissatisfied with the
School and fifty percent were not. No question was
asked that I can remember, and certainly not the one
that he has read on three occasions, what was the num
ber of people or the proportion of the people that were
satisfied and dissatisfied? The question was, would fif
ty percent of the people be statistically [334]
significant? And my answer was, yes. Now, he is inter
preting this to mean that I said fifty percent of the peo
ple were satisfied and fifty percent of the people were
dissatisfied and I will not admit to this, sir. Because in
what he has read, anyway, I did not make any state
ment as to the percentage of people dissatisfied and
satisfied. It was a question as to whether fifty percent
would be statistically significant.
MR. MARTIN:
We'll offer in evidence, Your Honor, pages 31, 32,
and 33. And to save time, I won't read them at this time,
but may they be considered to be a part of the record?
THE COURT:
Yes, they will.
Q (By Mr. Martin) Doctor, do you have any dif
ficulty in separating your own ethnicity from your
professional judgments and opinions?
A I would imagine so, sir. I think that any person is
completely schizophrenic who can separate one aspect
of his personality —
Q It would be a hard thing to do; is that right, sir?
A Yes sir.
Q Now, as I understand you here in your testimony
here this morning, based on your interviews of the
patrons, [335] based on your interviews of the School
District personnel, based on your visit to two schools —
two or three, and based on your examination of these
documents that have been discussed here you found
that the Bilingual Program here is relatively in
novative, with many desirable traits and accomplishing
desirable results; is that correct?
A Yes sir.
Q Were you a little surprised to find that?
A No sir.
Q When you consider what you have thought of
such programs and the dealing with the uniqueness of
minority students by school people, what you have
thought of that in the past, does what you found here
seem a little inconsistent with your previous
judgments about that matter in general?
A No sir.
Q Dr. Cardenas, I will refer you to — you are the
same Dr. Cardenas that submitted an education plan
for the Denver Public Schools that was filed in the Keys
case?
46
A Yes sir.
Q May I refer you to some statements in that
report prepared by you? On page 6 of it — I'll show you
any of these if you can't recall what you said — you said:
The dismal failure of our schools in the education of
minority children can be attributed to the inadequacy
of the [336] instructional programs.
Do you still believe that?
A Yes sir.
Q And at another place in your proposal, you had
this to say: That the incompatability between minority
children and most school systems can be summarized in
three generalizations: One, most school personnel
know nothing about the cultural characteristics of the
minority school population.
Right, so far?
A Yes sir.
Q Two, that few school personnel who are aware
of these cultural characteristics seldom do anything
about it.
Do you recall that and that was your opinion?
A Yes sir.
Q Number three, on those rare occasions when the
school does attempt to do something concerning the
culture of minority groups, it always does the wrong
thing.
Do you still believe that?
A Yes sir.
Q Do you think we're doing the wrong thing here
in Dallas?
A I think you're doing some things right in Dallas. I
don't think it's universal and applicable to all of the
minority population in Dallas.
[337] Q And you came to Dallas to make this in
vestigation with these things in mind: You thought
that school personnel — the few school personnel who
are aware of these cultural characteristics seldom do
anything about it and that on those rare occasions
when they do attempt to do something, they always do
the wrong thing; you thought that when you came to
Dallas?
A Yes sir.
Q And you weren't surprised when you found a
pretty good program here?
A I wasn't surprised when I found some elements
of a good program here, no sir.
Q Your main criticism, as I understand you, is there
is just not enough of it? What you saw is good, but
there's not enough of it; is that right?
A It's not involving enough kids, there's not
enough of it.
THE COURT:
I didn't get your answer.
THE WITNESS:
It is not involving enough children and it is not exten
sive enough.
Q (By Mr. Martin) What there is of it is good?
A Yes sir.
Q Now, you spoke of the underachievement or
under-performance —
47
48
MR. MARTIN:
Just a few more minutes, Judge.
[338] Q (By Mr. Martin) — the underachievement
or underperformance of minority children in Dallas.
A Yes sir.
Q Now, in making that judgment about under
achievement and underperformance, I would like to
ask, compared to what?
A To the white Anglo population of the Dallas In
dependent School District.
Q Now, can you tell me this —
A And to national norms.
Q And to national norms, that's what I wanted to
ask you about.
Do you believe that the minority children in the
Dallas School District, that the performance of minori
ty children in the Dallas School District is on a par with
the performance of minority children on a national
basis?
A Yes sir.
Q Yes sir.
You spoke a few minutes ago about dropouts and the
reason for dropouts. Certainly the kind of programs in
the schools doesn't serve as the only reason for drop
outs, does it?
A Sir?
Q The kinds of programs that schools offer, that is
not the sole reason for dropouts?
A No sir.
* *
4 9
[340] Q Yes sir.
A But school has a lot to do with it.
Q Does home have something to do with it?
A Both home and school have something to do with
it.
Q The problems attendant to arriving at school,
the sheer getting there, does that have something to do
with whether a child drops out of school?
A Yes sir.
Q Does the fact that a child feels uncomfortable in
a given student body have anything to do with whether
he might drop out or not?
A Yes sir.
Q Does his problems with law enforcement have
anything to do with whether he might drop out of
school?
A It may.
Q Does his desire to go to work at a particular job
he has in view have anything to do with whether a child
drops out of school?
A It may.
Q Yes sir.
To sum up, Dr. Cardenas, then we're agreed that
what's being done here is good but you're saying
there's just not enough of it; is that the substance of it ?
A Yes sir.
MR. MARTIN:
Thank you, sir.
* ★
50
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
VOLUME III
(Number and Title Omitted)
Filed: August 9, 1976
[2] CHARLES V. WILLIE,
called as a witness in behalf of the Plaintiffs, being duly
sworn, testified as follows:
•k
[126] CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. MOW:
* * * *
[134] Q What transportation patterns did you con
sider?
A I did not consider transportation particularly. I
considered them in general and the general considera
tion is that transportation is an essential component of
urbanization. People drive long distances to work, they
drive long distances to worship. They drive long dis
tances for recreation. Therefore, I could not see any
reason why traveling would be contraindicative for
getting a quality education.
5 1
Q Did you consider how the roads are laid out
within Dallas and how much time it takes to get from
one part of town to another?
A In my driving around the city I did make obser
vations on the road systems in Dallas in which I found
to be exceedingly good compared with the road system
in Boston.
Q Did you make any time studies as to how long it
would take to get from certain areas of the city to cer
tain other areas?
A Yes, I made time studies of how long it would
take to go from the tip end of North Dallas to Oak Cliff
and I found that to be an exceedingly long distance. But,
I don't think that the School Districts have to be laid out
that way.
* *
[148] CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. DONOHOE:
* *
[151] Q That's all I was trying to get at.
A Yes.
Q All right. Now, Dr. Willie, also in the course of
your testimony you talked about a learning experience
or learning experiences and life experiences. I take it
that you would agree that it is a useful learning ex
perience for middle-class, or if I can use it, I think it's a
sociologist term, the higher socioeconomic people
would have the experience of going to school and living
with people in the lower socioeconomic groups, is that a
correct statement?
A The correct statement would be that people in
any class level ought to experience all sorts and con
ditions of people which characterize the metropolitan
area in which they reside.
Q So that works both ways is what you're saying?
A That's right, it works both ways.
Q You also in the course — well, let me finish it.
You would agree then it is — assuming a substantial
middle-class, if you will, disregard whether they are
black or white or Mexican-American, it would be useful
for these people, all people to experience each other's
experiences in the course of their educational career
and that would mean that middle-class people, middle-
class experience would be useful to lower socio
economic [152] class people, is that correct, regardless
of race?
A That's correct and vice versa.
Q All right. Let me ask another question on it. I
wasn't clear on this. In your testimony were you
proposing that assuming whites were to leave the sys
tem, I gather it was your testimony that that should not
be or that no attention should be paid to that in terms of
the desegregation plan, the concept or phenomenon of
white flight or out migration of whites should be dis
regarded?
A My position was that where people live is within
the realm of private behavior and is not a matter before
the Court.
52
Q Ail right. And I believe you distinguished, if 1 un
derstood you correctly, two forms of private decisions,
one would be out migration that would be physically
moving and another would be just a decision to go to a
private institution?
A That would be in the realm of private decisions.
Q All right. Now, if that phenomenon were to oc
cur after a Court-ordered plan based on certain percen
tages of blacks, whites and Mexican-Americans and
there should be a severe reduction of the white popula
tion, just assume with me for a moment, would it be
your view that at a subsequent time the plan should be
[153] redrawn so as to create this mix of populations?
A That's a conjecture I cannot respond to because
other possibilities are also there, that whites will move
back to the city.
Q Well, assume they didn't.
A I can't answer that question on the basis of that
assumption.
Q But you're not in a position to testify that you
would continually revise the plan at some later date
based on the out migration of blacks, Mexican-
Americans and whites?
A That's a conjecture that I can't answer. I have no
idea what the actual facts might be.
Q So a change in percentage in the proportionate
mix of a school population would not be something that
would be looked at in that monitoring system that you
were talking about in terms of revising the plan?
A It could be a responsibility that the Court would
ask the monitoring system to take into consideration.
5 3
Q In an effort to make sure that all children ex
perience this we could conceivably find a redrawing of
districts at some future time on some reasonable basis?
A Well, the reason why I have difficulty answering
[154] is a basic philosophical answer but I think it's
helpful because eventually the categories which are
now the subject of the suit may become irrelevant, that
is race and ethnicity could eventually become an irrele
vant category.
Q Because the school becomes a unitary school
system?
A Because the school becomes a unitary school
system, the population becomes unitary and these
categories would no longer be significant categories.
That is a possibility.
Q For example, the white population might be
reduced to fifteen percent and it would no longer be
significant?
A No. The point I am making is being white, being
Anglo may essentially become a nonsignificant char
acteristic of a human being.
Q Now, changing the line of thought, I think I un
derstand, Dr. Willie, in the drafting of a desegregation
plan do you believe that the Court should take into con
sideration such elements as the concept of the city and
its planners in dealing with given areas of the city,
should that be in any way relevant to the preparation of
a desegregation plan?
A Partially.
[155] Q All right. Now, 1 think you anticipate me, in
the area of the city that I am concerned with there is a
54
serious effort, and this is not in evidence, but assume
with me for the moment that there is a serious effort
being made by the city with the support of the City
Council and with the support, l believe, of most leaders
of communities of all races to reverse or somehow han
dle the problem of what sometimes is called "urban
blight", aging of neighborhoods and so forth. Would
that in any way affect your thinking about how to set
up a desegregation plan? Would that activity in any
way affect your thinking?
A It would depend upon whether or not that activi
ty interfered with the constitutional requirement for
operating a unitary school system.
Q You would, of course, put a limitation on the law
is what you're saying, but let's suppose for a second
that the people — well, do you agree with me that the
school system is a community? I believe the sociologists
say that it is the system that reflects the attitude of the
people, where they decide to live in given areas such as
the police department and road systems and similar
type of systems, would you agree with me?
A Yes, the school system is an institution which
[156] is sanctioned by the community to fulfil! com
munity goals.
Q Now, suppose that the decision is made by the
city planners that the retainage of middle-class people
in a given area with the skills they have in government
and all kinds of skills is a benefit to making a multi
racial multiclass socioeconomic status area, would you
disagree with that as a city planning concept?
A I would not disagree with that so long as that
55
5 6
decision did not encroach upon the rights and
prerogatives of people who are not middle-class.
Q I understand. You would also agree that the
retainage of some middle-class participation because of
their skills they could lend in turn to other groups and
of course the other groups contribute to the middle-
class, we understand that would be a valid planning
goal for the City Planning Department trying to
reverse deterioration of a neighborhood.
A My basic belief is that a valid city planning goal is
to have diversified communities consisting of a range
of social classes and range of races and range of age
categories.
Q Now, if an expert in this area were to say that he
needed to provide — he needed to assure that the
middle-class people do not leave the area if he could you
would not, in order to keep their skills in [157] the area,
this would not be something that you would object to,
leaving aside the constitutional question, is that cor
rect?
A To the extent the middle-class people would con
tribute to the diversity which is the overriding goal I
would not object to it.
Q Maybe I could put it in simple terms. Desegrega
tion through changes in housing patterns is a desirable
goal?
A That's a different question than the earlier one.
Q Yes, it is. Okay, let's go back to the one I raised in
talking about reversing the problem of neighborhood
deterioration. You would agree, I assume, that
desegregation or integration of the area with racial
balance would be a desirable planning goal?
A Desegregation of the schools would be a
desirable planning goal.
Q And also of the housing patterns?
A Maintaining diversity within the residential
community is a goal or desirable planning goal that are
designed and are interconnected but one is not
necessarily subassumed under the other.
Q In drafting or drawing a desegregation plan the
drafters could take into consideration the desires [158]
of the city, the planning goals of the city in drawing this
plan, could they not?
A I should think they could and vice versa.
Q Dr. Willie, there was one more line of questions.
Would you agree that there are professionals that dis
agree with some of your concepts about the handling of
or drawing of plans?
A I have not seen any in print, any statement about
the drawing of school desegregation plans that dis
agree with the guidelines I set forth here yesterday.
Q All right. Now, would you agree that there could
be some difference of opinion among professionals, ob
jective professionals of the interpretation of those
guidelines?
A Yes, that's always a possibility.
Q So you would not take the position that all of the
interpretations you have given in your testimony are
the only ones that would be presented by experts or
professionals?
A No, there are experts probably that might give
different interpretations.
Q It wouldn't surprise you if in these proceedings
57
there are experts that might have some different inter
pretation?
A It would surprise me if other experts have [159]
other interpretations about how to go about drawing a
desegregation plan to achieve a unitary school system.
Q Well, let me ask you, you said yesterday that you
had done a study of out migration of whites from cen
tral cities. I believe you testified that the effect of a
desegregation plan or student assignment plan had no
bearing on this or did you testify that student assign
ment was not a factor in out migration?
A I testified that student assignment — the amount
of out migration that would be attributed to a school
desegregation plan was modest and accounted for less
than one-half.
Q My point is that you even agree, do you not, that
some out migration may be caused by the fact of a stu
dent assignment plan?
A Yes, sir.
Q You also agree, I take it, that some decisions to
enter private institutions, which is not necessarily an
out migration phenomenon, may occur as a result of a
student assignment plan?
A Yes.
Q All right. And would you agree, sir, that the
proximity of other school districts to the existing dis
trict might have some bearing on this out migration? If
you like, turn and look at the map.
[160] A No, I was smiling because what is not an
issue in the Court is what might happen to people who
eventually realize the benefits and effects from living
in a diversified community. I cannot predict.
58
Q I was making the point that the close proximity
of other districts could have an influence on the
decisions.
A To the extent that people in the city begin to
realize living in a suburban homogeneous white area is
a deficient district.
Q This could be an influence upon their decision,
isn't that correct?
A I wouldn't wish to offer a judgment on how we
might perceive that deficiency with that kind of
homogeneous living.
MR. DONOHOE:
Pass the witness.
* * * *
5 9
[191] YVONNE EWELL,
called as a witness in behalf of the Plaintiffs, being duly
sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. DEMAREST:
k k k
[192] Q Could you briefly describe to the Court the
positions that you have held? First of all, how long have
you been employed in the Dallas Independent School
District and what positions have you held?
A I am in my twenty-first year as an employee of
the Dallas Independent School District coming here in
1954. I served as an elementary teacher, secondary
[193] teacher and elementary school principal and
elementary consultant and coordinator for the
curriculum development, coordinator for the black
studies, coordinator for the ethnic studies, affirmative
action and secondary reading.
Q And that covers a period of some twenty-one
years?
A Twenty-one years.
Q Would you please describe for the Court your
present position and your job duties in that position?
A My responsibilities as Deputy Superintendent
for Instructional Services involve many different kinds
of things. Firstly, I have the responsibility of coor
dinating the staff development activities for all of the
supervisory personnel in the Dallas Independent
School District. I have the responsibility for coor
dinating the textbook adoption process. I have the
responsibility for coordinating the reading effort that
we are now approaching in the District and many other
kinds of activities as Assistant Superintendent for
Curriculum and Instruction in the District.
Q All right. Now, Plaintiff's Exhibit 15 which you
have produced for the Court pursuant to subpoena is
labeled A Study of Racial Bias in Social Studies Textbooks, is
that correct?
A That's correct.
[194] Q Would you please explain to the Court how
this study came about and the extent of your participa
tion in that study?
6 0
61
A This study came about in 1971 or '72 when the
American Jewish Committee was convening study
groups all over the United States and Dallas was among
those cities that decided that it wanted to examine text
books currently in use in the school system. A request
was made through Dr. Benson and Dr. Estes for me to
participate as the official representative of the School
District. I did that. We worked the years of '71, 2, 3 .1 did
not finish the work. The committee was reconstituted
in '73-74 and we presented the report to the School
Board in the early spring of '74.
Q Could you please explain to the Court the nature
of your participation in that study?
A My participation essentially involved present
ing to the people involved in the study, there were
some fourteen of us lay persons, Protestants,
Catholics, Jews, black, white, certain kinds of materials
that would raise the consciousness of the people
regarding the nature of racism in textual materials and
textbooks. In particular give them tools, analytical tools
for looking at those materials. And then I did define
supplementary materials that would make up for the
[195] deficiencies that we find in the materials.
* ■k
[202] Q Were those the major conclusions that your
study group reached?
A 1 would say that they were.
Q Were there any other conclusions that your
group reached that you have not yet shared with the
Court?
A Not to my memory at this point.
Q All right. Did your study group make any
recommendations to the Dallas Independent School
District in terms of remedying any of the problems or
deficiencies which were found in the textbooks that are
currently being used?
A Yes, following a meeting of the Research and
Evaluation Committee and after approval by the Board
we have done some things to remedy the situation we
find. We have had conferences, of course, with the top
administrators in the District, specifically those people
in Staff Development, the Director of Personnel, a
leader in secondary education and the Affirmative Ac
tion office.
We are presently developing a media presentation
for training teachers and staff. That presentation will
go beyond social studies to include [203] English,
language arts curriculum, science and music and other
curriculum areas where the same kinds of deficits
appear.
We utilize this material to some extent in training
student teachers from North Texas State University
since Dr. Richard Simms, a professor of North Texas,
did participate in the study.
Weve had meetings with community groups in order
to involve them in understanding the nature of bias in
the materials and therefore we ourselves then continue
to teach that bias.
We have established further criteria to establish the
62
validity of the textbooks that we are now adopting in
the Dallas Independent School District. About a month
ago I conducted a training session involving principals,
teachers, parents and students of about two hundred.
An article based on our study has appeared in Phi
Delta Cappa, a national publication.
We are planning a spring conference involving a ma
jor publishing company so they themselves are con
scious of the needs to change.
One of the books that we examined, one of the com
panies has already asked for our study and is therefore
making those changes based upon the study.
[204] We have submitted the report to the State
Board of Education and to the Commission of Educa
tion.
I think those are some of the most significant things
that we have done since the study has been completed.
Q You mentioned something about the same kind
of deficits may appear in other curriculum areas.
A Uh-huh.
Q What did you have reference to by that
statement?
A Well, I indicated that we focused on social studies
materials which we analyzed those books, specifically
page by page and identified the kinds of problems
which we found. We classified those as co-missions,
meaning that there are basic distortions or inaccuracies
and omissions. We did not do that for the other kinds of
books. For instance, the English books, although we do
know if we had the time, we need to do the same thing
and I am suggesting that the media presentation will
63
6 4
begin to address the kinds of deficiencies found in other
materials.
Q In terms of the effect of this study on the use of
the textbooks that were specifically examined by your
committee, can you tell the Court whether or not these
books are still in use?
[205] A The books are still in use in the District.
[206] Q All right. One final question, Mrs. Ewell,
you stated or I'm not sure if you stated that all of the
textbooks that your committee examined are still in
use, are they all still in use?
A They are all in use. If I might add to my
testimony, I was on the Textbook Committee when we
selected these books and there were no other books any
better than these. We have no textbooks available that
are nonracist so we need to examine any books that we
use.
MS. DEMAREST:
We will pass the witness, Your Honor.
MR. WHITHAM:
I know these are difficult cases to organize, Your
Honor, and I would simply state that Counsel for the
Defendants have not had an opportunity to know that
Plaintiff's Exhibit 15 would be introduced. We had ask
ed counsel for the Plaintiffs earlier to provide us with a
list of those witnesses, who would be testifying as
alleged experts and a summary of what they would
testify to and introduce. And Mrs. Ewell's testimony
was omitted from that outline. I simply make that
known to the Court so the Court will know we have
not had an opportunity to know the nature of Mrs.
Ewell's testimony by reason of the discovery process.
65
* *
[208] CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITHAM:
•k it k k
[213] Q If a school district elects not to use any of
those books, there is no Texas book authorized by law
in Texas?
A That is correct.
Q Now, then, did your study then — you then
began to describe the method of study, as I understand
it, and you wanted to study racial bias in just the social
science books for the fifth, sixth and eighth grades pur
suant to the request of the Dallas Chapter of the
American Jewish Committee, is that right?
A That is correct.
Q And it was limited to that area in the study, is
that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Now, at the time the study was requested by the
Dallas Chapter of the American Jewish Committee,
what was your role in 1971 with the Dallas Indepen
dent School District?
A In 19711 was working with ethnic studies in the
Dallas Independent School District.
Q So it was a part of your responsibility to be
reporting to the Superintendent at that time con
cerning the matter of, perhaps, ethnic bias in text
books at that time?
A That's right.
[214] Q Had you been given that charge by the
Superintendent as part of your duties to report on
ethnic bias in textbooks prior to the request of the
Dallas Chapter of the American Jewish Committee in
1971?
A I had not been given that charge by the Super
intendent, I would consider that within the purview of
my responsibility, I had been doing that role.
Q Had you undertaken to perform that respon
sibility?
A That's right.
Q Had the Superintendent sought to stop you from
carrying out that responsibility?
A That's correct.
Q Had he sought to stop you?
A Oh, no, he had not sought to stop me.
Q So you were working on the matter of bias in
textbooks for the Dallas Independent School District
with the approval of the Superintendent prior to the
time the Dallas Chapter of the American Jewish Com
mittee came forward with their request?
A That is correct.
66
Q Now, let's pass over the details of the study just a
little bit and find out what happened to the study. As I
understand it, the study that commenced in 1971 was
submitted to the Board of Education of the Dallas [215]
Independent School District in the spring of 1974, is
that correct? •
A That is correct.
Q So would it be fair to say that it took ap
proximately three years to engage in the study?
A The first year, as I indicated, we worked and that
committee did not finish its work. It was reconstituted
about 1973 and that is why we reported in '74.
Q Why did the first committee not finish its work
and become reconstituted?
A Well, my assumption would be that the task was
more time consuming than many people had an
ticipated. The task required different kinds of expertise
than many people had anticipated. The task as it relates
to racism in materials very often is threatening to many
people and they could not go on. I would think that
those are some of the reasons why it took so long to
complete it.
Q When the committee was reconstituted, was it
with the support of the Dallas Independent School Dis
trict and its staff or with the opposition of the Dallas In
dependent School District and its staff?
A It was with the support of the Dallas Indepen
dent School District and its staff.
Q Now, when the report was submitted to the
[216] Board of Education, did the Board of Education
spend any time with either you or the Dallas Chapter of
67
the American Jewish Committee upon presentation of
the report?
A I did not present the report to the Board of
Education.
Q Do you know who did?
A Mr. Cotton who was then the Director of Affir
mative Action presented the report to the Board.
Q Did the Board spend — were you present when it
was?
A No, I was not present.
Q Do you have any knowledge of the fact that the
Board spent considerable time with the report?
A I do understand that the Board spent con
siderable time in examining and discussing the report.
Q What was your understanding of the amount of
that considerable time?
A Well, a portion of the meeting but I don't know
how much time.
Q Following the submission of the report did the
School District take any action with respect to the state
Board of Education's selection of textbooks in the area
of bias as covered by the Committee report?
A In the area of selection of textbooks since I had
that responsibility I did develop additional [217] criteria
for the selection of the textbooks that we shall be
adopting next year.
Q Did you on behalf of the Dallas Independent
School District submit that report or those recommen
dations to the State Board of Education?
A Those have not been submitted to the State
Board.
6 8
Q Do you intend to submit them?
A I'm not sure that we will submit them.
Q What is the purpose then of the material you're
working on for submission to the State Board of
Education?
A I indicated that this report was submitted to the
State Board, the Dallas Chapter's report. The purpose
of our study is to identify areas of bias in the materials
we use and then to train teachers so that they them
selves are aware of those biases and can compensate for
that when they are instructing students in the Dallas
Independent School District.
Q Do you understand the thrust of your duties and
assignments with the Dallas Independent School Dis
trict is to take the existing books available from the
State and assist teaching personnel and others in the
School District to be aware of cultural bias and to make
aware to them materials to counteract or to [218]
better present other ethnic group's positions in this
country?
A That is an accurate statement.
Q And have you undertaken to do that in this Dis
trict?
A I have.
Q Have any of your efforts to accomplish that task
been thwarted by the School Superintendent or the
Board of Education?
A My efforts have not been thwarted by the School
Superintendent nor the Board.
Q Have you had the cooperation of the Board and
the School Superintendent in the carrying out of those
efforts?
69
70
A I have.
Q In your focus on the social science textbooks and
your methodology of carrying out your tasks to make
them aware of the biases and to counteract those
biases, what are some of the things you do in the Dallas
Independent School District to show teachers how to
deal with the textbook and the alleged bias in the text
book?
A The first thing I try to do is to help teachers iden
tify the biases by again looking at certain kinds of
criteria. For example, we have asked them to count the
number of pictures in a book to indicate how many of
[219] those pictures contain ethnic minorities or people
of color. We have asked them to again count the num
ber of pictures and to see if those minorities are in the
central position or if they are in the peripheral
positions. That's an example of the kind of con
sciousness that we try to raise. If we then determine
that minorities are presented in demeaning roles then
we try to help teachers supply supplementary materials
that present minorities in a very positive role.
•k *
[230] EDWARD B. CLOUTMAN,
having been produced as a witness at the instance of
the [231] Plaintiffs was duly sworn and testified on his
oath as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. DEMAREST:
Q Would you please state your full name for the
71
Court?
A Edward B. Cloutman.
Q And what is your profession, Mr. Cloutman?
A 1 practice law.
Q And are you in any way associated with the
proceeding which is currently in hearing in this Court?
A Yes, I am.
Q And did you in your capacity as an attorney —
what capacity do you serve in this case?
A I'm co-counsel representing the Plaintiffs in this
action.
Q In the capacity of your service as co-counsel in
this matter did you have occasion to direct the work
which was done in terms of preparing what has been
labeled as Plaintiff's Exhibit 16 containing two
proposals, Plans A and B to desegregate the Dallas In
dependent School District?
A Yes, I did.
* * * *
[240] Q All right. The other question was: Was
there an attempt made to completely enclose within
each subdistrict all of the student attendance patterns
which [241] would flow from elementary to junior high
to senior high?
A There was an attempt made to do that. We
attempted to, for instance, within A-2 continue the
student from elementary attendance zones in A-2 to
junior high and senior high zones in A-2. It didn't
always work out that way because of the location of the
junior high and senior high facilities, it does not
necessarily lend itself to that.
Q Did size of those facilities have any bearing on
our ability or our inability to achieve that goal?
A Capacity was also a problem. The existent capaci
ty in the buildings that do exist presented us from con
tinually following that pattern to the secondary
schools.
Q If you would, Mr. Cloutman, starting out with
Plan A, if you would explain for the Court the assign
ment patterns and you may want to use the maps to do
that. Explain to the Court the assignment patterns and
how the Court can tell by using the color code what
schools are paired with what schools at the elementary
level beginning with the elementary level.
A I think we would first probably want to show the
Court which schools under Plan A — elementary
schools are considered under that plan naturally in
tegrated or desegregated.
[242] Q What section of Plaintiff's Exhibit 16 would
contain that information?
Page nine?
A Yes.
Q Does page nine of Plaintiff's Exhibit 16 show
that information?
A Yes, it does, on item thirteen — item eight, ex
cuse me, we list thirteen schools, that under the stan
dard use were residentially integrated.
Q Before getting into this, Mr. Cloutman, Plain
tiff's Exhibit 16 is the written description of Plans A
and B. Was this exhibit prepared under your direction
and supervision?
72
73
A Yes, it was.
Q All right. Plaintiff's Exhibit 19, 20, 21 and 22 are
maps showing the subdistricts and the pairing and
clustering arrangements at the elementary, junior and
senior high level for Plan A. Were these exhibits
prepared under your direction and supervision?
A That's correct.
Q Plaintiff's Exhibit 23, 24, 25 and 26 are maps
showing the subdistricts and the elementary, junior
high and senior high pairings and clustering under Plan
B. Were these maps prepared under your supervision
and direction?
[243] A Yes, they were.
Q Plaintiff's Exhibit 17 is a small scale map of
elementary attendance zones which I believe are the
same maps that are used for the previous exhibits 19
through 26. Could you please explain to the Court
what this map contains in terms of information?
