McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Brief Amicus Curiae

    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