Dillard v. Charlottesville, VA School Board Appendix for Appellees and Cross-Appellants
Public Court Documents
May 23, 1962

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Dillard v. Charlottesville, VA School Board Appendix for Appellees and Cross-Appellants, 1962. 64e1fae2-af9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/65cfb6bf-30e5-4042-8b6a-66d417e54b5a/dillard-v-charlottesville-va-school-board-appendix-for-appellees-and-cross-appellants. Accessed April 19, 2025.
Copied!
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