Metropolitan County Board of Education v. Kelley Supplemental Appendix to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

    IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 
Nos.712006 and 712007

JAMES JONOTHAN MAPP ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants and 

Cross-Appellees
versus

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF 
CHATTANOOGA,TENN. ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees and 
Cross-Appellants

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOINT APPENDIX - VOLUME I

RAYMOND B.WITT,ESQ. 
Witt,Gaither,Abernathy 

& Wilson
1100 American National 

B̂ >nk Building 
Chattanooga,Tenn.37402
EUGENE COLLINS, ESQ. 
Pioneer Building 
Chattanooga, Tenn.

AVON N. WILLIAMS, JR. ESQ. 
Suite 1414 Parkway Towers 
404 James Robertson Parkway 
Nashville, Tenn. 37219

JACK GREENBERG, ESQ.
JAMES M. NABRIT,III, ESQ.
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN, ESQ. 
SYLVIA DREW, ESQ.

Suite 2030
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Defendants-Appellees and Cross-Appellees

and Cross-Appellants



TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I

Page
Docket Entries .....  .....................  i-xii
Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Relief

filed March 29, 1965 ......  .......... 1
Opinion of the U.S. District Court

of August 5, 1965 ......................  4
Order of the U S  District Court

filed March 29, 1967 ...............  . . 11
Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Relief

filed December 30,1968 .................  13
Plaintiffs' Motion for Immediate Relief

filed November 13,1969 .................  26
Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' 

motion for Immediate Relief, filed 
November 19, 1969 ... .......  ......... 34

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion
to Strike filed December 28, 1969 .....  37

Defendants' Motion to Require Plaintiffs to 
give complete and Specific Answers to 
Defendants' Interrogatories with the 
Alternative to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs'
Pleadings and Brief in Support thereof
filed December 2, 1969 ................  43

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
filed November 22,1970 ................  57

Opinion and Order of the U.S. District Court
filed February 19,1971 ................  72

Defendants' Response to District Court Order
of February 19, 1971, filed March 8,1971 85

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and
Supporting Brief, filed May 7, 1971 .... 92

Defendants' Amended Plan of Desegregation
filed June 16, 1971 .................... 104



TABLE OF CONTENTS 
VOLUME I 
(contd)

Page

Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants' Amended
Deseg. Plan, filed June 21 , 1971 ............ 136
Defendants' Brief in Support of Amended

Desegregation Plan, filed June 22,1971 141
Order of U.S. District Court filed June 23,

1971 ..................................  171
Defendants’ Motion for Relief from Order and

Supporting Brief,filed July 12,1971 .. 173
Opinion of the U.S. District Court of July

26,1971 ...............................  185
Order of the U.S. District Court of August 5,

1971 ................................... 213
Order of the U.S. District Court of August 15,

1971 ..................................  217
Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal, filed August 30,

1971 ..................................  218
Defendants' Notice of Appeal, filed September

8, 1971 ...............................  220
Enrollment Statistics for 1971-72 ........... 222
Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time

Within which to File Brief & Appendix,
filed January 20, 1972 .............  226

Defendants' Trial Exhibit #3 - Student
Statistics, filed April 14, 1971 ..... 229

Defendants' Trial Exhibit #70 - Faculty
Statistics, filed May 13, 1971.... .. 235



n1
dp
 

Na
sh
vi
ll
e,
 T

en
n 

37
21
3

VIL DOCKET
ENITI i'; MAI «S DISTRICT COU :f

NO. 3564

Jury demand datei

T i T U  or CASS ATTORNBT8

JAMES JONATHAN MAPP & DEBORAH LITANYA 
m-a -p, by James R. Mapp, their father & 
next friend; and PLESS MAXEY, JR., a 
minot, by his mother & next friend, MRS 
JOSEPH MAXEY £. KATHY KIRNON, a minor by 
her father and next friend, THE REVERENC 
H. H. KIRON

- vs -

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF 
-HATTANOOGA, HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, 

JOHN P. FRANKLIN, MCCLELLAN COOK,
L. JENKINS & EDWARD S. PROCTOR, JR. 

Members of the Board of Education of the 
City of Chattanooga & DR. CHARLES E. 
MARTIN, Superintendent. These defts. 
substituted 6/4/71.

Js.
JAMES

For plaintiff:
Avon N. Williams, Jr.
1414 Parkway Towers 
Nashville, Tennessee 37219

For intervening pltfs:
Humphreys. Hutcheson & Moseley 
Suite 100, 600 Georgia Avenue 
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402&Richard P. Jahn, 12th Floor Vol.Bldc 
Fori Cook, Jones, Bruning & Cagli

7/9 '71 Intervening plaintiffs:
Oscar Earl Cook, III; Samuel H. 
Frank E. Bruning & Norma C. Cagle

For defendant:
Raymond B. Witt, Jr. & 

|i 1100 American National 
I Chattanooga, Tennessee 

Jones r; Jr.;
Eugene Collins 
400 Pioneer Building •> 
Chattanooga, Tennessee

John Henniss 
Bank Bldg 
37402

3/402

Action under Civil Rights Statute to de­
segregate Chattanooga Public Schools.

Ellis K. Meacham
Hamilton National Bnak Bid*-.
Chattanooga, Tennessee 3 '40.

STATISTICAL RECORD COSTS
—

- i m
NAME OR 

RECEIPT NO. REC. J1S3.

.S 5 mailed Clerk
'

4-6
4-11

54,662 
C.D.#38

15 00 '
15 00

.6. 6 mailed Marshal
■ \ 12-2

12-9
56728
C.D.#21

5 00 (Appe,
!' 5 00

u»ia of Action: Docket fee 1961
00

Witness fees
2 —l C i 57,157 

C.D.#30
5

5 00

Action arose at: Depositions
9 -9  GfP- i f i t v  
9-9 HD *1

.965
9-7
9-8

104,313 Ap;
CD #9
) 19 71

C-D H g

>. i.5 00
5 00

r*< iA U G  3 

\sJM/7/
l y OO

y OO

i



* age » i

D. C. 110A Civil DoeXet C o n y w ' g .

DATE

9/7

9/20

9/22

PROCEEDINGS

D tU  O rd»r 0 
Judgment No<

lo-4
10- 25

11- 5

1966
4-15

4-18

MaDD-At— Board—of—Education—  - ,

Doclf/t* entries r , i W  to attorneys of record b, clerk. .
Transcript of txtaX proceedings beginning May 1.'1965. bearlng’on 
motion, filed.
Envelope containing Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Record mailed to U.S.Curt^ Appeals M r : .the Sixth Circuit.^

Progres, report on desegratlon K n ^ l o ^ . n *
S ' c S S . ’S T ^ S  ^ “  Sixth Circuit.

ORDER, WILSON, d :J. granting O ^ S f l J
to withdraw a carvice by c iSk ^ o ^ f l e y  ,Titt!,Unde^pod‘and

i>d

11-9

11- 17

12- 13

12-15

J

Chattanooga schools. 196o*o/ n-1? ,v. ■ ' . •

, ^ -f f^ipd Service by counsel* 1 .thereof, filed, service y t whic i

. ? f r e ^ ^ r t g r f - i ^ S i f S S t t f  J E S J S . ' « : » t . V . ' I
filed. Service by clerk. . . t*

by counsel. . .1 ;; •' ; ■ '. ;; • <c •

S S tV J S  S S - i ^ *  &  ^ ciedlnss ln acc" ^ -  Iwith opinion, filed. .(■ ■ ■'■

19.62-3-27

3-27
with opinion, ... *’•_••• rî -rk
Or d er; wncK.O'SOliiVAN A  EDW/Ud s ;’entered by Carl.W. Reus..

11 .



( /  H L
/ z

DATE1967
3-27 
con't

->3-29

4/26
4/26

5/1

8-11

9-1

9-12
9-19

9- 29

10- 17 

10-29

PROCEEDINGS Dfct* Or&tiT Judgment N<
affirming judgment of District Court except as to issue of faculty 
assignment, and remanding cause for further proceedings in con­
formity with opinion, issued as mandate March 23, 1967. Service by 
clerk to counsel of record.
ORDER, WILSON, D.J. in accordance with mandate from court of appeals 
affirming the decision of the District Court as to all matters save 
as to faculty assignments and restoring the,case.to-the.current•civi1 
docket for further action as to the issue of faculty assignment, 
setting a conference date at 2:00 P.M., April 6, 1967 inthe chambers 
of the Court as to objections filed by plaintiffs to the annual repo 
of the defendant, entered C.O.Bk. 27, p. 515 and filed.. Service by
clerk to all counsel of record.• . . 7. —  „ r ... • - ■
Plaintiff's Memorandum filed. Service by counsel.
Defendant's Memorandum of Current Status & next steps in litigation 
filed. Service by counsel.
Plaintiffs' amemdment to memorandum submitted 4/26/67 filed, 
by counsel.

Servic

MEMORANDUM, WILSON, D.J. that the defendants should be allowed 20 
days to admit or deny that they follow the practice of assigning 
faculty or staff members; of a particular race to -schools dominated 
by that race. If the defendants deny that they follow this practice 
then a hearing should be had upon that issue; if they admit that 
they follow such practice then .the defendants should be directed to 
submit a plan, for the.desegregation qf faculty and,ptaff,and- if the 
plaintiffs challenge the adequacy of such plan that the parties shoe 
proceed to a hearing upon that issue. An order will accordingly 
enter at this time allowing the defendants 20 days to further plead 
filed. Service by clerk to' all counsel of record.: ' f ''

Defendants' answer to the allegations of complaint relative to the 
assignment of teachers and principals filedd SerVide by Counsel.
Defendant's offer of a judgment filed. ' Service by ̂ coupsel,. . ,
Agreed ORDER, WILSON, D.J. according to memorandum entered 8/11/671 
allowing defendant 20 days to further, plead,' entered C.O.Bk. .28, 
p. 464 and filed. J Service by counsel.' ...... ..

Agreed ORDER, WILSON, D.J. allowing the plaintiffs an additional 10 
days, from the entry lofr this order to respond to-the. offer of judgmerfe 
submitted by the defendants, entered C.O.Bk. 28,-p.- 507 and filed. 
Service by clerk.
ORDER, WILBON,, D.J., allowing plaintiffs additional 10 days from 
entry of this order to respond to offer of judgment submitted b y  
defts, filed. Entered C.O.Bk. 28, p. 566. Service by cl6rk to 
counsel1 of record. • ...... ' ....

t . . • •

WILSON, D.J. setting pretrial conference on Friday, Nov. 8,
an ordeVdi0 prior to that parties have agreed uponorder disposing of all pending issues filed. Service by clerk.

Id



INV/. JJOH,
P. 13

c .  110A R <•*. Civil Pocket Continuation^

D A T E

_12£S_
11-4

11-12

11-25

PROCEEDINGS

_Htdp._v_t—School_Board nf City of Ch.-xttanooga------------------------
ORDER, WILSON, D.J. that pretrial hearing scheduled for Nov. 8 be 
continued to 4:00 p.«n., Nov. 15, 1968 filed. Service by clerk to 
all counsel of record. -
ORDER, WILSON, D.J. continuing pretrial hearing from Nov. 15, to 
Saturday, November 23, 1968 at 11:00 a.m. filed. Service by clerk 
to all counsel of record.
Pretrial Order, Wilson, D.J. granting an extension of time through 
Jan. 2, 1969, whithin which the plaintiffs may file further pleadings 
after which the parties are to have further consultation with regard 
to resolution ofPany and all remaining issues in the case and further 
orders of the Court will await such developments; following such - 
efforts to resolve all issues by consultation between the Pities ox 
otherwise to define the issues upon which an ^Judication 1b®
necessary, this case will either be set for a further pretrial con 
ference or for a hearing upon the issues thus defined, filed.
Service by clerk to all counsel of record.

D *t* Oi 
Judicmen

12-23
12-23

Suggestion for Substitution of defendants filed. . Service by counsel
substitution defendants in this case filed.

12-31

-_12£2

ORDER, WILSON, D.J.
Service by counsell.
Plotion of plaintiffs for further relief, seeking temporary injunctire 
relief to be followed by permanent injunction, without brief, tiled 
Service by counsel. * " . . '

lTT4 Motion of defendants for extension of time to respond to plaintiff': 
motion for further relief filed. (Without brief)

2-5 ORDER, WILSON, D.J. extending the time for 60 days from entry of th 
order within which the defendant may have to respond to the motion 
of plaintiff for further relief .filed. Service,by clerk.

4-3 Motion of defendants for extension of u^cil ***? 7 to'respond t<
motion of plaintiffs for further relief filed.

4- 4 ORDER, WILSON, D.J. allowing defendants an extension of time until 
May 7 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for further relief filed. 
Service by clerk.

5- 7 Answer of defendants to motion for further relief filed. Service by
counsel. _ _ ,

6- 19 ORDER, WILSON, D.J. setting a pretrial hearing at 3:00 P.M. on Fridfy,
July 25, 1969 filed. Service by clerk to all counsel of record.

7- 9 Interrogatories propounded by defendants to the plaintiffs filed.
Service by counsel. .

7-21 Objections of the plaintiffs to certain interrogatories propounded tv 
defendants, together with notice of hearing thereon, filed. Service 
by counsel. .1



• NO. 3564
Page 14

PROCEEDINGS
D*t* Order 

J u d cm e o t  N

7-25 Answers by plaintiffs to certain interrogatories propounded by the 
defendants filed. Service by counsel,

7- 25 ORDER, WILSON, D.J., continuing pretrial conference heretofore 
scheduled for 7/25/69, subjoct to being react, filed.

8-1 Plaintiffs' Interrogatories to defendants filed. Service by counsel
8- 15 Application by defendant for extension of time for filing answers to 

plaintiff's interrogatories filed. Service by counsel

8-18 ORDER, WILSON, D.J., allowing defendants until 8/29/69 to file 
answers to plaintiff's interrogatories filed. Service by clerk 
to counsel of record,

8- 29 Defendants' answers to plaintiffs' Interrogatories, with maps (8) 
attached filed. Service by counsel.

9- 4 ORDER, WILSON, D.J. sustaining in part the plaintiffs' objections 
to certain interrogatories and directing that other interrogatories 
be answered by the plaintiffs filed. Service by clerk to Avon Willijams, 
Raymond B. Witt and Eugene Collins.

9- 12 Plaintiffs' application for extension of time fori filing answers to 
defendants' interrogatories pursuant to order of the court, filed. 
Service by counsel.

9-12 ORDER, WILSON, D.J. granting extension of time to the plaintiffs to 
respond to certain of defendants' interrogatories filed. Service bj 
clerk to counsel,of record.

10- 20 ORDER, WILSON, D.J. extending the time to end including the '24th of October withi 
which the plaintiffs may answer the remaining interrogatories propounded by the 
defendants filed. Service by clerk

11- 3 Plaintiffs' answers to interrogatories not included in the objections 
heretofore filed by plaintiffs filed.

11-14 Plaintiffs' Motion for immediate relief, with a proposed show cause 
order submitted, filed. Service by counsel.

11- 19 Defendants' Motion to strike plaintiffs' motion for immediate 
relief, with brief in support thereof, filed. Service by counsel.

, . i i- i ■ ■
12- 2 Defendants' Motion to require plaintiffs to give complete and specific 

answers to defendants' interrogatories or in the alternative to strike 
portions of plaintiffs' pleadings filed, together with brief in 
support. Service by counsel

12-29 Opposition by plaintiffs to motion to strike plaintiffs' motion for 
immediate relief filed. Service by counsel

12-29 Opposition by plaintiffs to motion to compel further answers to deffcs 
interrogatories or in the alternative to strike protions of plaintiffs 
pleadings, AND cross motion to compel further answers to plaintiffs' 
interrogatories filed. Service by counsel.

v .



D. C. 110A Re*. Civil Pocket Continuation

Pago #15

*1̂ )70 Mapp#ot al v. CitySchool Boarci1ROCTCKDINGS D ata C 
Jud«rme

1-6 Amended copy of Exhibit A oubmittod to substitute for tho Exhibit A 
which was attached to plaintiffs* Opposition to Strike plaintiffs’ 
motion for immediate relief filed Dec. 26, 1969. Service by counsel.

1970
10 -2

10-7

10-16

11-7
11-9

11-23

11-24

1971
2-19

2-19

J

3-8

3-16

3-22
3-22

ORDER, WILSON, D.J. that defendants supplement answers to Interroga­
tories 20, 21, 25 and 26 with latest available data; defendants* 
answers being adequate to Nos. 13 and.14; that supplement be filed 
within 15 days; allowing plaintiffs 15 days thereafter to respond; 
setting a pretriaal conference regarding all other matters on Oct.
23 at 3 p.m., filed. Service by clerk to all counsel of record.
ORDER, WILSON, D.J. changing the pretrial conference from Oct. 23 
to Nov. ; 7, 1970 at- 10«30 a.m., filed. Service by clerk to counsel 
of recodd. . • ; • _ . ,
Defendants' Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories, with attachment;i 
filed. Service by counsel. • - - ; ; :•
Pretrial Conference .... . •
Statistical Information to be used in connection with Defendants' 
Answers to Interrogatories filed. Service by Raymond B. Witt,Jr. 
Counsel for defendants. (Too large for filing with pleadings on 
right-hand side of file folder)

’ >■Motion by plaintiffs for summary judgment,etc., with brief and 
attachments in support filed. Service by counsel.
Defendant's Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed. 
Service by counsel.

OPINION, WILSON, D.J. ruling on pending motions and setting out guice 
lines for hearing now scheduled to begin on April 1, 1971, filed. 
Service by clerk to Avon Williams, Jr., Raymond B. Witt, Eugene 
Collins and Ellis K. Meacham.
ORDER, WILSON, D.J. denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, 
reserving action on plaintiffs' motion for immediate relief and 
setting an evidentiary hearing to begin April 1, 1971 & setting fortlh 
issues upon which evidence should be submitted before hearing date, I 
filed. Service by clerk to attorneys, same as service on above Opinion 
Response of dft. to Opinion & Order of Feb. 19, 1971 filed. Service 
by counsel. . -
ORDER, WILSON, D.J., continuing trial from 4/1/71 to 4/14/71, 9 a.m. 
Service by clerk to counsel of record.- •
Interrogatories by pltf. to deft, filed. Service by counsel.
Motion by pltf. to shorten time for filing answers to interrogator!as 
filed. Service by counsel.

vi.



( ? . / C

DATr.T971
1/26

3/26

4-2

4-5

4-7

4-13

4-14

4-14

4-27

4-27

5-3

5-7

5-10

5-11

5a-JL2
5-13

Ord«tr c 
Judgment NotPROCKKDINC3James J. Mapp, et al vs Board of Education _

“ Defendants' objections to plaintiffs‘ motion to shorten time fey 
filing answers to interrogatories filed. Service by counsel.
Defendants* objections to certain of plaintiffs' interrogatories 
filed. Service by counsel.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER, WILSON, D.J. sustaining in part and denying in 
part the defendant's objections to interrogatories, and directing 
that certain interrogatories be answered on or before April 7,1971 
filed. Service by clerk to Avon N. Williams, Jr., Raymond B. Wit}t,Jr. 
and to Eugene Collins.

Defendants' Answers to certain of plaintiffs' interrogatories, with 
attachments, filed. Service by counsel.
Defendants' Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories 10 and 11, with 
attachments filed. Service by counsel. .»
Motion by defendants to modify subpoena for the production of 
documents filed. Service by counsel.
Subpoenae on behalf of plaintiffs returned executed 4/12/71'on 
James W. Henry, Billy C. Cooper and Of. D. Harding and filed.
D.T.Nation, DUSM - $ 8.04 '
Came the parties in' person and by counsel and the trial to the Court 
sitting without the intervention of a jury, was commenced. The 
defendant introduced a portion of its evidence but did not. complet^.
The trial of the case will resume on May 10, 1971. Plaintiff's 
attorney was permitted to withdraw Ex. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 thru 1> 
inclusive. Wilson, D.J. Order Bk. 4, p. 620 (Exhibits returned 5, 4/71)
Motion by defendants to shorten time for filing answers to 
interrogatories filed. Service by counsel.
Interrogatories propounded by defendants to the plaintiffs filed.
Service by counsel.
Objections by pltfs. to interrogatories filed by defendants on 
Apr. 27, 1971 & Opposition to Motion to shor/ten time for filing 
answers to said interrogatories filed. Service by counsel."
Motion by defendants for summary judgment, with brief in support, 
filed. Service by counsel.
Came the parties by counsel; the Court heard a continuation of the 
proof in this cause and adjourned to 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, May 11.
Wilson, D.J. Order Book 5, p. 79. . __ . . ___
Came the parties by counsel; the Court continued hearing proof-. •
Cause continued to 9:00 A.M., Wed. May 12, 1971. Order book 5,
P- 8i>a) . . . . . .  .
Court heard further evidence. Or.Bk.5, p.86.
;ourt heard further evidence. Order Book 5, p. 90

vii.



D. C. 110A R c». Civil Docket Continuation

MO. 3564
Pago # 17

DATE1971 PROCEEDINGSMapp v. Board of Education
Data Ordf r Judgment N«

5-14 Came the parties by counsel. Upon pit's motion, an order to enter 
allowing complaint to be amended making present Board of Education 
members and current city supt. as defendants. Deft, counsel to 
prepare order. The Court heard further proof in this case. con't 
to Monday, May 17, 9:00 A.M. Wilson, D.J. Order Book 5, p. 97.

5-17 Came the parties by counsel; dfts completed proof and rested.
Pltf. moved that all answers to interrogatories filed in this cause 
be treated as evidence; no objection and motion granted. Pltf. 
commenced presentation of evidence; did not complete; cause cont'd 
to 10:00 A.M., Tu b s., May 18. Wilson, D.J. Order Book 5, p. 102

5-18 Came the parties by counsel; pltf. resumed' presentation of his 
evidence and rested. Court adjourned to 9:00 A.M., Wed, 19th. 

Order Book 5, p. 106
5-19 Came the parties by counsel; arguments presented. Court to file 

written memo of findings and appropriate order. Comments and 
instructions from the Bench. Wilson, D.J. Order Book 5, p. 110

5-20 Motion by defendants to be allowed to withdraw certain of pltf's 
exhibits filed. Service by counsel.

5-20 ORDER, WILSON, D.J. allowing defendants to withdraw, for a period 
not to exceed 30 days, plaintiffs' exhibits 89, 124, 125, 127 & 129, 
filed. Service by counsel.

5-27 Transcript of Proceedings of May 17, 1971 filed.
5-27 Transcript of opinion of the Court dated 5/19/71 filed.
5-27 Clerk's Copy of transcript of Opinion of the Court of 5/19/71 filed.
6-4 Clerk's Copy of Transcript of Argument of Counsel on 5/19/71 filed.
6-4 Suggestion for substitution upon the record for the new board member 

as defendants in lieu of former members named as defendants herein
B

filed. Service by counsel. (Proposed Order of Substitution submitt 2d j
6-7 Motion by defendants to allow defendants to withdraw certain of

plaintiff's exhibits filed. (Proposed Order submitted) Service by 
counsel. defendants'

6-9 ORDER, WILSON, D.J. allowing defendants to withdraw/exhibits 23, 
t .  24, 25 BHd f .  26 and 27 for a period not to exceed 30 days 
filed.

6-16 Amended Plan of Desegregation by defendant, with attachments, filed. 
Service by counsel.

6-21 Objections of plaintiffs to amended desegration plan by the defenda 
filed. Service by counsel.

ntŝ

6-22 Brief in support of Amended Desegregation Plan by defts. filed.

-

Service by counsel.

viii.



Page # 18

T<m Mapp v. School Doard PROCEEDINGS Dal® OrtJ*r 01 
Judgm ent N oli

6-23

6-28

6-29

7-1

7-9

7-9

7-9
7-12

7-12

7-12

7-12

7-12

7-12

7-15

ORDER, WILSON, D.J. setting further hearing in regard to objections 
by plaintiffs to defendants’ amended plan as submitted, upon 
Tuesday, July 6, 1971, at Is 00 p.m., filed. Service by clerk to 
counsel of record, together with copy of Court’s Opinion.
Motion by plaintiffs to reset the hearing on their objections to tte 
plans filed by the Board of Education from July 6, 1971, no brief, 
filed. Service by counsel.
ORDER, WILSON, D.J. continuing the hearing on motions in this case 
from July 6, 1971 to July 16, 1971; modifying the Court's instructive 
to the defendants to the extent of incorporating reference to the 
Goss decision by the Court of Appeals, filed. Service by clerk by 
mail to counsel for plaintiffs, Avon Williams, Jr., and to Eugene 
Collins, City Attorney and Ellis K. Meacham; and by personal 
service to Mr. Brown for Raymond B. Witt, Jr., for defendants.
LODGED; Motion by Cook, Bruning, Jones & Cagle, to intervene, with 
proposed intervening petition. Service by counsel. - H.M.Humphreys 
Humphreys, Hutcheson & Moseley

DRDER, WILSON, D.J. allowing Motion to intervene to be filed and 
setting hearing on same at 9:00 A.M., July 16, 1971 filed. Service 
ay clerk to all counsel in interest.

Motion by 4 parties (Cook, Jones, Bruning & Cagle) to be allowed to 
intervene as additional parties plaintiff in this case filed.
(Complaint of intervening petitioners submitted)
LODGED: Petition by parties in interest to intervene.
Brief in support of motion to intervene filed. Service by counsl.

Response of deft. Bd. of Education to order of 6/29/71, filed.
Service by counsel. 5 affidavits attached, 

by deft.
Motion/for relief from order with brief in support thereof filed.
Service by counsel.

Motion by deft, to strike plaintiffs' objections to defts. amended 
desegragated plan, or, in the alternative, certain portions thereof 
filed, with brief in support thereof. Service by clerk.

Defendants* response to and brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motion 
to tax attorney fees and certain other costs against defendants filed. 
Service by counsel.
Appearance of additional counsel for intervening petitioners! Cook, 
Jones, Bruning & Cagle, filed.
Subpoena on behalf of plaintiffs returned executed 7/13/71 on John 
Franklin and on Dr. James Henry and filed. Wm. H. Tedford, DUSM - $'.00'

I X .



NO. 3564
Page # 19

D. C. 110A Rev. Civil Docket Continuation

DATE1971

7-15

7-lfl

7-16

Mapp v. School Board PROCEEDINGS

7-19

7-19

7-22

7-22

7-23

Motion by defendants to quash subpoena duces tecum against Dr. James 
W. Henry, with brief in support, filed. Service by counsel.
Plaintiffs' Motion to strike "Intervening Petition by Parties in 
Interest" filed by St. Elmo Neighborhood Advisory council, with 
Memorandum in support filed. Service by counsel.
Came the respective parties by counsel. The Court heard arguments 

with respect to the Petition to Intervene, by counsel for the 
petitioning intervenors, the present pltfs. and by the Board of Educ 
Motion taken under advisement - add'1 briefs, if deemed desirable, t 

filed by 7/20/71. Petition by St. Elmo residents only "Lodged" 
for information of Court and parties to the suit. Motion for relief 
from "Order": Court to consider points raised in motion & briefs.
Motion to Strike Subpoena Duces Tecum —  Supt. Henry alleged subpoenk 
burdensome - Court sustained motion on a tentative basis, but reserv 
ruling pending hearing. Motion to strike pltf's objections to Board 
Plan — legal question, ruling reserved. Hearing on Board's Plan: - 
Deft. Board presented its evidence in support of the constitutional! 
of its plan and rested. Pltfs. presented their evidence in oppositioi 
to Board's Plan, claim: (1) 5 elem. schools not losing racial identi ; 
(2) black children burdened with deseg.; transportaion falls 
disproportionately on young black children, schools closed in black 
residential neighborhoods; (3) Jr. High districts continue racial 
patters of past; (4) Sr. High districts probably not workable if 
75/25 ratio of B/W at Howard & Riverside, need to require each of this 
four general high schools to be racially balanced, 50/50 for plan to 
work. Parties to file any additional briefs by 7/20/71. Court will 
decide case on all evidence now in the record. Order Book 5, p. 208 
WILSON,D.J.
Defendants' Collective Exhibits Nos. 
counsel.

itlon. 
>

:ds

147 & 148 filed. Service by

ORDER, WILSON, D.J. requiring defendants to submit a report on the 
feasibility of operating three rather than four general purpose high 
schools in the City of Chattanooga, the report to be filed within 3 
days or show cause why additional time is needed, filed. Service bj 
clerk to counsel of record. *

ORDER, WILSON, D.J. substituting as defendants the new members of 
the school board, entered Order Book 5, p. 325 and filed nunc pro 
tunc June 4, 1971. Service by clerk to counsel of record.
Motion by defendants to modify Order of July 19 to advise defendants 
in greater detail as to what information the Court desires the 
"feasibility report" to contain, with brief in support, filed.
Service by counsel.
Motion by defts. for additional time to file feasibility report, 
affidavit of James W. Gentry, Jr., in support thereof filed. Service, by counsel.

D » t«  O rde 
Judgm ent 2

ty
n
Y#

x.



NO. 35f
Page # 2

DATE1971
7-23

7-26
7-29

7-30

8-3

8-3

8-5

8-12

8-13

8-30

8- 30
9- 7
9-8

9-15

Mnpp v Board of Education
PROCEEDINGS Date Ord* .r  < 

Ju<3|meol No

ORDER, WILSON, D.J., granting motion of defts. for additional time 
to provide further information regarding Chattanooga high schools? 
inspections to be forthcoming, filed. Service by clerk to Attys. 
Williams, Witt, and Collins.
OPINION, WILSON, D.J., filed. Service by Clerk, to Williams, Mose­
ley, Witt, and Collins.
.•■Motion to withdraw Exhibits 143, 144 and 145, filed. Service by 
counsel. to withdraw permanently
ORDER,WILSON, D.J., allowing defts./exhibits 143, 144, and 145, 
with copies of same maps filed on 6/16/71, being substituted 
therefore, filed.
Defendants' Motion to Deny Plaintiffs' Quasi-Motion and to withdraw 
plaintiffs' proffered judgment from the record, with brief in suppo: 
filed. Service by counsel.

Defendants' Motion for the Approval of the Form of Judgment with 
brief in support filed. Service by counsel.
ORDER, WILSON, D.J. according to Opinion filed July 26, 1971, 
denying defendants motion seeking reconsideration of the Court’s 
Findings and order entered 'May 19, 1971; denying motion of Oscar 
Earl Cook, III et al to intervene and join additional parties defenc 
ants; approving the defendants' plan and amended plan with exceptiors 
as to the plan of desegaegation of the high schools and as to the 
provision for the continuation of annual reports ,; this is not a firal 
order but either party has the right to seek an interlocutory appeal 
from any provision of this order, entered Order Book 5, p. 392 and 
filed. Service by clerk to all counsel and parties in interest.
Motion by defts. to-alter and/or amend its order of 8/5/71, with 
Ex. A attached, and with brief in support, filed. Service by 
counsel.
ORDER, WILSON, D.J. granting motion of defts. to alter order of 8/5/71 
granting permission for either party to seek an appeal, no further 
action is contemplated therefore no action is required on motion for 
10 day extension of time, entered Order Book 5, p. 414 and filed. 
Service by clerk to all counsel of record.
Notice of appeal by plaintiff filed, 
of record.

Service by clerk to counsel

Cost bond on appeal filed.
Status Report by 1916 Board of Education on Desegregation Implements 
filed. Service by counsel. (Exhibits attached)
Notice of appeal by defendants filed. Service by clerk to Avon Will 
$250.00 Coat Bond on appeal by defts. filed. Serv. by clerk to
Motion by defendants to Amend Transfer Provisions of defts' amended 
plan, with brief in support, filed. Service by counsel.

i ion

iams.

xi.



NO.
PAGE # 2 1

D. C. 1I0A l t . » .  c tv l l  n.M-krl Cnnllm M tlnn

W i
9-22

PnOClOCDINOSMapp v. Board of Education______________________________
Agreed ORDER, WILSON, D.J. allowing defendants to amend their 
transfer provisions of their amended plan of desegregation filed 
Service by counsel.

D*t* Or Judfmea'

9-24 Submission of Student Desegregation Statistics by Defendant filed. 
Service by counsel.

9-27 ORDER, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, denying defendant's interlocutory 
appeal filed.

9- 27

10- 28

ORDER, WILSON, D.J., extending time for filing record in Court of 
Appeals to and including 11/26/71, filed.
ORDER, WILSON, D.J. setting a conference with counsel on any matteri 
remaining pending in this case for 10;30 A.M.. Saturday, Nov. 6, 
1971, filed. Service by clerk to all counsel of record.

10-29 Statistical Information by deft Board of Education filed. Service 
by counsel.

11-2

11-23
11-23

ORDER, WILSON, D.J. cancelling conference set for Nov. 6, 1971 and 
resetting a further conference for 11:00 A.M., Sat., Nov. 20, 1971 
filed. Service by clerk to Raymond B. Witt, Jr., Avon N. Williams
Jack Greenberk, Eugene Collins and Ellis K. Meacham.Transcript of proceedings filed.
Copy of docket entries mailed to attorneys of record by clerk.

11-23 Record mailed to ecu rt of Appeals by clerk.



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES JONATHAN MAPP, et al,.
Plaintiffs,

v.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF 
:hattanooga, Tennessee, et ai.(

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 3564

MOTION FOR FURTHER RELIEF
Plaintiffs, by their undersigned attorneys, move this Court 

or an order granting further relief in this case. The further 
-elief sought is an order directing defendants to: (1) accelerate 
lesegregation in the Chattanooga school system, to the end that 
omplete desegregation may be effected by September 1965J (2) 
ssign teaching, supervisory and other professional personnel to 
chools in the Chattanooga school system on the basis of quali- 
3 cation and need and without regard to the race of the personnel 
r of the children in attendance; (3) assign pupils in the 
hattanooga public school system pursuant to geographical, 
apacity-related school zone lines for each school, such lines 
feing drawn without regard to race; (4) eliminate all racial 
estrictions and discriminatory practices from all school-sponsored 
djurricular and extra-curricular activities, including R.O.T.C.
1 raining; (5) eliminate racially discriminatory policies with 
espect to the provision of free transportation for junior high 
chool students; and (6) eliminate all other racial classlfica- 
ions from the operation of the Chattanooga public school system.

In support of this motion, plaintiffs show unto this Court 
he following:



1. On July 8, 1963, the United States Court of Appeals for 
if the Sixth Circuit remanded this cause to this Court for further 
.'proceedings.

2. Further hearings were had before United States District 
Judge Frank W. Wilson. On December 21, 1963, Judge Wilson entered 
an opinion which related principally to the desegregation of 
schools offering technical and vocational courses. Judae Wilson 
retained jurisdiction for the period of Chattanooga’s transition 
to a fully desegregated school system.

3. No administrative reasons are apparently present which 
would militate against immediate desegregation.

4. During the period since this Court’s last order in this 
case, defendants have done little or nothing to desegregate the 
teaching, supervisory, and other professional personnel in the 
Chattanooga school system.

5. The school zone lines adopted by the defendants have 
served to preserve segregation or, at the very least, to impede
desegregation.

6. R.O.T.C. training and other curricular and extra­
curricular activities are presently not open to Negro students on 
the same basis a6 to white students.

7. White junior high school students presently receive 
free transportation, whereas Negro junior high school students 
do not receive free transportation.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for an order directing defendants
to:

1. accelerate desegregation in the Chattanooga school 
system, to the end that complete desegregation may be effected 
by September 1965;

2. assign teaching, supervisory and other professional 
personnel to schools in the Chattanooga school system on the 
basis of qualification and need and without regard to the race

- 2 -



of the personnel or of the children in attendance;
3. assign pupils in the Chattanooga public school system 

oursuant to geographical, capacity-related school zone lines for 
aach school, such lines being drawn without regard to race;

4. eliminate all racial restrictions and discriminatory 
oractices from all school-sponsored curricular and extra-curriculai 
activities, including R.O.T.C. training;

5. eliminate racially discriminatory policies with respect 
to the provision of free transportation for junior high school 
students; and

6. eliminate all other racial classifications from the 
operation of the Chattanooga public school system.

Plaintiffs further pray that this Court set down this 
■notion for immediate hearing, to the end that further relief 
•nay be effective for the school year commencing in September 1965.

This is to certify that on March Z?, 1965, the undersigned, 
one of the attorneys for plaintiffs, served a copy of the fore­
going Motion for Further Relief on Raymond B. Witt, Jr., Esq.,
401 Volunteer Building, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Attorney for 
Defendants, by mailing a copy thereof to him at the above address, 
United States air mail, postage prepaid.

AVON N. WILLIAMS, JR.
Z. ALEXANDER LOOBY 
McCleilan-Looby Building 
Charlotte at ,4th Street 
Nashville, Tennessee

JACK GREENBERG 
DERRICK A. BELL, JR.
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Attorney for Plaintiffs

- 3 -



JAMES

- vs. - ] Civil Action No. 356H
]

THE HOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ]
crrv ar 'ffliimwrogA.'TEininsEE. ]
et al ]

O P I N I O N

An order was entered in this case upon April 20, 1962, 
requiring that the Board of Education of the City of Chattanooga 
and the Superintendent of Schools proceed to a complete desegre­
gation of public schools of the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, 
such desegregation to be accomplished within a period of not more 
than eight years. The plan of desegregation as approved by the 
Court, together with the reasons behind it, are fully set forth 
in the former opinion of the Court. Mapp v. Board of Eduoation 
of the City of Chattanooga, 203 F.Supp. 8*»3 (1962).

Under the plan adopted, all elementary schools were to 
be desegregated within not more than three years, beginning in 
September of 1962, with the first three grades in 16 selected 
schools to be desegregated the first year, with the first four 
grades in all elementary schools to be desegregated by September 
of 1963, and with all grades of all elementary schools to be 
desegregated by September of 1961*. Thereupon all junior high 
schools were to be desegrega ad within not more than two addi­
tional years, with the seventh grade in all schools to be desegre­
gated by September of 1965 and with the remaining grades in all 
junior high schools to be desegregated by September of 1966. 
Following the desegregation of all junior high schools, the first 
year in all high schools were to be desegregated by September 1967 
and all remaining grades in all high schools were to be desegre­
gated by September 1968. The Chattanooga Technical Institute 
was to be desegregated by September 1969. The foregoing plan of

-If-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE, 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JONATHAN MAPP, et al



desegregation was approved upon appeal with the exception of 
technical and vocational courses, and the case was remanded for 
further proceedings with respect to them. Happ v. Board of 
fducation of the City of Chattanooga, 319 F.2d 571 (1963). After 
a further- hearing, an order was entered upon November 26, 1963, 
desegregating the Chattanooga Technical Institute as of December 9, 
1963, and a further order was entered December 31, 1963, desegre­
gating all vocational and technical courses, including tSose 
offered at Kirkman Technical High School, effective as of 
September 196U. In each of the foregoing orders jurisdiction was 
retained by the Court until full accomplishment of desegregation 
as provided in the respective orders.

The case it now before the Court upon the motion of the 
plaintiff seeking an acceleration of the foregoing plan and other 
relief. A hearing was held upon the notion upon May 1, 1965, and 
the parties have since filed briefs in support of their respective 
positions.

The initial issue confronting the Court is whether the 
plan for gradual desegregation heretofore approved by the Court 
accords the plaintiffs their Constitutional rights with "all de­
liberate speed" in view of past progress and present circumstances.
It appears that the defendants have now accomplished desegregation 
in all grades in all elementary schools. Under the plan as approved 
by the former orders of the Court, the seventh grade in all junior 
high schools would be desegregated in September 1965, with all re­
maining junior and senior high school grades to be desegregated in 
three additional annual steps. The plaintiffs, by their motion, 
seek to have the Court accelerate this plan by ordering desegrega­
tion of all remaining grades in September of 1965.

It appears from the annual progress reports filed by the 
defendants in accordance with the orders of the Court that the de­
segregation thus far accomplished has been accomplished after careful 
planning and effective administration, with no unanticipated or un­
usual problems having been encountered. It further appears from

-5-



the evidence received at the hearing upon May X, 198$t that con­
siderable planning and groundwork had been performed by the defen­
dants for the preparation of the desegregation of the seventh grade 
in all junior high schools at the commencement of school in 
September 1965. Included within this planning and preparation was 
a comprehensive training program conducted at Avondale School 
during the first half of this year for the preparation and training 
of teachers in the problems to be encountered in the desegregation 
of the remaining grades, and in particular in the desegregation of 
the junior high school grades. It thus appears to the Court that 
the School Board and Superintendent have thuB far acted in good 
faith to accomplish desegregation in accordance with the requirements 
of the orders of the Court. However, the former orders of the Court 
specifically provided that the plan therein set forth should be 
considered only as the minimum requirements to assure the plaintiffs 
of all the protection and enjoyment of their Constitutional rights 
with "all deliberate speed". The defendants appear to have taken 
no steps upon their own to accelerate the minimum plan of desegre­
gation ordered by the Court. While it appeare to the Court thet the 
obvious and careful planning and preparation for desegregation of 
the seventh grade in all junior high schools should not be disrupted 
by the acceleration of the desegregation plan heretofore approved 
for September 1965, the problems presented in desegregation of the 
remaining grades in subsequent years do not justify an additional 
three years' delay in according the plaintiffs thair full Constitu­
tional rights. After review of the two Brown v. Board of Education 
decisions (3*7 U.S. *83 and 3*9 U.S. 29*), this Court stated in its 
former opinion in this case t

"It is apparent that the plaintiffs have a 
Constitutional right not to be excluded from 
any public school classroom in Chattanooga,
Tennessee, solely because of their race. This 
is a present and immediate right, and of equal 
importance to other rights secured to the® and 
all other citisens under the Constitution. Any 
delay in extending to them their rights in 
this regard must be justified only by the most 
impelling and cogent reasons. The defendants 
have the burden of showing the necessity or 
appropriateness of any further delay than has 
already occurred."



Under the minimum plan heretofore approved, all re­
maining grades in all junior high schools would in any event be 
desegregated in September of 1966. With regard to the high 
schools, the defendants have testified that no soning will be 
required upon desegregation of the high schools, but that all 
students will be admitted at any high school upon a city-wide 
basis. All students may therefore elect the high achool which 
they will attend. The problems presented in the desegregation 
of the high schools are obviously not the same as the problems 
presented in the desegregation of elementary and junior high 
schools. Moreover, the experience thus far acquired, as well as 
the experience to be acquired with the desegregation of the 
seventh grade, should permit an acceleration in September 1966 
of the desegregation of the remaining grades. It has now been 
tan years since the final decision in the Brown v. Board of 
Education case, supra. The same equitable considerations as have 
justified the delay in according tha plaintiffs their Constitu­
tional rights with reference to elementary and junior high schools 
would not apply with respect to the desegregation of the high 
schools.

The Court accordingly concludes that, while no change 
should be made with regard to the desegregation to be accomplished 
in September 1965, the plan of desegregation heretofore ordered 
should be modified so as to require desegregation of all remaining 
grades in September 1966.

While each case must be judged in the light of its 
particular circumstances, it is not imappropriate to note that 
desegregation will have been accomplished and completed on or 
before September 1966 in the Knoxville, Nashville, and Memphis 
school systems, as well as in many other cities and counties in 
Tennessee, where the problems are not altogether dissimilar from 
those presented in this case.

The next issue confronting the Court upon the present 
motion is whether the regulations permitting transfers of students 
have been so used by the defendants as to impede or defeat desegre-

-1-



gation as heretofore ordered by the Court, and thus violets the 
plaintiffs' Constitutional rights. It is not contended that the 
transfer plan is itself invalid or based upon race, but rather 
that in the exercise of the discretion permitted under paragraph 
(2Hi) of the plan, race was in fact the controlling oonsidera- 
tion. The Court is of the opinion, however, that the record does 
not support the plaintiffs in this contention. The Superintendent 
of Schools testified that all transfers permitted had as their 
principal justification factors other than raoe. No evidence to 
the contrary was introduced, the plaintiffs relying only upon 
statistical data as to transfers. In the opinion of the Court 
this was not sufficient to refute the defendants' evidence.

Finally, an issue is presented by the plaintiffs' motion 
as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled under the Constitution 
and the facts of this case to an order requiring the desegregation 
of teaching, supervisory, and other professional personnal in the 
Chattanooga School System. The guideline for determining whether 
the plaintiffs are entitled to this relief is set forth in the 
opinion of the Court of Appeals upon a former appeal of this case 
(Mapp v. Board of Education of the City of Chattanooga. 319 F.2d 
571 at 576) as follows!

"We agree that the teachers, principals and others 
are not within the class represented by plaintiffs 
and that plaintiffs aannot assert or ask protection 
of some Constitutional rights of teachers and 
others, not parties to the cause. We, however, 
read the attaok upon the assignment of teachers by race not as seeking to protect rights of suoh 
teachers, but as a claim that continued assigning 
of teaching personnel on a racial basis impairs the 
students' rights to an eduoation free from any con­sideration of race. * * *
". . .We think it appropriate that the stricken 
allegations of the complaint, insofar as they relate 
to the assignment of teachers and principals, should 
be restored to the pleading and that deaision of the 
legal question presented await developments in the 
progress of the plan approved. Nothing we have said 
need oall for any present taking of testimony on the 
subject of teacher and principal assignment. Within 
his discretion, the District Judge may determine when, 
if at all, it becosws necessary to give consideration 
to the question under discussion. We affirm, however, 
the order granting the motion to strike, to the extent 
that it applies to allegations relating to the hiring 
and assignment of school personnel other than teachers and principals."

-8-



The largely discretionary nature of the plaintiffs' 
right to assert a claim for desegregation of principals and 
teachers is supported by other authority. Augustus v. Board of 
Fublic Instruction of Escambia County, Florida, 306 F,2d 862 
(C.C.A. 5, 1962)} Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, 
Florida v. Braxton, 326 F.2d 616 (C.C.A. 5, 1969)} Bradley v.
School Board of Richmond, Virginia, 395 F.2d 310 (C.C.A. 9, 1965).

The evidence reflects that while the defendants have 
followed a policy of segregation in the assignment of principals 
and teachers, steps have been taken toward modification of this 
policy. It appears that since 1961 the number of Negro teachers 
within the school system has increased by 88, while the number of 
white teachers has decreased by 25. It appears that since the 
initial order in this case, four Negroes have been employed upon 
the administrative staff, where formerly there were none. It 
appears that during the past year two Negro teachers have been 
assigned to a school formerly staffed only by white teachers. 
Finally, it appears that the desegregation of students in accord­
ance with the plan herein approved will itself contribute to 
partially resolve the issue of teacher and principal assignments. 
Accordingly, it is the opinion of the Court that the defendants 
should be allowed additional time to resolve this issue and that 
no order with respect thereto should enter at this time. This 
decision of the Court will be without prejudice to the right of 
the plaintiffs to reassert the issue after a reasonable time and 
after further progress under the desegregation plans heretofore 
and herein approved and is made without prejudice to the right of 
the School Board to undertake on its own initiative a modification 
of its policies or practices with respect to teacher and principal 
assignments. The defendants will include in the annual report to 
be filed in accordance with the previous orders in this case a 
report with regard to any changes in its policies or practices 
with reference to assignment of teachers and principals by raoe.

All remaining issues in the plaintiffs' motion, to the

- t



extent that they may not have been heretofore sustained or denied 
in this opinion* or to the extent that they were not withdrawn 
upon the hearing, will be denied as not being supported by the 
record in this cause.

An order will enter accordingly.

FRA5K *. WHS*8
United States District Judge



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES JONATHAN MAPP, et al ]
]

- vs. - ]] Civil Action
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ]
CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE,] 
et al 1

O R D E R

The plaintiffs having appealed to the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the order of this 
Court entered on August 11, 1965, and the said United States Court 
of Appeals having entered an opinion upon the appeal and having 
issued its mandate on March 23, 1967, wherein it affirmed the 
order of this Court except as to faculty assignments and remanded 
the cause for further proceedings in conformity with its opinion 
on the issue of faculty assignments,

NOW THEREFORE, in accordance with the mandate of the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, said mandate 
dated March 23, 1967, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the 
former order of this Court entered upon August 11, 1965, be and 
the same is in all respects affirmed except with respect to the 
issue of faculty assignments as set.forth in Paragraph 3 of the 
said order.

It is FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that this 
cause be restored to the docket and set for further proceedings on 
the issue of faculty assignments in conformity with the opinion of 
the United States Court of Appeals.

It further appears unto the Court that objections were 
filed by the plaintiffs on November 9, 1966, to the annual report 
of the defendant and that response has now been made to the said 
objections. The clerk will accordingly notify counsel by a copy 
of this order that a conference will be held in the chambers of 
the Court at 2:00 P.M. upon the 6th day of April. 1967, to establish

No. 3569

the order of further proceedings.



APPROVED FOR ENTRY.



in nr: district court op the united states
POH THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

souther:; division

/AIMS JONATHAN MAPP, uT AL,
Plaintiffs

VS.
THE BOARD OP EDUCATION OF 
THE CITY OF CHATTANOOGA,
HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE,
ET iL ,

DefandAnts

EQTIOIi FOR FURTV'ER RELIEF
Cjr,ie t h a  plaintiffs in the above ease, by their under- 

i.-riad attorneys, and respectfully move the Court to grant them 
f u r t h e r -  relief against the defendant, The Board of Education of 
the City of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee, its Board 
/embers and Dr. Diaries E. Martin, Supertlntendent of Schools 
of the City of Chattanooga, on the grounds and for the reasons 
hereinafter stated;

I.
Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in ttii s case 

Mpril o, I960, seeking to enjoin defendants, their predecessors, 
agents, employees and successors from operating a compuls ory 
bi-racial school system, maintaining a patterns of school zone 
lines based on race and color, assigning pupils on the basis of 
race, racial assignments of teachers, principals and other school 
personnel and other practices designed to perpetuate a racially 
segregated school system. Alternatively, plaintiffs prayed for 
an order rocuiring ths defendants to submit a desegregation plan. 
Defendants answered denying that plaintiff stated facts upon 
which relief could be granted and demanded strict proof that 
plainclffs represented a class. Defendants claimed that for 
years they had bean actively working with and carrying forward 
a plan for elucidating, assessing and ultimately solving with 
all deliberate speed" the problem of achieving a desegregated 
school system, but admitted that no actual desegregation had taken 
oloco. On November 3, I960, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion

- / 3-

CIVTL ACTION NO. 
3 5 6 1 ;



.‘or 'ummary Judgment, construing the elucidation plea as "aimply 
■ request for postponement of trial", and directed defendants to 
submit a desegregation plan while, at the same time, denying de— 
fondants' motion for Summary Judgment filed subsequent to the plain­
tiff* seeking to dismiss or limit plaintiffs' action on the grounds 
of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the claim that 
plaintiffs had no right to file a class action.

Defendants appealed the decision of the District Court 
after an unsuccessful motion for the Court to amend its order 
of hovoraber 3, I960, to permit a discretionary appeal and to stay 
proceedings until final determination of the appeal. Thereafter 
defendants failed to win Court approval of their motion to stay 
-.udyaent pending appeal and submitted a limited grade—a—year 
iesegregation plan. The District Court did not accept the plan 
and the defendants also appealed this decision.

Both appeals failing, the defendants on remand to this 
Court finally obtained approval of their desegregation plan 
after elimination of automatic racial minority to majority trans­
fer provisions and acceleration of speed to require desegregation 
in all grades by September I9 6I4. and desegregation of the Chatta­
nooga Technical Institute and all other technical and vocational 
courses by September 196!t«

On March 29, 196$ plaintiffs filed a motion for further 
relief seeking the acceleration of desegregation to reach all 
grades of the Chattanooga 3ohool System by September 196$, the 
racially Integrated assignment of teaching, supervisory and ether 
professional personnel in the schools, a redrawing of school zona 
lines to eliminate rather than preserve segregation and assignment 
o f  children to schools on this basis, and other relief eliminating 
x’acially discriminatory policies in all aspects of the School 
-.7at;am. After hearing on this motion and the defendants' response 
chor.ito, the Court granted limited relief accelerating desegre­
gation to reach all grades by September 1966 but denied relief 
on all other Issues raised by plaintiffs, including the desegre­
g a t i o n  of faculty and supervisory personnel and a charge made by 
plaintiffs that school regulations permitting transfers of students 
had been unconstitutionally used by defendants to impede or 
iefost desegregation.



On appeal by the plaintiffs, the foregoing decision was 
affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 
Circuit except as to faculty assignments and the case was re­
manded for further proceedings in conformity with its opinion 
on the issue of faculty assignments.

By order entored March 29, 1967, this Court restored the 
case to the docket and set ssraa for further proceedings on the 
issue of faculty assignments and was set for pretrial conference 
to establish the procedure for hearing and deciding the issue 
on remand. As a result of this conference and the Court's de­
termination of differing opinions of the parties as to the state 
of the pleadings, the Court entered an order on August 11, 1967, 
retiring the defendants to plead further on the issue of faculty 
desegregation and allowing them twenty days within which to do 
3 0. Thereafter defendants filed an answer contending that the 
complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 
and denying that they are following a policy or practice of assign­
ing teachers or principals on the basis of race except for the 
purpose and effect of extending the desegregation of school 
staffs.

On November 23, 1963, a pre-trial conference was held 
and a pre-trial order entered November 25. 1968, allowing the 
plaintiffs until January 2, 1969, within which to file further 
pleadings in the case, and pursuant to which this motion is filed.

II.
In addition to proposing and adopting desegregation plans 

which effected maximum delay in desegregation coverage and maxi­
mum encouragement of continued segregation in covered grades by 
permitting racial trairfers based on choice, the defendants 
established geographic attendance zones which were gerrymandered 
ao aa to follow racially segregated residence lines and/or poor 
white socio-economic group residence lines and maximize con­
tinued racially segregated student assignments to the all ready 
segregated schools, while virtually limiting Integration to white 
schools attended by poor socio-economic groups. No effort was 
t.'i&de to eliminate the pattern of segregation which had boen

-/5 -



officially established historically by coiStructing sohoola as 
i.early as possible in the center of racially segregated residence 
areas and/or, in racially integrated areas, by constructing both 
Negro and white schools close together to provide dual segregated 
facilities. During the progress of their gradual desegregation 
plan and before all grades were desegregated, defendants manipu­
lated entire school populations by changing white schools in areas 
of large Negro residents to Negro schools, transferring white 
students en msss to schools in white residential areas and 
e.33igning Negro students en masse to such formerly white adools 
on h segregated basis. In the beginning defendants operated only 
otia Negro high school (Howard) for the ontire City and three 
white high schools. In the 1 9 6 3 - 6 4  Sohol Year ths Riverside 
High School building which formerly housed all-white Chattanooga 
High School was closed as a white high school and opened as an 
all-Negro facility while all tw&ve hundred of its white pupils 
ware moved to a newly constructed all-white Chattanooga High 
school in a predominantly white neighborhood. Thereby defendants 
successfully moved the all-white high school out of the neighbor­
hood which had become predominantly Negro. When the high school 
grades ware reached by the desegregation plan defendants permitted 
white high school pupils to choose the high school they wished 
to attend while dividing the Negro high school population into 
school sores as between the all-Negro Howard and Riverside Schools 
wherein they ware required to attend in the absence of special 
ciroumstances. Thus, although defendants now claim that high 
school attendance is based on freedom of choice throughout ths 
City, patterns of segregated attendance were established through 

3 aid manipulation of student bodies and school location and con­
struction programs. In addition, defendants continued racially 
segregated assignment of both faculty and supporting personnel, 
assigning all such 'white personnel to white or formerly white 
schools and all such Negro personnel to Negro or formerly Negro 
schools, thereby officially continuing the designation and image 
of these schools aa "white'' or ’Negro" schools, refusing to change 
this pattez-n substantially until after the February 196? reversal 
of tills (Court's decision ir. that respect by the Court of Appeals.



On information and belief the defendants, in new eohool construc­
tion, have continued their pattern of constructing new schools 
in or near the center of racially segregated white or Negro re­
sidential areas and expanding by new construction or portable 
classrooms the existing schools located in such racially saEre- 
gatod or poor socio-economic residential areas so as to dis­
courage the transfer of white or Negro children in over crowded 
schools attended by Negroes or poor whites to less crowded schools 
attended by a majority of students of another race and/or a higher 
socio-economic group outside of their immediate residential areas. 
The gerrymandered school zone lines were strictly enforced by said 
school officials and were changed from time to time as racial 
populations shifted so as to prevent the escape of slther white 
or Negro children from the racially segregated geographic BChool 
cones into other zones when they sought to attend a racially 
integrated school, or a school in a higher socio-economic neighbor­
hood, while the transfer plan, although not automatically based on 
race, was administered in such e manner as to effectively elimin­
ate the school zone lines and permit substantially free transfer 
of arjd for any white or Negro child or ohlldren who sought to 
remain in a segregated white or Negro sohool respectively.

III.
As a result of the foregoing segregation policies and 

practices of the defendant school officials, the City of 
Chattanooga School System remained substantially segregated as 
of the last statistical report to the United States Department 
of health, Education and Welfare on October 10, 1968, According 
to that report the system consisted of 27,229 school children 
of which 13,25!4., or approximately k&fo were Negroes. About 5.9C/8 
of the Negro students were elementary and Junior high students.
Of the remaining >4,3146 Negro students enrolled in Senior High 
School 14 ,16 3 (about 9b%) were enrolled in the all-Negro Riverside 
high School and the virtually all-Negro Howard High School which 
had only one white student. 100% of the white high school 
students (3 ,14714) were enrolled in the three formerly all-whxte 
high schools v.’ith a total enrollment of only 183 Negro high 
school students in all three of these schools. Of the 3,903

' / I '



Viogro students enrolled in gradea 1-9 inclusive, 2,9156 were enrolled 
in five all-Negro schools, while another 2,79k were enrolled in 
five schoola which had over 93? Negro enrollment. Thus 5,700, 
or approximately 65<, of the 8,908 Negro elementary and Junior 
high school students were and are attending either all-black or 
93^ black schools. On the other hand 671 of the white olementary 
and Junior high students were attending three all-white schools 
and another 3,570 of said white elementary and Junior high students 
wore attending seven 98^ white schools making a total of It-,21̂ 1 
(or :i-ljS of the 10,269) white Junior high and elementary students 
attending either all-white or 98;? white schools. Combining all 
trades, 10,096 (or about 30?) of the total 13,25k Negro school 
children in Chattanooga are still attending schools with either 
all-Negro or 98^ Negro enrollment, while about 7,715 (more than

of the 13,7k3 white children in said school system are still 
attending schools with either all-white or 98^ white student 

enrollments.
On information and beliof, while defendants have made some 

progress in aseignlng faculty and staff members to schools on a 
racially Integrated basis in the past two ysars, said defendants 
have been and still are failing and refusing to make racially 
integrated faculty assignments in the schools on a meaningful 
basis and in such manner as to remove and eliminate the former 
,'aclal identity of said schools. There is still one Negro 
school with no white teacher and two white schools with no Negro 
teacher end an overwhelming majority of white and Negro teachers 
are still assigned respectively to formerly white and Negro 
schools respectively and are likewise assigned in racial propor­
tions based on the racial composition of the student body whereby 
all are predominantly Negro teachers are assigned to schools with 
all or predominantly Negro student bodies and all or predominantly 
whita teachers are assigned to sohools with all or predominantly 
white student bodies. On information and belief, integrated 
teaching assifTimants are usually temporary or transitory and 
Negro teaohers assigned to white or formerly white achoole are 
frequently not accorded full recognition or stature aa teachers 
Put are assigned to make-shift positions or to positions in sub-

- I B '



ordination to white teachers beoause of race. Negro principals 
are not aasipied to formerly white echools where white students 
or teachers remain in predominate. Moreover defendants have 
totally failed and refused to employ and assign Negroes to. ad­
ministrative, staff and supervisory positions in the School System, 
except for a few token assignments, or to employ, promote and 
assign new Negro teaohers, principals and other personnel in the 
School 3ystem in such manner as to eliminate and disestablish 
past end existing raoial discrimination and provide meaningful 
integration of personnel in each school throughout the School 
System and in its administrative offices commensurate with the 
number and proportion of Negroes to whites in the population and 
School System. On information and belief defendants discriminate 
racially or fail to recruit effectively in the hiring of Negro 
fceeshera, principals, staff and supporting personnel, so that the 
numbor of Negroes hired has steadily decreased and is below the 
proportion of Negroes in the School population although there are 
proportionately more qualified Negro applicants than white.

On information and belief the defendants have planned and 
constructed several new white echools in various suburban areas 
of Chattanooga populated exolusively or nearly exclusively by 
white citizens, while planning or constructing additions to old 
schools in the central oity areas of Chattanooga populated pre­
dominantly by Negro citizens, in which ghetto areas the Chatta­
nooga Housing Authority and other governmental agenoies have 
constructed and are continuing to construot low oost public hous­
ing units or housing units constructed through public insurance 
or finanoing designed, exolusively occupied, and destined for con­
tinued exclusive or near-exclusive occupation by Negro oitizens. 
Defendants propose thereby to oooperate with said other publio 
officials in promoting, recreating and maintaining racial segre­
gation in both education and housing in the City of Chattanoosa.

IV.
All Of the foregoing policies, praoticoa, ouatoms, usages 

and actions of the defendants, including but not limited to, the 
racial gerrymandering of aohool zone lines, the continuation of 
freedom of choice and transfer policies and praotioes, faculty,



staff and personnel assignment practices, school expansion, new 

construction and site location practices,and school programming, 
which have the effect of perpetuating or maximising continued 
racial and/or socio-economic segregation, isolation and discrimi­

nation, and the failure and refusal of the defendants to affirma­
tively disestablish continued segregation and discrimination In

i
all aspects of the eohools, programs, facilities and activities 
of said School System so as to establish a unitary non-racial and 
non-dlseriminatory School 3ystem In and for the City of Chatta­
nooga deprives plaintiffs and the class they represent of dup 
prooeee of law and of the equal protection of the laws secured by 
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 3tates, 
and are therefore unconstitutional and void, and also deprive 
said plaintiffs and the olass they represent of rights secured by 
Title U2, United States Code, Section 1991, and by the Civil 

Sights Act of 19614., Section 601 (1*2 U.S.C., Section 2000d) in 
that they are thereby subjected by said State Officials, under 
color of State law, to discrimination in said public school 

sustem of Chattanooga, Tennessee, which receives Federal financial 
assistance.

V.

On 27 .Hay 1963, the United States Supreme Court decreed 
that freedom of choice plans are constitutionally unacceptable 
where "there are reasonably available other ways such for illus­
tration as zoning, promising speedier and more effective conver­
sion to a unitary non-racial system", Orsen v. County Board of 
education of Hew Kent County, Virginia (88 S.Ct. 1689, 1696).

In a companion case, the Court further held that where geographio 
zones coupled with free transfer fail to accomplish meaningful 
integration but rather operate "as a device to allow re-segregation 
of the races", the free transfer option is likewise constitutionally 
Invalid. Monroe v. Board of Commiesioners of City of Jaokaon. 
Tennessee (38 S.Ct. 1700, 170?). Plaintiffs accordingly aver 
that defendants imy not continue for the 1969-70 Sohool Year to 
assign students pursuant to either free choice in the high schools 
or racial or free transfer options or said gerrymandered school 
sor.ea in the elementary and junior high schools without first

- 2 0 -



demonstrating to thl» Court, by evidence, that other methods 
of pupil assignment, as, for example by unitary non-ralcal uones, 
designed to maximise integration rather than follow racially 
segregated residence patterns, school consolidation, pairing, 

b reelority to minority transfer policy, or a combination of the 
foregoing, would not produce greater desegregation. On information 

and belief, the defsndante could disestablish raolal segregation 
and achieve integration of students and faoulty in every school 
in the Chattanooga Sohool System by an affirmative policy of 
establishing geographic attendance sones designed to eliminate 
segregation and encourage integration, or upon the basis of a plan 
for ths consolidation of grades or schools, or both, and the 
employment and aasignment of faculty and other personnel to sohools 

in the School System on a raoially integrated basis in meaningful 
proportions in each school and office of the School System, and 
would thereby more speedily and effeotively effectuate a unitary 
/ton-racial system.

If plaintiffs and the Court are to be able Intelligently to 

appraise the new plan, defendants must bs required to define what 
criteria were used in determining geographic sones or in pairing 

schools,or assigning teaohers, and to furnish appropriate source 
materials Indicating the locations of the various schools and 
ttio residences of ths pupils in the system. See Pavla v. Board 
of ;chool OoMalaslonara of Mobile County (5 Cir. 1953) 393 F2d 
690 at 696,

VI.
There is between the parties an actual controversy as 

arelnbefore set forth.
•dHBRSFORS plaintiffs reapsctfully move and pray this Court 

to advance this cause on the docket and order a speedy hearing of 
this motion according to law and after suoh hearings 

X. Issue a preliminary injunction as follows!
{») Uoqulrlng the defendants to lramediatsly conduot a 

•jurvey of their school system and report to the Court aid 
the olaintiffs the result of such survey. The report shall

- z / -

(1) A map of the entire sohool system showing

nclude:



each sohool (by type! elementary, Junior or senior 
high) and the residence, by race and grade of each 
student in the system during the 1968-69 School Y s h t ;

(2) A separate description of eaoh sohool showing! 
type of school, including type of construction,date and 
cost of oonstruotion of original building and any addi­
tions thereto, facilities available (such as gynaelums, 
libraries, auditoriums and the like) number of teaching 
stations and student capacity, grades taught, whether 
accredited, acreage, number of regular and portable 
classrooms (excluding gynasiums, laboratories and other 

special specialized facilities);
(3) A list of all sites currently owned or which 

the Sohool System plans to acquire, their sizes and in­

tended use;
(1|) For eaoh building now under construction or 

planned, at any time in the future, the location, date 
oonstruotion will oommence, expected date of opening, 
type of sohool intended. Including type of construction 
and expected costs of oonstruotion, anticipated capacity, 

number of regular and portable olassrooms,
(b) Requiring the defendants to submit and serve upon the 

plaintiffs and the Court no later than February 15, 1969;
(1) The report of the survey described in sub­

paragraph (a) above;
(2) A plan for the assignment of all students 

beginning at the beginning of the next Sohool Year in

the fall, 1970, upon the basis of a newly drawn system 
of unitary non-raoial geographio attendance zones which 
shall be designed to affirmatively integrate the schools, 
and a plan for the consolidation of grades or schools, 
a majority toidnority transfer polloy and/or a combination 
of the foregoing or other effective meansures which shall 

provide effective and speedy racial integration of each 
and all schools and other facilities in and of the School 

lystesn of the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee;
(3) A description of the criteria used in dotermin-



ing tone lines or for consolidating schools;
(1̂.) A report to be appended to the plan showing 

the student enrollment and teacher assignment for the 

1968-69 School Year by grade and by race, for each 

school;
(5) That the plan provide for immediate elimination 

of all student and faoulty assignment patterns -which 
identify or permit schools to be identified as formerly 

Negro or formerly white schools.
(o) ’.Injoining the defendants immediately from proceeding 

further with any and all now school construction or expan­

sion, or with closure of old schools in the City of Chatta­
nooga School System, whether in the existing or planning 
stage, and whatever the stage, pending further orders of 

this Court.
(d) Requiring that plaintiffs be allowed 15 days in 

which to file objections or amendments to the above plan 
and scheduling a hearing on said plan and the objections 

thereto no later than April 1, 1969.
2. That upon the final hearing this Court enter a decree 

permanently enjoining the defendants and each of them, their agents, 

employees and successors, and all persons or agencies in active 
concert, relation or participation with them, from failing and 

refusing to adopt a plan and program of pupil and teacher assign­
ments, hiring, employment and utilisation of new teachers, princi­
pals and other personnel, retention and expansion of existing 
school facilities, school programming, curricula, athletic pro­
grams and other activities, and new adeol construction and lo­
cation, which shall be affirmatively designed and shall have the 
affirmative effect of disestablishing the segregated system of 
education previously created in said sohool system and provide 
for meaningful integration of all students, teachers, principals 
;.n0 other school personnel throughout the School .System of the 

City of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee, including an. 
equitable and proportionate employment and distribution of Negro 
students, teachers, principals, staff and supporting personnel, 

in each and all schools of said School System, with said inte­



grated teaching asalgiments to be permanent assignments subject 
only to normal transfer procedures and exoept for experimental 
programs, wherein said integrated assignments of Negro teachers 

aj wall as white teachers shall be regular classroom assignments 

with full teaohlng stature, and when involved in team teaching 

assignments Negro teachara shall not be assigned positions in 
subordination to white teachers because of race, and the elimination 
of all other discriminations against the Negro and the poor in all 
aspects of the 3chool System; whloh plan shall be approved by this 
Court after hearing upon any objections thereto filed by the 

plaintiffs, ,
3. That this Court continue to retain jurisdiction of this 

casu pending complete implementation of aaid plan.
I;., Plaintiffs pray that this Court will award reasonable 

oounsel fees to their attorneys for services rendered and to be 

rendered them lr< this case to be taxed against defendants as a 
part of tlrie costs of the case and will allow plaintiffs their 
coats herein and grant them such further, other, additional or 

alternative relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable 

«r»d just.

Z. ALEXANDER LOOBY 
327 Charlotte Avenue 
Nashville, Tennessee 37201
WILLIAM T. UNDERWOOD, JR.
■4.31 East 9th Strset 
Chattanooga, Tennessee 374°2
JACK GREENBERG 
JAME3 M. HABRIT, III 
FRANKLIN E. ./HITE 
10 Columbus Circle 
3uite 2030
New York, New York 10019 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

OP TKNNE3SSS 
COUNTY OF DAVTD.iON

Avon N. Williams, Jr. makes oath that he is one of the 

attorneys for the plaintiffs in the above case and knows the 
contents of their foregoing motion for further relief, and that 
the statements made therein are true as of his own knowledge, 
v-crept ns to those statements which are stated therein to be made



i

upon Information and belief, and these statements ha believes to 

be true.

The undersigned certlfiea that carbon copy of the foregoing 

Motion for Further Relief was mailed to Raymond B. Witt, Jr.,
Jltt, Qaither, Abernathy k Wilson, i+01 Volunteer Building, 
Chattanooga, Tennessee, 37^02 and Eugene N. Collins, Esquire,

650 Pioneer Building, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Attorneys for 

Defendants, by depositing same In the United States mall at 
lashville, addressed to their above said last known address, post.-

_  » K
ago prepaid, this the —* ® day of Decmnber, 1968,

Sworn to and subscribed before meSworn

Ky Commission Expires:

CERTIFICATE

- Z 5 -



IN THE DISTRICT COUST OP THE UNITED STATES 
POT THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP TENNESSEE 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES JONATHAN NAPP, et al, 

Plaintiffs
VS.
THE BOAHD OP EDUCATION OP 
THE CITY OP CHATTANOOGA, 
HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE,
flt al.

Defendants

)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3561*

)
)
)
)

MOTION POH IMMEDIATE HELIEP

Plaintiffs by their undersigned counsel, respectfully move 
that defendants be required to convert to a unitary school system 
at. once and without any further delay; and In support of their 
motion would show this Court:

1, THe class action to desegregate the public schools of 
the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, was commenced 6 April I960 
against the 3oard of Education of said City. The Court ultimately 

proved a gradual desegregation plan under a system of allegedly 

non-raciel geographic school tones. However, aa more particularly 
set forth In a motion for further riief filed by the plaintiffs
on 31 n«r.e»iber 1968 w M e h  has not been heard or ruled on by the 

Court and which said motion for further relief Is Incorporated here­

in in It* entirety end made a part of this motion for lwaadiate 

relief, said desegregation plan adopted by the defendants and ulti­
mately aporoved by the Court In this ease has not resulted in a 

un1**,,v school system in the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, but, 
on the contrary, the defendants are still operating, maintaining 
and perpetuating a dual school system with racially segregated 

schools in violation of the equal protection and due process clauses 
of the fourteenth Amendnvnt to the Constitution of the United States 
ar.d also in vlolattn of Title h2 U.3.C. Sj 1981, 1983 and 200Cd.

2. Said motion for further relief filed by plaintiffs 31 
December 1968 requested an Injunction restraining the defendants 
immediately from proceeding further with any and all new school



construction or expansion or with olosurs of old schools in the
City of Chattanooga School System, ponding the hearing, on the 
ground that defendants were thereby perpetuating segregation, 
end prayed for an order directing defendants to make a complete 
survey of the echool system and to file with the Court a new de­

segregation plan promising a speedisr and mors effective con­

version to s unitary non-raclal system in accordance with Orsen 

y 3. County School Board of New Kent County Virginia (1968) 391 
'J.S. !4.30, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1696. However, said application for 
temporary Injunction has never been heard bv Court. »r<j hear- 
ln* on nf cne issues raised by raid motion for further relief 

was deferred pending allowance of time to defendants for further 
oleadintt. the filing of an answer by defendants contesting said 
motion for further relief and discovery procedures initiated by 
the parties. As a result, the defendants are continuing to 
operate, maintain and perpetuate said racially segregatad school 
system by mesne of gerrymandered geographic school cone lines 

and by other means, Including the planning, designing, locating 
and construction of new schools and additions or expansions of 

existing schools in such manner as to conform to racial residen­
tial patterns end to encourage and support the growth of racial 

segregation in such residential patterns. On Information and 

belief defendants are presently planning to construct and/or pur­
chase additions to existing schools and/or new schools In or near 
the center of predominantly or exclusively white residential 
areas and predominantly or exclusively Negro residential areas or 

residential areas which are presently in transition from pre­

dominantly white to exclusively Negro residential areas re­
spectively so that said school additions or new schools will bs 
racially segregated. Defendants ham made no effort to design, 

plan or locate new schools or sohool additions in such manner 
as to disestablish the racially segregated school system. A 
freedom of oholee desegregation plan employed by defendants In 

the high schools has not resulted in elimination of racial se­
gregation therein but on the contrary has resulted in continued 
segregation in the high schools. On information and belief, de­
fendants have discouraged the exercise of freedom of choice look­
ing towards integration of the high schools by officially permit­
ting and condoning the use of confederate flags, songs svl other qefcciLs of

-Z*T



racial, division, conflict and hate by white school personnel on 
public school premises In violation of the sensitivities, feelings 
and dignity of Negro school children attending the formerly whits 

schools where ouch symbols are used.
3. On 29 October 1969, the United States Supreme Court ruled 

per curiam In Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education (1969) 

_ _ _ _ _  U.3. , that unitary school systems are to be achieved
Immediately and without further delay, and that Federal Courts 
should order oomolete and Immediate relief which must be imolemented 

ac once pending litigation of objections and amendments to plans 
of desegregation, including review by the Courts of Appeals. (A 
copy pf the Opinion is sttohsd hereto as Exhibit " A ) .

if. This litigation has been sending for over nl” " yeers but 

nlalntiffs and the class have yat to enjoy the benefits of scholas­
tic Instruction In s unitary school system.

5. Although there is no olsn of desegregation drawn by the 
Department of Heslth, Education and Welfare presently before this 
Court, a plan Is eapabls of being devised within s very short period 
of time by educators, based upon Information already filed by the 

defendants pursuant to interrogatories propounded by plaintiffs,
and upon other date which defendants could make available to them.

6 . This Court Is required by the Supreme Court Decision in 
Alexander vs. Holmes County Board of Bduoatlon. supra, to require 
the immediate effectuation of a unitary school system In the City 
of Chattanooga, Tennessee, which requires a substantial change In 
tho present racial attendance patterns and the elimination of the 

racial ldent!flability of the public schools of said City.

