Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae on the Merit and Brief Amicus Curiae for the Congress of Racial Equality

     [||ddba9bff-6565-47ba-be03-a26edd3bd2e7||] TABLE OF CONTENTS 
  

- Motion 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE ON THE MERIT : 

na FOR THE CONGRESS OF RACIAL EQUALITY sv nsnnsosvsssoseosesssnsinessens ] 

  

Brief Amicus Curiae 
  

DESCRIPTION OF THE CONGRESS OF RACIAL EQUALITY... eeevecevcoccncne 1 

BRIEF AND ARGUMENT «oc consinins sn swonsnensnvensnsendeinesesieverosioese L 

Ie Present State of the LaW.s.cvsevsttvrssinsesnsvesevsovane 

2. The "Root and Branch'' of the Public School System....... 8 

8 (a) An analysis of the dual (segregated) school system 

(b) Some considerations for establishing a unitary 
SYS LBM sens svosnesnsstevsssssesvrionsssssesneses ves 11 

(c) A plan to disestablish segregation in the Mobile 
. schools, Root and Branch, and to establish two 

non=-discriminatory, non-racially exclusive 
Unitary SCHOO] districts. .uusvsssnvvssvsssnssoveneee 12 

3. Racial Dispersal Should Not Be Held to Be a 
Constitutional Requirement Per S€......ceeeveveceescevnes Ii 

(a) Arguments made in support of a constitutional 
requirement of racial dispersal in the schools 

are A RC IOUS vente vss srsnenscues toiemsnsitomerisees 14 

(b) Any argument that integration is a constitutional 
requirement suggests the legitimation of the 

inferior status of BACKS oc ao nins ant snevsinienins oneness 16 

(c) The results of attempts to enforce by law 
racial dispersal in the schools are often 
COUNT PrOGUCE IVR, corr svsvsstnrsnsnssseneneesesesen 17 

(d) Establishment of a constitutional requirement of 
racial dispersal in the public schools would fore=~ 
close other developments in the evolution of public 
school education which might prove desirable from 

- an educational point of view as well as for other 

PCASONS coos ens vests rssasns sts ss tosses sseesiesseeeseesesee 21 

CONC LS ON. ess v stones bnsnnninssvesot onsets tnsa estan ron vir erres 23 

 



  

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
Page 

Cases 

Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 
U.S. 19 CTO00) ue vnensssastrteatns vaswssesesnsriesssrsscasinerios 5,7,8,11 

  

Birdie Mae Davis, et al, v. Board of School Commissioners 
of Mobile County, et al. LE BE BE BE BN BE BE BE EE BE BE BE BE EN BE BE BN BE BE BE BE BN BE BN BE BN BN BE BN BE BN BE BN BE BN BN BN BN 2,3 (Motion) 

  

  

Brown V, Board of Education eevecvscooe e000 ers seecss ees o00000RO0Oe 3.5,7,8,11, 

14,16,17 
5 (Motion) 

  

/ 

Brown v. South Carolina State Board of mismablon 
  

  

  

  

  

  

296 F.Supp, 199° 0.8.0, CIOOB). cvsneronnsonssensorne PENNS LE, 
-=-Affirmed 393 U.S. 222 (1968)... RE Si eR. INP 

Carter v., West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 
0.5. 200 {1970}... .veeves feat vases ninnsebesin cent us Gade naib eeveien 2 (Motion), 3 

Green v. County School Board of Kent County, 
391 U.S. 430, L38-439,442 (1968)..cccvveeene oe bene a oe soinneinn 5,7, F] 

Griffin v. School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 234 (1964) ..eeeeeeene.. “iB 

Louisiana Financial Assistance Commission v,. 

Poindexter, 389 U.S. 571 (1968) ..00000.. BE eee aE 18 
Se AFfirming, 275 F.Supp. "833 (E.D. La. SNOB dav ih ans 18 
  

Northcross v. Board of Education of Memphis, 397 U.S. 

232 (1970).. Oe e000 0000 eo eo 00 ® © 0 00 0 00 08 00 0000000 0° OP OPE OOO OS OCEOEOISOSE 6 

  

Norwalk CORE v. Norwalk Board of Education, 423 F. 2nd 
  

127 CIG70) cu envvsnnines SO hp eee lee SL SER 2,3(Motion), 3 

Pierce v, Society of Sisters, 268 U,S., 510 (1925). cuvecsvussssnes 18 
  

Plessy v. Ferquson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)..... RP LAIN I TR Civenn 4,5 
  

Miscel laneous 
  

Coleman Report ® ® 00 0 00 0 00 ® 00 00 0 00 8 0800 000000 S OOOO OPS Oe OOS OBPRE OE OPOODS 14,15,16,20 

BOWIES ANG LEV IIT i cvs mins oie sees vane nvioinnevee ve sins svete yinivsio se see 15 

 



IN THE 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

October Term, 1970 

No. 281 

JAMES E. SWANN, et al., 

Petitioners, 

VS, 

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., 
Respondents. 

(Including Consolidated Cases) 
  

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 

  

MOTION OF THE CONGRESS OF RACIAL EQUALITY FOR LEAVE 
TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE ON THE MERITS 

  

The Congress of Racial Equality respectfully applies to this 

Court for leave to file a brief as an amicys curiae in the above= 

entitled action pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 3, of Rule 42 

of this Court's rules on the following grounds: 

I. Consent to the applicant's filing of a brief amigys has not 

been received from either the petitioners or the respondents as of the 

filing date, 

2. The Congress of Racial Equality is a non-partisan, nationwide 

organization of American citizens of various backgrounds, professions 

and occupations, having member chapters in various states. All CORE  



members are dedicated to the principle of racial equality and religious 

and political freedom. CORE was first organized in 1942 in Chicago, 

‘Illinois, and is dedicated to the principles of non-violent techniques. 

The purpose of the organization is to aid in furthering and effectuat- 

ing the constitutional guarantees as to personal and group political 

liberties. 

The national policy is set by CORE's national convention. The 

National Action Council carries out planning and decides questions of 

policy that arise between conventions, with the assistance from a 

National Advisory Committee. In addition to other constitutional 

techniques, CORE seeks to advance its objectives by participation as 

an amicus curiae in litigation involving its proposal for the establish= 
  

ment of community school districts. 

3. CORE has a history of involvement in school cases throughout 

the country, South and North. No. 944, Carter v. West Feliciana Parish 
  

School Board, 396 U.S. 290 (1970), Norwalk CORE v. Norwalk Board of 
  

  

Education, 423 F. 2d 121 (1970), etc., and tangentially in 
  

Birdie Mae Davis, et al, v, Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 
  

County, et al. 

In Mobile, Alabama, CORE, along with its local affiliate, Step 

Toward Educational Progress, Inc. (S.T.E.P.), introduced to the school 

board of Mobile County an innovative desegregation plan, It is be- 

lieved that this plan can meet with a broader spectrum of agreement 

among citizens of Mobile, in the Black and White communities, than any 

other desegregation plan offered or suggested by the petitioners or 

respondents in this case, Before this thesis could be tested by  



referendum or by lower court action, the Mobile school case, Birdie Mae 
  

Davis, et al, v, Board, supra, was called up by this Court. 
  

In Norwalk CORE v. Norwalk Board of Education, supra., CORE con=- 
  

tended that the school board's desegregation plan was unconstitutional 

because certain benefits are derived from a school in one's neighbor- 

hood and an integration plan that closed Black schools and not White 

ones discriminates invidiously against the Black community in the dis= 

tribution of those benefits; and there are certain burdens involved in 

busing school children and any plan that causes Blacks to 'bus' and 

not Whites discriminates invidiously and unnecessarily against the 

Black community in the distribution of those burdens, 

The NAACP opposed the CORE contentions, but was denied entrance 

as an intervenor in this case because the Court held that their posi= 

tion was substantially the same as the school board's (the defendant). 

L, Reason for submission of brief 

Petitioner's brief has not been received. Movant's National 

Council has spent a substantial amount of time in studying available 

documents in the instant case, as well as relevant authorities, in=- 

cluding social science data, etc. On the basis of such studies and 

conversations between counsel for several of the companion cases, the 

movant has reason to believe that some questions of law of relevance 

to the issue herein will not be fully covered in either the respond- 

ent's or the petitioner's brief. 

