Marks v The New Edinburg School District Brief for Appellants

    , ) v . H&

IN THE

United States Court of Appeals

No. 18763

J o h n  T . M ark s , et al, ----------------------------------------  Appellants,

V.

T h e  N e w  E dinburg  S chool D istrict , et a l . , ----- Appellees.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS

J o h n  W . W alker  
1304-B Wright Avenue 
Little Rock, Arkansas 72206

J ack  G reenberg

M ich ael  M eltsner

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Appellants

PARAGON PRINTING CO.. LITTLE ROCK



f.



INDEX
Page

Page

Statement of Case ---------------------- --------------------------------------------  1

Preliminary Statement  _______________________________________  8

Statement of Points to be Argued ___________ __________________  10

Argument

I The failure of the District Court to require the 
admission of Negro pupils residing in the New 
Edinburg School District to the New Edinburg 
School denies Negro students equal protection of
the laws------------------------------------------------------- ----------------  12

II The desegregation plan approved by the District 
Court is contrary to the ruling of this Court in
Kelley v. Altheimer. ___________________________________ 13

III Appellants are entitled to attorneys’ fees _____________  16

Conclusion_____________________________________________________  17

TABLE OF CASES

Bell v. School Board of Powhatan County, Va., 4th Cir.,
1963, 321 F. 2d 494 _________________________________________ 16

Board of Education v. Dowell, No. 8523 (10th Cir., Jan.
23, 1967 __________________________________________________  13

Bradley v. School Board of Richmond, 382 U.S. 103 (1965) ______ 14

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) _______________  12

Clark v. Board of Education, 369 F. 2d 661 (8th Cir.,
(1966) _____________________________________________________  14

Corbin v. County School Board of Pulaski County, Va.,
177 F. 2d 924 (4th Cir., 1949) ______________________________  12

Goins v. County School Board of Grayson County, Va.,
186 F. Supp. 753 (W. D. Va., 1960) ________________________  12

Kelley v. Altheimer, No. 18,528 (8th Cir., April 12, 1967) 14



INDEX —  (Continued)

Page

Kemp v. Beasley, 352 F. 2d 14 (8th Cir., 1965) _________________  14

McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950) ------ -- 13

Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938)  -----------  13

Rogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198 (1965) _____________________________  14

Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 186 F. 2d 473 (4th
Cir., 1951) ___________ ______________________________________ 16

School Board of Warren County, Va., v. Kilby, 259 F.
2d 497 (4th Cir., 1960); ___________________________________ 12

Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 131 (1948) ________________________  13

Smith v. Board of Education of Morrilton, 365 F. 2d 770
(8th Cir., 1966) ____________________________________________  14

Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950) __________________________  13

United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education,
Civil No. 23345 (5th Cir., Dec. 29, 1966), reaffirmed
en banc (Mar. 29, 1967) ------------------------------------------------------  13



IN THE

United States Court of Appeals

No. 18763

J o h n  T. M ark s , et al, Appellants,

V.

T h e  N ew  E dinburg  S chool D istrict , et al., —  Appellees.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS

STATEMENT OF CASE

This is an Arkansas school desegregation suit filed 
by Negro plaintiffs on August 30, 1966, seeking injunctive 
relief to have the public schools of New Edinburg, Ar­
kansas desegregated (R.l-5). New Edinburg is a small 
school district which, during the 1965-66 school year, had 
a total pupil enumeration of between 350 and 370 (R. 
30). It operated two schools: (a) the “ A ”  rated (R.
181) New Edinburg school, a modern brick building (R. 
10, 14) attended solely by 160 white pupils in grades one 
through twelve, and staffed solely by 11 white teachers 
and one white principal (R .ll, 13); and (b) the “ C”  
rated (R.181) St. Paul school, a small inferior and in­
adequate frame building (R.9, 10, 33, 35, 109, 137, 161, 
162) which presented health and life hazards (R.131) at­



2

tended solely by between 65 (R.71) and 75 (R.9) Negro 
pupils in grades one through six, and staffed solely by 
three Negro teachers who received lower wages than the 
white teachers (R.9, 77).