WHKREPOrtE plaintiffs respectfully prey that this Court:
(a) Reduce defendants' time to respond to this motion to 

three (3) days;
(b) Thereafter and without any further hearing or delay, 

requeot the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to 
draft e plan to achieve Immediately a unitary school system 
In the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and to submit same to 
the Court as soon as possible end direct that such plan shall 
be Imolemented immediately upon submission. Should the Court 
not desire to utilise the Department of Health, Education and

- I S '



Welfare for any reason or should the Department be unable to 
prepare a plan within fifteen (1$) days, the Court should di­

rect that such plan be drafted and submitted by expert educa­
tors furnished by plaintiffs, the eoet thereof to be taxed 
against the defendants;

(e) Issue a tmaporary restraining order enjoining the 
defendants immediately from proceeding further with any and all 
new sehool construction or expansion or purchase or closure of 
old schools in the City of Chattanooga School System whether 
in the existing or planning stage, and whatever the stage, 

pending the submission of and hearing upon the abovamentlonsd 
plane;

(d) Proceed promptly to consider and approve a constitu­
tional final plan for the opera tion of the public schools of 
the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, aa a unitary aohool system, 
giving this matter the highest priority on the Court's docket;

(e) Allow plaintiffs their costs, reasonable attorneys 
fees, and such further, other or additional relief as may 
appear to the Court to be equitable and Just,

T7CT V. WILLIAMS, Jfl.-----------
Suite II4H 4 Parkway Towers 
I1OI4. James Robertson Parkway 
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
WILLIAM T. UNDERWOOD, JR.
I4.31 E, 9th Street 
Chattanooga, Tannssses 3714.02
JACK OREBNBERG 
JAMES M. NABRIT, III 
NORMAN CHACHKIN 
SYLVIA DREW 
10 Columbus Circle 
Suits 2030
New York, New York 10019 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

-2.9-



oTATK OP TENNESSEE 

CO0NTY OP DAVIDSON

Avon N. W I I H m ,, Jr., makes oath that h# l# on# of th# 

« ^ r n . y s  for Plaintiff. In the above case, that ha haa read and

knOW" tha cont*nt* ot th. foregoing Motion Por Immediate Rali.f and 
that tha atatenant, made therein are true «  of hi, own knowledge 
axcaot a. to those atat.rn.nts which are stated therein to be made
uoon information and belief, and those statement* he believes to
be true.

3worn to and subscribed before 
this the l3th day of November,

mo
1969.

My '^•kanls.ion Expires:

CERTIFICATE

Th. undersigned certifies that carbon cooy of th. foregoing 
Motion Por Inmediato Seller wa. mail.d to Raymond 8. Witt, Jr., 

S q u i r e ,  1100 American National Bank Building, Chattanooga, Tennessee, 
and Eugene N. Collins. Esquire, 1*00 Pioneer Bank Building, Chatta­
nooga. Tennessee 371*02. addressed to their last known addresses, 
this the 13th day of November, 1S6?.

- 3 0 -



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 632.— O ctober T e r m , 1969.

Beatrice Alexander et al., Petitioners, 
v. .Holmes County Board of Education et al.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Ap­peals for the Fifth Circuit.
[October 29. 1069 ]

Per Curiam.
These cases come to the Court on a petition for cer­tiorari to' the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The petition was granted on October 9, 1969, and the case set down for early argument. The question pre­sented is one of paramount importance, involving as it does the denial of fundamental rights to many thousands of school children, who are presently attending Missis­sippi schools under segregated conditions contrary to the applicable decisions of this Court. Against this back­ground the Court of Appeals should have denied all mo­tions for additional time because continued operation of segregated schools under a standard of allowing “all deliberate speed” for desegregation is no longer constitu­tionally permissible. Under explicit holdings of this Court the obligation of every school district is to ter­minate dual school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools. G riffin v. S ch ool  

h o a rd , 37. I .S. 218, _!.j4 (1964,.. (»'.•« s C ou  ty -V \uol 
Board oj New K e n t  C o u n ty , 391 U. S. 430, 438-439, 442 (196S). Accordingly,
It is hereby a d ju d ged , o rd ered , and d e c r e e d :

1. The Court of Appeals’ order of August 28, 1969, is vacated, and the cases are remanded to that court to issue its decree and order, effective immediately, declaring

*1
- 3 / -



2 ALEXANDER v. BOARD OF EDUCATION.
that each of the school districts here involved may no longer operate a dual school system based on race or color, and directing that they begin immediately to operate as unitary school systems within which no person is to be effectively excluded from any school because of race or color.
2. 1 lie Court of Appeals may in its discretion direct the schools here involved to accept all or any part of the August 11, 1969, recommendations of the Depart­ment of Health. Education, and Welfare, with any modi­fications whirl, that cuuit deems proper insofar as those recammendations insure a totally unitary school system for all eligible pupils without regard to race or color.The Court of Appeals may make its determination and enter its order without further arguments or submissions3. While each of these school systems is being operated as a unitary system under the order of the Court of Appeals, the District Court may hear and consider objec­tions thereto or proposed amendments thereof, provided however, that the Court of Appeals’ order shall be com­plied with in all respects while the District Court con- aiders such objections or amendments, if any arc made.No amendment shall become effective before being passed upon by the Court of Appeals.

. T*le Court of Appeals shall retain jurisdiction to insure prompt and faithful compliance with its order, and may modify or amend the same as may be deemed necessary or desirable for the operation of a unitary school system.
, n r n T,hC °f ̂  C 'O U rt o f  Vl-als d a l e  1 .Ugu.M 2S1969, having been vacated and the case remanded for proceedings in conformity with this order, the judgment shall issue forthwith and the Court of Appeals is re­quested to give priority to the execution of this judgment ' ~ as ]>ossiblc and necessary.

632— PER CURIAM

- 3 2 -

t



Iff THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATK3
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMB3 JONATHAN MAPP, »t al, )

Plaintiffs )

73. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3561+
THE HOARD OP EDUCATION OF )
THE CITY OP CHATTANOOGA,
HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, )
et al,

)
Defendants

)

SHOW CAUSE ORDER

Uoon application of the plaintiffs in the above cause and 

for good cause shown, it is ORDERED that the defendants. The 

3oard of Education of the City of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, 
Tennessee, and its Sea'll Members: Corley R. Young, Chairman,

Mrs. Charles M. Hoooer, J. Lamar Pettyjohn, G. Paul Sums, H. H. 
Settle and D. D. Coleman and Dr, Charles E. Martin, Supsrlntandent 
of Schools, or their successors in office, and each of them, appear
before the Honorable ______________________________ , United States

District Judge, at _______M. on _____________ the _____ day of
_____  -, 1^69, or as soon thereafter as same may be reached
on the Court's calendar in the United States District Courtroom 

of said Judge, United States Courthouse at Chattanooga, Tennessee, 
and show cauae why all of the prayers of the Motion Por Immediate 

Relief filed by the plaintiffs in this oass should not be granted 

immediately; and it is further ORDERED that this Show Cause Order 
be served upon said defendants by the Clerk mailing same to their 
attorneys of record, Raymond 3. Witt, Jr., Esquire, 1100 American 
National Bank Building, Chattanooga, Tennessee and to Eugene N. 
Collins, Esquire, 1*00 Pioneer Building, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

ENTER:

United States District Judge



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES JONATHAN MAPP, et al 
Plaintiff*

v*.

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION of the 
CITY OF CHATTANOOGA 
HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, 
et al

Dafandanta

)
)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3564 
)
)
)
)

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RELIEF

Defendant* move, pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, to strike Plaintiffs' Motion for Immediate Relief on the 

ground that it is merely repetitive of unsupported allegations and questionable 

conclusions already before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs' Motion for Further 

Relief filed on December 31, 1968.

Defendants respectfully request an oral hearing on this Motion.

WITT, GAITHER, ABERNATHY ti WILSON

1100 American National Bank Building 
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 
Attorneys for Defendant

- H r
LA W  O F F IC rS  

W IT T .  G A IT H E R .
A B E R N A T H Y  &

W IL S O N

IIO O  A M E R ICA N  N A T IO N A L
BAN K O U ILD IN G

C h a t t a n o o g a .
T E N N E S S E E  374 0 2



IN THE DISTRICT C O URT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES JONATHAN MAPP, et *1 )
Plaintiff. )

)v.. )
)

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION of the ) 
CITY OF CHATTANOOGA )
HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. ) 
•t al )

Defendant* )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3564

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE 
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RELIEF

Defendant* move that Plaintiff*' Motion for Immediate Relief be 

•triken since it doe* nothing more than repeat factual allegation* and 

request* for relief essentially the same a* contained in Plaintiff*' Motion 

for Further Relief filed on December 31, 1968. In fact. Plaintiffs' Motion 

for Immediate Relief specifically incorporate* this earlier motion in it* 

entirety. Defendant Board has answered this earlier motion denying various 

factual allegations. Discovery in accordance with normal procedural rules 

is now under way with regard to these factual allegations and the issues thus 

made. Discovery l* not yet complete, partially because Plaintiffs have 

answered that they do not possess and are not aware of information supporting 

several of the serious factual allegations made by Plaintiffs in their Motion 

for Further Relief.

The only basis urged for Plaintiffs* Motion for Immediate Relief, 

which seeks to circumvent the normal legal processes and deny Defendants 

a full evidentiary hearing on the merits, is the Supreme Court's per curiam 

decision in Alexander vs. Board of Education, dated October 29, 1969. The 

Alexander case facts bear no relationship to facts existent in the Chattanooga 

school system. In the Supreme Court's own words, it was dealing with

LA W  O F F IC E S  

W IT T .  G A IT H E R . 
A B E R N A T H Y  & 

W IL S O N

IIO O  A M E R ICA N  N A T IO N A L
BAN K B U IL D IN G

C h a t t a n o o g a . 
T e n n e s s e e  374 0 2

3 5 -



school districts operating schools "under segregated conditions" and directed 

that such school districts operate so that "no person is to be effectively 

excluded from any school because of race or color". Such a situation does 

not exist in the Chattanooga School System and has not existed In this school 

system for more than three years. For these reasons, Defendants submit 

that the Court should grant their Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Motion for 

Immediate Relief pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

LA W  O F F IC E S  

W IT T .  G A IT H E R . 
A U E R N A T H Y  Sc 

W IL S O N

IIO O  A M TH IC A M  N A T IO N A L  
HANK U U IL O IN G

WITT. GAITHER. ABERNATHY k  WILSON

1100 American National Bank Building 
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 
Attorneys for Defendant

_ 3 k

C h a i t a n o o c a . 
T tN N E S S E E  37402



/

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OK TH.NNHHF-Hi '■ 

soil'l l )E1;H DI VIS ION

JAMES JONATHAN MAPP, e t .  a l . .  

Plaintiffs,

- vs -•

THE BOARP OK EDUCATION OF THE 
CITY OF CIU.TANOOGA, ETC. e t .  a l . .

Defendants.

CIVIL  ACTION 
NO.

0> «,oni I i on to Mot * on . Strike 
Pl.ajriti U  Vi'.ion iox immediate 
Roll of.

Plaintiffs herein oppose the Motion filed b y  Defendants

on  Novem ber 19 ,  1969  t o  s t r i k e  p l a i n t i f f s  

r e l i e f  and a s  r e a s o n s  t h e r e f o r e  a l l e g e  a s

m o t io n  f o r  im m e d ia te  

f o l l o w s :

1) T h a t  t h i s  c a s e  i n v o l v e s  a c l a s s  a c t i o n  b y  N e g ro  

p l a i n t i f f s  t o  d e s e g r e g a t e  t h e  p u b l i c  s c h o o l s  o f  t h e  C i t y  o f  

C h a t t a n o o g a ,  T en n .  w h i c h  s u i t  h a s  b e e n  in  l i t i g a t i o n  s i n c e

A p r i l  6 , I 9 6 0 .

2 )  T h a t  d e s p i t e  n i n e  y e a r s  o f  l i t i g a t i o n  t h e  d e f e n d a n t s  

c o n t i n u e  t o  o p e r a t e  and m a in t a i n  a d u a l  s c h o o l  s y s t e m  in  

c o n t r a v e n t i o n  o f  t h e  C o n s t i t u t i o n  o f  t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  and 

num erou s d e c i s i o n s  o f  t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  Supreme C o u r t .

3) A c c o r d i n g  t o  f i g u r e s  f i l e d  b y  d e f e n d a n t s  ( s e e  E x h i b i t  

A h e r e i n )  i n  r e s p o n s e  t o  P l a i n t i f f s 1 I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  f i l e d  

A u g u s t  1 ,  19 69 ,  t h e  f o l l o w i n g  p a t t e r n  p r e v a i l e d  i n  t h e  

C h a t t a n o o g a  S c h o o l  System in  1960-69:

T o t a l  S t u d e n t s  : 2 7 , 2 6 6

- 3 7 '



T o t a l  wllit-: s tu d e n t  nn.-UioL'Cn: 13,935 (51%)

T o t a l  No. o f  H igh  S c h o o l s  -  3

No. o f  H igh  S c h o o l s  w i t h  n o  i n t e g r a t i o n  -  2

T o t a l  No. o f  J r .  H igh  S c h o o l s  -  12

No. o f  J r .  H igh  S c h o o l s  w i t h  n o  i n t e g r a t i o n  -  2

T o t a l  No. Elementary S c h o o l s  -  31

No. o f  Elementary S c h o o l s  w i t h  n o  i n t e g r a t i o n  -  9

A v e r a g e  P e r c e n t a g e  D e s e g r e g a t i o n  in  H . S c h o o l s  2 .9 %  

A v e r a g e  P e r c e n t a g e  D e s e g r e g a t i o n  in  J r . I I .  1 1 . 6 /  

A v e r a g e  Percentage Desegregation in  E lcm ,  " 8 .4 %

A v e r a g e  P e r c e n t a g e  D e s e g r e g a t i o n  f o r

7 f°/e n t i r e  d i s t r i c t ........................................................................................°

4 )  T h a t  t h e s e  f i g u r e s  d e m o n s t r a t e  t h a t  the Chattanooga 
r-hool S y s te m  r e m a in s  s e g r e g a t e d  to a s u b s t a n t i a l  d e g r e e .

5) T h a t  t h e  same A n sw ers  t o  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  i n d i c a t e  t h ^ t  

t h e  C h a t t a n o o g a  f a c u l t y  r e m a in s  r a c i a l l y  s e g r e g a t e d  t o  a 

s u b s t a n t i a l  d e g r e e .

6 ) T h a t  on  D ecem ber  31 , 1960 , P l a i n t i f f s  s o u g h t  b y  f i l i n g  

a M o t io n  f o r  F u r t h e r  R e l i e f  t o  e n j o i n  t h e  c o n t i n u a t i o n  o f  t h e  

d u a l  s c h o o l  s y s t e m ,  and p r a y e d  f o r  an o r d e r  d i r e c t i n g  t h e  

d e f e n d a n t s  t o  make a s u r v e y  o f  th e  s c h o o l  s y s t e m  and t o  f i l e  

w i t h  t h e  c o u r t  a new d e s e g r e g a t i o n  p l a n .

7) T h a t  h e a r i n g  on  s a i d  a p p l i c a t i o n  f o r  i n j u n c t i v e  

r e l i e f  a s  w e l l  a s  t h e  o t h e r  i s s u e s  r a i s e d  b y  t h e  M o t io n  f o r  

F u r t h e r  R e l i e f  was d e f e r r e d  p e n d in g  a l l o w a n c e  o f  t im e  t o  

d e f e n d a n t s  f o r  f u r t h e r  p l e a d i n g .  No h e a r i n g  h a s  b e e n  h e l d

t o  d a t e .

8 ) T h a t  on O c t o b e r  2 9 ,  19 69 ,  t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  Supreme

3 8 -



• • v iioJiUi C o u n ty  ----j c o u r t  r u l e d  p  o r  c u r  jam  x »  -  ----------------------------

Education ( 1 9 M 0  ______ i M i . --------------* t h a t  u , , i t a r y  n * * ° ° 1  ^ ' U

are to be achieved immediately and without any further delay, and
t h a t  F e d e r a l  C o u r t s  s h o u l d  o r d e r  c o m p l e t e  and im m e d ia te  r e l i e f  

w h i c h  m u st  b e  im p le m e n te d  a t  o n c e  p e n d in g  l i t i g a t i o n  o f  o b j e c t i o n s  

and am endments t o  p l a n s  o f  d e s e g r e g a t i o n ,  i n c l u d i n g  r e v i e w  b y  t h e

C o u r t s  o f  Appeals.

9 ) t h a t  on N ovem ber 13 .  P l a i n t i f f *  h e r e i n  £ i l “ J a  " 0 t i ° "  

( o r  L - o U n t c  R e l i e f  . o c o r . U n o  t o  t h o  m and ate  oC the United

S t a t o n  Suprem o C o u r t  in « ! £ - . !  V .  B i l M  ^

B d u cn t  t o n , s u p r a  .

„  _ v __  i c, n o  fo n d a n t  s  h e r e i n  m oved t o  s t r i k e10) T h a t  on November 1J . Uoi.cna,m<..->

s a i d  m o t i o n  p u r s u a n t  t o  r u i n  1 2 ( 0  a f  t h o  M o r a l  R u l e .  O f  Civil 
P r o c e d u r e  on t h i .  g r o u n d  t h a t  i t  i s  m e r e l y  r e p e t i t i v e  o f  t h e  

M o t io n  f o r  F u r th e 'r  R e l i e f  f i l e d  M e m b e r  19 68 .  » » d  oh  t h e  f u r t h e r

.  r l - r  .. H o l m e . . n o .  h a d  no  b e a r i n g  in  t b eI a round Uiu u -------- —  —
C h a t a n o o g a  S c h o o l  \?y«tem.

1 1 ) Mesmutc[^nd_J^ 2£.]Jh£2^ i i l ^ —

C o u n ty  T o  The Case  A t  Ba r .

The tw o  b a s i c  i s s u e s  in  t h e  c a s e ,  s u p r a .

w e r e :  1
„ >  w b e t h e r  o r  n o t  t h e  t im e  h a s  come for an im m e d ia te  end to 
s e g r e g a t e d  s c h o o l s .  0» W h e th e r  or not plaintiffs in school

eases are entitled to E f t « S |  lit. t«££«£ « “  SyS‘“
immedia t e l y  f r o .  a s e g r e g a t e d  t o  an i n t e g r a t e d  o n e .  l e a v i n g  t h e

b u r d e n  u pon  S c h o o l  B o a rd s  t o  l i t i g a t e  t h e i r  o b j e c t i o n s  l a t e r

i n s t e a d  o f  d e l a y i n g  e n jo y m e n t  o f  t h o  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  r i g h t s

o f  s c h o o l  c h i l d r e n  p e n d in g  i n t e r m i n a b l e  l i t i g a t i o n .  The

o f  t h e  arg u m en t  b e f o r e  t h e  Supreme C o u r t  i n  t h a t  e a s e  i s

, IQ o f  t h e  B r i e f  f o r  P e t i t i o n e r s  (E x h ib i t ,e p i t o m i z e d  on p a g e  18 o f  t h e  B r i e r

“ B" h e r e t o  a s  f o l l o w s :

- 3 9 '



"'i Lf-m i i t ; > .ir e
e v e r  t o  b e  su w .tE i- j :u l 3 v  cjo s c s t a b i i . s h e d , t h i s  
C o u r t  mu£■ l" make i t  u n m is t a k a b ly  c l e a r  t h a t  t h e r e  
c a n  toe n o  mare tk J .o y s .  But n o t  on .ly  m u st  t h e  
Court, make t h e  law  o f  t h e  C o n s t i t u t i o n  c l e a r  
b e y o n d  p e r a d v e n t u r e ,  i t  m ust a l s o  a d a p t  f e d e r a l ,  
e q u i t y  p r o c e d u r e  t o  t h a t  e n d :  i t  m ust act.  t o
d i s c o u r a g e  r e c a l c i t r a n t  s c h o o l  b o a r d s  f r o m  
s e e k i n g  r e f u q e  fr o m  d e s e g r e g a t i o n  i n  p r o t r a c t e d  
l i t i g a t i o n .  In  o t h e r  w o r d s ,  i n t e g r a t i o n ,  n o t  
s e g r e g a t i o n ,  m ust b e  t h e  s t a t u s  q u o  p e n d e n t e  
l i t e . "

T h a t  t h e  d u n  emo C o u r t  c o n c e i v e d  t h e  i s s u e  a s  b r o a d l y  

and in  t h e  same l i g h t  a s  d i d  t h e  p e t i t i o n e r s  i s  r e f l e c t e d  b y  

t h e  C o u r t ' s  f o l l o w i n g  la n g u a g e  i n  t h e  A l e x a n d e r  d e c i s i o n ,  s u p r a :

"The q u e s t i o n  p r e s e n t e d  i s  o n e  o f  p a ra m o u n t
im p o r t a n c e ,  i n v o l v i n g  as  i t  d o e s  t h e  d e n i a l  
o f  fu n d a m e n ta l  r i g h t s  t o  many t h o u s a n d s  o f  
s c h o o l  c h i l d r e n ,  w ho a r e  p r e s e n t l y  a t t e n d i n g  

M i s s i s s i p p i  s c h o o l s  u n d e r  s e g r e g a t e d  c o n d i t i o n s  
c o n t r a r y  t o  the* a p p l i c a b l e  d e c i s i o n s  o f  t h i s  
C ox irt .  A g a i n s t  t h i s  b a c k g r o u n d  t h e  C o u r t  o f  
A p p e a l s  s h o u ld  h a v e  d e n i e d  a l l  m o t i o n s  f o r  
a d d i t i o n a l  t im e  b e c a u s e  c o n t i n u e d  o p e r a t i o n o f  
s e g r e g a t e d  s c h o o l :. u n d e r  a s t a n d a r d o f  a l l o w i n g  
" " a l l  d e l i b e r a t o  sr - ' - cd "  f o r  d e s e g r e g a t i o n i s  no
1 o p o c r  c o n s t i t i *t  :i oria 1 ) y j -orm i .s s i b l e  Unde r
e x p l l c i t  ~h o  i ciITif;;V o f  t h i s "  C o u r t  t h e o b l i g a t i o n  
o f  e v e r ?  s c b o o T  d i s t r i c t ^ i s  t o  t e r m i n a t e  d u a l
*SCltfK> ~t :. V.; • J <■>'»<■«■ ai'U_t o  ODCl.*1.!  C- nc-v C-Uict
h e r o a ’l  L• r o )»1 y  u)»j v n r y  s c h o o .1 r>. Cr.i. i ' f  i n  v .
S c h o o l  Bo arid , 377 l i . S . 2 1 b ,  2*34 ( 1 9 0 4 ) ,  Careen 
v . Co u n t y * S c h o o l  B oard  o f  Hew K ent C o u n t y ,
391 U. S . 4 3 0 ,  438-4*39, 442 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . "
(E m phasis  A dded)

A d o p t i n g  t h e  a rg u m e n t  o f  p e t i t i o n e r s  t h e r e i n  f o r  im m e d ia te  

r e l i e f  pe n d e n t s  H t c ,  t h e  Supreme C o u r t  d i r e c t e d  t h a t  t h e  

C o u r t  o f  A p p e a l s  o r d e r  t h e  30 M i s s i s s i p p i  S c h o o l  D i s t r i c t s  t o  

b e g i n  im m e d ia t e ly  t o  o p e r a t e  a s  t o t a l l y  u n i t a r y  s c h o o l  s y s t e m s ,  

and p r o v i d e d  t h a t  s a id '  o r d e r  m ig h t  i s s u e  " w i t h o u t  f u r t h e r  

a r g u m e n ts  o r  s u b m i s s i o n s . "  I n s t e a d  o f  d e f e r r i n g  i n t e g r a t i o n  

o f  t h e  S c h o o l  S y s te m  p e n d in g  h e a r i n g  and c o n s i d e r a t i o n  o f  

o b j e c t i o n s  o r  amendments t o  p r o p o s e d  d e s e g r e g a t i o n  p l a n s ,  t h e  

Suprem e C o u r t  d i r e c t e d  d e f e r m e n t  o f  t h e  h e a r i n g  o f  su ch  

o b j e c t i o n s  o r  amendments p e n d in g  im m e d ia te  im p l e m e n t a t i o n  o f  

t h e  1’ q u r t c e n t h  Amendment. S e e  S w e a t t  v .  P a i n t e r , 339 U .S .  629 , 

(>3‘j  ( I 9 6 0 ) ;  Me l .a u r ln  v .  R e g e n t s , 339 U .S .  6 3 7 ,  6)42 ( I 9 6 0 ) .

-v>-



i i <, 1, t :: i :o  a t t e n d  .1 r . i o i . i l l .  • - l . ~ l  pub.. i e  n o i i o o l  r . y r . l - ■>.<.

m ust now b o  a f f o r d e d  im m e d ia te  r e l i e f  c o m m en su rate  w i t h  t h e  

fu n d a m e n ta l  im p o r t a n c e  o f  t h e i r  r i g h t s  i n v o l v e d  and w i t h  

applicable principles of e q u i t y .

1 2 '  T h a t  a t  a minimum t h e  p r o c e d u r a l  i s s u e s  o u t l i n e d  

a b o v e  w e r e  not. r a i s e d  b y  t h e  p l a i n t i f f ' s  M o t io n  f o r  F u r t h e r  

R e l i e f ,

1 3 )  T h a t  ;; m o t io n  t o  s t r i k e  u n d e r  t h e  F e d e r a l  R u le s  i s  

o n e  o f  l i m i t e d  s c o p e  and i s  n o t  f a v o r e d ,  and w i l l  b e  g r a n t e d  

o n l y  when t h e  a l l e g a t i o n s  h a v e  n o  p o s s i b l e  r e l a t i o n  t o  t h e  

c o n t r o v e r s y .  M oore v .  P r u d e n t i a l  I n s u r a n c e  C o . ,  166 F .S u p p .

216 ( D .C .N .C .  1 0 6 8 ) ,  W halen  v .  Ph o e n i x f n d om. C o . , 15 F .R .D .

42 (D .C .  L a .  1 9 5 3 ) ;  Edward s  v .  Kin g  Mou n t a i n  M e m o r ia l  H o s p i t a l .  

A s s ' n , 118 F.Supp.417 (D .C .  T c n n . 1 9 5 4 ) .

WHEREFORE, P l a i n t i f f s  r e s p e c t f u l l y  p r a y  t h a t  t h i s  C o u r t  

issue an order d e n y i n g  s a i d  M o t io n  t o  S t r i k e  and p r o c e e d  w i t h  

a hearing on the m a t t e r s  r a i s e d  b y  P l a i n t i f f s ’ M o t io n s  f o r  

Further Relief, and for Im m e d ia te  R e l i e f .

Respectfully submitted,

AVON WILLIAMS, JR .
404  Jam es R o b e r t s o n  Parkw ay 
S u i t e  .1414, Parkway T o w e rs  
N a s h v i l l e ,  T e n n e s s e e  37217

JACK GREENBERG 
SYLVIA DREW

10 Columbus Circle 
New Y o r k ,  N . Y . 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

- 4 .I-



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Avon N. Williams, Jr. certify that I am one of the 
attorneys for the plaintiffs in this cause and that I have 
served the foregoing Opposition to Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' 
Motion for immediate Relief on the defendants by mailing 
copy thereof, postage prepaid, to the office of Raymond B.Witt. 
Jr., Esq., IKK) American National Bank Building, Chattanooga, 
Term., 37402, and Eugene N. Collins, Esq., Pioneer Bank Building 
Chatanooga, Term. 37402, attorneys for Defendants, addressed 
to their so id last known addresses this----------— -------

AVON N. WILLIAMS, JK.

j



F, >1 •<•>

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

; ; o;e s  J onathan  ; ia? p , e t  a i
Plaintiffs

D OF EDUCATION OF 
OF CHATTANOOGA,

C i v i l  A c t i o n  
No. 3564

D e fe n d a n t s

•'CTIO' 'T'G REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO GIVE COMPLETE 
'V~ . " - ‘ FtTc : ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ INTERROGA-  

rmf-- ■' i i -7 THE ALTERNATIVE TO STRIKE PORTIONS
---- ------------- ' ! OF PLAINTIFFS1 PLEADINGS'

Cor.'.e t h e  D e fe n d a n t s  p u r s u a n t  t o  R u le  37 (a) o f  t h e  F e d e r a l  

T a le s  o f  C i v i l  P r o c e d u r e ,  and r e s p e c t f u l l y  move t h e  C o u r t  f o r  

=- o r d e r  c o m p e l l i n g  P l a i n t i f f s  t o  g i v e  f u l l ,  c o m p l e t e  and 

s p e c i f i c  a n sw e r s  t o  c e r t a i n  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  s e r v e d  on  P l a i n t i f f s  

or. Julv 1C, 19 69 ,  ana w h ic h  t h e  C o u r t  i n  i t s  O r d e r  d a t e d  S ep tem ­

b e r  4 ,  1 9 5 9 ,  d i r e c t e d  P l a i n t i f f s  t o  a n s w e r ,  t h e s e  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  

b e i n g  num bered  as f o l l o w s :  2 ,  3 ,  5 ,  6 , 14 t h r o u g h  44 i n c l u s i v e ,

-.7, 4 3 ,  54 th r o u g h  73 i n c l u s i v e ,  7 9 - 8 1 ,  84 ,  8 5 ,  8 8 , 8 9 ,  93 and 

3 4 .  P l a i n t i f f s  made an a t t e m p t  t o  an sw er  t h e s e  num bered  i n t e r ­

r o g a t o r i e s  b y  a n sw ers  f i ~ e d  on  November 3 ,  1 9 6 9 .  H o w e ve r ,  t h e  

purported a n sw e rs  t o  D e f e n d a n t s ’ i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  a r e  s o  i n c o m p l e t e  

nr.d evasive t o  f a i l  t o  c o n fo r m  t o  t h e  C o u r t ' s  O r d e r  o f  

September 4 ,  1 9 6 9 .

- n ^ - 3  a l t e r n a t i v e ,  D e fe n d a n t s  p u r s u a n t  t o  R u le  3 7 ( d )  o f

i r e  F e d e r a l  R u le s  o f  C i v i l  P r o c e d u r e ,  r e s p e c t f u l l y  move t h e

C o u r t  f o r  an O r d e r  s t r i k i n g  th e  f o l l o w i n g  p o r t i o n s  f r o m  P l a i n -

i i . f u '  N o t i o n  f o r  F u r t h e r  R e l i e f  as f i l e d  D ecem ber  31 ,  1 9 6 8 .

. , t i _ - s t  p o r t i o n  t o  be  s t r u c k  i s  f o u n d  on  p a g e  3 o f  t h e  a f o r e -

a M o t io n  and r e a d s  i n  i t s  e n t i r e t y .

■■gr. a o r . i t i o n  t o  p r o p o s i n g  and a d o p t i n g  d e s e g g  
r e c "_ u io n  p l a n s  w h ic h  a f f e c t e d  maximuni d e l a y  i n  
c  s e o r e g a t i o n  c o v e r a g e  and maximum e n c o u r a g e m e n t  
Ob'” c o n t i n u e d  s e g r e g a t i o n  i n  c o v e r e d  g r a d e s  by  
p e r m i t t i n g  r a c i a l  t r a n s f e r s  b a s e d  on  c h o i c e ,  t h e

-  4 * -



D e f e n d a n t s  e s t a b l i s h e d  g e o g r a p h i c  a t t e n d a n c e  
zoi' .os . . l i e n  w e re  g e r r y m a n d e r e d  s o  as t o  f o l l o w  
r a c i a l l y  s e g r e g a t e d  r e s i d e n c e  l i n e s  a n d / o r  
p o o r  w h i t e  s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  g r o u p  r e s i d e n c e  
l i n e s  cr.d m a x im ize  c o n t i n u e d  r a c i a l l y  s e g r e -  
ge ited  s t u d e n t  a s s ig n m e n t s  t o  t h e  a l l  r e a d y  
s e g r e g a t e d  s c h o o l s ,  w h i l e  v i r t u a l l y  l i m i t i n g  
i n t e g r a t i o n  t o  w h i t e  s c h o o l s  a t t e n d e d  by  p o o r  
s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  g r o u p s . "

The s e c o n d  s e c t i o n  o f  t h e  a f o r e s a i d  p l e a d i n g  t h a t  D e f e n d a n t

requests b e  s t r i c k e n  i s  f o u n d  on  p a g e  4 and r e a d s  as f o l l o w s :

"T h u s ,  a l t h o u g h  D e fe n d a n t s  now c l a i m  t h a t  h ig h  
s c h o o l  a t t e n d a n c e  i s  b a s e d  on  f r e e d o m  o f  c h o i c e  
t h r o u g h o u t  t h e  c i t y ,  p a t t e r n s  o f  s e g r e g a t e d  
a t t e n d a n c e  w e re  e s t a b l i s h e d  th r o u g h  s t u d e n t  
m a n i p u l a t i o n  o f  s t u d e n t  b o d i e s  and  s c h o o l  
l o c a t i o n  and c o n s t r u c t i o n  p r o g r a m s . "

The t h i r d  s e c t i o n  D e fe n d a n t  r e q u e s t s  b e  s t r i c k e n  i s  o n  p a g e

5 and r e a d s :

"The g e r r y m a n d e r e d  s c h o o l  zo n e  l i n e s  w e re  
s t r i c t l y  e n f o r c e d  by  s a i d  s c h o o l  o f f i c i a l s  
and w e re  c h a n g e d  f r o m  t im e  t o  t im e  as r a c i a l  
c o p u l a t i o n  s h i f t e d  s o  as t o  p r e v e n t  t h e  e s c a p e  
of*- e i t h e r  w h i t e  o r  N e g ro  c h i l d r e n  f r o m  th e  
r a c i a l l y  s e g r e g a t e d  g e o g r a p h i c  s c h o o l  z o n e s  i n t o  
o t h e r  z o n e s  when t h e y  s o u g h t  t o  a t t e n d  a r a c i a l l y  
i n t e g r a t e d  s c h o o l ,  o r  a s c h o o l  i n  a h i g h e r  s o c i o ­
e c o n o m ic  n e i g h b o r h o o d ,  w h i l e  t h e  t r a n s f e r  p l a n ,  
a - t h o u g h  n o t  a u t o m a t i c a l l y  b a s e d  on  r a c e  was 
a d m i n i s t e r e d  i n  s u c h  a manner as t o  e f f e c t i v e l y  
e l i m i n a t e  t h e  s c h o o l  z o n e  l i n e s  and p e r m i t  s u b ­
s t a n t i a l l y  f r e e  t r a n s f e r  o f  and f o r  any w h i t e  o r  
N e g ro  c h i l d  o r  c h i l d r e n  who s o u g h t  t o  r e m a in  i n  
a s e g r e g a t e d  w h i t e  o r  N e g ro  s c h o o l  r e s p e c t i v e l y . "

g n e  l a s t  s e c t i o n  t h a t  D e fe n d a n t  r e q u e s t s  C o u r t  t o  s t r i k e

b e g i n s  o n  p a g e  6 and f o l l o w s :

"Or. i n f o r m a t i o n  and b e l i e f ,  i n t e g r a t e d  t e a c h i n g  
a s s ig n m e n t s  a r e  u s u a l l y  te m p o r a r y  o r  t r a n s i t o r y  
and N e g ro  t e a c h e r s  a s s i g n e d  t o  w h i t e  o r  f o r m e r l y  
w h i t e  s c h o o l s  a r e  f r e q u e n t l y  n o t  a c c o r d e d  f u l l  
r e c o g n i t i o n  o r  s t a t u r e  as  t e a c h e r s  b u t  a r e  a s s i g n e d  
t o  m a k e s h i f t  p o s i t i o n s  o r  t o  p o s i t i o n s  i n  s u b o r d i n a ­
t i o n  t o  w h i t e  t e a c h e r s  b e c a u s e  o f  r a c e .  N e g ro  
p r i n c i p a l s  a r e  n o t  a s s i g n e d  t o  f o r m e r l y  w h i t e  
s c h o o l s  w h e re  w h i t e  s t u d e n t s  o r  t e a c h e r s  re m a in  
i n  p r e d o m in a n c e .  M o r e o v e r ,  d e f e n d a n t s  h a v e  t o t a l l y  
f a i l e d  and r e f u s e d  t o  em p loy  and a s s i g n  N e g r o e s  
t o  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ,  s t a f f  and s u p e r v i s o r y  p o s i t i o n s  
i n  t h e  S c h o o l  S y s te m ,  e x c e p t  f o r  a few  t o k e n  
a s s i g n m e n t s ,  o r  t o  e m p lo y ,  p r o m o te  and a s s i g n  
now N e g ro  t e a c h e r s ,  p r i n c i p a l s  and  o t h e r  p e r s o n ­
al. ... i n  t h e  S c h o o l  S y ste m  i n  su c h  manner as t o  
e l i m i n a t e  and d i s e s t a b l i s h  p a s t  and e x i s t i n g
............... d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  and p r o v i d e  m e a n i n g f u l
i n t e g r a t i o n  o f  p e r s o n n e l  i n  e a c h  s c h o o l  t h r o u g h ­
o u t  the  S c h o o l  S y ste m  and i n  i t s  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

-//-If-



offices com m en su rate  w i t h  a number and p r o p o r t i o n  
or Negroes t o  w h i t e s  i n  th e  p o p u l a t i o n  and S c h o o l  
System. On i n f o r m a t i o n  and b e l i e f  d e f e n d a n t s  d i s ­
criminate r a c i a l l y  o r  f a i l  t o  r e c r u i t  e f f e c t i v e l y  
i n  th e  h i r i n g  o f  N e g ro  t e a c h e r s ,  p r i n c i p a l s ,  
staff and s u p p o r t i n g  p e r s o n n e l ,  s o  t h a t  t h e  number 
of N e g r o e s  h i r e d  has s t e a d i l y  d e c r e a s e d  and i s  
b e l o w  t h e  p r o p o r t i o n  o f  N e g r o e s  i n  t h e  s c h o o l  
p o p u l a t i o n  a l t h o u g h  t h e r e  a r e  p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y  
m ore  q u a l i f i e d  N e g ro  a p p l i c a n t s  th a n  w h i t e . "

D e f e n d a n t s  r e s p e c t f u l l y  r e q u e s t  an o r a l  h e a r i n g  on  t h i s

n i n  c o n j u n c t i o n  w i t h  an o r a l  h e a r i n g  on  D e f e n d a n t s '  M o t io n

: r i k e  P l a i n t i f f s '  M o t io n  f o r  F u r t h e r  R e l i e f .

WITT, GAITHER, ABERNATHY & WILSON

Raymond B. W i t t ,  J r .
1100’ A m e r ica n  N a t i o n a l  Bank B u i l d i n g  
C h a t t a n o o g a ,  T e n n e s s e e  37402

Attorneys for Defendants

UNSEL

ie  N. C o l l i n s  
= 400 P i o n e e r  B u i l d i n g  
t a r .o o g a ,  T e n n e s s e e  37402

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

T h is  i s  t o  c e r t i f y  t h a t  on  th e  __  day o f  D e ce m b e r ,

, I  s e r v e d  upon  Avon W i l l i a m s ,  J r . ,  J a c k  G r e e n b e r g ,  

iam  T .  U n derw ood ,  a t t o r n e y s  f o r  p l a i n t i f f s ,  a t r u e  

o f  th e  f o r e g o i n g  by  m a i l i n g  same v i a  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  

i- properly a d d r e s s e d  e n v e l o p e s  w i t h  s u f f i c i e n t  

ps a f f i x e d  t h e r e t o .

A t t o r n e y  f o r  D e fe n d a n t s

- k s -



I

:x THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT 
OF TENNESSEE, SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES JONATHAN MAP?, e t  a l  
P l a i n t i f f s

THE HOARD OF EDUCATION OF 
THE CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, e t c .  
_ t  a l

D e fe n d a n t s

C i v i l  A c t i o n  

No. 3564

EEI2F IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REQUIRE 
PLAINTIFFS TO GIVE COMPLETE AND SPECIFIC ANSWERS TO 
INTERROGATORIES OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STRIKE 
PORTIONS C? PLAINTIFFS' PLEADINGS

The e s s e n c e  o f  P l a i n t i f f s '  m o t io n  f o r  f u r t h e r  r e l i e f  as 

f i l e d  on  D ecem ber  3 1 ,  1 9 6 8 ,  was t h a t  t h e  d e g r e e  o f  d e s e g r e g a t i o n  

o f  t h e  C h a t t a n o o g a  S c h o o l  S y ste m  was n o t  s u f f i c i e n t l y  r a p i d  t o  

s a t i s f y  t h e  P l a i n t i f f s .  I n  e f f e c t ,  th e  P l a i n t i f f s  h a v e  t o l d  

th e  D e f e n d a n t s  t h a t  t h e y  h a v e  n o t  "d o n e  e n o u g h "  o f  a n y t h i n g .

T h e r e  a r e  s i x  s p e c i f i c  c o m p l a i n t s  r e f l e c t e d  i n  t h e  

D ecem ber  31* 1968  M o t io n  F o r  F u r t h e r  R e l i e f  t h a t  a r e  i n v o l v e d  

i n  D e f e n d a n t s '  m o t i o n  t o  r e q u i r e  P l a i n t i f f s  t o  g i v e  c o m p l e t e  

and s p e c i f i c  a n sw ers  t o  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s .  P l a i n t i f f s '  c o u n s e l  

i n  e s s e n c e  c o m p la in  b e c a u s e  ( 1 ) t h e r e  a r e  n o t  e n o u g h  w h i t e  

p u p i l s  i n  f o r m e r l y  a l l - N e g r o  s c h o o l s ;  (2)  t h e r e  a r e  n o t  e n ou g h  

N e g ro  p u p i l s  i n  f o r m e r l y  a l l - w h i t e  s c h o o l s ;  (3 )  t h e r e  a r e  n o t  

en ough  N e g ro  t e a c h e r s  in  f o r m e r l y  a l l - w h i t e  s c h o o l s ;  (4)  t h e r e  

a r e  n o t  e n o u g h  w h i t e  t e a c h e r s  i n  f o r m e r l y  a l l - N e g r o  s c h o o l s ;

(5 )  t h e r e  a r e  n o t  en ough  N e g ro  i n d i v i d u a l s  i n  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  

p o s i t i o n s  and k6 ) N e g ro  t e a c h e r s  h ave  n o t  b e e n  a c c o r d e d  f u l l  

r e c o g n i t i o n .

P l a i n t i f f s  c h a r g e  t h a t  D e fe n d a n t  S c h o o l  B o a rd  h as  an 

i n t e n t  t o  m a in t a i n  s e g r e g a t i o n  and has  im p le m e n te d  t h i s  i n t e n t  

o y  —

(a )  t h e  way s c h o o l  z o n e s  h a v e  b e e n  d e s c r i b e d ;

(o). b y  t h e  t r a n s f e r  p o l i c y  w i t h  r e g a r d  t o  s t u d e n t s ;



( c )  by  th e  manner i n  w h ich  t h e  t r a n s f e r  p o l i c y  h a s  b e e n  

a d m i n i s t e r e d ;

(d) b y  t h e  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  o f  t e a c h e r  a s s i g n m e n t  p o l i c y ;

( e )  by  t h e  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  o f  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  p e r s o n n e l

a s s i g n m e n t s .

The D e f e n d a n t  S c h o o l  B o a rd  d e n i e s  t h e  e x i s t e n c e  o f  any 

p r a c t i c e  o f  p o l i c y  h a v in g  th e  i n t e n t  o r  e f f e c t  o f  m a i n t a i n i n g  

s e g r e g a t i o n  i n  t h e  s c h o o l  s y s t e m .  D e f e n d a n t  B o a r d ' s  p o s i t i o n  

i s  t h a t  t o  th e  e x t e n t  t h e r e  i s  " n o t  e n o u g h "  d e s e g r e g a t i o n ,  s u c h  

s tem s f r o m  r e s i d e n c e  p a t t e r n s  and r e l a t e d  f a c t o r s  e x i s t e n t  

w i t h i n  t h e  s c h o o l  c o m m u n i t i e s ,  o v e r  w h ich  D e f e n d a n t  S c h o o l  

B o a rd  h a s  a b s o l u t e l y  no  c o n t r o l .

The c h a r g e  o f  an i n t e n t  t o  m a in t a in  s e g r e g a t i o n  upon  t h e  

p a r t  o f  t h e  S c h o o l  B o a rd  i s  a c h a r g e  t h a t  t h e  D e f e n d a n t  B o a rd  

i s  v i o l a t i n g  i t s  c o l l e c t i v e  o a t h  t o  s u p p o r t  t h e  C o n s t i t u t i o n  o f  

-che U n i t e d  S t a t e s .  I t  i s  d i f f i c u l t  t o  c o n c e i v e  o f  a c h a r g e  o f  

a  m ore s e r i o u s  n a t u r e .  D e fe n d a n t s  deny t h e  e x i s t e n c e  o f  t h e  

i n t e n t .  They  d en y  t h e  e x i s t e n c e  o f  any d e c i s i o n s  o f  D e f e n d a n t  

B o a r d ,  o r  any f a c t s  t h a t  w o u ld  t e n d  t o  s u p p o r t  t h e  c h a r g e  made 

by  t h e  P l a i n t i f f s .  The p u r p o s e  o f  t h i s  m o t i o n  i s  t o  r e q u i r e  t h e  

P l a i n t i f f s ,  i n  a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  o r d i n a r y  F e d e r a l  p r o c e d u r e s  

d e s i g n e d  t-o p r o d u c e  an o r d e r l y  m ethod  o f  r e s o l u t i o n  o f  o p p o s i n g  

p o i n t s  o f  v i e w ,  t o  g i v e  t h e  D e f e n d a n t  t h e  f a c t s  n e c e s s a r y  f o r  

th e  D e f e n d a n t s  t o  p r e p a r e  t h e i r  d e f e n s e  t o  t h i s  s e r i o u s  c h a r g e .

D e f e n d a n t s  s e r v e d  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  on  P l a i n t i f f s  o n  J u l y  10 ,  

1 9 6S .  P l a i n t i f f s  made o b j e c t i o n  t o  c e r t a i n  o f  t h e s e  i n t e r r o g ­

a t o r i e s  b u t  t h e  C o u r t  b y  i t s  o r d e r  o f  S e p te m b e r  4 ,  1 9 6 9 ,  o v e r ­

r u l e d  t h e s e  o b j e c t i o n s  and d i r e c t e d  t h e  P l a i n t i f f  t o  an sw er  

them . P l a i n t i f f  a t t e m p t e d  t o  d o  s o  by  a p l e a d i n g  f i l e d  N ovem ber 

3 , 1 5 6 9 .  H ow ever ,  as w i l l  b e  show n, many o f  t h e s e  a n sw e r s  a r e  

i n c o m p l e t e ,  u n s p e c i f i c ,  and d o  n o t  p r o v i d e  i n f o r m a t i o n  f o r  

D iieienUw.-.^  i n  a c c o r d  w i t h  th e  C o u r t ' s  o r d e r .

T h e r e  i s  no  q u e s t i o n  t h a t  th e  C o u r t  h as  t h e  p o w e r  a n d ,



m o r e o v e r ,  t h e  d u t y  t o  r e q u i r e  a p a r t y  t o  f i l e  a d d i t i o n a l  an sw ers  

z o  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  w here  t h e  f i r s t  a n sw ers  f i l e d  a r e  e v a s i v e  o r  

incomplete. (See S e c t i o n  777 o f  V o l .  2A o f  F e d e r a l  P r a c t i c e  

and Procedure by  B a r r o n  and H o l t z o f f  and t h e  c a s e s  c i t e d  t h e r e i n ) . 

Defendants w i l l  show by  t a k i n g  up t h e  i n d i v i d u a l  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  

c h a t  t h e  P l a i n t i f f s '  a n sw e rs  f a i l  t o  m eet  a p p r o p r i a t e  s t a n d a r d s  

r e q u i r e d  for a n sw ers  u n d e r  R u le  33 o f  t h e  F e d e r a l  R u le s  o f  C i v i l  

P r o c e d u r e .

The f i r s t  tw o a n sw ers  o f  P l a i n t i f f s  t o  w h ic h  D e fe n d a n t s  

o b j e c t  a r e  N o s .  2 and 3 o f  t h e  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  f i l e d  b y  D e fe n ­

d a n t  on  J u l y  10, 1969. ( A l l  r e f e r e n c e s  t o  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  b y  

number w i l l  b e  t o  s a i d  i n t e r r o g a t o r y  o f  J u l y  10 ,  1 9 6 9 ) .  The 

i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  s o u g h t  f a c t s  r e l a t i n g  t o  P l a i n t i f f s '  c h a r g e  i n  

t h e i r  M o t io n  f o r  F u r t h e r  R e l i e f  f i l e d  on  D ecem ber  31 ,  1 9 6 8 ,  t h a t  

D e fe n d a n t s  h a d  g e r r y m a n d e r e d  s c h o o l  b o u n d a r y  z o n e s  s o  as t o  

f o l l o w  r a c i a l l y  s e g r e g a t e d  r e s i d e n c e  l i n e s .  Q u e s t i o n s  2 and 3 

a s k ,  w i t h  r e g a r d  t o  e l e m e n t a r y  s c h o o l s  i n  th e  C h a t t a n o o g a  S c h o o l  

S y s t e m ,  w h i c h  p o r t i o n s  o f  w h ich  b o u n d a r y  l i n e s  t h e  P l a i n t i f f s  

o b j e c t e d  t o  and  w hat was t h e  d a t e  o f  t h e  3 o a r d  a d o p t i o n  o f  su ch  

b o u n d a r y  l i n e s .  P l a i n t i f f s  a n sw ered  " D a t e s  u n k n o w n ."  and 

" T h i s  i n f o r m a t i o n  i s  u n k n o w n ."  O b v i o u s l y ,  t h i s  d o e s  n o t  g i v e  

D e f e n d a n t s  any n o t i c e  o f  w hat s p e c i f i c  c h a r g e s  i t  i s  c a l l e d  upon 

z a  d e f e n d  and d o e s  n o t  p r o v i d e  t h e  C o u r t  w i t h  t h e  n a r r o w in g  o f  

i s s u e s  e n v i s i o n e d  b y  p r o v i d i n g  f o r  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  t o  b e  s e r v e d  

on c a r r i e s . F o r  t h i s  r e a s o n ,  t h e  D e fe n d a n t s  r e q u e s t  t h e  C o u r t  

c o  o r d e r  P l a i n t i f f s  t o  p r o v i d e  t h e  i n f o r m a t i o n  s o u g h t  b y  t h e s e  

tw o  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s .  T h is  i s  p a r t i c u l a r l y  j u s t i f i a b l e  s i n c e  

t h e  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  m e r e ly  ask  P l a i n t i f f s  t o  r e v e a l  t h e  f a c t u a l  

b a s i s  o f  s e r i o u s  c h a r g e s  th e y  h a v e  made a g a i n s t  t h e  S c h o o l  S y stem  

and t h e  B o a rd  m em bers .

I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  5  and 6 a r e  s i m i l a r  t o  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  2 

;.nu 3 e x c e p t  t h a t  t h e y  r e l a t e  t o  s c h o o l  b o u n d a r y  z o n e s  o f  j u n i o r  

h .g h  s c h o o l s . The P l a i n t i f f s  h a v e  a n sw e r e d  i n  t h e  e x a c t  same

f*'



am bigu ous  f a s h i o n  as t h e y  d i d  t o  I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  2 and 3 .

A g a i n , D e f e n d a n t s  h a v e  m e r e ly  s o u g h t  t o  o b t a i n  i n f o r m a t i o n
i

r e l a t i n g  t o  s e r i o u s  c h a r g e s  made a g a i n s t  them by  t h e  P l a i n t i f f s .  

P l a i n t i f f s  h a v e  f a i l e d  u t t e r l y  t o  p r o v i d e  them  w i t h  s u c h  i n f o r ­

m a t i o n .  How c a n  D e fe n d a n t s  make a d e f e n s e  t o  c h a r g e s  e v e n  P l a i n -
1

t i f f s  c a n n o t  d e s c r i b e ? I
I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  N o s .  14 th r o u g h  44 i n c l u s i v e  o f  D e fe n d a n t s  

s o u g h t  f r o m  P l a i n t i f f s  i n f o r m a t i o n  as t o  s p e c i f i c  e l e m e n t a r y  

s c h o o l  b o u n d a r i e s  t h e y  o b j e c t e d  t o  as b e i n g  r a c i a l l y  g e r r y m a n d e r e d . '  

T h e se  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  s p e c i f i c a l l y  name a l l  t h e  e l e m e n t a r y  s c h o o l s  !
I

i n  t h e  C h a t t a n o o g a  S c h o o l  S y ste m  and ask  i f  P l a i n t i f f s  o b j e c t  t o  

t h e  s c h o o l  b o u n d a r i e s  o f  t h e s e  i n d i v i d u a l  e l e m e n t a r y  s c h o o l s .  

P l a i n t i f f s  an sw e r  t h e y  d o  n o t  h a v e  s u f f i c i e n t  i n f o r m a t i o n  t o  

s t a t e  s p e c i f i c  o b j e c t i o n s  t o  t h e  zo n e  l i n e s  o f  i n d i v i d u a l  s c h o o l s ,  j 

T a t ,  P l a i n t i f f s  h a v e  l e v e l e d  a g e n e r a l  c h a r g e  o f  a r b i t r a r y  

d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  b a s e d  upon r a c e  a g a i n s t  D e f e n d a n t  B o a rd  i n  t h e i r  

own m o t i o n  ana i t  i s  in cu m b e n t  upon them t o  p r o v i d e  some b a s i s  

t o  s u p p o r t  t h e s e  s t a t e m e n t s .

D e f e n d a n t s  i n  t h e i r  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  n um bered  47 and  48 

s o u g h t  s p e c i f i c a t i o n  f r o m  P l a i n t i f f s  as t o  w h ic h  " r a c i a l l y  

s e g r e g a t e d  r e s i d e n c e  l i n e s "  and w h ich  " p o o r  w h i t e  s o c i o ­

e c o n o m i c  g r o u p  r e s i d e n c e  l i n e s "  w e re  f o l l o w e d  i n  e s t a b l i s h i n g  

zo n e  l i n e s  f o r  e l e m e n t a r y  and j u n i o r  h i g h  s c h o o l s .  T h i s  i n f o r ­

m a t io n  was s o u g h t  b e c a u s e  o f  c h a r g e s  made by  P l a i n t i f f s  i n  

t h e i r  M o t i o n  f o r  F u r t h e r  R e l i e f  t h a t  D e f e n d a n t s  h ad  f o l l o w e d

s u c h  a r a c i a l l y  m o t i v a t e d  p r a c t i c e .  P l a i n t i f f s '  a n sw e r  t o  b o t h  

t h e s e  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  i s  t h a t  t h e y  a r e  w i t h o u t  t h e  means o f  

making t h e  d e t a i l e d  s u r v e y  r e q u i r e d  t o  s p e c i f y  t h e  z o n e  b o u n d ­

a r i e s  t h e y  c o m p la in e d  o f .  T h is  comes i l l  f r o m  P l a i n t i f f s  when 

th o v  n a v e  p o s i t i v e l y  a l l e g e d  t h a t  D e fe n d a n t s  h a v e  f o l l o w e d  a 

. / m c t l c e  o f  c o n f o r m i n g  s c h o o l  b o u n d a r i e s  a t  b o t h  th e  j u n i o r  h ig h  

-i.-.u e l e m e n t a r y  l e v e l  t o  e i t h e r  r a c i a l  r e s i d e n t i a l  p a t t e r n s  o r  

p o o r  w h i t e  s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  g ro u p  r e s i d e n c e  l i n e s .  D e f e n d a n t s  must 

assume P l a i n t i f f s  h ad  some s p e c i f i c  f a c t u a l  s i t u a t i o n s  i n  mind 

when t h e y  made th e  c h a r g e  and th u s  a c c u s e d  t h e  B o a rd  o f  b a d  f a i t h .



D u -o n d a n t  H oard  o n l y  a s k s  f o r  f a c t s  and f o r  n o t h i n g  m o r e .  D e fe n ­

d a n ts  s t r o n g l y  c o n t e n d  t h a t  t h e y  a r e  e n t i t l e d  t o  t h i s  i n f o r m a t i o n .

D e fe n d a n t s  in  t h e i r  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  num bered  64 th r o u g h  

7 3  i n c l u s i v e  s o u g h t  t o  o b t a i n  i n f o r m a t i o n  f r o m  P l a i n t i f f s  as 

t o  w h e t h e r  any N e g ro  s t u d e n t  had  b e e n  d e n i e d  h i s  f r e e  c h o i c e  t o  

a t t e n d  any o f  t h e  f o r m e r l y  a l l - w h i t e  h ig h  s c h o o l s  i n  t h e  

S c h o o l  S y s t e m .  D e fe n d a n t s  d e s i r e  t h i s  i n f o r m a t i o n  i n  o r d e r  t o  

e r o v e  t h a t  t h e i r  f r e e d o m  o f  c h o i c e  p la n  a t  t h e  h i g h - s c h o o l  l e v e l  

has  h a e n  a d m i n i s t e r e d  w i t h o u t  r e g a r d  t o  r a c e .  One a l l e g a t i o n  

made b y  P l a i n t i f f s  i n  t h e i r  M o t io n  F o r  F u r t h e r  R e l i e f  was t h a t  

th e  f r e e d o m  o f  c h o i c e  p l a n  was n o t  w o r k in g  i n  a p r o p e r  f a s h i o n .  

D e f e n d a n t s  s e e k  t o  show t h a t  t h e  f r e e d o m  o f  c h o i c e  p l a n  has 

n e v e r  b e e n  a d m i n i s t e r e d  s o  as t o  h i n d e r  any s t u d e n t  f r o m  

a t t e n d i n g  a s c h o o l  w h ere  h i s  r a c e  was i n  t h e  m i n o r i t y .  P l a i n ­

t i f f s '  a n sw e r  t o  t h e s e  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  i s  t h a t  t h e y  d o  n o t  h a v e  

t h e  s c h o o l  r e c o r d s . D e fe n d a n t s  a r e  w e l l  aw are  t h a t  t h e  P l a i n ­

t i f f s  d o  n o t  h a v e  t h e  s c h o o l  r e c o r d s  b u t  s t i l l  assume t h a t  

P l a i n t i f f s  w o u ld  n o t  make su ch  c h a r g e  w i t h o u t  some f a c t s  t o  

s u p p o r t  i t ,  when t h e y  c o m p la in e d  o f  th e  f r e e d o m  o f  c h o i c e  

p r o v i s i o n .  D e fe n d a n t s  c o n t e n d  t h a t  i f  P l a i n t i f f s k n o w  o f  any 

s u c h  c a s e s ,  uhey s h o u l d  i n f o r m  D e fe n d a n t s  o f  th em . D e f e n d a n t s  

c a n n o t  d e f e n d  t h e m s e lv e s  u n l e s s  t h e y  a r e  a d v i s e d  o f  t h e  f a c t s .

" h e  n e x t  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  t o  w h ich  D e f e n d a n t s  a l l e g e  t h a t  

P l a i n t i f f s  h a v e  made i n a d e q u a t e  an sw ers  a r e  N o s .  7 9 ,  80 and 

8 1 .  T h e s e  q u e s t i o n s  a s k  w h ic h  p u p i l  t r a n s f e r s  i n  1967  and 1968 

d o  P l a i n t i f f s  c o m p la in  w e r e  p e r m i t t e d  s o  as t o  a l l o w  a member

r a c e  t o  e s c a p e  fro m  a s c h o o l  w h ere  h i s  r a c e  was i n  th e  

m i n o r i t y  t o  on e  w h ere  h i s  r a c e  was i n  t h e  m a j o r i t y .  P l a i n t i f r s  

a - l a g e  i n  t h e i r  M o t io n  F o r  F u r t h e r  R e l i e f  t h a t  t h e  t r a n s f e r  p la n  

as a d m i n i s t e r e d  by  t h e  S c h o o l  B oa rd  h as  b e e n  a c t i v e l y  u s e d  t o  

..L.-rnit t h i s  t y p e  o f  t r a n s f e r .  D e fe n d a n t s  know o f  n o  f a c t o r  

_ ;._u v .ou id  s u p p o r t  su ch  a c h a r g e ,  and b e l i e v e  t h e r e  a r e  n o n e .

:: . i n ,  p l a i n t i f f s '  sw orn  a l l e g a t i o n  t o  t h e  c o n t r a r y  m ust h a v e

-S O -



be Lievod La iiav.. some b a s i s  i n  f a c t ,  and D e f e n d a n t s  arc 
entitled to know What t h a t  b a s i s  may h ave  b e e n .

D e f e n d a n t s  n e e d  t o  know w hat p a r t i c u l a r  t r a n s f e r s  P l a i n t i f f s  

a r e  r e l y i n g  on  s o  t h a t  t h e y  ca n  o b t a i n  i n f o r m a t i o n  w h i c h  w o u ld  

p e r m i t  them  t o  p r o v e  t h a t  t h e  a l l e g a t i o n  i s  f a l s e .  P u p i l  t r a n s ­

f e r s  a r e  i n d i v i d u a l  d e c i s i o n s  b a s e d  upon s e p a r a t e  f a c t u a l  

s i t u a t i o n s .  H o w ever ,  P l a i n t i f f s  h ave  m e r e ly  a n s w e r e d  w i t h  a 

g e n e r a l i t y .  T h e i r  r e s p o n s e  t o  t h i s  q u e s t i o n  d e s e r v e s  q u o t i n g  

ar.d f o l l o w s :

" . M l  t r a n s f e r s  w h ich  h a v e  r e s u l t e d  i n  t h e  f o r m e r l y  
Ac-pro s c h o o l s  r e m a in in g  s u b s t a n t i a l l y  a l l  b l a c k  and 
m e r e ly  t o k e n  i n t e g r a t i o n  i n  m ost  f o r m e r l y  w h i t e
Sw'tOO*S •

T h is  i s  no  a n s w e r .  I t  d o e s  n o t  s p e c i f y  t h e  p a r t i c u l a r  

i n s t a n c e s .  I t  p r o v i d e s  no h e l p  t o  t h e  D e f e n d a n t s  i n  p r e p a r i n g  

t h e i r  c a s e .  And, i t  c e r t a i n l y  d o e s  n o t  h e l p  t h e  C o u r t  i n  n a r r o w ­

i n g  t h e  i s s u e s .  D e fe n d a n t s  s u b m it  t h a t  P l a i n t i f f s  s h o u l d  b e  

r e q u i r e d  t o  g i v e  s p e c i f i c  an sw e r  t o  t h i s  q u e s t i o n  o r  a d m it  t h a t  

t h e y  know o f  no  t r a n s f e r s  w h ic h  w e re  p e r m i t t e d  t o  a l l o w  s t u d e n t s  

t o  e s c a p e  f r o m  m i n o r i t y  r a c e  s i t u a t i o n s .  T h u s ,  t h i s  p o r t i o n  o f  

t h e  c o n t r o v e r s y  c o u l d  b e  e l i m i n a t e d .

I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  84 and 85 r e l a t e  t o  a n o t h e r  c h a r g e  made 

j v  P l a i n t i f f s .  They ask  w h ich  N egro  t e a c h e r s  a s s i g n e d  t o  w h i t e ,  

o r  f o r m e r l y  a l l  w h i t e  s c h o o l s ,  w e re  n o t  a c c o r d e d  " f u l l  r e c o g -  

r . i t l o n "  and a sk  f o r  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  o f  t h e  i n c i d e n t s  and s o u r c e s  

o f  i n f o r m a t i o n  c o n c e r n i n g  t h e  f a i l u r e  o f  t h e  S c h o o l  B o a rd  t o  

a c c o r d  “ f u l l  r e c o g n i t i o n " .  P l a i n t i f f s  an sw e r  t h a t  " P l a i n t i f f s  

c a n n o t  f u r n i s h  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  o f  i n d i v i d u a l  t e a c h e r s  and t h e  

s t a t i s t i c a l  i n f o r m a t i o n  r e q u e s t e d  i n  t h e s e  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . "  

S i n c e  t h i s  i s  a  s p e c i f i c  c h a r g e  made b y  t h e  P l a i n t i f f s ,  D e f e n ­

d a n t s  a r c  e n t i t l e d  t o  know th e  b a s i s  o f  t h e  c h a r g e  s o  t h e y  can  

p r e p a r e  - n  a d e q u a t e  d e f e n s e .

The n e x t  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  t o  w h ich  D e f e n d a n t s  n e e d  m ore

-51-



c o m p le t e  a n sw e rs  f r o m  P l a i n t i f f s  a l s o  r e l a t e  t o  t e a c h e r s .  They 

a r e  I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  N o s .  8 8  and 8 9 .  P l a i n t i f f s  h a v e  c h a r g e d  

rr .a t  many N e g ro  t e a c h e r s  w e r e  a s s i g n e d  t o  " m a k e - s h i f t  p o s i t i o n s " .  

D e fe n d a n t s  d e s i r e  f r o m  P l a i n t i f f s  th e  names o f  t h e s e  t e a c h e r s  

and t h e  name o f  t h e  s c h o o l  th e y  w e re  a s s i g n e d  t o  and t h e  d a t e  o f  

t h e i r  a s s i g n m e n t .  A g a i n ,  P l a i n t i f f s  make t h e  an sw e r  t h a t  t h e y  

do n o t  h a v e  t h e  r e c o r d s  and t h e r e f o r e  c a n n o t  f u r n i s h  t h i s  

i n f o r m a t i o n .  P l a i n t i f f s  m ust h a v e  had some t e a c h e r s  i n  mind 

when a.ley made she a c c u s a t i o n  t h a t  N e g ro  t e a c h e r s  w e r e  a s s i g n e d  

to  m a k e - s h i r t  p o s i t i o n s .  D e fe n d a n t s  m ust know t h e  f a c t s  f o r m in g  

t h e  b a s i s  o f  t h e  s e r i o u s  c h a r g e s ,  made b y  t h e  P l a i n t i f f s  a g a i n s t  

th e  D e f e n d a n t  S c h o o l  B o a rd  and t o  w h ich  a l l e g a t i o n  P l a i n t i f f s '  

a t t o r n e y  has  s w o r n .  P l a i n t i f f  h as  a c c u s e d  D e f e n d a n t  B o a rd  and 

i t s  a g e n t s  o f  u n f a i r  t r e a t m e n t  o f  N egro  t e a c h e r s . D e fe n d a n t s  

d en y  t h e  c h a r g e  i n  g r o s s ,  and w i t h o u t  m o d i f i c a t i o n .  B u t  D e fe n ­

d a n t  B o a rd  c a n r .o t  d e f e n d  t h e  c h a r g e  i n  G r o s s .  A s s ig n m e n ts  a r e  

made o n e  a t  a t i m e .  Each a s s ig n m e n t  must b e  j u d g e d  on  i t s  own 

p e c u l i a r  f a c t s .  S p e c i f i c s  a r e  m a n d a to r y .

I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  93 and 94 r e l a t e  t o  t h e  q u e s t i o n  o f  w h ich  

N e g r o e s  h a v e  a p p l i e d  f o r  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ,  s t a f f  and s u p e r v i s o r y  

p o s i t i o n s  i n  t h e  C h a t t a n o o g a  S c h o o l  S y ste m  and w e re  n o t  s o  

e m p lo y e d  by  th e  S c h o o l  S y s te m .  P l a i n t i f f s  h ave  c h a r g e d  D e f e n ­

d a n t s  \:_th f a i l i n g  t o  e m p lo y  N e g r o e s  i n  su c h  p o s i t i o n s .  D e f e n ­

d a n t s  i n  o r d e r  t o  answ er  t h i s  c h a r g e  n e e d  t o  know w h ic h  N e g r o e s  

P l a i n t i f f s  b e l i e v e  h a v e  b e e n  d e n i e d  a p p o in t m e n t  and n e e d  t o  

know w h a t  t h e i r  r e c o r d  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  w e r e .  P l a i n t i f f s  h a v e  

r e p l a c e  w i t h  th e  same r e f r a i n  t h a t  th e y  d o  n o t  h a v e  t h e  i n f o r ­

m a t io n  t o  a n sw e r  t h e s e  q u e s t i o n s .  I f  t h i s  r e p l y  i s  a c c u r a t e ,  

the . :  how a i d  th e  a c c u s a t i o n  o r i g i n a t e ?  I m a g i n a t i o n ?

T n e s c  a n sw e rs  o f  P l a i n t i f f s  w h ich  D e f e n d a n t s  o b j e c t  t o  a r e  

c r u c i a l .  U n le s s  th e  C o u r t  d i r e c t s  th e  P l a i n t i f f s  t o  p r o v i d e  t h e  

information, t h e  D e fe n d a n t s  a r e  h e l p l e s s  i n  s e e k i n g  t o  d e f e n d  

w .e u t ia iv o s  o f  t n c  g r a v e  c h a r g e s  made a g a i n s t  them . To p e r m i t

-5fc-



. t l  f  f a  tc>. a n sw e r  s e r i o u s  q u e s t i o n s  i n  t h i s  c a v a l i e r  f a s h i o n

......1C d e f e a t  t h e  p u r p o s e  o f  R u le  33 .  The a u t h o r s  o f  F e d e r a l

T r .v .o t ico  anti P r o c e d u r e  h a v e  p u t  i t  w e l l  i n  S e c t i o n  777 o f  V o l .

2.. c i  u h e i r  t r e a t i s e  when t h e y  s a y  "The i n t e r r o g a t o r y  p r o c e d u r e  

w c e l .  s e  u s e l e s s  i f  a p a r t y  c o u l d  make an u n r e s p o n s i v e  an sw er  

; . , t  b e  c o m p e l l e d  t o  d o  m o r e . "  P. 3 8 6 .  C o n v e r s e l y ,  w h e re  

P l a i n t i f f s  h a v e  p r o v i d e d  D e fe n d a n t s  w i t h  s p e c i f i c  and r e s p o n s i v e  

a n s w e r s , t h e r e  has  b e e n  g a i n  f o r  a l l  p a r t i e s  and t h e  C o u r t .  An 

e x a m p le  o f  t h _ s  i s  th e  an sw er  t o  I n t e r r o g a t o r y  No. 95 o f  D e f e n ­

d a n t s  w h i c h  a s k s  "D o e s  P l a i n t i f f  know o f  any q u a l i f i e d  N e g ro  

c e - c h o r  who has  d e s i r e d  t o  t e a c h  i n  any f o r m e r l y  a l l - w h i t e  

„ d . . o o -  who made an a p p l i c a t i o n  t o  t r a n s f e r  and w hose  a p p l i c a t i o n  

was d e n ie d ' . - " P l a i n t i f f s ’ an sw er  t o  t h i s  i n t e r r o g a t o r y  was "N o" 

and t h e r e f o r e  or.e f a c t u a l  i s s u e  has  b e e n  e l i m i n a t e d  f r o m  t h e  

c a s e .  A n o t h e r  e x a m p le  i s  I n t e r r o g a t o r y  No. 9 9 .  T h i s  i n t e r r o g ­

a t o r y  a s k e d  "C o y o u  know o f  any N e g ro  who a p p l i e d  f o r  e m p loym en t  

w i t h  she D e f e n d a n t  s c h o o l  s y s t e m  who p o s s e s s e d  t h e  n e c e s s a r y  

••score c u a l i f i c a t i o r . s  and e x p r e s s e d  a d e s i r e  t o  t e a c h  i n  a 

f o r m e r l y  a i l  w h i t e  s c h o o l  who was n o t  e m p lo y e d ? "  P l a i n t i f f s  

h a v e  a n s w e r e d  t h e y  d o  n o t  know o f  any s u c h  p e r s o n  and a n o t h e r  

f a c t u a l  i s s u e  has  b e e n  e l i m i n a t e d .  T h e se  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  and 

a n sw e r s  a r e  m e n t i o n e d  t o  i l l u s t r a t e  t h e  b e n e f i c i a l  u s e  t o  w h ic h  

t > i s  p r o c e d u r e  c a n  b e  a p p l i e d  and f o r  w h i c h  i t  was d e s i g n e d ,  

w h ere  b o t h  p a r t i e s  a r e  r e s p o n s i v e  t o  t h e  o t h e r ' s  q u e s t i o n s ,  

i f  P l a i n t i f f s  a r e  d i r e c t e d  t o  p r o v i d e  r e s p o n s i v e  a n sw e rs  t o  

th e  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  t h a t  D e fe n d a n t s  h a v e  d i s c u s s e d  i n  t h i s  

b r i e f ,  e t h e r  i s s u e s  c o u l d  w e l l  b e  e l i m i n a t e d  fro m  d i s p u t e .

D e f e n d a n t s  h ave  a l s o  r e q u e s t e d  th e  C o u r t ,  p u r s u a n t  t o  R u le  

2 7 ;d )  o f  t h e  F e d e r a l  R u le s  o f  C i v i l  P r o c e d u r e ,  i n  t h e  a l t e r n a t i v e  

l 0  : a c i k o  c e r t a i n  p o r t i o n s  o f  P l a i n t i f f s ’ M o t io n  F o r  F u r t h e r

.....................t i f f s  h a v e  f a i l e d  t o  an sw er  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  o f

..•halt's which s o u g h t  t o  e l i c i t  th e  b a s i s  o f  v a r i o u s  a l l e g a -  

... p i a i n t l f i s  M o t io n  F o r  F u r t h e r  R e l i e f .  P l a i n t i f f s  h a v e

- 53

i *



. .r  sw o re  a t h a t  t h e y  d o  r .o t  h a v e  t h e  i n f o r m a t i o n  r e q u e s t e d  by  t h e

ir. c a r r e  “ s t o r i e s .  They  h ave  a n sw e re d  t h u s l y  e v e n  th o u g h  t h e i r

a t t o r n o v  s w o r e  u n d e r  o a t h  i n  th e  M o t io n  F o r  F u r t h e r  R e l i e f  t h a t :

"A von  N. W i l l i a m s ,  J r . ,  makes o a t h  t h a t  h e  i s  o n e  
o f  t h e  a t t o r n e y s  f o r  t h e  P l a i n t i f f s  i n  t h e  a b o v e  c a s e  
an d"kn ow s t h e  c o n t e n t s  o f  t h e i r  f o r e g o i n g  M o t io n  F o r  
f u r t h e r  R e l i e f ,  and t h a t  t h e  s t a t e m e n t s  made t h e r e i n  
u re  t r u e  as o f  h i s  own k n o w le d g e ,  e x c e p t  as t o  t h o s e  
s t a t e m e n t s  w h ic h  a r e  s t a t e d  t h e r e i n  t o  b e  made u pon  
i n f o r m a t i o n  and o e l i e f ,  and t h e s e  s t a t e m e n t s  h e  b e ­
l i e v e s  t o  b e  t r u e . "

The law  i s  w e l l  s e t t l e d  t h a t  i n f o r m a t i o n  i n  t h e  p o s s e s s i o n  

o f  an a t t o r n e y  i s  c h a r g e a b l e  t o  t h e  c l i e n t  o f  t h a t  a t t o r n e y .

;s^ u  t h e  d i s c u s s i o n  a t  p a g e  329 o f  V o l .  2A o f  B a r r o n  and H o l t z o f f ,  

T e d e r c . i  P r a c t i c e  and P r o c e d u r e . )  P l a i n t i f f  ca n  n o t  a v o i d  a n s w e r in g  

^ a f a r .d a r . t s 1 i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  on  t h e  b a s i s  t h a t  th e y  a r e  n o t  

p o s s e s s e d  o f  th e  i n f o r m a t i o n  w h e re  t h e i r  a t t o r n e y  h as  sw orn  

t h a t  he p o s s e s s e s  t h e  i n f o r m a t i o n .  I t  i s  c l e a r  t h a t  P l a i n t i f f s  

h a v e  v i o l a t e d  R u le  3 7 (d )  and t h e  D e fe n d a n t s  a r e  e n t i t l e d  u n d e r  

t h a t  R u le  t o  h a v e  t h e  p o r t i o n s  o f  P l a i n t i f f s  1 M o t io n  F o r  F u r t h e r  

R e l i e f  s t r i c k e n  us t o  w h ich  t h e  P l a i n t i f f s  h ave  a d m i t t e d  t h a t  

t h e v  d o  r .o t  p o s s e s s  t h e  f a c t u a l  b a s i s  f o r  t h e s e  a l l e g a t i o n s .

