Morris v. Williams Memorandum Brief for Plaintiff

    IN  THE

District Court of the United States
The Western Division of the Eastern District 

of Arkansas

S usie M orris, and the C it y  T eachers ’ 1 
A ssociation, of Little Rock, an unin­
corporated Association,

Plaintiffs, 
v.

R obert M. W illiam s , Chairman; M urray 1
0. R eed, Secretary; Mrs. W. P. M cD er- \ Civ.l Doekct
m ott  ; M rs. W. F. R aw lings ; D r . R. M. /  °’
B lak ely , and E. F. J en n in g s , consti- I
tuting the Board of Directors of the I
Little Rock Special School District, 1
and R ussell T. S cobee, Superinten- I
dent of Schools,

Defendants. I

M EM ORANDUM  BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF.

T hurgood M arshall.,
69 Fifth Avenue, 

New York, N. Y.,
S cipio J ones,
J . R. B ooker,
M yles H ibbler,

Century Building,
Little Rock, Ark.,

Attorneys for Plaintiff.





TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE
P art O n e :

Statement of the Case_____________________________  1

P art T w o :

Statement of Facts_______    9
Method of Fixing Salaries_______________________  9
New Teachers______________________________ -____ 10
Old Teachers ____________________________________  13
Policy of Board in Past___________________________ 14
Bonus Payments _________________________________ 16

P art T hree— A rgument  :

I. Payment of less salary to Negro public school 
teachers because of race is in violation of Four­
teenth Amendment ____________________________  18

II. The policy, custom and usage of fixing salaries of 
public school teachers in Little Rock violates the 
Fourteenth Amendment________________________  22

A. General policy of defendants-._____________  23
Cultural Background ___________________ 23
Economic Theory ______________________  24

B. Minimum salaries for new teachers________  25
C. Salaries of older teachers and flat increases 30

Blanket Increases on Basis of Race_____ 32



11

PAGE

D. The discriminatory policy of distributing 
supplementary salary payments on an un­
equal basis because of race_______________  33

III. The rating sheets offered in evidence by defen­
dants should not have been admitted in evidence 35

IV. The composite rating sheets are entitled to no
weight in determining whether the policy, custom 
and usage of fixing salaries in Little Eock is 
based on race__________________________________ 38

How the Eatings Were Made in Little Eock___ 39
Elementary Schools ________________________  40
High Schools________________________________ 41
Eatings by Mr. Hamilton_____________________  43

Conclusion-— It is, therefore, respectfully submitted
that the declaratory judgment and injunction should
be issued as prayed for___________________________  47

A ppendix  :

Table 1—Negro high school teachers getting less sal­
ary than any white teacher in either high or ele­
mentary school in Little Eock____________________ 49

Table 2—A comparison of plaintiff with white high 
school teachers of English with equal and less ex­
perience and professional qualifications__________  49

Table 3—A comparison of English teachers in high 
schools of Little Eock with Master’s degrees_____ 50

Table 4—A comparative table as to years of experi­
ence of English teachers in high schools with A.B. 
degree or less-___________________________________   50

Table 5—A comparative table of Mathematics teach­
ers in high schools with M.A. degrees____________  51



I l l

PAGE

Table 6—A comparative table of Mathematics teach­
ers in high schools with A.B. degrees or less---------  51

Table 1-—A  comparative table of Science teachers in 
high schools with M.A. degrees___________________ 52

Table 8—A  comparative table of Science teachers in 
high schools with A.B. degrees or less-----------------  52

Table 9—A comparative table of History teachers in 
high schools with A.B. degrees or less____________  52

Table 10—A comparative table of Home Economics 
teachers in high schools with A.B. degrees------------  53

Table 11—A comparative table of Music and Band 
teachers in high schools with A.B. degrees or less__ 53

Table 12—A  comparative table of elementary teach­
ers with A.B. or comparable degrees and 1-5 years 
experience in Little Bock________________________  54

Table 13—A comparative table of elementary teach­
ers with A.B. or comparable degrees and 5-10 
years experience in Little Rock__________________ 54

Table 14—A  comparative table of elementary teach­
ers with A.B. or comparable degrees and 10-20 
years experience in Little Rock_________________  55

Table 15—A comparative table of elementary teach­
ers with A.B. or comparable degree and more than 
20 years experience in Little Rock______ __________ 55

Table 16—A comparative table of elementary teach­
ers without degrees and less than 10 years experi­
ence in Little Rock______________________________ 56

Table 17—A  comparative table of elementary teach­
ers without degrees and from 10-20 years experi­
ence in Little Rock______________________________ 57

Table 18—A comparative table of elementary teach­
ers without degrees and more than 20 years experi­
ence in Little Rock______________________________ 58



IV

T able  of Cases.

PAGE

Alston V. School Board of City of Norfolk, 112 F. (2d)
992 (1940) certiorari denied, 311 U. S. 693________ 21,27

Chamberlain v. Kane, 264 S. W. 24 (1924)____________  38
Hill v. Texas, 86 L. Ed. 1090_________________________  28
McDaniel v. Board of Education, 39 F. Supp. 638

(1941) ___________________________________________  27
Mills v. Board of Education, et al., 30 F. Supp. 245

(1939) --------------------------------------------------------- -------19,27
Mills v. Lowndes et al., 26 F. Supp. 792 (1939)________  18
Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 397, 26 L. Ed. 574____ _____ 28
Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 IT. S. 354, 83 L. Ed. 757_______  28
Smith v. Texas, 311 IT. S. 128, 85 L. Ed. 106, 108 (1940) 28
State v. Bolen, 142 Wash. 653, 254, P. 445____________  38
Steel v. Johnson, 115 P. (2d) 145, 150_________________ 38
Thomas Hibbets et al. v. School Board et al., 46 F. 

Supp. 368 ______ ______________ __________________ 25
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 (1886)____________  27

20 American Jurisprudence 886, P. 1027_____________  37



IN  THE

District Court of the United States
The Western Division of the Eastern District 

of Arkansas

S usie M orris, and the C ity  T eachers ’  \ 
A ssociation, of Little Rock, an unin- I 
corporated Association,

Plaintiffs, I
v. I

R obert M. W illiam s , Chairman; M urray J 
0. R eed, Secretary; Mrs. W. P. M cD er- \ c *vii Docket 
mott ; M rs. W. F. R aw lings ; D r . R. M. j No' 555 
B lak ely , and E. F. J en n in gs , consti- I 
tuting the Board of Directors of the I 
Little Rock Special School District, 
and R ussell T. S cobee, Superinten­
dent of Schools,

Defendants.

M E M O R A N D U M  B R I E F  F O R  
P L A I N T I F F .

PART ONE.

Statement of the Case.

This is an action by Susie Morris, a Negro teacher in 
the public schools of Little Rock, on behalf of herself and 
the other Negro teachers and principals of Little Rock. 
The case seeks a declaratory judgment and an injunction 
against the Superintendent of Schools and the School Board



2

of Little Rock to restrain them from continuing the policy 
of discrimination against Negro teachers and principals in 
paying them less salary than white teachers and principals 
of equal qualifications and experience because of race or 
color.

The issues in the case are clear. A  comparison of the 
complaint and answer in the case follows:

Com plain t .

1. Jurisdiction in General.
2. Jurisdiction for declara­

tory judgment.
3. Citizenship of parties.
4. a. Plaintiff is colored—

a Negro.
b. Plaintiff is a tax­

payer.
c. Regular teacher in 

the Dunbar High 
S c h o o l ,  a p u b l i c  
school in Little Rock 
operated by defen­
dants.

d. Class suit.
5. Plaintiff Teachers’ As­

sociation.

6. a. Little Rock Special 
School District ex­
ists pursuant to laws 
of Arkansas as an 
administrative d e - 
partment of state 
performing essential 
governmental func­
tions.

A nsw er .

1. Denied.
2. Denied that there is any 

discriminatory policy.
3. Admitted.
4. a. Admitted.

b. Admitted.

c. Admitted.

d. Admitted.
5. Out of case by reason of 

ruling on motion to dis­
miss as to teacher’s as­
sociation.

6. a. Admitted.



3

b. Naming of Defen­
dants.

7. a. State of Ark. has de­
clared public educa­
tion a state function.

b. General assembly of 
Ark. has established 
a system of free pub­
lic schools in Arkan­
sas.

c. Administration o f 
public school system 
is vested in a State 
Board, Committee of 
Education, School 
Districts and local 
Supts.

8. a. All teachers in Ark.
are required to hold 
teaching licenses in 
full force in accord­
ance with the rules 
of certification laid 
down by the State 
Board.

b. Duty of enforcing 
this system is im­
posed on s e v e r a l  
school boards.

c. N e g r o  and w h i t e  
teachers and princi­
pals alike must meet 
same requirements 
to receive teachers’ 
licenses from State 
board and upon qual­
ifying are issued 
identical certificates.

b. Admitted except that 
R. M. Blakely and E. 
P. Jennings are now 
chairman and secre­
tary.

7. a. Entire paragraph
admitted.

b. Entire paragraph
admitted.

c. Admitted.

8. a. Admitted—but state 
these requirements 
a r e  minimum re­
quirements only.

b. Admitted.

c. Admitted.



4

9. a. P u b l i c  schools of 9. a. 
Little Bock are un­
der direct control 
and supervision of 
defendants, acting as 
a n administrative 
dept, of State of 
Arkansas.

b. Defendants are un- b. 
der a duty to employ 
teachers, fix salaries 
and issue warrants 
for payment of sal­
aries.

10. a. Over a long period 10. a. 
of years defendants 
h a v e  consistently 
maintained and are 
now maintaining pol­
icy, custom and us­
age of paying Negro 
teachers and princi­
pals less salary than 
white teachers and 
principals possess­
ing the same profes­
sional qualifications, 
licenses and experi­
ence, exercising same 
duties and perform­
ing the same services 
as Negro teachers 
and principals.

b. Such discrimination b.
is being practiced 
against plaintiff and 
a l l  o t h e r  Negro 
teachers and princi­
pals in L. R.—and is 
based solely upon 
their race or color.

Admitted ( e n t i r e  
paragraph).

Admitted ( e n t i r e  
paragraph).

Denied.

Denied.



5

11. a. Plaintiff a n d  a l l  
other Negro teachers 
and principals are 
teachers by profes­
sion and are spe­
cially trained f o r  
their calling.

b. By r u l e s ,  regula­
tions, practice, usage 
and custom of state 
acting through de­
fendants as agents 
plaintiff and all other 
Negro teachers and 
principals are being 
denied equal protec­
tion of laws, in that 
solely by reason of 
race and color they 
are d e n i e d  equal 
compensation from 
p u b l i c  funds for 
equal work.

12. a. Plaintiff has been 
employed as a regu­
lar teacher by defen­
dants since 1935.

b. A.B. Degree from 
Talladega College, 
Talladega, Alabama.

c. Plaintiff holds a high 
school teacher’s li­
cense issued by State 
Board of Education.

11. a. Admitted—but state 
further that they dif­
fer a m o n g  them­
selves and as com­
pared to some white 
teachers and princi­
pals in degree of spe­
cial training, ability, 
character, profes­
sional qualifications, 
experience, duties, 
services and accom­
plishments.

b. Denied — and state 
that if in individual 
eases compensation 
paid to teachers var­
ies in amount it is 
based solely on spe­
cial training, ability, 
character, profes­
sional qualifications, 
experience, duties, 
services and accom­
plishments.

