Appendix to Appellants Brief -- Bowman v. County School Board of Charles City County

    APPENDIX TO APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 
  

  

United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit 

  

No. 10,793 
  

SHIRLETTE LL. BowMAN, ET. AL., 

Appellants, 

V. 

County ScHOoOL BoArD oF CHARLES CITY 

CoUNTY, VIRGINIA, ET AL., 

Appellees. 

S. W. Tucker 

Henry L. MArsH, [11 

WiLrLarp H. DoucLas, Jr. 
214 East Clay Street 

Richmond, Virginja 

Jack GREENBERG 

James M. Nasrrr, 111 

10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030 

New York, New York Q 

Counsel 

  

   



    

 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Appendix A 

Prayer of Complaint 

Interrogatories 

Answer to Interrogatories 

Answer to Interrogatories, Addendum No. 1 

Memorandum of the Court, Filed May 17, 1966 

Order, Entered May 17, 1966 

Motion for Leave to File and Request for Approval of a Plan 

Supplement 

Plan Supplement 

Exceptions to Plan Supplement 

Exceptions to Plan Supplement, Filed July 8, 1966 ... 

Memorandum of the Court, Filed July 15, 1966 

Appendix, Plan for School Desegregation, Filed May 10, 1966 

  

Supplement to Plan for School Desegregation 

Order, Entered July 15, 1966 

Notice of Appeal, Filed July 28, 1966 

Appendix B 

Memorandum of the Court, Filed January 27, 1966, 

Wright v. Greensville 

Memorandum of the Court, Filed May 13 1966, 

Wright v. Greensville  



 
 
 
 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND DIVISION 

CiviL ACTION 

No. 4265 

FIiLED 

March 15, 1965 

SHIRLETTE L.. Bowman, RHoNDA M. BowMAN, MILDRED 

A. BowmMmAN, Ricaarp M. BowmMmAN, and SANDRA L. 

BowMmAN, 

infants by 

Richard M. Bowman, their father and next friend, 

Plaintiff s 

V. 

County ScHOOL BOARD oF CHARLES CITY 

CoUNTY, VIRGINIA 

Byrp W. Long, Division Superintendent 

of Schools of Charles City County, 

Defendants 

COMPLAINT 
Ei 

VII 

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray: 

A. That the defendants be restrained and enjoined from 

failing and refusing to adopt and forthwith implement a  



    

2 

plan which will provide for the prompt and efficient elimi- 

nation of racial segregation in the public schools operated 

by the defendant School Board, including the elimination of 

any and all forms of racial discrimination with respect to 

administrative personnel, teachers, clerical, custodial and 

other employees, transportation and other facilities, and the 

assignment of pupils to schools and classrooms. 
% iid ty 

Interrogatories Filed May 7, 1966 

TO COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS : 

Frederick T. Gray, Esquire 

State-Planters Bank Building 

Richmond, Virginia 

Plaintiffs request that the defendant School Board, by 

an officer or agent thereof, answer under oath in accord- 

ance with Rule 33, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 

following interrogatories: 

1. List for each public school operated by the defendant 
School Board the following : 

a. Date on which each school was erected; 

b. Grades served by each school during the 1964-65 

school term; 

c. Planned pupil capacity of each school; 

d. Number of white pupils in attendance at school in 

each grade level as of most recent dates for which 

figures are available for 1964-65 term; 

e. Number of Negro pupils in attendance at school 

in each grade level as of most recent date for which 

figures are available for 1964-65 term; 

 



f. Number of Negro teachers and other administra- 

tive or professional personnel and the number of white 

teachers, etc., employed at each school during 1964-65 

school term; 

g. Pupil-teacher ratio at each school during 1964- 

65 school term (most recent available figures); 

h. Average class size for each school during 1964- 

65 school term (most recent available figures) ; 

i. Name and address of principal of each school. 

2. Furnish a map or maps indicating the attendance 

areas served by each school in the system during the 1963-64 

term and the 1964-65 term. If no such map or maps can be 

furnished, state where such maps or other descriptions of 

the attendance areas may be found and inspected. 

3. State the number of Negro pupils and the number of 

white pupils, by grade level, residing in each attendance 

area established by the School Board during the 1964-65 
school term. If definite figures are unavailable, give the best 

projections or estimates available, stating the basis for any 

such estimates or projections. 

4. State whether any pupils are transported by school 

buses to schools within the school division, and if there are 

any, give the average daily attendance of transported stu- 

dents during 1964-65 term, stating separately the number 

of white pupils and the number of Negro pupils in the ele- 
mentary grades and in the high schools and in the junior 

high schools. 

5. Furnish a map or maps indicating the bus routes in 
effect throughout the school division during the 1963-64 

term and for the 1964-65 term (indicate for each bus route  



  

| 

p
t
 
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
 

_
 

HH Y
Y
.
 

a 
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
 

¥ 
| 

k 
1 
i B 
¥ 

4 

the name and address of the bus driver and the race of the 

students transported). 

6. State with respect to the 1964-65 term, the total num- 

ber of white pupils who reside in the attendance area of an 

all-Negro school, but were in attendance at an all-white or 

predominantly white school. Indicate with respect to such 

pupils the following: 

a. Number, by grade, residing in the attendance area 

of each Negro school; 

b. The schools actually attended by white pupils re- 

siding in the attendance area of each Negro school. 

7. State the total number of Negro pupils who were 

initially assigned to attend all-white or predominantly white 

schools for the first time during either the 1963-64 school 

term or the 1964-65 term. Give a breakdown of these totals 

by schools and grades. 

8. State whether during the 1964-65 term it was neces- 

sary at any schools to utilize for classroom purposes any 

areas not primarily intended for such use, such as library 

areas, teachers’ lounges, cafeterias, gymnasiums, etc. If 

so, list the schools and facilities so utilized. 

9. State whether a program or course in Distributive 

Education is offered in the school system and if so at what 

schools it 1s offered. 

10. Are any special teachers for subjects such as art and 

music provided ? 

11. Is so, sinte: 

a. The number of such special teachers in the system; 

b. The number of full-time special teachers; 

   



c. The number of part-time special teachers; 

d. The schools to which they are assigned for the 

current school year; 

e. The schools to which they were assigned for the 

preceding school year. 

12. Indicate whether a program of vocational education 

was offered in any school or schools in the system during the 

1963-64 or the 1964-65 school term. 

13. If so, state for each such year the name of each voca- 

tional education course at each school and the number of 

pupils enrolled therein; and give the number of individuals 

teaching vocational education at each school. 

14. Furnish a statement of the curriculum offered at each 

junior high school and each high school in the system during 

the 1964-65 term. 

15. Furnish a list of the courses of instruction, if any, 

which are available to seventh grade students who attend 

junior high schools in the system but are not available to 

those seventh grade pupils assigned to elementary schools. 

16. State whether any summer school programs operated 

by the School Board have been operated an a desegregated 

basis with Negro and white pupils attending the same classes. 

17. Are any buildings of frame construction presently 

being utilized for schools? If so, which ones? 

18. Are any of the school buildings in need of major 

repairs? If so, which ones? 

19. State with respect to any new school construction 

which is now contemplated, the following with respect to 
each such project:  



  

| 
| 
| 

| 
| 

| 
| 

| 

  

6 

a. Location of contemplated school or addition; 

b. Size of school, present and proposed number of 

classrooms, grades to be served, and projected capacity; 

c. Estimated date of completion and occupancy; 

d. Number of Negro pupils and number of white 

pupils attending grades to be served by such school 

who reside in existing or projected attendance area for 

such school. 

20. State as to each teacher and principal first employed 

by the School Board during the school year 1964-65 and 

each of the four preceding school terms the following: 

a. His or her name, age at time of such employment, 

sex, race; 

b. Initial date of employment by the defendant 

School Board; 

c. Teaching experience prior to employment by de- 

fendant School Board; 

d. College from which graduated and degrees earned; 

e. Major subjects studied in college and in graduate 

school; 

f. Certificate from State Board of Education held at 

time of initial employment by defendant School Board, 

date thereof, and specific endorsements thereon; 

g. The school and (elementary) grade or (high) 

school) subjects which he was assigned to teach at time 

of initial employment; 

h. Ratings earned for each year since initial em- 

ployment by defendant School Board. 

 



7 

21. Are any records maintained which reflect the turn- 

over of teachers in each school? 

22. 11 so, state: 

a. Type of records maintained; 

b. For what periods such records are maintained; 

c. Where they are located; 

d. In whose custody they are maintained. 

23. Are any records maintained which reflect the mobility 

of children in and out of the school system and in and out 

of specific schools, including transfers and dropouts? 

24. If so, state: 

a. Type of records maintained; 

b. Where these records are located; 

c. In whose custody they are maintained. 

25. State the amount of funds rceived through programs 

of Federal assistance to education during each of the school 

sessions 1963-64 and 1964-65. 

26. State whether any pledge of non-discrimination has 

been signed by or on behalf of defendant School Board. 

27. Give a copy of any plans for desegregation submitted 

to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare or to 

any other agency of the State or Federal Government. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a copy of such answers must 

be served upon the undersigned within fifteen days after 

service,  



  

| 

| 

| 

8 

Answer of County School Board of Charles City County, 
Virginia to Interrogatories Filed June 10, 1966 

Now comes Byrd W. Long, Division Superintendent of 

Schools of Charles City County, Virginia, and submits the 

following answers to interrogatories filed by the plaintiffs, 

said answers correspond to the numbered paragraphs in the 

interrogatories, to wit: 

LiSee EXHIBITS “AY and +'B™ 

2. Charles City County is not divided into attendance 

areas. 