D e f e n d a n t s  w o u ld  f i r s t  r e q u e s t  t h e  f o l l o w i n g  s e c t i o n  fo u n d

P. 2 b e  s t r i c k e n  fro m  s u c h  p l e a d i n g :

" h i  a d d i t i o n  to proposing and adopting desegregation 
p l a n s , w h i c h  affected maximum delay in desegregation 
covare-'e and maximum encouragement of continued seg­
r e g a t i o n  i n  covered grades by permitting racial 
t r a n s f e r s  based on choice, the Defendants established 
c e o g r a o h i c  attendance zones which were gerrymandered 
« o  as t o  follow racially segregated residence lines 
a n d / o r  ooor white socio-economic group residence lines 
a r c  m a x im iz e  continued racially segregated student 
a s s i g n m e n t s  t o  the already segregated schools, while 
v i r t u a l l y  limiting integration to white schools attended 

o o o r  socio-economic groups . "
D e f e n d a n t s  sought by Interrogatories number 2 ,  3 ,  5 ,  6 ,

t h r o u g h  44 i n c l u s i v e  and 47 and 48 t o  o b t a i n  t h e  f a c t u a l

. . . o n  t o r  t h o s e  a l l e g a t i o n s .  As p o i n t e d  o u t  e a r l i e r ,

i,~:; . .u sw ered  t h a t  he d o e s  n o t  p o s s e s s  t h e  i n f o r m a t i o n

......m.mr t h o s e  q u e s t i o n s .  I t  i s  t h e r e f o r e  a p p r o p r i a t e  t h a t

t h e s e  a l l e g a t i o n s  b e  s t r i c k e n .



ik u  s e c o n d  p o r t i o n  o f  P l a i n t i f f s  ' M o t io n  F o r  F u r t h e r  

-Itlief t h a t  D e f e n d a n t  w i s h e s  s t r i c k e n  i s  on  P age  4 o f  s u c h

;ltaal.: '.._ -r .d  r o a d s :

" t h u s ,  a l t h o u g h  D e fe n d a n t s  now c l a i m  t h a t  h ig h  s c h o o l  
a t t e n d a n c e  i s  b a s e d  on  f r e e d o m  o f  c h o i c e  t h r o u g h o u t  
t h e  city, p a t t e r n s  o f  s e g r e g a t e d  a t t e n d a n c e  w e re  
e s t a b l i s h e d  th r o u g h  su d d en  m a n i p u l a t i o n  o f  s t u d e n t  
b a b i e s  and  s c h o o l  l o c a t i o n  and c o n s t r u c t i o n  p r o ­
grams . “

2 e t e n a n t s  s o u g h t  t h r o u g h  I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  N o s .  64 t h r o u g h  

73 i n c l u s i v e  as  s e t  o u t  e a r l i e r  i n  t h i s  b r i e f  t o  o b t a i n  t h e  

b a s i s  c f  P l a i n t i f f s ’ a s s e r t i o n  t h a t  th e  f r e e  c h o i c e  p l a n  i s  

n o t  w o r k in g  i n  a  s a t i s f a c t o r y  f a s h i o n  and t o  f i n d  o u t  i f  t h e r e  

rare any s p e c i f i c  i n s t a n c e s  t h a t  P l a i n t i f f s  had  i n f o r m a t i o n  

a b o u t  w h e r e  e i t h e r  a N e g ro  o r  a w h i t e  s t u d e n t  was n o t  p e r m i t t e d  

t o  e n t e r  a s c h o o l  w h ere  h i s  r a c e  was i n  t h e  m i n o r i t y .  P l a i n ­

t i f f s  a n s w e r e d  t h a t  t h e y  w e r e  n o t  a b l e  t o  p r o v i d e  t h i s  i n f o r -  

n a t - s n .  D e fe n d a n t s  a s s e r t  t h a t  t h i s  a l l e g a t i o n  s h o u l d  b e  

s t r i c k e n  s i n c e  P l a i n t i f f ' s  an sw er  must mean t h a t  t h e r e  i s  i n  

d u c t  no D u s i s  f o r  t h i s  sw orn  c h a r g e .

■-V.e t h i r d  p o r t i o n  o f  P l a i n t i f f s '  M o t io n  F o r  F u r t h e r  R e l i e f  

t h a t  D e f e n d a n t  r e q u e s t s  t h e  C o u r t  t o  s t r i k e  i s  f o u n d  on  P age  5 

and i s  as  f o l l o w s :

‘‘ The g e r r y m a n d e r e d  s c h o o l  zo n e  l i n e s  w e re  s t r i c t l y  
e n f o r c e d  b y  s a i d  s c h o o l  o f f i c i a l s  and w e r e  c h a n g e d  
f r o m  t im e  t o  t im e  as r a c i a l  p o p u l a t i o n  s h i f t e d  s o  
as t o  p r e v e n t  t h e  e s c a p e  o f  e i t h e r  w h i t e  o r  N e g ro  
c h i l d r e n  f r o m  th e  r a c i a l l y  s e g r e g a t e d  g e o g r a p h i c  
s c h o o l  z o n e s  i n t o  o t h e r  z o n e s  when t h e y  s o u g h t  t o  
a t t e n d  a  r a c i a l l y  i n t e g r a t e d  s c h o o l ,  o r  a s c h o o l  i n  
a h i g h  s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  n e i g h b o r h o o d ,  w h i l e  t h e  t r a n s f e r  
p l a n ,  a l t h o u g h  n o t  a u t o m a t i c a l l y  b a s e d  o n  r a c e ,  was 
a d m i n i s t e r e d  i n  su ch  a manner as t o  e f f e c t i v e l y  
e l i m i n a t e  pbe s c h o o l  zo n e  l i n e s  and p e r m i t  s u b -  
s t - . n t i a l l y  f r e e  t r a n s f e r  o f  a n d / o r  any w h i t e  o r  
-\'agro c h i l d  o r  c h i l d r e n  who s o u g h t  t o  r e m a in  i n  a 
s e g r e g a t e d  w h i t e  o r  N e g ro  s c h o o l  r e s p e c t i v e l y . "

i h u c r r o y a t o r i c s  79 th r o u g h  8 l  s o u g h t  t o  a s c e r t a i n  w hat

• .......a .  P I - . i . n t i f f  knew o f  when making t h i s  a l l e g a t i o n .  P l a i n -

u v e  n o  i n f o r m a t i o n ,  s o  t h e  D e fe n d a n t s  r e q u e s t  t h e  C o u r t

- o  s t r i k e  t h i s  a l l e g a t i o n .

V..a l a s t  p o r t i o n  o f  P l a i n t i f f s '  M o t io n  F o r  F u r t h e r  R e l i e f

- S l f -



i
ijI

D e f e n d a n t  r e q u e s t s  th e  C o u r t  t o  s t r i k e  i s  f o u n d  b e g i n n i n g
i

or. Page 6 end roads:
•‘ Or i n f o r m a t i o n  ar.d b e l i e f ,  i n t e g r a t e d  t e a c h i n g  
a . ;n _ "n :u en ts  a r e  u s u a l l y  te m p o ra ry  o r  t r a n s i t o r y  
. . . d  h e g r o  t e a c h e r s  a s s i g n e d  t o  w h i t e  o r  f o r m e r l y  
\','0 i t o  s c h o o l s  a r e  f r e q u e n t l y  n o t  a c c o r d e d  f u l l  ;
r e c r  . . i t i o n  o r  s t a t u r e  as t e a c h e r s  b u t  a r e  a s s i g n e d  
r o  m a k e - s h i f t  p o s i t i o n s  o r  t o  p o s i t i o n s  i n  s u b o r d i n ­
a t i o n  t c  w h i t e  t e a c h e r s  b e c a u s e  o f  r a c e .  N e g ro  
p r i n c i p a l s  a r e  n o t  a s s i g n e d  t o  f o r m e r l y  w h i t e  s c h o o l s  
v;h . r e  w h i t e  s t u d e n t s  o r  t e a c h e r s  re m a in  i n  p re d o m ­
i n a n c e .  M o r e o v e r , D e fe n d a n t s  h a v e  t o t a l l y  f a i l e d  

r e f u s e d  t o  e m p lo y  and a s s i g n  N e g r o e s  t o  
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ,  s t a f f  and s u p e r v i s o r y  p o s i t i o n s  
i n  aho S c h o o l  S y ste m  e x c e p t  f o r  a few  t o k e n  j
a s s i g n m e n t s ,  o r  t o  e m p lo y ,  p r o m o te  and  a s s i g n  
new N e g ro  t e a c h e r s ,  p r i n c i p a l s  and o t h e r  p e r s o n ­
a e ; .  i n  t h e  S c h o o l  S y stem  i n  su ch  manner as t o  
e l i m i n a t e  ana d i s e s t a b l i s h  p a s t  and e x i s t i n g  
r a c i a l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  and p r o v i d e  m e a n i n g f u l  
i n t e g r a t i o n  o f  p e r s o n n e l  i n  e a c h  s c h o o l  t h r o u g h ­
o u t  t h e  S c h o o l  S y ste m  and i n  i t s  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  
o f f i c e s  com m en su rate  w i t h  t h e  number and p r o p o r t i o n  
o f  N e g r o e s  t o  w h i t e s  in  t h e  p o p u l a t i o n  i n  t h e  S c h o o l  
Svstera .  On i n f o r m a t i o n  and b e l i e f ,  D e f e n d a n t s  
d i s c r i m i n a t e  r a c i a l l y  o r  f a i l  t o  r e c r u i t  e f f e c t ­
i v e l y  i n  t h e  h i r i n g  o f  N e g ro  t e a c h e r s ,  p r i n c i p a l s ,  
s t a * f  and s u p p o r t i n g  p e r s o n n e l ,  s o  t h a t  t h e  number 
o f  N e g r o e s  h i r e d  has  s t e a d i l y  d e c r e a s e d  and i s  
belov, ’ t h e  p r o p o r t i o n  o f  N e g r o e s  i n  t h e  S c h o o l  
• p o p u la t io n  a l t h o u g h  t h e r e  a r e  p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y  more 
c t a l i f i e d  N e g ro  a p p l i c a n t s  th an  w h i t e s . "

D e fe n d a n t s  s o u g h t  by  i t s  I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  No. 84 ,  8 5 ,  8 8 ,

1 1 , 5 3  and S-. t o  e l i c i t  t h e  f a c t u a l  b a s i s  o f  t h i s  l a s t  a l l e g a t i o n .  

P l a i n t i f f s ’ a n sw e rs  d i d  n o t  v a r y  f r o m  t h o s e  t h e y  h ad  g i v e n  e a r l i e r ,  

t o - w i t ,  t h a t  t h e y  d i d  n o t  h a v e  th e  i n f o r m a t i o n  t o  an sw er  D e f e n -  j

dun u-i1 questions.
P l a i n t i f f s  h a v e  f a i l e d  t o  p r o v i d e  a n sw e rs  t o  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  

w h ic h  s o u g h t  t o  o b t a i n  i n f o r m a t i o n  t h a t  p r o v i d e d  t h e  b a s i s  o f  

a l l e g a t i o n s  t o  w h ic h  P l a i n t i f f s ’ a t t o r n e y  h as  s w o r n .  D e f e n d a n t  

t h e r e f o r e  c o n t e n d s  t h a t  R u le  3 7 (d )  r e q u i r e s  t h a t  t h e s e  a l l e g a t i o n s  

w h ich  h a v e  b e e n  shown b y  P l a i n t i f f s '  a n sw e rs  t o  b e  w i t h o u t  f a c t u a l  

b a s i s  and a b o u t  w h ic h  th e  P l a i n t i f f s  h a v e  r e f u s e d  t o  an sw e r  

i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s ,  b e  a n sw e re d  o r  s t r i c k e n  f r o m  P l a i n t i f f s '  M o t io n  

l o r  P a r t n e r  R e l i e f .

R e s p e c t f u l l y  s u b m i t t e d ,

WITT, GAITHER, ABERNATHY & WILSON 1

O', j:-
N. C o l l i n s

: .u -u o  •':10 P i o n e e r  Building • 
C r .a f ta f t o o g a , Tennessee

' Raymond B. Witt, Jr. - 
1100 A m e r ica n  N a t i o n a l  Bank B ld g  
Chattanooga, T e n n e s s e e  37402 

- 5 5 -  Attorneys for Defendants



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

T h is  i s  t o  c e r t i f y  t h a t  on  t h e  __  day  o f  D e ce m b e r ,

1 9 6 9 ,  I  s e r v e d  upon  Avon W i l l i a m s ,  J r . ,  J a c k  G r e e n b e r g ,  

W i l l i a m  0 .  U n d erw ood ,  a t t o r n e y s  f o r  p l a i n t i f f s ,  a t r u e  

c o p y  o f  t h e  f o r e g o i n g  by  m a i l i n g  same v i a  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  

m a i l  i n  p r o p e r l y  a d d r e s s e d  e n v e l o p e s  w i t h  s u f f i c i e n t  

s tam ps a f f i x e d  t h e r e t o .

A t t o r n e y  f o r  D e fe n d a n t s

- 5 6 -



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 

SO^THEim DIVISION 
JAMES JONATHAN MAPP, et al, )

Plaintiff3 )

VS. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 356!+
THE 30 A ID EDUC ATION OF )
"’HE CITY OF CHATTANOOGA,
HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, )
91 3?.,

)
Defendants

)

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 
iO SHORTS TIME' FOR REPLY AND 
HaVtllte. A!»D *0 fRiAl CET?Allt 
DOCUMENTS Oti FILE AS PART OF
fgg sacow-------------------------

Come the plaintiffs,by their undersigned counsel and move 
the Court, pursuant to ’5ule p6 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure for a summary Judgment as follows:

1. The desegregation plans adooted and utilized by defen­

dants in this case uHer court order since the original summary 
judgment of 3 November 1060, have not been effective to dises-- 

tabllsh the state-imposed segregation in the Chattanooga Public 
School System as required by the Fourteenth .Amendment to the 
Uni ted States Cera titution, and defendants have not fulfilled 
choir affirmative obligation under said Amendment to adopt and 
implement promptly a desegregation plan which will effectively 
uccomnli3h that result.

2. The defendants arc temporarily restrained immediately 
from proceeding further .with any and all new school construction 
or expansion or purchase or closure of old schools in the City 
of Chattanooga School System whether in the existing or planning 
-tage, and whatever the stage, pendirg the submission of and 

hearing uoon new desegregation plans as hereinafter provided.
3. The defendants will draft and present to the Court 

and counsel for plaintiffs within 15 days a complete Dlan to 
immediately convert the Chattanooga School System from a segre­

gated to a racially integrated System as to faculty, student*
- 5 7 -



and In all other aspects and to achieve immediately a unitary 
school system in Chattanooga and disestablish the existing 
segregation without further delay.

It. The defendants will furnish forthwith to the Court and 
counsel for olaintiffs a pupil locator map or maps and such other 

data and technical assistance as may be required by the Court, 
plaintiffs and/or educational experts utilized by the Court or 
the olaintiffs as hereinafter provided.

\>. The plaintiffs may furnish the Court the name of one 

or more competent educational experts whom the Court will then 

designate and apooint to assist the plaintiffs in preparing an 
alternate desegregation olan for the benefit of the plaintiffs 
and the Court.

, at the expense of the defendants.
6. This case will be given the highest priority on the

Court's docket and the Court will proceed oromptly, after sub­
mission of said plans, to hear the matter and approve a consti­

tutional final plan for operation of the Chattanooga Schools 
as a unitary school system effective not later than the beginning 
)f the new school term in Janary, 1971.

7. Upon the hearing the Court will consider the allowance 
of counsel fees to plaintiffs and such other additional relief 
as may appear equitable and Just.

Plaintiffs further move the Court to shorten the time for 

reply by defendants and for any hearing upon the foregoing motion 

to not more than five days.

Plaintiff further move the Court that all pleadings, ds- 
nositions, answers to interrogatories, official reports and 
other statistical documents and admissions on file be treated 
and deemed a part ox' the record and considered in connection 
with thi3 Motion.

AVON N. WILLIAMS, JR.-----------
Parkway Towers 

Nashville, Tennessee 37219
- 56 '



i *p«r (•' T" *• n
uô ftCk 'tHAcman rrr
SYLVIA DiLiW
10 Columbus C i r c l e ,  S u i t e  20.10
New York, Hew York, 10019

A t t o r n e y s  f o r  Plaintiffs

csi'oiPic.vn:

The u n d e s i g n e d  c e r t i f i e s  t h a t  c a r b o n  cay of the foregoing 

M o t io n  was m a i l e d  to  "{aymonfl 3 .  . ' i t t ,  J r , ,  j . s q u i r e , l l O O  

Am erican  N a t io n a l  Bank B u i l d i n g ,  C h a t t a n o o g a ,  " o n n e s s e e ,  and 

l u g  an e H. C o l l i n s ,  ji s q u i r e ,  ' p i  P i o n e e r  flank B u i l d i n g ,  C h a t t a ­

nooga. “ T e n n e s s e e .  37V>2, a d d r e s s e d  t o  t h e i r  s a i d  l u s t  known 

a d d r e s s e s ,  t h i s  the 2 1 s t  day  o f  N ovem ber,  1 9 7 0 .

- 5 9 '



IN THE DISTRICT COURT 0? TEB UNITED STATES 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP TENNESSEE 
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMBS JONATHAN MAPP, «t al,
Plaintiffs

VS. Civil. ACTION NO. 3561+
THE BORE OF EDUCATION OF THE 
CITT OF CHATTANOOGA, HAMILTON 
COUNTY, TENNESSEE, ET AL,

Defendants

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS
In a pratrlal conference 7 NoYsmbsr 1970 tbs Court re- 

quastsd counssl to flla Memoranda stating their contentions re­

garding the posture of the proceedings in this case, the action 

which should be taken by the Court, and supporting authorities.

The history of the case la set forth in detail in 
Seotlon I, pages 1 to 3 inclusive of a Motion for Further Relief 
filed by the plaintiffs on 31 December 1968 seeking to enjoin 
the continuation of the segregated School System in Chattanooga 
and to require defendants to make a survey of the Sohool System 
and file with the Court a new desegregation plan. Statistics 
summarised in Section III of said Motion (taken from the Defend­

ants' S atls .leal Report to HEW on 11 October 1 <68 filed with 
he Cour') showed hat defendants' desegregation plan had not 

achieved a unitary non-racial Sohool System in Chattanooga. These 
figures refieo ed ha abou jt% of all black high sohool s u denrs  
we r e a tending two all-black high sohools and that abouv. 8 %  of 
all Negro school children in he ays em were still attending 

schools wi h either all-black or 90% blaok enrollraen . Although 
defendan'S, in  heir answer o said Motion filed 8  May l / 6 y 

denied generally he allege ions of paragraph III of he Mo Ion, 
such a denial was obviously lrioonsis.en wi h said evidence in 
he form of the HEW Repor which defendants hemsslves had filed 

wi h he Cour.. and by which they are bound. (See HEW Office

~ ( d O ~



for Civil R -gh • P o m  OS/CR 101 (5/68) on 1 led "School Sya em 
Report Fell 1/68 Slemen ary and Secondary School Survey” mailed 
o counsel for plain;iffe wi h copy to Honorable Prank W. Wilson, 

Judge, by la ar from Raymond B. Wl , Jr., Esquire, dated 8 

November 1.68) While defendants denied generally the allege Ions 
of said Motion for Further Relief, he defenses set for h In

nelr answer Included he following!
" The defendan School Board denies any con­
scious decision or ao ion wi hln the curren 
Operation of the defendant school system hat 
was, or la, based solely upon race (or other­
wise) o h e r  han in personnel ma era wherein 
ha fac of race has been recognised, and was 

required to be recognised as defendan s a 1- 
emp ed o remedy any "established unconstl- 
utional deficiencies" of a formerly segre­

gated ays ten, so hat "racial discrimination 
would be eliminated," in order o achieve 
"a unitary, non-raolal ays era," and to con­
vert " o a sya era wi.hotu a 'wbi e school1 
and a 'Negro' school, bu Just schools."
Breen v. Coun v School Board of New Ken 
Coun' v . \A flWo-.Ton IT.' page "l.
Answer o M o i o n  for Further Relief)
* * * * * * * *
" The defendants deny generally the allegations 
of Paragraph III of -the Motion, and in particular,
(a) Deny tha any segregation of he schools 

of be C ty of Chatanooga Is or has been caused 
by he alleged policies or prao ices of the de­
fendan a." (Sec ion III,(a), pages 2-3, Answer 
o Mo on for Further Relief)
* * * * * * * *
" The defendan s deny generally the allege ions 
of Paragraph IV of he Motion, and in particular 
deny ha any segrega ion which may axis in he 
schools of he C y of Cha canooga are he re­
sult of he alleged curren polioles or ourren 
prac loss of the defendan:s, or hat any such 
segrega ion is in viola ion of any of he con- 
s i uilonal or s a utory provisions invoked."
(Sec ion VI, page 3> Answer to M o d o n  for Further 
Relief)

On 13 November 1969, pursuant o he deoision of he Uni ed 
Stages Supreme Court in Alexander v. Holmes Coun y Board of Edu­
ce ion (1 -69) 36, U.S. 19, plain lffs filed a Mo ion for Iaraedla e 
Relief, incorporating therein by reference their 1966 Motion for 

Further Relief, and requesting the immediate aohieveaent of a 

unitary School System in Chattanooga without further delay.

-fel-



On 19 November defendant* moved to strike said Motion for 

Immediate Relief pureuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure on the ground that It was merely repetitive of the 
Motion for Further Relief and. In a supporting Brief, further 
contended chat Alexander v. Holqgs, supra, had no bearing In the 

Chattanooga School System.
On or about 26 Deoember 1969 plaintiffs filed a written 

opposition to Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Motion for Immediate 
Relief pointing out the pendenoy of this olass action to dese­
gregate Chattanooga public sohools since 6 April I960, the sta­
tistical data provided by defendants' Answers to Interrogatories 
reflecting that the great majority of Chattanooga school* were 
still segregated with an average percentage of desegregation 
(i.e., enrollment of respectively black or white students In 
schools which were formerly white or black respectively) of only 
7.6}J (See opposition page 2 and Exhibit "A" attached thereto) and 
the Importance of plaintiff# now being granted immediate pendente 
lice relief consistent »' th Alexander ▼. Holmes, supra, requir­
ing conversion to a unitary school syetem in Chattanooga without 
further delay to be Implemented at once pending any further liti­
gation of objections and amendment! to plana of desegregation,
including review by the Court of Appeals.

On 7 Rovsmbsr 1970 the defendants filed in this ease 
statistical reports on pupil desegregation covering a period 
from the 1962-63 School Year to and ineluding the 1970-71 School 
Year. 3ection II of said report reflects graphically the progress 

of desegregation in each formerly Negro and formerly white school 

of the system for thoee years and Indicates that In the 19 eohoola 

which were formerly all-black under the original segregated 
Chattanooga School System, the eo-ealled non-raolal geographic 
soiling provided by defendants as a means of disestablishing se­
gregation when applied In full to elementary schools for the 
first time In 196ii-65 resulted In 11,608 black ohildren and only 

51 white ohildren being assigned to said 19 sohools. In the 

7 succeeding years 3 of eald eohools were closed and as of 1970-



71 the total number of black children enrolled in the remaining 
16 schools was 9,223 while the total number of white children 
in said 16 schools was still only US. Further, 5 of said schools, 
with a total enrollment of (4,363 black students still .have no enroll­
ment of white students at all and another 3 with a total enroll­

ment of 1,799 blaok children have only 1 white child each. In 
the 33 schools which were formerly white schools, said geographic 
zoning of the defendants produced a total enrollment of only 
1,031 black children as compared to 114,763 white children in 
1964-65 which has Increased to a total of only 3,14146 blaok child­
ren to 13,250 white children as of tbs 1970-71 School Year.
Further, there are still I4 formerly whits schools whioh have no 

black anrollment at all and another I4 such schools which have 

laaa than 10 black students. Finally, in the high aohoola vhere- 
ln full desegregation was begun under a freedom of choice plan 
in 1966-67 there was in that year a total of 2 whits children 
enrolled with 4,777 blaok children in the 2 formerly black high 
schools and a total of 62 blaok children Snrolled with a total 
of 3,3t>7 whits children in the 3 formerly white high aohoola.
These figures remained fairly constant in subsequent years and 

in 1970-71 said 2 formerly blaok high aohoola still have only 
1 white child enrolled with a total of 3,7^7 black children and 
aald 3 formerly white high schools have a total of only I45I4 
black students enrolled with a total of 3,5U 3 whits children.
Schools are also raoially identifiable by faculty and staff as 
reflected by defendants' answers to plaintiffs' interrogatories 

filed on or about 17 October 1970 showing that teachers bavs been 

assigned across racial lines only on a minimal basis and that 
blaok principals are assigned only to formerly blaok schools 
although in some instances white principals are assigned to 
formerly blaok aohoola and that invarably a majority of wbite 
teachers are assigned to formerly white sohools and a majority 

of black teachers to formerly black schools. (See Defendants'
Answer to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory So. 20)

- 6 3 "



Brier
I.

The Pleadlnge
Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Relief filed In 1968 

alleged in substance that the desegregation plan adopted by de­

fendants under Court order had been ineffective to disestablish 

the jure segregated school system in Chattanooga. While the 
Answer to said Motion filed by defendants contained many denials, 
both general and specific; the language from Bald answer quoted 
hereinabove on page 2 of this Memorandum reflects clearly the 
main thrust of defendants' contention as being that they have no 

affirmative, continuing duty to disestablish racial segregation 
in the Chattanooga schools. In said Answer, the defendants do 

not substantially deny the continuing segregation in said schools. 
(Indeed they could not, in view of the etatistlcal evidence fur­
nished through documents, reports and answers to interrogatories 
filed by them in this Court and referred to above) Defendants' 
answer therefore substantially admitiby its failure to deny the 
Motions allegations of continuing segregation in the Sohool System 

(Soe Rule 8(d) anc (e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) but 

simply denies that defendants have any responsibility for same 

and creates a legal issue as against plaintiffs' contention that 
defendants are burdened with aud have not fulfilled their duty 
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 
to disestablish said segregation in the public sohool system and 
prevent its recurrence.

If plaintiffs are correct in their foregoing insistence, 

there is no requirement for any evidentiary hearing on tbs issue 
of whether or not defendants shall be required to present a new 
desegregation plan,(or, the evidence introduced by defendants 
-hamselves reflecting the tnefficacy of the present plan to dis­
cs tabllsh the unconstitutional segregation held to exist by the 

Court'o original summary Judgment on 3 November I960, the plain­
tiffs clearly are entitled to further relief notwithstanding the 
existence of said Court ordeiWdeeegregation plane.



The plaintiff*' Motion for Immediate Relief in 1969,
while incorporating by rafaranoa the 1968 Motion and lta claim*, 
heads a new claim, that la, to-wit; tbs right of the plaintiffs 

in this case to immediate pendants 11 ta relief converting the 

School System immediately to a unitary non-racial one. Defendants' 
Motion to Strike plaintiffs' Motion for Immediate Relief, Insofar 
aB it relies on a claim of repetition, misses the foregoing point 
of the Motion for Immediate Relief and is Invalid. However in­
sofar as said Motion to Strike relies on the contention stated in 

its supporting Brief that pM.n tiffs as a matter of law are not en­
titled to pendente llte relief because Alexander v. Holmes County 

Board of Education, supra, has no application to the case at bar, 
said Motion of defendants thereby creates an issue of law which 
should be determined by the Court. If this issue is , as plain­
tiffs contend it should, decided favorably to plaintiffs, then, 
plaintiffs are entitled to the immediate relief prayed by them 
without being reouired to await any lengthy hearings on subsidiary 

issues regarding specific actions of the School Board as oontem- 
plated by the defendants.

II.
Proppesd Action And Supporting Authorities

The Chattanooga desegregation plan hae failed to disestab­
lish the pattern of state-imposed segregation and is therefore 

inadequate under the Preen-Monroe-Raney trilogy of 1968. Preen v. 
County Board of Education of Hew Kent County, V a . 88 S.Ct. 1689J 

Monroe v. Board of Commissioners of the City of Jackson, Tennessee 
88 S.Ct. 1700; Raney v. Board of Education of the Pould School 
District 88 S.Ct. 1697.

In Qreen. supra, the Supremo Court held that delays are 
no longer tolerable in the dismantling of the state-imposed segre­
gated pattern in public schools; that where "Negro" and "white" 
schools still exist in such a 3chool System, the burden on a 

School Board today "la to come forward with a plan that promises 
realistically to work, and promises realistically to wsrk now".
The Preen and Raney cases, supra. Involved "freedom of choioe de­
segregation plans; the Monroe case, supra, involved a "free trans-

.(o S -



far" plan. The Court found all three plana inadequate. As mentioned 

above, the atatlatioe offered by defendanta in the oaae at bar 
nhow that approximately 80jt of all blaok school children in Chat­
tanooga (till attend schools that are 95 to 100£ blaok and nearly 
90$ of all blaok high school students attend all-blaok high schools 
as of the 1970-71 Sohool Year. These figures are certainly com-

A-
parable to if not worse than those in Raney, supra, wherein the 
Suprerae Court found objectionable the attendance of 85£ of the 

black ohildren in all-blaok schools.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

in cases before that Court following the above Supreme Court oases, 

entered sn order consolidating several oases on appeal and provid­

ing aa follows:
" The district court should treat school dese­
gregation oases as entitled to the highest priority 
and oonduot a hearing in eaoh case at the earliest 
praotioable time, no later than November U, 1968.
The Court should make findings of fact and state 
conclusions of law as to (1) whether the school 
board's existing plan of desegregation is adequate 
"to convert [the dual system] to a unitary system 
in which racial discrimination would be eliminated 
root and b r a n c h " ^  and (2) whether tbs proposed 
changes will result in a desegregation plan that 
"promises rsalistically to work now." An sffective 
plan should produce integration of faculties, staff, 
facilities, transportation, and school activities 
(such as athletics) slong with integration of 
students.

If in a school district there are still all-Negro 
schoolgj or only"a small rractlon of Nagroe>_ dtw 
rolled In wMLte“schools, or no substantial intf- 
r rat ion of faculties and school activities then., 
aa a matter of lew, tbs existing plan falls to meet, 
constitutional standards &b established in are»n7 
Boards In such districts are under a duty to taka 
affirmative action toward effective desegregation 
before the start of the 1968-69 school year or as 
soon as practicable after the commencement of that 
year. One alternative to freedom of choioe is the 
assignment of etudenta on the basis of geographic 
attendance cones. In an attendance zone system (as 
in a freedom of choioe system), the school authorities 
should consider the consolidation of certain schools, 
pairing of schools, and a msJority-to-minorlty transfer 
policy as means to the end of disestablishing the 
duel system. (The school boards of Lafourche and 
Terrebonne Parishes are good examples of what a board 
may accomplish when it chooses to conply with its 
duty to meet the green standards. See gill v.
Lafourche Perish School Board. E.D. La. N o . 16167 
■ >)<1 y. Terrebonne Parish Sohool Board.KD.
La? K o ? l W . r  (Emphasis JH3CTJ

Adams vs. Matthews, (5th Cir., 1968) I4.O3 F.2d 188.
- i e b '



S t n n i  t U t r l e c  Courts 1q reoceasae followed the holding 
of the Fifth Ctrsult In dlrooting School Soares to euUalt now 
plans wiser* • Court ordsrod plan resulted in continuation c.f
ldsntlflsbly "Sayre" or “whits" senooi* Monroe v, Soarc of Com - 

a i i i l a a u a  i t  j a t  £1*1 flLteategu Tcr.neaeee (W.D. Tenn. 1968)
, F, * >P P • t Hanros v. Courts Board of adncatipt. of

adlaon Couaty. Towns— so (W.D. Tenn. 1 / 6 8 ) _______?. 2 n d .... .... j

31oon r» Tenth ftnoolsl School r'stric of *" Ison Cau.-.tj, Xecu«asee
Tsnn. 1)68) F. Supp.________affirmed T.A. , to.

26122, I'ovanbar 13, 197.. ________  f . 2 n d . _______(Copy of Slip
Opinion attaehsd w e  to makred Exhibl: "a "). Similar relief was 
granted In now litigation whore HErf-orr*red desegregation resulted 
-’n such continued segregated schools. iatto; .. Maury Court?
Hoard of EdesaMon (M.D. T a n n . )_____  . 3upp. _______ , x i enough

1 ha Adsra Standard has not been folir-zed strictly, never:balsas, 
as said by Judge SI i l l E .  Miller 1/ l e ilej v. Metropolitan
Sountj Board of Education, etc. (M.r. Pen::. July 16, 1970) ______
'* • 3upp. — — _ _  (Copy of 0 lnion attached nereto as Exhibit "B") 
at  p a ’s  I 3 2 t

* f lu id ,  thero appears t o  se  f a i r l y  g e n e r a l  at ree- 
eaat dtst unavoidable segregation resulting frora 
bona fit’s racial residential pa' or s le consti­
tutionally poralsalble. In such instances, nowaur, 
' boro lo a strong burdor. jam  'h o  s c h o o l  b o a r d  t o  
show -bat such •agraga.lo'; l# Indeed unavoidable. 
Affirmative ac ion which rus.I 
sebool sons linos In order co 
o f  eowae, forbidden. S e e ,  o .

-tm*

a 1. urrymandaring of 
pro ote segregation is, 

, ,  C lei irons v.
JMo, _’5* r.’Sj'Bg)

- * v, i So&rd of education,
SUPra» Ascent ossss extend this principle to ihs 
Situation where a school coa.-J fa.is to* taka action 
to cbangs sons linss tost were 
established and that continue 
Such inaction has bean deenei, 
corractly so* uncona’i v.iorai 
oonprehanslva affirms ivo jrj 
to establish a uni tary ay a' o 
■sake a oonaoloua affort to 
faodar pettarna of pupils
school whoa existing such nrac.loss tend 
sagrSnSt-ion. 3

originally racially
o pro-note segregation, 
a.id too Court bolferes 

It Is clear that the 
placed on school boards 
iciucea Pie duty 'o 

love tone lines and alter ro . oloue'i-.ary o secondary
to  preserve

•divagation. 3aa, e.p., .-. r o e  v. Cotti’.j Board of
of Rlchwond Cou'hty, 101 P.gupp. 1?»5 [3.1/. 

1K>^|# A l  the  P i r ' h  Z r~ *i t '»oln*-e o u t  In H g qrrSaTayw gaic:
regard to KOBO linos nay appear to be neutral, but.
In fact, tends to retard desegregation by bl.idlug pupils 
to ■suetor»-segregated neighborhoods."

data or emissions of School Boards which perpetuate

or restore raslal segregation la tbs schools are unoonstitutioDal.



Cooper v b . Aaron 358 U.S. 1 (1958); Keyes v. Denver Colorado School 

Board, 303 P. Supp. 289 (P Colorado 1969), approved by U. S. Supreme 
Court, 90 S.Ct. 12 (Aug. 29, 1969)

ITo procedure, plan, method or arrangement can legalize 

State-maintained segregation. The constitutional test of a plan 

Is whether it gets rid of segregation in public Bchools, and does 
it "now". Green ▼. How Kent County, supra, Monroe v. Jackson, supra, 
Alexander v. Holmes County, (1969) 369 U.S. 19.

Geographic school zones are not an end of themselves.
A plan of geographic zoning which perpetuates rather than re­

moves segregation is unlawful. Keyes v. Denver, supra; Brewer v. 

Norfolk School Board. 397 F. 2nd 37 (iith Cir. 1968); Henry v. Clarks-
dale. 1|09 ?. 2nd 602 (5th Cir. 1969) cert. den. _______ U.S. ________

(1969); U. S. v. HlneB County,________  P. 2nd ____________ (5th Cir.
I960); U. 3. v. Greenwood. !;06 F. 2nd 1C86 (5th Cir. 1969) cert, 
cen. 395 U.S. 907 (1969); Clark v. Board of Education of Little 
Bock. _______  F. 2nd ______  (8th Cir. Kay 13, 1970). Copy of Opin­
ion in Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock, eupra, is 
7/ Ci ou i t'oiz t if . I n  that case the Court said;

"The thrust of (Green, Raney and Monroe) is that 
manner in which desegregation is to' 'be achieved 
is uabordlnate to the effectiveness of any par­
ticular method or methods of achieving it "...

"It is not enough thataschemo for the correction 
of State sanctioned school segregation is non- 
diacriminatory on its face and in theory. It 
4 U3t also prove effective" ..."Geographic attendance 
zones... or any other moans of pupil assignment 
lust be tested by thie sa.ie standard" ..."Geographic 
zoning... always ...must be implemented so as to 
promote desegregation rather than to re-enforce 
segregation"..." for a substantial number of Negro 
children In the district, the assignment method 
merely serves to perpetuate the attendance patterns 
which existed under State mandated segregation, 
the pupil placement statute, and "freedom of choice"
— all of which were declared unconstitutional as 
applied to the district. In short the geographic 
zones ao drawn tend to perpetuate rather than 
eliminate segregation."

Therefore it is clear that plaintiffs in the case at bar 

are entitled on their 1968 Motion, the defendants' answer thereto 

and the proof already in the record to an order requiring defend­

ants to come forward Immediately with a plan for disestablishing 

segregation in the Chattanooga 3chool System now.

£>6



In Alexander v. Holmes County Bca*d of Education (1969)

369 U.S. 19, Dowell v. Board of Education of O k l a h o m  City Public 
Schools (1969) 396 U.S. 269 and Career v. West Feliciana Pariah 

School 3oard (1970) 369 U.S. 390, the Supreme Court decided that 
nialntiffa in school cases are entitled to pendente 11te relief 
chanrln,- toe 3yat.em immediately from a segregated to an integrated 
one, leaving the burden upon School Boards to litigate their ob­
jections la.or instead of delaying enjoynent of the conetitutional 

rights of school children pending interminable litigation, Thus, 

in Alexander, the Suprene Court directed that the Court of Appeals 

order the 30 Mississippi school districts therein involved to begin 
i.inedately to operate as totally unitary school systems, and pro­
vided that said order might issuo 'without further arguments or 
submissions." Instead of deferring integration of the School 
System pending hearing and consideration of objections or amend­

ments to proposed desegregation plans, the Supreme Court directed 

d e f erment of the hearing of such objections or amendments pending 

immediate implementation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Sweatt 

V. Painter (195^) 339 U.S. 629, 635; McLaurln v. Regents (1950)
339 U.S. 637, 61,2. In other words, school children, as to their 
constitutional rights to attend a racially integrated public school 
system must now be afforded immediate relief commensurate with the 
fundemental importance of their rights involved and with applicable 

principles of equity. Said the Court in Alexander:
"Under explicit holdings of this Court the obli­
gation of every school district is to terminate 
dual school systems at once and to operate now 
and hereafter only unitary schools. Qrlffln v .
School Board. 377 U.S. 216, 234 (1961;); Green 
v. County School Board of Hew Kent C o u n t y , 391 
7 .5 . 1,36,' T ^ - ^ 9 ,  (19'6b,)"7'

In  Uorthcroaa vs. Memphis Board of bduoatlon (1970) 397 
U .S .  232, the Court specifically held that mandate applicable to 

a case o f  tills kind in this Circuit. In that case, involving the 

S o b o o l  System of the City of Memphis containing li;9 schools and 
c o n t a i n i n g  66,555 black and 60,005 white students, the Supreme 
C o u r t  affirmed Sixth Circuit's remand o f  the case to the District 
Court for further hearing, "but with direction that the District 
Court proceed promptly to consider the issues before it and to 
decide the case consistently with Alexander v. Holmes County Board."

-69*-



Where, as here, the Court has before It already in the
record evldenoe establishing the continuing racial duality of the 
Chatranooga School System which ha never been eliminated or even 
attacked affirmatively by the defendants, It is clear that plain­
tiffs are entitled to an order directing the immediate conversion 

of the Cbattanooca School System from a segregated to an integrated 

one. See Monroe va. Board of Commissioners of the Cicy of Jackson.
Tennessee (TO Tenn 1770)___ F.Supp.___ ; Monroe vs. County Board of
Education of Madison County, Tennessee (TO Tenn 1970 1970) _____ F.
3upp.___ { McPerrln vs. Payette County Board of Education (TO Tenn
1970) _____ P. Supp, ___ ; Kelley vs. Metropolitan County Board of
Education, supra; Cf. Swann vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Education (1970) P .3.____ (U.S. Supreme Court in August, 1970

denied application of defendant school board for atay of sweeping 

desegregation order of District Court pending arguments befors 
Supremo Court in this and other cases involving extent of District 
Court's discretion in implementing desegregation).

In order to carry out the Constitutional requirement 
effectively, the Court and the plaintiffs are entitled thaTdefen- 
danta furnish pupil locator maps and other technical assistance 

and data and to have the assistance of educational experts selected 

by the Court and Iby plaintiffs at the expense of defendants In 

the Integration of the school system at once. See Davis vs. Board 
of School Commissioners of Mobile Count? (5 Clr 1968) 393 P. 2d 
690; Dowell va. Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools 
2!;!; F. Supp.v71 (TO Okla 1965) aff'd 375 F. 2d 158 (10 Cir 1967) 
cert, denied, 387 U. S. 931 (1967); Cf. Jackson va. The School 

Board of the City of Lynchburg. Va. (April 28, 1970, 'Jo. 53U# WB 
VA, Lynchburg Div.) __  P. Sunp.

CONCLUSIOK

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully sub­
mit that they should be granted the immediate rolief as set out 
in their Motion For Summary Judgment filed herewith.

TvarV: mira-Brar:—
lf;l!| Parkway 1 overs 
Kashville, Tennessee 37219



JACK OREKNBKRO 
JAMES M. NABRIT III 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN
SYLVIA DREW
10 Columbus Circle, 3ulte 2030 
New York, New York, 10019
Attorneys for Plaintiff*

CERTIFICATE

The undersigned certifies that carbon copy of the fo*e- 
Toinn Memorandum was mailed to Raymond B. Witt, Jr., Esquire, 
llv- American National Bank Building, Chat&nooga, Tennessoe, and 
Hugeno N, Colliuo, Esquire, !jQ0 Pioneer Bank Building, Chatta­
nooga, Tennessee, 37/402, addressed to their said last known 
addresses, this the 21st day of November, 1970.

' ± L

- V '



JAMES JONATHAN MAPP, a t  a l

Ih THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Civil Action No. 3564
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 
CITY OF cliATTANOOliA , HAMILTON
COUNTY, TraiNi.SSBE# at al

O P I N I O N

An order was entered in thia cut upon April 20, 1962,

requiring that the Board of Education of the City of Chattanooga 

and the Superintendent or Schools proceed to a complete desegre­
gation of public schools of the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, 

such desegregation to be accomplished within a psriod of not more 
than sight years. The plan of desegregation as approved by the 
Court, together with the reasons behind it, are fully set forth 
in the former opinion of the Cou t. Happ v. Board of Mucation 

of.tha City of Chattanooga. 203 F.Supp. 843 (1962).

be desegregated within not more than three years, beginning in 
September of 1962, with the first three grades in 16 aslscted 

schools to be desegregated the firet year, with the first four 

grades in all elamantary schools to be desegregated by Septsntoer 
of 1963, and with all grades of all elementary schools to be 
desegregated by September of 1964. Thereupon all junior high 
schools were to be deeegregated within not more than two addi­
tional years, with the seventh grade In all schools to be desegre­

gated by September of 1965 end with the reamlnlng grades in ell 

junior high schools to be desegregated by September of 1966. 
Following the desegregation of all junior high schools, the firet 
year in all high schools were to be desegregated by September 1967 

tmelnlig grades in ell high schools were to be deaegre-

Under the plan adopted, all elementary schools were to

- 7 a



9*t«d by Soptesfeer 1968. The Chattanooga Technical Institute 
was to b« desegregated by September 1969. The foregoing plan of 
desegregation was approved upon appeal with the exception of 
technical and vocational courses, and the case was remanded for 
further proceedings with respect to there. Mapp v. Board of 
Education of the City of Chattanooga. 319 F.2d 571 (1963). Alter 
a further hearing, an order was entered upon Vovember 26, 1963, 

desegregating the Chattanooga Technical Institute as of Decentaer 9, 
1963, and a further order was entered December 31. 1963, desegre­

gating all vocational and technical courses, including those offered 

Kirkman Technical High School, effective as of Septestoer 1964. 
in each of the foregoing orders jurisdiction wes retained by the 
Court until full accomplishment of desegregation aa provided in 
the respective orders.

Upon March 29, 1965. the plaintiff staved for further 
relief. Among other matters the plaintiff sought an acceleration 
of the plea for desegregation. After a hearing upon this motion, 

the Court grented certain of the relief requested in that the plan 
for desegregation waa modified ao as to require desegregation to 
be complete ee to ell grades in the school system by Septentoer,
1966. the Court denied relief on all other issues raised by the 

motion, including an issue concerning the desegregation of faculty 
and supervisory personnel. On appeal, the Court of Appeals af­
firmed this Court’s decision except aa to the issue of faculty 
assignment* end reamnded ths cess for further proceedings. Sea 
IfcPP v. h o ard  o f  Bduoatlon of Chattanooga, 373 F.2d 75 (C.A. 6,
1967). The Court of Appeals did make the following pertinent 
observations in their opinion<

There wes no evidence of gerrymandering in the draw­
ing of new school lines or other discriminatory 
prectioea in the administration of the plan. If 
plaintiffs hsvs such evidence they should present

- 7 3 -

A



it to the District Court who will hear it and adopt 
findings of fact and conclusions of law. we cannot 
consider this issue for ths first time on appeal.

Thereafter, and upon March 29. 1967. this Court restored this 
case to the docket for further consideration of the issue of 

(acuity assignments and set a conference to determine the order 
oi further proceedings. Subsequent to the conference and the 

filing of Uiofs by tha parties, the Court determined (index No. 11) 

that the defendants should plead further upon the matter of faculty 

assignments in that the issue was not properly before the court.

The defendants pronptly denied by answor any discriminatory prac­
tices relative to faculty assignments (index #23). The defendants 
also made an ‘Offer of Judgment" upon this phase of the litigation 
(Index Mo. 24). Tha Court scheduled an additional pretrial con­

ference (Index Mo. 26). This conference was passed upon two oc­
casions (Index Mos. 27, 28). Upon the occasion of the pretrisl 

conference it was represented that negotiations relative to tha 
issue of faculty assignments were in progress. Further, tha plain­
tiff represented that it contemplated requesting further relief 
upon other phases of the case. Accordingly, tha court deferred 
any action pending negotiations by ths parties and further defi­
nition of outstanding iaauaa (indes No. 29).

The plaintiff then filed a motion for further relief 
(Index No. 32) in which tha plaintiff alleged substantially the 
following i

1) That the defendants had gerrymandered school cones
In order to perpetuate racially segregated geographic school eraset

2) That the school construction program had bean planned
implement segregation policiesi

3) That tha transfer plan was being administered in such 
S manner ss to preclude the establishment of a uni­
tary school systemj and

4) That tha defendants failed to make racially integrated 
faculty and staff assignments.

- 7 i r



The defendants by answer generally dented the allega­
tions of this .notion (index No. 37) and the Court th.-n .cheduled 
Jn * ' “ *“>* pretrial conference (Index No. 3 0 ) .  i>r ,;or to the 

. ret. inference the plaintiff filed a mot.on for i.nedute

U U "t (l,vl*x 47) subMtantially realleging all thou* natter* 
contained in the motion lor further relief (index No. j2). a .- a

b*‘>U i,Jl thU tho Pl*mti ft relied upon the raoentl, de-
udei- -Uiicme Court case of Alexander v. do line* county Board of 

’%  U. E. 19 (1909) in which the Court utated.

•Vvmt.nued operation of aegregated schools under 
- standard of allying 'all deliberate speed' for de­
segregation is no longer constitutionally permissible. 
Onder explicit holdings ot thle Court the obligation 
of every school district is to terminate dual school 
systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary achoole." r

Upon November 7. 1970. a pretrial conference w.e held at which time
all pending matters were discussed. In addition. the various
desegregation casa. recently argued before the Supreme Court were

discussed insofar as it was possible in order to make a preliminary
determination as to whether the matters raised therein related in
any manner to the instant case.

Following the pretrial conference, the plaintiff filed a 
motion for ausnary judgment (Index No. 54). m  substance, the 

Plaintiff contends that the desegregation plan, heretofore adopted 
and implemented by the defendants and approved by this Court and 
the Court of Appeals is ineffective to accomplish its purpose, to 

wit. the establishment of s unitary school system in the City of 
Chattanooga. The plaintiff seeks the following relief in the 
motion for summary judgment.

1) That » temporary restraining order issue restraining 
further expansion, purchase, construction, and de­
velopment of existing school facilities and new sitesr

2> ^  defBnd*"tfl a plan for desegregation
ef factuate total desegregation and eatab- 

liahaant of a unitary school system;
- 7 5 -



3) the defendants submit statistical data and 
technical assistance to support i ts plan for dc—
»jq;;«oation and to aid the court: and

4) That the Coui l appoint an expert to be recommended 
by the plaintui, who will prepare an alternate 
plan for deftcgoegati on and otherwise aid the Court.

in engaging upon an analysis of the various motions and 

issue raided in this" litigation, the Court is aware oi the apparent 

i id ,nt, among the '■•’at ' o .s o n  ts  cone la i r in g  ihe p opiums of 

iioc i dei.ugr. utiou. indeed the .supreme court currently hat- under 

cons id -rat i ua many issues raised with regard to defin ing the re­

s p o n s ib i l i ty  noth in local boards oi education and the judiciary 

ii seeking to teach the ultimate goal of unitary school systems. 

Swann v. Char lot te-Meckleriburg Doard of Education. 38 U.S.L.W.

2 0 6 9, __ j-'.id ____ (4th Cir. 1970), cert, granted, 399 U.S. 92b

(1970) iNo. 1713, 1969 Term; renumbered No. 281, 1970 Term); 

Charlotte— Mecklenburg Board oi Education v. Swann. 38 U.S.L.W.

2069, ___ !• , :>d___(4th Cir, 1970), cert, granted,34 U.s.f w.

3143, ___ u.S. ___ (1970) (Oct. 6 , 1970) (No. 349); Moore v.

Charlotte— Mecklenburg Board o; Education, ___ F.Supp. ___ (W.N.C.

1970), prob. juris, noted, 39 U.S.L.W. 2144, ___U.S. ____ (1970)

(Oct. 6 , 1970) (No. 444); north Carolina State Board of Education

v .  Swann, ___ F.Supp. ___ (W.N.C. 1970), prob. juris noted, 39 U.S.

L.W. 3144, ___U.S. ___  (1970) (Oct. 6 . 1970) (No. 498); McDaniel v.

narresj, ___Ga. ___ (Ga. Sup. Ct. 1970), cert, granted, 39 U.S.L.W.

3144, ___U.S. ____ (1970) (Oct. 6 . 1970) (No. 420); Pavla v. Mobile

County Board of School cownissionera. ___ F.2d ___ (5th Cir. 1970),

cert, granted, 39 U.S.L.W. 3144, ___U.S. ____ (1970) (Oct. 6. 1970).

The decisions in these several cases may well affect the 

instant litigation and will in any event have a definite bearing 

upon the issue of school desegregation. How ver, the Supreme Court 

has established certain basic principles in the area of school de­

segregation by which this Court's course of action is mandated.
- 7 b -



Prior to considering the instant motions upon their merits, a brief 

analysis of the applicable legal principles is appropriate and will

aid in the definition of issues presently facing this Court. In

and 195a the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board o) Education, 

347 U.S. 483, 98 L.Ed. 073, 74 S.Ct. 6 8 6 , 38 A.L.R.2d 3180 supp. op.

3 :y j i. 3. 29-i, 99 L.Ed. 1083, 75 S.Ct. 753 (commonly referred to as 

Brown 1 and Bcown 11). These cases taught that the ultii'iate joal 

to be attained in the area of school desegregation was a transition 

to a unitary non-racial school system. Recognizing the multitude of 

complex practical problems in such a task, the Court provided that 

thir ultimate goal should be attained with "all deliberate speed." 

The Court provided certain guidelines for the District courts in 

evaluating progress that hopefully would be made in dismantling of 

dual systems of education. Some of these guidelines were noted in 

the initial opinion of this Court in this case. See Mapp v . Board 

of gducation of the City of Chattanooga, 203 F.Supp. 843 (1962).

In 1968, the Supreme Court waa called upon to consider 

its holding in Brown I and II and concluded in the clearest possible 

language that >
“The time for mere ’deliberate speed' has run out.
Griffin v. County School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 234,
12 L.Ed.2d 256, 267, 86 S.Ct. 1226t the context in 
which ws must interpret and apply this language [of 
Brown IIJ to plana for desegregation has been sig­
nificantly altered, c.oaa v. Board of Education, 373 
U.S. 683, 689, 10 L.Ed.2d 632, 636. 83 S.Ct. 1405.
See Caliyxin v. Latimer, 377 U.S. 263, 12 L.Ed.2d 288,
84 S.Ct. 1235. The burden on a school board today Is 
to come forward with a plan that promise# realistically 
to work, and promises realistically to work now."

This change in standard and emphasis upon immediacy was reiterated

in Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 24

L.Ed.2d 19, 90 S.Ct. 29 (1969), when the Court ordered in a brief

per curiam opinion that:
". . .[Tjhe case is remanded to that court to issue lta 
decree and order effective immediately declaring that 
each of the school districts . . . involved may no laager 
operate e dual school system based on race or oolor.



and d i r e c t i n g  t h a t  t h e y  b e g i n  im m e d ia t e ly  t o  o p e r a t e  
a s  u n i t a r y  s c h o o l  s y s t e m s ,  i n  w h ich  no p e r s o n  i s  t o  
b e  e f f e c t i v e l y  e x c l u d e d  fro m  any s c h o o l  b e c a u s e  o f  
r a c e  o r  c o l o r .

In this regard the Court observed that, under explicit holdings of 
this court the obligation of every school district is to terminate 
dual school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only 
unitary schools." See also Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School 
Board, 396 U.S. 226, 24 L.Ed 2d 382, 90 S.Ct. 467 (1969); Carter v. 
West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 290, 24 L.Ed. 2d 477,
90 S Ct. 608 (1970); Dowell v. Board of Education, 396 U.S 269,
24 L.Ed. 2d 414, 90 S.Ct. 415 (1969); Northcross v. Board of Educa­
tion of Memphis,____U.S.____, 25 L.Ed. 2d 246,___ S.Ct.____(1970) .
Exemplary of the Court's view upon the matter of delay is the order 
of the Court in Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 
U S 290, where the Court stated:

Insofar as the Court of Appeals authorized deferral 
of student desegregation beyond February 1, 1970, 
that court misconstrued our holding in Alexander v. 
Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 24 
L.Ed. 2d 19, 90 S-Ct 29.

The b r i e f  a n a l y s i s  o f  t h e  h e r e t o f o r e  c i t e d  c a s e s  i l l u s t r a t e s  

c l e a r l y  t h a t  im m e d ia te  im p le m e n t a t i o n  o f  d e s e g r e g a t i o n  p l a n s  

" t h a t  p r o m i s e  r e a l i s t i c a l l y  t o  w o rk ,  and p r o m is e  r e a l i s t i c a l l y  t o  

w ork  now" i s  t h e  s t a n d a r d  f o r  a t t a i n i n g  t h e  u l t i m a t e  g o a l  e n u n c i a t e d  

b y  Brown I  and Brown I I .

H ow ever ,  t h e  e v a l u a t i o n  o f  e x i s t i n g  p l a n s  and t h e  i m p l e ­

m e n t a t i o n  o f  new p l a n s  im p o s e s  upon  th e  c o u r t  t h e  o b l i g a t i o n  o f  

a s s e s s i n g  t h e  e f f e c t i v e n e s s  o f  e x i s t i n g  p l a n s  i n  a c c o m p l i s h i n g  o r  

f a i l i n g  t o  a c c o m p l i s h  a u n i t a r y  s y s t e m  t o g e t h e r  w i t h  t h e  n e e d  f o r  

and t h e  e f f i c a c y  o f  any  new p l a n s  t o  a c c o m p l i s h  t h e  d e s i r e d  p u r p o s e .  

I n  t h i s  r e g a r d  t h e  C o u r t  must exam ine  any s h o r t c o m in g s  o f  t h e  p r e ­

s e n t  s y s t e m  and t h e  n a t u r e  o f  any  p r o p o s e d  p l a n  n e e d e d  t o  rem edy 

any d e f i c i e n c i e s  i n  t h e  p r e s e n t  s c h o o l  s y s t e m .  See G re e n  v  S c h o o l  

B oard  o f  New K ent C o u n t y , s u p r a . I n  e n g a g in g  upon su ch  i n -

78



quires the Court in Green provided the i .iitri :t i.ourh w? th certain
g u i d e l i n e s  and a l s o  p l a c e d  b u r d e n s  b o t h  upon  th e  s c h o o l  b o a r d ;  and 

upon  the c o u r t .  First Qf  a l l ,  t h e  C o u r t  c l a r i f i e d  th.= b o l e  > . >a m  

Brown I I  t o  t h e  e x t e n t  t h a t  i t  made a f f i r m a t i v e  demr-n. upon 3 - b o o l  

b o a r d s :

..C;;i >ol ooards . . . were nevertheless clearly charged
• ? th the affirmative doty to tare whatever cttp..- 1 ,j'h 
be sary to cr. n-; i a unitary system .n vh <->;

a c t  a l  d i s e r i m m a t j  w .yd ne e l i m i n a t e d  . o n .  
o . a : ch .

*':<• C o e  • 1 VII; " h O O !  poa.r'.s > n . < ■ ■ .) I

"that its proposed p l a n  or or *i i s  a;; . > i {  u i  <*u-i ih m . d i ■> .v ; r  ojrn. .

i l< ni'i: ' m tg state i..p*i. d segregation.'' ttv. liy, t he 

- . ■ 1. cl u i . i - t *  O .i-i s i ' t a o t  c o u r t s  ••••» th  w e i g h i n g  th*. n c h : A  i •ski .• •:

1 1  • *.«• " i n  l i g h t  0 1  th e  f a c t . ,  a t  no: id and In  l i g h t  o i  iny a l  t e r n . i t  i v e s  

. ch  may be shown as f e a s i b l e  and nor e promising in  their i t l  u  - 

; .’cr«- :s . “

'Wlier* " '  e .'I'M r • \nd vie l o a m  t o  ot  :» t i . i n g*trs.J 

. f.l. and ' ho -x u j io s . 'd  p la n  t o  nave r e a l  o r o s p v c t s  l o r  d la m en tJ  iu g  

ti e * t a t a - i m p o s e d  d u a l  s y s te m  'at.  th e  e a r l i e s t  p r a c t i c a b l e  d a t e , '  

th en  th e  p la n  may b o  s a i d  t o  p r o v i d e  e i f a c t i v e  r e l i e  . " G reen  v .

'hooJL h o a r d  o f  New K ent Cou n t y . I h i  0 .  S . a t  4 1 9 .

The basic issue thus lacing this Court is whether the 

'*ty or hattanooga has a unitary school system and, it not, whether 

he school board is properly fulfilling its affirmative duty to

i l i t m o  t h e  im m ed ia te  c o n v e r s i o n  o f  t h e  C h a t t a n o o q a  P u b l i c  S c h o o l  

S y ste m  t o  a u n i t a r y  s c h o o l  s y s te m  in  w h ich  r a c i a l  d i n e r i t a r n a t i o n  

w i l l  b e  t o t a l l y  e l i m i n a t e d .  See  K e l l e y  v .  M e t r o p o l i t a n  C o u n ty

hoard of Education. 317 F.Supp. 980 (M.D. Tenn. 1970) rev. ___ F.2d

__ (No. 20741 6 th Cir., Dec. 18, 1970). The issue as thus stated

is perhaps deceptively simple because of the many practical problems 

inherent in reaching a satisfactory answer to these questions. As 

previously noted, some of the practical problems are presently be-

- 7 9 '



lore tue Supreme Court on review for decision by that Court. An
i n d i c a t i o n  of the type of issues remaining unresolved is to be
iound in Chief justice Burger's concurring opinion in Sorthcross v.

B oard  o f  Education of Memphis, Tennesseei
“. . . [w]« ought to reeolve some of the basic practical 
problems when they are appropriately presented including 
whether, as a constitutional matter, any particular 
racial balance mist be achieved in the schools; to what 
extent school districts and tone* may or must ba altered 
as a constitutional matter; to what extant transportation 
may or must be provided to achieve the ends sought by 
prior holdings of the Court. Other related issues may 
emerge."
Three things appear clear in embarking upon a consideration 

of the success or failure of the previous plans heretofore ordered in 

this case. First of all, a unitary school system is one “within 

which no parson is to be effectively excluded from any school because 

of race or color.“ See Alexander v. Holmes County Board of education. 

supra. Second, geographic zoning, freedom of choice, or any other 
■montr or means of pupil assignment are not ends in themselves;
“they are only means to a constitutionally required end. . . If the 

means prove effective, it is acceptable, but if it fails to undo 

segregation, other means must be used to achieve this end.* Bee 

Green v. School Board of Mew Kont County, supra. Third, school 
boards are under an affirmative duty to take whatever action is 

necessary to achieve a unitary school system.
Upon the present record, the Court is provided with numerous 

statist!as and statistical analyses relative to the desegregation 

efforts In the Chattanooga public School System. Without engaging 
at this point in a detailed analysis of these statistics, the Court 

will observe only that sight years have paaaed since the original 

desegregation plan was approved end four years have passed sines the 
date when the plan was to be oosg>letely implemented, The statistics 

reflect generally to this Court that the plan has been possibly 
effective in some respeats and possibly ineffective in other raspseta*

-So-



The defendant* in their answer and their brief oontend that "they 

have not made any decisions based upon race since the beginning of 
the academic year 1966-67.* Further, the defendant* contend that 
whatever racial segregation continues in the schoole of Chattanooga 
today is attributable to factors over which the Chattanooga School 
System has no control, a* for example the patterns of residential 

segregation. Finally, the defendants contend that the Chattanooga 
School System since the academic year 1966-67 has been a system 
within which no person has been excluded from any echool becauae 
of race or color. That is, the defendant* oontend that under the
presently approved plan for desegregation, the Chattanooga School

System is a unitary echool system es defined in Alexander v. Holmae 

countv Board of M u  cat ion.
On the contrary, the plaintiff contends that the previously 

approved plans have failed to accaeplish the purpose of establishing

a unitary school system, and cite in support of their contention
statistics reflecting very substantial racial identity in a number 

of schools, with total racial Identity eeid to exist in earn* sahool*.
On the present record, end in view of the appli^bl* case 

law, tha Court is of the opinion that ganuina and relevant factual 
ieauas remain which must be resolved end accordingly the plaintiff's 

motion for summary judgment should be denied and the plaintiff's 

motion for issaadiate ralief should be reserved pending an evidentiary 

hearing to be held upon April 1, 1971.
It is appropriate at this point to outline tha leeuaa 

to be considered upon the hearing heretofore scheduled. Aa mentioned 
previously, the ultimate question for decision by the Court is whether 

tha City of Chattanooga has achieved a unitary school eyetern and. if 

not, whether the defendant* are properly fulfilling their affirmative 
duty to take all necessary steps to accomplish immediate conversion 
of tha chattsnoogs Public Schools to a unitary school system In w h i A

- 2 1 -



>

racial discrimination will ba totally aliminatod. Aa tha Court 
observes tha specific questions to ba answered, thay appear. .to ba 
aa followsi

(1) Ara prasaot sohool aonaa designed to affi natively 
advance tha iasadlata accomplishmant of a unitary 
school systam?

(2) is tha lack of soning in ragard to high schools af- 
firmativaly advancing tha ieaadlata acooaplishmant 
of a unitary school systam?

(3) Ara tha dafandanta moating thair obligations under 
tha law with ragard to faculty and staff desegre­
gation?

(4) Ara student transfers being administered in such a 
manner as to hinder tha establishment of a unitary 
sohool system?

(5) is the planning, constructing, ramovetion, and lo­
cation of schools being ecoo^lisbed in such a 
manner as to effectuate a unitary sohool system?

Should tha parties conceive tha issuaa to ba other tfun 
as herein stated, thay should submit thair positions thereon in 
writing within 15 days. Hie burden of proof as to all of those 
matters is placed by law upon the defendants. In presenting their 
widen m ,  the parties should bear in mind such guidelines as are

sat forth by the Court of Appeals for this Circuit in the recent
case of Kelley v. Metropolitan countv hoard of

at aj, ___ r.2d ___ (case Ho. 20,741, Decided Deo. 1», 1970), to the
•actant that the principles announoad in that oaae may be appliamble. 

Of course, should the United States Supreme court announce additional 
or differant guideline* in tha meanwhile, the hearing will he oen- 
dueted accordingly.

An order will eater accordingly.

United states
-fcx-

frank W. Wilson
District judge



Thi« ctia la before the Court upon various ponding 

notions. Th* following ordors sro oatorod pursuant to an opinion 

of tho Court filed herein slaultanoously with tho filing of this 

order i
It is acaordingly ORDERED j
(1) That tha plaintiffs * notion for summary judgment be

and tha u s e  is hereby denied j
(2) That tha plaintiffs' notion for lmediate relief is

reserved pending a further hearing herein;
(3) That an evidentiary hearing be set herein to n i m a n m  

upon April 1. 1971. at which hearing the parties should be prepared 
to submit evidence upon the foilwring issues, with the defendants

having the burden of proof thereon«
(a) Are present echool monee designed to affirmatively 

advance the iMediate accomplishment of a unitary 
school system?

(b) Is the lack of sonlng in regard to high schools af- 
firamtlvely advancing the iamadiate accomplishment 
of a unitary school system?

(c) Are the defendants meeting their obligations under 
the lew with regard to faculty and staff desegre­
gation?

(d) Are student transfers being administered in such e 
manner as to hinder the establishment of ■ unitary 
school system?

(e) is the planning, constructing, renovation, and lo­
cation of schools being aooomplisbed in such a
— as to effectuate a unitary sdhool system?

- S 3 -



\\

.. __ i»»u*» to bo otiiar
(4) Should tho P « t i -  ° ‘* ° * iV* **•

« .  -  u  -  -  *— . ■—  — • u - y
^  p c i U -  i» —  “  —  -  -  -

APP«OVKD FOR

frank VI. liM JL-
^ i ^ T s t o t o .  District judqo

- s / f "



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN  DISTRICT OF TEN NESSEE, 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAM ES JONATH AN M A P P , et al )
)
)

v s . ) C iv il A ction  No. 3564
)
)

1 HE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF )
THE CITY OF CH ATTAN O O GA, )
H AM ILTON CO U N TY, TENNESSEE) 
et al )

RESPONSE OF DEFEN DANT TO OPINION 
AND ORDER OF FE B R U A R Y  19, 1971

Pursuant to  the final paragraph  o f  the O pinion o f  F eb ru a ry  19, 1971, 

the defendant Chattanooga B oard o f  E ducation  subm its the fo llow in g  re sp o n se : 

At the h earin g , now set to co m m e n ce  on A p r il 1, 1971, what c h a r a c ­

ter  o f  p r o o f  w ould defendant be exp ected  to o f fe r ?  Issu es (a), (b), (d) and 

(e) all in co rp o ra te  the "un itary  sch o o l sy s te m " co n ce p t. It is  apparent that 

a ttorn eys fo r  p la in tiff and attorn eys fo r  defendant B oard  do not a g ree  as to 

the m eaning o f  th is con cep t. It is  hoped that the U. S. Suprem e C ou rt w ill 

c la r ify  this con cep t in  the C h a rlo tte -M eck len b u rg  B oard  o f  E du cation  case  

and com panion  c a se s  now under con s id era tion  by the C ou rt fo llow in g  ex ten ­

s ive  h earin gs on O ctober  10, 11, 12, o f  la st y e a r .

In the ab sen ce  o f  fu rther defin ition  o f  what the Suprem e C ou rt m eans 

by the w o rd s , "u n itary  sch o o l sy stem , " cou n se l fo r  the p a rties  w ill be using 

the sam e w ords to con vey  d iffe ren t m ean ings. Only con fu sion  can be the 

re su lt . P r o o f  p rep ared  and o ffe re d  under the cu rre n t am biguous leg a l c lim a te  

cou ld  w ell have to be presen ted  again  in o rd e r  to r e f le c t  a la te r  d ire c t iv e  

fro m  the Suprem e C ourt on the "un itary sch o o l sy s te m " con ce p t.

With re fe re n ce  to the burden  o f p ro o f at th is stage in the p ro ceed in g , 

defendant w ill a ssu m e that defendant w ill c a r r y  this burden  at the h earing  now

LA W  O F F IC E S  

W I T T .  G A IT H E R  
A B E R N A T H Y  ft 

W IL S O N  

ItO O A M E R ICA N  N A T IO N A L  
BAN K B U IL D IN G  
C h a t t a n o o g a . 

T e n n e s s e e  37 4 0 2

- 8 5 -



set to co m m e n ce  on A p r il  1, 1971. H ow ever, the language o f J u stices  Harla-n 

and W hite in th e ir  con cu rrin g  opin ion  in C a rter  et a l v, W e it  F e lic ia n a  

P ariah  S ch oo l B oard  , 396 U. S. 290 (1-14-70) w ould cre a te  som e  doubt as 

to the prirna fa c ie  showing of n o n -co m p lia n ce  with G reen  by p la in tiffs  in 

the p resen t p ro ce e d  ng su ffic ien t to p la ce  the burden  o f p ro o f on defendant.

I.

B a sica lly  two a ltern a tives a re  ava ilab le  to defendant B oard  under

issu e  (a) as set forth  in the D is tr ic t  C ourt O rd er  file d  on F e b ru a ry  19, 1971:

"(a ) A re  p resen t s ch o o l zon es design ed  to a ffirm a tiv e ly  
advance the im m edia te  a ccom p lish m en t o f a unitary sch o o l 
sy s te m ?  "

The f ir s t  a ltern a tive  w ould be sim ple  and sh ort: The Chattanooga

B oard o f Education  cou ld  o ffe r  a w itn ess who w ould testify  that the sch o o l 

zon es as presen tly  op era tive  have a lready  in fa ct a cco m p lish e d  "a  unitary 

s ch o o l sy s te m " since  no p erson  has been "e f fe c t iv e ly  exclu ded  fro m  any 

s ch o o l becau se  of ra ce  or  c o lo r "  in the la st five  a ca d em ic  y e a rs  sin ce  1966. 

This is  the A lexan der language 396 U. S. 19 (1969). Such m ight or  m ight not 

m eet the a ffirm a tiv e  duty m entioned in G reen  391 U. S. 430 (1968) w h ere  the 

unitary sy s te m  con cep t i6 g iven  so m e  d efin ition  by re fe rr in g  to a sy stem  "in  

w hich  r a c ia l d iscr im in a tio n  w ould be elim in ated  root and branch . "

O nce p ro o f o f this g en era l nature had been  in trodu ced , p la in tiff could  

e ith er  attem pt to (1) c o n tro v e rt  such testim ony , or  (2) take the p os ition  that 

the p ro o f was ir re le v a n t becau se  it re fle cte d  an in com plete  understanding 

o f a p p lica b le  law. Should the C ourt d ecide  that the secon d  a ltern a tiv e  w as 

a c o r r e c t  in terpreta tion  then som e  g en era lly  s p e c if ic  g u id elin es should be 

g iven  the S ch oo l B oard  as to a re -s tru ctu r in g  o f s ch o o l zon es.

A secon d  a ltern a tive  fo r  the B oard w ould be to p ro ce e d  s ch o o l by 

s ch o o l to d e s c r ib e  the one lines and the p ro ce d u re  by w hich  sa id  zone lines 

w e re  d ecid ed  upon. Such would negate the p re se n ce  o f  r a c ia l fa c to r s  and

LA W  O F F IC E S  

W I T T .  G A IT H E R  
A B E R N A T H Y  & 

W IL S O N  
IIO O  A M E R ICA N  N A T IO N A L  

BAN K B U IL D IN G

C h a t t a n o o g a .
T e n n e s s e e  3 7 4 0 2

-86'



w ould  not r e f le c t  any deviation  f r o m  estab lished  zoning p r in cip le*  in o rd e r  

to e ither  -

in cre a e e  the num ber o f  b la ck s  in fo r m e r ly  a l l  white sch o o ls

or

in cr e a s e  the num ber o f  whites in fo r m e r ly  a l l  b lack  s ch o o ls .

Such p r o ce d u r e  would give plaintiffs an opportunity to u ncover  the 

p r e s e n ce  o f  any d e c is io n s  appearing to r e f le ct  a m otive  to perpetuate 

se (3r e K*flon based upon race .  The Court would then be d irec t in g  its attention 

to s p e c i f i c  factual situations and not vague g e n era l isa t ion s  im p o ss ib le  to 

defend.

II.

With r e fe r e n c e  to la ck  of zoning in high s ch o o ls ,  the p r o o f  o f fe re d  would 

r e f le c t  the 6ame theory  as a lread y  d iscu ssed .  If the a f f i rm ative  duty r e ­

fe r r e d  to by the Suprem e Court does  en com p ass  a f f i rm a t ive  d e c is io n s  by the 

B oard  baaed so le ly  upon race ,  and coupled with c o m p u ls io n  by the B oa rd  in 

o r d e r  to in cre a s e  the num ber of whites in a l l -b la c k  high s c h o o ls  and the 

num ber o f  b lacks  in fo r m e r ly  a l l -w h ite  high s ch o o ls ,  then defendant B oard  

would not have m et its a f f i rm ative  resp on sib il i ty  to estab lish  a unitary s ch oo l  

sy s te m  when this con cep t  is so  in terpreted  as to requ ire  a recogn it ion  o f  race .

With r e fe r e n c e  to high sch o o ls ,  defendant Board cou ld  o f fe r  p roo f  

again  as to the reason s  supporting the h is t o r ic a l  pattern o f  no zoning in high 

sc h o o ls ,  but such would be ir re leva n t  under any constitutional interpretation  

that r e f le c te d  the n e ce ss ity  o f  judging constitutionality p r im a r i ly  by the num ­

b e r  of b la ck  students and white students in a sch oo l ,  - and with a l l  other 

re levant educational c r i t e r ia  being virtually  ignored . The Suprem e Court 

may so  dec id e ,  but at the m om ent the Court has not so d ec id ed .

III.

On the third is su e  as set forth  in the C ou rt 's  O rd e r  o f  2 /19/71 with 

r e fe re n ce  to faculty and staff  desegregation , defendant B oa rd  w e lc o m e s  the 

opportunity  to p lace  b e fo r e  the Court its care fu l  e f fo rts  to in c r e a s e  the

LA W  O F F IC E S  

W I T T .  G A IT H E R . 
A B E R N A T H Y  & 

W IL S O N
MOO A M E R ICA N  N A T IO N A L  

R AN K B U IL D IN G

C h a t t a n o o g a .
T e n n e s s e e  3 7 4 0 2

- 87"



num ber of white faculty m e m b e r*  in fo r m e r ly  a l l -b la c k  s c h o o ls  and the num ­

ber  of black faculty in fo r m e r ly  a l l -w h ite  s ch o o ls ,  and done in such a manner 

as to be voluntary as w ell  as to maintain n o rm a l educational requ irem ents  

and standards in teaching assignm ents .

