Wall v. Stanley County, North Carolina Board of Education Appendix to Appellants' Brief

    I n  t h e

Intteii States (ttnurt a! Appeals
F or t h e  F ou rth  C ir c u it

No. IL .C .l J

A udrey  G illis  W a l l  and T h e  N orth  C arolina  
T eachers A ssociation , a corporation,

Appellants,
— v .—

T h e  S ta n le y  C o u n ty  B oard oe E du cation , 
a public body corporate,

Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

APPENDIX TO APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

C onrad 0 .  P earson

203% East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina 27702

J . L evonne  C h am bers

405% East Trade Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

J ack  G r e e n b e r g

J am es M. N abrit , III 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Appellants



I N D E X

Motion for Preliminary Injunction.................................  7a

Answers and Motions of Defendant ...........................  8a

Defendant’s Exhibit “A” ................................................ 19a

Response....................................................................... -  31a

Order on Initial Pre-Trial Conference .........................  35a

Motion ................................................................................ 37a

Order Dated November 9, 1965 Denying Defendant’s 
motions to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment 
and Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for a preliminary 
injunction ...................................................................  39a

Order Dated November 9, 1965 granting plaintiffs’ 
motion to amend complaint and other pleadings to 
show correct spelling of Stanly County Board of 
Education and Stanly County....................................  40a

Motion of Leave to Amend Complaint ...................... 41a

Memorandum .................................................................  42a

Order on Final Pretrial Conference .......................... 44a

Order Dated February 9, 1966 ........................................  51a

Memorandum ........................................................   52a

PAGE

Complaint ...........................................................................  la



11

Stipulation ...................................................................... 53a

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion 54a

Judgment, Entered September 26, 1966 ..................  94a

Interrogatories ............................................. -................ 95a

Answers to Interrogatories .........................................  97a

Schedule I ......................................................................  100a

Schedule II ....................................................................  102a

Schedule III (a) ............................................................  104a

Schedule 111(b) ............................................................  118a

Schedule I V ....................................................................  132a

Schedule V ......................................................................  140a

Schedule V I ....................................................................  141a

Interrogatories of Defendant .....................................  154a

Answers to Interrogatories .........................................  156a

Teacher Allotmens for 1965-66 .....................................  161a

List of New Teachers for 1965-66 .............................. 175a

List of Teachers Not Returning for 1965-66 ..............  179a

List of Schools by Race 1965-66 .................................. 180a

PAGE



I ll

List of All Teachers 1965-66 .........................................  181a

Letter of Luther A. Adams to Agricultural and Tech­
nical College of Greensboro ................................... -  200a

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education,
June 7, 1965 and July 7, 1965 .................................  201a

Form of Contract for Instructional Service..............  212a

Letter of Robert E. McLendon to Audrey G. Wall .... 214a

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education,
April 15, 1966 and Resolution of Teacher Hiring 
Policies ........................................................................ 216a

Deposition of G. L. Hines............................................. 233a

Deposition of Robert McLendon.................................  259a

Deposition of Luther A. Adams .............   287a

Deposition of Reece B. McSwain.................................  351a

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall .............................. 357a

Transcript of Proceedings, April 26, 1966
Proceedings ............................................................  396a

Luther Adams
Direct ......................................................  403a

Colloquy .................................................................. 439a
Audrey Gillis Wall

Direct ......................................................  461a

PAGE



IV

Transcript of Proceedings, April 27, 1966

Proceedings ............................................................. 4^ a
E. Edmund Eentter, Jr.

Direct ....................................................... 417a.

Colloquy ..................................................................  483a

Notice of Appeal............................................................  51 â

PAGE



I n- t h e

United States Siatrirt fflnnrt
F or t h e  M iddle D istr ic t  oe N o rth  C aro lin a  

S a lsib u r y  D ivisio n  

Civil Action No. C-140-S-65

A u drey  G illis  W a l l  an d  the N o rth  C arolin a  
T each ers  A ssociation , a c o rp o ra t io n ,

Plaintiffs,
— Y .----

The S t a n l e y  C o u n t y  B oard of E d u c a tio n , a public 
body corporate of Stanley County, North Carolina,

Defendant.

Complaint

I
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 

Title 28, U. S. C. §1343(3), this being a suit in equity au­
thorized by law, Title 42, U. S. C. §1983, to be commenced 
by any citizen of the United States or other person within 
the jurisdiction thereof to redress the deprivation under 
color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage 
of a State of rights, privileges and immunities secured 
by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The 
rights, privileges and immunities sought herein to be re­
dressed are those secured by the Due Process and Equal 
Protection Clauses of the Constitution of the United States.



2a

II
This is a proceeding for an injunction, enjoining the 

Stanley County Board of Education, its members and 
those acting in concert with them or at their direction 
from continuing the policy, practice, custom and usage of 
discriminating against the individual plaintiff, members 
of plaintiff organization and other Negro citizens of Stanley 
County, North Carolina, because of race or color, and from 
hiring, assigning, or dismissing or refusing to hire teachers 
and other school personnel in the Stanley County School 
System on the basis of race or color, and for other relief 
as hereinafter more fully appears.

III

The individual plaintiff in this case is a Negro citizen 
of the United States and State of North Carolina, resid­
ing in Stanley County, North Carolina. Said plaintiff pos­
sesses the necessary qualifications for teaching and has 
taught in the Stanley County School System for the past 
thirteen years but has been dismissed and refused re­
employment solely because of her race. Said plaintiff 
brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of all 
other Negro teachers and school personnel in the Stanley 
County School System, who are similarly situated and 
affected by the policy, practice, custom and usage com­
plained of herein. The members of the class on behalf 
of whom individual plaintiff sue are so numerous as to 
make it impracticable to bring them all individually before 
this Court, but there are common questions of law and 
fact involved, common grievances arising out of common 
wrongs and common relief is sought for each member of

Complaint



3a

the class. The plaintiff fairly and adequately represents 
the interests of the class.

The plaintiff North Carolina Teachers Association is a 
professional teachers association, organized as a private, 
non-profit, membership corporation pursuant to the laws 
of the State of North Carolina, with authority to sue and 
be sued in its corporate name. The Association has a 
membership of approximately 12,500, most of whom are 
Negro teachers, teaching in the public schools of North 
Carolina, including the Stanley County Public Schools. 
One of the objectives of the Association is to support the 
decisions of the United States Supreme Court on segre­
gation in public education and to work for the assignment 
of students to classes and teachers and other professional 
personnel to professional duties within the public school 
systems without regard to race, and to work against dis­
crimination in the selection of such professional personnel. 
Plaintiff Association is the medium by which its members 
are enabled to express their views and to take action with 
respect to controversial issues relating to racial discrimina­
tion. The Association asserts here the right of its members 
not to be hired, assigned or dismissed on the basis of their 
race or color.

IV
The defendant in this case is the Stanley County Board 

of Education, a public body corporate organized and ex­
isting under the laws of the State of North Carolina. The 
defendant Board maintains and generally supervises the 
public schools of Stanley County, North Carolina, acting 
pursuant to the direction and authority contained in the 
State’s constitutional and statutory provisions. As such, 
the Board is an arm of the State of North Carolina, en­
forcing and exercising State laws and policies. Among its

Complaint



4a

duties, defendant assigns students to the various public 
schools and hires, assigns and dismisses teachers and pro­
fessional school personnel to duties in the Stanley County 
School System.

Y

Defendant, acting under color of the authority vested in 
it by the laws of the State of North Carolina, has pursued 
and is presently pursuing a policy, practice, custom and 
usage of operating the public school system of Stanley 
County on a basis that discriminates against plaintiffs be­
cause of race or color, to wit:

1. Defendant has in the past and presently hires and 
assigns all teachers and professional school personnel on 
the basis of race and color. Negro teachers and profes­
sional personnel are assigned to schools reserved for 
Negro students.

2. Effective with the beginning of the 1965-66 school 
year, defendant has adopted a plan for the assignment of 
students to the various schools which permits students to 
indicate the school they desire to attend. Under defen­
dant’s plan, approximately 100 Negro students have re­
quested reassignment from the formerly all-Negro schools 
which they formerly attended to previously all-white 
schools and pursuant to defendant’s policy and practice 
of making racial assignments of teachers and professional 
school personnel, defendant has dismissed individual plain­
tiff herein and other Negro teachers, in anticipation of 
the decrease in enrollment in the formerly all-Negro 
schools, solely on the basis of their race and color. Defen­
dant has continued to hire white teachers and school per­
sonnel to fill positions in all-white or formerly all-white 
schools and refused to consider the application of in­

Complaint



5a

dividual plaintiff solely because of her race. Defendant 
refuses to eliminate its racial policies regarding teachers 
and professional personnel and continues to hire, assign 
and dismiss such personnel solely on the basis of their 
race and color.

VI
Plaintiffs have made reasonable efforts to communicate 

to defendant their dissatisfaction with defendant’s racially 
discriminatory practices, but without effecting any change. 
Further efforts by plaintiffs would prove fruitless in pro­
viding the relief which plaintiffs seek in view of defendant’s 
continued avowed adherence to the racially discriminatory 
practices set forth herein.

VII

Individual plaintiff and members of plaintiff Associa­
tion are irreparably injured by the acts of defendant com­
plained of herein. The continued racially discriminatory 
practices of defendant in hiring, assigning and dismissing 
teachers and professional school personnel violate the 
rights of individual plaintiff and members of plaintiff 
Association secured to them by the Due Process and 
Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States, and Title 42, 
U. S. C. §§1981, 1982 and 1983.

The injury which plaintiffs suffer as a result of the 
action of the defendant is and will continue to be irrepara­
ble until enjoined by this Court. Any other relief to which 
plaintiffs could be remitted would be attended by such 
uncertainties and delays as to deny substantial relief, 
would involve a multiplicity of suits, cause further ir­
reparable injury and occasion damage, vexation and in­
convenience to the plaintiffs.

Complaint



6a

W h e r e f o r e , plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court 
advance this cause on the docket and order a speedy hear­
ing of the action according to law and, after such hearing, 
enter a preliminary and permanent decree, enjoining the 
defendant, its agents, employees, and successors and all 
persons in active concert and participation with them from 
hiring, assigning and dismissing teachers and professional 
school personnel on the basis of race and color, from dis­
missing, releasing, refusing to hire or assign individual 
plaintiff and other Negro teachers and professional school 
personnel on the basis of race or color and from continuing 
any other practice, policy, custom or usage on the basis 
of race or color.

Plaintiffs further pray that this Court retain jurisdic­
tion of this cause pending full and complete compliance 
by the defendant with the order of the Court, that the 
Court will allow them their costs herein, reasonable counsel 
fees and grant such other, further and additional or al­
ternative relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable 
and just.

Respectfully submitted,

C onrad  0 .  P earson

203% East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

J . L e vo n n e  C h a m b e r s

405% East Trade Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

J a c k  G r e e n b e r g

D e rrick  A. B e l l , Jr.
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Complaint



7a

Plaintiffs, upon their complaint filed in this case, move 
the Court for a preliminary injunction pending final hear­
ing and determination of this case, enjoining the defendant, 
its agents, servants, employees, successors, and all persons 
in active concert and participation with them for dismiss­
ing, refusing to hire or assign Negro teachers, now teach­
ing in the Stanley County School System, on the basis of 
race or color and from hiring, assigning and dismissing 
teachers and professional school personnel on the basis of 
race.

Plaintiffs further pray that the Court will retain juris­
diction of this cause pending full and complete compliance 
by the defendant with the order of the Court, that the 
Court will allow them their costs herein, reasonable at­
torney fees, and grant such other, further additional or 
alternative relief as may appear to the Court to be equi­
table and just.

Respectfully submitted,

C onrad  0 .  P earson

203% East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

J . L e vo n n e  C h a m b e r s

405% East Trade Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

J a c k  G reenberg

D e r rick  A. B e l l , Jr.
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Motion for Preliminary Injunction



8a

The Defendant, Answering the Complaint of the Plain­
tiffs, and Requesting That This Answer Be Used as 
an Affidavit in Support of the Motions Herein Alleged 
and as Notice of Said Motions, for Its Motions and 
Answer Alleges:

F irst  D efen se

This action should be dismissed for that:
a) The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted.
b) Under the allegations of the Complaint Plaintiffs 

would be entitled to no relief under any state or set of 
facts which could be proved in support of its claim or 
allegations.

c) Under the allegations of the Complaint Plaintiffs 
have no possible right to relief on any theory, under any 
discernible circumstances and their is an utter lack of law 
and alleged facts.

d) For that the circumstances upon which Plaintiffs 
attempt to base their cause of action are governed by 
State law under Federal Rules of Decision Statute (28 
USCA 1652) and, therefore, Defendant did not owe Plain­
tiffs any statutory or other legal duty.

e) The Complaint discloses that Defendant acted within 
the scope of its legal, lawful rights and pursuant to valid 
State Statutes, and acts of the Defendant could not amount 
to a violation of any rights of the Plaintiffs.

f) The Plaintiffs have no legal, statutory or constitu­
tional right to public employment and cannot be deprived 
of any rights related thereto.

Answer and Motions of Defendant



9a

g) The Defendant has never had any legal or con­
tractual relationship with the Corporate Plaintiff, and 
therefore the Corporate Plaintiff is not a proper party 
to maintain this action, and therefore for a defect of Party 
Plaintiff as to the Corporate Plaintiff this action should 
be dismissed.

S econd D efen se

That for the reasons set forth in the First Defense, the 
Defendant specifically moves that this alleged cause of 
action be dismissed.

Answer and Motions of Defendant

T h ird  D efen se

The Defendant adopts and realleges the matters and 
things set forth in the First Defense and further alleges 
that the contracts of the teachers for the benefit of whom 
this action is allegedly instituted had expired and termi­
nated in accordance with valid statutory law of the State of 
North Carolina, and therefore the Defendant moves the 
Court for judgment upon the pleadings in favor of the 
Defendant and to the end that Plaintiffs’ alleged claim 
and cause of action be dismissed.

F ou rth  D efense

The defendant, by its Attorneys of Record, hereby move 
the Court to enter summary judgment for the Defendant, 
in accordance with the provisions of Rule 56(b) and (c) of 
the Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground that the plead­
ings, answer of the Defendant used as an affidavit, and 
other exhibits, show that the Defendant is entitled to 
judgment as a matter of law. That Defendant will bring 
this motion on for hearing before the District Judge of the



10a

United States Court for the Middle District of North Caro­
lina at the Federal Courtroom in Salisbury, North Caro­
lina, or at such other place as this proceeding or action is 
set for hearing, or at such time as the Court may direct. 
The Defendant alleges in support of said motion for sum­
mary judgment the following:

a) The Defendant adopts and realleges the matters set 
forth in the previous defense of this Answer.

b) That there are no genuine issues of material facts 
existing which are determinative of any duty or right which 
the Defendant owes the Plaintiffs, and as a matter of law 
Defendant is entitled to a summary judgment.

c) That there are no genuine, relevant and material facts 
as to deprivation of any constitutional rights of the teach­
ers in whose behalf the Plaintiffs attempt to maintain this 
action for that the circumstances upon which Plaintiffs 
attempt to base their alleged claim or cause of action are 
governed by State law, and, the Defendant having acted 
within the scope of its legal rights according to State law 
and State Statutes, no cause of action inures to the Plain­
tiffs in behalf of said teachers.

d) That the Plaintiff Audrey Grillis Wall was formerly 
employed by the Defendant to teach in the public schools 
administered by the Defendant under a written legal con­
tract which was entered into on a yearly basis as related 
to the school year, and said contract expired or terminated 
under the statutes and laws of the State of North Carolina, 
and there was no legal duty on the part of the Defendant 
Board of Education and its officers and agents to employ 
said Plaintiff for another or prospective year, and said 
Plaintiff had never had any right of employment or re­

Answer and Motions of Defendant



11a

employment in the public schools of the Defendant nor did 
any member of the Corporate Plaintiff organization have 
any such right. That under the Rules of Decision Statute 
enacted by Congress it is the duty of the Court to enforce 
the State law which governs the rights and duties of the 
parties.

e) That the Defendant, the Stanly County Board of Ed­
ucation, is an agent of the State and an instrumentality of 
government, as well as a body politic, and is, therefore, 
not subject to the provisions of T itle  VI of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964, and therefore the Defendant is immune from 
any action or proceeding such as this claim of the Plain­
tiffs on behalf of the individual plaintiff and the corperate 
plaintiff in behalf of its teacher members; and the Defend­
ant in these circumstances owes the Plaintiff and the said 
teacher members no duty and is therefore not liable to the 
individual Plaintiff the Corporate Plaintiff, or any other 
school teacher who claims to have an interest in this action.

F if t h  D efen se

The Plaintiffs having prayed for equitable relief have 
failed to show a failure on the part of the Defendant to 
perform a clear, legal duty so as to provide grounds for 
equitable relief and a valid basis for a proper decree in 
equity; that the teachers in whose behalf the Plaintiffs at­
tempt to maintain this action have no valid and enforceable 
right to public employment, their contracts having been 
for a definite period of time and having expired, and said 
teachers are not entitled to any exceptional or superior 
prerogative and privileges because they happen to be mem­
bers of the Negro race; that the rights and privileges as 
to employment or re-employment of said public school

Answer and Motions of Defendant



12a

teachers are governed by the laws of the State of North 
Carolina and these laws have been observed and complied 
with by the Defendant; that the pnpils in the schools of 
said teachers were assigned to other public schools in order 
to comply with T itle  VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
and there is therefore no equitable basis for the extraor­
dinary relief of injunction or otherwise; that the laws of 
the State of North Carolina govern and control in this 
case under the Rules of Decision Statute, and Plaintiff is 
not entitled to any form of equitable relief.

S ix t h  D efense

That the Defendant has a constitutional right to enter 
into contracts of employment with public school teachers, 
including the teachers herein affected and has a constitu­
tional right in its judgment and discretion to refuse to 
reemploy these teachers or any other teachers in its public 
school system; that any attempt on the part of the Plain­
tiffs to force or compel the Defendant to again enter into 
a new contract or to re-employ the teachers herein con­
cerned is a violation of the constitutional rights of the De­
fendant, is a violation of the due process clause of the Fifth 
Amendment to the Federal Constitution and is therefore 
in violation of the equal protection and due process clause 
of the Fourteenth Amendment and further is in violation 
of the Law of the Land clause as set forth in Article I, 
Section 17, of the Constitution of North Carolina and fur­
ther is an impairment of the Defendant’s right to con­
tract ; that such constitutional infringement of the Defend­
ant’s constitutional rights and such deprivation of the 
Defendant’s privileges and immunities are here alleged as 
a bar to the Plaintiffs’ right to recover in this action.

Answer and Motions of Defendant



13a

Answer and Motions of Defendant 

S e v e n t h  D efen se

That the individual Plaintiff Audrey Gfillis Wall was not 
employed as a teacher in the public school system under the 
jurisdiction of the Defendant for the school year 1965-1966 
for the reason that the principal of the school in which 
she taught for the school year 1964-1965 refused to recom­
mend her reemployment on account of her incompetency, 
lack of qualification, and past adverse record of employ­
ment in said school system, and because no white or Negro 
principal of any of the public schools of the Defendant 
wanted or would accept her (except by compulsion on the 
part of the Board of Education) on account of her past 
record of insubordination and absenteeism in the schools 
in which she had previously taught and her general reputa­
tion for being a ‘Trouble maker” in the schools in which 
she had taught.

E ig h t h  D efense

The Defendant alleges and says that as an agency and 
political subdivision of the State of North Carolina it is not 
as such subject to suit without its consent, and the Court 
is without jurisdiction to hear and determine the pur­
ported claim for relief asserted against it as an entity and 
“an arm of the State of North Carolina.”

N in t h  D efen se

T h e  D e fe n d a n t  S pe c if ic a l l y  A n sw e r in g  t h e  V arious 
P aragraphs of th e  C o m pl a in t  for  its A n sw e r  A lleges :

1) Answering the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the 
Complaint, it is admitted that the Federal Statutes desig­
nated in said paragraph are set forth in the United States 
Code, but it is denied that they have any application to the



14a

Defendant or that any constitutional rights of the Plain­
tiffs or the said teachers have been violated or abridged or 
that any unconstitutional discrimination has been enforced 
or administered by the Defendant; except as admitted 
herein, all allegations of Paragraph 1 are untrue and are 
denied.

2) Answering the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the 
Complaint, it is denied that the Plaintiffs or either of 
them are entitled to any preliminary or permanent injunc­
tion or that the Defendant, or any of its members or any­
one acting in concert with them or at their direction or 
otherwise, has engaged or is continuing to engage in a pol­
icy, practice, custom, and usage of discriminating against 
the individual plaintiff members of the plaintiff organiza­
tion or other Negro citizens of Stanly County, North Caro­
lina, because of race or color, or that they are hiring, as­
signing, dismissing, or refusing to hire teachers and other 
school personnel in the Stanly County School system on 
the basis of race or color, and that all the allegations of 
said paragraph are untrue and are denied.

3) Answering the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the 
Complaint, it is admitted that the individual Plaintiff is a 
Negro citizen of the United States, and of North Carolina, 
residing in Stanly County, North Carolina, and that she has 
taught in the Stanly County School system for eleven (11) 
years; further answering said paragraph, the Defendant 
affirmatively alleges that the individual plaintiff was not 
re-employed in its school system for the year 1965-1966 
because of the lack of qualification only, as has herein­
before in this answer been set forth in detail. Further an­
swering the allegations of said paragraph, the Defendant 
says it does not have sufficient knowledge or information

Answer and Motions of Defendant



15a

to form a belief relative to those matters in said paragraph 
asserting the nature and purpose of the North Carolina 
Teachers Association and therefore denies the same.

Except as herein admitted, all the allegations of said 
paragraph are denied.

4) Each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 4 
of the Complaint are admitted, and, further affirmatively 
answering the said allegations, the Stanly County Board of 
Education alleges and says that as an agency and political 
subdivision of the State of North Carolina it is not as 
such subject to suit without its consent, and that the Court 
is without jurisdiction to hear and determine the pur­
ported claim for relief asserted against it as an entity and 
“an arm of the State of North Carolina.”

5) The allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint and 
sub-paragraphs 1 through 4, inclusive, are untrue and de­
nied, except to the extent that an admission to portions 
thereof may be made in the further affirmative answer to 
said allegations contained herein.

Further affirmatively answering allegations of Para­
graph 5 of the Complaint, the Stanly County Board of 
Education alleges that it submitted to the United States 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare a com­
prehensive plan, prepared and designed in good faith to 
comply with all lawful requirements of the Acts of Con­
gress and judicial decisions and interpretations relating 
thereto as they affect the desegregation of the public 
schools over which the Stanly County Board of Education 
has jurisdiction, which plan was adopted by the Board on 
April 26, 1965, revised and re-adopted by the Board after 
revision on June 7, 1965; that said plan was approved by 
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, by let­

Answer and Motions of Defendant



16a

ter to Luther A. Adams, Superintendent of the Stanly 
County School Administrative Unit, on June 18, 1965, 
under signature of Francis Keppel, United States Com­
missioner of Education; that said plan has been imple­
mented in good faith by the Board of Education to the ex­
tent possible at this time; that a copy of said plan, marked 
“Exhibit A” is attached hereto and requested to be made 
a part of this paragraph as if fully set forth herein.

Further answering allegations of said paragraph, the 
Defendant alleges that it has not engaged in any discrimi­
natory practices with reference to the Plaintiffs or any 
teachers now employed or formerly employed in its school 
system, and that the action taken hy it was done and per­
formed in the effort to comply with T it l e  VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964. It is specifically denied that the in­
dividual plaintiff or any other teacher affected by com­
pliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was dismissed 
because of race or were in fact dismissed at all. That the 
Defendant did not reemploy the individual plaintiff be­
cause her contract had expired, because she was unqualified 
and incompetent, and the Board had no need for her; that 
the failure to re-employ public school teachers because of 
transfer of students and consolidation of schools or any 
other cause bringing about a reduction in the number of 
teachers allotted to the schools has happened throughout 
the State for many years and has affected both white and 
Negro teachers.

6) The allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint are 
denied.

7) The allegations of paragraph 7 of the Complaint are 
denied.

Answer and Motions of Defendant



17a

W h erefore , having fully answered the Plaintiffs’ Com­
plaint, the Defendant prays that the Court hold, rule, 
adjudge, and decree as follows:

1) That the Court not consider this Answer to be a sub­
mission to the jurisdiction of the Court.

2) That the Court grant the motions of the Defendant 
to dismiss this action, for judgment on the pleadings and 
the motion that the Court enter a summary judgment in 
favor of the Defendant.

3) That the Court hold that the Complaint does not state 
a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that the 
Court has no jurisdiction over the Defendant and the sub­
ject matter of this action.

4) That the Corporate Plaintiff has no legal capacity or 
status to maintain this action.

5) That there is not sufficient equitable basis or facts 
alleged for the granting of a permanent injunction of a 
mandatory nature or of any other nature.

6) That this verified answer be treated as an affidavit for 
the purpose of the motions alleged herein and in passing 
upon the injunctive relief demanded by the Plaintiffs.

7) That no costs or fees be awarded or charged against 
the Defendant.

8) That the costs of this action, together with reasonable 
attorney fees, incurred by the Board of Education herein, 
be taxed to the Plaintiffs; that the Plaintiffs be required 
to file a bond or other security in order to secure the 
same; and

Answer and Motions of Defendant



18a

9) That the Defendant have such other and further re­
lief as to the Court may seem just and proper in the 
premises.

Respectfully submitted this 2 day of September, 1965.
S taton  P . W il l ia m s , 

Albemarle, N. C.

H e n r y  C. D oby , Jr., 
Albemarle, N. C.

Attorneys for the Defendant.

Answer and Motions of Defendant

N o rth  C aro lin a  
S t a n l y  C o u n t y

R eece B. M cS w a in , being duly sworn, says:
That he is Chairman of the Stanly County Board of Ed­

ucation, the Defendant in this case, and that he verifies 
this Answer in behalf of said Defendant; that he has read 
the foregoing Answer and the same is true to his own 
knowledge and belief, except as to the matters and things 
therein stated upon information and belief, and as to those 
matters and things he believes it to be true.

R eece B. M cS w a in  
Chairman of the Stanly County 

Board of Education

Sworn and subscribed to before
me on this the 1st day of September, 1965.

M argaret M . W il l ia m s  
Notary Public



19a

C omes N o w , the Stanly County Board of Education, 
a body politic and the governing authority for the opera­
tion of the public schools in the Stanly County Admin­
istrative Unit, Stanly County, North Carolina, under the 
provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
and submits for approval as compliance with said provi­
sions and requirements of said Act the plan as follows:

A rticle  I

G e n eral  P rovisions an d  C o m plia n c e  I n f o r m a tio n

Section 1. The Stanly County Administrative Unit em­
braces all of the County of Stanly other than that portion 
of said County that lies within the boundaries of the 
Albemarle City School Administrative Unit.

Section 2. The territory of the Stanly County Admin­
istrative Unit comprises one (1) school district.

Section 3. Racial Characteristics of School Population

(a) There are approximately 6,934 children of school age 
residing in the district, 5,870 of whom are white, and 
1,064 of whom are Negro. There are no other races in 
the district.

(b) The number of Negroes presently attending pre­
dominantly white schools is two (2).

(c) The number of white children attending predom­
inantly Negro schools is none (0).

(d) The number of Negro pupils presently attending 
classes with white pupils in the public schools of the dis­
trict by grade is: first grade, none; second grade, none;

Defendant’s Exhibit “A”



20a

third grade, none; fourth grade, none; fifth grade, none; 
sixth grade, none; seventh grade, none; eighth grade, none; 
ninth grade, none; tenth grade, none; eleventh grade, none; 
twelfth grade, two.

(e) The number of pupils attending public schools out­
side the district on a tuition paid basis is: (i.e., tuition 
paid by the parent or guardian with no contribution of 
school tax funds from Stanly County) white, 278; Negro, 
none; Other, none. The situation is this: Approximately 
150 Negro High School children residing in the County 
are presently assigned to the Albemarle City Administra­
tive Unit. Under the exercise of the Freedom of Choice 
Plan approximately two-thirds (% ) of the Negro students 
assigned to the Albemarle Administrative Unit elected to 
attend white schools in the Stanly County Administrative 
Unit. At this point it is proposed to let the remaining 
one-third (y3) continue to attend school in the City Ad­
ministrative Unit. White children residing in the County 
Administrative District are permitted to attend the Al­
bemarle City Administrative Unit upon payment of a 
tuition. This tuition is paid by the parents of the child 
and no tax funds are involved.

(f) No pupils residing in the district presently attend 
private schools on a tuition grant basis.

Section 4. Racial Characteristics of Schools of the 
District

(a) The number of elementary schools (grades 1-8) in 
which the pupils enrolled are all white is eleven (11); 
all Negro, three (3); integrated, none.

Defendant’s Exhibit “A ”



21a

(b) There are no junior high schools operated in the 
district.

(c) The number of high schools (grades 9-12) in which 
the pupils enrolled are all white is two (2), all Negro, 
one (1); integrated, one (1).

Section 5. Racial Characteristics of Teaching and 
Administrative Staff

(a) By race, the number of teachers in the district who 
are white is 237; Negro, 33; other, none.

(b) By race, the number of non-teaching staff members is 
(clerical help, etc.) white, 124; Negro, 19; other, none.

(c) The number of elementary schools having teachers 
who are all white is eleven (11); all Negro, three (3); 
integrated, none.

(d) No junior high schools are operated in the district.

(e) The number of high schools having teachers who 
are all white is three (3); all Negro, one (1); integrated, 
none.

Section 6. School Bus Routes and Practices

A dual bus system is operated in the district; that is, 
Negroes are assigned to and are transported in busses 
carrying only Negroes; white children are assigned to 
and transported on busses carrying only whites. The 
children board the busses from pick-up stations along the 
route. No child has to go more than one-half (Mj) mile to 
board a bus, and virtually all pick-ups are made along the 
bus route on a house to house basis.

Defendant’s Exhibit “A ”



22a

A rticle  II

P l a n  for  C o m plia n c e

WITH

T it l e  VI of t h e  C iv il  R ig h t s  A ct of 1964

ADOPTED BY

T h e  S t a n l y  C o u n t y  B oard of E d u cation  
S t a n l y  C o u n t y  S ch ool  A d m in ist r a t iv e  U n it  
A lb e m a r le , S t a n l y  C o u n t y , N o rth  C aro lin a

ON

J u n e  7, 1965

Section 1. Present Patterns, Practices, Policies and
Procedures Governing School Organization 
and Pupil Assignment

(a) The schools by name, grades taught, enrollment by 
race, and teaching staff by race are as follows:

Defendant’s Exhibit “A ”

S c h o o l

G ra d es

Taught
E n r o ll m e n t  

b y  ra ce

T e a c h in g  
S t a ff  

b y  ra ce

Millingport 1-8 266 W 9 W
Richfield 1-8 246 W 9 W
New London 1-8 531W 17 W
Badin 1-8 322 W 11W
Norwood 1-8 698 W 25 W
Aquadale 1-8 324 W 12 W
Endy 1-8 266 W 10W
Oakboro 1-8 484 W 17 W
Stanfield 1-8 315 W 11 W
Ridgecrest 1-8 165 W 6 W
Locust 1-8 337 W 12 W
North Stanly 9-12 697 W 2 N 33 W
South Stanly 9-12 523 W 30 W



23a

Defendant’s Exhibit ‘ ‘‘A ”

S c h o o l
G ra d es

T a u g h t
E n r o llm e n t  

b y  ra ce

T e a c h in g  
S t a f f  

b y  ra ce

West Stanly 9-12 672 W 35 W
West Badin 9-12 151 N 9 N
West Badin 1-8 305 N ION
South Oakboro 1-8 125 N 4 N
Lake View 1-8 261 N ION
Kingsville (in 9-12 150 N

Albemarle City 1-8 69 N
Administrative 
Unit-pupils 
assigned by 
agreement)

(b) Presently, pupil assignments to the respective 
schools are made pursuant to the provisions of Article 21, 
Chapter 115, of the General Statutes of North Carolina, 
with the right of re-assignment of any child by request. 
Over the years white children have been assigned to all 
white schools, and Negro children have been assigned to 
all Negro schools. All requests for re-assignment made 
for the school year 1964-65 were granted by the Board 
of Education.

(c) Presently, 5,002 pupils are being transported by bus 
to the respective schools. A dual transportation system 
is used, and Negro children are assigned to busses trans­
porting only Negroes, and white children are assigned to 
busses transporting only white children, under the direc­
tion of the County Superintendent and the principals of 
the respective schools, pursuant to State Law.

(d) Staff personnel of the respective schools are not 
presently assigned on an integrated basis, but county-wide



24a

staff meetings are held and conducted on a completely 
integrated basis. This means that teachers’ meetings, prin­
cipals’ meetings, supervisors’ meetings, and other admin­
istrative meetings, including committee meetings etc., work 
entirely on an integrated basis.

(e) The three (3) all-Negro schools operated in the 
County Unit are located in the geographical centers of 
areas densely populated with Negroes. These areas are 
Negro communities that have developed over the years.

A r tic l e  III

P roposed P olicies G overn in g  E n r o l l m e n t  an d  A ssig n m e n t  
an d  R e- A ssig n m e n t  op P u p il s  to S chools in  t h e  

S ch ool  A d m in ist r a t iv e  U n it

Section 1. Commencing with the 1965-66 school year and 
each year thereafter, children entitled to attend the schools 
in the Administrative Unit will be given complete freedom 
of choice as to the school to be attended, and to this end:

(a) Parents of all children entering the school system 
for the first time and parents of all children in all grades 
already enrolled in the school system will he given full 
opportunity to indicate their choice of schools, before the 
Board of Education makes any assignment of pupils.

Teachers, principals, and other school personnel are 
not permitted to advise, recommend, or otherwise influence 
the decision; nor will school personnel either favor or 
penalize children because of the choice made.

(b) Should more requests be submitted for a particular 
school or facility than can be honored because of over­
crowding of facilities, preference will be accorded solely 
on the basis of proximity of the residence of the child to

Defendant’s Exhibit “A ”



25a

the school chosen. No request will be denied for any reason 
other than over-crowding. The Board of Education will 
honor all “Freedom of Choice” requests and will make 
facilities available where necessary.

(c) Parents whose original requests for assignment can­
not be granted, will be given an opportunity to indicate a 
second choice, in a like manner as they would have indicated 
a first choice.

(d) Under the freedom of choice plan, it is mandatory 
for parents to express a choice of school or schools to 
which they wish their child or children to be assigned 
without regard to race, color, or national origin.

A rticle  IV

P rocedures for A d m in ist e r in g  t h e  P u p il  A ssig n m e n t  
P o licy  for 1965-66 and  S u b seq u en t  Y ears

Section 1. As stated in Article III, the pupil assignment 
policy becomes operative for the school year 1965-66.

Section 2. Pre-Registration of Pupils Planning to 
Enroll in First Grade

(a) Beginning .............................. 1965 (a date at least
four weeks before pre-registration is to commence) and 
once a week for three successive weeks the announcement 
below shall be conspicuously published in the Stanly News 
and Press, Albemarle, N. C.:

“ P re-R egistration  of F irst  G rade P u p il s  for F a l l  1965

“Pre-registration of pupils planning to enroll in first 
grade in Stanly County Schools for the fall 1965 semester

Defendant’s Exhibit “A ”

will take place for a period of ..............  days, from
............................ . 1965 through ........................ . 1965.



26a

Under policies adopted by the Stanly County Board of 
Education, parents or guardians may register pupils dur­
ing this period at the school of their choice. All assign­
ments heretofore made with respect to such pupils shall 
be rescinded. At the time of pre-registration a choice must 
be expressed. No child may attend school until a choice 
has been made. In the event of over crowding, preference 
will be given without regard to race, color, or national 
origin to those choosing the school who reside closest to it. 
Those whose choices are rejected because of over crowding 
will be notified and permitted to make an effective choice 
of another school, without regard to race, color or national 
origin.

The choice is granted to the parent or guardian and the 
child. Teachers, principals and other school personnel 
are not permitted to advise, recommend or otherwise 
influence the decision. Nor will school personnel either 
favor or penalize children because of the choice made.

Children not pre-registered by the assigned date may
be registered at the school of their choice on ..........................
(a date to be set) immediately prior to the opening of 
schools for the fall 1965 semester, but first preference in 
choice of schools will be given to those who pre-registered 
at the appointed date and time.

(b) Annually after 1965, similar practices will be fol­
lowed with respect to registering and enrolling pupils for 
the first time in the first grade.

Section 3. Notice to Parents of Pupils Moving into the 
County School District from outside the 
District

“ The Office of the Superintendent will furnish, upon 
application, to parents or guardians of pupils moving into

Defendant’s Exhibit “A ”



27a

the school district, forms and instructions necessary to 
complete registration and enrollment in the School of their 
choice.”

Section 4. Notice to Parents of Pupils graduating from 
Elementary to High School

“Pupils promoted from 8th grade (elementary school) 
to 9th grade (high school) will be furnished by their class­
room teacher or principal, for delivery to their parents 
or guardians, on a date fixed by the Superintendent of 
Schools prior to their graduation, the appropriate in­
structions and forms on which their parents or guardians 
may exercise their choice of the school next to be attended 
by such pupils. A reasonable time (15 days) will be pro­
vided for returning the form after it has been distributed, 
and the written instructions accompanying the form shall 
set forth in detail the Board of Education policies per­
mitting a free choice of the school next to be attended. 
A choice must be exercised, as to each child, as a condition 
to his being admitted to school.”

Section 5. Lateral Transfers by Pupils, Eligible to 
Continue in a School where Currently En­
rolled. Notice!

“Prior to the end of classes for each school year, pupils 
eligible to continue in the same school will be assigned 
for the forthcoming year. At a date fixed by the Super­
intendent and in advance of the time that re-assignment 
for the coming year is made, all pupils will be furnished 
by their classroom teachers appropriate forms and in­
structions for use by their parents in exercising their right 
to apply for a transfer of their child to a school of their 
choice for the coming year. Such instructions will set

Defendant’s Exhibit “A”



28a

forth in detail the Board of Education policies respecting 
transfers without regard to race, color, or national origin 
for the coming year, and will state that it is mandatory 
for parents to sign and return the freedom of choice 
forms.”

Section 6. Forms and Notices to be sent by School to 
Parents

(a) Notice of Board Policy. “For the school year 1965-66 
and for all school years thereafter, the Stanly County 
Board of Education has adopted a plan for registering, 
enrolling, and assigning pupils giving parents the right 
to make a choice to be attended by their child, without 
regard to race, color, or national origin. Use the enclosed 
form to state your preference as to the school to which 
you wish your child assigned. You must write into the 
form on the lines indicated, the name of the child, the 
grade he will be in, and the name of the school you wish 
him to attend. Sign and date the form. This form must 
be properly filled out and returned to your child’s teacher 
or principal not later than .............................. 1965.

A freedom of choice request must be submitted for each 
child as a condition to his being admitted to a school. If 
more requests for a school are made than the school can 
accommodate, due to over crowding of facilities, the Board 
of Education will make assignments by giving preference, 
without regard to race, color, or national origin, to those 
choosing the school residing closest to it. If your child 
is denied his choice for this reason, you will be notified, 
and you may on appropriate forms state a second choice 
of assignment.”

(b) Form to be used by Parent:

Defendant’s Exhibit “A ”



29a

“I am the parent or guardian o f .................................. -.....
(p u p il’s name and address)

whom I wish enrolled for the school year 1965-66 in the 
.................. grade at th e .......................................  School.

Dated th e.................. day o f ...............................  1965.
(signed) .............................................”

(Parent or Guardian)

Section 7. Capacity o f  Schools

Capacity of schools will be determined by the standards, 
requirements, and regulations promulgated by the State 
Board of Education.

Section 8. Transportation

(a) Where transportation of pupils is provided, children 
will be assigned to busses on a non-segregated basis. All 
services, facilities, activities and programs in each school 
shall henceforth be available to every pupil of each school 
on a non-discriminatory basis.

(b) If a parent chooses a school not normally served 
by the transportation system of the district as now set up, 
transportation must be furnished by the parent or guardian.

Section 9. Procedures for Informing and Preparing 
Staff for Transition

Staff will be informed and prepared for the transition 
by convocation of all staff personnel on an integrated basis.

Section 10. Policy of Board of Desegregation of Staff

The Board of Education is aware of and recognizes that 
school desegregation includes desegregation of faculty and 
is now in the process of developing a policy whereby staff

Defendant’s Exhibit “A ”



30a

and professional personnel will be employed solely on 
the basis of competence, training, experience, and personal 
qualifications and will be assigned to and within the schools 
of the nnit without regard to race, color, or national origin. 
This policy will be put into effect immediately after it is 
developed, but in any event to commence by the 1966-67 
school term.

Section 11. Plans for Future

The Board of Education recognizes that eventually the 
all-Negro schools in the district will have to be abandoned, 
and to this end the Board will develop a plan for additions 
to present all-white schools or the construction of new 
plants, and all pupils in the district will be assigned on a 
non-discriminatory basis.

As of June 1, 1965 slightly less than one-half (% ) of the 
approximately 1,000 Negro children had been assigned to 
schools of their choice. In each instance assignment was 
made to previously all-white schools as requested.

The Board of Education expects to completely desegre­
gate all Negro schools by September, 1967 by providing 
adequate facilities.

Section 12. Certification

This is to certify that the foregoing Plan for Compliance 
was adopted by the Stanly County Board of Education 
in called session on June 7, 1965.

Date June 7, 1965
s / Reece B. McSwain 

C h a ir m a n

Date June 7, 1965
s / Luther A. Adams

S e c r e t a r y  a n d  S u p e r in t e n d e n t

Defendant’s Exhibit “A ”



31a

Come now the plaintiffs, by their undersigned attorneys, 
and in response to the several motions of defendant, show 
the Court as follows:

I

This action was initially tiled by plaintiffs on August 11, 
1965, seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction 
against the racially discriminatory practices of defendant 
in dismissing and refusing to hire individual plaintiff, mem­
bers of the class said plaintiff represents, and members of 
corporate plaintiff in the public schools under defendant’s 
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs also sought injunctive relief against 
defendant’s racially discriminatory practices in assigning 
teachers and school personnel in the Stanly County School 
System. Along with their complaint, plaintiffs filed a mo­
tion for preliminary injunction and brief. Defendant has 
filed an answer moving

(1) to dismiss the action

(a) for failure to state a claim for relief, and con­
tending

(b) and (c) that plaintiffs would be entitled to no 
relief;

(d) that defendant owes plaintiffs no legal duty un­
der 28 U. S. C. §1652;

(e) that defendant acted within its legal rights;

(f) that plaintiffs have no legal statutory or con­
tractual right to public employment ;

(g) that defendant has had no legal or contractual 
relation with corporate plaintiff and that said

Response



32a

plaintiff is not a proper party to maintain the 
action;

(2) to dismiss the action because the contracts for teach­
ers were only for one year which expired;

(3) for summary judgment on the pleadings, affidavits 
and exhibits, realleging the matters set forth in (1) 
and (2) above and alleging that defendant, being an 
agent of the State, was not subject to the provisions 
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;

(4) to dismiss the action because defendant has a con­
stitutional right to enter into contracts for employ­
ment with public school teachers and that the action 
here would violate defendant’s right of due process 
under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States as an impairment of defendant’s 
right to enter into contracts.

II

To all said motions of defendant, plaintiffs say and 
allege:

(1) That the First Defense of defendant is denied;
(2) That the Second Defense of defendant, realleging 

the allegations of the First Defense, is denied;

(3) That the Third Defense of defendant is denied;

(4) That the Fourth Defense of defendant is denied;

(5) That the Fifth Defense of defendant is denied;

(6) That the Sixth Defense of defendant is denied;

(7) That the Seventh Defense of defendant is denied;

Response



33a

(8) That the Eighth Defense of defendant is denied.

F u r t h e r  a n s w e r in g  a n d  r e s p o n d in g  to  t h e  m o t io n s  o p

DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF SAYS AND ALLEGES:

I
That by this action, plaintiffs seek an injunction against 

defendant’s use of race and color in employing and assign­
ing teachers and school personnel in the Stanly County 
School System. Such practices by defendant are clearly 
violative of the rights of individual plaintiff and others of 
her class and members of corporate plaintiff. See Alston 
v. School Board of City of Norfolk, 112 F.2d 992 (4th Cir. 
1940); Franklin v. County School Board of Giles County,
------F. Supp.------  (Civil No. 64-C-73-R, W.D, Va., June 3,
1965).

II
That while the contracts of employment between defend­

ant and Negro teachers and school personnel ran for one 
year, defendant follows a practice of automatically renew­
ing such contracts upon indications by employees of a de­
sire to remain in the system; that individual plaintiff, and 
others of her class and members of corporate plaintiff indi­
cated a desire to remain in the system but defendant refused 
to renew their contracts or refused to consider their appli­
cations for employment on the basis of race and color in 
violation of their rights under the due process and equal 
protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States. See Franklin v. County 
School Board of Giles County, supra.

Response



34a

III
Plaintiffs have alleged, and defendant denied, that de­

fendant has refused to rehire individual plaintiff and others 
of her class and that defendant has followed and has con­
tinued to follow a practice, custom and usage of hiring, as­
signing and dismissing Negro teachers solely on the basis 
of race and color. There are thus genuine, relevant and 
material facts in dispute and no basis for summary judg­
ment. Rule 56, FRCP; Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice 
& Procedure <§§1232.2, 1234 (1958).

IV
Corporate plaintiff is a proper party to seek the relief 

prayed for in its complaint and motion for preliminary 
injunction. Franklin v. County School Board of Giles 
County, supra; Alston v. School Board of City of Norfolk, 
supra; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510; NAACP 
v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449; Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Board of Education, ------  F. Supp. ------  (Civil No. 1974,
W.D. N.C., July 14, 1965).

W h e r e f o r e , plaintiffs pray that the several motions of 
defendant be denied and that plaintiff be granted relief as 
prayed in its complaint and motion for preliminary injunc­
tion.

Response

Respectfully submitted,



35a

Order on Initial Pre-Trial Conference

Counsel for each of the parties in the above-entitled ac­
tion, pursuant to notice, appeared on the 20th day of Octo­
ber, 1965, for an initial pre-trial conference. J. LeVonne 
Chambers, Esq., appeared as counsel for the Plaintiffs, and 
Staton P. Williams, Esq., and Henry C. Doby, Jr., Esq., 
appeared as counsel for the Defendant.

After conferring with counsel for the parties, the follow­
ing order is entered on initial pre-trial conference:

( 1 )  It is O r d e r e d  that each of the parties commence 
forthwith the processes of appropriate discovery and that 
same be completed on or before the 20th day of December, 
1965.

(2) At the time of the initial pre-trial conference, the 
Court overruled all pending motions previously lodged by 
the Plaintiffs and the Defendant without prejudice to the 
right of the parties to reassert any or all of the pending mo­
tions after the facts have been fully developed. Counsel 
for the Plaintiffs will he responsible for the preparation of 
all the necessary orders and present them to the Court for 
signing after they have been seen and endorsed by counsel 
for the Defendant with respect to form.

(3) To the extent presently known, the parties estimated 
that the trial would consume less than half a day.

(4) The parties were advised that it was anticipated that 
the final pre-trial conference would be held during the early



36a

Order on Initial Pre-Trial Conference

part of January 1966, and that the case would he tried 
shortly thereafter.

/ s /  E d w in  M. S t a n l e y  
United States District Judge

October 28,1965

A True Copy 

Teste:

H e b m a n  A m asa  S m it h , Clerk

By: D e a n  J. S m it h

Deputy Clerk



37a

Motion

Come now the plaintiffs by their undersigned attorneys 
and respectfully move the Court for leave to amend their 
complaint and other pleadings filed in the above subject 
cause to correctly show the name of the party-defendant, 
and, as grounds therefor, show the Court as follows:

1. This action was initially filed by plaintiffs on August 
11, 1965, seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction 
against the defendant for refusing to hire individual plain­
tiff and members of plaintiff association and from employ­
ing and assigning members of plaintiff association on the 
basis of race or color.

2. In the style of their action and in the body of their 
complaint and motion for preliminary injunction and other 
pleadings, plaintiffs listed the defendant as the Stanley 
County Board of Education.

3. That the correct spelling of the party-defendant is 
the Stanly County Board of Education.

4. Despite the misspelling of the name of the party- 
defendant no prejudice has resulted to the defendant since 
it was properly served with summons and process and had 
due notice of the pendency of this action and has filed an 
answer and other pleadings in response to same.

W h e b e f o k e , plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for 
leave to amend their complaint and other pleadings as 
follows:

(a) To change the spelling of the party-defendant to 
“ The Stanly County Board of Education, a public body cor­
porate of Stanly County, North Carolina,” in lieu of “The



38a

Motion

Stanley County Board of Education, a public body corpo­
rate of Stanley County, North Carolina,” where it appears 
in the style of the action and the body of plaintiffs’ com­
plaint and other pleadings.

(b) To change the spelling of “ Stanley” County to 
“ Stanly” County where it appears in the style of the action 
and body of plaintiffs’ complaint and other pleadings.



39a

Order Dated November 9 , 1965

This cause coming on to be heard upon motions by defend­
ant to dismiss and for summary judgment and upon motion 
of plaintiffs for preliminary injunction and it appearing to 
the Court that the same should be denied at this time but 
without prejudice to the right of the parties to renew their 
motions, or any of them, at some future date if the parties 
desire.

It is , t h e r e f o r e , o r d e r e d  that the motions of defendant 
to dismiss and for summary judgment be and the same are 
hereby denied without prejudice to the right of the defend­
ant to renew its motions, or any of them, at some future date 
if defendant so desires.

It is  f u r t h e r  o r d e r e d  that the motion of plaintiffs for pre­
liminary injunction be and the same is hereby denied with­
out prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs to renew their 
motion at some future date if plaintiffs so desire.

/ s /  E d w in  M. S t a n l e y  
Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: Nov. 9,1965



40a

Order Dated November 9, 1965

This cause coming on to be heard before the undersigned 
District Judge upon motion of plaintiffs to amend their 
complaint and other pleadings to show the correct spelling 
of the Stanly County Board of Education and Stanly 
County, and it appearing to the Court that there is good 
cause therefor and that counsel for defendant has consented 
to same.

It is , t h e r e f o r e , o r d e r e d  that the complaint and other 
pleadings of plaintiffs be amended to designate the party- 
defendant as “The Stanly County Board of Education, a 
public body corporate of Stanly County, North Carolina,” 
in lieu of “The Stanley County Board of Education, a pub­
lic body corporate of Stanley County, North Carolina,” 
wherever it appears in the style of the action and body of 
the complaint and other pleadings.

It is  f u r t h e r  o r d e r e d  that the pleadings be amended to 
read Stanly County in lieu of “ Stanley” County wherever 
the same appears in the style of the action and body of the 
complaint and other pleadings.

/ s /  E d w in  M. S t a n l e y  
Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: Nov. 9,1965



41a

Motion of Leave to Amend Complaint

Come now the plaintiffs by their undersigned attorneys 
and respectfully move the Court for leave to amend their 
complaint, heretofore filed in the above subject cause, by 
adding the following paragraph to the prayer for relief, 
immediately following the first paragraph thereof;

“That the plaintiff be reinstated as a teacher in the School 
System in the same or comparable position.”

Respectfully submitted,



42a

Memorandum

This matter was scheduled for Final Pre-Trial Confer­
ence in the United States Courtroom, Post Office Building, 
Salisbury, North Carolina, on Wednesday, February 2, 
1966. J. LeVonne Chambers, Esquire, appeared as counsel 
for the Plaintiffs; and Staton P. Williams, Esquire, and 
Henry C. Doby, Jr., Esquire, appeared as counsel for the 
Defendant.

When the matter was called for Final Pre-Trial Con­
ference, the parties presented to the Court the proposed 
O r d e r  on Final Pre-Trial Conference, which had been 
signed by counsel for the parties. The O r d e r  was approved 
and O r d e r e d  filed in the form submitted.

The case is set for trial on April 25, 1966, at Salisbury, 
North Carolina. The actual calendar for this term should 
be mailed to the parties not later than thirty days prior to 
the time set for trial.

The estimated trial time is two days. Trial briefs will 
be filed with the Court on or before the 15th day of April, 
1966.

The motion to amend the complaint, filed by the plain­
tiffs, is allowed; and the plaintiff will accordingly prepare 
an O r d e r  for the signature of the Court, first presenting 
same to counsel for the defendant for approval as to form.

I, Graham Erlacher, Official Reporter of the United 
States District Court for the Middle District of North 
Carolina, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true 
transcript from my notes of the entries made in the above- 
entitled Case No. C-140-S-65 before and by Judge Eugene
A. Gordon, on February 2, 1966, in Salisbury, North Caro­
lina, and I do hereby further certify that a copy of this



43a

Memorandum

transcript was mailed to each of the below-named attorneys 
on February 7, 1966.

Given under my hand this 7th day of February, 1966.

/ s /  G r a h a m  E rlacher

Official Reporter

cc: J. LeVonne Chambers, Esq. 
Staton P. Williams, Esq. 
Henry C. Hoby, Jr., Esq.



44a

Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 16 of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 22, a final pretrial 
conference was held in the above-entitled cause on the 2nd 
day of February, 1966.

J. LeVonne Chambers appeared as counsel for plaintiffs. 
Staton P. Williams and Henry C. Doby, Jr. appeared as 
counsel for defendant.

1. It is stipulated that all parties are properly before the 
Court, and that the Court has jurisdiction over the parties 
and the subject matter, except that defendant contends that 
it is an agency and political subdivision of the State of 
North Carolina and as such is not subject to suit without 
its consent, and the Court is without jurisdiction to hear 
and determine the purported claim.

2. It is stipulated that all parties have been correctly 
designated, and there is no question as to misjoinder or 
nonjoinder of the parties, except that defendant contends 
that as to the corporate plaintiff, there is a defect in parties 
plaintiff.

3. Plaintiffs’ contentions are:
That prior to and since the Brown decision the defendant 

Board has followed a policy of hiring and assigning teachers 
and school personnel on a racial basis, that Negro teachers 
and school personnel are, without exception, assigned to 
schools attended entirely by Negro students; that white 
teachers and school personnel are assigned to schools at­
tended by white students that for the 1965-66 school year, 
approximately 287 Negro students transferred to formerly 
all-white schools; that the School Board reduced the teacher

Order on Final Pretrial Conference



45a

allotment at the Negro schools and dismissed Negro teach­
ers, including plaintiff Audrey Gillis Wall, solely because of 
her race, pursuant to defendant’s continued practice of mak­
ing racial assignments of teachers.

4. Defendant’s contentions are:
(a) Plaintiff Audrey Gillis Wall was not employed by 

defendant School Board as a teacher in its public school 
system for the 1965-66 school year because the principal 
under whom she had taught in the prior school year recom­
mended that she not be employed for the reason she was 
not a fit and suitable teacher.