3. Not applicable 

4. White children transported—average 195 

Negro children transported—average 1285 

Indian children transported—average 145 

5. See EXHIBUYS “C7, “D7, “HB” and "BF" 

6. Not applicable 

7. 8 

Grade 34 5 6 7 29 1011 

Charles City High and 

Elementary School 1 1 1 1 

8. Charles City School 

6th grade is housed in a former Vocational building, 

which is separate from the school building and is heated 

by an oil circulator. 

7th grade is housed in a high school classroom. Ruth- 

ville High School 

   



9 

Physical Education classes are taught in the boys’ 

and girls’ dressing rooms. 

The Gymnasium is used as a study hall during cer- 

tain class periods. This will be relieved when the new 

addition is occupied at the beginning of the 1965-66 

session, 

9. No program of Distributive Education is offered in 

Charles City County. 

10. Yes, at Ruthville High School. 

11. One classroom teacher devotes a part of her time to 

music at the Ruthville School. 

12. Charles City High School—Commercial classes only 

Samaria High School—Commerical classes only 

Ruthville High School-—Commercial 

Home Economics 

Vocational Agriculture 

Shop and General 

Mechanics 

13. Charles City High School 

Commercial 1 teacher 45 pupils 

Samaria High School 

Commercial 1 teacher 36 pupils 

Ruthville High School 

Commercial 1 teacher 135 pupils 

Home Economics 1 teacher 73 pupils 

Agriculture and shop 1 teacher 166 pupils  



  

10 

For the 1965-66 session, 2 Home Economics teachers and 2 

Agriculture and Shop teachers have been appointed, as the 

enrollment justifies 2 teachers in these departments. 

14. Charles City County has no Junior High School. 

Charles City High School: 

Academic, Commercial, General 

Samaria High School: 

Academic, Commercial, General 

Ruthville High School : 

Academic, Commercial, Vocational, General 

15. No Junior High School subjects are offered 7th 

grade pupils in this county. 

16. No summer schools have been operated in the past. 

During July and August 1965, Head Start will be offered to 

all low income families without regard to race, at the Ruth- 

ville and Barnetts Schools. 

17. Yes 

The Charles City School Gymnasium 

The Ruthville School Home Economics building. 

A new Home Economics department is included in 

the Ruthville addition which is now under construction. 

13. Yes 

The Charles City School 

19. Addition to Ruthville High School is now under 

construction. 

2 Science classrooms and laboratories 

4 Home Economics rooms 

1 Commercial room and Home room 

   



11 

1 Music room and Home room 

August—Completion date 

20. Charles City High School 

E. W. Eanes, Principal 

a. Age 53, Male, White 

b. 1960 

c. None in public school, U. S. Army 

d. University of Richmond—B.A., Union Theologi- 

cal Seminary—B.D., University of Rochester—M.A. 

e. Social Science, Theology, School Administration 

f. Collegiate Professional 

g. Full time Principal 

h. Principals are not formally rated 

Barnetts Elementary School 

Pressley R. Evans, Principal 

. Age 36, Male, Negro 

1946 

10 years 

. St. Pauls School, Hampton Institute—B.S, 

Vocational, School Administration 

Collegiate Professional 

. Full time Principal 

5°
00

 
"
p
o
o
 n

 
Do
m 

. Principals are not formally rated 

  Samaria High School 

B. F. Comer, Principal 

a. Age 58, Male, White 

b. 1961 

C. 31 years 

d. William & Mary College—B.S.  



  

12 Let 

e. Mathematics and English 

f. Collegiate Professional 

g. Part-time teacher of mathematics 

h. Not formally rated 

Ruthville High School 

Farl BE. Scoit, Principal 

a. Age 34, Male, Negro 

b. 1945 

C5 years 

d. Morgan State College—B.S., Virginia State— 

M.A. 

e. Industrial Arts, English, School Administration 

f. Collegiate Professional 

g. Full time Principal 

h. Principals are not formally rated 

Each principal has held the same position during the 

past four (4) years and all have rendered service of 

a high caliber. For teachers see EXHIBIT “GC”, 

2}. Yes 

22. a. Report of teachers’ contracted with and teacher’s 

contract 

b.. 5 years 

¢. School Board Office 

d. Clerk of the School Board 

23. Yes 

24. a. Teachers Attendance registers 

b. Principals’ Offices 

c. Principals of the Schools. 

   



13 

25. Federal Funds Received—1963-64 

School Lunch $ 6,841.07 

N.D.E.A. 1,695.34 

PL. 874 10,294.00 

Guidance 2,000.10 

TOTAL... $20,830.51 

Federal Funds Anticipated 1964-65 

School Lunch $ 8,000.00 

N.D.E.A. 1.73000 

P.L. 874 10,250.00 

Guidance 2,000.00 

TOTAL... $22,000.00 

26. Certificate of Compliance HEW Form 441 

27. A short form is attached to cover the 1964-65 school 

year. The proposed statement and information for the 1965- 

66 session has not been completed. 

/s/ Byrp W. Long, 

Division Superintendent 

of Schools of Charles City County, 

Virginia 

Subscribed and sworn to by BYRD W. LONG before 

me, KATIE H. HARRIS, a Notary Public in and for the 

City of Richmond, Virginia, whose commission expires on 

March 4, 1969 in my said City this 8th day of June, 1965. 

/s/ Katie H. HARRIS 

Notary Public    



  

EXHIBIT A 

Teachers and other 

  

  

  

  

64-65 Administrative or Pupil Average Name and 
Date Grades Planned Professional Personnel Teacher Class Address of 

Name of School Erected Served Capacity w. C. Ratio Size Principal 

Charles City 1947 E. W. Eanes 
High and Charles City High 
Elementary 1959* 1-12 250 16 0 17 18 School, Charles 

City, Va. 

Barnetts 1948 P. R. Evans 
Elementary 1957* Barnetts Elementary — 

School 1962* 1-7 600 0 23 25.5 28 School, Barnetts, IN 
Va. 

Samaria 1951 P. B. Comer 
Indian 1959* 3 white Samaria High School 
School 1962* 1-12 212 8 Indian O 16.5 18 Charles City, Va. 

Ruthville 1960 E LE. Scott 
High and 1954* Ruthville High 
Elementary 1959% School, Ruthville, 
School 1962* Va. 

1965%* 1-12 832 0 35 25 27.5 
  

* Addition.  



15 

EXHIBIT “B” 

Bowman v. Charles City County School Board 
C.A. 4265 

See Answer to Interrogatory No. 7 

EXHIBIT C 

Answer to Interrogatories, Civil Action No. 4265 

U. S. District Court, Richmond, Virginia 

Bowman v. Charles City County School Board 

CHARLES City CouNTY ScHOOL BOARD 

AppeEnNnpUM No. 1 

EXHIBIT G | 
Bowman v. Charles City County School Board | 

C.A. 4265 

CHARLES City County Scuoor Boarp 

AppENDUM No. 1 

  Answer to Interrogatories, Civil Action No. 4265 

U. S. District Court, Richmond, Virginia 

20. Continued 

Donald Archuleta, age 25, white, male, b. 1963, c. None, 

d. R.P.1, B.S, e. Physical Education, {. Collegiate Profes- 

sional, g. Physical Education, Charles City High School, 

h. Teachers are not rated in this division. | 

Andrew Brabrand, age 26, white, male, b. 1964, c. 2 years, | 

d. William & Mary, B.S,, e. Science, {. Collegiate, g. Science, | 

Charles City High School, h. not rated. |  



| 

| 

| 

|   

16 

Ryland D. Crews, age 29, white, male, b. 1963, ¢. None, 

d. University of: Richmond, 3 years, e. Math,  £. Special 

License, g. Math, Charles City High School, h. not rated. 

Robert L.. Charnock, age 40, white male, b. 1964, ¢. e 

years, d. Oklahoma State, B.A., e. Chemistry, §. Collegiate 

Professional, g. 7th grade, Charles City High School. 

Iva Ruth Charnock, age 38, white, female, b. 1964, c. 11 

years, d. Oklahoma State, B.S., e. History, f. Collegiate 

Professional, ¢. 2nd grade, Charles City Elem. School. 

Clarence Weeks, age 24, white, male, b. 1964, c. None, 

d. East Carolina College, e, History, 4. Special license, 

g. 5th grade, Charles City Elemeniary School. 

Elizabeth Bargeron, age 28, white, female, b. 1965, ¢c. 3 

years, d. University of Tennessee, B.S., e. Elementary Edu- 

cation, f. Collegiate Professional, g. 1st grade, Charles City 

Elementary School. 

Carrie P. Adkins, age 21, Indian, female, b. 1962, ¢. None, 

d. Bacon College, 2 years, e. History, {. Special Vicense, 

g. History, Samaria School. 

Herman Adkins, Jr., age 22, Indian, male, bh. 1963, c. 

None, d. North Western, Oklahoma, b. Education, e. Busi- 

ness Administration, f. Collegiate Professional, g. Social 

Studies, English, Samaria School. 

Glenda Adkins, age 28, Indian, female, b. 1964, c. 5 years, 

d. Pembroke State, B.S., e. Elementary Education, {. Col- 

legiate Professional, g. 3rd and 4th grades, Samaria School. 