This w il l  provide plaintiffs with an opportunity to be sp e c i f i c  about 

the ch a rg es  made e a r l ie r  as to r a c ia l  d is cr im in a t ion  a l leged ly  p ra c t ice d  by 

the Chattanooga Board o f  Education in faculty and staff  em p loym ent and 

ass ign m en t p ra c t ice s  which ch a rges  defendant has denied flatly.

IV.

(d) A re  student t ran sfers  being a d m in istered  in such a
manner as to h inder the estab lishm ent o f  a  unitary s c h o o l  sy s te m ?

The theory of defense  availab le  is identica l to that r e f e r r e d  to in

(a) and (b). With r e fe re n ce  to p roo f  defendant cou ld  o f fe r  a rep resentat ion  

by an appropr ia te  w itness to the e f fe c t  that t r a n s fe r s  have not been  made 

based so le ly  upon race .  The remaining a lternative  would be to detail the 

facts a6 to each tran s fer  made within the last f ive  y e a rs .  Such would appear 

to be u n n ecessa ry  and a g r o s s  w aste  o f  t ime, money, and e ffo rt ,  but in the 

a b sen ce  o f  sp e c i f i c  ch a rges  as to student and sc h o o l  (as p rev iou s ly  requ ested  

by defendant Board ) the B oard  o f  Education cannot o th erw ise  adequately 

defend itse lf  and its personnel.

V.

(e) Is the planning, constructing ,  renovations and 
location  o f  s ch oo ls  being a cco m p lish e d  in such a manner 
as to effectuate a unitary sy s te m ?

The sam e theory of defense  as set forth  above  (except as to faculty 

d esegregation )  would be ap p licab le  on this is su e .  The repeated  fa ilure o f  

the v oters  to approve  sc h o o l  con struction  bond issu es  in recen t  y e a rs  has 

made this part icu lar  issue fa ir ly  a cad em ic .

VI.

Defendant 's  Motion to Strike - N ovem ber  19, 1969. Defendant 's

Motion to Require  P laintiffs  to C ive  Com plete  and S p e c i f i c  A n sw ers  to

In te r ro g a to r ie s  - D e ce m b e r  2, 1969.
LA W  O F F IC E S  

W IT T .  G A IT H E R .
A B E R N A T H Y  &

W IL S O N
IIO O  A M E R IC A N  N A T IO N A L  

B A N K  B U IL D IN G  

C h a t t a n o o g a . 
T e n n e s s e e  37 4 0 2

- 88"



Neither of the above  m otions  w e re  m entioned  in the C ou rt ’ s Opinion 

o f 2 /19/71 and defendant B oard  d e s ir e s  to note this fact  and to r e s e r v e  any 

rights defendant B oard  m ay have with r e fe re n ce  to the content o f  said 

m otions and the rights c la im e d  therein.

VII.

Defendants have fo l low ed  the C ou rt 's  adm onition  with r e fe re n ce  to 

an exam ination  o f  the D ece m b e r  18. 1970 d e c is io n  o f  the Court o f  A pp ea ls  for  

the oixth C ircu it  in K elley  v. M etropolitan  County Board  o f  Education  of 

' N ashville ,  et al, ____________F. 2d___

The Opinion by C ircu it  Judge Edw ards r e f le c t s  the p r e s e n c e  o f  factual 

c on c lu s ion s  in the Nashville  case  that a re  o f  substance  and would  d i f fe r e n ­

tiate the Chattanooga factual situation in a significart m anner. The fo llow ing  

e x ce r p ts  so  indicate:

"W ith the except ion  o f  zone lines drawn fo r  new s ch o o ls ,  
the zone lines cu rren tly  in e x is ten ce  w e re  drawn p r io r  to 
B row n  v. B oard  o f  Education with the a im  of maintaining 
seg rega t ion .  11 p. 6

" I f  such a con cep t  is  indeed being applied in this f i v e - s c h o o l  
a r e a ,  it ap pears  to the Court that it is being applied  so le ly  to 
perpetuate segregation .  "  P. 7

"A s  the above  two il lustrat ions  make c le a r ,  by maintaining 
the old dual s c h o o l  zones ,  defendant has en cou raged  c o n ­
tinued se g re ga t io n  rather  than sign ificant integration  in the 
e lem en tary  sc h o o ls .  "  P. 8

"O n ce  again, a look  at the exist ing  cone lineB co n v in ces  the 
Court that ***z .ones***  a r e  stru ctu red  so  as to fo s t e r  f o r  the 
m o s t  part continued segrega t ion  or  at bes t  only token inte­
gration . "  P. 8

"T h e s e  predom inantly  N egro  s ch o o ls ,  on the b a s is  o f  their  
rated m axim u m  cap a c it ies ,  have ap p rox im a te ly  5400 v acan cies  
yet the white s ch o o ls ,  in zones ta ilored  to white res iden tia l  
se c t io n s ,  a re  o v e rc ro w d e d .  11 P. 10.

E m phasis  is supplied and the page r e fe r e n c e s  a re  to the printed 

Opinion p rep ared  by the Court.

None o f  the facts re f le c te d  a re  presen t in the Chattanooga case .

T h ese  Nashville  facts  w ere  o f  such a sa lient nature as to have im p r e s s e d  both 

the D is t r i c t  Court and the Court o f  A ppeals ,  or  so  it is r eason ab le  to p r e -

LA W  O F F IC E S

W I T T .  G A IT H E R . 
A B E R N A T H Y  & 

W IL S O N
IIO O  A M E R IC A N  N A T IO N A L  

B A N K  B U IL D IN G

C h a t t a n o o g a .
T e n n e s s e e  3 7 4 0 2

- 8 9 "



su m o. In addition, there is language in the Opinion which  could  be c o n ­

strued to r e f le ct  an assum ption  by Judge Edw ards that the U. b. Supreme 

Court w>ll au th or ise  the recogn it ion  of race  in moving toward so m e  concept 

of r a c ia l  balance in public s ch o o ls  as a constitutional requ irem en t  even 

though such w il l  r e p re se n t  a rad ica l  departure  f r o m  the c o lo r -b l in d  c o n ­

stitutional con cep t  o f  e a r l ie r  days. F or  the fo rego in g  re ason s  defendant 

hesitates to a c q u ie s ce  in any gen e ra l  applicab ility  o f  K e l le y , supra under 

such c ir cu m sta n ce s .

VIII.

bu rd e n  o f  P r o o f  and Additional Issues:

(a) Have the plaintiffs estab lished  by ev iden ce  a pr im a facie  
showing that the defendant s ch oo l  boa rd  has not co m p lie d  \v .tli 
C r e e n ?

(b) A s a  m atter  o f  law, does  the burden o f p r o o f  o r  burden o f
•join fo rw a rd  with the ev idence  soift  back to the plaintiffs 
a fter  the defendant has put on p roo f  that the Chattanooga Board  of 
i .ducation is operating a "unitary sch oo l  s y s t e m "  as it under­
stands that ohrase .

( c ) Can a D is t r i c t  Court, so le ly  by looking at student statist ics  
without any p r o o f  of sp e c i f i c  acts o f  d is cr im in a t ion ,  find and hold 
as a m atter  o f  constitutional law, that a defendant s c h o o l  board
is not operating a unitary sch oo l  sy stem  becau se  there a re  not 
enough N eg roes  in so m e  sch oo ls  and not enough whites in som e 
s c h o o ls ?

IX.
Defendant B oard  resp ect fu l ly  requests :

(1) That a p r e - t r ia l  c o n fe re n ce  be held in o r d e r  to
c la r i fy  thi issu es  and ti e burden of p ro o f  so  that 
defendant may be in a better  position to p re p a re  an 
adequate and orderly  presentation o f  p r o o f  at the 
ev identiary  hearing. If an i t e m -b y - i t e m  defense  
of the im plem entation  o f  the tran sfer  p o l icy  is a p o s s i ­
bility defendant m ust be g iven  an opportunity to p r e ­
pare for  such a lengthy presentation  o f  fa c ts .  A s im ila r  
prob lem  would be presented  to defendant should each 
s c h o o l  one have to be defended on a s c h o o i - b y - s c h o o l  basis .

(?) That in view of the need for  a p r e - t r ia l  c o n fe re n ce  
as set forth  above, further con s id eration  be g iven  during 
the p r e - t r ia l  c o n fe r e n c e  to an ap propria te  date fo r  the 
co m m e n c e m e n t  o f  an evidentiary  hearing depending upon 
c la r i f i ca t io n  resulting f r o m  the p r e - t r ia l  c o n fe re n ce

LA W  O F F IC E S  

W IT T .  G A IT H E R . 
A B E R N A T H Y  ft 

W IL S O N
ItO O A M E R ICAN  N A T IO N A L  

HANK B U IL D IN G  
C h a t t a n o o g a . 

T e n n e s s e e  374 0 2



and the need fo r  detailed and lengthy p ro o f  upon the 
part o f  defendant; and that the hearing set for  
A p r i l  1, 1971 be can ce lled .

Of Counsel:

Rugene N. Collins 
400 P io n e e r  Bank Building 
Chattanooga, T en nessee  37402 
City Attorney

R espect fu l ly  submitted.

Raymond B. Witt, Jr.
Witt, Gaither, Abernathy & 'Wilson 
1100 A m e r i c a n  Bank Building 
Chattanooga, T en n essee  37402 
A ttorneys  f o r  defendant

LA W  O F F IC E S

W IT T .  G A IT H E R . 
A B E R N A T H Y  Bt 

W IL S O N
IIO O  AM E R IC A N  N A T IO N A L  

HANK B U IL D IN G

C H A 1 TA N O O G A . 
T E N N I SSI e 374 0 2



a -

IN. THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE • 
EASTERN  DISTRICT O F  TENNESSEE.

SOUTHERN DIVISION i.'J

JAMES JONATHAN M A P P ,  )
)

et al )
)

- v s -  )
)

THE BOARD O F  EDUCATION O F )
THE C IT Y  O F  C H A T T AN O O G A , E T C . , )

)
et al )

CIVIL ACTION  NO. 

3 56 4

MOTION TOR SUMM ARY JUDGMENT BY D EFEN DANT

Defendants m o v e  the Court to enter , pursuant to Rule 56 o f  the 

F ed era l  Rules o f  C ivil  P r o c e d u r e ,  a su m m ary  judgm ent in the defendants ' 

favor  d is m is s in g  the c la im s  regard ing  (1) s ch o o l  z o n e s ,  (2) the lack of 

s c h o o l  zones in rega rd  to high sch oo ls  (3) student t r a n s fe r s ,  and (4) 

the planning, c on stru ct ion ,  renovation, and lo ca t ion  o f  s c h o o ls  on the 

ground that there  is no genuine issu e  as to any m a ter ia l  fact and that the 

defendants a re  entitled to a judgm ent as a m atter  o f  law.

This m otion  is  based  upon: (1) The pleadings in this case ;  (2) 

A n sw e rs  to In ter ro g a to r ie s  by both plaintiffs and defendants; (3) the 

p r io r  d e c is io n s  o f  this Court and the Court o f  Appeals  for  the Sixth C ircu it ;  

and (4) the tes t im on y  given on A p r i l  14, 1971 In this cau se .

Raym ond B. Witt, J r .
1109 A m e r ica n  National Bank Euilding 
Chattanooga, T e n n e sse e  37402

A ttorney  for  Defendants

I a w  o rr  ic e *  

W ITT. GAITHER. 
A H L R N A T H Y  & 

W lLf.O N
I too A M t.R ICAN  N A T IO N A L  

HANK IIU IL O IN O  

C h a t  i anooc.a ,
T  »:N N I S a L L  3 7 4 0 2

certificate or service jj
.Copy sorvod op advorso counsel th is / /^d
— m « r y :------ - iPjj,

•v;l3y- CAL'CE, ;JVi!K7.THY A w ; • 
Ily / lJ1 } ft? ' ’f^) /l/uc’rt s ! TJ-*

-qz~



IN THE UNITED ST A T E S DISTRICT CO URT FOR THE . - -,"V 
EA S T E R N  D ISTRIC T O F TENNESSEE. . ' " V ' ■

SOUTHERN DIVISION . 7 ’------------------------------------  L'j
• rj/ Y V.-

JAM ES JONATHAN M A P P ,  et al §

V8. $
C iv il  A c t io n  No. 3564

%

THE BO ARD  OF ED UCATIO N OF 
THE CITY O F CH A TTAN O O GA , §
ct  al

BR IEF IN S U P P O R T  OF MOTION F O R SUMMARY JU DGM ENT 
ON B E H A L F  OF D EFENDANTS

1* Swann v. C h ar lo t te -M e ck le n b u rg  B oard  o f  Education, _______ U. S.

______________________d ec id ed  by the Suprem e Court o f  the United States on

A p r i l  20, 1971 fo r  the f i r s t  t im e  sp e c i f i c a l ly  grants to F e d e r a l  D is t r ic t

Courts  the right to o r d e r  d e s e g re g a t io n  piano in s c h o o l  s y s te m s  w here

d e c is i o n s  b a sed  upon r a c e  a re  an esse n t ia l  part o f  such  d e se gre ga t io n

plans. This authority  to s o  u se  r a c e  in d e c is io n -m a k in g  is  te m p o ra ry

and is c a re fu l ly  c i r c u m s c r ib e d :

"J u d ic ia l  authority  en ters  only when lo c a l  
authority  defaults.  "  (p. 11)

" I f  we w e re  to read  the holding o f  the D is t r i c t  
Court to r e q u ire ,  as a m atter o f  substantive 
constitutional right, any p a rt icu la r  d e g re e  o f  
r a c ia l  ba lance  o r  m ixing , that ap proach  would be 
d isa p p ro v e d  and we would  be ob l iged  to r e v e r s e .  "
<pp. 19.20)

2. Only s c h o o l  sy s te m s  that a r e  in "d e fa u lt"  w il l  be  d ir e c t ly  a f fe c ted  by 

the Swann d e c is io n ,  supra, and d e c is io n s  b a se d  upon r a c e  a r e  not 

p erm it te d  under the U .S .  Constitution as in terpreted  by Swann, supra, 

u n less  the s c h o o l  authority  is in "d e fa u lt "  and thus p e rm its  the c o n ­

tinuing v io lation  of a constitutional right. The "d e fa u lt "  them e in the 

Swann d e c is i o n  Is exam ined  m o r e  c a re fu l ly  la ter  in this B r ie f .

LA W  O F F IC E S  

V IT T .  G A IT H E R . 
E E R N A T H Y  & 

W IL 6 0 N

’.R ICAN  N A T IO N A L  
\ B U IL D IN G

c l 3 -

T A N O O G A . 
S fE  374 0 2



LA W  O F F IC E S  

W I T T .  G A IT H E R . 
A B E R N A T H Y  & 

W IL S O N
>0 AMI NIC A ll N A T IO N A L

The "d e fa u lt "  envis ioned  by the Court in Swann is better  understood 

by an exam ination  of the following language:

. . . . 'second, its finding, a lso  ap proved  by 
the Court o f  Appeals , that the s c h o o l  board 
had totally defaulted in its acknow ledged  
duty to c o m e  forw ard  with an a c c e p ta b le  plan 
o f  .ts own, notwithstanding the patient e f forts  
o f  the D is t r i c t  Judge who, on at least  three 
o c c a s io n s  u rged  the board  to subm it plans. "  (p. 20)

The Chattanooga Sch oo l  System  is not in default. The defendant is 

now operating under an acceptab le  plan that was ap proved  by this 

Court on August 11. 1965. Unitary zone lines w e re  im plem ented  in 

S ep tem ber  o f  1966 as o r d e re d  and w e re  "d raw n without rega rd  to r a c e "  

as  the plaintiffs  requ ested  in their Motion fo r  F u rther  R e l ie f  fi led  on 

M arch  27. 1965. Upon appeal by plaintiffs to the Court o f  Appeals  for  

the Sixth C ircu it ,  the plan was found a cce p ta b le  although faculty d e s e g r e ­

gation was re co g n ize d  ( fo r  the f ir s t  time) as requ ir ing  a full ev identiary  

hearing as a part o f  a desegrega t ion  plan s in ce  Bradley  v. Schoo l  Board 

- -C ity  0f R k h m ° nd. . 382 U .S . ,  103 was d ec id ed  by the Suprem e Court 

on N o v e m b e r  15, 1965 fo l low ing  the D is t r i c t  Court d e c is i o n  and p r io r  to 

the Court o f  .ppeals d e c .s io n  o f  F ebru ary  27, 1967.

Since the Chattanooga Schoo l  System  is not in default the presum ptions  

and burdens of p r o o f  crea ted  by Swann, su p ra ,  flow ing  f r o m  certa in  

factual c ir c u m sta n ce s  such as sch oo ls  of one race ,  a r e  not ap p licab le  

to a defendant jnot in default. School s y s te m s  do not v io late  the c o n ­

stitution w here  the ob ject ion ab le  d e g re e  of s e g re g a t io n  does  not resu lt  

f r o m  Schoo l  Board action.

The re m e d ie s  requested  by P laintiffs  can only be provided  by plans 

using race  as a b a s is  o f  various d e c is io n s ,  and Swann . supra, limits 

such use o f  race  to s c h o o l  sy s tem s  cu rren t ly  found guilty of a v io lation  

o f  a substantive constitutional right, and in default. Thus d e c is io n s  

based  upon r a c e  as a Court requ irem ent are  not ava i lab le  in the 

Chattanooga situation outside the faculty d e s e g re g a t io n  asp ect .  The

SSI



7.

8.

9.

LA W  O F F IC E S  

W I T T  C iA IT tir  R. 
A fll IIN A 1  M Y & 

W ll ‘ .O N
IH*o A Mr m i • h N A IIO I... .

CM A I I A N ilIM .A .
1 1 UNI SOI I .1740*

r e m e d ie s  requested  a re  not availab le  as a matter o f  law.

The Chattanooga Doard of Kducation responded  im m edia te ly  

to Drown II d ec id ed  on May 31, 1955 and issued  a public p o licy  s ta te ­

m ent on July 22, 1955 which  opened with these  w ord s ;

"T h e  Chattanooga Board o f  Education  w ill  
c o m p ly  with the d e c is io n  of the United States 
Suprem e Court on the matter o f  in tegration  in 
the public  s c h o o ls .  "

"W e have c o m e  to this dec sion  a fter  care fu l  
de liberation , be l iev ing  that r e sp e c t  fo r  the law 
of the land is essen t ia l ly  vital to each  and e v e ry  
individual and to the w e lfa re  and happiness of 
all.  "

Since that date, the Hoard o f  Education  has been con sc ie n t io u s ly  and 

honestly  attempting to c o m p ly  with the Constiiution  o f  the United States 

as e laborated  upon in Brow n to the bes t  o f  their  ab ility  and within the 

l im its  o f  their  understanding, while at the same; time continuing to m eet 

and d is ch a rg e  the m a jo r  obligation  that they have a s su m e d  as B oard  

m e m b e r s ,  with the m aintenance of the h ighest quality o f  educational opp ­

ortunity in the City o f  Chattanooga as is p o s s .b le  within the m eans 

a f fo rd ed  to the Chattanooga Board, the Superintendent, his staff, and 

the tea ch ers .

The sev en  m e m b e r s  o f  the Chattanooga Board o f  Education, the d e fen d ­

ants, each  have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution o f  the United 

States. This obligation  can be met only as the m e m b e r s  of the B oard  

com p reh en d  the exact  meaning o f  the Constitution w thin their own 

judgm ent and inte ll igence  and as they a re  ad v ised  by legal  c o u n se l  and 

pa rt icu la r ly  w here  co u rts  cannot a g ree .  Whether o r  not this oath 

is being honored  and w hether  o r  not the com m u n ity  b e l ie v e s  that this 

oath is being honored  by the B oard  o f  Education  has a d ir e c t  bearing  

upon the kind and quality o f  support that the com m unity  g ives  to the 

B oard  o f  Education  and, through it, to the quality o f  the educational 

p r o g r a m  in Chattanooga.

- 9 5 -



10. P r io r  to A p r i l  20, 1971, public  s c h o o l  sy s te m s  w e re  prohib ited  by 

the United States Constitution f r o m  making d e c is io n s  based  upon 

r a c e  with r e fe r e n c e  to students.

»  IN D E F A U L T 1'

11. The p r in c ip le s  set forth  in Swann are  only ap p licab le  to a S ch oo l  Board 

that is in default of a constitutional obligation . The nature of this d e ­

fault con ce p t  r e q u ire s  care fu l  examination . On page 11 the Court m akes 

this statement, " ju d ic ia l  authority en ters  only when lo c a l  authority 

defaults.  "  This was p r e ce d e d  by a c lau se  that read, " .  . .  it is im portant 

to r e m e m b e r  that ju d ic ia l  pow ers  m ay be e x e r c i s e d  only on the basis

of a constitutional v io lat ion . 11

12. This d is cu s s io n  is found in that portion  o f  the opinion  labeled  III, and

which  leads off  with this statement: "T h e  o b je c t iv e  today rem ain s  to

e lim inate  f r o m  the public  sch o o ls  a l l  v est iges  o f  s ta te - im p o s e d  s e g r e ­

gation. "  The Court d is c u s s e s  Brow n  I and B row n  II , and G reen ,  and 

then c o m e s  up with this statement:

" I f  s c h o o l  authorities  fail in their  a f f i rm ative  o b l i ­
gations under these holdings, ju d ic ia l  authority may 
be  invoked. Once a right and a v io lation  have been 
shown, the s c o p e  o f  a d is tr ic t  c o u r t 's  equitable  p ow ers  
to r em ed y  past w ron gs  is broad ,  fo r  breadth  and f lex ib i l ity  
a r e  inherent in equitable r e m e d i e s . "

13. The later r e fe r e n c e  on the sam e page to lo c a l  authority  being in default 

m ust re la te  to the a f f i rm ative  obligations set forth  in Brow n  I .andJI and 

pa rt icu la r ly  in G reen  v. County Schoo l  B o a r d , 391 U .S .  430. This 

a f f i rm a t ive  obligation  in G reen  is d e s c r ib e d  as " to  take w hatever  steps 

might be n e c e s s a r y  to co n v e rt  to a unitary sy s te m  in which  ra c ia l  

d is cr im in a t io n  would be e lim inated ro o t  and bran ch .  "  391 U. S. 437- 

438. We can a ssu m e  that the rac ia l  d is cr im in a t io n  that the Court is 

h e re  co n s id er in g  is l im ited  to r a c ia l  d is cr im in a t io n  upon the part of 

the State, and in v iew  of the other com m e n ts  in the opinion  in Sw annL

LA W  O F F IC E *

W ITT. GAITHER. 
ABERNATHY & 

W ILSON
MOO AM E R IC A N  N A T IO N A L  

HANK O U II-D IN G

C h a t t a n o o g a . 
T r .N N C iiS C b  374 0 2

- 96-



actually racia l d iscrim ination  that exists because of the State

Acting in the p e rso n  o f  the Schoo l  Board, excluding rac ia l  d i s ­

c r im in at ion  resu lt ing  f r o m  actions by other  Instrum entalit ies  of the 

State o r  perhaps the F e d e r a l  G overnm ent .

14. On page  12 the C ou rt  uses  the default c o n ce p t  again and in this context:

"In  default by the s ch o o l  authorities  o f  their  
obl igations  to p r o f f e r  a ccep ta b le  r e m e d ie s ,  
a d is t r i c t  c o u r t  has broad  pow er to fashion a 
r e m e d y  that w il l  a s su re  a unitary sch oo l  sy s te m .  "

15. Such language continues to hedge becau se  o f  the qualif icat ion  inherent 

in the use o f  the w ord "a c c e p ta b le "  when d e s cr ib in g  " r e m e d i e s .  "  T o  

put this point in p e r sp e c t iv e ,  a fter  student d esegrega t ion  in the Chatta­

n ooga  S c h o o l  S y stem  was a c c e le ra te d  and com p le ted  in S ep tem b er  of 

1966, and a fter  the appeal by the plaintiffs  to  the C ir c u i t  C ou rt  of 

A p p ea ls ,  the Chattanooga Board was o f  the opinion that it had o f fe re d  an 

a cce p ta b le  plan and was operating under an accep ta b le  plan, with one 

excep t ion ,  and that was with r e fe r e n c e  to te a ch er  d e s egrega t ion .  And 

te a ch er  d e se g re g a t io n  did not b e c o m e  a resp on s ib i l i ty  until a fter  the 

B ra d le y  c a s e ,  supra, which was decided  between the t im e  that this 

C ou rt  handed down its opinion with r e fe r e n c e  to a c c e le ra t io n  o f  d e s e g r e ­

gation and the t im e that the C ir c u i t  C ou rt  o f  A pp ea ls  heard this c a s e  on 

D e c e m b e r  13, 1966 with a d e c is io n  on F e b r u a r y  27, 1967. At that t im e 

i f  a fa ir  evaluation o f  whether or  not the Chattanooga B oard  had proffered  

an acce p ta b le  r e m e d y  was m a d e ,  no co n s id era t ion  should be g iven  to

the facu lty  a s p e c t  o f  this plan because  it had not been m ade a lega l  

obligation  at the t im e the plan was p r o f fe re d .

16. On page 20 when d is cu ss in g  the basis  f o r  the d is t r ic t  c o u r t 's  71% -29%

l a w  o r r ic c B  
W ITT. GAITHCR. 
AUr.RNATMV ft 

W ILSON
IIO O  AMI MM AH N A T IO N A L  

HANK H U H  IIIN O  

C h a t  i a n o o t . a ,
T l  N N I *,NU. J 7402

ra t io ;  , the C ou rt  had this to say:

" , . .  secon d ,  its finding a lso  ap proved  by the 
C ou rt  o f  A p p ea ls ,  that the s ch o o l  board  had 
totally defaulted in its acknowledged duty to 
c o m e  fo rw a rd  with an accep tab le  plan o f  its 
own, notwithstanding the patient e ffo rts  of 
the D is t r ic t  Judge who, on at le a s t  3 o c c a s io n s ,

- 97-



urged the board to submit plans. "

In the sam e paragraph , the Court r e fe rs  to "tota l  fa i lure  o f  the S ch ool  

B oard . 11

17. It is d if f icu lt  to see  how the Chattanooga Board would be p laced , o r

cou ld  be p la ced  in this ca te g o r y  o f  total default at a t im e  when its plan 

had r e c e iv e d  the ap proval o f  the F e d e r a l  D is t r i c t  Court, the C ircu it  

C ou rt  o f  A p p ea ls ,  and at a t im e when even  the plaintiffs  in their  d e s ­

c r ip t io n  o f  the r e l i e f  requ ested  w ere  insisting that that r e l ie f  have as 

a  b a s i c  part d e c is io n s  m ade without re g a rd  to r a c e  and the e l im in a ­

tion o f  a l l  r a c ia l  c la s s i f i ca t io n s  f r o m  the opera t ion  o f  the Chattanooga

P ublic  S ch oo l  System .

18. The Swann c a s e  p la ces  a burden  o f p ro o f  upon s c h o o l  bo a rd s  in certa in  

situations. F o r  exam p le ,  on page 14 under  the heading IV, w here

the Court says that it is concern in g  i t se l f  with "defin ing  with m o r e

pa rt icu la r ity  the resp o n s ib i l i t ie s  of s c h o o l  authorities  in d esegregatin g

a s ta te -e n fo r ce d  dual s c h o o l  sy stem  in light of the"Equal P ro te c t io n

C la u s e , "  there is this r e fe r e n c e  to a p r im a  fa c ie  case :

"Independent o f  student assign m en t,  w h ere  it 
is  p o s s ib le  to identify a 'white s c h o o l '  o r  a 
'N e g r o  s c h o o l '  s im ply  by r e fe r e n c e  to the ra c ia l  
c o m p o s it io n  o f  te a ch e rs  and staff,  the quality 
o f  s c h o o l  buildings and equipment, o r  the o r g a n i ­
zation  of sp orts  a c t iv it ie s ,  a p r im a  fa c ie  ca se  
o f  v io lat ion  o f  substantive constitutional rights 
under the Equal P ro te c t io n  Clause is shown. "

19. Then again  on page 21, there is the fo llow ing  language:

"S ch o o ls  a l l  o r  predom inantly  o f  one r a c e  in 
a d is t r i c t  o f  m ixed  population w i l l  requ ire  
c l o s e  scrut iny  to d eterm ine  that s c h o o l  a s s i g n ­
ments a re  not part of s ta te -e n fo r ce d  s e g r e g a t io n . "

This m akes no r e fe r e n c e  to a p r im a  fa c ie  c a s e  o r  a burden  o f  p r o o f ,

but is tending in this d irec t ion .

20. On page 22 the Court r e fe r s  to a presum ption  and then later on u se s  the 

p h rase  "b u rd en  o f sh ow in g" .  These o c cu r  in this context:

l a w  o r n c e s  
W ITT. GAITHER. 
ABERNATHY ft 

W ILSON
MOO AM E R IC A N  N A T IO N A L  

BAN K B U IL D IN G

C h a t t a n o o g a .
T C N N C S S E C  37402



**•••• but in a sy stem  with a h is to ry  o f  segregation* 
the need fo r  r em ed ia l  c r i t e r ia  o f  su ff ic ien t  sp e c i f i c i ty  
to a s s u r e  a s c h o o l  author ity 's  c o m p l ia n ce  with its 
constitutional duty w arranto a presu m ption  against 
s c h o o ls  that a r e  substantially d isp rop ort ion a te  in their  
r a c ia l  com posit ion*  W here  the s c h o o l  au th or ity 's  
p ro p o se d  plan fo r  c o n v e rs io n  f r o m  a dual to a unitary 
sy s te m  contem pla tes  the continued ex is te n ce  of so m e  
s c h o o ls  that a re  a l l  o r  predom inantly  o f  one ra c e ,  they 
have the burden  o f  showing that such sc h o o l  ass ign m en ts  
a r e  genuinely n o n -d is c r im in a to r y .  The Court should 
sc ru t in ize  such s c h o o ls ,  and the burden upon the s ch oo l  
author it ies  w il l  be to satis fy  the Court that their  rac ia l  
c o m p o s it io n  Is not the resu lt  o f  p resen t  o r  past d i s c r im in ­
atory  action  on their  part. "

21. This r a is e s  a quest ion  o f  in terpretation  as to w hether  o r  not this burdm 

o f  p r o o f  upon the s c h o o l  boa rd  co m e s  Into play only w here  a s c h o o l  

boa rd  is In default under Brown or does  it a lso  b e c o m e  a part o f  the 

r e sp o n s ib i l i ty  o f  s c h o o l  b oa rd s  that have a ch ieved  a m e a su re  o f  c o m ­

pliance  with B r own at an e a r l i e r  date. T o  p la ce  the burden  o f p roo f  

in itially  upon a defendant p re su p p o se s  s o m e  b a s is  fo r  a p resu m ed  

guilty o r  i l lega lity .  This  is the only p o ss ib le  bas is  fo r  c rea tin g  a 

p resu m p tion  that the defendant has to m eet to begin  with. Then how 

could  a s c h o o l  boa rd  that was in c o m p l ia n ce  under a D is t r i c t  Court 

O rd e r ,  and as ap proved  by the C ircu it  Court of A p p ea ls  and not appealed  

f r o m  by the p laintiff  -  how cou ld  such a B oard  be in default o r  be  doing 

som ething  il lega l  and at such a degree  as to ju st ify  a penalty in the 

f o r m  of c a r ry in g  the burden o f p roo f  to begin  with?

"A N  A C C E P T A B L E  P L A N "

22. This suit, begun on A p r i l  6, 1960, has been  b e fo r e  this Court on 

num erou s o c c a s io n s .  A l l  O rd e rs  regarding  d e s e g re g a t io n  plana 

have been  put into e f fe c t  by the defendant Chattanooga Board o f  

Education. The or ig in a l  plan ca lled  fo r  gradual d esegrega t ion  of 

e lem en tary  s c h o o ls  and ju n ior  high s c h o o ls .  On M arch  27, 1965, 

p laintiffs  f i led  a M otion  for  F urther  R e l ie f  seeking , am ong other 

things, to a c c e le r a te  d esegrega t ion  so  that c o m p le te  d e se gre ga t io n

l a w  o r n e r s  
W I T T .  G A IT H E R .

A K I I IN A T M Y  ft WILCiON
ItO O  AMI K H  AN  N A T IO N A L  

HANK l l l l l l  I IIN a  
( i l lA  | l A N i f K i A ,

T l  N N I S S I L  :i74US

- 9 9 '



would be e f fe cted  by S ep tem b er ,  1965. Pla intiff  t l i o  p ra y e d  f o r  an

O rd e r  d irec t in g  defendants to:

"2 .  A ssign  teaching, s u p e r v iso r y  and other 
p r o fe s s io n a l  p erson n e l  to s c h o o ls  in the Chattanooga 
Schoo l  S y stem  on the basis o f  qualif ication  and need 
and without re g a rd  to the ra ce  o f  the p e rso n n e l  o r  o f  
the ch i ld re n  in attendance :

3. A ss ig n  pupils in the Chattanooga P u blic  School 
System  pursuant to g e o g ra p h ica l ,  c a p a c ity - r e la te d  
sc h o o l  zone lines  fo r  each  s c h o o l ,  such lines being 
drawn without re g a rd  to r a c e .  . . . "  (em p h a sis  a d d e d . )

23 . A  hearing  was held on p la in tif fs '  m ot ion  on May 1, 1965. On August 5

1965, the opin ion  o f  the Court was f i led .  On August 11, 1965, the 

C o u r t 's  O rd e r  was f i led  o rd e r in g  co m p le te  d e se g re g a t io n  by Septem be

1966. The Court found that "the r e c o r d  does  not support  the p laintiffs  

in this contention  (that the regulations perm itt ing  tr a n s fe r s  o f  students 

have been  so used by the defendants as to im pede o r  de feat  d e s e g r e g a ­

tion as h e re to fo re  o r d e re d  by this C ourt ,  thus violating the p la in tif fs '  

constitutional r igh ts ) ,  and their  application  fo r  fu rther  r e l i e f  is 

th e r e fo re  denied as to this i s s u e . "

24 .  The Court  a lso  held in No. 4 o f  its O r d e r  that:

" A l l  rem ain ing  is su e s  in the p la in tif fs '  m ot ion  
f o r  further  r e l ie f ,  to the extent that they m ay not 
have been h e re to fo re  sustained o r  denied in this 
O r d e r ,  o r  to the extent that they w e re  not withdrawn 
upon the hear ing ,  a re  denied as not being supported  
by the r e c o r d  in this c a s e .  "

25 . The plaintiffs  appealed  the d e c is io n .  The Court o f  App eals  f o r  the

Sixth C ircu i t  a f f i rm e d  with the one except ion  o f  the facu lty  i s su e .

Between  the tim e o f  the lo w e r  c o u r t 's  o r d e r  and the hear ing  o f  the

c a s e  on appeal,  the Suprem e Court  had d ec id ed  B rad ley  v. Schoo l

Board  o f  City  o f  R ichm ond. 382 U .S . 103, 86 S. Ct. 224, 15 L .  Ed.

2d 187 (1965). As  to the tran s fer  p r o v is io n s ,  the Court o f  App eals

a f f i r m e d .  In so doing, the Court  mentioned that:

"Should plaintiffs  in the future obtain ev id en ce  
that tra n s fe rs  a re  being granted under 2 ( i ) -2  
without rega rd  to the or ig in a l  leg it im ate  p lacem ent 
o f  students, they m ay, o f  c o u r s e ,  apply  to the

l a w  o f f i c e * - I O C '
W ITT. GAITHER.

A B E R N A T H Y  ft 
W IL S O N

MOO AM T MIC AN  N A T IO N A L  
D AN K O U lt D IN O

C h a t t a n o o g a .



District Court for relief. "

This statem ent was made a fte r  the Court o f  A pp ea ls  had d is cu sse d  the 

t ra n s fe r  p ro v is io n s  and found that "in  the ab se n ce  o f  any ev id en ce  tend­

ing to show that the o b je c t iv e  standard o f  2 ( l ) -2 ,  or ig in a l  en ro l lm en t  

out o f  p re se n t  s c h o o l  zone ,  w as  not ad hered  to in any c a se ,  we cannot 

say that the D is t r i c t  C o u r t 's  finding w as c le a r ly  e r ro n e o u s .  "  A s  to

the plan ap proved  by the D is t r i c t  Court, p la intiffs  com p la in ed  that it 

was:

"  'a  totally  in e f fect .ve  vehic le  fo r  the prom pt 
e l im inat ion  o f  the segregated  sc h o o l  sy stem . 1 
Such a b ro a d -ga u g e  attack was not d eve loped  
in the e v id en ce  p resen ted  to the D is t r i c t  Court.
The Superintendent of Schools  tes t if ied  that 
s c h o o l  zone lines w e re  drawn 'a s  c l o s e ly  as w e 
cou ld  . . .  to .nclude enough ch i ld ren  to f i l l  the 
sch o o l ,  and to make it as  convenient as p o s s ib le  
f o r  ch i ld ren  to attend the s c h o o l____' »

26. The Court o f  A ppeals  continued:

" I f  this p o licy  has not resu lted  n a la rg e r  
attendance o f  white and N egro  ch i ld ren  in any 
p a rt icu la r  sch o o l ,  it is b ecau se  o f  their  r e s id e n c e s ,  
a  fac t  o f  which  the B oard  o f  Education cannot 
co n tro l .  No child ,  N egro  or  white, has been  denied 
the right to attend s c h o o l  in the zone o f  his r e s id e n ce .
(High s c h o o ls  in the sy s te m  a re  not zoned. )"

27. The plaintiffs  a l s o  made contentions rega rd ing  the drawing o f  s c h o o l

zone lines ,  but the Court o f  App eals  held that:

" T h e r e  w as no e v id en ce  o f  g errym an d er in g  
in the drawing o f new sc h o o l  zone lines o r  other 
d is c r im in a to r y  p r a c t i c e s  in the adm in istra tion  o f  
the plan. If the plaintiffs  have such e v id en ce  they 
should p resen t  it to the D is t r ic t  Court, who w il l  hear 
It and adopt findings o f  fac t  and co n c lu s io n s  o f  law.
W e cannot c o n s id e r  this issue  f o r  the f i r s t  t im e on 
appeal.  "

28. P la intiffs  did not appeal the d e c is io n s  o f  the Court o f  Appeals  to the 

United States Suprem e Court and thus said opinion  w as f inal with the 

excep t ion  b f  the facu lty  Issue.

- / 0 / -
l a w  o r r ic c a  

W I T T .  G A IT H E R .
A H f.'R N A l I IY  &

W IL S O N
IIO O  AM E R IC A N  N A T IO N A L  

DAN K D U IL O IN Q  
C h a t t a n o o g a . 

T l N N r i . S U  374 0 2



29. It U, th e r e fo re ,  the defendant1!  contention  that they have been In c o m ­

pliance  with the law o f  the land and have not done any acta w hich  hnve 

v io la ted  the constitutional r ights o f  the p laintiffs  o r  the c la s s  that they 

re p re s e n t ,  have operated  under an ap proved  plan, and th e re fo re  move 

f o r  su m m a ry  judgm ent asking that the M otion  fo r  F urther  R e l ie f  f i led  

In 196C and the M otion  f o r  Im m ediate  R e l ie f  f i led  in 1969 be  d is m is s e d  

e x ce p t  f o r  facu lty  d esegrega t ion .

30. In support  o f  their  contentions ,  defendants would show that s o m e  of  

th ese  is su es  have a lrea d y  been  lit igated b e fo r e  this Court  and the 

Court o f  A pp ea ls  and the defendants have been  found not guilty of 

g e rry m a n d e r in g  the s c h o o l  zone lines o r  manipulating the t ra n s fe r  

p r o v i s io n s .  A6 to the locat ion  of the s c h o o ls ,  there  have been  no 

new lo cat ions  o f  s c h o o ls  s ince  this Court last dec ided  the m atter  in 

1965. H ow ever ,  defendants would  offer to the Court and to plaintiffs  

that, b e fo r e  building any new sc h o o ls ,  the  defendants would be glad 

to d is cu ss  with the Court, and with plaintiffs  tho locat ion  o f  any ouch 

new sc h o o l  s o  that there  w il l  be  no reason ab le  b e l ie f  that defendants 

would  bo locating  any sc h o o l  fo r  the p u rp oses  o f  segregatin g  students. 

T h is  Court  and the Court o f  A pp ea ls  lias c o n s id e r e d  the m atter  o f  the 

s c h o o l  zone lines and have found them not to be g e rr y m a n d e re d  b e fo r e .  

The b a s is  upon drawing the s c h o o l  zone lines was test if ied  to In 1965 

and a l s o  in 1971 by Mr. R o b e r t  A . T a y lo r  and the r e a so n  g iven  t l ie ro for  

w as the cap a c ity  o f  the s c h o o ls  and the g e o g ra p h ica l  lo ca t ion  o f  sa id  

s c h o o l .  The test im ony  given  at the A p r i l  14, 1971 hearing p resen ted  

the r e a so n  why the high s c h o o ls  w e re  not zoned and show ed c v id o n ce  

that (1) d e s e g re g a t io n  in fo r m e r ly  a l l -w h lto  high s c h o o ls  has been  

in creas in g  steadily  and cons istent ly  and (2) that many N e g ro e s  attend 

e ither  B ra in e rd  o r  Chattanooga High Sch oo l  even  though they r e s id e  

c l o s e r  to o i lh e r  Howard or  U lv e rs id o  High .Schools. A s  to t r a n s fe r s  

o f  students, plaintiffs in 1965 did not p rove  their  ch a rg e s  and have not

l a w  o r r i c c *
W I T T .  G A IT H E R . 

A B E R N A T H Y  ft 
W IL 6 0 N

IIO O  A M E R IC A N  N A T IO N A L  
BAN K O U IL O IN O

C h a t t a n o o g a .
T l NNESSEE 37 40 3



g iven  defendants nor  the Court  any in form ation , e ither  through 

pleadings or  a n s w e r s  to defendants ' in te r r o g a t o r i e s ,  regarding  

any s p e c i f i c  v io lat ion  o f  the p la intiffs '  constitutional r ights  by 

manipulating sa id  tr a n s fe r  p o l i c ie s .  T h e re fo r e ,  with the except ion  

o f  the facu lty  is su e ,  a l l  the is su es  mentioned by the C o u r t 's  opinion 

o f  F e b ru a ry  19, 1970, have been  co v e r e d  e ither  at the hearing  held 

a month ago  o r  p r io r  thereto .

This 7th day o f  May, 1971.

R esp ect fu l ly  submitted,

7s/. Raym ond B. Witt, Jr .

Raym ond B. Witt, Jr .
A ttorney  fo r  defendants 
1100 A m e r i c a n  Bank Building 
Chattanooga, T en n essee  37402

(c e r t i f i ca te  o f  s e r v ic e )

W I T T .  G A IT H E R . 
A p K R N A T H Y  *  

W H .S O N
MOO A M E R IC A N  N A T IO N A L  

RANK P U IL O IN G

C h a t t a n o o g a . 
T t N N C M U  *740*

I



AMENDED
t

A mDESEGREGATION P U N  /

ADOPTED 

JUNE 16, 1971

PREPARED BY

CHATTANOOGA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

- i o t r



r

AMENDED PLAN OF DESEGREGATION 
CHATTANOOGA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE

June 16, 1971

j

f
.1

In compliance with the oral opinion by the District Court of 
the United States, Eastern District of Tennessee, Southern Division, of 
May 19, 1971, in Civil Action No. 3564, Mapp, et al. Plaintiffs v. The 
Board of Education of the City of Chattanooga, et al, Defendants, and 
consistent with the guidelines set forth in said opinion reflecting 
Interpretation of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. 39 U.S.L. Week 4437 
decided April 20, 1971, Green v. County School Board of New Kent County. 
Virginia. 391 U.S. 430 (May 27, 1968), United States v. Montgomery County 
Board of Education. 395 U.S. 225 (June 2, 1969), and in decisions of the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Kelley v. Metro­
politan County Board of Education of Nashville and Davidson County.
436 F 2d 856 (December 18, 1970) and Robinson v. Shelby County Board
of Education, _______  F. 2d _______  (May 10, 1971), the following plan
is submitted.

In the process of designing the Plan, the members of the 
Defendant Board, the Superintendent and his staff gave careful considera­
tion to the Court's instructions to consider language in the Kelley case, 
supra, such as "to maximize pupil integration," "take affirmative action 
to maximize integration in all feasible ways," "however, none of these 
considerations can supersede the importance of the primary goal of maxi­
mizing integration" and in Robinson, supra, "all that is required of 
defendant in the area of zoning is that it take affirmative action to 
maximize integration in all feasible ways so as to promote the immediate 
establishment of a unitary school system," and the goal of maintaining 
quality education.

The Plan as submitted represents the best effort of the Defendant 
Board to meet the constitutional mandate - placing an affirmative duty 
upon the Defendant Board to -

"take whatever steps might be necessary to convert to a
unitary system in which racial discrimination would be
eliminated root and branch."

"to eliminate from the public schools all vestiges of
state-imposed segregation."

The Plan assumes and is conditioned upon receiving adequate 
funding to provide whatever transportation is required by the Plan as 
finally approved. The Plan is based upon the best available statistical 
data with reference to students and also assumes that students will 
attend those schools to which they are assigned under this Plan.

As an essential element in the Plan, Defendant Board respect­
fully requests that the Court find and so decide that once the Plan is 
approved, and implemented, that the Chattanooga School System is then a 
unitary school system, and not in default of any constitutional obligation.

Respectfully submitted this 16th day of June, 1971.

THE CHATTANOOGA BOARD OF EDUCATION

John P. Franklin, Chairman 
Corley R. Young, Vice-Chairman 
Mrs. C. M, Hooper, Secretary 
Rev. H. H. Battle 
MeCle1lan Cook 
James I,. Jenkins 
E. S. Proctor, Jr.

i

10 5  -



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

I. Enrollment Projections

II. Proposed Attendance Zones

A. Elementary Schools

B. Junior High Schools

C. Senior High Schools

D. Transportation

III. Educational Programs

IV. Student Transfer Policy

V. Desegregation of Faculty and Other Staff

VI. School Construction and Site Selection Policy

VII. Provision for Periodic Reports Relating to 
Plan Implementation

VIII. Summary Statement - Board of Education 

Appendix A 

Appendix B

1 0  6 '



In order to Identify the location of every student residing within 
the city of Chattanooga and served by its public school system, It was 
necessary to pin point the residential location of each student by name 
Through this approach tile most exact baseline data posaible was available 
at a given point in time irfilch in this Instance was at the end of the 
eighth month of the 1970-71 school year. Upon locating the students by 
name, it was possible to apply the present elementary school zones thereby 
determining the number of students by race and by grades 1-12 in each of 
the then current elementary attendance zones. Students residing in the 
city and attending schools within the city but external to their residential 
zone were also identified in anticipation of the current transfer policies 
being revised. Based on this available data it was possible for the school 
system to determine the most feasible course of action within the criteria

by the Board of Education in developing a proposed plan consistent 
with the guidelines projected by the Court.

The base elementary zone student identification approach was 
necessary in order to revise the current junior high school zones and to 
develop new senior high attendance zones. Previously, senior high schools 
were not zoned; therefore, it was necessary to apply mathematical trend 
projections based on the per cent of the total junior high school students 
enrolling in senior high schools. Percentage trends were the basis for 
projections rather than specific students by name. The identification of 
students by residence in base elementary zones enabled the school system 
to project the 1971-72 enrollment figures on specifically identified 
students rather than applying percentages based on trends to general 
student population figures, thereby enabling the school system to project 
new attendance zones maximizing desegregation while minimizing transporta­tion.

I. ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

Projections were applied to the next school year with first year 
students becoming second year projections, second year students becoming 
third year projections, and so on through grade twelve. Projections for 
the 1971-72 first grade class were determined through applying the 1970-71 
first grade enrollment figures. In other words, enrollment figures in 
Table I are based on specific students by name with the exception of the 
first grade in which case it was projected that the enrollment would be 
consistent with 1970-71. Any discrepancies between projections and actual 
enrollment figures would result from continued outward migration from the 
city and usual instances of students dropping out. It is anticipated, 
based on past trends, that upward to fifteen hundred students will fall 
into this category. Another variable which the system cannot control, 
nor calculate, would be in the area of the public's reaction to the pro­
posed plan. The school system cannot assume responsibility for population 
mobility in those cases moving external to the geographic area not served 
by Chattanooga Public Schools.

Table I, "Base Elementary Zones Enrollment Projection Data, 
Grades 1 through 12, 1971-72 School Year," (Appendix A) reflects base 
elementary zone data for specifically identifiable students by race for 
special education students and regular school students for grades 1 
through 12.

II. PROPOSED ATTENDANCE ZONES

As described in Section I - Enrollment Projections, the point 
of departure was the base elementary zones for developing proposed attend­
ance zones. Criteria for attendance zones development focused on maximizing 
desegregation and minimizing transportation. Realizing that the school 
system serves students ranging from a very early age to young adults, there 
were numerous factors to take into consideration in developing a proposed 
plan in keeping with the intent and purposes as outlined by the Court.

- i O T -



With a commitment to adhere to the direction set forth by the Court, the 
Board of Education considered as one of its major responsibilities the 
establishment of attendance zones which would enable the school system to 
achieve the most feasible distribution of black and white students to the 
attendance centers in order to facilitate total desegregation. While 
promoting the most efficient level of educational administration, the 
school system's guidelines encompassed (1) maximum desegregation, (2) 
minimum transportation, (3) optimum development of quality instructional 
programs, (4) maximum use of school plant facilities, and (5) most effi­
cient use of financial resources.

In determination of proposed attendance zones, the following 
factors were taken into account within the general guidelines projected 
in the previous paragraph: (a) out of concern for the safety of pupils,
insofar as feasible within the objective of total desegregation, elemen­
tary school attendance zones have been established by combining contiguous 
zones in order that elementary students would be assigned to the general 
geographic area in which they reside; (b) because of the Increased maturity 
of the Junior and senior high school age students, they are considered 
able to travel greater distance from home more safely; therefore, the 
secondary school attendance zones encompass larger geographic areas than 
the elementary attendance zones.

In all cases the projections on which the following 1971-72 
enrollment figures were arrived were based on the student population of 
the city remaining constant with no variables taken into consideration. 
Validity of data can be documented however at this point in time.

In a few Instances, due to facility limitation and the objective 
of improving black-white ratio, it was necessary to adjust base attendance 
zones. In such cases the projections were based on student-locator maps 
with actual data pertaining to students' residences, grade placement, 
and race. Through the utilization of student-locator maps it was possible 
to make zone adjustments based on hard data. Detailed legal descriptions 
of the proposed zones will be prepared upon Court acceptance of the plan 
and will be available for Board approval prior to the beginning of the 
1971-72 school year. Copies of the legal description will be forwarded 
to the Court upon Board approval.

A. Elementary School Attendance Zones

Chattanooga Public Schools proposed plan for elementary school 
attendance zones takes into account the ages of the students served, espe­
cially in view of the geographic and man-made factors which might impinge 
on the safety and welfare of the children. The map labeled Elementary 
Attendance Zone Map I (Appendix B) describes the plan visually and Table 
II (Appendix A) projects enrollment data for each school contained in the 
system for school year 1971-72. The enrollment projections are based on 
the school records at the completion of the eighth month of the 1970-71 
school year. Validity of the data is dependent upon societal variables 
previously identified.

As a result of zone identification, it is proposed that 
Amnicola, Cedar Hill, Davenport, Glenwood, and Trotter Elementary Schools 
not be operable during the 1971-72 school year. Alterations in school 
utilization were based on the availability and suitability of facilities 
and consistent with the objective of maximizing desegregation. It is 
projected that in these instances zone determination was based on the 
principle of zoning described in Section II including maximum desegrega­
tion, optimum development of quality instructional programs, maximum 
use of school plant facilities, and the most efficient use of financial 
resources.

- t o i



Junior high school attendance zones are Identified on the base 
eleaentary school sones. The map labeled Junior High Attendance Zone 
(Appendix B) describes the plan visually and Table III (Appendix A) pro­
jects enrollment data fot each school contained In the system for school 
year 1971-72. As In all zone determination procedures, the basis for 
zone location was the elementary base zone. Again, validity of the data 
relies upon the stability of the city's population.

As a result of zonb Identification, It Is proposed that Howard 
and Lookout Junior High Schools not be operable during the 1971-72 school 
year. Again, alterations In school utilization were based on the avail­
ability and suitability of facilities and consistent with the objective 
of siaxlmlzlng desegregation. As In the case of the elementary school 
zones, the Junior high school zones determination was based on the prin­
ciple of zoning Including maximum desegregation, optimum development of 
quality Instructional programs, maximum use of school plant facilities, 
and the most efficient use of financial resources.

B. Junior High School Attendance Zones

C. Senior High School Attendance Zones

Location of senior high school attendance zones la a continua­
tion of the upward extension of the base elementary zone. The map labeled 
Senior High Attendance Zone (Appendix B) describes the plan visually and 
Table IV (Appendix A) projects enrollment data for each school contained 
In the system for school year 1971-72. The enrollment projections are 
based on the school records at the completion of the eighth month of the 
1970-71 school year. All projections disregard the variable of population 
mobility. Those students, regardless of school zone, who expressed In 
written form through the completion of enrollment cards prior to the 
Initial court order, the desire to become enrolled In a vocational educa­
tional program will be enrolled by the Kirkman Technical High School 
administration. In order to accommodate the students It will be necessary 
to operate vocational satellite classes at Riverside and Howard High 
Schools. These classes will be phased Into the Kirkman Center as soon 
as possible. However, at this point in time, it Is Impossible to achieve 
facility readiness prior to the 1971-72 school year. These students 
attending these satellite classes will be registered and officially 
enrolled at Kirkman. Staffing procedures will be followed consistently 
with guidelines set forth In Section V, while classes will be desegregated 
In the same manner consistent with over-all senior high guidelines.

D. Transportation

In order to implement the proposed plan it Is projected that 
It will be necessary for the school system to make available transporta­
tion for those elementary and junior high school students residing in 
areas more than one and one-half miles from their attendance center.
Also, In those Instances In which natural or man-made safety factors are 
located between an elementary or junior high school student's residence 
and his attendance center, transportation may be provided upon parental 
request. The criteria for providing transportation will focus on the 
most feasible service for children based on successful plan Implementation.

Recognizing that transportation service could become an expen­
sive Item for the school system, an expenditure heretofore not projected 
as a part of the operating budget, it Is essential that the appropriate 
funding agency allocate the necessary additional resources.

- 1 0 9 -



III. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

Relative to educational programs to be conducted vlthln the 
fraaevork of the proposed plan, all organizational patterns promoting, 
allowing, or encouraging,segregation will be prohibited. Equal educa­
tional prograau for all students within attendance centers and for all 
attendance centers within the school system are comaitments of the Board 
of Education. It Is projected that In those cases where population 
mobility occurs within the city, children will have less adjustment 
problems as similar programs are being conducted throughout the school 
system.

Present Board policy pertaining to nondlscrlmlnatory practices 
related to extracurricular activities will continue to be applicable, 
and activities conducted within these policies will be periodically 
reviewed by the Board.

IV. STUDENT TRANSFER POLICY

The provisions for student transfers stated below are applicable 
to the proposed plan and shall rescind all previous Board policy pertain­
ing to student transfers.

A. This school system shall permit a student--black or white--attending 
a school In which his race Is in the majority to choose to attend 
another school In which his race Is In the minority. Transfers must 
be finalized prior to the tenth day of the school term. The system 
will provide all such transferring students free transportation and 
will make space available In the school to which he desires to enroll. 
The system will notify all students of the availability of such 
transfers.

B. In those cases In which students are orthopedlcally handicapped, 
and upon medical documentation, parents may request that the student 
be reassigned to another school. The Division of Pupil Personnel 
Services will be responsible for reviewing the request and making 
reconiaendatlons regarding assignment to the most feasible location. 
Criteria for reassignment will be based solely on a student's

. physical limitations and suitability of buildings with disregard 
for race.

C. Educational programs for special education children shall be con­
ducted consistent with the State Department of Education's rules and 
regulations including the criteria for Identification of eligible 
children. Placement of classes and assignment of students will be 
made with disregard for race.

D. A student whose residence changes within the boundary of the school 
system but Is located in another school zone may choose to remain in 
the same school until the end of the school year. At the conclusion 
of that year the student will transfer to the school to which his 
new residence Is zoned.

V. DESEGREGATION OF FACULTY AND OTHER STAFF

In order to Implement a quality educational program for all the 
school children attending Chattanooga Public Schools consistent with the 
guidelines set forth by the District Court of the United Stated, the Board 
of Education proposes the following course of action:

A. Effective at the beginning of the 1971-72 school year, the principals, 
teachers, teacher aides, and other staff who work directly with 
children at a school shall be so assigned that in no case will the

-  no-



y  .

racial composition of a staff indicate that a school is Intended 
for black students or white students. The system shall assign the 
staff described above so that the approximate ratio of black to 
white teacher* In each school, and the ratio of other staff In 
each, Is substantially the same as each such approximate ratio Is 
to the teachers and other staff, respectively, In the entire school 
system as of the tenth day of the 1970-71 school year. Teacher* shall 
be assigned on the basis of certification and qualification for the 
academic subjects or grade levels to be taught.

The school system shall, to the extent necessary to carry out this 
desegregation plan, direct members of Its staff as a condition of 
continued employment to accept new assignments.

B. Following implementation of Step 1, staff members who work directly 
with children, and professional staff who work on the administrative 
level will be hired, assigned, promoted, paid, demoted, dismissed, 
and otherwise treated without regard to race, color, or national 
origin. All courses of action pertaining to hiring, assigning, 
promoting, paying, demoting, and dismissing are subject to existing 
Tennessee law, State School Board Regulations, and local ordinances.

C. If there Is to be a reduction in the number of principals, teachers, 
teacher aides, or other professional staff employed by the school 
system which will result In a dismissal or demotion of any such staff 
member, the staff member to be dismissed or demoted must be selected 
on the basis of objective and reasonable nondiscrlmlnatory standards 
from among all the staff of the school system. In addition, If there 
is any such dismissal or demotion, no staff vacancy may be filled 
through recruitment of a person of a race, color, or national origin 
different from that of the individual dismissed or demoted, until 
each displaced staff member regardless of race who Is qualified has 
had an opportunity to fill the vacancy and has failed to accept an 
offer to do so.

As related to staff reduction, the school board will adhere to non- 
raclal and objective criteria to be used in selecting the staff 
member who Is to be dismissed or demoted. These criteria shall be 
stated as administrative procedures and/or Board policy, thereby 
becoming a matter of public record. The school system also shall 
record and preserve the evaluation of staff members under the 
criteria. Such evaluation shall be made available upon request to 
the dismissed or demoted employee.

Demotion as used above Includes any reassignment (1) under which the 
staff member receives less pay or has less responsibility than under 
the assignment he held previously, (2) which requires a lesser degree 
of skill than did the assignment he held previously, or (3) under 
which the staff member is asked to teach a subject or grade other 
than one for which he is certified or for which he has had substan­
tial experience within a reasonably current period.

Promotion includes any reassignment (1) under which the staff member 
receives more pay or more responsibility than under the assignment 
he held previously, or (2) which requires a greater degree of skill 
than did the assignment he held previously.

The purpose of this plan is to provide a method by which the 
staffs of each of the schools shall be desegregated in approximately the 
same ratio as black teachers and white teachers in the total system. It 
is the intent of the Board of Education through this plan for staff 
desegregation to remove racial identity as a result of teacher assign­
ments in schools while in all instances effecting reasslgnments through 
objective administrative procedures.

* i n



•sr '.Ir ■

Within the framework of commitments to Implement total staff 
desegregation, specific procedures will be developed Internally by the 
system's administrative staff and will be approved and periodically re* 
viewed by the Board of Education.

VI. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND SITE SEIXCTION

All school construction, school consolidation, school closure, 
and site selection In this system shall be done in a manner which will 
prevent the occurrence of a dual school system. All plans relating to 
construction, consolidation, site selection, and closure shall be sub­
mitted to the Court for review and approval prior to Initiation of 
implementation.

VII. PROVISION FOR PERIODIC REPORTS RELATING 
TO PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

It Is proposed that the Chattanooga Board of Education aubmlt 
to the Court a report by October 31, 1971, based on tenth day enrollment 
figures and staff assignments. The report will encompass pertinent data 
relative to plan implementation in both student enrollment and staffing. 
Other reports would be forwarded to the Court pertaining to those specific 
Instances in which directions and/or positions of compliance arise.

VIII. SUMMARY STATEMENT - BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Intent of the Board of Education, through the development 
and submittal of this plan, is to comply with the directions set forth 
by the Court and Is consistent with the intent of the Court to propose 
a plan which will result in the provision of quality education for all 
children served by this school system. Compliance with the law of the 
land as interpreted by the courts is the objective and commitment 
shared by this Board of Education. It is the Board's position that 
the proposed plan is reflective of this commitment.



APPENDIX A - TABLES

TABLE I - Base Elementary Zones Enrollment Projection Data 
Grades 1 Through 12, 1971-72 School Year

TABLE II - Projected Enrollment for Proposed Elementary 
Attendance Zones, Grades 1 Through 6,
1971-72 School Year

TABLE III - Projected Enrollment for Proposed Junior High 
Attendance Zones, Grades 7 Through 9,
1971-72 School Year

TABLE IV - Projected Enrollment for Proposed Senior High 
Attendance Zones, Grades 10 Through 12, 
1971-72 School Year

- / / ' 4



w rr HMTW

CHATTANOOGA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
Chattanooga, Tenneaaee

TABLE I. BASE ELEMENTARY ZONES ENROLLMENT PROJECTION DATA 
GRADES 1 THROUGH 12, 1971-72 SCHOOL YEAR

Pag* _L_ of_1

Amnlcola 
Base Zone

Avondale 
Base Zone

Barger 
Base Zone

Bell
Base Zone

Brown 
Base Zona

Gride_ _ _ _ » 1 H 1 X B 1 W 1 T j  .J v- l - C .3.1, V.L.xI ft L-H.1.1-

Regular 1st 12 6 18 89 2 91 65 65 62 62 18 35 5 1
-  2nd 13 7 2C 89 2 91 76 76 62 62 19 43 62
"  3rd 8 6 14 119 ' 3 122 67 67 80 80 17 38 55

R. Total (1-J) 33 19 52 297 7 304 9 208 208| 204 9 204 54 116 - 1 2 ° .

M "  2nd 2 ___ L
"  "  3rd 31 3 2 2

S. Total (1-33 5 51 C 3 0 3 0 0 ol 0 0 0 0 4 4

Total (1-31 33 19 52 300 7 307 • 0 208 208 204 0 204 54 R,9 m
leeular 4th 11 5 ie 110 n q 55 5j 8 5 85 23 i s 41

”  5th 18 8 2( 97 97 46 46 83 l 84 20 is 48
” 6th 12 11 23 106 T 107 74 74 83 l 84 18 i s 47

*. Total (4-61 41 24 63 313 r 314 0 175 175 251 2 61 $5 146
Sd . Ed. 4th 8 e 4 4 1 3 4
" " 5th 6 e 4 4 1 1

" " 6th 1 i 3 3 1 i
S. Total (4-61 C 0 ( 15 0 13 0 0 C 11 0 11 3 5 li

Total '4-6! 41 24 63 328 i 32? 0 175 175 262 2 264 64 94

R. Total (1-61 74 43 117 4l0 i ? 61£ 0 383 383 455 2 457 115 “ 7 5 1 514
S. Total (1-61 C C C 18 c If c 0 C n ui 11 3 13 16

C. Total q-6) 74 43 117 628 8 63( 0 383 383 466 2 468 118 214 332

— n — r “ 7 ! “ IBS “ 1 n r ; — ES— 53 T S — r T 5 “ 711 “ 7 1 51
"  8th 12 6 K 174 15 = 1 7« 75 87 87 18 3!
"  9th 3( 6 4 !— 153! I2 : 1 74 71 n 14| 3t 37

R. Total (7-91 6 ' “ n r 8: 551 “ 11 552 5 i m 21( 743 1 TV :>i 105
S p . Ed. 7th t ( 7 1 1 4
M M 8th 8 £ 17 15
"  "  9th

8 .  Total (7-91 — 1 ■ a t 14 1' C C < 1? li ? ( 1 ! 4

f i-  I ° W  (7~?) 6! ie 8: 365 1 36< 2 214 2 If 262 2 26? 53 10! 158

Regular 10th H 19 122 122l 90 9C 92 92 21 a 46
"  11th 16 1? 106 3 10? 94 94 68 66 22 92

12th 13 7 2( 94 2 9f 81 81 40 4C 14 17 21
R. Total (10-121 4C 1? 5c 1 7 7 51 327 0 265 265 200 0 20C 57 82 13?
S d . Ed. 10th 8 £ 9 9 1 1

"  "  11th 8 £ 1 1 9 ? 6 6
"  "  12th

8. Total (10-12! 0 C C 16 0 It 0 1 1 18 0 l£ 0 J i

C . Total (10-121 4C 18 5f 338 5 34 3 0 266 266 218 .0 218 57 89 U ft ,

R. Total (1-12) rrrvr 79n 1 1 1 14! 1297 2| 862! 864J 898 3 901 224 3§?r 90}
5. Total (1-1?.) 0.a  i 48 0 4*S q l 1 48 1 4? 4 2? u
G. Total (1-12) 179! 7 9 2 5! 1331 14 1345 2 863 865 946 4 95C 228 408 6J9
Per Cent (B-W) A 31 10C 99 1 10C 0 100 10C 100 0 100 36 641 100

L - I'L,



Page _ 2 _  o f  1

Carpenter Cfct-ar H ill J C l i f ton  H ills Da ••-'•jiort Donaldson
Pare Zc-r.c 4 ! c  •» t  f  7 "  T V . ;ii* 7 *n« ? ’ ?•

ijrade _ X U T l * 1 W 1 -i j 3 ! w 1 T 1 - i J u _a_jU - W . L I _

KOKular 1st 53 2 5! 24 24j 3 65 68 ! 26 2 28 77ft 2nd 57 3 6C 26 26 3 77 80 29 3 32 82 s in 3rd 62 1 63 42 42 2 73 75 33 1 34 r~CO *?R. Total (1-3) 172 6 176 Q 92 92 8 215 223i 88 6 94 242 0 i i i
So. Ed. 1st 2 2M •• 2nd 3 3 1 1 1 i 2 2It tt 3rd 3 3 1 1 1 i 8 6
S. Total (1-3) 6 fl < Q 2 2 (1 2 2 0 0 Cl 12 c

Total (1-3) 178 6 184 0 94 94 ' 8 217 2 2: 88 6 94 2 34 c 254
Regular 4 th 57 1 56 27 27 3 sl 561 43 3 4( 8 5tt 5th 46 3 4? 23 23 6 67 73 42 42 64 64If 6th 54 4 56 30 3C 1 64 63 27 2 2? 67 67
R. total ( 4 - 6 ) 157 8 163 c 8 0 e c 1C 186 196 112 5 1 17 i l6 J 516
Sp. Ed. 4th 5 C 1 i 3 3 4 4ft It 5th 3 *! v 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5tt ft 6th l ( i l 1 C 1 L 1 5 T

(4-6) 14 0 u 5 3 c c 4j 4 7 C 7 l f l ( 1 0

Total (4-6) 171 8 17? 0 85 83 1C 190 20( 1 1? 5 124 226 ( 226
R. Total (1-6) “ 5T* 14 34! “ 7 113 131

1
4013“ T T ! 3o'd I I 211 458 l 451

S. Total (1-6) 2C C J( f 7 3 a ( 1 * 55 22

C. Total (1-6) 34? 14 363 c 179 17< 18 407 42 3 207 i l 218 48C ( 480

Regular 7th 4,4 ' 4 ? ?4 24 $2 63 2 1 21 n
" 8th 5( 1 51 i\ 2 ' 6; 6< 28 2( ?7 u
" 9th 52 1 5? 29 23 48 4f 23 23 83 § 3

R. Total (7-9) 14f 1 151 c 74 7 ' 3 173 17< ___Zf . 1 7' 2?? < 2 3 ?
S p . Ed. 7th 2. __ 'l ■ 2 L 4 4. 12 12
" " 8th 10 19 3 7 3 i] 7 8 B
" " 9 th ___J___

S. Total (7-9) 10 0 to c 5 e 1 1 0 11 11 0 11 20 0 2 0

g. Total.t?-?) -i l l 7 _LSI 0 7 9 7? 4 183 187 89 9C 259 C 259

Regular 10th 56 1, 5 24 24 ----3 65 ” 71 ” 71 “ 7 5 ” 5?
" U t h 65 6 7 15 1 : 5 46 51 23 1 24 87 V
" 12th 56 3 5? L 19 2( 2 35 37 15 1 82 1 83

R. Total (10-12) 177 1C 18; 1 58 53 id U 3 153 59 1 6( 267 1 268
S p . Ed. 10th 5 5 5 5 1 1 3 3 4 \
" " 11th 8 8 1 1 2 2 9 9 ? s
" " 12th

S. Total (10-12) 13 C 13 0 6 6 0 3 3 12 0 12 12 0 12

g. Total (10-12) 190 10 200 1 64 65 10 146 156 71 X 72 279 ___ 1 -211

R. Total 61-123 “752 “ TT“ 583 T“ 3 5 4 305 28 lib “ MS' 337 “ IT 350 ”757 “ 17i ? rS. Total t ■ 12) 43 0 43 0 18 18 1 19 20 30 0 30 54 0
C. Total (1-12) 695 31 726 1 322 323 29 739 768 367 13 380 1018 1 101J

Per Cent (P-W) 96 4 10C 0 100 IOO u 96 100 97 3 100 100 0 100»
i

l

— it*



Pag* _3_ of __7

East
Chattanooga East Lake T " ------- ---- 1j Eastdale Garber Glenvood
S?4« Zo-.« ' 3-.5F. Zr" ‘ . ~..-t ’ one 2?** ?:^z ?•

Crade * 1 w 1 x" J L - L H .  1— t 3 ! v 1 I ? 1 w ! r >.Jt. L-W. . L I -

Regular 1st 6 64 7( 70 d 52 32 8 4 6 4 ' 29! 93 n ------ 2 T T
It 2na $ 66 77 k 77 52 22 §4| 51 2 5 761 2 -> 7 2 2
ft 3rd 5 7( 61 61 56 15 fill 4 5 ?1 6 f i i 1 3 4

R. Total 0 - 3 ) 17 m 212 1 210 211 I IP 5 ? 257 1 60 75 215 i n 5 8 8
Sp. Ed. l - - t 1 1 1 1

II II 2nd i 1 1 1 1 lj 1 1
II II 3rd I 1 _ J ? i 1 1

S. Total 0 . - 3 ) q i 2 Q 2 2 _ _ _ _ £ __ Q a 5 ? t 2 2

Total 0 - 3 ) 17 197 21< 1 212 2 T 1581 99 2 57 165 77 267 n i 9D
Regular 4th 6 7S 76 1 ____ BA___ .8 9 53!____ 2 4 n ? 6 1 ? 5! ?? l ) 6 ?It 3 t h ? 57 5i ____ bSL____fei 2 3 27 7 q 14 5- 42 1 6 3

II 6th 5 54 51 ) 62 ____ 6 ; 61 1 ? 7 ; 2 ? 2C 4 ! 4  J 63
R. Total 0 - 6 ' 11 I f i l l<?i 2 2 1 5

_
1 2 2 5 3 2 2 c 1 04 5 J 1 ? ' 1 24 j 126

S p .  Ed. 4th 1 2 1 i 1 3 2 : i
II II 5th 3 3 — T l 21 3 11 11 1 1 1 l
If It 6 t h 3 3 1 2 3 V 4 3 2 5

S. Total (4-6) i 8 9 l 7 8 5 1 6 6 5 1 1 r l r i

Total (4-6) 12 189 2 0 1 3 2 2 2 225 132 94 2 2 6 1 1 0 58 168 125 ? } ? B
R .  Total 0 - 6 ) 28 4 (x t ' 3 425 285 “ T 9 2 477 i  6 i i!>8 * ■ 3 9 2 207 7

S .  Total (1-6) i 1 0 — n l 9 1 0 5 r 6 11 7 18 3 1 4

... 2 9 386 413 4 434 438 290 193 483 275 135 410 2 1 0 8 2 1 8

Regular 7th 6 49 55 7? 7? <*3 42 85 26 12 38 4? 1 6 1tf 8th 6 29 35 6? 69 49 51 100 35 73 4§ 51 6 1 )tf 9th 8 41 4S ?1 ?1 35 41 76 23 ? 32 3? 2 6 1
R . Total (7-9) 20 119 139 0 22? 2231 127 1?4 261 94 36 118 132 7 1 3 )
Sp . Ed. 7th 6 ( 1 4 5 7 1 6 3 31 1 1tl ft 8th 1 __g 5 5 5 2 2tt tt 9th
S. Total (7-9) 1 14 1." 1 9l 1C 9 1 1C ~y 3 1 0 L

S L -lcL fL (7-9) 21 -222 154 1 232 233 136 135 271 84 37 121 _L22 7 U Q

Regular 10th 5 40 41 1 80 8L 43 59 102 16 13 29 56 3“ 57
" 1 1 t h 8 46 5 t 1 76 77 45 47 92 18 11 29 28 2 39
" 12th 5 37 4! 2 55 57 39 38 77 18 8 26 39 1 49

R. Total 00-12) 18 123 141 4 211 219 127 144 271 52 32 84 123 3 12)
Sp. Ed. 10th 1 1 5 5 T 1 1 4 3 1 1
" " 11th 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 3
" " 12th

S. Total (10-)2). 0 2 ; 0 8 E 1 1 2 2 6 E l c

C. Total (10-12) 18 125 14: 4 219 22: 128 145 273 54 38 92 124 6- U l

R. Total (1 I D 618 684 7 859 86( 539 470 cr-OO_1 400 194r~594 ” 435 “ 7!
S. Total / .2) .’1 26 ?H 2 26 28| 15 3 18 13 16 29 s 1 i

C. Total 0-12) 68 644 712 9 88 5 894 554 473 1027 413 210 623 467 21 48?

Per CfPt ( A 96 iOC 1 99 IOC 54 46 100 66 34 100 96 4 100



Page 4 of 7

Hemlock Base Zone
Henry Base Zon*

Highland
ParkBase Zone Howard Base Zcne Elbert Long B<se Zone

Grade »  [ H 1 L - B 1 w 1 , x ~ , / j . B 1 W 1 T B 1 w 1., I —

Regular lat 15 7511 7 ” 53 5C 4 8 48 1 84 8 47 I T
•I 2nd 14 30 ui 56, 58 52 52 57 f}6 5 5( 59'
ft 3rd l§— IT 4C 81 61 42 U'i 79 79 7 4C 47

R. Total (1-3) 44 80 l2z 167 3 167 0 142 142 ~ 249 0 “ 249 24 137 _ 1 6 1
1st 1 1 2 1 1

I I  I I 2nd I 1 1 5 5 1 1
I I  I I 3rd 1 1 1 5 ' 1 9 1C 1 1

S . Total (1-3) 2 ----21 i 12 3 12 1 91 1C 3 0 2 0 ( , a
Total (1-3) 46 82 128 179 0 179 1 151 152 252 0 252 24 137 161

Resular 4 th — T5 34 49 74 74 2 60 62 79 79 16 ?c 86
I I 5th 14 23 27 ?? ?3 57 57 73 73 3 49 53
I I 6th 10 33 42 48 48 48 48 105 105 10 43 5?

