McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Brief Amicus Curiae
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1975

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Trahan v. Lafayette Parish School Brief for Appellants, 1969. 94b3ca77-c69a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/bc4c2160-b99b-4e71-a2e8-8de1bd3bb5de/trahan-v-lafayette-parish-school-brief-for-appellants. Accessed July 01, 2025.
Copied!
In thb In \t& States QJmtrt of Appeals F ob t h e F if t h C ib cu it No. 27054 A lfreda T r a h a n , et al., —v.— Appellants, L afayette P abish S chool B oard, et al., Appellees. on appeal from t h e u n ited states district court FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS J ack G reenberg N orm an C. A m a k e r F r a n k l in E. W h ite W il l ia m B e n n e tt T u rn er 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 A. P. T ureaud 1821 Orleans Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana Louis B erry 1406 Ninth Street Alexandria, Louisiana M u r p h y W . B ell 214 East Boulevard Baton Rouge, Louisiana M arion Overton W h it e P. O. Box 627 Opelousas, Louisiana Attorneys for Appellants TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES i ISSUES PRESENTED 1 STATEMENT 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Introduction 3 II. The Affirmative Duty of the School Boards to Bring About Integrated Unitary School Systems Requires the Abandonment of Free Choice Plans and the Adoption of Alternative Plans Which Will Promptly Eliminate Racially Identifiable Schools 5 III. Specific Target Dates and Accom plishments for Faculty Integration must be Required to Assure the Elimination of Racially Identifi able Schools 17 CONCLUSION 22 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Paqe Adams v. Mathews, 403 F.2d 181, 188 (5th Cir. 1968) 10,17,20 Banks v. St. James Parish School Board, No. 16173 (E.D. La. Dec. 10, 1968) 12 Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, Fla. v. Braxton, 402 F.2d 900 (5th Cir. 1968) 16 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) 4 Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) 4,13-14 Dowell v. School Board of Oklahoma City Public Schools, 244 F.Supp. 971, aff'd 375 F.2d 158, cert, denied 387 U.S. 931 (1967) 22 Dunn v. St. Charles Parish School Board, No. 67147 (E.D. La. Dec. 10, 1968) 12 Graves v. Walton County Board of Education, 403 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1968) 10 Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 U.S. 430, 441-2 (1968) 8,9,12,14,17,20 Jones v. Caddo Parish School Board, 392 F.2d 723 (5th Cir. 1968) 19 Kelley v. The Altheimer, Arkansas Public School District, No. 22, 378 F.2d 483, 490 (8th Cir. 1967) 11 i Cases (cont.) Page Kemp v. Beasley, 389 F.2d 178, 183 (8th Cir. 1968) 11 Kier v. County School Board of Augusta County, 249 F.Supp. 239 (W.D. Va. 1966) 22 Monroe v. Board of Commissioners of Jackson, Tennessee, 391 U.S. 450 (1968) 9 Montgomery County Board of Education v. Carr, 400 F .2d 1 (5th Cir. 1968), reargu ment en banc denied 402 F .2d 782 (5th (Cir. 1968) 20,21 Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, No. 15556 (E.D . La. Nov. 27, 1968) 12 Moses v. Washington Parish School Board, 276 F.Supp. 834, 838, 851 (E.D. La. 1967) 7 Moses v. Washington Parish School Board, No. 15973 (E.D. La. Jan. 14, 1969) 13 Redman v. Terrebonne Parish School Board, No. 15663 (E.D. La. Dec. 5, 1968) 12 United States v. Board of Education of the City of Bessemer, 396 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1968) 15,18,19 United States v. Greenwood Municipal Separate School District, No. 25714 (5th Cir. Feb. 4, 1969) 11,13,15,16,18,20 United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 372 F.2d 836, aff1d with modi- fications on rehearinq en banc, 380 F.2d 385, cert, denied sub. nom. Caddo Parish School Board v. United States, 389 U.S. 840 (1967) 4,6,15,18 n Cases (cont.) United States v. School District 151 of Cook County, Illinois, 286 F.Supp. 786, 798 (N.D. 111. 1968), aff'd F.2d ___ (7th Cir. 1968) Other Authorities Meador, The Constitution and the Assignment of Pupils to Public Schools, 45 Va.L.Rev. 517 (1959) iii Page 22 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ALFREDA TRAHAN, et al., Appellants, vs. No. 27054 LAFAYETTE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al., Appellees. On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Western District of Louisiana ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Whether the Court below erred in approving the continued use of free choice plans, without requiring the school boards to submit alternative plans eliminating racially ident ifiable schools, where free choice has permitted the school boards still to maintain all-Negro schools, where only token numbers of Negro students attend previously all-white schools and where faculty integration is minimal. 2. Whether the court below erred in failing to re quire specific target dates and accomplishments for faculty desegregation where only token numbers of teachers have been assigned across racial lines and where the pattern of teacher assignment in each school is still identifiable as tailored for a heavy concentration of either Negro or white students. STATEMENT The fifteen school desegregation cases consolidated under the caption of this case all arise from the Western District of Louisiana. The appellant Negro school children seek the elimination of the racially dual school systems main tained by the appellee school boards. These cases bear many "service stripes" in the courts, and some of them have, at various times, been before this Court. The present appeal is from a decision, filed November 14, 1968, of the three judges of the Western Dis trict sitting en banc. The extraordinary en banc decision of the court below was rendered after a consolidated hearing of thirty Western District school cases held on November 12, 1968. The hearing was held pursuant to the direction of Chief Judge Ben C. Dawkins, Jr., dated August 7, 1968, that "the questions of zoning of attendance districts and reassign ing faculties and staffs" would be considered by all three District Judges. The court below conceived that the issue before it was whether free choice plans "constitute adequate compliance with the Board’s responsibility to achieve a system of deter mining admission to the public schools on a non-racial basis" -2- (opinion, p.l). Having so defined the issue, the court, with out considering any alternatives to freedom of choice plans, broadly approved their continuation in all fifteen cases. The court also failed to specify target dates and accomplish ments for faculty integration. Appellants moved in this Court to consolidate these fifteen cases, to expedite the appeals and for hear ing by the full Court sitting en banc. The motion for en banc hearing was denied on January 9, 1969. The motions to consolidate and expedite were granted on January 17, 1969. The same disposition was made of similar motions by the United States and the other private appellants in the other Western District cases heard with the instant cases below. ARGUMENT I. Introduction The painful history of school desegregation in this Circuit is well known to the Court and need not be re peated here. Suffice it to say that none of the appellee school boards made any step toward dismantling their segre gated systems for more than a decade after the Supreme Court declared that it was unconstitutional to maintain "separate -3- but equal" schools for Negro and white children. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (Brown I). They simply ignored the Court's decision in Brown II directing them to effectuate the transition to a non-racial system with all deliberate speed. 349 U.S. 294 (1955). The school boards did nothing until they were sued. Not until the school year 1965-66 was pupil integration be gun. In that year ten of the fifteen school systems involved here began to operate under some form of freedom of choice; the other five (Vermilion, Madison, Natchitoches, Jefferson Davis and Caddo Parishes) began in 1966-67. All of the school boards have now operated for two years under the uni form decree mandated by this Court in United States v. Jeffer son County Board of Education, 372 F.2d 836, aff'd with modi fications on rehearing en banc, 380 F.2d 385, cert, denied sub, nom. Caddo Parish School Board v. United States, 389 U.S. 840 (1967). Despite four years' experience with self-assignment by pupils in most of the cases and three years in the others, every school board is still maintaining a racially dual sys tem. The Court is respectfully referred to Appendix A to -4- this brief for a comprehensive review of the results of free dom of choice in each parish. The contents of the Appendix are tabulated from the school opening reports filed by each board pursuant to the Jefferson decree. There are still all-Negro schools in every parish. Only handfuls of Negro students have assigned themselves to "white" schools and, except in Bossier and Caddo Parishes, not a single white child has chosen to go to a "Negro" school. Faculty desegregation is minimal and in every parish and even every school the pattern of teacher assignment is readily identifiable as tailored for heavy concentrations of either Negro or white students. In short, in every case freedom of choice has permitted the school board to maintain its tradi tional system of racially identifiable schools. II. The Affirmative Duty of the School Boards to Bring About Integrated Unitary School Systems Requires the Abandonment of Free Choice Plans and the Adoption of Alternative Plans which Will Promptly Eliminate Racially Identifiable Schools .__________________ _____ This Court, sitting en banc in Jefferson County, held that school boards have the "affirmative duty under the 1/ Bossier Parish reported that one white student had en rolled in the kindergarten of a Negro school this year. Caddo reported that 35 white students were in Negro schools, but 34 of them attend one school for the men tally retarded. Fourteenth Amendment to bring about an integrated, unitary school system in which there are no Negro schools and no white schools •— just schools." 380 F.2d 385, 389. The Court mandated the entry of a comprehensive desegregation decree. While the decree contained free choice provisions for pupil assignment, the Court recognized that: "Freedom of choice is not a goal in itself. It is a means to an end. A schoolchild has no inalienable right to choose his school. A freedom of choice plan is but one of the tools available to school officials at this stage of the process of converting the dual system of separate schools for Negroes and whites into a unitary system." Id. at 390 (emphasis by the Court). Freedom of choice must be recognized for what it is -- an exceedingly strange technique of pupil assignment whose only function is to soften the attitudes of white Southerners to integration until a sensible method can be used to bring about a unitary system. Until the first ten tative step toward desegregation, of course, assignment of students by geographical zones (but according to race) was practically universal: "In the days before the impact of the Brown decis ion began to be felt, pupils were as signed to the school (corresponding, of course to the color of the pupils 1 skin) nearest -6- their homes; once the school zones and maps had been drawn up, nothing remained but to inform the community of the structure of the zone boundaries." Moses v. Washington Parish School Board. 2 76 F .Supp. 834,848 (E.D. La. 1967) . See also Meador, The Constitution and the Assignment of Pupils to Public School. 45 Va.L.Rev. 517 (1959): "until now the matter has been handled rather routinely almost everywhere by marking off geographical attendance areas for various buildings. In the South, how ever , coupled with this method has been the factor of race." Not only is free choice an aberration born of a supposed need to postpone the transition to a non-racial system, it is a cumbersome administrative nightmare: "Free choice systems, as every southern school official knows, greatly complicate the task of pupil assignment in the system and add a tremendous workload to the already overburdened school officials . . . * * * * * "If this Court must pick a method of assign ing students to schools within a particular school district, barring very unusual cir cumstances , we could imagine no method more inappropriate, more unreasonable, more need lessly wasteful in every respect, than the so-called "free-choice" system." Moses v. Washington Parish School Board, supra, at 848, 851. -7- The principal vice of free choice, however, is not that it is merely odd or inefficient, but that it per mits the school board to escape its affirmative duty to create a unitary system. It allows the board to shift the burden of achieving desegregation freer* itself to the school- children, and in particular in these cases, to the Negro schoolchildren. Schools are "desegregated" only to the ex tent that Negro children exercise their ”freedom of choice" to attend "white" schools. "Rather than further the disman tling of that dual system, the plan has operated simply to burden children and their parents with a responsibility which Brown II placed squarely on the School Board.M Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia. 391 U.S. 430, 441-2 (1968). In Green, the Supreme Court held that a free choice plan is unacceptable "if there are reasonably available other ways, such for illustration as zoning, promis ing speedier and more effective conversion to a unitary, non-racial school sys tem." 391 U.S. at 441. The Court said, echoing this Court in Jefferson, that school boards are required "to convert promptly to a system without a 'white1 school and a 'Negro1 school, but just schools." Id. at 442. And the conversion -8- is not to take place at some future time -- "the burden on a school board today is to come forward with a plan that prom ises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work now." Id. at 439 (emphasis by the Court). The Court1s holding in Green controls these cases. The rej ection of the plan there turned on the fact that af ter three years of free choice white students had not chosen the Negro school and only 15% of the Negro students attended the white school. Id. at 441. The instant cases cannot be distinguished.