Appendix Volume I

485 pages
Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.
Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:
For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):
Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.
LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.
If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.
NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.
Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.
I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.
If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .
Topic
- Educational Equity
LDF Attorneys
Cooperating Attorneys
Organizations
Matter
- Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Case
- Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
U.S. state
- North Carolina
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 3479b193-2d34-f111-88b4-7c1e526962fd
Cite this item

Case Files, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Working Files. Appendix Volume I, 1970. 3479b193-2d34-f111-88b4-7c1e526962fd. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/5c556b57-b13f-481c-9923-0d253a07daff/appendix-volume-i. Accessed June 02, 2026.

Copied!
     [||a8bcd128-8f97-4066-ba27-6314f7ce1c91||] APPENDIX 

Volume I—pp. la-464a 

  

  

Supreme Court of the United States 

OCTOBER TERM, 1970 

No. 281 

  

JAMES E. SWANN, ET AL. PETITIONERS, 

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF 
EDUCATION, ET AL. 

  

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

  

  

CERTIORARI GRANTED JUNE 29, 1970 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED JUNE 18, 1970  



INDEX 

Volume 1 

Docket Entries 

Motion for Further Relief, filed September 6, 1968... 

Answer to Motion for Further Relief 

Transcript of March 10, 1969, hearing, pages 18-39, 

line 20; page 41, line 15 through page 85, line 23; 

page 352, line 10 through page 487, line 17; and 

page 544, line 3 through page 678, line 25 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Regarding 

Desegregation of Schools of Charlotte and Meck- 

lenburg County, North Carolina 

Appendix 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

dated May 15, 1969 

Defendants’ Plan for Desegregation, filed May 28, 

Defendants’ Report in Connection with Plan of De- 

segregation filed May 28, 1969 

Defendants’ Response to Motion for Temporary Re- 

straining Order, filed May 29, 1969 

Order Dated June 3, 1969 

2a 

 



  

| 
# 
| f 
| 

i 
| 
! 
I 
f 
{ 

     E
E
 
3
 

11 

Order Adding Additional Parties, dated June 5, 1969 

Motion to Set Aside Order Joining Additional Par- 

ties Defendant, filed June 12, 1969 ........................ 

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Strike 

Additional Parties Defendant, filed June 16, 1969 

Transcript of June 16, 1969, Proceedings, page 487, 

ine 22 through page 544, line 8... 

Tentative Plan for the Integration of the Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg Schools (for discussion purposes), 

dated May 8, JOB 

Opinion and Order dated June 20, 1969 ....................... 

Supplemental Findings of Fact in Connection with 

the Order of June 20, 1969 (dated June 24, 1969) 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Supplemental Complaint, 

filed July 22, 1980 ........... coves itscnsis rrsssiirsssiissianuin: 

Order Allowing Filing of Supplemental Complaint, 

filled July 22.1060 o.oo sienna ssn: 

Volume 1I 

Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Complaint, filed July 22, 

183 1 ee SE Ra ri ee Ne 

Exhibit A Attached to Foregoing Supplemental 

Complaint «lanl a... 

Defendants’ Amendment to Plan for Further Deseg- 

vegalion, Nled July 29, 1969 ................... .;.. 

PAGE 

372a 

376a 

379% 

383a 

431a 

448a 

459a 

460a 

464a 

46Ha 

477a



iii 

Defendants’ Report in Connection with Amendment 
to Plan for Further Desegregation, filed August 4, 
19689 nin a EE LR (I Bd sain 

Transcript of August 5, 1969, Proceedings: page 4, 
line 22 through page 41, line 17; and page 57, line 
D through. page 84, Une 25 «iodine aiid. LD. 

Answer of the Defendants, the North Carolina State 
Board of Education and the Superintendent of 
Public Instruction for the State of North Caro- 
lina, to the Supplemental Complaint, filed August 
E¥ kL etn tiem toi, be. orieeBbbaendnilintln ng 

Order dated August 35,3969 ............ 0 

Order dated Auguat: 20,1909 ici dio aiiaain. 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Further Relief, filed Septem- 
ber 2, 0089 LE 

Order dated October 10,1069 "= ~~~ 

Defendants’ Response to Motion for Further Relief, 
filed: October 11, 1969... "= rt: 

Summation of Integration 1965 (March) and 1968-69 
(Oct. 1, ’68) and 1969-70 (Oct. 2,69) (App. 1, pp. 
B3-70) ol a Sh 

Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order 

of October 10, 1969, and filed October 30, 1969 .._._. 

Exhibits annexed to foregoing Report ........... 

PAGE 

491a 

498a 

H525a 

575a 

979a 

993a 

596a 

601a 

606a 

608a 

616a 

626a  



  

I 

| 
I 
I 
18 

| 

| 

1v 

Order dated November 7, 1969 ...............idiiJiib 

Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969 ........ 

Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of 

Schools, filed November 17, 1969 ......................... 

Report submitted in Connection with the November 

13 (17), 1969, Amendment to Plan for Further 

Besagregalion nee 

Exhibits annexed to foregoing Report ............... 

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Amendment to 

Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools, filed 

November 21, 19689 ................ccieuseniidinscthionirsasssminss 

ODIIAON i... noisier cirisnrinnsrsasmrissnivnssrsssstesassstadnsss sminsaseonnsy 

Order dated December 1, 1969 ........ eon. 

Order dated December 2, 1969 ............. eee sees 

Motion for Immediate Desegregation, filed January 

3 LL Ln nn en Rn ee OR 

Plan for Desegregation of Schools Submitted Keb- 

PHALY 2, 1970) o.oo aan 

Kxhibits annexed to Foregoing Plan .................. 

Transcript of February 2 and February 5, 1970, 

Proceedings: page 43, line 5 through page 11, line 

15; and page 137, line 1 through page 150, line 

  

670a 

680a 

691a 

692a 

698a 

714a 

17a 

718a 

726a 

744a 

   



Motion for Hearing on Plans for Desegregation of 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools, filed Feb- 

YOAry 6, J070 .... 0 i idioms si ibis 

Order dated February 5, 1970... cee 

Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and for 

Further Relief, filed February 13, 1970 ............... 

Notification and Request for a Three-Judge Court, 

filed February 20, 1970.00 iim tiniciocissnusintesmiin satis 

Defendants’ Tender of Evidence Nune Pro Tune and 

Objections filed February 24, 1970 .................0.. 

Affidavit of William C. Self Referred to in Forego- 

ing Tender of Evidence coi iiaini ilies iiss: 

Affidavit of J. D. Morgan Referred to in Foregoing 

Tender of Byidence .....oocviiinn. dh iii 

Board of Education Plan Referred to in Tender of 

Evidence ....o-st. anil... 0k. vii tess dts hind vases 

Volume III 

Affidavit of Louis W. Alexander Referred to in Ten- 

dor of Evidence ........oueiciinicanciinnnn 0 1 

Affidavit of Herman J. Hoose Referred to in Tender 

of Bvidence''... nt apa on 

Affianvit of Robert Li. Deaton Referred to in Tender 

ob-Uvidence .. C0 ll Suan Sonn te 

PAGE 

817a 

819a 

840a 

845a 

8483, 

850a 

853a 

867a 

891a 

8944,  



  

| 
| 
I 
} 

| 
| 

\ 

| 

I 
| 

| 
! 
i 
| | 

i 

vi 

Order Adding Additional Parties Defendant, filed 

February 29, 19704 ...c. Ll i ns 

Notice of Appeal, filed February 25, 1970 ................. 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Add Additional Parties Defen- 

dant and for Further Relief, filed February 27, 

1970 i. ods a WRB ae Ci 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

and for Contempt, filed February 27, 1970 ............ 

Plaintiffs’ Request for Admission of Facts, filed Feb- 

ruary 27, 1970 tn LL 

Amendment, Correction or Clarification of Orders of 

February 5, 1970, dated March 3,1970 ................. 

Court of Appeals Order Granting Stay Order of 

March 5; 1970 ...coviiiiiviiniinnssmimmmiinsasisnnies 

Order Suspending Superior Court Temporary Re- 

straining Order, entered by Judge Snepp, filed 

March 6, 1970 ..............cccoecrcerssenizsrsosinsomsssensssmssssirsussvns 

Order of March 6, Directing Parties to Prepare and 

File Additional Evidence by March 13, 1970, dated 

March 6 1970 ............ccoonmsincniscrsssrsnmnnisnsitistithriidochensd 

Order Directing Parties to Submit Information with 

Respect to Specific Inquiries of the Court, filed 

March 6 1070 ..................ccccoencrorerncsmacimsaunmivssapimnnarsrsen 

Deposition of John A. Finger, dated March 11, 1970 

  

PAGE 

901a 

9044 

906a 

914a 

918a 

921a 

922a 

925a 

928a 

930a 

932a 

   



vii 

PAGE 

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Ad- 

missions dated Mareh 13, 1970... ...... 1011a 

Defendants’ Submissions to Court in Response to 

March 6, 1970, Order and Motion for Extension of : 

Pime, filed March 13, 1970... >... 1014a 

Exhibits Annexed to Foregoing Submissions .... 1015a 

Affidavit of Herman J. Hoose Referred to in Forego- 
ng Submissions... 1038a 

Defendants’ Submissions to Court in Response to 

March 6, 1970, Order, filed March 17,1970 1041a 

Affidavit of William C. Self Referred to in Foregoing 

Submissions... 0 1042a 

Affidavits of J. D. Morgan, Ralph Neill and W. H. 
Harrison Referred to in Foregoing Submissions .. 1045a 

Exhibits Annexed to Foregoing Affidavits .......... 1047a 

Deposition of J. D. Morgan dated March 19, 1970 .... 1069a 

Exhibit Annexed to Foregoing Affidavit .............. 1188a 

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental 

Exhibit of March 20, 1970, submitted March 21, 

1970 oe ei 1192a 

Response to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Exhibit of 

March 20,1970 ...........ioo 1193a 

Tabulation... lr. 0 oo re 1196a 

 



  

| 
) 
| 

| 
] 
| 
1 
i 

viii 

PAGE 

Supplementary Findings of Fact dated March 21, 

1070 on LL 1198a 

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970... 1221a 

Defendants’ Objections and Exceptions to Supple- 

mentary Findings of Fact of March 21, 1970, and 

Motion for Modification and Clarification Thereof 

dated March 25. 1970 .........cisnioriosieisssesssnrsersiamsssntans 1239a 

Order dalled March 25, 1970... 1255a 

Further Findings of Fact on Matters Raised by the 

March 26, 1970, Motions of Defendants dated 

ADL] 3. 1970) ........c.0occiecriecsthisicsusbventossnramssntiiobgitmmnsentss 1259a 

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970 .... 1262a 

Judgment of Court of Appeals .............................. 1304a 

Order of Three-Judge District Court dated April 29, 

1070 1305a 

Order Granting Certiorari dated June 29, 1970 ........ 1320a 

   



civ. #1974 - page #2 
  
  

Ar4O1 IMT 

ont: nD IN 
DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS TOCOLOMENT 

RETURNS 
  

1-19-65 | A Fil complaint w/bond for costs and petition w/judgment therefor 
authorizing parents and guardions of minors to maintain this action 

as next friends. Iss suwwons and handing to Marshal - orig. and 
2 cys of complaint, petition and judgment. Jas JS 5 

1-22-65 | #2 Fil summons retwmned executed by iarshal by serving David M. Harris 
} and Dr. A. Craig Fuillips on 1-15-05 

2-5-65 #3 | Fil answer w/certificate of service 

2-10-65 |#4 Fil interrogatories of pltf., w/cert. of serv. 

2-19-65 | #5 Fil motion w/affidavit and notice of hearing w/cert. of service 

2-23-65 6 Fil pltf's opposition to def's motion for extension of time to asmswer 

answer interrogatories w/affidavit therefor. 
3-11-65 Hearing on def.'s motion for extension of time to answer interrogatorips- 

Def. allowed until April 15, 1965 
3-11-65 [#7 Ent and fil order allowing def. until April 15, 1965 to file objections to 

Interrogatories or to answer the interrogatories. Cy of order mailed 

to Mr. ‘Chambers and Mr. Barkley. 

4-15-65 [#8 Fil answers to pltf.'s interrogatories w/cert. of serv. 

5- 3-65 lig Fil notice of taking depositions - Drs. A. Craig Phillips and Willian L. 

Anderson 

5-26-65 [#10 Fil motion for preliminary injunction, together with cert. of serv. 
one copy handed to U. 8S. Attorney's office 

5-27.65 [11 Fil answer to motion for preliminary injunction, with certificate 
of servico. 

5« 1-65 | Az Fil notice, motion to intervene, and Complaint in Intervention, w/ 

certificate of service 

6- 1-65 #13 Fil memorandum of decision and order on motion for preliminary injunttion - 
motion for preliminary injunction denied; copies mailed to counsel of 
record 

6- 9-65 | AL Fil answer to motion of the N. C. Teachers Association to intervene 
or be added as a party plaintiff, w/cert. of serv. 

6-21-65 (#15 Fil deposition of Dr. A. Crais Pnillips 
6-25-65 | #16 Fil plaintiff's interrogntorics, w/cert.. of serv. (1 copy handed to USA) 
T- 9-65| #171 Fil defendant's answers to interrogatories, with certificate of service. 

7-12-65 Case called, issues joined, proceeds to trial w/o intervention of jury. 

Pitf's. wit. Dr. Reginald aA. Hawkins S & Fx & X-Ex. Pltf's. wit. 

Louis I. Kramer S & Ex & X-Ex. Pltf. rests. Def's. wit. Richard H.|Brown $ (not 

Def s. wit. Dr. A. Craig Phillips S & Ex & X-Ex. End 5:40 P.M. examir 
T-13=-65 Case recalled. Proceeds to trial before court w/o intervention of Jury. 

Pltf's. wit. Dr. A. Craig Phillips recalled & X-Ex completed and Re-x & Re+4X-EX 
and Re-Ex. Def's. wit. Frank Dowd, Jr. S & Ex & X-Ex. Def's Wit. 

David W. Harris, S & Ex & X-Ex. Pltf's. wit. Mrs. Betsy McCloud Kelly S & Ix. 

Pltf. submits briefs to Court. Def. makes closing statement & submits briefs. 
Pl1tf. makes closing statement. Court adjourned . 

65 | #18] Fil memorandum of decision 
-65 #10 Ent and fil judgment approving proposed plan of desegregation submitted 

by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education except that the resolution 
with respect to teachers and staff is ORDERED to be amended so as fo 

delete the word "ultimate" and substitute the word "immediate" thexefor; 
and jurisdiction is retained to consider (upon motion of parties) 
implementation of the plan. Ins 35 7, (#19,div.0rd.[) 

7-16-65 | #20| Fil defendant's answer to complaint in intervention, with certificate of seryice. 

7 -16-65 #2 R m
a
 Fil plaintiffs’ notice of appeal, with designation of -.cord on appedl, and 

certificate of service. 

(Cont'd on pare 2 FP - -LK—2-5-64—20M—23080 

        
 



D. CO. 110A CIV. #197hk - Page #3 
  

  

  
  

CLERK'S FEES AMOUNT 

  

  

  

DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS / REFORTID IN 
EMOLUMENT 

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT RETUNNG 

: I 

7-21-65 Wor #il plaintiffs’ cost bond on nppeal 
| i : : ak 

7-27-65 i ¥il defendant's designation of wvdditional parts of i 

record on appeal, w/cert. of service 

8-20-65 Certifying record on apreal to Clerk, U.S5.Court of : 

Appeals for the hth Circuly; copy letter and of 

index to Mr. Chambers snd to Mr. Barkley 

11-25-66 | ff2k| Fil plaintiffs' interrogatories, w/cert. of serv. 

11-29-66 Fil mandate and printed copy of opinion, U.S. Court |of 

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, affirming judgment of 

District Court with costs. Record on appeal returned also} 

12- 2-66 | #29 Fil objection to interrogatories, with notice of 

hearing. 3 copies to Asst. DA. 
. 

12-15-65 [26 Fil motion to compel answers to interrogatories w/pert. of dvc. 

1- 4-67 Hearing on objections to interrogatories - WW - taken under 

advisement 
9- 6-68 |#27| Filing motion for further relief, w/cert. of servide 

O- 10.65 kop Fil plaintiffs' interrogatories, with cert. of seryice. 
9=16-68 |#29! Fil answer to motion for further relief (by def.), 

w/cert. of serv. 
9-16-68 #30] Fil motion for extension of time until 11-1-68 to flile 

objections to interrogatories, w/cert. of serv. 

10-14-53 iy Fil Responne oo Dofendant’'s Motion for Eaxtonslion off timel- llropy fo 14 A. 

10- 7-68 |#32! Entering and filing order (JBM) - defendant to haved until 11+1-68 
to file answers to interrogatories; defendant required|to make 

objections on or before 10-14-68. CO-Vol. Vol. Y-#9. 
10-31-68 |#33| Filing answers to interrogatories propounded by pldintiffs, | 

consisting of pleading, tables and exhibits together wyseparate | 
; packet containing maps required by interrogatories w/cert. of serv. 

11-13-68 |#34| Filing DEFENDANT's Interrogatories, w/cert. of ser.. 
11-26-68 #3 Fil order (consent) for extending time for plaintilff to |ansver 

defendant's interrogatories to and including the 10th day 

of January, 1968(JBM) 
1- 9-69 (436 Fil answers of PLAINTIFFS to Interrogatories of DEFENDANT, w/certl 

of service : 
1-21-69 Hearing on motion by counsel for plaintiffs for adverse|examination 

or deposition of a number of officers and agents of|the School 

Board, and on motion by cou nsel for defendants for|an order 

requiring more factual answers than filed Jan. 9, 1969. 
1-21-69 |#37 Ent & Fil Order (JBM) Court ruled plaintiffs entitled to proceed 

with discovery suggested and that defendants gntitled to answers 

requested. Deadline for discovery set for March 3,|1969 if possiple, 

with case to be set for hearing during week off Mar.|10, |1969. 
CO. VOL. IV, /f103. Copies to counsel and D. Aj 

  
2- 3-69 #38 Fil plaintiffs’ interrogatories to defendant. Cqpy to|D.A, 

Cert.of service attached. 

2-10-69 # 39| Filing Motion of defendant for extension of time 0 answer 
plaintiff's interrogatories, w/cert. of serv. 

2-13-69 0 Filing order (consent) for extension of time for defendant Yo have 
up to and including the 2nd day of March, 1969| to fille dnswersg 

to interrogatories submitted and filed Jan. 31} 1969. 

Cont'd on page U                     
  

  

 



—y - —— 

Civil #1974 - page k 
    

  

co —— ew 

CLERK'S FEXS AMOULT 
YRTED DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS Pins A 

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT RETURNS 
  

0-26-69 |#41i Filing Defendant's Interrogatories to Plaintiff, 
w/cert. of service 

‘hoi Fil plaintiffs' answers to interrogatories, with 
certificate of. service   

3. 3-69 | 43 Fil plaintiffs’ interrogatorics to defendenis, with pert. i gervice. 
: IR! " “im = 4 . Lo» ~ . A 3- L-69 | i¥" Fil Defendants Answers to Plointiffs' interrogatorids, w/dert{ of sqrv. 

3- 6-69 # 49 Fil Plaintiffs' answers to Defendants' Interrogatories, w/certl. of 
serv. 

3-10-69 {46| Fil depositions of Carroll O. York, Ralph W. Eaton, |James Burgh, 
Dorothy Boone, James Clark, Mary Jane Kistler, Dr. Willian C. Self, 
William E. Poe, Gertrude Coward, J. B. Davis, Jr., Joseph [Frankford 
Dr. James Mikkelson, William L. Anderson, Dr. Roberti C. Hgnes, 
John W. Phillips, Dr. W. Leslie Bobbitt, Herbert L. [Prickdtt, 
John W. Harrilson, Ann Hausmann, Henry L. Smith                 3-10-69 Cese called - hearing on pltf.'s motion for further [relief]. H1tf. 
enters documentary evidence, - P-wit, Chas L. Breen gq, ex #nd M-ex, [P-wit. 

yo cantel J. Mermlgar Sand gy, Col. mes tegsinove ov shig witress He 

3 rioNern « ~o=irrn lenis P=wit., Paul RR. feonard Ss, 2% 23i yeas A-Wwin 

Jack 1. Larson s 2nd ox, - J Bil - 

3-11-69 Case -re-called - Dr. Jack L. Larson ex and x-cx. P-wit. John A. Finger, 
Jr., 8, ex and x-ex,; P-wit. Robert A. Passy s and ex. 

; 3-12-69 Case re-called - P-wit. Robert A. Passy ex and x-ex.| Pltfls. nest. [D-vilt. 

Jomes Thomas Burch s, ex and x-ex. D-wit. William (|. Self] s, |ex and x-4gx. 
3-13-69 Case re-called - D-wit. Wm. C. Self ex and x-ex.; P-fit. Ralph W. Eston 

8, »x and x-ex.; D-wit, Robert C. Hanes s, ex and x-ex.; D-witji. John W. 

Phillips s, ex and x-ex. Further testimony for pltfs. to pe taken 3I-17-69. 

: Record remains open for any further evidence either party ni ghlt want{ to 

: introduce. Parties to submit briefs, etc. by 3-2u4-6D 

3-17-69 Case re-called- P-wit. Yale Rabin s, ex and x-ex. Rpcord [Left| open pnti 
further notice. Pltfs. to submit findings of fact, gtc., py March 2} an 

X defendants to have five days thereafter. 
3-26-69 Case re-called. D-wit. Wm.McIntyre s, ex and x-ex. 

4-23-69 nl Ent & fil Order {JBM) - Defendant is to submit by Moy 15, 19608 a pila Thr 
acclive and complete desegregation of teachers, to be{cffectivejwilh 969+ TO 

school ycar; defendant to submit by May 15, 1969, a plan apd time table for 
active decegregation of pupils, to be predominantly ¢fifective in fal} of 

1969 and completed by ll of 1970; Foard is fir: to se all of]its om 

rosources and any or all of numerous methods; plan should Ye pr cffgctiye 

cperation of schcolc in a desepregated atmosphere. 
CO. VOL. IV, A850 Copies to counsel. 

5- 1-69 # 48 Fil Court Reporter's transcript, two volumes 

5-14-69 | Fil Petition for Extension of Time to File Plan of D¢segregatipn w/cprt. of scpvice 

5-14-69 |/4a Ent & Fil Order (JBM) allowing extension of time extended to ahd includihg 

May 29, 1969. Coples to counsel. CO VOL. Iv, fi9l..-.- 
5-15-69 (#5Q Fil Motion for Temporary Restraining order restraining the|def| from|initiating 

or continuing construction of new schools or new f cilities at any | existing 
schools without specific prior approval of Court. |Cert.|of service attached) 

28-69 51) 111 Plan for Desepreration of Schools w/cortiricube off service. 

5-28-69 [52] Fil Report in Connection with Submissionol Plan of Dopepregptiohn ( cepiifficase of 

gsorvice with Plan overs this document also. 

5- 29wm69 #53| Fil Defendant's response to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, w/cert. of 
service 

. ei . 7 » : it fos iy : r : « 3 . tion 

6-4-69 |/5} Fnt & ¥il Order (J7M) ordering members of Charlotte Mecklepbur; Boarfl oi] Fduca 
7 l formal parties LO this aebion.. C0. VOL. Tv. #230 

T
S
 

                  
 



RA Ea 

“ yz) : 
iV EL 9 D. C. 110A Ag - Pape 5 

  

CLERK'S FEES AMOUNT DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS Bo 
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT CT REZTUNNG 

| | 

  

  

PE 
did 

FI y : nora ‘ 1 YA ' ‘ ve vw fhm UA LF 2 Pil Ovder {IPM) on, vol, TV, 
6- 9-69 Coonokdt Pursuant to Order of Court dated 

29 Requesting. vlce w/rerveet to productisn 
of exighing records, w/ cart. of nervy. | 

o 
- oe sn ,, Pela ay 6-10.09 #57. Piz Yerohal! 5 rehiia on C+ nord 32 - Served dn i : 

= ' : not AF i S Ww 3 Sr . 

-ef     
: = Rist Lan Hood; Den alk 

Coleman Caan ria oulding Sam 8S. McMinch 131; 
Betsy helly - June 5, 1909 

6-12-69 |#58 Fil Motion to set aside order joining additional 
parties defendant, w/cert. of service 

6-12-69 |#59 : Fil Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' Plan for 
Desegregation of schools and Motion for Civil 
Contempt, w/cert. of serv. 

6-13-69 [#60 i Fil Motion tc set aside or drop William E. Poe ad a defendant. 
6-13-00 | &1 Fil Marshal's return - served on Board Mexber Henderson Felli, 

- ~ A ~ ~~ - 

              ny - . SM, on June os 
Ss -, wie ~ - CC vase -\ . Sn RB 

6-16-69 #62 Fil Response of Defendant william E. Poe to Motion of Plaintiffs, w/cert. of serv. 
6-16-69 | #63 | Fil Response to Defendants’ Motions to Strike Additional Parties 

Defendant, w/cert. of serv. 
6-18-69 | #64 | Fil Marshal’ Heturn served on Dr. Carlton G. Watkins, |at 

1630 Mockingbird Lane, Charlotte, N. C., at 11:15 A.M, Jtne 13; 1950.   6-16-69 Case called (JBM). Motion of individual members |of Board of Educa- 
tion to set aside order joining additional defendants denied. 
Hearing on Plan for Desegregation submitted by Bdard of Educatio 

| 
| 

| 
| held. P-wit. Dan Hood s and ex and x-ex.; P-wit. Ben F. Hi tley 

| 
| 
| 

[=
4 

S, ex and x-ex.; P-wit. Rev. Coleman W. Kerry, Jr., s and ex. 
Case re-called - P-wit. Rev. Coleman W. Kerry exsmined|and X-eX.} 
P-wit. Sam S. McNinch III s, ex and x-ex.; P-wit., Wm. E. Poe, 5,|ex 
and x-ex.; P-wit. Julia Maulden s, ex and x-ex.; [P-wit| Mrs. Betsey 

Kelly s, ex and x-ex.; P-wit. Mary Hazel Hatchet s and ex] 
| Case re-called - proceeds to trial. P-wit. John [Finge 5, ex and 
| x-ex.; P-wit. Henderson Belk Ss, ex and x-ex.; P-wit. Carlten C. 
| Watkins s, ex end x-ex.; P-wit. Jo G. Foster s, ex. PIltf. rests, 
| Def. wit. Dr. Robert C. Hanes s and ex; D-wit. Dr. William|Self 
| 8, ex and x-ex. Dr. Robert C. Hanes re-called and x-ex. by Mrs. 

| Betsy Kelly.; Dr. Watkins re-called by Mrs. Kelly and examined; 
| 

6-17-69 

6-18-69 

D-wit. Wm. E. Poe re-called and examined. Defendants rest! Matter 
taken under advisement. 

Ent & Fil Opinion and Order (JEM) CO VOL. IV, #420. 
(Copies mailed to Mr. Barkley and Mr. Waggoner. |Copiep pifked u 

by Julius Chambers office). Copy to Gaston Gage and |Mrs{ Betsy Kell 

8 copies sent to Mr. Barkley for school board mcimbers. 
(1) Motion of individual defendants to dismiss denied; | 

) No citations for contempt are made; 
) Decision on faculty assignment plan deferred pending report [on 

progress on or before Aug. 4, 1969; | 
) Penalty on transferring high school athletek disdpprqgved; | 

) Transportation provision for transferring studentls approved; 

) 

  6-20-69 | #65 | 
<<

 

Directed to halt action on Metropolitan High Schdol until ddequate 

proof of desegregation of school; 

Motion restrainted on construction of other| building projedts; 

Defendants ordered to proceed to prepare anfi subnlit g§ positive|plan 
for desegregation =- Plan to be submitted by August 4, 1969. 

(¢ontd on page 6) 

F
N
S
T
N
 
T
N
S
 

T
N
 

                  
  

 



  

  

  

          

  

Page 6 CIVIL ,i97k Page 6 

CLERK'S FEES AMOUNT 

DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS pita A 
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT RETURNS 

0-10-69 #06| F.° i.lendsnt's answer to Quesi.ons posed by the Court in L. 
! order dated ©-ik-69 

6-16-69 #07 | Fil Defendant's answer to responss and motion of PALate, 
| pertainirs to plat. Thy school deneorepation ; 

6-24.60 455 Fd guppleantol findings of Taal Cn comicetion with the drant of ; 
7} 3D, 1065. Copies to counsel and $0 cach monber df tie Schaol foszd. 
{CO v4 7226) 

7-15-69 | #69 Fil Vol. I of Court Reporter's Transcript - June 16) 1969 he ing 
7-22-69 | #7Q Fil Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint; to Add Additional 

Defendants and for Temporary Restraining Order, faffi avit of 
Reginald A. Hawkins, w/cert. of service 

7-22-69 $#71| Fil Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for leave to|fil¢ 
: a supplemental complaint, add parties-defendant and for t porary 

restraining order. 

7-22-69 |#72| Fil Vol. II of Court Reporter's Transcript - June 16, 1969 hearing 
7-22-69 | #73] Ent & Fil Order (JBM) allowing plaintiffs' motion for leave tp file| a 

supplemental complaint ; U S Marshal directed to perve pame| upon fHef:iilints 
CO VOL. Vv, 5. Copies to counsel. 

7-22-69 |#74| Fil Supplemental Complaint % ertificate of service| - contains request [for 3-judge 

7-23-69 EL Eg al ari 2 3 ER VL {nvelpntery bu She v2h.S tadepts iling 
to Mr. Brock Barkley for distribution. 

Mailing to US Marshal, Asheville, N. C., summon and true [copies of |s 

true copies of supplemental complaints plus true [copies of [#70 

for service on Dr. A. Craig Phillips, Superintendent of] Puljlic Instruction, 

Raleigh, N. C., and Dr. A. Craig Phillips, State Board |of Education, |Raleigh, N.C. 

T=-20-L9| #75 Fil amendment to plan for further desegregation of (schools, with certificate 

of service. 

8- 4-69 #16 Fil report in connection with amendment to plan for further desegregation 
a by sel for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education | 

8- 5-69 . Case, Ca [ed 55 h r ng 0 pi8 - p . Wm, Self s, ex and X-ex{ Rev. |Leak & Paul 
8- 7-69 #71 Fil is ot] Jails geratit fen ores 7-29-69 orl Dr. Qraig Phillips, Supexintende: 

of Public Instruction and on Dr. Craig Phillipg, Secxyetayy of Stat Board 

of Education. 

8-11-69 #738 Fil Answer of the Defendants, the North Carolina Stlate Bdard |of Edycation and 
Superintendent of Public Instruction of the Stdte of |N. (., tothe 

Supplemental Complaint, w/cert. of serv. 
8-12-69 |#791a Fil Motion with Notice of Motion to Intervene as a Plaintiff|in a (las 

Action , with certificate of service 
#79lb Til Complaint of Intervening Plaintiffs = Paw Creel Schodl District 

8-15-69 |#80 Fil plaintiffs' response to motion to intervene, with certifficate pf service. 

8-15-6981 Fil petition to file another plan(presented by Thomus Ray) by|a groip of citipens. 
Handing to Judge McMillan with letter, and chart. 

8-15-69 182 Ent & Fil Order (JBM) that 1) policy statement of Hoard gpprdved; 2) fdculty 

desegregation program approved; 3) closing of 71 all-Ylack schodls d4pprov¢d 

reluctantly for a one-year, temporary arrangement; I) |plan to reassign 1,345 

students from overcrowded black schools approved; 5) neassignment of Paw (reek 

students to Woodland approved; 6) proposals of Hoard flor restrudturg of 

attendance lines, etc. approved as presented; 7) Board is |further d rected to 

plan for complete faculty desegregation for 1970-71 ag well as fo 

V
v
 

  

    desegregation of students to the maximum extent |possifjleand pregent 

report showing, complete with figures and maps, [location gnd nature 

construction project proposed, etc; 8) Board ordered rot fo divest jtself|of 

land, etc. in Second Ward area; 9) jurisdiction |retained.| CO vQL. |, /22 
Copies mailed to counsel and School Board members . New plan to| be uli tited 

b] November 17,] 1969.             
  

 



bros 

Fy 

Civil #1974 - page 7 

    
  

    

or C. 110A. Rev. Civil Docket Continuation 
ps I aera————r—————re fT ATT : rn —  ————— a ————— 4 ———— a a — mn x a a —— an —— pr —— 

DATE o PROCERDINGS Fo 

8-29-66 751 Fil Gefn! motion Tor order pia and approving rroposed amend- 

ment Wo use IRVTX AVE Sunes Hh Instead of ZEB VYARCE Blementary 

8-29-09 | #54 Ent and Til order allowing ors.wobion to amend plas to use IRWIN AVE. 
Junior Mizh instead of ZEB JANCE ELEMENTARY; disapproving proposal 
to provide transportation for any students attending IRWIN AVE. Copy 

mailed to counsel of record. Ten copies mailed to Waggoner for 
School Board Members 

9- 2-69 #85| Fil pltfs.' motion for further relief and for show cause, w/cert. of serv. 
9- 4-69 #86, Fil Court Reporter's Transcript (orig.) of proceedings of 8-5-69 
9-11-69 #87| Ent and fil order releasing certain plaintiffs' exhibits to plaintiffs’ 

counsel for period of 30 days - JBM. CO-Vol. V-#82 
9-12-69 #88] Fil defs' response to motion for further relief, w/cert of serv. 
9-16-69 #89| Ent and fil order (JBM) allowing Board of Education to surrender premises 

formerly occupied by GLIDDEN PAINT CO-Vol. V-92. Copies to counsel 

10- 2-69 #90| Fil defs' motion for extension of time to file desegregation plan w/cert. 
of serv. 

10- 8-69 #91| Fil pltfs' response to motion of defs. for extension of time, w/cert. of 
serv. 

10-10-69 #92| Ent and fil order (JBM) - Board directed to file w/Court by 10-29-69 
answers to numerous questions re results to date of efforts, as well as 

details of instructions to Mr. Well, mission, goals, etc. Action deferred 

on motion for extension of time, as well as pltfs' motion which requests 
abolition of freedom of choice and appointment of outside expert to devise 

plan in default of Board Action. CO=-Vol. IV-#123. Ten copies mailed 

Waggoner for counsel and school board members; copies mailed Chambers and 

Barkley, and two copies mailed VANORE 

10-30-69 #93| Fil defendants' Report to Court Pursuant to Order of 10-10-69 w/cert. of 

serv. 
11- 3-69 #9Lk| Fil plaintiffs' further response to defendants' motion for extension and 

motion for further relief, w/cert. of serv. 
11- 5-69 #95| Fil defendants' reply to plaintiffs' further response to defendants’ 

motion for extension of time and plaintiffs' motion for further relief, 

w/cert. of serv. 
11-10-69 #96| Fil order (JBM) - motion of defendants for extension of time denicd. 

CO-Vol. V-//136 =~ also filing Memorandum Opinion 
11-17-69 #971 Fil defendants' Amendment to Plan for Further Desegration of Schools, and 

Report submitted in connection with 11-13-69 amendment to plan for 
further desegregation 

11-18-69 #98] Ent and fil order (JBM) directing pltfs to file by 11-21-69 objections or 
comments to amendment to plars of defendants. CO-Vol. V-#1L43. Copies 
mailed counscl 

11-19-69 #9¢! Fil certificate of service for amendment to plan for further desegregation 

and report in connection therewith. 

11-21-69 1100 Fil pltfs. response to defs.' amendment to plan for further desegrfation of 

schools, w/cert. of serv. 
12- 1-69 {1.01} Ent and fil Opinion and crder (JBM) thal November 17 plan is disapproved; 

defs. directed to desegregate faculities in all schools effective not later 

than Sept. 1, 1970, so ratio of black teachers to white teachers in each 

will be approximately same as ratio of black teachers to white teachers 
in entire school; consultant will be designated by court; defs. directed 

to cooperate w/consultant, providing space, pay fees and expenses, etc.; 

pltfs.' motion for order directing immediate desegregation of entire 

(Cont'd on page 8)       
 



  

      
  

  

    

Civ. #1974 - page 8 

DATE : PROCEEDINGS sa an tug 

{Cont'd from page 7) : 
fchool sysiem delerrcd: uriher orders re restraining construction and 

| crilargemen® of schools deferred; motion for citation of school board 
. abonoi members J nhoiot of court delerred. CO-Vol. V-#150 

10= 2-09 #1021 Ent and £15 caer (JBM: appointing DR. JOIN A. FINGER, JR., consultant. 
i CO-Vol. V-i7151. Copies mailed to counsel. 

1-20-70 | #103| Fil motion for immediate desegregation of public school, w/cert. of service 
1- 20-70 |#104| Ent and fil order (TBM) directing Clerk to set case for immediate hearing 
2- 2-70 |#105| Fil defendants’ plan for desegregation 
2- 2-70 Hearing - JBM =- on plaintiffs' motion for immediate desegregation. Motion 

taken under advisement. School Board Plan and Statement of Coleman 
Kerry presented to Court. Dr. Wm. C. Self s and questioned by Court. 
Tourt will discuss w/counsel need for further testimony on schzol plans - 
nearins left cpen : ; 

2- 4-70 |#10¢| Fil defendants’ motion for nearing on plans for desegregation of schools, w/ 
cert, of serv. 

2- 5=T0 Hearing - JBM -(further hearing) - on plans for desegregation. D-wit. Wm. d. 
Self s, ex and x-ex.; D-wit. J. D. Morgan S$, ex and x-ex,: Dewit, D. "J. 
Dark s and ex. 

2- 5-70 |#107| Ent and fil order (JBM) setting out guidelines for desegregation of schools. 
Jurisdiction retained. CO-Vol. VI-#59. 

2-12-70 [#108 | Fil Report of the School Board to Judge McMillan, dated this day. 
2-13-70 #109 Fil motion to add additional parties defendant and for further relief 

w/certificate of service 
2-13-70 #110 Fil points of authorities in support of above motion, w/certificate of 

service 

2-18-70 A111 Fil reporter's transcript of proceedings February 2, 1970 and Feb. 5, 1970 

2-19-70 | #112 Fil Report of the School Board to Judge McMillen, dated this day. 

2-20-70 | #113 Fil Notification and Request for Designation of Three=-Judge Court 
2-24=70 | #11k4 Fil DESIGNATION OF THREE-JUDGE COURT = designation of Judges Craven 

and Butzner, Circuit Judges, and Judge James B. McMillan, District Judge 
2-24=70 | #115 Fil certificate of mailing - notification and request for designation 

of three-judge court and designation of three-judge court 
2-24-70 | #11 Fil Tender of Evidence Nunc Pro Tunc and Objections by Defendants, 

together with Affidavits of Dr. William C. Self, J. D. Morgan, 

Louis W. Alexander, Herman J. House and Robert L. Deaton and 

tender of evidence contained in Report of Court Consultant delivered 

to Court but not introduced into evidence, w/cert. of serv. 

2-25-70 |#117] Fil notice of appeal of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, Wm. E. Poe, 

2-25-70 #118     
Henderson Belk, Dan Hood, Ben F. Huntley, Betsey Kelly, Sam McNinch,III gnd 
Carlton G. Watkins toFourth Circuit Court of Appeals from the following 
orders: 1. Opinion and Order dated 4/23/69; 
3. Opinion and Order dated 6/20/69; U4. Order dated 8/15/69; 5. Order ds 
8/29/69; 6. Order dated 10/10/69; T. Order dated 11/7/69; 8. Order dat 
12/1/69 and opinion; 9. Order dated 12/2/69; and 10. Order dated 2/5/70 
together w/findings of Fact and conclusions of law in support of foregoin 
orders. Copies of notice to J. LeVonne Chambers, Ralph Moody, and Andre 

Vanore, Jr. 
Fil gppeal bond, cash bond in amount of $250.00 - R#733h4 

(Cont'd on page 9) 

2. Two Orders dated 6/4/69 

  
 



Civ. #1974 - Page O 

D. C. 110A Rev. Civil Tlocket Continuation 
  
      ee S—— ee —————— re ee eet eee + ee ne eel tn. Aim. 
  
  

  

  

| 
DATE | PROCEEDINGS 

i 
- i | 

~ ! . . 30 £Y TV 4 oli - 0u285.70 #119 Fil notice of three-Judre court to consider current matiers before | 
: Judges Craven, Butzner znd McMillan, at US Distriet Court, Charlotte, 

N. C.,, av 10 A.M., Tuesday, March 10, 19/0. Copies mailed - certiricd, 
return rcceipt requested - to additional parties, defendant. Copies 

mailed to other counsel by regular mail. 
2-25-70 #120 Ent & Fil Order (JBM) additional party defendants made parties - 

Hon. Robert ¥. Scott, Hon. A. C. Davis, Hon. W. K. Mclean, Tom B. Harris, 
G0. Don Roberson, A. Breece Breland, James M. Postell, W. EZ. Rorie, Jr., 

Chalmers R. Carr, R. T. Wilson, Concerned Parents Association, James IH. 
Carson, Jr., and W. H. Booe. Plts. directed to prepare and file on or 

before Monday, March 2, 1970, proposed findings of fact and conclusions 

of law and a proposed order, and brief in support of their position. 

Other parties directed to preparc and [ile on or before Friday, March 6, 
» 1970, proposed findings of [act and conclusions of law and a proposed 

order, and brief in support of their positi-n. CO VOL. VI, #01 
2-26-70 #121 Fil answer of Defs. N., C. STATE BOARD OF FUUCATION , Dr. A. Craig Phillips, 

Superintendent of Public Instruction, Robert H. Scott, Governor of the 

State of North Corolima, A. C. Davis, Controller of the State Department 

of Public Instruction, and William K. Mclean, Judge of the Superior 

Court of Mecklenburg County to Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant 

and for Further Relief, w/certificate of service. 

2-26-70 #124 Fil report to Judge McMillan by Supt. Self of Charlotte-Mecklenburg gh 

2-27-=T0 #123 Fil Plaintiffs' motion to add additional parties defendant and for 

further relief 

2-27-70 #12l Fil motion of plaintiffs for temporary restraining order and for contempt,   with certificate of service 

2-27-T0 {#129 Fil plaintiffs' request for admission, to be served on pltfs.' attorneys 
within ten (10) days - w/cert. of service 

3- 2-70 #126 Fi 1 copy of application for stay, w/accompanying papers, directed to 
Judge J. Braxton Craven, Jr., Circuit Judge 

3- 2-70 A127 Fil motion for hearing on Superior Court Order in Civil 2631 
3-2-70 128 Fil Deposition of J. D. Morgan 
3-2-70 #129 Fil Deposition of William C. Self 

3-2-70 A130 Pil Deposition of D. J. Dark 
3-270 JA311Fil Deposition of E. D. McMillan, Jr. 

3=- 2-70 #132] Fil motion to dismiss and vacate order (making Concerned Parents Assn. 

additional defendant) by their counsel, Wm. H. Booe, w/cert. of service 
3= 2=T0 #133 Fil motion to dismiss and vacate order (making Harris, Roberson et al. 

additional parties defendant), w/cert. of service 
3« 2-70 134] Fil motion for continuance, w/ cert. of service. 

3- 3-70 [#135 Fil Plaintiffs’ proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and order, 
together w/brief and cert. of serv. 

3- 2-70 #136] Fil Defendants' Application for Order 
3- 2-70 A371 Fil Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of their Motion for a Temporary Restrain- 

ing Order and for Contempt 
3- 3-70 |f138] Fil Motion of Defendants, State Officials, for Continuarce, together 

with Notice of Motion 

3- 3-70 [#139] Ent and fil order continuing three-judge hearing to 10:00 AM on Tuesday, 
March 24, 1970. Copies mailed all counsel of record. CO-Vol. VI-#98 

(Cont'd on page 10)       
 



Civ. #1974 - page 10 

  
  

DATE PROCEEDINGS | br vn 

  

o AS Ww ah 3 er 3, + voit 3 Yay -3 i Fat and £21 amendment, correction or clarification of order of Vebrunry 3, 
3 a Porat ~ 3 ~ - rh 0 al. ‘counsel of record. CO0=Uol, Ti-dM Te 

Tl Pr oy cnn Teed Saas wiser, od 
~ 
ES SH SE SE SO ERS Ne GP i a 

is a py - NT N= en »8 EY WA ey x \ - a HE PN Gr Sars adavhe om bd ov Coda a 
- 

o-~ a 21451 4 5 vn -~ SOY A 3 3 $ : A Aad : : 3« 3.70 .S1s] Pil Defendants’ answers and objections to plaintiffs’ Request for Admission, 
w/cert. of serv. 

3-5=T70 #143 Fil Motion of Robert Morgan, attorney General of N. C. requesting that the 

Honorable James B. McMillan disqualify and remove himself from the puncl 

assigned to hear this case; w/certificate of service. 

#144] Fil School Board's Report to Judge McMillan for the week ending March 5, 197D 3= 5=T0 

3= 6-70 [#145| Fil Objections to Plaintiffs’ List of Additional Exhibits and Proposed 

Evidence 

3- 6-70 [#146| Fil Motion of William H. Booe, et al, to Recuse and Disqualify 
3-6-T70 #1L4T Fil motion for relief from conflicting orders from the courts , w/certificate 

of service 

3-6-70 #148 Ent & Fil Order (JBM) motion filed by Atty. Gen. requesting Judge James B. 
McMillan to disqualify himself from three-judge panel denied . CO VOL. vi, # 103 

3-6-T0 #149 Ent & Fil Order (JBM) motion to recuse and disqualify by William H. Booe, 
disallowed. CO VOL. VI, # 102 

3-6=70 #15d Ent & Fil Order (JBM) objections of defendants to requests for admissions 
submitted by plaintiffs overruled, and defendants directed to answer all 
requests for admissions, under oath, in full, not later than Fri., March 13,| 1970. 
CO VOL. VI, #103 

3-6-70 #151] Ent & Fil Order (JBM) order heretofore signed by Judge Snepp in Civil Action #2631 
in Superior Court of Meck. County hereby suspended and held in abeyance and lof 

no force and effect pending the final determination by a three=judge court dr 

by the Supreme Court of the issues which will be presented to the three-judle 

court; and, that the Moore Case, No. 2631, be referred to the three-judge cdurt 

on March 24, 1970, for such hearing and determination as that court may find 
proper. CO NOL. Vi, # 104 

3-6-70 #154 Ent & Fil Order (JBM) court directed to prepare and file with Clerk of this 

court not later than Fri., March 13, 1970, all evidence they would l ke the 
court to consider hearing upon factual questions referred to in March 5, 197 

order of Court of Appeals; counsel for all prties directed to produce upon 

written request of opposing counsel all documents, etc. requested by opposing 

counsel; counsel directed to appear before the court at 2 P.M., Monday, March 

16, 1970 for purpose of examining such evidence as may then be available, etc.; 

if further hearing is necessary after conference among court and counsel 

scheduled for March 16, 1970, it will be conducted on Tuesday, March 17, 1970, 
at 10 A.M, CO VOL. VI, # 108 

3-6=70 #153 Ent & Fil Order (JBM) parties directed to procure and supply the court by 
March 13, 1970, with information and stastities. CO VOL. VI, #106 

3~9=70 jrL5k Fil motion to The Honorable, The Chief Judge of the United States Court of 
Appeals For The Fourth Circuit by Attorney Gen. of N., C., Robert Morgan, 
requesting thrt The Honorable James B. McMillan be disqualified and removed 

from the panel of the three-judge court. 

3-09-70 |#155 Ent & Fil Order (Chief Judge, Fourth Circuit of Appeals, Clement F. Haynswory 

Jr.) denying motion that Judge McMillan be disqualified and removed from 

panel of threc-judge court. CO VOL. VI, # 109 
3-9-70 |#15d Fil notice of deposition ~- depositions of James H. Carson and Dr. John A, 

Finger and J. D. Morgan to be taken by plaintiffs on March 11, 1970 » w/ 
certificate of service,   (comtinued)     
 



  

D. C. 110A Rev. Civil Docket Continuation 
  

  

DATE 

=p 

CIV. # 1974 - page #11 

  

  

  

PROCEEDINGS imate Ore 

Judriaent 

  
  

3-11-70 

3-11-70 

3-11-70 

3-12-70 

3-12-70 

3-13-70 

3-13-70 

    

Fil motion to qunch subpoena ror taking deposition of J. D. Morgan, 
w/cer.iticate of service 

Fil plaintiffs’ response to defencunts' motion to quash subpoena, 
w/certilicate 0 scrvice 

Hearing - WW - on defendants' mction to quach subpoena for taking 
deposition of J. D. Morgan - Court ruled deposition should be 
taken at 5:00 P., M., 3-11.70, 

Fil stipulation - by pltfs. and State Supt of Public Instruction and 
State Board of Education - re enrollment in public schools of N. C. 

Fil Report of School Board to Judge McMillan 

Fil Brief in behalf of Robert W. Scott, finvernor of North Carolina; 
State Board of Education; Btatc Superintendent of Public Instruction; 
A.C. Davis, Controller; William K. McLean, Judge of the Superior 
Court, and James H. Carson, Jr., Member of the North Carolina General 
Assembly. Copies mailed to Judges Craven and Butzner. 

Fil Submissions to Court in Response to March 6, 1,70 Order and Motion 
for Extension of time, including Maps requested by Court Order of 
March 6, by def. Affidavit of Herman J. Hoose, Director of Traffic 

Pnunineering for city of Charlotte att., w/cert. of service. 
Def's Response to pltf's Request for Admissions; w/cert. of servic 
Motion for Public Hearing or Presence of Court Reporter at Conferec 

w/certificate of service. 

Adoption of Attorncy Gencral's Brief on Behalf of the Defendant 

Board of Education and the Individual Board Members. w/cert. of sc 
Fil Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law submitted by Robert Morgan, 

Attorney General. Copies to Judges of Three-Judge Court. 
Fil Deposition of J. D. Morgan. 

Fil Deposition of James H. Carson, Jr. 

Fil Deposition of John A. Finger. 

Fil plaintiffs’ submission of additional data pursuant to order of the 

court of March 6, 1970 (plus exhibits), w/certificate of service 
Fil submissions to Court on behalf of defendants (affidavits of John W. 

Harrison, J. D. Morgan, John W. Harrison Sr., and letter from Chas. 
M. Lowe to Wm. E. Poe - all dated March 16, 1970) w/ 

Fil defendants' submissions pursuant to orders of March 6, 1970, cert. 

Fil submissions to Court in response to March 6, 1970, order (data), 
w/certificate of service. 

Fil plaintiffs' list of additional exhibits , w/certificate of service 

Fil 

Fil 

Fil 

Fil objection to further submission by plaintiffs of exhibit 30, part 1, 

w/certificate 

Fil Transcript of Proceedings of March 16, 17, 1970. 
Ent and Fil Order (JBM) for deposition of Mr. J. 

Exhibit 30 to be filed with Clerk, and that all parties be accorded 

opportunity to examine same. Copies to Counsel of record. CO Vol. JAY 

D. Morran, and allowing 

  

  
| 

:. 
nce. 

fice. 

} A113 

Fil Report to Judge McMillan of William C. Self, Superintendent of Schodls. 
Fil Briel in behalf of Tom B. 

James M. Postell, William E. Rorie, Jr., Chalmers R. Carr, Robert T. 

Wilson, and William H. Booe. w/certificatc of service. 

Fil COPY of Renewal of application for stay or portion of court order 

of February 5, 1970 as amended by order of March 3, 1970 

Fil copy of Jydege McMillan's supplementary findings of fact and suppleme 
memorandum submitted toU.S.Court of Appeals, Richmond,dated 3/21/70 

Harris, GC. Don Roberson, A. Breece Breland, 

ntal  



  
    

  
  

CIVIL #i197h - page #12 

DAT PROCKETDINGS Wom 

3-23-20 Jeanine summons cokins clditional parties 
~~ 

3-23-70 AEA "11 Defondanbts' Hesponse to Plaintifis' Supplemental Exhibit of March 26,1 17410, 

: vith ceriitieate of service. 

3-24-70 | #183] Fil Plalntifis' Memorsndws of Additional Points of Authority. w/cert. of sprvice, 

3-25-70 18% Ent and {il order noting exceptions to order by Court on 2-6-TO disallowing 
motion Lo recuse and dlsqualify filed by Wm. H, Boot 

ard others. CO0-Vol., VI-#122. 
3-25-7¢ | #185] Eat and fil order staying time table for implementation of this court's 

order of 2-5-70 until September 1, 1970. <{0-Vol. VI-#123. JEM 
Copics moiled to counsel of record. 

3-26-70 [#186 Fil by Defendants Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education and individual 
members ,objections and exceptions to Supplementary Findings of Fact 

of March 21, 1970, and motion for modivication and clarification thereof 

3.26.70 (#1871 Fil Notice of Appeal by plaintiff. Copies mailed to counsel of record, 
3=21~70 #108 FE2 Platnt 12Pr! oonen) bora in gw of 2050.00 « Unit 2 Sistas Fidelity 

and Oversyte Corpaps, rocky 

3-30-70 | #189] Fil Marshal's return of service of summons, complaint and exhibits for 

plaintiffs on additional defendants, executed by serving Whiteford S. 

Blakeney (individually and as attorney) and William H. Booe (individually 

and as attorney), representing Mrs. Robert Lee Moore et al., additional 

parties-defendant - on March 23, 1970 

4- 2-70 #:90i Fil Deposition of J. D. Morgan, taken 3/19/70 - 98 pages 

L- 2-70 Certifying record to Clerk, USCA, Richmond 

Y- 6-70 #191] Fil Further Findings of Fact on matters raised by March 26, 1970, 
Motions of Defendants (original filed by Court with Clerk, USCA) 

4-29-70n | #193 Fil Opinion - Three Judge Court - Copies to counsel. 
6- 9-70 | #193| Fil copy of order USCA - Judge Craven's order of disqualification and 

memorandum of decision 

6-22-70 | #194] Ent & Fil Final Judgment (JBC-JDB-JBM) - N. C. General Statute 115-176.1 pro- 

hibitin. assif nment by race and bussing be and is hereby held unconstitutional; 

pltfs. motion io hold defendants in contempt denied; various motions to 

dismiss are denied. CO VOL. VI, #208 =~ Copies to counsel 

(1-30-70 #195 | il Submission Pursuani. to Order of Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 

w/certificate of service and exhibits A (HEW's plan lor the establishment of 

a unitary system Tor the Charloite-Mecklenburg School District; exhibit B 

(Statement of Poard Minority Members); and, exhibit C (Resolution). 

7- 2-70 |#196| Fil Notice of Appeal to Supreme Court of United States by Defs. Scott, Davis) 
Mclean, N. C. State Board of Fducation and Phillips. Copy mailed to 

: counsel for all parties. 
7-7-7170 97 Fil Plaintif{fs' Response to tne Defendunts' submission to Order of the Court 

of appeals for the Fourth Circuit. w/cert. of service 

7-13-70 #198 Fil deposition of John P. Cross, July 8, 1970 
7-13-70 |#199| Fil deposition of Henry L. Kemp, July 8, 1970 
7-170  (f#~n0]| Fil dep siti n of Dr. Carlton G. Watkins - July 8, 1970 
7-14-70 |#201| Fil deposition of William E. Poe =- July 10, 1970 
7-14-70 |/202] Fil motion for leave to participate as amicus curiae 
7-14-70 [#203] Ent & Fil Order (JBM) granting leave for the United States to appear and 

participate in the July 15, 1970 hearing respecting the HEW plan. 

CO. VOL. #217 Copies mailed to counsel 

Continued on Page 13       
 



  

Civil Ayih - Page 13 

D. C. 110A Rev. Civil Docket Continuation 
  

  ms Tm Soo = A — 
  

  

: ~ 
PROCEEDINGS bo Jue 

1 
  

  
  

T=-15-70 feOh Fil venosition of J. UD. Moran. 

T=15-70 12053 Fil Uerogition of Dr. william C. self. 

7-17-70 | #20..: Fil objection and excepiion to certain portions of final Judgment of 
3-Judge courv by ~auiilional parties-defendant, signed by Judge McMillan; 
also object to the signing and entry of the judgment. Copies to 
Mr. Waggoner, Hon. Robt.Morgan, Mr. Chambers, and Mr.Booe (who submitted 
paper) . (CO VT #8) 

      

 



  

| 

| 

Docket Entries 

 



    

2a 

Motion for Further Relief 

(Filed September 6, 1968) 

IN THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

For THE WESTERN DisTricT oF NORTH CAROLINA 

CHARLOTTE Division 

Crvin Action No. 1974 

  

James E. Swann, et al., 

Plawmtiff's, 

and 

Tae NorTH CAROLINA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, a corporation, 

Plawntiff-Intervenor, 

enh TC Mee 

Tae CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG Boarp or EbpucaTion, 

a public corporate, 

Defendant. 

  

The plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor, by their under- 

signed counsel, respectfully move the Court for further 

relief in the above-styled cause, and, as grounds therefor, 

show the Court as follows: 

1. This cause was initially filed by plaintiffs on January 

15, 1968, seeking injunctive relief against the racially dis- 

criminatory practices and policies of the defendant in the 

operation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools. 

 



3a 

Motion for Further Relief 

Plaintiffs challenged at that time (a) the attendance zones 
of the various schools which limited or restricted desegre- 
gation; (b) the exception by the School Board of 10 Negro 
schools from attendance zoning; (¢) the use of freedom of 
choice imposed on attendance zoning, permitting students 
assigned to integrated schools to transfer out, thus re- 
segregating the schools and (d) the failure of the board 
to take immediate and effective steps to desegregate teach- 
ers and staff personnel. 

2. Following the hearing of this cause in July, 1965, the 
District Court entered an order dated July 14, 1965 approv- 

ing of the plan adopted by the school board providing for 
attendance zones for 99 of the 109 schools, exception of 
the 10 Negro schools from geographic attendance plan, 
transfer of pupils from integrated schools to segregated 
after initial assignments, and modification of the plan with 
respect to teachers, requiring immediate integration of 

teachers. The United States Court of Appeals for the 

Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court order on Decem- 
ber 24, 1966, reasoning that the 10 excepted Negro schools 
had been closed, that there was no affirmative duty on the 
school board to act consciously for the purpose of achieving 

the maximum mixture of races in the schools, and holding 
further that any party may apply to the District Court 
for further relief or for modification of the District Court 
order, the United States Supreme Court decided Greene v. 
County School Board of New Kent County, U.S, ’ 
20 L.ed.2d. 727; Monroe v. Board of Commissioners of the 
City of Jackson, U.S. , 20 L.ed. 2d 733, and Raney 
v. Board of Education of Gould School District, U.S. 

, 20 L.ed. 2d 727, and the United States Court of Ap- 

  
  

    

  

  

peals for the Fourth Circuit decided Brewer v. School 

 



  

4a 

Motion for Further Relief 

  Board of the City of Norfolk, ¥.24 — (Fourth Cir. 

#11782, May 31, 1968). It is clear from these decisions’ 

that the further modification of the District Court order 

of July 14, 1965, is warranted. 

3. Since the District Court order of July 14, 1965, the 

school board has closed the 10 Negro schools, excepted from 

the geographic attendance program of 1965 and has estab- 

lished new boundary lines for the schools. In addition, the 

school board has constructed and made additions to several 

new schools. The new boundary lines established and the 

placement of the mew schools and additions to existing 

schools were designed and have had the effect of perpetu- 

ating segregation in the school system. The defendant has 

also continued the free transfer provisions allowing stu- 

dents to transfer out of integrated schools and has failed to 

take appropriate steps to completely desegregate staff and 

school personnel. 

4. Specifically: 

(A) Defendant has perpetuated attendance area school 

districting in such manner as to maintain and perpetuate 

segregated schools. The all-white, all-Negro and tokenly 

integrated schools in this system result from racially gerry- 

mandered school districts, the use of attendance areas based 

on racially segregated and developed housing, both pub- 

licly and privately contrived, the use of a feeder system 

which perpetuates the racially segregated system as existed 

before Broww v. Board of Education. This practice has 

been condemned both by the Supreme Court and by the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Al- 

ternative methods exist here for complete disestablishment 

of the segregated system, and, under the decision cited 

   



oa 

Motion for Further Relief 

above, the school board is required to pursue these alterna- 
tive methods. 

(B) Defendants use of the freedom of choice or free 
transfer plan is clearly for the purpose of perpetuating 
segregated schools. The use of freedom of choice in this 
system, imposed on geographic attendance zones where the 
results have been to perpetuate segregated schools, has 
been condemned by the Supreme Court and the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Under the 
decisions cited above the school board is constitutionally 
required to eliminate this practice. 

(C) Defendant’s “feeder system” has also been used to 
perpetuate racial segregation of students. This system, 
as used by the defendant, tends to filter Negro and white 
students, who initially began their education in segregated 
elemetary schools, into segregated junior and senior high 
schools. Such a system, if properly oriented, may be a 
constitutionally permissable step in the integration of the 
public schools. See Monroe v. Board of Commissioners of 
the City of Jackson, supra. However, where such a system 
is used to perpetuate segregation, as here, it violates the 
requirements of Brown v. Board of Education. 

(D) Defendant has failed to take immediate and effec- 
tive steps to desegregate its teachers and school personnel. 
Where such integration has taken place, the school per- 
sonnel assigned have consisted primarily of librarians, 
music, art, reading and Special Education teachers. Schools 
with large Negro or white student enrollments have fairly 
completely segregated faculties. This practice fails to meet 
the constitutional mandate of the Supreme Court, the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 
and the Court order entered in this case. 

 



  

ba 

Motion for Further Relief 

(E) Defendant has followed a practice and policy of 

discrimination against predominantly or all-Negro schools 

by providing them with inferior educational programs and 

facilities. Defendant has maintained ability grouping (“ad- 

vanced,” “regular,” and “basic”) systems in predominantly 

white schools. Negro students in predominantly white 

schools, are for the most part, relegated to the lower group- 

ings and given little opportunity to reach the “advanced” 

levels. In general, the curriculum in the white schools 18 

broader and more varied than that in the Negro schools. 

Defendant has failed to provide adequate funds for build- 

ing and school construction and the purchase of needed 

school facilities at the all-Negro or predominantly Negro 

schools. Funds even though immediately allocated to Negro 

schools have been diverted to white schools often to the 

detriment of the Negro schools. Moreover, even with the 

construction of new schools or the additions to existing 

schools, the effect has been to limit the integration of 

schools. There is presently no plan for the construction 

of new schools which would bring together a highly inte- 

grated student body. 

WrEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this matter 

be set for hearing at the earliest possible date and that 

upon such hearing the Court permanently enjoin defendant: 

(1) to present a plan within a period of time that will 

permit its implementation at the beginning of the 1969-70 

school year, establishing school zone lines, school and grade 

consolidation, or both, in order to completely desegregate 

all schools in the school system, and to eliminate the racial 

identity of the various schools; 

   



Ta 

Motion for Further Relief 

(2) to completely desegregate all teachers and school 
personnel in the school system so that for the 1969-70 school 
year the percentage of Negro and white teachers and school 
personnel in all schools in the system will approximate the 
number of Negro and white teachers in the school system ; 

(3) to cease planning and constructing schools, additions 
to schools, and school facilities on the basis of race and 
color. In this connection, that the defendant be enjoined 
to present to the Court, with copies being served upon 
plaintiffs, a report of any planned construction, addition, 
alteration or closing; 

(4) to eliminate, effective with the beginning of the 1969- 
70 school year, any and all disparatives in school facilities, 
school buildings, curriculum and equipment ; 

(5) to discontinue and eliminate any and all other prac- 
tices in the school system based on race and color. 

Plaintiffs further pray that pending a full and complete 
implementation of the Order of the Court that the Court 
retain jurisdiction of this cause; that the plaintiffs be 
awarded the causes herein and granted such other and fur- 
ther relief as the Court may deem equitable and just. 

 



    

8a 

Motion for Further Relief 

Respectfully submitted, 

Conran O. PEArsON 

2031, East Chapel Hill Street 

Durham, North Carolina 

Jurius LEVonNE CHAMBERS 

James E. Fercuson, 11 

James HE. LanNiNg 

216 West Tenth Street 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 

JACK GREENBERG 

James Nasrit, I11 
RoBerT BELTON 

10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 



9a 

Answer to Motion for Further Relief 

(Filed September 6, 1968) 

IN THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

For THE WESTERN DisTRicT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

CHARLOTTE Division 

Crvi. Action No. 1974 

  

James E. SwawnN, et al, 

Plaintiffs, 

—VS8.— 

TaE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG Boarp oF EbucaTion, 

Defendant. 

  

The defendant, answering the motion of the plaintiffs 

filed herein on the 6th day of September, 1968, says and 

alleges 

1. The allegations of paragraph 1 deal with matters 

and things appearing of record in this case and this de- 

fendant is not required to either admit or deny said alle- 

gations, except that it is alleged that this cause was initially 

filed on January 12, 1965. 

2. The allegations of paragraph 2 deal with matters 

and things appearing of record in this case and this defen- 

dant is not required to either admit or deny the same 

except that it is denied that further modification of the 

District Court order of July 14, 1965 is justified. 

 



  

10a 

Answer to Motion for Further Relief 

3. Answering the allegations of paragraph 3, it is ad- 

mitted that since said Court order of July 14, 1965, the 

defendant has abolished the dual school system as it relates 

to race, has made some necessary changes in boundary lines 

of attendance areas, has constructed and made additions to 

new schools and old schools and has permitted pupils to 

transfer from one attendance area to another when there 

was sufficient room in such other attendance area to accom- 

modate the pupils. Except as herein admitted the allega- 

tions of paragraph 3 are denied. 

4(A). The allegations of paragraph 4(A) are denied. 

4(B). Answering the allegations of paragraph 4(B), this 

defendant denies that the transfer plan permitting pupils 

to transfer from one attendance area to another has been 

for the purpose of perpetuating segregated schools and this 

defendant alleges that such transfer plan has been used by 

pupils without regard to race and has proven of value and 

convenience to pupils without regard to race. 

4(C). The allegations of paragraph 4(C) are denied. 

4(D). The allegations of paragraph 4(D) are denied. 

4(E). The allegations of paragraph 4(E) are denied. 

Wherefore, the defendant prays the Court that the relief 

demanded by the plaintiffs in said motion be denied, that 

this action be dismissed and that this plaintiff recover its 

cost and have such other and further relief as it may be 

entitled to receive. 

Brock BARKLEY 

Attorney for the Defendant 

814 Law Building 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 

   



11a 

Transcript of Hearing March 10, 1969 

[18] * % * 

All right, the plaintiffs may proceed with their testimony. 

Mr. Chambers: We would like to identify Plaintiff’s Ex- 

hibit #1, Defendant’s answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories 

of September 9, 1968, defendant’s answers being dated 

October 31, 1968. 
Court: This is the defendant’s answers? 

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir, defendant’s answers. As Plain- 

tiff’s Exhibit 2 the defendant’s answers to plaintiff’s in- 

terrogatories of January 31, 1969, defendant’s answers 

being dated March 3, 1969. We would like permission of the 

Court to substitute the original of these answers now on 

file with the Clerk in lieu of our copies. 

Court: I was looking at the exhibit and didn’t realize 

you were asking a question. You asked if the original might 

[19] be substituted, it may be, yes. 

Mr. Chambers: Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3, Collective Exhibit 

3, consists of the depositions of Mrs. Gertrude Coward, 

Mr. James Burch, Mrs. Mary Jane Kistler, Dr. Robert 

C. Hanes, Mr. Joseph Frankford, Mr. John B. Phillips; 

Mr. William L. Anderson, Mrs. Ann Hausmann, Mr. Car- 

roll C. York, Mr. John W. Harrison, Mr. Henry L. Smith, 

Mr. Ralph W. Eaton, Mr. Herbert L. Puckett, Mr. James 

Clark, Mr. J. B. Davis, Jr., Dr. James Mikaelson, Mrs. 

Dorothy Boone, Dr. Leslie Bobbitt, Dr. William C. Self, 

and Mr. William E. Poe. 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit #4 I'd like to identify an overlay 

showing the racial housing pattern in the City of Charlotte. 

Court: That’s an overlay on itself or on something else? 

Mr. Chambers: It’s an overlay of the County map of 

the various district lines of the School Board. 

Mr. Chambers: Prepared by Mr. Green. We will call 

him as the first witness. We just wanted to identify them 

 



  

12a 

Colloquy 

now. As Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5, a census tract map of 

Mecklenburg County for 1960. 

Court: What is a census tract map? 

Mr. Chambers: The Bureau of the Census prepares 

various districts for the County for census purposes. 

Court: What does a tract mean? 
[20] Mr. Chambers: That is the district, the tract it- 

self. 
Mr. Barkley: We are not admitting the competency. 

Mr. Chambers: Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6, we have a racial 

breakdown on the census tract map showing the percent- 

ages of nmon-whites in the various tracts in the City of 

Charlotte as of 1960. As Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 we have an 

overlay of that census tract map showing the racial com- 

position as of 1968, October 31, 1968. As Plaintiff’s HEx- 

hibit 8 we have a map showing the income for family in 

the various tracts of Mecklenburg County as of the 1960 

census. As Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9 we have a zoning map 

for the City of Charlotte for 1947. 
Court: Mr. Chambers, we have some visitors in the back 

who may be personally involved in the suit. Is the nice 

looking lady in the back row in charge of these folks? Are 

you the teacher? 

Voice from the Audience: Yes, I am. 

Court: If you’ll tell us who you are, we'll be glad to 

welcome you to the court as long as you want to stay. 

Mrs. Kelley: Thank you. I am Betsy Kelley, member 

of the School Board and this is a group of students from 

St. Gabriel’s Elementary School, eighth graders. 
Court: We are glad to have you with us, Mrs. Kelley. 

Mr. Chambers: Plaintiff’s Collective Exhibit 10, zoning 

ordinance for the City of Charlotte 1968 and the [211] 

zoning maps with index for the City of Charlotte 1968. 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 11, copy of zoning ordinance for the 

County of Mecklenburg. 

   



13a 

Colloquy 

Court: Is that current? 
Mr. Chambers: Current. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12, a pub- 

lication of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commis- 

sion entitled The Next 20 Years with the map showing the 

recommended residential zoning and industrial zoning for 

the next twenty years for the City of Charlotte. Plaintiff’s 

Fixhibit 13, a map showing the major thoroughfares for 

the City of Charlotte dated June 1, 1968. Plaintiff’s Ex- 

hibit 14 a map showing the urban renewal areas for the 

City of Charlotte dated November, 1968. Plaintiff’s Ex- 

hibit 15, a publication of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Plan- 

ning Commission entitled Residential Blight in Charlotte 

dated September, 1962. Plaintiff’s Kxhibit 16, a copy of a 

publication of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Com- 

mission entitled Review of Community Facilities, dated 

1964. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 17, a copy of publication by the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission entitled A 

Statistical Summary of Population and Economic Data dated 
March, 1968. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 18, publication of the City 

of Charlotte entitled Model Neighborhood Proposal dated 

April, 1967. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 19, a copy of the Workable 

Program Report submitted by the City of Charlotte to the 

United States Department of Housing and [22] Urban 

Development, dated January 27, 1969. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 

20, a two volume publication of the Charlotte Area Fund 

prepared by the North Carolina Fund entitled A Profile 

of Community Problems dated 1964. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 21, 

a publication of the Charlotte Area Fund prepared by the 

North Carolina Fund entitled Characteristics of Individuals 

in Areas Served by the Charlotte Community Action Pro- 

gram, dated August, 1967. Plaintiff’s Collective Exhibit 22, 

a copy of the Code of the City of Charlotte 1946, Chapter 

14; Code of the City of Charlotte 1946, Chapter 1; Code 

 



  

14a 

Colloquy 

of the City of Charlotte 1931, Chapter 5, Section 320(a), 

Chapter 14, Sections 483 through 486, Chapter 15, Section 

544; Code of the City of Charlotte dated 1902 showing 

the City census Part 1 and the unofficial appendix attached 

to the code. Plaintiff’s Collective Exhibit 23, interim re- 

ports and summary prepared by Engelhardt & Engelhardt 

for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. 

Your Honor, for the purpose of the hearing we would 

like to identify also exhibits that are attached to defen- 

dant’s answers to interrogatories which show elementary, 

junior high and senior high school distribution for the 

City of Charlotte. 
We'd like to follow with Exhibit 24, a map of the City 

of Charlotte elementary school districts; as Plaintiff’s Ex- 

hibit 25 the map of the City of Charlotte junior high 

[23] school districts; and as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 26, the 

map of the senior high school districts for the school 

system. 

Court: What vintage is that? 

Mr. Chambers: 1968-69. 

Court: Are they separate, you say the City of Charlotte. 

Mr. Chambers: The Charlotte-Mecklenburg School 

System. 

Court: You're still talking about the same thing. Those 

three are all 1969. 

Mr. Chambers: 1968-69 school year. We'd like to call 

at this time Mr. Green. 

Court: Let’s take a ten minute recess. 

SHORT RECESS 

Mr. Chambers: In connection with Plaintiff’s Exhibit 14, 

we have a statistical listing by the Charlotte Redevelop- 

ment Commission showing where families in the urban 

   



15a 

Charles L. Green—for Plaintiff s—Direct 

renewal areas were located and we’d like to have this 

document attached to our Exhibit 14. 

Court: All right. 

Mr. Barkley: We haven’t had a chance to read any of 

these or check them. We have agreed that we will admit 

that the source of the material comes from where it appears 

that it comes. This particular document, it doesn’t show 

it, but we have one like it and we will admit it comes from 

the Redevelopment Commission. 

Court: Let me see if I can put this question in a [24] 

light that will leave everybody at ease about it. I intend 

to entertain all objections to any evidence before the record 

is closed, but I intend to consider all evidence that is 

pertinent to the case that is introduced if, in my opinion, 

it is pertinent to the case and is not incompetent for some 

clear reason. But all of these exhibits are being accepted 

subject to your right to make any objection that appears 

when you have had time to study them and before the 

record is closed with the presumption being that the Court 

is going to sift the wheat from the chaff in making any 

decision that is made and with your objections in mind 

when that is done. 

Mr. Barkley: It is understood that we do not admit the 
competency of any of this material. 

Court: That’s all right. 

Mr. Chambers: As Plaintiff’s Exhibit 27 we’d like to 

introduce a copy of the regulations of the Department of 

Agriculture dealing with the school lunch program. 

  

Crarnes Li. GREEN, a witness for the plaintiffs, having 

first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 

 



  

16a 

Charles L. Green—for Plaintiff s—Direct 

Direct Examination by Mr. Chambers: 

Q. Will you state your name, please? A. Charles L. 

Green. 

Q. What is your address, Mr. Green? [25] A. 711 

Baugh Building in Charlotte. 

Q. What is your occupation, Mr. Green? A. 1 am en- 

gaged in Marketing Research. 

Q. Would you describe for the Court what this consists 

of? A. It consists of various studies, statistical, primarily 

in the development of information dealing with a number 

of things, socio-economic problems, the testing of radio 

commercials, interviewing people for consumer products, 

sales, any sort of information that is concerned with 

marketing or social problems. 

Q. Does your work consist at any time of counting 

houses or where people live or determining where people 

live? A. That is correct. I have done a considerable 

amount of this type of work. 

Q. How long have you been involved in this particular 

kind of practice? A. Since 1954. 

Q. In studying where people live, have you concerned 

yourself with racial areas where people live, whether they 

were black or white? A. I have done a study on this, yes, 

sir. 

Q. Have you studied residential patterns according to 

the income of families? A. This was in connection with the 

study on the white and non-white population distribution. 

[26] Q. Now, were you requested, Mr. Green, to make a 

study of the City of Charlotte for us for this lawsuit? A. 

That is correct. 
Q. Were you requested to do a map to show the racial 

housing patterns in the City of Charlotte? A. That is 

correct. 

   



17a 

Charles L. Green—for Plaintiff s—Direct 

Q. Were you requested to do a study for the plaintiffs 
to show the income of families according to the census 
tract? A. That is correct also. 

Q. Did you prepare such maps? A. I did. 

Q. I show you a document which has been marked plain- 
tiff’s Exhibit 4 and ask if you prepared this document. A. I 
did, sir. 

Q. Would you state for the record what this exhibit is. 
A. This is an overlay of a map of Mecklenburg County. On 

the overlay the census tracts are outlined and the overlay 

itself is color-coded by census tract as to the percentage of 

non-white population within the individual tract. These 
percentages are as of September 1, 1968. I think you should 

clarify that in view of the other exhibits. 
Q. The overlay, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4, is a representation 

of the non-whites in the various census tracts as of Sep- 

tember 1,1968? A. Right. 

[27] Q. Now I show you a document marked Plaintiff’s 

Exhibit 5 and ask if you will tell us what that is. A. This 

is a blank census tract map showing the census tracts within 

the Charlotte area, commonly called the urbanized area 

of Charlotte. 

Q. Who prepared that document, Mr. Green? A. The 

base map was prepared by the Bureau of Census. 

Q. Do you know the basis for the divisions of the tracts? 

A. The Bureau of Census, in connection with a local com- 

mittee, establishes census tracts and they try as much as 

possible to get homogeneous groups of population, income, 

size, not necessarily geographic size but the size of the 

population should be fairly consistent. The average of 4000 
is the national average within a census tract. 

Mr. Waggoner: We object to this line of testi- 

mony because it’s based on what he assumes other 

 



  

18a 

Charles L. Green—for Plaintiff s—Durect 

people have done and at best on hearsay. 

Court: Is this identification necessary for any 

testimony he is going to give? It’s a map of an area. 

Do I understand you're going to fill in what you 

want the Court to know about his testimony? 

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. 

Court: I think the objection is technically well 

taken. I’ll sustain it. 

Q. Mr. Green, is there a publication that sets out how the 

[28] census tracts are established? A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chambers: I'd like to identify as Plaintiff’s 

Exhibit 28 a document prepared by ServAnalysis of 

Charlotte entitled Charlotte, North Carolina, Census 

Tracts 1 through 54, estimates of number of house- 

holds and populations by tract as of June 1, 1966. 

Mr. Barkley: It’s not contended that was prepared 

by him, is it? 

Mr. Chambers: By Mr. Green. I'm just going to 

establish that. 

Q. Would you look at that document, Mr. Green, and 

tell us what it is? A. It is an update of the 1960 census 

figures, estimated number of households and population 

by census tract in the ’54 urban census tracts of Charlotte 

as of the 1st of June, 1966. 

Court: Updated from—? 

A. 1960 census figures. 

Q. Did you prepare this document, Mr. Green? A. I did. 

Q. I show you another document marked Plaintiff’ Ex- 

hibit 6 and ask if you will state what this is? A. This is a 

   



19a 

Charles L. Green—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

map showing by census tract the percentage of non-white 
population in Charlotte as of 1960. These are 1960 census 
figures. 

[29] Q. Did you prepare that document, Mr. Green? 
A. 1 did, sir. 

Q. I show you a document marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 
and ask if you will state what that is. A. This is an overlay 
for Exhibit 6, which is the previous map, showing the esti- 
mated percentages of non-white population in the census 
tracts of Charlotte as of 1968, September 1. 

Q. I show you a document marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8 
and ask if you will state what that document is. A. This 
1s a map showing by census tracts the median family in- 
come for the Charlotte census tracts as of 1960. These also 
are Census Bureau figures. 

Court: Is this exhibit something you prepared? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: You prepared #4, #6, #7 and#8? 

A. That is correct, Your Honor. 

Q. Mr. Green, would you state to the Court the pro- 
cedure you followed in preparing Exhibit #4? A. Well, 
having the 1960 census figures and the percentages and 
the number of people within the various tracts according 
to race, I had conferences with the City Planning Com- 
mission, with the Redevelopment Board, relocation people, 
with real estate agents, with the Chamber of Commerce, 
with various and sundry people who would have some 
knowledge of any shift in population since 1960. We estab- 
lished roughly the areas [30] into which there had been 
population shifts, especially of the non-white. That 

 



  

20a 

Charles L. Green—for Plaintiff s—Dairect 

was really the main thing we were trying to determine, 

where the non-white population had migrated since 1960. 

Having established these areas, we were then able to work 

from small maps that the Planning Commission has and 

street by street to come up with percentages of the non- 

white population on these streets. This was done only in 

the areas of transition. There were some areas that were 

quite obvious there had been no change, no significant 

change. Having established these percentages, of mnon- 

white population, we could then equate that to numerical 

population. The overlay was prepared from the percent- 

ages. It is color-coded in 20% gradations. 

Q. Looking at the overlay, Mr. Green, would you tell the 

Court the various percentages represented by the colors? 

Court: Are they set out on the face of the exhibit? 

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. 

Q. Would you accompany me over here to this map and 

explain how this overlay is to work on the maps of the 

School Board? (The witness does so.) Mr. Green, where 

would your greatest concentration of non-whites reside? 

A. Your greatest concentration of non-whites would be in 

the areas of shaded purple. That percentage runs from 

81 to 100% of non-white population, in these purple areas. 

Q. That would include this section down here indicated 

by 237 [311 A. That would include census tract 23. 

Court: Is that near Griertown? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. As you indicated just a moment ago, the overlay is 

based on the various census tracts? A. That is correct. The 

black lines on the overlay are the outlines of the census tract 

   



21a 

Charles L. Green—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

boundaries. These are the census tract numbers. 
Q. Now, while you're there, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8 is also 

based on the census tract as of 1960, is that right? 

Court: This exhibit on the board, #4 and 24, this 
speaks as of what time, 1968? 

A. Yes, sir, 

Court: Go ahead. 

Q. This exhibit shows the income level in the community 
as of 1960, is that correct? A. That is correct. 

Court: You're talking now about exhibit what? 
Mr. Chambers: Exhibit 8. 

Q. The only difference in your Exhibits 6 and 7 and 
Exhibit 4 is that you show a change in the population in 
Exhibit 6 and 7 from 1960 to 1968. A. Right. 

Q. Take the stand. (The witness does so.) 

Mr. Chambers: I'd like to mark as Plaintiff’s Ex- 
hibit [321 29 copies of the census tracts 39 and 36, 
and as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 30 copy of the census 
tract 38. 

Q. Mr. Green, would you look at Exhibit 29 and explain 
to the Court what that is? A. Your Honor, this is a more 
detailed map of all portions of these two census tracts. 
They are two that are in transition as far as black and 
white inhabitants go. 

Court: Those tracts are what? 

 



  

22a 

Charles L. Green—for Plaintiffs—Cross 

A. Tract 36 and Tract 39. 

Court: Where is that in the town? 

A. Both of these tracts are bounded on the north by the 

Southern Railway tracks. They are in the western part 

of town, West Boulevard runs through them. You get into 

the Clanton Park area. 

Q. Would you look at Exhibit 30 and tell the Court what 

that exhibit is? A. This is also a more detailed map of 

census tract 38 which is north of Yorkmont Road. It runs 

over off the Revolution Park area. All three of these tracts 

are together. This is the northern portion and this includes 

also portions of the Clanton Park, Rolling Wood area. 

Q. Mr. Green, you prepared the Exhibit 4, the Exhibit 

6 and 7, the Exhibit 29 and 30 which you have just been 

testifying about. In your opinion do they truly and ac- 

curately represent the non-white population in the County 

of Mecklenburg? [331 A. Yes, sir, I think they do. We 

consider they are accurate within plus or minus 5% which, 

in the fields of statistics, is quite an acceptable figure. 