CORE believes that, in addition to precedents in the desegrega- 

tion cases, there are fundamental alternatives available for con= 

sideration by the Court. In recent years CORE, through its National  



Advisory Committee and local chapters, has observed the public school 

systems in the North and the South at first hand. These observations, 

in addition to discussions with parents, teachers, school administrators, 

community leaders and others substantiate CORE's bel ief that a community 

school district structured along natural, geographic lines is the best 

possible way of destroying segregation and insuring equal education 

for children, irrespective of race or religion. 

CORE has prepared ''A True Alternative to Segregation, A Proposal 

for Community School Districts: A Preliminary Proposal,'' dated 

February 1970 (Exhibit A attached) which states inter alia: 
  

School segregation is a system designed and structured to 
serve the needs of Whites at the expense of Black pupils. 
When normal standards of educational excellence are applied 
to Black schools under segregation, it becomes clear that 
they are inferior to White schools. 

CORE's 1970 national convention, held in Mobile, Alabama, 

September 3-7, passed resolutions expressing fear of the emergence of 

a unique type of segregation growing out of the attempts of local 

school boards to comply with desegregation orders, whether in '‘good 

faith' or not. This phenomenon, de facto segregation in actuality, 

has been occurring whether by conscious or unconscious design. The 

CORE resolutions observed that integration plans as presently designed 

and implemented have not worked to satisfy the end ordered by this 

Court to satisfy the constitutional requirement of equality. This is 

also true of plans designed by the Department of Health, Education 

and Welfare and approved by the lower courts. The atmosphere of crisis 

being created by these integration plans, many of which we view as 

de facto segregation plans, are creating conditions destructive to the  



  

learning process of both Black and White children. 

CORE accordingly believes that there are alternatives to simple 

school integration in many districts and that the alternatives in many 

communities may be more desirable under Brown in opposition to the 

reasons given by the respondent, 

this Court's consideration. 

These alternatives are worthy of 

It has not been feasible to present the instant motion at an 

earlier date due to the necessity for first determining respondent's 

proposed arguments, 

It is respectfully requested on the above grounds that this 

application for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae be granted. 

Respectfully submitted 

UNE 
Attorney for Movant = 
  

October 12, 1970 

Charles S. Conley 
315 South Bainbridge Street 
Montgomery, Alabama 36104 

Solomon S. Seay, Jr. 
352 Dexter Avenue 
Montgomery, Alabama 36104 

William C. Chance 

200 West 135th Street 

New York, New York 10030 

Floyd B. McKissick 
L14 West 149th Street 
New York, New York 

Charles S. Scott 

724 1/2 Kansas Street 
Topeka, Kansas 

  

CONGRESS OF RACIAL EQUALITY 

 



IN THE 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

October Term, 1970 

No. 281 

JAMES E. SWANN, et al., 
Petitioners, 

VS. 

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., 

Respondents. 

(Including Consolidated Cases) 
  

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 

  

BRIEF FOR THE CONGRESS OF RACIAL EQUALITY (CORE) 
AS AMICUS CURIAE 
  

The Congress of Racial Equality (hereinafter referred to as CORE) 

is a national organization working for the eradication of every vestige 

of racial discrimination in American life. It was founded for this 

purpose twenty-eight years ago when James Farmer and a small group of 

fellow Americans sought to apply Ghandian principles to the American 

racial situation, 

The first action of this dedicated band of idealists took the form 

of a sit-in at a lunch counter in Chicago, The success of this action 

encouraged similar action in other areas, and CORE was soon on its way 

to becoming the major organization that it is today,  



CORE is a federation of chapters in cities throughout the country. 

Chapters undertake local projects as well as participate in projects 

on the national level. National policy is set by the national conven- 

tion. The National Action Council carries out planning and sets policy 

between conventions, with the assistance of a National Advisory 

Committee. 

During its early period, CORE's direct action techniques were 

based on the concept that moral suasion alone could achieve the desired 

goal of the organization. The sit-in and the picket line thus became 

its hallmark, and its members became known for their courage, their 

tough idealism, and their willingness to undertake any project in the 

interest of justice no matter what the risks to their persons. 

The direct action strategy Was used in any and all areas where 

discrimination was to be found, but it was in the area of public ac=- 

commodation that the organization was most spectacularly successful. 

Participants in the famous Greensboro sit-ins which set the stage for 

similar sit-ins throughout the South and parts of the North, were 

trained by CORE workers. The Freedom Rides of the early 1960's gained 

worldwide recognition for the organization and firmly established it 

as one of the leaders in the fight for equality in America. 

The dramatic sit-ins and Freedom Rides organized and conducted by 

CORE had tangible results in civil rights legislation, in desegregating 

public facilities, and in opening up jobs in many areas, 

A reassessment of its programs and strategies in the mid=1960's 

indicated to the organization that it had been consistently and 

decidedly rebuffed in its assaults on discrimination in housing and  



education. It became apparent that new strategies would have to be 

devised to deal with the entrenched nature of discrimination and racism 

in those areas. 

Aside from its obvious importance in the quest for equality, educa- 

tion was seen as the area to which new strategies could most feasibly 

and profitably be applied. The organization has therefore concentrated 

a major portion of its resources in the field of education over the 

past number of years. Its concern and its programs in this area as 

well as its long support for Brown v. Board of Education are a matter 
  

of public record. CORE has fully supported the mandate of Brown, as 

evidenced by its involvement in various court cases. Its deep involve- 

ment in Carter v. West Feliciana Parish Board of Education, for example, 
  

is an indication of how far back and how deep its involvement in educa- 

tion has been. (Carter was a case for disestablishment of segregation 

by means of integration.) CORE has never been dogmatic about the 

means of obtaining its goal of equality for all Americans. 

In Norwalk CORE v. Norwalk Board of Education, 423 F. 2d 121 (1970), 
  

CORE argued against an integration plan, stating that there are certain 

benefits to the neighborhood schools, and it therefore opposed the 

closing of the Black neighborhood school, in the interest of integra- 

tion, because it placed the burden of integration on Black children 

while White children retained whatever benefits accrued from the neigh- 

borhood school. Moreover, the busing of children to facilitate integra- 

tion placed the entire burden of busing on Black children. 

CORE's experience and periodic reassessment of its methods of 

achieving its goals have caused it to question if in fact integration  



in every case is the most practicable or most desirable means of ob=- 

taining equal education for Black Americans. Field experiences and 

each successive court case in which it has been involved as either 

amicus curiae or as plaintiff cast doubts as to the universal worka- 
  

bility of integration as a pathway to equality. 

CORE's present involvement in Mobile, Alabama, centers on attempts 

to bring about desegregation by the creation of two unitary school 

districts) One large community which happens to be predominantly 

Black would constitute a school district; the other district would be 

predominantly White. CORE plans to file a court case in Mobile were 

interrupted by the consolidation of five school cases by this Court. 

Our efforts were then concentrated on filing this amicus curiae, 
  

CORE strongly believes that there are alternatives to school in=- 

tegration in many districts and that these alternatives are legal and 

viable. Neither of the litigants nor the Government represents the 

point of view of a significant segment of the Black community, which 

we feel deserves the hearing and the consideration of this Court. It 

is for that reason we file this amicus curiae. 
  

BRIEF AND ARGUMENT 
  

PRESENT STATE OF THE LAW AND QUESTIONS 
  

In the field of public education, the opinions of the Supreme Court 

over the last seventy years manifest the Court's concern with the fun- 

damental question of the means of delivering to all Americans the con= 

stitutionally guaranteed end of equal protection under the law. 

In Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), the Court ruled that 
  

  

cee Exhibits A and B.  



segregated, but equal facilities were a valid means by which the con- 

stitutional end--equal protection=-=could be fulfilled. 

For fifty-eight years the means affirmed by Plessy dominated court 

rulings throughout the land. In rejecting this doctrine in Brown |, 

this Court ruled that legally imposed separation is unconstitutional, 

and condemned Plessy as an unacceptable means of delivering to Black 

Americans the end of equal protection. 

In Brown Il, this Court ordered the disestablishment of segrega- 

tion-~legally enforced separation--and stated that local authorities 

have the affirmative duty to employ other means of complying with the 

constitutional requirement. 

The post-Brown opinions of this Court in the main dealt with the 

resistance of local authorities to its order to disestablish "root and 

branch'' the pattern of segregation. The Court's rulings manifest in- 

creasing impatience with the lack of ''good faith'' displayed by local 

authorities and with their resistance to such means as will guarantee 

the end required by the Constitution. 

Fifteen years after Brown, Court rulings permit no further delays. 