(b) Plaintiff Audrey Gillis Wall had no right in fact or in 
law of employment as a schoolteacher by defendant School 
Board.

(c) Plaintiffs do not state a claim in law or in fact upon 
which the relief sought can he granted.

(d) Defendant has never had any legal or contractual re­
lationship with the corporate plaintiff, and the corporate 
plaintiff cannot in law maintain this action.

(e) Any contractual relation that had existed between 
plaintiff Audrey Gillis Wall and defendant had terminated 
and expired, and plaintiff Audrey Gillis Wall was not en­
titled to employment by defendant.

5. Stipulations:
(a) At the beginning of the 1962-63 school year defend­

ant School Board consolidated ten all-white schools in its 
system into three high schools.

Order on Final Pre-Trial Conference



46a

Order on Final Pre-Trial Conference

(lb) Defendant hired the following new teachers since the 
institution of this action:

G ra d e or

C ertifica te N a m e  o f  T ea c h er S c h o o l S u b je c t  T a u g h t

Sec. A M ary C. Plummer W est Stanly English and B iology
Sec. A Mildred T. Lee W est Stanly H om e Economics
Prob. B Gretchen J. Corbitt Locust 4th-5th Combination
Elem. A Doris I. Melchor Locust 5th-6th Combination
Sec. A Irm a D. Altman W est Stanly H om e Economies
Prov. Y oc. H arold E. Burris W est Stanly Bricklaying
Prim . A Barbara A . Jackson Locust 5th Grade
Elem. B Sandra B. Biles Norwood 4th Grade
Sec. A Samuel Caldwell, Jr. North Stanly Social Studies
Sec. A Lois H . M abry Stanly County Teacher o f  Hom e- 

bound Children

6. Plaintiffs’ exhibits to be offered at trial:
(a) Answers to interrogatories.
(b) Minutes of Board meeting June 7, 1965.
(c) Teacher allotment form and allotments for the 1965- 

66 school year.
(d) List of new teachers.
(e) List of teachers not returning for the 1965-66 school 

year.
(f) List of schools and enrollment for the 1965-66 school 

year.
(g) Teacher directory.
(h) Contract for instructional service.
(i) Letter of April 30, 1965.
(j) List of resignations and contracts to be approved 

July 7,1965.



47a

Order on Final Pre-Trial Conference

/

7. It is stipulated and agreed that defendant’s counsel 
has been furnished a copy of each exhibit identified by the 
Plaintiffs.

8. It is stipulated and agreed that each of the exhibits 
identified by plaintiffs is genuine and, if relevant and ma­
terial, may be received in evidence without further identifi­
cation or proof.

9. Defendant’s exhibits to be offered at trial:
(a) Answers to interrogatories.

10. It is stipulated and agreed that plaintiffs’ counsel has 
been furnished a copy of each exhibit identified by the de­
fendant.

11. It is stipulated and agreed that each of the exhibits 
identified by defendant is genuine and, if relevant and ma­
terial, may be received in evidence without further identifi­
cation or proof.

12. List of names and addresses of all known witnesses 
that plaintiffs may offer at trial, together with a brief state­
ment of what counsel proposes to establish by the testimony 
of each witness:

S ta te m e n t o f  F a c ts
W i tn e s s  A d d r e s s  to  be E sta b lish e d

S. Edmund Reutter, Jr. Columbia University General policies re- 
Professor o f  Education New York, New Y ork garding hiring and as- 
Columbia University aigning school person­

nel including person­
nel in the Stanly County 
School System.

Luther A . Adams Albemarle, N. C. Procedures follow ed in
hiring and assigning 
teachers in school per­
sonnel in Stanly County 
School System.



48a

Order on Final Pre-Trial Conference

Audrey Gillis W all Charlotte, N. C. Qualifications and ex­
perience in Stanly 
County School System.

C. L. H ines Albemarle, N. C. General policies fo l­
lowed in recommending 
teachers fo r  em ploy­
m ent; dismissing teach­
ers at the reduction in 
allotm ent;

Reece B. M cSwain Albemarle, N. C. P olicy  o f  Board in hir­
ing and assigning teach­
ers and students.

Robert M cLendon Albemarle, N. C. General policies fo l­
lowed in recommending 
teachers fo r  em ploy­
ment, dismissing teach­
ers at the reduction in 
allotm ent;

13. List of names and addresses of all known witnesses 
that defendant may offer at trial, together with a brief 
statement of what connsel proposes to establish by the
testimony of each witness:

W i t n e s s  

Luther A . Adams

A d d r e s s

Albemarle, N. C.

S ta te m e n t  o f  F a c ts  
to  be E s ta b lish e d

Practices follow ed by 
defendant School Board 
in hiring and firing 
school personnel.

Robert M cLendon Albemarle, N. C. Qualifications o f  plain­
tiff A udrey Gillis W all 
as teacher.

Baxter W illiam s Albemarle, N. C. Qualifications o f  plain­
tiff A udrey Gillis W all 
as teacher.

G. L. Hines Albemarle, N. C. Qualifications o f  plain­
tiff A udrey Gillis W all 
as teacher.

Claud Grigg Albemarle, N. C. Qualifications o f  plain­
tiff A udrey Gillis W all 
as teacher.



49a

14. There are no pending or impending motions, and 
neither party desires farther amendments to the pleadings, 
except (a) that plaintiff will move the Court for leave to 
amend and (b) that defendant will renew its motions to dis­
miss and for summary judgment previously filed and denied 
by the Court at the initial pretrial hearing without prejudice 
to the right of defendant to renew its said motions.

15. Additional consideration has been given to a separa­
tion of triable issues, and counsel for all parties are of the 
opinion that a separation of the issues in this particular 
case would not be feasible.

16. Plaintiffs contend that the contested issues to be tried 
by the Court are as follows:

(a) Whether the School Board’s practice of hiring, as­
signing and dismissing teachers and school personnel vio­
lates the rights of plaintiffs and members of their class 
guaranteed to them by the due process and equal protection 
clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States.

(b) Whether the School Board in dismissing and refus­
ing to rehire plaintiff and members of her class for the 
1965-66 school year deprived them of their right to due 
process and equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by 
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States.

17. Defendant contends that the contested issues to be 
tried by the Court are as follows:

(a) Whether the defendant School Board’s practices of 
hiring, assigning and dismissing teachers and school per­
sonnel violates the rights of plaintiffs and members of their 
class guaranteed to them by the due process and equal pro­
tection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con­
stitution of the United States.

Order on Final Pre-Trial Conference



50a

(b) Whether the defendant School Board in not employ­
ing plaintiff Audrey Gillis Wall as a teacher in its public 
school system for the 1965-66 school year deprived her of 
her rights guaranteed to her under the due process and 
equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States.

18. Counsel for the parties announced that all witnesses 
are available, and the case in all respects is ready for trial. 
The probable length of trial is estimated to be two days.

19. Counsel for the parties represent to the Court that in 
advance of the preparation of this order there was a full 
and frank discussion of settlement possibilities, as required 
by Local Rule 22 (k), and that prospects for settlement ap­
pear to be remote. Counsel for plaintiffs will immediately 
notify the Clerk in the event of a material change in settle­
ment prospects.

/ s /  J. L eV onn e  C ham bers 
J. L eV onn e  C h am bers

405V2 East Trade Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Counsel for Plaintiffs
/ s /  S taton  P. W illiam s  

S tatoh  P. W illiam s  
501 Hill Building 
Albemarle, North Carolina

/s /  H e n r y  C. D oby, Jr.
H e n r y  C. D oby, Jr.

P. 0. Box 806 
Albemarle, North Carolina

Date: February 2, 1966 Counsel for Defendant
Approved and Ordered Filed

/ s /  E ugene  G ordon 
E ugene  Gordon 
United States District Judge

Order on Final Pre-Trial Conference



51a

Order Dated February 9 , 1966

This cause coining on to be heard before the under­
signed District Judge on the 2nd day of February, 1966, in 
the United States District Court for the Middle District 
of North Carolina, Salisbury Division, upon motion by 
plaintiffs for leave to amend their complaint, and it ap­
pearing to the Court that there is good cause, therefor;

Now, t h e r e f o r e , it  is ordered  that the plaintiffs are 
allowed to amend their complaint by adding the following 
paragraph to the prayer for relief:

“That the plaintiff be reinstated as a teacher in the 
School System in the same or comparable position.”

E ugene A. C o r d o n

Judge, United States District Court

Dated: 9 February 66.



52a

Memorandum

This case came on for hearing on Wednesday, April 27, 
1966, in the United States Courtroom, Post Office Building, 
Salisbury, North Carolina. Conrad 0. Pearson, Esquire, 
and J. Levonne Chambers, Esquire, appeared as counsel for 
the plaintiffs; Staton P. Williams, Esquire, and Henry C. 
Doby, Jr., Esquire, appeared as counsel for the defendant.

Evidence was introduced by the plaintiffs; the defendant 
did not introduce evidence; the case was concluded on 
Thursday, April 29, 1966.

The plaintiffs were directed to file with the Court on or 
before the 20th day of May, 1966, proposed findings of fact 
and conclusions of law with brief in support thereof. The 
defendant was instructed to file with the Court on or before 
the 1st day of June, 1966, proposed findings of fact and 
conclusions of law with brief in support thereof; at the 
time of the filing of the proposals with the Court, copies 
of such proposals and briefs will be mailed to counsel for 
the opposing party or parties.

Counsel for the parties in open court waived oral argu­
ment. It was the opinion of all parties that the contentions 
could be adequately covered in the proposals to be filed 
with the Court.

I, Graham Erlacher, Official Reporter of the United 
States District Court for the Middle District of North 
Carolina, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true 
transcript from my notes of the entries made in the above- 
entitled Case No. C-140-S-65, before and by Judge Eugene
A. Gordon, on April 27, 1966, in Salisbury, North Carolina, 
and I do hereby further certify that a copy of this tran­
script was mailed to each of the below-named attorneys 
on May 3, 1966.

Given under my hand this 3rd day of May, 1966.
G ra h a m  E rlacher  

Official Reporter



53a

Stipulation

It is stipulated by the parties to this action that the 
ruling of His Honor, Eugene Gordon, Jr., sustaining the 
objections of the defendant to the admission of the testi­
mony of the witness, Dr. Ernest Reutter, Jr., at the trial 
of this cause on April 27, 28, 1966, may be reversed, and 
said testimony may be considered by the Court and the 
objections of the defendant to the admission thereof be 
preserved. The defendant waives the right of cross exami­
nation of the witness.

Dated May 4, 1966.



54a

G ordon, District Judge
This action was brought on August 11, 1965, by Audrey 

Gillis Wall and the North Carolina Teachers Association 
against the Stanly County Board of Education. The plain­
tiffs seek, under the provisions of 28 TJ.S.C.A. § 1343(3) 
and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, the following relief:

(1) a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining 
the defendant from dismissing, hiring and assigning teach­
ers and other professional school personnel in the Stanly 
County School System on the basis of race or color;

(2) an order requiring the reinstatement of the indi­
vidual plaintiff in the same position or one comparable 
to the position she held during the school year 1964-65, (in 
accordance with complaint as amended February 10, 1966);

(3) retention of jurisdiction by the Court pending full 
and complete compliance by the defendant; and

(4) reasonable counsel fees.
The defendant moved to dismiss and for summary judg­

ment on September 3, 1965. The plaintiffs’ motion for a 
preliminary injunction and the defendant’s motion to dis­
miss and for summary judgment were denied by order 
dated November 9, 1965.

The cause was heard by the Court sitting without a jury 
on April 27-29, 1966. At the completion of all the evidence, 
the defendant moved for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ action. 
The Court reserved decision on the motion pending receipt 
of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law from 
counsel for the respective parties.

Having now carefully considered all of counsels’ propo­
sals, arguments and contentions, as well as the testimony,

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



55a

stipulations, briefs and exhibits submitted, and the reason­
able inferences to be drawn therefrom, the Court, pursuant 
to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, makes 
its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

F in d in g s  of  F a c t

I .

In General

1. The individual plaintiff, Audrey Gillis Wall, is a 
Negro, and at the time of the institution of this action, 
a citizen of the State of North Carolina, and a resident of 
Stanly County, North Carolina.

2. The corporate plaintiff, the North Carolina Teacher’s 
Association, is a professional teachers association consist­
ing principally of Negro teachers, including Negro teachers 
in the Stanly County School System, and will hereafter be 
referred to as the “Association.”

3. The defendant, The Stanly County Board of Educa­
tion, is an agency of the State of North Carolina charged 
with the responsibility of maintaining and operating and 
does maintain and operate a system of public schools in 
Stanly County, North Carolina, and will hereafter be re­
ferred to as the “Board.”

4. The Board operates seventeen public schools in Stanly 
County: fourteen elementary and four high schools, one 
school being a combined elementary and high school and 
known as a “union school.”

5. In the schol year 1963-64 and the years prior thereto, 
all Negro pupils in the Stanly County School System (here-

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion





56a

inafter referred to as the “ System” ) were assigned to 
Negro schools, and all white students were assigned to 
white schools.

6. For the school year 1964-65, initial assignment of 
pupils was made to the schools they had attended in the 
school year 1963-64 with the proviso that if their parents 
desired that they attend another school, the parents could 
make application for such transfer.

7. Little public notice was given by the Board of the 
aforesaid right of parents to request assignment of their 
children to schools other than those which they had previ­
ously attended. The first and only integration of the Stanly 
County School System which occurred in school year 1964- 
65 was upon the transfer of two Negro pupils from Kings­
ville High School, a Negro school, to North Stanly High 
School, formerly an all white school.

8. For school year 1964-65, and the years prior thereto, 
professional personnel within the System were assigned by 
race. There were no Negro teachers or principals at white 
or predominantly white schools, and no white teachers and 
principals at Negro schools.

9. For school year 1964-65, and for the years prior 
thereto, the allocation of teacher spaces received by the 
defendant from the State of North Carolina indicated that 
the Board was authorized a designated number of white 
teacher spaces and a given number of Negro teacher spaces. 
The allocation also indicated the specific school to which 
the spaces were allocated. The allocations were thereupon 
transmitted to the several principals of schools within the 
System.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



57a

10. Teachers desirous of a position in the System sub­
mitted an application for employment to the principal of 
the school at which they wished to teach. The principal 
recommended the teachers he wished to employ to the local 
school committee for his school which committee accepted 
or rejected the teachers recommended for employment. If 
the local school committee approved the applicant, the con­
tract was forwarded to the Board for approval or dis­
approval.

11. A teacher desirous of a position in the System could, 
rather than utilizing the foregoing procedure, submit an 
application to the office of the Superintendent of the Sys­
tem for a job in the System for which the applicant might 
qualify. Such applications were maintained on file in the 
Superintendent’s office, separate files being maintained for 
white and Negro applicants, and were available for the 
perusal of the principals at their leisure.

This procedure was utilized less frequently than that in 
Finding Number Ten, supra.

12. Beginning in 1965, the local school committees were 
eliminated from any part in teacher selection. Thereafter, 
the principal alone ruled upon both initial applicants and 
former teachers at his school who desired to be employed 
again at the school.

13. A teacher employed at a school in the System did 
not annually submit an application for employment. If 
the teacher desired continued employment at that school 
during the following school year, he would make this fact 
known to the principal who would recommend to the Board 
that that teacher be retained on the faculty if the princi­
pal judged the teacher fit to teach.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



58a

14. For school year 1965-66, the Board adopted a “Plan 
of Compliance” under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, under which plan pupils were not assigned to a school 
by race, geographic districts, or past enrollment, but rather 
were given a “freedom of choice” in the school to attend. 
The parents of all pupils in the System were required to 
indicate, in writing, the school which they desired their 
children to attend during school year 1965-66.

15. The aforesaid “freedom of choice” plan was insti­
tuted in the latter part of school year 1964-65. An inten­
sive effort was made to insure that the forms whereon the 
parents were to indicate the choice of school were returned. 
Of some seven thousand students in the System, only about 
fifteen did not, even after personal contact, return the forms 
indicating choice of school, and these were assigned by the 
Board to the school nearest their residence. The majority 
of the pupils for whom no forms were returned were Negro 
and they were assigned to white schools.

16. As a result of the “freedom of choice” plan, over 
three hundred Negro pupils who had formerly attended 
all Negro schools were assigned to formerly white or pre­
dominantly white schools for school year 1965-66.

17. A curious practice has arisen in North Carolina 
whereby in every biennieum in which the General Assembly 
of North Carolina is in session, no allocation of teacher 
spaces is made by the North Carolina Board of Education 
to the local school systems until after the General Assem­
bly has adjourned sine die. This practice resulted in the 
allocation of teacher spaces for school year 1965-66 being 
received by the Board somewhat later than usual.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



59a

18. As the end of school year 1964-65 approached, and 
inasmuch as the Board had received no allocation of teacher 
spaces for school year 1965-66, the teachers in the System 
became apprehensive regarding their employment in the 
System for the following year. To provide some appear­
ance of security in employment, the several principals were 
informed by the Board that, although the Board could 
employ no one until the allocations arrived, any teacher 
who signified a desire for employment in the school year 
1965-66, who was recommended by the school principal, 
would be promised employment upon the requisite alloca­
tions being made.

19. The allocation of teacher spaces for the school year 
1965-66 was received from the State of North Carolina 
on or about June 25,1965, and for the first time such spaces 
were allocated to the Board without reference to race, and 
without designation of the school to which such spaces 
were to be allocated.

20. When the allocation of teacher spaces was received 
from the State, the Board applied the formula hereinafter 
described, and further allocated the available spaces among 
the schools in the System. Such allocation was determined 
by a combination of the average daily attendance of each 
school for the school year 1964-65 as modified by certain 
other factors, the most important being the number of stu­
dents who had transferred from one school to another 
pursuant to the “ freedom of choice” plan. After such de­
termination, a form letter was sent by the Board to the 
several principals setting forth the number of teacher 
spaces each would have.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



60a

21. The shifts in pupil enrollment as a result of the 
“freedom of choice” plan resulted in a decrease in the 
allocation of teacher spaces to the Negro schools and an 
increase in the allocation of teacher spaces to formerly 
white or predominantly white schools.

22. For the school year 1965-66, the Board adopted no 
specific provisions to govern assignment of teachers who 
might be affected by the shifting of pupil enrollment. The 
Board did not solicit opinions from either teachers or 
principals as to what, if any, policy might or should be 
adopted. Principals were not advised as to whether teachers 
whose positions were affected by the aforesaid reduced 
allotments to Negro schools would be reassigned to another 
school in the System.

23. The Board did not advise the several white princi­
pals that they could employ Negro teachers nor Negro 
principals that they could hire white teachers.

24. On June 7,1965, the Board adopted a “ Plan of Com­
pliance” in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964. Article IV, § 10 of the Plan provided that:

“The Board of Education is aware and recognizes 
that school desegregation includes desegregation of 
faculty and is now in process of developing a policy 
whereby staff and professional personnel will be em­
ployed solely on the basis of competence, training, 
experience and personal qualifications and will be as­
signed to and within the schools of the unit without 
regard to race, color or national origin. This policy 
will be put into effect immediately after it is developed,

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



61a

but in any event to commence by the 1966-67 school 
term.”

25. The steps to be taken toward the implementation of 
the foregoing plan had not been formulated by the time 
allotments for school year 1965-66 were received nor by 
the beginning of the school term.

26. For the term in question, school year 1965-66, as 
had been the practice in prior years, the Board did not 
directly appoint teachers to teach in the System or assign 
teachers from a pool of such personnel to teach in the 
several schools. Instead, the Board allocated a number of 
teacher spaces to the principals of the several schools who 
by custom and practice were granted nearly unlimited dis­
cretion regarding the employment of professional person­
nel for their respective schools. This discretion included 
the decision both as to teachers to be newly employed in 
the school and as to those who had positions in the school 
who were to be retained.

27. The only list of teachers submitted by the principal 
to the Board was that containing the names of teachers 
recommended by the principal for employment for the fol­
lowing school year. If a principal did not recommend an 
individual either for initial employment or re-employment, 
the teacher’s name would never come before the Board.

28. Certain personnel practices and procedures have be­
come generally accepted nationally among personnel ad­
ministrators in public school systems. The granting of 
almost complete authority by the school administrators in 
Stanly County to the school principal with no stated cri­

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



62a

teria for the evaluation of teaching personnel to determine 
whether or not a teacher will he allowed to teach in a 
particular school during the following year is at variance 
with generally accepted practices of personnel administra­
tion in public school systems.

29. It is a generally accepted practice in the United 
States that teachers should be evaluated by more than one 
supervisor; that evaluations of the teacher should be 
periodic; and that these evaluations should be flexible 
enough to allow for differences in teachers and in teaching 
situations.

30. The opening of school year 1965-66 found no white 
teacher teaching at a predominantly or entirely Negro 
school in a regular classroom situation. No Negro teacher 
was so situated in a white or predominantly white school. 
Likewise, Negro principals were found at Negro schools 
and white principals at white or predominantly white 
schools.

31. The situation described in the immediately foregoing 
Finding was modified in January 1966, when a Negro 
teacher was employed to teach history at North Stanly 
High School, a predominantly white school.

II.
As to the Individual Plaintiff, Audrey Gillis Wall

32. Audrey Lillis Wall, A.B., M.S., is a Negro and a 
teacher of unchallenged professional and educational quali­
fications, who has thirteen years of teaching experience, 
predominantly in Stanly County. At the time of the in­

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



63a

stitution of this suit, she was employed at the Oaklawn 
Elementary School in Charlotte, North Carolina.

33. During the school year 1963-64, Mr. Robert E. Mc­
Lendon, a Negro, was the principal of Lake view Elemen­
tary School, at that time an all-Negro school. During the 
year stated, McLendon reported orally to the Superin­
tendent of the Stanly County School System, Mr. Luther
A. Adams, that he, McLendon, was having difficulties with 
Mrs. Wall, and that he was considering not recommending 
her for re-employment for school year 1964-65. During 
school year 1964-65, McLendon reported to Adams con­
tinued difficulties with Mrs. Wall consisting of her failure 
to take her pupils to the cafeteria, and her failure to super­
vise them during the lunch period.

34. McLendon testified that Mrs. Wall had a “negative 
attitude, . . . argued with me about decisions, . . . defied 
orders, . . . refused to do what she was told, . . . missed 
more than half of the required P.T.A. programs,” and 
failed to attend either the North Carolina Teachers Asso­
ciation meetings or the Stanly County Teachers Association 
meetings although required to attend. McLendon further 
testified that Mrs. Wall was an inveterate complainer, did 
not get along with her fellow teachers, and in general was 
incorrigible to the point where it interferred with Mc­
Lendon’s discharge of his duties as principal of the school.

35. In addition, McLendon was disturbed by the absen­
teeism of Mrs. Wall. Although school was in session until 
3:30 P. M., Mrs. Wall left the Lakeview School at about 
2:00 P. M. each day during the greater portion of the 
Spring of 1965 in order to visit a doctor in Concord, North 
Carolina.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



64a

36. During the school years 1959-60 and 1960-61, Mrs. 
Wall taught at West Badin, an all-Negro school at the 
time. During these years, Mr. G. L. Hines, a Negro, was 
the West Badin principal. Hines testified that their prin­
cipal-teacher relations were not pleasant, saying that Mrs. 
Wall discussed school matters in public which were of a 
nature inappropriate for public discussion, and that her 
conduct as a teacher was inappropriate in that when dis­
turbed she would go to another teacher’s room and there 
display her emotions.

37. From the testimony of these two school principals, 
it is clear that Mrs. Wall possessed the general reputation 
among school authorities of being a troublemaker and hard 
to get along with.

38. Although McLendon held the opinion of Mrs. Wall 
set forth, supra, in Finding No. 34, nevertheless, when the 
Board indicated that it would employ teachers contingent 
upon the receipt of the allocation of spaces (see Finding 
No. 18, supra), McLendon recommended Mrs. Wall for re­
employment for school year 1965-66.

39. At the time of making the foregoing recommenda­
tion, McLendon had received no specific application, other 
than Mrs. Wall’s, for the position in which Mrs. Wall was 
teaching, although he did have applicants for positions 
at the school who possessed the appropriate certificates 
required to teach the grade taught by Mrs. Wall.

40. The Board approved McLendon’s recommendation 
of Mrs. Wall contingent upon the allocation of the requisite 
spaces by the state. The contract was not returned to Mrs. 
Wall.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



65a

41. In late June, 1965, McLendon received a form letter 
from Adams notifying him of Lakeview’s teacher space 
allocation for school year 1965-66. No instructions were 
received by him as to the manner to he employed in re­
ducing the number of teachers at Lakeview.

42. Mrs. Wall first learned that she was not to he re­
employed at Lakeview in July or August, 1965. She con­
tacted Adams. Adams suggested that she seek employment 
in other schools of the Stanly County System hy contacting 
the principals at the Richfield School, an all-white school, 
and the West Badin School, an all-Negro school, since the 
System was employing teachers on a non-racial basis.

43. Thereafter, Mrs. Wall made application in writing 
to all the schools in the System, hut was unable to secure 
employment therein. Adams contacted Gr. L. Hines, the 
principal of West Badin School, regarding the possible 
employment of Mrs. Wall. West Badin had a vacancy, 
but, because of the aforedescribed difficulties Hines had 
experienced when Mrs. Wall had taught for him, Hines 
indicated that he did not want her as a teacher and re­
quested that he not be ordered to employ her. Mrs. Wall 
was not employed in the System during the school year 
1965-66, but obtained employment in Charlotte, North 
Carolina.

44. Adams made no independent evaluation of the fit­
ness or lack thereof of Mrs. Wall, but only satisfied himself 
that McLendon had properly evaluated her. He arrived 
at the conclusion that McLendon had properly evaluated 
her largely as the result of his faith in the judgment of 
McLendon.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



66a

45. Neither Adams nor the Board compared the qualifi­
cations of Mrs. Wall or the severity of her alleged faults 
with those of other teachers in the System.

46. The procedures which resulted in the decision not 
to re-employ Mrs. Wall for school year 1965-66 are not 
the procedures and practices generally accepted nationally 
by personnel administrators in public school systems as 
being proper or adequate in order to make a decision not 
to employ a teacher on the basis of lack of fitness, whether 
academic or personal. Specifically, the procedures employed 
in Mrs. Wall’s case fall somewhat below the generally 
accepted national norm in that (1) the accusations were 
lacking in specificity, (2) such were not in writing, and 
(3) no criteria were given to the teacher as to what was 
expected of her or to principals as to what to expect of 
teachers.

III.
As to Other Negro Teachers Allegedly the Victims of
Racial Discrimination in Re-Employment in the System

47. In addition to the individual plaintiff, Mrs. Wall, 
the plaintiffs contend that three Negro teachers in the 
System were deprived of constitutional rights as the result 
of the System’s racially discriminatory employment prac­
tices. The other alleged victims of the foregoing practices 
were Mrs. Nell Holmes, Mr. Frederick Welborn and Mrs. 
Edrina Davis Turner.

48. Mrs. Nell Holmes taught at West Badin High School 
during school year 1965-66. She resigned from her posi­
tion.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



67a

49. Fredrick Wellborn taught at West Badin High School 
during school year 1964-65. He was recommended for re­
employment for school year 1965-66 by his principal, G. L. 
Hines. The teacher space allocation for West Badin High 
School for school year 1965-66 was less than that for school 
year 1964-65. Because of other resignations, Hines initially 
thought that Welborn might he retained, hut discovered he 
had incorrectly computed the number of professional spaces 
he was allotted. Hines was on the point of informing 
Welborn that he would be unable to employ him at West 
Badin High School for school year 1965-66 when he re­
ceived a letter from Welborn requesting that his resigna­
tion be accepted in order that he might accept employ­
ment in New York.

50. Mrs. Turner (also referred to in certain portions 
of the evidence as Miss Edrina Davis) taught at Lake 
View Elementary School during school year 1964-65. Mr. 
McLendon recommended that she be re-employed for school 
year 1965-66. Believing she would be unable to teach in 
school year 1965-66 because of pregnancy, she resigned 
in June, 1965. Misapprehending the existence or extent 
of such pregnancy, she thereafter applied for a situation 
at Lakeview Elementary School but was not recommended. 
She was employed during school year 1965-66 by the Sys­
tem at South Oakboro School.

51. There is no evidence that any other Negro teacher 
other than Mrs. Wall who taught in the System in school 
year 1964-65 and who did not resign prior to being in­
formed by the principal that the teachers former position 
had been terminated applied for any position in the System 
and was not re-employed.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



68a

IV.
The Plan o f A pril 15, 1966.

52. On April 15, 1966, the Board, by resolution, adopted 
a “ Statement of Policy” which policy provided in part:

“Staff and professional personnel shall be employed 
solely on the basis of competence, training, experience 
and personal qualification, and shall be assigned to 
and within schools of the Administrative Unit without 
regard to race, color or national origin.”

A complete and thorough set of instructions, standards 
and detailed forms are included with and attached to the 
“ Statement of Policy” with instructions for the use by 
all those concerned with the employment of professional 
personnel.

Discussion

a. Jurisdiction

The defendant contends that this Court lacks jurisdic­
tion in the instant cause inasmuch as the defendant is 
an agency and political subdivision of the State of North 
Carolina, and as such is not subject to suit without its 
consent.

Amendment XI of the United States Constitution pro­
vides :

“The Judicial power of the United States shall not 
be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, 
commenced or prosecuted against one of the United 
States by Citizens of another State . . . ” (Emphasis 
supplied)

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



69a

This, the Nation’s answer to Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dali. 
419, 1 L. Ed. 440 (1793), was early held not to give juris­
diction to a United States Court to entertain a suit in­
stituted against a state by one of its own citizens with­
out the consent of that state. Gale v. Babcock, 4 Wash.
C.C. 199, 9 Fed. Cas. 1077 (#5,188) (C.C.D.N.J. 1822).

Even if the most liberal interpretation possible were 
given the Eleventh Amendment, it is doubtful that the 
cases decided thereunder which denied to the United States 
Courts jurisdiction of suits against a state without its 
consent by a citizen of that state would be applicable to 
the instant cause. Even if matters other than the asser­
tion of civil rights guaranteed by the United States Con­
stitution were involved, it has long been held that the fore­
going restraint of the judicial power of the United States 
applies only when the state is a party of record. Swasey 
v. North Carolina RR. Co., 1 Hughes 17, 1 Am. Law. T. 
Rep. (N.S.) 359, 71 N. C. 571, 23 Fed. Cas. 518 (#13,679) 
(C.C.E.D.N.C 1874), appeal dismissed 23 Wall. 405, 23 L. 
Ed. 136 (1875). In this case the State of North Carolina 
is not such a party. p

It has also been held that political subdivisions of a 
state can be sued in a United States Court regardless of 
whether the defendant consents thereto. McCoy v. Wash­
ington County, 3 Wall. Jr. 381, 7 Am. Law Reg. 193, 15 
Leg. Int. 388, 15 Fed. Cas. 1341 (#8,731) (C.C.W.D. Pa. 
1862).

Other cases set forth views divergent from those, supra, 
but it is unnecessary to discuss here the development and 
the subsequent limitation of the defense asserted by the 
Stanly County Board of Education. This Court must fol­
low the decision in Griffin et al v. School Bd. of Prince 
Edward County, 377 U. S. 218, 228, 84 S. Ct. 1226, 12

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



70a

L. Ed. 2d 256, 263 & 264 (1964), motion for judgment 
forthwith granted, 377 U. $. 950, 84 S. Ct. 1627, 12 L. Ed. 
2d 496 (1964), wherein it was held that:

“It is contended that the case is an action against 
the State, is forbidden by the Eleventh Amendment, 
and therefore should be dismissed. The complaint, 
however, charged that state and county officials were 
depriving petitioners of rights guaranteed by the 
Fourteenth Amendment. It has been settled law since 
Ex. Parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 52 L. Ed. 714, 28 S. Ct. 
441, 13 L.R.A. N.S. 932 (1908), that suits against 
state and county officials to enjoin them from invad­
ing constitutional rights are not forbidden by the 
Eleventh Amendment.”

b. Parties Plaintiff

The defendants contend that as to the corporate plain­
tiff, The North Carolina Teachers Association, this action 
should be dismissed inasmuch as the defendant never had 
any legal or contractual relationship with the plaintiff 
and that, therefore, the corporate plaintiff is not a proper 
party to maintain the present action. No authority was 
cited by the defendant for this contention. That conten­
tion is best answered by the words of Judge Parker in 
Alston et at v. School Board of City of Norfolk et al, 4 
Cir., 112 P. 2d 992, 997, 130 A.L.R. 1506, cert. den. 311 
U. S. 693, 61 S. Ct. 75, 85 L. Ed. 448 (1940):

“ . . .  we have no doubt as to the Norfolk Teachers 
Association being a proper party to the suit. Accord­
ing to the complaint, it is a voluntary unincorporated 
association and ‘is composed of Negro teachers and 
principals in the public colored schools of Norfolk;’

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



71a

and the right of such an association to sue in its 
common name for the purpose of enforcing substan­
tive rights under the Constitution of the United States 
is provided for under the Rules of Civil Procedure. 
Rule 17(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following § 723(c).”

Also see NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 
449, 459, 78 S. Ct. 1163, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1488, 1498 (1958), 
aff’d 360 U. S. 240, 79 S. Ct. 1001, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1205 (1959), 
rehearing den. 361 U. S. 856, 80 S. Ct. 43, 4 L. Ed. 2d 96 
(1959); Buford et al v. Morganton City Bd. of Education, 
244 F. Supp. 437, 445 (W.D. N.C. 1965).

c. The District Court’s Responsibility

In the instant case this Court views its power and duty 
to be no less than the proper sphere of responsibility as­
signed to a District Court by the United States Supreme 
Court in a case involving the discriminatory application 
of a voting test wherein Mr. Justice Black, speaking for 
that court said of the District Court:

“ . . . the court has not merely the power but the 
duty to render a decree which will so far as possible 
eliminate the discriminatory effects of the past as well 
as bar like discrimination in the future.” Louisiana 
et al v. United States, 380 U. S. 145, 154, 85 S. Ct. 817, 
13 L. Ed. 2d 709, 715 (1965).

This does not mean that the Court is required to walk 
strange paths or to work wonderonsly new deeds in the 
contemporary toilsome, tortuous quest for equal treatment 
and racial goodwill, but when such controversies are pre­
sented, fraught not only with constitutional but with com­

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



72a

plex social problems long in need of resolution, it is in­
cumbent upon the courts to adopt as creative and activist 
an approach as possible lest constitutional rights become 
hollow in the face of justified, unredressed social needs 
and the continuance of racial discrimination. Dror, “Law 
and Social Change”, 33 Tulane Law Rev. 787, 794 (June 
1959). The Supreme Court has recognized that the as­
signment of pupils and the employment and assignment 
of teachers are not severable problems but rather ones 
which interact on one another with many of the same 
principles applicable to one class of cases equally applicable 
to the other. Bradley et al v. School Board of Richmond, 
et al, 382 U. S. 103, 86 S. Ct. 224, 15 L. Ed. 2d 187 (1965).

Nevertheless, the late Judge Parker’s analysis of Brown 
et al v. Board of Ed. of Topeka, et al, 349 U. S. 294, 75
S.Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 1083 (1954), is regarded as remaining 
valid when, speaking for a United States District Court 
of three judges, he said:

“ . . .  it is important that we point out exactly what 
the Supreme Court has decided and what it has not 
decided in this case. It has not decided that the 
federal courts are to take over or regulate the public 
schools of the states. It has not decided that the 
states must mix persons of different races in the 
schools or must require them to attend schools or 
must deprive them of the right of choosing the schools 
they attend. What it has decided, and all that it has 
decided, is that a state may not deny to any person 
on account of race the right to attend any school that 
it maintains. This, under the decision of the Supreme 
Court, the state may not do directly or indirectly; 
but if the schools which it maintains are open to 
children of all races, no violation of the constitution

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



73a

is involved even though the children of different races 
voluntarily attend different schools, as they attend dif­
ferent churches. Nothing in the Constitution or in 
the decision of the Supreme Court takes away from 
the people freedom to choose the schools they attend. 
The Constitution, in other words, does not require in­
tegration. It merely forbids discrimination. It does 
not forbid such segregation as occurs as the result of 
voluntary action. It merely forbids the use of gov­
ernmental power to enforce segregation. The Four­
teenth Amendment is a limitation upon the exercise 
of power by the state or state agencies, not a limita­
tion upon the freedom of individuals.” Briggs et al 
v. Elliott et al, 132 F. Siipp. 776, 777 (E.D. S.C. 1955).

The foregoing interpretation was recently re-affirmed 
in this Circuit by Bradley et al v. School Board of City 
of Richmond, Virginia, 4 Cir., 345 F. 2d 310, 316 (1965), 
rev. on other grounds 382 U. S. 103, 86 S. Ct. 224, 15 L. Ed. 
2d 187 (1965).

It is now clear that the Fourteenth Amendment of the 
United States Constitution forbids discrimination on ac­
count of race by a public school system with respect to 
the employment and assignment of teachers, Franklin et al 
v. County School Board of Giles County et al, 4 Cir., 360
F. 2d 325, 327 (1966), and as stated by Circuit Judges 
Sobeloff and Bell in a separate opinion (concurring in part 
and dissenting in part) in the Bradley case, supra, 345 
F. 2d, at p. 323:

“It is now . . . high time for the court to insist that 
good faith compliance requires administrators of 
schools to proceed actively . . .  to undo the segrega­

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



74a

tion which both by action and inaction has been per­
sistently perpetuated.”

Further delays in the elimination of discrimination on the 
basis of race in the public schools, whether among pupils 
or teachers, are intolerable. Goss et al v. Board of Educa­
tion et al, 373 U. S. 683, 689, 83 S. Ct. 1405, 10 L. Ed. 2d 
632, 636 (1963); Rogers et al v. Paul et al, 382 U. S. 198, 
86 S. Ct. 358, 15 L. Ed. 2d 265, 267 (1965); Calhoun et al 
v. Latimer et al, 377 U. S. 263, 264-265, 84 S. Ct. 1235, 12 
L. Ed. 2d 288, 289 (1964); Singleton et al v. Jackson Mu­
nicipal School Bis. et al, 5 Cir., 355 F. 2d 865 (1966); 
Kier et al v. County School Board of Augusta County, 
Virginia, et al, 249 F. Supp. 239, (W.D. "V a. 1966); Bell 
et al v. School Board of the City of Staunton, Virginia, et 
al, 249 F. Supp. 249 (W.D. Va. 1966).

d. Analysis of the Issues

Two forms of relief are sought by the plaintiffs. The 
individual plaintiff seeks an order requiring her reinstate­
ment as a teacher in the System in the same or comparable 
position as that she held in school year 1964-65. The cor­
porate plaintiff seeks an order enjoining the defendant, 
its agents, employees successors from hiring, assigning 
and dismissing teachers and other professional personnel 
on the basis of race or color and from continuing any 
policy, custom or usage grounded on race or color.

In regard to the individual plaintiff, two issues are 
presented: (1) Was the plaintiff denied due process of 
law by the manner in which she was denied re-employment! 
and (2) Was she denied the equal protection of the laws 
by being denied re-employment because of unlawful racial 
considerations ?

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



75a

In regard to the corporate plaintiff, the two issues pre­
sented are: (3) Do the policies, practices and usages of 
the defendant deny those of the class represented by the 
corporate plaintiff equal protection of the law? and (4) 
Does the defendant continue to practice racial discrimina­
tion in the employment and assignment of its professional 
personnel?

(1) Was the Individual Plaintiff Denied 
“Due Process of Law” ?

One who seeks an answer to this issue in the General 
Statutes of North Carolina seeks in vain. No procedures 
are therein set forth granting to a public school teacher, 
who is not recommended by her principal at the conclusion 
of a school year for employment in the school during the 
following school year, any right of appeal or opportunity 
for the presentation of her case to the school hoard or other 
county or state authorities. Counsel have cited no regula­
tion to the Court granting a public school teacher the bene­
fits of such formalized procedures nor does the evidence 
reveal the existence of such procedures established in North 
Carolina by practice or custom. The search for any court- 
imposed procedures in North Carolina resulting from judi­
cial interpretations of the requirements of due process of 
law is equally fruitless. In addition, in North Carolina, 
teachers do not get tenure and are in fact employed for 
only one year at a time. General Statutes of North Caro­
lina, Chapter 115, § 142.

Counsel have not cited nor has the Court been able to 
find any case holding that the Due Process Clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment requires, in a State where no teach­
er tenure exists, and in which the State does not provide 
for notice and hearing by statute, regulation, or custom,

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



76a

that the teacher, whom the principal does not intend to 
recommend for re-employment for a subsequent school year, 
is entitled to a formal hearing.

The Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the failure 
to provide the plaintiff, Mrs. Wall, a formal hearing and 
an opportunity to rebut before the Board or other author­
ity the allegations against her would not be a denial of 
due process of law in itself, even though the procedure 
used was not, as an imminent educator testified, in accord  ̂
ance with the preferable norms of personnel administra­
tion.

The decision to re-employ a teacher in North Carolina 
for a subsequent school term is a matter of discretion vested 
in the principal, who makes the recommendation to the 
superintendent and Board of Education which approve it. 
However, professional personnel are not at the mercy of 
any whimsical or arbitrary decision school administrators 
or a County Board of Education may care to make regard­
ing their retention or re-employment. There is ample au­
thority grounded presumably on The Constitution of North 
Carolina, Article I, § 17, that those connected with school 
administration including the County Boards of Education 
(and as this Court holds, also school principals) must act 
“in good faith” and not “arbitrarily, capriciously or with­
out just cause” or be “activated by selfish motives.” Cody 
v. Barrett, 200 N. C. 43, 156 S. E. 146 (1930); Harris et al 
v. Board of Education of Vance County et al, 216 N. C. 147, 
4 S. E. 2d 328, 330 (1939).

Johnson v. Branch et al, 4 Cir.,------F. 2d-------(#10,281,
decided June 6, 1966), in applying the requirements of the 
Fourteenth Amendment stated the case thus:

“The statute gives discretion to the school board in 
deciding whether or not to continue the employment

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



77a

of a teacher. Discretion means the exercise of judg­
ment, not bias or capricionsness.”

To like effect, see Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 
368 U. S. 278, 82 S. Ct. 275, 7 L. Ed. 2d 285, 293 (1961) j. 
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U. S. 488, 81 S. Ct. 1680, 6 L. Ed. 
2d 982 (1961); Slocher v. Board of Education of New York, 
350 U. S. 551, 76 S. Ct. 637, 100 L. Ed. 692 (1956), rehearing 
den. 351 U. S. 944, 945, 76 S. Ct. 843,100 L. Ed. 1470 (1956); 
Wieman et al v. Updegraff, et at, 344 U. S. 183, 73 S. Ct. 
215, 97 L. Ed. 216 (1952).

It must, therefore, be determined whether Robert E. 
McLendon, the principal of Lakeview Elementary School, 
acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to recommend 
that Audrey Wall be re-employed for school year 1965-66.

The Court has made specific Findings of Fact, supra, 
that Mrs. Wall was regarded by those involved in public 
school administration in Stanly County as being a trouble­
maker and incorrigible; that one of her former principals,
G. L. Hines of West Badin School, regarded his principal- 
teacher relations with Mrs. Wall as “not being pleasant” 
and that her conduct as a teacher in the school was dis­
turbing.

The Court also found as facts that McLendon, after ob­
serving her performance for school year 1963-64, “seri­
ously” considered not recommending her for employment 
in his school for school year 1964-65; that he regarded her 
as being negatively orientated, insubordinate and a com- 
plainer who did not “get along with her fellow teachers” 
and whose attitude hampered him in the discharge of his 
duties as principal—sufficiently so as to cause him to re­
port some of the difficulties with Mrs. Wall to the Superin­
tendent.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



78a

In spite of the manifold irritations which McLendon 
claimed to have endured as the result of Mrs. Wall’s pres­
ence, he nevertheless recommended to the Superintendent, 
who subsequently transmitted the recommendation to the 
Board that she be employed for school year 1965-66. It is 
not contended by the plaintiffs that the foregoing activity 
created any contractual relations or established any prop­
erty rights innring to Mrs. Wall, the benefits of which she 
was deprived by the Board. That such a course of events 
may be otherwise significant will be discussed, infra.

In view of the Findings of Fact, supra, supported by 
ample evidence, including inferences from Mrs. Wall’s own 
statements, it cannot be said that the principal acted arbi­
trarily or capriciously in withdrawing his recommendation 
of the plaintiff for employment for school year 1965-66 
when presented with an opportunity for removing her 
from his school without the necessity to replace her. It is 
accordingly held that the individual plaintiff was not denied 
due process of law.

(2) Was the Individual Plaintiff Denied 
Equal Protection of the Lawsf

Before any effective inquiry can be made into the ques­
tion of whether Mrs. Wall, by the above-described action 
of her principal, was denied the equal protection of the 
laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, it must 
first be determined on whom is the burden of proof. The 
defendants contend that the burden is on the plaintiffs to 
establish by the greater weight of the evidence that she or 
other members of her class were not re-employed by the 
defendant on the basis of race, citing Buford et al v. Mor- 
ganton City Board of Education, supra; Chambers et al v. 
Hendersonvill City Board of Education, 245 F. Supp. 759

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



79a

(W.D. N.C. 1965); Brooks et al v. School District of City 
of Moberly, Missouri, et al, 8 Cir., 267 F. 2d 733 (1959), 
cert. den. 361 U. S. 894, 80 S. Ct. 196, 4 L. Ed. 2d 151 (1959); 
Parker v. Board of Education of Prince George’s County, 
Md., 237 F. Supp. 222 (D. Md. 1965), aff’d per curiam, 4
Cir., 348 F. 2d 464 (1965), cert, den., 382 U. S. 1030,------
S. Ct. ------, 15 L. Ed. 2d 543 (1966), rehearing den. ------
U. S .____, ------S. C t.------- , 15 L. Ed. 2d 857 (1966); and
Johnson v. Branch, et al, 242 F. Supp. 721 (E.D. N.C. 1965).

Subsequent to the submission of briefs in this ease, the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 
reversed the decision of the District Court in the Johnson 
case, supra, (^bl0,281 Decided June 6, 1966), and also the 
decision in the Chambers case, supra. In the latter case, 
involving failure to renew the contracts of Negro teachers 
following racial desegregation of pupils in a system for­
merly segregated both as to pupils and teachers, it was 
held:

“In this background, the sudden disproportionate 
decimation in the ranks of the Negro teachers did raise 
an inference of discrimination which thrust upon the 
School Board the burden of justifying its conduct by 
clear and convincing evidence. Innumerable cases 
have clearly established the principle that under cir­
cumstances such as this where a history of racial dis­
crimination exists, the burden of proof has been thrown 
upon the party having the power to produce the facts. 
In the field of jury discrimination see: (cases cited)
. . . The defendants’ reliance on Brooks v. School Dis­
trict of City of Moberly, Missouri, 267 F. 2d 733 (8 
Cir. 1959) is not well founded. In that case the School 
Board had promptly proceeded to desegregate follow­

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



80a

ing the Brown case. Furthermore, the facts showed 
that the School Board, prior to the end of the school 
year, carefully compared the qualifications of all the 
teachers, using previously established uniform stan­
dards. The procedure resulted in the failure to rehire 
both white and Negro teachers.” Chambers et al v.
Hendersonville City Board of Education, 4 C ir.,------
F. 2 d ------, (#10,379 Decided June 6, 1966).

The facts in the Chambers case differ materially from 
those in the case at bar. There the number of Negro teach­
ers, following disestablishment of racial segregation among 
pupils, was reduced by two-thirds. In the instant case, the 
evidence shows that only one Negro teacher, the individual 
plaintiff, Audrey Gfillis Wall, among those teachers alleged 
to have been denied re-employment for school year 1965-66 
on the basis of race, who indicated a desire to teach in the 
System in school year 1965-66, was not rehired by the 
System. There is no “sudden disproportionate decimation 
in the ranks of the Negro teachers” here.

“One swallow doth not a summer make,” and this Court 
entertains serious doubts as to whether the decision of the 
Court of Appeals in the Chambers case regarding burden 
of proof in a case involving the failure to re-employ a 
Negro teacher following disestablishment of pupil racial 
segregation should, following a finding of a failure to re­
hire only one Negro teacher, shift the burden of proof to 
the defendant Board of Education. Nevertheless, such 
would seem to be the trend and the Chambers doctrine as 
enunciated by the Court of Appeals of this Circuit on the 
matter of burden of proof in such cases is adhered to.

When considering the plaintiff’s rights under the Equal 
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, more

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



81a

must be done than to determine whether there were any 
forms or procedures the benefit of which might have been 
denied to the plaintiff, or to determine whether the school 
principal as an agent or employee of the defendant exer­
cised his discretion in good faith and not arbitrarily or 
capriciously.

As the matter was stated in Wheeler et al v. Durham
City Board of Education, 4 Cir.,------F. 2 d -------  (#10,460
Decided July 5, 1966) wherein the Court of Appeals, com­
menting on Bradley et al v. School Board of Richmond, 382 
U. S. 103, 86 S. Ct. 224, 15 L. Ed. 2d 187 (1965), said:

“We read the decision as authority for the proposi­
tion that removal of race considerations from faculty 
selection and allocation is, as a matter of law, an in­
separable and indispensable command within the abo­
lition of pupil segregation in public schools as pro­
nounced in Brown v. Board of Education, supra, 347 
U. S. 483.”

*  *  *

“The only factual issue is whether or not race was a 
factor entering into the employment and placement of 
teachers.”

To the same effect, see Franklin et al v. County School 
Board of Giles County, et al, supra, 360 F. 2d 325; Brad­
ford v. School District No. 20, Charleston, S. C., et al, 4
Cir., ------ F. 2d ------ (#10,280 Decided June 6, 1966);
Chambers et al v. Hendersonville City Board of Education, 
supra; Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, Fla., 
et al v. Braxton et al, 5 Cir., 326 F. 2d 616, 620 (1964), cert, 
den. 377 U. S. 924, 84 S. Ct. 1223, 12 L. Ed. 2d 216 (1964).

It is now clear that the Equal Protection Clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment requires that when pupil desegre­

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



82a

gation necessitates the reduction in teacher spaces in Negro 
schools, the Negro teachers occupying those spaces do not 
thereby automatically lose their positions, but, on the con­
trary must be evaluated for such positions for which they 
are qualified as exist in the entire system and not merely 
for such vacancies as may exist at the time such teacher 
receives notice that the position formerly held has been 
terminated. Franklin et al v. County School Board of 
Giles County, supra; Chambers et al v. Hendersonville City 
Board of Education, supra. Such teacher must not be 
treated as a new applicant but must be considered on a 
comparative basis with all white and Negro teachers seek­
ing re-employment. Christmas et al v. Board of Education 
of Harford County, Md., et al, 231 F. Supp. 331 (D. Md. 
1964).

It is obvious that if the teacher spaces at Lakeview had 
not been reduced, Mrs. Wall would have been re-employed 
for the school year 1965-66. There is creditable evidence 
from the depositions of McLendon and Hines that Mrs. 
Wall’s attitude, temperament, lack of personal discipline 
and general failure to devote her abilities to the perform­
ance of her work seriously affected her value as a teacher. 
Her classroom ability, isolated from her personal traits, is 
unquestioned, and it is apparent that McLendon was will­
ing to retain her with her deficiencies rather than incur 
her disfavor and the risk of an untried teacher. The oppor­
tunity came for him to re-evaluate Mrs. Wall’s qualifica­
tions, consider and exercise his discretion and he did so. 
It is not considered highly significant, in view of the facts, 
that initially he recommended her for re-employment.

The question appears to the Court to be that of what 
motivated the decision not to retain her, rather than a 
mere determination of the ultimate cause for the failure

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



83a

to re-employ her. Was the decision based on race and 
reduced teacher spaces or was the decision motivated by 
other and proper considerations!

In the present case, the facts are not those in Franklin et 
al v. County School Board of Giles County et at, supra, 
wherein not only did pupil desegregation and the closing 
of Negro school result in all Negro teachers not being re­
hired but the administrators in that school system failed 
to treat the Negro teachers as they had previously treated 
displaced white teachers. Neither are the facts in the pres­
ence case those found in Chambers et al v. Hendersonville 
City Board of Education, supra, wherein the Negro teacher 
population was reduced by two-thirds and there existed a 
stated policy to limit Negro teacher re-employment to a 
number corresponding with the number of Negro pupils 
in the school system. There is not involved in this case 
an attempt to penalize a teacher for exercising rights of 
free speech and assembly guaranteed by the First Amend­
ment. Johnson v. Branch et al, supra.

Subsequent to her receipt of notification that she would 
not be re-employed at Lakeview Elementary School for 
school year 1965-66, Mrs. Wall applied for employment at 
West Badin School whose principal was the aforementioned 
Hines, for whom she had formerly taught. Superintendent 
Adams contacted Hines about Mrs. Wall’s employment at 
his school. Hines requested Adams that he not be required 
to take her. In his deposition, Hines stated his reasons 
for not wanting her as a teacher at his school, and his 
description of his (reinforced by the fact that he had known 
her for almost two decades) principal-teacher relations 
with her substantiated the description of McLendon’s ex­
periences.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



84a

The action of McLendon might he constitutionally sus­
pect if there did not here exist the most cogent of evidence 
substantiating the reasons advanced by McLendon for not 
recommending Mrs. Wall for re-employment for school year 
1965-66 following the receipt of the new teacher space allo­
cations. The Court is of the opinion that under these facts, 
it having been shown that Mrs. Wall by temperament, dis­
position and attitude was unworkable in the System, the 
cases requiring an objective and comparative evaluation 
with all other teachers are not controlling.

(3) Were any Other Negro Teachers Denied Constitu­
tional Rights Under the Equal Protection or Due 
Process Clausef

The plaintiffs have contended that three other Negro 
teachers, Mrs. Edrina Davis Turner, Mrs. Nell Holms and 
Mr. Frederick Welborn were victims of racial discrimina­
tion in re-employment in the System.

As indicated in Part (d)(2), supra, of this Opinion, the 
burden of proof in this case is taken by this Court to rest 
with the defendant herein, but those cases, applying the 
burden in such manner, can only be held to apply when 
those allegedly discriminated against have either initially 
applied or re-applied for a position in the System and thus 
indicated a desire to teach in the System and have not, in 
fact, been re-employed therein.

This Court has found, and the evidence confirms, that 
Mrs. Turner, Mrs. Holms and Mr. Welborn submitted for­
mal resignations to their principals prior to the receipt of 
notice by those teachers that their former positions had 
been terminated.

Mrs. Turner was in fact during school year 1965-66 em­
ployed in the System at a different school and has no

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



85a

ground for complaint. Mrs. Holms resigned and there is 
no indication that she wished employment in the System 
or attempted to secure it. Welborn obtained employment 
in New York and there is no indication that he applied 
for any position in the System other than that formerly 
held by him, which he relinquished by resignation.