New Edinburg did not operate a high school for Negro 
pupils in grades seven through twelve. Instead the 55 
Negro pupils in those grades attended the all-Negro J. E. 
Wallace School in the adjacent Fordyce School District 
pursuant to a tuition arrangement between the two dis­
tricts (R.71, 73, 74). New Edinburg, however, provided 
bus transportation for the Negro pupils (R.12, 79, 89). 
This arrangement was approved by the state and county 
Boards of Education (R.79, 80).

New Edinburg committed itself to the United States 
Office of Education to begin desegregation under the 
Office’s “ Guidelines on School Desegregation”  at the 
start of the 1965-66 school term. The first plan sub­
mitted by New Edinburg to the Office of Education called 
for discontinuation of the tuition arrangement with 
Fordyce and assigning all Negro pupils in grades seven 
through twelve to New Edinburg. This could have been 
done without major difficulty to the district (R.16). The 
lower six grades were to be desegregated on a “ three- 
three”  basis the next two years (R.15).

New Edinburg rescinded its first approved plan and 
substituted in its place a three year “ freedom of choice”  
plan of desegregation at the rate of four grades per year 
(R.24). The “ free-choice”  plan was adopted by de­
fendants in the hope and expectation that it would fail 
(R.43, 73, 74). In so doing, New Edinburg represented 
to the Office of Education that ‘ ‘ Three years is a minimum 
period of accomodation and acclimation of the patrons 
of the district of both races to achieve a good faith ac-



3

ceptance of desegregation of this important aspect of com­
munity life”  (R.26). New Edinburg also represented 
to the Office of Education that the additional time was 
needed to construct additional facilities which wms not 
true (R.28-30). On the basis of these representations 
the Office of Education approved New Edinburg’s sub­
stituted plan thereby permitting the district to continue 
its interdistrict, racial assignment policy.

New Edinburg’s first year of desegregation, 1965-66, 
in which no desegregation was achieved, worked “ beau­
tifully”  said Superintendant Splawn (R.27, 31, 32, 34). 
All assignments that year were made on a purely racial 
basis (R.113).

New Edinburg signed a 441-B assurance of compli­
ance form with the Office of Education early in 1966. 
Thereunder, appellees agreed to abide by the revised 
“ Guidelines”  (R.36, 154). Under the Guidelines for 
1966, a choice period of thirty days was to be held between 
January 1 and April 30. New Edinburg did not hold a 
choice period during that time and thus failed to send 
parents notice and choice forms as required by the ‘ ‘ Guide­
lines” . On April 18, 1966, Negro parents, acting on the 
belief that a choice could be made in any manner of writ­
ing which sufficiently identified the student and indicated 
a choice of schools, filed a petition on behalf of 119 of 
their school age children in grades one through twelve 
which stated:

“ We the undersigned citizens of the New Edin­
burg School District, Cleveland County, Arkansas, 
do hereby request that our children whose names 
are listed below be registered at the New Edin­
burg School for the year commencing September, 
1966”  (R.132).



4

After receiving the petition, appellees decided to hold 
a 30 day choice period beginning May 4, 1966, in violation 
of the “ Guidelines”  (R.70). Thereunder, “ 93 white 
students returned those forms choosing to attend New 
Edinburg School out of 122 forms sent. Of a total of 114 
forms sent to Negro students, 20 returned the forms 
choosing to attend the New Edinburg School and 21 re­
turned the forms choosing to attend either St. Paul School 
or J. E. Wallace High School”  (R.89). Thus, by the ap­
pellees’ figures, 29 white pupils and 73 Negro pupils 
failed to sign choice forms; these pupils were then as­
signed to the school formerly attended (R.113, 114).

The “ second”  choice period was given because the 
board had not expected so many Negro pupils to choose 
the white school and it hoped to reduce the number of 
transfers with the second choice (R.43, 44). The board 
took the position, however, that the choices expressed in 
the petition were not intelligently made, that the sponsors 
of the petition acted on the basis of misunderstanding, and 
thus, the choices were invalid (R.49, 50, 88). There was 
no competent testimony introduced to support the Board’s 
position. In fact, testimony presented supported a con­
trary position (R.140-142, 150, 151).