R. Total (4-6) 39 90 12? 17? 7 17? 2 16? 16/ 2 5 7 0 2 5 7 29 142 m
S p . Ed. 4th 1 1 ? 2 3 3 1

i t  i i 5th 1 1 2 . 14 14
i i  i i 6th 11 11 1 1 5 5 7 7

S . Total (4-6) 13 1 14 3 0 J 3 ? ? 24 0 24 0 1

Total '4-6) 52 91 142 178 0 178 2 170 172 281 0 281 29 143 172
R. Total (1-6) " u “ T O “ T O J42 0 J42 2 ?07 H?0? 506 0 506 53 279 I T
S. Total (1-6) is }{ 1? 0 1? 1 14 15 27 0 27 0 1 \

G. Total (1-6) 17} 271 _3£7 0 3 321 324 533 0 533 53 28C - J 2 1

Resular 7th 12 32 Ui 6C 68 1 4 9 5C 77 ” 7) ------7“ 5? "“ To
"  8th 19 47 68 60 6C 1 51 5i 56 1 6 7 10 47 “  5 f

" 9th 28 37 62 47 47 51 5i 53 111 1 112 5 44. 5T
R. Total (7-9) 59 ll6 172 167 o' 162 1 151 1 3 3 274 2 27( 25 14p 155
So. Ed. 7th 4 1 * 1 1 11 11

" " 8th ------4 “ 5 ”  1 ------ 7 2 3 U U 1 1
" "  9th

S. Total (7-9) 8 4 II 8 0 8 c 3 }l 25 0 2? p i ,1

G. Total (7-9) 67 120 18) 175 0 172 4 154 158 299 2 301 25 141 166

Resular 10th — TT“ 1 7 “ T 47 4? 2 41 43 92 92 12 52 _ 6 I
" 11th 1 0 2 0 3( 45 1 48 2 45 47 77 77 11 ___22 43.
" 12th 6 2C 2 el 38 2 4C 2 46 48 65 65 1 36 43

R. Total (10-12) 27 72 9? 130 3 133 6 132 138 234 234 30 127 157
So. Ed. 10th r 1 14 14
" " 11th 2 1 2 4 4 5 5 10 1C 1 1 F
" " 12th

S. Total (10-12) 3 T 4 4 0 4 0 5 5 24 0 24 1 1 i

G. Total (10-12) 30 73 103 134 3 137 6 137 143 258 0 258 31 128 is*

R. Total (112) 1 t 9 1 1 171 179 ----5 1 7 1 7 190157 TOT? --- 5i o n 105 1 5 U K
S. Total (1-12) 26 8 34 27 0 27 1 22 23 76 0 76 1 3 •l

G. Total (1-12) 195 366 561 666 3 669 13 612 625 1090 2 1092 109 549 658

Per Cent (B-W) 35 65 10C 100 0 10C 2 98 100 100 0 100 17 83 100

- I I



P<|l 3 of 1

Miss ionary 
Ridee Ba?e Zor.e

Normal Park Oak Grove Orchard Knob Plnevllle
Base Zo>-? ?a;e Zone ?e«? Zcne !»«e Zona

Grade ■■> L w .1. T _ ' js -1 y T  u -a J W 1 T .5.1 » 1 7 s n i :

Regular 1st 1 35 36 70 7C e 35| 43 104 1 105 71 31•t 2nd 1 37 38 77 77 9 37 46 113 1 114 V J7II 3rd 1 33 34 75 75 12 47| 59 148 1 149 32
R. Total (1-3) 3 105 108 222 222 19 119 148 365 3 }68 104 104
So. Ed. let 1 1 2• 1 II 2nd 1 11 2 1 1II II 3rd 1 V
S. Total (1-3) 0 0 0 0 0 C 2 21 4 1 0 1 0 \ 1

Total (i-3) 3 105 108 0 222 222 31 12l| 152 366 3 369 0 105 1 0 5
Reeular 4th 11 25 27 71 71 11 38* 49| 125 lis 3C )0II 5th 33 33 74 74 13 36| 49 129 129 22 22II 6th 2 34 36 89 891 11 421 52 116 l ie 27 2 7
R. Total -(4-6) 4 92 96 234 234 35 1161 151 370 37C 79 7?S p . Ed. 4th 2 2 2 5 3 2 \ 1• 1 II 5th 1 if 2 8 e \ 1II It 6th ii 1 4! 4 1 1
S . Total (4-6) 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 81 lli 12 12 ----3 |

Total '4-6> 4 92 96 237 237 33 1 2 4! 162 382 382 81R. Tofl S T $ 7 264 456 " Tss 64 i35i TJs 1 i 8 3 111
S, Total (1-6) 0 c 0 3 j 5 101 15 13 12 J ____3
C. Total J t± ±I _ 7 197 204 0 459 455 69 24 sl 314 748 3 751 0 186 186

Junior High
R «*ul«r 7th 1 42 43 76 70 9] 53 62 138 117 J7 “ 17N 8th 2 31 33 73 72 7) 54 61 128 | 2 f in 30It 9th 1 24 25 86 8(j 71 64 71 J.44 144 2 0 26
R- Total (7-9) 4 97 7,01 23? 23; 23) 171 194 4,)0 4|f fii 83
§-P. g<>. 7th li 3 4 6II II 8th 2 1 3 1? 11II II 9th
S, Total (7-9) 0 0 0 0 0 C 3| 4 7 19 0 t a

G. Total (7-9) 4 97 1 0 1 0 235 235 2 61 175 201 429 429 — 2 i
Senior High
Reeular 10th ~~r 2 2 2i &7 kl 9 36 i s 111 l i i J4 3 4

"  U t h 1 17 19 75 75 11 34 45, 141 141 31 31
"  12th 25 25 75 75 23 20 43 124 124 ?$ 2fiR. Total (10-12) 4 64 68 237 237 43 90 133 376 376 ?1 91

Sp. Ed. 10th 1 _ 1 2 8 £
"  "  11th 3| 3 10
"  "  12th

S. Total (10-12) 0 0 0 0 0 ( 4 1 5 8 10 1£ i 0
C. Total (10-12) 4 64 68 0 237 237 47 91 138 384 10 394 - 2 i — 2 1
grand Xo~a?_?■ jornery

Total (112) { t r -r r r INI “T57S iSe,“TUT 3 T 5 54 ??7 117S. Total (M2) ( 6 0 0 3 5 12 15 2 7 4 0 1 0 5 r ? 3

G. Total X l - 1 2 )  | 15 3 5 8 373 0 9 3 1 9 3 1 142 5 11 653 1 5 6 1 13 1 5 7 4 0 360 J60

Per Cent * 1 1 4 96 100 0 1 0 0 1 0 f 22 7 8 IOC 99 1 10C 0 100 -122.

- m



Piney Woods Ridgedale Rlvermont Sc. Elmo S m i t h

Base Zor.e Ba s s  Zp T'? Sa-e dene B?s? Zene B » a e  Z o n e

-------& U & ------ m n 2  ■ i V  1 t. 3 1 W | T ~3.I, w L j C b L . n  1_ i —

r r : 38 38 14 31CH£ 85 85 8 m 60 42 ' ' 42T T T k 38 38 12 39 sr 88 88 10 64 74 45
*  Vrd 50 50 4 27 31 96 96 7 51 58 54 _54.

1 JptITT ’3) 126 126 30 97 127 269 269 25 167 192 141 0 ML| P , . g< >» r~_ (1) (4 (5
1 1 -ill (4'— 1 1 1 l
1 1 _J3 1 __1_3, ft>{at ?t*3) 2 2 (2) ( 13 o' 0 ~o‘ 0 °j 2 __2

U l L 128 32 108 140 26? 269 25 167 J?2 M3 ____ arrmrra*i "45 49 11 45 56 90 90 9 47 56 44Vth"" 1 47 47 15 43 58 91 91 ll' 51 62 44 _44_
1L • _6th___ 1 54 54 10 37 47 80 80 10 48 58 52 52R . Tota 1 U _1 150 150 36 125 161 261 261_30 146 176 140 0 140flp.Ed. 4th _ 2 1 (3) <1 <4 2 __2_"it t• 5th 2 i 3 ( > ) (3 (5

L-." 6th 3 3 w w _iilJ 4 41. Total (4-6) 7 i_8_ i2 16 3m _0 0 o" o ' o” 0 6 0 6
Total '4-6)_ 157 i 158 48 143 191 261 261 30 146 176 14 9i__2 _MLI. 'Total t1lz£i_1 7̂6 ~T T T z25 rns1 T57 55 313 3 6 3 rTfT 0 2816. Total (1-6) 9 __t 16 14 _29 4 3 8__0__8,

C- Total (1-6) 285 i286 80 251 331 0 530LJL°. 55 313 368 289 _0 289

S a a u l a r  7 t h “ 5 T -
mammmmm

?2 9 4 2 51 10? 1 0 8 9 54 9 3 _ 4 a _______ A 8 -
8t h J 4 1 55 t o ? 7 4 7 86 9 5 10 4 ? 54 3 ? ____2 2 .

"  s t h 5 8 ' ?8 13 4 3 5 6 87 97 9 51 57 4 4 4 4

. . t *4k  ^ > 4 8 1 t < * _____ J. 1 5 5 ?2 122 1 54 2 8 1 2 5 l i i _ i Z 2 . . 1 31 Q 1 3 1
I d . E d .  7 t h 6 5 3
E r f r ?  a t h ,..“ r 9 9 ___ 5 _ _____ 9. 14 2 2 _ 1 2 . — l a ­
? - > j " _____S t h _______
' ■ m - t i t s m i n & m 15 15 5 9 14 ____ £ 0 0 _____ 2_ 2 13 i n

1 79 i 1?0 3 7 131 1 6 8 0 2 8 1 2 8 1 - J i - m 1 4 4

rmwriii; i th  1p r ' ' 4 5 6 O i l 38 ' 72 72 9 1 4 4 1 5 3 95l 63
T u h 4 2

f——
4 2 14

on

5 4 1 0 3 1 0 3 6 5 5  61 4 0 4Q
" 3 T 3 8 4 2 7 31 '7 1 n 3 3 5 . 3 8 32 1 33

T o t a l  flB3l2) 1 25 1 25 2 4 99 1 2 3 2 4 6 2 4 6 18 1 3 4 1 52 137 ___^ 13S
3 3 1 1 6

m b ____ 3 3 _____ 3. 3 1 1 8 T ___2_
^  :»■- Oth 1

(10-12)1 6 b~ 4 4 ___ 1_ 1 0 0 0 14 T m
131 0 1 3 1 2 4 1 0 3 1 2 7 0 2 4  7 2 4 7 18 1 3 4 1 52 1 5 1 2 _L2L

T c t a l  ( 1  - 1 7 ) 5 6 5 r 5 6 6 4 4 3 5 6 5 ” 5 T o s T T 0 5 7 1 9 8 6 0 1 6 9 9 5 4 9 t 55 ?
t. T o t a l  ( 1 • 1 2 ) 3 0 1 31 19 4 2 6 1 0 1 1 2 2 35 1 ,21
C, T o t a l  ( 1 » 1 2 ) 5 9 5 2 5 9 7 1 4 1 4 8 5 6 2 6 0 1 0 5 8 1 0 5 8 9 8 6 0 3 7 0 1 5 8 4 2 586

P D f . C a n t  ( P -W ) 100 0 100 2 3 77 100 0 100 100 14 86 100 100 0 100



'yfn-yi

Page _ L  O f  _7

Sunnyslde 
Base Zone

Trotter 
Base Zone

Woodmore 
Base Zone

Grand Total 
Base Zone

Per Cent 
Ease Zonefrade B 1 W 1 f ~ - t . l  w 1 ? - a  . 1 w 1 i »  i W 1 T ~ l V | ,  I .

E lflSSIttfT Y
&e«ul«r 1st 18 32 5( 40 40 . 3 47 50 917 944 1861 49 51r m

" 2 nd 18 32 5C 41 41 3 45 48 944 1028 1972 48 52 t t
” . 3rd 16 25 41 53 53 7 65 72 1058 972 2030 52 48 T o y

R. Tftt.l (1-3) 52 89 141 134 0 134 13 157 170 2919 2944 5863 50 50 T o y
Sp. Ed. 1st 1 1 8 7 15 53 47 1 0 0
" " 2 nd 1 1 2 2 2 0 14 341 59 41 T s yIt II 3rd 3 5 8 1 33 25 58 57 43 1 0 0

S. Total 1 1-3? ____3 __7 ___10 ___ 3 3, 0 0 a 61 46 107 57 43 1 0 0

Total (i-3) 55 96 ~ z 137 ___ 0 137 __ 13 157p 2980 2990 5970 50 5( 1 0 0
Regular 4th _ 2 0 3C 50 60 6 ( ___ 4 5ol 54 1071 942 2 0 1 2 — 47 1 0 0II 5th 27 26 53 54 54 5 7C 75 984 929 1912 51 4? 1 0 0If 6 th 20 31 51 47 47 1 58 55 979 954 1932 51 4? io6
&!.I°ta.l 67 87 134 161 ____0 161 1C 178 186 3034 2825 585? 52 46 U
S p . Ed. 4th 3 3 a 1 1 52 23 72 49 31 1255II II 5th 1 1 3 • 55 19 74 74 57 n r oII ft 6 th ____4____i 2 57 ' 44 161 56 “ 42 T S

4 7 i: 3 0 ( z n C ( 164 861 25C 66 32 T

Total C4-6) 71 94 16! 167 0 16; n 178 186 3198 ~ 610? 52 46 1 0 0
R . Total q-6) US 176 29: 2951 c 29: 23 335 3 56 5953 5769 31 iS6
S. Total q-6) 7 14___2 . 9 c < C C____( 225 132 3 5 ;I— Si 3i 10 6

G. Total llrSL 1 2 ( 19C 31( 304 0 304 23 33 5 358 6178 5901 12079 51 49 1 0 0

Junior High
Regular 7th “ 7 S T T “ 55 --- T“ 7 7 “ 7? T T T ■ W 1984 50 5i “ I ¥

It 8th oCM 21 47 47 3 78 81 1048 972 2020 52 48 100
II 9 th _ i£ 44 pc 28 28 6 78 84 104 7 1006 2053 51 49 100

R. Total (7-9) — 8£ 85 1871 134 0 134 ?2 22$ 240i 3088 2974 6062 51 49 100
lEi, I&i. 7th ___ 2 ___ i 5 2 791 27 106 7 5 25 100

M II 8th 3 3 115 42 157 73 27 100
II II 9 th

S. Total (7-9) l 0 2 8 0 e 0 0 C 194 69 263 74 26 100
C. Total -17-2D 142 0 142 12 228 24C 3282 3043 6325 52 48 100
Senior High
Regular 10th __ 2S___22 57 36 5 67 72 103' 962 199V 52 4f T W

" U t h ___U 43 6<j 7? 7? 1 87 88 996 979 1975 50 5C 100
" 12th ?<? 42 61 61 3 86 89 846 816 1662 51 45 100

R. Total (10-12) ___fcj 122 181 1?6 19$ 9 240 249 fO 00 '-J vO 2757 563$ 51 49 100
Sp, Ed. 10th 3 ' 1 68 20 88 77 23 100
" " 11th 4 4 78 39 117 67 33 100
" " 12th

S. Total (10-12) 8 8 ( 7 7 1 1 146 59 205 U 29 T o

G. Total (10-12) 63 122 185 203 0 203 9 241 250 3025 2816 5841 52 48 100

Grand Total Summary
E. Total (1-12) 26a 383 647 625 0 62 5 44 803 847 11920 1150Q234 20 31 T T O T
S. Total (1-12) 9 14 22 24 24 1 1 >65 260 825 68 32 100

G. Total (1-12) 273 397 67C 649 0 64? 44 804 846 12485 1176C 24245 51 49 100
Per Cent (B-W) 41 59 10C 100 0 10C 5 95 10C 51 49 10C 51 49 100

- I . 1 o



I
CHATTANOOGA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

Chattanooga, Tannaaaaa 
June 15, 1971 Pag* of *

»

TABUS II. PROJECTED ENROLLMENT FOR PROPOSED ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE ZONES
GRADES 1 THROUGH 6, 1971-72 SCHOOL YEAR Eleatentarv Zona Map Datp

Sunoiary

Zone School
Attendance Zone Grade?

Feeder
Base Elementary 

Zones

Grades
Total Pupils P'. r Csnt1st :nd k d ___ th 5th 6th

B y i w B w B w B W B w S V T wF
I
C
0
L
C
A
P
B
J
G
D

< N

£  D .
\ K

H
N
D
E
M
B
E
P
A
M
I

’ - J

2 Avondale
3 Barger
4 Bell
5 Brown
6 Carpenter
8 Clifton Hllla
10 Donaldson
11 East Chattanooga
12 East Lake
13 Eastdala
14 Garber
16 Hemlock
17 Henry
18 Highland Park
19 Howard
20 Long
21 Missionary Ridge
22 Normal Park
23 Oak Grove
24 Orchard Knob
25 Pinevllle
26 Piney Woods
27 Rldgedale
28 Rlvenront
29 St. Elmo
30 Smith
31 Sunnytlde 
33 Woo<2£<2]-f

4-6
4-6
4-6
1-6
1-6
1-3
1-3
1-3
4-6
4-6
1-6
1-3
4-6
1-3
4-6
1-6
1-6
1-3
1-3
4-6
4-6
1-3
1-3
1-6
4-6
1-3
1-3

-LJ-

11 123 72 105 60 112 58 340
71

190 
269 
192 
214 
57 

217 
167 

. 204 
308 
272 
135 
88 

237 
152 
220 
280 
201 
222 
121 
296 
81 

306 
131 
530 
146 
105 
304 
256

530
340
464
332 
406 
429 
446 
521 
635
414 
410 
222
415 
350 
710
333 
326
401 
404 
772 
227 
572 
380 
604
402 
248 
359 
427

64
20
59 
36 
86 
49
63 
61 
51 
34 
67
60 
43
57
69 
16 
38 
45
70 
62
64 
47 
66 
12 
64
58 
15 
40

36 
80
41 
64 
14 
51
37
39 
49 
66
33
40 
57 
43 
31
84 
62 
55 
30
38 
36 
53
34 
88 
36
42
85 
60

31 23 88 28 72 20 109
. 8 . 92 ___ SI

31
93 71 87 66 272

118NPnS 18 ?s 19 95 17 40 24 21 28 19 351* 53 _ J 60 10 65 7 62 6 49 11 60 15 349
2124 ___ 65, 65 65 78 82 74

29 87 S2 94 64 98 51 279
3172 ?S 66 95 69 1277.26.32 113 115 107 98 107 95 327
142
275
134
178 
198 
490
53

125
179 
283

33 58 74 39 107 45 91
None 65 29 52 25 48 23 39 21 43 15 28 22
9 38 30 44 34 52 24

22 76 73 53 74 49 90
24* 59H 48 62 53 77 51
9*16*22___________ 157 78 161 61 172 81

Hone ____ 8. 47 9 50 7 40 16 51 3 49 10 43IS. 36 16 38 21 33 23 26 24 34 26 3412__________________ ___ Si 70 6* 77 66 75
.19 ___ ___ L&__22 ?8 ?2 47
-ISU.9..Z7__________ _ 159 106 171 100 146 90 476 

146 
266 
249 
74 

2 56 
143 
55 
171

__________________ 46 31 44 23 56 27
-I*12*Ji2_ 78 95 83 105 105 106IJiJA* 71 37 7? 44 91 32 3) 1}__ 2) 3) 7) 14)
1* 12 ___ 8 5 13 88 8 96 11 90 18 91 12 80
.10 98 47 78 51 80 48
25 42 35 46 38 55 32 ,
_2__________________ 18 98 18 109 19 97

___ £ 79 ___ » 77 61 100

Grand Totals
925 951 964 1042 1091 997 "TTT3 965 "T039 ~1ZS T o  3 6 558

6178 5901 12079 51 491876 2006 T088 2088 1987 l034
e. ■’

t
•Part Of Baaa Elementary Attaadanca Zona



h g t_J. «f 4

Zone
Code

School
Grade*

Feeder Grade#
1st — 57d 4th 5 th 6th Toti>1 Pu p I U__ Jit..

Zones W. ..__L H B « - _J2___ B__ _E___ - g — _ L — w— W T —  I — _ J L _

A Donaldson
29 St. Elmo 8 52 10 64 7 31

279 167 446 63 u
1-3 10 Donaldson 79 0 84 0 91 0

Total 87 52 94 •- ?8 .. 1

SC. Elmo
29 St. 9 47 11 ___ il. ___ 12 4 f l

146 402 64 364-6 10 Donald*on ?9 0 67 0 70 0
Total 98 47 78 51 80 48

B Plney Woods 
(Cedar Hill) 
(Trotter)

12 East; Lake 0 ■1 1 78 0

266 306 — 37i 47 22

1-3 7 Cedar Hill 0 24 0 27 0 43
26 Flnev Woods 38 0 39 0 51 0
32 Trotter 40 0 43 0 54 0

78 95 83 105 105 106
A
P
Pl

East Lake
(Cedar Hill) 
(Trotter)

4-6
12 East Lake T 87 1 71 “ l 64

327 308 635 51 49

7 tpedar Hill 0 28 0 26 0 31
26 Pinev Woods 51 0 49 1 57 0
32 Trotter 61 0 57 0 49 6

Total . 113 115 107 98 107 95

C Clifton Hills 1-3
8 Clifton Hills 3 65 3 78 2 74

_ 2 i L .-ill, 429. -I?.., 514 62 0 62 0 80 0
Total 65 65 65 78 82 74

Bell 4-6
8 Clifton Hills T 55 6 70 1 65

272 192 464 59 414 Bell 89 0 87 1 86 1
?,2 55 93 71 . -Si. 66

D Hemlock 1-3
16 Hemlock 12 28 ii 31 19 23

134 88 222 60 409 DavfnpprJ 26 2 29 3 33 l
Tota 1 IP 30 44 34 24

Oak Grove 1-3
23 Oak prove , 5 36 10 38 li 47

283 121 404 70 301? ^toward 85 "TS 87 5 80 5
-Total 94 J6 47 51 ' 42 47

Howard 4-6

16 Hemlock 16 41' 15 24 5! 33

220 710 69 81

9 Davenport 46 y 45 28 i
23 Oak Grove 1 n 41 14 '57 ll 4 6
19 Howard 82 0 87 0 ill S

fotal " " i l l i n 161 1 7 7 81 490

f



D*t^^ed^^ementar^^£tendance^ion««(ContjO

Zone School
Attanden-e Zone Grade*

Feeder
Baae Elementary 

Zone*

_____________________ Grades
__ Total Puollt P.-r Cent1st 2nd ---- 373 4th 5th 6 th

8 . w E w 8 V B U B H . B V 3 r W 1 A W
E Rldgedale 1-3

27 Ridaedale 13 14 14) 31 13 I F 43 39 03 4 3) ?7 3) D 2} 33 7) 14)
(i4: (29;

131

(43

3B0 66 34

15 Glenwood (Parti 11 .... .1 11 1 14 1
24 Orchard KnobfPl 45 . 1 51 0 73 1

71 .. 27 75 44 91 32

Highland Park 1-3
18 Highland Park___ Q 48 - 0 _ 52 1 ^  . .51

198 152 350 57 43
24 Orchard Knob 1P1 59 0 6i 1 76l 0

59 48 62 53 77 51

Orchard Knob 4-6

27 Rideedale 11 45 . 15 43 10 37

476 296 772 62 38

15 Glenwood (Part) 18 1 19 0 19 0
18 Hlehlan£_paxk___
^_£>rclnt4J5D?]?_

2 60 0 57 0 53
12? 0 137 0 117 0
If? 106 m 100 146 90

r Ease Chattanooga 1-3
Il_£s5 t£ ti____ s. _ _ 64. _ _ _ 6j .42. . _1 4b

317 204 521 61 39
2.Avondale - ■£*• 2 89 2 .122 3

95 66 95 , M l?7 69
Avondale 4-6

lkES-st.Cb§L£a.-.. 4 7! “ r i “ T 3 ” T 47

340 190 530 64 36
-LAxsi'4a;e„_ _ 118 0 103 0 107 1

123 72 105 60 112 58

.. ££££££_ 1-6 275 135 410 67 3314 £a r be r « 2? 52 25 48 23 39 21 43 15 28 22

H Mlaalonary Rldga 
fclenw^gj^^

1-6
___L __A “ T ” 37 1 3i F !4 0 " 73 2 — ST

125 201 326 38
iL.0isniio2<LlParti. __lij \ 15 1 202!

0 21 1 24 1 24 0
15 36 16 38 33 23 26 \u 34 26 3 4

I Sunnyaide 1-3
-i.8aiS?r ____ 2. 65. 0 76 — 51 67

5J 304 359 15 85
.3.1 Bi>OBYSide 18 33 18 33 19 30

______i l , l8 109 19 V
Barger 4-6

-I.8a.UlS3- T 1 54 3 0 T T

71 269 340 20 80
31 Sunnyslde 23 33 28 lb 20 *5

l y 88 28 — n ~ I f f ~"T59

J Woodsort 1-3
33 Hoodmore________ .3. 47 3 4? 7 65

171 256 427 40 60
13 Entdale________ ?2 n }2 ?2 54 35

__ 21
Eaatdale 4-6

[31 woodmore_____ 4 50 5 70 T 58

142 272 414 34 M
___ 54 24 34 37 4 4 33TOUl ft 74 J4 107 45t



Page _4_ of



CHATTANOOGA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
Chattanooga, Tenneaaee 

June 15, 1971 «age o f 3

TABLE III. PROJECTED ENROLLMENT FOR PROPOSED JUNIOR HIGH ATTENDANCE ZONES
^ GRADES 7 THROUGH 9 ,  1971-72 SCHOOL YEAR [̂̂ nĴ oT m g h  Zon^ hap pgtg

Zone
j s s u.

School
Att»odsn;e Zone Crad» •

Feeder
Base Elementary

Zones

£l »d<*.s

* ? o » •X3 C 13 *» Per Oant____ Zih — ASh. ____isA—
A W 5 w B u B w B w B w \s 1 r u

A North Chartanooea ■ L-? . -I L L . -ILL — Hi. -ii-..... I9M1_____ __20.-US. - U L — LSI 72 . 1.U
__£__ East Fifth Street 7'9__ —  Total _ u l _& — Hi.— Si 110 __SI — m , -ILL 64 — IS—
— £ -1.2- — m . _11 187 __ Sfi.— Hi.__2& — — —

-S2S.— US.— 1 H -12- -12—
— B— 7-9 ____ISLii._______ — Lil. 84 -i&L__ 21 147 87 — -——A 438 264 702 62 38
_JL_ 7-9 -Jgtal__________ 123 109 113 “T05 8(T U6 — — 3 ;2 -S2&. 652 49 SI
— L _ East fide -7-~l ___Total 123" 96 ~14 3^ 113 "T58‘ 109 ---- —

L2L 318 742 57 43
—  S Alton Ifark -L2— 350 341 891 62 38Total IS* ,, ’21 207 1 121 159' 99
- h grâ n̂fd -1-2 | - 379 602 -^7— - £ L^Jo£al 72 119 74 j 124 77 136
— I— -Hi— --- Z I L Z luJ— £|LJ£L 4YLU2 —— - — —

— l-9-L 363 511 24 -21—
— I- Elbert S. Lone -ZU— TotaJ __ L — il_io_*£.__ L 44 '"-1—■ ■ ■ 25 141 166 15 85

Totals T04~
— —

3282 3043 6325 52 48
,J°ZL .1021 __1014"2177' 10062053— 2095

-»___ —

•» J.
---



r»g« £_of )

Detailed Junior High Attendance Zones

Zone
Code

School
Attendance Zone Grade-*

Feeder __________________ Grades
Total Pupils__Base Elementary 7 fh ____ t Pb ? th : .. 1 Per #€tlt

Zones B V _l K B w B w . B w .3. w 5 y T A s

A North Chattanooga 7-9

22 Normal Park 0 76 0 73 0 86

}64 Jl7 7fi J4

24 Rivenpont 0 108 0 8 6 0 87
.11 Henry _ 61 0 67 0 47 0
9 Davenport 2? ____ 1. ___ H

1921
0

if9
___&72

0
_____ Iota 1_________ w 173

B East Fifth Street

f'J "0 3 <D < 7"** . 0 27 0 _  30 0 2 6

-J.52 195 548 64

5 Brown 21 34 18 33 14 38
7-9 30 Smith 51 0 49 "o 44 0 .

6 Carpenter 44 5 60 l 52 1
i\6 66 , 1.27 64 n o

C Hardy 7-9

11 East Chattanooga 
1 Amnicola

6 45 7 “ 57 8 41

535 195 730 73 27

17 6 12
35

6 36 6
14 Carber 26 15 13 53 9

—2_ Ayond_a_le__
"21 Miss. RidRe(Part

110
0

1 133 0
2

122 0
2 0 6 2

Total 159 79 187 58 189 58

D Orchard Knob 7-9
16 Highland Park ' i 49 1 54 T 51

438 264 702 62 30

2 7 Ridged a le ( Pa_rt_) 
24 Orchard Knob

0 35 4 39 l1 36 -
144 0 141 o' 144 0 —— jotal 145 84 1461 93 1471 87

E East Lake 7-9

12 East Lake 1 74 0 “ sT

322 330 652 49 51

..5 Cedar Bill 0 26 0 24 ___ 01 “59
26 Plnev Woods 58 0 63 I 58 0
32 Trotter ___ 6* 0 50 o 2iT o'
21 Miss.RldRe(Part) 0 6 0 c 0 6

12 j 109 I l f i05 sOOC 116

r East Side 7-9

23 Oak Crove l'<5 55 91 ' '44---- r 54

424 318 742 57 43

27 RidRedale (Part) V 7 Ti" "*7 — IT 2
16 Hemlock 3 3

r * 5 i
T 5 zd' ' *32

19 Howard 88 0 loo 1 Til1 ..1
123 96 14 3 114 OC l09

c Alton Perk 7-9

4 Bell — 9T ' i 99 TJ m ' b
1 65 3 ‘70 0, 481

10 Donaldson 81 ’? 0 83; 0
25 StV ilmo * ___UL___il ____L ___ilfatal" ■ l a w n  O K ' U W i i  M i n a * : : - ... ,



***« _3_  of 3

Detailed Junior High Attendance Zones (Cone.)

Zone
JiiS&L

School
Attendance Zone

Bra inerd

Dalewood

Srade

7-9

7-5

Feeder
Base elementary 
__  Zones

3 Barker____
31_ Sunnys jde_______
I.L.Dls« .Ridge (Part 
15 Glenwood 

Total
3_3_Woodmore_ 
13 Eastdale

Total

E E28

J il
1 1

50
53

64
20
*34

119
J J
43
115

TtiT

20

51
74

51
54

76
21
23
4

T24
78
51

‘l29

Gtadss
9th

J L

-36

77

_7
44
16

136
TS

3 5
41

41
ri9

rotsi pupils
T

223

146

25
363

141Albert S. lonfi

Totals

7-9
Sfl"Elbert Long- 

Total 49 10 *48
TT

44 166

I o n 1023
1095

1163 1014
2177

1047 1006
*2553 3282 3043 6325

15

52

85

48



CHATTANOOGA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
Chattanooga, Tennessee 

June 15, 1971
Page __ ]_ o f _*

TABLE IV. PROJECTED ENROLLMENT FOR PROPOSED HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONES
GRADES 10 THROUGH 12, 1971-72 SCHOOL YEAR Senior High Zone Map Data

Zone
Code

School
Attendance Zone Grades

Feeder Grades
Total PupilsBase Elementary 10th Uth 12th Per Cent..

Zones B . u L i — . w P V fi, W B W B U 5 U T P . W _
A Klrkman Technical

Total Vocational 345 359 T5T 323 165 223 741
225
21$

905
275

, 629

1646
500

45
45
*2

55
55
55

10-12 Total Satellite
Total

B Bralnerd High 10-12
426 907 1222 32 68^ J o t a ^ _ 295 140 316 131 296

C Chattanooga High 10-12
4 08 526 934 44 56Tota 1 145 161 }55 208 108 157

D Howard High 10-12
Total (Non-Voc.) 23) " T 3 280 89 234 81 t n  

113 
914

262
136
400

1063
251
Ml*

45
■ 70

25
55
30

Total (Satellite)
Total

E Riverside High 10-12
Total (Non-Voc.) “ 75 7ES 82 208 59 649

112
761

216
137
3??

665
249
1114

75
45
68

25
55
32

Total (Satellite) —Total

\

,~y.
Grand Totals 3025 2316 5841 52 48

1105 982 1074 1018 846 816
i087 2092 1662

—

L_ _ _ _t '



Page _2__ o f _4

Detailed Senior Hiflh Attendance Zones

Zone School
Attendance Zone Grade?

Feeder Gr«d«f . 1
Base Elementary — rufTi---- 1 _llth____ 1 12.th Tot »1 Pupils___ Per lent

Zones B w H i — P W S M t w p w 5 W T rA

yjr_

Kirkoan Technical T t n r r 1 Amnlcola 0 3 3 4 7 11
103
0

79
1

54
0
1

12
63
2
0
14
19
24
13
37
0

66
3
0
0
11
92
0

40
6
0
3

10
4
12
0

46
6

46
104

0
0
80

151
14
23
3

39
2
52
0

31
1

39
58
0

46
0

54
11
68
0
3
0

21
107
12
79
47
60
46
105
12
63
82

151
28
42
27
52
39
52
66
34
1

39 
69 
92 
46
40 
60 
11 
71 
33 
13 
44
2

2 Avondale 57 0 26 2 20 2
3 BarRer 0 6 0 5 0 1
4 Bell 39 0 22 0 18 0
5 Brown 1 15 0 23 0 8
6 Carpenter 30 1 9 3 15 2
7 Cedar Hill 0 5T 0 12 0 13
8 Clifton Hills 1 55 30 0 ‘22
9 Davenport 7 0 3 0 7 0
10 Donaldson — 27 0 78 0 13 0
11 East Chatta. 2 23 (T 36 0 21
12 East Lake 56 S'h 59 0 36
13 Eastdale 7 7 71 4 5 " 3
14 Garber lb 9 5 8 4 6
15 Glenwood 12 1 5 2 7 0
16 Hemlock 7 17 8 17 3 5
17 Henry ~1T 0 12 0 3 7
J 8 HIghland Park 0 18 <T 18 0 16
.12_Bai£SJd3____
20 Lone

___31, 0 ___ 2L 0 0
21___ IQ .._L. 5 - "i o1 C

21 Miss. Ridee CL____1 0 ... .0 9m
.22_MDTciaJ._£ails_____
23 Oak Grove

o 17 0 11 .. . .0 11
2 ___n 5 ___ is 11 !

24 Orchard Knob ___ 3£. 0 28 0 28 n — !
25 Pineville 0 ___LI 0 13 0 12 i i i
26 Plnev Woods 16 0 ■ 17 i 0 7 0
2 7 Rldeed.ale 2 15 22 0 17
28 Rlvermont 0 5 o" 4 0 2
29 St. Elmo 1 2? i 28 1 17
30 Smith 19 0 7 0 7 0 33

10
44
0

31 Sunnvslde $ 1 2 0 2 2
32 Trotter _ 18 0 16 0 10 0

1 ____ 2. ‘  0 0 ____ L
"345* 359 -231 ■ »> *! a n i m m 1 741 ' 905 ' 1646 45 3*5 ~Klrkoan Satellite 

pioward/Rlvera lde
io-iz ' 225 275630 500

1146
45

-tl..
55

L a . ,Grand Total
— ' -  -



#

*■*« 3 of 4

D e t^ ^ d ^ e n lo ^ J U ^ ^ «* n d « ic* ^ Z o n * «^ C o n t^

Zoo*
Cod*

School
Attendance Zon# Grade0

Feeder Gxidei ------------------ 1
Par CentBase Elementary 10 Hi___ .jij^ ____ ____12th____1 1: . i Tot >1 Pupil*___

Zone* B H i * D u B V B w B u 5 hr, I, J
B Bralnerd High 10-12 3 Barger 0 84 0 90 0 80 0

28
53
9

100
4

114
118

144
97 
119 
239 

3 
63 

. 131 
1

254

-

10 }i 11 34 7 30 125
172
248
103
67

245
119

31 Sunnvaide . .14 36 21 43 18 40
33 Woodmore 5 67 i 87 3 85
15 Clenwood _ 45 2 23 0 32 1
21 Mia*. Ridge 2 21 2 17 0 25
13 Eastdale 42 52 ?8 44 34 35

37 C 44 1 37 0
JotaJ^^ W 140 516 131 ii6 907 " 3 5  1

C Chattanooga High 10-12 0
0
0

56
139
118
59
36

236
198
45
43
1
1
1
0

236
198
45
99

140
119
60
36

28 Rlvermont 0 67 0 100 0 69
22 Normal Park 0 70 0 64 0 64
25 Ptneville 0 13 0 18 0 14
£ grown 20 11 22 23 14 9
17 Henry 41 C 51 1 47 0
30 Smith 52 0 41 0 ---5*5 "  I
9 Davenport 17 0 19 1 13 0
19 Howard (Part) 4 0 ,12 0 9 0

145 161 155 207 l68 14) 408 52 J 933 ti 4a

0 Howard High 10-12 15
159
1)9
216

9
1

91
4

114

66
0
0
1

42
18
0

68
0

53
___54,

81
159
139
217
51
19
91
72

114
69
51

29 St. Elmo _ 8 21 5 27 2 18
32 Trotter 41 <i 67 0 51 0
A Bell ___ 62 C }2 0 h 0
10 Donaldaon 8C C 67 C 69 1
8 Clifton Hill* J" ll 18 i 13 **
7 Cedar H U i ____ 0 1 4 T 6

26 Plncy Wood* a Is 3 31 l
12 Ea*t Lake r Is r 2c i n  -
10 Howard (Part) ___ 43 < 39 ! 32 !
23 Oak Grove_______ & 5” H 19 36
r v . n r n v H M M 4 •> 4 5 — n ----- 17

««isi 7 I 1 i "D I M a a  lacaillU TB-15 ___ r 11 1 113 " T J I  2511 If
- J t O O . m A  20

T T
»■— !■■■■ , ■ —  E r a , r e v  ■ I ■ - t j L__ - T - - ,____ -- r r l i t f



f

a* 2S 1785 9182 S20C

*

. .

I

2991 2602_ 2802
918 978 8 1 0 P 7201 286 SOU

2C
«

89
S7

■7111
67Z

CSC 
2CI .

1 92
-2.1.1-

1*301 puaaQ
l*qox

S2 S<^ S98 912 679 6S 802 28 ??? S2 C2^ 1»3°1
07l
29
16
206
211
OS
19
2C

7
67
S8
01
0
SI
S7
8

9C1
81
9
262
211
SC
91
62

1 17 . C 79 0 1C 2a3uad3B0 9
01 7 1? 01 81 7 ei»p55pTT7T
oc 2 2C ? C2 2 V « d  puBm»7H 81
0 96 01 Cll 0 C8 qou* pjsqaaO 72
0 2C 0 77 0 9C 5 - »x®puoAV z
2 71 s 71 8 2 laqjeo 7X
91 S U 8 81 C •B33BM3 38»a 11
c 6 0 n  u f 2 F̂ OOtUttlV |

X i X M \ ~  A i R a 1 R" 8 h 3 ■ h T ~ rt AH 63U02
Jo?! a r i «110nd l»JO.I ___H121____ m 1 M901 A2B3uao9(3 asvg

eapaio aapaai

•X»30j pu*jg

21*01 a3lll»3BS uaunij-jx

21-01 Hfl-iH apx«aaM8 
»u02 Bout'pus} 3 v 

XOOI)3S
■ w
9U02

¥5plJ0

(*auoo) 99U02 ®3UFpu»a3V q̂ TH JOfuas p»lT»WI

T JO 7



.tunc 2.’ ’ , i y / )

\, r. 19 70-71
? f • • v A* <■•;»•••••».I';*- /'> . .. « - -
*T* ' J

. r l~  i ]
: 7  'l • »- ’

• •: '•] y *
■■ . c  :  i

. •’ »}----- ____ :»■ '

r.lOr X 651 13 6(6

lirpv*’ X 67 25? 325

■ r- —i
I

i'ipi vi l}e

<nrf >.1« 

pn v liyp 'i 

C". d-m:d jin oli 

{..•• s.» ClntlPpoofea 
cck

P^l 
pntth
'.Uf.tUn-8 i’ovk

pdi: I-iki.
CHfroo lu l ls  

Vjoty Woods 

JJoriK*! ^rV

prr-nr

^opi’iiiiorp

Wanlonnry Uide®

^fown

frintW9i
parfsr

f-ont

puno/hido

/|tn If o l" 
ff.U'.i IIU l

icuwfiv----- - -  j-—
J o  r_<:X. ’ , o r r , r l  -  h.1 '■------

Sal>■! Vorr; v

f.l • I'd .. - i '

Cl 7 0 PI7

262 135 377
!;? 2 •>?. 336

0 J S3 153

56 322 37C

6 CO 1 661

6 71 0 7*71

7S3 3 791

12 382 396

66 IS5 261

67 3

2) 79

100 0 
66 36

:M  '.-7 

283 121

660 223

275 133

vnr:)'..-

*. _
" ' .

6 M o  i (■ ’  l

6 06

70’j ~

I -
3 31*

25 75 | 256 13!
i

380 i l-i 
I ..

0 100 

16 E6 

991 1-

1C0 0
99+ 1-

3 97

60 60

166 81 227

256 166 7.02

350 190 530

279 167 Cit

676 296 772

317 206 521

136 8S 222

*
(>*• 36

65 36

(3 37

62 3i 

61

60 60 \ +70

, ,  ! 
\I „

39 {

• -•*;

-31 ■\M

r 3 • .>

-i A ' -V.
.* 7 < -6'.

-50

- Y> +33

~ j  • 5 37

+37

-32

4?.0 -23

517* 9 523 JS 2 272 192 666 59 6 i i
I
•:? 4 3>

797 1 298 991
t

\ - 163 105 268 5S 62 f ■7.1 +7(1

6 351 355 1 99 198 152 350 57 63 ) 6 - n ̂

3 639 662 1- 99+ 37.7 309 635 5) 75 J 
!
+50 ': 0

17 611 628 6 96 21? 217 620 69 51 f
•* 6 -65

307 1 308 99+ 1- 266 306 572- 67 33 • 51 ■< M

0 535 535 0 100 179 222 601 65 55 +4.3 *43

376 0 376 00 0 178 237 615 63 57 -5? 8-57

22 651 673 5 95 171 256 627 6G 60 -135 -35

11 319 330 3 97 125 201 326 j 38 62.

121 216 337 36 67* 118 216 332 ■ 36 66 0 0

236 180 616 57 63 162 272 616 1 3 A 6'> t
-73 52?

2 653 655 1- 99+ 71 269 360 j 20 90
j

+19 •iV

52 367 619 12 88 53 280 333 j 16 + 7; - 7

134 175 309 A3 57 55 306 359 13 85 • t.O t'/.S
1

0 561 561 0 100 76 550 606 12 £8 I? 17 -l? J
it

75 35 110 68 32
0 176 176 0 100

? .17* 9 263 ! 96 /. i«246
t

2
0

268
111

59
li t'O

1
0

i

JtW j j , j,,,-1 iiOP. tr y ! 51 ! .-< • .•
Ai+oC___ ?? --- i *
20*1/ 6 y'

\y._50 j_?5 ,rt - U * y_5;Ul 80-66 i 7.6__'6
. . . r

r -t ? i__r*;-*i

( ‘ r‘i r(\ 1 <;•/ - 1.- >?07—»■ . r. *
J .• »

- I Z L -
f l p / k * c l i ±  A



I

- , n i 7 +

!
/ . : u . 3 «

•_-3 6 4 -

1

n
. i

( ,  j j u X 3 » i s

j
/ V "  i

I

i
/ .

1
b 7 4 * : '■)

1

' 1 '• ' i

i

- »
- 1 • • o- ; '■> - V l ¥ * S i i •

$
< ! v  ; : i  ;

-t i 
. t ,  ' r 2  :■ s

i
S 7 t . 3 '

w  : j J ( / ' 7 ; /■ r .

i
f. / e 

1
^ ■ '.A 1 7 7 0 i  j 3 4 fcW

1
J 1 • ■

V
1 o r /: v  r- \ ■■■ 0 2  | 'J '  '>

j
I P 7 1 t ' 1 - 1 1

i

i

• I
/’. \ H » r- i  9  7  ; I

. _ i
'•3 ; ) ' j l b S >

l

!

,  » 
,v* t h . V 0 i

* ‘ I O'.
V

0  ! 
t

1
•
»

i
t

i 7
1

7 * , !

’  • . . . .  V. • , T , -  ' / • - j ,* ‘ - . *'■ '

r ! ,  .. . i •. - ;  . 7 1 / i  * 7 ' 1 ~ X *  •: V '
. . . ■ - .... - ' 1 . f -  . . . . . .  . ^ ...............  - "  ”  ■

t

1
f  ;• i , ! J ; : } -. • I.--.

/ 1 '
. A ! ' .

*.A j  . - 3 0 .

. . .  , . 1
i
1 •• ; V # (  -•; f  1 V .

)

S ) T 
.. . . .  - »

; '/ * V 7 i ’• 's
I

< 0 ‘ ;;  j
j- > -

3 ; - •:
t
i . .. *•

* • • •. i • 0  ' ■ l: i n '  7
.

, ’ 1 ' . f 1 • •*. r
O* i • 

’  I , • » i • • “  • 1 . <
* - — v ; * i ■; t-

. . . . . . .
, *.■y ; ..

. . . .  ) - ------- ... .. . ' . -

; > • 3 3 1 3 0 1 0  I
»

0  ; v w / ,  0 0 1 3 1 2 .. V  .• *> 0

i t - -- L 1 0 3  & i ) 0 : . / l ! ? c . l r . 3 1 U 2 C l - ? - 3 3  v . u

t z r r

; . j r !.)>;« ,
t

i » »
i P S ' ;

1 r-:, b ?  o 6 3 0 m ■» ;  -* 3-» - 3 4  

1

( , o . -  i - t M i v x - . p ,  a
i

I X O ' i
™ 3 5 ;u 90 >’• r , 0 5 2 0 3 3 4 ‘ • \J S -1 3 4  - 3 4  

i

' ‘ ' i". O A 1 1  £ 9 V >  '• J /■ f / i ; 3 0 / . . 1 3 3 3 - .0
<

}

;  - r  ' j / . i l
________) _ /  r

. n .
■/S  J . V \ > t . 1. . . .. 1

- i  a . r <  ; - - c :  v
j v .. . m k - v . ; 1

 ̂ • ' V ' 1' .
7 D n

i
... : : 1'

i
» O i  . /. '  V . 7 •• (, '  : - V  ‘ ? r» <•* i i s:; , , c 1 ,  !:  -  0

> *

- f  ■■

i ' i  . • • • I ‘  V - (  M i l l

■ • . • : 1 . . . .  •* i ( •• ' i s  ' 1 • f. •

1 • • • '  _i____

• j - v  • : .

*
i

. . .

‘ )  V

V j ,

i
; w

I

i ‘
1 1 r -

: ■: .  *  ■ u - -  - -  -

iVS

»

t



v ... .  •-. . - j . : ; .:: s ...^.
. cr. .»

Jur.u 23, 1S»/1

.’■•j *.c : *:•>..» 
—  j . ■ t

. '.v r.'. vviVi:-: O'.* hv;-ol:.. v 
..-Oh, A.1 J aSolVx luo,'. / x“ J:\T *.!h) 20.

fit ft* J'* B  _  ,

*



1 f t I

S . - r  • ■' -a .'tt'-njin;!1 Zorea

A. Corporis on or Enrollment Data by Former Black and White Schools
4 e“ -J ' “ JT 197C-71 Enrol lmer.t Data ~----- Proposed 1971-72 Enrollment Dnr a • ; Par Cent Change ofAnd TJVi % Pupils

te SchoolsPupils Enroll 2d J ?or Cent Estimated Pup ils r Per Cent Former Bla'remi. _f. Blank White Total i Black White Black White Total Black Whine Black White
Former Black Schools jj 2369 2370 j 59/1+ IV 1675 753 2428 | 65% 31% -30% +30XFarmer -ite Schools ^ 454 3543 3 9 9 7 * ii% 89% 1350 2063 3413 j 40% ec% +29% -25%

2823 3544 6367 T" •*4" 56% 3025 2816 5341 i 52% 4 8% + 3% - 8e,/. i
1. C-mrnrison cf Total Enrollment by Ilsce by Former Black and White Schools

• ' 0 •• / ■ Hn-o 1 inmc » -a I’n n r  s f»d 14/1-7? - /-' Cnr rer ^ent Cnar.ge Total pupils
i ~ -r ?vi* Scfcecl‘>r C.- t T : ta 1 > ■■ on 1 ’ ’-V P.— ■ i.1/50% rar'ante ’"t Cane Ten.il D.:r-i S ?•’ \at ’ 40' .0 - «• r i an

_  _v' i.i— ________ .. X k .i rev 'ill-‘l__ White Pifl-k U! o i r ° • ***.■'r.*»l ri r '•T'nn !■-:: * i ■+r, i roe.:
Forrr.cr olatw i-chcois r,4%; i-% b./. m47% -367. 55% F?Tj------ 421 — +i3%— r -15% ----2 pT + 2 e% 1  -r c%

16%l S9+% 63% -4 7% +36% 45% 73% i 58% -13% ! + 15% +25%, -26% i - 5%
■ . ratal I. d ( T oiTT 1 0 6 % 0% 0% i<5sr — T O T 1  n5TT%1 0% ----- 0% ! 0%

1---2 :ilf̂ nlnrco Zones
j __ C : . / criFcr. of rr.rol Irr.ent Data by Forcer }>lcck and White Schools:t;5 *-iS._: rtcwui.t.

Vivo- ft ~ n-'i-ee.- M - a . _ Prop-sed 1 5 7 1 - 7 / Enrollment Oats ?er C.or.r
____ Is Enroll r d ?f*r 2 -i-______ Estimated Pupils_______ Per C. rc ? 1 -*.{ on. 1 Write 8 -he e ' -
. Black. • Whin.- . Ter a! .Blank White Blank . W h i m Tor-,1 Black Whits BlackForcer Else;; icr.cols 

atts.Sc"O0 ls
9223 j
2445 j

43
13250

5271
16656

95%
2 1 %.

1%
79%

5465
7016

3iy3
8627

8602
15643

64%
45%.

36%
55%

-35 —
+24%

'+35%— !----------
-24%.

-------- rotal. .. ... 12569 | 132 98 25967 49%, 51% 12435 11760 ' " l l W f ----311— 49% + 2%

C /'r risor. of Vocal Encollr.snt by Race by Former Black and White Schools
f i^VO-7« Enrollment B.ta i . Proposed 1 5 7 1 - 7 2  Enrollment Watt ?..r Cent change Total Pupils

Cent "■oral Pi >:'la Ik- ? -c* ! ?22"'' •••?r<ant!5 Air Cent Total Pupils ?.v Kate 50/50% Varinn-v*• '* S A \ - r White _ Tctni i Stack 1 White__ Blank ! White 1 Total B1 ark >vh i r .*» d «.*»:< V.'h i r -a . ?: t ■* 1err cc b: .ck Scccois j( 73*
‘ “ " ..• r '* . * e S c> c- ol r. s -7/1 99+%

36%! +37% | -37% 
64%i -37% i +37%

4 4 % 1 I r D ,  35T 
56% 1 73% : 55%

+ 9%
- 9 %  .

“ C»o
+ 8%

-29%“ 1 

m2 5%
+ 2 ! -17. 
-26* ' -; . . L ^  -i ii/u/.,: -U0 A I-;,; 3.. * 6% s 105% j icov; ; ioo% . o% 0*-* »

-/'6 b'



Ill THE DI3TRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES 
?OR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEHNJSSSEE 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JA E3 JCHATEAU SAPP, ET AL 
VS.

TEE 30ARD OP EDUCATION OF THE 
CITY OP CHATTANOOGA, ETC., ET AL

)
)
)
)

a  m  a c t i o n  n o . 35Ee

— ;̂  -  ’ ' i m m  s m

Co,c Pla-ntiffs, by their undersigned counsel, and
object to the amended desegregation plan filed by the defendant* 
on lo June 1971» upon the following grounds:

1. The plan fails to couply with the afflmative duty of 
tho defendants to disestablish racial aegregation and effoctivaly 
desegregate the schools as required by the Fourteenth Amendment 
to the constitution of tho United State*. Without limiting the 
generality of the foregoing, plaintiff* cite the follow-ug speci­
fic facets of tho plan which demonstrate tbe foregoing:

(a) Five elementary schools are not affectively 
oeaogregatec, nanely Berger, Carpenter, Long, Rivarmont
ani? Sunnyaide.

(b) Of the foregoing five elementary schools,
c'" 2 • 1-''*nter) is predominantly (8u;£) black, thereby en­
couraging white flight.

(c) The other four of the five elementary school* 
mentioned in paragraph 1 are all located in affluent areas, 
thereby protecting socio-economic segregation end also an- 
couraging white flight from Carpenter.

(d) UB.5% of the elementary schools which had a 
black majority in 197U-71 will house grades 1-3 in 1971-72 

while 78.SX of tho elementary schools wta.cb bad a whit* 
majority in 197--71 while house grades 1-3 In 1971-72j there­
by requiring more of the younger blaok children to travel

- 1 3 6 -



longer distance* out of their neighborhoods then the youngsr 
vb te children.

(c) 72.8> of the elementary schools whi. b had a
blade majority in 1970-71 will have a black majority in
1971-72.

(f) Four out of the five schools to be closed
<ire iocatec in black neighborhoods.

(g) Three of the junior high schools are not 
effectively desegregated, namely; Hardy, Lalewooc and Long.

(h) All four of the Junior high schools which had 
black majorities in 197u-7i w^ll have black majorities iu 

1771-72.
(1) Haven Junior high aoboola bad white :'iaJoVities 

in 1971-71. Of these one (preauiaeably Lookout) has been 
closed, leaving six. Of those six, five will sti.ll have a 
white majority in 1971-72.

Cj) All three high schools (Kirkissn, City enc 
Hr ai tie re) which housed a white majority in 1970-71, will 
still house a white majority in 1971-72.

(k) Both high schools (Howard and Riverside) which 
housed black majorities in 197.-71 will still house black 
majorities in 1971-72.

(l) Held two for.uerly black high schools (Howard 
and ft.verside) are not effectively desegregated.

As illustrated above the plan fails to take all feasible steps 
to maximize integration but instead fostars continued segregation 
to a significant degree. In addition the plan unconstitutionally 
olaoes the burden of desegregation upon black school children by 
closing a disproportionate number of schools In black areas sad 
requiring a disproportionate number of the youngest black children 
to travol out of their areas while retaining racial Identity in a 
large number of black and white sohocle, thereby discrLainsting 

against black children end affording ar. escape valve which will 
help to .nraraote enc perpotuate resegregation in the schools.

2. On information and belief the defen dents prepared end 
had before them a plan which would have effectively removed the 
racial identity of all sohools in the system by assigning children

w  37-



in p.-ox’.>mtel7 equal black and white proportions to each school, 

but rejected aaid plan which would have effectively and meaningfully 

cnaogregated the schools, and which plan waa feasible. In favor 

of aa-d ineffective plan filed with the Court.
3. j?be faculty and staff desegregation portion of the plan 

is inadequate in that:

(a} It fails to include a provision requiring the 
defendants to recruit affirmatively black teachers arid staff 
.lenbers so aa to bring the respective ratios of black to 
while teachers and staff in the school system u? to that 
of the black to white students in the entire school syste;?. 
and Maintain same at that level;

(b) S id plan fail? to include provisions to 
eliminate and prohibit defendants from the practice of assign­
ing .ore competent and experienced black teachers to formerly 
white schools and assigning and reta ning lass competent 
inexperienced white and black teachers la formerly black 
schools;

(c) Said plan fails to contain any requirement of 
official policy and legal safe guards to protect black 

children subjected to white classroom teacbors from the 

following: (1) That black cultural differences will not be 

v.owed as a reflection of inferiority; (2) That iutolli-
. or.ee tost and achievement test scores will not be systemati­
cally interpreted to the detriment of black students; (3)
That black studeuts will be given adequate sympathetic and 

non-discriminatory academic and/or vocational counseliug: 
not the kind which eyetematlcally guides black students 

to trade or vocational schools and/or to the lowar paid 
jobs; and (L,) That special precautions be takeu to eliminate 
the possibility that white teachers-low expectancies of black 
peoples w..ll not result in lowered academic achievement for 
black students.

Insofar as the provision of the plan related to trans­
portation may be interpreted ae attempting to condition the impi*“ 
mentation of the plan on any alleged financial inability of the 
defendants, same violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Consti-

- ( 3 8 -



tutlon of the United States.

5. Subsection 0  of the Studont Transfer '*ol!cy Is inadequate 
in that it providos for assignment of special education 
children "with disregard for race" whereas the Constitution re­

quires disestabllabsent of the existing segregation, thereby re­
quiring affirmative attention to race.

• >. The School construction ar.d *ite selection plan Is in­
adequate in that it falls to provide explicitly for selection of 
sites, planning, nrograrining and obstruction of schools in suet) 

.aimer as to maximize Integration and nrevent re segregation of 
school buildings.

7. The provision for periodic reports la inadequate in that 
It f a l l s  to require the appropriate data Included in the proposal 
filed bp the pla: tiffs on a continuing basis so as to enable the 
Court and the plaintiffs to deter *.lue whether or not the plan is 
be  n effect!velv implemented.

I’or the above reasons, sa d Amended ^segregation Plan de­
prives tlw plaintiffs and the class they represent of rights se­
cured by the due process and. eqxial protect ion clauses of the 

Fourteenth Aaendni nt to the Constitution of the United States and 
i.i thereby uuconstitut onal and vole.

WIRTCORF R R 3 3 S E 3  COKSIEIJIEC, plaintiffs pray:
X. That said Amended I esogregatior. Plan be rejected a id 

that tlie Court:

(a, Accept the plans prepared and submitted by the 
r>la.'o tiffs' experts: and/or

(b) Tirect the defedsnts, with the help of the 
experts presented by the pla ntiffe, to prepare and file with 
the Court within the next 1J days a plan for deaegregation
of the school syste i which shall meaningfully and effectively 
integrate all schools and oil lira te the objections mentioned 
above: and

(c) That the Court then approve and direct the 
defendants to implement the foregoing plans together with 

the provisions therein eliminating all of the objections 
set out hereinabove.

(d) Set the above for early hearing.



2. Plaintiffs oray for ganaral relief, including the fee#
of aa :d expert ultmsNi, other costa, and counsel fees.

jn. ""
U|1U Parkway Towera Nashville, Tennessee 37219
JACK ORKiw.'BiiRfi J&-1E3 M. NABRIT, III NORMAN CHACHKIN 
SILVIA CREW10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030 New York, New York 10019
Attorneys for Plaintiffa

CERTIFICATE
The undersigned certifies that carbon copy of tho foregoing 

Objections were nailed to Raymond B. Witt, Jr., Esquire, 1100 
American National Bank Building, Chattauoo a, Tonessee, and 

Eugene N. Collins, Esquire, goo Pioneer Bank Building, Chatta­
nooga, Touneoaeo 37 ,u<2, Attorneys for the lefandauta, thia the
lVfch cay o f June, i/ifl.



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES JONATHAN MAPP, ET AL.
Plaintiffs

vs.

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF

NO. 3564

THE CITY OF CHATTANOOGA.Et~aE .-----------------
Defendants

BRIEF IN SUPPORT
5F

AMENDED DESEGREGATION PLAN 
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF CHATTANOOGA 

Adopted June 16, 1971

RAYMOND B. WITT, JR.
1100 American National Bank 
Building

Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402

Attorney for Board of Education 
of City of Chattanooga

Of Counsel:
EUGENE N. COLLINS
400 Pioneer Bank Building
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402

City Attorney

taw  o r n c c s  
WITT. QAITMCR. 
A B E R N A T H Y  A 

W I L S O N
"OO WAIIOKAl

• ( u i i n m c
- i n - l '



An examination of the decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States on April 20, 1971, Swann v. Charlotte- 
Mecklenburq Board of Education, 39 U.S. L. Week 4437, is 
essential in order to determine what steps must be taken by 
the Chattanooga Board of Education in order to bring the oper­
ation of the Chattanooga school system into compliance with 
this recent decision.

In an appraisal of Swann more than usual attention should
be given to do what the Supreme Court considered to be the
purpose of this decision. The following quotes beginning with
the first paragraph clarify this point:

"We granted certiorari in this case to review 
important issues as to the duties of school auth­
orities and the scope of powers of federal courts 
under this Court's mandates to eliminate racially 
separate public schools established and maintained 
by state action. * * *
"These cases present us with the problem of defining 
in more precise terms than heretofore the scope of 
the duty of school authorities and district courts 
in implementing Brown I and the mandate to eliminate 
dual systems and establish unitary systems at once.
* * * Understandably, in an area of evolving 
remedies, those courts had to improvise and experiment 
without detailed or specific guidelines. This Court, 
in Brown I, appropriately dealt with the large consti- 
tutional principles; other federal courts had to grapple 
with the flinty, intractable realities of day-to-day 
implementation of those constitutional commands."
There were ambiguous areas existent prior to its

decision.
The Supreme Court specifically recognized that even its 

decision in Swann would leave much unresolved for it had this 
to say on page 9:

"The problems encountered by the district courts 
and courts of appeals make plain that we should 
now try to amplify guidelines, however incomplete 
and imperfect, for the assistance of school auth­
orities and courts."

W I T T .  O A I T H E R .  
A B E R N A T H Y  & 

W I L S O N



CHARLOTTE COMPARED WITH CHATTANOOGA

W I T T .  O A I T H C R  
A t r n N A T H V  M. 

W I L S O N

There are factual distinctions between the Charlotte 

situation and the one presently existent in Chattanooga.
?rom the facts as related in Swann these distinctions would 
ippear to be substantial, but whether or not they are suffic­
iently substantial to make the broad principles enunciated by 
Swann inapplicable (to any extent) to the Chattanooga situation 
Ls not free from doubt. The desegregation plan involved in Char- 
Lotte contained a "free transfer provision". As the record will 
indicate the Chattanooga system has maintained a severely re­
stricted transfer provision as a free transfer provision en- 
:ourages continued segregation.

The Supreme Court indicated that all parties agreed that 
in 1969 the Charlotte system "fell short of achieving the 
unitary school system that those cases require," although the 
position taken by the Charlotte Board before the Supreme Court 
af the United States in a petition to rehear, filed on May 14, 
1971, specifically denies that the defendant Board did agree 
that it had not achieved "the unitary school system."

The District Court did find certain actions of the Char­
lotte School Board to be discriminatory. It also found that 
the School Board had taken action based upon residential patterns 
in the City and County that were a result in part of Federal, 
State and local government action.

The Charlotte Board was ordered by the District Court in 
April of 1969 to come forward with a plan for both faculty 
and student desegregation. Interim plans were approved in 
June and August of 1969 with the Board being ordered to file a 
third plan by November of 1969. In November the Board asked 
for an extension of time until February of 1970 and when this 
was denied, the Board submitted a partially completed plan.



n December of 1969 the District Court held that the Board
lubaission was not acceptable and appointed its own expert
: o  prepare a plan. In February of 1970, the District Court was
presented with two alternative plans.

The Chattanooga Board was ordered to present a plan on May 19,
J.971 and has not been previously so directed since prior to 1965.

In the Charlotte situation the Board plan as finally
lUbmitted included a provision for "racially mixed faculties
g|̂ 4 administrative staffs." The decision of the District Court
dated 4/23/69 in Swann, 300 F. Supp. 1358 at page 1370 revealsi

"The Board makes no sustained effort to deseg­
regate faculties. The choice where to teach is 
a matter between the principal and the prospective 
teacher."
As a result of what the District Court describes as a

"passive selection policy" the thirteen all-black schools in
the Charlotte system serving 8,840 students had white teachers in
only 4 schools. In the Chattanooga system, by contrast, all of
the all-black schools had white teachers as was true of the
predominately all-black schools. Of the 14 schools with a
formerly all-Negro staff in the Chattanooga system only 1 had
88 few as 1 white teacher while 74 white teachers were teaching
Ip the schools with formerly all-Negro staffs. Exhibit 70
indicates that 17.7% of the teaching staff at formerly all-
Negro schools is now made up of white teachers, being 74 white
teachers out of a total of 419 teaching positions. At page
1370, the District Court Judge had this to say in Swann,supra»

"The system has not operated, however, to produce 
any substantial teaching of black students by white 
teachers."
This could not be said to be true in the Chattanooga 

system.
The facts in the Swann case also indicate that a single' 

athletic league was first proposed by the Board in its February 
1970 plan. As was testified to by Mr. James the Chattanooga

w i t , .  O A I T H » «

•HHP1
uoo  h ira n  n « t i u w *i  fM'M'iW®Crt*1T«i«OQQ*.

T f M M t f f  |I4°*

t



system has had a single athletic league for more than 5 years

THE DEFAULT CONCEPT
Ho aatter what the facts add up to in the Charlotte case, 

or how they might be characterized, it is implicit in the 
Supreme Court's decision in Swann that the Court approved the 
finding of the District Court that the Charlotte Board was in

W I T T .  O A M M C R  
4HCHN4IHV * WILftO*

•••••» *M| nii aw ma«i.«m*i
UM II !•••**•»»*•! »*•(•*<»•»*.

»l M i l  n a i l  !*«../

"default." This default concept appears originally on page 11 in 
Sjwann in this context:

"Judicial authority enters only when local authority 
defaults." (Emphasis ours)
In the next succeeding paragraph the same idea is reflected 

with these words:
"In default by the school authorities of their ob­
ligation to proffer acceptable remedies, a district 
court has broad power to fashion a remedy that will 
assure a unitary school system." (Emphasis ours)
The following language appearing on page 20 repeats the

"default" concept in this language:
" * * "second, its finding, also approved by the Court 
of Appeals, that the school board had totally defaulted 
in its acknowledged duty to come forward witn an accept- 
able plan of its own, notwithstanding the patient efforts 
of the District Judge who, on at least three occasions, 
urged the board to submit plans. * * * It was because 
of this total failure of the school board that the 
District Court was obliged to turn to other qualified 
sources, * * *" (Emphasis ours)
Of what significance, if any, is the reference in the 

Supreme Court's decision in Swann to the "default" concept?
This decision has been rather broadly interpreted as being 
completely inapplicable to those school systems throughout the 
country that have segregation as a result of circumstances 
beyond the control of the state or what has been referred to 
for shorthand purposes as "de facto" segregation. This conclusion 
is supported by the language in the Swann case referring to 
"separate public schools established and maintained by 
state action", " * * * States having a long history of

-MS-



W | T T  O A l T M t H  
Af>f  H N 4 T H V  &WIM.ON

maintaining two sets of schools in a single school system 
deliberately operated to carry out a governmental policy to 
separate pupils in schools solely on the basis of race." (Page 1)

STATE ACTION
The necessity of State action at sometime in the past as 

a direct causal relation to racial segregation is reflected in 
the repetitive use of language such as "state-imposed segregation 
jy race" as appears on page 7. This same idea is repeated at 
least 13 tiroes in this Opinion. Thus, it must be clear that the 
Court is talking about only that racial segregation in public 
schools, that has a direct or indirect relationship to action by 
the State at sometime in the past or in the present, or contin­
uing from past action.

On page 10 the Court begins its discussion of the appli­
cable law after reciting the facts present in Charlotte 
and after reviewing prior decisions beginning with Brown I.
Prior to describing with some particularity the authority 
Vested in District Courts in implementing Brown I and II, 
the Court said s

" * * * it is important to remember that judicial powers 
may be exercised only on the basis of a constitutional 
violation."
The natural import of this statement is that the recog­

nition of race in the process of designing and effectuating 
a remedy for a constitutional violation is necessarily limited 
to circumstances where a remedy is required. If there is no 
constitutional violation no remedy is required, and thus 
the recognition of race is unconstitutional and thereby 
prohibited. Race may be recognized by the State only under 
circumstances where such recognition is required in order to 
effectuate an adequate remedy for a constitutional violation.
This authorizes the recognition of race in decision-making

- m  b -

C H tl  I tO K O lt* .



c aw  o r n c c s  
W I T T .  O A l T H t R .  
A B E R N A T H Y  & 

W I L S O N
IlOO AMCftlCAN NATIONAL 

• AMK BUILOINO 
CHATTANOOOA. 

T I N NIftlK J M O J

ind in the imposition of state power but only in a carefully 
Limited circumstance, and in that sense re-enforces the constit- 
itional prohibition as reflected in Brown I against making 
Jecisions solely on the basis of race.

MOVEMENT AWAY FROM DUAL SYSTEM

If a school system has ever been dual from a racial point of 
riew, such a system is within the scope of Swann. At the time of 
irown I in 1954 the Chattanooga Board was operating a dual sys­
tem. Movement away from a dual system was commenced in September 
>f 1962 pursuant to an order of the Court. Various aspects of a 
Jual school system have been dismantled gradually. There is no 
loubt that in 1962 the Chattanooga Board was found to be in viola­
tion of the Constitution of the United States as enunciated in 
Irown I and IX. As a result the plaintiff’s motion for summary 
judgment was granted corrective steps were taken by defendant 
Joard all in accordance with Court order, and acquiesced in by 
die plaintiffs.

Grades 1 through 3 in 16 selected schools were desegregated 
.n September of 1962. In the following year all elementary schools 
[33) were desegregated in grades 1 through 4. All 33 elementary 
schools were completely desegregated in September of 1964.

Single elementary school zones were completely operative 
.n September 1964 and thereafter.

The seventh grade in the Junior High Schools was desegre- 
jated in 1965 in September and thus 42 schools were desegregated, 
’he High Schools were desegregated in September of 1966 and thus 
ill twelve grades were desegregated as of that time and repre­
senting 44 schools.

"RESULTS" - STUDENTS
With reference to "results," as of the 10th day of school 

■970-71 Howard, Orchard Knob, Donaldson, Henry and Trotter,

7 -



W I T T .  O A I T H E R  
A B E R N A T H Y  & 

W I L S O N
■ too AM lIICAN NAIIONAl 

UAH* CUIIOIMO 
CHATTANOOGA. 

TKNMIftftfC J M O I

formerly all-black schools continued to remain all black, 
liverside, Piney Woods and Smith each had only 1 white student 
unrolled. Alton Park, East Fifth, Bell, Carpenter, Davenport 
m d  Orchard Knob had from 3 to 9 white students. In these 
schools there were 9,223 blacks and 48 whites. In the formerly 
all-white schools only Cedar Hill, Normal Park and RiVermont 
aad no black students. East Lake Junior High had 1, Barger 
Elementary 2, East Lake Elementary 3, and Highland Park 4.
Thus, in these schools, that is, formerly all-white schools, 
there were 13,250 white children and 3,446 black children.

It should be stated that the Avondale Elementary School and 
the Glenwood Elementary School during the period since 1962 
have changed from substantially all-white to substantially all­
black. During 1962, Avondale had 317 white students and in 1970-73 
it has 640 black students and 1 white student. Glenwood in 1962 
had 19 black students with 175 white students and today it has 
246 black students and 2 white students.

Substantial shifts have also been reflected at Hardy Junior 
High School which was all-white in 1962 with 611 students and 
which in 1970-71 is made up of 426 black students and 190 white 
students. Comparable results have been effected at Brown which 
now has 121 blacks and 216 whites. Eastdale with 234 black and 
180 white, Garber 242 black and 135 white and Sunnyside with 134 

black and 175 white.
Chattanooga may not be accurately described as a unitary 

school system but it certainly is not a dual school system such 
as was known prior to Brown I.

- RESULTS" -  TEACHER DESEGREATION

With reference to professional staff desegregation. Exhibit 
70 will show that beginning in 1966-67, a substantial affirmative 
effort was made to desegregate staffs. In 1966-67 there were



inly 20 white teachers teaching in the formerly all-black schools, 
[n 1970-71 this had increased to 74 with 82.3% of the teaching 
3taff being black and 17.7% being white.

With reference to the formerly all-white staffed schools,
Ln 1966 there were 21 black teachers teaching with 632 white 
teachers. Currently, that is as of the 10th day of the 
present term, there are 144 black teachers teaching in schools 
sf formerly all-white staffs with 562 white teachers - or 20.4% 
slack and 79.6% white. There are no formerly all-black staff high 
schools with no white teachers and there are no schools that 
«rere formerly all-white that have no black teachers. All 
staffs have been desegregated and only the following schools 
save as few as one teacher of the opposite race: Davenport,
Brainerd Junior High, Cedar Hill, Hemlock, Pineville and River- 
■nont.

Again, Chattanooga could not be described as a historical 
dual school system with such faculty racial composition.

With this radical change from conditions existent in 1962, 
nevertheless, the Chattanooga school system apparently now 
continues to fall short of having met the Constitutional re­
quirements placed upon it by Brown I and II and subsequent 
decisions. Thus, as a matter of law, the substantive Constitu­
tional rights of black children are continuing to be denied 
them by the Chattanooga Board of Education. So to this extent, 
the Chattanooga Board remains in default although the record 
will reflect that the Chattanooga Board has always done what 
it was ordered to do.

THE STIGMA OF DEFAULT

i a w  o r r i c e s  

W I T T .  G A I T H E R .  
A B E R N A T H Y  & 

W I L S O N
IIOO AMCftICAN NATIONAL 

■ ANA aUlLOlNO  
CMATTANOOOA. 

T C N N C Iftd  J7AOI

It is difficult to accept the stigma directly associated 
with the default concept and particularly when not even at the 
moment is there any charge by the plaintiff or any other source 
that the Chattanooga Board of Education has in any way not

- / f 9 '
■ i



complied with, the orders of the Federal Courts, In all fairness, 
it must be remembered that defendant Board completed the removal 
of dual zones in 1966. As the attorney for the plaintiff,
Mr. Williams indicated in a question to a witness on Tuesday,
May 18, the Chattanooga plan was completely implemented on 
September 1, 1966. The 1965 decision of the District Court was 
appealed to the Sixth Circuit and was decided by the Sixth 
Circuit on February 27, 1967. In substance, the only issue 
remanded to the District Court at that time was the question 
of teacher desegregation and it remained as a part of the liti­
gation only because the Supreme Court of the United States had 
rendered a decision with reference to teachers in the period 
intervening between the decision of the District Court and the 
hearing before the Sixth Circuit on December 13, 1966. There 
is nothing in the decision of the Court of Appeals for the 
Sixth Circuit of February 1967 to indicate that this Appellate 
Court was of the opinion that the Chattanooga Board of Education 
was then in a condition of default with reference to implementing 
the Constitutional rights enunciated by Brown I and II.

THE EVOLVING NATURE OF THE REMEDY 
In giving further consideration to the default concept, 

attention must be directed at the distinction between the 
substantive Constitutional right involved and the varying 
remedies that may be designed in order to give full force and 
effect to the substantive Constitutional right which has been 
violated. The District Court in designing the remedy that was 
fully implemented at the beginning of school in September 1966, 
obviously gave consideration to the plaintiff’s request for a 
remedy and also plaintiff's motion for further relief that 
resulted in the accelerated desegregation coming in September
of 1966.