Accordingly, the defendant School Board is under no 
duty to produce evidence indicating why these teachers 
were not considered in an objective, comparative manner 
with other teachers who taught in the System in school 
year 1965-66.

(4) Do the Present Employment Practices of the 
Board Deny Those Represented by the Corporate 
Plaintiff Due Process of Law and Equal Protec­
tion of the Laws?

The plaintiffs request an injunction forbidding the 
Board to continue alleged racial discrimination in the 
employment and assignment of teachers. The essential 
contention of the plaintiffs is that the plan adopted by 
the Board on April 15, 1966, (Plaintiff’s Ex. 5) (herein­
after referred to as the “Plan” ) constitutes little, if any, 
change in the policy from that under which the Board 
operated in school year 1965-66 and under which faculty 
desegregation, while not totally absent, has been negligible 
and further that it is designed to perpetuate the condi­
tions then existing.

As stated in part “c” , supra, of this Opinion, the elimina­
tion of racial discrimination in the employment and as­
signment of teachers in public school cannot be considered 
as something separate from the elimination of discrimina­
tion in pupil assignments.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



86a

As the court (with slightly different facts) in Kier et al 
v. County School Board of Augusta County, Virginia, et al, 
supra, at p. 246 has stated the matter:

“Where, as here, the school authorities have chosen 
to adopt a freedom of choice plan which imposed 
upon the individual student, or his parent, the duty 
of choosing in the first instance the school which he 
will attend (and where the burden of desegregating 
is imposed upon the individual Negro student or his 
parents), it is essential that the ground rules of the 
plan be drawn with meticulous fairness. ‘The ideal 
to which a freedom of choice plan must ultimately 
aspire, as well as any other desegregation plan, is 
that school hoards will operate ‘schools’, not ‘Negro 
schools’ or ‘white schools’.’ Brown v. County School 
Bd., supra, 245 F. Supp. at 560. See Bradley v. School 
Bd., supra, 345 F. 2d at 324 (dissenting opinion). 
Freedom of choice, in other words, does not mean a 
choice between a clearly delineated ‘Negro school’ 
(having an all-Negro faculty and staff) and a ‘white 
school’ with all-white faculty and staff). School au­
thorities who have heretofore operated dual school 
systems for Negroes and whites must assume the duty 
of eliminating the effects of dualism before a freedom 
of choice plan can be superimposed upon the pre­
existing situation and approved as a final plan of 
desegregation. It is not enough to open the pre­
viously all-white schools to Negro students who desire 
to go there while all-Negro schools continue to be 
maintained as such. Inevitably, Negro children will 
be encouraged to remain in ‘their school,’ built for 
Negroes and maintained for Negroes with all-Negro

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



87a

teachers and administrative personnel. See Bradley 
v. School Bd., supra, 345 F. 2d at 324 (dissenting 
opinion). This encouragement may he subtle but it 
is nonetheless discriminatory. The duty rests with the 
School Board to overcome the discrimination of the 
past, and the long-established image of the ‘Negro 
school’ can be overcome under freedom of choice only 
by the presence of an integrated faculty.”

The plaintiffs contend that the Plan falls short of the 
Constitutional requirements for such plans citing several 
cases in support of their contention.

The teacher assignment plan in Kiev et al v. County 
Board of Augusta County, Virginia, et al, supra, at p. 247, 
was held constitutionally defective because it did not in­
dicate that teachers would be assigned to each school in 
the system regardless of race. The Plan of the defendant 
herein provides:

“Staff and professional personnel . . . shall be as­
signed to and within the schools of the Administrative 
Unit without regard to race, color, or national origin.” 
(Emphasis supplied)

Bell et al v. School Board of City of Staunton, Virginia, 
et al, supra, in regard to teacher assignments contains no 
analysis of what is constitutionally permissible in a case 
such as that at bar, but merely considers re-employment 
rights of Negro teachers displaced as the result of the dis­
establishment of pupil segregation.

This Court does not regard the Equal Protection and 
Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment nor 
does it read the opinions of the Court of Appeals of this 
Circuit, a Court which has been in the vanguard of judicial

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



88a

efforts to remove the heavy and insensate hand of racial 
discrimination from pupil assignments and teacher em­
ployment, as requiring this Court to order the defendant 
to adopt a plan such as that required by the Court in 
Dowell v. School Board of Oklahoma, 244 F. Supp. 971, 
978 ("W.D. Okla. 1965) which not only required the defen­
dant to proceed toward a goal of obtaining the “same ap­
proximate percentage of non-white teachers in each school 
as there now are in the system” but prohibited the School 
Board therein from wholly delegating to the school prin­
cipals the authority to select teachers.

This Court regards the principal enunciated by the 
Court of Appeals in regard to pupil assignment to be 
equally applicable to the employment and assignment of 
teachers:

“As we clearly stated in Jeffers v. Whitley, 309 F. 2d 
621, 629 (4 Cir. 1962), the appellants are not entitled 
to an order requiring the defendants to effect a gen­
eral intermixture of races in the schools but they are 
entitled to an order enjoining the defendants from 
refusing admission to any school to any pupil because 
of the pupil’s race.” Bradley et al v. School Board 
of City of Richmond, Virginia, 4 Cir., 317 F. 2d 429, 
438 (1963). (Emphasis supplied)

The subsequent history of the case is not regarded as 
modifying the principle so enunciated.

In Wright et al v. County School Board of Greenville 
County, Va., 252 F. Supp. 378 (D.D. Va. 1966); Thompson 
et al v. County School Bd. of Hanover County et al, 252 
F. Supp. 546 (D.D. Va. 1966); Turner et al v. County 
School Board of Goochland County, Va., 252 F. Supp. 578 
(E.D. Va. 1966), the plans of the defendant school boards 
were held to be constitutionally defective as being “too

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



89a

limited.” The cases, however, contain no analysis or dis­
cussion of the several plans nor do they set forth any 
guidelines as to what manner of plan would meet con­
stitutional standards. The “plans” themselves as set forth 
in the opinions are little more than one-paragraph state­
ments of policy and unlike the Plan of the defendant 
herein, contain no detailed methods and procedures which 
must be complied with by all concerned in order to elimi­
nate discrimination. The cases cited, supra, can thus pro­
vide little guidance for this Court.

The plaintiff also contends that the Plan is violative 
of the new guidelines and standards promulgated by the 
Office of Education of the Department of Health, Educa­
tion and Welfare pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000(d) et seq. 
compliance with which is a condition precedent for obtain­
ing the various federal funds now deemed essential to 
the operation of a public school.

To say that the plan fails to meet the criteria estab­
lished by a Department of the Executive Branch of the 
government, which for policy reasons may impose what­
ever conditions it wishes on the recipients of its benefits, 
(with the proviso that such conditions must be, in accord­
ance with law, not constitutionally defective by reason of 
arbitrariness or capriciousness), is not to say that the 
Plan is constitutionally defective. The Court does not, 
however, make a finding as to whether the Plan complies 
with the aforesaid guidelines and standards. The standards 
by which the Court must judge the Plan emanate from 
the Constitution. The courts cannot abdicate their respon­
sibility for determining whether a school desegregation 
plan violates constitutional rights and defer to standards 
established by the Executive Branch of the Government. 
Kemp et al v. Beasley et al, 8 Cir., 352 F. 2d 14, 19 (1965);

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



90a

Singleton et at v. Jackson Municipal Separate School List, 
et al, supra.

In order to make such determination, the totality of 
the Plan must he considered. The plaintiff contends that 
the Plan advances the method of employment, re-employ­
ment and assignment of teachers little beyond the methods 
and procedures which prevailed in school year 1965-66 
which former method, resulted in little faculty desegrega­
tion.

The Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs greatly 
underrate the scope and thrust of the defendant’s Plan. 
The Plan is viewed as being materially different from the 
procedures employed in school year 1965-66. It establishes 
the most meticulous standards and procedures for rating 
and evaluating the teachers in the System. Almost every 
facet of the teacher, the teacher’s performance, testing, 
training, personality, effectiveness, family, record of ab­
senteeism, physical condition, etc., is recorded in detail. 
Exact guidelines for the preparation and the standards 
and methods by which the aforesaid attributes of the 
teacher are to be evaluated are likewise contained in the 
Plan. A portion of the information, indeed, an important 
portion to the principal who is interviewing and evaluat­
ing the teacher, is strictly objective information—i.e., re­
sults on national teacher’s examinations, days absent from 
employment, education. Each year a detailed evaluation 
sheet must be prepared by the principal for each teacher 
in his school, including those he does not recommend, in­
cluding a detailed summary of problems which have arisen 
with that teacher and what the principal has done to re­
solve or eliminate them.

*

It is this mass of highly detailed information required 
by the Plan which will cause discrimination by anyone in

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



91a

the System regarding the employment, re-employment or 
assignment of teachers to be almost immediately patent 
and, therefore, as a practical matter, impossible. In no 
case examined by the Court has a Plan of such compre­
hensiveness in evaluation been found.

The plaintiffs have attacked that portion of the inter­
view form adopted by the Board whereby it is indicated:

“Is applicant willing to teach in the following situa­
tions? (check)
Integrated ---------
All white ---------
All Colored------- ”

The Court finds nothing, per se, wrong with this portion 
of the interview form. It could be subject to abuse but 
only its use will so reveal. It can also be of value to the 
several principals and the superintendent in the integra­
tion of school facilities. As the court in Wheeler et al v. 
Durham City Board of Education, supra, indicated, there 
are probably numerous new applicants for teaching posi­
tions who would welcome the opportunity and the challenge 
afforded in teaching students of ethnic and cultural back­
grounds different from themselves.

The courts in Wanner et al v. County School Board of 
Arlington County, Va., 4 Cir., 357 F. 2d 452, 454 & 455 
(1966) and Olson v. Board of Ed. of Union Free Sch. Dist. 
No. 12, Malverne, N. Y., et al, 250 F. Supp. 1000, 1010 
(E.D. N.Y. 1966) held that although the Constitution is 
supposedly colorblind, courts may nevertheless, in school 
desegregation cases, allow school authorities to make some 
references to race in eliminating racial discrimination. It

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



92a

is not believed that the Board here has transgressed fur­
ther than the allowable area.

Even if the applicant is possessed of racial prejudice 
and would be unwilling to teach in a racially integrated 
situation, it is preferable to know this fact at the outset 
of the interview rather than on the first day of school. As 
the court stated in Bradley et al v. School Board of City 
of Richmond, Virginia, supra, 345 F. 2d at 316:

“There is no hint of a suggestion of a constitutional 
requirement that a state must forbid voluntary asso­
ciations or limit an individual’s freedom of choice ex­
cept to the extent that each individual’s freedom of 
choice may be affected by the equal right of others.”

No Constitutional objection to the Plan is found.

C onclusions of L aw

1. The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the 
subject matter of the controversy.

2. The objection of the defendant to the jurisdiction of 
the Court is overruled.

3. The motion of the defendant to strike the corporate 
plaintiff as a party plaintiff is denied.

4. The individual plaintiff was not denied Due Process 
of Law or Equal Protection of the Law by the defendant.

5. No person among those alleged has been denied Due 
Process of Law or the Equal Protection of the Law by the 
defendant.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion



93a

6. The Plan adopted by the defendant is not constitu­
tionally objectionable.

7. The application for reinstatement of the individual 
plaintiff is denied.

8. The request of the corporate plaintiff for an injunc­
tion is denied.

9. The motion of the defendant to dismiss should be 
allowed.

Counsel for the defendant will prepare and submit to 
the Court an appropriate judgment.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion

September 15, 1966

E ugene A. G ordon 
United States District Judge



94a

Judgment

Pursuant to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law 
and Opinion rendered herein by the Court on September 
16, 1966, and for the reasons therein stated, it is adjudged 
the plaintiffs have not established the right to any of the 
relief prayed for in the complaint, and the complaint hereby 
is dismissed.

E ntered , September 26, 1966.

/ s/ E ugene A. G ordon 
United States District Judge



95a

To: Henry C. D o b y , Jr., Esq.
P. 0. Box 806 
Albemarle, North Carolina 
S t a t o n  P. W il l ia m s , E sq .
501-504 Hill Building 
Albemarle, North Carolina

Plaintiffs request that the defendant, the Stanly County 
Board of Education, answer under oath in accordance with 
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the fol­
lowing interrogatories:

1. Please list for each public school in the Stanly County 
School System for the 1964-65 school year:
(a) The grades served in each school;
(b) Number of Negro pupils assigned to each school;
(c) Number of white pupils in attendance at each 

school;
(d) The planned pupil capacity of each school;
(e) Average class size for each school;
(f) Number of Negro teachers and other administra­

tive or professional personnel employed at each 
school;

(g) Number of white teachers and other administra­
tive or professional personnel employed at each 
school.

2. Please state any difference in course offerings, at each 
school, if any, during the 1965-66 school year, not 
offered during the 1964-65 school year.

3. Please list for each school:

Interrogatories



96a

(a) The name, educational training, certificate, and 
years of experience of each teacher and admin­
istrative or professional personnel during the
1964- 65 school year;

(b) The name, educational training, certificate, and 
years of experience of each teacher and admin­
istrative or professional personnel during the
1965- 66 school year.

4. Please attach a pay schedule for teachers and profes­
sional personnel for the 1965-66 school year.

5. Please state the supplementary salaries or travel ex­
penses allotted to coaches and industrial arts teachers 
at each school.

6. Please state the procedure or criteria used to deter­
mine the allotment of teachers and administrative or 
professional personnel at each school.

7. Please state the number of Negro students who trans­
ferred for the 1965-66 school year from the following 
schools to predominantly white schools:
(a) West Badin;
(b) Lakeview;
(c) South Oakboro.

8. Please state the number of students by race attending 
schools in the Albemarle administrative school unit 
and the name of the school or schools attended.

P lease take  notice that a copy of such answers must be 
served upon the undersigned within fifteen (15) days after 
service.

Interrogatories

This 5th day of October, 1965.



97a

The Defendant, The Stanly County Board of Education, 
answers the interrogatories served upon it by the Plaintiffs 
and dated the 5th day of October 1965, as follows:

Interrogatory No. 1. Please list for each public school 
in the Stanly County School System for the 1964-65 school 
year:

a) The grades served in each school.
Answer: The grades served in each school are set forth 

in Schedule I (a) hereto attached.
b) The number of Negro pupils assigned to each school.
Answer: The number of Negro pupils assigned to each 

school is set forth in Schedule I (h) hereto attached.
c) The number of white pupils in attendance at each 

school.
Answer: The number of white pupils in attendance at 

each school is set forth in Schedule I (c) hereto attached.
d) The planned pupil capacity of each school.
Answer: The planned pupil capacity of each school is 

set forth in Schedule I (d) hereto attached.
e) Average class size for each school.
Answer: Average class size for each school is set forth 

in Schedule 1 ( e )  hereto attached.
f) Number of Negro teachers and other administrative 

or professional personnel employed at each school.
Answer: Number of Negro teachers and other adminis­

trative or professional personnel employed at each school 
is set forth in Schedule 1( f )  hereto attached.

Answers to Interrogatories



98a

g) Number of white teachers and other administrative 
or professional personnel employed at each school.

Answer: Number of white teachers and other adminis­
trative or professional personnel employed at each school 
is set forth in Schedule I (g) hereto attached.

Interrogatory No. 2. Please state any difference in course 
offerings, at each school, if any, during the 1965-66 school 
year, not offered during the 1964-65 school year.

Answer: The differences in course offerings, at each 
school, if any, during the 1965-66 school year, not offered 
during the 1964-65 school year, are set forth in Schedule II, 
hereto attached.

Interrogatory No. 3. Please list for each school:
a) The name, educational training, certificate, and years 

of experience of each teacher and administrative or pro­
fessional personnel during the 1965-66 school year.

Answer: The name, educational training, certificate, and 
years of experience of each teacher and administrative or 
professional personnel during the 1964-65 school year, in­
sofar as possessed by the defendant, are set forth in Sched- 
ule III (a) hereto attached.

b) The name, educational training, certificate, and years 
of experience of each teacher and administrative or pro­
fessional personnel during the 1965-66 school year.

Answer: The name, educational training, certificate, and 
years of experience of each teacher and administrative or 
professional personnel during the 1965-66 school year are 
set forth in Schedule III (b) hereto attached.

Answers to Interrogatories



99a

Interrogatory No. 4. Please attach a pay schedule for 
teachers and professional personnel for the 1965-66 school 
year.

Answer: A pay schedule for teachers and professional 
personnel for the 1965-66 school year is attached hereto as 
Schedule IV.

Interrogatory No. 5. Please state the supplementary sal­
aries or travel expenses allotted to coaches and industrial 
arts teachers at each school.

Answer: Supplementary salaries or travel expenses al­
lotted to coaches and industrial arts teachers at each school 
are set forth in Schedule V hereto attached.

Interrogatory No. 6. Please state the procedure or cri­
teria used to determine the allotment of teachers and ad­
ministrative or professional personnel at each school.

Answer: A statement of the procedure or criteria used 
to determine the allotment of teachers and administrative 
or professional personnel at each school is set forth in 
Schedule VI, attached hereto.

Interrogatory No. 7. Please state the number of Negro 
students who transferred for the 1965-66 school year from 
the following schools to predominantly white schools: (a) 
West Badin; (b) Lakeview; (c) South Oakboro.

Answer: The number of Negro students who transferred 
for the 1965-66 school year from the following schools to 
predominantly white schools is as follows:

Answers to Interrogatories

a) West Badin — 120
b) Lake View 72
c) South Oakboro — 1



100a

Interrogatory No. 8. Please state the number of students 
by race attending schools in the Albemarle administrative 
school unit and the name of the school or schools attended.

Answer: The defendant does not have any knowledge of 
or possession of any facts with reference to the number of 
students by race attending schools in the Albemarle admin­
istrative school unit or the name of the school or schools 
attended by such students..

This 18th day of October, 1965.

Answers to Interrogatories

SCHEDULE I

(See Opposite)



I 
3

rT
..

u
3

H
D

S
ox0;TT13 ,10

1. PLEASE LIST FOP EACH PUBLIC SCHOOL ITT TPS STANLY COUNTY SYSTEM FOR THE lr'6't-o5 SCHOOL YEAR

SCHOOL

(a)
GRADES
SERVED

(b)
NO. NEGRO PUPILS 

ASSIGNED

(c)
NO. WHITE 
PUPILS ASSIGNED

(d)
■1AXIKUM SCII. 

CAPACITY

(e)
AVERAGE CLASS 

SIZE

(£) 1
NO. NEGRO TEACHERS 
OTHER PERSONNEL 
TEACHERS OTHER

U)
NO. WHITE TEACHERS 
OTHER PERSONNEL 

TEACHERS OTHERS

Aquadale 1-8 327 527 27.3 12 T

Badin 1-8 321 868 29.2 1 11 6

Endy 1-8 260 165 26 10 6

Lake View 1-8 283 279 2 6 .6 9 1/2 1

Locust 1-8 335 310 27.11 12 8.

Millingport 1-8 280 150 31.1 9 8

Hew London 1-8 529 868 30.1 17 1/2 11

Forth Stanly 9-12 2 672 682 20.12 2 33 12

Norwood 1-3 700 775 28 2 25 9

Oakboro 1-8 193 775 29 17 11

Richfield 1-8 2 U9 372 29-3 8 1/2 6

Ridg-ecrest 1-8 16 8 310 28 6 _ J ______

South Oakboro 1-8 1 2 6 150 30.2 ~ 1 2 m

South Stanly 9-12 511 620 17.1 3-0_______ 1 0

Stanfield 1-8 299 527 27.2 11 8

West Badin 1-12 133 558 22.1 19 1/2 8

West Stanly 9-12 653 682 18.3 3l 1/2 10

OX ; OR \ "0 D i <0 /

Ox; OR \

~ri
Ox\ OR : 07 ) .



101a



102 a

SCHEDULE II

(See Opposite)



Please state any differences in course offerings, at each school, if  any, during 
the 19 6 5 - 6 6  school year, not offered during the I96H-6 5  school year.

AQUADALE None

BAD IN Art, part-time librarian, Phy. Ed. in 7th and 8th grade

ENDY None

LAKE VIEW None

LOCUST ' None

MILLIHGPORT Dual Reading Textbook -  Grades 7 & 8

NEW LONDON None

NORTH STANLY Dramatics, Spanish, Sociology and Economics, Food and Clothing, 
Horticulture, Graphic Arts

NORWOOD None

OAKBORO Chorus

RICHFIELD Dual Reading Textbook - 7 * 8  grades

RIDGECREST None

SOUTH OAKBORO None

SOUTH STANLY Spanish, Journalism

STANFIELD None

WEST BADIN Civics, Introduction to Vocations

WEST STANLY Boys Home Economics, Government, Democary, Economics, Marketing I, 
Home Economics III

SCHEDULE II



103a



104a

SCHEDULE III (a)

(See Opposite)



3(a) Please list for each school: 196U-65

SCHOOL: Aquadale

a
b

rrrp *

Linda S.

a Katherin ti.

EDUCATIONAL
TRAINING CERTIFICATE

YEARS OF 
EXPERIENCE

Horton Clemson -  B. S. 
U. N. C. -  M. E.

Principal-A 17

. Cameron Queens -  A. B. Eng., Soc. St.-A 17
Huncycutt Pfeiffer - A. B. Business -  A 0
Sigmon Meredith, Catawba G. G. -  A 71
Abernathy Appalachian -  A. B. G. G. — A 3

5
2 1

Abernathy 
. A. Horne

Appalachian -  A. B. 
Asheville -  B. S.

G. G. — A 
G. G. — A

R. F.evell 
Lorder

Appalachian -  A. B. 
Pfeiffer - A. B.

Primary -  A 
G. G. -  A

25
0

Wilson U.N.C., Appalachian -  M.E. vSec. Unlimited— . 27

f'C ~Snu£2S______
Ferrell

Flora McDonald...... .......
Woman's College, U.N.C.

A Emergency B ..... — ■-
G. G. — A

0
6

Houck Appalachian -  B. S. Primary -  A 19
Thomason Flora MacDonald ‘"G. G. -  B 2

Badin

Elvin M. Fisher, Jr. 
Earl C. Smith 
Jerry P. Almond 
Margaret R. Dunlap 
Rachel H. Lovder 
Pzriiin am aiky
Pauline B. Alernethy 
Jane 0. Lefko 
Peggy R. Ross 
Daisie W. Holmes 
Josie Chris c o 
Allene H. Winfree

Endv

Fred S. Hopkins 
iinBLlxExxMzkMiJia* 
Joel F. McLendon 
Sue S. Page 
Sally A. Youngblood 
Horace H. Mabry 
Betty B. Welch 
Edna. F. Edwards 
Carolyn H. Burleson 
Lillie R. Lisenby 
Grace R. Speight

Pfeiffer - B. S. Sci., Phy.Ed., Hist.-A 6
Pfeiffer -  A. B. P h y . Ed., History-A 0
Appalachian -  A. B. Social Studies 6
Duke -  A. B. G. G. -  A 20
Pfeiffer -  A. B. G. G. -  G 6
Appalachian -  M. E.

lbAppalachian -  B. S. Grammar -  A
Pfeiffer -  A. B. Grammar -  A 0
U. N. C. -  A. B. Primary -  A 9
Catawba, - Primary -  B ......— ... 29.'z.yt.«—— ---
U. N. C. -  A. B. Primary -  A U3
Winthrop -  A. B. Grammar -  A 25

Pfeiffer -  B. S. Principal -  A 6
U.N.C. -  Principal 
Appalachian -  B. S. 
Pfeiffer - A. B.
U. N. C. -  A. B. 
Appalachian -  
Lenoir Rhyne -  A. B. 
Bust Carolina -  A. B. 
Pfeiffer -  A. B. 
Catawba -  A. B.
High Point ,

Phy. Ed,,SS -  A 
Social Studies -  A 
Primary -  A 
Music -  A 
Grammar -  A 
Primary - A 
Primary -  A 
Primary -  A 
Primary -  A

T
3
5
5
7
2

3
10

sgh



105a



106a

Schedule III (a)

(See Opposite) ^



Page 2 (Continued)

SCHOOL: Lake View

EDUCATIONAL YEARS OF
rrrp A r~Ttoo xiiAv.>riiLX\ TRAINING CERTIFICATE EXPERIENCE

Robert E. McLendon A &.T - Mathematics -  A 11
Melvin J. Rush Livingstone Science -  A 3
Grace J. Bryant Johnson C. Smith Grammar -  A 9
Fannie F. Coley Shaw University Grammar -  A lb
Geraldine R. Taylor Stillman Grammar -  A 3
Wanda W. Ccgdell Winston-Salem Primary -  A 2
Audrey G. wall Barber-Scotia -  B. £>. Primary -  G 15

A & T -  M. A.
Zdrena Davis Livingstone Primary -  A 0
Mary S. Winfield Fayetteville State Primary -  A 7
Viola P. Nichols N. C. College,Durham S. St. , Library 10

SCHOOL: Locust

Norman W. Maples W. C. C. -  M. A. Principal -  G 13
Olive B. Diggers Appalachian -  A. B. H. Ec. ,  Science -  A 15
Vernon Hunsucker Pfeiffer -  A. B. H., P. E.,Bio.,Dr.Ed.-A 5
James D. Kennedy Wake Forrest - Social Studies -  A 3
Faye R. Skidmore Winthrop -  A. B. Unlimited -  A 39
Sallie H. Bowers Meredith, E. C. C. Grammar -  A 31
Margaret E. S'nipton University of S. C.- M. E. Elementary -  G 8
Inez S. Helms U. N. C. -  A. B. Primary -  A hi
Odessa L. Hatley . w. c. c. Primary -  B 19
Ann H. Lane Appalachian -  A. B. Prmmary -  A 2
Jacqueline R. Wilson W. C. C. -  A. B. Primary -  A 1
Rena V. Efira Lenori Rhyne -  A. B. Primary -  A 31

SCHOOL: Millingport

Bobby G. Owens Pfeiffer,A.B. 
U.N.C. -  M. A. Principal -  G 7

Vernon E. Lentz Appalachian, Pfeiffer, A.B. Phy. Ed., Biology-A 6
Mary D. Hauss] Appalachian -  B. S. Gen. Sci., H. Ec. -  A 10
Marvin H. Rouse Appalachian -  B. S. Principal. -  A 13
Irene T. Peck Appalachian -  B. S. Grammar -  A 12
Evelyn W. Allred Elon -  A. B. Primary -  A 7
Vina H. Elder High Point -  A. B. Grammar -  A 25
Virgie H. Whitley Lenoir-Rhyne -  A.B. Grammar -  A 29

0Elizabeth M. Licari Pfeiffer -  A. B. Primary -  A



107a



108a

Schedule III (a)

(See Opposite)



Page 3 (Continued)

SCHOOL: New London

EDUCATIONAL y e a :

TEACHER TRAINING CERTIFICATE e x p :

J. Frank Turner Lenoir Rhyne -  A. B. Principal -  A 37
ooae-oh K. Frick Pfeiffer -  A. B. Bio., Phy.Ed.,Health 2
Margaret B. Ivey Florida State, Montreat Bible -  A 6
Mary S. Chestnut Wake Forest - Hist. , Music -  A 7
Christine M. Clayton U. N.Q.  - __ y Primary -  B 22
Sandra B. Biles -_ -------- Pfeiffer ... ... ...... . ........  /  Emergency -  B U
Thomas W. Ward Duke -  A. B. Hist., Economics -  A ' 3̂
Iidon i** • StlclL-l Catavba -  A. B. Grammar -  A 22

Lenoir Rhyne -  A. B. Eng., History -  A lb
Lucile H. Harris U. N. C. -  A. B. Secondary -  A 20
Esther B. Gaddy .... .. - Appalachian.- ✓ P̂rimary -  B . 11
Frances M. Efird U. N. C. -  A. B. Primary -  A 8
Elisabeth C. Harvard Pfeiffer - A. B. Primary -  A 0
Mary W. Lyerly Catawba -  A. B. Grammar -  A 23
Mary W. Taylor Appalachian -  B. S. Primary -  A 21
Gladys I. Fesoeman Catawba -  A. B. Primary -  A 38
Callie M. Goodman St. Mary’ s, Catawba Primary -  A 35

SCHOOL: North Stanly

Paul W. Peddicord Furman, Duke, Doctor’ s Degree Principal -  A
Suzanne B. Smith Pfeiffer -  A. B. Commerce - A
Geraldine R. Chrisco U. N. C. -  BSSA Commerce -  A
JoAnne F. Hildreth Sppalachian -  B. S. Eng., Lib. Sci.- A
Donna W. Hearne Pfeiffer -  A. B. Commerce -  A
Nelson P. Burr Pfeiffer -  A. B. Eng., History -  A
Lonnie R. Chandler Catawba -  B. S. Health, Phy.Ed., Bio.-.
Jack D. Fesperman Catawba - A. B. Sci., Health,Phy.Ed. -.
Conrad N. Austin Pfeiffer -  A. B. Mathematics -  A
Foy Gene Powell Western N.Mexico Music -  A
Joe F. Harris Pfeiffer, Catawba P.E., Health,Bio.,Hist
Mattie B. Kelly U.N.C. -  A. B. Bio. , Phy. Ed. -  A
Mary E. Latham Pfeiffer-A. B.

U.N. C. -  M. A. Eng.,Bio.,Chem.,Sci. -
Johnny W. Chestnut Pfeiffer S.St., Hist., Geog. -  -
Palmer M. Dulin Clemson, U. N. C. Math -  G
Georgette L. Bower Lenoir Rhyne, A. B. Eng., S. St. -  A
Sarah A. Lisk U. N. C. -  A. B. Eng., H. Ec. -  A
Dorothy F. Glenn Salem -  B. A. Blanket -  A
Betty W. Hatley Wake Forest - Math, Science -  A
Joe D. Kelly Catawba -  A. B. Bio. , P. E. -  A
Linda 3. Hunt Catawba -  A. B. S. Studies -  A
Marjorie B. Melton

Chester P. Hollingsworth
Naomi P. Stambaugh 
Robert N. Jeffrey

James Sanges 
Faye Y. Fisher

Queens -  B. S.
U. N. C. -  M. A.
A. C. C.
Piedmont, U. Ga.
N. C. State -  B. S. 
U. N. C. -  M. A.
U. N. C. -  B. S. 
Pfeiffer -  A. B.

Eng., History -  0 
Eng., P. E. -  A 
French, English -  A

Science -  Principal 
Math, Science -  A 
Dist. Education -  A

-  G

5
b

1 6  
b 
0 
1 
1

1 6
2
1

3
5

39
1
2

25
12
lb

2

0
13
7

29
8 
3

Pa§fe ^



109a



110a

Schedule III (a)

(See Opposite)



Page k (Continued)

SCHOOL: North Stanly (Cont'd)

rrrr? *
EDUCATIONAL
TRAINING CERTIFICATE

YEARS
expert:

Philip E. Hancock Wingate, Charlotte Trade, Industry i
Richard H. Koontz N. C. State -  B. S. Vocational 8
Carol A. Buchanan Appalachian - Home Ec.- A 0
Rosemary K. Harwood Indiana State Home Ec. -  A 15
Martha R. Rogers Appalachian -  B. S. Eng., French >

18U. of Florida -  M. A.
James Lovett Western Carolina -  B. S. Ind. Arts -  B • 0

SCHOOL: Norwood

Martin L. Coggin

3arbara S. Lambert 
Robert S. Sims 
Genna R. Norwood 
Joan M. Headley 
Pauline M. Vick 
Virginia D. Efird 
Melirin G. Poplin 
Ruth C. Mabry 
Oleta C. Norwood 
Elizabeth R. Bowers 
Margie V. Farmer 
Daisy K. Lewder 
Dorth as M. Leitch 
Irene B. McNeill 
Miriam J. Sims 
Albertine Lentz

F. Rebecca Mullaney 
Pearle S. Lanier 
Carolyn L. Hathcock 
Lelia C. Skidmore 
Mamie H. Lentz 
Margaret P. Skidmore 
Minnie L. Dennis 
Ann K. Lee

Wake Forest -  B. S.
U. N. C. -  M. A. Principal -  A 30
Flora MacDonald -  A. B. Music -  A 8
N. C. State -  B. S. Agriculture -  A 22
W. C. -  A. B. Grammar -  A 39
U. N. C. -  B. A. English -  A 3
W. C. -  A. B. Hist., English -  A 33
Pfeiffer -  A. B. Social Studies -  A k
Guilford -  A. B. Bio. , Phy. Ed. -  A 3
Queens -  A. B. Grammar -  A 3h
W. C. -  A. B. Grammar -  A 5
Appalachian -  B. S. Grammar -  A 19
Catawba -  A. B. Grammar -  A 27
Queens -  B. S. Primary -  A 30
Asheville -  B. S. Primary -  A 11
W. C. -  A. B. Grammar -  A 30
W. C. -  A. B. Grammar -  A 23
Davenport - Grammar -  A 26

Pfeiffer -  B. A. Primary -  A 0
Appalachian © A. B. Primary -  A 35
High Point -  A. B. Primary -  A 5
Lenoir Rhyne -  A. B. Primary -  A Ul
W. C. -  A. B. Primary -  A 10

2k
6
3

Greensboro -  A. B. Unlimited -  A
Appalachian -  B. S. 
Wake Forrest -

Primary -  A 
Commercial -  A

SCHOOL: Oakboro

Ralph C. Cole

Edward P. Stewart 
Charlotte R. Hartsell 

a Doric C. Garroll 
b Bertha T. Rogers 

William K. Little 
a Claudette B. Love 
b Nancy E. Speight 

Connie T. Sharpe
Lucy G. Thosas-----------
Jeanette E. Whitley 
Peggy L. Burris

Catawba -  A. B. 
Appalachian -  M. A. 
Western Carolina -  B. S. 
Appalachian 
Appalachian -  A. B.
Flora MacDonald -  B. A. 
Catawba -  
Pfeiffer -  A. B.
Etfeiffer -  B. S. 
Asheville, Lenoir-Rhyne
Annalachian -___________
Appalachian 
Pfeiffer, Catawba.

Principal -  G 
Hist., English -  A 
Eng., S. St. -  A 
H. Ec. , Gen. Sci. -A  
Grammar -  A 
Soc. Studies -  A 
Primary -  A 
Grammar -  A 
Grammar -  A 

Ĝrammar - B 
. primary -~K 

Grammar -  A
S C H E U U  LE 1U(a).  p a g e  *

10
23
3
9
1+

10
l
0

28
23

56



111a



1 1 2 a

Schedule III (a)

(See Opposite)



Page 5 (Continued)

 ̂w * I  ̂• i-> Oakboro (Cont'd)

EDUCATIONAL
TRAINING

CERTIFICATE YEARS OF 
EXPERIENCE

ean H. Honeycutt U.N.C., Pfeiffer Grammar -  A
me V;. Brooks Pfeiffer- A. B. Grammar -  A
lora T. Parker Appalachian Primary A
.itha H. Hatley Catawba -  A. B. Primary A
;Ouise E. Cowan W. C. C. -  B. S. Primary A
uanita S. Johnston Lenoir Rhyne -  A. B. Grammar A

Ii. P r o Carson-Newman -  A. B. Primary A

6
1

37
28
lb
27

U

SCHOOL: Richfield

Charles P. Misenheimer 
Margaret F. Allen 
Ida L. Jeffrey 
Mary A. Fisher 
Rose L. Ritchie 
Ann B. Martin 
Freeman M. Corson 
Joan W. Sells 
Ida F. Kyles

U. N. C. -  A.B.,  M. A.
Pfeiffer -  
W.C.U.N.C.
Pfeiffer
Catawba
Pfeiffer
Pfeiffer
Pfeiffer
Lenoir Rhyne

Principal 
Commercial -  A 
Grammar A 
Grammar A 
Grammar A 
Primary A 
Primary A 
Primary A 
Primary A

27
0

lb
k

lU
0
1
2

2U

SCHOOL: Ridgecrest

JAck D. Clark 
Mildred L. Carpenter 
Naomi B. Miller 
Minnie E. Barbee 
Virginia C. Rinehardt 
Jessie V. Lambert

SCHOOL: South Oakboro

James L. Thomas 
Maude P. Asbury 
Patricia W. Jeffers 
Phyllis M. Martin

Pfeiffer, U. N. C. Principal -  A k
U. N. C. - Grammar A 3
Appalachian,W.C.U.N.C. H. Ec. -  A 7
Catawba -  A. B. Grammar A 33
Catawba - Primary A 2U
Appalachian -  B. S. Elementary G. 12

State Teachers -  B. S. Grammar -  A 13
W. S. State Elementary G 22
W. S. State Primary A 1
W. S. State Primary A 0

SCHOOL: South Stanly

Billy J. Nix N. C. State - B8, M. A. Principal 15
Betty D. Tesh Pfeiffer English A 3
Julia T. Finley W.C.U.N.C. - A. B. Blanket A 31

kGeoy-ia M. /.nos Carson-Newman Bio• i P • E. A
Samuel L. Tesh Pfeiffer -  B. S. Secondary A 2
Nell H. Teeter Appalachian - Lib. Sci. A 23
Brenda J. Fries Catawba - B. S. English A 0
A1 Varo Garcia U. of Havanna French A 0

16Wilma M. Morton W. C. U. N. C. Mathematics A
Mildred M. Archer Wake Forest - B. S. 

U. N. C. - M. A. Chem., Math - G 7
Katherine S Crutch-field_ ph C.  U. N. C. - B. S. S  Cowner fcia.1 15

S C H E D U L E  JJKaV page 5



113a



114a

Schedule III (a)

(See Opposite) USE?3



Page 6 (Continued_)

SCHOOL: South Stanly (Cont'd)

a

Gurney E. Hatley U. N. C. -  B. S. Soiial Studies A 5
Harvey P. Brocks Pfeiffer -  B. S. Phy. Ed. A b
Bartara H. Rat i i f f W. C. U. N. C. -  A. B. Bio., Gen. Sci. A 3
Wayne Moore Lenoir Rhyne -  A. B. Phy. Ed., Hist., Dr.Ed. A 5
Gary W. Cagle Pfeiffer -  A. B. English A 1
Brenda S. Laughter Appalachian - English A 0
Edith L. Ivey W, C. U. N. C. Commercial A 29
J are s A. Cameron V. P. I . -  B. S. Soiial Studies A 15
Eugenia R. Bail „ - ... ..M,Ct„.XL.„N. C. .....—............ - ■— English 0
Josephine K. Avett W.C.U.N.C.- A. B. Eng., History A IT
Larry A. Sides Catawba Music A h
Linda E. Julian Lenoir Rhyne Bio., Chem.,Gen.Sci. A 1
Douglas R. Squires High Point Health, P.E. , Bio. A 5
Rebecca S. Hayznan Carson-Newman Home Economics A 6
Ate Marion N. C. State -  B. S. Agriculture G Ik
Larry w. Mabry N. C. State Agriculture A 0
Sue R. McCroskey W. C. U. N. C. Home Economics A 5
Joyce W. Nance Appalachian Home Economics A 2
Aubrey R. Flynt High Point -  B. S.

Appalachian -  M. A. English G b
William E. Frye Western Carolina -  B. S. Industrial Arts A 2
George W. Wagoner Trades & Industry 0

SCHOOL: Stanfield

L. P. Beck Wake Forest Principal A 23
Everett E. Hatley Catawba -  B. S.

Appalachian -  M. A. Social Studies G 11
Henry C. Bowers Wake Forest Principal A 3b
James P. Love Wingate, UNC History A 22
Thelma T. Beck Meredith -  A. B. Unlimited A 31
Zell R. Moss Catawba - Grammar A 37
Ann A. Upchurch Appalachian Primary A b
Eula L. Teeter Catawba Grammar A 10
Ona L. Little Catawba,UNC, Queens .. v Primary B 30
Lille H. Love E.C.C. A. B. Primary A 27
Ruth H. Blair Catawba -  A. B. Grammar A 22

SCHOOL: West Badin

Glover L. Hines

Robert S. Adams 
Melvin L. Wall 
Susie H. Martin 
Kellie H. Holmes 
Frederick Welborne 
Lillie T. Graham

Theodore Hinnant 
Jacob B. Davis 
Ernest W. Dixon 
Mary 0. Glenn 
Ruth J. Kelly 
Bertha L- Hines

Morehouse -  B. S.
N. C. College -  M. A. 
Paine College 
A & T -  B.S. , M. A.
Shaw University -  A. B. 
Livingston 
A & T
N. C. College -  B. S. 
UNC-G -  M. A.
A & T
W. S. T. C. -  B. S.
A & T
W. S. S. T 
Bennett -  B. A.
St. Augustine -  B. A.

Principal G 22
Bio., Gen. Sci.A 12
Math, Ind. Arts G 27
Eng., S. St. A 2
Commercial A 3
Phy. Ed. A 0

Home Economics G 7
Bricklaying 0

1 6Gramma A
Principal A
Grammar A

i~» 0 
6 

15 
20Elementary G 

Grammar A
S C H E D U J ^ M H ( a ) ^ a g ^



115a



116a

Schedule I I I  (a )

(See Opposite) BSP3



O
' 

p3

Page T (Continued)

SCHOOL: West Badin (Cont'd)
EDUCATIONAL

TEACHER TRAINING _ CERTIFICATE

Margaree Owens 
Estella T. McNeill 
Armenia H. Taylor

Joyce 3. McMehan 
Placidia B. Einnant

Mary A. Harrison

Barber-Scotia 
Hampton-Institute 
Livingston -  A. B.
A & T -  M. S.
Winston Salem 
Winston Salem -  B. S.
A & T -  M. S.
Hampton Institute -  B. S. 
A & T. -  M. S.

Grammar A 
Primary A

Elementary G 
Primary A

Elementary G

Elementary G

YEARS OF 
EXPERIENCE

k
38

10
0

19

31

SCHOOL: West. Stanly

Robert L. Garmon

Gwendoly Y. Chandler 
Linda S. Huneycutt 
Pansy E. Morton 
Jean L. Grantham 
Margaret Stewart 
Mar gar
Margaret W. Coble 
Leo Hatley 
Thomas Rogers 
Joe L. Smith 
Tommie C. Staton 
Carolyn J. Williams 
Dona G. McSwain 
Mary R. Bennett 
Billy W. Hinson

Bryte L. Efird 
Henrietta E. Carpenter 
Elberta L. Ragsdale

Geraldine B. Holbrooks 
Gene L. Whitesides 
Zeb G. Barnhardt 
Sarah L. Bumgarner 
Lucy B. Hunt 
James W. Preble 
Minnie C. Elmore 
Lee B. Caudle 
Bernice A. Busch 
Claude F. Henkel 
Lawrence R. Eller

Pfeiffer -  B. S.
Appalachian _m. A.
Pfeiffer -  B. S.
Pfeiffer -  A. B.
Pfeiffer -
A. C. -A . B.
Pfeiffer -  B. S.
Appalachian -  M. A. 
W.C.U.N.C. -  A. B.
Piedmont -  B. S.
U. N. C.
Western Carolina -  
Pfeiffer -  A. B.
Columbia
Appalachian -  B .  S.
Wake Forest -  A. B.
Pfeiffer
Appalachian
Catawba
Lenoir Rhyne -  A. B.
Catawba A. B.
UNC -  M. E.
Lenoir Rhyne -  A. B. 
HxxfixxSkxtH; Pfeiffer -  A. B. 
Duke
Mercer University -  
High Point 
Mexico Western -  
Pfeiffer -  A. B.
Catawba - A. B.
Winthrop -
N. C. State -  B. S.
N. C. State -  B. S.

Principal A

Commercial A 2
Business A 0
Health, P. E. A 1
English A 13
History, Comm. G 6

French, Eng. A 2h
Math., Science A 19
Soc. Studies, P.E. A 6
Gen. Science A 7
Social Studies A 7
French, Eng. A 11
Social Studies, P. Ed. A 20
Eng., History A 13
Health, P.E., Bio. A 7

Commercial A 17
Eng., History A 0
Eng. Soc. Studies G 12

English 17
Biology, P.E., Math. A k

/  Science, Math 32
‘/Math 7

History, Eng. A 10
< Music B 2

Biology A 1
Biology, P.E. A 10
English A 25
Agriculture A 29
Agriculture A 13

S C H E D U L E  111(a), page 7



117a



118a

SCHEDULE 111(b)

(See Opposite)



3(b) Please list for each school: 1965-66

SCHOOL: Aquadale

TEACHER

Vernie F. Horton

Kathryn S. Cameron 
Bonnie T. McDonald 
Donald K. Abernathy 
Janice B. Abernathy 
Elizabeth A. Horne 
Thomas W. Ward 
Mary S. Vick 
Allene H. Winfree 
Gladys E. Ferrell 
Lottie A. H ouck 
Edith P. Thompson̂

SCHOOL: Badin

Elvin M. Fisher, Jr. 
Vernon E. Lentz 
Mary B. Levis

Sherrill Lovder 
Rachel H. Lovder

Pauline B. Abernethy 
Jane 0. Lefko 
Peggy R. Ross 
Daisie W. Holmes, _  
"Janette J. Watson 
Josie Chrisco

SCHOOL: Endy

Fred S. Hopkins

Johnny P. Burleson 
Sue S. Page 
Wyatt McSvain 
Mary G. Case 
Betty B. Welch 
Carolyn H. Burleson 
Lillie R. Lisenby 
Grace R. Speight

SCHOOL: Lake View

Robert E. McLendon 
Melvin J. Rush 
Fannie F. Coley 
Geraldine R. Taylor 
Wanda W. Cogdell 
Mary S. Winfield

EDUCATIONAL
TRAINING CERTIFICATE

YEARS OF 
EXPERIENCE

Blemson -  B. S. 
U. N. C. -  M. E.

Principal -  A 18

Queens -  A. B. Eng., Soc. St. -  A 18
Pfeiffer -  A. B. Soc. Studies -  A 11
Appalachian -  A. B. G. G. -  A k
Appalachian -  A. B. G. G. -  A 6
Asheville -  B. S. G. G. -  A 22
Duke -  A. B. Hist. , Ec. -  A 35
Livingston -  A. B. Grammar -  A 9
Winthrop -  A. B. Grammar -  A 26
W. C. U. N. C. - G. G. -  A 7
Appalachian -  B. S. Primary -  A 20
Flora McDonald ,. ____ ... . G.. G« -  B 3

Pfeiffer -  B. S. Sci., Phy. Ed., Hist. A 7
Pfeiffer -  A. B. Phy. Ed., Biology A 7
Winthrop -  B. S. Commercial -  G 13
U. N. C. -  M. E.
Pfeiffer -  B. S. P. E., History -  A 0
Pfeiffer -  A. B. G. G. -  G 7
Appalachian - M. E.
Appalachian - B. s. Grammar -  A. 15
Pfeiffer -  A. B. Grammar -  A 1
U. N. C. -  A. B. Primary -  A 10
Catavba ^Primary -  B 30
W. C. U. N. C• B. A. Grammar -  A 6
U. N. C. -  A. B. Primary -  A hk

Pfeiffer -  B. S.
U. N. C. -  Principal 
JPfeiffpr - A- R —

Principal -  A 

'-'Emergency B

7
..... 5

Pfeiffer -  A. B. Social Stu. -  A \
Duke -  B. S. Grammar -  A 25
High Point -  B. S. P. E ., Bio., Hist. -A  6
Lenoir Rhyne -  A. B. Grammar -  A. 8
Pfeiffer -  A. B. Primary -  A k
Catavba -  A. B. Primary -  A 35
High Point Primary -  A 11

A & T Mathematics -  A 12
Livingstone Science -  A
Shav University Grammar -  A 15
Stillman Grammar -  A U
Winston-Salem Primary -  A 3

a
Fayetteville State Primary -  A 8

SCHEDULE 111(b), page 1



119a



1 2 0  a

Schedule 111(b)

(See Opposite)



Page 2 ( c ont inued)

SCHOOL: L o c u s t

EDUCATIONAL YEARS OF
m-p »\ TRAINING CERTIFICATE EXPERIENCE

Norman W. M a p les W. C . C . -  M. A . P r i n c i p a l  -  G I k
C l i v e  3 .  B ig g e r s A p p a la c h ia n  - A . B . H. E c . , S c i e n c e  -  A 16
V ern on  K u n su ck o r P f e i f f e r  -  A . B . H . 4 P . E . ,  B i o . ,  Dr .E d -A  6
Jam es D. K ennedy Wake F o r e s t S o c i a l  S t u d ie s  -  A k
i .*A * DA.-fc. CiA-k-a. w.- W in th ro p  -  A . B . U n lim ite d . -  A kO
E l i z a b e t h  C. T routm an A p p a la c h ia n  - B . S . H. E c .  -  A 12
M a r g a r e t  E . S h ip t o n U n i v e r s i t y  o f S . C. -  M. E . S le m . -  G 9
I n e z  S . K lim s U. N. C. -  A . B . P r im a r y  -  A k2
O d e ssa  L . H a t le y W* CL̂ __EL*______ ... g-H rr, n,ry 9 B . 20
Ann H . Lane A p p a la c h ia n  - A . B . P r im a ry  -  A 3
Rena V . S f i r d L e n o ir  Rhyne -  A . B . P r im a r y  -  A 32
K e l l i e  J .  Tew G r e e n s b o r o  - A . B . P r im a r y  -  A . 15

SCHOOL: M i l l i n g p o r t

G e o rg e  J : J a c k s o n U n i v e r s i t y  o f S . C . — A. B .
E . C . C . -  M. A . P r i n c i p a l  -  G 9

Jam es G. M a u ld in P f e i f f e r  -  B. S . P h y . ,  H is t o r y  -  A 0
M ary D. H auss A p p a la c h ia n  - B . S . G en . S c i l ,  H. E c . - A 11
M a rv in  H. R ou se A p p a la c h ia n  - B . S . P r i n c i p a l  -  A lk
I r e n e  ? .  P e ck A p p a la c h ia n  - B . S . Grammar -  A 13
E v e ly n  V . A l l r e d E lo n  -  A . B . P r im a ry  A 8
V in a  H. E ld e r H igh  P o in t  -  .A . B . Grammar A 26
V i r g i e  H. W h it le y L e n o ir -R h y n e -  A .  B . Grammar A 30
B re n d a  S .  S t i l l e r P f e i f f e r  -  B . S . P r im a ry  A 1
J u l i a  A . M e C s .s k ill w.c.u.n. c. -  :B . S . D i s t .  E d . A 1

SCHOOL: New London

J. Frank Turner Lenoir Rhyne -A . B. Principal -  A 38
Joseph K. Frick Pfeiffer ~ A. B. Bio., Phy.Ed.,Health A 3
Margaret B. Ivey Florida State, Montreat ; Bible A T
Judith D. Utley E. C. C. -  B. S. English A 1
Mary S. Chestnut Wake Forest n Hist., Music A 8
Margaret F. Allen Pfeiffer c Commercial A 1
Christine M. Clayton ,U. .IL-C.-.. ... ..... .............. Primary B 22
Barbara E. Lineberger Appalachian - B. S. Grammar A 0
Connie T. Sharpe Asheville, Lenoir-Rhyne Grammar A 29
Helen M. Small Catawba Q A. B. Grammar A 23
Margaret M. Turner Lenoir-Rhyne -  A. B. Eng., History A 15
Lucile H. Harris U. N. C. -  A. B. Secondary A 20
Esther B. Gaddy Appalachian —...-Primary. B____ _ ,J2__
Mirle H. Carriker Pfeiffer -  B. S. Primary A 0
Elizabeth C. Harvard Pfeiffer -  A. B. Primary - A 1
Mary W. Lyerly Catawba - A. B. Grammar -  A 2k
Mary W. Taylor Appalachian -  B. S. Primary -  A 22
Ann S. Upchurch Appalachian Primary A 5
Gladys I, Fer.. ~nr.an Catawba -  A. B, Primary -  A 39
Callie M. Goodman St. Mary's, Catawba Primary -  A 36

SCHEDULE IlliU), page 2



121a



122a

Schedule 111(h)

(See Opposite) SSi53



Page 3 (C ontinued)

SCHOOL: North Stanly

EDUCATIONAL YEARS OF
TEACHER TRAINING CERTIFICATE EXPERIENCE

Robert C. Lewis Wake Fores, E. C. C., Principal -  G 11
UNC

Suzanne B. Smith Pfeiffer -  A. B. Commerce -  A 5
Geraldine R. Chrisco U. N. C. -  BSSA Commerce -  A IT
JoAnne F. Hildreth Appalachian -  B. S. Eng., Lib. Sci. -  A 5
Harold D. Davenport Appalachian -  B. S ., M. A. Eng., Soc. Stu. -  G T
Nelson P. Burr Pfeiffer -  A. B. Eng., History -  A 2
Lonnie R. Chandler Catawba -  B. S. Health, Phy.Ed., Bio.-A 2
Jack D. Fesperman Catawba -  A. B. Sci., Health, Phy,Ed.-A IT
Brenda P. Duka E. C. C. -  B. S. Math., Sci. -  A 0
Foy Gene Powell Western N. Mexico Music -  A 2
Joe F. Harris Pfeiffer, Catawba P.E., Health, Bio., Hist,A8
Mattie B. Kelly U.N. C. -  A. B. Bio., Phy. Ed. -  A 6
Emily R. Wood Atlantic Christian -  B. A. Eng. -  A 0
Johnny W. Chestnut Pfeiffer^ S.St.,Hist. ,Geog, -  A 6
Palmer M. Dulin Clemson, U. N. C. Math -  G 39
Georgette L. Bower$( Lenoir Rhyne, A. B. Eng., S. Stu. -  A 2
Mary B. Bundy U. N. C. -  A. B. Eng. -  A 9
Dorothy F. Glenn Salem -  B. A.  ̂ Blanket -  A 26
Betty W. Hatley Wake Forest Math., Science -  A 13
Joe D. Kelly Catawba -  A. B. Bio. , P.E. -  A 15
Linda B. Hunt Catawba -  A. B. S. Studies -  A 3
Everett W. Finney Catawba -  A. B. English -  A 0
Mary F. Hodges !tH i i i t t l f/ t l/ k l /  Campbell-B.A. English, French -  A 0
James D. Mills U. N. C. -  B. S. Math., Science -  A 8
Robert N. Jeffrey N. C. State -  B. S. Science -  Prin. -  fi 30

U. N. C. -  M. A. u u u i u u u i / m I1>
James Sanges U. N. C. -  B. S. Math., Science -  A 9
If H i  Bobby W. Carter Tenn. Mesleyen -  B. A. English -  A 0
Faye Y. Fisher Pfeiffer -  A. B. Dist. Education -  A k
Philip E. Hancock Wingate, Charlotte Trade, Industry 2
Richard H. Kucntz N. C. State -  B. S. Vocational 9
Carol A. Buchanan Appalachian Home Ec. -  A 1
Rosemary K. Harwood Indiana State Home Ec. -  A 16
Martha R. Rogers Appalachian -  B. S. \/Eng., French ^ 19

--------- - ---------- U. of Florida -  M. A. .....  ■ ------ ”
Janes Lovett Western Carolina -  B. S. Ind. Arts -  A 1

SCHOOL: Norwood

Martin L. Ccggin Wake Forest -  B. S. 31

Barbara S. Lambert 
Robert S. Sims 
Genna R. Norwood 
Joan M. Headley 
Pauline M. Vick 
Virginia D. Eilrd 
Melvin G. Poplin 
Frances M. Efird

U. N. c .  - M. A.
Flora Mac Donald -
N. C. State - B .  S .
W. C. -  A. B .
U. N. C.  - ■ B. A.
W. C . -  A. B .
Pfeiffer - A, 13.
Guilford -  A. B. 
U. N. C. -  A. B.