The Petitioners did not participate in the “ second”  
choice period because they had already made a choiec (R. 
148) and were not advised by New Edinburg that their 
choices made via petition on April 18 would not be honored 
until August 20, 1966 (R.46). This was after the Office 
of Education had advised New Edinburg that the petition 
was a valid choice expression under the “ Guidelines”  
(R.41, 156, 159, 160).

By August 20, 1966, appellees knew that they were in 
non-compliance with the Guidelines and that their federal



0

funds would be withdrawn (R.52, 53). Indeed, as at­
tested by Mr. Baldo of the Office of Education, apjjellees 
violated the guidelines by: (1) refusing to accept the 
petition as a valid choice of the parents and pupils; (2) 
failing to hold a choice period during the prescribed 
time; (3) sending Negro pupils in the high school grades 
to a. school outside the district; (4) refusing or failing 
to close the small, inferior and inadequate all-Negro St. 
Paul School; and (5) not desegregating its faculty (R. 
161). Appellees, by refusing to honor their commit­
ments to the patrons of the District and to the Office 
of Education to follow the “ Guidelines” , forced the Negro 
pupils assigned to the all-Negro St. Paul and J. E. Wallace 
schools to take legal action to secure relief.

In their complaint, appellants sought to require ap­
pellees to implement the Guidelines or equal alternative 
relief including the invalidation of interdistrict transfers 
which had the effect of perpetuating racial segregation. 
They also prayed for cost and attorney’s fees. After 
two hearings (R.5-85, 101-206) the court made the fol­
lowing rulings, among others, on September 16, 1967:

(1) it would not “ require the district to comply with 
the guidelines of the Office of Education”  (See also 201- 
202)

(2) that Negro high school pupils in the eleventh and 
twelfth grades would be given ten days in which to make 
a new freedom of choice between the J. E. Wallace School 
and the New Edinburg School; and

(3) that appellees present a modified desegregation 
plan within 20 days.

The District responded with a modified “ free choice”  
plan (R.218-221) whereby: (1) in April or May of 1967,



6

pupils in grades one through twelve would be given 
an opportunity to make a choice of schools for the next 
school year. The choice period would be fifteen days; 
(2) commencing with the 1967-68 school year, pupils in 
grades one and seven would be required each year to 
make choices; (3) although the district was opposed to 
lateral transfers, such would be granted except when 
they would result in over-crowding; and (4) faculty 
vacancies would be filled without regard to the race or 
color of the applicant.

Appellants objected to each aspect of appellees’ mod­
ified plan (R.221, 223). Judge Harris thereupon re­
quired certain modifications and sought to ascertain 
whether appellees proposed to continue utilizing the J. E. 
Wallace School in Fordyce and whether improvements 
were being made to the St. Paul School.

Appellees’ subsequent modifications re J. E. Wallace, 
as approved by the Court, read as follows:

“ This District wall continue to pay tuition and 
provide transportation for students in grades seven 
through twelve who choose to attend J. E. Wallace 
High School as long as a sufficient number elect 
to attend that school to justify operating a school 
bus for this purpose”  (R.228).

Despite the manifest bad faith of appellees and the 
fact that there were no meaningful obstacles to full de­
segregation in New Edinburg (R.20-24), the district court 
approved appellees’ modified plan, retaining jurisdiction 
during the period of transition, thereby completely 
thwarting, without cause, the Office of Education’s reason­
able attempt to enforce Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights 
Act. In so doing, the district court invalidated choices



I

made on April 18, 1966, by the petition filed which 
had been approved by the Office of Education. Thus, 
instead of at least 119 Negro pupils being assigned to 
New Edinburg during 1966 only 8 were assigned thereto 
by the Court approved plan. Moreover, the district 
court order aborted the Office of Education’s requirement 
that the grossly inferior, inadequate and unsafe St. Paul 
school for 65 to 75 Negro pupils in grades one through 
six be closed despite its own finding that St. Paul was 
inferior (R.216). The only relief granted by the Court 
on this point was a new toilet (R.224). The District 
Court further upheld appellees’ interdistrict transfer plan 
even though it found “ that the curriculum in the J. E. 
Wallace school is somewhat different and to some extent 
inferior to the New Edinburg School”  (R.216). Finally, 
the Court approved a shorter choice period — fifteen 
days — than that required under the “ Guidelines”  — 
thirty days, did not require actual faculty desegregation, 
failed to require appellees to make assignments on a non- 
racial basis where pupils failed to make choices and failed 
to rule on appellants prayer for attorney’s fees.