"The obligation of every school district [emphasis added] is to ter- 

minate dual school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter 

only unitary schools." Griffin v. School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 234 
  

(1964); Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 
  

L30, 438-439, L42 (1968); Alexander v. Holmes County Board, 396 U.S. 
  

19 (1969). 

Since Brown rejected the means affirmed by Plessy, the order of 

the day may be said to be the identification and implementation of  



such alternative means as would most ''effectively' and at the "earliest 

practicable date'' lead to the ends required by the Constitution=-one 

non-discriminatory, unitary school system within each and every school 

district. 

On March 9, 1970, in Northcross v. Board of Education of Memphis, 
  

397 U.S. 232 (1970), noting that ''other issues may emerge'' [emphasis 
  

added] Chief Justice Burger posed the issue of means clearly when he 

asked for further argument to resolve several questions: 

Whether as a constitutional matter, any particular racial 
balance must be achieved in the schools; to what extent 
school districts and zones may or must be altered as a 
constitutional matter; and to what extent transportation 
may or must be provided to achieve the ends sought by 
prior holdings of the Court. 

We respectfully suggest that inherent in the Chief Justice's first 

question is a three-part question, namely: 

(a) Is the constitutional mandate to disestablish school 

segregation a mandate to establish school integration? 

(b) If the answer to (a) is no: Is racial dispersal a possible 

legal means of fulfilling the constitutional mandate? 

And assuming the answer to (b) is yes: When and/or where 

integration is the most ''effective'' means and the means 

that can be achieved at the '‘earliest practicable date," 

is integration then mandated to fulfill the ends required 

by the Constitution? 

We further suggest that the following two=part question is in=- 

herent in the second question posed by the Chief Justice:  



(a) May or must local school attendance areas and other local 

school administrative units be altered to achieve con- 

stitutionally mandated ends? 

(b) May or must state school districts be altered to achieve 

constitutional ends? 

We respectfully submit that this Court has established that what 

the Constitution does mandate is equality under the law (Brown, Green, 
  

Alexander). And further, that the Constitution does not mandate   

specific means, per se, to attain that end (Green). The only means 

the Constitution has proscribed is segregation (Brown I). In general, 

where and/or when a means is the most ''effective' pathway and the one 

that can attain the constitutionally required end at the "earliest 

practicable date,'' then that means is mandated; and specifically, 

where and/or when integration (racial dispersal) satisfies these cri- 

teria, it is mandated, and not otherwise. 

In the past this Court has ordered the federal courts to inter=- 

vene directly to bring about constitutionally required ends where and 

when state or local officials have displayed non-compliance or lack of 

good faith, 

When and where within an existing district a significantly large 
  

group of citizens is denied their right to equal protection under the   

law and where the alteration of school district lines is the most 

"effective'' pathway toward achieving the constitutional requirement at 

the ''earliest practicable date,! in order to grant them those ends 

guaranteed by the Constitution-=the right to attend a non-discriminatory, 

unitary school system==alteration of district lines should be mandated.  



Fifteen years ago, this Court suggested the ''revision of school dis= 

tricts and attendance areas'' to facilitate constitutionally mandated 

ends (Brown 11). 

2, THE "ROOT AND BRANCH'' OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 
  

(a) An analysis of the dual (segregated) school system 
  

This brief strongly supports the judicial holding that there must 

be a unitary school system within every school district (Alexander). 
  

We respectfully suggest that it would aid the resolution of the problem 

confronting the Court in Brown and still confronting it today to define 

the ''unitary and dual systems'' in the context of the true nature of 

the public educational establishment. 

A dual school system may be defined as the case where, overtly 

or covertly, in one state school district one board of education main- 

tains control of two school systems with racial exclusivity. 

The Court has correctly declared that a unitary system is the 

antithesis of a dual school system: 

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. Alexander, supra. 
  

The dual (segregated) system must be viewed not simply in terms 

of spatial relationships, but primarily in light of existing socio=- 

econo=political dynamics, 

The problem is not simply that Blacks and Whites attend different 

schools. A look at dual (segregated) school systems, whether de jure 

or de facto, will show that they generally have, aside from attendance  



of White and Black pupils at different schools, three common character= 

istics which make segregation the obnoxious and unconstitutional system 

that it is. 

The first of these is that Whites set Blacks apart, by law or in 

fact, without their choice or consent. This constitutes the arbitrary 

imposition of authority from without. The act of Whites telling Blacks 

what schools they can or cannot attend stigmatizes Blacks and imposes 

intolerable restraints on their constitutional rights. 

Secondly, the local school board, usually all White or predomi- 

nantly White, exercises control over both White and Black schools and 

favors the White schools. The school board enjoys a more intimate re- 

lationship with the White community and White parents than it does with 

the Black community and Black parents. It is more sensitive to their 

problems, their needs and aspirations than it is to those of Blacks. 

This deprives Black educators and pupils of much-needed support from 

the policy makers and managers of the schools and literally guarantees 

the failure of the Black school to achieve excellence in education. 

A positive relationship between parents and those who govern the school 

is one of the most important factors affecting the quality of schools. 

Under segregation, Black parents have not enjoyed that kind of 

relationship. 

Finally, the local school board systematically deprives Black 

schools of resources. The money allotted by law to each and every 

school district when received by the local board is directed as the 

local board sees fit, Traditionally, part of the money intended for 

Black schools has been directed by the local board to White schools.  



In short, it is the local school board, the dispenser and regu- 

lator of money, rewards, good will, and other benefits==''tangible' and 

""intangible''=-which makes Black schools inferior. Under segregation, 

Blacks have been locked into a system over which they exercise no con= 

trol, for which they have no responsibility and for which they are 

powerless to effect meaningful change. 

When segregation is placed in its proper context and defined in 

terms of who manages and controls the schools, it becomes apparent that 

the chief characteristic of a segregated school system=-the imposition 

of oppressive outside authority--makes de facto dual systems in one 

district no less unconstitutional than formerly de jure dual systems 

in that district. 

Now, if we ponder the question, what is the full structure and 

true nature of the educational establishment; i.e., what is a school 

district, what is a school system, what is a school board, and what 

are the components of them; i.e., what is the faculty, what is the 

student body, what is the physical structure? And if we ask: What 

is the dynamic relationship between them; e.g., how do they function 

together to guarantee the constitutional end of equality, then should 

not a test of equality be applied to that establishment, to part and 

whole, to root and branch? 

In light of this construct, how should different ''communities of 

educational interest' satisfy their legitimate educational needs? 

Should that process be subject to equal protection? Does not this 

construct bear implications as to what constitutes a non=discriminatory, 

non=exclusionary unitary school system? Does this not suggest the need  



for a fundamental restructuring, not of the ''branches''-~the Black 

schools, but of the '‘root''-=the districts and the school boards, which 

represent the needs of the majority ''community of educational interest." 

Is it not then reasonable to suggest that the surest measure of 

how much Blacks can trust any school system to give their children an 

education equal to that of Whites is how much actual==not illusionary=-=- 

opportunity to effect change and elicit responsiveness from that system 

exists, Does this not suggest that whatever is proposed to replace 

segregation must be measured also in terms of how much control is held 

by the Black community itself. This is a necessary guide to deter- 

mining the potential success of any proposed new means. 

(b) Some considerations for establishing a unitary system 
  

The following is a minimal definition of a unitary school system: 

A state school district in which one board of education main- 
tains and controls one school system, that does not dis= 
criminate racially and is not racially exclusive (Brown, 
Green, Alexander). 
  

As this Court is well aware, too many school districts which have 

complied ''on paper'' with desegregation orders don't afford Blacks even 

a semblance of equal protection. In some cases this is so as a result 

of bad faith on the part of local authorities. (See Appendix A, pp. 

5-6.) We would submit that in other cases all the good faith on God's 

earth would still result in injury to Blacks, The latter case may 

involve the attempts to establish a version of a unitary plan which 

doesn't take account of several realities. 

Viewed from the previous analyses of the dual school system other 

considerations must be examined in establishing unitary systems if we  



are to be offered equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment: 

ii The fact that Blacks are a valid special-interest group with 

needs that are unique. 

The fact that wherever there exists a sizeable Black community 

Blacks constitute a ''community of educational interest. 

The fact that Black communities are increasingly and ever more 

clearly demanding the opportunity to fulfill their educa- 

tional interests and not have them always subordinated to the 

White ''community of educational interest. 