^ In all but two of the fifteen cases here, at least 86.5% of the Negro students attend all-Negro schools, and 3/in most cases the figure is more than 95%, In Lafayette 2/ Green cannot be distinguished on the ground that it in volved a system with only two schools. The Court, in enunciating the broad principles which condemn free choice, made nothing of this fact and, in a companion case, did not hesitate to strike down a similar plan in a multi-school system. Monroe v. Board of Commis sioners of Jackson, Tennessee, 391 U.S. 450 (1968). 3/ The precise percentages of Negro students in all-Negro schools this year are as follows (see Appendix A): Natchitoches 97.8% Acadia 94.5% Evangeline 97.7 Iberia 91.3 Caddo 97.5 Calcasieu 90.2 Madison 97.4 Jefferson St. Landry 97.0 Davis 87.0 St. Martin 96.4 St. Mary 86.5 Rapides 95.7 Lafayette 83.0 Bossier 95.6 Vermilion 56.0 -9 Parish 83% attend 10 all-Negro schools. In Vermilion Parish 44% of the Negro students attend predominantly white schools, but this does not prove that freedom of choice is working, or that some other plan would not work better. All of the other Negro students in Vermilion attend one large all-Negro school. The 44% figure was attained by the simple expedient of closing two of the three all-Negro schools for this year, thus neces sarily placing their former students in white schools. We do not disparage this action by the Vermilion board; we merely point out that closing all-Negro schools produces much more dramatic results than freedom of choice. Three decisions of this Court have already made it plain that Green requires the abandonment of free choice in every one of these cases. In Adams v. Mathews, which actu ally involved some of the instant cases, the Court applied Green and crystallized its rule as follows: "If in a school district there are still all-Negro schools, or only a small frac tion of Negroes in white schools, or no substantial integration of faculties and schoo1 activities then, as a matter of law, the existing plans fail to meet constitu tional standards as established in Green." 403 F.2d 181, 188 (5th Cir. 1968) (emphasis added). -10- The Court reiterated the test that any plan that leaves an all-Negro school is unconstitutional in Graves v. Walton County,_Board of Education. 403 F.2d at 189 (5th Cir. 1968). Another panel of this Court, in recently ruling free choice unacceptable, put it this way: "We do say that a new plan must be devised to eliminate the remaining, glaring vestige of a dual system: The continued existence of all- Negro schools with only a fraction of Negroes enrolled in white schools." United States v. Greenwood Municipal Separate School District, No. 25714 (5th Cir. Feb. 4, 1969) (slip op. 14). The racial identifiability test has also been ap plied by the Eighth Circuit: "Perpetuation of the all-Negro school in a formerly de jure segregated school system is sim- ply constitutionally impermissible" Kemp v. Beasley. 389 F.2d 178, 183 (8th Cir. 1968) "The appellee School District will not be fully desegregated nor the appellants assured of their rights under the Constitution so long as the Martin School clearly remains identifiable as a Negro school." Kelley v. The Altheimer, Arkansas Public School District, No. 22, 378 F.2d 483, 490 (8th Cir. 1967). These decisions correctly interpret the Brown and Green cases. The Brown cases condemned not merely compulsory racial assignments but also more generally the maintenance of -11- a dual public school system based on race — where some schools are maintained or identifiable as being for Negroes and others for whites. That students have been permitted to choose a school does not destroy its racial identification if it pre viously was designated for one race and continues to serve only students of and is staffed primarily by teachers of that race. Only when racial identification of schools has been eliminated will the dual system have been disestablished. This is the meaning of a system without a "white" school and a "Negro" school, but "just schools." Green, supra, at 442. Several judges in the Eastern District of Louisiana have also recognized that the traditional all-Negro schools must go and have ordered boards to develop, through the Educational Resource Center on School Desegregation in New Orleans, new plans eliminating them.^ As one judge said, the board: 4/ Banks v. St. James Parish School Board, No. 16173 (E.D. La. Dec. 10, 1968; plan filed Jan. 31, 1969); Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, No. 15556 (E.D. La. Nov. 27, 1968; plan filed Jan. 27, 1969); Dunn v. St. Charles Parish School Board, No. 67147 (E.D. La. Dec. 10, 1968; plan filed Jan. 31, 1969); Redman v. Terre bonne Parish School Board, No. 15663 (E.D. La. Dec. 5, 1968; plan filed Jan. 31, 1969). -12- "can no longer postpone the desegregation of these all-Negro schools in spite of the fact that the present plan contemplates the event ual phasing out of these schools. Rather, the school board is now bound to integrate or aban don these all-Negro schools by the commencement of the school year for 1969-1970. . Moses v. Washington Parish School Board, No. 15973 (E.D. La. Jan. 14, 1969). These cases recognize reality: the dual system per sists so long as there is a traditionally Negro school, possibly named George Washington Carver or Booker T. Washington, with a predominantly Negro staff and an all-Negro student body. Even greater numbers of what the school boards call "cross-overs" -- an acknowledgment of duality — will not cause these schools to disappear under a freedom of choice plan. Accordingly, more promising alternatives must be tried. United States v. Greenwood Municipal Separate School District, supra, slip op. 12. The court below seriously misconceived the issue pre sented . It said that the question was whether freedom of choice plans "constitute adequate compliance with the Board's responsibility 'to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a non-racial basis. . citing Brown -13- II, at 300 301 (opinion, p. 1). The issue is not whether ad mission is determined on a non-racial basis. As the Supreme Court said in Green, the fact that the school board in 1965 opened the doors" of all schools to all students "merely be gins, not ends, our inquiry whether the Board has taken steps adequate to abolish its dual, segregated system." 