Brief Amicus Curiae of William B. Spong, Jr.; Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Motion to Advance

     [||e008c455-4630-47cc-abcb-befcc0f1c8dd||] Supreme Court of the United States 
October Term, 1970 

  

  

JAMES E. SWANN, ET AL, 

Petitioners, 

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF 

EDUCATION, ET AL., 

Respondents. 

  

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

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE 
  

WiLriaMm B. Spong, Jr., pra se 

United States Senator 

5327 New Senate Office Building 
Washington, D. C. 20510 

  

   



Supreme Court of the United States 
October Term, 1970 

  

No. 281 
  

JAMES E. SWANN, ET AL., 

Petitioners, 

Vv. 

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF 

EDUCATION, ET AL., 

Respondents. 

  

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 
  

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE 
  

All parties having consented, William B. Spong, ]Jr., 

pro se, hereby respectfully files a Brief Amicus Curiae in 

this case. 
The interest of William B. Spong, Jr., arises from the 

fact that he is a United States Senator from the State of 

Virginia, and decisions in this case may be determinative of 

cases pending in the lower federal courts involving the urban 

school systems of Virginia. 

The School Board of the City of Norfolk, Virginia, filed a 

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari on June 26, 1970, in School 

Bd. of City of Norfolk, Va., et al. v. Brewer, et al., No. 1753,  



  

2 

Oct. Term, 1969, seeking review of the judgment of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 

entered on June 22, 1970. That Petition was denied on 
June 29, 1970, the last day of the October, 1969, Term, 

with Mr. Justice Black being of the opinion that Certiorari 

should be granted. 

The aforesaid Petition is attached hereto and is adopted 

as the Brief Amicus Curiae. 

Many of the issues in the Norfolk case are now before the 

Court in this case, and those issues are more clearly deline- 

ated in the Norfolk case than in any other case. The argu- 

ments presented in the Norfolk case are highly pertinent 

and of great importance to a decision in this and the related 

cases, and such arguments may not otherwise be presented 

to the Court in such manner that they may receive the con- 

sideration which is warranted. 

Respectfully submitted, 

WiLriaMm B. Seong, Jr., pro se 

5327 New Senate Office Building 
Washington, D. C. 20510 

   



Supreme Court of the United States 
October Term, 1969 

  

No. 1753 
  

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY 

OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, ET AL., 

Petitioners, 

Vv, 

CARLOTTA MOZELLE BREWER, ET AL, 

AND 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondents. 

  

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 
FOURTH CIRCUIT AND MOTION TO ADVANCE* 

  

Toy D. Savage, Jr. 

Arran G. Donn 

WILLCOX, SAVAGE, LAWRENCE, 

Dickson & SPINDLE 

Virginia National Bank Building 

Norfolk, Virginia 23510 

Leonarp H. Davis 

City Attorney 

Norfolk, Virginia 23501 

Attorneys for Petitioners 

* Motion to Advance omitted.  



INDEX 

  

Page 

MonioN TO ADVANCE... tenes * 

OPINIONS BE1LOW o.oo 1 

JURISUICTION coo err eninnes 2 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED icici caren 2 

ConsTiTUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED .....cnee eee eee 3 

STATEMENT i iit et ri en ae eens 3 

LIntroduction ...... .....o.oh i 3 

2, Proceedings Below ............... Ee einanmnenssnitin Ls u., 4 

3. Demography of Norfolk .............ccc..o. oo ciomcesescsmmmecnosacruses 4 

4, Backgrommd of Long Range Plan ................ccocececrnsenennnss 5 

5. Development of Long Range Plan ...................................c...oss 8 

Reasons voOR CRANTING THE WRIT ..... ici ee eeeereennsenee 10 

Ll. Introduction ............cio iri ni er ee 10 

2. Opinion of Court of Appeals -......c...o.ocooceescccscrsecsrorivnsraranes 13 

CONOLUSION | os ioce ccs siomsinioncssbsmmis easiness tnsdssstbastons soignsiotiicesiusinmsummntvnizns 14 

CITATIONS 

Cases 

Alexander v. Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1959) .................. 10 

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S, 483 (1934) ........................ 10 

Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S, 294 (19353) ........ccoooonnneee 10 

Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1963) ...................... 10 

Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, 391 U.S. 450 (1968) ........... 11 

Raney v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 443 (1968) ........................ 10 

Miscellaneous 

116 Cong. Rec. 84351, Daily Ed., March 24, 1970 ..........cccceeenereee.. 8  



Supreme Court of the United States 
October Term, 1969 

  

No. 17353 
  

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY 

OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, ET AL, 
Petitioners, 

v. 