Q. You also prepared Exhibit 8, which is the income dis- 

tribution by census tract for 1960. In your opinion does 

that exhibit truly and accurately represent the income by 

census tract for 1960? A. I think that as far as Govern- 

figures go, that is 100% accurate. 

Mr. Chambers: I have no further questions. 

Cross Examination by Mr. Barkley: 

Q. Mr. Green, what is your profession? A. Marketing 

research. 

Q. Did you graduate from college in Marketing Research? 

   



23a 

Charles L. Green—for Plaintiffs—Cross 

A. No, sir. My degree is Bachelor of Science on Commerce. 
It included courses in marketing, marketing research, statis- 
tics. At that time we were required to write a thesis for a 
degree and my thesis was in the field of Marketing and 
Research, or Polling, really, at the time. 

Q. Where did you graduate? A. Washington and Lee 
University. 

Q. When did you graduate? A. 1949. 
Q. And you went into this business in 1954? [34] A. 

Yes, sir. 

Q. For whom do you prepare charts and make surveys 
of this nature? Have you done this before? A. Yes. Some 
of my clients have included local banks in connection with 
the location of branch banks, the Chamber of Commerce, 
the Model Cities people, several insurance companies. There 
is a wide range of people who need and use marketing re- 
search of one kind or another. 

Q. And your specialty is Marketing Research, I would 
figure. A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, this overlay that you have here, Exhibit #4, it’s 
not based on school attendance lines under any circum- 
stances, is it? A. No. My commission was to work by 
census tracts. 

Q. And you worked solely by census tracts? A. That is 
correct, yes, sir. 

Q. And you have no knowledge as to the attendance areas 
in those particular sections? A. Not as such, no, sir. I 
tried to do no correlation between the two. 

Q. Can you tell us the approximate distance between the 
southern boundary of this purple, which I believe you say is 
colored, and the northern boundary, just your best estimate 
as to the number of blocks or miles that it would be. A. 
Sir, would you object if I came closer? 

 



  

24a 

Charles L. Green—for Plaintiff s—Cross 

[35] Q. Well, the northern boundary of the Negro area 

with the southern boundary of the Negro area, which ap- 

pears to be about Dilworth Road. A. It runs up to I-85, if 

I am not mistaken. 

Q. That is what it may be, yes. A. Well, IT would esti- 

mate that that would possibly be five miles. 

Q. Now what is the yellow here, the orange, what is this 

supposed to show? A. You have the color-coding chart on 

the overlay, sir. I do not have it before me. 

Q. You don’t remember what your code was? A. No, 

sir, I code so many things it’s difficult to remember. 

Q. Well, on your code of orange you have 61-80%, what 

does that mean? A. That means that within the census 

tracts coded in orange your estimated non-white popula- 

tion is between 61 and 80%. 

Q. It would be between 61 and 80%? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, what area of the community is that, do you 

know? A. That is west of Pineville Road and parts of 

South Boulevard, your large area there. 

Q. Well, would that also take in large residential areas 

in there? A. Yes, sir. Parts of those tracts are industrial- 

ized but the southern part of, I think it’s tract 38, the lower 

part there, [36] has had a tremendous residential growth 

in the past several years. 

Q. And you say that is only 61% white? A. Non-white, 

Sir. 
Q. 61% non-white? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do I understand that a majority of the people living 

in the area shown by the orange color would be Negro? 

A. That is correct. 

Q. What residential areas does it embrace? 

   



25a 

Charles L. Green—for Plawmtiffs—Cross 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, Mr. Green would like 

to come down and look at the map. 

Court: Go on down and look at the map. 

A. I would like to look at it, sir. (The witness goes to the 

map.) 

Q. This area here 38 and 39, first tell me, if you can, 

roughly where does it run? A. This is Camp Green, I be- 

lieve it runs south of the Southern Railway tracks over to 

the Wallace Neil Road. It runs then on Byrum Drive and 

down to Beam Road to the Arrowood Road and then over 

to the Pineville Road. 

Q. The southern part of that tract is Pineville Road, 

then? A. The boundary, yes, sir. 

Court: Mr. Green, you're going to get me con- 

fused right at the beginning. I think Pineville Road 

runs [37] north and south and the Southern Rail- 

road runs east and west. I’m wrong, of course, geo- 

graphically, but that’s the way it always seems to 

me. You're talking about an area west of the Pine- 

ville Road and south of the Southern Railroad gen- 

erally speaking? 

A. Yes, 

Court: And it runs generally along the west side 

of South Boulevard and Pineville Road for three or 

four miles and extends along the Airport Road and 

south of that? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: What is the northern boundary, the upper 

boundary the way the map is hanging now? 

 



  

26a 

Charles L. Green—for Plawntiff s—Cross 

A. The upper boundary would be the Southern Railway. 

Q. And what is this neighborhood in here? A. Arrowood 
Road down here. 

Q. And you say that is 60% black? A. Between 60 and 

80%, yes, sir. You see, you have a large concentration up 

in these areas. 

Q. What does this green mean? Is that industrial or busi- 

ness? A. No, sir. That means between 41 and 60% of the 

population is non-white. The witness returns to the stand.) 

Q. Did you make the samples yourself from which you 

determined your estimate of the population within the 

area? A. I don’t understand your question, sir. 

[381 Q. Did you examine the residents to determine the 

number of Negro residents in a given area? A. Yes, we 

sampled. We did a great deal of visual inspection. 

Q. How many people would you see during the course of 

your sampling? A. In certain areas there was no need to 

sample. In a transition area in some cases we checked each 

household. 

Q. What are the transition streets or areas, can you tell 

me that? A. I can tell you by tract numbers. Would that 

help any? 

Court: It won’t mean a thing. 

A. Well, your main areas are in the Clanton Park, Rolling 

Wood and Barringer Wood areas. You have some transi- 

tion up off Tuckasegee Road. You have had a great deal 

over in the northeastern part of town, headed up towards 

North Charlotte, starting at the Seaboard Railroad tracks 

and working up north towards the North Charlotte area, 

up through Belmont and Villa Heights. That is in a tremen- 

dous state of transition. You're having some transition off 

   



27a 

Charles L. Green—for Plawmtiffs—Cross 

North Tryon Street. Those are the major areas of transi- 

tion. 

Q. Your study wasn’t concerned with the white race as 

far as its location and transition. A. Only in respect to if 

you get percentages for one, you have the percentage for 

the other. 

Q. That would be by deducting the black percentage from 

the [39] total, would it not? A. Yes, sir, that’s correct. 

Court: Did your studies take into account that 

we've got a lot of pastureland where there used to be 

a lot of people living? 

A. We allowed for that, yes, sir. It also takes into con- 
sideration the fact that there has been a considerable 

amount of demolition of housing through the Urban Re- 

newal Programs and express right-of-ways, and such. 

Q. You were really looking for transition areas, weren’t 

you? A. I was looking for the total picture. The transi- 

tion areas were the ones that we had to devote the most time 

to. There was no point, really, in taking a sample of the 

Greenville area, for instance, because that is, I would say, 

100% non-white population. 

Mr. Barkley: That is all I care to ask him, if it 

please the Court. 

Mr. Chambers: Does the Court have any ques- 

tions? 

Court: No, sir. 

Mr. Chambers: Thank you very much, Mr. Green. 

* * * * * 

[41] * * % 

  

 



  

28a 

Daniel O. Hennigan—yfor Plaintiff s—Direct 

Daxnien O. HexnnicaN, a witness for the plaintiffs, having 

first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as fol- 

lows: 

Direct Examination by Mr. Chambers: 

Q. Will you state your name, please? A. I am Daniel 

O. Hennigan. The O is Othello. 

Q. What is your address, Mr. Hennigan? A. 2500 New- 

land Road. 

Q. That’s here in Charlotte. A. Here in Charlotte. 

Q. What is your occupation? A. I am an ordained Pres- 

byterian Minister and a real estate broker. 

Q. Would you tell the Court your educational back- 

ground? [42] A. Yes. I completed the elementary and 

high school education, Salisbury, North Carolina; I am a 

graduate of Johnson C. Smith University, both college and 

seminary with majors in mathematics and Bachelor of 

Divinity. 

Q. Have you had any further study since then? A. Not 

formally. I have attended a number of institutes in rela- 

tionship to appraising and in relationship to the pursuit of 

brokerage work, etc. I have not pursued anything in terms 

of a Masters or Doctorate. 

Q. Were you born in Charlotte? A. I was not. I was 

born in Salisbury and at the age of 2 I came to Charlotte. 

My father and grandparents, this is their home, and from 

age 2 on I have lived principally in Charlotte and Salisbury, 

North Carolina. Because of family reasons I did my ele- 

mentary and high school education in Salisbury. However, 

until that time I lived in Charlotte and after which I re- 

turned to Charlotte. 

Q. Where did you live when you first moved to Charlotte? 

   



29a 

Dawiel O. Hennigan—for Plaintiff s—Direct 

A. My home place is on Douglas Street, 2224-26, and my 

grandparents on my father’s side have lived here as long as 

I can remember. 

Q. Is Douglas Street in the northwestern part of Char- 

lotte? A. It is. 

Q. Is it out near Johnson C. Smith University? A. Be- 

yond Johnson C. Smith University. Douglas Street inter- 

sects [43] Beatties Ford Road, or enters Beatties Ford 

Road. It does not go all the way across, just in front of the 

City Water Works. 

Q. When you first moved to Charlotte had Beatties Ford 

Road developed to the extent that it is today? A. It had 

not. Beatties Ford Road was, of course, one of the main 

and respected streets and so was Douglas Street at that 

time and perhaps was the section where most of the echelon 

Negroes lived when I was a boy. 

Court: What is your age, Mr. Hennigan? 

A. Sorry you asked that, sir, but T am 43. 

Q. Now, when you first moved to Charlotte had the Grier- 

town area been developed to the extent that it is today? 

A. Grier Heights had not been developed. When I first 

moved to Charlotte there was some scattered families in 

that section. Arthur Grier developed the Griertown sec- 

tion I think somewhere around age 12 or 13. I was some- 

where in that age range when the Grier Heights section de- 

veloped as a community as such under the leadership of the 

late Mr. Arthur Grier. 

Q. Had the Cherry section of Charlotte developed to the 

extent that it is today? A. The section in Cherry was a 

budding community and had developed to some extent but 

not to the extent to which it is today. Cherry, as most of 

 



  

30a 

Daniel O. Hennmigan—for Plaintiff s—Direct 

us who are settlers in Charlotte know it, is the section that 

was principally developed for [44] the convenience of those 

who were servants to the Myers Park and I believe the Dil- 

worth area, and this characteristically is what Cherry has 

meant to the City of Charlotte and to us who have lived 

here. 

Q. Would these servants be black or white? 

Mr. Barkley: I don’t want to be interrupting the 

court but we object to all of this testimony. I take 

it to be testimony relative to racial patterns. I 

don’t want to keep interrupting the Court but it is 

understood we can object to these questions after 

they are all in? 

Court: Yes, sir. It’s all right with me if you ob- 

ject at any time. 

Mr. Barkley: I just don’t think it’s competent. 

Court: I have a little trouble knowing what is 

relevant and what isn’t. This would be competent, 

if relevant, and I think we just have to go ahead and 

find out what the relevance is. There may not be 

any. You may object any time or later on, if you 

want to. The real problem is one of relevance to any 

question the Court has to decide. 

Mr. Barkley: Yes, sir, I think relevance is more 

correct than my idea of incompetency. The point 

that I am undertaking to make is that the testimony 

with reference to racial patterns, residential pat- 

terns, is [45] not relevant to this case. 

Court: I’d have to turn my strainer down a little 

finer than I have it now to say it’s not relevant. So 

let’s go on and see what he says. If it’s not relevant, 

it will be disregarded. 

    

 



  
3la 

Dawel O. Henmigan—for Plaintiff s—Direct 

Q. Mr. Hennigan, what were basically the Negro or 

black sections of Charlotte when you moved to Charlotte? 

Court: When is this you're talking about now, 
what year? 

Q. What year did you move here, Mr. Hennigan? A. 
1927, or ’28, 

Q. What basically were the Negro or black areas of 

Charlotte at that time? A. Greenville was a Negro com- 

munity at that time. The Brooklyn area and, of course, the 

First Ward area, and we have mentioned already the Cherry 

community and of course, the Grier Heights area. These 

were the principal Negro communities at the time I came to 

Charlotte. 

Court: How do you locate the Greenville area 
today? 

A. How do I locate it? 

Court: How would you describe it? 

A. Generally the northwest section. Statesville Avenue 

back over to Beatties Ford Road and Beatties Ford Road 

on now to the new I-85 which, I guess, would be a natural 

divider. We normally consider it to be in the northwest 

section. 

[46] Court: How far into town do you come in 

locating what you refer to as Greenville? 

A. We come to the Seaboard Railroad. That comes across, 

let’s see—there’s a school there on Burton Street, Fairview 

 



  

32a 

Daniel O. Hennigan—ifor Plaintiff s—Direct 

I believe it is, and the Seaboard Railroad track comes across 

there on the other side of that property and on— 

Court: Generally north between Beatties Ford 

and Statesville Road? 

A. That’s right. Oaklawn Avenue, perhaps, would be the 

other boarder for Greenville going north? 

Court: Oaklawn? 

A. Oaklawn. 

Court: Oaklawn is a Quartermaster Depot, isn’t 

it? 

A. No, that’s on Statesville Avenue, between Graham and 

Statesville, and Oaklawn is, I guess, the last natural thor- 

oughfare this side of Newland Road and the next thorough- 

fare going across to Beatties Ford would be I-85. 

Mr. Chambers: I'd like to identify as Plaintiff’s 

Exhibit 31 a map of the City of Charlotte as of 1950 

with various census tracts and wards. 

Mr. Barkley: Let the map speak for itself. We 

admit the source of the map is as stated on the bot- 

tom but we don’t admit anything else. 

Court: All right, sir. 

Mr. Chambers: And as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32, 

census [47] population figures by wards for the City 

of Charlotte 1940. 

Q. Mr. Hennigan, you were talking about the general 

Negro areas of the City as of the time that you moved 

   



33a 

Daniel O. Hennigan—for Plawnitiffs—Direct 

here. Could you point out by words on the Exhibit 31 the 

areas you were referring to? A. Yes, I can. What we 

normally consider to be the Brooklyn area is designated on 

this map as Wards 1 and 2. What we consider to be the 

First Ward area normally— 

Court: You say that First Ward was thought of 

as including Brooklyn? 

A. No. I am saying that what we consider to be the Brook- 

lyn area is designated as Wards 2 and 1 on this map. What 

we normally consider to be First Ward is that section 

north of Kast Trade Street and I believe it’s shown here 

as Wards 4 and 3. 

Court: Wasn’t the line between First and Second 

Ward East Trade or Elizabeth Avenue? 

A. Just a minute, I think we have the map turned around. 

This is north here. In that particular case, that would be 

correct. South of Trade would be Wards 1 and 2 and 

north of Trade would be Wards 3 and 4. May 1 correct 

that with the map then being in its proper direction we find 

then that what we normally consider to be the Brooklyn 

area is designated on this map as Wards 3 and 2 and what 

we normally consider to be [48] the First Ward area is 

designated on this map as Wards 1 and 4. 

Q. Now, where would the residents around Johnson C. 

Smith be indicated on that map, in which ward? A. In Ward 

4 would be the designation of Johnson C. Smith on this 

map. Of course, it’s beyond Ward 4. 

Court: Did First Ward extend west of Tryon 

Street? It did not, did it? 

 



  

34a 

Daniel O. Henmigan—;for Plaintiff s—Direct 

A. It did not extend west of Tryon. It extended east of 

North Tryon. 

Court: I had the notion that the wards were num- 

bered starting at Tryon you just go around the 

clock, 1, 2, 3 and 4, clockwise. 

A. That’s generally correct. I believe those four wards 

are around Tryon Street and I believe Ward 4 is from 

Tryon to Graham or Statesville, basically, and then of 

course the Greenville area adjoining Ward 4 going in a 

northerly direction which is not shown on that map. 

Court: Does this make a difference in reading the 

exhibits? 
Mr. Chambers: No, Your Honor, we just wanted to 

indicate where the areas were. 

Court: Let’s go on to something else, then. 

Q. Mr. Hennigan, you have had an opportunity to ob- 

serve the growth and development of Charlotte since you 

moved to Charlotte? [49] A. Yes, I have. 

Q. Now, how long have you been in real estate as a 

broker? A. Since the spring of 1962. 

Q. Has all of that time been here in Charlotte? A. It 

has been. 
Q. Have you in your work had an opportunity to pur- 

chase property for clients? A. I have. 

Q. Have you had an opportunity to sell property for 

clients? A. I have. 
Q. Have you had an opportunity to rent apartments or 

houses for clients? A. I have. 

Q. Have you had an opportunity to know the City of 

Charlotte residentially? A. I have. 

   



35a 

Dawiel O. Hennigan—for Plaintiff s—Direct 

Q. Have you in your work, Mr. Hennigan, encountered 

any discrimination in the sale or rental of houses? 

Mr. Barkley: I'll object to that. I don’t believe— 

how can you answer a question like that. 

Court: What is the pertinence of this, Mr. Cham- 

bers? 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, our contention here 

is that the residential housing pattern has developed 

through public and private discrimination and we 

propose to show through Mr. Hennigan and his ex- 

perience in real [50] estate that we have had private 

discrimination in Charlotte in the sale and rental 

of housing. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals 

in the Norfolk school case indicated this would be a 

relevant and pertinent inquiry by the Court and we 

were trying to establish here that we have the hous- 

ing pattern because of practices that the Court said 

should be considered by the District Court. I might 

say further that in the Fourth Circuit opinion that 

we are referring to, Brewer versus Norfolk City 

School Board, the Court specifically indicated to 

the District Court that the inquiry there should be 

whether the racial housing pattern in the City of 

Norfolk developed from public or private diserimina- 

tion or both and that, if so, that the School Board 

would not be able to utilize the basic boundary lines 

they were then employing for the assignment of high 

school students to the school. This is our conten- 

tion here relevant to the elementary, junior high 

and senior high schools. 

Mr. Waggoner: We have a copy of the Brewer 

case and I can read the language Mr. Chambers was 

 



  

36a 

Colloquy 

referring to in its entirety, if you like. It’s about 

one paragraph. 

Court: I'm a little puzzled. You know, it’s rough 

enough on a green judge when you allege what 

yowre complaining about, but when you don’t al- 

lege what you’re [51] complaining about the theory 

is just a little strange, you make it even harder. You 

don’t say anything in your pleadings about this 

subject you're now going into. 

Mr. Chambers: In the motion for further relief 

we do, Your Honor. 

Court: This is what I’ve just gotten through read- 

ing and I don’t find anything in here on that point. 

That’s not the end to inquiry on it, of course, but 

I just say you're launching off on a mission of your 

own on uncharted country as far as this case is 

concerned. Does it make any difference on your 

theory whether you do or don’t prove the motive 

by which a pattern of living is developed? 

Mr. Chamber: Your Honor— 

Court: I don’t think we can sit here and try the 

whole community and go into all the forty thousand 

reasons people build houses where they did as op- 

posed to another over a forty-year period. 

Mr. Chambers: We would contend that it should 

not make any difference. However, the Fourth 

Circuit said that this should be an inquiry by the 

Distriet Court. 

Court: Let me see the Brewer opinion. 

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir. This is not very clear. 

Court: Here it is. I don’t see that an historical 

[52] study of why people bought, built, sold and 

rented houses is going to help us any, but if you 

want to pursue it, I’ll hear what he knows about it. 

   



37a 

Daniel O. Hennwigan—for Plaintiff s—Direct 

Q. Mr. Hennigan, have you encountered in your practice 
any discrimination in the sale, racial discrimination in the 
sale or rental of houses in Charlotte? 

Mr. Barkley: I object to that as to the form of 

the question. Discrimination, I take it, is a conclu- 

sion from facts and not a fact itself. 

Mr. Chambers: I'll rephrase the question. 

Court: I think the objection is well taken. I don’t 

know the history of Charlotte thoroughly but I would 
figure from what the place looked like twenty-five 

years ago that there had been mighty little built 
here from 1930 to about 1947, or ’46, ’45, and that 

whatever pattern was established, whatever building 

was done in these zones you're talking about had 

already been done in 1927 when he moved to town. 

This is a theory you're developing by an incompetent 

witness, I think. What he could testify about what 

happened after 1962 in the way of discrimination 

probably wouldn’t be of any pertinence because you 

had a situation existing at that time in which the 
present school system operated. Am I wrong about 
that? 

Mr. Chambers: Your. Honor, I think we can 

establish [531 some practices of discrimination that 

further perpetuated the housing pattern subsequent 

to ’62. In addition, I think that from 1929 when he 

moved to Charlotte until the time that he actually 

became involved in real estate, he can testify of his 

own knowledge of practices that existed that con- 

tributed to the racial housing pattern. That testi- 

mony as well as that subsequent to 1962 would 

clearly be competent. We have some other matters 

 



  

38a 

Daniel O. Hennigan—yfor Plaintiff s—Duirect 

that are now in evidence relative to discriminatory 

practices even prior to 1929. We didn’t propose 

through live witnesses to go back and show exactly 

how every house was set up or the housing pattern 

developed prior to the time he came in. 

Court: To make this sort of question competent, 

I think you just probably have to ask him for oec- 

casions he knew of that people had refused to buy, 

sell or rent to people of the Negro race. This is 

what you're talking about, isn’t it? 

Mr. Chambers: That’s correct, Your Honor. 

Court: If he knows of instances of that sort, why 

he can testify to that. 

Q. Mr. Hennigan, do you know of any instances where 

Negroes have been denied the right to purchase houses in 

white or predominantly white areas in the City of Char- 

lotte? A. I know of, yes, some instances where this has 

been true [541 I was not the collaborating broker, how- 

ever, in instances where Negroes have actually gone to see 

houses and have offered to buy and did not have the 

opportunity to do so. I have had personal experience where 

Negroes—and I have been a part of three groups where 

we have sought to buy land that we could develop housing 

for our people or for all people and for various reasons 

even though signs have been on these properties, either 

the selling broker would come back and say either we have 

a contract or I’m sorry, the price has suddenly gone up, 

and in other instances the property was suddenly taken off 

the market and reappeared three and four months later. 

Mr. Barkley: Your Honor, I move that answer 

be stricken out on the ground that it states no fact 

   



39a 

Daniel O. Hennigan—rfor Plaintiff s— Direct 

whatsoever that would tend to show any diserimina- 
tion. 

Court: Motion denied. 

Q. Mr. Hennigan, let me ask this; have you followed 
the Charlotte News & Observer in its advertisement of 
housing in the City of Charlotte? A. I have. 

Mr. Barkley: I object to that. 

Court: Objection overruled. 

Q. Have you followed the Charlotte News in its adver- 
tising of housing in the City of Charlotte? A. I have. 

[551 Q. Prior to 1968, Mr. Hennigan, would you state 
whether they advertised housing for colored and housing 
for white? A. This has been the pattern of advertising 
as long as I can remember. 

Mr. Barkley: Move that be stricken, the testimony 

what some third party has done. 

Court: Motion denied. 

Q. Now, Mr. Hennigan, would you tell us further some of 
the specific instances you know of where Negroes have been 
unable to purchase houses in white or predominantly white 
areas? A. I was involved, I was the broker in one instance 
where I had a house for sale in a white community and, of 
course, I had a purchaser. In this instance it was not a 
case of a non-cooperative owner, the owner was perfectly 
willing to sell the house to any qualified buyer. However, 
upon the submission of an application for a mortgage loan, 
the lending institution refused to get involved on the 
grounds that it might cause some reprisals on the part of 

 



  

40a 

Daniel 0. Hennigan—Tfor Plaintiff s—Direct 

their patronizing clientele if they should make a loan in this 

particular area. 

Mr. Waggoner: Objection, motion to strike as to 

what the lending institution did, or reason it did the 

same. 

Court: Motion denied. 

Q. Go ahead, Mr. Hennigan. A. I think that completes 

that story and that was the end of that case. We, of course, 

could not find a lender that would make [56] a loan to this 

particular family in this particular instance. I had, of 

course, another experience where I had a house that was 

listed. Again, the owner had no compunctions about who 

bought the house. The house was for sale and the house 

was, of course, put on the market and was the next day 

bought off the market. The presumption was . . . 

Mr. Waggoner: Objection. 

Court: Don’t tell us about presumptions. Tell us 

what you know. 

A. All right. The house was bought off the market by a 

mortgage company who bought it in for a community or- 

ganization that was formed in this particular community. 

There was an agreement when these homes were initially 

sold by this same mortgage company that developed the 

area with regard to the swimming pool. It was a covenant 

relationship whereby the initial owner had right to share 

and use the swimming pool but in the event that the prop- 

erty should be sold and should be sold to a client that was 

not desirable to this particular association, then the as- 

sociation had the right to buy the property back in, and 

the house was bought by this particular firm for this as- 

   



41a 

Daniel O. Henmgan—;for Plawntiffs—Direct 

sociation, and subsequently sold to a white family. 

Q. Are you familiar with the development of Double 

Oaks? A. I am. 

Q. Now what section of Charlotte is that in, Mr. Henni- 

gan? A. Double Oaks is just beyond the Greenville area to 

the north [57] of Oaklawn Avenue in the northwest section 

of the City of Charlotte. 

Q. Is that presently occupied by Negroes or whites? A. 

Negroes. 

Q. Was there built at the same time that Double Oaks 

was built an apartment project that is now occupied pre- 

dominantly by whites? A. In what community, sir? 

Q. In the section of Charlotte near Wilkinson Blvd. A. 

These two projects were built, according to my recollection, 

about the same time and the one on Wilkinson was for 

whites and the one called Double Oaks was for Negroes. 

Q. Are you familiar with the development of Dalebrook? 

A. Iam. 

Q. Will you tell the Court approximately where that sec- 

tion is located in the City of Charlotte? A. Dalebrook is 

in the northwest section fronting on Newland Road, bound 

by I-85. Incidentally, I happen to live in that community. 

Q. Would you tell the Court whether a similar white 

section was built in the City of Charlotte at the same time 

by the same developer? A. Yes, sir. There were several 

sub-divisions at the same time being built by the same de- 

veloper and these were for white and the Dalebrook com- 

munity was for Negroes. 

[581 Q. Are you familiar with the development of Uni- 

versity Park? A. I am. 

Q. Would you tell the Court what section of town that is 

in? A. Northwest section of town. It’s to the west of 

Beatties Ford Road. LaSalle Street and I-85 and Beatties 

 



  

42a 

Dawiel O. Henwigan—for Plaintiff s—Direct 

Ford Road are the boundaries of this subdivision. 

Q. Is that section or subdivision occupied by Negroes or 

whites? A. Negroes. 

Q. Are you familiar with the development of Northwood 

Estates? A. I am. 

Q. Would you tell the Court whether that section is oec- 

cupied by Negroes or whites? A. It is occupied by Ne- 

groes. It’s also in the northwest section beyond I-85. Prior 

to its development it was in the county, the Long Creek com- 

munity. The developer was able to have it included as a 

part of the City of Charlotte and I'm sure it’s the way it’s 

classified currently. It is the only community outside of the 

city limits of Charlotte, so far as I know of, for Negroes 

that is incorporated as a part of the City of Charlotte. 

Q. Let’s indicate something on the map. Is this the area 

here, Northwood Estates? 

Court: Is that north of 1-85? 

Mr. Chambers: North of I-85. 

Court: And straddling Beatties Ford Road? 

[59] Mr. Chambers: Yes. 

A. Northwood Estates fronts on Beatties Ford Road and 

runs west from Beatties Ford Road about a quarter of a 

mile or maybe half a mile from I-85 going north. 

Q. Would this be the section commonly referred to as 

University Park? A. That’s right. 

Q. That’s tract 46. A. I can’t see the tract but from what 

you say and from what I can see from here, I didn’t bring 

my glasses—I do have an impairment—that is it. 

Q. Would this be the section commonly referred to as the 

Dalebrook section, tract 48? A. To the east of Newland 

Road, bounded by Newland and I-85. 

   



43a 

Daniel O. Hennigan—for Plawmtiffs—Direct 

Q. That’s correct? A. Yes. 

Q. Mr. Hennigan, had Myers Park been developed at the 

time you came into the city? A. Yes. It was a developed 

community. However, it has developed some since that 

time. Dilworth was budding and the new community at the 

time I came. 

Court: What did you say was the new community? 

A. Dilworth. 

Court: Dilworth is a much older community than 

Myers Park, isn’t it, Mr. Hennigan? 

[60] A. Both of them are old communities. When I say 

budding community, perhaps it was an expanding com- 

munity at the time. I am not saying that Dilworth was 

beginning or a new community at that particular time, 

but Myers Park basically was developed and has not really 

developed substantially beyond the point that it was, I 

think, twenty-five or thirty years ago. However, the Dil- 

worth community has had some substantial numbers of new 

homes built in that length of time. 

Court: I think you’ve got it confused with busi- 

ness building but I don’t think it matters here. 

A. Well, of course, you know, we didn’t really have much 

occasion to go into these communities unless we had a 

specific purpose there and that primarily would have been 

to perform some service. Most of what we knew is what 

we heard or read. So I could be in error on a lot of that. 

Q. Mr. Hennigan, are you a member of the Charlotte 

Board of Realtors? A. I am. 

 



  

44a, 

Dawmel O. Hennigan—for Plaintiff s—Direct 

Q. How long have you been a member of that organiza- 

tion? A. About a year and a half. October a year ago 

I was admitted to the Board of Realtors. 

Q. Will you tell the Court what the Charlotte Board of 

Realtors is? A. The Charlotte Board of Realtors is a 

trade organization composed of persons who are interested 

in the real estate industry [61] or those who are practicing 

real estate brokerage and who subscribe to a specific code 

of ethics. 

Q. How many Negroes are members of that Board? 

A. One, and that’s me. 

Q. Would you tell the Court your experience in becom- 

ing a member of the Board of Realtors? A. I'll be glad 

to. I went into real estate in 1962. Of course, there is a 

required state examination. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, it seems this 

is straying quite far from the inquiry we are about 

today. 

Court: I agree with you. Can you give us any 

reason for pursuing this, Mr. Chambers? 

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. We are trying to estab- 

lish, Your Honor that there was not only private 

discrimination but institutional discrimination in the 

sale and rental housing and we think in this testi- 

mony we can point out some evidence to substantiate 

the institutional discrimination. 

Court: Now let me see where we're going. How 

much of your evidence is addressed to this general 

area, that the present Charlotte school plan is de- 

fective because once upon a time and now people 

practice racial discrimination in the sale and renting 

of houses? How big a part of your case is this? 

   



45a 

Colloquy 

Mr. Chambers: We have three witnesses we pro- 

pose to [62] call to testify about the discrimination 

in the sale and rental of houses. 

Court: Let’s try the lawsuit first and then get 

around to that. I don’t think it matters at all for the 

purpose of the present community problem we're 

dealing with why people are living now where they 

are now living. I'll be glad to hear you put all that 

evidence in but it does not help me in coming to any 

conclusion nor the School Board as to what we ought 

to do here. 

Mr. Chambers: May I request of the Court 

whether the Court will take judicial knowledge of 

that fact. 

Court: I'll be glad to hear your testimony on 

whatever you want to offer. I might take judicial 

knowledge of more than you can competently prove. 

I'd like to get to the lawsuit first. 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we considered it an 

important part of the lawsuit. We think that a 

showing of this further compounds the illegality of 

the Board’s utilizing boundary lines on the pattern. 

If the Court feels, however, that this evidence would 

not be necessary, we can, of course, forego that. We 

would request, however, permission to depose the 

witnesses that we have. 

Court: Well, if you've got them here it’s cheaper 

for everybody, especially your client and including 

the [63] rest of us, to take the testimony while 

they’re here. But I'm just telling you I don’t see 

where it helps or hurts. I might be more impressed 

by it if you said more about it in the complaint or 

motion.  



  

46a 

Daniel O. Hennigan—rfor Plaintiff s—Direct 

Mr. Chambers: We did refer in the motion, we 

thought, to the matter but perhaps not as clearly as 

we should have. We have, in fact, taken a lot for 

granted in the motion in terms of what the courts 

were now saying relative to utilization of boundary 

lines. We had assumed that this evidence would be 

some evidence that the Court would want to consider. 

Be that as it may, may we have a five minute recess 

and regroup our troops and move on to something 

else? 

Court: Well, I'm not going to cut you off. If you 

want to make out a prima facie case on this theory, 

go head, but maybe under the circumstances that’s 

the proper thing for you to do, but I think we're 

all far more interested in other phases of the case. 

Mr. Chambers: Would the Court permit me to go 

ahead and finish with Mr. Hennigan and then go 

into something else? 

Court: Sure. 

Q. Now, Mr. Hennigan, would you go ahead and describe 

the problems you had in becoming a member of that Board? 

A. Yes. After completing the state examination and, of 

course, [641 opening up my business I did apply for mem- 

bership in the Board and I was told that I would have 

to have at least three years of experience and that I would 

have to have an office and it would have to meet certain 

prescribed conditions, and ete. At the end of the third 

year I applied again and, of course, was told that I was 

not eligible for membership in that the bylaws had been 

changed and I would have to attend the Realtors Institute 

and complete Course 1. I then, of course, applied for ad- 

mission to the Realtors Institute and found there was an- 

   



47a 

Daniel O. Henwigan—rfor Plaintiff s—Direct 

other requirement which was that I had to have three 
sponsors and since I was not a member of the Board I 
could not voluntarily enroll in the Institute. After, I 
guess, about three or four months and conversing with some 
thirty or forty different real estate brokers in this town 
appealing to them for their consideration of this request, 
I did get three persons to sign this application form and 
I went to Chapel Hill and, of course, took Course 1. At 
the end of Course 1 I then was advised that my enrollment 

was still contingent upon evidence that was to be received 

by the Institute and I learned that a state investigation 

had been launched and that persons from the state office 

had to come to Charlotte and had conducted an inquiry 

with regard to my business. And then on Saturday I was 

advised that my examination would be given and that I 

would be considered as a full-fledged student and I asked 

for the permission to then take Course 2 [65] while I was 

there, which was being offered the following week, in 

anticipation of maybe some changes in bylaws by the time 

I got back to Charlotte and I thought I'd get ahead of the 

game and go ahead and take Course 2. My examination 

paper was graded and I did pass Course 1 and was advised 

if I could get the same three endorsers then, of course, 

I could come back that Monday and enroll in Course 2. 

I then came back to Charlotte that Saturday afternoon and 

made contact with the three persons who had endorsed 

me for Course 1. One was out of the City and after a 

series of experiences I did make an appointment with the 

other two and they signed it and I went back to Chapel 

Hill that Monday and was admitted tentatively on the 

condition that the third person who was out of the city 

would endorse the application. On Wednesday I was ad- 

vised that the third person had sent them a telegram ex- 

 



  

48a 

Daniel O. Hennigan—ifor Plaintiff s—Direct 

pressing his desire to sign and that he would do so and 

so I did complete Course 2. I came back to Charlotte and 

then went back to apply for membership in the Board and, 

having completed Course 1 and 2 successfully, I was ad- 

vised that I could not then enroll or make application un- 

less I got a member of the Charlotte Board of Realtors to 

get the application form. I could not go to this office to the 

Board office and myself pick up a form and fill it out and 

submit it for consideration. I then talked to some, I guess, 

sixty persons, members of the Board, and all of these de- 

clined the invitation to go get an [66] application for me 

and I had an attorney who worked with me and used his 

influence to get some of them to do so. After this I wrote 

the Board a letter and asked the Board of Directors if 

they would give me an application as a whole, hence elim- 

inating the necessity of some one person either putting 

himself out in this particular way, just to pick up a form 

and give it to me. The Board, of course, declined, indicat- 

ing that this had not been done in the past and saw no 

reason to break with the tradition to do this for me. I 

believe some four or five months later some Negroes had 

raised a concern that no Negro had been admitted to the 

Board and I believe one such person is present in this 

room, and this was a meeting with the Board of Realtors 

and some other interested persons and this group was told 

that there was no Negro in the City of Charlotte that 

would qualify for membership in the Board and they then 

advised the Board that they understood that I was quali- 

fied. The following day I was asked to pursue the matter 

again to see if I couldn’t get an application. It so hap- 

pened that T happened to have been in a governmental office 

the following day and one of the persons who was a part of 

this group wanted to know why I had not been admitted. 

   



49a, 

Dawiel O. Hennwigan—for Plaintiff s—Direct 

I recited the story I have just recited here and this govern- 

mental agency then turned to one of their real estate prac- 

titioners and asked if he was aware of this and in the mean- 

while the conversation then ended, that this [67] Real Es- 

tate Board member agreed to use his influence to get an ap- 

plication for me. He picked the phone up in our presence 

and called the Board office and after an hour and a half of 

conversation by telephone he was advised that if he wanted 

to do this he would, of course, have to do it and suffer 

any consequences that may come. He assured the person 

at the other end of the line that he was willing to assume 

any responsibility for any of the consequences and if he 

would leave the application where he could pick it up, 

he would be down to get it. I got the application in that 

way and this same person said that he would sign it and 

he would use his influence to try to get another Board 

member to do so, and I went to the other Board member 

and indicated all that I had done in the pursuit of this and 

this person agreed to sign and then I finally got a third 

person. I had to have three. In addition to this I got some 

supplementary references from two banks and from two 

attorneys that I knew and had worked with down through 

the years who could attest to my character and this sort 

of thing. I believe about two months later, after a series 

of conferences, these conferences centered around the con- 

cern that the Board had because my application had regis- 

tered interest in becoming a full member of the Board to 

include a member of multiple listing. I was advised that 

if IT pursued this matter of multiple listing that I could 

do so but that it would go against me and that perhaps I 

could [681 be hurt seriously if I insisted on this. 

Q. Would you tell the Court what multiple listing is? 

 



  

50a 

Dawiel O. Hennmigan—for Plaintiff s—Direct 

Mr. Waggoner: If Your Honor please, I'd like to 

move to strike the last answer. It’s based on state- 

ments attributed to other people, suppositions, it’s 

hypothetical. It has nothing to do with this lawsuit, 

it’s irrelevant. 

Court: I think so, too. Motion denied. 

A. Multiple listing is a separate organization of the Board 

and— 

Court: You'll have to admit it’s a good story, 

though. 

A. And so is the Charlotte Board of Rental Agencies. 

These are sub-corporations of the overall corporation. You 

do have to be a member of the Board before you can become 

a member of multiple listings. Multiple listing is where all 

of the brokers who are members of multiple listing pool 

listings and any member has the right to show any home 

that has been listed and registered with the multiple listing 

agency. There is a key, for example, if I were a member 

of the multiple listing I would have a key and in the event 

that the house was empty I would not have to say to any- 

body when I wanted to go see the house or who I was 

bringing to see it. However, there is a code of ethics and 

matter of courtesy. If the home is occupied, naturally the 

brokers work together and in the interest of the owner the 

appointments are normally made through the listing broker. 

But all have the right to show [69] it and all have the right 
to sell it. The agreement is that the commission—and this 

is how we make our money in this field—the commission 

is split between the listing broker and the selling broker. 

Q. Mr. Hennigan, if you were a member of multiple list- 

ing with the Board, you would have the opportunity, would 

   



ola 

Daniel O. Henwigan—rfor Plaintiff s—Direct 

you not, to show Negroes homes in white areas that might 

be listed in multiple listing? A. I’d have the opportunity 

to show anybody a home anywhere in the City of Charlotte 

if it’s listed in multiple listing and I would have the op- 

portunity to take a Negro and to show a home in a white 

community if I were a member of multiple listing. 

Court: You are not now a member of the multiple 

listing ? 

A. I am not. We entered into an agreement, sir. I con- 

sented that perhaps what they were saying might be real 

true and, being young in the field and being in an area all 

alone, I did not see I had much opportunity to wage a battle 

with this strong body, but I did insist that, well, there is a 

fee that we have to pay. Currently it’s $1,200.00 to become a 

member and, of course, you have to be approved by the 

multiple listing committee and I did ask for the privilege 

of knowing and the privilege of joining prior to any subse- 

quent changes in the rules or in the governing documents 

governing this [70] particular agency. Primarily if any 

increase in multiple listing enrollment should occur, I 

wanted the right to do this and then I also asked for the 

right to work and I asked the Board of Directors to use 

their influence among any brokers in the City of Charlotte 

who happened to be broadminded enough and willing to 

work with a Negro and I insisted that T did not particularly 

care for a working relationship or to force a working rela- 

tionship on any who did not care to work with me. The 

Board agreed to use their influence to do this and also 

agreed to give me the privilege to join prior to any subse- 

quent changes in the multiple listing bylaws.  



  

52a 

Daniel O. Hennmigan—rfor Plaintiff s—Direct 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I'd like to mark as 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32— 

Mr. Barkley: I don’t believe we’ve gotten him on 

the Board yet, Mr. Chambers. 

A. I’m sorry, yes, you're right. After these conferences and 

these agreements then, of course, I was admitted to the 

Board membership, October a year ago. Of course, from 

the time I first pursued this until the time I got in was three 

and a half to four years. 

Court: Are you selling any more houses? 

A. I have not had the cooperation I anticipated. I do have 

some real friends, I think, at least I hope I have, but we 

have not been able to get down to a working relationship. 

I am not sure I can say just what the character of the rela- 

tionship [71] is except we are good friends. We eat to- 

gether, have dinner occasionally and I am on one committee 

that meets about twice a year and this has been the extent 

of my participation thus far. 

Q. I show you a document marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit 33 

and ask you if you will state what this is. A. This is the 

Code of Ethics and this is published by the National As- 

sociation of Real Estate Board. 

Mr. Barkley: We object to that. 

Mr. Waggoner: Could we take a look at this before 

he reads from it? 

Court: Certainly. 

Q. Would you state whether or not as a member of the 

Charlotte Board of Realtors you are governed by that Code 

of Ethics? 

   



93a 

Daniel O. Hennigan—for Plaintiff s—Direct 

Mr. Barkley: Objection. 

A. I am, yes. 

Mr. Barkley: That’s another third party’s interest. 
I don’t see how it’s got any business in this court . . . 
without someone competent to identify it. 

Court: He said it’s a copy of the regulations under 
which his trade organization operates and to which 
he subscribes. Isn’t that what he said? 

Mr. Barkley: Approximately, but I wonder if I 

would be competent to sit on the witness stand to 

testify to the Code of Ethics of the American Bar 
Association. 

[72] Court: I think you would, Mr. Barkley, as 
well as anybody I know. 

Mr. Barkley: Well, I'll try that on Your Honor 
some day. 

Q. I will show you another document marked Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit 34 and ask you to state what that is. A. This is 
a circular that, of course, came to all members of the 
Board of Realtors. The date is March 8, 1968, and I did 
receive a copy of this and it has to do with the concern 
for the legislature to abolish the practice of allowing real 
estate brokers to list properties honoring the prerogative 
of the owner to say to whom this house may be sold and 
to whom it may not be sold. 

Q. Was that sent out by— 

Court: Now, what you said probably made good 
English but I got lost in it. That circular is in 

favor of —  



  

04a, 

Daniel O. Hennigan—for Plaintiff s—Direct 

A. To have the option to say this. As perhaps most you 

know, the Real Estate Board nationally objected to the 

recent legislature which made it unlawful for an owner 

to restrict in his listing agreement to whom the house may 

be sold and this has been one of the practices, I think 

nationally and certainly here in Charlotte, if an owner 

listed property with a real estate agent, the owner had the 

right to say it may be sold to whites and not to Negroes 

and many of these listings were accepted under this ar- 

rangement. Of course, when this [73] open housing legis- 

lation came up, then of course the real estate industry 

nationally was a lobbying agency against the enactment 

of open housing legislation. This circular, of course, came 

from our Board. I received a copy of it and have one in 

my file, asking that we use our support to write our legis- 

lators and ask them to vote against this particular bill 

and that the inherent right of the owner should be sup- 

ported and that this should be a continuing practice. 

Q. I show you a document marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit 35 

and if that is a circular also from the Charlotte Board 

of Realtors. A. This is. 

Q. Did you receive such a document in the mail? A. I 

did. 

Q. As a member of the Board of Realtors? A. That’s 

right. Might I say this, I don’t know what the record would 

indicate but I did respond to this circular and I wrote 

to our Congressmen and I did ask them to use their in- 

fluence to support the bill and I think at one of our meet- 

ings it was indicated that perhaps I was the only Board 

member that did this. 

Court: What is the date of that circular? 

A. March 25, 1968. 

   



29a 

Dawiel O. Henwigan—for Plaintiff s—Direct 

Court: What did they ask you to do? 

A. This comes from the Board of Realtors and Home 

Builders Association of Charlotte. The subject is: Forced 

Housing. [74] It indicates that the Directors of the Board 

of Realtors and the Directors of the Home Builders 

Association hereby reassert their support of the principle 

of equal opportunity in the acquisition or employment of 

real property . . . enjoyment, rather, of real property, 

and the right of individuals to determine the disposition 

of that property, and of course it goes on to say how they 

feel about it and they also indicate on this letter that the 

forced housing measure is supposed to remove discrimina- 

tion in housing and, of course, the contention at that time 

was that they were taking the right away from the owner 

and giving it to a minority group and to take one right 

and to give it to another was discriminatory. This is 

the essence of this letter. 

Q. Mr. Hennigan, the section of the Code of Ethics that 

dealt with the right of the owner to direct how his property 

should be sold or rented is what section? A. This is Part 2, 

Article 2, and the heading is Relationship to Client, and 

of course this is the article that, according to the Code 

of Kthics, gave to the real estate broker the real tie with 

an owner and indicated that his first responsibility, of 

course, was to the owner or the person who lists property 

with him and his rights should be protected above all else 

and that this was the moral responsibility of the realtor, 

to uphold and protect the private interests of the owner 

of the property, and of course this is the article that 

primarily [75] gave to the realtor the strength in his claim 

that the right of the owner was, of course, inherent and 

that he then as an agent for the owner should have his first 

   



  

o6a 

Daniel O. Hennigan—rfor Plawntiffs—Direct 

loyalty to the owner and the request of the owner. So then 

the owner had the right when the property was listed with 

a broker to spell out how this property would be disposed 

of and realtor, then, of course, was bound contractually 

to an agreement with this owner in terms of a listing 

agreement. 

Q. Would one be in violation of the Code of Ethics as a 

real estate agent if one sought to sell a house to a person 

of a race other than the one indicated by the owner? A. 

Today that is true. This, of course, in our national associa- 

tion and in our state association last September all of this, 

of course, has been legally clarified. The real estate indus- 

try has been advised that it is no longer constitutional for 

this to be done and any broker now listing property is in 

violation to list it indicating that it must be sold to a 

white or to a Negro or to some other ethnic group. So the 

listing agreements today do not carry along with it these 

built-in prerequisites that the owner has spelled out. 

Q. You have had an opportunity to look at Plaintiff’s 

Exhibit 4, which is this overlay here, indicating the racial 

composition of the census tracts of the City of Charlotte 

and the County of Mecklenburg, have you not? A. I have. 

[76] Q. You've also had an opportunity to observe the 

various neighborhoods in the City of Charlotte— 

Mr. Barkley: I object to his leading now. 

Court: That’s the poorest objection you made yet, 

Mr. Barkley. That’s the only one you made that 

hasn’t bothered me. 

Q. Have you, Mr. Hennigan, had an opportunity to ob- 

serve the various racial housing situations in Charlotte? 

A. Yes, I have. 

   



  

o7a 

Paul R. Leonard—for Plaimitiffs—Direct 

Q. In other words, you know where the blacks stay and 

where the whites stay generally? A. Yes, I do. 

Q. In your opinion does this map, overlay Exhibit 4, 

fairly and accurately depict where the blacks and whites 

stay in the City of Charlotte and County of Mecklenburg? 

A. It 1s a fair and relatively accurate picture of the hous- 

ing situation today in the City of Charlotte. 

Mr. Chambers: Your witness. 

Mr. Waggoner: We have no questions. 

Mr. Barkley: We move all the testimony be 

stricken out. 

Court: The motion is denied but, although tre- 

mendously interesting, I'm still not sure it helps me 

to decide the case. Motion is denied. 

Mr. Chambers: Thank you very much, Mr. Henni- 

gan. May I approach the bench with opposing coun- 
sel ? 

[771 Court: Yes, sir. 

(Conference is had out of the hearing of the Court 
Reporter.) 

SHORT RECESS 

  

Paur R. LeoNarp, a witness for the plaintiffs, having 

first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 

Direct Examination by Mr. Chambers: 

Q. State your name, please. A. Paul R. Leonard. 

Q. What is your occupation? A. I am a Minister, or- 

dained Presbyterian Minister. 

Q. How long have you been a resident of Charlotte? A. 
Since June of 1964. 

 



  

o8a 

Paul R. Leonard—for Plaintiff s—Direct 

Q. Have you had occasion, Rev. Leonard, to study the 

housing patterns and practices in the City of Charlotte? 

A. Yes, I have. 

Q. What has been your occasion to make that study? A. 

I made it in relation to a class in Urban Sociology that I 

was taking at the University of North Carolina at Char- 

lotte and I chose the topic of Housing Patterns in Charlotte 

because of my relationship to the Charlotte Fair Housing 

Association as its President. 

Q. What is the Charlotte Fair Housing Association? 

A. This is a voluntary association of a membership of about 

[78] sixty-five citizens that was formed in February of 

1968 to work for an end to discrimination in the sale and 

rental of housing in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. 

Q. Under whom were you studying at the time that you 

did this paper? A. Dr. Barbara Goodnight. 

Q. And would you tell the Court how you proceeded with 

your studies? 

Court: Was that here or in Chapel Hill? 

A. It was here. From work with the Fair Housing Associa- 

tion we had compiled by the help of the Redevelopment 

Commission, primarily depending upon them, we had com- 

piled a map, drawn up a map which showed the racial 

patterns in housing as they existed in Charlotte in the 

summer of 1968. My main attempt in the paper was to see 

what changes had taken place and how fast over the last 

eight years. I had really wanted to go back further than 

1960 but the census material prior to 1960 was not broken 

down by tracts as it is now and as it was in 1960. So the 

paper was primarily an attempt to compare what had hap- 

pened in Charlotte in the last eight years and to ask the 

   



  

59a 

Paul R. Leonard—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

question of why, what were the factors involved in the 

changing neighborhoods and in the racial patterns as they 

existed. 

Q. In your work did you use census figures? A. I used 

census material; I used a good bit of material furnished by 

the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, one [79] 
report in particular. I can’t quite remember the title but 

I think it was entitled Blight September 1962, and this re- 

port the Planning Commission had, by census tract, broken 

the census tracts into blocks, indicated which areas of the 

city were occupied by blacks and which areas were occupied 

by whites. So it became a relatively simple matter to use 

this as a basis of comparison with the present racial pat- 

terns. 

Q. Did you consider any data supplied you by the Re- 

development Commission of the City of Charlotte? A. 

Yes, I did. I considered this in relation to the question of 

what had happened in those eight years. 

Q. Did you consider any data supplied you by the Char- 

lotte Public Housing Authority? A. Yes, primarily data 

concerning the existing housing projects and those that 

were planned and the racial makeup. 

Q. Did you reach any conclusions? A. Yes. The major 

conclusion was that Charlotte is rapidly dividing . . . 

Mr. Waggoner: Your Honor, we object to his giv- 

ing a conclusion which is in effect an opinion. He is 

not qualified as an expert. 

Court: Well, without couching it in terms of con- 

clusions or estimates, tell us what you observed about 

the housing patterns or situations of last summer 

compared [80] with whatever the other time was 
you started with. 

 



  

60a 

Paul R. Leonard—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

A. Yes, sir. I observed that the city was divided and 

rapidly the division was increasing between blacks and 

whites living . . . with whites living in the east and blacks 

predominantly in the west and kind of taking a line from 

North Tryon to the Plaza to Independence Blvd., coming 

south on the map following those streets I found that, ac- 

cording to my figures, 96% of the Negro population in 

Charlotte lived west of that line. There appeared to be to 

me, if you consider the areas that were in transition, only 

one area in the west that still remained predominantly white 

and where transition had not taken place. So I found the 

city divided and the division increasing. 
Q. Did you have an opportunity to see any data from 

the Redevelopment Commission of the City of Charlotte 

relative to relocation of families from the urban renewal 

areas? A. Yes, I did. 

Q. I show you an exhibit marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit 14 

and ask if you had a chance to see that document. A. Yes. 

Q. Does that document show that families in the redevel- 

opment areas involved have been relocated in primarily 

Negro areas? 

Mr. Barkley: He’s telling us what some other doc- 

ument says. Wouldn’t that document be the best evi- 

dence of that? 

[811 Court: It would, but if it shows that and en- 

ables me to put a label on that document while he’s 

going at it— 

A. I found that more than 50% of the families had been 

moved into areas which, according to the 1960 census, were 

high density black. 

Court: What percentage? 

   



6la 

Paul R. Leonard—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

A. 50%, and the others had been moved into areas that 
since 1960 had changed from predominantly white areas 
of residence to high density black today. 

Q. You referred to a document that you used in your 
study a moment ago called Residential Blight. Is this a 
copy of the document you referred to? A. Yes, it is. 

Q. And that’s Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15. A. Yes. 
Q. Did you observe anything else relative to the public 

housing in the City of Charlotte? A. As I began to try to 
answer the question of why the racial patterns existed as 
they did, in looking at the makeup of the public housing 
racially and in a conversation with Mr. Cock, who is the 
assistant to Mr. Dillehay, he indicated that approximately 

95% of the occupants of public housing were Negroes. 

Mr. Barkley: Move to strike Mr. Cock’s testimony. 
Court: That testimony is technically incompetent. 

The [82] motion is sustained. Have you got some 
other way of proving those figures, whatever they 
are. 

Q. Were you given any figures, statistics, Rev. Leonard, 
about the occupation of public housing racially? 

Court: Consistent with my ruling, he can’t tes- 
tify what those figures are? Have you got them in 
some official publication? 

Mr. Chambers: We’ll have them in the morning, 
Your Honor. The Public Housing Authority is giv- 
ing them to us this afternoon. 

Court: This is a valid objection he’s making and 
I guess I ought to sustain it as to competency of the 
witness to testify about what he’s saying. 

Mr. Chambers: That’s correct.  



  

62a 

Paul R. Leonard—for Plaintiff s—Cross 

Q. Rev. Leonard, I show you a document which has been 

marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 36 and ask if you will state 

what that document is. A. This document is a mimeo- 

graphed copy of the paper I did on the housing pattern in 

Charlotte. 

Mr. Chambers: We have no further questions. 

Court: You can review that if you wish and make 

objection to it later. The use I would make of such a 

study is simply as a convenient way of having col- 

lected whatever the figures are on which he’s making 

his conclusions. You can make your objection now 

and I'll rule [83] on it after I read it and find out 

what parts of it are really incompetent and what 

parts are not. 

Mr. Waggoner: We noted a difference in the ex- 

hibit we have and the one introduced and by agree- 

ment of counsel we are going to substitute our Page 

3 in the official exhibit. 

Court: All right. 36 is the one you're talking 

about? 

Mr. Chambers: 14, Your Honor, the list showing 

the relocation of families in urban renewal. We have 

to duplicate his copy of Page 3 and insert that in the 

morning. 

Court: Take it away now so we can be sure we've 

got it right in the morning. 
Mr. Chambers: All right. 

Cross Examination: 

Q. With reference to your study on housing patterns, 

did you pay any particular attention to school districts as 

such? A. No, I didn’t. In one particular instance involved 

   



63a 

Paul R. Leonard—for Plaintiffs—Cross 

in the paper which I reported about, this was concerning 
the Barringer Woods elementary school where there had 
been a rapid turnover of population from white to black 
in the year 1967-68 and, as President of the Fair Housing 
Association, I was involved in two community meetings in 
the Burringer Woods community prior to the opening of 
school in September of 1968 in which one black family had 
moved into the neighborhood and the [84] residents were 
coming together to ask what shall we do. In the meetings 
prior to the opening of the school they were pretty much in 
agreement to stay and not flee. They had been approached 
by realtors indicating that blacks would be moving in and 
their property values would be going down, but the day 
school opened the racial balance in Barringer Woods school 
had shifted because of the change in the other community 
from a predominantly white school to where there were 
now, according to the people, 75% black. And the— 

Q. With reference to the Barringer— 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we request that the 
witness be permitted to finish his answer, 

Court: Finish the rest of that statement. 

A. And the day the school opened seven more houses went 
up for sale. 

Q. Barringer Woods is a subdivision in itself, is it not? 
A. Yes, fifty-six homes, right. 

Q. Are there any other subdivisions in that school dis- 
trict? A. I don’t know the makeup of that district. I 
think that the children from Clanton Park, which is the 
area that had gone from all white to black, I feel the chil- 
dren from this must be filtering into the Barringer Woods 
school. I don’t know.  



  

64a 

Paul R. Leonard—for Plaintiffs—Cross 

Q. Are you familiar with Rolling Wood? A. Are you 

talking about the school? 

Q. No, Rolling Wood subdivision. [85] A. Yes, next to 

Clanton Park. 
Q. All of these areas were all white within the past sev- 

eral years, were they not? A. That’s correct. 

Q. And now they are practically all black, is that correct? 

A. Right. 

Q. The white people sold their homes to the colored 

people, is that right? A. Yes. 

Q. Your study was based primarily on the census tracts 

as we see them on the overlay, is that correct? A. That's 

right. 

Court: Have you talked to any members of the 

School Board about these problems that you were 

studying? 

A. TI have on occasion talked to one, yes, sir. 

Q. Who was the one School Board member you talked to? 

A. Mrs. Kelley. 

Mr. Waggoner: I have no further questions. 

Mr. Chambers: I have nothing further. Rev. 

Leonard has indicated he would like to be excused 

unless the defendant needs him. 

Mr. Waggoner: We have no objection. 

Court: Thank you, Mr. Leonard. 

   



65a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

[352] * * = 
Dr. WiLiam C. Serr, a witness for the defendant, 

having first been duly sworn, was examined and testified 
as follows: 

Direct Examination by Mr. Waggoner: 

Q. Would you state your name and residence address, 
please? A. William C. Self, 6137 Devern Drive. 

Q. What is your official position with the Board of 
Education? A. I am Superintendent. 

Q. Dr. Self, what is your training in the field of educa- 
tion? A. I had my undergraduate degree at Catawba 
College ; Masters Degree and Doctorate at the University 
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

Q. What is your educational experience from a work 
standpoint? A. I was a teacher and assistant principal, 
a principal in the elementary field at Winstom-Salem; I 
moved from the principalship to Directorship in Instrue- 
tion in the central office capacity; I was Assistant Super- 
intendent in Instruction in Winston-Salem City Schools; 
moved to Charlotte as the [353] Associate Superintendent 
prior to becoming Superintendent. This is the second year. 

Q. Dr. Self, what is the size of the staff at the Board 
offices at the present time? A. In terms of the professional 

staff I think the number is 3558 teachers. 

Court: Are there any exhibits that have these 
figures in them? 

A. I can furnish a fact sheet which has these figures in 
it. I have only one copy right at the moment. I mentioned 
the teaching staff, 3553 is the exact figure. To this you 
add 404 other members of the staff. You begin to get into 
the non-professional people, the clerical, cafeterial, custo- 
dial, maintenance, transportation, television station, and 

   



  

66a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

the grand total would be slightly in excess of 5800 em- 

ployees total. 

Q. Dr. Self, how does this compare with other employers 

in the school district? A. I understand that the Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg School System is the largest employer in the 

County. 

Q. With reference to the dimensions of the school dis- 

trict, have they always been the entire County of Meck- 

lenburg? A. No. They have this size since 1960, the year 

of the consolidation of the two existing school systems. 

That was the Mecklenburg County System and the Char- 

lotte City System. 
[3541 Q. Were these two systems autonomous of each 

other? A. Yes, they were. 
Q. As I understand it, you came here in 1962, is that 

correct? A. That’s correct. 

Q. Were there any problems that flowed from the merger 

of the two systems? A. Yes, very definitely. 

Q. Has this been a time consuming problem that your 

staff has had to meet through the years? A. Yes. 

Q. With reference to the composition of the City system 

of schools as against the County system of schools— 

Court: Are you going to leave it right there? You 

say the merger created a lot of problems and I just 

wondered what they were. 

Mr. Waggoner: Judge, 1 don’t want to stir up 

some things that have been buried. I wanted to show 

the Board has been occupied. 

Court: Go ahead. 

Q. With reference to the racial composition of the City 

at the time of the merger as against racial composition 

of the County, do you have an opinion as to whether there 

were more whites percentagewise in the County than in 

   



67a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

the City? A. I have no facts to go on. I do understand 
that the changing ratio of Negro to white was one of the 
factors that entered [3551 into the deliberations about 
consolidation. 

Q. Has this merger of the two systems facilitated inte- 
gration of the student population? 

Mr. Chambers: Isn’t that a conclusion of law? 
Court: Is that an objection? 
Mr. Chambers: Objection. 

Court: Overruled. 

A. Would you repeat the question? 
Q. Has the fact of merger of the two school systems 

facilitated the integration of the student population in the 
schools? A. I think I would answer that in the affirma- 
tive because it relieved the problem I referred to pre- 
viously, at least it made it a problem of the entire county, 
and it also solved the problem of the tax base, the dimin- 
ished tax base behind the pupils that resided in the 
Mecklenburg County School System. 

Court: Now you're beginning to make me think 
it was a pretty good idea after all. 

Q. With reference to the size of the present school Sys- 
tem, do you know the approximate number of square miles 
in the system? A. Yes. The county is right at 550 square 
miles, I believe. 

Q. How far is it from north to south, do you know? A. 
The length is approximately 35 miles and width about 23 
miles. 

Q. Do you have some general facts about the educational 
system that we have in this county that you can give to 

the Court? [356] A. Do I have—again, please.  



  

68a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Q. As I understand it, your office has distributive in- 

formation sheets about the public school system and this 

is what I have reference to. Could you tell the Court some 

of the major points that may be of interest with reference 

to this system? 

Court: Have you got that information sheet with 

you? 

A. Yes. Are you referring to this paper, Facts about the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools? 

Q. Yes. 

Court: Let me look at that. Can I just get Mrs. 

Wentz to duplicate this and let you render any ob- 

jection to it that you want to? 

Mr. Chambers: That would be fine. 

Court: It will save me taking notes. Go ahead, 

Dr. Self. 

A. I really think what Mr. Waggoner was getting at was 

some indication of the size of the school system once again. 

If that’s not what he wished, he can ask subsequent ques- 

tions to get at it. The consolidation of the Mecklenburg 

County System and the Charlotte City System was the con- 

solidation of the #1 and #2 systems in the State and, of 

course, when you combine two large school systems, as they 

were, you get a mammoth school system which is what we 

have today. At the time of the consolidation I understand 

that the student enrollment was right at 58,000. That was 

in 1960. Our size today is [357] 83,000, which indicates a 

prodigious growth over a relatively short period of time. 

There have been years when the pupil population increased 

by 3600 pupils. The low point in the terms of our increase 

   



69a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

was 2000. At the present time we feel that the pace of in- 
crease in terms of our pupil enrollment has slackened off 
slightly and we will probably be a school system increasing 
by about 2500 pupils per year from this point on. 

Court: Is that about 100 classrooms a year or 90? 

A. If we take 2500 pupils and if we figured arbitrarily on 
25 per classroom for ease of division, you’d get your 100 
classrooms. We are not fortunate enough to have that 25 
pupils per classroom so you would assume that’s 85 or 90 
classrooms that would be required. This growth has pro- 
duced some terrific problems for us in terms of being able 
to house youngsters. At the same time that we have tried 
to gear construction programs to meet the increased en- 
rollment, we have been faced with the problems of trying 
to update facilities that went through the war years with 
very little money spent on them and with very little mainte- 
nance. So it has presented something of a problem for the 
Board of Education to deal with. 

Q. With reference to the School Board which administers 
this district, how are the Board members selected? A. 
They are selected by an election process, bi-partisan [358] 
election. It occurs every two years and three of the nine 
members of the Board of Education are elected every two 
years. 

Q. Have you had any vacancies created by moving from 
the County or any other reasons on the Board of Education 
in the past two years? A. Yes, sir. We had a resignation 
by reason of a move out of the City on the part of Mr. Tom 
Braden. 

Q. Did the Board of Education appoint someone in his 
place? A. Yes. 

Q. What is his name? A. Rev. Coleman Carey. 

   



  

70a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Q. Will you state whether or not he is a Negro? A. Yes, 

he is. 

Q. Has he been a candidate for the School Board in prior 

years? A. Yes. 

Q. With reference to an elementary school, what proce- 

dure does the Board follow in deciding, or what does it do 

to reach the point of construction of a new school? What 

facts give rise to the location and selection of this particu- 

lar location? A. Well, I'm sure that our studies would have 

revealed that this elementary school that you're talking 

about would have encountered housing problems for a num- 

ber of years, its enrollment would have exceeded its rated 

capacity, and the excess of youngsters would be accommo- 

dated in existing facilities through the use of what we have 

called sub-standard spaces. [359] These may be basement 

classrooms, a classroom on a stage in an auditorium, parti- 

tioning of a larger classroom into two sections, things of 

this nature. In other words, there would be crowding within 

the elementary school. In all likelihood the neighboring 

schools would also be crowded. This would reflect a general 

tendency within the neighborhood of inability to house the 

youngsters in the neighborhood in the existing facilities. In 

all probability we would reach the point where mobile units 

would need to be brought into play to house the yougsters of 

these schools. I would have hoped that in the earliest stages 

we would have recognized the problem and might have 

acquired a site, at least, before homes were built on it, so 

that we would have a site available for that school. We have 

in the past employed architects to draw up plans and de- 

velop them to the stage of working drawings so that the 

moment the money becomes available we can build a school 

in that area. We eventually will reach the point where we 

must have a new facility and then we put that school down 

   



71a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

on that particular site. We are not able to afford the luxury 
of overbuilding which will mean that it is quite likely that 
everyone of the classes would be filled the first year. As a 
matter of fact, it is not an infrequent occurrence that a 
new school may have a mobile unit. As the elementary 
school nears completion, Mr. John Phillips, who is the 
Assistant Superintendent for Elementary Education, will 
have called in [360] to conference the principals of these 
surrounding schools and enlisted their aid and the aid of 
the principal of the new school, too, if we are fortunate 
enough to have appointed him, and ask these people to join 
him in designating the attendance area that will be served 
by this school. The starting point in their deliberations will 
be the capacity, the number of pupils that that school will 
house, and in essence their problem is carve out of the 
surrounding school areas enough territory to give us the 
required number of pupils so that that school may open at 
capacity when it’s ready. 

Q. Now, these principals make recommendations to the 
Assistant Superintendent in charge of that? A. Yes, they 
do. They are encouraged also to discuss this matter with 
the School Committees—there is a School Committee at 
every school—so that there will be communication with the 
lay public regarding the location of these attendance lines. 

Q. Now, the final act of establishing the school lines is 
performed by whom? A. By the Board of Education. 

Q. Is this on your recommendation? A. Yes, it is. 
Q. With reference to Independence High School how did 

it become located at its particular location? Could you give 
us the history of that? [3611 A. Of course, the problems of 
overcrowding that I spoke of appeared in the neighboring 
high schools, Garringer and East Mecklenburg. A site was 
selected. We used principles of triangulation in terms of 

   



  

72a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

selecting sites with a school located at each of the angles 

in the triangle. A piece of property was located by a real 

estate consultant employed by the Board of Education and 

negotiations were entered into to acquire the property. 

That deal was consummated, the property was available, 

the Board elected an architect and the school was built. 

Court: Where is Independence High? 

A. Independence High School is in the eastern section. 

It is off Wilson Grove Road. 

Court: Wilgrove? 

A. Wilgrove, I beg your pardon. 

Q. Dr. Self, would you come to the large map and point 

that out, please. (The witness does so.) 

Court: I believe that’s off your map, Mr. Wag- 

goner. 

Mr. Waggoner: My map is a little dated. 

Court: Is that between Central Avenue and In- 

dependence or is it above Central Avenue? It’s south 

of Albemarle Road, isn’t it? 

(Conference is had out of the hearing of the Court 

Reporter.) 

Q. Dr. Self, did the School Board own property adjacent 

to York Road Junior High for the purpose of constructing 

a high school nearby? [362] A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Has a high school been constructed over in that site? 

A. No, it has not. 

Q. What action was taken with reference to that project? 

A. The Board of Education had employed an architect and 

   



73a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

the architect had developed plans up to a particular point. 

The Board decided that to locate the school there would be 

to assure that it would be totally black from then on. They 

abandoned the plans, instructed the architect to alter his 

work, acquired a site, which we now know as the Olympic 

site, and built the school in that area. 

Q. For the purpose of the record, what area is Olympic 

located in? A. Southwest section, off Sandy Porter Road. 

Q. Now, with reference to Randolph Junior High School, 

could you tell us the considerations that went into the loca- 

tion of that school? A. The same pattern was repeated 
here. There was a site available and we referred to it com- 

monly as the Mason Wallace Junior property. It was 

located off Billingsly Road. Again the same factor entered 

into the decision of the Board of Education. That site was 

abandoned and another site was acquired. This was the 

Wagner property off of McAlway Road and Randolph 

Junior High School was constructed there. 

Court: Is that to the south of McAlway? 

[3631 A. It’s actually to the east, where McAlway meets— 

I’m sorry, the name of the other road escapes me. 

Q. Dr. Self, what kind of school population does Randolph 

Junior High serve? A. An integrated student population. 

Also one that I would judge varies in socio-economic level. 

Q. What action, if any, did your office take with reference 

to freedom of choice at that school? A. Probably you are 

referring to the section of the Pupil Assignment Plan which 

prohibits transfers out of a newly established school. The 

reason for that, of course, is that the Board of Education 

has felt that there ought not to be freedom of transfer that 

first year, that the school ought to have an opportunity to 

   



  

74a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—D:irect 

establish itself. In this particular circumstance pressure 

was brought to bear to try to get the Board of Education 

to relax this particular policy. They did stand firm on it 

and the policy helped. 

Q. With reference to Olympic, was the same rule enforced 

there? A. Yes. 

Q. Is this also an integrated school? A. Yes, it is. 

Q. With reference to the pupil assignment policy of the 

Board, have there been any changes in the operation of this 

policy since 1965? A. Yes. 
[364] Q. In what way? A. It’s quite difficult. Could 

I use an exhibit to explain it? 

Q. Certainly. 

Mr. Waggoner: We have a document entitled 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Elementary Schools 1968-69 

and we’d like it marked Defendant’s Exhibit #1. 

A. Mr. Waggoner, do you have the junior high and senior 

high document to go along with that? 

Q. This is just the elementary. A. There is another 

group that was with it. 

Q. I don’t seem to have the senior high. A. It’s stapled 

to the junior high. 

Mr. Waggoner: Your Honor, we would offer the 

junior high and senior high as a composite part of 

Exhibit 1 for identification. 

Q. Dr. Self, would you first tell the Court what Defend- 

ant’s Exhibit for identification #1 1s? A. In the first place, 

the title is quite misleading. It just says Charlotte-Meck- 

lenburg Elementary Schools. What it is is an administra- 

tive work sheet which was used in making the recommenda- 

   



75a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

tion to the Board of Education regarding the capacity of 

schools. 

Court: Do you have a copy of high and junior 
high. 

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir, I'm sorry. 

Q. Dr. Self, if you will, identify Defendant’s Exhibit for 

[365] identification #1. A. It’s headed Charlotte-Meck- 

lenburg Elementary Schools. As I said, the title tells you 

nothing and I had sought to elaborate upon it by saying 

that this is a work sheet that was used by the administra- 

tion in making a recommendation to the Board of Educa- 

tion preliminarily to their setting the capacities of all of 

our schools. Capacity, of course, is directly related to 

pupil assignment and to freedom of choice because the only 

thing that determines whether or not a request for change 

of transfer is granted is whether the receiving school has 

space to accommodate these youngsters. It stands to rea- 

son that if you have a school capacity that is set on rather 

generous terms that you have a more liberal freedom of 

choice. With that in mind, I think we can get the gist of 

the paper by looking across the column headings. The 

name of the school is in the first column, of course; the 

total teaching spaces is next. That’s an actual count of 

the number of classrooms. In this case at Albemarle Road 

Elementary there were sixteen classrooms. We next multi- 

ply that number of classrooms, 16, by 28, 28 being the ap- 

proximate average for the elementary school grades of 

the system. That gives us a rated capacity for Albemarle 

Road Elementary of 448 students. We are not always able 

to have 28 per classroom. Depending upon our [366] 

fortunes with the General Assembly, we have gone to 30 

 



  

76a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

and up. So we next get the figure in the third column, maxi- 

mum capacity, by multiplying the 16 teaching spaces by 30. 

That would run the housing capacity of the school up to 

480. We next take a look at the projected enrollment for 

the entire school system, Elementary, junior and senior 

high school youngsters, and we find that the projected en- 

rollment invariably will exceed our rated capacity. We 

try to determine the percentage by which the anticipated 

enrollment exceeds our housing capacity and we use that 

percentage to multiply the maximum capacity to get an 

adjusted maximum capacity for the school. In this case 

Albemarle Road Elementary adjusted maximum capacity 

is 518. This is the figure which is used in terms of making 

a final judgment as to whether or not Albemarle Road can 

receive transfers by freedom of choice and the judgment 

is made by comparing that 518 by the projected enrollment, 

431. You would judge from this that Albemarle Road can 

receive transfers. If you look on down to the third school, 

Allenbrook, the same computation gives you 518 as a maxi- 

mum adjusted capacity and the projected enrollment is 530. 

This is in the spring of the year. If the projected enroll- 

ment exceeds the maximum capacity, we close the school 

immediately and will accept no pupils in there by way of 

transfer. 
Q. It’s closed to transfers is what closed means here. 

A. Right. The process which I have just described closed 

32 [3671 schools last year to freedom of choice. The reason 

I said there has been a change is that this computation was 

not done in a similar way in previous years. Let me tell 

you how it varied. In the first place, the teaching spaces 

included any sub-standard facilities like partitioned class- 

rooms, mobile units, and the like, so it in effect inflated 

the number of teaching spaces. Then when you get over 

   



7a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

to the fourth column instead of comparing the projected 
enrollment with the maximum capacity, we looked at the 
number of pupils that were actually assigned and compared 

it with the maximum capacity and if it did not exceed the 
maximum capacity we permitted transfers. Of course, the 
flaw in this is that the number of pupils assigned in the 
spring does not allow for that increase in your student 
population that you're sure to get during the summer 

months. The projected enrollment is always a larger figure 

than would be the number of pupils assigned. So the net 
difference between the operation in 67-68 and 68-69 was 

to close more schools to freedom of transfer. The figure 

in the first year was 10 schools and the figure for 68-69 

was 32; 19 elementary, 10 junior high and 3 senior high. 

Q. Dr. Self, where are most of these closed schools 

located or a reasonable percentage of them? A. I think 

that you’d find that the majority of them are in the white 
neighborhoods. The word “closed” in the righthand column 
indicates the exact schools that were closed, Allenbrook, 

[368] Ashley Park, Bain, and so forth. 

Q. Was there any particular concentration of closed 

schools? A. I think that the majority of them were at the 

junior high school level. 

Q. Has the Pupil Assignment Act been administered 
without discrimination on account of race? A. Yes, it has. 

Mr. Chambers: Objection. 

Court: Yes, that’s a legal conclusion that has to 

be drawn from the evidence. Objection sustained. 

Q. Dr. Self, has freedom of choice to your knowledge, 

or the Pupil Assignment Act permitted substantially whole- 

sale transfers of students from one school to another? 

   



  

78a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Dzirect 

A. That might have been the case before the tightening up 

process on freedom of choice. I do not think that is the 

case now. 

Court: What is the number of the exhibit that has 

a listing in it of the assignments or transfers that 

were requested in various years, 66, 67, 687 
Mr. Chambers: Table 7 in the interrogatory, KEx- 

hibit 1; Table 7 in Exhibit #2. 

Court: Dr. Self, let me ask the question about 

the accumulative effects of some of this. I'm looking 

at the table that shows 66, 67 and 68 for assignment 

and, for example, take Berryhill, which is about the 

eighth or ninth one down from the top. It shows 

that in ’66 [369] there were 212 requests for trans- 

fers, in ’67, 43; and in ’68, 45. Are the requests listed 

for the later year duplicates of previous years or 

are they accumulative, in addition to those of pre- 

vious years? 

A. I believe they would be in addition to, Your Honor. 

Court: Derita, for example, you have requests for 

those three years totaling 64 and those also are ac- 

cumulative, 1 take it. 

A. Yes, sir, they would be. 

Court: Do you have data available from which 

you can determine how many school children of 

particular ages live within particular districts? By 

districts I mean the area served by a particular 

school. 

    

 



  79a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

A. I could tell you what we do have. I noticed that Your 
Honor was examining the grid system that is on the map. 
This is a school system device for locating children. We 
work with the various utility companies planning depart- 
ment in developing it. What it was was the basis for 
computerizing the pupil census. The county was laid out, 
as you see by the map, in these grid sections. There is a 
heavy larger grid and the larger grid is divided into four 
smaller grids. Each one of four small grids is a 2500 foot 
square. So that if you think of the larger grid you have 
slightly less than one mile, 5000 feet instead of 5280. 

Court: On that map there it’s two miles. 

[370] Q. Dr. Self, would you come down to the map 
and demonstrate the grid you're talking about. 

Court: Are you telling me that you do not have 
figures which develop the number of children in a 

particular school zone? 

A. We do have figures but this was to give us a map code. 
Our school secretaries will take the address of each child 
and will code it according to the grid on the map. They 
can tell that the child lives in census tract 19, square #208, 
subsection A, and this of course is all computerized and 
the information can be regurgitated from the computer 
so that we can then go to our map and say in this one 
particular 2500 foot square there live 100 children. Of 
these 100 children so many of them are first grade, so many 
2nd and 3rd and so on. We are able also to tell how many 
of those first grade children are white and how many are 
Negro. 

 



  

80a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Q. Dr. Self, do the mobile units that are utilized by the 

school system furnish an educational need? A. Yes, they 

do. 

Q. Would you tell in what way you use these mobile 

units? A. Well, we accommodate problems of crowding. 

The most visible evidence of this, I think, is present at a 

school where you find a large number of mobile units 

clustered. Had we looked at McClintock Junior High School 

last year you would have found 17 mobile units. These 

mobile units were housing the [3711 children who ulti- 

mately were assigned to Randolph Junior High School. 

They were housed there until their school was completed. 

The same situation was repeated at Landsdowne Kle- 

mentary School—I think we had about 15 there—housing 

the children until the completion of the Old Providence 

School. As we get more and more in our construction 

program and deal with renovations of facilities instead of 

replacements or instead of additional classrooms, you will 

probably find the mobile units used to house the children 

who are displaced while the workmen are renovating the 

building. 

Q. Are mobile units inferior classrooms? A. We have 

two types. The first unit that we bought was a smaller one, 

approximately 450 square feet. This unit is not as good as 

a comparable classroom that would be built in a new school. 

The second purchase was a larger unit. It’s twice that size, 

approximately right at 750 square feet. This unit in a 

number of ways is superior to some of the classrooms in the 

regular building itself. 

Court: What do these cost, the big ones? 

  

  

   



  

8la 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

A. Approximately $5,000.00. 

Q. Will you describe for the Court the procedure followed 
in the employment of personnel? 

Court: I expect we better deploy for about a ten 
minute break before we get to that. 

SeORT RECESS 

[372] Q. Dr. Self, I believe I just completed asking you 
about the employment policies of your office. A. The em- 
ployment of personnel, the responsibility, is vested with 
the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, Mr. William 
Anderson. The first stages of the employment are handled 
by his offices. There is a recruitment stage which involves 
a team of people from the school system, usually made up 
of directors and coordinators from the central office staff, 
principals from the schools, visiting on college campuses. 
We visit the college campuses of this state and surrounding 
states. The attempt here, of course, is to induce as many 
people as possible to submit an application to the Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg School System. Upon receiving the applica- 
tion the central office’s responsibility is to reference each 
applicant, get a record of the student teaching of the candi- 
date and make an assessment as to the potential of the 
person for employment in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
schools. The applications are reviewed again generally by 
the principal, sub-area director, if one is available, and a 
judgment is made as to whether or not the person will be 
employed. Generally speaking the person is employed on 
an unassigned basis. This is quite important to our employ- 
ment process because we must employ people before we 
know whether vacancies occur. We will have the majority 
of our employment completed by the end of the school year. 

 



  

82a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Assignments are made later on [373] as principals review 

the assigned contracts of the teachers and make a judgment 

as to whether or not they would fit into a vacancy at their 

particular school. 

Q. Does your office direct a principal to accept a particu- 

lar teacher? A. Direct a principal to accept a particular 

teacher? 
Q. Yes. A. No, we do not. 

Q. What are the considerations on employing a teacher? 

. . with reference to race being a factor. A. We are in- 

structed by Board of Education policy to disregard race as 

factor in employment. 

Q. What is the primary factor of employment? A. 

Qualifications of the candidate as best they can be deter- 

mined. 

Q. Are there teachers in the system who are required to 

have several skills or several areas of proficiency? A. Yes. 

Q. Could you give us an example? A. The first example 

that comes to my mind are the teachers at the secondary 

level who would certified to teach, perhaps, in two areas, 

English and history, or who might teach a full teaching 

load and accept responsibilities in extracurricular assign- 

ments such as directing the work of the drama or newspaper 

activities, school annual or perhaps even coach an athletic 

team. 

[374] Q. Do these specialties of teachers sometimes lead 

to problems in filling a vacancy at a particular school? A. 

Yes, they do. In employment of a coach, for example, you 

are required to fill a teaching position first and to assess his 

coaching competency second and he must fit into both cate- 

gories. 

Q. We have seen some mention of learning academies in 

the answers to interrogatories. Could you tell the Court 

   



83a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

what the learning academies are? A. I can in general. If 
detailed information is desired, I think Dr. Hanes can 
testify in detail. Learning academy is an innovative educa- 
tional program supported by Title 3 funds of ESEA. It 
was referred to in previous testimony as a PACE project. 

Court: What does PACE mean? 

A. I'm sorry, I do not know. 

Court: Does anybody know what those letters 
mean ? 

A. The program at the learning academy is designed to 
help underachieving boys at the junior high school level. 
The program is a resident school. By that we mean that 
youngsters are taken out of their home environment and 
stay for varying periods of time at the school. The staff 
there uses all of their skill in trying to reinforce the young- 
ster, get him ready to re-enter the regular academic pro- 
gram. 

Q. What determines eligibility for a student as a member 
of the [375] learning academy? A. The fact that he is 
underachieving. By that we mean that he has ability to 
achieve and yet all evidence seems to indicate that he is not 
working up to his potential. 

Court: Is that a 24-hour thing? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: Where is it conducted? 

A. It’s at the Huntersville community in the facility known 

 



  

84a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

originally as Torrence Lytle School, one of the closed 

schools. 

