Supplemental Data in Explanation and Support of Desegregation Plan of Defendants and Objections to New Plan

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

JACKSON DIVISION 

JOAN ANDERSON, et al., 
Plaintiff, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff = Intervenor, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3700 

yv. 

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

CANTON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE ) 
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., ) 

Defendants. ) 

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA 
IN EXPLANATION AND SUPPORT OF 

DESEGREGATION PLAN OF DEFENDANTS 
AND 

OBJECTIONS TO HEW PLAN 
  

NOW COME the Defendants, CANTON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

et al, in the above styled and numbered cause and file this supplemental data in explanation 

and support of the Desegregation Plan filed herein by them on August 11, 1969, and their 

objections to the HEW Desegregation Plan, and in connection therewith would respectfully 

show unto the Court the following: 

EXPLANATION AND SUPPORT 
OF 

DESEGREGATION PLAN OF DEFENDANTS 
  

GENERAL PURPOSE 
  

Realizing the affirmative duty of the School Board to develop an acceptable plan of 

desegregation to disestablish and eliminate the dual system and to provide a unitary school 

system in and for the Defendant District, in order to accomplish said goal Defendants have 

consulted and collaborated with experts in educational administration and representatives of 

the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The Desegregation Plan filed herein by 

Defendants, in light of the facts at hand, constitutes the most feasible, most promising, and 

 



  

most effective such plan of all the options available. 

H. 

CONSULTATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF PLAN 
  

In the development of the plan, the following persons were involved in consultation: 

(1) Dr. Percy Reeves, University of Southern Mississippi, (2) Mr. Walter Washington, 

President of Alcorn College, (3) Mr. A. A. Alexander, State Supervisor of Education, 

and (4) Mr. Howard Sullins and Mr. Clyde W. Matthews, representatives of the United 

States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 

The background and educational qualifications of said persons, and the extent to which 

they participated in the development of said plan, are set out in the Affidavit of Dr. Lamar 

Fortenberry, Superintendent of the Canton Municipal Separate School District, filed con- 

temporaneously herewith. 

Ii. 

GEOGRAPHICAL ZONES 
  

The geographical zones described and defined in the desegregation plan filed herein by 

defendants are identified and outlined by maps attached hereto and made a part hereof and 

marked Exhibits "A" and "B". 

The objective accomplished by the designation and creation of said zones in the develop- 

ment and establishment of a system of assignment of pupils on a nondiscriminatory and nonracial 

basis resulting in a unitary school system which meets the requirements of the Constitution and 

Federal Decisional Law, while maintaining a quality educational program. 

The basic concept of the said desegregation plan is to create such nondiscriminatory and 

nonracial zones so as to provide for the assignment of students to the schools nearest his resi- 

dence; taking into consideration that students residing inside the corporate limits of the City 

of Canton (or within one mile of school) are required to walk to school, as distinguished from 

those living outside said limits who are provided with transportation to school by buses owned 

and operated by the district; and also considering the adaptability and compatibility of existing 

facilities to take full advantage of same in the interest of sound fiscal administration. 

 



  

In pursuit of such a concept, the geometrical center between the three (3) elementary 

school attendance centers was established, and zone lines were drawn geometrically within 

the City of Canton to assign students therein (being the ones who must walk to school) to the 

elementary school nearest his residence. Upon completion of the elementary grades (Grade 7), 

such students are then assigned to the high school in his zone, or nearest his residence, creating 

in effect a feeder system from elementary school to secondary school. Students living outside 

the above described limits (being those transported by district buses and not inconvenienced 

by the burden of walking to school) are assigned to the school nearest his residence having 

space, giving preference to those students who would represent the minority race in such 

school, and to those students being transported by the bus traveling the longest route. 

To graduate, students would be required to attend two (2) schools. 

Exhibit "A" filed herewith depicts Zone |, Zone Il, and Zone lll, as described in de- 

fendants' desegregation plan, being that part of the defendant district which lies within the 

Corporate Limits of the City of Canton, composed of walking students. 

Exhibit "B" filed herewith depicts Zone IV (the transportation zone), as described in 

defendants’ desegregation plan, being that part of the defendant district which lies outside 

the Corporate Limits of the City of Canton, composed of students who are transported to 

school by district buses. 

IV. 

STATISTICAL RESULTS OF PLAN 
  

The statistical results of the said desegregation plan filed herein by defendants are 

tabulated and set forth in the Affidavit of Dr. Fortenberry filed herewith and made a part 

hereof by reference. 

Vv. 

INTERIM IMPLEMENTATION 
  

By the plan filed herein, Defendants have suggested four (4) years for complete im- 

plementation thereof. Defendants respectfully submit that because of the number of students 

 



  

and schools in the district, and because of the extreme racial ratios existing within the 

district, coupled with the desire of students and parents of the district (as expressed over 

the past four (4) years through the exercise of free choice) to maintain schools predominately 

along ethnic lines, such a period of time for implementation is reasonable, necessary and 

required. 

However, in the event the Court feels compelled to implement the plan of desegregation 

over a shorter period of time, Defendants would respectfully suggest and request that the 

Court implement said plan by grades and school year as fol lows: 

(1) Grades 1 through 3, or grades 1 through 4 1969 - 1970 

(2) Grades 4 through 7, or grades 5 through 7 1970 - 1971 

(3) Grades 8 through 12 1971 - 1972 

AND NOW, having explained and supported the merits and effects of the desegregation 

plan developed and filed by Defendants, the following objections to the HEW plan filed 

herein are respectfully submitted, which objections would show unto the Court, that: said 

HEW plan is hurriedly conceived; ill advised; unadapted to the facts, circumstances and con- 

ditions existing in the defendant district; is educationally, administratively and economically 

unsound, and, therefore, is unacceptable. 

