Davis v. Mobile County Board of School Commissioners Appendix Volume I

    A PPE N D IX
Volume I —  pp. la -356a

Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1970

N o. 436

BIRDIE MAE DAVIS, ET AL., PETITIONERS,

BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS 
OF MOBILE COUNTY, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

ACTION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 
DEFERRED AUGUST 31, 1970

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED JULY 23, 1970



I N D E X

Volume I
PAGE

Docket Entries ...............................................................  la

District Court Order of April 25, 1963 ......................  2a

Court of Appeals Opinion of May 24, 1963 ............... 3a

District Court Opinion of June 24, 1963 ....................  5a

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9,1963 ................... 14a

District Court Order of July 26, 1963 ..........................  29a

Opinion of Mr. Justice Black, 8/16/63, Denying Stay 31a

District Court Order of August 23, 1963 ..................  35a

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 18, 1964 ............... 36a

District Court Orders of July 29, 1964 and July 31,
1964 ..............................................................................  40a

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965 ................. 45a

Appendix A ........................................................... 65a

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966 ........... 67a

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13,1967 84a

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968 ........... 122a

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968 ....................  142a



District Court Order of August 2, 1968 ......................  169a

Explanatory Letter ................................................ 173a

Choice Form ...........................................................  175a

District Court Order of December 20, 1968 ............... 177a

District Court Order of March 14,1969 ......................  179a

Court of Appeals Order of March 20, 1969 ............... 181a

District Court Order of April 7, 1969 ........................  182a

Court of Appeals Order of May 6,1969 ......................  185a

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 3,1969 ................... 186a

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commis­
sioners of Mobile County on August 19, 1963 .......  193a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6 at July 1967 Hearing ....... 201a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 24 at July 1967 Hearing.......  204a

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 
H earing........................................................................  207a

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 72 at July 1967 
H earing........................................................................  221a

Excerpt from Transcript of Proceedings, July 17,
1968, page 1031 ........................................................... 223a

Excerpt from Transcript of Proceedings, July 19,
1968, pages 1526-1532 ...............................................  224a

HEW Plan of July, 1969 ...............................................  229a

i i

PAGE



Volume II

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969 ............. 357a

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969 .......  473a

District Court Order of August 1, 1969 ....................  512a

School Board Report to the Court Filed November 
26, 1969 .................................................................   518a

Opinion of Court of Appeals of December 1, 1969 .... 543a

Second HEW Report Filed December 1, 1969 ........... 554a

Plan A ..................................................................... 559a

Plan B .......    566a

Plan B—Alternative ...............................-.............  574a

Plan B -l—Alternative .......................................... 581a

School Board Plan Filed December 1, 1969 ............. 586a

District Court Order of December 4,1969 ..................  588a

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Require Service of Desegre­
gation Plan Filed January 2, 1970 ..............  589a

Volume III

Statistical Exhibits Submitted by the United States 
to the District Court on January 27, 1970 ........... 591a

District Court Order of January 28, 1970 .................  602a

District Court Order of January 31, 1970 .................  603a

1X1

PAGE



IV

District Court Order of February 4, 1970 ............... 610a

Court of Appeals Opinion of February 16, 1970 .......  611a

District Court Order of February 27, 1970 ............... 616a

District Court Order of March 12, 1970 .................  617a

District Court Order of March 16, 1970 .................  619a

Court of Appeals Order of March 25, 1970 ............. 620a

District Court Order of March 31, 1970 ..................  622a

Plaintiff’s Motion to Establish Procedures on Re­
mand Filed April 6, 1970 ........................................ 623a

District Court Order of April 14, 1970 .................. 623a

District Court Order of April 14, 1970 .................. 624a

Affidavit of James A. McPherson Filed April 10,
1970 ..............................................................................  625a

Attachment A .........................................................  651a

Attachment B .........................................................  652a

Attachment C .........................................................  653a

Attachment D-l .....................................................  657a

Attachment D-2 .....................................................  659a

Attachment D-3 .....................................................  661a

Attachment E .........................................................  663a

Attachment F .........................................................  667a

PAGE



V

Attachment G .........................................................  671a

Attachment H ....... ..... .......... - ...............................  674a

Attachment J .... ...................-..................................  677a

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 8, 1970 ............— 680a

Appendix A ...........—..........................-.................... 689a

Court of Appeals Judgment of June 8, 1970 ............... 694a

District Court Order of June 12, 1970 .................... -  695a

Court of Appeals Orders of June 29, 1970 ...............  698a

District Court Order of July 13, 1970 ......................  699a

Exhibit 4 .................. ....... .................................. .....  701a

District Court Order of July 30, 1970 ....... ...............  702a

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 4, 1970 ..... .....  704a

Charts ................................................... ................... 709a

Projected Enrollment Data for Elementary, Middle 
and High Schools Broken Down as to U.S. District 
Court Plan Under Order of 7/13/70; Fifth Circuit 
Plan; and U.S. District Court Plan under Order 
of 7/30/70, Filed August 20, 1970 ..........................  717a

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 28, 1970 ......... 720a

District Court Order of September 4, 1970 ............... 723a

District Court Order of September 4, 1970   ......... 724a

PAGE



VI

District Court Order of September 14, 1970 ............. 726a

District Court Decree of May 13, 1968 ......................  728a

School Board’s Response to HEW’s July 1969 Plan,
Filed July 21, 1969 ........................... ........................ 737a

School Board Affidavit, Filed July 29, 1969 ............... 743a

Attachment A ........................................................ 768a

School Board Report to the Court, Filed October 13,
1969 ..............................................................................  770a

School Board Report to the Court, Filed Novem­
ber 20, 1969 ................................................................. 771a

District Court Order of January 22, 1970 ................. 773a

School Board Response to Order, Filed January 30,
1970 ..............................................................................  774a

District Court Order of January 31, 1970 ......    778a

School Board Report to the Court, Filed Febru­
ary 23, 1970 ................................................................. 779a

School Board Report to the Court, Filed Febru­
ary 24, 1970 ................................................................  781a

School Board Affidavit, Filed January 30, 1970 ....... 785a

School Board Motion for Stay, Filed March 17,
1970 ....................      797a

Exhibit A ...................     801a

PAGE



School Board Objection to a Portion of the Record,
Filed March 27, 1970 ........— ...................................  803a

District Court Order of August 12, 1970 .................. 804a

District Court Order of August 12, 1970 .................. 806a

Court of Appeals Order of September 18, 1970 ....... 807a

V ll

PAGE



DATE PROCEEDINGS Date Ord
Judgment

3-27-63
3-27-63

3-27-63
3-27-63

4-5-63

Complaint filed,
Stipulation of counsel as to service of papers in this district

filed,
Motion for preliminary injunction filed, noticed for hearing Apr.25t 
Summons issued, with 7 copies of summons, complaint, and motion for 

preliminary injunction, with notice of hearing attached,
(Summons and copies delivered to Marshal on 4-1-63)

h,9:3<

Summons returned executed,

4-23-63
4-24-63

4-25-63

1 *
!
i^-29-63 
!4-26-63 
!4-26-63
»

| 5-9-63
Ii
\

■ 5-13-63 

j 5-17-63
; 5-27-63vr
[6-10-63

! 6-24-63
i1Ij

! 6-26-63 
17-1-63

!7-3-63
1 7 -1 1 -C3
!

Motion to dismiss filed by defendants,
Affidavits of MRS. OLLIE MAE DAVIS and MR. ALGEA BOLTON with attach­

ments filed In support of plaintiffs' Motion for preliminary 
injunction,

Order entered GRANTING oral motion of plaintiff to substitute
Charles E. McNeil as President of Board of Schoox Commissioners 
in placed of William B. Crane, who was named Chairman; and 
GRANTING oral motion of plaintiff to amend affidavit of Mrs. Ola 
Mae Davis within one week. Motion for preliminary injunction 
submitted on affidavits and taken under submission by the Court 
and Plaintiffs are allowed to and Including May 24, 1963 to file 
its brief in support of motion and Defendants allowed to and in­
cluding June 10, 1963 to rile reply brief, 
see Minute Entry No. 14,972 ,

Copy of M/E No. 14,972 mailed to all attorneys of record,
Affidavit of MR. ALGEA BOLTON filed,
Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' motion for 

preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs,
Notice of Appeal filed by plaintiffs,
Designation of Contents of Record of Appeal filed by plaintiffs,
Copy of notice of appeal mailed to Mr. George F. Wood, and Mr. Jose;

F. Johnson, for defendants,
$250.00 cash/bond on appeal deposited In Registry of Court by appellants, 
Certificate of Clerk executed as to deposit of $250.00,
Copy of appellants' mimeographed record on appeal received from ap­

pellants' counsel, and filed,
Judgment of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals received showing DENIAL 

of Appellants Petition on Appeal and DISMISSING the Appeal,
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF filed with certificate of service attached 
Af f i d a v i t  of CRANFORD II. BURNS la a a o e f e W &  A filed, 
Findings and Opinion on Motion forPreliminary Injunction filed 
Order entered DENYING motion of plaintiffs for preliminary Injunction

and setting case for trial at 9:30 a. m. on November lb, 196' 
(Minute Entry No. 1524? ),

Copies mailed to attorneys of record,
Notice of Appeal filed by plaintiffs,
Copies of Notice of Appeal mailed to George F. Wood and Joseph F. 

Johnson, Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Supplemental Record on Appeal forwarded to CCA, Fifth Circuit
Order entered^ on-.oral motion of Defendants , GRANTING

£?— thA-rty dayo or-—fee—and" inellMing— —udj-n «-----
w4-hh1.n which

#e



I~Q. 3003-53

D.C. 110A Rev. Civil Docket Continuation

Date
Judgmi

ATTORNEYS IN CIVIL ACTION 3003-63

DATE PROCEEDINGS

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS:
Messrs, jack Greenberg, Jonathan Shapiro, and Michael Davidson, 
Suite 1790 - 10 Columbus Circle,
New York, N. Y. 10019

Mr. Vernon Z. Crawford and Mrs. Frankie Fields Smith,
1407 Davis Av.
Mobile, Ala. 36603

ATTORNEYS FOR PDA INTIFF-INTERVENOR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

Mr. Jerris Leonard,
Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C. 20530

Messrs. Frank M. Dunbaugh and Walter Gorman,
Attorneys,
The Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C. 20530

Mr. Charles S. White Spunner, Jr.
United States Attorney,
P. 0. Drawer "E",
Mobile, Ala. 366OI

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS, ET AL; 
Messrs. Abram L. Philips Jr. and James D. Brooks,
P. 0. Box 2245,
Mobile, Ala. 35601

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS. TWILA FRAZIER, ET AL: 
Mr. Ralph Kennamer, P5 0. Box' 024, Mobile, A la". 3'jobi 
Mr. Pierre Pelham, P. 0. Box 221, Mobile, Ala. 36501

ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANTS FOR INTERVENTION, MOBILE COUNTY COUNCIL 0 
PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS. ET AL;
Mr. Samuel L. Stockman,
P. 0. Box 4483,
Mobile, Ala. 36604

ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANTS FOR INTERVENTION AS PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR, 
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, INC., and INTERVENOR, ALABAMA 
STATE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION. INC.;
Mr. Solomon S. Seay Jr.,
352 Dexter Av.
Montgomery, Ala. 36104



D. C. 110A Rev. 

DA TE

7-11-63

7-11-63

7-11-63
7-11-63

7- 15-63 
7-15-63 
7-19-63

7-26-63

7- 31-63
8- 7-63

8- 12-63 
8-12-63

8-13-63
*8-12-63

8-15-63

8-19-63

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3003-6

Docket Sheet
Civil Docket Continuation

PROCEEDINGS

JUDGMENT and ORDER under Mandate of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 
dated July 9, 1963 entered by Judge Thomas restraining and 
enjoining the Defendant, Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 
County and its members from requiring and permitting segrega­
tion of the races in 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 with all deliberate speed; and further 
ordered that the defendants are required to make an immediate 
start in desegregation of schools of Mobile County and that a 
plan be submitted not later than August 1, 1963, etc.,
See Minute Entry No. 15,289 ,

Six copies of Judgment and Order delivered to U. S. Marshal for 
service oh each member of Board of School Commissioners of 
Mobile County, and Cranford H. Burns, its Superintendent.

Copies of M/E No. 15,289., mailed to all attorneys of record,

Date Or< 
Judgment

Order entered on oral motion of Defendants, GRANTING extension of 
time of thirty days , or to and including the 12th day of August 
1963, within which to file answer, Minuet Entry No. 15,293,

Copies of order mailed to attorneys (5 ),
Returnsof Marshal filed, showing service of Order on EACH defendant,
Copy of OPINION-ORDER on Petition for Rehearing received and filed 

as Mandate from CCA, which amends judgment and order of July 9, 
1963 so that the"plan shall be submitted to the District Court 
not later than August 18, 1963...to provide for carrying into 
effect not later than beginning of school year September 1963 
and thereafter of the Alabama Pupil Placement Law as to all 
school grades without racial discrimination...".

Order entered AMENDING judgment and order entered July 11, 1963
according to Opinion-Order of CCA filed 7-19-63. (Minute Entry 
No. 15391).

Copies of order mailed to attorneys of record, (5 firms)
Motion filed by defendants to defer desegregation of rural schools | 

in Mobile County until September, 1964, noticed for hearing on | 
August 12, 1963, at 9:30 A. M.

ANSWER of defendants filed, with certificate attached,
ORDER entered GRANTING defendants motion to defer desegregation of j 

rural schools In Mobile County until September, 1964 and 
designating ALL schools outside the City Limits of the City 
of Mobile as rural schools for the purposes of this order, 
see Minute Entry No. 15,473 ,

Copy of M/E No . 15 ,*73 mailed to~all attorneys,
Affidavit of Cranford H. Burns and Affidavit of C. L, Scarborough 

filed,
Motion for Hearing Immediately after the Defendant submit a plan 

for desegregation of schools of Mobile County, Alabama ‘filed 
by Plaintiffs,

Plan submitted by the Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County 
pursuant to Order Dated July 11,1963,as amended July 26,1963, 
filed,

(Continued to next page)



DATE PROCEEDINGS Date Order
Judgment N<

8-21-63

3-21-63 6’

3-21-63

3-23-63

8-23-63
8-28-63

9-3-63
9-9-63

9-13-63

9-16-63

9-18-63
9-20-63

9-23-63

9-26-63

9-26-63

9-26-63

Plaintiffs' objections to defendants' Plan of Desegregation 
filed,

Transcript of proceedings had before Hon. Daniel H. Thomas 
at hearing on Aug. 21, 1963, filed,

Order of Submission on Plaintiff's objections to Plan of Desegrega­
tion as filed on Aug. 19, 1963, see Min. Entry No. 15,492 

Order entered Approving Plan of Desegregation as filed on Aug. 19, 
1963 with exceptions of two amendments as set out in this 
order, see Minute. Entry No. 19,506 ,

Copies of Min. Entry Nos. 15,492 and 15,566 mailed to attorneys, 
Notice of Appeal filed by plaintiffs,
Copies mailed to Messrs. George F. Wood and Joseph F. Johnson, 

Attorneys for Defendants.

Plaintiffs' Designation of Contents of Record on Appeal filed,
Motion for Issuance of Order to Show Cause filed by plaintiffs, with
Affidavit of Clarence E. Moses,
Affidavit of Vernon Z. Crawford,
Executive Order # 12 of Governor of Alabama, attached,
Order to Show Cause issued by Judge Daniel H. Thomas, set for hearing 

at 3:00 p. m. on September 16, 1963, directed to Governor George 
C. Wallace, (Minute Entry No. 15,555).

Motion for temporary restraining order filed by plaintiffs,
Temporary Restraining Order issued, restraining Governor Wallace

from interfering with desegregation of Murphy High School, etc. 
(Minute Entry No.15,555 ).

Bond on issuance of temporary restraining order filed in sum of
$1 , 000 .00 ,

9 copies of motions, affidavits, and orders issued to Marshal for 
service on Governor Wallace, et al.

Marshal's return of service of motions and order to show cause .nd 
restraining order on Governor Wallace by service on his executive­
secretary and on Governor Wallace personally, filed,

Order entered CONTINUING and RE-SETTING hearing on motion for order 
to show cause to September 26, 1963 at 9:30 a.m. and continuing 
temporary restraining order entered 9-9-63; (Minute Entry No. 
15,590).

Copies mailed to attorneys of record,
Order entered, on oral motion of Mr. D. R. Coley, extending time

within which George C. Wallace may file responsive pleadings to 
Order to Show Cause etc. to and including September 26, 1963. 
(Minute Entry No. 15621).

Copies mailed to attorneys of record,

Responsive pleading on Hon. George C. Wallace,Governor of Alabama 
filed this date,

Return of U. S. Marshal filed, showing service of Motion for Restra 
ing order, Restraining Order, Motion for Order to Show Cause, a: 
Order to Show Cause on Charles E. McNeil, Jack C. Gallalee, Art 
Smith, William B. Crane, Kenneth Reed, Dr. Cranford Burns, and 

Joe Smelley, member of Alabama Highway Patrol.
Order entered CONTINUING hearing on motion for order to show cause 

pending further orders of the court, (Minute Entry No. 15,674 )

.n-
;d
hur



CONTINUATION OP CIVIL ACTION 3<

Docket Sheet
D. C. 110A Rev. Civil Docket Continuation

D A TE PROCEEDINGS

9-27-63
9-27-63

11-8-63

11-8-63

Copies of order of continuance mailed to attorneys,
Certified Supplemental Record on Appeal mailed to U.S.Court of Ap­

peals, Fifth Circuit,
Motion for leave to amend Answer filed by defendants and Order 

entered granting same, Min. Entry No. 15,870 ,
AMENDMENT TO ANSWER filed by defendants,
Copy of M/E No . 15,870 and Amendment to Answer mailed to Attys. 

for Plaintiff,
11-12-63 Motion for Discovery filed by Defendants and set down for hearing 

on Nov. 14, 1963 at 9:30 A.M., by Judge Daniel H. Thomas, 
Copy of Motion for Discovery and notice of setting mailed to 

attorneys of record,
11-13-63 Motion for order of this Court authorizing and permitting the 

introduction Into evidence in trial of this case certain 
testimony taken in the trial of Ralph Stell, et al., vs.
The Savannah-Chatom County Board of Education, et al. in 
the Sou. Dist. of Georgia, filed with Affidavit of GEORGE F.

* WOOD attached,
11-14-63
11-14-63

11-14-63

11-15-63

11-29-63

11-13-63

6-19-64

Plaintiffs' Plan of Desegregation filed with certificate attached, 
Motion to Strike Defendants' Amendment to paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 

of Answer filed by Plaintiffs' with Memorandum Brief in support 
thereof attached, certificate of service attached,

Trial of Merits begun, Motion to Dismiss complaint filed by De­
fendants' on 4-23-63 taken under submission and the trial of 
this case nOt being completed said trial is recessed until 
November 15, 1963 at 9:30 a.m., Min. Entry No. 15,890-A ,

Trial resumed, witnesses further examined, and Plaintiffs' motion 
strike Defendants' Amendment to Para. 9, 10 and 11 filed on 
11-14-63 is Denied; and this case is TAKEN UNDER SUBMISSION 
by the Court, Min. Entry No. 15*897 *

Transcript of proceedings had before Judge Thomas, U. S. District 
Judge at Mobile, Alabama, on November 14 and 15, 1963-

Order entered GRANTING motion for order of Court authorizing and 
permitting the introduction into evidence in trial of this case 
certain testimony taken In the trial of Ralph Stell,et al., vs. 
The Savannah-Chatom County Board of Education, et al. in the 
Sou. Dist. of Georgia, filed with affidavit of George F.Wood,atta 
See Minute Entry No. 15,886-A ,

JUDGMENT and ORDER under Mandate of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 
dated June 18, 1964 received and filed showing following ruling 
to-wit;
"It Is now ordered and adjudged by this Court that this cause beJ 
remaned to the said District Court with instructions to require i 
the Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, Alabama to 
present to the District Court forthwlth/Its consideration a 
plan of desegregation which will meet the minimum standards 
set forth and outlined in the Birmingham case, being cause 
No. 20595 on the docket of this Court. The order of the Distric 
Court heretofore entered on June 24, 1963* denying Injunctive 
relief, is vacated; the orders of the said District Court enters 
on July 11 and 26, 1963* pursuant to the mandate of this Court
(continued to next page)



DATE PROCEEDINGS
Date Orde

Judgment 2

6-19-64

6-29-64

6- 30-64
7- 8-64

7-11-64

7-13-64
: 7-14-64

(x)
i 7-31-64
!|
| (*)I 7-21-64

! 7-27-64

;12-21-64 
12-23-64 
s12-30-64
i
; 1-6-65
i
! 1-6-65i

1-14-65
1-20-65

1- 26-65
2- 23-64

in this case, are continued until modified by the District Court, 
all in accordance with the opinion of this Court;"
"It is further ordered and adjudged that the appellees, Board of 
School Commissioners of Mobile County, and others be condemned, 
in solido, to pay the costs of this cause in this Court, for which 
let execution issued out of the ssid Distrixt Court."
Order entered by Thomas, Judge, requiring submission of plan for 

desegregation in accordance with opinion and mandate of CCA 
rendered and issued June 18, 1964, requiring Board of School 
Commissioners to submit on or before July 1 7 , 1964 a plan for 
desegregation in accordance with the opinion and mandate of CCA, 
hearing on any objections filed to said plan to be heard on 
July 29, 1964. (Minute Entry No. 16,900).

Copies of order mailed to all attorneys of record,
Defendants1 motion to extend time for the Defendants to submit a 

Plan for Desegregation, from July 17th, 1964,in order for the 
U.S.Court of Appeals to rule on the Defendants’ Petition for 
a Re-Hearing, etc., filed,

Order entered AMENDING court's order of June 29, 1964 to extend the 
time for filing of a desegregation plan from "on or before July 
17, 1964" to "on or before the 21st day of July 1964". (Minute 
Entry No. 16,941 )

Copies mailed to attorneys of record,
Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion for an extension of 

time in which to present a plan of desegregation filed,
Order Approving Plan as Modified, Min. Entry No. 17,016. Copy of 

M.E. *17016 mailed to Messrs. George F. Wood and Vernon Z. Craw­
ford:-on July 31, 1964.

Amendment to Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners of 
Mobile County, Pursuant to Order Dated June 29, 1964, with 
Certificate of Serfvice

Plaintiffs’ Objections to Desegregation Plan submitted by the 
Defendant Board of School Commissioners of Mobile Cou nty and 
Motion for a Revised Plan, with Certificate of Service.

Motion filed by plaintiffs for Further Relief, 
interrogatories propounded to defendants filed by plaintiffs,
Motion for Additional Time to Answer Interrogatories filed by 

defendants, noticed for hearing at 9:30 A.M. January 5, 1965. 
Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ motion for additional time to 

answer Interrogatories,SHOWING NO OBJECTION to the granting of 
motion and extension filed,

Order entered GRANTING defendants' motion for extension of time to 
JANUARY 25, 1965 within which to answer plaintiffs' interroga­
tories. (Minute Entry 17,752).

Copies mailed to attorneys,
Notice to withdraw his name as counsel for defendants filed by 

Mr. Joseph F. Johnston, Attorney.
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES filed by defendants.
Defendants answer to motion for further relief filed,

(SEE NEXT PAGE)



CONTINUATION OP CIVIL ACTION 3003-6j
Docket Sheet #4-

D. C. 110A. Rev. Civil Docket Continuation

DA TE PROCEEDINGS

2-26-65

3-5-65 
3-5-65

3-10-65 
3-15-65
"3-15-65 
3-23-65

3-30-65 < 

3-31-65

4— 2-65

U-iU-65
4- 14-65
U-23-65
5- 24-65

5-26-65

5-26-65

5- 26-65

6 - -I-6 5
6- 28-65
7- 7-65

7- 7-65

8- 12-65

Hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for further r e l i e f ,witnesses^examined, 
exhibits offered in evidence and order entered continuing hear­
ing to Friday Morning,March 5>1965>at 9:30 A.M.,(MINUTE ENTRY
NO.17975),

Copy of M.E.NO.17975 mailed to all Attorneys,
Hearing on Plaintiffs* motion for further relief resumed,witnesses 

further examined, exhibits offered m  evidence ana case taxen 
under SUBMISSION, (MINUTE ENTRY N0.17994),

Copy of M.E.NO.17994 mailed to all Attorneys,
BRIEF of defendants, opposing motion, filed, and delivered to Judge,

MAP of City of Mobile showing the re-drawn attendance areas for 
elementary schools filed by defendants,

Transcript of proceedings had before Judge Daniel H. Thomas at 
Mobile, Alabama on February 26 and March 5, 1965 filed by 
Court Reporter,

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by Thomas, Judge,
DECREE entered by court, on plaintiffs' motion for further relief 

and on defendants' answer thereto, etc. striking provision in 
Plan that requires return of completed form in person, and 
striking criteria for transfer in the plan designated (i), (1), 
(m) and (n), directing Board to give reasonable notice to 
school patrons of terms and time limitation the Plan me

D
Juc

approving desegregation plan of the Board in all other respects, 
as constitutional and non-discriminatory, and except as ordered, 
motion of plaintiffs denied. (Minute Entry No. 18,144).

Copies of Findings, Conclusions and Order mailed to attorneys of 
record, mpeox.

NOTICE OF APBKAL filed" by Birdie Mae Davis, et al,
Copy of Notice of Appeal mailed to George F. Wood and D.R.Coley,Jr.,| 
Appellant’s Designation of Contents of Record on appeal J.ileu,
Order entered extending time for filing and docketing Transcript of 1

Record in the U.S.Court of Appeals,New Orleans, Louisian ,,to,
and including the 13th day of July,1965, (MINUTE ENTRY NO.IO445):, 

Certified copy of Notice of Appeal and Order Extending Time,etc.,
mailed to Clerk,U.S.Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit,New Orleans,
Louisiana, „„ .

Copy of Minute Entry No.18445 mailed to Derrick A.Bell,jr.,Vernon 
Z.Crawford,Clarence E.Moses,George F.Wood and D.R.Coley,Jr.,

Motion filed by plaintiffs for refund of $1,000.00 cash bond,

Copy of motion of 5-26-65 mailed to defendants' attorneys,
Motion for refund of $1,000.00 submitted,without argument,
Certified copy of Original Transcript of Record on Appeal mailed to 

Clerk,U.S.Court of Appeals,New Orleans,La.,and 2 packages of 
exhibits mailed via Parcel Post,Under separate cover,

Copy of letter of transmittal mailed to Derrick A.Bell,Ur.,Vernon 
Z.Crawford,Clarence E.Moses and George F.Wood,

Order entered GRANTING Plaintiffs’ motion for refund of -1,000.00 
cash bond end directing Clerk to draw end sign a c*v on the., 
Registry Account in the sum of $1,COO.00, pay* ..v, - -•



DATE

8-12-65
8 - 16-65
10-6-65
/

10-6-65

10-8-65
10-11-65

j 8- 

| 8-

1 8-

i
! 8- 

: 8-

-17-66

17-66

17-66

17-66

-19-66

8-19-66

8 - 26-66
8-30-66

; 8- 
I 9- 
9- 

! 9-

30-66
•2-66
- 2-66
■7-66

PROCEEDINGS

> :! S

of

Crawford, As Abhomey for Plaintiffs, (MINUTE ENTRY -T0.1 
Copy of M . E J g  18902 jailed to Attorneys, (5),
Defendants-J^pteiiaaaisat* Additional Designation of Record on Appeal 
. filed, and request.for-perm^ssion to send exhibit to U.S.Court 
uPSS^'eAtered granting request that a map of the City

Mobile,showing the re-drawn attendance areas be certified up t<j> 
the U.S.Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, New Orleans, Louisian 
(MINUTE ENTRY NO. 1911*3),

Copy of M.E.NO.191^3 mailed to George F. Wood,Jack Greenberg,
Vernon Z. Crawford, Clarence E. Moses and Derrick A.Bell,jr., 

Certified copy of Appellees* Additional Designation of Record on
Appeal,order entered granting the permission to file addition­
al designation of record and ORIGINAL PLEADING, together with 
MAP, MARKED EXHIBIT "A" all sent to Clerk, U.S.Court of Ap­
peals,Fifth Circuit,New Orleans, Louisiana, and letter of 
transmittal, (copy) mailed to Attorneys, (1*3,i.e.,G.F.Wood,
Jack Greenberg,Vernon Z.Crawford,Clarence E*Moses and D.R. 
Coley,Jr,,

Judgment of CCA received, reversing and remanding district court. 
Opinion of CCA received,
Order entered by Thomas, Judge, pursuant to opinion and mandate

of CCA directing appellees (respondents) to file modifications 
of its Plan for desegration in order to conform with order of

)Wood, Attorney

Date Orde
Judgment 2

of

appellate court, (Minute Entry No. 20703
Service of copy of order accepted by George ? 

defendants,
Copy mailed to attorneys Derrick A. Bell, Jr., Vernon Z. Crawford,

Clarence E. Moses, and D. R. Coley, Jr.
Motion for an extension of time of 60 days within which to file an 

overall plan to Incorporate the addition requirements by the 
Court of Appeals, filed by the defendant,

Order by the Court granting motion for additional time in which to 
fileean overall desegregation plan is GRANTED and defendants 
have and until and including Oct. 19, 1966, in which to file 
such plan; Modifications filed Aug. 19, 1966, in response to 

■ an order entered Aug. 17, 1966, directing that such
modifications be submitted are hereby APPROVED, Min. Entry 
No. 20,719.
Copy of M.E. 20719 mailed on Aug. 19, -1966, to Messrs. Derrick 
A. Bell Jr., Vernon Crawford, Clarence E. Moses, George F.
Wood, and D.R. Coley Jr.

Motion filed Aug. 26, 1966, by the Plaintiffs for Further Relief, 
with Certificate of Service

Motion filed Aug. 26, 1966, by the Plaintiffs for Further Relief
is DENIED, Minute Entry No. 20,775____ . Copy mailed on
Aug. 30, I966. to Messrs. Vernon Z. Crawford and C-eorge F.
Wood. 0-30-66- .Notice of Appeal filed to order denying furthejr rel; 

Motion to Dismiss the appeal filed on Aug. 30, 1966 filed, by p la in t i f f  
Order entered GRANTING the motion to dismiss the appeal(M/E No. 20804)
Copy of M/E mailed-to Derrick A. Bell, Jr., Clarence E. Moses, George 

F-. Wood, D. R. Coley, Jrr, and Vernon Z. Crawford, attorneys,
(SEE NE XT PAGe) (SEE - NEXT PAGE)



CONTINUATION OF CIVIL ACTION 3003-
DOCKKT SHEET NO. 5

D. C. 110A R ev. Civil D ocket C ontinuation

D A TE PROCEEDIN GS

10-19-66 School Attendance Plan filed Oct. 19, 1966, by Defendants to have 
effect in the schools of Mobile County for School Year I967-6S, 
with Certificate of Service.

y 4— 18-67 Motion for Further Relief filed by plaintiffs, requesting a 30 day 
registration period commencing May 1, 1967 for the 1967-68 school 
year, and to enter the decree proposed by the U.S.Court of Appeal/ r in its decision in the Jefferson County case, as the desegregatic

J plan in the present case.
4-25-67 

^  5-3-67

totion to Strike filed by defendants with answer to the Motion for 
Further Relief filed by plaintiffs on 4-18-67,

Plaintiff's interrogatories to defendants, filed
5-15-67 Objections to Interrogatories filed by defendants,
5-22-67 Notice of taking oral deposition of Sam H. Stout, Joseph W. LuQuire, 

Joseph A. McPherson and Cranford H. Burns filed by plaintiffs,
5-22-67 Motion that Depositions not be taken, filed by the defendants,
5-23-67 Answers Filed by the Defendants to the Interrogatories propounded by 

the Plaintiff, with Certificate of Service.
5-26-67 Motion for continuance of hearing on plaintiffs' Motion for Further 

Relief and defendants' Motion to Strike filed by attorneys for 
defendants,

Motion for continuance of depositions scheduled on May 31, 1967 
filed by defendants' attorneys,

5-29-67 ORDER entered, Motion for continuance of hearing and motion for 
continuance of depositions filed by the defendant on May 
26, 1967 is GRANTED. See M/E no. 22,175

5-29-67 Motion to Modify subpoenas duces tecum filed by defendants,
6-7-67 Copy of M/E 22, 175 mailed to each attorney,
6-7-67 Notice of taking of depositions of DR. CRANFORD H. BURNS, JAMES A. 

MCPHERSON, JOSEPH LUQUIRE, and SAM H. SHOUT on June 15, 1967 at 
9:30 A. M. filed by plaintiffs.

6-14-67 Motion to Intervene as plaintiff filed by united States of America,
Supporting Memorandum filed by U.S.,

■ 6-14-67
Motion for Supplemental Relief filed by U.S.,
Order entered, after argument in open court, GRANTING motion to

modify subpoenas duces tecum, and limiting production of docu­
ments to 1966-67 except attendance areas and feeder patterns 
prior to year 1966-67, and limiting evidence as to school cons­
truction, school closings and school consolidations, to the 
year 1964-65 and succeeding years. (Minute Entry 22244).

6-14-67 Order entered GRANTING motion of United States to Intervene as 
plaintiff, and notices mailed.

1

6-14-67
Copy of Minute Entry 22244 mailed to attorneys of record.Certificate of service as to Motion for leave to intervene, etc. 

filed by lntervenor-plalntiff,
r  ", 6-20-67 Motion to limit the testimony of the witness Sam Shout filed by de-
V. y fendants.

Oral order Issued granting motion to limit testimony.
6-20-67 Notice of motion andMotion for production of Records under Rule 34, F.R.C.P. filed by

plaintiff-lntervenor, United States of America,
6-22-67 Motion to Limit the Testimony of the witness Cranford H. Bums filec 

by the defendants,



DATE PROCEEDINGS Date Ord<
Judgment 1

6-22-67

6-22-67

; 7— 18-67

7— 19-67

7-2Q-67

7-24-67

7-25-67

7-26-67

7-27-67

7-27-67
7-28-67
7- 28-67

8 -  4-67 
8— 7-67 

8— 7-67 

8— 8-67

Motion to have Intervenor's motion for production of documents set 
upon the regular motion docket for hearing filed by defendants, 

Motion in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to set intervenor's 
motion for production of documents upon the regular motion 
docket for hearing filed by United States of America, Intervenor,

Amended Motion for further relief or, on the alternative,
Motion in opposition to Defendants' "School Attendance plan", filed 

in open court by plaintiffs,
Motion to quash or modify subpoena duces tecum served upon Cranford 

Burns et al. filed by defendants
Motion to strike the Motion for Supplemental Relief filed by piain- 

tiff-Intervenor on June 14, 1967, filed in ooen court,
Motion to suppress deposition of CRANFORD H. BURNS filed by defendarts, 
Motion to suppress deposition of JAMES A. McpHERSON filed by the defendants,
HEARING begun on Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Relief, witnesses 

examined and exhibits offered, and hearing continued until July 19, 1967 at 9;30 a . M. (Minute Entry No. 22,389-B).
Motion to compel answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories filed by plaintiffs, in open court,
HEARING on motion for further relief resumed, witnesses further 

examined and exhibits offered in evidence, and hearing recessed until July 20, 1967 at 9:30 a . M. (Minute Entry No. 22,391-A) 
HEARINGoqnni|iotlOneforsfurtherer$liefiresumed,':-witnesses' furtherexamined and exhibits offered in evidence, and hearing recessed 

until July 24, 1967 at 9:30 A.M. (Minute Entry No. 22,-396-A)
HEARING on motion for further relief resumed, witnesses further

examined and exhibits offered in evidence, and hearing recessed 
‘ until July 25, 1967 at 9:30 A.M. (Minute Entry No. 22,402-A)
HEARING on motion for further relief resumed, witnesses further

examined and exhibits offered in evidence, and hearing recessed 
until July 26, 1967 at $;30 A.M. (Minute Entry No. 22,403-c)

HEARING on motion for further relief resumed, witnesses further
examined and exhibits offered in evidence, and hearing recessed 
until July^27> 1967 at 9:30 A.M. (Minute Entry No. 22,405~A)

HEARING on motion for further relief resumed, witnesses further
examined and exhibits offered in evidence, and hearing recessed 
until July 28, 1967 at 9:30 A.M. (Minute Entry No. 22,4o 3-a )

Motion to suppress deposition of SAM SHOUT filed by defendant 
Motion to suppress deposition' of JOHN R. MONTGOMERY filed by defendant,
Response to plaintiff's motion to. cnxmpel answers to interrogatories filed by defendant,
HEARING on motion for further relief resumed, all parties rests

case taken under submission, plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor 
given until Aug. 7 > 19o7 to file their briefs, defendant given 
until Aug. 15, to file its brief, see Minute Entry No. 22,4l7~A,Copy of M/E 22,4l7 mailed to attorneys,

Plaintiffs' -Brief, Memorandum of Law, Plaintiffs' proposed Decree, 
and Certificate of Service filed,

Plaintiff-intervenor's Trial Brief filed, with Proposed Decree and 
Appendices to Plaintiff-intervenor's Trial Brief,

(All above-listed briefs, etc. placed in Judge Thomas' box)



Continuation of CIVIL ACTION NO. 31

Docket sheet # 6.

D. C. 110A. Rev. Civil Docket Continuation

D A TE

8- 14-67
8- 18-67

8- 24-67

PROCEEDINGS

8-25-67

8- 28-67

10- 4-67

Copy of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by 
Plaintiff-Intervener,

Amendments to Plaintiffs' proposed Decree, filed on August 18, 1967, 
by the plaintiffs, with Certificate of Service

Arguments of counsel heard by court,
Interim Order Issued by Court relative to changes in attendance 

area boundary lines, setting special transfer period for August 
28-31, during which time applications for transfers may be made 
to afford students whose places of residence have been changed 
from one elementary attendance area to another to transfer to the 
school serving the attendance area in which their residence now 
lies, etc. (Minute Entry No. 22,522). Notice to be published in 
paper, attached to order, approved by Judge Thomas.

Copies of order with notice attached mailed to all attorneys of 
record.

Notice of Appeal from order entered on August 24, 1967 filed by
plaintiffs, m  ̂ ^  _ ,Partial Transcript of Trial filed, .Notice of Appeal from order entered on August 24, 1967 filed by
plaintiff-intervenor, the United States of America,

D
Ju(

Following documents filed by defendants:
1. Affidavit of Judson R. Martin, Jr.
2. Affidavit of Sam H. Shout
3. Affidavit of Angie Russell Holmes with copy of display ad
4. Affidavit of E. E. Koch attesting to publication of display

advertising
5. Affidavit of E. E. Koch with attached map of Mobile County
6. Affidavit of E. E. Koch with map of elementary attendance areas.Transcript of Record mailed to U. £>. Court of Appeals, New Orxeans,FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECREE entered on plain­tiffs' motion for further relief, as amended, and plaintiff- 

intervenor' s motion for Supplemental Relief, directing defendants 
to provide option plan, publish notices, to file annual reports 
to the court, etc., and APPROVING defendant's desegregation plan 
filed on October 1§, 1966, with certain requirements for the 
operation of the plan, and in all -other respects, except the 
relief Included in interim order of 8-24-67, DENYING plaintiff's 
motion for further relief and plaintiff-intervenor1s motion for 
supplemental relief. (Minute Entry No. 22,815)

10-13-67 Copy of Findings, Conclusions and Order delivered to U 
for service on defendant,

10-13-67 Copies of Findings, Conclusions and Order deliveredto Abe L. philips, 
and Vernol R. Jansen, Jr.; copies mailed to Attorneys Charles 
Jones, Vernon Crawford, Walter Gorman, mpcox 

10-16-67 Return on Service of Writ filed by U.S.Marshal, showing service of
Order etc. on Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, Ala. 
by service on Mr. J. a . McPherson, Associate Superintendent, 

IO-17-67 Notice of Appeal from Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Deere 
entered on October 13, 1967, filed by plaintiff-intervenor, U.

10-17-67 Transcript of record 6h appeal received from CCA for use of attorney In preparing supplemental briefs,10-18-67 Copy or order entered by CCA received, continuing appeals, to be
reset for hearing at earliest possible date after November 15, 19jo’

S. Marshal



DATE PROCEEDINGS Date Ordi
Judgment:

10- 26-67
11-  14-67
12- 12-67 
2— 20-6c

3-4-68

3 -  4-68
4- 22=68
5-  7-68

5- 7-68

!
i
|

5-15-68
5-13-68

5-17-68 
,5-17-68

5- 21-68
5- 22-68
5- 22-68
5- 22-68

I

and providing for filing of supplemental briefs, etc.
Notice of Appeal filed by the Plaintiffs, fr0m the Decree 10-13-67, 
Partial transcript of trial filed, sent to Court of Appeals 11-15-67 
Balance of transcript sent to Court of Appeals,Application for approval of proposed expansion of school building 
facilities at Toulminville High School, filed by defendant on 
February 20, 1968.

Opposition to Defendants’ Application for Approval for Proposed 
Expansion, filed by Plaintiffs.

Response of Plaintiff-Intervenor U. S. to Defendants' Application 
for approval of expension plans, filed,

Application for approval of proposed construction on the Howard 
Elementary SchooJ site, filed by defendant on April 22, 1968, 

Certified copy of judgment,court of appeals, rendered May 6, 1968, 
received and filed, REVERSING district court and REMANDING case 
for entry of decree attached to opinion of appeal court, and tax- . 
ing costs of bause against appellees, Board of School Commission­
ers, et al. (CCA costs) (Appeal Court No. 25,162)

Certified copy of judgment, Court of Appeals, issued May 6, 1968, 
received and filed, DENYING appellee’s motion for rehearing, but 
modifying Decree issued for entry by the District Court in certain 
respects. (Appeal Court No. 25,175)

Hearing begun in open court on pending motions, witnesses examined, 
exhibits offered in evidence, and following motions taken under 
SUBMISSION:
(1) Application for approval of proposed expansion of school 

building facilities at Toulminville High School,filed 2-20-66;
(2) Opposition to Defendants' Application, filed 3-4-68;
(3) Response of Plaintiff-Intervenor to Defendants’ Application, 

filed 3-4-68;
(4) Application for approval of proposed construction on the 

Howard Elementary School site, filed on 4-22-68. (M/E 23781-C)
Copies of M/E 23>78l-C mailed to all attorneys of record,
DECREE entered by Thomas, Judge, pursuant to opinion and judgment of 

CCA, Fifth Circuit, (Minute Entry No.3377;-/)
Copies of decree mailed to all attorneys of record.
OBJECTIONS to survey information submitted by defendants and 
Motion to continue the hearing presently scheduled for May 27 j 1968 

filed by plaintlff-intervenor, United States of America. Plaintiffs objections to survey information submitted by defendant 
and motion to continue hearing Scheduled May 27, 1968, filed,

Deposition of Dr. Frederick P. Venditti filed by plaintiff-intervenor, Motion filed May 22, 1968, by the Defendants for a Continuance, with)
&ax Certificate of Service „Motion to continue hearing filed by plaintiff-lntervenor 5-17-ob GRAFTED; 

Motion to continue hearing filed by plaintiffs on 5-21-68 GRANTED;
Motion to continue hearing filed by defendants on 5-22-68 GRANTED.



CONTINUATION OP CIVIL ACTION ;

Docket Sh<
D. C. 110A Rev. Civil Docket Continuation

DATE

5- 7-68

5- 29-68
6—  1-68

6- 10-68 
6 -12 -68

6- 17-63
6- 21-68

6-  26-63
7-  1-68

7- 1-68

7 - 15-68

PROCEEDINGS

7-16-68
7-17-68

7-18-68
7-19-68
7- 22-68

7-23-68

Following maps filed in open court by defendant:
Map No. 1, Elementary Areas 
Map No. 2, Junior High Areas 
Map No. 3, Senior High Areas
Map No. 4, Pupil Population, Senior High Grades, (10-12),
Map No. 5,  Pupil Population, Junior High Grades, (7-9),
Map No. 6, Pupil Population, Elementary Grades, (1-6),
Map No. 7, Pupil Population, Senior High Grades, (10-12),
Map No. 8, Pupil Population, Elementary Grades (1-6),
Map No. 9, Pupil Population, Junior High Grades, (7~9),

Application to intervene as party defendants filed by Twila Frazier 
Information pursuant to Decree entered by Court on May 13, 1968 

filed by defendants,
Motion for Further Relief filed by the Plaintiffs 
Motion filed June 12, 1968? by the Defendants to reject the propose 

revisions of attendance area boundaries and feeder patterns and t 
approve the desegregation plan attached to the Motion, with 
Certificate of Service 

Memorandum In opposition to Motion to Intervene filed by Plaintiffs,
Order entered GRANTING petition for Intervention, filed on May 29, 

1968 and continuing hearing set for June 26, 1968 until a later 
date; Minute Entry No. 23,963,

Copies mailed to attorneys,
Opposition to defendants* motion to reject their proposed zone 

lines filed by plaintiffs,Reporter’s transcript of conference of attorneys filed, 
Interrogatories propounded to defendant filed by plaintiff-intervene*)] 

United States of America,
Motion for extension of time to answer Interrogatories No. 3^, 35,

36, 37 & 38, filed by defendants,
Notice of substituting maps of school attendance zones filed by 
defendants,
Summary of Enrollment and Utilization of Facilities by Schools filed 

by defendants,
Answer to interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff-Intervenor filed 

by defendant, Board of School Commissioners,
Motion to dismiss complaint of Defendants-Intervenors, or, in the 

alternative, to Strike Allegations from the complaint.
Trial on merits begun; witnesses examined, exhibits offered and

trial RECESSED until July 18, 1968 at 9:30 A. M. (M/E # 24,059-A) 
Trial resumed; witnesses examined, exhibits offered in evidence, anc.

trial RECESSED until July 19, 1968 at 9:30 A. M. (M/E # 24,060-A) 
Trial resumed; witnesses examined, exhibits offered, etc. and trial' 

RECESSED until July 22, 1968 at 9:30 A. M. (M. E. No. 240o2~B) 
Trial resumed; witnesses examined, exhibits offered in evidence, and. 

trial RECESSED until July 23, 1968 at 9:30 A. M. at 9**30 A. M. 
(Minute Entry No. 24,065-A)

Trial resumed;
Motion filed in open court by defendant Board of School Commissioners 

to quash subpoena duces tecum issued to Dr. Cranford Burns at 
request of U. S.,



DATE PROCEEDINGS Date Or
Judgmen

7-23-68
7-24-68

7- 23-68

7-29-68

7-31-68

7 - 31-68

8- 1-68

8- 1-68
8- 2-68

8- 2-68
[

8— 9-68

.8-13-68

3-16-63
3-15-63
3-19-63

• 8 - 22-68

Witnesses examined and exhibits offered in evidence for plaintiff;
The trial not being completed at 4:30 P. M., trial RECESSED until 

July 24, 1968 at 9:30 A. M. (Minute Entry No. 24,073)
Notice of taking deposition of Dr. Ernest Stone filed in open court 

by defendant Board of School Commissioners,
Trial resumed; witnesses further examined and exhibits offered in 

evidence on behalf of plaintiff-intervenor and-plaintiff-inter- 
venor rests. Defendant-Intervenors' witnesses and exhibits 
offered in evidence and defendant-intervenors rest All parties 
rest. At 4:10 P. M. case ordered taken under SUBMISSION by the 
Court. (Minute Entry 24,075).

Order for disposition of exhibits offered at hearing held on July 185, 
19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28, 1967, directing their return to 
respective attorneys of record. (Minute Entry No. 24,077)-

Copy of this order mailed to attorneys Jones, Dunbaugh, Jansen and 
Phillips on 7-30-68. wet.

OPINION and DECREE entered by Thomas, Judge, permanently enjoining 
defendants from discriminating on the basis of race or color in 
the operation of the school system, and to take affirmative action 
to disestablish all school segregation and to eliminate the 
effects of the dual school system as to desegregation, exercise of 
choice, transfers, prospective students, and providing for a re­
port to the court on or before December lo, 1968, etc. (Minute 
Entry No. 24,086).

Copies mailed and furnished to all attorneys of record.
Motion for Modification of Decree filed by U. S. plaintiff-intervenor, 

with proposed order of modification attached,
Certificate of service of motion for modification filed by U.S.
Motion for Interim Order filed by defendants, Board of School Com­

missioners, praying that the School Board be allowed to operate 
insofar as the method of student assignment is concerned, on the 
same basis as it operated last year, or in the alternative, for 
an order permitting the defendant to prepare for and to operate 
the school system on the basis of the desegregation plans sub­
mitted to the court with its motion of June 12, 1968.

Motion DENIED by Daniel H. Thomas, Judge, (notices mailed 8-7-68)
ORDER ENTERED in response to motion of plaintiff-intervenor United 

States for modification, MODIFYING and AMENDING decree of 7-29-68 
in certain respects. (Minute Entry No. 24,101)

Copy of M/E 24,101 mailed to attorneys Jones, Crawford, Philips, 
Dunbaugh, Jansen and Pelham.

Petition for modification of Decree of July 29, 1968, under Section 
II, pertaining to attendance zones, filed by defendants.

Motion to' set aside order of July 25? 1968 disposing of exhibits, 
filed by U. S.,

Faculty Progress Report, filed by the defendants,
Order entered modifying Court’s decree of July 29, 1963, Minute 

Entry No.24,iSl,Copies mailed to Jones, Crawford, Philips, Dunbaugh, Jansen, Pelham 
and Kesrmamer,

Motion in support of Plaintiff-Intervenor1s motion to set aside the 
order of July 25, 1968, disposing of exhibits filed,by plaintiff,



CONTINUATION CIVIL ACTION NO
Docket Sheet # 8.

D. C. 110A Rev, Civil Docket Continuation

DATE

9- 6 - 6 8

9- 12-68
9- 13-68
9- 16-68

9-17-68

9-27-68
9 - 30-68

10 - 1-68

IO-9-68

10 - 10-68

10 - 11-68
(*)

10-15-68

10-15-63

10-15-68

10-18-68

(*)
10-14-68

PROCEEDINGS

Motion to set aside order of July 25* 1968 disposing of exhibits 
filed on 8-13-68 by U.S., and Motion in support of Plaintiff- 
Intervenor motion to set aside order filed on 8-22-68 by plaintiff 
GRANTED as to each motion* notice to attorneys of record.

Petition for Modification of Court's Decree filed by the defendants
Order entered correcting and modifying initial paragraph of Sec.Ill 

of Court's decree of July 29* 1968* Min. Entry No.24*232,
Copies of Min. Entry No. 24*282 mailed to attorneys Jones, Crawford, 

Philips* Dunbaugh, Jansen* Pelham and Kennamer*
Faculty Progress Report filed on Sep. 17, 

Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 
of Service,

Notice of Appeal filed by the Plaintiffs, 
Copy of Notice of Appeal mailed to Messrs.

1968, by the 
County, with

D f  e nda nt, 
Certificate

with Certificate oi 
Abram L. Philios;

Frank Dunbaugh & Walter Go:
1 Servic 
Pierre 
'man; aPelham; Ralph Kennamer; Messrs 

Vernol R. Jansen, Jr.
Notice of Appeal filed by the United States, Plaintiff-Intervenor, 

Without Certificate of Service 
Copy^of Notice of Appeal filed by phe United Stat<=

1968, mailed to Miss Frankie L. ̂ Fields; Mr. Vernon
Jr.

— j  y  •
L. */F:
Michael"Davidson,

Pierre'^Pelham; Mr. Ralnh^
Messrs. Charles H.^Jones 
Mr. Abram h "Philips; Mr 
Mr. Walter'urorman.

Notice of Appeal filed by the Defendants, Board o 
Commissioners of Mobile County, Et Al, With Cer 

Notice of Appeal filed by the Defendant-Intervene 
et al, Without Certificate of Service 

Copy of Notice of Appeal filed by the Defendants, Board 
Commissiorars of Mobile County, et al, and copy of' Noti 
filed by the Defendants-Intervenors, Twila Frazier et

1 n Ootob 
Z . •'"Craw 

id . Ji

:-r 1* 
3rd;

''"Greenberg; 
mer: and

School
^icate of Service 
. Twila Frazier.

of Anneal! 
L, mailed

D
Juc

a

Dunbaugh
j  n r  it

and
1

Wa Iter
Com

10 - 2 1 -68

1 0 - 2 5 - 6 $

on 15 Oct. 1968 to Messrs. Stephen J. Poliak; Frank M 
Vernol R. Jansen Jr.; Vernon Z. Crawfor d; Charles K.
Michael Davidson, and Jack Greenberg; Ralph Kennamer;
Gorman; and Miss Frankie L. Fields.

Copy of Notice of Appeal filed by the Defendants, Board 
missionsrs of Mobile County, et al, mailed on 15 Oct 
Pierre Pelham

Copy of Notice of Appeal filed by the Defendant-Interve?
Frazier, et al mailed to Abram L. Philios Jr. on 15 c-c 

Designation by defendant of Record on Appeal and
Motion to limit plaintiff-intervenors designation* filed by defendant

" School
'-■53 to

Drs Tw i la
568

Designation by the Appellant, United States of America, of Record 
of Appeal and Request for Immediate Certification and Transmittal 

Designation by the Appellants, Birdie Mae Davis, et al, of Record or 
Appeal and Request for Immediate Certification and Transmittal 

-- - —  Rsport to the Court filed by defendants,
11 1-op Report to the Courtfiled on Nov. 1* 1968, by the Defendant, with 

Certificate of Service
11——7—66 Order by the Court that designation of record on appeal shall con­

sist of proceedings which have transpired since most recent decree^ 
of Court of Appeals entered on 12 March 1968,Min.Entry 
No, 24*515

(SEE OTHERSIDE)



DOCKET SHEET NO. 8 —  PAGE 2

D A TE

11- 8-68

11- 8-68
12-4-68
12- 6-68
12-4-68

; 12-11-68

: 12-19-68 

; 12-19-63 
12 - 20-68

|

: 12-26-68|
I

; 12-27-68 

; 12-20-66

12-27-^8
1 2 - 2 0 -6 8

!12-27-63. 
1-2-69
1— 3-69

1-9-69

------------------ and Exhibits.-— ............................ .......
Transcript of Record/mailed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth 

Circuit, EKffllJsSaifaiMuxifcOTion 8 Nov. 1968 
Copies of Minute Entry No. 24,515 mailed to attorneys of record, 
Reporter's transcript of Hearing on Motion on Oct. 23, 1968, filed 
Motion to Substitute parties, filed United States,
Application for an Order to Show Cause, filed by United States, 
Report to the Court filed on Dec. 4, 1968, by the Defendants in 

compliance with Para. VI (b)of Court's Order of Aug. 2, 1968, 
modifying its decree of July 29,. 1968, with Certificate of Service.

Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss Application for Order to Show Cause, 
filed by the defendant with Memorandum in support of Motion to Strike,

Report to the Court filed by defendants, in response to para, yfa) 
and (b) of the Court's Order of Aug. 2, 1968*

Court Reporter's Transcript of the Testimony of the Hearing 
held on July 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 1968 

Order of the US District Court for the Fifth Circuit DENYING the 
Appellees' Motion to Dismiss and ordering that the Motions of 
Appellants to require transmission of the supplemental record is 
GRANTED

Supplemental Record of Appeal mailed to the U.S. Court of Appeals 
of the Court Reporter's Transcript of the Testimony offered on 
July 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 24;1 1968 numbered from Pages 1692 to 
2651, Incl., MiiEdxta and Hearing on Motion held on October 
28, 1968, as reported by the Court Reporter and numbered from 
Pages 2652 to 2661, Incl.

Record on Appeal as per order of the Fifth Circuit received in this 
office on Dec. 20, 1968, consisting of four volumes mailed to the 
U.S. Court of Appeals

ORDER Substituting Parties, Sidney C. Phillips and Homer L. Session^
T>n<̂  ^eP4ace(  ̂Jack C. Gallalee and Kenneth Reed as members of the 
Board of School Commissioners of Mobile Co., Ala. See M/E 24 742 Copy of M/E 24,742 mailed to each Attorney, J

Order entered GRANTING defendant1s. application for new construction 
i n the Howard Elementary School and DENYING the application for 
new construction at the Toulminville School, (M/E*No. 2^,750)Copies mailed to attorneys, ' v 7 * ‘ J ; '

Report to the Court on reports required by Courts order of Aug. 2, 1968 
to be filed on Dec. 16, 1968, filed by Defendants,

Report to the Court filed on Jan. 3, 1969, by the Defendants, Certificate of Service .
Motion for Rehearing or Reconsideration, filed by defendants,

with



CONTINUATION OF CIVIL ACTION NO. 3003-
DOCKET SHEET NO. 9

D. C. 110A Rev. Civil Docket Continuation

DATE PROCEEDINGS

1- 23-69

1-28-69

1-28-69

1-29-69

1-31-69
1- 31-69

2—  4-69

2 — 2}-69 

2=24-69 
2-4-69

2-11-69

2 -I-31-69

2-17-69
2- 20-69
3—  7-69

3— 7-69

Notice of Appeal filed on Jan. 28, 1969, by the United States,
Plaintlff-Intervenor, the appeal being from that part of Court's 
order approving construction at the Howard Elementary School.

Motion filed Jan. 28, 1969, by the United States, plaintiff - 
intervenor, for Suspension of Court's Order of Dec. 20,1968, 
Granting approval of the Construction Plans for the new 
Howard Elementary School Pending Appeal, with Certificate of 
Service

Order by the Court dated Jan. 28, 1969, on Motion filed by the 
United States for Suspension of Court's Order Granting 
Approval of the>Construction Plans for the new Howard 
Elementary School^Min': Entry No. 25010. Copy of M.E. 25010 mail­
ed on Feb. 20, 1969, to Messrs. Jack Greenberg, Charles H. Jones, 
Jr., Vernon Z. Crawford, Abram L. Philips Jr., Frank M. Dunbaugh,

V Walter Gorman, Vernol R. Jansen, Jr., Ralph Kennamer, and 
Pierre Pelham.

Notice filed Jan. 29, 1969* of Deposition on oral examination of 
Harry Atkinson, filed by the United States, Plaintiff-lntervenor, with Certificate of Serfice.

Motion filed Jan. 31, 1969, by the Defendants for Order for 
Protection of Party, with Certificate of■Service.

Order of the Court GRANTING the Motion filed Jan. 31, 1969, by the 
Defendants for Order for Protection of Party and postponing the 
taking of the Deposition to a later date.

Notice filed Feb. 4, 1969, of Deposition on oral examination of 
Dr. Cranford Burns, James A. McPherson, Bobby Ray Clardy, Harry 
Atkinson Hammer, and Jesse Jordan, with Certificate of Service, 
Filed by the United States, Plaintiff-lntervenor

Motion filed Feb. 4, 1969, by the Defendant for Order for 
Protection of Party, with Certificate of Service

Motinnffiled Feb. 4, 1969, by the Defendant for Order for 
Protection of Party, with Certificate of Service

Designation of Record on Appeal and Request for Immediate 
Certification and Transmittal, filed on Feb. 4, 1969, by the 
United States, Plaintiff-lntervenor.

Motion filed Feb. 11, 1969, by the United States of America, 
Plaintiff-lntervenor, for Production of Records Under Rule 
34, F.R.C.P.,with Certificate of Service

Order of the Court entered on Feb. 11, 1969, on Motion for Pro­
duction of Documents Under Rule 34, GRANTING the motion,
Minute Entry No. 25078. Copy of M.E. 25078 mailed on Feb. 20, 
1969, to Messrs. Jack Greenberg, Charles H.Jones Jr., Vernon Z. 
Crawford, Abram L. Philips Jr., Frank M. Dunbaugh, Walter Gor­
man, Vernol R. Jansen Jr., Ralph Kennamer, and Pierre Pelham

Notice of Appeal filed Feb. 17, 1969, by the Plaintiffs, with Certificate of Service
Deposition of Harry Walter Atkinson filed on Feb. 20, 1969
Motion to quash or limit subpoena duces -tecum served on William 

B. Crane filed by defendants,
Information for the Court filed by defendants, (this document placed in red folder) * v
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE



DOCKET SHEET NO. 9  —  PAGE NO. 2

DATE PROCEEDINGS

2- 24-69
3—  7-69

3-12-69

3-14-69

3-27-69
3-23-69

3-27-69

Transcript of Testimony taken on May 7, 1968, filed by the Court 
Reporter on 24 Feb. 1969

Application for Order to Show Cause, filed by United States on Dec. 
6, 1968, taken under Submission; Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss 
Application for Order to Show Cause filed by Defendants on Dec.
11, 1963, taken under Submission; Motion filed by Defendants on 

9 9 Jan. 1969* for rehearing of arguments on Motion of Defendants 
seeking approval of Proposed Construction of Toulminville School, 
taken under Submission; and Motion to Quash or Limit subpoena 
duces tecum served on William B. Crane is GRANTED, Minute Entry 
No. 23179. Copy of M.E. 25170 mailed on Mar. 17, 1969, to Messrs. 
Jack Greenberg, Charles H. Jones, Jr., Vernon Crawford, Abram L. 
Philips Jr., Frank Dunbaugh, Walter Gorman, Vernol R. Janesn Jr., 
Ralph Kennamer, Pierre Pelham, and Miss Frankie Fields 

Motion filed Mar. 12, 1969, by the United States, Plaintiff- 
Intervenor, to Supplement the Record of the March 7, 1969,
Hearing, with Certificate of Service 

Order of the Court that the Defendant School Board's Motion for 
Reconsideration Court's Order of Dec. 20, 1963, in which the 
Court DENIED School Board's Application for New Construction for 
the Toulminville High School is GRANTED and COURT further ORDERED 
that Application for New Construction of the Toulminville High 
School is GRANTED, Min. Entry No, 25217. Copy of M.E. 25217 
mailed on Mar. 17, 1969, to’Messrs. Jack Greenberg, Charles H. 
Jones Jr., Vernon Z. Crawford, Abram L. Philips Jr., Frank Dun­
baugh, Walter Gorman, Vernol R. Jansen Jr., Ralph Kennamer,
Pierre Pelham, and Miss Frankie Fields 

Affidavit of J. Howe Hadley
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING HELD ON MAY 7, 1963; DOCUMENTS FILED ON FEB. 

20, 1963, MARCH 4, 1963, and APR. 22, 1963, IN REFERENCE TO THE 
BUILDING OF TOULMINVILLE HIGH SCHOOL AND HOARD ELEMENTARY 
SCHOOL; AND DOCUMENTS FILED ON DEC. 6, 1963, AND THEREAFTER, 
INCLUDING A DOCUMENT FILED ON MAR. 27, 1969, MAILED TO U.S.
COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT, NEW ORLEANS, LA. (MEMO: NUMBER 
OF FINAL PAGE OF THIS TRANSCRIPT,INCLUDING CLERK'S CERTIFICATE
is 3052).

Order of the Court on the Show Cause requested by the Plaintiff- 
Intervenor, United States of America,as to why the School Board 
shall not be held in civil contempt; Defendant's Motion to Strike 
or alternatively to DISMISS the application for a show cause 
order is DENIED; and 30 days from receipt of this order School 
Board shall file reports required by Sections IV D 5 and IV G 
of Courtis Decree of May 13, 1968, Min. Entry No. 25274. On Mar. 
29, 1969, copy of this order mailed to Vernon Z. Crawford and Miss 
Frankie L. Fields; Charles H. Jones Jr., Michael Davidson, and 
Jack Greenberg; Vernol R. Jansen Jr.; Stephen J. Poliak; Frank M. 
Dunbaugh and Walter Gorman; Abram L. Philips Jr. and James D. 
Brooks; Pierre Pelham; and Ralph Kennamer.