Clifton W. Holmes, age 22, Indian, male, b. 1964, c. None, 

d. Northwestern Oklahoma B.A., e. Education {. Collegiate 

Professional, g. English & Science, Samaria School. 

   



Vd 

17 

Emma Christian, age 26, Negro, female, b, 1962, ¢. 1 

year, d. Virginia Union University, B.S., e. Physical Edu- 

cation, f. Collegiate Professional, g. Physical Education, 

Ruthville School. 

Timothy Coleman, age 21, Negro, male, b. 1964, c. None, 

d. Fisk University, B.S. e. Chemistry, {. Collegiate . 7th 

grade, Ruthville School. 

Marion M. Bowie, age 42, Negro, female, b. 1964, c. 6 

years, d. Virginia Union University, B.A. e. English, 1. 

Collegiate Professional, g. 7th grade, Ruthville School. 

Inez B. Bailey, age 26, Negro, female, b. 1962, ¢c. 2 years, 

d. Virginia Union University, B.S. e. Business Education, 

f. Collegiate Professional, g. English, Ruthville High School. 

Lemuel Lomax, age 37, Negro, male, b. 1964, c. 2 years, 

d. Morgan State College, B.S, e, Science, {. Collegiate, 

g. Science, Ruthville High School. 

Glovia W. Wallace, age 31, Negro, female, b. 1964, c. 7 

years, d. Virginia Siate College, B.S, e, Library Science, 

f. Collegiate Professional, g. English, Ruthville High 

School. 

Edward Whitehead, age 27, Negro, male, b. 1963, c. 

None, d. Virginia Union University, no degree, e Social 

Science, {. Special License, g. 6th grade, Ruthville School. 

Doris C. Parker, age 26, Negro, female, b. 1964, c. None, 

d. Virginia State College, B.S., e. Basic Business, £. Col- 

legiate, g. 4th grade, Ruthville School. 

Maggie G. Payne, age 32, Negro, female, b; 1964, ¢. 

None, d. Virginia. State College, no. degree, e. English, i. 

Special License, g. 6th grade, Ruthville School. 

  

 



  

| 

18 

Barbara Hailey, age 26, Negro, female, b. 1964, c¢. None, 

d. Virginia State College, B.S, e. Business Education, 1. 

Collegiate Professional, g. Librarian, Barnetts School. 

Gracie Hollimon, age 21, Negro, female, b. 1962, c. 

None, d. St. Paul’s College, B.S., e. Elementary, Education, 

f. Collegiate Professional, g. 3rd grade, Ruthville School. 

Henry Holliman, age 24, Negro, male, b. 1963, c. None, 

d. St. Paul’s College, B.S., e. Elementary Education, f. Col- 

legiate Professional, g. 7th grade, Barnetts School. 

Katrina Ward, age 24, Negro, female, b. 1964, c. None, 

d. Virginia Union University, A.B., e. Elementary Educa- 

tion, f. Collegiate Professional, g. 7th grade, Barnetts 

School. 

Murial O. Miles, age 21, Negro, female, b. 1962, c. None, 

d. Virginia State College, B.S., e. Home Economics, f. Col- 

legiate Professional, g. Science, Ruthville School. 

Memorandum of The Court Filed May 17, 1966 

The infant plaintiffs, as pupils or prospective pupils in 

the public schools of Charles City County, and their parents 

or guardians have brought this class action asking that the 

defendants be required to adopt and implement a plan which 

will provide for the prompt and efficient racial desegrega- 

tion of the county schools, and that the defendants be en- 

joined from building schools or additions and from pur- 

chasing school sites pending the court’s approval of a plan. 

The plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees and costs. 

The defendants have moved to dismiss on the ground that 

the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted. They have also answered denying the material 

allegations of the bill. 

   



19 

The facts are uncontested. 

Charles City County is a rural county in Eastern Virginia 

on the north side of the James River, east of the City of 

Richmond and Henrico County. Its school system serves 

approximately 1,800 pupils, of which 1,300 are Negro, 300 

are white and 200 are Indians. 

The school board operates one white combined elementary 

and high school, one Negro combined elementary and high 

school, one Indian combined elementary and high school 

and one additional Negro elementary school. 

The Negro elementary schools serve geographical areas. 

The other schools serve the entire county. 

In the 1964-1965 term eight Negro pupils were assigned 

to the white school. All transfer requests were approved. 

On August 6, 1965 the county school board adopted a 

freedom of choice plan to a with Title VI of the 1964 

Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. 3 2000.d- I, et seq. The plan 

  

  

plan was scheduled for the spring of 1966, 

There is no integration of faculty one in the Negro 

and white schools. Both white and Indian teachers serve 

the Indian school. 

Additional classrooms at the Negro school were sched- 

uled for completion in August 1965. 

The case 1s controlled by the principles expressed in 

Wright v. School Bd. of Greensville County, Va., No. 4263 

(E.D. Va, Jan. 27, 1966). An order similar to that entered 

in Greensville will deny an injunction restraining construc- 

tion and grant leave to submit an amendment to the plan 

for employment and assignment of staff on a non-racial 

basis. The motion for counsel fees will be denied. 

/s/ Joux DD. Burzxer, Ju. 

United States District Judge  



  

20 

Order Entered May 17, 1966 

For reasons stated in the Memorandum of the Court this 

day filed and in the Memorandum of the Court in Wright v. 

County School Board of Greensville County, Virginia, 

Civil Action No. 4263 (ED. Va., Jan, 27, 1966), 

It is ADJUDGED and ORDERED: 

1. The defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied; 

2. The plaintiffs’ prayer for an injunction restraining 

school construction and the purchase of school sites is de- 

nied ; 

3. The defendants are granted leave to submit on or be- 

fore June 6, 1966 amendments to their plan which will pro- 

vide for employment and assignment of the staff on a non- 

racial basis. Pending receipt of these amendments, the court 

will defer approval of the plan and consideration of other 

injunctive relief; 

4. The plaintiffs’ motion for counsel fees is denied; 

5. This case will be retained upon the docket with leave 

granted to any party to petition for further relief. 

The plaintiffs shall recover their costs to date. 

Let the Clerk send copies of this order and the Memo- 

randum of the Court to counsel of record. 

/s/ Jorn D, Burzner, Ie. 

United States District Judge 

   



21 

Motion for Leave to File and Request 
for Approval of a Plan Supplement 

The attached supplement to the existing school plan of 

the Charles City County School Board was duly adopted 

by the County School Board of Charles City County on 

May 23, 1966. The said School Board asks leave to file said 

supplement herein and asks approval of the plan heretofore 

filed as now supplemented. 

County ScHOOL BoArDp oF CHARLES City 

CoUNTY, VIRGINIA 

/s/ FREDERICK T. GRAY 

Plan Supplement 

The School Board of Charles City County recognizes its 

responsibility to plan, operate and preserve the best possible 

school system for all children residing in the County, re- 

gardless of the fact that there exists three (3) racial groups; 

white, Negro and Indian. 

The Board recognizes the fact that Charles City County 

has a different problem from most school divisions due to 

the fact that the white citizens are a minority group and the 

Indian citizens also comprise a minority group. Percentage 

wise the population of this county is approximately 78% 

Negro, 179% white, and 5% Indian. Each ethnic group has 

a proud heritage, but they each recognize the rights of the 

others. 

Charles City County also differs from most counties in 

that a Negro man has served efficiently on the County Board 

of Supervisors for a number of years, the Vice-Chairman 

of the School Board is a Negro man, and every important 

committee connected with the County government is de- 

segregated.  



  

22 

The School Board recognizes its responsibility to employ 

teachers and other school personnel without regard to race, 

color or national origin; and to administer a system of pub- 

lic education with an open-minded and unbiased attitude. 

To accomplish this, the Board will consider requests of 

teachers to transfer from one school to another and will 

consider applications of people seeking vacant positions on 

the basis of sound administrative criteria and without re- 

gard to race. 

The Board and Division Superintendent will endeavor 

to further explain this policy to teachers already teaching 

in this county and to the general public. 

To implement and accomplish these above objectives the 

Board has done the following: 

1. Conducted desegregated staff meetings in the Super- 

intendent’s office. 

2. Conducted desegregated committee meetings consist- 

ing of all teachers engaged in particular phases of the pro- 

gram or for evaluating textbooks or a certain phase of the 

work. 

3. General meetings and Workshops for all teachers are 

desegregated and lunch is served to all. 

4. Supervisory personnel work for general improvement 

and not strictly on a racial basis. Members of both races 

engaged in supervision use the Central Office and carry out 

assignments irrespective of race. 

5. Non professional and casual employees are employed 

without regard to race. 

To further implement the above general objectives the 
Board proposes the following: 

   



23 

1. To offer teachers already in the system an opportunity 

to express a preference for assignment, and to conscien- 

tiously evaluate all requests for transfers, considering qual- 

ifications for the position desired when a vacancy exists. 

2. The Superintendent will readily discuss transfers of 

transfer possibilities with teachers, but will not pressure 

a satisfactory teacher in a given situation to make a trans- 

fer merely to eliminate imbalance as this could cause the 

county to lose some good teachers of both races. 

3. The Board agrees that the Superintendent or an ad- 

ministrator designated by him will contact placement ser- 

vices in Colleges of the state, predominantly white and pre- 

dominantly Negro, and notify the placement service of all 

existing vacancies in the county and the salary offered. 

