United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education Brief for Intervenors and Motion for Leave to File
Public Court Documents
April 22, 1966

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education Brief for Intervenors and Motion for Leave to File, 1966. 2f971f88-c79a-ee11-be37-000d3a574715. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/4ffb814f-0400-4500-9f8b-708ff9252880/united-states-v-jefferson-county-board-of-education-brief-for-intervenors-and-motion-for-leave-to-file. Accessed June 13, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE Court at FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 23,345 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant-Intervenor, LINDA STOUT, by her father and next friend, BLEVIN STOUT, Intervenor, vs. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Appellees. No. 23,335 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant-Intervenor f DORIS ELAINE BROWN, et at, Intervenors, vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF BESSEMER, et at, Appellees. No. 23,331 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant-Intervenor, GEORGE ROBERT BOYKINS, et a t, Intervenors, vs. FAIRFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Appellees. No. 23,274 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant-Intervenor, BERYL N. JONES, et a t , Intervenors, vs. CADDO PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et at. Appellees. ON APPEAL PROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP ALABAMA AND WESTERN DISTRICT OP LOUISIANA BRIEF FOR INTERVENORS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DAVID H. HOOD 2001 Carolina Avenue Bessemer, Alabama JESSE N. STONE, JR. 854% Texas Avenue Shreveport, Louisiana A. P. TUREAUD 1821 Orleans Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana SHEILA RUSH JONES CONRAD K. HARPER FEED WALLACE GERALD A. SMITH Of Counsel JACK GREENBERG JAMES M. NABRIT, III MICHAEL MELTSNER NORMAN AMAKER 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York OSCAR W. ADAMS, JR. 1630 Fourth Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama DEMETRIUS C. NEWTON 408 North 17th Street Birmingham, Alabama Attorneys for Intervenors I N D E X PAGE Motion for Leave to File Interveners’ Brief or in the Alternative to File Brief Amicus Curiae ............... . 1 Statement ........................................................................ 3 A. No. 23,345 Jefferson County Board of Educa tion .................................-.................................... 3 The Original Desegregation P la n ........ ............ 4 The Amended Desegregation Plan ................... 5 General Transfer Procedure ............................. 5 Attendance Zones .............................................. 6 Teacher and Staff Segregation......................... 8 Unequal Negro Schools ................................... 9 B. No. 23,335 Board of Education of The City of Bessemer ...................................................... 10 Summary of Litigation ............ 10 Summary of the Hearings ............... 13 Transfer Procedure Under the Plan ....... 14 Comparison of White and Negro Schools .... . 15 Faculty Desegregation ......... 18 C. No. 23,331 Fairfield Board of Education.......... 19 D. No. 23,274 Caddo Parish School Board .......... 25 Specification of Error ................... 29 l/ y ii PAGfi A r g u m e n t I. The Plans Approved by the District Courts Fall Short of This Court’s Standards With Regard Both to Pupil and Teacher Desegre gation .............——-............................ ................ 30 II. The Inferiority of Negro Schools (1) Entitles Negro Students to a Right of Immediate Trans fer In All Grades and (2) Requires the School Board to Devise a Plan Which Maximizes Desegregation ............................. 45 C o n c lu sio n .................................................................... 48 Certificate of Service...................................................... 49 T able of C ases Anderson v. Martin, 375 U.S. 399 .................................. 42 Armstrong v. Board of Education of City of Birming ham, 323 F.2d 333 (5th Cir. 1964) ........................ . 11 j Armstrong v. Board of Education, Birmingham, Ala., 333 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1964) ...................................... 3 Beckett v. School Board of Norfolk, Civ. No. 2214 (E.D. Va.) ............................ 40 Boson V. Rippy, 285 P.2d 43 (5th Cir. 1960) ..... ..... . 37 Bradley v. School Board of Richmond, 382 U.S. 103 ........................................................................30,37,41 Brooks V. County School Board of Arlington, Vir ginia, 324 F.2d 303 (4th Cir. 1963) ..... ...................... 37 Brown V. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) ....25,45 Carr, et al. v. Montgomery Board of Education, Civ. No. 2072-N (N.D. Ala. March 22, 1966) ..... .......... . 47 lU PAGE Dove V. Parham, 282 F.2d 256 (8th Cir. 1960) .......... 37 Dowell V. School Board of Oklahoma City Public Schools, 244 F. Supp. 971 (W.D. Okla. 1965) .......38,44 Goss V. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 683 ..................37, 42 Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218 ......................................... ........ 37 Houston Independent School District v. Ross, 282 F.2d 95 (5th Cir. 1960) ..................................................... 37 Kemp V. Beasley, 352 F.2d 14 (8th Cir. 1965) .............. 44 Kier v. County School Board of Augusta County, Vir ginia, 249 F. Supp. 239 (W.D. Va. 1966) ..............38, 44 Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938) .. 45 Price V. Denison Independent School District Board of Education, 348 F.2d 1010 (5th Cir. 1965) ....3,13, 30, 44 ^ Rogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198 ........ ........... ................... 45 Ross V. Dyer, 312 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1963) ............... . 37 ' Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dis trict, 355 F.2d 865 (5th Cir. 1966) .... .....30, 31, 32, 36, 37 Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dis trict, 348 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1965) ..............3,13,35,44 Sipuel V. Board of Regents, 332 U.S. 631 (1948) ......... . 45 Sweat! v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950) ......... .......... . 45 United States v. Bossier Parish School Board, 349 F.2d 1020 (5th Cir. 1965) ............... ........................ 28 1/ IV. S ta tu tes PAGE Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964 ................................ 42 42 U.S.C. §2000h-2 ............................... .......................... 28 Rule 24, P.R. Civ. P ........................................................ 28 O t h e r A u t h o r it ie s Opinion of Attorney General of California, 8 Race Rel. L. Rep. 1303 (1963) ................................................ 39 Revised Statement of Policies for School Desegrega tion Plans Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 §§181.13 .................................................................. 42 181.13(b) .......................................... 38 181.13(d) ............................................................. 38 181.15 ....... 48 Statistical Summary of School Segregation-Desegre gation in Southeim and Border States, 15th Revi sion, December 1965 (Southern Education Report ing Service) ........................................... 41 IN THE Court of FOE THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 23,345 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant-Intervenor, LINDA STOUT, by her father and next friend, BLEVIN STOUT, Intervenor, vs. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et ah, Appellees. No. 23,335 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant-Intervenor, DORIS ELAINE BROWN, et al, Intervenors, vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OP THE CITY OP BESSEMER, et a l, Appellees. No. 23,331 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant-Intervenor, GEORGE ROBERT BOYKINS, et al., Intervenors, vs. FAIRFIELD BOARD OP EDUCATION, et al.. Appellees. No. 23,274 UNITED STATES OP AMERICA, Appellant-Intervenor, BERYL N. JONES, et al, Intervenors, vs. CADDO PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al.. Appellees. ON APPEAL PEOM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS EOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA AND WESTERN DISTRICT OP LOUISIANA Motion for Leave to File Intervenors’ Brief or in the Alternative to File Brief Amicus Curiae April 8, 1966, Negro school children and parents, here inafter referred to as intervenors, moved this Court for leave to intervene as party-appellants in Stout, et al. v. Jefferson County Board of Education, (No. 23,345); Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of the City of Bessemer, (No. 23,335); Boykins, et al. v. Fairfield Board of Educa- tion, (No. 23,331); Jones, et al. v. Caddo Parish School Board, (No. 23,274); on the ground that as original party- plaintiffs in each of these actions they had failed, through inadvertence, to file timely notice of appeal, but were desirous of making their views known to the Court and aiding the Court in adjudication of the serious constitu tional questions involving their interests which are raised. As of April 21, 1966, intervenors have not received notice of action by the Court with respect to the motion to intervene and have been informed by the Office of the Clerk that action by the Court is unlikely before April 25, 1966, the date on which appellant’s (United States of America) brief is due to be filed with the Court. In order not to cause delay should the motion to intervene be granted, intervenors adopt and incorporate their motion to intervene herein, lodge copies of this brief with the Clerk, and serve copies upon all counsel prior to learning of the disposition of the motion to intervene. Should the motion to intervene be denied, Negro school children and their parents, original plaintiffs below, respectfully move the Court to grant leave to file this brief amicus curiae. Because of the presence of common questions of law and fact, the attached brief combines intervenors’ argu ments No. 23,345 (Jefferson); No. 23,335 (Bessemer); No. 23,331 (Fairfield); No. 23,274 (Caddo). Respectfully submitted, M ic h a e l M e l t sn e b 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York Attorney for Intervenors BRIEF FOR INTERVENORS Statement A. No, 2 3 ,3 4 5 Jefferson County Board o f Education On June 4, 1965, Linda Stout, by her father and next friend Blevin Stout, filed a class action against the Jef ferson County, Alabama, Board; of Education and Dr. Kermit Johnson, Superintendent (E. 9), seeking deseg regation of all schools under the appellees’ control. A motion for preliminary injunction was also filed seeking complete desegregation either by court order or by a desegregation plan (E. 17-19). Appellees filed an answer June 22, 1965 (R. 20) and a hearing was held the same day (R. 77-149). On June 24, 1965 (R. 23-28), the district court ordered appellees to file a desegregation plan parallel ing the plan required by this