Order for Deferring Action on Request for Extension

     [||b7707861-5fd2-44e3-a34d-86c119415155||] IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Charlotte Division A 

Civil Action No. 1974 

JAMES E. SWANN, et al, Plaintiffs, 

THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF 

EDUCATION; MR. WILLIAM E. POLE, 

CHAIRMAN; MR. HENDERSON BELK: MR. 

DAN HOOD; MR. BEN F. HUNTLEY: MRS. 

BETSEY KELLY; REV. COLEMAN W. KERRY, 

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) OBDER | 

JR.:; MRS. JULIA MAULDEN; MR. SAM S. ) 

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

  

McNINCH, IIL: DR.=“CARLTON G. WATKINS; 

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF 

EDUCATION, a public body corporate; 

and DR. A. CRAIG PHILLIPS, Superin- 

tendent of Public Instruction of 

the State of North Carolina, 

Defendants. 

| 

On April 23, June 20 and August 15, 1969, orders were 

entered directing the defendants to. submit a plan and a time 

table for the desegregation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

schools, to be completéd by the fall of 1970. Nearly S1iX : 9 

months after the original order, faculty desegregation is i 

well along and there have been a number of substantial improve- : 

ments in the stated policies of the Board, including the stated 

assumption of duty by the Board to desegregate the schools "at 

the earliest possible date." Limited steps have been taken 

toward compliance "ith the pupil desegregation provisions Of 

that original order. However, the major part of the job remains 

undone, and no plan for desegregation of the entire system has 

apparently been voted on by the Board. 
| 

The latest order set November 17, 1969, as the revised 

date for defendants to file a complete plan and time table. 

Defendants have now filed a l15-page motion and supporting 

affidavit asking the court to extend by another two and one- 

half months, to February 1, 1970, the time for compliance with 

the orders. Plaintiffs oppose the extension. 

The justification advanced for this delay is that they 

have hired a systems analyst to re-draw attendance lines, and 

that the three months between August 15 and November 17 are 

not enouch time to program a computer and prepare a plan. 

It would be a happy day if tae job could be turned over 

to a computer. A computer, if programmed objectively, could 

produce bijective results: all could blame the machine (in 

addition to the court) for any unpleasant decisions. Also, 

the court would like to avoid unnecessary pressure on the 

school staff and administrators. 

 



  

Hg 18 

However, the information thus far available is inadequate 

to justify the extension. Computers are for time-saving, not 

delay. The computer work was estimated by the. Board's chosen 

systems analyst, Mr. Weil, to require ninety man days Of work. 

He proposes to consume ninety calendar days with this job. 

The Board's motion says that their decisions about construc- 

tion and location of 21 building projects (involving many 

millions of dollars) are to be held up pending development 

of the plan. The school budget approaches fifty million 

dollars. The question fairly arises why the Board should 

not employ or assign more than one person at a time to feed 

the computer. Mr. Weil's original plan, which is in evidence, 

was prepared in a very few days. The court has on file also 

three or four other plans, including at least one which local 

school officials say is educationally and technically feasible, 

which were prepared in a few days each. The use of a computer 

y mmyd- - IN : Jom Lo La <I EEN 

dces not appear to justlily Zoe LL..&8y. 

Moreover, computers can not make political nor legal 

decisions; they react to what is fed into them; and the 

request for postponement leaves the court to speculate over 

what will be fed into the computer. The motion does not say 

that Mr. Weil has been instructed by the Board to frame a 

plan to desegregate the schools; his commission, by a Board 

committee only, is limited to re-drawing attendance lines; 

the vague references in the Board's motion to his instructions 

as to travel limitation and specified school capacities and 

desirable racial balance permit the inference, in fact, thal 

his mission could be re-segregation of much of the system. 

The motion also contains no commitment on the part of 

the Board to adopt any plan that the computer may produce; 

it gives no information about the Board's intentions as to 

other desegregation methods it will use; and it promises no 

result from the delay except consideration by the Board of 

a computer plan for re-arranging school lines. 
  

The motion is preoccupied with one method, and silent 

about results. 

Before passing on the motion, the court has a duty to 

discover what the Beard has accomplished since its July 29 

promises were made, and whether the extra time will promote 

genuine progress toward compliance with the Constitution or 

whether it will just be time lost. 

The Board is therefore directed to file with the court 

by October 29, 1969, the following information: 

1. A full statistical report on the results of 

the closing of the jnner-city schools and where the 

4,200 black pupils the Board proposed on July 29 to 

transfer to white schools are actually going to schoo. 

as of October 10, 1969. 

2. The figures regarding the effect of freedom 

of transfer on the desegregation proposed in the July 

29, 1969 plan for closing inner-city schools and 

transferring their students. 

 



  

“3 

3. A report on freedom of choice or freedom of 
transfer: How many children, by school or location 
and race, chose to transfer out of and into the 
various schools for the 1969-70 year. 

4. “Fuli-reports on the current numbers and races 
of the children and teachers in the system, school by 
school, with percentages of each race for each school. 

5. A report on the children being provided bus 
transportation, school by school. | 

6. A description of what has been done to provide 
the compensatory education programs proposed in the 
July 29 plan and policy statement. 

i. ‘A woopy of all September and October, 199, 
reports of the Board to the Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare. 

Unless the Board has made the hard decisions needed to 
desegregate the schools, the time spent on a computer plan 
may well be just more time lost, and delaying decision may 
simply compress into fewer months next year the decisions 
that should have already been made. Therefore, in addition 
to the above, the Board is directed to answer by October 29, 
1969, the following questions: | 

1. What, in verbatim detail, are the instructions 
that have been given to Mr. Weil? 

2. What is Mr. Weil's assigned mission or goal? 

3. What areas of the district is he directed to 
include in his program of re-drawing attendance lines? 

4. What areas, if any, is he directed to exclude? 

5. What =chools will his program affect? 

6. Will pairing, grouping or clustering of schools 
be used by the Board as needed to supplement the computer 
plan? 

7. Will the Weil program of re-drawing attendance 
lines produce desegregation of all the schools by 
September, 19702 

8. If the Weil program does not produce desegrega- 
tion of all tke schools by September, 1970, what does 
the Board plan fo do to produce ‘that result? 

9. Will any plan produced by the Weil method or 
any other re-drawing of attendance lines desegregate 
the schools if unrestricted freedom of transfer or 
freedom of choice is retained? 

 



  

lf - 

The value of the answers to these nine questions is substan- 

tially dependent On whether they are made by vote of the full 

Board or by non-voting representatives such as attorneys ox 

other agents. 

Pending receipt of the above information, the court will 

defer action on the request for time extension. Action will 

also be deferred for the present on the motions which have 

been filed by the plaintiffs which include requests for aboli- 

tion of freedom of choice and appointment of an outside expert 

to devise a plan in default of Board action. | 

This the 10th day of Oc#fober, 1969. 

7; ry», 
SAVY ©) VU VASA 

Jafies B. McMillan 

United States District Judge [||b7707861-5fd2-44e3-a34d-86c119415155||]