Music -A  9
Agriculture -  A 23
Grammar -  A
English -  A j4
Hist., English -  A 3*
Social Studies - A 5
Bio. , Phy. Ed. -  A 

Primary -  A

S C H E D U L E  111(b), page 3



123a



124a

Schedule 111(b)

(See Opposite) S® 3



Page 3 (Continued

SCHOOL: Norwood ( Cont’ d )

EDUCATIONAL YEARS OF
TEACHER TRAINING CERTIFICATE EXPERIENi

Oleta C. Norwood W. C. -  A. B. Grammar -  A 6
Elizabeth R. Ecvers Appalachian -  B. S. Grammar -  A 20
Margie V. Farmer Catawba -  A. B. Grammar -  A 28
Daisy K. Lowdor Queens -  B. S. Primary -  A 31
Dorthas M. Leitch Asheville -  B. S. Primary -  A 12
Irene B. McNeill W. C. -  A. B. Grammar -  A 31
Tyna C. Bracknell Lenoir Rhyne -  A. B. Primary -  A 2
Miriam J. Sims W. C. -  A. B. Grammar -  A 2k
Albertine Lentz Davenport Grammar -  A 27
Suzanne Swindell Pfeiffer -  B. S. Primary -  A 0
F. Rebecca Mnllaney Pfeiffer -  B. A. Primary -  A 1
Pearle S. Lanier Appalachian -  A. B. Primary A 36
Carolyn L. Hathcock High Point -  A. B. Primary -  A 6
Lelia C. Skidmore Lenoir Rhyne A. B. Primary -  A k2
Mamie H. Lentz W. C. -  A. B. Primary -  A 11
Margaret P. Skidmore Greensboro -  A. B. Unlimited -  A 25
Minnie L. Dennis Appalachian -  B. S. Primary -  A T
Billy C. Hutchinson Appalachian -  B. S. Phy. Ed., Soc. Stu. -  A 8

SCHOOL: Oakboro

Ralnh C. Cole Catawba -  A. B.
Appalachian -  M. A. Principal -  G 11

Edward P. Stewart Western Carolina -  B. S. Hist., English - A 2k
Elberta L. Ragsdale Catawba -  A. B.

U. N. C. -  M. E. Eng., Bos, Stu. -  G 13
William K. Little Catawba Soc. Studies - A 11
Margaret C. Burleson Appalachian -  B. S. Gen. Sc., Home Ec. -  A 5
Feggy B. Murdock Erskine -  A. B. Science -  A 0
Claudett B. Love Pfeiffer -  A. B. Primary -  A 2
Ruth H. Whitley _____ Saarritt -  B. A. Emergency -  B 2
Lucy G. Thomas Appalachian _______ Grammar -  B ->--- ---- ........... 2b
Jeanette E. Whitley Appalachian Primary -  A 6
Peggy L. Burris Pfeiffer, Catawba Grammar -  A T
Jean H. Honeycutt U. N. C., Pfeiffer Grammar -  A 7
Maa W. Brooks Pfeiffer -  A. B. Grammar -  A 2



125a



126a

Schedule 111(h)

(See Opposite) SSr5



Page 5 (Continued)

SCHOOL: Richfield jCont’d)

EDUCATIONAL YEARS OF
TEACHER TRAINING CERTIFICATE EXPERIENCE

Ann B. Martin Pfeiffer Primary -  A 1
Freeman M. Corson Pfeiffer Primary -  A 2
Susan J. Davis Pfeiffer -  A. B. Primary -  A 0
Ida F. Kyles Lenoir Rhyne Primary -  A 25

SCHOOL: Ridgecrest

William K. Ruldolph Pfeiffer -  B. S.JJ. of Term.MS Science -  A . 1
Mildred L. Carpenter U. N. C. Grammar -  A
Naomi B. Miller ' Appalachian, W. C. H. Ec. -  A 8
Minnie E. Barbee Catawba -  A. B. Grammar -  A 39
Virginia 6. Rinehardt Catawba Primary -  A 25
Jessie V. Lambert Appalachian -  B. S. Element ary -  G 13

SCHOOL: South Oakboro

Henry P. Eaton
*
Winston-Salem -  B. S. Elem. -  A 6

Maude P. Asbury W. S. State Elementary -  G 23
Edrena D. Turner Livingstone Primary -  A 1
Claudette S. Gathers Winston-Salem State -  B. S. Primary -  A 0

SCHOOL: South Stanly

Billy J. Nix N. C. State -  B. S ., M. A. Principal 1 6

Betty D. Tesh Pfeiffer English -  A b
Julia T. Finley W.C.U.N.C.- A. B. Blanket -  A 32
Georgia M. Amos Carson-Newman Bio., P. E. -  A 5
Samuel L. Tesh Pfeiffer -  B. S. Secondary -  A 3
Nell H. Teeter Appalachian Lib. Sci. -  A 2b
Judy B. Kimrey E. C. C. -  B. S. Eng. Soc. Stu. -  A 1
Kenneth E. Forte Mars Hill -  B. S. Bible, History -  A 0
Wilma M. Morton W. C. U. N. C. Math -  A 17
Mildred M. Archer Wake Forest -  B. S.

U. N. C. -  M. A. Chem., Math -  G 8
Katherine S. Crutchfield 
Gurney E. Hatley 
Harvey P. Brooks 
Wayne Moore 
Edith L. Ivey 
Janes A. Cameron
Eugenia R. BaU---------------
Josephine K. Avett 
Larry A. Sides 
Linda E. Julian

U.C.U.N.C. -  B. S.
U. N. C. -  B. S. 
Pfeiffer -  B. S. 
Lenoir Rhyne -  A. B. 
W. C. U. N. C.
V. P. I. -  B. S.
W- C- u. N. C .,_ ___

Commercial 
Social Studies -  A 
Phy. Ed. -  A

6
5

Phy. Ed.,Hist., Dr.Ed. -A 6

W.C.U.N.C. -  A. B. 
Catawba
Lenoir Rhyne

Commercial -  A 
Social Stu. -  A

Y  F.ngl t Rh----------------
Eng., History -  A 
Music • A

30
l6
1

1 8

Bio., Chem.,Gen.Sci. -  A 2

S C H E D U L E  111(b), page 5



127a



128a

Schedule 111(b)

(See Opposite)



Page 6 (Continued)

SCHOOL: South Stanly (Cont'd)

TEACHER
EDUCATIONAL
TRAINING CERTIFICATE

YEARS OF 
EXPERIENCE

Douglas R. Squires High Point Health, P.E.,Bio. -  A 6
Rebecca S. Hc.yman Carson-Nevman Home Ec. -  A 7
n n u i t u u x i i
George W. Heafner E. C. C. -  A. B. Business Adm. -  A 1
Abe Marion N. C. State -  B. S. Agriculture -  G 15
Larry W. Mabry N. C. State Agriculture -  A 1
Carole B. Huneycutt Appalachian -  B. S. Home Ec., Bio. -  B 7 0
Joyce W. Nance Appalachian Home Economics -  A 3
Aubrey R. Flynt High Point -  B. S. 

Appalachian -  M. A. English -  G 5
William E. Frye Western Carolina -  B. S. Industrial Arts -  A 3
George R. Wagoner Trades & Industry 1

SCHOOL: Stanfield

L. P. Beck Wake Forest Principal -  A 2h
Everett E. Hatley Catawba 0 B. S.

Appalachian -  M. A. Social Studies -  G 12
Henry C. Bowers Wake Forest Principal -  A 35
Joyce H. Holt Eastern. N. Univ.-—....... .. Emergency...-_.B ........  ...... .... 0..
Thelma TT. ~Beclf Meredith -  A. B. Unlimited -  A 32
Zell R. Moss Catawba Grammar A 38
Sallie H. Bowers Meredith, E.C.C. Grammar -  A 32
Jean A. Efird E. C. C. -  B. S. Primary -  A 0
Elaine H. Orzechawski D'Youville College -  B. S. Primary -  A 2
Lillie H. Love E.C.C. -  A. B. Primary -  A 28
Ruth H. Blair Catawba -  A. B. Grammar -  A 22

SCHOOL: West Badin

Robert

i. Hines Morehouse -  B. S.
N. C. College -  M. A. Principal -  G

. Adams Paine College Bio., Gen.Sci.

. Brown Johnson C. Smith -  B. S. w" Math. -  B
Martin Shaw Univ. -  A. B. Eng., S. Stu.
Graham N. C. College -  B. S.

UNC-G -  M. A. Home Ec. -  G
Hinnant A & T Bricklaying

Jacob B. Davis 
Ruth J. Kelly 
Ella H. Little 
Bertha L. Hines 
Margaree Owens Daye 
Armonia H. Taylor

Joyce B» McMehan 
Placidia B. Hinnant
Mary A. Marrison

W.S.T.C. -  B. S. Grammar -  A
Bennett -  B. A. 14-1$! It&l Elem -  G
Winston Salem State -  B. S 
St. Augustine -  B. A. 
Barber-Scotia 
Livingston -  A. B.
A & T. -  M. S. 
Winston-Salem 
Winston-Salem -  B. S.
A & T -  M. S.
Hampton Institute -  B. S. 
A & T -  M. S.

Grammar -  A 
Grammar -  A 
Grammar -  A

Elementary -  G 
Primary - A
Elementary -  G

Elementary -  G

23
13

_0
3

8 
1 

IT 
1 6  
2

21
5

hi
1

20

32
S C H E D U L E  111(b), page 6



129a



130a

Schedule 111(1)

(See Opposite) USP



Page 7 (Continued)

SCHOOL: West Stanly

TEACHER

Robert L. Garnon

Linda S. Huneycutt 
Mary C. Plumer 
Pansy E. Morten 
Jean L. Grantham 
Margaret Stewart

Margaret W. Coble 
Leo Hatley 
Thomas A. Rogers 
Joe L. Smith 
Tommie C. Staton 
Carolyn J. Williams 
Dona G. McSwain 
Mary R. Bennett 
Judge W. Morgan 
Bryte L. Efird 
Henrietta E. Carpenter 
Geraldine B. Holbrooks 
Gene L7 Whitesides 
Robert A. Blalock 
Richard H. Wright 
Lucy B. Hunt 
Minnie E. Boling 
Lee B. Caudle 
Bernice A. Busch 
Claude F. Henkel 
Lawrence R. Eller 
Helen W. Thompson 
Bertha R. Springer 
Mildred C. Cooper 
Jerry W. Crayton, Sr. 
Tom A. Morgan 
Douglas D. Case 
Dorothy T. Sipbth 
Dillon Whitley

EDUCATIONAL
TRAINING CERTIFICATE

YEARS OF 
EXPERIENCE

Pfeiffer -  B. S. Principal -  A 9
Appalachian -  M. At
Pfeiffer -  A. B. Business -  A 1
Pfeiffer -  A. B. Eng. Biology -  A 1
Pfeiffer Health, P.E. -  A '2
A. C. -  A. B. English -  A Ik
Pfeiffer -  B. S. History, Comm. -  G 7
Appalachian -  M. A.
W.C.U.N.C. -  A. B. French, Eng. -  A 25
Piedmont -  B. S. Math., Science -  A 20
U. N. C. Soc. Studies, P.E. -  A 7
Western Carolina Gen. Science -  A 8
Pfeiffer -  A. B. Social Studies -  A 8
Columbia French, Eng. -  A 12
Appalachian -  B. S. Soc. Stu., P.E. -  A 21
Wake Forest -  A. B. Eng., History -  A lU
Appalachian -  B. S. Math., Gen. Science -  A 0
Catawba Commercial -  A 1 8

Lenoir Rhyne -  A. B. Eng., History -  A 1
Lenoir Rhyne -  A. B. ^English _____

' Pfeiffer -  A. B. Biology, P.E., Math -  A 5
Appalachian -  B. S. Science, Soc. Stu. -  A 2
Catawba -  A. B. Music -  A 21
High Point History, Eng. -  A 11
Pfeiffer -  A. B. Biology -  A 2
Catawba -  A. B. Biology, P.E. -  A 11
Winthrop English -  A 26

N. C. State -  B. S. Agriculture -  A 30
N. C. State -  B. S. Agriculture -  A Ik
W.C.U.N.C. -  B. S. Home Ec. -  A 12
W.C.U.N.C. -  M Home Ec. -  A k
W.C.U.N.C. -  B. S. P. E. -  A lU

Vocational 1
N. C. State -  B. S. Gen. Sci. Agri. -  A 3
High Point -  B. S. Distr. Ed. -  VA 0

Vocational 1
Vocational 1

S C H E D U L E  111(b), page 7
s



131a



132a

SCHEDULE IV

(See Opposite) SS^



SC
H

ED
U

LE IV, 
p

a
ge 1

+. Please attach a pay schedule for teachers 
and professional personnel for the 
1965-66 school year.

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION 
MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE 

1965 -  1966

Type of Certificate
Exnerience ih Years

0 1 2 _3 1* .. .5. 6 JL 8 _9 10 _ .11 12 13

Graduate Vocational (VG) $ $ - $511 $526 $51*1 $555 $570 $585 $603 $ 6 2 1 $638 $656 $675 $691*

Class A Vocational (VA) 
Class A Provisional (PAV) U55 1+68 1*82 1*96 510 525 5l*0 55l* 569 581+ 6 0 1 617 6 3U

Provisional 
Vocational (PV) 1+1*1+ 1+58 1*71 1+85 500 515 529 51*1* 559 573 590 607 621+

Class A Provisional 
Practical Nursing (PAV) U36 1*1+8 1*61 1*71+ 1*87 501 515 528 5l*2 557 571 587 603

Class B Vocational (VB) 1+01 1*12 1+21+ 1*37 1*1*9 1*62 1*75
/

Add: $100 per month to the above schedule for a person holding an earned Doctor's Degree in the area or subject taught



133a



134a

Schedule IV

(See Opposite)



SC
H

ED
U

LE IV, page 2

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION 
MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE 

1965 -  1966

Type of Certificate
Experience in Years

.... 0 1 2 _ _3 1+ _..5. 6 8 9 10 1 1 1 2 13

Graduate Vocational (VG) $ - $ - $511 *526 $51+1 $555 $570 $585 $603 $ 6 2 1 $638 $656 $675 $691+

Class A Vocational (VA) 
Class A Provisional (PAV) 1+55 1+68 1+82 1+96 5 10 525 5 I+0 55l+ 569 581+ 6 0 1 617 6 3I+

Provisional 
Vocational (FV) 1+1+1+ 1+58 1+71 1+85 500 515 529 51+1+ 559 573 590 607 621+

Class A Provisional 
Practical Nursing (PAV) 1+36 1+1+8 l+6l l+7l+ 1+87 501 515 528 5l+2 557 571 587 603

Class B Vocational (VB) 1+01 1+12 1+21+ 1+37 1+1+9 1+62 1+75

Add. $100 per month to the above schedule for a person holding an earned Doctor's Degree in the area or subject taught



135a



136a

Schedule IV

(See Opposite)



STATS ?JI!TE MD7THS SCHOOL FUND 
MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE "A" FOR CLASSIFIED PRINCIPALS

(1 0 , 10.4, 11 I-SOKTfiS)*
1965-66

Nuwber of 
Teachers

V i Aeace In Years
r-o P-1 P-2 P-3 ! ?-/. j....* -1— P=5. - ... F-6 P-7 P-3

7 -  e -555 $610 $625 $639 $654 $669 $684 $693 <*■ "3S' 1 -O

9 - 1 0 610 625 639 654 669 684 698 713 723

1 1  -  12 625 639 654 669 684 698 713 728 742

1 3  -  i t -639 654 669 684 693 713 728 742 75?

1 5 -1 6 654 669 6C4 698 713 728 742 757 772

17 -  13 669 684 698 713 723 742 757 772 a# —

19 — 20 634 693 713 728 742 757 772 . 786

21 -  22 692 713 728 742 757 772 • 786 801 816

23 -  24 713 728 742 757 772 786 801 816 S31

23 -  26 72S 742 757 772 786 801 816 831 845

27 -  28 742 757 772 786 801 816 831 845 860

29 -  30 757 772 786 801 816 831 845 860 875

3 1 -3 2 772 786 801 816 831 845 860 875 S3 9

3 3 -3 4 736 SOI 816 831 845 860 875 889 984

3 5  -  36 801 816 831 845 860 875 889 904 919

37 -  41 816 831 845 860 875 889 904 919 933

42 -  Up 831 845 860 875 889 904 919/ 933 948

NOTE: The maximum rating that a person holding a High School Principal's or Elementary
Principal's Certificate can receive is P-5.

A person holding a Principal's Certificate m y, after he reaches P-5, go on to the 
P-6, P-7, and P-8 ratings.

Add the appropriate amount from Monthly Salary Schedule "B” for Classified Principals 
to arrive at the gross monthly rate of pay.

Add $30.00 per month to the above schedule for a person holding an Advanced Principal*e 
Certificate. ^

Add $10000 per month to the above schedule for a parson holding An Advanced Principal's 
• Certificate and an earned Doctor's Degree.

♦Depending on type and siae of school,
S C H E D U L E  IV, page 3



137a



138a

Schedule IV

(See Opposite)



ST/^CATS KIK3 -HCNTES SCHOOL 
MONTHLY SALARY SCriECRir. "3" FOP. CLASSIFIED PRINCIPALS

1945-66

(ADD THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNTS EELOl-7 TO CLASSIFITD PRETCIPA1S' MONTHLY SAURY S «*f*«***'»̂  '
«• '*.«v f  V

Csrtir: ' ate |Jr75S*rl y.«.'y.rti77  ̂*4 T' ̂ P-0 P-1 i p.-2 r -3 '..i . P-4 1 " M *1 P~1T'“1 3v?

G—IS ’ 32 27 24 20 16 12 e 4

0-22 29 26 22 19 15 12 7 4

0-11 27 24 21 17 14 11 7 3

G-10
A-12 25 22 19 16 ■ 33 9 6 . 3 ;

G-9
A -ll 23 20 13 15 12 8 6 3

G~3 
A—10 21 19 16 14 11 8 5 3 *

G-7
A-9 19 i7 15 12 9

i
7 5 2

G—6 
A-a 17 15 13 11 6 6 . 4 2

0-5
A-7 15 • 13 12 9 7 5 4

*
2

0—4
A-6 13 12 9 8

»
6 5 3 2

G-3
A-5

11 9 3 6 5 4 •. 3

G-2
A-4 8 7 6 5 4

#

3 2 1

A-3 6 5 5 4 3 2 2 - ' X

A-2 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1

A -l 2 2 2 1 / I • i 1 0

A-0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 ‘ 0 0

S C H E D U L E  IV, page 4



139a



140a

SCHEDULE V

5. Please state the supplementary salaries or travel ex­
penses allotted to coaches and industrial arts teachers 
at each school.

W est S tan ly

3 coaches at $450.00 each—total $1,350.00 
1 Industrial Arts teacher—$500.00

S ou th  S tan ly

3 coaches at $450.00 each—total $1,350.00 
I Industrial Arts teacher—$500.00

N obth  S ta n ly

3 coaches at $450.00 each—total $1,350.00 
1 Industrial Arts teacher—$500.00

W est  B adin

1 coach at $450.00—total $450.00 
West Badin does not offer Industrial Arts



141a

SCHEDULE VI

6. Please state the procedure or criteria used to deter­
mine the allotment of teachers and administrative or 
professional personnel at each school.
A. Teachers and principals (principal’s are alloted as 

teachers) are alloted to the Stanly County Admin­
istrative Unit according to the following Teacher 
Allotment Policies and Begulations, 1965-66, adopt­
ed by the North Carolina State Board of Educa­
tion.

I. Objectives oe S tate T eacher A llotm en t

The State allotment of teaching positions is made to the 
local school administrative units in order to provide a 
sound program of instruction in the several subject areas 
and to provide other supporting services essential to this 
purpose.
While this State allotment of teaching positions is de­
signed to provide an improved program, it should not be 
considered as meeting more than minimum requirements. 
It will profit the children little if the increased State 
allotment results in a reduction of local effort. There 
will continue to be need for locally-financed professional 
personnel beyond the State allotment.
However, financed, the increase in the number of teach­
ing positions to be filled must not be allowed to result in 
a lowering of standards. An improved educational pro­
gram demands more good teachers, but not lower stand­
ards, in order to fill positions.
The State Board of Education is keenly aware of the 
increased responsibility that goes with increased appro­



142a

priations. While the Board has no desire to encroach on 
local autonomy, it must assume its full share of responsi­
bility. For that reason and in order to insure that maxi­
mum improvement in education may accrue from the 
appropriations made, the State Board of Education here­
by adopts these regulations:

II. T h e  A llo tm en t  F orm ula

A. The Initial Allotment of Teachers

1. Base Allotment

a. The allotment of elementary and high school 
teachers shall be made separately, by admin­
istrative units, on the basis of average daily 
attendance for the best continuous six months 
of the first seven months, together with the 
average daily absences due to contagious dis­
eases for the same continuous six months as 
calculated below:
(1) Average daily attendance and contagion 

for the best continuous six months, 1964-65. 
(Grades 1-8 elementary; 9-12 high school).

(2) Add: First grade average daily attend­
ance, elementary; eighth grade average 
daily attendance, high school; for 1964-65.

(3) Deduct: Average daily attendance for
1964-65 for the outgoing grade in the ad­
ministrative unit, both elementary and high 
schools.

(4) Add or deduct: An adjustment factor cal­
culated separately by administrative units

Schedule VI



143a

for elementary and high schools intended 
to carry forward to 1965-66 the same net 
increase or decrease caused by dropouts 
and population changes experienced in
1964- 65.

(5) Calculate the adjustment factor using steps 
(1), (2), and (3), above and the years
1963-64 instead of 1964-65.

(6) The actual average daily attendance and 
contagion for the best continuous six 
months of 1964-65 are to be deducted from 
the prospective average daily attendance 
and contagion calculated in Step (5) to 
determine the adjustment factor for the 
calculation of allotment credits for the 
allotment of teachers for the school year
1965- 66.

(7) Transfers of pupils between administra­
tive units will be taken into consideration 
in the calculation of the adjustment factor 
for each administrative unit involved.

b. The elementary allotment shall be six teachers 
for the first 153 pupils, grades one through 
three, plus one teacher for each 27 pupils in 
the remainder of grades one through three, and 
six teachers for the first 171 pupils, grades 
four through eight, plus one teacher for each 
30 pupils in the remainder of grades four 
through eight.

c. The high school allotment shall be four teachers 
for the first 80 pupils for the first junior or

Schedule VI



144a

senior high school, three teachers for 60 pupils 
for each additional junior or senior high school 
plus one teacher for each 30 pupils thereafter.

d. For high school consolidations with or after 
the school year 1964-65, the allotment of teach­
ers to the administrative unit for the first and 
second year of the consolidation shall he com­
puted on the number of high schools in the 
unit for the last year of operation before the 
consolidation.

2. Allotment in Addition to Base Allotment

These positions shall be allotted to administrative 
units on the basis of one position for each 15 posi­
tions allotted under the “base allotment” set out 
above.

B. Revision of the Allotment of Teachers After the Be­
ginning of the School Term

1. After two weeks of the school term 1965-66, if the 
average daily attendance per teacher allotted in 
the base allotment to an administrative unit, high 
school and elementary separately, has been as 
many as 31 pupils per teacher, an additional teach­
er or teachers may be allotted, provided that the 
attendance for the best continuous six months of 
the first seven months of 1964-65 was sufficient to 
continue in the original allotment for 1965-66 addi­
tional positions which were allotted at the close 
of the first two weeks of the 1964-65 term.

2. Positions allotted under Section 1, above, shall be 
paid for the number of days that such positions

Schedule VI



145a

are filled retroactive to the beginning of the school 
term.

3. Before application is made for additional teachers, 
the superintendent of the administrative unit shall 
determine that the positions already allotted do 
not meet the need of the administrative unit based 
on attendance.

4. At the request of the superintendent based on 
attendance records, the Controller may approve 
transfers of positions between the elementary and 
high school allotment.

C. Allotment for Special Purposes

1. Provision is made for a separate allotment of 
teachers in approved programs of special educa­
tion, including the educable mentally retarded, 
crippled, visually handicapped, and speech correc­
tion.

2. Provision is made for separate allotment of teach­
ers in approved programs for exceptionally tal­
ented children.

3. Separate rules and regulations are provided for 
the allotment and employment of supervisors to 
be paid from State funds.

D. Additional Allotment Regulations

1. The initial allotment of positions takes into account 
recorded transfers of pupils between administra­
tive units. For transfers occurring after the in­
itial allotment, an adjustment will be made in the 
allotment of the administrative units involved.

Schedule VI



146a

Positions will not be allotted to two administra­
tive units for the same pupils.

2. It is expected that each administrative unit will 
refrain from employing a teacher, although al­
lotted, when it is found prior to the employment 
of the teacher that the attendance will be or is 
insufficient for such a teacher.

3. Attendance of pupils in self-contained classes for 
the educable mentally retarded, crippled, and visu­
ally handicapped shall not be counted in attend­
ance for the regular teacher allotment.

III. R eduction- of C lass S ize  in  Grades O n e ,
Two, and T hree

A. The teacher allotment formula, in so far as is feasible, 
provides for a reduction in the teacher-pupil ratio of 
three pupils in each of the first three grades in rela­
tionship to the teacher allotment formula for 1964-65.

B. County and city boards of education shall assign the 
teachers allotted for the purpose of reducing the 
teacher-pupil ratio in grades one through three to 
classroom teaching of pupils in grades one through 
three in the various schools of the administrative units 
in so far as possible, including the increase in the 
“Allotment in Addition to the Base Allotment” caused 
by the change in the teacher allotment formula for 
grades one through three.

IY . U se of S tate-A llotted P ositions

A. County and city boards of education shall assign al­
lotted teaching positions to schools on a fair and

Schedule VI



147a

equitable basis and shall make transfers of teaching 
positions between schools when enrollment changes 
make such transfers necessary.

B. It is the policy of the State Board of Education that 
before State-allotted elementary or high school teach­
ing positions are used for special services or sub­
jects, the school shall be organized so that the ele­
mentary classes are not excessively overcrowded and 
the load of the high school teachers is reasonable.

C. The base State allotment of teaching positions is pro­
vided to keep the average class membership to a rea­
sonable size, to provide for classroom instruction in 
the subjects that make up the curriculum and to 
carry out other essential duties connected with the 
operation of the schools necessary to the achievement 
of maximum improvement in education. It is the 
responsibility of the local board and superintendent 
to use these positions for these purposes.

I). The additional State teaching position allotments 
made under II-A-2, above, are to be used to provide 
an improved teaching-learning situation for students 
beyond what is possible with the base allotment alone. 
The local school board and school superintendent are 
given the responsibility for developing a local plan 
for the use of these additional allotments for any 
combination of the most needed of the following pur­
poses, all of which are given top priority:
1. To reduce class size.
2. To provide librarians
3. To provide guidance counselors

Schedule VI



148a

4. To relieve principals of teaching duties
5. To provide challenging instruction for gifted chil­

dren
6. To provide special instruction for retarded chil­

dren
The additional allotments caused by the change in 
the teacher allotment formula for grades one through 
three shall be used only to reduce class size in these 
grades.

V . D evelopm en t  and A pproval of L ocal P lans

A. It shall he expected that the local plan for the use of 
these additional allotments will, as far as possible, 
provide a balanced educational program in each school 
in the administrative unit, and will observe equity 
in the assignment of these positions among the dif­
ferent schools.

B. In addition, it must he demonstrated in the local plan 
that priorities established do not result in the use of 
a disproportionate number of these positions for any 
of the purposes listed above while leaving other needs 
unfilled. For example, to free principals of the small 
schools from teaching duties while making no provi­
sions for some other important need will not he 
looked upon with favor.

C. The State Board of Education does not intend that 
these additional allotments shall be used in such a 
way as to free a base allotment to he used for a pur­
pose that could not he approved under the regulations 
governing the use of the additional allotments.

Schedule VI



149a

D. The local plan for the use of these positions shall be 
filed prior to Angnst 1 with the State Superintendent 
of Public Instruction on forms to be furnished. These 
plans shall be evaluated by a panel consisting of the 
State Superintendent of Public Instruction or his rep­
resentative and the Controller of the State Board of 
Education or his representative. Prior to the dis­
approval of any part of a plan, the panel shall request 
a conference with the Superintendent of the adminis­
trative unit in which he will be asked to justify the 
plan or make adjustments.

E. The panel shall make a report to the State Board of 
Education of action taken on the plans submitted. In 
cases where a plan is still not approved following the 
conference, the State Board will review the decision 
of the panel and reserves the right to withhold the 
allotment of the position or positions involved.

V I . R eview  of U se of A ll  I nstructional  and S upervisory 
P ersonnel E mployed

A. Within five days after the end of the first month of 
the school term, the superintendent of each adminis­
trative unit shall file a report for each school with the 
Division of Instructional Services of the Department 
of Public Instruction. This report shall be filed on 
forms furnished by the above division and shall indi­
cate the complete organization of each school, duties 
of each teacher or other instructional personnel, and 
class size or teaching load.

B. Following the review of the above reports, the State 
Superintendent of Public Instruction shall give the 
State Board of Education his appraisal of the or­

Schedule VI



150a

ganization of the schools and use of State-allotted 
personnel in each administrative unit.

B. Upon receipt of the allotment of teachers from the 
State Board of Education and in keeping with the 
foregoing Teacher Allotment Policies and Regula­
tions, the Stanly County Board of Education informs 
the principal of each school in the Stanly County Ad­
ministrative Unit of the total number of teaching posi­
tions assigned to each school.
Assignment of total teaching positions by the Board 
of Education to the several schools of the County is 
dependent upon many variables which are reflected 
in the attached chart marked Allocation Chart— 
Teaching Positions. The Stanly County Board of Ed­
ucation, governed by State Teacher Allotment Poli­
cies and Regulations, is limited by the allotment for­
mula in its assignment of teaching positions to the 
several schools.
Assignment of teachers by the Board of Education to 
a specific school is made only upon the recommenda­
tion of the principal with approval by the Superintend­
ent and Board of Education.

E xplan atio n  of A llocation  C h art— T each in g  P ositions

C. Column 1. Name of school
2. This column indicates the number of Pri­

mary teaching positions. Overage of pu­
pils is shown in parenthesis. The State 
Primary Grade allotment formula was ap­
plied to each school to determine the al-

Schedule VI



151a

lotment credits and this number was 
divided by 27 for each school.

3. Extras are those teaching positions left 
over after applying the allotment formula 
to the several schools. These positions are 
then alloted according to comparative 
needs.

4. Allotment of the “1-15” position—these 
positions are alloted according to need.

5. Minimum number of Primary teaching 
positions.

6. The State Grammar Grade allotment for­
mula was applied to each school to deter­
mine the allotment credit and this number 
is divided by 30 for each school.

7. Extras are those teaching positions left 
over after applying the allotment formula 
to the several schools. These positions are 
then alloted according to comparative 
needs.

8. Total grammar grade teaching positions.
9. Transfer credit teaching positions from 

transfers outside the system.
10. Transfer credit teaching position from 

transfers within the County.
11. 1-15 teaching positions allocated on the 

basis of need and State Rules and Regula­
tions.

Schedule VI

12. Total teaching positions.



152a

D . H igh  S chool

1. Allotment of high school teaching positions are 
made in accordance with the State rules and regu­
lations governing the allotment of high school 
teachers. The only basic difference in alloting high 
school teaching positions from the alloting of ele­
mentary teaching positions is the application of 
the high school allotment formula. Otherwise, al­
loting of high school position is basically the same 
as described above.

Schedule VI



9l 
‘ia

primary
Cl'ART - T-’Anii ic fosjtioms

grammar
O«_ ____3_____ 1 5

---T ■■■— -—b 7 a o 10 ll .12

SCHOOL
Allotment

Formula Extras
1-15 Total 

1-Rcquired Primary
Allotment
Ferrule Extras

Total
Cram.

Transfer 
Credit (City)

Transfer | 
County 1-15 1

Total
School

F-fillincport 3 112)
.

1 h <■ ( 1 2 ) 6
t i--------------- r

10

Richfield 3 (U)
.

: 3 b (23) ; 1 5 1 (15) i ! ?
New London ’  7 (2)

!1i!
<
j 7 : 12 (10)

i
!i 12 1 (39)

1 "
1

1 20

Bad in ; h (5)
*
11

t
! u I 7 (5)

i
I i t ! (17) l 12

Norwood • 9 (2 )
|i1 ! 9 ! 13 (3) i| ! 13 r +2 (67) | l 25

Aquadale b (3)
I
1 1* j 7 (21)

\
\ i I 8 i! 12

Endy 3 (10) ii .
■ -

1 k ! 5 iii j 5
I

I\ l 10

Oakboro 6 (7) \\ 6 j 9 (7)
i

ii i io
«
|

1
l 17

Stanfield b (15)
i
| l 5 1 6 ( l l ) ii : 6 i1 11

Ridgecrest 2 ( b )
it1 2 3 (17) I i i h i

ii i
! 6

Locust * 1* (2U)
1
1 1 5 ! 7 (13) ii

i
; 7 *

J1 i
i 1 ! 13

Vest Badin 2 ( 2 1 )
1
| 1 -N0 li (2 2 )

i
(

! 1 1 5 ! (-17) 1/ 2 i 8 1 / 2

Kake View 3 (9) ; 3 b (26)
*

1 i 5 -2(-60)
t

1 / 2 ; 6 i /2

South Oakboro : i  ( 1 6 ) 1 2 __________ g (m ) « 2

2 3 ----------------- n-----------------
■ . . . . . . .  .

- ........r  -

-  ■ 4 -  —  ....... — -

7

HIGH SCHOOLS
Allotment
Formula Extras Transfers Total 1-15

Tot al 
1 School

North Stanly 23 (U) 1  ( 10 0 ) 2 b 3 27

South Stanly 16  (2h) 1 (23) -  I T  ......... 3
J

20

West Stanly 22 (26) 1 (11) 23 2 1 25

West Badin 6 (25) -2 (-86) h ' b





153a



154a

Set No. 1

Defendant requests that plaintiffs answer separately 
under oath in accordance with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules 
of Procedure the following interrogatories:

1. State name of each teacher or other school personnel 
other than individual plaintiff that plaintiffs say has been 
dismissed from employment by defendant solely on the 
basis of race or color.

2. As to each teacher or other school personnel named 
in answer to Interrogatory No. 1 above, state:

(a) Present address;
(b) Position held in defendant system prior to dismissal;
(c) Approximate date of dismissal;
(d) School in defendant system such person taught or 

worked prior to dismissal; and
(e) If employed, present employment.

3. State name of each teacher or other school personnel 
other than individual plaintiff whose application for em­
ployment in defendant system plaintiffs say has not been 
considered by defendant solely on the basis of race or 
color.

4. As to each person named in answer to Interrogatory 
No. 3 above, state:

(a) Present address;
(b) Approximate date application made for employment;

Interrogatories of Defendant



155a

Interrogatories of Defendant

(c) Position of employment for which applied;
(d) Approximate date application rejected; and
(e) Reason assigned by defendant for not employing 

applicant.

5. State name, address, and position of each officer of 
corporate plaintiff.

6. State name and address of each officer and agent 
of corporate plaintiff who investigated or had knowledge 
of the practices of hiring, dismissing, and assigning of 
teachers and other school personnel employed by defen­
dant in its system prior to the institution of this action.



156a

Set No. 1

The Plaintiff, Audrey Gillis Wall, answers the inter­
rogatories served upon her by the defendant on Septem­
ber 10, 1965, as follows:

Interrogatory No. 1. State name of each teacher or 
other school personnel other than individual plaintiff that 
plaintiffs say has been dismissed from employment by 
defendant solely on the basis of race or color.

Answer. The plaintiff does not know the name or names 
of Negro teachers whose contracts were not renewed by 
the defendant for the 1965-66 school year. The plaintiff 
is in the process of securing the names of these teachers 
and will furnish information requested in Interrogatory 
No. 1 to the defendant.

Interrogatory No. 2. As to each teacher or other school 
personnel named in answer to Interrogatory No. 1 above, 
state:
(a) Present address;
(b) Position held in defendant system prior to dismissal;

(c) Approximate date of dismissal;
(d) School in defendant system such person taught or 
worked prior to dismissal; and
(e) If employed, present employment.

Answer. See answer to Interrogatory No. 1.

Interrogatory No. 3. State name of each teacher or 
other school personnel other than individual plaintiff whose

Answers to Interrogatories



157a

application for employment in defendant system plaintiffs 
say lias not been considered by defendant solely on the 
basis of race or color.

Answer. Plaintiff does not know the name of each teacher 
whose contract was renewed by the defendant for the 
1965-66 school year. Plaintiff is presently seeking to dis­
cover such names through discovery and will furnish the 
information requested to the defendant. Plaintiff states, 
however, that all teachers in the school system were con­
sidered for employment, employed and assigned on the 
basis of race.

Answers to Interrogatories

Interrogatory No. 4. As to each person named in an­
swer to Interrogatory No. 3 above, state:
(a) Present address;
(b) Approximate date application made for employment;
(c) Position of employment for which applied;
(d) Approximate date application rejected; and
(e) Reason assigned by defendant for not employing ap­
plicant.

Answer. See answer to Interrogatory No. 3.

Interrogatory No. 5. State name, address, and position 
of each officer of corporate plaintiff.

Answer.
S. E. Duncan 
President 
Salisbury, N. C.
M. M. Daniels 
Vice President 
Wilson, N. C.

Mrs. Geneva J. Bowe 
Recording Secretary 
Murfreesboro, N. C.
N. H. Harris 
Treasurer
Raleigh, North Carolina



158a

Answers to Interrogatories

E. B. Palmer, Sr.
Executive Secretary
Raleigh, North Carolina

Interrogatory No. 6. State name and address of each 
officer and agent of corporate plaintiff who investigated 
or had knowledge of the practices of hiring, dismissing, 
and assigning of teachers and other school personnel em­
ployed by defendant in its system prior to the institution 
of this action.

Answer. E. B. Palmer, Sr.
Executive Secretary 
Raleigh, North Carolina

Dated: September 27, 1965.



159a

The Plaintiff, Audrey Gillis Wall, answers the interroga­
tories served upon her by the defendant on September 10, 
1965, as follows:

Interrogatory No. 1. State the name of each teacher or 
other school personnel other than individual plaintiff that 
plaintiffs say has been dismissed from employment by de­
fendant solely on the basis of race or color.

Answer to Interrogatory No. 1. Audrey Gillis Wall, Nell 
Holms, Fredrick Welborn, and Edrina Davis Turner.

Interrogatory No. 2. As to each teacher or other school 
personnel named in answer to Interrogatory No. 1 above, 
state:
(a) Present address;
(b) Position held in defendant system prior to dismissal;
(c) Approximate date of dismissal;
(d) School in defendant system such person taught or 
worked prior to dismissal; and
(e) If employed, present employment.

Answers to Interrogatories

Answer to Interrogatory No. 2:
N a m e P o sitio n B a te S c h o o l

( a ) (b) (o) (d)
Audrey Gillis W all 
P. 0 . Box 585 
422 W all Street 
Albemarle, North Carolina

Elementary July, 1965 Lake View

Nell Holms High School May, 1965 W est Badin
General Delivery
East Spencer, North Carolina



160a

Fredrick W elborn H igh School June, 1965 W est Badin
425 S. Boundary Street 
Salisbury, North Carolina

Edrina Davis Turner Elementary May, 1965 Lake View
South Oakboro 
Elementary School 
Oakboro, North Carolina

Interrogatory No. 3. State name of each teacher or other 
school personnel other than individual plaintiff whose ap­
plication for employment in defendant system plaintiffs say 
has not been considered by defendant solely on the basis 
of race or color.

Answer to Interrogatory No. 3: Same as answers to in­
terrogatories No. 1 and 2.

Interrogatory No. 4. As to each person named in answer 
to Interrogatory No. 3 above, state:
(a) Present address;
(b) Approximate date application made for employment;
(c) Position of employment for which applied;
(d) Approximate date application rejected; and
(e) Reason assigned by defendant for not emloying appli­
cant.

Answer to Interrogatory No. 4a. Same as answers to 
Interrogatories No. 1 and 2.

As to Interrogatories No. 4b, plaintiff does not have any 
knowledge or position of any facts with reference to these 
Interrogatories. Defendant is in a better position to know 
the answers to these Interrogatories than plaintiff.

Answers to Interrogatories

Dated: October 27, 1965.



161a

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 
330 North First Street 

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
June 25, 1965

The Teacher Allotment for Millingport School for the 
1965-66 School Year is as follows:

State Allotment:
Primary 4
Grammar Grade 6
Either Primary or G. G.
High School 
Vocational:

Teacher Allotments for 1965-66

Guidance Counselor (County) ....
Industrial Arts (County)
Educable Mentally Retarded 
Speech Therapist 
Exceptionally Talented

T otal A llotm en t  10

LAA :jlf
Luther A. Adams, Superintendent



162a

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 
330 North First Street 

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
June 25, 1965

The Teacher Allotment for Richfield School for the 1965-66 
School Year is as follows:

State Allotment:
Primary 3
Grammar Grade 5
Either Primary or G. G. 1
High School 
Vocational:

Teacher Allotments for 1965-66

Guidance Counselor (County) ....
Industrial Arts (County)
Educable Mentally Retarded 
Speech Therapist 
Exceptionally Talented (Itin­

erant program will be con­
tinued in 1965-66)

T otal A llotm en t  9

L A A : jlf
Luther A. Adams, Superintendent



163a

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 
330 North First Street 

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
June 25, 1965

Teacher Allotments for 1965-66

The Teacher Allotment for New London School for the 
1965-66 School Year is as follows:

State Allotment:

High School 
Vocational:

Guidance Counselor (County) ....
Industrial Arts (County)
Educable Mentally Retarded 
Speech Therapist 
Exceptionally Talented (Itin­

erant program will be con­
tinued in 1965-66)

T otal A llotm en t  20

Primary
Grammar Grade
Either Primary or G. G.

7
12

1

Luther A. Adams, Superintendent
LAA :jlf



164a

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 
330 North First Street 

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
June 25, 1965

The Teacher Allotment for Badin School for the 1965-66 
School Year is as follows:

State Allotment:

Teacher Allotments for 1965-66

Primary 4

Grammar Grade 7

Either Primary or G. G. 1

High School ....

V ocational:

Guidance Counselor (County) ....
Industrial Arts (County)
Educable Mentally Betarded 
Speech Therapist 
Exceptionally Talented (Itin­

erant program will be con­
tinued in 1965-66)

T otal A llo tm en t  12

L A A : jlf
Luther A. Adams, Superintendent



165a

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 
330 North First Street 

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
June 25, 1965

Teacher Allotments for 1965-66

The Teacher Allotment for Norwood School for the 1965-66 
School Year is as follows:

State Allotment:

High School 
Vocational:

Guidance Counselor (County) ....
Industrial Arts (County)
Educable Mentally Eetarded 2 
Speech Therapist 
Exceptionally Talented (Itin­

erant program will be con­
tinued in 1965-66)

T otal A llotm en t  27

Primary
Grammar Grade
Either Primary or G. G.

15
9

1

Luther A. Adams, Superintendent
LAA: jlf



166a

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 
330 North First Street 

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
June 25, 1965

Teacher Allotments for 1965-66

The Teacher Allotment for Aqnadale School for the 1965-66 
School Year is as follows:

State Allotment:

Either Primary or G. G. 
High School 
Vocational:

Guidance Counselor (County) 
Industrial Arts (County) 
Educable Mentally Retarded 
Speech Therapist 
Exceptionally Talented (Itin­

erant program will be con­
tinued in 1965-66)

Primary 
Grammar Grade

4

8

T otal A llotm en t 12

Luther A. Adams, Superintendent
LAA gif



167a

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 
330 North First Street 

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
June 25, 1965

The Teacher Allotment for Endy School for the 1965-66 
School Year is as follows:

State Allotment:

Teacher Allotments for 1965-66

Primary 4
Grammar Grade 5
Either Primary or G. G. 1
High School . . . .

Vocational:

Ghiidance Counselor (County) ....
Industrial Arts (County)
Educable Mentally Retarded 
Speech Therapist 
Exceptionally Talented (Itin­

erant program will be con­
tinued in 1965-66)

T otal A llotm en t  10

LAA: jlf
Luther A. Adams, Superintendent



168a

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 
330 North First Street 

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
June 25, 1965

The Teacher Allotment for Oakboro School for the 1965-66 
School Year is as follows:

State Allotment:
Primary 6
Grammar Grade 10
Either Primary or G. G. 1
High School 
Vocational:

Teacher Allotments for 1965-66

Guidance Counselor (County) ....
Industrial Arts (County)
Educable Mentally Retarded 
Speech Therapist 
Exceptionally Talented (Itin­

erant program will be con­
tinued in 1965-66)

T otal A llo tm en t  17

Luther A. Adams, Superintendent
LAA :jlf



169a

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 
330 North First Street 

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
June 25, 1965

Teacher Allotments for 1965-66

The Teacher Allotment for Stanfield School for the 1965-66 
School Year is as follows:

State Allotment:

Either Primary or Gf. G. 
High School 
Vocational:

Guidance Counselor (County) 
Industrial Arts (County) 
Educable Mentally Retarded 
Speech Therapist 
Exceptionally Talented (Itin­

erant program will be con­
tinued in 1965-66)

Primary 
Grammar Grade 6

5

T otal A llotm en t 11

Luther A. Adams, Superintendent
LAArjlf



170a

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 
330 North First Street 

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
Jnne 25, 1965

The Teacher Allotment for Ridgecrest School for the 1965- 
66 School Year is as follows:

State Allotment:
Primary
Grammar Grade 
Either Primary or G. G.
High School 
Vocational:

Teacher Allotments for 1965-66

Guidance Counselor (County) ....
Industrial Arts (County)
Educable Mentally Retarded 
Speech Therapist 
Exceptionally Talented

T otal A llo tm en t  6

Luther A. Adams, Superintendent
LAAglf

2
4



171a

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 
330 North First Street 

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
June 25, 1965

The Teacher Allotment for Locnst School for the 1965-66 
School Year is as follows:

State Allotment:
Primary 5
Grammar Grade 7
Either Primary or G. G.
High School 
Vocational:

Teacher Allotments for 1965-66

Guidance Counselor (County) ....
Industrial Arts (County)
Educable Mentally Retarded 
Speech Therapist 
Exceptionally Talented (Itin­

erant program will be con­
tinued in 1965-66)

T otal A llotm en t  12

LAA gif
Luther A. Adams, Superintendent



172a

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 
330 North First Street 

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
June 25, 1965

The Teacher Allotment for West Badin School for the 
1965-66 School Year is as follows:

State Allotment:
Primary 
Grammar Grade 
Either Primary or G.G.

(Librarian to 
be shared 
with
Lake View.)

High School 
Vocational:
Home Economics 
T & I

Teacher Allotments for 1965-66

Guidance Counselor (County) ....
Industrial Arts (County)
Educable Mentally Retarded 1 
Speech Therapist 
Exceptionally Talented

T otal A llo tm en t  15 %

LAA :jlf
Luther A. Adams, Superintendent



173a

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 
330 North First Street 

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
June 25, 1965

The Teacher Allotment for Lake View School for the 1965- 
66 School Year is as follows:

State Allotment:
Primary 3
Grammar Grade 3
Either Primary or G.G. V2

(Librarian to 
be shared 
with
West Badin.)

High School 
Vocational:

Teacher Allotments for 1965-66

Guidance Counselor (County) ....
Industrial Arts (County)
Educable Mentally Retarded 
Speech Therapist 
Exceptionally Talented

T o ta l  A l l o t m e n t  6 ]/2

Luther A. Adams, Superintendent
LAA :jlf



174a

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 
330 North First Street 

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
June 25, 1965

The Teacher Allotment for South Oakboro School for the 
1965-66 School Year is as follows:

State Allotment:
Primary 2
Grammar Grade 2
Either Primary or G. G.
High School 
Vocational:

Teacher Allotments for 1965-66

Guidance Counselor (County) ....
Industrial Arts (County)
Educable Mentally Retarded 
Speech Therapist 
Exceptionally Talented

T otal A llo tm en t  4

LAA: jlf
Luther A. Adams, Superintendent



175a

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 
330 North First Street 

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
July 26, 1966

The Revised Teacher Allotment for North Stanly High 
School for the 1965-66 School Year is as follows:

State Allotment:
Primary
Grammar Grade
Either Primary or G. G.
High School 27

(includes one (1)
Librarian and one 
(1) Music)

Vocational:
Agriculture 1
Home Economics 2

List o f New Teachers for 1965-66

D. E. 
T & I

1
1

Guidance Counselor (County) 1 
Industrial Arts (County) 1
Educable Mentally Retarded 
Speech Therapist 
Exceptionally Talented

T otal A llotm en t 34

Luther A. Adams, Superintendent
LAArjlf



176a

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 
330 North First Street 

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
Jane 25, 1965

The Teacher Allotment for South Stanly High School for 
the 1965-66 School Year is as follows:

State Allotment:
Primary
Grammar Grade
Either Primary or G. G.
High School 20

(includes one (1)
Librarian and one 
(1) Music)

Vocational:

List of New Teachers for 1965-66

Agriculture 2
Home Economics 2
T & I 2

(Includes one 
[11 ICT)

I. V. 1

Guidance Counselor (County) 1
Industrial Arts (County) 1
Educable Mentally Retarded 1
Speech Therapist 
Exceptionally Talented

T otal A llotm en t  30

LAA: jlf
Luther A. Adams, Superintendent



177a

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 
330 North First Street 

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
June 25, 1965

List of New Teachers for 1965-66

The Teacher Allotment for West Stanly High School for 
the 1965-66 School Year is as follows:

State Allotment:
Primary
Grammar Grade
Either Primary or G. G.
High School

(includes one (1) 
Librarian and one 
(1) Music)

25

Vocational: 
Agriculture 
Home Economics 
D. E.
T & I 
I V

2
1
3
%

iy2

Guidance Counselor (County) 
Industrial Arts (County) 
Educable Mentally Retarded 
Speech Therapist 
Exceptionally Talented

1
1

T otal A llotm ent 35

Luther A. Adams, Superintendent
LAAtjlf



178a

T eachers W ho W ere E mployed F or 1965-66 
B ut W ere N ot E mployed  F or 1964-65

List of New Teachers for 1965-66

Bonnie T. McDonald 
Mary S. Vick 
Mary B. Lewis 
Sherrill D. Lowder 
Jeanette J. Watson 
Johnny P. Burleson 
Wyatt McSwain 
Mary 0. Case 
Nellie J. Tew 
Elizabeth Troutman 
George 0. Jackson 
James G. Mauldin 
Julia A. McCaskill 
Brenda S. Stiller 
Judith Utley 
Barbara E. Lineberger 
Mirle H. Carriker 
Robert C. Lewis 
Harold D. Davenport 
Paulette M. Duke 
Emily R. Wood 
Mary B. Bundy 
Everette W. Finney 
Mary F. Hodges 
James D. Mills 
Bobby W. Carter 
Lois Watson

Tyna C. Bracknell 
Suzanne Swindell 
Billy C. Hutchinson 
Margaret W. Burleson 
Peggy B. Murdock 
Ruth H. Whitley 
George E. Arnold 
Susan J. Davis 
William K. Rudolph 
Henry P. Eaton 
Claudette S. Gethers 
Judi B. Kimrey 
Kenneth E. Forte 
George W. Heafner 
Carole B. Huneycutt 
Joyce Holt 
Jean A. Efird 
Elaine H. Orzechowski 
Ella H. Little 
Sallie S. Brown 
Mary C. Plumer 
Judge W. Morgan 
Robert A. Blalock 
Richard H. Wright 
Douglas D. Case 
Tom A. Morgan 
Bernice D. Eaton



179a

List of Teachers Not Returning for 1965-66

T eachers W ho T aught  I n S tan ly  C ounty  I n  1964-65 
W ho D id N ot R eturn  I n  1965-66

Pansy L. Sigmon 
Martha S. Lowder 
Verna R. Wilson 
Shirley G. Snnggs 
Earl C. Smith 
Jerry P. Almond 
Joel P. McLendon 
Sally A. Youngblood 
Edna F. Edwards 
Grace J. Bryant 
Audrey G. Wall 
Ramona R. Wilson 
Bobby G. Owens 
Elizabeth M. Licari 
Sandra B. Biles 
Paul W. Peddicord 
Donna W. Hearne 
Conrad N. Austin 
Mary E. Latham 
Sarah A. Lisk 
Marjorie B. Melton 
Chester P. Hollingsworth 
Naomi P. Stambaugh 
Ruth C. Mabry 
Ann K. Lee 
Charlotte R. Hartsell 
Bertha T. Rogers

Nancy E. Speight 
Janet H. Pratt 
Joan W. Sells 
Jack D. Clark 
James L. Thomas 
Patricia W. Jeffers 
Phyllis M. Martin 
Brenda J. Fries 
Alvaro Garcia 
Barbara H. Ratliff 
Brenda S. Laughter 
Sue R. McCroskey 
James P. Love 
Eula L. Teeter 
Ona L. Little 
Melvin L. Wall 
Nellie H. Holmes 
Frederick L. Winborne 
Ernest W. Dixon 
Mary 0. Glenn 
Estella T. McNeill 
Billy W. Hinson 
Zeb G. Barnhardt 
Sarah L. Bumgarner 
James W. Preble 
Donald H. Price 
Viola P. Nichols



180a

List of Schools by Race 1965-66

S tan ly  C oun ty  S chools

L ist of A ll  S chools in  S tan ly  C ou n ty  and N um ber  of 
P upils E nrolled by R ace

S c h o o l W h i t e C o l o r e d

Aquadale 331
Badin 324 18
Endy 276
Lake View 188
Locust 354
Millingport 267 5
New London 540 38
North Stanly 654 102
Norwood 678 68
Oakboro 453
Richfield 246 18
Ridgecrest 172
South Oakboro 120
South Stanly 505 31
Stanfield 293
West Badin 328
West Stanly 672 9



List of all teachers in school" hy race: 
* Denotes Negro

DIRECTORY

STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 

ALBEMARLE, WORTH CAROLINA

BOARD OF EDUCATION

Name /Address. Telephone No.

