Objections and Response to Defendants Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation

     [||7d23a426-27ba-4729-9b98-4e0e7833aa25||] TENTH STRI 

  

NORTH CAROLINA 28202 

   



  

IN THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

CHARLOTTE DIVISION 

  

) 
JAMES E, SWANN and THE NORTH 

CAROLINA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, } 

Plalotiff«, } 

Ve } CIVIL ACTION 

NO. 1074 

THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG ) 

BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al... 

) 
Defendants. 

} 
  

CBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO DEPENDANTS! 
  

AMENDMENT TO FLAN FOR FURTHER 
  

DESEGREGATION 
  

In 1954 the Supreme Court held that compulsory racial discrimination 

in the public schools was violative of the equal protection clause of the 

Constitution of the United States. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 
  

483 98 L. ed. 873, 74 8. Ct, 686. It was the Court's reasoning that the 

separate treatment for Negro and white students created an inferiority 

complex on the part of the Negro students, thus permanently impairing 

their educational opportunities. Ia 1969, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

Board of Education, having ignored for these years its constitutional 

responsibility to integrate its public schools, now proposes in answer to the 

Court's directive to desegregate a plan which would perpetuate the same 

 



¥ } x 3 

i 
i | 
i 

  

| status the Court found in Brown would permanently impair the educational 

I opportunities of students supposedly to be benefited. Rather than desegre-~ 

ET 
a 

a
 

E
E
 

E
E
 

a
s
 

gate, even on an interim basis, schools as schools and accord to students 

| and parents affected equal opportunities, the Board here would further | 

i impress upon the black children of this system that they and their parents 

continue to be inferior and that they and their parents must bear the total | 

| burden for dismantling the unconstitutional system that the Board has | 

created. | 

At the several hearings of this matter following plaintiffs’ filing of | 

| their motion for further relief in 1968, several plans were discussed and | 

have been considered by the Board. These plans would further desegregation | 

in the system by desegregating both black and white schools. At the last | 

hearing of this cause in June, 1989, the Court considered the Finger plan | 

which the defendant admitted could be implemented in many instances for | 

the 1969-70 school year. The plan provided for the pairing of some schools, | 

| the redrawing of district lines for others, and the elimination of freedom | 

of choice. The plan also provided for the closing of four elementary | 

I schools, Bethune, 1sabella Wyche, Zeb Vance and Fairview, and the closing | 

| of one junior high school, Irwin Avenue. In his testimony concerning this 

plan, the Superintendent of Schools testified that the pairing suggested as | 

| well as other avenues of the plan were feasible for implementation with the | 

| begianing of the September, 1969 school year. Ia the Court's order of | 

June 20, 1969, rejecting the plan submitted by the Board, the Court found | 

| | that the Board had deleted virtually all of the effective provisions of the | 

| Superintendent's plan for student desegregation. The Superintendent's | 

plan took due account of the necessity for desegregating all schools. | 

| | 
i | 

 



i ® 4 
3 

  

The Superintendent's proposal to the Board would have paired some 

schools and modified attendance zones for others. The plan would delete 

freedom of choice and would completely desegregate teachers and school 

personnel. The Court directed in its June 20 order that the Board submit 

| another plan as origindly directed by the Court. The Court found that 

the plan submitted by plaiatiffs for merging certain school districts and 

using certain schools as feeders for others showed a "high degree of 

| realism in that it minimizes the necessity for long-range transportation 
: 

and takes substantial advantage of location and make-up of populations, 

The Court found that the local school administration considered the plan 

feasible. | 

I The School Board has now submitted a proposed plan. Defendant's 

! new plan would arbitrarily close seven all-black schools and bus 4,200 

black children to previously all-white schools. The Board has specifically 

refused to alter any attendance zones, to pair any schools, or to take 

any other steps which would require that white students be assigned to any 

| schools other than the ones previously attended. The Board explains this | 

| patent discrimination by stating that its proposal is an interim one and that | 

in the travels of the Board members to study school systems in Syracuse | 

and Buffalo, New York, "one-way bussing of Negroes was generally 

acceptable to all segments of these communities. 

| In Felder v. Harnett County Board of Education, #. 2d , (4th Cir. 
  

12,804, April 22, 1969), the Court rejected arbitrary and invidious closing 

i of Negro schools as a means for desegregation of a school system. Clearly, 

| one-way bussing of Negro students and the arbitrary closing of Negro 

achools are as repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription 

i 

! 
i 
3 

i 

“gn 

 



2] 

  

against denial of equal protection as compulsory segregation of students. 

While plaintiffs’ proposal would have closed five of the seven schools 

defendant now proposes to close, the plan would equally have desegregated 

other Negro schools and would not have made this a one-way racially | 

discriminatory process. | 

Despite the findings of the Court that freedom of choice in this school 

system was discriminatory and perpetuated segregation, defendants’ 

proposal now before the Court falls to eliminate this practice and would 

continue to allow the more than 1,200 white children to transfer out of 

Negro schools. Oa its face, defendants’ proposal with respect to students 

is patently discriminatory and should be rejected by the Court. 