The fact that equal education implies more than just sharing 

equal physical space with Whites in the same classroom, with 

the same teacher, or sharing the same principal. Equal 

education further implies opportunity equal to Whites to 

structure curriculum, to equal access to all available re= 

sources, and to equal access to and equal representation 

among school policy makers and managers. 

The fact that an integrated setting can be as potentially 

damaging psychologically as a segregated setting. To assume 

that integration cures all the evils of segregation does not 

take into account the essentially racist character of American 

society which the National Advisory Commission on Civil Dis= 

orders affirmed. 

(c) A plan to disestablish segregation in the Mobile schools, Root 
and Branch, and to establish two non=discriminatory, non=- 
racially exclusive unitary school districts 

  

  

  

Mobile County, Alabama, is a relatively large southern urban=rural  



area, not unlike Charlotte, N. C., with a population of over 300,000 

people in a Black/White ratio of 40/60 percent. The school district, 

whose boundary is coterminous with the county's, has a public school 

population of approximately 70,000 Black and White students in a 40/60 

percent ratio. Two non-gerrymandered communities-=natural sociological 

units=-=one Black and one White, but not exclusively so, can be easily 

discerned. 

To desegregate the Mobile County dual school system, we propose 

that: The Mobile County school district be restructured (reappor- 

tioned) along natural community lines; so that each ''community of edu=- 

cational interest' would constitute a bona fide state school district; 

so that where one state school district formerly existed there would 

be two state school districts, equal in rights, privileges, duties, 

obligations, authority, and power to each other and to any other 

district in the State of Alabama. That this should be initiated by 

the petitioning "community of educational interest'' when it has been 

discriminated against invidiously. That this should be done when it 

has been determined, by petition and/or referendum, that this is the 

desired option (means) for that ''community of educational interest" 

to satisfy and guarantee its constitutional rights in the field of 

education. That any student who wishes to pursue educational aims in 

the other (old) district be allowed to do so, and vice versa. That 

each of the districts (new and old) operate a unitary, non-racially 

exclusive, non-discriminatory school system. That the managing board 

(board of education) of the new district be elected by its residents. | 

  

Yeo Exhibits A and B.  



      
3. RACIAL DISPERSAL SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO BE A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIRE= 
MENT PER SE.       

       

  

(a) Arguments made in support of a constitutional requirement of 
racial dispersal in the schools are fallacious. 
  

  

      

  

Distinction between what is required by the Constitution and de- 

    
    

        
    
     

       
    
     

  

sirable as a matter of policy must be maintained. What is unconstitu= 

tional is not the clustering together of people, whether voluntarily 

or as a result of the workings of impersonal social factors, but the 

forced separation of people by the state along racial, or even ethnic 

or religious lines, or invidious discriminations imposed upon people 

by the state on the basis of differences in their social, economic, 

and political conditions. 

Another contention that is made in support of the proposition that 

the Constitution requires racial dispersal begins with the remark by 

this Court in Brown that racial segregation in the schools results in 

       
     
    
    
       

        

     
   
    
     

inherently unequal educational opportunities. This statement, it is 

said, has been subsequently substantiated by the Coleman Report, which 

shows an inequality in educational opportunities whenever there is 

forced racial separation in the schools, whether the separation is 

imposed by law as segregation or not. 

But the remark of the Court in Brown must be understood in context. 

The Court found legally segregated education to be inherently unequal, 

because it imposed a stigma, and because in dual school systems which 

results from it, the Black part of the system was, overtly or covertly, 

    but always systematically, short-changed. As for the Coleman Report, 

    its data show a measurable, if not a very substantial, improvement in 
  

the education of Black children in 'integrated'' as opposed to forced



racially separated (segregated) situations. But whether what was 

measured was a difference between the education of Black children 

one and the other situation, or a difference between the learning 

capacity of middle-class as opposed to lower-class Black children in 

a particular kind of learning experience is uncertain. (See Bowles 

and Levin,) If the latter, then the Coleman data are irrelevant on 

the issue of whether racial dispersal (integration) is required by the 

Constitution. Moreover, even if relevant, the Coleman data, on 

Or. Coleman's own interpretation of them, show only that Black lower= 

class children integrated into a White middle=class school, and in=- 

tegrated into it in percentages not exceeding the neighborhood of 

30 percent, show better educational results. (It is reasonable to 

assume that the same results would obtain if White lower-class chijl= 

dren were to be integrated into a Black middle-class school.) 

Dr. Coleman makes no claims of educational improvement for random 

racial dispersal, without regard to socio-economic class in the re=- 

ceiving school, or without regard to percentages. If a constitutional 

requirement were to be based on the Coleman Report, therefore, it 

would have to be not a requirement simply of racial dispersal, or of 

reflecting in each school the racial composition of a school system 

as a whole, which of course may run well beyond Dr. Coleman's pre= 

ferred percentages, but a requirement of dispersal in the school sys=- 

tem in stated percentages of pupils by socio-economic class as well as 

race. That would be an enormous undertaking to base on the somewhat 

slender and arguable findings of a single work of social research. 

(The interpretation of the Coleman Report in terms of racial  



mixing has subtle racist implications that should be carefully noted. 

There is no suggestion that White pupils showed improvement in the 

situation studied. Rather, Black pupils are the supposed beneficiaries 

of exposure to White pupils.) 

The Coleman Report hints at an important observation: That change 

in a school ("community of educational interest'') caused by a shift 

in the student population of more than 30 percent results in a decrease 

in the general educational performance of the students in that school. 

One can assume that ''community of educational interest'' can absorb a 

limited amount of change before it becomes unstable. Also, that 

stability of an ''educational community of interest'' is a factor in 

educational achievement. If a new look at Coleman's data and additional 

research can support this theory, then: What are the implications for 

movement toward integration as opposed to movement toward community 

control of schools==both non=discriminatory, non-racially exclusive== 

when and where there exists a choice? Is there a link between the 

failure of Black schools under segregation and the fact that the Black 

community doesn't control their schools? Shouldn't social scientists 

explore further Coleman's suggestion that pupils learn in proportion 

to their feeling of security and control over their environment? 

(b) Any argument that integration is a constitutional requirement 
suggests the legitimation of the inferior status of Blacks. 
  

  

In 1954, this Court in Brown held that segregation of schools 

when mandated by law created conditions which made the education ob=- 

tained by Black children '"inherently' unequal. The correctness of 

that ruling is not at issue. Clearly, the stigma which attaches when  



invidious mandatory discrimination is imposed is one which creates 

scars which are impossible to remove. It is one thing, however, to 

proscribe legal segregation and its effects, and another to require 

racial dispersal as a constitutional command. 

To argue that a school in which the vast majority of children are 

Black-=where this condition did not arise by invidious operation of 

law==is by its very nature inferior, is to validate the very condition 

which Brown sought to remove. Such an approach suggests that only 

when Blacks are in the presence of Whites can they be truly equal, 

This approach==-at the very least--implies that Black children cannot 

prosper educationally even if all other conditions are truly on a par 

with those prevailing in White schools. Of course, to be truly on 

par, each group would have to control its educational environment. 

Voluntary separation and separation arising out of the operation 

of market forces are not the same thing as enforced separation. There 

is no evidence to the effect that an inferior education must by 

necessity result from the former one. 

(c) The results of attempts to enforce by law racial dispersal 
in the schools are often counter=productive. 
  

  

A constitutional rule that the dispersal of racial and socio= 

economic groups throughout school systems is required would, of course, 

not be enforced under laboratory conditions. The attempt to enforce 

it would have to be made, rather, under social, economic, and political 

conditions prevailing in the United States today, and within the 

established legal order in the United States today. There is ample 

evidence that the middle class in the United States, among whom the 

17  



dispersal of other groups would be required to take place, shies away 

from schools in which its children are not the dominant or even over- 

whelming majority; it flees schools in which lower-class Blacks con- 

stitute more than 25 or 30 percent of the student body. This is the 

phenomenon of resegregation which has been strikingly evident throudhes 

out the country, particularly in urban areas, most strikingly, for 

example, in cities like Washington, D. C., Atlanta, Baltimore, 

Cleveland, but evident as well in some rural areas and in medium- 

‘s+zed. Northern cities, as for example New Haven, Connecticut. 