Reece McSvain, Chairman 
Robert E. Lovder, Vice-Chair. 
Eugene B. Pickier 
Claude E. Teeter 
Robert E. Young

Rt. U, Albemarle, N. C. 
Norwood, N. C.
Rt. 1, New London, K. C.
9th St. , Oakboro, II. C.
Pee Dee Ave., Norwood, N. C.

982-3096
W -3715
1+63-5062
1+85-3856
L7 L-3U50

SUPERINTENDENT’ S OFFICE, 330 North First S t ., Albemarle, N. C. , 982-2512

Luther A. Adams, Supt.
Oliven T. Cowan, Asst. Supt.

Ul7 E. S t ., Albemarle, N. C. 
South Main S t ., Oakboro, N. C.

Supervisors 
Joyce L. Reid 
Mary K. Barringer

River View Road, Norwood, N. C. 
50U E. Cannon Ave., Albemarle, N. C.

Secretaries 
Nancy Langley 
Margie Alligood 
Julia Furr

758 Pee Dee Ave., Albemarle, N. C. 
523 N. 5th S t ., Albemarle, K. C.
Rt. 1, R ichfield ,'N . C. • '

Exceptionally Talented 
Elizabeth W. Adams 
Adelaide Y. McNeill

1*17 East S t ., Albemarle, N. C. 
East Street, Norwood, N. C.

Driver Education 
Kenneth Brown 
Wayne Burris

Salisbury Rd., Albemarle, N. C. 
Rt. 1, Oakboro, N. C.

Speech Therapist 
Lois Watson 233 H. Uth S t ., Albemarle, N. C.

Attendance Counselor 
Carolyn M. Kelly Rt. 1+, Albemarle, N. C.

PRINCIPAL’ S LIST

Name of Principal School nnd Address Telephone

R. Clayton Lewis 
B illy  J. Nix 
Robert L. Garmon * 
Glover L. Hines

North Stanly, Box 38, New London 
South Stanly, Rt. 1, Norwood 
West Stanly, Rt. 1, Oakboro 
West Badin, Badin

\J03-6191
GR1+-3155
HU5-3012
HA2-3288



181a

List of All Teachers 1965-66



182a

List o f All Teachers 1965-66

(See Opposite) 2 ^



DIRECTORY
D-5
Page 2

Principal’ s List Continued

Name of Principal School and Address Telephone No

J. Frank Turner Hew London, New London H03-l*531
Elvin Fisher, Jr. Badin, Badin HA2-3660
Martin L. Coggin Norwood, Norwood GRU-3126
Vernie F. Horton Aquadale, Rt. 2 , Norwood GRU-3212
Stephen F. Hopkins Endy, Rt. U, Albemarle YU2-5193
Ralph C. Cole Oakboro, Oakboro HU5-35*H
L. P. Beck Stanfield, Stanfield ‘ L.D. TUO-2361
William K. Rudolph Ridgecrest, Rt. 1 , Stanfield HU5-3825
Noman Maples Locust, Locust L.D. TU8-9921
Robert McLendon Lake View, Norwood GRU-3^10
Henry P. Eaton South Oakboro, Oakboro HU5-3T11
George E. Jackson Millingport, Rt. 3> Albemarle YU2-2261
Charles P. Misenheimer Richfield, Richfield H03-3211

TRAITSPORTATIQH DIVISION, Freeman Avenue, Albemarle, N. C. , 9 ^ - h ^ l U

Craig J. Smith, Supervisor 1131 Pee Dee Ave., Albemarle, N. C.
Barbara L. Drye, Sec. 60 Cedar S t .,  Badin, N. C.
Jim David Lee Albemarle, IJ. C.
Joe E. Huneycutt Rt. 1 , Oakboro, II. C.
Alfred Judge Clark General Delivery, Norwood, H. C.

MAINTENANCE DIVISION, Oakboro, IT. C ., KU5-3011

Crowell J. Smith, Supervisor P. 0. Box 225, Oakboro, N. C.
Clyde T. Isenhour Rt. 1 , Box 93, New London, N. C.
Clyde F. Hatley Box l 6l ,  Oakboro, II. C.
Dolen D. Loflin New London, N. C.
Billy Lovingood Rt. 1, Stanfield, N. C.
II. Wayne Huneycutt New London, N. C.
Gerald E. Whitley R t . 1, Oakboro, N. C.



183a



184a

List o f All Teachers 1965-66

(See Opposite) SSUF*



D-6

TEACHER DIRECTORY 
STANLY COUNTY SCHOOLS 

1965-66

Aquadale School, Route 2, Norwood, N. C. GRU-3212

Name Address Grade or Subject
Teaching

Vernie F. Horton, Prin. Rt. 2 , Norwood, N. C.
Bonnie T. McDonald Rt. 1 , Albemarle, N. C. 7 & 8
Donald K. Abernathy 612 Coble Ave. ,  Albemarle, N. C. 8
Katherine S. Caneron Rt. 2 , Norwood, N. C. 7
Janice B. Abernathy 6l2 Coble Ave. ,  Albemarle, N. C. 6
Elizabeth A. Horne Rt. 1 , Polkton, N. C. 5
Thomas W. Ward 509 Smith St . ,  Albemarle, N. C. 5
Mary S. Vick Box 26U, Norwood, N. C. k

Allene H. Winfree 80 Pine St. ,  Badin, N. C. 3
Gladys E. Ferrell 501 Pee Dee. Ave. ,  Albemarle, N. C. 2
Lottie A. Houck Oakboro, N. C. 1 & 2
Edith P. Thompson P. 0. Box 6 , Albemarle, N. C. 1

Badin School, Badin, K. C. HA2-3660

Elvin M. Fisher, Prin. Badin, N. C. 7
Vernon E. Lentz Rt. 2 , New London, M. C. 8
Mary B. Lewis Box 38, New London, II. C. 8
Sherrill D. Lovder Anderson Heights, Albemarle, II. C. 7
Margaret R. Dunlap Rt. 2, Box 213, Mt. Gilead, N. C. 6
Rachel H. Lowder 1325 E. Main S t . ,  Albemarle, N. C. 5 & 6
Pauline B. Abernethy Box U31, Badin. N. C. 5
Jane L. Bell Box 332, Misenheiraer, 11. C. U

Peggy R. Ross 5 Cheoak St. ,  Badin, N. C. 3
Janette J. Watson 78 Haple S t . ,  Badin, II. C. 3
Daisie W. Holmes Box 7^3, Badin, N. C. 2
Josie Chrisco U6 Henderson S t . ,  Badin, N. C. 1

Endy School, Rt. U, Albemarle. H. C .. YU2-5193

Fred S. Hopkins, Prin. Rt. U, Albemarle, N. C. A
Johnny P. Burleson Rt. 3, Albemarle, H. C. c

Sue S. Page 1223 VJalnut S t . ,  Albemarle, k. 0 . 7
c

VJyatt Me Swain Rt. U, Box 62, Albemarle, N. C. 0
*;

Mary G. Case Box 935 , Badin, II. C. j
K ft 5

Horace H. Mabry Rt. 2, Albemarle, II. C. u
Betty B. Welch 307 Arey Ave., Albemarle, u. u.
Carolyn H. Burleson 20U 8th S t . ,  Albemarle, N. C.. J

2
L illie  R. Lisenby Rt. U, Albemarle, N. C. 1
Grace R. Speight Rt. U, Albemarle, N. C.



185a



186a

List o f All Teachers 1965-66

(See Opposite) SSir



TEACHER DIRECTORY D-7Page 2

Lake View School, Norwood, N. C. GRl*-3**lQ

Name

* Robert E. McLendon, Prin,
* Melvin J. Ruch
* Geraldine R. Taylor
* Fannie F. Coley
* Wanda W. Cogdell
* Mary S. Winfield
* Bernice D. Eaton

Address Grade or Subject 
Teaching

6
b

7
5

Norwood, N. C.
P. 0. Box 87. Norwood, N. C.
P. 0. Box k 3 2 , Norwood, N. C.
P. 0. Box U56, Badin, II. C.
1003 Macon S t . ,  Kinston, II. C.
Box 801, Albemarle, II. C.
JjJSouth Oakboro School, Oakboro, II. C.Librarian

8
&
&
3
2
1

Locust School, Locust, N. C. 888-9921

Norman W. Maples, Prin. Locust, II. C.
Olive B. Biggers Box 113, Midland, N. C. 8
James D. Kennedy Box 17U, Locust, IJ. C. 7
Vernon Hunsucker, Jr. P. 0. Box 1*33, Locust, N. C. 6 &
Faye R. Skidmore 833 E. Main S t . ,  Albemarle, N. C. 6
Margaret E. Shipton Rt. 3, Box 1**6, Concord, N. C. 5
Elizabeth C. Troutman Rt. 1, Midland, II. C. I* &
Inez S. Helms Rt. 2, Stanfield, N. C. 3 &
Ann H. Lane Rt. 1 , Albemarle, N. C. 3
Odessa L. Hatley Rt. 2 , Box 286-N, Stanfield, N .  C. 2
Rena V. Efird P. 0. Box 68, Stanfield, N. C. 1 &
Nellie J. Tew 922 Smith S t . ,  Albemarle, N. C. 1

Millingport School, Route 3, Albemarle, I\T. C ., 982-2261

George E. Jackson, Prin. Rt. 3, Albemarle, II. C.
Julia A. McCaskill Pee Dee Ave. , Albemarle, II. C. 5 &
James G. Mauldin 527 Moss Spring Rd., Albemarle, II. C. 8
Mary D. Hauss 1210 Melchor Rd., Albemarle, N. C. 7
Melvin H. Rouse 1002 Brantley Rd., Kannapolis, N. C. 6
Irene T. Peck Box 15**, Misenheimer, H. C. 5
Evelyn W. Allred Richfield, N. C. b

Vina H. Elder Rt. 3, Box 506, Albemarle, H. C. 3
Virgie H. Whitley 503 S. 3rd S t . ,  Albemarle, N. C. 2
Brenda S. S tiller Rt. 3, Box 629, Albemarle, N. C. 1

New London School, Hew London, II. C. , H03-**531

J. Frank Turner, Prin. 
Margaret B. Ivey 
Joseph K. Frick 
Judith D. Utley 
Margaret F. Allen 
Mary S. Chestnut 
Barbara E. Lineberger 
Christine M. Clayton 
Connie T. Sharpe 
Helen M. Small 
Lucile H. Harris

Hew London, N .  C .

Box 6oU , Albemarle, N. C.
Rt. 1, Richfield, H. C.
600 Pee Dee Ave., Albemarle, N. C. 
Rt. 1 , Denton, N. C.
Box i b b , New London, H. C.
Pfeiffer College, Nisenheimer, N. C. 
Rt. 1, New London, K. C.
P. 0. Box 183, Misenheimer, N. C.
Hew London School
Box 32, Mew London, II. C.

5
b

8
8
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
5
b



187a



188a

List o f All Teachers 1965-66

(See Opposite) BSP



New London School Continued

D-8
TEACHER DIRECTORY Page 3

Name Address Grade or Subject
Teaching

Margaret M. Turner 
Esther B. Gaddy 
Mirle H. Carriker 
Elizabeth C. Harvard 
Mary W. Lyerly 
Ann S. Upchurch 
Kary \J. Taylor 
Callie M. Goodman 
Gladys I . Fespeman

Worth Stanly High School,

LJew London, II. C.
Box 1^5, Albemarle, H. C.
Box 3^, Hew London, II. C.
Rt. 2 , Box 323* Norwood, II. C.
Box 655, Badin, II. C.
Rt. 1 , Box 106F, Hew London, II. C. 
U37 Cannon Ave., Albemarle, II. C. 
50U E. Cannon Ave., Albemarle, H. C 
U33 E. Cannon Ave., Albemarle, II. C

Box 38, Hew London, IIO3- 619I

5
k

3
3
2
3

1  & 2 
. 1  

1

Robert C. Lewis, Prin. Box 38, Hew London, 17. C.
Suzanne B. Smith Rt. 1, Box 81, Richfield, II. C. Commercial
Geraldine R. Chrisco U3 Hickory S t . , Badin, H. C. Commercial
Jo Anne Hildreth Rt. 1, Hew London, H. C. Librarian
Harold D. Davenport Box 188, Hew London, K. C. Engli sh
Kelson P. Burr 720 W. Oakwood Ave., Albemarle, II.C.English
Lonnie Chandler Rt. 2 , Hew London, 17. C. Biology & P.Ii
Jack D. Fesperman 816 N. 5th S t . ,  Albemarle, C. Biology & P.E
Paulette M. Duke 317 N. 1st St. , Albemarle, II. C. Math
Foy Gene Powell 813 W. Main S t . ,  Albemarle, N. C. Music
Joe F. Harris Rt. 1 , Hew London, N. C. U. S. History
Mattie B. Kelly Box 51, Hew London, 17. C. Health & P.E.
Emily R. Uood 621 E. Main S t . ,  Albemarle, I!. C. English
Johnny W. Chestnut Box i h h ,  Hew London, II. C. Social Stu.
Palmer M. Dulin 32 Henderson S t . ,  Badin, II. C. Math
Georgette L. Bower Rt. 1, Box 86 , Albemarle, II. C. English
Mary G. Bundy P. 0. Box lU, Misenheimer, N. C. English
Dorothy F. Glenn Box 675, Badin, H. C. French

Latin
Betty V7. Hatley Rt. 2, New London, II. C. Math
Joe D. Kelly Hew London, II. C. Biology & P.l
Linda B. Hunt 6l0 Coble Ave., Albemarle, H. C. Social Stu.
Everette W. Finney 2506 S. Cannon Ave., Kann., H. C. English

French
Mary F. Hodges General Delivery, Hew London, N. C. English
Janes D. Mills Rt. 2, Box 2 ' j h , New London, N. C. Algebra

Science
Robert II. Jeffrey Badin, II. C. Physics, P.E. 

Chemistry
Janes W. Sanges UCo E. Cannon Ave., Albemarle, H.C. Math
Bobby W. Carter Concord, H. C. English

Spanish
Faye Y. Fisher P. 0. Box 308, Badin, II. C. D. E.
Phillip E. Hancock Rt. 3, Box 85 , Albemarle, H. C. Trade & Ind.
Richard Koontz Box 125* Hew London, H. C. Agr.
Carol A. Buchanan 229 Vlilson S t . ,  Albemarle, N. C. Home Ec.
Rosemary K. Harwood 2UU Concord Rd. , Albemarle, II. C. Home Ec.



189a



190a

List o f All Teachers 1965-

(See Opposite) HSi5"



TEACHER DIRECTORY D-9Page U
North Stanly High School Continued

Name Address Grade or Subject
Teaching

Martha Rogers New London, N. C. Guidance
Janes Lovett

Norwood School, Norwood, N. 

Martin L. Coggin, Prin.

312 E. South S t . ,  Albemarle, ft. C. 

C ., GRU-3126

Norwood, N. C.

Industrial Art

Barbara S, Lambert 506 Wesley Heights Drive, 
Albemarle, II. C.

Music Sc Lib.

Robert S. Sims Norwood, II. C. 8
Genna R. Norwood Norwood, N. C, 8
Joan M. Headley Box 365 , Vadesboro, N. C. 8
Pauline M. Vick Rt. 1, Norwood, N. C. 7
Virginia D. Efird Rt. 1, Albemarle, N. C. 7
Melvin G. Poplin Rt, 2, Norwood, N. C. 7
Frances M. Curphey Box 753* Badin, N, C. 6
Oleta C. Norwood Norwood, N. C. 6
Elizabeth R. Bowers Rt. 2, Box 55^* Norwood, N. C. 6
Margie V. Farmer Box 82, Norwood, K. C. 5
Daisey K. Lowder Box 51, Norwood, N. C. 5
Dorthas M. Leitch P. 0. Box llUU, Albemarle, ft. C. k

Irene B. McNeill Box U76 , Norwood, N. C. h

Tyna C. Bracknell 8lU N. 11th S t . ,  Albemarle, N. C. b

Miriam J. Sims Norwood, N. C. 3
Albertine Lentz Norwood, IT. C. 3
Suzanne Swindell 325 N. 1st S t . ,  Albemarle, N. C. 3
Frances R. Muilaney Rt. 1 , Box 325, New London, ft. C. 2
Pearl S. Lanier Box 322, Norwood, ft. C. 2
Carolyn L. Hathcock Box 287, Norwood, ft. C. 2
Lelia C. Skidmore Box 513, Norwood, IT. C. 1
Mamie H. Lentz Norwood, ft. C. 1
Margaret P. Skidmore Norwood, N. C. 1
Minnie L. Dennis Rt. 2 , Norwood, ft. C. Sp. Edu.
Billy C. Hutchinson 

Oakboro School, Oakboro, N. 

Ralph C. Cole, Prin.

Box 16U, Norwood, II. C. 

C ., HU5-3211

Oakboro, N. C.

Sp. Edu.

Edward P. Stewart Box 272, Oakboro, II. C. 8
Elberta L. Ragsdale 202 S. Uth S t . ,  Albemarle, ft. C. 8
Margaret \J. Burleson Rt. 3, Box 891*, Albemarle, ft. C. 7
William K. L ittle Rt. 2 , Stanfield, N. C. 7
Claudette B, Love Oakboro, N. C. 6
Peggy B. Murdock Rt. 1, Stanfield, N. C. 6
Lucy G. Thomas Rt. 1, Oakboro, N. C. 5
Ruth H. Whitley 
Peggy L. Burris 
Jean H. Huneycutt 
Mae W. Brooks 
Flora T. Parker 
Louise E. Cowan

Pfeiffer College, flisenheimer, ft. 
Rt. U, Albemarle, N. C.
Rt. U, Albemarle, K. C.
Oakboro, IT. C.
Rt. 2, Polkton, ft. C.
Oakboro, II. C.

C. 5 
U 
1*
3
3
2



191a



List of All Teachers 1965-66

192a

(See Opposite) I®3



TEACHER DIRECTORY
D-10 
Page 5

Oakboro School Continued

Name Address Grade or Subject 
Teaching

Altha H. Hatley P. 0. Box 68, Oakboro, N. C. 2
Juanita S. Johnston Rt. U, Albemarle, N. C. 1
Jeanette E. Whitley Rt. 1 , Oakboro, N. C. 1

Richfield School, Richfield, II. C ., K03-3211

C. P, Misenheiraer, Prin. Richfield, N. C. 8
George E. Arnold % Richfield School 8
Ida L. Jeffrey Badin, U. C. 7
Mary A. Fisher P. 0. Box 121, Richfield, II. C. 6
Rose L. Ritchie P. 0. Box 157, Richfield, II. C. 5
Ann B. Martin Richfield, N. C. k

Freeman JJ. Corson Box 651, Richfield, II. C. 3
Susan J. Davis P. 0. Box 122, Pfeiffer College 

Misenheimer, N. C.
2

Ida F. Kyles Richfield, N. C. 1

Ridgecrest School, Route 1, Stanfield, 1?. C. HU5-3825

William K. Rudolph, Prin. Rt. 1, Stanfield, II. C. 8
Mildred L . Carpenter Rt. 1, Oakboro, N. C. 7
Naomi B. Miller Rt. 1, R ichfield , N. C. 5 & 6
Minnie E. Barbee Rt. 1, Stanfield, N. C. h & 5
Virginia C. Rinehardt Rt. 1, Concord, II. C. 2 & 3
Jessie V. Lambert Rt. 1, Stanfield, N. C. 1 & 2

South Oakboro School, Oakboro. N. C. . HU5-3711

Henry P. Eaton, Prin. Oakboro, II. C. 5 & 6
Maude P. Asbury Rt. 1, Box Ull, Midland, IJ. C. 7 & 8
Edrena D. Turner P. 0. Box 65, Granite Quarry, N. C. 3 & k

Claudette S. Gathers 316 Elizabeth Ave. , Albemarle, II. C. 1 & 2

South Stanly High School, Route 1, Norwood, ii. C ., GRU-3155

B i l l y  J. N i x ,  P r i n . R t .  1 ,  N o r w o o d , N . C .
B e t t y  D . T e s h R . F .  D . 1 ,  N o r w o o d , N . C . E n g l i s h ,  A r t  

J o u r n a l i s m
J u l i a  T .  F i n l e y P . 0 .  B ox U92,  N o r w o o d , N . C . E n g l i s h ,

F r e n c h
G e o r g i a  M . Amos 7 0 S  E a s t  S t . ,  A l b e m a r l e ,  N . C . E n g l i s h ,  

H e a lt h  & P .E
S a m u e l L . T e s h ,  III  
N e l l  H . T e e t e r  
J u d i  B . K im r e y  
W ilm a  M. M o r to n  
M i ld r e d  M. A r c h e r

R t .  1 ,  IJorw ood , N . C .
Box 7 ,  O a k b o r o , II. C .
B ox 16, N o r w o o d , N . C.
2 2 7  N . U th  S t . ,  A l b e m a r l e , N . C . 
1U 07  R o s s  D r . ,  A l b e m a r l e ,  N . C .

B i o l o g y  & P .
L i b r a r i a n
E n g l i s h
M ath
P h y s i c s ,
M ath

K a t h e r i n e  S .  C r u t c h f i e l d 5 1 8  M c G i l l  D r . ,  A l b e m a r l e ,  N -  C . C om m ercia l.



193a



194a

List o f All Teachers 1965-66

(See Opposite) SSir’



TEACHER DIRECTORY

Stanly Stanly High School Continued

D - l l  
Page 6

Name Address Grade or Subject
Teaching

G. Ernest Hatley, Jr. Albemarle, N. C. Social Stu.
Harvey P. Brooks Whitley S t . ,  Norwood, IT. C. Health & P.E
Wayne Moore Norwood, K. C. History,

Spanish
Edith L. Ivey Box U86, Norwood, N. C. Commercial
James A. Cameron, Jr. Rt. 2 , Norwood, IT. C. Social Stu.
Eugenia R. Ball 1018 Roanoke Ave., Charlotte, N.C. English
Josephine K. Avett Box 566, Norwood, N. C. English,

Reading
Larry A. Sides P. 0. Box 76 , Stanfield, IT. C. Music
Linda L. Julian 201 S. Broome S t . ,  Albemarle, N.C. Chemistry,

Physical Sci
Douglas R. Squires 70U Coble Ave., Albemarle, N. C. Biology,

Physical Sci
Kenneth E. Forte 1023 Pee Dee Ave., Albemarle, N.C. Sp. Ed.
George W. Heafner Norwood, N. C. I .  C. T. C.
Rebecca S. Haynan Norwood, N. C. I . V.
George R. Wagoner Rt. 1, Mt. Pleasant, II. C. T. & I .
Abe Marion Rt. 2 , Norwood , IT. C. Voc. Agr.
Larry W. Mabry Rt. 1 , Box 191M, Albemarle, N.C. Voc. Agr.
Joyce W. Nance Rt. 1 , Box 220, Stanfield, N. C. Home Ec.
Carole B. Huneycutt Rt. 2 , New London, IT. C. Home Ec.
Aubrey R. Flynt Norwood, N. C. Guidance
William E. Frye 1 2 3  N. U th  S t . ,  A l b e m a r l e ,  IT. C . I n d .  A r t s

Stanfield School. Stanfield, IT. C ., 888-2361

L. P. Beck, Prin. Stanfield, N. C.
Everett E. Hatley Stanfield, N . C. 0
Joyce H. Holt 1206 Pine S t . ,  Albemarle, II. C. 7
Henry C. Bowers Rt. 1 , New London, IT. C. 6
Thelma T. Beck Stanfield, H. C. 5
Zell R. Moss Stanfield, IT. C. 5
Sallie H. Bowers Rt. 1 , New London, N. C. h

Jean A. Efird 115 Wilson S t . ,  Albemarle, N. C. 3
Elaine H. Orzechowski P. 0. Box 1066, Albemarle, N. C. 2 & 3
Ruth H. Blair Stanfield, II. C. 2
L illie  H. Love Rt. 2 , Stanfield, N . C. 1 & 2

West Badin School, Badin, IT. C. , HA2-3288

* Glover L. Hines, Prin.
* Robert S. Adams
* Sallie S. Bowers
* Susie H. Martin
* Jacob B. Davis
* Ruth J. Kelly
* Ella K. L ittle
* Bertha L. Hines

Badin, N. C.
P. 0. Box 185, New London, 
Rt. 1, New London, N. C. 
Box U2, Badin, N. C.
P. 0. Box 1095, Albemarle, 
Rt. 2, New London, N. C.
P. 0. Box 6 3 , Ansonville, 
P. 0. Box 367, Badin, N. C

II. C . S c i e n c e
H a th
E n g l i s h

N . C . 8
7

N . C . 6
• 5



195a



196a

List o f A ll Teachers 1965

(See Opposite)



TEACHER DIRECTORY Page 7
West Badin School Continued 

Name

# M&rgaree 0. Daye
# Joyce B. McMehan
# Placidia B. Hinnant 
« Armonia H. Taylor
# Mary A. Harrison
# L illie  T. Graham
# Theodore Hinnant

West Stanly High School. Route

Robert L. Garmon, Prin.
Linda S. Huneycutt 
Mary C. Plumer

Pansy E. Morton 
Jean L. Grantham 
Margaret Stewart 
Margaret W. Coble 
Leo Hatley 
Thomas A. Rogers 
Joe L. Smith

Tommie C. Staton 
Carolyn J. Williams 
Dona G. HeSwain 
Mary R. Bennett

Judge W. Morgan, Jr. 
Bryte L. Efird 
Henrietta E. Carpenter 
Geraldine D. Holbrooks

Gene L. Whitesides 
Robert A. Blalock 
Richard H. Wright

Lucy B. Hunt 
Minnie C. Boling 
Lee Boyce Caudle 
Bernice A. Busch 
Claud F. Henkel 
Lawrence R. Eller 
Helen W. Thompson 
Lois R. Springer 
Jerry W. Crayton, Sr. 
Dillon E. Whitley 
Dorothy T. Smith 
Douglas D. Case

Address

Rt. 2 , New London, II. C.
% Mr. Tete Wood, Badin, II. C.
P. 0. Box 191, Badin, N. C.
Box 83, Badin, N. C.
918 Arnold St. ,  Albemarle, 2i. C. 
31^ Lincoln S t . ,  Badin, N. C.
P. 0. Box 191, Badin, II. C.

, Oakboro. II. C .. HU5-3012

Rt. 1 , Oakboro, N. C.
Rt. k, Albemarle, N. C.
116 Greenview, Concord, H. C.
Rt. 1, Oakboro, II. C.
Rt. 1 , Box 8U1-E, Oakboro, K. C. 
Box 272, Oakboro, N. C.
Box 2k5, Oakboro, II. C.
Rt. 1 , New London, II. C.
Rt. 1 , Oakboro, II. C.
Box 85k, Oakboro, II. C.

1610 W. Park Ave., Albemarle, N. 
Rt. 1 , Midland, II. C.
Rt. k, Albemarle, II. C.
910 N. loth S t . ,  Albemarle, II.C.

Rt. 1 , Box 6 l , Oakboro, II. C.
Rt. 2 , Stanfield, II. C.
117 S. H ill S t . ,  Albemarle, II.C. 
Box 103, Stanfield, II. C.

Rt. 1 , Stanfield, II. C.
Rt. 1 , 3ox 355, Norwood, N. C. 
3317 Winterfield Road,
Charlotte, N. C.
Oakboro, II. C.
731 S. 5th S t . ,  Albemarle, N.C. 
P. 0. Box 1, Richfield, N. C. 
Locust, N. C.
Box 6 3 , Stanfield, II. C.
21k N. 2nd S t . ,  Albemarle, N. C. 
Rt. k, Albemarle, II. C.
219 W. Drive, Albemarle, N. C. 
Rt. 1, Stanfield, II. C.
Rt. 1 , Box 220-A, Oakboro-, IU C- 
P. 0. Box 293, Oakboro, N. C.
Box 935, Badin, 13. C.

Grade or Subject 
Teaching

k
3
2
1

Sp. Edu.
Heme Ec.
T. & I .

Commercial
English,
Biology
Physical Edu.
English
Commercial
Librarian
Math
U.S. History 
Physics, 
Chemistry 

. World History 
French & Eng. 
Civics 
Eng. ,
Speech,
Drama
Math
Commercial
English
English,
Journalism
Math
Phy. Sci.
Music

English 
Biology 
Health & P.E. 
Eng. & Reading 
Voc. Agr.
Voc. Agr.
Home Ec.
Home Ec.
Motor Mech. 
Bricklaying 
C o s m e t o lo g y  
D. E.



197a



198a

List of All Teachers 1965-66

(See Opposite) filSif5



TEACHER DIRECTORY
D-13 
Page 8

West Stanly High School 

Maine

Tom A. Morgan 
Mildred C. Cooper

Continued

Address

Rt„ 1 , Box 6 l , Oakboro, II. 
Box 787, Albemarle, N. C.

Grade or Subject 
Teaching

Ind. Arts 
Guidance



199a



200a

Letter of Luther A. Adams to Agricultural and 
Technical College of Greensboro

April 30, 1965

The Agricultural and Technical 
College of North Carolina 
Greensboro, North Carolina

Dear Sir:
This is to certify that Mrs. Audrey G. Wall who is 

presently teaching at the Lake View Elementary School, 
Norwood, North Carolina expects to he retained in her 
position in the coming school year.

However, due to implications of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964 and the pending clarification of teacher employ­
ment practices in North Carolina, the signing of a contract 
is not permissible at this time.

With kindest regards, I am

Cordially yours,

LAA :njl

Luther A. Adams 
Superintendent



201a

M inu tes  of th e  S tan ly  C ounty  B oard of E ducation in  
R egular S ession on M onday, J u n e  7, 1965 at 

9:30  A .M . in  th e  B oard R oom

The Stanly County Board of Education met on the 
above date. The meeting was called to order by the 
Chairman, Mr. Reece McSwain. Members present: Mr. 
Robert E. Young, Mr. Robert E. Lowder, Mr. Eugene 
Pickier, and Assistant Superintendent Oliven T. Cowan 
and Superintendent Luther A. Adams. Members absent: 
Mr. Claude Teeter.

1. Mr. Norman Maples, Principal of the Locust Ele­
mentary School, appeared briefly before the Board and 
explained the purpose of his visit. Mr. Maples, seeking 
relief for principals who also serve as full-time teachers, 
explained,. in a splendid fashion, the disadvantages of a 
school program organized in such a manner. He highly 
recommended that the Board of Education attempt to 
relieve this type of situation in the County Schools.

2. The minutes of May 3, May 12, May 13, and May 25, 
1965 were read and approved.

3. The Superintendent reported, for information only, 
that a tentative allotment for Driver Education for 1965-66 
in the amount of $12,739.49 had been received. These funds 
come from the one dollar additional automobile tag tax 
and is allocated to the various City and County Admin­
istrative Units on the basis of high school enrollment for 
the preceding year, multiplied by 5.9061149.

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education,
June 7, 1965 and July 7, 1965



202a

The Superintendent reported further that the General 
Assembly had made certain changes in the laws relating 
to Driver Education which may effect substantially the 
operation of our local program. Only meager information 
is available at this time, hut three (3) significant changes 
were quite obvious. They are: (1) Driver Education shall 
he made available to all physically and mentally qualified 
persons of provisional license age, including public school 
students, non public school students, and out-of-school 
youth under eighteen years of age. (2) the public schools 
are now solely responsible for driver education for per­
sons in the category specified above and are required to 
make the course available. (3) Completion of the course 
provided by this Legislation is a pre-requisite to securing 
a driver’s license before age eighteen.

It is quite obvious the new regulations will impose a 
great hardship and additional burden upon the public 
schools. It is expected that the General Assembly will 
appropriate additional funds to assist in implementing 
this new approach to driver education in the public schools.

4. On recommendation of the Superintendent and on 
motion by Mr. Pickier and seconded by Mr. Lowder, the 
Board approved the following contracts for the school year 
1965-66. (See attached list)

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education,
June 7, 1965 and July 7, 1965

C o n t b a c t s  A ppk oved— J u n e  7, 1965
County-wide— 
Drivers Education

Wayne Davis Burris 
Kenneth R. Brown

County-wide— 
Special Education

Adelaide Y. McNeill 
Elizabeth W. Adams



203a

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education,
June 7, 1965 and July 7, 1965

Millingport 
Virgie Lee Harward 

Whitley 
Vina H. Elder 
Evelyn W. Allred 
Irene T. Peek 
Marvin H. Rouse 
Mary Ann Dickson Hauss 
Brenda Shoe Stiller
Richfield 
Ida Fink Kyles 
Freeman M. Corson 
Ann Bryson Martin 
Rose L. Ritchie 
Mary Ann Fisher 
Ida L. Jeffrey
New London 
Mirle H. Carriker 
Gladys I. Fesperman 
Thomas W. Ward 
Mary W. Taylor 
Christine M. Clayton 
Margaret B. Ivey 
Callie M. Goodman 
Mary W. Lyerly 
Elizabeth C. Harward 
Margaret M. Turner 
Mary S. Chestnut 
Helen M. Small 
Esther B. Gaddy 
Joseph Keith Frick 
Lucile H. Harris

Badin
Josie Chrisco 
Daisie W. Holmes 
Peggy R. Ross 
Jane Lefko Bell 
Pauline B. Abernethy 
Margaret R. Dunlap 
Rachel Harris Lowder 
Vernon E. Lentz

Norwood
Irene B. McNeill 
Albertine Lentz 
Barbara S. Lambert 
Pauline M. Vick 
Virginia D. Efird 
Robert S. Sims 
Genna R. Norwood 
Joan M. Headley 
Melvin G. Poplin 
Minnie L. Dennis 
Elizabeth R. Bowers 
Margie Virginia Farmer 
Miriam J. Sims 
Carolyn L. Hathcock 
Margaret P. Skidmore 
Daisy K. Lowder 
Lelia C. Skidmore 
Dorthas M. Leitch 
Pearle Smith Lanier 
Mamie H. Lentz 
Frances R. Mullaney



204a

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education,
June 7, 1965 and July 7, 1965

Norwood (con’t)

Oleta C. Norwood 
Suzanne Swindell

Aquadale

Janice Rae Burris 
Abernathy 

Lottie Austin Houck 
Elizabeth A. Horne 
Kathryn Safrit Cameron 
Gladys E. Ferrell 
Donald K. Abernathy

Endy

Sue Smith Page 
Betty B. Welch 
Carolyn H. Burleson 
Lillie R. Lisenby 
Grace R. Speight 
Horace H. Mabry 
Wyatt McSwain

Oakboro

Juanita S. Johnston 
Louise E. Cowan 
Altha H. Hatley 
Flora T. Parker 
Mae W. Brooks 
Jean H. Honeycutt 
Peggy Lowder Burris 
Jeanette E. Whitley

Oakboro (con’t)

Lucy G. Thomas 
William Keith Little 
Charlotte Ross Hartsell 
Edward P. Stewart

Stanfield

Everett Edward Hatley 
Henry C. Bowers 
Zell R. Moss 
Thelma T. Beck 
Sallie H. Bowers 
Lillie Hinson Love 
Ruth H. Blair 
Jean Alice Efird

Ridgecrest

Jessie Virginia Lambert 
Minnie E. Barbee 
Naomi B. Miller 
Virginia C. Rinehardt 
Mildred Lucille Carpente

Locust

Olive B. Biggers 
Faye R. Skidmore 
James D. Kennedy 
Margaret Estes Shipton 
Inez Shinn Helms 
Odessa L. Hatley 
Angeline Hilton Lane



205a

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education,
June 7, 1965 and July 7, 1965

Locust (con’t)

Rena V. Efird 
Vernon Hunsueker, Jr. 
Verna R. Wilson

North Stanly

Geraldine R. Chrisco 
Joe Dewitt Kelly 
Mattie B. Kelly 
Jack D. Fesperman 
Joe Frank Harris 
Carol A. Buchanan 
Robert N. Jeffrey 
Lonnie R. Chandler 
Foy Gene Powell 
James W. Sanges 
Faye Young Fisher 
Rosemary K. Harwood 
Phillip E. Hancock 
James Lovett 
Palmer McCullough Dulin 
Martha R. Rogers 
Linda Barnes Hunt 
Johnny W. Chestnut 
Nelson P. Burr 
Richard H. Koontz 
Suzanne B. Smith 
Betty W. Hatley 
Georgette L. Bowers 
Jo Anne J. Hildreth

South Stanly

Douglas R. Squires 
Harvey P. Brooks 
A1 Varo Garcia 
Larry A. Sides 
Josephine K. Avett 
Katherine S. Crutchfield 
Edith L. Ivey 
James A. Cameron, Jr. 
William E. Frye 
Nell H. Teeter 
Eugenia R. Ball 
Wayne Moore 
Julia T. Finley 
Samuel L. Tesh, III 
Gurney E. Hatley, Jr. 
Wilma M. Morton 
Linda E. Julian
B. H. Ratliff 
Mildred M. Archer 
Georgia M. Amos 
Betty D. Tesh 
Aubrey R. Flynt 
Rebecca S. Hayman 
George R. Wagoner 
Larry W. Mabry 
Abe Marion 
Joyce W. Nance 
Carole B. Huneycutt



206a

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education,
June 7, 1965 and July 7, 1965

West Stanly
Mildred C. Cooper 
Geraldine B. Holbrooks 
Thomas A. Rogers 
Billy W. Hinson 
Elberta L. Ragsdale 
Tommie C. Staton 
Carolyn J. Williams 
Jean L. Grantham 
Linda S. Huneycutt 
Margaret Stewart 
Mary R. Bennett 
Margaret W. Coble 
Dona G. McSwain 
Pansy E. Morton 
Henrietta Carpenter 
Bernice A. Bnsch 
Minnie Cleo Elmore 
Joe L. Smith 
Leo Hatley 
Lee B. Caudle 
Gene L. Whitesides 
Lucy Brooks Hunt 
Donald H. Price 
Bryte L. Efird 
Trina J. Holt 
Claude F. Henkel 
Lawrence Raymond Eller 
Helen Whitlock Thompson 
Lois R. Springer 
Dillon E. Whitley 
Dorothy T. Smith 
Jerry W. Crayton

West Badin

Melvin L. Wall 
Joyce B. McMehan 
Margaree Owens 
Theodore Hinnant 
Mary A. Harrison 
Susie H. Martin 
Ruth J. Kelly 
Jacob B. Davis 
Robert S. Adams 
Bertha L. Hines 
Armonia H. Taylor 
Placidia B. Hinnant 
Ophelia S. Glenn 
Lillie Tyson Graham

Lake View and West Badin

Viola P. Nichols 
(librarian)

Lake View

Mary S. Winfield 
Audrey G. Wall 
Geraldine Robinson Taylor 
Melvin Joe Rush 
Wanda W. Cogdell 
Fannie F. Coley

South Oakboro

Maude P. Asbury 
Phyllis M. Martin 
Patricia W. Jeffers



207a

In the same motion, on recommendation of the Milling- 
port School Committee the Board approved the contract 
of Mrs. Lewis Peck and requested the Superintendent to 
inform the State Board of Education that she not be 
mandatorily retired, but that she be permitted to teach one 
year beyond the mandatory age. The motion passed.

5. On recommendation of the Superintendent and on 
motion by Mr. Pickier and seconded by Mr. Lowder, the 
Board approved the use of the several school facilities 
of the County for Adult Education Program sponsored by 
the Central Piedmont Community College. Authorization 
to use the buildings would be subject to the consent and 
approval of the Superintendent. The motion passed.

6. The Superintendent reported to the Board, for in­
formation only, that the itinerant program for the Excep­
tionally Talented children served a total of nine elemen­
tary schools, comprised of sixteen classes, with a total of 
177 students enrolled. This is the voluntary program in 
which students with IQ’s of 120 or more are given an 
enriched curriculum beyond that obtainable in the normal 
classroom program.

7. Mr. Young requested that a letter of appreciation 
and recognition be addressed to Mr. Robert Cagle, Chair­
man, Trustee of Smith Education Fund, Ansonville, North 
Carolina and mailed to Mrs. Tom Griffin, Ansonville, North 
Carolina expressing appreciation of the Board for the 
spendid work being done for students of Stanly County, 
especially those in the South Stanly area.

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education,
June 7, 1965 and July 7, 1965



208a

8. On recommendation of the Superintendent and on 
motion by Mr. Lowder and seconded by Mr. Young, the 
Board employed the firm of Mr. Alfred C. Starling, Certi­
fied Public Accountant, to conduct the annual audit for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965 of the several schools 
of the Stanly County Administrative Unit and the Stanly 
County Board of Education. Audit to include all funds, 
in the general fund and the cafeteria fund. The motion 
passed.

9. The properly signed approval and certification of the 
State Superintendent of Public Instruction indicating the 
formal approval of the re-election of the Superintendent 
for the 1965-66 biennium by the State Board of Educa­
tion was presented to the Board for information.

10. The Superintendent indicated that the comprehen­
sive school improvement project sponsored in cooperation 
with Pfeiffer College, was rejected by the State Depart­
ment of Public Instruction. It is expected that this plan 
will be submitted for inclusion in the next allocation of 
projects.

11. On recommendation of the Superintendent and on 
motion by Mr. Lowder and seconded by Mr. Pickier the 
Board established a fixed pay day for teachers and prin­
cipals for the school year 1965-66. All teachers and 
principals will be paid their first monthly voucher on 
September 25, 1965 and on the twenty-fifth day of each 
succeeding calendar month during the school term 1965-66, 
except that the final payment shall be made when all re­
quirements of this Board have been met. The motion 
passed.

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education,
June 7, 1965 and July 7, 1965



209a

12. On motion by Mr. Pickier and seconded by Mr. 
Lowder the Board adopted a resolution for providing for 
the re-sale of school property. The Resolution is made a 
part of these minutes and hereby follows. The motion 
passed.

13. The Superintendent read a letter of thanks and 
appreciation from Mr. & Mrs. Quinton Austin, parents of 
Karen Austin, in which she graciously expressed her 
heartfelt endorsement of the program for the Exception­
ally Talented. It was a very praiseworthy letter and duly 
noted by the Board.

14. On recommendation of the Superintendent and on 
motion by Mr. Lowder and seconded by Mr. Young, the 
Board completely revised the Assurance of Compliance 
Plan, under provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
in keeping with the recommendations and suggestions of 
Mr. Robert Janover, Attorney for the Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D. C. Al­
though it is impossible to predict if this revised plan will 
be approved it is felt that it will more nearly meet the 
requirements and guidelines as established by the Depart­
ment of Health, Education and Welfare for Units seeking 
to comply. The motion passed.

15. The Board adjourned for lunch and reconvened at 
2 :30 P. M. to meet with the Board of County Commis­
sioners of Stanly County. The proposed tentative Capital 
Outlay and Current Expense budget, outlining the many 
needs of the Stanly County Schools, was presented to 
the Board of County Commissioners at the 2 :30 P. M.

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education,
June 7, 1965 and July 7, 1965



210a

meeting. Following presentation of the proposed tentative 
budget for 1965-66 the Board adjourned for the day.

There being no further business to come before the 
Board the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:00 P. M.

R e s ig n a t io n s  to  B e A ppr o v e d— J u l y  7, 1965 
Millingport

Bobby G. Owens, Principal

New London 
Thomas William Ward

West Stanly 
Donald H. Price
Elberta L. Ragsdale released from West Stanly High 
School due to decrease in teacher allotment.

C ontracts to B e A pproved— J u ly  7, 1965 

Millingport Badin

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education,
June 7, 1965 and July 7, 1965

James Gary Mauldin Mary B. Lewis

Richfield 
Susan J. Davis

Norwood
Tyna C. Bracknell

New London 
Connie T. Sharpe

Aquadale
Edith P. Thompson 
Allene Hutto Winfree 
Thomas William Ward



211a

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education,
June 7, 1965 and July 7, 1965

Oakboro

Margaret Bock Helms 

Locust

Nellie Johnson Tew

North Stanly

Brenda Paulette Duke 
Mary Frances Hodges

West Stanly

Tom A. Morgan 
Richard Henry Wright 
Robert A. Blalock
South Stanly

Judy B. Kimrey
West Badin
Fredrick Welborne



212a

Form of Contract for Instructional Service

CONTRACT FOR INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICE 
N o r t h  C a r o l in a  P u b l ic  S c h o o ls

S t a t e  of  N o r t h  C a r o l in a , J 
..........................................  C o u n t y  ^

T h is  A g r e e m e n t  entered into between the Board of
Education of the ............................  School Administrative
Unit and......................................................, who now holds,

(Name as it appears on back of certificate)
or is entitled to hold, a North Carolina................................

(Kind of certificate)
Certificate, No................ , now in force, in accordance with
the provisions of the school law applicable thereto, which 
are hereby made a part of this contract, W it n e s s e t h  :

That said teacher or principal, having been duly elected 
to teach or to perform services in the public schools of
said administrative unit for the school term 19...... -19.......
—unexpired part of the 19...... -19....... school term (strike
out one),—agrees to discharge faithfully all the duties 
imposed on teachers and principals by the Laws of North 
Carolina and the rules and regulations of the Board of 
Education of said administrative unit.

In consideration of this agreement, said Board of Ed­
ucation promises to pay the above-named person for ser­
vices rendered during the life of this contract the sum to 
which he is entitled according to the State Salary Schedule 
from State funds plus the local supplement, if any, ap­
plicable thereto, subject to the allotment of teachers by 
the State Board of Education, and subject to the condi­
tion that the amount paid from State funds shall be



213a

Form of Contract for Instructional Service

within the allotment of funds made to said administrative 
unit for instructional salaries.

That said Board of Education has authorized, in a reg­
ular or in a called meeting, its Secretary to execute this 
contract. Assignments will be made by the superintendent 
of schools.

Special conditions: ...........................................................

................................................................Board of Education
Teacher or Principal

.......................... , 19....... B y .............................. , Secretary
NOTE: This form should be used annually in the employment of teachers and 

principals. A copy of this contract should be kept on file in the office 
of the superintendent and a copy furnished the teacher.



214a

Letter of Robert E. McLendon to Audrey G. Wall

LAKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 
p. o. box 696

N orwood, N orth  Carolina 28128 

July 16, 1965
R. E. M cL endon

PRINCIPAL

Mrs. Audrey G. Wall 
Box 585
Albemarle, North Carolina 28001 

Dear Mrs. Wall:

All Stanly County teacher contracts were held up pend­
ing teacher allotment for the 1965-66 school year. When 
this allotment was received, Lakeview lost three teachers. 
And, this letter is to inform you that you have been 
selected as one of the three teachers, who will not receive 
a contract at this time.

If I can be of any help to you in any way, please let 
me know.

Yours truly,

/ s /  R obert E. M cL endon 
Robert E. McLendon



215a

Letter of Robert E. McLendon to Audrey G. Wall

N orth Carolina 
Stanly County

I, Luther A. Adams, do hereby certify the following:
1. That I am now and was on April 15, 1966, Super­

intendent of Schools of Stanly County and Secretary of 
The Stanly County Board of Education, Albemarle, N. C.

2. That a special called meeting of The Stanly County 
Board of Education was duly held on April 15, 1966, and 
minutes of said meeting have been duly recorded in the 
Minute Book kept by me for the purpose of recording the 
minutes of the meetings of said Board.

3. That I have compared the attached extract with 
said minutes so recorded, and said extract is a true copy 
of said minutes and of the whole thereof, insofar as said 
minutes relate to the matters referred to in said extract.

4. That said minutes correctly state the time when said 
meeting was convened, the place where said meeting was 
held, and the members of said Board who attended said 
meeting.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, this 
18th day of April, 1966.

/ s /  L uther A . A dams 
Secretary



216a

M in u t e s  of M e e t in g  o f  t h e  S t a n l y  C o u n t y  
B oard  of E d u c a t io n , Friday, April 15, 1966

The Stanly County Board of Education met in special 
called session on April 15, 1966 at 9 :30 A. M. at the office 
of the Board, 330 North First Street, Albemarle, N. C. 
All members of the Board, Chairman, Reece B. McSwain, 
Robert E. Young, Robert E. Lowder, Claude Teeter, and 
Eugene Pickier, were present. Also present at said meet­
ing were Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent 
of the public schools of the County, Mr. Luther A. Adams 
and Mr. Oliven T. Cowan.

The meeting was presided over by the Chairman, and 
Superintendent Adams, Secretary to the Board, took the 
minutes of the meeting.

*  *  *  *  *

Luther A. Adams presented to the Board the following 
Resolution:

“ W h e r e a s , The Stanly County Board of Education is a 
body politic and the authority under the laws of the State 
of North Carolina charged with the responsibility of the 
operation of the public schools in the Stanly County Ad­
ministrative Unit, Stanly County, North Carolina, and

W h e r e a s , said Board is required by law to hire and 
assign all personnel employed in the operation of said 
schools, and

W h e r e a s , said Board wishes to adopt the plan and es­
tablish the policy effective the school year 1966-67 within 
the requirements of law and in the discharge of its duties 
relating to employment and assignment of all personnel

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education, April
15, 1966 and Resolution of Teacher Hiring Policies



217a

of the Stanly County Administrative Unit engaged in 
the operation or the public schools of said Administrative 
Unit and to promulgate rules and to establish criteria for 
the lawful administration of such plan and policy.

Now, t h e r e f o r e , effective the school year 1966-67, The 
Stanly County Board of Education declares and resolves 
that the plan and policy of said Board in hiring, appoint­
ing, and assigning personnel in the public schools of the 
Stanly County Administrative Unit, and the provisions 
for the execution and administration thereof, are as fol­
lows :

S t a t e m e n t  o f  P o l ic y

The Stanly County Board of Education recognizes its 
responsibility under law to provide the best possible ed­
ucation for each child in its school system, regardless of 
race, color, or national origin, and concludes that the 
employment of the best qualified individuals available for 
any job, position, or vacancy that exists in said school 
system provides the best and greatest assurance for the 
effective and expeditious accomplishment of this objective.

All available information shall be fairly evaluated and 
judged without discrimination as to the employment of 
each individual.

Staff and professional personnel shall be employed 
solely on the basis of competence, training, experience, 
and personal qualification, and shall be assigned to and 
within the schools of the Administrative Unit without 
regard to race, color, or national origin.

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education, April
15, 1966 and Resolution of Teacher Hiring Policies



218a

M e c h a n ic s  in  t h e  A d m in is t r a t io n  a n d  E x e c u t io n  
o f  t h e  P o l ic y  a n d  t h e  P l a n

1. The County Superintendent shall recommend and 
The Board of Education shall elect and appoint principals 
of the several schools in said Administrative Unit. The 
following form will be used by the Superintendent for 
officially recommending principals.

S u p e r in t e n d e n t ’ s R e c o m m e n d a t io n  of P r in c ip a l

(For Use by Superintendent in Recommending
Principal)

In compliance with school law, I, as superintendent 
of the schools of Stanly County hereby recommend
.................................. for the position of principal of
................................ school for the school term 19........ -
19..... —unexpired part of the 19........-19....... school
term (strike out one).
Date.................., 19........ Signed.............................

Superintendent

2. The principal of the several schools in said Admin­
istrative Unit shall recommend and The Board of Educa­
tion shall elect and appoint all teachers employed in said 
school system. The principal shall familiarize himself 
with the application and supporting data and information 
of each applicant for a teaching position in his school. 
No teaching contract shall be valid until approved and 
signed by the Superintendent. The following form will be 
used by the principals in officially recommending teachers.

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education, April
15, 1966 and Resolution of Teacher Hiring Policies



219a

P r in c ip a l ’ s R e c o m m e n d a t io n  

(For Use by Principal in Recommending Teachers)
In compliance with school law, I, as principal of

the .................................. school, hereby recommend
................................  for the position of .......................
teacher in the Stanly County Schools, for the school 
term 19...... -19........
Date................. , 19..... Signed................................

Principal

3. The principals of the respective schools shall recom­
mend and The Board of Education shall elect and appoint 
all auxiliary personnel of the respective schools. No elec­
tion or appointment of any auxiliary personnel shall be 
valid unless and until approved by the Superintendent 
and The Board of Education.

4. If the principal fails to recommend the election and 
appointment of teachers or auxiliary personnel within 
the time required, The Board of Education shall imme­
diately elect and appoint such teachers and auxiliary per­
sonnel, and its action in this respect shall be final.

5. The Superintendent shall distribute and assign all 
teachers and auxiliary personnel among the several schools 
of the Administrative Unit, and he shall make such dis­
tribution and assignment without regard to race, color, 
or national origin.

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education, April
15, 1966 and Resolution of Teaclner Hiring Policies



220a

E m p l o y m e n t  P r o c ed u re

The Board of Education adopts for use in the employ­
ment procedure forms as follows:

1. Application Form
2. Reference Request
3. Teacher Interview Record
4. Guidelines For Teacher Interview
5. The Teacher Evaluation Data
6. Special Information Blank
7. Superintendent’s Recommendation of Principal
8. Principal’s Recommendation of Teacher

A p p l ic a t io n  p o r  P o sit io n

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education, April
15, 1966 and Resolution of Teacher Hiring Policies

Please return to the above address, unless 
otherwise instructed

Name as it appears on certificate.....................Date
Temporary Address ......................... Telephone No.
Permanent Address ......................... Telephone No.
Name of Husband or Wife .......................................
Position Desired—1st Choice................2nd Choice ...

P e r s o n a l  D a t a  

Date of Birth ... Age .... Sex .... Height .... Weight ....



221a

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education, April
15, 1966 and Resolution of Teacher Hiring Policies

Married...... Husband or Wife Living........Divorced........
Separated...... Number of Children........Ages........Church
Affiliation .............. Approximate number of days missed
last year ..........  General Reasons .......................................
Specify any Physical Handicaps .........................................
Describe any military service which might be of value 
in considering your application.

E d u c a t io n a l  T r a in in g

Name and Dates Degree or
Location of Attended Diploma
Institution Received

High School 
Colleges
Summer Schools 
Special

E d u c a t io n a l  E x p e r ie n c e  (List at least last three)
Grade or

Name of Subjects Extra-curricular
School Address Taught_________Dates___________Duties

National Teacher Examination Score ..........
Are you now under contract! .....If no, w hy.............
Do you have a contract for next year!.....If no, why



222a

Why did you leave your last position?................................
To what professional organizations do you belong?............
Did you receive a supplement?.....Amount per year...........
Type of N. C. Certificate ...................  Rating ...................
Can you sing? ..... Play a piano? ..... Art? ..... What
activities and clubs do you prefer sponsoring?...... ............
To the best of your knowledge will you be physically and
mentally able to teach next year? ..............
R e f e r e n c e s— List at least three—Two or more in the ed­
ucation field (If just graduating, list name of Supervisor 
of Student Teaching)

n a m e  a ddress  p o s it io n

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education, April
15, 1966 and Resolution of Teacher Miring Policies

Use this space for any additional information you feel 
that we should know (Hobbies, Travel, other work ex­
perience, etc.)

(Signature)

R e f e r e n c e  R e q u e st

...........................................has applied for a position in the
Stanly County Public Schools. You have been referred



223a

to as one acquinted with his/her work. Will you kindly 
give your confidential appraisal of the applicant.

