Dillard v. Charlottesville, VA School Board Appendix for Appellees and Cross-Appellants

    APPENDIX OF APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLANTS

United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit

No. 8638

DORIS D ILL A R D , e t  a l .,
Appellants,

T H E  SCH O OL BO ARD  OF T H E  C ITY  OF 
C H A R LO TT E SV ILL E , V IR G IN IA , e t  a l .,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville

Joh n  S. B attle , Jr.
Counsel fo r  Appellees and 

Cross-A ppellants

B attle , N eal, H arris ,
M inor  & W ill ia m s  

815 Mutual Building 
Richmond, Virginia



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

I. O rder of th e  U nited  States D istrict Court for th e  
W estern D istrict of V ir g in ia  dated A ugust 15, 1960 .... 1

II. M em orandum  of th e  U nited  States D istrict Court for 
th e  W estern D istrict of V ir g in ia  dated A ugust 15,
1960 ................................................................................................. 3

III. P l a in t if f ’s E x h ib it  N o. 12, offered at  H earing  on

O ctober 23 and  24, 1961 ........................................................... 11

IV. N otice of Cross-A ppeal dated Jan u a ry  16, 1962 .............  19

V. T ranscript of H earing  of O ctober 23 an d  24, 1961 .... . 20

Booker Reaves:
Direct Examination...............................................................  20
Recross Examination.............................................   22

Paul Slayton:
Direct Examination...............................................................  23
Cross Examination ... .......   23

Alexander L. Scott:
Direct Examination............. ......................... -......................  25
Cross Examination .................................   26
Recross Examination............................................................. 28

W. I. Nickels:
Direct Examination...............................................................  29
Cross Examination ...............................................................  29

Fendall R. Ellis:
Direct Examination............................................................... 31
Cross Examination ............................................................... 36
Redirect Examination ....................~...................... ..............  52
Recross Examination.............................................................  52

Certificate 54



United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit

No. 8638

DORIS D ILL A R D , e t  a l .,
Appellants,

v.

T H E  SCH OOL BO ARD  OF T H E  C IT Y  OF 
C H A R LO TT E SV ILL E , V IR G IN IA , e t  a l .,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville

APPENDIX OF APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLANTS

I.

Order of the United States District Court for the Western 
District of Virginia dated August 15, 1960

Whereas, by an order o f this court entered on the 26th 
day of July, I960, Doris Dillard and eight other persons, all 
being Negroes o f school age living in the city of Charlottes­
ville, were upon their written motion permitted to intervene



2

as plaintiffs in this action; and on August 8, 1960, Gloria 
Hamilton, upon her oral motion, was permitted similarly to 
intervene as a party plaintiff.

And the said intervening plaintiffs, ten in number, having 
filed their Complaint in Intervention and Motion for Fur­
ther Relief, in which it was alleged that they had made 
applications for entry in the public schools o f  the city o f 
Charlottesville which have heretofore been attended either 
entirely or predominantly by white children and that their 
applications for transfer to said schools had been denied 
solely on the ground that they, the said applicants, were 
Negroes.

And the matter having come on for hearing before the 
court on the 8th day of August, 1960, and the court having 
considered the evidence introduced on behalf o f  the School 
Board o f the City o f Charlottesville and the Superintendent 
of said schools and testimony introduced on behalf o f the 
intervening plaintiffs.

Now, therefore, after due consideration by the court and 
for reasons stated in a written memorandum of the court 
this day filed as a part o f the record herein,

It is O RD ERED
that the prayer of these intervening plaintiffs that the court 
re-examine and modify the plan of desegregation o f  the 
public schools o f the city o f Charlottesville, which was 
approved by this court by an order o f March 30, 1959, be, 
and the same is hereby, denied.

And it is further O RDERED 
that the prayer of the intervening plaintiffs that the school 
authorities o f the city o f Charlottesville be required to admit 
the intervening applicants to the schools which they respec­
tively have applied to attend is likewise denied as to each of 
said intervening plaintiffs.



3

The clerk o f this court will send an attested copy o f this 
order to each of the following:

Mr. Oliver W . Hill, Attorney at Law, 118 E. Leigh St., 
Richmond 19, Va.

Mr. S. W . Tucker, Attorney at Law, 111 E. Atlantic St., 
Emporia, Va.

Mr. John S. Battle, Jr., Attorney at Law, Care Bremner, 
Neal, Harris, Williams & Battle, Mutual Building, 
Richmond, Va.

/ s /  John Paul 
District Judge.

A  Copy, teste :
Leigh B. Hanes, Jr., Clerk 
B y : Daisy H. Nalle,

Deputy Clerk

II.
Memorandum of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Virginia dated August 15,1960

The issues arising in this case at this time involve the 
applications of ten Negro children residing in the city o f 
Charlottesville who made application to the local school 
board authorities for admission to public schools, the at­
tendance at which has heretofore been entirely or predomi­
nately by white children.

These applicants, who are now intervening plaintiffs in 
this case, were some of a number of Negro children who 
made similar applications, some o f which were approved. 
These intervening plaintiffs comprise those whose applica­
tions were rejected.



4

This case has been on the docket o f this court for several 
years and, in the course of the previous proceedings therein, 
The School Board of the City of Charlottesville submitted 
to the court what was termed a plan of desegration o f the 
public schools of that city. This plan was prepared after 
somewhat prolonged conferences and discussions with coun­
sel for Negro children who were plaintiffs in the suit and 
the parents of such children and it was filed in court on the 
18th day o f February, 1959, at which time counsel for the 
then plaintiffs, who are also counsel for the intervening 
plaintiffs, indicated that they had no objections to offer to 
the plan.

This plan involved the division of the city into six sepa­
rate school districts, in each one o f which there was located 
an elementary school. A  map indicating the boundaries of 
the school districts and the location o f the schools therein 
was submitted as a part o f the plan and filed with the record 
in the case. One feature of the plan submitted was that each 
elementary school should serve the geographical district in 
which it was located. This was subject, however, to the right 
o f the superintendent of schools to assign any pupil to a 
school outside of his district o f residence if it was found 
that such an assignment would be in the best academic inter­
est of the pupil. But this was also subject to certain other 
conditions, such as limiting as far as reasonably possible 
the number of children to a classroom and the number to be 
taught by each teacher.

Further provisions o f the plan were to the effect that 
when any pupil requested a transfer to another school such 
request should be acted upon promptly and fairly by the 
Superintendent after he had taken into account such factors 
as residence, the academic qualifications of the applicant, his 
need for particular courses o f instruction and such other



5

considerations as the enrollment and physical facilities at the 
several schools and the available teaching personnel. It was 
specifically mentioned that the pupil’s academic qualifications 
might be considered, in order to determine whether any 
transfer would be detrimental to the pupil’s best interest. 
By an order of March 30, 1959, this plan was approved by 
the court, to become effective with the school term beginning 
in September, 1959, and the case was kept open on the 
docket for any further action which might be necessary upon 
the motion o f any interested party.

On July 14, 1960, a motion to intervene as plaintiffs in 
the case was made by and on behalf o f nine Negro children 
which was granted.

On the day of the hearing, August 8, 1960, one other 
applicant (Gloria Hamilton) was permitted to intervene. 
The total number o f intervenors, therefore, is ten, namely:

Carolyn M. Dodson 
Melvina Hamilton 
Gloria Hamilton 
Rebecca Ann Muse 
Roland W oodfolk 
Ronald W oodfolk 
Doris Dillard 
Vernette Dillard 
Carol Williams 
Scheryl Williams

The intervenors filed what they termed their Complaint in 
Intervention and Motion for Further Relief. These papers 
set forth that the first five of the persons named above had 
all been graduated from an elementary school and had made 
application for assignment to Lane High School for the 
1960-61 term and that each o f said applications was denied



6

by the defendants and that said plaintiffs were assigned to 
Burley High School, which is attended exclusively by Ne­
groes. Since the addition of Gloria Hamilton as a plaintiff 
these allegations apply to the first six o f the applicants listed 
above. It is further alleged that Doris Dillard and Vernette 
Dillard had applied to be transferred from Jefferson Ele­
mentary School to Venable Elementary School for the 
1960-61 term and that Carol Williams and Scheryl W il­
liams had applied to be transferred from Jefferson Elemen­
tary School to Johnson Elementary School for the 1960-61 
term.