Q. With reference to the teaching personnel, how is com- 

pensation for a teacher determined? A. On the basis of 

teaching experience, measured in numbers of years, and 

the certificate held. The A certificate is awarded for the 

Bachelor’s Degree work and the G certificate for the gradu- 

ate credit based on a Masters Degree. 

Q. What is the source of funds for paying teachers? A. 

Well, the prime source is the state. Teachers are supple- 

mented in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg community through 

the aid of a local supplement. 

Q. Since 1965 have any schools been closed in the system? 

A. You mean closed, not closed to transfer. 

Q. Right. The doors are closed to students. A. Yes, sir. 

There have been schools closed. 

Q. How many schools have been involved? A. Well, it 

depends on how you count them. Can I explain? 

[376] Q. Yes, if you will. A. Ada Jenkins School in 

the far north, Torrence Lytle School referred to a moment 

ago, Crestdale in the Matthews community, Sterling in 

the extreme southern section, Plato Price which is mear 

the airport, Woodland is in the northwestern section, the 

Moores Chapel community; and J. H. Gunn, the present 

location of the education center headquarters. They were 

7 schools that were closed. In addition to that there were 

some school closings like the York Road Senior High School 

relocated at Olympic, Second Ward Junior High School, 

Bain Junior High School, Matthews Junior High School. 

The reason it’s confusing to count is that Bain still exists, 

for example, as an elementary school, as does Matthews. 

York Road still exists as a junior high school and Second 

Ward continues to exist as a senior high school although 

   



85a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant— Direct 

the junior high school grades were closed out. But in terms 
of total schools there were 7 schools closed in that round 
of school closings. The most recent one was last year and 
at this time Morgan and Seversville, Biddleville, Wesley 
Heights and Woodlawn. There is one other, Myers Street 
Elementary School. 

Q. Has the closing of these schools had any effect on 
integration, Dr. Self? A. Yes. 

Q. In what way? A. The children were reassigned to 
other schools. : 

[3771 Q. With reference to the schools they were as- 
signed to, were they roughly put into schools in their 
former attendance area within the new school? Perhaps 
that question is not clear. A. I think the answer 1s yes. 
For example, the Ada Jenkins students are going either to 
Cornelius or Davidson; Torrence Lytle students by and 
large are at North Mecklenburg and the junior high stu- 
dents are at Alexander Junior High and the elementary 
youngsters would be located for the most part at Hunters- 
ville, and I think similar circumstances prevail with the 
other school closings. 

Q. Were the ones that you just mentioned integrated 
schools? A. The schools to which the children were trans- 
ferred would be integrated. The schools that were closed 
would be classified all black. 

Q. Now, with reference to the athletic facilities at the 
schools, what criteria are used in determining athletic fa- 
cilities at the junior high level? A. The criteria for the 
program are set forth in what the educator calls an edu- 
cational program which is a document setting forth the 
square foot requirements and that sort of thing, which is 
given to the architect who uses it in drawing up plans for 
the building. 

 



  

86a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Q. With reference to equipment at junior high schools, 

do you have equivalent or similar equipment at each of the 

schools? A. Yes. The athletic equipment is provided by 

a Board of [378] Education fund. 

Q. With reference to high schools, are they similarly set 

up from an athletic program standpoint? A. Yes, with the 

exception of Second Ward. I couldn’t say that about Sec- 

ond Ward facilities. I think they must be upgraded in 

terms of the completion of the Metropolitan High School. 

In terms of the equipment, a new school for example which 

is just formed is provided with an outlay of money to pur- 

chase the equipment but the athletic program is supported 

through gate receipts and it is anticipated that the school 

will repay the Board of Education fund in terms of equip- 

ment allotted. 

Q. Are the inter-school athletic programs arranged on 

a non-racial basis? A. You mean the competition of 

games? 

Q. Yes. A Yes 

Q. ‘Any school in the system can play any other one, is 

that correct? A. In terms of football they are divided 

into two leagues and they play within the two leagues. 

Q. These are biracial groupings in the school? A. Yes, 

they are. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we have four 

exhibits we would like to have this witness identify. 

The first is Defendant’s Exhibit #2 for identifica- 

tion, [3791 Summation of Integration 1965 (March) 

and 1968-69 (Oct. 1, 1968); Defendant’s Exhibit 3 

for identification entitled payroll by Schools; De- 

fendant’s Exhibit 4 is captioned Table 3, Library 

Department, Books per child; Defendant’s Exhibit 5 

   



87a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

for identification is entitled 1968 Per Pupil Value 
of Facilities. 

Q. Dr. Self, I hand you Defendant’s Exhibit 3.2, Do 
you have a document similar to this? A. Yes, I do. 

Q. With reference to Defendant’s Exhibit 2, Dr. Self, 1 
direct your attention to Page 3. This is the page with a 
heading Pupils and Professional Staff by Race March 6, 
1965, and 1968-69. Would you tell the Court what appears 
upon this page with reference to the writing thereon? A. 
There are statistics here. The statistics are grouped to- 
gether under four major columns. The first two columns 
are statistics dealing with numbers of pupils. The last two 
columns deal with professional staff. Each of these is sub- 
headed the pupils, for example, into two years, 1965 and 
the second column 1968-69, and a similar pattern prevails 
in terms of professional staff. The next sub-head is a 
Negro and white column under each of these years. The 
far left column lists the names of all of the schools in the 
school system and the statistics reflect the number of Negro 
and white pupils in a particular school in 1965 and, if the 
school were [380] not one of the closed ones, the number 
of Negro and white pupils in 1968-69. The same sort of 
analysis holds true as far as the professional staff is con- 
cerned. 

Q. For instance, looking at the school called Bain, what 
information is disclosed for that school? A. The statistics 
reflect here that in 1965 Bain had 674 children and all of 
them were white; that in 68-69 Bain had 25 Negro pupils 
and 699 white. As far as staff is concerned, Bain had 
28 2/10 white teachers and ’68-69 they had one Negro and 
28 white. 

Court: How do you get 2/10 of a teacher? 

 



  

88a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

A. It’s a statistical way of dealing with a traveling teacher 

who will spend two days a week in a particular school or 

one day per week or something of that nature. 

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to 1968-69 I do not note any 

fractional teachers. Is there an explanation for this? A. 

Yes. I think that’s attributable to a different technique for 

computing the statistics. The figures, of course, are made 

to comply with HEW reports and in the 1965 school year 

it was permissable to note these itinerant teachers, who 

are logged in terms of tenths. It was suggested that it 

would give a better picture of the degree of staff integra- 

tion if these people were eliminated from the count in 

'68-69. They were and therefore the statistics in 68-69 

do not reflect itinerant teacher assignment. 

[381] Q. Did the 67-68 school year reflect the itinerant 

teachers? A. I'm sorry, I do not know. 

Court: How many floating teachers did you have 

in the system that you know of? 

A. There would be quite a few. I don’t know the exact 

number, but to give some idea as to the size it would be 

35 elementary music teachers, a comparable number of 

physical education teachers, and that would be up to 70. 

There would be 20 corrective reading teachers. That's the 

bulk of them. 

Court: Something less than an average of one per 

school. 

A. Yes, wir, 

Q. Dr. Self, the information appearing on Defendant’s 

Exhibit 2, was this prepared under your direction and 

supervision? A. Yes, sir, it was prepared by the Research 

   



89a 

Dr. William CO. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Department. The actual information was contained in the 

interrogatories, the first column, of course, coming from 

the interrogatories of the court case of 1965, Table 1, and 

the statistics for the 68-69 column came from the Table 1 

of this year’s response to interrogatories. 

Q. Does this exhibit correctly reflect the changes within 

the schools with reference to numbers of students and pro- 

fessional staff by race? 

Mr. Chambers: Objection. 

Court: What is the basis of the objection? 

Mr. Chambers: The witness did not prepare this 

matter [382] and he is asking a witness to give, as 

one might say, hearsay evidence. 

Court: These statistics were prepared in your of- 

fice under your supervision? 

A. Not in my direct office but in an office which is a part 

of the central office administration. 

Court: Prepared by the people who prepare sta- 

tistics for the school system? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: Objection is overruled. Do you reckon 

you could get them to prepare some more statistics 

for the Court? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: That is, just take every other one of these 

columns, either N or W, whichever is easiest, and 

run a percentage on that to show what those abso- 

 



  

90a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—D:irect 

lute numbers are in terms of percentage of the 

totals. For example, Albemarle Road 68-69, you've 

got 4 out of 489. That would be roughly 1%. 

A. Yes, sir, we could do that. 

Court: I'd appreciate it. 

Mr. Waggoner: Would you like that for the pro- 

fessional staff also? 

Court: Yes. Since this is all here together this 

can be done with one run of the calculator, can’t it? 

[3831 A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Let’s refer to Page 2 of Defendant’s Exhibit #2 for 

identification, will you tell the Court what this sheet indi- 

cates? A. This sheet is headed Racial Distribution of 

Pupils and Professional Staff for 1965 and for 68-69. 

Q. I'll ask you if this isn’t similar information as that 

contained on Pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of Defendant’s Exhibit #2 

except it relates to elementary schools, junior high schools 

and high schools by category. A. Yes. I think in reality, 

as the document is stapled together, the top sheet is a 

summary sheet and the attached sheets offer details in 

support of the summary sheet. 

Q. Now, for instance, on Page 2 I notice that in 1968 

there are listed 23,601 Negro students. A. That is correct. 

Q. And 58,599 white students. A. That is correct. 

Q. And then there are other students within the system. 

A. Yes, sir. Those other students, I believe, are special 

education. 

Q. And those totals are added down on the bottom lines, 

is that correct? A. Yes. 

Q. Now, with reference to Page 1 of the Defendant’s Ex- 

   



91a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

hibit #2, would you explain the meaning of the informa- 

tion contained [384] thereon? A. I'll do my best. When 

you try to determine the degree of integration or the inei- 

dent of integration you must determine are you trying to 

speak from the standpoint of the schools in which there is 

integration or from the number of pupils who are involved 

in the integration or the number of teachers and this sheet 

attempts to do that. At the top of the sheet the section 

headed Schools Having Integration is an attempt to see 

the integration, incident of integration from the standpoint 

of the number of schools involved. and again we have the 

two year comparison. For example, in 1965 there was 

one Negro and 22 white schools in which there was inte- 

gration. I think it must be pointed out that we termed 

the presence of one member of a minority race in the school 

to classify a school in this manner. That meant that 23 out 

of the 109 existing schools were experiencing integration, 

or 21%. Comparable figures in 1968, 84 out of 112 or 75% 

are experiencing integration in terms of pupils. As far as 

staff people are concerned, 3% of the schools, 3 out of 109, 

were experiencing some degree of staff integration in 1965. 

The comparable figure in 1968 is 98 out of 112. The reason 

that that 112 does not agree with the total we have used 

frequently in our testimony is that it includes the child 

development centers and the learning academy. The cen- 

tral section of the page picks up the number of students 

and faculty members involved [385] for both of these 

years. You have to read the page actually horizontally 

from top to bottom; that one Negro school back in 1965 

had 9 white youngsters, 343 Negro youngsters, making a 

total of 352 pupils experiencing some degree of integra- 

tion. That, of course, was Bethune school. The 22 white 

schools had 469 Negro youngsters. 16,446 whites, or a total 

 



  

92a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

of 16,922 youngsters. Adding the total number of Negro 

pupils to the total number of white pupils gives us the total 

found at the bottom of the page, 17,274 or 24% of our stu- 

dent body. Without going through the whole process for 

1968, comparable percentage is 77. 

Q. TT%? A. 77% of the student body. In like manner 

you can come up with two comparable percentages for staff. 

5% of our staff were experiencing some degrees of integra- 

tion in 1965; 91% are experiencing some degree of inte- 

gration in 1968. 

Q. Dr. Self, I next direct your attention to Defendant’s 

Exhibit #3 headed Payrolls and ask if this was prepared 

under your direction and supervision. A. Prepared by the 

same Research Department, yes, sir. 

Q. Would you describe for the Court the information 

contained on Defendant’s Exhibit #3? A. Again we have 

a listing of the schools and in the columns the payrolls of 

the third school month and the fourth school month for 

each of these schools. Actual payroll data includes [3861 

the salary of the Principal, assistant principal, the teacher, 

secretary and teacher aides for all of the schools. The total 

salary for each school for both months is listed. That total 

salary is divided by the number of persons served by that 

total salary and an average salary is computed. I feel 

compelled to point out to the Court that in examining this 

document I found what is an obvious error which should 

be pointed out. It’s on the second page and it pertains to 

East Mecklenburg High School where in the third school 

month you see 112 teachers listed, and the fourth school 

month 102. It’s obvious that we didn’t dismiss ten teachers. 

In looking for the error I think I fond it at Eastway Junior 

High School, two schools down, where the number in the 

third month is listed as 61 and the fourth month as 71. 

   



93a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

I believe somehow we got the names Fastway and East 
Mecklenburg confused. 

Court: What would you do to straighten it out? 

A. Given a bit of time. I didn’t find it until I got here 
today. 

Q. Now, with reference to Defendant’s Exhibit #3, tak- 
ing at random Albemarle Elementary School. This is a 
new school, as I understand it, is that correct? A. Yes. 

Q. What is the average salary per teacher for the fourth 
month? A. $610.98. 

Q. Would you tell us what the similar figure for Alex- 
ander Street would be? [387] A. Alexander Street is 
$711.19. 

Q. Would you give us Barringer? A. Barringer is 
$669.30. 

Q. Would you give us Devonshire? A. Devonshire is 
$584.86. 

Q. Would you give us Double Oaks? A. $717.54. 
Q. Druid Hills.” A, £703.57, 

Q. Huntingtowne Farms. A. $638.08. 
Q. Erwin Avenue Junior High. 

Court: I can read the rest of this, Mr. Waggoner. 
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I wanted to 

touch on some of these. Some of these schools are 

predominantly white, some are predominantly col- 

ored. 

Court: I am familiar with the widely known fact 

that your colored teachers as a group have higher 

salaries than the white because they stay at it longer 

and have more graduate education. Is this the point 
you're making? 

 



  

94a 

Dr. William CO. Self—for Defendant—Dairect 

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir. 

Q. Dr. Self, I next direct your attention to Defendant’s 

Exhibit #4 for identification entitled Table 3 and ask if 

this was prepared under your direction and supervision. 

[388] A. Yes, it was. It was prepared in the Library De- 

partment. 

Q. Would you explain to the Court the information ap- 

pearing thereon? A. It’s a tabulation of the number of 

books per child in the libraries of the schools listed. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I would like 

to ask Dr. Self if you are able to detect that pre- 

dominantly Negro schools have less library books 

per student. 

A. I don’t think I could make that generalization. 

Q. All right, sir, would you look at Albemarle Road? 

Court: It looks like the poor people at Quail 

Hollow are in bad shape—7% books per student. 

Q. Dr. Self, do you detect a pattern of discrimination 

in favor of either of the races with reference to library 

books? 

Mr. Chambers: I object to that, Your Honor. 

Court: Objection is overruled. 

A. No. 

Court: Let me ask about this thing. Is it gener- 

ally true that the older the school the more books 

they’ve got regardless of the race of the students? 

This would appear to be a pattern looking at this. 

   



95a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

A. I think that would be generally true, Your Honor. 

Court: Zeb Vance, for example, with 15.8 and 
Quail Hollow with 7.6. Do they illustrate that propo- 

sition? 

[389] A. Probably would. I think the only thing that might 

cause it to vary from that pattern is the vigor with which 

the librarian purges the shelves . . . of old books. 

Court: West Charlotte 10%; West Mecklenburg 

TV. 

Would that be illustration of the same proposi- 

tion? 

A. Yes, sir. Also it would account for the fact that Albe- 

marle Klementary is 6.6. It’s a new school just getting 

started. 

Court: OK, you want to get to something else? 

Had you finished with that? 

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir, I had finished with it. 

There has been an allegation that inferior facilities 

have been furnished and I was seeking to establish 

there has been something in the nature of equality 

subject to the problems of a big School Board. 

Q. Dr. Self, I direct your attention to Defendant’s Ex- 

hibit #5 for identification and ask if you can identify it. 

A. I believe you are referring to the one headed 1968 Per 

Pupil Value of Facilities. 

Q. That is correct. A. This is a tabulation of the amount 

of money, the per pupil amount of money that the facility 

is worth. It was obtained by taking the value of the facility 

 



  

96a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Dairect 

from the principal’s final report, which is a part of the 

interrogatories, and dividing that by the number of pupils 

housed in the facility. Again, there are wide disparities in 

terms of the dollar amount. [390] Generally speaking the 

average is a more valid figure than is an individual figure. 

The average shows that the per pupil facility value for 

elementary schools is $861.00; the per pupil value of facili- 

ties in the junior high school is $1,229.00; and the per pupil 

value in the senior high schools is $1,567.00. 

Q. Dr. Self, these values, as I understand it, are prob- 

ably cost values of that particular school plant? A. Yes, 

Sir. 

Court: Are they in fact cost figures or are they 

in fact current appraisals? 

A. I think they would reflect the insurance values of the 

building. 

Court: This is not land value but simply buildings 

and equipment, or can you tell about that? 

Mr. Chambers: That is one reason we objected to 
these documents. As I understand it, the principal 

sits down and says a building and land is worth 

X-number of dollars and he files his report and sends 

it to Raleigh. 
There is, I submit, no real expertise at all on the 

part of the principal to determine what the building 

is actually worth and this is the way they get the 

figure to make the contention here that the per pupil 

value of, for instance, Fairview is $1,000.00. The 

value of Myers Park Elementary School is $830.00. 

[391] A. May I explain? 

   



97a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, this does in- 
clude the site evaluation. 

Court: What comment do you have on that? 

A. The distortion in the case Mr. Chambers mentioned 
would be produced by the enrollment. Fairview is a com- 
munity in which the pupil population is decreasing. The 
quotient, then, in this arithmetic problem is rather small. 
It would produce a higher per pupil value. Myers Park 
Elementary is relatively filled so your quotient here di- 
vided into the value of the building would produce less 
value per pupil. 

Court: Mr. Chambers, I believe I’ll admit this as 
nothing but the opinion of the principals as to the 
value of the facility without any feeling that it has 

any material bearing on the case. 
Mr. Chambers: We didn’t object, really, because 

we thought it might be admissable for whatever it’s 
worth but we think these matters should be brought 

to the attention of the Court. 

Court: If you find, Dr. Self, that this does not 

include the value of the land, which I assumed it did 

from the size of the figures, let me know. I assume 

this includes an estimate as to the value of every- 
thing that’s there. 

A. All right, sir. 

[3921 Q. Dr. Self, could you give us the senior high 

average evaluation? A. Reading from the list, East Meck- 
lenburg $1,249.00. . . . 

Court: I can read the rest of the figures. 

Mr. Waggoner: I want to get the average. 

 



  

98a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Durect 

A. $1,567.00. 

Q. Dr. Self, there has been a great deal said in the past 

three days with reference to Metropolitan High School to 

be located on Second Ward. When was the plan formulated 

to commit for this location of this type of school? A. I 

believe the plans have been underway since prior to Dr. 

Philips departure which would mean it’s at least two years. 

Q. Would you describe to the Court the type of curricu- 

lum that would be offered at this school? A. It’s antici- 

pated that the school would offer the courses usually found 

in a comprehensive high school and that the vocational 

offerings of the school system would be heavily supple- 

mented, that we would have here what we call one of a 

kind courses, meaning by that that they would not be of- 

fered in any other school in the system—this sort of thing. 

Q. I’ve heard this school described as a magnet type sort 

of school. Is that proper terminology? A. I would class 

it as a magnet type school. That certainly is our hope. 

Q. This means that it would attract students from all 

over the school district, is that correct? [3931 A. That is 

our anticipation. 

Q. What were the considerations that led to deciding on 

this particular location for this type school? A. There is 

certainly a need for offering a secondary program in this 

area. The program itself needs to be unique in terms of 

the ultimate goal of the pupils served. It is housed in close 

proximity to what will be the educational center head- 

quarters for the whole school system. We will have in that 

educational center some of the outstanding curriculum peo- 

ple in the whole southeast who will be most anxious to 

work in this Metropolitan High School, offering support 

and reinforcement for the types of programs undertaken 

there. 

   



99a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Q. Was there any community participation in developing 
this type school? A. Yes, sir. The Second Ward School 
Committee, I recall, met with Dr. Philips at which time 
they talked the whole thing through and came to some 
conclusions in terms of the type of school that would be 
offered there and the fact that it would be located there. 

Q. Do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to 
whether or not this is a good location for this type of 
school ? 

Mr. Chambers: Objection. 

A. Yes. 

Q. What is your opinion? [3941 A. TI think it’s a good 
location. 

Court: Dr. Self, from the corner of Independence 
Blvd. to McDowell Street how far is it to the nearest 
high school, which I would believe would be Myers 
Park High School? Do you know? 

A. No, sir, I do not. 

Court: Is it between four and five miles, about 
four miles? 

A. I was going to guess between three and a half and four. 

Court: How far is it to East High School? 

A. A good bit further. 

Court: About seven or eight miles? 

A. Seven would be a good guess. 

 



  

100a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Court: And to Garringer what is it? 

A. Garringer would be closer. 

Court: Around four, maybe more? 

A. Three, three and a half. 

Court: How far to West Charlotte? 

A. About the same distance as to Garringer, about three 

and a half. 

Court: Is there any high school in Charlotte now 

closer to the center of town than the four that I have 

just asked you about? 

A. The only question would be Harding and I'd say Hard- 

ing falls in that three or four mile category. 

[3951 Court: So you have at present, then, a city 

of over a quarter of million with a hole about eight 

miles square in the middle without a high school 

in it, 

A. We do have the Second Ward High School there now. 

Court: That’s not slated to remain, is it? 

A. This school will replace the Second Ward High School. 

Court: If you don’t maintain or build a school 

there, you will have a space about eight miles square 

without a high school? 

A. That’s true. 

   



101a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the Greenville area of 
Charlotte, I understand the residents of that area have 
asked the School Board to construct a school in that par- 
ticular area, is this correct? A. Thats true. 

Q. Would you tell the Court the facts and circumstances 
surrounding the possible location of a school in the Green- 
ville area? A. The Board of Education in its thirty-five 
million dollar bond program allocated the thirty-five mil- 
lion dollars by sections. In the section that we are speaking 
of here there was $750,000.00 set aside for the construction 
of an elementary school. The community was in a state of 
transition, urban development moving in the area, Model 
Cities planning for the area, and the Board simply held 
the money in abeyance until such time as they could plan 
more definitely. The thing first [396] was brought to the 
attention of the Board of Education when the representa- 
tives of Urban Redevelopment presented a plan for land 
use in the area. Their plan assumed that you would set 
aside a certain portion of the redevelopment land for the 
construction of a school and it was at that time that in- 
terested groups petitioned the Board of Education to make 
the decision to build a school in that area. The Board has 
delayed its decision in this matter, 

Q. Does the Board give any reason for the delay? A. No. 
I think that they simply indicated that they wanted to 
delay it. 

Court: How long do you want to delay it? 

A. The Board hasn’t indicated that, Your Honor. 
Q. Does the Board have any concern as to the possible 

racial composition of this school? A. Yes, they do. I think 
that concern was voiced by Mr. Bureh, it being that the 

 



  

102a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Darect 

community itself would be housed as an all Negro neigh- 

borhood and then that the school population would be all 

Negro. 

Court: Do you know how many folks live in the 

area that school would serve if it were built? 

A. No, sir, I do not and I believe that the more relevant 

matter would be how many homes it’s planned in Urban 

Redevelopment to put back in the area and the figures 

we've gotten there is 700 to 1,000. 

[3971 Court: How do you describe the Greenville 

area? : 

A. Graham Street north of the cemetery that’s behind Kr- 

win Avenue Junior High School, that sector in there. 

Court: Between Graham and Beatties Ford Road? 

A. No, sir, between Graham and actually north of Highway 

16. 

Court: That’s Rozzels Ferry Road? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: Aren’t there several schools in there now? 

A. Fairview is the only school that’s in the section under 

consideration here. 

Court: Bethune School is south of there, isn’t it, 

south of that area? 

A. It’s on the fringe of it, yes, sir. 

   



103a 

Dr. William OC. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Mr. Waggoner: We have the plaintiff’s experts’ 
proposal and we would like to go into this. This may 
be a convenient time for all to stop. It probably 
would take a while. 

Court: All right. If there is no objection we'll 
quit until 9:30 in the morning. 

OverNiGHT RECESS 

Thursday, March 13, 1969 

Q. Dr. Self, I understand there is a point pertaining to 
the athletic equipment at junior high schools that you 
would like to clear up at this time based on your testimony 
of yesterday. A. Yes, sir, Mr. Waggoner. Dr. Hanes spoke 
to me after court [398] was recessed yesterday afternoon 
and called my attention to the fact that I had made an 
error in testimony pertaining to the athletic equipment, 
the purchase of athletic equipment for the junior high 
schools. I had stated that the Board of Education provided 
a fund for the junior high schools with which they pur- 
chased their athletic equipment, football uniforms, base- 
ball uniforms, etc. What I failed to add is that this fund 
is extended as a loan and the school is expected to repay 
that over a period of years. 

Court: That’s from the Board of Education? 

A. That’s right. 

Q. You used the term athletic equipment, does this have 
to do with the entire physical education program at the 
school? A. No. Mr. Waggoner. In education circles we 
distinguish between the physical education program in 
which all pupils are involved and the athletic program 
which, in effect, involves team sports. 

 



  

104a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Q. These would be the interschool sports you're talking 

about? A. That’s true. 

Q. Dr. Self, have you had occasion to review the analysis 

and recommendations of Drs. Larsen, Finger and Passey 

that have been referred to in this case? A. I have, not as 

thoroughly as I would wish but to a degree. 

Q. Dr. Self, is there any educational basis for classifying 

a school as integrated when it has 10% of one race or more? 

[300] A. I don’t believe there would be an educational basis 

for it. 

Court: What does that question and answer mean? 

What does that mean to me? 
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, that means to 

me—I'm not sure it would mean this to you—from 

an educator’s standpoint there is no arbitrary level 

of mixing races which creates an integrated situa- 

tion, no educational basis for this. Any basis would 

be a legal basis which the Court would have to draw. 

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the recommendations of 

Dr. Larsen, which I understand to be Alternative I Phase 1, 

have you had an occasion to review this plan, Page 11 of 

the report? A. Yes, I have. 

Q. Would you give the Court your observations, please, 

sir? A. The plan itself has some prerequisites, as I under- 

stand it, and these are that an additional six elementary 

schools would be closed that are located in the central sec- 

tion of the city. Erwin Avenue Junior High School would 

eventually be closed. I don’t believe that the plan calls 

that the school be abandoned immediately; that construec- 

tion at Northwest Junior High School would be stopped; 

that the Metropolitan High School would be located on the 

   



105a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Hawthorne Junior High site, which would necessitate the 

relocation of Hawthorne Junior High School. They sug- 

gested but didn’t hold firm to the suggestion that that 

location might be Shamrock Gardens [400] Elementary 

School; that the district lines be redrawn, respecting the 

fact these schools were closed, and no freedom of choice 

be allowed. Basically I think the plan is one of transport 

out of the central city section, an attempt to design a new 

elementary building program on sites which are not in what 
was termed the Negro downtown area, then pair or link 

together elementary schools in such a way as to achieve 

integration, and then assure the maintenance of this inte- 
gration as the youngsters progress through the grades 
through the use of a feeder system which would move the 
integrated elementary pupils into integrated junior high 
schools and subsequently to senior high schools. I think 
that the plan has some weaknesses as any plan would. 
One that appears to me is that it would assume the ability 
of the school system to house the youngsters who are 
moved out of the closed schools. This would be a severe 
housing problem as far as the school system is concerned. 
I think another questionable point, at least it’s debatable, 
is that it would almost abandon the center city as far as 
education is concerned. It would impose the problems of 
transportation. I am not familiar enough with this tech- 
nique of pairing to know what account is taken for the 
growth problems of the schools in such a plan and I think 
philosophically the plan itself is not a very good respecter 
of elementary education principles. 

Q. Does this particular plan square with Dr. Passey’s 
statement [401] that he favors neighborhood schools for 
grades 1 through 4? A. I believe that it would conflict in 
this particular instance. 

 



  

106a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Dairect 

Q. Dr. Self, beginning on Page 14 there are various clus- 

terings or pairing of schools. Could you come down to the 

map and point out the schools that are involved in these 

particular groupings? (The witness does so.) A. The 

three schools of the first cluster are these three, Marie 

Davis, Collingswood and Sedgfield. Group B is Dilworth 

and Myers Park and Wilmore. 

Q. Dr. Self, do you have an opinion as to the distance 

between Wilmore and the Myers Park Schools? A. We can 

get a rough approximation by using our blocks. 

Court: Are these blocks a mile square? 

A. This block right here is a mile square. This is a two 

mile section, Your Honor. Using a rough technique, slightly 

over two miles between Myers Park and Wilmore and 

slightly less than two miles between Dilworth and Myers 

Park. 

Q. The next grouping, please, sir. A. Group E-1, Bruns 
Avenue. . . . 

Court: I don’t know that it matters but I'm curious 

about the distances. Where is Wilmore? The dis- 

tance between Wilmore and Myers Park . . . you're 

talking about Myers Park Elementary? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: That’s just under three miles as the crow 
flies, [402] two and a half miles. 

A. Yes, sir. Group E-1 is Bruns Avenue which is here. 

Court: What artery is that nearest, Highway 162 

A. Off Highway 16. This is the bypass for Johnson C. 

Smith and Bruns Avenue branches off of there. 

   



107a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Q. While you are on Bruns Avenue, what schools does it 

replace? A. Bruns Avenue replaced Wesley Heights and 

Seversville and Biddleville. 

Q. Dr. Self, what was the racial composition of these 

schools in 1965, if you know? A. Biddleville I feel certain 

was black. I think that Wesley Heights and Seversville 

were totally white at the time. I am not sure. 

Q. Did Bruns Avenue roughly take on the same school 

boundaries covered by the other two schools? A. Yes... 

the other three. 

Q. If you will, continue with E-1. A. Ashley Park is 

here; Enderly Park is here; and Westerly Hills is a new 

school which I do not believe is on the map. It’s right be- 

hind the Harding High School. They are clustered right 

here. 

Q. The next grouping? A. Group E-2 is Lakeview, which 

is here, and Thomasboro, which is here. 

Court: Lakeview and Thomasboro are on the 

south and [403] north side of Interstate 85, are they? 

A. Interstate 85 will divide them right here. 

Q. The next group. A. Group E-3 is Hoskins and Univer- 
sity Park, right here. 

Q. Are those two schools again separated by Interstate 

85? A. They are. 

Q. Let’s go to the final grouping, Group H. A. Group H 

is Alexander Street, which is one of the schools which was 

recommended for closing, and it’s right here; Highland is 
here; Merry Oaks . .. 

Court: On Central. 

A. Yes, up here. Midwood, again off Central. I believe 

 



  

108a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

that’s this. Plaza Road is here; Shamrock Gardens is here 

and Villa Heights is here. 

Q. Dr. Self, do you have an opinion satisfactory to your- 

self as to the distance between Alexander Street and Merry 

Oaks? A. If we use the same technique of applying the 

blocks, it would be in the neighborhood of two and a half 

miles. 

Court: Three miles in a straight line. 

Q. Would you go to the next grouping? A. Group K-1 

is Hidden Valley and Tryon Hills. 

Q. Group M-1. A. Chantilly and Elizabeth. 

Q. And the final grouping? A. Billingsville, Cotswald 

and Eastover, these three. 

[404] Court: Mr. Chambers, you feel free to go 

whenever you wish. 

Mr. Chambers: I promised to leave this afternoon 

at 2:00. 

Q. Dr. Self, I direct your attention to Page 16 of the re- 

port and as I understand the listing on this page, these 

schools would not be affected in any way by the recommen- 

dations of Dr. Larsen, is that correct? A. I interpret in 

the same manner, yes. 

Q. How many schools are listed on that page, if you 

know? A. I do not know. Are they to be counted? 

Q. Yes, sir. A. At the top of the page there is a group- 

ing which the authors state are already desegregated and 

they will remain as they are. There are 13 schools in that 

category. At the bottom of the page there is a grouping 

of schools that the author states would remain segregated 

and they categorized into two sections, predominantly 

  

  

 



  109a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

black—and in this section there are 12 schools—and another 

section labeled predominantly white 24, if my counting is 

correct. 

Q. As I understand, out of the 76 elementary schools 

this plan would not affect 49 of the schools, is that correct? 

A. T believe that’s correct. 

Court: Those have a school population of roughly 

what? It looks like about 8000 in that top pair, 
6500, that’s [405] 14,500—29 or 30,000. 

A. That’s correct. 

Q. Dr. Self, do you know approximately how many 
students you have in your elementary school system? I 

direct your attention to Defendant’s Exhibit 2 which con- 

tains—this is a sheet with a summation of integration, 

the second page. A. The elementary population is 13,290 

Negro, 31,545 white, and to this you would need to add 

probably several hundred youngsters in special education 

who appear in that other figure down at the bottom. 

Q. Mr. Self, does the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Sys- 

tem employ a feeder system? A. Not a pure feeder system. 

Q. Would you explain what is meant by a feeder system? 

A. As I understand the rigid concept of the feeder system 

it is determined that all of the pupils in a particular ele- 

mentary school will feed into a single junior high school 

and that all of the students in this junior high school will 

feed into a single senior high school. Our system is not 

pure in that we have circumstances in which two-thirds of 

an elementary school will feed into one junior high school 

and the other one-third will feed into another junior high 

school and then the junior high school population might be 

similarly divided. 

   



  

110a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Dairect 

Q. Dr. Self, referring to Page 17 of the analysis and 

recommendations, did you have occasion to review the 

assignment [406] areas for the junior and senior high 

schools under Dr. Larsen’s recommendations? A. I have 

not studied this in any detail. 
Q. Turning to Page 25, Alternative 1, Phase 2, Desegre- 

gation Plan based on Districts and Transportation, have 

you had occasion to review these recommendations? A. 

Yes, I have. 
Q. Would you tell us what you find? A. As I understand 

the recommendation again this proposal would divide the 

county into four racially balanced districts. The best I 

can understand, Highway 74 and 77 are used to pretty 

much determine what these districts would be. Within those 

racially balanced districts desegregated elementary schools 

are established, again by pairing or linking or clustering, 

and by drawing attendance zones around these schools in 

such a way as to achieve desegregated elementary schools. 

Again I believe that a feeder pattern is established which 

would assure the continuance of the integration to the 

junior high school and the senior high school level. The 

plan again assumes that no freedom of choice would be 

allowed and I believe differs from the first phase in that 

it calls for extensive bussing. 

Q. Dr. Self, do you furnish bus service for the Charlotte 

City schools or the schools located primarily within the 

City? A. No, we do not, with one exception. The law 

which was passed, [407] I believe, in 1957 said that county 

residents who had been provided transportation and who 

were annexed into the City may not be deprived of their 

transportation. In effect, with annexation or with extension 

of City limit lines, we do have some children in the City 

limits who are furnished transportation. 

  

  

  

  
 



  

  

  

  

111a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Court: How big a group of students is in that 
fringe area now? 

A. Ido not know. I assume it would be a fairly small group. 
Q. Dr. Self, is it true that roughly one-fourth of the 

student population is furnished bus service, some 23,0007? 
A. I believe that that’s a pretty accurate figure. : 

Mr. Chambers: I object to that and move to strike. 
There is the transportation officer who has the in- 
formation and the question, first of all, was leading 
and, secondly, Dr. Self has not stated he knows 
definitely or approximately that that is the figure. 

Court: You have a copy of the dope sheet, don’t 
you, that Dr. Self handed in when he first started 
to testify? This says that 23,000 students were fur- 
nished busses this year at a cost of $19.00 per 
student. That’s on Page 4 near the bottom. 271 
busses, 23,000 children, cost per year per child 

$19.00. 
Mr. Chambers: I have a copy here. 

Court: Motion denied. Go ahead. 

[408] Q. Dr. Self, with reference to Alternative 1, 
Phase 2, have you had occasion to consider this plan from 
an educator’s standpoint? A. I have. 

Q. Is this proposed plan a feasible plan for operating 
the school system in this county? 

Mr. Chambers: I object. That calls for a conclu- 
sion of law on the part of the witness. I think the 
witness can state whether or not he has some objec- 
tion, some specific defects. 

Court: I think that’s correct. 

 



  

112a 

Dr. William OC. Self—for Defendant—Dairect 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, this question 

related to his opinion as an educator. 

Court: Give your comments on it from the stand- 

point of educational advantages or disadvantages. 

I believe that would be a competent question. 

A. 1 think that the same problems posed by the first Alter- 

native 1, Phase 1, would be posed by Alternative 1, Phase 2, 

and I listed those as the fact that it requires that the 

schools in the central city be closed and the students be 

transported out, thereby imposing a housing problem on 

the school system. I stated that it would mean the virtual 

abandonment of education in the central part of the city; 

that transportation problems would be imposed and that 

it again does not respect to a degree the principles of 

elementary education. 

[409] Court: As far as the theory of education 

is concerned, you say the two plans have substan- 

tially the same objections as you see them. 

A. You sir, 

Q. Dr. Self, if you will, referring to Page 42 of the 

report, captioned Alternative 2, a Desegregation Plan 

Based on Districts and Transportation, have you had oc- 

casion to examine these recommendations? A. Yes, I have. 

Q. Give the Court the benefit of your observations. 

Court: Is this the plan that Dr. Passey described? 

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir, as I understand it, it is. 

Dr. Passey: No, it’s a combination of two. 

Mr. Chambers: Are you talking about Alternative 

2? 

    

  
 



    

113a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Mr. Waggoner: Alternative 2, beginning Page 42. 

Dr. Passey: This second one is a combination 

of the four sectors that Dr. Finger delineated. 

Court: A plan was described by Dr. Larsen, a 

plan was described by Dr. Finger, a plan was de- 

scribed by Dr. Passey. My question is is this the 

one that Dr. Passey described? 

Dr. Passey: No. 

Mr. Waggoner: I believe Dr. Passey’s begins on 

Page 46, which is Alternative 3. There are four 

plans really that they presented. 

[410] A. As I understand Alternative #2, this is a dese- 
gregation plan which is based on districts and transporta- 

tion. The uniqueness of this plan is that it asked for a 

reorganization of the school system itself from a 6-3-3 

pattern to a primary, middle grade and senior high school 

pattern. 

Q. Would you explain the 6-3-3? A. This means that 

six elementary grades are housed together, three junior 

high school grades are housed together and three senior 

high school grades are housed together. The other or- 

ganizational plan calls for the first four grades, or kinder- 

gartens, if kindergartens are there, to be housed in the 

primary school; for grades 5 through 8 to be housed in 

the middle school—this is the usual pattern of operation— 

and for grades 9 to 12 to be housed in the senior high 

school building. As I understand Alternative #2, it calls 

for no abandonment of schools in the central section of the 

city and I believe it assumes that they would continue 

to be used. I believe that the basic difference between 

that and Alternative #3, as I was able to detect it, was 

that Alternative #2 is geographically based and Alterna- 

 



  

114a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Dairect 

tive #3 is not geographically based, if I understand it 

correctly. 
Q. With reference to Alternative 3 beginning on Page 

46, you stated that it is not geographically based. By what 

means would students be assigned under this? A. Again, 

as I understand it, the primary school would be [411] 

neighborhood oriented. I understand Dr. Passey was at- 

tempting to respect these principles of elementary educa- 

tion that we alluded to earlier and this sort of an organiza- 

tion; that a feeder system would be established that would 

assure the continuation of integration in the junior and 

senior high schools. 

Q. Would there be substantial transportation under 

Alternative 3? A. Yes, there would. 

Court: Does anyone of these plans contain any 

proposals about changes in the county schools as 

such, or what we used to call the county schools? 

A. Yes, I believe that the outlying schools are incorporated 

in the plans, on Page 47, for example. The schools that 

would be contained in learning complex A are identified 

as being East Mecklenburg. . . . 

Court: That’s in the city. 

A. Well, it was formerly a Mecklenburg County School. 

The community has grown up around it. If you look at 

Page 48, learning complex B, you can see a mixture of 

former city, former county, South Mecklenburg being 

county oriented, Smith Junior High School county oriented, 

Erwin Junior High School central city, Collingswood and 

Pinewood are right on the periphery, Shamrock Gardens 

is in the inner limits of the city; Bethune is central city. 

  

  

  

  

| 
| 

| 

 



  

  

115a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

So there is a mixture of what would be termed former 
city and former county in this plan. 

[412] Q. Dr. Self, on Page 47 dealing with learning 
complex A, I notice that the students at Williams Junior 
High School would be going to high school at East Meck- 
lenburg High. Where is the Williams Junior High School 
located? A. Williams Junior High School is near the 
intersection of I-85 and Statesville Road. 

Q. Where is East Mecklenburg High School? A. East- 
ern section of the city off of Old Monroe Road, just beyond 
the point where Old Monroe Road intersects Rama Road. 

Q. Do you have an opinion as to the distance between 
these two schools? A. It would be in excess of five miles. 

Court: Does the area served by Williams Junior 
High School extend north of 1-85? 

A. I'm not certain, Your Honor, we could look at the map 
to determine it, if we had a junior high school map. 

Mr. Waggoner: Are the junior highs located on 
this map? 

Mr. Chambers: There is a junior high school map. 

Q. Come down to the map, Dr. Self. (The witness does 
$0.) 

(Conference out of the hearing of the Court Re- 
porter.) 

Court: Dr. Self, in this dope sheet that you gave 
me yesterday you indicated that transportation cost 
per pupil is $19.00 a year. Does that include the 
cost of the busses, maintenance? What does that 
$19.00 include? 

   



  

116a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Dairect 

A. I think that would include the operating costs, the gas, 

oil, [413] tires, upkeep and probably the salary of the 

driver. It would not include the capital outlay expenditure 

for buying the bus. 

Court: Are there some figures on the total cost 

of bus transportation? 

A. Yes, sir. If they are not available in the deposition, 

we can make them available. 

Court: How many of the first three or four grades 

in the county ride busses to school? 

A. Again I could only approximate. There are 42,000 ele- 

mentary youngsters. Of that 23,000, 22,000 will be primary 

—10,000 would be a very rough guess. 

Court: Is the school bus operation in the county, 

generally speaking do they haul as many of the first 

four grades on busses as they do the other grades? 

A. I wouldn’t think that would be true because of our at- 

tempt to locate the elementary schools in closer proximity 

to the youngsters than we do the secondary schools. 

Court: Is there any information on that subject? 

A. I’m sure there is. 

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to establishing boundaries of 

an elementary school, is there any rough guide that you at- 

tempt to use insofar as establishing distance of the school 

boundary to the school itself? A. A very rough guide is 

a mile but, of course, you will vary [414] that radius that 

   



117a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

you would use to draw circles around the elementary school 
depending on the section in which you were locating it. 
In the central section of the city or in densely populated 
areas you may have a radius much less than that and in 
the sparsely populated sections a radius in excess of that 
mile. 

Q. In the city section how far will a school ordinarily be 
located at a maximum from the boundary of the school dis- 
trict? A. It’s an approximation—I’d say 34 of a mile to 
a mile, and again you will have exceptions to that. 

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to these four recommenda- 
tions, or do you have an opinion as to whether or not any 
one of these or any two or any three or any four of them 
could be applied to Mecklenburg County on an education- 
ally sound basis? 

Mr. Chambers: We object to that. 
Mr. Waggoner: I'll withdraw the question. 
Court: That’s a fairly pertinent inquiry. 
Mr. Chambers: I would think that the witness 

ought to say what objections he might have to the 
plans rather than to say definitely they cannot be 
worked. I understood when he started off that he 
hasn’t had a chance to study the plans in detail. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I will take 
each plan separately. 

Q. Dr. Self, referring to Page 11, Alternative 1, Phase 1, 
a [415] Desegregation plan based on Elementary School 
Pairing and Elementary-Secondary Feeder Systems. Do 
you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to whether 
or not this plan from an educational standpoint could be 
feasibly implemented in this school district? 

   



  

118a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Mr. Chambers: Objection. 

Court: Well, I believe I'll overrule the objection. 

Q. Do you have an opinion? A. Yes. 

Q. What is your opinion? A. I think the plan would 

cause considerable problems for the school system in terms 

of housing. It would impose rather sizeable burdens of 

transportation upon the school system. 

Q. Would it have any effect on the neighborhood concept 

of schools? 

Mr. Chambers: Objection, leading. 

Court: Overruled. 

A. Yes. 
Q. In what way? 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, my objection now, 

the question is would it have any effect on the neigh- 

borhood school concept, what neighborhood school 

concept? 

Mr. Waggoner: The one that Dr. Self has testified 

to. 

Mr. Chambers: I haven’t heard any testimony 

about a neighborhood school concept. 

[416] Court: I heard Dr. Passey talking about it 

and another witness talked about it a day or two ago. 

Mr. Chambers: I understand but we have different 

ideas of what neighborhood schools are. 

Court: Let’s go at it the quickest way. You go 

ahead and answer the question and I'll overrule the 

leading element in it. 

A. When you asked the question I was thinking about the 

youngsters from the central city area that would be bussed 

   



119a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

out to surrounding schools. If the youngsters are taken out 
of their home community in this way, in my thinking it 
does violate the neighborhood school concept. 

Court: How far would you say children in the 
county travel the first three or four grades to get to 
school? I know this is like asking how far is it to a 
star, but can you give me some idea how far the 
average county child has to go to get to his first, 
second, third grade school. 

A. As I recall in one response to a question in a deposition 
Mr. Harrison indicated that the average round trip mile 
for school bus was 30. I don’t know whether he has any 
breakdown between elementary and secondary youngsters 
from that general figure or not, Your Honor. 

Court: Is there any limit on how short a trip 
youll haul folks on a bus? 

[417] A. The rules and regulations state that we transport 
children who live beyond a mile and a half radius of that 
school. 

Court: So everybody who rides the bus is sup- 
posed to ride at least a mile and a half. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Dr. Self, could Alternative 1, Phase 1, be accom- 
plished by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System on 
your present budget? 

Mr. Chambers: Objection. 

Court: Overruled. 

   



  

120a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

A. No. I believe that Plan 1 would impose additional 

demands in terms of transportation expenses. It might 

also cause some financial problems in terms of housing 

the youngsters. 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I hate to keep ob- 

jecting but the witness still hasn’t gotten to any- 

thing, I submit, that is relevant or competent here. 

He said would the plan pose some problem within 

the present budget. How can he state that? The 

witness doesn’t even know what it’s going to cost 

in terms of transportation and the budget, as I 

understand it, is submitted for 1968-69. Now, how 

would a 68-69 budget apply to 69-70 in terms of this 

plan? 

Court: I just hear him saying that he thinks it 

would cost more money, that’s all it means. Do you 

get any more than that out of his answer, Mr. 

Waggoner? 

Mr. Waggoner: No, sir, we haven't had a chance 

to cost [418] this out. It is more expensive is what 

he testified to. 

A. If T might explain, Your Honor. I certainly know that 

I can come up with no concrete figure. I make my deduc- 

tion on the basis of the fact that I feel that transportation 

would be required for youngsters who are not now getting 

transportation. So you're led to believe that this would be 

an additional expense. 

Court: I am aware of all the infirmities which 

your objection suggests. Go ahead with the next 

question. 

   



—
—
—
—
—
—
 

121a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Q. With reference to Alternative 1, Phase 2, beginning 

on Page 23, do you have an opinion from an educational 

standpoint as to whether or not this particular recom- 

mendation could be feasibly initiated in the Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg School System? 

Court: Where does that start? 

Mr. Waggoner: Page 23, Your Honor. 

Court: Hasn’t he already answered that question 

about all of these things? 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, it may very 

well be. 

Court: This is the one Dr. Finger proposed, is it? 

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir, as I understand it. 

Court: And as I remember what he said, he said 

this does violence to his view of the community 

school system and abandons the center of the city 

and raises questions of capacity to house the stu- 

dents, raises questions of transportation, doesn’t 

allow for growth [419] and doesn’t comply with the 

elementary educational principles. Are you just ask- 

ing for a repeat of that? 

Mr. Waggoner: No, sir, I'll withdraw the ques- 

tion. 

Court: Ask another question. 

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the Alexander Street 

School, do you know approximately how far the school 

is located from the school boundary of the most distant 

point? A. No, I don’t. 

Court: Has the boundary got some black lines 

around it up here?  



  

122a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Would you come over to the map and take a look, 

if you would. 

Court: I'll make a guess of half to three-quarters 

of a mile, but I’d like to hear what he says. 
Mr. Waggoner: We'll accept the Court’s guess. 

A. The school is within a block of the attendance line at 

one point. 

Court: Which street is that? 

A. 11th Street. 

Court: So that district extends north from 11th 

Street. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: What is the western boundary of it? 

A. North Tryon and 16th Street. 

Court: What about on the east? Is it Seigle 

Avenue? 

A. McAden Street I believe is that boundary. 

[420] Court: That particular district is about 

five blocks deep and ten blocks wide, isn’t it? 

A. That’s about right, yes, sir. 

Q. Dr. Self, do you have an opinion how far a student 

residing in that school district would have to travel if he 

 



123a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendamt—Direct 

were assigned to Plaza Road? A. As the crow flies dis- 

tance again is approximately two miles. 

Court: Dr. Self, are the buses supplied by the 

State or County? 

A. The buses are purchased by the local school system 

initially. The operating costs are paid by State funds. 

Then that bus is replaced by State funds when it is traded 

in. 

Court: That’s the way the transportation in what 

used to be the county schools is now provided. 

A. That’s true. 

Court: And the local unit buys the equipment. 

A. Initially. 

Court: And they replace it from time to time by 

State funds. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: And the gas and oil and maintenance are 

provided by. . . .? 

A. The State. 

Court: And the drivers are hired by. . . .? 

A. By the State. 

[421] Court: So the expense to the local unit of 

transportation is the initial purchase of the equip- 

ment ?  



  

124a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

A. That’s correct. 

Court: What do school buses cost now? 

A. Approximately $4,500.00, depending upon the size. 

Cross Examination by Mr. Chambers: 

Q. Dr. Self, you're reasonably familiar with the racial 

housing pattern in the City of Charlotte, aren’t you? A. 

Reasonably so. 

Q. In your opinion would that map there with the purple, 

green and orange reasonably depict where the minorities 

are residing in the City of Charlotte? A. I believe so. 

Q. I believe within that cluster of schools in what we 

refer to as the inner city you have several elementary 

schools, do you not? A. Yes. 

Q. I count something there of approximately 17 ele- 

mentary schools. How would you integrate those schools, 

Dr. Self? A. I don’t know. 

Q. Some of those schools are relatively new, aren’t they? 

A. Yes. 

Q. I call your attention to your exhibit in answers to 

[422] interrogatories, Table #4, which gives you the dates 

that the schools were constructed and additions made to 

the schools. I think University Park is in this section, this 

area right here. 

Court: Is that between Beatties Ford Road and 

1-852 

Mr. Chambers: I-85 is north of it and Beatties 

Ford on the eastern boundary. 

Q. I believe that school was built about 1957. A. That’s 

correct. 

 



125a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Q. And you made additions in 1958 and 1968. A. 1964, 

yes, Sir. . 

Q. All of this took place subsequent to the Supreme 

Court’s decision in 1954. A. That’s correct. 

Q. The school is all black. A. Yes, it is. 

Q. I think also in this district is Lincoln Heights. 

Court: Locate that for me, if you will. 

Mr. Chambers: Lincoln Heights is off Lasalle and 

Newcastle. 

Court: It’s also west of Beatties Ford Road and 

below 85. 

Mr. Chambers: East of Beatties Ford Road and 

below 85, between Beatties Ford and Newland Road. 

Q. That school was built in 1956. [423] A. That’s correct. 

Q. Addition in 1958. A. That’s right. 

Q. Also subsequent to the Supreme Court decision in 

1954. A. That’s right. 

Q. It’s all black. A. Right. 

Q. I believe also in this district is Oaklawn, is that cor- 

rect? A. Yes. 

Q. That school was built in 1964. A. Correct. 

Q. All black. A. Yes. 

Q. Also in this district is Bruns Avenue. A. Yes. 

Q. That school was built in 1968. A. That’s correct. 

Q. All black. A. I’m not absolutely certain about that. 

There were one or two children at one time. 

Q. I call your attention to Table #1, also in the answers 

to interrogatories. Bruns Avenue shows a population of 

740 Negro and 4 white. A. That’s right. 

Q. Now, I think you were testifying a moment ago that 

in 1955 or [424] sometime that two of those schools in the  



  

126a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Bruns Avenue district were all white, is that correct? A. 

I believe I said either all white or nearly all white. 

Q. I believe that Seversville formerly covered students 

on Summitt Avenue? A. I think that’s true. 
Q. I believe that when you started constructing Bruns 

Avenue that that was a racially transitional area. A. Yes. 

Q. In fact, before Bruns Avenue was actually constructed 

Seversville and Westerly Heights had become almost all 

Negro. A. That's true. 

Q. Didn’t you know, Dr. Self, that when you opened 

Bruns Avenue that it was going to be all black? A. We 

could have deduced that. 

Q. I believe also in this district is Fairview Elementary 

School, is that correct? A. That’s true. 

Court: Fairview, I saw it on the map a while ago 

but I’ve forgotten. 

Mr. Chambers: In the Greenville area we were 

talking about. I think it’s on or somewhere near 

Oliver Street—near on Oliver Street. 

Mr. Barkley: In the Model Cities area. 

Mr. Chambers: It’s one block north of Oliver 

Street. 

[425] That school was built in what year, Dr. Self? 

A. Fairview? 

Q. Fairview. A. Built in 1925. 

Q. And you had one addition in 1937. A. That’s correct. 

Q. I think you now plan to close that school, or that’s 

what is proposed in your five year plan. A. That's true. 

Q. I think also in that district is Bethune. A. That’s 

right. 

Q. That school was built in 1912. A. That’s right. 

   



  

127a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Q. No additions since that date. A. No. 
Q. I think also in your five year plan you plan to phase 

out that school. A. That’s correct. 
Q. I believe also in that district is Zeb Vance. A. That's 

true. 

Q. That school was built in 19 ..... A. 18 
Q. 1918, no additions since that date. A. That’s right. 
Q. I believe that in your five year plan you plan to phase 

that [426] out also. A. Yes. 

Q. Does it have a cafeteria? A. No. 
Q. Is it the only school in the system without a cafeteria? 

A. I believe it is. 

Q. How do you feed the children? A. Transport the 
food in. 

Q. Where do they eat? A. They eat in the open space. 
I assume it’s part of an auditorium. 

Q. I believe also in that district is First Ward. A. Yes, 
First Ward is in the district. 

Q. And I take it it was replaced in 1968. A. Yes. 
Q. All black. A. Yes. 
Q. Dr. Self, couldn’t you reasonably surmise hereto that 

when you opened that school it would be all black? A. Yes. 
Q. I believe in 1964 you also built Devonshire. A. Yes. 

Court: Devonshire is one I don’t have in mind. 

Where is it? Is it pretty far south? 

A. No, sir, it’s in the northeastern section. 

[427] Court: I see Devonshire. It’s out off 

Hickory Grove Road. Is that on the same lot with 
Cochran at the end of the Plaza? 

A. Yes, sir, on the back side of that lot.  



  

128a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Q. That's all white, isn’t it, Dr. Self? A. Yes, it is. 

Q. Didn’t you reasonably believe when you opened that 

school that it would be all white? A. I don’t know that 

you could reasonably believe that that school would be 

totally white. 

Q. Did you reasonably believe it would be predominantly 

white? A. Yes. 

Q. I believe you had a few Negroes assigned there, didn’t 

you? A. I believe at one time there were. 

Q. And under the freedom of choice they transferred 

out. A. I do not know the circumstances. 

Q. I call your attention to Table 7 in your second an- 

swers to interrogatories. Devonshire shows that for the 

three years under the freedom of choice you had no 

Negroes to transfer out of Devonshire. A. That’s right. 

Q. And Table 1 in your first answers to interrogatories 

shows that you had 889 white and no Negroes in Deven- 

shire. A. That’s correct. 

Q. And for 67-68 you didn’t have any Negroes in the 

school. [428] A. That’s true. 

Q. You apparently didn’t have any Negroes in the 

district. A. Evidently. 

Q. I believe you also built Albemarle Road in 1968. 

A. That’s right. 

Q. Didn’t you reasonably believe, Dr. Self, that when 

you opened that school it would be predominantly or all 

white? A. Predominantly white, yes. 

Q. I believe its enrollment right now is 499 white and 4 

Negroes. A. That’s true. 

Q. In 1969 you built Beverly Woods. A. That’s correct. 

Q. Did you reasonably believe when you opened that 

school it would be predominantly white? A. Yes. 

Court: Where is Beverly Woods? 

   



129a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

A. Southern section, near the Huntingtowne Farms sec- 

tion, below Sharon School, off of Sharon Road. 

Court: I see it now. It’s right at the tip end of 

the city limits off Sharon Road. 

A. Yes sir, 

Q. Your Table 1 figures show that Beverly Woods has 

286 white and no Negroes in 1968-69. A. That’s correct. 

Q. Now, Dr. Self, despite your change in the construction 

plans [429] for Olympic and Independence you have built 

several all white schools and several all black schools since 

1954, have you not? A. As it has turned out, yes. 

Q. And I think that on your drawing board right now 

are plans to build more schools that are going to be all 

white and some that will be all black. A. I’m sure that the 

enrollment in the schools will be affected by the neighbor- 

hood served. 

Q. You know, Dr. Self, that if you use geographic bound- 
aries and build another school in this area now colored 
pink that you're going to end up with an all black school, 
is that correct? A. I think that’s the apprehension that 
the Board of Education was expressing when they held up 
on the Greenville School. 

Q. You know also, Dr. Self, that if you build Second 
Ward right here in the green it’s going to end up all black. 
A. I do not know that. 

Q. How would you change it, Dr. Self? A. By offering a 
program at that school that would induce enrollment from 
outside the area. 

Q. I believe you testified in deposition that in your 
opinion it would probably end up all black even with those 
programs. A. I admit there is an element of risk in the 
location of the school there. 

 



  

130a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

[430] Q. I think, Dr. Self, that you are talking about 

building a magnet school that would draw people from all 

over the area because of the special programs you're going 

to have? A. Yes. 

Q. Would you tell the Court, Dr. Self, approximately 

what it would cost to build such a school? A. An estimate 

in the neighborhood of three and a half million dollars. 

Q. In your opinion you can build a school that would 

serve as a magnet for the whole county for three and a 

half million dollars? A. I think that a more relevant fact 

is not how much you're going to put in the building but 

how much you're going to put in terms of current expense 

to continue to operate the school year after year. 

Q. I meant to include that in the question. In your opinion 

what would it cost to build and equip such a school? A. 

That would be the three and a half million. 

Q. To build and equip? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How about to institute an operating program for one 

year? A. I think that the only way I can give you an 

opinion on that is to assume that a number of the course 

offerings would require a more favorable pupil-teacher 

ratio than we now know. That is, instead of having 1 to 30, 

you're talking about 1 to 15 [ 431] or 20 in terms of some 

of the vocational programs. This would mean a higher per 

pupil expenditure. The present level of expenditure is 

$536.00 so a horseback guess would be that the per pupil 

expenditure would rise to $700.00, $750.00. 

Q. Overall how much are we talking about? A. It depends 

upon the number of students you had there then. 

Q. Let’s estimate that we have the projection that you 

have projected for that school. A. Let’s say that we have 

800 pupils there and assume it would cost $150.00 more 

per pupil to provide the type of program. If you could 

   



131a 

Dr. William OC. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

multiply these—and I doubt my own ability to do it—you’d 

come out with an approximation. 

Q. Would it be approximately a million dollars or two 
million dollars? 

Court: I'm not following this question. Are you 

asking questions about the annual operating cost? 

Mr. Chambers: I'm trying to show, Your Honor, 

that they don’t even have the money to build what 

they're talking about putting there. 

Court: As I have heard his testimony he says that 
the estimated cost of construction is about three and 
a half million dollars and for 800 pupils the possible 
additional cost of tuition and operation would be 
about $200.00 per pupil which would be 150 or $200,- 
000.00 a year extra for that school. Is that a [432] 

correct interpretation of what you said? 

A. That is a correct interpretation. 

Mr. Chambers: He says $150.00 over and above 
the regular rate. 

Court: This is what I'm saying. This is what I 
thought he said. 

Mr. Chambers: I thought he was saying that if 
you got $650.00 average per teacher, you now need 
$800.00 per teacher. 

A. That’s true. If you would offer at this school the type 
of program that would attract youngsters there, you would 
have to do something above what we’re presently doing. 

Q. Dr. Self, just taking the construction cost itself, I 
think you estimated three and a half million dollars. A. 
That’s correct.  



  

132a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Q. How much money have you allocated for that school? 

A. If my memory serves me right, it’s about 2.2 million. 

Q. When do you plan to allocate the other? A. The rest 

of it would have to come in a subsequent bond issue. 

Q. Right now you don’t even have the money to build the 

school you're talking about. A. Not the total school. How- 

ever, we are accustomed to building our schools a piece at 

a time. Practically every school we build goes through this 

period. 

Q. Dr. Self, when you built schools since 1954, what 

efforts did [433] you make, other than what you have testi- 

fied to yesterday, to locate the schools in an area that would 

effect the greatest maximum integration of students in the 

system? A. The schools were located in such a way as to 

house the youngsters, Mr. Chambers, not to effect a maxi- 

mum amount of integration. 

Q. You did not attempt to do it. A. We made an attempt 

to house the youngsters in the neighborhood. 

Court: Have you had any expression of opinion 

which you can recognize as representative from the 

people in these communities that you have been talk- 

ing about, that is, Greenville and Second Ward, as 

to what they think about building schools in those 

places, the people who live there? 

A. Your Honor, I think the presentation which the Board 

of Education received from a delegation in the Greenville 

community, petitioning the Board to locate the school there, 

could be regarded as such an example. 

Q. Several Negroes in the area have approached the 

Board and asked them to build schools in the Greenville 

and Second Ward areas. A. 1 believe it’s more than several, 

   



133a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Mr. Chambers. It seems to be a pretty well organized 
effort. I do believe there is difference of opinion within 
the community whether the school should be located there 
or not. 

[4341 Q. Is that any different, though, Dr. Self, from 
some of the white groups who have appeared before the 
Board and asked for schools in their community? I call 
your attention to Old Providence. A. I didn’t get the first 
part of your question. 

Q. Is that any different from some of the white groups 
that have appeared before the Board and asked for schools 
to be located in their communities? A. Oh, no. 

Q. Now, Dr. Self, I think you indicated yesterday that 
the Board had instructed you to employ and assign teachers 
without consideration of race. A. That's correct. 

Q. First of all, in 1965 when you closed the seven schools 
you indicated yesterday, how many of the black principals 
were assigned to schools as principals? A. None of the 
seven. 

Q. I think they were all assigned as Assistant Principals 
with the same salary. A. That is correct, 

Q. And I think that at Villa Heights right now you have 
continued with the Negro assistant principal at the same 
salary. A. That’s true. 

Q. This isn’t in line with your regular pay scale, is it? 
A. No,:it dan’t. 

[435] Q. I think that the only assignment of a person 
of the opposite race to a school where the race is in the 
minority are two cases that were effected this year, one 
at Albemarle Road and one at another elementary school. 

Court: Will you be going on for a little while 
longer with Dr. Self?  



  

134a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. 

Court: Maybe we better take a recess until 11:15. 

SuorT RECESS 

Q. Dr. Self, do you have today any white principal as- 

signed to a predominantly or all Negro school? A. No.1 

beg your pardon, hold on just a second. I believe Bar- 

ringer would fall in that category . 

Q. Would Tryon Hills be another example? A. Yes, it 

would. 

Q. Would Hawthorne be another example? A. Yes. 

Q. Would Piedmont be another example? A. No. 

Q. Those three schools we just named, I believe, are all 

in transitional areas, Negroes moving in and whites are 

moving out. A. They are transitional. 

Q. I believe that when these white principals were as- 

signed there the schools were predominantly or all white. 

[436] A. Yes. 

Q. I believe that Piedmont was another example of a 

transitional area that started off with a white principal 

and a white student body that became all Negro in student 

body and you assigned a Negro principal. A. The school 

has a Negro principal but it’s not all Negro. 

Q. It’s predominantly Negro. A. It’s predominantly 

Negro. 

Q. He was assigned there after the student body became 

predominantly Negro, was he? A. He was assigned there 

during the transitional period. 

Q. Have you really changed your policy, Dr. Self, of 

assigning white principals to white schools and Negro prin- 

cipals to Negro schools? A. I don’t believe that we had a 

policy of assigning principals according to race related to 

the composition of the school, Mr. Chambers. 

   



135a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Q. I believe, Dr. Self, that before 1954 you had such a 
policy, didn’t you? A. I would call it custom rather than 
policy. Policy, to my way of thinking, is the word that 
we have in a policy notebook, which is direction by the 
Board of Education. 

Q. I believe it was constitutionally required then? A. 
I'm sorry, I don’t understand that. 

Q. Well, we'll use your word custom. Have you really 
changed [437] your custom of assigning Negro principals 
to Negro schools or white principals to white schools? A. 
I believe we have altered the pattern, yes, sir. 

Q. Your statistics don’t quite show that, do they? A. 
If you're talking about overwhelming numbers in terms of 
statistics, they may not, but there is still a white principal 
at Hawthorne Junior High School. It’s been transitional 
for a number of years. 

Q. I believe this year it just became predominantly Ne- 
gro, didn’t it? A. I believe this year was the turning point 
in terms of percentage ratio. 

Q. That’s about the same as the other three schools that 
we talked about, isn’t it? A. We do have a white prin- 
cipal at Cornelius and the ratio is about 50-50 there. 

Q. Now, you hired several new teachers in 1966-67 , 67-68 
and 68-69, did you not? A. I'm sure we did. 

Q. I call your attention to Table #10 contained in your 
first answers to interrogatories, which is Plaintiff's Ex- 
hibit #1. Do you have that? A. Yes, I do. 

Q. Would you look at Page 5 of that table 10? A. Yes. 
[438] Q. T believe for the 1966-67 school year you hired 

34 Negro teachers and 279 white teachers new to the Sys- 
tem in the elementary schools? A. That’s correct. 

Q. And T believe you hired 64 Negro teachers and 304 

 



  

136a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

white teachers new to the system in 1967-68. A. That’s 

right. 

Q. And 39 Negro and 291 white teachers for 1968-69. 

A. That’s true. 

Q. What accounts for the disparity of the number of 

Negro and white teachers hired? A. I think that one of 

the conditions behind the circumstance is the fact that this 

is new teacher only, that there have been increased oppor- 

tunities for employment by young Negro graduates during 

this period of years. I know specifically that northern 

school systems have recruited our campuses very heavily. 

This means, of course, that ultimately the number of teach- 

ors that are available for employment are reduced. I think 

that opportunities other than teaching are beginning to 

open up for young Negro graduates as well, so that he 

might have some choice in terms of his employment. We 

are beginning to see for the first time that we are begin- 

ning to lose good candidates in terms of employment to 

fields other than the teaching field and to other school 

systems. 

Q. Are you saying that you don’t have any Negro appli- 

cations? [4391 A. I am saying that the number of Negro 

applications is decreasing. 

Q. I believe, Dr. Self, that you indicated your policy for 

employing teachers that you had an interview with the 

teacher after you received the application? A. Well, we 

will interview if we possibly can even prior to receiving 

the application. The purpose of the interview here is more 

to disseminate information about the school system in an 

offort to interest the prospective applicant in coming to 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg. 

Q. Does the principal of the school play a part in the 

selection of the applicant? A. Yes, they do. 

   



137a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Q. And would the principal of the school know whether 

the applicant was white or Negro? A. In terms of the 

intervew or the application blank? 

Q. At any stage in the process? A. He would not de- 

duce this from the application blank unless he looked at 

the experience of the person or the training college at- 

tended and made such a deduction. 

Q. He could do that relatively easily from the college 

that the applicant had attended, could he not? A. He 

could, yes, sir. 

Q. I believe you have a policy of requiring teachers to 

have a score of 500 on the National Teachers Exam. [440] 

A. That’s a State policy I believe, yes, sir. 

Q. Is it the State policy or the local Board policy? Isn’t 

the State policy 450? A. Yes, that’s right. 

Q. Is the City Board policy 500? A. I believe that’s 

true. 

Q. When did you institute that policy? A. I don’t know. 

Q. Dr. Self, does every teacher in this system have a 500 

score in the National Teachers Exam? A. I would assume 

so. I do not know for sure. 

Q. Does every teacher in this school system have a Class 

A certificate or above? A. 1 am fairly certain that we 

would have a handful, probably less than five, without a 

Class A certificate. 

Q. Would they be Negro or white, Dr. Self? A. I don’t 

know. 

Q. How does the Board justify its policy of 500 or above 

on the National Teachers Exam with some teachers with 

less than a Class A certificate? A. I don’t know. 

Court: Does this relate to anything pertinent to 

the case? 

 



138a 

Collogquy 

Mr. Chambers: We think so, Your Honor, we 

think it relates to the matter of discrimination in the 

employment [441] and assignment of teachers. 

The Court: The requirement that the teacher 

have a certain proficiency? 

Mr. Chambers: Our contention is that, although 

we haven’t given you all the evidence you prob- 

ably want in order to find a fact of employment less 

Negro teachers than white, we were bringing that 

out only to show the next thing we’re getting to and 

that’s how the teachers are assigned after they are 

employed. 
Court: Have you got some figures on the number 

of black and white teachers in the school system? 

Mr. Chambers: Yes. That’s included in Tables 9 

and 10 and in Table 1. 

Court: It’s not in 10. 
Mr. Chambers: Also in the defendant’s exhibit 

that was introduced yesterday. I think it’s Defen- 

dant’s Exhibit #2. Table 1 also has the number of 

teachers in the system. I think it’s by school rather 

than total. 
Court: Is there a total on hand? 

Mr. Chambers: Defendant’s Exhibit 2. 

Mr. Waggoner: Page 2. 

Court: Let me see what that is so I'll know where 

we're starting here. 

Mr. Chambers: 907 Negroes, 2706 white. 

Court: 25% of the teachers are Negro and the 

other is [442] white. What does this prove? 

Mr. Chambers: I'm talking about the way the 

teachers are assigned after they get in the system 

and that’s why I was going to Table #9. 

   



139a 

Colloquy 

Court: Is that the one you had out a while ago 

or is that another one? 

Mr. Chambers: We had out Table 10. Table 9 is 

what we have now. 

Court: Mr. Chambers, as you probably know, I 

haven’t read all the law on this subject. Has the 

Fourth Circuit Court or the Supreme Court said 

anything definitive on the subject you are pursuing 

now? 

Mr. Chambers: The Fourth Circuit said something 

and the Supreme Court rather definitively in Brad- 

ley vs. the City of Richmond which was the first 

Supreme Court decision with respect to teachers. 

It said that teacher desegregation was one of the 

requirements of the Supreme Court decision in 

Brown. 

Court: The Charles City case, is that the latest 

one the Fourth Circuit actually wrote an opinion in? 

Mr. Chambers: The latest Fourth Circuit opinion 

was Brewer. 

Court: That’s not an opinion. 

Mr. Chambers: It says something on teachers and 

that’s the thing we were getting into here. Brewer 

says [443] and Bowman also says something on 

teachers. 

Court: Brewer and Bowman are both one or two 

paragraph per curiam opinions, aren’t they? 

Mr. Chambers: No. Bowman sets out the require- 

ment that the School Board present to the Court a 

time table for desegregation of teachers. 

Court: In the context where you had all black 

teachers in black schools and all white teachers in 

white schools. 

 



  

140a 

Colloquy 

Mr. Chambers: I'm not certain whether there had 

been some integration or not. 

Court: I'm asking this question as purely prac- 

tical matter. If you've got between 25 and 30% of 

the student body Negro and between 24 and 25% of 

the teachers Negro and some assignment of both 

races to both types of schools, I just wonder as a 

practical matter if the teacher problem isn’t some- 

thing that we could just spin our wheels over from 

now on without getting to anything worth having 

spent the time on. 

Mr. Chambers: I think it’s relatively clear now that 

the school system has to take some steps to completely 

desegregate teachers in the school system. 

Court: You think the Charles City case did not 

reflect the law in what Judge Haynsworth said? 

Mr. Chambers: I think it did. I think the Charles 

[444] City case requires that this School Board 

present a plan for complete desegregation of teach- 

ers. I think that Bowman required it. I think that 

Brewer required it. 

Court: You've got a different factual situation 

here than you had in those cases. 

Mr. Chambers: I submit not, Your Honor. 

Court: Where there had been mo pretense at 

breaking down the line. 

Mr. Chambers: What about Brewer. Brewer is 

Norfolk City and Norfolk City had taken steps to 

desegregate teachers. The court said that it simply 

had not done enough. 

Court: I don’t know the cases well enough to stand 

you down on it but I'm puzzled about the state of the 

law and I’m also puzzled about the practicalities of 

   



141a 

Colloquy 

it in Charlotte for us to worry about this subject 

when we've got more fundamental things to worry 

about. 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I think this is very 

fundamental and really we hadn’t pursued it that 

much because we felt the statistics here were clear 

enough to show something had to be done. The Table 

1 sets out the amount of integration of teachers in the 

system and, although I am sure Mr. Barkley would 

probably disagree, I submit that they haven’t done 

what the court [445] required. I submit further that 

contrary to their table, their Exhibit #2, that rather 

than have the increase in teacher desegregation here, 

they have had decrease in teacher desegregation 

and the courts have clearly pointed out and this was 

required in 1965. The HEW requirements said in 

1966 specifically that you should have two teachers 

of the opposite race in each school. 

Court: You're not citing HEW requirements, who- 

ever they help, as being the law in the case, are you? 

Mr. Chambers: This has been one of the standards 

that the courts have required and there have been 

several cases where the courts in 1966-67 were re- 

quiring at least two teachers of the opposite race to 

each school. Now the courts are requiring complete 

desegregation of teachers for 1969-70 and that cer- 

tainly means more than one or two teachers of the 

opposite race to each school. 

Court: What’s a case where I could look and read 

some law on that point? 

Mr. Chambers: Again, Bowman is one case. 

United States vs. Jefferson is another case and I 

think that Bradley vs. City of Richmond is another 

 



  

142a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

case. I think that two cases out of Arkansas are 

other cases. I was just trying to think of the names 

of them offhand. Kemp vs. Beasley and Kelley vs. 

Altheimer. 
[446] Court: The Fourth Circuit cases were 

Charles City and Brewer and Bowman. 

Mr. Chambers: The Fourth Circuit cases are 

Brewer vs. Norfolk City, Bowman versus New Kent 

County. These are the more recent cases. 

Court: Where in this file is the motion or plead- 

ing in which you cited several of these cases? I've 

forgotten. Was this in the motion filed last fall? 

Mr. Chambers: We filed a motion but I don’t 

know what paragraph it is. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, the motion 

for further relief, in Paragraph 2 are a list of the 

cases. 
Court: I found them. Go ahead. 

Q. Dr. Self, would you look at Table 9 containing Plain- 

tiff’s Exhibit 1? A. Yes. 

Q. I note that in 1965-66, for example, you hired 12 new 

teachers all Negro and assigned them to the Alexander 

Street Elementary School. A. Mr. Chambers, I believe 

this table reflects all of the staff people assgined to Alex- 

ander Street Elementary School and other schools. They 

would not necessarily be newly employed. 

Q. Well, all staff assigned for 1965-66 would be 12 Ne- 

groes? A. That’s correct. 

Q. And 13 for 66-67? [447] A. That’s correct. 

Q. And looking at Table 10 for Alexander Street I think 

for 67-68 you hired two new teachers, all Negro. A. That's 

true. 

   



143a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Q. This pattern seems to follow throughout for 67-68 

and 68-69. A. Yes. 

Q. Would you explain to the Court, Dr. Self, why the 

substantial majority of the new Negro teachers hired would 
be assigned to Negro or predominantly Negro schools? A. 

I'll say that it’s probably because of the role of the prinei- 

pal in the employment of staff. 

Q. Would that same thing be true for the white teachers 

hired for 67-68 and 68-69? A. It’s probably true. 

Q. And your present teacher compositions in the school 

are set out in Table 1 in answers to interrogatories. A. 

That’s correct. 

Q. And I think also, Dr. Self, you have testified at one 

time that you have had and allowed for 1967-68 and 68-69 

freedom of choice among teachers. A. I don’t believe it 

could quite be called freedom of choice. There are three 

parties to a transfer of a teacher in the school system, the 

sending principal, the receiving principal and the teacher 

herself and there must be concurrance along the way on 

the part of all three for a transfer to be effected. 

[448] Q. Do you give some consideration to the choice ex- 

pressed by the teachers? A. Yes. 

Q. In most instances the white teachers have preferred 

white schools and the Negro teachers Negro schools. A. 

Yes. 

Q. I think also, Dr. Self, that after ’65 and the court 

order where you were required to assign some Negro teach- 

ers across racial lines and white teachers across racial 

lines that some teachers so assigned have gone back to 

schools of their race. A. 1 did not know of the circum- 

stances but I would suspect that’s true. 

Q. Finally with respect to teachers, how much integra- 

tion of coaching staff do you have in the City? A. Very 

 



  

144a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

little of that at the present time. I think there was some 

integration at Quail Hollow but I don’t believe that that’s 

true this year. 

Q. You don’t have a Negro on the coaching staff of Myers 

Park, do you? A. I don’t believe so. 

Q. You don’t have a white coach on the coaching staff at 

West Charlotte, do you? A. No. 

Q. I believe this is about true of the other high schools 

in the system, isn’t it? [449] A. Yes. 

Q. It’s also true of your junior high schools, too, isn’t 

it? A. Yes. 

Q. Why, Dr. Self, would you not have any integration 

of coaching staff? A. I would say because of the role 

again of the principal and the athletic director that they 

play in the selection of coaches and because of the fact 

that there is very little change in these positions from one 

year to the next. 

Q. Dr. Self, if you have assigned teachers in the past 

on the basis of race and if this has been reflected in your 

statistics, what have you done to disestablish the old effect 

of past racial discrimination? A. We have attempted to 

influence the principal’s judgment in selection of his staff. 

When the schools that were referred to in previous testi- 

mony were closed we insisted these teachers be reassigned 

to existing vacancies before a newly employed teacher 

could be assigned. 

Q. Is that the extent of it? A. Our work with the prin- 

cipals has been to use what I would term serious persuasion. 

Q. The success of your work thus far is reflected now 

in Table 1 in answers to interrogatories? A. That’s cor- 

rect. 

Q. Do you have, Dr. Self, any plans now for complete 

desegregation [450] of teachers in the school system? A. 

   



145a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

We plan to continue to attempt to desegregate staff in the 
way we have in the past. 

Q. Do you have any time schedule for when you will 
complete it? A. No, sir. 

Court: What do you call complete desegregation, 
Mr. Chambers? 

Mr. Chambers: Now pending before the United 
States Supreme Court is a case that challenges the 
requirement that the percentage of teachers at each 
school reflect the percentage dof the race of the 
teachers in the system as a whole. Since the record 
here indicates that there are 25% Negro teachers 
in the system, we contend that the complete deseg- 
regation of teachers in the system would require 
25% of the Negro teachers in each school in the 
system. There are several decisions now so holding 
and have said that there should be no greater varia- 
tion than 10% either way. 

Court: What is the closest to this that the Su- 
preme Court has ever come? 

Mr. Chambers: The Supreme Court itself has 
not, as I understand it, yet defined exactly what 
complete desegregation would mean in terms of 
teachers. That decision won’t even be argued until 
the fall term, but there are decisions in the Fourth 
Circuit, decisions [451] in the Fifth Circuit and 
there are decisions in the Sixth Circuit that set out 
what they hold to be complete desegregation and 
that is that the percentage of Negro teachers in 
each school reflect the percentage of teachers in the 
whole system. It has been held in this circuit. 

Mr. Barkley: What case? 

 



  

146a 

Colloquy 

Mr. Chambers: Brewer vs. Norfolk School Sys- 

tem. Check the citation in the case of Kier. 

Court: I didn’t read anything like that in Brewer. 

Mr. Chambers: Brewer cites the case of Kier. 

Kier holds specifically that that is the standard that 

is required. That’s in the Fourth Circuit out of 

Virginia. It is a District Court case. The Fourth 

Circuit cited it with approval. 

Court: Well, you've answered my question as to 

what you mean when you're talking about complete 

desegregation. For convenience of description you 

just take the mathematical approach towards the 

racial composition of the community. 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I think there has to 

be some beginning point. 

Court: I’m not fussing about the approach you're 

taking, I'm trying to get in my head what you're 

saying. Now I understand what you mean when you 

use the words. [4521 This makes it a purely acci- 

dental figure which is dependent on where the school 

lines happen to lie at the particular time. 

Mr. Chambers: Not with respect to teachers, Your 

Honor. Teachers are assigned by the Superintendent 

and they can be assigned by contract to any school 

in the system. 

Court: It means, for example, that if the county 

north of Interstate 85 were one district and if First 

Ward were another, each of those would have a 

totally different kind of constitutional obligation. 

Mr. Chambers: No, Your Honor, we are talking 

about the school system as a whole and not a dis- 

trict within a school system. 

   



147a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Court: You say the Constitution requires that we 
apply a mathematical rule to the ratio of the people 
who live in the particular political subdivision that 
constitutes the school system. 

Mr. Chambers: I'm saying this, Your Honor, the 
school system could have 50% Negro teachers in 
the system. If it did, each school in the system 
should have 50% Negro teachers. It could have 10% 
Negro teachers in the system. If so, each school 
should have 10% Negro teachers. The approach of 
the courts has been that once they reach this situa- 
tion, it then proceeds to [453] employ and assign 
teachers without any consideration of race and then 
in one year, two years you might have a situation 
where a system has 10 or 15%. 

Court: Go ahead. 

Q. Dr. Self, yesterday you indicated that you had ap- 
proximately 5800 professional and non-professional staff 
in the system. A. That’s correct. 

Q. I assume this non-professional staff would also in- 
clude janitors. A. Yes. 

Q. Excluding janitors in the system, approximately how 
many of your total professional and non-professional staff 
would be Negroes? A. I think the 25% figure you find in 
the professional staff would probably be true in the non- 
professional. 

Q. That’s your best approximation? A. It’s an approxi- 
mation only. 

Q. Now, I think you indicated that you have approxi- 
mately 25 new students per year in the system. A. 2500, 
yes. 

Q. Which means that you are building approximately 

 



  

148a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

how many schools a year, Dr. Self? A. Well, I think at 

one time we reduced that to a classroom figure of about 

80 or 90 and that, I think, represents the amount of build- 

ing that you'd need to house the additional [454] enroll- 

ment. But at the same time you need to try to catch up 

in terms of the older buildings, replace some of the out- 

moded facilities, that sort of thing, so that the amount of 

building will exceed the number of classrooms that you 

need to house your new pupils. Last year, for example, 

we opened 256 classrooms. 

Q. Do you average approximately 250 classrooms a 

year? A. No, sir, that was an unusual year. 