39.1 U.S. at 437. The issue is one of remedies — what the school board must do to meet its affirmative duty to disestablish a system of racially identifiable schools. The Supreme Court said that a racially neutral admission policy is not enough and that a freedom of choice plan is not adequate if other methods promise "speedier and more effective conversion to a unitary, nonracial school system." Id. at 441. The court below, in keeping with its statement of the issue, did not even consider whether any alternative to free choice would more effectively dismantle the dual system. It acknowledged that not one of the school boards proposed an alternative plan, but it failed to require the presentation of alternatives. We submit that this completely undercuts the court s approval of free choice. it also makes difficult meaningful review by this Court. Clearly the court below should -14- have required the boards to present plans based on geographic zoning or pairing or some other alternatives to free choice, so that the court could compare the relative merits of the alternatives. While we believe that freedom of choice must be abandoned in any event (Greenwood, supra, slip op. 10, 12) plainly the court erred in failing to consider whatever real- 5 /istic alternatives might exist in each case.— The court also erred in failing to inquire into the facts and circumstances of each individual case. The court was content to say that free choice was "working" in most of the parishes (opinion, p .5). But it lumped into its uniform approval of free choice some very different factual patterns 5/ The court's statement that the school boards have been admonished not to "tinker" with the Jefferson decree is nonsense (opinion, p. 2). While this Court has resisted attempts to modify the decree (see United States v. Board of Education of the City of Bessemer, 396 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1968)), the boards' affirmative duty requires them to use whatever method promises to undo segregation not to cling helplessly to freedom of choice. See this Court's en banc opinion in Jefferson, 380 F.2d 385; and Judge Wisdom's opinion for the Jefferson panel: "If school officials in any district should find that their district still has segregated faculties and schools or only token integration, their affirm ative duty to take corrective action requires them to try an alternative to a freedom of choice plan, such as a geographic attendance plan, a combination of the two, the Princeton plan, or some other acceptable sub stitute . . . Freedom of choice is not a key that opens all doors to equal educational opportunities." 372 F.2d at 895, 896. -15- which it chose not to examine, For example, it emphasized that in Vermilion 44% of the Negro students attend previously • 6 /all-white schools - But it ignored Evangeline Parish where "integration" actually decreased this year: in 1967-68, 2.9% of the Negro students attended white schools, but this year the figure dropped to 2.3%. (There could hardly be better proof that free choice does not disestablish the dual system.) The court also disregarded Natchitoches Parish (2.2% this year), where the proportion of integration decreased in sev eral individual schools, where the school board opened a new all-Negro school this year, and where the school board unabash edly refused to honor the choices of Negro students until en- 7/joined by the court. Similarly, the court lumped together large urban systems like Caddo with several small rural sys- terns, while plainly a plan that might work in one place would 8 /be inappropriate in another. In short, the court erred in 6/ The court attributed this to the efficacy of free choice rather than facing the reality that the school board sim ply closed two of the three all-Negro schools this year. 7/ See the transcript of hearing of July 25, 1968, at pp. 3-5, 8-11, 22, and the order entered August 2, 1968. 8/ What "works" is what disestablishes the system of racially identifiable schools. No one plan or even combination of plans will accomplish this in every case. Cf. Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, Fla, v. Braxton, 402 F.2d 900 (5th Cir. 1968); United States v. Greenwood Municipal Separate School District, supra. -16- ignoring the very language which it quoted (p. 1) from Green: "There is no universal answer to complex problems of desegregation; there is obviously no one plan that will do the job in every case. The matter must be assessed in light of the circumstances present and the options available in each instance. It is incumbent upon the school board to establish that its proposed plan promises meaningful and immediate progress toward disestablishing state- imposed segregation. It is incumbent upon the district court to weigh that claim in light of the facts at hand and in light of any alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more promising in their effectiveness." 391 U.S. at 439 (emphasis added). The court below considered no alternatives and its blanket approval of free choice must be reversed. The school boards should be required to come in with alternative plans, based on their individual local circumstances, which will actu ally disestablish their system of racially identifiable schools It goes without saying, of course, that the plans must be im plemented for the school year 1969-70. Adams v. Mathews, supra I I I . Specific Target Dates and Accomplishments for Faculty Integration must be Required to Assure the Elimination of Racially Identifiable Schools______________________ The decree mandated by the en banc decision of this Court in Jefferson requires that "the pattern of teacher assign ment to any school not be identifiable as tailored for a heavy -17- concentration of either Negro or white pupils in the school" and directs school officials "to assign and reassign teachers and other professional staff members to eliminate the effects of the dual school system." 