It is alleged that all of these applications had been denied 
and that such denial was based solely upon the race and color 
o f the applicants. The prayer of the motion for further relief 
is (1 ) that the court re-examine the school desegregation 
plan o f the city, heretofore approved in March, 1959; (2 ) 
that the defendants be required to make such adjustments in 
said plan and in its application as will effect the total deseg­
regation of the public schools of the city of Charlottesville 
without unjustified delay; (3 ) that the court require the 
defendants to act upon the above-mentioned applications 
for assignment and enrollment in the same manner as appli­
cations of white persons similarly situated would be and to 
require the defendants to admit the applicants to the schools 
which they respectively have applied to attend.

It will be noted that what these applicants now seek goes 
beyond the plan of desegregation as approved by the order 
of March 30, 1959. In reality it is asked that the local school 
authorities o f  Charlottesville be directed to discard the plan 
o f desegregation heretofore approved and embark on a new 
plan, the details o f which are not indicated, but which is 
quite evidently of a much broader scope.

The court is o f opinion that it is not justified in directing



7

the school board to abandon or alter the plan of desegrega­
tion heretofore approved by the court without objection by 
counsel for the plaintiffs. It is the opinion o f  the court, as 
far as can be determined, that the present plan of desegrega­
tion in Charlottesville has worked well and with a minimum 
of friction when one considers the nature o f the subject 
matter involved. It is alleged by these applicants that all o f 
their applications for enrollment at Lane High School and 
enrollment in Venable and Johnson elementary schools were 
denied solely on the basis o f race and color. The evidence 
introduced before the court does not sustain this charge. It 
appears that there were eleven Negro pupils who graduated 
from elementary schools in 1960 and have applied for en­
trance to Lane High School, generally referred to as the 
white high school, in the session of 1960-61. O f these six 
applications have been approved by the city school board. 
There were eight Negro children who applied for transfers 
to Venable Elementary School and of these five have been 
approved by the city school board. It hardly seems reason­
able to surmise that the other applications were denied be­
cause of the race o f the applicants.

The Superintendent of Schools o f the City o f  Charlottes­
ville has testified as to the reasons for the rejection o f the 
applications of the several intervening plaintiffs here. Four 
of the applicants were rejected because the applicants did 
not live within the area of residence o f the school which he 
or she sought to attend. Doris Dillard and Vernette Dillard, 
who made application to transfer to Venable school, live in 
the Jefferson school district. Carol Williams and Scheryl 
Williams, who made application to attend Johnson school, 
live in Jefferson district and their residence is located ap­
proximately twice as far from Johnson school as from 
Jefferson school. It might be added at this point that the



8

application o f these two Williams children was previously 
considered by the court and denied in September 1958, for 
the same reason which the school board has now denied this 
second application, namely, because the applicants live in 
Jefferson district and that their nearest school is the Jeffer­
son school.

The two W oodfolk children were assigned by the court in 
1958 to the Venable Elementary School (a white school) 
and have now graduated from that school and have applied 
to enter Lane High School. Their applications wrere rejected 
and they were assigned to Burley High School (the Negro 
high school) because their residence is much closer to Burley 
than to Lane. As to these two children, the action o f  the 
school board seems quite conssitent, inasmuch as they were 
assigned to Venable Elementary School because they lived 
closest to that school and after graduation from Venable 
and being ready to enter high school they were assigned to 
the high school closest to their place of residence.

The other four applicants, all o f whom desired to enter 
Lane High School, were rejected because o f very low aca­
demic standing which caused the school board to believe that 
they would have difficulty in keeping up with the classes in 
Lane High School, particularly when thrown into the new 
environment of association with white children. In addition 
to the low academic standing o f these applicants there were 
in each case certain other personal characteristics and mat­
ters o f record o f their school attendance and behavior which 
caused the school board to believe that it would be for the 
best interests o f these children that they should go to Burley 
High School and remain in association with pupils o f their 
own race rather than to be thrown into the new and possibly 
unfriendly atmosphere of Lane High School, the attendance 
at which is overwhelmingly of white children.



9

The rejection of the six applications on the ground of 
residence seems entirely proper, for this was one of the 
grounds o f  selection specifically set forth in the plan of 
desegregation and approved by the court. It is certainly a 
justifiable and, in the opinion of the court, a necessary 
ground for the determination of school attendance. If 
schools did not serve particular areas it would be left free 
to children to seek whatever school in whatever part o f the 
city they might wish to go, with the result that some schools 
would be overwhelmingly crowded and others well-nigh 
deserted. The attractiveness o f the school playground, the 
popularity o f  the teachers and various other factors of that 
sort would determine what schools were largely attended and 
which were not.

As to the other four applications which were denied be­
cause of academic deficiencies and personal characteristics 
a somewhat more difficult question is raised. This court has 
always looked with a questioning eye upon such tests as a 
basis for school assignment, due to the fact that they furnish 
a ready means o f abuse and discrimination by school authori­
ties who might be inclined to use them as an excuse when­
ever they did not desire to assign a Negro to a previously 
white school. However, the plan of desegregation previously 
adopted recognizes these as legitimate factors to be con­
sidered in the assignment o f pupils to schools to which they 
seek transfer. The fact that the plant o f desegregation recog­
nizes these as proper factors does not, o f course, mean that 
the court is bound to approve any assignment made by a 
school board on the alleged basis o f these factors. However, 
in the instant case the court is convinced that the School 
Board o f the City of Charlottesville has acted in good faith 
and with a genuine belief that the assignment o f these four 
pupils to the previously white school would be detrimental to



10

their interests and would probably cause them unhappiness 
and retard their educational advancement. Therefore, the 
court accepts the action o f the school board concerning them.

The court desires to say also that, so far as he has been 
able to ascertain from the evidence before him and the rec­
ords o f the school authorities, the School Board o f Char­
lottesville has undertaken in good faith and fairness to carry 
out the plan o f desegregation previously approved by the 
court. It has considered and dealt fairly with the applications 
o f Negroes who sought entrance to previously white schools 
and in the majority of cases has approved them. Where they 
have been disapproved the reasons for disapproval are based 
on something other than the race and color o f the applicants. 
It is true, o f course, that the number o f Negro children who 
have been allowed to enter previously white schools consti­
tutes a very small proportion of the Negro school children 
in the city, but it is to be remembered that the great majority 
o f the Negro children in Charlottesville have not made appli­
cation to transfer or to enroll in a previously white school. 
When compared with the number who have so applied it is 
found that the number whose applications have been ap­
proved is so substantial as to indicate that the board is 
considering such applications free o f any prejudice because 
o f race or color.

It is true also that the school board has not undertaken 
to enter upon what may be a total desegregation o f the 
schools o f the city or to enlarge or alter the plan of desegre­
gation entered into in March, 1959. But their present action 
is, in my opinion, in accord with the decisions of the Su­
preme Court o f the United States on this whole question of 
desegregation o f schools and no just complaint can be made 
that they are violative of the law as laid down by the Su­
preme Court.



11

In summary, it is the opinion of the court that the school 
authorities o f the city of Charlottesville are at the present 
time in good faith following the plan of desegregation which 
was previously approved by this court and are evidencing 
an intention o f complying with the law as established by the 
decisions of the courts touching this matter o f the desegre­
gation of the public schools. It is hoped that this course will 
continue. But if at any time in the future it should appear 
that there is a deviation from this course and discrimination 
on the ground of race or color is being practiced in the 
assignment o f pupils to the schools, remedy therefor may 
be sought in this court and this case will be continued on the 
docket for that purpose. However, these applicants now 
before the court have shown no such discrimination and 
their prayer that the school board be required to admit 
them to the schools to which they have applied to attend will 
be denied in each case.

August 15, 1960
District Judge.

III.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 12, offered at Hearing on 
October 23 and 24,1961

Charlottesville Public Schools 
Charlottesville, Virginia 

Material for Use on October 23-24, 1961 
in Charlottesville, Virginia

Former Plaintiffs

I. Carolyn Marie Dobson—-Applicant for Lane, 8th 
grade, last year and denied transfer by Judge Paul. 
Now is applicant for transfer to 9th grade at Lane.