CARLOTTA MOZELLE BREWER, ET AL, 

AND 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Respondents. 

  

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 
  

The School Board of the City of Norfolk, Virginia, peti- 

tioner, respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to 

review the judgment and opinion of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit entered in this 

proceeding on June 22, 1970. 

OPINIONS BELOW 

Although this proceeding has been pending for more than 

thirteen years, resulting in a substantial number of opinions  



  

2 

of the United States District Court for the Eastern District 

of Virginia and the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Fourth Circuit, the opinions of the courts below directly 

preceding this petition are as follows: 

1. The opinions of the Court of Appeals filed June 22, 
1970, not yet reported, are as follows: 

(a) Opinion for the Court by Judge Butzner (Ap- 
pendix hereto p. 1).} 

(b) Opinion of Judge Bryan specially concurring 
{App. 13). 

2. Memorandum Opinion of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, quoted at 308 

F. Supp. 1274 (App. 16). 

3. Memorandum Opinion of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, reported at 302 

F. Supp. 18 (App. 58). 

JURISDICTION 

The judgments of the Court of Appeals were entered on 

June 22, 1970 (App. 15A and 15B). The jurisdiction of 
this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 

1. In a school system in which there is no current racial 

residential discrimination, but in which the application of 

neutral and objective standards to the assignment of pupils 
would result in a number of all Negro and all white schools 

because of racial residential patterns, 

1 The appendix (App.) of opinions below is presented in a separate 
volume because it is voluminous. 

   



3 

(a) is it constitutionally permissible for the School Board 
[in determining the extent of the affirmative action to be 

taken to achieve integration] to take into account the fact 

that once the ratio of Negro pupils to whites passes beyond a 

critical point the benefits from integration are completely 
lost; 

(b) is the constitutionality of a plan for desegregation 

principally determined by the degree of success in obtaining 

the racial mix of pupils or by the degree of success in pro- 

viding equality of educational opportunity for all pupils 

where both purposes cannot be simultaneously achieved; 

(c) does good faith implementation of governing con- 

stitutional principles require racial balancing in each indi- 

vidual school throughout the system, comprised of many 

different schools, where it is freely conceded that massive 

compulsory busing will be required? 

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED 

This case involves the equal protection clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States. 

STATEMENT 

1. Introduction 

The Petitioners are seeking a review of an en banc deci- 

sion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

Circuit, reversing and remanding an Order of Walter E. 

Hoffman, Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Virginia, 

which had approved, in most aspects, the long range plan 

for the integration of the Norfolk school system.  



  

4 

2. Proceedings Below 

Judge Hoffman’s opinions followed hearings extending 

over many days during which he received evidence and 

made meticulous findings with respect to the housing pat- 

terns and demography of Norfolk and adjacent communi- 

ties, the educational principles of the School Board plan, 
the financial and transportation resources of the school sys- 

tem, and the feasibility of alternative proposals advanced 

by the respondents. He found no racial discrimination by 

the School Board and that the School Board had affirma- 

tively sought to obtain the maximum degree of equal edu- 

cational opportunity within the capacity of the system. 

The Court of Appeals, without holding that the District 

Court’s findings were clearly erroneous, set aside the judg- 

ment of the trial court and directed that a new plan be filed 

by July 27, 1970, and implemented by September, 1970. 

Although the Court of Appeals did not expressly order the 

racial balance of the schools, that appears to be the effect 

of its holding, and such a result is beyond the capacity of 

the Norfolk school system. 
This petition is filed four days after the entry of judg- 

ment. Precedent of other similar cases does not indicate 

that any stay is to be expected. Irreparable disruption caused 

by a “best efforts” implementation of the order of the Court 
of Appeals will be so erosive of the school system as to place 
in jeopardy the implementation of the School Board Plan 
in the event the District Court Order is reinstated. 