12. a. Admitted.

b. Admitted.

c. Admitted.



6

d. In order to qualify 
for this license plain­
tiff h a s satisfied 
same requirements 
as those exacted of all 
other teachers white 
as well as Negroes.

e. Plaintiff exercises 
the same duties and 
performs services 
substantially equiva­
lent to those per­
formed b y  o t h e r  
holders of teachers’ 
licenses with equal 
and less experience 
receive salaries much 
larger than plaintiff.

13. a. Pursuant to policy, 
custom and usage set 
out above defendants 
acting as agents of 
State h a v e  estab­
lished a n d  main­
tained as s a l a r y  
schedule which pro­
vides a lower scale 
for Negroes, 

b. Practical application 
has been and will be 
to pay Negro teach­
ers and principals of 
equal qualifications 
and experience less 
compensation solely 
on account of race or 
color.

d. Admitted—but state 
in doing so plaintiff 
satisfied only mini­
mum requirements.

e. Denied and state if 
w h i t e  teachers in 
Little Rock receive 
salaries larger than 
plaintiff the differ­
ence is based solely 
on difference in spe­
cial training ability, 
character, profes­
sional qualifications, 
experience, duties, 
services and accom­
plishments, and in no 
part are based on 
race or qolor.

13. a. D e n y  defendants 
have ever had a sal­
ary schedule.

b. Denied salaries are 
fixed in whole or in 
part on color.



7

14. a. In enforcing a n d
maintaining the pol­
icy, regulation, cus­
tom and usage by 
which plaintiff and 
other Negro teach­
ers a n d  principals 
are uniformly paid 
lower salaries than 
white teachers solely 
on account of race 
and color, defendants 
a r e  violating th e  
14th Amendment and 
Sections 41 and 43 of 
Title 8 of U. S. Code.

b. To the extent that 
defendants act under 
color of statute said 
policy, custom and 
usage is unconstitu­
tional.

c. To the extent that 
defendants act with­
out benefit of statute 
is nevertheless un­
constitutional.

15. a. By virtue of discrim­
inatory policy, and 
schedule plaintiff is 
denied an equal par­
ticipation in the ben­
efit derived from that 
portion of her taxes 
devoted t o public 
school fund.

b. Solely on race or 
color.

c. Contrary to 1 4 t h  
Amendment.

14. a. Denied — deny that 
there is any salary 
schedule or discrim­
inatory practice.

b. Denied.

c. Denied. 

15. a. Denied.

b. Denied.

c. Denied.



8

d. Special and particu­
lar damage.

e. Without remedy save 
by injunction from 
this Court.

16. a. Petition on behalf of 
plaintiff and all other 
Negro teachers filed 
with defendants in 
March, 1941, request­
ing equalization, 

b. Petition denied on or 
about May 9, 1941.

17. a. Plaintiff and others
in class are suffering 
irrreparable injury, 
etc.

b. No plain adequate or 
complete remedy to 
redress wrongs other 
than this suit.

c. Any other remedy 
would not give com­
plete remedy.

18. a. There is an actual
controversy.

d. Denied.

e. Denied.

16. a. Admitted.

b. Admitted—but state 
reason for denial of 
petition w a s  that 
there is no inequality 
in salaries paid to 
white a n d  Negro 
teachers.

17. a. Denied ( e n t i r e  
paragraph).

b. Denied.

c. Denied.

18. a. Admitted.



9

PART TW O.

Statement of Facts.

The defendant School Board of Little Bock has general 
supervision over the school system in Little Bock including 
the distribution of the public school fund and the appoint­
ment and fixing of salaries of the teachers in the public 
schools of Little Bock. The public school fund comes from 
state taxes. Separate schools are maintained for white and 
colored pupils. All the teachers in the Avhite schools are of 
the white race and all of the teachers in the colored schools 
are of the Negro race (14).

In the school district of which Little Bock is a part the 
per-capita expenditure per white child was $53 and per 
colored child was $37 for 1939-40. During the same period 
the revenue available was $47 per child. In Arkansas dur­
ing that period the average salary for elementary teachers 
was: white $526 and Negro $331; and for high school teach­
ers was $856 for white and $567 for Negroes (8-9).

All of the public schools in Little Bock, both white and 
Negro, are part of one system of schools and the same type 
of education is given in all schools, are open the same num­
ber of hours per day and the same number of days (296). 
The Negro teachers do the same work as the white teachers 
(312).

Method of Fixing Salaries.

The salaries of teachers are recommended by the super­
intendent to the Personnel Committee of the board after 
which a report is made by the Personnel Committee to the 
board for adoption (15). Neither the board nor the Per­
sonnel Committee interviews the teachers (34, 35, 156). In 
the fixing of salaries from year to year the board does not



10

check behind the recommendations of the superintendent 
(75). The recommendations of the superintendent to the 
Personnel Committee always designate the teachers by race 
(178, 180, 313). Likewise, the report from the Personnel 
Committee to the hoard always designates the individual 
teachers by race (182, 184, 313, 314). The race of the indi­
vidual teachers is in the minds of the members of the Per­
sonnel Committee in their consideration of the fixing of 
salaries (184, 185). The salaries for 1941-42 were not fixed 
on the basis of teaching ability or merit (312-313).

New Teachers.

Although all of the defendants denied that there was 
a salary ‘ ‘ schedule ’ ’ as such, the plaintiff produced a salary 
schedule for Negro teachers providing a minimum salary 
of $615 (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4). Superintendent Scobee de­
nied ever having seen such a schedule but admitted that 
since 1938 “ practically all”  new Negro teachers had been 
hired at $615. All new white teachers during that period 
have been hired at not less than $810 (530). For years it 
has been the policy of the Personnel Committee to recom­
mend lower salaries for Negro teachers than for white teach­
ers new to the system (41). This has been true for many 
years (41). Other defendants admitted that all new Negro 
teachers were paid either $615 or $630 and all new white 
teachers were paid a minimum of $810 (123, 129, 150, 308).

In 1937 the School Board adopted a resolution whereby 
a “ schedule”  of salaries was established providing that new 
elementary teachers were to be paid a minimum of $810, 
junior high $910 and senior high $945 (476-477). Although 
Superintendent Scobee denied that the word “ schedule”  
actually meant schedule he admitted that since that time all 
white teachers had been employed at salaries of not less 
than $810 (477-478).



11

The difference in salaries paid new white and Negro 
teachers is supposed' to be based upon certain intangible 
facts which the superintendent gathers by telephone conver­
sations and letters in addition to the information in the 
application blanks filed by the applicants (531). For ex­
ample, two teachers were being considered for positions, one 
white and one Negro. The superintendent, following his 
custom, telephoned the professor of the white applicant and 
received a very high recommendation for her. He did not 
either telephone or write the professors of the Negro appli­
cant. As a result he paid the white teacher $810 as an elemen­
tary school teacher, and the Negro teacher $630 as a high 
school teacher despite the fact that their professional quali­
fications were equal (530-533). Superintendent Scobee also 
admitted that where teachers have similar qualifications, if 
he would solicit recommendations for one and receive good 
recommendations and fail to do so for the other, the appli­
cant whose recommendations he solicited and obtained 
would appear to him to be the better teacher (532). He 
seldom sought additional information about the Negro appli­
cants (588), although personal interviews were used in the 
fixing of salaries (545) and played a large part in determin­
ing what salary was to be paid (545).

Superintendent Scobee testified that the employment and 
fixing of salaries of new teachers amounted to a “ gamble”  
(543). He admitted that he had made several mistakes as 
to white teachers and that although he was paying one white 
teacher $900 she was so inefficient he was forced to discharge 
her (847). During the time he has been superintendent Mr. 
Scobee, has never been willing to gamble more than $630 on 
any Negro teacher and during the same period has never 
gambled less than $810 on a new white teacher (546). Some 
new white teachers are paid more than Negro teachers with 
superior qualifications and longer experience (559, 570).



12

One of the reasons given for the differential in salaries 
is that Negro teachers as a whole are less qualified (45) and 
that the majority of the white teachers ‘ ‘ have better back­
ground and more cultural background”  (85). Another de­
fendant testified: “ I think I can explain that this way: the 
best explanation of that, however, is the Superintendent of 
the Schools is experienced in dealing and working with 
teachers, white teachers and colored. He finds that we have 
a certain amount of money, and the budget is so much, and 
in his dealing with teachers he finds he has to pay a certain 
minimum to some white teachers qualified to teach, a teacher 
that would suit in the school, and he also finds that he has 
to pay around a certain minimum amount in order to get 
that teacher, the best he can do about it is around $800 to 
$810 to $830, whatever it may be he has to pay that in order 
to pay that white teacher that minimum amount, qualified 
to do that work. Now, in his experiences with colored 
teachers, he finds he has to pay a certain minimum amount 
to get a colored teacher qualified to do the work. He finds 
that about $630, whatever it may be”  (185-186).

Since it is the general understanding that the board can 
get Negro teachers for less it has been the policy of the 
board to offer them less than white teachers of almost identi­
cal background, qualifications and experience (186). Further 
explanations of why Negroes are paid less is that: “ They 
are willing to accept it, and we are limited by our financial 
structure, the taxation is limited, and we have to do the best 
we can”  (187); and, that Negroes can live on less money than 
white teachers (188). The president of the board testified 
that they paid Negroes less because they could get them for 
less (19).

One member of the school board testified in response to 
a question: “ If you had the money, would you pay the



13

Negro teachers the same salary as yon pay the white teach­
ers?”  testified that: “ I don’t know, we have never had the 
money”  (80).

Old Teachers.

Comparative tables showing the salaries of white and 
Negro teachers according to qualifications, experience and 
school taught have been prepared from the exhibits filed in 
the case and are attached hereto as appendices. According 
to these tables no Negro teacher is being paid a salary equal 
to a white teacher with equal qualifications and experience. 
This fact is admitted by Superintendent Scobee (862).

It is the policy of the defendants to pay high school 
teachers more salary than elementary teachers (297). It is 
also the policy of the defendants to pay teachers with ex­
perience more than new teachers (610). It is admitted that 
the Negro teachers at Dunbar High School are good teachers
(312) . However, the plaintiff and twenty-four other Negro 
high school teachers with years of experience are now being 
paid less than any white teacher in the system including 
elementary teachers as well as teachers new to the system 
(304). Superintendent Scobee was unable to explain the 
reason for this or to deny that the reason might have been 
race or color of the teachers (304). He testified that he 
could not fix the salaries of the Negro high school teachers 
on any basis of merit because “ my funds are limited”
(313) .

Since Superintendent Scobee has been in office (1941) 
he has carried the salaries along on the same basis as he 
found them (297). He also testified that if the question of 
race had been the basis for the fixing of salaries prior to 
1941 then this would be true today (298). Although there 
have been a few “ adjustments”  there have been no changes



14

in salary since 1941. The salaries for 1941-42 were not 
fixed on any basis of merit (312).

In past years Negro teachers have been employed at 
smaller salaries than white teachers and under a system of 
blanket increases over a period of years Negroes have re­
ceived smaller increases (129). The differential over a 
period of years has increased rather than decreased (130). 
One member of the board testified that “ I think there are 
some Negro teachers are as good as some of the white 
teachers, but I think there are some not as good”  (130-131). 
Another board member testified that he thought there were 
some Negro teachers getting the same salary as white 
teachers with equal qualifications and experience (158).