We are not dealing here with.ordinary or overt racism; racism 

is only one component of the phenomenon==racism is unlawful only when 

it is institutionalized and state-supported. We are not dealing with 

unlawful resistance to the law of the land, or resistance that could 

readily be made unlawful. We are dealing with a social fact, and with 

the exercise by countless people of established legal rights that this 

Court is not likely to deprive them of. Taking refuge from desegrega- 

tion in thinly disguised so=called private schools which are in truth 

publicly supported has been declared unlawful, to be sure (Louisiana 
  

Financial Assistance Commission v, Poindexter, 389 U.S. 571 [1968], 
  

affirming, 275 F. Supp. 833 [E.D. La., 1967]; Brown v. South Carolina 
  

  

State Board of Education, 296 F. Supp. 199 [D.S.C., 1968], affirmed, 
  

393 U.S. 222 [1968].) But the right as such to withdraw from the 

public schools and attend a parochial or other genuine private school 

is constitutionally protected. (See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 
  

268 U.S. 510 [1925].) And the right to change residence is surely 

unquestionable, The exercise of these rights is a major cause of  



public school children being Black and poor in major cities and even 

in many smaller cities of the United States. 

Paradoxically, residential separation does not create '‘racially 

isolated'' schools necessarily; many attempts at integrating the schools 

racially creates residential separation. The argument from these facts 

is merely that by and large, under present conditions, the goal is 

unattainable and the attempt to attain it achieves the opposite result. 

It may be conceded that as we enlarge the geographic area over which 

any single attempt to attain the goal of racial dispersal is made, the 

possibility of success in attaining it increases. In theory, at any 

rate, the fleeing middle-class Whites can be pursued into the suburbs, 

however distant, into which they have fled. But private schools still 

constitute a protected refuge. For this and other reasons its success 

is still problematic. What is most important, transportation of 

children over really substantial distances would incur very high 

costs, not only material, but very likely in educational terms and in 

terms of coercively running counter to the wishes of Black parents as 

well as the White ones whose children would need to be transported. 

The upsurge of racial pride in the Black community has made Black 

parents increasingly reluctant to chase White middle-class parents 

fleeing to the suburbs. Racial dispersal in the schools under present 

conditions in the United States cannot be regarded as simply a de=- 

sirable goal which it may cost some money to attain, but which is not 

seriously in competition with other goals that may as a matter of 

constitutional law and of public policy in general be regarded as 

equally desirable, The truth is that other desirable goals are  



seriously competitive with the objective of racial dispersal. When 

this Court set the constitutional goal of abolishing legally enforced 

racial separation (segregation), it stated a moral imperative which in 

the eyes of men of good will and in light of the purposes of the 

Fourteenth Amendment clearly rose above all other competing considera= 

tions. Indeed, the competing considerations consisted entirely of 

material costs--money and inconvenience=--and of offense to the preju= 

dices of some people who insisted on treating other people invidiously, 

The same might be said--and even so, not as unqualifiedly=-=of racial 

dispersal if it were possible in the United States today to achieve it 

successfully over moderate distances, or even if it were true that 

White middle-class people will flee a school in which Black lower-class 

children constitute more than a certain percentage only because they 

are infected with racial prejudice. The Coleman Report seeks to demon=- 

strate that after a certain percentage tipping point, there is a 

deterioration of the educational situation from the point of view of 
  

White middle-class educational objectives, which may not be the only 
  

legitimate ones, but which are, for Whites, assuredly legitimate. 

Moreover, not everyone's educational needs and aspirations are the 

same, and our Constitution protects the right of any given group to 

obtain its particular educational objectives-~hence, the protected 

position of the parochial and other private schools. So unlike the 

disestablishment of legally enforced separation, integration in the 

schools is at best a legitimate approach competing with other legiti=- 

mate approaches. In some places at some times it may be workable 

without serious damage to the other goals, and then we may well think  



it should be tried. In most places at this time a high price must be 

paid in terms of the other goals. We have suggested here that for a 

large minority like Black people in the United States, there may be 

competing approaches to the goal of desegregation which may be as good 

or better as those of integration. 

(d) Establishment of a constitutional requirement of racial dis- 
persal in the public schools would foreclose other developments 
in the evolution of public school education which might prove 
desirable from an educational point of view as well as for 

other reasons. 

  

  

  

  

  

Though the word is overused, it is fair to say that the public 

schools in the United States are in crisis. At any rate, they are, 

like so much else, in ferment, and ready for many changes and reforms. 

Over the past few decades in many parts of the country, there has 

been structurally a movement toward consolidation, toward enlargement 

and centralization of school systems, rendering them less and less 

subject to the control of, and more and more removed from, the community 

and the family. But a counter trend is now also in being, toward con- 

trol of schools in relatively much smaller districts by cohesive, con=- 

cerned communities. Such communities must be self-defining, strictly 

on a voluntary basis, so that any family not wishing to form part of 

the community must be free to transfer its children out to other schools 

without having to move physically, and of course they may not be coer- 

~cively formed by the state along racial, or ethnic, or even socio- 

economic lines, |f they are to exist, they can rest only on the 

principle of voluntarism., But a trend toward community control of 

schools under the conditions mentioned is clearly visible, and in the 

21  



judgment of many qualified observers may have highly beneficial educa- 

tional results, as well as broader desirable consequences by con=- 

tributing to other self-reliant and constructive community activities. 

One aspect of this trend is represented by the voucher plan which the 

Office of Economic Development has launched on an experimental basis. 

Establishment of a constitutional requirement of racial dispersal 

would foreclose any further development of the community=-control idea, 

and of many other possibly desirable options in the reorganization and 

reform of public school education. To begin with, the effort to abide 

by the requirement of racial dispersal on a nationwide basis would 

surely absorb all possible resources--material, political and of all 

other descriptions=-=-available to the public schools, for it would be 

an effort of unprecedented proportions. Secondly, racial dispersal 

could only be accomplished through more and more consolidation of school 

systems and centralization of control over them. Inevitably it would 

constitute a choice of one option to the exclusion of other ones. 

We do not remotely know enough about how best to solve the problem 

of our schools to do that==to put the force of the Constitution behind 

one objective, one technique, to the exclusion of other ones. This 

Court should decline to impose a requirement of racial dispersal, un- 

less in a particular situation there is no.other means of satisfying 

the constitutional end of equality. 

We are confronted here with a many-faceted problem to which one 

definitive solution has not been found. This Court has in the past 

been sympathetic to the desire of local areas to develop new approaches 

to difficult problems, We hope the Court will extend that sympathy to 

the desire of local Black communities to develop their own means of 

achieving the constitutionally mandated ends. 

22  



CONCLUSION 
  

We respectfully submit that the findings indicate that: 

1. The Constitution does not mandate school integration, but out=- 

laws segregation. 

The Constitution has not anointed integration over other means 

as a way to establish a unitary school system. 

When integration (or any other legitimate means) is the only 

means, or most ''effective'' means and the one that can bring 

about, at ''the earliest practicable date'' the Court-ordered 

end, a unitary system in a district, then it is mandated. 

As to the questions of racial balance, the alteration of 

school zone and district lines, and the providing of trans- 

portation: All are legitimate means, but while they are 

constitutionally permissible, they are not constitutionally 

mandated to achieve the ends sought by the prior holdings of 

this Court--unless they pass the test of ''effectiveness' and 

"earliest practicable date." 

We respectfully submit to this Court a plan for the desegregation 

of Mobile County schools as a model which passes a strict application 

. . ' . ‘ of the test of compliance with the constitutional requirement, If 

in the opinion of this Court, this plan is not proscribed by the 

Constitution: We pray that this Court consider this plan which we 

believe applicable to areas other than Mobile==to wit, the areas 

covered by some of the consolidated cases, companion to Birdie Mae 
  

  

Yoon Exhibits A and B.  



  

Davis, et al., v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, et al. 
  

We further pray that this Court remand Birdie Mae Davis v. Mobile 
  

Board to the lower court to permit time for other aggrieved citizens 

of Mobile to petition for that plan that can best meet the test of 

''good faith,' ''effectiveness' and ''earliest practicable date' (Brown Il) 

in their quest for their constitutional rights, 

And finally we pray that in school districts where a pattern of 

invidious discrimination has been found, that the right to prepare and 

submit desegregation plans to the court or the government not be held 

exclusively by the school board. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Cut, ote 
Charles S. Conley 
  

24 

 



EXHIBITS 

 



EXHIBIT A 

 



A TRUE ALTERNATIVE TO SEGREGATION... 