W I T T .  G A I T H E R .  
A R L R N A I H V  & 

W I L S O N
IIOO NATIONAL

Since this remedy reflected the desires of the

- / S O '
BAN* B UUD IN G 

CHATT ANOOOA.



W l  T1 O A I T H I I I  
A H F I I N A I H V  K

w i t  n o N

plaintiff as well as the judgment of the District Court, and 
since this remedy was fully implemented, defendant Board was 
of the opinion that the remedy was adequate and thus that the 
defendant Board no longer was in a posture of noncompliance 
with the Constitutional requirements of Brown I and II.

THE AFFIRMATIVE DUTY - PRIOR TO SWANN 
Later events, however, indicated that the remedy put 

ipto operation as of September 1, 1966 was not adequate. 
However, the first evidence that the defendant had that the 
plaintiff was so inclined was revealed by the motion for 
further relief filed by the plaintiff on December 30, 1968, 
after the decision in the Green case. If the Chattanooga 
Board was in default to any extent from February 1967 until 
the motion for further relief was filed on December 30, 1968 
by the plaintiff, no one had drawn this to the attention of 
the defendant Board. Green v. County School Board of New Kent 
County, Virginia, 391 U.S. 430, was decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States on May 27, 1968. This was a school
system of only two schools. One was a black school and one was
a white school. The affirmative duty placed upon school boards
was referred to in this case at page 1694 in the following manners

"School Boards such as the respondent then operating 
State-compelled dual systems were nevertheless clearly 
charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever 
steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary system 
in which racial discrimination would be eliminated 
root and branch."
Later on, at page 440 there is the following:
"The school officials have the continuing duty to 
take whatever action may be necessary to create a 
'unitary, non-racial system'".
Wills this; decision, plaintiffs ceased talking about 

decisions made "without regard to race" and moved toward in­
sisting upon decisions by school boards that necessarily 
involved an awareness and recognition of race and further

- l S I -



I  A«W O f f i c e *

W I T T .  O A I T H C R .  
A B E R N A T H Y  A  

W l U i P N
IlOO N IC4N N tf lO M A l 

■ *NX B U im iX O

C H AT T A N O O O  A.

required that decisions be made specifically upon the basis of
race, and that some compulsion, such as bussing, be a necessary
result of this recognition of race. Plaintiffs took the
position that the decision in Green had changed the law,
or at least this is the impression which the Sixth Circuit
Jourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had as revealed in
their comments on page 1390 in Deal v. Cincinnati Board
pf Education, 419 F. 2d 1387, decided on December 9, 1969.
|VJ.though this was a school system that had been non-racially
operated for 82 years, the following language is appropriate:

"The basic issue in the case was whether the Board 
had a Constitutional duty to establish a program to 
balance the races in the Cincinnati School System.
We dealt with this issue extensively in our opinion 
in the first appeal and held that there was no such 
duty where the imbalance had resulted from racial 
concentrations in the school neighborhoods and not 
from any acts of discrimination on the part of the 
Board."
Later on, there is this language which is pertinent:
"There is not an iota of evidence in this record 
where any of the plaintiffs or any of the class 
which they represent, was denied admission to a 
school in the district of his residence."
The defendant Board acknowledged its affirmative duty 

after the holding in Green and particularly in staff deseg­
regation and other matters. However, defendant Board did 
not interpret this affirmative responsibility to include a 
Constitutional requirement that race be acknowledged, and that 
decisions be made upon the basis of race. The frequent reference 
to "nonracial* in the Green decision seemed to be at variance 
with decisions being required on the basis of race. It was 
difficult to see how a system would be a "nonracial system 
of public education" when it was making decisions based upon 
race. Then, too, defendant Board was aware of the frequent use 
in the Green case of phraseology such as "state-imposed segre­
gated pattern" and "state-compelled dual systems." Thus, the

-  1 5  %r

|
I!



W I T T .  O A I T H C R .  
A n r R M A T H V  & 

W I I A O N

Board was of the opinion that its only affirmative responsi­
bility was with reference to segregation that continued because 
of action upon the part of the State. The Board, having no con­
trol over residential patterns, was of the opinion, rightly or 
wrongly, that continued segregation resulting directly and solely 
from such pattern in the community was not a part of its Consti­
tutional responsibility. Swann, supra, indicates that the Board 
was wrong in such evaluation. The Board does have a responsibility 
where residential patterns are such as to create the heavy con­
centration of black students in one school.

THE AFFIRMATIVE DUTY UNDER SWANN 
But today, the nature of the Constitutional violations 

as well as the nature of the available remedy for that Con­
stitutional violation are governed by the language of the 
Supreme Court in Swann, supra. The language in the decisions of 
the Sixth Circuit, not in conflict with the language in Swann, 
are also helpful and have been considered.

Apparently, all school boards that were operating a dual 
system in May of 1954 remain in default under the language of 
Swann until some unknown date in the future. Note this language 
on page 27:

"At some point, these school authorities and others 
like them should have achieved full compliance with 
this Court's decision in Brown I. The systems will 
then be 'unitary' in the sense required by our decisions 
in Green and Alexander."
It would be assumed that a court of competent jurisdiction 

would necessarily make this mixed determination of law and fact. 
Once classified as unitary system, thereafter, the extraordinary 
remedies approved by Swann would no longer be available.

Once we assume that Swann is applicable to the Chattanooga 
situation, then careful examination must be made to determine 
exactly the guidance that this decision gives with reference 
to the Chattanooga School System.

-  1 5 J -



SWANN - FACULTY
With reference to faculty, the defendant will accelerate 

its efforts to move as quickly as possible to a situation in 
each and every school where the school is in no way racially 
identifiable because of the racial composition of the faculty 
of any one school. However, contrary to the finding of the 
District Court of the case of the United States v . Montgomery 
County Board of Education, 395 U.S. 225 (1969)there are adminis­
trative problems involved in moving to faculty as described 
above. In any event the need to remove such vestigial remains 
of a dual school system is of sufficient importance to justify 
reassignment of teaching staff in such a way as to remove the 
racial identification possible through the racial composition 
of the faculty at the individual school. Defendant Board 
was of the opinion that educational values and the maintenance 
of the quality of educational programs, which is so dependent 
upon the performance of the teacher, would best be met by 
avoiding assignments against the will of the teacher. However, 
whatever detriment may or may not result from the involuntary 
assignment of teachers to teach cross race lines will be ignored 
until such time as the racial identifiable aspect of faculties 

has been removed.
The faculty aspect of the Swann case was discussed on page 

14 and included the following:
“Independent of student assignment, where it is 
possible to identify a 'white school" or a 'Negro 
school' simply by reference to the racial compo­
sition of teachers and staff, the quality of school 
buildings and equipment, or the organization of sports 
activities, a priraa facie case of violation of sub­
stantive constitutional rights under the Equal Pro­
tection Clause is shown."
The Board's commitment in this area is reflected in the 

plan and if implemented within reasonable limits should be 
adequate to meet the Constitutional requirements with regard 

to teachers and staff.
W I T T .  O A I T M C R ,  
A B E R N A T H Y  «. 

W I L S O N - I5tp



pWANW - MEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
With r«9**d to the construction of new schools, defendant

4  Vfill b« guided by the Court's determination.
With reference to the closing of old schools, the record

1 '■ i'" &'14̂ , fp^Cfttb (Exhibit #3) that since 1962, Park Place, Fort
u ! • ffpepbWf Chattanooga Avenue, Spears Avenue and Sanderson have 

P^PROA end in each instance they had no affect upon 
i|egjpA9«tioni or substantially increased desegregation.

8tudont assignment appears to be the most critical area.
Ip discussing racial balances or racial quotas it can be

said that the Court permitted and thus approved mathematical
ratios in the Charlotte situation. This portion of the opinion
Wg8 cpnciuded with this sentence:

Pin sum, the very limited use made of mathematical 
ratios was within the equitable remedial discretion 
Of the District Court.* (Emphasis ours)

1 Partier *» this same section of the opinion, the Court
bad bad tbfa to say:

Constitutional right, any particular degree of 
rapfai balance or sdxing, that approach would be 
disapproved and we would be obliged to reverse.”
7boa* two quotations reflect the careful manner in which

tbe Supremo court has restricted the use of racial quotas or

"The constitutional command to desegregate schools 
U q o h  not no'tin that every school i n  every community 
HMhlt always r e f l e c t  the racial composition of the 
nufiool pytstem as a whole.”
Tho second subheading used by the Supreme Court was

t

STUDENT ASSIGNMENT

jfaoM} balance in effectuating remedies under Brown I and H . 
?bd mBftjling following quotation at page 20 is also

W I T T -  O A tT H K R . APfRNATHY « WlbDPN
noo SW |Slf4N N a tio n a l amiPiNo rnarTstiQooa, U1MMK iMP)

-  l S t -



entitled "One-Race Schools." The first paragraph under this

u «  o » » ic c»  
W I T T .  O A l T M t S  
A C C H H A T H T  *

w u n o N

IO AN m l i o n i
* » N «  S U I II MS t f

(subheading rends as follows!
"The record in this case reveals the familiar phenome­
non that in metropolitan areas minority groups are 
often found concentrated in one part of the city. In 
boom circumstances certain schools may remain all or 
largely of one race until new schools can be provided 
or neighborhood patterns change. Schools all or pre­
dominately of one race in a district of mixed popula­
tion will require close scrutiny to determine that 
school assignments are not part of state-enforced 
segregation."
"In light of the above, it should be clear that the 
existence of some small number of one-race, or virtually 
one-race, schools within a district is not in and of 
itself the mark of a system which still practices 
segregation by law. The district judge or school 
authorities should make every effort to achieve the 
greatest possible degree of actual desegreation and 
will thus necessarily be concerned with the elimination 
of one-race schools. No per se rule can adequately 
embrace all the difficulties of reconciling the com­
peting interests involved; but in a system with a 
history of segregation the need for remedial criteria 
of sufficient specificity to assure a school authority's 
compliance with its constitutional duty warrants a 
presumption against schools that are substantially 
disproportionate in their racial composition. Where 
the school authority's proposed plan for conversion 
from a dual to a unitary system contemplates the con­
tinued existence of some schools that are all or pre­
dominately of one race, they have the burden of showing 
that such school assignments are genuinely nondiscrimin- 
atory. The court should scrutinize such schools, and the 
burden upon the school authorities will be to satisfy 
the court that their racial composition is not the re­
sult of present or past discriminatory action on their 
part."

RIVERMONT AND PINEVILLE
The RiVermont Elementary School has 561 white pupils and 

no black students as of the 10th day of school during the 1970-71 
term. This school was built in its present location by the 
Hamilton County School System, thus its location is in no sense 
||a responsibility of the defendant Board. This area was annexed 
||in 1969-70 and became a part of the City School System in Sept- 
jjember of 1969. No action by the school Board has had any 
hearing upon the racial composition of this school. Certainly, 
whatever segregation or possible discrimination is reflected 
in the Rivcrmont student population is not a result of any

- 154-



(action of the defendant Board. Thus the defendant Board should 
Slave set the burden of proving that the racial composition of 
Bthie particular school is in no sense "the result of present 
IJor past discriaiinatory action on their part." (page 22)
The Pineville School is in the same category with the exception 
of the fact that it was annexed in 1968-69. Thus, these two 
schools are no longer a part of any Constitutional violation 
with reference to state action and segregation in public schools 
because of race.

AVONDALE AND GLENWOOD
Avondale and Glenwood Elementary Schools are in substantially 

the same category factually. Avondale was an all-white school 
in 1962-63 with an all-white faculty. In the first year in 
which it was desegregated the racial composition was 318 
black, and 170 white. Although the racial composition of the

I
 student body shifted from white to black, in 1963-64 the faculty 
remained virtually all-white and was not changed substantially 
until 1966-67 when there were 6 black faculty members and 19 
white faculty members. This school has had a black-white 
faculty ratio since 1967-68 of 7/17, 10/16, 11/16, 17/11.

In the first year of desegregation of grades 1 through 3, 
1962-63, Glenwood had 19 blacks and 175 whites. The number of 
blacks increased until they became a majority in 1964-65. After 
that time the number of whites decreased until in 1970-71 there 
are only 2 whites in the total enrollment of 248. Originally 
Glenwood was an all-white faculty but it has changed and became 
a 4/4 ratio in 1969-70 and a 4/5 ratio in 1970-71.

Both of these schools are virtually of one race but they 
were all white or virtually all white when desegregation began 
and today they are virtually all black. There is no evidence 
at all that any action of the Chattanooga Board of Education

o r n c c s
W I T T .  O A I T H C R  
A B C R N A T M V  *  

W I L S O N
IIOO t v i n i C i l  Nt Ti ON

157 -

h « i  »  AM o n oa .
■ N i s t i t  i m o r



W I T T .  C A I T H C R  
A O C  R N A T H V  f.

W I L S O N
MOO »MI •»!* A *  N t l l O N i

C H i'T tN O O U t,
IOJ

lad any direct or indirect effect upon the racial composition 
o f these two schools. The character of the neighborhood 
changed and this is not a responsibility of the school Board.
Thus with regard to these two schools, the Board has met its 
responsibility to negate any presumption that the racial 
composition of these two schools is a result or present or 
past discriminatory action on the part of the school Board.
The facts set forth in Exhibit 70 and Exhibit 3 will support 
this conclusion.

BROWN - EASTDALE - GARBER - SUNNYSIDE 
With reference to the remaining elementary schools, 

plaintiff's expert. Dr. Stollee, omitted from his proposed 
desegregation plan, (1) Brown with 121 blacks and 216 whites,1(2) Eastdale with 234 black and 180 white, (3) Garber with 242 and 
135 white and (4) Sunnyside with 134 black and 175 white. This 
should be fairly good evidence that at least with regard to 
these four elementary schools the desegregation plan as 
implemented.by the Chattanooga Board has effected, and without 
bussing, an adequate racial mixture to satisfy plaintiff's 
expert. This should also be excellent evidence of the fact 
that the Chattanooga System in 1970-71 is certainly not com­
pletely a dual system and is not totally in default.

HEMLOCK - OAK GROVE -  RIDGEDALE -  ST . ELMO 

With reference to the elementary schools. Hemlock is 66 
black and 195 white, or approximately 26% black and 74% white.
Oak Grove is 67 black and 257 white or 20% black. Ridgedale 
is 82 black and 252 white or approximately 25% black. St.
Elmo is 54 black and 322 white, or 14% black.

These schools are clearly not of one race nor virtually 
of one race. Nor does the racial composition approach the

- 15*-



acial composition of the entire school system. In the above 
[notation, the Court referred to "the continued existence of
some schools that are all or predominately of one race • • *"
Thus apparently such schools could be described as "predom- 
Dinately of one race" although this conclusion is not without 
doubt. In schools falling in this category the Court clearly 
indicated that the School Board had "the burden of showing 
that such school assignments are genuinely nondiscriminatory.
The Court should scrutinize such schools, and the burden upon 
the school authorities will be to satisfy the court that their 
racial composition is not the result of present or past dis­
criminatory action on their part."

With reference to Ridgedale, the record will indicate in 
the testimony of Mr. Taylor, that when the Fort Cheatham 
School was closed in November of 1963 because of the construction 
of the Freeway, the black children formerly attending Fort 
Cheatham were zoned to Ridgedale in part and as a result 
or partly as a result, the number of black students at Ridgedale 
increased from 7 to 46. This would indicate affirmative action 
by the Chattanooga Board maximizing desegregation at this 
particular school.

With reference to St. Elmo, Sanderson was closed at 
the termination of the 1967-68 year. In the previous year 
it had 140 black students. These students were zoned partially 
to St. Elmo and as a result the number of black students in­
creased from 19 to 54. Here again, the closing of a school 
maximized desegregation. With reference to Hemlock and Oak 
Grove, defendant is unable to identify any discriminatory 
action upon its part in the past or in the present that has 
a direct or indirect bearing upon the racial composition 
of the school at Hemlock and Oak Grove.

- 159-
l a w  o r  • ic t n 

W I T T .  O A I T H C R .  
A D F R N A I H Y  & 

W I L S O N
1IOO AM| m e  AN NATIONAL

CM AT TAMOOOA.



ONE-RACE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

WITT. G AITH ER. 
A D E R N A T H Y  & 

W IL S O N
OO A Mt Ul CA N NATIONAL 

BANK BUILDING 

CHATTANOOGA.  
T C N N C S S C t  3 7 4 0 2

A g a in , and f o r  th e  moment l i m i t i n g  o u r  a t t e n t i o n  t o  

e le m e n ta r y  s c h o o l s ,  th e  f o l l o w i n g  f o r m e r ly  a l l - b l a c k  s c h o o l s  

r o u ld  f a l l  i n t o  th e  c a t e g o r y  u s e d  in  Swann o f  a  o n e - r a c e  

s c h o o l  o r  v i r t u a l l y  o n e - r a c e  s c h o o l :  Howard E le m e n ta r y ,

S e l l ,  C a r p e n t e r ,  D a v e n p o r t , D o n a ld s o n , H en ry , O rch a rd  K nob,

? in e y  W ood, S m ith  and T r o t t e r .  The f o r m e r ly  a l l - w h i t e  

s le m e n ta r y  s c h o o l s  f a l l i n g  in  th e  same c a t e g o r y  w o u ld  b e  B a r g e r ,  

C edar H i l l ,  C l i f t o n  H i l l s ,  E a s t  C h a t ta n o o g a , E a s t  L a k e , H ig h la n d  

P a rk , M is s io n a r y  R id g e  and N orm al P a r k . In  c o n s i d e r i n g  an 

am ended p la n  f o r  c o n t in u in g  c o n v e r s io n  fr o m  a d u a l  t o  a 

u n i t a r y  s y s te m  su c h  a p la n  w o u ld  a c k n o w le d g e  t h a t  th e  a b o v e -  

named e le m e n t a r y  s c h o o l s  w o u ld  rem ain  o f  th e  r a c i a l  c o m p o s i t io n  

p r e s e n t l y  e x i s t i n g  u n le s s  som e form  o f  b u s s in g  i s  u n d e r ta k e n  

f o r  t h e r e  i s  no o t h e r  c o n c e i v a b l e  way w i t h in  th e  l i m i t s  o f  

th e  s c h o o l  B o a r d 's  a u t h o r i t y  t o  p e r f e c t  a s u b s t a n t i a l  ch a n g e  

i n  t h e  r a c i a l  c o m p o s i t i o n  o f  any o f  th e  s c h o o l s  l i s t e d .

A ssu m in g  t h i s  t o  b e  a f a c t ,  th e n  th e  same la n g u a g e  fr o m  Swann 

w o u ld  b e  t h e  p r im a ry  g u id e  t o  a B oa rd  in  d e s ig n in g  t h e i r  p la n  

w it h  r e f e r e n c e  t o  s c h o o l s  o f  th e  c h a r a c t e r  p r e s e n t l y  u n d e r  

d i s c u s s i o n .

The Suprem e C o u r t  s a i d  t h a t  in  t h i s  c i r c u m s t a n c e  th e  S c h o o l  

B oa rd  h a s  " t h e  b u rd e n  o f  sh o w in g  t h a t  su ch  s c h o o l  a s s ig n m e n ts  

a r e  g e n u in e ly  n o n d i s c r im in a t o r y "  and g o e s  on  t o  sa y  t h a t  th e  

d e fe n d a n t  B oa rd  w o u ld  h a v e  " t o  s a t i s f y  th e  c o u r t  t h a t  th e  r a c i a l  

c o m p o s i t i o n  o f  t h e s e  s c h o o l s  i s  n o t  th e  r e s u l t  o f  p r e s e n t  o r  

p a s t  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  a c t i o n  on  t h e i r  p a r t . "

A l l  o f  th e  a b o v e  e le m e n t a r y  s c h o o l s  a r e  z o n e d . The zo n e s  

Were e s t a b l i s h e d  by  th e  C h a t ta n o o g a  B oa rd  o f  E d u c a t io n .  The 

b a s i s  o f  t h e s e  z o n e s  o r i g i n a l l y ,  as w e l l  a s  th e  e x p la n a t i o n ,  

o f  any c h a n g e s  s i n c e  1 9 6 2 , w e re  th e  s u b j e c t  o f  s u b s t a n t i a l  

t e s t im o n y  in  th e  e a r l y  d a y s  o f  th e  h e a r in g .  T h e re  w as no

- lfcO-



L A *  O f f l C I J

W I T T .  O A I T H C R .
A B E R N A T H Y  &

W I L S O N
MOO AM| RICAN NATIONAL 

RANH l l i m O I N C  

CH A II A NO Ol iA ,
I I NN|  ( M l  J M O f

svidence that race was a part of the design of these zone lines 
nor the maintenance of the zone lines. The zone lines were 
determined in a nonracial manner. It should be relatively
apparent that the Board of Education has no direct or indirect•
influence upon where parents decide to live. Thus, it is diffi­
cult ;o see how the racial composition of any of these schools 
is a . rsult of present or past discriminatory action on the 
part cf the School Board. It is true that when desegregation 
segan in 1962 all of these schools that' theretofore had been 
|cpovm as black elementary schools or white elementary schools, 
and were maintained as schools for either black or white.
This was held to be discriminatory action on the part of 
defendant Board. The question then becomes: To what extent
is the racial composition of these schools today the result of 
the fact that some nine years ago these schools were known as 
black schools or white schools?

Chattanooga Housing Authority projects are the major influ­
ence upon the racial composition of Howard Elementary, Bell, 
Donaldson, Henry, Piney Woods as substantially all-black 
schools; and East Lake Elementary a white school.

It is a reasonable interpretation of Swann to conclude 
that unless the racial composition of the schools as discussed 
immediately above, can be traced to some discriminatory action 
upon the part of the State in the person of the Board of Ed­
ucation then no constitutional violation now exists with ref­
erence to such students. On page 23 the Supreme Court made this 
statements "Absent a constitutional violation there would be 
no basis for judicially ordering assignment of students on a 
racial basis." The Court's repetitive use of state-imposed and 
"state-enforced* can only mean that the presence of state action 
must be found to exist and this State action must have a direct re­
lationship to the racial segregation complained of at the moment.

- /*/-



TRANSFER PROVISION

W I 1 T .  O A l T H C n .  
A f i r i l N A T H Y  «.

W I  L t i O N
• IO»> * M r h l t  » A  NAllONAt  

U*N« hUIMlIMG 
CH*1 TANOOU*.

Immediately after discussing the burden of proof placed upon 
school boards with reference to present or past discriminatory 
action in schools all or predominately of one race, the Court 
introduced the "optional majority to minority transfer" prov­
ision. This transfer provision would only be available to the 
majority racial group of a particular school and it would only 

available to other schools where, as a result of the transfer, 
a student would be shifted from a school where he was in the 
majority to a school where he was in the minority. Such a transfer 
plan provides a measure of freedom of choice to a student and 
recognizes the importance of the voluntary aspect of the transfer 
so that a student will be in a school where that student wants 
to be "in order to lessen the impact on them of the state-imposed 
stigma of segregation." Such a transfer provision requires free 
transportation available and that space be made available in the 
school to which a student desires to move. The Court also pointed 
out that this was "a useful part of every desegregation plan."

This would appear to be a recognition of the fact that 
in many situations it will be virtually impossible to change the 
racial composition of some schools "that are all or predominately 
of one race." In this situation, and only in this situation will 
the majority to minority transfer provisions have any real sig­
nificance. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that what the 
Supreme Court had in mind was that in situations where schools 
were all or predominately of one race, and where this condition 
could not be traced to discriminatory action upon the part of the 
School Board either in the past or in the present, then in that 
event the majority to minority transfer was a useful provision. 
This supports a conclusion that schools all or predominately 
all of one race are not per se unconstitutional. Otherwise 
this transfer provision would be surplusage.

-/a-



In attempting to determine whether or not the design of the 
zone lines for the elementary schools is a discriminatory action 
jpon the Board of Education, it should be noted that for zone lines 
to be racially neutral is not necessarily prohibited. On page 24 

the Court said:
"'racially neutral' assignment plans proposed by school 
authorities to a District Court may be inadequate; such 
plans may fail to counteract the continuing effects of 
past school segregation resulting from discriminatory 
location of school sites or distortion of school size 
in order to achieve or maintain an artifical racial sep­
aration."
Such certainly indicates that the Supreme Court is aware 

of the fact that a racially neutral decision can be constitutional.

JUNIOR AND SENIOR HIGHS
To this point we have limited our examination to the situation 

relative to elementary schools. With reference to formerly all- 
black high schools and junior high schools, both Howard High and 
Riverside High remain in that category and the same is true of 
Alton Park, Orchard Knob, East Fifth and the junior high portion 
of Howard. All would fall in the category of substantially one- 
race schools. With regard to formerly all-white junior high 
schools only one junior high school would fall in the category 
of substantially a one-race school and that is East Lake. There 
are a substantial number of black students in each one of the 
other junior high schools and this ranges from 62 at North 
Chattanooga to 130 at East Side. Such excludes Hardy which is 
now predominately black with 426 black students and 190 white 
students. Kirkman Tech with 129 black students is approximately 
10% black. Chattanooga High School with 141 black students is 
approximately 10% black and Brainerd High School with 184 black 
students is approximately 14% black.

If the degree of desegregation measured in terms of the 
actual number of black students in formerly all-white schools

A f l f M N A I H V  & 
W I L S O N

-/t 3-



’ l a w  O f f  i r i s  
W I T T .  O A I T H C R .  
A O C  B N A T M Y  & 

W I L S O N

and the number of white students in the formerly all-black 
schools, is inadequate or as it is referred to as the "results" 
being less than desirable, then the means of correcting this 
unbalance have to be examined.

SWANN - A PRESUMPTION OF DISCRIMINATORY ACTION
For school Boards still in the transition from a dual 

system to a unitary system, Swann provides the guidelines 
"however incomplete and imperfect, for the assistance of school 
authorities and courts." School Boards that have not done 
enough continue to be in default and subject to the extraordinary 
remedies approved by Swann. What does Swann require of the 
Chattanooga system?

Defendant Board suggests that it is reasonable to interpret 
Swann, supra, to require remedial action only as to such schools 
(attendance centers) as are of one race "or predominately of 
one race" and where the School Board is unable to satisfy the 
Court that the racial composition of such schools "is not the 
result of present or past discriminatory action on their part."

There are eight all-white or substantially all-white 
elementary schools at the present time: Barger, Cedar Hill,
Clifton Hills, East Chattanooga, East Lake, Highland Park, 
Missionary Ridge and Normal Park. All of these schools were 
white shcools in 1955 and were white when the current lawsuit 
was initiated in April of 1960. They were known in the Commun­
ity as white schools and were so maintained by the Defendant 
Board until the initial desegregation step in September of 
1962. Prior to 1962 the defendant Board maintained the segre­
gated status of the white elementary schools by refusing ad­
mission to black students who lived in the zone and who applied. 
Such action was all that was necessary to maintain segregation. 
After 1962 such denial because of race was terminated. However,

- l l e l f -



th e  ch a n g e  o f  B oa rd  p o l i c y  d id  n o t  a l t e r  th e  r a c i a l  c o m p o s i t i o n  

Df th e  s t u d e n t  b o d y .  N e u t r a l i t y  by  th e  B oa rd  s i n c e  1962  -  th e  

a v o id a n c e  o f  d e c is i o n -m a k in g  b a s e d  upon  r a c e  -  h a s  f a i l e d  t o  

a r in g  a b o u t  any s u b s t a n t i a l  ch a n g e  in  th e  r a c i a l  c o m p o s i t io n  

o f  t h e  e i g h t  e le m e n ta r y  s c h o o l s  in  t h i s  c a t e g o r y .

P r i o r  t o  1 9 6 2 , in  C h a t ta n o o g a  s c h o o l s ,  s e g r e g a t i o n  was 

m a in ta in e d  by  th e  B oa rd  d e s ig n a t in g  c e r t a i n  s c h o o l s  a s  b e in g  

f o r  b l a c k  s t u d e n t s  and o t h e r s  f o r  w h ite  s t u d e n t s .  R em oving  

su ch  d e s i g n a t i o n  r e p r e s e n t e d  a f f i r m a t i v e  a c t i o n s  b y  d e fe n d a n t  

B o a rd , b u t ,  a p p a r e n t ly ,  su ch  i s  n o t  a d e q u a te  s i n c e  th e  r a c i a l  

c o m p o s i t i o n  h as  n o t  c h a n g e d . T he d e fe n a n t  B oa rd  h as  b e e n  u n d e r  

a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  o b l i g a t i o n  t o  b r in g  a b o u t  a ch a n g e  in  th e  

r a c i a l  c o m p o s i t i o n  o f  th e  s c h o o l s .  I f  b la c k  c h i l d r e n  w ere  

n o t  r e s i d e n t  w i t h in  th e  e le m e n t a r y  z o n e ,  th e n  new z o n e s  w ere  

n e e d e d  t o  r e a c h  th e  hom es o f  b l a c k  s t u d e n t s  o r  w h i t e  s t u d e n t s  

a s  r e q u i r e d .  I f  t h i s  f a i l e d  o r  was n o t  a d e q u a te  th e n  th e  t r a n s ­

p o r t a t i o n  o f  s t u d e n t s  becam e th e  t o o l  t h a t  c o u ld  b e  u s e d .

The C h a t ta n o o g a  B o a rd , u n t i l  th e  p r e s e n t ,  h as  f a i l e d  t o  

t a k e  t h e  k in d  o f  a f f i r m a t i v e  a c t i o n  d e s c r i b e d  im m e d ia te ly  

a b o v e  b e c a u s e  su ch  n e c e s s i t a t e d  r e c o g n i t i o n  o f  r a c e  and 

d e c i s i o n s  b a s e d  upon r a c e ,  and d e fe n d a n t  B o a rd , upon  a d v i c e  

o f  c o u n s e l ,  u n d e r s t o o d  t h a t  d e c i s i o n  b a s e d  s o l e l y  upon  r a c e  had 

b e e n  p r o h i b i t e d  by  Brown I  and I I .

Swann, s u p r a ,  ca n  b e  i n t e r p r e t e d  t o  mean t h a t  f a i l u r e  t o  

r a c i a l l y  g e rry m a n d e r  z o n e  l i n e s  and t r a n s p o r t  s t u d e n t s  in  th e  

m anner r e f e r r e d  t o  a b o v e ,  i s  d i s c r im n a t o r y  a c t i o n  upon  th e  

p a r t  o f  th e  B o a rd , and t h a t  su ch  f a i l u r e  i s  p r e s e n t  d i s c r i m ­

i n a t o r y  a c t i o n .

W I T T .  G A I T H E R .  
A D E H N A T M Y  & 

W I L S O N

THE MEANS APPROVED

A ssu m in g  th e  v a l i d i t y  o f  su ch  an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  o f  Sw ann, 

s u p r a ,  th e n  d e fe n d a n t  B oa rd  h a s  f a i l e d  t o  m eet th e  b u r d e n

1IOO AMI -l(o6-



t A »  p r n c r - B  

W| TT-  O A l T M f  H. 
a b t r n a t h y  *  wii-qpN

(too »Mf fMC^N M IIU N A i 
M N *  IIMl t Ml HP PN*TT*h«PR*. ’fill *»!!. IM«I

described by Swann, and now must remedy its deficiencies. Swann,
approves mathematical ratios:

"In sum, the very limited use made of mathe­
matical ratios was within the equitable remedial 
discretion of the District Court.” (p. 21)

foanp permits gerrymandering:
"As an interim measure, this cannot be said to 
J>9 beyond the broad remedial powers of a court."

aS)

i "flo hold ti 
,1. contiguous 

* * *,» (P
that the pairing and grouping of non­
school zones is a permissible tool 
24)

Jrnnuportation was also permitted:
"* * * we find no basis for holding that the 
local school authorities may not be required 
to employ bus transportation as one tool of 
school desegregation." (p. 26)
Once it has been found that a school Board has not 

overcome the presumption of discriminatory action that arises 
from the existence of one-race schools in a system, or "virtually 
one-race" schools, the next step is to fashion a remedy to re­
move the continuing constitutional violation. The means, or 
tpols, that can be used were itemized by Swann as outlined 
Immediately above. All of these tools require the recognition 
Q{ race, and decisions based upon race, and decisions only 
understandable in terms of race. In using these tools the 
Court refers to "objectives to be sought" as outlined in sub- 
divisions (1), (2), and (3) of the Swann opinion.

THE OBJECTIVES
What are the objectives, now that the means have received

specific Supreme Court approval?
}(11 * * * to eliminate racially separate public 

schools established and maintained by state 
action." (p. 1)

* * and the mandate to eliminate dual systems 
and establish unitary systems at once." (p. 2)

I U



■ *w <>• ri< i t  
W I T T .  O A l T H C n .  
Alt l  (I N A I MV «.WIVWPN • *M| |M< * tl 
r a i i f  i o m i h i m ..I MAI I AH.»*•

1 I HN| i 1 | l  I M i V

"* * * of the basic constitutional requirement 
that the State not discriminate between public 
school children on the basis of their race."
(p. 9)
"The objective today remains to eliminate 
from public schools all vestiges of state- 
imposed segregation." (p. 10)
"* * * to convert to a unitary system in which 
racial discrimination would be eliminated root 
and branch." (p. 10)
"The remedy commanded was to dismantle dual 
school systems.” (p. 18)
ft*
"The elimination of racial discrimination in 
public schools is a large task." (p. 18)
"Our objective in dealing with issues presented 
by these cases is to see that school authorities 
exclude no pupil of a racial minority from one 
school, directly or indirectly, on account of 
race; * * *." (p. 19)
"To achieve the greatest possible degree of 
actual desegregation * * *." (p. 22)
"* * * such plans may fail to counteract 
the continuing effects of past school segre­
gation * * *." (p. 24)
"* * * produce an effective dismantling of 
the dual system * * *." (p. 26)
"* * * and racial discrimination through official 
action is eliminated from the system." (p. 28)
None of the objectives are specific. This ambiguity has 

stimulated the use of the racial balance concept as well as the 
numbers game because such is ascertainable and subject to ob­
jective proof. Racial balance remains a persuasive and useful 
concept even though the Supreme Court quite flatly stated that 
such was not a constitutional requirement, using this language;

"If we were to read the holding of the District 
Court to require, as a matter of substantive 
constitutional right, any particular degree 
of racial balance or mixing, that approach would 
be disapproved and we would be obliged to re­
verse." (p. 20)

MAXIMIZING INTEGRATION
The concept of "maximizing integration" was used by

- #6f-

!



J u d g e  M i l l e r  in  h i s  d e c i s i o n  in  K e l l e y ,  e t  a l  v .  M e t r o p o l i t a n  

C ou n ty  B oa rd  o f  E d u c a t io n  o f  N a s h v i l l e  and D a v id s o n  C o u n ty ,

l a w  o r n c c s  
W I T T .  G A I T H E R .  
A D C R N A T H Y  «. 

W I L S O N

T e n n e s s e e ,  e t  a l , T he U n ite d  S t a t e s  C o u r t  o f  A p p e a ls  f o r

the.' S i x t h  C i r c u i t  g a v e  a d d e d  w e ig h t  t o  t h i s  c o n c e p t  b y  th e  u s e  o f  

f r e q u e n t  q u o t a t i o n s  fro m  J u d g e  M i l l e r 's  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  o p in i o n  in  

i t s  d e c i s i o n  o f  D ecem ber 1 8 , 1 9 7 0 , 436 F . 2d 856 a t  p .  8 5 9 , 

i n c l u d i n g :

" * * * a s  t o  m a x im ize  p u p i l  i n t e g r a t i o n .  * * * th e  
im p o r t a n c e  o f  th e  p r im a r y  g o a l  o f  m a x im iz in g  i n t e ­
g r a t i o n .  "

T h is  c o n c e p t  w as r e - i n f o r c e d  by  a n o t h e r  d e c i s i o n  o f  th e  

S ix t h  C i r c u i t  in  R o b in s o n , e t  a l  v .  S h e lb y  C ou n ty  B oa rd  o f  

E d u c a t i o n , F . 2d , d e c id e d  on  May 1 0 , 1 9 7 1 , w h ich

q u o t e d  w i t h  a p p r o v a l  la n g u a g e  from  K e l l e y , s u p r a ,  c o n t a in in g

th e  w o rd s  "m a x im ize  i n t e g r a t i o n . "  H ow ever , J u d g e  M i l l e r ,  while
c o n c u r r in g  in  th e  r e s u l t ,  saw f i t  t o  w r i t e  a s e p a r a t e  o p in i o n

m aking  a b r i e f  r e f e r e n c e  t o  " r e c e n t  r u l i n g s "  and a c k n o w le d g in g

c o n t in u in g  a m b ig u ity  in  t h i s  m anner:

" * * * t h e r e  h as  b e e n  a g r e a t  d iv e r g e n c e  o f  
v ie w s  among lo w e r  c o u r t s  a s  t o  th e  m ean ing  o f  
'u n i t a r y '  and 'd u a l '  s c h o o l  s y s t e m s , a s  t o  

w h e th e r  s c h o o l  b o a r d s  a r e  r e q u ir e d  t o  ta k e  
a f f i r m a t i v e  a c t i o n  t o  e l im in a t e  e x i s t i n g  
r a c i a l  p a t t e r n s  o f  s e g r e g a t i o n  * * * . "

" *  * * in  th e  l i g h t  o f  th e  o n ly  s t a n d a r d s  
w h ic h  w e re  a v a i l a b l e  t o  him  a t  th e  t im e -  
s t a n d a r d s  w h ich  w e re  in  my v ie w  a t  b e s t  
n e b u lo u s  and i n d i s t i n c t . "

The m o s t  r e c e n t  d e c i s i o n  o f  th e  S ix t h  C i r c u i t  i s  N o r t h c r o s s , 

e t  a l  v .  B oa rd  o f  E d u c a t io n  o f  Memphis C i t y  S c h o o l s ,  F . 2d

, d e c id e d  on  Ju n e  7 , 1971  d u r in g  th e  tim e  w h i le  d e fe n d a n t  

B oa rd  w as p r e p a r in g  th e  Amended P la n  o f  D e s e g r e g a t io n .  T h is  

d e c i s i o n  s p e c i f i c a l l y  r e f e r s  t o  and d i s c u s s e s  Sw ann, s u p r a .  It 
m akes n o  r e f e r e n c e  t o  "m a x im iz in g  i n t e g r a t i o n . "  N or  d i d  th e  

Suprem e C o u r t  in  Sw ann. In  f a c t  th e  Suprem e C o u r t  d i d  n o t  usi 
th e  w ord  " i n t e g r e g a t i o n "  o n e  t im e ,  c a r e f u l l y  l i m i t i n g  i t s  la n g u a g e  

t o  " d e s e g r e g a t i o n . "  The f o l l o w i n g  q u o t e  fro m  N o r t h c r o s s , supra, 
i s  im p o r t a n t :

-  I lo& ~



W I T T .  O A I T H C R .  
A B C R N A 1 H Y  6. 

W I L S O N

“We do not read Swann or Davis as requiring 
the District Court to order the Board to 
provide extensive transportation of pupils 
to schools all over the city, regardless of 
distance involved, in order to establish a 
fixed ratio in each school."
In the process of attempting to structure an Amended Plan 

of Desegregation that would measure up to the constitutional 
objectives set forth above, the defendant Board has been compelled 
to apply the ambiguous concepts to the factual situation existing 
in the Chattanooga system. With a student ratio virtually 50% 
black and 50% white, defendant Board was well aware of the fact 
that any plan that reflected any deviation from a 50%/50% student 
ratio would be subject to criticism from some source. Thus racial 
balance becomes an issue no matter what decision the Board made 
unless a 50/50 ratio was actually established in each school and 
each classroom. There is little comfort available to the defen­
dant from the fact that the Supreme Court said that racial balance 
was not a constitutional requirement. As a practical matter the 
Board is placed in the position of having to defend the absence 
of a racial balance. To do so is to tacitly admit that such 
balance is a constitutional requirement. The Supreme Court came 
to a contrary conclusion.

Under the Plan as submitted there are no one-race schools. 
Some may be "predominately of one race" although this expression 
is not capable of a precise definition. Certainly there is no 
token integration - for even Rivermont with 12% black students 
has 74 black students and such could not be described as token, 
and Rivermont has the lowest percentage black of any elementary 
school. Even these 74 students have had to be transported from 
the Amnicola area across the Tennessee river to Rivermont. Under | 
ordinary circumstances such would not occur. Sunnyside will have 
55 black students or 15%. Long will have 53 black students or 
16%. Barger will have 71 black students or 20%. All other

-  /£.<)-



t * w  o r #  i f f  »  

W I T T .  G A I T H C R .  
A R C R N A T H V  *

wur.ON
*> 4Mf  l il t AM N O I U H M  

l « 1 P  •MM CINQ 
i  M t l l 4 N " 0 | l * ,

' I  NNr faf. l  (  J M I V

schools will have 34* or more black students. It is doubtful 
that any Other urban school system has ever achieved and main­
tained this degree of racial balance.

A greater degree of racial balance is possible at the 
elementary level but could be accomplished only with a more 
pomprPhcnRlvo transportation plan necessitated by the concen- 
t i>lf i Mli' i>l black :i l Util-11 lu in llic Cfiilul oily and wliito :;lu<l<nl:i 
In £he suburbs. The Plan as submitted will produce a need for 
transportation between contiguous areas with minimal exceptions. 
More extensive transportation will require greater distances, 
will be more expensive and will increase the inconvenience and 
unproductiveness of time spent on a bus. Overall educational 
values support the Plan as presented.

The concentration of black students in the central city 
was an obstacle to a more balanced student body on the high 
School level. No transportation is provided for high school 
Students. Greater balance could be achieved by transportation 
OF jump-soning or non-contiguous zoning. Educational values 
Support the Plan as presented.
.. '• i f:, ' r

Respectfully submitted, j

W
RAYMOND B. WITT, JR. ( /
1100 American National Bank 
Building
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402
Attorney for Board of Education 
of City of Chattanooga

Of CounselI
EUGENE N. COLLINS
400 Pioneer Bank Building
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402
City Attorney

-  no-



>

M •»*** D i n n e r
oirnucr or

onaaioi
rat

jeau >. at al

cirr or

< • -.*■ s:LJIO A
’/ N
1 n ‘  *

 ̂, >.4, ̂  >

Civil Action Bo. ) M 4

. . - ■ "4

mu
to to. H M M I M . -  t e  lurtl>-r m t < 4

t*'* •■dor of the Court ontnr^ m* ,t* p*d QB »^ru«ry 1», irrx# 0ri_— tl«y ^
llJ__ ^  **r4*d o« nlao trial day,upon Im u m  riloi.i . . ..

*“t *° «*«»*»* th, olty M t e U  for Chattanooga

*** W*r" ***** °**r*t-d in nooovdanoo with tho m t a t w  otf a .
-  « M U i k r i  by the OOltod ctatoo Co-rt ia ^

— r o i w a ,  th. *  j r z z i r z r
la9a* **• Cour* «»«ted Ito finding, and conoiu.4r otwoxuaiono la an opinion
r ***** fjra,> *** b w *  •«> laotructod tho aoard af Maontl
City of Chattanooga, Twaafloao to | *  ***rrgparo and aahnlt within 10 day, a
further plan for tho oliaAaaftlaa of all segregation and (or tho

c i C T ^ t * - **1 * * * * *  * * aity m<* a m iM  far « *y Chattanooga, m i _ .  Tho court now adopt, ita finding. „
in*traction, -Tndu_l ,  w

m y  1 9 ' 1971 * to a part of 
tho oano to bo filad ao an anhibit to thla owdar a d  to ft

inoorporatod horoia.

"  **" “  « -  m t ! « « . « ! , _  „

* “  w t «  4 M «  «f Jua. *i, i n .
~  m -  ~ f l .  ^  . t

'~ a a r * - thonld an tar an
thla tin, sotting a data f n  . .___* *  • <«tthor honriag la regard to tho
tiona.

- i v -

M



m *

|.'Hf o r  i r  »dar»ti» *

-.1* M M t f t c  ttrtfcar k«ri«l '•P‘»  
plan tor daeegrelation and the l»Ul«*

paction. taerato upon Tuesday. d - W  «. »»»• c""n— ci "<I *
, *>4/V .

*«0 *••“•
®  Ir, J i*, o f tl* n M d  tor proaptly ooteini.g an -ippKJvod plan.

!

^  d*>e«d*at. ahould. P*ior to the homing. review tl»ir pi**' i« 

liyht o: tha plaintiff.* abjaatlone. both with a via* to 

ch. arc. of cheegra— at teonn* th. partia. nnd -it* • «> >»•*"«
prepared to pruaptly evibeilt an aaendaent to any portion ot thair p U n  
*hG»»M euch portion of the plan ba found to ba legally daficiant.

MMnahil*. and to tha aatenfc that no objection ha- baen *ada 

to any particular phaaa of the defendant.1 plan. the p l «  - i11 *>• **~  

prcnred and the da?andante aoy procaad to i^ilaaent tha aa»a in tiae *or 

tha S e p t a ^ r  l»7l t o m  of achool. Specifically include in thi. ap­
proval are the provielooe ot Paragraph. HI, IV. v. VI. and vil of tha 
dafandante* plan, without prajudie. to tha ri*t of tha plaintiff, to 
••ok addition, to paragraph, jv. v, VI. and VII in llna uith tha

tione aada thereto.
It ia SO (JRUCMBK 
APPkuvro tfje r a m i .

Fr ,..t, ••I •* V

united State. District judge

_ \ u -



i

IN TIIE F E D E R A L  DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT O F  T E NNK.SSK). 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JA M E S JONATH AN M A P P  
ct a l .

NO

C IV IL  A C TIO N

CH A T T A N O O G A  BOARD O F  
E D U C ATIO N , ct  a l .

MOTION FOR R E L IE F  FROM  O RD ER

Defendants m o v e  the Court to vacate  and set a s id e  the O r d e r  entered  

against  Defendants in this cau se  ev iden ced  by the opinion  o f  this Court and 

subsequent O r d e r  entered  the 19th day o f  May, 1971, and the 23rd day o f  

June, 1971, r e s p e c t iv e ly ,  pursuant to Rule 60(b),  and for  further  r e l i e f  under 

sa id  Rule  60 (b ) ,  Defendants m o v e  m o r e  p a rt icu la r ly ,  that a reh ea r in g  be had 

in this m atter  at which  tim e the so le  question to be d ec id ed  by  the Court  w il l  

be  the m anner  and m ethod o f  faculty d e se g re g a t io n  in the Chattanooga sch o o l  

sy s te m ;  the Defendants further  m o v e  the Court to d e c la r e  as r e s  judicata 

the question  as to w hether  o r  not the Chattanooga sch o o l  sy s te m  is  a dual 

s c h o o l  s y s te m  or  a unitary one (in that the United States C ou rt  o f  A p p e a ls ,  

Sixth C ir c u i t  on F e b ru a ry  7, 1967 in this cause found that the Chattanooga 

s c h o o l  s y s te m  was a d e se g re g a te d  sy stem  and no petition for  c e r t i o r a r i  

w as even requ ested  by the P la intiffs  on that point); and finally the Defendants 

m o v e  the C ou rt  to d i r e c t  that any and ail tes t im on y  in the r e c o r d  con ce rn in g  

the question  o f  dual o r  unitary s ch o o l  sy s tem s  p r io r  to the y e a r  1967 be 

expunged th e r e fr o m .

W IT T , G AITH ER , A B E R N A T H Y  &WIT CAMW I T  C A M

Raym ond B. Will, .lr. 
liOO A m e r i c a n  National Bank Building 

Chattanooga, T e n n e s se e  37402

A ttorneys  for  Defendants

/ 73-



Of Counsel:

EUGENE N. COLLINS 
400 P io n e e r  Bank Building 
Chattanooga, T e n n e s se e  37402

City A ttorney

C E R T IF IC A T E

T he undersigned  c e r t i f ie s  that a carbon  copy  o f  the fo rego in g  in 

O pposit ion  to P la in tif fs '  Motion was m a iled  to Avon  N, W il l ia m s ,  J r .  , 

E s q u ir e ,  1414 P arkw ay T o w e r s ,  N ashville ,  T e n n e sse e  37219, and Jack 

G re e n b e r g ,  Jam es  M . N arbrit t .  Ill ,  Norman Chachkin, and Sylvia D rew , 

E s q u ir e s ,  10 Colum bus C i r c l e ,  Suite 2030, New Y ork ,  New Y ork  10019, 

A tto rn e y s  for  P la in tif fs ,  this the 12th day o f  July, 1971.



in  t iik f e d e r a l  d i s t r i c t c o u r t

y o u  THE KASTKKN DISTRICT O F TENNESSEE, 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAM ES JO NATH AN M A P P ,  )
ct a l .  )

)
) NO. ______________ __

-v«- )
) CIVIL A C T IO N  I

CH A T T A N O O G A  BOARD O F  )
ED UCATIO N, et a l .  )

BR IEF IN SU PPORT O F  MOTION 

FOR R E L IE F  O F JUDGMENT OR O R D ER

On A p r i l  14, and again on May 10-14, and 17-19, 1971 this Court 

heard p r o o f  re la t ive  to a m otion  by the Pla intiffs  entitled "M o t io n  F or  

Im m ed ia te  R e l i e f " ,  and caused  the Defendants to c a r r y  the burden o f  p ro o f  

o f  defending a plan o f  d e segrega t ion  which both the P la in tif fs  and this Court  * 

at one tim e found sa t is fa c to r y  under the law at that t im e .  T h is  C ou rt  in an 

opinion d e l iv e r e d  f r o m  the bench  a fter  a full ev iden tiary  hearing  granted 

cer ta in  r e l i e f  requ ested  by the Plaintiffs  and im p lem en ted  that opinion with 

an o r d e r  f i led  June 23, 1971, which  d irec ted  the Defendants to presen t to 

this Court  a new plan for  d e s e g r e g a t io n . This o r d e r  w as supplem ented on 

June 29, 1971.

The m ot ion  (to which this b r ie f  is  d irec ted )  is  p resen ted  under the

a u sp ice s  o f  Rule  60(b) o f  the F e d era l  Rules o f  C iv il  P r o c e d u r e ;  that rule

reads in substance  as fo llow s;

"O n  m otion  and upon such te r m s  as a r e  ju s t  
the co u r t  m ay  r e l ie v e  a party o r  his lega l  
r e p re se n ta t iv e  f r o m  a final judgm ent,  o r d e r  
°i* p ro ce e d in g  for  the following rea so n s :  . . ,
|(4) the judgment in void;| . . , ;  o r  (6) .any 
o th er  rea so n  ju st ify ing  r e l ie f  f r o m  the 
o p era t ion  o f  I he ju d g m e n t . :

- I7 6~



i

T he key  i s s u e  upon which  Defendants ' m ot ion  is  based  is the one o f  

jres ju d icata  o r  m o r e  p r e c i s e ly  "the law o f  the c a s e " .  T h is  C ou rt  was 

requ ested  by the Defendants, p r io r  to the hearing o f  this m atter  in May o f 

this y e a r ,  to hold all  o ther  e lem ents  o f  this c a s e  (excep t  the tea ch er  p la c e ­

m ent p r o g r a m )  a s  res  ju d ica ta . T h is  Court presu m a b ly  did not feel that a 

m otion  had any m e r i t .  The Defendants now reopen  this m atter  with the Couri 

on the ba s is  o f  the authority o f  our  own Sixth C irc u i t .  T he  Defendants 

r e sp e c t fu l ly  subm it  to this C ou rt  that its fa i lure to countenance the plea o f  

r e s  jud icata  (a n d /o r  law of the c a se )  constitutes e r r o r  w hich  can be 

r e c t i f ie d  by the t im e ly  application  o f  Rule 60(b).  The Sixth C ir c u i t  authority  

to which  we r e fe r  i s ,  o f  c o u r s e ,  Joseph ine  G o s s ,  et a l .  v s .  the B oard  o f  

Education o f  the C ity  o f  K nox v i l le ,  T enn e s s e e ,  et a l .  - F .  2d -  Y our  H onor  

w il l  r e m e m b e r  in that d e c is io n  that Judge O 'Sullivan  rev iew ed  the sa m e  

type o f  argum ent ( res  jud icata  a n d /o r  law o f  the ca se )  as it applied  to the 

fact  situation in G o ss  and in his rev iew  Judge O 'Sullivan  had the following 

o b s e rv a t io n s :

"This c a s e  has to do  with d e se gre ga t io n  o f  the 
public s c h o o ls  o f  K n oxv i l le ,  T e n n e s se e .  The 
United States D is t r i c t  Court in K noxv i l le ,  the 
United States o f  Appeal for the Sixth C ircu it  
and, to a l e s s e r  d e g r e e ,  the Suprem e Court  
of the United States have s in ce  1957, been  
attempting to c o m e  up with a plan for  the 
Knoxville s c h o o ls  that w il l  be obed ient to the 
decision o f  Brow n v s .  Board  o f  Education  . . .

No e f fo r t  was m ade to obtain Suprem e Court 
r e v ie w  o f  the last  o f  our  d e c is i o n s .  Without 
such  e f fo r t ,  and on N ovem ber  17, 1969, 
pla intiffs  filed a pleading entitled M otion  F or  
Im m ed ia te  R e l ie f ,  which  asked  that 'defendants 
be requ ired  to co n v e rt  a unitary sch oo l  sy s te m  
at o n ce  and without any further d e la y .  '

I his notwithstanding ou r  last unappealed 
d e c is i o n  that hat) held that K noxvi l le  had 
a lre a d y  con v erted  its s c h o o ls  into a 'unitary  
s c h o o l  sy s te m .  ' . . . During the recep t ion  
o f  p r o o f ,  an in ter im  o r d e r  was en tered  on 
A p r i l  3, 1970, lim iting  cons id era t ion  to 
m a tte rs  that had a r is e n  s ince  Juno 7, 1967.
That was the date o f  the D is t r i c t  Court o r d e r

-/7t-



which had boon a f f i rm ed  hy this Court in 
ils  unappcalcd  d e c is io n ,  . . .  It was the 
Pi s t r i c t  Ju d g e 's  view that his d e c is io n  o f  
June 7, 1967 . . . so  approved  by us on
F cbrua iy  10, 1967 . . . was r e s  ju d icata 
o r  at lea st  the law of the c a se ,  as  to all 
m a tters  ad judicated by the 1967 d e c is i o n .  . . .

T rad it ion a l  p r e c e dents do indeed suggest  
that those  d e c is io n s  should be co n s id e r e d  
as having estab lished  the law o f  the c a s e ,  
and that the conduct o f  K noxville  up to 
June 7, 1967, as its e f fo rts  to c o m p ly  with 
Brow n v s .  Board  o f  Education, 347 U .S .
483 (1954) should not now be ju d ic ia l ly  
r e v i s i t e d . "  - F. 2d -

Judge O 'Sullivan  then went on to say that but for  the remanding

language o f  the Sixth C ircu i t  in the 1967 d e c is io n  the plea o f  r e s  ju d ic ata

a n d /o r  law of the c a s e  would be ap p licab le .  He then quoted the remanding

language which  is  im portant (with r e fe re n ce  to this part icu la r  p ro b le m )  and

should be quoted h erein .  The rem and reads as fo llow s:

"H o w e v e r ,  in requ iring  that the ca se  be kept 
on Judge T a y lo r 's  docket  we said:

In the tim e ahead, and cons istent with its needs 
and duty to se r v e  without d is cr im in a t io n  its 
en tire  s ch o o l  population, the K noxvi l le  Board o f  
Education may wish to c o n s id e r  som e  pairing  o f  
ex ist ing  s c h o o ls  and s o m e  a lteration  o f  Us plans 
for  future co n s tru ct ion .  We m ake no com m a n d s  
in this r e g a r d . "

With all o f  the fo rego in g  so c ited  in m ind , it now beh ooves  the 

Defendants to re v ie w  the h is to ry  of the Mapp c a s e  in m u ch  the sa m e  manner 

as did Judge O 'Sull ivan  re v ie w  the h istory  o f  the G oss  c a s e  ab ove .  The 

P la intiffs  h erein  f i led  their com pla in t  in this m atter  on A p r i l  6, I960 asking  

for  an injunction to c o m p e l  desegrega t ion  o f  the c ity  public  s ch o o l  sy s te m . 

Certa in  appeals  w e re  p rosecu ted ;  the first  im portant one (for  our p u rp oses )  

being Mapp v s .  Board  o f  Education o f  the City  o f  Chattanooga, T e n n e sse e ,  

319 F . ?.d 571 (1963). In (hat part icu lar  appeal both s id e s  p e r fe c te d  and 

p ro se cu te d  an appeal.  T h o se  appeals  resu lted  fr o m  a d e s e g re g a t io n  plan 

(ha) the Board I la <1 subm itted  and which was ap p roved  by this C ourt ,  with 

m oll i f icat ion . I lie pu rpose  o f  that plan was to a c c o m p l i s h  c o m p le te

- / 7 7 ~



d e se g re g a t io n  " f  Chattanooga public s c h o o ls .  Judge O 'Sullivan  in liis opinion 

nf 196 1 I 'c fc rred  to the d esegrega t ion  plan ami o b s e r v e d  as fo l low s :  "A ll

p a rt ics  ap pear  to find this broad  s ch e m e  of  d e s e g re g a t io n  a cce p ta b le .  

Pla intiffs  and Defendants, h ow ev er ,  both o b je c t  to, and have appealed  fr o m ,  

s p e c i f i c  portions  o f  the D is t r i c t  C ou rt 's  o r d e r s  and d e c r e e s ,  which  we 

d is c u s s e d  b e l o w . "  So the situation in 1963 ap p ears  to be one w here in  the 

P la intiffs  w e r e  sa t is f ied  with the ov era ll  d e s e g re g a t io n  plan and took such 

legal steps (upon which  the Defendants re lied )  so  as to indicate  this s a t i s ­

faction . S o m e t im e  th erea fter  while  this Court  was st il l  su p erv is in g  the 

d e se g re g a t io n  plan, the P la intiffs  fi led  their f ir s t  M otion  F o r  F urther  R e l ie f  

(M a rch  29, 1965). The purpose  o f  that m otion  was to urge this Court to 

a c c e le r a t e  the d esegrega t ion  plan r e fe r r e d  to ab ove  and the Court did this 

in August o f  1965; the resu lt  being that as of S e p te m b e r ,  1966 the d e s e g r e ­

gation plan w as co m p le te ly  im plem en ted .  An appeal was taken fro m  this 

C o u r t 's  act ion  o f  1965 and between the time that the P la intiffs  fi led  their  

appeal and the appeal was heard, they managed to change their  mind to such 

an extent con ce rn in g  the d esegrega t ion  plan that the appeal to the Sixth 

C ir c u i t  com pla in ed  that the desegrega t ion  plan as a c c e le r a te d  by the D is t r i c t  

Court  was "a  totally in e f fe ct ive  v e h ic le  for the prom p t e lim inat ion  o f  the 

seg re ga te d  sch o o l  s y s t e m . "  T h is ,  o f  c o u r s e ,  o c c u r r e d  a fter  the d e s e g r e g a ­

tion plan or ig in a l ly  ap proved  by this Court had been co m p le te ly  im plem en ted  

Judge W eick  in his d e c is io n  o f  this third appeal o f  the M app c a s e  to 

the Sixth C ircu i t  [373 F .2 d  75 (1967)] did indeed rem and the ca se  but his 

rem an d  was not the broad  one that we find in G o s s .  S p e c i f i ca l ly ,  what 

Judge W eick  d irec ted  this Court  to do is stated in that opinion as fo l low s :

"T h e  judgm ent o f  the D is t r ic t  Court  is  a f f i rm e d  
excep t  as to the is su e  o f  faculty a s s ig n m e n ts ,  
and the cau se  is rem anded for  further p ro ce e d in g s  
in a c c o r d a n c e  with this o p in io n . "

The question  a r i s e s ,  what did Judge W eick  a f f i r m ?  The an sw er  to 

that question  is  s im p le ,  Judge W eick  a f f i rm e d  that the d e segrega t ion  plan 

(which I lie Hoard had submitted to the D istrict  C ou rt  in 1963) c o m p l ie d  with 

Thin was the sam e plan that the D is t r i c t  Court  and the P laintiffs  

hail both in the main ap proved  up until 1966, ami w hich  had been  com p le te ly•ns-



I
I
I

put into e f fe c t  in S ep tem b er  o f  1966. ’I he obse rv a t io n s  o f  Ju«lj*e Weick in the • 

1967 opinion con ce rn in g  the Plaintiffs ;1 attack upon the now com p le ted
i

d e se gre ga t io n  plan would appear  lo  be 'pertinent for I lie p u rp ose  o f  this br ief :
I

"P la in t i f fs '  final contention on appeal is that the 
plan, as  a c c e le ra te d  by the D is t r i c t  C ou rt 's  
o r d e r  be lo w ,  is  a totally  in e f fe ct ive  v eh ic le  for 
the prom pt elim ination  o f  the segrega ted  sch oo l  
sy s te m .  Such a broad  gauged attack was not 
deve loped  in the ev id en ce  presented to the 
D is t r i c t  C ourt .  . . .

If this p o l icy  has resu lted  in a la rg e r  attendance 
o f  white o r  N egro  ch ildren  in any part icu lar  
sch oo l  it is beca u se  o f  their  r e s id e n c e s ,  a factor  
which  the Board  of Education cannot c o n t ro l .  No 
ch ild ,  N eg ro  o r  white, has been denied the right 
to attend sch oo l  in the zone o f  his r e s id e n c e .
(High Schoo ls  in the sy stem  a re  not zoned . )

T o  the extent that P la in tif fs '  contention is  based  
on the assum ption  that the sch oo l  boa rd  is under 
a constitutional duty to balance the r a c e s  in the 
s ch o o l  system  in con form ity  with so m e  m a th e ­
m a t ica l  form ula ,  it is  in con f l i c t  with our recen t  
d e c is io n  in Deal v s .  Cincinnati . . . "  373 F . 2d 
75, 78, 79 (1967)

T h e re  can be no question upon a reading o f  this p art icu lar  part o f  

the 1967 opinion as to whether o r  not Judge W eick  b e l ieved  that in Sep tem ber  

o f  1966 a d e s e g re g a te d  sch oo l  sy s te m  had been ach ieved  in c o n fo r m ity  with 

Brow n I. This is  a lso  graph ica lly  indicated in another part o f  Judge W e ick 's  

opin ion  w here in  he states ,  "In p rev ious  y e a r s  up to 1966, such  e n ro l lm en t  was 

p o s s ib le  beca u se  o f  the dual s ch oo l  zones  preva iling  in the undesegregated  

gra d es  o f  the s c h o o l  sy s te m .  H ow ever ,  under the a c c e le ra te d  plan put into 

e f fe c t  in S e p te m b e r ,  1966, no child  may enro ll  in a s ch o o l  out o f  his 

d e s e g re g a te d  zon e, no m atter  at what leve l  he enters  the s c h o o l . "  (our 

em p h a sis )  The Pla intiffs  attempted no appeal from  this d e c is io n  o f  Judge 

W eick .  T h e r e fo r e ,  becau se  o f  the distinct d i f fe re n ce  in the rem and o f  the 

Mapp and G oss  c a s e s  the question as to the e f f i c a c y ,  p rop r ie ty  and legality  o f

I lie c o m p le te ly  im plem en ted  Chattanooga School D eseg reg at ion  Plan should 

nul hc"judii ially  r e v is i te d "  by this Court  af fills l im e .  Such a m atter  is res
[
I .i t.i .intl/or tin* l.iw of tlio cast*.

- m -



B e fo re  leaving Judge W r ic k 's  d e c is io n  in I he third M app appeal,  it 

would se e m  p r o p e r  to d is cu s s  b r ie f ly  the fact that the .S,xlh C ircu it  applied  

the d e c is io n  o f  Deal v s .  Cincinnati to the fact situation they found in 1967 in 

Chattanooga. Your Honor (and to a l e s s e r  extent the Sixth C ircu t i )  has 

staled  that Deal does  not apply  to a sch oo l  sy s te m  which in 1954 was a 

do ju r e  seg rega ted  sch oo l  sy s te m .  This is  true except  for  one v e ry  

im portan t a s p e c t  and that is: O nce the dc ju r e  sch oo l  sy s te m  b e c o m e s  a 

d e s e gregated  sy s te m  and is  so  a ccep ted  by the C o u r ts ,  any d isp rop ort ion  

of white a n d /o r  N egro  ch ild ren  th erea fter  ex ist ing  in a part icu la r  s ch o o l  in 

the s ch oo l  sy s te m  (which is not the result o f  subsequent de ju r e  act ion )  is 

indeed c o v e r e d  by D eal.

W h ere  th e r e fo re ,  is the ap plicab ility  o f  G r e e n , A le x a n d e r  and Swann 

to the c a s e  at b a r ?  The thread o f  r e p r isa l  unquestionably runs through the 

fa b r ic  o f  these three c a s e s  but therein  one finds r e ca lc i t r a n t  sch oo l  board s  

w hose  d e se g re g a t io n  plans had not r e ce iv e d  the com bined  b le ss in g s  o f  the 

P la in t i f f s , the D is t r i c t  C o u r t , and the Court o f  A p p e a ls .

The best  statement o f  the inapp licability  o f  G re e n . A lexand er  and 

Swann can be  found in Chief Ju st ice  B e r g e r 's  opinion in Swann itse l f ,  which 

reads as fo l low s :

"T h e  constitutional com m and  to d e se g re g a te  
s c h o o ls  does  not m ean that e v ery  s ch o o l  in 
e v e r y  com m u n ity  m ust always r e f le c t  the 
rac ia l  com position  o f  the s ch oo l  sy s te m  as a 
w hole .

A s  the vo lum inous r e c o r d  in this c a s e  show s, 
the p re d ica te  for the D is t r i c t  C o u r t 's  use o f  
the 71%.29% ratio  was twofold: f i r s t ,  its
e x p re s s  finding, ap proved  by the Court  o f  ,
A p p ea ls  and not challenged h ere ,  that a dual
s c h o o l  s y s t e m  had b e e n  m a i n ta in ed  b y the
s c h o o l a u t h o r i t ie s  at l e a s t  until 1969: "se co n d
its  f in d in g ,  a l s o  a p p r o v e d  by the C o u r t  o f
A p p e a l s ,  that the S c h o o l  H oard had to ta l ly
d e fa u lt e d  in its a c k n o w le d g e d  duty to c o m e
f o r w a r d  w ith  an  a c c e p t a b l e  plan o f  i t s  o w n .
. . . "  ( e m p h a s i s  a d d e d )



" ‘ Mild Kurin l<* in sist ,  I h r r r f m v ,  lli.it tin- e x tre m it ie s  o f  C r u m ,  

A | f>jil))tlc'r itttd Swann should not bu v isited  upon tin- Chattanooga school 

sy s te m  beca u se  at the t im e  o f  the P la in tif fs '  Last Motion F o r  Additional 

R e l ie f ,  the B oard  was not operating a dual s c h o o l  system  in v io lation  o f  

Brow n I , nor  was the B oard  in "tota l default"  for  failing to c o m e  forw ard  

with a plan o f  d esegrega t ion  o f  the s ch oo ls  which  was a cce p ta b le  to the 

p la in t i f fs ,  the D is t r i c t  Court  and the Court o f  A p p e a ls .  Any attempt to 

iipply Hie " r e p r i s a l  d o c t r in e "  to the Chattanooga sch o o l  sy s te m  cannot, bo 

(P'HWMfl with any valid ity  as being " le g a l ly  t o l e r a b le " .

Your Honor in a llow ing  the Pla intiffs  to reopen  ihe en tire  question  of 

the d esegrega t ion  plan w hich  should have been put to r e s t  in 1967 is  not only 

a llow ing  the P la intiffs  two shots at the Defendants but is a lso  a llow ing  them 1 

to renege  on their  p rev ious  a c q u ie s ce n c e  in the o r ig ina l plan ap proved  by the j 
D is t r i c t  Court and the Sixth C ircu it .  Thus, we not only have a v io lat ion  o f

I
the d o c tr in e  o f  r e s  ju d icata  and " law  of  the c a s e "  but a l s o  we seem in g ly  have |i
the P la in tif fs  flaunting the doc tr in e  o f  equitable estoppe l .

This  Court and all  part ies  r ea l iz ed  as e a r ly  as August 10, 1967 that 

the s ing le  is su e  le ft  to be d ec id ed  in this case  was that o f  faculty p erson nel 

a s s ig n m e n ts .  Y our  Honor filed a m em ora n d u m  opinion  on August 10, 1967 

which  reads as fo l low s :

"T h is  c a s e  is  now b e fo r e  the cou rt  upon rem and 
fro m  the Court o f  App eals  upon the single  is su e  

-• o f  faculty and su p e r v iso r y  person n e l  ass ign m en t
within the defendant sch oo l  sy s te m .  . . . All 
other  m a tters  h e re to fo re  ruled on by this court  
have been  a f f i rm e d  upon a p p e a l . "  (em ph asis  supplied)

On Sep tem ber  12, 1967, the Defendants m ade an O f fe r  o f  Judgment,

regard ing  faculty ass ign m e n ts ,  the only  rem aining  is su e .  The O ffer  m ade  to 

I be Pla intiffs  was n ever  responded  to. U would appear  that the intervening  

I'h-lay and P la in tif fs '  re fusa l  to even contem plate  a p o s s ib le  con sen t  d e c r e e

jw.is a ca lcu lated  attem pt on the part o f  Mr. W il l iam s (based  upon an intell igent
'
!sii|>|io:. if inn on his  pa rf that I Iw Kuv w i I h r e g a r d  to  d e s e g r e g a t i o n  c a s e s  w as  

; l x - t m n i ng to u g h e r  and to u g h e r  and In: | , y  m m  J, . 1  d e l a y  w ou ld  i n c r e a s e  his

j i i * c o v e r y  s u b s t a n t i a l l y . iI
:ii



1

i
11 is not till" D efendants1 coniention under (liis Motion tli.it the 

Plaintil fs a r e  without any right to question the school  sy s te m  at the present I
I

t im e .  I liey m ay  s u c c e s s fu l ly  attack that sy stem  i f  they can show that 

subsequent to the hearing in 1965 be fo re  Your H on or ,  the B oa rd  has been 

guilty o f  g errym a n d e r in g  the zones  o r  has m ade  d e c is io n s  w hich  have had 

the e f fe c t  o f  roinstituting a dual sch oo l  system  o r  to seek  to obtain so m e  

newly r e co g n iz e d  a s p e c t  o f  a constitutional r ight. We would resp e c t fu l ly  

subm it h ow ever  that if  Your Honor does  a c cep t  the pos it ion  o f  the Defendants! 

that the only hearing re la t ive  to segregation  o f  the Chattanooga s c h o o ls  must 

be based  upon facts that have o c c u r r e d  since 1965 a n d /o r  1966, then the 

P la in tif fs  m ust c o m e  forw ard  with s o m e  ev iden ce  that would show that this 

dc  facto  seg rega t ion  o f  which  they com pla in  has been m ade  de ju r e  by som e  

ac t ion  o f  the B oa rd .

And even  on this point, the Defendants would  r e sp e c t fu l ly  point out

to the Court that they cannot be expected  year  in and y e a r  out ad infinitum

to defend, t inker with, a n d /o r  change (based upon the whim o f  the P la intif fs )

the s ch o o l  s y s te m  of this c ity .  We have no le s s  authority  than Ju st ice

B e r g e r  in Swann 1971 to support this contention when he stated:

"A t  so m e  point, these  school  authorities  and 
oth ers  like  them should have ach ieved  full 
c o m p l ia n ce  with this C o u r t 's  d e c is io n  in 
Brown I. The sy s te m s  will then bo unitary 
in the sen se  requ ired  by our d e c is io n s  in 
G reen  and A lexa n d er .

i

It does  not fo llow  that the com m u n ities  
se r v e d  by such sy s te m s  w ill rem ain  
d e m o gra p h ica l ly  stable  for in a grow ing  
m o b i le  so c ie ty ,  few w ill  do so .  Neither 
sch oo l  authorities  nor d is tr ic t  c o u rts  a re  
constitutiona lly  requ ired  to m ake y ear  by 
y e a r  ad justm ents  o f  the rac ia l  com p o s it io n  
o f  student bod ies  on ce  the a f f i rm ative  duty 
to d e se g re g a te  has been a cco m p lish e d  . . . "  
(em p h asis  added)

i
iI II a p p e a r s  lo l ie- D e f e n d a n t s  t h a t  t in1 D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  h a s  t a k e n  t h e  

' I i” "  t ha t  this I »oa ri l  m u s t  a .  I i iev . - tol l  c o m p l i a n c e  w i t h  tin* e a s e s  of

-*/g z- I
fSI



G re e n , A lexa n d er  and Swann. In a l l  o f  those  c a s e s ,  the D istr ic t  Court  was j 

e ither  attempting to obtain the im plem entation  o f  a final plan, o r  there had 

been no plan at all subm itted ,  but, in any event none o f  the Defendants in 

those  c a s e s  had a ch ieved  full c om p lian ce  of a plan which had p re v io u s ly  been 

acce p te d  by the P la in tif fs ,  the D is t r ic t  Court and finally the Court o f  A p p ea ls .  

(What the Defendants a r e  in e ffect  urging upon this Court is that Brow n I is 

the c a s e  which  this s ch o o l  bo a rd  had to com p ly  with and that it did in fact 

com p ly  with Brow n I as can be seen by Judge W e ic k 's  opinion in 1967.)

At the r isk  o f  being repetit ious the Defendants would here  resp ect fu l ly  

re ite ra te  the legal  prop os i t ion ;  that once it w as ju d ic ia l ly  determ ined  that the 

B oard  had c o m p lie d  with Brown I the sch oo l  sy s te m  does  not rem ain  im m une 

to attack but Swann lucid ly  indicates  the fo rm  this attack should take and 

w here  the burden o f  p ro o f  l ie s :

"T h is  does  not m ean  that federa l  c o u rts  a r e  
without pow er  to deal with future p r o b le m s ;  
but in the ab se n ce  o f  a showing that e ither the 
s c h o o l  authorities  o r  som e other agency  o r  the 
State has d e l ib e ra te ly  attempted to fix  or  a lter  
d e m o g ra p h ic  patterns to a f fe c t  the rac ia l  
c o m p o s it io n  o f  the s c h o o ls ,  further in tervention 
|jy a d is t rict c o u r t should not be n e c e s s a r y .
(em p h a sis  added)

F inal ly ,  w hile  following this part icu lar  line of r e a so n in g ,  w e a r r iv e  

at the O r d e r  put down by the United States Suprem e Court  on June 30 o f  this 

y e a r  which  denied a m otion  by M r.  W il l iam s in the G oss  c a s e  w here in  he 

requ ested  an O rd e r  o f  the Suprem e Court requ ir ing  an im m ed ia te  su bm ission  

o f  a plan o f  d e se gre ga t io n  for  the K noxville  sch oo l  sy s te m .  The Suprem e 

Court in that O r d e r  in two p la ces  indicated that based  upon the in form ation  

they had b e fo r e  them , as a resu lt  o f  M r.  W il l ia m s '  m ot ion ,  in their  opinion  , 

at ( i .ne  K noxv i l le  had a "u n itary "  sch oo l  sy stem  and (he C ou rt  indicated

I hat it would be the D is t r ic t  C o u r t 's  duty in K noxvi l le  to " in q u ire  whether 

respondents have failed  to maintain a unitary school  s y s te m "  and "sh ou ld  it j 

find that respondents have not maintained a unitary s c h o o l , "  the dual s ch oo l  

sy s te m  that has a r is e n  m ust,  of c o u r s e ,  be struck down.