12

1. Iowa Silent Reading Test administered April 1960:
Percentile Rank

Pupil’s Median Score Median Score 
Score Jefferson White Schools

7 17 62

Only 2 children in class of 197 in 8th grade at Lane 
last session made as low a score on this test as appli­
cant. Out o f 365 seventh grade white children, only 
6 made as low a score on this test as the applicant.

2. Teachers’ comment from cumulative record:
“ does not accept corrections well” , “ makes many care­
less errors” , “ does not get along well with others” , 
“ inclined to be fussy and bossy” , “ spends too much 
time talking and wasting time” , “will not work unless 
pushed” .

3. Has I.Q. of 79 according to California Test o f Men­
tal Maturity given on September 28, 1959.

II. Melvina Hamilton— Applicant for Lane, 8th grade, 
last year and denied transfer by Judge Paul. Now is 
applicant for transfer to 9th grade at Lane.

1. Iowa Silent Reading Test administered April 1960:
Percentile Rank

Pupil’s Median Score Median Score
Score Jefferson White Schools

5 17 62

Only 2 children in class of 197 in 8th grade at Lane 
last session made as low a score on this test as appli­
cant.

Only 2 out o f 365 white children in the seventh grade 
made as low a score on this test as applicant.



13

2. Has I.Q. o f 68 according to California Test o f Men­
tal Maturity given on September 28, 1959.

3. Teachers’ comments from cumulative record:
“ very talkative” , “ rather excitable” , “ rather nervous 
at times” .

III. Gloria Hamilton— Applicant for Lane, 8th grade, last 
year and denied assignment by Judge Paul. Now ap­
plicant for Lane, 9th grade.

1. Iowa Silent Reading Test administered April 1960:
Percentile Rank

Pupil’s Median Score Median Score 
Score Jefferson White Schools

1 17 62

No child in class of 197 in 8th grade at Lane High 
School last session (1959-60) made as low a score on 
this test as applicant.
No child o f 365 white children in the 7th grade in the 
school system last session (1959-60) made as low a 
score on this test as applicant. This means that in the 
8th grade at Lane next session (1960-61) this child, 
if placed in Lane, would rank below all other children 
in the 8th grade, according to her score on this test.

2. Child has I.Q. o f 72 according to California Test of 
Mental Maturity given on September 28, 1959.

3. Teachers’ comments from cumulative record:
“ requires constant supervision” , “does not do good 
work” , “ meddlesome-fussy” , “ very, very slow think­
er” , “ does not get along well with the group” .

IV. Rebecca A,. Muse— Applicant for Lane, 8th grade last



14

year and denied transfer by Judge Paul. Now is appli­
cant for transfer to 9th grade at Lane.

1. Iowa Silent Reading Test administered April 1960:

Only 4 children in class o f 197 in 8th grade at Lane 
last session made as low a score on this test as appli­
cant.

2. Has I.Q. o f 85 according to California Test o f Men­
tal Maturity given on September 28, 1959.

Only 28 out of 365 white children in the 7th grade 
made as low a score on this test as applicant.

3. Teachers’ comments from cumulative record:
“ child is considerably over-weight” , “ does not get 
along well with other children” .

4. Reasons given in Judge’s Chambers last year. (A u ­
gu st^  1960).

V. Ronald E. Woodfolk— Applicant for Lane, 8th grade, 
last year and denied transfer by Judge Paul. Now is 
applicant for transfer to 9th grade at Lane.

1. Pupil lives closer to Burley than to Lane.

2. Judge Paul ordered transfer to Venable instead of 
Jefferson in 1959 because he lived closer to Venable.

VI. Roland T. Woodfolk— Applicant for Lane, 8th grade, 
last year and denied transfer by Judge Paul. Now is 
applicant for transfer to 9th grade at Lane.

Percentile Rank
Pupil’s
Score

Median Score 
White Schools

17 62



IS

1. Pupil lives closer to Burley than to Lane.

2. Judge Paul ordered transfer to Venable instead o f 
Jefferson in 1959 because he lived closer to Venable.

VII. Doris Dillard— Applicant for Venable, 6th grade, last 
year and denied transfer by Judge Paul. Now appli­
cant for 7th grade at Venable.

1. Child lives in Jefferson District.

2. Child’s score on SR A  Achievement Test administered 
in April 1960 was 5.6 compared to median score o f 
7.9 in school applied for, making child two' years, 
three months below the median score in school ap­
plied for.

3. Teachers’ comments on cumulative record:
“ lacks self control” , “ does not make best use o f time” , 
“ too talkative” , “ wastes time” .

V III. Vernette Dillard— Applicant for Venable, 3rd grade, 
last year and denied transfer by Judge Paul. Now 
applicant for fourth grade at Venable.

1. Child lives in Jefferson District.

IX . Karol L. Williams— Applicant last year for Johnson, 
5th grade, and denied transfer by Judge Paul. Now 
applicant for 6th grade at Johnson.

1. Lives in Jefferson District.
.8 miles from Jefferson School

1.5 miles from Johnson School
1.5 miles from Venable School

2. Denied assignment to Johnson School by Judge Paul 
on September 9, 1958 and on August 8, 1960. Resi­
dence has not changed.



16

X. Scheryl Williams— Applicant last year for Johnson, 
3rd grade, and denied transfer by Judge Paul. Now 
applicant for 4th grade at Johnson.

1. Lives in Jefferson District.
.8 miles from Jefferson School

1.5 miles from Johnson School
1.5 miles from Venable School

2. Denied assignment to Johnson School by Judge Paul 
on September 9, 1958 and August 8, 1960. Residence 
has not changed.

N ew  Plaintiffs

I. Ruby Yvonne Dickerson— Applicant for Lane, 8th 
grade.

1. According to California Test o f Mental Ability, this 
child earned an I.Q. o f 71.

2. Made Percentile score in March 1961 of 4 on Iowa 
Silent Reading Test, which means that on an average 
96 children out of 100 make a higher score on this 
test and only 3 in 100 make a lower score. Average 
percentile score on same test o f entering Lane 8th 
graders is 60. This child could not do successful work 
in this 8th grade group.

II. Betty Ann Swift (H arris)— Applicant for Lane, 8th 
grade.

1. Has I.Q. scores of 79 (1956), 79 (1958), 79 (1959), 
and 90 (1960).

2. Child has made rather erratic scores on standardized 
achievement tests, ranking below average on four 
tests and above average on one test.



17

3. Teachers’ comments: “ Betty entered late and has not 
been able to adjust herself with her group. She is slow 
in her work.” — 5th grade. “ Betty is slow in her work. 
She is also hard to get along with.”— 6th grade. 
“ Betty has made satisfactory progress in her school 
work.” — 7th grade.

4. This child has a moderate speech defect. She received 
11 hours of speech therapy from March 4 to May 29, 
1959 by a therapist from the Department o f Speech 
at the University o f Virginia. Therapist ended her 
report as follows: “ Betty should be handled with 
especial care to keep her from becoming overly aware 
o f her speech” .

III. Althea Blakey— Applicant for Venable, 5th grade 
(819 Henry Avenue)

1. Lives in Jefferson District.

IV. Sylvia Blakey— Applicant for Venable, 3rd grade 
(819 Henry Avenue)

1. Lives in Jefferson District.

V. Phyllis Elaine Blakey— Applicant for Venable, 4th 
grade (819 Henry Avenue)

1. Lives in Jefferson District.

VI. Phyllis Chapman— Applicant for Venable, 6th grade 
(810 Concord Avenue)

1. Lives in Jefferson District.

VII. Eric Chapman— Applicant for Venable, 6th grade 
(810 Concord Avenue)



18

1, Lives in Jefferson District.

V III. Cynthia Daniels— Applicant for Venable, 5th grade 
(353 Tenth Street, N .W .)