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education, April
15, 1966 and Resolution of Teacher Hiring Policies

(Please Check)__________Excellent Good Average Fair Poor

Character

Knowledge of Subject Matter 

Presentation of Subject Matter 

Personality 

Fairness

Professional Attitude 

Tact

Scholarship

Loyalty and Cooperation 

Initiative

Classroom Discipline 

Personal Appearance 

Community Relationship

In what capacity have you known the applicant ? ...............
For how many years? ........  Would you employ the ap­
plicant if you had a vacancy? ........  If an employee of
yours, why is applicant leaving? .......................................
.............. Other information that might be useful ..............

Date
Signature 
Position .



224a

T e a c h e r  I n t e r v ie w  R ecord

I. Name of Applicant..............................  Date ..............
II. Rate the applicant on the various attributes listed by 

using numbers 1 through 5 according to the following 
scale: Excellent—1, Good—2, Average—3, Fair—4, 
Poor—5.

CHARACTERISTIC RATING

1. Conversation:
A. English Usage .......
B. Tone of Voice .......
C. Pronunciation .......
D. Enunciation .......
E. Conversational Ability .......
F. Speech Mannerism .......

2. Appearance:
A. Appearance-Maturity .......
B. Appearance-Physical .......
C. Appearance-Dress .......
D. Physical Mannerisms .......
E. Poise .......
F. Emotional Stability .......

3. Professional Attitude Toward:
A. Organizations .......
B. Other Personnel ......
C. The Teaching Profession ......
D. Staff Meetings .......
E. Self Improvement .......
F. “Extra” Duties .......
G. Superiors .......

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education, April
15, 1966 and Resolution of Teacher Hiring Policies



225a

CHAEACTEEISTIC EATING

4. General:
A. Educational Philosophy ......
B. Tactfulness .......
C. General Personality .......
D. Confidence .......
E. Interest in Children .......

III. Is applicant willing to teach in the following situa­
tions? (Check)
Integrated ......
All White ......
All Colored ......

IV. Summary: (Any explanation or remark that will help
to appraise the applicant)

V. NTE Score ..........

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education, April
15, 1966 and Resolution of Teacher Hiring Policies

(Signature of Interviewer)

G u id e l in e s  eoe  T e a c h e e  I n t e e v ie w

The Teacher Interview Record is designed to record 
various characteristics of the applicant which are pertinent 
to his consideration for a position. In order for the inter­
viewer to make the best use of the interview close ob­
servation is necessary, and often, specific questions should 
be presented. A suggestive list of characteristics to look 
for are as follows:



226a

1. C o n v e r s a t io n

A. English Usage: Range of word usage, Precise 
statements, Proper sentence structure, Easy flow 
of words

B. Tone of Voice: Harsh, Loud, Soft, Unusually high 
or low, Irritating, Tiring, Pleasant, Speech im­
pediment (lisp, stammer, etc.)

C. Pronunciation: Proper production of sounds in 
a word, Placing of stress, Intonation, Blending 
of syllables, Variants—are they due to geographic 
location of residence

D. Enunciation: Clearness of combination of words 
or phrases, Definite statement, Proclamation as­
pect of speech, Consideration of variants

E. Conversational Ability: Sticks with the subject, 
Wanders, Evades answering questions, Shifts sub­
ject, Allows conversation to die or keeps it moving 
smoothly, “Over-answers” questions

F. Speech Mannerism: Relaxed, Appears to be on 
the defense, Courteous, Too many “pet-expres­
sions”, Displays a lively interest, Facial and other 
physical expressions blend pleasantly with speech

2. A p p e a r a n c e

A. Appearance-Maturity: Matured properly for age. 
Unusually youthful, Unusually aged

B. Appearance-Physical: Posture, Scars, Crippled or 
other physical handicap, Eyes abnormal—avoids

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education, April
15, 1966 and Resolution of Teacher Hiring Policies



227a

looking at interviewer, Extremely ugly, Attractive, 
Pleasant Facial expression

C. Appearance-Dress: Neatly dressed, Dress shows 
good taste, Soiled clothing, Heavy make-up, “Loud” 
perfume

D. Physical Mannerisms: Generally relaxed, Ner­
vous, Too much shifting, Distracting habits such 
as scratching and nose-picking, etc.

E. Poise: Generally well-balanced, Carriage of body 
in standing, walking and sitting, Ease and dignity, 
of manner

F. Emotional Stability: Evidence of stress or strain, 
Expression of speech and thought unstable, 
Overly-sensitive, Self-pit, Irrational, Radical

3. P r o f e s s io n a l  A t t it u d e  T ow ard

A. Organisations: General feeling toward profes­
sional organizations, Willingness to: join—attend 
meetings—support decisions, Sees no need for or­
ganizations, Fights organizational causes

B. Other Personnel: Agrees with ethics of the pro­
fession toward others, Willingness to accept aid 
from others, General respect for fellow teachers, 
Not envious of excellence in fellow workers

C. The Teaching Profession: Is teaching a career or 
stepping-stone, Proud to be a teacher, Love for 
teaching, Only in it for money, Desire to up-grade 
the image of teachers

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education, April
15, 1966 and Resolution of Teacher Hiring Policies



228a

D. Staff Meetings: Willingness to attend and con­
tribute, Useless, Too long and boring, Has sug­
gestions for improvement, Constructive or destruc­
tive ideas

E. Self-Improvement: Finished with schooling, Will­
ingness to improve, Attitude toward workshops 
and additional schooling, Interest in job only, Ap­
preciates suggestions for improvement, Profes­
sional reading habits

F. Extra Duties: No teacher should have extra du­
ties, Willingness to carry equal share, Willing­
ness to do whatever is necessary to help the school 
function smoothly

G. Superiors: Wants to be told every move, needs 
leeway for individual initiative, Resents superiors, 
Wants to be left alone, Respects and desires the 
democratic processes

4. G e n e r a l

A. Educational Philosophy: Role of education in our 
society, For whom, Paid by whom, What shall be 
taught, Views or recent trends, Who should teach, 
Curriculum, Organization

B. Tactfulness: Not offensive, Perception to say or 
do that which is right with harmony, Sense of 
touch, Friendly relations

C. General Personality: Extrovert, Introvert, Flam­
boyant, “Magnetic”, Pleasantly acceptable, Highly 
desirable, Humble, Self-centered

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education, April
15, 1966 and Resolution of Teacher Hiring Policies



229a

D. Confidence: Somewhat afraid of position, Highly 
confident, Too confident, Overly conceited with 
respect to confidence, Needs to be encouraged

E. Interest in Children: Interest that leads to con­
cern and understanding, Recognition of individ­
uality, Thinks children should fit standards, Think­
ing that leads to a rigid program for children, 
Wants to satisfy the “needs” of children, Thinks 
children should be “little” adults

T eacher E valuation Data

(To be used by the principal at the close of each year)
I. Name of Teacher .........................................................

School ................... .......................  Date .....................
Type of Certificate................. Class & Rating............
Current Teaching Assignment (check) Primary......
Grammar......  High School......

II. Rate the teacher on the characteristics listed using the 
following scale: Excellent—1, Good—2, Average—3, 
Fair—4, Poor—5

CHARACTERISTIC RATING

A. Presentation of Subjects ......
B. Knowledge of Subjects ......
C. Classroom Discipline ......
D. Professional Attitude ......
E. Fairness ......
P. Community Relations ......
G. Personality ......
H. Character .......

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education, April
15, 1966 and Resolution of Teacher Hiring Policies



230a

I. Loyalty and Cooperation .......
J. Initiative .......
K. Love of Children .......

The evaluation should be based on classroom visits, stu­
dent progress, reports by students, teachers, or parents, 
conferences, and any other information pertaining to the 
individual.
III. Prior to this evaluation, what have you done to help 

improve the weaknesses indicated? (Detail below)
TV. List any remarks or explanations necessary to reveal 

a true description of the teacher’s qualities:
V. Do you recommend this person for re-employment? 

Yes ...... No ........ If no, explain
VI. Attach a summary of any conferences held with this 

individual relating to any personal problem:

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education, April
15, 1966 and Resolution of Teacher Hiring Policies

(Signature of Principal)

S p e c ia l  I n f o r m a t io n  B l a n k

In order for us to prepare your vouchers for the com­
ing year, it is necessary for us to have the information 
asked for on this blank exactly as it is called for. Please 
fill out the blank and give it to your principal without 
delay.

If you are a woman and have married since your present 
certificate was issued, it will be necessary for you to apply 
for a new certificate. Please write to State Department



231a

of Public Instruction, Raleigh, North Carolina, for form 
number 26.

Be sure to enter your Social Security number on the 
attached W-4 Form. If you have not filed for a social 
security number, please do so at once. Your name should 
appear on your social security card exactly as it appears 
on your certificate.

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education, April
15, 1966 and Resolution of Teacher Hiring Policies

Your Name—As it appears on certificate Spouse’s Name
Kind of Certificate ...............................................................
Serial number of certificate ..................................................
Number of years actual experience .....................................
Number of years experience on present certificate..............
Grade or subjects you will be teaching next school year......
County and school you taught in last year ...... ..................
If you did not teach last year give P la c e  and Y eak  of your 
last experience.......................................................................
Last year’s monthly salary? (before deductions) ..............
If you have a High School Certificate, give subjects in 
which it is issued

(i.e., French-English, etc.)
What College did you attend? ...............
Home address ............................................
Address while teaching ............................
Your telephone number ............................



232a

Are yon a member of Retirement System? .........................
If not, have you ever been a member of Retirement System?

Minutes of Stanly County Board of Education, April
15, 1966 and Resolution of Teacher Hiring Policies

"What is your Retirement System Register Number ? ..........

Conclusion

The plan, policy, and criteria set forth herein is in 
further implementation of The Board of Education’s school 
desegregation plan prepared pursuant to the provisions of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, submitted to and approved 
by the United States Commissioner of Education June 5, 
1965.”

Eugene Pickier moved the adoption of the Resolution. 
The motion was seconded by Robert E. Lowder, and was 
adopted by unanimous vote of the Board.

There being no further business, the meeting was ad­
journed.

s /  L uther A . A dams 
Secretary



233a

G. L. Hines, having been first duly sworn, testified as 
follows:

Direct Examination (Mr. Chambers):
Q. Would you state your name please? A. G. L. Hines.
Q. Are you presently employed by the Stanly County 

Board of Education? A. I am.
Q. In what capacity? A. Principal of West Badin 

School.
Q. How long have you been so employed? A. Nigh on 

to 12 years.
Q. How many teachers did you have in that school 

during the 1964-65 school year? A. We had 19.
Q. Is this a school with grades 1 through 12? A. It is.
Q. How many teachers did you have in the elementary 

department? A. 11—there were 10.
Q. Did you consider your grades 7 through 9 as junior 

high school or did you just consider it a grade? A. In 
all of our reports our school is set up on the 8-4 plan.

Q. How many teachers did you have in the high school
—3—

during the 1964-65 school year? A. We had 8. We must 
have had 11 in the elementary school bcause we had a total 
of 19 and had 8 in the high school so that made 11 in the 
elementary school last year.

Q. Mr. Hines, on the average how many new teachers 
did you hire each year? A. On the average we would 
hire about 2. Very seldom more than two. We would 
average about 2 a year.

Q. Would this be one in the elementary and one in the 
high school or would it vary? A. It varied.

Deposition of G. L. Hines
—2—



234a

Q. How many students did you have in the West Badin 
school during the 1964-65 year? A. I don’t remember. I 
have that information in the office. I can get it for you.

Q. Do you know presently the increase in students you 
would have each year? Would you have an increase? Would 
you have any increase in the number of students at West 
Badin school each year or did it stay at the same number? 
A. We have had a steady increase since 1954. In fact when 
I began working in that school in ’54 there were only 15 
teachers there and since that time there’s been a steady 
and gradual increase in enrollment of the school and I 
think it reached its peak last year in the 1964-65 year.

— 4—

We were anticipating for the 1965-66 year a decrease in the 
elementary school because the war crowd was about out 
of the elementary school and going to high school.

Q. You expected a decrease in the elementary school and 
an increase in the high school? A. We expected one.

Q. Did you have a decrease in the elementary school en­
rollment? A. We did.

Q. For the 1964-65 school year? A. We did.
Q. Do you know the number of students you have this 

year as compared to last? A. I can get it for you.
Q. You don’t know offhand? A. No. The decrease we 

expected came about because we had 52 students in the 8th 
grade who were going to high school. We had only 27 com­
ing into the 1st grade so we expected a decrease of about 
25 students in the elementary school last year because of 
graduation from elementary school.

Q. Since 1954 with the increase that you indicated you 
had, did this necessitate the hiring of an additional teacher? 
A. We had to hire teachers because of the increase in en­
rollment.

Deposition of G. L. Hines



235a

Deposition of G. L. Hines

Q. Would that be each year? A. No, that’s all eleven 
year span. We hired only four teachers in an eleven year 
span.

Q. And this would be in addition to the number of teach­
ers you had in 1954! In other words, you started off with 
fifteen and have gone to nineteen! A. We went to nineteen 
during the 1964-65 year.

Q. Mr. Hines, were the students assigned to West Badin 
school, negro students! A. Yes.

Q. All negro students! A. Yes.
Q. Were the teachers assigned to West Badin school, 

negro teachers! A. Yes.
Q. All negro teachers! A. All negro teachers.
Q. Mr. Hines, how many teachers do you have in the ele­

mentary school for the 1965-66 school year at West Badin! 
A. We have nine. One for each grade and one extra teacher- 
in special education, so we have eight and one.

Q. How many do you have in the high school! A. We 
have six.

Q. This represents, does it not, a decrease in the number 
of teachers there of four! A. It does.

— 6 —

Q. Were you not advised at the close of the 1964-65 school 
year that your teacher allotment would be less for the 
1965-66 school year! A. I wasn’t advised at the close of 
the year.

Q. Were you advised during the summer! A. I was 
advised during the summer.

Q. Who advised you that you would have fewer teachers! 
A. The office of the superintendent.

Q. Were you advised of the number of teachers you would 
have less than you had last year! A. I was.

—5—



236a

Q. How many were yon told yon would have for the next 
school year! A. Fifteen and a half teachers.

Q. Were yon advised during the summer that yon would 
have to release teachers to satisfy the allotment you would 
have for the 1965-66 school year! A. I was advised that 
the number would be less. It so happened that the four 
people who were not to be re-instated either resigned or 
retired before I advised them.

Q. You were to advise them though, that they would not 
be back! A. I was not told to advise them they wouldn’t 
be back. May I explain this! One of the teachers, an ele-

— 7 —

mentary teacher, retired at the end of the year and, of 
course, did not re-apply. Another elementary teacher at 
the close of the year was told by me that I would not rec­
ommend him to the 1965-66 year because his discipline in 
the classroom was not very good. In the high school, one 
of the teachers who is not with us this year, resigned at 
the end of the year and did not seek re-employment because 
she was pregnant at the time. The last teacher, before I 
could tell him or write to him and tell him that he would 
not be employed because of the cut in allotment, we received 
a letter from him stating that he had received work in 
New York and would not re-apply for work.

Q. Do you mean you were preparing to advise him! A. 
I was preparing to advise him he was not to seek employ­
ment here because of the cut in allotment but before the 
letter got off to him I received a letter from him stating 
he had been employed in New York.

Q. Mr. Hines, do you know of your own knowledge 
whether any of your elementary students have, pursuant 
to the freedom of choice plan adopted by the Stanly County 
Board of Education, exercised their choice in transferring

Deposition of G. L. Hines



237a

to formerly all white schools'? A. They have exercised 
their choice.

— 8 —

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge how many exer­
cised the choice? A. Seventeen.

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge how many high 
school students have exercised their choice and transferred 
to formerly all white schools? A. One hundred and four.

Q. Mr. Hines, were you advised that you would have four 
less teachers during the summer after the students had 
indicated their desire to transfer to a formerly all white 
school? A. Yes.

Q. The number of teachers that you were advised as 
being allotted to your school was based on the anticipated 
enrollment of students in your school, is that correct? A. 
I don’t know what the Board based it on. That’s what I 
assumed.

Q. The number of teachers alloted to your school, the 
fifteen and one half, would not be necessitated solely be­
cause of the anticipated decrease in enrollment in the ele­
mentary school, would it? A. The total number would not 
be going by the elementary school.

Q. The only other anticipated decrease in enrollment 
resulted from the transfer by the negro students to for­
merly all white schools, is that correct? A. I would think

—9—
the decrease resulted from the transfer of students, yes.

Q. Do you have any white students at your school for 
the 1965-66 school year? A. We do not.

Q. Do you have any white teachers at your school for 
the 1965-66 school year? A. We do not.

Q. Did you hire any new teachers for the school year? 
A. We did.

Deposition of G. L. Hines



238a

Q. How many? A. We hired two.
Q. Do you recall what field they are in? A. One is in 

elementary education and one is in mathematics.
Q. You stated Mr. Hines, that you were alloted fifteen 

and a half teachers; that four teachers either resigned or 
retired. Why was it necessary for you to hire two additional 
teachers? A. One teacher, the teacher in the elementary 
school was asked to resign after school closed because she 
had quite a hit of trouble with her business arrangements 
and they were interfering with the school work. Specifically, 
I mean this—from time to time, in fact it happened for 
some time now, I was receiving long distance calls especially

— 10—

from creditors to get her to pay her debts. It meant in­
terrupting class work, etc., and I became fed up with it 
last year so I told her at the time of the school closing 
to get all the business straightened out; we were going to 
recommend her for next year providing she does this and 
we wouldn’t be bothered with this any more, so we recom­
mended her for this year but after I came back from vaca­
tion, I was approached by two creditors here in Albemarle 
—no, one in Albemarle and one in Badin—who stated she 
had given them checks which were no good and immedi­
ately upon hearing this I wrote her and told her I had 
given her a chance to straighten her business out and she 
wouldn’t do it so I was asking her to send in a letter of 
resignation. She did so and we had to hire some one in 
her place. The second was hired because one of the teach­
ers in the high school, Mr. Wall, who had been hired by 
the Board of Education, obtained a job in Charlotte and 
he wanted to be released. He asked for a release and we 
had to hire some one in his place.

Deposition of G. L. Hines



239a

Q. Mr. Hines, going back a bit, who was the elementary 
teacher to retire? A. Mrs. Estelle McNeil.

Q. How long had she been in the system? A. She had 
been in over thirty years.

— 11—

Q. Do yon know where she’s presently teaching? A. 
She’s not teaching; she’s retired.

Q. Is she residing in Badin? A. No, she’s residing in 
Fayetteville.

Q. Who was the elementary teacher you advised you 
would not recommend? A. Mr. E. W. Dixon.

Q. Do you know what he is doing this year? A. No, I 
don’t.

Q. Do you know his address? A. I have the school. I 
know it’s in Peachland, N. C.

Q. Who was the high school teacher who resigned? A. 
Mrs. Nell Holmes.

Q. How long had Mr. Dixon been in the school system? 
A. One year.

Q. How long had Mrs. Holmes been in the school system? 
A. One year.

Q. Do you know where she is? A. I don’t know her 
address. The address which I have over here is in Salis­
bury. I haven’t heard from her since she left.

Q. She was not at retirement age, was she? A. No.
Q. Who was the high school teacher you were about to

- 12-

ad vise that you would not be able to retain him in the 
system? A. Frederick Welborne.

Q. How long had he been with the system? A. One year. 
Q. And do you know his address? A. I don’t know his 

address now. The address which I had is the Salisbury 
address.

Deposition of G. L. Hines



240a

Q. What course -did he teach? A. Social studies.
Q. Do you know what school he graduated from? A. 

A. & T. College.
Q. Did he have an ‘A’ certificate? A. An ‘A’ certificate. 
Q. Did he have any additional studies beside A. & T.? 

A. I know of none.
Q. Was this the first year of experience anywhere or 

had he taught anywhere else? A. This was his first year 
of experience.

Q. Was his record otherwise pretty good? A. What 
do you mean ‘otherwise’ ?

Q. Did he have a very good record? Ordinarily would 
you have recommended him for the job? A. Yes, I would 
have recommended him.

Q. Very highly? A. He was a beginning teacher. I
—13—

couldn’t recommend him highly. He had a lot of edges 
I thought needed to be straightened out.

Q. He had very good potential? A. I thought he had 
good potential.

Q. Who was the teacher with the bad credit rating? A. 
Mrs. Ophelia Glenn.

Q. Do you know where she is now? A. Yes, she’s in 
Winston-Salem now.

Q. Is she teaching there or do you know? A. I do not 
know.

Q. And the teacher you said requested leave from the 
Board and obtained it, was Mr.— A. M. L. Wall.

Q. Do you know whether he’s teaching now in Charlotte? 
A. He’s teaching in Charlotte.

Q. Mr. Hines, what’s the name of the new elementary 
teacher? A. Miss Ella Little.

Deposition of G. L. Hines



241a

Q. And the new high school teacher? A. Mrs. Sally 
Brown.

Your witness.
—14—

Cross-Examination (Mr. Doby) :
Q. Mr. Hines, I believe you stated that one of your high 

school teachers, Mr. Frederick Welborne, did not come 
back this year. Was he not re-hired for the 1965-66 year? 
A. He was re-hired by mistake. By that I mean, I came to 
the office one day and—well, let me go back a little further 
—when I received a notice from the office that we had fif­
teen teachers in the school, I misinterpreted the letter to 
the extent that I did not count myself as the fifteenth 
teacher. I just took it for granted there were fifteen teach­
ers and I would make sixteen. Then later on I began to 
realize that I was wrong and so I came to the office and 
was talking with the secretary concerning this and at that 
time we had a contract for Mr. Welborne and before the 
contract was given to him, or before I left with it, the 
secretary and I went over the list of teachers in our school 
and found that we had signed contracts for one teacher 
too many and I was told we couldn’t have the sixteenth 
teacher because we weren’t alloted sixteen teachers. Did 
I answer your question?

Q. Go ahead, you are answering it. A. And, of course, 
when I realized that we could not have but fifteen teachers 
and that I was included in the fifteen, then that is when I 
planned to write to Mr. Welborne and tell him he wasn’t

—15—
to come back, but before the letter got off his resignation 
came in. He never did receive his contract.

Q. But before he was advised that he had not been re- 
hired, he sent his letter of resignation to you? A. No, yes,

Deposition of G. L. Hines



242a

yes sir before he was advised that he was not to be re-hired, 
his letter of resignation came to me.

Q. In fact, he was never advised he would not be re-hired? 
A. No, he wasn’t advised.

Q. And he, I believe, accepted employment elsewhere? 
A. He told me in the letter that he had accepted employ­
ment in New York.

Q. Mr. Hines, do you know the plaintiff in this case, Mrs. 
Audrey Wall? A. I do.

Q. How long have you known her? A. I’ve known her 
for, I would guess, 20 years; in the neighborhood of 20 
years.

Q. Has she ever taught in the school where you were 
principal? A. Yes she has. She taught in West Badin 
School.

Q. When was this—what year? A. The years of ’59-’60 
and ’60-’61 in West Badin.

Q. Were you principal during that time? A. I wTas.
—16—

Q. While she was teaching in your school, what grades 
did she teach? A. I believe the third grade.

Q. During that time, did you ever have to reprimand 
Mrs. Wall for her conduct as a teacher? A. I did not 
reprimand her with reference to conduct. However, there 
were times when I had to speak to her about some things 
she was doing.

Q. In other words, would you describe your relation with 
her as difficult — your principal-teacher relation? A. I 
would describe it as not being pleasant.

Q. In what respect? A. The main thing that was the 
cause of this unpleasantness was the relationship she had 
with the teachers in the school which, of course, I was a 
part of. She talked; in my estimation she talked too much

Deposition of G. L. Hines



243a

about things which she shouldn’t be talking about at the 
time she was talking when she was saying them. There 
were occasions when she would leave her classroom, go to 
another teacher’s room and engage in some type conversa­
tion and would openly cry there in front of the students 
who were in the classroom, about something which she was 
talking about. That happened more than once.

Q. How often would you say that happened? A. I 
wouldn’t say how often. I have no idea how often it hap­
pened.

—17—
Q. Would you describe it as happening many times? A. 

I wouldn’t say many. Once is too many so far as I am 
concerned.

Q. Did it happen more than once? A. It happened more 
than once.

Q. Did it happen more than half a dozen times? A. I 
wouldn’t be in a position to say it happened more than 
half a dozen times.

Q. Did Mrs. Wall follow your instructions co-operatively 
or was she more or less coerced into following your instruc­
tions while she was teaching under you? A. She followed 
instructions. I did not have to repeat or coerce or make her 
follow instructions. She followed instructions.

Q. Did she do this in a spirit of co-operativeness? A. 
There were I remember, a few occasions where she didn’t 
seem to be overjoyed with it but I guess that happens many 
times in cases of following instructions with other teachers 
as well.

Q. Did she ever say anything to you about your instruc­
tions or question your instructions? A. No, she didn’t 
say anything to me but I was told by the teachers that

Deposition of G. L. Hines



244a

—18—
she questioned some of the policies of the school. She 
never questioned them to me.

Q. To whom did she question these policies? A. To 
other teachers in the school.

Q. Do you know whether or not she questioned them to 
her students? A. I do not know that.

Q. Do you have any information? A. I have no infor­
mation that she did.

Q. Did she question your authority beyond the school 
personnel—outside the school, so to speak? A. I was told 
that she did but I never did try to prove it or follow it up.

Q. Do you have any idea on how many occasions, dif­
ferent occasions, this occurred? A. I know of one occa­
sion which I was told that she was in the community speak­
ing about some school policies which she should not have 
been speaking about.

Q. During her tenure as a teacher under you, what sort 
of attendance record did she have? A. A very good at­
tendance record.

Q. Was this for the two years? A. For the two years.
Q. Did you ever, prior to recommending her for being

—19—
hired, or after having hired her, talk to her about her 
attendance? A. Yes I did. I learned that at the schools 
where she had worked before that she was out quite often 
because of illness and before we talked any terms concern­
ing any recommendations, I asked her point blank if she 
was healthy because I knew her past record of being absent 
from school and I did not want her to come there with 
that record and make such a record so I asked her if she 
was in health to the extent she could attend school and

Deposition of G. L. Hines



245a

be at work. She said she was and we had no trouble about 
that.

Q. Do you know whether or not she was—how many days 
she was out while teaching at your school during those 
two years? A. I do not know. I have a record of it at 
the school.

Q. Could you make that record available? A. I could.
Q. I hand you here a record of Mrs. Wall’s attendance 

and ask you if that correctly reflects here attendance record 
while she was teaching at your school during those two 
years? A. It says “Days absent, none.”

Q. Does this reflect the situation at your school during 
the 1959-60 and 1960-61 year? A. The record says that 
she was not—

— 20—

Q. First Mr. Hines, is the record correct, so far as you 
know? A. So far as I know the record is correct, yes.

Q. Now, for the 1959-60 year, according to the record, 
how many days was she absent from your school? A. Ac­
cording to the record, none.

Q. And the 1960-61 year? A. According to this record, 
none.

Q. Do you know whether or not she reported to school 
at any time during these years and then left school for 
some reason or other before the day was out? A. I do 
not know of any such instance.

Q. Now, after the 1959-60 school year ended, you recom­
mended her for re-hiring during the 1960-61 year? A. I 
did.

Q. At the close of the 1960-61 year did you recommend 
her for re-hiring again? A. I did not.

Q. What was your reason? A. Well, in the first place, 
I lost a teacher because of the decrease in enrollment and

Deposition of G. L. Hines



246a

allotment. I had to choose a teacher to let go and I chose 
her because of the reason I told you before.

Q. And what were those reasons'? A. Her teacher-to-
— 21-

teacher relationship was not good, which involved me.
Q. Mr. Hines, did Mrs. Wall make application to you for 

employment this last summer at the end of the 1964-65 
year? A. No, she did not.

Q. Were you asked about would you hire her by any one? 
A. I was.

Q. Who asked you? A. The superintendent of schools. 
Q. What did you tell him? A. I told him that I would 

not want to re-hire her.
Q. What were your reasons for not wanting to re-hire 

her? A. Because of her record while she was there at our 
school.

That is all.

Deposition of G. L. Hines

Re-Direct Examination (Mr. Chambers):
Q. Mr. Hines, you said that you had recommended Mr. 

Welborne for re-employment and that a contract had been 
issued but was never sent to him for the 1965-66 school 
year? A. That’s right.

Q. And that you had included him in the list of teachers 
recommended because you misinterpreted the letter advis­
ing you would have fifteen and a half teachers, thinking

— 22—

this did not include you as principal of the school? A. Let 
me put it like this. When school closed, or right before 
school closed, in that time, I sent to the office, the recom­
mendation of teachers. I found out from the superintendent 
that—I found out from him later after this had come in,



247a

that I had not included Mr. Welborne again. It was an 
oversight on my part and no other reason at all. After I 
discovered that he had not been recommended, then I rec­
ommended him. I believe that recommendation came in 
about the middle of June because I don’t think that his 
contract was passed on until July. I received his contract 
after July 4th. When I received his contract, then I real­
ized that I had recommended one person too many accord­
ing to the allotment I had received.

Q. Mr. Hines, when you received the reduced allotment 
of teachers was there any instruction from the superintend­
ent or his office as to how to go about reducing the number 
of teachers you had? A. No. The information I received 
was a sheet of paper stating the number of teachers I had 
been alloted in the elementary school, special education, 
high school and vocational school. That’s what the letter 
stated. It wasn’t a letter; it was a list of positions and the 
number of people for each position. The total number—

- 2 3 -
fifteen and a half, and that’s what I received.

Q. How to reduce your teaching load would be left to 
you? A. It had been left to me previously. I did not 
question it this time.

Q. You mean so far as the people you recommended for 
positions? A. That’s right. In years past whenever there 
was a reduction of teachers, the procedure has been for me 
to do it and I didn’t question what I was supposed to do 
this time.

Q. You said that you were in the process of your be­
ginning to write to Mr. Welborne when you were advised 
he had already received employment in New York? A. I* 
was advised by him he already received employment in New 
York.

Deposition of G. L. Hines



248a

Q. Now going to Mrs. Wall, would yon say she is, aca­
demically speaking, a good teacher, very good teacher, a 
poor teacher? A. I would say that Mrs. Wall is a very 
good academically prepared teacher.

Q. And this difficulty you said you had with her is the 
only problem you had with her? A. Yes, the only thing 
that I objected to was her constant talking about things 
she had no business talking about.

Q. You said that you spoke to Mrs. Wall or that she 
followed instructions after you had instructed her as to 
certain things and that she followed these instructions

—24—
without any coercion on your part? A. I did not have to 
give her any specific instructions. The instructions I gave 
to the faculty, she followed them. The faculty as a whole 
at that time and even now, has had a very good family 
relationship and I have never had balking from the faculty 
to any degree where its mentionable.

Q. Did you have occasion to speak to Mrs. Wall about 
this problem? A. The problem was minute to the extent 
it did not interrupt the total program of the school. It so 
happened that the teachers in the school knew her better 
than I did. They were constantly coming to me—not con­
stantly—they were coming to me from time to time saying 
to me they wished she would stop coming in their rooms 
talking about things they figured she shouldn’t talk about. 
At the same time they led me to believe that they knew 
her and paid no attention to her but they didn’t like it, 
they didn’t like her coming in from time to time speaking 
about different things. For that reason, and rather than 
to have a scene which I was always afraid would occur with 
her, because she seemed to be quite easily upset, since this 
problem was not disrupting the school and as I said, since

Deposition of G. L. Hines



249a

she was the type person she is, I let the problem work 
itself out rather than make a scene.

—25—
Q. You said that you didn’t recommend her at the close 

of the 1960-61 school year because of the decrease in en­
rollment in the school and because you were losing a 
teacher and you picked her because of the problem you 
referred to? A. That’s right.

Q. You stated also that the superintendent requested or 
asked you to employ her or if you had a position available 
for her for the 1965-66 school year and you stated to the 
principal that you would not like to have her. A. I stated 
to the superintendent I would not like to have her back.

Q. Because of the problem you refer to? A. That’s the 
reason I made the statement.

Q. Did you on any occasion, communicate with the super­
intendent by letter about the problem of Mrs. Wall? A. 
No I didn’t. At that time Mr. Siffert was superintendent 
of schools.

No further questions.

Deposition of G. L. Hines

Re-Cross-Examination (Mr. Doby):
Q. The Welborne contract Mr. Hines, you stated that you 

hadn’t sent it out prior to the time you got his letter of 
resignation. This contract was treated in the same man­
ner as other contracts were treated by the school Board?

—26—
Mr. Chambers: Objection. Unless you specify 

what contracts you are talking about.

A. Yes.



250a

Mr. Doby: My understanding is the only contract 
which has been mentioned was the contract of em­
ployment with the school Board and that’s what we 
are referring to.

Mr. Chambers: My objection is that Mr. Hines 
wouldn’t be in a position to know how the Board 
treated . . .

Mr. Doby: That’s for Mr. Hines, is it not?
Mr. Chambers: I would still raise the objection.
Mr. Doby: As I understand it, he answered.

Q. Insofar as Mr. Welborne’s contract was concerned, 
it was treated in the same manner as other contracts, or 
rather contracts with other teachers?

Mr. Chambers: Objection.

A. So far as I know, yes.
Q. Now, back to Mrs. Wall—you stated that you had 

never made a written report to the superintendent regard­
ing her talking. I ask you if she did not have a general 
reputation among school people in this county of being 
more or less hard to get along with or a trouble maker?

Mr. Chambers: Objection.
—27—

A. She has the reputation.
Q. Let me ask this—do you know what her general repu­

tation among school people is? A. The information . . .
Q. Do you know her reputation? A. I know her reputa­

tion.
Q. What is that reputation? A. That she talks too 

much.

Deposition of G. L. Hines



251a

Q. Mr. Hines, this problem of her talking too mnch in 
school was of sufficient import for you not to want to re­
hire her again? A. That was the reason.

Q. And while you stated that the teachers in your school 
came to you and told you that she was talking, would come 
to their room and talk about various school matters, she 
would, in order to do this, have to leave her pupils during 
this time, would she not? A. She would.

Q. And I believe you stated this occurred on quite a few 
occasions? A. This occurred more than once. I would not 
remember—I do not remember the frequency of these visits 
because as I said before, we learned to ignore and to pay 
no attention to these things which she did.

—28—
Q. You stated that she became upset quite easily? A. 

She did.
Q. Just go ahead and state on what occasion, if you re­

call, that she became upset. A. One occasion I can recall 
now, we had had previously a meeting of our educational 
association, local association. At that time the election of 
officers was going on. The election of an officer—I don’t 
know whether it was a general election or not—but her 
name came up as a candidate for an office. When the elec­
tion was held, there were many of us, including myself, 
who did not vote for her but voted for someone else. Fol­
lowing that meeting, we were in a faculty meeting at our 
school and some situation arose in the meeting—I don’t 
know what that was—but it gave her the occasion to say 
that the members of the faculty don’t support their own. 
And it was said in a very sneering way. It wasn’t pleasant 
at all and, of course, I came back with the remark that we 
are not bound to vote for people because they are members 
of our faculty.

Deposition of G. L. Hines



252a

Q. And this sort of thing, where she became npset, oc­
curred quite often? A. It happened too often.

Q. And it happened during school hours as well as after 
hours ? A. It would happen during school hours. I remem-

—29—
ber another occasion when—I don’t know what it was, 
what I said to her or anything—but at that time her hus­
band was working at the school too and I said something 
to her and I knew what was going to happen next so I 
waited to see it happen. As soon as I left her room she 
made a bee-line to her husband’s room. I don’t know what 
the incident was but I do remember that happened.

Q. You knew after you talked to her what was going to 
happen? How did you come to that conclusion? A. Be­
cause it had been done before.

Q. Quite often? A. I don’t know how often because as 
I said, this was 1960-61 and I have forgotten quite a bit 
but I knew it happened.

Q. It happened with the degree of regularity that you 
had come to expect it would happen again? A. It hap­
pened so I expected it.

Q. This was a pattern with her? A. It had been enough 
that I expected it.

Q. Would you describe Mrs. Wall as a highly nervous 
sort of person? A. I think Mrs. Wall is nervous. I think 
she’s highly nervous.

Q. Does this affect her ability to teach? A. I would 
think it would affect anyone’s ability to teach.

—30—
Q. The question was—do you think her nervous condition 

affected her ability to teach? A. I can’t answer that ques­
tion because I believe that had Mrs. Wall—had she concen­
trated on her work, that she would have been a very good

Deposition of G. L. Hines



253a

teacher, but she didn’t concentrate because these other 
things upset her so much so it might be you can say this 
nervousness did affect her teaching.

That is all.

Deposition of G. L. Hines

Re-Re-Direct Examination (Mr. Chambers):
Q. Mr. Hines, your statement about the handling of other 

contracts would have to be made with the limitation, would 
it not, of your not knowing how the Board actually handled 
or what the Board actually did in the process of consider­
ing contracts? A. The matter of contracts, insofar as I 
am concerned, is limited to my recommending a person or 
people, sending the contracts to the office and receiving 
them from the office. I am asked by the Board of Educa­
tion to recommend people, to write the contracts up, every­
thing except the signatures of those who do the hiring. 
I fill in all the information, send the contracts to the office 
and receive them from the office.

— 31—
Q. What the Board does after you bring the contracts 

here and prior to the time of your picking them up, you 
really have no knowledge at all of what goes on? A. I 
have no knowledge.

Q. Were you ever advised Mr. Hines, during your tenure 
here, that the Board would consider recommendations of 
yours of white teachers for positions at West Badin School? 
A. I was not advised specifically but I . . .

Mr. Williams: Objection. To his answer if he 
wasn’t advised specifically.

Q. You were never advised specifically by the Board that 
the Board would consider applications of white teachers



254a

for teaching at West Badin school? A. Do yon mean 
someone spoke to me personally?

Q. Did yon receive any directive from the School Board 
or the superintendent’s office to that effect? A. I was 
never told specifically to hire a white teacher. I was never 
told that I couldn’t hire a white teacher.

Q. But you were never told you could either? A. I was 
never told to hire one.

Q. And you never had one? A. I never had one.
Q. Were you ever told that the Board would consider

—32—
any of the teachers you might lose at the close of the 1964- 
65 school year for positions elsewhere in the school system? 
A. I was not told because all of our teachers resigned.

Q. You were not told if your teachers had not resigned 
that the Board would consider them for positions else­
where? A. No, because the teacher resigned before such 
a statement could have been made.

Q. One such teacher had not—Mr. Welborne? A. Mr. 
Welborne.

Q. The Board did not advise you, did it, that they would 
consider Mr. Welborne for a position in some other school 
in the school system? A. As I said a moment ago, the 
Board, or the superintendent and I both thought that Mr. 
Welborne was coming back to our school until we realized 
here in the office that day that we had one teacher too 
many. I was not told then that he would be considered 
elsewhere in the school system.

Q. The number of occasions which you stated Mrs. Wall 
made—I think you said a bee-line to her husband’s office— 
was after you had consulted with her. Did her going to 
see her husband have any bad effect on her class or her 
teaching of her class? A. She should have been in her

Deposition of G. L. Hines



255a

classroom. I do not know of any scenes that occurred be-
—3 3 -

cause of this but she should have been in the classroom 
though.

Q. When Mrs. Wall left your school, did she go to another 
school in the system? A. She did.

Q. Was that the Norwood School? A. Yes it was.
Q. Did she secure a recommendation from you for that 

position? A. No.
Q. Had you advised the superintendent about her repu­

tation there at the school? A. I did afterwards, yes.
Q. And how long did she remain at Norwood after she 

left your school? A. I don’t know—two years.
Q. Had she taught previously in any school in the school 

system before she came to your school? A. Yes, she came 
to our school from South Oakboro. She had been employed 
at the Kingville School and she had been employed at the 
New London School when there was a school there.

Q. All of these schools with the exception of Kingville, 
are in the Stanly County school system? A. That’s right. 

Q. And she left your school and went to Norwood and
—34—

stayed there for two years? A. For two years.
No further questions.

Deposition of G. L. Hines

Re-Re-Cross-Examination (Mr. Doby):
Q. Mr. Hines, you are given the authority to recommend 

to the Board teachers that you desire to be hired at your 
school? A. I am.

Q. And the Board follows your recommendations? A. 
Up to this time the Board has not gone counter to my 
recommendations.



256a

Q. As I understand it, the teachers you recommended 
to be hired at your school have been hired by the Board? 
A. They have.

Q. And in making your recommendation, these matters 
are left to you? A. They are.

Q. And you are the sole person to determine whether or 
not you will recommend a person for hiring at your school? 
A. May I make an addition there? I also consult with the 
chairman of my local committee and if I can get his O.K. 
on my recommendation, then I recommend it to the Board.

Q. But its between you and your local committee as to 
who you will recommend? A. That’s right.

—35—
Q. You have stated that up until this time they have 

always followed your recommendation ? A. That’s right.
Q. Was there any time when they haven’t followed your 

recommendation? A. No sir.
Q. And by ‘up to this time’ you included the 1965-66 

school year? A. I did.
Q. You stated that Mrs. Wall had taught in the King- 

ville School and New London and Oakboro prior to coming 
to your school? A. I would like for you to check King- 
ville. I don’t know whether she was in Kingville before 
or after my time.

Q. I believe you stated that she went to Norwood after 
she left you. did she not? A. She did.

Q. And you said she stayed down there for two years? 
A. That’s right.

Q. Do you know why she left the Kingville school? A. 
No I do not.

Q. Did you ever discuss Mrs. Wall with the principal of 
the Kingville school? A. I did.

Deposition of G. L. Hines



257a

Deposition of G. L. Hines

—36—
Q. Who was the principal of the Kingville school? A.

E. E. Waddell.
Q. Was this prior to or after yonr hiring her to teach 

in your school? A. I wouldn’t know whether it was prior, 
after, or during. It happened over and over again.

Q. You say you discussed it with him over and over 
again? A. It was discussed from time to time, yes.

Q. What did you discuss? A. Well, the conversations 
were always concerning her talking about things she had 
no business talking about.

Q. Did Mr. Waddell ever tell you why she left the school? 
Why she was not employed by the city school system?

Mr. Chambers: Objection.

A. I don’t know if he did.
That is all.

Re-Re-Re-Direct Examination (Mr. Chambers):
Q. Where did you pick your teachers? Did you have a 

file maintained here in the superintendent’s office? A. 
There’s a file here which I use. I have letters. I have a 
file at the school which I use. I also rely on friends who 
know teachers who are looking for jobs.

Q. Is it true that the source is considered, whether the
—3 7 -

superintendent’s file, your file or your friends, all pertain 
to negroes? A. My friends have recommended negroes to 
me. Letters in my office are letters from negroes I assume, 
and going by the schools they graduated from, I assume 
they are negroes. There are two files here in the office.



258a

I think that the negroes and whites are different files— 
I don’t know.

No further questions.

Deposition of G. L. Hines

Re-Re-Re-Cross-Examination (Mr. Doby):
Q. When you came up to the Board for the files, you 

had access to both the negro and white files? A. I 
not told I couldn’t look at the other files.

That is all.

was



259a

R obert McLendon, having been first duly sworn, testified 
as follows:

Direct Examination (Mr. Chambers):
Q. Would you state your name please? A. Robert Ed­

ward McLendon.
Q. Are you employed in the Stanly County school system? 

A. Yes I am.
Q. In what position? A. Principal of Lakeview Elemen­

tary School.
Q. How long have you been principal of Lakeview? A. 

Two years.
Q. Were you employed in the system prior to going to 

Lakeview? A. No.
Q. Were you employed in the Albemarle city school sys­

tem? A. Yes I was.
Q. In what position? A. Teacher.
Q. At what school? A. Kingville School.
Q. How long were you employed there? A. Pour years. 
Q. Were you employed anywhere else? A. Yes I was. 
Q. In Stanly County? A. No.

—3—
Q. Nor in the city? A. No.
Q. Where were you teaching before you came to King­

ville? A. At Laurel Hill, Scotland County.
Q. Mr. McLendon, how many teachers did you have in 

the Lakeview Elementary School during the 1964-65 school 
year? A. There were nine of us and a librarian at the 
time.

Q. Your school runs from grades one through eight? A. 
That’s right.

Deposition of Robert McLendon
— 2—



260a

Q. Where do your students go after completing elemen­
tary school? A. Well, Kingville and other schools in and 
about.

Q. During the 1964-65 school year where did they go? 
A. At Kingville for the most part.

Q. Is that in the Albemarle City school system? A. Yes 
it is.

Q. You say ‘for the most part’. Did they go anywhere 
else? A. Well, there were some I think that did not go 
to Kingville.

Q. Do you know where they went to school? A. No.
Q. Was it a school in the school system of Stanly County? 

A. No, not in the county system.
Q. Not in the Stanly County school system? A. No.
Q. Would the majority of your students go to Kingville?

A. Yes they did.
Q. Would others go to the public school system? A. 

Yes, unless someone was leaving town or moving.
Q. If they stayed in your area, they would go to King­

ville? A. Yes, more or less.
Q. After the close of the 1964-65 school year, where did 

your graduates go? A. Kingville, most of them.
Q. Do you maintain a high school in the school system? 

A. Yes.
Q. How many students did you have during the 1964-65 

school year? A. 261.
Q. How many students do you have now? A. 188.
Q. How many teachers do you have now? A. Six.
Q. Would this number six includes the librarian? A. 

No.
Q. Six regular teachers? A. That includes me.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



261a

Q. Does the number nine include you for the 1964-65 
school year? A. Yes.

—5—
Q. Are you still teaching grades one through eight? A. 

Yes I am.
Q. Does that mean that some teacher or teachers are 

carrying more than one class? A. Yes.
Q. How many teachers do you have with more than one 

class ? A. Five.
Q. With more than one class? A. Yes.
Q. Are you teaching a course? A. Yes I am.
Q. Do you teach a class? A. Yes.
Q. What class? A. Seventh and eighth grades.
Q. Do you have a librarian? A. Yes.
Q. Is that a part time librarian? A. Yes it is.
Q. Mr. McLendon, the teachers you had in your school 

during the 1964-65 school year, were all negro? A. Yes.
Q. Were the students all negro? A. Yes.

— 6 —

Q. For this school year, are the students all negro? A. 
Yes.

Q. Are the teachers all negro? A. Yes.
Q. Including the librarian? A. Yes.
Q. When were you advised that you would have a reduc­

tion in the number of teachers at your school? A. It was 
June, late in June; I don’t know the date.

Q. How many teachers were you told you would have for 
the 1965-66 school year? A. Six.

Q. What instructions did you receive for reducing your 
teachers at your school? A. Well, I received a letter 
stating the allotment for our school this year.

Q. You didn’t receive any instructions about how to re­
duce your teacher load? A. No.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



262a

Q. How yon got rid of the teachers was left up to you? 
A. Yes and other than I talked with them about it. I talked 
to the teachers and various people about it before doing 
something.

Q. Did you talk with your staff at school? A. Not as a
—7—

group. They knew some of them would be released because 
of our enrollment and loss of children.

Q. Did the superintendent advise you you would lose 
some teachers because of enrollment? A. The letter stated 
yes I would lose. It said I had six teachers alloted so I 
lost three.

Q. How many new teachers did you hire for this school 
year? A. None. We have a new librarian.

Q. Where else does this librarian teach? A. West Badin 
School.

Q. She splits her time between your school and West 
Badin? A. Yes.

Q. Would you give me the names of the teachers you did 
not recommend for employment? A. They were Audrey 
Gillis Wall, and I had two teachers to resign.

Q. Who were they? A. Edrena Davis.
Q. And the other? A. Grace Bryant.
Q. How long had Miss Davis been in the school system? 

A. One year.
Q. With you? A. Yes.
Q. Was she at retirement age? A. No.

— 8—

Q. How long had Miss Grace Bryant been with you? A. 
She had been with me one year but she was there before I 
was.

Q. Was she at retirement age? A. No.
Q. Do you know where Miss Davis is now? A. Yes.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



263a

Q. Do you know her address? A. Yes, she works at 
South Oakboro School.

Q. That’s in Oakboro? A. Yes it is.
Q. Is that an elementary school? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what grade she teaches there? A. I 

think she has the third and fourth.
Q. Do you know where Miss Grace Bryant is now? A. 

She’s in Charlotte with the Mecklenburg system.
Q. Do you know the school she’s teaching in? A. No, 

I do not.
Q. What’s the name of the librarian? A. Bernice Eaton.
Q. When did you receive the resignation of Miss Edrene 

Davis? A. In May.
—9—

Q. When did you receive the resignation of Miss Grace 
Bryant? A. She told me in May. I have a written state­
ment from her I received in June.

Q. Did you know in April that you would have fewer 
teachers for the following school term? A. I didn’t know, 
no I didn’t.

Q. You were not told before? A. No. I didn’t have 
official notice but we expected it, yes.

Q. You expected it in March? A. No, I didn’t have any 
record of knowing at that time but in April we knew we 
would lose some; we felt that way.

Q. Did you raise this issue at your staff meeting? A. 
Yes I talked to them. The teachers knew about it.

Q. In April? A. Yes.
Q. That you would have a reduction in your teachers? 

A. They felt we would.
Q. And Miss Davis went to South Oakboro? A. Yes.
Q. Is that in the Stanly County school system? A. Yes.
Q. Is South Oakboro a negro school? A. Yes.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



264a

Deposition of Robert McLendon 

Q. Attended predominantly by negroes? A. Yes.

Q. Is it also staffed by negro teachers? A. Yes.
Q. And the other teacher yon did not recommend was 

Mrs. Wall? A. Yes.
Q. How long had Mrs. Wall been with you? A. She was 

there before I was. I was there only two years.
Q. Was she there when yon first got there? A. Yes.
Q. Was that the school year 1963-64? A. Yes.
Q. Did yon recommend her for employment for the 1964- 

65 school year? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know how many students you had to transfer 

to formerly all white schools? A. 65 I think I had in the 
beginning but several since then.

Q. Was that during the month of June? A. Yes.
Q. They were to request transfer at what time? A. 

For this school year.
Q. Was that during the first part of June? A. Yes, dur­

ing the month of June. It wasn’t the first part; it was early. 
They requested before that time.

Q. And the others you say who requested transfer sub­
sequently—when did they request transfer? A. That was

— 11-

in the Spring. A little earlier than that though. I think it 
was sent out in April or May; that was during the time 
they requested transfer.

Q. Have you had at your school, a normal or general 
increase in the number of students attending the school? 
A. No.

Q. Has the number of students decreased in your school? 
A. Yes.

Q. Over the years? A. Yes.
Q. Since 1954? A. I don’t know; since I have been there.

—10—



265a

Q. Since you have been there the number decreased? A. 
Yes.

Q. Did you lose a teacher last year because of the de­
crease in students? A. No.

Q. Do you know whether the number of teachers was 
reduced the first year you got there from the prior year? 
A. No.

Q. Do you know how many teachers you’ve lost in that 
school since 1954? A. No.

— 12—

Q. Have you lost any at all? A. No. Only those that we 
lost last year; three that I know about.

Q. Since you have been there, the decrease in enrollment 
other than for this school term, has not resulted in the loss 
of any teachers to your knowledge? A. No.

Q. This year, with the transfer of 65 students, you were 
alloted less teachers than the prior year? A. Yes, I was 
alloted less teachers.

Q. When was the new librarian hired? A. I think in 
August.

Q. Did you recommend this librarian? A. Yes I did.
Q. Do you know whether the principal at West Badin 

also recommended her? A. He did, yes.
Q. To repeat, you said that you received information in 

the latter part of June to the effect that you had been 
alloted six teachers for the 1965-66 school year? A. Yes.

Q. You received no instruction as to how to reduce your 
teacher load? A. No, other than talking with the teachers.

Q. And the teachers you did not recommend was to sat­
isfy the reduction in the allotment of teachers for the 
coming school year? A. Yes.

—13—
Q. Now you stated that Miss Edrena Davis resigned? 

A. That’s right.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



266a

Q. That Miss Grace Bryant resigned? A. Yes.
Q. And Mrs. Audrey Wall was not recommended? A. 

Yes.
Q. Why did yon choose not to recommend Mrs. Wall? 

A. Mrs. Wall had—in the first place her husband applied 
for a position at Lakeview School and she came in early 
in ’63 and told me in the office that she wanted to assure 
me that she wanted, to co-operate fully and she didn’t want 
me to think because Melvin her husband applied for the 
job, she would not co-operate, and she left a good impres­
sion, and she worked that way for a while but then she 
turned. She seemed to have a negative attitude about our 
school program.

Q. How do you mean ‘negative attitude’ ? A. The thing 
we set out to do; our program. She always had an objec­
tion ; it should have been done some other way. She would 
cite what they were doing in other schools. She thought 
it was much better and it would be workable in our situation.

—14—
Q. You mean they were much better executed? A. She 

felt we ought to do them as they were doing, some of the 
other schools. She felt what they were doing was better 
than what we were doing, and she had very poor attend­
ance at our meetings. Any time we had a program or pro­
fessional meeting, her attendance was very poor.

Q. Any other problems? A. She did a lot of talking. 
She was always making trouble by talking to teachers and 
other people and she seemed to be sick. She was out a lot 
on account of illness.

Q. Do you know the frequency with which she was absent 
during the 1964-65 school year? A. No. I have a record 
of some of the whole days, but many days she would ask 
to leave and I would let her go.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



267a

Q. Do you know the number of whole days? A. No I 
don’t. She went beyond the five days given to teachers.

Q. Do you know the number of half days? A. No, I 
didn’t keep a record of it. She would get sick or need to 
go to the doctor or that kind of thing and I just let her go.

Q. Mr. McLendon, when do you normally make recom­
mendations for teachers for the following school year? 
A. Each Spring; in April.

—15—
Q. Isn’t it true you recommended Miss Davis for a posi­

tion in your school for the 1965-66 year? A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t it true you recommended Mrs. Wall for teaching 

at your school for the 1965-66 school year? A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t it true you recommended Miss Grace Bryant 

for the position in your school for the 1965-66 school year? 
A. Yes.

Q. In fact you recommended all your teachers for the 
position for the 1965-66 school year? A. That’s right.

Q. Do you circulate a form for teachers for them to indi­
cate whether they want to return to your school for the 
following year? A. No. I talk to them about their work 
and employment for the next year.

Q. With each individual teacher? A. Yes.
Q. And when do you have those conferences? A. In 

the Spring just before my recommendations.
Q. And following the conferences with all the teachers 

you recommend all the teachers for the 1965-66 school year? 
A. Yes.

Q. When do you generally receive contracts back? A. 
April or May.

— 16—

Q. Isn’t it true you received contracts back for all of 
these people? A. No.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



268a

Q. When did you receive them? A. I received the con­
tracts. We were late getting the contracts for all teachers. 

Q. When did yon receive the contracts? A. In June.
Q. The early part or latter part? A. The early part.
Q. Didn’t you receive a contract for Miss Bryant? A. 

No.
Q. Didn’t you receive one for Miss Edrena Davis? A. 

No.
Q. Didn’t you receive one for Mrs. Wall? A. No.
Q. For whom did you receive them? A. For Mrs. 