Q. What would your average be, approximately 200? 

A. No. I'd say a probable average would be maybe 130 

for the past three or four years. 

Q. 130 new classrooms a year? A. I believe so. 

Q. Now, how many, classrooms do you average per 

school, Dr. Self? . . . or try to average for elementary 

schools. A. Elementary schools I think would be around 

24. 

Q. For high schools it would be what? A. We go by 

housing capacity here. Usually you think in terms of an 

optimum size of 750 for junior high schools and somewhere 

around 1250 and up for senior high schools. 

Q. What is your preferable land acreage for junior and 

senior high schools? A. We have a rule of thumb figure 

of 15 acres for elementary, about 25 for junior high and 

around 40 for senior high. 

Q. How many do you project for Second Ward? 

[4551 A. I believe that with the acquisition of surrounding 

land from urban redevelopment we will have somewhere 

around 10 to 12 acres. 

Q. Now, Dr. Self, you introduced several exhibits yes- 

   



149a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

terday. #2 was a summation of integration. Do you have 
that exhibit before you? A. Yes, I do. 

Q. Now, you give a figure in your total down here that 
pupils in 1965 you had approximately 24% attending in- 
tegrated schools. A. That’s correct. 

Q. And in 1968 you have approximately 77%? A. That's 
correct. 

Q. How do you figure this, Dr. Self? A. I believe I 
stated in my testimony, Mr. Chambers, that where there 
was any incident of integration we counted the school. 
For example, at Bethune in 1965 there were 9 white pupils 
and 343 Negro pupils, producing a total of 352 pupils who 
were encountering integration in one form or another. That 
352 was contained in the ultimate total of 17,274 and 
counted in the percentage of 24%. 

Q. So that if your school has just one student of the 
opposite race you count that as an integrated school. A. 
That’s right. 

Q. And I think you were doing the same thing with re- 
spect to teachers. [456] A. That’s right. 

Q. So in the situation where you have one Negro teacher 
and 32 white teachers you count this as an integrated 
school. A. As an integrated staff, yes. 

Q. And you say that 33 teachers are in an integrated 
situation. A. Yes. 

Q. Dr. Self, you said the other day that you stopped 
counting percentages of teachers like 32.2 or 32.3 pursuant 
to the regulations of HEW for 1968-69. A. That’s right. 

Q. Did HEW have a regulation relative to how you 
count an integrated school situation? A. I don’t believe 
that they did initially but I believe that the forms now 
require, you are now instructed not to count the floating 
teacher or the teacher who serves more than one school. 

 



  

150a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Q. What about students? A. There are no regulations 

in regard to the students as I know of. 

Q. Dr. Self, isn’t it true that HEW itself says that if 

you have just one Negro student in a school with three 

hundred and some white students that you do not have an 

integrated school? 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we object to 

that, what HEW has to say about this. These are 

matters that will speak from the record if they are 

competent in any [457] way. 

Mr. Chambers: He certainly testified what HEW 

required about teachers. 

Court: Objection overruled. 

A. I do not know the answer to your question. 

Q. You are now required, are you not, Dr. Self, to submit 

a report to HEW on the racial composition of students 

in the school system? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you file such a report? A. Yes. 

Q. In your computation are you required to indicate 

those schools that are integrated and those that are not? 

A. We are required to list the number of pupils in the 

student body according to race but I do not know that you 

are required by the form to indicate whether the school 

is thereby integrated. 

Q. Now, Pages 3 and following on your Exhibit 1 would 

indicate the racial breakdown by schools. A. Yes. 

Q. Dr. Self, would you call Second Ward integrated with 

1139 Negro and 3 white students? A. I wasn’t attempting 

to define, Mr. Chambers, whether the school was integrated. 

I would say, though, that those pupils were experiencing 

some degree of integration. 

   



151a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

[4581 Q. Would Second Ward be racially identifiable? 
A. I'm sure that it would be. 

Q. Now, looking at your Exhibit #3, this shows all the 
money paid to each school for salaries. A. That's correct. 

Q. And you get your average by dividing the total 
number of employees into the amount paid. A. That's 
right. 

Q. Would you say that the average student at Bethune 
was receiving $671.05 per pupil? A. Yes, in terms of pay- 
roll. 

Q. What about in terms of the actual amount paid per 
pupil? 

Court: What exhibit are you looking at now? 
Mr. Chambers: Defendant’s Exhibit #3. 

Q. Dr. Self, what I'm getting at, you have to show more 
than the total salary paid to the school, don’t you? A. In 
terms of coming up with a per pupil expenditure, yes. 

Q. This doesn’t reflect very much, does it? A. It reflects 
only the salary. 

Q. Now, going back to Exhibit #3, I believe this also 
includes the Federal moneys that are appropriated to each 
school to be included in salaries. A. You would find some 
Federal moneys in this, I'm sure. For example, Bruns 
Avenue has a teacher employed to implement the IP], 
Individually Prescribed Instruction Program, so that her 
[459] salary would be reflected there. 

Court: These averages are per month payments 
to teachers? 

A. Yes, Your Honor. 

Court: Is that twelve months or eight? 

A. Nine and a quarter months for teachers. 

 



  

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Q). Looking at your Table 3, this shows the total or 

average number of books per pupil at each school in the 

system A. Yes. 

Q. It doesn’t show how many of these books were pur- 

chased by Federal funds. A. It does not. It would show 

the number of books purchased with all funds. 

Q. This document also doesn’t show very much either, 

does it, Dr. Self? A. It shows the number of books per 

child in each of the libraries in the school system. 

Q. This estimate was made by the Director of Library 

Services? A. That’s correct. 

Q. Does it include magazines? A. No, it does not. 

Q. Does it include supplementary reading material? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. It doesn’t indicate the kind of books that are there. 

A. No. 

[4601 It doesn’t indicate whether all the books are en- 

cyclopedias or some other texts. A. Encyclopedias I don’t 

believe would be counted in this. 

Q. It doesn’t include textbooks. A. No. 

Q. Now, going to your Exhibit 5, which shows the per 

pupil value of facilities. A. Yes. 

Q. This doesn’t show very much either, does it? A. It 

shows just what it claims to, Mr. Chambers, the facilities 

value per pupil. 

Q. Based on the estimate given by the principal of each 

school. A. And I don’t think there is a great deal of fault 

in that figure. We did admit yesterday, however, that the 

number of pupils in the school might influence the assessed 

valuation per pupil since that was used in the computation. 

Q. Would you think, Dr. Self, would you state for the 

   



153a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

record that the average per pupil value of the facilities at 

Fairview is $61,000.00? A. Yes, at the present circumstance, 

but it’s because of the diminishing enrollment at Fairview 

Elementary School. 

Q. While the average per pupil value at Myers Park is 

$650.00? A. That’s correct. 

Q. Now, are you saying that the pupil at Billingsville 

has a much better facility than the pupil at Myers Park 

Elementary? [461] A. The table simply shows the per pupil 

value. 

Q. Would you say, Dr. Self, that the pupil at Fairview 

has that much better school than the pupil at Myers Park 

Elementary? A. I don’t make that claim. 

Q. Dr. Self, do you charge fees in the school system? 
A. Yes. 

Q. What are they for? A. For instructional supplies at 

the elementary level; for the rental of textbooks at the 

secondary level. 

Q. How much are the fees for elementary students? A. I 

believe it’s $1.50 . . . $1.00, Mr. Philips corrected me on 
that. 

Q. $1.00 for the elementary students? A. That’s correct. 

Q. How much for the high school students? A. These will 

vary. I’m sorry, I can’t recall that figure. 

Q. Are they $5.00, $20.00? A. It’s $7.50, if I’m not mis- 
taken. 

Q. Does anyone know the facts? A. Dr. Hanes would 
know, I believe. 

Q. Dr. Self, what is the percentage of the collection of 

these fees of the schools in the inner city? A. I would esti- 
mate 50%. 

Q. What is the percentage of the collection of these fees 

of the schools in the outer city? [4621 A. Near 100%. 

 



  

154a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Q. So your white or predominantly white schools would 

collect nearly 100% of the fees and your Negro schools or 

predominantly Negro schools would collect 50% ? A. That’s 

correct. 

Q. Does that reduce, Dr. Self, the instructional supplies 

for the Negro schools? A. It does. 

Q. Does it reduce it rather substantially, Dr. Self? A. It 

would in terms of those schools that have that 50% collec- 

tion factor. 

Q. Have you seen this document over here, Dr. Self, that 

gives the income percentage by census tract for 1960? A. 

Not close. From a distance, yes. 

Q. If the white would represent income from 2,000 to 399 

or zero to 399 would your opinion be that the residents 

would be concentrated in this area? A. Yes. 

Q. And this area here, 37, would be Marie G. Davis? A. 
Yes. 

Q. And this area here, 23, would be Billingsville. A. Yes. 

Q. So the schools in these areas would collect about one- 

half of the fee? A. As an estimate, yes. 

[463] Q. Does the School Board supplement the pro- 
grams, Dr. Self, in order that they may get the instructional 
supplies? A. No, they do not. 

Court: What are we talking about in instructional 

supplies ? 

A. We're talking about art materials, paints. We're talking 

about papers of all sorts. We're talking about work books, 

if these are used, the expendable supplies. 

Court: Are these items which the State supplies 

to the School System or which it does not supply? 

   



155a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

A. They do not supply them. 
Q. I believe you would consider these instructional sup- 

plies necessary or helpful in an educational program, 

wouldn’t you? A. Yes. 

Q. Dr. Self, we have received some test results in answer 

to interrogatories showing that students in grades 3 in 

some schools are reading at a level or achieving at a level 

of a student in grade 1 or grade 2. That situation exists 

in the system, does it? A. Yes, it does. 

Q. I believe, Dr. Self, that the State of North Carolina 

supplies the basic curriculum textbook. A. That’s true. 

Q. What happens when a student in grade 3, or take other 

examples, a student in grade 6 is reading at a level of 

grade 3 and gets [464] a 6th grade textbook, can he read it? 

A. He cannot. You try to put in his hands a book that he 

can read. 
Q. Now, how does he get it? A. From the supplementary 

reader collection. Hopefully in the future, with our move 

from a single adoption at the State level to a multiple adop- 

tion, through one of the basic reading programs which 

does take into account this variance in grade level, the 

program is to be implemented next year. 

Q. Who supplies the supplementary material? A. The 

school purchases its supplementary material. 

Q. The individual school? A. Yes. 

Q. The individual school would have to take some of the 

money which it could do something else with and buy sup- 

plementary material for the students in these schools? A. 

That’s true. 

Q. And thereby reduces its average per pupil expenditure 

even more, does it not? A. It reduces it, the amount of 

money available, yes. 

Q. So not only would the schools in the more affluent 

 



156a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

areas collect their fees 100%, they would also have stu- 

dents reading at a higher level and could use the textbooks 

actually furnished free by the State, could they not? A. 

Would you mind repeating that? 

[465]1Q. The schools in the more affluent areas would col- 

lect the school fees? A. Yes. 

Q. They would also have, according to your test results, 

students reading at the grade level and would therefore be 

able to read the textbooks furnished free by the State. A. 

Yes. 
Q. Your schools in the inner city collect only 50% of the 

school fees. A. Yes. 
Q. And their students read lower than the grade in which 

they are enrolled. A. Yes. 

Q. And they cannot use the free textbooks furnished by 

the State. A. To a lesser degree, yes. 

Q. And they have to use what funds they do have to 

purchase supplementary material. A. That’s right. The 

only thing that your analogy overlooks is that the priv- 

ileged school may have a problem of supplying books for 

the children above the grade level. 

Q. So your student in the inner city gets on an average, 

do they not, Dr. Self, less per pupil expenditure than the 

student in the more affluent areas. A. There would be less 

money behind the pupil for the provision of these supplies, 

yes. 
[466] Court: When you put it altogether is there 

less State money expended for the children in the 

inner city area? 

A. No, sir. 

Court: Is there less local money expended for 

them? 

   



157a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

A. No, sir. 

Court: Is there more money expended for them? 

A. Under certain circumstances, yes. 

Court: The difference is the amount of the fees 

that aren’t collected. 

A. That’s one of the differences, yes. 

Court: Are there other differences? 

A. This matter explored in other testimony about the par- 

ticipation of PTA’s in terms of financial support. 

Q. Would there also be the difference, Dr. Self, of the 

inability of these students to use the free textbooks and 

having to use the money to buy supplementary material? 

A. That is a problem but it is not a problem that is con- 

fined to the center city schools. 

Court: I may not have been listening too well, but 

if the textbooks are free, they can’t use them because 

they are too advanced for them, is this the point? 

A. This would be the point, yes. The textbook is meant to 

accommodate a child at a particular level. You seldom will 

find a classroom where there are not variations from that 

particular level. These youngsters must be accommodated 

[467] through provision of other material. 

Q. Dr. Self, in your opinion should the school system at- 

tempt to supplement the moneys available for the schools 

in the inner city or lower economic areas to compensate the 

schools for the loss of funds to be collected from the fees 

and the inability to use the free State textbooks? A. I 

would answer that yes and I think the school system has 

 



158a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

attempted to do something about it. It falls under the head- 

ing of elimination of school fees. We have had this item 

inserted in our budget in the past and have had it taken 

out of the budget. 

Q. Do you presently require school fees? A. Yes, we 

do. 
Q. And you don’t know when, if ever, you'll be able to 

eliminate them. A. I don’t know when but I would hope 

to be a little more optomistic than the last part of your 

statement. 

Q. Now, I believe that a substantial portion of the money 

appropriated to the schools is also based on a per pupil 

basis A. Yes. 
Q. In other words, you appropriate $500.00 per pupil in 

each school, as an example. A. As an example, yes. 

Q. Dr. Self, what is the average daily attendance of the 

students in the inner city schools? [468] A. I don’t know. 

Q. Is it lower, Dr. Self, than the average daily attendance 

of the students in the outer city? A. I'm sure that it would 

be. 

Q. Isn’t it more substantially lower than the students in 

the more affluent areas? 

Court: Are there some figures on this subject? 

Mr. Chambers: They are in the principals’ final 

reports contained in our Exhibit 1 and in the princi- 

pal’s preliminary reports. 

Court: Show me what you're talking about. 

Mr. Chambers: This is Exhibit 8. 

Court: You pick out an example of what you're 

talking about so I'll know what it is. 

Mr. Chambers: All right. Look at Alexander 

Junior High School. The total enrollment is 1115, 

   



159a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

total withdrawal 79, total membership 1036. This 

shows, as I understand it, the basic average daily 

attendance. 

Q. Is that correct, Dr. Self? A. Yes. 

Court: What, the total membership? 

A. No, the membership is different from the attendance. 

The membership, in layman’s terms, is a figure which re- 

flects the true enrollment of the school. When you are 

talking about total enrollment, that figure is confused by 

immigration and [469] outmigration. 

Q. What is the average daily attendance here? A. 

Which sheet were you on, please? 

Q. Alexander Junior High School. A. I can’t detect 

from this which is the figure. I can offer this statement 

which might clarify it. If you're talking about per capita 

distribution, do you base the per capita on the attendance 

figure or the membership figure. The answer is member- 

ship and October 1 of the year is the day on which the 

membership is taken for each school. This allows the 

schools time to get all of their pupils in and it is the official 

day for logging that membership figure. 

Q. That’s the membership. A. That’s correct. 

Q. That’s shown in the principals’ preliminary reports. 

A. It would be, yes. 

Court: Mr. Chambers, that sheet, if I read it right, 

shows an almost incredibly high attendance. 

Mr. Chambers: That's Alexander Junior High 

School. 

Court: This is the one you were calling my atten- 

tion to. This shows that out of 1030 membership 

 



  

160a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

the average—well, I won’t try to interpolate it now, 

but it looks like pretty high attendance. 
Mr. Chambers: I know, but look at Elizabeth. 

Court: Do you continue to make the point that 

average [470] daily attendance is used in a dis- 

criminatory fashion? 

Mr. Chambers: I'm saying it’s used in a way that 

deprives the Negro student, the student in the lower 

income areas of equal distribution of funds. 

Court: I thought I heard Dr. Self’s answer to be 

that the figures on the distribution per capita of 

funds are based upon the membership in the school 

rather than upon the average daily attendance. If 

that’s an admitted fact, I'll forget about this and 

go to something else. Is that something that you 

take as a fact? 

Q. Are you saying that the schools on the 10th day 

of October would indicate the membership and that was 

the basis you use for the per capita distribution? A. 

That is. Let’s take, for example, library allocations. The 

library allocation which comes from the State will come 

to this school system in terms of last year’s figures. It 

will not be enough, you see, to give the required amount 

on a per capita basis. We will take local funds and add 

to that amount of money that comes from the State and 

then on October 1st we check our membership and we will 

allocate, on a per pupil basis, to every school, on the basis 

of membership figure, not attendance. The money allocated 

at the beginning of the year is spent and presumably the 

supplies, whatever it is that is bought, is available to the 

youngsters for the entire school year. 

[471] Q. That’s for your capital outlay. Are all your 

   



161a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

expenditures based on per pupil determined that way? 
A. Anything that’s on a per capita basis. 

Q. What about State aid, Dr. Self, is it based on the 
same? A. Itis based on average daily membership as well. 
It always lags behind because the figure that is available 
to the State authority is last year’s figure. In the mean- 
while we grow by our 2500 pupils and we must take care 
of the 2500 pupils through the use of local funds. 

Q. State aid, really, is based on average daily attendance, 
isn’t it? Your teachers are allotted on that basis, aren’t 
they? A. The teacher allotment formula is extremely 
complicated. I can’t explain it. 

Q. Dr. Self, you talked about some of the weaknesses in 
the plans that were presented by Drs. Larsen and Finger 
and Passey. I think you also indicated that you didn’t 
know how you would integrate the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

School System. A. That’s true. 

Q. Would you anticipate any plan that desegregated this 

system to be easy? A. No, I would not. 

Q. Would you anticipate that it would have some diffi- 

culty for the School Board? A. I would. 

[472] Q. Would you anticipate that it would require 
some busing of students, Dr. Self? A. In all probability. 

Q. Dr. Self, you talk about the mileage from one school 
to another. How far does the student in Northwood Estates 
have to travel to go to senior high school? A. Northwood 
Estates to senior high school? 

Q. Going to North Mecklenburg. A. A good five miles, 
more probably. 

Q. Could it be 13 miles, Dr. Self? A. I'm sorry, I don’t 
know, but it certainly would be a good distance. 

Court: Where is Northwood? 

 



  

162a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

A. Just across I-85. 

Court: Out Highway 16? 
Mr. Chambers: No, Beatties Ford Road. 

Q. Where is your high school, on up here a bit, isn’t it? 

A. On the other side of the map. 

Mr. Chambers: Do they go to North High School? 

Mr. Chambers: North Mecklenburg. 

Q. Dr. Self, how far do the students living in this district 

have to travel to get to Independence High School? A. 

Again, that’s a considerable distance. It’s, I'd say, 7 miles. 

Q. How far do the students living in the southern part 

of the county have to travel to South? [473] A. A long 

distance. 

Q. In fact, Dr. Self, wouldn't your average mileage in 

your districts for high schools be between 7 and 10 miles? 

A. Well, in that area, yes. 

Q. Now, coming into the city, what is the average mileage 

for the student in the Garringer district? A. I don’t know. 

Q. Would it be about 5 miles, Dr. Self? A. The prepon- 

derance of Garringer students live in close proximity to it. 

However, the Garringer area does run out to the county 

line so there would be some students that would travel a 

considerable distance. 

Q. I believe, Dr. Self, it runs from the inner city, the 

Second Ward boundary, out to the county line, doesn’t it? 

A. Yes, I just stated that. 

Q. That’s about how far? A. That’s a good 7 miles. 

Q. Could it be about 20, Dr. Self, from the inner city to 

the line? A. I don’t know about the inner city. 

   



163a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Q. Now, if Second Ward were not located here and the 
students in this area were assigned to other schools, would 
they be going any further than the student out here going 
to Garringer? A. No. 

Q. Would they be going any further than the student 
out here [474] going to Independence? A. No. 

Q. Would they be going any further than the student 
living up here in Northwood going to North Mecklenburg? 
A. No. 

Q. We talked, Dr. Self, about the schools of Lakeview 
and Hoskins being separated by Interstate 85. I believe that 
the boundary line for the student in the elementary district 
of Tuckaseegee Road crosses 85, doesn’t it? A. Yes. 

Q. I believe the boundary line for the students in the 
Newell District crosses 85, doesn’t it? A. I believe so. 

Q. It isn’t unusual, then, for the boundary lines to cross 
89, I mean it happens. A. It happens, ves. We don’t like 
it but it does happen. 

Q. I believe that the boundary line for the school district 
of Myers Park Elementary School crosses Morehead Street, 
doesn’t it? A. I believe so. 

Q. We have several examples, don’t we, in this district 
of boundary lines going across major highways? A. Yes. 
Where we find evidence of these, it’s evidence of the fact 
that we must get our children to fill the classrooms irres- 
spective of the highway arteries. 

[475] Q. Now, do you know of any studies that differ 
with you on the elementary principles that you were refer- 
ring to a moment ago, that is, that the student ought to 
attend school near his home? A. I know of no studies. 

Q. Do you know of any authorities that would differ with 
you on that? A. I'm sure there are plenty of authorities 
that would differ. 

 



  

164a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Q. You indicated, I think, that your elementary schools 

are located approximately three-fourths of a mile of the 

outer boundaries of the district line? A. I did but I also 

indicated that density of population would effect changes 

in this. 

Q. What is your opinion, Dr. Self, about students in 

junior high and senior high schools being transported to 

school? A. Transportation at that level is more acceptable 

in my own opinion than is transportation of elementary 

youngsters. 

Q. Dr. Self, are several of your students in the inner city 

being transported by city bus line to high school? A. I don’t 

know. I'm sure that some of them do use the city trans- 

portation. 

Q. I think that several buses go out to several of the 

high schools to pick up and carry students, don’t they? A. 

I’m sure they do. 

Q. It’s not unusual, then, in the district for the students 

to [476] ride city buses to school as distinguished from 

State buses? A. It’s not unusual. 

Q. I think that the Head-Start students are also bused, 

are they not? A. Yes, they are. 

Q. They are elementary or below elementary students? 

A. Yes. 

Q. They are sent quite a few miles to school? A. Yes. 

Q. You project about six schools for this summer for 

Head-Start? A. Five or six. 

Q. To service the whole county system? A. That’s true. 

Q. They are going to be bused several miles to school, 

aren’t they? Yes, they are. 

Q. These are young children? A. Yes, they are. 

Q. Dr. Self, one specific, would it violate your elementary 

principles to pair Billingsville with one or two of those 

   



165a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

adjacent schools? A. It wouldn’t violate my principles. It 

would cause a lot of problems that I would be most anxious 

to try to deal with. 

Q. Would it violate your elementary principles to pair 

Marie Davis with one of the adjacent white schools? [4771 
A. If you could do it in such a way as to allow the ungraded- 
ness within the school it would not. 

Q. You said ungradedness. A. I object to the Princeton 
plan. As I understand the Princeton plan it is more or less 
an arbitrary determination that this school will house 
grades 1 and 2 and another school will house 3 and 4. The 
present thought in elementary education is to move away 
from gradedness and the Princeton plan binds you to it. 

Q. Would you talk about extending the boundary line of 
Marie Davis to cover the white school and then assign the 
students to it? A. If they were paired, I would prefer that 
technique. 

Court: Do you want to play that over again so 
Ill know what you're saying? You say you don’t 
like gradedness as the Princeton plan suggests. Is 
the Princeton plan the idea of taking an entire grade 
from one location and moving it bodily to another? 

A. As I understand it, the Princeton plan is used for bring- 
ing together schools that are far apart geographically and 
the idea is to transpose grade sections with school A hous- 
ing grades 1 and 2 and school B housing grades 3 and 4 
and school C housing grades 5 and 6, that sort of thing. 

Court: And you would prefer, if that had to be 
done, to do it how? 

[478] A. To locate your school in such a way that you have 
grades 1 through 4 or 1 through 6. 

 



  

166a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Redirect 

Mr. Chambers: I have nothing further. 

Court: Any more questions? 

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir. 

Court: Let me see the lawyers for just a minute. 

(Conference out of the hearing of the Court Reporter.) 

Court: I guess it’s late enough to eat so let’s eat. 

Take a recess until 2:00 o’clock. 

Recess For LuNncu 

Court: Defendant’s Exhibit 6 received in evidence 

is a five-page double-spaced typewritten writing en- 

titled Facts about Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, Exhibit 7 is 

the same as Exhibit 2 except it contains percentages 

as you requested yesterday. 

Court: Good. I thank you for preparing that. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we have one 

additional tabulation which we will offer as Exhibit 

#8 and it is entitled Tabulation of Percent Negro 

of Total for Schools Enrolling Predominantly White 

Pupils March 1965 and October 1968. This is a per- 

centage of schools having varying degrees of inte- 

gration. I'll have Dr. Self explain this. 

Court: Have you got a copy of that that I can 

look at? 

[479] Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir. 

Redirect Examination by Mr. Waggoner: 

Q. Dr. Self, have you had an opportunity to review the 

Defendant’s Exhibit #8 dealing with the tabulation of per- 

   



167a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Redirect 

cent of total for schools enrolling various numbers of 
pupils percentagewise? A. Yes, I have. 

Q. Could you explain to the Court the information con- 
tained on this exhibit? A. This statistic presentation 
shows the percent of the pupil population and the pro- 
fessional staff which are Negro in terms of various per- 
centage catagories ranging from zero % up to 100%. It’s 
actually a summation of the percentages that Your Honor 
asked us to do on Exhibit #2, pulling them out for easier 
understanding. 

Q. Is this based on 5% gradations? A. Yes, it is. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I believe the 
statement is self-explanatory unless you want to g0 
further into this. 

Court: I don’t want to put you to a lot of further 
unnecessary work but if you have or could develop 
without a lot of trouble the absolute figures that 
would fit each one of these lines, it might have some 
useful purpose now or later. This is very helpful 
and I [480] appreciate it. 

Mr. Waggoner: We would like to substitute a 
typed copy, this is rough draft. 

Q. Dr. Self, will you take the columns entitled Pupils 
1965 and 1968 and explain the meaning of the figures in 
those columns? A. Well, at the top of the lefthand column 
is the 100% Negro figure. Going down from that column 
you go to zero 7% at the bottom of the page. The first entry 
in the column that you referred to is 30, indicating that 
in 1965 there were 30 schools that were 100% Negro. If 
you move over to your right the comparable figure for 
1968 is 17. In the 95 to 99% there was one such school in 

 



  

168a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Redirect 

'65 and there are 5 in ’68, and so on down through that 

column to right at the bottom where you have zero % 

Negro. That, of course, is an all white school, and in 1965 

there were 63 such schools and in 1968 there are 22 such 

schools. 

Q. So this indicates that the number of all white schools 

decreased from 63 to 22. 

Mr. Lanning: Objection, the table is quite clear 

on what it reflects. 

Court: Objection overruled. 

A. Yes. 

Q. Would you take the two columns under Professional 

Staff and explain the meaning of those figures? A. Com- 

parable data is given here, comparison between 1965 and 

'68 [481] except that the statistics are based on the num- 

ber of teachers rather than numbers of pupils. It indicates 

that in 1965 there were 28 all Negro schools as measured 

by faculty. In 1968 the comparable figure is 14. Then go- 

ing to the other extreme end of the chart zero 7% Negro 

or all white, in 1965 there were 78, in 1968 there are none. 

Q. Dr. Self, I direct your attention to Page 16 of the 

recommendations and analysis of the plaintiff’s experts. 

As I recall, Mr. Chambers in his cross examination inquired 

of you as to how you might desegregate the schools located 

in what is called central city and listed the number of 

schools which indicated being nearly all black or all black. 

A. I recall. 

Q. I'll ask you if University Park School is listed as one 

of the schools that the plaintiff’s experts would permit to 

remain segregated. A. Yes. 

Q. I'll ask you if Lincoln Heights is such a school. A. 

Yes. 

   



169a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Redirect 

Q. I'll ask you if Oaklawn is such a school. A. Yes. 

Q. I'll ask you if Fairview is such a school. A. Yes. 

Q. I'll ask you if Bethune is such a school. A. Yes. 

[482] Q. I'll ask you if Zeb Vance is such a school. A. 

Yes. 

Q. I'll ask you if First Ward is such a school. A. Yes. 

Q. Now, referring to the schools to remain segregated 

predominantly white I'll ask you if Devonshire school is 

listed. A. Yes. 

Q. Albemarle Road? A. Yes. 

Q. And Beverly Woods. A. Yes. 

Q. As I recall, the only other school he mentioned was 

Bruns Ave. and I believe you previously testified that this 

school encompassed an area that would have had an inte- 

grated pupil population as of 1965. A. Yes. 

Q. Dr. Self, there was some discussion about the custom 

with reference to employment of teachers. What has been 

the custom with reference to once a teacher identifies in a 

particular school faculty with reference to moving to an- 

other school? How would that be initiated? A. Generally 

the move is a request to transfer on the part of the faculty 

member and the request, as I indicated earlier, is subject 

to approval by the principal of the school the teacher would 

be leaving and subject to the approval of the principal 

[483] to whom the transfer is requested. 

Q. So then it is your custom if a teacher does not request 

moving she is normally reassigned to that same school. 

A. Yes, it is. 

Q. With reference to principals, how does a principal 

ordinarily or how would a principal be transferred from 

one school to another? A. He would usually be trans- 

ferred upon the recommendation of the Assistant Super- 

intendent of Elementary Education if he were elementary 

 



  

170a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Redirect 

or the Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Education 

if he were secondary. In general he would probably ini- 

tiate the request for a change of assignment although it 

is quite possible for an Assistant Superintendent who is 

opening a new school to cast about for a person that he 

feels is competent to do the job and make the initiation 

himself. 
Q. Is it the custom in this school system to employ a 

person just out of school as a principal of one of your 

schools? A. No, it is not. 

Q. Where do you ordinarily find new principals? A. 

They ordinarily come from within the system although 

we are not absolutely prohibited from doing so and we 

have on occasion employed some principals from outside 

the school system. 

Q. Would they be principals with teaching experience? 

A. Yes, 
Q. Dr. Self, is the teaching assignment or principal as- 

signment [484] normally one of long tenure barring resig- 

nation at the same location year after year? A. I'd say 

yes it is but it’s becoming less so. I think more and more 

teachers are beginning to think in terms of teaching as- 

signments that are different, recognizing the value of some 

change in terms of their own professional growth and de- 

velopment. We do encourage some change in principal- 

ships, thinking again that a new assignment, a new role, 

different people to deal with, brings personal and profes- 

sional renewal to the person. 
Q. Dr. Self, you previously mentioned that there was 

integration on the staff at Quail Hollow Junior High last 

year, is this correct? A. Yes. I think that had to do with 

the coaching staff. 
Q. Now as I understand there were two assistant Negro 

   



171a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Redirect 

coaches assigned to the school, is that correct? A. That’s 
correct. 

Q. Are they still at this school? A. No, they are not. 

Q. Do you know the reasons for their leaving the school? 

A. One of the gentlemen is deceased and the other gentle- 

man requested a change of transfer. 

Q. Did he request transfer to some other school in the 

system? A. Yes, I believe so. 

Q. Did he request assignment to a predominantly Negro 

staff school? [485] A. I do not know. 

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the high school attendance 

areas do you attempt to achieve a neighborhood attendance 

area for your high schools? A. I don’t think it could be 

called a strict neighborhood in the concept that a neighbor- 

hood is a small, closely knit community. It is a section of 

the county very definitely, however. 

Q. It would be referred to more as a geographic area, 

is that correct? A. Yes. 

Q. With reference to collection of half of the school fees 

and absence of PTA contributions for the central schools, 

do you know approximately how much money is involved 

per pupil in losses that the center city may have as against 

the so-called affluent schools? A. At the elementary school 

it would be that $1.00 fee, $1.00 per pupil. When you get 

up to the junior high school your loss would be the amount 

of the fee that was called out by Dr. Hanes this morning. 

Court: You're talking about the losses from not 

receiving the full fees from the students? 

A. From non-collection, yes, sir. 

Court: How far up do you get before you exceed 
the dollar? 

 



  

172a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Recross 

A. At the 7th grade level. 

[4861 Q. In the elementary schools how much loss are 

you talking about? A. Well, a 600 pupil elementary school 

would have collected $600 and with 50% collection they 

would have $300. 

Q. So that would amount to 50 cents per pupil per year, 

is that correct? A. In terms of funds available, yes. 

Q. In funds not available. A. It would be true equally 

either way you approach it. 
Q. There was some mention of busing Head-Start stu- 

dents during the summertime. How many students have 

been involved in this program? A. I believe it’s 1500. 

Q. Were your school busses being then utilized in the 

other operations of the school system? A. Not in terms of 

a regular school program. Where child development centers 

were in operation some busses would be in operation. 

Q. So this was not a time when your busses were ordi- 

narily in other use, is that correct? A. That’s correct. 

Mr. Waggoner: You may examine. 

Recross Examination by Mr. Lanning : 

Q. Dr. Self, do you recall the age range of the children 

served by Head-Start? [487] A. These youngsters would 

have been entering the first grade in the regular school 

session following the summer program. So they would have 

been about five years old. 

Q. Subsequent to 1965 the Board disestablished and 

closed several schools, did it not? A. Yes. 

Q. And do you recall how many of these schools were at 

that time either all Negro or predominantly Negro? A. 

The 7 schools that were closed in the outer periphery of the 

county were all Negro. The 6 schools that were closed this 

   



173a 

Colloquy 

past school year, five were either Negro or predominantly 

Negro and one was predominantly white. 

Q. So you since 1965 you have closed approximately 12 

all black or predominantly black schools? A. Yes. 

Mr. Lanning: No further questions. 

Mr. Waggoner: You may come down. 

* #* * * * 

[5441 Monday, March 17, 1969— 

Court: I suppose the best thing for us to do is 

to go ahead with the witness you had left to put on 

today and then let’s talk a little among the lawyers 

and find out whether I’ve asked all the questions I 

should have asked. 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we’d like to call Mr. 

Yale Rabin. : 

Court: Would you tell me what exhibits he’s go- 

ing to be talking about, if any. 

Mr. Chambers: He’s going to be talking about 

Bxhibits 10,11, 16,6, 7, 14,8, 17, 13,12, 15, 9 and 18, 

In addition we have two maps that he has prepared 

and some data. 

Court: 1 believe you’ve got all those exhibits. 
Mr. Chambers: I do and I can pass them up to the 

Court now. 

Court: If I was going to have to find them I 

wanted to start looking. 

Mr. Chambers: I’d like to state preliminarily that 

what we propose to establish by this witness is the 

effect of city action or activity on the racial housing 

pattern in the City of Charlotte. 

Court: Are you going to let me know what the 

 



  

174a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

effect [545] the Federal Government action on that 

score 1s? 

Mr. Chambers: We hope to show what Federal 

programs have been implemented here in the City 

of Charlotte and how the implementation of those 

programs has effected the racial housing pattern. 

We think that all of the activity we're considering 

here would involve both local action and local ac- 

tion taken in conjunction with Federally funded pro- 

grams. 
Court: Can you separate them? 

Mr. Chambers: I don’t know how much separation 

we can do because we're talking about urban re- 

newal and redevelopment under the Federal pro- 

gram. 

Mr. Chambers: We would hold that the City, in 

its practices, has contributed to the creation of the 

racial housing pattern that exists here and that be- 

cause of that that the School Board would have to 

go further than merely establish its boundary lines 

because the result otherwise would be the making of 

segregation in the school system. We are not asking 

for an injunction against the Federal Government. 

Oourt: T just wanted to know what to be on the 

lookout for. 

Yare Rapin, a witness for the plaintiff, having first been 

duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 

[5461 Direct Examination by Mr. Chambers: 

Q. Will you state your name, please? A. Yale Rabin. 

Q. What is your address, Mr. Rabin? A. 21 W. Tulpe- 

hocken Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

   



175a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff —Direct 

Q. What is your occupation? A. I am an urban planning 
consultant. 

Q. Would you explain for the record what that consists 

of? A. Yes. I work on a private basis for clients, either 
public or private clients, in activity such as housing, urban 
renewal, community development, transportation planning 

and so on. I assist in the preparation of plans or in the 

evaluation of plans or in the development of alternative 

plans on behalf of people who are affected by planning 

programs. 

Q. Would you give the Court your educational back- 

ground? A. Yes. I have a Bachelor of Fine Arts and 

Bachelor of Science Degree in education. I have a graduate 

degree in architecture and studied City Planning at the 

graduate level at the University of Pennsylvania. I have 

taught both in the public schools following my graduation 

as a teacher and I have also taught in colleges and univer- 
sities both here and in England on city planning and urban 
problems and guest lectured at various colleges both here 

and abroad. 

Q. Do you belong to any professional organizations? 

[547] A. Yes. I am an associate member of the American 

Institute of Planners; member of the American Society 

of Planning Officials; Urban and America; Planners for 

Equal Opportunity; the Society for College and University 

Planning; Philadelphia Citizens Council for City Planning; 

Delaware Valley Regional Housing Association. I think 

that’s about it. 

Q. Would you give the Court your work experience? 

A. Yes. As I indicated at present and since early 1967 
I have been engaged in private practice as a planning 

consultant, and prior to that I was on the staff of the 

University of Pennsylvania from 1963 to 1967. Prior to 
that. . ., 

 



176a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Dairect 

Court: Have you got this written down anywhere? 

Mr. Chambers: No, we don’t have, Your Honor. 

A. From 1961 to 1963 I was a planning officer for the 

London County Council in England where I was responsible 

for the civic design planning of four of London’s twenty- 

eight burroughs and in addition I taught town planning 

in the graduate school at the Polytechnique there. Prior 

to that, from 1959 to 1961, I was the senior planner for the 

City of Camden, New Jersey, where I was responsible for 

the preparation of the municipal facilities portion of their 

comprehensive plan, that portion of the plan including 

schools and libraries and facilities such as that. Prior to 

that I was a student, graduate, for three years and before 

that a public school teacher. 

[548] Do you have any publications? A. Yes, an article 

called Development Control in Great Britain, published in 

1966, I believe, Municipal Facilities Portion of the Compre- 

hensive Plan for Camden, New Jersey, and a report entitled 

the Eviction of Negro Families in the South which was 

a report of the agenda planning committee of the 1966 

‘White House Conference. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, were you requested to come to Charlotte 

to look at the city activities as they relate to the racial 

housing pattern in Charlotte? A. Yes, I was, 

Q. Were you requested by me to come and make this 

study? A. Yes, 1 was. 

Q. Did you make this study? A. Yes. 

Q. Would you tell the Court how you proceeded in your 

study? A. Well, I first attempted as well as. . . . 

Court: When was it? 

A. This was over a period of time. 

   



177a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

Court: When was it? When did this take place? 

A. The initial request back in the fall of this year. 

Court: You started to say what you did. When 
did you come here first? 

A. I first came here in the fall, September, October. The 
second visit. . . . 

[5491 Court: Of what year? 

A. 1968. My second visit to Charlotte was in February of 
this year and my most recent visit this one, two days ago. 

I attempted on these visits to familiarize myself— 

Court: How long did you stay the first visit? 

A. One day, and on the second visit three days and on this 

visit three days. I spent a considerable amount of time 
driving around and familiarizing myself with the city 
and, in addition, I have assembled quite a bit of documen- 

tary material relating to development in Charlotte, both 
from an historical point of view and from the point of view 

of demographic data which is produced by the census, the 

Planning Commission, by the analysis studies which have 

been done here, and various other materials which I have 

accumulated. I guess I ought to go through and list all 

of these data sources. I have gone through the summary 

of the Model Cities application. I have reviewed the census 

data for 1940, 1950, 1960. I have reviewed the Greater 

Charlotte Plan, that is, the document entitled The Next 

Twenty Years; I have reviewed the Central Area Plan 

 



  

178a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff —Direct 

which is the plan for the downtown business district; I 

have reviewed the Blight Study prepared by the Planning 

Commission; I had had a study done under my direction 

by staff people at the University of North Carolina; I have 

obtained material from the Housing Authority, from the 

Relocation Officer ; I have reviewed the documents on Urban 

Renewal, including the [5501 Workable Program, and the 

reports of the Housing Authority to the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development on occupancy. I have 

reviewed the reports of the Relocation and highway con- 

struction over the entire period of years which that office 

has been in existence. Quite obviously these studies were 

not carried out during my visits to Charlotte. These com- 

prised a considerable amount of time in my own office and 

with people working for me back in Philadelphia. So that 

I was able to spend as much time as I could during my 

visits here learning about the visual aspects of the city 

itself. 

Q. From your study, Mr. Rabin, did you have any im- 

pressions of the effect of city activities on the racial hous- 

ing pattern? A. Yes. I think there are some general ob- 

servations that can be made. I think that I should first note 

that the activities that I looked at were cerainly not all 

the activities. They were what we call comprehensive plan- 

ning. 

Mr. Waggoner: We'd like to object at this time 

and establish some of thew» documents that they are 

relying on as being reliable or worthy of considera- 

tion. Some we haven’t seen. We really don’t know 

what he’s going to be testifying from. Can he be 

more specific as to the pages of these documents so 

that we can get to the nut of it and know what we're 

talking about. 

   



179a, 

Colloquy 

Court: The testimony is incompetent as offered 
unless [551] its got some justification which doesn’t 
appear yet, Mr. Chambers. What you're doing is 
asking him to review a history of migration and say 
that it was done for foul purposes and the history 
of the migration, I take it, is fairly clear. Does a 
man who never came to Charlotte before October, 
1968, have any special way of telling us the motives 
by which people were moved from 1860 to 19692 

Mr. Chambers: I think he is perfectly competent to 
testify as an expert in this case about the effect of 
city planning, city zoning, city activity on the hous- 
ing patterns in the City of Charlotte. Of course, it 
is the Court’s prerogative to decide whether the city 
has actually created the housing patterns. We are 
not attempting to displace the Court’s opinion with 
respect to that. We do think, however, that his tes- 
timony as an expert on this would be competent and 
relevant in this proceeding. 

Court: What I'm asking you to do is tell me what 
kind of questions you aim to put. Are you going to 
ask him simply to describe the physical results of 
what these things did? 

Mr. Chambers: Basically that’s correct. 
Court: Because I don’t see how he could do any- 

thing but say the records I have examined show the 
relocation of [552] people in the following ways 
and here’s where the statistics show they live now. 

Mr. Chambers: That’s true, and how they zoned 
various areas of the city and where the proposed 
streets are to be placed and where public housing 
are located, all of this data is taken from material 
furnished us by the appropriate officials of the City 
of Charlotte. 

 



  

180a 

Colloquy 

Court: Well, the reason I interrupted is this, if 

we go by any standard of evidentiary competence 

Mr. Rabin will have to testify not as an expert on the 

points you are seeking to make but simply making a 

concensus of a lot of statistical material. 

Mr. Chambers: We expect to go further, Your 

Honor, and ask his opinion on the effect of the zoning 

on the racial housing pattern, the effect of the city 

planning on the racial housing pattern, the effect of 

the relocation on the racial housing pattern, the 

effect of the location of public housing, the effect 

of the streets on the racial housing pattern and we 

think that he is competent to testify to that. This is 

true although he came here for the first time in Oc- 

tober, 1968. That is the purpose for calling Mr. 

Rabin in rather than calling an ordinary layman in 

the City of Charlotte. 

Court: It may be a play on words, talking about 

effect and result. 

[553] Mr. Chambers: Since the Court is sitting 

without a jury, would the Court hear us and then 

decide subsequently whether it wants to consider 

some of the evidence relevant? 

Court: I think that’s what I’ve got to do. Are 

you seeking to show that the effect of all the money 

the Federal Government spent on relocating people 

has been one of racial discrimination? 

Mr. Chambers: We are seeking to show that in 

relocating people the City of Charlotte has further 

segregated the people in housing and, if necessary, 

with Federal money. 

Court: You jumped the track if that’s the case. 

   



181a 

Colloquy 

Mr. Chambers: Again, Your Honor, we're going to 
the same point that the court referred to in the 
Norfolk school case. If this pattern has existed in 
the City of Charlotte, the School Board is going to 
have to do something else to desegregate the schools 
in the system. We are not seeking in this action an 
injunction against the city zoning. 

Court: Mr. Lanning on Thursday didn’t want to 
tell me what that something else was. Are you pre- 
pared to tell me what you want the Board to do? 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we submitted three 
plans, any one of which might be modified by the 
School Board. [554] My preference would be four 
schools serving all the students in the school sys- 
tem. That’s my preference and I don’t speak as an 
educator. That's why we tried to get someone who 
knew a little more than I did what ought to be done 

and there is available to the school system the agency 

under Title 4, and to the Court. 

Court: What is that? 

Mr. Chambers: An agency that will assist the 

Court in designing a plan that should be implemented 

in the City of Charlotte. 

Court: You're not making any recommendations 

to the Court yet, are you? 

Mr. Chambers: We made four recommendations 
with Drs. Larsen, Finger and Passey. 

Court: You go ahead. This is only the second 

case I’ve ever tried when lawyers never would tell 

me what they wanted the Court to do. 

Mr. Chambers: I'll tell you what we want you to 

do but I don’t presume to be an educational expert 

and we tried to call some people to show different 

 



  

182a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

alternatives. Really it isn’t our responsibility to 

design the thing, it’s the School’s Board’s. We just 

drew up some possibilities that could be considered 

by the Board in designing what plan it ought to bring 

in. 

Court: What I'm going to try to do is to hear 

whatever [555] he says, not in terms of expert opin- 

jons because in my mind recent history is not a mat- 

ter of expert opinion. But I'm going to try to listen 

to him for the purpose of trying to get information 

about what the result of various governmental ac- 

tions has been. You can ask questions going beyond 

that if you like but I don’t believe I've got any busi- 

ness considering opinion as to why folks did this. 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we would tender Mr. 

Rabin as an expert and maybe in our examination 

the Court will see why we're talking about recent 

history. That's why I request you to let us show 

what we're trying to show and decide whether it 

ought to be admitted. 

Court: Go ahead. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, you were giving us your general impres- 

sions of the city activities on the housing pattern. A. Yes. 

I think, as I said, first I should describe what the ac- 

tivities were, what I looked at. I didn’t look at all the ac- 

tivities of local government. 

Court: I don’t want general impressions. I 

thought we were going to have someone to testify 

about factual conclusions based upon statistics ap- 

plied. General impressions, this is just preaching 

and preaching is good for many purposes but it 

doesn’t help to decide a question of this sort. 

   



183a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

[5561 Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I think this 
could properly be defined as his opinion. 

Q. Why don’t you give us your opinions, then, Mr. Rabin? 
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we object. 
Court: This is not the point, Mr. Chambers. The 

witness can help the Court by describing in detail 
the history which he has read from the books be- 
cause it’s fairly voluminous, but drawing some 
olympian opinion why all this was done or what the 
overall effect of it has done is not something that 
helps at all. 

Mr. Chambers: What we’re trying to show at this 
stage is an outline of the effect of the city activities 
in the areas he’s going to talk about on the racial 
housing patterns in the City of Charlotte and I sub- 
mit that he is perfectly competent to testify. 

Court: The evidence as solicited by that question 
is incompetent and I believe I have indicated what I 
believe is an approach you can follow that will help 
the Court. Somebody simply giving abstract opin- 
ions about this doesn’t help me a bit, but if you want 
him to review these exhibits in detail and indicate 
that he knows more about them than we do, that will 
help me. But simply somebody drawing conclusions 
from the hasty review of the mass of data like this, 
this doesn’t help the Court in any question that the 
Court’s got to decide. 

[5571 Mr. Chambers: First of all, we would say 
it wasn’t a hasty review that Mr. Rabin made but 
in view of the Court’s feeling that we ought to go 
into detail about the facts, we will go into detail 
about the facts. We were just trying to set up a 

 



  

184a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

pattern for how we were examining the witness and 

trying to set some outline for the Court to follow, 

but we will go into details on the other matters. 

Court: If he can summarize these exhibits, which 

I hope he can, in a factual manner, this would be 

helpful, but I don’t think impressions or general 

opinions is going to be helpful at all, in addition 

to which they are totally incompetent from an evi- 

dentiary standpoint. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, would you describe for the Court what 

areas of city activities you considered? A. I looked 

at city planning, comprehensive planning, zoning, urban 

renewal, public housing construction and highway planning 

and construction. 

Q. What did city planning consist of? A. As I indicated 

earlier, in city planning I looked at plans and documents 

prepared by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Com- 

mission. These consisted of the document entitled The 

Next Twenty Years, which is the comprehensive develop- 

ment plan; the plan for the greater Charlotte central area, 

which is the downtown business district development plan; 

a document [5581 which I believe is entitled Blight in 

Charlotte. Anyway, it is dated September, 1962, and it’s 

one of the exhibits. 

Court: What was the title of that? 

A. Blight in Charlotte. It’s the second document from the 

top there. I examined these documents, the proposals they 

made in relation to the distribution of residents by racial 

groups and the changes that took place in that distribu- 

tion as revealed by the United States census, the analysis 

   



185a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

survey which was taken here during the past year in 

Charlotte. Now, if I might refer to those... . also, Your 

Honor, may I point out the very specific relationship be- 

tween these activities and schools? 

Q. We'll come into that, Mr. Rabin. First of all, is this 

document Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12 the one you referred to 

as the city planning for the next twenty years? A. Yes. 

Q. Now, does this document contain a map that you also 

considered? A. Yes, it does. 

Q. And what is the map entitled? A. The map is en- 

titled General Development Plan and it summarizes piec- 

torially the recommendations of the plan. 

Q. Can you explain for the record the coloring of the 

map? A. Yes. The yellow areas depict the recommended 

areas for residential development; the green areas the 

major public and semi-public uses; the pink areas office- 

institutional; the deep red area the central business dis- 

trict; the bright red, [559] the general business and the 

blue areas commercial-industrial; and then there is a 

designation for flood plain areas. 

Q. Now, the document you referred to as Residential 

Blight is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15. Would you explain for 

the record what this document shows? A. Yes. This docu- 

ment, which is dated September, 1962, describes each 

census tract within the City of Charlotte as of the date 

of the document and contains information each census tract 

on housing conditions, present and future land use and 

zoning, the tenure and race of the residents living in each 

census tract and the existence or non-existence of over- 

crowding and poor streets within each census tract, and 

then each one contains also a general description of the 

character and development of the tract itself. 

 



  

186a 

Yale Rabin—for Plawntiff—Direct 

Court: Who prepared this Blight in Charlotte? 

A. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission. 

Court: That’s Exhibit 15? 

Mr. Chambers: Exhibit 15. 

Q. Looking, for instance, at Census Tract 4 on this 

exhibit, what is this census tract depicting at the top of the 

page 12 for Census Tract 4? A. It shows housing condi- 

tions as they existed at the time of the publication of this 

study within that census tract. 

Q. What does the bottom census tract show on Page 12 

of Census Tract 4? [560] A. Present and future land use. 

Q. What does the top census tract on Page 13 of Census 

Tract 4 show? A. It shows the tenure and race of the resi- 

dents in the census tract as of the time of the study. 

Q. How does this tract show the race of the residents? 

A. Those residential areas which are predominantly occu- 

pied by non-whites are bounded by a red line. 

Q. That goes around the streets of the non-white resi- 

dents? A. It goes around the area which is occupied by 

non-whites. 

Q. What does the bottom census tract on Page 13 of 

Census Tract 4 show? A. It shows overcrowding within 

dwellings and shows the location of inadequate streets. 

Court: How do they define inadequate streets? 

A. The definition is given here as streets of inadequate 

width. 

Court: Like the main streets in Philadelphia? 

A. There are some narrow streets downtown. 

   



187a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

Court: What’s the name of that street that runs 

along parallel to the big one? What’s the name of 

the big hotel towards the east? 

A. Bellview-Stratford. 

Court: The one about six blocks east of that? 

A. Ben Franklin. 

Court: What’s the name of that street that runs 

in [561] front of the Ben Franklin? 

A. Chestnut. 

Court: That's an inadequate street, I reckon. 

A. Not by these standards. This is 30 feet or less. This is 

very inadequate and that is only a little inadequate. 

Court: Is the street in front of the Ben Franklin 

Hotel 30 feet wide? 

A. Oh, yes. When they say width of street they are talking 

about the distance from property line to property line, not 

the width of the actual carriageway. 

Court: I just wanted to know if you've got one 

standard for middle-sized cities and one for big 

cities. 

A. This standard is not mine. This standard which I am 

describing is the standard used by the Charlotte-Mecklen- 

burg Planning Commission which is streets rights of way 

of 30 feet or less. I don’t know whether it would be the 

standard I would use. 

 



  

188a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

Q. In connection with city planning, did you consider any 

other document? A. Yes. I considered the Greater Char- 

lotte Central Area Plan which is a more detailed version 

of the section on central area which appears in the plan 

entitled The Next Twenty Years. 

Court: Unfortunately that never rose to the level 

of government action, did it, Mr. Chambers? 
Mr. Chambers: I don’t think it did, Your Honor. 

There were some variations approved in the bond 

issue of [562] 1967 or ’68. We'd like to mark this 

as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 40. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, in looking at those documents would you 

tell the Court what those documents show factually? A. 

They show the proposals which the Planning Commission 

had developed for the use of land within the area covered 

by the plan and, quite obviously, we all recognize that plans 

have no controlling force, that is, these are recommenda- 

tions for the use of land in the area. The only elements 

of the plan which develop any compelling force are those 

elements which relate to facilities or land uses which are 

normally provided by government, things such as roads 

or public building. Quite naturally the development of 

residential or industrial land is subject to the decision- 

making of private developers within, of course, whatever 

the other legal constraints are which the city imposes. But 

the plan very definitely sets a direction in the recommenda- 

tions which it develops and it’s those recommendations 

which are particularly significant in this case. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we object 

and move to strike his answer. This is an area of 

   



189a 

Collogquy 

speculation. Various committees meet and make 

recommendations and they may gather dust on the 

shelf. If any of the material is pertinent it would be 

the official action adopted by some governmental 

body. 

[563] Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, first of all I 

disagree very much with Mr. Waggoner’s position, 

but we would like for the Court to just let us go 

ahead and develop the case and then decide whether 

you want to admit the evidence or not. I submit 

that if the City of Charlotte has an official body 

called the City Planning Commission and it works, 

then this is the action of the City of Charlotte. Any 

agency of the City of Charlotte is an agency of the 

City of Charlotte and the City of Charlotte is re- 

sponsible for its activities, and what it plans or 

what it says is competent with respect to what the 

city proposes to do or has done. 

Mr. Barkley: The city is not responsible unless it 
adopts it. 

Court: What is the legal basis upon which you 

are contending that the action of unofficial planners 

for the City of Charlotte or the Federal Government 

is binding upon the School Board? 

Mr. Chambers: I contend that on the basis of the 

Brewer case and on the basis of Green and on the 

basis of Rainey and Monroe. 

Court: There is some language in Brewer, the 

second opinion, one of those sort of rush block prob- 

lems nobody has ever decided to which you have to 

elaborate rightfully to get to the point you're making 

here. [564] Has there been any case that ever ad- 

dressed itself to that subject? I’m not asking you 

 



  

190a 

Collogquy 

to tell me how much new ground you're setting out 

to clear. 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, the one case that 

approached it somewhat was the case out of Duval 

County, Board of Public Instruction of Duval County 

versus Braxton. 

Court: They didn’t hold anything that would sup- 

port this contention, did they? 
Mr. Chambers: The question there concerned the 

use of school district lines in the racial housing pat- 

tern situation. The Fifth Circuit has had several 

cases on that. The Fourth Circuit’s most recent opin- 

ion was in the Norfolk School case. 

Mr. Barkley: In Brewer case, as I recall, they 

adopted the city precinct plan for their lines. 

Mr. Chambers: I submit that if the Court finds 

there has been public or private discrimination in 

the development of the housing pattern, something 

else has to be done. I submit that that was not just 

thrown into the opinion just to be thrown into the 

opinion. 

Court: It was thrown in just to keep the question 

open, as I read it. Is that the only authority on this 

subject. I just wanted to know what you think of 

your legal position here. 

Mr. Chambers: I think our legal position goes 

back to [565] 1954 when the court was talking about 

separate but equal. At that time it was clearly talk- 

ing about compulsory segregation of the students 

in the schools. In 1968 in the Rainey case and the 

Green cases the courts are talking about other fac- 

tors which make for continued segregation of stu- 

dents in the schools and it is binding on the School 

   



  

191a 

Colloquy 

Board, whether it is action of the city, action of 

private individuals or what have you, all of these 

actions have to be taken into consideration by the 

Board in designing the plan it tries to implement 

and it has to establish to the court’s satisfaction that 

the plan it’s proposing will eliminate black and white 

schools in the system. 

Court: So what you're really saying is that you 

want the Court to hold that any predominantly black 

school in Charlotte is unlawful. 

Mr. Chambers: That’s correct, and any predom- 
inantly white school. 

Court: What would be going pretty far, wouldn’t 
it? 

Mr. Chambers: I don’t think so, Your Honor. 

Court: Has anybody ever held that? 

Mr. Chambers: The Court might differ with me 

but that’s the way I read Green and that’s the way 

I read Rainey and Brewer. Your Honor, I think 

really we have to go back and look at the whole 

history of school [566] desegregation. We started 

off talking about state constitutional provisions re- 

quiring separate schools. We then get into public 

accommodation and we strike that down because that 

continues segregated schools and then we get into 

freedom of choice and we strike that down because 

that continues segregated schools. We then begin to 

look at all the other factors. 

Court: Why did we strike down freedom of 
choice? 

Mr. Chambers: It has been outlawed where it 

does not eliminate the all black and all white schools. 

Court: There have been statements and opinions, 

as I read them, where freedom of choice with a view 

 



  

192a 

Colloquy 

to perpetuate segregation won’t stand. We all agree 

with that. If there are elements of that result in the 

freedom of choice plan here, they need to be ex- 

plored. 
Mr. Chambers: It says more than that, Your 

Honor. Rainey wasn’t dealing with freedom of 

choice necessarily. These cases are looking at what 

the Board comes in with. Anything that perpetuates 

a segregated, all black or all white school, is uncon- 

stitutional. 
Court: Well, is your theory dependent upon some 

improperly motivated decisions by the city ten or 

fifteen or twenty years ago? 

Mr. Chambers: It would be effected by it, Your 

Honor, because whatever housing pattern results 

from the action [5671 of the city must be considered 

by the School Board in designing the plan it pro- 

poses to follow. 

Court: Is the purity of the motives a factor in 

your problem? 
Mr. Chambers: I’m not questioning the motives, 

Your Honor, I'm questioning only the results. 

Court: So you say that if a thousand black fami- 

lies decided to build a school on an island in the 

Catawba River the School Board would have to pro- 

vide for that island a school with 70% white and 

30% black students? 

Mr. Chambers: Is the Catawba River in Mecklen- 

burg County? 

Court: Half of it is. 
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I’d say that under 

Griffin and under the recent Supreme Court deci- 

sions it would have to do that. And I go further and 

   



193a 

Colloquy 

say either we're going to do that or provide a sepa- 
rate school system for that island in the Catawba 
River and let them have their own system. 

Court: I don’t suggest you start that. 
Mr. Chambers: I'm not suggesting that, I'm say- 

ing that this is what we’re going to unless we are 
doing something about it. 

Court: This would be the easiest way to avoid all 
responsibility on the part of the citizens of [568] 
Mecklenburg County. 

Mr. Chambers: That’s correct, Your Honor. 
Court: Well, I think the best way for us to get 

through with this witness this week is for me to hear 
whatever you want him to say with your under- 
standing that I don’t see very much of what he can 
say 1s going to help me nor be competent for me 
to consider. But if he can provide a road map 
through these exhibits, which the question suggests 
that he really can, he can be helpful. I’m just going 
to tell Mr. Waggoner to let’s listen to it all and I'm 
going to have to listen to it with a very jaundiced 
ear because I’m having trouble seeing where it can 
be properly considered except as it marshalls the 
facts and figures, instead of simply opinions. 

Mr. Chambers: We hope to submit a brief to the 
Court following this hearing where we will try to 
show the relevance of his testimony to the proceed- 
ing. 

Court: Mr. Waggoner, if you withhold your ob- 
jections and I'll withhold mine and we’ll find out 
what Mr. Chambers wants to get from the witness. 
But you have the right to take objection and excep- 
tion to the evidence that is incompetent. If you wish, 
you can make objections as you go and I'll just over- 

 



  

194a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff —Direct 

rule all of them and we’ll get along with the testi- 

mony. 

[5691 Q. Mr. Rabin, we were looking at the city plan- 

ning and you were giving us what the city planners were 

proposing. A. Yes. This map here, I'd like to refer to the 

map which is in the back of the plan entitled The Next 

Twenty Years and which summarizes the proposals made 

in the plan. This map should actually be looked at in 

comparison to a map which appears on Page 16 in the 

document itself because the comparison of these two maps 

indicates the major kind of change in land uses within the 

planning areas that are recommended. The map on Page 

16 shows existing and proposed industrial land. The exist- 

ing industrial areas are shown in a deep brown color 

and the proposed industrial lands are shown in a light 

brown color. Now, this is the same land which is shown 

in a deep blue—both of these together—on the large map 

which is contained in the back of the book. Looking at the 

small map one immediately sees that the volume of in- 

dustrial land, which it is proposed to develop, is several 

times the volume of existing industrial land within the 

county. Now, I am in no way questioning the decisions 

which led to the determination of the amount of land 

needed. I am just pointing out that the amount of in- 

dustrial land called for is several times, perhaps five times 

the amount of industrial land now in use within the county. 

The next things I would point out are the sections of the 

city from which this proposed industrial land is to be 

taken. Almost entirely this industrial land is taken out of 

[570] what might be called the western half of Charlotte. 

Now, since I am going to refer to this division again I am 

going to be specific about what I'm using as a line. I am 

   



195a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

saying that beginning on North Tryon . ... do you want 
me to show this on a map? 

Court: No, I can hear it. 

A. Running down Tryon into the center to the point near 
where Tryon Street is near the line of the Southern Rail- 
way, south of the very center of town, and then proceeding 
along the line of the Southern Railway out of the city in 
that direction, that I have used this line to distinguish 
between what I shall call the eastern half and the western 
half of Charlotte. This proposed industrial development 
does two things. Ome, it creates a wide belt of industrial 
land separating the two halves. This belt of land runs 
entirely through the city, separating the two halves, and 
the other thing that it does as I indicated earlier, was to 
take substantial areas of land which are already in use 
as residential areas from the western portion of the city. 
Now, it was noted before that this has no compelling force. 
I want to point out as I go along that this has been for- 
malized by a zoning ordinance, but this precedes the 1962 

zoning ordinance. This planning document was developed 
in 1960 so that this is the major impact. The secondary 
effect of this document is to outline the proposed inter- 
state highway system and the major [571] arterial streets 
in the Charlotte area and again one can see that the major 
north-south route -I-77—tends to reinforce this north-south 
division by running adjacent to and parallel to the indus- 
trial band which runs through the city. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, from your study, so that we can keep the 
record clear, what is the racial composition of this western 
half that you're talking about? A. Well, in general it is 
the area in which Negroes live. 

 



  

196a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

Court: What time are you talking about now? 

Mr. Chambers: Today, 1968. 

A. In 1968 this is the general area of the city in which most 

or almost all Negroes live. 

Q. What is the racial composition of the eastern area? 

A. The racial composition of the eastern area is predom- 

inantly white with the exception of the one area Griertown 

which is in the 24 census tract. 

Q. Did you notice anything about the proposed zoning 

for the Griertown area? A. Well, yes. I think that within 

the city the only industrial land proposed on the eastern 

side is on the northern edge of Griertown. 

Q. What is the effect of this industrial zoning on the 

northern edge of Griertown? A. This is not zoning we're 

talking about. 
Q. Proposed zoning. [572] A. This proposed use of 

land, if implemented, would create a barrier. It would 

create a zone of non-residential use, a zone of adverse use 

certainly adjacent to a residential area between Griertown 

and the area to the north. 
Q. Would those areas to the north be white or Negro? 

A. They are at present white. 

Q. You indicated that the proposed zoning would dis- 

place the present residential areas with industrial zoning? 

A. The land which is proposed to be used for new in- 

dustrial development consists in large part of land which 

is presently developed and occupied residentially. That is 

more clearly shown in this document, which takes on a tract 

by tract basis the present uses of land and describes this 

in comparison to their future zoning. If we go to the tract 

which you referred to just a moment ago, Census Tract 

#4 which is on Pages 12 and 13, one can see that. . . . 

   



  

197a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

Court: What part of town is Census Tract #4? 

A. TI have to have a good look at a map. 

Court: Can you read the names of some of the 

streets in it? 

A. Most of it is west of Tryon Street. 

Mr. Chambers: That’s South Graham Street, 

South Tryon Street, over to. . . . 

A. Most of it is on the west side of Tryon and a bit of it. . .. 

Court: How far north does this go? 

[5731 A. A bit of it goes up to Second Street and the 

southern limits are Summit Avenue and Park Avenue. 

Mr. Chambers: Some of it goes up as far as 7th 

Street, this area here. Down here it’s 2nd Street. 

Court: This is an area south and west of the 

Square starting along 2nd Street and running down 

Morehead ? 

Court: I just wanted to know what part of town 

you were talking about. 

A. Southwest of the central business district. As this clearly 

indicates the top map in the upper lefthand corner shows 

existing housing conditions and the map opposite it at the 

top on the other page shows that the housing is predomi- 

nantly non-white occupied, but the map at the bottom of 

Page 12 indicates that almost none of the area is now 

zoned for residential. Now we're talking about zoning, 

not planning. This document indicates the legal use of the 

 



  

198a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

land as defined by the zoning ordinance is now non-resi- 

dential. 

Q. Would the proposed future use also be non-residential ? 

A. The future use is implicit in the zoning laws. 

Q. Would you look at Census Tract 52. ‘Would you tell 

us if you see any proposed changing in the zoning in Census 

Tract 52? 

Court: Tell us the area of 52. 

A. That is in the northwest section. 

Court: Are there street names? 

[5741 A. It’s completely surrounded by railroad. 

Court: Mr. Chambers, where is 52? What’s the 

name of the streets? 

A. Between Graham and Tryon. 

Mr. Chambers: Up as far as Atando Street, Gra- 

ham and Tryon. 

A. This tract shows the drawing on the left showing exist- 

ing housing conditions, the shaded areas being the areas in 

which housing now exists. The second drawing shows those 

section of the housing districts which are zoned to remain 

as housing, and the third map shows those areas of the 

housing which were non-white occupied. Quite clearly 

comparing the third drawing to the second it is clearly 

indicated that just the housing occupied by non-whites has 

now been zoned non-residential. 

Q. Would you look at Census Tracts 43 and 44? A. Cen- 

 



  

199a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

sus Tract 43 is on Page 53 and it is also located in the 

western portion. It’s the far western corner, northwestern 

corner of the city. The streets in there are Thrift Road, 

Hovis Circle. It’s bounded on the north by the P & N Rail- 

way and on the west by the city limits and on the east by 

I-85. Again the maps show the same kind of development 

that the first map showed, the shaded areas which are 

occupied by housing, the second map shows the areas which 

are zoned for housing and in this case all of the undeveloped 

area is additionally zoned for housing in addition to the 

areas which [575] were occupied by housing. While the 

third map clearly indicates that there were at this time no 

non-whites. 

Court: What is the time you're talking about? 

A. September, 1962, was the date of the publication of this 
document. 

Q. Does the map show the race of the people who live 

there? A. Yes. It shows the race of the residents as all 

white. Census Tract #44, which is just to the east of this 
tract... 

Court: The one you've been talking about is 439% 

A. Yes. This is just to the east of this tract across the 
P & N Railway tracks and this is indicated here as a census 
tract which had both white and Negro residential areas in 
it, but the proposed zoning eliminates from the residential 
zoning those areas which were occupied by Negroes. They 

are now zoned non-residential. 

Court: Have there been any areas occupied by 

white people in 1962 that have been zoned industrial ? 

 



  
  

200a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

A. Only, as I indicated, those areas immediately adjacent 

to Griertown on the north. This is the only area, this area 

shown right here, in which proposed industrial develop- 

ment is taking place and also in the census tracts on the 

east side of the line, which I described earlier, in the areas 

adjoining the line. There is industrial zoning, some of which 

may be occupied by white house-owners at the present. 

Court: Youre testifying what the map shows. 

What [576] does the map show? Does the map show 

the areas occupied seven years ago by white people 

have been zoned industrial or are proposed to be 

zoned industrial? 

A. Predominantly, no. There may be such areas but the 

discrepancy in the volume is very significant. 

Court: Did you just testify that east of Tryon 

Street there were some areas that you refer to as 

white that have been recommended for industrial 

zoning ? 

A. Adjacent to Griertown. 

Court: What about the place which you indicated 

on the east side of Tryon Street? 

A. Census Trace #4. No, that’s just about all non-white 

right now, sir. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, how can city planning effect housing pat- 

terns? 

Mr. Waggoner: Objection. 

Court: The objection is sustained. I think that 

question simply says what are the limits to the kind 

 



201a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

of laws that a city council may take a notion to pass. 

Mr. Chambers: That’s not our position, Your 

Honor. Your Honor, if we call a doctor in to testify 

he can testify that a man probably died because he 

got a blunt instrument hit him beside the head. We 

only call in another person as an expert to talk about 

effects of action on housing patterns. 
Court: What people can do by city planning is not 

[577] pertinent here. You asked him what can be 

the effect of city planning on housing patterns. The 

objection is sustained. 

Mr. Chambers: May I show what the answer 

would have been had the Court allowed him to an- 

swer? 

Court: No. I think the question is what he infers 

from the papers has been the effect, not what might 

be in some imaginary circumstance. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, what in your opinion was the effect of 

city planning on the housing pattern? 

Mr. Waggoner: Objection. 

Court: The objection is sustained. If it is shown 

to have an effect I think this is the duty of the Court 

to infer or not to infer from whatever competent 

evidence there is. You have a witness who hasn’t 

the faintest idea about the subject and is speculating 

upon the same basis as the Court is being invited to 

speculate. 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, would the Court 

again allow me to show what the witness would have 

answered ? 

Court: The objection is sustained. You go ahead 

and answer for the record. 

 



  

202a 

Yale Rabin—for Plamtiff—Direct 

A. I would say that the most telling effect is that the recom- 

mendations of the plan were two years later reflected in a 

zoning ordinance which adopted most of the recommenda- 

tions of the [5781 plan and legalized the restrictions on 

the use of the land which were only proposals in the plan. 

Q. Now, Mr. Rabin, going to zoning, in your study did you 

look at the zoning ordinance of 1947? A. Yes, I did, the 

map, not the text of the ordinance itself. 

~ Q. This is Plaintiff’s Exhibit #9, is that correct? A. Yes. 

Q. Now, would you tell the Court what this map shows? 

A. This map shows the City of Charlotte as it was bounded 

and divides the city up into five districts, which are defined 

as single family residence, business #2, industrial, business 

#1, and residential #2. 

Q. Now, just for illustration did you prepare a document 

to show the boundary lines of the City of Charlotte for 

1947? A. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Chambers: We'd like to get this marked as 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit #41. 

Court: What kind of map is that, Mr. Chambers? 

Mr. Chambers: It’s a map of the City of Charlotte 

downtown. 

Court: Who made it? 

Mr. Chambers: This was prepared by the Cham- 

pion Map Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, does the green outline on this map show 

the city boundaries in 1947? [579] A. The green lines show 

the boundaries as they are shown on this map. 

Q. Now, did you notice anything . . . 

Court: Does the green outline show what you read 

to be 1947 boundaries of the city? 

   



203a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

A. On this map they are not described. There is a line 

which simply encloses the area which is zoned. I assume 

that it’s the city boundary. The title of the map is City 

Building-Zoning Map for Charlotte, 1947, and I think it’s 

reasonable to assume the line is the city boundary and that 

is the line I duplicated, but I don’t know. 

Court: Well, what’s the number of the exhibit 

you copied the lines from? 

A. Exhibit #9. 

Court: You took #9 and saw something on there 

you thought was the 1947 city boundary? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: And you put a green line on Exhibit 41 to 

show on Exhibit 41 what you think the ’47 boundary 

was ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, will you tell the Court what you found on 

Exhibit 9? A. Well, I compared this map to the map, the 

census racial distribution—I don’t know what the exhibit 

number is, it’s in evidence—and examined the proposed 

zones in comparison to [580] the then existing uses of 

land and I found that with the exception of two small areas 

—one is called Double Oaks which is an area just east of 

Statesville Road and north of Oaklawn Avenue, a very 

small area there, and an area just southeast of the central 

business district which I believe is known as Cherry—with 

the exception of those two areas, all other Negro residential 

 



  

204a 

Yale Rabin—for Plawntiff—Direct 

areas of the city were zoned industrial by this 1947 zoning 

map. Those are the only two then Negro residential areas 

of the city which were zoned residential. 

Q. What indications on the map show industrial zoning? 

A. A dashed line shows industrial zoning; a slanted line 

shows single family residence—and by the way none of 

the Negro residential areas are zoned single family resi- 

dences—the crossed hash lines are business #2; the dotted 

areas are business #1; the blank areas are residence #2, 

other than single family. 

Q. And the zoning map of 1947 zones basically all of the 

Negro residential areas as industrial? A. Yes. 

Q. What is the effect of that, Mr. Rabin? A. The effect 

of that is to do several things. First of all, it makes the 

land on which people live accessible to other uses, even 

desirable for other uses. It also permits the rapid deteri- 

oration of the quality of the land—and this is [581] clearly 

evident from the amount of industrial development which 

has taken place in areas of Negro residences. It’s quite 

common. One drives around and finds residences and in- 

dustry adjacent to each other. It’s unquestionably a fact 

that many of the industries have a blighting effect on the 

housing which adjoins them. Consequently, there is an 

effect on the value of housing and although it might be 

contended that a residential property inside an industrial 

zone reasonably might be enhanced, it certainly could be 

contended that the residence which remains across the 

street from the industrial zone, and if it continues to be 

zoned residential, is deprived of value by virtue of the 

zoning of the areas across the street as industrial and the 

threat of the introduction of blighting or noxious uses into 

that area. 

Q. When was the next change in the zoning in the City 

   



200a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

of Charlotte? A. The next change that I examined was in 

1962. This was a major change and adoption of a new ordi- 

nance. I would assume that in the intervening time between 

1947 and 1962 there were amendments to this map which I 

did not examine. 

Court: Our City Council meets every Monday to 

amend zoning ordinance. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, I show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10 and ask 

you if this is the 1962 zoning ordinance you were talking 

about. A. Yes, it is. 

[5821 Q. I show you also Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10 and ask 

you if this exhibit depicts the zoning as set out in the zon- 

ing ordinance? A. No, it doesn’t. The large map is a key 

map to a series of smaller maps which depict the zoning, 

as the new ordinance is a very detailed kind of thing, and 

there are sixty sheets each of which outlines the zoning of 

a single tract and those tracts are numbered according to 

the designations on this map and they do not correspond 

to earlier ward lines or census tract lines. They are lines 

determined in some other way by the Planning Commission. 

This is the key map to the census sheets. 

Q. These small sixty sheets you are referring to are in- 

cluded in this exhibit. Are these the sheets you're talking 

about? A. Yes, they are. 

Court: This is a big map rolled up and sixty little 

maps, 1s it? What is the number of that? 

Mr. Chambers: It’s Exhibit 10. 

Court: Are the sixty smaller zoned maps part of 

Exhibit 10? 

Q. Mr. Rabin, will you tell the Court what the 1962 ordi- 

 



  

206a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

nance does? A. The ordinance which we are referring to 

now deals with an area considerably larger than the area 

dealt with in the 1947 zoning ordinance. This ordinance 

zones land, not only within [583] the present boundaries 

of the City of Charlotte, which are considerably larger than 

they were in 1947, but also beyond those boundaries out 

into Mecklenburg County. Of the sixty sheets which com- 

prise the entire zoning map, approximately thirty of them 

cover the area within the City of Charlotte. 

Q. Now, you indicated a moment ago an industrial zone 

that runs from North Tryon Street to the southwest Char- 

lotte. Did you examine the residential zoning on the east 

and west side of this? A. Yes. I took the approximately 

thirty sheets which comprise the city itself and I divided 

them up into two groups, those falling on the east side 

of the line I described earlier and those falling on the west 

side. Only one of the zoning tracts, that is, Tract #18, is 

bisected by that line. All of the others either fall to one 

side or the other of the line, and I tabulated these census 

tracts according to the following characteristics. I noted 

what the predominant zoned use was; I noted what the 

subsidiary zoned uses were; and I noted what the overall 

character and general nature of the residential uses were. 

I found that the zoning on the east and west side differs 

very significantly. Zoning on the west side of the line 

which I described, the residential zoning, is considerably 

more dense than the zoning on the east side of the line. 

All of the residential zoning in the thirteen zoning tracts— 

and they are tracts number, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

[584] and the western portion of 18. The residential zoning 

in all of those tracts is either R-6, R-6 multi-family, R-9 or 

R-9 multi-family. On the east side of the line which I 

described residential zoning is predominantly R-12 and 

   



207a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

R-15, considerably less dense. I think this assumes some 

significance from a statement which is contained in the 

comprehensive plan which clearly sets forth the idea on 

Page 23. It says: The plan proposes that the density of 

population be held to comparatively low levels to avoid the 

unfavorable consequences of crowding too many people 

too close together on too little land. Yards and open spaces, 

a quiet, restful atmosphere and family privacy result from 

low population density. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, what is meant by R-6? A. R-6 is a single 

family residential district in which 6000 square feet of 

land are required to accommodate one family. 

Q. What is meant by R-12? A. R-12 is a single family 

residential family district where 12,000 square feet are 

required to accommodate one family. 

Q. And R-15 would require 15,000 square feet? A. 

That’s correct. 

Q. Your testimony is that there is no R-12 or R-15 in 

the west side or predominantly Negro side of Charlotte? 

A. That’s correct. 

Q. And that the zoning in the east side is predominantly 

R-12 or R-15? [585] A. That’s correct. 

Q. TI think you also testified that your industrial zoning 

in the City of Charlotte is primarily in the west side, the 

Negro side. A. Of the thirteen zoning tracts on the west 

side, all of them have industrial zoning in them and five 

out of the thirteen range anywhere from 14 to over 1% in- 

dustrially zoned. All of the remaining have lesser amounts 

of industrial zoning in them. 

Court: Do these thirteen tracts that you are talk- 

ing about include all of the city west of Tryon 

Street and the railroad tracks? 

 



208a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaimtiff—Direct 

A. Yes, they do. On the east side there are fifteen tracts 

and their numbers are 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 

26, 27 and 32. I would note that 18 is only part, only the 

eastern part of that tract. There is no tract on the eastern 

portion which has a major part of its area industrial. All 

of the tracts on the eastern portion adjoining the western 

portion have industrial lands on their western edges and, 

in addition, the tract which is #22 and which is immediately 

to the north of Griertown, has industrial uses along its 

southern boundary which is the northern edge of Grier- 

town. I would say one other difference which I noted is that 

office zoning, that is, the permitted use of the location of 

offices generally in residential areas—this is as distin- 

guished from offices in the [586] central business district— 

twelve of the fifteen zoning tracts on the east side per- 

mitted office uses, while four of the thirteen zoning tracts 

on the west side have permitted office uses. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, what effect would the more densely zon- 

ing areas have on property values? A. Well, quite obvi- 

ously where a great amount of land is required to build a 

house the cost of housing is going to be higher. Where a 

lesser amount of land is required to build, the cost of hous- 

ing is going to be lower. 

Q. Did you note in the zoning on the west side where 

there was multi-family zoning? A. Yes, there is a great 

deal of multi-family zoning. In fact, eleven of the thirteen 

tracts on the west side have multi-family zoning. 

Q. Now, moving to Urban Renewal, did you study docu- 

ments pertaining to Urban Renewal in the City of Char- 

lotte? A. Yes, I did. There is a document which is an 

exhibit which displays the extent and location of all of the 

Urban Renewal projects. 
Q. Are you referring to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 14? A. Yes. 

   



209a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

Q. That exhibit shows the present Urban Renewal areas 

in the City of Charlotte? A. Yes, it does. 

[5871 Q. Does it also show where the families who were 

relocated were relocated? A. Yes, it does. 

Q. Would you tell the Court what those documents show? 

A. Well, taking the map of Urban Renewal areas first, all 

of the Urban Renewal areas and consequently all of the 
displacement from the Urban Renewal areas took place 

in what were Negro residential areas at the time of the 

initiation of those projects. The relocation figures which 

were furnished. . . . 

Court: How do you define a Negro residential 

area? 

A. One which is predominantly occupied by Negroes as 

shown by the figures given by the census. 

Q. Ome further point, Mr. Rabin on that, do the figures 

for relocation of people in Urban Renewal appear in the 

Workable Program submitted by the City of Charlotte? 

A. Yes, they do. 

Q. Go ahead. A. Somewhere under here I have another 

map. 

Mr. Chambers: I'd like to get this exhibit marked 

as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 42. 

Court: Is that another Champion map? 

Mr. Chambers: Another Champion map. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, tell us what this map shows, Plaintiff’s 

Exhibit 42. A. Yes. This map has on it in yellow the 

areas which appear in blue as industrial on the comprehen- 

sive plan. It has on it [588] in red the location of all 

 



  

210a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

of the existing public housing projects. It has on it in blue 

the locations of proposed public housing projects for which 

sites have been identified by the Housing Authority. It 

has on it in green the locations of schools which are pre- 

dominantly Negro in enrollment. It has on it numbers 

which represent the number of households relocated by the 

Relocation Office to the neighborhood on which the number 

appears. 

Court: Say that again. 

A. It has on it numbers which indicate the number of 

households which have been relocated either from Urban 

Renewal or highway construction to the area on the map. 

Court: The number appears where the people 

now live? 

A. Yes, sir. The map identifies the location of several over- 

crowded schools. 

Court: How are they identified? 

A. They are identified by numbers which appear next to 

the school which give the present enrollment over the rated 

capacity. 
Q. What do the figures with respect to Urban Renewal 

and relocation show, Mr. Rabin? A. As I indicated to 

start with, all of the original displacement took place from 

Negro residential areas and all of the relocation, with the 

exception of 189 families, took place into Negro residential 

areas. Those 189 families were all relocated into one area 

which was at the time the relocation process [589] began 

an area of low income white residence called Villa Heights, 

   



211a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff —Direct 

I believe . . . . yes, and this is an area in the vicinity of 
20th and Parkwood which has since become a predomi- 
nantly Negro area. All of the other relocation activities 
have moved people into what were areas of Negro con- 
centration before. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, what was the effect of this relocation on 
classroom facilities in the schools? A. Well, the map 
clearly shows. . 

Mr. Barkley: If the Court please, I believe I'll 
object to that. This man hasn’t been here to get that 
information himself. All he knows is something he 
read and we’d like to know what he’s read. 

Court: Are there figures in the record on which 
this, . .. 

Mr. Chambers: That’s correct, defendant’s an- 
swers to interrogatories, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, al- 
ready in evidence. 

