United States v. Amite County School District Order
Public Court Documents
December 10, 1969
4 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Alexander v. Holmes Hardbacks. United States v. Amite County School District Order, 1969. 24f5741b-d167-f011-bec2-6045bdffa665. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/578511f5-4871-4ed9-a5b9-4355dc5d7890/united-states-v-amite-county-school-district-order. Accessed November 23, 2025.
Copied!
U. 8. count OF APPEALS
FILED
DEC 11 1969
EDWARD W. WADSWORTH,
CLERK
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
POR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
NOS. 28030 and 28042
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant
V.
AMITE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
ET AlL.,
Defendants-Appellees
The Amite County School District, et al, is under an
order of this court dated November 7, 1969 to convert to a
unitary school system not late: tl an December 31, 1969. The
conversion is to take place under a plan devised by the Office
of Education {(HEW).
The school district has moved to amend the plan only
to the extent of pupil assignment. The proposed modification
is to assign the students on the basis of sex to the four
schools in the district. All male students would attend either
Central School or Amite County Training School, whichever is
nearest his residence, and all female students would attend
Liberty Attendance Center or Gloster Attendance Center, which-
ever is nearest her reisdence.
It appears that the defendant school board has ap-
pointed a bi-racial committee to advise with the school board
regarding the proposed modification and other school matters.
The committee was to be composed of five white and five Negro
school patrons, two residing in each of the five Coralie lois
districts of the county. One Negro citizen refused to serve
and the committee proceeded with only nine members. An af-
fidavit on file with this court demonstrates that the plan
received the unanimous approval of the bi-racial committee.
| Meanwhile, a citizen group, headed by the Negro bi-
racial committee member who refused to sovire; has filed an
objection to the plan and to the composition of the bi-racial
committee. It is their position that five members of this
group were selected by the Negro community to serve on the
bi~-racial committee but only one of their members was so
chosen. They also say they were not permitted to partici-
pate in the meeting of the bi-racial committee. The school
board counters that the bi-racial committee is representative
of the Negro community and that those proposed by protestants
ste not. It is clear that we cannot resolve this local dis-
pute pending the beginning of school after December 31, 1969.
The difficult question presented on a motion to
approve a plan for the assignment of students by sex, once
RIE, trl
the school district has been ordered to convert to a unitary
system, comes in determining whether the plan stems from
educational purposes as distinguished from racially discri-
minatory purposes. Stated differently, is racial discrimina-
tion the motivation for the plan or does it have its basis
in educational purposes?
The court is reluctant to permit the use of such
a plan except upon a finding based on proof that the plan
was devised and is to be promulgated for educational purposes
only. Such a finding can best be made upon a hearing before
Honorable Dan M. Russell, Jr. according to the procedure
plovided in our order of November 7, 1969. The court will
permit the use of the proposed plan for the balance of the
current school term as an interim emergency measure to stab-
lize the education process in this school district. The
authority is not to be construed as a precedent except in the
exigencies of the particular groun of Mississippi cases
Woiaeves in our order of November 7), of which this case is
one. Whether such a plan may be used in the 1970-71 school
term, if desired, will depend upon the findings and recom-
mendations of Judge Russell and upon the final Ordos of this
court on the question. The question should be presented to
Judge Russell by the defendant School Board.
a
.- »
The motion to amend and modify, as aforesaid, is
GRANTED on the terms and conditions herein stated. The order
of the court of November 7, 1969 is otherwise to continue in
full force and effect.
This 2 gay of December, 1969,
- ’ 2 ik | gt sb 1! Prin 1% ord tn
Griffin B. Bell
United States Circuit Judge
| van : {1 A NLA 3 ™N (C5 '. R A)
Homer Thornberry
United States Circuit Judge
k Te L OQ 3 72
J £ dl As A J 9 A . Ha Gg i & £4. “2 : Tr : . +5
LJ
Lewis R. Morgan
United States Circuit Judge