4. The Board does not propose to advertise vacancies in 

papers as this would likely cause people of both races to 

apply who are not qualified to teach. Experience has proven 

this to be true. 

5. The Board agrees to consider each applicant according 

to sound evaluative criteria regardless of his or her race. 

6. The Board recognizes the fact that the faculty of 

each school will likely consist of members of more than one 

race, and will work to gain general public acceptance of 

this policy; but the Board does not consider it to be educa- 

tionally sound to seek to assign teachers on a percentage 

basis as this would rule out the policy of seeking teachers 

according to qualifications. 

7. It is agreed that the Superintendent and administra- 

tive staff will make sufficient effort to prepare teachers for 

teaching in desegregated situations.  



  

24 

8. A plan will be devised to permit teachers teaching in 

a school predominantly of one race to visit and observe in 

a school predominantly of another race. The purpose of 

this is to promote a better understanding of any problems 

which may be more characteristic of one race than the other, 

and to promote a sense of appreciation on the part of one 

teacher for the work being accomplished by another. 

Exceptions to Plan Supplement 

The plaintiffs take exception to the defendants’ Plan 

Supplement adopted May 23, 1966 and filed herein pursuant 

to leave granted in this Court’s order of May 17, 1966 to 

submit amendments which will provide for employment and 

assignment of the staff on a non-racial basis. 

I 

The Supplement does not contain well-defined procedures 

which will be put into effect on definite dates. The Supple- 

ment does not even provide the “token assignments” which 

this Court warned would not suffice. 

i 

In all reality, the Supplement states the defendant school 

board’s refusal to take any initiative to desegregate the 

faculties of the several schools. 

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray that their exceptions be 

sustained and that the defendants be required to forthwith 

eliminate all facets of racial segregation and discrimina- 

tion with respect to administrative personnel, teachers, cleri- 

cal, custodial and other employees, transportation and other 

facilities, and the assignment of pupils to schools and class- 

rooms in the public schools of Charles City County and that 

the defendants be required to establish geographic attend- 

   



25 

ance areas for each public school in said county and assign 

each child to the school so designated to serve his area of 

residence. 

S. W. Tucker 

Of Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Exceptions to Plan Supplement Filed July 8, 1966 

The plaintiffs take exception to the defendants’ Plan Sup- 

plement adopted June 27, 1966 to supersede the supplement 

of May 23, 1966, and say: 

I 

THE PLAN Does Not ProviDE CONSTITUTIONALLY 

AcCEPTABLE MEANS For FAcuLTY DESEGREGATION 

Nothing in the original discussion of Staff Desegregation 

(Plan, Item IX) indicated that any change would be made 

regarding the racially oriented assignments of the teachers 

now employed. The Plan Supplement leaves all such assign- 

ments unaltered. The supplement reveals the initial employ- 

ment of one Negro teacher for the predominantly white 

Charles City School and the defendants’ efforts and lack of 

success in securing white teachers for all of the nine vacan- 

cies in the Negro schools. The effort to recruit white teach- 

ers for these vacancies is inconsistent with the avowal 

(Supplement, par. 1) that “the best person will be sought 

for each position without regard to race” and, furthermore, 

suggests a gross discrimination against Negroes with re- 

spect to presently available employment. The requirement 

of faculty desegregation in this county simply cannot be met 

without changing assignments of teachers presently em- 

ployed.  



  

26 

HY 

THE DEFENDANTS ADOPTION OF FREEDOM OF CHOICE 

Is A ConTINUED DENIAL oF EQUAL PROTECTION 

The mere adoption of freedom of choice (Plan, Item I) 

will not alter the all-Negro character of Ruthville High and 

Elementary School or Barnetts Elementary School. Free- 

dom of choice will not overcome the obvious inequities in- 

herent in racially segregated schools such as the assignment 

of 135 commercial students to one teacher at the all-Negro 

Ruthville School as against the assignment of 45 commercial 

students to one teacher at the predominantly white Charles 

City School or the assignment of 36 commercial students 

to one teacher at Samaria Indian School. Only the defend- 

ants have the means of overcoming the one and one-half to 

one differential in pupil teacher ratios which exist to the 

prejudice of Negro school children. 

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray that their exceptions be 

sustained and that the defendants be required to forthwith 

eliminate all facets of racial segregation and discrimination 

with respect to administrative personnel, teachers, clerical, 

custodial and other employees, transportation and other 

facilities, and the assignment of pupils to schools and class- 

rooms in the public schools of Charles City County and that 

the defendants be required to establish geographic attend- 

ance areas for each public school in said county and assign 

each child to the school so designated to serve his area of 

residence. 

Memorandum of The Court Filed July 15, 1966 

This memorandum supplements the memorandum of the 

court filed May 17, 1966. The court deferred ruling on the 

school board’s plan of desegregation until after the board 

   



27 

had an opportunity to amend the plan to provide for alloca- 

tion of faculty on a non-racial basis. The board filed an 

amendment, which the court considered and declined to 

accept after a hearing on June 10, 1966. 

The board filed a second amendment which the court 

finds acceptable. 
The plan as finally amended is appended to this memo- 

randum. 

The plaintiffs filed exceptions to the plan charging that 

it does not provide constitutionally acceptable means for 

faculty desegregation and insisting that a freedom of choice 

plan is insufficient. The plan and supplement satisfy the 

criteria mentioned in Wright v. School Board of Greens- 

ville County, Va., No. 4263 (E.D. Va., Jan. 27 and May 

13, 1966). 

One of the principal criticisms made by the plaintiffs is 

that faculty desegregation cannot be met without changing 

assignments of teachers presently employed. This problem 

was considered in Wheeler v. Durham City Bd. of Educa- 

tion, No. 10,460 (4th Cir., July 5, 1966). There Judge 

Bryan said: 

“In the absence of the teachers as parties to this pro- 
ceeding, we do not think that the order should require 
any involuntary assignment or reassignment of a 
teacher. Vacant teacher positions in the future, as the 
plaintiffs suggest, should be opened to all applicants, 
and each filled by the best qualified applicant regardless 
of race. Moreover, the order should encourage trans- 
fers at the next session by present members of the 
faculty to schools in which pupils are wholly or pre- 
dominantly of a race other than such teacher’s.” 

The plan complies with the requirements stated by the 

Court of Appeals.  



  

| 

| 

I 

28 

Provision should be made for a registration period in the 

summer or immediately prior to the beginning of the 1966- 

67 term to allow pupils to exercise their choice of school. 

This 1s necessary because the supplement to the plan was 

adopted late in the school year. The summer or fall registra- 

tion should present no administrative difficulties. Many of 

the schools which have adopted a freedom of choice plan 

provide for such registration as a matter of course. 

It may become necessary for the board to modify the plan. 

It may become necessary to revoke in full or in part the 

approval that the court has given the plan. The case will 

remain on the docket for any of the parties to seek relief 

which future circumstances may require. 

/s/ Joan D, Burzwee, J7, 

United States District Judge 

Appendix 

PLAN FOR SCHOOL DESEGREGATION 
CHARLES CITY COUNTY PUBLIC SCIIOOLS 

PROVIDENCE FORGE, VIRGINIA 
Filed May 10, 1966 

1. ANNUAL FrerpoM oF CHOICE oF SCHOOLS 

A. The School Board of Charles City County has adopted 

a policy of complete freedom of choice to be offered annually 

in all grades of all schools without regard to race, color, 

or national origin. 

B. The choice is granted to parents, guardians and per- 

sons acting as parents (hereafter called “parents” ) and their 

children. Teachers, principals and other school personnel 

   



29 

are not permitted to advise, recommend or otherwise influ- 

ence choices. They are not permitted to favor or penalize 

children because of choices. 

11. Purirs ExTERING First GRADE 

Registration for the first grade will take place, after 

conspicuous publication twice in Richmond papers, between 

April. 7, 1966 and May 31, 1966 from 9:00 A.M. t0 2:00 

P.M. When registering, the parent will complete a Choice 

of School Form for the child. The child may be registered at 

any elementary school in this system, and the choice made 

may be for that school or for any other elementary school 

in the system. The provisions of Section VI of this plan with 

respect to overcrowding shall apply in the assignment to 

schools of children entering first grade. 

111. Purirs ENTERING OTHER GRADES 

A. Each parent will be sent a letter annually explaining 

the provisions of the plan, together with a Choice of School 

Form and a self-addressed return envelope, at least 15 days 

before the date when the form must be returned. Choice 

forms and copies of the letter to parents will also be readily 

available to parents or students and the general public in 

the school offices during regular business hours. Section VI 

applies. 

B. The choice of school form must be either mailed or 

brought to any school or to the Superintendent’s office by 

May 31st of each year. Pupils entering grade one (1) of 

the elementary school or grade eight (8) of the high school 

must express a choice as a condition for enrollment. Any 

pupil in orades other than grades 1 and 8 for whom a choice 

of school is not obtained will be assigned to the school he 

is now attending.  



  

30 

1V. Puriis Newry ENTERING ScrROOL SYSTEM OR 

CHANGING RESIDENCE WITHIN IT 

A. Parents of children moving into the area served by 

this school system, or changing their residence within it, 

after the registration period is completed but before the 

opening of the school year, will have the same opportunity. 

to choose their children’s school just before school opens 

during the week beginning August 30th, by completing a 

Choice of School Form. The child may be registered at 

any school in the system containing the grade he will enter, 

and the choice made may be for that school or for any other 

such school in the system. However, first preference in 

choice of schools will be given to those whose Choice of 

School Form is returned by the final date for making choice 

in the regular registration period. Otherwise, Section V1 

applies. 