CONTI MUED ON NEXT PAGE— SEE NEXT PAGE -- CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

Date C
Judgjne



DOCKET SHEET NO. 10--PAGE NO. 2

D A TE

5 - 8-69

5-12-69

5-12-69

5-12-69

5-13-69

I 5-13-69 
! 5-13-69
! 5-13-69
i

5-13-69 

| 5-13-69

; 5-1^-69 

j 5-14-69
I
I

j

! 5-14-69j
i

1 5-14-69

; 5-1-4-69 

I 5-14-69 

5-14-69
j
I 5-14-69

5-14-69

PROCEEDINGS

Amended Petition of 
County, Ala., for 
filed May 8, 1969, 

Motion Piled May 12, 
Service Committee, 
Petition

Motion Piled May 12, 
Service Committee, 

Hearing Set for this 
at the request of 
for Noble Beasley

the Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 
Temporary and Permanent Injunctive Relief 
against R. L. Dawson and Percy L. Ely 
1969* by the Respondents, American Friends 
Bill Rosser, and David Jacobs, to Dismiss
1969, by the Respondents, American Friends 
David L. Jacobs, and Bill Rosser To Set Aside Show 
Date Continued to May 13, 1969, at 1:00 P.M. 

the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Attorneys 
and Neighborhood Organized Workers

Date
Judgm

Motion to Dismiss Cross-Complaint filed by Respondents, Noble 
Beasley and Neighborhood Organized Workers,

Affidavit filed by Noble C. Beasley in Support of Motion to 
Dismiss Cross-Complaint

Motion filed on May 13, 1969, by the Plaintiffs to Dismiss Petition 
Affidavits filed in open court on May 13, 1969, by the Plaintiff- 

Intervenor, United States of America 
Supplement to Motion to Dismiss and Presentation of Affirmative 

Defense Piled in Open Court on May 13, 1969, by Respondents, 
American Friends Service Committee, David L. Jacobs Jr., and 
William Rosser

Affidavits filed in open court on May 13, 1969, by the American 
Friends Service Committee Inc., et al 

Affidavits filed in open court on May 13, 1969, by the Defendants, 
Board of School Commissioners, e t al

Drder of Court (Min. Entry No. 25434) relative to service of Pet­
ition to Interplead Additional Defendants filed on May 8, 1969, 
returned, executed,

Renewal of following motions filed by respondents American Friends 
Service Committee, et al.:

1. Motion to dismiss petition;
2. Supplement to motion to dismiss and presentation of affirmative 

defense;
3. Motion to set aside show cause order.
Brief in support of "motion to dismiss petition', of "supplement to 

motion to dismiss and presentation of affirmative defense", 
and of "motion to set aside show cause order", filed by America}a 
Friends Service Committee and Bill Rosser and David L. Jacobs,

Memorandum filed May 14, 1969, by the United States of America on the 
May o, 1969, Petition of the Board of School Commissioners, with Certificate of Service “'

Counter-Affidavits filed on May 14, 1969, by Noble C. Beasley and 
Neighborhood Organized Workers, with Certificate of Service.

Affidavit of James A, McPherson filed by the Board of School Com­missioners of Mobile County, et al
Affidavit of Sam H, Shout filed by the Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, et al
Objection and Motion to Strike filed on May 14, 1969, by Resoondents American Friends Service Committee, et al ?
Transcript of Hearing held on May 12 and 13, 1969, filed by the Court Reporter



CONTINUATION OF CIVIL ACTION NO. 3003-5;
DOCKET SHEET NO. 10

D. C. 110A Rev. Civil Docket Continuation

DATE

3-19-69

3-24-69

4-7-69

PROCEEDIN GS

4-23-69

4-24-69

Notice of Appeal filed Mar. 19, 19°9, by the United Spates,
Plaintiff-Intervener, appealing from the order and opinion 
granting Defendant's Application for New Construction of 
the Toulminville High School 

Notice of Appeal filed Mar. 24, 1969, by the Plaintiffs,
appealing from the order granting Defendant's Application for 
construction of school at Toulminville 

Order of the Court permanently enjoining the DEFENDANTS from dis­
criminating on the basis of race or clor in the operation of the 
school system; that all rural schools shall continue to operate 
under the freedom of choice desegregation plan for the school 
year I969-7O; setting the Choice Period from Apr. 14, 19°9, and 
ending 12 May 1969; approval of area attendance zones as pro­
posed by the School Board;etc., Minute Entry Ho. 2p342. Copy 
of M.E. 25342 mailed on 9 April 1969 to Messrs. Jack Greenberg, 
Charles H. Jones, and Michael Davidson; Vernon Z.Crawford and 
Miss Frankie Fields; Vernol R. Jansen Jr.; Frank K. Dunbaugh 
and Walter Gorman; Abram L. Philips Jr. and James D. Brooks; 
Ralph Kennamer; Pierre Pelham; and Stephen J. Poliak 

Motion filed by plaintiff to require defendant Board of School Com­
missioners to submit within 30 days a plan of faculty desegre­
gation,

Order of the Court granting Additional Time for Defendant.School 
Board, to preare and file reports as set forth in Court's 
Order of Mar. 27,1959? and School Board given, to May 9,
1969? to file report with the Court, Min. Entry Mo. 25394.
Copy of M.E 25394 mailed on 4-25-69 to Messrs. Jack Green­
berg, Michael Davidson, Vernon Z. Crawford, Miss Frankie 
Fields, V.R. Jansen, Jr., Frank#!. Dunbaugh, Walter 
A. L. Philips Jr., James D. Brooks, Ralph Kennamer,
Pelham, and Stephen J. Poliak.

Jl

an.

5— 2-69

5— 7-69

5-5-69

5_8-69'n'J

5-8-69

Motion to require defendant to submit plan for faculty desegregation 
filed by plaintiff on 4-23-69 ARGUED, and taken under SUBMISSIONj

Order of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals received May 7, 1969, 
GRANTING Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration of Fifth Circuit 
Court's Order of March 20, 1969? and Appellants' motlcrs for 
Injunction pending appeal are GRANTED.Motion to require defendants to submit a plan for faculty desegreg­
ation filed by the United States of America, Plaintiff-intervenor

Petition of the Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County,
Ala., for Temporary and Permanent Injunctive Relief filed May 8, 
1969, against American Friends Service Committee, Neighborhood 
Organized Workers (NOW), Bill Rosser,- David L. Jacobs, and Noble Beasley

Order of the Court setting the Petition for Temporary and Permanent 
Injunction for May 12, 1969, at 10:00 A.M., Minute Enfcr-u 
No. 25,434 copy of M.E. No. 25,434 trolled on May 3,
1969, 'to.Messrs. Jack Greenberg and' Michael Davidson; Vernon Z,
Crawford and Frankie Fields; V. R. Jansen Jr.; Frank K, Dunbaugh 
and Walter Gorman; Abram L. Philips Jr. and James D. Brooks; 
taaA Ralph Kennamer; and: Pierre Pelham; and Stephen J. Poliak.



CONTINUATION OF CIVIL ACTION NO. 31
DOCKET SHEET NO. 11

D. C. 110A Rev. Civil Docket Continuation

DATE

5-14-69

5-16-69

5-16-69

5-16-69

5-16-69

5-16-69

5-16-69

5-16-69

5^19-69

PROCEEDINGS ! D ; Juc

5-19-69

Notice of Motion and Motion for leave to intervene as plaintiff 
filed by Alabama State Teachers Association, Inc., with 
proposed complaint attached,

Order entered adding R. L. Dawson and Percy L. Sly as parties 
defendant and directing that they appear and show cause why 
relief should not be granted by answering said petition for 
injunctive relief by affidavit only, to be filed with the Clerk 
of this Court on or before Wednesday, May 21, 1969 at 12 
o'clock noon, and that the U.S. Marshal serve a copy of the 
petition and amendment to interplead additional defendants 
filed 5-8-69 with a copy of this order on said defendants,
M/E No. 25473
Certified" copy of order, together with copy of petition and 

amendment to interplead additional defendants filed on 
5-8-69 given to U.S. Marshal for service on each defendant, . 

Motion filed May l6, 1969, by Board of School Commissioners of 
Mobile County to Strike certain affidavits filed by U.S. Denart- 
ment of Justice, with Certificate of Service 

REPORT TO THE COURT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT, BOARD OF SCHOOL COM­
MISSIONERS OF MOBILE COUNTY, with Certificate of Service 

Order by the Court directing that R.L.Dawson and Percy L.Ely be made! 
party Defendants; directing that Dawson & Ely to appear and show ! 
cause why such relief should not be granted; and directing.that 
the U.S. Marshal serve R. L. Dawson and Percy L. Ely, Min.
Entry No. 25478. Copy of M.E. 25478 mailed on May 16, 196.9, to 
Messrs, yernon Z.^Crawford, ^Fohathan*/Shapiro, Vernol R. 'Jansen Jr. 
Frank M. Dunbaugh and Walter Gorman, Abram L.'Philips Jr., George W.'Dean, and Reber F. Boult Jr.

Preliminary Injunction Issued by the Court against Bill Rosser,
David L. Jacobs, American Friends Service : Committee and other 
persons in active concert and participation with these oarties 
defendant, etc., Min. Entry No. 25480. On May 20, 1949', cooy 
of M.E. 25480 mailed to Messrs. Jonathan Shapiro, Vernon Z.’ 
Crawford, Vernol R. Jansen Jr., Frank M, Dunbaugh, Walter Gor­
man, Abraml L. Philips Jr., James D. Brooks, Ralph Kennamer,
Pierre Pelham, Stephen J. Poliak, George W Dean, and Reber F Boult Jr., and Miss Frankie Fields

Writ issued to the U.S. Marshal with copy of M.E 25480 attached for 
service on Bill Rosser, David L. Jacobs, and American Friends Service Committee

Notice of Appeal filed on May 19, 1969, by American Friends Service | 
Committee, David L. Jacobs, and Bill Rosser. Copy of Notice of 
Appeal mailed on May 20, 1969, to Miss Frankie Fields, and Messrs j 
Jonathan Shapiro, Vernon Z. Crawford, Vernol R. Jansen Jr

F Frank M. Dunbaugh, Walter Gorman, Abram L. Philips Jr.’ James D ! 
Brooks, Ralph Kennamer, Pierre Pelham, and Stephen J. Poliak.

Motion filed May 19, 1969, by American Friends Service’committee, 
David L. Jacobs, and Bill Rosser for Stay, with Certificate of Service.
(SEE NEXT PAGE) (SEE NEXT PAGE)



DOCKET SHEET NO. 11---PAGE NO. 2

D A TE

.'5-19-69

5-19-69 
5-21-69 

5 -20-69 
5 -21-69 
(5-19-69)

5 -  26-69

6 —  21-69

6--6-69

6--6 -69

5- 23-69
6- 10-69

6-16-69

6-17-69

6-27-69

6 -23-69

P R O C EE D IN G S 1 T , 0
i J u Q g ' i r . e n t

Motion for Stay filed on May IP, 1969, by American Friends ;
Service Committee, et al, Is DENIED, Mirtute Entry No.25437. I
Copy of M.E. 25^37 mailed on May 20, 1969* to Miss Frankie 1
Fields, and Messrs. Jonathan Shapiro, Vernon Z.Crawford,
Vernol R. Jansen Jr., Frank M. Dunbaugh and Walter Gorman,
Abram L. Philips Jr., James D. Brooks, Ralph Kennamer, Pierre 
Pelham, Stephen J. Poliak, George W. Dean, Charles Morgan Jr., 
and Reber F. Boult, Jr.

Cost Bond on Appeal in sum of $250,00 filed on May 19, 1969, by 
American Friends Service Committee, et al

Writ re. Preliminary Injunction returned., executed by USM as to 
BILL ROSSER, DAVID L. JACOBS & THE AMERICAN FRIENDS COMMITTEE,

Answer of Percy L. Ely to Petition for Injunctive Relief filed with j 
affidavit,

Motion and Presentation of Defense and affidavit of Rev. R. L. Dawsdn 
filed,

Writ RE Petition for injunctive relief returned by USM executed 
as to R. L. DAWSON & PERCY L. ELY, *

Amendment and supplement to brief in support of Motion and Presenta-i 
tion of defense filed by respondents,

JUDGMENT of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
REVERSING the order of the U.S. District Court and cases are 
REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings in ac­
cordance with the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Copy of opinion attached.

Motion filed May 5, 1969, by United States,Plaintiff-Intervenor, 
to Require Submission of Faculty Desegregation Plan is 
SUBMITTED WITHOUT ARGUMENT

Motion filed May 16,1969, by Board of School Commissioners of 
Mobile County to STRIKE CERTAIN AFFIDAVITS is SUBMITTED 
WITHOUT ARGUMENT

Order of the U S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit GRANTING 
Appellants' Motion for Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal

Record on appeal sent to U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit,
beginning with 8th day of May, 1969 docket entry to May 23, 1969,
(page 3053 to 3353) a total of 300 pages. Copies were sent to the; 
attorneys of the above entries that were sent to fifth circuit 
along with page numbers,

Verified Bill of Costs in sum of $1372.00 as costs incurred In 
U.S. Court of Appeals filed by plaintiffs’with certificate 
attached,

Verified Bill of Costs in sum of $1360.20 as costs incurred in 
U.S. Court of Appeals filed by plaintiff-intervenor with 
certificate attached,

Motion for leave to intervene as plaintiff filed by Ala. State 
Teachers Association Inc. on 5/l^/69 argued and taken under 
submission,

Order of the Fifth Circuit Court of Aopeals on the Petition For- 
Rehearing In which the Fifth Circuit DENIED the Petition for 
Rehearing and Motion of Appelles for a Stay of Execution and 
Enforcement of Judgment is DENIED



CONTINUATION OF CIVIL ACTION NO. 3002-
DOCKET SHEET NO. 12

D. C. 110A Rev. Civil Docket Continuation
I

DATE

7/1/69
7-2-69

7-10-69

7-10-69
7-16-69

7-17-69
'p

7-18-69
• \ /

7-21-69
7-22-69

7-22-69

7-23-69
7-25-69

P

7-29-69
7-22-69
7-22-69

7-22-69

7 - 2 9 - 6 9

PROCEEDINGS DaleJuugiT

Notice of taking of deposition of DR. JOSEPH HALL and MR. J. J.
JORDAN filed by defendant, subpoenas issued,

Judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit order- i 
ing that "appellees' motion for stay of execution and enforce- i 
ment of the judgment and mandate entered in the above causes 
pending the petition for writ of certiorari to be filed in the 
Supreme Court of the United States, is hereby DENIED."

1
DESEGREGATION PLAN FOR THE MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS filed by

the Division of Equal Educational Opportunities, Office of Educat­
ion of The Department of Health, Education and Welfare for the 
operation of schools in Mobile School District, pursuant to 
Mandate of U.S.Court of Appeals of 6-3-6 9 with accompanying maps.

Copies of plan furnished to Mr. Abe Philips, Mr. Vernon Crawford,
Mr. Vernol R. Jansen, Jr., U. S. Attorney, and Mr. Pierre Pelham, 

Notice of taking depositions of William B. Crane and James A.
McPherson on July 23, 1969 filed by plaintiff-intervenor-, !

Motion filed by plaintiffs for court order to immediately implement 
the plan of desegregation formulated by HEW filed on July 10,
1969, with certain modifications,

Motion to strike and expunge from the Record the Report and Proposed 
Plan of Desegregation filed by HEW on July 10, 1969, filed by 
defendants Board of School Commissioners,

Objections and Suggested Amendments to proposed plan of desegregation 
of HEW filed by defendant Board of School Commissioners,

Motion to continue depositions of McPherson and Crane, presently set 
for July 233 1969  ̂ filed by defendants.

Motion in opposition to defendants' alternative desegregation plans ! 
and for an Order requiring defendants to adopt and implement 
the desegregation plan proposed by the HEW, filed by United 
States, plaintiff-intervenor,

Depositions of DR. JOE HALL and JESSE J. JORDAN filed by defendant I 
Mobile County School Board,

Motion in opposition to defendants' alternative desegregation plans ! 
filed by plaintiffs, moving for an order dismissing or denying ' 
the Suggested Amendments and Objections as filed by Board of School Commissioners on July 21, 1969.

Application for intervention as parties defendant filed by MOBILE COUNT - COUNCIL OF PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS, et al.
Motion that depositions not be taken, filed by the defendants 
Motion filed July 2̂2, 1969, by Defendants,.Board of School Com- 

mlssloners, to Continue Depositions of James A. McPherson and William B. Crane is granted.
Motion filed July 22, 1969, by Defendants, Board of School Ccr’- 

missloners, that Depositions of William B. Crane and James ;McPherson NOT BE TAKEN is GRANTED 
For assistance and information" or the court, filed by defendant, 

(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)



DOCKET SHEET NO. 12 —  PAGE NO. 2

D A T E PRO CEED IN G S D.-te Order Judgment N
8 —  1-69 Motion filed July 18, 1969, by Defendants, Board of School Com­

missioners, to Strike and Expunge from the record the report 
and proposed plan of desegregation submitted by the Office of 
Education of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare 
Is DENIED.

8 —  1-69 Motion filed July 17* 19^9* by Plaintiffs, Birdie Mae Davis, et al, 
to Accept H.E.W. Plan of Desegregation with Modifications 
Is DENIED.

8 —  1-69 Motion filed July 21, 1969, by Defendants, Board of School Com­
missioners, objecting to the proposed plan of desegregation 
filed by the Office of Education of the Department of Health, 
Education and welfare and suggesting amendments to the plan 
of desegregation filed by the Office of Education of the 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare is DENIED.

8 —  1-69 Motion filed July 22, 1969, by the United States in Opposition 
to Defendants’ Alternative Desegregation Plans and for an 
Order requiring Defendants to Adopt and Implement the De­
segregation Plan Proposed by the Office of Education Is 
DENIED,

3- 1-69 Motion filed July 25, 1969, by Plaintiffs, Birdie Mae Davis, 
et al, in Opposition to Defendants' Alternative Desegregation Plans Is DENIED.

8- 1-69 Notice of Motion, and Motion for leave to intervene as plaintiff
filed by the NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, INC., with proposed 

Complaint in Intervention attached,
8 —  1-69 Order of the Court and DECREE directing plan of desegregation,

Min. Entry No. 25826. -Copy of Min. Entry 25326 mailed on Aug. 1, 
1969 to Miss Frankie Fields; Messrs. Jack Greenberg, Jonathan 
Shapiro, and Michael Davidson; Mr. Vernon Z. Crawford; Mr. C. S. 
White Spunner Jr., the United States Attorney; Messrs. Frank M. 
Dunbaugh and Walter Gorman; Messrs. Abram L. Philips Jr. and 
James D. Brooks; Mr. Ralph Kennamer; Mr. Pierre Pelham; Mr.Stephen 
J. Poliak; Mr. George W. Dean; Messrs. Charles Morgan Jr. and 
Reber F . Boult Jr.; Mr. Solomon S. Seay Jr.; and Mr. Samuel L. Stockman.

8— 6 -69 Notice of Appeal Filed on Aug. 6, 1969, by the plaintiffs, with 
Certificate of Service

3— 6-69 Designations of Record on Appeal and Request for Immediate 
Certification and Transmittal filed on Aug. 6, 1969, by the 
Plaintiffs, with Certificate of Service.

8-11-69 Record on Appeal mailed on Aug. 11 , 19 6 9 , to th e  U. S .  C ou rt o f
Appeals, Fifth Circuit, New Orleans, La. (MEMO: NUMBER OF FINAL 
PAGE OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, INCLUDING CLERK'S CERTIFICATE IS 3745).

9-17-69 Order of the Court directing that Exhibits offered In 19 6 8  and 
19 6 7  be returned to party offering said exhibits, Min. Entry No. 
2 59 59 . Copy of M.E. 2 5 9 5 9  mailed on Sep. 1 9 , 1 9 6 9 , to Messrs.Jack 
Greenberg, Michael Davidson, and Johathan Shapiro; Vernon Z.Craw-
ford and Miss Frankie Fields; Messrs. Charles S. White Spunner Jr.
Frank M. Dunbaugh, Walter Gorman, Abram L. Philips J r .  and James D 
Brooks, Ralph Kennamer, Pierre Pelham, Stephen J. Poliak, George 
W- Dean, Charles Morgan Jr., Beber F. Boult Jr., and Solomon S. Seay, Jr., and Samuel L. Stockman.



CONTINUATION OF CIVIL NO. 3003-63
DOCKET SHEET NO. 13

D. C. 110A Rev. Civil Docket Continuation

DATE PROCEEDINGS Ji

10- 6-69 
10-13-69

10-20-69

10- 27-69

11-7-69

11-  10- 6$ 

H - 17-69

11-20-69

11-20-69

11-20-69

H - 26-69

11- 26-69

Application for an Order to Show Cause filed by plaintiff, with 
certificate of service attached, and proposed order,

Report to the Court filed on 13 Oct, 1969 by the Defendants, Board 
of School Commissioners of Mobile Coujnty, et al, without 
Certificate of Service. dm 13 Oct. 1969 the Clerk forwarded to 
All Attorneys in this case a copy of this Report filed IO-13-69 

Motion to Dismiss Application for Order to Show Cause filed by 
Defendants, The Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 
et al,

Memorandum in opposition to School Board's Motion to Dismiss
Application for an order to show cause and Motion for Attorneys 
Fees filed by Plaintiffs,

Report to the court for the information of the court filed by 
Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County,

Application for an order to show cause filed by Plaintifv_ 
intervenor, The United States of America,

Request for execution for amount of court costs on appeal due in 
sum of $1 ,372.00 filed by attorney for plaintiffs.

Writ of execution issued,
Report to the Court of November 20, 1969 filed by Board of School 

Commissioners of Mobile County, Alabama^
Interrogatories directed to Mr. ABRAM PHILIPS, attorney for defen­

dants filed by plaintiffs,
Motion for clarification of the Court's Order filed by defendants 

BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF MOBILE COUNTY, ET AL,
REPORT TO THE COURT dated November 26, 1969 filed by defendants, 

BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS,
Writ of Fieri Facias returned, NOT EXECUTED, Writ of Garnishment to j 

be issued,

12— 1-69

12-4-69

12-5-69

12-30-69

Suggested Desegregation plan for all metropolitan schools located 
east of I-65, for implementation for the 1970-71 school term, 
filed by defendant School Board, pursuant to Court's decree of 
August 1, 1969, with Maps 1, 2 and 3 attached.

Order entered by Court allowing defendant" School Board to substitute 
corrected map, designated Map # 1-A, for Map # 1 submitted with 
suggested desegregation plan filed 12-1-69/ (Minute Entry No.
26,285)•

Certified copy of judgment of U.S.Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 
received, AFFIRMING order of District Court appealed from, with 
directions to desegregate the eastern part of the metropolitan 
area of the Mobile County School System and to otherwise create 
a unitary system in compliance with other provisions and condi­
tions of order of court then entered, and taxing costs on appeal j 
in appeals court against appellee, School Board.

Copy of Court's opinion received from Fifth Circuit and filed,
Copy of School Board's desegregation plan and copy of order substi- j 

tuting map mailed to following attorneys: Davidson, Crawford, 
Fields, Gorman, White-Spunner and Pierre Pelham, and Abe Philips.j

Application for an Order to Show Cause, filed October 6 . ~ ~'cs 
Plaintiffs Oct. 6, 1969 DENIED, '*

Motion to Dismiss Application for Order to Show Cause, filed b - ;he j 
defendants, Board of School Commissioners of Mobile Co us ,y PEblErl,



DOCKET SHEET NO. 13 —  PAGE NO. 2

d a t e

12-30-69

1-2-70
1-2-70

1-2-70

1— 5-70

1-5-70

1- 2-70
1- 6-70

1-7-70

1-6-70

1-7-70
1-7-70

1 - 8-70
1-13-70

L-15-70

1-22-70

1-22-70

1-28-70

.-28-70

- 2 8 - 7 0

PROCEEDINGS D ate O rder ( 
Judgm ent No

Order entered that the motion for attorney's fees filed by th<=> 
Plaintiff is DENIED, see M/E Number 26,410,

Copy of Minute Entry Number 26,410 sent to each attorney,
Affidavit for issuance of Garnishment against First Nat11 Bank 

of Mobile, Merchants National Bank of Mobile and American 
National Bank of Mobile on judgment for costs filed by plaintiff 

Writs of Garnishment issued against EACH of the following named 
banks, and notice issued to defendant in EACH instance:
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MOBILE, MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK OF MOBILE 
and AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF MOBILE,

y

Writs of Garnishment issued on 1/2/70 and notices to defendant of 
issuance returned executed by U.S. Marshal,

Motion filed by plaintiffs for order of court to limit Writs of 
Garnishments issued on 1/2/70 to sum of $1,372.00 being the 
amount by judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Motion to require service of desegregation plan filed by plaintiffs 
Motion filed by defendants for order of court limiting rarrM shme^ts 

to sum of $1,372.00 to be held by each tank GRANTED? Notices 
mailed to banks, and to Abe Philips, Attorney for defendants 

Notice of granting of defendants' motion mailed to attorneys David­
son, Crawford, Pelham and White-Spunner,

ANSWER to garnishment served on the bank , The First Nat'l Bnk of Mobile on January 5, 1970 filed,
Copy of Answer sent to Michael Davidson,
ANSWER to garnishment served on the American National Bank & Trust Company f il ed,
Copy of Answer sent to Michael Davidson,
Copy of bill of costs in amount of $25.00 cLXG U .

School Board by Circuit Court of Anneals re
ga xn;

•AC.A Desegregation Plan for the Mobile County School System, filed by 
the Division of Equal Educational Opportunities, U. S. Office of Education, Atlanta, Georgia,

Certified copy oj Court;•f- !s Opinion-Order entered . G * L''
Appeals forthe Fifth Circuit on January 21, 1370, ■ 
the order of the Supreme Court entered in the Sing! 
Municipal Separate School District et al, case, No 
respect to the deferrel of student desegregation b 
1970 is made the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 
visions of the order of CCA in Singleton to* remain 

d effect, received and filed.

y

y

Order entered GRANTING application for intervention as parties de­
fendant filed on July 29, 1969 by MOBILE COUNTY COUNCIL OF PARENT- 
TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS, et al. (Minute Entry No. 2o,540-A.)

Copies mailed to all attorneys of record,
Order entered ORDERING Board of School Commissioners of Mobile Counts’, 

to forthwith submit to the Court a revision of plans for desegrega­
tion in accord with the mandates of the Supreme Court and the Fifth 
Circuit Court of Appeals, (Minute Entry No. 26,553).

7 certified copies of order delivered to U. S. Marshal for service 
on Abe Philips, Attorney, Dr. Cranford Burns, and each member of School Board,

Order to School Board returned EXECUTED,



CONTINUATION OF CIVIL ACTION NO. 3003- 
DOCKET SHEET NO. l4

D. C. 110A Rev. Civil Docket Continuation

D A T E PROCEEDIN GS
rJU'

1-26-70
1-30-70

1- 31-70

1- 31-70
2—  2-70 
2-

Copies of order to school board mailed to attorneys,
Copy of Dissenting Opinions of Judge James P. Coleman and Judge 

Charles Clark filed,
Response to order of court of January 28, 1970, filed by Board of 

School Commissioners,
1-31-70 >*>fbECREE entered by court pursuant to reversal by Fifth Circuit Court 

of Appeals as directed by U. S. Supreme Court, ADOPTING area at­
tendance desegregation plan submitted by the school board on 
December 1, 1969, for those school zones lying East of I-65, 
with the exceptions as set out in the order, to be adopted and 
put into effect as of FEBRUARY 1, 1970; (Minute Entry No. 26,573) 

1-31-70border entered re-establishing an elementary school on Dauohin Island 
for children living in the Island at the elementary grade level, 
and directing order implemented forthwith. (Minute Entry No. 
26,574).

Certified copy of Minute Entry No. 26,573 and 26,574 with set of 
Maps, Exhibits A, B and C, delivered to U. S. Marshal for service 
on Board of School Commissioners, C/0 its Attorney, Abram L. 
Philips,

Copies of each order mailed to attorneys of record,
Certified copies of orders returned EXECUTED by U. S. Marshal.

-4-70vfORDER entered amending order of this court of January 31, 1970 in
order to add "the majority to minority transfer policy", orovid- 
ing that a student attending a school in which his race i*s in the 
majority to choose to attend another school where space is avail­
able, and where his race is in the minority. (Minute Entry No.
26,588).

NOTICE OF APPEAL filed by plaintiffs from order and judgment of the j 
District Court entered on January 31, 1970.

Designation of contents of record on appeal filed by plaintiffs- 
a p p e H a n t s .

Copy of order of 2-4-70 and copy of notice of appeal mailed to all i 
attorneys of record,

2 - 11-70 
2- 11-70 
2-12-70

2- 16-70
2 - 18-70

2 - 18-70

- 2-19-70

NOTICE OF APPEAL from order and judgment entered on January 31,
1970 filed by United States of America, plaintiff-intervenor.

Copy of notice of appeal filed 2-16-70 mailed to all attorneys of 
record, with copy of "timetable" for school desegregation appeals 
as set out in Singleton opinion, Part III,

Petition filed by defendant School Board, asking for immediate con­
sideration, to be allowed to maintain a 12th grade program at 
Trinity Gardens for remainder of this school year.

NOTICE OF APPEAL filed by defendants Board of School Commissioners

2-24-70

2-24-70

2-24-70

2-24-70

of Mobile County, et al. from order and judgment entered on 
January 31, 1970, as amended by order entered on February 4, 19?d.

Additional designation of contents of record on appeal filed by de­
fendants,

Affidavit testimony of James A. McPherson-filed by defendant In sup­
port of its Response to Order filed on January 30, 1970.

Report to the Court, filed by defendant, for the information and 
assistance of the court,

Report to the Court filed by defendant for the purpose of advising 
the Court of steps taken towards implementation of its Order of 
January 31, 1970.



(REVERSE OF DOCKET SHEET NO. 14)
DATE

2-23-70 
2 — 25-70

2- 27-70

3- 2-70

3-10-70

3-10-70 ✓

3-11-70

3-11-70

3-12-70

5-13-70

3-16-70

3- 16-70

3-16-70

- 17 -7 0

PROCEEDINGS

Answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories filed by Defendants,
Copies of Notice of Appeal filed by Defendant School Board mailed 

to all attorneys of record.
Certified record on appeal mailed to CCA, New Orleans, La.
Motion to require service of desegregation plan filed on 1/2/70 

by plaintiffs is GRANTED, notice mailed to Attys. Michael 
Davidson and Abram L. Philips, Jr.,

Petition filed pertaining to Westlawn and Mertz Schools,
Petition filed pertaining to Mertz and Mae Eanes Schools,
Petition filed pertaining to Momingside School and Mae Eanes School 

The above Petitions filed by the Mobile Co. School Board 
Petition for modification of court's order of January 31, 1970 with 

respect to maintaining a ninth grade at Mae Eanes School, filed 
by defendant School Board,

Motion for leave to amend summons and complaint by addinv thereto 
as party defendants, ALBERT BREWER, Governor of the State of 
Alabama, and MacDONALD GALLION, Attorney General of the State
of Alabama, and to file supplemental complaint attacking lej s -
lative act enacted on March 4, 1970, by the State L e , ^  
known as the "Freedom of Choice Act, filed by plaintiffs, 

Certificate of service of copy of supplemental complaint and plain­
tiffs ' brief a s _filed on March 10, 1070, filed by plaintiffs. 

Motion filed by plaintiff for an order commanding the garnishee to 
pay over monies and for an order condemning same,

ORDER entered by court, AMENDING order of January 3 1, 1970, as to 
petitions filed on March 2, 1970 and March 10, 1970 relating to 
Westlawn, Mertz, Mae Eanes and Morningside, and Trinity Gardens 
schools for remainder of this school year. (Minute Entry No. 
26760). Copies of order mailed to all attorneys of record.mo cox 

Petition filed by plaintiffs for order modifying decree of January 
31, 1970 relating to graduating seniors and future status as 
senior high school of Trinity Gardens, filed by plaintiff,

Motion for continuance of hearing set for 9:30 A.M. this date, filec 
by defendant, Mobile County Council PTA,

Application for an Order to Show Cause why defendants should not be 
adjudged in civil contempt of this court for failing and refus­
ing to comply with this court's decree of January 21, 1970, 
filed by plaintiffs,

Hearing in open court on motion filed by plaintiffs on March IO.197C 
for leave to amend summons and complaint by adding Brevier and’ 
Gallion, and to file supplemental complaint, and 

ORDER entered, DISMISSING petition, and requiring School Board to
follow the order of this court of January 31, 1970, as emended, 
within three (3) days from date, or a fin.e of $1 ,000.00 per 
day assessed for each such day against each member of the Boarc 
of School Commissioners. (Minute Entry No. 26,771)

Certified copy of, order delivered to U. S. Marshal for personal ser­
vice on Dr. Cranford Burns, Superintendent, and on each member 
of School Board.

Copies of order delivered to attorneys Abe Philips, Walter Gorman, 
Vernon Crawford.

Copies of M/E 26,771 mailed to attorneys of record, and to Hon. 
Gordon Madison, Assistant Attorney General of Alabama.

Date Ord<
Judgment 1



CONTINUATION OF CIVIL ACTION NO. 3'
DOCKET SHEET NO. 1 5 .

D. C. 110A Rev. Civil Docket Continuation

DATE

3 - 12-70

3-17-70

3-17-70

3-18-70
\

3-19-70

3-20-70

3-23-70

3-23-70

3-23-70

3-23-70

3-26-70

3-27-70

3-30-70

3- 31-70

4—  3-70

PROCEEDINGS Dat 
J udg

Judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, VACATING the 
preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court on 
May 16, 1969; case remanded to the District Court in accordance 
with the opinion of this Court.

NOTICE OF APPEAL filed by Defendant BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS 
from order dated March 16, 1970.

Motion for stay of enforcement of order dated March 16, 1970, pending 
appeal and thereafter until appellate remedies are exhausted", 
filed by defendant School Board.

Motion for stay of enforcement of orders of January 31, 1970 and 
March 16, 1970 pending the filing of an action to test Legislative 
Act S. 1 passed on March 4, 1970 by Alabama Legislature, filed by 
defendant School Board.

Motion for stay, filed by defendant on March 18, 1970, DENIED.
Return of Marshal filed, showing service of order of March lo, 1970 j 

on Superintendent and each member of School Board by personal service.
Certified copy of Order of Circuit Court of Appeals entered on

March 19, 1970 DENYING appellants’ motion for stajr of orders of ! 
District Court dated January 31, 1970 and March 16, 1Q70 received! and filed,

Response to petition of plaintiffs filed on March 13, 1970 request-! 
ing that Trinity Gardens School be continued as a school serving j grades 7 through 12 filed by defendant School Board.

Motion to allow modification of Order of Court of January 3 1, 1970 j 
relative to ninth grade at Prichard Junior High School, Vigor High. 
School and Mobile County Training School, filed by defendant 
School Board,

Motion to modify court order of January 31, 19?0 relative to Lein- 
kauf Elementary School, Hall Junior High School, Old Shell Rosi j 
Elementary School, Caldwell Elementary School and Finer son Eiemen-| 
tary School, filed by defendant School Eoard,

Motion to modify court order of January 31, 1970 relative to Hall j 
School, Craighead School, Williamson High School, Mary vale School j, 
Woodcock Elementary School, Arlington Elementary School, filed 
by defendant School Board,

Withdrawal of Notice of Appeal from order dated March lo 
filed by defendant School Board.

Objection to supplementing the record on appeal by furnishing of 
certain maps and records and statistical tables by appellant 
United States Department of Justice filed by defendants,

Copy of order entered by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals directing 
district court to supplement its findings of fact in certain 
matters by filing within 20 days 9 items of information, and 
remanding case for purpose stated, entered by CCA 3-25-70.

Order entered by Thomas, Judge, pursuant to Order of CCA directing 
defendant Board of School Commissioners to furnish the court the 
information eet out in 9 paragraphs of CCA order not later than 
April 10, 1970 at 3:00 P. M. ^Minute Entry No.- 26,887)

Copy of order mailed to all attorneys of record. WJO’C.
Motion filed by plaintiff on 3/11/79 for an order commanding the 

garnishee to pay over monies and for an order condemning same Is GRANTED
X C-QVSfr)

7f 1 
• "J  1



4 - 3 - 7 0

4 - 3 - 7 0

4— 3-70

4 - 3 - 7 0

4 - 3 - 7 0

4 — 6-70 
4 - 7 - 7 0

DATE

4-10-70

4-10-70

1-13-70

+-14-70

4-14-70

+-15-70

6- 2-70

5 - 2 - 7 0

PROCEEDINGS Date Ore
| Judgment

Petition filed by plaintiffs on 3/13/70 for order modifying decree j 
of Jan. 31* 1970 relating to seniors attending Trinity Gardens j 
High School is DENIED.

Response to plaintiff's motion for Order relative to Trinity Gardens; 
School filed by defendants o n '3/23/70 is DENIED.

Motion to allow modification of Order of Court of Jan. 31* 1970 
relative to ninth grade at Prichard Junior High School, etc., 
filed by defendants on 3/23/70 is DENIED.

Motion to allow modification of Order of Court of Jan. 31, 1970 
relative to Leinkauf Elementary School, etc., filed by de­
fendants on 3/23/70 is DENIED.

Motion to allow modification of Order of Court of Jan. 3 1, 1970 
relative to Hall School, etc., filed by defendants on 3/23/70 
is DENIED

Notice of all rulings of court of Apr. 3, 1970 mailed to all 
attorneys of record,

Motion to establish procedures on remand filed by plaintiffs,
ORDER entered directing Garnishee, The First National Bank of

Mobile to pay into Court the sum of $1,372.00 being the amount 
of costs owed by the defendants to the plaintiff and also 
DISMISSING garnishment proceedings as to Garnishees, The American 
National Bank & Trust Company of Mobile and the Merchants Nat'l 
Bank of Mobile, see M/E 26,924,

Copy of M/E 26,924 mailed to attorneys of record and to Officer 
of each bank this date,

AFFIDAVIT filed by JAMES A. McPHERSON, Associate Superintendent of j 
Mobile County Alabama Public School System, in response to 
Order of District Court dated March 31* 1970 requiring school ; 
board to furnish certain information, with exhibits attached, I

Order received from CCA DENYING motion of appellants to enjoin the j 
transfer pending appeal, of students from Trinity Gardens School 
to Blount School under Jan. 31* 1970 order.

Order received from CCA DENYING motion of appellants to require the j 
School Board to supplement the record, since matters sought will} 
be included in supplemental findings to be filed by district 
court.

Motion to establish procedures on remand, filed by plaintiffs on 
April 6 , 1970, DENIED. Notices mailed to attorneys.

SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT entered by Judge Daniel H. Thomas In 
response to order of appellate court entered March 25, 1970. 
(Minute Entry No. 26,964).

Certified copy of Findings of Fact mailed to Fifth Circuit Court of 
Appeals, with original affidavit of James A. McPherson and at­
tached exhibits.

Copy of Supplemental Findings of Fact mailed to attorneys of record .j
i

Petition to implement order of desegregation entered by court on
August 1, 1969 regarding Saraland (grades 1-5), Lee (grades 1-5), 
Adams (grades 1-7), and Satsuma (grades 8-12), filed by Board of 
School Commissloners,

Petition to Implement order of desegregation entered by court on
6 1 * 1969 regarding entire rural portion of the school sys­

tem, including the following schools: Alba (grades 1-12), Bur­
roughs (grades 1-6), Davis (grades 1-6), Dixon (grades 1-6),



CONTINUATION OF CIVIL ACTION NO. 300;
DOCKET SHEET NO. 16 .

D. C. 110A. Rev. Civil Docket Continuation

DATS PROCEEDINGS Dat
Judg

' -6— 2-70

6 - 11-70

6 - 11-70

6-15-70

6-12-70

6- 29-70

7—  2-70

7— 2-70

Grand Bay (grades 1-6), Griggs (grades 1-6), Hollingers Island 
(grades 1-6), Mobile County High (grades 7-12), St. Elmo (grades 
7-8) and Theodore (grades 7-12), filed by Board of School Commis­
sioners,

Petition to implement order of desegregation entered by court on 
August 1, 1969 regarding that part of the netropolitan portion 
of the school system lying west of Interstate Highway 65, includ­
ing the area served by the following schools: Dickson (grades
1-6), Hillsdale (grades 6-8), Shaw (grades 1-5), Scarborough, 
(grades 6-8), Orchard (grades 9*12), and Will (grades 1-5), filed by 
Board of School Commissioners,

Received from the office of Judge Griffin B. Bell the Suoplemental 
Record on Appeal in Case No. 29332 (Fifth Circuit Court of Aopeals 
Number) which recor d was filed in the Fifth Circuit on April 1, 
1970. The documents were forwarded to the Clerk of the Fifth * j 
Circuit by Clerk of District Court by letter of trransmittal datec 
March 25, 1970. The documents received from Judge Bell's office 
are as follows:

1. Projected Enrollment under zone lines offered by the 
United States on Jan. 27, 1970.

2. Map No. 1 - Elementary
3. Map No. 2 - Middle Schools.
■4. Map No. 3 - High Schools.

(MEMO: This item was placed in red manila file)
Judgment from U. S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, REVERSING 

U. S. District Court and remanding cause to District Court 
issued as Mandate June S, 1970,

Memorandum in opposition to school board's petition to modify 
attendance zones and grade structures filed by plaintiffs,

DECREE entered by court pursuant to reversal by Fifth Circuit Court ! 
of Appeals, ordering that the area attendance zones offered by ! 
U. S. Dept, of Justice on 1/27/1970 be assigned as the school 
zones under which the public school system will operate beginning 
with the 1970 Fall semester; further that the faculty and staff | 
shall be assigned on a 60% white and 40^ negro ratio; further 
that school board shall permit a student attending a school in 
which his race Is in the majority to choose to attend another 
school where his race is In the minority, etc., further that 
school board is directed to continue to operate transportation, 
extra curricular activities and school facilities on a non­
disc riminatory basis, see Minute Entry No. 27,229 
copy of decree mailed to all attorneys on June 13, 1970.

Memorandum of United States In response to defendants' petitions 
to modify attendance zone lines and grade structures filed,

Order entered DENYING petition of defendant Board of School Commis­
sioners to rearrange the attendance zones and grade structure of 
DIXON, HILLADALE, ORCHARD, SCARBOROUGH and WILL SCHOOLS as they 
were specified in the Court's order of August 1, 1969. (Minute 
Entry No. 27,316). v

Order entered GRANTING petition of School Board to amend its order 
of August 1 , 1969, as it concerns;



REVERSE OF DOCKET SHEET NO. 16

D A T E PR O C EE D IN G S D ate Ordi 
Judgm ent

Saraland School
Lee School 
Adams School 
Satsuma School

Grades 1-5 
Grades 1-5 
Grades 6-8 
Grades 9-12

7--2-70
7-7-70

7-9-70

students at which schools will attend as designated regardless of 
race. (Minute Entry No. 27,317).
Copies of each above order mailed to attorneys of record.

ORDER entered that the school "DIXON" in the order of July 2, 1970 
in this cause should be corrected to read "DICKSON (Min. Entry No. 
27342)

Copies of Min/ Entry No. 27342 mailed to attorneys of record,
7-13-70

7-13-70

7-13-70

r-16-70 
7-27-70

7-23-70

7-23-70

7-29-70

ORDER entered by court AMENDING court's order of June 12, 1970 
in the following respect:

"Pursuant to Footnote "4" of the opinion of the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals, entered on 6/8/70 the area attendance zones 
for the 1969-70 school year are amended as shown by the maps 
attached hereto marked Exhibit 1, 2, and 3 for the elementary, 
middle school and high schools respectively, Exhibit 4 attached 
hereto shows the feeder pattern for the entire school district, 
In all other respects the Order of June 12, 1970, remains in 
full force and effect, see Min. Entry No. 27,371

Copy of court's order with Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 delivered to 
Abe Philips, C. S. White-Spurmer, Jr., Vernon Z. Crawford 
and Wm. A. Kimbrough, Jr. this date,

Copy of court's order and Exhibit 4 only mailed to attorneys,
Michael Davidson, Walter Gorman, Ralph Kennamer, Pierre Pelham, 
Solomon S. Seay, Jr., this date,

Notice of Appeal, filed by Birdie Mae Davis, et al, plaintiffs, 
Projected Enrollment Date Under Zones Lines for High Schools,

Middle Schools, and Elementary Schools 
Notice of Appeal filed by Plaintiff-Intervenor, United States of 

America,
Drder entered DENYING modification In reference to Griggs, Davis and 

Burroughs Schools as requested by defendants June 2, 1970, m /E 
No. 27,464

Drder entered in regard to establishing bi-racial committee to serve 
in advisory capacity to School Board, Min. Entry No. 27,46-5, 

Copies of Min. Entry No. 27,464 and 27,465 mailed to attorneys, 
Designation of contents filed by plaintiffs,

7-30-70

7-30-70

7-31-70

Designation of Record on Appeal and Request for Immediate Certifica­
tion and Transmittal, filed by Plaintiff-Intervenor, United States, 

Order entered making certain changes in July 13, 1970 order pertain­
ing to Dodge School, Dickson School and Westlawn, Min. Entry Mo. 
27,472, Copies mailed to attorneys of record/Exhlbits 1,2,3 (maps) 

Record on appeal mailed to U. S. Court of Appeals, New Orleans, La., 
■with 3 exhibits (3maps), and letter of transmittal, copies of 
which were mailed to attorneys,

Designation of Record on Appeal, filed by defendants; Supplemental 
Record on Appeal, mailed to U. S. Court of Appeals, New Orleans, La.,



CONTINUATION OF CIVIL ACTION NO. 3003-
DOCKET SHEET NO. 17.

D. O. 110A Ber. Civil Docket Continuation

DATE PROCEEDINGS Da
Judi

8— 5-70 OPINION-ORDER on motion for injunctive relief pending application 
for certiorari, or in the alternative, to vacate the order of the 
district court entered on July 13, 1970 in implementation of CCA 
decision of June 8, 1970 as to student assignment. By order of 
CCA injunctive relief DENIED, and order of July 13, 1970, modifie 
establishment of a bi-racial advisory committee to the school 
board ordered established forthwith. This opinion and order amen 
and supplements CCA decision and order of June 8, 1970 and shall

*3
is

be considered the final order on this appeal for mandate and cert

8-12-70

8-12-70

8-12-70

3-17-70

8-20-70

8 - 21-70

8 - 21-70

8- 28-70

3-31-70

iorari purposes
Order entered appointing BI-RACIAL COMMITTEE pursuant to order of 

this court of July 2o, 1970, (Minute Entry No. 27527)j committee 
to be composed Of DR. SANFORD D. BISHOP, MR. ISOM CLEMON, MR.
M. C. FARMER, MRS. H. EUGENE GIBBONS, MRS. T. C. GILL, MR. ARTHUR 
OUTLAW, BISHOP W. T. PHILLIPS, MR. 0. B. PURIFOY, MR. H. MINGE 
REED, JR. and MR. BEVERLY R. WILSON, JR. (Copies of order mailed 
to each member by Judge Thomas).

Order entered AMENDING ORDER of July 13, 1970, as amended July 30, 
1970, so that ROBBINS and HAMILTON elementary schools are to be 
paired. (Minute Entry No. 27,528).

Copies of Minute Entries 27527 and 27528 mailed to attorneys of
record, with designation

Notice of Appeal from Order of July 30, 1970 filed by plaintiffs/ 
Birdie Mae Davis, et al, copies mailed to attorneys of record, 

Notice of Appeal from Order of August 12, 1970 filed by plaintiffs, 
Birdie Mae Davis, et al, copies mailed to attorneys of record, 

Projected Enrollment Data for ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE and HIGH SCHOOLS 
broken down as to U. S. District Court Plan under order of 
7/13/70; Fifth Circuit Plan; and U. S. District Court Plan 
under order of 7/30/70, filed by court.

ORDER entered that defendants are directed to report to the Court 
weekly as to each transfer request filed with the school author­
ities or School Board during said week and a report showing ;he
disposition made to such requests, both by the professionals and 
the School Board (Min. Entry No. 27565)

Copies of Min. Entry No. 27565 mailed to attorneys of record this 
date by Mr. O ’Connor,

Record on Appeal mailed to U. S. Court of Appeals, New Orleans, La., 
with letter of transmittal, copy of which was mailed zo attorneys, 

OPINION-ORDER OF the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, said order 
dated Aug. 23, 1970, ruling as follows:
1. Middle School & High School Zone lines shall be same as those 

set for In July 13, 1970, order of district court
2. Elementary school zones shall be modified as follows:

(a) Palmer & Glendale Schools shall be paired.
(b) Council & Leinkauf Schools shall be paired.
(c) Area of Whitley zone * * * that lies west of Wilson 

Avenue shall become a part of Chickasaw zone.
(d) Area in Westlawn zone * * * that lies north of Dauphin 

St. shall become part of Old Shell Road school zone.
3. Counsel will confer & make facts available regarding de­

segregation of the school system staffs.
4. (See Other side)



DATS PROCEEDINGS Date OrcU 
Judgment

*1. Students who refuse to attend the schools to which they are 
assigned by school board under order of District Court shall 
not be permitted to participate in any school activities, 
including the taking of examinations and shall not receive 

; grades or credit.
. Any time School Board desires to have changes in zone lines 

made, it shall give reasonable notice to the parties.
ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF JULY 30, 1970, IS IN ALL OTHER 
RESPECTS AFFIRMED.

9- 1 - 7 0 Petition filed by School Board to be allowed to modify implementation 
of court's orders of July 13 and 30, 1970 to BE ALLOWED TO CON­
TINUE OPERATION OF THE SIXTH GRADE AT WESTLAWN SCHOOL. (Court 
orders eleminated the sixth grade at Westlawn School and reassign­
ed sixth grade students in Westlawn zone to Washington Junior 
High School and Sidney Phillips Junior High School.)

Petition filed by School Board to be allowed to modify implementation 
of court's orders of July 13 and 30, 1970 to be ALLOWED TO CON- 

! TINUE OPERATION OF THE SIXTH GRADE AT MORNINGSIDE SCHOOL. (Court 
; order aleminated the sixth grade at Morningside School and reas­

signed sixth grade at Morningside to Mae Eanes Junior High 
School.)

Petition filed by School Board to be allowed to Modify implementation 
: of court's orders of July 13 and 30, 1970 to REDRAW ZONE BOUNDARY

LINES BETWEEN THE MERTZ ZONE AND THE MORNINGSIDE ZONE to provide 
for reassignment of students in Belvedere Park and Gulf Terra 
areas.

Petition filed by School Board to be allowed to modify implementation 
of court's orders of July 13 and 30, 1970 to BE ALLOWED TO AS­
SIGN STUDENTS IN GRADES 7-9 LIVING IN MERTZ ELEMENTARY ZONE, to 
MAE EANES JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL. (Court orders assigned students 
in grades 7-9 to Washington Junior High School.)

Petition filed by School Board to be allowed to modify imnlementation 
of court's orders of July 13 and 30, 1970 to CONTINUE OPERATION 
OF THE SIXTH GRADE AT THE MERTZ SCHOOL. (Court order eliminated 
the sixth grade at Mertz School and reassigned sixth grade in 
the Mertz Zone to Washington Junior High School.)

Petition filed by School Board requesting the court to reopen
Arlington School to serve grades 1-5 for the 1970-71 school yr,



Docket Entries



2a

Oral motion of the plaintiffs that Charles E. McNeil he 
substituted as President of the Board of School Commis­
sioners of Mobile County in place of William B. Crane, who 
was named as Chairman of the Board, is hereby granted.

Oral motion of plaintiff to amend affidavit of Mrs. Ola 
Mae Davis is granted and plaintiff is allowed one week 
within which to file said amendment.

Motion for preliminary injunction set for hearing this 
date, at 9:30 a.m., submitted on affidavits pursuant to the 
order of court of April 12,1963, is taken under submission. 
The plaintiffs are allowed to and including May 24, 1963, 
within which to file brief in support thereof, and defendants 
are allowed to and including June 10, 1963, to file reply 
brief.

Done at Mobile, Alabama, this 25th day of April 1963.

D aniel  H . T homas 
D istrict Judge

District Court Order of April 25, 1963



3a

Before T u ttle , Chief Judge, 
and R ives and B ell , Circuit Judges.

P ee Cu riam .

This case is here on a petition for an order directing 
Honorable Daniel H. Thomas, United States District Judge 
for the Southern District of Alabama, to amend an order 
entered April 25, 1963, to show a motion on behalf of ap­
pellants for an immediate order requiring the School Com­
missioners to submit a plan of desegregation within thirty 
days and that this motion was denied by the court, or in 
the alternative, for an order directing a prompt deter­
mination of the motion of appellants for a preliminary 
injunction, now under submission in the District Court.

Appellants have tiled a notice of appeal. Their petition 
is in the nature of an appeal from the denial of the injunc­
tion sought on the premise that a failure to rule amounts 
to denial, and is therefore appealable, citing United States 
v. Lynd, 5 Cir., 1962, 301 F.2d 818. The petition is also in 
the nature of an application for writ of mandamus, but is 
deficient in this respect in that it was not brought against 
the District Judge, nor was he accorded an opportunity to 
answer.

We test the petition on the basis of whether there has 
been an abuse of discretion on the part of the District 
Judge. The assertion is that there was an abuse because 
briefs were requested, and time allowed for the filing there­
of, by the court at the time of taking the motion under 
submission. Appellants contend that the court should have 
ruled forthwith in view of the undisputed fact that the pub­
lic schools in Mobile are segregated according to race.

Court of Appeals Opinion of May 24, 1963



4a

We hold that there was no abase of discretion, bnt with 
this caveat. The matter of the grant or denial of the motion 
for preliminary injunction, should, as in every case, be 
promptly determined. It is the duty of Judge Thomas to 
promptly rule on this motion for preliminary injunction.

It appears that the public schools of Mobile are in fact 
segregated according to race. This will not do under Brown 
v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1954, 347 U.S. 483, 74
S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873. This decision is binding on Judge 
Thomas. It is binding on all District Courts and all District 
Judges, just as it is binding on this court. The Supreme 
Court in the second Brown case, 1955, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 
753, 99 L.Ed. 1083, and in Cooper v. Aaron, 1958, 358 U.S. 
1, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5, wisely left an area of dis­
cretion in the desegregation process to the District Courts, 
feeling that they were close to the local problems, and to 
school officials, and the children involved. However, the 
amount of time available for the transition from segregated 
to desegregated schools becomes more sharply limited with 
the passage of the years since the first and second Brown 
decisions. Thus it is that this court must require prompt 
and reasonable starts, even displacing the District Court 
discretion, where local control is not desired, or is abdi­
cated by failure to promptly act.

The petition is denied and the appeal dismissed. The 
Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.

Court o f A ppeals Opinion o f M ay 24, 1963



5a

D an iel  H olcombe T homas, D istrict Judge.

This cause was submitted on plaintiffs’ motion for a pre­
liminary injunction, directing defendants to present for 
approval of the court, within a period to be determined by 
the court, a plan for the reorganization of the entire school 
system of Mobile County, Alabama, into a unitary non- 
racial system.

The motion purportedly sought relief in the alternative, 
but the first alternative prayed permanent relief “upon the 
conclusion of the trial” and hence did not seek interlocutory 
relief.

The complaint and motion in this case were filed on 
March 27, 1963. On April 25, plaintiffs urged the granting 
of the motion and suggested, in open court, without pre­
vious notice, thirty days as the period of time to be de­
termined by the court in which defendants should be or­
dered to submit a plan for the reorganization of the Mobile 
County School system. The court took the motion under 
submission on that date, and directed the parties to file 
briefs within designated times. The court’s action in this 
matter was appealed by plaintiffs, and the appeal was dis­
missed by the Court of Appeals by order dated May 24, 
1963.

For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied as to 
the specific relief requested, requiring the presentation of 
a plan within thirty days. However, an interlocutory order 
will be entered which will assure the protection of the rights 
of the plaintiffs.

Based upon the affidavits filed by plaintiffs and respon­
dents and on facts of which the court takes judicial notice, 
the court makes the following findings of fact.

District Court Opinion of June 24, 1963



6a

D istrict Court Opinion o f June 24, 1963 

F indings of F act

1. The Mobile County School System is administered by 
the Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, a 
five-man Board. The professional staff is under the direc­
tion of a County Superintendent of Education and Ms sev­
eral Assistant Superintendents, each being in charge of 
a particular phase of Board activities.

2. During the school year 1962-63, there were 89 schools 
in the Mobile County School system, accommodating a 
pupil load of approximately 75,000 pupils. More than 2,370 
teachers are employed in addition to 105 non-teaching 
school principals and assistants. More than 200 public 
school busses are operated by the Board in the transpor­
tation of school children in Mobile County.

3. The schools of Mobile County are, and have been since 
the end of World War II, seriously overcrowded. During 
this period, the pupil load has doubled. Forty-two percent 
of the increase in the number of pupils in the State of 
Alabama since 1940, has occurred in Mobile County. The 
average annual pupil increase has been 3,000.

4. As a result of the rapid growth of the school popu­
lation, a building program sufficient to house properly the 
students fell five years behind. As a consequence, it was 
necessary to institute half-day or “ double” sessions, the 
number of pupils in double sessions amounting to as many 
as 14,000 at one time.



7a

5. In an effort to accommodate the pupil load, the School 
Board has engaged in an accelerated building program, and 
as a result the physical facilities are gradually overtaking 
the deficit. The administrative staff of the School Board 
has employed careful planning to utilize the space avail­
able, and throughout this period has resorted to the trans­
portation of pupils from crowded schools nearer their 
homes to more distant schools where less crowded condi­
tions existed. Many wooden portable classrooms have been 
constructed and utilized at the more crowded schools. As 
a result of these efforts, the number of pupils in double 
sessions has gradually decreased over the years.

6. Fourteen new schools, with more than three hundred 
rooms, are under construction or are about to be com­
menced, designed for occupancy in September of 1964. At 
that time, for the first time since World War II, it is prob­
able that no student within the system will be in double­
session classes. However, double sessions must continue 
through the school year 1963-64.

7. In normal years, in the Mobile County School System, 
the planning for a school term commences in March before 
the term beginning in September. The Board of School 
Commissioners of Mobile County followed the stated prac­
tice, and the planning for the session 1963-64 began in 
March of 1963.

8. Planning by the School Board staff consists of an 
ascertainment of pupil load based upon careful estimates 
and formulae derived from the experience of past years.

D istrict Court Opinion o f June 24, 1963



8a

The gross pupil load for each school is then broken down 
into class-by-class figures which are furnished to the As­
sistant Superintendents. Based upon these figures, classes 
are organized and pupils assigned thereto; the curriculum 
is established for each school; necessary supplies are deter­
mined and ordered; class-room teachers are assigned, in­
volving in many cases individual transfers; and school 
busses are allocated and routed.

9. The registration of the first-grade pupils for the term 
1963-64 was accomplished before the end of the last pre­
ceding school term. Each registrant was placed in a class, 
and teacher assignments made.

10. Substantially all of the planning for the 1963-64 
school session has already taken place, and most of the 
necessary administrative details have been accomplished. 
Teachers and the administrative personnel of the various 
schools have largely departed the area for additional pro­
fessional schooling, or are on vacation, or in other summer 
employment. 11

11. Any major re-allocation of pupils, as would be re­
quired in a general desegregation process, would require 
the abandonment of planning already accomplished and 
the evolving of new plans. Such planning would be more 
difficult of accomplishment than a normal plan in that the 
administrative personnel would be without knowledge of 
pupil distribution, and the formulae evolved in normal 
years would be inappropriate. Many administrative details 
already accomplished would require cancellation. It would 
be necessary that administrative and teaching personnel be

D istrict Court Opinion o f June 24, 1963



9a

available for consultation and study of the problems pecu­
liar to each of the schools involved. Many of these per­
sonnel are unavailable.

12. Teaching personnel would have to be re-assigned in 
many instances. In the realm of teacher assignment and 
transfer, many human difficulties exist. Consideration of 
community needs must be co-ordinated with consideration 
of individual teacher qualifications and personality. It 
would be necessary to ascertain the qualifications of each 
teacher to be assigned to desegregated schools.

13. By reason of limited physical facilities, personnel 
problems, and administrative commitments, it is not now, 
nor has it been since the hearing of the motion, reasonably 
possible to reorganize the school system of Mobile County 
within such time as to affect the school year 1963-64.

14. The applications by the individual student plaintiffs 
for transfer to Baker High School during January 1963, 
were denied for valid administrative reasons.

Opinion

Under the circumstances disclosed by the findings of fact, 
it is clear that the motion for interlocutory relief cannot be 
granted as a practical matter, independent of other consid­
erations. The radical revision of school attendance areas 
and other far-reaching administrative changes in the city- 
county school system contemplated by the motion, simply 
cannot be managed within the time available. It is very 
doubtful that it could have been managed within a period

D istrict Court Opinion of June 24, 1963



10a

of four to six months, even if all teachers and other admin­
istrative personnel were available for the entire time, which 
they are not. It is certain that no such order could now be 
made effective in the absence of every element which would 
be essential to its success—time, people, and, in all prob­
ability, money.

No plan or basis for general rearrangement of an entire 
local school system should be required by this or any court 
without affording to both the school authorities and the 
public ample time for consideration and discussion of alter­
natives. The arbitrary, hasty, and premature imposition 
of a plan would defeat the intended purpose and would 
create confusion, and impair the educational process for 
all pupils.

That it is impossible to predict what specific plan would 
be required upon the final outcome of this case, is made 
plain by the decision of Judge Lynne for the Northern Dis­
trict of Alabama in Armstrong v. Birmingham Board of 
Education, 220 F.Supp. 217. That decision was filed on 
May 28,1963, after the submission of this motion. It holds, 
following the decision upholding the validity of the Ala­
bama school placement and related laws by the Supreme 
Court of the United States in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 
Board of Education, 358 U.S. 101, 79 S.Ct. 221, 3 L.Ed.2d 
145 (1958), that the principle of the Brown case can be 
fairly and adequately applied by the school authorities 
through the processing of applications pursuant to the 
State laws, and that any denial of constitutional rights in 
the handling of such applications can be corrected by the 
District Court on motion or by other proper proceeding.

D istrict Court Opinion of June 24, 1963



11a

Although the Armstrong decision would not necessarily 
be controlling here after final hearing, it does furnish a 
sound and appropriate basis for rejecting the notion that 
the sweeping reorganization proposed by the motion is now 
necessary for plaintiffs’ protection.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 318 F.2d 63, in its 
per curiam opinion in this case, handed down on May 24, 
1963, had this to say: “ The Supreme Court in the second 
Brown case [Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka], 
1955, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083, and in 
Cooper v. Aaron, 1958, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 
5, wisely left an area of discretion in the desegregation 
process in the District Courts, feeling that they were close 
to the local problems, and to school officials, and the chil­
dren involved.”

In line with this, I feel compelled to state here that this 
court ordered the desegregation of the municipal golf 
course in Mobile on the 13th day of March 1961. That case 
had been held under advisement for fourteen months. The 
opinion was written long prior to its release. The time of 
release was chosen by the court as being opportune, and 
evidently it was. There has been no incident on the golf 
course since its integration.

This court took under submission on July 25, 1961, mo­
tions to dismiss in the desegregation case involving the 
facilities of the Mobile Municipal Airport. On October 3, 
1961, the motions were denied. The case is still pending, 
but will be dismissed as moot. The Airport facilities have 
long since been integrated. The court, close to the com­
munity and its problems, believed that this would come 
about voluntarily and without the necessity of judicial en­

D istrict Court Opinion o f June 24, 1963



12a

forcement. Relying upon this belief proved providential. 
There has not been the first incident.

There is now pending in this court a case for the deseg­
regation of the City Bus Lines for the City of Mobile. The 
City Bus Lines have long since been integrated. There 
have been no incidents, though the court has never ruled 
on this case. This case, at the appropriate time, will also 
very likely be dismissed as moot, though there is one city 
ordinance which must either be repealed or be stricken 
down by the court.

The libraries in the City of Mobile have long since been 
integrated, though no case was ever filed for their inte- 
gation. Many drugstore lunch counters in Mobile are inte­
grated, and many chain-store lunch counters have been 
integrated, though no suits have been filed.

Mobile is perhaps the most desegregated city in the 
South, with no unfortunate incidents. If and when the 
appellate courts are called upon to pass on the procedure 
which the District Court here outlines, is it too much to ask 
that they be mindful of that “ area of discretion in the 
desegregation process to the District Courts,” left by the 
Supreme Court in the second Brown case, and approved 
as wise by the Court of Appeals for this Circuit in the 
instant case? If so, this court has every reason to believe 
that the mandate of the court will be honestly, conscien­
tiously, and fairly carried out with the least possible, if not 
complete absence of, unfortunate incidents.

The specific relief prayed for in the motion will be de­
nied. The case will be set for trial on the 14th day of 
November 1963. Consideration of the motion to dismiss,

D istrict Court Opinion o f June 24, 1963



13a

D istrict Court Opinion o f June 24, 1963

filed by the defendants, will be reserved until the trial of 
the cause. Defendants will be granted twenty days from 
the date of this order to file an answer.

In addition to any other relevant evidence which defen­
dants may choose to offer, they will be directed to prepare 
and present at the trial a specific plan for the operation 
of the schools of Mobile County on a racially non-discrim- 
inatory basis, consistent with the principles established by 
the Supreme Court, to commence at the beginning of the 
1964-65 school year.

Entered this the 24th day of June 1963.



14a

Before B bowit, W isdom and B ell , Circuit Judges. 

P eb Cu biam .

Plaintiffs here seek an injunction by this Court pending 
our determination of the merits of an appeal from an order 
entered on June 24, 1963, by the District Court for the 
Southern District of Alabama. This suit originated when 
Plaintiffs filed a class action seeking the desegregation of 
the Mobile County school system. Plaintiffs sought an im­
mediate order requiring the Defendant School Commis­
sioners to submit a plan of desegregation within thirty days. 
This motion was denied by the District Court. In the alter­
native, Plaintiffs sought a preliminary and permanent in­
junction prohibiting the further operation of segregated 
schools. The Court took this motion under submission and 
ordered briefs to be filed within a specified time. Plaintiffs 
appealed from this ruling asserting that the failure to im­
mediately rule on the motion for preliminary injunction 
amounted to a denial of the motion. On that appeal, this 
Court held that the trial Judge had not abused his discre­
tion. Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 
County, 5 Cir., 1963, 318 F.2d 63.