Issued by: 

CONGRESS O 

A 

PROPOSAL 

FOR 

COMMUNITY SGHOOL 

DISTRICTS 

PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL 

F RACIAL EQUALITY 
National Headquarters 

200 West 135th Street 
New York, New York 10030 

(212) 281-9650 

Roy Innis, National Director 

Victor Solomon, Associate National Director 

February 1970  



CONTENTS 

‘Introduction 

School Segregation: [Its True Nature 

School Integration: Is It a Good Assumption? 

The Need for a New Alternative . . . . + 

The Solution: Natural Community School Districts 

Is This Plan Legal? . 

Conclusion . 

 



Education in its deepest sense is the improvement of man so that he will be 
a thinking individual, not afraid of the validity of his conclusions even 
though they may deviate from what may be acceptable and safe at the moment. 

-=-Heald 

This proposal for a pragmatic, achievable alternative to school 

segregation is motivated by the conclusion that: 

All pet theories==be they liberal or racist--which have 
contributed to the present impasse in the public schools 

must be debunked and scuttled if we are to get on with 
the important business of educating our children. 

And is informed by the further conclusions that: 

The attendance of White and Black pupils at different 
schools does not constitute segregation, ipso facto. 

  

An integrated school system is not a guarantee, ipso 
facto, of equal or quality education for all pupils, 

Black and White. 

Segregation, when properly defined, should be equated 

with inequality of education. 
  

Desegregation should not be equated with integration to 
the exclusion of other possible ways of organizing a 
school system. Integratior is but one of the forms 
desegregation can take. 

The history of the Black man in America has been marked by a con- 

stant struggle for equality. Yet in most areas of American life, the 

enjoyment of opportunity equal to that of any other American continues 

“Because of the social dynamics peculiar to segregation, it should be 
defined not so much in general terms of spatial relationships, but in 
more specific terms of the socio=political=economic relationship be=- 
tween the producers and managers of goods and services and those who 
are the recipients of those goods and services.  



iv 

to remain outside his grasp. But it is in the crucial area of education 

that inequality of opportunity has caused the most damage. It has been said 

that the future of a people rides on the shoulders of its youth, and that if 

those shoulders rest on a weak foundation, a doomed future for all concerned 

is the inevitable result, 

It is therefore no simple accident that so much of the overall fight 

for equality has been directed at the schools during the past two decades. 

Even though Blacks cheered that most significant fruit of their effort, 

the 1954 Supreme Court School Desegregation Decision, they have had ample 
  

reason for wondering if that celebration was somewhat premature, for it 

has taken the courts sixteen years to level the first significant attack 

on the vicious system of school segregation. 

In the period since 1954 when no change seemed imminent, we could 

afford to make any demand whatever in the hope of inducing even minimal 

movement away from segregation. However, now that the courts are moving 

to back up earlier rulings, it is of the highest importance that Black 

people sharpen their perspective and make the clearest possible assess= 

ment of their aims. They must chart their own course before they enter 

any new phase of the struggle, and they must make one final examination of 

even the most cherished beliefs and assumptions. 

Keeping their eyes fixed on the goal of dignity and equality, Black 

people must choose the path which will be in the best possible interest of 

their children and, ultimatcly, of the entire race. It is too costly an 

indulgence to make decisions based on the heat of emotion and hurt gener- 

ated by the brutal system of segregation. Rather, it should be in the 

light of cold reason and hard facts that decisions are made. 

Today, it is not a matter of why we won't wait; but, in the words of  



Vv 

Martin Luther King, why we can't wait. We cannot afford to wait any longer 

for some long=-promised, but still distant, Utopia. We cannot allow our 

minds to be imprisoned by old assumptions and pet theories, and we cannot 

allow those who have become prisoners of their own futile rhetoric to throw 

stumbleblocks in our path as we attempt to devise and implement dynamically 

new solutions to the problems of Black people. 

Historically, man has been motivated more by self-interest and that 

which is achievable than by what should be. We see this as the crux of the 

school desegregation struggle. 

The ideas presented in this paper grew out of firsthand observation 

of public school systems in the North and the South. These observations 

plus discussions with parents, teachers, school administrators, community 

leaders, etc., substantiate our belief that this proposal for COMMUNITY 

SCHOOL DISTRICTS structured along natural, geographic lines is the best 

possible way of destroying segregation and insuring equal education for 

Black children. 

 



SCHOOL SEGREGATION: ITS TRUE NATURE 

School segregation is a system designed and structured to serve the 

needs of Whites at the expense of Black pupils. When normal standards of 

educational excellence are applied to Black schools under segregation, it 

becomes clear that they are inferior to White schools. This is a fact with 

which no one can argue. Unfortunately, it has caused those who did not in 

the past and do not now understand the true nature of segregation to arrive 

at the faulty conclusion that all-Black schools are inherently inferior 

under any set of circumstances. A simple extension of logic prompts the 

following questions: 

If racial exclusivity means inferior schools, then why are the 

schools=-=White and Black-=-not equally inferior? If the racial composition 

of a school in and by itself causes that school to be inferior, where then 
  

are our inferior all=White schools? 

Let us take the ''isolation equals inferior schools! theory to its 

farthest logical extension: President John Kennedy and many of his socio- 

economic class attended schools that were not just isolated from Blacks, 

but from Whites belonging to different socio-economic classes as well. 

Needless to say, one would not even consider looking for the kind of in= 

feriority in Mr, Kennedy's schools that so often characterizes Black 

schools. 

The "inherently inferior" theory is not only spurious on its face but 

insidiously racist in its implication that Black children alone among the 

different races and groups of the world must mix in order to be equal. 

i  



2 

Blacks who subscribe to this theory are suffering from self-hatred, the 

legacy of generations of brainwashing. They have been told==-and they 

believe=-that it is exposure to Whites in and by itself that makes Blacks 
  

equal citizens. 

Years of heavy propaganda from liberal well-wishers on one side, and 

ugly declarations from racists on the other have further confused the issue. 

This confusion must be cleared up now if we are to proceed in an orderly 

fashion toward the achievement of true equality in education. 

Whether or not a given school is inferior or superior has nothing, 

as such, to do with whether or not it has an admixture of racial and/or 

ethnic groups, but it has everything to do with who CONTROLS that school 

and in whose best interest it is CONTROLLED, 

Many social scientists who have issued papers and written books on 

education have missed this very salient point. They have shown too much 

concern with spatial relationships, and not enough or none at all with the 

relationship between those who govern a school and those who are served by 

that school. 

No, the problem is not simply that Blacks and Whites attend different 

schools. A look at segregated school systems, whether de jure or de facto, 

will show that they generally have, aside from attendance of White and Black 

pupils at different schools, three common characteristics which make segre= 

gation the obnoxious system that it is. 

The first of these is that Whites set Blacks apart, by law or in fact, 

without their choice or consent. This constitutes the arbitrary imposition 

of authority from without. The act of Whites telling Blacks what schools 

they can or cannot attend stigmatizes Blacks and is a slap at their 

dignity.  



3 

The second characteristic of a segregated system is that the local 

school board, usually all White or predominantly White, exercises control 

over both White and Black schools and favors the White schools. The school 

board enjoys a more intimate relationship with the White community and 

White parents than it does with the Black community and Black parents. It 

is more sensitive to their problems, their needs and aspirations than it is 

to those of Blacks, This deprives Black educators and pupils of much-needed 

support from the policy makers and managers of the schools and literally 

guarantees the failure of the Black school to achieve excellence in educa- 

tion. A positive relationship between parents and those who govern the 

school is one of the most important factors affecting the quality of schools. 

Under segregation, Black parents have not enjoyed that kind of relationship. 

Finally, the local school board systematically deprives Black schools 

of resources. The money allotted by law to each and every school district 

when received by the local board is directed as the local board sees fit. 

Traditionally, part of the money intended for Black schools has been di- 

rected by the local board to White schools. This is true of Southern 

schools as well as Northern schools.) 

In short, it is the local school board, the dispenser and regulator 

of money, rewards, good will, and other benefits, which makes Black schools 

inferior. Under segregation, Blacks have been locked into a system over 

which they exercise no control, for which they have no responsibility and 

for which they are powerless to effect meaningful change. 

When segregation is placed in its proper context and defined in terms 

of who manages and controls the schools, it becomes apparent that the chief 

characteristic of a segregated school system=--the imposition of oppressive 

outside authority==-makes school systems in the North no different from those 

in the South.  



4 

The surest measure of how much Blacks can trust any school system to 

educate their children is how much actual==not illusionary==control they 

have over that system. Therefore, whatever is proposed to replace segrega- 

tion must be measured strictly in terms of how much control is held by the 

Black community itself. This is the surest possible guide to determining 

the potential success of any proposed new system. 