B. Children moving into the area served by this school 

system, or changing their residence within it, after the late 

registration period referred to above but before the next 

regular registration period, shall be provided with the Choice 

of School Form. This has been done in the past. 

V. RESIDENT AND NON-RESIDENT ATTENDANCE 

This system will not accept non-resident students, nor will 

it make arrangements for resident students to attend schools 

in other school systems where either action would tend to 

preserve segregation or minimize desegregation. Any ar- 

rangement made for non-resident students to attend public 

schools in this system, or for resident students to attend 

public schools in another system, will assure that such stu- 

dents will be assigned without regard to race, color, or na- 

tional origin, and such arrangement will be explained fully 

in an attachment made a part of this plan. 

   



31 

V1. OVERCROWDING 

A. No choice will be denied for any reason other than 

overcrowding. Where a school would become overcrowded 

if all choices for that school were granted, pupils choosing 

that school will be assigned so that they may attend the 

school of their choice nearest to their homes. No preference 

will be given for prior attendance at the school. 

B. The Board does not anticipate overcrowding. All 

requests have been granted during the past three years. 

(The Board will make provisions to take care of all requests 

for transfers.) 

VII. TRANSPORTATION 

Transportation will be provided on an equal basis with- 

out segregation or other discrimination because of race, 

color, or national origin. The right to attend any school in 

the system will not be restricted by transportation policies 

or practices. To the maximum extent feasible, busses will be 

routed so as to serve each pupil choosing any school in the 

system. In any event, every student eligible for bussing shall 

be transported to the school of his choice if he chooses either 

formerly white, Negro or Indian schools. 

VIII. Services, FACILITIES, ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS 

There shall be no discrimination based on race, color, or 

national origin with respect to any services, facilities, activi- 

ties and programs sponsored by or affiliated with the schools 

of this school system. 

IX. STAFF DESEGREGATION 

A. Teacher and staff desegregation is a necessary part of 

school desegregation. Steps shall be taken beginning with 

school year 1965-66 toward elimination of segregation of  



    

32 

teaching and staff personnel based on race, color, or national 

origin, including joint faculty meetings, in-service pro- 

grams, workshops, other professional meetings and other 

steps as set forth in Attachment C. 

B. The race, color, or national origin of pupils will not 

be a factor in the initial assignment to a particular school or 

within a school of teachers, administrators, or other em- 

ployees who serve pupils, beginning in 1966-67. 

C. This school system will not demote or refuse to re- 

employ principals, teachers and other staff members who 

serve pupils, on the basis of race, color, or national origin; 

this includes any demotion or failure to re-employ staff 

members because of actual or expected loss of enrollment 

in a school. 

D. Attachment D hereto consists of a tabular statement, 

broken down by race, showing: 1) the number of faculty 

and staff members employed by this system in 1964-65; 2) 

comparable data for 1965-66; 3) the number of such per- 

sonnel demoted, discharged or not reemployed for 1965-66; 

4) the number of such personnel newly employed for 1965- 

66. Attachment D further consists of a certification that in 

each case of demotion, discharge or failure to re-employ, 

such action was taken wholly without regard to race, color, 

or national origin. 

X. Pusricity AND COMMUNITY PREPARATION 

Immediately upon the acceptance of this plan by the U. S. 

Commissioner of Education, and once a month before final 

date of making choices in 1966, copies of this plan will be 

made available to all interested citizens and will be given 

to all television and radio stations and all newspapers serv- 

ing this area. They will be asked to give conspicuous pub- 

 



33 

licity to the plan. If the plan does not receive prominent 

news coverage in the Richmond papers, an advertisement 

of not less than one-half page will be conspicuously placed 

in all newspapers serving this area. The advertisement or 

other newspaper coverage will set forth the text of the plan, 

the letter to parents and the Choice of School Form. Similar 

prominent notice of the choice provision will be arranged 

for at least once a month thereafter until the final date for 

making choice. In addition, meetings and conferences will 

be called to inform all school system staff members of, and 

to prepare them for, the school desegregation process, in- 

cluding staff desegregation. Similar meetings will be held 

to inform Parent-Teacher Associations and other local 

community organizations of the details of the plan, to pre- 

pare them for the changes that will take place. 

Xl. CrrTIFICATION 

This plan of desegregation was duly adopted by the 

Charles City County School Board at a meeting duly called 

and held on August 6, 1965. 

Signed: Byrp W. LoNg, 

Superintendent 

Supplement to Plan for School Desegregation 
Presented by The County School Board of Charles City County 

Adopted June 27, 1966 Filed June 30, 1966 

The School Board of Charles City County recognizes its 

responsibility to employ, assign, promote and discharge 

teachers and other professional personnel of the school sys- 

tems without regard to race, color or national origin. We 

further recognize our obligation to take all reasonable steps 

to eliminate existing racial segregation of faculty that has  



  

34 

resulted from the past operation of a dual system based 
upon race or color, 

In the recruitment, selection and assignment of staff, the 

chief obligation is to provide the best possible education for 

all children. The pattern of assignment of teachers and 

other staff members among the various schools of this system 

will not be such that only white teachers are sought for 

predominantly white schools and only Negro teachers are 

sought for predominantly Negro schools. 

The following procedures will be followed to carry out 

the above stated policy : 

1. The best person will be sought for each position with- 

out regard to race, and the Board will follow the policy of 

assigning new personnel in a manner that will work towards 

the desegregation of faculties. 

2. Institutions, agencies, organizations, and individuals 

that refer teacher applicants to the school system will be 

informed of the above stated policy for faculty desegrega- 

tion and will be asked to so inform persons seeking referrals. 

3. The School Board will take affirmative steps includ- 

ing personal conferences with members of the present fac- 

ulty to allow and encourage teachers presently employed to 

accept transfers to schools in which the majority of the 

faculty members are of a race different from that of the 

teacher to be transferred. 

4. No new teacher will be hereafter employed who is not 

willing to accept assignment to a desegregated faculty or in 

a desegregated school. 

5. All Workshops and in-service training programs are 

now and will continue to be conducted on a completely de- 

segregated basis. 

   



35 

6. All members of the supervisory staff have been and 

will continue to be assigned to cover schools, grades, teachers 

and pupils without regard to race, color or national origin. 

7. It is recognized that it is more desirous where possible, 

to have more than one teacher of the minority race (white 

or Negro) on a desegregated faculty. 

8. All staff meetings and committee meetings that are 

called to plan, choose materials, and to improve the total 

education] process of the division are now and will continue 

to be conducted on a completely desegregated basis. 

9. All custodial help, cafeteria workers, maintenance 

workers, bus mechanics and the like will continue to be em- 

ployed without regard to race, color or national origin. 

10. Arrangements will be made for teachers of one race 

to visit and observe a classroom consisting of a teacher and 
pupils of another race to promote acquaintance and under- 

standing. 

11. The School Board and superintendent will exercise 

their best efforts, individually and collectively, to explain 

this program to school patrons and other citizens of Charles 

City County and to solicit their support of it. 

As of this date the following has been accomplished inso- 

far as employment is concerned: 

1. Employed one Negro teacher to teach in formerly all 

white Charles City School. 

2. Ernest but thus far unsuccessful effort has been made 

and is continuing to secure white teachers for every exist- 

ing vacancy in Negro schools of Charles City County. (9 

vacancies)  



    

36 

Order Entered July 15, 1966 

For reasons stated in the memorandum of the court this 

day filed and in Wright v. School Board of Greensville 

County, Va., No. 4263 (E.D. Va. Jan 27 and May 13, 1966, 

it is ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the plan adopted 

by the Charles City County School Board is approved. 

This case will be retained on the docket with leave granted 

to any party to seek further relief. 

Let the Clerk send copies of this order and of the memo- 

randum of the court to counsel of record. 

/s/ JoHN D. BUTZNER, JR. 

United States District Judge 

Notice of Appeal Filed July 28, 1966 

Notice is hereby given that Shirlette L.. Bowman, Rhoda 

M. Bowman, Mildred A. Bowman, Richard M. Bowman 

and Sandra L.. Bowman, infants, by Richard M. Bowman, 

their father and next friend and all others of the plaintiffs, 

hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Fourth Circuit from the order of this Court entered 

on July 15, 1966 by which the plan adopted by the defendants 

was approved. 

 



37 

APPENDIX B 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE BASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND DIVISION 

PECOLA ANNEATE WRIGHT, sr AL 

Plaintiffs 

Vv. 

CouNTY ScHO00L B0oARD OF GREENSVILLE 

CouNTY, VIRGINIA, ET AL 

Defendants 

  

CiviL ACTION 

No. 4263 
  

Memorandum of The Court 

The infant plaintiffs, as pupils or prospective pupils in 

the public schools of Greensville County, and their parents 

or guardians have brought this class action asking that the 

defendants be required to adopt and implement a plan which 

will provide for the prompt and efficient racial desegrega- 

tion of the county schools, and that the defendants be 

enjoined from building schools or additions and from pur- 

chasing school sites pending the court’s approval of a plan. 

The plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees and costs. 

The defendants have moved to dismiss on the ground 

that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief  



    

38 

can be granted. They have also answered denying the ma- 
~ terial allegations of the bill. 