Subsequently, the District Court held a hearing and made 
the following determination. By its order of June 24, the 
Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. 
The case was set for trial on November 14, 1963 and the 
Defendants were directed “ to present at the trial # * a
specific plan for the operation of the schools under their 
authority and control on a racially non-discriminatory 
basis, consistent with the principles established by the Su­

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963



15a

preme Court, to commence not later than the beginning of 
the 1964-65 school year.” It is from this order that Plain­
tiffs have appealed to this Court, seeking in the meantime 
an injunction requiring the Mobile County schools to com­
mence integration not later than September 1963.

We are in agreement with Plaintiff’s theory. The De­
fendant Board has not come forward with an acceptable 
reason why the integration program should be further de­
layed. No one disputes that the public schools of Mobile 
County are presently operated on a segregated basis.

“ It is now more than nine years since this Court held 
in the first Brown decision * * * 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 
686, 98 L. Ed. 873, that racial segregation in state pub­
lic schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment.

# # # # #
“ Given the extended time which has elapsed, it is far 
from clear that the mandate of the second Brown deci­
sion [349 U.S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 1083] re­
quiring that desegregation proceed with ‘all deliberate 
speed’ would today be fully satisfied by types of plans 
or programs for desegregation of public educational 
facilities which eight years ago might have been 
deemed sufficient. Brown never contemplated that the 
concept of ‘deliberate speed’ would countenance in­
definite delay in elimination of racial barriers in 
schools * * Watson v. City of Memphis, 1963, 373 
U.S. 526, 83 S. Ct. 1314, 10 L. Ed.2d 529.

“ Now * * * eight years after [the second Brown deci­
sion] was rendered and over nine years after the first

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f July 9, 1963



16a

Brown decision, the context in which we mnst interpret 
and apply this language [‘all deliberate speed’] to 
plans for desegregation has been significantly altered.” 
Boss v. Board of Education of City of Knoxville, 1963, 
373 U.S. 683, 83 S. Ct. 1405, 10 L. Ed.2d 632.

The District Judge in his memorandum opinion discusses 
two principal reasons why preliminary injunctive relief 
should not now be granted. The first is that there would 
be an impossible administrative burden placed on the school 
system. The second is the Court’s belief, based upon ex­
perience over the past several years in other race civil 
rights matters, that if this action is not too hastily taken, 
the problem will work itself out with no strife or similar 
consequences.

For reasons which bear on both of them, we think neither 
of these grounds is sufficient. The administrative problem 
is not one created by the Plaintiffs. They have for nearly 
a year sought without success to get the school authorities 
to desegregate the schools. The fact that the suit was not 
filed until March 1963 is not therefore of controlling im­
portance. As to the second ground, there is nothing on the 
present record to afford either the District Judge or this 
Court any assurance that the requested forebearance will 
produce effective results. The Defendants have not even 
answered as yet. They have filed a motion to dismiss for 
failure to state a claim. Although it seems to be acknowl­
edged on all hands that a racially segregated system is still 
maintained, the Defendants’ legal position under this mo­
tion is that the Plaintiffs have not set forth a claim entitling 
them to relief. So far as this record shows, the Defendant

Court o f A ppeals Opinion o f July 9, 1963



school authorities have not to this day ever acknowledged 
that (a) the present system is constitutionally invalid or 
(b) that there is any obligation on their part to make any 
changes at any time. At this late date the Plaintiffs, who 
represent Negro children who are presently being denied 
constitutional rights, are entitled to minimum effective re­
lief. With the trial date now fixed in November, it means 
that effective relief is denied for another school year with 
no assurance that even at such later date anything but a 
reaffirmation of the teaching of the Brown decision will be 
forthcoming. The Plaintiffs showed a clear case entitling 
them to interim relief pending a final hearing, and it was 
an abuse of the District Court’s discretion not to enter a 
preliminary injunction.

The “ All Writs” statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651, gives us the 
power to grant the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Stell v. 
Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education, 5 Cir., 
1963, 318 F.2d 425. However, as in that case, we think it 
more appropriate to frame the injunction and direct by 
mandate that this injunction be made the order of the Dis­
trict Court.

It is therefore, Ordered that the District Court for the 
Southern District of Alabama enter the following judgment 
and order:

“ The Defendant, Board of School Commissioners of 
Mobile County and the other individual Defendants 
(naming them specifically) and their agents, servants, 
employees, successors in office and those in concert with 
them who shall receive notice of this order, be and they 
are hereby restrained and enjoined from requiring and 
permitting segregation of the races in any school un­

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f July 9, 1963



18a

der 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-discrimina- 
tory basis with all deliberate speed, as required by the 
Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education of 
Topeka, 1955, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 
1083.

“ It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that 
said persons be and they are hereby required to make 
an immediate start in the desegregation of the school 
of Mobile County, and that a plan be submitted to the 
District Court by August 1, 1963, which shall include a 
statement that the maintenance of separate schools for 
the Negro and white children of Mobile County shall 
be completely ended with respect to the first grade 
during the school year commencing September 1963, 
and with respect to at least one successively higher 
additional grade each school year thereafter.”

The District Court may modify this order to defer de­
segregation of rural schools in Mobile County until Sep­
tember 1964, should the District Court after further hear­
ing conclude that special planning of administrative prob­
lems for rural schools in the county make it impracticable 
for such schools to start desegregation in September 1963.

This order shall remain in effect until the final deter­
mination of the appeal of the within case in the Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on the merits, and until the 
further order of this Court. During the pendency of this 
order the trial court is further directed to enter such other 
and further orders as may be appropriate or necessary in 
carrying out the expressed terms of this order.

The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f July 9, 1963



19a

B ell, Circuit Judge (dissenting).

I dissent. I would support the view of the District Judge 
that the time remaining before the opening of school in 
September is insufficient to make the change from a segre­
gated to a desegregated school system as requested.

The chance of disruption of the educational process in 
Mobile likely to be encountered in planning and effecting 
the necessary changes on such short notice outweighs the 
damage which may be incurred by Plaintiffs in waiting 
another year. Thus, I would not hold that the District 
Judge abused his discretion. The loss of the year can be 
made up by requiring that two grades be desegregated be­
ginning in 1964. I would join in the order if it encompassed 
this change.

Time for the effectuation of orderly school management 
procedures is essential, and we should be careful not to give 
rise to an untoward situation in school administration at 
this late hour. Registration for the upcoming term has been 
completed, and school officials and staffs are in the vaca­
tion season. This is particularly so where we are passing 
on a motion in a case not filed until March, 1963.

O n  P etition  foe R eheaeing

P er Cu biam .

This matter is before the Court on the petitioners’ appli­
cation for a rehearing.

July 9, 1963, this Court by mandate directed the District 
Court to enter an injunction and order requiring the Board

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f July 9, 1963



20a

of Commissioners of Mobile County to submit to the Dis­
trict Court by August 1, 1963, a step-ladder plan for de­
segregating the public schools in Mobile, starting with the 
first grade in September 1963. Three days later, another 
panel of the Court decided Armstrong v. Board of Educa­
tion of the City of Birmingham, No. 20595, 5 Cir., 323 F.2d 
333. In that case the Court declined to issue an injunction 
pending appeal which would go so far as to provide “when 
and how the complete desegregation of the public schools 
may be accomplished.” The Court’s mandate requires the 
Birmingham School Board to submit by August 19, 1963, 
a plan for an immediate start in desegregation by applying 
the Alabama Pupil Placement Law to all school grades.

At this initial stage in the travail of desegregating the 
public schools in Alabama, the School Boards of Mobile 
and Birmingham face substantially the same social, legal, 
and administrative difficulties. We express no opinion of 
the merits of uniformity in school desegregation as against 
a school board’s tailoring a plan and a trial judge’s shaping 
a decree, to fit a particular school system. But we have 
reached the conclusion that at this early point in the legal 
proceedings, at a time when no school board in Alabama 
has formulated any plan for desegregation, there should 
not be one law for Birmingham and another for Mobile. 
We have decided therefore to conform the Mobile order to 
the Birmingham order.

Accordingly, the Court amends the judgment and order 
of July 9, 1963, issued as the mandate, by deleting the fol­
lowing paragraph:

Court o f A ppeals Opinion o f July 9, 1963



21a

“ It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that 
said persons be and they are hereby required to make 
an immediate start in the desegregation of the school 
of Mobile County, and that a plan be submitted to the 
District Court by August 1, 1963, which shall include a 
statement that the maintenance of separate schools for 
the Negro and white children of Mobile County shall 
be completely ended with respect to the first grade dur­
ing the school year commencing September 1963, and 
with respect to at least one successively higher addi­
tional grade each school year thereafter.”

and, in lieu thereof, directs the District Court for the South­
ern District of Alabama to enter the following paragraph 
as its judgment and order:

“ It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that 
said persons be and they are hereby required to submit 
to this Court not later than August 19, 1963, a plan 
under which the said defendants propose to make an 
immediate start in the desegregation of the schools of 
Mobile County, Alabama, which plan shall effectively 
provide for the carrying into effect not later than the 
beginning of the school year commencing September 
1963 and thereafter of the Alabama Pupil Placement 
Law as to all school grades without racial discrimina­
tion, including ‘the admission of new pupils entering 
the first grade, or coming into the County for the first 
time, on a nonracial basis,’ Augustus v. Board of Pub­
lic Instruction, 5 Cir., 1962, 306 F.2d 862, 869 (that 
opinion describes such a plan which has been approved 
and is operating in Pensacola, Florida).”

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963



2 2a

As in the Birmingham decision, the order contemplates 
a full hearing before the District Court. The District Court 
will therefore go forward with the trial already fixed for 
November 14, 1963.

Except to the extent expressly granted herein, the peti­
tioners’ application for a rehearing is denied.

The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate, as amended, 
forthwith.

B ell , Circuit Judge (concurring in part and dissenting 
in part).

The modification by the majority of their prior order in 
this case compounds error. Of course, I agree to the modifi­
cation to the extent that it may alleviate disruption of the 
educational process in Mobile during the 1963-1964 school 
term.

My understanding of this latest order is not altogether 
clear. It appears to simply require activation, under some 
plan yet to be worked out, of the Alabama School Place­
ment Law which was adopted by the Legislature of that 
State in 1957, and which was approved as constitutional on 
its face in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Board of Educa­
tion, N. D. Ala., 1958, 162 P. Supp. 372, affirmed 358 U.S. 
101, 79 S. Ct. 221, 3 L. Ed.2d 145. It is not likely that any 
appreciable amount of desegregation will take place under 
that law at this late date. The protective measures assured 
by Judge Lynne in the Armstrong case of a hearing on com­
plaints if and where the plan or law is administered on the 
basis of race on five days notice is not present in Mobile. 
It is an inherently complicated law providing many factors 
which may be considered in making pupil assignments. We

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f July 9, 1963



23a

have only recently eliminated two of them in the Atlanta 
school case where we said that the use of scholastic stand­
ards and personality interviews as a basis in transfer and 
assignment were illegal per se which applied only to Ne­
groes. Calhoun v. Latimer, 5 Cir., 1963, 321 F.2d 302. 
Others were eliminated or limited when that case was in 
the District Court. Calhoun v. Board of Education, N. D. 
Ga., 188 F. Supp. 401. Working out a meaningful plan will 
not be easy, and will require more than the cursory and per­
functory treatment the case has received here.

Moreover, what was done in Birmingham may or may 
not be relevant to Mobile. The case there had been pending- 
in the District Court some three years. The District Court 
conducted a hearing and had certain representatives from 
the school board as to how the Pupil Placement Law would 
be administered. Here no party has ever mentioned using 
this law. The District Court has never considered it.

This case is set for trial on the merits in November. A 
pending motion to dismiss is set at the same time. The 
District Court has ordered the school board to propose at 
that time a plan for desegregation of the school system be­
ginning in September 1964 within the teachings of the Su­
preme Court decisions on that subject.

It has been the position of appellants that their ultimate 
right to a desegregated school system is cast in doubt by 
the pending motion to dismiss, and the fact that the case 
is set for trial on the merits even though the school system 
is now segregated. One of the real thrusts of the appeal 
is their contention that they cannot be certain that desegre­
gation will become a reality in the school term commencing 
in September 1964 because of this posture of the case. An

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f July 9, 1963



24a

order of the type originally entered but making desegrega­
tion effective with the beginning of school in September 
1964, and in at least two grades, should serve to dispel this 
doubt and the record warrants such an order. In warrants 
nothing more. The school board would have the oppor­
tunity in the interim of formulating a desegregation plan, 
subject to court approval, and making ready for the good 
faith adaptation of the plan.

The modification has been neither sought nor considered 
and will come as a great surprise to all. It will in all prob­
ability be ineffective. I do not understand the inordinate 
hurry in this case. It has only been pending three and one 
half months. It has been to this court twice in that short 
time.

Probably no party will consider the relief granted or 
denied to be a victory, but what has been done is at the ex­
pense of the judicial process. A Court of Appeals should 
not sit as a District Court in chancery to mold and enter 
an equitable decree affecting an entire school system in a 
metropolitan community without hearing from the parties 
on the nature of the decree, and without facts before it 
to serve as a basis for the decree. The All-Writs Statute, 
28 U.S.C.A., § 1651, does not authorize this. It must con­
template rules of procedure, notice, record facts, and an 
opportunity to be heard, all after time for consideration by 
the District Court. It applies only in cases of emergency 
proportions. To state this belief is to at once demonstrate 
that I cannot join in the procedure here. Therefore, I must 
dissent, except as otherwise stated, with the admonition 
that more constitutional rights will be lost than gained in 
the long run by departure from procedures which have

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f July 9, 1963



25a

stood the test of time, and which are a part of due process 
of law as we have heretofore known it. In fact, more may 
be eventually lost in this very case.

While this appeal must have been considered as present­
ing something in the nature of a judicial emergency in the 
beginning; otherwise it would not have been twice advanced 
over the many other cases pending in this court, it is plain 
to me that it now has no emergency proportions. I would 
remand it to the District Court for action on the basis of 
reasoned and informed discretion in the light of necessary 
facts and argument, consistent with the law in the premises 
and the guidelines which I have set out regarding Septem­
ber 1964.

Cameron, Circuit Judge (dissenting).

On July 11, 1963, I requested a hearing of this case en 
banc by writing all of the Judges of the Court in active 
service as follows:

“ Pursuant to Rule 25(a) of this Court, I hereby initi­
ate consideration by each of the Circuit Judges in ac­
tive service of whether to order a hearing or rehear­
ing of this case en banc. Included in this motion is the 
request that the issuance of the mandate be stayed until 
the attitude of the members of the Court can be ascer­
tained and that the Chief Judge proceed to poll the 
Court on this motion. * * *

“ I am of the opinion * * * that the case was not 
legally advanced for hearing or placed on the docket 
for hearing at the time it was heard, it being my under­
standing that the order was signed by Judge Tuttle on

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f July 9, 1963



26a

June 28th after the judgment of the district court had 
been entered June 24th.

“ I think, too, that there is considerable doubt about 
the jurisdiction of this panel to hear the case. It is my 
understanding that this panel had under consideration 
before we adjourned for the summer the Theron Lynd 
case * * * Its right to consider and adjudicate the Davis 
case is, I think, subject to serious question.

“ I assume that the record before the Court in New 
Orleans was sent up under our Rule 23(4), which is 
a substantial rescript of Rule 75 ( j ), Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure. That portion of our Rules refers only 
to a motion ‘for any intermediate order.’ I do not think 
the order which this Court directed the district court 
to enter can be classified as an intermediate order. It 
seems to me it is the equivalent of a final judgment 
granting all of the relief which the plaintiffs-appellants 
would be entitled to under a hearing on the merits and, 
in fact, dispenses with a hearing on the merits.

“ For these reasons and others, including the fact 
that I see from the press that the appellees have made 
or intend to make a motion for a hearing en banc, I 
respectfully make this request.”

The panel of Judges B row n , W isdom and B ell filed two 
per curiam opinions, one dated July 9, 1963 in which Judge 
B ell dissented, and the second filed July 18, 1963 in which 
Judge B ell concurred in part and dissented in part.

Being advised that a majority of the members of this 
Court in active service did not support my request for en 
banc hearing, I respectfully dissent from the action of the

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963



27a

members of the Court in refusing to grant an en banc hear­
ing. The principles discussed in my dissenting opinion in 
No. 20595, Armstrong et al. v. Board of Education of the 
City of Birmingham, et al., 5 Cir., 323 F.2d 333, are in my 
judgment controlling in this case also and I adopt that opin­
ion as a part of this one.

The panel to which this case was assigned by the Chief 
Judge on July 1, 19631 was a panel designated for a former 
term of this Court. Assuming that it was empowered to 
act, during the intervening time, on a case which it had 
under consideration when the term ended, it would not, in 
my opinion, have jurisdiction to hear the present case un­
der special designation by the Chief Judge acting alone. 
As stated in the Armstrong case, it seems to me clear from 
the statutes and the Supreme Court decisions cited there 
and the Eules of this Court, that the assignment of Judges 
and of cases for hearing is a matter entrusted solely to the 
Court as a body.

To hold that one Judge is vested with authority to fix the 
time and place where a case is to be heard, and to select 
the Judges who shall hear it, is, in my judgment, to decide 
that one man has power in excess of any which has been 
committed to any individual under this government of laws.

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f July 9, 1963

1 “ The within motion for an injunction pending appeal is hereby 
set for hearing before a panel of this Court to be convened in New 
Orleans, Louisiana, July 8, 1963, to follow immediately after the 
hearing in the case of United States v. Lynd, 5 Cir., 321 F.2d 26. 

“ This 28th day of June, 1963.
“ Elbert P. Tuttle 
“ Chief Judge 
“ Fifth Circuit”



28a

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f July 9 , 1 9 6 3

It is clear, moreover, that there is no showing here that 
the case is exceptional or extreme or which demonstrates 
a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power 
such as the panel of this Court thought it discovered in 
Stell et al. v. Savannah-Chatham County Board of Educa­
tion et al., May 24, 1963, 318 F.2d 425. I

I respectfully dissent.



29a

In keeping with the mandate of the United States Conrt 
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, issued July 18, 1963, 
amending its judgment and order of July 9,1963, it is

Ordered, adjudged and decreed by this court that the 
judgment and order of this court entered July 11, 1963, be 
and it hereby is amended by deleting the following para­
graph :

“ It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that 
said persons be and they are hereby required to make 
an immediate start in the desegregation of the school 
of Mobile County, and that a plan be submitted to the 
District Court by August 1, 1963, which shall include 
a statement that the maintenance of separate schools 
for the Negro and white children of Mobile County 
shall be completely ended with respect to the first 
grade during the school year commencing September 
1963, and with respect to at least one successively 
higher additional grade each school year thereafter.”

and in lieu thereof the following paragraph is entered as 
the judgment and order of this court:

“It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that said 
persons be and they are hereby required to submit to this 
Court not later than August 19, 1963, a plan under which 
the said defendants propose to make an immediate start 
in the desegregation of the schools of Mobile County, Ala­
bama, which plan shall effectively provide for the carrying 
into effect not later than the beginning of the school year

District Court Order of July 26, 1963



30a

D istrict Court Order o f July 2 6 , 1 9 6 3

commencing September 1963 and thereafter of the Alabama 
Pnpil Placement Law as to all school grades without racial 
discrimination, including ‘the admission of new pupils en­
tering the first grade, or coming into the County for the 
first time, on a nonracial basis,’ Augustus v. Board o f Public 
Instruction, 5 Cir. 1962, 306 F.2d 862, 869 (that opinion 
describes such a plan which has been approved and is oper­
ating in Pensacola, Florida).”

Dated this the 26th day of July 1963.

/ s /  D aniel  H . T homas 
D istrict Judge



31a

M r . J ustice B lack .

I am asked to stay an order of the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit requiring the Board of 
School Commissioners of Mobile County, Alabama, to take 
action in two respects: F irs t : To refrain “ from requiring 
and permitting segregation of the races in 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 nondiscriminatory basis with 
all deliberate speed, as required by the Supreme Court in 
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1955, 349 U.S. 
294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L, Ed. 1083.”

Second: To submit to the District Court “not later than 
August 19, 1963, a plan under which the said defendants 
propose to make an immediate start in the desegregation 
of the schools of Mobile County, Alabama, . . . not later 
than the beginning of the school year commencing Sep­
tember 1963 . . . .”

Although a judge of the panel which entered this order 
refused to grant a stay, I would nevertheless stay the order 
if persuaded by the record that the questions presented for 
review in the petition for certiorari had sufficient merit to 
make review by this Court likely. I do not believe that the 
questions have such merit.

First. Under the facts in the record, the Court of Ap­
peals’ order that the Board refrain from “ requiring and 
permitting segregation” is completely justified by our hold­
ing in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 98 L. Ed.

Opinion of Mr. Justice Black, 8/16/63, Denying Stay



32a

873, 74 S. Ct. 686, 38 ALE 2d 1180, and 349 U.S. 294, 99 
L. Ed. 1083, 75 S. Ct. 753. And see Cooper v. Aaron, 358 
U.S. 1, 3 L. Ed. 2d 5, 78 S. Ct. 1401. The injunction was 
carefully limited to allow “ such time as may be necessary 
to make arrangements for admission of children to such 
schools on a racially non-discriminatory basis with all de­
liberate speed . . . .” This injunction was necessary because 
the record showed without dispute that racial segre­
gation was and had been the unbroken practice in the 
Mobile schools and that the Board had no plans to do away 
with that practice in the foreseeable future. Under such 
circumstances our prior decisions plainly impose upon 
courts a duty to protect against such unlawful discrim­
ination.

Second. The Board also challenges the requirement that 
it submit, not later than August 19, 1963, a plan for “ an 
immediate start in the desegregation of the schools of 
Mobile County” not later than the beginning of the Sep­
tember 1963 school year. In adopting this part of its order, 
the Court of Appeals rejected the District Court’s decree, 
which allowed the Board to postpone action until after the 
1963 school term had begun. The Board argues that to 
require action for the 1963 school year gives it too little 
time and could disrupt the school system. But the first 
Brown decision was rendered in 1954—nine years ago. 
That case and others that followed have made it abundantly 
clear that racial segregation in public schools is unconsti­
tutional. Yet this record fails to show that the Mobile 
Board has made a single move of any kind looking towards 
a constitutional public school system. Instead, the Board

Opinion o f Mr. Justice Black, 8/16/63, Denying Stay



33a

in this case has rested on its insistence that continuation 
of the segregated system is in the best interests of the 
colored people and that desegregation would “ seriously de­
lay and possibly completely stop” the Board’s building pro­
gram, “particularly the improvement and completion of 
sufficient colored schools which are so urgently needed.” 
In recent years, more than 50% of its building funds, the 
Board pointed out to the parents and guardians of its col­
ored pupils, had been spent to “build and improve colored 
schools,” and of eleven million dollars that would be spent 
in 1963, over seven million would be devoted to “colored 
schools.” The record fails to indicate when, if ever, the 
Board intends to take a first step towards making its pub­
lic school system conform to the constitutional guarantee 
of equal protection of the laws. Far from claiming that it 
intended to desegregate the schools, the Board asked com­
plaining parents to believe that “ it would be detrimental 
to 99% of the colored children in the public schools for any 
token integration to be attempted at this time.”

It is quite apparent from these statements that Mobile 
County’s program for the future of its public school sys­
tem “lends itself to perpetuation of segregation,” a conse­
quence which the Court recently had occasion to condemn 
as unlawful. Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 683, 686, 
10 L. Ed. 2d 632, 635, 83 S. Ct. 1405. And while the second 
Brown decision said that elimination of racial segregation 
in public schools should proceed “with all deliberate speed” 
that term was not intended, as the Court recently empha­
sized in Watson v. Memphis, 373 U.S. 526,10 L. Ed. 2d 529, 
83 S. Ct. 1314, to excuse an indefinite withholding of con­
stitutional rights. Indeed, in the very Brown Case which

Opinion o f Mr. Justice Black, 8/16/63, Denying Stay



34a

Opinion o f M r .  Justice Black, 8 / 1 6 / 6 3 , Denying Stay

used the term “ deliberate speed,” the Court also unan­
imously declared that “While giving weight to . . . public 
and private considerations, the courts will require that the 
defendants make a broad and reasonable start toward full 
compliance with our May 17, 1954, ruling.” 349 U.S. at 300. 
It is difficult to conceive of any administrative problems 
which could justify the Board in failing in 1963 to make 
a start towards ending the racial discrimination in the pub­
lic schools which is forbidden by the Equal Protection 
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as authoritatively 
determined by this Court in Brown nine years ago. Com­
pare Watson v. Memphis, supra (373 U.S. at 529, 530); 
Goss v. Board of Education, supra (373 U.S. at 689).

I cannot believe that this Court would seriously consider 
upsetting the Court of Appeals’ order. The stay is denied.



35a

District Court Order of August 23, 1963

This cause coming on to be considered by the Court 
pursuant to notice, with counsel for the respective parties 
being present and heard, on a proposed plan as heretofore 
filed by the Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 
County, Alabama, and objections to particulars thereto filed 
by plaintiffs, it is, upon consideration, hereby

Ordered:

1. The proposed plan as submitted by the Board of 
School Commissioners of Mobile County, Alabama, and 
filed herein on August 19, 1963, pursuant to previous order 
of this Court, be and it hereby is approved with the follow­
ing amendments and modifications:

(1) The so-called “cut-off date” for the 1963-64 school 
term, referred to in paragraph (5) of the Plan and 
at other places therein, shall be changed from July 31, 
1963, to on or before August 28, 1963, for 12th grade 
pupils.

(2) The defendants, prior to the beginning of the 
1963-64 term of school on September 4,1963, shall proc­
ess all applications for transfer heretofore received, 
and all such applications for transfer of 12th grade 
pupils that may be received not later than said ex­
tended date, August 28, 1963.

This Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of mak­
ing and entering such further orders as may be necessary 
to accomplish the essential purposes of the Plan as herein 
modified and approved.

D one and ordered at Mobile, Alabama, this the 23rd day 
of August 1963.

D aniel F. T homas 
District Judge



36a

Before M aris,* Gew in  and B ell, Circuit Judges.

Ge w in , Circuit Judge.

This appeal presents for our review litigation with re­
spect to the desegregation of the public school system of 
Mobile County, Alabama. The case has received the atten­
tion of this Court on two former occasions. The first time 
it arose on a petition in the nature of an appeal from an 
alleged denial of injunctive relief, which petition was 
grounded on the premise that the failure of the District 
Court to rule promptly constituted a denial of relief and 
was therefore an appealable order. In addition the peti­
tioners sought relief in the nature of an application for 
writ of mandamus directed to the District Judge. The peti­
tion was denied and the appeal dismissed. Davis v. Bd. of 
School Commissioners of Mobile County, Alabama (5th 
Cir. 1963) 318 F.2d 63.

After hearing in the District Court, an appeal was taken, 
and the cause was advanced on our docket pursuant to a 
motion for an injunction pending appeal. This Court- 
granted the injunction pending appeal on July 9, 1963, and 
on petition for rehearing amended its order on July 18, 
1963. Davis v. Bd. of School Commissioners of Mobile 
County, Alabama (5th Cir. 1963) 322 F.2d 356, cert. den. 
375 U.S. 894, 84 S.Ct. 170, 11 L.Ed.2d 123. We now con­
sider the appeal on the merits.

In its original order dated June 24, 1963, the District 
Court denied injunctive relief against the Board of School 
Commissioners as sought by the plaintiffs (appellants).

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 18, 1964

* Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.



37a

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 
Alabama (D.C.S.D.Ala. 19G3) 219 F.Supp. 542. Following 
our decision, supra, the District Court entered its order 
dated July 11,1963, amended July 26,1963, pursuant to the 
mandate of this Court. Thereafter the School Board pre­
sented a plan to the District Court for its consideration. 
After a hearing on objections resulting in some modifica­
tions, the District Court approved the plan and the plain­
tiffs appealed. The plan operated during the school session 
commencing in September, 1963, but was limited to the 12th 
grade, and it was not applied to rural schools.

We deem it unnecessary to set forth the details of the 
proposed plan except to say that it was based essentially 
upon the Alabama Pupil Placement Law. While somewhat 
more detailed and precise, the Mobile plan was similar in 
many essential respects to the plan proposed in Birming­
ham, Armstrong v. Bd. of Education of the City of Birming­
ham, Alabama (5th Cir. 1964) 333 F.2d 47, the opinion in 
which has been rendered simultaneously with this opinion. 
It should be noted that the mandates of this Court in 
Mobile and in Birmingham, when we granted an injunc­
tion pending appeal, are essentially identical, except that 
in Mobile the District Court was authorized to defer de­
segregation of rural schools in Mobile County until Sep­
tember, 1964.1 There are other differences in the two cases.

1 “ The District Court may modify this order to defer desegrega­
tion of rural schools in Mobile County until September 1964, should 
the District Court after further hearing conclude that special plan­
ning of administrative problems for rural schools in the county make 
it impracticable for such schools to start desegregation in September 
1963.” Davis v. Board of School Com’rs of Mobile County, Ala. 
(5th Cir. 1963) 322 F.2d 356.

Court of A ppeals Opinion of June 18, 1964



38a

For example, in Mobile the Board of School Commissioners 
operates the entire school system for Mobile County and 
there is one Superintendent of Schools for the entire county. 
Differences which do exist are not material to our con­
sideration here.

As mentioned above, we have rendered our opinion on 
the merits of the Birmingham  case simultaneously with this 
opinion. Our decision in Birmingham  is controlling here, 
and we consider it unnecessary to repeat now what was 
there said, except to point out some of the more salient 
factors with respect to minimum requirements in school 
desegregation cases of this type. We emphasize here as we 
did in Birmingham, that plans for desegregation must now 
proceed at a swifter pace in view of the ten-year period 
which has elapsed since the first Brown  decision;2 the re­
sponsibility and duty resting on school boards to provide 
a constitutional plan of desegregation; the necessity for the 
constitutional administration of the Alabama Pupil Place­
ment Law without regard to race or color; the hearing of 
complaints by the District Court with respect to the denial 
of constitutional rights, thus avoiding cumbersome admin­
istrative procedure; timely notice of the plan to interested 
persons; the abolition of dual school zones, areas, or dis­
tricts;3 and the retention of jurisdiction by the District 
Court for further implementation and supervision.

2 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 
L.Ed. 873 (1954). See also the implementing decision. Brown v. 
Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 
(1955).

3 As to such dual districts, school zones, or areas, the brief of the 
Board of School Commissioners states:

“ By implication, at least, in reference to attendance at 
schools of the district of the residence of each of the pupils

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f June 18, 1964



39a

Upon consideration of the evidence before us and giving 
consideration to the circumstances here involved, it is our 
conclusion that this cause be remanded to the District Court 
with instructions to require the Board of School Commis­
sioners of Mobile County, Alabama, to present to the Dis­
trict Court forthwith for its consideration a plan of de­
segregation which will meet the minimum standards set 
forth and outlined in the Birmingham  case.

The order of the District Court heretofore entered on 
June 24, 1963, denying injunctive relief is vacated; the 
orders of the District Court entered on July 11 and 26, 1963, 
pursuant to our mandate in this case, are continued until 
modified by the District Court; and the cause is remanded 
for the entry of appropriate orders not inconsistent here­
with.

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 18, 1964

when the plan has progressed to that particular grade, the 
system would be operating under a single-type district or 
attendance area arrangement. Again, without all of the testi­
mony adduced in the trial of the cause on the merits, before 
this court presently, it is difficult to present the entire picture. 
At the time of the trial on the merits, the Superintendent 
testified that there were only a few dual zones within the sys­
tem presently. He further testified that a major re-evaluation 
and re-draft of the school districts was in progress, or about 
to commence, which would eliminate even those few dual dis­
tricts that existed. Consequently, the objection by appellants 
to this aspect of the plan is one of letter rather than substance.”



40a

District Court Orders of July 29, 1964 
and July 31, 1964

T homas, District Judge.

It is hereby ordered that the Board of School Commis­
sioners of Mobile County, and the members thereof, submit 
to this the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of Alabama by filing with the Clerk thereof, on or 
before July 17,1964, a plan for desegregation in accordance 
with the directions and terms of the opinion and mandate 
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 
(in case No. 20657, Birdie Mae Davis, et al, Appellants vs. 
Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, et al, 
Appellees) rendered and issued June 18, 1964.

It is further ordered that on or before the date of the 
filing thereof, a copy of said plan be served by defendants 
in the manner provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Pro­
cedure, by mail or otherwise, upon the attorneys for the 
plaintiffs in this action, and that any objections to said pro­
posed plan which plaintiffs may desire to make, be filed and 
served upon the attorneys for the defendants on or before 
the 27th day of July, 1964. Hearing on such objections as 
may be filed will be heard before this Court in Mobile, 
Alabama, at 10:00 o’clock A.M., on July 29, 1964.

Ordered 29th day of June, 1964.
#  #  #  #  *



41a

A m endm ent  to P lan  S ubmitted by the  B oard 
oe S chool Commissioners oe M obile County, 

P ursuant to Order D ated J une 29, 1964

This Amendment to the Plan heretofore submitted under 
order of this Court dated July 11, 1963, as amended July 
26, 1963, is submitted pursuant to the order of this court 
entered June 29, 1964. Said order requires the submission 
of a plan to conform to the opinion and mandate of the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, ren­
dered and issued June 18, 1964.

The plan heretofore submitted is amended as follows:

1. By deleting Paragraph E. thereof and substituting in 
lieu thereof the following:

“ E. Pupils entering the first grade for the school year 
1964-65 were pre-registered near the end of last 
term and estimated enrollments for September, 
1964, were developed last February as to all grades 
except the first, eleventh and twelfth; following pre­
registration, the estimated enrollments were devel­
oped for the first grade; and, following the close of 
the April 1-15 transfer request period, for the 11th 
and 12th grades; building and classroom capacity 
have been adjusted thereto; school supplies, text­
books, and other materials and equipment have 
been allocated accordingly; schools have been 
staffed and teachers assigned on the same esti­
mated enrollments; and”

District Court Orders of July 29, 1964 and July 31, 1964



42a

2. By deleting Paragraph G. thereof and substituting in 
lieu thereof the following:

“ G. The problems in connection with any desegregation 
of the schools outside the corporate limits of the 
City of Mobile are substantially different from the 
problems involved for desegregation within the 
City of Mobile including the assignment of the com­
ponents of an intricate transportation system and 
it is not administratively feasible to expand this 
plan beyond the 11th and 12th grades for those 
schools outside the corporate limits of Mobile dur­
ing the term 1964-65.”

3. By deleting Paragraph (4) thereof and substituting 
in lieu thereof the following:

“ (4) Applicability of P lan: This plan had application 
in the school year 1963-64 to the 12th grade, in the City 
of Mobile schools only. In the school year 1964-65 it 
shall have application to the 11th and 12th grades in 
all schools of Mobile County; and to the 1st and 10th 
grades in City of Mobile schools. In 1965-66 it shall 
have application to Grades 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of all 
schools of Mobile County; in 1966-67 to grades above 
listed and in addition, to grades 3 and 8; in 1967-68 
to grades above listed and in addition to grades 4 and 
7; in 1.968-69 to grades above listed and, in addition, 
to grade 6; and in 1969-70 to grades above listed and, 
in addition, to grade 6.” 4

4. By deleting Paragraph (5) thereof and substituting 
in lieu thereof the following:

D istrict Court Orders o f July 29, 1964 and July 31, 1964



43a

“ (5) S p e c i a l  P r o v i s i o n s  f o r  1 9 6 4 -6 5 : Tlie period of 
August 4 through 6 is hereby established wherein 1st 
and 10th grade pupils in the City of Mobile may re­
quest transfers from schools to which they are as­
signed for 1964-65 or at which they are pre-registered. 
The transfer provisions of this plan shall apply and 
race or color will not he considered in acting upon these 
applications. Notice of action taken by the Assistant 
Superintendent on such requests will he given on or 
before August 22nd. Such action shall he final unless 
a Board hearing is requested in writing to reach the 
offices of the Board on or before 5:00 P.M., August 
28th. Public notice of this special transfer request 
period shall be given in a daily newspaper of general 
circulation in Mobile County, as a conscious reminder 
to parents and guardians.”

#  *  # *  *

T homas, D istrict Judge.

Order A pproving P lan  as M odified

This cause coming on to be considered by the Court pur­
suant to notice, with counsel for the respective parties 
being present, on a proposed Plan as heretofore filed on 
July 21, 1964, by the Board of School Commissioners of 
Mobile County, Alabama, and objections to particulars 
thereto filed by plaintiffs, it is, upon consideration, hereby

Ordered:

The proposed Plan as submitted by the Board of 
School Commissioners of Mobile County, Alabama, and 
filed herein on July 21, 1964, pursuant to the prior order

District Court Orders of July 29, 1964 and July 31, 1964



44a

of this Court, be and it hereby is approved with the fol­
lowing amendments and modifications:

(1) The period established in said Plan wherein first and 
tenth grade pupils in the City of Mobile may request 
transfers, as set out in Paragraph (5) thereof, shall 
be changed from August 4 through 6, to August 3 
through 10. Tenth grade pupils outside the corpo­
rate limits of the City of Mobile may also request 
transfers during said period.

(2) The public notice of the special transfer request pe­
riod as called for in Paragraph (5) of said Plan shall 
consist of the publication for three consecutive days, 
commencing Saturday, August 1, 1964, in a daily 
newspaper of general circulation in Mobile County, 
of a notice setting out the period wherein transfer 
requests may be made; the grades affected thereby; 
and the procedures for requesting such transfer.

(3) The application of said Plan for the school year 
1964-65, as set out in Paragraph (4) thereof, shall 
be changed so that the Plan shall have application 
in school year 1964-65 to the 10th, 11th and 12th 
grades in all schools of Mobile County and to the 
first grade in City of Mobile schools.

This Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of mak­
ing and entering such further orders as may be necessary 
to accomplish the essential purposes of the Plan as herein 
modified and approved.

Done and entered at Mobile, Alabama, this the 31st day 
of July, 1964.

D istrict Court Orders o f July 29, 1964 and July 31, 1964



45a

T homas, D istrict Judge.

F indings of F act

1. Beduced to its basic terms the desegregation plan un­
der which the defendant Board is operating the schools is 
as follows:

a. Each elementary school has a single attendance area. 
Each Junior High School serves a combination of at­
tendance areas. Each Senior High School serves a 
larger combination of elementary attendance areas.

b. It divides students, for administrative purposes, into 
3 categories: (1) Those now attending a particular 
school, by race, because of their residence in what was 
formerly a dual zone; (2) those now in attendance at 
schools where dual racial zones have never been in­
volved; and (3) those entering the school system for 
the first time (either as 1st graders, newcomers to the 
system in other grades, or those who have moved from 
one attendance area to another).

c. Students remain where enrolled unless a transfer is 
granted. Those in category (1) are granted transfers 
unless some compelling non-racial consideration dic­
tates otherwise; those in category (2) are considered 
for transfer without regard to race but applying other 
proper factors alike to all.

d. Newcomers, 1st graders and persons moving to a dif­
ferent attendance area have the absolute right to en­
roll in the school of the attendance area of their resi­

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



46a

dence or the option to enroll at the nearest school 
formerly serving their race.

e. The plan has application to grades 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 
12 in the school year 1965-66; to two additional grades 
per year for the next two years; and to one additional 
grade per year for the last two years.

2. A fifteen day transfer request period is prescribed for 
April 1-15 of each year, and prospective first grade pupils 
are pre-registered later in April for the following year. 
The practice of designating a period for transfer requests 
prior to the school year wherein they will be effective and 
the practice of preregistering first graders are adminis­
trative procedures long followed by the defendant Board, 
their inception having been before the knowledge of the 
present Superintendent who entered upon his duties with 
the Board in 1948.

3. The defendant Board makes no initial assignments 
of individual pupils, but permits the free exercise of op­
tions provided without regard to present racial make-up 
of the school or to the race of the pupil.

Initial enrollment involves no transfer nor other special 
action of the Board. The exercise of the option is accom­
plished simply by the pupil presenting himself at the school 
he selects and enrolling. This is the case whether the stu­
dent is entering the 1st grade, is a newcomer, or has moved 
from one district to another. It is also true regardless of 
the race of the pupil or the racial composition of the school. 4 *

4. The dual attendance areas based upon race have been
abolished and a new single attendance area system estab-

D istrict Court Opinion o f March 31, 1965



47a

lished. A map setting out the boundaries of the new at­
tendance areas has been furnished the court, considered by 
it and forms a part of the record in this cause. The practice 
of granting transfers to those enrolled in a particular 
school because of the old dual attendance areas has over­
come the discrimination existing because of these.

5. The newly adopted single attendance areas were not 
racially devised but arranged by giving due weight to 
proper factors, e.g., natural and nan-made barriers; safety 
factors, such as major thoroughfares; maximum use of fa­
cilities; transportation facilities and patterns, and other 
like considerations. The majority of these attendance areas 
have both races residing therein.

6. The neighborhood school organization is a longstand­
ing practice in the administration of the school system in 
Mobile County. It is founded on a sound educational basis 
and the defendant Board is amply justified in its use.

7. The defendant Board has historically permitted par­
ents some flexibility in selecting a school. A rigid system 
that requires all children of an area, without exception, to 
attend a particular school fails to take into account that 
school patrons and pupils are individuals with choices, likes 
and dislikes. Such rigidity is a major handicap to proper 
educational processes. However, such flexibility is limited 
by good administrative practices which require a reason­
able amount of specificity to permit adequate planning. 8 *

8. There are more than 79,000 pupils in the Mobile
County School System. There are 94 schools presently in

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



48a

the system with 8 additional schools in planning or con­
struction. Half-day sessions have been eliminated but 
39,000 students are in overcrowded conditions. The schools 
in the system have not been designated by race since the 
adoption of the plan.

9. In the administration of its plan, there is no evidence 
of any discrimination by virtue of race. The evidence sup­
ports equal application of the policies and provisions of 
the plan to both races and the Court so finds as a matter 
of fact.

10. No special tests are administered to pupils of either 
race requesting transfer. No denial of transfer is based 
on any test result. No transfer has been denied arbitrarily 
or unevenly as between the races. Approximately 500 pu­
pils filed requests for transfer for the school year 1964-65 
and less than half were granted. None was denied on the 
basis of race. This is a normal proportion of denials based 
upon past years’ experiences of the Board.

11. Sixteen Negro pupils requested transfers for the 
term 1964-65 to formerly white schools or schools with pre­
dominantly white student bodies. Seven were granted and 
nine denied. Each denial was based upon a non-diserim- 
inatory factor and transfer requests for many white pupils 
were denied on the same grounds. 12

12. The plan of the defendant Board contains criteria 
for use in the consideration of transfers, some of which 
have been discredited by the Courts. The Board did not use

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



49a

any of such discredited criteria in the weighing of transfer 
applications for the year 1964-65. These criteria should be 
stricken from the plan.

13. This Court has retained jurisdiction of this cause 
for further proceedings and to hear any complaints or 
charges of discriminatory application of the defendant 
Board’s plan. No complaint has been lodged or filed with 
this court by any individual as to any discriminatory ac­
tions of the Board in the administration of the plan.

14. Normally all pupils enrolled in a particular school 
do not commence attendance at the school for several days, 
even up to two to three weeks after school opens. The aver­
age daily attendance at any school in the Mobile County 
system from students already enrolled there will normally 
increase during the first month of school.

15. It is not practicable nor desirable for the Board to 
attempt to advise parents as to what school a child should 
apply for transfer to. Parental desire is a factor in grant­
ing transfers. Further it is not feasible for the defendant 
Board to act on transfer requests individually as received, 
since the effect of the total transfer requests must be ap­
praised before any may fairly be granted. The defendant 
Board has, as a matter of practice over the years, deferred 
action on any request until all are received and the end of 
the transfer request period reached.

16. From 1,000 to 3,000 pupils change schools annually 
in the Mobile County school system because their parents

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



50a

move from one attendance area to another. These changes 
are in addition to the normal transfers for other valid rea­
sons. Those pnpils so moving are permitted simply to re­
port to the school of their attendance area or the optional 
school without the necessity of transfer.

17. The teachers and administrators of those schools 
where Negro pnpils attend with a predominantly white 
student body have been fair and have treated the Negro 
students as any other pupil. While two of the student wit­
nesses testified to minor harassment by some students, it is 
clear from their testimony that the teachers treated them 
in a normal relationship. Breach of good conduct by white 
pupils was promptly dealt with by administrative person­
nel when reported or observed.

18. It was the opinion of the student witnesses that the 
course of studies at Murphy High School was more difficult 
than their prior school, Williamson; that they were learn­
ing more and the facilities were better at Murphy. The 
Court accepts this as findings of fact. Facilities vary from 
school to school as do teaching quality and standards. The 
Court takes judicial knowledge that Murphy High School 
is the largest school in the Mobile system and one of the 
largest in the State of Alabama. A large number of schools 
in the Mobile County system are overcrowded and the de­
fendant Board has been building new schools at a rapid 
rate. The actual physical plants in those schools attended 
predominantly by Negro pupils are essentially equivalent 
to those attended predominantly by white students; the 
teacher qualifications are the same; the salary schedules 
are the same; and the per capita expenditure is the same.

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



51a

19. A larger variety of special courses is offered at those 
schools attended predominantly by white pupils, although 
in many instances the number of schools offering a par­
ticular course is only one more in the case of white pupils. 
There are about 50% more white pupils in the system than 
Negro pupils, making it reasonable that more schools at­
tended predominantly by white pupils would offer a par­
ticular special subject. Many factors enter into a deter­
mination of courses offered in a particular school, and the 
course offerings vary from school to school without neces­
sary regard to the race of the pupils. Facilities, pupil in­
terest, location, and socio-economic factors all affect course 
offerings. There is no evidence that any application for 
transfer for the current year was predicated on a desire 
for a special course not offered by the school the pupil had 
been attending. The Assistant Superintendent in charge of 
pupil personnel could not recall a single such request.

20. The procedures for requesting a transfer have been 
administered without discrimination. It is required that a 
parent or guardian obtain the form from the School Board 
office. This is to prevent immature actions by pupils, who 
might abuse the transfer process. The requests must be 
signed by both parents, if reasonably possible; or when not 
practicable to do so, such circumstance must be noted. Not 
infrequently parents are divided over the choice of school, 
and a transfer should be granted only where the family is 
united in the request. The Court finds no good purpose to 
be served by the requirement that the executed form must 
be returned by the parent in person.

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



52a

21. The proceedings in this cause have had wide pub­
licity in Mobile County. Details of the plan, orders of the 
Court, and periods designated by the plan and the Court 
have been disseminated through front page stories in the 
local press. In addition, a legal advertisement approved by 
this Court, was published. Some 500 pupils actually re­
quested transfer within the designated period.

22. The assignment of teachers and administrative per­
sonnel without regard to race raises different and even 
more delicate problems than are encountered in pupil de­
segregation. The close personal relationship that must 
exist between teacher, pupil and parents for maximum edu­
cational effect would be adversely affected by any efforts 
toward teacher and staff desegregation at this time. Local 
school officials testify that the supply of qualified teachers 
while increasing, is still inadequate and that any deseg­
regation of teachers or staff at this time would result in the 
loss of some qualified teachers now employed. The Court 
finds this to be a probable result.

23. It is not necessary or desirable to desegregate 
teachers and administrative personnel in the desegregation 
process as to pupils in the schools of Mobile County. It is 
the finding of the Court that such a step would render the 
desegregation of pupils more difficult and add a premature 
burden to the defendant Board, which is in good faith 
proceeding with the administration of its plan.

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



53a

D istrict Court Opinion o f March 3 1 ,  1 9 6 5  

Conclusions of L aw

1. The selection of the desegregation plan is the f unction 
of the School Board, rather than the Court. Once formu­
lated by the Board, the Courts are charged with scruti­
nizing it for any discriminatory features.

It is elementary that the courts cannot plan, administer 
and operate the public school system. The selection and 
activation of the particular method or plan of desegre­
gating a school system is the responsibility and function of 
the School Board in the first instance. These two principles 
have been enunciated in most of the school desegregation 
suits. The Board, with its knowledge of local conditions, 
its experience with established administrative procedures, 
and having at its disposal persons possessed of profes­
sional training and skills, is the only entity fully qualified 
to carry out the “duty and responsibility to formulate a 
desegregation plan.” The case of Briggs v. Elliott, 132 
F. Supp. 776, adopted as to reasoning by the Court of 
Appeals for this Circuit in A v ery  v. Wichita Falls, 241 
F.2d 230 and in Boson  v. R ippy, 285 F.2d 48, summarizes 
the philosophy underlying these principles, as well as the 
judicial function:

“ The Supreme Court has pointed out that the solution 
of the problem in accord with its decisions is the pri­
mary responsibility of school authorities and that the 
function of the courts is to determine whether action 
of the school authorities constitutes ‘good faith imple­
mentation of the governing constitutional principles.’ ”



54a

The basis for these established principles is expressed 
somewhat differently in K elley  v. Board o f Education of 
Nashville, 270 F.2d 209:

“ Because of the nature of the problems and the local 
conditions, the school authorities often find that action 
taken by other school districts is inapplicable to the 
facts with which they are dealing . . .  the public interest 
must be considered, along with all the facts and con­
ditions prevalent in the school district. Educational 
standards should not be lowered.”

Following directly after this reasoning, the court goes on 
to point out the judicial function:

“ If the school authorities have acted and are proceed­
ing in good faith, their actions should not be set aside 
by a court so long as their action is consistent with the 
ultimate establishment of a non-discriminatory school 
system at the earliest practicable dates.”

The Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County 
has selected and prescribed a plan founded in adminis­
trative procedures applicable to local conditions and estab­
lished by many years’ use. It is soundly conceived and 
developed from an educational standpoint. So long as the 
plan is non-discriminatory, the basic elements should not 
be disturbed by the Court. This is the only test the Court 
should apply.

2. The desegregation plan in use in Mobile County is 
a constitutional plan.

D istrict Court Opinion o f March 31, 1965



55a

The plan in use for the past two years in the Mobile 
school system is non-discriminatory. This Court, on two 
prior occasions, and the Court of Appeals for this Circuit, 
on one occasion, have considered the Mobile County plan 
and found it to meet constitutional standards in all par­
ticulars save speed of application and minor time pro­
visions. It is a plan founded upon educational concepts and 
administrative procedures in use in Mobile County for 
many years. It is, and has been, an attendance area system, 
utilizing the concepts of the neighborhood school, limited 
administrative control of enrollment but without utter 
rigidity, and provisions for a transfer request period for 
upper grades and a pre-registration time for 1st graders. 
These concepts and procedures are efficient and non-dis­
criminatory bases for the administration of a school sys­
tem.

The use of school attendance areas, if not devised on 
racial lines, is non-discriminatory and is a proper provision 
in a desegregation plan. Downs v. School Board, 336 F.2d
988, cert, den. ------U.S.------  (March 1, 1965). This Court
has considered the newly defined single zone attendance 
areas and the testimony of those who re-defined these areas 
and has found as a matter of fact that the attendance areas 
were not racially devised but were laid out in accordance 
with proper factors and are, therefore, constitutional.

The plan makes use of the Alabama Pupil Placement 
Law as a proper vehicle of administration. That portion 
of the plan founded upon the Alabama Pupil Placement 
Law continues all pupils at the schools where they are in 
attendance unless a transfer is granted. The plan provides

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



56a

for the consideration of transfer requests without regard 
to race. As a part of the transfer provisions, the Board has 
so interpreted the plan as actually to discriminate in favor 
of Negro students who, because they formerly lived in an 
old dual district, are attending a school predominantly of 
their own race. Under those circumstances transfers are 
permitted without the application of any of the criteria 
under the Pupil Placement Act. This has the effect of 
curing a discriminatory situation pre-existing the inception 
of the plan, for those pupils whose parents desire that 
result. The Alabama Pupil Placement Act is, on its face, 
constitutional, and the fact that the defendant School 
Board affords an opportunity to cure past inequities merely 
accentuates the propriety of the Board’s use of the Place­
ment Act.

Engrafted to the basic pupil placement law plan, the 
Board has made further provision to permit the initial 
enrollment, as a matter of absolute right, of first graders, 
newcomers, and people moving from one attendance area 
to another, in the school of the attendance area of the resi­
dence of the pupil. The option is granted to any pupil for 
any reason, to enroll initially at the nearest school formerly 
serving his race. The absolute right to attend a school 
within the attendance area of the residence, coupled with 
the option, is proper in the local situation, since it affords 
some flexibility but has a limiting effect desirable for plan­
ning purposes. Since the present attendance areas are not 
racially designed and a majority of the attendance areas 
have persons of both races living within them, the tendency 
of these provisions would be to promote desegregation but 
not to require integration. The Court is of the opinion that

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



57a

the option granted to initial enrolees does not violate the 
prohibition against “minority transfers.” The option is 
granted without regard to the race of the pupil, the reason 
for the exercise of the option, present racial makeup of the 
school within the attendance area, or the present racial 
makeup of the optional school. The “minority transfer” 
rule, enunciated in Goss v. Board o f Education, 373 U.S. 
683, deals, of course, with transfers as opposed to initial 
enrollment. The same principles would govern. There the 
court said:

“ Our task then is to decide whether these transfer pro­
visions are likewise unconstitutional. In doing so, we 
note that if the transfer provisions were made avail­
able to all students regardless of their race and regard­
less as well of racial composition of the school to which 
he requested transfer we would have an entirely dif­
ferent case. Pupils could then, at their option, (or that 
of their parents) choose, entirely free of any imposed 
racial considerations, to remain in the school of their 
zone or to transfer to another.”

In addition, the case distinguished situations such as 
here presented, bĵ  saying:

“ Likewise, we would have a different case here if the 
transfer provisions were unrestricted, allowing trans­
fers to or from any school regardless of the race of 
the majority therein.”

This plan meets the test prescribed in N ortheross v. 
Board o f Education, 302 F.2d 818, wherein the Court said:

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



58a

“Minimal requirements for non-racial schools are geo­
graphic zoning, according to the capacity and facilities 
of the buildings and admission to a school according 
to residence as a matter of right.”

Except as to speed of application, the particular plan 
now before the court is the same plan as was before the 
Court of Appeals in 1964, Davis v. Board o f School Com­
m issioners, 333 F.2d 53. At that time, the Court approved 
it as to all elements except speed. Seven criteria were set 
out in that opinion, all of which have been met by the 
present plan. All of these criteria, except speed of appli­
cation, were present in the plan as considered at that time. 
It is a constitutional plan and if it be constitutionally ad­
ministered, any effort to effect a change therein must fail.

3. The desegregation plan has been administered with­
out discrimination by the defendant Board.

The burden of much of plaintiff’s argument was that 
only a limited number of Negro students “have experienced 
desegregated education” under the desegregation plan as 
administered in Mobile County.

The Supreme Court has declared that Brown  v. Board  
of Education, 347 U.S. 483, “ decided that enforced racial 
segregation in the public schools of a State is a denial of 
the equal protection of the laws enjoined by the Fourteenth 
Amendment.”  Cooper v. A aron, 358 U.S. 1.

As was said in B riggs v. Elliott, supra:

“ The constitution, in other words, does not require in­
tegration, it merely forbids discrimination. It does not

D istrict Court Opinion o f March 31, 1965



59a

forbid such segregation as occurs as the result of vol­
untary action.”

Again, in Downs v. School Board, supra, as to which the 
Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 1, 1965:

“ . . . The better rule is that although the Fourteenth 
Amendment prohibits segregation, it does not com­
mand integration of the races in public schools and 
Negro children have no constitutional right to have 
white children attend school with them.”

The Downs case is in accord with decisions from the 
Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Circuits, cited as supporting this 
basic rule.

The Court of Appeals for this Circuit in Boson  v. Bippy, 
285 F.2d 43, 48 points out:

“ Indeed, this Court has adopted the reasoning in Briggs 
v. Elliott . . . and has further said: ‘The equal pro­
tection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth 
Amendment do not affirmatively command integration, 
but they do forbid any state action requiring segre­
gation on account of their race or color of children in 
the public schools. A v ery  v. W ichita Falls, etc. 241 
F.2d 230, 233.’ ”

Those transfer requests that were denied by the defen­
dant Board for the current school term, were denied with­
out regard to race. Some requests for transfer were filed 
after the termination of the transfer request period and 
were properly denied for this reason. It is reasonable that

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



60a

there he a deadline for making transfer requests since the 
Board makes no determination as to granting transfer 
requests until after all are received in order that the effect 
of such transfers on particular schools may be measured. 
This is a reasonable requirement and the Board has denied 
transfer requests by pupils of both races if they were filed 
after the end of the transfer request period. Other transfer 
requests were denied because they requested transfers out­
side the attendance area of the residence of the pupil and 
no valid reason for making an exception to the rule ap­
peared. These involved pupils who never resided in one 
of the old dual school zones and the denials were proper. 
Again, the Board acted in the same manner in the case of 
Negro and white pupils. Other transfer requests were de­
nied because they sought transfer to a school which was so 
overcrowded that as many as 100 students were then being 
transported away from the school to which the transfer was 
requested. These were denied for proper and reasonable 
reasons without regard to race.

Criteria set out in the plan from the Alabama Placement 
Act such as those lettered (1) and (n), have to do with 
public hostility; and, such as (i) and (m), have to do with 
psychological effects upon the transferee or the pupils in 
attendance at the school to which the transfer is requested. 
As a matter of law, these criteria are not properly retained 
in the plan and must be deleted. The Board does not give 
any special tests in considering transfers and test results 
have not formed the basis, and do not, for the granting or 
denial of transfers. While this Court will not require that 
the provisions for testing be stricken, it does require that

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



61a

if tests are used, they be used without regard to race. The 
Court finds no practice nor intention on the part of the 
Board to use any special testing procedure in acting upon 
transfer requests.

Earlier in this opinion, while considering the plan itself, 
the Court concludes that the redrawing of school attend­
ance area lines to eliminate the last vestiges of the dual 
zone system, has been done without regard to racial factors 
but upon proper educational considerations. In the admin­
istration of the plan the Court recognizes the right of the 
Board to make use of school attendance areas, and finds as 
a matter of law that the school attendance areas are pre­
pared without discrimination.

For the reasons set out in the Findings of Fact, the Court 
finds the requirement that a parent pick up a transfer 
request at the School Board office, and that it be signed by 
both parents unless such be impracticable of accomplish­
ment, are reasonable and proper safeguards in and about 
the administration of the public school system, so long as 
these procedures are administered alike to both races. The 
Court has found that the requirement was so administered. 
The requirement that the completed form be returned in 
person by the parent is unreasonable and said forms may 
be returned by mail. With this change, the transfer pro­
cedure is reasonable and not unduly burdensome.

The Court is convinced that the notice given of the terms 
of the plan and of the deadlines involved in prior years has 
been reasonable in view of the limited time available to give 
such notice. However, with the time now available to de­
fendant Board before the transfer request period and the 
beginning of the ensuing school year, the Court is of the

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



62a

opinion that some additional information should he fur­
nished to school patrons with regard to the terms of the 
desegregation plan and the various deadlines involved. 
The decree entered pursuant to these findings and conclu­
sions will direct the defendant Board to give such addi­
tional notice, through ordinary school channels, to school 
patrons as will afford them a reasonable and conscious op­
portunity to apply for transfer or admission of pupils to 
any school they would otherwise be eligible to attend with­
out regard to race. This notice has been approved by the 
Court and is a part of the record in this case. (See Appen­
dix A) 4

4. In 1964-65 the speed of application for the plan was 
doubled. It is now applicable to grades projected by the 
Court of Appeals to completion in 1969. One-half the 
grades will be affected in 1965-66 in the third year of the 
administration of the plan. Circumstances, as adduced 
from the testimony and the answers to interrogatories, 
demonstrate the desirability of continuing with a rate of 
speed as set out in the plan. The schools are still crowded, 
the system continues to grow, the pace of building new 
schools and adding to existing facilities to catch up con­
tinues without abatement. The maintenance of educational 
standards and provision of time to solve problems created 
by desegregation and crowded conditions dictate adherence 
to the schedule prescribed. As a matter of law, the defen­
dant Board has borne its burden of demonstrating justi­
fication for no additional increase of speed.

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



63a

5. There is no right, enforceable by these plaintiffs, to 
a desegregation of the teachers and administrative per­
sonnel unless such be a necessary or desirable factor in the 
desegregation of students. Such a move at this time would 
be harmful to the general relief originally sought by the 
plaintiffs and should not now be ordered.

The plaintiffs here are pupils in the public school system 
of Mobile County. The constitutional right which plaintiffs 
are entitled to have vindicated is the right not to be dis­
criminated against in the school system because of their 
race or color. Unless there be shown that the assignment 
of teachers and other personnel without regard to race is 
a necessary or indispensable factor in the vindication of 
plaintiffs’ rights, they are not entitled to this relief.

Dated this the 31st day of March 1965.
# *  *  *  #

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965

D ecree

This cause having come on to be heard on February 26 
and continued to March 5, 1965, on plaintiffs’ Motion for 
Further Relief and on defendants’ answer thereto; oral 
testimony, answers to interrogatories, exhibits and an affi­
davit having been considered, and the Court having heard 
and considered arguments of counsel; and Findings of Fact 
and Conclusions of Law having been made by the Court;

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed as fol­
lows :

1. The provision in the procedure for requesting trans­
fers in the Plan that requires the return of the completed



64a

form by the requesting parents, in person, is stricken, and 
said forms may be returned to the School Board offices by 
United States mail or any other convenient method.

2. Those criteria for transfer in the Plan designated 
(i), (1), (m), and (n) are improper criteria and hereby 
stricken from the Plan.

3. The defendant Board is directed to give such addi­
tional notice, through ordinary school channels, to school 
patrons of the terms and time limitations of the Plan as 
will afford them a reasonable and conscious opportunity 
to apply for transfer or admission of pupils to any school 
they would be eligible to attend without regard to race. 
(See notice listed as Appendix A)

4. In all other respects the desegregation plan of the 
defendant Board is approved as a constitutional plan and 
the administration thereof as non-discriminatory.

5. In all other respects except as ordered hereinabove, 
the motion of plaintiffs is denied. 6

6. Jurisdiction of this cause is retained to enter such 
further orders and to take such other proceedings as may 
be meet and just in the premises.

Entered this 31st day of March, 1965.

District Cotirt Opinion of March 31, 1965



65a

APPENDIX A 

I nformation to P arents

Following are the terms of the Desegregation Plan 
adopted by the School Board pursuant to Court order:

If your child is presently in attendance in the Mobile 
County Public School System and will be in the 2nd, 9th, 
10th, 11th, or 12th grade next year and you wish him to 
attend a different school in September, 1965, for good rea­
son, without regard to race, you may make application 
therefor on or before April 15, 1965 and such transfer re­
quest will be considered by the Board without regard to 
race.

Regulations require that a parent pick up a transfer 
request form in person and that both parents sign or the 
reason be stated why both parents cannot sign. The com­
pleted form may be returned in person on or before April 
15, 1965, or mailed back to the Board. If mailed, it must 
be postmarked prior to midnight, April 15, 1965, to be con­
sidered.

If your child is to enter the 1st grade of the Mobile 
County Schools for the term 1965-66, he must be pre-reg- 
istered on Thursday, April 22nd, at either of two schools, 
depending upon your preference. He has the right to enroll 
in the school serving the attendance area in which you re­
side or, at your option, you may enroll him in the nearest 
school formerly serving your race. This is your choice.

If your child is a newcomer to the System or if you have 
moved from one attendance area to another and your child

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



66a

is in the 2nd, 9th, 10th, 11th, or 12th grades, yon have the 
same option for yonr child as if he were a first grader.

For the year 1966-67 two more grades will be added to 
the grades above set ont; being the 3rd and 8th grades. 
Additional grades will be added year by year in accordance 
with the Plan.

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



67a

Before T u ttle , Chief Judge, T hornberry, Circuit Judge, 
and L y n n e , District Judge.