1. Lives in Jefferson District.

IX . Earl Murray— Applicant for Venable, 5th grade 
(332 I0y2 Street)

1. Lives in Jefferson District.

X . Grace Murray— Applicant for Venable, 2nd grade 
(332 10y2 Street)

1. Lives in Jefferson District.

XI. Gloria Murray— Applicant for Venable, 3rd grade 
(332 \0y> Street)

1. Lives in Jefferson District.

X II. Theresa Murray— Applicant for Venable, 3rd grade 
(332 \0y> Street)

1. Lives in Jefferson District.

X III. Alegra McCullough— Applicant for Venable 5th 
grade (718 Cynthiana Avenue)

1. Lives in Jefferson District.

X IV . Arnita C. Szvift— Applicant for Venable, 6th grade 
(409 Ridge Street)

1. Lives in Jefferson District.

X V . Ellis A . Swift— Applicant for Venable, 5th grade 
(409 Ridge Street)

1. Lives in Jefferson District.



19

IV .

Notice of Cross-Appeal dated January 16, 1962

Notice is hereby given that the above named defendants 
hereby cross-appeal to the United States Court o f Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit from certain parts o f the Order 
entered in this cause on December 18, 1961, such parts being 
the second and third unnumbered paragraphs of that Order, 
and all parts thereof that relate to plaintiffs and intervenors 
who in this cause seek admission to Lane High School in 
the City o f Charlottesville, Virginia, and all parts thereof 
that affect or relate to the acts o f the defendants in making 
assignments to public high schools in the City of Charlottes­
ville, Virginia.

Dated January 16, 1962.

Battle, Neal, Harris,
Minor & Williams 

815 Mutual Building 
Richmond, Virginia

By / s /  John S .Battle, Jr.
John S. Battle, Jr., attorney 

for Cross-Appellants

Certificate

I, John S. Battle, Jr., attorney for Cross-Appellants here­
by certify that I have this 16th day o f January, 1962, served 
a true copy o f the foregoing Notice o f Cross-Appeal upon 
plaintiffs by mailing a copy thereof to S. W . Tucker, 
Esquire, Southern Aid Building, 214 E. Clay Street, Rich­
mond, Virginia, and to Otto L. Tucker, Esquire, 901 
Princess Street, Alexandria, Virginia, attorneys o f record 
for plaintiffs.

/ s /  John S. Battle, Jr.



20

V .

Transcript of Hearing of October 23 and 24,1961

DIRECT EXAMINATION
[tr . p . 3]
By M r. S. W . T ucker  :

Q W ill you please state your name and address ?
A  M y name is Booker Reaves. I live at 755 Ridge 

Street, Charlottesville.

Q What is your occupation?
A  I am principal o f Jefferson School.

Q How long have you been principal of Jefferson 
School ?

A  Since 1951.
jjc ^ Jjf

[tr . p . 22]
Q Now when did you begin giving standardized tests at 

Jefferson, if you can recall?
A  To my knowledge that has always been a procedure in 

certain grades. Back in 1951 when I became Principal I 
know the tests were given.

Q Well, was the giving o f tests accelerated or ac­
centuated in or around 1959?

A  I believe bef ore that time, there was—

Q How long before that time ?
A  Maybe 1955 or 1956.

Q Now, at your school when those tests are given, by 
whom are they given ?

A  They are given by classroom teachers.



21

Q Is there anybody to supervise the giving of the tests 
by the teachers ?

A  No, the classroom teachers administer the tests and 
sometimes a Supervisor may be in the building at the time 
o f testing but not as a part o f the testing program.

[ t r . p p . 26-27]
Q Now, Mr. Reaves, don’t you stay in pretty close touch 

with your students and their parents and the parents’ 
group at your school, Parent-Teachers Association, and so 
forth ?

A  I try to, sir.

Q There is a Parent-Teachers Association there, isn’t 
it?

A  Yes.

Q And you are in contact with that group ?
A  Yes.

Q How many students are enrolled in your school at 
this time?

A  892.

Q And the capacity is 990, isn’t it ?
A  Yes.

Q Do you know o f any child who is now assigned to 
your school who would prefer to go to some other school, 
other than the children who are Plaintiffs in this case?

A  No.

Q So as far as you know, all the other children are 
voluntarily and happily attending your school?

A  As far as I know, sir.



22

Q And you have heard nothing to the contrary from 
them or the P. T. A. or their parents?

A  No.
*  *  *

RECROSS EXAMINATION
[tr . pp . 34-35]
B y  M r. B attle  :

Q One further question, Mr. Reaves. On your question 
o f your capacity, it’s true isn’t it that your school meets all 
of the requirements o f  the State Board of Education as far 
as enrollment is concerned— classroom enrollment?

A  Yes.
Q And as I look at the answer to one o f these in­

terrogatories, it seems that your classroom burden runs 
anywhere from twenty-two to thirty pupils per room?

A  Yes.
Q Now, there’s one thing about these tests that Mr. 

Tucker asked you about. You haven’t changed the test pro­
cedure in any way since we have been involved in these 
cases, have you— at your school ?

A  I don’t think there’s been a change since 1956 as I 
mentioned before.

Q And I think the first mention o f tests in this case was 
in 1959. You are satisfied that your present program was 
in efifect prior to 1959, are you not ?

A  I believe so.
Q And these tests are used for— with regard to factors 

other than this question o f integration or segregation, aren’t 
they ?

A  In our school, yes.



23

Q You are not mindful o f any racial question being 
involved in your test procedures, are you ?

A  No.
* * *

[ tr . p . 45]
Paul Slayton, a witness called by and on behalf o f the 

Plaintiffs, being first duly sworn, was examined and testi­
fied as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

B y M r . T u c k e r :
Q What is your name and residence, please, sir?
A  Paul Slayton, 1616 Rose Hill Drive, Charlottesville.

Q Slayter?
A  Slayton— S-l-a-y-t-o-n.

Q Slayton ?
A  Yes, sir. 1616 Rose Hill Drive, Charlottesville.

Q Your occupation, sir ?
A  I ’m Principal of the Venable School.

Q How long have you been Principal of Venable?
A  Since July of this year.

*  *  *

CROSS EXAMINATION
[tr . pp . 47-48]
B y M r . B attle  :

Q Mr. Slayton?
A  Yes, sir.

Q Mr. Ellis’ office is on the property o f the property 
o f the Venable School ?

A  Yes, sir.



24

Q Isn’t it?
A  That’s true.

Q It’s just a step from the door o f your office, is it not?
A  It is.

Q Now, you know that you have certain Negro chil­
dren in attendance in your school ?

A  Yes, sir.

Q I believe there are twenty, aren’t there ?
A  I believe that’s the correct number.

Q And as far as the ones who were there last year are 
concerned, they were automatically re-enrolled, weren’t 
they?

A  Yes, sir. They were automatically re-enrolled.

Q And you understand from the advice o f  Mr. Ellis that 
it is his responsibility to see to it that no Negro is discrimi­
nated against ?

A  Yes, sir.

Q Don’t you understand that to be a fact ?
A  Yes, sir, Ido.

Q And isn’t it true that you call him because you under­
stand it is his responsibility to do this rather than yours?

*  *  *

[ t r . p . 49]
Q Mr. Slayton, to rephrase the question, you under­

stand that this case and the orders o f this Court impose on 
the Superintendent, and not on you, the responsibility of 
not discriminating against Negro children in the Charlottes­
ville school system ?

A  Yes, sir.
sjc 5}c



25

[tr . pp . 49-50]
Q Mr. Slayton, isn’t it also true that no white child in 

some other elementary school district is permitted to attend 
Venable?

A  That is true.

Q Only white children who live in Venable ?
A  Yes, sir.

Q I f  a white child in Clark, for instance, wanted to go 
to Venable, he would not be permitted to go, that’s true, 
isn’t it ?

A  I would refer the matter to the Superintendent. I 
could take no action on it.

* * *
[tr . pp . 50-51]

Alexander L. Scott, a witness called by the Plaintiffs, 
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as fol­
lows :

DIRECT EXAMINATION

B y  th e  Co u r t :

Q W hat’s this witness’ name ?

B y  M r. T u c k e r :
Q Would you state your name and address, sir?
A  Alexander L. Scott, 637 Ridge Street, Charlottes­

ville.

Q Your occupation?
A  Principal of Burley High School.