Greensville County is a rural county located on the North 

Carolina line. Approximately 4,500 pupils attend county 

schools, about 2,700 are Negro and 1,800 are white. Its 

school board operates one white and four Negro elementary 

schools, and separate Negro and white high schools. Both 

white schools are located in Emporia, a town near the 

center of the county. Homes of Negro and white persons 

are scattered throughout the county. 

Prior to September 1965, the county operated segregated 

schools based on a system of dual attefidance areas. The 

white schools in Emporia served all white pupils in the 

county. The four Negro elementary schools were geo- 

graphically zoned, and the Negro high school served all 

Negro pupils in the county. 

Until April 1965 the county operated under the Virginia 

Public Placement Act, §8 22 -232.1, ¢t seq., Code of -Vir- 

ginia, 1950, as amended. During that time only one Negro 

applied for admission to a white school, and she withdrew 

her application. a. 
In April 1964 Negro citizens petitioned the school board 

to adopt a plan to desegregate the schools. The board did 

not comply with their i and this suit was filed on 

March 153, 1965. 

On April 21, 1965 the school board adopted a plan to 

comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 

U.S.C. § 2000.d-1, ef seq. This plan has been amended 

several times. It was approved by the United States Com- 

missioner of Education on January 12, 1966 after the hear- 

ing in this case. 

In September 1965, 72 Negro pupils were transferred, 

upon their applications, to white schools—35 to Emporia 

 



39 

Elementary School and 37 to the high school. One or more 

Negro pupils are in every grade from the first through the 

tenth. 

There are no white teachers in the Negro schools and no 

Negro teachers in the white schools. The board has held 

integrated faculty meetings. Last summer an integrated 

faculty conducted a “Head Start” program in a Negro 

school, which was attended by 97 Negro children. 

The Greensville County plan provides: 

“The Greensville County School Board has adopted a 

policy of complete freedom of choice to be offered annually 

in all grades of all schools without regard to race, color or 

national origin. ; 

SeEcTION I. ASSIGNMENT OF PUPILS 

“A form letter will be sent home by every child contain- 

ing provisions of the freedom of choice plan with a place- 

ment form at least 15 days before the date when the form 

must be returned. This procedure will be followed annually. 

A. PRE-REGISTRATION OF FIRST GRADE 
PUPILS FOR FALL OF 1966 

“Pre-registration of pupils planning to enroll in first 

grade for the fall 1966 semester will take place in all of the 

elementary schools on Friday, May 13. Under policies 

adopted by the Greensville County School Board parents 

or guardians may go directly to the school of their choice 

wherein they wish tq send their child to school next year. 

At the time of pre-registration a choice may be expressed 

by filling in a Greensville County pupil placement form. 

The assignment will be made without regard to race, color, 

creed, or national origin. In the event of overcrowding pref-  



  

  

40 

erence will be given without regard to race to those 

choosing the school who reside closest to it. No choice sub- 

mitted prior to the deadline will be rejected for any reason 

other than overcrowding of facilities. 

“Pupils who fail to register on May 13 may be registered 

at the school of their choice on August 26th immediately 

prior to the opening of schools for the 1966 fall semester, 

but first preference in choice of schools will be given to those 

who pre-register in the spring period. 

B. PUPILS ENTERING OTHER GRADES 

Each parent will be sent annually a letter, the text of 

which 1s attached, explaining the provisions of the plan, 

together with a choice of school form, the text of which 

is also attached, at least 15 days before the date when the 

choice form must be returned. Choice forms and letters to 

parents will also be readily available to parents or students 

in the school offices during regular business hours. 

“The choice of school form must either be mailed or 

brought to the school or to the Superintendent’s office within 

15 days from the date the forms were initially sent home by 

that school. The annual date for sending these forms home 

shall be May 1st or the closest school day thereto. Anyone 

not registering his choice by that date must file his choice 

of school form at the time of registration when school 

opens. Pupils and their parents or guardians are required 

to exercise their choice of schools and no pupil will be 

admitted or readmitted to any school until such a choice 

has been made as herein specified. 

“This choice is granted to parents, guardians and their 

children. Teachers, principals, and other school personnel 

are not permitted to advise, recommend or otherwise in- 

fluence choices. They are not permitted to favor or penalize 

children because of choices. 

   



41 

C. OVERCROWDING 

All choices of pupils, their parents or guardians for every 

grade in the Greensville County School System will be sub- 

ject to the following qualification: 

“In the event overcrowding of a school would result if 

all choices to attend that school were granted, priority shall 

be given without regard to race, color or national origin, 

and with no preference for previous attendance at the school, 

to those children choosing the school who reside closest to 

it. In the case of elementary schools those whose choices to 

attend a school are denied on this basis will be notified and 

permitted to make a choice of another formerly all white or 

all Negro school. In the case of high schools those whose 

choices to attend a school are denied on this basis will be 

assigned to the other school in the system at which the grade 

is taught. Otherwise; all choices will be granted; none will 

be denied for any reason other than overcrowding. The 

standards prescribed by the Virginia Department of Public 

Instruction as to overcrowding shall be used in determing 

[sic] whether overcrowding exists with respect to any 

application which is denied. 

“p. Any newly enrolled pupil who moves into the county 

may secure placement forms from the principal of the 

school of their choice necessary to complete registration and 

enrollment. The same detailed instructions mentioned above 

regarding their right of free choice of schools will be fur- 

nished to them at this time. 

“E. This system will not accept non-resident students, nor 

will it make arrangements for resident students to attend 

schools in other school systems, where either such action 

would tend to preserve segregation or minimize desegrega- 

tion. Any arrangement made for non-resident students to  



  

  

  

42 

attend schools of this system, or for resident students to 

attend schools in another system, will assure that such stu- 

dents will be assigned without regard to race, color or na- 

tional origin, and such arrangement will be fully explained 

in attachment made a part of this plan, 

Section 11. Bus. Roures 

Transportation will be provided on an equal basis without 

segregation or other discrimination because of race, color 

or national origin. The right to attend any school in the 

system will not be denied because of lack of school system 

transportation from the pupil’s home to the school chosen 

and the pupil or his family may have to provide their trans- 

portation if the school system is not required to provide it 

under the next sentence of this paragraph. To the maximum 

extent feasible, buses will be routed so as to serve each 

pupil choosing any school in the system. In any event, every 

student eligible for bussing shall be transported to the school 

to which he is assigned as a provision of this plan if his first 

choice is either the formerly white or the formerly Negro 

school nearest his residence. 

SECTION 111. EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES, 

FACILITIES AND SERVICES 

There shall be no discrimination based on race, color, or 

national origin, with respect to any services, facilities, 

activities and programs sponsored by or affiliated with the 

schools of this system. 

SECTION IV. STAFF DESEGREGATION 

A. The Greensville County School Board will assign all 

teachers on the basis of objective criteria such as certifica- 

tion, overall preparation and qualification for the position 

 



43 

desired. In the case of each teacher employed by the school 

system in the 1964-65 school year who is not now employed, 

the race, color or national origin of such teacher was not a 

factor in the decision not to continue his or her employment. 

Steps shall be taken starting with the 1965-66 school year 

for the desegregation of faculty, at least including such ac- 

tions as joint faculty meetings and joint in-service programs. 

Commencing immediately the following steps will be taken 

toward the elimination of segregation of teaching and staff 

personnel : 

“1. The pre-school in-service county-wide teachers meet- 

ings will be held on a completely integrated basis. 

2. All countywide staff meetings will be completely 

integrated. 

3. All inservice classes will be open to all teachers re- 

gardless of race, color or national origin. 

“B. This school system will not demote or refuse to re- 

employ principals, teachers, and other staff members who 

serve pupils on the basis of race, color or national origin. 

Any reduction in staff which may be required as a result 

of a decrease in enrollment will be accomplished without 

regard to race, color or national origin.” 

The school board has prefaced its plan by stating it has 

adopted a policy of complete freedom of choice for assign- 

ments. 

Freedom of choice is a term frequently used when speak- 

ing of school desegregation. It has several meanings which 

should not be confused. It may refer to enrollment of pupils 

in segregated schools with the aid of state tuition grants in 

preference to attendance at public desegregated schools. 

See Griffin v. School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 222 (1964);  



| 

  

  

  

44 

Dure, Individual Freedom versus “State Action,” 38 Va. 

Q. Rev. 400 (1962) ; Dillard, Freedom of Choice and Demo- 

cratic Values, 38 Va. Q. Rev. 410 (1962). 
In its plan the county uses the phrase, “freedom of 

choice,” in an entirely different context. It employs the 

term to describe its method of assigning pupils to the public 

schools. The phrase probably was adopted from, “A Gen- 

eral Statement of Polices under Title VI of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 Respecting Desegregation of Elementary and 

Secondary Schools,” published by the Department of Health, 

Education and Welfare. 

The term freedom of choice has been used to describe 

various methods of assigning pupils. One method initially 

assigns pupils on a racial basis and allows freedom of choice 

to transfer from the initial assignment. This system of as- 

signment is not sanctioned in this Circuit. In Bradley v. 

School Board of the City of Richmond, Va., 345 F.2d 310, 

319 (4th Cir. 1965) vacated and remanded on other grounds, 

34 U.S.1.. Week 3170 (U.S. Nov. 13, 1965), Judge Hayns- 
worth said: 

“In this circuit, we do require the elimination of dis- 
crimination from initial assignments as a condition of 
approval of a free transfer plan.” 