T uttle , Chief Judge:

This is the fourth appearance of this case before this 
court. This present appeal, coming as it does from an order 
of the trial court entered nearly eighteen months ago, on 
March 31, 1965, points up, among other things, the utter 
impracticability of a continued exercise by the courts of 
the responsibility for supervising the manner in which seg­
regated school systems break out of the policy of complete 
segregation into gradual steps of compliance and towards 
complete compliance with the constitutional requirements 
of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 LT.S. 483, 
74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873, 38 A.L.R.2d 1180. One of the 
reasons for the impracticability of this method of oversee­
ing the transitional stages of operations of the school 
boards involved is that, under the Supreme Court’s “ de­
liberate speed” provisions, it has been the duty of the ap­
pellate courts to interpret and reinterpret this language as 
time has grown apace, it now being the twelfth sehool year 
since the Supreme Court’s decision. Another is that appel­
late court requirements have grown more exacting as time 
has passed, and during the last eighteen months pronounce­
ments of this court have interpreted the Supreme Court’s 
interim decisions as requiring considerably greater meas­
ures of desegregation. Thus a decision by a trial court

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966



68a

eighteen months ago is not likely to reflect the current law 
on the subject.1

In 1963, the Mobile County schools, both within the city 
of Mobile and outside the city limits, were completely seg­
regated according to race. In March 1963, the plaintiffs 
filed this suit to require compliance by the Mobile County 
School Commissioners with the requirements of Brown v. 
Board of Education of Topeka. The plaintiffs requested a 
temporary injunction in order to require a start in desegre­
gating the schools in the fall of 1963. The trial court, after 
a hearing in May, neither granted nor denied the motion, 
but granted time for the filing of written briefs. Appellants 
treated this as an order “ denying” an injunction. Cf. 
United States v. Lynd, 5th Cir., 1962, 301 F.2d 818, and 
appealed. We held this temporary delay was not an abuse 
of discretion by the trial court, but stated: “ The matter of 
the grant or denial of the motion for preliminary injunc­
tion, should, as in every case, be promptly determined.” 
Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 
5th Cir., 1963, 318 F.2d 63, 64. We also said: “ [T]his court 
must require prompt and reasonable starts, even displacing 
the District Court discretion, where local control is not de­
sired, or is abdicated by failure to prom ptly act.”  (Empha­

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f A ugust 16, 1966

1Lest this concept of changing requirements be criticized, we 
must call attention to the fact that the delaying of full vindication 
of a person’s constitutional rights as was done in the School De­
segregation Cases is itself a novel concept, requiring constant re­
appraisal of the degree of compliance by the school systems. It 
must also be borne in mind that this school board ignored for nine 
years the requirement clearly stated in Brown that the School 
authorities have the primary responsibility for solving this con­
stitutional problem.



69a

sis added.) id. p. 64. This was the first appearance of the 
case in this court.

On remand, the District Court still declined to grant an 
injunction and set the case for trial in November, thus per­
mitting the tenth year to pass without any compliance with 
the constitutional requirements. The order of denial was 
an appealable order. It was appealed, and a motion for an 
injunction pending appeal was filed and heard by this court.

On July 9,1963, this court granted appellant’s request for 
injunction pending appeal, requiring a measure of desegre­
gation to begin in at least one grade for the 1963-64 school 
year. Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 
County, 5th Cir., 322 F.2d 356. This was the second appear­
ance of the case here.

Upon the approval by the trial court of an initial plan, 
appellants again appealed to this court, contending that the 
rate of desegregation of the grades fell short of the current 
requirements of the decisions by the Supreme Court and 
this court, and that there had not been a complete abolition 
of dual zones for white and Negro children. This court re­
versed the District Court’s order approving the plan. We 
prescribed definite minimum standards and shortened the 
time eventually desegregating the several grades of the 
school. Included in the opinion of this court was the re­
quirement that dual school zones, areas, or districts be 
abolished. By incorporating the language of the opinion in 
Armstrong v. Board of Education of the City of Birming­
ham, 5th Cir., 333 F.2d 47, decided the same day, this court 
said: “ The dual or bi-racial school attendance system, that 
is, any separate attendance areas, districts or zones, shall 
be abolished as to each grade to which the plan is applied

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f August 16, 1966



70a

and at the time of the application thereof to such grades, 
and thereafter to additional grades as the plan progresses. 
* * * The plan shall apply to the admission of new pupils 
coming into the school system for the first time.” Id. at 51. 
Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 
5th Cir., 1964, 333 F.2d 53. This was the third appearance 
of this case here.

After the mandate from the 1964 decision became the or­
der of the District Court, that court again approved a plan 
of desegregating the Mobile County schools. Its order ap­
proving the Board’s plan is now the subject of this fourth 
appeal. This plan embodies the following principal pro­
visions :

(1) All existing school assignments shall continue 
without change except when transfers are authorized by 
the Assistant Superintendent in charge of pupil per­
sonnel under the provisions of the plan. (This means 
that all Negro and white children who had entered 
Negro and white schools respectively would continue 
to attend those schools unless transferred.)

(2) Transfers as to the desegregated grades could be 
applied for between April 1 and April 15 of each year 
for the next succeeding year. As originally written the 
transfers were subject to the requirements of the Ala­
bama Pupil Placement Act, having many subjective 
tests. It is apparent that during subsequent years 
these tests were not, in fact, resorted to, but transfers 
were granted or denied largely upon other factors, not 
announced publicly and not fully specified in this rec­
ord other than the general ground of the lack of space

Court o f A ppeals Opinion o f A ugust 16, 1966



71a

for the student seeking transfer in the school to which 
transfer was requested.

(3) New student assignments. New students applying 
for admission to the first grade or pupils registering 
for the first time in other grades to which the plan has 
become applicable “may apply for attendance at the 
school in the district of their residence, or the nearest 
school form erly attended exclusively by their race at 
their option.”
(4) All faculties of the schools of Mobile County are 
assigned according to race.

The school population of the Mobile County School Sys­
tem for the year 1964-65 was approximately 75,000 pupils, 
and for the succeeding year some 79,000. 39% of the school 
population was Negro and 61% white. Substantially all of 
the school’s buildings were crowded in 1968-64, but a pro­
gram of building new schools was under way. The record 
does not disclose the present availability of seats in any 
particular school. The school system incorporated some 
90 different school buildings at the time of the promulga­
tion of this plan. Information supplied pending the appeal 
indicates that of the approximately 31,000 Negro students, 
39 were attending class with white students during 1965-66.

In order to understand fully the working of the plan, it 
must be borne in mind, as disclosed upon the trial of the 
case, that a new map of “ school areas” has been prepared 
by the Board of Education. These school areas are readily 
distinguishable as “white” and “ Negro,” although, in each 
of the areas, there is a sprinkling of persons of the opposite

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966



72a

race. The trial court found as a fact, that the area bounda­
ries were not drawn with racial characteristics in mind for 
the purpose of maintaining a pattern of racial segregation 
in the area schools.13 However, the school superintendent 
testified (as was obvious to any who studied neighborhood 
patterns) that it was “generally true that the actual make­
up of the school district [sometimes called “ area” ] tends 
to conform with the race of the school within that district.” 
It must also be borne in mind that the junior high schools 
and senior high schools have operated on the “ feeder” 
system, and it is demonstrated on the record that allocation 
of students to the junior high schools and senior high 
schools follow the racial pattern because only Negro ele­
mentary schools are feeders to the Negro junior high 
schools, and the latter are the only feeders to the Negro 
senior high schools. In other words, no Negro elementary 
school prepared students for a junior high school that was 
not entirely Negro, and no white elementary school pre­
pared students for a junior high school that was not almost 
entirely white.* 2

The plan was to have application in the school year 1963- 
64 to the twelfth grade in the city of Mobile only, in the 
school year 1964-65 it was to have application to the elev­
enth and twelfth grades in all schools in Mobile County and

laWe do not here pass on the correctness of this determination 
nor determine the legal effect that might result if de facto segrega­
tion were to continue by reason of the setting up of school districts 
even without any improper motive.

2 The Board does not now class schools as white or Negro. How­
ever, the use of the designation is meant to convey the fact that the 
schools of Mobile are still either entirely Negro or almost entirely 
white.

Court of A ppeals Opinion of A ugust 16, 1966



73a

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966

to the first and tenth grades in the City of Mobile schools. 
In 1965-66 it was to have application to grades one, two, 
nine, ten, eleven and twelve of all schools of Mobile County. 
In 1966-67, grades three and eight were to be added, in 
1967-68, grades four and seven were to be added, in 1968-69 
grade five was to be added, and in 1969-70 it became ap­
plicable to grade six.

Further factual material that must be noted is that, as 
found by the District Court, “A larger variety of special 
courses is offered at those schools attended predominantly 
by white pupils.” 3 The Board has no policy of permitting 
a Negro student of a grade not yet desegregated to transfer 
to a white school in order to take a particular course of 
study.

Essentially, it can be said that this plan, operating in a 
system in which space is tight, and where all students are 
“ frozen” into the segregated pattern of attendance unless 
transfers are approved, provides little opportunity to break 
up the heretofore open identification of schools as white 
and Negro. Recognizing, as we must, the binding effect of

3 A  larger variety of special courses is offered at those schools 
attended predominantly by white pupils, although in many in­
stances the number of schools offering a particular course is only 
one more in the case of white pupils. There are about 50% more 
white pupils in the system than Negro pupils, making it reasonable 
that more schools attended predominantly by white pupils would 
offer a particular special subject. Many factors enter into a deter­
mination of courses offered in a particular school, and the course 
offerings vary from school to school without necessary regard to the 
race of the pupils. Facilities, pupil interest, location, and socio­
economic factors all affect course offerings. There is no evidence 
that any application for transfer for the current year was predi­
cated on a desire for a special course not offered by the school the 
pupil had been attending. The Assistant Superintendent in charge 
of pupil personnel could not recall a single such request.



74a

the pronouncement in Brown v. Board of Education of 
Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 495, 74 S. Ct. 686, 692, 98 L. Ed. 873, 
38 A.L.R.2d 1180, that “ [sjeparate educational facilities are 
inherently unequal,” we conclude that the Mobile plan falls 
far short of the requirements of the law in several respects. 
Principal among these is the fact that even as to those 
grades which, under the plan, have actually become “ de­
segregated” there is no true substance in the alleged de­
segregation. Less than two-tenths of one percent of the 
Negro children in the system are attending white schools. 
Another defect is in the length of time that the plan would 
require to come to a final fruition; another is the option 
given to white students living within the “ area” or “ dis­
trict” of a given school to transfer to another district or 
area to attend a white school there, without the granting 
of a similar option to a Negro child residing within the 
area of a Negro school to transfer to a wThite school outside 
the area; a further significant defect is the lack of provi­
sion for a Negro child to attend a school offering particular 
subjects if such subjects are taught only in white schools; 
and finally, there is the failure of the plan to start desegre­
gation of the faculties of the schools.

Both in the testimony and in the briefs, much is said by 
the appellees about the virtues of “neighborhood schools.” 
Of course, in the brief of the Board of Education, the word 
“ neighborhood” doesn’t mean what it usually means. When 
spoken of as a means to require Negro children to continue 
to attend a Negro school in the vicinity of their homes, it 
is spoken of as a “neighborhood” school plan. When the 
plan permits a white child to leave his Negro “neighbor­
hood” to attend a white school in another “neighborhood” 
it becomes apparent that the “neighborhood” is something

Court o f A ppeals Opinion o f A ugust 16, 1966



75a

else again. As every member of this court knows, there are 
neighborhoods in the South and in every city of the South 
which contain both Negro and white people. So far as has 
come to the attention of this court, no Board of Education 
has yet suggested that every  child be required to attend 
his “ neighborhood school” if the neighborhood school is a 
Negro school. Every board of education has claimed the 
right to assign every white child to a school other than the 
neighborhood school under such circumstances. And yet, 
when it is suggested that Negro children in Negro neighbor­
hoods be permitted to break out of the segregated pattern 
of their own race in order to avoid the “ inherently unequal” 
education of “ separate educational facilities,” the answer 
too often is that the children should attend their “neigh­
borhood school.”

So, too, there is a hollow sound to the superficially ap­
pealing statement that school areas are designed by ob­
serving safety factors, such as highways, railroads, streams, 
etc. No matter how many such barriers there may be, none 
of them is so grave as to prevent the white child whose 
“area” school is Negro from crossing the barrier and en­
rolling in the nearest white school even though it be several 
intervening “ areas” away. This court, in a number of de­
cisions, notably Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate 
School District, 5th Cir., 355 F.2d 865, and Price v. Deni­
son Independent School District, Board of Education, 5th 
Cir., 348 F.2d 1010, has called attention to the significant 
fact that the United States Congress, in passing the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, declared a strong legislative policy 
against racial discrimination in public education.4 The

4 Act of July 2, 1964, Public Law 88-352, Title IV, §§401-410, 
78 Stat. 246-249, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000c to 2000c-9.

Court o f A ppeals Opinion o f A ugust 16, 1966



76a

operative section of the statute expressly prohibits the ex­
clusion of any person in the United States from participa­
tion in being denied the benefits of, or being subjected to 
discrimination under, any program or activity receiving 
federal financial assistance.5

We have also called attention to the publication by the 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare of a “ Gen­
eral Statement of Policies Under Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 Respecting Desegregation of Elemen­
tary and Secondary Schools.” 6 We now call attention to 
the fact that a revised statement of policies has been issued 
by the Department as of March 1966.

In Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dis­
trict, 5th Cir., 348 F.2d 729, this court said:

“We attach great weight to the standards established 
by the Office of Education. The judiciary has of course 
functions and duties distinct from those of the execu­
tive department, but in carrying out a national policy 
the three departments of government are united by a 
common objective. There should be a close correlation, 
therefore, between the judiciary’s standards in enforc­
ing the national policy requiring desegregation of pub­
lic schools and the executive department’s standards 
in administering this policy. Absent legal questions, 
the United States Office of Education is better qualified

5 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000d provides as follows:
“No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, 
color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be 
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under 
any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

6 45a C.F.R. Section 80(c), December 4, 1964, Pursuant to Sec­
tion 602 of the Act, 42 U.S.C.A. Section 2000d-l.

Court o f A ppeals Opinion o f  A ugust 16, 1966



77a

than the courts and is the more appropriate federal 
body to weigh administrative difficulties inherent in 
school desegregation plans. If in some district courts 
judicial guides for approval of a school desegregation 
plan are more acceptable to the community or substan­
tially less burdensome than H.E.W. guides, school 
boards may turn to the federal courts as a means of 
circumventing the H.E.W. requirements for financial 
aid. Instead of a uniform policy relatively easy to ad­
minister, both the courts and the Office of Education 
would have to struggle with individual school systems 
on ad hoc basis. If judicial standards are lower than 
H.E.W. standards, recalcitrant school boards in effect 
will receive a premium for recalcitrance; the more the 
intransigence, the bigger the bonus. * * *

“ If Selma, Alabama, can commence with desegrega­
tion of four grades for 1965-1966, Jackson, Mississippi, 
can at least catch up. And indeed in all hut the most 
exceptional cases, all school districts commencing de­
segregation in fall 1965 should be expected to do as 
well.”

After having made this pronouncement, this court granted 
an injunction pending appeal and directed the Board of Ed­
ucation of the City of Jackson, Mississippi “ to submit 
promptly a plan of desegregation extending to at least 4 
grades for the year 1965-1966.” With respect to this, the 
court then said: “ As to details of the plan, the Board should 
be guided by the standards and policies announced by the 
United States Office o f Education in establishing standards 
for  compliance with the requirement of Title V I of the

Court o f A ppeals Opinion o f August 16, 1966



78a

Civil Rights A ct o f  1 9 6 4 .” In Price v. Denison Independent 
School District Board of Education, 5th Cir., 348 F.2d 1010, 
this court said: “ In Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Sepa­
rate School Disk, * * * we accorded these minimum stand­
ards a high place in our future handling of school cases 
totally without regard to whether a school district was seek­
ing (o r  desired) Federal grants in aid.”  (Emphasis added) 
348 F.2d 1010, 1013. Then, in the later case of Singleton v. 
Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 5 Cir., 355 
F.2d 865, we restated the same principle of attaching great 
weight to the standards established by the Office of Educa­
tion. We said: “ HEW ’s statement of April, 1965 estab­
lishes only minimum standards of general application. In 
certain school districts and in certain respects, HEW’s 
standards may be too low to meet the requirements estab­
lished by the Supreme Court and by this Court; we doubt 
that they would ever be too high.”  (Emphasis added.) 355 
F.2d 865, 869.

Then, dealing with the specific provisions of the Jackson 
plan, this court said: “ The school children in still-segre­
gated grades in Negro schools are there by assignment 
based on their race. This assignment was unconstitutional. 
They have an absolute right, as individuals, to transfer to 
schools from which they were excluded because of their 
race.

“ This has been the law since Brown v. Board of Educa­
tion [of Topeka], 1954, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 
873 [38 A.L.R.2d 1180]. Misunderstanding of this prin­
ciple is perhaps due to the popularity of an oversimplified 
dictum that the constitution ‘does not require integration’

Court o f A ppeals Opinion o f  A ugust 16, 1966



79a

[Briggs v. Elliott, E.D.S.C., 1955, 132 F. Supp. 776, 777]. 
Bat there should be no misunderstanding now as to the 
right of any child in a segregated class to transfer to a 
formerly all ‘white’ class, regardless of the slow pace of 
systematic desegregation by classes.” Then pointing to the 
case of Bogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198, 86 S. Ct. 358, 15 
L. Ed.2d 265, the opinion showed that, as required by that 
decision of the Supreme Court, it will hereafter be re­
quired that, where assignments of pupils were on a racial 
basis, they must now be permitted to attend the school 
from which they were originally excluded because of race. 
Thus, a Negro child living in area “A ” which was predomi­
nantly white who was assigned to a Negro school in area 
“B”, and who is still in attendance at the Negro school by 
reason of continuing attendance where originally assigned, 
is constitutionally entitled to an immediate transfer to the 
school from which he was denied admission, but which he 
would have been entitled to attend if of the other race. We 
find this to be clearly the holding of the Supreme Court in 
Bogers v. Paul.

Not only did this court spell out this requirement in the 
Singleton  case, but during the summer of 1965, upon motion 
made on behalf of Negro plaintiffs, we entered seven per 
curiam orders in other cases remanding to the District 
Court “ for further consideration in the light of Singleton 
v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District * * 349
F.2d 1020, 1022.

Thus, for many a year, it has been apparent to all con­
cerned that the requirements of Singleton and Denison 
were the minimum standards to apply.

Thus it is, that regardless of the number of grades which, 
beginning next fall, are under the plan of desegregation,

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966



80a

the appellee Board must grant to any child whose original 
attendance at his present school was dictated by the policy 
of segregating children by race (as was done uniformly 
prior to September, 1963), the right, at his request, to at­
tend the school which he would have been permitted to at­
tend but for such racial policy.

All other pupils, that is, those who have entered their 
present schools without reference to racial attendance poli­
cies, were given the option of attending the school of their 
“ area” (unmistakably identifiable as either a Negro or 
white “area” ) or the nearest school, outside the area, fo r ­
m erly predominantly o f their race. Since it is perfectly 
obvious that this was a choice which permitted white stu­
dents in a Negro “ area” to transfer to the nearest white 
school, which privilege was not granted to entering Negro 
students, this is a plain violation of one oft-repeated re­
quirement that dual school zones must be abolished. We 
conclude therefore that all of such Negro students who 
have entered under this poliey must be accorded a similar 
choice. That is, they must be given the opportunity of re­
maining in the Negro school of their area or transferring 
to the nearest white school. Then, if any students who here­
after enter the system are given the blanket option of choos­
ing the nearest white school rather than the Negro school 
of the area in which they reside, as is now the plan, this 
option must be afforded to all, Negro as well as white. 
Otherwise, this device has the effect of perpetuating the 
separation of pupils into the Negro and white schools. Such 
separation of classes by race is the thing that is condemned 
in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Its perpetua­
tion cannot be condoned on the theory that the Negro child

Court o f A ppeals Opinion o f A ugust 16, 1966



81a

is given the privilege of transferring out of his area into 
another Negro school and the white child is given the right 
to transfer out of his area into a white school.

If the optional transfers we have here prescribed should 
overcrowd the white schools, then preference must be 
given to the pupil living nearest the school. See Gaines v. 
Doughtery County Board of Education, 5th Cir., 329 F.2d 
823, 825.

Furthermore, in light of the specific requirements an­
nounced by the Supreme Court in Rogers v. Paul, supra, 
every consideration must be given by the Board to make 
possible the transfer of any Negro pupil to another school 
which provides a course of instruction which he desires to 
take, and which is not included in the curriculum of the 
school to which the “ area” assignment practice places him.

Another panel of this court is considering appeals in eight 
other school desegregation cases. In all of these, the court 
has asked for briefs touching on the extent to which the 
courts could, and, if they can, should, give weight to, or 
rely on, II.E.W. guidelines and policies in cases now before 
the court.7 Because this case was then pending, we also 
called on counsel to respond to these questions in this case.

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966

7 These questions, submitted to counsel were:
(a) To what extent, consistent with judicial prerogatives and 
obligations, statutory and constitutional, is it permissible and 
desirable for a federal court (trial or appellate) to give weight 
to or to rely on H.E.W. guidelines and policies in cases before 
the court?
(b) I f  permissible and desirable, what practical means and 
methods do you suggest that federal courts (trial and appel­
late) should follow in making H.E.W. guidelines and policies 
judicially effective?



82a

All of the cases referred to were argued orally and sub­
mitted to the court on May 24th. The present appeal was 
submitted to a different panel earlier. In none of the other 
cases is there involved a large metropolitan school district 
as is the case here. We are reluctant to wait any longer to 
permit the court fully to resolve all of the questions raised 
in the other appeals before announcing our conclusion as 
to minimum changes that must be put into effect by the 
appellee Board of School Commissioners from Mobile 
County for the next school year. We conclude that the re­
quirements we have outlined are absolutely essential in or­
der for this court’s judgments to be consistent as we ap­
proach the twelfth year following the Supreme Court’s 
decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

In addition, two further modifications of the Mobile plan 
must be made. The first is that the time must be shortened 
in such manner that all grades will be fully desegregated 
by the beginning of school in the fall of 1967, the target 
date announced in the H.E.W. regulations. There is noth­
ing on the record before us that demonstrates the need 
for any additional time under the formula announced in 
the Brown  decision.

Second, the plan must be modified in order that there 
be an end to the present policy of hiring and assigning 
teachers according to race by the time the last of the schools 
are fully desegregated for the school year 1967-68.

As has already been stated, the actual supervision by 
the courts, especially an appellate court, of the steps by 
which the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and their 
class are ultimately vindicated is highly unsatisfactory. 
The degree to which the appellee accepts the legal prin­

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966



83a

ciples announced by the courts as the guiding principles 
upon which it undertakes anew the task of operating a 
constitutionally valid school system, the simpler and more 
professionably (sic) acceptable to all will it be. As the Su- 
professionably (sic) acceptable to all will it be. As the Su­
preme Court and this court develop and announce addi­
tional legal principles affecting the “deliberate speed” 
principle, the Board should be guided accordingly. If it 
fails to do so, the trial court, under the doctrine of stare 
decisis, will be able to solve such additional questions as 
may arise in the application of the legal principles involved.

In order that the trial court may promptly enter an order 
making, or approving, modifications in the plan to conform 
to what is said here, the order of the trial court is reversed 
and the case is remanded.

The judgment shall issue forthwith.

L y n n e , District Judge, having recused himself, took 
no part in the hearing, consideration, or decision of this

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f A ugust 16, 1966

case.



84a

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967

T homas, District Judge.

Order

This cause having come on to he heard on July 18-20, 
1967, and July 24-28, 1967, and August 18, 1967, on 
Plaintiff’s motion for further relief as amended, on Plain- 
tiff-Intervenor’s motion for supplemental relief, and on 
Defendant’s answers thereto; oral testimony, testimony 
by depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and 
exhibits having been considered, and the Court having 
received and considered the written briefs of counsel and 
having heard and considered the arguments of counsel; 
and the Court being of the opinion that an immediate 
interim order is necessary with regard to certain action 
to be taken immediately;

It is, th erefore , Ordered as fo llo w s :

1. That those students whose places of residence have 
been changed from one elementary attendance area to an­
other as a result of a change or alteration in attendance 
area boundary lines between elementary school attendance 
areas, during the 1966-67 school year, namely those changes 
in attendance area boundary lines set out in paragraph 2 
hereof, should immediately be afforded an opportunity to 
transfer to the school serving the attendance area in which 
their residence now lies, or any other school afforded to 
them by the desegregation plan.

2. The attendance area boundary line changes concerned
a r e :



85a

(a) The boundary line between the Whistler attendance 
area and the Thomas attendance area.

(b) The boundary line between the Bienville attendance 
area and the Carver attendance area.

(c) The boundary line between the Barney attendance 
area and the Bienville attendance area.

(d) The boundary line between the Barney attendance 
area and the Ellicott attendance area.

(e) The boundary line between the Old Shell Road at­
tendance area and the Fonvielle attendance area.

(f) The boundary line between the Warren attendance 
area and the Crichton attendance area.

3. In order to accomplish the above, a special transfer 
period shall be held on Monday through Thursday, Au­
gust 28-31, 1967, during which time applications for these 
transfers may be made. Notice of this transfer period, 
approved by the Court, shall be given by publication of 
a display ad notice for three consecutive days immedi­
ately prior to the transfer period. Transfer request forms 
shall be available at the school board offices and at Thomas 
Elementary School and Ellicott Elementary School, during 
the transfer request period, and shall be picked up by 
parents or guardians, or the student involved if sixteen 
years old or older, in person. Any other appropriate 
procedures necessary to administration of the special 
transfer period shall be adopted and carried out.

4. In all other respects, except as ordered hereinabove, 
the motions of Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor remain

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



86a

under submission, and jurisdiction of this cause is retained 
to enter such further orders and to take such other pro­
ceedings as may be meet and just in the premises. 

Entered this 24th day of August, 1967.
•U- -V- -V- -V- -Y-■Jp W W TP W

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967

Notice

To A ll S chool P atro n s :

Pursuant to the order of the United States District 
Court for the Southern District of Alabama, a special 
transfer request period is hereby established for Monday, 
Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, August 28, 29, 30, 
and 31, 1967, for parents or guardians of pupils in any 
of the categories set out below. Such parents or guardians 
must pick up the transfer application form at the school 
board office, Barton Academy Building, 504 Government 
Street, Mobile, Alabama, or Thomas Elementary School, 
743 Alvarez Avenue, Prichard, Alabama, or Ellieott Ele­
mentary School, 1250 Craft Highway, Chickasaw, Alabama, 
in person, beginning Monday, August 28 at 8:00 a.m., and 
must return the completed form to said school board offices 
by mail or otherwise so that it will be received on or before 
5:00 p.m., Thursday, August 31, 1967. Applications re­
ceived after that time will not be considered.

Students in junior or senior high school who are sixteen 
years old or older may pick up their own transfer appli­
cation form at any of the above places, but said form must 
be signed by their parent or guardian.

Notice of action taken on the transfer request will be 
mailed on or before Friday, September 1, 1967. If a trans-



87a

fer request is denied, the parent or guardian of the pupil 
affected may appeal to the Board in writing prior to Sep­
tember 9, 1967. While such appeal is pending, the pupil 
concerned shall begin attendance at the school he would 
normally be attending but for the pending transfer request.

This special transfer request period is occasioned by 
changes in the boundary lines of certain school attendance 
areas. Pupils eligible to transfer during this special trans­
fer period are as follows:

1. All those students in Grades 1 through 6, residing 
within the following boundaries shall be eligible to request 
transfers to the Whistler School, or to the nearest formerly 
white school to their residence outside the Whistler attend­
ance area, or to the nearest formerly Negro school to their 
residence outside the Whistler attendance area:

Area bound on the West by the GM&O Railroad, South 
by 1-10 Highway, East by Gum Tree Branch, and on 
the North by Atmore Avenue North and Fall Avenue.

2. All those students in Grades 1 through 6, residing 
within the following boundaries shall be eligible to request 
transfers to the Thomas School, or to the nearest formerly 
white school to their residence outside the Thomas attend­
ance area, or to the nearest formerly Negro school to their 
residence outside the Thomas attendance area:

Area bound on the West by Main Street, South by Elba 
Avenue, East by GM&O Railroad, and North by Eight 
Mile Creek.

3. All those students in Grades 1 through 6, residing 
within the following boundaries shall be eligible to request

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



88a

transfers to the Bienville School, or to the nearest formerly 
white school to their residence ontside the Bienville attend­
ance area, or to the nearest formerly Negro school to their 
residence ontside the Bienville attendance area:

Area bound on the Southwest by Whistler Avenue, 
East by Brock Avenue, and North by Kirby and Cot­
tonwood Street.

Area bound on the West by Whistler Avenue, South 
by Meaher Avenue, East by Craft Highway, and North 
by West Butler Street, Wilson Avenue and Peterson.

4. All those students in Grades 1 through 6, residing 
within the following boundaries shall be eligible to request 
transfers to the Ellicott School, or to the nearest formerly 
white school to their residence outside the Ellicott attend­
ance area, or to the nearest formerly Negro school to their 
residence outside the Ellicott attendance area:

Area which includes only Hendricks and Taft Streets 
in Prichard.

5. All those students in Grades 1 through 6, residing 
within the following boundaries shall be eligible to request 
transfers to the Fonvielle School, or to the nearest for­
merly white school to their residence outside the Fonvielle 
attendance area, or to the nearest formerly Negro school 
to their residence outside the Fonvielle attendance area:

Area bound on the West by Lourdes Circle, South by 
Three Mile Creek, East by Kondo Road, and on the 
North by Pleasant Avenue.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



89a

6. All those students in Grades 1 through 6, residing 
within the following boundaries shall be eligible to request 
transfers to the Crichton School, or to the nearest formerly 
white school to their residence outside the Crichton attend­
ance area, or to the nearest formerly Negro school to their 
residence outside the Crichton attendance area:

Area bound on the West by Martin Street, South by 
GM&O Eailroad, East by Mobile Street, and on the 
North by LeCren Street, Bay Shore Avenue and 
Springhill Avenue.

7. Parents or guardians of pupils in junior or senior 
high school, who reside in any of the above areas, are like­
wise eligible to request transfers. Those pupils in junior 
high school are eligible to transfer from the school they 
would normally attend to the nearest formerly white junior 
high school or the nearest formerly Negro junior high 
school to their residence. Those students in said areas who 
are in senior high school are eligible to transfer from the 
senior high school they would normally attend to the near­
est formerly white senior high school or the nearest for­
merly Negro senior high school to their residence.

The employees of the School Board at any of the three 
above locations where applications may be picked up, will, 
upon request, furnish information to assist in preparing 
and filing the transfer application. Parents or guardians 
are invited to contact the Office of Pupil Personnel at 
Barton Academy during this transfer request period, in the 
event they have any questions which cannot be answered 
by persons handing out the applications.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



90a

Only those persons residing within one of the above 
seven areas are eligible to apply for transfer during this 
special transfer period. If you do not reside within one 
of the above areas, do not apply for such transfer.

B oard of S chool C ommissioners 
of M obile C ounty 

* * * * #

F indings of F act

1. The Mobile Public School System is presently oper­
ating under an amended desegregation plan submitted pur­
suant to an order of this Court, and in turn a mandate of 
the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The plan is 
dated October 18, 1966, and was filed in this Court on 
October 19,1966. The Court finds that this plan, on its face, 
substantially complies with the Mandate of the Court of 
Appeals, and the Order of this Court.

2. The School System is a consolidated system in that 
it encompasses all of the public schools in Mobile County, 
both city and rural. The city portion is made up of the 
cities of Mobile, Prichard and Chickasaw, and the rural 
portion the remainder of Mobile County.

(a) The city portion of the system is divided into geo­
graphically designed attendance areas with specific bound­
ary lines. The rural portion of the system is made up of 
considerably larger general areas, without sharply defined 
geographic attendance area boundary lines.

D istrict Court Order and Opinion o f October 13, 1967



91a

(b) For purposes of administration of the Plan, the two 
portions of the system, city and rural, are treated iden­
tically except for one basic difference, and this concerns 
the option provisions of the plan. Under the option pro­
visions of the plan, students in the rural portion of the 
system have the right of attending either of two schools, 
at the option of their parent or guardian; while in the city 
portion of the system the option is to attend either of 
three schools, at the option of parent or guardian.

(c) The difference arises out of the following circum­
stances : widely scattered population in the rural portion; 
comparatively fewer schools in the rural portion, consid­
erably larger general areas to be served by each school in 
the rural portion; and the existence of a bus transportation 
system in the rural portion of the system, operated by 
defendants.

3. Reduced to its basic terms the desegregation plan 
under which the defendant board is operating the Mobile 
County schools is as follows:

In the city portion of the system:

(a) Every student upon initial enrollment in the system 
has the absolute right to enroll in and attend the school 
serving his attendance area, or at his option, the absolute 
right to enroll in and attend the nearest formerly white 
school outside his attendance area, or the nearest formerly 
Negro school outside his attendance area. This absolute 
right is available to every student initially enrolling in the 
first grade, and at any other grade level.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



92a

(b) Every student, upon progressing from elementary 
school to junior high school has the absolute right to enroll 
in and attend the junior high school serving his attendance 
area, or at his option, the absolute right to enroll in and 
attend the nearest formerly white junior high school out­
side his attendance area or the nearest formerly Negro 
junior high school outside his attendance area.

(c) Every student, upon progressing from junior high 
school to senior high school has the absolute right to enroll 
in and attend the senior high school serving his attendance 
area, or at his option, the absolute right to enroll in and 
attend the nearest formerly white senior high school out­
side his attendance area or the nearest formerly Negro high 
school outside his attendance area.

(d) Every student, upon moving his residence from one 
attendance area to another, has the absolute right to enroll 
in and attend the school in his new attendance area, or at 
his option, the absolute right to enroll in and attend the 
nearest formerly white school outside his attendance area 
or the nearest formerly Negro school outside his attendance 
area.

(e) As to the rural portion of the system: The options 
are the same, with the exception that instead of a three 
school option, each student has the right to attend, at his 
option, the formerly white school or the formerly Negro 
school nearest to his residence, provided that the school is 
within walking distance, or that school bus transportation 
is available to the school, or that the student has private 
transportation to the school.

D istrict Court Order and Opinion o f October 13, 1967



93a

( f ) While the plan limits options to physical space avail­
able, the Court finds as a fact that no student to date has 
been denied the exercise of an option due to physical space 
limitations. If the occasion arises, the stated policy of the 
defendant board is to provide special consideration for any 
student who might be otherwise denied the exercise of his 
option for this reason.

(g) It is the stated policy of the defendant board to ar­
range its transportation routes to provide transportation 
for every student in the rural portion of the system to 
either of the two schools selected in the exercise of the 
options provided under the plan. No student has been 
denied the opportunity of attending a school available to 
him under the provisions of the plan, for lack of public 
school bus transportation.

(h) In every instance, the right of option referred to is 
a right to be exercised by parents or guardians for and on 
behalf of their children. In every instance where refer­
ence is had to the nearest school, the nearness referred to 
is based upon proximity to the residence of parent or 
guardian.

(i) The options provided by the plan are applied in the 
same manner regardless of whether enrollment takes place 
at the beginning of school, later on during the course of the 
school year, during pre-registration of prospective first 
graders, or upon exercise of the grade level option in ad­
vance of promotion from elementary school to junior high 
school and junior high school to senior high school.

4. Students already in the system, in attendance at a par­
ticular school in the system, continue at that school from

D istrict Court Order and Opinion o f October 13, 1967



94a

year to year until (a) they reach the next option level; or 
(b) their parents or guardians move their residence to a 
different attendance area and exercise the option to attend 
the optional school for that area; or (c) a transfer is re­
quested and granted.

5. The defendant board makes no initial assignments of 
pupils, but permits the free exercise of options provided 
by the plan without regard to the present racial make-up 
of the school or to the race of the pupil. Initial enrollment 
involves no transfer nor other special action of the board; 
likewise the exercise of the various options in the plan 
require no transfer or special action of the board.

For all students already in the system progressing from 
elementary school to junior high school and from junior 
high school to senior high school, a special form is pro­
vided, upon which the parent or guardian of the students 
state a choice of junior high schools, or senior high schools 
as the case may be, in exercising the options provided by 
the plan. It is mandatory that this form be completed and 
returned to school officials. With regard to all other options 
(first graders, newcomers in all other grades, and students 
who have moved from one attendance area to another) the 
students present themselves at the optional school of their 
choice and enroll.

6. In March 1967 approximately 14,300 students exer­
cised grade level options upon moving from elementary 
school to junior high school and junior high school to senior 
high school for the 1967-68 school year. There were 6,615 
first graders enrolled for the 1967-68 school year. Esti­

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



95a

mates, based upon past experience, indicate that there will 
be some 4,000 to 5,000 newcomers to the school system at 
grade levels other than the first grade during the 1967-68 
school year; and approximately 4,500 students who will 
move their residences from one attendance area to another 
during the 1967-68 school year. The Mobile Public School 
System has a total enrollment of slightly over 75,000 stu­
dents. With reference to the 1967-68 school year, based on 
past experience, more than one-third of this enrollment has, 
or will, during the course of the year, exercise an option 
as provided under the plan.

7. Dual attendance areas based upon race existed at one 
time in the system, but have been abolished and a single 
attendance area system established. A map setting out the 
boundaries of attendance areas as they existed upon the 
opening of school in September 1967 has been furnished to 
the Court, and forms a part of the record in this cause. The 
practice of freely granting transfers to those enrolled in 
a particular school because of residence in one of the old 
dual attendance areas, plus the basic option provisions of 
the plan, has tended to overcome the discrimination that 
once existed because of dual attendance areas.

8. The single geographic attendance areas as they pres­
ently exist are not racially devised but are arranged by 
giving due weight to proper factors, i.e., natural and man­
made barriers; safety factors, such as railroads and thor­
oughfares ; maximum use of facilities; transportation fa­
cilities and other like considerations. Each attendance area 
has a certain interrelation with every other attendance

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



96a

area, and the drawing of any attendance area boundary line 
must take into account the factors enumerated about as 
well as the interrelation of that line with all other lines of 
the particular attendance area concerned, and its relation­
ship with other attendance areas. A majority of the at­
tendance areas have both races residing within them.

9. The organization of attendance areas based on the 
neighborhood school concept is a long-standing practice in 
the administration of the school system in Mobile County. 
It is founded on a sound educational basis and the defen­
dant board is justified in its use.

10. The defendant board has historically permitted par­
ents some flexibility in selecting a school. A  rigid system 
that requires all children of an area, without exception, to 
attend a particular school fails to take into account that 
school patrons and pupils are individuals with choices, likes 
and dislikes. Such rigidity is a major handicap to proper 
educational processes. However, such flexibility must be 
consistent with good administrative practices which require 
a reasonable amount of specificity to permit adequate plan­
ning and give some basis of stability to the system. 11

11. There are presently 93 schools in the system with 
additional schools in planning and construction. Half-day 
sessions have been eliminated but thousands of students are 
in attendance at schools where the enrollment exceeds the 
normal capacity of the school. This overcrowding is dis­
tributed evenly on a proportionate basis among schools 
where the enrollment is entirely Negro, schools where the

D istrict Court Order and Opinion o f October 13, 1967



97a

enrollment is entirely white, and schools where the enroll­
ment is bi-racial. Much of this over-capacity, which other­
wise would be overcrowding, is accommodated by portable 
classrooms. The schools in the system have not been des­
ignated by race for several years, and are not now so desig­
nated, although certain records relating to the schools and 
to students are kept on a basis by which students are des­
ignated by race. This has been necessitated by the demands 
of desegregation litigation, including this cause.

12. Transfers are granted upon request, for cause, and 
sufficient cause includes a number of reasons concerning 
primarily the convenience and well-being of students. 
Transfers are also granted, as a matter of course, upon 
bona fide requests for transfer to obtain a particular course 
of study not available at the school where the student is in 
attendance, and upon the requests of students who are in 
attendance at a particular school based upon a racial as­
signment due to residence in a former dual zone. Transfer 
requests are required to be made on an official form pro­
cured from the School Board office by a parent or guardian 
in person, and must be signed by a parent or guardian. The 
forms may be returned to the school board office by hand 
or by mail. April 1 through April 15 of each year is desig­
nated as the transfer request period. All transfer requests 
are considered without regard to race and upon the basis 
of the reason assigned for the request and other proper 
factors such as availability of space, transportation consid­
erations, and the basic advantage of maintaining the neigh­
borhood school concept. Any parent or guardian may ap­
peal to the Board of School Commissioners from a denial

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



98a

of a transfer request in writing within ten days of the 
mailing of notice of action on the transfer request.

13. In the administration of the transfer provisions and 
option provisions of the plan, there is no evidence of any 
discrimination by virtue of race. The evidence supports 
equal application of the policies and provisions of the plan, 
to both races and the Court so finds as a matter of fact.

14. No special tests are administered to pupils of either 
race requesting transfers. No transfers have been denied 
arbitrarily or unevenly as between the races. During the 
April 1-15, 1967 transfer period approximately 387 com­
pleted transfer requests were received and acted upon; of 
these 288 were approved and 99 were disapproved. Of 121 
requests for transfer by Negro pupils to predominantly 
white schools, 112 were approved and 9 were disapproved; 
of these 96 were granted on the basis of residence in a for­
mer dual zone, 12 were granted on request to obtain a par­
ticular course, and 4 were for other reasons.

15. Notice of the transfer provisions of the plan is given 
by newspaper publication of a display advertisement type 
notice for three consecutive days immediately preceding 
the transfer period. This form of notice is adequate but 
the Court feels that it would better serve its purpose if 
published once a week for three consecutive weeks next 
preceding the transfer request period. The content of the 
notice published prior to the transfer period in April 1967 
was not sufficient in that it omitted specific reference to 
transfers due to residence in a former dual attendance

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



99a

area. The content and time of publication of the notice 
must be changed accordingly.

16. Notice of the grade level options set out in para­
graphs 3(b) and 3(c) above is given to the students already 
in the system who are subject to the grade level option by 
a form hand delivered to such students for delivery to their 
parents, execution by them, and return to the schools. The 
forms were delivered on March 9, 1967 and required to be 
returned on March 10. The Court feels that this did not 
allow sufficient time, and must be corrected. Principals 
were instructed to see that all forms were returned, and it 
is stated on each form that it must be returned; a vast 
majority of the forms, approximately 14,300 were filled out 
and returned, however it is not clear that all were returned.

17. Notice of the basic options provided by the plan ex­
cepting the particular provisions with regard to grade level 
options, is given by newspaper advertisement in the form 
of a display notice published for three consecutive days 
during the month preceding the opening of school. Notice 
in this manner is adequate. The form of notice published 
prior to the opening of school in September 1967 was suffi­
cient. The Court feels that the publishing of this notice 
should be changed to once a week for three consecutive 
weeks immediately prior to the opening of school in Sep­
tember.

18. In addition to the specific published notices, defen­
dant has given further publicity to the transfer period and 
the option provisions of the plan by directing information 
concerning these things to all daily newspapers in Mobile

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



100a

County and all radio and television stations in Mobile 
County, with the request that the information be dissemi­
nated as news items.

19. Transfer request forms and the grade level option 
forms have not contained a designation of the specific 
schools to which transfer could be requested or to which 
grade level option may be exercised. Similarly, teachers 
and other employees of the board involved in the register­
ing of students for attendance in the system where the exer­
cise of an option is involved, have not volunteered infor­
mation as to the options available, in the absence of a 
request by parent or student for such information. The 
Court feels that parents should be thoroughly informed in 
this regard, and that such parents and students should be 
made aware in the notices mentioned in Paragraphs 15, 16, 
and 17 above, that such information will be made readily 
available upon request, and likewise the method of request 
should be made known.

20. The enrollment of students in the system, where op­
tions provided by the plan are involved, and the handling 
of the grade level option forms, is done by teachers and 
other employees of the defendant board. Efforts in the 
form of instructional meetings with school principals and 
in the form of written instructions were made to properly 
instruct these people with regard to the provisions of the 
plan involved in their duties in that regard. In some in­
stances, with regard to some teachers and employees, these 
efforts were not sufficient to adequately instruct them. The 
Court finds that additional steps to inform and instruct 
such personnel must be taken in the future.

D istrict Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



101a

21. This Court has retained continual jurisdiction of 
this cause for further proceedings and to hear any com­
plaints or charges of discriminatory application of the de­
fendant board’s plan. No complaints have been lodged or 
filed in this Court by any individual as to any discrimina­
tory action of the board in the administration of the plan.

22. All services, facilities, activities and programs with 
regard to each particular school in the system, are available 
to every student in that school, without reference to race. 
This includes the use of all facilities of the school, such as 
rest-room facilities, lunchrooms, laboratory facilities, spe­
cial facilities and equipment; all programs of the school, 
such as athletic teams, band and choral programs, clubs 
and student groups; and all services and activities such as 
counseling, honor societies, dances and other social activi­
ties; and all other services, facilities, activities and pro­
grams. All services, facilities, activities and programs are 
available, as between various schools, without reference to 
the race of the pupils attending the schools. No services, 
facilities, activities or programs have been changed, cur­
tailed or limited due to the race of the students, or due 
to the fact that a school has a bi-racial student body. No 
special waiting period or other qualifying factors or cir­
cumstances have been attached as a qualification to par­
ticipation due to the race of any pupil. All student extra­
curricular activities, over which the defendant board has 
control, are conducted on a desegregated basis, as are all 
parent-related activities. There are some activities over 
which the defendant board has no compelling control.

D istrict Court Order and Opinion o f October 13, 1967



102a

23. The defendant board has formulated a specific initial 
plan for beginning faculty integration and has made an 
actual start upon that plan. There are presently, assigned 
permanently for the 1967-68 school year, 12 Negro teachers 
teaching in schools where the enrollment is predominantly 
white and 3 white teachers teaching in schools where the 
enrollment is predominantly Negro. Defendant has made 
a conscientious effort to select teachers for assignment to 
schools of their opposite race who would be thoroughly 
qualified by way of background, experience, training and 
disposition and who would be likely to do well in the posi­
tion, for the stated purpose of laying the foundation for 
additional faculty desegregation in the future.

All general faculty meetings, teacher institutes, new 
teacher orientation programs, in-service training pro­
grams, in-service contract classes with the University of 
South Alabama, faculty committees, and all other faculty 
activities and programs are carried out on an integrated 
basis. Special teaching positions, such as teachers for 
classes at the Sixth District Tuberculosis Hospital, home- 
bound classes, and special classes, are handled on an inte­
grated basis.

Defendant has adopted a stated policy of employing and 
assigning teachers without regard to race, but in most in­
stances continues to assign teachers with regard to race. 
The Court finds that it is the purpose and intent of defen­
dant board to continue steps toward ultimate total deseg­
regation of faculty personnel. The Court further finds that 
the policies adopted, the efforts made and the stated inten­
tions of the defendant board to this end are proper and 
sufficient in the prevailing circumstances.

D istrict Court Order and Opinion o f October 13, 1967



103a

24. All staff and staff activities are integrated. Prior to 
the filing of the current plan the maintenance of separate 
office facilities at separate locations for Negro and white 
staff personnel were discontinued and the offices were 
consolidated in one place. The top staff positions of super­
intendent of schools and associate and assistant superin­
tendent are held by white persons. The positions of super­
visor and other staff positions, including secretarial and 
clerical positions and nurses, are integrated. All staff ac­
tivities, programs, and committees are handled on an inte­
grated basis.

25. The defendant board has instituted two remedial 
programs intended specifically to apply to and raise the 
educational level of Negro students in the system. One of 
these is carried on with the approval and cooperation of 
the Office of Economic Opportunity. The other has received 
the commendation of the Office of Education of the Depart­
ment of Health, Education and Welfare.

26. The defendant board has initiated and completed 
three school consolidations. In one of these, one bi-raeial 
school was consolidated with another bi-racial school. In 
both of the other two consolidations, a school attended en­
tirely by Negroes has been discontinued and the school, its 
student body, and its attendance area consolidated into a 
school or schools that were, before the consolidation, in 
one instance entirely white and in another predominantly 
white. Additional consolidations would be difficult for the 
present due to a general lack of sufficient classroom ca­
pacity as compared to enrollment. The Court finds that

D istrict Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



104a

the defendant board has exhibited an intent to proceed with 
the consolidation of schools, without regard to race, where 
feasible, desirable and sound from an educational stand­
point in light of all surrounding circumstances.

27. The Court finds as a fact that Mobile County has 
both a shifting population and a growing population; that 
there is commercial encroachment into former residential 
areas; that there are highway construction projects in the 
urban areas displacing population; that there are several 
urban renewal and other similar projects that have or will 
both displace population, temporarily and permanently, 
as well as attract population; and that there are other 
changes in residential patterns taking place, including ra­
cial changes.

The defendant board is pursuing a policy of locating new 
schools with relation to known or anticipated areas of pop­
ulation concentration. Some school sites are acquired many 
years in advance, some are never used because population 
does not develop as anticipated. Some school construction 
projects are planned many years in advance, and some are 
changed on one or more occasions before construction is 
commenced. An effort is made to locate new school con­
struction where it is needed. Since the beginning of this 
litigation the defendant board has pursued a policy of con­
structing, adding to, renovating and repairing its school 
facilities without reference to the race of the pupils con­
cerned.

28. Furnishings, fixtures, equipment and facilities are 
allotted to all schools on an equal basis without reference

D istrict Court Order and Opinion o f October 13, 1967



105a

to the race of the pupils attending the school. All allot- 
ments of textbooks, supplies and funds for supplies are 
allocated on an equal basis without reference to the race 
of the pupils concerned. Courses of study are available 
to all schools on the same basis without reference to the 
race of the students attending the various schools. Many 
courses of study may be offered at one or more schools and 
not at others. These offerings are made without reference 
to the race of the pupils at the school and on the basis of 
requests of the principals of the schools. The Court finds 
as a matter of fact that facilities, equipment, furnishings, 
textbooks, materials, allocated funds, and courses of study 
are made available to all schools on the same basis, without 
regard to race.

During the 1967-68 school year twenty transfers were 
granted to pupils in order to take a particular course of 
study; of these 12 were granted to Negro pupils and 8 to 
white pupils.

29. A  number of schools in the Mobile County Public 
School System have enrollments beyond the capacity of 
their permanent facilities. The defendant board has been 
building new schools at a rapid rate. The system is made 
up of schools of various ages; these schools therefore vary 
in appearance and quality of physical plant. The actual 
physical plants, as well as the furnishings, facilities, and 
equipment in those schools attended predominantly and 
entirely by Negro students are essentially equivalent to 
those attended predominantly and entirely by white stu­
dents.

D istrict Court Order and Opinion o f October 13, 1967



106a

30. The proceedings in this cause have had wide pub­
licity in Mobile County. Details of the plan, orders of the 
Court, and periods designated by the plan and the Court 
have been disseminated through numerous news stories in 
the local press. In addition, radio and television coverage 
of these details has been widespread.

31. In the past there have been occasions where a school 
has, within a period of one or more years, undergone a 
total change in the racial composition of its enrollment. 
The court finds that this has occurred on six occasions; 
four of these since the defendant has been under court 
order. None have occurred since the filing of the current 
desegregation plan. In each instance the change has been 
contemporaneous with a corresponding change in the racial 
composition of the general neighborhood and the attend­
ance area surrounding the school.

The Court finds that none of these occurrences have re­
sulted from nor been accompanied by bad faith upon the 
part of the defendant board, in light of all prevailing cir­
cumstances.

The Court recognizes that there could possibly be similar 
occurrences in the future, as a result of natural processes; 
the Court now states however for the benefit of the future, 
that it will not tolerate any such change as may result from 
arbitrary action as opposed to natural processes.

32. Based upon current figures there are 692 Negro pu­
pils attending school in bi-racial schools, where the enroll­
ment is predominantly white; at this time last year there 
were 181 students so situated. At the present time there

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



107a

are 4 white students attending school in schools where the 
student body is predominantly Negro; at this time last year 
there were no white students so situated. At the present 
time there are in the system 33 bi-racial schools, or schools 
with bi-racial student bodies; at this time last year there 
were 15 schools so situated. There are presently 28 schools 
where the enrollment is entirely white, 32 schools where 
the enrollment is entirely Negro and 33 schools where the 
enrollment is bi-racial. Of the 33 bi-racial schools, 31 were 
formerly entirely white schools and 2 formerly entirely 
Negro schools. At the present time there are 29,031 stu­
dents in the Mobile County Public School System attending 
bi-racial schools and receiving their education under inte­
grated circumstances; at this time last year there were 
15,650 students so situated.

Conclusions of L aw

1. In order that a plan for the operation of schools meet 
constitutional standards, at least within this Circuit, it 
must reside within the four walls of United States, et al. 
v. Jefferson  County Board o f Education, et al. and com­
panion cases, 372 F.2d 836. In that case are set forth de­
tailed principles against which any plan must be measured. 
It prescribes no specific plan for application to all school 
districts but recognizes that “Freedom of Choice” or “ Geo­
graphic Zoning” or indeed some hitherto non-categorized 
method may best serve the educational needs of an area. 
This Court, however, concludes that the same basic plan 
must be applied throughout any one system, since the ad­
ministration of one type of plan in rural areas and another 
in city schools, with the students shifting between the two

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



108a

frequently would be entirely too onerous and burdensome. 
The Mobile Plan, while differing in minor details as be­
tween rural and city schools is basically the same through­
out the system. This is as it should be.

The Court of Appeals for this Circuit approves, as does 
this Court, of the selection by the particular board of any 
type of plan so long as such plan meets generally the basic 
elements in the Jefferson  County case. Since the chosen 
vehicle for desegregation of schools in the cases consol­
idated with Jefferson County was the “ Freedom of Choice” 
plan, the Court of Appeals made its measurement in the 
specific terms of “ Freedom of Choice” plans and shaped 
its model decree in the terms of such plan. As generally 
agreed by all parties, and as is clear from the evidence 
adduced including the plan itself, the Mobile Plan is not 
a “Freedom of Choice” plan and the decree in the Jefferson  
County case is not applicable as such. But the Mobile Plan 
must meet the general tests prescribed in the opinion en­
tered in that case. In fashioning conclusions of law in the 
instant case, this Court places the Mobile County plan 
alongside the pattern as set forth in Jefferson County and 
frames its decree in the terms of the method selected lo­
cally since this Court concludes as a matter of law that the 
Mobile County “Attendance Area—Option” plan is a con­
stitutional method conforming in basic provisions to the 
principles in the Jefferson  County case. It is not unlike the 
plan prescribed by the Court of Appeals in Gaines et al. v. 
D ougherty County Bd. o f Ed. et al., 334 F.2d 983. However, 
in certain areas it falls short or misses the mark and the 
decree to be entered pursuant to these conclusions of law 
is directed to a correction of those shortcomings. Reference

D istrict Court Order and Opinion o f October 13, 1967



109a

is made specifically to the sub-heads of the Jefferson  opin­
ion as these are set out beginning on page 890 of the re­
ported case.

2. Speed o f D esegregation : Since all grades in the Mo­
bile System were reached by its plan in 1967, the plan meets 
standards as to speed.

3. M andatory E xercise o f Grade Level Options: There 
does not exist under the Mobile plan, nor has there existed 
for at least one year prior to the current term, any initial 
assignment of students by race. The three school option 
in the city portion of the system and two school option in 
rural areas, each including a school formerly white and 
formerly Negro, to which any student may present himself 
initially and enroll as a matter of right, avoids any sem­
blance of assignment by race. Since all city attendance 
areas are non-racially devised; indeed being in most in­
stances bi-racial; and comprise a system of single zones 
completely replacing the old dual zone system, race is not 
a factor in any initial enrollment and the plan’s provisions 
in this respect are constitutional. The plan and regulations 
implementing it prescribe a mandatory choice with regard 
to the grade level options. The plan, to be constitutional, 
must make the exercise of the options mandatory, as to 
those parents or guardians whose children have reached a 
grade level option in moving from elementary to junior 
high and from junior high to senior high. The choice of 
optional schools by a student enrolling initially (including 
first graders) is already mandatory in that the presenting 
of the child to a particular optional school for enrollment 
is required and sufficient.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



110a

4. Transportation: The practice of the Board of trans­
porting any student, who meets statutory requirements to 
be a transported student, to either optional school selected 
by him is proper. However, such provision is not ade­
quately covered in the terms of the plan and this must be 
done. Notice of the availability of such transportation 
must be provided for and this is covered later in these con­
clusions under the subhead of “Notice.”

5. N otice: The use of display advertisements to inform 
parents of the provisions of the plan as to options, initial 
enrollment and transfer rights; and the dissemination of 
this information through all public news media in the 
county; and the publication of maps showing the arrange­
ment of attendance area lines and school locations have 
been carried out under the general supervision of this court 
and are sufficient except in the following particulars: (1) 
At any time that the boundary line of an attendance area 
is changed, those parents or guardians residing in the af­
fected area shall be notified by letter, hand delivered or 
mailed, which letter shall specify the options which such 
parent or guardian has as to his children together with the 
method of exercising it. (2) The Board shall procure the 
publication each year prior to the opening of school of a 
map or maps showing arrangement of attendance areas in 
city schools and of rural schools; and the proposed bus 
routes based upon options theretofore exercised by students. 
(3) More attention must be given annually to insure that 
school personnel, including principals and teachers, are fa­
miliar with the option provisions of the plan, to the end 
that they may, with knowledge, assist parents in making

D istrict Court Order and Opinion o f October 13, 1967



111a

a conscious exercise of options available upon enrollment, 
transfer or when reaching a grade level option point. (4) 
All such notices must include the assurance that public 
transportation will be furnished to any pupil in the rural 
portion of the system properly exercising an option if he 
is thereby required to travel more than the statutory two 
miles. (5) Each such notice must contain an assurance that 
clarification and further information is available by tele­
phone or personal conference at School Board offices.

This Court concludes that hand delivered notices to par­
ents of those pupils who have reached a grade level option 
point is sufficient without the necessity of published notice, 
since this is the most effective means of giving notice where 
those to be notified are specifically identifiable. However, 
the notices heretofore used must be changed to provide the 
following: (1) All such forms, with option selected, must 
be returned and more adequate steps must be instituted by 
the Board to insure the mandatory exercise of the option 
provisions; (2) Such forms shall provide in a prominent 
place that further information may be obtained and ques­
tions answered in person or by telephone to School Board 
offices, listing the address and telephone number and exten­
sion where the parent may call; (3) Parents shall be af­
forded seven days within which to exercise the grade level 
option.

6. T ransfers: The Board has acted properly as to 
granting transfers to correct racial assignments arising 
during the times when dual zones existed and to permit 
students to obtain particular subjects not offered at the 
school in which he is enrolled. The transfer provisions of

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



112a

the plan and practices pursuant thereto are proper and 
constitutional except in the following particulars: (1) No­
tice of the transfer period shall, in addition to information 
contained in past display advertisements, contain in gen­
eral terms the bases upon which transfers shall be granted 
and specific reference to correcting past racial assignments 
and subject matter transfers; (2) In addition to being 
available at the School Board office, transfer request forms 
shall be made available at the office of the principal of each 
senior high school in the system and the published notice 
of the transfer period shall so state. (3) Students in senior 
high school grades or who are 16 years old or older shall 
have the right to procure their own transfer request forms, 
and the published notice shall so state; (4) The notice to 
parents of action taken on transfer request shall be revised 
to show with more specificity the reasons for denial in those 
cases where the request is denied.

7. Services, Facilities, A ctiv ities and Program s: The 
services, facilities, activities and programs of the Middle 
County School System to the extent that the Board has 
power to control them, have been integrated and this Court 
is of the opinion that in this area the defendant board is 
acting with complete propriety.

8. School Equalization: The activities of the Board in 
school equalization is constitutional and proper. In closing 
the two small schools which had total Negro student bodies 
and consolidating these pupils into larger, new and more 
adequate schools, the Board has largely cured the defi­
ciencies in this area. Two other small schools were also

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



113a

closed with one school having a bi-racial student body and 
the other all white. Because of the magnitude of the build­
ing program in the Mobile County School System in recent 
years, the number of inadequate physical plants has almost 
disappeared. Many pupils are still housed in portable 
classrooms but these form a part of the schools to which 
they are attached and the Court finds them to be adequate 
as school rooms for a limited time.

The remedial programs being conducted with the coop­
eration of HEW and OEO (being the Title 1 Summer 
School Program and the teacher improvement program 
styled “ Project Mobile” ) are adequate to upgrade student 
and teacher performance in low income areas, inhabited 
primarily by Negroes.

9. Compliance R ep orts : By virtue of periodic motions 
and hearings in this case since its inception, the Court has 
been kept informed of the progress of desegregation in the 
Mobile School System. However, this is no substitute for 
the requirement of scheduled compliance reports. In order 
that the Court and all parties be kept informed, the plan 
must provide for a status report to this Court by June 30 
of each year and a second such report by September 30 
of each year. Copies of such reports must be served upon 
counsel for the plaintiffs and for the intervenors.

10. D esegregation  o f Faculty <& S ta ff: Insofar as staff 
and administrative personnel are at present concerned, 
these have been satisfactorily integrated. In addition, the 
Court has found as a matter of fact that all in-service train­
ing, administrative meetings, and other activities involving

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



114a

teaching personnel at the school system level have com­
pletely abandoned separation by race and are, therefore, 
proper.

As a first year effort, the Court concludes that the as­
signment of 15 teachers to schools where the student body 
is predominantly of a race other than their own is a satis­
factory beginning of faculty desegregation. All courts who 
have dealt with the question of faculty desegregation rec­
ognize it as the most difficult of the transitions to make. 
This Court is of the opinion that the activities of the board 
in selecting teachers with qualifications that would prob­
ably insure their success in a bi-racial situation is sound. 
It is more important that a sound beginning be made upon 
which can be based more extensive future desegregation of 
faculty than a helter-skelter assignment of teachers simply 
to accomplish more in numbers. Teachers assigned to 
schools where the students are predominantly of a race 
other than their own include city and rural schools; high 
schools and elementary schools; and both races. For the 
current year this is sufficient. 11

11. Construction: The practice of the Board in con­
structing new schools where concentrations of students are 
presently found or reasonably anticipated ultimately to be 
found, is sound.

In view of current decisions, however, including the J ef- 
ferson  decision, this Court feels compelled to require that 
the defendant board keep the Court specifically informed 
with regard to its building program. The Board shall not 
construct or start construction on any new school without 
first making a comprehensive investigation concerning the

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



115a

advisability and location of such school or schools and sub­
mit the same to the Court for its approval or disapproval. 
It is not desirable or necessary that any report be now 
made with regard to any project already in progress, in­
cluding the Howard, Scarbrough, Emerson, and Williamson 
projects, as the Court is satisfied that none of these are 
racially motivated or inspired.

12. Curricula, Textbooks, Supplies and Equipm ent: The 
practice of the Board in allocating textbooks, supplies, 
equipment and all other items on an equal basis, without 
regard to race is sound and meets Constitutional standards. 
So too are the practices being pursued in arranging course 
offerings.

13. R esu lts: The Jefferson  opinion calls upon the 
Courts to scrutinize the results as one measure of the suc­
cess of a particular plan. Those Negro students in pre­
dominantly white schools for the school year 1967-68 have 
quadrupled as compared with the prior school year. The 
1966-67 school year likewise found the number of such stu­
dents multiplied by about four over the previous year. The 
number of schools with bi-racial student bodies have dou­
bled in the first year under the current plan and the number 
of total pupils in schools with bi-racial student bodies has 
doubled. In addition all pupils properly exercising an op­
tion in the rural areas are being transported to the school 
selected. A start has been made on faculty desegregation. 
All of these factors indicate that, measured by results, the 
plan is working. It is believed that the additional require­
ments set out in the decree, particularly as to the man­

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



116a

datory features of the grade level option, the requirements 
as to additional information to be contained in the various 
notices, the more adequate preparation of personnel to ex­
plain options and counsel with parents, and the modifi­
cation of procedures for requesting transfers all will have 
an effect upon results in future years.

D ecree

This cause having come on to be heard on July 18-20 and 
July 24-28 and August 18, 1967, on plaintiffs’ Motion for 
Further Relief as amended and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Mo­
tion for Supplemental Relief and on defendants’ answers 
thereto; pleadings, oral testimony, depositions, answers to 
interrogatories, exhibits and affidavits having been consid­
ered, and the Court having received and considered the 
written briefs of counsel, and having heard and considered 
arguments of counsel; and Findings of Fact and Conclu­
sions of Law have been made by the Court; and the Court 
having heretofore entered an interim order in this cause 
dated August 24, 1967, but having retained the Motions 
under submission for further orders and proceedings:

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed as fol­
lows:

1. Transfer request forms shall be made available dur­
ing the transfer request period at the office of the principal 
of each senior high school of the system as well as at the 
School Board office and the published notice shall so state.

2. Students in senior high school or who have attained 
the age of 16 years shall be permitted to pick up forms for 
their own transfers and the published notice shall so state.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



117a

3. The form of notice to parents of action taken npon 
transfer requests shall be revised in such fashion as will 
indicate with more clarity the reason for the denial of the 
transfer request when such request is denied.

4. The published notice as to the transfer request period 
shall, in addition to information included in past display 
advertising, contain in general terms the bases upon which 
transfers shall be granted and shall make specific reference 
to the granting of transfers to correct past racial assign­
ments based upon residence in a former dual attendance 
area and the availability of subject matter transfers.

5. Appropriate steps shall be taken to insure as nearly 
as possible the mandatory exercise by parents of the grade 
level options where appropriate.

6. The form letter directed to parents with regard to the 
grade level options shall include therein, prominently, the 
assurance that additional information will be provided by 
telephone or in person from the offices of the defendant 
board upon request. Said letter shall contain the address 
of the School Board office and the telephone number and 
extension to be called for such additional information.