Q How long have you been Principal o f Burley ?
A  Tw o years.



26

Q Before then did you teach at Burley ?
A  I did not.

Jjc

CROSS EXAMINATION
[ tr . pp . 65-68]
B y  M r . B attle  :

Q Mr. Scott, it’s true that this school building and its 
property are located in the city limits o f Charlottesville?

A  Yes.

Q It’s therefore easily accessible to any resident of the 
City o f Charlottesville ?

A  Yes.

Q Is it not also true that because of joint city and county 
participation we were able to build a very large and modern 
high school?

A  Yes.

Q The total cost was about a million dollars, wasn’t it ?
A  I think it was— I think that’s around the cost.

Q And the present annual expense is a couple hundred 
thousand dollars, isn’t it ?

A  Easily $200,000.

Q That’s annual cost o f operation ?
A  That’s correct.

Q What degrees do you have, Mr. Scott?
A  I have a Bachelor of Science degree from Hampton 

Institute, Master o f Science degree in Education from Cor­
nell University.

Q You have a Master’s degree from Cornell?



27

A  That’s correct.

Q All o f your teachers at Burley High School have 
degrees ?

A  All except one in a special area and, I believe, I forgot 
to name that area in vocation, that’s in the nursing area, in 
the practical nursing field, and I believe she has a degree. I 
am thinking about certification, not from— she has a degree. 
It’s an R. N. As to a certificate, it would have to be a special 
certificate.

Q And a great many o f  your teachers have Master’s 
degrees, don’t they?

A  Six or seven, yes.

Q Now, you didn’t remember to mention this nursing 
program in the vocational program—-

A  I did not—■

Q That’s a significant part o f it ?
A  That’s right.

Q And isn’t it true that that also leads to desirable jobs 
at the University Hospital?

A  That’s quite true.

Q In the nursing field ?
A  That’s quite true. W e can— we have had no difficulty 

placing every good person that we can graduate immedi­
ately at salaries close to around $200 a month after one year 
of training— twelve to eighteen months o f training.

Q There’s a constant need for your graduates in that 
field?

A  That’s correct.

Q Now this vocational program that you describe, isn’t



28

it broader and more extensive than the vocational program 
at Lane High School, for instance?

M r. T u c k e r : I don’t know that the witness has shown 
he is familiar with the vocational program at Lane.

M r. Ba t t l e : Well, if he’s not, he can say he is not.
A  I ’m not familiar enough with that to answer.

Q Are you familiar with vocational programs at other 
high schools ?

A  Yes.

Q Does this compare favorably or better than those?
A  Much better than the average high school, I think, 

with the same population.
* * *

[tr . p . 70]
Q Other than the various Plaintiffs in this case, involv­

ing high schools, there are no people that you know o f in 
attendance at your school that aren’t going there voluntarily 
and under their own free will, are there?

A  So far as I know they all go there voluntarily and 
under their own free will.

Q And as far as you know that’s their preference so 
far as school choice is concerned?

A  So far as I know, that’s their preference. I haven’t 
heard them express preferences other than that.

M r . B attle  : I think that’s all.
Jjc

RECROSS EXAMINATION
[tr . p . 78]

Q Can you think of any student now enrolled in your



29

school who suffers adversely because he is not enrolled in 
Lane High School ?

A  I cannot. I haven’t heard any o f them express the 
opinion. And we do have a good program of instruction and 
we have good instructors.

*  *  *

[tr . p , 82]
W . I. Nickels, a witness called by and on behalf o f the 

Plaintiffs, being first duly sworn, was examined and testi­
fied as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
B y  M r. T u c k e r :

Q State your name and residence.
A  W . I. Nickels, 1605 Greenleaf Lane.

Q Your occupation, sir?
A  Principal o f Lane High School.

Q How long have you been Principal o f Lane?
A  Since 1939.

j}c
CROSS EXAMINATION

[tr . pp . 92-93]
B y  M r . B attle  :

Q Mr. Scott testified that in his vocational program at 
Burley High School he offered a course in agriculture. Is 
that course offered at Lane ?

A  No, it is not.

Q He stated that he offered a course in carpentry and 
bricklaying which would qualify graduates, I think, as jour­
neymen. Is that offered at Lane ?

A  It is not.



30

Q And you don’t offer at Lane a nursing aid course 
do you ?

A  That’s right. W e offer it in connection with Albe­
marle County.

Q They have to go to Albemarle County to take that?
A  That’s right.

Q Now you say your present school population is 1035 ?
A  That’s right.

Q Now the school capacity is what? Rated school ca­
pacity by the State Board ?

A  Well I ’d say according to the formula that they use 
o f about twenty-five pupils to each classroom, it would be 
rated at 1000. I think that’s a little high Mr. Battle, because 
last year with 925 we were just comfortably situated. This 
year we are overcrowded.

Q Well, even using a State formula, you are over ca­
pacity ?

A  That’s right.

Q And using what you think is a proper or a more 
comfortable formula, you would still be more overcrowded ?

A  I would say 925 would be a comfortable situation.

Q And you have 1035 ?
A  That’s right.

* * *
[tr . pp . 94-95 ]

Q Now, have you made any studies o f the additional 
enrollment that you would expect to come about from the 
recent annexation ?

A  No I haven’t, Mr. Battle. I did get a— some figures



31

from the McIntyre School about the number o f  graduates 
that they had last year and the ones they expected to have 
this year—

Q Well you, excuse me, go ahead.
A  It looks to me like it is going to be an enrollment in­

crease o f around 200 at least, I mean just from the outside.

Q So if no other provisions are made, you would be 
tremendously overcrowded at that stage ?

A  Yes, indeed.
jjj sfC %

[ t r . p p . 95A-96]
Fendatt R. Ellis, an adverse witness called by the Plain­

tiffs, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as 
follows:

D IR E C T  E X A M IN A T IO N

B y  M r . T u c k e r :
Q Would you state your name, residence, and position, 

please?
A  Fendall R. Ellis, Superintendent of Schools, Char­

lottesville.
Q How long have you been Superintendent, M r. Ellis ? 
A  Since July 1st, 1953.

* * *
[ t r . p p . 97-102]

Q Now, you have testified— excuse me, I understand 
that some Negro children were for this year initially as­
signed to Lane High School. Is that correct?

A  Yes.
Q Will you give me their names, or give me the number 

of them ?



32

A  The children assigned to Lane High School on June 
10, 1961, were French Jackson, tenth grade; Donald Martin, 
tenth grade; Valencia Conrad, ninth grade;—

Q What was that first name ?
A  Valencia, V-a-l-e-n-c-i-a.

Q What grade was that ?
A  Ninth.

Q Ninth.
A  Adolphus Page, ninth grade; Garwin DeBerry, ninth 

grade; Diane Gardner, ninth grade; Marilyn Taylor, ninth 
grade; and those children attended Lane High School last 
year and were automatically reassigned to Lane.

Q My question was addressed to those who were ini­
tially assigned—

A  Those initially assigned this year are as follows: Ran­
dolph Catlett, eighth grade; Ferris Harris, eighth grade; 
Vernetta Lewis, eighth grade; Kenneth Martin, eighth 
grade; June Evelyn Payne, eighth grade; Paul Scott, eighth 
grade.

Q The six children last named beginning with Randolph 
Catlett represent those who were initially assigned during 
the current school term ?

A  They were assigned at the end of the past school 
term. Their report cards carried this assignment when they 
received them on the last day o f school. The report cards 
also indicated that anyone dissatisfied with his school as­
signment, might apply for a transfer within ten days. Cer­
tain Negro children’s parents applied for such transfer, and 
three were approved on June 20th, namely Robert Harris, 
eighth grade; Roberta Harris, eighth grade; and Brenda 
Payne, eighth grade.



33

B y  t h e  Co u r t :
Q Were those among the six that were initially as­

signed ?
A  No. They were three additional ones.

Q Then you mean that nine were originally assigned 
to Lane High School and three of them requested transfers 
to Burley ?

A  No. On the report cards at the end o f the year we 
placed the school assignment for the ensuing year. And so 
on June 10th when the children received their report cards, 
June 10th, 1961, the last day o f school, the six children 
whose names I read were assigned on their report cards to 
Lane High School.