A Plaintiff's Exhibit 17 contains a demographic dis
tribution or a map distribution of the thirteen elemen
tary schools considered under Plan A naturally in
tegrated and they are colored with the felt tip pen the
color of purple, lavender.
Q Was this Plaintiff's Exhibit 17 prepared under
your direction and supervision?
A Yes, it was.
Q All right. Turning your attention to Plaintiff's
Exhibit 18, could you please explain to the Court what
Plaintiff's Exhibit 18 contains?
A Plaintiff's Exhibit 18 contains similar informa
tion for Plan B. That is elementary schools considered
desegregate under or by natural housing patterns.
Q And it is also drawn on a small scale elementary
attendance zone map?
A That's correct.
74
* * * *
[258] Q I notice, Mr. Cloutman, that some areas of
that map are not colored. Would you explain to the
Court what that means?
[259] A Yes. Those areas are the areas considered
by the standards we used for Plan B as being naturally
integrated and those are indicated on Plaintiff's Exhibit
18, the small map. I'm sorry, we only have one copy of
these.
Q And they're also found on page forty-one of
Plaintiff's Exhibit 16, are they not?
A That's correct.
For an example, Your Honor, by student assignment
again, the students in the noncolored areas would at
tend their neighborhood schools in that by our stan
dards they were considered to be naturally integrated.
The students in these two green areas are what
would be B-l, superimposing the number from Plain
tiff's Exhibit 23 to Plaintiff's 24, would be assigned
together. And the grade assignment are in Plaintiff's
Exhibit 16 for those schools.
Similarly, within each subdistrict, the colors match
where the students attend together. If there is no color,
the students attend their neighborhood schools.
Junior high, Plan B junior high map is labeled Plain
tiff's Exhibit 25 and it again uses a color code to deter
mine where students will be assigned by junior high
attendance zone area. Students here will be [260] as
signed — Seagoville students coming from this area as
well as this area (indicating). And in some cases the
labels are difficult to see because of the glare. But, the
word Seagoville appears here and here and here as the
school (indicating).
75
* *
[295] CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITHAM:
* *
[329] Q What is the one difference?
A Other than the measuring stick we used to deter
mine what a desegregated school was. As Dr. Willie ex
plained this morning, the way he recommends to ap
proach student assignment plans is to consider all
schools, to [330] consider they're all available for stu
dent assignment purposes and if — and draw sub
districts and if it happens that within subdistricts one
need not utilize students in a particular school for a
reassignment and it happens to meet the otherwise set
out criteria for a desegregated school one might leave it
alone. And on that approach we've left those alone.
Q You've just described perhaps the reason for
your approach.
A Yes, sir.
Q But whatever the reason for your approach,
both your plans leave certain areas of the School Dis
trict alone as naturally integrated neighborhoods?
A That's correct.
Q Now, the Plaintiffs, under Plan A have not
achieved in all instances uniform grade level configura
tion, have they?
A That is correct.
Q Would you turn to Plaintiff's Exhibit 16 to page
twenty-nine, please?
A Yes, sir, I'm there.
MS. DEMAREST:
What did you say? One twenty-nine?
MR. WHITHAM:
Twenty-nine.
76
* * * •k
[354] Q Is there somewhere in the Plaintiffs'Plan B
that I can find the number of Anglos that the Plaintiffs
[355] advise the Court will be in City Park School,
grades K through six?
A You don't find on this — in this document —
Q By "this document" do you mean Plaintiff's Ex
hibit 16?
A I do, in Plan B, a racial breakdown for the residen-
tially integrated schools. We did not set those out in
that they fell within our seventy to thirty percent test.
Our worksheets that went into making up these
determinations do show in a fairly exact manner the
number of students by ethnic origin that would attend
the residentially integrated schools. We did not list
those because they fell within that range. Now, that is
all you will find within the four corners of Plaintiff's
Exhibit 16.
Q Well, the answer to my question is there's no
way the Court can find the racial composition of any
school listed in your plan. Let's see if I can find the — do
I assume then that anywhere there is not a sixth grade
you have —
A Counsel has shown me something in this docu
ment that does set out the residentially integrated
neighborhoods. It's not in the projected enrollment but
in the present enrollment figures. That's on page forty-
one.
77
[371] Q I said, did you count him in your figures?
A I don't believe so.
Q So regardless of distance from buildings of any
child, in any grade level, unless he lives in a non
contiguous attendance area he's not counted on your
figures in Plans A and B?
A For transportation purposes — figures for pur
poses of desegregation he would not be counted unless
he lived in a noncontiguous zone and over two miles
from the school.
Q If we were to count transportation figures as
computed by the School District, your transportation
figures would be considerably higher than as set forth
in either Plans A or B, would they not?
A You mean if we calculated every student under
these proposal who would be over two miles from the
school to which he is assigned, it would be higher, yes,
sir.
Q Right. And you understand that each student in
the District is being assigned to some building by virtue
of a student assignment plan, do you not?
A Oh, yes, sir.
Q Perhaps I missed it elsewhere, but would you
refer to page five, under "Senior High Schools — Plan
A"?
A Yes, sir.
[372] Q You closed Skyline as an all-purpose high
school, did you not?
A Yes, sir.
Q And assigned those students elsewhere?
A Yes, sir.
Q So it serves only as the so-called "Magnet
school," correct?
A That would be the proposal, yes, sir.
Q I see also on that page you close Hillcrest High
School under Plan A?
A Yes, sir.
Q And those students apparently are assigned to,
where? Roosevelt High School?
A Some to Roosevelt. I guess most of them to
Roosevelt. I'm not sure whether some of those now live
in what would be the Woodrow Wilson attendance
zone, but one of the two.
Q Does Plan A contain any provision for the use of
Hillcrest High School — the building?
78
A I don't recall that it does.
Q It just in effect abandons it as a school building —
A I believe that's correct.
Q — under Plan A?
A Under Plan A.
* ★ * *
[375] Q Tyler and —
A This school here, I think (indicating).
Q This one? Can you identify it for the record?
A I'm not certain I can. We took the furtherestmost
northern school in A-7 there — I believe this school and
this school (indicating), the names escape me. I think
it's Lisbon and Withers.
Q Furtherest northern by location?
A I'm not sure. I think it's the Withers School.
Q That wouldn't be Withers.
A It's the one next to the Dealey zone. I think that
one that we made was at least about thirty-four, thirty-
five minutes and it took — it was about twenty-two
miles.
Q Do you want to state —
A Tyler to Lisbon.
Q Tyler to Lisbon. What route did you take?
A We took a, I believe, east-west major street, I
believe Royal Lane, to the Toll way, south to 1-35,1-35
to I believe Ledbetter on the southern end, Ledbetter
east — I've forgotten the street name. It's the same
street that the Veteran's Hospital is on, turning north
and then to the school.
79
80
Q What time of day?
A It was about noon.
[376] Q What day of the week?
A It was on a Sunday.
Q On a Sunday?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you do any time and distance — where are
the pairings you referred to in your plan that you're go
ing to use Central Expressway?
A I would have to look at the plan. I'm not certain. It
would be opposite the ones on the northern and
eastern sides of the District. I'm not certain by name
right now.
Q How about Budd, Kramer, Dealey and Pershing?
A I'm not sure in any case on a recommended route.
Q But, you haven't done any time and distance
studies, north to south, in pairing A-7 under Plan A, us
ing Central Expressway during a weekday at 8:00
o'clock in the morning?
A No.
Q Please turn to page thirty-four of Plaintiffs' Plan
B.
A Yes, sir.
Q And I direct your attention to paragraph number
four.
A Yes, sir.
[377] Q I quote: "Distance from the majority white
areas, capacity of schools, DISD enrollment patterns
and generally good physical facilities were factors
resulting in South Oak Cliff retaining its present stu
dent assignment pattern."
81
*
Do you see that?
A Yes, I do.
Q And would there be a similar statement that
appeared on page thirty-six with respect to Storey and
Zumwalt junior High Schools retaining their present
student assignment patterns?
A That's correct.
Q And somewhere in here, if I can find it — no, it's
on page thirty-eight — there is a similar statement with
respect to a number of elementary schools in your sub
district B-8 retaining their present enrollment
patterns?
A That's correct.
Q Is that not correct?
A That is correct.
Q And we're talking then generally, are we not,
about elementary schools, two junior high schools and
one high school located in this particular all-black sec
tion of the School District, are we not?
A Yes, sir.
[378] Q And, in effect, you're leaving some twelve
elementary schools, two junior highs and one high
school all-minority in this particular area, are you not,
under Plan B?
A That is correct, except that those twelve elemen
tary schools actually serve eight zones.
Q Eight zones. Then under your Plan B you leave in
West Dallas one or two all-black or all-minority schools
under Plan B, do you not, as well as Dunbar in South
Dallas?
A I believe we leave the Allen School and possibly
the Lanier.
Q Now, let's go back to the quoted phrase I read to
you from page thirty-four; do you recall —
A Yes.
Q — in paragraph four?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do I correctly read that that in Plaintiffs' Plan B
you recognized that distance from the majority white
areas within the Dallas Independent School District is
set forth as the reason or justification advanced in Plan
B for leaving South Oak Cliff High School all-black?
A That's one of the reasons —
Q One of the reasons.
[379] A — offered there.
Q It is a reason offered there by Plaintiffs, distance
from white areas; correct?
A One of the reasons.
Q Do you generally accept the School District's
delineation on Defendant's Exhibit 2, the yellow shad
ed area as being a majority white area or the majority
white area for scholastic purposes within the Dallas In
dependent School District?
A Yes. It compares very closely to a map we have
been furnished by, I believe, your office.
Q Would that yellow shaded area on Defendant's
Exhibit 2 fairly represent majority white areas as you
used that term in paragraph four on page thirty-four of
Plaintiffs' Plan B?
A Yes.
Q All right. The next thing you took into count un
der Plaintiffs' Plan B as justification for leaving certain
all-black schools was the capacity of schools, was it not?
A Yes.
82
Q The next, or third thing you advanced to the
Court as justification for all-black schools was DISD
enrollment patterns, was it not?
A Yes, sir.
[380] Q What did you have reference to by the
phrase, "DISD enrollment patterns"?
A Patterns both for numbers and for race for those
schools, as we can determine them from the various
reports, the Hinds County Reports, filed by the Dis
trict.
Q Well, by "Enrollment patterns" did you mean the
numbers of Mexican-American students, the num
bers of black students and the numbers of white
students?
A Yes.
Q By "Enrollment patterns" did you mean that
some years ago there were more Anglo students than
there now are?
A I'm not sure that was one of the considerations.
The enrollment patterns as we view them in this litiga
tion have always been predominantly minority in that
area from the time frame I am speaking of, 1970 on.
Q Well, by "DISD enrollment patterns," then, do
you at least mean a recognition on the Plaintiffs'part of
a rather constant growing school age population in the
area served by those schools?
A Yes, that's one thing.
Q By "Enrollment patterns" do you at least — do
Plaintiffs at least take into account a steadily decreas
ing enrollment pattern of Anglo students in the yellow
shaded area on Defendant's Exhibit 2?
83
[381] A No, that's not what we meant. The absence
of the Anglo growth in that area and the potential for it
— the area known as "B-8."
Q The fourth reason you advance to the Court for
leaving all-black schools within the Dallas Independent
School District, as represented by the quotation taken
from page thirty-four, paragraph four, was the
generally good physical facilities that existed. Were you
referring to generally good physical facilities in the area
you left the all-black schools in, Oak Cliff?
A Yes. And I'm sure there are exceptions to the
generally good facilities, but by our inspection and by
review of the statistical information we have on each
school building they looked to be generally newer and
in reasonably good shape for occupancy.
Q So you're recognizing and telling the Court that
at least in the Dallas Independent School District, in
that predominantly black area at least, there are good
physical facilities?
A There are some, yes. I'm sure they are — they
compare, for instance, better physically than some of
the all-black schools do in South Dallas.
THE COURT: Let's take the morning recess. Fif
teen minutes.
84
(morning recess.)
[382] THE WITNESS:
Counsel, if I might, I would like to correct an answer I
gave you prior to the recess when you asked about the
schools we had traveled. And the school name in North
Dallas was Withers Elementary. Withers.
85
Q (By Mr. Whitham) Withers to whom?
A Lisbon.
Q Withers to Lisbon?
A Yes, sir, I'm sorry.
Q But, we still did it about noon on Sunday?
A Yes, sir. We were trying to measure the distance.
It's the same on Sunday as it is on Monday I think.
Q Under your Plan B: On page thirty-four, under
Plan B you again close Skyline's attendance zone, do
you not, as you did in Plan A?
A Yes, sir.
Q But, in addition to that high school building clos
ed, you also closed Hillcrest, Thomas Jefferson and
Seagoville as high school buildings, do you not?
A They are — their use is changed, that's correct
from a high school to —
Q You closed them as high schools?
A Yes. They will no longer be high schools.
Q And would it be fair to say that if you closed [383]
Skyline's attendance zone, Hillcrest's attendance zone,
Thomas Jefferson's attendance zone and Seagoville
High School's attendance zone you would be closing
schools located virtually in the predominantly Anglo
area of the School District and thus making more
Anglo students available for being transported into
minority area high schools?
A One, Hillcrest and Thomas Jefferson are in the
predominantly Anglo area; I guess Skyline is by its at
tendance pattern. By closing those high schools, ob
viously, you assign those students to other schools,
yes, sir.
Q And under Plaintiffs' Plan B on page thirty-six
you closed Edison as a junior high school, Holmes as a
junior high school, Hulcy as a junior high school and
Rylie as a junior high school; correct?
A No, sir. We use part of Edison for a junior high
and part for a magnet school.
Q But, you then do dose Holmes, Hulcy and Rylie
as junior high schools?
A That's correct.
Q Now, I notice also that with respect to Edison,
Holmes, Hulcy and Rylie, under Plaintiffs' Plan B you
make some suggestion of their use as a magnet school;
do you not?
[384] A Yes, sir.
86
* *
[405] CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. BRYANT:
[406] Q What I would like to ask you is several
questions regarding the considerations that you view
ed as important in drawing up the plan.
First of all, I would like to ask you if you considered
residential patterns of integration to any extent?
A Yes, sir. We have indicated in both Plan A and B
that certain areas were left intact if they met a ratio of
not having more than seventy percent of any one race.
Q All right. But, weren't those figures based upon
the enrollment in the schools?
A Yes, sir, that's correct.
Q You don't have any studies reflecting the actual
residential patterns of integration in a particular area?
A Not for this lawsuit, I do not.
Q Did you consider to any extent the emerging
residential patterns?
A Emerging —
Q Emerging residential patterns or trends, pro
jected racial breakdowns that will probably occur in the
future?
A We did do some consideration of student [407]
enrollment patterns that were emerging or appeared to
be going one particular way, but not for the general
populous.
Q To what extent did you consider the emerging
student enrollment racial breakdowns?
A Well, in particular, a portion of B dealt with
South Oak Cliff and considered the ever-increasing
number of minority children moving into that area.
That's one consideration.
Q Well, can you tell me specifically how that con
sideration is reflected in this plan?
A Yes. That would form part of the basis for the
proposal in Plan B to leave the District B-8 intact, at
tending their resident neighborhood schools.
Q What did you use to — explain for me the way in
which you devised this projection.
A Well, that wasn't much of a projection. Actually,
we were looking backwards over what the enrollment
87
patterns had been and assuming there would not be
much difference in the next year or two in the increase
in that area.
Q Well, that's basically in all minority areas, is it
not?
A Yes, sir.
Q So you didn't have to decide if there was going
[408] to be an increase in black enrollment or an in
crease in white enrollment, you just assumed it would
stay the same?
A We were trying to determine whether there was
any possibility of black enrollment tapering off or
whether there was any possibility of Anglo enroll
ment in the future, and we determined it was very un
likely.
Q What factors did you consider as you tried to
make that determination?
A Just enrollment patterns in the past — the past
five or six years by race.
Q You had no particular formula that you
followed?
A Not a particular formula, no, sir.
Q Did you consider to any extent the stability of
any area of town? And by, "Stability," I would mean
several factors should be taken into account: The real
estate market, the current movements now taking
place in the area, the present attitude of the residents of
an area about the future of the area of town in which
they live?
A I'm not sure that formed much of a basis, except
insofar as we looked at student assignment patterns to
88
try to determine whether by treating them certain
ways one might stabilize an integrated school setting or
one might not stabilize that by doing one thing [409] or
another.
* * * *
Q Okay. My initial question, though, was about
stability of various areas of town, and I asked you
whether or not you considered stability as you drew up
your plan. And your answer to me, I believe, was that
you considered it to the extent that you left the in
tegrated areas alone. Now, in what way in your view
does further integration of an area which is already
partially integrated [410] contribute to instability of
that area?
A I don't assume and I don't know that it does con
tribute to instability. We felt that if what appeared to be
residentially integrated student assignment patterns
were present within the realm of a seventy to thirty
percent range then no further integration needed be
occasioned by our proposals and those would be suf
ficient.
Q Well, then, if I asked the question again, to what
extent did you consider stability of various areas in
drawing up your plan, the answer would have to be
that you didn't consider stability, wouldn't it?
A Not as a concept itself, no, sir.
Q All right. You didn't consider stability?
A Not of a neighborhood. If a school appeared to be
naturally integrated we felt like that was enough for
our purposes, we need not move students around in
that area because the schools were already integrated.
We didn't do any studies of neighborhood stability, as
such, at all.
89
Q Was there a reason why you did not consider
neighborhood stability in drawing up these plans?
A The only reason I can tell you is that we were in
terested in student enrollment patterns only in draw
ing the plan.
* * * *
90
[412] CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. DONOHOE:
[426] Q Yes, sir.
A No, I don't believe we have done any of those.
Q All right. Let's assume all of these grade schools:
Oran Roberts, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson,
Bayles, Sanger, Lakewood, Mount Auburn or
Lipscomb?
A I don't believe we ran any of those in particular
under either plan.
Q Mr. Cloutman, you were present during Dr.
Willie's testimony earlier; is that correct?
A Yes, sir, I was.
Q And you heard him testify that the goals of ur
ban planning, rehabilitation, efforts to rehabilitate,
renew inner cities should be accommodated, if at all
possible; I believe he stated, could be accommodated
under a desegregation plan provided that it did not
result in unconstitutional actions in connection with
the desegregation of schools. Would that be a fair sum
mary of his testimony?
A If I recall what he said, that could be a laudable
goal of urban planning if it was not at the expense of
student integration.
Q But, he did indicate that the School District's ac
tions and the actions of the city or the urban planners
did interact, did he not?
A Yes, he did.
[427] Q And I believe he also testified, did he not,
that these interactions should be taken into account so
long as they did not interfere with unconstitutional —
or, did not cause unconstitutional segregation of the
school system?
A He used words something to that effect, yes, sir.
Q You would agree that's something like what he
said?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right. Would you agree then that any
desegregation plan adopted by this Court could well
take those factors into account, as far as your clients
and yourself are concerned?
A Provided it would not be at the expense of stu
dent desegregation, yes, sir.
MR. DONOHOE;
All right. That's all. Thank you.
91
92
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
VOLUME IV
(Number and Title Omitted)
Filed: August 9, 1976
[2] DR. CHARLES HUNTER,
(Witness Sworn by the Court)
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CUNNINGHAM:
* * * *
[6] Q Okay. Dr. Hunter, the NAACP had submitted
for consideration by the Court a plan referred to as the
NAACP Plan; is that correct, sir?
A Correct.
Q And I'll show you what has been marked as
NAACP's Exhibit number 2, which is the proposed plan
of desegregation submitted to this Court on behalf of
the NAACP. Are you familiar with that proposed plan,
Dr. Hunter?
A Yes, I am.
Q Okay. Would you state whether or not — would
you state whether or not you know who drew that
plan?
A Yes.
93
Q Who drew it, Dr. Hunter?
A I did primarily.
Q Okay. You said "primarily". Did someone else
work with you in the drawing of the NAACP's Exhibit
number 2, the proposed plan?
A No.
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Your Honor, we would at this time offer as NAACP's
Exhibit number 2 the proposed plan for desegregation
for DISD prepared by Dr. Hunter as our Exhibit num
ber 2.
* * *
[14] Q Would you state to the Court what those
goals were?
[15] A Yes. The goals of the plan as set forth were:
"1. To make use of the positive elements that can be
found in naturally integrated neighborhoods and to
enhance opportunities for persons in other
neighborhoods in the development of programs which
will provide quality education for all."
And: "2. To enhance educational opportunities
provided in inner city schools by the development of a
superior educational program in each of the schools
and to provide physical facilities of a quality and quanti
ty commensurate with the needs."
And: "3. To develop a plan of education that
recognizes the diversity in populations and which will
utilize these diversities to impact upon the integrated
whole for the entire District, which will include the up
grading and improvement of education in every
school."
And: "4. To develop a program of community in
volvement whereby the decision-making body in the
school system will have regular imput, both system-
wide and in each local school."
Q Okay. Dr. Hunter, you said, to make use of the
positive elements that can be found in naturally in
tegrated neighborhoods and to enhance opportunities
for persons in those neighborhoods. Would you explain
to the Court what you had in mind when you developed
this goal?
[16] A Yes. One of the aspects of the rationale was
that the desegregation would result in integration of
not only race but of also socioeconomic status groups.
This I think is important.
Now, integrated neighborhoods have the advantage
of having a mix that is superior to those neighborhoods
that are not integrated. Heterogeneous neighborhoods
tend to have an advantage over homogeneous
neighborhoods in many ways. Now, that's a positive
element.
In addition to that, there are positive elements in the
fact that the schools are already — school populations
are already desegregated, too, so that there is no reason
to disturb them if they're already desegregated. These
schools, then, should not be disturbed in order to
desegregate other schools.
Q Dr. Hunter, a second goal you outlined was the
94
enhancement of educational opportunities in inner city
schools. Would you elaborate on that and what you
propose here?
A Yes. The inner city schools for the most part
have older facilities; that's one thing. But, they also
tend to have — tend to serve populations with greater
density and, therefore, tend to be larger in size. They
also have historically been the ones that tend to be
more neglected among the schools. The newer school
buildings [17] generally ring the periphery of the city,
you know, as you go out. The inner city schools tend to
be neglected more often.
95
* * * ■to
[18] Q Okay. Would you advise the Court what the
[19] guidelines were, or what would be your first
guideline?
A Well, the first guideline actually was to develop a
fair and reasonably stable plan by taking note that
every school should have a racial balance comparable to
the racial balance in the District, which will not deviate
more than ten percent up or down; and to not transport
students out of a neighborhood which is already in
tegrated. That is, one having the racial balance referred
to above.
Q Now, Dr. Hunter, before going further with
your guidelines, after you had developed your
rationale, your goals and you had some idea of your
guidelines did you have information with respect to the
enrollment or data figures; did you have any of this in
formation?
A We had information about enrollment, etc., and
particularly the percentages of racial groups in each
school. But, this plan did not — or, at least I did not see
the necessity to have accurate totals in this plan. We
saw the need to devise a plan — a model, because ul
timately the responsibility for assigning the students
— physically assigning the students is going to be the
administration's anyway. And when we devise plans, it
is devised at one point in time to be implemented at
another point in time and the figures we have available
at that time are not the figures that will be used at the
later time.
96
★
[102] CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. DONOHOE:
[106] Q All right sir. And all of the other white
markers are also a breakdown of the racial mix or
ethnic mix in a particular elementary zone, is that right,
sir?
A That is correct.
THE COURT:
In percentages, isn't it?
THE WITNESS:
In percentages, right.
Q All right. Now, Dr. Hunter, could you tell me
whether you would agree as a professional educator
that obtaining racial balance through changes in hous
ing patterns would be a preferable method to the
transportation of students if it were possible?
A Yes.
Q And that's reflected in your plan by the fact that
you treated several schools as naturally integrated, is
that correct?
A Yes.
Q All right. Now, assume with me, Dr. Hunter,
some facts not in evidence.
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Your Honor, we would object to him assuming
something that's not in evidence.
MR. DONOHOE:
Well, we'll offer this in evidence at a later time, Your
Honor.
THE COURT:
Well, I'll let you submit a hypothetical question.
MR. DONOHOE:
I'll connect it later.
[107] THE COURT:
Predicated, of course, on the fact that you expect to
prove the basis for this hypothetical question.
MR. DONOHOE:
We understand, Your Honor.
Q Assume with us that the City of Dallas through
its Planning Department and its Department of Urban
97
Rehabilitation is attempting to develop a strategy for
the preservation of inner city neighborhoods for the
arresting of decline of inner city neighborhoods and for
the stabilizing of the — what would have the effect of
being the racial and ethnic balance in certain inner city
neighborhoods. Would you agree that this plan should
take that strategy into account to the extent that your
plan would affect their strategy? Should there be any
connection, any consideration given to the city's
strategy as I've defined it?
A Insofar as the variables of community concerns
are taken into account, I would say that also should be a
consideration.
Q Also. Could I go further and say that if a strategy
is being developed which is designed to promote racial
balance or would have that effect and would also be a
public policy of another governmental unit such as the
City of Dallas, that this should be accommodated in
your plan?
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Your Honor, we will object [108] to it first of all
because it is an assumption. It's speculative. First, it's
based on an erroneous assumption because I think — I
know that there is no such plan by the Department of
Urban Development to develop a racial balance in the
inner city and the reason I know it is because I'm a
member of the City Planning Commission and I know
there is no such policy.
98
99
MR. DONOHOE:
Well, I used the words, "it would have that effect,"
Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Well, Ell let it go to the weight of it.
Q Would you answer the question, Dr. Hunter?
A Eve forgotten the question.
Q All right. Dr. Hunter, maybe the question wasn't
particularly well phrased. Would you agree that to the
extent that there are policies of another governmental
unit which affects geographical areas within the Dallas
Independent School District, those geographical areas
being generally referred to as the inner city, which
policies might have the effect or designed or would
have the effect of promoting racial balance, would
those policies — should those policies be considered in
the exact formulation of a plan of desegregation for the
Dallas Independent School District?
A Such plans should be considered insofar as they
do [109] not restrict the achievement of the ends of
developing a plan of desegregation.
Q Right. In other words, you're interested in
school desegregation?
A Right.
Q But if the plan could be designed in such a way so
that it would not interfere with the policies Eve just
outlined should that plan be designed in that fashion?
A 1 would think so.
MR. DONOHOE:
Thank you, Dr. Hunter.
100
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. BRYANT:
Q Dr. Hunter, I just have two questions for you.
Did you at any time consider the residential
character or residential racial breakdown of the various
areas in the Dallas Independent School District as yoti
were drawing up your plan?
A Yes.
Q Okay. In what respect is it reflected in your plan?
A The plan calls for the consideration of those
naturally integrated neighborhoods by housing
patterns to the extent that they would also result in
desegregated school bodies, that they should be ex
empted from the pairing.
* *
[118] JOSIAH CALVIN HALL, JR.,
having been produced as a witness at the instance of
the Court was duly sworn and testified on his oath as
follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
[119] BY THE COURT:
* * ★
[123] Q Does anybody —
THE COURT:
Are there numbers on it?
101
MR. WHITHAM:
Yes sir, they're up in the far right corner. They've
been numbered 1 through 4.
THE COURT:
Dr. Hall Exhibits 1 —
MS. DEMAREST:
Dr. Hall's 1 —
THE COURT:
Dr. Hall s Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4, is that correct?
MS. DEMAREST:
Right.
THE COURT:
All right, go ahead, Dr. Hall.
A (Continuing) The middle school map, Exhibit 2;
the junior high school map, Exhibit 3; the senior high
school map, Exhibit 4; and the plan itself — now, this
was not given a number but I think it ought to be Ex
hibit 5.
THE COURT:
Let it be Exhibit 5. Does everyone have a copy of it?
MR. WHITHAM:
We have a copy and would this be an appropriate time
if the Court's about to consider its admission for me to
go through one of my little drills?
102
[128] Q (Continuing by the Court) Dr. Hall,
would you give us the benefit of your plan?
[129] A In the development of this plan guidelines
were established and utilized as follows:
Now, Your Honor, we have numbered these pages,
the first three cover pages A, B, and C and then page 1
doesn't have a number on it, so if you number that 1
then it would be simpler to follow my presentation.
Guideline one: page A paragraph two. Assign
kindergarten and first grade pupils to facilities near
their homes without reference to ethnic groups.
Pupils in these grades were assigned to schools which
pupils in these grades presently attend except where
there is a change in boundary lines between Stemmons
and Hall, between Bud and Mills, between Travis and
Booker T Washington and between Lakewood and Lee
to provide for the regular pupils at Stonewall Jackson
or the school is discontinued as a facility for regular
pupils, Juarez, Douglas and Stonewall Jackson. Inciden
tally, Stonewall Jackson has special ed pupils and they
would continue to have.
Guideline two: page B item three. Assign pupils in
other grades so that no school will have more than ap
proximately 75% nor less than approximately 30% of
combined minority groups.