Notice of appeal was filed by appellants January 20, 
1967.



8

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is another Arkansas case where a School Dis­
trict sought and received sanctuary in the federal courts 
to avoid complying with the Guidelines on school deseg­
regation promulgated by the Department of Health, Edu­
cation, and Welfare and enforced by the Office of Edu­
cation of that department. This District should long 
ago have desegregated completely because it operated a 
grossly inferior and inadequate elementary school within 
the District for a handful of Negro pupils and it required 
the Negroes in the high school grades to obtain their edu­
cation in another school district. This District agreed 
in 1965, however, to implement the Office of Education 
“ Guidelines”  and submitted several plans which were 
approved by that office. However, absolutely no deseg­
regation occured in the first year of the plan, 1965, and 
in 1966, when more Negroes chose to attend the white 
school than the District expected, the District decided not 
to follow the Guidelines. It, therefore forced the Negro 
pupils into court for redress.

When the matter was presented to the District Court, 
the school board could not reasonably justify its decision 
not to implement the Guidelines or to grant the choices 
made by the Negro pupils. The manifest bad faith and 
arrogance of the District in its treatment of Negro pupils 
is evident in the record and has now been given judicial 
approval. The District Court, without any justification 
whatever, determined that it did not require the Guide­
lines to be implemented in this District although the Dis­
trict had been committed for two years to follow them. 
The fear expressed in Kemp v. Beasley, 352 F. 2d 14 (8th 
Cir. 1965), has become a reality and another school dis­
trict in Arkansas has reaped a benefit for its foot-dragging



9

and opposition to the principle of desegregation. The 
tragedy is that it was given federal judicial approval.

Appellants, therefore, respectfully submit that New 
Edinburg is a clear example of the type of situation to 
which the Fifth Circuit addressed itself in United States
v. Jefferson County Board of Education, ........ . F. 2 d _____
(5th Cir. Dec. 29, 1966), reaffirmed en banc (March 29, 
1967) :

The announcement in H.E.W. regulations that 
the Commissioner would accept a final school de­
segregation order as proof of the school’s eligibil­
ity for federal aid prompted a number of schools to 
seek refuge in the federal courts. Many of these 
had not moved a single inch toward desegregation. 
In Louisiana alone twenty school boards obtained 
quick decrees providing for desegregation accord­
ing to plans greatly at variance with the guide­
lines.

We shall not nermit the Courts to be used to 
destroy or dilute the effectiveness of the Congres­
sional policy expressed in Title VI. There is no 
bonus for foot-dragging.

For the reasons stated in Jefferson County and in 
Kemp, and for sound public policy reasons, appellants 
urge this Court to require that no less than the minimum 
standards set forth in the Guidelines on school desegre­
gation be implemented by the district courts when re­
calcitrant school districts seek to avoid H.E.W. require­
ments by resorting to the federal courts.



10

STATEMENT OF POINTS TO BE ARGUED

i

The failure of the District Court to require the admission 
of Negro pupils residing in the Neiv Edinburg 
School District to the New Edinburg School denies 
Negro students equal protection of the laws.

Goins v. County School Board of Grayson County, Va., 186 
F. Supp. 753 (W.D. Va. 1960);

School Board of Warren County, Va. v. Kilby, 259 F. 2d 
497 (4th Cir. 1960);

Corbin v. County School Board of Pulaski County, Va., 
177 F. 2d 924 (4th Cir. 1949) ;

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954);

Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938);

Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 131 (1948);

Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950) ;

McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950).

ii

The desegregation plan approved by the District Court is 
contrary to the ruling of this Court in Kelley v. 
Altheimer.