Q Now what about those three you said requested a 
transfer ?

A  The parents o f the three, these three, were assigned 
to Burley on their report cards on the last day o f school.

Q Oh, I see. And they requested a transfer to Lane?
A  Yes, and these three were granted transfers.

Q Well then, making nine in all who attended Lane for 
the first time this year— last year ?

A  Yes.

Q All right, sir.

M r. T ucker  (continuing)
Q And to clear the record, it is a fact that Carolyn Dod­

son, Melvina P. Hamilton, Gloria D. Hamilton, Rebecca 
Anne W ood, Roland E. W oodfolk, Ronald T. Woodfolk, 
Ruby Yvonne Dickerson, Becky A . Harris, and George W . 
King, III, made— on their behalf their parents made appli­
cation for their attendance at Lane High School this year ?



34

A  Yes.
Q And those applications were denied and then those 

children are required to attend Burley High School ?
A  Yes.
Q It is a fact that those children whose names I called 

are Negro children ?
A  Those children are Negro children.

Q Residing in the City o f Charlottesville ?
A  Yes.
Q And they have all graduated from elementary school 

in the City o f Charlottesville ?
A  Yes.
Q Now can you tell us how and by whom the selection 

o f these first six children whom you indicated were assigned 
to Lane High School as o f June 10—Will you tell us how 
and by whom and on what basis those selections were made ?

A  I had some reason to believe that those children’s par­
ents would like them to be assigned to Lane.

Q Had the parents so indicated to you, Mr.—
A  The parents had not so indicated to me personally.

Q Then—
A  But I am aware of the children who are enrolled in 

the schools. I am in contact with those persons who teach them 
and I have some avenues of information which enable me to 
determine in a very rough way, at least, the probable desires 
o f parents in regard to school assignment. Now it was my 
feeling that these parents, on the basis o f the information 
I had, would be interested in having their children assigned 
to Lane. I talked with those parents and to determine wheth­



35

er or not my information was correct, and they stated that 
they wished their children to be assigned to Lane. I so 
assigned them. I also thought that there were certain other 
parents who wanted their children to be assigned to Lane. I 
talked with them and in some cases they stated they did not 
want them assigned to Lane and so I assigned them to Bur­
ley. So in the initial assignments I studied the children who 
were finishing the seventh grade at Jefferson, and to the best 
of my ability attempted to determine the children whose par­
ents— who had parents who wanted them to go to Lane. And 
then I discussed it with those parents and those parents who 
wanted them to go to Lane, in such cases I assigned the chil­
dren to Lane, and in those cases where the children— the 
parents wanted the children assigned to Burley, I assigned 
them to Burley. So that was the initial step. Then we had ten 
days in which appeals could be presented and the appeals 
were presented or change— or application for change of 
school assignment, and when they were presented I studied 
the records of these children requesting transfer and at­
tempted in accordance with my judgment to assign the chil­
dren where I thought they would be best off academically 
and educationally.

* * *

[ t r . p p . 117-118]
By  th e  Co u r t :

Q Is the work required o f them at Lane more exacting 
than it would be required o f  them at Burley High School ?

A  Well I think Lane is a more academically oriented 
school and is less equipped to take care of children who aren’t 
academically inclined. Now, o f  course, at Burley we have a 
situation in which, as Mr. Scott testified, we have grouping 
and we have academically talented children there. But we do 
have a wider range of offering, I feel, and I think we have



36

appropriate experiences for some children at Burley which 
do not exist at Lane, particularly among those of very low 
academic ability.

Q I heard Mr. Scott’s testimony about the curriculum at 
Burley School this morning. I thought it was up to pretty 
high standards, and I was just wondering if Lane was below 
the standards— so much below the standards of Lane that it 
took an exceptional student to get to Lane, that’s the reason.

A  Well, I mean, I make no odious comparisons beween 
the two schools and I think that they both serve their pur­
poses. I believe in this particular community as a result of 
long and varied development, I think Lane is pointed more 
in one direction, namely toward academic preparation, and 
I think that Burley is pointed more in the— whereas it has 
academic preparation, it also has more vocational work and 
subjects which children can take with profit if they are not 
particularly gifted academically.

* * *
CROSS E X A M IN A T IO N

[ t r . p p . 159-166]
B y  M r. Ba t t l e :

Q Mr. Ellis, let me ask you a few things. Let’s assume 
a white child moved into the City of Charlottesville, or let’s 
assume a white child whose lived here for some time made 
aplication to attend Burley. Could he do that?

A  Could he make the application ?

Q Yes.
A  Yes.
Q And would you apply in his case the same criteria that 

you are attempting to apply now ?
A  Yes.



37

Q Now, assuming that a Negro child lived next door 
to Burley High School, so it takes him less than a minute to 
walk to the property, would you apply a geographical factor 
in his case if he wanted to go to Lane?

A  I don’t think that would be the only factor. I think 
that proximity would be a factor, but I don’t know that it 
would be— I don’t know what other factors would be in the 
case.

Q Yes, sir, but you would consider that as an appropri­
ate factor ?

A  I think so.

Q The question of convenience ?
A  I think the plan incorporates that as a fact in itself 

— factor.

Q Do you understand that the great majority o f Negro 
students of high school age prefer to go to Burley?

A  Well, I would think they do since most o f them are 
there, and we have not had indications from them that they 
wished to be elsewhere.

Q They know how to make their indications if they want 
to be elsewhere, don’t they ?

A  Yes—

Q As far as you know.
A  I would certainly think so.

Q Now, suppose in the elementary school system, a child 
living in Venable zone wanted to go to Johnson School, 
would he be permitted to transfer across the school lines, if 
he’s a white child ?

A  Not unless we had some substantial reason for doing 
it. I don’t think of a reason now—



38

B y th e  Court :
Q You would enforce the geographical factor there?
A  Yes.

M r. B attle  (continuing)
Q And you would enforce it as to all o f the so-called 

white zones as to white children, wouldn’t you ?
A  Yes.
Q If a child lived in Johnson zone and wanted to go to 

McGuffey, you would enforce it, wouldn’t you?
A  Yes.
Q Now, if a white child living in Jefferson zone should 

decide to attend Jefferson School, would he be permitted to 
do it, if that was his desire?

A  I think so.
Q And would that be true of various white children if 

there should be any ?
A  Yes.
Q Now, as to the Negro children who live in the Venable 

zone and other ones of the so-called white zones, isn’t it true 
that following the opinion of the Court o f Appeals—

M r. T u c k e r : I f  Your Honor please, there’s no question 
about Mr. Ellis being Mr. Battle’s client and Mr. Battle is 
definitely about to lead him into something.

M r. B attle  : He’s not called Mr. Ellis as an adverse wit­
ness, Your Honor. He’s called Mr. Ellis to the stand as his 
witness.

T h e  Court : Go ahead.

M r. Ba t t l e : (continuing)
Q Mr. Ellis, I want you to describe to Judge Paul what



39

was done following the opinion of the Court of Appeals for 
the Fourth Circuit with regard to Negro children who re­
sided in the so-called white school zones.

A  W e wrote to the parents o f all o f the Negro children 
residing in the so-called white school zones, and advised them 
that they lived— advised them of the school zone in which 
they lived and indicated to them that they would be assigned 
to that school unless they requested assignment elsewhere.

Q In other words, the initiative to move from the white 
school zone to Jefferson was placed on the Negro child?

A  Yes.
Q If it— as far as it being automatic was concerned, if 

he did nothing to state a preference, he would be assigned to 
the school serving his zone of residence ?

A  Yes.

Q That’s right?
A  Yes.
Q And that was true of all Negro children living in all 

o f the so-called white zones?
A  Yes.

B y  th e  Court :
Q Have any of the Negro children been assigned to any 

of the white schools other than Venable ?
A  No.

B y  M r. B attle (continuing)
Q Have the ones who live in white school zones other 

than Venable taken the initiative in asking to be assigned to 
Jefferson?

A  Yes.



40

B y  th e  Court :
Q You mean that there are Negro children who live in 

what we call the white school zones— McGuffey or Johnson 
or Venable?