Guideline three: page C item four. Insofar as possible
where individual schools or adjacent schools by their
racial composition meet the approximately 75-30 ratio
[130] of guideline two leave them in tact or combine
them.
There are fifty-three centers in this group listed in
Exhibit 5 on pages 14 to 19. The elementary schools are
shown in red color on Exhibit 1. That's the map for the
elementary schools, Exhibit 1 and the red color deals
with this group.
All centers fully meet the 75-30 ratio except seven
considered as approximately meeting the 75-30
guideline.
And those seven are Arcadia Park Elementary which
has 25.6% combined minority group; David G. Burnett,
26 and 1/10; Tom W. Field Elementary, 24 and 9/10;
John Ireland Elementary, 28 and 7/10; Leslie Stemmons
Elementary, 25 and 8/10; Mark Twain Elementary, 81
and 5/10; D. A. Hulcy Junior High which is on Exhibit 3,
81 and 4/10.
Guideline four: page C item 5. Assignment of pupils
to schools should be done in such manner that if possi
ble pupils will spend a maximum of thirty minutes in
being transported. Three centers listed on pages 14 to
18 were initially included in this group as being too far
to be transported within thirty minutes. They are Cen
tral Elementary with a combined minority of 15.2, Sea-
goville Elementary with a combined minority of 16.4,
and Seagoville Junior Senior with a combined minority
of 16.4.
A number of these fifty-six centers do have no or lit
tle representation from one of the minority groups.
103
★ ★
[295] PROCEEDINGS
(2:00 P.M. February 19, 1976)
104
THE COURT:
I think I had originally designated this as a pre-trial
and those matters are generally held, as you know, in
the office, but I decided that there was a lot of interest
in this matter as well as the fact that there may be some
things that people, parties, the attorneys, want on the
record anyhow and so I decided we ought to come in
here. We had left the matter that I asked the attorneys
to consult with their clients in regard to the Dallas
Alliance Task Force plan that was submitted to the
Court last Monday night and I had, as has been stated,
asked the parties through their attorneys to consult
about the possibility of an agreed order in this case and
had [296] stated that the Dallas Alliance Plan, in the
light of who it was on that Task Force, and I think it's a
misnomer to call it the Dallas Alliance Plan, it was the
plan submitted by that Task Force or its Task Force, but
1 felt that it might add some new dimension to any dis
cussions as to a possible solution to this matter and I
had asked the attorneys to report back to the Court this
afternoon and we would go from there.
Is there anybody who wants to report to the Court? I
asked Mr. Whitham, Mr. Martin or the Plaintiffs or
anyone else who wants to —
MR. WHITHAM:
1 suppose in view of what has happened that 1 go first
and bear the brunt, so here I am. Judge, the Board of
Education reviewed the Dallas Alliance proposal as
thoroughly as possible, given the amount of time
available to the administrative staff and attorneys. The
Board thoughtfully considered all of the proposal's
provisions. A majority of the Board Members have ex
pressed themselves as electing to stand on the School
Board's plan and continue to assert it in the Courts.
The Board indicated its willingness for its attorneys to
continue to negotiate with the parties and, of course,
the Board's attorneys [297] will continue to do so. And,
as a personal statement from this attorney and also Mr.
Martin's standpoint, we do pursue those matters with
the other parties while this case is going on — we
assure you that's not being ignored.
THE COURT:
Well, I do know that the attorneys have approached
this matter sincerely and in good faith and likewise seek
a solution to a problem that has many facets to it and is
not easy. And I will repeat that I don't ask the parties to
negotiate for my benefit because, though, 1 sometimes
have wondered about it, deciding these cases is what I
hired out for and I will continue.
MR. WHITHAM:
You will recall because I recall the strain of that last
day in 1971, and I believe I made the comment then that
the lawyers' role was easy in that all we had to do was to
advocate, you had the hard job, you had to decide, and
the lawyers here still recognize that.
THE COURT:
Well, I appreciate the efforts of the lawyers, I repeat
that, I think I said it to you Friday, but I will say it to you
publicly.
Thank you, Mr. Whitham.
Mr. Cloutman.
105
106
[298] MR. CLOUTMAN:
Your Honor, we have, as the attorneys for the Plain
tiffs, gone through as best we could the proposals by
the Dallas Alliance and we have consulted with repre
sentative members of the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs'
class and I would like, if I might, Your Honor, to address
myself categorically to the proposal so that it's clear
how our posture is with respect to the Dallas Alliance
proposal.
Firstly, Your Honor, not firstly — firstly, listed in the
plan is the item of pupil assignment. I would like to take
that up last with the Court.
Now, their recommendations two through six in
their proposal have to do with other matters and
respectfully, Your Honor, we submit that those are
boiled down in our estimation to the items of education
and staffing, accountability, and finally the pupil
assignment proposal itself. Now, I don't submit that is
how they would characterize them, but that is how we
have catelogued them for our purposes.
The educational proposals, the staffing proposals,
the accounting proposals, are very similar to those
already advocated by the Plaintiffs. While the terms
may vary, I believe that the Court [299] will recall that
most of those concepts have been supported by
testimony already by Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' various
witnesses.
The concept of facilities was testified to at length in
an examination of the Chase report which this also
relies upon to some degree. The magnet school concept
has been dealt with by almost every plan so far propos
ed. For that reason we believe that the testimony is in
the record as of this date as to the advisability of such
concepts.
I believe the testimony offered so far is even more
specific in recommendations than this proposal in
fleshing that out, so to that extent we have no quarrel.
We have in particular an accounting system proposed
here almost identical to the one Dr. McDaniel testified
to. We submit that s in the record for the Court's con
sideration.
Turning to the student assignment, it's difficult for
us, without access to an on-going pupil accounting
system, to know exactly how that would work at this
stage or even next fall, given the knowledge and our
figures. In working with our figures in proposing our
own student assignment [300] plans I find or we find
number one, that it's very difficult to tell exactly where
the students would go to school and in what number,
but secondly, it appears to us, and this is simply that of
appearance, that some of the proposed fourth thru
eighth assignments might even be impossible because
of capacity problems occasioned in those areas in that
we tried similar arrangements. I am not suggesting
that is the case because I don't have the numbers in
front of me to compare.
Secondly, with regard to the student assignment, the
proposal, as our testimony has urged on the Court,
does not go far enough, particularly into the early
grades and to that extent the Plaintiffs have issue with
the student assignment plan. I don't mean to say we re
ject the efforts of the citizens to aid the Court or assist
in the process that we are now about, but rather in
107
dealing with as best we could the particulars of the plan
those would be our comments and that the student
assignment plan in particular is not the kind of plan we
would urge upon the Court for the position of the
Plaintiffs.
We do believe there is enough evidence in the record
as to all facets of the other mentioned [301] items in
their proposal for the Court to have some guidance
from expert witnesses who have been brought before
the Court and to that extent we feel that the evidence
has been submitted to allow the Court to know
whether these concepts are adoptable or not.
I believe we should, in our opinion, proceed with the
case and continue whatever talks the lawyers are about
and I believe forthwith continue the hearings.
Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
All right. Thank you, Mr. Cloutman.
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
May it please the Court, I have reviewed the plan and
the map and I made copies of the plan available to the
officers of my client, the NAACP, they have met and
had an extensive review of the plan. After having had it
and having also seen a copy of it in the paper, we had an
extended discussion of the plan with the map where I
explained as best I understood it and as best we could
we hashed it out. At the outset we think aside from the
student assignment plan, taking the student assign
ment plan and laying that aside for the time being, we
1 0 8
*
%
think [302] the plan has merit as Mr. Cloutman men
tioned as instructional material, instruction, with
respect to staffing, with respect to accountability, with
respect to a monitoring system, with respect to magnet
schools. We think all of these are good. This is some of
the things that are advocated as the Plaintiffs have
advocated. When we look at the student assignment
plan we have some doubt, first of all, as to the legality of
waiting to attempt to achieve this by September 1,
1979, first of all, to achieve a unitary school system. It is
our contention and it is the belief of my clients that
DISD should be a unitary school system now and par
ticularly when school opens on September 1, 1976. So
we think that the law is clear that DISD should operate
a unitary school system. Passing the three year delay
we are faced immediately with the problem of the Fifth
District, which is left 98% black, 2% brown for grades
four through eight, and we can see no justification and
we feel and my opinion is that, and this is strictly
lawyer's opinion that in face of the Fifth Circuit's man
date that it is not valid, that it's not legal to leave 98% of
one district out of five totally black or totally minority.
[303] Second, we think that when or after we get past
this fifth district, which is totally minority, we can see
no justification, no basis whatsoever, no rationale con
tained in the plan or the exhibits attached to it which
justifies nine through twelve remaining at home. The
members of the NAACP can see justification possibly
for K through three because we are dealing with young
children, the first time in school. I have talked with
some teachers and they explained that these kids may
lose their or may have problems being there the first
109
time but for nine through twelve there is no justifica
tion that we can see. We have not had their benefit or
reasoning of why they did it, maybe it will come out
through one of their witnesses. But as the student
assignment plan stands now, the NAACP cannot adopt
it because of the reasons I have stated.
Thank you.
THE COURT:
Thank you, Mr. Cunningham,
THE COURT:
Any of the interveners?
MR. MOW:
Your Honor, I will make any response brief on behalf
of the Curry intervenors. We spent a good deal of the
time yesterday evening going over the plan and basical
ly we feel like [304] there is insufficient detail in a num
ber of particulars to respond affirmatively or negative
ly. A good deal of that plan depends on what the School
District and the school administration can do. We don't
feel like we are qualified to make those decisions and
particularly with regard to the student assignment un
til we know how and why and where people go, it's not
up to us to say, but we will reserve judgment on this
until we have more detail on it, but I would like to make
the comment that on the staffing proposals, they
appear to be impracticable.
THE COURT:
All right.
110
Ill
MR. FROST:
Your Honor, if we may, Mr. Bryant and I will speak
separately on this. I have reviewed this with my clients
in the case, I represent the people from western Oak
Cliff, basically. We like the concept of the subdistricts,
that is, the relatively compact subdistricts, and not in
volving people from different parts of town. We have
serious reservations about the plan, number one, on
the basis that we don't, as Mr. Mow stated, we don't
feel we have sufficient specifics to make a totally in
telligent judgment on the plan.
[305] Number Two, the people I represent are very
interested in having a final resolution to this case.
Their area has suffered greatly under the uncertainty
in the last four years and we are seriously concerned
because the plan provides less integration at the high
school level than the '71 Court Order and there is
serious question about the plan being upheld on appeal.
We would be interested in this plan if high school dis
tricts could be incorporated.
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. BRYANT:
Our clients, from the Pleasant Grove area, feel the
concept in the Alliance proposal is basically acceptable.
We do have concerns, as Mr. Mow said, there is insuf
ficient detail for us to make a decision on how we feel
about the way in which it might be implemented.
However, my clients feel that it is a concept that should
be worked with and one that with further refinement,
hopefully would lead to fruition and we will continue
working with Your Honor and the parties and the
Court in attempting to make something workable from
it.
THE COURT:
All right. Mr. Donohoe.
MR. DONOHOE:
Your Honor, l, too, have reviewed [306] this plan
with our clients and we find that in reviewing the out
line, this approach that was presented to the Court,
that we are not at this point in a position to comment or
take a stand for or against the plan. However, Judge, I
would like to make a comment or two which I think are
in the context of what we are here about today. No
offense to Dr. Estes, but I have heard it said that any
bureaucrat, given time and opportunity, can ruin a
good idea. I think the same thing could be said about
lawyers. I think the Court is here faced with for the
first time a plan that apparently has received some sup
port from some members of the minority community
as well as some members of the Anglo community. I
think the Court has asked the attorneys and the parties
to try to be helpful in resolving the controversies that
are here today. I feel at times in the course of this litiga
tion, I am a latecomer to the litigation, one of the most
recent intervenors, that the reference to the principal
parties in this case, the School District and the Class,
represented by the Plaintiffs, sometimes leaves the im
pression that some of the other issues brought into this
112
case are not of really serious [307] importance* to the
order the Court is being asked to make here. I am here
to say, and I think the Court understands, that the is
sue that the clients that I represent are bringing before
the Court, the ideas, the evidence, while not directly
associated with education are going to be issues that
are going to be affected by whatever the Court enters
in this case. I am talking about the institution of the
City Planning, I am talking about hospitals, I am talking
about all forms of city service. Now, it seems to me in
that context in an order that is going to be so pervasive
throughout our society, our city, it is important that we
take an approach that has the possibility of assembling
support from all segments of the community.
Now, this new idea that has been presented to the
Court involves risk for every party. I am not certain
that it doesn't involve risk from my clients more than it
does for some of the others. However, I think that it
would be wise to go forward and explore this approach
and try to determine if there is any feasibility or
possibility to it, Your Honor. I may be the first one
down here opposing it once it's fleshed out [308] and
once it s worked out to see what it really means. But I
would really favor, if it please the Court, that there be
an effort to flesh this out to determine its feasibility. I
also favor, Your Honor, in order to determine the sup
port for the plan at the outset that there be some effort
made to bring those who designed this plan before the
Court and to make a record as to whether or not they
do, in fact, support it, and what they mean by this very
broad outline that was presented to us on Monday.
Thank you.
113
114
THE COURT:
I believe that's all of the parties.
Well, of course, we had, I believe that I told the at
torneys the other day in the office, that I would call on
the Task Force to provide a witness in support of or the
reasons for the plan. I had interrupted the School Dis
trict's rebuttal or at least hadn't even permitted it to
start. I had told the Curry interveners that their
presentation would be delayed pending examination of
the Task Force plan. I have in mind at this time or, by
the way, before I forget it, there have been filed with
the Court some [309] objections to the Dallas Alliance
plan by, as you know, I believe by Mr. Hernandez and
also by Mr. Rutledge. Now, I don't know that the at
torneys have had copies of that, but I have them in the
office. We have made Xerox copies so everybody can
have them. There are other matters that have been
submitted to the Court and I want the parties and their
attorneys to have the benefit of it and they are all in
there and you can pick that up as soon as we get
through here or take a recess.
I will say this further about the Task Force, the ques
tion as to the nature of their status in this case, as you
know, I had asked for, as I said I wanted something
from these people who were willing to undertake the
task of coming up with some sort of a plan that would
represent a concensus of a cross section of this com
munity and what resulted was the Task Force of seven
blacks, seven browns, and seven whites.
Now, as far as I am concerned, in order to make it of
ficial, or give some official status, I am going to pro
ceed and I will enter an order to the effect that they
come in as or they are brought in by the Court as
amicus curiae. I would like for the parties to state how
they wish [310] to proceed. It would be my suggestion
right at this moment that we go ahead at this time with
the School District's rebuttal if they are ready to pro
ceed, and if they want to proceed at this time, and that
we realign and fix another time for the witnesses that
the Curry intervenors propose to bring in and the
Plaintiffs' rebuttal to that which I understand they
wish to present.
Now, I had promised to get somebody from the
Dallas Alliance and I will try to arrange that, but I am
asking more for the convenience of the parties at this
time.
MR. WHITHAM:
I suppose the principal question is what happens,
does the School District go forward with rebuttal?
THE COURT:
Yes.
MR. WHITHAM:
The rebuttal that was intended was what I would call
portion rebuttal in the sense of data about plans before
the Court, therefore, if Dallas Alliance is to be a plan, it
might fracture it out some to have to come back into a
separate one just on that. What I am about to say may
be a very delicate matter with the amicus curiae
arrangement the Court has in mind, but perhaps in the
115
116
interest of what I see going on [311] or at least read of,
let me perhaps ask rhetorical questions and make
observations. I recognize I am in a sensitive area. If 1
read the news accounts right there are probably what
might be thought of as dissents from certain black Task
Force members, certain Mexican-American Task
Force, one Anglo member. The question might occur
has this group of dedicated citizens done at this point all
that they can for the Court and the community and in
view of this dissent that seems to be coming up, is the
Task Force itself exhibiting some degree of divisiveness
and pressures that those of us that live with it certainly
know about. Therefore, the thought occurs, and cer
tainly in view of the Plaintiffs' position that much of it
is contention and would the community be best served
if these dedicated citizens were simply commended for
their efforts and the community be not put further
through the strain that is inevitably to occur as each
party that has concerns about the Dallas Alliance un
dertakes to fracture it out.
The Court is experienced enough a trial lawyer when
you practiced law to have a vision of what is about to
happen. Now, those were dedicated [312] people. If
they are brought in or if the Court is to pursue their
plan it makes them just another party, in effect, here,
because the Court, of course, is lawyer enough to know
that the game gets played that way. Therefore, I have
taken a long way around, Judge, to say, would we be
better off not to have just one more student assign
ment plan, apparently this satisfies no one by agree
ment, it's a repeat of things that Plaintiffs have already
put on. I say these things knowing full well of the
Court's commitment to the business community and of
these people and I hope the Court understands what I
see coming and couldn't we spare the city that? I think
it will be more harmful in the long run in view of what
has been stated today that that occur than anything
else. I hope you understand the trepidation with which
I make these remarks, but I hope the Court un
derstands 1 am trying to spare the city the turmoil that
is going to start once this happens or tell you how we
ought to proceed.
THE COURT:
Let me say that I have some of the same trepidations
you do. I had asked for this in the office the other day,
some group of citizens coming in here writing a letter
of the [313] Court and do they have some official status
as to what they have done or are we going to get cross-
examination or are we going to get to ask somebody
where he lives or something of this kind. I thought I
might as well put that matter in the record and get it
straight.
Now, the parties are going to have the benefit of the
communications that the Court has gotten about it,
that is, from Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Hernandez, and also a
paper from the black community that was filed as a part
of the Task Force plan. Now, as far as I am concerned, 1
wanted the parties to look at the matter and see what
this group had come up with in the light of their
negotiations.
117
118
MR. WHITHAM:
My remarks really suggest with it the good things
and bad things. We can take into account whatever
negotiations the parties can take part in. My thought
was the purpose of telling the Court and the lawyers
and the whole community what that group thought
has been served but to formalize it in the presentation
of a plan with its advocates in that process and make it a
part of the record that may have to go forward where
the Fifth Circuit perhaps sits back and this [314] may
set a record of number of plans before the Court. I am
simply trying to avoid that complicated process if the
purpose has been served. 1 think all in this Courtroom
know that it's purpose has been served.
THE COURT:
If it's been served, I certainly want to pursue it no
further. While in these cases sometimes 1 guess a ques
tion as to whether or not there has been due process
arises, that often happens in desegregation cases, but I
will leave that to the parties. As Mr. Whitham points
out the plan is before the Court and we will leave it that
way. If anybody wants to question anybody with that
Task Force we will arrange a time for that.
MR. WHITHAM:
Might I also rise to ask, I am hearing the phrase
before the court in the sense that it served the purpose
of raising the issue.
THE COURT:
Yes.
119
MR. WHITHAM:
I don't hear that in the sense that the Court is con
sidering it as evidence in this record, that's what I am
saying. This Court's decision would be based on what's
heard here in Open Court and I recognize that.
THE COURT:
Well, of course, I wanted the [315] parties to consider
it. I asked you to do that in connection with your com
munications back and forth among the lawyers. Well,
we will just proceed that way and leave it as it is or call
for a witness from the Task Force if and when we want
him.
Were you ready to go ahead with your rebuttal?
MR. WHITHAM:
The problem is I think we need to know this. We can't
put on our rebuttal until we know whether or not we
have got one more plan in evidence.
THE COURT:
Well, let's put it in evidence.
MR. WHITHAM:
The whole cross-examination of how it came about, I
was trying to avoid that part of it. I was simply hoping
that we have the knowledge and their suggestions and
the parties take it into account but it not be another
plan before the Court in the formal sense that it
becomes adopted by the Court, that the Court finds the
evidence of matters from what we have had here. If the
Court is disposed that it is a plan before the Court to be
substantiated by evidence, then we would prefer to put
off our rebuttal until that plan is before the Court and
all the evidence and all the cross-examination. That
was the point [316] that I was trying to make. Let's put
it out of the Court record, so to speak. Let's thank the
interested citizens and be done with it at that point, and
to put it perhaps bluntly, or go through the hard labor
of just one more plan before the Court and cross-
examine the witness. If we take that stance the School
Board would prefer to put on its rebuttal afterwards.
MR. MOW:
Might I make one observation without responding
directly to his suggestion? I certainly would like to
know before any other School Board witness gets on
the stand what they think about the feasibility of some
of these suggestions which is one of the questions that
our group had. If they want to comment on it, I assume
they will without having any other testimony in front
of them and that's fine with me, but I would like for the
Court to know that we want to cross-examine people
on what has been proposed and see whether these
suggestions have some merit. We would like to explore
further some of the answers that will have to come
from the school administration in terms of feasibility.
MR. WHITHAM:
Your Honor, under those circumstances, it has to be
one more plan presented by [317] witnesses and they
will have to be cross-examined. I was simply trying to
avoid the turmoil for the city that is inevitably to come.
120
121
THE COURT:
Of course, every time we open Court and a witness
gets on the stand we have turmoil because the wit
nesses don't get on that witness stand and all agree
with each other, nor anybody else,
MR. DONOHO:
I would like to say that it's unrealistic to say that this
plan is not before the Court.
THE COURT:
That is the problem I am having in my own mind. It is
before the Court and to this extent it's before all of the
parties. It's hard for me to accept the proposition that
it's not in evidence. It has been filed with the papers in
the case. Now, as I understand it, the school district
says it's before the Court and —
MR. WHITHAM:
I would try one more time in my illustration. A plan
could be filed, a pleading could be filed and simply aban
doned, therefore it ceases to exist as far as being before
the Court. The concept has been kicked about here for
two or three weeks but if it is before the Court that
deeply and before the parties, then [318] I see no other
way to go but to proceed like it's one more plan. I sim
ply wanted to avoid that circumstance.
* * *
122
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
VOLUME V
(Number and Title Omitted)
Filed: August 9, 1976
[2] PROCEEDINGS
(February 20th, 1976)
THE COURT:
Are we ready to proceed, gentlemen?
Is Dr. Geisel here? Would you come forward, please,
Doctor, and take the oath.
Will you raise your right hand?
(Witness sworn.)
DR. PAUL GEISEL,
having been produced as a witness at the request of the
Court was duly sworn and testified on his oath as
follows:
COURT EXAMINATION
BY JUDGE TAYLOR:
Q Would you give us your name, please?
A Paul Geisel.
Q And how are you employed at this time?
A I'm the Executive Director of the Dallas Alliance.
Q You are — you have a doctor's degree?
A Yes, I do.
Q And in what?
A I have a PhD in sociology from Vanderbilt Uni
versity.
Q Where do you live?
[3] A I live in Fort Worth, Texas.
Q And are you employed by some institution of
learning at this time?
A Yes. I am on leave of absence but I continue to
teach at the University of Texas at Arlington.
Q How long have you been teaching there?
A Six years.
Q What do you teach?
A I'm a professor of urban affairs.
Q A Task Force as the Dallas Alliance for which I
believe you said you are the Executive Director, is that
correct?
A Yes, of the Alliance and 1 serve as the
professional assistant to the Task Force.
Q Well, that Task Force filed with the Court a Plan
for suggesting guidelines for the Court to implement in
connection with its order for the desegregation of the
Dallas Independent School District which is the matter
before us now.
Did you have anything to do with the formation of
that Plan?
A In terms of the specific decisions of the Plan, no.
The Task Force always operated in the context of the
policy decision-makers. My role was to provide to the
123
Task Force the kinds of information they requested and
[4] in that context I did a survey of the national types of
programs that were taking place and also tried to find
the implementation processes as a recommendation to
the Task Force in terms of their desires.
124
Q (Continuing by the Court) Before doing that
[5] though, Dr. Geisel, would you give us the benefit of
your educational background?
A Well, as I say, my PhD is in sociology from
Vanderbilt. The dissertation that I wrote was a study of
the educational and aspirational achievement levels of
students in the Chatanooga School System and that
was a study done in cooperation with Dr. Nolan Estes,
at that time, in 1960 when I was at that time employed
at Tuskegee Institute. I also was doing a study at that
time in the City of Nashville on the question of the
decision to desegregate which was an analysis of the
question of how do black families make the decisions
rather than how do white families respond to it, which
was, as I understand it, the first study done to take the
question of the black response to the desegregation
process.
Following that period, I taught at a number of uni
versities including a period at the University of Pitts
burg at which time I was the Educational Chairman of
the NAACP of Allegheny County. And did an analysis
of the Pittsburg Public Schools in terms of racial
achievements and racial integration.
From there I worked as a Director of Research in the
War On Poverty in Ottawa, Canada and then as
professor at Oregon State and then at the University
[6] of Texas at Arlington.
125
Q I see. How did — how was this educational Task
Force, how was it organized?
A It was organized following a number of meetings
at which time the Alliance was considering ways to
positively and constructively help the community find
a way to accept and deal with this change in the public
[7] school system, assuming at that time a rather early
order from this Court. Following that it became clear
that the community needed to be involved in the whole
process of making the decision for their children and
that one of the things that could be of genuine help, as
it was felt by the leadership of the Alliance, was that the
process of trying to get the community input by way of
addressing the entire educational issue as well as a pupil
assignment issue, could be met and handled. It was also
felt that it was necessary to establish an interracial
team of people to struggle together to see what kind of
concensus we could come to rationally together. At
that point Mr. Lowe, the Chairman of the Board of the
Dallas Alliance, appointed and constructed a committee
or a Task Force of twenty-one persons. It was made up
of six black people, seven Mexican-American, one
American Indian and seven white.
There was no particular emphasis on the need for
these people to be representative in that at the very
first session and in following sessions we attempted to
tell everyone that they must work as individuals and
they must attempt to represent the kinds of issues and
kinds of needs and dreams for the educational attain
ment of our children in the City of Dallas. This was an
extremely heavy weight, I think, that was placed [8] on
people.
Q You mean the people on the Task Force?
A Yes. And I think the experiences which they had
while the news media tend to give them some
highlights these days of being in disagreement, I would
like to emphasize that this I think was a heavy burden
that these people carried. I think they carried it very
well and I think the commitment to the proposal we had
submitted to the Court is overwhelming. A firm nine
teen out of twenty-one persons and I think more than
that, even the two who have indicated disagreement
are in substantive agreement with the process and are
firm supporters of this entire notion that the com
munity should have a voice in the process.
THE COURT:
The names of the people who serve on that Task
Force I believe are on one of the documents that was
given to the Court which is entitled A Public Statement
of the Education Task Force of the Dallas Alliance. I will
ask if somebody will let the Court Reporter mark this
as an exhibit and hand it to Dr. Geisel.
(Whereupon the aforemen
tioned instrument was mark
ed Court Exhibit No. 1 for
purposes of identification.)
126
127
THE COURT:
All right, would you hand that to [9] Dr. Geisel?
Q (Continuing by the Court) Dr. Geisei, that was
filed with the Plan, that s your understanding <*
A Yes.
Q Now, the names of the people on the Task Force I
believe are on the second page.
A Yes.
THE COURT:
Well, that is before the Court and if you want to
make an objection to it, as I say, that is before the
Court. Of course, this is just one of the exhibits.
MR. WHITHAM:
Yes, sir. If it would facilitate things, if the Court
wanted to go ahead and mark all of them then the
remarks that I would make in an objection would be
directed to all of them.
THE COURT:
All right. Well, there's also a synopsis of the Plan
which was handed to me as well as a copy of the Plan
itself. Let them all be marked.
(Whereupon the aforemen
tioned instrum ents were
marked Court Exhibit Nos. 2
thru 7 for purposes of iden
tification.)
MR. WHITHAM:
I take it that as soon as the marking process is com
plete the Court would hear the objections?
128
[21] Q (Continuing by the Court) Now, Dr.
Geisel, I understood you — now when did you actually
go to work with this Task Force?
A In the middle of October.
Q Middle of October?
A Yes.
Q How did that Task Force operate? Did it meet
[22] at stated intervals? How did it work?
A It met on a regular basis every Tuesday evening
for an extended period up until about December 16th.
In the first process we were briefed by school people,
we were briefed by city officials. I traveled throughout
the country to meet with various leading figures in the
field of desegregating of public schools in America.
Q Where did you go?
A I went to Washington, I went to various places —
Q Washington, D.C.?
A Yes. I was to have gone to New York but it turn
ed out the consultant from New York came to Dallas.
So I met with him here. I talked by phone extensively
with people in Atlanta, Charlotte-Mecklenburg,
Jacksonville, Florida. Altogether I think I saw ap
proximately thirty different people who are leading
figures in this process nationally and tried to take their
advice. I then came back to the Committee, made a
report on the kinds of ideas and the kinds of processes
used to desegregate schools and the kinds of issues that
are involved. They had already been briefed, as I said,
on what was happening in the city and kinds of issues
that were germane here. We then also discussed the
whole kinds of set of strategies that were involved in
these [23] things and some ideas. They then, as a group,
articulated their questions and their desires and their
kind of what they felt were the appropriate guidelines
for us to proceed on and that was done on Tuesday
evening of December 16th. I was then given until
January 6th to attempt to formulate and develop and
flesh out what the proposals would look like if they
were turned in as proposals for a desegregation plan.