Policy of Board in Past.

Several portions of the minutes of the school board 
starting with 1926 were placed in evidence. In 1926 several 
new teachers were appointed. The white teachers were ap­
pointed at salaries of from $90 to $150 a month. Negro 
teachers were appointed at from $63 to $80 a month (888, 
889). Later the same year the superintendent of schools 
recommended that “ B. A. teachers without experience get 
$100.00, $110.00, $115.00, according to the assignment to 
Elementary, Junior High, or Senior High respectively” . 
Additional white teachers were appointed at salaries of 
from $100 to $200 a month and at the same time Negroes 
were appointed at salaries of from $65 to $90 (892, 893) in 
1927 all white teachers with the exception of six were given 
a flat increase of $75 per year and all Negro teachers were 
given a flat increase of $50 per month (896, 897).

On May 14, 1928 the school board adopted a resolution: 
“ all salaries for teachers remain as of 1927-1928, and in 
event of the 18 mill tax carrying May 19, 1928, the white



15

school teachers are to receive an increase of $100 for 1928- 
29 and the colored teachers an increase of $50 for 1928- 
1929”  (899). During the same year three white principals 
were given increases of from $25 a month to $100 a year 
while one Negro principal was given an increase of $5 a 
month (900).

On May 21, 1929 the board adopted a resolution that: 
“ an advance of $100.00 per year be granted all white 
teachers, and $50.00 per year for all colored teachers, sub­
ject to the conditions of the Teachers’ salary”  (907). Prior 
to that time Negro teachers were getting less than white 
teachers (78). According to this resolution all white teachers 
regardless of their qualifications received increases of $100 
each while all Negro teachers were limited to increases of 
$50 each (79). It was impossible for a Negro teacher to 
get more than a $50 increase regardless of qualifications 
(79). One reason given for paying all white teachers a $100 
increase and all Negro teachers $50 was that at the time 
the Negro teachers were only getting about half as much 
salary as the white teachers (80).

On April 30, 1932, all teachers’ salaries were cut 10% 
(937). On June 19, 1934, a schedule of salaries for school 
clerks was established providing $50 to $60 a month for 
white clerks and $40 to $50 a month for colored clerks 
(967). It was also decided that: “ white teachers entering 
Little Rock Schools for 1933-34 for the first time at a mini­
mum salary of $688.00, having no cut to be restored, be 
given an increase of $30 for the year 1934-35 (967). On 
June 28, 1935, at the time the plaintiff was employed white 
elementary teachers new to the system were appointed at 
$688 to $765 for elementary teachers and $768 for high 
school teachers while plaintiff and other Negro teachers 
were employed at $540 (973, 974).



16

On March 30, 1936 the school board adopted the follow­
ing recommendations: “ that the contracts for 1936-37 of 
all white teachers who are now making $832 or less be in­
creased $67.50, and all teachers above $832.50 be increased 
to $900, and that no adjustment exceed $900.” ; and “ that 
the contracts for 1936-37 of all colored teachers who now 
receive $655 or less be increased $45, and all above $655 be 
increased to $700, and that no adjustment exceed $700” . 
It was also provided “ that the salaries of all white teachers 
who have entered the employ of the Little Eock School 
Board since above salary cuts, or whose salaries were so 
low as not to receive any cut, be adjusted $45.00 for 1935- 
36” ; and “ that the salaries of all colored teachers who have 
entered the employ of the Little Eock School Board since 
the above salary cuts, or whose salaries were so low as not 
to receive any cut, be adjusted $30.00 for 1935-36”  (978- 
979).

On April 25, 1936 it was decided by the school board: 
“ The contracts are to be the same as for 1935-36, except 
that those white teachers receiving less than $900.00, and 
all colored teachers receiving less than $700, who are to get 
$67.50 and $45 additional respectively, or fraction thereof, 
not to exceed $900 and $700, respectively” .

Bonus Payments.

In 1941 the school board made a distribution of certain 
public funds as a supplemental payment to all teachers 
which was termed by them a “ bonus” . This money was dis­
tributed pursuant to a plan adopted by the school board 
(136—see Exhibits A and 3-B). The plan was worked out



17

and recommended by a committee of teachers in the public 
schools (131). This committee was composed solely of white 
teachers (316) because, as one member of the board testi­
fied: “ We don’t mix committees in this city”  (131) Super­
intendent Scobee testified that he did not even consider the 
question of putting some Negro teachers on the committee 
(322).

Under this plan there are three criteria used in deter­
mining how many “ units”  a teacher is entitled to: one, 
years of experience, two, training, and three salary (see 
Exhibits 3-A and 3-B). After the number of units are de­
termined the fund was distributed as follows: each white 
teacher is paid $3.00 per unit and each Negro teacher is 
paid $1.50 per unit. After the number of units were deter­
mined the sole determining factor as to whether the teachers 
received $3.00 or $1.50 per unit was the race of the teacher 
in question (527).

After the 1941 distribution the Negro teachers went to 
Superintendent Scobee and protested against the inequality, 
yet, another supplemental payment was made in 1942 and 
the same plan was used (321).

In 1937 the Negro teachers filed a petition with the de­
fendants seeking to have the inequalities in salaries because 
of race removed. No action was taken other than to refer 
it to the superintendent (985). In 1938: “ Petition signed 
by the Colored Teachers of the Little Eock Public Schools, 
requesting salary adjustments, was referred to Committee 
on Teachers and Schools”  (995). On May 27, 1939 a report 
was adopted by the school board which included the follow­
ing: “ Petition of colored teachers for increase in pay. Dis­
allowed”  (1003).



18

PART THREE.

ARGUMENT.

I.

Payment of less salary to Negro public school 
teachers because of race is in violation of Fourteenth 
Amendment.

There are several decisions of United States Court which 
have established the rule that the fixing of salaries of Negro 
teachers in public schools at a lower rate than that paid to 
white teachers of equal qualifications and experience, and 
performing essentially the same duties on the basis of race 
or color is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The first case is Mills v. Lowndes et al., 26 F. Supp. 792 
(1939). This was an action for an injunction brought by a 
Negro principal in the public schools of Anne Arundel 
County, Maryland, against the state treasurer, comptroller 
and other state officials seeking to enjoin the distribution of 
the state “ Equalization fund’ ’. It was alleged that the fund 
was distributed on the basis of a statutory salary schedule 
which provided a lower minimum salary for Negro teachers 
than for white teachers. Judge W. Calvin  C itesxut dis­
missed the petition on the ground that the several counties 
and cities of Maryland were the units of education and what­
ever action there might be would have to be against these 
local units.

Judge Ch esn u t , however, ruled that:

“ The allegations of the complaint that the Mary­
land minimum salary statutes for teachers in public 
schools are practically administered in many of the 
Counties in such a way that there is discrimination



19

against colored teachers solely on account of race and 
color charges an unlawful denial of the equal protec­
tion of the laws to colored school teachers in Counties, 
if any, where such conditions prevail, . . . ”  (26 F. 
Supp. 792, 805).

In the same decision the point was established that pub­
lic school teachers had the right to maintain this type of 
action:

“ I conclude therefore that the plaintiff does have 
a status, not as a public employee, but as a teacher by 
occupation which entitled him to raise the Consti­
tutional question; and if the complaint were made 
against the County Board of Education, which, it is 
alleged, is making the unjust discrimination between 
equally qualified white and colored teachers solely on 
account of their race and color, it would state a case 
requiring an answer. ’ ’

The next case was against the Board of Education of 
Anne Arundel County and the County Superintendent of 
Schools. Mills v. Board of Education et al, 30 F. Supp. 245 
(1939). This case was an action for a declaratory judgment 
and injunction. It resulted in a full trial on the merits after 
an answer was filed denying all of the essential allegations. 
At the trial it developed that Anne Arundel County had its 
own minimum salary schedule which was higher than the 
statutory schedule. The defendants maintained that the dif­
ferences in salary were not based on race but on differences 
in qualifications and services rendered. Judge Chesnttt, in 
deciding this case by granting the injunction, held that:

“ The controlling question in this case, however, 
is not whether the statutes are unconstitutional on 
their face, but whether in their practical application 
they constitute an unconstitutional discrimination on 
account of race and color, prejudicial to the plaintiff.



20

We must therefore look to the testimony in this case 
to see how the statutes have been applied in Anne 
Arundel County. . . . The county scale fixes the 
minimum salary of a white principal of a comparable 
school at $1,550, and for a colored principal $995; but 
in practice the County Board in many cases actually 
pays higher salaries to the principals of schools, in 
consideration of particular conditions and capacities 
of the respective principals. Thus the plaintiff’s 
salary for the current year has been fixed at $1058 
or $103 more than the minimum, and in the case of 
three white principals, mentioned in the evidence, the 
salary is $1880 per year, or $250 more than the mini­
mum. The defendants contend that the materially 
higher salaries of these white principals of schools 
comparable in size to that of which the plaintiff is 
principal is due to the judgment of the Board that 
the three white principals have superior professional 
attainments and efficiency to that of Mills; but it is 
to be importantly noted that these personal qualities, 
while explaining greater compensation to the particu­
lar individuals, than the minimum county scale for 
the particular position, do not account for the differ­
ence between $1058 only received by Mills and the 
minimum of $1550 which by the County scale would 
have to be paid to any white principal of a compar­
able school. Or, in other words, if Mills were a white 
principal he would necessarily receive according to 
the county scale not less than $1550 as compared with 
his actual salary of $1058.”  (30 F. Supp. 245, 248.)

“ I also find from the evidence that in Ann Arun­
del County there are 243 white teachers and 91 col­
ored teachers but no one colored teacher receives so 
much salary as any white teacher of similar qualifica­
tions and experience.

“ The crucial question in the case is whether the 
very substantial differential between the salaries of 
white and colored teachers in Anne Arundel County



21

is due to discrimination on account of race or color. 
I find as a fact from the testimony that it is. . . . ”  
(30 F. Supp. 245, 249.)

The third case was Alston v. School Board of City of 
Norfolk, 112 F. (2d) 992 (1940); certiorari denied, 311 U. S. 
693. In this case the Circuit Court of Appeals for the 
Fourth Circuit reversed the decision of the lower Court 
which had dismissed the complaint of a Negro teacher of 
Norfolk. The complaint was similar to the one in the Mills 
case {supra) and the instant case. The Alston case involved 
a salary schedule providing minimum and maximum sal­
aries.

In the opinion for the Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge 
P arker, after quoting pertinent paragraphs of the com­
plaint, stated:

“ That an unconstitutional discrimination is set 
forth in these paragraphs hardly admits argument. 
The allegation is that the state, in paying for public 
services of the same kind and character to men and 
women equally qualified according to standards which 
the state itself prescribes, arbitrarily pays less to 
Negroes than to white persons. This is as clear a 
discrimination on the ground of race as could well be 
imagined and falls squarely within the inhibition of 
both the due process and the equal protection clauses 
of the 14th Amendment. . . . ”  (112 F. (2d) 992, 
995-996.)

There are no. cases to the contrary. It is, therefore, 
clear that the question of race or color cannot be used in the 
fixing of salaries of public school teachers. Whenever race 
or color is considered in the fixing of teachers’ salaries there 
is a violation of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Consti­
tution.