A  Yes.
Q And, in each instance, they have requested to be 

transferred to Jefferson?
A  Yes.

M r . B attle  (continuing)
Q And had they not made such requests, would you have 

automatically enrolled them in those various so-called white 
schools ?

A  Yes.
Q And in the future, if they don’t persist in such re­

quests, will you automatically enroll them in those schools ?
A  Yes.

Q Now, as I understand it, you have told Judge Paul 
that you have assigned nine additional Negro children to 
Lane High School as of this year ?

A  That is correct.

Q And before you made that assignment, there were 
how many Negro children attending Lane High School?

A  Seven had been assigned previously, but only six re­
turned for this year, so the six— no, there were— let me get 
my figures. There were six from last year, and then one—  
one newcomer to the community who was assigned origi­
nally to Lane, which made seven, but she was not there this 
previous year; so there were six, six students at Lane who 
had been there previously.

Q So you started off before this last September with 
six Negro children at Lane?



41

Q And you added nine to that ?
A  Well, I believe we added ten.

Q Ten?
A  The six we originally approved, the three appeals, and 

then the one child who moved into the community, making 
a total o f sixteen.

Q I see. So you voluntarily put ten more in with the 
original six ?

A  Yes.

Q So you have sixteen there now ?
A  Yes, sir.

Q Now, as to Venable, how many Negro children attend 
Venable in this session ?

A  W e have twenty assigned there for this session.

Q How many new ones did you voluntarily put in this 
year?

A  Eight.

Q Do all o f them live in the Venable zone ?
A  No, we placed one in there on appeal who doesn’t live 

in the Venable zone.

Q Does that one live in the Jefferson zone ?
A  He lives in the Jefferson zone.

Q So you allowed that Negro child to transfer from the 
Jefferson zone, as you did the white children ?

A  Yes.

Q To Venable. Now, you stated, I think, that assign­
ments are made known, except in the case of beginners, 
when the report cards are handed out. Is that true ?

A  Yes.



42

Q And does that mean that at the end of the session the 
report card has written on its face the school of assignment 
for the next year ?

A  Yes, sir.
Q And is there a clear statement that if a parent objects 

to that, that parent can request a change in it?
A  Yes, within ten days ordinarily.

Q Is that procedure followed as to every Negro child 
in the City of Charlottesville ?

A  Yes.
Q So any Negro child knows o f his school assignment 

by his report card, is that correct ?
A  Yes.
Q And also is told on the report card that if he doesn’t 

like it, or if his parents don’t like it, they can request a 
change ?

A  Yes, sir.
Q And some of them have taken advantage of that 

opportunity, and requested changes ?
A  Yes.

* * *
[ tr . p . 169]

M r . B attle : H e’s asking you about what’s on the report 
card.

A  Well, yes, every child in the City schools receives a 
report card, and on this— written on this report card when 
he receives it on the last day of school is his— we have 
stamped on their his school assignment for the ensuing 
year.

A  Yes.



43

Q That’s right.
A  And written under it is, “ Any parent who is dissatis­

fied with this assignment may— should contact the Super­
intendent o f Schools at such and such address within ten 
days,”  so that’s a standard message on every report card 
that every child in Charlottesville— that the parents of every 
child in Charlottesville gets.

[ t r . p . 171]
Q Let me ask it this way, Mr. Ellis. Arent’ you saying 

that as to every Negro child living in the Jefferson District, 
there is a notification on his report card in clear language, 
that if he wants to transfer from Jefferson zone, he can 
make application to do it ?

A  Well, that’s what the message on the report card says, 
yes.

Q All right, sir. Now, is that message on the report 
cards to the white children too in other—-

A  Yes.
jfs

[ t r . p p . 173-175]
Q Now, as to these former Plaintiffs who have been 

denied transfers to the high school for academic reasons, 
and giving every consideration to these various children, 
can you in good conscience transfer them with these aca­
demic indications of deficiency?

A  No.

Q W hy not ?
A  Because I feel that we have— I have understood that 

we have a choice as to the assignment o f these children. I 
don’t feel that these particular children would be able to



44

do successfully the type o f academic program which is pro­
vided at Lane, and which they would have to take if they 
were enrolled there.

Q Are these children just below average academically 
or are they worse than that ?

A  No, these particular children are far below average.
I mean, we have assigned some children to Lane who are 
average and a little above— little under average, but these 
children are— are far below average in their capacity to do 
academic work, and—

Q D o you think there is a reasonable chance that any one 
of them could succeed in graduating from Lane High 
School ?

A  I ’m positive that none of them could.

Q D o you think that they can profit by the specialized 
program of vocational courses and things o f that sort at 
Burley ?

A  Ido.

M r . T u c k e r : Now, get a clarification of this. Which 
children are you talking about, Mr. Battle, by number.

M r. Ba t t l e : One, two, three, four.

Q They are the ones who were considering, weren’t 
they, Mr. Ellis ?

A  Yes.

Q And you say that you think they can profit from the 
specialized vocational programs at Burley which would not 
be available at Lane ?

A  That is my opinion.



45

B y  th e  Court :
Q Now, Mr. Ellis, don’t you find among I don’t know 

how many thousands of white school children you have in 
the City, but you-—don’t you find among them some of 
whose academic capacities are about the same as these?

A  None of the ones we are talking about here. For 
example, item number one, we said that such children are 
a rarity, because it says only two children in a class of 197 
in the eighth grade at Lane last session made as low a score 
on this test as this applicant, and that is one o f the better 
ones. Now then we go to number two—

M r. Battle  (continuing)
Q You say only two ?
A  Yes.

Q Only two out o f a group o f 197 made as low a score?
sfc: %

[ t r . p . 176]
Q Let’s assume that any one o f these four children was 

a white child, and you could afford that white child the cur­
riculum that is available at Burley, purely and simply from 
the point o f view of curriculum, would the white child be 
better off taking such a curriculum than the one that must be 
taken at Lane ?

A  Yes.
* * *

[ t r . p p . 177-184]
Q Now, Mr. Ellis, I just received a form of a report 

card entitled Charlottesville Public Schools, Charlottesville, 
Virginia, Report to Parents, is that the form of the report 
card that’s being used as they have specified in the City of 
Charlottesville ?



46

Q Is it used in all schools ?
A  Yes.

Q Containing those grades ?
A  Yes.

Q And is this printing here the printing that you were 
talking about as giving the child’s parents the opportunity 
to object to the assignment ?

A  Yes.

Q Now, are you satisfied that the Negro children’s par­
ents in Jefferson School receive this kind of report card and 
this kind of notification?

A  Yes.

T h e  Court : Let me see that, please.

B y  t h e  Court :
Q How long have these cards been in use, Mr. Ellis ?
A  I would say that the card itself has been in use almost 

ever since I ’ve been in Charlottesville, since ’53. Now, that 
matter of appeal of assignment has been added—

Q Now, you haven’t said anything in the way about 
appeal o f assignment, that I can see. Now, let’s see.

A  Where it says assignment for next session— on the 
other page.

Q You mean it’s in the front?
A  Yes, sir.

Q All right. “ Assignment for next grade: McGuffey 
School. Parent or guardian may apply for a different school 
assignment by notifying the Superintendent of Schools, 416 
Fourteenth Street, in writing, by June 20, 1961.”

A  Yes.



47

Now, how long have you been putting that on there? 
That’s stamped on there, isn’t it?

A  That’s been put on—

Q That’s not: printed, it’s stamped on there.
A  Yes. That’s been stamped on there ever since we have 

had our— have had a school desegregation plan.

Q I see. This doesn’t apply to any particular person, 
does it? Or is that just a blank form?

N o t e : The Court referring to report card previously 
handed him.

A  Yes, sir.

N ote : Report card now received in evidence and marked 
Defendant’s Exhibit A .

M r . Battle  (continuing)
Q Now, Mr. Ellis, will you refer to page 5 of your 

summary sheets, dealing with the two Williams children 
who seek admission to Johnson School?

A  Yes.

Q You state there that they live in the Jefferson Dis­
trict, is that correct?

A  Yes.

Q You state there that they live approximately twice as 
far from the Johnson School as they do from the Jefferson 
School ?