Ci. Bowditch v. Buncombe County Bd. of Educ., 345 F.2d 

329 (4th Cir. 1965); Nesbitt v. Statesville City Bd. of 

Educ., 345 F.2d 333 (4th Cir. 1965); Buckner v. County 

School Bd. of Green County, Va., 332 ¥.2d 452 (4th Cir. 

1964). 
Freedom of choice also has been used to refer to a non- 

restrictive assignment system. Judge Haynsworth described 

this method of assignment in Bradley v. School Bd. of the 

City of Richmond, Va., 345 F.2d 310, 314 (4th Cir. 1965), 

 



45 

vacated and remanded on other grounds, 34 U.S.L. Week 

3170 (U.S. Nov. 15, 1963); 

“[E]very pupil initially entering the Richmond school 
system, or his parents for him, is required to state his 
choice as to the school he wishes to attend. He is as- 
signed to the school of his choice. Every pupil promoted 
from any elementary school in Richmond, or his parents 
for him, is required to make a similar choice, and he is 
assigned to the school of his choice as are those pro- 
moted from junior high school to senior high school. 
Every other pupil is assigned to the school he previously 
attended, but he may apply for a transfer to any 
other school, and, since transfer requests are routinely 
granted without hearings or consideration of any 
limited criteria, he is assigned to the school of his 
choice,’’ 

The Richmond plan was approved tentatively in Bradley. 

The pupil assignment features of the Greensville County 

plan are similar in material respects to those found in the 

Richmond plan. Greensville County requires a mandatory 

choice to be made annually by both white and Negro pupils. 

In this respect it satisfies a more strict interpretation of 

the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment than that 

which was applied to the Richmond plan. In Bell v. School 

Board of the City of Staunton, Ia., No. 65-C-H (W.D.Va,, 

Jan. 5, 1966), Judge Michie disapproved a plan which did 

not contain a provision for annual mandatory choice in all 

grades. 

The principal attack leveled by the plaintiffs against the 

plan is its failure to assign pupils on a geographical basis. 

They contend that a freedom of choice plan does not satisfy 

the school board’s obligation to eliminate racial segregation 

from the school system. 

In this circuit both freedom of choice plans and geograph-  



  

  

  

  

46 

ical zoning plans have been found constitutional. Bradley v. 

School Board of the City of Richmond, Va., 345 F.2d 310 
(4th Cir. 1965) vacated and remanded on other grounds, 

34 U.S.L. Week 3170 (U.S. Nov. 15, 1965) (freedom of 
choice plan); Gilliam v. School Board of City of Hopewell, 

Va., 345 F.2d 325 (4th Cir. 1965) vacated and remanded 
on other grounds, 34 U.S.L. Week 3170 (U.S. Nov. 15, 
1965) (geographical zoning plan). 

The school authorities have the primary responsibility for 

initiating plans to achieve a lawful school system. Brown 

v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299 (1955). This 

circuit has recognized that local authorities should be 

accorded considerable discretion in charting a route to a 

constitutionally adequate school system. Freedom of choice 

plans are not in themselves invalid. They may, however, 

be invalid because the “freedom of choice” is illusory. The 

plan must be tested not only by its provisions, but by the 

manner in which it operates to provide opportunities for a 

desegregated education. In this respect operation under the 

plan may show that the transportation policy or the capacity 

of the schools severely limits freedom of choice, although 

provisions concerning these phases are valid on their face. 

This plan, just as the Richmond plan approved in Bradley, 

is subject to review and modification in the light of its 

operation. Mr. Justice Stewart in Abington School Dist. v. 

Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 317 (1963) (dissenting opinion) 

said: 

“A segregated school system is not invalid because its 
operation is coercive; it is invalid simply because our 
Constitution presupposes that men are created equal, 
and that therefore racial differences cannot provide a 
valid basis for governmental action.” 

 



47 

The Court recognizes that great weight should be given 

the approval of the plan by the United States Commissioner 

of Education. Singleton v. Jackson Municipal School Dist., 

348 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1965). The plan also must be tested 
by pertinent court decisions. Some of these have been pub- 

lished since the plan was adopted. In general, the plan con- 

tains adequate provisions for transition of the Greensville 

County school system. 

The plan, however, is defective in one respect. Its pro- 

visions for staff desegregation are too limited. A satisfactory 

freedom of choice plan must include provisions for the em- 

ployment and assignment of staff on a non-racial basis. 

Bradley v. School Board of the City of Richmond, Va., 34 

11.5.1. Week 3170 (U.S. Nov. 15, 1965) ; Rogers v. Poul, 

34 U.S.1.. Week 3200 (U.S, Dec, 6, 1965) ; Kier v..County 

School Bd. of Augusta County, Va., No. 65-C-5-H (W.D. 

Ya. Jan. 5,.19606). 

The primary responsibility for the selection of means to 

achieve employment and assignment of staff on a non-racial 

basis rests with the school board. Witnesses for the plain- 

tiffs and the defendants were in general agreement about the 

steps that must be taken to satisfactorily resolve this prob- 

lem. They were not in agreement on the time table for taking 

these steps. The time may vary from community to com- 

munity. The court is of the opinion that in the first instance 

the board should have the opportunity to appraise realisti- 

cally the time and methods required. Several principles must 

be observed by the board. Token assignments will not suf- 

fice. The elimination of a racial basis for the employment 

and assignment of staff must be achieved at the earliest 

practicable date. The plan must contain well defined pro- 

cedures which will be put into effect on definite dates. The 

board will be allowed ninety days to submit amendments  



  

  

  

48 

to its plan dealing with staff employment and assignment 

practices. 

The plaintiffs request that the defendants be restrained 

from proceeding with the construction of new school build- 

ings and additions or purchasing new school sites until an 

adequate plan has been adopted. In their pre-trial brief, 

filed November 17, 1965, the plaintiffs urge that the court 

should require the school board to eliminate the segregated 

character of the school system by locating new schools in 

the system so as to promote integration. Little evidence was 

introduced concerning new construction. Apparently the 

school board plans to add additional classrooms to both high 

schools. It also plans to construct a Negro elementary school 

with fifteen classrooms to serve grades one through seven 

with a capacity for approximately 450 pupils. This con- 

struction 1s designed to rid a Negro school, known as the 

Greensville County Training School, of its outdated frame 

buildings. 

This court is loathe to enjoin the construction of any 

schools. Virginia, in common with many other states, needs 

school facilities. New construction, however, cannot be used 

to perpetuate segregation. White pupils in the county have 

not transferred to Negro schools. Greensville County’s re- 

cent experience shows that Negro pupils seek transfers to 

white schools. This could cause overcrowding of white 

schools coupled with vacancies in Negro schools. Denial of 

requests for transfers to white schools under these circum- 

stances could require a geographical zoning plan or some 

other equitable means of assignment. The problem is rec- 

ognized in Wheeler v. Durham City Bd. of Educ., 346 F.2d 

768 774 (4th Cir. 1965), where Judge Boreman said: 

“[4] From remarks of the trial judge appearing in the 
record, we think he was fully aware of the possibility 
that school construction program might be so directed 

   



49 

as to perpetuate segregation. At the same time, he was 
reluctant to enter an order determining the location 
and size of new school facilities or what existing facili- 
ties should be enlarged. He clearly indicated his cogni- 
zance of the multitude of factors involved, such as the 
availability and cost of sites, the concentration of popu- 
lation, the present overcrowed conditions, etc. How- 
ever, he was not unmindful of the responsibility of the 
Board in this area and he made known his conclusion 
that the burden would be on the Board to reasonably 
justify its actions and to demonstrate its good faith. 
Without specific or binding direction, the court ex- 
pressed the hope that there would be some consultation 
between the parties to the litigation concerning the ex- 
pansion program. The order last entered stated that 
the court had the assurance of the Board that its con- 
struction program would not be designed to perpetuate, 
maintain, or support desegregation. It has been held 
that a school construction program is an appropriate 
matter for court consideration. Conceivably the de- 
termination of the extent to which a busy court might 
or should undertake to formulate, direct, supervise, or 
police such a program would pose many problems. In 
view of the numerous factors involved in determining 
what, how, where and when new facilities are to be 
constructed or what old facilities may best be enlarged 
and renovated to meet pressing needs, the court’s 
reluctance to issue a specific injunction is understand- 
able, particularly since the Board was still subject to 
the provisions of the order of January 2, 1963, by 
which any and all acts that regulate or affect the 
assignment of pupils on the basis of race or color were 

enjoined.” 

The primary responsibility concerning the selection of 

school sites and the construction of schools is the board’s. 

This responsibility includes the obligation of not thwarting 

the county’s freedom of choice plan by new construction.  



  

  

  
| 
i 
| 

| 

| 

  

50 

The court concludes that new construction should not be 

enjoined. The evidence does not show that the plaintiffs 

will suffer irreparable harm. A new school building in itself 

cannot defeat the plaintiffs’ choice of a desegregated educa- 

tion. The use, however, to which new facilities are put by 

the school board could cause a freedom of choice plan to 

become invalid. Then it will be necessary to modify the plan. 

The plaintiffs’ motion for the allowance of counsel fees 

will be denied. At the time the suit was filed no Negro 

pupils were being denied transfers to white schools. The case 

primarily involves a plan of desegregation. The situation is 

similar to that found in Bradley v. School Board of the City 

of Richmond, Va., 345 F.2d 310, 321 (4th Cir. 1965) va- 

cated and remanded on other grounds, 34 U.S.L.. Week 

3170 (U.S. Nov. 15. 1965), where counsel fees were not 

allowed for that part of the litigation pertaining to consid- 

eration of a plan. 