22

II.

The policy, custom and usage of fixing salaries of 
public school teachers in Little Rock violates the Four­
teenth Amendment.

The evidence in this case consists of the records of the 
school board including minutes and records of salary pay­
ments along with efforts of members of the school board to 
explain and contradict their own records. An examination 
of the list of salaries now being paid demonstrates clearly 
that Negro teachers are being paid less salary than white 
teachers of equal qualifications and experience.

After a full trial on the merits in the second Mills case 
{supra) Judge Ch e sn u t  decided the case in favor of the 
plaintiff because:

“ I also find from the evidence that in Anne Arundel 
County there are 91 colored teachers but no one col­
ored teacher receives so much salary as any white 
teacher of similar qualification and experience.”  
(30 F. Supp. 245, 249.)

Comparative tables showing the salaries of white and 
Negro teachers according to qualifications, experience and 
school taught have been prepared from the exhibits filed in 
the instant case and are attached hereto as appendices. 
According to these tables “ no one colored teacher receives 
so much salary as any white teacher of similar qualifications 
and experience.”  These facts were admitted by Superin­
tendent Scobee (862). This brings the instant case clearly 
within the rule as established in the Mills case, which rule 
was later approved by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Alston case (supra).

The present differential in salaries of white and Negro 
teachers is the result of a combination of discriminatory



23

practices of the defendants forming a policy, custom and 
usage extending over a long period of years. These prac­
tices have been:

A. A general over-all policy of paying Negro teachers 
less salary than white teachers.

B. A  policy of fixing lower salaries for Negro 
teachers than for new white teachers without ex­
perience.

C. A  system of flat salary increases providing larger 
increases for all white teachers than for any Negro 
teacher.

D. A  system of distributing supplementary payments 
on an unequal basis because of race.

A. General policy of defendants.

The facts in the instant case are peculiarly in the hands 
of the defendants. It was, therefore, necessary to develop a 
large part of the plaintiff’s case by testimony from the 
defendants called as adverse witnesses.

The defendants have repeatedly classified teachers by 
race in fixing salaries. The defendants admitted that for 
many years it has been the policy of the Personnel Com­
mittee to recommend lower salaries for Negro teachers than 
for white teachers new to the system (41). This has been 
true for many years (41). Thus, Negro teachers are 
grouped together on the basis of race or color.

Cultural Background.

The defendants attempt to explain this differential in 
salaries in several ways. For example, one defendant testi­
fied that Negro teachers as a whole are less qualified (45); 
and that the majority of the white teachers “ have better 
background and more cultural background”  (85).



24

Economic Theory.

Another defendant testified: “ I think I can explain that 
this way; the best explanation of that, however, is the 
Superintendent of the Schools is experienced in dealing and 
working with teachers, white and colored. He finds that we 
have a certain amount of money, and the budget is so much, 
and in his dealing with teachers he finds he has to pay a 
certain minimum to some white teachers qualified to teach, 
a teacher that would suit the school, and he also finds that 
he has to pay around a certain minimum amount in order to 
get that teacher, the best he can do about it is around $800 to 
$810, to $830, whatever it may be he has to pay that in order 
to pay that white teacher that minimum amount, qualified 
to do that work. Now, in his experience with colored 
teachers, he finds he has to pay a certain minimum amount 
to get a colored teacher qualified to do the work. He finds 
that about $630, whatever it may be”  (185-186).

Further explanation is that since there is a general 
understanding that the board can get Negro teachers for 
less it has been the policy of the board to offer them less 
than white teachers of almost identical background, quali­
fications and experience (186). It was also revealed that 
Negroes are paid less because: “ They are willing to accept 
it, and we are limited by our financial structure, the taxation 
is limited, and we have to do the best we can”  (188). The 
president of the board testified that they paid Negroes less 
because they could get them for less (19). Still another 
member of the board testified in response to a question: “ If 
you had the money, would you pay the Negro teachers the 
same salary as you pay the white teachers?”  replied that: 
“ I don’t know, we have never had the money”  (80). Super­
intendent Scobee testified that he could not fix the salaries 
of Negro high school teachers on any basis of merit because 
“ my funds are limited”  (313).



25

In the ease of Thomas Hibbets et al. v. School Board 
et al., 46 F. Supp. 368, which was decided by IT. S. District 
Judge E lm er  D. D avies, Judge of the District Court for the 
Middle District of Tennessee, the defendants offered as a 
defense on part of the Board of Education that the salary 
differential was an economic one and not based upon race or 
color; and also, that salaries were determined by the school 
in which the teacher was employed. In deciding these points 
Judge D avies wrote:

“ The Court is unable to reconcile these theories with 
the true facts in the case and therefore finds that the 
studied and consistent policy of the Board of Educa­
tion of the City of Nashville is to pay its colored 
teachers salaries which are considerably less than the 
salaries paid to white teachers, although the eligi­
bility and qualifications and experience as required 
by the Board of Education is the same for both white 
and colored teachers; and that the sole reason for 
this difference is because of the race of the colored 
teachers.”  46 F. (Supp.) 368.

B. Minimum salaries for new teachers.

All of the defendants denied that there ever has been a 
salary “ schedule”  for the fixing of teachers’ salaries. The 
plaintiff, however, produced a salary schedule for Negro 
teachers providing a minimum salary of $615 (Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit 4). Superintendent Scobee denied ever having seen 
such a schedule but admitted that since 1939 “ practically 
all”  new Negro teachers had been hired at $615 while all 
new white teachers hired during the same period were paid 
not less than $810 (530).

In 1937 the School Board adopted a resolution whereby a 
“ schedule”  of salaries was established providing that new 
elementary teachers were to be paid a minimum of $810 
(476-477). Although Superintendent Scobee attempted to



26

explain that the word “ schedule”  did not mean schedule, 
he admitted that since that time all white teachers had been 
hired at salaries of not less than $810 (477-478).

The other defendants admitted that all new Negro 
teachers were paid either $615 or $630 and all new white 
teachers were paid a minimum of $810 (123, 129, 150, 308).

In the second Mills case Judge Ch e sx u t  held that a 
minimum salary schedule adopted by local school board 
providing a higher minimum salary for white teachers than 
for Negro teachers was unconstitutional. In the Alston 
case there was a local school board schedule with a m inim um 
of $597.50 for Negro teachers new to the system and a mini­
mum of $850 for white teachers new to the system. The 
Circuit Court of Appeals after quoting paragraphs from 
the complaint which set out the minimum and maximum 
salary schedule decided:

“ That an unconstitutional discrimination is set 
forth in these paragraphs hardly admits argument. 
The allegation is that the state, in paying for public 
services of the same kind and character to men and 
women equally qualified according to standards 
which the state itself prescribes, arbitrarily pays 
less to Negroes than to white persons. This is as 
clear a discrimination on the ground of race as could 
well be imagined and falls squarely within the inhibi­
tion of both the due process and the equal protective 
clauses of the 14th Amendment.”  (112 F. (ad) 992, 
995-996.)

In the instant case the defendants sought to escape the 
rule as established in the Mills and Alston cases {supra) by 
denying that they have a salary schedule in writing. They 
testified that all teachers, white and Negro, were hired on 
an individual basis without regard to race or color. All of 
the defendants denied that there was any written schedule 
establishing lower salaries for Negro teachers because of



27

race or color. They, however, admitted that in actual prac­
tice all Negroes were hired at either $615 or $630 while all 
white teachers were hired at not less than $810. The validity 
of their method of fixing salaries is determined by the 
actual practice rather than the theory.

“  . . . though the law itself be fair on its face and 
impartial in appearance yet, if it is applied and ad­
ministered by public authority with an evil eye and 
an uneven hand, so as practically to make unjust and 
illegal discrimination between persons in similar cir­
cumstances, material to their rights, the denial of 
equal justice is still within the prohibition of the 
Constitution. ’ ’

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 (1886).

This is the same theory which has been applied in all 
cases involving discrimination against Negro public school 
teachers which have come before the Federal Courts.

See:

Alston v. School Board (supra);
Mills v. Board of Education (supra);
McDaniel v. Board of Education, 39 F. Supp. 638 

(1941).

In the Mills case (supra) Judge Chesnut stated:

“  . . . In considering the question of constitution­
ality we must look beyond the face of the statutes 
themselves to the practical application thereof as 
alleged in the complaint . . . ”

In one of the latest cases involving the exclusion of 
Negroes from jury service it appeared that in Harris 
County, Texas, only 5 of 384 grand jurors summoned during 
a seven year period were Negroes and only 18 of 512 petit 
jurors were Negroes. In reversing the conviction of a



28

Negro under such a system, Mr. Associate Justice B lack  
stated:

“ Here, the Texas statutory scheme is not itself 
unfair; it is capable of being carried out with no 
racial discrimination whatsoever. But by reason of 
the wide discretion permissible in the various steps 
of the plan, it is equally capable of being applied in 
such a manner as practically to proscribe any group 
thought by the law’s administrators to be undesirable 
and from the record before us the conclusion is in­
escapable that it is the latter application that has 
prevailed in Harris County. Chance and accident 
alone could hardly have brought about the listing for 
grand jury service of so few Negroes from among 
the thousands shown by the undisputed evidence to 
possess the legal qualifications for jury service

7 7

Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 85L; Ed. 106, 108 
(1940).

See also:

Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 397, 26 L. Ed. 574;
Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 IJ. S. 354, 83 L. Ed. 757;
Hill v. Texas, 86 L. Ed. 1090.

Superintendent Scobee testified that the difference in 
salaries paid new white and Negro teachers has been based 
upon certain intangible facts, most of which he had for­
gotten by the time of the trial. Much of the information 
used in fixing salaries was from letters and telephone con­
versations in addition to the application blanks filed by the 
applicants (531). In actual practice this procedure itself 
discriminates against Negro applicants.

The testimony of Superintendent Scobee reveals the 
extent of this discrimination. Two teachers, one white and 
one colored, were being considered for teaching positions.



29

The superintendent, following his custom, telephoned the 
college professor of the white applicant and received a very 
high recommendation for her. He did not either telephone 
or write the professors of the Negro applicant. As a result 
he offered the white applicant $810 as an elementary teacher 
and the Negro $630 as a high school teacher despite the 
fact that their professional qualifications were equal (530- 
533).

The extent of the discrimination against Negro teachers 
brought about by this unequal treatment is emphasized by 
further testimony of Superintendent Scobee that:

a. Where teachers have similar qualifications, if he 
would solicit recommendations for one and receive 
good recommendations and fail to do so for the other, 
the applicant whose recommendations he solicited 
and obtained would appear to him to be the better 
teacher (532).

b. He seldom sought additional information about the 
Negro applicants (552).

c. Personal interviews were used in the fixing of salaries 
(545); and played a large part in determining the 
amount of salary (545).

d. He did not even interview all of the Negro applicants 
(588).