Court: Well, as I understand it, he’s giving me a 
road map through these exhibits and I'm trying to 
take some notes on it so I can find the exhibits. 

Q. Have you looked at the figures that show how many 
people were moved into crowded schools or what this did 
to the schools? A. What I have looked at, Your Honor, 
is the areas into which people have moved and I have 
looked at the then enrollment of those schools as it was 
effected by the number of people [5901 who then lived in 
the area. 

Court: Did you look at other areas in town to 

make any kind of comparison how schools were or 

were not crowded in other areas? 

 



212a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Dairect 

A. No. I was trying to determine only whether there was 

a relationship between the movement of people by the re- 

location office and the overcrowding of the schools into 

which they had been moved. I did not look at areas to 

which no one had been moved. 

Court: You're not suggesting that crowding in 

schools is confined to the areas you referred to as 

Negro areas, are you? 

A. No, sir. I am aware of the fact that there is overcrowd- 

ing in schools which are predominantly white. What I'm 

trying to show is that some overcrowding is the direct 

consequences of public action. 

Court: And you say that map contains on it your 

copying of the figures from the statistics showing 

the comparison of school capacities with students 

enrolled in several schools in that area. 

A. T would say so. The two I would cite are the North- 

west Junior High School, which is as the map indicates 

completly surrounded by relocation figures, and the Bar- 

ringer School which is similarly surrounded by relocation 

figures. It’s quite clear that a great bulk of the displace- 

ments have been [591] moved into the areas served by 

these two schools. 

Mr. Barkley: I believe I'll object to that and move 

it be stricken out. I believe the evidence will show 

that the Barringer School, for example, was due to 

the Negroes themselves voluntarily branching out, 

as is the custom here. 

   



  

213a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff —Direct 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I don’t know where 
that appears. 

Mr. Barkley: It doesn’t show it was the result of 
the zoning plan. 

Mr. Chambers: We're talking about relocation. 
Court: Mr. Rabin, I'm not asking for you to draw 

conclusions from this data but I’m simply asking you 
if you have figures which show the number of re- 
located people who were moved into the school areas 
you have talked about here. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: And you do not have figures on how many 

people moved for other reasons in or out of those 

areas. 

A. No, sir. 

Court: Your figures simply reflect the fact that, 

disregarding mobile classroom units, the schools in 
those areas on a chart have a rated capacity of so 

many students and you find more than that enrolled 
there. 

A. Yes, sir. 

[592] Court: Let’s take a break. 

SHORT RECESS 

Court: With reference to this Exhibit 42, which 

is a map of Charlotte, can you tell me the number of 

the exhibit from which you got the figures as to the 

crowded conditions in the schools? 

 



214a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

A. Not by number, no, sir. 

Mr. Chambers: It’s Plaintiff’s Exhibit #1, Table 

1. That’s the enrollment in the school, Your Honor, 

and the student capacity is Table #2. 

Mr. Waggoner: These two exhibits don’t use the 

same legends. One is based on census tracts and the 

other one is based on school districts which do not 

coincide. 
Mr. Chambers: Which map? 

Mr. Waggoner: I thought you were valine about 

this population on this. 

A. The material I'm referring to is simply taken from the 

table furnished by the school which lists the enrollment 

during the 1968-69 school year and it lists the capacity of 

that particular school. It’s neither zoning tract or census 

tract, it’s just data specifically referring to the school itself. 

The figures on the relocation were also not related to census 

tracts or zoning tracts. Those figures, as provided by Ex- 

hibit #14, that describes by neighborhood name, such as 

Brooklyn, Cherry, Clanton Park, and so on, the neighbor- 

hood [5931 to which a certain number of families—I want 

to emphasize that. I think Your Honor said before these 

numbers represent the number of persons. The numbers on 

this Exhibit #42 represent the number of families who 

have been relocated, not the number of individuals. 

Court: How can one look at this map and see what 

figure represents families transferred into an area 

and what figure represents what you say is the excess 

of school population over the rated capacity? 

A. There are only two of those noted, 932 enrolled as com- 

   



  

215a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Direct 

pared to 801 capacity for this Northwest Junior High 
School, and the other one is Barringer which is 799 as op- 
posed to 616 capacity. All of the other figures are reloca- 
tion figures. 

Court: That simplifies that. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, moving to public housing, does your Ex- 
hibit 42 map show the present public housing in the City of 
Charlotte? A. Yes, it does. 

Q. How are they shown on the exhibit? A. These are 
designated by red areas at the location of the public hous- 
ing. These projects also appear on the Exhibit #14 which 
is the map of Urban Renewal projects and shows those 
public housing projects shaded in gray existing within the 
area covered by the map. 

Q. Now, does your Exhibit 42 also show the proposed 
public housing? [594] A. Yes, it does. 

Q. How does it show those proposed housings? A. It 
doesn’t show all of the proposed. It shows only those pro- 
posed public housing projects for which sites have been 
identified. It’s my understanding that there are authoriza- 
tions for units in excess of what’s represented by these 
sites but no sites have yet been selected for those. These 
represent all of the sites which have been designated and 
they are shaded in light blue on this Exhibit #42. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, what does that exhibit show in terms of 
the racial composition of the area where the public housing 
is located and where they are projected to be located? A. 
All of the public housing with the exception of the existing 
housing for the elderly structure which is adjacent to the 
central business district, all of the others are located in 
Negro residential areas and all of the proposed public 

 



  

216a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff —Direct 

housing is also in the western section. Three of the five 

sites proposed for public housing are quite close to the 

Barringer School which I referred to before as having been 

an area into which a good deal of relocation has been car- 

ried out by the Relocation Office. As a consequence it’s my 

opinion that school has become overcrowded. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, what do your figures show with respect to 

the racial composition of residents in public housing? A. 

Well, according to the Workable Program for Charlotte all 

of [595] the housing projects except the housing for the 

elderly are predominantly occupied by Negroes. I can site 

the actual figures for you. 

Court: What are the figures? 

A. Piedmont Courts has 368 units of which 256 are black 

occupied, 112 are white occupied; Fairview Homes has 468 

units of which 468 units are black occupied; Southside 

Homes has 400 units of which 400 units are black occupied; 

Belvedere has 200 units of which 122 are black occupied 

and 78 white occupied ; Earle Village has 409 units of which 

409 units are black occupied; and Erwin Towers, which is 

the housing for the elderly project I just referred to, has 

175 units, 2 of which are black occupied and 173 of which 

are white occupied. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, did you also look at the streets and pro- 

posed streets and highways for the City of Charlotte? A. 

I looked at the major thoroughfare plan, that is, primarily 

those proposals for the construction of highways, U. S. 

highways and interstate highways, within the city. 

Q. Are these also shown on Plaintiff’s Exhibit #13? 

A. Yes, they are. 

Q. Would you tell the Court what this exhibit and your 

study have shown? A. Well, as within Urban Renewal 

   



217a 

Yale Rabin—for Plawntiff—Direct 

virtually all of the displacement for the acquisition of the 

right of way for these roads has involved the movement of 

non-white families and has been [596] virtually no displace- 

ment for the roads which involved white families. The 

second factor is that the major interstate road which runs 

through the city—I-77—tends to reinforce this industrial 

band which runs from north to south through the city, which 

I referred to before, by running parallel and adjacent to 

it, thereby adding to the physical barrier which would sepa- 

rate east and west Charlotte. 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I have two questions 

and one question that I proposed to ask Mr. Rabin 

I think the Court has indicated he considers it in- 

competent. 

Court: Go ahead and ask it and I’ll rule it out and 

let him answer it. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, from your study with respect to the five 

areas that we have discussed do you have any opinion about 

the effect of the city activities in these areas and the racial 

housing pattern as it presently exists? 

Mr. Waggoner: Objection. 

Court: He’s making the assumption that if the 

activities reflected in the exhibits have taken place 

what is the effect of it. 

Mr. Chambers: Is the Court asking plaintiffs— 

Court: No, I'm simply thinking about the ques- 

tion. You're asking a question, I suppose, which is 

too broad. It seems to me, though, that you could ask 

him that if the Court assumes that all of the activity 

[5971 reflected in these exhibits has taken place, 

 



  

218a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff —Direct 

what, if any, effect would it have upon or has it had 

upon the housing paterns. I think that would be a 

competent subject for speculation. 

Q. Mr. Rabin, if the Court should find that the matters 

you have testified to with respect to city activities and 

actions have, in fact, taken place, what effect, if any, would 

these activities have on the racial housing patterns in the 

City of Charlotte? 

Mr. Waggoner: Objection. 

Court: I believe I'll overrule that objection. 

A. First of all, I think these activities have had the effect 

of perpetuating the separation of racially distinct areas of 

residence. Some of these things, of course, have in fact 

taken place and are not, I think, matters of my opinion and 

those should be separated from what the consequences of 

what has not yet taken place. 

Court: What he is asking you is historically, not 

speculatively about the future, but what has been, if 

any, the effect on the racial housing pattern. 

A. I think the effect has been to perpetuate the separation 

of racially distinct residential areas. I think the effect 

has also been to create physical barriers which did not 

exist before between those racially distinet residential areas. 

I think the effect has been to reduce the quality of the 

[598] residential environment in areas predominantly oc- 

cupied by black people. 

Court: I think I’m going to have to sustain the 

objection to that because without some personal 

   



219a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff —Cross 

knowledge of the residential environment I believe 

you're going to feel that. Stick to the question. 

A. Your Honor, I have some personal knowledge of areas 

which have been effected by industrial construction. 

Court: I’m not asking you to answer that ques- 

tion. I’m instructing you not to continue to answer 

that part of it. This deals with personal knowledge. 

It goes beyond the scope, I think, of a proper answer 

to the question. 

Mr. Chambers: That will be all, then, Mr. Rabin. 

Cross Examination by Mr. Waggoner : 

Q. Mr. Rabin, as I understand, you have based your 

opinion in part on Plaintiff’s Exhibit #4, on the overlay 

marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4, is that corect? A. In part, 

yes. 

Q. Let me ask you with reference to Census Tract #51. 

Do you know the number of people within Census Tract 

#517 A. No, I do not. 

Q. You do not know the racial composition of that? A. 

I can by referring to my papers. 

[599] Q. Do you know the degree of Negroes or per- 

centage of Negroes who live in Census Tract #53? A. If 

you allow me a minute, I can tell you that, yes. 

Q. All right, sir. A. The non-white population of Census 

Tract 53, the percentage according to the 1960 was 3.6%. 

Q. What is this based upon? What information in the 

record do you base this upon? A. The ’60 census. I don’t 

know whether that has been entered in the record or not. 

Q. But your information, then, is based on the 1960 

census, is that correct? A. Yes. 

 



  

220a 

Yale Rabin—for Plawmtiff—Cross 

Q. And you do not know whether or not the ’60 census 

is in the record. A. No, I don’t. 

Q. Now, with reference to the proposed Twenty Year 

Plan, which is Plaintiff’s Exhibit # ... 

Court: Where is Tract 53, Mr. Waggoner? 

Mr. Waggoner: Tract 53, Your Honor, is roughly 

the Hidden Valley area. 

A. Exhibit 12 is The Next Twenty Years. 

Q. All right, sir, would you come down to the map, please, 

sir. (The witness does so.) Now, I believe you testified 

that most of the industrial location will displace Negroes 

as they [600] are presently situated in the city, is that 

correct? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. All right, sir. I direct your attention to the map at- 

tached to Exhibit 14 and ask you to refer to a large area 

adjoining N. C. 16, the P & N Railroad and this area which 

appears to be a rather substantial area in the northwestern 

part of the city and ask if there any Negro population in 

that area at the present time. A. Whether there is any 

Negro population in that area at the present I couldn’t 

specifically say, but this does not reflect exactly the area 

which is zoned industrial, the 1960 Comprehensive Plan. 

Q. This is a comprehensive plan but this is the one you 

testified with reference to. A. Oh, no, I testified with 

reference to the amount of industrial land zoned in each one 

of the zoning tracts on the map which you just removed. 

This is a recommendation and the statement that I made 

was that in general the 1962 zoning laws followed the 

recommendations set forth in this plan, but in specific de- 

tail they differ. 

Q. Is there any difference in this area? A. We would 

have to examine that. That can be done. 

   



221a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff —Cross 

Q. Do this for me, please. 

Court: Mr. Rabin, isn’t that the map you were 

testifying from a while ago? 

[601] A. Yes. 

Court: Is that one of the maps you were using in 

your testimony? 

A. Yes, it is, but it’s not the map to which I related the 

zoning of the industrial areas. That was Exhibit 10. 

Court: Well, the planning map is the one . .. go 

ahead. 

A. Do you want to point out to me on this map which areas 

we're concerned about? 

Q. Bounded by a creek on the east. A. Let me qualify 

one more thing. All three of the areas are outside the City 

of Charlotte and I stated in my statement on the stand that 

I examined only those thirty tracts which lie within the 

City of Charlotte. I made no examination of the areas. 

Here’s the city line right here, 15, 43, 39 . .. 

Court: Well, in order to get past that semantic 

difficulty, the school district includes the entire 

county. Will you examine the map that counsel is 

showing you and answer whatever questions he’s 

putting about the contents of the map. 

A. Area 15 is zoned R-9, I-2, R-6 and 1-2. All of the indus- 

trial zoning with the exception of one small part in the 

lower corner is in undeveloped land. The residential zon- 

 



  

2228 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Cross 

ing is in land presently residentially developed and a good 

deal of land which is undeveloped. 

Court: How big is that area? 

[602] A. The area we just looked at is this one which is 

bounded by Beatties Ford Road, Peachtree Road, Cobbs 

Hill something . .. 

Court: Mr. Waggoner, is there a scale on the map 

you have in your hand? 

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir, there is a scale. 

A. On here 2,000 feet to the inch, on this map. 

Mr. Waggoner: This one has a scale in thousands 

of feet and it appears that I would estimate 31% 

inches to each two miles, roughly, two inches to a 

mile. 

Q. Before you pass on from #15, I'll ask you if the resi- 

dential areas zoned R-6 do not adjoin Beatties Ford Road. 

A. Yes, it does. 
Q. Is that not a predominantly Negro community? A. I 

don’t know. 
Q. I'll ask you if the great bulk of map #15 is zoned 

industrial. A. I would say that half of it is zoned industrial. 

Q. And half residential, is that correct? A. That’s cor- 

rect. There is a buffer of office uses and multi-family uses 

running between the two. 

Q. All right, sir, I direct your attention next to zoning 

map #43. A. Zoning map #43 is on two sides of Bellhaven 

Blvd. With the exception of an entirely undeveloped area 

in the southern portion, the rest of it is zoned R-9 and R-12. 

   



223a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff —Cross 

I would estimate that the industrial zoning is about a fifth 

or a sixth [603] of the entire area. 

Court: Mr. Waggoner, to save a little confusion 

on my part will you give me the census tract num- 

bers of the areas that you have been asking him 

about which, I take it, you say involves some in- 

dustrial zoning. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, the only num- 

bers that appear here are 44 . . . 

Court: Let me see the little map you've got so I 

can get them in my hand, the one you have in your 

hand. 

Q. The map we have just discussed is what number? A. 
43. 

Court: This is not marked. Is this a part of the 
exhibit? 

Mr. Waggoner: This is my copy. This is the one 

that was in evidence, Your Honor. 

Q. I next direct your attention to zoning map 39. I'll ask 

you if probably 34 of that zoning map is zoned industrial. 

A. I'd say most of that zoning tract is zoned industrial, 

ves, and most of that zoning tract is also undeveloped and 

the areas which are developed are zoned R-6 and some of 

the undeveloped land is zoned R-9 multi-family. 

Q. I next direct your attention to zoning map #42. 

Court: Where is 39? 

Mr. Waggoner: This is 39. 

Court: Tell me what part of town. 
[604] Mr. Waggoner: This is on the Piedmont- 

Northern Railway and Bellhaven Blvd. 

 



  

224a 

Yale Rabin—for. Plawntiff—Cross 

Court: 43 is also in that neighborhood. 

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir. 15 is also there. 

Mr. Chambers: I'd like to interpose an objection 

to this because I don’t think it’s relevant to the testi- 

mony we were bringing out on the matter of racial 

housing patterns in the City of Charlotte. I would 

like to interpose that objection. We were talking 

about what action of the city within the City of 

Charlotte effected the housing patterns. We are 

confronted with the purple drawing on that overlay 

within the City of Charlotte. 
Mr. Waggoner: Some of the areas we have been 

discussing lie within the city limits. 

Court: It doesn’t make any difference whether 

they lie within or without. If any of it is relevant, 

all of it is. The school district is the county. Where 

the notion we're trying the city case alone arose, 

I don’t know. 
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, the question, though, 

is whether the racial housing patterns within the city 

have been developed through or encouraged by ac- 

tion of the city. 
Court: Do you want to try it on just that bald 

[605] proposition? 
Mr. Chambers: No, no. We have our great prob- 

lem right here in the City of Charlotte. 

Court: Granted. The objection is overruled. Go 

ahead. 

Q. With reference to #42, I'll ask you the area lying 

adjacent to the Piedmont and Northern Railway, how is 

it zoned? A. I see the Seaboard. Some of it is zoned 

industrial, some of it is zoned R-9 multi-family; I would 

say some of it is zoned business 1. The uses vary. Taking 

   



225a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff —Cross 

the frontage as a whole, I would say, oh, half or a little 

bit more is industrial and the other half is residential. 

Q. In this area I'd like to ask you about one further 

map, #39. Is there any industrial zoning in this zoning 

area? A. Yes, there is. 

Q. Would it be fair to say it’s roughly 15 to 1% of the 

area of this map? A. Yes. 

Q. So then we have clustered in zoning map areas 15, 

43, 42 and 39 substantial areas of industrial zoning, is this 

not correct? A. I think I pointed out in my testimony 

that large areas west of the line, which I pointed out, were 

planned for industrial use and these areas were in excess 

of the land now being used for industry. These areas that 

you picked are all in that area I discussed. 

Q. All right, sir. Now will you point out on the zoning 

map the [606] area of greatest concentration of Negroes 

within the county? A.I could do that more easily on the 

census tract map. 

Q. All right, sir, let’s take this one down. A. These 
areas in here. 

Q. You're referring to what census tract numbers? A. 

5, 47, 49, there is a concentration. Of course, the other 

thing that— 

Q. Will you just go ahead and list the numbers, please. 

A. The other point that has to be made is that concentra- 

tion doesn’t necessarily coincide with the boundary. 

Court: He’s asking you to read the map. 

A. I have pointed those out here and here, census tracts 

47, 5, 49. I have observed large concentrations in 8 and 

in:9. 

Court: When you talk about census tracts you 

lose me. If you’ll talk about where in the city. 

 



  

226a 

Yale Rabin—for Plamtiff —Cross 

A. 8 and 9 is the Villa Heights area; census tracts 5, 49, 

47, 46, 48 are the census tracts going roughly north from 

the central business district, University Park, Lincoln 

Heights, that area. This area is also concentrated. 

Court: Are you going by the color of the map? 

A. No, sir, I have been in Grier Heights. By the way, 

again there is a situation in which the non-white population 

does not coincide with the limits of the census tract itself. 

The non-white population is pretty much limited to the 

north side of whatever that road is. 

[6071 Court: Most of that is a big field, isn’t it? 

A. Yes. There is a park on the south side of the road and 

a good deal of undeveloped land and some ballfields down 

in here, but it gives a misleading impression of the distri- 

bution or population to put the shading in. 

Court: Griertown occupies a small portion of the 

north end of that census tract and the rest of it is un- 

developed land. 

A. Yes, sir. Well, there is developed land down here. 

Court: Most of the rest of it, then. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I specifically direct your attention to Census Tract 

#48, which encompasses the area of West Charlotte, 

Census Tract 46 which encompasses the school of Univer- 

sity Park, and Census Tract #47 which encompasses the 

part of the old Biddleville School area, and ask you if any 

   



227a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Cross 

one of those census tracts have been substantially zoned 
industrial by the Planning Commission. Please refer to 
your maps. A. Again we’d have to look back at the maps. 
Would you help me to identify the relative numbers in the 
other maps. Perhaps if you put one on the floor we can do 
that. 

Q. I direct your attention to zoning map 4. 

Court: Mr. Waggoner, you're looking at the 

zoning maps and he’s looking at the census tracts. 

A. We're trying to relate the two. 
[608] Q. Has some industrial zoning. . . . A. Not a 

whole lot, although the southern and eastern boundaries. 

Q. I'll ask you if it comprises as much as 10% of the 
zoning map. A. Oh, no. 

Q. So then in the heart of a predominantly Negro area 

we have all residential zoning, do we not? A. Surrounded 

by industrial zoning. 

Court: His question was whether the area he 

referred to is residentially zoned. 

A. I wouldn’t say without looking at some of the other . . . 

we have just looked at one of the maps. This particular 

zoning tract is predominantly residentially zoned. 

Court: How much of it is other than residential? 

Mr. Waggoner: We can read from the map the 

boundaries shown here. On zoning map #4 the 

northern boundary crosses U. S. Highway 29 bypass 

perhaps a quarter of a mile; then it follows along 

Newland Road to Erwin Creek, along Erwin Creek 

to West Trade Street. At West Trade Street it 

 



  

228a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff —Cross 

follows Tuckaseegee Road and then follows Pied- 

mont & Northern Railroad and then it follows 

Stewart Creek up to Hoskins Creek, which is the 

northern limit. If the Court please, it is roughly this 

area here. 

A. Actually it’s a piece right out of the center like that, 

comes right down there. It includes part of 48, just about 

all of [609] 46. . . . 

Q. You're referring to census tracts? A. Yes. This 

zoning tract 5 includes. . . . 

Court: I'll tell you what let’s do about that. These 

words will be meaningless to me apart from the 

maps and I think it would be far more useful if 

counsel would just take a map and point out the 

parts of the map they want the Court to consider, 

if this question is competent. I think I'm looking 

at what you're talking about and I think the blue 

area is an area which lies just to the right of the New 

Mount Holly Road, but I'm not certain, Highway 16. 

A little sliver of blue along the north side of Bell- 

haven Blvd., is that what you're talking about as the 

industrial encroachment within that industrial area? 

A. This area only has industrial, like that, at the very 

bottom of it. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we will relate 

this to school districts, if that would be helpful. 

Court: This map here, which was mentioned as 

being a portion of Exhibit 14, was identified, I think, 

as a map of the Planning Commission going back 

somewhere around 1960. 

   



229a, 

Yale Rabin—for Plaimtiff—Cross 

Mr. Waggoner: And they said these recommenda- 
tions were made and adopted almost without excep- 
tion. 

[610] A. T didn’t say that. I said they generally follow 
almost without exception. The zoning map in general re- 
flects the recommendations of the 1960 plans, only these 
particular maps. They specifically illustrate how it’s zoned. 
That map does not. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I would like 
to pursue this further in view of the statement that 
only Negroes will be displaced by the proposed zon- 
ing. It’s a laborious process. . . . 

A. IT didn’t say that. I said that the proposed industrial 
land is west of the line which I described. I did not say 
what you were saying. I said that there is a band of indus- 
{rial land... .. 

Court: Never mind repeating the testimony. You 
are illustrating the difficulty of having to try to 
manage testimony which is not testimony but de- 
scriptions of testimony, but I think it’s been helpful 
in understanding the maps. Go on and answer the 
rest of the questions. 

Q. With reference to Census Tract #53 I'll ask you if 
it isn’t substantially zoned industrial. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, that covers 
four zoning maps and I hate to put the Court to the 
time and delay on this. 

 



  

230a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff —Cross 

A. The zoning tract 18 includes most of 53, part of 14 and 

part of 13 and comes over to a line which is represented 

by Sugar [6111 Creek, so that this thing we're talking 

about, Sugar Creek is right here. 

Q. I'm asking you for the— A. That's #18, is that 

correct. 

Q. 18 covers part of it, yes. A. It covers more than all 

of it—excuse me, it doesn’t cover this bit of 53 at the very 

west of the section. 

Q. Can you relate that to the census tract? A. This is 

Tryon coming down here and that area is zoned, except 

for a bit in the south, almost entirely residential. 

Q. Would you say as much as 1, of that is zoned indus- 

trial? A. No, sir, I wouldn’t. 

Q. What percentage would you attribute to it? 

Court: What census tract are you in? 

A. This is a map covering 53, 14, 13— 

Q. You didn’t understand my question. I asked about 

Census Tract 53. A. That’s entirely residential. 

Q. I ask you to move closer to town towards census tract 

52, the next one in. 

Court: I'm confused by your answer that census 

tract 53 is entirely residential. 

A. Here is the map. 

Court: Youre looking at a different bunch of 

papers, go ahead. You're looking at a zoning map 

and I'm [612] asking about a census tract. 

A. Yes, I'm sorry. These in general are larger than the 

census tract maps and tend to include either more than one 

   



231a 

Yale Rabin—for Plamtiff—Cross 

tract or parts of several tracts, which this one does. It does 
not include the far eastern portion of tract #53, I mean 
west. It doesn’t include the far western portion of tract 53. 

Q. I'll ask you if the western portion of zoning map 18 
does not contain all industrial or substantially so. A. The 
western portion of tract #18 has home industrial zoning 
in the southwest corner. 

Q. Would you next go to zoning map #17, if you will, 
please. With reference to map #17, which as I understand 
it contains the western portion of Census Tract 53, I'll ask 
you if the greater portion of that zoning map is not zoned 
industrial. A. Yes, it is. 

Q. I'll ask you what the racial composition of Census 
Tract #53 is, I'll ask you if it isn’t less than 20% Negro? 
A. That may be so. I can’t tell by this map where those 
Negroes live. For example— 

Q. Will you just answer the question. 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I think the witness 

is entitled to explain his answer. 

Court: He hasn’t answered the question. 

A. I can’t say whether this portion or that portion is where 
the Negroes live. This census tract is on two zoning map 
sheets. 

[613] Court: All he’s asking you is what the pa- 
pers show, the same papers you have been testifying 
about. What do the papers show in response to his 
question? 

Q. I'll ask you if substantially developed residential 
areas are not zoned industrial. A. That’s correct. 

 



  

232a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff —Cross 

Q. This is an area having less than 20% Negro, is that 

correct? A. I don’t know that. The census tract has less 

than 20% Negro. This is only a portion of the census tract. 

Q. You may return to the stand, please, sir. (The witness 

does so.) 

Court: Which is the bigger unit, census tract or 

zoning map in most cases? 

A. Zoning map. 

Court: Zoning tracts are bigger than the census 

tracts? 

A, Yes, sir. 

Court: Just for comparison, let me see the zoning 

map you were just referring to. What was the num- 

ber of that? 

Mr. Waggoner: 17 and 18. 

Q. Is it fair to say that the proposed zoning or the zon- 

ing now in existence in the City of Charlotte includes 

industrial zoning for both black and white areas? A. Would 

you repeat that, please? 

Q. Is it fair to say that the industrial zoning in the zon- 

ing [614] area in the industrial areas include not only 

white but black neighborhoods? A. I'm not sure I under- 

stand what you mean by include. By include do you mean 

that they zone existing residential land for industrial use? 

Is that what you mean? 

Q. Yes. A. May I qualify my answer? 

Q. Certainly. If you answer the question first, then you 

may qualify it. A. The answer to the question is yes. My 

   



  

233a 

Yale Rabin—for Plawmtiff—Cross 

observations are that considerably more developed residen- 

tial land is taken from existing black resident areas than 

white. 

Q. Let me ask you this, are the value of the homes that 

have been newly zoned industrial, are these valuable homes 

in dollars and cents? A. This is going to depend entirely 

on demand. I think that the effect on adjacent homes is 

far more specific than the effect on homes which lie within 

the industrial area. 

Q. Are the homes that are located in proposed industrial 

areas homes of substantial value? A. This will vary. 

Q. Will you answer my question and then qualify it, 

please. A. In the inner area they are of less value than 

they are in the outlying, more expensive, recent subdivi- 

sions. Unless you mean are they of more value by virtue 

of the industrial [615] zoning. 

Q. No. I'm asking you if the homes that are physically 

within the industrial boundaries are not less valuable than 

the normal or average home in the City of Charlotte. A. 

I would say that generalization simply could not be made, 

since the industrial band runs over such a wide quality of 

housing. 

Q. You stated that you had gone around these homes 

and had seen them and you know the city. We'd like to get 

an answer to my question. A. I answered your question. 

I said I don’t think that it would be reasonable to gener- 

alize. 

Court: Do you have an opinion on the answer to 

the question that he put whether the land that was 

zoned industrial, whether the houses in industrial 

areas are more valuable or less valuable than houses 

in other areas? 

A. Generally less valuable. 

 



  

234a 

Yale Rabin—for Plamtiff—Cross 

Q. Thank you. Now, the proposed industrial zoning 

roughly follows the existing rail lines in this city, does it 

not? A. Not all of it. It follows some of them along great 

parts of their length and it follows some of them only at 

intermittent locations. 

Q. Is it not true that in your study of Charlotte that the 

industrial location along the main line of the Southern Rail- 

way [616] starting at Concord and going to Gastonia or 

Columbia, as the case may be, had industrial developments 

along them since the railroads came here? A. That’s his- 

torically true but not necessarily good planning. 

Q. I'll ask you if it is not normal to expand existing in- 

dustrial areas rather than spot them all over the city. 

A. I made no suggestion about spotting them. I am merely 

suggesting that historical trends, which directly related 

all industry to waterways or rail lines, no longer applies 

to modern practices in industry and many industries no 

longer require any direct proximity to those kinds of 

transportation facilities. That’s all I’m suggesting. 

Q. Is it not true that many businesses do require access 

to rail? A. Some businesses do, yes. 

Q. Is it not also desirable to build your interstate high- 

ways and circulators in areas that have a lower land cost? 

A. TI don’t believe it’s desirable to run an interstate high- 

way through a city. There’s no reason for it. 

Q. Then you would differ with the city planners in that 

aspect of the plans? A. Yes, sir, yes, sir. 

Q. Do you see a conscious design to further separate the 

races by barriers of highways? A. I wouldn’t speculate 

about that. 

Q. With reference to the displaced people who were 

moved out of [617] Brooklyn, are you familiar with the 

Urban Renewal in Brooklyn? A. Yes, sir. 

   



235a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff —Cross 

Q. Where these people went and where they stayed are 

two different things, are they not? A. I don’t know that, 
no. 

Q. As an urban planner you find that the lower income 

people are substantial movers, do you not? A. I find that 

lower income people are substantially moved by public 

action, yes, repeatedly. 

Q. And you're saying that any time a low income person 

moves it’s because of some governmental action? A. No, 

sir, I didn’t say that. I said that I find that low income 

people are repeatedly moved by public action such as 

Urban Renewal, code enforcement, highway construction, 

eminent domain proceedings for all kinds of public facil- 

ities. 

Q. You mentioned code enforcement. Is this not an at- 

tempt on the part of governing authorities to upgrade the 

type of home these people live in? A. Not necessarily. It’s 

an attempt to prevent people from living in substandard 

housing. It’s not necessarily an attempt to upgrade their 

housing or that house. The object and, in fact, the result 

is very often the demolition of the property in which the 

people live and their displacement. 

Q. Did you see the kind of homes people were living in 

in Brooklyn? A. No, sir, I didn’t. It was torn down 

largely before I got here. [618] However, I have seen some 

of the homes they have been relocated into. 

Q. Have you seen the homes they are living in in Biddle- 

ville? A. I don’t know that area specifically so I couldn’t 

say. 

Q. Have you seen the kind of homes they are living in 

in Barringer Woods? A. Yes. 

Q. Have you examined the kind of homes that are in 

the West Charlotte School District area? A. No, I don’t 

 



  

236a 

Yale Rabin—for Plawntiff—Cross 

know the West Charlotte School District area specifically 

so I couldn’t say. 

Q. I'll ask you if you didn’t find some excellent homes 

in all Negro districts. A. Yes, sir, of course. 

Q. Now, in the course of your examination of the records 

in this case— 

Court: Mr. Waggoner, you think you'll be at this 

for some time? 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I have about 

twenty more minutes I’d like to pursue. 

Court: I’m agreeable to staying with it until we 

finish with Mr. Rabin or coming back at 2:00 o’clock, 

whichever you gentlemen prefer. I'd rather finish 

now if it can be done without pressing anybody. 

Mr. Chambers: I'd like to do it. 
[619] Mr. Barkley: I spoke to the Court Friday 

and I told the Court again this morning— 

Court: We opened court early hoping we could 

get through before you had to leave, Mr. Barkley. 

If and when you have to leave, you may go. We'll 

continue right now and you feel free to go when you 

have to. 

Q. Now, in your study of the history of location of homes 

in or near industries, do you find that industry always 

follows the homes into a community? A. No, not mneces- 

sarily. 

Q. Are you familiar with the fact that Charlotte was 

surrounded by a number of outlying mills which have now 

been incorporated in the city limits? A. No, I am not. 

Q. So you have no real opinion as to how the areas be- 

came industrial, whether they were residential and then 

   



237a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Cross 

became industrial or were industrial and the residents 
Just came to them, are you? A. I would assume— 

Court: The question is what you know, not what 
you assume. 

A. Repeat the question, please. 

Q. Read the question back, please. 

(The Court Reporter reads the question on Line 15 
above.) 

A. I have an opinion, yes. 

[620] Q. What is your opinion? A. My opinion is that 
the early development was that industry and the housing 
of people who worked in it developed side by side years ago. 

Q. This was the mill village concept, was it not? A. 
Yes. 

Q. Does not industry often seek the lowest cost building 
to tear down and locate on the land? 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I object to that. 
Mr. Waggoner: He’s an industrial planner or ur- 

ban planner. 

Court: Overruled. 

A. First of all, IT have no knowledge that industry seeks 
buildings to tear down. I am aware that industry has to 
seek land in industrially zoned areas and I am aware that 
industrially zoned land with any kind of a building on it 
is going to cost more than similarly zoned land without 
any building on it. Therefore, it seems quite reasonable 
that industry seeking to locate would seek to locate on land 
on which they don’t have to incur the expense of tearing 
down an existing building. 

 



  

238a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff—Cross 

Q. Do I understand you to say—and this is without qual- 

ification—that industry will pay more for undeveloped 

land no matter where it’s located? A. I didn’t say any- 

thing resembling that. I said customarily land with no 

buildings on it—in fact, I said the opposite—[621] land 

with no buildings on it customarily costs more than sim- 

larly zoned and located land with existing buildings on it 

that must be torn down. If I’ve got to buy a building site 

and I can buy a piece of vacant land for X-dollars and I 

can buy a similarly located piece of land with buildings on 

it that I have to pay for and then have to bear the expense 

of tearing down, I'm going to buy the less expensive vacant 

land on which to build. 

Court: Have you ever bought any industrial land? 

A. No, sir. 

Court: Let’s go on to something that he’s supposed 

to know about. 

Q. As an urban planner have you found that Negro fami- 

lies ordinarily have more children than white families? 

Mr. Chambers: Objection. That has absolutely no 

relevance. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, Barringer 

School was criticized for— 

Court: The objection is overruled. Go ahead and 

answer the question, if you know. 

A. I find that Negro families have about the same number 

of children as white Catholic families. 

   



239a 

Yale Rabin—for Plamtiff—Cross 
Q. What about an urban southern Protestant commu- 

nity? A. Fertility does seem to be a bit lower among the 
white folks down here. 

[622] Court: I think taking the state at large it 
was about 5.2 children per family twenty years ago. 
I don’t know what it is now. Can you answer his 
question? 

A. Well, taking census figures as a generalization about 
3.10 is white family average size, about 3.8 average black 
family size. 

Q. So you will find in a changing neighborhood from 
white to black that there is usually some taxing of the 
school facility, don’t you? A. If young families with chil- 
dren are moving in, yes. If you are displacing elderly 
people and white families with children are moving out, 
you might have the opposite effect. This would depend on 
the age range in which the people are who are being dis- 
placed. 

Court: Is this asking you for an answer to a 
question that you don’t know the answer to? 

A. I think that the question is not worded in specific 
enough terms. 

Court: Let’s go on to another question. We can 
look up the birth rate if we need to, Mr. Waggoner. 
I had sixteen aunts and uncles at one time on one 
side so I don’t believe the birth rate inquiry is 
going to point to anything material. 

Q. One further thing. You're aware of the fact that 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit #4 does not purport to be a study of 

 



  

240a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff —Redirect 

the entire City [6231 of Charlotte. A. Identify Plain- 

tiff’s Kxhibit 4. 

Q. This is the overlay we referred to. A. Well, this is 

true but I have looked at the census data and have it here 

and if it needs to be made an exhibit, possibly it can be. 

This lists all of the census districts and the percentages 

of their white and non-white population. 

Q. And you are familiar with the fact that the publica- 

tion called Blighted Areas September, 1962, did not pur- 

port to be a study of the entire city, too. A. That’s cor- 

rect. It’s a study of blighted areas. 

Q. It only studied certain census tracts that were desig- 

nated in there, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. I don’t know 

the exact proportion. As the map in the beginning shows, 

it substantially covers the entire western part of the city. 

Q. You read the preface to the study, did you not? A. 

I don’t recall it. Yes, I did read it but I couldn’t quote 

from it without looking at it. 

Q. These two rather incomplete studies form a substan- 

tial part of the conclusions you have drawn, do they not? 

A. Plus my observations. I rather extensively have driven 

around and through the eastern sections of the city as well. 

Mr. Waggoner: No further questions. 

[6241 Redirect Examination by Mr. Chambers: 

Q. One question, Mr. Rabin. You say that that blighted 

area map considers only those areas in the western side? 

A. 1 didn’t say that. I said that it covers all of the western 

section. It reaches over, as you can see, into the central 

business district area and over to include Griertown, but 

other than that it’s substantially the entire western portion 

of the city. 

   



241a 

Yale Rabin—for Plaintiff —Recross 

Q. Does it follow somewhat, too, the same belt you were 

talking about running from south to north? A. Yes, sir, 

it does. 

Mr. Chambers: Nothing further. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I'd like to 

ask him just a few more questions. 

Recross Examination by Mr. Waggoner: 

Q. You are familiar with the fact that the City of Char- 
lotte has a land area of approximately 64.8 miles, are you 
not? A. I am now, if that is so. 

Q. I'll ask you if Washington, D.C., does not have a 

land area of approximately 62 square miles. A. Thats 
true. 

Q. So Charlotte is a bigger land area than Washington, 
DC. A Nes. 

Mr. Waggoner: No further questions. 

[625] Mr. Chambers: Nothing further. 

Court: Mr. Rabin, thank you very much for 
coming. 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I’d like to make sure 

we have all our exhibits back before the Court. 

Court: You probably would like to take all ex- 

hibits on the bench here and put them altogether. 

Do the defendants have any further evidence? 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I am consid- 

ering two exhibits here which are taken from the 

American Jurisprudence Lawyers Desk Book. It 

shows the population of land areas of the various 

cities for comparison purposes. We also have the 

areas of the states and the only purpose there is to 

show the land area of the District of Columbia. 

 



  

242a 

Colloquy 

Court: All right. Have you got the land area 

of this school district? 

Mr. Waggoner: 542 square miles. 

Mr. Chambers: We’ll stipulate that but I don’t 

know the relevance of the land area for Washington. 

Mr. Waggoner: Your witness had a lot to say 

about school district and we wanted to show that he 

had a rather small area. 

Court: The Washington district has about 45% 

more pupils than the Charlotte-Mecklenburg District. 

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir. 
Court: Roughly half again as many in Washing- 

ton. 

[626] Mr. Waggoner: We will offer these. 

Court: Some question came up about the census 

figures. Is there in this batch of exhibits anything 

which shows how many people lived in these vari- 

ous census tract areas when the 1960 census was 

made? 
Mr. Chambers: It shows the percentage of non- 

white residents in the various census tracts. We 

didn’t introduce a copy of the 1960 census. 

Court: How about somebody introducing that. 

Mr. Chambers: All right. Your Honor, this is 

shown in this document giving the facts and figures 

of the population and economic data for the City of 

Charlotte dated March, 1968. We would like permis- 

sion to introduce a copy of the 1960 census. 

Court: I would appreciate it if you would. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we would like 

to introduce a composite exhibit, Defendant’s Ex- 

hibit #9, which indicates the population of the 

United States cities over 100,000 people and also 

   



243a 

Colloquy 

contains a land area designation. 

Court: Is that the latest figures? 
Mr. Waggoner: This is 1960. These are the latest 

figures that we have. 

Court: Well, the World Almanac has a lot of 
those figures up to date. 

Mr. Wagonner: We will substitute if that will be 
all [627] right. 

Mr. Chambers: It's my understanding, too, that 
there is a supplement dated 1968 to the 1960 census 

Mr. Rabin: I understand that there has been 
some annexation since 1960 so that any figures which 
the ’60 census might give as the population of 
Charlotte would be distorted to the extent that the 
area has been added to and additional population 
not caused by migration or birth. 

Court: Current estimates, taking those things 
into account, run about 255 or 260 thousand in the 
city limits and a third of a million in the county. 
If somebody has got the latest dope on that, I'd like 

to have it for whatever use it may be. 
Mr. Rabin: Any data which is taken from the ’60 

census should then include those tracts which in 1960 
were outside the city but which now by annexation 
have been included so you would get a true picture 
of the area we're talking about. 

Court: As a matter of curiosity I looked up the 
population of Rhode Island and found that it’s un- 
doubtedly considerably less now than the popula- 
tion of Charlotte. It was about 10,000 more nine 
years back and the witness said it wasn’t growing, 
so I suppose Charlotte is about a fourth again as 
big as Providence. 

 



  

244a 

Colloquy 

Mr. Waggoner: They have an 18 square mile 

school district, though. 17.9 is the area of Provi- 

dence. 
[628] Court: I want to keep this record open a 

little while and if there is no objection, I'll keep it 

open until further notice. I may find in studying 

these data that there is a lot of other information 

that is readily available from public sources that 

ought to be looked at. I doubt that I will discover 

anything really pertinent that isn’t somewhere in 

the mass of exhibits. The record will remain open 

and if either of you discover you'd like to introduce 

or have the Court consider something, the record 

will be open until further notice for that purpose. 

Is the pupil assignment plan fully described in the 

exhibits? 

Mr. Chambers: The present one, Your Honor? 

Court: The present one. It’s portions of your Ex- 

hibit 1, I know. The items I have in mind are the 

answers to interrogatories 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, I guess. 

Mr. Waggoner: Your Honor, we have a publica- 

tion that is given to the schools called Pupil Assign- 

ment Guidelines. 

Court: How about introducing that so I can study 

it if I don’t get the answers to the questions. 

Mr. Wagonner: We will offer Pupil Assignment 

Guidelines June, 1967, as Defendant’s Exhibit 10. 

Court: There is also a paper on faculty assign- 

ment which is the answer to interrogatory #8 and 

there is a [6291 good deal of testimony on that 

subject. Is there any other learning on the subject 

of employing and assigning teachers that I ought 

to know about? 

   



245a 

Colloquy 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, there was an amend- 
ment to the North Carolina General Statutes in 
1967. What we hope to do, with the Court’s per- 
mission, is to submit to the Court on Monday a 
brief setting forth our position relative to the whole 
suit along with proposed findings and we would in 
that brief call the Court’s attention to the General 
Statutes applicable to teacher employment, 

Court: All right. The only information we have 
in the record on transportation is that the 23,000 
county pupils being transported with a day to day 
cost of about $19.00 a year, plus the initial outlay 
for buses. Are there any more figures on that sub- 
ject that would be of any particular pertinence? 

Mr. Chambers: I don’t think so, Your Honor. It 
might be that we could secure from the City bus 
company the number of students who are trans- 
ported to and from school each day. 

Court: That figure is in one of the exhibits that 
the defendants produced, 23,000. 

Mr. Chambers: I'm talking about on the City 
buses rather than on the school buses. There is 
some testimony in the record that some of the stu- 
dents within the city who are not entitled to ride 
the school buses are being transported to [630] 
school by the Charlotte City buses. 
Court: At city expense? 

Mr. Chambers: No, at their own expense. I said 
that might be of some relevance but we didn’t get 
those figures before. 

Court: If the School Board wanted to go into the 
business of transporting more children, wouldn’t 
they have to face the problem with either the Legis- 

 



  

246a 

Colloquy 

lature or constitution to get the money for that 

purpose? 

Mr. Chambers: Unless the School Board decided 

to provide local funds for that purpose. The present 

statute does not authorize students within the city 

to be transported on the regular basis and if the 

School Board decided to get into the business of 

transporting students, they would either have to 

provide funds locally or go to the Legislature and 

get some statutory amendment. I know there is 

presently pending before Judge Stanley a suit 

challenging the statute of the state refusing to give 

transportation for students within the city. 

Court: I was wondering if that issue was being 

tested or proposed to be tested because you ask your- 

self why the state would take money from the cities 

and spend it purely on the basis of whether you 

live within or without a municipality. 

Mr. Chambers: It is being challenged now. The 

case [6311 was argued and submitted to Judge 

Stanley. 

Court: He didn’t tell you how he was going to 

rule, did he? 

Mr. Chambers: I didn’t participate in the case. 

The case was brought by the American Civil Liber- 

ties Union. 

Court: Is it a suit to restrain the spending of 

money to transport rural pupils? 

Mr. Chambers: It’s a suit to enjoin the State from 

continuing to appropriate funds to transport stu- 

dents in the county unless it provides bus transpor- 

tation for students in the city. It’s really an affirma- 

tive suit to get bus transportation for students in 

the city. 

   



247a 

Colloquy 

Court: I don’t suppose there’s any need in my 
racking my brains to think of any further questions. 
I'll remember the other questions after we've all 
broken up, but I will feel free to call counsel on both 
sides for any further information necessary if any- 
thing else develops that appears to be of value. 
Mr. Hicks reads more law than I do and he very 
correctly says have you given me already the names 
of the cases you think are the leading cases and I 
ought to get familiar with them? 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we plan to present 
those on Monday. What we were hoping to do in 
the brief was to try to trace the basis of our con- 
tentions and set out the authority we think would 
support what we are suggesting here. There [632] 
have been two recent Fifth Circuit opinions that in- 
volved areas here. The names escape me but I'll 
be glad to call Mr. Hicks and give them to him. 
They are not printed yet in the report. 

Court: Is there anything later or farther out than 
the sentence I was quoting to you this morning from 
the Fourth Circuit opinion? 

Mr. Chambers: There is a case out of Illinois. 
Court: I mean from the Supreme Court or from 

the Fourth Circuit. 
Mr. Chambers: Not from the Supreme Court. 

There’s nothing later than the Green case. 
Court: I read the 180,000 word opinion and I 

didn’t see anything in it that was any farther out 
than that little vague suggestion in the second 
Brewer case. That’s what you're basing this morn- 
ing’s evidence on, the Brewer case, isn’t it? 

Mr. Chambers: That’s correct. 

 



248a 

Colloquy 

Court: That’s where they said the District Court 

should consider these things. 

Mr. Chambers: We would contend that it ought 

not make any difference whether there had been 

diserimination or not in the sale or rental of houses, 

that as long as you have this kind of housing pattern 

it ought to require that something else be done. 1 | 

was thinking of a case in Mississippi. They [633] 

had a situation where whites staying on one side of 

town and Negroes on the other and they had a 

railroad running through the town as the dividing 

line and the School Board said we're going to inte- 

grate and drew school district lines right down the 

railroad track. That case went on for about eight 

years and the court decided they have to do more 

than that. There was no inquiry in the court 

whether this housing pattern developed from pri- 

vate or public discrimination. 

Court: I thought a week ago when I suggested to 

you that I didn’t think this type of evidence was 

material that it didn’t make any difference as far 

as present living is concerned whether it got into 

this situation through one reason or another. The 

second Brewer opinion, which I didn’t have in mind 

at that time, suggests that might make a difference. 

T'm not sure that it’s good law. I’m not sure that 

we ought to have to go back and examine the think- 

ing of everybody who had a little part in the present 

social situation in order to reach a conclusion as to 

whether something can or can’t be done about it. 

Mr. Chambers: It makes for difficult inquiry but 

that’s what the court indicated might be done. 

Court: I'm not sure that I agree with Judge Butz- 

ner’s suggestion there. Well, unless there is some- 

   



249a 

Colloquy 

thing further on this we’ll meet again Friday after- 

noon. I [634] believe, isn’t it, on the Anson County 

case? 

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. Mr. Stein will be here 

Friday afternoon and I’ll be ready to go with the 

court to Anson County Saturday morning. 

Court: We had some fool notion such as that and 

I think we may follow through on it. Do you have 

evidence to present in the Anson County case? 

Mr. Chambers: It’s all taken in depositions and I 

think we can probably close the case in about an 

hour. 

Court: Have the depositions been filed? 

Mr. Chambers: They have not been filed, Your 

Honor. Mrs. Ferster took the depositions and she 

was completing the depositions for this case and 

she’s working on the depositions for that case. Your 
Honor, I have one final thing. 

Mr. Waggoner: I just read this. 

Mr. Chambers: He knows what they are. These 

are principals’ preliminary reports for 1968-69 and 

they have been certified by Mr. William Peak, the 

Director of Statistical Service for the State Depart- 

ment of Public Instruction. 

Court: What am I supposed to do. . .. 

Mr. Chambers: We're going to decipher that for 

you, Your Honor, and tell you what we're trying to 

show you. This is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 44. 

Mr. Wagonner: I have never seen these. It would 

be helpful to us to know what they contend. They 

are presented [635] at the tail end of the case and 

then great conclusions are going to be drawn from 

them. I have no idea what he’s driving at. It seems 

 



  

250a 

Colloquy 

to me that we're entitled to some fair notice of what 

is involved in this lawsuit. 
Mr. Chambers: Mr. Wagonner, we came by your 

office and went over all these exhibits and that in- 

cluded that. We had to order that from the State 

Department. 

Court: I’ve been trying to find out what you want 

the Court to do for a week. 
Mr. Chambers: Well, we tried to set out at the 

beginning of the hearing a statement of our basic 

contentions and what we would like the Court to do. 

We will try to set it out more extensively in a brief. 

We will try to file it by Monday. 
Mr. Waggoner: It puts us to the point of prepar- 

ing a brief on each little inference that might be 

drawn from this evidence. Would it be possible to 

get their brief and then, in effect, have an answer 

for it so we know what they’re driving at. 
Court: I’m thinking this might be more useful to 

everybody because if we do this, it will put the 

plaintiffs under the burden of being concrete instead 

of general in their request for relief. I don’t want 

to stretch out the completion of the lawyer’s part 

of the handling of this phase of the case, but I do 

think [6361 it might be well to have a little gap 

between your filing of your request for findings of 

fact and proposed order and brief and the filing by 

the defendants. Are you going to be able to make 

the Monday time? 
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we are going to try. 

I am going to plan to start working on it tonight. 

Court: Let’s modify that original arrangement to 

this extent, that you will be expected to file by Mon- 

   



251a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Direct 

day or show good reason for not doing it and that 

the defendants will have five days after that to file 

their own requested findings. Does that take a little 

of the strain off of everybody? 

Mr. Wagonner: Yes, sir. 

Court: Let’s take a recess. 

RECESS 

Wednesday, March 26, 1969— 

Mr. Wagonner: At this time we would like to 

examine Mr. William McIntyre. 

  

WirLiam E. McINTYRE, a witness for the defendant, hav- 
ing first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as 
follows: 

Direct Examination by Mr. Wagonner : 

Q. Will you give us your name and residence, please, sir? 
A. William E. McIntyre, 200 Middleton Drive, Charlotte. 

[6371 Q. What is your official position with the Char- 

lotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission? A. Planning 
Director. 

Q. How long have you held that position? A. Since Jan- 
uary, 1955. 

Q. What is your educational background? A. I gradu- 

ated the University of Michigan 1938. I took post-graduate 

work there the following year. 

Q. Have you held prior employment before coming to 

Charlotte in 1955? A. Yes. Before I came to Charlotte 

in 1955 I was employed by the Cleveland City Planning 

 



  

252a 

William E. Mclntyre—for Defendant—Direct 

Commission, Cleveland, Ohio, as a City Planner. Before 

that I was employed by the Tennessee State Planning Com- 

mission as a City Planner. 

Q. What was the condition of zoning in the City of Char- 

lotte when you came here in 1955? A. In 1955 when I came 

here the City of Charlotte was zoned. It was zoned by an 

ordinance enacted by the City Council in 1947. 

Q. Do you know how the 1947 zoning was developed? 

A. I know from having been told by various people who 

were here on the scene when I came in 1955 who were also 

on the scene in 1947. I have not had any direct contact 

with the people who prepared the 1947 ordinance but with 

people who were associated with people who prepared it. 

Q. Would you tell us what you know of 1947 zoning? 

[638] A. The 1947 zoning plan was prepared by an engi- 

neer who was employed by the city. I believe the man’s 

name was Marshall, and the zoning ordinance that he pre- 

pared covered the city as it existed at that time. The ordi- 

nance was a fairly simple one as compared to the ordinance 

we have today in that it established fewer classifications 

of uses than we now have. It had two residential districts, 

I think it had two business districts and two industrial 

districts, I believe. 

Q. In that zoning code, as I understand it, residence could 

be built in industrial zomes, is that correct? A. That's 

right. 

Q. Now, did your office engage in any efforts to improve 

on the 1947 zoning? A. Yes. One of our basic purposes 

after we started our planning operation in 1955 was to 

prepare a general development plan for the city and the 

perimeter area that had been established around the city 

at that time, to prepare a general development plan, which 

is a guide to growth and development and then, on the 

   



253a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Direct 

basis of that general development plan, to establish zoning 

as one means of carrying out the plan. 

Q. What criteria did you use zoning in preparing the 
new code with reference to residential housing? A. Well, 
we used a variety of criteria. Basically, of course, as in 
most zoning, we started off with surveys and studies of 
the community as it existed at that time so that we would 
[639] understand what types of development were located 
where. This naturally covered the residential sections of 
the area as they were established at that time. We sur- 
veyed these residential areas, not only to find out where 
residential neighborhood and development was located but 
also to find out the kind of development that it was in 
terms of density. We have a fairly wide range of residen- 
tial densities here and we wanted to establish residential 
categories of densities via the zoning ordinance that would 
be compatible with the residential development that was on 
the ground at that time insofar as possible, and then we 
wanted to plan for the expansion and enlargement of the 
established residential areas to accommodate the new and 
additional population that we expected to see come into 
the community out to the year 1980. 

Q. Now, as I understand it the criteria for zoning in a 
large part were dictated by the existing land uses, is that 

correct? A. Yes, to a very large extent they were diec- 

tated by land use. They were predominantly determined by 

the existing land use where we were dealing with large, 

built-up and established urban areas. 

Q. Would this be true not only for residential but office 
and business and industrial categories? A. It was true, 
certainly, for office, business and industrial categories, but 
I think we always have to keep in mind that we are not 

only planning for what is there but also for what [640] 

 



  

254a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Direct 

is to come with the growth and development of the com- 

munity. But certainly our zoning plan was guided very 

much by the types of development, industrial, business or 

office, that we found in various locations at that time. 

Q. What effect, if any, did the industrial zoning pro- 

posed and subsequently adopted have with reference to the 

1947 industrial zoning areas? A. There was a very sub- 

stantial cut-back from industrial zoning to residential zon- 

ing particularly as it related to some of the residential 

areas that were already established in the community. We 

found that quite a few areas that were established as resi- 

dential sections had been zoned as industrial areas by the 

1947 ordinance and we were concerned to forestall the 

invasion of industrial development into these areas by 

changing the zoning of those areas from industrial to resi- 

dential. 

Q. Would it be fair to say that you substantially reduced 

the amount of industrial zoning in the residential areas? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Do you have in mind any particular areas? A. Well, 

I remember that the section known as Greenville was en- 

tirely zoned industrial by the 1947 ordinance and we elim- 

inated most of the industrial zoning that covered that area. 

The section known as Brooklyn in the city was entirely 

zoned industrial by the 1947 ordinance and we eliminated 

that [641] industrial zoning and changed it to combination 

of business and office zoning in view of the forthcoming 

redevelopment of that particular area that was known at 

that time. We changed from industrial to residential some 

sections of First Ward also. 

Q. With reference to the 1947 zoning code, were there 

substantial inroads of industry to residential areas? A. 

No, I don’t think there was very substantial inroads of 

   



  

255a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Direct 

industry into the residential areas, particularly those that 
I have described. We changed from an industrial zoning 
to a residential zoning. 

Q. In coming up with your present zoning map were 
racial considerations involved to any degree? A. No. 

Q. I next hand you a map from Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12, 
which is captioned General Development Plan, which I un- 
derstand to be the twenty year projection of zoning for 
your office. I'll ask you if the zoning indicated on that map 
is substantially identical with existing zoning in the City 
of Charlotte and perimeter area. A. I think I must cor- 
rect the impression of what this map is. This is not a 
zoning map so I can’t respond to your question which im- 
plied that this is a zoning map. This is a general develop- 
ment plan map. It is an indication of the planned uses of 
land and of the major traffic arteries that would be [642] 
compatible with and would serve the planned uses of land. 
This map provided us with the basis to formulate zoning 
for the area on a planned basis, on the basis of an estab- 
lished plan for the community. Now, I’ve forgotten your 
question. 

Q. All right, sir. With reference to the area in blue 
which the legend indicates to be commercial and industrial 
are these blue areas substantially identical with the exist- 
ing zoning ordinances of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning 
Commission? A. Very substantially. There are some 
changes, few changes here and there, but they are com- 
paratively small in the context of the total industrial zoning 
scheme. 

Q. Would there be as much as a 5% deviation from this? 
A. Possibly. I don’t think it would be much more. 

Q. Is the business zoning or business land use indicated 
on this map substantially in accordance with existing zon- 
ing? A. I think substantially, yes. 

 



  

256a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Direct 

Q. With reference to residential, is it substantially in 

accordance with existing zoning? A. Substantially, yes. 

Q. Does this general development plan reasonably depict 

the existing zoning in the City of Charlotte today? A. 

Yes. I think it should be pointed out, however, again that 

this is a general development plan and the zoning is much 

more specific and much more precise with respect to indi- 

vidual properties. The zoning is developed on a much more 

detailed [643] map. As a matter of fact, it’s developed on 

about 63 or 68 section sheets where we can see every lot 

and every last street in some detail. Also I think it ought 

to be pointed out another difference between this map and 

the other zoning is that this map proposed residential areas 

in general. The zoning map specifies what kind of residen- 

tial areas in terms of single family, multi-family and in 

terms of the density of the residential areas. 

Court: You say this map shows all residential 

areas in the same color whereas the zoning is in 

grades of residence. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: Concentration? 

A. Right. 

Court: The substantial portions of this are in yel- 

low, are they? 

A. Yes, gir, 

Q. Do you employ zoning districts in preparation of 

zoning? A. Yes. We establish a district structure as a 

basis for zoning the area. 

   



257a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Direct 

Q. With reference to your general map, which indicates 
area 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on, are these zoning districts? A. 
You're not referring to this map. 

Q. No. A. Yes. Those maps do show zoning districts. 
[644] Q. Would you give me a definition of zoning dis- 

tricts as used by your office? A. A zoning district is an 
area in which there are specific regulations established for 
that district that are different from the regulations that 
are established for other districts. By way of illustration 
in terms of residential zoning districts, in the present ordi- 
nance we have R-6 districts, R-9, R-12, R-15. 

Court: What do those mean? 

A. The R-6 district means that a minimum lot size is re- 

quired for a residence— 

Court: Yes, I remember. That 6 indicates lot 
area in thousands of square feet. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: If a piece of land is zoned R-6 it means 
that any single family house in that area has got to 
have 6000 feet of real estate under it. 

A. Yes, sir. Also, continuing in response to your question, 
using the same structure, R-6, R-9, R-12, within each of 
these districts there are different dimensional requirements 
that are established for set-back of buildings, amount of 
yard space, offsets from side and rear property lines, and 
to some extent there are differences in uses permitted 
within the district, although the district is essentially a 
residential one. 

 



  

258a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Direct 

[645] Q. As I understand the zoning maps maintained 

in the Building Inspection Office, there is a key map and 

then there are pages within that book. Are these zoning 

districts? A. Yes. 

Q. Bach one of the pages would be a separate zoning dis- 

trict? A. Oh, no. Each page shows the zoning of the 

territory that is on that page. Now, on one page you may 

have quite a number of different types of zoning districts. 

In other words, the maps aren’t structured, the area isn’t 

divided up by a set of maps showing only one district on 

a map. The area is divided up by geographic sections and 

then the map shows whatever zoning districts happen to 

fall within that section of the community. 

Q. Would it be fair to say these are conveniently sized 

areas that will fit on one of the zoning map pages? A. 

Yes. 

Court: District is the term to indicate the use of 

the land instead of a general geographical section of 

the city. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: You may have an R-1 district adjacent to 

an office and business district in the next block. 

A. Right. 

Court: But it would all show on one section of the 

zoning map. 

[6461 A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. McIntyre, some criticism has been made of this 

existing zoning, stating that an industrial buffer zone sep- 

   



259a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Direct 

arates the southeastern and northeastern parts of the city. 
Why does this industrial zone exist through the center of 
the community? A. Well, the industrial zoning exists 
through the center of the community for many reasons. 
Many of these reasons, of course, are historical ones. 
Through the center of the city and running practically 
parallel with the industrial zones that divide the city, 
yowll notice that we have one, two, three or more major 
traffic arteries that parallel this so-called industrial buffer 
zone, which I think is not a buffer zone. Also some of the 
mainline railroads, particularly the Southern Railway and 
the Norfolk & Southern Railroad, traverse this corridor. 
The existence of the railroads through that area for a 
great number of years resulted in a fair amount of indus- 
try concentrating within that corridor. When we did the 
surveys for the land development plan that we have here 
and for the zoning that followed it, we found a very sub- 
stantial amount of industry already established in that cor- 
ridor that cuts across the city from northeast to southwest. 
The fact that the industry was already there really estab- 
lished the core of this feature. It was really on the ground 
before any comprehensive planning was done in the area. 

Q. I next direct your attention to the area south of 
Wilkinson [647] Blvd. which is zoned industrial. What 
criteria were used in establishing that as an industrial 
area? A. Three criteria, or four, really. One, existing 
industrial uses in the area; two, a railroad practically 
paralleling Wilkinson Blvd. to the south. Wilkinson Blvd. 
itself is a heavy duty traffic artery which is an asset for 
industrial development, to bring the heavy concentrations 
of traffic into and out of the industrial area, and is a highly 
useful facility for industrial development in that corridor; 
and finally, on the westerly side of the area south of Wil- 

 



260a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Direct 

kinson Blvd. and south of the Southern Railway you will 

notice that’s the location of the airport and the airport 

with its noise and industrial character dictated that the 

land immediately north of the airport be used for industry 

rather than for residence which would have been bothered 

considerably by the noise emanating from the airport and 

the aircraft flying overhead. 

Q. I next direct your attention to the area bounded 

roughly by Graham Street, Interstate 85 and Statesville 

Road. What criteria were used in establishing that as an 

industrial area? A. That area had several characteristics 

that in our judgment indicated it would be better used for 

industry than residence. On the Statesville side of the 

area there had long been established a city dump which 

would not make the area very suitable for residential devel- 

opment in the immediate proximity. [648] The southerly 

portion of the area there was established Attando Indus- 

trial Park. North Graham Street and the Southern Rail- 

road on the easterly side of the area provided a plus for 

industrial development and use, and Interstate 85 also pro- 

vided a useful facility for the industrial type development. 

Q. When this area was zoned was there any substantial 

residential development in this area? A. There was scat- 

tered residential development in this area. It was quite 

scattered, very thin, and taking the area as a whole, it was 

essentially a vacant area. 

Q. I next direct your attention to the area bounded 

roughly by Piedmont & Northern Railway and N.C 16 

and the contiguous area zoned industrial and ask you what 

criteria were used in zoning that area industrial. A. Again, 

our industrial zoning was in part conditioned on the fact 

that there was industrial development in the area at the 

time. The area is traversed by two railroads, Piedmont & 

   



261a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Direct 

Northern Railroad and the Seaboard Railroad, and N. C. 16 
and Mount Holly Road were major traffic arteries which it’s 
desirable to have to provide access into and out of indus- 
trial areas. 

Q. I'll ask you if there is a tank farm located in this area. 
A. Yes. On the westerly end of that area colored in blue 
there is an oil tank farm. 

[649] Court: You're talking about the oil depot 
at Thrift? 

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. McIntyre, some criticism has been made with ref- 
erence to the zoning roughly bounded by Statesville Ave- 
nue, Highway 16 and Interstate 85 with reference to 
smaller lots for the zoning in that area. Could you tell the 
Court the reason for such zoning? A. Well, when the zon- 
ing was done again we were influenced to a very substan- 
tial degree by the established pattern of development and 
the established pattern of the development in that area 
consisted of comparatively small lots. I think the lots were 
generally probably in the vicinity of 6000 square feet, plus 
or minus. Naturally no area is developed with a completely 
uniform size Jot, but the lots did range towards the lower 
level of lot size. 

Q. Then was the purpose of zoning to merely zone in 
accordance with existing land use there? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you participate with the Redevelopment Commis- 
sion in its action in having the Brooklyn area removed of 
houses? A. Yes. The Planning Commission has the re- 
sponsibility under State law of certifying that an area is 
blighted before the Redevelopment Commission can go into 
the area and acquire it. We did, then, make a finding that 

 



  

262a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Direct 

the Brooklyn area was a blighted area under the provi- 

sions of North Carolina statutes [650] and therefore eli- 

gible for redevelopment. 
Q. What criteria did you use in establishing areas of 

blight? A. We used the criteria that are established by 

the State law and that is that we must find, in order to 

determine that an area is blighted we must find it is old, 

dilapidated, deteriorated, obsolete, and a finding also be 

made that because of the age and obsolescence of the physi- 

cal structures in the area that these produce adverse con- 

sequences in terms of health, morals, safety, welfare, as 

they effect the people of the area. 

Q. And you certify this to the Urban Redevelopment 

Board and they in turn submit their application, is that 

correct? A. Yes. 

Q. With reference to the Brooklyn area, did you partici- 

pate in this Urban Redevelopment project? A. Yes. 

Q. How did the Brooklyn area compare with other areas 

in Charlotte? A. Well, the Brooklyn area was one of the 

most seriously blighted sections of the city when we studied 

it back several years ago. So it compared in that sense, 

it compared very unfavorably with most of the residential 

sections of the community. There were, however, other 

similarly blighted sections in the city at that time. 

Q. Could you tell us some of the other blighted areas? 

[6511 A. The First Ward area. 

Q. Has that subsequently been cleared also? A. No. 

The First Ward area has not been cleared through Rede- 

velopment. A part of the First Ward area has been cleared 

and rebuilt with public housing, but that clearance did not 

take place through the Redevelopment processes or stat- 

utes. The Greenville area is a seriously blighted area; 

sections off of West Morehead Street on the west side of 

   



263a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant— Direct 

the central business district are seriously blighted sections 
also. 

Q. Are all of these areas scheduled for demolition of the 
buildings or have already been demolished? A. Not all of 
these areas are yet scheduled for Redevelopment. The 
First Ward area is scheduled for Redevelopment. The 
Planning Commission has made a finding that area is 
eligible. A bond issue was passed by the voters, I think 
two or three years ago, which set up the funds to defray 
the cost of doing that work. The Greenville area, we have 
since officially certified as a Redevelopment area and the 
Redevelopment Commission at the present time is at work 
on plans for the redevelopment of that section. 

Q. Are or were the districts you have just described as 
blighted principally populated by Negroes? A. Yes. 

Q. Would it be fair to say they have moved into better 
housing from these blighted areas? 

[652] Mr. Chambers: I object to that. 
Court: Overruled. 

A. Well, I personally don’t know where the people have 
moved when they have left the areas. This is a responsi- 
bility of the Redevelopment Commission and I am not 
directly involved in that process. I think all I can say about 
it is the Redevelopment Commission operates under a man- 
date from the Federal Government which says that they 
are required to assist in the relocation— 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I object to that. We 
can submit the mandates of the Federal Government 
and we don’t think this witness is qualified to state 
what the rules and regulations of HEW are. In ad- 

 



  

264a 

Colloquy 

dition, he already stated he didn’t know where the 

people moved and he certainly wouldn’t be able to 

state if the Redevelopment Commission has carried 

out the requirements of HEW. 

Court: Let me ask a question and see whether 

this matters. Your contention as it relates to this 

case is that they were moved to particular locations 

and followed there by the School Board. Isn't it a 

plain fact that the quality of the housing into which 

people have been removed by this process is gener- 

ally superior to the housing they formerly occupied? 

Mr. Chambers: That’s what we contend is not the 

case, [653] Your Honor. We have not attempted 

to make an offer of evidence on the condition of the 

houses. The position that we took— 

Court: Do you remember what the houses in 

Brooklyn looked like? 

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. I also remember what 

those looked like in Greenville. 

Court: Greenville hasn’t been redeveloped, has it? 

Mr. Chambers: They have removed some of those 

houses in Greenville, not all of them, and they re- 

moved some of the houses in First Ward, not all of 

them. I also know something about some of the con- 

ditions of the housing into which these people have 

moved. We have not attempted to make any showing 

with respect to that because we didn’t think it was 

particularly relevant in this proceeding. The thing 

we're objecting to now is the witness clouding the 

record with what HEW requires without being able 

to state whether the Redevelopment Commission has 

complied with that regulation. 

Court: Well, T understand he says he hasn’t in- 

   



260a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Direct 

spected the houses. I'll let him go ahead and tell 

what he understands the requirements to be. 

A. I understand the requirements to be that the Redevel- 

opment Commission must attempt to relocate the people 

into decent, safe and sanitary housing that’s within their 

economic means. 

[654] Q. Does the Urban Redevelopment Board actually 

place people in specific homes or do they simply offer as- 

sistance? A. My understanding is that they offer assis- 

tance. They cannot direct people to live in any particular 
location. 

Q. Now, it’s been stated in this case that railroads are 

not essential to industrial development or industrial zoning. 

Is this— 

Mr. Chambers: Your Homor, I object to that. 

That’s not a true restatement of what the witness 
stated. 

Court: Well, ask the witness to testify as to his 

knowledge or understanding about the role of rail- 

roads in industry, whatever he knows about that. 

Do it briefly, please. 

Q. Will you tell the Court the role the railroad plays in 

industrial zoning? A. The railroad played a very sig- 

nificant part in industrial zoning in this community. We 

found a great deal of our established industry when we 

started to work here was located adjacent or in the vicinity 

of railroads. So that has a very substantial effect upon 

industrial zoning. 

Q. I next hand you Plaintiff’s Exhibit #13, which I un- 

derstand to be the major thoroughfares proposal or plan, 

 



  

266a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Direct 

and I ask you if you had any participation in the prepara- 

tion of that plan. A. Yes. 

[655] Q. What participation did you have? A. We par- 

ticipated in this as a part of the comprehensive planning 

of this whole area, together with transportation planner 

consultants, State Highway Department, City Traffic Engi- 

neering Department and City Engineering Department. It 

was a collaborative effort on the part of those agencies. 

Q. With reference to the north-south expressway, what 

criteria were used in locating that particular thoroughfare? 

A. One of the essential facts in the location of this is that 

this was a part of an interstate route. 

Court: Youre talking about the north-south ex- 

pressway or the northwest expressway? 

A. North-south expressway. 

Court: That’s the one down here? 

A. Yes, sir, 

Court: Is that the one that destroys a part of the 

golf course? 

A. TI don’t recollect the golf course being destroyed by it. 

Court: Go ahead. 

A. A part of this route was influenced by the fact that it 

was to become part of Interstate 77, a route that goes up 

into Cleveland, Ohio, or coming down from Cleveland into 

this area. The route was otherwise influenced by the need 

for a north-south expressway route through the commu- 

   



267a 

William E. MclIntyre—for Defendant—Direct 

nity to expedite traffic in that direction. The specific loca- 

tion of the route [656] in the northern half, you might say, 

from the central business district up to the rest of the area, 

was influenced by the fact that there was vacant land along 

Erwin Creek Valley and this provided a comparatively 

inexpensive location and a location that would disrupt ex- 

isting development to a more moderate degree than might 

otherwise have been the case. The location of the route 

from the central part of the city southward was influenced 

to some extent by the open space available that comprised 

Revolution Park and also I think it was influenced by the 

fact that it was desired to get it as close to existing devel- 

opment as possible without running through extensively 

developed areas. The area immediately to the east of this 

expressway is substantially developed. That’s the area to 

the east of Pineville Road, so there is a comparatively 

open corridor through this area where the north-south ex- 

pressway was located. Finally the southerly end. The loca- 

tion was influenced to some degree by the fact that Arrow- 

wood Industrial Park had been established in that section 

and again it was felt that the expressway coming up, actu- 

ally running along the side margin or in the side margin 

of Arrowood Industrial Park would provide a heavy-duty, 

high level traffic carrying facility to serve the great deal 

of traffic that is expected to be generated by industrial 

development in that industrial park. 

Q. Are you aware of any racial considerations in the 

location of [657] of the north-south expressway? A. No, 

sir. 

Q. With reference to the other expressways in the city 

and proposed thoroughfares, were any racial considera- 

tions made in proposing this plan? A. No, sir. 

 



  

268a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Cross 

Mr. Waggoner: You may examine him. 

Cross Examination by Mr. Chambers: 

Q. Mr. McIntyre, would you state for the record what 
city planning is? A. City planning is the comprehensive 

planning of a community with the effort to develop a good 

community for people to live in, a valuable community 

economically. 

Q. It’s mapping out land useage, whether it should be 

used for industry, business, office or residence? A. That’s 

a part of city planning. 

Q. What other considerations do you have? A. Well, I 

think basically when we start off our planning we are 

concerned with determining how many people we are going 

to have to provide for in a community. We're concerned 

about the economy of the community and what planning 

can do to assist and foster the economic development of 

the area. We're concerned about provision of utilities and 

facilities that are necessary for good urban living. We're 

concerned about open [658] space and recreation. We're 

concerned about the elimination of developments that aren’t 

good for the community such as blighted areas. We are 

interested in things like the revitalization of the central 

core of the community. Planning is a fairly diverse matter 

and it’s expressed in different ways, I think, in different 

communities. 

Q. Taking residential areas, what factors would dictate 

that a particular area be zoned as residential? A. The 

principal factor to start with is whether an area is resi- 

dential today or whether it isn’t. If an area is residential 

today, then I think in all probability it would be zoned 

residential mnless with the anticipated growth and devel- 

opment of the community there would be some reason for 

   



269a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Cross 

planning a change of that residential area to some other 
kind of activity or use. It’s possible, for instance, that— 
let’s say in a central city area, that an expansion of the 

downtown with the growth of the community might take 
over and replace a residential section. Does that answer 
the question? 

Q. The basic thing that you mentioned is the existing 
land use. If it’s presently residential it probably would 
be zoned residential. Is there anything else that you con- 

sider in determining whether to zone a particular area 

residential? A. Yes. We consider the quality of the en- 

vironment in the area; we consider the suitability of the 

land for residential development; we also consider the de- 

sireability of establishing [659] residential areas in com- 

prehensive enough fashion so they are more or less self- 

protecting. I don’t know whether that makes much sense 

or not but we like to establish fairly sizeable residential 

areas to the extent possible. We like to establish residen- 

tial areas of a size that can be easily served with schools, 

for instance, and parks and playgrounds and recreational 

facilities. These are some of the other factors that are 
taken into consideration. 

Q. In an instance where you have an existing residential 
area that you propose to zone to industrial or commercial, 

is there a corresponding residential area created some- 

where else in the city? A. No. No, I wouldn’t say that. 

Q. How do you plan for accommodating those persons 

who are zoned out of the residential area? A. Well, tak- 

ing our own plan as an illustration, we knew that we had 

many thousands of acres of land that we were going to 

allocate to residential use. As a matter of fact, in the plan- 

ning process we distributed the anticipated population over 

this planning area to know where people would be located, 

 



  

270a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Cross 

or rather to know that we had space for residential use and 

development. 

Q. We'll come back to that. In the zoning of residential 

areas— 

Court: As I understand your answer you said 

that you don’t automatically create another residen- 

tial zone if [660] you cut into a residential area for 

business or industrial purposes, but you also said 

that when this redevelopment took place you did 

establish some other residential areas in other parts 

of the city. 

A. No, sir, I didn’t say that. 

Court: Well, I heard you two ways and I'm just 

asking you to tell me again what you just got through 

saying. I misunderstood you, obviously, so just what 

did you just get through saying? 

A. I said when we found a residential area we felt was 

going to be eliminated we did not make a specific provision 

for the relocation of this residential neighborhood to an- 

other place. What we did and what we do in our planning 

is allocate residential land on the basis of anticipated need 

for housing developments, whether they be by relocation 

of people from established residential areas or new in- 

fluxes of population. In other words, our planning is not 

to say specifically we’ll eliminate residential neighborhood 

located on spot X and we’ll plan to put residential neigh- 

borhood located on spot X out here at the intersection of 

Y and Z. We do not do this type of specific planning. 

Court: What you’re saying is you have enough 

residential space in your overall plan but you don’t 

   



  

271a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Cross 

try to put people in a particular place if they are 
kicked out of one neighborhood. 

[661] A. That’s right. 

Q. Mr. McIntyre, you say that you zone areas residen- 
tially R-6, R-9 and R-12. What dictates besides existing 
land use whether a particular area should be zoned R-6 or 

R-9 or R-12? A. In addition to the existing zoning we are 
influenced, I think, to a very large extent by the estab- 
lished character of the area. 

Q. What do you mean by the established character of 

the area? A. Whether it’s a high income area or a low 

income area. We're influenced to a very large extent by 
this. We are also influenced by the need for various kinds 
of residential type of developments. For instance, we know 
that we have to have low and moderate cost housing for 

some people. We know that higher cost housing is avail- 

able to other people and this influences the amount of 

ground space that people can afford and the kind of devel- 
opment they can afford to have and the amount of ground 
space, of course, is reflected in the zoning plan, R-6, R-9, 
R-12, and so forth. 

Q. The multi-family zoning, I gather, would follow some- 

what your same criteria. In other words, you think that 
you have to have a certain number of units for low income, 
middle income families and R-6 MF would be dictated by 
that, and if you were planning expensive apartment units 
or multi-family units you would zone it R-12 or R-20, is 
that right? A. Right. 

[662] Q. Now, what effect, Mr. McIntyre, would planning 

for the zoning of a residential area as industrial have on 
the land value of those homes, or the value of the homes 
in those areas? A. Planning a residential area for indus- 
trial, what effect would it have on the value of the homes? 

 



  

272a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Cross 

Q. That’s correct. A. I am really not sure. I think it 

would vary a lot with different cases. I'm not in the real 

estate business and I don’t really deal in property values 

as such. 
Q. Let’s take an instance. The 1947 zoning ordinance 

zoned all black residences industrial. A. Uh huh. 

Mr. Waggoner: Objection. 

Court: What was the answer? The objection is 

overruled. 

Q. What effect would that type of zoning have, Mr. 

McIntyre, on the home values in those areas? A. Again, 

I really don’t know what effect it had on the values because 

I’ve never made any studies of values of homes in such a 

situation as contrasted with the opposite situation where 

those homes might have been in a residential area. 

Q. I think you indicated that residences could be built 

in industrial zoning under the 1947 ordinance. A. Right. 

Q. Would not the industrial zoning also allow for other 

land [663] uses or variations, for instance, multi-family 

dwellings? A. Yes. In the industrial zones as they were 

established at that time you could have single family, multi- 

family dwellings, business. In other words, the industrial 

zone was really a mixed use zone. It allowed practically 

all uses that you might find in a city to locate there. 

Q. Isn’t it also true that the 1947 ordinance zoned basic- 

cally all of the white residential areas residential? A. 

Basically, yes. 

Q. Mr. McIntyre, isn’t it true that this kind of zoning 

would effect the land value of the black residences, they 

being zoned industrial and the white being zoned residen- 

tial? A. I really can’t answer that. I don’t know how it 

   



273a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Cross 

affects the land value because when you say land value I 
assume you mean land value and not building value. 

Q. I'm talking about the value of the homes themselves, 
rather than the land. A. I really don’t know for a fact. 

Q. Would one anticipate in your area, Mr. McIntyre, the 
same value being assessed to a home in an area zoned in- 
dustrial or zoned for multi-family use as a home in an 
area zoned for residential use with perhaps an R-12? A. 
The same assessed value. . . . 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we’ll object to 
this there is no . . . 

[6641 A. I really don’t know. Again, I don’t deal in as- 
sessed valuation. 

Mr. Waggoner: You have to deal with specific 
properties. Some industrial zoning change would 
enhance value and some would decrease it. 

Court: The question relates to the value of the 
home, independent of any industrial value that might 
be attached to the land on which it stands. Do you 
want to stipulate an answer to this or do you want 
me to come in with some other witness by deposition 
to cover the point? 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I really don’t 
know the relevance of the depreciation or apprecia- 
tion of value of homes in a school case of this type. 

Court: I don’t know that it is but it is a point 
under consideration. Do you want to stipulate that 
the answer to the question is that if you put an in- 
dustrial zoning on a neighborhood where people live 
the value of the property for dwelling purposes is 
less than if it was zoned for residential? 

 



  

274a 

Colloquy 

Mr. Waggoner: No, sir, I don’t think that is a 

true statement. People are appearing before the 

Zoning Board all the time trying to get changes of 

zoning from residential to business to industrial. 

Industry likes to locate where people live so they 

have a supply of [665] people coming in, so I don’t 

think you can make a general statement of that 

kind. 
Court: Why don’t you just get an affidavit from 

somebody who will answer the question of some 

knowledge and submit it to the defendant and see 

if they will agree to introduction of the affidavit or 

any other affidavit they want to put in on that sub- 

ject. I don’t want to have another hearing because 

I think this is a routine point. Your point, Mr. Wag- 

goner, is that land may be worth much more because 

of industrial zoning and, of course, that’s true. Mr. 

Chambers’ point, as I understand it, which he is 

trying to show, is that the use of that land, when 

that land is used for people to live in the value of 

the homes on that land is less because of industrial 

zoning. I would think that both of those proposi- 

tions would be true without argument. If you can’t 

stipulate it, both of you get affidavits to cover it 

and save a little time. Maybe the question is off base. 

Maybe desirability and attractiveness are more im- 

portant than money value, but I think you're both 

right. I don’t blame either one of you for stopping 

where it is and try to cover it by affidavit so we 

don’t spin our wheels on it. 

Mr. Waggoner: We would be willing to stipulate 

that, depending on the land, it may be worth more 

or it may [666] be worth less, which is pretty much 

of a nothing statement as far as I can see. 

   



275a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Cross 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I think we've already 
got this particular point in by Mr. Rabin. 

Court: I don’t remember what was said on that 
subject. Mr. Rabin was the man with the Van Dyke 
beard? 

Mr. Chambers: That’s right. 

Court: Go ahead to something else. 

Q. Mr. McIntyre, as Planning Director do you have oc- 
casions to go out into the community to view the residen- 
tial areas and the industrial areas? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You indicated that in the planning for the 1962 zoning 
ordinance that you did extensive investigation of existing 
land use. A. Yes. 