Court in Armstrong v. Board of Education, Birmingham, Ala., 333 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1964), not later than June 30, 1965. Appellees filed their plan June 30, 1965 (R. 29-37) and objections were filed July 9, 1965 (R. 38-40). On July 12, 1965, the United States moved to intervene as a party. The motion was granted by the district court, and the United States filed objections to the plan (R. 41-45). The district court over ruled all objections in an opinion filed July 23, 1965 (R. 52-53). On August 17, 1965, this Court vacated and remanded the district court’s judgment in the light of Singleton v. Jachson Municipal Separate School District, 348 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1965), and Price v. Denison Independent School District Board of Education, 348 F.2d 1010 (5th Cir. 1965) (R. 56-57). On August 20, 1965, the government filed a motion in the district court for an order in conformity with this Court’s mandate (R. 58-59). Appellees filed an amendment to their desegregation plan August 27, 1965 (E. 66-68) and on the same day the district court, over ruling objections, required appellees to report on the ob jections by December 31, 1965 (R. 70-71). The government filed a notice of appeal from the August 27, 1965 order of the district court on October 25, 1965 (R. 72). Appellees’ counsel filed a statement in the district court December 28, 1965, noting that without further court order, appellees would not report on the objections to the plan because of the pending appeal (R. 74-75). The Jefferson County school system consists of 117 schools and about 18,000 Negro students and 45,000 whites. The system serves all of the territory in Jefferson County except the cities of Birmingham, Bessemer, Torrant, Mountain Brook, and Fairfield (R. 80). Until the time this suit was filed, no desegregation had taken place in the school system. The superintendent testified that no application for a transfer designed to effect desegregation had ever been received by the board (R. 94-95), but he later conceded that no notice had ever been given that pupils could transfer in order to effect desegregation (R. 143). T he O riginal D esegregation Plan Appellees’ original desegregation plan provided for desegregation of first, ninth, eleventh, and twelfth grades for the 1965-66 school year; second, third, eighth and tenth grades for 1966-67; and fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh grades for 1967-68. Desegregation of ninth, eleventh, and twelfth grades in 1965-66 was to be accomplished by processing of applications requesting transfer from a segregated school to one where the transfer will result in desegregation. All other students in the ninth, eleventh, and twelfth grades were to remain in segregated schools. As to first grade, parents were to take their child to the segregated school in their vicinity on the first school day. At that time, they were to apply for assignment of the child to any school and appellees were thereafter to rule on the applications. Students whose parents failed to make such applications were to be enrolled in the school to which they initially reported (R. 31-37). No provision was made for admission of named plaintiff to a formerly white school. T he A m ended D esegregation P lan Appellees filed August 27, 1965, an amended desegrega tion plan following this Court’s vacating of the district court’s judgment approving the original plan. The amended plan simply included the seventh grade among those to be desegregated, varied the notice requirements and the times for filing applications, and explicitly provided that students new to the school system could transfer to the school of their choice in the desegregated grades (R. 66-68). General T ransfer Procedure The Jefferson County school system has no definite attendance zones. In general students go to the nearest school serving their race (R. 88, 90). As to transfers between segregated schools, no particular time is set (R. 93); of the total of 200 transfer requests filed, only 10 were rejected and of the 15 requests by Negroes, only one was rejected (R. 208-10). Under the plan, and in accordance to prior transfer procedure, the parents of first graders must apply in person at the superintendent’s 6 office to request a transfer. Most transfers are subject to the seventeen criteria similar to those found in the Alabama Pupil Placement Law, e.g., morals and psycho logical state of the child (R. 103-04). A ttendance Zones The superintendent testified that g'eographical zoning, i.e., assignment of pupil to school nearest his home regard less of race, has not been adopted because of its in flexibility and the fact that it would mean more segrega tion (R. 239-40, 244) in a system having no desegregation prior to this action. The superintendent said that geo graphic zoning would be “difficult to administer from the standpoint of working with the public, having to satisfy the parents” (R. 134). He also said g’eographic zoning would make student assignment easier but that it would not solve the problems of teacher load, building use (R. 177) and “forcing people to go to school where they prefer not to go” (R. 187). The plan does not envisage assigning white children to Negro schools (R. 174-75). The superintendent was disputed regarding his con clusions on geographic zoning by appellant’s expert. Dr. Myron Lieberman, a professor at Rhode Island College. Dr. Lieberman testified (R. 255-66) that the plan failed to utilize schools properly, thus Negroes were bussed to overcrowded Negro schools when there were much closer white schools. ̂ In this respect, he found the plan wasteful. Dr. Lieberman further testified that the plan was deficient in not informing the public of which schools were and which were not overcrowded. The plan neglected to in clude the tenth grade where there is the greatest number ’ The superintendent testified that all students living over two miles from their schools were bussed and that bus routes overlapped because of segregated passengers (E, 123-24, 127). of drop-outs in the school system. Other than community opposition to desegregation, no justification was offered in the plan for limiting the number of grades to be deseg regated. Dr. Lieberman observed that the criteria for transfers seemed to be different from the criteria for initial assign ment to a school; for such a dilference he saw no educa tional justification. None of the 17 criteria similar to those of the Alabama Pupil Placement Law would aid an edu cational administrator in determining whether a student should be allowed to transfer or should be assigned to a particular school. The best criteria would be the proximity of the pupil to the school. At best, appellees’ plan would result, stated Dr. Lieberman, in token desegregation. No educational justification existed for the requirement that a pupil’s parents attempt to secure transfers in person. Dr. Lieberman testified that Negro pupils attending the following schools, lived, as shown by exhibits, maps and enrollment figures, closer to white schools having the capacity to absorb them; Sumpter, Johns, Agder, Mc- Adory, Shannon, Alliance Elementary, North Collie, Do- cena, Cahaha Heights, Eoebuek Plaza and Trafford Ele mentary. Dr. Lieberman gave the following examples: [T]he Negro Muscoda School, has a capacity of 231 and an enrollment of 311, which means it is 80 students over capacity, according to figures given by the Board. There are three white schools very close by, Bayview, Docena and Mulga and Bayviev/ is 153 under capacity, Docena 241 and Mulga White School 260 under. The Brighton white elementary school is listed as having a capacity of 330 students and enrollment of 64 . . . that means it had a capacity of 266 students. In the general area, Wilkes School is listed as having a capacity of 231 and enrollment of 137. In that area, the Negro schools are all over capacity. Eavine has a capacity of 198 and enrollment of 266. Brighton has a capacity of 330 and enrollment is 543. Pipe Shop has a capacity of 363 and an enrollment of 518. Ketona High School and Springdale both are listed as having the same capacity, 528. They are very close, practically touching each other on the map . . . The Negro school is shown to have an enrollment of 912, Ketona, and the other school which is supposed to have the same capacity, has only 583 students. Dr. Lieberman emphasized that in a geographical zone system a more effective utilization of school buildings and buses could be effected. Transfers are allowed for legitimate reasons in such a system and that “no over whelming reason” exists which would bar the adoption of this type of plan in the Jefferson County School System. T eacher and Staff Segregation The superintendent revealed that he considered it dif ficult for a teacher to teach children of different races (R. 190). He believed that a Negro teacher would find it more difficult to teach an all-white class than a white teacher having an all-Negro class (E. 139; cf. R. 144-45, 147-48). This belief was based on problems arising from the “traditions and practices of our people” (R. 144), particularly the reaction of parents (R. 144-45). Ap pellees’ plan does not mention faculty desegregation for the system’s 2268 teachers, of whom 600 are Negroes (R. 118). All Negro teachers have the requisite degrees for teacher’s certificates but not all of the white teachers are so qualified (R. 119-20). Negro and white supervisory 9 personnel not only have different jurisdictions, they also are segregated from each other; thus white personnel work at the central staff office and Negroes are in other places (R. 122-23). U nequal Negro Schools The superintendent testified that although there is only one vocational school for white boys, Negro high schools have comparable vocational subjects not offered in white schools (R. 146). The only high school not accredited by the Southern Association is Negro Praco high which the superintendent said had not applied for an accreditation (R. 220). The Negro Rosedale school has grades 1-12; white Shades Valley school has grades 10-12 (R. 221). The two schools are about half a mile from each other. Rosedale has five or six acres; Shades Valley has about twenty acres. Shades Valley has an auditorium, a stadium and a separate gymnasium; Rosedale lacks a stadium and a gymnasium (221-22, 232)." Although the superintendent could name five white schools having summer school ses sions, he could not “recall” other schools having such ses sions (R. 232). In Negro Docena Junior High School, there are pot-bellied stoves rather than central heating and stu dents must go a block away to use toilet facilities (R. 233- 34). Because of alleged “ground absorption”, Negro Gary- Ensley Elementary School has outdoor toilet facilities (R. 234). The superintendent could not recall a Negro school which had a stadium with seats and lights. He stated that Negroes have not wanted to play football at night (R. 235). Most stadiums and lights, including an $80,000 stadium at white Berry High School, have been provided, according to the superintendent, by citizen efforts (R. 235- 2 By way of contrast to the Eosedale-Shades Valley situation, the super intendent testified that Negro Wenonah High School had facilities superior to white Lipscomb Junior High School (E. 240-41). 