In another recent case involving the question of exclu­
sion of Negroes from jury service facts were presented 
which are closely similar to the facts presented by the de­
fendants in this case. In the jury case, Mr. Chief Justice 
S tone for the H. S. Supreme Court stated:

“ We think petitioners made out a prima facie 
case, which the state failed to meet, of racial dis­
crimination in the selection of grand jurors which 
the equal protection clause forbids. As we pointed



30

out in Smith v. Texas, supra (311 U. S. 131, 85 L. 
Ed. 86, 61 Set. 164), chance or accident could hardly 
have accounted for the continuous omission of 
Negroes from the grand jury lists for so long a 
period as sixteen years or more. The jury commis­
sioners, although matter was discussed by them, con­
sciously omitted to place the name of any Negro on 
the jury list. They made no effort to ascertain 
whether there were within the County members of 
the colored race qualified to serve as jurors, and if 
so who they were. They thus failed to perform their 
constitutional duty-recognized by section 4 of the 
Civil Eights Act of March 1, 1875, 8 U. 8. C. A. sec­
tion 44, and fully established since the decision in 
1881 of Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 26 L. Ed. 
567, supra not to pursue a course of conduct in the 
administration of their office which would operate to 
discriminate in the selection of jurors on racial 
grounds. Discrimination can arise from the action 
of commissioners who exclude all Negroes whom they 
do not know to he qualified nor seek to learn whether 
there are in fact any qualified Negroes available for 
jury service.”  (Italics ours.) Hill v. Texas {supra).

In the instant case the practice of Superintendent Scobee 
outlined above is just as discriminatory as the policy and 
custom of the commissioners in the Hill case and in itself 
violates the 14th Amendment.

C. Salaries of older teachers and 
flat increases.

According to the tables of teachers’ salaries for 1941- 
42 attached hereto as appendices no Negro teacher is being 
paid a salary equal to a white teacher with equal qualifica­
tions and experience. This fact is admitted by Superin­
tendent Scobee (862). These salaries for 1941-42 were not 
fixed on any basis of merit of the individual teachers (312).



31

All of the public schools in Little Rock, both white and 
Negro, are part of one system of schools and the same type 
of education is given in all schools, white and Negro (295). 
The same courses of study are used. All schools are open 
the same number of hours per day and the same number of 
days (296). The same type of teaching is given in all schools. 
Negro teachers do the same work as the white teachers 
(312).

The defendants testified that there is a policy to pay 
high school teachers more than elementary teachers (297); 
and to pay teachers with experience more than new teachers 
(312). It is also admitted that the Negro teachers at Dun­
bar High School are good teachers (312). However, the 
plaintiff and twenty-four other Negro high school teachers 
of Dunbar with years of experience are now being paid less 
than any white teacher in the system (304). Superintendent 
Scobee was unable to explain this or to deny that the reason 
might have been race or color of the teachers (304).

The present differential in salaries between white and 
Negro teachers is the result of a long standing policy of 
employing Negro teachers at smaller salaries than white 
teachers and a system of blanket increases over a period of 
years whereby all Negro teachers have received smaller 
increases than white teachers (129). It is admitted that 
the differential has increased rather than decreased over a 
period of years (130).

Several portions of the minutes of the School Board 
starting with 1926 were placed in evidence. These minutes 
were digested and set out in the Statement of Facts under 
the heading “ Policy of the Board in Past” . It is, therefore, 
not necessary to repeat these portions of the minutes in 
this section of the brief. We respectfully urge a re-reading 
of the above section of this Statement of Facts.



32

It is clear from these portions of the minutes and the 
testimony of members of the School Board that it is and 
has been the policy of the School Board of Little Rock, not 
only to employ Negro teachers at a smaller salary than 
white teachers, but in addition there has been the policy of 
giving blanket increases which are larger for white teachers 
than for Negro teachers.

Blanket Increases on Basis of Race.

The defendants repeatedly admitted that all Negro 
teachers new to the system are employed at salaries less 
than white teachers new to the system. Defending the policy 
of giving larger increases to all white teachers than to any 
Negro teacher, the defendants testified that the differential 
in the increases was based upon the salaries being paid the 
two groups of teachers while at the same time admitting 
that the differential in salaries was based upon race or color 
of the teachers (37-39).

For example: One defendant testified as follows:

“ Q. So is it not true that the worst white teacher 
at that time got more than the best Negro teacher? 
A. No.

Q. Well, was there any other basis? A. Yes, the 
basis of their flat pay.

Q. I mean in order to qualify for this, there are 
two amounts involved, $75 and $50, and in order to 
qualify for the $75, is it not true that the only thing 
you had to do was to be white? A. No.

Q. Well, the white teachers got $75? A. Yes, sir, 
just in a different bracket of pay.

Q. Different bracket? A. Different set-up. It 
was on a basis of salary they were then drawing.

Q. Well, weren’t they all getting more than the 
Negro teachers? A. Yes.

Q. So that prior to that time there was a differ­
ence between them, between the white and colored



33

teachers, in the salaries they were receiving and after 
that time the difference was even wider. A. I have 
not figured out whether it was wider or not, there 
was a difference.”  (37-38.)

The inevitable result of this type of discrimination is 
likewise admitted by the defendants.

“ Q. So the Negro teachers that came in at less 
salary are still trailing below the white teachers. Is 
that true? A. It probably is.

Q. So, regardless of how many degress they might 
go away and get, they would still be trailing behind 
the white teachers they came in with. Would that be 
true? A. Not in every case, I don’t think.

Q. Can you give any exceptions? A. No.”  (48).

D. The discriminatory policy of distributing 
supplementary salary payments on an 
unequal basis because of race.

Further wilful disregard for the equal protection clause 
of the United States Constitution, is apparent in the policy 
of distributing supplementary payments to teachers in the 
Little Eock School System. It is admitted that the funds 
for the supplementary salary payments was received from 
state tax funds (522). These supplementary payments 
were distributed under the same policy as has been used 
in the fixing of the basic salaries of these teachers. Some 
of the testimony on that point was :

“ Q. And in distributing the public money didn’t 
you feel obligated under the same rules as the other 
money you disturbed for the School Board? A. So 
far as it was public money, yes.

Q. Why? You didn’t think you could distribute 
it any way you pleased, did you? A. No, but the At­
torney General of Arkansas ruled it was within the 
discretion of the Local Board to distribute it.



34

Q. Did you think you could distribute it on the 
basis of—so much to the teacher of one school and 
so much to the teacher of another school, on that 
basis? A. Well, according to the rule, if I remember 
right, said so, I believe we could.

Q. As to the rate, we are not concerned about that. 
Do you think you could distribute more to white per­
sons than to Negro persons? A. I think, legally 
speaking, under the terms of his opinion it would 
have been possible.

Q. Then you think the Fourteenth Amendment 
did not touch you? A. I did not go into the Four­
teenth Amendment.”  (522-523.)

This type of total disregard for the Fourteenth Amend­
ment is characteristic of the entire policy of the School 
Board of the City of Little Bock and the Superintendent of 
Schools in administering public funds allotted for the pay­
ment of teachers ’ salaries.

The facts concerning the distribution of the supple­
mental salary payments, 1941-1942, are not in dispute at all. 
The money obtained from public funds was distributed pur­
suant to a plan recommended by Superintendent Scobee and 
adopted by the School Board (136). (See Exhibits 3-A and 
3-B.) The plan was worked out and recommended by a 
committee of teachers in the public schools of Little Bock 
(131). This committee was composed solely of white 
teachers (316), because, as one member of the Board testi­
fied: “ We do not mix committees in this City”  (131). 
Superintendent Scobee, who appointed the committee, tes­
tified that he did not even consider the question of putting 
some Negro teachers on the committee (322). Under this 
plan only three criteria were used in determining how many 
“ units”  a teacher is entitled to. One, years of experience; 
two, training three, salary (see Exhibits 3-A and 3-B). After



35

the number of units were determined, the fund was dis­
tributed as follows:

Each white teacher was paid $3 per unit and each Negro 
teacher was paid $1.50 per unit. After the number of units 

.were determined, the sole determining factor as to whether 
the teacher received $3.00 or $1.50 per unit was the race of 
the teacher in question (527).

Further evidence of the complete disregard for Negro 
teachers in Little Rock and for the Constitution of the 
United States, again appear from the fact that although 
representatives of the Negro teachers protested to Superin­
tendent Scobee against the inequality in the 1941 payment, 
yet, another supplemental payment was made in 1942, after 
this case was filed and the same plan was used (321). No 
effort at all has been made by the defendants to defend this 
violation of the United States Constitution other than the 
explanation that the opinion of the Attorney General of 
Arkansas permitted the discrimination.

III.

The rating sheets offered in evidence by defendants 
should not have been admitted in evidence.

Prior to the Spring of 1942 formal rating sheets were 
never used by the defendants (50, 52). Some supervisors 
used their own rating sheets in order to carry out their work 
of supervision. In the Fall of 1941, after the Negro teachers 
of Little Rock had petitioned defendants for the equalization 
of teachers’ salaries the supervisors along with the super­
intendent of schools prepared formal rating sheets of three 
columns for the purpose of rating the teachers (623). In 
the Spring of 1942 after this ease was filed, the teachers 
were rated on the formal rating sheets. These rating sheets



36

according to Mr. Scobee were “ not for the purpose of fixing 
salaries”  (470). The real purpose of the rating sheets 
according to Mr. Scobee, was “ to survey the situation and 
find out what I could about individual teachers, looking to 
their improvement”  (346).

Salaries for the year 1941-42 were not based on rating 
of teachers. The salaries for the school year 1942-43 were 
not changed from the salaries for the year 1941-42 with one 
exception. Salaries for the year 1942-43 were fixed in May, 
1942-43 (469-826), while the final reports of the rating sheets 
were not completed before June of 1942 (468).

The rating sheets prepared after the suit was filed and 
the answer filed and after consultation with lawyers for the 
school hoard on its face seemed to completely justify the 
difference in salary (848). Defendants’ Exhibit 5 which 
included the names, professional training, experience, rating 
and salary of each teacher in the Little Rock School system 
was on mimeographed sheets of paper in which the name of 
the teacher, the name of the school, the qualifications, ex­
perience and salary were mimeographed while the ratings 
were typed in subsequent to the preparation of the mimeo­
graphed sheets themselves (467).

It is, therefore, clear that: (1) Superintendent Scobee 
and his assistants actually completed the rating of teachers 
after he had given to his lawyers the factual information for 
the answer in this case; (2) the final composite rating sheets 
were mimeographed showing name of teachers, qualifica­
tions, experience, school taught and salary with blank 
spaces for ratings; (3) this material was before him when 
the ratings were made; (4) Superintendent Scobee admitted 
that on the levels of qualifications and experience a com­
parison will show that all Negro teachers get less salary 
(862); (5) the ratings were later typed in. An examina­
tion of this composite rating sheet will show that wherever



37

it appears that teachers with certain qualifications and ex­
perience (Negroes) get less salary than white teachers with 
equal qualifications and experience lower ratings for these 
teachers were typed in. As a matter of fact, Mr. Scobee 
testified that in practically all instances the rating figures 
prepared after the case and answer were filed seemed to 
completely justify the difference in salaries between white 
and Negro teachers (848-849).

The composite rating sheets should not have been ad­
mitted in evidence. They were prepared under the direc­
tion of the Superintendent and were not prepared for either 
the School Board or the general public. They were not pub­
lic documents. The ratings were not only hearsay but were 
conclusions and not facts. There is no statutory authority 
requiring the making of the rating sheets.