I then worked extensively and with marvelous
cooperation with the people at the Dallas Independent
School District who were extremely helpful. They did
not agree in some instances with some of the proposals
but were very cooperative in providing all the informa
tion that we needed. And we had a workbook at that
time prepared.
Q Had a what?
A A workbook. That was distributed to each of the
Task Force members to show them the implications
and the full elaborations of what the ideas looked like at
that time. Considerable discussion then followed that
presentation and the Task Force at that point began
meeting on Tuesday nights as well as on Saturdays and
in many instances on Sundays. So altogether this Task
Force spent, we estimate, about fifteen hundred hours
together. They knew more about one another than I
think [24] they sometimes wanted to know but they did
have an opportunity to go up and down on various
kinds of issues and had a rather thorough understan
ding of what they were dealing with.
Q Are you suggesting that they were not all in
agreement throughout all of their —
129
A No, I wouldn't say there was always considerable
disagreement, but a large part of that I think is due to
the fact one of the burdens which I mentioned earlier
and secondly to the issue of a good deal of confusion in
different ways of looking at these kinds of issues, and it
takes a while and there was pressure here. Altogether I
would say that the — as I have made the point earlier, as
well as the attitudes and communication that was
achieved in the final analysis could not be highlighted
greater. These people did come to a concensus. They
did come to a community of the mind and they did come
to an understanding of what each was attempting to
achieve.
Q You spoke of concensus. So that the record is
complete, I did, on the evening of I believe that was
Monday, the 16th —
A Uh-huh.
■k -k -k -k
[48] Q (Continuing by the Court) As you told us,
you [49] divided — the city was divided into five pieces
of pie.
A Yes.
Q The School District was.
A Yes.
Q And you left South Oak Cliff, Now, as I would
look at that map, it would leave South Oak Cliff all
black, I believe that would be.
A Essentially.
Q What was the reason — was there any reason for
that?
130
A The reason that had to do with two components,
I believe. One was the issue of attempting to — not to
do cross town busing or do busing that required a travel
time of greater than thirty minutes. The second reality
was that the nature of the present racial migration and
movement in the city is both to the southeast and to the
southwest. And that if we could bring special magnet
programs into that particular district that would be
district-wide, we have proposed for example that mid
dle school magnets be there. We've also proposed that
the centrality system of the high schools be such that
the greatest accessibility would be for that area to enter
into one of those areas. In other words, in order to
maintain the balances that exist and the way to find
[50] accessibility for all of those students into the entire
system at a convenient position of some technical
feasibility we have attempted to focus the program
orientation in their direction.
THE COURT:
_ I see. All right, gentlemen, you may question Dr.
Geisel.
I assume the order that we've been following, unless
somebody wants to defer to somebody else. Toss a coin
to see who goes first.
MR. CLOUTMAN:
I nominate Mr. Whitham,Your Honor.
131
132
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITHAM:
Q Dr. Geisel, what is the Dallas Task Force? How is
it composed?
I'm sorry, let's start at the beginning. Could you
describe for me the organization of Dallas Alliance?
What is it?
A The Dallas Alliance is a community service
organization whose intent is to act upon urban issues
of the total city and county. It's made up of a Board of
forty persons, sixty of whom represent governmental
entities in various ways, twenty-four in the communi
ty at large representing the business community,
citizens at large and to represent racial and other
groups accord- [51] ing to their proportion in the pop
ulation.
Q Well, I take it then it has some form of general
membership made up of individual persons and also
made up of organizational entities, is that correct?
A Well, the organizations that cooperate with us,
as we call cooperative organizations, are not in any way
constrained by the actions of the Alliance.
Q I didn't ask you that, sir.
A Okay, all right.
Q Is Dallas Alliance made up of a list of individuals
— do you have a list of persons that belong to Dallas
Alliance?
A I don't know if I have a list with me.
Q Is there such a list?
A Yes, there is.
Q A membership list?
A Yes, there is. It's a Board of forty trustees.
THE COURT:
It's what?
THE WITNESS:
It's a Board of forty trustees.
Q Well, now, that's what I'm trying to get at. Is
Dallas Alliance a Board of persons or is Dallas Alliance
an organization that has a membership of individuals
that then elect a Board? I'm trying to determine its
structure.
A It is a Board.
[52] Q All right. Now, the Board then would be the
list of individual members, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Now, at the noon recess could you produce a list
of that Board of individual members?
A Certainly.
Q Would you do that, please, sir?
A Certainly.
Q Now, in addition to Board membership of in
dividuals, are there organizations that compose Dallas
Alliance by membership therein?
A The term membership is inappropriate in this in
stance. They are cooperating organizations with whom
we communicate and with whom we gather input
together with various other proposals for action.
Q Now by we do you mean the Board?
134
A Dallas Alliance, yes.
Q As composed of this Board?
A Yes.
Q And the Board is some forty persons?
A Yes.
Q All right. So Dallas Alliance is a Board of in
dividuals consisting of some forty persons and that
Board of forty persons then has outside organizations
with whom it communicates.
[53] A Yes.
Q Now, what is the basis of that communication? Is
it just you need some information from an organization
so you write them a letter or is it a more permanent
type organization relationship?
A Some of this is emergent.
Q Is what?
A Is emergent and we're developing a process so I
wish to couch my answer as a permanent recognizing
at any moment that which is presently permanent will
be changed to more — to be a more facilitative process.
At present there are seventy-seven correspondent
organizations to the Dallas Alliance.
Q Now, do they become correspondent to Dallas
Alliance by reason of some prior arrangement between
the forty-man Board and those organizations?
A They become correspondents after being briefed
on the purposes of the Alliance and asked whether they
would like to, in a cooperative manner, deal with our
Task Forces or participate with us or have input with us
or respond in some way. It's in no way a commitment
on them that they must act necessarily as we do.
Q All right. Do I understand, perhaps from your
answer, that Dallas Alliance has various Task Force
directed to various interests in urban affairs?
[54] A Yes.
Q That as to a given interest in urban affairs a
given Task Force might then seek communications
with some outside organization.
A Yes.
Q And that outside organization would be iden
tified for that particular Task Force in some form of
communication would work between the Task Force
and that organization?
A Yes.
Q So the outside organizations that we speak of are
simply entities both business and governmental that
provide a system for input for help to various Task
Force — Task Forces as they are about their business?
A Yes and no.
Q All right. Let's try the yes part of it and then the
no part of it.
A If you're asking a particular reference to the
Education Task Force the answer is yes in the sense of
consulting. With regard to the other two Task Forces
presently in operation, Criminal Justice System and
Neighborhood Regeneration and Maintenance, in this
regard large numbers of persons from the correspon
dent organizations do participate as Task Force
members per se.
[55] Q All right. There are then three Task Forces
in operation now, Education, Criminal Justice and
Neighborhood what?
135
136
A Regeneration.
Q Neighborhood Regeneration?
A Uh-huh.
Q Now, who are the organizational consultants to
the Educational Task Force?
A You mean which groups in particular?
Q Yes, sir.
A I cannot identify those for these were left to the
liberty of the individual Task Force members to consult
with those groups they felt could be most helpful in
guiding them.
Q Well now, let me stop you right there so that I
understand, please.
A Okay.
Q And I did not mean to cut you off, if you will
please understand.
The Task Force —- Dallas Alliance has three Task
Forces. One of them is this Educational Task Force.
And that Educational Task Force in itself as an entity
and Dallas Alliance as an entity did not arrange for any
outside organization to be one of its consultants but
rather left that to the individual [56] members of the
Task Force?
A Yes.
* * * *
[59] Q And with the one exception you just men
tioned as to Mr. Jack Lowe, you would not be able to
identify the cooperating organizations contacted by
any of the other members of the Dallas Alliance Task
Force?
A No, I would not although I know it was made.
Q Now, you came with Dallas Alliance in October
of '75?
A No, I came in August.
Q August of '75, as its Executive Director?
A Yes.
Q Now, at that time did it have — did Dallas
Alliance have an Educational Task Force?
A No, it did not.
Q When was the Educational Task Force con
stituted as a Task Force?
A I believe it was in the middle of October, but I
cannot give you the specific date.
Q All right.
A I'm sure I have that on record, but I do not recall
the specific date.
Q Would you bring, over the noon hour, the
specific date of the formulation for the Dallas Alliance
Task Force?
A What I can refer to is the date that the Task Force
was authorized as a Task Force, namely from the [60]
Dallas Alliance Board meeting of that month.
* * * *
137
[61] Q Do the minutes that you're going to produce
reflect who was in attendance?
A Yes, they do.
Q Do you recall at that meeting who made the
proposal for the creation of the Dallas Alliance Educa
tion Task Force?
138
A The proposal was presented by Mr. Lowe as
Chairman of the Board of the Dallas Alliance.
Q Did any other person speak in favor of the crea
tion of the Educational Task Force at that meeting?
A There was considerable discussion, as I recall. I
think once we see the minutes we will see in particular
those who do.
Q Do the minutes reflect who spoke or at least a
summary of their remarks?
A A summary of their remarks will be in the
minutes as particular individuals made particular
proposals, that is part of our ordinary minutes.
Q Do you recall whether Mr. Lowe was the only
speaker or were there others present who spoke?
A There were a number of others.
Q How long did that meeting last or will that be
shown on —
A That will also — I don't know if that's shown [62]
on our minutes or not. The length of the time that our
meetings took place, does it say how long it was? Fine,
yes, it will show.
Q It will show?
A It will show.
Q How did Dallas Alliance at that meeting
authorize the creation of the Education Task Force?
How did they go about creating the persons to serve on
the Board?
A A list was submitted to the Dallas Alliance Board
of a committee which had been formed and they
authorized that group to serve as the Task Force.
Q All right. Then I understand that — am I un
derstanding you correctly that some person brought to
the Board a list of persons to serve on the Task Force
that had already been prepared?
A Yes, as a committee who had been working or
had formed themselves to begin working on this ques
tion and that committee requested themselves that
they be considered a Task Force of the Dallas Alliance
rather than as an independent process.
Q All right, as I understand it then, was it a group
of — were all twenty-one members of the then Dallas
Alliance Educational Task Force in attendance at this
meeting that created the Task Force?
A I don't think so. 1 think those members who [63]
are members of the Board were there.
139
* * * *
[64] Q All right.
A Charles Cullum,
Q Thank you.
A Juanita Elder. David Fox. Now, I make a com
ment now; as later action of the nomination — regular
nomination procedure of the Dallas Alliance Board,
two persons here became members of this Board.
Q Let's come back to them.
A Okay, so I will skip them. Walter Ffuman.
Q Thank you.
A Jack Lowe, Sr.
Q Thank you.
A Rene Martinez. Randy Ratliff. Now, there were
two —
Q You've completed the list of the initial members ?
140
A Of the initial members.
Q All right, sir. Then go back and give me the per
sons who subsequently became members of the Dallas
Alliance Board from the list of the Educational Task
Force.
A Lupe Gonzalez.
Q Okay.
A And H. Ron White.
Q So by my rough count there were nine persons
[65] now serving on the Education Task Force who
were then members of the Dallas Alliance Board?
A That's correct, I believe.
Q All right. Now, some of those nine — all or some
of them were present at this meeting when the Task
Force was created, this meeting of Dallas Alliance when
the Task Force was created and this group of nine or
some of this group of nine had then in their hand a list
of persons to compose the Education Task Force, is that
correct?
A Yes, with the exception of one person.
Q Who was off the list?
A No, who was on this list at this time but was not
on the initial list.
Q Okay, was — is there somebody on the initial list
who resigned?
A No.
Q All right. Was a person subsequently added to
the list?
A Yes.
Q Which person shown on Court's Exhibit
Number 1 second page, was subsequently added to the
list?
141
A Juanita Elder.
Q Juanita Elder?
A Yes.
[66] Q So I take it then that Juanita Elder having
been given as an initial member of the Dallas Alliance in
your enumeration was not on the initial list though a
member of Dallas Alliance —
A That is correct.
Q but subsequently became a member of the
Task Force?
A Yes.
Q I correctly understand that?
A Yes.
Q Thank you.
Why was — in other words, there was no resigna
tion, they just wanted to add an extra person, is that
what happened?
A We wanted to add a representative of the
American Indian community.
Q Now, the list that was prepared of the proposed
Education Task Force offered to the meeting we are
discussing held by Dallas Alliance, had been arranged in
advance, I take it ? Were the names written on a piece of
paper?
A I don't recall how they were presented.
Q Or did someone stand up and simply read off the
list of names proposed?
A I'm sorry, I really don't recall how it [67] happen
ed.
142
Q All right. So even before the Dallas Alliance in
October at its meeting constituted an Educational Task
Force, there was in existence some committee of the
[68] Dallas Alliance?
A There was a committee, not necessarily of the
Dallas Alliance. It was a committee —
Q All right, a committee of whom, then?
A A committee of a number of members of the
Dallas Alliance and a number of community represen
tatives working together. At that time they were not a
formal part of the program of the Dallas Alliance but
were merely exploring together what kind of a process,
what kind of a procedure they might follow in develop
ing an Educational Plan.
Q Well, if these persons on the committee were not
a part of the Dallas Alliance, were they just a group of
citizens? How would you categorize this committee?
A Categorize it as a group of citizens of which a
large number were members of the Dallas Alliance
Board.
Q All right. So sometime prior to October there
was a group of citizens, some of whom belonged to
Dallas Alliance and some of whom did not had con
stituted themselves together to look into some matters
with respect to education in the Dallas Independent
School District, is that fair?
A Yes.
Q All right. Do you know who that committee
was? [69] I'll call it the Committee as distinguished
from the Task Force. Was it composed of whom?
A Of twenty of the persons identified here.
143
Q And would that be all of the twenty except
Juanita Elder?
A Yes. 1 believe they all had the opportunity to
come together. I stand to be corrected, there may be
one person who didn't attend all of the previous
meetings.
Q Now, what did you understand this Committee
of citizens to be inquiring into or concerned with before
they came to Dallas Alliance?
A I think they were inquiring into whether such a
process was possible.
Q And by such a process, what do you have
reference to?
A The development of a desegregation plan. And I
think they were exploring the best ways that that
might be accomplished and how they might be organiz
ed.
Q You don't know whether that Committee of
those citizens are the sole and only group of citizens
within the Dallas Independent School District who
might be concerned with how to arrive at a solution to
the desegregation process, do you?
A I would know for a fact that every citizen in the
City of Dallas is concerned with the educational [70]
quality of the Dallas Independent School District.
* * *
[75] Q Direction or charge?
A Yeah, the charge was made.
Q What charge was given the Education Task Force
by Dallas Alliance upon its creation?
A To attempt to design a plan for the school
system.
Q What type of plan for the school system, a plan to
do what for the school system?
A I don't know that the specific language is in the
minutes, and I cannot recall the specific words. I can
speak, I think, in relation to the intent of the comments.
Q Assuming —
A Which was that —
Q Assuming that the record might be clearer in the
minutes, what is your understanding of the intent of
the charge?
A Okay —
Q As it describes the quote, plan, end quote?
A At that meeting Mr. Lowe presented the five
purposes which I have earlier responded to and that
became the charge of this Committee.
Q And by that, we have reference to they were
charged to find a means to provide the best educational
opportunities for the children?
[76] A Yes.
144
* * * *
[101] Q So you're recommending to the Court
discontinu- [102] ance of the Tri-Ethnic Committee as
an effective means?
A Yes.
Q I was not quite certain what your response was
to the Court when the Court asked you what a
"Concensus" was. What is a concensus agreement or
recommendation or decision?
A That's a very tough question and it's one over
which this Task Force wrestled for some time.
I would suggest that I think the word "Vast Majori
ty" is inappropriate.
Q The word what?
A "Vast majority" is inappropriate. It is really a
meeting of the minds that we have a proposal to sub
mit.
Q Is it a bare majority?
A In this instance it is anything but a bare majority.
Q It is what?
A Anything but a bare majority. I would suggest, as
I said earlier, that this proposal as submitted reflects
the support of nineteen of the twenty-one members
firmly and of the two who have indicated some reser
vations, their response are reservations to certain por
tions and not the entire proposal.
145
■ k * * *
[103] Q Well, to determine then whether they sup
ported [104] it, how was that determination made, in a
group meeting or on an individual approach basis?
A It was done on an individual approach basis
following this past Monday.
Q Following this past Monday?
A Yes.
Q What occurred on this past Monday?
A The Plan was submitted to the Court.
Q And then subsequent to submission to the Court
then the proposal was taken to the members of the
Task Force on an individual basis; is that correct?
A Sixteen of the members of the Task Force
presented it to the judge on Monday evening. The
remaining three and their support we learned of later.
Q But, before it was submitted to the Court there
was no vote of the Task Force?
A There was a meeting on the Sunday before the
Monday at which the general content of the Plan and
the concepts of the Plan were approved. A vote per se
was not taken at that time, there was a general concen
sus in the room.
Q Well, if you would get before you the Court's Ex
hibit 1, 2 and 3.
A Yes.
146
* ■k *
[132] Q Do I understand that all School District
personnel except for the one hundred and eighty-five
top salaried line administrators are to be employed over
the given period of years on a racial ratio basis based on
general population by race in the Dallas Independent
School District as distinguished from student com
posites [133] of the Dallas Independent School Dis
trict?
A Yes, I would agree with that with one exception.
Q And that is what?
A We have not used the boundaries of the Dallas
Independent School District for purposes of the racial
balance, we have used the City of Dallas borders.
Q All right. With that explanation, then, I at least
have in my mind around what population you base the
quotas on?
Q All right. But, with respect to the one hundred
and eighty-five people who have worked their way to
the top of the District, their employment as determined
within the given number of years is to be based on the
racial — the racial ratio of students attending the Dallas
Independent School District and not general popula
tion by ethnic origin within the City of Dallas?
A That's correct.
Q Was this particular personnel concept we're
dealing with now as to the top one hundred and eighty-
five administrators early or new to the contemplated
proposals of Dallas Alliance's Educational Task Force?
A By what would you refer to as "Early"?
Q In the initial discussions?
A No.
[134] Q In the later discussions?
A Yes.
Q How late?
A In the last week, although an adapted form of
this had been seen by the Committee I think about the
second week of January.
Q By "Last week", does that refer to the period of
time after negotiations within the Task Force appeared
to have broken down?
A Yes.
Q Is this matter of what to do with the one hundred
and eighty-five top salaried line administration
positions the matter upon which the Task Force finally
came together and was able to arrive at a concensus you
speak of?
A Yes.
A This was one of the issues around which concen
sus was achieved, yes.
Q What was the other?
A All of them.
Q All of the others in the Plan before they came
back together the last week?
A There was not a Plan before we came back
together in the last week. There were a number of
points on which some form of concensus was apparent
but had not been assured.
[135] Q Could you detail for me the points of dis
agreement that caused the Task Force efforts to appear
to have broken down?
A The disagreement was over —
MR. MOW:
Your Honor, could I, at this point, maybe impose a
Warren Whitham objection for two reasons on this? It
seems to me that the questions as to negotiations
within the group really aren't relevant to the Plan
that's presented. Secondly, I suspect if the group were
here with an attorney he might well object on the
grounds that their inter-negotiations as to what
brought about certain points would be privileged, if not
irrelevant, and I think we may spend an awful lot of
time here if we get into who bargained for what and
why with respect to this group.
THE COURT:
Well, I have considerable doubt about its relevance;
however, I'll overrule the objection. Go ahead.
A What was your last question? I'm sorry.
Q (By Mr. Whitham) I don't even remember.
148
149
THE COURT:
Well, it had to do with the negotiations and who was
contending for what. Isn't that about what it is?
Q (By Mr. Whitham) Yes, what were the points
at [136] which it broke down on?
A I believe we broke down — and I would like to
make a comment at this point as an interpretive com
ment. We had been meeting at one point for close to
sixteen straight hours and so there was considerable
exhaustion. If you wanted my personal opinion as to
why we broke down I would say that we met too long.
Now, having said that, the particular issue on which
we came apart was a debate between two forms of
assignment on the 9-12 level.
Q And what were those two forms?
A One was a busing plan and one was a redesigning
of the attendance zone option.
Q What was the busing plan concept; what did it
entail?
A It entailed for those students who did not attend
the magnets that within their areas they would be bus
ed to the respective campuses to achieve racial balance
or minority balance plus or minus ten percent.
Q And that concept apparently did not prevail in
the ultimate Plan?
A No, it did not.
Q And would it be fair to say, then, that in ex
change for that we came to the personnel quota
arrangements reflected on page seven?
[137] A No, I don't think that would be a fair state
ment.
Q If not perhaps fair in your judgment, is it at least
an appropriate observation on the way the process was
arrived at?
A You could come to that observation, I do not.
Q All right.
A That infers that negotiations of various forms
were taking place throughout this in terms of give and
take and that was not the process.
Q There was no trading going on, I take it, in the
Task Force meetings?
A I'm sure there was trading going on in terms of
the discussions but I think in the final analysis twenty-
one people voted as individuals.
Q All right. On page eight, again under personnel
and their competency assessment, do you see
paragraph two? What is the "Students' Education Plan"
referred to in paragraph two on page eight?
A This was in the original draft and because of the
attempt of the editing committee to put the entire
proposal in generic form the individual education plan
did not appear in the document before the Court. The
document that has been submitted by the black
members of the Task Force includes the education plan
procedure I [138] believe, and if not, I have it. It was to
have been included as a supplement to the proposal as
an example of an education plan process.
150
[173] C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N
BY MR. CLOUTMAN:
* * *
[212] Q Is there any particular reason for that level
of staffing one way or another?
[213] A Yes. I think the committee here had in mind
the notion of final accountability in the context of being
responsible and in positions of responsibility and
minority persons to be a part of the decision-making
process, to be effectively making the decisions germane
to the actions and so forth of the District with regard to
the meeting of the resources and of the meeting of the
requirements for educational attainment for their
children.
Q The testimony earlier, upon questions by Mr.
Whitham in this area, was that you would not describe
the inclusion of the second personnel provision — that
is, the top administrative staff — as a trade-out for less
student assignment?
A No. It was a late proposal but I would not call it a
trade-out.
Q Well, let's see if I can understand then. The
negotiations as I understood them between the Task
Force broke down over student assignment and what
to do about the student assignment I think at the high
school level?
A Yes.
Q They resumed upon this proposal being accepted
by some Anglo persons on the Task Force; is that cor
rect?
A Well, that's a way to read it. I think to infer that
this was a particular kind of compromise in [214] that
context is not entirely accurate. We have had proposals
flying at us for months, this was just another proposal.
Now, the fact that its timing came at this particular
time — and I'm not attempting in any way to dilute the
Court or lead you astray from the conclusion which is
obviously apparent — it seems to be apparent, but that
is not exactly how it took place. It was a proposal which
as I recall was received on Thursday night or before the
Sunday and then came again on Sunday and —
Q But it is a fact —
A — it was agreed upon.
Q It was a fact that once that was agreed upon that
student assignment at the high school level was left to
the neighborhood pattern assignment, as you have
described it, given the magnet concepts which would be
in existence?
A Yes. However, let me assure again that the Task
Force was called back together by the Dallas Alliance
Board, so that it did not come together to compromise
or not to compromise, it came back together upon
direction of the Dallas Alliance.
Q I'm just pointint out, and I think it's in the record,
I believe, that after they did come back together [215]
those two things happened and they happened almost
at the same time?
A Yes, they did, and that's a fact. No denying it.
Q Yes, sir. What guidelines would you offer the
Court for new construction as you have indicated? You
152
say that new construction at all levels should promote
the —
A Racial integration?
Q — unitary school concept?
A Yes.
Q What guidelines would you offer the Court for
securing or for insuring that kind of construction
program?
A Well, I think the concepts that we're dealing with
here in terms of centrality by area and the concepts of
centrality for the total City for nine through twelve
offer neutral turfs in all instances, at least for K-3 on,
for a logic on how to appropriately plan and distribute
resources in such a way that those resources will never
in the future be in a form that is discriminatory; that is,
not accessible to all students of the District.
153
* * * *
[226] PROCEEDINGS
(February 23, 1976)
THE COURT:
All right, let's proceed.
MR. CLOUTMAN:
Your Honor, I think it was left that I would reserve
further examinations after looking at these documents
Dr. Geisel supplied us. And I at this time have no
questions regarding those although I do understand
other attorneys might. I will pass the witness.
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
May it please the Court.
THE COURT:
Mr. Cunningham?
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Q Dr. Geisel, my name is Brice Cunningham. I
represent the National Association for the NAACP and
I would like to ask you several questions concerning the
Plan that was presented by the Task Force of the Dallas
Alliance.
I believe in answer to some questions from Mr.
Whitham and according to a roster that was furnished
to us, there are approximately forty members of the
Board of Trustees of the Dallas Alliance?
A Yes.
Q And I believe that — state whether or not the
[227] breakdown — in other words, how many blacks,
how many Anglos or whites, how many Mexican-
Americans, how many Indians?
A I believe at this time it's eleven black, four
Mexican-American, one Indian and the remainder
Anglo.
Q And the committee that met prior to the
authorization of the Dallas Alliance Education Task
154
Force was — how many composed that committee and
what was the ethnic makeup of that committee?
A I think I made it clear that that was not a com
mittee.
Q Well, that group.
A Of the Alliance, and that was a group of persons
who were exploring whether this would be an activity
of the Alliance.
Q Well, this group or committee or these persons
was there any particular makeup of this group of per
sons?
A That would depend on when you're talking
about.
Q Prior to October 23rd, 1975.
A I think it essentially was four persons not
necessarily at that time even exploring it from the
perspective of the Dallas Alliance, four Anglo.
155
* * * Hr
[369] EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q Dr. Geisel, I understood you to say that the Task
Force got consultation from some thirty experts.
A About that. I have counted up and I think I have
about twenty-nine or thirty on my list, yes.
Q Can you tell us who they were?
A I have it with me somewhere if you will give me a
moment. I have them written down on a sheet and it
will take me just a moment to find them, Now, not all of
these were persons who came or wrote us, some were
and some weren't. Some we had to handle by phone.
THE COURT:
I am interested in how the Task Force went about
this. Were they interested in talking to people who
were skilled in the field of education or skilled in the
field of desegregation?
A Both.
[370] Q Were they trying to get an overall view?
A Very much an overall view, most of these per
sons were persons that I contacted personally. In rare
instances the consultants dealt directly with the Task
Force themselves. Dr. Cardenas, who has testified in
this case before, Dr. Horatio Reberee from New Mex
ico.
Q From New Mexico?
A From New Mexico and formerly associated with
the Dallas Independent School District. They both met
with the Task Force. Other persons included Dr.
Robert Green, Dean of the College of Urban Develop
ment at Michigan State; Dr. Harold Gores, Educational
Facilities Laboratory; Dr. Frank Rose, who is the Ex
ecutive Director of the Lamar Society of the University
Associates in Washington; Dr. Thomas Pettigrew, who
is presently on leave from Stanford who is a leading
sociologist in this area; Dr. Rudolpho Alvarrez at
UCLA, Professor of Sociology in Chicano studies;
Wilson Rice, who we referred to earlier.
Q He is the Superintendent of Education in
California?
156
A Yes, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
and two of his assistants came here to Dallas and spent
a full day with the Task Force and they were Davis
Campbell and Marion Joseph, his two principal aides.
[371] And they were here for two full days and met a
full day with the School District personnel as well as
meeting Saturday with the entire Task Force in retreat
form. Another person from California was Ray Mar
tinez, Superintendent of Instruction at Pasadena; Jim
Taylor and Ron Prescott, both of whom are officials in
the Los Angeles School District; Robert Nicewander
who is with the United States Office of Education;
Marshall Smith and Dennis Doyle of the National In
stitute of Education; Mr. Jack Troutman, who is a local
consultant who worked with us; Dr. Julius Truelson,
former president of the Great Cities School Systems
and former superintendent of the schools in Fort
Worth; the research and superintendent's staff of the
Fort Worth Independent School District have been
very helpful; the superintendents in Sacramento, San
Francisco and so forth, Charlotte have been very help
ful, the City Planning Department of the City of Dallas
was very, very helpful in providing materials and
meeting with the Task Force. I have got some others. It
goes on. I don't know how many I have named here.
We did attempt to reach Wilbur Cohen and he is next
to impossible to reach. Laverne Cunningham in San
Francisco and Ohio State was very helpful. We main
tained contact there. Dr. Earl Lewis, previously [372]
referred to, gave us a report. I am sure I have missed
some of the people but these are people that I have
157
listed here that have had direct contact with me. 1
believe that's it. There is another individual who is local
who has since left the country is Dr. Richard Andrew.
Q Something was said somewhere about Dr. Leon
Lessinger.
A Dr. Lessinger met with the people with the
Dallas Chamber of Commerce trying to work toward
the issue of accountability and then I met with Dr.
Lessinger and further contacts were made with him.
Q Now, who is he and where is he?
A He is the Dean of the College of Education of the
University of South Carolina and he has been in
strumental in helping develop accountability systems
in South Carolina, Colorado and Hawaii.
Q In the school systems?
A Yes.