7. Parents shall be afforded seven days within which to 
exercise the grade level option.

8. The defendant board shall procure the publication, 
annually, prior to the opening of the school year of a map 
or maps of Mobile County showing attendance area bound­
aries ; location of schools; and anticipated bus routes.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



118a

9. The defendant board shall instruct its school per­
sonnel, including teachers and principals more adequately 
as to the provisions of the plan governing initial enroll­
ment, grade level options, and transfer provisions in order 
that intelligent assistance may be given parents in the exer­
cise of these rights.

10. The practice of the Board in furnishing transpor­
tation to eligible students who select a proper optional 
school shall be written into the plan itself and notice thereof 
included in the letter to parents regarding grade level op­
tions and the display advertising concerning initial enroll­
ment.

11. The plan shall be amended to provide that when the 
boundary line of any attendance area is altered, any parent 
or guardian whose residence is placed in a new attendance 
area as a result of a change shall be entitled to exercise 
the option provisions of the plan just as if such parent or 
guardian had moved his residence from one attendance 
area to another; and the plan shall be further amended to 
provide that actual notice be given to the parents whose 
children are known to be affected thereby, by letter, which 
letter shall include an outline of the options available to 
the parent and the method of exercising the same.

12. Regular status reports shall be filed with this Court 
and copies furnished to all parties, as follows:

(A) By June 30 of each year, beginning June 30, 1968, 
the defendant will file with this Court a report con­
taining the following information:

D istrict Court Order and Opinion o f O ctober 13, 1967



119a

1. A map showing the name and location of each 
school planned to be nsed during the coming 
school year, and the location of all attendance 
area boundary lines; as well as a description of 
any changes in attendance area boundary lines 
that have occurred since the last report to the 
Court, and any contemplated for the coming 
school year.

2. A  tabulation of the following as they are ex­
pected to exist for the coming school year:

(a) The total number of schools and the num­
ber of bi-racial schools in system.

(b) The total number of students in bi-racial 
schools.

(c) The number of Negro students in bi-racial 
schools by grade, and an indication of how 
each has been so enrolled.

(d) The number of white students in bi-racial 
schools by grade.

3. A  tabulation of transfer applications filed dur­
ing the most recent April 1-15 transfer period, 
showing with regard to each:

(a) The name, grade and race of the student.

(b) The school from which and to which the 
transfer was requested.

(c) The action taken on the request, and the
reason for denial, as to those denied.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



120a

4. (a) The planned faculty assignments for the 
corning year, listing each teacher by name, 
race, school and grade or subject taught.

(b) The number of faculty vacancies, by school, 
that have occurred since the last report. 
The name and race of the teacher employed 
to fill each such vacancy, and an indication 
of whether such teacher is newly employed 
or was transferred from within the system. 
As to transferred teachers, the schools 
from which and to which transferred.

(B) By September 30 of each year, beginning Septem­
ber 30, 1968, the defendant will file with this Court 
a report containing the following information:

1. A notation and explanation of any attendance 
area boundary lines that are in effect, other than 
as reported on the map referred to in 12 (A) 1 
above, with reference to the June 30 report.

2. A tabulation of the information required by 12 
(A) 2 above, as it exists after the opening of 
school.

3. A tabulation of the information required by 12 
(A) 4 (a) above, as it exists after the opening 
of school.

13. Except with respect to any building project already 
in progress, including the Howard, Scarborough, Emerson 
and Williamson projects, the defendant will, prior to be­
ginning construction of any new school, make a compre­

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



121a

hensive investigation as to the advisability and location of 
snch school, and will submit the same to this Court for 
approval or disapproval.

14. The notice published prior to the opening of school 
each year, giving notice of the option provisions of the 
plan, shall contain the statement that information as to the 
optional schools available will be furnished upon request 
by the principals of all schools at the time of enrollment, 
or by telephone or personal request to the School Board 
office. And the address, and telephone number of the School 
Board office shall be given.

15. The plan shall be amended to require that all display 
advertisement notices published in the newspaper pursuant 
to the plan, shall be published once a week for three con­
secutive weeks, immediately preceding the occurrence of 
the event in connection with which the notice is given.

16. Defendants’ desegregation plan filed in this Court 
on October 19, 1966 meets current constitutional standards 
and is therefore approved by this Court. In order to insure 
better operation of the plan the foregoing requirements 
shall be effectuated promptly.

17. In all other respects, except as to relief included in 
the interim order of August 24, 1967, plaintiff’s Motion for 
Further Belief as Amended and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Mo­
tion for Supplemental Relief are denied.

18. Jurisdiction of this cause is retained to enter such 
further orders and to take such other proceedings as may 
be meet and just in the premises.

D istrict Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967

Entered this 13th day of October, 1967.



122a

Before M aris,* T hornberry and A in sw o rth , Circuit 
Judges.

T hornberry, Circuit Judge:

In the face of a vexing, continuing problem, this Court 
decreed that school boards in this Circuit have an affirma­
tive duty to effectuate a transition to unitary racially non- 
discriminatory school systems. This means integration of 
faculties, facilities, and activities, as well as students. The 
time for implementing programs that work is now. United 
States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 5th Cir. 
1967, 372 F.2d 836, aff’d en banc, 380 F.2d 385, cert, denied 
sub nom., Caddo Parish School Board v. United States, 
1967, 389 U.S. 840, 88 S. Ct. 67, 19 L. Ed.2d 103.

With the law in mind, we turn once again to Mobile 
County, Alabama.* 1 In 1966, another panel considered Mo­
bile’s plan for desegregation of schools and found it defi­
cient in several respects:

Principal among these [defects] is the fact that even 
as to those grades which, under the plan, have actually 
become “desegregated” there is no true substance in 
the alleged desegregation. Less than two-tenths of one 
percent of the Negro children in the system are attend- 
ing whltfe s ch o o l Another defect is the length of time 
that the plan would require to come to a final fruition;

* Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
1 Counting temporary measures and appeals on the merits, liti­

gation concerning the desegregation of Mobile schools has now been 
before the Fifth Circuit five times since 1963.

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968



123a

another is the option given to white students living 
within the “ area” or “ district” of a given school to 
transfer to another district or area to attend a white 
school there, without the granting of a similar option 
to a Negro child residing within the area of a Negro 
school to transfer to a white school outside the area; 
a further significant defect is the lack of provision for 
a Negro child to attend a school offering particular 
subjects if such subjects are taught only in white 
schools; and finally, there is the failure of the plan to 
start desegregation of the faculties of the schools.

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 
5th Cir. 1966, 364 F.2d 896, 901. The school board at­
tempted to meet these objections and to comply with the 
Court’s decision by (a) drawing new boundary lines for 
some of the school attendance areas or geographic zones, 
(b) making optional schools outside of attendance areas 
available to Negroes as well as whites, and (c) taking steps 
toward gradual faculty desegregation. In the urban areas 
of the county, a Negro or white student can now attend (a) 
the school serving his attendance area, (b) the nearest for­
merly white school serving his residence, or (c) the nearest 
formerly Negro school serving his residence. The optional 
schools, i.e., the nearest formerly white and formerly Negro 
schools, are available only to students in the following cate­
gories: (a) Those enrolling for the first time in the Mobile 
Public School System; (b) those enrolling in the first 
grade; (c) those who change their residence from one at­
tendance area to another; (d) those going from elementary 
to junior high school or from junior high school to senior

Court o f A ppeals Opinion o f  March 12, 1968



124a

high. Transfer subject to approval is available to students 
of any grade. In the rural areas of the county, a Negro or 
white student can attend (a) the nearest formerly white 
school serving his residence or (b) the nearest formerly 
Negro school serving his residence. Because of the rela­
tively small number of schools and the widely scattered pop­
ulation, the board did not consider attendance areas prac­
tical for the rural areas. As for faculty desegregation, the 
board selected a small number of white and Negro teachers 
to whom to offer the o p t i o n  of transferring to a school in 
which students and teachers of the opposite race pre­
dominate.

The district court held that the boundary lines for the at­
tendance areas had been drawn on a nonracial basis and 
that the school board’s over-all plan for desegregation of 
students was in substantial compliance with the Fifth Cir­
cuit decisions. The court also held that the board had made 
an adequate start toward desegregation of faculty.2 While 
many subsidiary issues are raised on this appeal, the funda­
mental ones are whether this Court can put its stamp of 
approval on the attendance-zone lines drawn by the school

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968

2 After exhaustive hearings the district court entered an “ interim 
order”  on August 24, 1967 requiring the Board of School Commis­
sioners to afford Negro students in the metropolitan area an oppor­
tunity to transfer to predominantly white schools serving the areas 
of their residences as a result of boundary changes. The transfer 
period was to be held from August 28 through August 31; pupils 
were to be allowed to transfer to the new schools made available by 
the boundary changes or to the nearest formerly white or formerly 
Negro schools serving their residences. On October 13, 1967, the 
court denied the motions filed by appellants for further relief and 
entered the findings discussed in the text. This Court had previ­
ously denied appellants’ motion for injunction pending appeal on 
September 13, 1967. This appeal was expedited.



125a

board and the free-choice plan engrafted onto attendance 
zones and whether it can affirm the finding that the board 
has made an adequate start toward desegregation of 
faculty.

I. Students

We look first to the results produced by appellee’s plan 
for integrating students in Mobile County. The Mobile 
Public School System, the largest in Alabama, has 93 
schools. In round numbers, there are 44,000 white students V*// O C O’ ----:----- c ...— ---
and 31,000 Negroes for a total of 75,000. According to ap- *3 / Q 0 q 
pellee’s figures for the current school year (1967-68), there 
are 33 biracial schools in the system as compared with 15 
a year ago. 29,031 students attend biracial schools as com­
pared with 15,650 in 1966-67. 27,023 of the students at­
tending biracial schools are white and 2,008 are Negro.
There are 692 Negroes attending schools of predominantly 
white enrollment and 4 white students attending schools of 
'predommantly Negro enrollment. Acc(q7tmg"the"Nict that
this Court- uses" tbe.I) K\V guidelines as a yardstick for
measuring the progress of desegregation in particular 
school districts, the school board argues that it has more 
than satisfied HEW percentages. While the Guidelines re­
quire that a district employing a freedom-of-choice plan for 
at least two years have 15 to 18 per cent of its student pop­
ulation in desegregated schools, Mobile now has 29,031 or 
38 per cent of its students in biracial schools.

The percentage of total students in biracial schools is 
superficially acceptable, but beneath the surface the picture 
is not so good. In its per curiam adopting the panel’s opin­
ion in Jefferson  County, this Court said that school desegre-

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f March 12, 1968



126a

gation can first be measured quantitatively, using percent­
ages as a rough rule of thumb, but ultimately must be 
measured qualitatively, judging whether schools are still 
identifiable as white or Negro. 380 F.2d, at 389-390. Judg­
ing by the qualitative standard and by what we conceive 
to be the spirit of Jefferson  County, we are unable to say 
that Mobile’s plan is working so well as to make judicial 
interference unnecessary at this time. Two-thirds of the 
schools remain totally segregated and unquestionably iden­
tifiable as Negro or white; desegregation of the remaining 
schools has been so minimal that it would be generous to 
say they are no longer identifiable as Negro or white. 
Though Negroes comprise about 41 per cent of the student 
population, the crucial fact is that only 2,008 or 6.5 per cent 
of them are experiencing a desegregated education. More- 
ove^flhis figure of 6.5 per cent can realistically be reduced 

■-to2 pjpr cent (692) because 1,316 of the 2,008 Negroes at- 
f tendingbiracial schools are in schools attended by only 4 
white students. The only Negroes really experiencing a 
desegregated education are the 692 attending schools of 
predominantly white enrollment. Although this is 511 more 
than the number of Negroes who attended predominantly 
white schools last year (181), it is inarguable that the per­
centage of Negroes experiencing a desegregated education 
is still too low. The number of Negro children in school 
with white children is so far out of line with the ratio of 
Negro school children to white school children in the system 
as to make inescapable the inference that discrimination yet 
exists. See Jefferson  County, supra, 372 F.2d, at 887.

Having found the results of the present plan unsatisfac­
tory, we turn to the difficult question of what should be

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968



127a

done. Our primary concern is to see that attendance zones 
in the urban areas of Mobile County be devised so as to 
create a unitary racially nondiscriminatory system. Ap­
pellee contends, and the district court found, that boundary 
lines for the zones were drawn on a nonracial basis, using 
objective criteria such as natural landmarks and safety fac­
tors; but there is no information in the record by which 
this Court can judge whether the district court’s determina­
tion was correct or not. The school officials who testified 
were unable to state clearly what criteria they used in de­
termining the location of the various lines, and they were 
unable to produce the source material—maps, charts, mem­
oranda, etc.—they used. For the benefit of reviewing judges 
who may be unfamiliar with the city or county in question, 
it is essential that school officials be able to state what cri­
teria were used in determining geographic zones and to 
produce evidence to support their statements. In this case, 
it will be necessary for the board to do the job again, this 
time making a survey of the type suggested by appellants. 
On the basis of information obtained from the survey, 
school officials will draw attendance-zone lines on what they 
conceive to be a nonracial basis. If there is f  urther litiga­
tion, evidence should be available to test the validity of the 
board’s action.3

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968

3 To support their assertion that the present attendance zones 
perpetuate segregation, appellants point out that in downtown 
Mobile there are overcrowded Negro schools in the same vicinity. 
as under-populated white schools and also that m many instances 
a schoolls located on the periphery of the attendance area it serves 
rg^EeFfEan IrTtEe center. These facts, they say, suggest that con­
siderations other than convenience of the students, namely race, 
determined the prseent zones. The board makes somewhat unpersua­
sive rebuttals to these points. We trust that when a survey is made 
and attendance-zone lines are thereafter drawn on a nonracial basis, 
these objections will not have to be renewed by appellants.



128a

The school board has decided that assignment of students 
in its system should be based primarily on an attendance- 
area plan. Indeed, in a system as large as Mobile’s, this 
approach is surely more practical than a pure free-choice 
plan. We therefore accept the board’s policy decision in 
this regard but insist on a survey and a new effort to draw 
zone lines on a nonracial basis so that the attendance-area 
plan will promote desegregation rather than perpetuate 
segregation. It is intended that attendance areas be desig­
nated according to strictly objective criteria with the caveat 
that a conscious effort should be made to move boundary 
lines and change feeder patterns which tend to preserve 
segregation.4 In the future, any boundary lines which sim­
ply encircle Negro residences without being explainable in 
terms other than race will be constitutionally suspect. To 
go a step farther, we hold that once attendance zones have 
been properly designated, the student’s option to attend the 
nearest formerly white or formerly Negro school outside 
his zone must be eliminated.

It is important to clarify our reason for interfering with 
school management to the extent of requiring abandonment 
of the limited options. Under Jefferson  County, a court is 
justified in requiring a board to change a particular school- 
attendance plan only when it is shown that the current plan

4 We have the impression that desegregation will be greatly 
advanced in Mobile if all students attend schools serving nonracial 
zones. In this regard, we quote from footnote 1 of the per curiam 
entered by the Court in Jefferson County:

“ In the South,” as the Civil Rights Commission has pointed out, 
the Negro “has struggled to get into the neighborhood school. 
In the North, he is fighting to get out of it.” Civ. Rts. Comm. 
Rep., Freedom to the Free. 207 (1963)

380 F.2d, at 389.

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968



129a

does not work.5 In the instant ease, the board has been on 
notice since it was last before this Court that a small per­
centage of Negroes attending school with white students 
represents a significant defect. After nearly two years, the 
percentage of Negroes experiencing a desegregated educa­
tion has increased from .2 per cent to 2 per cent. Coming 
so late in the day, this is not enough progress. The idea 
of superimposing limited options on an attendance-area 
plan has failed to bring Mobile very far along the road to­
ward the ultimate goal of a unitary system wherein schools 
are no longer recognizable as Negro or white. Since it is 
evident that the process of selecting optional schools has 
somehow thwarted the progress of desegregation, the logi-

Court o f A ppeals Opinion o f March 12, 1968

5 We do not say that we are imposing a full-scale change of at­
tendance plan on Mobile. fThe board has said that its primary, 
allegiance is to the attendance-area or neighborhood-schlM.coiisept, 
"as distinguished Trom pure freedom" of choice, i We would merely 
require the "board to'TietrueTnThat allegiance^ In Jefferson  C ounty, 
the Court accepted local decisions to use freedom of choice but 
required certain changes which would promote desegregation rather 
than perpetuate segregation. In this case, we accept the locjd 
decision to use an attendance-area’ p lan but require a change winch 

"we are convinced will promote desegregation. It seemŝ  clear tô  us 
that the selection of schools outside of geographic zones is thwarting 
progress that could be made if each student were confined to the 
schools serving his zone absent a nonraeial reason for transfer. 
Therefore we require the elimination of optional schools.

The district judge found that the limited options add a needed 
flexibility to the attendance-area plan—needed because students and 
parents have likes and dislikes that should be respected. In the 
interest of creating a system that measures up to constitutional 
standards, these options must nevertheless give way. As the Court 
said in J eff ev son C oun ty, a student has no constitutional right to 
free choice of schools. 380 F.2d at 390. The school board, on the 
other hand, has a constitutional duty to desegregate its system.



130a

cal solution is the abandonment of limited options.6 As the 
Court said in the per curiam entered in Jefferson  County, 
freedom of choice is not a goal in itself but one of many 
approaches available to school boards. If it does not work, 
another method must be tried. 380 F.2d, at 390. Since the 
limited options have not worked, we hold that after the 
boundary lines have been redrawn on a nonracial basis, 
each student in the urban areas must attend the schools 
serving his attendance zone absent some compelling non­
racial reason for transfer.

Our discussion of attendance zones is confined to the 
urban areas; at this time, we defer to the board’s view that 
zones would be impractical in the rural parts of the county. 
If school officials should change their minds and decide to 
try an attendance-area plan in the rural areas, there must, 
of course, be a survey. If, on the other hand, the board 
should continue to limit the options of rural students to the 
nearest formerly white and formerly Negro schools serving 
their residences, the steps outlined for a free-choice plan 
in the Jefferson  County decree must be followed. We 
stress particularly the transportation provision of that de­
cree. 380 F.2d, at 392.

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968

6 The district court found that a majority of the present geo­
graphic zones have both races residing within them. This finding 
persuades us that if all students attended schools serving their 
zones, there would be more desegregation than there is. When a 
further effort is made to devise nonracial zones and to eliminate 
boundary lines and feeder patterns designed to perpetuate segrega­
tion, Mobile may at least achieve a unitary system.



131a

Court o f A ppeals O p i n i o n  of March 1 2 ,  1 9 6 8  

II. Faculty

In the last Mobile case, Judge Tuttle said there must “be 
an end to the present policy of hiring and assigning 
teachers according to race by the time the last of the schools 
are fully desegregated for the school year 1967-68.” 364
F.2d, at 904. In response to this directive, the board of­
fered to a small group of teachers the option to transfer 
to a school in which students and teachers of the opposite 
race predominate. The most recent figures indicate that 12 
Negroes have elected to teach in predominantly white 
schools and 3 whites have elected to teach in predominantly 
Negro schools. Despite the Court’s decree, it seems appar­
ent that the policy of hiring and assigning teachers accord­
ing to race still exists. In a system having approximately 
2700 teachers, the surface of the problem of faculty segre­
gation is hardly scratched by the transfer of 15 teachers to 
schools of the opposite race. The reason for the lack of 
progress is that the board has not yet shouldered the bur­
den. While any sound program should encourage voluntary 
transfers, the responsibility for faculty desegregation, just 
as the responsibility for student desegregation, lies ulti­
mately with the board, not the teachers. Accordingly, we 
have entered a decree requiring the board to take positive 
steps by way of assigning teachers to schools of the oppo­
site race. In the final analysis, the pattern of teacher as­
signment to a particular school must not be identifiable as 
tailored for a heavy concentration of either Negro or white 
students. Our provisions for faculty desegregation follow 
the ones entered by another panel of this Court in Stell v. 
Board of Education for the City of Savannah and the 
County of Chatham, 5th Cir. 1967, 387 F.2d 486.



132a

We enter a decree along these lines because faculty inte­
gration has been recognized as the key to integration of all 
phases of education in a school system. As Judge Wisdom 
said in Jefferson  County,

Yet until school authorities recognize and carry out 
their affirmative duty to integrate faculties as well as 
facilities, there is not the slightest possibility of their 
ever establishing an operative nondiscriminatory 
school system.

372 F.2d, at 892. He goes on to quote with approval the fol­
lowing statement by the Eighth Circuit in Clark v. Board 
of Education of the Little Bock School District, 8th Cir. 
1966, 369 F.2d 661, 670:

The lack of a definite program will only result in fur­
ther delay of long overdue action. We are not content 
at this late date to approve a desegregation plan that 
contains only a statement of general good intention. 
We deem a positive commitment to a reasonable pro­
gram aimed at ending segregation of the teaching staff 
to be necessary for the final approval of a constitu­
tionally adequate desegregation plan.

On the whole, the provisions of our decree are designed 
to effectuate (a) the survey of the system, (b) the establish­
ment of an attendance-area plan with attendance-zone lines 
drawn on a nonracial basis, and (c) desegregation of 
faculty. The decree does not concern assignment of stu­
dents in the rural areas; but we repeat that if there are to 
be options but no attendance zones, the steps outlined in 
the Jefferson  County decree for a free-choice plan must be

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968



133a

followed. Somewhat apart from the general objectives just 
enumerated, we have also decreed full integration of inter­
school activities. Although Negroes and whites play to­
gether on athletic teams in bi-racial schools, the board ac­
knowledges that all-Negro teams are not scheduled against 
all-white teams. Such a distinction based on race is no 
longer tolerable; the integration of activities must be com­
plete. Jefferson  County, supra, 372 F.2d, at 846, footnote 5.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case 
is remanded for entry of the decree attached to this opinion.

D ecree

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the appellees, 
their agents, officers, employees and successors and all 
those in active concert and participation with them be and 
they are permanently enjoined from discriminating on the 
basis of race or color in the operation of the Mobile school 
system. As set out more particularly in the body of the 
decree, they shall take affirmative action to disestablish all 
school segregation and to eliminate the effects of the dual 
school system. As stated in the opinion of the Court of 
Appeals, the primary concern is that attendance-zone lines 
be drawn on a nonracial basis. To this end the board will 
conduct a survey as more specifically described in Section 
IV herein.

I.
S tudent A ssignment

A. The appellees shall, to the extent feasible, make as- 
signments of students and draw attendance area lines in 
such a way as to eliminate the effects of past racial deci-

Court of A ppeals Opinion of March 12, 1968



134a

sions in assigning students, drawing attendance lines, and 
constructing sclioonTOildingsrp"""

B. Appellees shall arrange for the conspicuous publica­
tion of an announcement, giving detailed information as to 
the name and location of schools to which students have 
been assigned for the coming school year pursuant to the 
desegregation plan, in the newspapers most generally cir­
culated in the community between March 1 and March 31 of 
each year. Publication as a legal notice is not sufficient. 
Whenever any revision of attendance zones is proposed, 
appellees shall similarly arrange for the conspicuous pub­
lication of an announcement at least 30 days before any 
change is to become effective, naming each to be affected 
and describing the proposed new zones. Copies of all ma­
terial published hereunder must also be given at that time 
to all television and radio stations serving the community. 
Copies of this notice and decree shall be posted in each 
school in the school system and at the office of the Superin­
tendent of Education.

C. A street or road map showing the boundaries of, and 
the school serving, each attendance zone and a chart show­
ing feeder patterns must be freely available for public in­
spection at the office of the Superintendent. Each school 
in the system must have freely available for public inspec­
tion a map showing the boundaries of its attendance area, 
and a chart showing its feeder pattern. A copy of this map 
and chart shall be given to the Parent Teachers Associa­
tion at each school.

D. After the attendance areas are redrawn to achieve 
the desegregation of the system as provided in section IV

Court o f A ppeals Opinion o f March 1 2 ,1968



135a

of this decree, all students will be required to attend the 
school serving their zone, absent some compelling nonracial 
reason.

Court o f A ppeals Opinion o f March 12, 1968

II.

Construction

To the extent consistent with the proper operation of 
the school system as a whole, the school board will, in locat­
ing and designing new schools, in expanding existing facili­
ties, and in consolidating schools, do so with the object of 
eradicating past discrimination and of effecting desegrega­
tion. The school board will not fail to consolidate schools 
because desegregation would result.

Until such time as the Court approves a plan based on 
the survey conducted pursuant to section IV herein, con­
struction shall be suspended for all planned building proj­
ects at which actual construction has not been commenced.

Leave to proceed with particular construction projects 
may be obtained prior to the completion of the survey upon 
a showing by the appellees to the Court, that particular 
building projects will not have the effect of perpetuating 
racial segregation.

III.

F aculty  and S taff  A ssignments

A. Faculty Em ploym ent. Race or color shall not be a 
factor in the hiring, assignment, reassignment, promotion, 
demotion, or dismissal of teachers and other professional 
staff members, including student teachers, except that race 
may be taken into account for the purpose of counteracting



136a

or correcting the effect of the segregated assignment of 
faculty and staff in the dual system. Teachers, principals, 
and staff members shall be assigned to schools so that the 
faculty and staff is not composed exclusively of members 
of one race. Wherever possible, teachers shall be assigned 
so that more than one teacher of the minority race (white 
or Negro) shall be on the desegregated faculty. The Board 
will continue positive and affirmative steps to accomplish 
the desegregation of its school faculties and to achieve sub­
stantial desegregation of faculties in its schools for the 
1968-69 school year notwithstanding teacher contracts for 
1968-69 may have already been signed and approved. The 
tenure of teachers in the system shall not be used as an 
excuse for failure to comply with this provision. The appel­
lees shall establish as an objective that the pattern of 
teacher assignment to any particular school not be identifi­
able as tailored for a heavy concentration of either Negro 
or white pupils in school.

B. Dismissals. Teachers and other professional staff 
members may not be discriminatorily assigned, dismissed, 
demoted, or passed over for retention, promotion, or re­
hiring, on the ground of race or color. In any instance 
where one or more teachers or other professional staff 
members are to be displaced as a result of desegregation, 
no staff vacancy in the school system shall be filled through 
recruitment from outside the system unless no such dis­
placed staff member is qualified to fill the vacancy. If, as 
a result of desegregation, there is to be a reduction in the 
total professional staff of the school system, the qualifica­
tions of all staff members in the system shall be evaluated 
in selecting the staff member to be released without con-

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f M arch 12, 1968



137a

sideration of race or color. A report containing any such 
proposed dismissals, and the reasons therefor, shall be 
filed with the clerk of the Court, serving copies upon oppos­
ing counsel, within five (5) days after such dismissal, de­
motion, etc., as proposed.

C. Past Assignm ents. The appellees shall take steps to 
assign and reassign teachers and other professional staff 
members to eliminate the effects of the dual school system.

IV.

SUBVEY

The appellees shall conduct a survey of their school sys­
tem and report to the Court, by June 1, 1968, the results of 
such survey, and shall specifically report as follows:

A. The appellees shall prepare a map for each school 
showing the location, by race and grade, of each student in 
the school system during the 1967-68 school year.

B. Recommendations for redrawing attendance zone 
lines to achieve desegregation of the schools.

C. Recommendations for the reorganization of the 
“ feeder” system consistent with the objective of achieving 
desegregation.

D. A description of each school in the school system to 
include:

1. The size of each site and whether it is suitable 
for permanent use, suitable for temporary use, or 
should be abandoned;

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968



138a

2. The number of buildings on each site and as to 
each, whether it is suitable for permanent use, suit­
able for temporary use or should be abandoned;

3. The standards and criteria used to determine 
whether buildings and sites are suitable for permanent 
use, suitable for temporary use, or should be 
abandoned;

4. The number of regular, special and portable 
classrooms at each school building and the number of 
square feet in each such classroom;

5. Recommendations for the future use (including 
grades to be accommodated) of each school building 
and site for the next ten years, including the need for 
additional classrooms and the information upon which 
such recommendations are based.

E. A property inventory to include:

1. A list of all sites currently owned;

2. A list of all sites which the appellees have pres­
ent plans to acquire and the size and intended use of 
such sites;

3. The basis for selection of all sites listed under 
numbers 1 and 2.

F. The status of construction of each school building 
currently under construction and the status of planning for 
the use of sites currently owned.

Court of Appeals Opinion o f March 12,1968



139a

Gr. A forecast of enrollment at each school for the next 
ten years and the information upon which such forecast 
shall he based.

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968

V.
S ervices, F acilities, A ctivities and P rograms

No student shall be segregated or discriminated against 
on account of race or color in any service, facility, activity, 
or program (including transportation, athletics, or other 
extra-curricular activity) that may be conducted or spon­
sored by the school in which he is enrolled. A student at­
tending school for the first time on a desegregated basis 
may not be subject to any disqualification or waiting period 
for participation in activities and programs, including ath­
letics, which might otherwise apply because he is a transfer 
or newly assigned student except that such transferees 
shall be subject to longstanding, non-raeially based rules of 
city, county, or state athletic associations dealing with 
the eligibility of transfer students for athletic contests. All 
school use or school-sponsored use of athletic fields, meet­
ing rooms, and all other school related services, facilities, 
activities, and programs such as commencement exercises 
and parent-teacher meetings which are open to persons 
other than enrolled students, shall be open to all persons 
without regard to race or color. All special educational pro­
grams conducted by the appellees shall be conducted with­
out regard to race or color. Athletic meets and competi­
tions and other activities in which several schools partici­
pate shall be arranged so that formerly white and formerly 
Negro schools participate together.



140a

Court o f A ppeals Opinion o f March 1 2 ,  1 9 6 8  

VI.
B eports

A. On June 10, of each year beginning in 1968, appel­
lees will submit a report to the Court, and serve copies on 
opposing counsel, showing the number of persons, by 
school, grade (where appropriate), and race they antici­
pate will be employed for the fall semester. Within one 
week after the day classes begin for the fall semester in 
1968 and each succeeding year appellees will submit a re­
port to the Court, and serve a copy on opposing counsel, 
showing the number of teachers actually working at each 
school by grade (where appropriate) and race. In 1968, a 
date later than June 10 may be appropriate because of the 
survey.

B. On the same dates set forth in V I(A ) above, reports 
will be submitted to the Court, and a copy served on op­
posing counsel, showing the number of students by school, 
grade, and race, expected and actually enrolled at the 
schools in Mobile County.

C. Within one week after the opening of each school 
year, appellees shall submit a report to the Court and serve 
copies on opposing counsel, showing the number of faculty 
vacancies, by school, that have occurred or been filled by 
the appellees since the order of this Court or the latest 
report submitted pursuant to this subparagraph. This re­
port shall state the race of the teacher employed to fill each 
such vacancy and indicate whether such teacher is newly 
employed or was transferred from within the system. The



141a

tabulation of the number of transfers within the system 
shall indicate the schools from which and to which the 
transfers were made. The report shall also set forth the 
number of faculty members of each race assigned to each 
school for the current year.

On P etition  for R ehearing

P er  Curiam:

Appellee’s motion for rehearing in the above styled cases 
is denied, except that the Decree issued by this Court for 
entry by the District Court will be modified as follows:

1. Under Section IV-A, appellee will be permitted to 
consolidate the survey information on two maps one to 
cover the urban area and the other the rural area so long 
as the information is reported on the consolidated maps in 
a clear and comprehensible manner. However, the survey 
must designate students by grade.

2. Under Section IV-C, the date of submission of rec­
ommendations for the reorganization of the feeder system 
of assignments to secondary schools will be postponed from 
June 1, 1968 to August 1, 1968.

3. Likewise, under Section TV -D-5, the date of submis­
sion of recommendations for the future use of all school 
plants and sites for the next ten years will be postponed 
from June 1, 1968 to August 1, 1968.

4. Under Section IV-G, the date of submission of the 
forecast of enrollment at each school for the next ten years 
will be postponed from June 1, 1968 to December 1, 1968.

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968



142a

On March. 12, 1968, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 
reversed a prior order of this court in this case and in 
the reversal opinion included a specific decree to be fol­
lowed. See Davis, et al. v. Board o f School Commissioners, 
393 F2d 690 (1968). This decree was later modified and is 
set out in the same citation.

Pursuant to said decree, as amended, the Board of School 
Commissioners of Mobile County filed its survey and sug­
gested area attendance lines with the court on the 7th day 
of May 1968 and on the 12th day of June 1968, moved the 
Court to disapprove said area attendance zones and to place 
the entire school system on freedom of choice.

On the 29th day of May 1968, a petition to intervene 
was filed by defendant-intervenors representing many par­
ents of students attending the public schools, who join in 
vigorous opposition to any compulsory zoning plan. On 
June 17, 1968, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition 
of motion to intervene. The petition to intervene was 
granted on June 21, 1968. On July 1, the plaintiffs filed 
memorandum in opposition to defendants’ motion to reject 
their own zone plans which were filed May 7th. Hearing on 
the area attendance zones and petition for freedom of 
choice was set on July 10th but was continued for one week, 
and hearing was commenced at 9 :30 A.M. on the morning of 
the 17th of July and concluded after six days in court at 
about 4 :20 P.M. on July 24th. During this hearing the plain­
tiffs introduced their suggested Alternate “B ” area atten­
dance zones which were based on a computer analysis made 
by APT Associates in conjunction with Dr. Myrom Lieber-

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



143a

man, Professor of Education at Rhode Island College. The 
Government, plaintiff-intervenor, filed its suggested Alter­
nate “A ” attendance area zone plans which were prepared 
by Mr. Frank Dunbaugh, attorney for plaintiff-intervenor. 
If there is any one thing on which plaintiffs, plaintiff-inter­
venor, defendants, and defendant-intervenors agree, it is 
that no party likes the other parties suggested zones. Dr. 
Lieberman, who testified at length as an expert, readily 
stated that he did not have as much information as he would 
have liked in preparing plaintiffs’ suggested Alternate “ B” 
zones and that if he had had more information he could 
have done a better job, that his zones were not perfect and 
that a qualified person with more information perhaps 
could do a better job. Mr. Dunbaugh stated that he prepared 
Alternate “A ” suggested area zones on behalf of the Gov­
ernment and he readily stated that he was not an expert 
educator, that his zones were not perfect and can doubtless 
be improved upon in certain areas. The defendant is not 
satisfied with its own area zones as it asked the Court to 
disapprove them. These three vastly different zone plans 
give the Court very little assistance and demonstrate the 
difficulty in preparing any practical area attendance zones.

All three plans recognize the fact and the Court finds, 
that due to concentration of races in certain areas, atten­
dance area zones will leave some schools wih one hundred

j e r c e n t  white attendance and some with one hundred per- 
cent Negro attendance.* 1 However, the decree of the Court 
of Appeals contains an explicit mandate that Mobile 
metropolitan schools shall be organized into attendance

1 Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 16 and 17, Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit 6 
and Defendants’ Exhibit 16.

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



144a

zones on a nonraeial basis, and this Court bas no discre­
tion to grant the motions for adoption of a purely freedom- 
of-choice system.

Under certain of the suggested zoning plans, and per­
haps all, it would in some instances require children in the 
system who are scheduled to graduate next year to transfer 
from the school they have attended and thus spend a single 
year in a school new to them and separated from familiar 
surroundings and friends. This has met with much opposi­
tion both from students and parents. It seems to the Court 
that the opposition is justified. Therefore, transfers will 
be granted to any student who has only one grade remain­
ing in the school he last attended, whether the school is ele­
mentary or secondary. This transfer provision is granted 
to preserve the school-identify relationship which all par­
ties agree is most important to the educational process.

The Court recognizes the fact that its first order in the 
Birdie Mae Davis case many years ago requiring school 
integration resulted initially in a low percentage of the 
minority group attending a school or schools of the op­
posite race. This percentage has increased as time went on. 
The plan herein decreed by the Court will increase the per­
centage of integration substantially, but due to concentra­
tion of races in certain areas, it will of necessity in some 
instances place a very small percentage of minority groups 
in schools of the opposite race. It seems to be the con­
sensus of educators that this is not a sound educational 
program for either race. Consequently in the plan herein 
decreed, in instances which the minority race is less than 
five percent (5%) of the entire school attendance, such 
minority students will upon request, and at such time as the

D istrict Court Opinion o f July 29, 1968



145a

Board may require, be granted transfers to the available 
school of their choice nearest their residence serving their 
grade level.

There were several criticisms of the Board’s proposed 
plan in which both the plaintiffs and the plaintiff-intervenor 
joined, one of which was the closing of Old Shell Road 
School. Based on the evidence presented in court, together 
with the Court’s knowledge of the Old Shell Road School 
and its environs, the Court feels that Old Shell Road should 
not be closed. The Court is cognizant of the fact that it is 
housed in an old two-story building and that the grounds 
on which it is situated should be larger for an ideal loca­
tion. Nevertheless, weighing the age of the school, the fact 
that it is two-story, the fact that its grounds should be 
larger, against the many advantages of keeping it open, the 
Court’s plan, by increasing its area attendance zone, re­
quires that it be left open as a school. This thought was 
concurred in by Dr. Lieberman.

It will be noted in the Court’s plan that both Old Shell 
Road School and Augusta Evans School are in the same 
area attendance zone. Under the Court’s plan, Old Shell 
Road is to be operated as the elementary school of that 
zone and Augusta Evans is to be operated for special edu­
cation classes for the handicapped of the entire system on 
a completely integrated basis.

Another criticism joined in by both plaintiffs and plain- 
tiff-intervenor, was that of operating Hillsdale Heights as 
a 1-12 school. The Court feels that this should be changed 
and that the high school heretofore operated at Hillsdale 
Heights should be transferred to Shaw High School.

One other area in which the Government criticized the 
plan proposed by the defendants is that of closing Elli-

D istrict Court Opinion o f  July 29, 1968



146a

cott and keeping Whitley open. Dr. Lieberman placed great 
importance on the closeness of Whitley to both Interna­
tional Paper Company and Scott Paper Company plants 
which of necessity create some objectionable features. 
What Dr. Lieberman is overlooking, is the fact that not only 
the areas of both of these schools, but the entire Mobile 
County area is the site of a number of large paper mills, 
which constitute a major factor in the economy of the area, 
and around which has grown up housing communities of 
substantial size. Hence, the main objection expressed by 
Dr. Lieberman could be stated as to almost any area of 
metropolitan Mobile, dependent upon the direction of the 
wind. Those acquainted with and dependent upon the paper 
making industry, soon adjust themselves to the aroma and 
realize that its advantages far outweigh its objections.

A comparison of defendants’ Exhibits 25 and 26 certainly 
demonstrate the fact that not only the closing of Whitley 
would be a mistake but to keep Ellicott open as a school 
would likewise be a mistake. All parties seem to be in 
accord that Southside and Barney Schools should be closed. 
Consequently, the decree provides for the closing of Elli­
cott, Barney and Southside.

It will be noted from the area attendance zones adopted 
by the Court that as to the Hall School, there will be in 
addition to the elementary classes, sufficient room to ac­
commodate special education classes for South Mobile, such 
as adult basic education and a number of groups with fed­
eral reimbursement, in addition to federal programs, in­
cluding the Head Start Program, as administered by the 
Community Action Organization.

D istrict Court Opinion o f July 29, 1968



147a

In drawing the area attendance zones, the Court elimi­
nated any significant amount of bussing students from one 
area of the city to another area. One area attendance zone 
will be bussed to Warren Elementary School. This is a 
temporary measure since the defendants contemplate the 
construction of an elementary school in this area.

The area attendance zones drawn and adopted by the 
Court apply only to Elementary and Junior High Schools 
and are hereto attached and made a part of this opinion. 
The defendants are directed to have these maps published 
in a newspaper of general circulation in Mobile County, 
Alabama, in the afternoon edition of the paper on July 31, 
1968, the morning of August 2, and the morning of August 
4, 1968. They are further directed to post both the elemen­
tary school map and the junior high school zone map in a 
conspicuous place in each school house in the urban area 
and in the office of the Superintendent of Education, Yerby 
Building, 504 Government Street, for public examination. 
Said maps shall remain posted and available for inspection 
at the schools and at the School Board Office continuously 
throughout the school year.

The defendants are further directed to make available to 
the news media in Mobile County, such information as will 
enable the public to be fully informed as to the operation 
of the schools commencing the September 68-69 term pur­
suant to this decree and order.

S enior H igh  S chools

As to the students who will attend the senior high schools 
(grades 9 through 12) and those 8th grade students resid-

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



148a

mg in the Carver and Craighead attendance zones2 at the 
beginning of the 68-69 semester, the Court finds that none 
of the plans suggested are feasible. The Court is further 
of the opinion that no one at this time, however well versed 
or experienced, could draw sound attendance area zoning 
plans for the high schools in the system. On the contrary, 
the Court finds that imposition of attendance zones for 
high schools at this time would result in locked-in segrega­
tion to a substantially greater degree than will be the case 
under the freedom-of-choice system. The Court of Appeals 
recognizes that there may be exceptions to the requirement 
for zoning for “ compelling non-racial reasons” and this 
Court is compelled to find under the evidence that such 
reasons exist for deferring the attempt to devise rigid at­
tendance zones for Mobile’s high schools for the time being. 
The zones for elementary and junior high schools as 
adopted by this Court, no doubt have some imperfections3 
which experience will disclose. The Court feels that the 
knowledge acquired by the use of the zones adopted by the 
Court and such facts as will be disclosed from their use 
is necessary before any practical, workable, attendance zone 
area can be established for the high school level. Therefore, 
for the 1968-69 school year the grades specified above- in 
this paragraph in the metropolitan area will operate on a 
freedom of choice desegregation plan. The Court is of the 
opinion that such a plan is more feasible at this time than 
the attendance zones. This conclusion by the Court was

2 This deviation from the 9-12 grade structure is necessitated by 
the absence of a Junior High School in the Craighead and Carver 
attendance zones.

District Court Opinion o f July 29, 1968

3 See footnote number 2.



149a

readied after consideration of all the proposed plans, none 
of which offer satisfactory workable zones on the secondary 
level. The Court also considered legitimate local problems 
which would deter effectual desegregation on an attendance 
zone plan. Goss v. Board o f Education, 373 U.S. 683, 689 
(1963). The Court feels that in the light of the facts dis­
closed by the evidence, the adoption of freedom of choice 
to this limited extent, is not in contradiction to the mandate 
of the Court of Appeals since that Court has expressly 
affirmed a form of freedom of choice for the rural schools 
in the Mobile System, in recognition of a number of prac­
tical considerations.

The freedom of choice plan for the high schools shall 
operate on an interim annual basis and its continuance will 
be totally dependent upon the speed of desegregation in the 
secondary schools. If at the end of the 1968-69 school year 
the Court determines that such a plan fails in reaching 
the desired results, freedom of choice will be abandoned 
for a more effective plan. Green  v. County School Board  
of New K en t County, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 391 U.S. 430 (May 27, 
1968).

The defendants are ordered to file with the Court on De­
cember 16, 1968, a report showing the racial composition 
of each senior high school and each grade therein. The 
Court will then determine whether some other plan must 
be devised for institution at the commencement of the 1969- 
70 school year.

Attached to and made a part of this opinion is the de­
cree setting out in specific detail the steps which the Court 
orders the School Board to administer in establishing the 
freedom of choice plan. This decree was designed after the 
Jefferson  decree entered by the Fifth Circuit Court of Ap­
peals on March 29,1967. 380 F2d 385, 390 (1967).

D istrict Court Opinion o f July 29, 1968



150a

Due to the time element the decree is somewhat modified 
to allow the School Board ample opportunity to tabulate 
and coordinate the results of the choice forms and to imple­
ment this plan for the opening of the 68-69 school year.

The six day hearing just concluded in this case attracted 
wide public interest. For the first few days the courtroom 
was filled to capacity and crowds standing in front of the 
Federal Building required the closing of the street. At all 
other times the courtroom was filled substantially to capac­
ity. The trial was widely publicized by all news media. 
Due to the time element and in the light of the general 
public interest displayed during the hearing, and the pub­
lication required by this decree, the Court feels that choice 
forms may be effectively hand distributed from the schools 
and is therefore not required that the postal service be used. 
See Section 11(f) of the decree hereto attached.

The decree does not contain any provision dealing with 
desegregation of faculty, new construction, or desegrega­
tion of facilities and activities. This Court’s order dated 
May 13, 1968, fully sets forth the obligation of the School 
Board in these respects and must be implemented for the 
1968-69 school year.

D one in Mobile, Alabama, this 29th day of July 1968.

D aniel  H . T homas 
Chief Judge

United States District Court 
Southern D istrict o f Alabama

D istrict Court Opinion o f July 29, 1968



151a

D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  O p i n i o n  o f  J u l y  2 9 ,  1 9 6 8  

DECREE

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendants, 
their agents, officers, employees, and successors and all 
those in active concert and participation with them, he and 
they are permanently enjoined from discriminating on the 
basis of race or color in the operation of the school system. 
As set out more particularly in the body of the decree, they 
shall take affirmative action to disestablish all school segre­
gation and to eliminate the effects of the dual school 
system.

I
D esegregation

Commencing with the 1968-69 school year, the school 
grades, 1 through 8, with a minor exception,1 shall operate 
under area attendance zone desegregation plan. Ihe spe­
cific area attendance zones are attached to and made a part 
of this decree. No alterations or deviations shall be al­
lowed without the expressed approval of the Court. The 
schools and their grade level which shall operate under area 
attendance zones for the school term 1968-69, are listed 
below.

Arlington Grades 1-5
Austin Grades 1-6
Bienville Grades 1-6

1 The prospective eighth grade students residing in the Carver 
and Craighead area attendance zones shall exercise a freedom or 
choice for 1968-69.



152a

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968

Brazier
Brookley
Caldwell
Chicasaw
Council
Crichton
Dickson
Dodge
Eight Mile
Emerson
Fonde
Fonvielle
Forest Hill
Glendale
Gorgas
Grant
Hall
Hamilton
Hillsdale
Howard
Indian Springs
Leinkauf
Maryvale
Mertz
Morningside 
Old Shell Boad 
Orchard 
Owens 
Palmer 
Robbins 
Shepard 
Stanton Road

Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-5 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-8 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-5 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-8 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-5 
Grades 1-5 
Grades 1-5 
Grades 1-5 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6



153a

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968

Thomas Grades 1-6
Warren Grades 1-6
Westlawn Grades 1-6
Whistler Grades 1-6
Whitley Grades 1-5
Will Grades 1-5
Williams Grades 1-6
Woodcock Grades 1-6
Azalea Road Grades 7-8
Carver Grades 6-7
Clark Grades 7-8
Craighead Grades 6-7
Dunbar Grades 7-8
Eanes Grades 7-8
Phillips Grades 7-8
Prichard Grades 6-8
Scarborough Grades 6-8
Washington Grades 7-8

II
A rea A ttendance Z ones

The area attendance zones were drawn by the Court 
on a non-racial basis. The main considerations in drawing 
the zones were sound educational policies and geographical 
data of the metropolitan area. The area attendance zones 
may produce unforeseen educational problems. In such 
instances, the defendants may file with the Court, with 
copies to opposing counsel, a petition setting forth specif­
ically the educational defect in the Court’s zone or zones. 
The Court may rule on such petition without a formal 
evidentiary hearing.



154a

Under the area attendance zones, the following schools 
are closed for the 1968-69 school year: Southside Junior 
High, Barney Elementary and Ellieott Elementary.

I l l

T kansfebs

Upon request, students may transfer from the school 
serving their attendance area to the school nearest their 
residence which serves their grade level, provided space is 
available, for one of the following reasons:

(a) Transfer shall be granted to a student whose race 
composes the student minority and such minority is five 
percent (5%) or less of the entire student enrollment of 
the school.

(b) Transfer shall be granted to a student who has one 
grade remaining in the school’s grade level which he or 
she last attended and under the area attendance zone, 
would be required to attend a different school than the 
school last attended. The rule of proximity of school to 
residence shall not apply where the school last attended is 
not the nearest school to the student’s residence.

(c) Transfers shall be granted to a student for good 
cause, other than (a) and (b) above. Racial matters shall 
not constitute good cause.

A time period for filing request for transfers shall be 
established by the defendant as soon as accurate enroll­
ment figures are ascertained.

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



155a

D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  O p i n i o n  o f  J u l y  2 9 ,  1 9 6 8  

IV

P ublic N otice

The defendants shall publish the attendance area zones 
and the text of this decree in the newspaper of general 
circulation in Mobile County, Alabama, in the afternoon 
edition of the paper on July 31, 1968, the morning edition 
of August 2, 1968, and the morning edition of August 1, 
1968. Copies of the attendance area zones and decree 
shall be posted in a conspicuous place in each elemen­
tary and junior high school in the urban system and in the 
office of the Superintendent of Education for public ex­
amination for the entire 1968-69 school term.

The defendants shall make available to the radio and tele­
vision stations in Mobile County such information as will 
enable the general public to be fully informed as to the 
operation of the schools for the 1968-69 school term.

V

R eports

The defendants shall file with the Clerk of this Court and 
upon opposing counsel, on or before December 31, 196b, a 
report which shall contain the percentage of integration 
and the racial composition of each school operating under 
the area attendance zone plan as of December 16, 1968.

D one in Mobile, Alabama, this 29tli day of July 1968.

D aniel H . T homas 
Chief Judge

United States District Court 
Southern District o f Alabama



156a

D istrict Court Opinion o f July 2 9 ,  1 9 6 8  

DECREE
It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendants, 

their agents, officers, employees and successors and all 
those in active concert and participation with them, be and 
they are permanently enjoined from discriminating on the 
basis of race or color in the operation of the school ssytem. 
As set out more particularly in the body of the decree they 
shall take affirmative action to disestablish all school segre­
gation and to eliminate the effects of the dual school 
system:

I

D esegregation

Commencing with the 1968-69 school year, in accordance 
with this decree, the schools and their grade level listed 
below, shall operate on a freedom of choice desegregation 
plan. All pupils entering the ninth or higher grade and 
eighth grade students residing in the Craighead and Carver 
attendance zones, shall exercise their choice of any school 
in the metropolitan system. Each reference hereafter to 
schools only means the schools and grades set out below. 
The provisions of this decree have no application to the 
desegregation plan of the rural schools of Mobile County.

Schools available to students who will enter the ninth or 
higher grade for the 1968-69 school year:

B. C. Rain 
Blount 
Central 
Davidson

Grades 9-12 
Grades 8-12 
Grades 9-12 
Grades 9-12



157a

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968

Hillsdale 
K. J. Clark 
Mae Eanes 
Mobile County 

Training School 
Murphy 
Prichard 
Shaw
Toulminville 
Trinity Gardens 
Vigor
Washington
Williamson

9th Grade only 
9th Grade only 
9th Grade only

Grades 9-12 
Grades 9-12 
9th Grade only 
Grades 9-12 
Grades 10-12 
Grades 9-12 
Grades 10-12 
9th Grade only 
Grades 8-12

Schools available to the students residing in the Craig­
head and Carver attendance area zones who will enter the 
eighth grade are:

Azalea Road 8th Grade only
Blount Grades 8-12
B. C. Rain Grades 8-12
Dunbar 8th Grade only
Eight Mile 8th Grade only
Hillsdale Grades 8-9
K. J. Clark Grades 8-9
Mae Eanes Grades 8-9
Mobile County 

Training School Grades 8-12
Prichard Grades 8-9
Scarborough 8th Grade only
Sidney Phillips 8th Grade only
Washington Grades 8-9
Williamson Grades 8-12



158a

D istrict Court Opinion o f July 2 9 ,  1 9 6 8  

E xebcise oe Choice

(a) W ho M ay E xercise Choice. A  choice of schools may 
be exercised by a parent or other adult person serving as 
the student’s parent. A student may exercise his own choice 
if he is exercising a choice for the ninth or higher grade. 
Such a choice by a student is controlling unless a different 
choice is exercised for him by his parent or other adult 
person serving as his parent during the choice period or 
at such later time as the student exercises a choice. Each 
reference in this decree to a student’s exercising a choice 
means the exercise of the choice, as appropriate, by a par­
ent or such other adult, or by the student himself.

(b) All students affected by this decree, both white and 
Negro shall be required to exercise a free choice of schools 
for the school year 1968-69.

(c) Choice Period. The period of exercising choice shall 
commence on August 5, 1968, and end August 16, 1968. 
The date for choice periods for subsequent years will be 
determined by the Court, dependent upon the continuation 
of the freedom of choice plan. No student or prospective 
student who exercises his choice within the choice period 
shall be given any preference because of the time within 
the period when such choice was exercised.

(d) Mandatory E xercise o f Choice. A  failure to exer­
cise a choice within the choice period shall not preclude any 
student from exercising a choice at any time before he com­
mences school for the year with respect to which the choice 
applies, but such choice may be subordinated to the choices 
of students who exercise choice before the expiration of 
the choice period. Any student who has not exercised his



159a

choice of school within a week after school opens shall be 
assigned to the school nearest his home where space is 
available under standards for determining available space 
which shall be applied uniformly throughout the system.

(e) Public N otice. The defendants shall arrange for the 
conspicuous publication of a notice describing the provi­
sions of this decree in the newspaper most generally cir­
culated in the community. This notice must be published 
daily for a five day period preceding the choice period. 
Publication as a legal notice will not be sufficient. The text 
of the notice shall be substantially similar to the text of 
the explanatory letter to the parent. Copies of this notice 
must also be given promptly to all radio and TV stations 
located in the community. Copies of this decree shall be 
posted in each school and at the office of the Superintendent 
of Education.

(f) Distribution o f Explanatory Letters and Choice 
Form s. On the first day and each day thereafter of the 
choice period explanatory letters and choice forms shall 
be distributed by hand at the schools and at the office of 
the Superintendent of Education, 504 Government Street. 
The choice forms and explanatory letter will be available 
from 7 :00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M. and 1 :00 P.M. to 5 :30 P.M. 
each day of the choice period excluding Saturday and Sun­
day. Copies of the explanatory letter and choice forms 
shall be freely available to parents and students, prospec­
tive students and the general public at each school and at 
the office of the Superintendent of Education.

(g) Contents o f Choice Form s. Each choice form shall 
set forth the name and the grades offered at each school

D istrict Court Opinion o f July 29, 1968



160a

and may require of the person exercising the choice the 
names, address, age of student, school and grade currently 
or most recently attended by the student, the school chosen, 
the signature of one parent or other adult person serving 
as parent, or where appropriate, the signature of the stu­
dent, and the identity of the person signing. No statement 
of reasons for a particular choice, or any other informa­
tion, or any witness or other authentication, may be re­
quired or requested, without approval of the Court.

(h) Return o f Choice Form . At the option of the person 
completing the choice form, the choice may be returned by 
mail, in person, or by messenger to any Junior High or 
Senior High School in the school system or to the office of 
the Superintendent.

(i) Choices N ot on Official Form . The exercise of choice 
may also be made by the submission in like manner or any 
other writing which contains information sufficient to iden­
tify the student and indicates that he has made a choice 
of school.

(j) Choice Form s Binding. When a choice form has been 
submitted and the choice period has expired, the choice is 
binding for the entire school year and may not be changed 
except in cases of parents making different choices from 
their children under the conditions set forth in paragraph 
11(a) of this decree and in exceptional cases where, absent 
the consideration of race, a change is educationally called 
for or where compelling hardship is shown by the student. 
A change in family residence from one neighborhood to 
another shall be considered an exceptional case for pur­
poses of this paragraph.

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



161a

(k) P referen ce in Assignm ent. In assigning students to 
schools, no preferences shall be given to any student for 
prior attendance at a school, except when necessary, prefer­
ence shall be given to students who choose to attend their 
previous school of attendance and have only one year re­
maining before completion of that school’s grade level, and 
except with the approval of court in extraordinary circum­
stances, no choice shall be denied for any reason other than 
overcrowding. In the case of overcrowding at any school, 
preference shall be given on the basis of the proximity of 
the school to the homes of the students choosing it, without 
regard to race or color. Standards for determining over­
crowding shall be applied uniformly throughout the system.

( l)  Second Choice W here F irst Choice is Denied. Any 
student whose choice is denied must be promptly notified 
in writing and given his choice of any school in the school 
system serving his grade level where space is available. 
The student shall have seven days from the receipt of notice 
of a denial of first choice in which to exercise a second 
choice.

(m) Transportation. Where transportation is generally 
provided, buses must be routed to the maximum extent 
feasible in light of the geographic distribution of students, 
so as to serve each student choosing any school in the sys­
tem. Every student choosing either the formerly predomi­
nantly white or the formerly predominantly Negro school 
nearest his residence must be transported to the school to 
which he is assigned under these provisions, whether or not 
it is his first choice, if that school is sufficiently distant from 
his home to make him eligible for transportation under gen-

D istrict Court Opinion o f July 29, 1968



162a

erally applicable transportation rules and the School 
Board’s transportation policy.

(n) Officials N ot to Influence Choice. At no time shall 
any official, teacher, or employee of the school system in­
fluence any parent, or other adult person serving as a par­
ent, or any student, in the exercise of a choice or favor 
or penalize any person because of a choice made. If the 
defendant school board employs professional guidance 
counselors, such persons shall base their guidance and 
counselling on the individual student’s particular personal, 
academic, and vocational needs. Such guidance and coun­
selling by teachers as well as professional guidance coun­
selors shall be available to all students without regard 
to race or color.

(o) Protection  o f Persons E xercising Choice. Within 
their authority school officials are responsible for the pro­
tection of persons exercising rights under or otherwise 
effected by this decree. They shall, without delay, take 
appropriate action with regard to any student or staff 
member who interferes with the successful operation of the 
plan. Such interference shall include harassment, intimi­
dation, threats, hostile words or acts, and similar behavior. 
The school board shall not publish, allow, or cause to be 
published, the names or addresses of pupils exercising 
rights or otherwise effected by this decree. If officials of 
the school system are not able to provide sufficient pro­
tection, they shall seek whatever assistance is necessary 
from other appropriate officials.

D istrict Court Opinion o f July 29, 1968



163a

D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  O p i n i o n  o f  July 2 9 ,  1 9 6 8  

III

P rospective S tudents

Each prospective new student shall be required to exer­
cise a choice of schools before or at the time of enrollment. 
All such students known to defendants shall be furnished 
a copy of the prescribed letter to parents, and choice form, 
by mail or in person, on the date the choice period opens 
or as soon thereafter as the school system learns that he 
plans to enroll. Where there is no pre-registration pro­
cedure for newly entering students, copies of the choice 
forms shall be available at the office of the Superintendent 
and at each school during the time the school is usually 
open.

IV

T ransfers

(a) Transfers fo r  Students. Any student shall have the 
right at the beginning of a new term, to transfer to any 
school from which he was excluded or would otherwise be 
excluded on account of his race or color.

(b) Transfers fo r  Special Needs. Any student who re­
quires a course of study not offered at the school to which 
he has been assigned may be permitted, upon his written 
application at the beginning of any school term or semester, 
to transfer to another school which offers courses for his 
special needs.

(c) Transfers to Special Classes or Schools. If the de­
fendants operate and maintain special classes or schools 
for physically handicapped, mentally retarded, or gifted



164a

children, the defendants may assign children to snch 
schools or classes on a basis related to the function of the 
special class or school that is other than freedom of choice. 
In no event shall such assignments be made on the basis 
of race or color or in a manner which tends to perpetuate 
a dual school system based on race or color.

V
R eport to th e  C ourt

The defendants shall serve upon the opposing parties 
and file with the Clerk of the Court, on or before December 
16, 1968, a report tabulating by race the number of choice 
applications received for enrollment in each grade in each 
school in the system operating under the freedom of choice 
plan, and the number of choices and transfers granted and 
the number of denials in each grade of each school. The 
report shall also state any reasons relied upon in denying 
choice and shall tabulate by school and by race of student, 
the number of choices and transfers denied for each such 
reason.

The defendants shall in addition to the above infor­
mation, report the racial composition of each grade (9-12) 
in each school operating under the freedom of choice plan, 
plus the name, address, and the name of school attended 
by the eighth grade students who exercised freedom of 
choice.

D one in Mobile, Alabama, the 29th day of July 1968.

D aniel  H . T homas

Chief Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Alabama

D istrict Court Opinion o f July 29, 1968



165a

M obile County  P ublic S chool S ystem  
504 Government S treet

D istrict Court Opinion o f  July 29, 1968

Dear Parent:

Every student who will be entering the ninth or higher 
grade, and those students who reside in the Carver and 
Craighead attendance zone area who will be entering the 
eighth grade, for the upcoming school year may choose to 
attend any school in our system.

It does not matter which school your child attended last 
year. You and your child may select any school listed on 
the attached choice form which serves your child’s grade 
level. It does not matter if the school you choose was for­
merly predominantly white or Negro. A child enrolling in 
the school system for the first time must make a choice of 
schools before, or at the time of his enrollment.

The form on which the choice should be made is attached 
to this letter. It should be completed and returned by 
August 16, 1968. You may mail it, deliver it by messenger, 
or by hand, to any school on the list or to the Office of the 
Superintendent of Education at any time between August 
5, 1968, and August 16, 1968. No one may require you to 
return your choice form before August 16, 1968, and no 
preference is given for returning the choice form early.

No principal, teacher or other school official is permitted 
to influence anyone in making a choice or to require early 
return of the choice form. No one is permitted to favor 
or penalize any student or other person because of a choice 
made. A choice once made cannot be changed except for 
serious hardship.



166a

No child will be denied his choice unless for reasons of 
overcrowding at the school chosen, in which case children 
living nearest the school will have preference.

Yonr School Board and the school staff will do every­
thing we can to see to it that the rights of all students are 
protected and that desegregation of our schools is carried 
out successfully.

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968

Sincerely yours,

Enc:
Superintendent

Choice F orm

All students who will be entering the Ninth or higher 
grade and students who will be entering the Eighth grade 
who reside in the Carver and Craighead attendance zone 
areas, are eligible to choose any school he or she wishes to 
enter for the 1968-69 school term which offers the grade 
level to which he is eligible to enter. The names and grade 
levels of the available schools are listed below. Each stu­
dent shall have a freedom of choice of the school he or she 
wishes to attend, without regard to the school attended last 
year, or whether or not the school he chooses was formerly 
or predominantly white or Negro. You have 12 days to 
make your choice. Each student must make a choice.

This form is for your use in making your choice and must 
be mailed or brought to the principal of any school listed 
below, or to the office of the Superintendent, located at 
504 Government Street, by August 16, 1968.



167a

Name of child.............................................. .......................
(Last) (First) (Middle)

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968

Address ............................ .

Name of Parent or other 
adnlt serving as parent .....

Grade child is entering

School attended last year

For students entering the Ninth or higher grade the fol­
lowing schools and the grades they offer are set out below. 
Please check the school your child wishes to attend com­
mencing the 1968-69 term.

B. C. Eain
(Grades 9-12) 

Blount
(Grades 9-12) 

Central
(Grades 9-12) 

Davidson
(Grades 9-12) 

Hillsdale
(9th grade only) 

,K. J. Clark
(9th grade only) 

.Mae Eanes
(9th grade only) 

.Mobile County
Training School 
(Grades 9-12)

.Murphy
(Grades 9-12) 

.Prichard
(9th grade only) 

.Shaw
(Grades 9-12) 

Toulminville
(Grades 10-12) 

.Trinity Gardens 
(Grades 9-12) 

.Vigor
(Grades 10-12) 

.Washington
(9th grade only) 

.Williamson
(Grades 9-12)



D istrict Court Opinion o f July 29, 1968

Schools available to the students residing in the Craighead 
and Carver attendance zone areas who will enter the 
Eighth grade are listed below. Please check the school 
your child wishes to attend commencing the 1968-69 term.

.Azalae Eoad 

.Blount

B. C. Rain 
Dunbar 
.Eight Mile 
-Hillsdale 
.K. J. Clark

.Mae Eanes 

.Mobile County
Training School 

-Prichard 
.Scarborough 
.Sidney Phillips 
.Washington 
.Williamson



169a

On July 31, 1968, the plaintiff-intervenor United States 
filed a motion for modification of this Court’s order dated 
July 29, 1968, and after consideration thereof, it appears 
to the Court that its order dated the 29th day of July 1968, 
does require modification and amendment thereof.

It is Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the first portion 
of this Court’s decree of July 29, 1968, is hereby modified 
and amended in the following respects:

1. The list of schools contained in Section I is amended 
to show the Owens School as serving Grades 1-6, to add the 
Mobile County Training School, which will serve Grades 
6-8 and to add the Rain and Trinity Gardens Schools, which 
will serve Grades 7-8.

It is further Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the sec­
ond portion of this Court’s decree of July 29, 1968, is 
hereby modified in the following respects:

1. By Striking Section V. entitled “ R eports”  and insert 
the following:

District Court Order of August 2, 1968

y .