380 F,2d at 394. If the elimina tion of racial identifiability or the conversion to a system with "just schools" means anything, it must mean that a school should not be racially identifiable by the composition of either its students or faculty: "The transformation to a unitary system will not come to pass until the board has balanced the faculty of each school so that no faculty is identifiable as being tailored for a heavy concentration of Negro or white students." United States v. Greenwood Municipal Separate School District, supra, slip op. 15-16. In United States v. Board of Education of the City of Bessemer, 396 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1968), this Court, per Chief Judge Brown, said that it was erroneous for a district court to consider the faculty integration issue as whether the school board attempted in good faith to make substantial pro gress . The Court held that school boards may not rely solely on the "voluntary approach" but must forthrightly make assign ments to meet the constitutional mandate, and that the district court "has a duty to require specific interim target dates and accomplishments" to assure that complete faculty integration will be attained. See also Greenwood, supra, slip op. 16. -18- The court below ignored the explicit mandate of Bessemer. Despite the fact that in every parish and even every school the pattern of teacher assignment is readily identifiable as intended for either white or Negro students, the District Court specified no target dates or accomplishments at all The school boards were told in effect that tokenism is accept able and that there is nothing to worry about for the indefin ite future. The court's decision provides no assurance at all that the objectives established by Jefferson will be met any time soon. We believe that the adoption of plans effecting com plete student integration will eliminate most obstacles to faculty integration. The opposition by teachers to teaching students of another race will be diminished if they are teach ing in integrated classrooms. The Green decision envisaged that faculty and student integration would proceed contempor aneously — there would be "just schools." While Bessemer, 9/ In December of 1967, appellants moved in all these cases for further relief requiring specific steps toward com plete faculty integration. After hearings, relief was denied in most cases, and appeals were taken. This Court consolidated the appeals but denied appellants' motions for summary reversal. See Jones v. Caddo Parish School Board, 392 F.2d 723 (5th Cir. 1968). This Court, however, stated that "some means must be provided by the trial court to ascertain whether the requirements of Jefferson are to be substantially complied with before it is too late to affect teacher assignments for the next school year." Id. at 723 (emphasis by the Court); see also Bessemer, supra, at n.17. Appellants then pressed faculty integration in the court below, but were denied relief by the decision appealed from. -19- supra,, established 1970-71 as the date by which complete fac ulty desegregation must be achieved, that opinion was written without reference to, and apparently prior to the issuance of the Green decision. Green requires that the transition to a system without racially identifiable schools be effected "now." Adams v. Mathews required complete integration for 1969-70 and suggested steps to be taken during this school year. Therefore, we submit that total faculty desegregation must be achieved for the opening of school this fall The question of the ultimate goal — what constitutes complete faculty desegregation -- is presently before a panel of this Court (Judges Wisdom, Bell and Godbold) on another ap peal in the same three cases involved in the Bessemer decision (Nos. 26582, 26583 and 26584, argued November 21, 1968). In Montgomery County Board of Education v. Carr, 400 F.2d 1 (5th 10/ If, however, the Court adheres to the 1970-71 date men tioned by Bessemer, "to assure compliance, it is evident that the district judge will have to impose interim tar gets and conduct subsequent hearings to determine what progress is being made." Greenwood, supra, slip op. 16. This, the court below has failed to do, and the absence of explicit targets and deadlines accounts in large part for the inadequate performance by the instant boards. -2 0 - Cir. 1968), another panel affirmed a district court order requiring that there be at least one minority race teacher for every five of the majority in each school by the begin ning of the school year 1968-69, but reversed part of the order requiring ultimately that the racial composition of each faculty approximate the composition of the entire fac ulty of the school system. On the latter point, this Court split 6-6 on whether to grant reargument en banc, 402 F .2d 782, and petitions for certiorari were filed in the Supreme Court. We submit that the only effective means of carry ing out the command of Jefferson to eliminate the racial identifiability of faculties is to make all the schools' faculties look substantially alike, so that each reflects proportionately the racial composition of the entire faculty of the school system. This was explicitly held in United States v. School District 151 of Cook County, Illinois, 286 F.Supp. 786, 798 (N.D. 111. 1968), aff 'd___ F.2d ___ (7th -21- d r • 1968); accord Dowell v. School Board of Oklahoma City Public Schools. 244 F.Supp. 971, aff'd 375 F.2d 158, cert, denied 387 U.S. 931 (1967); Kier v. County School Board of Augusta County, 249 F.Supp. 239 (W.D. Va. 1966). Perhaps precise mathematical compliance is not feasible but substan- tial proportionality is the only reasonable assurance that faculties will no longer be racially identifiable. Having created segregated faculties by unconstitutional hiring and assignment policies, the school boards must now act forth rightly to undo such segregation and eliminate the last vestiges of the dual system. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, these cases should be re manded to the District Court with instructions to require each school board forthwith to submit an alternative plan, not based on freedom of choice, for complete conversion to a unitary nonracial system by the beginning of the school year 1969-70. Such plan should eliminate all-Negro schools, either by abandoning the physical facilities or by assign ing to such schools substantial numbers of white students. -22- The plan should also require that in each school the ratio of Negro teachers to white teachers will be substantially the same as the ratio of Negro to white teachers in the entire system. The plan should be filed before June 1, so that appellants may file objections or amendments to be promptly determined by the Court and the plan may be fully implemented by the opening of the 1969-70 school year. Respectfully submitted, JACK GREENBERG NORMAN C. AMAKER FRANKLIN E. WHITE WILLIAM BENNETT TURNER 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 A. P. TUREAUD 1821 Orleans Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana MURPHY W. BELL 214 East Boulevard Baton Rouge, Louisiana LOUIS BERRY 1406 East Ninth Street Alexandria, Louisiana MARION OVERTON WHITE P. 0. Box 627 Opelousas, Louisiana -23- APPENDIX \ APPENDIX A 1. Total school enrollment as of September 30, 1968 27,295 2. Total number of Negro students 6,984 3. Total number of white students 20,311 4. Total number of schools 35 5. Number of schools with exclusively Negro students 10 6. Number of schools with exclusively white students 4 7. Number of Negro students attending pre dominantly white schools 1,195 8. Percentage of total Negro students attend ing predominantly white schools 17% 9. Percentage of total Negro students who at- tended predominantly white schools in 1967-68 10% 10, Number of white students attending pre dominantly Negro schools 0 11. Number of white students who attended pre dominantly Negro schools in 1967-68 0 Faculty 1. Total number of teachers 1,194 2. Number of Negro teachers 283 3. Number of white teachers 911 4. Number of Negro teachers assigned to predominantly white schools 45 5. Number of white teachers assigned to predominantly Negro schools 28 6 . Average number of teachers per school as signed to schools predominantly serving stu dents of a race other than their own 2.1 7. Number of schools with exclusively Negro faculties 1 8. Number of predominantly white schools with only one Negro teacher 7 9. Number of predominantly Negro schools with only one white teacher Lafayette Parish School Board Students 1 Acadia Parish School Board Students 1. Total school enrollment as of September 13, 1968 11,6242. Total number of Negro students 2,6943. Total number of whit® students 8,9304. Total number of schools 225. Number of schools with exclusively Negro students 46. Number of schools with exclusively white students 97. Number of Negro students attending pre- dominantly white schools 1498. Percentage of total Negro students attend- ing predominantly white schools 5.5%9. Percentage of total Negro students who at tended predominantly white schools in 1967-68 2.2%10. Number of white students attending pre- dominantly Negro schools 011. Number of white students who attended pre- dominantly Negro schools in 1967-68 1 Faculty 1. Total number of teachers 516 2. Number of Negro teachers 127 3. Number of white teachers 389 4. Number of Negro teachers assigned to predominantly white schools 23 5. Number of white teachers assigned to predominantly Negro schools 12 6. Average number of teachers per school as signed to schools predominantly serving stu dents of a race other than their own 1.6 7. Number of schools with exclusively white faculties 6 8. Number of predominantly white schools with only one Negro teacher 6 Students Iberia Parish School Board 1* Total school enrollment as of September 10, 1968 2. Total number of Negro students 3. Total number of white students 4. Total number of schools 5. Number of schools with exclusively .Negro students 6. Number of schools with exclusively white students 7. Number of Negro students attending pre dominantly white schools 8. Percentage of total Negro students attend ing predominantly white schools 9. Percentage of total Negro students who at tended predominantly white schools in 1967-68 10. Number of white students attending pre dominantly Negro schools 11. Number of white students who attended pre dominantly Negro schools in 1967-68 14,967 4,897 10,070 30 11 4 42 6 8 .7% 6 . 2% 0 0 Faculty 1. Total number of teachers 661 2. Number of Negro teachers 231 3. Number of white teachers 430 4. Number of Negro teachers assigned to predominantly white schools 24 5. Number of white teachers assigned to predominantly Negro schools 2 6. Average number of teachers per school as signed to schools predominantly serving stu dents of a race other than their own .86 7. Number of schools with exclusively Negro faculties 9 8. Number of schools with exclusively white faculties 7 9. Number of predominantly white schools with only one Negro teacher 2 10. Number of predominantly Negro schools with only one white teacher 2 St. Martin Parish School Board Students 1. Total school enrollment as of September 20, 1968 8,387 2. Total number of Negro students 3,516 3. Total number of white students 4,871 4. Total number of schools 15 5. Number of schools with exclusively Negro students 7 6. Number of schools with exclusively white students 1 7. Number of Negro students attending pre dominantly white schools 128 8. Percentage of total Negro students at tending predominantly white schools 3.6% 9. Percentage of total Negro students who at tended predominantly white schools in 1967-68 3 - 2% 10. Number of white students attending pre dominantly Negro schools 0 11. Number of white students who attended pre dominantly Negro schools in 1967-68 0 Faculty 1. Total number of teachers 376 2. Number of Negro teachers 161 3. Number of white teachers 215 4. Number of Negro teachers assigned to predominantly white schools 15 5. Number of white teachers assigned to predominantly Negro schools 8 6. Average number of teachers per school as signed to schools predominantly serving stu dents of a race other than the ir own 1.5 7. Number of schools with exclusively Negro faculties 3 8. Number of schools with exclusively white faculties 1 9. Number of predominantly white schools with only one Negro teacher 2 Students St. Mary Parish School Board 1. Total school enrollment as of September 6* 1968 15,927 2. Total number of Negro students 5,390 3. Total number of white students 10,537 4. Total number of schools 26 5. Number of schools with exclusively Negro students 9 6. Number of schools with exclusively white students 1 7. Number of Negro students attending pre dominantly white schools 729 8. Percentage of total Negro students attend ing predominantly white schools 13.5% 9. Percentage of total Negro students who at tended predominantly white schools in 1967-68 11.7% 10. Number of white students attending pre dominantly Negro schools 0 11. Number of white students who attended pre dominantly Negro schools in 1967-68 0 Faculty 1. Total number of teachers 701 2. Number of Negro teachers 246 3. Number of white teachers 455 4. Number of Negro teachers assigned to predominantly white schools 52 5. Number of white teachers assigned to predominantly Negro schools 12 6. Average number of teachers per school as signed to schools predominantly serving stu dents of a race other than their own 2.5 7. Number of schools with exclusively Negro faculties 2 8. Number of predominantly white schools with only one Negro teacher 1 9. Number of predominantly Negro schools with only one white teacher 2 Vermilion Parish School Board Students 1. Total school enrollment as of September 15, 1968 9,782 2* Total number of Negro students 1,644 3. Total number of white students 