- / g  3 -

!



I

I
In light o f  the forego ing  authorities  and argum ent ,  the Defendants

|

r e sp e c t fu l ly  subm it that they a r e  entitled to a rehearing  pursuant to Rule 00(b)! 

and that ill that hearing tin' only  question to be heard should be w hether  o r  

not the p re se n t  s ch o o l  system  in the City o f  Chattanooga has c e a s e d  to com p ly  

with Brow n I b e ca u se  o f  so m e  de ju re  action  o c c u r r in g  s in ce  1965, and 

that upon all  these  points the P la intiffs  must finally bear  the burden o f  p r o o f  

and the burden o f  going forw ard  with the e v id en ce .

R e sp e ct fu l ly  subm itted ,

W IT T , G AITH ER, A B E R N A T H Y  & 
WILSON

f "  , ,
P y  r 'S, & I . ' } ' 1/

Raym ond B. Witt, J r .  j / '
1100 A m e r i c a n  National Bank Building 
Chattanooga, T e n n e s se e  37402

A ttorneys  for Defendants

Of C ounse l :

EUGENE N. COLLINS 
400 P io n e e r  Bank Building 
Chattanooga, T e n n e sse e  37402

City  A ttorney

C E R T IF IC A T E

The undersigned  c e r t i f ie s  that a carbon  copy  o f  the fo re g o in g  in 

O pposit ion  to P la in t i f fs '  Motion was m ailed  to Avon N. W il l ia m s ,  J r . ,  

E sq u ire ,  1414 P ark w ay  T o w e r s ,  N ashville ,  T e n n e s se e ,  37219 and Jack 

G re e n b e rg ,  J a m e s  M . N arbrit t ,  III, Norman Chachkin, and Sylv ia  D rew , 

E s q u ir e s ,  10 C o lum bus C i r c le ,  Suite 2030, New Y ork ,  New Y o rk ,  10019, 

a t torneys  fo r  p la in tif fs ,  this the /  day o f  July, 1971.

i ..., P  r\ /  , / /  7  
__ ■ - - - : ■ «*

- 1 8 t h '

I



, V

JAlith .. 'vm*’■ -A ! XAj-V, cl. .-•! J /
/ .

j Civil Act on No. ?jC4
1

Ti.C B.Vhh/ Ou wOCATIOM OF i'lsE ]
CITY Ui C'IATthNOOO.%, HAMATUs j 
COUNTY, TENNESSEE, ot F-l j

C V _ i  N  t- O  1 j

fain case is presently before the Court tor settle::*.at

upon a plan that will accomplish full and final desegregation or 

t;iv Chattanooga, Tennessee public scaools in a jcordai.ee with r"- 

cent decisions ot the United btate.. Supreme- Court and ci the 

United States Court o£ Appeals tor this Circuit. The case has «. 

lengthy history. A recitation ot that history is set forth in an 

opinion ot tills Court entered upon I'ebruary 19, 1971, where.. > trie 
Court also see :ortii certain guidelines that were to be trllo.cd 

in conducting further hearings upon the present phase ot the 

lawsuit. Pursuant to the guidelines referred to, extensive i. - 

ther hearings ‘..ere nclu regarding the effectiveness or prior u«.- 

segrogation plans to accomplish the ostablisiiment ot a unitor 

school system ir. Chattanooga as that concept has been defined i 

recent no(>cllate court decisions, including the decision of the 

United iitate:. Supreme Court in the case ot Swarm v. Char lot tc-
.•yc):leniiui.-H board of Education. ___ U.S. ___, 28 L.Ed.2d 5‘V„ 91

S*Ct. ____ (1971). At the conclusion ot the evidentiary hearing
on Hay 19, 1971, this Court entered an opinion from the bench 
finding that previous plans hod not succeeded in accomplishing a 
unitary school ayotem, basing its finding in this regard upon the 
undisputed evidence, and directing tho defendants to submit further 
plane for the final accomplishueut oi a unitary school system i ■
Chattanooga in accordance with the h'-ann decision and other recent



jp icllaLc c. ui.cii.it nr.. ; olliw.r>j l,i-j .iubsnisuioo c-i dcncjti'-

yatiort i-•> br uliv j»lrunt • 5;: and bv t!ic dtiteiidants( .< * t:-—

tao- i.r, wua lola upon uuly 19, 1971, at which evidence woo

fuc'. ivca; la oi ;po«:t '>j aid i.. opposition to tnc respective plans 

tK:..o.;e obi. s-otart. Also at that time argument was received ant- a 

ieê sttus was reserved upon certain notions pending in the case.

i»s:,wius mjfICKb

Turn icy lirst to the i>cnd i ng notions upon which tlucision 

ha, been reserved, these include;

(i) A motx in by tour citizens and residents of 

Chattanooga, Tennessee, to be allowed to intervene;

C-) A t'otioii by the defendants seeking reconsideration 

of tiie court’s findings and order entered tiny 19, 1971, wherei> 

the Court directed tin; defendants ta submit further desegregation 

pla is r and

(J) A motion by the defendants to strike the plaintiii-* 

objections to the defendants* desegregation plan.

Regarding the notion to be allowed to intervene, the 

ir.tervonort. assert various objections to the proposed desegrega­

tion plans submitted by the present parties to this litigation.

The relief sought by the interve .oro i3 to be allowed to present 

thc.-ir objections to the desegregation plana now bet ore the Court, 

to be allowed to join tile Hamilton county, Tennessee, board o 

education as c jxirty defendant, mid to establish a uniform racial 

ratio in the canbincd City of Chattanooga and Hamilton County 

Scnool Systems. The defendants have raised no objection to the 

intervention, but the plaintiffs have objected. Having considered 

the briefs and arguments of counsel, the Court io of the opinion 

tliot the motion to intervene must be disallowed and this for more 

reasons than one.
- / * £



i 'l . :4 C  . n ' t  i iJ ix v l i , t. s i t  t i i ' .  W .*Ui

wocii. t im e ly  f i l e d .  T h is  la w i.4 it  h as ;»ow been  U. Ai t .g a c io . .  

r o t  mpra titan 11 /e a r s .  E x te n s iv e  h e a r in g s  and e x t e n s iv e  r o l l  of 

itna hour;.^0; o r e  -'ll;: itm e tc i l  ti.wi c  e  1 in  t  e rev i c/.. a t th a t  i i  ■;

,i6i' bow *r«2 upon c':trt?e f>i: i o c  o c c n u i b ee  Mapp v - Board

jaL g c n t iOn Ji. Lug C i f '  o f Ch.'-ittanoo-ia, 255 S '.2d C17 ( l ‘X-1) ; 20.' 1 - 

tfgpp. &4j ( i fX ii)  ; -1 5  l .2 b  .71 (IJvVJiJ 371 F.2U 75 (19<>7) r 274 1‘ . 

{jHp p . /j55 (l'>>7 ) . V ita  ;»rc-aOf.t ph ase o t  th e  la w s u it  non b een  in  

4—V i t l i t i g a t i o n  j.or more tlm i a y e a r . E v id e n t ia r y  hoarincp-

>ftft(tli lj over a period o t ten clays — etc complcocd within the
il* ■ ;.fi -
pii*t fnonthu. both the Plaintiff and the defendants '.iave n- ■■■-

auhmittud desegregation plan—. The motion to intervene cant onx^
' 1 ’ , nc.en days before a hearing was scheduled to coamenct for final

approval ->i a dcsegregntion plan which in part, if not in its

entirety, must he imploineutcd in tnc six weeks that remain befo.'f

the opening of school in September 1571. To allow intervention at

this advn.•■cod stage ot the litigation, particularly intervention

which seeks to .add new parties, to litigate the legality as well

a;; tin.- propriety o. adding tnc new parties, and to litigate all

relevant issues regarding a school -y. tom not presently betore the

uoart, could only unduly burden and delay the present litigation.

bee Tozak v. Wells, (C.A. G, 15-0) 27C r.2d 104; P/lc-National -0_._

v. Amos. (C.A. 7. 1V4*J) 173 i.?d 425; note, “The RequirenwnUi r

Timeliness under Rule 2 4 of the federal 'tales ot civil Procedure,“

37 V a .L .R e v . 5 0 3 .

Insofar as the intervewors seek the rignt to witerp •: '? 

objections to the desegregation plans now before the Court, it is 

believed that ail mattera in this regard are being vigorously and 

extensively ocitcnt'.d by tne present litigants. There is notni..g 

i.j the record or history of tins litigation to indicate any - ade­

quate representation of any relevant viewpoint regarding any issue
~  ! % 1 "



Mi. ,ih;« i t . U ' k m ; VjT:--.- : .W*: \ o_. • c<.art tiiot is now Ix». ; o
ti;e *-'r"ii v. k. iKV, «-"<01" • isfi...* throughout t'le Io .mj history of 
tins i s . ! iiit-. :> et; % -jarouslj and resosrcetully uonUattd
;i:-s ;»4» Ik-cij resolvixl only by dec:in ion of tlic Court. in 11 ura 
Lito.'.'i: ijfc Lc'-.i iO significant ii sue -csolvcd by ^i'ccoeiit uito

o. i~ni« oo.'Mceis.oii io vi, be- iortho: noted that wliilc 
t . . ..  : t wt-f. .■ : ate critical os the traiwpoctatnw provisions ii>
Uic ptn.-o no.- before trie w«Ai»:t, the proposed relief nought Uy them 
vro-ild rotuire .rich :wis wrtpuoivc transportation t.ian proposed in 
any plan r,'.w .r_ore the court.

; iiiaily, insofar as the intervenoru see'; to join tlr 
hr.nilt/ i county board of U.citiov. and to establish a unif-̂ rr.: 
racial ratio tn the conbined City of cltattanooga and i;am<ltc 
C--u:;ty School Syoteris, they appear to be asserting a now lswav.it 
;.3sod .it.', aiid u. tii tti. .lojal theories. Mo direct ;'ith.«ri ty
h.:. hee;v cited : or the cwu-xslidation or two school system hy 
Ijudicial flat, '.lather. ouch swatters hove historically beei. Irrt 
a. lojisinti.t, executive:, or political .resolution, all as borne 

o_t by tio uui..-jr>x.s u but a cor y ci cations iji the intervs ora* brief a, 
all o* .lion wlcJ.j.it ctctpCio.. coi-Uiplate resolution by such means, 
iltno.t.jn tie i itu-.v.iors a. sect that they uo j*ot seek chisel i«j.at»<*#», 
ant oaf; a Joint unitary school nlar, it docs not readily appear 
hew ti:ia would differ from o.-m-o?.'.Cation when it is borne in d 
iJmt t-.4«.port'tion avid other facilities would be subject to joint 
-**-■ . ami that - til 1, toe oiler a and students would be subject to 
iliterolianje between the systems. Likewise, tlic geographical, 
political, or other limitations for deter.lining which school system* 

be joined for oueii relief it new natter upon which no prior 
.»ati! iitj appear:, to c;:int. Additionally, the entire matter 01 

otietner ui:o ,in;nilton Count/ Sr-.iuol systems was ur was not itoeli
operating a unitary •■■eiiool system vould spyuar to he a subject 
for i kw litigation. - / i i -



For o i l  iore>._.t »u'4 Tisuiona trio c >urfc i; oi tn-
op1.-, ion tcict u'i. ^.. u< . u«u be denied.

j jp w::V. t ■ »<:■ aeoh.vc: rcco .: iecr-
<-r..i.o:. j t .i‘ o»: .tn cUrutiiiou upon Ma,, 19, 1971, where i.: thu

wJi. fit it CikitUinooj.-. School d/ston vaa »»«•'■ a
unitary o-.iu v . ,  re aired b, rcount buprenie Court and otlui ORicUitto 
court .iiriuio...■, t is/ Mvtio;: i;; predicated upon t.ie coiitc.itiot tiiat 
t'H1 iv.iUQ <> 1. '/.i.ciwc the C-jnctaiiosA-r.i tcitool., sretc unitar/ 'lau ntwn 
cicoisiol iii course r.i nrovjouu tvnaringa and was therefore > «.o 
judicata. Tiio xtti-xi appears to be based largely upon the rcucut 

C i r c u i t  v<-cisioi. in the case of cosh v . Board of Buucation
lyfoxviUc. ycnacsuoc. <«20.8-14. decided June 22, 1971)

___l'-2d ___ . Although tt.ot case sjioke of prior co>irt findings of
a u n ita r y  ocnool uyr.tehi w ith in  the Knoxville schools, nod suggested 
1 1. t  upv.;i t.'SKlitu'ii-il pcino;plea oi res judicata such finding! :.utjl»t 
wniiti'.jto ta i: law ui tin: case, three .lattes trust be n oted  ii> f.uia 
r e g a r d . F i r s t ,  i t  ;mwt be n oted  tiwt the Court went on to coecludai 
*V:e .‘••cl i e v e , .cv-icvcr, t  :a t  b i o w i M c  ismt no.v canroria tire direction 
ot its i-chocl.-.* t o  wl«it»;vc;r ilew a c t io n  in enjoined upon it by the 
r e le v a n t  l i ' / l  doeiicions •». tu e  Ur. tod iJtston ou nren o court."
»•' conn, .c tituut uo rotcc f.u t in the i aoc of prior i iixiin p  or a 
unitary s y u t e tar. co'«rt oj (.jj;;oiils never tins Iona reversed a;«: 
rc-rtanded the ccw.e for codetermination by t'ae District Court ui _ne
u n i t a r y  uchool inn us. "consiiitont with Swann vw, nd- ot p i . . ___

U.fs.i,. i.'teit r?-1j7, and otlscr relevant Suprcr.ie Coir. 
opinions niutcunoed on f.pril 20, 1971." Finally, aa noted in t.ic 
jjogn dccici<m, t ie law in the ieId of (iCtbol desegregation ha* 
becn in tins prooea.. of development over the past 17 yours. and 
concept.. otice thought. ndcouatc .'m v c  been rr-ol.xwl by new and mocc 

definitive instructions iro.u tne .Mprcino court. Findings of rant 
and conelai:io»»»; o: law ItsstU upon ligal concepts now discards!

- m -



f o r ro ‘ .i- ... r \ ; l y i n g  Lac p r in c ip l e s :  o _  . 'e c  ju d i c a t a  o r

due*a:.,!’ a ir . < th e  .I t . o r  the i;.-ao. il  .»;■ d e fe n d a n ts  * m otion  t o  n>* 

e?>rt;.-i<i<-x v-i 11 j .o o u r d in y ly  be  d e n ie d .

T urn ing  ; i . i o i l s  t o  th e  d e lo n d a n ta ’ m otion  t o  t t r  ko the 

*• ■- ' v t . ' .  tt: th e  i.en d ed  p la n  i it d e s e g r e g a t io n  ' ■«:<-

I .d tted  by th e  c 'e ie cd .'in tu , i t  w o j k  appear th a t  t h is  (notion  m ight 

wort- a p p rop ricitd A y  be c o n s id e r e d  in  c o n n e c t io n  w itn  a re v ie w  01 

t .ic  c o ;  ondn:it">1 p la n  upon i t s  i’l e r i t s ,  as  w i l l  be  h e re  i  rial t e r  

undertaken  by th e  C o u r t .

hbCho Ol'HiELINES

A t th e  c o i-e lu s io n  Oi. th e  h ea rin g  upon May 1 9 , 1971 , the 

C ou rt in  j t o  o p in io n  rev iew ed  th e  r e le v a n t  d o c i s i o n o  o t  th e  U nited  

d t a t e s  Supreme C ou rt and th e  C ou rt o l  A ppea ls  f o r  t h i s  C ir c u i t  and 

s e t  f o r t h  t . :e  l o y a l  g u u i c l .n e s  th a t  sh ou ld  d i r e c t  th e  d e fe n d a n t 

S c h o o l Board in  p r e p a r in g  i t s  p la n  io r  fu r th e r  and f i n a l  d e s e g r e ­

g a t io n  a x  th e  C hattan ooga  s c h o o ls .  W ith ou t a tte m p tin g  a g a in  t o  

r e p e a t  in  l u l l  th o s e  g u id e l i n e s ,  i t  d o cs  se e n  a p p r o p r ia te  a ga in  

t o  r e r e c  t o  c e r t a in  o i th o s e  g u id e l in e s .

In  ttie  f i r s t  p la c e ,  th e  ; unda.aental p r o p o s i t i o n  b e a m  

r e p e a t in g  t e a t  th e  l e g a l  b a s is  f o r  t h is  la w s u it  i s  th a t  p r o v is io n  

th e  fo u r t e e n t h  Amendment t o  th e  U n ited  S ta te s  c o n s t i t u t i o n  

•./men r o g o ir e n  th a t  t o  s t a t e  s n a i l  deny any p erson  w ith in  i t s  

j u r i s d i c t i o n  th e  eq u a l p r o t e c t i o n  o i  th e  la w s ."  T h is  c o u r t  i s  

ch arged  w ith  th e  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  o f  r e q u ir in g  n o th in g  le a s  o f  th e  

C h attan ooga  s c h o o ls  than f u l l  c o n p lia r .c o  w ith  th e  Equal P r o t e c t io n  

C la u s e . T h is  C ou rt i s  p e rm itte d  t o  r e q u ir e  n o th in g  more o f  th e  

C h attan ooga  s c h o o ls  than su ch  f u l l  C o n s t i t u t io n a l  c o m p lia n ce .

Iri th e  se con d  p la c e ,  f u l l  com p lia n ce  w ith  th e  E cual 

P r o t e c t io n  C la u se  o f  th e  C o n s t i t u t io n  r e q u ir e s  th e  e l im in a t io n  

from  p u b l i c  s c h o o ls  o f  “a l l  v c 3 t i g c s  o t  s t a t e  im posed s e g r e g a t io n "  

and in  t h is  c o n n e c t io n  “th e  burden  upon s c h o o l  a u t h o r i t i e s  w i l l

- w -



h r. t

J c o n c o s i t i o n  ot. e a c h  s c h o o l )  i s  n o t  th e  r e s u l t  o r  p r e s e n t

o r  p a s t  d i s o r i i  d u a t i  on  u pon  th e  i t  p a r t . "  Swann v . C iif .-.l o t t e -  

M eckic i 'i ju r u  .Guard  o l R .u ca fc ia n , ___ . > . S . ______, 28  L .E d .d d  5 3 4 , 91

а .  C t .  ___( > .•.’ ! )  - Tiit: r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  o i  th e  c o u r t  -U t o  a s s u r e

tu a t  t ' l e  ch a tt.u ^ .xA ja  s c h o o l s  ' 'o p e r a t e  now and h e r e a f t e r  o n ly  

u n i t a r y  n c h w -X a ,"  t h a t  i s ,  s c h o o l s  in  w h ic h  n o  p e r s o n  i s  t o  b< 

e l  f . e c t i v e l y  e x c lu d e d  from  an y  s c h o o l  b e c a u s e  o r  r a c e  o r  c o l o r - ' '  

A.l t : / a . ruer  v .  Jolin ot; c o u n t 1/  B oa rd  o f E d u c a t io n , 396  U .S . 1 9 , 24

б .  E d .3d 1 9 , 90 f - .C t .  29  ( 1 9 6 9 ) .

In  th e  t h i r d  p l a c e ,  w h i l e  fr e e d o m  o f  c h o i c e  in  m a tte r s  

o f  s c h o o l  a t t e n d a n c e  n ay  h a v e  a p p e a l in g  f e a t u r e s ,  “ i f  i t  f a i l s  t o  

u n do s e g r e g a t i o n ,  o t h e r  m eans m ust b e  u se d  t o  a c h ie v e  t h i s  e n d "  

and " fr e e d o m  o i  c h o i c e  m ust b e  h e ld  u n a c c e p t a b le .  G reen  v .  S c h o o l  

b o a r d  ox K en t Count / , 3 91 U .S . C  O, 20 L .E d .l ’d 7 1 6 , 8 8  S .C t .  I l f ;  9 

( I 9 6 0 )  .

F i n a l l y ,  i t  s h o u ld  b e  rem em bered t h a t  th e  i n i t i a l  r e ­

s p o n s i b i l i t y  l o r  d e v i s i n g  and im p le m e n tin g  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y  a d e ­

q u a te  p la n s  i o r  th e  f u l l  and f i n a l  d e s e g r e g a t i o n  a t  th e  C h a tta n o o g a  

s c h o o l s  l i e s  w i t h  th e  s c h o o l  a u t h o r i t i e s  and t h a t  " j u d i c i a l  a u t h o r i t y  

o n c e r s  o n ly  when l o c a l  a u t h o r i t y  d e f a u l t s .  " U. ann v .  C h a r io t , t - 

Me c k l e nb u r g  ho a r d  o f  Educ a t i o n , s u p r a . I t  s h o u ld  a c c o r d i n g l y  be 

t h e  p u r p o s e  o r  th e  C o u r t  t o  le a v e  u n to  th e  S c h o o l  B oard  th e  maximum 

d i s c r e t i o n  and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  f o r  a l l  p h a s e s  o f  t h e  o p e r a t io n  of 

t h e  C h a t ta n o o g a  P u b l i c  S c h o o l s , l i m i t e d  o n ly  b y  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  

r e q u ir e m e n t s . A b s e n t  a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  v i o l a t i o n ,  th e  w isdom  <a:* 

l a c k  o f  w isd om  o f  an y  p la n  o r  p o l i c y  e s t a b l i s h e d  b y  th e  B oa rd  . c 

•sot a p r o p e r  s u b j e c t  f o r  j u d i c i a l  in t e r v e n t i o n  o r  d i r e c t i o n .  The 

C o u r t  s h o u ld  n o t  s u b s t i t u t e  I t s  ju d g m en t l o r  t h a t  o f  th e  Sen  . o l  

B oa rd  in  a r e a s  w h ere  th e  e x e r c i s e  o f  ju d g m en t d o e s  n o t  v i o l a t e  

som e p r i n c i p l e  o f  th e  la v ;. Mapp v .  B oard  o f  E d u c a t io n  o j  t he i ^ t , 

C h a t ta n o o g a . 203 F .S u p p . 843 (1 9 6 2 ) ,  a f f .  31 9  F .2 d  3 7 1 .

> ; y the Court that their racial co:npo.3itioii (_i.e., the



•--■* < re. .. ;uci."c.a! . . k . an rt.: i s  m J  evaluat&Ow o i  t in 1

uafx«).:>...iaV nja b lam i s te a d  fcttx? to- th e  r e s p e c t iv e  p a r t i e s ,  s  s t a t o -  

raent o , c e r t a in  r e le v a n t  ia a to r .v o a l m a tte rs  and background  c u t  a 

r e g a r d in g  th e  t i t /  x: C h attan ooga  and i c e  s c h o o ls  w ould  be  n o lp f u l .  

- a o  e U :-  o l  C h a tta n ooga , lo c a t e d  upon Uu: s o u th c a s te r n  toorder o f  

t .ie  S ta te  o r  Tei-urieaace, war, a p a r t  o f  th e  S ou th ern  c o n fe d e ra cy  d u r -  

isuj th e  War Between th e  s t a t e s .  h ith o u g h  th e  C i t y  in  modern t in e a  

1 becom e o n e  o i  th e  m ost p r o g r e s s iv e  and forw a rd  lo o k in g  e it.it.'. 

o i tut- S o u t i i , t r a d i t i o n s  o i  ‘die; p a s t  have t h e ir  r o l e  and t h e i r  in ­

f l u e n c e .  Mcrnor i c s  o i  th e  p a s t  l i n g e r ,  w ith  innum erable  h i s t o r i c a l  

monuments m arking t o e  s i t e s  o i  some.) o t  th e  moat s i g n i f i c a n t  e v en ts  

o i  the Viar Between th e  S ta te s  and w ith  d ie  C i t y 's  r i c h  l o r e  o ,  

h i s t o r y  b e in g  r e c a l l e d  toy sucit names and p la c e s  as M is s io n a ry  P id g o , 

u ook ou t M ountain . S ig n a l M ountain , O rchard Knobb, and C h id  a tn  ija  

B a t t l e f i e l d .  Among o th e r  t r a d i t io n s  in h e r it e d  from  th e  p a s t ,  the 

C i t y  in h e r it e d  th e  p r a c t i c e  o f  o p e r a t in g  a d u a l system  o f  s c h o o ls  

f o r  i t s  b l a c k  and w h ite  c i t i z e n s .  Pursuant t o  th e  d e c i s i o n  o f  th e  

U n ite d  S ta te s  Supremo C o u rt  in  th e  ca se  o f  Brown v .  B oard o f  

••r..ucat.-.on.  34 7  U .S .  «C S, ‘Mi L .E d . 6 7J . 74 S .C t . <186 (1 9 5 4 ) ,  t h i s  

la w s u i t  was iiin t i t a t e d .  The p u rp ose  o t  t h i s  la w s u it  s in c e  i t s  

r i l i n g  in  I 'X O  '-in-. aoen  t e  rem ove th a t  d u a l system  o f  s c h o o ls  a.ni 

r e p l a c e  i t  w it h  a u n i t a r y  s y s te m  in  w h ich  a l l  v e s t i g e s  o t  .r a .m l 

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  iiave been  e i i m i n e te d . In  th e  in te r v e n in g  y ea rs  v e ry  

s u b s t a n t i a l  p r o g r e s s  iuis been  made. l o l l o p i n g  a p p e l la t e  g u id e l in e s  

ns th e ;- th en  e x i s t e d ,  t h is  C ou rt b e l ie v e d  upon ea ch  p r e v io u s  o c c a ­

s io n  i t  e n te re d  d e s e g r e g a t io n  o r d e r s ,  f i r s t  in  1962 , th en  in  

and 1 9 0 7 , t l ia t  o i l  v e s t i g e s  o f  th e  d u a l system  of s c h o o ls  w ould be 

rem oved upon fu l f i lm e n t  o f  i t s  o r d e r s  and o n ly  a  u n ita r y  system  

rem ain . E x p e r ie n ce  and a p p e l la t e  r e d e f i n i t i o n  of th e  c o n c e p t  *>f

a u n ita r y  s c h o o l  system  have now mandated th a t  further steps Ik

- / 9 i -



1 ■ . 1

•:;«»< •. . a u i  d o u c g r e ju t i o n  i>J uhe 

. ■• »"«.•.<,loCU».. I*/ f  .O undisputed evidence,

v» ...s io o lx , j-.'c'Kii.i r a c i a l l y  i d e n t i f i a b l e .

-•rviuu relevant data, it m y  nrtt be noted

..;Uw : l-I t.,  oi; t'.‘«r..wV.!r'. 0 ; t ,  a o C iirC i 'yj to: t h e  i ' l ’/O CUUS'iK, !*»ti a

'.•r>pu.latiOjj Ox j . l r . ,b o i  X JK O tb. Qi th e s e  4 3 ,1 9 9  o r  3 t . 4rs4 /.o re

b la c k . T hese p o p u la t io n  s t a t i s t i c s  r e f l e c t  th a t  even  in  th e  la c e  

o r  come a n n e x a tio n  b y  ta e  C i t y ,  tn e r c  h a t beers a n e t  d e c l in e : so 

th e  C i t y 's  p o p u la t io n  s in c e  I '.tO  or 1 1 ,3 2 1  p e rs o n s  w ith  a l l  but 

2 7 Ox t h is  d e c l i n e  bej. > j in  the w h ite  p o p u la t io n .  In  th e  1 9 /0 -7 1  

s c h o o l  y e a r , th e  t o t a l  s c r .o o l  e n ro llm e n t  was 2 5 ,9 6 7  s t u d e n t s , o t  

t h is  t o t a l ,  l x , 6 6 9 , o r  4 b .3,4, w ere b la c k  s tu d e n ts  and 1 3 ,2 9 6 , or 

5 1 .2 ,i ,  w ere w h ite  s tu d e n ts .

AC tiro tiiuu o f  th e  r e c e n t  e v id e n t ia r y  h e a r in g  upon the 

is s u e  o r  co m p lia n ce , th e  p l a i n t i f f  su b m itted  a p la n  f o r  th e  d e ­

s e g r e g a t io n  o t  th e  C h attan ooga  s c h o o l s .  T hat p la n  i s  s e t  fo r t h  in  

E x h ib it s  .124 tirru 1 3 .,. in  e s s e n ce  th e  p l a i n t i f f ' s  p la n  c a l l s  fo r  

th e  e s ta b lis h m e n t  o f  a r a c i a l l y  b a la n ce d  f a c u l t y  and s t a f f  in  each 

s c h o o l  and t o e  e s ta b lis h m e n t  oi. r a c i a l  r a t i o s  ai.ong s tu d e n ts  in  

each  s c h o o l ,  w ith  io s c h o o l  h a v in g  l e s s  than 30,4 n or more than ?0 *  

o i  one r a c e .  Tue r a c i a l  b a la n ce  o f  f a c u l t y  and s t a f f  in  each, 

u c iio o l i s  t o  b e  accom plia ired  by a d m in is t r a t iv e  a ss ig n m e n t, -flu 

•.•.acral r a t i o s  avong s tu d e n ts  in  t o  be a ccom p lish ed  b y  res ion in g , 

p a i r i n g ,  g ro u p in g  and c lu s t e r i n g  e lem en ta ry  s c h o o l s ,  by  rem aning 

and r e o r d e r in g  th e  i e i d e r  system s in t o  th e  ju n io r  h ig h  s c h o o l s , 

and b y  r e i  o r u n j o f  th e  h igh  s c h o o ls .  E x te n s iv e  tr a n s p o r ta t io n , o f  

s tu d e n ts , b o th  t o  c o n t ig u o u s  and n o n -c c n t i  guous s c h o o l  ron es , would 

b-_ r t 'g u .r o j  t o  e f f e c t u a t e  th e  p l a i n t i f f  ' s  p la n .

As s e a te d  in  th e  l e g a l  g u id e l in e s  s e t  f o r t h  a b o v e , th e  

i n i t i a l  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  f o r  d e v is in g  and im plem enting c o n s t i t u t i o n ­

a l l y  adequate p la n s  f o r  f u l l  and f i n a l  d e s e g r e g a t io n  o f  th e

- t q s -



O .  C l .  * ■ » * / ,

»x. t u t '  ,.• • r t r i  f \  r a . i  -w th e  p liiin t..!: t  *i> U c s s g i i . ju -

- •*<•'•-‘ v  -*  ••’• -VJpr ■'i.i'iaie chi;.-- ..he C o u rt  sh ou ld  f i r s t  tu rn  e ta  

.u  ,v'.... ii. ,. ec.Jhut.: ' ;.'.ec. .vj.r eier,o y c o y a t io n  o f  th e

1 •’•• • •>• e'e*. x ' i  . Tin.' 'itclcvi a . c  a p p r o p r ia te n e s s  o f  U u  c-._.-

ce e a ru  i s  lU itn e r  ciceaiiced m  t h i s  cuny b /  th e  ap p a ren t good  

o — <>;;w  <c th e  C h attan ooga  3el 10c l  a u t h o r i t i e s  a.id S c h o o l Board t o  

Co uj .c r u a r d  w ith  a p ia n  th a t  u c t o i i i i  w ith  th e  i r s t r u c t iw . : )  g iv e n  

..», ta e  evu ei. in  : tw o r d e r  o f  iiay 1 ‘) , 1 )7 1 , and w i t h  th e  a p p e l la t e  

g u id e l in e s  tr.ix-eih  e i t . d .  i t  i s  a ls o  a p p r o p r ia te  t o  n o te  in  t h is  

re g a rd  t ! ;a t  b o th  tin : a d m in is t r a t iv e  s t a f f  and th e  C h attan ooga  

Hoard oj: liriuoaCion a re  th em selves  f u l l y  d e s e g r e g a te d , and t h i s  by 

v o lu n ta r y  o r  e i c c . i v e  a c t i o n .  The L .u rd  o f  E d u ca tion  i s  con^ir 2.oed 

o i  s e ' *sn lusubcru . Three c i  th e s e  m onbers, in c lu d in g  th e  C om m its.on er 

o  a iu ca cio :* ., a  d u ly  e le c t e d  o f f i c i a l  o f  th e  C it y  o f  C h a t ta n c o ja ,

’ x  - h i i i o . . f o u r  o t  th e  Hoard meiibers a r e  w h ite . T hree o f  th e  cop  

.‘.-.m ool .... u ... o f  r i c i a r e  who t e s t i f i e d  o t  th e  h e a r in g s  h e ld  r e c e n t ly  

w ere b l a c k , . in d u c in g  th e  a s s i s t a n t  S u p e r in te n d e n t o t  S c h o o ls  a-itl 

ta o  h . r e c t o r  o f  T eacher Re or u i trier, t .

T urn ing  t o  the u e ie n d a n t s ’ o la t i ,  a few  w ords in  rega rd  

'**’ * C;: oc*i-x>i>.ation a r c  . . .  o r d e r .  The p la n , as s e t  f o r t h  in  

Exm n.it. Xu-., c o n s is t s  o f  an in t r o d u c t io n ,  3 t a t in y  p o l i c y ,  Para­

graph s t t-iru V l l i ,  s t a t in g  th e  p la n , and A p p en d ices  A and B.

.o u t i n g  * or tii Cue s t a t i s t ,  .->*1 j u s t i f i c a t i o n  and i l l u s t r a t i n g  i  ... 

p in  .. i l l u s t r a t i v e  s c l io o l  z o n in g  maps f o r  th e  e le m e n ta ry , ju  .*; 

h i.ji; and h ig h  s c h o o ls  a re  shown in  E x h ib it s  1 43 , 144. and 14b 

r o i i jx -o t iv o l

Ko 'c r i t i c i s m  o t th e  e n ro llm e n t  p r o je c t io n s  s e t  t o r t ) ;  in  

i.Vir.v.iruii.' * 0 1  -Co p la n  a r e  irmde by  the p l a i n t i f f  and none a re  

: 0.1 nd !>/ ♦ he C o u r t . T h is  jK irtion  o f  th e  p la n  i s  a c c o r d in g ly  a p - 

p rovexi.
"IP If'

Cn.iuu.u-, ■ ' ,  -O- Uv-i C . o. -uiiool a u t h o r it ie s .



w'» o t  vh.:i u nd i . i  v i , . -  th e

■ i- - i -H- .<aco S‘ -c - ‘V m : «.•* . ‘P>-: c - i . ;  • and the. i l i u :  t r a t iv o  ;«af .o r

*■ ....  ti: c  -c;.'.-. 1 it-. •.!• . one .naps (E x h ib it s  1-^3, 144 and

.*•• . Itu;.. .o ; -i h tv -dent a t t o ix ia n c o  seines cu.d a c t : ;

lie »:> io e  .(•..'•jo-iipl u k iin g  i c . l i  and I is .a l odwhl

o* ., j y i e g a t i o i  . i:.,.; .u t i i c iu n o y  * u s u « .i ic ie t ic y  o i  theuu p iop c-a a ls

-■a,, b e a t  b«.' d e terr -in t-c  b y  ^ o n » id e r in g  th e  e le m e n ta ry , j u n io r  h ig h  

a. id h ig h  s c h o o l  p la n s  in  o r d e r .

M e -1 .• S c h o o l s

.a w in g  th e  s c h o o l  year 1 9 7 3 -7 1 , th e  C h attan ooga  S cn o o i 

Sya-ce.-a o p e ra te d  73 e lem en ta ry  s c h o o ls .  Of th e  ten  form er b la c k  

e lem en ta ry  s c h o o ls  w ith in  th e  sy stem , fo u r  rem ained a l l  b la c k  arid 

a to ta l, o i  o n ly  30 white- s tu d e n ts  a tte n d e d  th e  o th e r  s i x .  Ir. th e  

2 ‘ form er w h ite  e lem en ta ry  s c h o o ls  th e re  w ere 1 3 ,2 3 0  w h ite  c h i ld r e n  

a id  2 ,4 4 0  b la c k  c h i l d r e n ,  f o u r  form er w h ite  e lem en ta ry  s c h o o ls  

(c e d a r  M i l l ,  norm al P ark , P i n c v i l l e ,  and k iv erm on t) rem ained a i l  

v . . i o c .  B arger had o n ly  tw o b la c k  s tu d e n ts  and E ast Lake had o n ly  

th r e e  b la c k  s t u d e n t s . Two form er w h ite  e lem en ta ry  s c h o o ls  (A von da le  

and C l.-irvood/ had changed t c  a i l  b la c k  s c h o o l s ,  h av in g  o n ly  th r e e  

w h ite  s tu d e n ts  betw een  th-cin. The rem ainder o f  th e  form er w h ite  

e lem en ta ry  s c h o o ls  had r a t i o s  o i  b la c k  s tu d e n ts  v a r y in g  f r :* i  a low  

■j.i 4-o t o  a h ig h  o i  t-4.fi.

Tbs- S c h o o l  b oa rd  p ro p o se s  the a ccom plish m en t o f  a u n ita r y  

system  w ith in  th e  e le m e n ta ly  e c n o o ls  b y  th e  c l o s i n g  o f  f i v e  e _ c -  

i . e i t a r .  s c h o o l? ., b y  th e  p a ir in g  o f  lb  e lem en ta ry  s c h o o ls ,  by th e  

c lu s t e r i n g  o f  s i x  e lem en ta ry  s c h o o ls ,  by  th e  re z o n in g  o f  th re e  

e lem en ta ry  s c h o o l s , le a v in g  th e  a tte n d a n ce  zon es  o f  o n ly  th ree  

clem er.itary s c h o o ls  unchanged . The o v e r a l l  r e s u l t  o i ; th e  d e fe n d a n t s ' 

p la n  i s  t c  a e n ie v e  a r a c i a l  r a t i o  o f  n o t  l e s s  than 30<, nor more 

ti-.an 70;2 o f  a iy  race- in  each  e lem en tary  s c h o o l  w ith in  th e  system  

w ith  b u t fiv e - e x c e p t io n s  (B arger -  i’O/i b la c k  and 00/6 w h ite ;

/ 95



b la ck  a / i

. 7 » : i  i . v  j  . w \  rc  •-* < O ti-> 1’ 3  o L i.v j, j  .1:^ i,

•7.a.-. j i : b,..a •••»:».. : . Vi test . iv e  vohenlfs w i l l  b e  d is c u s s e d  l u r -

C A * p t - <::>! l-i,! » / , u i bony -  lo ' ', b la ck  a Vi

'■k'.-l io:t. »
V-t. ‘.x tun  i  . •.* '.;ie;:ie.‘.t a r y  s o ; io o ls  r .u t  o r •:■

;< •opi.-.so.i f o r  .-i.jBin-j, th r e e  w ore  s -J w ta i> t ia U y  a i l  b laciv  l a s t  year 

ib r .v o -tp ort, Gicnwoooi, a :» ! T r o t t e r ) , o .u  was s u b s t a n t ia l l y  a l l  w h it*  

l a s t  year (Ce.la.- M i l l ) ,  and Che f i l c h  (A tan ico la ) had a m a jo r it y  o f  

b la c k  s tu d e n ts  bu t v ia  c u iu e  s m a l l .  ilo  m e r i t o r io u s  o b je c t i o n s  are  

b o l i d 'o c l  t o  have bet*'', r a io o d  by t . .e  p l a i n t i f f s  t o  th e  s e l e c t i o n  o f  

a c iioob *  l o r  c l o s i n g .  1 'u r th c m o r o , c h o ir  c l o s i n g  c o n t r ib u t e s  c<.. 

the o v e r a l l  p la n  f o r  d e s e g r e g a t io n  and sound f i s c a l ,  s a f e t y ,  a vJ 

.11 h iti>i s e r e t  i  v e  re a so n s  w ere g iv e n  by s c h o o l  a u t h o r i t i e s  f o r  each  

s c h o o l  no s e l e c t e d  f o r  c l o s i n g .

Wifcu re g a rd  to the f i v e  elementary schools that w i l l  

r e t a in  r a c i a l  ratios o i  less than 10,i or raare than 70V6 of one race, 
th e  C ou rt ia of the opinion that th e  board has carried the burden 

o f  e s t a b l i s h in g  th a t  their r a c i a l  c o m p o s it io n  is not the r e s u l t  of 
any p r e s e n t  o r  past CL*a lu :in a t io n  upon the part of the Board or 
o th e r  s t a t e  agcuty. b a th e r , su ch  r e s u l t  is the consequence o f  

<i'C!>.v.Jr a p h ic  a.t;' other ra cto rr . not w ith in  any reasonable responsi­
bility o f  ti»e l .o a rd .

.iarg- r, >wvi;;:j a proposed racial ratio of 2Oh bla :'ic .and 
• ■0. wait, i. paired with hannyside with the effect of giving hat 
s c h o o l  a racial ratio of 15/5 black and C5,C white, these schorls, 
particularly Stnnyside, arc located in an aroa of the City whot«. 
th . re. iocut: ai patteriu; are rather rapidly becoming more black.
TJv- completion of housing projects now in progress in the area 
w il l .  .speed u; tnin trendy Mo pur.jose of discrimination appears 
wit;, rofiirb to ’-airing o:. these two schools. Hatlter, sound nlrn- 
ning f o r  the elimination of racial discrimination supports the plan
of fnu board in thic regard



1■ J.cK

, .U M lrv] .1 ye/or-oaod r a c i a l  cor\ r o n i t i  x i  ...I Go,: 

i  v . ’i j i l . . . ,  A-}c > ....- » .u  i a n i c e a b l ?  a re a  th e  •Jit’/

»  a ; ■ x ,j '.a w . i v a t o  r e s ie o r » t i« i» .  ; a t t c a - ' 'a .'tz i 'r  v

j :'j. *■•;■;. -’ i  l l  and c jip o n s io u  01 tu e  U n iv e r s it y  a;.

within t '.i,. cron. unci the ennsogueut decline o, el. s auary 

s t x J t . i c j ,  C a rp en ter  '.a :.ch-.';duird .-.or c lo n in g  w ith in  on e  o r  tw-v 

/ c  -tr . .Jot o i i l /  '•*11 ' into n h o r t l  /  r  a v n  any prbbio-rt a t  C afy<  

bv.T tr.u in c lu s i o n  or ch e  , o.i>>;l in  son*: p a ir  o r  c l u s t e r  a t  t h is  

J irre w ould  o n ly  s o r . c :  t o  s h o r t ly  i s n a ir  th e  a e e ra  11 p la n .

■Slourt bnr.*y, h av in g  a  p rop on ed  r a c i a l  r a t i o  o f  If. •; b la c k  

am2 C*hi w h it e , i s  lo c a to r ! on th e  e a s te rn  e x tr e m ity  o f  th e  C i t y .

I t  i t  lo c a t e d  w ith in  a  n lr e a b lo  a rea  o f  th e  C it y  h a v in g  a p r iv a t e  

r c s id e n u ia l  f r i t t e r  . Cliat i s  s u b s t a n t ia l ly  w h ite . T here a r e  no 

con tigu ou s; a re a s  having a s i g n i f i c a n t  number o f  blacks, o th e r  than

possibly area:; out:.use 'ho present rrwiiicipal limits. Any significant 
onh-chation t).u- way occur is li;ely to occur within this area a. o 
•■'ill include additional blacks. uo purpose of discrimination ?•_»• 
y-enra regarding the zoning of this school.

Mu ;!i has. bc.o» said regarding the Elbert bong school
.c alar, true o' the i”er.’.ruit School, which under the defendai t... •

?'l;\n w i l l  h ;ivc a r a c i a l  r a t i o  of 12.', black end 88 i white, Thru 

s c h o o l  in  lo c a t e d  its the n o rth e rn  extremity o f  the City, anti wr»c 

r c c e n t l ,  aoxp ;i red  ; trail the C ounty by a n n e x a t io n . At the- t ;

\.;si aoyusrcd, it ell v.hite and remained all white during 
i - « "  ~ «-«..uol y o u r ,  yv, rcceisplish dorcjrogr.tion the defendants r«ro- 
yo .e to close Ansuccla Sciroi, which ie located across the Ter:.lessee 
P .v<?r, nut! pluic those students in lUverraont. TJsio involves trana- 
l»c; tatAon »>t stuuontti fee a .wbitantial distance, but is; nevoftj. -
l o n e  t h e  ica. u. ‘. ar«.u l. tvi rg any significant black residential 
population, h'o purperc of discrimination aprwura regarding the 
conuol-datiori and roxoning of these school...

' 1 1 7 -



• — '  • 1 *■- j /C U i . ’  H i ; I g  XollcnCur', . a x , X :  ,j% >e (It-; i  v  - .

■ c -'S* ■ * ■ ■ -•*- fUC-a.* ..* •.>! n e t  l e s s  U m .) j>L £

■■ ■-*-■•“ ;0.. >.< vnp •> each school. The Court has carefully
-a ', !«.• '■.•<.■. C . i. -Mi**— _ proposed Lo.. each sciiooh, cujeUtcr with ail 

-:̂ >jra*jhi<•*! and ether data available hi the record, 
h .-.• oxtu.-.t chat a */ student raot^l in4»alance exists in art, of the 

i.-oicaiitar/ oc v *o?.s, the c ;ai.. t in o. the opinio.. tiiat the Eonre ’.wis 
•wViri'Xi the b.-dun of cnt.Cil lulling that such racial inbala ;*.'C ••£ 
may ivi'fti;; is not t_Iic. result oi' a;:; prenant or pane dinerinunotion 
upon the part, oi chw board or oti.or state agency. Rather, su .-..
1 hutch r a c i a l  intoslarcc as nay remain is the oouso'iaa.ice o i  o >>- 

■jrapliicai, residential, or other factors which in no reasonable 
sc.iso could b o  attributed to School Board action or inaction, past 
o r  present, nor to that of any other state acjoitcy.

Tho Court is accordingly or the opinion that the defendants* 
plan lor desegregation of the Chattanooga elementary schools wi 1 1  

elininate "all vestiges o£ state iui.»oaed segregation** as required 
-b/ann v._ C:,pt. jot. t«;»t|ncf<lei>burti 1? *u~d of Lducation. supra. LY*let 

tl.eos; cir cuumtaace: , it is accordingly not necessary Cor the court 
to consider other or alternate plan:;. Lite-wise it would not be 
proper re. tho Court to pass judy ncr.t upon whether another plan 
would accomplish a "bettor" result iron tne viewpoint of educational 
;>olicy and apart iron any issue of legality.

.Uilft-S ghouls
Luring the school year 1970-71, the Chattanooga Sctio >1 

System operated 12 junior high schools. Oi tho four formerly f lack 
ju-ilor high school'; within tho system, two remained all black id 
a total *>i only 'J w h ite  studentn attended the other two. In the 
eight . o-ixvl, white junior high schools, Lucre wure J,fi41 white 
srudest* aid Cob ulnci. students, hie formerly white junior ni.,h 
tic.uool (Cast. Lake) had only one black student. The remainder of



t.i: j. v.gh ,t.col*. 'sad tav.io:» of hi ic):
j it  y  J  .tvi oi fcv dO l  t i ig u  o *  7U . . .

*no .i-jiKx -1 hoard p.'ot)OHCS t*»e acconpiithmnt o> a untary 
jyatev.; wifchi.. ci.t ju-uur high schools 07 elotiwy two junior iwj?i 
sc.niola one by the remaining ten junior hi gw schoolu.
cy*iKj u m w  into the restructured elementary u cl tool a/uteri. The 
u»/erari result «>. toe del m-dante * plan is to achieve a racial rctio 
ot not less tu t:! :>0 i nor : <ore than 70-4 oi any race in all but tlaree 
junior tugn schools. Twosc three tc.tools arc uardy, with 73.t black 
end 27 . white, falcwood, with 29 4 black and 714 white, and Lo. j. 
with 194 black and bS4 white, i'urther discussion will be givtn to 
these tnrcc schools.

Turning iirst, however, to the two junior high school* 
that are proposed tor closing, one is a Corner black school and 
the other is a iactrer white school. The lorntar black school,
Howard Junior high hoi tool, was all blade last yaar. The torraer 
white school, Lookout junior High School, was 37.4 black and,634 
white last year. No objections cere raised by tha plaintiffs to 
tile selection oi schools lor closing. The Board represents th-t 
tne closing 01 liowaru Junior High School was necessary to the f  - 
icctivetioss ot their overall plan. They represented that the 
closing oi Lookout Junior high School was necessary in order to 
obtain uusogcegatiou ot Alton Park Junior High School, one ot the 
lorniur ail black junior high scitoalu. Alton Park ia stated to be 
a new school with greater capacity, witereas Lookout ia one o- 
oldur and a (waller junior high schools. Further more, financial 
liojiiuuies, along with cptiuum development ot quality instruction 
programs, were given as additional rev*sons for the selection wt 
tin.’ junior high uchooln to be clooi-u.

T u n n g  to the tlurec junior high sciioo&a tiiat w? 11 retain 
a racial ratio ot lea: than 30 4 or nore than 701 of one race, .tardy



I l l  V .dSpe-ited l.<> .1 r at; o  of 1i /. hl;<ck a-■<

-’V ' 1'at.iJ .!'“>;<Jy wtuj an all white ichool. Changing
■ ■ *1 »■ uvii iu; have «?r«duully ch:irvjcd the. racial caeiiwitiw 

a.-.: tf.e :onoo1. U; \tf» prcsi.-it joafcti;.r s. The proposed zone tor lisrdy 
is b->- vied by to its enlargement, including Missionary
tiidge on tho cant, the Vcmuauec (over on the west, tho city '.units 
on tlic nort.,, •»:») predominantly black residential areas or. r.h. 
south, tndor all oh those cirour.tatancos, the Court is ol t.‘i« 
opinion tint the Board of. Education lias carried tho burden oi 
tablienbig that such racial imbalance an remains at Jiardy Junior 
high School arises iron: conditions beyond tac responsibility .a: 
t’le Dov-iru and is. not t.ae result of any present or past discrimina­
tion on Uie part oi tlie Board or ot any state agency.

Dnlcwood Junior high School, a farmer white school, is 
ejcpectcd to liavo a ratio oi 29C black and 714 white under the 
present plan, however, the trend in residential patterns in the 
zone is toward increasing the black population. Apartments now 
under construction v;ill shortly increase the ratio ot black student* 
to a point in exce-.s of "Oh ho tiurposc oi discrimination appears 
in the zoning of the Dalcwood Junior high School.

The final junior high school having a ratio in eaccas ot 714 
is the ttibert Long Junior high Scliool. Under the defendants' plan 
this school will have a racial composition oi 154 black and 85 . white. 
Everything tliat the Court lias heretofore said in regard to tite Elbert 
Long Elementary School is applicable to tlie junior high school. 
Additionally, the Elbert Long Junior High School is the smallest 
junior hig . sciiool in tltc system, having an enrollawnt of o.il ,
ICO students.

All ol tiio remaining junior high schools not heretofore 
di:;ou:;sol will lmvc ratio:, ol not leas than .10<1 nor mure than TO,, 
o' any race in each sciiool. The Court lias carefully reviewed the 
proposed racial eosfiositton oi cadi school and all of the relevant



d a t e  n v« I .ablet ' i  i 1.i ri Vac". '• •' - !■  . g • u p ) . ■ on i , cir.d i .th o r  date. avn i u b  1  r

- - i-hv* I’ :.' . - ‘ u ft . 'il-.ru r.o.vj s c o r e d  th e  m anner in  w h ich

- •*. V  . •» uC 'u. v '..r > h  a rc  t i e d  i t o  th e  e le m e n t a r y  s c h o o l  >

V <.i  J .. L: :v ;r..,r t  hue u e r e in a b o v e  a p p r o v e d . In  t h i s  c o n n e c t i o n  th e

- o j i ' u c a n n o t  o v e r l o o k  th e  f a c t  t h a t  i t  i s  a m a tte r  o f  g r e a t  i / n o r t

a 'i c e  t o  p r o p e r c i i o o l  adrii u i 's i .r a t  io n  t h a t  s c h o o l  a u t h o r i t i e :  be

a b le  t o  :.a h e  r..-.•neonr.biy r e l i a b l e  , s r e c a s t s  o f  s c h o o l  e n r o l lm e n t s .

T o  d o  t i i i s  the.c o  'n eeds t o  b e  a c a r e f u l l y  d e v i s e d  s y s te m  o f  f e e d e r

s c h o o l s .  l a  th e  l i g h t  o t  a l l  th e  r e c o r d ,  th e  C ou rt i s  o f  th e  

o p in i o n  t . a t  th e  j u n i o r  h ig h  s c h o o l  p la n  a s  su b m itted  by th e  d e ­

fe n d a n t s  rem ove:, a l l  s t a t e  c r e a t e d  o r  s t a t e  im posed s e g r e g a t i o n .

T o  th e  e n t e . i t  t h a t  an y  s t u d e n t  r a c i a l  im b a la n ce  e x i s t s  in  an y  o t  

th e  ju n i o r  h ig h  s c h o o l s ,  th e  B oa rd  h as c a r r i e d  th e  burden  o t  e s ­

t a b l i s h i n g  t h a t  such, r a c i a l  im b a la n ce  a s  re m a in s  i s  n o t  th e  r e s u l t  

o f  an y  p r e s e n t  o r  p a s t  d i s c r i r a in a t i o n  upon th e  p a r t  o f  th e  B oard  

o r  upon  th e  p a r t  o:. o t h e r  s t a t e  a g e n c i e s .  R a th e r , su ch  l i m i t e d  

r a c i a l  im b a la n ce  a s  may re m a in  i s  th e  con seq u en ce  o f  d em og ra p h iea l, 

r e s i d e n t i a l ,  o r  o t h e r  f a c t o r s  w h ic h  in  no r e a s o n a b le  se n se  c o u ld  

b e  a t t r i b u t e d  t o  S ch o o l B oa rd  a c t i o n  o r  in a c t i o n ,  p a s t  o r  p r e s e n t .

nor t o  th a t  o f any o th e r  s t a t e  a g e n cy . The C ou rt i s  a c c o r d in g ly

o f  th e  o p in io n that, th e  d e fe n d a n ts*  p la n  f o r  d e s e g r e g a t io n  o f  th e

C hattan ooga  ju i '.fo r  high, s c h o o ls  w i l l  e l im in a te  “a l l  v e s t i g a t e s  o f

s t a t e  im posed s e g r e g a t io n “ as r e q u ir e d  b y  th e  Swann d e c i s i o n .  i t  

i s  a c c o r d in g ly  u n n ecessa ry  t o  c o n s id e r  o th e r  o r  a l t e r n a t e  p la n s .

H igh S c h o o ls

D u ring  th e  s c h o o l  year 1 9 7 0 -7 1 , the C h attan ooga  3 ho 1 

System  o p e ra te d  f i v e  h ig h  s c h o o l s . These in c lu d e d  fo u r  g on er :.I  

c u r r i c u la  h ig h  s c h o o ls  a id  one t e c h n ic a l  h igh  s c h o o l .  Kirkiia.i 

T e c h n ic a l  h igh  S ch o o l o f l e r a  a s p e c ia l i z e d  c u r r i c u la  in  th e  

t e c h n ic a l  and v o c a t io n a l  t re Id  and is  th e  o n ly  s c h o o l  o f  i t s  k ind  

in  th e  sy s te m . I t  draws i t s  s tu d e n ts  from  a l l  a re a s  o f  th e  C :t\  

and is  open t o  a l l  s tu d e n ts  in  th e  C ity  on a w h o lly  n o n - d i s c r i m -
—  zoi-



,) .1  l •

•<.(. Tc-c:, .l ica l b e  to o l hat. -i.: e n ro llm e n t  o f  121it s tu d e n ts ,

; iui.Hu. ii'.id 10GC were w h it e , '/’he reJ a t i v e l  •

e n r o l l ’ :ie..‘t  o „  b la c k  s tu d e a tn  was duo in  p a r t  t o  th e  . a c t  

1 it’ward High w m o o l arid R iv e r s id e  High S c h o o l ,  b o th  o f  v/hirt'. 

u - i  kina*: > •ut&e.olu lane, / o a r ,  o f f e r o d  roan/ o f  th e  san e t e c h n ic a l

v o c a t i o n a l  c o u rs e s  r.;> wt r o  o f  fa rc 'd  a t  Kirkuian. Under th e  d o -  

teiidanta* p la n  th e s e  program a will be c o n c e n tr a te d  a t  iff rkuw  ■ i ta  

th e  r e s u l t  th a t  th e  e n r o l l : i o n t  a t  i.irkr.ian if. e x p e c te d  t o  n c  t o  

IwX; s tu d e n t :: ,  . i t h  a r a c i a l  e o r ip e m tio n  o f  4£>',J b la c k  s tu d e n ts  <nd 

Sl,c w h ite  s tu d e n ts . Mo is s u e  e x i s t s  in  th e  c a s e  b u t th a t  K iihuu.i 

T e c h n ic a l  H igh S c h o o l  i s  a s p e c ia l i s e d  s c h o o l ,  th a t  i t  i s  f u l l ,  

d e s e g r e g a te d , and th a t  i t  i s  a u n ita r y  s c h o o l .

h l i i l c  soma v a r ia t io n  in  th e  c u r r i c u la  e x i s t s ,  th e  re­

m aining fo u r  h ig h  s c h o o l s .  C i t y  High S c h o o l ,  B ra in erd  High S c h o o l , 

Howard High S c h o o l ,  and R iv e r s id e  High S c h o o l ,  each  o f f e r  a s im ila r  

g e n e r a l High s c h o o l  cu rr icu lu m . i»t th e  tim e when a d u a l s c h o o l  

system  was o p e ra te d  b y  th e  S ch o o l B oard, c i t y  H igh S o ftoo l and 

B ro in e rd  High S c h o o l  w ere o p e ra to u  as w h ite  s c h o o ls  and itownrd h ig h  

S c h o o l  cirri R iv e r s id e  High S ch o o l w ere o p e ra te d  as b la c k  s c h o o l? . .

<»c t h a t  tim e th e  b la c k  h ig h  s c h o o ls  were z o n e d , b u t  th e  w lu te  h ig h  

s c h o o ls  w ere n o t .  When th e  d u a l s c h o o l  system  was a b o l is h e d  by 

o r d e r  oi the Court ir. 1>32, Che d e fe n d a n ts  p ro p o se d  and th e  t">urt 

ap p roved  a freedom  o f  c h o ic e  p la n  w ith  re g a rd  t o  th e  h ig h  s c h - jo ls  .

The p la n  a ccom p lish ed  some d e s e g r e g a t io n  o f  th e  form er w h ite  l.cgh 

s c h o o l s ,  w ith  C it y  h av in g  141 b la c k  s tu d e n ts  o u t  o f  an e n ro llm e n t 

o f  143h and B ra in erd  h av in g  1G4 b la c k  s tu d e n ts  o u t  o f  an e n ro llm e n t  

ot 1344 d u r in g  th e  l'J70 -71  s c h o o l  y e a r . H ow ever, b o th  ‘ toward, w ith  1 

an e n ro llm e n t  o f  1313, and R iv e r s id e ,  w ith  an e n ro llm e n t  o f  10 ',7 . 

rem ained a l l  b la c k .  The freedom  of. c h o ic e  p la n  “h a v in g  t a i l e d  t o  

undo s e g r e g a t io n  - . . freedom  o t  c h o ic e  must b e  h e ld  u n a c c e p t a b le ."

.'** *'» > O- C ou rt. ijUfJt . «tL“



■••*■ ■■ ' • v* -'f?' v.

^  ; i..'o»ii''i‘ :.. to o«'!«[)Jis!t a ur.itnrv scinool

• •'••■ • i . i :- 1 • ! •'••* • u «k ( t.iuj 1 oi«r g e n e r a l  i t. i. <.r .ila

: -•> - j .  ■■■■ e  - j.i .Lot' .-.i.; c o n u ita  ,i;» l.err.ti <,;• Kt.xh “h. ■ Jt .o o t

i3lOOi> P tudciitn  VftlitC S ta r- c ‘ .

- j-O  i  . lO .tl ’ 1. 'J ; ,'i K»‘ l.L
C’ a t t a i o o ^ e  h i  j>. C r f i o o l  

rti High Jeaool 7!’vi.:.*r;idt') Hv*h ;;oh;>"3l
32;i 
-V, i  
7 5  £

v:;.4

6 8  i
r ;

2 V „
2 5 £

Stie p l a i n t i f f s  ;w v o  intorrvxaod o b je c t i o n s  t o  th e  d c i o . i -

dnitta * n ig a  sohor-l oa u.-i upon the ground that i t  does not achi evw a 
■ctici'i). b^la icc - - ■ each scnool. 7'j ome fj/tcafc these objection*.. art 
bj,w‘i,J viv «* --w ttero  o t  e d u c a t io n a l  p o l i c y  rather t’ian l e j a l  r e g u ir e -  

r<; i s  oi. c o u r s e  a p p o i n t  that the form er unite high .ichools, 
portici.lt.rl'' ucnitirtvcl high School, remain predominantly white and 
th n t  th e  i o n « r  b ia c ’ i U jh  schools rem ain predominantly black, 
however, the dofondnnt:. offer ho*\w  evidence in support o£ the 
burden  c a s t  upon thorn to justify the remaining imbalance. The need
f o r  t y in g  th o  h igh  so iitx jl zon es  t o  fe e d e r  ju n io r  h ig h  s c h o o l : ,  it; 

ocurt o f  th e  d e fen d a n t:!*  e x p la n a t io n . R e s id e n t ia l  patterns, n a tu ra l 

g e o g r a p h ic a l  f e a t u r e s ,  a r t e r i a l  h igh w a ys, and o t h e r  l e c t o r s  a re  

a l s o  p a r t  o  th e  l ic  c .d a iU i  * e x p la n a t io n .

h m atter th a t  l:us g iv e n  con cern  t o  th e  Court, h ow ever, 

and w h ich  th e  C ourt feels i s  n o t  a d e q u a te ly  c o v e re d  in th e  p r e s e n t  

r e c o r d ,  i s  th e  e x te n t  t o  w h ich  th e  s t a t i s t i c a l  data upon which th e  

d e fe n d a n t s ' p la n  i s  based  w i l l  co rre sp o n d  w ith  actual ejtperie.ee. 
Among o th e r  m a tters  th e re  appears t o  be substantial unused c a p a c it y  

in  on e  o r  more o r  th e  c i t y  h ig h  s c h o o ls .  B e fo r e  th e  c o u r t  car: 

p r o p e r ly  e v a lu a te  th o  r e l i a b i l i t y  o f  th e  statistical data re g a rd in g  

th e  H igh s c h o o l s ,  th e  C cxirt needs t o  know w h eth er th o  unused c a p a c i t y  

d o e s  in  f a c t  e x i s t  an d , i t  s o ,  w here i t  e x i s t s ,  whether i t  w i l l  be

7.03-



It;. ,/G ultf ;>c iiU lo r tu ik it 'Uw i :(1 i i:K.. :• i.' : c . 7*1.1

*'* -■ o'1 . >A,.r t_ f>*4-v.xj C.;e Ktur.iBticnl data i iatn c>>ate
4;uccj;::>t<. .i.nj visit; court w k  '■•v.pr ivcd or the opportunity oi 

ou.'.widcri«Kj l-UMc «t.t.?4T£. iuit.il >.i sonic appellate refund, at lvj- 
c :ira a;; tit. viv-r. c case Oi .Jtvi:. v. Board of School Co u.u; : mncru

___--a-____« 26 L. Ed..Id 577. 91 S.Ct.____(C voider.
April /0. lyvl).

Thj plaintiiC has submitted a high school plan wit- -Ujh 
school tones which the plaints£t *e witness* lias testified wsl*. 
ochi.jvo a racial balance in each high school. However, thrt 
it not tied into tin? junior high sc.iool plan hereinabove apr-roved 
cnxi tile Court is unable to say whether it could lx? go tied .in. 
iiirtherinorc, the same statistical problem discussed above would, 
appear to exist with regard to tlie plaintiff's plan.

The Court accordingly is unable to give final oppr';vai to 
a high school desegregation plan at this time. Time, however, is a 
pressing factor, Pre-school activities will cotwncnce at each high 
school within less than a week, if in fact the/ liave not already 
coinmcnced. full co.r'iniccment of the fall term is only one month 
a./ay. 1c is clear that the high schools m s t  move at least an far 
u s  in proposed i n the def endants * high school plan. Accordinyly, 
the court will give tentative approval only at this time to the 
uciendn-ito* high school plan in order that at least as much as is 
therein proposed nay lie placed into operation at the comtenoewent 
of the Jiopte.t'jor IhVI term of school, further prainpt but orderly 
judicial proceedings must ensue before the Court can decide 
a final plan for desegregation of the high schools.

Jn the meanwhile, the defendants will be required to 
promptly provide the Court with information upon the student 
capacity of each Of the four high schools under discussion, upon 
Che amount of umtexl space in each of the iour high schools, the

- 2 O f -



>u..tab '. i i  iv  - "’ -i'-'.i .-pa-.c . i c  «:u, h ig h  s c h o o l  program :'., 

t.-.-J .«• >.*b..oc u?;c. t •. i.v«.v ■ ... •■a:! i - .c ie e ,  i f  n a y . In  t h i s  CO l—

. - c  so d e fe n d a n ts  .vaf '-sl - 1.iita-a.'.uv a d v is e  th e  c « « t  regaef.i.ag

. wt. -if*.., an t o  t u i t i o n  r tu d o n tu . bunt. y eor  a lm o s t  on e—th .ird  to  

• .o ia i a t .» lc  i f  aocty C it y  n ’ gi. S c h o o l v;t*re n w H -tesW eit. 

t a i c ia n  p a / .  i ; .student* . Y s . ^ o  i t  iso in fo r m a t io n  in  th e  p r c s o .. ; 

r e c o r d  a «  t o  th e  e x t e n t  Use b oa rd  p r o p o s e s  t o  adm it t u i t i o n

s tu d e n ts  n or th e  e l  lo o t . C u  . m ight ’ save on th e  r a c i a l  cc*n posit.joa

o f  th e  a tu u e .it  b u d y . 'fl»o C ou rt nan no d is a p p r o v a l  o f  th e  a d m ission  

o f  t u i t i o n  student:.', nor t o  th e  g iv in g  o.t p r e fe r e n c e  t o  s e n io r  

s tu d e n ts  in  t h i s  r e g a r d , p ro v id e d  t lia t  th e  same d o e s  n o t  m a t e r ia l ly  

and u n fa v o r a b ly  d i s t o r t  th e  studerst r a c i a l  r a t i o s  in  th e  r e s p e c t iv e  

s c h o o l s .  O th e rw ise , th e  f la t te r  o f  a d m itt in g  t u i t i o n  ntudenfcs ad - 

clreusc.i i t s e l f  s o l e l y  t o  th e  d i s c r e t i o n  o i  th e  b o a r d , t o  l a t e r  

tliais th e  1 0 t h  day o f  ciuro.llnr.nt th e  def en dants w i l l  p r o v id e  t . .  c o u r t  

w ith  a c t u a l  e n ro llm e n t  d a ta  upon each  o i  th e  fo u r  h ig h  s c h o o ls  

h e r e  under d i s c u s s i o n .

T-HAIJSPOHTATZON

The d e fe n d a n ts  p ro p o s e  t o  make a v a i la b le  limited t r a n s ­

p o r t a t i o n  l o r  some e lem en ta ry  and ju n io r  h ig h  school student;..

Under th e  d e fe n d a n t s ’ p la n  e lem en ta ry  s c l io o l  students will c o n t in u e  

t o  r e p o r t  in  Uno m orning one d e p a r t  in th e  evening from their near­

e s t  e lem en ta ry  s c h o o l ,  t ich oo l sp on sored  transportation w i l l  c© 

p r o v id e d  t o  and from  th e  p a ir e d  and c lu s t e r e d  schools and to th o s e  

s tu d e n ts  l i v i n g  more than one ond o n e -h a l f  mi le a  from their n e a r e s t  

s c h o o l .  On th e  ju n io r  h ig h  l e v e l  t r a n s p o r t a t io n  w i l l  bo provuld 
o n ly  t o  stu den ts, l i v i n g  more tlian one and o n e -n a i f  miles fro ir  r:-e 

s c h o o l  t o  w h ich  th ey  a re  a s s ig n e d . Mo s c h o o l  sponsored tr a n s p o r ta ­

t i o n  in  p ro p o se d  t o r  h ig h  s c h o o l  s tu d e n ts .

The e s t im a te  o f  t o t a l  c a p i t a l  o u t la y  and operating ex­

p e n se s  f o r  th e  tra ru ijjo r tu tio n  p rop osed  i s  126.00. While t h is

- 2 . 0 5 -



<■ •' • 1 **0, ■■ - J-iu _ , i* ./\0 < Iax O^CrcS, i JwCH4 v-ita:

4.V* -S'*•.•: :''i:'1 ;v;t ul ;•< - -•'■ ■ •. Un.- trunsportat. >«

•'«.■'■ k.- .>csa • •_• ..<• .iat«; was; placed l.. tie.

•••'■ l . .o  .*• i.v Co r* • ui ..octet; o r  th e  -iuvirvj.'i Co be  «;*Jo

• •ctpy'.W  •-? .■■»■ • oi.otu. . u: x: ti>o c l o s i i d j  o< l  ive- e t c -»*..•• n.ary 

y..- 1.; ewe. ;:v. *o.' b ig .  b u t  th e s e  s a v in g s  w i l l  u\>uot«

■'.wW b e  ::.t li i i  .

'U.; ldonts' ;an-in3/«>e •.xieiors proposals ate subutam..ally

5 .-.;s r'vattt thoot? proposed by t,lu p3.aiufcif£3. ao crons—town bn. ing 

:*.» *i;.v.;x>btxI by the dof'crxlar.ts. fto court, however, beliarm that 

the xh.-rendant: ‘ transportation pruponala arc adequate to ass . 

iutfi.lnacr.t of all student leregrogi\tion plans heretofore oppror/od. 

ocoarcUngly, tis. tio.-'enfUiitfs* pro; >o;. ala i:, this regard are approved.

ri?-sv?:h :-i r thighs ,cy the i.EaroaBQATXQH

‘rher,' r o - a i . '  to consider those portions or the «1ef oreianta* 

Plan ass act Corf,; IcragrapVi 111 thru VIII of the plan. i-a;:a- 

graph X U  oi the plan r»r<r/iac„ tor non-dincriminatory practice:, ii: 

a!i eacional prwgrattu and in extracurricular activities. No cbjso- 

tion was rained to this portion oi. the plan and the Court in c. the 

opinion that it i- ruhquace to avoid any discrimination in tins* 

ocean. i-ioroevor, the evidence dons not indicate that an/ such 

discrimination ia •.ex/ being practiced within the Chattanooga Nciiool 

S-.3t.CM, but rather boars out the testimony oi the defendants ’ 

witnesson tiiat a l l  such practices have heretofore been el.ai.'..tcc.

Rc-gurdiuj student transfers, the defendants propos 

Paragraph IV of their -plan to greatly simplify their previous’ 1/ 

complex student tronisfer plan and provide tor transfer a only u. 

the following situations: (a) the majority to rainority ttwv ftra,

a.- reyjirod by the Ewana decision, (b) the non-dicer iwinotary 

Ctouster of orti <opedi oa 11 y handicapped children, (c) the non- 

discriminator / transfer o£ students eligible tor special education

-2 0t>~



.VTOyVSV. .• • .•lA'i.KJ thoii

• V ; M.;. ■ i v y]. 'i*ilj"# tf» elect

‘l’ ' •«'*• »«t'5 ■’Pii • in tSv . >.il .:f ti.oir miti.l. iiv:-. >••• »• -nt.

r ' •' 1 - f rv I • ■ I»» '.I*' ■ '.x. -I'ol? / * » * Ol ,11; / l>t>i

• •covet, 'he '. i i K \ * s  Ul¥l i uputod t . L..-.0

'■vrcui'iJV’: n/i. iir»inr.«j.nxi their nrovioj* tranr> . r 

P-i-cv* in a rKii* u;.jf v.v.it MMf; wholly free from racial or other Olscruni— 

.nation. bv>; iifsa -It in w r j -vnnaer ‘nod to avoid dv3o,j.e*;.'*.t'o-. 

n4.';'io i'jh tho potential f or : u-sh one r.iay have* existed to or* ": ?.t tyv 

bs/o'v:; t iat poo «*blo u ^ w  «.!• ? or-ijx.'ao. c-anof'sr plan, paragraph 

T/ of the (iff calant:. ’ yiiu; will tie approved.

iTsa <?efeudants* plan for doae'gi.-pjntion of faculty and 

other •‘-fa'-f. no ototai i-rl in p.irag .'oph v provides tor the ast, • jiw;nt 
<*:' teachers and Ktaf) to each school in ratio to thalr existence 

within tlic svntow and in a :»nner no as to avoid any racial Wi»nti» 

f.ioatitwi of. one school iros. another. it icr provi3ions to sr*c"d 
cacini diacrimination in the ror.nrnicrr.oat, assignment, rcassigranent, 
proiaotiou, and Sc.rjtio;. of. teacher a and eta Li are nade. Tl»c- prwl» 

.sions of the defendants' plan in this regard appear to provide for 
rcrval o f ail vestiges of racial segregation in ;nnttero of staff 
e id faculty. Tire plaintiff propones that a number of additional 

•provisions Ik : added that are intended tc regulate potential u's- 
c:'ifiii natory practices vhieh the record shows clearly are not and 
nave not lwwi practiced within the Chattanooga fic'nool System r inee 
its desegregation under prior orders of the Court. There appears 
to be no purpose in multiplying restrictions for wliich no nee., or 
justification in fact exists. A school system tlwt has voluntarily 1 

placed a bind: staff roantoer in charge of teacher recruitment nod 
assignment m.edt no Court-imposed restrictions on potential tore*: 
of faculty discrimination which the record clearly and affirmatively 
shewn it docn not practice.

- 2 0 7 -



i ii.. . j •:••• tti.- o.-i..!'. *.. ’ ji iu : '.,  •ol5»..jfK_: v o  t.

‘ ’ ' u'  ; ' * o  •••ole-: .Son, o  :<»v -'.cJo:i that su ch  a c t i v i t i e s  m t a l l

•“ •-v- a i-ii.; o \ c  ■' t o o e e u r io n c e  o f  a d u a l s c h o o l

a.' viiat a . • i-. trr.is rojard :.hull he aubyect to

• r a  *- i i v ^ i t ; .  bo: ore >«. slsali -...:*itod.

jo .•■.c i ’ ; .' •• iec— , . ,.(i. :-.v nit*1; selection, owwcttictioc., >to- 

'on is a.-o.'ent.t/ poixliny ear in the otiug. vr.'l. 

»o*aew:iat ‘ wording a£ the .ieiuartnnto* plan in thin iveni

u‘ iee  by  • n l a m t t l i - ,  the cou:. t  i s  o f  the o p in i o n  t h a t  c h  • 

i i 'j  * p>.v>) o a o i  l a t e l y  j'v. 1  *. I s  th e  re < ju ire n t? :it3  v i  t i t

Irr/ vs roe,i,rd to school coiutruction atsd site selection^. Thin 

o r o v i o f .  the plus will accordingly be approved.

Fii.aily, Par-rvjraph W I  o ' the defendants * plan proposer 

a eonti -.untior. of the practice oi. rs-inual reporting of ciesegregaiion 

itatiaticn. Tiro cic_oiv.la.ita' plan, however. is limited to an nddi- 

tronhl report in October ot 11371- I*, in beliovoc! that the plan

bo a'lioivl j.2 t»> orc« iti,.. ;>>•; the- continuation ot such annual 

.eor»vt.*. uutH « final order of x- •jpiinrrx. .nay lie entered.