The law on this point is quite clear and has been set out 
as follows:

“ According to the theory advanced by some courts 
a record of primary facts made by a public official in 
performance of official duty is, or may be made by 
litigation, competent prima facie evidence as to the 
existence of the fact, but records of investigations 
and inquiries conducted either voluntarily or pur­
suant to requirement of law by public officers con­
cerning causes and effects and involving the exercise 
of judgment and discretion, expression of opinion, 
and the making of conclusions, are not admissible in 
evidence as public records.”

20 American Jurisprudence 886, p. 1027.

In the cases on this point the line is drawn between rec­
ords containing facts and those containing conclusions and 
opinions involving discretion. In the instant case the rat­
ings were based solely on conclusions of several people and



38

did not contain facts. The records, therefore, were not 
admissible:

“ In order to be admissible, a report or document 
prepared by a public official must contain facts and 
not conclusions involving the exercise of judgment or 
the expression of opinion. The subject matter must 
relate to facts which are of a public nature, it must be 
retained for the benefit of the public and there must 
be express statutory authority to compile the report.”

Steel v. Johnson, 115 P. (2d) 145, 150.

See also:

Chamberlain v. Kane, 264 S. W. 24 (1924);
State v. Bolen, 142 Wash. 653, 254 P. 445.

IV.

The composite rating sheets are entitled to no 
weight in determining whether the policy, custom and 
usage of fixing salaries in Little Rock is based on race.

Mr. Scobee testified that he did considerable studying on 
the question of school administration and that he had done 
quite a bit of studying on the question of methods of fixing 
salaries in various school systems. On the question of the 
proper methods of fixing salaries, Mr. Scobee testified that 
paying salaries pursuant to the rating of teachers’ ability 
was not used. He testified further that of the several school 
systems he had studied, he did not know of any other school 
system in the country using rating as a basis of fixing of 
salaries. He also testified that he was familiar with the 
several surveys conducted by the National Educational 
Association and that these surveys revealed that ratings 
are never used in fixing salaries (293-294).



39

As to the ratings used in this case and particularly the 
final rating sheets, Mr. Scobee’s response to a question by 
the Court was as follows :

“ Q. Whatever its contents are, you considered 
them in fixing salaries? A. Never at any time. This 
was not for the purpose of fixing salaries”  (470).

Mr. Scobee testified further that “ I have not used the 
rating, and have not claimed definite accuracy for it.”  
These rating sheets were supposed to be used primarily for 
helping to correct teaching (591). These rating sheets are 
then supposed to be given to the individual teacher so that 
they can correct their teaching (591). However, according 
to Mr. Scobee, in response to a question as to whether or not 
ratings are ever used for the purpose of fixing salaries, 
replied, “ I do not believe they are ever used, be rare in­
stances if they were”  (592). The following testimony of 
Mr. Scobee on this point is likewise quite interesting:

“ Q. Do you know of any school system in the 
country that bases its salary on a rating of teachers 
similar to that there [rating sheets] ? A. I do not 
recall any.

Q. So Little Rock is novel in that? A. Little Rock 
is not basing its salary on these ratings.”  (Empha­
sis ours.) (847.)

How the Ratings Were Made in Little Rock.

On several occasions Mr. Scobee testified that the par­
ticular ratings in question were not accurate and that there 
were too many personal elements involved to be accurate 
(591, 592, 847). Supervisor Webb testified that he was not 
satisfied with his own rating (809-810). Mr. Webb, under 
examination by his attorney, admitted that he transferred a 
white teacher in his school, Elizabeth Goetz, because “ she



40

just wasn’t filling the job ”  (799). However, on the com­
posite rating sheet Miss Goetz is rated as “ 3”  which seems 
to justify her salary of $852. Superintendent Scobee testi­
fied that another white teacher, Bernice Britt, was so ineffi­
cient he had to discharge her yet her rating appeared on the 
composite rating sheet as “ 3”  (847). This was the only 
way of justifying her salary.

One supervisor testified that in order to properly rate a 
teacher it would take several visits to observe the teacher 
and that each visit would have to be more than twenty min­
utes (732). However, Mr. Scobee “ rated”  the plaintiff in 
this case after only one visit of ten minutes (209-210).

According to the evidence of the defendants one super­
visor testified that she would prefer at least a year of 
observation before undertaking the job of rating a teacher 
(733). However, Mrs. Allison testified that although she 
rated some Negro teachers she only visited these teachers 
about once a year (755); and, as a matter of fact, some 
Negro schools were not visited at all during the past school 
year (758). Mrs. Allison testified further that in rating 
these teachers she did not use any previous knowledge of 
the teachers’ ability (760).

Miss Hayes testified she had not visited some Negro 
schools in the past two years (771). Mr. Webb testified that 
durng the rating of teachers he was “ conscious that some 
were white and some are colored”  (783). He, however, 
testified that there was “ no intentional discrimination”  
(781).

Elementary Schools.

In the system of rating used in Little Rock during the 
Spring of this year, it was agreed that the better procedure 
would be to have the principals rate their own teachers 
(811). Following this procedure the white principals of



41

both elementary and high schools rated their teachers (811- 
867). However, although the Negro principals were consid­
ered just as capable of rating their own teachers (811), the 
superintendent instructed the white supervisors who were 
also principals of white elementary schools to rate the Negro 
teachers as well as their own white teachers. These super­
visors did not even consult the Negro principals as to the 
ratings for their teachers. Mr. Scobee did not consult the 
Negro principals as to the final ratings of their teachers 
(711).

High Schools.

The teachers of the white high school were rated by the 
principal of the white high school:

“ Q. In compiling the rating for these teachers in 
the Little Rock Senior High School, on what basis 
did you base all the rating appearing* in the system! 
A. Recommendation of the principal, Mr. Larson.

Q. Do you have before you the individual rating 
sheets! A. Yes.

Q. Who prepared these individual rating sheets! 
A. Mr. Larson.

Q. In arriving at the rating appearing on the 
sheet describe the mechanics through which you went. 
A. The secretary sat before me with the master copy. 
As she called the name of the teacher, going down 
the list, I told her what to write, and she wrote that 
in there on the basis of the information, whatever 
came from the High School Principal.

Q. At the time you told her the figure to place on 
the rating sheet, state whether or not in each instance 
you consulted the rate sheets of the principals. 
A. Yes”  (813).

Now, let us compare this procedure with the method 
used in rating Negro high school teachers and the policy of



42

discrimination is clear. On questioning of Superintendent 
Scobee as to the final five-column rating sheet, he testified:

“ Q. You were not interested in Mr. Lewis? A. I 
was, or I would not have asked for it.

Q. I am talking about the five column sheet. A. 
No.

Q. You were not interested? A. N o”  (855).

On examination by his attorney Mr. Scobee testified that 
he requested Mr. Lewis as principal of the Negro High 
School to rate his teachers and that Mr. Lewis sent him such 
a rating for each of his teachers (818). Mr. Scobee however 
did not follow this rating of teachers as was done in the 
case of the rating of the white high school teachers by their 
principal (852-853).

The ratings of the white high school teachers were made 
by the principal on a comparative basis as among the teach­
ers in his high school (813). The ratings of the Negro high 
school teachers were likewise made by the principal on a 
comparative basis as among the teachers in his high school 
but they were not used by Mr. Scobee. An examination of 
the rating by Mr. Lewis, (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 13) will reveal 
that if these ratings had been used by Mr. Scobee and 
placed on the composite rating sheet it would have com­
pletely destroyed their defense to this action. In order to 
prevent this, and, we must bear in mind that all of this was 
taking place after the case was pending, a different plan 
was worked out for the Negro schools.

The original plan was to have all teachers rated on a 
three column sheet. Mr. Scobee visited the plaintiff and 
some other teachers in Dunbar during the Spring of this 
year and the teachers were rated on a three column sheet 
by Messrs. Scobee and Hamilton. Although Mr. Lewis was 
present he did not rate the teachers. Mr. Scobee assumed 
he agreed with the ratings because he did not “ object to



43

any of them” . An examination of these ratings by Mr. 
Lewis shows that they would destroy the theory of the de­
fendant’s case, so, Mr. Lewis was requested to rate his 
teachers and this was done. But, these ratings did not help 
the defendant’s case. Then a five-column rating sheet was 
worked out and given to Mr. Hamilton as “ supervisor”  of 
the Negro high school. Prom this point on Mr, Lewis is 
completely ignored as to the question of rating of his teach­
ers, although Mr. Hamilton was in the high school every 
day.

Mr. Lewis testified as to the time after the conference 
between the three of them in the Spring:

“ Q. Following that meeting, were you ever asked 
by anyone in the school system to confer with any­
one on the rating of teachers ? I ask you specifically 
if Mr. Hamilton discussed the rating of teachers on 
a five column sheet with you? A. He has never done 
that.

Q. He has never asked your opinion about it? A. 
He has not about any of my teachers”  (876).

Ratings by Mr. Hamilton.

Mr. Hamilton holds a unique position. He is principal 
of a white elementary school and is a sort of part time 
supervisor of the Negro high school. He is a graduate of 
Wilmington College in Ohio and in response to a question 
by his attorney as to whether this college was accredited 
replied: “ It is a Christian college * * # ”  (613). He has 
been working on his master of arts degree since 1929 and 
still does not have it (631). It is admitted that the majority 
of the teachers at Dunbar have degrees, others have work 
on their PhD degrees (631). These teachers who are under 
his “ supervision”  have better qualifications than Mr. Ham­
ilton (631). Mr. Hamilton’s professional qualifications are



44

far inferior to those of Mr. Lewis. As a matter of fact, 
Mr. Hamilton does not meet the new standards for even a 
high school principal. All of Mr. Lewis’ experience has 
been in school work above the elementary level. Practically 
all of Mr. Hamilton’s experience has been on the elemen­
tary level. However, for some unexplained reason Mr. 
Hamilton was finally chosen to rate the Negro teachers of 
Dunbar (854-855).

Mr. Hamilton while being examined by his attorney tes­
tified that the methods of teaching were different in elemen­
tary and high schools and that he did not want to compare 
Dunbar high school teachers with elementary teachers 
(630). On cross examination he testified:

“ Q. So, as a matter of fact, isn’t it true what you 
said on direct examination, you can’t compare a high 
school teacher with an elementary teacher ? A. They 
are not comparable”  (645).

Mr. Hamilton admitted he could not compare the Dunbar 
teachers with the teachers in the white high school (666). 
He also admitted he was not in a position to compare the 
science teachers at Dunbar because he had no experience 
in science except what he had learned in his regular college 
course (665-667). Despite this Mr. Hamilton at the request 
of Superintendent Scobee did compare the Dunbar teachers 
with his elementary teachers:

“ Q. You mean you compared Susie Morris with 
the elementary school teachers? A. Yes.

Q. I thought you testified on direct examination 
that it was practically impossible to do it. A. I  did, 
therefore, I did it.

Q. You did the impossible? A. I did the best I 
could”  (644).

He never used the rating sheets in evidence to rate 
teachers at Dunbar prior to Spring of this year (698). The



45

first time was in May of this year (698). This was the first 
time he had attempted to compare Dunbar teachers with 
his elementary teachers (698).

The elementary teachers with whom the Dunbar teach­
ers were compared were far above average and Mr. Hamil­
ton testified that “ They rank very high”  (650), and testi­
fied further:

“ Q. So that is it not a fact that in comparing 
these teachers at Dunbar you compared them with a 
group of white teachers that you thought were high 
caliber teachers? A. Yes, and I was asked to do it, 
that is what I was asked to do.