10 36). He did state, however, that the school system gives assistance to such efforts by grading the ground and fur nishing the light fixtures (R. 236). In an apjoendix to Intervening Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1, the government showed that of the 79 white and 32 Negro schools listed, 81.3% of the Negro schools and only 54.4% of the white schools had a student enrollment above ca pacity. This meant that 33.3% of the Negro students or 4,587 Negroes were enrolled in schools having over capacity population, but that only 10.1% of the white students or 4,125 whites were enrolled in such schools. The govern ment also showed that 45.6% of white schools but only 18.7% of the Negro school enrollments were under capacity (R. 203). B. No. 2 3 ,3 3 5 Board o f E ducation o f T he City o f B essem er In May 1955, a petition requesting changes in the Bes semer school board’s practice of assigning students to schools on the basis of race was presented to the Board (R. 110-111, 184). No action was taken by the Board to desegregate the school system. On March 23, 1965, a sec ond petition, signed by Bessemer Negro organizations,’* re questing the desegregation of the system was presented to the board. No answer had been received by the time the complaint was filed (R. 15). Sum m ary o f L itigation On May 24, 1965, a complaint was filed by Negro parents and pupils residing in Bessemer, against the school author ities requesting relief against the school board’s policy of 8 Bessemer Branch of the N.A.A.C.P., Colored Masonic Lodge, Bessemer Civil League, Bessemer Voters League, Bessemer Business Professional Men and Women (R. 111). 11 maintaining a segregated school system. Plaintiffs specifi cally requested, inter alia, to attend the schools closest to their homes and to be relieved from transfer criteria not required of white pupils seeking assignment or transfer (E. 16-17). In the alternative, they requested a plan re organizing the dual racial zones into single, nonracial, geographic zones for all grades, with students assigned to the schools closest to their residence (E. 17). The answer admitted that the Bessemer school system was segregated and that a petition requesting desegrega tion had been filed. The board asserted there had been no request by a Negro student for a transfer to a white school (E. 28). On June 21, 1965, the motion of the United States of America to intervene Avas granted (E. 20-21). At a June 30, 1965 hearing on the request for injunctive relief. Judge Seybourn Lynne stated he would require prompt submission of a plan rather than grant the specific relief requested (E. 90, 128-129). He further stated that his order avouH meet the minimum standards set forth in Armstrong v. Board of Education of City of Birmingham, 323 F.2d 333 (5th Cir., 1964) (E. 179). The order enjoined defendants “from requiring segregation of the races at any school under their supervision from and after such time as may be necessary to make arrangements for admission of children to such schools on a racially, non-discriminatory, basis” (E. 41). The board was ordered to submit a plan which would commence September, 1965 and eventually ap ply to all grades and pupils newly entering the system (E. 41-42). The plan filed July 9, 1965 provided for the transfer to a school attended by pupils of another race by pupils in three grades—4th, 7th, and 10th. Negro children entering the first grade were required to report to a Negro elemen- 12 tary school to register. After registering, the parents could then apply for transfer to another school. The filan re quired that transfer applications be filed by the parents at the office of the Superintendent before August 13, 1965. For the following year when the plan reached grades 2, 5, 8, and 11, applications were to be filed between May 1 and May 15 (B. 43-45). By the 1967-68 school year, students in all grades would be eligible to apply for transfer. The plan specifically provided for all other students to remain in schools to which they were assigned (R. 45-46). All applications were to be filed “in accordance with the regula tions of the Board” (E. 45). Notice of the time for ap plication to transfer was to be published once in a city newspaper (R. 46). Objections to defendants’ plan were filed on July 15, 1965, and July 19, 1965, pointing out, inter alia: (a) failure to provide for nonracial, initial assignment for students newly entering the Bessemer school system, (b) failure to include grade 12 to insure Negro students still in school would have “some measure of desegregation before graduation”, (c) absence of any provision abolishing dual racial zones, (d) failure to provide for transfer by Negro students in order to obtain a course not offered at a Negro school, (e) ab sence of a provision for transfer by Negro students who attend educationally inferior schools, (f) failure to provide that if the number of students desiring transfers exceeded a school’s capacity, assignment would be based on prox imity to the school, and (g) failure to provide for the desegregation of teachers and supervisory personnel. A hearing on the objections to the plan was held on July 29, 1965 (E. 181). Subsequently, Judge Lynne overruled plain tiffs’ objections and approved the plan after modifying it to include grade 12 instead of grade 4 for the 1965-66 school 13 year and to require that the notice be published for three days instead of one day (E. 64-67). On August 17, 1965, this Court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 348 F.2d 729 (5th Cir., June 22, 1965) and Price v. Denison Independent School District, 348 F.2d 1010 (5th Cir., July 2, 1965) (R. 68-72). On August 27, 1965, the board filed an amended plan in corporating modifications ordered by the district court, by adding grade 4 to the three grades to be desegregated for 1965-66, and extending the deadline until September 1 for 4th graders desiring transfers. On the same day the court approved the amended plan. Noting that objections deal ing with initial assignments had merit the court required the board to restudy the plan and report its conclusions be fore December 31, 1965 (R. 86). The United States filed notice of appeal on October 25, 1965 (E. 88). Sum m ary o f the H earings Although prior to filing a desegregation plan Bessemer school assignments were based on attendance zones, the school board submitted and the court approved a desegrega tion plan which, according to Dr. Janies 0. Knuckles, the superintendent, switched the Bessemer schools to a free dom of choice system (R. 237-245). He testified that under the new system: All those who feel . . . that the programs are differ ent . . . or better .. . will have an opportunity to request transfer and/or assignment to another school. They will not be bound to attend the school nearest to them under the freedom of choice program (E. 245). X4 Dr. Knuckles admitted that under the existing school at tendance zone lines, which were in no way changed or abol ished under the desegregation plan, white and Negro zones overlapped with Negro students sometimes living closer to white schools and vice-versa (E. 108-109). Dr. Knuckles further testified that to maintain meaningful attendance zones all that was required was a map of student residences as of a particular date (E. 238-239). While it was more burdensome to administer a freedom of choice system than to redraw the attendance zones, he and the board were willing to undertake the burden (E. 242-249). In the past, however, school attendance zone lines have been changed after the school semester started, even where the change involved shifting students from one school to another, transferring teachers, setting up makeshift class rooms, and closing other classrooms (E. 242-244). To ac complish this, the board simply decided what needed to be done without a public hearing and attempted to enlist pub lic acceptance of the change. Before he could change at tendance zones to accomplish desegregation, however, Dr. Knuckles stated he would have to consider whether the school patrons would willingly accept such a change (E. 241). T ransfer Procedure Under the Plan At the June 30, 1965 hearing on the motion for injunctive relief. Dr. Knuckles testified that no desegregation steps had been taken except the adoption of a transfer form and procedure (E. 153-155, 253-254). That procedure required principals to refer any applicants whom they “questioned” to the superintendent. The parents of any student thus referred was required to apply in person at the superin tendent’s office. The application form, which included space 15 for standard test scores, grades, and record of behavior and citizenship, would be reviewed by both the superin tendent and the board and assignments made in accordance with the Pupil Placement Law (R. 253-254). Although Dr. Knuckles stated that the new procedure and fonns would apply to whites, it became clear at the hearing on objec tions that they applied only when a Negro applied to attend a white school, or a ŵ hite airplied to attend a Negro school (R. 261). The transfer procedures and policies for non-racial trans fers remained unchanged. According to Dr. Knuckles, under the regular transfer policy the board attempted to accommodate the desires of parents provided no over crowding resulted (R. 149). Dr. Knuckles stated transfers were initiated by letters or phone calls, that there were no fixed times to apply and no fixed criteria other than the guidelines enumerated in the Pupil Placement Law (R. 107). Proximity to the school requested and the child’s capacity to learn were considered but no tests were re quired (R. 150-153). After one year of operation, 13 Negro pupils attended former white schools under the plan. (See affidavit attached to memorandum in support of motion to consolidate and expedite Nos. 23,173; 23,192; 23,274; 23,- 331; 23,335; 23,345; and 23,365 filed by the United States in this court Ajjril 4, 1966.) C om parison o f W hite and Negro Schools Although all Bessemer schools have been accredited by the Alabama Department of Education, the only school ac credited by the Southern Association is Bessemer High School, the white high school (R. 161-163). Accreditation by the Southern Association is based upon requirements concerning libraries, materials, minimum equipment and 16 laboratory space, and in years past, according to Dr. Knuckles, has entitled the graduate of such a high school to automatic admittance to many colleges and universities (R. 161). Dr. Knuckles admitted that many more electives are of fered at Bessemer High School than at the Negro high schools, including Latin, Spanish, and Journalism (R. 167- 168, 227-229). Dr. Knuckles explained that such courses were available as a result of community pressure and stu dent demand (R. 166-167, 176). However, two Negro stu dents stated that they and others had requested second year French at Carver High School but it was not made available (R. 229, 234). Another Negro student attending Carver High School testified that he wanted to attend Bessemer in order to take courses