M-ll'tl.MrdVAriv;:. OP

■ihiert rfjnaia-. t o  consider th e  natter oi ir.pluncntation 

Co. the v air if jo provisions oi the plan for deecero'jatioc hcreln£bovo 

approved l*/ the Court. No lawful or judicially acceptable reason 

appears why the provisions of the plan hereinabove approved should 

net be inplesoonted in tine tor tho eotatwncoaent of the 19T1-75 

school term: trwijrf, however. that in ir̂ plcioentimj any portion 

o i  th e  "*lon t*e.;f*.rdiny r  undent asrignmciits in the elementary and 

.j- ior liiyli acitools tut ir. dependent upon aoruirirxj, staffing, and 

aehtxJtiliiKi transportation faciiitioc not now available to the 

Meh valti, may be delayed until such facilities can be made available 

is tV* P 'ii.rpt. orderly, c-Kt necessary course of uchool and gr.verr:- 
•uritnl nfjfiiru and can bo placed Lrĵ icu with a minimum of disruption

-  zee-



.■(..••.ill ;»!.'• “ t  al >S>o:i. mid • ■ .ute*> in  tli>

. i > • »••».> ■ i.-i! :<• (.),« mi'il'ti, in.

■' • •• • i: ■'> it;. pl«:. 1 1

• . ■ !• t • \.*i !.<?•:> . : t - P  lie*

that
• ‘ >. c . ' ;o>,v> i>!iV!;2'!at. «.» '.crl.aol in it, tout

»rot:al Jtk' .itior ail orderly j>roec-.«»ees oi gocernmerit. Th..' de­

fendant* will be no.?! dtied tc i:nplo«ent auch lions

>■•1 its ul<yi jntaty and junior high i. v.ool olaiu. an m y  be Sene‘vlt 
• If?; U k? tf;a»i.i-vutai.jo: fncil.xt'.oa . atioiiablv av?ilable t- ' • •».. tl»e 

r . ' K ' c . i .  i! t.T;.; :-;«i ♦•■«•;;• -v i.vslnjC-Jb and will •»<» •*••. • tie*!

1v * n o l i x /  t:1 •• ’ . _-1 : u ih -O 'i  «..•?- p C itt iM tfi '•? *.tt*

tr'.»i«;ar>rat. ..-i %!;>■» I'lc'cntn.-/ c*vl/or junior Mg'- -.ehuola

V-it' -3.’C'-.-'v'xi fiiri• i.xt.) tv. nw;“r‘v.tr t?.creMJi* o; *• s. ; •

i \ ‘ .11 th e  ; » n(. .1 • :. j?aool (M in in i 't r . - Uti

H'V Oi lu  V i  •J'./O . v  . a t  '■ . m vl u n t i l  au oii f a c i l x t i r ; . ■ ■ V.: b e

; l a c e d iu  ’.i: c  w i t h  uc.fefcy uad w ;  c* < •aiiiiraurr i n t e r r u p t i o r  c* V 'iC

et! :c.r»tl O I n i t *. O ji cV<l« .i •OO'*. a. k\ i e  (1c ie n d a n t ji  c i  i i o r n a l •-ieir

- U i ia  -'fir.1 V i !n o  r?/c nr. la t* * r  th an  w .t l i in  ’ O

£•' <icJ «.vier.< •.. •.•1.1 v! r Co’v.v o‘_ their Mro-x»aod iMplo-*•..ta-

v-ion ri'̂ toitil'- in auwr*1aw«? with *:'«> .

I'avlruj uow.j.derucl and dr riled a?.! Jauuea ojjprnps. ic * ior 

<-■ o.Lr.ir n at. Uu.-; titf’o, tins defendants will prepare and su'-t I r. a.. 

ore'.«r in ascx-rdanco with thin opinion.

-Til

United State* District Judge

ac<*



1 ii •. .e»ns i:t this can. ..n:«• 1or tin; prose: it

. e;; . t-" icr VMciy, two. over, sco-.ni it. aedct. Thin

/.iviu'1 ' - .v* V/ 1 ’ l icit. -wi- ■*»>.• lij , :l O ’: re.'K; .>1 at» ei i:̂ rt at

.rxiji • tii.it*!. . 'o V. :v j; O fit. it:'. • i‘ ♦ . '.UC'L'C. t in hue OCĈ ltf.'Ui : id. v?

... OU.*;.i Jli - iVi e. .\0‘Z J H  U'r; . COJi u :lei ..•> lamest ly tu  woitj i uh*

T.t i*.'' '  will*.' iC/ /.t-wl J. t j 1 lif.u. c c ro.-.-v. ‘ in v %i boo.« :i»acie :

•.-.ui-v in w.yit. is noon !;ic« dec-idca, judicial processes ari t • :.l- 

, .• cc«.-srt.H!t 1. erroca.

i._ uiK.Kir.-.ti’.Viiu; o~ lay. i- gai basis for the decisio...

.3 0 <; capnot ix giver., '*<■;*» tuc Court can only r>ppo 

.o Liu '»»>JU5ioiivX< oi the corns.uj L ,• J ox- that understanding.

p,;> .Mii/o.ic ./v> hat. kept up with public aiiiairs in te>,o.a 

tines '.taut know, Chattanooga is not being singled out ior ape.. :• *1 

judicial txot'itii.oi.L. One has bat to read to know that r.os'c o' tec 

■.vigor cities o', this Nation are contending with the jvolil-ste h«ce 

being judicial!• dealt with. Too C ity  or Chattanooga can nee ..' 

expect fco i.\ u..n a., is'm u- vithiv the Nation lining in the pc* - 

!.j--»wn /. B o u i'. •.! i-d-ceLlon era, when 'tho rest of ti»o Nstiui 

■ win;; into t ie kvyrei o' Education era. this C  ...

•.*£»-* l.wtie great jirogroar. in racial at fairs in recent yearn. T: -.-ih 

. Ohio were opposed at tue time to that progress, lev/ uuaW r.ix> 

publicly propose that the racial clock be run back in Chatter xga 

to where it. stood in l'x.O, and none would suggest that it b< > m  

back to where it existed a century ago.

This Court in not insensitive to the tears and anguish 

e.'cpreaned by aotao within the City in recent days, nor does it 

relics the abase ond worse timt has been so abundantly shared by 

word and letter, but this Court would be unworthy of trust in tne 

least of its iunctions it it were t o  allow these things te cause

7 -.1 0 -



4 V  •  ̂ .' » • * . » • »**.*■. i • . c/_»  ̂ t,l .«•*

. 1 . c . ,* * cl h * n i l  i . H  a »£*L i ... j C  l •.»**#‘ & i d  a u  t H t x i * .  - .i

•tuy c . ;C j .i >J in t e r p r e t e d  b y  th e  jicopetl, c o n u t i

o n , ; .K j  t i e  b '.i t e d  S t a t e ;  buproM e C o u r t  OiKl

v .,i 't .  ..h ie ',; t h i s  h o u r t  1 u ;'J t io .i t ; . .  do., c o u ld

. i . ,  i . i  i t  fa. >.o io lu  .1 few  o f  C o .K j.e r s  i e r j t r d ; -i!j

£w»» c\. v<- a bt'i'..':, ■> ..i; the* i.:ci of pjilic sunder vt v > icq and

tiOi:.:.!, it;.: !:,>». n.w,.. the .o n s t it ucion.il requires*. ■ a ,.:x.

.* ii  .riciror.s iv> ere-itrO. L.ra.frl/ 01;.ore the laoV

T.iClU ! ■ '.Jl'ii oiitSC S*..V-X:> to t Ctfiti'-ia.ts of. tV.C '.if', 

protacion pincexi •■:;.'cn of'/. uti i-Vneootion Clouse by the ’..n*..

i • i ..j •'/. ; i Jitlj >i.*‘ C(.cu;s. an i f . l ie s ,  t o  p u b l i c  s c h o o l s . hut t -•. .*_

e  in iv. w o t  th e l e a s t  o o u b t  t h a t  t h i s  Court, a s  w e l l  as e v e r y  j...ct

in  th e  fa t i - r * . . in  bou n d  b y  Chat i  itecpretation. f u r t h e r •wore, v. c

is. s o  c e r t a i n  of t a c  c o y r e c t i i o s s  o . h ia  own v ie w s  of th e  Cr«u«! 

P r o t e c t i o n  Clause t h a t  he w o u ld  b e  w i l l i n g  t o  swap p l a c e s  i : * 

s o c i a l  and r a c ia l .  ualiev.ae o f  a i i a i r a  in  o u r  s o c i e t y ?  '-:ow i t v  

: c co a v  te o tx l o i  th e  c o r r e c t n e s s  o f  u ic iir  ov n  i  a t e r p r e t a t  i  on  ■

t...at olauuo tOkit •<-»:*’ / would bn wil'.-y to live ir. a ©osi ot .* x •

.7: ’.oh till!*! :t. is i t e i' o.-.'i interpretation.*.! o’ ail ./.si

jtrel t-. oj.tH.. .il .- . !. es... e », <.i> 1. i;«t c.w. rule of. titc l.*w *f
a c.a jl*. y t e a C c s e  a tu i .cv e -n o a t  o f  t i c  c e n t u r i e s  * long s t r u g g l e  

t r e e d  osa.

T h is  c i t y  ear. c o n t in u e  upon  th e  p a th  .oi order 1.- a r e  

an d  r a c i a l  ..u rn on y  in  a l l  o i  i t s  a f f a i r s ,  including t h e  o p e r  .t jo

of its school.;.. VUis City can live within the law. This Cit.

can maintain a.*1 iiijariwe its program of quality education ;.o. all

c h i I d s  on  w i t h in  i t s  s c h o o l s .  T h is  C i t y  ca n  h a v e  o n e  of th e  . i .* o  st

sci.'toi s.ynt.r.r.’O w it h in  t i ie  M a t e  cl* w i t h in  th e  Nation, but *t .• i r s t

mist b * - l ie v o  t:»ot it . (wo. It f i r s t  nnjst w an t the* r i.uost scSiools

l o r  i t s  c i i i l d i M evliova l ,' lot'i.iici ,  a  miserable hovel ol «  '.-0/

~ ^ n -



*>?.* • r; - j  i, * Awor ioa  i t w nsM«f abb <:.

- i« i • , . , » » *. • • . o. • e l ,  i i t n  ? t kS*

> •’ * .*. • 1 • C • • LUeH. . s, ' ■' * i j \; be (lone ano w i l le d  th at

. ■ .

• ?v.ol p;:cnOv.. cv . tar- l  sv. Might not wee;.-, s o  heavy

iv.;vioa >.o.r ar. jae t o  .u iv y  i t iso i c l t th a t i t  wore t r u ly  ‘-.it

b r o t h e r 's  who was. a .;k in g  l o r  i t .  q u a l i t y  o d u c f i t io n

n o t  o o c . . u o  (j .i. i. i c m i t  i a n y o n e  t  m a in ta in  i t  i t  w e re  t r n l „  .

b r o t h e r 's ;  o v .'.id  t h a t  u a c  b a i f ;  d e p r iv e d  o r  h a n d ic a p p e d  by  i  iu >. ■ i . i a l .

» .j . «. i t ,  . u s  tioen  i ia. s h a r e  o ', law  v i o l a t o r . ' - ,  r o c i  . . 

o io 'ia r M .* . . - ,  ; n r ,  •io«. c h t .iX fs js  in  •.-•scent v.uci:a and m o n th s . '  

th o .sc  vsho n e i i o v o  t h a t  d .jj b a n c o  o ;  tn e  lav. ca n  b e  r e p la c e d  «-.i • \ 

w i l l i n g  o b e d ie n c e ,  t o r  t i to a c  w ho b e l i e v e  t h a t  r a c i a l  a t r i t e  c ^ t  

•>e r e p la c e d  w it h  r a c i a l  harm ony. r o r  t h o s e  who b e l i e v e  t h a t  ' e a r  

ear; b e  re p la c .o v . w ith  . a t ,  t o r  c> io»o  w ho b e l i e v e  t h a t  qua l i t  ' 

o d e  r a t io s , ca n  b<s m a i;rca in e d  and e n la r g e d  ’w ith in  th e  C ls a t ta n o o  .

P u b l i c  b  o n t o  l . , , i o r  ohos-c w ho b c i i o v n  t h a t  m ankind ca n  l i v e  in  

I x a t a  and 1v!..* lo'/.i • w it h  h i »  C e l . V x / r w t o r  t h o s e  w ho b e l i e v e  i :  

t 'r s  obSenfcia.X  b v o t h c  r.Vjoh u t  nasi, t  ,c b ^ l l  t o l l s  now.

-  2 /Si"



»i* •• »

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIIE 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES JONATHAN MAPP, et al

vs.
Civil Action No.

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ]
CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, HAMILTON J 
COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al 1

O R D E R

This cause came on to be heard on the 16th day of July, 

1971, before the Honorable Frank W. Wilson, United States District 

Judge, sitting without the intervention of a jury, upon the entire 

record, including the amended plan of desegregation filed by the 

defendants upon June 16, 1971, the objections thereto filed by 

the plaintiffs, the motion to intervene and join additional 

parties defendant filed by Oscar Earl Cook, III, et al, the motion 

of defendants to strike said objections of the plaintiffs, the 

motion of defendants seeking reconsideration of the Court's memo­

randum and findings of May 19, 1971, the affidavits and memoranda 

filed by the parties in support of said motions and additional 

evidenco introduced by the original parties in open court on said 

date, and argument of counsel with respect thereto, and from a 
consideration of all of which the court thereafter filed its 

written opinion upon July 26, 1971, which is hereby made a part 

of the record, incorporated by reference as a part of this order, 

and adopted as the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Low made 

by the court in accordance with Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.
It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED<
1. The motion by the defendants seeking reconsideration 

of the Court's findings and order entered May 19, 1971, wherein 

the Court directed the defendants to submit further desegregation

- i

-  2 / 3 "



plans, is DENIED.

2. The notion to intervene and to join additional parties 

defendant, filed by Oscar Earl Cook, III, et al, is DENIED.

3. The defendants' plan for desegregation of tlio 

Chattanooga, Tennessee School System, as set forth in Paragraphs I I  

thru V II  of the defendants' amended plan of desegregation (Exhibit 

No. 146) and the appendices thereto (Exhibits Nos. 143, 144, and 

145) having been found by the Court with the exceptions herein 

noted to be realistically designed to remove all vestiges of state- 

imposed segregation and to accomplish a unitary school system within 

the said schools, it is accordingly ORDERED that the defendants' 

said plan for desegregation of the Chattanooga, Tennessee School 

System bo approved with the following exceptions:

(a) The Court is unable to give final approval .to the 

amended plan of desegregation of the High Schools of the City of 

Chattanooga, for reasons set out in the opinion of July 26, 1971.

Accordingly, the Court will give tentative approval only 

at this time to the defendants' high school plan in order that at 

least as much as is therein proposed may be placed into operation 

at the commencement of the September, 1971, term of school. Further 

prompt but orderly judicial proceedings will ensue in order for the 

Court to decide upon a final plan for said schools.

The defendants are directed to promptly provide the Court 

with information upon the student capacity of each of the four 

general curricula high schools under discussion, upon the amount 

of unused space in each of said high schools, the suitability of 

such space for use in high school programs, and the proposed use 

to be made of such space, if any. In addition the defendants will 

advise the Court regarding their plan as to tuition students, and 

no later than the 10th day of enrollment of the 1971-72 school 

term the defendants will provide the Court and counsel for plain­



tiffs with actual enrollment data with respect to each of the said 

four high schools.

(b) Paragraph VII of said amended desegregation plan is 

modified to provide for the continuation of annual reports of Uio 

continued implementation of all approved provisions of said plan, 

until a final order of compliance may be entered, copies of said 

reports to be furnished counsel for plaintiffs.

4. All provisions of said amended plan of desegregation 

filed by defendants will be implemented in time for the commence­

ment of the 1971-72 school term; provided however, that in imple­

menting any portion of said amended plan regarding student assign­

ments in the elementary and junior high schools as is dependent 

upon acquiring, staffing, and scheduling transportation facilities 

not now available to the schools, the defendants shall implement 

such portions of said plan as may be feasible with the transporta­

tion facilities reasonably available to it at the commencement of 

the September term of school, and may delay the implementation of 

any remaining portions of said student assignment plans in the 

elementary and/or junior high schools until the transportation 

facilities necessary therefor can be acquired in the prompt but 

orderly process of school administration and of local governmental 

affairs, and until such facilities can be placed in use with safety 

and with a minimum interruption to the educational program. As 

soon as the defendants can formalize their plans in this regard, 

and in no event later than within thirty days, the defendants will 

advise the Court of their proposed implementation schedule in ac­

cordance with the foregoing, furnishing copy thereof to counsel for 

the plaintiffs.

5. All other issues raised by the pleadings, to the ex­

tent that they have not been resolved by this order, or not speci­

fically heretofore sustained or denied or not withdrawn upon tho

- 2 /5 -



hearings, are reserved, including the queotiona with respect to 

the allowance of attorney fees and witness expenses of plaintiffs 

and costs, if any. to be allowed.

6. This is not a final order but is subject to further 

proceedings as hereinabove provided. Jurisdiction of this cause 

i3 retained by the Court and any party may apply for such further 

or additional relief as is appropriate; however, such retained 

jurisdiction shall not affect either party's right to seek on 

interlocutory appeal from any provision of this order.

APPROVED FOR ENTRY.

United States District Judge

V



u 1\ f *

iw Tiir. 7.. ■ ■ ••> state:;, pi: • c ’ cotjkt pon me. 
r> • ..;. ? .oxr-r.’iri.cT c  •>r■ rnr 

oouizu tti mv.T.' ;/• ?•

: I'YjJlflH iZtt’i , Qt «1

C i v i l  A c t io n  ,’ To. 3 £'34

1 -
'Vi "f’BPJ ' .

.' T 05

nl

the u. crs-tnnta lir,vc i o"t 1 the Court for codification 

V t: ' > .or entered !>y the C< e.t rojn August 5, 1971, no or. to 

either , ..;.y to oeck an appeal cron the raid interlocutory 

or of tiro Court, it rppe r.r.rg to the Court, rrrnuant to 

T' fX Z 'X 'lb ) f that c  n troll Aru fienticr.e of lr ? fer which

n } ri*b ficl crew 1 let differc nee of opinion m y  

t ' ■. ;;ryoj:d to the srtid ot ter m d  t hat irrr.r lints appeal i— <y 

'".'inJ.J.y advance the to:. • nn'.i.OR of fchn 5Lit.icot.icn, cnch per- 

■:5.<:n to .oert r n c"'l will ho granted. Dy the or o notion

ilofo;'‘In’-'.to : nel*. n 7.0-0■w o' ',y o.C ' "'o proc-dingo in thin 

To further nrocor iii-vo. r.vo c \ntc~pl3trd in thin court 

h.in .'he ne t  ten <oyn rs.d r-» nor 3 for f o rc'aicjtrd 10-day 

re ortUn- ,’y ertLovo. the ' vc : of the Court entered upon 

at. 107."., w '.? ". ho r . "ific3 rcc .v",inp3.y.

It its ro OP-OWXD.

/■.: i> n .cy /.:<  w »  r , : i a : r .

l?nit< 1 ate i Din' rict : 3go

- Z . / 7 -



IN 'fHJ: i loTRI:!? COURT OF THE tNITEE STATES

-“•OH TR~. EASTERN PI3TRJCT OF TifliN RSSKE
soutushh riVx3io:;

ATHAW K:ir?# oC *1
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3̂ 6:

THE BOPI’ OF 3 H TCATION OP TLLT".
TTY Oil Ah TAttOOGA, HAMILTON
VT'MTY, tkui'.es'v at ai

MCTICt OF APM-U
lotted in hereby given that Janes 3. Maop, one of the 

ria.inti.ffa in the above esse, hereby appeals to the United 
State; ourt of Vppeais for the. Sixth Circuit from the following 

parte of the Order entered in this action on 5 August 1971, as 

nodif:ed by the Order entered In this action on 13 August 1971s
1. Co much of iters 3 of 3aid $ August 1971 order aa approves

s1"1 orderts* emended tier o*’ dcs’v-regnhioi: of the Chattanooga, 
Tor-- osee, School System in any rogard, raaooct, or extent what­
ever to which plaintiffs objected in the Trial Court.

2. So much of iter. q cf said ;> Augnat 1971 order as perbiita 

any delay be 700 d the connencenant of the 1971-72 ecnool ter;, in 

i-.ap Lamenting any portion of said amended plan.

7. So ranch of item 5 of said August. 1971 order- as over-
mules or denies any claims or contentions raised by plaintiffs
in their objections or pleadings, or disapproves any desegregation 
clans of̂ ew-id or presented through the plaintiffs or their 
■A trusses to ttie f’ourt.

•'». So nucrv of item 5 of said 5 August 1971 order aa re­
served t!ie questions of allowance of attorney feea and witness 

expenses of plaintiffs and failed to allow said fees and expenses 
to the plaintiffs promptly.

2I4.H+ Parkway Towers 
Nashville, Tennessee 37219

- m -



JACK GREENBERG 
J V S S  M. NABRIT, J.II 
KCRKAN J. CHACHKIN 
SYLVIA DREW 
10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2 ‘J1’’
Lev i'ork, Hew Yo"k 10019 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE
The undersigned certifies that carbon copy of the foregoing 

Kot^ce of Appeal was furnished to Raymond 8. Witt, Jr., Esquire, 
1 1 Wrican National Bank Building, Chattanooga, Tennessee 
;?:;L2 arid Eugene i-i. Collins, Esquire, iylO Pioneer Bank aiilding, 
ChatCannesa, Tennessee 37q .2, Attorneys for toe defendants, by 
nailing sane to their above last known addresses, this the 28th 

day of August, 1971•

a l 9



WITT G  All IICR 
ACir M N  AT IIY & 

V.ILSON

' l u l l  AUOC'W*. 
W i ' l f O i l l  1 M O I

I*':

. I j \ i .1 V.̂  V J l 1 i v I
tA .>TK K N  DISTRICT Or* TKNNKS.SKK 

SOU TIIJCMN 1)1 V JS JON

JAM ES JONATHAN M A P P  
c t  al ’

)
)
) CJVIE ACTION NO. 35C4
)
)

T H E  HOARD O F  EDUCATION O F )
’j hp:  c i ' j 'y  o f  c h a t t a n o o c a  >
ct  a l '  )

NOTICE o f  A P P E A L

N otice  is h ereby  given that the defendant Board o f  Education 

o f  the City o f  Chattanooga. Hamilton County, T e n n e s se e ,  h ereby  appeals 

to the United States C ou rt  o f  A pp ea ls  fo r  the Sixth C ircu it  f r o m  the F ebru ary  

19, 1971, m e m o ra n d u m  opinion and o rd e r  whic h p laced  the burden o f  p roo f  j 

on the defendants , f r o m  the o ra l  o r d e r  and m em orand um  opinion o f  May 

19, IVY I. which o r d e re d  the defendant,  to p resen t a d esegrega t ion  plan to 

" m a x im iz e  integration  in a ll  f e a s ib le  w a y s -  and found that the defendant 

B oard  „ f  E d u cat ion 's  plan in effec t was not a c cep ta b le ,  f r o m  the June 2 3, 

1971, o r d e r  which in co rp o ra te d  the opinion and o r d e r  o f  May 19. 1971, f ron j  

the opinion and findings o f  fac t  o f  July 26, 1971, as in co rp o ra te d  hy r e f ­

e r e n c e  in the f inal o r d e r  o f  August 5, 1971, as m od if ied  hy the o r d e r  of 

August 13, 1971, and f r o m  the final o rd er  o f  August 5, 1971, which denied 

the defendants ' Motion fo r  R e l ie f  f r o m  O rder  and a rehearin g ,  the latter  

o f  which the plaintiffs f i led  a N ot ice  o f  Appeal f r o m  on August 30, 1971.

S ep tem b er  8, 1971.

W ITT, OAJTHHK, ABERN ATH Y t, 
Wl1 .SON

, /  ■• (x L i d s M LRaymond Ji. Witt, J r .  /
11 00 A m e r ica n  National Bank Bldg. 
Chattanooga, T e n n e s se e

« y _

A ttorneys for  Defendants

2 2 0 -



t

II

OF COUNSEL:

Eugene N. C o l l in s ,
400 P io n e e r  Hank liuilding 
Chattanooga, T e n n e s s e e  37402

City  Attorney

\

W l l l . i . M l  H C f ( ,
A l l l  l l O A l  11 Y  *.

W I L S O N



L A W  O F F IC E S

W ITT. GAITHER. 
ABERNATHY ft 

W IL S O N
IIO O  AM ER ICAN  MATKM 

BAN K B U IL D IN G

C h a t t a n o o g a . 
T e n n e s s e e  37402

IN THT~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
FASTERN DISTRICT Or TENNESSEE 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JA M FS JO N / THAN V.A PT*. )
r-t -1 I

I
)

- v s -  ) CIV IL  ACTION NO. 3564
)
1

THF BOAR O O F  EDUCATION )
OF THE CITY OF C H A T T A N O O G A .'
F T C . , et al i

SUBMISSION OF STUOEN I DESEGREGATION 
STATISTICS BY DEFENDANT

Pumuint to this C >urt s> opinion ol July 26, 1971, 

and order of August b. 1971, the defendants hereu/ present to the Court 

the Student Enrollment Report for the 1971-72 School Term as of the tenth 

day of school. Said report shows the number of pupils (by race) zoned to 

n particular school, the number of majority to minority transfers, all other 

transfers, and tuition students. Schools are divided into (a) three categories 

/  clarification (elementary, junior high, and senior high! and (bi two 

categories (amended desegregation plan implemented and not implemented).

Respectfully submitted.

V. ITT, GAITHER, ABERNATHY & 
V- ILSON

By________________________________
Raymond B. Vitt, Jr.

• -* 1190 American National Bank Bldg.
1 • Chattanooga, Tennessee 57 412

4%.

• Attorneys for DefendantsI
*

r ' f  7/

S '*'

- 1 1 1 -



C2UTT,\rC'0S.-. PUBLIC SCIPOOLS 
Chattanooga, 'wnntsioe 

September 23, 1971

TENTH DAY OF SCHOOL ENROLLMENT RETORT FOR 1971-72 SCHOOL TERM

[)[ £one Pupils a or it y to Miner; ”v Pupil.- 'A+ft'8 Plus Other Out-of-Zonc Pupi.E k ""\vKiH. Plus uiicion Pii~

|| Zone PuDils
Par
Cent

B.
Majority-
Minority
Puoils Total (A+B)

Per
Cent

c .
Out-of-
Zone
Pnnils Total (A+B+C1

Per !
Cent 1

D.

Tuition
Total fA+3-r-l+m

?or
Cr-t

School !^r,dnfl R - 1 W _  1 T J - i i L , _ L - l j i - B 1 w I t B 1 W f. 1 _ 2 ____L-V___l _ I „ B l» 1 _ £ ___Lu„.[, 7 L  ..

a. Plar.

f. • r
____________ u.. -  .p n itT  ̂'“ TT?T 2^ -- .. COce * Not \pplv) r V— m 51 381 70 •i* r [? 7 i- i 9 i

'i-
• r

~ r *. ) 106 196 30 i •3 s; n3 -- — II II ci 7 1 0 6 2051 311 34 • O « d 2 '-? ■- •
i 5:' 317 371 15 85 -- -- II II M q C 54 317 371 15 ; 5 H C____A 2 l ;

-3 ! 1.95 209 40'* /. w S2 — II II II c; c 195 209 407 48 ,2 fi f ii 2 2 5nr - . • -j | . 1 168 148 3:n 30 -- • 1 II II i 1 169 169 3 lit 50 n if 0 n,‘. T T Kv n r r "
5 • • i .-.5 ! 51 ) % - )• •' J -- -- II • 1 II

i 2 3 A 2 33 264 19 >1 j‘ 2 1 V 2 5 r  T 1
.

: - >• 70 _ 30: T/ 7 7 -- -- • 1 II " 0 2 7nl 237 30/ 2 3 ; -7 ef 1
“ • 2 50 _*u--_C: r-t.-cer :  ■!. ■-&: 604 46 45'-i G*. \r, -- -- II II II r n 404 46 . 450 so !< 2 4 41

R : v r o n : i, 73 r V- 6 m 1 ? -- -- • I II " r 0 7 0 5 30 6o: 1 2 s rf r. 7 :v. ?T
Xi s- *v * * 6 ? 130 ___‘23 . . 273 5 J lL -- -- II It • I

0 150 12 J 2 71: 55 ■ 5 it r 2 • 15 u \ _  Z

c nlit -o i 1

Ctltr i " i
— ■

1 'ivt r - orrv ’ • . • 6 5 — —

r- \ c  0 ">‘*
( i . i

roC-■ >: : J L f f l . 2153 3724 a2 58 -- -- II II .. 2 1 2 1573 2165 3738 42 58 H 13 l5sr 7235

b.
Avorc • ie 1. \ 869 -------1? r r -  .■ ... -- .. .. 0 0 669 0 66<Too" <> « 0 * ~  ------- •
? 2 1 L • > ! 41 6 2 4 ! .-I ! i- -- -- II II • 1 (1 7) 416 ■ 2 ’ 4 1' 4<H t 9r 1-
Ci i : r‘i • -u If 22 310 j 12| >193 II • 1 II 5 i 27 311 331 s •2 \ tl - ■ 3.-: -T.T-
5 ' 71 - !• *i 459’ 0 43 , ' ! 0 II II i: 1 5 460 0 46‘ TOO" r *  1 | 4 c i ' -  . - ; A
£ * = c C’r • t ' 1 4 3 "79i ...6 2 T. 77; o: -- -- " II n f r 41 379 42; 10 tj 1 01 _ ~ T ‘n  •

• • - 3 530 F: ' : i- -- - J II II ir o a 3 530 53: 1- * 0 • ", 7 y " : ’ .! : _
1 " i 158 i 74 -- -- II • 1 • • 0 i 15? 173 3.33147 13 ii o.. _1 15 175 -7 i 52

-'e . v • (; . - 4 j iJ 0 36- ! m --; o -- -- • 1 " 1 3 _ 365 0 '; 100 n | A ~ ‘ i ••
r ! 12 361 273j ol 6 -- -- |i II H 12 3 24 2o4 2!1? 8 92 i1. q : -i • • 2 2 r r- c | i •.

V ' . 4 >0 S 614 *4 618! 59-il 1- -- II II 11 0 0 614 4 61 H99-:-! r 1 - r • • ^  -*
N-r- ’ ?■ -*. i i **4 8 i.' i! T >0 -- • 1 • • • 1 C ? i ,5,56 36 7 1- o : •!! i 2
C«< •: 1  .<■ » 22.T 29, r 2- i7cF -- II “’ll 2 71 257 24 i _ i4 7 n ~ 3.T^ a- •! 4-  ' —



T.-ar ;tar.r ■ airirc:Zo-.e pupils AZA£*"T J ■’t»s J. i«C*itv T o ’j i l w  • tV  Pu !■> i 1 F •*A+i- ’ Plus Other Out-of-Zon Pup: 1* li "A+P-C ' Pius .tier fur? •«.
A.

Zone Pupils
Per
Cent

B.
Bajorlty-
linority 
PnolIs Total 6A+B1

Per
Cent

C.
Out-of-
Zone
Pupils Total {i'+B+Ci

Per 
Cor >■

"  1 .Tuition
“uptls Tor-’. O+B+O-Bl

Per
Cent

Sch'."'! !"rade 1 b r r i r j Q L B 1 W b 1 w I t B 1 W , t» l H.,„ _£__LB__LI— i _ L d b i v l . r  i ■ ■ n r - I __Ll l .b • Plr.n 'Coe
I-pier, anted

C v c r ' r i . Vr.a j ** 4 1-6 l 727 2 720 09+ 1- - - -- {Doc £ Not A poly) 4 1 731 3 734 99+ r fl 0 | 731 -- •-. •;< j. 1-r i * e v • ; 1 -2 -1- 1-6 L 0 151 151 0 "i r»0 -- -- It II II 0 0 0 151 151 0 i 00 , 0 2 ') "ui 155 i L-L'T -  -  A  rt li 1 . | 277 2 27 :v i- II It II 0 0 277 2 279 59+ i- { 0 0 277 •.  v r A •
?  :: : \ R i 3<: i 75 256 ; i 69 " II II 12 16 52 191 233 33 o 7 « 0 10 5 2 3 3  i 6 4

£  i .  }'. 1 n [• • 6 7 . •45 30‘ J. •) 80 — - -
• I II • 1

0 0 62 . 245 307 20 6 0 0 0 i> 2 1 _ S ;  : 1;  » 8 )

£  ~ iz i ;< * '  ‘ ' L 285 0 2S5 I P  5 - - —
II II

" 0 0 235 0 285 100 o i C : j 2 - 1  ! 2 .v 5 ' '1 3 ' l

T v  * t  r *• * ! 306 0 304 1 ' f ; — • I I I • 1
0 0 304 0 3C4 l u O o ! 0 0 * ' / -~ r  - loo 0

*' ̂ r i i 1 tj* - C i i 4562 2805 7273 62 *5 c . . - - I I I t II 36 34 4604 2839 7443 62 331 5 24 46;‘9 2:63 7-72 62 3 3

Gr..-.c u

t
ili-6 if O' K U‘ o V/

t
o

o 11097 55 45 - - — I I I I I I 38 46 6177 5004 11181 55 45 1 16 94 6195 5 :>-5 11293 55 45
• or !ii.-h 

c.. rIon
it 7 - 9  H  21 I ’ 3 1  I 1 7 2  I i :  I b -i | "■■I I t Pi ol 211 1511 172 1 121 fittl) nl o I 2 : !  '5i| ; - 2 i  12l

. -. .ft
___ ~ : -"'O .tli"!
6 ..re- . 8 ji >*}__

------- r 7c4 6. i - - - ii it 0 0 .731 3 7 84 99+ 1- n r 0 7-5 i 3 t ; -+ 1 -
733 • A 58 2P> 7 5 - - ii ii ii 0 0 112 338 4 50 25 75 1. 3 'l iT ~! 1 r  • 5 24 *> ..

: . :  • !: 11 f , 302 C *> ' „ n S1' - - - - it ii 0 2 198 304 502 39 pi!;: 2 1 y 2" . ; ;2 i ; 1 •. ' * 2
z'.-r. 7 ^crcp;L ? - :  f* 33r> i .*i 3 *. C.?._ a . t ... 1 ii ii • • 0 0 335 1

A 336 99:- 1- r 0 r. 333 i : i
Pas; : ■ A !! i 4..3 I - n it ii 0 3 1 446 44 7 i- 0 1 • 1 ___■ - ; - : c .
E -sr-V -. >’ J-. ? '.43 7 (21 2- / r - - — i ii ii 0 2 IAS 475 623 24 i 0 i ] :  » _ -.. •'2- 7 f
V ■ rd- r 7-v ;  tf. ___it 5 715! T_ 2J - - — i» ii ii 0 0 550 165 7 >5 77 ■ ! 0 51 t 1' : ; ;  • h r r

_____________ f  ' -  L4,- 549 546 l i f t 0 — — • i ii " Q 0 57a c 0 549 100 oj ! 3 'i 351 • ! " i l 7-^r
t "'•••• 4____& 115 19 9 ! 4-Z s4 — — i i i i i i 0 0 34 1’. 5 i69 42 5: . 0 1 . : ; -2 c ,
’ * .* . * *: Tnccrr? % 7-9 2 Ca o 70* • 5 — _ _ i i i it 0 0 57 646 703 S - 2 ! 0 -----rrr-) i z - r.>
C rr--r ' — 6 7 -. ‘t 462 0 -V7> 1110 r. - - — ir it 1 0 493 0 493 100 ' oil .0 Lf 7 i t 5

S 5-5 I 33CT “435
i "

575“ ' 5r| 4T — a
" 1 7 33ffS 2493 5801 JUJ L3 If 8 62 I 33161 355-;

; t

- : - r x f  5t : -
G z _  n 5

n *! 7-4 «! 2328 2 :7
•

56651 56 — • • ■ •• 1
i

7 1 3329 JAM ^5970 5ui 44 It f ' 1 353 - !  e«! 4*



ii Zone Pupils r
‘ v' f F I S T S ; loritv to Minor:t ss.ga.ciyrt3v Pupils Other Out-of-Zo; c Puni is il ‘ ->v. - i V f 33*pi

i1

A.

Zone Puoils
Per
Cent

B.
Majority-
Minority
Puoils Vot s: (A-HO

Per
Cent

c .
Out-of-
Zone

Puoils Total 6A+B+C1

jj D.

Per HTuition 
Cent BPuoils Total (A-rR-HMO'

Fer
CentSr'r.̂ o'- flSrade! 1 p  l w  I t n 1 w R 1 W B i W ’ T R ! W - 2 ___L a ___i T b i v  h r  i v -Jl-J-i-. 1 V

t: j •»>. ?.*;•
T. T I.-.:-, "l~p.

' r ' ~ T r j .,'.A7-»j. ;,'l i- •!‘,̂ i --1 - 1  2,-m  7/3j lowj f̂-.j -| 27M 7,'T|~n)-iA 26r of c s T T T " -  ■ ;'"2? r ~ T
fc . K1 e. n
y _• 41 l am oT u( -4 0 455 810 126 t 36 64 2 9 457 819 1276 36 64 6 1 1 1 '  - 7  ; 33 -
Or.:.:: • I’. ; : : . ,  r • H --J2 B 27! 561 t3i 33 <>L 0 368 361 929 40 60 0 o 368 501 92 9 40 60 i: 1 17 2 3'3 ” "■1 v>

i i-i i :» iuS5 ___ i l l L i i i i Vo 0 0 0 10S5 44 1119 56 4 .■) 0 10 85 A4 1129 96 r i* 1 6
. ^ 1 ^ ._ . i ,, ) 1 2 5 7 > ••• _  3 0 01 651 25 7::. 97

“ “
3 0 (/ {>') 1 25 71 6 97 ? ;* 2 <■ v " • - 1 -• ; -

2458 3oC0 63 37 141 0 2599 1440 4039 Om 3fc 2 9 2601 1449 4050 64 36 !l 13 2 fit; 2c U 17331
1_ -34C.I A 3 4n

" -'v ?! .o-^j 2732 2213 4645 55 _ a 1H 1 0 2873 2213 5085 56 44 2 9 2675 2222 5097 56 44
1----j 13 331 25.18 i25531

I
.‘-.-■aUj, 4 7

S- -v

l i t - . : 1; ,  r v it.J 4-iiZij 3 7 2 4 42 V? r— 6>--7» flot i ; i n l -  j 121 1573 2165 3 ?  3 3 4  2 IT T T o 7>, 15 •• 5=
J--R - r  ' •t > y  !! 2 ? 151 1 72 1 ■» 8' L 11 If " I ^ 0 21 151 172 12 8e j ;  0 0 ■' , - •------- -T-. . .a C .i
5 - r •-... -lt\ _  i .  ' - . 2  ‘f  2 7  32* 2213 r  6 V 4  3 55 V . 141- 0 2 8 7 3 2 2 1 3 1  5 0 8 6 5 6 4 4 1 2 v! 2575 2222 5 0 9  7 5 6 441 13 331 2. a r>5" • *: 35 4 7

,i 4324 431? ScA) 4 5 51 141 0 4 4 6 5 ■ •■67, 8 9 8 2 5 0 5 01  4
1

L i lL 4 4 6 9 4 5 3 S 9 0 0 7 3 0 5'il 2h 4r,| 4.495 4 v  . » u

wo*i
; <■ > 5  5 ! 5 ..-5 I r a J {Doe > Mot '■pp’y> 3 ;~3^1 4&«)£ 2 239 764 '• r> •: »| 5 / . * « ; v %

. i : : ,? 7-9 * 350? 24 So
1 1 2 1 . _i2_ 43 II " ' — n --- ? 330? 2593' 5851 57 4'. M O O J. • * J : - » w,"

:0-12 ^ --- ** — • v . L 4 L •* — — — — — -- -- ” — — — — •“>5 -- — — --- --- • ..

!! 1-12 I 7875 5291 13166 60 40 — -- — — — — -- 37 41 7912 5332 1322 4 60 4c|i 13 or, 7925 r— T “*n.-. 4 1

j! ,
- : : i  1- 1-51 2 1 9 9 9808 22007 55 45 1 141 0 12340 9808 22148 56 44 41 62 12381 9870 22251 56 44fi 39 4^7 1242: 1 ̂ -55 7

;----*----
22 “7': 5‘1 45



IN THE UNITED L'TAVr.D COUNT OF APPEALS 

FOR TILE SILL.. CIRCUIT

NOS. 7 1 -2 0 G o  .'ic ' / I — 2 0 07

JAMES JONATHAN KAPP,
Plaintiff-Appeailant

VS.
THE BOARD OP EDUCATION OP THE
CITY OP CHATTANOOGA, HAMILTON COUNTY,
TENNESSEE, KT AL,

Do Pendant—Appellee

JAMES JONATHAN MAP?,
Plaintiff-Appellee

VS.
TILS BOARD OP EDUCATION OP THE
CITY OP CHATTANOOGA, HAMILTON COUNTY,
TENNESSEE

Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Southern Division

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OP TIKE TO PILE OPENING 3RIE? AND APPENDIX 
OF PLAINTIFFS -APPELLANTS AND REPLY BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS -APPELLEES

Plaintiffs -appellants ana plaintiffs -appellees, by their 

undersigned counsel, respectfully move that their time within 
which to file their opening Brief and Appendix in No. 71-2006 
and their Reply Brief in No. 71-2007 bo extended 60 days to and 
including 15 March 1972, upon the following grounds:

1. These are cross appeals from the District Court's order 
of 5 August 1971 as modified ±3 August 1971 regarding the dese­
gregation of the public sohoo-ic of Chattanooga, Tennessee.

2. Notice of Appeal was filed by plaintiffs on 30 August 
1971 and by defendants on 8 September 1971. By order of 27 
Sop bomber 1971 the District Court extended tho time x'or filing 
record on appoal to ana including 26 November 1971. The record 
on appeal was filed 6 December 1971 and the ot>en.lng,.Brief inL-v.-f.'- i j-
each case was due 17 January 1972. ..(Lii

'*" \ '_1 _ *



3. Trial counsol for plaintiffs is at present engaged in 
Fodoral District Court hearings and other proceedings concerning 
the desegregation of several other Tonnosaoo public school ayatoina. 
A hearing on the desegregation of the Knoxville, Tennessee public 
schools (See Goss v. Boarq of Kauc. of K n o x v i l l e , 44^ F.2d 632 

(6th Cir. 1971) commenced on December 1, 1971 and is scheduled 
to recommence on 31 January 1972. Further proceedings in the 
instant case are presently being conducted in the Trial Court on 
issuos uhrolatoa to the appeal heroin, with a possible further 
evidentiary hearing to be scheduled in the District Court.

4* Norman J. C h a c h k i n ,  one of th e  c o u n s e l  f o r  p l a i n t i f f ,  

w i l l  have th e  m a j o r  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  f o r  the p r e p a r a t i o n  o f  th e  

B r i e f s  and A p p e n d i x  f o r  p l a i n - i f f s - a p p e l l a n t s  and p l a i n t i f f s -  

a p p e l l e e s  in  t h i s  m a t t e r .  It has not been  p o s s i b l e  f o r  s a i d  

c o u n s e l  t o  commence work  on the B r i e f  i n  t h i s  c a s e  b e c a u s e  o f  

s e v e r a l  o t h e r  p e n d i n g  matters: he was r e q u i r e d  t o  f i l e  th e  B r i e f

f o r  A p p e l l a n t s  i n  Yarbrounh v. Hulbert-West Memphis School D i s t . , 

No .  71-1524. ( 8 t h  C i r . )  on November 15. 1971; be p r e s e n t e d  o r a l  

argument  b e f o r e  t h e  U n i t e d  Stages Co u r t  o f  A p p e a l s  f o r  th e  N i n t h  

Circuit i n  K e l l y  v .  G ui nn ,  Sunt. o f  S c h o o l s ,  C l a r k  C o u n t y ,

Nevada, No. 71-2332 at San Francisco, California on November 11, 
1971 and subsequently was required- to file a Supplemental Brief 
in the said case on November 16, 1971. As counsel for petitioners, 
he was required to prepare ana file the main Brief for Petitioners 
before the United States Supreme Court in No. 70-188, Wright v. 
Council of the City of S m p c r l u, on November 26, 1971- As a 

result of this heavy schedule, the undersigned has boon granted 
an ox.l.unci j oil oi* i.inm ay tin; .»ai JiLata;; OourI. ol* Appoal:: Vor tha
i'ourth Circuit to l'iic too ui Vov Appolluoo in ocaooi lio,  ̂

the City of Richmond v. Braal^y, No. 71-1774 (Uth Cir.) to and 
including January 4» 1972. Auuitionally, undersigned counsel 
represents intervening plainiff s in United States and Buckley v. 

Board of School Comm'rs of I.,.: tt v l i s , Civ. No. IP-68-C-225 
(S.D. Ind.) in which more than twenty different motions to dis­
miss, motions to convene a throe-judge court and other procedural

-til



pro-trial motions arc ponding and to which a response from inter­
vening plaintiffs had to bo proparod in December, 1971* Since 
then ho has boon engaged in preparing the Briof on appoal in 
tho caso of Kolloy v. Metropolitan County Board of Education

I
(Soo Nos. 71-1773 and 71-1779) now ponding in this Court in­
volving desegregation of tho school system of Nashville, David- ; 

son County, Tennessee.
5. For these reasons, neither counsel for plaintiffs will 

have an opportunity to commence work on the Briefs and Appendix ' 
for plaintiffs-appeilants ana piaintiffs-appollees in these

jmatters prior to the middle of February, 1972.
6. An additional‘extension of time for filing plaintiffs' 

brief herein sought will not substantially prejudice the rights 
of either party to this appeal. Desegregation has taken place, : 
soo Mapp vs. Ch.-ibi.:ino>y-a .•■! of Kduc., 373 F.2d 75 (6th Cir. 
I9 6 7), and it is already too late X'or tho plan proposod by 
plaintiffs' expert witnesses, which plaintiffs contend should 
have been implemented, to be put into effect for the second 

semester of the current school year.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs-appellants and plaintiffs-appellees

• j
respectfully pray that this Court enter its order extending the

I
time for filing their opening Brief and Appendix and Reply

’
Brief on these appeals to and including 15 March 1972.

Respectfully submitted,

AVON N. WILLIAMS, JR.
Suite Hj.ll!
ipOlj. James Robertson Parkway 
Nashville, Tennessee 37219

JACK GREENBERG 
JAMES M. NA3RIT, III 
NORMAN J. CHAC1IKIN 
SYLVIA DREW 
10 Columbus Circle 
Now York, New York 10019
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

-2.2LS-



?a;-c
\

c: l\i .”Oa: :occa r -u cu ic s c . :jols
Cna'ccar.0 0 3 3 , -.’or..-.oc sec 

October 16, I'70

A?X V 1207.-: CAY ro?iL 6 :;oou.:-2 ..\2' 1-02 SYS72X CY SAC 7. AX2 YIA3.

■-hor r-.irolled CV-. -c fro r. Previous \> ■ r Crr.iV̂.n-r- y.-'ro W h i m •."oral ••him T^crl v> ■ -»

1945-46 6,321 14,COS 20,323 . . . 31.1 62.9
1946-47 6 , 7 4 3 13,009 20,152 .u 2 2 - 196 - 174 31.5 60.5194 7-43 o,3o3 13,335 20,203 + 2 5 4  26 4 51 31.5 63.5194 5-43 c , 5 8 5 13,093 20.4-S7 4 221 + 63 - 2S4 32.2 63.0
1945-50 5,vr5 14,353 21,033 56 -r 495 4- 551 31.6 O ̂9 .-r
190 V>” 'J 1 6 ,c92 14 ,233 21,125 4- 247 - 1 : 0 4 6 7 32.6 67.4
1951-52 V' , , 0 0 14,239 21,072 - 109 + 56 - 53 32 .2 u 7 . >
1952-53 ;,253 14,709 21,742 4- 2^0 4 0 0 *v 0 7 0 2 2 . 3 67.71553-54 7 ,S31 15,4 72 22,003 *f 4 v 3 4  763 1 c. ■ > 1 5 2 . 1 67. v-
IS 54- -5 3 / ,.7 i 15,903 23,774 *r S 4 0 -5- 4 31 - 971 33.1 c: .v
1 v 5 5 - 3 6 6,-59 i 5,> o3 9 x c ? 0 •— '» ' ■— • 4* 4o3 - 34 0 *r 14S 3 4 . 9 65.1
1556-57 S , -. S 7 15,653 24.615 59 3 4 95 -T 69 3 36.4 63.6
1957-53 l v »3 7 0 16,657 2 6, j. 9 3 *»* o49 J.T V;2° -:-1573 36.3 62.7
1953-53 IS ,044 16,577 2t,621 + 5 3 3 - 110 4 423 37.7 02.2
1532-60 IS,o-S 15,557 26,377 4  336 - 500 - 244 39.4 c 0.6
1560-61 IS, i3j 15, <752 26,oll t  579 “ 345 4 234 41.2 r? 2

1561-62 :.,S: 15,359 26,554 + 236 - 2v3 - 57 ' .0 0 57 .C
1952-63 3 ' — ~ ̂ 15,007 26,745 + 5 4 3 - 352 4 191 4 3 . 9 Sc. I
I9 6 2 - 64 o -> ■? i4 , 641 27 , 060 4- 4 4  9 - 1^6 4 323 ' c 0‘T-' . *- 54.6
1554-65 12 _ 0 0 3 14,014 27,453 412 - 2 7 4 255 46.0 3 4 . 0
1565-66 - 0 14,702 27,430 4 129 - 112 4 27 46.5 5 3 . 3
1966-67 12,3/9 14,234 27,163 4  101 - 413 - 317 4 7 . 4 52.6
1S67-6S * 2 "3*> 13,846 25,763 + 43 - 433 - 395 43.3 C ' *7 -> . • /
1563-69 * 0 : 1- • 13,359 26,693* - £3 4 13 - 75 A O 1*»W t * 51.9
1969-70 12 , c S3 14,144 27,024 + 45 4 235 4 331 47.7 52.3
1570-71 12,665 13,293 25,967 - 2 1 1 - S46 -1057 48.8 51.2

-Includes S pupils -ho completed reg is tra tion  on llch  day o f sch oo l.

<3 -
r i



C'tATIAHOCC-A ?U3LIC S 'TOOLS 
Cha t -a r * . o , To.r.r.css oc 

October 16, 1970
TENTH DAY PUPIL ENRCLLHENT BY SCHOOL, RACE ANT) YEAR

'*cr*ro 5t-T*o 'is 15 Schools (Or. 1-3) 33 Schools (Cr. 1-4) 33 Schools (Cr. 1-6) 7,2 Schools (Cr. 1-7) 44 Schools 'Or. / - r* •

C -V -
• 19 62
•: 10th Dr.v H
• *• i ■

- 6 3
nrollmont

19 63 - l-6 
1 10rh Dr.v Enroll 
1 N

rent 10th D.-.v Enroll rent
1965 - 66 

10th Dev Enroll~ent
.19 fj" - ~-i 

10fn r.-v ---- j 1 1- __

Hc-.-.vd ( 1- »2> ! 3151 0 3151 2574 0 2574 2636 0 2636!

N U 

2350 3 2S53

N

2733 0

T

2753
i ::

H, i i  r r i;’ -> / _ ) 11953-64
1 L ' “

"(7-12) 
1794 0 1794 2005’

(7-12)
0 2005;

(7-12) 
2045 0 2045

(7-12) 
19 57 2 l o qo

. - 1 - •
/ •. \ •1 -12;

.•Mror. ?"r!; ( 7-9 \ j 318 0 SIS 337 0 837 905 0 0O5| 913 0 913 393 n on o
Crer.-.ro. '".rob f 7-0 v •  ̂; 762 0 762 752 0 752 797 0

i
797? 793 0 793 745 0 74 S

“ 's* ri-:h t
\ ) (-

1009 0 1039
(i-o)

862 l 363 6 29
(1-6)

41 650
(1-6)

603 32 635
(1-6) 

510 2:. 5- .)
Toll ■f 1-6 ) : 622

T r 0 592 0 592 573 0 573 564 0 564 54 5 r>4 5
C.-r-,rvr /■ > ‘ o 501

Cloned 2nd 1962 
Cor.aolidatod-E.

-63
Fifth ... _ ... ... Opened Be-in-.i* 

1967-68 C-itVl" Sch 1
(

Daver.-ert x ;
j 354 0 -,o,| 397 3 400 355 7 362 354 14 365 303 • 1' **?/t

f ' „ ,c \ ; 552 0 562 57-3 0 543 533 0 533 536 0 536 519 0 SI 0 rr\')

Her ry f 1-6 \ Jy ! 323 0 32 235 0 235 250 0 250 294 0 294 336 ?
C re hire! ( 1-9 ) | 11.99 0 1139 1135 0 1135 1C4S 0 104S 1057 0 1057 1033 10*1?

---'-1—

Pirc** H’erMs ( 1-6 )!: . . . - —
upencci January, 
1964 (New) 370 0 370 369 0 369 365 365

— :— :—

Smith ( 1-6 ) li 601 0 601 j 553 0 553 4S3 0 488 443 0 443 405 a 405 /. n ̂ r,

T r o r t c "** i'
) i' 555 0 555 513 .0 513 434 0 434 431 0 431 3SS o 333 *>

c; - — J.---
< 1-6 ) ij

i
145 0 145 164 0 164 136 3 139 168 0 163 154 154 • / A • • r

5 ~ e r r • ^ ( 1-5 ) i : 99 0 II99 93 0 93 97 0 57 100 0 100
Closed Ere 1.-35 
Cor.solidatcd-3r

*0‘J I

C--*«S. Avo-.v o( 1-5 >!! f *)A o 524 481 0 431 372 0 372
Closed End 1964- 
(R.cllroad Rclocr. t ion)

1
. !

I*ot r Cr.2* f ) :• 155 0 155 37 0 37
Closed :ovenber

0
I5u3

...
( 7-9 •1) ii 247 0 247’j

—r.ci ivoZ-oJ 
Cor go 1 ice reel-Rivers ic’c - . . . ... . i—  i\ - “ --; -* , w v 2 0 11 692 11,722 4 11 726 11,503 si a ,659" 11,525 49 11 ,574 1 1 , 0 7 1  4 2 ::.113 10 7 ' *

~ '* —:---



/ Op.ro! 1
1969 - 7_ 

10th Dr.v O p - o Irv.ont! N V T N W
Kc-.rrr r 1 - 1 2 ) 1

l 2712 1 2713 2693 0 2693
?.iv^rr ir a t s • * 2 } lli 51 0 1451 12S9 0 17.39

! SS9 4 393 343 7 S30
Orcrrri ( 7-3 )

!
j 675 0 675 623 0 623
! 496

(6-0)
IS 514

(5-6)
442 5 447

j
! 574 0 574 561 6 567

C*r-,r:-.r ' 1 -  1 331
(1-6)

26 357
(1-4) 

344 10 354
ravsr.-rrs ' 1-5 ) 275 IS 293 255 9 264

12rr-lc::r ' '-A n 1 0 541 512 0 512
•or.ry ( 1-6 ) | 351 1 352 493 0 a

955 0 955 926 0 926

• ----  >_ - J ) 355 4 359 334 4 338
— ->• ( > 5  ) 352 0 352 323 0 323
rrorcsr. ' 1-3 ) 369 0 349 323 0 32 3
~ ^ r : c r  ' 1 - 6 ) 1 Oorsp.lt: so

••'.cs j. r 67- 
n-Hovard

oo
end

Cons oiler, tea W 
St:. Zlmo

LCn

j
— - — _ _ _ _ . . .

—  ■ •■--=»• •-* > 1 — - ____ --- . . . .

art C:-.o-*.•' 1-6 ) j| — - — _ _ _ _ _ _
j

— _ . . .

72 10,3/0 9, oil 9,322

i (47 Schools ( C r. 1-12)
1.970 - 71 

10th Dev Enroll 
I K «

’T'.CT'.t
19___ - ___

10th Dnv Zr.ro Unroot
19___ r ___

1 10th D■"*.v Zr.ro 1 !r*r.t

2552 0 2552

1195 l 1196

S35 7 342

653 0 653

309 9 393
514 9 523

301 S 339

234 9 243

471 0 471 j

376 0 376
-------------- j

. i
i

7ES 3 791 |
!

307 1 303 !

237 1 293

311 0 311
— - — •

. . . - —
i
i

. . . - —
!

. . . - . . . |
--- - . . . j

9,223 43 9 ,271 — ---- <

,2.
3/



6) 42 Schoo16 Schcols (Or. 1-3) 33 Schools (Cr. 1*4) S3 Schools (Gr. 1-

Scho

:l 19 i
||io-.h d7
1* V

V Cr.ro 1 -inn ► 19 63 - 64_
1 10th Day Enroll- 
I \’ T-’

19 6A 
10 th r-v

- - E5
Frrcllrcort

191Q 
10th Dnv

- 66
F.nro 1 Irrcnt f1 10th P

'o - c? 
■Jv np.mi

Err. ir.ord hi- n ( - ) i! 0 1373 1373
(10-12) 

0 1001 1001
1 N

0

w

1070 1070

N

0

T.»

1103
T

1 1 0 3

! >! ■ 

25 10^5 111 l
Chrttr. "i-h (1^- 12)

°
1059 1059 0 1139 1139 0 1295 1295 0 1253

j
1253 j

1030 j

!
3 5

1• ( - > !| 0
(V-Ii)

115 6 1166
( 9-12) 

0 1202 1202 (
0

9-i2) 
1204 1204 (

0
.0-12)
1030 in p? 19 r‘

rccirorh Sr. ( 7 - 9  1

1}
!i o------ r ,00 u — «> 623 0 590 5 of) 0 600 600 7 607

l----- -
33 0 £97

T\ p  I c ' . ' c c d ( 7 - 9  ) 1 1963-64 (Lev) 0 467 467 0 491 491 9 522 531 2 8 r*"0 4 9 7

( 7 - 9  > 1 (1 637 637 0 605 605 0 539 5 3 9 ! 0 530 5 ~9 9

c 7 - 9  > i 0 o n 630 0 559 559 0 5S7 537! 27 027 654 91 C-. 7 O 799
Mr. rely ( 7-9 ) | 0 c 1 1 C 11 0 546 546 0 473 47 3 j 99 440 539 21 7 0 r r% 573
Lor", ( 1-9 ) j’ 1 A 1. A 455 3 419 A22 0 461 461 5 493 493 !_2 4 5 5 4 7 7
Loo’.: oc c ( 7-? ) -------.-

1
1 0 ISO 136 0 165 165 0 14 3 14 8 j 37 149 185 5 4 210

. C’.tr.ttnr.oo" - ( 7 - 0  ) i 0 533 530 0 5S9 539 0 603 i
603 j 12 625 637 36 5 I 617

At.p.icolo. ' ( 1 - 6  > i __ . . . - 1  -----1
......... . . . — — — ____ _ — — —

Avorcl.*! I2 ( 1 - 6  >! 9 0 1 7 317 >-----i 318 170 4S3 639 18 657 629 27 655 641 ’ 9 659r - — ^
< x-6 > ! 0 5-31 561 0 543 543 0 569 569 0 547 547 0 5 : ? s * ■-

rrcv.r c 1 -6 ) j 0 * <: 5 1*> r. 0 • 0 332 332 1 319 320 2 305 303 114 2 or.
4 9 9

Coder Hill < 1 - 0 ) 1 0 3 7 T
- | 0 143 143 0 139 139 0 196 196 0 210 219

Clifton lulls < 1-6 ) I C 493 496; 0 513 513 r\ 514 514 0 516 516 12. 510 5 7 9

( 1-6 ) 1 
--------  |

0 4 34 6 24 { 3 540 543 20 523 543 21 477 1498 23 465 /O'*
< 1-6 ) | 3

i
596j

j:
0 744 74 A

—  1
0 699 699 0 623 623 0 691 £ 0 1

—  i



S:>.:3ls
i z z  z :-j_ :" .- ■95 Schoo -s (Or. 1-12) j. *t r cols (Cr. !-12> 4 7 Sr-.-- 1-12)

! 10th ~  Z-.rTTir.cnt
19

10th D
v.9 - 70 
?v Fnro 11 r»ont

: • v o’
ICO. 7\-v

- 71
3r.r3llr.-nt

19___  - ___
10th D.?v Enrollment

19___  ___
10th Onv Fr.r oVl-nn*'i N T N T >: V; T N W 7 V -

rr'i^crc Ki^h :o-i2> o o 1131 1219 170 1224 1394 134 1160 1344
c:-.-.;t.-.. Hir* ( 7.9 i

j 66 1264 1330 S3 1359 1642 141 1294 1435
( r.. ' ! 29 1079 1103 64 111S 1132 129 1039 1218

rrsir.jri Jr. ( 7-9 > I 53 621 679 61 565 626 67 521 COO 
J UO

—

Tn i“-:rrc! ( 7-9 ) i! 55 590 665 72 542 614 105 470 575
/ 7-0 ) ; ii - - * - 595 596 0 565 565 i 531 532

3.'. r, z Side ( 7-7 ) 1 1 1 o1 -- 629 74 S 113 6C6 724 130 593 723
;;rr f 7-9 ) 1 306 305 COO 334 263 652 424 19 0 615
- C ~ ~ ( 1-9 i' l r 634 C o  1 64 533 647 so 532 612
Lc* ( 7-9 >

\ 77---------- 161 223 70 147 217 59 14 S 237
N . C: ~ -tinror1"..'.( 7-9 >

1
! ci 674 735 63 744' 307 62 723 785

i- ̂ ic c Ir. ( 1-6 ) 11959-70
eginning 
(A r.r.Gxcd̂ 69 63 132 75 35 110

Avrr.clr.le ( 1-6 ) 6S3 7 690 672 5 677 660 1 641
r-.r̂ .'T ( 1-5 > 0 L  9 4 494 2 432 434 2 653 455
:r ( 1-6 i 125 243 2 53 122 236 353 121 216 337
C: -■'r ( 1-6

i
> i ! o 162 162 0 176 176 0 174 174

Cl i "tor. V.ilTn ( J — •_>
|i

17 447 4 54 IS 445 464 17 411 42S
Z.-.ru ’EM. ( 1-0

1
s 422 ' 7 r\ 7 410 417 12 332 394

( 1-6 )
I
1------------

5 4 Q
» > .

T_ 470 471 3 6 3 9 442



Schools F cr~* -r

Sc:-coi
iii 19 6
10th Dev" "p.ro 1Inert

V T
i 19 (/I 
1 10th Dev 
1 Nf

- - 7~o'~~" 
Snrollr.or.t

1970 - 71 
10th Dev Tr.ro 11 cent

r-, - * cl r. * e ( 1-6  ̂;i m s 315 423 150 261 411 234 ISO

T

414
Csrrsr <• > !l 65 253 31S 155 138 343 242 135 3 7 7

r.1 ->— /
ij

1- ;■ ) f! 150 17 177 203 7 215 246 2 243
K^lcc:: (

it:-s ) i; n o 204 314 S3 184 267 66 195 261
E>hlrnd ?or:-. ( ' ii 0 37S 373 0 o c>2 382 4 351 355
V • c <j t1 • ,% /- ) i ! 5 330 335 7 32 7 334 11 319 330
Nor--.l ?r.r : / i-6 > i! A 505 569 0 535 535 0 535 535
C.-.’: Crovc ( 1-0 ) ii 61 323 30? 66 301 357 67 237 77 A
Plr.ovillo f y!i o 131 131 0 152 152 0 153 153
Rid 7 cc c la f\ i-5. > |j 83 370 353 93 232 345 32 252 334
River-, one ( 1-0 )

Jnonce resinning 
1969-70 (Annexed) 0 554 554 0 561 561

St. Elr.o (
ii

1-1 ) !i 54 316 370 47 294 341 54 322 376
S v nr. vs ice ( 1-6 ) || 137 192 329 132 202 334 134 175 309
'.•.'orr-cro ( 1-3 > ii 2 490 492 18 505 523 22 451 473
Tote Is (

i!
::i2> il 2523 13 ,737 16,315 2999 14 ,103 17 ,102 3446 13,250 16 ,696

il}•

Creed Tote 1s .( 1-12) j!

r.ro •i.0,305 72 10,373 9331 41 9922 9223 43 9271
>.r*;';o 3 -■ - '.to ii

ii 2523 13, 727 15.315 2999 14, 103 17 102 J 3446 13.250 16 ,696T.vt.cii: ( -12; :i ,05A 13, wi * 2 j, o 9 3 12, gooT lV, 144‘ 2 7,"024“ 12,669 137253' 25 ;S67”

19___  - ___  ! 19___  -
10th Day Enrollment ! 10th Pev Erro11-ent

Z
M



C'lATTANOwJA T'JILIC SC’rO^TS 
Chattanao'V’., Tennessee

i6, io;o
TENril DAY ORGANIZATION rr.O?ESSIC"AI, STAFF ASSIGNMENTS FOR SYSTEM 3Y YEAR

?rz:o-~o ion. taif Assignments
School.*. (:;-12)

School

105A-07 - 2 j

__For.ror V.iiltc
Special

*[* o c o. 1 fi Central Grand
nrA.-'r ) For Cone I f Par Co

T I N N H
4. A | JLL <£2. 653 3.2 96.8 454 652 1106 41.0 59,0 i

22.2 9.;’.

32.6 17
6 ! ICO 54?. 652 1 (i-7ac.)

15.1 C 4 .9 !473 631

17.7

Il29_570 699 IS.4 61.6
I u-v.TT)
! 144 5o2 709 20.4. 79.6

(a-Vee.)
437 636 1123 43.4 56.6 jj 22 59

i V i>’nS r- 1 Por Cent Nonher 1 Per Cone
! N W T J-K U ’■ N W T I n

li
! 9 3 2 61 22.0 7S.0 1“ 

1
1®
 

I 
1 U
 

1

29.1 70.9
(8 -Vcc.)
19 62 on 23.5 76.5

1' (4-Vac.)
25 52 115 26.1 73.9

4.1 -Vac.) 
21 57 7 9 26. S 73.1

!■ 1-5-vv.c.)
29 74 118 28.2 71.2

(1-Vac.)
22 59 32 27.2 72.3 ;i 33 SI 118 23.9 71.1

!l

! ?*r Or.*

7̂ ?JL2Vi :il*6 11:A
3 2 ) ~ ) A 0 .2 5 0 .
- •)
5 3:22 .0.7 59..

A
3
 r



i  t . ^ i v  oCHCCLii
Chnttenoese, Tennessee

T̂ .N.,-1 D:.Y CXGANIZAilOJJ PHOTOSSX05CAL STAFF ASSIGNMENTS 2Y SCHOOLS, SPECIAL CENTERS, AND CENTRAL OFFICE EY VEAP.
r.. ; 1) Schools Former '.’e^ro Staff

School

'! 19 . • - _65_ 
i l^th Dev Enrollment

19o3 - 66 
10th Dev Enrollment

1966 - 67
1 10th Pnv Enrollment

19^/ - 6S 
10th Dav Enrollment

1965 - ol_ * r _
 ̂r» r —  r - -7TTT1 M W T N V  T I N  V T N W T N »? T

Hovere ( i ’ 2) i
0 0 111 4 115 110 6 116 97 16 113 C C 10

Fivers ide 7 - ) ! o 0
(7-12)

85 3 8S
(9-12)

61 6 67 53 9 62 52 7
A::ce Pert ( 7-9 ) !

i 0 0 37 0 37 36 1 37 32 4 36
Orch'.rd E m b  ( 7-9 )

;
0 0 29 3 32 27 4 31 25 ■ 3 :.i 23 4

E-nt ?i?rh ( - ) 0 0
(1-6)

23 1 24
(5-8)

23 7 35 26 3 34
-

23 4
I ( 1-6 > 0 0 20 0 20 19 2 21 18 3 7' 16 4

C"r - enter ( 1-/, 1 i1 -- --  - __ 13 3 16 12 3 15 10 5
Dr.ver.nert ( 1 - 6  ) 0 0 13 0 13 13 1 14 12 1 13 'I •>
Dornlesor. ( 1-6 ) ! ° 0 19 0 19 17 2 19 IS 4 22 1Z 2
Henry ( 1-6 > 1 0 0 13 0 13 11 3 14 12 2 14 12 4
Crtnr.rd Hn.cb ( 1-6 ) 1 0 ' 0 33 4 37 31 5 35 31 7. 23 20 7
Pin.ey Moods ( 1-6 ) 01------ * — ——  ------ 0 13 2 15 13 2 15 12 3 15 10 4
Sreith { 1-6 ) 0 0 16 0 16 16 0 16 16 3 19
Trotter ( 1-6 ) 0 0 14 2 16 12 2 14 10 3 13 3 5
Senders on ( 1-6 ) 0 0 7 1 8 6 1 7 Closed End 1967-do 

Dorr. Idson-’-cwrrd n^c
Cent c 1 id.! L U’i! 
S-.

Sre-r« Avennc ( 1-6 > 1 0 0
Closed End 1965-66 
Consol ica tree-Drown

. i

Chncti. Aven.no( 1-6 ) 0
Closed Er.d 1964-65 
Railroad Relocation _ _ _ — _

Tore!:; 0 0 433 20 453 413 45 455 374 69 443 _,

i )



#

o ~  =-?<:



| 19->* - u s  

! 19th Day Enrollment
10o3 - 06 

ICth Dev Enrollment
1966 

10th Dnv
- - 67
Enrollment

1957 
10th Dav

- h S
~EnrolT~ ent

19-'3
10th OrT"~ 1— £„r ,r

School N V T N W T >c w T N W *T N 7
Ere ir. 3rd hi^h (10-12) 0 0 0 45 45 3 44 47 5 49

Che etc. 1 (10-1 1) ! o 0 0 43 48 3 46 49 4 /_ r. 53
Kirh-.r.r. ^cch. ( - )

19-12)
i o

(10-12)
0 0 52 52 3 50 53 3 / 52

2rn Ivc-rd Jr. ( 7-9 > 0 0 0 27 27 2 25 27 1 26 2 7

( 7-9 ) 0 0 3 21 24 3 22 25 3 ?: e /.
2.s= L=;.a ( 7-9 ) lj 0 0 0 27 27 2 2J 26 3 r i 2 6
East Side ( 7-9 )

1
i  0 0 3 28 31 4 27 31 4 27 31

K-'.rdy ( 7-9 ) ' o 2 4 23 27 6 21 27 9 17 25
Lene ( l_rt ) ’ 1  0 0 0 21 21 2 IS 20 5 ?. 1 26
Loo'.: cut ( 7-9 ) 1 0 0 0 12 12 3 10 13 3 1 ̂
y . . Che itr.noo^a( 7-9 )

1
| 0 0 ' • 0 26 26 2 24 26 A 25 29

Ar.r.icc la ( 1-6 ) i - — -- — ... -- — Opened licj 
1969-70 (A • :aM)

Avcrc"le ( 1-6 ) 2 1 6 19 25 7 17 24 10 1 »• 26

Server ( 1-5 ) o 0 1 19 20 2 15 17 2 1 * 0
—

rro».:n ( 1-6 ) i 0 0 0 16 16 3 14 17 4 ! 2 16

Cider Mill ( 1-6 ) : o 0. 1 8 Q 1 3 9 O r, o'
Cli::?n Mills ( 1-6 ) |i 0 0 0 20 20 2 16 18 2 1 0

1
13 i

lace 7 h «211 c . r 1-6 )
i

o 0 0 13 18 2 17 19 2 16.
lr. ~ t T.r.he ( 1-6 ) 0 0 0 21 21 2 17 19 2 !S 20

rt o



rb

/



 ̂ f2) ? 2*■'.c  ̂1 s ’'or-'rr i,*hiw0 st'Tf^
i 19 54 - 63 
jlOth Dnv Enrollment

19 63 - 66 
10th Dev Ertr o 1 Inert

19 66 - 67 
10th Dev Knroll-ent

1967 - 6?_ . 
10th Pnv Enrollment

19 68 - Kft j - 7 “  
10th Dr.v EnrolIre"^ ! ' r -'•>Srhrel 1 N W T | N V.’ ? I N v; T N V  T N V T

C-.--d.- 1c ( 1-6 ) 0 0 0 18 18 2 15 17 3 13 M
Crrher ( 1-6 1 0 0 0 14 14 2 13 15 4 12 16

■

? 9 : .
Glencoe ( ’1-6 ) 0 0 O S S 1 7 8 2 6 0 4 4i

i 0 0 0 11 11 2 10 12 , 2 Q
Ki-hl.nr.d r-rV ( 1-6 ) 0 0 0 15 15 1 14 . 15 2 13 13 7 ■ 2

( 1-5 ) i  0 0 0 14 14 0 13 13 2 1 1 ' *> •o VJ »
Mr-.-1 ?rr‘.: ( 1-6 ) 0 0 0 21 21 1 20 21 3 17 23 2 n  i

Cn’-. Drove ( 1 - 6 1 i
! 0 . 0 0 17 17 3 15 18 3 13 16 1 *> 3

Pin.ovi lie ('1 - 6  )
j
i - __  __ ___ Opened DOGinnino, 

1963-69 (Annexed) 2 5 7
---------------------------------- : O

RicMel.-lc ( 1-6 )
i
i 0 0 3 16 19 2 15 17 3 13 16 4 13

•liver-or r ( 1-6 ) .i - --  .. ___ __  _ __ Opened Eeo^'ning 
1969-70 (Annexed)

—
3 1? 7

Sr. Hl-.o ( 1-6 ) 0 0 0 13 13 2 11 13 2 11 ’ 2 2 1 )
Srr.nvsido ( 1-6 ) 0 0 0 15 15 2 13 15 2 13 15 j 3 11
Aoer.nore ( 1-6 ) ! o 0 0 19 19 0 17 17 1' 15 17
Torn Is 2 3 21 632 653 70 57S 648 100 552 652 129 570

i1-------------------- _____
i

Cr. r.c Tctr.lr ( 1-12) j

0 0 433 20 453 413 45 45S 374 69 443 2 12 74 ;

2 3 21 632 653 70 573 643 1 rQ r ; / i  * • r, _ 5 7' :
454 652 1105 433 623 1106 A7A 631 1 M 3



*•£.: * .  • .A i. Vj." *.V..3

*€

Zl
 u

 I



m
r:-3 4 2

Su~r.2rv
1 Scoff Pcs 
! Assi-n

t ions 
2d 1 M rsonr.el Action 

caving Staff
Position
VacanciesLost

|.. Vo or
This
Vof j

Resign,
L/A

Trans­
fer

Number
Leaving
Staff

No. No. 
Pos. of 
+ Vac.+ Etc. Out

N _y t
or Tot.

- P os . N V N W H W T
or to 

Fill
::: ~4 426 - 7 419 34 27 22 14 fo 41 97 - 7 90

AOQ +10 _709 _2_1_ _S3_ 11 21 _52_ 104.135. +10 14 6
■SI yii 1125 + 3 112S 55 110 33 35 S3 145 233 +  3 236

Personnel Action 
Joining Staff

Sicr.cc is 1 ;:. o'. 
Negro Staff
Schools Fer.-.or 
Weir a Scoff

Trar.s- Return 
fer From
In___ L/A

Nev?
Em-
nlovees

Number
joining
Stoff

Total 
S caff 

Assigned—v. ; -

73 .  ^ .

oC

■ C Z T

i ' Year v.*irhj 
--"St v c*r f

No.
K W N V N W V V T Vac N T.»

15 4 8 0 24 37 47 41 3S . 343 74
_16_ .23_ _4_ _ 0_ _27_4,, /

47 96 J43_ 3 ,14a 5 52
_31_ 27 12 0 51 110 94 137 231 T 487 636

-U - .

4

a
v

2