Winfield, Mrs. Cogdell and Mrs. Coley and Mrs. Taylor 
and McLendon—mine. And then I received one for Mrs. 
Eaton.

Q. Now, you got one for Winfield, Cogdell, Coley, Taylor, 
McLendon? A. And Melvin Rush.

Q. Is Mr. Rush in your school this year? A. Yes.
—17—

Q. Mrs. Taylor? A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Coley? A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Cogdell? A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Winfield? A. Yes.
Q. And certainly the principal? A. Yes.
Q. When did you receive the contract for Mrs. Eaton? 

A. That was in August I think. It was late August. Mrs. 
Nichols resigned.

Q. That’s Mrs. Bernice Eaton? A. Yes.
Q. Why didn’t you receive a contract for Mrs. Davis, 

Mrs. Bryant and Mrs. Wall? A. They resigned.
Q. Mrs. Davis and Mrs. Bryant resigned? A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Wall is still there? A. Yes.
Q. Why didn’t you receive a contract for her? A. I 

didn’t recommend her after our allotment.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



269a

Deposition of Robert McLendon

—18—
Q. But you received contracts in early June and received 

the allotment in late June? A. No, I received the allot­
ment before I received the contracts.

Q. Then you mean after you received the allotment you 
withdrew your recommendation of Mrs. Wall? A. After 
I received the allotment then I had to decide on who would 
be relieved.

Q. Did the superintendent meet with you at any time to 
discuss a reduction in your teachers at your school? A. 
Yes.

Q. Did he talk with the staff? A. I don’t know; not 
during my presence.

Q. You didn’t have a meeting at which he appeared to 
discuss the problem? A. No.

Q. He talked with you individually about it? A. Yes.
Q. Did he explain to you why you were losing the teach­

ers? A. He said we would probably lose teachers and 
that was before the official letter on that.

Q. Is there another school in Norwood beside the Lake- 
view Elementary School? A. Yes.

—19—
Q. What’s the name of that school? A. Norwood.
Q. Is that a union school, grades one through twelve? 

A. No.
Q. An elementary school? A. Yes.
Q. Norwood Elementary? A. Yes.
Q. Is that predominantly white? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether any 

negro students were attending that school? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know of your own knowledge how many? A. 

65.



270a

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether any 
negro teachers are at that school? A. I don’t think so.

Q. Is there another negro school in the Stanly County 
system to your knowledge, besides Lakeview Elementary 
and West Badin and South Oakboro? A. No.

Q. Do you have a district school committee at your 
school? A. We have an advisory council.

— 20—

Q. Is this made up of parents in the community who have 
children attending the school? A. Yes.

Q. Do you know the names of the members of the advis­
ory council? A. Yes. Cliff Reed, James Ledbetter and 
George Blakeney.

Q. Did you receive the contracts do you say in the middle 
part or early part of June? A. Yes, in June.

Q. Did you receive another contract after that for this 
school term? A. Mrs. Eaton’s.

Q. The teachers did not have to execute another contract? 
A. No.

Q. After June? A. No.
Q. Was the contract you received the same type contract 

in the same form you received last year? A. It was the 
same general type, yes. It was a new contract though.

Q. Did the language in the contract differ? A. For the 
most part it was the same.

Q. Was there any change in the provisions that you know 
of? A. No, other than the advisory council instead of the 
school committee that we did have.

— 21—

Q. Your recommendations — what do you mean? A. 
You’re saying was it the same and I said yes, generally 
the same, but I said the recommendations from the com­

Deposition of Robert McLendon



271a

mitteemen and the principals and all this was not on the 
new contract.

Q. The new contract made no reference at all to the 
recommendation of the advisory council which replaced the 
committee? A. No.

Q. Did it make any reference to the recommendation of 
the principal? A. No, the only recommendation was his 
having* to pass it in which would mean he recommended it.

Q. The specific language of the contract made no recom­
mendation to that? A. No.

No further questions.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Doby):
Q. Mr. McLendon, you stated that some time during the 

month of April the teachers in your school became aware 
there would be a reduction in the teacher load or a reduc­
tion in the number of teachers alloted? A. Yes.

Q. And this awareness came about because of the im-
— 22—

pending freedom of choice plan that the Board of Educa­
tion was then implementing? A. I would think so.

Q. Because of the possibility that students in your school 
would exercise their choice to go to another school and 
therefore the number would be reduced and a correspond­
ing reduction in the number of teachers? A. Yes.

Q. Now you, of course, at that time did not know what 
students would transfer away and you did not know what 
teachers you would be alloted, did you? A. No.

Q. Nor did you know what grades those teachers would 
be assigned? A. No.

Q. And you, of course, did not make your recommenda­
tions as to the teachers that would be hired until such time 
as you received notification of the number that your school

Deposition of Robert McLendon



272a

would be alloted for the 1965-66 year? A. Yes, after I 
received the allotment, yes.

Q. It was at that time that you recommended the hiring 
of the teachers? A. Yes.

Q. And prior to that time, you had made no recommenda­
tion because you did not know just how many teachers you

— 23—

would have? A. I didn’t know but I had passed in con­
tracts for them to the office. I didn’t know in the Spring 
of the year, but usually at that time of year we had that.

Q. But did you make a formal recommendation? A. 
Yes, I passed the contracts into the office.

Q. By ‘passing the contract’ does that mean you recom­
mended for re-hiring? A. Yes.

Q. Even though at that time you did not know how many 
teachers you would have? A. That’s right.

Q. And after you secured your allotment, you recom­
mended the teachers that would be hired? A. Yes.

Q. Now of course, you did not make this decision until 
such time as the Board of Education notified you of the 
allotment? A. That’s right.

Q. And when you say the middle of June, are you posi­
tive about that date? A. No, I am not.

Q. So the superintendent would have the more correct 
date than you on this? A. Yes.

— 24-

Q. And it could have been, rather than the middle of 
June, the middle of July? A. It could have been.

Q. By passing in contracts, what do you mean? A. I 
mean I make my recommendations at the school and turn 
them in to the county office here.

Q. Your recommendation is what you term as the ‘pass­
ing in of the contract’ ? A. Yes.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



273a

Q. How many elementary teachers did yon have, primary 
teachers, did yon have in yonr school during the 1964-65 
year? A. Three.

Q. Who were they? A. Mrs. Winfield, Mrs. Turner and 
Mrs. Cogdell.

Q. What grades do yon classify as primary? A. First, 
second and third.

Q. During the 1964-65 year what grade did Mrs. Wall 
teach? A. The fourth.

Q. How many fourth grade teachers did you have then? 
A. One.

Q. That was Mrs. Wall? A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Winfield—is she teaching for you now? A. Yes.

—25—
Q. What grade is she teaching? A. The first.
Q. And Mrs. Turner—is she teaching with you now? A. 

No, she’s at South Oakboro.
Q. When did she leave your school? A. At the end of 

the year 1964-65.
Q. Is this after you recommended her for re-hiring? A. 

Yes, she had told me.
Q. And Mrs. Cogdell—is she with you now? A. Yes.
Q. What grade is she teaching? A. Second and third 

combination.
Q. Do you know what grade Mrs. Turner is teaching at 

South Oakboro? A. No. I think its third and fourth.
Q. Who is teaching the fourth grade during this year, 

the 1965-66 year, at your school? A. Mrs. Taylor. A com­
bination of the grade and Mrs. Coley has a part of it.

Q. Each of these teachers were with you last year? A. 
Yes.

Q. Why did you decide not to recommend Mrs. Wall for 
this fourth grade job? Why did you pick her over Mrs.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



274a

Taylor? A. Because of her attitude about our school pro­
gram.

Q. What was her attitude? A. Negative. She didn’t
- 2 6 -

want to follow what we had set out to do. Our program 
was outlined for the year and things she didn’t like, she 
wouldn’t do.

Q. Did you have very much trouble with her in this 
respect? A. Yes. I called her in several times and talked 
to her about it.

Q. What was her attitude when you talked with her? A. 
It was one time I upset her so she went to the hospital and 
stayed for about a week and I just stopped talking to her.

Q. She was out of school a whole week? A. Yes and 
after that happened I wouldn’t bother with her.

Q. Why did you not talk to her after that? A. I felt 
it had something to do with it because she seemed excited 
after I talked to her.

Q. Would this negative attitude still persist? A. Yes.
Q. What was her attitude toward you as principal? A. 

It was negative. She just didn’t agree with me; we didn’t 
get along.

Q. Did she ever argue with you about any decisions you 
made? A. Yes, she did that.

Q. Did she ever defy your order or refuse to do what 
you told her to do? A. Yes.

—27—
Q. How often would she do this? A. Any time. She had 

no set time because if she didn’t want to do it, she just 
didn’t do it. Anything you had to come back for, a program 
or anything like that, she just didn’t do it.

Q. With regard to any rule or regulation that you might 
have had in the school requiring teachers to—state whether

Deposition of Robert McLendon



275a

or not you did have any rules or regulations requiring 
teachers to attend the cafeteria at meal time with their 
children? A. Yes we did.

Q. Did Mrs. Wall abide by this ruling? A. No. Some­
times she would go but not regular; only when she got 
ready.

Q. Did she stay away more than she went? A. Yes.
Q. Who looked after her children while they were in the 

cafeteria? A. Two other teachers were in there with them.
Q. Where was Mrs. Wall during this time? A. In her 

classroom and other places around the building.
Q. With regard to after-school activities that you dis­

cussed, what activities are you referring to now? A. Any 
professional meetings, P.T.A., commencement, anything we 
might have she came when she wanted to.

—28—
Q. With regard to the professional meetings, did she 

attend those with any degree of regularity? A. No. The 
Stanly County and the N. C. Teachers’ Association, she 
didn’t attend those.

Q. Did the other teachers in the school attend regularly? 
A. Yes.

Q. Did you have any rule or regulation requiring teachers 
to attend? A. Yes I did.

Q. With regard to the P.T.A., what was her attendance 
at that? A. I don’t have a record of it but she just didn’t 
—she came when she got ready.

Q. Was she away more often than she was there? A. 
Yes.

Q. Did you have any ruling requiring your teachers to 
attend the P.T.A.? A. Yes I did.

Q. You mentioned commencement. Did you require your 
teachers to attend commencement? A. Yes.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



276a

Q. Did Mrs. Wall attend? A. No. She attended one 
since I’ve been there and she missed one.

Q. Did yon discuss this absenteeism with her? A. Yes.
—29—

Q. What was her attitude? A. She always had some 
excuse; she was sick, she didn’t feel well; although she 
worked during the day. I guess she was sick, but she used 
that as an excuse not to attend.

Q. With regard to any activities, selling candies or money 
raising activities in the classroom, did you, as a principal, 
permit your teachers to sponsor this type of thing? A. At 
certain times of the year, yes.

Q. Under what conditions or situations did you permit 
this ? A. In the evenings after three o’clock we would per­
mit it then until we leave at about 3 :30 or 3 :45. That was 
twice a year. We had that just before the Christmas parade 
and in May.

Q. Did Mrs. Wall participate in this type of thing? A. 
Yes.

Q. What about this type of thing that you did not spon­
sor, did she carry on? A. Yes. I would see the children 
with things and ask them where they got them and they 
bought them from Mrs. Wall.

Q. What happened to the money? Was it accounted for? 
A. I don’t know. It might have been; I don’t know.

Q. So far as your school program was concerned, was it 
turned into your school program? A. I wouldn’t know 
that. At tha time we didn’t have anything going on but

—30—
when we put on a program she could have turned it in.

Q. How did Mrs. Wall get along with her fellow teachers? 
A. She was always into one or the other. She didn’t get 
along with them.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



277a

Q. Did this have an adverse affect on your school! A. 
Yes. Sometimes we would have trouble with other teachers 
because of her not going along with what we set out to do.

Q. What was her general attitude toward your school? 
A. I don’t know. Seemed like she wanted to do it her way. 
She had a mind of her own.

Q. Will you state whether or not she seemed to resent 
your authority over her? A. Yes. She’s told me that many 
times. Things that I could do to help her with she wanted 
the superintendent to get it done. Like a letter was written 
I think in the Spring, rather than have me recommend her, 
I think she came to the office and had it done here.

Q. She didn’t want your recommendation? A. No.
Q. Did she ever compare the Lakeview School with other 

schools in the county? A. Yes.
Q. Who did she make this comparison with? A. West

—31—
Badin School. That was the school she worked previously. 
She would tell me how early they would get out or what 
they were doing that we weren’t doing. She didn’t see the 
need for teachers staying there as late as we stayed. They 
were getting out at 2:30 and I’m keeping mine until 3:30. 
She just didn’t see it.

Q. After school did you require your teachers to be in 
attendance until the children got on the bus and left for 
home? A. Yes.

Q. Did she co-operate with you in this respect? A. Yes, 
when she was on bus duty she did but she objected to me 
doing it. She didn’t think it was necessary.

Q. You stated on direct examination that quite often 
she would come to school and for reasons of her own she 
would ask to be excused. A. Yes.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



278a

Q. Would she remain away from school the rest of the 
day? A. Sometimes. Sometimes she would go home to get 
a bottle of medicine or go to the drug store and come hack.

Q. How often did this type of thing occur? A. She was 
that way all the time, constantly.

Q. Would you say once a week? A. While she was leav­
ing going to Concord once a week. She left school on 
Friday.

Q. What time of day was this? A. 2:00 o’clock.
—32—

Q. What time did school get out? A. 3:30.
Q. Who would attend her classroom? A. I put some 

student with them while she was gone.
Q. Where did the student come from? A. The eighth 

grade. To begin with I told her I couldn’t do it; I had to 
get a substitute and did get a substitute half a day for 
her and she told me then she couldn’t afford it and then 
she thought she would leave at 2 :00 and no need for a 
substitute and it would help her with her medical hills and 
I went along with it and let her leave at 2 :00 without getting 
a substitute.

Q. You say this occurred at least once a week? A. For 
a while, yes.

Q. For how long a period? A. All the Spring, three or 
four months.

Q. Prior to that time, how often did it occur? A. Before 
that time she would leave—she would ask to leave about 
3 :00 o’clock just before the bus children got on the highway 
to try to get ahead of that and then she say she couldn’t 
get an appointment at that time of day so she had to 
change. She went to Concord to some doctor over there.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



279a

Deposition of Robert McLendon

—33—
Q. Do you know her general reputation as a school 

teacher? A. Yes, I think she is impressive. You would 
think she was the kind of teacher you would want if you 
see her in the classroom.

Q. Is this the first impression? A. Yes.
Q. After you get to know her and work with her, does 

this impression continue? A. No, she’s the kind you 
wouldn’t . . .

Q. She’s generally just a troublemaker? A. Yes.
Q. As to the hiring of teachers, I asked you if you did 

not have absolute discretion in who you wanted to hire 
down there? This was entirely your decision? A. Yes.

Q. The School Board never told you who to hire or not 
to hire? A. No.

Q. This was up to you? A. Yes.
Q. And who you recommended, the School Board hired? 

A. Yes.
Q. And they didn’t tell you who to recommend? A. No.
Q. Was Mrs. Wall’s attitude and her conduct while em­

ployed in your school, such as it interfered with your dis-
— 34-

charging your duties as principal of that school? A. Yes.
Q. Did it make it more difficult? A. Yes it did.
Q. Did you have to devote right much time considering 

what she was doing when you could have devoted it to 
other matters at the school? A. Yes, I could have been 
doing other things, yes.

Q. Prior to you becoming principal of the Lakeview 
School, I believe you said Mrs. Wall was there when you 
got there? A. Yes.

Q. Had you ever taught with her in any other school in 
the county? A. No.



280a

Q. Did you ever work with her? A. No.
Q. You were formerly principal at South Oakboro? A. 

No, teacher at Kingville School before going to Norwood. 
Q. Did you ever teach out at South Oakboro? A. No. 
Q. And she was not in the city school system when you 

were at Kingville? A. No.
That is all.

Deposition of Robert McLendon

—35—
Re-Direct Examination (Mr. Chambers):

Q. Mr. McLendon, when the rumor started at your school 
about the possibility of loss of teachers at your school for 
the following school term, didn’t some teachers attempt to 
look other places to try to secure employment? A. Yes.

Q. Because no one knew who would be the one who was 
not to be back in the system the following school term? A. 
That’s right.

Q. Were your teachers a bit apprehensive during the 
latter part of May and June about not having contracts 
for the following school term? A. Yes.

Q. Its generally the practice is it not, for school boards 
to submit contracts to teachers before they leave at the 
end of the school term? A. Since I have been there, yes.

Q. And you stated these teachers did not have the con­
tracts at the end of the school term? A. Yes.

Q. It was later on in the summer before they received 
the contracts? A. Yes.

Q. And several teachers were worried about employment 
for the following school term? A. Yes.

—36—
Q. And some even looked elsewhere for employment? 

A. Yes.



281a

Q. Isn’t that the case with Mrs. Turner? A. No, she 
resigned because she was pregnant and then she later came 
to me for a job. She wanted a job because I believe there 
was a mistake on when the baby would arrive and she was 
ready to go back to work when the school opened and she 
didn’t think, in May or June she would, when she resigned.

Q. But in April when you sent in the recommendations, 
you included her in the list? A. She resigned yes, but she 
resigned after that.

Q. But you included her originally? A. Yes.
Q. Did Mrs. Cogdell go looking for a job during this 

period when the teachers did not have contracts? A. She 
might have, I don’t know.

Q. She is in Mecklenburg? A. No, that’s Mrs. Bryant.
Q. Didn’t she go looking for a job during this period? 

A. Yes, I received inquiries.
Q. You stated you did recommend Mrs. Wall initially for 

the position for the 1965-66 school term? A. Yes.
—37—

Q. You stated that you had the absolute discretion to hire 
teachers or recommend teachers? A. Becommend.

Q. Were you ever advised by the School Board that you 
could recommend white teachers for employment at your 
school? A. No.

Q. You never received any directive at all from the 
School Board to that effect, did you? A. No.

Q. Do you know whether any white teachers have taught 
in your school? A. No, I do not.

Q. None have while you have been there? A. No.
Q. Isn’t it true Mr. McLendon, that in the school system, 

white teachers have taught at white schools and negro 
teachers at negro schools? A. Yes.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



282a

Q. Isn’t it true Mr. McLendon, that this is one of the 
reasons for the fear at the end of the school term . . .

Mr. Doby: Objection.

A. I don’t know.
Q. Let me re-phrase it. You stated on cross-examination 

that the fear that the teachers had at the end of the school 
term of the loss of jobs was because of the possible trans-

—38—
fer by negro students at your school to formerly all white 
schools under the freedom of choice law? Isn’t that right? 
A. Yes.

Q. Isn’t it true that the negro teachers then in your 
school knew of the policy of the School Board in assigning 
only white teachers to white schools to which negro stu­
dents were requesting transfer?

Mr. Williams: Objection.

A. I don’t know that was what was done.
Q. That is certainly the practice, is it not? A. The prac­

tice, yes.
Q. Where do you select your teachers from? Do you 

have a reservoir of teacher applicants? A. Yes.
Q. Does this consist entirely of negro applications? A. 

Yes.
Q. You don’t have any white teachers involved in that, 

do you? A. No.
Q. The recommendations you make, therefore, would 

consist only of negro teachers? A. Yes.
No further questions.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



283a

Re-Cross-Examination (Mr. Doby):
Q. Mr. McLendon, in recommending teachers, the School 

Board never told yon who to recommend? A. No.
Q. And this was left entirely to you? A. Yes.
Q. And if yon wanted to recommend a white teacher, yon 

had that choice? Yon could have? A. They never told me 
not to.

Q. So yon had no reason to believe yon could not if yon 
wanted to? A. No, no directive.

Q. And insofar as the hiring of teachers, that the prin­
cipal recommends to the Board the teachers he would like 
hired in his particular school? A. Yes.

Q. And the Board accepts the principal’s recommenda­
tions? A. Yes.

Q. And hires those teachers for that particular school 
upon the principal’s recommendation? A. Yes.

Q. Now yon stated that you recommended Mrs. Wall for 
hiring for the 1965-66 year. Why did you recommend her? 
A. At that time it was early and I didn’t know—we had 
no official notice—that was prior to the letter of allotment.

—40—•
I received that later.

Q. Did you have any other applications for jobs for 
teaching positions there? A. Yes I did.

Q. Who were they? A. I had Mr. Gibbs.
Q. What grade was he applying for, or year? A. 

Seventh grade I believe. I had other applications for 
various grades.

Q. Did you have any for the grade Mrs. Wall was teach­
ing? A. Probably so.

Q. Do you know? A. No I don’t.

Deposition of Robert McLendon

—39—



284a

Q. At the time you recommended Mrs. Wall for employ­
ment in the 1965-66 year, there were no applicants for 
employment for her position? A. Not especially hers, no.

Q. And you recommended her because there was no one 
else available? A. I didn’t have any other. That’s right, 
I didn’t have any other applicants for the position.

Q. And in view of the problem you had with her, had 
you had another applicant, you would not have recom­
mended her?

Mr. Chambers: Objection. To this line of ques­
tioning. I think the witness has stated he had sev-

—41—
eral applications for various grades; probably some 
for the grade Mrs. Wall was teaching.

Q. The reason you recommended her was because you 
had no application at all for her position? A. No, I didn’t 
have any.

Q. Mr. McLendon you stated that after the first year 
she taught with you down at Lakeview, 1963-64, that you 
recommended her I believe for re-employment? A. Yes.

Q. I ask you if you haven’t stated that you did this 
unwillingly and that prior to doing it you had some reser­
vations and spoke to your committee about recommending 
her again? A. Yes I did.

Q. And you did have some reservations about making 
this recommendation? A. Yes.

That is all.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



285a

Re-Re-Direct Examination (Mr. Chambers):
Q. Mr. McLendon, you stated did you not, that you had 

several applicants or applications by teachers for positions 
at your school? A. Yes.

—42—
Q. Did you not state that Mrs. Wall taught the fourth 

grade? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether she had 

a grammar or elementary certificate? A. She had a gradu­
ate certificate.

Q. Would this entitle her to teach grades one through 
eight? A. Yes.

Q. Do you know whether or not of your own knowledge, 
any of the applicants for positions at your school had 
grammar certificates? A. Yes, and primary.

Q. Did any have elementary certificates ? A. No, I think 
it was grammar and primary.

Q. Can a person with a grammar certificate teach in 
grades four through eight? A. They can but its not rec­
ommended. We would rather have them in grammar 
grades.

Q. What are the grammar grades? A. Four to eight.
Q. So they can teach in grades four to eight? A. Yes.
Q. A person with a grammar certificate can teach grades 

four to eight? A. Yes.
Q. And the primary certificate teachers teach grades one

—43—
to three? A. Yes.

Q. You vary, don’t you? A. It has been done but I 
haven’t done it. This year we have that because of com­
bination classes but prior to that we haven’t.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



286a

Q. In fact, Mr. McLendon, any of the grammar grade 
applicants could have taught the fourth grade, couldn’t 
they? A. Yes.

Q. The certificate would have authorized them to teach 
fourth through eighth? A. Yes.

Q. You said that you had no directive from the School 
Board not to recommend a white teacher, hut is it not true 
that because of the practice that has been followed in the 
school system, you would not have recommended a white 
teacher for a position at your school? A. I don’t know. I 
haven’t had it to do. I just don’t know.

Q. You know the practice is not to do it? A. I know I 
haven’t.

Q. You know no other negro principal in the school sys­
tem has done it? A. I don’t know that.

Q. You don’t know any that has done it, do you? A. Fo.
■ 41

Q. You don’t know any white principal in the school sys­
tem that recommended a negro teacher? A. Fo.

Fo further questions.

Deposition of Robert McLendon



287a

Luther A. A dams, having been first duly sworn, testi­
fied as follows:

Direct Examination (Mr. Chambers):
Q. Would you state your name please? A. Luther A. 

Adams.
Q. Are you employed by the Stanly County Board of 

Education? A. Yes.
Q. In what position? A. Superintendent.
Q. How long have you been in that position? A. 2% 

years nearly.
Q. Were you employed by Stanly County Board of 

Education in any other capacity prior to becoming super­
intendent? A. No.

Q. Were you employed in any other school system prior 
to coming here? A. Yes.

Q. In what school system? A. I was employed in the 
Alamance County schools, the Cabarrus County schools, 
Southern Pines City schools and the Stanly County schools.

Q. Did you come here from Alamance County? A. No, 
from Southern Pines.

Q. You were employed first in Alamance County, then 
Cabarrus and then Southern Pines? A. Yes.

— 3—
Q. How long were you in Alamance County as a teacher 

and coach? A. One year.
Q. What about Cabarrus County? A. I was teacher 

and coach there approximately three years and principal 
for eight years.

Q. And Southern Pines? A. Superintendent of city 
schools.

Q. For what period of time? A. For four years.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams
—2—



288a

Q. Were you familiar with the practices of the School 
Board of Stanly County prior to your coming here as 
superintendent, so far as assignment of students and 
teachers in the school system? A. I was not familiar with 
them, no, not until I came here.

Q. Have you since become familiar with the policies 
prior to your coming here? A. Yes.

Q. Are you, as superintendent of the Stanly County 
schools, the administrative officer of the School Board? 
A. Yes.

Q. Do you also serve as secretary of the School Board? 
A. Yes.

—4—
Q. Do you keep the minutes of the meetings of the 

Board of Education? A. Yes.
Q. How many schools do you have in the Stanly County 

school system? A. We have 17 schools in all.
Q. How many elementary schools? A. We have—let 

me put it this way—we have 14 elementary schools and 
4 high schools but actually we have a union school situa­
tion at West Badin which gives us an elementary and 
high school together. Actually we have 17 schools but 
the union situation at West Badin.

Q. Counting the West Badin school as 1, you have 17 
schools? A. Yes.

Q. What type of plan do you operate under her—the 
6-3, the 8-4? A. Generally the 8-4 throughout. Actually 
in the union school its 8-4; that’s the generally accepted 
pattern.

Q. Do you have any junior high schools in the system? 
A. No.

Q. Are the students transported to the schools in the 
system by bus, in any school? A. Yes.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



289a

Q. At all schools? A. All schools have some bus ser­
vice.

— 5 —

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge how many ele­
mentary teachers you have in the school system? A. Off­
hand I don’t, but I can get it for you momentarily.

Q. Do you know how many students you have in the 
elementary schools? A. In round figures 5100 or o200. 
I think that could be more or less.

Q. You say you don’t know personally how many teachers 
you have in the 14 elementary schools? A. No. To be 
accurate I would have to check. I know the total number 
but I haven’t broken it down in elementary and high 
schools.

Q. You don’t know then the number you have in the high 
schools for this year? A. No.

Q. Do you know the number of students you have in the 
4 high schools ? A. Approximately 2,000.

Q. Do you know the total number of teachers you have 
in the school system for this school year? A. We have 240 
state alloted teachers and I believe 22 vocational teachers.

Q. The vocational teachers, are they state alloted? A. 
Yes.

— 6— •

Q. Would this 240 include the 22 vocational teachers? 
A. No, the 22 would be in addition. I am quoting figures 
strictly from memory. I can authenticate these figures a 
little better with my records. I want to make that point 
because I don’t want you to hold me to 240 or 250 teachers. 
I think these records are readily available but I don’t recall 
offhand.

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether the 
School Board employed teachers in addition to those state

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



290a

alloted? A. Well, I presume you mean by ‘employing’, 
paying them!

Q. Yes. A. We have some locally paid teachers. I be­
lieve it amounts to this year, five or six at least in whole 
or in part by local funds.

Q. Do you know whether these five or six will teach 
any academic courses! A. No. Mr. Chambers what we do 
here actually is this—the standard procedure and practice 
I think—we take some of the lowest rated people that 
we have. If its an A.O. teacher which is your lowest 
salaried person we have, we just find six or those or five 
of those or whatever we’ve got and pay those from local 
funds. The state carries those that have the highest 
salaries. We don’t differentiate as to position or anything 
like that; its just a matter of us paying the lower salary.

— 7—

Q. You mean by A.O., an A certificate with no years 
experience? A. Yes.

Q. And five or six of these teachers might be teaching 
any course? A. That’s right.

Q. You would be able to find, however, who these 
teachers are that you are paying locally? A. Yes, by 
checking the payroll we can.

Q. When you employ these teachers, you wouldn’t indi­
cate then whether they would be paid locally or by the 
state as state alloted teachers? A. Actually what hap­
pens is this—our local county of course, our local funds 
coming from the county, are set up and then what we 
have tried to do is this with local monies, is to put guidance 
people and band people or special ed. people into some 
of our—particularly into our high schools. By doing that 
we get five or six positions from local funds which in 
our case we take and pay the lowest rated teacher and

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



291a

then we employ some one for these positions that we are 
actually looking for on the high school level; in this in­
stance, guidance and counselling and hand or music. Ac­
tually these people are the ones we actually employ lo­
cally but we pay them with state funds. Its a matter of 
bookkeeping, is what it is.

— 8—

Q. Do you pay any supplementary fees in addition to 
the salaries allowed by the state? A. We pay no sup­
plementary salaries—not to teachers.

Q. Do you pay it to anyone else? A. We pay no sup­
plementary salaries. We pay some travel.

Q. What do you mean by ‘travel’ ? A. This is money 
paid to coaches and industrial arts teachers, band, to 
compensate them some for travel above and beyond their 
normal duties.

Q. How do you determine that? Do you have a set fee 
you pay the coaches? A. No. The Board sets up what­
ever travel funds are available and we have actually set 
up more by school than we do by individual. We set up 
$1500.00 for travel, for instance, for coaches or actually 
we call them physical education directors, and $1500.00 say 
for industrial arts people and that sort of thing. Its set 
up more by schools than it is by individuals because each 
of the schools have this type of program and it does 
require extensive travel and time after school. We do 
pay travel to administrative people and I understand also 
to supervisors and itinerant teachers that have to travel 
from school to school.

Q. You say that your travel for coaches and industrial 
arts would be determined primarily on the basis of schools ?

—9—
A. The amounts allocated are allocated to the school’s use.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



292a

Q. Would the same amount be allocated to each school? 
A. Yes.

Q. The amount for West Badin would be the same as for 
your other schools? A. If there was a need for it, yes.

Q. What do you mean by a ‘need’ ? A. If travel is in­
volved.

Q. Is the same amount of travel allowed for the coach 
at West Badin as at West Stanly? A. I don’t believe we 
allocate any travel to West Badin. I don’t believe we do. 
I would have to get that out. We actually don’t, as I 
recall, allocate any travel.

Q. Would that be true with respect to both coaches 
and industrial arts teachers? A. Yes.

Q. The travel for administrative staff people, is that 
a certain amount allocated in a lump sum like $300.00 a 
year? A. Yes, or so much per mouth.

Q. It will be a set sum? A. For the year it will be a
set sum.

Q. And the same thing would be true for the coaches 
and industrial arts teachers? A. Yes. On this travel I 
think—I want to clear this point up—that the salary sup-

— 10—

plement that we pay, we—I am getting a little confused 
with the salary supplement too and the travel in the sense 
we use it here. The money that we pay for these coaches 
and industrial arts teachers and band people, whoever 
might be paid, is paid in the form of travel rather than
in the form of salary, for tax purposes mainly. We can’t
pay them salary and travel and we can’t get an indus­
trial arts teacher without paying him something extra 
above the state salary so we pay him all we can in terms 
of travel. It is in a sense a salary supplement but its 
not paid as salary but as travel.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



293a

Q. Mr. Adams, at the time yon came into the system, 
which would have been the 1963-64 school year, how were 
the students assigned to the various schools in the Stanly 
County school system? A. I assume as they have been 
assigned all across the state but I don’t know that we had 
any set policy that called for assignment other than what 
was prescribed in the state.

Q. This would be, would it not, basically for initial as­
signment, the same procedure you followed prior to 1954? 
A. So far as I know it would be, yes.

Q. In effect you had, did you not, negro students as­
signed to negro schools and white students assigned to 
white schools? A. Yes.

Q. Now this would be true for the 14 elementary schools
— 11—

you had? A. Yes.
Q. And when a student initially enrolled in school, the 

pattern at least was that negro students would enroll in 
all negro schools and white students in the all white 
schools? A.Yes.

Q. How were students promoted from elementary to 
high school so far as the high school that the graduating 
elementary students would attend? A. You are talking 
about all of our elementary schools?

Q. You have four high schools? A. Yes.
Q. Would you name those high schools? A. West 

Stanly, North Stanly, South Stanly and West Badin.
Q. Students going to West Badin High School would 

be those graduating from West Badin Elementary School? 
A. That’s right.

Q. Would you have any other students going there? A. 
No.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



294a

Q. Just the students finishing West Badin? A. That’s 
correct.

Q. Students going to South and North and West Stanly, 
would be those graduating from predominantly or entirely 
all white elementary schools? A. Yes. You are talking 
prior to this year now?

— 12—

Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Q. That’s the year you came into the system which is 

1963-64? A. Yes.
Q. The Lakeview Elementary School is entirely negro, 

student-wise? A. Yes.
Q. And it was at the time you came into the system? 

A. Yes.
Q. The South Oakboro school is entirely negro so far 

as students, isn’t it? A. Yes.
Q. And it was at the time you came into the system? 

A. Yes. *
Q. Is there another elementary school beside West 

Badin Elementary School, South Oakboro and Lakeview, 
attended by negro students at the time you came into the 
system? A. No.

Q. Students finishing South Oakboro and Lakeview 
would go to what high school? A. Kingville.

Q. That’s in the city school system? A. Yes.
Q. Did you have any other than negro students attend­

ing, to your knowledge, West Badin High School? A. In 
1963, no.

—13—
Q. Is it true that teachers at West Badin Elementary, 

South Oakboro and Lakeview were entirely negro? A. Yes 
that’s right.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



295a

Q. Is it also true that students at West Badin High 
School were entirely negro? A. Yes.

Q. Is it true that teachers at the other elementary schools 
in the system were all white? A. Yes.

Q. Is it true that teachers at the other high schools were 
all white? A. Yes.

Q. And at the time you came into the system, the schools 
staffed by white teachers were attended entirely by white 
students? A. That’s correct.

Q. Now, going to the 1964-65 school year, was this not 
the same pattern? A. It was the pattern typically except 
in instances where we integrated our North Stanly High 
School voluntarily.

Q. The North Stanly High School? A. Yes.
Q. You mean therefore, that with the exception of North 

Stanly the elementary schools were pupiled like that were 
the same year you came into the system? A. Yes.

—14—
Q. And likewise the high schools with the exception of 

North Stanly? A. That’s correct.
Q. Both with respect to students and teachers? A. 

That’s correct.
Q. At North Stanly High School, what change was made 

there? A. We had applications from two colored girls to 
transfer from Kingville High School to the North Stanly 
school. This request was presented to the Board and the 
Board acted on it immediately and assigned the children 
to the school.

Q. Were these two negro students initially assigned to 
Kingville and requested transfer to North Stanly? A. By 
‘assigned’, they were there; I don’t know how they got 
there. They were attending Kingville.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



296a

Q. They had previously been assigned to Kingville? Was 
it your procedure at that time to initially assign students 
to a school and then permit them upon request, to transfer 
out to another school! A. At the beginning of the 1964-65 
school year?

Q. Yes. A. I don’t believe our Board had a policy at 
that point in regards to that. We had had no requests of

—15—
any sort to attend, or any desegregation of our schools at 
this point. Our Board had, so far as my knowledge is 
concerned, no policy concerning matters such as this.

Q. Such as requesting transfer? A. Yes. Now suffice 
it to say we surely had discussed or thought about requests 
coming from both races and assignments—it was generally 
agreed that assignments would be made to the schools to 
which the children requested to attend. The chairman 
knows more about the policy than I do before I came, but 
our policies prior to 1963 I presume were similar to other 
school systems; children attended the school in the district 
in which they resided. They were assigned to the schools 
closest to where they lived except in instances of mutual 
agreement where children were permitted to attend schools 
outside their district. Thse requests generally came to the 
Board of Education for action and were usually dispensed 
by the Board.

Q. It’s true is it not, that you had at that time over­
lapping school zone lines so that negro students for in­
stance in Norwood, who resided next to white students in 
Norwood, would attend different schools? A. That’s cor­
rect.

Q. And the same would be true with respect to other 
areas in the school system? A. Yes.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



297a

Deposition of Luther A. Adams

—16—
Q. And the students would initially, at least, and subse­

quently each year, be assigned to the school that their par­
ticular race had attended previously! A. Yes.

Q. This was true through 1964-65? A. Yes.
Q. With the exception of the two negro students request­

ing transfer after initial assignment to Kingville, to North 
Stanly High School? A. Yes.

Q. Now Mr. Adams, what procedure did you follow in 
assigning teachers to the schools in the school system up 
until the end of the 1964-65 school year? A. When I came 
here we operated on this basis—teachers were alloted to 
the County Board of Education by race and these teachers 
were alloted—I say to the County Board—actually alloted 
to the County Board of Education assigned to the particu­
lar school and all we did here in the office was to notify our 
principals of this assignment or this allocation of teachers 
and this was done by schools.

Q. You mean that the State Board of Education would 
allot teachers to you by race? A. Yes.

—17—
Q. So many negro and so many white teachers? A. Yes.
Q. They would not identify the teacher, however, would 

they? A. No, only the number.
Q. And you would receive an allotment of maybe 200 

negro teachers and 200 white teachers? A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t it true you would notify the principal at West 

Badin that he was alloted so many teachers? A. Yes, we 
transmitted this state allotment directly to the principal 
through notification from this office along with any other 
teachers that might be alloted to that particular school in 
various areas such as mental retardation, exceptionally 
talented, speech therapy and that sort of thing. Those



298a

become unit-wide allocations; actually work on an itinerant 
basis in several schools.

Q. How would you get an applicant into the school sys­
tem? I am talking about up until the end of the 1964-65 
school year. A. Actually the applications for positions 
could be made directly to the principals of the schools in­
volved or directly to this office. Prior to this year, the 
manner in which teachers were elected or selected, came 
upon application by the teacher to the principal and the

- 1 8 -
principal then—it was his duty and responsibility to nomi­
nate or recommend a teacher to his school committee and 
then it became the responsibility of the school committee 
to elect this teacher. Following this, the application then 
and the contract if the principal and the school committee 
were affirmative in their action, were brought to the super­
intendent of the Board of Education for their approval or 
disapproval and that in essence, is the procedure in which 
an application was filed and followed through.

Q. Now, is it your understanding that the superintendent 
or the Board could either approve or disapprove of the 
particular teacher recommended by the School Board and 
the principal? A. Yes.

Q. Now you say the applications could be directed either 
to the principal or the superintendent? A. Yes. Often­
times the application would come to the superintendent 
when there was no specific job in mind, just stating their 
qualifications and their interest. These applications were 
kept on file here in the office. The principals then could 
check these files at their pleasure or leisure and go through 
them and if they saw something that looked interesting, 
they could pull them from the files and make contact with

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



299a

these applicants. However, most of our applications come 
directly to the principals in the county system.

—19—
Q. Is it true you maintain separate files of applicants, 

one for negroes and one for white? A. It is true to this 
extent—we did separate them for the convenience of the 
principal, the white from the colored, yes.

Q. You did have that? A. Yes.
Q. You say for the convenience of the principal. Will 

you explain that? A. Normally the negro principals were 
not interested in white applicants and so when you’ve got 
a file of 150 or so applications, you try to make it con­
venient for them and separate them and the same would be 
true of white principals.

Q. They wouldn’t be interested in the negro applicants? 
A. At that point, no.

Q. Did you have a negro principal at a white school or 
a white principal at a negro school up through the 1964-65 
school year? A. No.

Q. Let’s go to the 1965-66 school year. What change, if 
any, did you make with respect to the assignment of stu­
dents in the schools? A. The Board adopted a plan of

- 20-

compliance under Title 6 of the Civil Bights Act of 1964 
and it’s under this plan that the procedures outlined in this 
plan that we assign pupils to the county schools this school 
year.

Q. Under this plan are students initially assigned to the 
school and then permitted to request transfer out? A. No.

Q. How do they get in the school? A. The Board gave 
a choice to the parent and the child, what we commonly 
refer to as the freedom of choice plan which the Board 
said a child could attend any school it desired regardless

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



300a

of race or color or national origin and that this request 
would he granted.

Q. How, at what time was this choice given to the stu­
dent? A. I believe it was a rather hurried situation hack 
then because there were times when we didn’t know whether 
our plan would be approved or not approved and I believe 
we had a cut-off date of May 15th that all children would 
have to have a request from all children or students by 
May 15th.

Q. In other words, did you pass out a form to the stu­
dents for them to indicate a choice! A. Yes.

Q. And these forms were supposed to be hack in by May
— 21—

15th? A. Yes. These forms were to he taken home to their 
parents for their signature and then returned to the school 
at which time they were returned back here to the office.

Q. For assignments for the 1965-66 school year? A. Yes.
Q. What happened in the case of a child who didn’t indi­

cate a choice? A. That was a difficult situation, that we 
had to come hack and correct. After talking with officials 
in Washington they said we had to have a request from 
everybody. Of course this all being new and all being an 
entirely different approach to the assignment of children, 
created quite a hit of confusion and misunderstanding and 
as a result, we had about 400 children, both negro and white, 
who failed to make a request by the 15th of May deadline 
so we had to come hack, and actually what we did was come 
hack to our principals and ask them to make a personal 
contact with all these children and get the form into us 
signed by the parent and this was done except with an 
instance I believe we ended up probably with about 15 stu­
dents that we know of whom we never could get a form 
from and we then arbitrarily assigned them to the school

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



301a

nearest to which they resided. I say ‘we’, I mean the Board 
of Education and that out of about 7000 children was a 
pretty good return.

— 22—

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether any of 
these 15 were negroes? A. Yes, I think the majority of 
them were.

Q. Do you know the schools to which they were assigned? 
A. I believe the majority of these children were assigned 
to either New London or Richfield Elementary School.

Q. Would you have the names of these students and the 
schools to which they were assigned? A. Yes.

Q. Did you have any students to request re-assignment 
after they were assigned by you to a school? A. Yes.

Q. Do you know how many such students requested trans­
fer? A. Yes. We didn’t keep a record of it to that extent, 
but we had I would say, in the neighborhood of 200 or 300 
children, white and colored, who requested re-assignment 
after the initial assignment was made, but our reply to 
these people generally was this—that after the initial re­
quest had been made and the assignment had been made by 
the Board, that there could be no re-assignment until the 
following school year except in hardship cases or except 
in change of residence where a child would move from 
living near this particular school to becoming a resident 
nearer another school. Normally we made no re-assignment 
after the initial assignment unless it was a hardship case.

—23—
Q. Did you make some re-assignments? A. Yes. Very 

few but some, and this involved both negro and white. In 
fact, we just had a case the other day.

Q. Now, do you have students this year attending King- 
ville High School? A. Yes.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



302a

Q. Up through the 1964-65 school year did the county pay 
a supplement to the city for students attending the King- 
ville school? A. No, not to my knowledge.

Q. Did it give any type of assistance to the city for the 
county students in the city school system? A. Not to my 
knowledge except in this instance. The children who were 
assigned to the Albemarle city administrative unit received 
a per capita of the allocation for schools based on the num­
ber of children attending that school both in current ex­
penses and capital outlay. In that sense the county did 
contribute to the support.

Q. Was this for both negro and white students? A. Yes.
Q. For this school year are you following the same pro­

cedure, that is making per capita supplement for students 
in the county attending city schools? A. Yes.

—24—
Q. For this year, how did you go about employing teach­

ers for the school system for this year? A. Essentially 
the same as we have been doing in the past; upon recom­
mendation of the principal.

Q. Were your applications again made to the principal 
and to your office? A. Yes.

Q. Do you still maintain separate files for the negro and 
white applicants? A. Yes.

Q. The estimate of the number of students for the school 
system in the elementary school are 5100 or 5200. Was 
that for this school year? A. Yes.

Q. What would be your estimate of the number of stu­
dents in the school system for the 1964-65 school year— 
elementary? A. It would run about the same.

Q. Would that be true for the high school students too? 
A. Yes.

Q. Now the number of students you gave of 240 state

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



303a

alloted, 22 vocational teachers and 5 or 6 locally paid teach­
ers, would be for this school year? A. Yes.

Q. Would your figure differ for the last school year? A. 
Yes, to some degree. We had fewer state alloted teachers.

—25—
We had fewer state alloted academic teachers in the county 
this year than we had the previous year. We had more 
vocational teachers alloted this year than last because we 
have intensified our vocational program. In fact, we more 
than doubled it requiring a greater number of teachers in 
the vocational area but our academic teacher group was 
less this year than the previous year because of the re­
duced enrollment.

Q. But your enrollment you estimate was about the same 
thing? A. Yes it was approximately the same thing but 
it was slightly less or else we would have gotten the same 
number of teachers. The allotment formula changed a little 
bit too Mr. Chambers. You probably recall where the gov­
ernment set up a new situation with a greater allotment of 
teachers in the primary grades and we thought through 
this formula teachers were allocated on the basis this year, 
primary, grammar grade and high school on three differ­
ent formulas. Heretofore this has not been the case but 
even with all the new formulas and the fact that we thought 
we might gain teachers this year, we ended up with the 
exact same number. We had 240 last year and 240 this 
year but we did grow some in the sense that this primary 
allotment formula did give us an additional teacher or two 
in the county whereas we would not have had it had it 
not been for this formula.

—26—
Q. Did you increase your locally paid teachers for this 

year? A. No.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



304a

Q. You had the same number as last year? A. Yes.
Q. Five or six? A. Yes.
Q. You say your state allotment for academic teachers, 

your estimate was 240 for this year and last year? A. It 
was identical, yes.

Q. And you had an increase in vocational teachers? A. 
Yes. Actually the increase in vocational teachers gave 
us an increase in the total number of teachers, although 
we have less students.

Q. Now, you had some change did you not, in the method 
by which teachers were alloted by the state board. Do 
you now have teachers alloted by race by the state board? 
A. No, beginning this year they were not.

Q. You are alloted a certain number of teachers? A. 
Yes.

Q. With no reference to race? A. That’s right.
Q. This would be true with reference to vocational 

teachers as well as academic teachers? A. That is correct.
—27—

Q. Now, there has been some change also in the state 
law, has it not, in the procedure followed in county school 
systems by which teachers are recommended by district 
committees? A. Yes there has been some permissive 
changes made. It is not obligatory and in this system we 
have changed our procedures some from last year.

Q. To what extent have you changed your procedures? 
A. Actually when the state alloted us teachers on the 
basis of this number only, contrary to what they had been 
doing in previous years, they also had legislation passed 
to permit the system to go to what we refer to as one 
district. In so doing, in going to one district, which our 
Board of Education decided to do, it eliminated all but 
one school committee. Heretofore I believe the school

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



305a

committees were appointed to the school districts and yon 
may have one, two or three schools in a district so far 
as that goes, within a county, but the school committees 
were appointed in the school districts by the County Board 
of Education and going to one district this eliminated the 
school committees as we knew them up until this year but 
the legislation which was passed permitted school boards 
to set up what we now call advisory councils for each 
school or each group of schools, depending on what the 
Board desired. In our case we set up advisory councils 
for each school and assigned to them certain duties and

- 2 8 -
responsibilities to help them carry out their work effec­
tively.

Q. Now the elimination of districts and the one district 
that you now operate under, permits the students to trans­
fer or be assigned to any school within this one district? 
A. Yes, the student may attend any school of his choice 
within the county.

Q. What duties do the advisory councils have? A. Well, 
they have specific duties in the area of—several areas— 
looking after buildings, grounds. They are to serve as an 
advisory group to the principal on matters that he brings 
before them. In general, to be of what assistance they can 
to the principal.

Q. They no longer allocate teachers as they did before? 
A. That’s correct. What we have said is this—our prin­
cipals will nominate or recommend and that they will, 
prior to this, consult with their school advisory council 
if necessary and then this recommendation or nomination 
is brought to the superintendent.

Q. Is it true that when the state Board of Education 
up through the 1964-65 school year would allocate teachers

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



306a

by race, it would not indicate the school to which these 
teachers were to he assigned? A. I don’t follow you there. 

Q. When the state Board of Education would allocate
—29—

the number of teachers to you up through the 1964-65 
school year which you said would be by race, did they 
indicate the school to which the teachers would be as­
signed? A. Yes.

Q. In other words, they would allocate X  number of 
teachers for West Badin, X number for Norwood? A. 
Yes.

Q. This school year did they follow that same system? 
A. This school year the state alloted teachers to the Board 
of Education.

Q. But with no indication as to school? A. No.
Q. You had, did you not, several negro students to 

request transfer to formerly all white schools for the 
1965-66 school year? A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall how many you had? A. Its over 300. 
Q. You wouldn’t have the figure? A. I have the exact 

figures, yes.
Q. And you said that these would have indicated a 

school by at least May 15th? A. Yes.
Q. Now of the 200 or 300 students who failed to indicate 

a choice of schools before May 15th but who indicated a
- 3 0 -

choice after, do you know whether you had any negro 
students in this number who requested assignment to 
formerly all white schools? A. I don’t know how many 
we did but I am sure we had some. We’ve got no record 
of it except to assign to the school to which they requested.

Q. You would have the names of these students or at 
least the number by race of the 200 who did not indicate

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



307a

the choice of school? A. No, we don’t keep any record 
by race any more. Its rather difficult for us to say. In 
fact its hard to single anything out by race any more. 
We don’t keep a dual set of records any longer.

Q. You did keep records by race during the 1964-65 
school year? A. Yes.

Q. And would your records show whether the one, two 
or three of the 200 or 300 students who didn’t request 
assignment by May 15th were negro or white? A. No. 
You see the only way—what happens is this—we gave the 
children an opportunity to say where they wanted to go 
to school and all of them except 300 or 400 did make a 
choice. Then we came back, and all we did was assign 
them to the schools they requested. Then the 300 or 400 
who didn’t make a request, we came back and contacted

—31—
them individually, by the principals and got them to make 
their requests or choice and then they were routinely as­
signed by the Board to the school they requested. We 
didn’t go to any great lengths to talk about it or anything 
like that. We just routinely assigned them and sent them 
on. Then of course, the 10 or 15 that we could never get 
to make the request, and I think most of these were negro 
children, were assigned arbitrarily by the Board to schools 
closest to where they resided. It so happens all these 
children had previously been attending Kingville School, 
the negro children.

Q. You mean of the 200 or 300? A. No, of the 10 or 
15 we arbitrarily assigned, and this came about by this 
fact—that the administrative unit in Albemarle told the 
county Board of Education last year that this year this 
school year, they could no longer take negro elementary 
children from the county into the state; that they did not

Deposition of Lutlier A. Adams



308a

have adequate facilities and room for them so this in 
effect then put the burden back on the county to assign 
these children either by freedom of choice or arbitrarily 
to the school nearest to which they reside, which the Board 
did.

Q. When you contacted the principal about the 200 or 
300 students who didn’t request assignment, you wouldn’t

- 3 2 -
know for instance, whether the students at West Badin 
that requested re-assignment would be negroes? A. Yes. 
On the forms they signed it calls for the school they 
presently attend. What I am getting at is, once these 
forms came to the office, we didn’t look at them by race 
any longer and we don’t have them separated in our 
office by race. They merely come here—all those that re­
quested X school, we assign X school and they are all 
in that stack so we have no way of knowing how many 
might have been negro or white.

Q. You had negro elementary students attending King- 
ville? A. And high school.

Q. Do you have any negro elementary students in King- 
ville in grades one through eight? A. Yes, there are some.

Q. Do you know the number of such students? A. Pos­
sibly five or six.

Q. Do you know the number of negro students you now 
have attending high school? A. No I don’t, but I can 
give you an educated guess and that’s all it would be.

Q. Would you be able to supply this number? A. I 
could call over to the city and get it. Here again they 
will have to count heads because they don’t keep these 
records any more by race, as you know.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



309a

—33—
Q. Do you have any negro students from the county 

attending any other than Kingville High School or any 
school in the city unit! A. I would have no way of 
knowing that at this point. If we permitted a child to go 
to the city, he would have to be assigned by the city 
School board and they assign him. I have no record of 
that.

Q. Would the negro student coming into the city be 
assigned by the School Board to Kingville? A. Yes, com­
ing from the county into the city. I think there are negro 
children from the county who have been assigned to both 
high schools in the city of Albemarle but I couldn’t verify 
that at this point.

Q. You are saying the students are assigned by the 
city School Board? A. Yes. Once we release them, by 
mutual agreement they make the assignment.

Q. How do you release them? A. Through mutual 
agreement between the two Boards.

Q. How does the student in the county get into the 
city? A. By application.

Q. He applies for a particular school? A. Yes.
Q. Does your plan submitted to the Department of 

Health, Education and Welfare, govern this? A. Yes.
—34—

Q. Now, when did you advise the various principals of 
the number of teachers that would be alloted for the 1965-66 
school year? A. Shortly after I received it from the state 
and we were able to work out a formula for it ourselves 
and I believe, as I recall, the date on our letter was dated 
June 25th.

Q. Did you send a mimeographed letter to each princi­

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



310a

pal? A. Actually its a mimeographed form and we fill in 
the form.

Q. Do you have a copy of that form? A. Yes.

(Form marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit #1.)

Q. Mr. Adams, did you send a form similar to the form 
that has been marked for identification as Plaintiff’s Ex­
hibit #1, to each of the principals of each school? A. 
That’s correct.

Q. And you had filled in here the allotment for the par­
ticular school? A. Yes.

Q. And you have only one copy of this form? A. That’s 
correct.

Mr. Chambers: The parties have stipulated that 
a copy of the form that was sent by Mr. Adams 
to each school might be substituted in lieu of the 
original.

—35—
Mr. Chambers: We would like to tender this form 

also.

Q. Now Mr. Adams, did you determine the allotment for 
each school? A. Yes.

Q. The number was determined in your office? A. Yes.
Q. How did you determine the allotment for the school? 

A. By average daily attendance of the children.
Q. Was that during the 1964-65 school year? A. Yes.
Q. Did you take into account the number of students 

who had requested transfer to other schools? A. Yes.
Q. And you had this information available from the re­

quests submitted prior to May 15th? A. Yes. Now the 
information that we used in teacher allotment came after

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



311a

May 15th because we had no way of knowing prior to 
that time.

Q. Did you have that information from the state of the 
teacher allotment prior to sending these forms to the 
various principals? A. No. You are talking about the 
teacher allotment?

Q. Yes. A. We didn’t get the teacher allotment until 
late in June.

—36—
Q. You say you sent this form out about June 25th? 

A. I think that’s correct.
Q. That is the form marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit #1? 

A. Yes.
Q. Did you send another form after June 25th? A. No. 
Q. You determined prior to June 25th the number of 

teachers that would be alloted to West Badin? A. Yes.
Q. And to Norwood? A. Yes.
Q. And Lakeview? A. Yes.
Q. Did you have to make any adjustment in that after 

you received the teacher allotment from the state? A. No, 
we made no teacher allotment here until we got the teacher 
allotment from the state.