Q. Didn’t you on this occasion, Mr. McIntyre, have occa- 
sion to determine whether the residential areas were white 
or black? A. We made no particular note of this. 

Q. You know, though, Mr. McIntyre, that blacks stay out 
Beatties Ford Road? A. Certainly. 

Q. And that whites stay over in Myers Park? A. Cer- 
tainly. 

Q. You know, too, that most of the blacks in the city stay 
west [667] of Tryon Street, north and south? A. Right. 

Q. And that most of the whites in the city stay east of 
Tryon Street. A. Right. 

Q. Now, is there on the west side of Tryon Street any 
residential zoning R-12? A. Yes, I think there is. 

Q. Would you be able to pick out that section? 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we have a 
zoning map here he might like to refer to. 

A. I happen to recall the section west of Little Rock Road 
I'm fairly sure is zoned R-12 and up off N. C. 27 there is 

 



  

276a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Cross 

a section that I believe is zoned R-12. They are the only 

ones that I can recall. 
Q. This is the index to the zoning ordinance. A. That 

wouldn’t tell me. That’s an index. It doesn’t show the 

specific zoning. 
Q. Would you be able to get from this the area you are 

referring to? A. Yes. As I recall, and this is from mem- 

ory, I think we have places in map 41 and map 38 that are 

zoned R-12 and I believe on map 42 there are also places, 

areas that are zoned R-12. 

Q. Looking at 38, the area you are talking about being 

zoned R-12, would you state whether there are any resi- 

dences in that area [668] presently? A. Yes, there are. 

Q. Are they black or white? A. To the best of my 

knowledge they are white. 

Q. You're looking at map 38% A. Right. 

Q. Would you look at Map 41. In the area zoned R-12 

would you state whether there are presently any residences 

in that area? A. Yes, there are some residences in that 

area. 

Q. Would you state whether they are black or white. A. 

To the best of my knowledge they are white. I don’t know. 

I haven’t made a survey of them. 

Q. Mr. McIntyre, do you know of any black residential 

areas zoned R-12 in the City of Charlotte? A. In the 

City of Charlotte, no, I don’t. 

Q. Now, I believe that areas like Northwood Kstates, 

Dalebrook, University Park were developed subsequent to 

the 1962 ordinance. A. I think they were. 

Q. I believe that your comprehensive plan, the Next 

Twenty Years, which is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12, was pub- 

lished prior to 1962 or published in 1962. A. Prior to. 

Q. Why didn’t you in the planning at that stage, Mr. 

   



277a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Cross 

McIntyre, plan for some R-12 zoning in some black resi- 
dential areas? [669] A. What? 

Q. Strike that. Does your office also in its planning, Mr. 
MelIntyre, plan for recreation? A. No, we do not have 
any official responsibility of planning for recreation. We 
do upon request and rather infrequently, as a matter of 
fact, collaborate with the Park and Recreation Commission 
on a specific question, but the responsibility for planning 
for recreation is theirs. 

Q. In your twenty year comprehensive plan did you set 
aside some areas for parks? A. No. The Twenty Year 
Plan does not indicate a park plan. It recognized some of 
the major existing parks as features of land use and the 
closest it came to expressing anything on parks aside from 
that was our recommendation that the low lands along 
streams that are subject to flooding be kept open and hope- 
fully some of these might have been used for community 
open space or recreation. But it was not a specific recrea- 
tion recommendation, it was rather a recommendation of 
what we felt the appropriate use of the land would be, not 
to be intensively developed. 

Q. You indicated earlier that city planning involved 
comprehensive proposals dealing basically with everything 
in terms of land use. A. Right. 

Q. And your testimony now is that you don’t set aside 
areas in [670] comprehensive planning for parks and rec- 
reation? A. We do not have that responsibility here al- 
though this is normally considered a part of comprehensive 
planning in city planning. 

Q. In your Twenty Year Plan you just didn’t do that. 
A. That’s right. 

Q. Now, would you look again at the map Plaintiff’s Ex- 
hibit 12. Now, comparing this map with the map for 1947 

 



  

278a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Cross 

and the residential areas then existing, the proposed in- 

dustrial zoning will carve out a substantial part of the 

residences, would it not? A. What do you mean carve out? 

Q. Would eliminate. A. The industrial proposals here 

would eliminate a substantial part of the existing resi- 

dences? 
Q. Yes. A. No, I don’t think it would eliminate a sub- 

stantial part of the existing residences. As a matter of 

fact, I think to a greater extent existing residential areas 

were put into residential zoning districts than the opposite. 

Q. You're talking about the change from the 1947 ordi- 

nance A. Right. 
Q. I’m talking about the existing land use at the time 

that you proposed this plan. 

Court: I thought your first question was asking 

for a [671] comparison between the Twenty Year 

Plan and the ’47 zones. 

Mr. Chambers: No, sir. I was trying to establish, 

if I could, that the proposed Twenty Year Plan would 

cut out a lot of the existing residential areas. 

A. It would cut out the Brooklyn residential area because 

it was anticipated that would be redeveloped at the time. 

It would cut out a residential area over off of West More- 

head Street, which is here indicated to become an indus- 

trial area. The reason for that is that we thought this was 

not a suitable place for housing and that that area should 

be cleared of the slums that were there and redeveloped 

for industrial and commercial purposes. It would be more 

appropriate to the character of that area. The other dis- 

placements of residential development by our industrial 

area plan I think are comparatively minor and fragmen- 

   



  

279a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Cross 

tary here and there. I can’t identify any major areas of 
residence that was to be replaced by industrial use. 

Q. Now, the industrial band that runs along Tryon Street 

and then along the Southern Railroad, I think you said you 

would not describe that as a buffer zone because of the 

proposed interstate routes or expressways running through 

the city? A. I wouldn’t describe it as a buffer zone be- 

cause I think it’s a use that stands on its own two feet. 

I don’t think it serves the purpose as a buffer at all. It 

serves the purpose of a [672] legitimate function and not 

a transition, which is my understanding of the term buffer. 

Q. Does it not, in fact, form a dividing line between the 

black residences and white residences of the City of 

Charlotte? A. The blue area along Tryon Street, that’s 
the question? 

Q. That’s correct. A. Would you state that question 

again, please? 

Q. Does it not, in fact, form a dividing line between the 
black residents and the white residents in the City of 
Charlotte? A. Well, I don’t know what it does today. At 
the time that this plan was done, if I am not mistaken, the 
residential areas between North Graham Street and Tryon 

Street that are indicated on this map were white residential, 
so that the blue industrial strip in that context is not 

separating white from black but rather white from white. 
Now, this may be separating there today. I don’t know 
whether that area is changed from white to black or not. 

Q. Even in 1962 the substantial majority of the whites 

in the City of Charlotte resided on the east side of that 

line, did they not? A. Oh, yes. 

Q. And the majority of the blacks in the city resided 
on the west side of the line. A. Right.  



  

280a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Cross 

Q. If you were to give the Court some division between 

the black [673] and white residents of the City of Charlotte 

would you not use that line? A. Yes, I think that would 

be a fair description to say that the black residences lie to 

the west of Graham Street and the white residences lie 

to the east of Tryon Street. 

Q. Going further, Mr. McIntyre, in designing or plan- 

ning for zoning don’t you try to get some residences and 

then you perhaps might have some land office use or some 

business zoning before you get to the industrial zoning 

to provide some kind of buffer between the residences and 

the industrial area? A. To the maximum degree possible 

we do try to do this. We try to either have a transition 

kind of zoning district from industrial into residential or 

we try to capitalize on some existing natural feature in 

the ground—a stream course or something like that— 

that would help to make an easier transition from in- 

dustrial activity to residential activity. To a large extent 

we use a light industrial district classification adjacent to 

residential areas. 
Q. It makes for a more palatable home situation to have 

residential areas that are sort of protected from industrial 

areas either by office use or some light industry or business. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Looking at Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12, the map, you have 

an industrial zone bordering on the east or northeastern 

part of the Billingsville or Griertown area. [674] A. Yes. 

Q. TI think Griertown is basically all black. A. (Shakes 

head affirmatively.) 

Q. I think the adjacent areas are basically all white. 

A. Right. 

Q. Does not the industrial zone form a buffer between 

the black residents in Griertown and the white residents 

   



281a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Cross 

on the adjoining area? A. Well, I think it forms a different 
use district but I wouldn’t say that it’s a buffer. Again, 
I don’t regard industrial districts as a buffer in that 
context. 

Q. Now, looking on the west side of Griertown, I believe 
there are only two entrances into the Griertown area, or 
perhaps one off Randolph Road. A. Yes. 

Q. It wouldn’t be necessary to have a buffer or anything 
in that area, would it? . .. . between the black residents 
of Griertown and the white residents in the adjacent areas. 
A. It wouldn't be necessary as far as I’m concerned. It’s 
not necessary to have a buffer anyplace for that purpose. 

Q. I don’t believe that anywhere along the railroad track 
on the eastern part of Griertown other than adjacent to 
Griertown that the Planning Commission planned any in- 
dustrial zoning. A. To the east of Griertown? 

Q. Right. [675] A. How far east are you including 
in your view? 

Q. I'm looking basically at the street Beale Road and 
going as far north as Briarcreek. 

Court: Going which way? 

Mr. Chambers: Going northwest, 

Court: Along 7th Street? 

Mr. Chambers: Along Seaboard Railroad from 

Beale Road to Briarcreek. 

Court: Coming back into town. 

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. 

Q. Nowhere else along that railroad track is there any 
industrial zoning in that area, is there? A. Not within 
that area. 

Q. Now, running down Southern. . 

 



  

282a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Cross 

Court: Is Briarcreek the road which crosses 7th 

Street at Firemen’s Hall or is Briarcreek the one 

further down? 

A. It crosses at the Firemen’s Hall. 

Court: You're talking about a distance of a half- 

mile or less? 
Mr. Chambers: I think it is. 

Q. Mr. McIntyre, you indicated that you determined 

blighted areas for the Urban Renewal Commission in the 

City of Charlotte. A. Uh huh. 

Q. And you determined that Brooklyn and First Ward 

and Greenville and I guess an area we might describe 

as Dilworth were [676] considered blighted areas. A. Yes. 

Q. Did you determine also in your investigation whether 

there were available homes to which the residents in these 

areas could move into? A. No. 

Q. You indicated a moment ago that when you closed 

out or changed an area from residential to commercial 

or industrial you didn’t really create another area residen- 

tially into which these people could move but anticipated 

that you had enough residentially zoned areas for the 

residences that would be necessary. A. Right. 

Q. Do you know, Mr. McIntyre, whether Negroes in this 

community have had some difficulty in securing homes in 

white or predominantly white residential areas? A. I 

don’t know personally. I understood this to be the case 

but not through my own professional experience. 

Q. You also have seen, have you not, Mr. McIntyre, that 

at least up through 1968 the Charlotte News and Observer, 

the Charlotte News advertised homes and apartments for 

   



283a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Cross 

sale on the basis of race. A. Yes. 

Q. Is it not also true, Mr. McIntyre, that many of the 

developers for private homes have developed sections for 

Negroes and [677] sections for whites? A. That appears 
to be the case. 

Q. Now, in the Urban Renewal that has taken place in 

the City of Charlotte did you know that the Negroes who 

have been relocated have been relocated in predominantly 

or all Negro residential areas? 

Mr. Waggoner: Objection, he already stated he 

didn’t know where they went. 

Court: Overruled. 

A. I don’t know personally where they went. 

Q. If the Court were to find, Mr. McIntyre, from the 

evidence that’s already in the record that the Negroes who 

were relocated from Brooklyn and who have been relocated 

from First Ward and from some other residences that 

have been effected by the expressway in all Negro areas, 

in your opinion would this further segregate the racial 

housing pattern? A. Certainly, if this were true. 

Q. Now, in the relocation of these families has the City 

Planning Office taken into consideration the fact that the 

people involved might not be able to secure homes in any 

area of the city but would be limited to certain areas? 

A. No. We have not been particularly concerned with this 

because this is again the responsibility of the Redevelop- 

ment Commission to provide for the relocation of families. 

Q. You therefore did not consider whether without 

adequate [678] planning and preparation Urban Renewal 

of particular areas would create more blighted areas in the 

city rather than really relieve the city of blighted areas? 

 



284a 

William E. McIntyre—for Defendant—Cross 

Mr. Barkley: I believe I'll object to that. That’s 

an assumption. 

Court: Objection is overruled. 

A. Restate the question, please. 

Q. I'll withdraw the question. 

Court: Mr. Chambers, are you anywhere near 

finished? 

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. 

Court: I have an appointment that I made be- 

fore we set this hearing and I ought to leave if this 

is going to take more than five minutes or so. 

Mr. Chambers: As a matter of fact, I'll stop now. 

Court: Do you have any further direct examina- 

tion? 

Mr. Waggoner: No, sir. 

Court: I don’t want to shut you off. I want you 

to make a record I can read and I had in mind if 

it’s going to go on more than another five minutes 

or so I'll ask Mrs. Berger to write this up today. 

But if you think we'll be through in another five 

minutes or so, I'll stay. 

Mr. Waggoner: We have no further questions, 

Your Honor. 

Mr. Chambers: We have no further questions. 

Court: Thank you all for coming early, I appre- 

ciate it. 
* #* * * * 

   



285a 

Opinion and Order dated April 23, 1969 Regarding 
Desegregation of Schools of Charlotte and 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

PRELIMINARY SUMMARY 

The case, originally filed in 1965, is now before the 
court under the “Motion ror FurrHER RELIEF” filed by the 
plaintiffs on September 6, 1968. The motion seeks greater 

speed in desegregation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
schools, and requests elimination of certain other alleged 

racial inequalities. Evidence was taken at length on March 

10, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 26, 1969. The file and the exhibits are 

about two and one-half feet thick, and have required con- 

siderable study. In brief, the results of that study are 

as follows: 

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools are not yet desegre- 

gated. Approximately 14,000 of the 25,000 Negro students 

still attend schools that are all black, or very nearly all 

black, and most of the 24,000 have no white teachers. As 

a group Negro students score quite low on school achieve- 

ment tests (the most objective method now in use for 

measuring educational progress); and the results are not 

improving under present conditions. The system of assign- 

ing pupils by “neighborhoods,” with “freedom of choice” 

for both pupils and faculty, superimposed on an urban 

population pattern where Negro residents have become 

concentrated almost entirely in one quadrant of a city of 

270,000, is racially diseriminatory. This discrimination 

discourages initiative and makes quality education impos- 

sible. The quality of public education should not depend 

on the economic or racial accident of the neighborhood in 

which a child’s parents have chosen to live—or find they 

must live—nor on the color of his skin. The neighborhood 

school concept never prevented statutory racial segrega- 

 



286a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23,1969, Etc. 

tion; it may not now be validly used to perpetuate segre- 

gation. 
Since this case was last before this court in 1965, the 

law (or at least the understanding of the law) has changed. 

School boards are now clearly charged with the affirmative 

duty to desegregate schools “now” by positive measures. 

The Board is directed to submit by May 15, 1969 a positive 

plan for faculty desegregation effective in the fall of 1969, 

and a plan for effective desegregation of pupil population, 

to be predominantly effective in the fall of 1969 and to be 

completed by the fall of 1970. Such plan should try to avoid 

any re-zoning which tends to perpetuate segregated pupil 

assignment. The Board is free to consider all known ways 

of desegregation, including bussing (the economics of which 

might pleasantly surprise the taxpayers) ; pairing of grades 

or of schools; enlargement and re-alignment of existing 

zones; freedom of transfer coupled with free transporta- 

tion for those who elect to abandon de facto segregated 

schools; and any other methods calculated to establish ed- 

ucation as a public program operated according to its own 

independent standards, and unhampered and uncontrolled 

by the race of the faculty or pupils or the temporary hous- 

ing patterns of the community. 

Tae Law WHIcH (GOVERNS 

This case vitally affects 83,000 school children of Char- 

lotte and Mecklenburg County—and their families. That 

means virtually all of us. The School Board and this court 

are bound by the Constitution as the Supreme Court inter- 

prets it. In order that we think in terms of law and human 

rights instead of in terms of personal likes and prefer- 

ences, we ought to read about what the Supreme Court 

has said. 

   



287a 

Opwion and Order Dated April 23,1969, Etc. 

Before 1954, public education in North Carolina was 

segregated by law. “Separate but equal” education was 

acceptable. This de jure segregation was outlawed by the 

two decisions of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of 

Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954) and 349 U. S. 294 (1955). 

The first Brown opinion held that racial segregation of 

schools by law was unconstitutional because racial segre- 

gation, even though the physical facilities and other tan- 

gible factors might be equal, deprives Negro children of 

equal educational opportunities. The Court recalled prior 

decisions that segregation of graduate students was un- 

lawful because it restricted the student’s “ability to study, 

to engage in discussions and exchange views with other 

students, and, in general, to learn his profession.” The 

Court said: 

“Such considerations apply with added force to chil- 

dren in grade and high schools. To separate them 

from others of similar age and qualifications solely 

because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority 

as to their status in the community that may affect 

their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be 

undone.” 

Quoting a lower court opinion, the Supreme Court con- 

tinued : 

«Segregation of white and colored children in public 

schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored 

children. The impact is greater when it has the sanc- 

tion of the law; for the policy of separating the races 

is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of 

the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the 

motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the 

sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] 

 



  

288a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23,1969, Etc. 

the educational and mental development of Negro chil- 

dren and to deprive them of some of the benefits they 

would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.’ 

“We conclude that in the field of public education the 

doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate 

educational facilities are inherently unequal. . . .” 

The second Brown case, decided May 31, 1955, directed 

school boards to do whatever was necessary to carry out 

the Court’s directive as to the pending cases “with all de- 

liberate speed” (349 U. S. 301). 

North Carolina’s most significant early response to 

Brown was the Pupil Assignment Act of 1955-56, under 

which local school boards have the sole power to assign 

pupils to schools, and children are required to attend the 

schools to which they are assigned. 

It is still to this day the local School Board, and not 

the court. which has the duty to assign pupils and opegate 

the schools, subject to the requirements of the Constitution. 

1N.C.G.S.. §115-176. Authority to provide for assignment and 

enrollment of pupils; rules and regulations.—Each county and city 

board of education is hereby authorized and directed to provide 

for the assignment to a public school of each child residing within 

the administrative unit who is qualified under the laws of this 

State for admission to a public school. Except as otherwise pro- 

vided in this article, the authority of each board of education in 

the matter of assignment of children to the public schools shall be 

full and complete, and its decision as to the assignment of any 

child to any school shall be final. . . . No child shall be enrolled in 

or permitted to attend any public school other than the public 

school to which the child has been assigned by the appropriate 

board of education. In exercising the authority conferred by this 

section, each county and city board of education shall make assign- 

ments of pupils to public schools so as to provide for the orderly 

and efficient administration of the public schools, and provide for 

the cficetive instruction, health, safety, and general welfare of the 

pupils. Each board of education may adopt such reasonable rules 

and regulations as in the opinion of the board are necessary in the 

administration of this article. (Emphasis added.) 

   



  

289a 

Opwion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Etc. 

It is the court’s duty to assess any pupil assignment plan 
in term of the Constitution, which is still the Supreme law 
of the land. 

Some token desegregation of Charlotte city schools oc- 
curred during the late 1950’s. In 1961, upon economic and 
administrative grounds not connected with questions of 

segregation, the Charlotte City schools and the Mecklen- 

burg County schools were consolidated into one school 

administrative unit under one nine-member board known as 

the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. By 1964 

a few dozen out of more than 20,000 Negro school chil- 

dren were attending schools with white pupils. 

This suit was filed on January 19, 1965, by Negro pa- 

trons, to seek orders expediting desegregation of the 

schools. At that time, serious questions existed whether 

Broun required any positive action by school boards to 

eliminate segregated schools or whether it simply forbade 

active discrimination. An order was entered in 1965 by 

the then District Judge in line with the law as then under- 

stood, substantially approving the Board’s plan for de- 

segregation. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals af- 

firmed the order. 

Pursuant to the approved plan the Board closed certain 

all-Negro schools, established school zones, built some new 

schools, and set up a freedom of choice arrangement for 

the entire system. The students in a zone surrounding 
each school are assigned to that school: a period is allotted 

each spring to request assignment to another school: no 

reason for transfer need be given; all transfer requests 

are honored unless the requested schools are full; no trans- 

portation is available to implement such transfer. 
In appraising the results under this plan in 1969, four 

vears later, we must be guided by some other and more 

recent things the Supreme (‘onrt has said. 

 



    

290a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23,1969, Etc. 

In Green v. New Kent County School Board, 391 U. S. 

430 at 435 (1968), the Supreme Court held unlawful a 

county school pupil assignment system which maintained 

a black school and a white school for the same grades. The 

(Court said: 

“It was such dual systems that 14 years ago Brown I 

held unconstitutional and a year later Brown II held 

must be abolished ; school boards operating such school 

systems were required by Brown II ‘to effectuate a 

transition to a racially nondiseriminatory school sys- 

tem. 349 U. S., at 301. It is of course true that for 

the time immediately after Brown II the concern was 

with making an initial break in a long-established 

pattern of excluding Negro children from schools at- 

tended by white children. The principal focus was on 

obtaining for those Negro children courageous enough 

to break with tradition a place in the ‘white’ schools. 

See, e. g., Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1. Under Brown 

IT that immediate goal was only the first step, how- 

ever. The transition to a unitary, monracial system 

of public education was and is the ultimate end to be 

brought about; . ..” 
#* * * * * 

“Tt is against this background that 13 years after 

Brown II commanded the abolition of dual systems 

we must measure the effectiveness of respondent 

School Board’s “reedom-of-choice’ plan to achieve 

that end. 
* * * * * 

“. .. In the light of the command of that case, what 

is involved here is the question whether the Board 

has achieved the ‘racially nondiscriminatory school 

system’ Brown II held must be effectuated in order 

 



  

291a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Etc. 

to remedy the established unconstitutional deficiencies 
of its segregated system. In the context of the state- 
imposed segregated pattern of long standing, the fact 
that in 1965 the Board opened the doors of the former 
‘white’ school to Negro children and of the ‘Negro’ 
school to white children merely begins, not ends, our 
inquiry whether the Board has taken steps adequte to 
abolish its dual, segregated system. Brown II was a 
call for the dismantling of well-entrenched dual sys- 
tems tempered by an awareness that complex and mul- 

tifaceted problems would arise which would require 

time and flexibility for a successful resolution. School 

boards such as the respondent then operating state- 

compelled dual systems were nevertheless clearly 

charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever 
steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary sys- 

tem in which racial discrimination would be eliminated 
root and branch. . . .” 

* * * * * 

“... ‘The time for mere “deliberate speed” has rum 

out, Griffin v. County School Board, 377 U. S. 218, 

234; ‘the context in which we must interpret and ap- 

ply this language [of Brown II) to plans for deseg- 

regation has been significantly altered.” 

* * * * * 

“... The burden on a school board today is to come 

forward with a plan that promases realistically to 

work, and promises realistically to work now. 

“The obligation of the district courts, as it always has 

been, is to assess the effectiveness of a proposed plan 

in achieving desegregation. . . .” 

* #» # * * 

 



292a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23,1969, Etc. 

“We do not hold that ‘freedom of choice’ can have no 

place in such a plan. We do not hold that a ‘freedom- 

of-choice’ plan might of itself be unconstitutional, al- 

though that argument has been urged upon us. Rather, 

all we decide today is that in desegregating a dual 

system a plan utilizing ‘freedom of choice’ is not an 

end in itself. As Judge Sobeloff has put it, 

«Freedom of choice’ is mot a sacred talisman; it 1s 

only a means to a constitutionally required end— 

the abolition of the system of segregation and its 

effects. If the means prove effective, it is accept- 

able, but if it fails to undo segregation, other means 

must be used to achieve this end. The school offi- 

cials have the continuing duty to take whatever 

action may be necessary to create a ‘unitary, non- 

racial system.’” Bowman v. County School Board, 

382 F. 2d 326, 333 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1967) (concurring 

opinion). 

. . . Although the general experience under ‘freedom 

of choice’ to date has been such as to indicate its in- 

effectiveness as a tool of desegregation, there may 

well be instances in which it can serve as an effective 

device. Where it offers real promise of aiding a de- 

segregation program to effectuate conversion of a 

state-imposed dual system to a unitary, nonracial sys- 

tem there might be no objection to allowing such a 

device to prove itself in operation. On the other hand, 

if there are reasonably available other ways, such for 

illustration as zoning, promising speedier and more 

effective conversion to a unitary, nonracial school sys- 

tem, ‘freedom of choice’ must be held unacceptable.” 

* * * * * 

   



293a 

Opwnion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Ete. 

“... The Board must be required to formulate a new 
plan and, in light of other courses which appear open 
to the Board, such as zoning, fashion steps which 
promise realistically to convert promptly to a system 
without a ‘white’ school and a ‘Negro’ school, but just 
schools.” 

(All emphasis added except for the word “required” 
in the first quoted paragraph and the word “now” in 
the fifth quoted paragraph.) 

It is obvious that between 1955 and 1968 the meaning 
and the force of the constitutional guaranty that educa- 
tion if tax paid be equal for all has been intensified. The 
duty now appears as not simply a negative duty to refrain 
from active legal racial discrimination, but a duty to act 
positively to fashion affirmatively a school system as free 
as possible from the lasting effects of such historical 
apartheid. It is in this light that the actions of school 
boards must now be studied. 

Fixpines or Fact 

Some Facts ABour THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG 

SCHOOL SYSTEM: 

a) General Information.—The system covers 550 square 
miles and serves more than 82,000 pupils. It is 43rd in 
size among the school administrative units of the United 
States. The county population is over 335,000. The popu- 
lation of Charlotte is now about 270,000. The student 
population increases at a rate betwen 2,500 and 3,000 stu- 
dents per year. The schools are 107 in number, including 
76 elementary schools (grades 1 through 6), 20 junior high 

 



  

294a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23,1969, Etc. 

schools (grades 7 through 9) and 11 senior high schools 

(grades 10 through 12). The Board also operates a learn- 

ing academy, 4 child development centers (kindergartens 

for the underprivileged) and 3 psycho-educational clinics. 

The students on the rolls as of January 1969 include 

44 835 elementary students, 20,675 junior high students 

and 16,690 senior high students. Of these students, about 

99% are Negro and about 71% are white. The ratio of 

black to white of all ages in the county is about one to 

three. 

The 5,880 school employees include 3,553 classroom 

teachers; 404 other members of the instructional staff in- 

cluding principals, directors and special staff members. 

These include 60 guidance counselors and 114 librarians. . 

Other employees include 325 secretaries and other clerical 

employees, 995 cafeteria employees, 357 janitors and maids, 

919 maintenance and transportation workers and 27 people 

assigned to educational television work. The school sys- 

tem is the largest employer in the state’s most populous 

county. 

The nine members of the Board of Education are elected 

three every two years on a non-partisan basis for six-year 

terms. 

Over 18% of the 3,553 classroom teachers have graduate 

certificates. Some 2,870 or nearly 81% have Class A cer- 

tificates. Some 852 teachers are men. 

Of 1968's 4,095 high school graduates, about 62% or 

92,539 entered college. The drop-out rate for the past two 

years has been approximately 2.3% of the total enrollment 

of the schools. 

The operating budget for the system (not counting con- 

struction costs) was nearly $40,000,000 last year. Average 

per pupil expense was over $530. Teachers’ salaries range 

   



295a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Etc. 

from $5,669 to $10,230.25. School funds come 08% from 
the state, 35% from local sources, and 7% from federal 
funds. 

Class size averages approximately 28 students in ele- 
mentary schools (the first six grades) ; 26.4 in junior high 
schools and 29.3 in senior high schools. 

All schools have libraries. The total number of books 
in the libraries is over 806,000, which is nearly 10 books 
per pupil, with a value estimated at $2,677,804. (This may 
be compared with the average of roughly one-half a book 
per pupil in the schools of the District of Columbia a 
couple of years ago.) These are not the textbooks which 
are furnished free by the state for individual use, but are 
library books for general circulation. Circulation last year 
was 2,884,252, or an average per pupil of 36 books. 

The Board operates the largest food service industry in 
the state, serving over 70,000 meals a day on a budget of 
four and one-half million dollars. 

Nearly one-fourth of the students (almost 20,000 last 
year) attend classes at the planetarium in the Children’s 
Nature Museum. This is reportedly more children than 
attend regular classes at any other planetarium in the 
country. 

Special consultants and teachers are provided in special 
areas such as art, music, languages, social studies, science, 
mathematics and physical education. Special teachers are 
employed to teach classes for the gifted, the mentally re- 
tarded and the physically handicapped. Guidance counsel- 

ors, school psychologists and social workers are available 

where needed. 

Faculty salaries are higher in Mecklenburg County than 

in most other counties of the state, by virtue of a sub- 

stantial salary supplement from local taxpayers. 

 



    

296a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23,1969, Etc. 

b) History and Geography; Background of De Facto 

Segregation.—Charlotte (270,000-plus) sits in the center of 

Mecklenburg County (550 square miles, total population 

over 335,000). The central city may be likened to an auto- 

mobile hub cap, the perimeter area to a wheel, and the 

county area to the rubber tire. Tryon Street and the 

Southern Railroad run generally through the county and 

the city from northeast to southwest. Trade Street runs 

generally northwest to southeast and crosses Tryon Street 

at the center of town at Independence Square. Charlotte 

originally grew along the Southern railroad tracks. Tex- 

tile mills with mill villages, once almost entirely white, 

were built. Business and other industry followed the high- 

ways and the railroad. The railroad and parallel highways 

and business and industrial development formed something 

of a barrier between east and west. 

By the end of World War IT many Negro families lived 

in the center of Charlotte just east of Independence Square 

in what is known as the First Ward—Second Ward— 

Cherry—Brooklyn area. However, the bulk of Charlotte’s 

black population lived west of the railroad and Tryon 

Street, and north of Trade Street, in the northwest part 

of town. The high priced, almost exclusively white, coun- 

try was east of Tryon Street and south of Trade in the 

Myers Park—Providence—Sharon—Eastover areas. Char- 

lotte thus had a very high degree of segregation of housing 

before the first Brown decision. 

Among the forces which brought about these concentra- 

tions should be listed the original location of industry 

along and to the west of the Southern railroad; the loca- 

tion of Johnson C. Smith University two miles west of 

Tryon Street; the choice of builders in the early 1900s 

to go south and east instead of west for high priced dwell- 

ing construction; the effect of private action and public 

law on choice of dwelling sites by black and by white pur- 

 



297a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Ete. 

chasers or renters; real estate zoning which began in 1947; 
and the economies of the situation which are that Negroes 
have earned less money and have been less able to buy or 
rent expensive living quarters. 

Local zoning ordinances starting in 1947 generally allow 
more varied uses in the west than in the east. Few if any 
areas ldentified as black have a residential restriction 
stronger than R-6, which means that a house can be built 
on a lot as small as 6,000 square feet. Zoning restrictions 
in other areas go as high as 12,000 and 15,000 square feet 
per lot. Nearly all industrial land in the city is in the west. 
The airport in the southwest with its jet air traffic inhibits 
residential development. Many black citizens live in areas 
zoned industrial, which means that the zoning law places 
no restriction on the use of the land. The zoning laws 
follow the pattern of low cost housing and industry to the 
west and high cost housing with some business and office 
developments to the east. 

City planning has followed the same pattern. 

Tryon Street and the Southern railroad were not built to 

segregate races. In the last fifteen years grade crossings 

have been eliminated at great expense at Fourth Street, 

Trade Street, Twelfth Street and Independence Boule- 

vard; and an elevated half-mile bridge, the Brodie Griffith 

Skyway, is now being built across the railroad in North 

Charlotte at a cost of more than three million dollars. The 

ramparts are being pierced in many spots and inner-city 

highways now under construction will make communication 

much simpler. 

However, concentration of Negroes in the northwest con- 

tinues. Under the urban renewal program thousands of 

Negroes were moved out of their shotgun houses in the 

center of town and have relocated in the low rent areas 

to the west. This relocation of course involved many ad 

 



  

298a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23,1969, Etc. 

hoe decisions by individuals and by city, county, state and 

federal governments. Federal agencies (which hold the 

strings to large federal purses) reportedly disclaim any 

responsibility for the direction of the migration; they re- 

portedly say that the selection of urban renewal sites and 

the relocation of displaced persons are matters of decision 

(“freedom of choice?) by local individuals and govern- 

ments. This may be correct; the clear fact however is that 

the displacement occurred with heavy federal financing and 

with active participation by local governments, and it has 

further concentrated Negroes until 95% or so of the city’s 

Negroes live west of the Tryon—railroad area, or on its 

immediate eastern fringes. 

Onto this migration the 1965 school zone plan with free- 

dom of transfer was superimposed. The Board accurately 

predicted that black pupils would be moved out of their 

midtown shotgun housing and that white residents would 

continue to move generally south and east. Schools were 

built to meet both groups. Black or nearly black schools 

resulted in the northwest and white or nearly all white 

schools resulted in the east and southeast. Freedom of 

students of both races to transfer freely to schools of their 

own choices has resulted in resegregation of some schools 

which were temporarily desegregated. The effect of clos- 

ing the black inner-city schools and allowing free choices 

has in overall result tended to perpetuate and promote 

segregation. 

Some Boarp Actions Founp Nor To Be DISCRIMINATORY 

No racial discrimination or inequality is found in the 

following disputed matters: 

1. The use of federal funds for special aid to the dis- 

advantaged. The testimony and the exhibits failed to show 

   



299a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Etc. 

that federal money was used with any discrimination by 
race or with any improper displacement of local money. 

2. Use of mobile classrooms. In recent years the system 
has required the addition of nearly two classrooms per 
week. Mobile classrooms have been used to provide extra 
space temporarily to cope with shifts and growth in school 
population. Mobiles are not inferior in quality and com- 
fort to permanent classrooms, and recent models are supe- 
rior in many ways to many existing permanent classrooms. 
Their use and location are matters to be determined by 
the Board in light of the court’s instructions hereafter on 
the preparation of a new plan for pupil assignment. 

3. The quality of the school buildings and equipment. 
The evidence showed the per pupil value of the land and 
buildings and equipment of the various schools. Average 
value of these items per pupil for elementary schools was 
$861; for junior high schools $1,229; and for senior high 
schools $1,567. Schools described by witnesses as “white” 
ranged well up and down on both sides of that average 
figure and schools described by witnesses as “black” showed 
a similar variation. Several of the oldest and most re- 

spected “white” elementary schools in the county (Sharon 
Road and Steele Creek, for example) have very low per 

pupil facilities values. One of the newest but still all black 
high schools (West Charlotte) has one of the highest per 

pupil facilities values. The highest priced school (Olympic 
High) is totally desegregated (522 white and 259 black 

students). No racial discrimination in spending money or 

providing facilities appears. 

4. Coaching of athletics. Coaches at the predominantly 

black schools are usually black. Coaches at the predomi- 

 



  

300a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23,1969, Etc. 

antly white schools are usually white. Several black coaches 

have been employed at “white” schools. No black coach was 

shown to have applied and been refused a job. No pattern 

of discrimination appears in the coaching ranks. 

5. Parent-Teacher Association contributions and activi- 

ties. Parents contribute to school projects through vol- 

untary Parent-Teacher Associations. This voluntary pa- 

rental action is not racial discrimination against children 

whose parents are less able to make such contributions, and 

it does not come about through state action. 

6. School fees. It was contended that the school fee 

system is discriminatory. For example, at the elementary 

level, grades 1 through 6, cach student is supposed to bring 

a dollar to school at the beginning of the year to provide 

some extra learning aids in the form of paper, art materials 

and the like. In poor communities collection of this fee 

averages only about 50%, whereas nearly all wealthy 

children pay all the fees assessed In their schools. This 

non-payment of school fees by the poor is not a racial 

discrimination against the poor. The schools where people 

are poorer have other funds by which this 50¢ per pupil 

can be made up. 

7 School lunches. School lunches are provided free to 

needy students. The court finds that no one has ever 

knowingly been denied a free lunch on racial grounds if 

he could not pay for it. 

8. Library books. Library books of comparable quality 

and content are available to all students, black and white, 

in all schools in an average number of nearly ten per pupil. 

   



301a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Etc. 

9. Elective courses. Some elective courses such as Ger- 
man are offered at some but not all of the high schools. 
They are offered at a school only if enouch students ex- 
press a desire for the course. Not all schools therefore 
have all elective courses every vear. This situation is not 
the result of discrimination on account of race. 

10. Individual Evaluation of Students. Individual stu- 
dents are evaluated annually in terms of achievement in 
particular subjects, and divided into groups for the study 
of particular subjects in accordance with their achievement. 
(This is not, truly deseribed, the “track” system which 
was elaborately criticized by Judge Skelly Wright in his 

119-page opinion in Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401 

(D.C. D.C., 1967).) Few black students are in the advanced 

sections and most are in regular or slow sections. Assign- 
ments to sections are made by the various schools based 

not on race but on the achievement of the individual stu- 

dents in a particular subject. There is no legal reason 

why fast learners in a particular subject should not he 

allowed to move ahead and avoid boredom while slow learn- 

ers are brought along at their own pace to avoid frustra- 

tion. It is an educational rather than a legal matter to 

say whether this is done with the students all in one class- 

room or separated into groups. 

11. Gerrymandering. Gerryvmandering was contended in 

the 1965 hearing of this case. Perhans the evidence comes 

closer to proving it this time. The court is not by this order 

foreclosing the later assertion of that contention or for 

that matter any other contention which may be advanced, 

because it is the court’s duty to keen the matter under ad- 

visement. However, in view of the comrt’s orders herein 

which are expected to produce substantial changes in the  



    

302a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23,1969, Etc. 

pupil assignment system and a reappraisal of all zoning 

considerations, it is believed that nothing in particular 

need be said here about specific school district lines. 

SoME COMMENT ON SPECIFIC ISSUES 

a) The Present State of Desegregation.—Defendant’s Ex- 

hibit Seven (attached as an appendix to this opinion) shows 

pupil and faculty population for each school in the system, 

by races, in March of 1965 and in October of 1968. From 

this and other evidence the following facts are apparent: 

1) The Rural Schools Are Largely Desegregated. 

Of the 32,000 rural children of all twelve grades, some 

23,000, black and white, are being hauled by bus to 

desegregated schools. No rural schools are all-black. 

The only all-white county schools are four new schools 

in the south and east portions of the county: Beverly 

Woods, Devonshire, Idlewild and Lansdowne. 

2) The City Schools are Still Largely Segregated. 

A few city schools, Elizabeth (58% Negro); Highland 

(13% Negro); Plaza Road (19% Negro); Randolph 

(28% Negro); Sedgefield (19% Negro); Spaugh 

(18% Negro) and Harding (17% Negro) have a sub- 

stantial degree of apparently stabilized desegregation. 

However, most of the fully desegregated city schools 

are not stable in that situation, but are rapidly mov- 

ing (through a temporary desegregation) from an all- 

white to an all-black condition. Dramatic examples are 

Barringer (84% Negro); Villa Heights (86% Negro); 

Piedmont (89% Negro); Tryon Hills (50% Negro); 

Hawthorne Junior High (52% Negro) ; Lakeview (65% 

Negro); and apparently Dilworth (39% Negro) and 

Wilmore (33% Negro). 

 



303a 

Opwion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Etec. 

3) More Than Three-Fourths of the Children At- 
tend Schools Which Have One or More Children of 
the Opposite Race. In Cornelius (49% Negro), Dil- 
worth (39% Negro), Elizabeth (58% Negro) and a few 
others, the races are close to being balanced in num- 
bers. However, most schools have only a small handful 
of the minority race. Illustrations are: Second Ward 
High School (1,139 black and three white); Midwood 
(522 white, one black); Lincoln Heights (817 black, 
two white). 

4) Most Black Students Attend Totally or Almost 
Totally Segregated Schools. Out of 24,000 black stu- 
dents: 

4,780 attend nine all-black elementary schools; 
3,380 attend six elementary schools which are more 

than 99% black; 

2,491 attend three all-black junior high schools; 

727 attend York Road with only six white fellow 
junior high students; 

1,569 high school students attend all-black West 
Charlotte; and 

1,139 black Second Ward High School students have 

only three white classmates. 

14,086 

In other words, of the 24,000 or so black students, 14,086 

of them attend school daily in schools that are all-black 

unless at York Road they see one of the six white students 

or at Second Ward they see one of the three white students, 

who were enrolled there last October. 

 



  

304a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23,1969, Etc. 

5) Most White Students Attend Largely or Completely 

Segregated Schools. Thirteen elementary schools with 

8,044 pupils are 100% white; eighteen other elementary 

schools with a pupil enrollment of 10,651 have only 150 

black students. The total number of white elementary stu- 

dents is only 31,545. At the junior high level, 7,641 out of 

14,741 white students attend school with only 193 black 

students in six schools. In the high schools, 12,310 white 

students attend school with 1,642 blacks, while 2,735 black 

students at West Charlotte and Second Ward attend school 

with three white students. 

b) The Opinions of Experts—Doctors Larson, Finger 

and Passy, all from Rhode Island College, of Providence, 

Rhode Island, testified at length. They submitted a 55-page 

report which outlines several possible plans for realign- 

ment of school zones and for provision of transportation; 

for pairing schools; for setting up feeder systems; for 

educational parks; and other approaches towards desegre- 

gation. None was as familiar with the local situation as 

the local Board and school administrators. All drew certain 

conclusions from the Coleman Report, which is a collection 

of statistics on performance of school children in certain 

areas about the country. Some said that kindergarten for 

all children would help the situation. Some said under- 

privileged children should start getting public education 

several years before first grade age. Some said that im- 

proving the faculty was important. Available statistics 

and expert opinion agreed that Negro students as a group 

do noticeably worse on achievement tests than students 

generally. The experts agreed that if children are under- 

privileged and undercultured, their school performance will 

be generally low. One expert, Dr. Passy, said that socio- 

   



300a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Etec. 

economic-cultural background is the sole major determinant 

of school performance. The Abraham Lincoln-Charles Ket- 

tering theory of the rise of Americans from poor back- 

grounds received small support. 

One point on which the experts all agree (and the statis- 

ties tend to bear them out) is that a racial mix in which 

black students heavily predominate tends to retard the 

progress of the whole group, whereas if students are 
mingled with a clear white majority, such as a 70/30 ratio 
(approximately the ratio of white to black students in 
Mecklenburg County), the better students can hold their 
pace, with substantial improvement for the poorer students. 

¢) The “Neighborhood School” Theory—Recently, the 
School Board has followed what it calls the “neighborhood 
school” theory. Efforts have been made to locate elementary 
schools in neighborhoods, within walking distance of chil- 
dren. The theory has been cited to account for location and 
population of junior and senior high schools also. 

“Neighborhood” in Charlotte tends to be a group of 
homes generally similar in race and income. Location of 
schools in Chalotte has followed the local pattern of resi- 
dential development, including its de facto patterns of 
segregation. With a few significant exceptions, such as 
Olympic High School (about 14 black) and Randolph Road 
Junior High School (28% black), the schools which have 
been built recently have been black or almost completely 
black, or white or almost completely white, and this proba- 
bility was apparent and predictable when the schools were 
built. Specific instances include Albemarle Road Elemen- 
tary (99% + white) ; Beverly Woods (100% white) ; Bruns 
Avenue (99% + black) ; Hidden Valley (100% white) ; Olde 
Providence (98% white); Westerly Hills (100 white) ; 
Albemarle Road Junior High (93% white). 

 



  

306a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Etc. 

Today people drive as much as forty or fifty miles to 

work ; five or ten miles to church; several hours to football 

games ; all over the county for civic affairs of various types. 

The automobile has exploded the old-fashioned neighbor- 

hood. Parents with children of all ages may be members 

of two or three separate and widely scattered school “com- 

munities.” Putting a school in a particular location is the 

active force which creates a temporary community of in- 

terest among those who at the moment have children in 

that school. The parents’ community with the school ordi- 

narily ends the day the youngest child graduates. 

If this court were writing the philosophy of education, 

he would suggest that educators should concentrate on 

planning schools as educational institutions rather than as 

neighborhood proprietorships. The neighborhood school 

concept may well be invalid for school administrative pur- 

poses even without regard for racial problems. The Char- 

lotte-Mecklenburg School Board today, for example, is 

transporting 23,000 students on school buses. First graders 

may be the largest group so transported. If a first grader 

lives far enough from school to ride a bus, the school is 

not part of his neighborhood. 

When racial segregation was required by law, nobody 

evoked the neighborhood school theory to permit black 

children to attend white schools close to where they lived. 

The values of the theory somehow were not recognized 

before 1965. It was repudiated by the 1955 North Carolina 

General Assembly and still stands repudiated in the Pupil 

Assignment Act of 1955-56, which is quoted above. The 

neighborhood school theory has no standing to override 

the Constitution. 

d) Bussing.—Under North Carolina General Statutes, 

§115-180, the Board is expressly authorized to operate 

   



307a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Etc. 

school busses to transport school children. The state pays 
bus expenses only for rural children and for some who have 
been annexed into the city in recent years. This apparent 
discrimination against city dwellers is reportedly under 
attack in another court. This Board already transports 
23,000 students to school every day out of the 32,000 who 
live in the area presently eligible for bus service. The 
present cost of school bussing is about $19 for bus operation 
plus the cost of the bus which at $4,500 per bus should not 
exceed $20 per pupil a year. In other words, it costs about 
$40 a year per pupil to provide school bus transportation, 
out of total per pupil school operating costs of about $540. 
The income of many black families is so low they are not 
able to pay for the cost of transportation out of segregated 
schools to other schools of their choice. 

The Board has the power to use school buses for all 
legitimate school purposes. Buses for many years were 
used to operate segregated schools. There is no reason 
except emotion (and I confess to having felt my own share 
of emotion on this subject in all the years before I studied 
the facts) why school busses cannot be used by the Board 
to provide the flexibility and economy necessary to de- 
segregate the schools. Busses are cheaper than new build- 
ings; using them might even keep property taxes down. 

e) Faculty Desegregation.—The Board employs over 
2,600 white teachers and over 900 black teachers. New 
teachers hired last year numbered 700. Technically their 
contracts are with the Board of Education to teach where 
assigned. The Board makes no sustained effort to desegre- 
gate faculties. The choice where to teach is a matter be- 
tween the principal and the prospective teacher. The Board 
assumes white teachers will tend to choose white schools 
and black teachers black schools. 

 



  

308a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23,1969, Etc. 

The results of this passive selection policy are obvious. 

Of the thirteen all-black schools in the system serving 8,840 

students, only four have any white teachers. Those four 

have ten white teachers and 161 black teachers for 3,662 

students. Few predominantly black schools have any sub- 

stantial number of white teachers except a few schools 

which serve areas rapidly turning from white to black. 

Eight other schools 99% or more black had only six white 

teachers among them for 5,246 black and 24 white pupils. 

Second Ward and West Charlotte High Schools, with 2,700 

black students and three white students, have 131 black 

teachers and only nine white teachers. 

All of the white elementary schools have at least one 

and in a few cases as many as three or four black teachers. 

The proportions of black teachers in the junior and senior 

high schools run slightly higher. The system has not 

operated, however, to produce any substantial teaching of 

black students by white teachers. 

Desegregation of faculties does not depend upon proof 

of superiority of one group of teachers or students over 

the other. Whatever the discrimination that may result 

from a segregated faculty, it will be eliminated only when 

a child attending any school in the system will face about 

the same chances of having a black or a white teacher as 

he would in any other school. Mecklenburg schools pay a 

sizeable salary supplement. Desegregation is proceeding 

‘n other counties and school districts. It can not be as- 

sumed and should not be a tacit part of Board policy that 

white school teachers are opposed to equality of educa- 

tion or that they will refuse to teach in black schools. In 

fact, white and black teachers are working together in 

substantial numbers in several schools of this system and 

there was no evidence at the hearing of any friction or 

   



309a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Etc. 

difficulty caused by a bi-racial faculty. It is from the 
teachers that children learn their first glimmerings of the 
right to equality of opportunity which still constitutes 
America’s chief contribution to modern civilization. The 
right of all children to equal education is part of that 
right. It is believed that if the Board takes a stand that 
requires faculty desegregation and treats all teachers 
equally in working towards that end, the teachers will 

participate wholeheartedly. 

tf) Metropolitan High School—Supported by impressive 
recommendations from Engelhart, Engelhart & Leggett, 
educational consultants, the Board has planned and has 
two million dolars on hand to build Metropolitan High 
School at or near the location of present Second Ward 
High School. In addition to being a school for conven- 
tional high school work, it is to be a center for vocational 
training and special courses in music, the creative and 
performing arts and other special subjects not practical 
to offer in all the high schools. Second Ward is now a 
99% + black school in the Brooklyn urban renewal area 
four or five blocks south of the Court House and City Hall 
The First Baptist Church and the School Board itself have 
buildings under way on adjacent or nearby land. This is 
near the geographical and traffic center of the city and 
county, one-half a mile from the central business district, 
a few blocks from Central Piedmont Community College 
and within easy travel distance of most of the city. The 

location and proposed purposes appear ideal. 

Plaintiffs’ attorneys object to Metropolitan High School. 
Some present school patrons want the school built. The 
School Board has announced a stoppage of work on that 
school pending this decision.  



  

310a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23,1969, Etc. 

All three groups may be proceeding upon an erroneous 

assumption—that the school if built will be a black school 

because the pupil and faculty populations will be governed 

by freedom of transfer and school zones as presently admin- 

istered. That assumption should no longer be entertained. 

Pupils for regular and vocational subjects can travel or 

be transported to and from this area, in all directions, with 

greater ease than is true of any other location in the 

county. The nearest other high schools, Harding, West 

Charlotte, Garinger, East and Myers Park, form a hollow 

pentagon six or seven miles on the side surrounding Sec- 

ond Ward. It would be tragic to refrain from building a 

needed educational facility simply upon the assumption 

that it has to be an all-black school and therefore either 

unlawful or unattractive. The School Board is advised to 

make plans for desegregation of this school along with 

other schools in the system. With the unrestricted statu- 

tory power to assign pupils and provide transportation, 

the only thing necessary to build Metropolitan High School 

according to the dreams of its planners is the decision 

to do so. 

g) The Percentage Racial Miz—Counsel for the plain- 

tiffs says that since the ratio of white to black students 

is about 70/30, the School Board should assign the children 

on a basis 70% white and 30% black, and bus them to all 

the schools. This court does not feel that it has the power 

to make such a specific order. Nevertheless, the Board 

does have the power to establish a formula and provide 

transportation; and if this could be done, it would be a 

great benefit to the community. It would tend to eliminate 

shopping around for schools; all the schools, in the New 

Kent County language, would be “just schools”; it would 

make all schools equally “desirable” or “undesirable” de- 

   



31ia 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Etec. 

pending on the point of view; it would equalize the bene- 
fits and burdens of desegregation over the whole county 
instead of leaving them resting largely upon the people 
of the northern, western and southwestern parts of the 
county; it would get the Board out of the business of law- 
suits and real estate zoning and leave it in the education 
business; and it would be a tremendous step toward the 
stability of real estate values in the community and the 
progress of education of children. Though seemingly radi- 
cal in nature, if viewed by people who live in totally 
segregated neighborhoods, it may like surgery be the most 
conservative solution to the whole problem and the one 
most likely to produce good education for all at minimum 
cost. It would simply put the all-white and all-black school 
people in the same school situation now being experienced 
by patrons of Cornelius, Davidson, Ranson, Long Creek, 
Dilworth, Olympic, Huntersville, Pineville, Randolph Road 
Junior High, Statesville Road, and similar schools. Such 
action would be supported by the unanimous testimony of 
all the experts and by inferences from the Coleman Report 
that although mixing a few whites and a heavy majority 
of blacks retards the whole group, nevertheless mixing a 
substantial majority of whites and a few blacks helps the 
blacks to advance without retarding the whites. 

h) A Word About the School Board.—The observations 
in this opinion are not intended to reflect upon the motives 
or the judgment of the School Board members. They have 
operated for four years under a court order which re- 
flected the general understanding of 1965 about the law 
regarding desegregation. They have achieved a degree 
and volume of desegregation of schools apparently un- 
surpassed in these parts, and have exceeded the perfor- 
mance of any school board whose actions have been re- 

 



  

312a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Etc. 

viewed in appellate court decisions. The Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg schools in many respects are models for 

others. They are attractive to outside teachers and offer 

good education. The problem before this court is only 

one part (albeit a major part) of the educational problem. 

The purpose of this court is not to criticize the School 

Board, but to lay down some legal standards by which 

the Board can deal further with a most complex and 

difficult problem. The difference between 1965 and 1969 

is simply the difference between Brown of 1955 and Green 

v. New Kent County of 1968. The rules of the game have 

changed, and the methods and philosophies which in good 

faith the Board has followed are no longer adequate to 

complete the job which the courts now say must be done 

“now. » 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. Since 1965, the law has moved from an attitude 

barring discrimination to an attitude requiring active 

desegregation. The actions of school Boards and district 

courts must now be judged under Greem v. New Kent 

County rather than under the milder lash of Brown v. 

Board of Education. The court has outlined changes 

which should be made in the activity and theory of the 

local Board. 

9. The manner in which the Board has located schools 

and operated the pupil assignment system has continued 

and in some situations accentuated patterns of racial 

segregation in housing, school attendance and community 

development. The Board did not originate those patterns; 

however, now is the time to stop acquiescing in those 

patterns. 

   



313a 

Opwion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Etc. 

3. Freedom of transfer as operated in this system does 
not answer the problems of racial segregation. The evi- 
dence shows that the black students as a group have very 
low incomes. Freedom of transfer without transportation 

is to such a student often an empty right. 

4. The faculties have not been adequately desegregated 
as directed. This permits and promotes inequality of 
education. 

5. The court does not find any inequality based upon 
racial motives or reasons in the use of federal funds: the 
use of mobile classrooms; quality of school buildings and 
facilities; athletics; PTA activities; school fees; free 
lunches ; books; elective courses; nor in individual evalua- 
tion of students. The problem of alleged gerrymandering 
of district lines need not be covered separately from the 
general order herein made. 

6. There has been substantial desegregation in many 
areas—mostly the rural areas—of this large and com- 
plicated school system. A majority of the black students, 
however, still attend segregated schools and seldom, if 
ever, see a white fellow student. Many all-black and all- 
white schools still remain. The neighborhood school con- 
cept and freedom of choice as administered are not further- 
ing desegregation. 

7. The School Board has an affirmative duty to promote 
faculty desegregation and desegregation of pupils, and to 

deal with the problem of the all-black schools. 

8. The School Board is free and encouraged to use 
school busses or other public transportation and to use 

 



  

314a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Etc. 

mobile classrooms as needed to provide equality of educa- 

tional opportunity. 

9. The Board has assets and experience beyond the 

reach of a judge to deal with all these problems, and 

should be requested to formulate a plan and time table 

of positive action. 

ORDER 

1. All findings or statements of fact in this opinion and 

order shall be deemed conclusions of law, and all conclu- 

sions of law shall be deemed to be findings of fact as 

necessary in support and furtherance of this order. All 

competent and relevant evidence in the record has been 

considered in support of this order. 

9. The defendant is directed to submit by May 15, 1969, 

a plan for the active and complete desegregation of teach- 

ers in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system, to be 

effective with the 1969-70 school year. Such plan could 

approach substantial equality of teaching in all schools by 

seeking to apportion teachers to each school on substan- 

tially the same ratio (about three to one) as the ratio of 

white teachers and black teachers in the system at large. 

It is suggested that teachers’ preferences not be especially 

sought and that teachers be assigned as a routine matter 

for the purpose of accomplishing this equalization of the 

application of educational manpower and womanpower in 

the public schools. Such a plan should provide safeguards 

against racial discrimination in the discharge of any 

teachers whose jobs might be changed or abolished. Such 

safeguards should include provisions that if anyone has 

to be discharged, his qualifications will be weighed against 

   



  

15a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Etec. 

those of all personnel in the system rather than simply 
against those in the capacity in which he has been working; 
no teacher should be dismissed or demoted or denied em- 
ployment or promotion because of race or color. In other 
words, the Board will be expected to see to it that teachers 
displaced by virtue of this order will not be discriminated 
against on account of race. 

3. The defendant is directed to submit by May 15, 1969, 
a plan and a time table for the active desegregation of the 
pupils, to be predominantly effective in the fall of 1969 
and to be completed by the fall of 1970. Freedom of choice 
and zoning may be used in such a plan provided they 
promote rather than defeat desegregation. If freedom 
of choice is retained in such plan, it should include pro- 
vision for transportation free for any student who requests 
transfer out of a school where his race is in the majority, 
and to any school where his race is in the minority, and 
a means of insuring that all students have full and timely 
knowledge of the availability of such transportation. 

4. In formulating its plan the Board is, of course, free 
to use all of its own resources and any or all of the 
numerous methods which have been advanced, including 
pairing of grades and of schools; feeding elementary into 
junior high and into senior high; combinations of zone 
and free choice where each method proceeds logically 
towards eliminating segregation; and bussing or other 
transportation. The Board may also consider setting up 
larger consolidated school units freely crossing city-county 
lines to serve larger areas. There is no magic in existing 
school zone lines nor in the present size of any school. 
The Board is encouraged to get such aid as may be avail- 
able from state and federal agencies including the offices 

 



  

316a 

Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Etc. 

of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 

The court does not direct a treaty with the Department, 

but does suggest that since its employees are in the busi- 

ness of dealing with these problems, they have a store 

of technical assets and manpower and information which 

could be useful in the Board’s making any particular 

judgment or analysis. 

5. The plan should be the plan of the Board for the 

effective operation of the schools in a desegregated at- 

mosphere, removed to the greatest extent possible from 

entanglement with emotions, neighborhood problems, real 

estate values and pride. The court’s task has not been 

easy, but it is fully realized that the task facing the Board 

is far more difficult and will require a conspicuous degree 

of further public service by the Board’s members. 

This the 23rd day of April, 1969. 

/s/ James B. McMiLrax 

James B. McMillan 

United States District Judge 

   



317a 

APPENDIX 

Page 1 

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

Research Report 2-'69 

SUMMATION OF DEGREE OF INTEGRATION 1965 (MARCH) AND 1968-69 (OCT. 1, 

For Pupils Professional Staff 

  

Schools Having Inteqration 
  

  

. For 1965 1968 « For 1965 1968 - 
Pupils | N+ 22 W 16 N + 68 W Staff 3 N+OW 16 N + 82 W 

= 23 of 109 = 84 of 112 = 3 of 109 = 98 of 112 

or 21% or 75% or 3% or 874% 

I 
1965 1968 1965 1968 

N Ww N W N W N W 

A. Number in 

Minority Race 
(integrated) 

Pupils OM L76N 5.W ON 
1192wW 6704N 131W 208N 

B. 
Number in 

Majority Race 

(integrated) 

. Pupils 
343N 16, LLbW 143,3N +0W 

8697N L47,356W 37LN 2575W 

Total Involved by 

Integration 
. Predominantly 

Negro Schools 

ww Pupils 

352 9889 Staff 149 505 

  

. Predominatly 
White Schools 
  

    

  

- = Pupils 16,922 54,060 Staff 0 2783 

.Total 

- = Pupils 17,274 63,949 Staff 149 3288 
or or or or 

24% of of 5% of 1% of 
72,336 3,11} 3140 incl. 3613 assigned 

Enrolled part assignments at one definite 
in schools school 

 



  

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

318a 

APPENDIX 

Page 2 

RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF 

1965 (March) and 1968-69 (Oct. 1, '68) 

Professional Staff 
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

No. 1965 Pupils No. 1968 Pupils 1965 1668 

Grade School N W School N W N Ww N W 

1-6 72 9,364 27,69 76=- 13,290 31,545 377+ 1161% 478 1329 

7-9 17 2,475 11,804 21 5,934 14,741 11- 533 228 708 

10-12 8 1,625 10,677 1 4,377 12,313 65 L79% 178 bli 

97 13,464 50,177 1¢8- 23,601 58,599 553% 2184 884 2679 

285% ~ FTw0 Wyk 
Other }2 6,877 1,818 + 640 271 323% 79 23 2 

; : Kgn. + Trainable 

1-4 | 360 15% 
1-7 2 431 207 17 9% 

1-9 3 729 1611 32 68 

5-9 ] 505 25% 

1-12 3 2400 113% : 

7-12 2 2452 120 13 

Total 109 20,341 51,995 112 2k, 241 58,870 877 2263 907 2706 

so Pry 7 
: ud 

| 733%T | Fair, ilu San ol 
280 WP 21.27 704% 

  

Among teachers assigned to 

more than one school 

   



  

319a 

APPENDIX 

Page 3 

COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONA. STAFFING BY RACE 

  

  

March 6, 1965 and 1968-69 * 

Professional Staff 

School 1965 Pupils 1968-69 Puplls 1966 1968-69% 

Elementary N W N W N Ww N W 
- 3 (other) % 7 (other) 
v 7 v Vv 

Albemarle Rd. L 1% 499 6 3% 13 
Alexander Street 342 168% 257 100% 14.1 100% 11 100s 
Allenbrook 50 10% 452 2 10 18 
Ashley Park 0% 694 0% 553 0% 22.9 2. 9%, ap 
Bain 0% 674 25 37 699 0% 28.2 i 3% 28 

Barringer 0% 6ob 668 B45 131 O% 24.8 13 43% 18 
Berryhill 0.1026 119 15% 685 0% 39.6 2 L932 
Bethune 343977 9 223 99%. 3 17.6160 11 1007s 
Beverly Woods 0% 286 ] he 12 
Biddleville 434 100% 17.2100 

Billingsville 729 100% 619 100% 2 32.1 100% 25 100% 
Briarwood 2 0% 582 8 17 640 0% 23.9 3 27 22 
Bruns 740 99% 4 26 23% 2 
Chantilly 07. L445 2 0% 49) 01.18.8 | 5h 21 
Clear Creek O% 207 58 201.225 0% 9.6 ] Th 12 

Coll inswood CL 375 72 13% 490 0%. 16. | Sh 21 
Cornelius 0 24) 239 49% 252 0%:11.3 7 33% 14 
Cotswold 01. 631 Yi 1% 567 0% 25.0 ] S% 21} 
Crestdale 97 10C% 5.0100" 
Davidson 0% 178 101 235% 186 0% 7.8 ] 7 11 

Marie Davis 808 100% 705 100% 34.3 100" 29 100% 
Derita 6 17 892 165 13% 728 0.35.4 3: 9%. 32 
Devonshire 2 Ow474 0% 889 07%.19.5 4: 30% 37 
Dilworth 100 20%401 223 391355 0%23.8 4 15% 22 
Double Oaks 703 (oo% 800 10C le 28.2160" 32 100° 

Druid Hills 520 00% coh M% 3: 20.7 100% 20 100" 
Eastover 0% 704 49 3% 580 on27.) ] Bl 24 
Elizabeth 5 \%% 448 270 S%Kw 194 0%22.9 2 9% 2) 
Enderly Park 0% 368 2 1". 37 O'Llb4,.9 1 67 18 
Fairview 702 100% 363 100% 28.0100 19 100%



  

First Ward 

212 J, H. Gunn 
Hickory Grove 

Hidden Valley 
Highland 

473 100% 

696 100% 

041. 530 

2 1% 273 

  

320a 

749 100%. 

80 13% 531 
Oo 977 

47 131.324 

22.8 100% 

33.6 100% 
0%21.7 

Q'kl4.0 

  

30 (oC 

] 4% 23 

2 5% 35 
1 17 14 

* Does not include staff assigned to more than one school per HEW request. 

fe N .q neared whole per Cent phot A a OF Leta l 

  

  

  

APPENDIX 

Page 4 
2 

COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE 

March 6, 1965 and 1968-69 * 

Professional Staff 

School 1965 Pupils 1968-69 Pupils 1965 1968-69% 

7 7 7 . 
Elementary N N W N # VM N N % W 

(other) (other) 

y \ J b 

Hoskins 0% 342 18 672261 0% 14.7 2 9 

Huntersville 09553 162 237560 on 22.9 2 M25 

Huntingtowne Farms 09,358 7 /7%695 O% 15.1 1 “wl. 26 

Idlewild 090592 2 0%521 0% 23.9 | Y1. 22 

= Amay James 360 00 9 477 100% | 15.5 woe 19 100% 

13L Ada Jenkins 431 700% "17.0 loo 
Lakeview 092/400 269 45%147 0%.18.5 4 MY § 

Lansdowne 02,633 07758 09.23.9 1 31. 30 

Lincoln Heights 783 00 2 817 700% 2 29.1 100% 30 \0O% 

Long Creek 09423 250 35%U66 0%.17.6 2 Th 2 

" atthews 02937 (1-6)93 717742 0139.7 1: 3% 32 

Merry Oaks 09538 07.469 0% 21.9 12.5% 13 

Midwood 0 2,560 1 ©7522 0.24.9 2 99. 21 

Montclaire 07420 0 %722 07. 29.1 1 4% 27 

Morgan 305 spo Po 14,9 100% 

 



  

1-12 

  

321a 

  

  

Myers Park 0%575 23 47543 07. 24.9 | 4 23 
Myers Street 820 woy, 32.2 100% 
Nations Ford 09513 63 707.585 0.21.6 | Ya. 25 

Newel | 0%, 463 73 757423 0118.3 1 5h 18 
Oakdale 0 %402 72 1372480 0%l17.2 1 5% 21 

Oakhurst 0% 548 2 0%615 04. 22.8 1 44, 23 
Oaklawn 666 100 % 650 700% 26.0 {60% 25. 93» 2 
Olde Providence 10 2%134 1 17 
Park Road 0% 583 090551 0%22.7 1 5% 21 
Paw Creek 09,793 63 79361 0%30.3 | 3% 31 

Pineville 0% 364 168 JF2 74363 0% 16.2 1 5% 21 
Pinewood 09719 0%:707 0% 28.1 1 Ha, 26 

Plaza Road 09, 400 99 /9 7409 O%l}.7 1 5% 21 
Rama Road O%o Ly2 2 0%1777 0%18.7 2 T™e 27 

Sedgefield 3 /%526 7 17.545 0%21.8 2 MT 20 

Plato Price 5065 /00% 25.4 100% 
Selwyn 07531 5 /74598 0% 21.9 1 Yq, 22 
Seversville 96 305,229 0% 14.8 

Shamrock Gardens 09536 0 76539 021.9 1 S% 20 

Sharon 0%59! 6 %519 0% 22.9 1 Sh 

APPENDIX 

Page 5 

3 

COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE 
March 6, 1965 and 1968-69 * 

Professional Staff 

School 1965 Pupils 1968-69 Pupils 1965 1968-69% 

Elementary Nie MW N Te Ww NW Noy 
N N (other) N N (other) 
+ —r 4 $ 

Starmount OL 481 25 39% 713 on 20.9 1 3% 28 
Statesville Road Ot 650 295 3b% 534 0% 25.9 3 9% 29 

-12 Steele Creek On. 222 12 2% 53) OL l10.7 ] 9 20 
ister ing 699 1007s 33.9 100% 

Thomasboro 0% 885 Of 705 0.34.3 2 Th '28 

Torrence-Lytle 1005 1007. Lb.1 1007 
Tryon Hills 0% 324 241 Soh 245 0.15.0 ] 5% 20 
Tuckaseegee 0% 631 61 10% 553 0723.9 ] HY 23 
University Park 700 100%, 777 1007s 25.8 1007. 0 97% | 
Zeb Vance L65 100s 257 100% 19.5 100% 1 100



  

322a 

Villa Heights 23 ‘, 594 796 Slle126 01. 28.3 23 LANs 14 

Wesley Heights 214 100% 8.3 Ph 2.2 
Westerly Hills 0Y. 569 ] YT 22 

Wilmore 6 17 323 145 33, 293 0% 15.4 8 HOA 12 

Windsor Park 1 07 679 2 01.737 07 25.8 1 7 27 

Winterfield Ol 455 0% 689 Ohi18.7 ] 47 26 

Woodland 360 100% 14.8 100% 
Woodlawn O07 283 Oklk.0 

Isabella Wyche 383 100 Te 222 10070 18.6 1000 12 100% 

Child Development (Kgn.) 

Davidson, Center #l 83 $7117 3 SC 7 

Pineville, Center #2 166 3% 37 2 ao g 

Seversville, Center #3 174 91% 26 8 $07 2 

Morgan, Center #4 188 91% 6 8 90% 2 

APPENDIX 

Page 6 

COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE 

March 6, 1965 and 1968-69 * 

Professional Staff 

  

  

  

School 1965 Puplls 1968-69 Pupils 1965 1968-69 * 

Junior High api Ta . W N Jo 
(other) N (other) 

i Y : y y 

Albemarle Road 66 1 881 4 43 

Alexander . 0% S77 347 31 755 O% 28.9 6 12h 

Cochrane oO 872 76 5% 1444 07 35.4 6 \C'h 56 

Coulwood 3 1". 574 119 1. 727 Oe 27.1 L ul 34 

Eastway 0% 1046 3 01364 O01. 43.2 3 5h 55 

Alex. Graham 0%. 1048 8 1°. 1084 0% 43.8 Lh 9% 43 

Hawthorne 25 41. 670 492 527 47 07 33.9 12 21%. 33 

Irwin Ave. 785 1007s 666 100 42,7 100% 32 91% 

McClintock 01.1273 L6 47 1228 0h 51.5 2% 49 

Northwest 773 1007. 932 100 33.7100. 39 100°» 

 



  

  

Piedmont 121. 09% 29; 428 99% 53 07 26.8 13 5312 Quail Hollow Oe 766 171 121261 0% 35.2 3 5%6] Rando ph 272 Wn7) 2 5% 38 Ranson 9 |% 6658 253 307.586 C7 30.0 6 IL 3) 
Sedgefield 6 I'h 920 189 19%. 802 0% 40.5 5 4U%.38 

Smith 0*%L1115 07.1389 Ch 48.6 3 5 57 Spaugh 1 07% 930 186 19 871 oLk2.5 6 129 43 Williams 752 1007 893 (007s 34.9 100% 37 1007s 
Wilson 0% 1064 60 S% 1132 07. 45.6 Le 45 York Rd. (7-12) 1041 100% 727 PW 6 49.9 I00%e 32 Mh 1 

Learning Academy = 7th & 8th grades 
counted in JH, above, 5 192 

APPENDIX 

Page 7 

COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE 
March 6, 1965 and 1968-69 * 

Professional Staff 

School 1965 Pupils 1968-69 Pupils 1965 1968-69% 

Senior High ND oy Nay Ne nT 
iy N (other) N N (other) 
Jo | : | I N + te 

East Mecklenburg O% 1782 155 ¥7c1739 0% 79.2 6 Vi. 85 
Garinger 2 ON 2266 202 9% 2157 07.100.0 8 oN 102 
Harding O07. 1002 169 11% 814 Ol 48.0 4 3% 4s 
Independence 92 9A 962 6. Ih SS 
Myers Park 31 27 1772 158 ¥7.18¢5 0% 76.7 6 7 87 

North Mecklenburg 1 OTs 1155 410 2141109 0" 51.8 6. FTI 63 
Olympic 259 3% 522 5 WT 39 stl Second Ward 1411 1007, 1139 10070 3 70.0 1% 1,5 57. 95% 3 
South Mecklenburg 30 2° 1430 106 ©7.1812 0%72.0 4  ©% 78 
West Charlotte 1560 Wo 1569 10070 65.0 971. 2.0 74 3 6 West Mecklenburg 1 OL 1270 118 311340 0%61.4 4 S%. 73 

 



  

324a 

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

(Filed May 15, 1969) 

Plaintiffs, by their undersigned counsel, respectfully 

move the Court for an order temporarily restraining the 

defendants from initiating or continuing the construction 

of new schools or new facilities at any existing schools 

without the specific prior approval of the Court and, as 

grounds therefor, show the following: 

1. This action was initially filed in 1965 by forty-two 

black parents and students in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

School System seeking the elimination of racial segrega- 

tion in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools. An order 

was entered by this Court on July 14, 1965, from which the 

plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

Circuit issued its opinion in 1966. Swann v. Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg Board of Education, 369 F.2d 29 (4th Cir. 

1966). 

The plaintiffs moved this Court for further relief on 

September 6, 1968, contending that the Board had failed 

to meet its affirmative duty to adopt and implement plans 

for the total and complete desegregation of the Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg Public Schools. (A more detailed history of 

this litigation is contained in plaintiffs’ motion for further 

relief.) 

9. On April 23, 1969, this Court filed an opinion and 

order requiring the defendant to submit plans, by May 15, 

1969, “for the active and complete desegregation of teachers 

in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system, to be effective 

with the 1969-70 school year” and “for the active desegrega- 

   



  

325a 

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

tion of the pupils, to be predominantly effective in the fall 

of 1969 and to be completed by the fall of 1970.” 

3. The Court concluded as a matter of law: 

“2. The manner in which the Board has located schools 

and operated the pupil assignment system has con- 

tinued and in some situations accentuated patterns of 

racial segregation in housing, school attendance and 
| community development. The Board did not originate 

those patterns; however, now is the time to stop ac- 

quiescing in those patterns.” 

4. The plaintiffs contended and offered evidence in sup- 

port of their contention that attendance lines had been 

gerrymandered to foster segregation within the various 

schools. The Court reserved judgment on this issue: 

“ll. Gerrymandering. Gerrymandering was contended 

in the 1965 hearing of this case. Perhaps the evidence 

comes closer to proving it this time. The court is not 

by this order foreclosing the later assertion of that 

contention or, for that matter, any other contention 

which may be advanced, because it is the court’s duty 

to keep the matter under advisement. However, in view 

of the court’s orders herein which are expected to pro- 

duce substantial changes in the pupil assignment sys- 

tem and a reappraisal of all zoning considerations, it 

is believed that nothing in particular need be said here 

about specific school district lines.” (Emphasis added.) 

5. The Court’s expectation that its order would produce 

“substantial changes in the pupil assignment system and a 

reappraisal of all zoning considerations” was entirely rea- 

 



  

326a 

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

sonable. The order required as much and a United States 

District Court should expect compliance with its orders. 

However, the actions of the defendant since April 23, 1969, 

when the Court entered its order, strongly suggest that 

what was expected—and required—is unlikely to occur. 

The administration, in response to the Court’s order and 

under the direction of the Board, spent approximately two 

weeks preparing a plan. In light of the Green trilogy de- 

cided approximately one year ago, the Norfolk, Virginia 

school case (Brewer v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, 

397 F.2d 37 (4th Cir. 1968)) decided in June of 1968 and the 

pendency of plaintiffs’ motion for further relief, (see also, 

Felder v. Harnett County Board of Education, F.2d — 

(No. 12,894, 4th Cir., April 22, 1969) ) a school board acting 

in good faith would be expected to have developed some 

contingency plans. There is no evidence of such planning. 

The plan which is now before the Board and which ap- 

parently is the only plan under consideration, is totally un- 

responsive to the directions of this Court. It does not call 

for “substantial changes in the pupil assignment system” 

and reflects no “reappraisal of all zoning considerations.” 

It contains no hint of “active desegregation of the pupils” 

for the 1969-70 school year. There is no plan for pupil de- 

segregation for the 1970-71 school year as required by the 

order. There is, at best, a plan to develop a plan if a con- 

sensus can be reached. 

  

6. The Board has neither accepted the decision of the 

Court as a statement of the applicable law under the facts 

of the case nor has it sought review. Instead, it has held 

public meetings to hear expressions from citizens as to the 

social wisdom of this Court’s decision. It has failed to as- 

sume its responsibility to educate the public as to the re- 

   



  

327a 

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

quirements of the law as enunciated by this Court (and 

the Supreme Court of the United States) but has offered a 

forum to those who disagree with the law. In fact, members 

of the Board, including its Chairman, have encouraged and 

joined those who express resistance to the kinds of changes 

required by the Constitution of the United States. (See 

Monroe v. Board of County Commissioners, 391 U.S. 450, 

where the Court reasserted and quoted from Brown v. 

Board of Education, 349 U.S. 249 (Brown II) a fundamental 

principal: “ ‘But it should go without saying that the 

vitality of these constitutional principles cannot be al- 

lowed to yield simply because of disagreement with 

them.” ”) 

7. The Board has had before it at its two most recent 

meetings the plan which was prepared by the administra- 

tion—a plan which is totally unresponsive to the order of 

this Court. The Board has yet to act upon or even discuss 

the plan submitted by the administration. At the most re- 

cent meeting, on Tuesday, May 13, 1969, the Board de- 

cided only that it would ask for an extension of time within 

which to submit plans to the Court. (The Court has now 

granted a two-week extension.) No instruction was given 

to the administration as to the preparation of any other 

plan and no decision was reached as to the plan before 

the Board. No date was set for a further meeting of the 

Board. 

8. At the meeting of May 13, 1969, the Board, while 

failing to take action upon a desegregation plan, did take 

action on further construction of school facilities. It ap- 

proved bids on “Project 600,” a new facility, and bids for 

renovations and additions to Wilson Junior High School,  



  

328a 

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

Clear Creek Elementary School and Myers Park Senior 

High School. These projects involve more than two mil- 

lion dollars in construction costs. The action taken on each 

of these projects was done without having adopted a plan 

or even a policy for the desegregation of the Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg Schools and, of course, no such plan had been 

approved by, or even filed with, this Court. 

9. Plaintiffs contend that the construction of new school 

facilities in the absence of a legally acceptable plan for 

desegregation should be temporarily enjoined until it is 

demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court that such 

facilities would contribute to, rather than detract from, the 

desegregation of the schools. Plaintiffs sought such relief 

in their motion filed in September of 1968. Plaintiffs sub- 

mit that such an order was appropriate then and that such 

an order is required now. See, e.g., Kelley v. Altheimer, 378 

F.2d 483 (8th Cir. 1967); Wheeler v. Durham City Board 

of Education, 346 F.2d 768 (4th Cir. 1965); Brewer v. 

School Board of the City of Norfolk, supra. 

The Court has suggested that “[t]he Board may also con- 

sider setting up larger consolidated school units freely 

crossing city-county lines to serve larger areas.” It may 

be that the Board will be required to take this course of 

action as part of its legal obligation to desegregate the 

schools. However, in continuing to plan and approve new 

school constructions without having adopted an effective 

desegregation plan, the Board is foreclosing its options in 

this respect. This would be true even if the Court’s assump- 

tion were correct that the Board has proceeded and would 

continue to proceed in a good faith effort to comply with 

the requirements of the law. We submit that the Court can 

no longer indulge in such an assumption. It is crucial at 

   



  

329a 

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

this time that the Board be enjoined from continuing or 
initiating any further construction where evidence of good 
faith compliance is absent. A new school stands for genera- 
tions. The course of action taken by the Board since the 

order was entered on April 23 is entirely inconsistent with 

the Board’s constitutional duties and legal obligations to 

the Court; rather, the Board’s actions have been consistent 

with a policy of delay and resistance to the requirements of 
the law. 

WaEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this motion 

be heard at the earliest practicable time and that upon 

hearing of this motion the defendant be temporarily en- 

joined from initiating or continuing the construction of new 

schools or new facilities at any existing schools. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Conrap O. PrArsox 

203%, Kast Chapel Hill Street 

Durham, North Carolina 

CraMBERS, STEIN, FERGUSON & LANNING 
216 West Tenth Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 

JACK GREENBERG 

James M. Nasrrr, IIT 

10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 



  

330a 

Plan for Desegregation of Schools 

(Filed May 28, 1969) 

In compliance with the order of the Court dated April 

23, 1969, the Board of Education proposes to amend and 

modify the plan or policy adopted by the Board on March 

11, 1965, which plan was approved by the Court, and which 

plan was amended by action of the Board of Hducation on 

June 13, 1967, by substituting therefor the following pro- 

visions: 

Puri. ASSIGNMENT (GUIDELINES 

1, 

Attendance Areas 

Attendance areas are hereby established for all schools 

within the Mecklenburg County Administrative School Unit 

and the boundaries thereof are hereby established as shown 

on those three certain maps this day exhibited to the Board 

and approved by the Board. These maps are identified 

and designated as follows: “Map No. 1, Attendance Areas 

for Elementary Schools,” “Map No. 2, Attendance Areas 

for Junior High Schools” and “Map No. 3, Attendance 

Areas for Senior High Schools.” The Chairman and Secre- 

tary of this Board shall each affix his signature to each 

map in his official capacity and the official seal of the Board 

shall be affixed, as evidence of its adoption by the Board. 

A copy of each map shall be kept at each school in the at- 

tendance areas shown thereon. The maps shall be open to 

public inspection in the office of the Superintendent and at 

the schools. 

   



331a 

Plan for Desegregation of Schools 

2. 

Assignment of Pupils 

All pupils within any attendance area shall be assigned 

to the school of his or her grade within such attendance 

area. Assignment for any forthcoming school term shall 

be made not later than the last school day or as soon there- 

after as possible. In the case of children enrolled during 

such term, notice of assignment may be given by noting the 

same on the report card of the pupil thereof or any other 

means that will adequately insure the delivery of written 

notice to the parent. Except for beginners, pupils not then 

enrolled shall be assigned at the time of their application 

for enrollment. 

3. 

Assignment from Pre-School Clinics 

Beginners (children entitled to enrollment under G.S. 

115-162) may attend any pre-school clinic but shall be as- 

signed to the first grade of the school in the attendance 

area where the parent resides. Written notice of each 

assignment shall be given by mail to the parent at the same 

time as the report card or other written notice to pupils 

already enrolled. (The word parent as used in these regu- 

lations shall denote the parents, if living together, or the 

parent or person in loco parentis with whom the pupil 

resides.) 

4. 

Free Choice or Transfer 

After original assignment, the parent of any pupil may 

apply to the Board for reassignment of such pupil to any 

school serving his or her grade and located in any other 

 



  

332a 

Plan for Desegregation of Schools 

attendance area. Any such request for transfer shall be 

allowed as of course to the extent that the facilities and 

accommodations of the chosen school will permit. Applica- 

tion may be made for Choice I, Choice II and Choice III 

and transfer will be permitted, in the order of choice, to 

the school having the facilities and accommodations to ad- 

mit such child or children. Requests for transfer shall be 

on a printed form available at the office of the Superin- 

tendent or at any school office. When signed, the form may 

be delivered or mailed to the principal of the school of 

original assignment or to the office of the Superintendent. 

No reason need be given therefor. Application for a trans- 

fer or reassignment shall be made within ten days after 

the date of the original assignment. If there should be re- 

quests for transfer to a particular school by more pupils 

from other attendance areas than the transferee school can 

accommodate, proximity to the school shall be the con- 

trolling factor. To encourage transfer by students from 

schools in which their race is in the majority to a school in 

which their race is in the minority, free transportation will 

be provided for students exercising and granted such 

transfer. 

D. 

Transfers Limited in Case of New Schools 

In the case of mass assignments of pupils to newly (newly 

described to mean the first full year of operation) opened 

schools in newly created attendance areas, the Board may 

deny the request for the transfer of any pupil back to the 

school in which he was previously enrolled, if in the judg- 

ment of the Board it appears that the number of transfer 

requests is of such volume as to unduly reduce the enroll- 

ment in such new school or interfere with the orderly ad- 

ministration thereof. 