Q Was this Task Force getting information from all
of these experts either directly or through you?
A Yes.
Q Did they ask for this information?
A Yes.
Q Did the Task Force approach this as represent-
[373] ing any one group, that is blacks or browns or
whites or just how did they go about it? Were they es
pousing any particular cause or one neighborhood or
another neighborhood or one school or another
school?
A No. They created a list of persons they wanted
me to meet and to consult with as well and these came
in from numerous sources. We talked to an awful lot of
local people as well. Then I was sent on a national trip to
158
try to see as many of them as possible of those where
felt necessary or helpful and have them come in. And
we did that in the context of the time constraints and
never once do I think we broke apart from the total city.
Q The total city?
A The total city.
Q The whole thing?
A That's right.
Q Well, what the Task Force came up with then is
unique in the sense that you didn't imitate or copy any
other city, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q But you did examine the systems in a good many
different cities?
A Yes.
Q Was this done with a view to the nature of [374]
Dallas and this community, this city, the composite of
information that you got?
A Well, the twenty-one persons, as I said earlier,
many of whom have extensive community experience
in Dallas and others of whom had extensive experience
with the School District itself, I think after the first few
weeks began to cooperate and operate as a group, as a
whole regardless of race. We were concerned with the
total city. Now, they attempted to bring Dallas com
ponents in. We have talked a good deal the last two days
of the early childhood educational model, the mode!
proposed is one that is used in California although it
takes many of the ingredients we had to adopt it to the
Dallas interpretation in the context of what we under
stand the DISD to be doing and be capable of doing so
159
that it would work and there have been many adap
tations to the local area.
THE COURT:
Thank you.
MR. WHITHAM:
Your Honor, the witness yesterday evening and this
morning furnished me various documents that I had
asked for and I would propose to limit the questions
that I might now ask just to those and perhaps those
suggested by the Court's questions as well as the
documents presented to him.
THE COURT:
All right.
160
[375] EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITHAM:
* * *
[387] Q Dr. Geisel, I will hand you what has been
marked as Defendant's Exhibit Number 17 and I will
ask you if you can identify that as a copy of the minutes
of a called Board meeting October 23rd, 1975 of the
Dallas Alliance as revised November 10, 1975?
A That's correct.
161
MR. WHITHAM:
We offer in evidence Defendant's Exhibit Number
17, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
It's admitted.
Q Dr. Geisel, I will hand you what has been marked
as Defendant's Exhibit Number 19 and I will ask you if
you can identify that as the copy of the minutes of the
Dallas Alliance of October 23, 1975 prior to the revi
sion of November 10, 1975?
A That's correct.
MR. WHITHAM:
We offer in evidence Defendant's Exhibit 19, Your
Honor.
THE COURT:
It's admitted.
Q Would you please turn to the second pages of
both Defendant's Exhibits 17 and 19?
A Yes.
[388] Q On the second page near the bottom
appears a list of five precepts or concepts that the
Dallas Alliance considered at its October 23, 1975
meeting, does it not?
A Yes.
Q Now, incidentally, are you the person with the
Dallas Alliance in charge of the preparation of the
minutes of the meetings?
A Yes, I am responsible. I did not take these
minutes.
Q But you're responsible for them?
A Yes.
Q Were you responsible for the preparation and
distribution of Plaintiff's Exhibits 17 and 19?
A Yes, although I did not — see, we had at that time
Q I can't hear you, sir.
A We had at that time a temporary administrative
assistant secretary, Mrs. Willis, who had never attend
ed one of our meetings before. I was traveling at that
time a great deal and she sent these minutes out before
I had an opportunity to review them and that's why
they were revised. She did not get all of the notations
down exactly as it happened. It was her first meeting
and her only meeting and she was not able to describe
everything in the correct form.
162
★ *
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
VOLUME VIII
(Number and Title Omitted)
Filed: November 15, 1976
* * * *
[331] SUSAN MURPHY,
called as a witness in behalf of the Brinegar In-
tervenors, being duly sworn, testified on her oath as
follows:
163
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DONOHOE:
* * * *
[332] Q Give us a kind of chronology of the work
you have done with the City Planning Department.
A My educational background is that I have a
bachelor of architectural degree, a one hundred eighty
hour degree with much emphasis in urban planning,
from Tulane University in Louisiana. With the City of
Dallas I first was employed in what was called the Ad
vance Planning Section, which is still essentially the
same thing I am in now, in that it dealt with problems in
various communities. I have worked on several federal
ly funded projects. I was the one that was in charge of
preparing the new census tracts for the 1970 census. I
headed up the address coding for the 1970 census. I
worked in the community analysis program which was
federally funded and helped produce a community
series of reports. My prime planning experience since
1969 has been working with what we call the Interim
Comprehensive Planning Program that involves
citizen participation in communities throughout the
City of Dallas.
Q Before we go any further, Mrs. Murphy, could
you tell us what the name of your department is?
A The Department of Urban Planning, City of
Dallas and I head up the Community Plans Division.
* * * *
164
[344] Q What is the community analysis program?
A The community analysis program was involved
with some twenty-eight or twenty-nine studies. There
[345] was a series of community studies done on every
community in the City of Dallas. A special study was
done on the inner-city. There was a housing study,
there was an economic study done, just almost an
across-the-board evaluation of all types of, I don't want
to say problems, but situations within the City of
Dallas.
Q All right. Specifically what did these studies
result in in the East Dallas area?
A In the East Dallas area it resulted in the establish
ment of the East Dallas demonstration project which
was a pilot program designed to investigate and address
the problems of the inner-city communities and
hopefully implement action that would help turn these
communities around.
Q Okay. What specifically did that mean in the East
Dallas area?
A In the East Dallas area the funding for the East
Dallas demonstration project rested with the Depart- I
ment of Housing and Urban Rehabilitation. It meant
increased code enforcement, it meant the establish
ment of a small city office in the Old Lakewood library
which is still in operation. It meant many meetings with
the citizens group that we had established out there in
trying to determine their specific problems. It involved
taking of a special survey to update data [346] in the
community.
As far as other than code enforcement, of course,
there has been the creation of the Swiss Avenue
Historical District which has had a tremendous effect
on the whole East Dallas area in that the Historical Dis
trict has encouraged new young families to buy into the
area. It encouraged the citizens and the citizens com
mittee to look at their problems, come up with
solutions to make application for community develop
ment act funds to address the problems of the com
munity.
Q And are these programs in East Dallas still going
on?
A Yes, they are still going on.
Q I believe you even had a meeting last night?
A That is correct, 1 met with a group last night.
Q What was the purpose of that meeting?
A The purpose of that meeting is a continuing
process of trying to address their problems. For exam
ple at the meeting last night we had presented to us
petitions to be presented to the City Planning Commis
sion for considering for proper zoning in portions of
the East Dallas community. We had petitions of about
four hundred fifty-six names turned over to us last
night. These people are actively pursuing their
problems.
[347] Q All right. Mrs. Murphy, I hand you an ex
hibit which has been marked as Brinegar's Exhibit
Number 3, could you identify that for the record?
A This is a Xerox copy of portions of the communi
ty series report that was done for the community
analysis program which was completed in June of 1972.
Q This community series report was made up of
seven or six parts which included influences acting on
165
neighborhoods, comparative neighborhood quality,
potential of neighborhoods, depth of blight analysis,
revitalizing the middle city and citizen participation.
This report refers to the study done for the Lakewood
statistical community, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Now, I notice in various places throughout that
exhibit, Mrs. Murphy, the reference to the terms “ur
ban blight", we might turn to page IV-3 and look down
to the second to the last paragraph in which there is a
reference to ways in which the neighborhood is
affected by potential blighting influences. Could you
explain what urban blight is?
A Urban blight could be many things. It could be
housing that is deteriorated, it can be a preponderance
of absentee landlords who do not keep up their hous
ing, it could be housing that is located next to [348] un
desirable businesses. Probably in the East Dallas com
munity the best example would be the preponderance
of bars that are located, say, along Columbia or Colum
bia and Beacon adjacent to a residential community. It
could be high crime statistics, it could be junk cars in a
yard. In other portions of the city they have tremen
dous problems of odor rendering from plants. It can be
so many things. It can actually be anything that makes a
place undesirable to live.
Q All right. Rather than go through this exhibit
page-by-page, could we generally summarize the im
pact of this exhibit regarding urban blight?
A This exhibit pulled out neighborhoods we — I
might add in our work further divided the communities
166
into neighborhoods to have a smaller unit to work
with.
Q Excuse me, which neighborhood is this?
A It is the area west of Abrams Road.
Q Generally this area here immediately to the east
of Central Expressway and west of McMillan, is it not ?
A That's correct.
Q Tell us generally what your report says.
A Generally the report says that this is a fragile
area that at that time was still in relatively stable shape
but it was the type of community that could [349] be if
the system within the community was changed that
you could expect some blighting influences to occur.
There were already some there and more could result.
Q What does system mean, that is a planner's term,
is it not, Mrs. Murphy?
A A community is made — when I use the term
system, I am speaking of a community being made up of
many differences, the housing stock, the transporta
tion system, not only the streets, the freeways and the
transit system but the churches, the schools, the shop
ping available, the parking space available, your whole
spectrum of life. City planners love to use the term
"work with and plan, and employment available".
Q All right. Could we summarize this report, Mrs.
Murphy, as being your opinions and conclusions on the
study of the Lakewood statistical community in June,
1972 of the blighting and just the general study of the
area including any blighting problems that may exist in
that community?
A That is correct.
167
Q And if the Court wanted to learn your opinions it
would be just a matter of reading this report, is that
correct?
A That is correct.
168
* * * *
[351] RAM SINGH,
called as a witness in behalf of the Brinegar Intervenors
being duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DONOHOE:
* * * *
[357] Q Any opinions stated here or any other place
in this report were your opinions as a planner, were
they not?
A Right, sir.
Q They are still your opinions today, are they not?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right. In referring again to page one to the
fourth paragraph down the page.
A Yes, sir.
Q It begins, "Conditions in East Dallas are certainly
not at the point where wholesale clearance and
redevelopment are necessary. Yet the basic
mechanisms which affect development and redevelop
ment of an area are not at present operating to
stimulate new demand for East Dallas as a residential
community. Unless this situation is altered, in all
likelihood East Dallas faces continued decline."
Was that your opinion based on the data and infor
mation that you developed in this report?
A Yes, sir, it was the opinion of the whole staff as it
was mine too.
169
* * * *
[359] Q All right. Now, I notice under the definition
or the next paragraph headed "Goals", that one of the
goals listed is to increase the attractiveness of the cen
tral city to middle-income families. What does this
mean, Mr. Singh?
A This has been the main action in the whole Unit
ed States of America. The middle-class families and
upper-class families have moved to the suburbs or to
the outskirts of the city. We thought the best way to
bring life back to the inner-city community was when
the American families might reside there again.
Q Now, referring to page six of the report, if the
Court wanted to determine the information regarding
the population in East Dallas as compared with the City
of Dallas, he could do so by referring to page six which
sets forth in summary fashion that in a ten-year period,
1960 to 1970, the population of East Dallas decreased
9.09 percent while the population of the City increased
24.23 percent, could he not?
A Yes, sir, right.
Q He also could go on and note that one-thirteenth
of the total city population resided in East Dallas in
1970 whereas in 1971 one-twentieth of the total resid
ed there?
[360] A Uh-huh.
170
* * * *
Q Tables 3 and 4 on page nine first show the racial
composition. Table 3 shows the racial composition
[361] of East Dallas by census tract and the total city in
I960, is that correct?
A Right, sir.
Q Table 4 shows the racial composition of East
Dallas by census tract and the total city in 1970?
A Right.
Q It's a similar table?
A Right, sir.
Q So that in looking at Table Number 3 the Court
could note that the total white population of East
Dallas for instance, in 1960 was 40,776?
A Right, sir.
Q And in turning to Table Number 4 the Court
could note that the total white population had been
reduced to 32,503 for a reduction of something over
eight percent, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And he can note in 1960 the black population was
8,434 and looking at Table Number 4 he could note it's
reduced to 6,789?
A Right, sir.
Q He could note in Table Number 3 that the
Mexican-American population in 1960 in East Dallas
was 2,119 and that had increased by 1970 by looking at
Table Number 4 to 7,365?
[362] A Right, sir.
Q Turning back to page seven again, you could
note in summary fashion that in the ten-year period
between 1960 and 1970 the white population of the city
increased 7.87 percent, the black population increased
62.67 percent and the Mexican-American population
increased 166.10 percent in the city?
A Right.
Q But you would note in the East Dallas area and
you could go on to note that while the Mexican-
American population doubled, from 3.8 percent to 8
percent that in East Dallas the Mexican-American pop
ulation quadrupled from 4.1 percent to 15.8 percent?
A Right.
Q There is other information about the increase or
the changes in the white and black population during
that period?
A Right, sir.
Q And this information in Report Number 1 was
primarily based on the census information for the
period through 1970?
A Right, sir.
Q All right. If the Court wanted to note your opin
ions at the time of this report as distinguished from the
later report regarding change in school [363] popula
tion in East Dallas he could do so by turning to Table
Number 13 on page seventeen, could he not?
A Right, sir.
Q This is a summary, and if the Court wanted to
171
know anything about the incomes below poverty levels
in the East Dallas area as compared with the city as a
whole he could do so by looking at page twenty-six and
the tables on page twenty-seven, twenty-eight and
twenty-nine, could he not, sir?
A Right, sir.
Q Would it be a fair summary of what these tables
show to look at page twenty-six, the second paragraph
and note that of all families in the City of Dallas in 1970
10 percent lived on incomes below the poverty level but
in East Dallas 16 percent of all families lived below the
poverty level?
A Right, sir.
Q If the Court wanted to get some notion of the
patterns of the investment in real estate and improve
ment of land and development of land he could do so by
looking at Table Number 23 on page thirty, could he
not?
A Right, sir.
Q This again was as of February, 1974?
A Right.
1 7 2
* ★
[365] Q And as a result of these surveys were you
not able to develop additional information regarding
the demographic characteristics of the East Dallas [366]
statistical community for all races?
A Right, sir.
Q On an ethnic basis?
A Right.
Q The Court could get a summary of your con
clusions, could he not, by looking at pages four through
ten of the report?
A Right, sir.
Q And looking over on page five under the words
“Racial Composition", the first sentence would be your
conclusion based on your studies, Mr. Singh?
A Well, the conclusion is drawn on these statistics,
sir.
Q All right, sir. Now, let me read to you these two
sentences that I am referring to and let me ask you to
explain them.
A Ail right.
Q It states here, “The slight change in total popula
tion does not reflect the rapid changes that have taken
place in racial composition in the last fifteen years. The
major trends are an out-migration of Anglos and an in-
migration of Spanish surname and blacks." You go on
to say, “These trends can be seen from 1960 to 1970 in
the U.S. Census and from 1970 to 1974 in the number
of births and elementary school enrollment ." [367] And
then you refer to Table 1.
A Right, sir.
173
* *
[374] WILLIAM DARNELL,
called as a witness in behalf of the Brinegar In
terveners, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
174
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR, DONOHOE:
* * * *
[377] Q I believe, Mr. Darnell, you were responsible
for designating those cross hatched statistical areas on
[378] Brinegar's Exhibit Number 1 as the inner-city, is
that correct?
A Yes, sir. We included those as a suggested
designation in the inner-city committee report that I
referred to. Actually the City Council is the body which
accepts that designation.
Q Could you explain for us what configuration and
what information or what characteristics you based the
determination that those areas are "the inner-city of
Dallas" and you might define inner-city for us while
you are at it.
A Partly it's a matter of convenience in that in
order to make any kind of assessment of what you are
doing or how well you are doing, you have to have an
information base from which to do it, thus you almost
always are forced to utilize census tracts. As has been
indicated by Mrs. Murphy those standard statistical
areas are an aggregation of census tracts. When you
then look at the information that you have available for
those standard statistical areas, SSA's as they call them
in the government agencies, you look for certain symp
toms, if you will, that appear very frequently in
neighborhoods that have problems. You look for symp-
toms such as high vacancy rates, you look for a com
paratively low degree of home ownership. You may see
a comparatively [379] high degree of physical
deterioration from the housing. You normally see a
comparatively low income level by comparison to the
city at large. You may see high infant mortality rates,
high morbidity rates.
Q Morbidity?
A High disease rates of various kinds. You do not
necessarily see each one of these in every circumstance
but when a preponderance of these appear, it's a
reasonable definition then to conclude that an area
such as that is what we have called the inner-city. That
is simply then an area in which those kinds of problem
predominate.
Q All right. And you included the East Dallas
statistical community in that inner-city designation,
did you not?
A Yes, we did.
Q Why was that? First of all, when did this occur?
When was this decision made by your department and
yourself that it would be part of the inner-city com
munity?
A I would like to point out again that the final deci
sion did not occur until the City Council accepted the
report. Those areas had been in fact suggested earlier
in the report, I believe in a report that was finished in
1972, which Mrs. Murphy has testified [380] about
called the community analysis-program. Our own con
clusion was that that would be made at the time the
inner-city report was prepared and that was ap
proximately April of 1974.
175
Q All right. Going back to East Dallas, was there
any special efforts made in East Dallas to develop data
and information as distinguished from other parts of
the city?
A Yes, as Mrs. Murphy has indicated, the city was
already engaged at that time in a planning program of
identifying particular neighborhoods, attempting to,
particularly with respect to land use to develop some
type of remedial action for neighborhoods, to establish
with the residents of the neighborhoods continuing
dialogue about the problems they conceived and the
solutions they might have to suggest.
Q This was about 1972 or 1973?
A Yes, that process actually began even earlier and
continued. The planning department program describ
ed three phases. Phase one essentially was exploratory
and data gathering. Phase two which the citizen groups
were contacted and some effort was made to examine
the land use patterns, zoning and matters such as that.
Finally, phase three which actually attempted then to
take the results of phase one and phase two and in some
[381] degree implement them. The job of implementa
tion by its nature became closer to the mission of the
Department of Housing and Urban Rehabilitation for
which I work and to the Planning Department in its
normal functions. We therefore agreed and set up
between the two departments what we referred to as
the East Dallas Demonstration Program.
Q When was this?
A This was again in the spring, I suppose, or
summer of 1973 and actually became operational in
January of 1974.
176
177
Q Go ahead.
A Well, the purpose of the demonstration was to
take sort of these basic conclusions that had been arriv
ed at by the citizen planning group and the urban plan
ning program.
Q Could you summarize those conclusions with
regard to East Dallas for us?
A I believe that the principal conclusion was that
East Dallas was suffering from a number of problems,
that's the obvious conclusion and the primary one I
believe that that group identified. East Dallas as a com
munity was zoned primarily for multiple family use,
meaning apartments, when in fact the predominant
land use, actual use on the land was single family [382]
structures.
Q Okay. At that point had your department
become concerned at all with the demographic makeup
or the changes in the demographic makeup in the East
Dallas statistical community?
A Yes, in the process of selecting an area in which
to attempt a demonstration we tried to find an area
that met a number of criteria. We set those criteria ob
viously in an attempt to come as close as possible to the
array of problems that we felt would exist in other
inner-city neighborhoods because if any of the techni
ques that were attempted in East Dallas in fact provide
successful, obviously it would be helpful to transfer
those techniques to other inner-city neighborhoods.
We therefore looked for an area which was in the first
place not totally in decay, meaning that there were
areas that were moderately stable and even areas that
showed some degree of improvement in their basic
conditions. On the other hand obviously we primarily
were trying to deal with decline in inner-city
neighborhoods.
Q Which would include such statistics as morbidity
and health problems, unemployment, lower median in
comes, the numbers of families above the poverty level
as compared with the ones below and so forth?
[383] A Yes.
Q Do the reports of Mr. Singh referred to earlier
set up some of the statistical information and bear that
out regarding East Dallas?
A Yes, they do, although that information was not
available or at least not compiled in this form at the
time the selection was made.
Q I see. I think I interrupted you at the point where
you were selecting the East Dallas community for the
demonstration project, would you tell us what happen
ed after that?
A Yes, sir. As I say, we attempted to find a
neighborhood that met a number of criteria. I described
one which was a neighborhood which in our opinion
had progressed so far into decay that bringing it back
from that state would be a very difficult or extremely
expensive kind of undertaking. The second criteria that
we set was that the area should already have in ex
istence some reasonable high degree of community in
volvement and interest on the part of the residents of
that particular area. A third one was that the area be
ethnically or racially mixed. A fourth was that it lie
within the outer boundary, so to speak, which is Loop
178
179
12. A fifth was simply whether or not the area had in
existence what planners called some of the interest
[384] structure, basically an adequate system of streets,
roads, parks and sewers and whatnot.
On the basis of comparing among the various stand
ard statistical areas, we chose jointly with the Plan
ning Department the East Dallas area to try some of
these efforts. We then proceeded to draw a budget for
that project which was ultimately approved by the City
Council.
It's worth mentioning also that the city previously
provided for a very large amount of federal funds for
the East Dallas area in a program similar to the one that
is sometimes referred to as crossroads which was ob
viously a program carried out in the vicinity of Martin
Luther King, Sr. Essentially it was also true that the
East Dallas Demonstration focus or the focus in that
particular program was in housing, on repairing sub
standard structures, on attempting to generally im
prove the environment. However, in this instance, the
city, because of that previous request for federal funds
had already allocated something on the order of two
million dollars in bond funds to this particular area and
therefore the demonstration program had a number of
possible resources to work with and the resources ob
viously of the citizens themselves and their interest
and the bond funds that had previously been voted
which [385] could be used for various types of public
improvements and we had the additional budget ap
proved by the City Council to provide staff to assist in
the project.
Q Okay. Now, I believe you referred to as being a
pilot program, what specifically did the city through
your department and I take it your staff do as part of
this East Dallas Demonstration Project?
A First there were a number of additional code en
forcement inspectors assigned to the East Dallas area,
since from the outset it had been clear that bringing
housing up to standard conditions was a primary con
cern. Secondly, the city made arrangements to occupy
an actual office in the area in which the code enforce
ment staff as well as some of the project staff could be
located. Third, we began the arduous task of assembl
ing what we call base line data, meaning an attempt to
measure as accurately as we could where we were at
the start of the demonstration program so that we
could quite obviously tell if in fact any progress oc
curred. That led to the preparation of the reports that
we referred to as Report Number 1, and that essentially
sets out a base line. We also staffed and held a very large
number of meetings with residents of the areas
through an officially designated organization put
through by the Planning Commission called the East
Dallas Design Committee.
[386] Q Was this an elected body?
A Yes, it was. In the process of those meetings with
those citizen groups we explored virtually all of the
topics that cover the things that make a neighborhood
go or not go, what we refer to as the subsystems and
that means really how people work, where people live,
what they live in, how they earn their pay and where
they get their schooling and where they buy their
groceries, how they get to work, the whole array of
what makes up the neighborhood and people in it.
Q This would account for such statistical informa
tion as the tables in this report referring to automobile
180
ownership and similar kinds of information?
A Yes, sir, we were attempting to paint as complete
and accurate a picture as possible of the area, more or
less, as it stood at the time we entered into this
demonstration program.
Q All right. How does the analysis of the demo
graphics and particularly the ethnicity of the area enter
into the planners or how did it enter into your approach
in East Dallas because there is a great deal of informa
tion in these reports about ethnicity?
A Yes, sir, ethnicity really is of primary concern
when you are dealing with neighborhood revitalization
only in the sense that it reflects, generally [387] speak
ing it reflects economic status or socio-economic
status. You are not, except for just sort of infor
mational purposes, you are not particularly concerned
with the ethnic makeup of the population in the
neighborhood except insofar that it is reflective of the
socio-economic makeup in the neighborhood.
Q What does socio-economic mean?
A There are literally dozens of definitions in the
literature of socio-economic status and a simply in
dicator of that which is quite accurate is income level.
And it is the case that in an Anglo family, for example,
that it has a prior median income than a Spanish sur
name family and in turn a higher median income
generally than a black family.
Q All right. Was any information developed
specifically about the median incomes of blacks, whites
and Mexican-Americans in East Dallas?
A Yes, there is, I believe in Table 6.
Q And this is Report Number 2 which is Brinegar
Exhibit Number 6?
181
A I'm sorry, I have an improper Table 6.
MR. DONOHOE:
Your Honor, we don't have other copies of this and
we will have them later.
Q I will ask the witness to identify this document.
[388] A This is a copy of a table that was provided to
me by Mr. Singh at some stage during our preparation
of all this data going back some long time.
Q And what does that table show, Mr. Darnell?
A Essentially it displays the income ranges for the
city, for Lakewood and East Dallas and then for
Lakewood and then for East Dallas by $999.00 in
crements.
Q Does it show the comparative data by ethnicity
for the city, Lakewood and East Dallas, and Lakewood,
and East Dallas all separately in categories?
A Yes, sir.
MR. WHITHAM:
I don't have any objection, Your Honor.
MR. CLOUTMAN:
No objection, Your Honor.
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
No objection, Your Honor.
MR. DONOHOE:
Your Honor, we offer Brinegar Exhibit Number 9.
THE COURT:
It's admitted.
182
Q From that table what did you conclude in sum
mary fashion as to the comparative economic status of
blacks, Mexican-Americans and Anglos in the East
Dallas statistical community?
A I think you will find essentially the same patterns
so far as the economic patterns as you do in the city at
large. In 1970 the Anglo's average family [389] income
in Dallas was $15,615,00 and the income for a Spanish
surname family would be $9,232.00 and for a black
family $7,080.00. If you would pick, for example, the
income level of $5,000.00 from the table here, which is
an approximation, shall we say, of above poverty level,
of a family of four, in East Dallas the Anglo population,
8.22 percent of that population had that income level.
14.02 percent of the black population had that income
level. 9.32 percent of the Spanish surname population
had that income level. So either way you care to look at
it it's a percentage of people having a low income and
percentage of people having a high income. It's the nor
mal pattern that the Anglo family on the average has a
higher income than the Spanish surnamed or black.
Q This socio-economic status is the primary reason
for evaluating the ethnicity of the area from the stand
point of planning?
A Yes, from the standpoint of neighborhood
revitalization, yes, sir.
Q Could you explain for us what is the planner's
objective as far as developing different socio-economic
status in a neighborhood? Is it your goal to raise
everyone's level or what is the purpose?
A I think you can generally observe in dealing with
any neighborhood that the prime determinent of [390]
quality of life in that neighborhood or whether proper
183
ties are maintained and its general atmosphere is the
socio-economic level of the people who live there. In
the revitalization of a neighborhood you don't want to
create a situation in which either you have all high in
come people or low income people. One is just as unat
tractive from a planner's perspective in the revitaliza
tion of neighborhoods as the other. What you look for
if you can possibly bring it about is an economic mix in
the neighborhood. You look for that for a number of
reasons but the principal one is that the lower income
people in particular have what we call a shortage, not
only of income, but a shortage frequently of informa
tion resources and knowledge resources and even
perhaps help or other kinds of resources. There is a
belief among people who are engaged in neighborhood
revitalization that having an economic mix in the
neighborhood, first of all, benefits the lower income
person by making available to him directly or indirectly
resources of the higher income people in the
neighborhood. Now, that does not have to mean actual
money exchanged, knowledge exchanged, it can mean
simple role playing, a great number of things and
therefore that is the aim and if you look at that you nor
mally have to deal with that in neighborhood revitaliza
tion. If a neighborhood [391] becomes populated en
tirely by a lower socio-economic group of people, you
very typically have a pattern emerge which is high den
sity of, if you will, the symptoms we described that East
Dallas has which, of course, perhaps take their most ex
treme form in the kinds of housing projects that we
have both here and in the East in which there are very
large numbers of very low socio-economic groups of
people forced in in effect because that's the only option
there is available.
184
Q Is that what we sometimes refer to as slums and
blighted areas?
A Yeah, that is frequently the outcome and in fact
almost unavoidably the outcome of that eventually.
Q When we are talking or when Mr. Singh and I
were talking earlier and he set forth his tables and con
clusions with regard to out-migration of the Anglos
from the East Dallas statistical community, do I inter
pret your testimony as saying that would also typically
mean the out-migration of higher socio-economic
status people?
A Yes, it would typically mean that.
Q And is that the basic reason for the concern
about out-migration of whites?
A Yes, from the perspective of revitalization of
neighborhoods, yes.
[392] Q What have you found in East Dallas as far
as efforts on the part of the various socio-economic
levels which I take it are of all races to work with one
another in the revitalization program? Do you have
any evidence in that regard?
A The only evidence you have realistically is you
have the participation of the people in the community
meetings in the formal organization of the setup as a
citizens group to try to address this problem. There
were, I am aware of people who participated in that
group who were quite poor, who were renters and who
had a much different perspective to bring to the discus
sion than another person who was, say, an owner of a
number of apartments, units in the area. Both par
ticipated. With respect to ethnic representation there
were typically representatives of the Spanish surname
population and there were normally one or two
representatives of the black population.
Q All right. I take it you found there was much
community support for your actions in the East Dallas
area, is that right?