8,138 4. Total number of schools 18 5. Number of schools with exclusively Negro students 1 6. Number of schools with exclusively white students 2 7. Number of Negro students attending pre dominantly white schools 722 8. Percentage of total Negro students attend ing predominantly white schools 44% 9. Percentage of total Negro students who at tended predominantly white schools in 1967-68 19.5% 10. Number of white students attending pre dominantly Negro schools 0 11. Number of white students who attended pre dominantly Negro schools in 1967-68 0 Faculty 1. Total number of teachers 433 2. Number of Negro teachers 62 3. Number of white teachers 3712 4. Number of Negro teachers assigned to predominantly white schools 23 5. Number of white teachers assigned to predominantly Negro schools 3 6. Average number of teachers per school as signed to schools predominantly serving stu dents of a race other than their own 1.4 7. Number of schools with exclusively white faculties 8. Number of predominantly white schools with only one Negro teacher 10 In 1968-69 this parish closed two Negro schools which it maintained in 1967-68. ro| i— Students Rapides Parish School Board 1. Total school enrollment as of September 26, 1968 28,527 2. Total number of Negro students 9,671 3. Total number of white students 18,856 4. Total number of schools 51 5. Number of schools with exclusively Negro students 6. Number of schools with exclusively white students 16 7 . Number of Negro students attending pre dominantly white schools 402 8. Percentage of total Negro students attend ing predominantly white schools 4.3% 9. Percentage of total Negro students who at tended predominantly white schools in 1967-68 3 • 3% 10. Number of white students attending pre dominantly Negro schools 0 11. Number of white students who attended pre dominantly Negro schools in 1967-68 0 Faculty 1. Total number of teachers 1,178.5 2. Number of Negro teachers 392 3. Number of white teachers 786.5 4. Number of Negro teachers assigned to predominantly white schools 19.5 5. Number of white teachers assigned to predominantly Negro schools 23.5 6. Average number of teachers per school as signed to schools predominantly serving stu dents of a race other than their own 1.2 7. Number of schools with exclusively Negro faculties 4 8. Number of schools with exclusively white faculties 5 9. Number of predominantly white schools with only one Negro teacher 6 10. Number of predominantly Negro schools with only one white teacher 6 This parish has maintained the same number of all-Negro schools (19) as it maintained in 1967-68. In 1968-69, the parish has 2 additional all-white schools, one of which, J. B. Nachman Elementary, is open for the first time this year. Students Evangeline Parish School Board 1. Total school enrollment as of September 12, 1968 8,738 2. Total number of Negro students 3,114 3. Total number of white students 5,624 4. Total number of schools 14 5. Number of schools with exclusively Negro students 5 6. Number of schools with exclusively white students 2 7. Number of Negro students attending pre dominantly white schools 71 8. Percentage of total Negro students attend ing predominantly white schools 2.3% 9. Percentage of total Negro students who at tended predominantly white schools in 1967-68 2.9% 10. Number of white students attending pre dominantly Negro schools 0 11. Number of white students who attended pre dominantly Negro schools in 1967-68 0 Faculty 1. Total number of teachers 416 2. Number of Negro teachers 142 3. Number of white teachers 274 4. Number of Negro teachers assigned to predominantly white schools 19 5. Number of white teachers assigned to predominantly Negro schools 12 6. Average number of teachers per school as signed to schools predominantly serving stu dents of a race other than their own 2.2 7. Number of predominantly Negro schools with only one white teacher 2 This parish maintained the same number of all- Negro schools (5) as it maintained in 1967-68. How ever, in 1968-69, the parish is maintaining 2 all-white schools which were integrated last year. Students St. Landry Parish School Board 1. Total school enrollment as of September 18, 1968 22,533 2. Total number of Negro students 10,754 3. Total number of white students 11,779 4. Total number of schools 43 5. Number of schools with exclusively Negro students 20 6. Number of schools with exclusively white students 3 7. Number of Negro students attending pre dominantly white schools 330 8. Percentage of total Negro students attending predominantly white schools 3% 9. Percentage of total Negro students who at tended predominantly white schools in 1967-68 3% 10. Number of white students attending pre dominantly Negro schools 0 11. Number of white students who attended pre dominantly Negro schools in 1967-68 0 Faculty 1. Total number of teachers 1,031 2. Number of Negro teachers 484 3. Number of white teachers 547 4. Number of Negro teachers assigned to predominantly white schools 23 5. Number of white teachers assigned to predominantly Negro schools 21 6. Average number of teachers per school as signed to schools predominantly serving stu dents of a race other than their own 1. 7. Number of predominantly white schools with only one Negro teacher 23 8. Number of predominantly Negro schools with only one white teacher 19 This parish maintained the same number of all-white schools (3) and the same number of all-Negro schools (20) as it did in 1967-68. Students Natchitoches Parish School Board 1. Total school enrollment as of September 13, 1968 8,928 2. Total number of Negro students 4,601 3. Total number of white students 4,327 4. Total number of schools 26 5. Number of schools with exclusively Negro students 10 6. Number of schools with exclusively white students 7 7. Number of Negro students attending pre dominantly white schools 101 8. Percentage of total Negro students attend ing predominantly white schools 2 . 2 % 9. Percentage of total Negro students who at tended predominantly white schools in 1967-68 2.1% Faculty 1. Total number of teachers 548.07 2. Number of Negro teachers 247.07 3. Number of white teachers 301 4. Number of Negro teachers assigned to predominantly white schools 29 5. Number of white teachers assigned to predominantly Negro schools 33 6. Average number of teachers per school as signed to schools predominantly serving stu dents of a race other than their own 2.4 In 1967-68, this parish maintained 9 all-Negro schools. A new school, J.W. Thomas, has been opened for the first time this year. The Thomas school has an all-Negro enrollment, increasing the number of all-Negro schools to 10. Of the 29 Negro teachers assigned to pre dominantly white schools, 14 of them have been assigned to librarian work and 10 are reading teachers. Students Caddo Parish School Board 1. Total school enrollment as of September 16, 1968 2. Total number of Negro students 3. Total number of white students 4. Total number of schools 5. Number of schools with exclusively white students 6. Number of schools with exclusively Negro students 7. Number of Negro students attending pre dominantly white schools 8. Percentage of total Negro students at tending predominantly white schools 9. Percentage of total Negro students who at tended predominantly white schools in 1967-68 59,293 25,414 33,879 77 15 26 642 2 . 