   



333a 

Plan for Desegregation of Schools 

6. 

Varsity Athletics 

A student who exercices the privilege of free choice under 

these regulations and is granted transfer to a senior high 

school (grades, 10, 11 or 12) other than the senior high 

school serving the attendance area in which he resides, 

shall not be eligible for participation in varsity or junior 

varsity athletics for the duration of the first school year of 

assignment in the chosen school: Except that where by 

reason of changes in the boundaries of attendance areas a 

pupil is originally assigned to a school other than the one 

in which he was previously enrolled, such pupil, if he 

chooses to return to said school and is assigned accord- 

ingly, shall be immediately eligible for varsity participa- 

tion. 

When a student returns to the school of original assign- 

ment, he may exercise all the privileges at said school 

without penalty. 

The Director of Physical Education and Athletics shall 

administer the above regulations pertaining to athletic 

participation and shall maintain appropriate records in his 

office and shall require that similarly appropriate records 

be kept in the individual senior and junior high school 

offices pertaining to total athletic participation eligibility. 

1. 

School Capacity to be Determined 

A rated capacity shall be established and adopted by the 

Board for each school facility in the Mecklenburg County 

School Administrative Unit prior to the date of initial 

assignments for any ensuing school term. Under normal 

 



  

334a 

Plan for Desegregation of Schools 

circumstance, additional assignments of students from out- 

side the official attendance area of each specific school will 

be limited to a total anticipated enrollment to be established 

within 10 days after the close of the school term in each 

year not to exceed the maximum capacity of the school plus 

ten per cent of such capacity in the school. All requests 

from a majority race to a minority race will be granted 

within 20 per cent of such capacity before other transfers 

are granted. 

The determination of the majority race will be based upon 

the pupil enrollment of the school at the time original as- 

signments are made. 

The limitation of school capacity shall not apply to new 

residents in an attendance area. 

The Board will act upon transfer requests immediately 

after determination of such anticipated enrollment for an 

ensuing term, as hereinabove provided for, and the deter- 

mination at that time shall control notwithstanding subse- 

quent changes in enrollment at any school. 

8. 

Transportation 

Where transportation is provided in any school attend- 

ance area, the school buses will not normally operate be- 

yond the boundaries of such attendance area, and therefore, 

it will not be practicable to transport a pupil residing in one 

attendance area to the school of his choice in another at- 

tendance area. The only exception to this provision will be 

that for pupils who have exercised free choice of transfer 

from a school in which their race is in the majority to a 

school in which their race is in the minority, free trans- 

   



335a 

Plan for Desegregation of Schools 

portation will be provided. Provided, however, that any 

other pupil residing in any attendance area and attending 

school in another attendance area may have transportation 

to such school from any regular stop for receiving pupils 

and from the school to any regular stop for discharging 

pupils within such attendance area. 

9. 

Enrollment Continues for School Term 

Any child enrolled in any school after original assign- 

ment or by transfer after original assignment shall remain 

in the school of enrollment for the school term, and no subse- 

quent transfer will be permitted except for a change of 

residence from one attendance area to another, or for a 

return to the original assignment as provided in Section 4, 

or for other good cause shown. In the event of change of 

residence, the pupil may elect to remain in the school of 

enrollment for the remainder of the school term. A pupil 

enrolled in a school in an attendance area other than that 

of his or her residence shall be advanced, at the appropriate 

time, to junior or senior high school, as the case may be, 

serving the attendance area in which the pupil resides. 

This provision shall not have the effect of denying such 

pupil the right to transfer to another school of his grade 

and choice at the end of the term of the school in which the 

pupil is enrolled. 

In the event a student has dropped out of school and 

then desires readmittance, requesting a transfer to a school 

other than the school to which he was last assigned, a period 

of at least one semester must have lapsed since last date 

of attendance and the request must follow the procedure 

heretofore outlined in these guidelines. 

 



  

336a 

Plan for Desegregation of Schools 

10. 

Special Education and Special Abilities and 

Talents Students 

When children are identified as eligible for Special Kdu- 

cation and SAT classes, they will be assigned to the suit- 

able class in their attendance areas or, if no space is avail- 

able, they will be placed on the appropriate waiting list 

for assignment as space is available. Currently applicable 

attendance areas are identified on attendance area maps 

for Special Education and SAT. While administrative re- 

sponsibility for assignment to Special Education or SAT 

classes is shared by the home school principal and the 

pupil assignment office, the recommendation for such as- 

signment must come from the Special Education or SAT 

Department. Such recommendations are made to the home 

school principal after the prescribed identification and 

evaluation procedures have been completed. 

Freedom of choice as outlined elsewhere in this document 

will apply to Special Education and SAT pupils insofar 

as comparable class placement is available in the schools 

of choice. 

Requests for assignment from Special Kducation or SAT 

classes to regular classes will be received and acted upon 

by the principal of the school in which the pupil is enrolled. 

Decision of such requests can be made only after appropri- 

ate involvement of and recommendations from the Director 

of Special Education or the Director of SAT. 

   



337a 

Plan for Desegregation of Schools 

11. 

Tuition Students 

No student residing outside of Mecklenburg County shall 

be permitted to attend the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. 

If a student is living within Mecklenburg County but his 

parents or legal guardians are living outside the county, 

said student may attend the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

upon payment of a $100 tuition fee for the school year 

subject to approval by the Superintendent of Schools. This 

tuition fee is to be collected by the principal of the school 

the student is entering and forwarded to the Treasurer of 

the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. 

If a parent owns property on which he resides and it is 

partially in Mecklenburg County and partially in another 

county but it is a continuous piece of property, the child 

or children of said parent would be permitted to attend 
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. Students of parent re- 
siding outside of Mecklenburg County but who own a sepa- 
rate piece of property in Mecklenburg County are not 
eligible for attendance in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Schools. 

Determining legal residence of a student shall be the 
responsibility of the principal in the school where the child 
is requesting entrance. 

12. 

Effective Date and Duration of Rules and Regulations 

These policies and guidelines shall control the assign- 

ment and reassignment of pupils for the forthcoming 1969- 

1970 school term and shall be and remain in full force and 

 



  

338a 

Plan for Desegregation of Schools 

effect until amended, modified or altered by the Board and 

due public notice thereof given. Upon the opening of new 

schools, the policies set forth herein shall prevail in the 

establishment of new attendance areas for such schools. 

13. 

Notice of Rules and Regulations 

These policies and guidelines shall be spread upon the 

Minutes of this Board and notice of their adoption by the 

Board shall be given promptly once a week for two weeks 

in the Charlotte Observer and the Charlotte News and by 

such other means as the Board may consider desirable to 

give adequate and effective notice of the same. 

IT 

MzeTrROPOLITAN HIGH 

The Board of Education has determined that Second 

Ward High School shall be converted into a model special- 

ized school serving all students residing with Mecklenburg 

County. The high school attendance areas surrounding 

Second Ward High School will be redrawn in order that 

students attending Second Ward High School may be re- 

assigned to the school serving the district in which they 

reside. It is anticipated that as a result of the elimination 

of the present Second Ward High School a large majority 

of the Second Ward students would be reassigned to pre- 

dominantly white schools. 

   



339a 

Plan for Desegregation of Schools 

111 

FacuLty DESEGREGATION 

The Board of Education in recognition of its duty to 

achieve substantial faculty desegregation within the school 

system, will carry out the following procedures: 

1. Teachers having a high degree of motivation and 

an interest in volunteering for service in achieving 

this objective will be actively sought. 

2. Currently employed teachers will be allowed to 

move with co-workers wherever possible. 

3. Currently employed teachers will be given an oppor- 

tunity to indicate their choices of schools and con- 

sideration will be given to these insofar as possible. 

4. Newly employed teachers will be carefully assigned 

in an effort to further desegregate faculties. 

In the event the above procedures fail to achieve a sub- 

stantial faculty desegregation, the Board will exercise its 

power to assign faculty for this purpose. 

These policies and guidelines shall control the assign- 

ment and reassignment of teachers for the forthcoming 

1969-70 school term and shall be and remain in full force 

and effect until amended, modified or altered, by the Board 

of Education and due public notice thereof given. These 

policies and guidelines shall be spread upon the Minutes 

of this Board. 

 



  

340a 

Plan for Desegregation of Schools 

IV 

EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE TO UNDER-ACHIEVERS 

The Board of Education recognizes that it has a respon- 

sibility to provide the best educational program possible 

for all students. It further recognizes that there are some 

students who are served less effectively than others and 

that the system has a unique responsibility to these stu- 

dents. The Board of Education intends to make every effort 

to offer supplementary support to these young people by 

providing additional funds to the extent that they can be 

made available for use in employing additional staff, pro- 

viding a broader range of curricular offerings and de- 

veloping learning materials for pupils of varying levels of 

educational maturity. 

I, William C. Self, Superintendent of the Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg school system and Secretary to its Board of 

Education, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, 

perfect and correct copy of the plan for further desegre- 

gation of the Mecklenburg School Unit as adopted by the 

Board of Education on the 21st day of May, 1969, and 

spread upon its minutes, as amended on May 27, 1969. 

This the 28th day of May, 1969. 

Secretary to the Board 

William C. Self 

   



341a 

Report in Connection With Submission of 

Plan of Desegregation 

(Filed May 28, 1969) 

The defendant, through its attorneys of record, respect- 

fully submits to the Court its plan, the same being attached, 

for further desegregation of the schools of the Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg School Administrative Unit as approved by 

the Board of Education. 

With reference to pupil desegregation, the Board held 

extensive deliberations and study of the alternative sug- 

gestions by the Court and other alternatives and reached 

the conclusion that there were no possible means of getting 

the children together without substantial compulsory buss- 

ing and, in effect, destroying the neighborhood system, 

whereby, in the City of Charlotte, children in general at- 

tended those schools near to their homes as has been the 

practice in the City of Charlotte for many years. 

It is the judgment of the Board that the plan submitted 

herewith will accomplish further desegregation of pupils 

within the various schools. Under this plan, after the con- 

struction of Metropolitan High School, less than 500 Negro 

students (some West Charlotte High School graduates) 

during the course of their education may finish school with- 

out attending a predominantly white school. By continuing 

freedom of transfer and providing free transportation for 

students transferring from a majority race to a minority 

race school, these students, as is the case with all students 

within the system, may attend desegregated schools at all 

levels of their education. All white students will continue 

attending some desegregated schools in the course of their 

education. The Board and its staff will give reasonable 

publicity and notice of its free transportation offer. 

 



  

342a 

Report in Connection With Submission of 

Plan of Desegregation 

With reference to Metropolitan High School, the plan 

provides for establishing a county-wide attendance area 

for this school. Upon construction of the school, students 

of Second Ward High School will be assigned to those 

schools with attendance lines adjoining those of Second 

Ward High School, most of which have predominantly 

white student enrollment. The student and faculty popu- 

lation of the new Metropolitan High School is expected to 

be substantially desegregated. 

In connection with faculty desegregation, it is believed 

that the present plan offers substantial progress in achiev- 

ing a reasonable degree of faculty desegregation. The plan 

embodies a voluntary approach to teachers in seeking their 

agreement to transfer, assignment of new personnel and 

assignment of teachers in the event reasonable desegrega- 

tion is not achieved. It was reported that the Classroom 

Teachers Association out of a survey of 1,300 teachers 

reporting indicated that 240 teachers were agreeable to 

transfer to schools in which their race was in a minority. 

By projecting this figure, it would appear that in excess of 

600 teachers in the system would be willing to voluntarily 

transfer. In addition, the school system expects to employ 

700 new teachers to fill an expected 600 vacancies and 100 

positions created by growth in the student population, such 

new teachers to be assigned in such manner as to achieve 

further racial balance of faculties. In the event the fore- 

going procedures do not insure substantial desegregation 

of faculties, the Board will then reassign faculty members 

to achieve this result. 

The Board of Education’s staff proposes to implement 

faculty desegregation in the following manner: 

   



343a 

Report in Connection With Submission of 
Plan of Desegregation 

1. Solicit the help of the presidents of the local pro- 

fessional organizations. 

2. Use the facilities of the educational television sta- 
tion to encourage teachers to volunteer. 

3. Make available to teachers a form requesting volun- 
tary reassignment. (See attached copy.) 

4. Call together those who are presently teaching in 

opposite race situations to request their assistance. 

5. Seek to retain in their present positions as many 

as possible of those who are teaching in opposite race 

situations, 

6. No faculty member will be dismissed or demoted 

or denied employment or promotion because of race 

or color, 

7. Encourage schools to invite volunteers to meet 

faculty members prior to the end of the school term. 

During the 1969-70 school year, the Board of Education 
will carry on an intensive in-service education program 
for volunteers and newly assigned personnel who are teach- 
ing in opposite race situations. To accomplish this: 

1. Teachers who are transferred and newly assigned 

teachers will be offered a two weeks’ summer workshop. 

Those who participate will receive a stipend of $100 

per week. The cost of such a program is estimated as 

$200,000. An extensive effort will be made to under- 

write the cost with funds from federal and state 

sources. If this attempt is unsuccessful, the project 

will be supported by local funds. 

 



344a 

Report in Connection With Submission of 

Plan of Desegregation 

9. The Board of Education will renew the request for 

curriculum planning time for teachers which was ap- 

proved by the Board of Education on October 8&, 1968. 

The original plan which provided for planning time 

twice a month will be amended to provide for dismissal 

of pupils at approximately 1:00 p.m. one day per week. 

If necessary, the Board will petition the legislative 

delegation for emergency enabling legislation. 

3. The in-service education department will be as- 

signed a sum of $10,000 for the employment of substi- 

tute teachers. The substitutes will be used to free 

experienced and highly qualified staff members for a 

period of time so that they may give added support to 

their fellow teachers through in-service workshops. 

Attached to this report is a form for voluntary reassign- 

ment which the Board presently contemplates using in the 

faculty assignment. The Board does not represent that 

the procedures are inflexible or fixed as conditions in the 

future may warrant change as circumstances may dictate. 

In further improving the quality of education, the Board 

will seek to secure supplementary support for schools with 

pupils having test scores which are two years or more below 

the Charlotte-Mecklenburg median on paragraph meaning. 

In order to bring the expenditure for these pupils up to the 

national average per pupil, expenditure will require an 

additional $100 per pupil. Since approximately 13 per cent 

of the pupils in the system are in this category, the total 

expenditure will be about $1,100,000. A small percentage 

of this amount will be used to employ staff support not 

assigned to a specific school, and the remainder will be 

apportioned among the schools on the basis of the per- 

   



345a 

Report in Connection With Submission of 

Plan of Desegregation 

centage of qualifying pupils enrolled in each school. The 

principal and his teachers will be asked to submit a plan 

outlining how the allocation is to be spent. By a special 

formula, the allocation for supplementary support will be 

determined. 

Submitted for information of the Court are proposed 

letters to be delivered to the child for delivery to the parent 

with respect to free choice of transfer, marked Exhibit 

“B”, notice of assignment, marked Exhibit “C”, tabulation 

of school capacities and projected enrollment, marked 

Exhibit “D” and data on effect of free choice of transfer, 

marked Exhibit “BE”. 

The Board is not unmindful of the suggestions by the 

Court in its order and therefore sought the assistance of 

the State Department of Public Instruction prior to formu- 

lation of the attached plan. At a recent conference of the 

National School Board Association attended by several 

School Board members, it was reported by a representative 

of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare that 

his department regarded desegregation under court orders 

as basically a local matter, and therefore, no real assistance 

was offered to local school boards in preparing plans for 

compliance with court orders. It was, therefore, deemed 

fruitless to pursue the suggestion of the Court in this 

regard. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Brock Barkley 

818 Law Building 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

/s/ William J. Waggoner 

1100 Barringer Office Tower 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

 



    

346a 
    

  

Staff Member's Statement 

Recognizing my professional responsibility to teach young people 
of all races and the value which an integrated faculty can have for the 
total education of pupils, I volunteer for reassignment to a school 
where the majority of the current staff is of a race other than mine. 
I shall appreciate consideration being given to the following requests: 

1. To be reassigned to one of the following schools: 

  
  

  
  

1st choice Grade/Subject 

2nd choice = Grade/Subject 

3rd choice : Grade/Subject   
  

2. To be reassigned with the following co-workers who have volua- 
teercd for similar school assignments: 

i. 2. 

2, 4. 

Certification: | } Class "A" }" Class YG" fo Other:   

Record of service in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools: 

School Grade/Subject Dates of employment 

From To_ 
    

  

  
    

    

  
    

  

  

¥r. Mrs: Miss: Race: 
(signature) 

  
      

Address: Telephone: 
(street) 

  
  

Date: 
  

  

[city] (state) 

Please send onc copy of this ferm to the personnel office by June 4,196 

Ono copy should also he filed with your principal. 
    
    

Administrative action by the Personnel Department 
School assienment for 1969-70: Gradce/Subject: 

    

Exliibit "A" 

 



347a 

May 27, 1969 

Dear Staff Members: 

As the first step in achieving substantial faculty integration 
for 1969-70, the Board of Education has directed that we actively 
seek volunteers for reassignment from our current stals. 

li - 
We ask that you consider the importance of this undertaking 

and the role which you may have in it. 1f you are willing.to 
volunteer for this service, please complete the form on the 
reverse side and -yeturn it to the personnel office by June 4; 

We appreciate your cooperation and your understanding as ve 
seek the attainment of this goal. 

Sincerely, 

/ nf oil ph 
William C. Self 
Superintendent 

J 
i cd, po 

-— oe feo Zon. sion “4 2 

W. L. Anderson, Jr 
Assistant Superintencent 
Personnel 

 



  

THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBUPG SCHOOLS 

’ 

  

348a 

  

Pupil's last name 

  

  

First name 

Address = = Telephone number 

School last attended ce ae a ee 

Original Assignment for 1969-70: Grade: 
(Please so indicate if in Special Education or SAT Program.) 

School: 

Date of original assignment: June 5, 

  

Request for Transfer: 

First Choice:   

Second Choice: 
  

Third Choice: 

1969 
School Address Code 

__ School 

School 

School 
  

Signature of adult with whom pupil lives: 

Relationship to pupil: 

  

  

Mail or deliver by June 15, 1969 to any school office or to the Pupil 

Assignment Office, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, P.O. Box 149, 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 

  

Assignment: 

Date: 

Signature: 

Do not write in space below this line 

  

“Tor school official receiving request: 

Date received or Postmarked 

      

By Whom Received:       
  

 



  

349a 

CHAPLOTTL-MECKLEXBURG SCHOOLS 

ROBINSON CHURCH ROAD 

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 

Notice to All Parents: 

Your child has been assigned on the back of this notice 
to the school serving the attendance area in which you 
live or to the school which your child attended through 
free choice during the 1968-69 school year. The Board of 
Education policy states that "After original assignment 
the parent of any pupil may apply to the Poard for 
reassignment in any other attendance area' and that 'any 
such request for transfer shall:be allowed - to the extent 

that the facilities and accommodations of the chosen school 

will permit.” The only exception to this is in newly 

constructed schocls for which attendance areas have been 

created. 

FREE TPANSPORTATION SHALL RE PROVIDED TO ANY PUPIL WHO 

EXERCISES AND 1S GRANTED A MAJORITY RACE TO MINORITY PACE 

TRANSFER. 

Provision is made on the back of this notice for your 

use if you are not satisfied with the assignment of your 

child and want to request reassignment. This request for 

reassignment must be made not later than June 15, 1969. 

Parents are assured that school personnel will neither 

favor nor penalize any pupil because of the choice he makes 

in the exercise of his rights under this plan. 

Maps showing school attendance areas may be found in 

the office of each school of the system and at the Board 

of Education office. 

< = me 
ITI Tes. Camis 
Charlotte-Mecklenbyrg Poard of Education 

Villas CL    
William C. Self, Superintendent = 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

Exhibit "BR" 

 



  

CHARLOTTE -MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

NOTICE OF ORIGINAL ASSIGNIIENT 

  

  

  

The original assignment for your child 
  

for the 1969-7C term is grade s S Cil 
  

Date: Signed: 
    

HIk mf 

Exhibit "C" 

   



11
] 

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 

  

  

  

  

    
  

  

  

  

    
  

  

1969 ~- 1970 

TOTAL RATED MAXIMUM PROJECTED OPEN OR NAME OF SCHOOL TEACHING CAPACITY CAPACITY ENROLLMENT CLOSED SPACES | (27) (30) + 15% + ons 

Last Mecklenburg 70 1890 2100 2310 2520 2130 

Garinger 72 1971 2190 2409 2628 2515 > 

tlarding 37 999 1110 1221 1332 1000 en 

| independence 41 1107 1230 1353 1476 1150 : 8 
¥ - iV 

Myers Park 60 1620 1800 1980 2160 1990 Ii 

North Mecklenburg 49 1323 111470 1617 1764 1670 rie 

Olympic 31 837 970 fjyges jigs 785 . 

Second Ward 41 1107 1230 1353 1476 1135 po phe 

Scuth Mecklenburg 55 1485 { 1650 i315 1980 2115 a 

West Charlotte 65 1755 1950 2145 23490 1475 = 

| 
West Mecklenburg : 55 1485 1650 1815 1980 1575 ’S                 

Exhibit "D" 

 



    

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 

  

  

  

  
    
    
  

    
  

  

  

  

1969-70 

po : TOTAL RATED MAXIMUM PROJECTED OPEN OR 
NAME OF SCHOOL | TEACHING CAPACITY CAPACITY ENROLLMENT CLOSED 

SPACE (27) (30) + 10% + 20% a ! 
f 

Albeniarle Road | 295 675 750 825 900 990 

Aesandee 33 864 960 | 1056 }1152 1150 
i 

3 Bh ’ 

Corhrane ! Lt 1188 1320 §1452 } 1584 1590 ; 
} do H i un ; : 

§ Co lwood | 297 | 729 810 i 891} 972 830 | 
on mete . ‘ | 

Footway | 41 | 1107 1230 j1353 1476 1360 | 
La ; 

#1. :cnder Graham 34 ; 918 1020 §1122 {1224 1030 
a ; —, 

Hewsliorne 4, 1188 1320 | 1452 {1584 1075 

a ! : 
| Irvin Avenue | 29 ¢ 783 870 | 957 {1044 630 

{ } 

McClintock i 38 | 1626 1140 § 1254 1368 1465 
i : 

Northwest | 40 | 1080 1200 {1320 § 1440 940 
-—             

YY] ADDY 7A Prey os 

BG
GE

 

 



CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG JUNIOR HICH SCHOOLS 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

BE
CE
 

    
        

  

  
  

    
    

1969-70 

TOTAL RATED MAXIMUM PROJECTED | OPEN OR NAME OF SCHOOL TEACHING! CAPACITY CAPACITY ENROLLMENT | CLOSED 
SPACE (28) (30) + 10% + 20% 

Picdmont 25 8 750 825 900 495 

Quail Hollow 49 1323 1470 1617 | 1764 1490 

Randolph 40 1080 1200 1320 | 1440 1020 

Ranaon 23 621 690 759 828 £65 | 

Sedgefield 32 864 960 1056 | 1152 1020 

Smith 44 1188 1320 1452 | 1584 1430 

Spaugh 34 918 1020 1122 {222 1040 

Williang 32 864 960 1056 | 1152 940 

Wilson 35 945 1050 1155 | 1260 1265 

York Road 26 yor 780 858 | 936 785 

| | | 
| JI 

§ 

| 
| 

| 
{ 

  

  

—
 

—
 
—
 
S
e
n
s
e
 

S
a
 

—
 

I 
—
—
—
 

e
l
e
 

3 r
a
n
t
 

|
 

r
a
 

re
r 
e
—
—
 

Dr
 
—
—
 

  

  

                
  

   



CHARLOTTE~-MECKLENDBURC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 

  

  

  

  

  

    
  

    
  

  

  

  

    
  

      
  

  

  

  

          

1969-70 

TOTAL RATED MAXIMUM PROJECTED OPEN OR 

NAME OF SCHOOL TEACHINGY CAPACITY CAPACITY J ENROLLMENT | CLOSED | 

SPACE (28) {30 += 107 . + 207 

Albemarle Road 16 448 480 528 576 S65 

Alexander 15 420 450 495 540 260 

Allenbrooi: 20 560 600 660 720 520 

Ashley Park 23 644 690 759 828 575 

Bain 22 616 660 726 792 760 | 

Barringer i9 1+ 532 570 627 €84 805 | 

Berryhill 36 1008 1080 1188 1296 815 & 

Bethune 15 420 450 495 540 105 4 

Beverly Woods 20 560 600 660 720 550 

Pillingoville 24 672 720 792 864 635 

Briarwood 20 560 600 660 726 675 

Bruns Avenue ae MeL 728 | 780 858 936 780 

Chantilly 18 504 | 540 594 648 480 

Clear Creek | 7 | 196 | 2310 23) 252 285 

Collinswood | 23 644 | 620 759 828 580 

Cornelius | 18 | 504 | 540 594 648 480 

Cotswold | 20 | 560 600 660 720 555 

Davidson iz | 336 366 306 432 285            



  

| Davidsse 12 320. nt Lr an py 283... . 
  

CHARLOTTZ-MECKLIANBURG ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 

  

  

  

  
      
    
  

  

  

  

  

    
      
  

  

      
  
            
  

1969-79 

To7aL RATED HAXINUS [PROJECTED [OPEN OR 
NAME OF SCHOOL TEACHING] caPaciTY CAPACITY ; PANEL CLOSED 

ois \ SPACE (28) 1 (30) 4-107 ~b 207 

| Derita 31 8638 930 | 1023 1116] 895 | 

Devonshire 25... 1. en 720 792 | sc | 935 

Dilworth 24 672 720 | 792 £84 4 580 

ltouble Oaks 25 700 750 | 825 | 500 | 810 | 

[pruid Bills 18 504 | 540 | 594 | 648 | 565 | 

| Badtover Na We 672 720 | 792 i 364 | 540 

Elizabeth 21 588 630 €93 | 756 | 490 5 

Enderly Park 100. 580 360 396 432 | 375 | 2 

Falrview | 26 728 780 858 | 236) 330 
{ fi ] 

First Ward 23 784 840 924 | 1005] 73% | 

tcsony Crove : 17 4756 510 561 | 612 | 585 | 

liidden Valley | 24 672 720 792 | 864 | 1055 |} : : 
i120 100d 12 336 360 396 | wi 375 

Hoskins 12 336 360 396 432 | 230 

luntersville 26° {| "728 780 858 oho) 725 | 

Huntingtowne Farms | 22 | 516 660 726 792 280 

Iélewild 2¢ | an 720 | 792 | 864] 575 | 
: x 

Amay James | 10 280 300 i 330 360 505 |             
 



CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 

  

  

  

  

    
      
              
        
    

      

          
    

    

    

    

      

    
    

  
    

    
  

  

1969-70 

TOTAL RATED MAXIMUM PROJECTED | OPEN OR 
NAME OF SCdOOL TEACHING{ CAPACIIY CAPACITY ENROLLMENT | CLOSED 

SPACE (28) (30) + 10% + 20% 

Lakeview 16 448 480 528 576 430 

Lansdowne 28 784 840 924 1008 770 

| 

Lincoln Heights 24.672 720 792 864 765 : 
{ 

Long Creek 19 532 Vo 570 6271884 735 
i { 

Marie Davis |. 20 840 {900 990 | 1080 695 | 
: : i ) i 

Matthews 35 0 L080 | 2080-1 115%] 1240 gan} 
i y : : } 

Merry Oaks foina I 504 {ong fotapoproonng 460 1 & 
; ; Fo ¥ 

Midwood bo oolong 83g ten Ls em ms Kd £84 | Ch 
h. 3 Gute aia abel Samad Fig 1 3 

! : Montclaire biwas. done I. 950 +} inns ang i 7207 

| Myers Park 20 ' 560 : 600 ! .66D bs 1904 5553 ol 
rr : sa : 

i Narions Ford bo Bh 8D i a £95 | 
| : : - ; TOT 
| Newell LEE REY fronted veh od ovepd gogo 

; MA ma a tal ; 
'! Oakdale i 74) 1.580 i Soft nbn. von] Cp : f 

| I 4 Sus a i py 
i Oakhursc ; 20 ‘560 ! $00 4 460 77.0 | R40 
i meres jroo ~ 
| Oaklawn bites am bor 00d Types] wes | 565 

| 01de Providence b..20. 1. 560 {800 -1-lakg | 120 | 545 
boss : ° wee} fe sign : g ' 
; 4 } i ! 4 | Park Road bial i... 540 i © 600 J 640 | 720} 540 | 
i i | . | ; i | a 22 1 eae ! geo 3 ves of wood S50 i  



357a 

 
 

  
 
 

  
  

  
 
 

 
 

  
    

 
 

 
 

  
  

  
  

  
      

 
 

  
 
 

o
m
 

2 
S
n
 

m
o
 

r
n
 
m
a
m
 

2 
ort 

t
e
m
.
 
n
r
 

A 
cr 

TR 
he 

pt 
ms 

e
r
m
.
 

r
o
 

(5) 

Q
Q
 £3 

n
v
)
 

1
:
0
 

| 
J
P
R
S
 

| 

io 
Sd) 

i 
[2] 

0 
P| 

= 
oO 

vy 
(>) 

Cs 
wy 

45 
23 

[So] 
5) 

uy 
o
 

<2) 
7
 

(>) 
Q
 

(e) 
vw 

Oo 
0 

21 
id 

A 
~ 

i= 
~ 

0 
ol 

™ 
~ 

<i 
oy 

0 
a 

~~ 
oS 

vey 
0 

ro) 
-~ 

0 
5 

= 
Va) 

r~ 
un 

a 
Fa 

0 
nn 

Sg 
(0) 

de) 
nN 

fol 
~t 

\O 
> 

3 
Ne) 

“+ 

i MO
 

O
r
 

n
A
 

pYERAS) 
| 

gesewn 
e
s
 

a
 

e
a
m
 

oo 
bi 

en, 
M
n
 

o 
n 

ol 
x] 

of 
elt 

ol 
ol 

m
l
e
 

id 
Ml 

em 
ot 

rdial 
Ho) 

oy 
o 

— 
BN 

olf 
~~ 

No) 
wn 

ol 
oi 

Ga. 
Oo! 

fo) 
~~ 

~~ 
~
 

~ 
ye) 

D
V
 

r~ 
=
 

% 
lo 

Oo 
~1 

n 
>) 

~ 
~ 

0 
~~ 

of 
0 

8) 
a 

~ 
~ 

2 
v
l
 

ny 
Oo 

o 
L
e
 

| 
- 

5 
Te 

I 
SN 

n
T
 

i R
l
 

er 
TO 

a 
EL 

el 
eh 

ad) 
yo 

1 
9 

j 
| 

i 
© 

. 
o
f
 

= 
i 

o
i
 

o 
I) 

o 
oy 

o
d
 

~ 
~N 

fo») 
— 

o 
I>) 

~ 
A 

0 
| 

= 
o 

= 
EN 

v
e
l
 

5) 
[on 

ts 
RE 

S
T
 

243 
O
 

[24 
0
 

o
v
 

ol 
n 

[o} 
Na 

i) 
~N 

N
o
h
o
 

ol 
For 

D
E
O
 

Oo 
r~ 

W
i
 

To) 
No} 

" 
p) 

r~ 
~ 

‘nN 
“0 

iD 
0 

~
 

n 
oh 

MY 
3 

135 
i 

| 
= 

=
 

© 
| 

a
r
d
 

A
 

IAG 
h
e
l
e
 
e
e
 

r
e
 

| 
n
m
 

A
n
 
©
 

r
n
 

1
7
 
7
 
m
y
 
r
m
 

l
i
r
e
 

E
a
t
 

P
R
P
S
 
r
r
 

a 
S
—
—
 

e
r
m
 ver 

| 
[$3] 

r
a
 

| 
cl! 

= 
R
i
 

0] 
oF 

of 
© 

Q
O
 

OQ 
& 

Sy 
© 

Q 
Df 

Dk 
OF 

S
O
L
 

o 
oO 

os 
723 

25 
co 

>) 
cd 

foo) 
N 

™) 
oO 

~~ 
2D 

~N 
N 

0 
— 

D 
9) 

aN 
ny 

Se 
— 

0
 

a 
Ee 

~{ 
<= 

~ 
To! 

n 
wy 

Io 
~
p
o
~
 

T 
3 

O 
5) 

as 
~1i 

N 
7 

m 
~~ 

~
~
 

i 

i 
e 

i 
{1} 

| 
R
e
o
n
 

2
 

O
 

re 
es a
 
e
T
 
e
s
 

e
i
 I
 

a 
y
A
 
S
U
 
s
a
 

N
t
 

n
a
 

st 
—
—
 

co 
—
—
 

1 —
—
—
 gt 

os 
—
 

a
v
 

on" 
r
t
 
—
 

-
—
 
—
 
i
r
 

- 
c
r
 

. 
\ 

! 
\ 

he 
[on 

Pa 
' 

i 
i 

ow 
i. 

n
t
 

3 
i 

\ 
] 

= 
=] 

~~ 
: 

! 
4 

3 
=~ 
O
w
 

G 
rs 

J
e
d
 

© 
~ 

(S} 
~ 

[ee] 
o 

I ei 
be 

NY 
ov 

0 
No) 

o
D
 

~ 
o 

0 
“0 

oo 
pe 

B
e
s
t
 

oi 
=~} 

wo] 
~1 

» 
D3 

oO 
\g 

nf 
ond 

a) 
oad 

B
B
 

~ 
lds 

| 
= 

~ 
6) 

oO 
IS) 

wn 
0
 

~
 

0 
nN 

nN 
wy) 

nN 
O
 

No) 
Sd 

I~ 
aR 

ETo) 
NS) 

—
 

.r 
~
 

1
.
 

’ 

== 
3 

3 
7 

Tn 
md a

 
FE 

So 
Sines 
e
k
 Je vs 

ol 
ma 

alt 
Bell (EL 

m 
Q 

=
 

z= 
2 

NS 
RFP 

S| 
bs 

oO 
= 

= 
Q
o
 

<< 
Ro) 

Tr 
— 

| 
[¢o) 

5] 
= 

T 
2 

~ 
> 

OQ 
: 5 

13) 
Vo) 

r~ 
a 

rd 
5 

9 
HM 

lwp 
A
i
r
 

oN 
4] 

e
d
 

4 
~ 

BY 
N
e
w
e
y
 

= 
ed 

a
 

“le 

<4 
F
a
»
 

} 
= 

= 
i 

1 
ae 

O
D
 

a
 

—
—
 
a
 
—
 

Ly 
rr 
—
—
 

+
P
 
n
\
n
 

e
t
 

r
t
,
 
e
t
.
 
|
 

g
e
 
{
A
 

A
 
t
t
 et 

A 
A
 

0
 

5. 
E
R
E
 

-
i
~
 

  
        

  
  

      
  

    
    

  
  

  
    

  
) 

ery 

o 
o 

ir 
nd 

3 
ay 

tial 
p 

i 
1 

A 
- 

Q
 

= 
od 

2 
3 

14 
o 

ot 
2 

Q 
© 

2 
= 

A 
=e 

J 
i 

| 
0
 

rd 
A 

0) 
4
 

) 
>
 

"3 
- 

XM 
S| 

) 
3 

igo] 
oe 

3
 

4
 

- 
'q 

~~ 
£3 

Fl] 
4
 

0) 
2) 

—~ 
3 

2 
3 

o 
: 

4 
Co] 

= 
© 

) 
Bs 

V] 
“1 

J 
> 

. 
: 

=
 

le) 
4 

(0) 
4 

y
O
 

= 
> 

b} 
a 

7) 
a 

3 
~~ 

1 
w 

4
 

wd 
le] 

[41 
RE] 

3 
Q 

[2] 
o 

0 
5] 

0) 
5) 

~ 
tq 

Lu 
C 

© 
> 

3 
3 

Sy 
>» 

0 
>) 

gf 
ol] 

a 
3! 

“ 
3 

) 
3 

Q 
fo) 

: 
J 

[9] 
N 

3 
Sh 

ee 
= 

bt 
~ 

13 
b} 

23 
6] 

24 
ir 

4 
hv) 

3 
n 

= 
= 

r 
3 

7] 
3 

: 
3 

it 
$ 

: 
") 

> 
Sn 

2 
“4 

4 
Eo) 

= 
IS 

gin 
4
 

~
 

r+ 
3 

“J 
0? 

= 
pd 

+
 

+) 
1d 

Ar 
3 

ty 
“4 

2) 
4 

n 
i) 

ta 
fa 

~~ 
4 

tn 
Q 

n 
wn 

"3 
Nn 

£2 
‘ 

4 
i 

oD 
os 

:z 
=: 

i 
re 

| 
| 

5; 

SSE 
lin 

He Nh, 
cn S
e
 t
l
 

See 
So 

e
e
s
 

BERGE 

) 
{ 

| 
1 

| 

| 
1 
[ 
| 

| 
i 

-—ed 
—
—
—
 a
 

 
 

 



  

    
  

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG ELEMENTARY 

  

  

  

  

  

  

SCHOOLS 

1969-70 

TOTAL RATED MAXIMUM PROJECTED | OPEN OR 
NAME OF SCHOOL TEACHING| CAPACITY CAPACITY ENROLLMENT | CLOSED 

SPACE (28) (30) + 10% + 20% 

Windsor Park 24 672 720 792 864 770 

Winterfield 24 672 720 792 864 715 

Isabella Wyche 19 532 570 627 684 215 

Zeb Vance 12 336 360 396 432 235 

TOTAL 1595 44560 17,850 p2635 [57420 45,630 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

                  
  

B8
GE
 

 



burg -Schools 3592 

O5L RU =a 
4 i owe Bas z ES z 1 1 ’ SU WV. C EPRI 

PUPILS 0 SE MOYED IF FREEDOM OF CEGICE 15 EXD 

  

    
Schoois Pupils to Pupils to Total fe et effect 

— send to receive from to to minority 
own district another school Move (more de- 

{reside in districl) segregation) 
W N Ww N 
  

76 Elemantiary 15306 292 1520 2 

20 Junior High 1040 410 1040 4 

N
N
W
 

u
w
 o

n 
—t
 

Cy
 

p>
 

D
O
 

WD
 

a
 oS
 

0
 (6)
 

  

  

  

W.. 11 Senior High RES 6756 5% 2518 F 336 
107 Schools 3945 177% 3246 178 9062 +1356 

NET EFFECT IN DETLIL 

  

  
  

   
    

    
ed Schinols Xo. Pupils 

t2 Sm Ar 
4 = [3 “ Sh 4 

— 1. 70 15 schools {predouinatly Negro): Add 515 White pupils 
2. Dp 16 schools (predominatly White): Add £3 Negro pupils 

3. in 16 schools (predominatly White): Send 73 Negro pupils 

Junior High 

— 2. To & schools i: Bdé 50) White pupils 
2. To 6 schools 1: Bie 98 Nooro poplin 

Je In & schools 20 Serd 65 Negro pupils 

] 

Coa ~r 1 
Senior High 

1. To 2 schools {1 - oY: Add 5 White 

2. Ts 7 schools  {j 1etly 3 te}: Add 255 kzgro 

3. In 2 schools (predéominatly White): Send © Negro pupils 

NET EFFECT Z2dd 1356 Pupils to Minority 

* 323584 upon count of Pupil Bcecowmting ond Data Processing offices. 
Lount has errors Guc to limited tine and difficulty to count pupils 
residing in grid squares on map which were crosscé by school boundary. 

Exibit "&" 

 



  

School 
Predomi - 

nant race 

Elementary 

  

S- 

Freedom of Choice 

DATA ON EFFECT OF FR M OF CHOICE 

Pupils in district 

attending another 
Pupils attending 

from outside 

{) Ww 
  

Albemarle Road (W) 
Alexander Street N 

Allenbrook W 

Ashley Park Ww 
Bain W 

Barringer N 

Berryhill Ww 

Bethune N 

Beverly Woods W 

Billingsville N 

Briarwood W 

Bruns Avenue N 

Chantilly Ww 
Clear Creek W 

Coll inswood W 

Cornelius 

Cotswold 

Davidson 

Marie Davis 

Derita al
 

J 
oi

 
a 

Devonshire 

Dilworth 

Double Oaks 

Druid Hills 

Eastover E
Z
z
Z
E
E
 

Elizabeth 
Enderly Park 
Fairview 

First Ward 
Hickory Grove E

E
 

> 

Hidden Valley 
Highland 

Hoskins 

Huntersville 

Huntingtowne Farms W 

T
E
L
E
X
 

  

Ww
W 
=
~
 

O
N
 

e
Z
 

Z
Z
 

+ 
4+ 

+ 

-
—
\
0
 

| 
\
O
 

1!
 

2
2
2
2
2



36la 

  

Shoot Pupils attending Pupils In district Net fffect 
Predomi- from outside attending another without 
nant race district school Freedom of Choice 

Elementary to 
| Ly NN MW N Minority 

ice 

Idlewild W 70 ] 3 0 -1N 
Anay James N 0 0 216 0 +216 W-- 4, p27 

— Lakeview N 6 9 51 10 +45 W 
Lansdowne W 50 i ] 0 - 1 N 
Lincoln Heights N 0 11 0 L - 

Long Creek W 19 0 25 3 + N 

Matthews W }1 0 26 0 

Merry Oaks W 23 0 7 0 - 
Midwood W 57 0 3 L + N 
Montclaire IN 52 0 30 0 - 

Myers Park W Have Adv. Classes 8 0 - 
Nations Ford W 0 0 13 1 + 1 N 
Nevel W 37 L 13 0 - 4 N 
Oakdale WwW 45 23 2 3 -20 N 
Ozkhurst W 21 2 7 0 -i 2.N 

Oaklawn N 0 26 2 17 + 2 ¥W 
Olce Providence W 26 0 12 0 - 
Park Road ¥W 4p 0 13 0 - 
Paw Creek V 0 0 7 0 = 
Pineville W 0 0 1) 12 +]2 N 

Pinewood W 57 0 6 0 - 
Plaza Road W 8 0 Sh 7 + 7 N 
Rama Road W 0 0 24 0 - 
Sedgefield W 10 0 1 0 - 
Selwyn W 3 0 5 0 - 

Shamrock Gardens Ww 28 0 4 0 - 
Sharon W 18 0 26 1 + I N 
Starmount W 15 0 722 0 - 
Statesville Road W 11 11 35 24 +13 N 
Steele Creek W 0 0 0 L + 4 N 

Thomashoro W 35 0 19 0 = 
Tryon Hills (Trend to N)2 0 91 6 +89 W-~ 
Tuckaseegee W356 0 1 0 - 
University Park N 0 34 | 7 +1 W 
Zeb Vance N 0 0 0 0 - 

Villa Heights N 0 0 L2 6 +42 W 
Westerly Hills W 63 0 3 0 - 
Wilmore W 0 0 12 2 +2 N 
Windsor Park @] 0 20 0 - 
Winterfield I'S 5 0 73 0 - 

lsabeila Wyche N C 0 1 1 +1V 

 



  

362a 

  

School Punils attending Pupils in district Net Tffeoct 

Precomi- from outside attending another without 

nant race district® school Freedom of Choic 

Junior High 
to 

Ly 0 N M N Minority 

Albemarle Road W 52 Zz 17 0 - 2 N 

Alexander Ww 15 6 23 18 +12 N 

Cochrane W 73 0 29 19 +19 N 

Coulwood Ww 3% 1 12 [3 + 4 N 

Eastway Ww 79 1 34 0 -1N 

Alexander Graham Ww 95 1 30 1 - 

Hawthorne N 30 12 174 5h +144 W— 

lrwin Avenue N 0 Ly 33 Lh +33 W 

McClintock W 105 0 36 5 + 5 N 

Northwest N 0 30 14 5h +14 W 

Piedmont N 21 21 131 29 +110 W 

Quail Hollow W 45 2 L6 0 - 2 N 

Randolph w 73 6 Lg 7 +1 N 

Ranson W Lb Lo 15 17 -23 N 

Sedgefield W 105 Lg 102 8 -37 N 

Smith Ww 92 0 36 0 - 

Spaugh Ww 77 1S 53 18 -1N 

Williams N 0 96 10 32 +10 W 

Wilson Ww 71 3 17 22 +19 N 

York Road N 0 74 190 67 +190 VW 

  

Sc 

 



363a 

  

Scrent Pugi'ls zttarding Punils in district Net Effect 
Predori- fron or sics attending another without 

nant race district: school Freedom of Choice 
hoi Senior High to 

) yr M N Minority 

——t East Mecklenburg i - 99 0 03 69 +69 N 

Garinger y.. 8} }3 138 66 +53 N 

Harding Ww 109 27 51 Lh +17 N 

Independence Ww 128 3 35 0 - 3 N 

Myers Park W 78 21 55 82 +61 N 

North Mecklenburg 1% Lg 19 22 30 +11 N 

Olympic 1) 25 16 58 Lo +24 N 

- Second Ward N 0 353 7 36 +57 W 

South Mecklenburg VW °E2 L 59 1 - 3 N 

West Cherlotte N 0 11:1 29 189 +29 W 

Vest Mecklenburg Wi 62 5 62 26 +21 N 

 



    
364a 

  

~ 

State of Nortlp Carclina 

Al ELE, Superintendent of Jublic Jnstrnction May 22, 1969 

ET EE TIE I 1) : 

Naletgh 27602 

Mr. William E. Poe, Chairman 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education 

Box 149 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 

Dear Mr. Poe: 

This letter is to indicate to all concerned that you and 

several members of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school staff have 

consulted with me and members of my staff regarding the recent 

Court Decision handed down by Judge James B. McMillan. 

While we were not able to find a perfect solution to the 

tremendous problem which you face, I do hope that our comments 

were of some help to you. 

You and your Beard are faced with a most difficult task. 

The entire State will be interested in the steps you take to deal 

with it. 

You have our best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

  

State Superintendent of Public Instruction 

ACP/jt 

 



365a 

Response to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

(Filed May 29, 1969) 

The defendant, by and through its counsel, responding to 
the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order 
dated May 15, 1969, respectfully shows unto the Court as 
follows: 

1. Paragraphs 1 through 7 of the plaintiffs’ motion for 
a temporary restraining order relate to plaintiffs’ conten- 
tions and conclusions with respect to the present posture 
of this action and also contains plaintiffs’ erroneous con- 
ception of action taken by the Board of Education subse- 
quent to entry of the order of April 23, 1969. Suffice it to 
say, the Board of Education has been moving diligently in 
an effort to review not only the various alternatives sug- 
gested by the Court, but also other alternatives. 

2. The construction of Project 600 and renovations to 
Wilson Junior High School, Clear Creek Elementary School 
and Myers Park Senior High School represent the culmina- 
tion of extensive planning, representations to voters, rep- 
resentations to communities within the system, and ex- 
penditure of substantial time, not only by the school staff 
and affected principals, but also by architects who are now 
entitled to and have been paid substantial commissions 
for the services performed thus far. 

3. In 1967, prior to the $35,000,000 school bond vote, the 
School Board gave extensive publicity by way of news- 
paper, television, public meetings throughout the county 
and other methods by which specific use of the proceeds 
of the proposed bond issue was outlined with reference to 
how it would affect and improve educational facilities in 
the various areas of the school district. Substantial reli- 

 



  

366a 

Response to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

ance by the voters upon the proposed allocation and use 

of funds is believed to be a major factor in the passage 

of the bond issue. The proposal specifically covered the 

schools and the approximate amount of funds to be ex- 

pended at the various schools. To halt the construction 

proposed at these schools would, in effect, amount to a 

breach of trust to the voters of this school district. 

4, It is submitted that the $35,000,000 bond issue as ap- 

proved represents a most minimal capital funds program 

to provide an upgrading of schools in the school district. 

The school staff initially proposed a building program of 

$70,000,000 to be expended over a five-year period begin- 

ning 1967. After evaluating the proposed program and the 

anticipated voter response, the Board of Kducation re- 

duced the bond request to $35,000,000 to cover the most 

acute building needs in the community. The building pro- 

gram sought to be enjoined represents some of the most 

pressing needs as indicated by the following: 

A. Project 600—This facility will be a junior high school 

located in the Carmel Road area, which is one of the fastest 

growing areas in the school district. It is projected for 

the school year beginning September, 1969, that Smith 

Junior High School will be overcrowded by 230 pupils, 

McClintock Junior High School will be overcrowded by 

350 pupils. It is contemplated that the attendance lines 

will be adjusted in such manner as to place approximately 

600 students in this facility by relocating the Smith Junior 

High, Alexander Graham Junior High, Quail Hollow Junior 

High and McClintock Junior High attendance lines. It 

is estimated that a minimum of 125 Negro children will 

attend the new facility. 

   



367a 

Response to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

B. Clear Creek Elementary—This school will be replaced 

as it represents one of the oldest facilities in the school 

system. It was previously examined by architects, struc- 

tural, electrical and mechanical engineers who determined 

that the structure should be replaced at the earliest oppor- 

tunity. The students now utilize an old auditorium which 

was divided into three classroom teaching spaces, the school 

cannot conduct an adequate library program and it is 

projected that the school will need four additional class- 

rooms for the next year. All mobiles owned by the county 

are now in service and it will be difficult to provide relief 

with mobile units. During the current school year, the 

school has a student population of 58 Negro and 225 white 

students. 

C. Wilson Junior High—Renovations proposed for this 

building relate to doubling the library, art and science 

facilities. The present facilities are based on a school hav- 

ing a 600 student enrollment and it is projected that the 

1969-70 enrollment will be approximately double this 

amount. This school has the most severe shortage of the 

facilities proposed for construction of any junior high 

school in the system. The present student population is 

comprised of 60 Negro and 1,132 white students. 

D. Myers Park Senior High—This school has inade- 

quate physical education facilities and the proposed con- 

struction would provide additional dressing rooms and 

showers which would bring it on a par with other senior 

high schools in the system. Enrollment consists of 158 

Negro and 1,855 white students. 

 



  

368a 

Response to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

5. The school system, in the past four years, has ex- 

perienced a rise in construction costs of approximately 25 

per cent. In view of the continued spiraling costs of con- 

struction, any delay in the building program will in all 

likelihood create substantial additional costs in providing 

much needed educational facilities. 

6. Each of the projects has been bid by the contractors, 

the bids have been accepted by the Board of Education 

(except for Myers Park High School, which was rejected 

and will be offered for rebidding) and the contractors have 

scheduled material and personnel to commence immediate 

construction and any delay imposed on the School Board 

may give rise to claims to be asserted by the various con- 

tractors or subject the projects to rebidding at increased 

cost. 

7. The continued construction of new schools and addi- 

tions to existing schools is consistent with the duty of the 

Board of Education to provide equal educational facilities 

for all students served by the school system. 

WrEREroRrE, the defendant respectfully prays that the 

motion for a temporary restraining order be denied; and 

in the event the restraining order should be allowed, then 

in such event, the plaintiff be required to post good and 
sufficient bond to indemnify the defendant from any loss 

   



36%a 

Response to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

it may sustain by reason of the improvident granting of 

such restraining order. 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Brock BARKLEY 

Brock Barkley 

818 Law Building 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

s/ WriLLiam J. WAGGONER 

William J. Waggoner 

1100 Barringer Office Tower 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

Attorneys for Defendant 

 



  

370a 

Order dated June 3, 1969 

The defendants have filed a proposed plan of action pur- 

suant to the court order of April 23, 1969. The plaintiffs 

have filed a motion requesting restraint on further school 

construction until the school board has dealt satisfactorily 

with the segregation question. A further hearing is indi- 

cated. The court has two weeks of criminal court starting 

June 2; and Monday, June 16, 1969 is the earliest predict- 

able time that a hearing could be conducted. 

All parties are therefore notified that a hearing will be 

held in the United States Court House in Charlotte start- 

ing on Monday, June 16, 1969, at 10:00 a.m. All parties are 

requested to be present. 

Under the law the burden is upon the school board to 

come forward with a plan which “promises realistically to 

work now” to eliminate segregation in the Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg schools. The obligation of the court under the 

law is “to assess the effectiveness of a proposed plan in 

achieving desegregation.” KEvidence will be received from 

all parties on these general subjects. 

Without limiting any party in the scope and type of rele- 

vant evidence which he may wish to produce, the court 

directs the parties to come forward with exhibits, statistics, 

records, and other information so that the court will be in 

adequate position to make findings upon the following sub- 

jects, among others: 

1. What has been accomplished, by June 16, toward 

achieving the duty which the defendants have accepted of 

“achieving substantial faculty desegregation,” and what the 

plan proposed by the defendants may be expected to ac- 

complish further along that line by September, 1969. 

9. What school zones may fairly be said to have been 

gerrymandered (either by control of their boundary lines 

   



371a 

Order Dated June 3,1969 

14. Scholastic aptitude tests and achievement tests and 
intelligence tests for all grades for which such data are 
available in all schools in the county and city since 1954. 

15. What concrete and specific steps, if any, plaintiffs 

would have the defendants adopt in order to comply with 

the Constitution. The court is not interested in a restate- 

ment of the previous demand of plaintiffs that all the 

schools in the system be populated on a 70/30 basis, because 

as previously stated the court does not have the power to 

make such an order and the defendants have served notice 

that they will not undertake such an assignment themselves. 

What is desired is some tough and detailed thinking and 

planning as to detailed methods to reduce and promptly 

eliminate segregation in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. 

The above questions and requests, insofar as they call 

for facts and figures, call for the production—not the crea- 

tion—of the desired information. Counsel are requested 

to advise the court immediately if the production of already 

existing records does not provide any of the statistical in- 

formation mentioned above. It is not the intention of the 

court to put the parties to work creating new charts nor 

re-assembling existing statistics, but rather to make avail- 

able existing information. 

This the 3rd day of June, 1969. 

/s/ James B. McMillan 

James B. McMillan 

United States District Judge 

 



  

372a 

Order Adding Additional Parties dated June 3, 1969 

Several changes in the personnel of the defendant school 

board have taken place since this suit was instituted. In 

order that all parties may be fully before the court and that 

there be no avoidable technical irregularity. 

It Is OrpereD that all the present members of the Char- 

lotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education be and they are 

hereby made formal parties to this action; that copies of 

the Motion ror FurtHER RELIEF filed September 6, 1968 

be served upon them and that there also be served upon 

them copies of all orders and motions that have been filed 

since that time. 

Service of these motions and orders (including this 

order making new parties and the order of this same date 

regarding the further hearing of June 16, 1969) should be 

made by the United States Marshal. The members of the 

school board and their addresses are: 

Mr. William E. Poe, Chairman 

2101 Coniston Place (Home) 

1014 Law Building (Office) 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

Mr. Henderson Belk Rev. Coleman W. Kerry, Jr. 

529 Hempstead Place 1022 Kohler Avenue 

(Home) Charlotte, North Carolina 

308 East Fifth Street 

(Office) 

(Charlotte, North Carolina 

Mr. Dan Hood Mrs. Julia Maulden 

Route 4 Box 6 

Matthews, North Carolina Davidson, North Carolina 

   



373a 

Order Dated June 3,1969 

8. Statistics on school population by race in the system 
for the years since consolidation and similar statistics for 
the separate county and city units from 1954 until con- 
solidation. 

9. The facts about school bussing operations of the 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system, including such rec- 
ords as already exist on bus routes, year by year, since 
1961, including where the busses get the pupils and where 
they take them, and the races of the pupils transported. 

10. The pupil attendance zones or school zones, year by 
year, for all years since 1954. 

11. What the pending school construction programs will 
do in terms of creating pupil accommodations, and whether 
the programs will tend to perpetuate or to alleviate segre- 
gation in the schools. 

12. Why decision on the construction and purposes of 
Metropolitan High School should not be postponed until 
after a final court ruling, appellate or otherwise, has been 
rendered, so that the decision on the educational questions 
can be made in a quieter and non-racial atmosphere. Also, 
why the defendants should not retain any land or control 
over any land they may now have, pending such decision. 

13. Why no action has been taken by the defendants on 
the various possible methods for further reduction of seg- 
regation such as re-examination of zones, enlargement or 
combination of school zones, reorganizing the existing 23,- 
000 pupil bus system, pairing of schools, consultation with 
the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and 
other possible methods. 

 



  

374a 

Order Dated June 3,1969 

or by control of their student capacity or both) so as to fit 

a particular pocket or community of all- or nearly all-black 

or all- or nearly all-white students; and what could be done 

to reduce or eliminate segregation in those zones. 

3. What progress if any toward desegregation of pupils 

may reasonably and predictably be expected by September, 

1969, from the pupil plan presented by the defendants. 

4. What effect if any the pupil plan may be expected to 

have upon the present large group of all-black or 995, -- 

black schools, and upon the more than 14,000 children who 

still attend them. 

5. Why students allowed to transfer from one zone to 

another to avoid racial discrimination should be penalized 

by being required to wait a year before taking part in 

varsity athletics, as the proposed pupil plan requires, which 

self-admitted “penalty” is lifted if they return to the zone 

originally assigned by the defendants. 

6. The actual meaning of the “free transfer” plan—the 

numerical extent to which the plan requires that students 

wishing to transfer and being supplied transportation to 

transfer will actually find space in the schools of choice if 

they exercise their option to transfer. This is not a trick 

question but one directed to the ambiguity of the plan and 

the conflicts in the language used in the plan. (Clarification 

is requested. 

7. What steps will be followed to insure that the transfer- 

with-transportation choice is actually communicated per- 

sonally to children who may be entitled to the choice, and 

to their parents, and affirmatively accepted or rejected by 

them. 

   



375a 

Order Adding Additional Parties Dated June 3, 1969 

Mr. Ben F. Huntley Mr. Sam S. McNinch, ITT 
Box 128 2914 Hampton Avenue 
8301 Pineville Road (Home) 

(Office) 4037 E. Independence Blvd. 
Pineville, North Carolina (Office) 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

Mrs. Betsey Kelly Dr. Carlton G. Watkins 
3501 Mountainbrook Road 1223 Marlwood Terrace 
Charlotte, North Carolina (Home) 

1630 Mockingbird Lane 

(Office) 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

This the 3rd day of June, 1969. 

/s/ JamMEs B. McMILLAN 

James B. McMillan 

United States District Judge 

 



  

376a 

Motion to Set Aside Order Joining Additional 

Parties Defendant 

(Filed June 12, 1969) 

The defendants, corporate and individual, by and through 

their attorneys, respectfully request the Court to set aside 

the order entered on the Court’s own motion, without notice 

and hearing, wherein Mr. William E. Poe, Chairman, Mr. 

Henderson Belk, Mr. Dan Hood, Mr. Ben F. Huntley, Mrs. 

Betsey Kelly, Rev. Coleman W. Kerry, Jr, Mrs. Julia 

Maulden, Mr. Sam S. McNinch, III, and Dr. Carlton G. 

Watkins were added as parties defendant and served with 

copies of all orders and motions that have been filed since 

September 6, 1968, and in support thereof respectfully 

show unto the Court as follows: 

1. Rule 17-B of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

dealing with the capacity of parties plaintiff and defendant 

states as follows: 

“(b) Capacity To SUE or Be Suen. The capacity of an 

individual other than one acting in a representative 

capacity, to sue or be sued shall be determined by the 

law of his domicile. The capacity of a corporation to 

sue or be sued shall be determined by the law under 

which it was organized . ..” 

9. The defendant, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Edu- 

cation, is a corporate body as provided by G.S. 115-27, 

which provides as follows: 

«115-27 Boarp a Bopy CorporaTE.—The Board of Edu- 

cation of each county in the state shall be a body cor- 

porate by the name and style of ‘The ... county board 

of education’ and the board of education of each city 

administrative school unit in the state shall be a body 

   



377a 

Motion to Set Aside Order Joining Additional 
Parties Defendant 

corporate by the name and style of ‘The city board of 
education’. The several boards of education, both 
county and city, shall hold all school property and be 
capable of purchasing and holding real and personal 
property, building and repairing school houses, selling 
and transferring the same for school purposes, and of 
prosecuting and defending suits for or against the 
¢arporation ., ..” 

3. In Kistler v. Board of Education, 233 N. C. 400, the 
plaintiff instituted suit against the Board of Education and 
others including the members of the Board of Education 
seeking to restrain the purchase of a site for a new school. 
Mr. Justice Denny of the Supreme Court stated: 

“The Board of Education of Randolph County is the 
body corporate and by that name it shall hold all school 
property belonging to Randolph County, and it is au- 
thorized to purchase and hold real and personal prop- 
erty, build and repair school houses and to prosecute 
and defend suits for or against it in its corporate 
capacity. G.S. 115-45. 

“The demurrer ore tenus to the complaint by the indi- 
vidual defendants was properly sustained. These de- 
fendants as individuals possessed no authority to exer- 
cise any of the powers that the plaintiffs seek to en- 
join. Board of Education v. Commissioners, 192 N.C. 
274, 134 SE 852.” 

In McLaughlin v. Beasley, 250 N.C. 221, suit was instituted 
against the individual members of the county board of edu- 
cation and others to enjoin the Union County Board of 
Education from proceeding with plans to acquire a school 

 



  

378a 

Motion to Set Aside Order Joining Additional 

Parties Defendant 

site. Again, the North Carolina Supreme Court through 

Justice Bobbitt stated: 

“As to the individuals, who, according to the caption, 

constitute the members of the Board of Education, the 

demurrer ore tenus was properly sustained. Kistler v. 

Board of Education, supra as stated by Denny, J. 

‘These defendants as individuals possessed no author- 

ity to exercise any of the powers the plaintiff seeks to 

enjoin.’ ”’ 

4. Under the pleadings and evidence in this action, the 

Court is without authority to join the individual members 

of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education as they 

have no capacity to be sued under the state and federal 

law applicable to this action. 

WaERerFoRE, the defendants pray that the order dated 

June 4, 1969, entered by the Court in this action joining 

the individual members of the Board of Education as parties 

defendant be set aside and that this action be dismissed as 

to such individual defendants. 

/s/ Brock BARKLEY 

Brock Barkley 

808 Law Building 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

/s/ WiLLiam J. WAGGONER 

1100 Barringer Office Tower 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

Attorneys for Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

Board of Education, Defendant 

   



379a 

Response to Defendants’ Motions to Strike 

Additional Parties Defendant 

(Filed June 16, 1969) 

Plaintiffs, by their undersigned attorneys, respectfully 

move the Court to deny defendants’ motions to strike 

the Court’s order adding them as additional parties dec- 

fendant, and as grounds therefor, respectfully show the 

Court as follows: 

1. This action was brought by Negro plaintiffs seeking 

an order enjoining further racially discriminatory policies 

and practices by the School Board in the operation of the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools. On April 23, 1969, 

the Court entered an Opinion and Order in connection 

with plaintiffs’ motion for further relief, finding that the 

Board had failed to take effective steps to desegregate 

the school system. The Court accordingly enjoined the 

defendant to present plans for complete desegregation of 

the system. On May 28, 1969, the Board filed its proposed 

plan which completely ignored the instructions of the 

Court and proposed to do nothing further than provide 

free transportation for students moving from racial ma- 

jority to racial minority situations. By order, date June 4, 
1969, the Court noted that there had been several changes 

in the personnel of the School Board since this action 

was instituted and ordered that all present members of 

the School Board be made parties-defendant to the action 

in order that they may be fully before the Court and 
aware of all proceedings in this matter. The Court directed 
that copies of the Pleadings, Motions and Orders, be 

served upon the new parties. The new parties defendant 

have now moved the Court that the Court strike its order 

adding them as parties defendant contending that they 
have no capacity to sue or to be sued in this proceeding 

 



380a 

Response to Defendants’ Motions to Strike 

Additional Parties Defendant 

and that the Court is without the authority to add them 

as parties defendant. 

9. In view of the numerous cases, particularly school 

cases, in which individual members of school boards have 

been added and found to be proper parties defendant in 

a school desegregation case, one is hardput to understand 

defendants sincerity with their motion to strike their 

additions as parties defendant. Rules 19 and 20 permit 

joinder of parties whose additions are considered neces- 

sary or proper in order to provide complete relief in pend- 

ing proceedings. These rules permit joinder of parties 

by the Court, with or without a motion by either party, 

| if the Court should deem their additions proper for effec- 

tive disposition of the pending action. 3A Moore’s Federal 

Practice §§ 19.18, 19.19, 20.06; 2 Barron and Holtzoff, 

Federal Practice and Procedure, §§ 513.7, 533. See e.g, 

Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 

377 U.S. 218,12 L. ed. 2d 256; Coppedge v. Franklin County 

Board of Education, 273 F. Supp. 289 (E.D.N.C, 1967), 

aff’d 394 F. 2d 410 (4th Cir., 1968) ; Scott v. Winston-Salem/ 

Forsyth County Board of Education, F. Supp. — 

(M.D.N.C., 1968), proper not only to join the Board of 

Education, but also County Board of Commissioners, State 

Board of Education, and State Superintendent of Public 

Instruction. It is patently clear that the Court has author- 

ity to join as parties all persons having responsibility for 

implementing the Court decree or who might interfere with 

others having the responsibility to implement the decree. 

Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F. Supp. 458 

(M.D.N.C., 1967), aff’d; Wallace v. United States, 389 U.S. 

  

 



381a 

Response to Defendants’ Motions to Strike 

Additional Parties Defendant 

215, 19 L. ed. 2d 422. The School Board cannot act without 
the action of the individual members of the Board. The in- 
dividual members, and not some supposed, imaginary entity 
are the true parties preventing the implementation of the 
Court’s order. Plaintiffs have moved that each of the mem- 
bers of the School Board be ordered to show cause why they 
individually, and in their representative capacity, should 
not be held in contempt of the Court’s order. As the Court 
has stated in its order of June 4, 1969, in order to avoid 
any misunderstanding or technicality, it is necessary and 
proper that all of the members of the School Board be 
brought individually before the Court and fully apprised 
of the Court’s instructions. Their joinder is necessary 
and proper in order that the plaintiffs might have complete 

relief in this proceeding. 

3. Defendants have cited several North Carolina deci- 

sions, all of which are completely inapposite to the matters 

involved here. The cases cited by the defendants concern 

generally the question of how title of school property is 

held. Plaintiffs do not challenge that, under North Carolina 

law, title of school property is in the local board of educa- 

tion. We are dealing here, however, with the question of 

desegregation of the school system and implementation 

of the Court order. The Courts have long sustained joinder 

of the individual members of school boards in such cases. 

WHaEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Defen- 

dants’ Motions to Strike Additional Parties-Defendant be 

 



  

382a 

Response to Defendants’ Motions to Strike 

Additional Parties Defendant 

denied, and that plaintiffs be granted relief as they have 

prayed in this proceeding. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ J. LEvoONNE CHAMBERS 

Conrap O. PEARSON 

20314 East Chapel Hill St. 

Durham, North Carolina 

J. LEvonNE CHAMBERS 

216 West Tenth Street 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

Jack GREENBERG 

Derrick A. Bern, JE. 

10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 10019 

   



383a 

Transcript of June 16, 1969 Proceedings (Excerpts) 
[487] * Kk 

Recess ror LuNnca 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor prior to closing our 
case we have some additional documents we’d like to 
identify, introduce as exhibits for the plaintiff. 

Court: All right. If you will prepare a list of 
[488] these documents and give a copy to the Clerk 
and to opposing counsel, we will dispense with read- 
ing the list or identifying them one by one. Just tell 
me what they’re about. 

Mr. Chambers: They consist of a list of the bus 
routes and descriptions in the Charlotte-Mecklen- 
burg School System; annual reports on bus trans- 

portation by the Transportation Department of the 

Board. 

Court: Where are they? 

Mr. Chambers: For the school years 64-65 through 

67-68; and maps showing the district boundary lines 

for the school system from 1965 through 1967-68. 

Mr. Waggoner: These are the documents we 

brought in as a result of the Court’s direction. 

Court: Mr, Waggoner, I received as evidence to 

the extent that it contains evidence the paper that 

you filed Monday entitled Answer to questions posed 

by the Court in June 4 order. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, do I under- 

stand that the Court also is receiving in evidence the 

report filed with our plan of desegregation on May 

287 

Court: Yes. If there are any specific objections, 
I'll entertain the objections but I assumed there 

were none because none have been made. 

Mr. Chambers: As to the Board’s report? 

 



  

384a 

Colloquy 

[489] Court: Yes. 

Mr. Chambers: We have no objection. 

Court: Is there any further evidence for the 

plaintiffs? 

Mr. Chambers: None, Your Honor. We would 

like to tender in evidence the exhibits that we previ- 

ously identified. 

Court: Let them be received. 

Mr. Barkley: We'd like to have an objection en- 

tered to the whole bunch of newspaper clippings en- 

tered in evidence. I don’t believe we can try the case 

on the basis of newspaper clippings. 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we don’t have but 

about three or four newspaper clippings that we 

identified and used, and the only reason for intro- 

ducing those was to corroborate some testimony 

given by a witness. 

Mr. Barkley: I don’t believe a newspaper cor- 

roborates necessarily. Bring the reporter in here, 

his testimony might tend to corroborate or might not. 

Court: I don’t know whether the newspaper clip- 

pings you're talking about would contain anything 

corroborative or not but if they are considered by 

the Court that will be the only purpose for which 

they will be considered, whether they corroborate or 

rebut or impeach the testimony that has otherwise 

been offered: So to that extent the objection is sus- 

tained. 

[490] Mr. Chambers: We have nothing further, 

Your Honor. 

Court: Any further evidence for the School 

Board? 

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir. I'd like to call Dr. Hanes. 

  

   



385a, 

Dr. Robert C. Hanes—for Defendant—Direct 

Dz. RoserT C. Hangs, having first been duly sworn, was 

examined and testified as follows: 

Direct Examination by Mr. Waggoner : 

Q. Will you state your full name and residence address? 

A. Robert C. Hanes, 1510 Audubon Road. 

Q. What is your official position with the Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg Board of Education? A. I am Assistant 

Superintendent for Secondary Education. 

Q. You cover the junior and senior high schools, is that 
correct? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Dr. Hanes, did you have occasion to deliver some 

documents pertaining to Metropolitan High to Mrs. Betsy 

Kelly? A. Yes, sir, I did. 

Q. Would you tell the Court the circumstances of the con- 

versation you had with Mrs. Kelly? 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I object again on the 

same ground that I raised yesterday. I take it that 

the defendant now tends to discredit his own client 

and a witness, I submit, should be a witness of the 

defendant. The party involved is a named party de- 

fendant [491] and I submit it would be improper 

for this type of examination to attempt to discredit 

one of the defendant’s attorneys own clients. 

Court: I’m going to overrule the objection but I 

do want Mr. Waggoner to say whether he does or 

does not continue to represent the witness Kelly, or 

the party Kelly. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I discussed 

this with Mrs. Kelly this morning and told her that 

in view of the developments of yesterday that I had 

some concern that I could properly continue repre- 

 



  

386a 

Colloquy 

senting her and offered to withdraw. She said that 

she had no personal feelings toward me and— 

Court: I’m not asking a question about consent 

or lack of it applying but it raises a rather serious 

question about the propriety of the attorney in 

attacking the credibility of a client of his whom he 

is representing in court in this fashion. I have never 

seen it done before. 
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I ask per- 

mission of the Court to withdraw as counsel for Mrs. 

Betsy Kelly. 

Mr. Chambers: I object to that, Your Honor. 

Court: Tell the Court who you do represent, Mr. 

Waggoner. Do you represent all the members of this 

[492] Board except Mr. Poe. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we represent 

the Board of Education. The Court joined then all 

the members of the Board. 

Court: The motion on behalf of Mrs. Kelly was 

filed by you and argued by you on her behalf. 

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir. It was fairly well under- 

stood that we would continue representing the Board 

and represent the members of the Board for the pur- 

poses of this motion. I have had no private conver- 

sations with Mrs. Kelly in the nature of an attorney- 

client, no more than I have had with any other mem- 

ber of the Board. This was a convenience to them. 

We filed a joint motion on behalf of the Board and 

also on behalf of the individual members. I feel that 

perhaps it would be a little unfair for us at this time 

to withdraw as representing Mrs. Kelly because she 

hasn’t had an opportunity to consult with counsel. 

By the same token, we have an obligation to the 

   



387a 

Colloquy 

Board of Education to present the facts as fully and 

fairly as we can. We did not introduce this evidence 

into the case. 

Court: Was this conflict foreseeable? 

Mr. Waggoner: No, sir, I was not aware of this. 

As late as last week we had a meeting and we dis- 

cussed [493] the plan and what we proposed doing 

with the motion and at that time I understood that 

Mrs. Kelly fully supprted the Board policy. 

Court: Wasn't it foreseeable that there would be 
some differences between some of your clients and 

some of your other clients about facts in the case? 

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir, it was foreseeable but 

I had no idea it would ever reach the evidentiary 

stage. We objected to this but we have been pushed 

into this— 

Court: As a professional matter does it leave you 

any comfort to know that you have come into a situa- 

tion here where you are cavalierly making a choice 

in open court to abandon one client and pursue the 

others? 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, it is not 

cavalierly. The election to represent the individual 

Board members was purely a fortuitous circumstance 

that came up within the last two weeks. We have 

represented the Board continuously through this 

case. I came into it in February. If the Court please, 

to avoid any problem I will withdraw Dr. Hanes from 

the stand. 

The Court: I’m not going to exclude his testimony. 

Frankly, I overlooked the problem when you were 

attacking Mrs. Kelly yesterday until it was all done. 

 



  

388a 

Dr. Robert C. Hanes—for Defendant—Direct 

Mr. Waggoner: It didn’t occur to me until late 

in the evening that there was the professional possi- 

bility [494] of conflict. Mr. Gage is present. He has 

filed papers on behalf of Mr. Poe. Perhaps he could 

represent Mr. Poe as far as this aspect of the case 

is concerned. I think under any circumstances it 

would be unreasonable to expect new attorneys to 

come into the case when the order was entered to 

appear at this hearing and been of beneficial counsel 

to the parties. 

Court: I don’t know why that would be so. The 

order was entered two weeks ago. 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, this case is 

extremely complicated. 

Court: The thing that is bothering me is a pro- 

fessional matter which I overlooked calling to your 

attention yesterday. A client is entitled to an at- 

torney without a conflict of interests. Obviously you 

made a choice to pursue a conflicting course. I don’t 

think you can pursue both courses. As a purely 

strongarm way out of it, if Mr. Gage wants to pur- 

sue the examination for this purpose, I'll let him 

question the witness but I believe in the interest of 

propriety you better not. 

Mr. Waggoner: All right, sir. 

Court: That doesn’t satisfy the propriety but at 

least it keeps us from being afoul of it from this 

point forward. 

[4951 By Mr. Gage: 

Q. Dr. Hanes, would you testify about the substance of 

your conversation with Mrs. Kelly, please, sir? A. I was 

not in court yesterday so I don’t know exactly what was 

   



389a 

Dr. Robert S. Hanes—for Defendant—Direct 

said but I shall relate the incident that I think she was 
referring to as I recall it. 

Q. We wish for you to give your own recollection of it. 

A. On a Saturday morning, shortly after the Court’s order 

was published, Mrs. Kelly called me at home. She said that 

she and several of her friends were reviewing the Second 

Ward-Metropolitan situation and that she needed another 

copy of the staff study on the Metropolitan High School. I 

told her I would be glad to mail her a copy the first thing 

Monday morning. As we talked on she said she needed it 

before then and if I were going to the office any time over 

the weekend would I mind picking up the document and 

bringing it by her house. She suggested that I should just 

leave it in the mail box if she were not there. Late on 

Saturday afternoon I took the document by her house and 

gave it to her son. As I was getting in the car she came to 

the door and called me from the porch and I walked back 

down the walk and stood in front of her house on the walk 

and talked for a few minutes. We talked about a number of 

things. As I tried to recall all the things that we talked 

about, she was critical of me and other members of the 

staff because she felt that we did not [496] express our 

views strongly enough at Board-staff meetings. I replied 

to the effect that the Board members themselves were di- 

vided on most issues and this was a most difficult environ- 

ment in which to work. She made some comment that we 

should not feel that our jobs as employees of the Board of 

Education were threatened in that she represented five 

votes on the Board. I disagreed with her and said, as I re- 

call, that my estimate was that she was one of only four 

people on the Board who agreed on most matters and there 

were five others that disagreed. I do recall saying some- 

thing to the effect that this kind of split was a threat al-  



390a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

though I personally was not concerned about job security. 

I recall saying that the tensions were high among the Board 

and the staff and that people were under stress and that 

Dr. Self and Mr. Poe had certainly had disagreements as 

did other Board and staff members. I don’t recall making 

such a statement that five members of the Board were 

threatening Dr. Self’s position. If our conversation led 

Mrs. Kelly to this conclusion, I regret it but it’s not to my 

personal knowledge that this is a fact. We talked briefly 

about the Metropolitan High School situation and about 

some other individual school situations which she asked 

me some questions about and we discussed. 

Q. Was that the entire substance of the conversation? 

A. As I recall it. 

Mr. Gage: Thank you, Dr. Hanes. 

[497] Mr. Chambers: No questions. 

  

Dr. WiLLiam SELF, having been duly sworn, was examined 

and testified as follows: 

Direct Examination by Mr. Waggoner : 

Q. Dr. Self, will you state your name and residence ad- 

dress? A. Dr. William C. Self, 5834 Kirkpatrick Road. 

Q. Are you Superintendent of Schools for Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg? A. I am. 

Q. Dr. Self, when did you first receive a copy of the 

Court order dated April 23? A. I believe that I received 

it on that same day or if not, on the following morning. 

Q. Did your office make these Court orders available to 

all members of the Board of Education? A. They did. I 

talked with Mrs. Gattis about this since this has been an 

   



391a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant— Direct 

object of testimony and she informed me that the copies 
were in Mr. Poe’s hands, that Board members were called 
individually and were told they were there and they might 
pick them up, if they chose to go by. 

Court: Let me inquire about this. There’s been a 
lot of testimony about an unnecessary thing. I 
handed about a dozen copies to the attorneys for the 
School Board. What happened to those copies that 

day before [498] this thing was delivered to the 

newspapers or Clerk? What happened to those 

copies? 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, the copies 

were handed to me on April 23 approximately 2:00 
or 2:30. 

Court: It was just before or within minutes after 

the thing was filed in the court. What is the mystery 

about the information getting to the Board? 

Mr. Waggoner: There is none although there has 

been a suggestion of it. This is what Dr. Self is 

testifying to. 

Court: I guess I'm asking what the lawyers did 

with the copies of the order. The thing was held up 

until the order could be duplicated so there would be 

a copy for every member of the Board so they could 

have it before they read the newspapers. 

Mr. Waggoner: They were not duplicated, as I 

understand it. Perhaps they were. 

Court: Duplicated by me. 

Mr. Waggoner: I received the copies that the 

Court instructed me were copies for the members of 

the Board of Education. I delivered them to Mr. 

Poe’s office and the Board members were called in- 

 



  

392a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Duirect 

dividually on the same afternoon and told they could 

come by and pick up a copy if they wanted to come 

get them in a hurry. Dr. Self was telling what hap- 

pened next. 
[499] Court: Let’s go on. I've been wondering 

about this all along. 

A. To complete the picture, I believe Mr. Watkins did go 

by and pick up his copy. Mrs. Maulden instructed Mrs. 

(Gattis to have hers mailed to her and the other Board mem- 

bers received their copy by courier the following day. 

Q. So no later than April 24 every Board member should 

have had their copy, is this correct? A. That is my under- 

standing. 
Q. Dr. Self, upon receiving the order did you hold any 

staff meetings with reference to reviewing the order? A. 

Yes, we did. We met the following morning. 

Q. Did you distribute copies to members of your staff? 

A. 1 did. 
Q. Now, did you have occasion prior to preparing the 

so-called Self Plan to confer with the attorneys for the 

Board of Education? A. On several occasions, yes. 

Q. And at that time the various aspects of the order 

were reviewed with you, were they not? A. Yes. 

Q. And based on this, our recommendations, recommen- 

dations of your staff and other sources of information, you 

began the preparation of the Self Plan, is this correct? A. 

That’s correct. 

[500] Q. Was very much time spent in preparation of 

this plan? A. Quite a bit, yes. 

Q. Was any consideraiton given to pairing? A. Yes. 

Q. Was any consideration given to establishing a feeder 

system? A. Yes. 

   



393a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant— Direct 

Q. Was any consideration given to busing? A. Yes. 
Q. Would it be fair to say that consideration was given 

to all the alternatives suggested by the Court? A. I think 
we considered all the alternatives. 

Q. Were there other alternatives that you considered? 
A. We, at one point in our thinking, were talking about 
exchange programs of both students and teachers. I don’t 
believe you have mentioned that. We considered the pos- 
sibility of alteration of attendance zones in such a way as 
to accomplish more integration. 

Q. Now, the plan that you finally submitted to the Board 
of Education, was this proposed by you and the staff as a 
final plan? A. It was proposed as a tentative plan and 
was so marked. It was intended to generate discussion 
among staff members and Board members. 

Q. In other words, this was to get conversation going in 
various areas of the plan, is this correct? [5011 A. That’s 
correct. 

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the proposed plan, I under- 
stand that it was submitted to the Board of Education. 
A. Yes. 

Q. Would you describe the circumstances under which 
it was submitted? A. Copies of the plan were given to 
the Board for study. A press conference was held prior 
to the meeting of the Board of Education to brief them so 
that they might have an opportunity to more thoroughly 
digest the information and perhaps do a good job of re- 
porting. We met. The Board heard the staff presentation. 
They asked questions for clarification and agreed at that 
point to take it under advisement and come back later and 
discuss it. 

Q. Was this a public hearing? A. It was. 

Q. Were television cameras present? A. No, they were  



  

394a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—D:irect 

not although we did meet at WTVI. I beg your pardon, the 

commercial cameras were present, the WIT'VI cameras. This 

was not a school televised meeting. 

Q. Dr. Self, could you tell us the occasions on which the 

staff and/or the School Board met to consider the Court 

order of April 23? A. I have a chronology of the meet- 

ings that were held. Is it your intention that I review these 

dates? 

[5021 Q. Yes, if you would. Just tell us the meeting date 

and if you recall, what took place on that date. A. As I have 

said previously, on April 24 we held our first meeting of 

the executive staff to discuss the plan. On April 28 we 

met with the elementary principals, distributed copies of 

the plan and interpreted the plan, solicited their opinions 

and reactions. There was on that same date a meeting of 

the Board of Education at which time the Board directed 

the staff to begin preparation of the plan. On April 29 the 

executive staff set to work. We considered the results of 

the principals’ meetings. We began to develop the format 

of the plan. We followed with meetings with the secondary 

principals, paralleled the meetings that we had with the 

elementary principals earlier. There was on April 29 a 

meeting of the Board of Education and the professional 

organizations study group representatives. This was just 

prior... 

Court: What professional organizations are you 

talking about? 

A. Your Honor, the professional organizations study group 

is a committee of the Presidents of the professional organ- 

izations. 

   



395a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Court: What professional organizations are you 
talking about? 

A. The NCEA, the NCHA, the Classroom Teachers Associ- 
ation, and I believe it’s called the Mecklenburg Classroom 
Teachers Association. This meeting was held just prior to 
an area [503] meeting of the Board of Education. 

Court: Where was that? 