A From time to time. There was support for the
general action. We would obviously, as anybody does,
make a suggestion that would be resisted by everyone.
That was part of the purpose to advance these kinds of
[393] suggestions that looked sensible from a city
planner's point of view and see what happens when the
people that actually live there are confronted with this
brilliant notion that you dreamed up.
Q Was the Swiss Avenue Historical District one of
the ideas generated by the city staff that was adopted in
the area by the community?
A I presume so. That actually all took place prior to
my being involved in it. I would mention that the ex
istence of the district was one of the reasons, however,
that East Dallas was selected as a demonstration area.
Q So that the existence of this district was one of
the causes of its selection?
A Yes.
Q And there was already some evidence of com
munity involvement in the area?
A Precisely.
Q All right. Mr. Darnell, could you describe what
the different community systems as I believe you
referred to them that are looked to by planners in
determining the nature of a community?
A I think there are probably as many opinions
about this as there are people engaged in the business
186
but I think it would be general agreement that you are
[394] looking at what is sometimes called the economic
system which really means obviously where people are
on income and you are looking at the housing system
which is self-explanatory. You are looking at what
might be called the services of the kind of subsystems,
where you buy your food and that sort of thing. You
may wish to include health care subsystems. Obviously
you look at the educational subsystem. Those generally
speaking would represent the scope of the concern in a
neighborhood with a possible addition of the particular
neighborhood of the transportation subsystem.
Q Well, does the status of these subsystems of par
ticular importance in your efforts to revitalize and
stabilize the neighborhoods?
A Yes, of course. These are not independent sub
systems. They all link together and they all relate in
certain ways to how the net income of those systems fit
together and how well they fit is what determines what
your neighborhood is.
Q Included in your description of systems as the
planners use the terms in the school system, the
schools in the area. Do you have any opinions as to the
possibilities or the importance of this Court's order
with respect to the transportation of any students out
side of the East Dallas statistical community and what
[395] that order might effect or what effect it might
have on the efforts to revitalize the East Dallas
statistical community and the probabilities that there
might be a better way?
A Well, I think that Mrs. Murphy used the word
fragile to describe the East Dallas community and I
187
would agree with the use of that term. It is a
neighborhood in my judgment which at any time could
go, so to speak, either way. I believe there is some small
evidence of progress having been made in arresting
decay in the neighborhood. If you make a major kind of
change, for that matter, if you make a small kind of
change in one of these subsystems that I refer to, it in
evitably ends up showing up in a lot of other ways.
There is absolutely no way that I am aware of nor am I
aware of any literature on the subject but there is no
way in reality to predict how that change in one sub
system may manifest itself through the neighborhood.
But the probability is if you make a change in a sub
system it will have an impact throughout. In the case of
East Dallas in particular what you would normally ex
pect to see, if you make a major change in one sub
system, you normally expect to see the basic trends
that are there continue or accelerate.
Q Which includes out-migration of Anglos?
[396] A Yes, I guess it does if that's the case. You
also expect to see a further, for example, if housing is
deteriorating, you expect to see that continue. If un
employment is high, you expect to see it go higher. It's
simply not because obviously business has moved out
but simply because of the relative employability of
skills of the people who move in.
MR. DONOHOE:
Your Honor, we pass the witness.
188
189
MR. WHITHAM:
We have no questions, Your Honor.
MR. CLOUTMAN:
I have one, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLOUTMAN:
Q Mr. Darnell, my name is Ed Cloutman and I
represent the plaintiffs in this action. You described for
the Court a number of community systems or sub
systems that form, as you described it, a statistical
neighborhood and you indicate that if you change any
of these subsystems or alter them in some fashion
there will be some impact?
A Yes, sir.
Q You believe the probability might be to continue
the present trend if one system is altered from its pre
sent revitalization standpoint?
A Yes, sir, I would perhaps put it this way, if I
might, that there were a number of trends evident in
[397] East Dallas when the demonstration began and
there is some small evidence that those trends have
been arrested.
* •k
[398] ROBERT LEE BURNS,
called as a witness in behalf of the Brinegar In
terveners, being duly sworn testified as follows:
190
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DONOHOE:
* * * *
[400] Q When you say this what are you talking
about?
A The Swiss Avenue Historical District as well as
through the bank in setting aside certain sums of
money to be used for home loans, home improvement
loans in this area to help the district be revitalized.
Q Tell us a little bit about that program.
A Yes, sir. When the Swiss Avenue group first
began this effort to get this declared a historical dis
trict, the Swiss Avenue Historical District, the
Lakewood Bank set aside one million dollars at the time
to be used for people to purchase these homes and
revitalize them because there were a lot of them which
had deteriorated in the Swiss Avenue area.
Q Why was the Lakewood Bank interested in doing
something like this?
A Well, of course, our livelihood depends on what
happens in our neighborhood. This neighborhood is
primarily the East Dallas and Lakewood area which we
have been discussing.
Q All right. Did you take other actions in connec
tion with this area?
A Yes, sir. We have run ads. We sent out direct mail
pieces soliciting people to come in for home improve
ment loans. We used radio advertising.
* *
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
VOLUME IX
(Number and Title Omitted)
Filed: November 19, 1976
* * * *
191
[2] EVELYN DUNSAVAGE,
called as a witness in behalf of the Brinegar In
terveners, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DONOHOE:
* *
[15] Q What are you doing with regard to housing
in that entire district?
A Well, we have done several things in the past and
we are continuing these programs and expanding
things. First of all I think I should specify that the
characteristic that runs throughout area is the tremen
dous variety in housing.
Q In prices?
A In prices.
Q Could you give us a range?
A Everything from seven thousand, six thousand
dollars to four hundred thousand dollars. I mean the
area was purposefully developed that way. I would like
to make a brief comment about that to talk about the
kind of campaign we have undertaken. Prior to 1930,
the developments were developed comparable to a
small town, I mean it wasn't bad. It wasn't thought as a
detriment to have the president of a company living in
close proximity to a school teacher who lived in close
proximity to a laborer. It was a mix of people [16]
economically.
Now, after that period of time because of a number
of things, factors, the FHA, the war, the federal
programs, that sort of dictate criteria for financing to
financial institutions, developers had developed one
price range type housing with which we are all very
familiar. You can drive for miles in the City of Dallas
and especially in the suburbs around Dallas and see the
same price range of housing and it forces an ex
clusionary economic kind of living pattern. So in East
Dallas, in Old East Dallas and in Lakewood combined
we do not have that kind of characteristic. We have
heterogenity in terms of the housing stock itself and
that allows for different kinds of people at different
economic levels to live in this community and I would
say that is the one homogeneous pattern that exists in
the community.
Q As a matter of fact that has made for mixing of
the ethnic peoples or the people of different ethnic
backgrounds as well as d ifferent economic
backgrounds?
A Absolutely. That's one of the reasons we feel
critically that the community be protected because of
the characteristics of the housing stock that allows
different people, and unfortunately in Dallas, as we all
know the socio-economic status of it is very frequently
characterized by the racial divisions. The housing stock
192
[17] in this community basically allows the kind of mix
ing of all different kinds of people economically and
racially, that you can't have commonly in other com
munities because of the economic divisions.
193
* *
[19] Q Could you tell us just some names or ex
amples of numbers, however you can do it, of people, of
the kinds of people that have moved in and who have
expressed to you the fact or the view that one of the
reasons was the racial and ethnic balance of the area in
the course of your duties with the Historic Preserva
tion League?
A Well, yes, the Earharts who are Interveners
moved into the area because, their primary reason was
for the integrated school situation. The people who live
right across the street from me moved in because of the
mix in economic levels in the community. They don't
have school children at this time but that was their
rationale for it and they wanted an older house. There
have just been a tremendous number of people to
whom I have talked. Well, I think perhaps it should be
said in the reverse fashion. Anyone I speak with the
very first thing I say is you recognize this is a mixed
community, you recognize this is a different kind of
community than most of your say suburban com
munities and that is something that you are going to
have to deal with. If you're not interested in this kind of
lifestyle, I suggest you look somewhere else. Secondly,
if you want to buy an older house you need to have a
good marriage because I don't think you can buy an
older house and go through all the trials and tribula-
[20] tions without it.
Q Tell us a little bit about the ethnic makeup of
those people that participated in the East Dallas Design
Committee and the neighborhood committees. First
you might just tell us what the structure is, the
neighborhood committees and the East Dallas Design
Committee.
A The East Dallas Design Committee is a represen
tative group elected from the community. It's com
posed of twenty-seven individuals. They are elected
from five neighborhoods in Old East Dallas. Each one
of the five neighborhoods also have elected represen
tatives, nineteen in each neighborhood for the four
neighborhoods and then only one from the one
neighborhood because of the population density of that
neighborhood. So essentially you are talking about ap
proximately seventy to eighty elected officials, elected
citizens who are involved in the planning process for
their community in conjunction with the Dallas City
Plan Department and the Urban Rehabilitation
Department.
Q Do members of these groups include members of
Mexican-American, black as well as Anglo?
A Yes it's all racial composition.
Q In fact, some indication of the ethnic makeup of
those persons interested in this community could be
taken from the composition of the Intervenors, the
ethnic [21] composition of the Intervenors in this case,
is that not so?
A Yes, in the sense that the Intervenors are of
Mexican-American descent and black and Anglo. We
have mixed representatives in the Intervenor group.
1 9 4
Q Now, in going back to Exhibit Number 11, I
noticed on page fifteen in the right-hand column at the
bottom of the page a reference or the statement that an
obvious offshoot was the growth of interest in areas
adjacent to the Historic District. Lakewood, an ad
joining solid middle-class community, suddenly became
a prominent area once again. Businessmen in an ad
joining shopping district completed redesign plans to
attract more pedestrian shoppers to the center. Would
you tell us a little bit about the effect of your programs
in East Dallas on the adjacent areas of Lakewood?
A Yes. Real estate in the Lakewood community also
had a resurgence, I know that from my experience in
working with the realtors in the area and also with the
financial leaders in the area as well as personal contact
with people who are moving in and out.
MR, DONOHOE:
Your Honor, at this time we would like to offer
Brinegar's Exhibit Number 11 into evidence.
THE COURT:
It's admitted.
1 9 5
* * * *
[361] RENE MARTINEZ,
called as a witness in behalf of the Court, being duly
sworn, testified as follows:
196
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q For the record, will you give us your name?
A Rene Martinez.
Q Where do you live?
A 6251 Turner Way.
Q What is your present employment?
A I am the manager of the Department of Urban
Affairs for the Dallas Chamber of Commerce.
0 How long have you been so employed?
A Approximately eight months.
Q Have you had any experience in the past with the
Dallas Independent School District in the court order
entered in 1971?
A Yes, sir, I served in the capacity of being a [362]
member of the original Tri-Ethnic Committee since
July of 1971 and later became the Chairman of that par
ticular advisory body to this Court.
* * * *
[363] Q All right. Well, now, to move on, were you a
member of the Dallas Alliance Task Force that filed a
plan with the Court?
A Yes, sir, I am. I am presently a member.
Q And you have been on that Task Force how long?
A From its inception in, let's say, November, late
November, early December.
Q Were you in on the formulation of the original
plan?
A Yes, I was.
Q And you are aware, of course, that, I believe it
was, Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Rutledge who were also
members of that Task Force that filed objections or dis
agreements or objections to the plan?
A That's correct.
Q Now, then, I believe Dr. Geisel has testified in
Court in reference to it and since that time, or rather on
yesterday a modification was filed. How did the Task
Force get to that modification?
A The committee — the actual Task Force met
Tuesday night. And before that the chairman of the
Task Force had created a drafting committee that came
up with additional revisions, modifications, some
changes. In some cases there was elaboration on some
points that we had originally submitted to the Court.
That drafting [364] committee then presented its final
revised form to the Task Force this Tuesday night. And
we, of course, agreed to those revisions and submitted
them to the Court the following day.
★ ★
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTFIERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
198
(Number and Title Omitted)
HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
FOR FURTHER RELIEF
September 16, 1975
* * * *
[82] THE COURT:
Now, I am fully aware in the short time involved that
the Plaintiffs have filed voluminous interrogatories
which they have a right to do under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, but, I think that the least that the
School Districts, these Defendant suburban School
Districts can do at this time in the light of their prox
imity to the City of Dallas, which is definitely in
terested in this case and which was an original in
tervener [83] and remains as an intervenor, and the
suburban districts have enjoyed the benefits of the
governmental services that are provided by the City of
Dallas. Their residents have commuted into Dallas to
work and conduct their businesses. And have done so
without assuming any of the obligations or respon
sibilities for maintenance of these services. And I think
that the districts — that the least these districts can do
now is to answer these interrogatories and get the facts
before the Court, and if it takes a little overtime work, a
little more staff, I think they can do it. I think that fif
teen days should be adequate for the suburban districts
to answer these interrogatories or questions.
Now, as I said, I have lived with this case for over four
years now and, as you know, the school district, the
Dallas Independent School District, has filed a
desegregation plan which it did on September the 10th.
The metropolitan NAACP has also filed a plan and I
have reviewed these plans. I have not asked the at
torneys for any comment or any argument about it
because I am satisfied in my own mind about these
matters at this point. The attorneys for the Dallas [84]
Independent School District had asserted that it was
the right and the duty of the school district to at first
offer a plan to desegregate its schools before being
ordered to follow a plan that might be designed by the
Court and the Court agreed with that procedure even
though the result might have reasonably been fore
seen. Federal Judges are very conscious of the fact that
school boards are elected officials and it is politically ex
pedient to put the burden of these orders on the Courts
so that any voter disapproval might be directed toward
the Courts and it's nothing new. Legislators do it,
Governors do it, city councils do it, Commissioner's
Courts do it, even Presidents and Congressmen do it.
On one occasion a Governor of Texas said as he signed
the bill passed by the State Legislature, well, it's un
constitutional, but the Federal Court will take care of
that. Well, the Court did and sure enough, the
Legislature very promptly passed a resolution asking
Congress to pass a resolution limiting the terms of
Federal Judges.
Now, the School District's plan is patently not Con
stitutionally adequate. To mention just one item, forty-
six schools remain as [85] one-race schools. And even if
th is Court should approve, which it doesn't, I have no
199
doubt that the Fifth Court would send it — would
promptly send it back, and I don't know that I would
want to read their sharp language.
Now, it's unnecessary to list other deficiencies but
most important to me is the fact that it fails to address
itself to providing a quality education for the children.
Now, the plan submitted by the intervener NAACP,
while it suggests some relevant and meritorious
provisions, goes too far in the other direction and it
therefore is unacceptable.
Now, at the first conference which the Court had
with the attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the attorneys
for the Defendants and, I believe, this was held within a
day or two of the date of July 23rd, the date that the
opinion of the Fifth Circuit was handed down, but at
that time the Plaintiffs' attorneys requested the Court
or requested the appointment of an expert by the
Court to assist the Court in preparing an adequate de
segregation order. The Dallas Independent School Dis
trict attorneys argued that this action should not be
taken because the plan which the School [86] Board had
a right to file first could well make it unnecessary. Well,
that just didn't happen. And the Court has decided to
call upon Dr. John A. Finger, Professor of Education, at
Rhode Island College, Providence, Rhode Island, to act
in that capacity. Now, he has served the Courts well in
several of these cases. I know that this case is complex
enough to require the assistance of experts and it's
already indicated that the parties have their own and I
think perhaps the Court is entitled to get in on that act
with his expert.
200
Now, let's turn to what lies ahead of us. I want to say
first that this is not my job and mine alone. It's not my
job alone. We all have a job to do. The Plaintiffs, the in
terveners, the Defendant school districts, the parents
and everyone else who lives and resides in this district.
Now, we all accept and enjoy these privileges and
benefits of living under the great Constitution which
governs this nation. Freedom, liberty, individual rights,
not to mention the highest standard of living in the
world, are ours. We must always remember that with
these benefits and privileges we have corresponding
duties and [87] responsibilities.
Now, at the beginning I wanted to address myself to
the busing issue. The Court is not unmindful of nor in
sensitive to and has never been of the feelings and the
emotions of many parents about this matter of so-
called busing or forced busing. Now, there is no inten
tion on my part to argue that question at this time or to
try to change anyone's mind about it. Chief Justice
Burger of the United States Supreme Court in the
landmark case of Swann versus Charlotte-Mecklenburg,
decided in April, 1971, pointed out that eighteen
million of the nation's public school children, ap
proximately thirty-nine percent, were transported to
their schools by bus in 1969-1970 in all parts of the
country. Now, what I just said was the direct quote
from the Swann case. And I might add that there was no
opposition to busing so long as the buses were used as
tools of segregation. It was only natural that the
Courts concluded that buses could be used as tools of
desegregation. Pupils are being bused under Court
201
order in Boston, in Louisville, Indianapolis, Charlotte
and many other cities. Now, there is no reason why we
in Dallas think that we should be a chosen favorite [88]
entitled to exception from the rule.
Now, there will be busing of students in the Dallas
Independent School District simply because it's the law
and we must all follow the law. My basic and primary
concern, however, is what lies at the end of that bus
ride for our children.
Now, I know that our young people can and will ad
just, it's up to the adults to be as flexible. Now, I repeat
that I'm not changing or trying to change anyone's
mind about the merits and demerits of busing, but I
would wish that the anti-busing advocates would direct
their energies and their vocalizing to a positive and con
structive end, that is a quality education for our
children.
Now, in 1971 the desegregation plan that was sub
mitted to this Court by the Dallas Independent School
District was entitled "Confluence of Cultures." It had a
beautiful red, white and blue color showing black,
white and brown hands joined together in under
standing, brotherhood and respect. It was dedicated to
improved education for all students. There was guar
anteed grade level performance for all minority
students, desegregation teacher education centers,
human [89] resource learning centers, compensatory
education, just to mention parts of it. Now, this Court
was sold and bought the plan but I fear that the School
District didn't uphold its end of the bargain. As Dr.
Conrad said, Dr. Emmett Conrad, a member of the
202
Board, said, the School District missed a golden oppor
tunity. Now, had the District carried through, our
problems at this time might well be significantly
simpler. Now, I'll add this, I'm not inclined to fault the
School District entirely. I say that the business leaders
of Dallas have defaulted. I know that because in the
beginning when this case was starting and was going
on and as it had been pending I have had occasion to call
upon some of these leaders and they have left the Dis
trict to meet the problem alone and unaided and this
has to be the height of shortsightedness.
Now, the business leaders have as their object to at
tract other businesses and industries into this great
City and they, of all people, should know that there is
little hope of success in that regard if public education
here is inferior and if the City is torn by racial strife.
Now, with the wisdom and the acumen of [90] the
leaders of this City, if they're willing to put forth the ef
fort, there is no reason why either of these dismal
resu lts should occur and there is something
worthwhile at the end of that bus ride for the kids.
When one thinks of the institutions of higher learning,
the colleges and the universities, the business es
tablishments in this area, the banks, the insurance
companies, IBM, Texas Instruments, Blue Cross-Blue
Shield, Collins Radio, Xerox, the airlines, just to men
tion a few, that could be called upon to assist in the
educational effort, one realizes that the possibilities for
not just quality education but for a superior education
in the Dallas Independent School District are simply
unlimited and the children are entitled to it.
203
Now, these institutions and establishments could be
enlisted to supply personnel on a part time basis for
tutoring, instruction in different schools in the District
and perhaps ultimately scholarships under contract
and the supervision of the School District. It's time for
the business leaders to stand up and be counted and I'm
glad to see that some of them have and there are some
that are deeply interested. Dallas [91] Alliance, for ex
ample, just to name one group and not with any view of
excluding the others that are interested.
Now, as to how we will proceed in this case, fifteen
days have been allowed the suburban school districts to
answer the interrogatories and the Plaintiffs will need
a few days thereafter to prepare for an evidentiary
hearing on the questions that are involved. Such a
hearing is set for October 6, 1975 at 9:30 A.M. and
following that without interruption we will begin final
hearing on a desegregation plan for the Dallas Indepen
dent School District.
Now, in the meantime, and this is routine in lawsuits,
I want the attorneys for the Plaintiffs for the School
District, for the intervenors and for their experts and
the Court's expert, you will note that I am not including
the attorneys for the suburban school districts, but I
want these attorneys, the intervenors that have been
allowed in this case and their experts and the Court's
expert to go into executive session in an attempt to
come up with an agreed plan to be submitted to the
Court, one that will minimize busing so far as possible
but in all events will [92] provide a quality education for
the students.
204
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
EDDIE MITCHELL TASBY, ET AL
versus CA NO. 3-4211
DR. NOLAN ESTES, ET AL
CALLED HEARING OF JUDGE TAYLOR
BE IT REMEMBERED that on the 18th day of
December, A.D., 1975, the above styled and numbered
cause came on for hearing before the Honorable
William M. Taylor, Judge of the United States District
Court in and for the Northern District of Texas, and
the following proceedings were had:
[2] PROCEEDINGS
THE COURT:
Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen. I'm almost
afraid I've talked too much today. I hope my voice holds
out while I talk to you about why I asked you in here to
day.
I never undertake a matter of this kind without a lit
tle fear and trepidation that what I say might be mis
construed or misunderstood, though I do try to speak
in plain English. But, in these cases, as all of you know,
it's so easy for people in an emotional state to read into
206
something that is said, something that is not intended
and that's why I say I have a little bit of concern about it,
but I wanted to do it anyhow.
I appreciate your being here. I prefer to have the
lawyers and their clients, because then you hear it from
me. I'm talking about the litigants, the clients, the
members of the School Board, the members of the City
Council and the attorneys, and you're not dependent
upon a relay of information from the — your attorneys.
And this may be a little unusual, but of course what I'm
saying is on the record and will be a part of the record in
this case. And if I say it's unusual for the Judge to be
talking to the litigants [3] I will repeat what I have often
said and that is that there is no other case like a
desegregation case. They don't always follow the usual
rules. Now — and after all, the litigants are entitled to
know that, and I hope they do know, that the judge is a
human being. After all, he's just like you are, just like
the rest of you. And even Federal Judges don't — no
Judges, State or Federal, actually, sit in an ivory tower
nor live in a vacuum. So I did want to talk to you briefly
today about developments in this case and I want to say
right now, and I don't want any misunderstanding
about it, I have not pre-judged this case. I have not
made up my mind about it. I will not do that until I hear
all of the evidence. And the Court has not decided on
any plan and will not do so until everybody has had —
that the litigant here has had a chance to come forward
and present their side of it. And I want that clearly un
derstood.
Now, for example, the Court, as you know, ap
pointed an expert in this case. We are going to have
other experts who will testify. The Court's expert or
the expert that was appointed by the Court was Dr. —
or is Dr. joe Hall who [4] has been in many of these
matters. He has prepared and submitted to the Court a
plan. I will make that plan — I will file that plan in the
papers in the case next week so that it will become
public. And I want it understood that just because it's
Dr. Hall's plan, that's not the Court's judgment in this
case and I repeat — I say that because of what happened
in 1971 when the people with TED TAC filed three
different plans for the consideration of the Court. You
would have thought that the Court decided the case
and those poor boys were attacked from all sides un
necessarily and what they had filed did not represent
the final plan of the Court.
Now, I expect and hope that there will be other plans
that are filed. Just for example, this is one of the
developments that you may or may not know about.
Through the news media, 1 learned that a class of
students at Skyline High School had prepared a
desegregation plan. I finally — not hearing anything
from them, I called for that plan and that has now been
filed with the Court. Of course, that was really one of
the greatest experiences in the world to have those kids
come down here to Court and talk about [5] their plan.
And don't ever fool yourself, we've got some smart
young ones in this city. But, I don't know whether the
parties have or the lawyers have had an opportunity to
see the plan that they prepared, but it is available and
207
they have provided the Court with adequate copies to
go around.
That again is not the Court's plan and I'm asking and
have asked for the submission of other plans. I expect
the interveners, perhaps, to come up with something,
though they may not. Time will tell.
Now, going forward and more about why I asked you
to be here. Back in 1971 when I had this case you may
remember that — well, it was the memorandum opin
ion that I filed on July 15th, 1971 and I wound it up with
these words: "I will suggest that the Dallas Board of
Education should make the confluence of cultures an
actuality rather than a catch phrase or a dream and that
it can be a vast help to the City of Dallas in serving its
Chamber of Commerce appelation, 'City of Ex
cellence' ".
Prior to any hearing in that case I had called some
representatives or individuals from [6] the business
community and from the community generally
together with the request and in the hope that there
could be a common solution so that there would even
tually come forth an order that would be acceptable to a
vast majority of the people living in Dallas or in the
Dallas Independent School District. That plea fell on
deaf ears. I was categorized, I think at that time, as a
dreamer. Maybe I am. I still am to some extent though
I've lived a lot longer since that time. Then, when we
actually got into the hearings, I believe with that order
of July the 17th, I had directed the School Board to
come up with a plan by the 23rd of July, which it did.
Now, after that plan was filed, I then — and I'm
208
reading now from the order that I entered on August
the 2nd,
"Thereupon the Court called for a private meeting of
Plaintiffs and Defendants' attorneys and represen
tatives as well as attorneys for Interveners and Tri-
Ethnic Committee Members to undertake the forma
tion of a joint plan that would be in keeping with the
respective contentions and positions of all parties con
cerned. Such meetings commenced on Friday and con
tinued [7] through Saturday, Sunday and Monday, July
23rd through 26th inclusive to no avail. And hearing in
Open Court was resumed at 10:00 A.M. on Tuesday,
July 27th, and the Court proceeded to hear the evidence
and arguments of Counsel that were presented by all
the parties including the Interveners."
Now, I have always been of the opinion and I still am
that here we have an opportunity to do something real
ly for Dallas. And it's just a job that can't be carried by
one person alone. And I don't need to call it a job, I say
it's an opportunity. It's an opportunity for the City, the
City Council as well as the School Board. It's virtually
impossible for the School Board to do it alone.
For example now, talking about the role of the Judges
in these matters; of course the Courts cannot — now
by that, I'm talking about not only Federal Courts, but
State Courts, Courts cannot allow basic constitutional
rights to be sacrificed to community opposition. In
other words, we've still got to follow the law and the
facts.
But again, I repeat that we Judges don't [8] live in a
vacuum and the Courts frequently — and that's what
209
I'm doing now — undertake to give all effective
members of the community access and — access to the
Courts and do not merely create their own remedies
without citizen input.
Now, I want to refer to what I said on September the
16th, that is in part. It was at that time that I had all of
the attorneys in here, the Intervenors as well as the at
torneys for the suburban school districts who had been
brought into the case by the Plaintiffs and I made a few
remarks at that time. I said this and I have no hesitation
in repeating it. I have said in the past that my basic and
primary concern is what lies at the end of a bus ride for
our children. Now, one thing that prompted my saying
that was that Dr. Emmett Conrad on the School Board
had made the statement that in '71 the School Board
missed a golden opportunity to do something for the
education — I mean, he didn't say — missed a golden
opportunity in 1971, and of course I took that to be a
reference to what could have been done at that time
and we did not carry through with it. And I faulted the
School Board a little bit on September 16th, but I did [9]
say this: "Now I will add this, I'm not inclined to fault
the School District entirely. I say that the business
leaders of Dallas have defaulted. I know that because in
the beginning —". And then I talked about what I had
attempted to do in calling together some of those
leaders in 1971.
I went on to say this: "Now the business leaders' ob
ject and name is to attract other businesses and in
dustries into this great City and they, of all people,
should know that there is little hope of success in that
210
regard if public education here is inferior and if the City
is torn by racial strife. Now with the wisdom and
acumen of the leaders of this City, if they were willing
to put forth the effort, there is no reason why either of
these dismal results should occur and there would be
something worthwhile at the end of that bus ride for
the kids."
Now, the response of the business community and
the other people in Dallas has been tremendous. I will
not try to go into detail as to all that has happened, but I
have had many calls. Just for example, "Well, Mack,
what can we do?" And I had wanted the people in this
community to [10] try and get together to do
something for the City of Dallas. Now, we all love this
City and I think there is an opportunity here for this
City to be a leader in the field of education. Now, this
opportunity is here. I want to take advantage of it. The
School Board alone cannot do that. It's going to take the
City Council, it's going to take the blacks, the browns,
the whites, the business leaders, the school staff. It's
going to take everybody.
You know, if we can build, along with Fort Worth,
the greatest airport in the world at the cost of some
seven hundred odd million dollars, and it is the
greatest, now why can't we build the best educational
system right here in Dallas, so that people are attracted
here. They want their kids to get the best available
education, and I think we've got an opportunity to do it.
It's going to take the planning that the City Council has
to do, the problems it has. Well now, I just mention
those things. Everybody has this opportunity and we
ought to take advantage of it.
211
212
So again, getting back to what I said on [11]
September 16th, I called upon the attorneys for the
Plaintiffs and the attorneys for the Defendants to get
together to see if they could not come up with a joint
plan that would be acceptable to the litigants and that
they would feel comfortable in submitting to the Court
as a proper order.
Now, with the interest of the business community,
and Pm not trying to confine this just to the business
leaders. They too have a stake in this, all of the citizens,
and they've gone to work to try to do something and I
think you're entitled to know about it.