Q. And that is what you did? A. I generally con­
sider them so”  (650-651).

Mr. Hamilton testified further that: “ I would have to, you 
see my teachers, as I said, were exceptional teachers. I 
doubt, where anyone would come in close or near, I would 
consider them a very perfect teacher, and I don’t know 
that way about others”  (660).

Although Mr. Hamilton admitted that the competitive 
equation should not appear in ratings (718) he testified 
that the ratings of the Dunbar teachers was on a competi­
tive basis with his above average elementary teachers 
(716).

When the Dunbar teachers were first rated on the three- 
column sheet in April they made one rating but when they 
were later compared with the above average elementary 
teachers of Mr. Hamilton’s school they rated less (713). 
Therefore, Mr. Hamilton admitted that as between the rat­
ing on the three column sheet which was supposed to be 
the combined judgment of Messrs. Scobee, Lewis and Ham­
ilton, and the final rating as against his elementary teachers 
he would prefer the first rating made in Mr. Lewis’ office 
(687).



46

The procedure used in rating Negro teachers in Little 
Bock when compared with the system of rating the white 
teachers is certainly not the type of equal treatment re­
quired by the 14th Amendment to the United States Consti­
tution.

It is therefore quite clear after a review of the evidence 
presented by the defendants that the rating system inaugu­
rated by them after the case was filed is entitled to no weight 
on the question as to whether or not there is discrimination 
because of race involved in this case. As a matter of fact 
the rating system itself has been so conducted as to discrim­
inate against the Negro teachers.

The elaborate system of rating which it is alleged has 
been used in Little Bock, is just as discriminatory as a reg­
ular policy of paying less salary to Negroes than to white 
teachers. Mr. Justice F r a n k f u r t e r , in a case involving an 
elaborate system to prevent Negroes from registering to 
vote in Oklahoma, commented on the Fifteenth Amendment 
as follows:

“ The Amendment nullifies sophisticated as well as 
simple-minded modes of discrimination.”  Lane v. 
Wilson, 307 U. S. 275, 83 L. Ed. 1281, 1287 (1939).

One of the outstanding examples of the so-called “ rat­
ing”  is that concerning the plaintiff in this case. Superin­
tendent Scobee after observing the plaintiff for twenty min­
utes rated her as a lower than average teacher and her final 
rating was lower than average. However, according to the 
uncontroverted evidence in this case, the plaintiff during the 
summer of this year attended the University of Chicago 
Graduate School which is recognized as one of the leading 
universities in preparing school teachers. One of the sub­
jects taken by the plaintiff was the “ Methods of Teaching 
English” . During this course she was required to outline 
courses as we were teaching them so that her professor



47

would be able to recognize her methods of teaching and her 
outlines. During this course Miss Morris used the exact 
same methods of teaching as she used at Dunbar and at the 
close of the course Miss Morris was given a mark of “ A ”  
which is the highest mark she could possibly rate (877-878).

Conclusion.

It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the 
declaratory judgment and injunction should be issued 
as prayed for.

T hurgood M arshall ,
69 Fifth Avenue,

New York City.

S cipio J ones,
Century Building,

Little Rock, Arkansas.

J. R. Booker,
Century Building,

Little Rock, Arkansas.

M yles A. H ibbler,
Century Building,

Little Rock, Arkansas, 
Attorneys for Plaintiff.

[Appendix follows]





49

A P P E N D IX .

TABLE 1.
N e g r o  h i g h  s c h o o l  t e a c h e r s  g e t t i n g  l e s s  s a l a r y  t h a n  a n y

W H IT E  T E A C H E R  IN  E IT H E R  H IG H  OR E L E M E N T A R Y  SCHOOL IN
L i t t l e  R o c k .

Teacher T raining
Experience 

L. R. Other Assignment Salary

Bass, Bernice B.S. 5 1 H. E. $ 638.50
Brumfield, Eunice A.B. 0 0 Science 630.00
Bryant, Thelma A.B. 3 /2 l / 2 History 652.00
Byrd, Eva C. A.B. 8 0 Library 766.75
Bush, Lucille C. 3C 4 3 Laundry 730.00
Cox, Annie A.B. 7 5 M-E 766.75
Douglass, Edna B.S. 15 0 Science 737.96
Elston, India M.S. 0 630.00
Garrett, Byrnice , B.S. 3 4 Foods. 655.50
Heywood, Vivian A.B. 9 0 English 706.00
Hunter, Andrew B.S. 5 0 Math. 665.50
Johnson, Byron A.B. 3 1 Science 631.75
King, Ruth B.M.E. 4 5 Music 730.00
Lewis, Tessie A.B. 0 3 English 630.00
Morris, Susie A.B. 6 5 English 706.00
Moore, Dorothy A.B. 6 1 L. 679.00
Perry, Alice B.A. 11 0 E. 762.40
Russell, John B.S. 1 7 Science 642.00
Scott, James D. M.A. 8 4>4 Math. 753.25
Torrence, Rosalie B.S. 2 0 E. 652.00
Tyler, Daniel P. A.B. 0 J4 Science 630.00
Walker, Rose Mary A.B. 4 0 Science 652.00
Works, Mildred B.S. 0 2 Clothing 630.00
Winstead, Homer 2 yr. 0 Woodwork 630.00

TABLE 2.
A  C OM PARISON  OF P L A IN T IF F  W IT H  W H IT E  H IG H  SCHOOL T E A C H ­
ERS o f  E n g l i s h  w i t h  e q u a l  a n d  l e s s  e x p e r i e n c e  a n d  p r o ­

f e s s i o n a l  Q U A L IF IC A T IO N S.

Experience
Teacher Training L.R. Other Salary

Morris, Susie A.B. 6 5 $ 706

Lane, Lillian A.B. 0 900
Warry, Rhoda W. B.S.E. 0 2 900
Jefferson, Mary P. A.B. 8 945
Lee, Catherine A.B. 6 2 1060



50

Appendix

TABLE 3,
A  COM PARISON  OF E N G L IS H  TE AC H E RS IN  H IG H  SCHOOLS OF L lT T L E  R O C K  

w i t h  M a s t e r ’ s  d e g r e e s .

School T eacher
Train­

ing
Experience 
L. R. Other

Assign­
ment Salary

N-Senior-H Campbell, H. B. M.S. 14 0 English $ 859.77
W-Senior-H Beasley, Louise M.A. 5 3 it 1135.00

Hall, Henel M.A. 11 6 tt 1348.40
Leidy, Edith M.A. 5 10 >4 a 1243.50
Scott, Emma M.A. 15 0 a 1350.96W-Junior-H

tt
Mayham, Ella Neal M.A. 5 5 tt 1128.75
Clauson, Evelyn M.A. 5 5 tt 1045.00

N-Negro W-White H-High School

TABLE 4.
A c o m p a r a t i v e  t a b l e  a s  t o  y e a r s  o f  e x p e r i e n c e  o f  E n g l i s h  t e a c h e r s

IN  H IG H  SCHOOLS W IT H  A.B. DEGREE OR LESS.

School T eacher
T rain­

ing
Experience 

L. R. Other
Assign­

ment Salary

N-Senior-H Little, Clarice A.B. 26 1 English $ 833.52
W-Senior-H Broadhead, Catherine A.B. 14 8 it 1498.30

it Key, Helena A.B. 3 13 “ 1122.00
Oakley, Francille B.S. 12 4 it 1194.10
Piercey, Mary A.B. 3 16 tt 1122.00
Stalmaker, Mildred A.B. 15 7 tt 1506.92

tt Stewart, Josephine B.S. 13 7 ft 1533.00
W-J unior-H Harris, Fanita B.S. 16 5 ft 1391.87

tt Lane, Lillian A.B. 0 tt 900.00
Jefferson, Mary P. 4 Y 8 tt 945.00
Hammett, Flora 2-C 27 0 ft 1429.72

it Lee, Catherine A.B. 6 2 ft 1060.00
Wharry, Rhoda B.S.E. 0 2 ft 900.00

N-Negro H-High SchoolW-White



51

Appendix

TABLE 5.
A  COM PA R ATIV E  TABLE OF M A T H E M A T IC S  TE AC H E RS IN  H IG H  

SCHOOLS W IT H  M.A. DEGREES.

School

N-Senior-H
U

W-Senior-H

Teacher
T rain­

ing
Experience 
L.R. Other

Assign­
ment Salary

Massie, S. P. M.A. 19 5 $1142.55
Scott, James D. M.A. 3 4% 753.25
Armitage, Flora M.A. 36 1 2115.00
Berry, Euleen M.A. 14 1634.00
Rivers, Ethyl M.A. 12 8 1431.87
White, Claire T. M.A. 21 n y 2 1808.90
Hermann, John M.A. 1 2 992.25
Irvine, Mabel M.A. 22>4 4 (Sub) 1658.53

N-Negro W-White H-High School

TABLE 6.
A  COM PARATIVE TABLE OF M A T H E M A T IC S  TEACH ERS IN  H IG H  

SCHOOLS W IT H  A.B. DEGREES OR LESS.

School Teacher T raining L. R. Other Salary

N. Senior-H Cox, Annie A.B. 7 5 $ 766.75(( t( Gipson, J. H. A.B. 17 4 979.02
a  (( Gipson, Thelma B.S. 0 630.00 (Sub)“ “ Hunter, Andrew B.S. 5 0 665.50'u a Parr, Pinkie A.B. 0 rQ3 

cn8oC
O

'O

W. “ Bigbee, J. R. B.S. 28 10 2293.17
t( (( Ivy, William B.M.E. 17 4 1854.46
a  tc Moser, M. C. A.B. 13 7 1536.98

Junior H Cobb, Clare 2^C 38 0 1754.41
Davis, Wade L. A.B. 0 12 1125.00

(( (( Elliott, Clayton B.S. 6 0 1234.25
i( (( Gardner, F. M. B.S. 4 3 1260.00

Tull, N. F. 54-1/3 17 4 1603.55
Irby, Mrs. Guy A.B. 0 900.00
Riegler, Mary 2C 30 0 1608.27
Calloway, Estelle 2C 46 0 1741.22



52

Appendix

TABLE 7.
A  C O M PARATIVE TABLE OF S C IE N C E  TEACH ERS IN  H IG H  SCHOOLS 

W IT H  M . A .  DEGREES.

School Teacher Training
Experience 

L. R. Other Salary

N. Senior H Wilson, J. L. M.A. 9 9 $1039.50
a  a Elston, India M.S. 0 630.00

W. Senior H Tillman, Marcia M.A. 15 8 1732.34
( t  u Berry, Homer M.A. 14 3 1939.81

Junior Warner, Nita Bob M.S. 3 0 1020.75
( (  ( ( Clauson, Donald M.A. 14 3 1702.77

T A B L E  8.

A  COMPARATIVE TABLE OF SCIENCE TEACHERS IN HIGH SCHOOLS
WITH A .B . DEGREES OR LESS.