unavailable at the Negro school (R. 223). The Carver students also testified that they conducted very few experiments in chemistry and physics (R. 227-228), with one student testifying that only the students who purchased their own materials conducted experiments (R. 235). The pupil-teacher ratio at Bessemer High School was 19.08 while at Carver and Abrams, the ratio was 25 plus. The Negro ratio includes vocational teachers (R. 162-163). Only the white schools operated on the 6-3-3 system with junior high schools bridging the gap between elementary and secondary schools, although the system improves educational opportunities (R. 145). At the hearing on the objections to the plan, Mr. Wil liam L. Stormer, of the United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, an expert" ̂Mr, Stormer spent 2% years working with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare evaluating and estimating the need for school facilities throughoixt the nation. He received his Master’s Degree in 1954, at the University of Wyoming. During 1957-58 he was associated with Ohio State University Plant Division, and from 1959 until taking the job 17 in evaluating and estimating the need for school facilities throughout the country, testified that all four white ele mentary schools in Bessemer ranked higher than the four Negro schools with one exception, and that both Negro high schools were lower than the white high school. In making his evaluation, Mr. Stormer considered school site, building structure, classrooms, special instructional space, and the general use of facilities. He testified that the Negro Abrams School, the newest building housing Negro students, showed signs of structural deterioration and was questionably located. He also found Abrams science and storage facilities questionable, and science classroom space limited (R. 194-195). Dr. Knuckles also admitted that railroad tracks bordered five of the six Negro schools (E. 138) and that only Negro students were taught in frame buildings (R. 115). On the basis of photographs offered into evidence (R. 138), he also testified that the auditorium at Abrams High School is partitioned into 8 sections and used for classes. The partitions go % of the way to the ceilings and lighting is supplied by bare globes suspended from the ceiling. He admitted that more adequate lighting was needed, that paint was peeling “pretty badly” from the building, and that the windows badly needed repair (R. 139-140). A photograph showed rainstained cardboards in some of the broken windows. Other photographs showed the Carver High School site, with two wooden frame buildings used for classrooms, illuminated by single light bulbs hanging from drop-cords, and heated by coal stoves located in each room. Although with the United States, he was Director o£ School Plant Planning- and Studies for the State Department of Education for West Virginia. He is a member of the National Council of School Housing Construction (E. 188-190). 18 Dr. Knuckles testified that it was the janitor’s respon sibility to refuel the stoves (E. 141, 142-143), Morris Thomas, a Negro student attending Carver High School, testified that the students fired the stoves (R. 219-221). Another student stated that a classroom was partitioned into two sections (R. 224). Dr. Knuckles admitted that neither of the frame buildings on the Carver site provided adequate classroom facilities. Carver also is immediately adjacent to an automobile junk yard (R. 143). Photographs of Dunbar, a Negro elementary school, showed many broken windows and considerable broken glass around the building (R. 136-137). Dr. Knuckles stated that the School Board planned to remodel Dunbar although the money was not yet available and there would be no renovation by Pall 1965 (R. 137-138). Faculty D esegregation Dr. Knuckles testified that all Negro teachers in the Bessemer school system met the minimum requirements of the board but no steps had been taken to desegregate teaching staff and other supervisory personnel because of “community pressure” and “the desire on the part of the teacher” (R. 120-123). Also, nothing had been done to desegregate a system-wide monthly teachers general meeting (R. 249-251). The only Negro in a supervisory capacity other than the principals of the Negro schools is Walter Branch, Director of Educational Services for the four largest Ne gro schools, who had held the position “only a few months” as of the hearing on injunctive relief. Although the board has a central office, Mr. Branch’s office is located at Abrams High School, a Negro school. Dr. Knuckles testified that no Negroes held clerical positions at the board’s central office in Bessemer (R. 116-118). 19 C. No. 2 3 ,3 3 1 Fairfield Board o f Education The board maintains nine public schools in the City of Fairfield, Alabama which serviced a total school-age population of 3,095 children during the 1964-65 school term (Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 3). Of this number 2273 were Negro and 1822 were white (Ibid). By long term policy and practice, the board segregates Negro school children from white school children through the use of dual school attendance areas or zones. The white schools in the City of Fairfield are organized on a 6-3-3 plan i.e. the first six grades being contained in one elementary school; the seventh, eighth, and ninth grades being contained in a junior high school; and the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grades in a senior high school (R. 87, 96, 189-190). The 6-3-3 system is thought to be the most educationally sound school-organization plan by the school authorities of the State of Alabama and the City of Fairfield (R. 87, 96). The Negro schools are not organized on a 6-3-3 plan (R. 87, 96, 189-190). The schools serving Negro children are Englewood Elementary School (grades 1-8); Robinson Elementary School (grades 1-6); Interurban Heights Junior High School (grades 7 & 8); and Industrial High School (grades 9-12). (Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 3). The teacher-pupil ratios for the 1964-65 school term at the various schools were these: Grades 1-6 Negro White Robinson 34/Teaeher Forest Hills 26/Teacher Englewood 25/Teacher Donald 26/Teacher 20 Grades 7-9 Interurban 35/Teacher Fairfield Junior High 28/Teacher Grades 10-12 Industrial High 29/Teacher Fairfield 20/Teaeher (Computed from Intervenor’s Exhibits No. 3) The plant facilities provided for the Negro children are greatly inferior to those provided for white students. The buildings are in disrepair (R. 217-218, 207-210); the lavatory facilities are unusable, in part, or otherwise of inferior quality or condition (B. 108-109 and Defendant’s Exhibits 7 & 8). The eating facilities are infested with vermin (R. 164-167, 218) and there is little if any recrea tional areas provided around the Negro schools while each white school is provided with ample grounds (B. 91- 93, 97, 98, 210, 211, 212, 218). The per pupil values of the plant facilities of the Fairfield School System are these: White Negro Donald Elementary $ 753 Robinson Elementary $ 258 Forest Hills Englewood Elementary 920 Elementary 492 Glen Oaks Elementary 817 Fairfield Junior Interurban High 699 Junior High 130 Fairfield High 2,476 Industrial High 1,525 (Computed from Defendant’s Exhibit No. 11) 21 Numerous courses which are offered to the white students in the junior and senior high schools are not offered to the Negro students in comparable grades in the various Negro schools (R. 90, 131-132, 215, 201). Guidance coun selors are provided for the white students at Fairfield High School and none are provided for the Negro students at Industrial High School. (Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 3). In 1954 Negro parents petitioned the board to desegre gate the schools (R. 125-127, 220-223). Again in May, 1965 Negro parents petitioned for desegregation (R. 125- 127, 220-223). The board did not respond to either peti tion (R. 125-127, 220-223). On July 21, 1965 Negro parents and school children brought suit against the board asking for a preliminary and permanent injunction against continuing segregation of the schools and teaching staffs (R. 14-23). On July 30, 1965 the United States moved to intervene as a party and requested that the Fairfield school system be deseg regated (R. 24-29). On August 12, 1965 the board filed its answer admitting that Negro children are assigned to Negro schools and white children to white schools and that extra-curricular activities of the school are segregated by race (R. 30-33, see R. 31). The cause came on for a hearing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, South ern Division, on August 16, 1965 (R. 75). At that time, by agreement of the parties, the motion of the United States to intervene was accepted and the hearings were stipulated to stand as basis for a permanent injunction (R. 76). The district court found that there was an illegally segregated system in Fairfield and ordered the board to submit a plan during the two days next following August 16, 1965 (R. 84). The court then adjourned the hearing to August 20, 1965 22 at which time the plan and objections to it could be con sidered. On August 17,1965, the board filed a Plan for Desegrega tion of Fairfield School System (R. 48), which provided in part that (1) Negro children in the 9th, 11th, and 12th grades would be permitted to apply for transfers which transfers would “be processed and determined by the board pursuant to its regulations . . . ” (R. 49). (2) Negro children entering the 1st grade would be as signed to Negro schools, but if both parents accompany the child and sign an application on the first day of school, the child would be permitted to apply to a white school (R. 50, 151-155). (3) Applications to be acted upon for the 1965-66 term had to be filed at the office of the board between 8 :00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. on August 30, 1965 (R. 50, 151). (4) During the 1966-67 terms, the 2nd, 3rd, 8th and 10th grades would be desegregated. During the 1967-68 terms the remaining 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th grades would be deseg regated. Applications by students entering desegregated grades would be accepted from the period of May 1 through May 15 preceding the September school term opening for the desegregated grades (R, 50-51). (5) Unless Negro students applied for and obtained transfer, they would be assigned to Negro schools (R. 51). (6) The Board would publish in a newspaper of general circulation the provisions of the plan on three occasions prior to August 30, 1965 (R. 51). 