Now, talking about what I was talking about at
Dallas, we all know that very recently the voters in this
City passed a rather substantial bond issue by a rather
substantial majority. Now, that spoke volumes to me
about the fact that the citizens of this City are not will
ing to just let it sit still and not progress. They want to
move forward. We see throughout the country and
throughout the state that bond issues are turned down
by the voters, but not in Dallas and I think it's because
they want to go forward. I
The other development that I wanted to bring [12]
forward to you and I wanted you to know about,
because the Courts — the Courts don't operate in
secrecy. We try to do everything right out here in Open
Court with everybody to have a chance at it through
their lawyers and through their witnesses to come
forward with their views.
Growing out of that challenge that I made to the
business leaders, there was, as I said, a terrific
response. The Dallas Alliance took an interest in it and
they the Dallas Alliance, as I understand it, is not to
be confused with the business leaders. It's not
necessarily composed of, but it has as members some
seventy-five business organizations or rather clubs and
civic organizations in Dallas. They went to work on this
and arising out of that grew and developed a task force.
This was under the leadership of Jack Lowe and Dave
Fox and a few others who I'll not undertake to name.
And this task force wound up with seven blacks, seven
Mexican-Americans, seven Anglos and I believe one In
dian. Now, they have sent Dr. Paul Kiser all over this
country looking at different educational systems.
Where they are going to wind up, they don't know, but
they re working [13] with those people. That is, the
blacks, whites and browns and the one Indian, and try
ing to come up with something for the benefit of
Dallas.
Now, just as I wanted the input from those kids out
at Skyline, I also want the input from this task force and
I wanted you to know that they had my blessing and
had gotten the go ahead signal from me. I couldn't very
well challenge people in this community and then have
them go ahead and not listen to them. So I want you to
know of that development and the fact that I hope that
with that combination of people that are working to the
end of accomplishing something for Dallas, that they
have my blessing and I expect to hear from them. Now,
whether 111 hear from them as amicus curiae, that
might be an appropriate way to do it though I haven't
fully decided yet. But, I wanted you to know of that
213
development. And as I say, this — the Court wants this
input from the people in this City and in this School
District. And so that you would know that this Court's
not going to — again, repeating — operate in a vacuum,
but I want to hear from the citizens, I want everybody
to know that they have access to the Courts.
[14] Now, I see jack Lowe here, jack, would you mind
if I called on you to tell what you're doing or what it's
like or how you're working? Would you mind —
MR. LOWE:
No, I do not.
THE COURT:
All right. I want to know.
MR. LOWE:
Should I stand?
THE COURT:
Why don't you come up here and turn around and
face the folks out there.
MR. LOWE:
Can I stand this way?
THE COURT:
Yes.
MR. LOWE:
Thank you.
214
The Dallas Alliance Task Force which the judge has
described, when we got together — and it wasn't all
that easy for us to get together — we tried to concep
tualize how we could possibly be helpful.
THE COURT:
jack, would you excuse me for a minute? I left out
something I wanted to tell everybody. I asked Mr. Lowe
and the other people of the Task Force: "What are you
all trying to do? What's your aim? What's your goal?"
And yesterday I was provided with this, which ap
parently this Task Force — what this Task Force has
agreed on. One; provide best [15] educational oppor
tunity for each child. Two; eliminate all vestiges of a
dual system. Three; assure adequate accountability.
Four; enable the entire school system to become a
superior system which would attract families. Five;
develop a continuing program that will contribute to a
quality school system and community.
* * * *
215
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
(Number and Title Omitted)
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
OF HEARING OF
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SITE
ACQUISITION, SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND
FACILITY ABANDONMENT
February 24, 1977
216
[4] DR. NOLAN ESTES,
one of the Defendants, being duly sworn, testified as
follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WHITHAM:
* * * *
[5] Q And were you serving in that capacity on
April 7, 1976?
A I was.
Q And have you served in that capacity con
tinuously since that period of time?
A Yes.
Q You are familiar with that particular order
entered by this Court of April 7, 1976 referred to
generally as the Final Order in the Dallas Independent
School District desegregation proceedings before this
Court?
A I am.
Q And have you been the School Administrator
primarily responsible for implementing that particular
Order?
A I have.
Q Pursuant to that Order did the Dallas Indepen
dent School District order and thereafter conduct a
school bond election to provide for facilities, equipment
and school buildings?
A We did.
Q And when was that election held?
A On December 11th, 1976.
Q What was the amount of that bond issue sub
mitted to the voters by the School District?
[6] A Eighty million dollars.
Q Did that bond issue successfully carry?
A It did by a great majority.
Q You don't happen to know the particular majori
ty, do you?
A About twenty thousand voting for and ap
proximately thirteen to fourteen thousand voting
against.
Q Are you familiar with the demographic patterns
within the School District insofar as parts of the city
supporting the bond issue and parts of the School Dis
trict not supporting the bond issue?
A I am. We had, of course, the vast majority of all
precincts supporting the bond issue. We did have some
few sections, however, in older parts of the City that
generally do not favor any bond issue and did not favor
this one.
Q Generally speaking are you familiar with the
parts of the School District occupied by either black or
Mexican-American citizens?
A I am.
Q By and large did the bond issue pass in those
precincts occupied by blacks and Mexican-Americans?
A Yes, it did, through, I might add, through the
work of parents and patrons in those areas. In the East
Oak Cliff area, for instance, we had more than [7] three
thousand votes in the East Oak Cliff area for the bond
217
issue and three or four hundred against the bond issue,
overwhelming support in the East Oak Cliff area.
And again in the South Dallas area, because of the
fine work of our parents and patrons in that area, Mrs.
Davis and others, it carried by an overwhelming ma
jority in that area.
Q Now, has the School District pursuant to that
bond election sold any amount of bonds to date?
A We have. We have sold thirty million dollars to
date.
Q Now, with respect to the instant application now
before the Court with respect to approval of the con
struction, site selection and facilities abandonment, are
you familiar with that application filed in this Court on
February 17th of this year?
A I am.
Q With the exception of the first item, the acquisi
tion of the A. Harris Shopping Center, are each of the
school buildings listed in that application currently be
ing used to house students at the grade level as ordered
by this Court on April 7th, 1976?
A They are.
218
219
I
*
Published by Handy Map, Inc.
JS44 lrvio9 Sv d . ~ Ctafim. T « * « 75207 DALLAS
INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT
BLACK
WHITE
m 1 • |
•■■■* j v -■4-s;
f c & ilip *
-
BLACK
V/HITE
2 2 0
• Published by HondyM ap, Inc. of DALLAS
4 }«44 Irtws IW. - Date, T«*a» 7X16? • , INDEPENDENT m»mrr
SCHOOL DISTRICT
i 1 i * i , *► %m*i t«i
4
i
i
221
I S I960 Black
[ | 1965 Black
i 1 1970 Black
[ 1975 Black 25%+
i l l Mexican-American 25%
H i C H A R 0 S ON-ADD! SONC A R R O L L T O N
OAR LAND
TUcumê Aw
Minority 25%
R O W L E T T
tm iN G
SUNNYVALE
MESQUITE
GRAND PRAIRIE
UNGS
'ip, *»«
DUNCANVILLE
. a x i
SEAGOyiLL■L HUTCHINS
i WOODLAND
> hills 1
U ; LANCASTERCEDAR HILL LMERi
j ■ ' *.*mJ E c
'*******’* Jjvj
1 1II *
1 ■ III
i v f
........■ - ■ *
rr"\
1960 Black
-
1965 Black
19 70 Black
19 75 Black 25%+
Mexican-American 25%
C A R R O L L T O N H i CHAR, SONADDISON
GAR LAND
"B[fCKWGH&
Minority 25%
RO W LETT
1 tit*1
UNIVERSITY
■ A — b \
IR V IN G
PAR5
SUNNYVALE
xOUITE"ri ' t
GRAND P R A IR IE
SPRINGS
D UNCAN Vi L E E m HUTCHINS SEAGO^ILL
WOODLANd
!HILLS 1
CEDARi HILL LANCASTER WILMER,
* DALLAS
INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT
■
- ■
'....... .
.N*.
~
, S iJ
f
J f 7 w w
J •
is ‘Cxi
l k \
i
DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT NO. 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
EDDIE MITCHELL TASBY, ET AL
versus No. CA-3-4211-C
NOLAN ESTES, ET AL
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN FOR
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS
PART I.
1.1 Pursuant to the Court's request, the Board of
Education of the Dallas Independent School District
respectfully submits the following student assignment
plan for the Dallas Independent School District. The
Board of Education understands that the Court will
hold a hearing on student assignment plans for the
Dallas Independent School District. At-that time, the
School District will present testimony in explanation of
this student assignment plan.
1.2 The Dallas Independent School District is no
longer a predominantly Anglo student school system.
At this time the racial composition of the Dallas Independent School District as of
December 1, 1975 is 41.1% Anglo, 44.5% Black, 13.4% Mexican-American and 1.0%
Other. The ethnic composition of students in the Dallas Independent School District by
grade level is:
Grade M exican-
Level Anglo % Black % American % Other % Total
K 3254 34.8 442 9 47.3 1595 17.0 87 .9 9365
1 42 6 0 36.7 5274 45.5 1955 16.9 113 1.0 11602
2 4095 36.9 508 0 45 .7 1822 16.4 104 1.0 11101
3 3947 36 .7 5056 46.9 1648 15.3 118 1.1 10769
4 3756 35.5 5098 48.1 1608 15.2 131 1.2 10593
5 4226 37,5 5251 46.6 1672 14.8 125 1.1 11274
6 4543 39.3 5394 46 .6 1504 13.0 128 1.1 11569
7 485 3 41.0 5356 45.2 1532 12.9 103 .9 11844
8 503 9 42.2 5343 44.8 1438 12.1 115 1.0 11935
9 5231 43.5 5406 45.0 1286 10.7 100 .8 12023
10 52 8 7 45.4 4943 42.5 1259 10.8 155 1.3 11644
11 4828 51.5 3526 37.5 936 10.0 93 1.0 93 8 3
12 4704 58.7 2611 32 ,6 634 7.9 71 .8 802 0
T O T A L ' 5 8 0 2 3 41.1 6 2 7 6 7 44.5 1 8889 13.4 1443 1.0 141122
1.3 For the purposes of the desegregation plan students shown in the category
"Other" are included for mathematical statistical purposes in the category labeled
"Anglo."
1.4 Students will be assigned to a school as hereafter provided by the applicable Part of
this Plan.
223
DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT NO. 13
HISTORICAL ENROLLMENT*
Dallas Independent School District
M exican-
Dates Anglo Percent Negro Percent American Percent Total
O ctober, 1969-70 97 ,131 52 ,531 13 ,606
Kindergarten - 28 - 271 - 94
Total 9 7 ,103 5 2 ,2 6 0 13 ,512 162 ,875
October, 1970-71 95 ,133 55 ,648 13 ,945
Kindergarten - 121 -1 ,036 ■ - 2 1 6
Total 95 ,012 - 2.2 54 ,612 + 4.5 1 3 ,729 + 1.6 163 ,353
O ctober, 19 7 1 -7 2 86 ,548 57 ,394 15 ,154
Kindergarten - 66 -1 ,455 - 269
Total 86 ,482 - 9.0 55 ,939 + 2.3 14 ,885 + 8.4 157 ,306
O ctober, 1972-73 78 ,560 5 9 ,643 15 ,909
Kindergarten - 126 -2 ,383 - 514
Total 78 ,434 - 9.3 5 7 ,260 + 2.4 15 ,395 + 3.4 151 ,089
O ctober, 1973-74 73 ,042 6 2 ,4 6 8 17 ,141
Kindergarten -3 ,4 3 9 -3 ,5 7 5 -1 ,2 7 6
Total 69 ,603 - 11.3 58 ,893 + 2.9 15 ,865 + 3 . 1 1 4 4 , 3 6 1
* H E W R e p o r t ( C o n t i n u e d b e l o w )
224
Dates Anglo Percent Negro
October, 1974-75 67 ,324 6 3 ,760
Kindergarten -3 ,821 -4 ,105
Total 6 3 ,503 - 8.8 5 9 ,655
October, 1975 60 ,796 64 ,594
Kindergarten -3 ,3 7 0 -4 ,3 3 8
Total 57 ,426 - 9.6 60 ,256
1969-70 97 ,103 - 52 ,260
1975 - 57 ,426 60 ,256
Total Loss 3 9 ,677 - 40 .9 7,996
Percent
+ 1.3
+ 1.0
+ 15,3
Mexican-
American Percent
18 ,426
-1 ,5 6 2
16 ,864 + 6.3
18 ,994
-1 ,5 5 9
1 7 .435 + 3.4
- 13 ,512
17 .435
3 ,923
Total
140 ,022
135 ,117
+ 29.0
225
226
DALLAS ALLIANCE
Minutes of a Called Board Meeting
October 23, 1975, Zale Corporation,
3000 Diamond Square, 3:30 P.M.
(REVISED November 10, 1975) #
I. CALL TO ORDER:
The Chairman (jack Lowe, Sr.) called the meeting
to order at 3:45 p.m.
II. PRESENT:
(1) George Allen, (2) Victor Bonilla, (3) George
Brewer (4) Mario Cadena, (5) Charles Cullum, (6)
Juanita Elder, (7) L. G. Foster, (8) Bryghte God-
bold, (9) Walter Humann, (10) Ben Lipshy, (11)
jack Lowe (12) Rene' Martinez, (13) Roy Orr, (14) 0
Catherine Perrine, (15) Randy Ratliff, (16)
Hortense Sanger, (17) Chris Semos, (18) Louis
Weber, Jr.
Twenty-one Trustees were not present:
(1) Helen Boothman, (2) J. K. Bryant, (3) Clyde
Clark (4) David Cooley, (5) Roy Dulak, (6) Nolan
Estes, (7) V. Alyce Foster, (8) David Fox, (9)
Adlene Harrison, (10) Zan Holmes, (11) Bill
DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT NO. 17
Hunter, (12) Don Jarvis, (13) Raymond Nasher,
(14) William Pitstick, (15) George Schrader, (16)
Judson Shook, (17) Cleophas Steele, (18) Lee
Turner, (19) John Whittington, (20) W. W. Wilson,
(21) Wes Wise
Also Present:
(l) Paul Geisel, (2) Fay Willis (3) Members of the
Press
III. AGENDA:
PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
Jack Lowe stated the purpose of the meeting was
to determine and discuss a course of action to take
in developing a community-based school which
would be educationally sound, would be a magnet
system — where every child and parent could be a
winner. Lowe described two meetings of a group
of seven Black, seven Chicano, seven Anglo which
met to establish a process to lead to such a plan. He
pointed out the need expressed by the group that
it be designated as a Task Force of the Alliance.
The understandings were to be that any member
of the Task Force could withdraw at any time. The
Alliance would provide professional and financial
assistance; the group would act fairly
autonomously because of time constraints; the
board could withdraw support at any point
well.
227
as
228
DISCUSSION
The discussion indicated strong support for such
action. Questions regarding the potential for
success; the amount of time; the relationship of
the process to the court suit were raised; the
general concensus of the board members who had
participated in the formation of the Task Force -
group was that it was (1) worth a try, (2) time was
limited, and (3) the dream was that the plan would
be so "right" that the community, the court, the
school board and other litigants would accept it.
Lowe read five precepts that he had previously
read to the proposed Task Force as guiding prin
ciples of any plan. Lowe said that these guidelines
had not been worked over and approved by the
Task Force but were his first draft of ideas that
had been verbalized by various members of the
Task Force. These precepts call for a plan that
would:
*
(1) Provide best possible education for each
child.
(2) Eliminate all vestiges of dual system.
(3) Provide adequate accountability.
(4) Contribute to a stable, integrated communi
ty.
(5) Become a "Magnet" school district — so good
229
that people want to move into it, rather than
out of it.
Following discussion, a motion was made to ap
prove the formation of a Task Force of twenty
one. Motion carried.
ADJOURNM ENT
There being no further business, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Clyde Clark
Secretary-T reasurer
APPROVED BY THE BOARD
Jack Lowe, Chairman
ATTESTED:
Faye Willis
N.A.A.C.P.'S EXHIBIT NO. 2
* *
GOALS
IT SHALL BE THE AIM OF THIS PLAN:
1. To make use of the positive elements that can be
found in naturally intergrated neighborhoods and to
enhance opportunities for persons in other neighbor
hoods in the development of programs which will
provide quality education for all.
2. To enhance educational opportunities provided
in Inner City Schools by the development of a superior
educational program in each of these schools and to
provide physical facilities of a quality and quantity com
mensurate with the needs.
3. To develop a plan of education that recognizes
the diversity in populations and which will utilize these
diversities to impact upon the intergrated whole for the
entire district, which will include the upgrading and im
provement of education in every school.
4. To develop a program of community involve
ment whereby the decision making body in the school
system will have regular input, both system-wide and
in each local school.
The Goals set out in this Plan are to be governed by
the basic Guidelines outlined immediately below, in the
plan for desegregation of the Dallas Independent
School System and the change over or conversion to an
unitary system. The following Guidelines should be
adhered to as near as possible.
1 . Every effort should be made to devise a fair,
reasonable and stable Plan.
(a) Every school should have a racial balance
comparable to the racial balance in the District, which
will not deviate more than Ten Percent (10%) up or
down.
(b) Do not transport students out of a
neighborhood which is already intergrated, that is, one
having the racial balance referred to in 1 (a),
hereinabove. However, students may be bused into
such areas, if necessary.
2. The first magnitude of desegregation and the at
taining of an Unitary School System should be to
achieve a racial balance of black and white students in
each school and then follow through with the in tegra
tion of other minorities into the system.
3. Innovative programs and intensive involvement
should be fostered in schools which are located in low
income areas of the District and the Inner City Schools.
231
232
4. Fairness should be the central aim of any plan in
terms of transporting students in and out of neigh
borhoods, the number of grades away from
neighborhood schools or any other element of
differential arrangement of facilities or programs.
Fairness includes the number of students involved
from each race.
5. Any set plan should have written into it
automatic mechanisms for change based upon con
ditions which may arise in the community.
6. Every student, not living in an intergrated
neighborhood should be bused at one time during
his/her school career.
7. The primary aim should not be to create more
compact geographical districts, but rather to involve
the least number of students in a transportation plan as
possible.
8. Explicit policies and procedures for the Manage
ment of future reassignment of pupils, either in the in
terest of the school system or on request of pupils, need
to be formulated and adopted. Such policies are to fulfill
the purpose of maintaining an intergrated Unitary
School System with a stabilized assignment program.
9. Explicit policies and procedures for the Manage
ment of Admissions to any Optional Schools need to be
formulated and adopted. They must provide for
District-Wide access to those schools as appropriately
intergrated schools, and prevent any significant jeopar
dy to the Racial composition of any other school.
10. No children in any area close to a school are to
be so assigned that they are transported away from
their home area for the full twelve (12) years of school.
Out-busing assignments are to be distributed as equal
ly as it is possible and practical.
11. Where practical immediately, and where not, in
the future, schools serving primary grades are to be
located in every section of the System.
12. Adjustments and specific exceptions to the
feeder sequence are to be effected to insure that each
school serves its own immediate neighborhood unless
there are compelling reasons to do otherwise at a
specific school.
13. Monitoring procedures are to be so specified
that assignment adjustments will be acted upon when
trends of racial changes are noted. These procedures
are to be made specific with respect to degrees of
change and timing of remedial actions to be taken.
14. School planning is not to be predicated on pop
ulation growth trends alone. Consideration is to be
given to the influence new buildings can be toward
simplification of an intergrated pupil assignment plan.
Buildings are to be built where they can readily serve
both races.
233
234
PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 16
Plaintiff's Desegregation Plans A and B
OVERVIEW
* * * *
9. Dunbar's special programs are retained under Plan
B. Plan A reassigns ail Dunbar students.
10. The Dallas Independent School District should
resolve to improve the continuity of programs for
students who move from school to school. Oftentimes
there is very little follow-up of programs from school
to school and gains made by students in programs of
fered in one school are lost when that student attends
another school. With uniformity in feeder patterns im
provement in program continuity should be possible.
11. It is recommended that the majority to minority
transfer program be redefined and retained. Special ef
forts should be made to encourage white and Mexican-
American students to transfer into Plan B's District 8
model cluster. In addition, transfer policies, other than
majority to minority, should be devised to meet student
needs consistent with the goal of desegregation,
12. The Dallas Independent School District should
re-evaluate, with the goal of expanding and improv-
ing, inservice training programs for new and repeat
faculty and staff. Special programs dealing with human
relations, cross-cultural understanding, and improving
communication skills should be formulated. Such
programs are consistent with the Dallas Independent
School District's obligation to eradicate "Institutional
Racism" from its educational program. Similar efforts
should be devised for parents and students to improve
harmony and understanding between different
cultures and races.
13. The Dallas Independent School District should
examine the possibility of requiring faculty and staff to
reside in the Dallas Independent School District and to
have their children attend school in the Dallas Indepen
dent School District.
14. All new magnet schools, including career centers,
should be constructed in the inner-city area to en
courage the inward flow of students, particularly white
students. The schools should seek the assistance of
local businesses and citizens in order to acquire ap
propriate construction sites. Student enrollment in
such facilities should approximate the ethnic enroll
ment of the Dallas Independent School District as a
whole. Exceptions would include the elementary
magnets created under Plan B.
15. The Dallas Independent School District's efforts
at recruitment and hiring of minority faculty and staff
has not kept pace with the growth of minority enroll-
235
merit. More minority faculty and staff should be
recruited and employed.
16. Every effort should be made to enhance the in
volvement of parents and students in the operation of
the schools. Visits and open houses should be sched
uled to acquaint parents and students with the schools
their children will attend under either Plan A or Plan B.
17. Improved means of accountability should be
established in order to insure that Dallas Independent
School District operations are consistent with any
future court order and with the goal of a quality educa
tion for each student enrolled in public school. Such
means could include: 1) enhancement in the authority
and prestige of the Tri-Ethnic Committee including
expanded powers, staff and mini-committees organiz
ed on the district and school level; 2) the selection of an
ombudsman, representing the public, with staff and
access to school information and personnel at all levels;
3) the establishment of a student and parent grievance
procedure available for use to complain of school
procedure and personnel. Although stated last, the stu
dent and parent grievance procedure is a most impor
tant element of any system of accountability.
236
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS — PLAN A
1. Elementary grades are K-6 district-wide.
2. Plan A divides the Dallas Independent School District into the following seven (7)
attendance zone districts:
A l Southwest Oak Cliff AS Northwest Dallas
A2 Southeast Dallas A6 North Oak Cliff
A3 Pleasant Grove A? North-Dallas-Cedarcrest
A4 East Dallas
3. The map shows that six (6) of these zones are contiguous. The North Dallas-
Cedarcrest district is the only noncontiguous zone.
4. The racial make-up of each elementary district follows:
Total
District Pop. A %A B %B M A % M A 0 % 0
A l 8282 3881 46.9 3348 40.4 998 12.1 5 5 ' .6
A z 10700 507 5 47.4 5061 47.3 541 5.1 23 .2
A3 8821 3977 45.1 419 9 47,6 620 7.0 25 .3
A4 11112 47 8 5 43.1 542 8 48.8 818 7.4 81 .7
A5 12158 4 3 2 9 35.6 5 6 2 7 46,3 201 9 16.6 183 1.5
A6 1 2093 334 8 27.7 4787 39.6 3800 31.4 158 1.3
A7 1 8174 654 2 36 8514 46.9 2984 16.3 154 .8
Totals 8 1 3 4 0 3 1 9 3 7 39.3 3 6964 45.4 1 1760 14.5 657 .8
237
5. Each child attends elementary school within one and only one of these seven (7) dis
tricts. No child attends more than three (3) elementary schools from first through
sixth grade.
6. Three (3) elementary schools are closed-Austin, Douglas and Juarez. Several elemen
tary attendance zones are split, and several elementary schools house only
kindergarten students. It is recommended that a study be conducted in order to deter
mine the need to construct a new elementary school in West Dallas.
7. All students remain in their neighborhood school for kindergarten.
8. Thirteen (13) elementary schools were considered desegregated and were left alone.
They are:
School A %A B %B M A % M A 0 %0 Total
Biair 319 39.4 395 48 .8 94 11 .6 2 810
Bowie 140 27 .3 136 26.6 213 41.6 23 512
Crockett 301 39 .8 36 4.8 395 52 .25 23 3.0 755
Kleberg 233 66 .6 90 25 .7 26 7.4 1 .3 350
Longfellow 68 27 .9 167 68.4 6 2.5 3 1.2 244
M t. Auburn 225 37 .3 192 31 .8 187 3 7 1.1 611
Peeler 125 30 29 7 247 59 18 4.3 419
Silberstein 283 67 .4 123 29 .3 13 3.1 0 0 419
Stevens Park 256 50 115 22.5 120 23.5 20 3.9 511
T erry 281 38.2 386 52.5 66 9.0 2 .3 735
T urner 339 58 .9 231 40.1 2 .3 4 .7 576
Weiss 265 52.9 151 30.1 84 16.8 1 .2 501
Williams 107 47.4 83 36.7 32 14.2 4 1.8 226
238
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS — GRADES 10-12 DISTRICT-WIDE
1. Under Plan B the Dallas Independent School District is divided into fourteen (14) high
school attendance zone areas.
2. The map shows nine of these districts are contiguous.
3. The racial make-up of each high school follows:
School A %A B %B MA %MA Students Capacity
Bryan Adams 1699 51.3 1487 44.9 102 3.1 3311 3030
Adamson 578 47 173 14.1 446 36.3 1229 1300
Carter 955 60.2 467 29.5 150 9.5 1585 2000
Kimball 871 62.9 415 30 86 6.2 1384 2100
Lincoln 1266 59.4 804 37 .7 36 1.7 2132 2100
North Dallas 307 29.9 275 26.8 421 41 1026 1100
Pinkston 1416 57.3 904 36.6 118 4.8 2473 3500
Roosevelt 1524 54.6 1190 42.6 64 2.3 2791 2500
Samuel 1775 54.9 1298 40.1 152 4.7 3233 3000
S. O ak Cliff 60 2.2 267 7 96.3 42 1.5 2781 2600
Spruce 2024 66.9 908 30 88 2.9 3024 3000
Sunset 970 60.4 74 4.6 542 33 .7 1606 1800
White 1292 54 779 32 .6 298 12.5 2391 2600
Woodrow 612 55.1 312 28.1 173 15.6 1110 1440
239
240
4. Distance from the majority white areas, capacity of
schools, DISD enrollment patterns and generally
good physical facilities were factors resulting in
South Oak Cliff retaining its present student
assignment pattern.
5. In the thirteen (13) remaining high schools the
Anglo percentages range from 29.9 to 66.9 so that
each school has a white majority or plurality with
the exception of North Dallas; Black percentages
range from 4.6 to 44.9; Mexican-American per
centages range from 1.7 to 15.6, except for Sunset
which is 33.7, Adamson 36.3 and North Dallas
41%.
6. Each student attends only one (1) high school.
7. Skyline has no attendance zone and is open district
wide for its special programs.
8. No high schools are closed but some are put to
different use:
School Use
Crozier
Hillcrest
Thom as Jefferson
Seagoville
M agnet school for elementary B -5 District
M agnet school for elementary B-4 District
M agnet school for elementary B -3 District
Use as junior high
* * * *
241
JU N IO R HI GH S C H O O L S —G R A D E S 7-9
DISTRICT-WIDE
1. Under Plan B the Dallas Independent School Dis
trict is divided into twenty-three (23) junior high
school attendance zone areas.
2. The map shows that nine of these districts are con
tiguous.
3. The racial make-up of each junior high is as
follows:
'{
School A %A B %B M A %M A 0 %0 Total Capacity
Anderson 1057 50.6 937 44.9 88 4.2 5 .2 208 7 2507
Atwell 871 62.9 415 30 86 6.2 12 .9 1384 1700
Browne 995 60.2 467 29.5 150 9.5 13 .8 1585 1700
Com stock 704 46.9 611 40.7 185 12.3 1 .1 1501 1700
Cary 664 49 ,6 516 38.6 133 9.9 25 1.9 1338 1600
Edison 93 11.2 110 13.2 626 75.2 4 .5 833 1000
Franklin 428 51.2 363 43 .4 41 4.9 4 .5 836 1400
Florence 892 44.6 1043 52 .2 60 3 3 .2 1998 1700
Gaston 816 48 763 44 .9 108 6.4 12 .7 1699 1700
Greiner 548 45.3 151 12.5 476 39 .3 35 2.9 1210 1300
Hill 489 50.4 439 45.3 36 3.7 6 .6 960 1400
Hood 1348 49.5 1276 46.9 70 2.6 29 i . i 272 3 2500
Long 620 46 .6 422 31 .7 276 20.6 15 i . i 1333 1400
Madison 1344 52 1152 44.6 67 2.6 20 .8 2583 2100
M arsh 770 49.6 709 45 .7 55 3.5 17 1.1 1551 1700
Rusk 580 40.3 380 26.4 456 31 .7 24 1.7 1440 1300
Seagoville 556 49.5 540 48.1 25 2.2 2 .1 1123 1200
Sequoyah 729 49.9 675 46.2 55 3.8 2 .1 1461 1600
Spence 289 21 .8 369 27.8 643 48.5 24 1.8 1325 1300
Stockard 928 61 .9 74 4.9 474 31.6 24 1.6 1500 1500
Storey 56 2.5 2094 94.8 57 2.6 2 .1 2209 2500
Walker 650 50.9 566 44 .3 54 4.2 7 .5 1277 2000
Zumwalt 4 .3 1533 99.1 10 .6 0 0 1547 ?