Kelley v. Altheimer, No. 18, 528 (8th Cir., April 12, 1967)



11

United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education,
Civil No. 23345 (5th Cir., Dec. 29, 1966), reaffirmed 
en banc (Mar. 29, 1967);

Board of Education v. Dowell, No. 8523 (10th Cir., Jan 
23, 1967);

Clark v. Board of Education, 369 F. 2d 661 (8th Cir., 1966)

Smith v. Board of Education of Morrilton, 365 F. 2d 770 
(8th Cir., 1966);

Rogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198 (1965);

Bradley v. School Board of Richmond, 382 U.S. 103 
(1965);

Kemp v. Beasley, 352 F. 2d 14 (8th Cir. 1965).

in

Appellants are entitled to attorneys’ fees.

Bell v. School Board of Powhatan County, Va.,321 F. 2d 
494 (4th Cir. 1963)

Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 186 F. 2d 473 
(4th Cir. 1951).



12

ARGUMENT

i

The failure of the District Court to require the admission 
of Negro pupils residing in the New Edinburg 
School District to the New Edinburg School denies 
Negro students equal protection of the latvs.

Until 1966-67 New Edinburg required its 55 Negro 
pupils to attend the all-Negro J. E. Wallace School op­
erated by the adjacent Fordyce School District. The 
New Edinburg School District provided bus transporta­
tion for them. White pupils were provided high school 
education within the District. Prior to the beginning of 
the 1966-67 school year, however, most of the Negro 
pupils being transported to Fordyce expressed a choice 
under the “ Guidelines”  to attend school in New Edin­
burg. Their choices were rejected. Moreover, defend­
ants proposed to continue offering Negro pupils a choice 
between the New Edinburg and Fordyce Schools. This 
practice has long been condemned. As was said in Goins 
v. County School Board of Grayson County, Va., 186 F. 
Supp. 753 (W. D. Va. 1960), at 754:

(T)he practice of sending these plaintiffs out­
side of their own county to attend school and 
denying them solely on account of their race the 
right to be educated within a high school in their 
own county under the same conditions as white 
children is something which cannot be legally de­
fended.

See also, School Board of Warren County, Va. v. Kilby, 
259 F. 2d 497 (4th Cir. 1960) and Corbin v. County School 
Board of Pulaski County, Fa., 177 F. 2d 924 (4th Cir. 
1949). Even before Brown v. Board of Education, the



13

Supreme Court invalidated analogous practices in higher 
education; in 1938, Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 
305 U.S. 337; in 1948, Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 131; 
in 1950, Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 620, and McLaurin v. 
Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637.

New Edinburg Negro pupils have been assigned or 
permitted to attend the J. E. Wallace School in Fordyce 
solely because of their race. They have a present right 
to attend the New Edinburg School.

ri

The desegregation plan approved by the District Court is
contrary to the ruling of this Court in Kelley v.
Altheimer.

In Kelley v. Altheimer, No. 18,528 (8th Cir., April 
12, 1967), this Court declared that no plan of desegrega­
tion could be considered adequate if its provisions were 
less stringent than the H.E.W. Guidelines. In addition, 
specific requirements for desegregation plans in the area 
of “ choice”  plans, faculty desegregation, use of facil­
ities, and school equalization were laid down in the Court ’s 
decree. The plan approved below does not meet these 
requirements, and conflicts both with earlier decisions of 
this Circuit and with the Guidelines. A comprehensive 
decree equivalent to that entered in the Kelley case is, 
therefore, appropriate to ensure the actual desegregation 
of New Edinburg schools. Cf. United States v. Jeffer­
son County Board of Education, Civil No. 23345 (5th 
Cir., Dec. 29, 1966), reaffirmed en banc (Mar. 29, 1967); 
Board of Education v. Dowell, No. 8523 (10th Cir., Jan. 
23, 1967). At a minimum, a decree must correct the 
following defects of the plan:



14

A. Faculty Desegregation. The plan approved 
below provides that “ vacancies on the teaching and pro­
fessional staff shall be filled by employment of the best 
qualified available applicant without regard to race, and 
it is hereby declared to be the policy of this district to 
accept and consider all applications for such professional 
employment without regard to race”  (R.221). Thus 
approved, the plan is but a declaration of intention and 
does not comport with the specific requirements of this 
Court in Clark v. Board of Education, 369 F. 2d 661 (8th 
Cir., 1966); Kelley v. Altheimer, supra; Kemp v. Beasley, 
supra; and Smith v. Board of Education of Morrilton, 
365 F. 2d 770 (8th Cir., 1966). These opinions stand 
for the clear proposition that affirmative action must be 
taken by the Board of Education to eliminate segrega­
tion of the faculty. See also, Rogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 
198 (1965); Bradley v. School Board of Richmond, 382 
U.S. 103 (1965). Appellants submit that under the 
Kelley case, specific action according to a predetermined 
plan which guarantees rather than speculates performance 
is required to insure that faculty desegregation be 
promptly achieved.