3. Demography of Norfolk 

The Norfolk system is generally typical of southern school 

systems of its size. It consists of 56,000 students in 72 schools, 

with a 6-3-3 pattern including 56 elementary, 11 junior 

high and 5 senior high schools. At the elementary level, 44% 

   



3 

of the students are Negro. Over all, the system contains 

42.4% Negro students. 

The City of Norfolk has a population of approximately 

300,000 and is 61 square miles in area. 80% of the Negro 

population of Norfolk is concentrated in a large densely 

populated area in the south central sector of the City. 

The School Board has no bus system for the transporta- 

tion of pupils to and from the schools. Approximately 8,000 

students, only a few of whom are at the elementary level, 

now use public transportation at their own expense. 

The District Court found that evidence introduced fell 

short of establishing discriminatory racial residential patterns 

about the City and that “unless a spot of the disease poisoned 

the entire city, there remained other areas in Norfolk which 

could not be considered de jure constituted.” 308 F. Supp. 

at 1303; 302 F. Supp. at 27. Whether or not any area of the 

City has a racial residential pattern which originated in dis- 

criminatory action, there is no significant governmental or 

private discriminatory action restraining free residential 
patterns at this time. 308 F. Supp. at 1307. 

4. Background of Long Range Plan 

To assist its own Director of Educational Research and 

Planning, Dr. John C. McLaulin, the School Board obtained 
the services of Dr. James Bash, Director of the University 

of Virginia Desegregation Institute, operated under funding 

by the Department of HEW, and Mr. Howard O. Sullins 

and Mr. Albert Tippett, representatives of the Department 

of HEW. There came to the attention of the Board a sub- 

stantial body of learning, recently developed and based 
upon the analysis and definition of the relationship between 
integration and educational opportunity. Among the liter- 

ature primarily influencing the development of the plan by 
the Board were the following:  



  

6 

1. James §. Coleman, “Equality of Educational Oppor- 

tunity,” (1966), based upon a broad and exhaustive 

survey carried out pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 by the United States Office of Education and 
generally known as the CorLEmMaN Report. (SBX, 
April No. 1) ; 

2. Racial Isolation in the Public Schools Vol. 1, prepared 
by the United States Commission on Civil Rights 
pursuant to request of the President and generally 
known as RaciaL Isoration. (SBX, April No. 2); | 

3. Equal Educational Opportunity, 38 Harvard Educa- 
tion Review, (Winter 1968), (SBX, April No. 4); 

4. Weinberg, Desegregation Research: An Appraisal 
(SBX, April No. 3); 

3. Armor, School and Family Effects on Black and White 
Achievement: A Re-examination of the USOE Data, 
(SBX, Oct. No. 24) ; 

6. Pettigrew, Advantages for the Disadvantaged in 
Equality of Educational Opportunity in the Large 
Cities of America: The Relationship between De- 
centralization and Racial Integration. (Govt. Ex., 
Oct. No. 8); 

1. Wilson, Educational Consequences of Segregation in a 
California Community, Raciar Isoration Vol II, p. 
165. (SBX, April No. 2). 

The Board became convinced that, aside from the re- 
quirements of law, integration provides the conditions for 
an improved educational program for the City as a whole. 
Norfolk’s was the first system to formulate principles for a 
plan based on the best available social science data. 

   



7 

The basic principles adopted by the Board can be sum- 
marized as follows: 

(a) Children of all backgrounds and races do better in 

schools with a predominant middle class millieu. The entire 

argument for the efficacy of desegregation in providing 

equal educational opportunity ultimately depends upon this 

simple truth and upon it also rests the ultimate success of 

any long range plan for integration. 

Aside from the family background of the individual stu- 

dent, a factor which is beyond the control of the School 

Board, the social class® climate of the school is the single 

most important school factor affecting student performance 

and attitudes. (RaciaL IsoraTion, Vol. 1, p. 89). The social 

class climate factor is so powerful that it may be more im- 
portant than all other factors combined. 

(b) There is a high correlation between socio-economic 

class and race. While more than 60% of white America is 

middle class, only one Negro in four is middle class (whether 

defined by income, white collar occupation, or high school 

education). A comparable correlation exists in Norfolk. The 

significance of the correlation is that desegregation is re- 

quired to provide a predominantly middle class milieu for 

Negro pupils. 