S urveys

The defendant school board shall continue its survey for 
the purpose of obtaining sufficient data for future planning. 
Specifically, the defendants shall take the following steps:

(a) Building and Sites - A survey shall be made of all 
school buildings and all school sites. Based upon this sur­
vey the defendant superintendent shall prepare a detailed



170a

report which shall be filed with the court and served upon 
each party no later than December 16, 1968. With respect 
to each site, this report shall include a detailed statement 
concerning its suitability, the feasibility of improving or 
expanding the site, a description of the building located on 
the sites, the suitability of each building, particularly with 
respect to fire hazards, construction defects, etc. and all 
other information necessary to a determination of the ap­
propriate uses that could be made of the sites and buildings. 
This report shall also include the superintendent’s recom­
mendation with respect to the grades to be served at each 
site for the 1969-70 school year and his evaluation or alter­
native uses.

(b) Student Census - A  student census, by race and 
grade, shall be conducted at the beginning of the 1968-69 
school year for the metropolitan system. The defendant 
superintendent shall file with the court and serve upon each 
party no later than December 16, 1968, appropriate maps 
reflecting the results of the student census.

(e) Long Range Plans - On or before October 25, 1968, 
the defendant superintendent shall file with the court and 
serve upon each party an interim report with respect to 
that portion of the survey called for in paragraph IV.D.5 
and IV.G-. of this Court’s order of May 13, 1968. VI.

VI.
R eports

On the dates specified the defendant superintendent shall 
file with the Court and serve upon each party the following- 
reports :

D istrict Court Order o f A ugust 2, 1968



171a

(a) Enrollm ent - On or before November 1, 1968, a re­
port shall be submitted showing the number of students 
by school, grade and race actually enrolled at the school in 
Mobile County. The report shall also contain the racial 
composition of each school operating under the freedom of 
choice desegregation plan.

(b) Faculty  - The report which under paragraph VI.A. 
of this Court’s decree of May 13, 1968, was to be submitted 
on June 10, 1968. The defendants shall file with the Court 
and the opposing parties a progress report on the faculty 
on or before August 16, 1968, and a final report on Sep­
tember 16,1968. VII.

D istrict Court Order o f A ugust 2, 1968

VII.

R ecommendations for 1969-70 S chool Y ear

On or before December 31, 1968, the defendant school 
board shall submit to this Court and serve upon each party, 
maps containing proposed area attendance lines for use 
commencing with the 1969-70 school year and a statistical 
table showing the forecasted enrollment by race and grade 
for each school. These proposed attendance zones shall 
include all schools and grades in the metropolitan system, 
including the high schools.

In drawing the area attendance zones for 1969-70, the 
Court orders the defendant to draw the zones from the 
standpoint of achieving a uniform grade structure through­
out the system. The Court recognizes that the transition 
from one grade structure to another may require more than 
one school term. Nevertheless, the Court directs the defen-



172a

dant to act with the greatest expediency in achieving the 
maximum degree of uniformity possible for the 1969-70 
school year.

As a further recommendation for the 1969-70 school year, 
the defendant is directed to program those school areas 
where “ locked-in” segregation exists, to achieve the best 
utilization of the school facilities from an educational point 
of view, but in accordance with the provisions of this decree.

In its motion for modification, the plaintiff-intervenor 
United States moves the Court to adopt a pure freedom of 
choice for the rural schools for Mobile County. Pursuant to 
the mandate of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the 
motion of the United States of America, the Court adopts 
the freedom of choice desegregation plan for the rural 
schools in accordance with the following provisions.

R ural S chools

All students in the rural portion of the Mobile County 
school system shall be assigned to the schools in accordance 
with the provisions of the section of the decree entitled 
“ E xercise of C hoice,”  which shall be modified by the inser­
tion of the Roman numeral II before the caption and which 
shall be amended for the rural schools only in the follow­
ing respects:

District Court Order o f August 2, 1968

II
E xercise of Choice

1. Subsection (c) shall be amended as follows: The 
period of exercising choice shall commence on August 19, 
1968, and end on August 80, 1968.



173a

2. Subsection (m) shall be amended by adding to the 
last sentence of the section: The policy of the defendant in 
regard to transportation in the rural areas is that transpor­
tation shall be provided if reasonably possible.

Except where the metropolitan system is specifically 
designated, all provisions of the decree entitled “ Exercise 
of Choice” with the above amendments, shall apply to the 
rural schools in Mobile County.

Copies of the explanatory letter and the choice form are 
attached and made a part of this order.

Done in Mobile, Alabama, this the 2nd day of August 
1968.

.Daniel H . T homas 
Chief Judge

United States D istrict Court 
Southern D istrict o f Alabama

D istrict Court Order o f August 2, 1968

E xplanatory L etter

Dear Parent:
All schools and grades in our rural school system will 

operate on the freedom of choice desegregation plan for 
the upcoming school year. Any student who will be enter­
ing one of these grades next year may choose to attend any 
school in our system, regardless of whether that school was 
formerly all-white or all-Negro. It does not matter which 
school your child attended this year. You and your child 
may select any school you wish.

Every student white and Negro, must make a choice of 
schools. If a child is entering the ninth or higher grade,



174a

he may make the choice himself. Otherwise a parent ox- 
other adult serving as parent must sign the choice form. 
A child enrolling in the school system for the first time must 
make a choice of schools before or at the time of this enroll­
ment.

The form on which the choice should be made is attached 
to this letter. It should be completed and returned by Au­
gust 30, 1968. You may mail it or deliver it by messenger 
or by hand to any school principal in the schools listed on 
the choice form or to the Office of the Superintendent, 504 
Government Street, at any time between August 19, 1968, 
and August 30, 1968. No one may require you to return 
your choice form before August 30, 1968, and no prefer­
ence is given for returning the choice form early.

No principal, teacher or other school official is permitted 
to influence anyone in making a choice or to require early 
return of the choice form. No one is permitted to favor 
or penalize any student or other persons because of a choice 
made. A  choice once made cannot be changed except for 
serious hardship.

No child will be denied his choice unless for reasons of 
overcrowding at the school chosen, in which case children 
living nearest the school will have preference.

Transportation will be provided, if reasonably possible, 
no matter what school is chosen.

Your school board and the school staff will do everything 
we can to see to it that the rights of all students are pro­
tected and that desegregation of our schools is carried out 
successfully.

Yours very truly,

Superintendent
Enc.

District Court Order of August 2, 1968



175a

D istrict Court Order o f  A ugust 2, 1 9 6 8  

Choice F orm

This form is provided for you to choose a school for 
your child to attend next year. You have 12 dAiys to make 
your choice. It does not matter which school your child 
attended last year, and it does not matter whether the 
school you choose was formerly a white or Negro school. 
This form must be mailed or brought to the principal of 
any school listed below or to the Office of the Superinten­
dent, 504 Government Street, by August 30, 1968. A choice 
is required for each child.

Name of child ............................................................................
(last) (first) (middle)

Address

Name of Parent or other 
adult serving as parent .

If child is entering first grade,
date of b irth :..................................................................

(Month) (Day) (Year)

School attended last y ea r .........................................................

Choose one of the following schools by marking an X  beside 
the name:

.Nelson Adams
Alba
Baker
.Belsaw
.Burroughs

Grades 1-12 
Grades 1-12 
Grades 1-12 
Grades 1-8 
Grades 1-6



176a

District Court Order of August 2, 1968

....Calcedeaver Grades 1-12

....Calvert Grades 1-6

....Citronelle Grades 1-12

....Dauphin Island Grades 1-6

....Davis Grades 1-6

....Dawes Union Grades 1-6

....Dixon Grades 1-6

....Griggs Grades 1-6

....Hollinger’s Island Grades 1-8

....Robert E. Lee Grades 1-6

....Lott Grades 1-12
.....Mobile County High Grades 7-12
....Mt. Vernon Grades 1-8
.....St. Elmo Grades 7-12
....Saraland Grades 1-6
....Satsuma Grades 7-12
....Semmes Grades 1-8
....Tanner Williams Grades 1-6
....Wilmer Grades 1-6

Signature 

Date .......

To be filled in by Superintendent: 

School Assigned ...........................



177a

Pursuant to this Court’s order and the mandate of the 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the defendant-School 
Board seeks the Court’s approval for proposed building 
expansion f or two existing school sites. The applications 
were filed on February 20, 1968 and April 22, 1968, re­
spectively. The plaintiff and plaintiff-in tervenor objected 
to the proposed construction and requested a special set­
ting to determine if the plans were in compliance with the 
orders of this Court. This Court granted the request and 
this matter came on for hearing on the 7th day of May 
1968.

At the hearing, the defendants offered evidence to prove 
that the existing facilities at the Howard Elementary 
School and the Toulminville High School were inadequate 
and outdated for present and future needs. The defendant 
showed that projected enrollment figures require additional 
and modern facilities. The Government and the plaintiff 
asserted that the new construction was racially motivated 
and would tend to promote segregation of the races in the 
particular school areas.

Now after consideration thereof,

The Court finds that the proposed expansion for the 
Howard Elementary School is indeed necessary and finds 
that such construction would not perpetuate segregation 
within the Howard area particularly when the proposed 
urban renewal plans of the City are taken into consider­
ation. The Court hereby approves and authorizes the pro­
posed Howard construction plans. The Court does find that 
the proposed construction in the Toulminville High School 
area would tend to serve a school area with one dominant

District Court Order of December 20, 1968



178a

race, thus creating a “ locked-in” segregation area, which, 
this Court’s order of July 29, 1968, expressly denounced.

Therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the 
defendant’s application for new construction in the Howard 
Elementary School is hereby granted.

It is further ordered by the Court that the defendant’s 
application for new construction for the Toulminville High 
School is hereby denied.

Done this the 20th day of December 1968.

D aniel  H. T homas 
United States D istrict Judge

District Court Order of December 20, 1968



179a

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of the 
defendant-school board requesting the Court to reconsider 
its order of December 20, 1968, in which the Court denied 
the school board’s application for new construction for the 
Toulminville High School. The matter was set down for 
rehearing on March 7, 1969, and now after consideration 
thereof,

The Court finds that the proposed school for the Toul­
minville area will be located in the most logical, rational 
and economical site available. It is not disputed that the 
new school is necessary. The property has been acquired; 
the school will be centrally located; the site is convenient 
to traffic and bus routes; and the adjacent facilities (public 
library and playground) will contribute to the educational 
program.

The only objection of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff- 
intervenor is that the new school may be totally or at least 
predominantly Negro when completed. Such objection has 
as a premise, the supposition that the School Board will 
disregard its affirmative duty to disestablish the dual school 
system. The Court finds such a supposition faulty.

To deny new construction of the Toulminville High 
School at this time, in the opinion of the Court, would be 
inconsistent with proper operation of the school system 
as a whole.

Therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the 
Court that the defendant school board’s motion for recon­
sideration is GRANTED.

District Court Order of March 14, 1969



180a

It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court 
that the application for new construction of the Toulmin- 
ville High School is hereby granted.

D one at Mobile, Alabama, this the 14th day o f  March 
1969.

District Court Order of March 14, 1969

D aniel  H. T homas 
United S tates D istrict Judge



181a

Before Bell, Godbold and Dyer, Circuit Judges.

B y  the C ourt:

It is ordered as follows :

Appellants’ motions for injunction pending appeal, filed 
in the above causes, are hereby denied.

Appellants’ motions for consolidation of the above ap­
peals with Cause No. 26886, United States of America, 
Et A1 v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 
Et Al, are hereby granted.

The appellees shall give 30 days written notice to appel­
lants before putting out for bids the construction of the 
proposed Howard School and the proposed Toulminville 
School.

The Clerk shall set a briefing schedule for the filing of 
briefs in the above causes which shall not extend or delay 
the hearing of the causes as consolidated with No. 26886.

Court of Appeals Order of March 20, 1969



182a

On July 29, 1968, with an amendment on August 2, 1968, 
the Court entered a decree for the operation of the Mobile 
County Public School System for the school year, 1968- 
1969. The decree ordered the adoption of the freedom of 
choice desegregation plan for certain grades within the city 
system and all schools and grades within the county sys­
tem. The grades not designated for freedom of choice 
within the city system were to operate under the area 
attendance zone desegregation plan, with the particular 
zones being drawn by the Court.

In the decree, the Court stated that the freedom of choice 
plan was to operate on an annual interim basis and that 
the attendance zones were subject to revision for subse­
quent years. The continuance of the plans was dependent 
upon the desegregation results.

In December 1968, pursuant to this Court’s direction, the 
defendant-School Board filed certain reports stating the 
enrollment and racial composition of each school in the 
system. The reports reflect that meaningful desegregation 
has been accomplished and the effects of the once existent 
“dual school system” are being permanently disestablished. 
The Board also filed with the Court and upon opposing 
parties, maps illustrating the proposed area attendance 
zones for the school year 1969-70.

Now after consideration thereof and pursuant to this 
Court’s continuing jurisdiction over the desegregation 
process of the Mobile County Public School System, the 
Court enters the following decree for the operation of the 
public schools for the school term, 1969-70.

District Court Order of April 7, 1969



183a

D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  O r d e r  o f  A p r i l  7 ,  1 9 6 9  

Decree

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendants, 
their agents, officers, employees and successors and all 
those in active concert and participation with them, be and 
they are permanently enjoined from discriminating on the 
basis of race or color in the operation of the school system. 
As set out more particularly in the body of the decree they 
shall take affirmative action to disestablish all school seg­
regation and to eliminate the effects of the dual school 
system.

It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court 
that all rural schools and those grades and schools, as 
specified in this Court’s decree of July 29, 1968, and amend­
ment of August 2, 1968, shall continue to operate under the 
freedom of choice desegregation plan for the school year 
1969-70.

Choice P eriod : The period for exercising choice shall 
commence on Monday, April 14, 1969, and end on Monday, 
May 12,1969. No student or prospective student who exer­
cises his choice within the choice period shall be given any 
preference because of the time within the period when such 
choice was exercised.

Distribution o f  Explanatory L etters and Choice F orm s: 
On the first day and each day thereafter of the choice 
period, explanatory letters and choice forms shall be dis­
tributed by hand at the schools during regular school hours, 
8:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. and at the office of the Superin­
tendent of Education, 504 Government Street, during reg­
ular office hours, 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. In addition, the



184a

choice forms and explanatory letter shall be hand distrib­
uted at the schools to all students who are eligible to make 
a choice for the 1969-70 school year during the first week 
of the choice period. The choice forms and explanatory 
letters shall be identical in form and substance as ordered 
by the Court in July 1968, except for necessary changes.

With the exception of Section V, styled “ Surveys” , all 
sections of the July 29, 1968, and August 2, 1968, decree 
pertaining to the operation of the freedom of choice de­
segregation plan shall remain in full force and effect for 
the school year, 1969-70. Such provisions include, but not 
limited to, publication, transfers, reports and assignment 
of students.

It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court 
that the area attendance zones as proposed by the School 
Board for the elementary and junior high grades within 
the city system, are hereby approved and adopted for the 
school year 1969-70.

All provisions of this Court’s July 29, 1968, and August 
2, 1968, decree pertaining to the area attendance zone de­
segregation plan shall remain in full force and effect for 
the 1969-70 school term. Such provisions include, but not 
limited to, publication, transfers and reports.

D one at Mobile, Alabama, this the 7th day o f  April 1969.

D aniel  H . T homas 
U n i t e d  S t a t e s  D i s t r i c t  J u d g e

District Court Order of April 7, 1969



Court of Appeals Order of May 6, 1969

Before Bell, Godbold and Dyer, Circuit Judges.

B y  the C ourt:

It is ordered that appellant’s motion for reconsidera­
tion of that portion of this Court’s order of March 20, 
1969, denying appellants’ motions for injunction pending 
appeal in the above entitled and numbered causes be, and 
the same is hereby Granted, and appellants’ motions for 
injunction pending appeal are Granted.

(Original filed May 6, 1969)



186a

Before John R. Brown, Chief Judge, Dyer, Circuit Judge, 
and Hunter, District Judge.

P er Curiam:

In No. 26,886 the District Court on July 29, 1968, entered 
an order formulating attendance zone lines for grades 1-8 
in the city portion of the Mobile School System, adopted 
freedom of choice in the high school system, permitted 
transfer from a school into which a student was zoned if 
the student was in a racial minority of less than five per­
cent, and continued a freedom of choice plan in the rural 
areas.

In Nos. 27,260 and 27,491 the District Court on December 
20, 1968, and March 14, 1969, approved construction plans 
for the Howard and Toulminville schools respectively.

We consolidated and expedited these appeals for oral 
argument.

It is apparent that the District Court relied wholly upon 
and gave literal interpretation to the directive in our de­
cision of March 12, 1968, 5 Cir., 393 F.2d 690, that new at­
tendance zones be drawn on a non-raeial basis, and ignored 
the unequivocal directive to make a conscious*effort in lo- 
cHmg~aHendance"zones" to desegregate., anjjjdariia&tg.jast 

*^egregationr Tile i li'' statistics prove that
the attendance zones formulated by the District Court are 
constitutionally insufficient and unacceptaHi^andsuch 
zones must be redrawn. ^

In approving a freedom of choice plan for high school 
students the District Court failed to follow the mandate in 
our opinion that no distinction was to be drawn between

Court of Appeals Opinion o f June 3, 1969



187a

elementary and high school students with respect to attend­
ance zones, and that the same principles were to govern the 
assignment of students to secondary as to primary schools.

[1] A  provision permitting transfers from racial ma­
jority to racial minority schools is entirely proper and 
should be included in a plan.

[2] The converse, transfers from racial minority to ra­
cial majority schools, permitted by the District Court, even 
when restricted to those instances when the racial minority 
is 5% or less, is erroneous. This is tantamount to an au­
thorization to white students to resegregate and is imper­
missible as a means for the perpetration of segregation. 
Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, 1968, 391 TJ.S. 450, 88 
S.Ct. 1700, 20 L.Ed.2d 733; Goss v. Board of Education, 
1963, 373 U.S. 683, 83 S.Ct. 1405, 10 L.Ed.2d 632.

[3] The freedom of choice plan for the rural schools ap­
proved by the District Court has singularly failed. Only 
about 6% of the rural Negro school population in Mobile 
County chose to attend traditionally white schools and no 
white children chose to attend traditionally Negro schools. 
Green v. County School Board, 1968, 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 
1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716, makes it clear that freedom of choice 
was an impermissible desegregation plan here.

[4] With respect to the construction of new facilities in 
the Howard and Toulminville sites, whether these schools 
should be built as presently proposed, abandoned, or the 
location changed will largely depend on what the student 
demands will be after new attendance zones are established 
to eliminate past segregation. Until new attendance zones 
are formulated in accordance with this order, the order of

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 3, 1969



188a

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 3, 1969

^his coart enjoining: the construction of the Howard schooj^ 
jind the Toulminville project will be

Actually, the formulation of appropriate decrees in 
the cases before the Court present few, if any, justici­
able issues of constitutional import. Such issues have 
been largely resolved. The difficulties involved in de­
veloping a proper decree concern basically practical 
operational questions and matters of educational ad­
ministration. H.E.W., with its staff of trained educa­
tional experts “with their day to day experience with 
thousands of school systems”, is far better qualified to 
deal with such operational and administrative prob­
lems than the Courts presided over by Judges, who, as 
one Court has phrased it, “do not have sufficient com­
petence—they are not educators or school administra­
tors—to know the right questions, much less the right 
answers.” United States v. Jefferson County Board 
of Education, 5th Cir. 1966, 372 F.2d 836, 855; * * *.

Whittenberg v. Greenville County School District, etc. 
(D.S.C. March 31, 1969), 298 F.Supp. 784, 789, 790.

The orders of the District Court are reversed and the 
cases are remanded to the District Court with the following 
instructions:

1. This case shall receive the highest priority.

2. The District Court shall forthwith request the Office 
of Education of "thê  UmtedStates Department of HeafthT 
Education and Welfare/to collaborate with the Board of 
School Commissioners orMobile County in the preparation



189a

of a plan to fully and affirmatively desegregate all public 
schools in Mobile County, urban and rural, together with 
comprehensive recommendations for locating and design­
ing new schools, and expanding and consolidating existing 
schools to assist in eradicating past discrimination and 
effecting desegregation. The District Court shall further 
require the School Board to make available to the Office of 
Education or its designees ail requested information relat­
ing to the operation of the school district.

3. Proceed according to an expedited time schedule for 
the submission, review and approval of the plan, as follows:

(a) The board shall within 30 days of this order de­
velop, in conjunction with the experts of the Office of 
Health, Education and Welfare, an acceptable plan of 
operation, conformable to the constitutional rights of 
the Negro students as we have delineated in this 
opinion.
(b) If such plan is agreed upon by the school board 
and the Office of Education within the time fixed, the 
Court will approve such plan, unless the plaintiffs 
within ten days make proper showing that the plan 
does not meet constitutional standards.

(c) If no such agreed plan, is developed within 30 days, 
the Office of Education is requested to submit within 
10 days its recommendation of a plan for the school 
district.
(d) The parties shall have ten days from the date a 
plan is filed with the District Court to file objections or 
suggested amendments thereto.

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 3, 1969



190a

(e) For plans as to which objections are made or 
amendments suggested, or which in any event the Dis­
trict Court will not approve without hearing, the Dis­
trict Court shall commence hearings beginning no 
later than ten days after the time for filing objections 
has expired.

(f) A new plan for the district effective for the begin­
ning of the 1969-70 school term shall be completed and 
approved by the District Court no later than August 1, 
1969.

(g) The recommendations as to new construction shall 
be submitted to the District Court within 120 days of 
this order.

Because of the urgency of formulating and approving 
plans to be effective for the 1969-70 school term it is or­
dered as follows: The mandate of this court shall issue im­
mediately and will not be stayed pending petitions for re­
hearing or certiorari. This court will not extend the time 
for filing petitions for rehearing or briefs in support of or 
in opposition thereto. Any appeals from orders or decrees 
of the District Court on remand shall be expedited. The 
record on appeal shall be lodged with this court and appel­
lants’ brief filed, all within ten days of the date of the order 
or decree of the district court from which the appeal is 
taken. Appellee’s brief shall be due ten days thereafter. 
The court will determine the time and place for oral argu­
ment if allowed.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 3, 1969



191a

H unter, D istrict Judge (concurring) :

In my judgment “non racial zoning” coupled with a ma­
jority to minority transfer provision would best serve the 
interests of all the school children in metropolitan Mobile. 
However, this court in its opinion of March 12, 1968, added 
a caveat to its instructions that attendance zones be based 
on objective criteria (398 F.2d at 694):

a # * * conscious effort should be made to move bound­
arylines aniTljEmig^^ which tend to
preserve segregation.”

This is the law of the case and is consistent with recent de­
cisions of the Fifth Circuit. United States v. Greenwood 
Municipal Separate District, 406 F.2d 1086 (5 Cir. Feb. 
1969).

Students in the rural portion of the system have been 
assigned to schools on the basis of freedom of choice. In 
29 consolidated cases involving factual settings very simi­
lar, I have held that Jefferson-type freedom of choice in 
Louisiana School Districts “had real prospects of dis­
mantling the dual system at the earliest practicable date” 
and that this was the best method available to do the job. 
Conley v. Lake Charles Sch. Bd., W.D.La. 1968, 293 F.Supp. 
84. These cases have been reversed. Hall et al. v. St. 
Helena Parish School Board, Nos. 26450 and 27303, May 28, 
1969. There can be no doubt that Hall, supra, requires a 
holding here that as now constituted, administered and 
operating in the Mobile Public School System, freedom of 
choice is not effectual.

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 3, 1969



C o u r t  o f  A p p e a l s  O p i n i o n  o f  J u n e  3 ,  1 9 6 9  

On P etition foe B bhearing

P er  Curiam:

It is ordered that the petition for rehearing filed in the 
above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is 
hereby denied, and the motion of appellees for a stay of 
execution and enforcement of the judgment is denied.

H itntee, D istrict Judge:

Under the total circumstances I would grant the petition 
for rehearing.



193a

This plan for the beginning of desegregation of the 
schools of Mobile County is submitted pursuant to the or­
der of the court entered July 11, 1963 as amended July 26, 
1963. Said order contains a preliminary injunction requir­
ing the beginning of desegregation by order of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit pending trial 
of the case and final decree.

The plan is presented after full consideration by the 
Board and in the light of the following facts, among others:

A. The Board is in the midst of an accelerated building 
program designed to remove the necessity of half day ses­
sions and provide adequate housing for more than 75,000 
pupils of grades 1-12 and to cope with a continuing annual 
pupil load increase of approximately 3,000 pupils.

B. The residential pattern is continually being reshaped, 
causing major changes in neighborhood patterns. These 
patterns are being further altered by the construction of 
new thoroughfares, 1-65 and 1-10, through the community, 
displacing between 1200 and 2000 residences; and

C. These changes have brought about the transfer of 
students within the system, the admission of new students, 
and the withdrawal of old students, and have created a 
major problem for the Mobile School System both within 
the central office of the Superintendent’s staff and at the 
offices of the respective principals of the 89 local schools; 
and

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners
of Mobile County on August 19, 1963



194a

D. The Board considers that any general or arbitrary 
reassignment of pupils presently m~atten3ance' at "fliF'Sfl" 
existing schools, according to any rigid rule of proximity

~^o~schooI or solely by,xeflae^.imllhfi. part of the parents of 
pupils, would bj3.-iamr.afltie.al and a disservice to the system, 
to the local schools, and to the pupils being transferred 
such transfers would tend to overload some schools and 
leave other facilities in less than full use and at the same 
time result in an unbalanced teacher-pupil ratio throughout 
the system; and

E. The estimated enrollments for September, 1963 were 
developed last February and building and classroom ca­
pacity has been adjusted thereto; school supplies, text­
books, and other materials and equipment have been allo­
cated accordingly; schools have been staffed and teachers 
assigned on the same estimated enrollments; and

F. Portable classrooms, half day sessions, makeshift 
rooms, and other emergency measures have been utilized 
as means of coping with the current pupil overload in the 
Mobile Public Schools, toward the end of providing seating 
space for the 75,000 pupils of 1962-63 and an estimated 
additional 3,000 pupils for September of 1963-64. These 
facts lead to the conclusion that great caution in continu­
ous, system-wide study of facilities available, as well as 
other factors relating to educational policies governing ad­
missions, transfers, and placement of pupils as are set forth 
in this document, is vitally essential to orderly procedures; 
and

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners
of Mobile County on August 19, 1963



195a

G. The problems in connection with any desegregation 
of the schools outside the corporate limits of the City of 
Mobile are substantially different from the problems in­
volved for desegregation within the City of Mobile and this 
plan is confined in its first year of operation to schools 
within the corporate limits of Mobile.

H. The number of pupils both white and negro in the 
first grade of schools in the City of Mobile for the year 
beginning in September 1963 will be approximately 8025 
and the number in the 12th grade in the city schools will 
be 3836.

I. The school year 1963-64 begins on September 4, 1963.

J. In the judgment of the Board it is not practicable, 
on account of the short space of time remaining, to consider 
individual applications in behalf of negro pupils for as­
signment or transfer to schools which have been attended 
only by pupils of the white race except applications per­
taining to one grade only, for the school year commencing 
September 4, 1963; and

It is the judgment of the School Board that it is for the 
best interests of the pupils of all grades and the orderly 
and efficient operation of the Mobile School system that 
the 12th grade be selected as the grade for the processing 
of such transfers for the school year 1963-64 and that trans­
fers and assignments pertaining to any other grade cannot 
as a practical matter be granted for the term commencing 
in September, 1963.

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners
of Mobile County on August 19, 1963



196a

The Board, therefore, proposes the following plan, pur­
suant to the said order of the Court:

(1) A ssignm ents: All existing school assignments shall 
continue without change except when transfers are author­
ized by the Assistant Superintendent in Charge of Pupil 
Personnel under the provisions of this plan. Pupils enter­
ing the first grade, when the plan shall have become appli­
cable thereto, and pupils otherwise entering the school 
system for the first time, when the plan shall have become 
applicable to the grade entered, shall be assigned without 
regard to race, as is provided hereinafter.

(2) T ransfers:

(A) Parents or guardians of pupils in grades to which 
this plan shall have become applicable, wishing school 
assignment for the pupils other than as previously as­
signed or as pre-registered, may make application to 
that end between April 1 and April 15 of each year for 
transfer for the next succeeding school year. After 
1963, such period shall replace the normal July 31st 
cut-off date for transfer applications of former years.

(B) Designation of Assistant Superintendent: In the 
assignment, transfer or continuance of pupils to spe­
cific schools, subject to the supervision and review by 
the Superintendent and Board, the Assistant Super­
intendent in charge of Pupil Personnel shall be charged 
with the responsibility for and the assignment of pupil 
admission by transfer and by original enrollment.

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners
of Mobile County on August 19, 1963



197a

(C) Transfer Requests: Applications for transfer or 
initial assignment shall be in writing on forms pre­
scribed and supplied by the Board. The proper forms 
will be furnished to parents of pupils on request. Sepa­
rate Applications must be filed for each pupil for 
whom an assignment or transfer is requested.

(D) Pupil Placement Act Criteria Used: For the 
grade or grades as to which this plan is effective, race 
or color of the pupil shall not be a factor in assign­
ment or the granting of transfer, but the following- 
criteria shall be considered in making the assignment 
or granting the requested transfer, along with other 
relevant factors: (a) available room at the school to 
which transfer or assignment is requested; (b) the 
availability of transportation facilities; (c) suitability 
of established curricula for particular pupils; (d) the 
choice and interests of the pupil; (e) the request or 
consent of parents or guardians and the reasons as­
signed therefor; (f) the effect of the admission of new 
pupils upon established or proposed academic pro­
grams; (g) the adequacy of the pupil’s academic 
preparation for admission to a particular school and 
curriculum; (h) the scholastic aptitude and relative 
intelligence, or mental energy or ability of the pupil; 
(i) the psychological qualification of the pupil for the 
type of teaching and associations involved; (j) the 
effect of admission of the pupil upon the academic 
progress of other students in a particular school or 
facility thereof; (k) the effect of admission upon pre­
vailing academic standards at a particular school;

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners
of Mobile County on August 19, 1963



198a

(1) the possibility or threat of friction or disorder 
among pupils or others; (m) the psychological effect 
upon the pupils in attendance at a particular school; 
(n) the possibility of breaches of the peace or ill will 
or economic retaliation within the community; (o) the 
home environment of the pupil; (p) the maintenance 
or severance of established social and psychological 
relationships with other pupils and with teachers; 
(q) the morals, conduct, health and personal standards 
of the pupil.

(E) Tests and In terv iew s: The Assistant Superin­
tendent in Charge of Pupil Personnel may require 
interviews with the parents or guardian and the pupil, 
with the parents or guardian, or with other persons. 
He may conduct or authorize such examinations or 
tests and other investigations as he deems appropriate. 
In the absence of excuses satisfactory to the Pupil 
Personnel Office, failure to appear for any requested 
examination, test, or interview by the pupil or parents 
or guardian, will be deemed a withdrawal of the 
application.

(F) N otice o f A ction  Taken: Notice of the action 
taken by the Assistant Superintendent in Charge of 
Pupil Personnel on each application will be made on 
or before June 15. For the school year 1963-64 the 
notice of action taken by the Assistant Superintendent 
will be made on or before September 3. Such action 
shall be final, unless a Board hearing is requested in 
writing within ten days from the date when the notice 
of action taken on the transfer request is mailed.

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners
of Mobile County on August 19, 1963



199a

(Gr) R eview : If a hearing is requested by the parents 
or guardian or the Board feels a need for a hearing, 
such a hearing shall allow for a minimum of ten days 
notice, but will he held within twenty days. Failure of 
parents or guardians to appear, with the pupil, at the 
hearing will he deemed a withdrawal of the application. 
Hearings may he conducted by the Board as a whole, 
or the Board may designate not less than three Board 
members to conduct the hearing. In either case, the 
majority decision of the Board or the committee of 
the Board will be deemed a final decision. The Board 
may designate a Board member or other competent 
representative to conduct such a hearing, take testi­
mony, and report evidence with his recommendation 
to the Board within fifteen days following the hearing. 
The Board’s decision after a hearing, report of evi­
dence, and recommendation will be deemed final. The 
Board shall be authorized to investigate objections 
or problems relating to the decision at hand, including 
an examination of the pupil involved, or the Board 
may authorize its administrative staff or other com­
petent person to perform this investigation for them. 
If the Board determines that a pupil is physically or 
mentally incapacitated to benefit from further normal 
schooling, the Board may assign the pupil to an excep­
tional class or to some available special school, or 
terminate the enrollment of said pupil.

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners
of Mobile County on August 19, 1963

(3) Initial A ssignm ents: When this plan shall have be­
come applicable to the first grade, pupils registering for 
the first grade may apply for attendance at the school in



200a

the district of their residence or the nearest school for­
merly attended exclusively by their race, at their option.

Pupils entering the Mobile County school system for the 
first time, in grades to which the plan has become appli­
cable, may apply for attendance at the school in the district 
of their residence, or the nearest school formerly attended 
exclusively by their race, at their option.

Upon the submission of this plan, schools shall no longer 
be designated by race.

(4) Applicability o f P la n : This plan shall have applica­
tion in the school year 1963-64 to the 12th grade, in the 
City of Mobile schools only. In the school year 1964-65 
it shall have application to the 11th and 12 grades in all 
schools of Mobile County. It shall have application to 
grades already included and to one additional lower grade 
each school year thereafter until all 12 grades are affected.

(5) Special Provisions fo r  1 9 6 3 - 6 4 : The normal July 
31 cut-off date for making applications for transfer for 
the 1963-64 school term shall be observed. For 12th grade 
pupils in the City of Mobile schools requesting transfer 
on or before July 31, the transfer provisions of this plan 
shall apply and race or color shall not be considered as 
a factor in acting upon such application. Public notice 
of the deadline was given by publication in a daily news­
paper of general circulation in Mobile County one week 
prior to the closing of the period for receiving transfer 
applications, as a conscious reminder to the parents and 
guardians.

B oard of School Commissioners 
of Mobile County

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners
of Mobile County on August 19, 1963



NUMBER OF STUDENTS
TRANSPORTED (1966-67) ATTENDANCE ARIAS UPON WHICH

METROPOLITAN AREA NEGRO WHITE STUDENTS ARE TRANSPORTED

201a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit N<n 6 at July 1967 Hearing

** Adams 80 Saraland 6 Satsuma (discon’ t ,  
for* 1967-1968)

* Azalea Road 721 Area served by Azalea Road

Bienville 29 Special Education Students

Blount 99 Thomas area

*** Central 99 Area served by Central 6 
Austin (Austin discon’ t ,  
for 1967-1968)

Clark 378 Area served by Clark

* Craighead 269 S. Brookley 6- S. Morningside

* Davidson 977 Area served by Davidson

** Dickson 115 Dodge (d iscon 't, for 1967-1968)

Eight Mile 121 Area served by Eight Mile

*** Hall 126 S. Brookley 6 Shepard (Shepard 
discon’ t .  for 1967-1968)

** Hillsdale 18 Semmea 5 Orchard (d iscon't.
for 1967-1968)

** Mobile Co. Tmg. 582 Satsuma 5 Saiialand (d iscon't.
for 1967-1968)

* *  Old Shell Road M3 Griggs (d iscon 't. for 1967-19##)

* Orchard 190 Serames (Some w ill be discon’ t .
for 1967-1968)

* Prichard Jr. High 110 Area n r « i  chard

Rain 935 Area served by Rain

** Russell 89 Special Education Student*# 
school closed for 1967-1968)

Shaw 650 Area served by Shaw

* Shepard 293 Area servod^jby Shepard

*** Toulminville 75 Area served by Toulnsinville 
and Austin (Austin discon’ t .
for 1967-1968)

* Vigor 699 Area served by Vigor

72



6

202a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6 at July 1967 Hearing

metropolitan AREA

NUMBER OF 
TRANSPORTED 

NEGRO

STUDENTS 
1 (1966-67} 

WHITE
ATTENDANCE AREAS UPON WHICH 

STUDENTS ARE TRANSPORTED

*** Warren 21 Austin area (discon't. for 
1967-1968)

*** Washington 360 Area served by Washington 
and Austin (Austin discon't. 
for 1967-1968)

* Whistler 215 E. Parks (No school in area)

Hill 23? Beau Terra (No school in area)

*** Williamson 94 S. Rrookley 6 Shepard (Shepard 
discon't, for 1967-1968)

* Woodcock 8 93 Brookley Air Force Base

RURAL AREA

NUMBER OP STUDENTS 
TRANSPORTED (1966-67) 

NEGRO WHITE

(RURAL SCHOOLS HAVE NO 
GEOGRAPHIC ATTENDANCE
AREAS)

Alba 73**

Baker gag

Belsaw 239

Burroughs 100

Calcedeaver 264

* Citronelle 661

Cleveland 196

Dauphin Island 39

Davis

Dawes Union ISO

993

Dixon 356

Griggs 342

Hollinger's Island 7 M

Indian Springs 7.1 X

Lee 405

Lott 7 26

7 3



203a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6 at July 1967 Hearing

7 4 _____.  v /  y

RURAL AREA

NUfflER OF STUDENTS (RURAL SCHOOLS HAVE Hi} .
....  ■' TRANSPORTED (1966-67) GEOGRAPHIC ATTENDANCE ,

NEGRO WHITE AREAS)

* Mobile County High 899

* Montgomery U26

* Mt. Vernon 56

Saint Elmo 722

Satsuma 938

* Semmes 991 X , ,

Tanner Williams 278

* Theodore 1 1310

Thompson 51

* Wilmer 272

* It ii anticipated that those schools starred once will have 
desegregated bus service in 1967-1968. It is impossible 
to project numbers with accuracy at this t ie s .

** Bussing w ill be discontinued in 1967-1968 ,4-
.Iff' ^  .. S’/*

*** Bussing w ill be partially discontinued in 1967-1968 > „ f ■" I

I y n ---
74



204a

C O P Y

February 17,1967 

B oard A genda I tem 

From : Mr. Shout

TR A N SP O R T E D  E L E M E N T A R Y  C H IL D R E N  IN  TH E  
M E T R O P O L IT A N  A R E A : The Pupil Personnel Office has 
studied the geographical location of elementary school 
buildings within each metropolitan area including Mobile, 
Chickasaw, and Prichard. This study was conducted for the 
purpose of determining the distance that children have to 
travel who live at the furthermost point in each attendance 
area from the school which they attend. Time did not per­
mit a comprehensive survey or having maps prepared by 
individual schools which would have determined the exact 
location of the residence of each pupil in attendance at a 
particular school. The distance from each school was de­
termined by measurement in accord with the scale to which 
the map was drawn. The criteria used in all cases was the 
greatest distance that Bussell pupils would be requited to~ 

Traval^^ school year in order to get to~ the’ ~
LeinkauFllchool and back home.

Set forth below is a summary of schools serving elementary 
children who have to travel at. least as far or farther than 
will the pupils formerly attending Bussell.

I. Schools where elementary children reside within the 
attendance area but have no public school bus trans­
portation provided:

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 24 at July 1967 Hearing



205a

A. Austin School'—Pupils residing as far or far­
ther from school as the formerly Eussell pupils 
are not in the same socio-economic situation.

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 24 at July 1967 H earing

II. Schools where elementary school children reside 
outside the attendance area and no public bus trans­
portation is provided but because of approved ear­
lier patterns of school attendance or the closing of 
a school and re-assignment do not attend the school 
serving the area of their residence.

A. Old Shell Eoad (pupils from the Toulminville 
area)

Previously the Board denied the request of the 
Toulminville group for public bus transporta­
tion to the Old Shell Eoad School.

B. Hall School—Pupils residing in the Texas 
Street area.

IH.

C. Leinkauf—Pupils re-assigned from Bussell.

Schools where elementary children are now fur­
nished public school bus transportation from out- 
of-district attendance areas as approved by the 
Board.

A. Warren—Negro pupils residing in the Austin 
area.

B. Hillsdale—Negro students residing in the 
Semmes area.

C. Hall—Negro pupils residing in the Kate Shep­
ard area and Negro pupils residing in the South 
Brookley area.

I



206a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 24 at July 1967 Searing

D. Craighead—Pupils residing in the South Brook- 
ley attendance area and pupils residing in the 
South Morningside area.

IV. Schools where elementary children are presently 
being transported by public school bus from out-of­
district attendance area approved by the Board but 
will not be transported by public school bus trans­
portation during the 1967-68 school year.

A. Dickson—Pupils who reside in the Fonde atten­
dance area.

B. Old Shell Road—Pupils who reside in the Cy­
press Shores-Todd Acres area.

V. Schools where elementary children have been 
granted transfers from out-of-district or have 
elected to exercise options as provided for under 
policy.
A. There was no way to make an estimate within 

such a short period of time as to the number of 
pupils who live as far or farther from the school 
that they attend than those pupils formerly as­
signed to Russell School.

B. Based on present policy none of these out-of­
district children are being furnished public 
school bus transportation.

In considering providing public school bus transportation 
for those pupils re-assigned from Russell to Leinkauf or 
for those pupils attending other schools listed in this re-



207a

port, the Board would also need to consider another related 
problem. If the Board approves transporting by public 
school bus those pupils from Bussell to Leinkauf or those 
pupils from other schools listed in this report, they must 
decide if they are going to provide transportation for those 
pupils residing in the metropolitan attendance area who 
elect to attend an out-of-district school by the exercising 
of an option as provided for under present Board policy. 
It is recommended by the Pupil Personnel Division that 
public school bus transportation should not be expanded to 
include pupils residing in the metropolitan areas because 
our present Court Plan and Board policy do not include 
provisions for this type of service. Neither does our Court 
Plan or present policies provide for this type of service to 
be offered to those students who are attending school out- 
of-district either by approved transfer or option. With the 
exception of the Austin School there are no children includ­
ing those formerly assigned to Bussell School who reside 
within the attendance area of the school to which they are 
assigned that are two miles or more from that school. 
Pupils who do reside a greater distance are out-of-district 
pupils who have elected by previously established approved 
patterns of attendance, by transfer, or by option to attend 
an out-of-district school.

,/s / Sam II. Shoijx

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 24 at July 1967 N earing

SHS/tlp

Plaintiff-Intervenor’ s Exhibit No. 64 
at July 1967 Hearing

[Map Omitted—See Original Beeord]



208a

R eport on R esearch of the P upil P ersonnel Office for 
U se in P lanning for the F ull U tilization of 

School F acilities in  the D owntown A rea

During the past several years there has been an increase 
in the shifting of population from the downtown area and 
also within the downtown area with many schools increas­
ing in enrollment while others have shown a decrease. Be­
cause of this it was felt that a study of the downtown area 
was necessary with the purpose in mind of reviewing what 
has been happening concerning the student population and 
to look at the developments that have taken place and are 
planned that would affect the school enrollment in this area 
of Mobile.

It was suggested that a report on alternatives which 
might merit consideration in making a full utilization of 
the public school facilities in this area be made. For the 
purpose of this study, the schools included were those in 
the city of Mobile east of the 1-65 Highway and north of 
the 1-10 Highway. We excluded the Morningside School 
attendance area. Morningside was excluded because the 
students completing elementary there will go to Azalea 
Road and Davidson for Grades 7 through 12.

Enrollm ent Trends

The enrollments of the schools during the school years 
1962-63 through 1966-67 were used to see what the trend 
has been. The students who are assigned and transported 
to the schools in this area from other areas of Mobile 
County have been excluded from the enrollments for each 
school. The students transported out of this area by the 
Board during this period have been added.

The following is a table showing the enrollments in the 
different schools and the trend that has developed.

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 R earing



209a

— FORMERLY WRITE SCHOOLS In tervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing

1962-63 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67
School Elera. Jr. Sr. Elem. Jr. Sr. Elera. Jr, Sr. Elem. Jr. Sr. Elem. Jr. Sr

Arlington 299 242 \ 400 i 396 358
Barton 854 673 531 . Closed Closed

Craighead 571 611 432 397 ' 317
Crichton - 631 648 642 641 108 569 97
Eanes "j 1248 894 1038 1136 ✓ 1061
Evans 421 410 405 328 330 39
Gprgas.—i 836 635 520 274 166 Closed — -
Leinkauf 433 62 ‘ 415 57 364 53 311 64 304 34

 ̂Karyvale
o

959 915 793 729 ' 628
M Hertz 611 639 630 577 527
Murphy 3219 2983 2!•21 2732 2413
Oakdale 351 73 279 48 Closed--- — nmm-m

Old Shell Road 365 333 328 312 59 553 102

Phillips 1273 1175 1166 1283 1264
Russell 312 315 292

.
268 259 29

Toulminville 465 384 112 295 177 Closed — - .
Westlawn 524 523 495 • 493 493
Woodcock 62! 614 575 540 60 476 44

TOTAL 6934 3975 3219 6579 3231 3095 5876 3083 309S 5266 2876 2732 * rtf •*tU14 2670 2413



P la in t iff -In te rv e n e r ’s E x h i b i t  No. 64  at J u ly  1 9 6 7  H e a rin g  
FORMERLY NEGRO SCHOOLS ENROLLMENTS

1962-63 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1 9 6 6 -6 7

210a

Schools Elem. Jr. Sr. Elem. Jr. Sr. Elem. Jr. Sr. Elem. Jr. Sr. Elem, J r . Sr.

Caldwell 801 ~~827 683 650 601

Central 1675 1749 1840 1917 1428

Council 806 78i 773 772 748
Dunbar - . U73.

<
1252 1152 - 1116 1111

Emerson 683 624 590 605 629 643
Fonvielle 1286 1357 1319 1600 - 1117

Gorgas N —A

964
'Hall •

. 913 1036
t

Howard 629 617 658 684 665
Owens 1587 1604 1770 1625 1433
Falmer 269 273 —
Southside 607 582 534 497
Stanton Road 434 774 1053 1187 - 1059
Toulmlnville 623
Warren 441 458 447 424 408
Washington 261 930 1170 1284 1355 1503 _ ' »■
Williamson 816 427 449 857 385 585 391 786 383 761 532 752

m * a w   ̂y  n 7744 3154 2124 8134 3414 2334 7581 5409 2626 8484 3388 2673 3674 3643 2803.



211a

It should be noted that from 1962-63 to 1966-67 the 
formerly white schools have consistently decreased in 
enrollment: Elementary 2120 (6934-4814), Junior High 
School 1305 (3975-2670), and Senior High School 806 
(3219-2413). Total decreased in formerly white schools is 
4231. The formerly Negro schools during the same period 
showed an increase: Elementary 930 (8674-7744), Junior 
High School 489 (3643-3154), and Senior High School 679 
(2803-2124). Total increased in formerly Negro schools is 
2098.

Changes Made in Availability o f Facilities

During the period 1962-63 through 1966-67, the Oakdale 
Elementary School and the Barton Junior High School 
were discontinued as schools. An eight-room annex to the 
Owens Elementary School and five rooms at Howard 
(Northside) were destroyed by fire, and 15 classrooms at 
Williamson were destroyed by vandalism. The size of the 
school at Maryvale was reduced from thirty classrooms to 
18 classrooms by the construction of a new school building. 
The Glorgas and Toulminville school buildings were closed 
but later re-opened as predominantly Negro schools. Dur­
ing the same period George Hall Elementary School was 
constructed, and additions were added at Stanton Road and 
Mae Eanes.

Present Availability o f Classrooms

There are at the present time in the formerly white 
schools 23 vacant elementary classrooms and space to 
accommodate additional students at Murphy High School 
and Mae Eanes Junior High School.

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing



212a

Phillips Junior High School is overcrowded. There are 
six portable classrooms being used at schools in this area: 
one at Mertz, one at Old Shell Road, and four at Phillips. 
We are now accommodating nine classrooms of elementary 
students transported to Craighead and Old Shell Road from 
the South Brookley, and the Cypress Shores and Todd 
Acres areas. We are also providing for twelve classrooms 
of junior high school students in the elementary schools of 
the downtown area. If the transportation of students into 
this area and the housing of junior high school children in 
the elementary schools should be discontinued at some time 
in the future, there should be an additional 21 vacant class­
rooms available on the basis of our present enrollment. 
This would mean a total of 44 elementary classrooms would 
become vacant and this number could increase if present 
trends in enrollment continue.

There are at the present time 10 vacant classrooms in the 
formerly Negro elementary schools of this area. There are 
now 39 portable classrooms being used to relieve crowded 
conditions at seven of the formerly Negro schools and in 
two or three places additional portables are needed. We 
are accommodating eight classrooms of students trans­
ported to Hall and Williamson from the South Brookley 
and Lloyd Station areas. In four schools (Southside, 
Emerson, Howard and Williamson), there is at the present 
time a need to replace part or all of the available facilities.

Plans A pproved  or R ecom m ended :

The following building programs have been approved by 
the Board or have been recommended for consideration:

P laintiff-In tervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 H earing



213a

1. Construction of a thirty teacher school at Howard 
to replace the present facility and portables and to 
provide relief for Caldwell and Owens.

2. Construction of an addition to Williamson High 
Sehool to replace all substandard facilities and 
portables.

3. Construction of a new elementary school to replace 
the present Emerson building and provide relief for 
Council School.

4. Construction of a new junior high school to replace 
the present Southside building.

5. Construction of a new senior high school in the 
Toulminville area to relieve Central and release 
the present building to be used for a junior high 
school to relieve Washington.

The above new construction will relieve 35 of the 39 
portables now in use in the formerly Negro schools of this 
area. The remaining four portables are assigned to Stanton 
Road and Glorgas Schools. If the enrollment trend in the 
Toulminville area continues, there will be an increased need 
for relief in this area.

Developm ents Planned B y  Other A gencies

Other proposed developments which would have an effect 
on school population and the need for facilities have been 
discussed with the Mobile Housing Board, the Mobile City 
Planning Commission, and Mobile State Junior College.

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Bearing



214a

According to information which has been furnished to the 
Pupil Personnel Office by the Mobile Housing Board, at the 
present time three major projects are being developed in 
the downtown area. Others will be developed in the future.

Michigan Avenue Project (Project Alabama 2-10)

This project will contain 450 dwelling units with 212 
units reserved for elderly families and 238 units for 
regular family occupancy. It is estimated that there 
will be about 500 children in the project. It is estimated 
that of these children 150 will be pre-school age, 200 
elementary, and 150 junior high and senior high 
students. It should be assumed that many of the 
families moving into the project housing are at the 
present time residents of the downtown area, and only 
part of the students would represent growth for the 
general area. It would mean though that we would 
have some shifting of population which will result in 
vacant classrooms being shifted from one school to 
another.

The Central-Texas Street Project (Project Alabama 
R-38)

According to the Housing Board, there will be fewer 
families in the Central-Texas Street area after re­
development, but the number of children to be served 
by the schools probably will remain about the same as 
it is at the present time. This is because the average 
family in public housing units will have more children 
of school age.

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing



215a

Water Street Project (Project Alabama R-34)

The acquisition of houses in the Water Street Project 
area has resulted in a decrease in the number of 
children in the area at the present time, but it is antic­
ipated by the Housing Board that the number of 
school age children will increase after the project has 
been completed.

The Mobile City Planning Commission’s zoning regula­
tions for this downtown area are expected to result in some 
increase in the population inside Broad, Beauregard, and 
Canal Streets. They are attempting to promote the re­
development of some of the residential areas into desirable 
neighborhoods. The street plans, when completed, will 
result in some major changes in the traffic patterns and 
may make it necessary to re-design some of the school 
attendance areas in order to prevent children having to 
cross major streets to attend school.

A conference was held with Mr. Bishop, president of 
Mobile State Junior College, concerning their plans for 
the expansion of their present facilities. Mr. Bishop indi­
cated that he plans to request of the Board of School Com­
missioners that the Caldwell School building located 
adjacent to the college campus be sold to the college for 
use in their expansion program. It seems that the college 
is at the present time in need of additional facilities to 
accommodate the students enrolled.

Plaintiff -In tervenor’'s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing



216a

S u g g e s t i o n s  F o r  M a x i m u m  U t i l i s a t i o n  o f  F a c i l i t i e s  I n  t h e  

D o w n t o w n  A r e a

A lternative I

As reported to Dr. Burns in an earlier report, Augusta 
Evans’ enrollment held up until the last year and estimated 
for next year. The drop seems to have resulted because of 
two major factors. First, the area served by Evans is 
about completely developed and the children of the resi- 
"denls are in higher grade levels with few young couples 
^ i ffi''youn^r'cEndT^''moving into the areaT'Second, much 
of the enrollment over the past few years has beenmhde tip 

“of out-of-area children/ With a decline in enrollments in 
areas such as Mertz, Woodcock, Westlawn so that the 
schools in those areas can adequately house the children, 
the new addition of Fonde, and the construction of John 
Will relieving Crichton of the Forest Hill Area children 
has resulted in a reduction in the number of transfer 
requests each year to attend Evans and has increased the 
requests to return to the school in the area of the residence. 
For example—In 1962-63 a total of 106 transfer requests 
were granted to Evans and in 1966-67 only 18 has been 
requested and granted.

In reviewing the census reports, it was determined that 
205 children of elementary school age reside in the Evans 
School attendance area. The report shows only 100 pre­
school age children ages 2 to 5, in this same attendance area. 
It would be anticipated that many of these pre-school age 
children would enroll in either private or parochial schools 
upon attaining school age. These figures are not com­
pletely accurate in that it is possible that some residents 
were not contacted by the census takers. However, assum-

P laintiff-In tervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing



217a

mg the census information is reasonably accurate, we 
calculate that approximately 82 pupils out of a total of 367 
pupils enrolled at Augusta Evans are out-of-district pupils.

The Augusta Evans building has 12 classrooms now being 
used to serve grades 1-7. The following suggestions are 
offered for consideration in regard to the re-assignment of 
pupils now attending the Evans School. If approved, the 
suggested plan would enable us to make better utilization 
of not only the Evans School but several other schools 
included in our downtown area study.

Pupils enrolled in grade 7 at Augusta Evans would be 
re-assigned to the 7th grade at Sidney Phillips. Pupils 
enrolled in grades 1-6 would be re-assigned to either Old 
Shell Road, Crichton, or Westlawn depending on the 
geographical location of the residence of their parents. 
Out-of-district pupils would be re-assigned to either the 
school serving their attendance area or the school approved 
for them by transfer request during the April 1-15 transfer 
period. This action would permit using the Augusta Evans 
building to accommodate special education classes from 
Craighead, Crichton, and Russell and at least two physi­
cally handicapped classes to be organized by the Division of 
Curriculum and Instruction. The Evans building is 
properly located and constructed to serve adequately as a 
school for special education and the physically handicapped. 
In addition, this plan would permit the re-assignment of 
those pupils housed in the Russell School in regular classes 
in grades 1-6 to either Woodcock or Leinkauf depending 
on the geographical location of the residence of their 
parents. Support for this alternative is indicated in the 
report on the conference with the Augusta Evans delega­
tion as reported in the attached report.

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing



218a

This would eliminate the need for continued operation 
of the Russell School. Pupils in grade 7 at the Leinkauf, 
Crichton and Old Shell Road Schools would be re-assigned 
to Sidney Phillips and those in the Woodcock and the 
Russell Schools to Mae Eanes.

In order to accommodate these additional 7th grade 
pupils at Sidney Phillips, it is proposed that the 9th grade 
pupils at Sidney Phillips School be re-assigned to Murphy 
High School, thereby making Murphy a four-grade school. 
This would accomplish five desirable goals: (1) to fully 
utilize the existing facilities at Murphy and Augusta Evans 
(2) to eliminate having 7th grade students housed in 
elementary schools included in this study (3) to eliminate 
operation of Russell School (4) to eliminate the portable 
buildings presently assigned to Sidney Phillips, and (5) 
to provide for more adequate facilities for special education 
and physically handicapped pupils.

Consideration could be given to the use of the Russell 
School to temporarily house the administrative offices 
during the renovation of the Barton building.

Since the Oakdale School is presently being used for 
storing of furniture, consideration could be given to the 
continued use of this facility for this purpose until final 
decisions have been made concerning the long range plan 
for furniture storage and finalizing plans on the Emerson 
and Southside Schools or consideration could be given to 
disposing of the property at this time.

If these suggestions are met with favorable considera­
tion, it will be necessary that approval he given for a survey 
to be conducted in most of those schools involved in either 
losing or gaining students for the purpose of collecting

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing



219a

empirical data to be utilized in planning for implementa­
tion of the above mentioned changes.

Long range it may be possible to consider the re-assign­
ment of 9th grade pupils from Mae Eanes to Murphy.

Successful acquisition of the Caldwell School by the 
Mobile State Junior College will make it necessary to plan 
for the construction of a new predominantly Negro ele­
mentary school to serve that area.

A lternative II

If the decision is made to retain the 9th grade pupils at 
Phillips and not to organize a school for special education 
and physically handicapped at Augusta Evans, the follow­
ing proposal might be considered. Leave the special educa­
tion classes in those schools to which they are presently 
assigned. All students in grades 1-6 at Evans will be re­
assigned to either Crichton, Westlawn or Old Shell Road 
School based on the geographical location of the residence 
of their parents. All junior high pupils presently housed in 
elementary schools except %  of those attending Woodcock 
and all of those attending Russell would be re-assigned to 
the Evans School. Approximately % of the junior high 
students at Woodcock and all of those at Russell will be 
re-assigned to Mae Eanes, thereby eliminating having 
junior high pupils housed in elementary schools in the 
downtown area. This would provide for approximately 262 
7th grade pupils to be accommodated in the new junior high 
school organized at Evans. There would be a need to 
continue the use of portables at Phillips Junior High 
School or consider the construction of new permanent class­
rooms to accommodate those pupils presently housed in 
the portables at Phillips.

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Rearing



220a

P l a i n t i f f - I n t e r v e n o r ’s  E x h i b i t  N o .  6 4  a t  J u l y  1 9 6 7  H e a r i n g  

A lternative III

Re-assign the 7th grade pupils at Evans to Phillips or 
either to Crichton, Old Shell Road or Westlawn depending 
on the geographical location of the residence of their 
parents. Re-assign the pnpils in grades 1-6 at Evans to 
either Crichton, Westlawn or Old Shell Road depending on 
the geographical location of the residence of their parents.

Use the Angusta Evans building to temporarily house the 
administrative offices during the period of renovation of 
the Barton building. The future use of the Evans School 
could be decided upon during the next school year.

A lternative IV

Permit all pupils to attend those schools in the downtown 
area to which they are presently assigned and utilize the 
vacant classrooms in the downtown schools by transporting 
in pupils from overcrowded schools when portable class­
rooms are not available to those schools.

In regard to the inquiry that was made by members of 
the Board as it appeared in the Board Minutes of October 
12,1966, it is felt that the decision concerning future needs 
of additional property at the Augusta Evans School will of 
a necessity need to be delayed until final decisions are made 
concerning the report of the downtown area schools.



221a

Plaintiff-Intervenor’ s Exhibit No. 72 
at July 1967 Hearing

May 1, 1963

M emo : Dr. Burns 

F rom : Dr. Scarborough.

Be : Your memo of April 26—Neece Property in 
the Snug Harbor area.

The population in Prichard is fairly well stabilized by now 
it appears, so far as the total population is concerned. It 
appears to me that our difficulty lies not in too many or not 
enough schools, but in the matter in having the schools 
adjusted to the Negro or white population. With the addi­
tion of this new Prichard building for the Negroes, north 
of Carver School, and the use of Snug Harbor and Turner- 
ville School for Negro schools that for some time this would 
meet the needs of the population of the Negroes from Tele­
graph Koad to St. Stephens Boad and from the Prichard 
City Limits northward to Highway 1-65.

If the Board is to go along with permanent use of Snug 
Harbor and Turnerville for housing Negro children and by 
the building of the new Prichard Elementary School, north 
of Carver, I think you can see that they are fairly well 
housed. It is my opinion that if more Negroes move in that 
area we again would have to abandon another white school 
and that it in turn could house the increase of Negroes in a 
school between Craft Highway and Telegraph Boad in the 
vicinity of Happy Hill. This would be a desirable substitu­
tion for Snug Harbor in that they would not have to cross 
the Craft traffic lane, but to make this exchange would cost 
the Board approximately one half of a million dollars. It



222a

is my opinion that they will want to forego crossing Craft 
Highway and continue with the present facility at Snug 
Harbor in order to save this one half million dollars in 
buildings.

It might be worth consideration if the people, who resist 
our turning Snug Harbor into a Negro school, could find a 
way to make that property worth as much as a half of a 
million dollars. In such cases it might be worth the Board’s 
consideration to abandon the use of Snug Harbor School 
and making use of the Neece property that we looked at. 
As I see it, these are the only reasons for our making use 
of the Neece property of which we looked.

Naturally if we had the Neece property and an 18 room 
building with modern facilities, it would be much more valu­
able than our present Snug Harbor assignment, but it would 
house no more children. As an investment it might be wise, 
but in the matter of housing our children at the least possi­
ble cost to the citizens, it looks as if Snug Harbor is our 
best bet.

P laintiff-In tervenor’s Exhibit No. 72 at July 1967 H earing

CLS :wt
C. L. Scarborough



223a

Excerpt from  Transcript o f  Proceedings, July 17, 1968
[1031]

B y Mr. J o n es :
Q. Did yon give any instructions or did anyone on your 

staff give any instructions to Mr. Clardy as to how to either 
determine neighborhoods or how to define neighborhoods! 
A. No, sir.

Q. Is there a workable definition or a standard definition 
which the School Board has used to define neighborhoods 
as such! A. Not unless it would be something very-irr- 
formal indeed that neighborhoods— We look upon neigh­
borhoods in two different ways. You can create a neighbor­
hood on a map in terms of geographic and natural barriers 
and that, but it’s mighty, mighty, hard to identify a neigh­
borhood sociologically and otherwise because that has to do 
with factors [1082] not fully understood and involves in­
formation we do not always have at our command, plus the 
fact that neighborhoods are constantly changing both psy­
chologically and geographically and this makes the problem 
of organizing the School System very complex indeed.

Q. How many racially integrated neighborhoods are there 
in the City of Mobile! A. I  really don’t know.

Q. Do you have any estimate as to how many there are!
A. No.

Q. How many all-white neighborhoods would you say 
there are! A. I do not know.

Q. How many all-negro neighborhoods! A. I do not 
know.



224a

Excerpt from Transcript of Proceedings, July 19, 1968

A. Wait, let me comment a bit about the relationship of 
grade structures.

First of all, as I mentioned previously, it was not my 
purpose to evaluate the particular grade structures used 
by the School System, but simply to make some kind of 
evaluation that whatever grade structure the System had 
adopted was being applied in a non-racial way. Now, one 
other point here I  think, my view was that the grade struc­
ture should be applied consistently, but that did not mean 
there wouldn’t be deviations from it. It would only mean 
that the deviations would have to be justified on some edu­
cational basis. In one way, it’s difficult to say that the 
System actually has a grade structure. There are so many 
different grades in the—by school in the System.

The Court: Is that unique to this System!
The Witness: I have never encountered a System 

like this.
The Court: Have you ever encountered a system 

of this size that was uniform completely?
The Witness: [1527] No, sir, but as I say, I have 

never encountered one with such deviations as this 
one. Seven schools from 1 to 5; seven grades 1 to 6; 
one, grades 1 to 8; one, grades 1 to 12; one, grades 6 
to 7; one, grades 6 to 8; and one 6 to 12; two with 
grades 7 and 8; four with grades 7 to 9; there are 
two, grades 7 to 12; two, grades 8 to 12; three, grades 
9 to 12, and three, grades 10 to 12. So, there is a very

[1526]



225a

considerable amount of variation, although the pres­
ent pattern at the elementary level is six grades at 
the school.

Mr. Philips: Yonr Honor, he has read that off 
from a list much too fast for us to copy to determine 
the validity of what he has said.

The Witness: By all means—
The Court: Surely.
Mr. Jones: Here it is. Would you continue, Dr. 

Lieberman.
The Witness: I need my notes.
[1528] Mr. Philips: If he needs his script to tes­

tify further, we can copy it later.
Mr. Jones: Your Honor, for the record, I don’t 

think that the—Dr. Lieberman’s notes can be 
referred to as the script.

B y  M r .  J o n e s :

Q. Dr. Lieberman, is it true that the summary of grade 
structures as made from you are notes that you previously 
referred to? A. That is correct.

Q. All right. Continue. A. Now, taking into account 
grade structure, one very obvious situation that called for 
analysis is the one at the west end of the district in the 
Hillsdale area.