23 On August 18, 1965 and on August 19, 1965 tliG Nogro plaintitfs and the United States respectively filed objec tions to the plan (E. 34, 38). Pursuant to an order of the court the board filed an Amended Plan for Desegregation of Fairfield School Sys tem (R. 59). This plan provided that (1) Negro students in the 7th, 8th, 10th and 12th would be allowed to apply for transfer to white schools if their applications were sub mitted to the board on or before August 30, 1965, the ap plications to be processed by the board “pursuant to its regulations” (R. 60). (2) Negro children entering the 1st grade must attend a Negro school unless the parents of the child on the first day of school apply for his assignment at a white school (R. 61). (3) Applications of Negro chil dren for admission to white schools or white children to biegro schools are to be reviewed by the Superintendent “pursuant to the regulations of the board” (R. 61), (No similar process is required for applications of Negroes for transfer to Negro schools or white children to white schools.) (4) During the entire month of May 1966 applications by Negro children for transfer to white schools in the 2nd, 3rd, 9th, and 11th grades for the 1966-67 school term will be accepted. (No time limit was provided by which Negro stu dents must be informed of whether their application has been accepted. No provision is made for publication of no tice prior to May of 1966) (R. 61-62 and 157-158). (5) During May of 1967 applications by Negro students for transfer to the remaining segregated 4th, 5th, and 6th grades will be accepted by the board for the 1967-68 school term. (No time limit is provided by which these Negro stu dents must be informed of whether their application is ac cepted. No provision is made for publication of notice prior to May of 1967) (E. 62 and 157-158). (6) Except for those students applying for and receiving transfer, the schools 24 within the Fairfield system will remain segregated. (7) One notice of the plan is to be published for three days prior to August 30, 1965 (R. 63). By Order of August 23, 1965, the District Court over ruled the objections of the Negro plaintiffs and the United States and approved the amended plan of the board (E. 65). By opinion and decree of September 8, 1965 the court formalized its finding of a racially segregated school sys tem in the City of Fairfield and ordered the desegregation of that system jjursuant to the amended plan (R. 67-72). These objections were in part, that the plan (1) sub jected Negro children to a screening process before allow ing them to transfer (R. 34, see 145, 147-151); (2) made no provision for the desegregation of bus transport to and from the schools (R. 35); (3) continued the dual zoning system (R. 35); (4) excluded six of the minor plaintiffs (R. 36); (5) failed to give sufficient notice (R. 36); and (6) did not provide for the enrollment of Negro children in wdiite schools offering courses which are not available in Negro schools (R. 39). On August 20, 1965 the court considered the objections raised by the Negro plaintiffs and the United States (R. 84). The United States sought to show that the inferior condition of the Negro schools should have some effect upon the rate of desegregation and the provisions of the plan submitted by the board but the district court held this evidence to be irrelevant (R. 169-170). On October 22, 1965, the United States filed a Notice of Appeal from the order of the district court overruling its objections and approving the plan of the Fairfield Board of Education (R. 73). 25 D. No. 2 3 ,2 7 4 Caddo Parish School Board As of the May 4,1965 filing of the Complaint in this case, the Caddo Parish School Board operated and maintained a system of public schools in which students, teachers, and other personnel were assigned on the basis of their race (R. 74-81, 91-92). No Negro child attended any school in which white children were in attendance; no Negro teacher was employed at any school at which white children were in attendance (R. 74-75). Negro supervisors within the sys tem were charged with resjjonsibility only for Negro schools (R. 106). Athletic facilities and bus transportation were segregated (R. 107-08, 110-12). Racial separation within the system was maintained through the use of dual at tendance zones (R. 69, 81). After the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, the parish school board made no etfort whatsoever to end the practice of racial segregation in the schools under its jurisdiction (R. 87). The board was of the opinion that it had no d u t^ or responsibility to end racial discrimination in its schools until, and only to the extent that, it was ordered to do so by a court of the United States (R. 87-89). There are approximately 72 schools under the jurisdic tion of the board (R. 191). Attending these schools are approximately 55,000 children of whom 24,000 are Negroes (R. 191, 189). There are 3,700 employees of the Parish School Board (R. 191) and of these, 2,200 are teachers (R. 191). — —^ /V ___ - W By letter of March 23, 1965, Negro school children and their parents, by their attorney, notified the President of the board that they and other Negro children within the Parish desired to attend the public schools of the Parish without discrimination on the basis of their race (R. 60). 26 The board did not resijond to the request of these Negro children and their parents (E. 73), and complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, May 4, 1965 (R. 10). Suit was brought on behalf of the named Negro school children and on behalf of the other Negro children in Caddo Parish who were sim ilarly segregated and discriminated against by the parish school board (E. 3) and the complaint asked that the board be enjoined from (1) continuing to operate a compulsory biracial school system, (2) assigning students initially on a racial basis, (3) assigning teachers, principals and other professional personnel on the basis of race, and (4) requir ing or supporting segregated athletic and other extra curricular activities (R. 7-10). The board filed answer to the complaint on May 24, 1965 (R. 11) and hearing was held June 14, 1965, on the motion of the schoolchildren and their parents for preliminary injunction (R. 63). By agreement of the parties, the evi dence adduced served as basis for final adjudication on the merits (R. 117). On June 14, 1965, the district court found that the school board had operated a compulsory biracial system and had thereby violated the rights of Negro school children. The court enjoined the board from continuing and maintaining a racially segregated school system and ordered the board to submit a plan to desegregate the schools of the parish (E. 133-36). The board submitted a desegregation plan on July 7, 1965 (R. 138-50). Objec tions were filed July 21, 1965 (R. 158-60) and hearing was held on the objections August 3, 1965 (R. 161 et seq.). As a result of the hearing, the plan was approved, as modified, and incorporated into an Order On Plan for Desegregation handed down by the District Court Au gust 3, 1965 (R. 291-98). The Order provided for the 27 1965-66 term (1) that all initial assigiiTnents of school children, both those entering the first grade and those presently enrolled from prior years, would “be considered adequate” subject only to certain transfer provisions (R. 291-95); (2) Negro children coming into the first grade and those graduating(mto^the twelfth grade could apply for transfer to white schools if they applied within a five-day period extending from August 9, 1965 through August 13, 1965 and if their applications met transfer criteria (R. 292-94) such as available space,® age of the pupil as compared with ages of pupils already attending the school to which transfer is requested, availability of desired courses of instruction, and an aptitude test (R. 147, 243-48) which is part of “the procedures pertaining to transfers currently in general use by the Caddo Parish School Board” (R. 292). In addition, the Board was granted the right to reassign a transfer applicant to a “comparable” school nearer his residence.® Students en tering the parish would be initially assigned to formerly all-white or all-Negro schools (R. 177-78, 295). The order did not provide for assignment of named plaintiffs to white schools. v / ' The order further provided that for the 1966-67 term, students in the first, second, eleventh, and twelfth grades would be free to choose whatever school they wished to i attend, subject to the power of the Board to assign the student to a “comparable” school closer to the student’s ̂All schools in the Parish are overcrowded (E. 258-59). ® There was much testimony to the effect that Negro and white schools ^■Eere_uniformIy equal and comparabje_ (E. 62, 9l7''27^J~ana~EBlI'‘a]ror' VI ̂ O *1̂1 TT o il VK10 TTT 1*1 T +0 « ..a*.......! ^ ^ _ .T T . "i” I • 1 n ^ ___ J ^ ^ ............ - T LJ I u J C l x i lA V l K l l / <111 111 nearlyldrfKe’ white chi'raJBjr'TroinTEe rural area of Caddo Parish were bussed into Shreveport from as much as 19 miles av/ay. Eural NegTo '̂ children were provided with three Negro high schools located at various points about the county closer to their residence than the Shreveport] 1 / • schools (E. 274-75). '—b* 28 '■vV ^ residence (R. 296). The order specified that the desegrega tion be completed for all grades by the 1968-69 school term (R. 296). August 18, 1965, Negro school children moved the Dis trict Court to vacate and reconsider its order and decree of August 3, 1965 in light of the decision of this Court in the case of United States v. Bossier Parish School Board, 349 F.2d 1020(2) (5th Cir. August 17, 1965) (R. 300). On August 20, 1965, the District Court granted the motion aj^^and ordered (1) desegregation of grades two and eleven, in addition to grades one and twelve, during the 1965-66 term and (2) shortened the desegregation period by one year so that all grades would he covered by the choice plan by the 1967-68 term (R. 303-04). The plan approved by the District Court has been in operation for nearly an entire school term. Of the 24,467 (R. 78) Negro children attending public schools in Caddo Parish (of whom approximately 1,720 are entering first- graders) only one Negro child has been admitted to a formerly white school. (See the affidavit attached to the memorandum in support of motion to consolidate and expedite. Nos. 23,173; 23,192; 23,274; 23,331; 23,335; j 23,345; and 23,365 filed by the United States in this Court I April 4, 1966.) ‘ July 19, 1965, the United States sought leave to inter vene as of right as party plaintiff (pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000h-2 and Rule 24, P.R. Civ. P.) and to file objections to the desegregation plan submitted by the Board. At the August 3, 1965 hearing on the plan, the district court denied the motion to intervene (R. 166) on October 4, 1965, the United States filed notice of appeal to this court from the order denying intervention (R. 305). 4 H 29 Specification o f Error The district courts erred in: , a 1. Refusing to find that the school hoards, having es- iS tablished and maintained racially segregated school sys tems, are constitutionally obligated to submit desegregm’ tion plans which, in fact, completely disestablish spgrpgarpd ^ a^ rn s^ n d ''e rad icate Negro and white__schoo]s. 2. Approving the so-called free choice provisions con tained in the plans over objections that such provisions failed to disestablish racial segregation and despite undis- putable evidence that: a. Approval of the plans retains(yirtuallj^ intact Negro and white schools; b. The alleged free choice provisions are in reality transfer schemes perpetuating dual zone lines; ^ c. The plans fail to permit students new to the school systems to exercise free choice regardless of the grades affected by the plans; d. The plans fail to provide for desegregation of facili ties such as bus transportation; e. The plans fail to provide notice of their provisions other than in newspapers of general circulation; ;■ f̂ -tnxeept in Caddo Parish! The plans ̂ f^ilJ^-^rcmde ^ for the upgrading c^liegrm-sdinOlFso^tTrTnake^tr^sfers \ ' a--realisthrx5onsideration for all pupils; g. The plans fail to provide for alternative assignment criteria where facts reveal such criteria would lead to significant desegregation. 