(c) The beneficial effects of desegregated schools for 

Negro children are not linear; that is, Negro test scores do 

not rise evenly with increasing percentages of white children 

in the classroom. Achievement in classes with less-than-half 

whites is associated with scores not significantly different 

from those in all-Negro classrooms. The research shows that 

significant improvement does not begin until the school is 

at least half-white, and that a simple majority is not suffi- 

2 The term “socio-economic class” more accurately expresses the 
meaning, but ‘social class” has been commonly employed with the 
same connotation in most instances.  



  

8 

cient to obtain the desired benefits of desegregation. Instead 

there must be a clear, but not overwhelming, white majority. 

Dr. Armor’s analysis of the CoLEmaN REPORT data showed 

that the optimal point, taking into account both the social 

class and race effects is about 30% Negro. 

(d) White students do less well in majority Negro schools 

than they do in majority white schools. The conclusion is a 

necessary corollary to the principle that children of all back- 

grounds do better in schools with a predominant middle 

class milieu. 

(e) A plan for the City of Norfolk will work best to the 

extent that it arrives at 30% Negro in as many schools as 

possible and, for this reason, that percent Negro is considered 

optimal. The purposeful establishment of schools in which 

there are more than 40% Negro will not provide any im- 

provement of educational opportunities in such schools for 

either white or Negro. In determining the effects of optimal 

desegregation, the inquiry is not limited to educational 

achievement. Rather, the concept of optimal desegregation 

is equally concerned with racial attitudes, racial behavior, 

racial preferences, and college and occupational aspirations. 

5. Development of Long Range Plan 

The principles of the plan were applied to the circum- 

stances of the Norfolk school system with the clear purpose 

of providing the maximum degree of integration which is 

feasible. 

The development of the plan for elementary schools began 

with a geographical attendance area plan based on neutral 

and objective lines, with each student attending the school 

within the natural capacity zone in which his residence fell. 

The socio-economic data of each such zone was then care- 

fully analyzed. With the use of this base data, the designers 

of the zones set about to achieve zones which were hetero- 

   



9 

geneous in terms of socio-economic class and race, rather 

than homogeneous. Neither natural boundary lines nor com- 

munity of interest of a given area was allowed to interfere 

with this purpose. Natural boundaries were departed from 

and neighborhoods were intentionally divided among differ- 

ent schools. Every plan or device suggested in any writing 

or by any consultant or by the NAACP or the Civil Rights 

Division was given mature consideration, and a number of 

such suggestions were incorporated. None of them was re- 

jected if it was found to be currently feasible for the purpose 

of providing more integration than the plan which was 

adopted. A number of subsidiary concepts, such as the con- 

solidation of schools, the closing of schools, and the changing 

of the location of schools, was adopted. 

All of the experts testifying complimented the School 

Board on the job that was done. The degree of success was 

favorably compared with that which could be obtained by a 

computer. No one was able to point out a single instance in 

which lines were drawn to avoid desegregation. Because of 

racial residential patterns, it would not be possible, without 

massive cross busing, to create a much greater percentage of 

desegregation in the system. On the basis of that the educa- 

tional opportunity offered to Negroes in majority Negro 

schools would be no better and perhaps not as good as that 

offered in an all Negro school and that the opportunity 

offered to white students would be substantially less than that 

which would be offered to them in a majority white school, 

majority Negro elementary schools were not created. The in- 

tentional creation of a majority Negro school would provide 

a net loss to the community rather than a net gain in terms 

of the feasible achievement of the benefits of integration. 

No one is able to suggest any device which will effectively 

increase the results obtained by 20%, 10% or even 5%. The 

only alternative to the School Board plan recommended is  



  

10 

the complete racial balance of every school in the system 

through massive cross busing. The School Board cannot over- 

come the physical obstacles to massive cross busing by the 
1970-71 school year. 

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT 

1. Introduction 

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), takes 

its place among the more important decisions of this Court 

because it determined that there was a relation between 

segregation of public Schools and equal educational oppor- 

tunity. The record in this case for the first time presents a 

clear and exhaustive analysis and definition of the nature of 
that relationship. 

Brown I established the constitutional right of minorities 

to desegregated schooling and expressly based its deter- 

mination upon the right to equal educational opportunity. 

Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955), and 

all of the subsequent cases decided by this Court essentially 

deal with the remedy which the Court felt to be realistically 

available at the time of the decision. The relief granted by 

the Court in Brown II constituted a negative mandate, re- 

quiring the school boards to admit students to public schools 

“as soon as practicable” on a non-discriminatory basis, “with 

all deliberate speed.” 349 U.S. at 300, 301. In more recent 

cases, culminating in Alexander v. Board of Education, 

396 U.S. 19 (1969), this Court has removed the condi- 
tions of “as soon as practicable” and “with all deliberate 

speed” from the negative mandate. Further, this Court has 
asserted the affirmative duty of school boards to adopt the 
most “feasible” and “reasonably available” alternatives to 

affirmatively effectuate integration. Green v. County School 

Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1968) ; Raney v. Board of Education, 

   



11 

391 U.S. 443 (1968); and Monroe v. Board of Commis- 
stoners, 391 U.S. 450 (1968). In view of the fact that cir- 

cumstances in such cases all pointed in the same direction, 

this Court has not yet defined the nature and extent of the 

remedy provided by such affirmative mandate. It is sub- 

mitted that, in arriving at that definition, it should be kept 

in mind that the constitutional right to be provided is equal 

educational opportunity and that mixing races is but a 
means to that end. 

The conclusions of educational and social science with 

respect to the nature and extent of the relation between inte- 

gration and education have in recent years been widely dis- 

seminated and, by and large, accepted. The Commission on 

Civil Rights quoted that “On the basis of its findings, the 

Commission has made recommendations which provide a 

basis for action by government at all levels; * * *” Racial 

Isolation in the Public Schools Vol. I, p. ix. 

On March 24, 1970, Richard Nixon, President of the 

United States, issued a policy statement entitled ScHooL 

DEesEGREGATION: “A Free and Open Society.” (116 Cong. 

Rec. 54351, Daily Ed., March 24, 1970). In that statement 
he said: 

“Available data on the educational effects of inte- 
gration are neither definitive nor comprehensive. But 
such data as we have suggest strongly that, under the 
appropriate conditions, racial integration in the class- 
room can be a significant factor in improving the quality 
of education for the disadvantaged. At the same time, 
the data lead us into several more of the complexities 
that surround the desegregation issue. 

“For one thing, they serve as a reminder that, from 
an educational standpoint, to approach school questions 
solely in terms of race is to go astray. The data tell us 
that in educational terms, the significant factor is not 
race but rather the educational environment in the  



  

12 

home—and indeed, that the single most important edu- 
cational factor in a school is the kind of home environ- 
ment its pupils come from. As a general rule, children 
from families whose home environment encourages 
learning—whatever their race—are higher achievers; 
those from homes offering little encouragement are 
lower achievers. 

“Which effect the home environment has depends 
on such things as whether books and magazines are 
available, whether the family subscribes to a news- 
paper, the educational level of the parents, and their 
attitude toward the child’s education. 

“The data strongly suggest, also, that in order for the 
positive benefits of integration to be achieved, the school 
must have a majority of children from environments 
that encourage learning—recognizing, again, that the 
key factor is not race but the kind of home the child 
comes from. The greater concentration of pupils whose 
homes encourage learning—of whatever race—the 
higher the achievement levels not only of those pupils, 
but also of others in the same school. Students learn 
from students. The reverse is also true: the greater con- 
centration of pupils from homes that discourage learn- 
ing, the lower the achievement levels of all. 

“We should bear very carefully in mind, therefore, 
the distinction between educational difficulty as a re- 
sult of race, and educational difficulty as a result of 
social or economic levels, of family background, of cul- 
tural patterns, or simply of bad schools. Providing better 
education for the disadvantaged requires a more so- 
phisticated approach than mere racial mathematics.” 

The quoted statement of policy of the United States is 

quite remarkably consonant with the policies promulgated 

by the School Board in its long range plan in June, 1969, 
and approved by the District Court on December 30, 1969, 
and here presented to this Court for consideration. 