A. Garinger High School. The executive staff continued 
to work on the plan, meeting again on May 1. On that same, 
May 1, there was a meeting of staff members, namely, Self 
and Anderson with the same representatives of the pro- 
fessional organization. The primary purpose of this meet- 
ing was to discuss faculty integration and how it might 
be implemented. This was held at Dilworth School, a site 
which we frequently choose for meetings because of its 
central location. On that same date, May 1, we met again 
with elementary principals to follow up the first meeting 
that we had with them. We met on May 2 to continue 
our work on the plan. It was on this date that I spoke 
to the faculties of the various schools and tried to share 
with them the problem we were facing. I asked them to 
meet as a faculty and to select one member of their faculty 
to follow back to the executive staff their opinions and 
their concerns. That same date there was a meeting of 
the Board of Education and the so-called Harris School 
Study Committee. On May 3, which was a Saturday, we 
manned our telephones at the central office to receive the 
comments from teachers who had viewed the telecast on 
the previous day. 

Court: What telecast was that? 

 



  

396a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

A. The one where I spoke to the faculty. We asked the 

faculties to meet in schools and I used the channel WTVI 

to speak to [5041 them about what techniques we might 

employ to achieve faculty desegregation. We continued 

to work on May 4 and on May 5 the directors and coordi- 

nators of the school system, which I called our second line 

of people, began to consider the problem and what their 

contribution might be in terms of helping to resolve it. On 

May 8 I held a general staff meeting of all directors and 

coordinators and principals to interpret the developing 

staff plan to them and on that evening we met with the 

Board of Education to present the staff plan. 1 believe 

that May 12 was the meeting between the Board of Kduca- 

tion and representatives of the same professional organiza- 

tions. This meeting was held at Dilworth. On May 13 

there was a meeting of the Board of Education and this 

was a televised Board meeting using the educational tele- 

vision channel. I recorded that on May 19 the Board held 

its work session on the staff plan at the education center. 

On May 15 we met as an executive staff to consider the 

reactions of the Board of Education to our staff plan and 

see what alterations or amendments were called for. We 

continued to meet, this time on May 20 and on May 21 the 

Board of Education met to adopt the plan of desegregation 

which is presented to the Court. 

Q. Dr. Self, do you have any estimate as to how many 

people were involved in the preparation of the plan? A. In 

terms of what I would call making heavy contributions, the 

[505] executive staff did the prime work. Beyond that 

directors and coordinators were involved particularly as 

it concerns faculty desegregation, as were all the principals 

in the school system. 

   



397a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Q. Would it be fair to say that the proposal that you 
came forward with was not lightly made? A. It certainly 
was not. 

Q. Dr. Self, were you given any detailed rules or regu- 
lations under which you were to formulate your plan? A. 
No, I wasn’t, Mr. Waggoner. I thought our charge was a 
rather broad and general one. I took it that we had the 
restraint of attempting to comply to the Court order and 
at the same time to attempt to prepare a plan with which 
the professional family could live and at the same time 
prepare a plan with which the community as a whole could 
live. 

Q. Dr. Self, what is your opinion with reference to the 
accomplishment on faculty desegregation as of the present 
time under the plan? A. Please state your question again. 

Q. What has the plan of desegregation accomplished at 
the present time with reference to faculty desegregation? 
A. According to a report presented to me this morning by 
Mr. Anderson, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, 
there are 66 teachers who have volunteered. Twenty-eight 
of these are at the elementary level; twenty of the twenty- 
eight are black [506] and eight are white. At the junior 
high school level —this would include the Learning Academy 
—there are twenty-five volunteers; fifteen are black and 
ten are white. At the senior high school level there are 
thirteen volunteers; three are black and ten are white. 
The total then is thirty-eight black and twenty-eight white 
and the grand total is sixty-six. 

Court: Are these all teaching positions? 

A. These are all teaching positions, Your Honor. 

Court: This is the final report? 

 



  

398a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

A. This is the report as of this date. We are continuing to 

get some of the blue assignment sheets in from time to 

time. 

Court: What was the significance of Sunday the 

15th of June in this connection? 

A. Sunday the 15th of June is the terminal date for pupil 

request of transfers. There is no terminal date to accept 

a teacher request. 

Court: I'm sorry, I’d forgotten what that date 

referred to. 

Q. Dr. Self, with respect to newly employed persons, has 

there been change in the report we filed with the Court in 

which we indicated that seventy-six newly employed 

teachers would be assigned across racial lines? Has there 

been any change in this? A. It’s still our plan to use newly 

employed teachers wherever [507] possible to effect faculty 

integration. That seventy-six, of course, can change from 

one day to another and hopefully we can increase it. 

Q. Is the staff prepared to make assignment of non- 

voluntary personnel? 

Mr. Chambers: I object to that unless he can show 

they have authorization from the School Board to 

make such assignments. 

Court: The testimony is that the plan under which 

it has been operating for four years, all teachers are 

employed by the Board and are assigned wherever 

the Board says. Is there any testimony that that’s 

been changed? 

   



399a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I'm simply 
asking him if his staff is prepared to make a recom- 
mendation on this, 

Court: Objection overruled. You can ask him 
about the authorization later. 

A. I am prepared to share some feelings with the Court 
in terms of what effect the volunteers and newly assigned 
teachers will have on the overall faculty integration pic- 
ture. May I use a chart to do that? 

Q. Certainly. Do you have additional copies of that, 
Dr. Self? A. Yes. 

Mr. Waggoner: May I have this identified as 
Defendants’ [508] Exhibit #1. 

A. The chart which has been passed out is one that is 
familiar to the Court. 

Q. Dr. Self, you're referring to Defendants’ Exhibit #17? 

Court: I'm sorry. This is a chart that I have 
spent some hours trying to read but have never 
become familiar with it. Have you got a better way 
to tell me what you’ve got in mind? 

A. TI think so, if you can follow with me down the righthand 
column. I share your frustration at trying to interpret the 
figures. They are rather difficult. Down the righthand 
column under the heading of Professional Staff we have 
accumulated data in terms of faculty desegregation. Be- 
neath those words are the year 1968 which reveals that we 
had 98 of our 112 schools with some degree of faculty 
integration, some degree meaning one or more. Those 98 

 



  

400a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

was really made up of sixteen predominantly Negro schools 

and 82 predominantly white schools. 

Court: Are you talking now about the way it’s 

been up through last month? 

A. That’s right and I was going to try to show you how it 

would be updated. 

Court: Youve got 900 black teachers and 2800 

white teachers in the system? Maybe it’s 2600 white 

teachers and 900 black, is that about right? 

[5091 A. The total is the total at the bottom of the page, 

505 and 2783; grand total of 3288. The key figure is in the 

middle of the page where you see the 131 and the 208. 

Can we dwell on that? That 131 represented 131 white 

teachers that were in predominantly Negro schools. The 

9208 are 208 Negro teachers in predominantly white schools. 

With the assignment of our volunteers and of our new 

people, this number that Mr. Waggoner read out a moment 

ago, that 131 white teachers will grow to 170 white teachers. 

The 208 Negro teachers will become 292. Those figures 

are penciled in to the right. 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I object. 

Court: You've got 208 black teachers teaching 

in white schools. Where do you get the other 56? 

A. Newly employed personnel, Your Honor. 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I object to this testi- 

mony because it’s more confusion than factual. I 

assume this 208 means he is going to have the same 

208 Negro teachers in the school next year. 

| 
| 

   



| 

401a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Court: Is that part of your assumption? 

A. There are 13 of those Negro teachers who are no longer 

in the position. We have to make up that amount of in- 

tegration that we had won before we assign from this 

point on. There are 24 of those 131 white teachers who are 

no longer with us and we have to make up that loss before 

we assign additional teachers. 

Court: I have never followed the theory of this 

page. [510] Can you tell me in words what it is 

you've got in mind? This page doesn’t confuse me, 

it just doesn’t enlighten me at all or darken me at all 

because of the way it’s made up. Ill have to get 

you to tell me what you’ve got in mind. 

A. Well, Your Honor, there were fourteen schools last 

year that did not experience any degree of faculty integra- 

tion. As I recall it, these were all black schools. If we 

are going to have faculty integration in these schools, we 

must place white teachers in vacancies which exist on those 

school faculties. There are vacancies in five of those all 

black schools now. We intend to fill them with white 

teachers. To move in faculty integration in the other nine 

schools, we will have to take teachers from the faculty roll 

and move them somewhere else before we can assign white 

teachers there. The staff is interpreting the Board’s plan 

on faculty integration, that part of which says that if 

voluntary efforts fail that the Board will use its power 

to assign teachers, to mean that we can move staff members 

from these all Negro schools. 

Court: Aren’t all of the teachers in the system 

subject to assignment wherever you ask them to 

serve unless they want to quit? 

 



  

402a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—D:irect 

A. Yes. 

Court: Do you create a vacancy by just transfer- 

ring a teacher from one school to another? 

[5111 A. If there are no vacancies, particularly in a school 

with a diminishing enrollment, then the only way that 

you can have a vacancy into which you can move a white 

teacher is by transferring the Negro teacher out. 

Court: What do you have in mind other than 

filling vacancies? 

A. Moving some teachers from the all black schools to 

create vacancies so we can effect faculty integration. 

Beyond that, I think we would go to those schools which 

have minimal faculty integration and attempt to in- 

crease it. 

Court: Anything else? 

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir. 

Q. Dr. Self, is it true that of the approximately eight or 

nine hundred black teachers in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

system that 292 of those teachers will be in predominantly 

white schools? A. That’s our projection. 

Q. That is purely on the voluntary and newly assigned 

teacher basis. A. That’s right. 
Q. So this is nearly a third of the black teachers in the 

community that will be in these situations? A. That’s 

correct. 

Q. Now, do I understand the lower figures to indicate 

that 95% of all teachers will be teaching in integrated 

schools next [512] year insofar as this part of the plan 

   



403a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

goes? A. Assuming that you accept one teacher of an 

opposite race as evidence of integration. 

Court: How do you view that particular proposi- 

tion. If you've got one white teacher in a school 

with fifty black teachers is that an integrated 

faculty? And, if so, what benefits accrue to the stu- 

dents from having that arrangement? 

A. Your Honor, it’s integrated in terms of statistical 

accounting. In terms of it being a desirable situation, I 

would not judge it to be so. 

Court: What would deem to be a desirable situa- 

tion in this county? 

A. I would say that there ought to be enough members 

of that minority race on the faculty so they can produce 

reinforcement and support for one another. That would 

mean a considerable number. 

Court: Do you have the same essential feeling 

about the role of the black teacher who is assigned 

to a white school with fifteen or forty white faculty 

members? 

A. 1 do. 

Court: If the plan were designed so that you 

reorganized the faculty of the schools so there was 

a thorough going desegregation of the faculty, 

wouldn’t [513] the whole process be more acceptable 

to those teachers who participated in that? 

 



404a, 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

A. T think that this was the sentiment that the heads of the 

professional organizations did state. 

Court: Will desegregation of faculties produce 

closer to an equality of educational calibre in all the 

schools that it would be if we carried on the way we 

are? Would it tend to equalize the educational oppor- 

tunities as far as instruction is concerned? 

A. I don’t believe it would guarantee it. 

Court: I didn’t ask to guarantee it, what would 

be the tendency of it? 

A. It would be the tendency, yes. 

Court: All right, go ahead. 

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the Court’s question about 

gerrymandering, are there any zones or school attendance 

districts known to you which were developed on racial 

lines to perpetuate segregation? 

Mr. Chambers: Objection. 

Court: Overruled. 

A. I think our attendance lines reflect natural boundaries. 

There are in most instances natural boundaries between 

white and black neighborhoods. I think the net result of 

this has been to draw out attendance areas that produce, 

in some instances, all white schools and all black schools. 

[514] Q. Now, with reference to pupil desegregation, 

in the present desegregation as it pertains to pupils what 

do you expect to accomplish by the beginning of the school 

   



  

405a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

year September 1969? A. Our tabulation in terms of 

pupil assignment thus far indicates that 1816 pupils have 

requested change of assignment. Of this 1816 requests, 

1484 are what I term regular assignments; 332 are major- 

ity to minority transfers. 

Court: How many of the 332 are white children 

asking to go to black schools? 

A. Two at the present time. 

Q. Dr. Self, as I understand it, it would be impossible to 

construct and equip the new Metropolitan High School 

prior to the beginning of this school year. Do you have a 

target date in mind for the availability of the new facility? 

A. We had hoped the fall of next year, not this year but 

next year. I would anticipate some difficulty in meeting 

that schedule right at the moment. 

Q. What effect do you expect the pupil plan to have on 

the all black schools that exist in this system? A. The only 

effect that I can see that it would have would be to slightly 

decrease the enrollment in some of the all black schools. 

Q. Is this circumstance of having all black schools pecu- 

liar to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System? 

Mr. Chambers: Objection. 

[515] Court: Overruled. It’s a well known fact 

but it won’t hurt to prove it again. 

A. No. 

Q. Now, with reference to the varsity athletics prohibi- 

tion of engaging in sports where you transfer to a new 

high school, what is the rationale for this rule? A. I think 

the previous testimony on this has been correct. It was 

 



  

406a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—D:irect 

actually an attempt to prevent pirating of star athletes 

from one school to another. 

Q. Do you feel that this particular provision of the plan 

would act to the detriment of desegregation? A. I do not 

feel so. If it developed that it was proving to be a detri- 

ment, then I think it should be reviewed. 

Court: Can you tell what the effect of it is when 

people don’t apply that may be subject to the rule? 

A. The only way that I can think of that you would be able 

to tell, Your Honor, would be that people who do not apply 

because of this rule would have a tendency to speak out. 

Court: You assume they would. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: If you have only two requests from white 

students to transfer to black schools, whatever ef- 

fect this athletic rule has is not one that is going to 

prohibit the freedom of choice for white students, is 

it? 

[516] A. That’s right. 

Court: Because they’re not choosing to go to black 

schools anyhow. 

A. That’s right. 

Court: So the only prohibiting effect that rule has, 

as a practical matter, is on black ninth graders, 

isn’t it? . . . ninth and tenth graders. 

   



407a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

A. It would have a tendency to be more inhibitive to the 
students in eleventh or twelfth grade because this is where 
the student begins to make the varsity. He could partici- 
pate on the other teams. 

Court: If an athlete is required by this rule to 
choose between playing football and going to a school 
otherwise of his choice, the effect of the rule is to 
discourage him from exercising his theoretical free- 
dom of choice, isn’t it? 

A. Yes, it would be. 

Court: And it’s only black people who would be 
deterred by this, isn’t it? 

A. According to the present facts, yes, sir. 

Court: Are these facts substantially any different 
than they have been through the last four years? 

A. No, they are not. 

Court: You've never had more than a tiny handful 

of white students choosing to go to black schools, have 
[517] you? 

A. That’s right. 

Court: How has that figure run through the years? 

Has it been two or three, a dozen or two? 

A. I don’t recall. I would agree it’s been only a handful. 

Court: Well, if it should develop that the restrie- 
tion prevents the exercise of a constitutional right, 

 



  

408a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

do you think that the constitutional right or the 

orderliness of the athletic recruiting program is 

more important to the community? 

A. I think the constitutional right is, of course, more im- 

portant. 

Court: Did you ever play football? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: If you had to lay out a year, would you 

have chosen to go to a school as a first year high 

school when you had a school you could go to and 

play freshman football? 

A. That’s been a long time ago, sir, I don’t know. 

Court: You don’t think you would, do you? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. Dr. Self, this varsity athletic transfer rule, what was 

the basis for originally formulating it, what circumstance? 

A. Well, it had to do with an attempt on the part of an 

aggressive coach to recruit athletes of known ability from 

other schools and it was a rule that was attempted to deter 

that [518] sort of practice. 

Q. As an educator do you regard athletics as a major 

portion of the students education? A. Yes. 

Court: You recommended striking that thing out 

of the plan in your first draft, didn’t you? 

A. Yes, sir. 

   



409a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Court: You still think it ought not to be in there? 

A. I think it’s subject to some question and I think that we 
might come up with some provision for having our athletic 
director to review cases where someone is being penalized 
in this case. 

Court: You still consider it a penalty, though, 
don’t you? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: And you so said in the plan. 

A. Are you referring to the staff plan, sir? 

Court: Well, this plan says this penalty will be 

lifted if he goes back to the school he was told to go 

to originally, doesn’t it? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Dr. Self, you're familiar with the language of the 

Court in the order of April 23 in which it says one point 

on which the experts all agree and the statistics tend to 

bear them out is racial mix in which black students heavily 

predominate tends [519] to retard the progress of the 

whole group. Do you recall this statement? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, referring to the data submitted to the Court. . . 

Court: There’s another piece of that sentence. 

Mr. Waggoner: All right, sir, I'l] read the entire 

sentence: Whereas if students are mingled with a 

clear white majority, such as a 70-30 ratio, approxi- 

mately the ratio of white to black students in Meck- 

lenburg County, the better students can hold their 

 



  
410a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

pace, with substantial improvement for the poorer 

students. 

Q. This is, as I understand it, the Court’s language. 

Now, referring to the data submitted in connection with 

freedom of choice, do you have such a table? A. Are you 

referring to the statistics I just read out? 

Q. No, sir. This is the preparation by Dr. Church con- 

sisting of three or four pages on the effects of a freedom of 

choice if it were abolished. A. Yes, I have that. 

Court: Is that in the ...? 

Mr. Waggoner: In the report of May 28, I believe, 

Your Honor. 

Court: This is Exhibit 71 or 73, whatever it was, 

that Mr. Belk was identifying . . . 71. All right, I'm 

with you. 

[5201 Q. Dr. Self, would you point out to the Court 

those schools which would tend to improve the ratio to- 

ward a 70 white-30 black population in the school. 

Court: I haven’t sustained many objections, but 

if yowll rephrase that so I can understand iH,1 

would appreciate it. 

Q. Will you point out those schools in which the black 

students heavily predominate to which a few whites would 

be returned? A. Well, to do this we would have to turn 

to the second page where the schools are actually listed. 

If T might just go across the top of the first line just to 

sort of get my own mind focused on the question, Mr. Wag- 

goner. Albemarle Road Elementary School, which is indi- 

cated by the W as a predominantly white school—in the 

   



411a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

next two columns we see that there are 72 pupils attending 

Albemarle Road from outside of their school district. 70 
of these are white and 2 are Negro. In the next two 

columns, we see that there are 19 white pupils, no Negroes, 

who are from that district but who are attending other 

schools in the school system. If you eliminated freedom 

of choice and if you returned all of these pupils to their 

original school, it would have the effect of taking those 70 

white pupils who are attending outside of the district. It 

would also have the effect of sending from Albemarle 

Road the two Negro pupils and bring back no Negro pupils. 

So [521] that the net effect in terms of the minority race 

at Albemarle School would be the loss of 2 Negro pupils 

and that’s the last column, minus 2N. 

Q. With reference to Barringer School, what effect would 

abolishing freedom of choice have on this school? A. It 

would have the net effect of sending 19 white pupils back 

into Barringer School. 

Q. Barringer is a school that is heavily predominantly 

black, is this correct? A. It is predominantly black. 

Court: Is it a fair summary of all this data that 

if you eliminated freedom of choice you would return 

to mostly black schools some twelve or fourteen 

hundred white students and most of this would be 

in the north and west parts of town, most of it in 

low income areas? 

A. That’s true. The summary, Your Honor, is on the pre- 

ceding page. 

Court: I’m asking the question primarily with 

reference to the places where this would take place. 

 



  

412a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Is it generally true that freedom of choice has 

tended to enable white people in low income areas 

to get out of black schools? 

A. It has had that tendency. 

Court: Such as in Amy James 216; Tryon Hills 

89; Villa Heights 42; Piedmont 110; Hawthorne 144, 

and [522] so on. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: And York Road 190. Is this one of the 

problems that the Court called to the Board’s atten- 

tion in the previous opinion. 

A. In that section, Your Honor, where you said that free- 

dom of choice could be permitted if it did not have the 

effect of perpetuating segregation. 

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the beneficial effect or 

detrimental effect of the freedom of choice plan, has it 

had any substantial influence on creating a favorable edu- 

cational condition for certain students? 

Mr. Chambers: Objection. 

Court: Overruled. 

Q. Would you like the question restated? A. Please. 

Q. With reference to the freedom of choice plan, from 

a sound educational standpoint, has it been beneficial or 

detrimental to retain it under the plan of desegregation? 

Mr. Chambers: Objection. 

Court: Well, you've got another element in there 

but I'll overrule it. 

   



  

413a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

A. I think it’s been beneficial to retain it for reasons other 
than educational. 

Court: You mean that people have raised less 
cain about [523] the situation because it’s been in 
there? 

A. I think it’s proved to be an outlet, pop-off valve, yes, 
sir. I think that there might be education reasons asso- 
ciated with the assignment of a small handful of a minority 
race in another school, but to generalize on that topic, 1 
don’t think I can. 

Q. Well, in the vast majority of schools there is a small 
handful or no students of the other race effected under 
this, is that correct? A. That’s correct. 

Q. Dr. Self, the Court has been puzzled by the free trans- 
portation provision of the plan. Could you elaborate on 
how the plan actually operates? A. Well, the plan states 
that if they are majority to minority transfers the Board 
of Hducation will provide transportation. The details of 
the plan have yet to be worked out. The administration 
assumes that if there are three pupils who elect to go from 
West Charlotte to Harding High School that it’s our re- 
sponsibility to furnish them with transportation, the same 
manner as we furnish transportation to the student going 
from a section of the connty to Independence High School. 

Q. All right, now, with reference to school capacities, 
would you explain how the mechanics of how the plan works 
with reference to determining which students will be ac- 
cepted under free transfer? [5241 A. The plan calls for 
the acceptance of majority to minority requests at any 
school up to a number which exceeds the maximum capacity 
by 20%. These transfer requests are to receive considera- 

 



  

414a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

tion before any regular transfer requests receive considera- 

tion, so they are given priority. 

Court: Suppose your school is already closed? 

A. Then we would have to resort to a second or third choice 

if one were given and if second and third choices are not 

given, it’s been our custom to communicate with the ap- 

plicant and say the school 1s closed, would you care to 

select another one. This was the purpose of our publishing 

in the paper the names of the fifteen closed schools. We 

hoped to save some people some trouble in terms of apply- 

ing for them. 

Court: So those schools can be filled up already 

before any outside choices are made to go to those 

schools. 

A. There are fifteen schools that are filled up already. By 

that we mean they are 20% over their capacity. There are 

two schools in which majority to minority requests would 

be effected. They are Ranson and Albemarle Road Junior 

High School. There were thirty requests to Ranson Junior 

High. 16 of the 30 requests listed a second choice so that 

we can accommodate them. 14 did not list a second choice 

and we would have to communicate with these parties and 

see if they would care to have another school. One request 

was made to [5251 Albemarle Road Junior High School 

which is one of the 15 closed schools. They also had a sec- 

ond choice and we can grant their request to the second 

choice. 

Court: So that freedom of choice means freedom 

of choice if they happen to have room over there 

under these rules. 

   



  

415a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant— Direct 

A. Yes, sir, but it’s a rather liberal interpretation or if 
they happen to have room. 

Q. Dr. Self, do you feel that there is sufficient space in 
the white schools to accommodate the blacks who may re- 
quest transfer? 

Mr. Chambers: Objection. 

Court: Objection overruled. 

A. There is space, according to my previous statement, to 
accommodate all but fourteen of the majority to minority 
requests that I enumerated earlier. These may be accom- 
modated in terms of second choices. 

Court: Well, you're not going to get any more 
requests, are you? 

Mr. Waggoner: No, sir. 

Court: Do you expect any more? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. Dr. Self, what means of notice to students and parents 
was given with reference to the free transfer provision 
from majority to minority schools? 

[526] Mr. Chambers: Objection, it’s already in 
the record. 

Court: What’s in the record? 
Mr. Chambers: The provisions or degree of no- 

tice the School Board gave to the parents. I call 
the Court’s attention to the document filed with the 
Court on Monday, and we indicated at the time that 
we didn’t have any objection to the document being 
introduced. 

Court: Well, he may have something else in mind. 
Go ahead. 

 



  

416a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

A. Notice was sent home with the children the last day of 

school and the notice had a letter which told of the assign- 

ment plan. One paragraph in the letter did state that free 

transportation would be furnished majority to minority 

transfers. Public notice was also given in the newspapers. 

These public notices were printed by the Board of KEduca- 

tion as it had stated it would do in the plan. 

Court: Is that the fine print ad that ran in the 

classified section? 

A. Yes, gir, 

Q. Dr. Self, was any prominence given in all notices with 

reference to the free transportation? A. If you mean was 

it set apart in bold type, yes. It was also set apart in bold 

type in the public notice but it was scarcely discernible. 

[5271 Court: The headlines in the public adver- 

tisement I believe were about two-thirds of the size 

of a typewriter, weren’t they? 

Q. Dr. Self, do you believe the measures employed to 

get notice to these students and their parents were reason- 

able means to communicate? 

Mr. Chambers: Objection. 

Court: I guess that’s a matter I'll have to decide. 

Go ahead and answer the question. 

A. Yes. 

Court: Do you feel a fine print ad between the 

obituaries and classified ads is reasonably calculated 

to notify school children of anything, or are you 

   



417a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

relying on the letter that was handed to them at 

school? 

A. The letter would attract a good bit more attention, 

Your Honor. I think also that the attention surrounding 

this whole field and the news articles which have been 

written about it would attract more attention than the 

public notice. 

Court: You're not including the published fine 

print advertisement in your feeling that a notice 

was reasonable, are you, as a part of it? 

A. TI think this was a satisfaction of a sort of a pseudolegal 

requirement that the Board felt it had to do. 

Court: But as practically giving notice to a school 

[528] child, that printed notice in the paper wasn’t 

worth much, was it? 

A. It would be of much more value to the parent than 

the child. 
Q. Dr. Self, have you had an opportunity to review Dr. 

Finger’s proposed plan of desegregation of pupils? A. 

Very briefly. 
Q. Did you find it to be substantially the same proposal 

he had made previously? A. It did seem to me to be a 

blending together of the three reports that were presented 

in earlier testimony. 

Q. Did your office or your staff give consideration to 

redrawing some school attendance lines? A. Yes. 

Q. And I assume that you rejected this idea, is that 

correct? A. At this time. 

 



  

418a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Q. For what reason? A. Well, the staff plan as it was 

proposed placed heavy emphasis on faculty desegregation. 

We had hoped to have a period of preparation of the com- 

munity for further steps in pupil desegregation. So since 

the pupil desegregation major move was postponed, that 

particular type of intervention was not considered in the 

staff plan. 

Court: When was it first postponed, was that at 

the first meeting? 

A. As a part of the staff plan, sir. 

[529] Court: Well, did the first staff plan make 

a staff decision to postpone everything but faculty 

desegregation? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Court: Was that pursuant to instructions from 

the Board or members of the Board? 

As No, sir, 

Court: Was that decision postponed or under- 

stood when you started to work on the plan? 

A. It was an understanding that developed as we worked 

on it, Your Honor. There were two major reasons I think 

for it. One of them was the tremendous amount of work 

that would need to be accomplished, and the second was 

the tremendous need that was apparent at that time for 

preparing the community for such steps. 

   



419a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct 

Court: You're saying, then, that sometime shortly 

after the first meeting of the School Board the 25, 

26, 27 or 28 of April, shortly after that the staff 

stopped work on the details of any possible plan for 

pupil desegregation. 

A. We laid heavy emphasis on the faculty desegregation. 

Court: I was asking you about the pupils. Your 

plan was prepared for presentation about the first 

of May, wasn’t it, and withheld for presentation 

until the 8th of May? 

[5301 A. No, sir. It was almost a deadline job. We were 

coming off the press with it, I believe, about May 8. 

Court: May 8 was the date of the Board meeting, 

wasn’t it? 

A. Yes, sir. We didn’t finish it much before that date. 

Court: And between the 23 of April and the 8 

of May you had concentrated on the faculty desegre- 

gation question? 

A. We had concentrated, our major emphasis was there. 

We had not overlooked student desegregation. 

Court: And you had done no work on student 

desegregation plans since you reached that conclu- 

sion before firming up the May 8 plan, is that 

correct? 

A. That’s correct. 

 



  

420a 

Colloquy 

Mr. Waggoner: No further questions. 

Mr. Gage: Your Honor, there are a few questions 

I'd like to ask for the same purpose as before either 

now or after cross examination. 

Mr. Chambers: Objection. 

Court: What do these questions relate to? 

Mr. Gage: Concerning the allegations made about 

the Chairman of the School Board by Mrs. Betsy 

Kelly. 

Court: Mrs. Kelly came to this hearing with a 

lawyer and she doesn’t have one now. 

Mr. Waggoner: Mrs. Kelly presented me with a 

note. [531] She would like to 2o on the stand as a 

witness. She has not released me as counsel and 

I will represent her to the best of my ability. 

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I submit that this 

case is not involving a problem that counsel now 

proposes to go into. As the Court set forth at the 

beginning of the hearing, the question was whether 

or not a plan submitted by the Board complied with 

the Board’s constitutional requirements. I under- 

stand now there’s some question whether counsel 

wants to inquire whether some threat has been made 

against Dr. Self. I submit that has no relevance 

whatever to this matter now in controversy. 

Mr. Gage: Your Honor, I'm puzzled that counsel 

for the plaintiff now wishes to limit the scope of 

the inquiry when he first broached the subject on 

cross examination of the Chairman on the witness 

stand and it was on his examination of Mrs. Betsy 

Kelly that all this came out. I believe that Mrs. 

Kelly has conferred with him. I believe Your Honor 

ought to strike all of this testimony out of the record 

if the scope of inquiry is to be now restricted. 

   



421a 

Colloquy 

Court: As I told you a while ago, I am not going 

to restrict the inquiry because we’ve been into it 

before. Mrs. Kelly, you may cross examine Dr. 

Hanes if you [532] want to recall him for that 

purpose and you may cross examine Dr. Self if you 

want to and if you now have a lawyer, which I 

thought twenty minutes ago you did not have, you 

may want to confer with him. 

Mrs. Kelly: Do you want me to do it now? 

Court: Do what, talk to Mr. Waggoner? 

Mrs. Kelly: Yes. 

Court: If you wish. 

Mr. Waggoner: May we have a short recess, Your 

Honor? 

Court: Take a ten minute recess. 

SHORT RECESS 

Court: Gentlemen, the Court yesterday was per- 

haps concentrating too much on what was being 

heard and not enough on the proportions of some- 

thing that happened, I believe innocently, but it 

happened nevertheless. When your client is called 

by the opposite party and he gets through asking 

questions, the attorney who represents that client 

has a right to cross-examine his own client if he 

chooses to. This right does not extend to impeaching 

questions or suggestions. I overlooked this situa- 

tion yesterday and 1 believe Mr. Waggoner over- 

looked it also and it did not come back to my atten- 

tion until a moment ago when I interrupted the 

proceedings. Mr. Waggoner is in the position of 

having received confidences from two people who are 

in this [533] matter of impeachment on opposite 

 



  

422a, 

Colloquy 

sides of the fuss and he has not been released by the 

School Board or by Mrs. Kelly and is in an impos- 

sible position. The Court has advised him on this 

subject to have nothing further to do with it by way 

of conducting the hearing or conferring with clients. 

The Court advises Mr. Gage that if his examination 

of the witness on the subject he is talking about is 

based upon information that came in any way from 

Mr. Waggoner, he must not ask questions based on 

that information. This is the reason I interrupted 

the conference between Mrs. Kelly and Mr. Wag- 

goner a while ago because I thought for their mutual 

protection they ought to become separated immedi- 

ately. A lawyer cannot have clients with interests 

which conflict and I am sorry I didn’t see this when 

it first came up yesterday. This is probably not a 

matter of substance in the final conclusion of the 

case because, as I said a while ago, I expect to hear 

everything that may be pertinent and to make my 

decision on what I believe the facts to be. It is of 

importance to Mrs. Kelly and Mr. Waggoner that 

we get our amenities straightened out and proceed 

with some care from now on. She will be accorded 

the right to cross-examine Dr. Hanes, cross-examine 

Dr. Self if she chooses and to testify further or offer 

further [534] evidence if she wishes to after they 

conclude their testimony. Do the attorneys think 

that this now leaves us in a position to proceed 

without any further confusion? 

Mr. Gage: Your Honor, I'd like to say that the 

information on which I now propose to proceed came 

to me directly from Dr. Self and Mr. Poe. I have 

not been briefed by Mr. Waggoner. 

   



423a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Cross-Examination by Mr. Gage: 

Q. Dr. Self, would you state to the Court, please, sir, 

whether your job has ever been threatened by Mr. Poe. 

A. It has not. I think, as Dr. Watkins testified this morning, 

this is a time of tension. We have some very traumatic 

questions before the Board of Education and the staff. It 

is to be expected that the questions under consideration 

will produce differences of opinion and there have been 

differences of opinion among Board members, among the 

staff and among the Board and staff. At no time in my 

relationship with Mr. Poe have any differences of opinion 

which we have had reached the point where either of us 

felt that they must be resolved by my leaving the job. 

Mr. Gage: Thank you, that’s all. 

Court: Mrs. Kelly, do you want to ask him some 

questions now? 

[535] Mrs. Kelly: I would like to cross examine 

Dr. Hanes. 

Court: Do you want to ask Dr. Self any questions? 

Mrs. Kelly: No. 

Court: If you're going to be asking questions, 

come up and sit at one of these tables so you can 

be heard a little better. Anybody else want to ask 

Dr. Self any more questions? 

Cross Examination by Mr. Chambers: 

Q. Dr. Self, you assisted in the preparation of the plan 

that was submitted to the Board on May 8, 1969? A. I did. 

Q. The proposal submitted by the staff provided for 

the complete desegregation of teachers effective 1969-70. 

A. It did. 

 



  

42432 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Q. In your professional opinion, Dr. Self, would it be 

feasible for this school system to completely desegregate 

the staff beginning September 1969? A. Yes, but I would 

qualify it by saying it would be extremely difficult at this 

point. 

Q. It would, however, be feasible? A. Yes. 

Q. Dr. Self, in answer to some questions from the Court 

you intimated that the staff early stopped consideration of 

combining any school districts, pairing of any schools or 

changing [5361 or establishing a feeder system. Did you 

hear the testimony of one of the Board members yesterday 

—Mr. Poe, I believe it was—that the staff understood from 

the first Board meeting that the Board did not want to 

consider any changing in the student assignment which 

would require busing? A. I heard the testimony. 

Q. Will you tell the Court, Dr. Self, whether when you 

began the preparation of your plan you proceeded with 

this understanding? A. Yes. 

Q. Now, you testified about extensive consideration that 

the staff gave in the preparation of the plan it presented to 

the Board. A. Yes. 
Q. Despite your extensive study, the Board saw fit to 

modify your plan and, in fact, water it down considerably. 

A. Acting within their authority, yes. 

Q. So all of the study that you made with respect to 

teachers was changed by the Board. A. Again within their 

authority, yes. 

Q. Did they spend half as much time as the staff in the 

staff’s preparation of the plan? A. I do not know. 

Q. From the time that you spent in the preparation of 

that plan, did you spend comparable time as Secretary to 

the Board with the Board in its consideration of the plan? 

£5371 A. No. 

   



  

425a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Q. Did you hear Dr. Finger’s testimony? A. Yes. 
Q. And I think that you testified earlier that you had 

had a chance to glance at the proposal he submitted. A. 
Very briefly, yes. 

Q. In your study or consideration of the Court’s order, 
did you have a chance to consider some desegregation 
efforts in other communities? A. Not extensively. Some, 

but not extensively. 

Q. Did you have a chance to consider some proposals 

dealing with pairing of schools? A. I did not read any 

information of this sort. I know generally about the pair- 
ing technique. 

Q. Do you also know generally about consolidation of 

school districts? A. Yes. 

Q. Do you also know generally about feeder systems? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Are you familiar with the boundary lines for the East- 

over Elementary School. A. Yes. 

Q. Are you familiar with the boundary lines for 

Chantilly? A. Yes. 

Q. Cotswald? A. Yes. 

[5381 Q. Is it Oakhurst? A. Oakhurst, yes. 

Q. Approximately how far would Elizabeth be from 

Chantilly? A. In the neighborhood of two, two and a half 
miles. 

Q. It would be feasible, would it not, Dr. Self, to combine 

these two school districts effective September 19692 A. 

From an administrative point of view it could be done. I 

think that a great deal of discussion has to go on regarding 

the use of transportation since I think transportation would 

have to be employed to do this. 

Q. Now, if the districts of Eastover, Billingsville, Oak- 

hurst and Cotswald were combined, approximately what 

 



  

426a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

would be the mileage in diameter of those combined dis- 

tricts? A. I would estimate four to four and a half miles. 

Q. Is it true that Eastover district presently has a di- 

ameter running north and south of approximately three 

and a half miles? A. I think that’s a close estimate. It’s 

elongated. 

Q. Do you provide bus transportation in that district? 

A. No, we do not. 

Q. Now, your combined district of Chantilly and Eliza- 

beth would be about two miles. Would it be necessary to 

provide bus transportation within that district if they were 

combined? A. I think it would if you think in terms of 

the extremes of the district. 

Q. Now, would it be feasible effective September 1969 to 

combine [539] the districts of Kastover, Billingsville, Cots- 

wald and Oakhurst? A. Again, from an administrative 

point of view it could be accomplished. From the amount of 

community preparation standpoint, there is a tremendous 

amount of that that has yet to be done. 

Q. Did you hear Dr. Finger’s testimony about combining 

Marie @&. Davis with Sedgefield and Collingswood? A. 

Yes. : 
Q. In your professional opinion would it be feasible to 

combine these districts effective September 1969? A. I 

would answer in the same way. 

Q. You also heard his testimony about combining Bruns 

Avenue, Enderly Park and Ashley Park. A. Yes. 

Q. Would your answer be the same with respect to doing 

that effective September 1969? A. I believe it would. 

Q. You also heard his testimony about Thomasboro and 

Lakeview. A. Yes. 

Q. Would your answer be the same with respect to com- 

bining those two school districts effective September, 19697 

   



427a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

A. It would be. 

Q. You also heard his testimony about combining Tryon 

Hills and Hidden Valley. [540] A. Yes. 

Q. Would your answer be the same with respect to com- 

bining those two school districts effective September 1969? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Did you hear his testimony about the school districts 

of Plaza Road, Highland, Villa Heights, Alexander Street, 

Midwood, Shamrock Gardens and Merry Oaks? A. Yes, I 

did. 

Q. Would you agree that the diameter, if these districts 

were combined, would be approximately two miles? A. I 

believe that would be a little bit on the slight side. I’m not 

sure. 

Q. Would your answer be the same with respect to com- 

bining those school districts effective September 19692 A. 

That was not as clearcut as some of the others. 

Q. It’s not as clearcut? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you hear his testimony about Wilmore, Dilworth 

and Myers Park? A. I did. 

Q. Would it be administratively feasible to combine these 

districts effective September 1969? A. Administrative de- 

tails could be accomplished. 

Q. Now, did you look at the proposal with respect to 

establishing a feeder system for desegregating the junior 
high schools [541] and the senior high schools? A. Yes. 

Q. Would it be administratively feasible to effect that 
proposal in your professional opinion effective September 
1969? A. There are some points, I think, that would need 
clarification. I wasn’t able to detect where Dr. Finger was 
proposing to send the children of the closed out schools, 
Fairview into McClintock, for example. I'm confused over 
that part. 

 



  

428a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

Q. Otherwise, assuming that we found a place to put 

those children, would it be administratively feasible to 

implement the proposal with respect to the junior high 

schools and senior high schools? A. Yes. 

Q. Now, is it true the Board presently proposes to close 

Bethune, Isabella Wyche and Zeb Vance Schools in Sep- 

tember 1969? A. No. It is true that these schools that you 

mentioned are marked for abandonment but the final deci- 

sion on that has not been made yet and before that can be 

done, the matter of whether or not they would be replaced 

by a school in locale or whether these students would be 

transported to outlying schools has yet to be made. 

Q. Well, now, there was some consideration given to 

building a school to replace these schools when they were 

closed. A. That’s correct. 

Q. And I don’t believe that the Board has yet decided 

where to [542] place this school to replace these three 

schools. A. That’s correct. 

Q. Now, would the schools in the adjacent districts be 

able to accommodate the students if these schools were 

closed effective September 1969? A. I am not certain of 

my facts but I doubt it. 

Q. Well, we don’t know the figures or the capacities of 

the schools in the adjacent districts? A. I could look that 

up, yes, Sir. 

Q. Do you have the figures with you? A. (No answer 

given.) 

Q. Do you have a copy of Plaintiff’s Exhibit #52 A. If I 

do, I don’t know the number of it, Mr. Chambers. 

Q. This is a copy of the proposal submitted by the plain- 

iff. A. Yes. 

Q. Would you look at Page 2 of that proposal? In the 

   



  

429a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

last paragraph would you look at the sentence beginning 
on the last line. 

Court: What are we looking at now? 

Mr. Chambers: This is the plan submitted by the 

plaintiffs. 

Q. Would you read whether this plan requires the closing 

of those three schools we were talking about? A. The sen- 

tence begins: The Schools are Bethune, Wyche, Zeb Vance 

and Fairview. There are approximately 1,000 students 

[543] involved. The plan is not contingent upon the clos- 
ing of these schools but if they are not closed, some modifi- 

cation in the plan will be required. 

Q. It would be possible, therefore, to implement this plan 

and maintain those schools even next year? A. If I read 
this correctly, yes. 

Court: Dr. Self, I have some recollection of hear- 
ing you or reading about you telling the Second Ward 
students to put in a request to go somewhere else 
next year. Where are the high schools with room 
for those 1,100 or so students? Where is it contem- 
plated they’d go? 

A. Your Honor, that was Dr. Hanes, I believe, that spoke 
to the Second Ward students. The high schools, though, 
would be those that surround the Second Ward district, 
they being Harding, Myers Park, Garinger and West Char- 
lotte. 

Court: Well is the Second Ward building sub- 
stantially more decrepit now than it was sixty days 
ago? I just wondered. 

 



  

430a 

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

A. No, sir. 

Court: Is it the intention of the Board to close 

that school regardless of whether Metropolitan is 

built or not? 

A. As T understand the intention of the Board, it is to 

establish a specialized school on that site. 

[544] Court: I’m asking about the operation of 

Second Ward School in 1969-70. The inference from 

the urging of students to go somewhere else and 

this was the last graduating class was there would 

be no school there next year. Has that been decided? 

A. Not fully, sir. 

Mr. Chambers: I have nothing further. 

Mr. Waggoner: I have nothing further, Your 

Honor. 

   



431a 

A Tentative Plan for the Integration of the 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

For Discussion Purposes 

Self Plan 

Introduction 

In accordance with the educational philosophy adopted 
by the Board of Education on December 18, 1968, it is the 
belief of the Board that the democratic way of life con- 
tributes the most benefit and happiness to members of so- 
ciety and that the school, as an agency of society, should 
be dedicated to the development, improvement, and pres- 
ervation of democratic ideals. It is the feeling of the Board 
that all individuals should be given an equal opportunity 
to develop to the greatest possible extent their capacities 
for happy, useful, successful lives. 

We feel that all individuals regardless of their abilities, 
past experiences, race, place of residence, social or eco- 
nomic status should have the right: 

1. To share the skills, values, and knowledge of the 
human race. 

2. To develop initiative and the ability to weigh facts, 
make judgments, and act cooperatively. 

3. To attain a reasonable standard of living. 

  

Note: The Board of Education is engaged in the process 
of developing a plan to comply with the District 
Court order of April 23, 1969. It should be em- 
phasized that the statements made in this document 
are not final and should be regarded as such. 

5/8/69 

 



    

432a 

A Tentatwe Plan for the Integration of the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

4. To enjoy the widest share of freedom compatible with 

the equal freedoms of other people. 

The schools have been recognized as the workshops of 

democracy. For generations the basic principles of Amer- 

ican life have been introduced through the schools. By the 

effective use of the democratic processes, we believe that 

the complete integration of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

Schools can become a reality. 

We are convinced that integration has provided and will 

continue to provide a more complete, realistic education for 

all individuals. It is our intent to present a reasonable plan 

for integration, which is designed to maintain and improve 

the quality of education in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

Schools. 

As indicated in the District Court order of April 23, 

1969, the Board of Education has “achieved a degree and 

volume of desegregation of schools apparently unsurpassed 

in these parts, and has exceeded the performance of any 

school board whose actions have been reviewed in appellate 

court decisions. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools in 

many respects are models for others.” In this order the 

Court directed that the Board “submit by May 15, 1969, 

a plan for the active and complete desegregation of teachers 

in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system, to be effective 

with the 1969-70 school year. Such plan could approach 

substantial equality of teaching in all schools by seeking 

to apportion teachers to each school on substantially the 

same ratio (about three to one) as the ratio of white teach- 

ers and black teachers in the system at large.” The Court 

further directed the Board to “submit by May 15, 1969, a 

 



  

433a 

A Tentative Plan for the Integration of the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

plan and a time table for the active desegregation of the 

pupils, to be predominantly effective in the fall of 1969 

and to be completed by the fall of 1970.” 

In order to implement the Court order, we are prepared 

to take significant steps in achieving complete faculty in- 

tegration beginning with the 1969-70 school year. In so 

doing, however, we realize that support must be given to 

faculty members through an intensive in-service educa- 

tion program. We intend to revise the present pupil assign- 

ment plan for the 1969-70 school year in order to promote 

further integration of pupils. It should be recognized that 

significant moves in pupil integration must be accompanied 

by a period of time during the 1969-70 school year in which 

the entire community will study and evaluate ways in which 

this might be accomplished. We are prepared to make some 

recommendations as alternatives for additional pupil in- 

tegration to begin with the 1970-71 school year. Therefore, 

the objectives of the plan shall be as follows: 

- To prepare the school system for complete integration. 

- To achieve complete faculty integration. 

- To revise the present pupil assignment plan. 

- To prepare the community for additional pupil inte- 

gration. 

- To present some alternative plans for pupil integra- 

tion. 

Preparation of the School System 

Much careful planning must be done to be certain that 

additional staff and pupil integration is accomplished with 

a minimum of disruption. The main thrust of this planning 

will call for significantly greater attention to the student’s 

 



  

4344, 

A Tentatwe Plan for the Integration of the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

individual needs and will require sustained and creative 

effort on the part of educators as they seek to cope with 

this problem. The planning must also deal with the em- 

ployment of additional staff, the provision of a much broader 

range of curricular offerings, and the production of learn- 

ing materials to reach pupils of varying levels of educa- 

tional maturity. 

In seeking to improve their own effectiveness, educators 

must gain a better understanding of pupils of both races. 

They must better understand individualized learning ap- 

proaches and gain an appreciation of personal values and 

feelings. To accomplish these things during the 1969-70 

school year, the staff must have time to plan adequately, 

especially for activities involving other staff members. 

Teachers must also have time to evaluate the effectiveness 

of newer teaching techniques. To accomplish the above: 

a. Teachers who are transferred will be offered a two 

weeks summer workshop. Those who participate will 

receive a stipend of $100 per week. The cost of such 

a program is estimated as $200,000. An extensive ef- 

fort will be made to underwrite the cost with funds 

from federal or state sources. If this attempt is un- 

successful, the project will be supported by local 

funds. 

b. The Board of Education will renew the request for 

curriculum planning time for teachers which was ap- 

proved by the Board of Education on October 8, 1968. 

The original plan which provided for planning time 

twice a month will be amended to provide for dis- 

missal of pupils at approximately 1:00 p.m. one day 

   



  

435a 

A Tentatwe Plan for the Integration of the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

per week. If necessary, the Board will petition the 

legislative delegation for emergency enabling legisla- 

tion. 

c. The in-service education department will be assigned 

a sum of $10,000 for the employment of substitute 

teachers. The substitutes will be used to free ex- 

perienced and highly qualified staff members for a 

period of time so that they may give added support 

to their fellow teachers through in-service workshops. 

Other approaches to educational improvement involve 

staffing, curriculum, and supplies and materials. To facil- 

itate improvement in these areas, supplementary support 

will be assured through the use of a special formula as fol- 
lows: 

Number of pupils in system 

two years or more below times $100 = Supplementary 

C-M median on paragraph allocation 
meaning 

Approximately 13 per cent of the pupils in the system 

have scores which are two years or more below the Char- 

lotte-Mecklenburg median on paragraph meaning. In order 

to bring the expenditure for these pupils up to the na- 

tional average per pupil expenditure will require an addi- 

tional $100 per pupil. The total expenditure will be approx- 

imately $1,100,000. A small percentage of this amount will 
be used to employ support staff not assigned to a specific 
school, and the remainder will be apportioned among the 
schools on the basis of the percentage of qualifying pupils 
enrolled in each school. The principal and his teachers will 

 



  

436a 

A Tentative Plan for the Integration of the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

be asked to submit a plan outlining how the allocation 1s 

to be spent. 

Faculty Integration 

The integration of all Charlotte-Mecklenburg school fac- 

ulties is a highly complex task in which the system has al- 

ready had a great deal of positive experience. The degree 

of integration within respective schools has varied, but all 

schools have had some experience. In order to achieve an 

approximate three to one white to black racial balance in 

all grades and departments insofar as possible will require 

the cooperative effort of all teachers and administrators 

throughout the system. Based upon the experience of the 

past and the acceptance of professional responsibility by 

the members of our staff, we feel that complete faculty in- 

tegration can be accomplished. 

The school system will actively seek those teachers who 

have a high degree of motivation and are interested in 

volunteering for service to help in achieving this objective. 

Since the future will require a broad base of experience 

for all teachers, it is felt that most teachers will wish to 

become involved for a reasonable period of time in a variety 

of teaching opportunities. 

The elementary, junior high, and senior high schools will 

be grouped geographically into clusters of schools in order 

to expedite the reassignment of teachers on the present 

staff for the 1969-70 school year. Such an arrangement will 

create smaller units within which there can be more co- 

operative effort and greater convenience of travel to those 

being reassigned. 

The procedure for reassigning the present teaching staff 

will be as follows: 

   



437a 

A Tentatwe Plan for the Integration of the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

. Hach principal will be provided a professional staff 

allotment for his school. 

. On the basis of this allotment, each principal will 

determine a table of organization for the 1969-70 

school year. 

. Hach principal will retain all teachers on his present 

staff who will have reached their sixtieth birthday 

by July 1, 1969, and who wish to remain in that 

school. 

. Hach principal will retain all teachers on his present 

staff who are members of the black race in that 

school provided this number does not exceed the 

approximate desired ratio. 

. Hach principal may retain on his staff such other 

teachers as he may believe to be absolutely essential 

to the continued efficient operation of the educational 

program in that school. The principal is urged to 

limit the number of teachers retained in #5 to a 

minimum. The total number retained in #3 and #5 

may not exceed 25% of the total professional allot- 

ment. 

. Hach principal will determine the number of volun- 

teers on his present staff who wish to be reassigned 

for the purpose of helping to create a racial balance 

in all schools. 

. The principal of each predominantly black staff will 

determine the number of vacant positions in his 

school by reason of resignation, voluntary reassign- 

ment, or growth in pupil enrollment. He will then 

 



  

10. 

11. 

438a, 

A Tentatwe Plan for the Integration of the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

determine the number of remaining teachers who 

must be reassigned in order to create the proper 

racial balance. The teachers to be reassigned will 

be determined by the principal and his staff using 

a procedure that they feel will be most effective for 

their particular school. This procedure may recog- 

nize factors such as seniority, travel, ete.; or the 

teachers to be reassigned may be chosen by random 

selection. 

The principal of each predominantly white staff will 

determine the number of vacant positions in his 

school by reason of resignation, voluntary reassign- 

ment, or growth in pupil enrollment. 

Volunteers from both races will be the first teachers 

placed in vacancies. Consideration will be given to 

allow teachers to move with co-workers wherever 

possible. 

Black teachers who have been declared eligible for 

reassignment will be placed in vacancies in each pre- 

dominantly white staff created in #8 above. 

Those black teachers whose teaching assignment 

does not match vacancies created in #8 above will 

be assigned to each predominantly white faculty to 

provide the total proper number of black teachers 

on the school staff. White teachers will be reassigned 

to match the teaching assignment of the incoming 

black teachers. If more than one white teacher holds 

such assignment, the teachers to be reassigned will 

be determined by the principal and his staff using 

a procedure that they feel will be most effective for 

   



12. 

13. 

14. 

439a 

4 Tentative Plan for the Integration of the 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

their particular school. This procedure may recog- 
nize factors such as seniority, travel, etc.; or the 
teachers to be reassigned may be chosen by random 
selection. 

All other vacancies will be filled by newly employed 
teachers. 

All personnel to be reassigned will be notified in 
writing of their assignment for the school year 1969- 
70 prior to June 5, if possible. 

A procedure will be established through which teach- 
ers may appeal their assignments. 

Revision of Present Pupil Assignment Plan 

At the present time, pupils are assigned to the various 
schools in the system under the provisions of the Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg Schools Pupil Assignment Guidelines officially 
adopted on June 13, 1967. The 1967 plan is based upon 
geographic zones surrounding each school. It permits free- 
dom of transfer within the limits of available space. 

It is the intention of the Board to revise the present 
pupil assignment plan as follows: (A copy of the revised 
plan is attached.) 

A. 

B. 

“Attendance Areas,” Item 1, Page 1 

Eliminate the phrase “with the temporary excep- 
tions hereinafter noted under the article entitled 

‘Exceptions’.” 

“Free Choice of Transfer,” Item 4, Page 2 

Alter the section to read as follows: 

 



  

440a 

A Tentative Plan for the Integration of the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

“The right to exercise free choice of transfer is 

limited to any pupil who requests transfer out 

of a school where his race is in the majority, 

and to any school where his race is in the minor- 

ity. Free transportation will be provided to any 

pupil who exercises and is granted a transfer 

under these conditions.” 

“Transfers Limited in Case of New Schools,” Item 5, 

Page 3 

Eliminate this section. 

“Varsity Athletics,” Item 6, Page 3 

This section needs to be reviewed thoroughly 

(Eliminate, if possible). 

“School Capacity to Be Determined,” Item 7, Page 4 

Eliminate this section. 

“Transportation,” Item 8, Page 4 

Add the following after the first sentence: 

“The only exception to this provision will be that 

for pupils who have exercised free choice of 

transfer as outlined in Item 4 (Revised), free 

transportation will be provided.” 

“Enrollment Continues for School Term,” Item 9, 

Pages 4-5 

Add the following after the third sentence: 

“Rising 12th grade pupils for the school term 

1969-70 may request to remain at the school to 

   



441a 

4 Tentative Plan for the Integration of the 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

which they were assigned and attended for the 
school term 1968-69. For the school term 1970- 
71, all pupils shall be assigned to the school serv- 
ing the area in which they reside. A free choice 
of transfer will be considered as outlined in 
Item 4 (Revised).” 

H. “Effective Date and Duration of Rules and Regula- 
tions,” Item 12, Page 7 

Change the first sentence as follows: 

“These policies and guidelines shall control the 
assignment and reassignment of pupils for the 
forthcoming 1969-70 school term. . . .” 

I. In addition to the above revisions the Board of Edu- 
cation will reassign all students (except 12th grad- 
ers) now attending a school outside their geographic 
area to the school serving that area. 

Preparation of the Community 

In recent years the schools have become the focal point 
of action in connection with many broad social issues and 
a number of problems facing the community. Some exam- 
ples are as follows: Providing for national defense educa- 
tion, teaching health and safety education, offering driver 
education, providing food for hungry children, combating 
poverty, lessening unemployment problems, easing social 
and racial tensions, caring for the mentally and physically 
handicapped, resolving civil rights issues, ete. As the most 
visible institution of community life, the schools have had 
to undertake these responsibilities with very little assis- 
tance from the community. In considering additional pupil 

 



  

442a, 

A Tentative Plan for the Integration of the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

integration, it is imperative that the schools solicit the 

cooperative efforts of all, for the solution to this problem 

is complicated yet dependent upon finding answers to seg- 

regated housing, public transportation, employment prac- 

tices, better financial support, a more tolerant attitude 

toward integration, and a real concern for all children. 

In order to develop the pupil integration plans for the 

school year 1970-71 and succeeding years, the following 

procedures will be implemented immediately: 

1. In assuming its leadership role, the Board of Kdu- 

cation will solicit active help from all community groups. 

These groups will include the County Commissioners, City 

Council, Chamber of Commerce, news media, churches, 

civie clubs, PTA groups, real estate agencies, ete. 

2. In order to involve the community, the Board will 

arrange to hold a number of public hearings at various 

locations throughout the county beginning at the earliest 

date possible. These meetings will be operated under strict 

guidelines in order to obtain the best thinking from every 

person or group who wishes to make a contribution. The 

guidelines for public hearings will be as follows: 

a. The time and place will be announced publicly at 

least five days prior to each meeting. 

b. Each individual who wishes to speak will make a 

written request to be heard to a designated person 

prior to the meeting. 

c. The time for each individual speaker will be limited 

to five minutes except in the case of a group which 

will be allowed one spokesman who may speak for 

   



3. 

443a 

A Tentative Plan for the Integration of the 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

ten minutes. A timekeeper will be provided by the 
Board of Education. Each person will be allowed to 
speak only once. 

Kach speaker will be asked to give his name and state 
whether he is speaking as an individual or in behalf 
of a group. 

For the benefit of those who wish to speak and have 
not made a written request, they will be asked to come 
to the front and talk with a screening committee prior 
to the beginning of the meeting. If the request is 
legitimate, they will be given an opportunity to speak 
after the others have been heard provided there is 
sufficient time. 

The speakers will be divided into proponents and 
opponents. Time will not be allowed for a rebuttal. 

It will be stated at the beginning of the meeting that 
there will be no demonstrations, no applause, ete. If 
there is disruption during the meeting, the chairman 

may close the meeting at any time. 

The Board members will not question individuals as 
they speak, but instead, will make notes, and after 

all have been heard, will ask questions. 

The length of the meeting will not exceed 21% hours. 

These guidelines will be announced at the beginning 

of the meeting. 

The Board will arrange to hold meetings with local 

school committees and with their help develop a plan for 

involvement of each local school community. 

 



  

4444 

A Tentative Plan for the Integration of the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

4. The Board will call on such groups as the Chamber 

of Commerce, League of Women Voters, Junior League, 

and American Association of University Women to organ- 

ize a committee or committees to receive calls from citizens 

who would like to make suggestions. These suggestions 

would then be organized and submitted to the Board of 

Education for study and action. 

5. The Board will identify school systems such as Evans- 

ton, Illinois; Shaker Heights, Ohio; Berkeley, California; 

White Plains, New York; and Hartford, Connecticut that 

have in operation plans for integration of teachers and 

pupils and will arrange to visit and study these systems. 

It is highly recommended that other governmental, civie, 

and community leaders visit these places along with the 

Board. 

6. The Board will request that individual schools de- 

velop innovative ways to bring about additional pupil 

integration. School principals, teachers, and school com- 

mittees might work in integrated clusters or groups in 

geographic areas in order to find the most effective ways 

to integrate the schools in that particular cluster or group. 

Some Alternative Plans for Pupil Integration 

With positive action on the part of the community, the 

school system will be able to move in the direction of addi- 

tional pupil integration. It should be recognized that there 

are no easy solutions to the problem and that the final 

outcome of any plan can not possibly be known in advance. 

Some of the alternative plans that have been used sue- 

cessfully in other communities that might be discussed and 

   



  

4453, 

A Tentative Plan for the Integration of the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

evaluated through the involvement of the local community 
are the following: 

1. Redrawing of present geographical attendance areas. 
This plan would accomplish some additional pupil 

integration and would reduce overcrowded conditions 

that now prevail at certain schools. 

Providing student exchange programs. Students 

would be temporarily assigned to another school for 

a specified period of time, not to exceed one semester. 

Pairing of certain schools. Students in grades 1-3 
would attend one school, and students in grades 4-6 
would attend the other school. 

Clustering specific schools. There would be open en- 
rollment to any of the schools within a cluster in 

which the student is enrolled provided the approxi- 

mate desired white-black ratio 

Utilizing the educational park concept. Under this 

plan, students would be brought together from ele- 

mentary school through high school. It would require 

extra large sites and adequate building space. 

Providing students with the opportunity to go to an- 

other school for a specific type of program. This 

would be particularly suitable for secondary students 

whose interests, aptitudes, and needs have been highly 

defined. At the elementary level the plan could be 

adopted for reading and other specialized instruction. 

Transporting students to another school. Under this 

plan students would be bussed to another school in 

 



  

446a 

A Tentative Plan for the Integration of the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

order to obtain an approximate desired white-black 

ratio. : 

8. Other alternatives. Plans other than these might be 

developed for consideration. 

In order to develop the most acceptable plan for fur- 

ther pupil integration, the Board of Education requests 

additional time for study and evaluation. A plan for pupil 

integration would be submitted to the court for its review 

on or before January 1, 1970. Elements of this plan may 

be tried out experimentally during the 1969-70 school year 

in order to gain practical experience. The approved plan 

will be put into effect beginning with the 1970-71 school 

year. 

Summary 

In summary, the Board of Education has made consid- 

erable progress in the integration of schools. In order to 

continue this positive approach and to carry out the Court 

order, the Board of Education will take the following action 

by the year indicated unless otherwise stated: 

1969-70 school year 

1. Achieve complete faculty integration. 

2. Carry on an intensive in-service education program 

in order to assist teachers in their new assignments. 

3. Provide staff, materials, and learning experiences to 

reach pupils of varying levels of educational maturity. 

4, Revise the present pupil assignment plan to promote 

further pupil integration. 

   



  

447a 

A Tentative Plam for the Integration of the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

5. Involve the entire community in the study and evalu- 
ation of ways in which additional pupil integration 
may be accomplished. 

6. Submit a plan to the Court on or before January 1, 
1970, which will provide for increased pupil integra- 
tion. 

1970-71 school year 

1. Put into effect a plan which will provide for increased 
pupil integration. 

2. Continue a program of teacher assignment which will 
maintain the same approximate racial balance in each 
school as that existing in the total school system. 

3. Continue to offer an in-service education program to 
assist teachers in their new assignments. 

4. Continue to provide staff, materials, and learning 

experiences to reach pupils of varying levels of edu- 

cational maturity. 

 



  

4484 

Opinion and Order dated June 20, 1969 

Pursuant to notice dated June 4, 1969, a hearing was 

held in Charlotte on June 16, 17 and 18, 1969, on various 

matters including (1) the motion of the individual defend- 

ants for dismissal; (2) the motion of the plaintiffs for 

contempt citations against the individual defendants; (3) 

the proposals offered by the defendants pursuant to the 

April 23, 1969 order as a plan for desegregating the Char- 

lotte-Mecklenburg schools; and (4) the motion of the plain- 

tiffs for an order restraining further school construction 

until the segregation issue has been satisfactorily resolved. 

lL 

Tue MoTioN oF THE ScHooL Boarp MEMBERS To Dismiss. 

The motion of the individual defendants, members of the 

school board, to dismiss was and is denied. This is a suit 

under the Civil Rights Act involving questions of equal 

protection of laws and racial discrimination and segre- 

gation in the public schools. The individual defendants are 

proper parties and their presence is appropriate and 

desirable. 

11, 

Tae Motiox For A CoNTEMPT CITATION. 

The motion of the plaintiffs that the individual defend- 

ants be found in contempt of the court is on this record 

denied. The board is badly divided and many of its recent 

decisions appear to be made by a five to four vote. Supreme 

Court judges now and then make five to four decisions. 

(Fortunately their votes in all major school segregation 

cases appear to have been unanimous.) The members of 

   



  

449a 

Opinion and Order dated June 20, 1969 

the board have had uncomplimentary things to say about 

each other and about the court, and many of them obviously 

disagree with the legality and propriety of the order of 

the court; but these latter sentiments may be regarded by 

the court as evidence of disagreement with rather than 

contempt for the court who is himself not far removed from 

active participation in the time-honored custom of criticiz- 

ing a judge who has ruled against him. Moreover, on an 

issue of such significance, the amount of foot-dragging 

which has taken place, up to now at least, should not be 

considered as contempt of court. 

III. 

THE PLAN oF THE DEFENDANTS. 

1. The history of the plan.—The order of this court di- 

recting a further plan for desegregation was entered April 

23, 1969. Within hours, various of the defendants ex- 

pressed sharp views pro and con. The board met on April 

28, 1969, and for the first time briefly discussed the order. 

By a five to four margin, apparently, they decided in- 

formally not to try to appeal immediately, upon the basis 

that the right of appeal from the order to prepare a plan 

was doubtful. The school superintendent was instructed to 

prepare a desegregation plan. No express guidelines were 

given the superintendent. However, the views of many 

members expressed at the meeting were so opposed to seri- 

ous and substantial desegregation that everyone including 

the superintendent could reasonably have concluded, as the 

court does, that a “minimal” plan was what was called for, 

and that the “plan” was essentially a prelude to antici- 

pated disapproval and appeal. In a county and city eriss- 

 



  

450a 

Opwion and Order dated June 20, 1969 

crossed by school bus routes for 23,000 pupils, more than 

twenty thousand citizens, mostly from affluent suburbia, 

many of whose children undoubtedly go to school on school 

busses, signed petitions against “involuntary” bussing of 

students. The frenzy of parents received a ready forum 

in televised meetings of the board. The staff were never 

directed to do any serious work on re-drawing of school 

zone lines, pairing of schools, combining zones, grouping 

of schools, conferences with the Department of Health, 

Education and Welfare, nor any of the other possible 

methods of making real progress towards desegregation. 

The superintendent revealed the general terms of his 

plan within a few days and later presented it formally on 

May 8, 1969. It provided for full faculty desegregation in 

1969, which the superintendent said he considered feasible. 

It provided moderate changes in the pupil assignment 

plans; and it contemplated future study of the other 

methods of desegregation suggested in the April 23, 1969 

order. 

The board then met, struck out virtually all the effective 

provisions of the superintendent’s plan, and asked for more 

time from the court, which had previously been promised. 

The board’s committee on buildings and sites, newly re- 

constituted, met and voted to cancel the long standing plans 

for Metropolitan High School, and voted to build it as only 

a specialty and vocational school without including the com- 

prehensive high school which consultants and experts, in- 

cluding the school board’s staff and superintendent, had 

recommended and still recommend. No new facts except the 

order of court had developed to account for the sudden 

change of plan. The stated reason for the change was that a 

general high school in Second Ward (though not a voca- 

tional or technical school) would necessarily be black and 

   



451a 

Opinion and Order dated June 20, 1969 

therefore should not be built. [The Second Ward school 

site, where Metropolitan is scheduled to be built, is squarely 

in the center of the city’s population; is a scant four blocks 

from the south boundary of its zone; and is apparently the 

easlest high school in town to desegregate; its boundaries 

could easily be re-drawn by extending its southern boundary 

(Morehead Street) and its eastern boundary (Queens 

Road) a few blocks. ] 

Thereafter, on May 28, 1969, the plan was filed. Volun- 

teers were requested among the teachers; pupil transfer 

requests were set out; and data on the workings of the 

plan began to accumulate. 

During the early debate over the court order, events 

transpired between the chairman and the superintendent 

which were thought by an assistant superintendent and 

others to threaten the superintendent’s job if he pushed 

for compliance with the court’s order. A few days before 

this hearing, the board committee on personnel declined 

to accept the superintendent’s recommendation that Robert 

Davis, a Negro, be appointed principal of one of the schools. 

This was the first time such a recommendation had not 

been accepted. After some debate, the decision was post- 

poned, with the superintendent requested to bring in al- 

ternate names. The publicly stated reasons for not approv- 

ing the appointment were that Davis, whose training, ex- 

perience and qualifications were unquestioned, is a plaintiff 

in this case and a member of the Negro Classroom Teachers 

Association and has spoken out publicly in favor of compli- 

ance wth this court’s order—including one television ap- 

pearance before the board itself to which the board had 

invited interested citizens. Davis, according to the press, 

was eventually confirmed for the job on June 19, 1969, 

but only after a “loyalty oath” had been exacted. The 

 



  

452a 

Opwmion and Order dated June 20, 1969 

effect of the so-called “job threat” and the Davis incident, 

following the public statements of board members, is a clear 

message: School employees voice opinion contrary to the 

board majority on desegregation at personal risk. 

2. The June 16, 1969 hearing.—The defendants, under 

the law, had the burden of showing that their plan would 

desegregate the schools. To carry that burden they intro- 

duced a short written brief and some statistical data and 

rested their case without live testimony. The plaintiffs 

called all members of the school board and the Rhode 

Island expert, Dr. Finger, who testified at the March hear- 

ing, and a few other witnesses. There was some rebuttal 

from the board. 

3. Findings as to General Board Policy.— 

a) The board does not admit nor claim that it has 

any positive duty to promote desegregation. 

b) School sites and school improvements have not 

been selected nor planned to promote desegregation 

and the board admits no such duty. 

c) Board policy is that the Constitution is satisfied 

when they locate schools where children are and pro- 

vide “freedom of transfer” for those who want to 

change schools. 

d) Despite its inclusion in the “Plan,” the decision 

of the board about Metropolitan High School is not 

really a final one; several members consider the issue 

in doubt, and the full board has not formally con- 

sidered it. 

   



  

453a 

Opinion and Order dated June 20, 1969 

4. The Pupil Assignment Plan.—The plan now proposed 

is the plan previously found racially discriminatory, with 

the addition of one element—the provision of transporta- 

tion for children electing to transfer out of schools where 

their races are in a majority to schools where they will be 

in a minority. Such provision of transportation is approved. 

Another provision of the plan makes high school athletes 

who transfer from one school to another ineligible for 

varsity or junior varsity athletics until they have been a 

year in the new school. For the current year, with the re- 

turns almost complete, only two white students out of 

some 99,000 have elected to transfer from white schools 

to black schools. Some 330 black students out of some 

24,000 have elected to transfer to white schools. Only 

the tiniest handful of white students have ever in any year 

asked to transfer to black schools. The effect of the athletic 

penalty is obvious—it discriminates against black students 

who may want to transfer and take part in sports, and is no 

penalty on white students who show no desire for such 

transfers. The defendants’ superintendent considers ath- 

letics an important feature of education. This penalty 

provision is racially discriminatory. The board is directed 

not to enforce it any more and to give adequate individual 

notice to all rising 10th, 11th and 12th grade students that 

they may reconsider their previous choice of schools in 

light of the removal of the penalty. 

Freedom of transfer increases rather than decreases 

segregation. The school superintendent testified that 

there would be, net, more than 1,200 additional white stu- 

dents going to predominantly black schools if freedom of 

transfer were abolished. The use of a free transfer provi- 

sion is a decision for the board; it may make desegregation 

more palatable to the community at large; it is not, per se, 

 



  

454a 

Opinion and Order dated June 20, 1969 

if the schools are desegregated, unconstitutional. Never- 

theless, desegregation of schools is something that has to 

be accomplished independent of freedom of transfer. This 

is a fact which because of the complexity of the statistics 

has only become clear to the court since the previous order 

was issued. : 

5. The Faculty Assignment Plan.—The plan originally 

proposed by the superintendent would have desegregated 

the faculty as a routine matter in 1969. The plan proposed 

by the hoard however is not materially different from the 

already existing plan. It continues to rely upon voluntary 

transfers and it contemplates affirmative assignment of 

teachers to black schools only late in the day after a hope- 

ful routine of filling vacancies (some of which do not exist) 

has been followed. The board has not taken a position of 

leadership with the teachers and the results are apparent. 

Only 28 out of 2,700 white teachers, and only 38 out of 900 

black teachers, had on June 18, 1969 indicated a willingness 

to transfer to schools of the opposite race. Testimony of 

the board members who comprise the majority of the board 

suggests that they do not really contemplate substantial 

faculty desegregation and that they may consider figures 

of “109%”: or one black teacher to each white school and 

one white teacher to each black school; or filling vacancies 

from the opposite race as they arise, to be compliance with 

the needs of the situation. None of these ideas, of course, 

amounts to desegregation of the faculty. The evidence sub- 

mitted by the board does not demonstrate that the faculty 

plan will work. Several board members said that the plan 

to assign teachers is not an “idle promise.” 

All that it takes to make the faculty plan work is timely 

decision by the board to implement the assignment of teach- 

   



  

455a 

Opinion and Order dated June 20, 1969 

ers. Board members are requested in this connection to 
consider the latest unanimous Supreme Court decision, 
United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education 
(October Term 1968), Case No. 798, decided June 2, 1969, 
reversing the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and upholding 
a district court order for faculty desegregation under a 
mathematical formula. Ruling on the factulty plan will there- 
fore be deferred until after August 4, 1969, by which time 
the board is directed to file a report stating in detail what 
the plan has done and what the status of faculty assign- 
ments then is. The court considers the faculty assignment 
plan to be important and agrees with the superintendent of 
schools that immediate desegregation of the faculty is 
feasible. This is a substantial improvement which is avail- 
able without arousing ghosts of “bussing,” “neighborhood 
schools,” or additional expense. 

IV, 

(GERRYM ANDERING 

This issue was passed over in the previous opinion upon 
the belief which the court still entertains that the defend- 
ants, as a part of an overall desegregation plan, will elim- 
inate or correct all school zones which were created or 
exist to enclose black or white groups of pupils or whose 
population is controlled for purposes of segregation. How- 
ever, it may be timely to observe and the court finds as a 
fact that no zones have apparently been created or main- 
tained for the purpose of promoting desegregation; that 
the whole plan of “building schools where the pupils are” 
without further control promotes segregation; and that 
certain schools, for example Billingsville, Second Ward, 
Bruns Avenue and Amay James, obviously serve school 

 



  

456a 

Opinion and Order dated June 20, 1969 

zones which were either created or which have been con- 

trolled so as to surround pockets of black students and that 

the result of these actions is discriminatory. These are 

not named as an exclusive list of such situations, but as 

illustrations of a long standing policy of control over the 

makeup of school population which scarcely fits any true 

“neighborhood school” philosophy. 

¥* * * #* * 

The findings of fact in the April 23, 1969 order and 

all statements in this opinion are treated as findings of 

fact in support of the order. All of the evidence in the case 

is considered in support of the order. 

ORDER 

Based upon the evidence and upon the foregoing findings 

of fact the orders of the court are as follows: 

1. The motion of the individual defendants to dismiss 

is denied. 

92. No citations for contempt are made. 

3 Decision on the faculty assignment plan is deferred 

pending receipt of a progress report from the board on or 

before August 4, 1969. 

4. The one year penalty on transferring high school 

athletes is disapproved with direction as above for appro- 

priate personal communication to rising high school 

students. 

5. The provision of transportation for students trans- 

ferring from a majority to a minority situation is approved. 

   



  

457a 

Opinion and Order dated June 20, 1969 

6. The board is directed to proceed no further with 
action on Metropolitan High School pending a showing by 
the board that the school if constructed will be adequately 
desegregated and a finding by the court to that effect. 
This is based upon the previous findings that the board’s 
decision on Metropolitan was unduly affected by racial 
considerations and that the board has not accepted its 
affirmative legal duty to build school facilities so as to 
promote desegregation. 

7. As to the other building projects referred to in the 
motion for restraint on construction, the burden remains 
upon the defendants to show that these programs will 
produce desegregation. The written material tendered by 
the defendants on this subject is lengthy, and does not 
appear to sustain that burden. However, decision on the 
request for injunction against projects other than Metro- 
politan will be delayed pending further study of the evi- 
dence. 

8. It is further ordered that the defendants proceed to 
prepare and submit by August 4, 1969, a positive plan for 
desegregation of the pupils of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
school system, as originally directed on April 23, 1969. 
A witness, Dr. Finger, described in detail a plan for de- 
segregation by changing certain school zone lines and 
merging certain schools into districts and using certain 
schools as feeders for others. This plan shows a high 
degree of realism in that it minimizes the necessity for 
long-range transportation and takes substantial advantage 
of location and makeup of populations. Local school ad- 
ministration consider such a plan feasible. The local school 
administrative staff are also better equipped than Dr. 

 



  

458a 

Opinion and Order dated June 20, 1969 

Finger, a “visiting fireman,” to work out and put into 

effect a plan of this sort. It is believed that if the resources 

of the board can be directed as originally ordered toward 

preparing a Charlotte-Mecklenburg plan for the Char- 

lotte-Mecklenburg schools, desegregation of both faculties 

and students may be accomplished in an orderly fashion. 

Counsel are requested to notify the court promptly if more 

time beyond August 4, 1969 1s needed. 

This is the 20th day of June, 1969. 

James B. McMILLAN 

James B. MeMillan 

United States District Judge 

   



  

459a 

Supplemental Findings of Fact in Connection With the 
Order of June 20, 1969 (Dated June 24, 1969) 

The relatively complete extent of the segregation of the 
schools in this system is demonstrated by study of the de- 
fendants’ statistics which were attached to and included 
in the original opinion of this court of April 23, 1969. 
There are about 24,000 black students in the county. As 
near as can be estimated, approximately 21,000 of these 
attend schools within the City of Charlotte. When Brown 
v. Board of Education was decided in 1954, the City of 

Charlotte had less than 7,500 black students. Today within 

the City of Charlotte 14,086 black students attend 21 schools 
which are totally black or more than 99% black. An addi- 

tional 2,895 black students attend six schools whose black 

population is between 50% and 86% black. These schools 

are all rapidly moving to a totally or near-totally black 

condition under present policies. When all this is put to- 

gether and understood, it becomes clear that of the (City’s 

21,000 or so hlack students, nearly 17,000 of them according 

to the figures, and certainly more than 17,000 when the 

population trends are considered, are attending racially 

identifiable black schools. 

This the 24th day of June, 1969. 

JAMES B. McMiLLax 

James B. McMillan 

United States District Judge 

 



  

460a 

Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint, 

to Add Additional Defendants and for 

Temporary Restraining Order 

(Filed July 22, 1969) 

Plaintiffs, by their undersigned counsel, respectfully 

move the Court for leave to file a Supplemental Complaint 

and for a temporary restraining order restraining the de- 

fendants from giving consideration or effect to and from 

enforcing, administering, or applying certain provisions of 

North Carolina General Statutes $115-176.1 and as grounds 

therefor show the following: 

1. Plaintiffs seek, by this motion, leave to file a Supple- 

mental Complaint, copies of which are being forwarded this 

day to the Court together with summonses for service upon 

the North Carolina State Board of Education and Dr. A. 

Craig Phillips, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the 

State of North Carolina, parties which the plaintiffs seek 

to add as defendants to this action. Plaintiffs have served 

copies of the Supplemental Complaint upon counsel for 

those defendants now parties to this action. 

9. The Supplemental Complaint seeks injunctive and 

declaratory relief against the following prohibitions con- 

tained in North Carolina General Statutes $§115-176.1 

«No student shall be assigned or compelled to attend 

any school on account of race, creed, color or national 

origin, or for the purpose of creating a balance or ratio 

1 North Carolina General Statutes §115-176.1 was enacted as 

Chapter 1274 of the Session Laws of the 1969 North Carolina 

General Assembly which was ratified on July 2, 1969. A copy of 

the Ratified Bill is attached to the Supplemental Complaint as 

Exhibit A. 

  

| 

 



  

461a 

Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint, to Add 
Additional Defendants and for Temporary 

Restraining Order 

. of race, religion or national origins. Involuntary buss- 
ing of students in contravention of this Article is pro- 
hibited and public funds shall not be used for any 
such bussing.” 

3. For reasons stated more fully in the Supplemental 
Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the purpose, motive and 
effect of the statutory provisions complained of therein is 
to forbid the defendants, now parties to this action, and 
other school officials in the State of North Carolina from 
complying with existing lawful orders of this and other 
courts and to forbid them from complying with the re- 
quirements of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments 
to the Constitution of the United States. Plaintiffs allege 
that this is so because compulsory assignments and invol- 
untary bussing, prohibited by North Carolina General Stat- 
utes §115-176.1, are necessary devices for complying with 
the orders of this Court entered on April 23, 1969, and 
June 20, 1969, and for complying with constitutional re- 
quirements. 

4. Plaintiffs seek to add as parties-defendant, the North 
Carolina State Board of Education and Dr. A. Craig Phil- 
lips, the Superintendent of Public Instruction. These par- 
ties are charged by the constitution and laws of the State 
of North Carolina with the general supervision and admin- 
istration of the public schools and the disbursement of 
public funds to the various public schools in North Caro- 
lina. They are thus required by North Carolina law to 
insure that public funds are not spent for involuntary buss- 

 



    

462a 

Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint, to Add 

Additional Defendants and for Temporary 

Restraining Order 

ing and pupil assignments. They are therefore proper and 

necessary parties to an adjudication of the constitutional 

issues raised by the plaintiffs in the Supplemental Com- 

plaint. In addition, they are proper parties to this pro- 

ceeding because, they, together with local school officials 

have an affirmative duty to take active steps to disestablish 

the dual school system in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County 

and other administrative units throughout the State. 

5. Plaintiffs, in their Supplemental Complaint, request 

that a three-judge Court be constituted to determine their 

constitutional challenge to a statute of state-wide applica- 

tion. This motion for a temporary restraining order is 

addressed to the single District Court judge hearing this 

case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2284(3). 

6. Plaintiffs allege that, unless immediately restrained, 

the defendants will apply the statutory provisions com- 

plained of herein and will thereby fail to comply with the 

orders of this Court of April 23 and June 20, 1969, thus 

causing plaintiffs irreparable damage. In support of this 

allegation, the plaintiffs attach hereto the affidavit of Regi- 

nald A. Hawkins, the next friend of plaintiffs in this action. 

WaEReroRE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that they be 

granted leave to file their Supplemental Complaint, that 

they be allowed to add the North Carolina State Board of 

Education and Dr. A. Craig Phillips, Superintendent of 

Public Instruction of the State of North Carolina as de- 

fendants in this action and that all defendants be restrained 

  

  

| 

| 

| 

 



  

463a 

Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint, to Add 
Additional Defendants and for Temporary 

Restraining Order 

from enforcing the complained of provisions of North Caro- 
lina General Statutes §115-176.1. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Coxngrap O. Pearson 

203145 East Chapel Hill Street 

Durham, North Carolina 

CEAMBERS, STEIN, FERGUSON & LANNING 

216 West Tenth Street 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

JACK GREENBURG 

James M. Nasrir, ITT 

Norman CHACHKIN 

10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 



4644, 

Order Granting Leave to File Supplemental Complaint 

and Adding Defendants 

Upon motion by plaintiffs for leave to file a supplemental 

complaint and add The North Carolina State Board of 

Education and Dr. A. Craig Phillips, Superintendent of 

Public Instruction for the State of North Carolina as de- 

fendants and it appearing to the Court that good cause is 

shown therefor 

Tt is orpErED that plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a 

supplemental complaint and to add The North Carolina 

State Board of Education and Dr. A. Craig Phillips, Super- 

intendent of Public Instruction of the State of North Caro- 

lina as defendants is granted. 

The United States Marshal is directed to serve the sup- 

plemental complaint and summons upon the above named 

defendants. 

This 22nd day of July, 1969. 

James B. McMann 

United States District Judge [||a8bcd128-8f97-4066-ba27-6314f7ce1c91||]
Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.
Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.
Appendix Volume I

Topic

LDF Attorneys

Cooperating Attorneys

Organizations

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in