OBJECTIONS TO HEW PLAN 
  

1. Defendants are under a duty to develop a plan which is acceptable. We intrepret 

this to mean that it must be one which will be in the best interest of public education, and 

one which will be accepted by the public. The HEW plan meets neither of these tests. 

2. The HEW plan was hastily and inadequately conceived without any real knowledge 

of the existing system, its virtues and its problems; and the plan was drawn by someone without 

adequate information with reference thereto. 

3. The Defendants cooperated in every way they knew how with the representatives of 

HEW. However, the HEW representatives in personal contact with Defendants frankly admitted 

that they had no authority to commit HEW to approval of any plan which might be presented by 

 



  

Defendants. This authority remained vested in higher authorities in either Atlanta, 

Georgia, or Washington, D. C. Therefore, the HEW representatives sent to the school 

district were, in effect, nothing more than messenger boys. Defendants submit that this 

is no way to collaborate. The obvious primary objective, if not the sole objective, of 

HEW was to achieve maximum integration. HEW advised the Defendants that any plan 

submitted by them which reached the same result as the HEW plan filed herein, would 

be considered. 

4. The proposed HEW plan would destroy many, many programs already established 

in the various schools, including bands, vocational departments, home economics pro- 

grams, school calendars, schedule of athletic programs and events, science fairs and 

many other matters and events already planned or scheduled. 

" which have proved over the 5. The theory and principle of "neighborhood schools, 

life of public schools to be educationally advantageous and preferable, would be destroyed 

by the HEW plan. The students would be required unnecessarily and unrealistically to attend 

schools far removed from their homes, and a great number of them including small children 

would be required to walk long distances, for no other purpose than to overcome racial im- 

balance, and to achieve maximum race-mixing, adding nothing to education. 

6. Under the HEW plan, students would be required to attend four (4) different schools 

before graduation. In some instances, children from the same family would be required to 

attend (4) different schools at the same time. This is most unreasonable and entirely un- 

necessary. lt creates a multitude of educational and administrative problems for the school 

system and the students, to say nothing of the inconvenience to the parents. 

7. Presently, both Rogers High School and Canton High School are accredited by the 

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and by the Mississippi State Accrediting 

Commission with AA ratings. To abandon Ccaton High School as a high school facility 

and assign all high school students to Rogers High School, would result in the loss of 

accreditation by both schools. The facilities at Rogers are not adequate and are not designed 

 



  

to accommodate such a large number of high school students according to approved and 

acceptable educational standards. 

To convert Canton High School to a 7th grade center, would be to abandon and render 

useless the facilities there designed for a high school program, such as music department 

and band hall, science labs, commercial department and facilities, language lab, home 

economics lab, industrial arts facilities, athletic facilities, etc. 

This constitutes a shameful and reckless waste of resources which is entirely unnecessary 

and which results only in detriment to the educational opportunities for the school children 

of this district. 

Defendants submit that such a proposal is worse than ridiculous. 

8. Defendants submit that the HEW plan is a stereotype proposal for the most part. 

A glaring example of this, and an inconsistency in the plan itself, is the inclusion of the 

"Majority to Minority Transfer" provision. Under the HEW plan, it is statistically impossible 

for the transfer provision to ever be available to any student in the district! ! 

?. The HEW plan does not create "just schools" which are not identifiable as intended 

for a particular race. Each school would be identifiable as intended for the Negro race. 

The plan of HEW is designed to achieve a racial result and based on considerations of race, 

and seriously takes no other factors into consideration. 

10. The HEW plan is totally unrelated to the Canton Municipal Separate School District, 

is educationally unsound, and cannot be educationally defended or recommended. 

CONCLUSION 
  

The HEW plan is educationally, administratively and economically unsound and unwork- 

able. It would result in untold and unnecessary problems and hardships for the school system, 

the school children, and their parents. Its only result will be irreparable harm to education. 

HEW has not considered all of the reasonable alternatives available in an effort to produce 

an acceptable and workable plan. Defendants respectfully submit that it should be rejected 

by the Court in its entirety. 

 



  

On the other hand, as is their duty, Defendants have developed a plan which is 

sound in every respect, considering all of the reasonable alternatives available. The 

plan is constitutional, meets legal and educational standards, and is workable. Defend- 

ants respectfully pray that the Court will accept the plan filed by them. 

Respectfully submitted, 

CANTON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT 

J
 

By: led /« or TOA ny 
  

; R. Fancher, Jr. 

Attorney for Defendants 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

|, Joe R. Fancher, Jr., attorney for Canton Municipal Separate School District, 

do hereby certify that on this the / 5 — of August, 1969, | caused to be served by 
  

United States mail, postage prepaid, true and correct copies of the foregoing supplemental 

data in explanation and support of desegregation plan of defendants and objections to HEW 

plan upon attorneys of record for Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor, addressed as follows: 

Honorable Reuben Anderson 
538-1/2 N. Farish Street 
Jackson, Mississippi 

Honorable Robert E. Hauberg 
U. S. Attorney 
P. O. Box 2071 

Jackson, Mississippi 

» 

— a» 

”) A v 8 A 
/ / yA : z & fi — ; A 

- V, fl ln . ~ 1 dif 
L 

Joe R. Fancher, Jr. 

Attorney at Law 

P. O. Box 245 
Canton, Mississippi 39046