SCHOOL INTEGRATION: IS IT A GOOD ASSUMPTION? 

Having learned from bitter experience that White schools are favored 

by White school boards and having become tired of the stigma attached to 

being told where their children could go to school, it was natural that 

Black people considered sending their children to White schools. Since 1954 

at least, the assumption has been that the segregated and unequal treatment 

of Black children could be rectified by integrating them into White schools. 

What is basically wrong with this assumption? 

1. There is a failure to recognize Black people as a valid 
special interest group with needs that are unique to Black 
people. 

There are a number of agreed upon components of a good 
education. It has not been established that integration 
guarantees these components. 

Equal education implies more than just equal physical 
space in the same classroom, the same teacher, or the 

same principal. It implies equal right in the curriculum; 
equal access to all available resources; and equal access 
to school policy makers and managers. The question is: 
Does integration guarantee Black parents these additional 
rights? 

An integrated setting is as potentially damaging psycho- 
logically as a segregated setting. The assumption that 
integration cures all the evils of segregation does not 
take into consideration what the National Advisory Com=- 
mission on Civil Disorders affirmed=--that is, the 

essentially racist character of American society. Since 
there is no indication that racism will disappear over- 
night, Blacks must approach all institutional settings 
with extreme caution.  



5 

Where integration is mandated and there is unwillingness on the part 

of Whites to integrate schools, Black people lose much more than they gain 

in such a merger. One such community was studied by the National Education 

Association. The following is an excerpt from their report: 

The desegregation of East Texas schools is proceeding at 
a faster pace than in most southern states. School officials 
of most districts studied can report that they are in compliance 
either with federal desegregation guidelines or with court 
orders. But, as the study made abundantly clear, it is only a 
paper compliance. As desegregation continues, the grievances 
of the black community become more wide-spread and more severe. 
There is every evidence of racial discrimination in the con= 
tinuing displacement and demotion of black educators; there is 
every evidence of racial discrimination in the increasing em= 
ployment of white teachers in preference to blacks; there is 
every evidence of racial discrimination in the frequent ex= 
clusion of black students from participation and leadership 
positions in the student organizations of desegregated schools; 
and there is every evidence of racial discrimination in the 
treatment that black students commonly receive from white 
classmates and, in some instances, from their white teachers 
and principals as well. 

These grievances have long remained unresolved; they 
continue to be unrecognized by school officials. And finally, 
now that the Supreme Court has ordered the immediate elimina- 
tion of dualism in all southern districts the prospect is 
that the situation will become worse--in East Texas and 
throughout the South. The frequency of teacher displacement 
and student mistreatment that accompanied desegregation 
''with all deliberate speed' is likely to accelerate as the 
rate of desegregation accelerates. The laws, including 
desegregation laws, have never worked well for black people. 
Unless present trends are halted, the new Supreme Court 
ruling will serve them no better than did the Brown decisions 
of 1945-55, 

The fact is that the court can offer Black children, teachers and 

administrators very little protection from the crippling abuses which arise 

daily in an integrated setting where Whites don't favor the union. Some of   

the stories of injustices and psycholojical abuse emerging from integrated 

settings in the South are difficult to fight with litigation, but that does 

not make them any less damaging to the psyches of Black children, parents, 

teachers, and administrators:  



6 

White teachers have been known to absolutely refuse to look 
at Black children when addressing them in the classroom, 

The principal of an all=Black school became the assistant 
principal of an elementary school under integration in one 
Southern town. 

The principal of a Black high school was replaced by a 
younger White man with less experience and fewer formal 

credentials. The principal became an assistant principal 
under the new White principal. 

Examinations are geared to favor the White child. In 
fights, Black children are always assumed to be in the 
wrong. 

The sad fact of the matter is that in most cases where integration 

has been tried, the same White board of education that once ran the dual 

school system=--one White, one Black==is the same board that runs the inte= 

grated system. The superintendent of education under the old system becomes 

the superintendent of education in the new system. The policy makers and 

managers are therefore the same. Since their negative attitudes towards 

Blacks and favoritism towards Whites remain the same, Black parents can 

hardly expect that any attempt will be made to change the curriculum to 

reflect the needs of Black pupils, or that they will have any say in the 

running of the school. In other words, even where integration has come 

about, the schools remain White=controlled. 

It must not be assumed that things will get better with time. The 

dynamics of forced school integration are very different from those of 

forced desegregation of hotels, restaurants, buses, and other public 

facilities and services. These are what might be called transient settings 

of Blacks and Whites sharing or functioning in the same approximate space. 

Integrated schools, on the other hand, constitute an ongoing situation that 

is seen as far more threatening. This is underscored by the fact that the 

relatively mild and short~lived resistance to the desegregation of public  



7 

facilities and services was nothing compared to the massive resistance that 

has been mounted and that will be continually mounted against integration 

of the schools. Moreover, when integration does occur in the schools, the 

few strengths Blacks did have are rapidly eroded so that with time they 

operate less and less from a position of strength. 

Blacks who have gone along with integration have done so in search 

of dignity, but have found humiliation at the end of the rainbow. They 

integrate for equality but find they are together but still unequal. They 
  

have less control and less influence, if that is possible, than ever before. 

In short, the integration that Blacks are likely to get in most instances, 

North or South, has proven to be token equality, mere show and pure sham. 

What about those areas where White resistance is not so high as to 

frustrate the integration effort? Even then we should keep in mind that 

effective integration is more than mere physical proximity of White and 

Black students. We should seriously consider whether the dispersal of 

Black pupils would help or hinder the chances of meeting their unique 

needs. 

Integration, as it is designed, placed the Black child in the posi- 

tion of implied inferiority. Not only is he asked to give up much of his 

culture and identity, but with the dispersal of Blacks he loses many of the 

communal ties which have traditionally been the cornerstone of the Black 

community. Moreover, there can never be true integration between groups 

until there is a real parity relationship existing between them, 

It is an established fact that children learn best in a supportive 

environment--one in which they can develop an appreciation and acceptance 

of self. Self-appreciation must come before one can truly appreciate 

others.  



8 

White schools at this time do not constitute the kind of environment 

which can foster the healthy development of Black children. White school 

boards make it difficult for even Black schools to respond to the special 

needs of Black children. In this respect, however, many Black teachers and 

administrators have tried, within the narrow limits allowed them, to try to 

satisfy these needs. 

With the guarantee of equal resources and with the freedom to proceed 

as is expedient, Black schools would be a superior learning environment and 

could graduate students who can succeed in an interracial world, 

What about the stigma attached to going to an all=Black school? That 

stigma was half destroyed when Blacks succeeded in smashing the laws which 

restricted their freedom to choose. Inasmuch as the stigma arises in part 

from the established inferiority of Black schools, the remaining stigma 

would be destroyed completely once the Black community has a board of edu=- 

cation which could be called theirs and which would guarantee a truly 

equal, truly democratic education for its children. 

Furthermore, Black people today have a very healthy attitude towards 

themselves as a people. They are not ashamed of being Black and see nothing 

wrong in being together and doing things together. They see strength in 

unity, not guaranteed failure. More than ever, Blacks place a premium on 

working together for progress. They are beginning to feel that it is 

through their strength as a group that they will win human dignity and 

power. If reality is taken into account when Blacks chart their course, it 

will become abundantly clear that in some situations school integration may 

not be the most effective means to equality. 

From a financial, legal, economic, political, social, psychological, 

and most important, educational standpoint, the integrated school emerges  



9 

wanting, This set of parameters must be consistently used when examining 

integration, segregation, and any proposed alternative to the two. 

THE NEED FOR A NEW ALTERNATIVE 

Desegregation is now the law of the land. Because the road is rocky 

and treacherous, Blacks need to chart a careful course if they are to land 

on their feet. The next section will offer a desegregation approach ap- 

plicable primarily to urban areas, North and South. In these areas we 

generally find natural definable communities made up of persons with common 

interests and special problems, 

Within Mobile County, Alabama, for example, there is a natural com=- 

munity comprising the Davis Avenue, Toulminville, Bullshead area. This 

community alone has more students than do many existing school districts 

throughout the state. The citizens and students in this community happen 

to be Black Americans. The schools attended by the youth from this com=- 

munity have been badly run by the Mobile County School Board. For years, 

the talent and energies of the best citizens of the community have been 

expended in fighting the school board==but without significant results. 

