Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Motion for Order of Dismissal and Plaintiffs' Motion for Supplemental Relief

     [||07a37686-03f2-4539-8ef0-d80215377dff||] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

DELTA DIVISION 

REBECCA E. HENRY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

VS. 

CLARKSDALE MUNICIPAL SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION 
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., : REY 

Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS 
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR ORDER OF 
DISMISSAL AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION 

FOR SUPPLEMENTAL RELIEF 

Plaintiffs do not quarrel with most of defendants’ 

lengthy discourse on the applicable precedents governing the 

issues here. With one major exception, plaintiffs agree that 

this Court's procedure in U. S. v. Corinth-Municipal Separate 

School District, 414 F. Supp. 1336 (N.D.Miss. 1976) should be 

followed. When this Court considered the same factors con- 

sidered in Corinth, however, the Clarksdale Municipal Separate 

School District will be found wanting. 

In the first instance, school desegregation here was 

attended by an exodus of white students and that exodus is re- 

flected to this day most vividly at the junior high school 

level when but 9 of 571 students are white. Moreover, this 

exodus was at least accommodated by the district authorities 

who instituted a resign "without prejudice" policy for the 

benefit of mainly white staff who would not teach in an inte- 

grated setting. 



Although there have been few demonstrations in recent 

years, plaintiffs have had to return to this Court for relief 

with regard to educational policy most notably the refusal to 

recognize Black History Week. 

Plaintiffs expect a hearing to show that there have 

been no "convincing efforts by both whites and blacks in the 

community to establish a significant dialogue between the 

school officials and minority race members.' Despite the fact 

that Clarksdale is a majority black city and that more than 

83% of the pupils are black, only one black is among the five 

members of the Board of Trustees of the Clarksdale Municipal . 

Separate School District. All key administrative positions 

are filled by whites. Both recommendations and protests of 

black parents and community leaders have fallen on deaf ears 

with few exceptions. 

This lack of community cooperation has manifested it- 

self in the failure to even attempt passage of a bond issue 

which was scheduled in the Srring of 1970 and abruptly can- 

celled at the advent of desegregation. 

Finally, in terms of faculty hiring and assignment, 

defendants have failed to comply with the "Singleton'" pro- 

visions of this Court's order. The decree provided that the 

racial makeup of each school should reflect as nearly as pos- 

sible the racial makeup of the faculty as a whole. This dis- 

trict has never complied with that provision as manifested by 

the contrasting racial makeup of the junior high faculty with 

that of the senior high faculty. Moreover, this Court has 

found that defendants engaged in discriminatory hiring pract- 

ices as late as 1974, Hardy v. Porter, # 77-94-K, and litiga- 

tion is pending concerning still other and later allegations 

of discriminatory assignment practices. 

In addition to the factors discussed in Corinth, 

plaintiffs intend to produce evidence to establish disparate 



treatment and allocation of resources between schools attended 

primarily by blacks and those with substantial white popula- 

tions and that black pupils are continually and discrimina- 

torily overlooked and otherwise mistreated. 

The major exception that plaintiffs take with the de- 

cision in Corinth is that the court dismissed the action rather 

than simply close the file. Plaintiffs submit that should this 

Court after hearing be convinced that this case is at a proper 

stage for some kind of termination the proper course is that 

followed in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 

67 F.R.D. 649 (W.D. N.C. 1975) when the district court simply 

closed the case Halding that [d]ismissal is neither usual nor 

correct in a case like this where continuing injunctive or 

mandatory relief has been required." 

Finally, defendants have raised the issue of mootness 

in light of Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 49 

L.Ed.2d 599 (1976). Plaintiffs cannot deny the fact that no 

present named plaintiff is a pupil nor the fact that no class 
— 

has been certified. The overriding fact, however, is that 
a ————— 

this Court has entered a mandatory, permanent injunction and 

it is the duty of the court to insure compliance with that 

decree. To the extent that additional relief is required it 

may be necessary to pin additional currently affected plain- 

tiffs. This can be done with ease in the discretion of this 

Court and their absence at the moment should not be de= 

terminative of a motion to dismiss. 

Respectfully submitted, 

TRED L. a 

BANKS & NICHOLS 
318 East Pearl Street 
Jackson, MS 39201 

BILL LANN LEE 
Suite 2030, 10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

i 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of May, 1979, 

I caused to be served by United States mail, postage prepaid, 

a copy of the foregoing Memorandum In Support of Plaintiffs 

Response To Motion For Order of Dismissal And Plaintiffs’ 

Motion For Supplemental Relief upon Semmes Luckett, Esquire, 

121 Yazoo Avenue, Clarksdale, MS 38614. 

\ 
cc 

FRED L. BANKS, JK. ; x [||07a37686-03f2-4539-8ef0-d80215377dff||]