30 3. Approving gradual so-called free choice desegrega tion plans despite the absence of valid administrative factorsjustifying such delay knd (except in Caddo EaxSET'N ^desp ite the fact th a t i^ ^ educational facilitie^ r e cleaxly inferior. 4. Refusing to find that staff desegregation is a pre requisite for etfective school desegregation requiring the immediate submission of specific plans providing for both (a) nonracial hiring and assignment of staff personnel and (b) assignment of staff personnel based on race in order to correct the past effects of segregation and dis crimination. A R G U M E N T V / V V' I. The Plans Approved by the District Courts Fall Short of This Court’s Standards With Regard Both to Pupil and Teacher Desegregation. In Price v. Denison Independent School District, 348 F.2d 1010 (5th Cir. 1965), this Court adopted the United States Office of Education’s Statement of Policies for School Desegregation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (April 1965) as its minimum desegregation standards. In March 1966, a Revised Statement of Policies for School Desegregation was issued, which revised state ment is no less appropriate to current school desegrega tion questions than was the statement issued in April 1965. See Bradley v. School Board of Richmond, 382 U.S. 103 and Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dis trict, 355 F.2d 865 (5th Cir. 1966). 31 A. The Tnim'mnTn standards for school desegregation plans were set out in extenso in Singleton v. Jachson Municipal Separate School District, 355 F.2d 865, 870-71 (5th Cir. 1966). Those standards briefly are as follows: 1. All grades must he desegregated by September 1967; 2. Individuals in segregated grades are permitted to transfer to schools from which they were originally ex cluded or would have been excluded because of their race; 3. Services, programs and activities, including buses, shall be available without discrimination on the basis of race; 4. An adequate start must be made toward elimination of race as a basis for staff employment so that school sys tems will be totally desegregated by September 1967; 5. Proper notice, including use of newspapers, radio and television facilities, must be given to children and their parents of the desegregation plan; 6. Dual geographic zones must be abolished as a basis for assignment; 7. Additional choices of schools must be made available where the first choice is unavailable. The plans in these cases fail to meet these criteria. Al though every plan provides for complete pupil desegTega- tion by September, 1967, no plan permits individuals in segregated grades to transfer to schools from which they were originally excluded or would have been excluded be cause of their race. Thus the Jefferson County plan makes 32 no provision, other than for grades desegregated by the plan, for immediate transfers in cases where initial assign ment is based on race. The Bessemer plan specifically provides that all students are to remain in their assigned schools unless their grades are desegregated under the plan. The Fairfield plan makes no mention of a pupil’s right to transfer from a segregated grade which is not desegregated under the plan. 1 Under the Caddo parish plan, no provision is made for" transfers other than in grades assertedly desegregated under the plan. In addi tion, Negro children moving to Caddo Parish during the school year can only attend Negro schools. All of the plans are, therefore, deficient under Rogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198; Singleton v. Jackson Muniqj^l Separate School District, 355 F.2d 865 (5th Cir. 1966).\ None of the plans provides for desegregation of services, programs, and activities, such as bus transportation. For example, the Jefferson County plan is silent on the ques tion of bus transportation even though the superintendent testified that bus routes overlapped because of passenger segregation. Bessemer’s pupils needing bus transportation receive the school board’s aid in obtaining reduced fares on buses not operated by the board. The Fairfield plan does not mention bus desegregation. j^ d d o Parish’s bus transportation is racially segregated and the plan was silent as to measures corrective of this condition.) None of the plans provide for proper notice to children and parents of their contents. The second Singleton case found notice adequate where radio and television facilities were used in addition to newspaper announce ments. The Jefferson County plan specifies only that news paper announcements would be made. The Bessemer plan provides for one newspaper announcement. Thq,,Fairfield plan requires only newspaper announcements. pile Caddo 33 Parish original plan provided for newspaper announce ments in 1965-66 and for individual notices to parents via their children’s report cards for later school years. The district court’s order in the Caddo Parish case, however, made effective most of the original plan with the notable exception of the notice provisions.] All of the plans give insufficient time to pupils and their parents desiring to implement the desegregation formulae. The Jefferson County plan provided for three regularly spaced newspaper announcements of the plan between July 22 and August 9, 1965. Transfer requests in the ninth, eleventh and twelfth grades were to be filed with the school board on or before August 9, 1965; transfer requests for the seventh grade were to be filed on or before September 1, 1965, following three newspaper announce ments between August 27, and 31, 1965 (E. 31, 33-34, 53, 67-68). Transfer requests for students entering the school system for the first time are to be filed the first day of school in segregated schools (R. 31-33, 67-68). For school years subsequent to September, 1965, three newspaper notices published some time in April each year are sup posed to alert pupils and parents to file transfer applica tions between May 1-15, 1966 or May 1-15, 1967 (R. 33-34, 68). The Bessemer plan merely provided for a single news paper announcement between July 9, 1965 and August 13, 1965. Parents of children in grades four, seven and ten desiring transfers were required to file an application on or before Augnst 13, 1965. Parents of first grade children could apply for transfers on the first day of school. For school years after September, 1965, notice of the time (May 1-15) for filing applications to transfer is to be pub lished only once at an unspecified date in a city newspaper. 34 In Fairfield, the plan’s provisions were to be published in a newspaper three times between August 23 and August 30, 1965, and applications for transfers were to be filed for the seventh, eighth, tenth and twelfth grades on or before August 30, 1965. Students enrolling in the first grade were to report to the nearest segregated school on the first day of school (September 1, 1965) and apply for transfers. For school years after September, 1965, appli cations must be filed for desegregated grades in May, 1966 or May, 1967, but the plan does not provide for notice in any respect after August, 1965. \^ n Caddo Parish, the plan’s provisions were to be pub lished three consecutive days not later than Augnist 5, 1965. Applications for transfers in the first and twelfth grades were to be filed August 9 through August 13, 1965. Notice of desegregation in the second and eleventh grades was to he published in a newspaper August 20, 21 and 22, 1965. From August 23 to August 25, 1965, applications for transfer were to be made at the school board. For school years after September 1965, the original Caddo Parish plan provided that six months after the beginning of the school year, a letter would be sent via each pupil to his home specifying the plan’s provisions and giving each parent thirty days to file an application. The plan ordered by the district court omitted these provisions and provided'ToF’ no notlceof the plan after September, 1965. None of the plans abolishes dual geographic zones for purposes of pupil assignment. The Jefferson County plan is quite explicit in providing that pupils may transfer from the school to which they are initially assigned on a racial basis to another school. The Bessemer plan also permits merely a transfer, after initial assignment to a segregated school, to effect desegregation. The Fairfield plan likewise permits only transfers from segregated schools to effect de- 35 segregation. \The Caddo Parish plan not only contains simi lar transfer p?imsions after an initial racial assignment to a segregated scho.aLhnt also attaches such additional cri- 'teria as the passing of an aptitude test. Thus all plans perpetuate dual racial zones and permit transfers between them under the guise of “freedom of choice.” None of the plans specifies that additional choices of schools are available where a pupil’s first choice is not. The Jelferson County plan is silent on the question of additional choices. Equally silent on this question are the plans in Bessemer, Fairfield, and Caddo Parish. This Court has now clearly held that school boards operating a dual system are required by the Constitution, not merely to eliminate the formal application of racial criteria to school administration, but must by affirmative action seek the complete disestablishment of segregation in the public schools. Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Sep arate School District, 348 P.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1965), 355 P.2d 865 (5th Cir. 1966). As succinctly stated in the first Single- ton case, “ . . . the second Brown opinion clearly imposes on public school authorities the duty to provide an inte grated school system.” 348 F.2d at 730 n. 5. None of the plans effectively desegregates its pupil population. Thus, in Jefferson County, only twenty-four Negroes have been admitted during the 1965-66 school year to formerly all-white schools, in a student popula tion of 18,000 Negroes and 45,000 whites.’ In the Jefferson County case, an expert testified that “the best criteria for effecting desegregation would be the proximity of the pupil ’ Affidavit of St. John Barrett, attached to the Motion to Consolidate and Expedite Appeals (in Nos. 23173, 23192, 23274, 23331, 23335, 23345, and 23365) filed by the United States in this Court April 4, 1966 [herein after cited as Barrett]. 