A  That’s correct according to my speedometer.

Q You personally calculated that ?
A  Yes.

Q So if they should be assigned to Johnson, they would



48

have to travel approximately twice as far as they now travel 
to go to Jefferson?

A  Yes.
Q Now, dealing with the new Plaintiffs, the first one 

there, Ruby Yvonne Dickerson an applicant to eighth grade 
at Lane,—

A  Pardon me, I wonder if we could use these by—

Q Number ?
A  Numbers, and skip over that one and— if you don’t 

mind.

Q All right. Shall we let the information that you have 
on there be your testimony as to that child ?

A  Yes.
Q Now, as to the second one, number 2, does that report 

there fully state your reasons for not assigning that child to 
Lane?

A  Yes.
Q Do you have anything particular to say about the per­

sonal defect? I f Your Honor will look at it, he will know 
what I am talking about, the—

T h e  Co u r t : Number two?

M r. B a t t l e : Yes, sir. If Your Honor wouldn’t mind 
reading—

T h e  Co u r t : Melvina Hamilton?

M r. B attle  : No, sir. I ’d rather not state the name, if 
you would look on page 6—

T he Court : On page 6, oh—



49

M r. B attle  : As I referred Mr. Ellis. These are the new 
Plaintiffs.

T he Co u r t : Yes, I see that.

M r. Battle  : Now, number two—

T he  Co u r t : Yes.

M r. B attle  : The fourth paragraph.

T he  Court : Yes, I see that. I read that.

M r. Battle  (continuing)
Q Does that form a part o f your consideration on this 

child, that problem mentioned in the fourth paragraph?
A  Yes.

Q Now, as to the remaining ones, they seem to be the 
thirteen who have applied for Venable.

T h e  Co u r t : Mr. Battle, may I make this comment on 
that number 2 you spoke about ?

M r . Ba t t l e : Yes, sir.

T he Co u r t : However good reason that might be in its 
appeal to the school authorities, however their experience in 
handling the school children and so forth, that fact is that 
this child and her parents, or his parents, whichever it is, 
didn’t regard that as a reason for not applying for admis­
sion to the white school. Now, if they had a constitutional 
right to go to that school, then the judgment of the school 
authorities shouldn’t be set up to bar that right, now how 
unfortunate the exercise of it might turn out to be.

M r. B a t t l e : I think that’s true, Your Honor, and if 
Your Honor decides that this child should go—

T he  Court : That’s what I-



50

M r . B attle  : Then plans will be made to make it as work­
able as possible, but I am saying this to show, and it may not 
be good law anymore, but I ’m saying this to show that this 
child was not denied admission solely because o f race.

T he  Co u r t : O f race, yes, I—
M r . B attle  : She was denied admission for another rea­

son, which they consider to be a valid reason.

T he  Court : I see.

M r . B attle  (continuing)
Q Now, Mr. Ellis, as to the remaining ones making 

application to Venable, and being denied because they live in 
Jefferson Zone, is it not true that all but three, or approxi­
mately three, in addition to living in the Jefferson Zone, live 
closer to the Jefferson School than to the Venable School?

A  I think that is correct, sir. Now, o f those that live 
closer, you are talking about number 10, I take it, and

Q Yes, sir.
A  Eleven, and twelve.
M r. B a t t l e : If Your Honor please, in order to save as 

much time as possible, I would like to call Your Honor s 
attention to the fact that as to each one of these children, the 
reason of living in the Jefferson District is stated because 
heretofore that had been an accepted reason.

T he  Court : I see.

M r. B attle  : But in addition, the residence o f the child 
is stated under the child’s name, the address of the child—

T h e  Court : I see.

M r. Ba t t l e : And if Your Honor should be concerned 
with it, it can be located on the map which is in the record 
of this case.



51

T h e  Co u r t : The streets can be, I don’t know that the 
residence number or house numbers can be, but—

M r. Ba t t l e : N o, sir, but you will notice from the map 
in locating the streets, that Mr. Ellis— I mean you can check 
his testimony that all but three of them live closer to the 
Jefferson School than to the Venable School.

T he  Court : Yes, sir.

M r. Battle  (continuing)
Q Now, Mr. Ellis, just one final question. Have you 

consciously denied any Negro child admission to either Ven­
able, Lane, or Johnson, or any other school, for reasons of 
race since this plan went into' effect ?

A  No, not in accordance with my understanding of 
what I have done.

Q Now, those that you have denied, you have denied for 
what you thought to be good and sufficient school reasons?

A  Yes.

Q Not connected with the race o f the child ?
A  Yes, sir.

Q And, have you at all times given primary considera­
tion to the academic welfare o f the child ?

A  I have attempted to do that, yes. I have done that, I 
think, as I understand the academic welfare.

Q And have you attempted to find out about the prefer­
ences of the parents as to whether they want to integrate 
or stay in a— in their own segregated situation, at either 
Burley or Jefferson, in order to be able to pass judgment on 
those who want to go into an integrated situation?

A  Well, I have concerned myself with that at Jefferson.
3}C



52

R E D IR E C T E X A M IN A T IO N

[T R . P. 197]
B y M r . T u c k e r :

Q All right. Now, can we do the same thing now with 
reference to Lane School ?

A  There are sixteen Negro children presently attending 
Lane High School. None of these children are attending 
Lane as a result of a Court order. All are attending Lane 
as a result o f my assignment of them to Lane.

Q I see. Now, what is the total of the Negro children 
who have attended Lane at any time ?

A  Eighteen is my recollection.
* * *

RECROSS E X A M IN A T IO N

[ t r . P P . 215-216]
B y  M r . B attle  :

Q Mr. Ellis, there’s one or two additional questions. 
Dealing with this letter that you addressed to certain parents 
when your administrative procedure was changed following 
the decision in the Court o f Appeals, is it or is it not true 
that this letter was addressed to the parent or parents of 
every child in the City of Charlottesville who had been 
attending a school outside of his own residential district? 

A  Yes.
Q And that would involve Negro as well as white 

children ?
A  Yes.
Q Was the same language used in the letter addressed 

to the Negro children as it was in the letter addressed to 
the white children ?

A  Yes.



53

Q Was it simply a form letter to white and Negroes 
alike with blanks filled in to suit the peculiar circumstances 
as to names and so forth ?

A  Yes.
ifc jf? 5{c

[ t r . p p . 217-218]
Q Mr. Ellis, you concluded yesterday, as I recall, that 

there were certain individuals involved in this case who 
could not possibly do passing work in the grade and school 
to which they seek admission. Have you had any experiences 
that you can relate that would support those conclusions ?

A  Well, I think I could say—

Q Without naming names, o f course.
A  I could say that the children that I have assigned to 

— that I have approved transfers for, upon request, or that 
I initially assigned to a desegregated school, have all made 
what I consider to be satisfactory and reasonable progress 
in the schools to which they have been assigned. Now, in the 
cases o f some that I did not assign, I cannot say the same 
thing, if that’s your implication.

Q Are there any Negro children in the integrated situ­
ation who are not able to do successful work?

A  There are some.

Q And do you think that there is any reasonable pros­
pect that they will advance in school ?

A  I think their advance will be very limited.

Q And are these four children that we have been dis­
cussing any better academically than those children that 
you seem to recall ?

A  No, they are not as good a risk as these I have in 
mind.



54

Q You say, they are not as good academically as these 
you have in mind ?

A  That is true.
* * *

C E R T IF IC A T E

I certify that I served a copy of the foregoing Appen­
dix on the Appellants by mailing the same on the 23rd 
day o f May, 1962, to S. W . Tucker, Esquire and Henry L. 
Marsh, III, Esquire o f Southern Aid Building, 214 East 
Clay Street, Richmond 19, Virginia; Otto L. Tucker, Es­
quire o f 901 Princess Street, Alexandria, Virginia; Jack 
Greenberg, Esquire and James M. Nabrit, III, Esquire o f 
10 Columbus Circle, New York 19, New York, counsel o f 
record for Appellants.

Jo h n  S. B attle , Jr .



Printed Letterpress by
L E W I S  P R I N T I N G  C O M P A N Y  • R I C H M O N D ,  V I R G I N I A