Q. Is that a 1 to 12? A. That is a 1 to 12 grade 
structure, and the Hillsdale complex, the high school there 
had 49 graduating last year. Now, I think it’s universally 
accepted among educators, especially those in secondary 
education, that a high school that has only 49 graduates is

E xcerp t from  Transcript o f Proceedings, July 19, 1968



226a

far too small for a good educational [1529] program. 
Either you cannot offer or arrange the subjects necessary to 
meet the diverse needs and interests of pupils at that age, 
or if you did, you would have to do so at the cost of the 
taxpayers. If for example, there were three students that 
wanted to take physics or advanced math or something like 
that in a high school that had that few students, you 
wouldn’t be able to supply the subject, or if you did so, to 
hire teachers that would only teach three or four pupils. 
I might add here that the most significant study of the 
American high school, the one by Dr. James Bryant Conant 
said that the elimination of small high schools was the 
biggest, most important step that could be taken to the im­
provement of secondary education in this country. Now, the 
Board has given great weight to, considerable attention to 
grade structure as I understand it. It has adopted a policy 
change of going from a 6-3-3 to a 5-3-4 plan and in the docu­
ment that I read supplied by the Board, it was called a 
middle school montage, the rationale for the change was 
set forth. One of the things set forth in that rationale was 
the difference between the pupils in grades 5 and 6.
[1530] That is when the difference in the pupils is 
the greatest. Now, we have a situation then, you know, 
if the difference between those grades is so important and 
the Board is considering reorganizing the entire System on 
that basis, it was impossible for me to understand how they 
could maintain the complex of grades 1 through 12. They 
say with the very small high school, for example, these 
students could have gone, for example, to Davidson which 
was under capacity. So Davidson was, I think, a hundred

E xcerp t from  Transcript o f Proceedings, July 19, 1968



227a

and eighty-eight, was close to 200 under capacity and some 
students in that area, by my measurements were further 
away than the Hillsdale group. Now, I might say very 
candidly that this example seemed to me to be so flagrant 
to maintain a negro high school with only 49 in the class 
when there was room at another school, and considering the 
overwhelming educational reasons for phasing out a high 
school of that size that— I would say very candidly, that 
that alone in my judgment would have been the basis for 
questioning the entire approach of the Board.

Now, another illustration, there are two high schools that 
are very close together, Blount and Vigor.

[1531] Q. You want to refer to “Defendants’ Exhibit 6” ! 
A. Yes, which is the high school zone map supplied by the 
Board.

Now, here are the two high schools and they are very 
close together. The Vigor grade structure is either 8 or 9 
to 12,1 believe. Let’s see, Vigor is 10 and Blount— It’s the 
other way around, Blount is 8 to 12. So, the overwhelming 
or 100 percent negro high school is 8 to 12 and Vigor is 10 
to 12. Now, obviously the only way— The dividing line here 
is a racial line. This is 1-65 and to the west there are 
whites, and you notice how large the Vigor district is. Now, 
obviously the only way you could fill Vigor with grades 10 
through 12, or the only way you could fill it with white 
students would be to have a tremendous area. If the two 
high schools had the same grade structure— Let’s say 
Blount was 10 through 12. Then obviously it would have 
had to absorb some of the students since it’s closer to the 
students than the Vigor area.

E xcerp t from  Transcript o f Proceedings, July 19, 1968



228a

So, this was another example of where I think grade 
structure raised some question.

Then, another illustration, the Hall area. The Board
[1532] plan calls for using or adding a seventh grade to 
Hall and it’s on the junior high map, the seventh grade. It’s 
listed as a junior high, but that is only for the seventh grade 
and that will be— In other words, only white seventh grad­
ers from this area, and the Board has indicated that it wants 
to keep them together because they are going to another 
eighth grade school, so that even now on paper it looks like 
there is considerable integration at Hall. Actually, they 
will have a segregated class in that school. It will be 
predominantly, regardless of whether it will be predomi­
nantly or under, the white students will be seventh graders 
and the intention is to keep them together in that school. 
Then—■ Well, those are some of the examples on grade 
structure.

Now, as I say, I certainly do not question the necessity 
for deviation in grade structure. The problem that I have 
is that the deviations always seem to result in more segrega­
tion, not less.

Excerpt from Transcript of Proceedings, July 19, 1968



229a

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 
Washington, D. C.

HEW Plan of July, 1969

July 7, 1969

Honorable Daniel Holcombe Thomas 
Judge, District Court 
P. 0. Box 137 
Mobile, Alabama 36601

Re: Davis, ET AL, United States of
America, ET AL, vs. Board of 
School Commissioners of Mobile 
County, ET AL.

Dear Judge Thomas:
Pursuant to Court Order of June 3, 1969, we are enclosing 

six (6) copies of the plan formulated and recommended by the Office 
of Education of The Department of Health, Education and Welfare for 
the operation of schools in Mobile School District.

Sincerely,

-f $ h  Dr. Gregory Anrig 
Director
Division of Equal Educational Opportunities 
U. S. Office of Education



230a

H E W  P l a n  o f  J u l y ,  1 9 6 9

A d e s e g r e g a t i o n plan f o r  th e

MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

A REPORT TO THE 
SUPERINTENDENT

BY THE
DIVISION OF EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION 
ATLANTA, GEORGIA



231a

H E W  P l a n  o f  July, 1 9 6 9

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

X. Background Information about Mobile County . . . . . . .  1

II. Status of School Desegregation 1968-69 . . . . . .  21

III. Analysis of Financing the Mobile County
Public Schools • • • . . .  48

IV. Program of Study • • • . . .  68

V. Desegregation Plans * • •

VT. Suggestions for Plan Implementation . . .



232a

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 
Regional Office

Room 404, 50 Seventh Street, N. E. 
Atlanta, Georgia

H E W  Plan o f  July, 1969

July 7, 1969

Dr. Cranford H. Burns 
Superintendent
Board of School Commissioners 

of Mobile County 
P. 0. Box 1327 
Mobile, Alabama 36601

Dear Dr. Burns:

In accordance with the June 3, 1969, order of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the following 
desegregation plan for ending the dual school system in Mobile 
County is submitted for your consideration.

We wish to express our appreciation for the cooperation 
received from you and your staff.

Sincerely yours,

Jesse J. Jordan 
Senior Program Officer 
Office of Education 
Equal Educational Opportunities 
Title IV



S E W  Plan o f July, 1969

CHAPTER X

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT MOBILE COUNTY

A. Location

Mobile is the oldest city in the state of Alabama, the second in size, and 

the only seaport serving the state. Located on Mobile Bay in close proximity to 

the Gulf of Mexico and the large river systems which feed the bay, the community is 

geographically favored by water resources of various types. The city of Mobile is 

part of the rapidly growing and developing Gulf Coast region, an area in which 

cities are merging physically in a long strip stretching from New Orleans to 

Tampa. The public school system of Mobile includes the metropolitan area of 

Mobile city and the surrounding county area of Mobile County. The total area 

of the county is 1,222 square miles, or 732,080 acres. Mobile County is situated 

in the extreme southwestern part of the state. It is bounded on the north by 

Washington County, on the east by Baldwin County, on the south by the Mississippi 

Sound of the Gulf of Mexico, and on the west by Jackson, George and Green 

Counties, Mississippi. From north to south its extreme length is 60 miles. From 

east to west its width is from 17 to 30 miles.

Major industries located in the area are shipbuilding,ship repair, cement, manu­

facturing of wood pulp and paper products, steel fabricating, foundries, aluminum 

industry, rayon fibers, naval stores, oil refining, clothing manufacturing, 

furniture manufacturing, pumps, batteries, paint, chemicals and fish and seafood 

products. Mobile is served by five railroads, four major airlines, 100 steamship 

lines, 55 trunk lines, and one of the most extensive river and canal systems in



234a

the nation. The state of Alabama owns and operates the modern ocean terminal at 

Mobile, which can accommodate 32 vessels simultaneously. The Port of Mobile ranks 

in the nation's top ten in terms of gross tonnage.

B. Population

As can be seen by examining Table 1-1, since 1950 the population of Mobile 

County has continued to record a modest gain in spite of the phase-out of 

Brookley Air Force Base. Between 1950 and 1960 Mobile County's population 

increased 27 percent while that of the metropolitan area of Mobile increased 33.5 

percent, which is well above the national average of 18.5 percent and still 

farther ahead of Alabama's rate of 6.7 percent. The phase-out of Brookley did, 

however, affect Mobile County's estimated rate of growth. In fact, 1968 popula­

tion estimates are only 18,100 above the 1960 figures reported by the U. S.

Census of Population, a gain of 4.5 percent, which is substantially less than 1 

percent annually. It must be noted that the future use of Brookley Facility 

by the City of Mobile, private industries, and education is expected to have a 

tremendous influence on population changes in Mobile. It has been projected that 

the population of Mobile County will rea^h 507,300 by 1995.

Approximately 32 percent of the total population of Mobile County is non­

white. It has been projected that the non-white population will experience an 

insignificant decline from 32.2 percent in 1965 to 31 percent in 1995. The pro­

portional decline will be caused primarily by increased in-migration of whites to 

fill employment demands in the white collar and skilled blue collar categories.

It is estimated that 78.6 percent of the total non-white population of Mobile County 

live in the Metropolitan Mobile Area.

H E W  Plan of July, 1969
2 .



H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

POPULATION

MOBILE COUNTY I960

Year Metropolitan Mobile Mobile County

I960 264,747 314,301
1950 152,682 231,105

CHARACTERISTICS OF POPULATION— 1960

It an Metropolitan Mobile Mobile County

Total Population 
Male 
Female 

White 
Male 
Female 

Non-white 
Male 
Female

264,747 314,301
128,373 152,703
136,374 161,598
176,072 212,873
86,136 104,641
89,936 108,232
88,675 101,428
42,230 48,062
46,445 53,366

ANALYSIS OF POPULATION-1960

Item Metropolitan Mobile Mobile County

White percent 66.5 67.72
Non-white percent 33.5 32.28
Population per household * 3.69
Median age * 24.9
21 years and over * 172,382

* Not available

TABLE 1-1



236a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

4.

Maps 1-2 and 1-4 and Tables 1-3 and 1-5 show the distribution by percentage 

of the non-white population of Metropolitan Mobile and rural Mobile County respec­

tively, according. to zones developed by the Mobile County Regional Planning Com­
mission.

C. Population and Employment

As a function of employment, the growth of population in Mobile County has 

responded primarily to increases in local job opportunities, although the availa­

bility of employment outside Mobile County has been quite influential at times. 

Mobile County's recent economic growth, however, has occurred with only modest 

increases in employment and population, primarily because growth has come from 

the county's automation-oriented industrial sector. For example, between 1960 

and 1965, the Mobile area generated over $164,513,000 of new and expanded 

industrial investment, 68.7 percent of which came from chemical, paper, and power 

facilities —  all highly oriented toward automation.

Although the 1960-65 investment was substantial, and reflected considerable 

economic achievement, net new jobs during this period totaled 4,800 (the term net 

new jobs represents accessions less separations, and is the only true measure of 

employment growth). Between 1965 and 1968 new and expanded industrial investment 

totaled $298,607,000, 73 percent of which represented paper, chemical, and power 

expansion. During this period, however, net new jobs generated by the non- 

Brookley sector of the economy numbered only 3,400.

As of 1965 Mobile County's labor force participation ratio was 35.9; i.e..

35.9 percent of the county's population was actively seeking employment or was 

gainfully employed, either within the county or outside its boundaries. Thus, with 

a resident labor force of 119,300 in 1965, Mobile County's population totaled about



237a

H E W  Plan o f  July, 1969

Distribution of 
Non-White Population 
Metropolitan Mobile 1960



238a

POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT 6
METROPOLITAN MOBILE 

I960

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

Census
Tracts

Total
Population

Total
White

Total
Nonwhite

Percent
Nonwhite

1. 551 423 128 23.2
2. 7,566 3,141 4,425 58.3
3. 4,225 95 4,130 97.8
4. 8,675 15 8,660 99.8
5. 6,710 257 6,453 96.0
6, 5,822 1,522 4,300 73.8
7. 8,046 5,693 2,353 29.2
8. 5,908 3,151 2,757 46.5
9. 8,328 8,173 155 1.8

10. 6,993 6,289 704 9.9
11. 9,944 1,600 8,344 83.4
12. 5,750 2,114 3,636 64.3
13. 6,517 5,695 822 12.8
14. 5,522 684 4,838 87.6
15. 7,015 6,367 648 9.1
16. 861 821 40 2.2
17. 3,120 3,018 102 3.1
18. 2,251 1,901 350 1.5
19. 4,723 4,589 134 2.6
20. 1,577 1,522 55 3.1
21. 4,144 4,135 9 .0
22. 4,384 4,376 8 .4
23. 6,797 6,789 8 .1
24. 4,702 4,696 6 1.1
25. 9,666 9,634 32 .2
26. 5,199 3,689 1,510 29.0
27. 4,400 3,020 1,380 31.3
28. 5,641 5,626 15 .1
29. 3,360 3,353 7 .1
30. 2,109 1,986 123 5.6
31. 2,949 2,813 136 4.4
32. 5,271 5,225 46 .8
33. 3,621 3,314 307 8.4
34. 9,280 9,236 44 .3
35. 4,729 4,705 24 .5
36. 3,937 2,130 1,807 45.9
37. 2,220 2,040 180 8.1
38. 2,343 52 2,291 97.7
39. 7,923 2,997 4,926 6 2 .1
Pri chard 47,371 25,048 22,323 47.37
Saraland 4,595 4,136 459 10.0
Chickasaw 10,002 10,002 none .0

Total 264,747 176,072 88,675 33.5

TABLE 1-3



239a

E E W  Plan o f July, 1969

7.

py/y/.-ŷ 'y-9.

i w J  " ' " ' V

* 1  »

l l l l f

-  jgaBjh
iliiWilir

:•■’■ ' i c k o s c w

—---Prichard
---- Mob i I e

■. ■ ■ §#

;'xr >,'./>• ;

••• '< :
• 3 |||g |:g § g g $
v:xi^^ ::::x-:x:>>:-w->x
i »  i i i i :

0 -  6% 

6-12%

20-50%

*

51-75%

Distribution of 
Non-White Population 
Mobile County 1960

MAP 1 - 4



240a

S E W  Plan of July, 1969

8.

POPOTATION BY CENSUS TRACT 
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA 

1960

Total
Population

Total
White

Total of 
Non-white

Percent of 
Non-White

Bayou La Batre 6,604 5,853 751 11.37

Chickasaw 10,130 10,130 0 0

Citronelle 4,230 3,243 987 23.33

Eight Mile 1,706 1,368 338 19.81

Grand Bay 6,174 4,091 2,083 33.73

Mobile 202,779 139,160 65,619 32.36

Mt. Vernon 6,881 2,027 4,854 70.54

Prichard 47,431 25,028 22,403 47.23

Saraland 9,527 6,520 3,007 31.56

Semmes 4,498 4,155 343 7.62

Tanner-Williams 4,273 3.249 1,024 23.96

Theodore 10,068 9,262 806 8.00

TOTALS 314,301 212,086 102,215 32-52

TABLE 1-5



241a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

9.

332,300 persons. By 1995 population should fall between 464,400 and 550,000, as 

the result of a resident labor force of from 176,500 to 209,000 persons and a 

participation ratio of approximately 38 percent .

Although population and employment have been adversely affected since the 

phase-out of Brookley Air Force Base began, it appears that Mobile County, 

without Brookley, is going to have a more desirable balance between the major seg­

ments of its economy. For example, compared with 1964, Mobile County's 1995 

employment profile will have a much higher percentage of manufacturing employees, 

and a smaller proportion of government workers, (See Table 1-6.) Although 

government employment contributes much to a community's standard of living, employ­

ment associated with the production of goods and services for export and local 

consumption provides a more lucrative base for expansion.

By 1995 —  following the manufacturing trend -- construction, retail trade, 

wholesale trade, finance, insurance, real estate, and services will expand in 

importance. On the other hand, agriculture, transportation, conmunications and 

utilities employment, as well as self-employed persons and domestic workers, will 

decline as a percentage of total employment. Except for agriculture, however, 

these latter categories will still increase in absolute numbers.

Except for the massive effect on government employment of Brookley's phase­

out, proportional shifts in the major employment categories between 1965 and 1995 

will be caused primarily by technology and automation. Technology and automation 

will also be responsible for increasing proportions of professional and technical 

occupations and smaller proportions of blue collar jobs. Other significant 

characteristics of the work force will be: more employed women; fewer employed



Manufacturing

Construction

T C U

Retail

Wholesale

Fire

Services

o  Ul h* »-* wo o ui

Percent of Total Employment

Government , :- Y

Other

Agriculture
1964 

1995

s:o
s S

oQ

feq

sa<?—4S5

f-*o

242a



243a

1 1

S E W  Plan of July, 1969

persons under 18 years of age; older workers retiring earlier; greater labor 

mobility; a shorter work week; better educated workers; and Increased fringe 

benefits and "take-home" pay. ( See Tables 1-7 and 1-8.)

In 1965 unemployment in Mobile County totaled 5,100, or 4-3 percent of 

the civilian at place" labor force. By 1995 the unemployment rate will more 

than likely remain about the same as in 1965; in absolute numbers, however, it 

should range somewhere between 7,900 and 9,300. Although jobs will be 

"steadier," competition for labor, combined with greater labor mobility, will 

prevent the unemployment rate from improving drastically.



244a

AVERAGE ANNUAL CIVILIAN "AT FLACE" EMPLOYMENT 

MOBIL! COUNTY: 1960-95

(In Thousands)

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

Planning Area

Low Medium High

I960 108.9

1961 108.2

1962 108.6

1963 112.3

1964 113.2

1965 113.7

1966 111.1

1967 105.7

1966 105.1

1969 106.0 107.0 108.0

1970 107.0 110.8 114.6

1975 114.5 120.7 126.9

I960 124.5 134.0 143.4

1965 137.0 149.5 162.1

1990 152.0 166.0 180.1

1995 169.5 185.0 200.6

TABLE 1-7



245a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

CIVILIAN "AT PLACE" LKPLOYi-LNT FROEILL 

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION, BY i-AJOR CATEGORY 

MOBILE COUNTY: 1964 and 1995

1964 1995
Nonagri cultural 98.7 99.5
Wage and Salary 84.7 89.0

Manufacturing 41*2 197%
Food and Kindred Products 2.2 2.3
Textiles and Apparel 0.1 0.4
Lumber and Wood Products 1.1 0.6
Paper and paper Products 5.6 4.2
Chemical ind Allied Froducts 1.6 3.2
Shipbuilding and Repair 2.3 2.9
Other Manufacturing 2.1 6.0

Nonmanufacturing 69.5 6 MConstruction 5.7 6.7
TCU 1/ 8.5 6.0
Trade 18.2 18.8

Retail 13.3 13.8
Wholesale 4.9 5.0

FIRE, 2/ 3.5 5.0
Services and Miscellaneous 11.3 15.4
Government 22.3 17.3
Other Wage and Salary — 0.2

Other Nonagricultural 14.0 10.5
Agricultural i*l 0*5

Total 100,0 100.0

1/ Transportation, Communications and Utilities
2/ Finance, Insurance and Real Estate

Sources: Department of Industrial Relations, Alabama
State Employment Service, 1964 
John H. Friend, Inc., 1995

TABLE 1-8



246a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

14

D. Personal Income

Total personal income in Mobile County totaled $747.7 million in 1965 

and is projected to reach $610 million by 1970. The combination of gain in 

population and increase in per capita income will be responsible for the large 

growth of total personal income.

With the per capita income increase from $2,250 in 1965 to $2,500 in 1970, 

the average family annual income is expected to reach $9,066 for the same period 

of time. The average annual family income in Mobile County should approach 

$15,400 by 1995. The gain represents an increase of over 85 percent. In 1995 

approximately 20 percent of all families in the County will earn $15,000 or more 

compared with 6.6 percent in 1965. Only 6.5 percent of all families will earn 

$7,455 or less in 1995. In 1965 the percentage was 61.6.

See Table 1-9 for projected per capita income, total personal income, and 

average family income for Mobile County.

The I960 Census revealed that of the 73,993 families in Mobile County, 

4,806 families had annual family incomes of under $1,000, 6,525 had annual family 

incomes between $1,000 and $1,999, and a total of 18,815 (25 percent) had annual 

family incomes of under $3,000. The median family income in I960 was $5,132.

Table 1-10 offers a more up-to-date distribution of families by income 

class. Map 1-11 and Table 1-12 show the percentage of distribution of families 

in Metropolitan Mobile earning an annual family income of $3,000 or less.



247a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

15.

NOTE:

Population, income, and employment data referred to in this discussion

was obtained from the following publications:

Friend, John H. The Shape of the Future: An Economic and Population
Study of Mobile, Baldwin, and Escambia Counties. Alabama. 
Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Informa­
tion, Washington, D. C., 1969.

Mobile, Alabama: An Economic Abstract. Mobile Area Chamber of
Commerce, 1969.

Mobile, Alabama: An Economic Handbook. Mobile Area Chamber of
Commerce, 1969.



248a

M E W  Plan o f July, 1969

t o ta l i i RfsOK; L INC0I.1, F-. R CATITA INCOLE, 
AVERAGE FAMILY IrCCME 

MOBILE COUNTY: 1965-95 
In Constant 1965 Dollars)

AND

Total
(000,000)

Fer
Capita

Average.
Family

1965 747.7 2,250 8,300

1970 810.0 2,500 9,100

1975 966.6 2,600 10,100

1980 1,202.2 3,200 11,500

1985 1,484.6 3,600 12,600

1990 ■ 1,779.6 3.900 13,800

1995 2,232.1 4,400 15,400

TABLE 1-9

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF 
MOBILE COUNTY:

FAilLIlS, BY INCOiSE 
: 1965 and 1995

CLASS

Ml 1995

Under ip3,000 14 .0 1.5

$3,000 - 7,499 4 7.6 5.0

v7,500 - 14,999 3 1.8 73.5

$15,000 and over 6.6 20.0

Total 100.0 100.0

16

TABLE 1-10



249a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

Distribution of
U w  Income Families (S3,000 and Below) 
Metropolitan Mobile 1960

ffiP  1 -  11
51-65%



250a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

METROPOLITAN MOBILE

LOW INCOME FAMILIES. BY CENSUS TRACTS 1960

18.

Census
Location Tract

Total
Population

Total
Families

Family Income 
of Less Than

S3.000 Percentage
Mobile 1 551 42 15 36

2 7.566 1.606 769 48

3 4.225 924 495 54
4 8.675 1.852 1.134 61

3 6.710 1.542 638 41

6 5.822 1.218 552 45

7 8.046 2.001 336 17

8 5.908 1.340 244 18

9 8.328 2.242 274 12
10 6.993 1.800 403 22

11 9.944 2.185 1.006 46

12 5.750 1.168 563 48
13 6.517 1.733 357 21

14 5.522 1.159 446 38

15 7.015 1.712 766 45

16 861 174 16 9

17 3.120 833 72 9

18 2.251 538 103 19

19 4.723 1.192 130 11

20 1.577 391 19 5

21 4.144 1.053 77 7

22 4.384 1.128 82 7

TABLE 1 - 1 2



251a

18a.
H E W  Plan of July, 1969

METROPOLITAN MOBILE

LOW INCOME FAMILITES. BY CENSUS TRACTS 1960

Location
Census
Tract

Total
Population

Total
Families

Family Income 
of Less Than 

S3.000 Percentsae

Mobile 23 6.797 1.778 158 9

24 4,702 1.366 172 13

25 9.666 2.747 206 7

26 5.199 1,166 350 30

27 4,400 1,064 323 30

28 5.641 1,576 92 9

29 3,360 849 4 0.5

30 2,109 573 58 10

31 2,949 743 53 7

32 5,271 1,402 51 4

33 3,621 728 71 10

34 9,280 2,432 143 6

35 4,729 1,218 52 4

36 3,937 880 174 20

37 2,220 532 82 15

38 2,343 485 218 45

39 7,923 1,609 564 35

Prichard 47.371 10.712 3.483 35

Chickasaw 10.002 2.428 509 20

Saraland 4.595 1.743 549 31

TABLE 1 - 12A



252a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

19

E. Educational Level of the Adult Population of Mobile County

Statistical data available from the Mobile Chamber of Commerce indicates 

that 156,448 persons 25 years old and over reside in Mobile County. Included 

in this age level are 3,677 persons (2.3 percent) who have not completed one year 

of school, 13,165 (8.4 percent) who have completed four years or less, and 46,349 

(29.6 percent) who have completed between four and eight years of formal education. 

Consequently, forty percent (63,191 persons) of the population 25 years old or 

older have completed eight or less years of formal education.

I960 Census data indicates the following relative to the educational 

level of the adult population of the residents of Mobile County 25 years old or 

older:

1. Rural Mobile County— median school years completed: 8.7

2. Prichard— median school years completed: 8.8

3. Chickasaw and Saraland— median school years completed: 9.0

4. City of Mobile— median school years completed: 11.2

5. Average educational level of persons 25 years old or older residing
within the boudary of the City of Mobile: 10.3.

However, training programs for adults have been available in the Mobile 

area for a number of years. The local school system has offered adult basic 

education for those persons who have not completed eight years of formal educa­

tion, Murphy High School also offers technical and general educational courses 

to.adults in various fields such as mechanical drawing, electronics, etc.

Carver State Technical School and Southwest State Technical Institute are avail­

able to prepare high school graduates ana persons 16 years old and older for



253a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

20

employment in vocational, technical, and industrial occupations.

Qualified persons who desire to continue their education may enroll at 

Mobile State Junior College, William Lowndes Yancey State Junior College, Mobile 

College, Spring Hill College, or at the University of South Alabama.

F. Conclusions

An analysis of Chapter I indicates an increasing population with a 

relatively stable ratio between white and non-white.

Employment will demand an increase in technical skills and a higher level 

of education. Manufacturing will increase, but with heavier emphasis on tech­
nology and automation.

These characteristics indicate a great need for increased educational 

opportunities that provide maximum "holding power" of students. In the decade 

of the 1960,s , 40 percent of the adult population had completed 8 years or less 

of formal education, hany of these citizens are Negro.

The economic, educational, and social needs of the next decades lend 

compelling support for a unitary school system offering integrated educational 

opportunities at all levels with a larger emphasis on instructional programs 

geared to developing the comprehensive skills needed to manage a complex 
technology.



254a

H E W  Plan o f  July, 1969

21

CHAPTER H

STATUS OF SCHOOL DESEGREGATION 1968-69.

A. Desegregation of Pupils

In 1968-69 there were soma 75,421 pupils In the Mobile County School System. 

Of this total 43,992, or 58.3 percent were white and 31,429, or 41.7 percent were 

Negro. These pupils were housed in 91 school centers.

The procedures for determining the attendance of pupils at individual school 

centers were established by court orders of July 29, August 2, and August 15,1968. 

Actually these comprise one court order with amendments and hereafter in this 

report will be referred to as the court order of July 29, 1968.

This court order of July 29, 1968, directed that the following provisions 

be made for attendance of pupils at schools in 1968-69:

1. Pupils in rural Mobile County should exercise freedom of 

choice in the selection of a school.

2. Pupils in grades 9 - 12 in the metropolitan area and pupils 

in grade 8 in the Craighead and Carver zones should exercise 

freedom of choice in determining the school which they would 
attend.

3. Pupils in grades 1 - 8 ,  except the 8th grade students in the 

Craighead and Carver zones in the metropolitan area, should attend 

schools in the attendance zone prescribed by geographic boundaries 

established' by the court. Different boundaries were established 

for elementary schools and junior high schools.



255a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

22

Provision in the July 29 court order was made for transfer of pupils to 

schools other than the one in the geographic zone where the pupil resided. The 

pupil or his parents had to make application for transfer within prescribed dates 

and the Central Office for the school system was required to keep a record of all 

transfers granted. Transfers were to be granted to:

1. Students whose race comprised the student minority in a school if 

such minority wire five per cent or less;

2. Students who had only one grade to complete before moving up from 

the school last attended, but who would be placed in a different 

school by geographic lines prescribed.

3. Students who could show good cause for desiring a transfer, with 

racial matters being definitely eliminated as good cause.

4. Students requiring a course of study not offered at the school 

where geographic boundaries would place them;

5. Students attending special schools such as those for physically 

handicapped, mentally retarded, or gifted children, provided 

the matter of race was not involved.

The July 29 order gave the following directive regarding transportation:

Where transportation is generally provided, busses must be routed to 
the maximum extent feasible in light of the geographic distribution of stu­
dents so as to serve each student choosing any school in the system.
Every student choosing either the formerly predominantly white or the 
formerly predominantly Negro school nearest his residence must'be trans­
ported to the school to which he is assigned under these provisions, 
whether or not it is his first choice, if that school is sufficiently 
distant from his home to make him eligible for transportation under 
generally applicable tranportation rules and the School Board's trans­
portation policy.

The effect of this court order in the desegregation of schools is shown in 

Tables 2-1 through 2-6. These tables show the name of the school which was in 

operation on September 27, 1968, the grade levels served by the school, and the



256a

H E W  Plan o f  July, 1969

23

racial composition of the student body. They also show the total number of pupils 

transported, without regard to race. In most instances, however, the race of those 

being transported can be determined by the composition of the student body in the 

school to which they were transported.

The tables give the capacity of the school's permanent facilities in each 

school center in accordance with the method followed by the school system in 

determining capacity. This method provides that the capacity of an elementary 

school is determined by multiplying the number of classrooms by 34. For junior 

and senior high schools, the number of teaching stations is multiplied by 28 for 

schools with less than 1,000 pupils and by 29 for schools with over 1,000 pupils. 

In the case of extremely small high schools, smaller numbers than 28 or 29 are 

used for teacher allocation purposes. For the special school, shown in Table 2-5, 

no formula for capacity is used.

The tables also give the number of portables used at each school in the

1968-69 school year.

The order of listing the schools in the various tables is, generally 

speaking, by geographic proximity from the south to the north. This was done in 

order that data concerning adjacent schools could be studied.

In Table 2-1, which provides data for the rural schools, it will be observed 

that some Negro pupils chose to attend predominantly white schools but that no 

white pupils chose to attend Dixon, St. Elmo, Burroughs, Dawes-Union, Adams, 

Belsaw, or Lott. The total of the number of pupils in the rural schools is 

19,023, of whom 15,136, or 79.8 percent are white and 3,837, or 20.2 percent are 

Negro. The 27 schools listed in Table 2-1 serve an area ranging from 17 to 30 

miles wide and about 60 miles long, with Metropolitan Mobile being excluded from 

this listing.



257a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

24

Table 2-2 deals with senior high schools in the metropolitan area, where 

freedom of choice was also in operation. It indicates that a number of Negro 

pupils elected to attend predominantly white schools but that no white pupils 

chose to attend Central, Toulminville, Mobile County Training School, Blount, and 

Trinity Gardens, and only two white pupils elected to attend Williamson.

The 11 senior high schools serving Metropolitan Mobile serve 15,498 pupils, 

of whom 8,458, or 54.5 percent are white and 7,040, or 45.5 percent are Negro.

Table 2-3 gives data for the junior high schools in the metropolitan area, 

where provision for transfers as previously described was made. It shows that 

Washington, Mobile County Training, Carver, Trinity Gardens, and Hillsdale 

remained all Negro, and Dunbar has 5 white pupils in a student body of 933. Rain, 

Eanes, Azalea Road, Scarborough, and Eight Mile each had less than 60 Negro 

pupils, although these five schools did serve all Negro students living in their 

attendance areas.

The 15 junior high schools in Metropolitan Mobile have a total of 11,976 

pupils in attendance, of whom 6,386, or 53.3 percent are white and 5,590, or 

46.7 percent are Negro.

Table 2-4, which provides information about the elementary schools of the 

metropolitan area, where attendance was controlled by boundaries with provision 

for transfer as previously indicated, shows that Howard, Fonvielle, Whitley, 

Brazier, and Hillsdale remained all Negro and a number of other schools had 

relatively few white pupils. There were a number of predominantly white schools, 

also, which had either no Negro pupils or a very few.



258a

There are 28,142 pupils in attendance in the 42 elementary schools of the 

metropolitan area, of whom 1 3,886, or 49.4 percent are white and 14,236, or 

50.6 percent are Negro.

Table 2-5 gives data on a special school for trainable pupils. This school 

serves the entire county. It will be noted that it is desegregated, with 76 

white and 86 Negro pupils.

Table 2-6 provides summary data for Tables 2-1 through 2-5. The overall 

ratio of the pupil population is 58.3 percent white and 41.7 percent Negro.

From information previously presented, however, it will be noted that this ratio 

varies considerably between metropolitan and rural areas and between grade 

levels within the metropolitan area.

The total of the schools listed on all tables is 96, Five schools in the 

metropolitan area, however, are listed on two tables since they have both 

elementary and junior high school grades or both junior high and senior high 

school grades. The total number of school centers operated as separate adminis­

trative units, therefore, is 91.

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

25



Rural Mobile County
September 27, 1968

RURAL SCHOOLS, GRADES, PUPIL MEMBERSHIP BY RACE, NUMBER PUPILS TRANSPORTED, SCHCCL CnPi.CITI OF ELIilJ'iiENT FACIIITIES
NUMBER PORTABLES

Schools Grades
Pupil Membeirship Number

Pupils
Capacity
Permanent

Number
of

White Negro Total Transported Facilities Portables
1. Dauphin Island i _ 6 57 2 .59 50 102 0
2. Alba i _ 12 1,578 2 1,580 709 1,470 8
3. Dixon i 6 0 391 391 311 408 0
4. Grand Bay i 6 715 19 734 514 850 0
5. Mobile County High School 7 _ 12 578 29 607 425 700 7
6. St. Elmo 7 _ 12 0 748 748 725 644 3
7. Bollinger's Island 1 _ 8 486 1 487 261 390 4
8. Burroughs 1 6 0 444 414 97 612 0
9. Davis 1 6 779 5 784 495 850 0
10. Theodore 7 _ 12 1,743 34 1,777 1,402 1,400 14
11. G r i g g s ______________ 1 6 1,042 0 1,042 393 544 15
12. Dawes-Union 1 _ 6 0 158 158 124 204 0
13. Baker 1 _ 12 1.038 0 1,038 845 806 11 v
14. Tanner-Williams 1 - 6 282 0 282 260 476 0

TABIE 2-1

H
E

W
 P

la
n

 
o

f Ju
ly, 

1
969



Rural Mobile County
September 27, 1969

Schools Grades
Pup11 Membership Number

Pupils
Capacity
Permanent

Number
of

White Negro Total Transported Facilities Portables
15. Wilmer 1 _ 6 305 60 365 271 408 0
16. Montgomery 9 _ 12 759 28 787 646 784 0

17. Semraes 1 _ 8 994 26 1,020 901 1,058 2
18. Saraland 1 6 830 0 830 0 850 0
19. Lee 1 _ 6 924 1 925 463 850 2
20. Adams 1 _ 12 0 779 779 270 1,160 0
21. Satsuma 7 _ 12 1,344 3 1.347 1,028 1,036 14
22. Mt. Vernon 1 _ 8 173 18 191 47 158 1
23. Belsaw 1 _ 8 0 551 551 137

306s
9

24. Calvert 1 _ 6 86 0 86 42 102 0
25. Calcedeaver 1 _ 12 300 0 300 269 304 4
26. Lott 1 12 0 568 568 509 816 0
27. Citronelle 1 _ 12 1,173 0 1,173 754 1.380 0

Totals 15,186 3,837 19,023 11,968 18.668 94 1

TABLE 2-la

H
E

W
 P

lan of July, 1969



Metropolitan Mobile 
September 27, 1968

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS, GRADES, PUPIL MEMBERSHIP BY RACE, NUMBER PUPILS TRANSPORTED, SCHOOL CAPACITY PERMANENT
FACILITIES, NUMBER PORTABLES

School Grades Pupil Membership Number
Pupils

Capacity
Permanent

Number
of

White Negro Total Transported Facilities Portables
1. Rain 9 . 12 760 49 809 12 (10-121 448 0
2. Williamson 8 12 3 1,131 1,134 0 1,334 0
3. Murphy 9 . 12 2,707 147 2,854 0 2,900 0
4. Central 9 12 0 1,614 1,614 0 1,566 2
5. Toulminville 10 . 12 0 1,107 1,107 0 638 15
6. Mobile County Training 9 . 12 0 710 710 0 700 0
7. Blount 8 . 12 0 1,894 1,894 0 2,001 0
8. Vigor 10 12 1.564 109 1.673 454 1,740 0
9. Trinity Gardens 9 12 0 637 637 0 476 0
10. Davidson 9 . 12 2,289 66 2,355 1,115 1,943 15
11. Shaw 9 12 1,136 196 1,332 448 928 16

Totals 8,459 7,660 16,119 2,029 14,574 48

TABLE 2-2 .

H
E

W
 P

la
n

 of Ju
ly, 1969



Metropolitan Mobile
September 27,  1968

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS, GRADES, PUPIL MEMBERSHIP BY RACE, NUMBER PUPILS TRANSPORTED, SCHOOL CAPACITY PERMANENT
FACILITIES, NUMBER PORTABLES

School Grades
Pupil Membership Number

Pupils
Capacity Number

White Negro Total Transported
l. Rain 7 - 8 415 38 453 30 (7-9) 476 13
l . Eanes 7 - 9 982 57 1039 214 1148
i. Craighead 6 - 7 153 394 547 0 728 0

Phillips 7 - 8 838 113 951 0. 980
i. Dunbar 7 - 8 5 928 933 0 1064 o
i. Washington 7 - 9 0 1493 1493 0 1015
J. Mobile County Training 6 - 8 0 568 568 0 560 4
i. Prichard 6 - 9 387 163 550 27 616 0
3. Carver 6 - 7 0 881 881 0 784
LO. Trinity Gardens 7 - 8 0 420 420 0 392
LI. Clark 7 - 9 1317 239 1556 253 1392
L2. Azalea Road 7 - 8 1044 40 1084 411 1015
13. Hillsdale 7 - 9 0 225 225 0
L4. Scarborough 6 - 8 1039 1 1040 658 928
L5. Eight Mile 7 - 8 206 30 236 81 252 0

TOTALS 6386 5590 11976 1676 48
TABLE 2 - 3

H
E

W
 P

la
n

 o
f Ju

ly, 1969



Metropolitan Mobile
September 27, 1968

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, GRADES, PUPILS MEMBERSHIP BY RACE, NUMBER PUPILS TRANSPORTED SCHOOL CAPACITY
PERMANENT FACILITIES, NUMBER PORTABLES

Schools Grades Pupil Membership
Number
Pupils

Capacity
Permanent

Number
White Negro Total Transported Facilities Portables

1 . South Brookley 1 - 6 514 72 586 83 442 5
2. Horning Side 1 _ 6 756 0 756 90 578 6
3. Williams 1 _ 6 513 43 556 125 408 5
4. Maryvale 1 _ 6 588 30 618 0 612 2
5. Mertz 1 _ 6 482 0 482 0 510 0
6. Westlawn 1 _ 6 595 0 595 0 510 3
7. Woodcock 1 _ 6 380 80 460 58 612 0
8. Hall 1 6 3 701 704 ■ O' 1224 0
9. Arlington 1 _ 5 384 153 537 0 476 2
10. Council 1 _ 5 0 560 560 0 578 0
11. Emerson 1 _ 6 3 518 521 0 442 4
12. Leinkauf 1 _ 6 323 125 448 0 442 0
13. Owens 1 - 6 0 1254 1254 0 1496 0

Table 2-4

H
E

W
 P

la
n

 of July, 1969



Metropolitan Mobile
September 27, 1968

Schools Grades Pupil Membership - Number
Pupils

Capacity
Permanent

Number
of

White Negro Total Transported Facilities Portables

16 Caldwell i _ 6 1 401 402 0
\
578 0

17 Howard i _ 6 0 465 465 0
T

408 3

18 Old Shell Road i _ 6 282 130 412 0 476 0

19 Crichton i _ 6 520 253 773 0 782 1

■/20 Stanton Road i _ 6 3 1077 1080 0 1020 3

■'« Fonvielle i _ 6 0 1191 1191 0 1190 2

' ' l l Gorsas i . 6 1 1138 1139 0 884 8

23 Palmer i _ 5 52 688 740 0 578 6

24 Glendale i . 6 549 172 721 0 680 1

25 Whitley i . 5 0 421 421 0 612 1

26 Brazier i 6 0 1197 1197 0 1156 1

.'27 Grant i 5 3 1300 1303 0 1292 3

28 Robbins i 5 2 805 807 0 850 0

29 Bienville i 6 336 313 649 0 612 1

30 Hamilton i 6 643 0 643 0 646 0

31 Chickasaw i _ 6 563 0 563 0 0

7TABLE 2-4a

H
E

W
 P

lan
 of J

u
ly, 1969



265a

H E W  Ptan o f July, 196.9

3$

B. Desegregation of Staff
The court order of July 29, 1968, makes only the following statement about 

staff desegregation:
The decree does not contain any provision dealing with desegregation 
of faculty, new construction, or desegregation of facilities and 
activities. This Court’s order dated May 13, 1968, fully sets forth 
the obligation of the School Board in these respects and must be 
implemented for the 1968-69 school year.

The May 13, 1968 order directed the implementation of the March 12, 1968 

decree of the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. This decree reads as follows:

HI.

FACULTY AND STAFF ASSIGNMENTS

A. Faculty Employment. Race or color shall not be a factor in the 
hiring, assignment, reassignment, promotion, demotion, or dismissal of 
teachers and other professional staff members, including student teachers, 
except that race may be taken into account for the purpose of counter­
acting or correcting the effect of the segregated assignment of faculty 
and staff in the dual system. Teachers, principals, and staff members 
shall be assigned to schools so that the faculty and staff is not composed 
exclusively of members of one race. Wherever possible, teachers shall be 
assigned so that more than one teacher of the minority race (white or 
Negro) shall be on the desegregated faculty. The Board will continue 
positive and affirmative steps to accomplish the desegregation of its 
schools for the 1968-69 school year notwithstanding teacher contracts for 
1968-69 may have already been signed and approved. The tenure of teachers 
in the system shall not be used as an excuse for failure to comply with 
this provision. The appellees shall establish as an objective that the 
pattern of teacher assignment to any particular school not be identifiable 
as tailored for a heavy concentration of either Negro or white pupils
in school.

B. Dismissals. Teachers and other professional staff members may 
not be discriminatorily assigned, dismissed, demoted, or passed over for 
retention, promotion, or rehiring, on the ground of race or color. In 
any instance where one or more teachers or other professional staff 
members are to be displaced as a result of desegregation, no staff vacancy 
in the school system shall be filled through recruitment from outside the 
system unless no such displaced staff member is qualified to fill the 
vacancy. If, as a result of desegregation, there is to be a reduction
in the total professional staff of the school system, the qualifications of all



266a

H E W  Plan o f  J u ly ,  1969

3^.

staff members In the system shall be evaluated in selecting 
the staff member to be released without consideration of 
race or color. A report containing any such proposed dis­
missals, and the reasons therefor, shall be filed with the 
clerk of the Court, serving copies upon opposing counsel, 
within five (5) days after such dismissal, demotion, etc., 
as proposed.

C. Past Assignments. The appellees shall take steps 
to assign and reassign teachers and other professional 
staff members to eliminate the effects of the dual school 
system.

Table 2-7 provides information on the number of instructional 

employees by race in the various schools in Mobile County. Table 

2-8 gives the same type of information about administrative and 

supervisory employees in the Central County Office.

It will be noted in Table 2-7 that all schools except Dauphin 

Island, a small school with 3 instructional employees, and Foneveille, 

a large school with 38 instructional employees, have at least 1 person 

of each race. A number of schools have 2 or more persons of each 

race. The 12 child guidance personnel listed as the last item in 

Table 2-7 work full time in the schools but are not attached to 

any particular school.

The total number of instructional personnel serving in the schools on 

Oct.11,1968, was 2,781%, of whom 1,648% or 59.2 percent were white and 1,133



RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
MOBILE COUNTY SCHOOLS

OCTOBER 11, 1968

School
Number 
Room Tc

of Class- 
iachers

Principals Other
Personnel

Title of Position 
of Other Personnel*

TOTAL
White Negro White Negro White Negro A. P. C. L. White Negro

ADAMS 2 28 1 3 i 1 i 2 32
ALBA 52 2 i 3 i 1 i 56 2
ARLINGTON 14 2 i 15 2
AUSTIN 10 2 i 11 2
AZALEA ROAD 37% 2 i 3 i 1 i 41% 2
BAKER 32 2 i 3 i 1 i 36 2
BELSAW 1 17 1 1 18
BIENVILLE 16 3 i 17 3.
BLOUNT 2 70 1 5 2 2 i 2 76
BRAZIER 2 33 1 2 34
BROOKLEY 14 4 i 15 4
BURROUGHS 2 11 1 2 12
CALCEDEAVER 9 2 i 10 2
CAUSWELL 1 13 1 1 14
* A.P. - Assistant Principal; C. - Counselor; L. - Librarian

Table 2 - 7

H
E

W
 P

lan of July, 1969



RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
MOBILE COUNTY SCHOOLS

OCTOBER 11, 1968

School
Number-of Class*- ■■ Other Title of Position 101 

Room Teachers Principals Personnel of Other Personnel
AL
—

White Neero 1 White 1 Negro White Negro UP. c. . White Negro

1 1 1 T.P. 2 i

1 31 1 3 1 1 1 1 35

2 62 1 4 1 2 1 2 67

13 3 1 14 3

33 3 1 2 1 1 41 3

49 4 1 2 1 1 52 4

1 16 1 1 17

12 10 1 2 1 1 15 10

21 4 1 22 4

Dauphin Islane 2 1 T.P. 3

36 2 1 4 2 2 2 2 91 4

22 2 1 23 2

1 3 1 T.P. 1 4

21 2 1 22 2

2 10 1 2 11

H
E

W
 P

lan
 of Ju

ly, 1969



RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
MOBILE COUNTY SCHOOLS

OCTOBER 11, 1968

School
Number of Class- 
Room Teachers

Principals Other
Persor nel

Title
Other

of Position 
Personnel

of Total
White Negro White Negro White Negro A. P. c. L. White Negro

Dodge 20 2 i 21 2

Dunbar 2 34 1 3 i 1 1 2 38

Eanes 35 3 i 3 i 1 1 39 3

Eight Mile 17 4 i 1 1 19 4

Emerson 1 16 1 1 17
Evans 7 7 i 8 7
Fonde 20 2 i 21 2
Fonveille 37 1 38
Forest Hill 17 2 i 18 2
Glendale 18 2 i 19 2
Gorsas 1 33 1 1 34
Grand Bay 19 2 i 20 2

Grant 1 38 1 1 39

Grl8SS_________ 30 1 i 31 1
Hall 2 20 1 2 21

Hamilton 17 2 i 18 2

TABLE 2-7b

H
E

W
 P

la
n

 of J
u

ly
, 

1
969



RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
MOBILE COUNTY SCHOOLS

OCTOBER 11, 1968

School
Number of Class- 
Room Teachers

Princ pals Other Personnel Title of Position of 
Other Personnel

Total
white Negro White | Negro White Negro A.P. C. L.

Hillsdale 4 25 1 2 1 1 4 28
Hollinger's Island 16 1 i 17 1
Howard 2 13 1 2 14
Indian Springs 13 2 i 14 2
Lee 25 2 i 26 2
Leinkauf 10 3 i 11 3
Lott 1 21 1 i 2 1 1 1 2 24
Maryvale 17 3 i 18 3
Mertz 13 2 i 14 2
Momingside 20 2 i 21 2
Mobile County High 19 3 i 2 1 1 22 3
Mobile County Training 1 48 1 4 1 2 1 1 53
Montgomery 27 2 i 3 1 1 1 31 2
Mt. Vernon 4 1 1 T.P.* 5 1
Murphy 99 6 1 8 3 3 12 108 6

TABLE 2-7c

H
E

W
 P

la
n

 
o

f J
u

ly
, 

196
9



RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
MOBILE COUNTY SCHOOLS

OCTOBER 11, 1969

School
Number of Class- 
Room Teachers

Principals Other
Personnel

Title
Other

of Position of 
Personnel

Total
White Negro White Negro White Negro A.P. C. L. White Negro

Old Shell 10 2 i ii 2

Orchard 21 2 i 22 2

Owens 2 38 i 2 39

Palmer 1 22, i 1 23

Phillips 33 3 i 3 1 i i 37 3

Prichard 17 2 i 3 1 i i 21 2

Rain 45 3 i 3 1 i i 49 3

Robbins 2 23 i 2 24

St. Elmo 3 26 i 3 1 i i 3 30

Satsuma 50 2 i 2 1 1 i i 53 3

Saraland 23 2 i 24 2

Scarborough 32 4 i 3 3 1 i i 36 4
Semmes 32 2 i 3 1 i i 36 2

Shaw 46 3 i 3 1 i i 50 3

Shepard 14 1 i 15 1

Stant on Road 2 31 i 2 32

TABLE 2-7d

H
E

W
 P

lan
 

o
f July, 

196
9



RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
MOBILE COUNIY SCHOOLS

OCTOBER 11, 1968

School
Number of Class- Principals 
Room Teachers

Other Title of Position Tot 
Personnel of Other Personnel

al

White Black White Negro White Negro A.P. C. L. White Negro

Tanner-Williams 7 2 1 8 2

Theodore 61 4 1 4 1 2 1 66 4

7 33 1 8 3

2 39 i 3 1 1 1 2 43

Trinity Gardens 2 39 i 3 1 1 1 2 43

63 3 1 4 1 2 1 68 3

Washington 2 50 i 4 1 2 1 2 55

Westlawn 16 2 1 17 2

Whistler 17 3 1 18 3

Whitley 1 12 i 1 13

Will 18 2 1 19 2

Williams 14 2 1 15 2

Williamson 3 40 i 3 1 1 1 3 44

10 2 1 11 2

14 22 1 15 2

Child Guidance 9 3 9 3

TOTALS 1523% 1057 60 31 65 45 1648% 1133
TABLE 2-7e

H
E

W
 P

lan &
f Ju

ly, IM
S



273a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969
uS

or 40.8 percent were Negro. Of the 91 principals or teaching principals, 60, or 

65.9 percent are white, and 31, or 34.4 percent are Negro. The "other" positions 

in schools consist of Assistant Principals, Counselors, and librarians. There 

are 110 persons in this group, of whom 65, or 59 percent are white, and 45, or 

41 percent are Negro.

In Table 2-8 the total number of personnel in the Central Office is shown 

to be 90, of whom 77, or 85.5 percent are white, and 13, or 14.5 percent are 

Negro, There is no Negro holding any of the first, eight adainiottative 

positions listed.



274a

H E W  Plan o f  July, 1969

#

RACIAL DISTRIBUTION ADMINISTRATIVE 
AND SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL 

‘ CENTRAL OFFICE

MOBILE COUNTY SCHOOLS 
December 17 , 1968

ADMINISTRATION

Superintendent 
Associate Superintendent 
Assistant Superintendents 
Treasurer-Comptroller 
Psychologist 
Psychometrists 
Social Worker
Coord, Vocational Education 
Librarian Material Center 
Engineer
Adm. Asst, to Engineer
Coordinators
Supervisors
Supervisors Project Mobile 
Specialists Project Mobile 
Helping Teachers Project 

Mobile
Attendance Workers 
Nurses 
Forester 
Woodsman
Supervisors Maint., Trans. 
Attorney
Vocational Coordinator 

(Adults)
Counselor (MR) 
Rehabilitation Counselors 
Totals

White Negro Total

1 i
1 i
5 5
1 1
1 1
1 1 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
7 1 8

26 4 30
3 3
1 1 2

8 1 9
3 4 7
3 1 4
1 1
1 1
2 2
1 1

1 1
1 1
3 3

77 13 90

TABLE 2-8



275a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

45,

C. New Construction
The passage from the July 29, 1968, court order quoted in the preceding 

section on Staff Desegregation also covers new construction. The Fifth 

Circuit Decree of March 12, 1968, gives the following directive on this 

sub j ect:
IX.

CONSTRUCTION

To the extent consistent with the proper operation of the 
school system as a whole, the school board will, in locating and 
designing new schools, in expanding existing facilities, and in 
consolidating schools, do so with the object of eradicating past 
discrimination and of effecting desegregation. The school board 
will not fail to consolidate schools because desegregation would 
result.

Until such time as the Court approves a plan based on the sur­
vey conducted pursuant to Section IV herein, construction shall be 
suspended for all planned building projects at which actual con­
struction has not been commenced.

Leave to proceed with particular construction projects may 
be obtained prior to the completion of the survey upon a showing 
by the appellees to the Court, that particular building projects 
will not have the effect of perpetuating racial segregation.

Section IV, referred to in paragraph 2 of the above quoted part of the 

decree, outlines in detail the nature of the survey which the Court ordered 

the school district to make. It calls for a description of each school in 

the school system, giving the size of each site, the number of buildings, 

the number of regular and portable classrooms, recommendations for future 

use and a number of other items of information. The Mobile County school 

system has provided this information in a document which bears the title 

"Report Required by Decree Issued by U. S. District Court for the 

Southern District of Alabama Dated August 2, 1968, Section V.--Surveys 

Paragraph (a) Building and Sites”.



276a

The Office of Education Study Team did not inspect every building in the 

school system. A number of buildings were inspected, however, as a test check, 

and the team found no inaccuracies in the Mobile County Report. No report on 

the condition of school plants is included in this Office of Education Study. 

Those interested in detailed descriptions are referred to the above listed 

document. As for use of the facilities described, the Office of Education Study 

Team would point out that subsequent court orders may affect the proposed use 

of the facilities as set forth in the Mobile County Report.

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

46

D. Facilities and Activities

The quotation from the July 29, 1968, court order, which is given under Staff 

Desegregation, also makes reference to facilities and activities. The March 12, 

1968, Fifth Circuit Decree gives the following order:

V.
SERVICES, FACILITIES, ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS

No student shall be segregated or discriminated against on 
account of race or color in any service, facility, activity, or 
program (including transportation, athletics, or other extra­
curricular activity) that may be conducted or sponsored by the 
school in which he is enrolled. A student attending school for 
the first time on a desegregated basis may not be subject to any 
disqualification or waiting period for participation in activities 
and programs, including athletics, which might otherwise apply be­
cause he is a transfer or newly assigned student except that such 
transferees shall be subject to longstanding, nonracially based 
rules of city, county or state athletic associations dealing with the 
eligibility of transfer students for athletic contests. All school 
use or school-sponsored use of athletic fields, meeting rooms, and 
programs such as commencement exercises and parent-teacher meetings 
which are open to persons other than enrolled students, shall be open 
to all persons without regard to race or color. All special educa­
tional programs conducted by the appellees shall be conducted without 
regard to race or color. Athletic meets and competitions and other



277a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

activites in which several schools participate shall be 
arranged so that formerly white and formerly Negro schools 
participate together.

The Office of Education Study Team was not in Mobile County during 

the time school was in session. As a consequence, there was no oppor­

tunity to make personal observations in the areas covered by this por­

tion of the Court Order.

Chapter II has attempted to portray in some detail the status of 

desegregation in Mobile County in 1968-69 as related to court orders 

preceding that school year. The next two chapters of this report, 

dealing with finance and program of studies, also have a bearing upon 

present status. These three chapters, plus Chapter I, provide needed 

background information for Chapter V which deals specifically with 

the directives in the Court Order of June 3, 1969.



278a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969
48.

CHAPTER III

ANALYSIS OF FINANCING THE MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
A. Introduction

Since the outbreak of World War II and up to the present time, the 

Mobile County Public Schools have been fighting an up-hill battle to pro­

vide adequate housing for a school population explosion; to provide ade­

quate transportation in safe vehicles; to staff the schools adequately with 

competent, well-qualified teachers; and to provide a school program which 

the Mobile Board of School Commissioners and school officials desire.

Mobile County ranks at the top among the sixty-seven counties in 

Alabama in the percentage of local support In relation to state support.

In addition to the levy of extra millage (a total of 14 mills for schools) 

the county has a beer tax, a tobacco tax, an oil and gas tax, and a forestry 
tax for school support.

In 1940-41 the enrollment in all of the schools in Mobile County was 

25,577 pupils. In 1964-65, the peak year, the enrollment was 80,749 

pupils. Since 1964-65 enrollment has gradually declined. During this 

period of time from 1940-41 through 1967-68, a total of $55,026,970 has 

been spent for capital outlay including acquisition of sites, new buildings, 

alterations of buildings, new school buses, and new equipment.

Of the $55,026,970 expended, $9,101,897 came from the two state bond 

issues for school construction, $5,245,036 from federal funds, and 

$40,630,037 from the citizens of Mobile County. During the 1968-69 school 

year, it was necessary to use 265 portable classrooms in various school

centers.



279a

49.
H E W  Plan of Judy, 1969

At the fall conference of the Alabama Association of School Administra­

tors held in Mobile in November of 1962, Superintendent Cranford Burns told 

the group that of the total Increase in public school enrollment in the entire 

state, 45 percent of this increase took place in Mobile County.

Enrollment in Mobile County Schools 1940-41 to 1967-68

Table 3-1 which follows shows how the enrollment has grown in Mobile 

County since the school year 1940-41.



280a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969
50.

ENROLLMENT IN 1-iOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Year Enrollment Year Enrollment

1940-41 25,577 1955-56 55,203

1941-42 27,037 1960-61 71,136

1942-43 29,324 1964-65* 80,749

1943-44 35,399 1965-66 80,083

1944-45 35,708 1966-67 79,469

1950-51 39,962 1967-68 78,833

* Total Growth at PeaJk Year— 55,172

Source of Data: The Annual Financial and Statistical

Reports of the Alabama State Department of 

Education.

TABLE 3-1



281a

H E W  Plan of July, IM 9
51.

B. Analysis of Expenditure Patterns

In making this financial analysis, It was decided to use the last four 

completed scholastic-fiscal years in order that all figures used would be 

official figures.

General Overview of Expenditures 1964-65 to 1967-68

Table 3-2 which follows presents an overview of the expenditure pattern 

over these four years under the broad categories of Current Expense, Capital 

Outlay, Debt Service, and the grand total of expenditures.

The figures show a stable pattern over the period in total expenditures. 

The amount available for current operational expenses has been influenced by 

required capital expenditures and debt service. As these latter two have 

declined,a corresponding increase in current operational expenditures is ob­

served. The main point to be noted from this table is that there has been no 

appreciable gain at any time in total funds available. In fact, total expendi­

tures in 1967-68 were almost $450,000 under total expenditures for 1965-66.

Per Pupil Expenditures by Enrollment and Average Daily Membership 1964-65 
fo~196'7-68. ... .....

Studies of expenditures become more meaningful when related to the 

individual pupil. Table 3-3 which follows breaks down the sums in Table 3-2 

to expenditures per pupil enrolled and per pupil in average daily attendance.

The figures in Table 3-3 show only slight variations over the four years. 

The low expenditure per pupil enrolled was $356.61 and the high was $367.94.



MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

General Overview

Year
Cureent Expens e Capital Outlay Debt Service Total

Amount Per Cent Amount Per Cent Amount Per Cent Expenditures Day Schools 
Amount Per Cent

1964-1965
$
18,257,491 62.77

$
9,149,571 31.46

$
1,677,417 5.77

$
29,084,479 100.00

1965-1966 21,011,067 71.33 4,296,128 14.58 4,146,803 14.08 29,453,998 99.99

1966-1967 23,023,455: 81.24 3,462,436 12.22 1,853,552 6.54 28,339,443 100.00

1967-1968 23,855,635 82.24 3,127,053 10.78 2,022,991 6.98 29,005,679 100.00

SOURCE OF DATA: ANNUAL STATISTICAL REPORTS OF THE ALABAMA STATE DEPARTMEN£/OT EDUCATION

TABLE 3-2

H
E

W
 P

la
n

 o
f Ju

ly, 1969



283a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969
53.

The same slight variation applied per pupil in average daily attendance.

The low was $395.45 and the high was $412.11.

The most widely used figure for looking at a school system's level of 

support is the amount of current expense per pupil in average daily attendance. 

Current expenditures are annual whereas capital expenditures may show in one 

year and not show again for a number of years.

Current Expense Expenditures Ber Pupil 1964-65 to 1967-68.

Table 3-4 presents the current expenditures per pupil in average daily 

attendance over the four year period.

The figures show a steady increase in the amount expended per pupil in 

average daily attendance. There has been an increase of almost $88 per pupil 

in this four year period. If the gradual decline in enrollment holds, this 

expenditure will continue its upward climb.



MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Total Expenditure Per Pupil Enrolled and Per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance

Year Total Expense 
Day Schools

Total Pupils 
Enrolled

Expenditure Per 
Pupil Enrolled

Total Pupils 
in A. D. A.

Expenditure Per 
Pupil in A. D. A.

1964-1965
$
29,084,479 80,749

$
360.18 72,741

$
399.84

1965-1966 29,453,998 80,083 367.79 72,261 407.61

1966-1967 28,339,443 79,469 356.61 71,663 395.45

1967-1968 29,005,679 78,833 367.94 70,384 412.11

SOURCE OF DATA: ANNUAL STATISTICAL REPORTS OF THE ALABAMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

TABLE 3-3

H
E

W
 P

la
n

 of Ju
ly, 1969



285a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969
55.

Current Expense Per Pupil in ADA

Year Total Current 
Expense

Total Average 
Daily Attendance

Expenditure Per 
Pupil in ADA

1964-65 18,257,491 72 ,74 1 6250.99

1965-66 21,011,067 72,261 290.77

1966-67 23,023,455 71,663 321.77

1967-68 23,855,635 70,364 338.94

TABLE 3-4



56.

286a

H E W  Man of July, I960

Comparison of Current Expense Expenditures Per Pupil In Selected School Systems

One question that is always asked in studies such as this is "How do we 

compare with other school systems similar in size to ours?" Table 3-5 at- 

temps to answer this question.

Actually there are only two other school systems in Alabama comparable 

to Mobile in size, but the fourth and fifth largest have been included. The 

figures in Table 3-5 place Mobile in a favorable position in Alabama. One 

of the five systems spends more and three spend less. Mobile is slightly be­

low the average for the entire state and well below the national average.



287a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969
57.

MOBILE COMFaRLD WITH LTATL AVERAGE

AND SELECTED SCHOOL SYSTEMS 

1967-68

System
Total Current 

Expense Total AD it
Expenditure Per 
Pupil in ADA

State Average $343.53

mobile $23,655,635 70,384 336.94

Jefferson County 18,944,210 62,127 304.93

Birmingham 22,641,773 *3,116 358.72

Montgomery 11,643,339 18,259 304.33

Huntsville 10,679,926 31,895 334.65

National Average (School Management -
465.00January, 1969 Issue)

--- --- •----

Source of Data: Annual Statistical Reports of Th® Alabama State

Department of Education.

TABLE 3-5



H E W  Plan o f  July, 1969

58.

Analysis of Current Expense Budget

Table 3-6 presents an analysis of the current expense budget showing 

amounts expended under each category and the percentage relationships. The 

table also shows the state average for 1967-68.

A study of the figures in Table 3-6 shows again a steady pattern of 

consistent management of the school dollar. There are no really marked 

fluctuations in any of the six categories. The high percentage of the 

dollar denoted in the category of instruction is typical in all Alabama 

school systems. There has never been enough money to operate a complete 

program, so more of the dollars must go into instruction for salaries in 

order to keep teachers.



MOBILE COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM

Analysis of Current Expense Budget

Total
Year Current

General
Amount

Control
7.

Instruction 
Amount %

Operation of 
Plant

Maintenance 
of Plant

Auxiliary
Agencies

Fixed
Charges

19 Expenses 
$ $ $

Amount
$

% Amount
$

% Amount
1$ %

Amount
$

%

64-65 18,257,491 441,504 2.42 15,304,612 83.83 1,117,185 6.12 603,347 3.3 514,406 2.82 276,437 1.51

65-66, 21,011,067 518,523 2.47 17,748,442 84.47 1,271,639 6.05 660,454 3.14 535,435 2.55 276,574 1.32

66-67 ; 23,023,455
i

583,741 2.53 19,306,542 83.86 1,454,405 6.32 698,955 3.04 663,471 2.88 316,341 1.37

67-68 j 23,855,635 596,261 2.50 19,696,253 82.37| 1,598,510 6.68 757,474 3.17 892,548 3.73 314,589 1.31

State Average for 1967-68 2.8 82.8 5.0 2.5 5.8 1.1

SOURCE OF DATA: ANNUAL STATISTICAL REPORTS OF THE ALABAMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

TABLE 3-6

H
E

W
 P

la
n

 o
f Ju

ly, 1969



298a

H E W  Plan o f July, 19€9

60,

Analysis of Transportation Costs,

There is one category that requires further comment. This is the cate­

gory known as Auxiliary Agencies, of which transportation is the principal 

element. Table 3-7 shows an analysis of current operational costs of trans­

portation.

The figures show that a four-year average on cost per transported pupil 

was $19.46 per year and that the seating capacity average was 59 pupils. 

Thus the average operational costs of one bus was $1,148.14 per year.

The bids received by the State of Alabama this year (1969) ranged from 

$5,500 to $5,800 per bus. Thus each new unit of transportation added will 

cost from $6,648.14 to $6,948.14 during the first year of operation.

Analysis of Capital Expenditures.

Table 3-8 simply shows the breakdown of capital expenditures over the 

past four years. As can be seen, there are four categories for which ex­

penditures were required.