36 to the school.” He went into some detail to show that many Negro schools were situated so that they were farther away from their pupils than were white schools and that the best way to effect desegregation was by a geographical ;/ijfeone system based on nonracial assignment. This Court I i^noted in the second Singleton case, 355 F.2d at 871. that a I I ffeedum—of'^oice plan is an acceptable method provided HI dual zones are eliminated. No such abolition has taken place in Jefferson County, thus making its plan essentially a transfer scheme rather than a freedom of choice plan. Since the goal of any school plan must be desegregation, a so-called freedom of choice plan is contrary to this re quirement where it does not in fact lead to desegregation and where it conflicts with a procedure which would so lead, ie., geographic attendance zones. It is not here urged that freedom of choice is necessarily an unworkable plan, but that where freedom of choice fails to accomplish the goal of desegregation, other methods must be found to attain the goal. In the case of Jefferson County, the method would be geographic attendance zones. In Bessemer, only thirteen Negroes have been admitted to formerly all-white schools during the 1965-66 school year in a school system having a student enrollment of 2,920 whites and 5,284 Negroes. In Fairfield, only thirty-one Negroes have been admitted during the 1965-66 school year to formerly all-white schools in a school system having 1,779 whites and 2,159 Negroes.! In Caddo Parish, just one Negro has been admitted to amm’merly all-white school in a school system having 30,680 whites and 24,467 Negroes^These statistics demonstrate for Bessemer, Fair- field anS^Caddo Parish the same conclusion as was made in Jefferson County, namely, that the so-called freedom * Barrett. 37 of choice plans have not worked and that either exten sive revision is needed, or another method of desegre gation should be adopted, such as geographic non-racial zoning. This Court and other courts have frequently held that if the application of educational principles and theories result in the preservation of an existing system of imposed segregation, the necessity of vindicating constitutional rights will prevent their use. Dove v. Parham, 282 F.2d 256 (8th Cir. 1960); Ross v. Dyer, 312 F.2d 191, 196 (5th Cir. 1963) and Brooks v. County School Board of Arlington, Virginia, 324 F.2d 303, 308 (4th Cir. 1963). The district courts’ acceptance of these plans reflects a failure to grasp the considered principle that schemes which technically approve desegregation but retain the school system in its dual form must be struck down. Goss V. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 683; Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218; Boson V. Rippy, 285 F.2d 43 (5th Cir. 1960) and Houston Independent School District v. Ross, 282 F.2d 95 (5th Cir. 1960). B. No plan in any of the district courts made provision for staff desegregation. Failure of the district courts to order an adequate start towards the elimination of teacher and other staff segregation is in direct conflict with holdings of the Supreme Court and this Court. Bradley v. School Board of Richmond, 382 U.S. 103; Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 355 F.2d 865, 870 (5th Cir. 1966). Prompt faculty desegregation is also required by revised school desegregation guidelines, issued by the United States Office of Education, which make each school system responsible for correcting the effects of all past discrim- 38 n o\ inatory teacher assignment practices and call for “signifi cant progress” toward teacher desegregation in the 1966-67 school year. Thus, new assignments must be made on a nonracial basis “ . . . except to correct the effects of past discriminatory assignments.” Revised Statement of Pol icies For School Desegregation (March 1966), <̂ 181.13(b). The ijattern of past assignments must be altered so that schools are not identifiable as intended for students of a particular race and so that faculty of a particular race are not concentrated in schools where students are all or p^onderantly of that race. Supra at Sec. 181.13(d). -f" In view of the desired goal of desegregation, whether by free choice or unitary geographic zoning, it is imperative that the school systems here discussed be required promptly ^ to adopt effective faculty desegregation plans. See Dowell V. School Board of Oklahoma City Public Schools, 244 F. Supp. 971 (W.D. Okla. 1965), on appeal to the 9th Circuit, No. 8523; and Kier v. County School Board of Augusta County, 249 F. Supp. 239 (W.D. Va. 1966). ^ In the Oklahoma City case, the court, adopting the rec- ^ ommendations of educational experts retained with the court’s approval by plaintiffs to study the system and prepare an integration report, set a goal of 1970̂ by which time there should be “ . . . the same approximate per centage of nonwhite teachers in each school as there now is in the system. . . . ” The 1970 date was keyed to per- p C sonnel turnover figures indicating that approximately 15% of the total faculty is replaced each year, and permits the accomplishment of faculty integration by rejjlacements to the faculty as well as by transfers. 244 F. Supp. at 977-78. In the Augusta County case, the district court noting the small number of Negro teachers in the system, ordered faculty desegregation to be completed by the 1966-67 school A dD 39 term. Referring to the Oklahoma City case, supra, the court said: Insofar as possible, the percentage of Negro teachers in each school in the system should approximate the percentage of Negro teachers in the entire system for the 1965-66 school session. Such a guideline can not be rigorously adhered to, of course, but the existence of some standard is necessary in order for the Court to evaluate the sufficiency of the steps taken by the school authorities pursuant to the Court’s order. 249 F. Supp. at 247. The court acknowledged that the standard for teacher assignments is race-conscious, but justified such relief as necessary to correct discrimination practiced in the past. Quoting from a 1963 opinion on the subject by the Attorney General of California, 8 Race Rel. L. Rep. 1303 (1963), the court held that: Clearly, defendants may consider race in disestab lishing their segregated schools without violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. The admonition of the first Mr. Justice Harlan in his dis senting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256 (1896) that ‘Our Con stitution is color-blind’ was directed against the ‘sepa rate but equal’ doctrine, and its rejection in Brown V . Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873, was an explicit recognition that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal, and did not convert Justice Harlan’s metaphor into constitu tional dogma barring affirmative action to accomplish the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, racial classifications which effect invidious discrimina- 40 tion are forbidden but may be upheld if deemed neces sary to accomplish an overriding governmental pur pose. Recently, in Beckett v. School Board of Norfolk, Civ. No. 2214 (E.D. Va.) where the faculty is 40% Negro, a district court entered a consent order on March 17, 1966 approving a plan submitted by the Board containing pro visions for teacher desegregation which in addition to recognizing its obligation to take all reasonable steps to eliminate existing racial segregation of faculty that has resulted from the past operation of a dual school system based upon race or color, committed the Board, inter alia, to the following: The Superintendent of Schools and his staff will take affirmative steps to solicit and encourage teachers presently employed in the System to accept transfers to schools in which the majority of the faculty mem bers are of a race different from that of the teacher to be transferred. Such transfers will be made by the Superintendent and his staff in all cases in which the teachers are qualified and suitable, apart from race or color, for the positions to which they are to be transferred. In filling faculty vacancies which occur prior to the opening of each school year, presently employed teachers of the race opposite the race that is in the majority in the faculty at the school where the vacancy exists at the time of the vacancy will be preferred in filling such a vacancy. Any such vacancy will be filled by a teacher whose race is the same as the race of the majority on the faculty only if no qualified and suitable teacher of the opposite race is available for transfer from within the System. 41 Newly employed teachers will be assigned to schools without reg'ard to their race or color, provided, that if there is more than one newly employed teacher who is qualified and suitable for a particular position and the race of one of these teachers is different from the race of the majority of the teachers on the faculty where the vacancy exists, such teacher will be assigned to the vacancy in preference to one whose race is the same.® An effective faculty desegregation plan must establish specific goals to be achieved by affirmative policies ad ministered with regard to a definite time schedule. The plans in the Oklahoma City, Augusta County and Norfolk cases supra, meet these criteria. The school systems here discussed for valid constitutional and educational reasons should be required to submit faculty desegregation plans patterned after those in the Oklahoma City, Augusta County and Norfolk cases. In all four cases, a total of 69 Negroes have been ad mitted to formerly all-white schools, thus resulting in one way desegregation, i.e., Negro pupils leaving their all- Negro schools with all-Negro faculties and student bodies intact.̂ ® It is obvious that if this pattern is continued without corresponding integration of Negro faculty per sonnel, not only will meaningful pupil desegregation be come impossible, but Negro teachers will be gradually ® A similar plan was approved on March 30, 1966, by the district court in Bradley v. School Board of City of Bichmond, Civ. No. 3353 (E.D. Va.), where about 50% of the teachers are Negro. See comprehensive statistics published by the Southern Education Reporting Service in its periodic “Statistical Summary of School Segre gation-Desegregation in Southern and Border States”, 15th Revision, December 1965, passim. 42 siphoned out of the system, and efforts to achieve faculty desegregation will no longer he difficult, but impossible. Faculty segregation impedes the progress of pupil de segregation. Where, as here, students and parents are given a choice of schools by exercising rights granted under so-called freedom of choice plans, faculty segrega tion influences a racially-based choice. Arrangements which work to promote segregation and hamper desegregation are not to be tolerated in desegregation plans. Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 683. Faculty segregation influences a racially-based choice as surely as the law re quiring racial designations on ballots which was invali dated in Anderson v. Martin, 375 U.S. 399. The United States Office of Education has noted the negative consequences of pupil desegregation without con current faculty desegregation. Thus, in further implement ing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. 