B. Freedom of Choice Plan, The plan approved 
provides for mandatory “ freedom of choice”  to be ex­
ercised by all pupils in the New Edinburg District for 
the 1967-68 school term. Thereafter, only pupils enter­
ing the 1st and 7th grades shall be required to make a 
choice of schools. Pupils in other grades may apply for 
“ lateral transfers”  which will be granted unless over­
crowding results at the school chosen, in which case they 
will continue at their presently attended school. How­
ever, the plan does not provide for the annual choice op­
portunity required in Kemp v. Beasley, supra, and in 
Clark v. Board of Education, supra, at p. 668.



15

C. Inferior Facilities. Under the Guidelines and the 
opinion in Kelley v. Altheimer, supra, small and inade­
quate schools must be closed. The District Court, how­
ever, permits such a school to he operated into the indef­
inite future. Such a school would have been unconsti­
tutional under the “ separate but equal”  doctrine and 
cannot be sustained now. Kelley v. Altheimer, supra- 
See also, U.S. v. Jefferson County Bd. of Ed., supra; 
Rogers v. Paul, supra.

D. Method of Exercising Choice. The “ Guidelines”  
provide that exercise of choice may also be made by the 
submission . . .  of any . . . writing which sufficiently 
identifies the student and indicates that he has made a 
choice of schools. This provision has gained judicial 
approval, along with the other Guidelines provisions, in 
the Kelley and Jefferson Comity cases, supra, and is 
clearly reasonable.

Moreover, in communities where the segregation 
tradition is strong, individual Negro parents may over­
come their fear and be bolstered in their desire to obtain 
desegregation for their children if they can express their 
choices as a group by petition. There was no showing- 
in this case that the petition of the parents was unintelli­
gible or vague. The reason for defendants’ rejection 
of the petition was simply that they did not expect or 
want to accept 119 Negro pupils into the white school. 
This reason was insufficient to justify the District Court’s 
decision to void the petition and require another choice 
period.



16

hi

Appellants are entitled to attorneys’ fees

New Edinburg began a plan of pupil desegregation 
pursuant to the H.E.W. Guidelines in order to continue 
receiving federal assistance. Under their plan no de­
segregation occurred during 1965-66. Prior to 1966-67 
school term, 119 Negro pupils made choices to attend the 
all-white New Edinburg School, in April of 1966. New 
Edinburg waited until August 20, 1966, approximately 
10 days prior to the opening of school, to advise them 
that their choices would not be accepted and thereby 
forced appellants into court for relief. Under the facts 
of this case, set forth supra, New Edinburg’s conduct is 
clearly discreditable and warrants the equitable relief, 
under the circumstances, of attorneys’ fees. Bell v. 
School Board of Powhatan County, Va-, 321 F. 2d 494, 
500 (4th Cir. 1963); Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 
186 F. 2d 473, 481 (4th Cir. 1951).



17

CONCLUSION

Appellants respectfully pray that this court reverse 
the District Court and remand the case to the District 
Court for the entry of an order requiring appellees to 
grant them the relief promised by the Guidelines of the 
Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare, and for other appropriate relief.

Respectfully submitted,

J ohn  W. W alker  
1304-B Wright Avenue 
Little Rock, Arkansas 72206

J ack  G reenberg

M ich ael  M eltsner

Suite 2030 — 10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Appellants



18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that I have served 
a copy of the foregoing Brief of Appellants upon the 
attorney for appellees, by personally handing it to said 
attorney, Robert V. Light, Esq., at his office at 1100 
Boyle Building, Little Rock, Arkansas, this 17th day of 
July, 1967.