The court concludes that defendent’s motion to dismiss 

the complaint for failure to state a claim should be over- 

ruled. Cf. Rogers v. Paul, 34 U.S.L. Week 3200 (U.S. Dec. 

6, 1965). 
/S/ JoHN D. BUTZNER, Jr. 

United State District Judge 

January 27, 1966 

 



51 

INTHE. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND DIVISION 

PecoLA ANNETTE WRIGHT, ET AL, 

Plamitiffs 

V. 

CouNTY ScHOOL BOARD OF GREENSVILLE 

CoUNTY, VIRGINIA, ET AL, 

Defendants 

  

CiviL ACTION 

No. 4263 
  

Memorandum of The Court 

On May 4, 1966 the court considered a supplement to the 

plan for the desegregation of the Greensville County schools. 

The original plan is set forth in Wright v. School Bd. of 

Greensville County, Va., No. 4263 (E.D. Va., Jan. 27, 

1966). 
It is the plaintiffs’ position that the proper way to achieve 

desegregation of the schools is by geographical zones. The 

school board’s plan provides for the assignment of pupils 

by the freedom of choice method. The supplement pertains 

to assignment of staff. 
Reference is made to the January 27, 1966 memorandum 

for the principles which control this case. The court observed  



  

  

  
  

52 

that the freedom of choice plan generally contained adequate 

provisions for transition of the Greensville County School 

system. The court held, however, the provisions for staff 

desegregation were too limited. It granted the school board 

ninety days to file an amendment to the plan providing for 

the employment and assignment of the staff on a non-racial 

basis. 

The board has submitted this supplement to its plan: 

A REVISED PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTING COMPLIANCE WITH 

PUBLIC LAW 88-352 By THE GREENSVILLE COUNTY 

ScHo0L BOARD FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTE- 

NANCE OF THE PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND HIGH 

SCHOOLS IN GREENSVILLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA 

Adopted April 20, 1966 

FACULTY SUPPLEMENT 

Add in Section IV five sub-sections as follows: 

C. When vacancies occur in the future in teaching 
positions in the schools operated by this board, they 
will be offered without regard to race, color or national 
origin, and to the end that such may be effectuated, 
whenever such vacancies occur, notice of the vacancies 
and of the opportunity for employment therefor shall 
be advertised generally and notice thereof shall be 
posted publicly and prominently in all of the schools so 
operated. 

D. In the recruitment and employment of teachers 
and other professional personnel, all applicants and 
other prospective employees will be informed that the 
Greensville County School Board operates a racially 
integrated school system and that the teachers and other 
professional personnel in the System are subject to as- 
signment in the best interest of the System and without 
regard to their race or color. 

 



33 

E. Earnest effort will be immediately exerted to 
effectuate arrangements for the placing of at least one 
Negro on the faculty of every formerly white school, 
and at least one white person on the faculty of every 
formerly colored school by the beginning of the next 
school session, which will begin in September 1966. 

F. For the Negro faculty members who are selected 
to enter the formerly white schools and for the white 
faculty members selected to enter the formerly Negro 
schools, as aforesaid, an in-service training program 
will be conducted beginning prior to September 1966 
with the purpose of enabling them to meet the challenges 
and problems of transition and so that they may be 
better enabled to contribute to the progress of public 
education in their new positions. 

G. In the future, generally and so long as need there- 
for appears to exist, an in-service training program will 
be offered to all teachers of all races in order to en- 
hance their ability to adjust to new challenges brought 
about by desegregation, and in order to promote the 
educational progress and general welfare of all students 
of all races, 

The court conducted a hearing, at which the supplement 

to the plan and exceptions filed by the plaintiffs were con- 

sidered. The court concludes that the Greensville County 

freedom of choice plan, as supplemented by the provisions 

adopted April 20, 1966, cannot be approved. 

In the memorandum filed January 27, 1966 the court said 

in part: 

‘kkk A satisfactory freedom of choice plan must 
include provisions for the employment and assignment 
of staff on a non-racial basis. [citing cases] 

“The primary responsibility for the selection of 
means to achieve employment and assignment of staff 
on a non-racial basis rests with the school board. Wit- 
nesses for the plaintiffs and the defendants were in  



  

    

4 

w
n
 

general agreement about the steps that must be taken 
to satisfactorily resolve this problem. They were not 
in agreement on the time table for taking these steps. 
The time may vary from community to comunity. The 
court 1s of the opinion that in the first instance the 
board should have the opportunity to appraise realis- 
tically the time and methods required. Several principles 
must be observed by the board. Token assignments will 
not suffice. The elimination of a racial basis for the 
employment and assignment of staff must be achieved 
at the earliest practicable date. The plan must contain 
well-defined procedures which will be put into effect on 
definite dates.” 

The proposal submitted by the school board does not fol- 

low the standards mentioned above. The plan has no well- 

defined procedures which will be put in effect on definite 

dates. It contains no assurance that the present pattern of 

allocation of staff on a racial basis will ever be changed. 

Its basic deficiency is the transfer of responsibility from the 

school board to individual teachers. It thrusts upon the 

teachers the onus of discharging the school board’s responsi- 

bility to allocate the faculty on a non-racial basis. 

This court recognizes that freedom of choice plans are 

under serious attack. Such plans, however, have been ap- 

proved. E.g. Bradley v. School Board of the City of Rich- 

mond, Va., 345 F.2d 310 (4th Cir.) vacated and remanded 

on other grounds 382 U.S. 103 (1965). This court does not 

intend to compromise or discredit the acceptability of free- 

dom of choice as a method of assigning pupils in Virginia by 

approving Greensville’s plan. 

The court recognizes that plans for employment and as- 

signment of staff necessarily vary from district to district. 

A number of districts with diverse circumstances have sub- 

mitted plans for the assignment of pupils and staff which 

have been approved on the joint motion of the parties. 

   



55 

Among these are plans adopted by school boards in Rich- 

mond, Hanover, Hopewell and Goochland. The most recent 

of these is Goochland. The plan which it originally submitted 

is set forth in Turner v. School Bd. of Goochland County, 

Va, No. 4343 (E.D. Va., Jan, 27, 1966). In that case, as 

in Greensville, the court declined to approve the plan be- 

cause of the limited nature of the provisions for the employ- 

ment and assignment of staff. On May 4, 1966 the school 

board of Goochland County submitted a supplement which 

the court approved. The provision for the desegregation of 

the staff of the Goochland County schools is appended to this 

memorandum. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the Greens- 

ville County School Board requested ten days time to amend 

the plan if the court disapproved it. This request will be 

granted. 

/s/ Jorn D, Burzner, Ja. 

United State District Judge 

APPENDIX 

PLAN oF THE CouNTY ScHOOL BOARD OF GOOCHLAND 

CoUNTY, VIRGINIA, TO DESEGREGATE 

Its Scaoor FACULTIES 

In order to meet the requirements of the opinion of the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Virginia filed on January 27, 1966, the County School Board 

of Goochland County, Virginia, hereby adopts this plan for 

the desegregation of its school faculties. 

It shall henceforth be the policy of this School Board to 

take positive and affirmative steps to accomplish the desegre- 

gation of its school faculties and it will achieve desegrega- 

tion of faculties in as many of the schools as possible for  



  

56 

the 1966-67 school year in order that desegregation of facul- 

ties in all schools will be accomplished no later than the 

1967-68 school year. The School Board adopts as its goal 

that the pattern of assignment of teachers and other profes- 

sional staff among the various schools in its system may not 

be such that schools are identifiable as intended for students 

of a particular race, color, or national origin, or such that 

teachers or other professional staff of a particular race are 

concentrated in those schools where all, or the majority of, 

the students are of that race. In order to accomplish this 

purpose, it hereby adopts the following procedures (some 

of which have heretofore been in effect). 

1. All members of the supervisory staff will be as- 
signed to serve schools, teachers and pupils without 
regard to race, color or national origin. 

2. It 1s recognized that it is more desirous, where 
possible, to have more than one teacher of the minority 
race (white or Negro) on a desegregated faculty. 

3. The superintendent will review the membership 
of the present instructional staff to determine what 
teachers are to be transferred in order to accomplish 
desegregation, and will arrange such transfers when it 
will be to the best interests of the school system as a 
whole. 

4. New teachers and staff members who may serve 
more than one school, such as librarians, music and 
physical education teachers will be assigned to serve 
schools, teachers and pupils without regard to race, 
color, or national origin. 

5. As vacancies occur in the instructional staff, the 
superintendent will consider all applicants on the basis 
of their qualifications with a view to making employ- 
ment selections of teachers who can be assigned in such 
a way as to further the program of faculty desegre- 
gation, 

   



57 

6. All general faculty meetings, in-service programs, 
and workshops are and will continue to be racially de- 
segregated. 

7. The School Board and superintendent will exercise 
their best efforts, individually and collectively, to explain 
this program to school patrons and other citizens of 
Goochland County and to solicit their support of it. 

8. Institutions, agencies, organizations and individ- 
uals that refer teachers and staff to school systems in 
this State will, during the school year 1965-66, and 
thereafter, be informed of this school system’s policy 
of faculty desegregation and they will be asked so to 
inform persons seeking referrals. 

    
H 
4 
i] H 

i i