2000d) the Office of Education in its March, 1966 Revised Statement of Policies requires school districts submitting plans for desegregation to comply with the following policies: §181.13 Faculty and Staff (a) Desegregation of Staff. The racial composition of the professional staff of a school system, and of the schools in the system, must he considered in determining whether students are subjected to dis crimination in educational programs. Each school sys tem is responsible for correcting the effects of all past discriminatory practices in the assignment of teachers and other professional staff. (b) New Assignments. Race, color, or national origin may not be a factor in the hiring or assign- 43 ment to schools or within schools of teachers and other professional staff, including student teachers and staff serving two or more schools, except to correct the effects of past discriminatory assignments. (d) Past Assignments. The pattern of assignment of teachers and other professional ^taff among the "vaiiuas schl)dts~of~ar~system may not be such that schools are identifiable as intended for students of a particular race, color, or national origin, or such that teachers or other professional staff of a particular race are concentrated in those schools where all, or the majority, of the students are of that race. Each "School system nas a positi^ duty to make staff as signments and reassignments necessary to eliminate past discriminatory assignment patterns. Staff de segregation for the 1966-67 school year must include significant progress beyond what was accomplished for the 1965-66 school year in the desegregation of teachers assigned to schools on a regular full-time basis. Patterns of staff assignment to initiate staff desegregation might include, for example: (1) Some desegregation of professional staff in each school in the system, (2) the assignment of a significant portion of the professional staff of each race to particular schools in the system where their race is a minority and where special staff training programs are estab lished to help with the process of staff desegregation, (3) the assignment of a significant portion of the staff on a desegregated basis to those schools in which the student body is desegregated, (4) the reassignment of the staff of schools being closed to other schools in the system where their race is a minority, or (5) an 44 alternative pattern of assignment whicli will make comparable progress in bringing about staff desegre gation successfully. These Office of Education standards for faculty desegre gation are entitled to great weight. See Singleton v. Jachson Municipal Separate School District, 348 F.2d 729, 731 (5th Cir. 1965); Price v. Denison Independent School District Board of Education, 348 F.2d 1010, 1013 (5th Cir. 1965); Kemp v. Beasley, 352 F.2d 14, 18-19 (8th Cir. 1965). Significantly, at least two district courts had fashioned orders before the Office of Education adopted its Revised Statement which complement the new regulations. Dowell V. School Board of Oklahoma City Public Schools, 244 F. Supp. 971, 977-8 (W.D. Okla. 1965) (appeal pending), and Kier v. County School Board of Augusta County, Virginia, 249 F. Supp. 239, 247 (W.D. Va. 1966). Both courts re quired plans under which the percentage of Negro teachers assigned to each school would result in an equal distri bution of Negro teachers throughout the system. This or similar relief is necessary to eliminate the problem of faculty segregation in Jefferson County, Bessemer, Fair- field and Caddo Parish. The appellees should be required to submit an administrative plan for faculty desegregation in accord with such definitive guidelines. 45 II. The Inferiority of Negro Schools (1 ) Entitles Negro Students to a Right of Immediate Transfer In All Grades and (2 ) Requires the School Board to Devise a Plan Which Maximizes Desegregation. Well before Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) it was clear that disparities in educational facilities required immediate desegregation. Cf. Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938), Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U.S. 631 (1948), Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950). Recently in Rogers v. Paid, 382 U.S. 198, 199, 200 (1965) the Supreme Court held that pending the com plete desegregation of Fort Smith, Arkansas high schools, Negro students enrolled at schools with less extensive cur ricula were entitled to “immediate transfer to the high school that has the most extensive curricula and from which they are excluded because of their race”. In the Bessemer case, not only did Negro students with first-hand knowledge describe the unavailability of facili ties, resources and courses at Negro schools (R. 218-235), but Superintendent Knuckles similarly testified that there were more electives at white Bessemer High School, the only school accredited by the Southern Association, and that the Negro schools were, in the main, poorly heated, poorly illuminated, neglected wooden structures (R. 138-40). Mr. William Stormer, an expert in evaluating school facil ities, testified that with one exception, the Bessemer Negro schools were inferior to the white schools in terms of location, buildings, classroom facilities and classroom con ditions (R. 191-192). Similarly in the Jefferson case, only the Negro high school was not accredited by the Southern Association (R. 220) and only Negro schools had pot bellied stoves and outdoor toilet facilities (R. 232, 234). J 46 The testimony showed Negro schools more overcrowded than whites and lacking well equipped football stadiums and summer school sessions (E. 232, 235). In Fairfield, testimony revealed many more electives available at white hig’h schools and the more crowded character of Negro schools (R. 90, 131-132, 215). On the basis of evidence in all three cases, plaintiffs were clearly entitled to a plan which included the right of im mediate transfer out of an inferior Negro school. The failure of the courts to so order condemns Negro students in the four grades unaffected by the desegregation plan until 1967-68 to at least another year at clearly inferior schools. However, even if all students in the four grades still segregated were granted a right of immediate transfer, it is probable that only token desegregation would occur. The inferiority of Negro schools turns freedom of choice, the desegregation process approved in Bessemer, Jefferson County and Fairfield, into a one-way process. White stu dents could hardly be expected to abandon the superior facilities and instructions available at white schools by transferring to Negro schools. Thus, Negro students’ right to transfer under the freedom of choice plans is circum scribed by the amount of space available at white schools. Even where provision is made to resolve such overcrowd ing by giving priority to the student residing closest to the school, freedom of choice plans impose upon Negro students and their parents the additional burden of in itiating the desegregation process. In recognizing the Negro students’ right not to be re stricted to inferior schools, quite apart from their right to a desegregated education, the Supreme Court clearly intended school boards to devise plans which maximized the extent of desegregation. In Bessemer, however, al- 47 though there was evidence of considerable residential inte gration and the administrative feasibility of redrawing school attendance zones to achieve desegregation, the school board undertook the admittedly more burdensome freedom of choice process under which a mere 13 ISlegro students transferred during the 1965-1966 school year. Similarly, in Jefferson County where only 24 Negro students trans ferred, appellant’s expert. Dr. Myron Lieberman, testified that school buses and buildings would be better utilized under a geographic attendance zone plan and that there was no overwhelming reason not to adopt such a plan (R. 264). Although a school board is entitled to devise a desegregation plan which is geared to the special circum stances of a particular school system, a school board can not select a desegregation process which plainly restricts the amount of desegregation that will occur. Until Negro schools are brought up to par with white schools and freedom of choice becomes meaningful to both white and Negro students, a school board is obligated to take further steps to maximize desegregation. Indeed, just recently, unequal Negro schools were closed in three Ala bama counties to protect Negro students’ right to an equal as well as a desegregated education. In Carr, et al v. Mont gomery Board of Education, N.D. Ala., #2072-N, March 22, 1966 Judge Johnson’s order further required: The Montgomery County Board will design and pro vide remedial educational programs to eliminate the effects of past discrimination, particularly, the results of the unequal and inferior educational opportunities which have been offered in the past to Negro students in the Montgomery County School System. Expansion of existing school plants to accommodate displaced students will be designed to eliminate the dual school system. (Emphasis added.) 48 Similarly, the revised Health, Education and Welfare school desegregation gnidelines now require that “inade quate” Negro schools he discontinued. §181.15 Eevised Statement of Policies for School Desegregation Plans Un der Title VI of the Civil Eights Act of 1964. CONCLUSION W h e r e fo r e , in te r v e n o r s p r a y th a t th e ju d g m e n ts in each case be re v e rs e d . Eespeetfully submitted. J ack G reen berg J a m es M. N abrit , III M ic h a e l M e ltsn er N orm an C. A m a k er 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York Oscar W. A dams, J r. 1630 Fourth Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama D e m e t r iu s C. N ew ton 408 North 17th Street Birmingham, Alabama D avid H . H ood 2001 Carolina Avenue Bessemer, Alabama J esse N. S t o n e , J r . 854% Texas Avenue Shreveport, Louisiana A. P. T ureaud 1821 Orleans Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana Attorneys for Intervenors S h e il a E u s h J o nes C onrad K. H arper F red W allace Of Counsel 49 Certificate of Service This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing consoli dated brief and motion for leave to file has been served on each of the attorneys for appellees and the United States as listed below, by being deposited in United States mail, air mail, postage prepaid, on this 22nd day of April, 1966: Hon. John A. Richardson District Attorney 1st Judicial District Caddo Parish Courthouse Shreveport, Louisiana Hon. William P. Schuler Assistant Attorney General 201 Trist Building Arabi, Louisiana Mr. J. Bennett Johnston, Jr. 930 Giddens Lane Building Shreveport, Louisiana Mr. Macon Weaver United States Attorney Federal Building Birmingham, Alabama Mr. Maurice F. Bishop Bishop & Carlton 325-29 Frank Nelson Building Birmingham, Alabama Mr. Reid B. Barnes Lange, Simpson, Robinson & Somerville 317 North 20th Street Birmingham, Alabama Hon. Jack P. F. Gremillion Attorney General State Capitol Baton Rouge, Louisiana Mr. David L. Norman Department of Justice Washington, D.C. Mr. Edward L. Shaheen United States Attorney Federal Building Shreveport, Louisiana Mr. J. Howard MoBniry McEniry, McEniry & McEniry 1721 4th Avenue North Bessemer, Alabama Attorneys for Intervenors ■’■-sA MEIIEN PRESS INC. — N. Y. C.