Specifically, plaintiffs raise the following objections to defendants’ 

proposed plan: 

1. The arbitrary closing of seven black schools and one-way bussing 

of students is invidious discrimination prohibited by the Fourteenth 

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

4. The arbitrary decision to pick some 1, 248 black children out of 

Negro schools and assign them to previously all-white schools with no 

assignment of white students to previously all-black schools is discerimina~ 

tory on its face. In this connection, defendant Board has specifically 

rejected proposals to pair schools or to redraw attendance zones which 

E
E
 

a 
a
 

EE
 

a 
—
.
 

would integrate all-black schools. The plan further fails to eliminate 

freedom of choice which has served as an escape valve for white students 

to transfer out of black schools. 

3. Freedom of choice in defendants’ school system merely perpetuated 

segregation and under Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 
  

U8. D.C. EoD: Va, 4286, July 8 and 15 and August 19, 1088, should be 

enjoined. 

 



  

i 

” 
% 

i 

4. The plan determines that Zeb Vaace School is inadequate but pro- 

poses to continue using Zeb Vance on a first-come, first-served basis 

! for students whose parents object to involuntary transportation. No pro- 

vision is made for this school being integrated. Its preservation is solely 

& stop-gap effort for preserving segregation and inferior educational 

opportunities for Negro students. 

J¢ Defendanis mopose no steps for comparative non-racial considera- 

tion of principals, coaches and other professional personnel who will be 

affected by the closing of schools, nor do defendants propose to insure 

non-racial comseling services and non-racial accomodations of student 

officers, cheerleaders, etc. for Negro studeats transferred. 

8. Defendants propose making a long-range study of school attendance 

zones and its construction program for 1870-71. No standards or guides | 

were suggested and the projected completion date of this study, February 15, 

1870, is far too long to allow detailed revision by this Court and implemen- | 

tation of whatever plan is approved by the beginning of the 1670-71 school 

year. 

7. Defendants’ plan for faculty desegregation is inadequate. The Courts | 

have on numerous occasions required a detailed time schedule for complete 

faculty desegregation. In the first order of this Court on plaintiffs’ motion 

for further relief, the Court directed that defendants submit a plan for active | 

| and complete faculty desegregation to be effective with the 1989-70 school 

year. Defendants state that they will make the standard changes for 1969-70 

| and that Ry the 1070-71 school term, "further faculty desegregation will be 

experienced. " 

Delendants' interim plan is & mere subterfuge of shifting the burden 

| of desegregation back to Negro parents and students, the portents of which, 

i when coupled with defendants’ prior practices, means clearly the continued 

a 

 



1] 

| 8 

- § 

i 

  

i subjection of Negro parents and students, teachers and school personnel 

i. to racial discrimination in the future. 

i WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray the Court that defendants’ 

plan be rejected in its entirety and that defendant be required to submit a 

plan within a period of time that would permit ite implementation at the 

beginning of the 1969-70 achool year which would provide for desegregation 

| of black and white schools for 1968-70 and further submission of a plan on or | 

before Cctober 1, 1989 for complete desegregation of the school system 

| effective 1870-71. Recognizing the closeness of the begiming of the 1969-70 

school year, plaintiffs respectfully pray that defendants be required to 

institute pairing, rezoning, and the closing of inadequate schools which 

i have previously been considered by this Court and have been found by the 

school administration and the Court to be feasible for 1988-70. These steps 

as proposed would mean desegregation of black and white schools for 

1988-70 and transportation, when necessary, for black and white students. 

Plaintiffs pray the Court that defendants be specifically enjoined from 

further use of freedom of choice and from further construction of schools 

or additions to existing facilities pending submission and approval of a plan 

for complete desegregation of the system. The Court having previously 

directed the School Board to completely desegregate teachers and achool 

| personnel effective with the beginning of the 1968-70 school year, plaintiffs 

submit and pray the Court that defendants be required to carry out the 

Court's directive in this regard. 

Respectfully submitted, 

  

| CONRAD O. PEARSON 
i 203 1/2 East Chapel Hill Street 

Durham, North Carolina 

“fe 

 



  

CHAMBERS 

AND LANNIN 

218 vest i énth Sire et 

Charlotte, North Care po
 

“- ba 

JACK GREENBERG 

  

ROBERT BELTON 

10 Columbus Circle 

vow York, New York 10018 

Attorneys for Flaintifls. 

PIs Vol 
. 
SY 
> v 

 



¥) § 
3 

 ) 

  

CERTIFICATE OF 3ERVICE 

This is to certify that the undersigned has served one copy of the 

foregoing Objections and Response to Defendants’ Amendment to Flan for 

Further Desegregation upon counsel for defendants by delivering copies 

of same by hand to: 

Mr. William J. Waggoner 

1100 Barringer Office Tower 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

Mr. Brock Barkley 

Law Building 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

Mr. Gaston Gage 
Law Building 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

Honorable Robert Morgan 

Attorney General 

State of North Carolina 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 

Mr. Andrew A. Vanore, Jr. 
Staff Attorney 

Office of the Attorney General 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 

This 5th day of August, 1989. 

  

Attorney for Flaintifis [||7d23a426-27ba-4729-9b98-4e0e7833aa25||]