Experience
School Teacher 1 'raining L.R. Other Salary

N. Senior H ( l ) Brumfield, Eunice A.B. 0 0 $ 630.00
“  “  ( 2 )  
“  “  (3 )  
“  “ ( 4 )

Douglass, Edna B.S. 15 0 737.96
Johnson, Byron A .B . 3 1 631.75
Russell, John B.S. 1 7 642.00

“ ( 5 ) T yler, Daniel P. A .B . 0 V2 630.00
“ ( 6 ) W alker, R ose M ary A .B . 4 0 652.00

W . Senior “  (a ) Barnes, Everett A .B . 14 2 1732.70
1-5 Junior H  
(2 )  “

A very , Julia M ae B .S. 0 1 900.00
Lescher, V era A .B . 13 0 1148.00

1-5 “ Cooke, M rs. Eleanor A .B . 0 0 900.00
W -Ju n ior “ Bow en, E . A . 3 3 /4 C (n o  degree) 22 4 1808.49

T A B L E  9.

A  COMPARATIVE TABLE OF HISTORY TEACHERS IN HIGH SCHOOLS
WITH A .B . DEGREES.

Experience
School T eacher Training L. R. Other Salary

N. Senior H . Gravelly, Treopia B.S. 26 0 $ 935.63
W . Senior H . Stegeman, Hattie A .B . 13 12 1573.12



53

Appendix

TABLE 10.
A  CO M PA R ATIV E  TA BLE  OF H O M E  E C O N O M IC S  TE AC H E RS IN  H IG H  

SCHOOLS W IT H  A.B. DEGREES.

Experience
School Teacher Training L.R. Other Salary

N. Senior H. Bass, Bernice B.S. 5 1 $ 638.50
W. Senior H. Chisholm, Allie B.S. 4 0 980.25(( (( Speer, Dixie D. B.Sc. 0 0 900.00

(( (( Dupree, Grace B.S. 2 9 939.75
Britt, Bernice A.B. 0 10 945.00

TABLE II.
A  CO M PA R ATIV E  TABLE OF M U S IC  A N D  B A N D  TE AC H E RS IN H IG H SCHOOLS

W IT H A.B. DEGREES OR LESS.

Experience
School T eacher Training L.R. Other Salary

N. Senior H. Bowie, Lester B.S. 5 4 $ 850.00
a a King, Ruth B . M . E . 4 5 730.00

W. Senior H. Meyer, Willard 4 0 1 900.00
a (( Duncan, Mary Alice 3^C 0 0 900.00« <( Parker, Robert B.M. 1 0 945.00



54

Appendix

TABLE 12.
A  CO M PA R ATIV E  TABLE OF E L E M E N T A R Y  TE AC H E RS W IT H  A . B .  OR 
COM PARABLE DEGREES A N D  1-5 YEARS E XP E R IE N C E  IN  L lT T L E  R O C K .

Experience
Negro Teacher Training L.R. Others Salary

a Pope, Francis B.S.E. 1 3 $ 615it Lewis, John A.B. 1 0 615
Johnson, Pauline B.S. 0 0 615a

White
Wilkerson, Captiola B.S. 1 26 630

i( Fair, Mary Nance B.S.E. 0 2 810a Threat, Kathryn A.B. 0 810
Terral, Mrs. Floyd A.B. 1 2 810u Gardner, Mrs. Lewis B.S. 0 810a Obersham, Bettie B.S. 0 1 810(< Carrigan, Mary D. A.B. 0 3 855
Street, Juanita A.B. 1 810
Thomas Martha B.S.E. 0 810a McCuiston, Elizabeth 0 0 810a Smooth, Raymond A.B. 0 810
Belford, Susan B.S. 0 0 810tt Crutchfield, Ann A.B. 1 0 810a Isgrig, Nancy Jane A.B. 0 0 810
Soard, Dorris A.B. 0 0 810

TABLE 13.
A C O M PA R ATIV E  TABLE OF E L E M E N T A R Y  TEACH ERS W IT H  A.B. OR 
COM PARABLE DEGREES A N D  5-10 YEARS E XPE R IE N CE  IN  L lT T L E  R o C K .

Experience
Negro Teacher Training L.R. Others Salary

“ Hamilton, Elizabeth B.S. 6 10 $ 706.00a Jackson, Nancy A.B. 5 0 665.50
Lee, Danice A.B. 6 1 665.50a Rice, Sarah A.B. 7 0 645.25

Whiteu Finn, Verna A.B. 5 3 933.a Jones, Ruth L.I. 5 5 846.
Clapp, Thelma A.B. 6 4 987.
Holman, Lucille B.S. 8 0 1014.18a Harper, Verna B.S.E. 5 10 1041.
Hardage, Edith A.B. 7 1 960.a Sittlington, Blanche B.M. 5 0 960.
Wage, Georgia A.B. 7 5 1041.
Dupree, Jeanne B.S. 6 3 960.



55

Appendix

TABLE 14.
A  COM PA R ATIV E  TABLE OF E L E M E N T A R Y  TEACH ERS W IT H  A . B .  OR 
COM PARABLE DEGREES A N D  10-20 YEARS E XP E R IE N C E  IN  L lT T L E  R O C K .

Experience
Negro Teacher Training L.R. Others Salary

“ Patterson, Alva A.B. 12 5 $ 733.00
t( Touchstone, Bertha B.S. 11J4 5 736.38

Waters, Elnora A.B. 11 0 735.29
White

(( Mason, Byrnice B.S. 14 2 1436.15
“ Perimen, Bess A.B. 13 0 1045.28
“ Reynold, Averell A.B. 12 0 1043.
U Kinlay, Francis A.B. 13J4 0 1047.46
a Willard, Beryl A.B. 11 0 1041.61
it Shelton, Mary H. B.S.E. 13 0 982.28
it Reeves, Jessie A.B. 12 0 1084.
it Apple, Lorraine B.S.E. 14 0 1108.58

TABLE 15.
A C O M PARATIVE TABLE OF E L E M E N T A R Y  TE AC H E RS W IT H  A.B. OR
COM PARABLE DEGREE A N D  MORE T H A N  20 YEARS E XPE R IE N CE IN

L i t t l e  R o c k .

Experience
N e g r o T eacher Training L. R. Others Salary

n Davis, Corselia A.B. 26 6 $ 884.71
“ Pattillo, Emma B.S. 27 0 1012.77
ti Sampson, Gertuse A.B. 22 0 764.81
“ Roundtree, Thesa B.S. 23 0 764.81
a Gilliam, Cora A.B. 21 10 825.58

White
It Chandler, Blanche B.S. 29 0 1603.90
“ Jordan, Pauline A.B. 26 0 1429.72
it Walker, Marqurite A.B. 35 1 1634.91
it Junkin, Blanche B.S.E. 21 0 1276.35
a Autry, Ester A.B. 24 2 1391.98
it Schriver, Mary A.B. 21 3 1354.08
it Pearson, Alice L.I. 28 8 1536.96
“ Hagler, Grace B.S. 26 4 1418.84

Renfrow, Mina B.S. 29 1 1634.91



56

Appendix

TABLE 16.
A  COM PA R ATIV E  TA BLE  OF E L E M E N T A R Y  TEACH ERS W IT H O U T  DEGREES 

A N D  LESS T H A N  1 0  YEARS E X PE R IE N CE  IN  L lT T L E  R o CK.

Negro Teacher Training
Experience 

L. R. Others Salary
it Burns, Cleo 2 6 0 $ 62S.00

Bush, Marjorie 2 1 0 615.00Burton, Hazel 2 / 7 0 665.65
Green, Thelma 93-hr. 7 0 630.00it Dander, Alice 3 9 0 645.25Wilson, Rosa 3 / 6 0 625.00

White
Lee, Elnora 3 / 0 615.00

tt Pace, Josephine 2 6 6 879.00Arance, Leah 3 7 4 879.50James, Mildred 2 9 0 906.00Jacobs, Louise 3 3 4 825.00Frost, Nell 1 7 / 3 825.00“ Smith, Willie 2 / 5 9 879.00“ Bond, Alice 2C 1 1 810.00Grogan, Stella 3 0 12 810.00Whitley, Winnie 66-hr. 4 13 879.00



57

Appendix

TABLE 17.
A  COM PA R ATIV E  TABLE OF E L E M E N T A R Y  TEACH ERS W IT H O U T  DEGREES 

A N D  FROM  10-20 YEARS E XP E R IE N C E  IN  L lT T L E  R o c k .

Negro Teocher Training
Experience 

L. R. Others Salary
(< Lee, Bertha 3K 13 17 $ 729.02Rutherford, Alice 2 IS 0 678.10Abner, Irene C. 3 17 3 739.41Nichols, J. C. 3 15 0 678.10Collier, Bennie 3 14 14 667.79
“ Conway, Essie 3 15 0 719.50Jordan, Sallie 2 15 0 678.10

White
White, Almeta 2 18 0 739.41

(( Cobb, Marion z y 14 0 977.65Farmer, Margaret 2 18 0 1198.41Grayson, Mary Lee 2 16 0 1081.84Owen, Jewell 1 15 10 1120.28Brookfield, Cora 3 17 8 1276.35Bullington, Inez 3 19 6 1391.95Frankel, Caroline IK 20 10 1354.08Goodwin, Ernestine 2K 17 0 1198.41“ Park, Mildred 1 17 4 1238.22'Poland, Brooks 2 13 0 977.40Lemon, Mrs. C. N. 2 11 4 1006 34Witsell, Cherry 3 12 0 949.85Murphy, Elizabeth 2 17 3 1288.34Woodard, Marie 54-hrs. 18 0 1120.26Pittman, Marjorie 2 14 0 1198.27Tunnah, Helen 1 18 0 1120.26



58

Appendix 

TABLE 18.
A  COM PA R ATIV E  TABLE OF E L E M E N T A R Y  TE AC H E RS W IT H O U T  
DEGREES A N D  MORE T H A N  2 0  YEARS E XPE R IE N CE  IN  L lT T L E  R o C K .

Experience
Negro Teacher Training L.R. Others Salary

Dickey, Ella 2 33 0 $1012.77
“ Bruce, Cornelia 0 32 7 1195.49
“ Murphy, Vera 2 32 0 1012.77
(( Ingram, Emma 2 34 0 1012.77
(( Littlejohn, G. B. 2 37 21 1189.64
a Anthony, B. E. D. 3 26 0 833.52
“ Curry, Norena 2 23 0 782.04
(( Routen, Estelle 3/2 21 1 772.37
a

White
Lewis, Blanche 2 21 0 739.41

Cline, Fannie 2 33 1 1455.41
“ Power, Maggie 2 40 0 1536.99
“ Dill, Gertrude 1 24 2 1316.09
(( Hairston, Maude 3 22 15 1380.15
“ Jones, Nell 2 23 2 1402.89
“ Oliver, Effie 2 21 8 1276.35
<( Bruner, Nell 2 22 0 1276.35
(( Davis, Katie M. 2 23 0 1286.32t( Earl, Annie 3 22y2 9 1433.78
u McDaniel, Emma Katie 1 / 25 K 1 / 1371.60
a Middleton, Opal 2 22 3 1611.34
(( Dunnvant, Foe 2 23 0 1278.42
u Lipscomb, Vanda 3 23 0 1377.04
a Brown, Amelia 3 22 0 1288.34
a McKinney, Grace 1 / 22 0 1276.35
u Martin, Claytie 2 24 1 1316.10



L awyers P ress, I nc., 165 William St., N. Y. C .; ’Phone: BEekman 3-2300