5% 1. 7% Faculty 1. Total number of teachers 2. Number of Negro teachers 3. Number of white teachers 4. Number of Negro teachers assigned to predominantly white schools 5. Number of white teachers assigned to predominantly Negro schools 6. Average number of teachers per school as signed to schools predominantly serving students of a race other than their own 7. Number of schools with exclusively white faculties 8. Number of predominantly white schools with only one Negro teacher 2,507 1,099 1,408 96 66 2.1 2 2 This parish maintained the same number of all-Negro schools (26) as it did in 1967- 68. It closed the Newton Smith Elementary school, which had an all-Negro student enroll ment , and added one all—Negro schoo1. Bossier Parish School Board 1. Total school enrollment as of September 17, 1968 18,227 2. Total number of Negro students 4,268 3. Total nimber of white students 13,949 4. Total number of schools 24 5. Number of schools with exclusively white students 5 6. Number of schools with exclusively Negro students 5 7. Number of Negro students attending pre dominantly white schools 188 8. Percentage of total Negro students attend ing predominantly white schools 4.4% 9. Percentage of total Negro students who at tended predominantly white schools in 1967-68 3*2% 10. Number of white students attending pre dominantly Negro schools 1 11. Number of white students who attended pre dominantly Negro schools in 1967-68 0 Faculty 1. Total number of teachers 827 2. Number of Negro teachers 213 3. Number of white teachers 614 4. Number of Negro teachers assigned to predominantly white schools 33 5. Number of white teachers assigned to predominantly Negro schools 22 6. Average number of teachers per school as signed to schools predominantly serving stu dents of a race other than their own 2.3 7. Number of schools with exclusively white faculties 1 8. Number of predominantly white schools with only one Negro teacher 1 This parish maintained the same number of all-white schools .(5) as it did in 1967-68. In 1968-69, it opened a new school, Be11aire, which has an all-white student enrollment. The number of all-Negro schools maintained by the parish has decreased by one school in 1968-69 — the Butler School has one white student enrolled this year. Students Madison Parish School Board (Williams v. Kimbrough) Students 1. Total school enrollment as of September 20, 1968 4,490 2. Total number of Negro students 3,235 3. Total number of white students 1,255 4. Total number of schools 8 5. Number of schools with exclusively Negro students 5 6. Number of schools with exclusively white students 0 7. Number of Negro students attending pre dominantly white schools 83 8. Percentage of total number of Negro stu dents attending predominantly white schools 2.6% 9. Percentage of total Negro students who at tended predominantly white schools in 1967-68 2 .4% 10. Number of white students attending pre dominantly Negro schools 0 11. Number of white students who attended pre dominantly Negro schools in 1967-68 0 Faculty 1. Total number of teachers 218 2. Number of Negro teachers 137 3. Number of white teachers 81 4. Number of Negro teachers assigned to predominantly white schools 5 5. Number of white teachers assigned to predominantly Negro schools 13 6. Average number of teachers per school as signed to schools predominantly serving stu- dents of a race other than their own 2.25 7. Number of schools with exclusively white faculties 1 8. Number of predominantly white schools with only one Negro teacher 1 9. Number of predominantly Negro schools with only one white teacher 1 Students Calcasieu Parish School Board (Lake Charles) 1. Total school enrollment as of September 4, 1968 38,545 2. Total number of Negro students 9,787 3. Total number of white students 28,758 4. Total number of schools 73 5. Number of schools with exclusively white students 13 6. Number of schools with exclusively Negro students 21 7. Number of Negro students attending pre dominantly white schools 856 8. Percentage of total Negro students attending predominantly white schools 9.8% 9. Percentage of total Negro students who at tended predominantly white schools in 1967-68 7.67% 10. Number of white students attending pre dominantly Negro schools 0 11. Number of white students who attended pre dominantly Negro schools in 1967-68 0 Faculty 1. Total number of teachers 1,796 2. Number of Negro teachers 417 3. Number of white teachers 1,379 4. Number of Negro teachers assigned to predominantly white schools 31 5. Number of white teachers assigned to predominantly Negro schools 28 6. Average number of teachers per school as signed to schools predominantly serving stu dents of a race other than their own .8 7. Number of schools with exclusively Negro faculties 16 8. Number of schools with exclusively white faculties ' 34 9. Number of predominantly white schools with only one Negro teacher 4 Students Jefferson Davis Parish School Board 1. Total school enrollment as of October 16, 1968 8,045 2. Total number of Negro students 2,069 3. Total number of white students 5,976 4. Total number of schools 19 5. Number of schools with exclusively Negro students 5 6. Number of schools with exclusively white students 1 7. Number of Negro students attending pre dominantly white schools 270 8 . Percentage of total Negro students attend ing predominantly white schools 13% 9 . Percentage of total Negro students who at tended predominantly white schools in 1967-68 8.3% 10. Number of white students attending pre dominantly Negro schools 0 11. Number of white students who attended pre dominantly Negro schools in 1967-68 0 Faculty 1. Total number of teachers 397 2 . Number of Negro teachers 110 3. Number of white teachers 287 4. Number of Negro teachers assigned to predominantly white schools 11 5. Number of white teachers assigned to predominantly Negro schools 2 6. Average number of teachers, per school as signed to schools predominantly serving stu dents of a race other than their own .7 7. Number of schools with exclusively Negro faculties 3 8. Number of schools with exclusively white faculties 2 9. Number of predominantly white schools with only one Negro teacher 12 10. Number of predominantly Negro schools with only one white teacher 2