CURRENT OPERATIONAL COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION

Per

Year

Transportation
Total

Expenditure

Enrollment Transported 
of all Pupil Enrolled 

Transported Per Year

Number
of

Buses

Seating
Capacity-
Average

Total miles 
Traveled for

Year

Length of 
Round Trip 
in Liles

1964-65 $405,833 24,972 $16.25 218 59 1,271,585 31

1965-66 414,192 24,10 1 17.18 203 59 1,209,606 33

1966-67 503,934 22,218 22.68 229 59 1,221,207 32

1967-68 480,156.75 22,094 21.73 207 59 1,188,204 31

Four Year Average Cost Per Transported Pupil Enrolled $19.46 

Each New Bus 1st Year $6,648.14 - 6,948.14

Each Year for Next 8 Years at $1,148.14 plus increases in cost which cannot be calculated

For an average seating capacity of 59, the average operational cost equals $1,148.14
Cost of New Bus $5500 - 5800 
(State Purchase)

O '

TABLE 3 - 7

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



292a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

62.

ANALYSIS of capital expenditures

Year
New Buildings 

and Sites Alterations
New

Buses
Mew

Equipment
Total Capital 
Expenditures

1964-65 $6,421,307 $2,257,917 $13 7 ,9 11 $332,436 $9,149,571

1965-66 2,936,224 1,059,362 43,787 256,735 4,296,126

1966-67 2,254,422 807,276 46,659 354,079 3,462,436

1967-68 1,693,794 911,327 94,518 427,412 3,127,051*

* ($2 descrepancy from Table 3-2)

TABLE 3-8



293a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969
63.

C. Analysts of Sources of Revenue

Up to this point, the discussion has dealt with expenditure patterns.

The appropriate step now is to detenuine the sources of revenue to support 

these expenditures.

There are four levels of government from which revenues are derived.

In order of importance from the standpoint of revenue produced for Mobile 

County these levels are:

(1) The State

(2) The County

(3) The District

(4) The Federal Government

For all practical purposes, (2) and (3) can be combined as "local funds" for 

Mobile County since this is a county unit of school government. The City of 

Mobile is not an independent district.

Table 3-9 shows sources, amounts, and percentage distribution of revenue 

receipts over the past four years. State funds have increased approximately 

$3,100,000 over the four year period; federal funds have increased some 

$2,300,000; and local funds have stayed on a relatively stable plane, yet 

produce dollarwise the second largest amount of revenue.

Growing out of actions taken by the Alabama Legislature in Special Session 

during April and the first few days in May of 1969, there will be an increase 

in state funds for Mobile County schools for the next biennium beginning 

October 1, 1969. In passing revenue measures, the legislature included a 

number of mandates that seriously restrict^, local boards of education in making



294a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

64.

decisions to fit the local situation. For example, take the case of mandated 

salary increases for teachers. The legislature appropriated to the Minimum 

Program Fund only for those teacher units earned through average daily atten­

dance but required that all teachers employed last year must receive the same 

raise. This past year Mobile County employed 197 more teachers than were 

earned through average daily attendance. In addition to paying all of their 

salaries, the school system must now come forward with the raise for which no 

state money is received. It is estimated that this will cost Mobile County 

some $140,000 to $150,000 from local funds.

HOn-Revenue Receipts.

Another source of money is from what is classified as non-revenue receipts, 

which are itemized in Table 3-10. These are receipts which either reduce the 

assets or increase the indebtedness of a school system and flow into the 

treasury on a non-receiving basis. There seems to be one exception to this 

general rule here in Mobile County. Under the "Others" category, interest 

on investments produced $212,788, $168,915, $204,717, and $249,922 for the 

four years included in this study.

Bonding Capacity of Mobile County Schools.

As of September 30, 1969, the bonded debt of the Mobile County Public 

School System will be $33,728,985.85. Of this amount, $25,155,000 is for 

principal and $8,573,985.85 is for interest. These bonds are secured by the 

3-mill county tax and the 5-mill special district tax. They will be retired

in 1987.



Metropolitan Mobile 
September 27, 1968

Schools Grades
Pupil Membership -

Pupil
Transported

Capacity
Permanent
Facilities

Number
of

PortablesWhite Negro Total

32 Shepherd 1 - 6 453 43 496 66 544 0

1 - 6 678 54 732 143 816 0

1 - 6 715 11 726 0 850 0

X - 6 391 22 413 0 408 0

1 - 6 772 1 773 0 816 0

37 Hillsdale 1 - 6 0 586 586 0 510 4

1 - 5 759 2 761 150 816 0

39 Will 1 - 5 678 0 678 0 816 0

X - 5 604 0 604 0 578 1

1 - 6 251 247 498 0 680 0

1 - 6 210 114 324 0 272 3

1 - 6 535 11 546 282 408 4

1 - 6 344 78 422 163 340 4

TOTALS 13,886 14,256 28,142 1,160 28,560 74

TABLE 2-4b

H
E

W
 P

la
n

 of Ju
ly, 1969



NON-GRADED SCHOOL FOR TRAINABLE PUPILS, AGES, PUPIL MEMBERSHIP BY RACE, NUMBER PUPILS. TRANSPORTED, 
NUMBER PERMANENT CLASSROOMS, NUMBER PORTABLES, MOBILE COUNTY^ ^eptc-toer 27 1968

Pupil Membership Number Number Number
School Ages White Negro Total Pupils Permanent of

Transported Classrooms Portablef
Augusta Evans 6 - 1 8 76 86 162 142 12 2

Totals 76 86 162 142 12 2

Table 2 - 5

H
E

W
 Plan o

f Ju
ly, 1969



MOBILE COUNTY SCHOOLS 
MOBILE COUNTY, 27, 1968

Pupil Membership Number
Pupils

Transported

Capacity
Permanent

Facilities

Number
of

Portables
White Negro Total

Rural Schools 15,186 3,337 19,023 11,963 18,492 94

Metropolitan Senior High 8,458 7,660 16,113 2,029 14,674 48

Metropolitan Junior High 6,386 5,590 11,976 1,674 11,686 48

Metropolitan Elementary L3,336 14,256 28,142 1,160 28,560 73

School for Trainable Pupils 76 86 162 142 162* 2

Totals i-3,992 31,429 75,421 16,973 73,574 265

Percent White Pupil Membership - 58.3 
Percent Negro Pupil Membership - 41.7

^Capacity of Augusta Evans is represented by the current total enrollment of Trainable Pupils.

Table 2 - 6

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



298a

65.

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

According to officl^jils in the office of the Board of School Commis­

sioners, there is now approximately $10,000,000 leeway for borrowing. The 

borrowing capacity will fluctuate with changing interest rates.

For additional revenue, consideration could be given to Amendment 202 

of the Constitution of Alabama, which permits any county school system in 

Alabama to levy a special school tax not exceeding fifty cents on each one 

hundred dollars of taxable property in addition to all other taxes now levied 

or that may hereafter be levied. Thus the citizens of Mobile County could, if 

they so wished, levy up to five additional mills of property tax for school 

support in this county.



REVENUES AND RECEIPTS

State Funds Federal Funds Local Funds Total Revenue
Year Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount percent Receipts Amount

1964-65 $12,459,338 58,75 81,320,936 6.22 87,424,926 35.02 $2 1,205,200

1965~66 13,666,403 54.06 3,499,567 13.84 8,114,531 32.09 25,280,501

1966-67 15,344,829 57.49 3,513,325 13.16 7,833,705 29.35 26,691,859
1967-68 15,551,365 57.41 3,664,408 13.53 7,871,313 29.06 27,087,086

TABLE 3-9
CT»
C

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



300a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

67.

NON-REVENUE RECEIPTS

Year Insurance
Adjustments

Sale of 
Property

Sale of
School Warrants

Refunds Others Total

1964-65 $63,766 $23,555 $6,390,000 $20,540 $286,781 $6,784,942

1965-66 67,875 37,123 277 207,519 312,794

1966-67 132,357 32,796 5,400,000 1,479 225,516 5,792,148

1967-68 8,557 120,624 5,868 313,226 448,295

TABLE 3-10



301a

H E W  Plan o f  July, 1968

68.

CHAPTER XV

Program of Study

The purpose of this chapter is to determine the extent to which course 

offerings should affect assignment of pupils. In no way is there an attempt 

to measure the quality of the total school program or detenine the effective­

ness of the curriculum. Some schools, however, may need to change their course 

offerings in order to meet the needs of new student body composition, and some 

pupils may need to attend schools outside their attendance zones to obtain 

the courses they need.

The basic guideline for the Mobile County schools to follow in their 

efforts to meet the needs of the students in their schools is a directive from 

the superintendent, dated November 23, 1965. Two significant statements from 

the directive read as follows:

1. Guide for instructional programs:

The State Course of Study shall be followed as a guide for 
the Instructional program in the Mobile Public Schools 
except as otherwise approved by the Superintedent, Signifi­
cant departures from Courses of Study developed for the Mobile 
Public Schools also shall be approved by the Superintendent.

2. Credit Courses:

All credit courses offered In the secondary schools which 
are not described and approved in the State Course of Study 
shall be approved by the Superintendent and reported to the 
Board.. Course applications submitted for the first time 
shall be presented to the Superintendent not later than 
March 1, thus allowing sufficient time to facilitate 
student counseling and student registration for courses 
to be offered the following year. The need for said 
courses shall be firmly established by furnishing an 
informational report on each course r commended, in­
cluding purposes of the course, the major units or topics 
to be treated and the ages, the grades and the types of 
students to be served. It shall not be the purpose of



302a

this policy to discourage the planning and offering of 
courses not described in the State Course of Study. To 
the contrary, local school faculties shall be encouraged 
to expand course offerings to meet the multiplicity of 
needs, abilities and achievement backgrounds of secondary 
youth.

As a matter of practical school administration, the Mobile County School 

system offers each school the opportunity to select courses for credit, non­

credit, and special interest provided there is an identified need, sufficient 

number of interested students, adequate facilities, qualified teaching 

personnel, and provisions for materials and equipment. It is also an admini­

strative procedure to delete all elected courses with insufficient demand to 

warrant the use of space, time, and staff.

A. Elementary Schools

The program of study for the elementary schools in the Mobile County 

system is constant. Teachers are encouraged to exercise their ingenuity 

and creativity in helping the children in the learning process. Course of 

study materials are conceived and developed in the form of resource units.

The resource units embrace most of the major topics treated in the State 

adopted textbooks. In addition to the units, the teaching of short subjects 'V 

is encouraged, particularly in grades 4 - 6 in social studies and science. 

Across the board, grouping of students based on needs and achievement back­

ground is practiced in the elementary schools.

The directive from the Superintendent indicates that the greatest 

priority on the elementary level should be given to rea&ig. The general 

subjects covered in the elementary school curriculum are:

S E W  Plan of July, 1969

69.



303a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

70.

1. Language arts, including reading, writing, spelling, English, 
grammar and listening;

2. Social studies, including history, geography,and government;

3. Arithmentic;

4. Science;

5. Art and music;

6. Health and physical education.

The 1965 directive from the Superintendent states that the major pur­

pose of the Mobile County elementary schools is to educate boys and girls 

for good citizenship.

B. Junior High Schools

According to the Superintendent's directive, the junior high schools 

are allowed to disregard grade levels in programming instruction in the 

b a s ic  skills, which indicates that limited grouping based on achievement

lowing courses are offered:

1. English - 7 9. Science - 8
2. Basic English - 7 10. P. E. - 7
3. English' - 8 11. P. E. - 8

4. Basic English - 8 12. Mathematics - 7

5. Social studies - 7 13. Basic mathematics - 7
6. Social studies - 8 14. Mathematics - 8

7. Basic social studies - 8 15. Basic mathematics - 8
8. Science - 7 16. Algebra - 8



304a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

17. Home economics - 7 & 8 27. Reading - 7 & e

18. Exploratory industrial arts 28. Creative writing - 7

19. French - 7 29. Creative writing - 8

20. French - 8 30. Spanish 1 - 9

21. Spanish - 7 31. Art I - 9

22. Spanish - 8 32. Woodworking 1 - 9

23. General music - 7 & 8 33. Metal working X - 9

24. Chorus 34. General business - 9

25. Band 35. Business arithmetic - 9

26. Art - 7 & 8

Not all of the above listed courses are offered in all schools. 

Table" 4-1 lists those courses which are offered on a discretionary basis 

and indicates the schools which offered these courses in 1968-69.



305a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

72

TABLE 4-1



306a

C. Senior High Schools

All required high school courses can be taken regardless of the school 

attended. However, for some specialized courses, such as those in the area 

of industrial arts, where expensive equipment and special facilities are 

necessary, students must attend the school where the requested courses are 

offered.

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

7 3 .

At the senior high school level the following courses are offered:

1. English - 9 21. World l$C6rature

2. English - 10 22. Western civilization

3. English - 11 23. Journalism I

4. English - 12 24. Journalism II

5. Social studies - 9 25. Speech I

6. World history 26. Speech II

7. American history 27. Dramatics

8. American government and economics 28. Basic world history

9. Mathematics - 9 29. World geography

10. Algebra I 30. Psychology

11. Science 9 31. Home, family & personal 
problems

12. Basic home economics
32. Basic American history

13. Advanced home economics
33. Basic American govern­

14. Health and physical education 9-12
34.

ment and economics 
Basic mathematics - 9

15. Basic English - 9
35. Geometry

16. Basic English - 10
36. Algebra II

17. Basic English - 11
37. Introductory analysis

18. Basic English - 12
38. Advanced placement

19. Advanced English mathematics

20. Creative writing and English 39. Advanced general
composition mathematics (basic)



307a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

40. Advanced general mathematics 68. Driver education

41. Basic biology I 69. Art I

42. BSCS biology I 70. Art II

43. General biology I 71. Art III

44. BSCS biology II 72. Crafts

45. Chemistry (modern) 73. Art appreciation

46. Chemistry (chem. study) 74. Band

47. Chemistry II 75. Chorus

48. Physics (mod.) 76. Music appreciation

49. Physics (PSSC) 77. Creative music

50. Advanced general science 78. Music theory

51. Physical science 79. Orchestra

52. Cosmetology I 80. Woodworking I

53. Cosmetology II 81. Woodworking II

54. Drafting I 82. Woodworking III

55. Drafting II 83. Metal working I

56. Fisheries 84. Metal working II

57. Basic bookkeeping 85. Metal working III

58. Bookkeeping I 86. Mechanical drawing I
59. General business 87. Mechanical drawing II
60. Business arithmetic 88. Mechanical drawing III
61. Business communication 89. Special home economics
62. Business law 90. Family living
63. Typewriting I 91. Restaurant management
64. Typewriting II 92. Agriculture I
65. Personal typewriting 93. Agriculture II
66. Office practice 94. Agriculture III
67. Shorthand I 95. Auto mechanics I



308a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

96. Auto mechanics II 115. Off. occ. prep I

97. French I 116. Off. occ, prep. II

98. French II 117. Off. occ. prep. Ill

99. French III 118. Off. occ. coop.

100. French IV 119. Machine shop I

101. German I 120. Machine shop II

102. German II 121. Radio & T.V. I

103. German III 122. Radio & T.V. II

104. German IV 123. Tailoring I

105. Latin I 124. Tailoring II

106. Latin II 125. Dist. education (prep)

107. Latin III 126. Distributive education

108. Latin TV 127. Ind. coop, training

109. Spanish I 128. Office machine

110. Spanish II

111. Spanish III

112. Spanish IV

113. Shorthand II

114. Notehand

Courses numbered 1 through 14 are offered in all high schools. 

Courses numbered 15 through 128 are offered only at the high schools 

indicated by a check in Tables 4 - 2 .



TABLE 4-2

309a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969
76

WILLIAMSON 
1

VIGOR

H
&M
3
3
9
§W203

TOULMINVILLE
THEODORE

/> GO 

11 ^ i
>Hcr

w
o

gM2

MURPHY
MONTGOMERY
MOBILE COUNTY TRAINING
MOBILE COUNTY HIGH
LOTT
DAVIDSON
CITRONELLE

Cteg
aP

BLOUNT
CALCEDEAVER

ALBA
BAKER

> SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 

SPECIALIZED COURSES 

1968 - 69

< X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Basic English - 9

< < X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Basic English - 10

< < X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Basic English - 11

i < X X X fi X X X X X X X X X X X Basic English - 12

X X X X X X Advanced English

X X X X Creative writing and 
English composition

X X X X X X X World literature

Western civilization

X X X X X X X X X X Journalism I

X X Journalism II

< X X X X X X X X X X X X X Speech I

X X X Speech II



vz-v aiavx

X X X X X X X X N osw v ra in
X X X X H03IA
X X X SNacravo a i i n i h i
X X X X X X a n iM iw in o i
X X X X X X X X axoaoam
X X X X X OHia - i s
X X X X MVHS
X X X X X X X X vwnsxvs
X X X X X X MIVH ‘ 0 *a
X X X X X X X AHdXflW
X X X X M3W00IN0R
X X X X X X X 3NINIVHI XIMOO ailSOH
X X X X X X H3IH AlffilOO an aow
X X X X X X 1101
X X X X X HOSdlAVd
X X X T ~ -----X— -----3,— aiTIHOHIIOX X X X -- X — T ~ — X” 1VH1N3D

HaAvaaaoiTOX X X -- X — r ~ 1 — X — X xtm oia
X X — T ~ »axva
X X X — T ~ — T ~ W IV

X SWVQVAlgebra II

Geometry

Basic mathematics - 9

Basic American govern­
ment and economics

Basic American histor;

Home, family and 
personal problems

Psychology

World geography

Basic world history

Dramatics

6 9  -  8 9 6 1

sasnnoo a a z r r a o a a s

SIOOHOS H3IH B0IN3S

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



-T
fS

sP
ffT

Tf
g

311a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969
colcnlw
m \j co In

H
1525

W, _
|Pm

gisigie

XIX IK

Introductory
analysis

Advanced placement 
mathematics

Advanced general 
mathematics (basic)

Advanced general 
mathematics

Basic biology I

BSCS biology I

General biology I

BSCS biology II

Chemistry - modern

Chemistry (chem. 
study)__________
Chemistry II

Physics (mod.)

Physics (PSSC)

Advanced general 
science

Physical science



TABLE 4-2c

312a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

tr
tr

c
2

1
5
sH*~K
£
g
i0"

H

11
h
1

91 *- a tJ z
tr
1

O’

1 s
tc
*
r

•gH-2

12
pcq:
K 1

K

'1

§
K
H
M
23M2Q

1tx
ptr
sc2
K
S3w
§

s
f-

s<HcCfc
2

rt—H-pc
c
2tr
it*1

rtr2t-
gr

£fctr
1<tr*

ca
2

pcft
Vtr
*

t*
§

>
1

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 
SPECIALIZED COURSES 

1968-69

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X French I

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
French II

X X X French III

X French IV

X X X X X German I
X X X X German II

X X German III

German IV

X X X Latin I

X X X Latin II
X X Latin III

X Latin IV

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Spanish I

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Spanish II
X X Spanish III

X Spanish IV



TABLE 4-2d

313a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

V
IG

O
R

WILLIAMSON

TRINITY GARDENS
TOULMINVILLE
THEODORE
ST. ELMO
SHAW
SATSUMA

MONTGOMERY 
MURPHY 
B

. C. RAIN

LOTT
miLS-GPMK. MSB-------
M

O
BTT.E

 COUNTY TRAINING

z)
>
=3H
3
n

i

3 3
■ao
>
-

s i
n
z3

1
3

73

|
a

3
>-*
73>

>
z)

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 

SPECIALIZED COURSES 

1968 - 69

X X X X X  X A X X Driver education

X X X X X X

XXX

X  x X x X Art I

X X X X X X  X X  X X X Art II
X  X X Art III

X X Crafts

X Art appreciation

X  X X X X X X X X X X  X X X X X X X Band

X  X X X X X M X X  X X  X X X X X Chorus

X X X Music appreciation

X
Creative music

X X X Music theory

X  x X X Orchestra

X  X X X X X X X XXX X  X X X X X X X Woodworking I

X X X X X X X X X  X X X X X X X Woodworking II

X X X X Woodworking III



TABLE 4-2e

314a •*«...

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

WILLIAMSON 
I

VIGOR
TRINITY GARDENS

THEODORE 
TOULMINV TT .T ,F.

ST. ELM)

1
on>H
C/2a
1

Cd

O

?M2!

MURRHY
MONTGOMERY
MOBILE COUNTY TRAINING
MOBILE COUNTY HIGH
LOTT
DAVIDSON
CITRONELLE
CENTRAL

9
tr*Otga
§w?CJ

BLOUNT

>
S3

>
t*
t

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 

SPECIALIZED COURSES 

1968 - 69

ADAMS

X X X X X X X X X < Metal working I

X X X X X X X Metal working II

X Metal Working III

X X X X X X X X X X X X Mechanical drawing I

X X X X X X X Mechanical drawing II

X X Mechanical drawing III

X X X X X X X X X X X X Special home economics

X X X Family living

X Restaurant management

X X Agriculture I

X X Agriculture II

X Agriculture III

X X X Auto mechanics I

X X Auto mechanics II



TABLE 4-2f

315a

H E W  Plan o f  July, 1969

1

VIGOR
TRINITY GARDENS
TOULMINVILLE
THEODORE
ST. ELMO
SHAW >rt

B. C. RAIN
MURPHY 1

o

►<

MOBILE COUNTY TRAINING
MOBILE COUNTY HIOT
LOTT
DAVIDSON
CITRONELLE
CENTRAL

go
w0
1 
X

BLOUNT
BAKER
ALBA

>s£
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 

SPECIALIZED COURSES 

1968 - 69

X Cosmetology I

X Cosmetology II

X X Drafting I

X Drafting II

X Fisheries

X X X X X X X X X Basic bookkeeping

X X X X X X X X X X X Bookkeeping I

X X X X X X ! General business

X X X X X X X X X X X X X Busint ss arithmetic

X X X X X X 5 1 > ‘ Business communication

X X X X X X X X Business law

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Typewriting I

X* X X X X X X X Typewriting II
X X X X Personal typewriting

X X Office practice
X X X X X X X X X Shorthand I



sz-
t? 

sn
av

i
316a

H E W  Plan o f  July, 1969

WILLIAMSON

<
»O

Trinity Gardens
Toulmihville

p.p
np

St. Elmo

05 satsuma
B. c. Rain
Murphy

53
dc0
1
X

Mobile County Training
Mobile County High
Lott
Davidson
Citronelle
Central

c3
oCDa(V
<CD
n

w
o
§r?

w
7?n>

>K-crta
>a
I SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 

SPECIALIZED 
COURSES

1968-1969

X X
Shorthand II

X X
Notehand

X X X X < * X X X X X X X X X X X X X <
Off. Occ. Prep. I

X X X X X X X Xr» X X X X X X X X X X X Off. Ooc. Prep. II
X X X X X X X X X X X X

Off. Occ. Prep. Ill
X

X
X X X

Off. Occ. Coop.
X Machine Shop - I
X

Machine Shop II
X X X

Radio &  T.V. I
X X X Radio &  T. V. II

X Tailoring I
X Tailoring II

X X
Dist. Education fPrep)

X X X X X X X X Distributive Education
X X X X Ind. Coop. Training

X
Office Machine



317a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

77.

D. Program for Exceptional Children

The special needs of handicapped children are served by a Special Educa­

tion Program designed to offer appropriate education experiences to the 

Trainable Mentally Retarded, Educable Mentally Retarded, Hospital and Home- 

bound, Deaf and Hearing Impaired, Speech Impaired, Visually Limited, and 

Dyslexic children. Referrals are made to the Child Guidance Center for 

complete evaluation to determine proper placement. New classes are 

established in appropriate schools on the basis of need for special service. 

See Table 4-3 for a summary of the type and location of all Special Classes 

during the 1968-69 school year.

E. Adult Education

In addition to the educational program for grades 1 - 1 2 ,  Mobile County 

has a number of programs for adults, as follows:

I. Adult Basic Education. Classes in Adult Basic Education have

been carried on under the supervision of the Mobile County Board of 

Education for the last three years with funds from Title III, Public 

Law 89-750. The purpose of the Adult Basic Education Program is to 

provide an opportunity for basic education to all persons over 

eighteen years of age whose lack of educational skills (grades 1 - 8 )  

constitutes a substantial impairment of ability to adapt to 

and function successfully within contemporary society.

During the 1968-69 school years, forty classes were in operation 

with a total enrollment of 542 students. Classes met four houss a 

week during the evening hours. There is no tuition charged, and 

all supplies and materials are furnished.



318a

H E W  Plan o f  July, 1969

78

MOBILE COUNTY
SPECIAL EDUCATION - 1968-69

School Type Class School Type Class
Adams 1 EMR Sec.

1 EMR Elem.
Hall 1 EMR Elem.

Alba 1 EMR Elem.
Hillsdale 

Hollingers Is,

1 El® Elem. 

1 EMR Elem.
Azalea Rd. 1 EMR Jr. High

Lott 1 EMR Elem.Baker 1 EMR Jr. High 
1 EMR Elem. Marwale 2 EMR Elem.Blount 1 EMR Sec,
1 EMR Jr. High

Mo. Co. Trng. 1 EMR Jr. High 
1 EMR Sec.

So, Brookley 1 EMR Elem. Murphy 3 EMR Sec.
Burroughs 1 EMR Elem. Owens 2 EMR Elem.
Caldwell 2 EMR Elem. Palmer 1 EMR Elem.Central 2 EMR Sec. Phillips 1 EMR Jr. High
Child Guidance - 2 Dyslexia 

1 Deaf/Hard of 
Hearing 

1 Hospital 
h Homebound 
U Speech Ther.

Prichard 1 EMR Jr. High

Rain 1 EMR Jr. High 
1 EMR Sec.

Saraland 1 EMR Elem.Citronelle 1 EMR Elem. 
1 EMR Sec.

Satsuma 1 EMR Sec.

Clark 2 EMR Jr. High
Semmes 1 EMR Elem.

1 EMR Jr. High
Craighead 3 EMR Elem. St. Elmo 1 EMR Sec.
Crichton 1 EMR Elem. Theodore 1 EMR Sec.Davis 1 El'® Elem. Toulminville 1 'EMR Sec.Dickson 1 EMR Elem. Trinity Gardens 1 EMR Sec.Dunbar 2 EMR Jr. High Vigor 2 EMR Sec.Eanes 2 EMR Jr. High Washington 1 EMR Jr. High
Emerson 1 El* Elem. Whistler 5 EMR Elem.Evans 1U TMR Whitley 1 EMR Elem.
Fonvielle 3 EMR Elem. Williamson 2 EMR. Sec.Forest Hill 2 EMR Elem. Wilmer 1 El* Elem.Grant 2 EMR Elem. Woodcock 1 Eh* Elem.

TAB IE 4-3



319a

The instruction is designed with emphasis on the communication skills 

of reading, speaking, and listening, and the competitive skills 

of good buying, health, human relations, and home and family- 

living. Applicants are placed according to broad salary brackets, 

such as $3,000, $5,000, $7,000, and over. Undereducated adults who 

are classified in grades 1 - 4 are given priority. However, the 

school system is concerned with all grades, 1 - 8 .  Check Table 4-4 

for the enrollment of basic adult education students by schools.

2. Work Incentive Now. The Work Incentive Now Program (W.I.N.) is

carried on jointly by the Mobile Public School System and the Alabama 

State Department of Industrial Relations with funds from the Social ̂ 

Securities Act, Part IV, Title C, 1967. It was implemented in 

December of this year under a contract period ending in May, Due 

to the success of the program, however, the contract period has 

been extended over the summer months, and it is anticipated that the 

program will be continued during the 1969-70 school year.

The purpose of the program is to provide educational experiences 

for persons on welfare to the end that the cycle of dependency 

can be broken. The course of study includes orientation to the 

world of work, grooming, hygiene, job interviewing techniques, 

money management, reading, mathematics, communication skills, and 

a program of study leading to the successful completion of the 

general education development test and a certificate of high school 

equivalency.

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969
79



320a

MOBILE COUNTY

ADULT BASIC EDUCATION 
JANUARY 1969

MONTHLY ATTENDANCE REPORT

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

80.

SCHOOL ENROLMENT % ATT. SCHOOL ENROLLMENT % ATT.

Adams 10 70 Grant 11 79
ii 15 70 11 12 75
If 14 87 II 14 75

Belsaw 12 72 II 11 74
Brazier 16 88 II 12 76

if .....19 87 II 12 90
Burroughs 5 56 Hall 11 72
Caldwell 14 88 II 17 63

II 10 74 Hillsdale 17 75
n 13 86 Lott 11 61
1! 10 77 Murphy 16 49

Carver 10 81 Owens 15 73
II 10 88 Palmer 11 19
If 1 83 Prichard 20 57

D. Union 11 79 Robbins 15 84.
Dixon 12 92 II 13 82

Emerson 20 89 Thomas 15 54.
Gorgas 16 62 II 11 91.

II 16 84 Whitley 19 90
II 14 78 II 20 82

Total Class. . . 
Total Enrollment 
Total Percentage of Attendance

. 40

. 775>
TABLE 4-4



321a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969
81

3. Adult and Veterans Schools. The Adult and Veterans Division housed 

at Murphy High School offers prerequisite courses necessary to 

enter high school, high school courses leading to high school 

general education development certificates, and special interest 

courses based on demand in the community. It is operated on a 

self-sustaining basis from tuition fees. It is operated after 

regular school hours and for the most part uses part-time teachers,

F, Observations
From a consideration of the course offerings, the following observations 

may be made for the three levels of public education:

Elementary Schools: Since the elementary program is constant in all

schools, the course offerings should in no way affect assignment of 

pupils.

Junior High Schools: At the junior high level, course offerings are

basically similar except for the areas of language and industrial 

arts. Instituting new language programs would not require special 

facilities. Special facilities would be required for industrial arts.

Senior High Schools: At the senior high school level, course offerings 

are more varied. Of the 128 courses offered at the secondary level,

115 may be considered specialized courses, Most of these courses, 

with the exception of those in the areas of industrial arts and exten­

sive coranercial preparation and other vocational courses, can be 

instituted without the acquisition of special facilities or expensive



322a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

82

equipment. Except for courses in these three areas, no unusual 

difficulties should be encountered in instituting specialized offer­

ings to meet the needs of desegregated student bodies. The only 

conditions to be met would be the normal observation of the superin­

tendent's directives, as quoted on pages 1 and 2,

It is evident from a study of Table 4-2 that in the larger secondary 

schools great differences exist between the predominantly white and predominantly 

Negro schools in the number' of courses offered. The school system will 

undoubtedly wish to give special attention to all schools in determining whether 

the needs of students are being fully met with the courses now offered in 

each center. School personnel will also wish to reassure themselves that all 

students and their parents are fully aware of the programs requiring special 

facilities which are available in the school system. The faculty and adminis­

trative committees suggested in Chapter VI might be appropriate school groups 

to examine the program of study.



323a

CHAPTER V

H E W  Plan of July, 1969
83

desegregation plans

A, riPHRPrfigati on Plan for 1969-70 For Rural Schools CgVttlto

The proposals for the operation of the rural schools of Mobile 

County are shown on separate maps for senior high, junior high, and elementary 

schools. The zone lines shown on the maps are tentative lines and 

may be adjusted to building capacity provided the racial composition 

of each school is not sufficiently changed. The capacity of the 

permanent facilities, the number of portables required, and the 

approximate number of pupils by race are shewn on the Composite Building 

Information form found on pages 87 and 88.

Alba (1 through 12): The Alba attendance area, as indicated on the

accompanying maps, has a student population of approximately 

1395 white students and 222 Negro students in grades 1-12.

Mobile Co. High (7-12): The Mobile County High School, as indicated on

the accompanying maps, has a student population of approximately 

512 white students and 231 Negro students in grades 7-12.

Theodore High (9-12): The Theodore High School, as indicated on

the accompanying maps, has a student population of approximately 

1083 white students and 219 Negro students in grades 9-12.

Baker High School (1-12): The Baker High School, as indicated on the

accompanying maps, has a student population of approximately 962 

white students and 62 Negro students in grades 1—12.

Montgomery High School (9-12): The Montgomery High School,

as indicated on the accompanying maps, has a student



324a

population of approximately 753 white students and 28 Negro students 

in grades 9 - 1 2 .

Cltronelle High School (6-12): The Cltronelle School, as indicated on the

accompanying maps, includes the students In grades 6 - 8  from the Belsaw 

area and the grade 6 - 8  students from the Calcedeaver area. The 

student population would be approximately 898 white students and 623 

Negro students.

Satsuma High School (8-12): The Satsuma High School, as Indicated on the

accompanying maps, has a student population of approximately 1,056 

white students and 287 Negro students In grades 8 - 1 2 .

St. Elmo (7-8): This attendance area will serve approximately 432 white

students and 71 Negro students in grades 7 and 8.

Burroughs (6-8): This attendance area will serve approximately 301 wli te

students and 176 Negro students in grades 6-8.

Semmes (1-8): This attendance area will serve approximately 955 white

students and 26 Negro students in grades 1 - 8 .

Calcedeaver: This school will be closed. Grades 6-8 will attend Cltronelle

and grades 1-5 will attend the Belsaw-Mt. Vernon complex.

Belsaw-Mt.Vernon (1-5): Belsaw and Mt, Vernon will house all students in

the Calcedeaver and Belsaw-Mt. Vernon area. The student population

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

84.



325a

has approximately 324 white students and 354 Negro students. Belsaw 

and Mt. Vernon would be paired on a temporary basis, A new school 

serving an expanded attendance zone as shown on the accompanying maps 

should be constructed to replace these facilities.

Adams (1-7): This attendance area will serve approximately 812 white

students and 296 Negro students in grades 1-7.

Dixon (1-6); This attendance area will serve approximately 268 white 

students and 125 Negro students in grades 1-6.

Grand Bay (1-6): This attendance area will serve approximately 617 white

students and 210 Negro students in grades 1-6.

Davis (1-5): This attendance area will serve approximately 582 white

students and 375 Negro students in grades 1-5.

Griggs (1-6): This attendance zone will serve approximately 842 white

students in grades 1-6. It should be possible to assign Negro 

students from the Davis-Burroughs area to Griggs. Pupil locator 

maps were not available for the rural area, so this line could not 

be established.

Hollingers Island (1-6): This attendance area will serve approximately

350 white students and 8 Negro students in grades 1-6. It should 

be possible to assign Negro students from the Davis-Burroughs area 

to this school, but in the absence of pupil locator maps, zone lines 

could not be established.

Meadowlake (1-6): This attendance area will serve approximately 351

white students and 62 Negro students in grades 1-6.

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

85



326a

Wilmer (1-6): This attendance area will serve approximately 328 white

students and 51 Negro students in grades 1-6.

Tanner-Williams (1-6): This attendance area will serve approximately

348 white students and 8 Negro students in grades 1-6.

Lott (1-5): This attendance area will serve approximately 466 white

students and 115 Negro students in grades 1-5.

Saraland (1-5): This attendance area will serve approximately 713 white

students and 63 Negro students in grades 1-5.

Lee (1-5): This attendance area will serve approximately 675 white

students and 98 Negro students in grades 1-5.

Dauphin Island: This school is considered too small for effective

operation. The school will be closed for 1969-70. The students 

will be transferred to Alba school.

Dawes-Union; The name of the school serving this area is designated on

H E W  Plan of July, 1969
86

the map as Meadowlake.



COMPOSITE BUILDING INFORMATION FORM

MOBILE RURAL AREA

Name of School Grades
Capacity Students Staff Estimated

PortablesPerm. W. Ports. w N T w N T

Alba i 12 1470 1620 1395 222 1617 5

-/Mobile County High 7 12 700 760 512 231 743 2

Theodore 9 12 1400 1083 219 1302 0

- Baker 1 12 806 1016 962 62 1024 7

-'Montgomery 9 12 784 753 28 781 0

Citronelle 6 12 1380 898 623 1521 5

Satsuma 8 12 1036 1336 1056 287 1343 7

St. Elmo 7 8 644 432 71 503 0

Burroughs 6 8 612 391 176 567 0

Semmes 1 8 1058 955 26 981 0

-- Calcedeaver CLOSE 0

^  Adams . 1 . 7 1160 812 296 1108 0

v-" Dixon 1 6 408 268 125 393 0

---Grand Bay 1 _ 6 850 617 210 827 0

TABLE 5-1
oo
■—i

H
E

W
 P

la
n

 
o

f J
u

ly
, 

196
9



COMPOSITE BUILDING INFORMATION FORM

MOBILE RURAL AREA

Name of School Grades
Capacity Students Staff

Estimated PortablesPerm. W. Ports W N T w N T

Davis 1 _ 5 850 1000 582 375 957 3
Griggs_____________ 1 _ 6 544 844 842 0 842 10
Bollinger's Island 1 _ 6 390 350 8 358 0
Meadowlake 1 _ 6 204 324 351 62 413 4

Wilmer 1 _ 6 408 328 51 379 0
Tanner-Williams 1 6 476 348 8 356 0
Lott 1 _ 5 816 466 115 581 0
Belsaw-Mt. Verrton 1 5 464 674 324 354 678 7
Saraland 1 _ 5 850 713 63 776 0
Lee 1 _ 5 850 675 98 773 0
TOTAL 18,164 19,660 15,113 3,7101 18,823 45

TABLE 5-la

H
E

W
 P

lan
 of J

u
ly, 1969



329a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

89.

B. Desegregation Plans for the Metropolitan Secondary Schools 

1. Northern Sector: Senior High School

The accompanying maps give the approximate attendance zones dis­
cussed In the narrative below.

In grades 9 through 12, for the Northern Sector of the Metropolitan 

area, there are approximately 4,870 students. Of these, 1,908 are white and 

2,962 are Negro. The most equitable approach to desegregation in this area 

would be to establish one central senior high school (9 through 12) complex. 

This can be done by utilizing Vigor, Bienville, Blount and Carver. These 

four facilities are located on two large sites only two blocks apart. The 

total capacity of these four buildings Is 5,280, which will comfortably bouse 

the 4,870 students, grades 9 through 12, who reside in this expanded atten­
dance zone.

It is reconmended that the school officials make every effort to 

acquire a corridor connecting the two school sites, which might be used for 

fiiture expansion or as additional playground and extracurricular activities 

space. One overhead walkway over the railroad could be constructed near 

the end of July Street,

2. Northern Sector: Junior High School -

The most equitable plan for eliminating discrimination at the Junior 

high school level, grades 6 through 8, for this northern sector would be to 

house all 8th grade students residing in this sector in the present Clark 

Junior High facility. This would include 948 Negro students and 531 white 

students, for a total of 1,479.

Three centers would serve grades 6 and 7, Trinity Gardens Junior and 

Senior High Schools. Prichard Junior High School, and Mobile County Training



330a

Junior and Senior High Schools. The capacity of these, three facilities is 

approximately 3,080, and would comfortably house the 3,011 6th and 7th 

grade students residing in the sector. Of these, 1,959 are Negro and 1,052 

are white. Attendance areas for each school would be established to run

from northwest to southeast so that each school would be filled to its 

approximate capacity.

3. Central Sector: Senior High School

This plan projects two high school attendance areas to serve the 

4,575 students in Grades 10 through 12 residing in this area. Murphy, 

with a capacity of 2,900, would house 1,360 Negro students and 1,440 white 

students. A single administrative facility composed of Williamson-Craighead, 

with a capacity of 2,062, would house the remaining 767 Negro students and 

1,008 white students. The 1,045 students in the Tcrulminville area are 

reassigned so that approximately 200 attend Murphy, 540 attend Davidson, and . 

305 attend Shaw, beginning with the school year 1970-71. In 1969-70, however, 

approximately 685 llth and 12th grade pupils are assigned to Toulminville 

and the approximately 360 10th grade pupils as follows:

120 to Shaw, 240 to Davidson.

Additional construction should increase facilities in the Shaw-Davidson 

areas to absorb all the students of the Toulminville area except those assigned 
to Murphy. There should be sufficient construction at Shaw and Davidson 

so that the attendance area for these two schools can be extended into the

E E W  Plan of July, 1969
90.

Mobile Training School area.



331a

4. Central Sector: Junior High School

Three junior high school attendance areas will be established in 

this sector to house all students in grades 6 through 9. Students 

living in the southernmost portion of the sector will attend Eanes and 

Woodcock. Woodcock should probably serve all students at one grade 

level, either grade 6 or grade 8. Eanes would serve all students in 

the remaining two grade levels.

Students residing in the central portion of this sector would 

attend Dunbar and Central for grades 6 through 9. Dunbar might house 

all students in grade 6 and most students in grade 7. Central could 

then house the remaining students in grade 7, as well as all students in 

grades 8 and 9.

The northern portion of this sector for grades 6 through 9 

will be served by Phillips and the Washington-Fonvielle complex.

Phillips might serve all students at one grade level, either 6 or 9, as 

well as a few students in either grade 7 or 8,

5. Western Sector

Grades 9-12 in the western sector will be served by two high 

schools, Shaw and Davidson. Facilities should be made available at 

these two sites to absorb approximately 540 students at Davidson and 

305 at Shaw from the Toulminville area.

In this sector, students in grades 6 and 7 will attend Scarborough 

and Azalea Road. Approximately one half of the students in the Hillsdale

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

9 1



332a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

92

area will attend Scarborough,, with the other half attending Azalea Road. 

All students in grade 8 will attend Hillsdale, Three additional portables 

will be needed to make this facility adequate. These might be obtained 

from Emerson Elementary, which is recommended for closing.

6. Southern Sector

The southern sector will be served by Rain Senior High School in 

grades 9-12 and Rain Junior High School in grades 7-8.



COMPOSITE BUILDING INFORMATION FORM

MOBILE METROPOLITAN AREA, SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Name of School Grades
Capacity

W
Students Staff Estimated

PortablesPerm. W. Ports N T w N TSenior High School 

Rain 9 - 12 448 812 735 59 794 13
Williamson-
Craighead 10 - 12 2062 1008 767 1775 0

Murphy 10 - 12 2900 1440 1360 2800 0

toulminville 12 638 0 365 365 0

Blount-Vigor 9 - 12 5101 1908 2962 4870 0

Davidson 9 - 12 1943 2146 1738 604 2342 3

Shaw 9 - 1 2 928 1150 471 1621 0
Junior High School 
Rain *nJ f 00 476 415 3! 453 0

Eanes-Woodcock 6 - 9 1760 980 761 1744 0

Dunbar-TSentral 6 - 9 2630 1044 156; 2606 0
Washington - 
Fonville-Phillips 6 - 9 2975 1040 156: 2602 0

TA B X i 5 -2

H
E

W
 P

la
n

 
o

f Ju
ly, 

196
9



COMPOSITE B U IID IN G  INFORMATION FORM

MOBILE METROPOLITAN AREA, SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Name of School Grades
Capacity Students Staff Estimated

PortablesPerm. W. Ports W N T W N T

Clark 8 1392 1512 531 948 1479 4

Trinity Gardens 6 - 7 868 1078 380 690 1070 7

Prichard 6 - 7 616 646 240 410 650 1

Mobile County 
Training School 6 - 7 1260 1290 432 859 1291 1

Azalea Road 6 - 7 1015 85? 133 990 0

Hillsdale 8 844 858 131 989 7

Scarborough 6 - 7 984 855 133 988 0

Eight Mile 7 - 8 252 312 270 42 312 2

TOTAL 29,090 3Cp09 1^878 13595 29473 38

TABLE 5-2a
VO

H
E

W
 P

lan of J
u

ly, 1969



335a

C. School Desegregation Plans for the Metropolitan Elementary Schools

In developing the proposed desegregation plans for the elementary schools 

of the metropolitan area, a variety of approaches have been utilized to move 

toward the elimination of a dual school structure. No single approach has 

been utilized throughout the area. Each school and school community was 

examined from various perspectives before an approach was established.

S E W  Plan o f July, 1969
95.

Because of the nature of housing patterns, particularly in the eastern

sector of the metropolitan area, total elimination of all Negro school

structures would not seem feasible at this time. However, the local school

officials should strive to eliminate the remaining all-Negro schools by 

additional construction, as discussed at the end of this chapter.

The following descriptions apply to the schools in a clockwise direc­

tion, beginning with Chickasaw in the northeast corner of the metropolitan 

area. It should be noted that several schools have been closed and others 

utilized at other than elementary grade levels. Schools recoranended for 

closing are: Howard, Caldwell, Emerson and Toulminville. Schools recom­

mending for housing non-elementary grades are: Bienville, Foneveille,

Woodcock and Hillsdale.

All schools at the elementary level are projected as 1-5 centers with 

the exception of Williams, South Brookley, Indian Springs, and Eight Mile, 

which will continue to serve as 1-6 elementary centers.

There is an error factor of less than 1 percent in transposing 

figures from pupil locator maps to actual student attendance figures.



H E W  Plan of July, 1969

Chickasaw (1-5): The Chickasaw attendance area, as indicated on the accom­

panying maps, has a student population of approximately 473 white 

students and 100 Negro students in grades 1 through 5.

Whitley (1-5): The zone indicated on the accompanying map for the Whitley

school has a student population for grades 1 through 5 of 461 Negro students 

and 216 white students.

Glendale-Palmp.r (1-5): One attendance area will be established for both the

Glendale and Palmer facilities,- This area has a total of 1-5 student 

population of 434 whites and 931 Negroes. Glendale should probably house 

grades 1 through 3, and Palmer grades 4 and 5. It may be necessary to have 

several sections of grade 3 at Palmer.

Grant (1-5): The attendance area for Grant School is composed of 1,285 Negro

students and 15 white students in grades 1 through 5.

Robbins-RamiIton (1—5): A single attendance area will contain both Robbins and

Hamilton Schools, Approximately 638 white students and 855 Negro students 

in grades 1 through 5 live in this area. Robbins should probably serve 

grades 1, 2 and 3, and Hamilton grades 4 and 5, although several sections 

of grade 3 will be necessary at Hamilton.

Gorgas (1-5): In the Gorges attendance area there are 963 Negro students and

7 white students.

Owens (1-5): In the Owens attendance area there are approximately 1,414

Negro students and 2 white students.

96

L e in k a u f  ( 1 - 5 ) :  T h e r e  a r e  a p p r o x i m a t e ly  27 3  w h i t e  s t u d e n t s  a n d  1 6 5  N eg ro

s t u d e n t s  r e s i d i n g  i n  t h e  L e i n k a u f  a t t e n d a n c e  a r e a .



337a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

97.

Arlington-Council (1-5): One attendance area will serve Arlington and Council

schools. Council should probably house grades 1 through 3, and 

Arlington grades 4 and 5, with several sections of grade 3. There are 

approximately 350 white students and 659 Negro students In this atten­

dance area.

Hall (1-5): The Hall School will serve the 483 white students and 664

Negro students who reside in this attendance area.

Maryvale (1-5): The attendance area for the Maryvale School is divided into

two non-contiguous areas. This school will serve the 472 white 

students residing in the Immediate school vicinity. It will also serve 

145 Negro students residing in the zone designated as M on the 

accompanying map.

Hertz (1-5): The Mertz School will serve the 402 white students who live

in the immediate vicinity, and the 120 Negro students from zone ME, 

as shown on the attached map.

Westlawn (1-5): The Westlawn School will serve the 495 white students

living in the immediate vicinity of the school, and the 75 Negro 

students living in zone W,

Old Shell Road (1-5): There are approximately 232 white students and 295

Negro students who live in this area and who attend the Old Shell Road 

School.

Crichton (1-5): In the Crichton School zone there are approximately 438

white students and 348 Negro students.



338a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

98.

Stanton Road (1-5): Stanton Road School will house the 6 white students and

the 900 Negro students who live In this attendance area. This school 

will temporarily remain predominantly Negro in student population.

I Every effort should be made to house these students in a school west

ft of the expressway.

Brazier (1-5): In grades 1 through 5, there are approximately 10 white

students and 1,022 Negro students in this attendance area. This 

situation is similar to Stanton Road.

Whistler (1-5): The Whistler attendance zone is made up of two non-eontig- 

uous areas. In the area in the immediate proximity of the school, 

there are approximately 181 white students and 205 Negro students.

Thomas (1-5): The Thomas facility will serve the 180 white students and

95 Negro students who live in the area.

Forest Hill (1-5): The Forest Hill School attendance area will be made up of

two non-contiguous areas. As indicated on the map, this school will 

serve the 586 white students who live in the immediate area and the 

355 Negro students who live in zone F. In order to house this number 

of students, 12 portables will be necessary, all of which are available 

in the district.

Present location of available portables: Emerson (1); Stanton

Road (3); Howard (3); Gorgas (4); and Brazier (1).

Austin (1-5): Austin will serve the 331 white students and 19 Negro

students living in the school vicinity and 65 Negro students who live

in zone A .



339a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

99.

Fottde (1-5): Fonde will house the 605 white students and 11 Negro students

who live in the school vicinity, and 236 Negro students from zone F.

Shepard (1-5): Shepard will serve the 383 white students and 36 Negro

students who live in the area, and 124 Negro students who live in 

zone S.

Momlngside (1-5): Momingside will serve the 636 white students who live

in the school vicinity, and the 120 Negro students who live in zone MO.

Podge (1-5): Dodge will house the 565 white students and 45 Negro students 

who live in the vicinity of the school.

Dickson (1-5): Dickson will house the 680 white students and 125 Negro

students who live in this attendance area.

Will (1-5): The 678 white students and 155 Negro students who live in

this attendance area will attend the Will school, in addition to the 

240 Negro students living in zone WH shown on the map. In order to 

house these students, portables will be necessary.

Orchard (1-5): The 759 white students and 117 Negro students who live in

this attendance area will be housed at Orchard. For this, two portables 

will be necessary. These two portables may be obtained from Arlington.

South Brookley (1-6): South Brookley will continue to serve as a 1 through 6

school for the student population of 514 white and 72 Negro.

Williams (1-6): Williams will serve as a 1 through 6 school with 571 white and

43 Negro students.



340a

Indian Springs (1-6): Indian Springs will serve as a 1 through 6 center for

the 535 white and 11 Negro students in Its attendance area.

Eight Mile (1-6): Eight Mile will serve as a 1 through 6 school for the 280

white students and 66 Negro students in its attendance area.

Where two or more schools serve a single attendance area, the school 

officials should determine the exact composition of each school, keeping in 

mind that all students, white and Negro, should progress through each of the 

schools as they complete the various grade levels. Suggestions are made in 

the presentation of such attendance areas to help guide school officials 

toward meaningful school desegregation.

Our recommendations undoubtedly raise the question whether, under the cir­

cumstances here, assignments legally are required to be in the desegregation 

plan J(f they require substantial additional transportation. This, we believe, 

is b  legaKauestion which we can only leave to the parties and to the court.

Ah alternative in lieu of transportation would result in additional 

majority Negro schools. The alternative would involve pairing Leinkauf, 

Caldwell, and Emerson; and the rezoning of Chrichton, Old Shell Road, and 

Foneville into majority Negro schools.

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

1 0 0 .



COMPOSITE BUILDING INFORMATION FORM

MOBILE METROPOLITAN AREA ELEMENTARY SCHOOIS

Name of School Grades
Capacity 

Perm. W. Ports.
Students

W N T W
Staff 
N T

Estimated
portables

South Brookley 1-6 592 514 72 586 5

Morningside 1-5 578 758 636 120 756 6

Williams 1-6 408 618 571 43 614 7

Woodcock CHANC ED FROM 11LEMENTARY TO J INI OR h ::g h  co: iPLEX.

Maryvale 1-5 612 672 472 145 617 2

Mertz 1-5 510 402 120 522 0

Westlavin 1-5 510 590 495 75 571 3

Hall 1-5 1224 483 664 1147 0
Arlington-
Council 1-5 1054 m o 350 659 1009 2

Emerson CLC 5ED

Leinkauf 1-5 442 273 165 438 0

Sub Total This tsace 5930 . 6516 4196 2063 6259 25

TABLE 5-3 o

H
E

W
 P

lan of July, 1969



COMPOSITE BUILDING INFORMATION FORM

MOBILE METROPOLITAN AREA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Name of School Grades
Capacity

Perm. W. Ports.
Students

W N T
Staff

T ™ ---- R------- T
Estimated
Portables

3ub Total 
3rought Forward 5930 6516 4196 2063 6259 25
Owens 1-5 1496 2 1414 1416 0
Caldwell CLOSED

Howard CLOSED

Old Shell Road 1-5 476 536 232 295 527 2

Crichton 1-5 782 820 438 348 786 1
Stanton Road 1-5 1020 1050 6 900 906 1
Fonvielle CHftNC ED FROM ELEME JTARY TO J!'NIOR HIGH C(j'MPLEX
Gorgas 1-5 884 1034 7 963 970 5Palmer-
Glendale 1-5 1258 1408 434 931 1365 4
Whitley 1-5 612 702 216 481 697 3

3razier 1-5 1156 1186 10 1022 1032 1
3ub Total 
This Page 7684 6232 1345 6354 7699 17
3ub Total 13,614 14,848 5,541 8,417 13,958 42

TABLE 5-3a
o

H
E

W
 P

lan
 of July, 1969



COMPOSITE BUILDING INFORMATION FORM 
MOBILE METROPOLITAN AREA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Capacity Students Staff
Name of School Grades Perm. W. Ports W N T W N T Portables

Sub Total Brought 
Forward 13.614 14,848 5,541 8,417 13,958 42

Grant i 5 U Z 9 Z 1.382 15 1,285 1.300 3
Robbins-Hamilton i 5 1.496 638 855 1.493 0
Chickasaw i . 5 612 473 100 573 0
Shepard i 5 544 383 160 543 0

Dodge i . 5 816 565 45 610 0

Fonde i _ 5 850 605 236 841 0
Austin i . 5 408 331 84 415 0
Dickson i . 5 816 680 125 805 0
Orchard i _ 5 816 876 759 117 876 2
Will i _ 5 816 1,086 678 395 1,073 9

Forest Hill i m 5 578 938 586 355 941 12
Hillsdale CHANGED TO JUNIOR HIGH COMFLEX
Sub Total 
Ibis Pane 9,044 9,824 5.713 3,757 9,470 26
Sub Total 22,658 24,672 11,254 12,174 23,420 68

TABLE 5-3b

H
E

W
 P

lan
 of July, 1969



COMPOSITE BUILDING INFORMATION FORM

MOBILE METROPOLITAN AREA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Name of School Grades
Capacity Students Staff Estimated

PortablesPerm. W. Ports. W N T W N T
Sub Total 
Brought Forward 22,658 24,672 11,254 12,174 23,428 68

Whistler 1 - 5 680 181 205 386 0

Thomas 1 - 5 272 180 95 275 0

Indian Springs 1 - 6 408 538 535 11 546 4

Eight Mile 1 - 6 340 280 66 346 0

Bienville changed TO JUNIOR h :GH C0MFLEX
Sub Total 
This Page 1,700 1,830 1,176 377 1,553 4

Total 24,358 26,502 12,430 12,551 24,981 72

TABLE 5-3c

H
E

W
 P

lan of July, 1969



345a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

105

D. Construction

The exact locations for new construction have not been made at this time. 

General construction recommendations are as follows:

Rural Area:

1. Close Calcedeaver, Mt. Vernon, and Belsaw and build a new 

elementary school to house these students in an expanded 

attendance area,

2. Build replacement schools in the following zones:

a. Satsuma High area

b. Baker High area

c. taeadowlake area

d. Alba area

Metropolitan Area:

It is recommended that no additional building take place east of 

1-65 Expressway and Mobile River. Additional construction should be located 

in the Davidson-Shaw area and near 1-10 and 1-65 north and south of the 

city limits. This would allow the movement of students away from the all- 

Negro areas of the core city,

t* Time Table for Plan Implementation

1969-70 - The entire rural plan can be implemented for 1969-70.

The closing of Toulminville, except for 11th and 12th grade, and



346a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969
106

implementation of the high school, junior high, and elementary parts of 

the metropolitan plan west of 1-65 can be accomplished for 1969-70.

1970-71 - The entire metropolitan plan can be implemented.

F. Desegregation of Faculty and Other Staff

The Mobile County School Board shall announce and implement the following 

policies:

1. The principals, teachers, teacher-aides, and other staff who work

directly with children at a school shall be so assigned for the school 

year 1969-70 and subsequent years that in no case will the racial 

composition of a staff indicate that a school is intended for Negro 

students or white students. For the 1969-70 schcjaf^yearHhe district 

shall assign the staff described above so that th/ ratio Negro 

to white teachers in each school and the ratio ofVther st&ff in each 

school are substantially the same as each such raticNi-ato the 

teachers and other staff, respectively, in the entire school system.

The school district shall, to the extent necessary to carry 

out this desegregation plan, direct members of its staff as a 

condition of continued employment to accept new assignments.

2. Staff members who work directly with children, and professional

staff who work on the administrative level will be hired, assigned, 

promoted, paid, demoted, dismissed and otherwise treated without 

regard to race, color, or national origin, except to the extent 

necessary to correct discrimination.



347a

3. If there is to be a reduction in the number of principals, teachers, 

teacher-aides or other professional staff employed by the school 

district, which will result in a dismissal or demotion of any such 

staff members, the staff member to be dismissed or demoted must be 

selected on the basis of objective and reasonable non-discriminatory 

standards from among all the staff of the school district. In 

addition, if there is any such dismissal or demotion, no staff 

vacancy may be filled through recruitment of a person of a race, 

color, or national origin different from that of the individual 

dismissed or demoted, until each displaced member who is qualified 

has had an opportunity to fill the vacancy and has failed to accept 

an offer to do so.

Prior to such a reduction, the school board will develop or 

require the development of non-racial objective criteria to be used 

in selecting the staff member who is to be dismissed or demoted. These 

criteria shall be available for public inspection and shall be 

retained by the school district. The school district also shall 

record and preserve the evaluation of staff members under the cri­

teria. Such evaluation shall be made available upon request to 

the dismissed or demoted employee.

"Demotion" as used above includes any reassignment (l) under 

which the staff member receives less pay or has less responsibility 

than under the assignment he held previously, (2) which requires a 

lesser degree of skill than did the assignment he held previously, 

or (3) under which the staff member is asked to teach a subject or

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969
1 0 7



348a

grade other than one for which he is certified or for which he has 

had substantial experience within a reasonably current period. In 

general and depending upon the subject matter involved, five years 

is such a reasonable period.

G. Transportation

The transportation system shall be completely re-exananed regularly by 

the superintendent, his staff, and the school board. Bus routes and the 

assignment of students to buses will be designed to insure the transportation 

of all eligible pupils on a non-segregated and otherwise non-discriminatory 

basis.

H. School Construction and Site Selection

The size and location of new school buildings and additions to existing 

buildings can significantly affect desegregation now and in the future.

All school construction, school consolidation, and site selection (including 

the location of any temporary classrooms) shall be done in a manner which 

will prevent the recurrence of the dual school structure once this desegre­

gation plan is implemented.

I. Majority to Minority Transfer Policy

Whenever there shall exist schools containing a majority of Negro students, 

this school district shall permit a student (Negro or white) attending a 

school in which his race is in the majority to choose to attend another 

school where space is available and where his race is in a minority.

H E W  Plan of July, 1969
108



349a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969
109.

CHAPTER VI

SUGGESTIONS FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Successful implementation of desegregation plans largely depends upon 

local leadership and good faith in complying with mandates of the Courts 

and the laws upon which the Courts act. The following suggestions are 

offered to assist local officials in planning for implementation of 

desegregation orders,

A, Community

1. The Superintendent and Board of Education should frankly 

and fully inform all citizens of the community about the 

legal requirements for school desegregation and their plans 

for complying with these legal requirements.

2. The Board of Education should issue a public statement 

clearly setting forth its intention to abide by the law 

and comply with orders of the Court in an effective and 

educationally responsible manner.

3. School officials should seek and encourage support and 

understanding of the press and community organizations 

representing both races.

4. The Board of Education or some other appropriate govern­

ment unit should establish a biracial advisory committee



350a

no.
H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

to advise the Board of Education and its staff throughout 

the implementation of the desegregation plan. Such com­

mittee should seek to open up community understanding and 

communication, and assist the Board in interpreting legal 

and educational requirements to the public.

5. The Superintendent should actively seek greater involvement 

of parents of both races through school meetings, newsletters, 

an active and biracial P.T.A., class meetings, parent 

conferences, and through home visits by school personnel.

6. The Superintendent and Board of Education should regularly 

report to the community on progress in implementing

the desegregation plan.



351a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

B. School Personnel
111.

1. The Superintendent should provide all personnel copies of the dese­

gregation plan and arrange for meetings where the personnel will have 

an opporunity to hear it explained.

2. The Board of Education should issue a policy statement setting forth 

in clear terms the procedures it will follow in reassignment of 

personnel (see section on Desegregation of Staff),

3. Assignments of staff for the school year should be made as quickly

as possible with appropriate followings by school principals to assure 

both welcome and support for personnel new to each school. Invita­

tions to visit school before the new school year begins should be 
offered.

4. The Superintendent should see that a special orientation program is 

planned and carried out for both the professional and non-professional 

staffs (including bus drivers, cafeteria workers, secretaries and 

custodians) preparatory to the new school year. He should make every 

effort to familiarize new and reassigned staff with facilities, 

services and building policies and prepare them to carry out their 

important role in a constructive manner. The Superintendent should 

direct each principal to see that each teacher new to a school is 

assigned for help and guidance to a teacher previously assigned to 

that school. Each such pair of teachers should have an opportunity

to meet before the school year actually begins.

5. The Superintendent should arrange an in-service training program 

during the school year to assist personnel in resolving difficulties 

and improving instruction throughout the implementation period.



352a

112.

Help in doing this is available from the Center for Intereultural 

Education at the University of South Alabama.

6. It is important that, through personal observations, students see 

that nonprofessional service positions in their schools are not for 

members of one race and that harmonious working relationships can 

exist between members of both races. The Superintendent and Board 

of Education should therefore take all necessary steps to assure 

that all staffs are bi-raclal.

H E W  Plan of July, 1969



353a

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969

113.
C. Instructional Program

1. Each principal should be required to appoint bi-racial faculty com­

mittees to study and, as necessary, revise each area <£ the curriculum 

to assure better learning opportunities for all students. This should 

become a continuous activity in each school and throughout the district.

2. Student evaluation policies and procedures should be reviewed con­

tinuously for areas in need of improvement and adjustment to encourage 

the educational growth and motivation of students.

3. Remedial programs in reading and mathematics skills, as appropriate, 

should be introduced and/or expanded for all students in need of 

special help. Such program should supplement regular course offerings 

and assignments of students.

4. Grouping procedures should be reviewed and revised as necessary to 

assure they support the spirit as well as letter of desegregation plan 

the district has accepted responsibility for implemerting in good faith.

5. Participation in extracurricular activities by students of both races 

should be actively encouraged by administrators and teachers as a means 

for developing school spirit and a feeling of belonging.

6. School organizations - student government, cheerleaders, musical or­

ganizations, athletic teams must be operated on a nondiscrtminatory 

basis and should include students of both races.

1. Guidance counselors should be oriented and urged to play a leading role 

in successful implementati on of the desegregation plan.



354a

8. The curriculum should be reviewed and, as necessary, revised to provide 

recognition of Negro history, culture and contributions to our society. 

Library books uhich deal with sucj subjects should be added to school 

book collections.

9. Vocational education offerings should be reviewed and improved as a 

means of providing students of both races with education relevant to 

vocational interests and as a means of reducing dropouts.

10. Headstart or similar preschool programs for children of both races 

should be implemented.

11. Use of Federal and Station education funds should be planned compre­

hensively for maximum educational benefit to all egible children.

D. Students

1. The Superintendent should direct each principal to hold special 

orientation programs welcoming students who will be new to a school, 

before the regular school year begins.

2. The Superintendent should require each principal to see that students 

are frankly and fully informed about the desegregation plan and their 

responsibilities to help carry it out. Each principal should seek to 

establish rapport and communication links with new students to encourage 

mutual understanding and confidence.

3. The Superintendent should direct each principal to establish a student- 

faculty human relations committee representing both races to aid in 

the successful implementation of desegregation.

H E W  Plan o f July, 1969
114,



355a

115.

4. All school staff and members of the student body should exert extra 

effort to assure the full participation of all students of both 

races in extracurricular programs, including when appropriate the 

provision of a "late bus" for those staying after school to participate 

in such programs.

5. Each principal should request teachers to make themselves available

to students outside of regular class for counseling and extra instruc- 

tional help.

H E W  Plan of July, 1969



356a

H E W  Plan o f  July, 1969

116.

RESOURCES FOR ASSISTANCE

In addition to the regular resources for assistance available to 

school officials, districts developing or carrying out plans of 

desegregation in Alabama may call upon the following agencies for help:

Name:

Address:

Telephone:

Center for Intercultural Education
Title IV Center
College of Education
University of South Alabama
307 Gaillard Drive
Mobile, Alabama 36608
(205) 344-3400 Ext. 286

U. S. Office of Education
Division of Equal Educational Opportunities
50 Seventh Street, N, W,
Mail Room 404 
Atlanta, Georgia 30323

Phone: (404) 526-3076

[Maps omitted—see original record]



j j£ £ i i ! .U .  V«A— f r ^ T '

'"""X v<s-cV-̂ vt̂ ?

< T ^  - W  . ^  W  ^  O f i  vv

RECORD PRESS, INC., 95 MORTON ST., NEW YORK, N. Y. 10014, (212) 243-5775