This community has many special needs different from those of the general 

population of Mobile County. A healthy pride and sense of purpose is evi= 

dent and growing in this community. The educational hopes of the residents, 

however, are continually frustrated by a school board which has shown no 

sensitivity to their problems. The residents of this community have lost 

irretrievably all faith in the school board's capability of being respon= 

sive to their needs. 

The tragedy is that the human input needed to solve the major educa= 

tional problems which have plagued this community are within the reach of  



10 

this community. The talent and energy displayed over years of struggle for 

relief prove that. The material input needed to solve this area's school 

problems lies in the public money th: law presently allows if the money 

were to arrive directly from the source to a truly local school board. The 

rising aspirations, the dashed hopes, and the displaced energy will result 

in a steadily rising level of hostilities which will inevitably spill over 

into the surrounding communities. 

We contend that it is possible to bring dignity and true equality of 

opportunity to this community without denying the human and constitutional 

rights of any other community. Only good sense and meaningful alteration 

of a faulty structure can avert this. It is in the spirit of attempting to 

avert chaos and establishing harmony that this proposal is presented. 

THE SOLUTION: NATURAL COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

The people of the above-mentioned community are seeking to exercise 

their basic human and constitutional right to form an institution that is 

accountable to them. They are seeking to be delegated by the State of 

Alabama to exercise its exclusive competence to determine its own educa= 

tional needs and set its own educational policy, as do other peoples in 

America, by becoming a duly constituted state school district under the 

state law. 

This move is not without considerable precedent in American history. 

One such precedent occurred early in the history of this country and cul- 

minated in a document which begins with the words, 'We hold these truths 

to be self=-evident,'" and includes the statement, ''That whenever any form 

of government becomes destructive of these ends''--these ends being the 

securing of certain inalienable rights and ''governments being instituted  



deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . . It is 

the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new gov=- 

ernment, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers 

in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and 

happiness." 

THE PLAN: 

THE SCHOOL BOARD: 
  

To desegregate public schools by creating state school 
districts which correspond to natural community lines, 

where the parties affected are in agreement. 

Within each school district so formed the residents 
would elect a school board. Each school board would 
be a legal entity enjoying all the rights, privi= 
leqes, and obligations as provided for by the State 
Education Law. Each school board would run a unitary 
school system within its district. 

  

  

  

The community school board would, pursuant to state 
law and as every other school district in the United 
States does, seek out persons with educational ex- 
pertise--a superintendent who meets state qualifica= 
tions as chief executive officer of the board of 
education, and a staff of professionals to administer 
and execute the policy established by the board. The 
board would seek the best man possible to fill the 
position of superintendent by selecting from a special 
screening committee and would solicit advice on candi- 
dates from the leading universities and professional 
associations as well as other organizations and in- 
dividuals. Once employed, the superintendent would 

submit names to fill the other top-level administrative 
positions to the screening committee of the board and 

the board would choose from among the resultant list 
of candidates. 

For the position of superintendent, the board would 
seek a man of unquestioned executive ability who in- 
dicates an openness to new solutions to the desperate 

educational problems of the community's children, and 
a willingness to all newly available educational in- 
novaticns such as the reading program developed by the 
Institute for Behavioral Science for the Washington, 
D. C., public schools, progremmed instruction with 

audio-visual teaching machines, and use of media 
techniques. Most important of all, the board would 

seek a superintendent who is community oriented.  



The community school district would hope to attract 
the best minds as consultants to the staff to help 
design the program, This would be a truly pioneering 
effort in the field of education. 

THE TEACHING STAFF: The community school district would welcome all teachers 
presently in their schools, who are excited by the 
prospect of being a part of this pioneering effort. 
Every attempt will be made to recruit to the teaching 
staff the best teachers regardless of race, creed or 
national origin. The community school district will 
offer in-service training programs, for up=grading, if 
necessary, so that all teachers in the district will 
have the security of having skills and training that 
are relevant to the unique needs of the children of 

the community, 

  

The community school board would adopt fair practices 
with respect to teachers employed in that it is in the 
interest of the district to satisfy the most essential 
ingredient of a school system==-the classroom teacher, 

The community school board would seek to allow for 
maximum participation in the school program by en= 

couraging strong parent associations and establishing 
people from the community as teacher aides and teacher 
apprentices so that every child will have in-depth 
contact with a caring adult, and the teacher will be 
freed to teach. 

FINANCING: The community school district will receive public 
funds directly from the presently existing sources 
of education money--the state, the federal government 
and the local government unit. 

  

The community school district would receive state 
moneys according to the existing provisions in the 

state law prescribing state money to school districts. 

Federal: Federal moneys would come to the school districts ac= 
cording to the existing provisions described in the 
Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

A legal and formal agreement will be made whereby the 
local educational dollar will be directed to each 
school district on a per student basis.  



IS THIS PLAN LEGAL? 

It is of extreme importance that the Supreme Court's ruling on school 

desegregation be clearly understood. Confusion on this point has abounded, 

aided and abetted by those who have fallen into the trap of viewing desegre= 

gation as synonymous with integration. Integration is only one possible 

way==not necessarily the best or most pragmatic way==-of desegregating and 

creating a unitary school system. The plan herein described is another way 

of desegregating and creating a unitary school system in a school district. 

It would destroy segregation, and it clearly provides for equal protection 

under the law. Moreover, unlike integration, this plan makes it easier to 

quarantee equal protection under the law. 
  

A careful and unprejudiced reading of the decisions of the Supreme 

Court on school desegregation shows that this plan does not violate the 

letter or the spirit of the law. 

The Supreme Court has ruled that each school board must run a unitary 

school system in a school district. That is, if there are White and Black 

children in a school district, the school board may not set them apart. 

Each district proposed in this plan would be run as a unitary system, 

Moreover, the process of redistricting proposed here can only be done with 

the consent of the persons affected and with the legal agreement of the 

state. This is equivalent to the parties to an action arriving at a 

settlement out of court, without violating any law.  



CONCLUSION 

Schools are the transmitters of values, the molders of self-image, 

the instrument for providing youngsters with the technical and psychological 

equipment necessary to function properly in this highly competitive society. 

The schools in most Black communities have failed dismally on all three 

counts. They have not and will not, under the present school system, per= 

form their proper function. 

Integration as the means of addressing the educational problems of 

Black people, even if attainable, is of questionable worth. Where integra=- 

tion has occurred, the results suggest that it causes more problems than 

it solves. 

Black people have tried everything there is to try under the present 

school structure. The escalating school crisis and the unprecedented 

hostility between Blacks and Whites are vivid reminders that patience is 

wearing thin all around. Blacks are now searching for a real solution, 

one which can provide dignity and true equality. We submit this plan as 

that solution. 

 



EXHIBIT B 

| LLEGAL 

SEGREGATION 

  

Board 

of 

Education 

(White) 

      
  

Superintendent 

(White) 

  

DESEGREGAT ION 

BY BRANCH 

INTEGRATION 

DESEGREGATION_BY ROOT AND BRANCH 

- 
- 

~~ 
COMMUNITY 

  

  

Board 

of 

Education 

(White) 

    

  
Superintendent 

(Whi te) 

    

No 

Black Freedom 

Students of 

Black Choice 

School 

White 

Students 

Whi te 

School 

          

Black and White 

Students 

Racial Balance 

      

DUAL SYSTEM UNITARY SYSTEM 

  

District 

Board 

of 

Education 

(Black 
Majority) 

    

~~ 

  

Superintendent 

    
Majority 

Black 
Minority 
White 

      

UNITARY 
SYSTEM 

True 

Freedom 

of 

Choice 

“> 

~ 

~ 

ho 

COMMUNITY 

  

  

District 

Board 

of 

Education 

(White 
Majority) 

  

Superintendent 

  

  

  

Majority 
White 

Minerity 
Black 

      

UNITARY 
SYSTEM  



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

This is to certify that a copy of the above and foregoing motion 

has been served on Julius Chambers or James M. Nabrit, Ill, attorneys 

for the Petitioners, by personal service. 

This 12th day of October, 1970. 

CARN Cod. 
Charles S. Conley 
  

OF COUNSEL 

 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

This is to certify that a copy of the above and foregoing motion 

has been served on William Wagner or Benjamin Horack, attorneys for the 

Respondents, by personal service. 

This 12th day of October, 1970, 

ole Slag. 
Charles S. Conley 
  

OF COUNSEL [||ddba9bff-6565-47ba-be03-a26edd3bd2e7||]