Totals 15391 15605 4231 286 3 5513
242
243
4. Distance from majority white areas, capacity of
schools, enrollment patterns in the DISD and
generally good physical facilities were factors
resulting in Storey and Zumwalt retaining their
present student assignment patterns.
5. In the remaining twenty-one (21) junior high
* | schools the Anglo percentage range from 11.2 to
62.9; Black percentages range from 4.9 to 52.2%;
Mexican-American percentage range from 2.2 to
48.5 with the exception of Edison which is 75.2%.
6. Each student attends only one (1) junior high
school.
7. No junior high school is closed but some are put to
different use.
part Jr. hi
Edison part Magnet school for B-2 elem entary district
Holmes Magnet school for B-6 elementary district
Hulcy Magnet school for B - l elementary district
Rylie Magnet school for B-7 elementary district
★ * * *
E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L S - G R A D E S K-6
DISTRICT-WIDE
1. Plan B divides the Dallas Independent School Dis
trict into the following eight (8) attendance zone
districts:
District Description District Description
B-l Southwest Oak Cliff B-5 East Dallas
B-2 North Oak Cliff B-6 Pleasant Grove
B-3 Northwest Dallas B-7 Southeast Dallas
B-4 North Dallas-Cedarcrest B-8 South Oak Cliff
2. The map shows seven (7) of the elementary districts are contiguous and reasonably
compact. The North Dallas-Cedarcrest district is the only non-contiguous district.
3. The racial make-up of each elementary district follows:
District
Total
Pop. A %A B %B M A % M A 0 %0
1 7272 345 3 47.5 2 6 9 7 37.1 1051 14.5 71 1
2 8223 29 2 8 35.6 755 9.2 4 3 8 9 53.4 131 1.6
3 12381 51 2 0 41.4 51 4 7 41.5 1949 15.7 165 1.3
4 8492 368 6 43.4 3696 43.5 1049 12.4 61 .7
5 1 4393 5463 38 635 0 44.1 23 8 3 16.6 197 1.4
6 860 9 3986 46.3 416 9 48.4 418 4.9 36 .4
7 974 3 40 1 5 41.2 4956 50 .9 758 7.8 14 .1
8 8403 ! 13 1.3 81 8 8 96.4 187 2.2 5 .05
Totals 7 7606 28764 37.1 3 5 9 5 8 46.3 12184 15.7 700 ,9
Figures used are dated "October 15, 1975 DISD Distribution Sheet".
244
245
4. Distance from the majority white areas, capacity
of schools, DISD enrollment patterns and general
ly better physical facilities were factors resulting in
District B-8 retaining its present assignment
patterns. This district consists of eight (8) elemen
tary attendance zones containing twelve (12)
elementary schools.
5. In the remaining seven (7) districts the Anglo per
centages range from 36 to 48; Black percentages
range from 9 to 51; and the Mexican-American
percentages range from 5 to 17, except for the
North Oak Cliff District which is 53% Mexican-
American.
6. Each child attends elementary school within one (1)
and only one (1) of the eight (8) districts. No child
attends more than two (2) elementary schools from
first through sixth grade.
7. Three (3) elementary schools are closed-Austin,
Douglas and Juarez. Ray and Central are used only
for kindergarten students. The Macon attendance
zone is split by district 6 and 7.
8. All kindergarten students remain in their
neighborhood schools.
9. Thirty-nine (39) elementary schools are
desegregated (no race comprises more than 70%)
and are left alone, (see pages 248-249 of this appen
dix).
10. Each elementary school that had a predominately minority enrollment prior to the
effective date of this proposal shall have special programs (as contained in magnet
schools) to enhance the attractiveness of these schools as educational facilities. Prior
to the effective date of this proposal these schools shall receive a thorough survey.
Renovations shall take place, if necessary. Curriculums should be revised and
enhanced.
11. 19,832 elementary students are transported for desegregation purposes. See table
below.
District
District Total A B MA 0
B-l 900 400 390 104 6
B-2 0 0 0 0 0
B-3 4248 1924 2057 225 42
B-4 3480 1582 1563 305 30
B-5 4686 2041 2175 399 71
B-6 3486 1561 1732 168 25
B-7 3032 1437 1462 127 6
B-8 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 19832 8945 9379 1328 180
246
12. Seven (7) districts have magnet schools which draw from only the district they serve.
60% of the enrollment must be Black and/or Mexican-American.
District M a g n etS c -h o d
B-l Hulcy
B-2 Edison
B-3 Thomas Jefferso
B-4 Hillcrest
B-5 Crozier
B-6 Holmes
B-7 Rylie
M axim um #
of Students__________________ Capacity
1000-1300 2000
1000 1500
1700 2200
1500 2040
1500 1800
1750 2500
750 800
?(possible space in Ervin)
247
583
223
789
418
229
531
620
671
566
508
545
747
546
275
539
550
579
348
617
K -5 E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L S C O N S ID E R E D D E S E G R E G A T E D (N O R A C E IN
E X C E S S O F 70%). F IG U R E S F R O M 12/1/75 HINES C O U N T Y R E P O R T
A %A B %B MA %MA
288 34.3 449 53.5 103 12.3
124 21.3 172 29.5 262 44.9
101 12.1 149 66.8 47 21.1
27 12.8 494 62 .6 194 24.6
261 62 .4 121 29 17 4.1
7 3.1 152 66 .4 70 30.6
256 48 .2 155 29.2 117 22
285 46 3 .5 319 51.5
256 38.2 52 7.7 338 50.4
200 35.3 279 49.3 83 14.7
270 53.1 0 0 230 45.3
3 0 7 56.3 6 1.1 200 36 .7
404 54.1 143 19.1 196 26.2
294 53 .9 116 21.3 125 22.9
95 34.5 18 6.5 153 55.6
320 59.4 2 .4 214 39,7
101 18.4 64 11.6 378 68.7
294 50.8 16 2.8 264 45.6
240 68.9 88 25.3 20 5.8
212 34.4 8 1.3 383 62.1
(Continued below)
School A %A
Lee, R, 148 43.1
Lipscomb 298 50
Longfellow 68 31.3
Maple Lawn 126 24.4
Milam 46 33.3
Mt. Auburn 187 34 .7
Peabody 170 41.7
Peeler 115 26.9
Reagan 160 35.6
Rosemont 371 60.6
Silberstein 243 58.6
Stevens Park 245 51.7
T erry 251 35 .9
T urner 231 44.8
Webster 433 57.8
Weiss 232 53.6
Williams 109 44 .9
Winnetka 196 44.2
6
13
56
]uarez
Douglas
Lanier
75 8.4
B % B M A %M A Total
0 0 189 55.1 343
22 3.7 252 42.3 596
143 65.9 7 3.2 217
112 21.7 252 48.7 517
20 14.5 67 48.6 138
179 33.2 170 31.5 539
1 .2 226 55.4 408
26 6.1 273 63.9 427
3 .7 271 60 .4 449
45 7.4 184 30.1 612
146 35.2 24 5.8 415
82 17.3 133 28.1 474
387 55.4 59 8.4 699
272 52.7 2 .4 516
277 37 38 5.1 749
141 32.6 60 13.9 433
95 39.1 32 13.2 243
8 1.8 230 51.9 443
32 107 147
90 143 246
66 373 503
188 22.1 623 69.5 896
Total 19 ,838
249
COURT'S EXHIBIT NO. 9
Dallas Alliance
Fidelity Union Tower
1507 Pacific Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75201 March 3, 1976
Honorable W. M. Taylor, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, Texas 75242
Dear Judge Taylor:
After further study of our plan and more consultation
with DISD staff, the Dallas Alliance Education Task
Force met on March 2, 1976 and adopted modifications
to our plan. The revised plan is attached for your con
sideration, with the changes underlined.
Our estimate of the annual DISD operating cost in
creases, excluding transportation costs, is $5,000,000.
This estimate does include start-up costs and should
decrease after the first year. Our estimate of capital ex
penditure is $16,500,000. Our understanding is that
the present bond issuance capability of DISD without
tax increase, could accommodate this capital expen
diture.
DALLAS ALLIANCE EDUCATION TASK FORCE
1st JACK LOWE, SR.
Jack Lowe, Sr., Chairman
Atts . . . (Filed: Mar. 3, 1976)
HALL'S EXHIBIT NO. 5
A POTENTIAL PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
RULINGS FOR OPERATING SCHOOLS IN
DALLAS, TEXAS
Schools Now Meeting Criteria
Elementary Schools
School Anglo Black M-A Minority Total Bldg.
Cap.
No. % No. % No. % %
1. Arcadia Park 273 74.4 2 .5 92 25.1 25.6 367 400
K -6
2. Blair, W. A. 281 35.3 419 52.5 97 12.2 64.7 797 800
K -6
3. Bowie, James 154 28.7 146 27.3 236 44.0 71.3 536 800
K -6
4. Burnet, David G. 707 73.9 36 3.8 214 22.3 26.1 957 1,350
K -7
5. Carpenter, J. W. 274 68 .5 110 27.5 16 4.0 31.5 400 800
K-6
(Continued on next page)
251
School Anglo Black
No. % No. %
6. Central
5-6
2 2 8 84.8 23 8.5
7. Cochran, Nancy J.
K -7
256 47.4 157 29.1
8. Cowart, Leila P.
K -7
331 49 .7 2 .3
9. Crockett , David
K -7
312 42.5 52 7.1
10. Davis, Jefferson
K -6
210 37.5 274 48.9
11. Donald, L. O.
K -7
331 57 .3 -0 - -0-
12. Field, T o m W.
K -7
154 75.1 10 4.9
13. Foster, Stephen
K -7
379 61 .7 8 1.3
14. Hall, Lenore K.
K -7
493 58 .6 141 16.8
15. Henderson, M argaret
K -6
3 2 0 59.6 115 21.4
16. Hogg, James S.
K -7
114 40.1 23 8.1
17. Hooe, Lida
K -7
378 60.5 4 .6
18. Ireland, John 403 71.3 108 19.1
K -7
' m 1 (C onti:
M -A M inority Total Bldg.
Cap.
No. % %
18 6.7 15.2 269 300
127 23.5 52 .6 540 800
333 50. 50.3 666 800
370 50.4 57.5 734 400
(P-360)
76 13.6 62 .5 560 800
247 42.7 42.7 578 800
41 20.0 24 .9 205 500
227 37.0 38.3 614 800
207 24.6 41.4 841 800
102 19.0 40.4 537 800
147 51.8 59.9 284 400
243 38.9 39.5 625 500
(P-120)
54 9.6 28.7 565 800
252
School A&gTO Black M- A T o ta l
No. % No. % No. % %
19. Jones, Anson 285 52.4 15 2.8 244 44.8 47.6 544
K -6
20. Kleberg 236 69.9 82 24 .2 20 5.9 30.1 338
K -6
21. Knight, Obadiah 250 36.6 7 1.0 426 62.4 63.4 683
K -7
22. Lipscomb, Wm. 379 56.7 20 3.0 269 40.3 43 .3 668
K -7
23. Maple Lawn 169 29.3 118 20 .5 290 50.2 70.7 577
K-7
24. Milam, Ben 60 36.0 10 6.0 97 58 .0 64 .0 167
K -7
25. M ount Auburn 211 34.3 215 35 .0 189 30.7 65.7 615
K -7
26. Peabody, George 226 47 .0 -0- -0- 255 53.3 53.3 481
K -7
27. Peeler, John F. 145 31.5 27 5.9 287 62 .6 68 .5 459
K -7
28. Reagan, John H. 203 39.9 -0- -0- 306 60,1 60.1 509
K -7
29. Rosem ont 450 64.4 53 7.6 196 28.0 35.6 699
K -7
30. Seagoville 553 83.6 82 12.3 27 4.1 16.4 662
K -4
31. Silberstein, A. S. 286 59.5 166 34.5 29 6.0 40.5 481
(Continued on next page)
B l d g .
Cap.
400
(P-150)
300
(P-120)
650
800
700
800
700
500
400
(P-120)
400
(P-120)
750
600
(P-90)
800
253
School Anglo
No. %
Black
No. %
M-A
No. %
M inority Total Bldg.
Cap.
32. Stemmons, Leslie
K-6
601 74.2 81 10.0 128 15.8 25 .8 810 800
(P-60)
33. Stevens Park
K -7
2 6 7 55.2 89 18.4 128 26.4 44 .8 484 800
34. T erry , T .G .
K -6
252 36.8 375 54 .7 58 8.5 63 .2 685 800
35. T urner, Adelle
K -6
243 47.8 262 51 .6 3 .6 52.2 508 800
36. Webster, Daniel
K -6
423 59.0 255 35.6 39 5.4 41 .0 717 800
37. Weiss, M artin
K -6
226 52.3 144 33 .3 62 14.4 47 .7 432 800
38. Williams, Sudie
K -7
113 48.1 90 38.3 32 13.6 51 .9 235 800
39. Winnetka
K -7
231 46.1 11 2.2 259 51 .7 53 .9 501 400
(P-120)
40. M ark Twain
K -6
90 18.5 385 79.4 10 2.1 81.5 485 800
41. Lee, Robt. E.
K -7
252 52 .9 -0- -0-
Junior High
224
Schools
47.1 47.1 476 800
42. Atweil, Wm. H.
7-0
362 34.8 645 61 .8 36 3.4 65.2 1,043 1,700
43. Browne, T.W .
7-9
904 47.4 862 45 .2 141 7.4 52 .6 1,907 1,700
(P-240)
44 Cary, E.H,
8-9
739 43.7
1
6 3 6 37 .6 316
( C o n t i n u e d b e l o w )
18.7 ^ ^ 5 6 . 3 1,691 1,500
254
School Anglo Black M -A Minority Total Bldg.
No. % No. % No. % %
Cap.
45. Comstock, E.B.
7-9
699 53 .6 420 32.2 185 14.2 46.4 1,304 1,700
46. Greiner, W.E.
7-9
634 52.1 165 13.6 418 34.3 47 .9 1,217 1,300
47. Hulcy, D.A.
7-9
248 18.6 1,038 77.7 50 3.7 81 .4 1,336 2,500
48. Long, J. L.
8-9
549 52 .8 192 18.5 299 28.7 47.2 1 ,040 1,400
49. Stockard, L. V.
7-9
6 8 7 62.9 58
Senior
5.3
High
347
Schools
31 .8 37.1 1,092 1,400
bJCn
Cn
50. Carter , David W.
10-12
542 31.4 1,118 64,8 66 3.8 68 .6 1,726 2,000
51. Jefferson, T.
10-12
1,118 60 .7 375 20.3 350 19.0 39.3 1 ,843 2,100
52. Kimball, J. F.
10-12
1,212 68.0 421 23 .6 150 8.4 32.0 1,783 2,100
53. Seagoville
7-12
827 80.2 157 15.2 47 4.6 19.8 1,031 750
(P-960)
54. Spruce, H. Grady
10-12
1.170 69.6 367 21.8 145 8.6 30.4 1,682 3 ,000
55. Sunset
10 -12
1 ,115 69.7 110 6.9 375 23.4 30.3 1,600 1,800
56. Wilson, W oodrow
10-12
6 5 7 62.3 178 16.9 219 20.8 37.7 1,054 1,500
255
junior High Schools are underlined. Schools listed un
der each are feeder schools into these centers.
256
William H. Atwell
Marsalis, T. L.
Terry, T. G.
(North of Camp)
Turner, Adelle
Twain, Mark
T. W. Browne
Carpenter, John
Davis, Jeff
Russell, C. P.
(West of Marsalis)
Stemmons, Leslie
Webster, Daniel
Edward H. Cary
Burnet, David G.
Caillet, T. F.
Field, Tom
(South of Royal)
Foster, Stephen C.
Houston, Sam
Knight, Obadiah
Longfellow, Henry W.
Maple Lawn
Polk, K. B.
Walnut Hill
Williams, Sudie
E. B. Comstock
Adams, John Q.
(West of Loop 12)
Blair, W. A.
Burleson, Rufus C.
Dorsey, Julius
Ireland, John
(S. of Lake June)
Lagow, Richard
Macon, B. H.
(S. of Elam)
Moseley, Nancy
J. L. Long
Bayles
Bonham, James B.
Crockett, David
Fannin, James
Lakewood
Lee, Robert E.
Lipscomb, William
Milam, Ben
Mount Auburn
Roberts, D. M.
Sanger, Alex
(W. of St. Francis)
Travis, William B.
Washington, B. T.
257
W. E. Greiner
Bowie, James
Hogg, James
Hooe, Lida
Henderson, Margaret B.
Peeler, John F.
Reagan, John H.
Rosemont
Stevens Park
Winnetka
D. A. Hulcy
Alexander, Birdie
Lee, Umphrey
Terry, T. G.
(S. of Camp Wisdom)
Thornton, R. L.
Weiss, Martin
L. V. Stockard
Aradia Park
Cochran, Nancy
Cowart, Lelia P.
Donald, L. O.
Hall, L. K.
Jones, Anson
Peabody, George
Senior High Schools are underlined. Schools listed un
der each are feeder schools into these centers.
David W. Carter
Alexander, Birdie
Lee, Umphrey
Marsalis, T. L.
Terry, T. G.
Thornton, Robert L.
Turner, Adelle
Twain, Mark
Weiss, Martin
H. Grady Spruce
Adams, John Q.
(S. of Lake June)
Anderson, William M.
Blair, W. A.
Buckner, R. C.
Burleson, Rufus C.
Dorsey, Julius
Ireland, John
(S. of Lake June)
Lagow, Richard
Macon, B. H.
Moseley, Nancy
Runyon, John
Thompson, H. S.
258
Thomas Jefferson
Burnet, David G.
Caillet, F. P.
Field, Tom
(S. of Royal)
Foster, Stephen C.
Houston, Sam
Knight, Obadiah
Longfellow, Henry W.
Maple Lawn
Polk, K. B,
Walnut Hill
Williams, Sudie L.
Justin F. Kimball
Carpenter, John
Cochran, Nancy J.
Davis, Jeff
Donald, L. O.
Hall, L. K.
Russell, C. P.
(W. of Marsalis)
Stemmons, Leslie
Webster, Daniel
Sunset
Arcadia Park
Bowie, James
Cowart, Lelia P.
Henderson, Margaret B.
Hogg, James
Hooe, Lida
Jones, Anson
Peabody, George
Peeler, John F.
Reagan, John H.
Rosemont
Stevens Park
Winnetka
Woodrow Wilson
Bonham, James B.
Crockett, David
Fannin, James W.
Lakewood
Lee, Robert E.
Lipscomb, William
Milam, Ben
Mount Auburn
Roberts, Oran M.
Seagoville
Central
Kleberg
Seagoville
Comment 1:
Only 8 elementary schools do not fully meet the
30-75 combined minority percent criterion:
1. Arcadia Park, 25.6
2. David G. Burnet, 26.1
259
3. Central, 15.2
4. Tom W. Field, 24.9
5. John Ireland, 28.7
6. Seagoville, 16.4
7. Leslie Stemmons, 25.8
8. Mark Twain, 81.5
Except for Numbers 3 and 6, they are considered as
approximately meeting criterion. Numbers 3 and 6,
Central and Seagoville, are located in the
Seagoville area and fall under Criterion 5 as being
located too far from other schools to make
transportation practical, and they do have pupils
from all ethnic groups.
Comment 2:
D. A. Hulcy junior High School, with a combined
minority of 81.4% approximately meets the 30-
75% criterion. Seagoville (Grades 7-12), with a
combined minority of 19.8, has the same problem
as Central and Seagoville Elementary Schools, and
the same comment applies.
Comment 3:
A number of the schools, 20 with less than 10%
black, 5 with less than 4% Mexican-American, do
have no or little representation from one of the
minority groups. There appears to be no denial of
rights, however. Reenforcement of this principle
can be given with a majority-to-minority transfer
policy.
CURRY EXHIBIT NO. 6
CHANGE IN ENRO LLM ENT BEFO RE A N D A F T E R
COURT-ORDERED MANDATORY DESEGREGATION: 16 TARGET SCHOOLS
ANNUAL
ENROLLMENT
GAIN (♦)
OR
1033 M
H r
+ 4 ‘
42 h
0
-2
- 4
-6
•8
-10
-12
* 4 %
P
U r \
-2 °/o
T
C Z Z ] WHITE
WJMM M INORITY
TWO YEARS BEFORE
RWT COURT ORDER
1-2 YEARS A FTER
START OF
D ES E G R E G A T IO N
3-4 Y E A R S AFTER
D E S E G R E G A T IO N
260
261
TARGET SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Denver, Colo.
Indianapolis, Ind.
Pontiac, Mich.
Boston, Mass.
Pasadena, Calif.
Fort Worth, Tex.
Houston, Tex.
Oklahoma City, Ok.
Nashville, Tenn.
Chatanooga, Tenn.
Prince Georges County, Md.
Little Rock, Ark.
Norfolk, Va.
Greensboro, N.C.
Raleigh, N.C.
Jackson, Miss.
All have the following characteristics:
n
(1) Court-ordered mandatory busing
(2) Enrollment over 20,000 as of Pall, 1968
(3) Minority proportion between 20-50%
prior to busing
(4) Availability of developed suburbs outside
district
-
iz
in
sr
r
o
w
a
n
n
f*
r
>
n
CURRY EXHIBIT NO. 7
EN R O LLM E N T OF W HITE AND M IN O R IT Y STU D EN TS
IN FORT WORTH BEFORE AND AFTER COURT-ORDERED
M ANDATO RY DESEG REG ATIO N
C ~ . 1 WHITE
m Z MINORITY
60 -
5b H
('CooV)
52
4 a
44
40
16
32
2B
£4
- ! !
n
V/tf. f il
.■1.4. x.;.
1967 1968 1969
g -/-i/—
FIRST
COURT-ORDERED
DESEGREGATION
_ i ______
//j ",l it !
/'///!
ii' 53-U
1f70 1971
Y E A S
SECOND
COURT-ORDERED
DESEGREGATION
'!_I
.•f s- \
i
n n
•' V. /j I. / '
W A
/!
1972 197J 1974
T O T A L
W H IT E
LO S S
-28*/*
262
&
CURRY EXHIBIT NO. 8
ENROLLMENT OF WHITE AND MINORITY STUDENTS IN OKLAHOMA CITY
BEFORE AND AFTER COURT-ORDERED MANDATORY DESEGREGATION
59
55
51
:n
47
43
39
35
E
N
R
0
L
L
M 31
E
N 27
T 21
(IMJ'S)
19
15
- !
- i
F U S T C O U G T O x D £ S
4 S C H O O L S PA IR ED
ri
i
r n
sz s .
1967 1968 1969
IMPLEMENTATION
OF TOTAL PAIRING
1
YSAR
1------- 1 V w . T £
C3
1974- ms
TOTAL
WHITE
L05S
*41 %
i
263
CURRY EXHIBIT NO. 9
ENROLLMENT OF WHITE AND MINORITY STUDENTS
IN BOSTON BEFORE AND AFTER COURT-ORDERED
MANDATORY DESEGREGATION
61
LTT
r ~ ’
Z ir R
F 64
A ^
L 60
- H
L 1
1
!
E -
H 52 -
£
0 43
L 44
E 40
!f 36 i
11
(WOO s' —
23 m>A
1967 1 9 6 8
WHITE
MINORITY
1 9 6 9
i
ii
i
1970 1971
YEAR
FIRST SECOND
CASE COURT COURT
BEGINS ORDER ORDER
▼ ____ ▼ T
TOTAL
WHITE
’ LOSS
-32%
1 9 7 2 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 4
264
265
BRINEGAR'S EXHIBIT NO. 6
EAST DALLAS DEMONSTRATION
a joint program of the
citizens & the city government
city of dallas
department of housing & urban rehabilitation/
department of urban planning
SUMMARY
The East Dallas Community, like the other innercity
communities, has been experiencing a loss of middle
and upper-income families, particularly the Anglos
since 1960. School enrollment among Anglos has
declined by 80% within the last six years. Unlike the
Anglo students, Spanish surname and black student
enrollment in elementary schools in East Dallas Com
munity has increased by 102% and 75% respectively
within the same period of time. This statistical fact
proves the point of minority in-migration in the East
Dallas Community. East Dallas Community has a
higher percent of elderly population, mortality rate, il
legitimate birth rate, single, separated, divorce, widow,
families with female heads, families and unrelated in
dividual below poverty level than the City. East Dallas
Community also has higher percentage of housing
units lacking plumbing facilities, units built before
1939, elderly homeowners, and vacancy rate than the
City. East Dallas Community has experienced a greater
increase in part I crime than the City.
TABLE 6
ENROLLMENT IN EAST DALLAS SCHOOLS: 1968-1975
School Spanish O ri- AH
Year Anglo Surnam e Black Indian ental Races
Elementary
68 -6 9 3 ,113 1,064 827 32 5 5,041
74-75
Change
1,308 2 ,155 1 ,450 34 7 4,954
in No. - 1 ,805 1,091 623 2 2 - 87
in % - 58.0 102.5 75.3 6.2 40 .0 - 1.7
Jr. High
68-69 1,232 444 510 7 5 2,198
74-75
Change
951 688 416 11 6 2,072
in No. - 281 244 - 94 4 1 - 126
in % - 22.8 55.0 -18 .4 57.1 20.0 - 5.7
Sr. High
68 -6 9 1,546 79 23 2 4 1,654
74-75 702 157 191 5 4.. 1 .0 5 9
(Continued below)
266
School
Year
Spanish
Anglo S u rname Indian
O r i
ental
All
RacesBlack
Change
in No.
in %
Total
68 -69
74-75
Change
in No.
in %
■ 844 78
54.6 98.7
5,891 1,587
2,961 3 ,000
-2 ,9 3 0 1,413
- 49.7 89.0
168 3
730.4 150.0
1,360 41
2,057 50
697 9
51.2 22.0
0 - 595
0.0 - 36.0
14 8,893
17 8.085
3 - 808
21.4 - 9.1
Note, See Map 3 (or the ,ch„„ ! boondarie, . whtch cove , a re a , out . ide E . , t D a l i . . . Junto , and Senior enrollment ha ,
been affected by busing since 1971.
Source: Dallas Independent School District
267
268
PROOF OF SERVICE
We, Warren Whitham and Mark Martin, Attorneys
for Petitioners Estes, et al., in No. 78-253, and members
of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States,
hereby certify that on th e -----day of May, 1979, we
served three copies of the foregoing Appendix upon the
following Counsel for Petitioners and Respondents:
Mr. Edward B. Cloutman, III
820 4 Elmbrook Drive, Suite 200
P. O . Box 4 7972
Dallas, Texas 7 5247
Mr. Thom as E. Ashton, III
Dallas Legal Services
Foundation, Inc.
8 1 0 Main Street, Room 320
Dallas, Texas 75202
Ms. Vilma S. M artinez
Mexican-Am erican Legal D efense
and Educational Fund
28 Geary Street
San Francisco, California 9 4108
Mr. E. Brice Cunningham
2 6 0 6 Forest Avenue, Suite 202
Dallas, Texas 75215
Mr. Nathaniel R. Jones
17 9 0 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10019
Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr.
Mr. Robert L. Blumenthal
3 0 0 0 One Main Place
Dallas, Texas 7 5250
Mr. James A. D onohoe
170 0 Republic National Bank
Building
Dallas, Texas 75201
Mr. John Bryant
80 3 5 East R. L. T horn ton
Dallas, Texas 7 5228
Mr. Martin Frost
O ak Cliff Bank Tow er, Suite 1319
Dallas, Texas 7 5208
Mr. Lee Holt, C ity Attorney
City Hall
Dallas, Texas 75201
Mr. James G. Vetter, Jr.
555 Griffin Square Building
Suite 920
Dallas, T exas 75202
and to the following Respondent pro se:
Mr. James T. Maxwell
4 4 4 0 Sigma Road, Suite 112
Dallas, Texas 7 5240
269
and to the following Counsel for Amicus Curiae:
Mr. H. Ron White
1907 Elm Street, Suite 2100
Dallas, Texas 75201
by mailing same to such Counsel and Respondent pro
se at their respective addresses and depositing the same
in a United States mail box in an envelope properly ad
dressed to such addresses with first class postage
prepaid.
We further certify that all parties required to be serv
ed have been served.
Warren Whitham
Mark Martin
Attorneys for Petitioners
Estes, et al. in No. 78-253
S CO FIELDS’ Q U A LITY PRINTERS, P. O. BOX 53096, N. O., LA. 70153 - 504/822-1611