   



13 

It is clearly established that the quality of educational 
opportunity offered to pupils of both races in schools which 

have a majority Negro is no better, if as good, than that 

offered to pupils of all Negro schools. It is difficult to find 

any situation in which integration has been successful in 

terms of educational opportunity or stability where white 

pupils have not been in a substantial majority. A determina- 

tion of whether or not the Norfolk School Board and other 

school boards similarly situated are entitled to take this phe- 

nomenon of social science into account in determining the 

extent of affirmative action to be taken to achieve integration 

appears to be essential to the development of public educa- 

tion of this country at this time. Is a rule such as the one man 

—one vote rule of the apportionment cases appropriate to the 

education cases? If it is not educationally desirable or even 

relevant that the racial composition of a school be a mirror 

image of the racial composition of the community, should 

such a goal be sought by any plan? These are among the 

basic practical problems to be resolved which are appropri- 

ately presented by this case. 

2. The Opinion of the Court of Appeals 

The opinions of the Chief Judge of the District Court 

deal in depth with the educational principles and the phe- 

nomena of social science with respect to integration and with 

the demography and financial, transportation and other re- 

sources of the school system. It was found that the School 

Board had affirmatively sought to obtain the maximum 

degree of educational opportunity within the capacity of 

the system. 

The opinion of the Court of Appeals appears to be based 

primarily if not entirely upon the degree of success in ob- 

taining a racial mix in schools. The word “education” is 

not mentioned on a single occasion in the majority opinion.  



  

14 

The Court of Appeals failed to deal with the important 

questions set forth in this petition. Conclusions are arrived 

at in its opinion which are contrary to the findings of fact of 

the District Court without any acknowledgment thereof. 

The capacity and resources of the Norfolk school system are 

not delineated or discussed by the Court of Appeals, but the 

judgment would appear to call for action by the School 

Board beyond the capacity and resources found to exist by 

the District Court. 

CONCLUSION 

The reasons for the degree of success or failure of existing 

integration plans in attaining educational goals can be prop- 

erly understood only by examination in light of the social 

phenomena explicated in this proceeding. Such success or 

failure of proposed plans can be accurately predicted by 

application of these principles of social science. The extent 

to which such principles may or must be taken into account 

under constitutional mandates has not been considered or 

determined by this Court. It is vital that such determination 

be made at this time. 
The importance of the issues raised in this proceeding to 

the Norfolk school system are obvious. Although the cir- 

cumstances and predicaments of each school system with 

respect to desegregation are to some extent peculiar to it, 

Norfolk fits a not uncommon pattern. The issues are also 

important to many other such similar school systems. The 

cases pending on petitions for writs of certiorari from the 

cities of Charlotte, North Carolina, and Little Rock, Ar- 

kansas, together with the issues presented here appear to 

cover the spectrum of the most pressing problems requiring 

decisions by the lower courts, local governments, educators 

and minorities. 

   



15 

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that 

the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted to 

review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fourth Circuit. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Toy D. SAVAGE, Jr. 

AriaN G. Donn 

WILLCOX, SAVAGE, LAWRENCE, 

Dickson & SPINDLE 

Virginia National Bank Building 

Norfolk, Virginia 23510 

Leonarp H. Davis 

City Attorney 
Norfolk, Virginia 23501 

Attorneys for Petitioners 

 



Supreme Court of the United States 
October Term, 1970 

  

No. 281 
  

JAMES E. SWANN, ET AL., 

Petitioners, 

V. 

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD 

OF EDUCATION, ET AL, 

Respondents. 
  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that copies of the attached, printed Brief 

Amicus Curiae were served upon counsel listed below by 

United States mail, first class or air mail, as required by 

the rules of this Court as follows: 

James M. Nabrit, 111 Honorable Erwin N. Griswold 
10 Columbus Circle Solicitor General of United States 
New York, New York 10019 Department of Justice 

J. LeVonne Chambers Washington, D. CG. 20530 

Chambers, Stein, Ferguson Honorable Robert Morgan 
& Lanning Attorney General 

216 West Tenth Street State of North Carolina 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Department of Justice 
William |. Wagzoner Raleigh, North Carolina 

Weinstein, Waggoner, Sturges, Benjamin S. Horack 
Odom and Bigger Ervin, Horack and McCartha 

1100 Barringer Office Tower 806 East Trade Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 

This 1st day of October, 1970. 

WiLLiaMm B. Seong, JRr., pro se [||e008c455-4630-47cc-abcb-befcc0f1c8dd||]