Q. But the forms you sent out on June 25th indicated 
the allotment for teachers? A. Yes, to each school.

Q. Now at that time when you determined the teacher 
allotment, you didn’t have the state teacher allotment? 
A. We had the number of teachers the state alloted us 
when we fixed the forms for our principals. We could not

—37—
make an allotment until we had an allotment to make our­
selves.

Q. But you did not have this information prior to 
June 25th? A. Yes, just a day or two before.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



312a

Q. You had the state allotment prior to June 25th for 
the number of teachers alloted the system for the 1965-66 
school year? A. Yes.

Q. And you prepared the list for each school indicating 
the allotment of teachers for the school? A. Yes.

Q. And you took into consideration the average daily 
attendance at each school and the number of students who 
had requested transfer from the school to other schools? 
A. Yes.

Q. Your determination then of 15̂ 2 teachers at West 
Badin was based on the average daily attendance at West 
Badin and the number of students at West Badin who 
requested transfer to other schools? A. Basically, yes.

Q. Was it based on anything else? A. You have to 
anticipate things at times, but nothing developed other 
than that.

Q. Would the same be true for the teachers alloted 
South Oakboro? A. Yes.

—38—
Q. And Lakeview Elementary School? A. Yes.
Q. Your reduction in teachers at Lakeview was based 

then on the average daily attendance there and the num­
ber of students who requested transfer to other schools? 
A. Yes.

Q. Would your allotments show that the teacher allot­
ment for Norwood increased as a result of the number of 
students requesting transfer from Lakeview to Norwood? 
A. I don’t know whether it would show due to increase of 
students from Lakeview to Norwood, but it could possibly 
show it from increased enrollment or anticipated enroll­
ment. Whether they all come from Lakeview or not is 
another story.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



313a

Q. Then would it be however, because of the number of 
students requesting transfer to the Norwood School regard­
less of whether they came from Lakeview or West Badin 
or some other school? A. That’s right.

Q. But the allotment increased for this year? A. I 
would have to check that. I think it possibly did increase 
by one but here again you got off into a situation which 
doesn’t tell the whole picture because teacher allotments 
are made based on—we try to put the teachers where the

- 3 9 -
children are somehow or other and some times the average 
daily attendance doesn’t show the whole picture.

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge that the allot­
ment increased at West Stanly? A. Its hard to say. This 
was worked out during the Summer and I would have to 
go back to my figures to see but I believe the West Stanly 
allotment decreased this year. I am talking about decrease 
in academic teachers. It may have gained some in voca­
tional but I am definitely sure it decreased in academic 
teachers.

Q. Now, did you consult with the principals of each 
school prior to or immediately after you sent the form 
to the principals advising them of the allotment of teachers 
for the 1965-66 school year? A. Not specifically, no, other 
than the directive we sent from the office.

Q. Is this the only directive you sent from the office? 
A. Yes.

Q. You didn’t send any other instructions to the prin­
cipals? A. No.

Q. How was the principal at West Badin to eliminate 
the four teachers, or the loss of teachers, that resulted 
because of the decrease in allotment? A. Of course I 
would have to hazard a guess here but I would think he

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



314a

Deposition of Luther A. Adams

—40—
would have to take several things into consideration. The 
way the teachers—he would have to prepare his teachers 
I presume, those on his staff, and try to eliminate those 
that didn’t fit into his program. That is with the reduced 
number of children, naturally he would have to curtail 
his program some and sometimes if you don’t have enough 
children taking English, you don’t need an English teacher 
and various things could affect it hut that would he one.

Q. Your office didn’t send any specific instructions? A. 
No.

Q. Was he to compare these teachers with other teachers 
in the school system or just the teachers on his staff? A. 
I have no way of knowing about that. The principal recom­
mends the teacher. You might base your recommendation 
on something different than mine. I just don’t know, and 
one teacher may work well in one school where she 
wouldn’t in another.

Q. Did you advise the principals if they had a decrease 
in allotment and had to reduce the teachers, they would 
be absorbed in other schools in the school system? A. No.

Q. Would the same be true where we are talking about 
West Badin and the situation at Lakeview Elementary 
School, that is, that you issued no specific directive to the

—4 1 -
principals? A. No.

Q. And you didn’t advise the principal there that you 
would absorb these teachers in other schools? A. No.

Q. Did you have any reduction in teacher allotment at 
South Oakboro? A. No.

Q. You have the same number of teachers there now 
you had last year? A. Yes.



315a

Q. You had a reduction in teacher allotment at only 
West Badin and Lakeview? A. No, we had a reduction 
of teachers at West Stanly. I would have to go back to 
my record on this because its all rather hazy in my mind 
but I recall we had—based on the old formula, we would 
have lost teachers in 11 schools this year had it not been 
for the new forms.

*  *  # *  #

—42—
A. Its a little hazy. This was all worked back in the Sum­
mer and. . . .

Mr. Doby: I would like to suggest that we get 
into those areas where he is not hazy and says 
he has the records. May we let him get the records 
so we will have it in the record and try to save 
a little time and confusion too.

Q. Mr. Adams, do you know whether you employed any 
new teachers in the school system for this school year? 
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know how many teachers you employed? A. 
Yes.

Q. New teachers for this school year? A. Yes.
Q. Can you state how many? A. Yes, 54.
Q. Now Mr. Adams. . . .

Mr. Williams: Isn’t that one of the specific re­
quests you made in your subpoena duces tecum?

Mr. Chambers: I think so.
Mr. Williams: We have the information for you.

A. These are the teachers employed for 1965-66 but not 
employed for 1964-65.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



316a

Deposition of Luther A. Adams

—43—
(List of Teachers marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit #3.)

Q. Now Mr. Adams, do you have the teachers who taught 
in the school system during the 1964-65 school year and 
who were not re-employed? A. That’s this one here.

(List of Teachers marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit #4.)

Q. Mr. Adams, do you have a list of all schools in the 
Stanly County school system and the number of pupils 
enrolled by race? A. Yes.

(List of Schools marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit #5.)

Q. Now on Plaintiff’s Exhibit #5, would that be enroll­
ment of students by race for the 1965-66 school year? A. 
Yes, that’s the latest data.

Q. Now, do you have a list of all teachers in the school 
system by race for this school year? A. Yes.

(List of Teachers marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit #6.)

Q. Now Mr. Adams, looking at Plaintiff’s Exhibit #4, 
which is the list of teachers who taught in 1964-65 and 
who did not return for 1965-66, could you give us the 
names of the teachers who are negro? A. I couldn’t do 
it out of my head, no sir. I could get it for you but I 
would have to go back to the records.

Q. Now looking at Plaintiff’s Exhibit #3  which is the
- 4 4 -

list of new teachers, could you indicate the teachers who 
are negro? A. No sir, I have no way of knowing.



317a

Q. Do you have an explanation for the teachers not 
returning; as to the reason why they did not return? A. 
No, we don’t have anything to my knowledge other than 
maybe some spoken words, sometimes maybe pregnancy 
or something of that sort.

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge how many negro 
teachers did not return for this school year? A. For all 
causes ?

Q. Yes. A. This would be a guess again.
Q. Would you be able to supply that information? A. 

Yes.
Q. Now Mr. Adams, when a school such as West Badin 

had a reduction in the number of teachers alloted, did you 
in fact consider the teachers not recommended by the 
principal for any other position in the school system? A. 
Did we in fact not consider them?

Q. Did you consider them for another teacher position 
in the school system? A. We considered any of them that 
a principal recommended whether it was a teacher reduc­
tion or not.

—45—
Q. If the teacher was not recommended, you did not 

consider the teacher? A. No, sir.
Q. The negro teachers at West Badin who did not return, 

were not recommended by any other principal? A. Well, 
I don’t know. I am just thinking seems like there was one 
employed down at South Oakboro that was recommended. 
Seems like one of our teachers who taught at Norwood she 
applied at West Badin I think.

Q. One that taught at Norwood or Lake view was recom­
mended down at South Oakboro? A. Yes.

Q. But to your knowledge you know of no teacher at 
West Badin who was not recommended by the principal

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



318a

who was recommended by any other principal in the sys­
tem? A. Not to my knowledge. In fact, I don’t know of 
any application.

Q. Would the same be true at Lakeview with the excep­
tion of the teacher you think was recommended at South 
Oakboro? A. Yes.

Q. You stated, did you not, that you did not advise the 
principals of these schools that the teachers would be con­
sidered for a position at any other school? A. No, I didn’t 
discuss the matter with the principals at all.

—46—
Q. Now, did you lose any white teachers as a result of 

reduction of enrollment at any of the schools? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know how many and who they were? A. 

Here again I would have to go back to the records but I 
know I lost one at West Stanly and one at South Stanly 
but then a resignation took care of that, and I am not 
just sure about the elementary schools. I know of those 
two particularly.

Q. Do you know whether the white teachers at these two 
schools you mentioned were employed in any other school 
in the school system? A. One of them is employed in the 
school system.

Q. Do you know whether the other one was? A. No, 
she resigned.

Q. Was she beyond retirement age? A. No, I don’t 
think so.

Q. Do you know her name? A. I am not sure whether 
it’s a ‘her’ or a ‘he’ right now.

Q. Can you explain why you would have a loss of teach­
ers at these schools with the same number of teachers al- 
loted in the academic field for this year? A. What?

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



319a

Q. Why you would have a loss of teachers in the two 
white schools with the same number of teachers alloted

—47—
for this school year? A. Yes. You take some teachers in 
some instances where we—for instance at South Stanly, 
we actually have the same number of teachers for this year 
as last year but we actually lost teachers because we had 
an increase in vocational teachers. Now that’s a little con­
fusing unless you understand the teacher allotment formula 
and it’s a very difficult thing for me to understand. I 
think that explains it as best I can do it. That the aca­
demic teachers are alloted on the basis of average daily 
attendance and your vocational teachers are alloted on the 
basis of subject matter.

Q. With the same number of teachers in the academic 
fields for this school term as you had last school term, you 
would have at least a corresponding increase in a school 
over a decrease in another school, would you not? A. Yes. 
We had a reduction in the number of academic teachers in 
the system this year compared to last year.

Q. I thought you said you had 240 for last year and 240 
for this year? A. That’s correct, I did. You get into this 
1 for 15 business now. This is another allotment of teach­
ers based on the number of—actually you get 1 additional 
teacher for each 15 teachers you have in the system and 
through the allotment formula worked out on the primary 
level, we did gain a teacher in that area which was not

based on average daily attendance. It was based on the 
increased allotment of teachers and that’s where we get 
confused because we get an extra number of teachers. We 
get more teachers perhaps than you can justify by the

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



320a

number of children you have some times and this happens 
nnder this new formula.

Q. But if you lost three teachers at Norwood, you would 
perhaps gain three teachers at West Stanly to maintain 
the same number of academic teachers you had before! A. 
This is possible, yes. Of course you would have to have 
children at West Stanly to do it.

Q. And you had an increase in the number of vocational 
teachers for this school? A. Yes, very much so.

Q. Did you have any negro teachers teaching at an en­
tirely or predominantly white school? A. No.

Q. Do you have a white teacher teaching at any predomi­
nantly or entirely negro school? A. By ‘teaching’ do you 
mean in the regular classroom routine situation?

Q. Yes. Do you have a supervisor? A. Yes, we have 
central office personnel that serves all schools.

—49—
Q. Would this be a white supervisor? A. Yes.
Q. Serving all the schools? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have a negro supervisor serving all schools? 

A. No.
Q. How many supervisors do you have serving all 

schools? A. Two.
Q. Both would be white, serving all the schools? A. Yes.
Q. Under the State system for the 1965-66 school year, 

the concept at least is that all teachers belong to one school 
system and may be assigned by the school system to schools 
in the school system? A. That’s correct.

Q. Do you have a negro principal at any of the white or 
predominantly white schools? A. No.

Q. Do you have a white principal at any of the negro or 
predominantly negro schools ? A. No.

Q. In other words, your assignment of teachers for this

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



321a

school year is basically the same as for last year? That is, 
you have white at white schools and negro at negro schools? 
A. We have no assignment of teachers based on race.

— 50—

Q. The result has been, however, that you have only white 
at white schools or predominantly white schools, and negro 
at negro or predominantly negro schools? A. That’s cor­
rect.

Q. Did you bring a file on Audrey Wall? A. I wasn’t 
sure what you had in mind by ‘file’. I don’t know what you 
had in mind. I didn’t know what you were seeking on her. 
We don’t keep a file.

Q. You don’t keep a file on teachers? A. No, other than 
the administrative file, payroll and social security deduc­
tion and that sort of thing.

Q. Do you keep a file on the application of the teacher, 
the educational training of the teacher, any complaint you 
might receive about the teacher? A. No sir, not to my 
knowledge.

Q. You don’t keep such a file? A. No.
Q. If you received a complaint from a principal regard­

ing a teacher, would you have that in your files anywhere? 
A. I presume so.

Q. Do you have a complaint in any file regarding Audrey 
Wall? A. No.

Q. Do you have a complaint in your files regarding Mr.
E. W. Dixon? A. No.

— 51—

Q. Mrs. Nell Holmes? A. No.
Q. Mr. Frederick Welborne? A. No.
Q. Mrs. Ophelia Glenn? A. No.
Q. Mr. M. L. Wall? A. No.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



322a

Q. Did you have a complaint on file regarding’ Miss 
Edrena Davis'? A. No.

Q. Mrs. Grace Bryant? A. No.
Q. So far as your files show then, you have no criticism 

at all of the teaching and performance of the teachers I 
named in the school system? A. I have no file on them.

Q. Would your file reflect the educational training, de­
grees and certifications of the teachers who did enroll for 
the 1965-66 school year? A. If we had—and here again 
you are getting into an area which we don’t have a staff of 
personnel to maintain, and to my knowledge it’s never been 
maintained. These people when they leave us, we have no 
further record of them. In our case here, actually the re­
quest for their records is usually if they stay in teaching,

—52—
come to us from wherever they might seek employment 
elsewhere.

Q. Would you have any record to show whether Mrs. 
Grace Bryant had a B.A. or B.S. degree? A. Yes, we have 
her teaching certificate on file in the office.

Q. Her certificate? A. We did. She is not teaching 
with us. We don’t have it any longer. We return it to the 
teacher.

Q. You wouldn’t know her years of experience? A. We 
could get it from our records but we transmit this informa­
tion to wherever she might be working.

Q. Do you have records now which would show that? A. 
Yes.

Q. Would you have records to show her degree or cer­
tificate? A. We might. I would have to guess.

Q. Would the same be true of other teachers who did 
not return this year? A. Yes.

Q. It would be true, would it not, of teachers who are

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



323a

here this year? A. We have their teaching certificates on 
file, yes.

Q. And the years of experience, whether in this system 
or elsewhere? A. Yes, we have to have that for payroll 
purposes.

—53—
Q. Did the principals of West Badin and Lake view com­

municate with you regarding the teachers they were not 
recommending because of the reduction in allotment? A. 
Yes, I think in perhaps a rather vague way.

Q. Would you explain that? A. I recall Mr. McLendon 
discussing with me the situation at Lakeview and he was 
confronted with a reduction in teacher allotment and he 
had two teachers there I believe he told me, he felt like 
the school would just be better off without and wanted to 
know how I felt about the situation and I told him we 
would take his recommendation; that he would have to 
make the recommendation himself as to which teacher 
would be less troublesome to him on the staff and it took 
him a while to do that but he decided it himself and sug­
gested, of course, Mrs. Wall.

Q. Now originally for the 1965-66 school year, Mr. Mc­
Lendon had recommended all teachers teaching at that 
school during the 1964-65 school year? Either in April or 
May he recommended all teachers that taught the previous 
year for the 1965-66 school year? A. I presume—I don’t 
know whether you and I are thinking in terms of what 
recommending means here, but in the year the legislature 
meets, which is every two years, there’s no teacher allot­
ments made to the county or city units until after the

- 5 4 -
legislators go home, for obvious reasons and that was the 
case in this year which the teacher allotment came very

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



324a

late in the year and oftentimes teachers get apprehensive 
about employment for the next year perhaps. They want 
to know something, so we told our principals, after talking 
with the School Board, that we could not employ any one 
of course until the teacher allotment had arrived here and 
we made the allotment, but that any teacher who signified 
a desire to return to the system next year, upon the rec­
ommendation of her superintendent, we would employ her 
contingent upon the teacher allotment being made.

Q. You say upon the recommendation of the superin­
tendent. You mean the principal? A. The principal, and 
this would be continent, of course, as we told our principals, 
upon the teacher allotment being made.

Q. But Mr. McLendon had recommended Mrs. Wall? 
A. Yes.

Q. And he had recommended the other teachers who 
taught with him last year? A. Yes.

Q. Is it not true that Mr. Hines had also recommended 
all teachers teaching at West Badin last year? A. Who

—55—
had signified a desire to return, either reluctantly or other­
wise.

Q. Isn’t it true that the Board had acted upon the- rec­
ommendations of some of these teachers before you sent 
out the allotment? A. Yes.

Q. And had, in fact, recommended their re-employment? 
A. Yes.

Q. And had, in fact, approved their re-employment before 
you sent out the teacher allotment? A. No, nothing can 
be done until the allotment has been made official. In other 
words, anything the Board did would be contingent upon 
the allotment.

Q. Didn’t the Board consider recommendations of vari­

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



325a

ous principals before the 25th of June? A. Yes, many of 
them brought them in earlier.

Q. Had not the Board also approved the recommenda­
tions of the teachers recommended by the principals before 
the 25th of June? A. Yes they did and this was contingent, 
of course, upon the teacher allotment being made.

Q. And the minutes of the Board will reflect that, will it 
not? A. Yes.

Q. Can you give us the date of the Board meeting at
—56—

which the Board considered the recommendations of the 
teachers and approved these? A. Yes. I cannot give it to 
you offhand but I could give it to you.

Q. The Board and the principals changed this after 
they received the teacher allotment? A. Yes.

Q. Now isn’t it true that during the summer of 1964 you 
sent a letter of recommendation to the University of North 
Carolina for Mrs. Audrey Gfillis Wall? A. In regards to 
scholarship, etc.?

Q. Yes. A. Yes, I think she asked me to write some­
thing, that she wanted to attend a workship. This is a 
routine thing—we have to certify that she is under em­
ployment.

Q. You did in fact, send such a letter to the University 
of North Carolina? A. I would have to check the files on 
that but I vaguely remember she did attend a course there 
that did require my certifying that she was employed.

Q. To a Dr. Harshman? A. Yes.
Q. Did you not send a letter of recommendation to Dr. 

Robinson of A. & T. College during the summer of 1965 
for Mrs. Audrey Gillis Wall to attend a workshop? A.

- 5 7 -
Yes I certified that she was here and had been employed 
here this year.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



326a

Q. Didn’t yon certify in the letter that she was also 
employed for the next school year? A. I don’t know. I 
would have to get a copy of the letter to see.

Q. Do you have a copy of that letter available? A. I 
would think so, yes.

Q. Now Mr. Adams, you stated that during the year the 
legislature meets you are late in getting the teacher allot­
ment and therefore the contracts back to the teachers. 
Isn’t it true that this is, in fact, the first year you have 
been as late as you were in getting the teachers’ contracts 
back? A. No, this happens every two years.

Q. You mean it happened prior to the year you came 
here? A. I don’t know about this place but it did in 
Southern Pines.

Q. But you don’t know about Stanly County? A. No sir.
Q. In fact, this is the only year this occurred in Stanly 

County? A. Yes, in Stanly County.
Q. Do you have copies of the plan of compliance adopted 

by the Stanly County Board of Education which you sub­
mitted to the Department? A. Yes.

—58—
Mr. Williams: That’s attached to your copy of the 

answer.

Q. Now in Section 10 of this plan you state that the 
Board is aware of and recognizes that school desegregation 
includes desegregation of faculty and is now in the process 
of developing a policy whereby staff and professional per­
sonnel will be employed solely on the basis of competence, 
training, experience and personal qualifications and will be 
assigned to and within the schools of the unit without re­
gard to race, color or national origin and that this policy 
will be put into effect immediately after it is developed

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



327a

but in any event to commence by the 1966-67 school year. 
Now what steps have yon taken pursuant to directions of 
the Board, to implement your policy here of assigning and 
employing teachers on a non-racial basis? A. It would be 
pure speculation right now on my part. We haven’t gotten 
that far along for a definite commitment at this point.

Q. For the 1965-66 school year you have taken no steps? 
A. We are developing a plan and this plan is not yet to 
the point where we know what it is going to be ourselves.

Q. You did not follow it for this school year? A. No, 
the plan was not in operation. In fact, it hadn’t been 
thought of.

—59—
(Letter of April 30, 1965 marked Plaintiff’s Ex- 
' hibit #7.)

Q. Mr. Adams, did you write a letter to Mrs. Wall ad­
vising her that she would not be retained in the system for 
this school year? A. No.

No further questions.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Doby):
Q. Now Mr. Adams, with regard to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 

#3  entitled ‘Teachers who are employed for 1965 and not 
employed for 1964’, you have set out all of the teachers 
and you have done the same with regard to Plaintiff’s Ex­
hibit #4  entitled ‘teachers who taught in 1964-65 who did 
not return in 1965-66.’ Mr. Chambers asked if you could 
tell by race the teachers listed on these two exhibits and 
your answer was ‘no’. Why could you not tell? A. We 
keep no file or record on these folks by race at all.

Q. Now he has requested in his subpoena, and you have 
furnished, a list of all the schools in Stanly County and

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



328a

the number of people enrolled by race. This is Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit #5, and in this exhibit you have stated the schools, 
the number of whites and colored pupils in each school.

—6 0 -
How did you determine this? A. By actual head count. 
We had to go to each school and count heads to see what 
the number was.

Q. I take it this means there is no record kept by the 
School Board or in the schools by race? A. That’s correct.

Q. Mr. Adams, how does the School Board hire teachers 
in Stanly County? A. The School Board has set up pro­
cedures whereby advisory councils and principals play a 
part in the performance of teachers. The principal recom­
mends or nominates the teacher to the Board of Education 
and the Board of Education approves.

Q. Is this procedure established by rule of the School 
Board or by state law ? A. Both. The rules and regula­
tions that—ask me your question again.

Q. Does the procedure you have outlined whereby ad- 
visoiy committees recommend and principals recommend 
to the School Board, teachers for hire—is this practice 
established by rule of the Stanly County Board or by state 
law? A. It’s established by the Stanly County Board of 
Education under the state law.

Q. Then do I understand that this practice is the practice
—61—

as is promulgated by state law? A. Yes.
Q. The Stanly County School Board or you as superin­

tendent, rely solely upon the recommendation of the vari­
ous principals as to who will be hired? A. Yes.

Q. Do you give to them free rein as to who they so 
recommend? A. Yes.

Q. Do you accept their recommendations? A. Yes.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



329a

Q. Do you know of any case where you have not accepted 
any recommendation since you have been here? A. No.

Q. Have you sent forth any criteria to the various prin­
cipals or any requirements with regard to teachers that 
they shall hire? A. We have said this—that we want our 
principals to hire teachers with A certificates or better if 
possible. We seek that qualification. Of course we don’t 
reach it all the time but basically we try to hire teachers 
who are holders of A certificates if possible.

Q. This is the only requirement? A. Yes.
Q. Now Mr. Chambers referred to assignment of teach­

ers by the School Board. Do you in fact assign these 
teachers or do you assign a number of teachers per school?

—62—
A. We assign only a number of teachers per school by the 
Board.

Q. And that number is filled by the principal? A. That’s 
correct.

Q. You stated that the allotment for teachers for the 
1965-66 school year was made June 25, 1965. Is this cor­
rect or were you talking from memory then? A. I think 
that’s correct.

Q. Can you substantiate that date? A. June 25th, yes. 
Here it is. (Witness points to Plaintiff’s Exhibit #2.)

Q. Now in those schools—I believe you testified there 
were white and colored schools that lost teachers this year? 
A. Yes.

Q. Who determined what teachers would not be retained? 
A. The principals of the schools involved.

Q. You stated that the Board approved the recommenda­
tion of the principals for teachers during the 1965-66 year 
prior to the time the allotment was made, is this correct?

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



330a

A. I think we better refer to the minutes on that, hut I 
think that is correct.

Q. After the allotment was made, was there any change 
in the number of teachers that you previously approved? 
A. Only those that had decided to resign in the meantime; 
that signified the desire not to return for some reason or

- 6 3 -
other. Of course those changes were made and any new 
ones that were employed in the meantime were added to 
the list.

Q. With regard to the files or records of teachers that 
you keep here in the office or that the Stanly County Board 
of Education has, let’s take a teacher presently employed— 
what record would you have of a presently employed 
teacher? A. Basically this—we would have her applica­
tion on file that she filled out when she applied for work 
in the system, if it came here. If it came to a principal, 
there’s a possibility this might he in the principal’s office, 
hut basically we keep the application and three written 
references from people that were given as references that 
returned them to us. Then we keep the usual required forms 
such as social security forms, you know, the tax forms that 
are necessary for payroll purposes. We keep, of course, 
her or his teaching certificate on file. Basically administra­
tive detailed items that we have to have is generally what 
we have.

Q. When a teacher leaves the employment of the Stanly 
County Board, what records if any do you have of the 
teacher who departed from employment? A. The only 
record we have at the present time is a record that she 
was employed here. We maintain no active file on personnel

—64—
at all. If the teacher remains in teaching in this state par­

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



331a

ticularly, generally we are contacted and asked to send 
what information we have on that teacher to the respective 
superintendent of that unit and we transfer then what 
information we have to that unit.

Q. By ‘transfer’ do you mean a physical transfer of the 
actual records? A. No, generally it amounts to a form 
calling for the certificate number and the number of years 
they were employed here, the sick leave record, which is a 
cumulative thing, etc. This travels with the teacher 
wherever they work.

Q. Do you have any record of that yourself after the 
teacher has departed? A. No, we have no need for it.

Q. Mr. Chambers read to you a paragraph of your plan 
of the freedom of choice plan you refer to and stated in 
the plan that the School Board recognized that there would 
have to be an integration of faculty. Would you state 
what if any steps this School Board or you as superin­
tendent, are presently working out to assure that person­
nel will be hired on a basis other than race? A. Yes. We 
have in the process now and are developing a plan and 
have to a point developed it, to a point where we think we 
are going to have some guide lines with some forms set up

—65—
whereby we will follow these forms and procedures in 
employing teachers in the future and these forms will call 
for things such as the various qualifications of the teachers, 
some of them tangible, some of them intangible. As I said 
earlier, we haven’t gotten far enough along with it, where 
the Board has developed it but we are along with it where 
we are setting up guide lines where we expect our princi­
pals will continue to do this or the personnel director, or 
whoever it might be, will have some guide lines to follow. 
These guide lines will contain various questions and will

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



332a

seek out certain information such as national teacher exam­
ination scores, their certification, their references, and all 
this sort of thing that goes—that we can gather to help 
us judge, and this is a judgment matter, who is the best 
qualified to teach in our system.

Q. And these qualifications under your plan will be 
based on considerations other than race? A. Entirely.

Q. When do you expect to have this plan formulated? 
A. We think some time within the year—this school year— 
we are hopeful that the plan will develop along far enough 
to where, as we stated in our plan of compliance, we can 
put it into effect no later than the 1966-67 school year.

Q. Mr. Adams, do you know the plaintiff Mrs. Audrey 
Gfillis Wall? A. I have met her on one or two occasions

— 66—

and I have been in her classroom.
Q. How long have you known her? A. I have known of 

her for approximately two and a half years.
Q. During that time have you had any problems with 

her? A. Personally, no.
Q. Professionally? A. Only those which the principal 

has discussed with me.
Q. What were those? First let me ask what principal? 

A. In particular Mr. McLendon because she has taught at 
this school the two years I have been here.

Q. Any other principals that you discussed it with? A. 
Mr. Hines has talked with me about her and Mr. Baxter 
Williams has discussed her with me.

Q. Who is Mr. Baxter Williams? A. Principal of the 
Kingville School.

Q. What system is that school in? A. Albemarle city, 
and I also discussed her with the personnel in the Albe­
marle city superintendent’s office.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



333a

Q. Has Mrs. Wall ever taught under Mr. Williams? A. 
I think so, yes, at Oakboro.

Q. What did Principal McLendon complain to you about, 
about Mrs. Wall, do you recall? A. Basically just that 
she wasn’t co-operative generally and that he had difficulty 
convincing her that he was running the school. It seemed

- 6 7 -
like that was what she wanted to do was to run the school.

Q. When did he first complain to you? A. I’m just 
guessing now, but the first year I was in the county which 
was 1963-64, I visited at the Lakeview School and that was 
the first year Mr. McLendon was there and I commented 
on the fact that I thought the school was being run fine 
and asked a few other questions and he said he was get­
ting along well but was having a little misunderstanding 
with one of his teachers and I said—‘Who is it” ? and he 
said—“Mrs. Wall” and I said—“Is there anything too diffi­
cult you can’t handle at this point” ? and he said—“No, I 
don’t think so”. That was the first time we had any indi­
cation there might be any feeling—

Q. Did he complain to you after this time about Mrs. 
Wall? A. No, not again until—there was some doubt in 
his mind about re-electing her at the end of the first year 
that he was principal there.

Q. What year was that? A. The end of the 1963-64 
school year and I suggested to him that he discuss this 
with his local school committee but he was very reluctant 
to re-elect her for some reason or other at the end of that 
first year and I felt like people locally would know her 
much better than I and I having been in the county only 
six or eight months at the time, suggested that he rely 
heavily on his local people.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



334a

Deposition of Luther A. Adams

— 68—

Q. At any time did yon enter into the decision whether 
to recommend or not recommend her? A. No.

Q. Now, daring the 1964-65 year did Mr. McLendon com­
plain to you about Mrs. Wall? A. The only time I can 
remember—there may be other times but I just have to 
guess because it’s a big system as you know and we have 
a lot of problems—but the only thing I can recall he 
having specifically said to me, and he did this in the office 
one day when he came through here for some other pur­
pose, was that he was having some difficulty in getting her 
to take her children to the cafeteria and supervising her 
children during the lunch period, and that he had asked 
her to do it and she just wouldn’t do it; she just refused, 
and he wanted to know what he must do about it and I 
told him to try to work with her and try to help her and 
try to understand the problem and her and that sort of 
thing and hoped he could get along alright.

Q. Were these complaints made to you orally or in writ­
ing? A. Orally.

Q. Did you ever receive any written complaint? A. No.
Q. All of them were oral? A. We have very few com­

plaints. I am speaking now from the total population.
— 69—

Q. I am talking about complaints about Mrs. Wall. A. 
Nothing was in writing, no.

Q. When did you learn that there would be a reduction 
in the teacher allotment at Lakeview? A. Well, we actu­
ally didn’t know what would happen until we knew where 
the children were going to be and this began to develop 
after the freedom of choice proposition became known and 
it was after May 15th that these forms were due in, or on 
the 15th, and then it was probably, I am guessing now,



335a

probably late May or early June before we were able to 
in any way get them compiled to see where we stood and 
just how many children had requested which school, etc. 
so it’s hard to say.

Q. Well, you knew by June 25th? A. Yes. Things be­
gan to shape up and we knew pretty well by then by taking 
this year’s average daily attendance up through the sev­
enth month, taking the best six months out of the first 
seven, coupled with transfers between schools and between 
administrative units, coupled with the first grade factor 
coming into the school and the eighth grade factor gradu­
ating into high school and the twelfth grade graduating 
out, we were pretty well able to determine how many chil­
dren would be in each school.

—70—
Q. What was the teacher reduction at Lakeview for the 

1965-66 year? A. Three.
Q. Do I understand there were three less teachers al- 

loted for the 1965-66 year than the 1964-65 year? A. That’s 
true.

Q. And you transmitted this information to the princi­
pal? A. Yes.

Q. Who made the decision as to what teachers would 
not be retained? A. The principals of the schools involved.

Q. Did the principal then transmit this information to 
you? A. The principal transmitted the only information 
to me—was the names of the teachers he recommended for 
re-employment.

Q. When was this, do you know? A. I’m thinking now 
in terms of all the principals and these recommendations 
come in sporadically whenever they happen to come to town 
generally but they come as they know in the term who they 
want back and who they want to recommend and who they

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



336a

have had time to discuss perhaps with some of their ad­
visory council and as soon as they are satisfied, they come 
up here and leave their contract with us.

—71—
Q. Do you know the approximate date Mr. McLendon 

advised you who he was recommending for employment? 
A. No, I have no idea.

Q. Was it, would you say, more than a week after June 
25, 1965? The date you advised him of his allotment? A. 
I put those in the mail somewhere around the 25th or 26th 
possibly I presume and I believe he notified me within 
three weeks.

Q. Within three weeks from June 25th? A. Yes, who 
he wanted to recommend.

Q. Did he recommend Mrs. Wall? A. No.
Q. Did he recommend any other teachers that worked 

for him during the 1964-65 year? A. Yes.
Q. How many of the six did he recommend?

Mr. Chambers: What six?

Q. As I understand it, he was allocated six teachers for 
the 1965-66 year. How many of those six teachers that he 
recommended for that year, worked for him the prior year? 
A. I don’t know, Mr. Doby. I have—

Q. Did Mr. McLendon hire any additional personnel 
down there that was not with him in the 1964-65 year ? A. 
It’s difficult for me to know. I would have to go back to 
the records because I am not familiar with these people; I

—72—
don’t know them actually. Some of them I see only once a 
year; I don’t come in contact with them.

Q. After Mr. McLendon made his recommendation as to

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



337a

the teachers that he desired, did yon after that time talk 
with Mrs. Wall! A. Yes. Mrs. Wall called me and she 
called the office here one day when I wasn’t here and called 
and asked if I knew of any vacancies in the county and if 
I would, to help her get another job.

Q. What did you tell her? A. I told her at that time 
I didn’t know of any vacancies in the county other than 
West Badin and Richfield and there may be others but I 
would suggest she contact the principals of the schools.

Q. West Badin school is a colored school? A. Yes.
Q. How about Richfield school? A. That’s a white 

school.
Q. You say you had also discussed her with Mr. Hines, 

the principal at West Badin. Will you state whether or 
not after Mrs. Wall called you asking your help in relo­
cating her, you talked with Mr. Hines about hiring her out 
at West Badin? A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. You did talk with Mr. Hines? A. Yes.
— 73—

Q. What was Mr. Hines’ reaction to this? A. Very 
negative. He said—“Mr. Adams, please don’t pull rank on 
me and make me take her.” That basically were his words.

Q. And prior to this time, did you talk with Mr. Hines 
about Mrs. Wall, prior to the time you asked him to help? 
A. No, I don’t recall if I did.

Q. Do you know Mrs. Wall’s reputation among school 
people in this county? A. Only what I have heard in the 
last two and a half years talking with principals that I 
mentioned a moment ago; Mr. Williams and Mr. Hines and 
Mr. McLendon and in talking with personnel in the super­
intendent’s office and the city administrative unit. I gath­
ered from what—

Q. The question is—do you know her reputation among

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



338a

school people? A. I was going to say ‘y es’ from what I 
know. I don’t know whether it is correct or not hut from 
what I understand she is—

Q. Do you know her reputation? A. Yes.
Q. What is that reputation?

Mr. Chambers: Objection.
—74—

A. Her reputation among school people is very poor. Now 
I think many of them will tell you that she has excellent 
approach in the classroom at times but the true welfare 
and wholesomeness of the total school program deteriorates 
when she is in the school.

Q. What did Mr. Williams, the principal of the King- 
ville School, state about Mrs. Wall?

Mr. Chambers: Objection.
(No answer by witness)

Q. Has this Board on its own made any decision as to 
whether or not Mrs. Wall will be hired or not? A. No. 
I want to inject this in the record in regard to the one 
question you raised a moment ago Mr. Doby, in regards 
to her reputation. This is something that develops over 
the years of course, and I think her employment record 
speaks for itself; that she has worked in the county about 
12 or 13 years and has been employed in about six or seven 
different schools, five or six, I don’t know how many, but 
anyway I think her employment record speaks for itself 
there and needs no further comment.

Q. Now, insofar as Mrs. Wall is concerned, have you 
deviated from your stated policy of following the princi­

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



339a

pal’s recommendation for hiring, insofar as she is con­
cerned? A. No.

Q. Is it my understanding that she has been, in this re-
—75—

spect, treated as all other teachers in the system have been 
treated? A. Absolutely.

Q. When a teacher is hired in this system, for what 
period of time do you hire them? A. One year.

Q. Is there any such thing as seniority or tenure of office 
or job under this arrangement? A. None whatsoever.

Q. Do you hire all teachers each year for a period of one 
year? A. Yes.

Q. Does this contract terminate at the end of the year? 
A. Yes.

Q. Is there any arrangement or does the Board have any 
policy of giving notice to the teachers in your system of 
the termination of the contract? A. No. The contracts 
are signed for one year and terminate themselves.

Q. Mr. Adams, during the 1964-65 year I believe that the 
Board, did it not, had a policy whereby any child that 
wanted to be re-assigned could make a request for re­
assignment? A. Yes.

Q. And you in fact received some requests for re­
assignment? A. Yes.

—76—
Q. And you made those re-assignments in accordance 

with the requests? A. Yes.
Q. Now you stated on direct examination that during the 

early stages of trying to implement this freedom of choice 
plan, that you had, that you sent letters to the parents by 
way of the children requesting the parents and the child 
to indicate the school that the child would like to attend 
for the 1965-66 year and you stated that after some diffi­

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



340a

culty you secured this request from all excepting about 15 
students? A. Yes.

Q. And you were not able to get statements from approxi­
mately 15 children? A. That’s correct.

Q. And you said that the Board on its own assigned 
these 15 children to the New London and Richfield Schools? 
A. That’s correct. There may be a scattered one some­
where else, I don’t know.

Q. But the majority of the 15? A. Yes.
Q. And the majority of those 15 were colored students? 

A. Yes.
Q. And the Richfield and New London Schools are pre-

—77—
dominantly white schools? A. Yes.

That is all.

Re-Direct Examination (Mr. Chambers):
Q. Mr. Adams, do you have in your possession a copy of 

the minutes of the Board of Education for the meeting of 
June 7, 1965? A. Yes.

Q. May I have that copy?

(Mr. Chambers looks at copy of minutes)

Q. You stated a moment ago that you kept no record by 
race. You were referring to students? That was on cross- 
examination by Mr. Doby, for this year? A. For this year, 
that’s right.

Q. You do know the race of your teachers in the system. 
You know that you have negroes at Lakeview and negroes 
at West Badin? A. Yes we do.

Q. Do your files in the office here—do they indicate the 
race of the teachers? A. No.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



341a

Deposition of Luther A. Adams

Q. They do not? A. No.
—78—

Q. How do yon know you have negro teachers at West 
Badin for this school year? A. We have no way of know­
ing unless we go over there and look.

Q. Would you know if the superintendent of West Badin 
recommended a white teacher for the school? A. We have 
no way of knowing.

Q. Do you know the principal did not recommend a white 
teacher? A. I don’t know. We employ only those he rec­
ommends.

Q. You know of your own knowledge, however, that none 
of those teachers there are white? A. Yes.

Q. And the same thing with respect to Lakeview? A. 
Yes. I presume they are. I haven’t been to either school 
since the school opened to see, but I presume they are.

Q. You stated that the Board and you relied solely upon 
the recommendation of the principal for the teacher? A. 
Yes.

Q. Isn’t it true when you said a moment ago that Mr. 
Hines, in reference to a conversation you had with him 
with respect to Mrs. Wall, indicated in his statement that 
you could, in fact, hire a teacher he did not recommend? 
A. He insinuated that I might compel him to do it.

Q. It is possible for you to— A. I haven’t explored that
- 7 9 -

possibility, never have.
Q. Isn’t it possible for you and the Board to employ a 

teacher? A. No, under no circumstances.
Q. The state law doesn’t prevent you from doing it, 

does it? A. Yes, it sets up procedure whereby we employ 
teachers.

Q. For this school year? A. Yes.



342a

Q. I thought you stated on direct a moment ago that the 
state law had been changed so that now the advisory coun­
cil serves only a perfunctory service? A. That’s true, but 
the principal still must recommend.

Q. He just recommends? A. Yes, I cannot recommend.
Q. Under the state law today you cannot recommend? 

A. No sir and neither can the School Board, and this works 
this way too, and neither can the local school committees 
as we used to operate. They cannot nominate or recommend 
a teacher to the principal. Only the principal has that 
responsibility.

Q. Doesn’t the state law state that where the principal 
is unable to agree upon a teacher, the superintendent can 
recommend, or the Board? A. The Board of Education 
can fill the position.

—80—
Q. Without recommendation from the principal? A. If 

there is conflict between the two, yes.
Q. And that was the law in 1964-65? A. Yes.
Q. And today the Board in this situation, can appoint a 

teacher even though not recommended by the principal of 
the school? A. Theoretically, yes.

Q. Under the law?

Mr. Williams: Objection. I don’t think he is quali­
fied in the law.

Mr. Chambers: I withdraw the question.

Q. It is your testimony is it, that after you receive the 
allotment of teachers and made the determination of allot­
ment to the particular school, you left the matter entirely 
up to the principal of the school to determine which teach­
ers to retain and which teachers not to retain? A. Yes.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



343a

Q. And the principal made this determination solely from 
his staff? A. Yes, I presume so. I cannot speak for him.

Q. Yon stated in reference to questions by Mr. Doby, 
that you were in the process of developing a plan to em­
ploy teachers in the future on a non-racial basis. You 
have not begun to implement this plan? A. No. We are

- S i -
implementing it to this extent—that we are in the process 
of developing it and we have developed some guide lines, 
some ideas and some procedures that we think are good, 
that the Board of Education has not seen as yet. But they 
are in the process and will be put into effect, yes.

Q. So you anticipate you say, putting this into effect in 
1966? A. And 1967, yes.

Q. Now you stated that at the end of the school year
1963-64, you operated under the plan that permitted stu­
dents to request re-assignment? A. Yes.

Q. And that two negro students requested re-assignment? 
A. Yes.

Q. Did the Board at any time direct you to give notice 
to parents in the community that negro students could re­
quest re-assignment? A. No, this was just general knowl­
edge.

Q. And you did not public any notice or given notice out 
to the individual parents that students could request such 
re-assignment? A. This has been a practice for years; 
there was no need for it.

—82—
Q. You had never to your knowledge, published or dis­

tributed such notice? A. No, not in the two years I have 
been here.

Q. Going to the minutes of the Board of June 7th, I ask 
you if this is a true copy of the minutes of the Board for

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



344a

June 7, 1965? A. Yes, that’s a true copy; that hasn’t been 
typed in the book.

Mr. Chambers: Would counsel for the defendant 
stipulate that we might introduce that as Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit #8  and substitute a copy for the original?

Mr. Williams: Yes.
(Copy of minutes of the Board for June 7, 1965 

marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit #8.)

Q. I show you a copy of some reference to resignations 
to be approved and contracts to be approved dated July 7, 
1965 and ask you what is that? A. This is resignations 
and contracts which were approved on July 7, 1965.

Q. That would be contracts approved? A. Contracts and 
resignations.

Q. Would the latter sub-section or section dealing with 
contracts approved dated July 7, 1965, be the contracts 
approved on that date? A. Yes.

—83—
Q. Is that an official copy of the minutes of the Board of 

Education? A. This is, yes.

Mr. Chambers: We would like to tender that in 
evidence and substitute in lieu of it a photostatic 
copy of the original and mark it Plaintiff’s Exhibit
#9-

(Copy of Resignations to be approved and Con­
tracts to be approved dated July 7, 1965, 
marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit #9.)

Q. I show you a list of names included in the minutes of 
the Board of Education for June 7th and ask you to read

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



345a

the names of the contracts approved for Lakeview School. 
A. Mary S. Winfield, Audrey G. Wall, Geraldine Robinson 
Taylor, Melvin Joe Rush, Wanda W. Cogdell and Fannie
F. Coley.

Q. Yon say that there is no tenure in your school system; 
that teachers are hired for one year period. I ask you 
what procedure teachers follow in seeking and gaining 
employment for the following school term? A. They sig­
nify their desires to the principal, either mid-year or mid­
way of the Spring, what their desires are. Many times 
they know at Christmas they are going somewhere else so 
he can look for someone else. Generally they speak their

- 8 4 -
intentions to him and then from that point on he takes it 
and if he is satisfied with the present staff, he will recom­
mend them either wholeheartedly or indifferently, or what.

Q. Isn’t it true that the principal at the Lakeview School 
received indications from the teachers that they would like 
to he retained for the 1965-66 school year and in fact sub­
mitted recommendations for these teachers before you indi­
cated the teacher allotment? A. Yes, I think many of them 
that knew of their desire and wanted to come back, indi­
cated it to him.

Q. And this would include the individual plaintiff listed 
here, Audrey Wall? A. Yes.

Q. And this is all that’s required of teachers in order 
for their application for re-employment to be considered 
by the School Board for the following school year? A. 
Yes, that’s correct, except in the case of initial employ­
ment where they fill out an application, actually fill out an 
application which we furnish here in the office.

Q. And only in the case of original employment they fill 
out an application here in the office? A. Yes.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



346a

Q. And the superintendent picks this application up here ? 
A. No, the application form is furnished out of the office

—85—
here to the principals who in turn ask the teacher to fill 
it out. It just calls for information we need by way of 
certification and teaching experience. Once we have that 
on file, it’s not necessary for us to do it year in and year 
out.

Q. And after the principal receives the application from 
the teacher, he either recommends or not recommends the 
teacher? A. That’s correct.

Q. Now did you, or has the Board directed or advised 
the negro principals in the school system that they could 
consider white teachers for employment in the school sys­
tem? A. Our Board hasn’t advised them in any manner 
in that regard.

Q. They did not send a directive to the negro principals 
advising them that they could? A. No.

Q. Did it send a directive to white principals advising 
them they could consider negro teachers for employment 
in their schools? A. No.

No further questions.
— 86—

Re-Cross-Examination (Mr. Doby):
Q. Mr. Adams, following the recommendation of a prin­

cipal as to the hiring of a teacher, has the Board ever in 
fact, compelled a principal to hire someone other than a 
person who he has recommended? A. No.

Q. With regard to the implementation of the plan to 
determine the qualification of teachers, will you state 
whether or not the Board has instructed you to proceed 
with this program? A. Yes.

Q. Are you, in fact, doing so? A. Yes.

Deposition of Lutlier A. Adams



347a

Deposition of Luther A. Adams 

(Discussion off the record about implementing.) 

That is all.

Re-Re-Direct Examination (Mr. Chambers):
Q. When you say the Board has directed you to imple­

ment this provision regarding non-racial assignments for 
employment of teachers, you mean, do you not, you are 
presently drafting a procedure to be followed? A. Yes, 
we have got right deeply into that.

Q. The procedures you have adopted or are drawing up, 
you stated earlier have not been approved yet by the Board?

—87—
A. That’s right.

Q. So they haven’t been actually instituted yet? A. No. 
No further questions.

Re-Re-Cross-Examination (Mr. Doby):
Q. They haven’t been approved by the Board for the 

reason the Board doesn’t have anything to approve as yet? 
A. That’s right.

Q. But they have directed you to bring to them a plan 
of implementation? A. Yes, and we have the plan here 
in the folder but the Board hasn’t officially done anything 
on it so I can’t say anything officially about it.

Q. When did you complete that work? A. I guess a 
week or ten days ago.

Q. Has the Board had a meeting since that time? A. 
No.

That is all.



348a

Re-Re-Re-Direct Examination (Mr. Chambers):

Q. Mr. Adams, I show you a form here entitled ‘Con­
tract for Instructional Service’ and ask you if this is a 
contract that is executed by the teachers in the school

- 88-

system for the 1965-66 school year? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, what is meant by this ‘special conditions’ in 

these blanks down here? A. Several things. For instance 
by way of explanation, we employ a young girl the prin­
cipal recommended out at Millingport School who had 
less than two years of college and we write in there then 
that this person is employed until such time as we can 
find someone qualified to replace her, whether its one 
week or one year. That would be one special condition or 
you could have others. Some people come into the system 
that you know they are going to be with you only one 
year or half a year and they like that written into their 
contract that they can be dismissed say in half a year 
or at the end of the first semester or something like 
that, or any other conditions that might prevail locally 
that would be worth noting in a contract.

Q. Now in this contract, there is no specific reference 
to the school in which the teacher is to teach, is that cor­
rect? A. That’s right.

Q. A teacher is employed then under a contract that 
would permit her being assigned to any school in the 
school system? A. That’s right.

—89—
Q. Who signs this contract? A. The Secretary to the 

Board of Education and the teacher involved.
Q. Now, what is meant by that provision in the last 

paragraph preceding the special conditions—that assign­
ments will be made by the superintendent of schools? A.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



349a

I understand it means when we receive the teacher allot­
ment we will make the allotment of the teachers to the 
respective schools. I say that in terms of the number of 
teachers will be allocated to a certain school; we assign a 
certain number to that school.

Q. The contract will permit you to assign any individual 
teacher to that school? A. I presume so but we don’t do 
it that way. We assign only a specific number of teachers 
to a particular school without regard to race or color.

Q. But the contract would permit you to assign the 
teacher to any school? A. I don’t know about that.

Mr. Chambers: We would like to introduce the 
Contract for Instructional Service as Plaintiff’s Ex- 
hibhit #10.

(Contract marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit #10.)
No further questions.

—90—
Re-Re-Re-Cross-Examination (Mr. Doby):

Q. This contract is not presented to the teachers for 
signature until after their employment has been recom­
mended in a particular school by the principal? A. That’s 
correct.

Q. And while there is reference to assignment will 
be made by the superintendent of schools in the contract, 
is it not your policy in fact, that before the contract is 
executed in the policy you follow, the particular teacher 
has already been assigned and that he has been recom­
mended to you by the principal of a particular school? A. 
That’s correct. I would not have one principal recommend­
ing a teacher to another school.

Q. Have you ever pursued a practice of employing teach­

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



350a

ers without having a recommendation from a principal for 
hiring in a particular school? A. No.

Q. It is not your practice then as I understand it, with­
out reference to schools, to go out and hire or sign con­
tracts with all the teachers that you have been alloted and 
then you make the assignment? That is not your practice, 
is it? A. No, absolutely not.

Q. And if and when a contract is signed by a particular 
person, that person knows the school they will be teaching

- 9 1 -
in? A. That’s right.

That is all.

Re-Re-Re-Re-Direct Examination (Mr. Chambers):
Q. This contract does not state the school the person 

will be teaching in? A. No.
Q. Isn’t it true under the new law passed by the legisla­

ture, teachers were—this was a change in the contract? 
A. Yes.

Q. The former contract did indicate the school to which 
the teacher would be assigned? A. Yes.

Q. The new law provides for a change so a teacher can 
be assigned to any school in the school system, isn’t that 
correct? A. Yes.

No further questions.

Re-Re-Re-Re-Cross-Examination (Mr. Doby):
Q. Notwithstanding that a person can be assigned to a 

school, all contracts signed with this Board, the teacher
—92—

has known at the time of the signing where she will teach ? 
A. That’s correct. This is done on the basis of the recom­
mendation of the principal of that particular school.

That is all.

Deposition of Luther A. Adams



351a

Reece B. M cSw a in , having been first duly sworn, testified 
as follows:

Direct Examination (Mr. Chambers):
Q. Would you state your name please? A. Reece B. 

McSwain.
Q. Are you presently a member of the Stanly County 

Board of Education? A. Right.
Q. Are you presently Chairman of the Board? A. 

Right.
Q. How long have you been in that position as Chairman? 

A. Since the Board meeting of April two years ago this 
coming April. The Board meeting will be three years.

Q. Would that be April, 1963? A. Yes.
Q. Were you on the Board prior to that? A. Yes.
Q. How long had you been on the Board before you be­

came Chairman? A. Ten years.
Q. Now Mr. McSwain, during the period you have been 

on the Board up until the 1964-65 school year, was it the 
policy of the Board to assign or employ teachers on the 
basis of the race of the teacher and the race of the students 
attending a particular school? A. It was based on state 
law.

—3—
Q. In effect, you had negro teachers in negro schools and 

white teachers in white schools? A. That’s correct.
Q. Up until 1964-65 with the exception of North Stanly, 

where two negro students transferred, was it not true that 
all negro students attended all negro schools and all white 
students attended all white schools? A. That’s right.

Q. At the end of the 1964-65 school year or during the

— 2—
Deposition of Reece B. McSwain



352a

1964-65 school year, is it true that the Board adopted a plan 
providing for freedom of choice for students to indicate 
the schools they would like to attend? A. That came in— 
we followed the law and I believe that came in with the 
Pearsall Plan in 1954.

Q. The plan I am referring to is the one you submitted 
to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. A. 
That was this past summer; that was 1965.

Q. During the summer of 1965? A. Yes.
Q. Now you made some reference to the Pearsall Plan. 

Are you stating that the Board followed the Pearsall Plan 
with respect to assignment of students? A. We followed 
the state law which was the Pearsall Plan.

—4—
Q. This provided, did it not, for the initial assignment 

of students back to the school they attended the previous 
year and if they desired to go to another school they could 
request transfer pursuant to the provisions of the Pearsall 
Plan? A. That’s right.

Q. Now, going to your plan of 1965, is it true that this is 
the only alteration you made in the method for assigning 
students to the schools with the exception of the Pearsall 
Plan? A. Ask that again.

Q. Is it true the plan you adopted in 1965 is the only 
change you have made with respect to assignment of stu­
dents in a school, with the exception of the North Carolina 
Pearsall Plan? A. That’s right.

Q. Now, what alteration if any, did you make for assign­
ing teachers to the schools? A. That comes under the law 
too, in that your teachers are alloted according to schools 
from the State Department as stated in the law.

Q. You made no change, did you, in the method for as­
signing teachers? A. No.

Deposition of Reece B. McSwain



353a

Deposition of Reece B. McSwain

—5—
Q. And this year you have adopted a provision providing 

for non-racial employment and assigning of teachers be­
ginning at least in 1966-67? A. Yes, that’s stated in the 
plan of compliance.

Q. To your knowledge, you have not yet implemented this 
plan, is that correct? A. No, it has not been implemented. 
Our compliance was not approved until after the teacher 
allotment and all came out. That is something that will have 
to be taken into consideration. I believe our compliance 
was approved in July or the first of August. It was not 
approved in Washington. I guess you would say the ma­
chinery for 1965-66 was already set.

Q. Before your approval by the Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare? A. That’s right.

Q. Did the Board to your knowledge, adopt any specific 
procedure to be followed to govern assignment of teachers 
because of shifting enrollment in students pursuant to the 
freedom of choice plan you adopted in 1965? A. I don’t 
believe I understand what you are saying.

Q. Did you have any negro students or white students 
to request choice of schools pursuant to your freedom of 
choice plan? A. Yes. All of these assignments and all were 
made before—the majority of them were made before April 
15th.

— 6—

Q. Did the Board adopt any specific provisions to govern 
assignment of teachers because of the shifting enrollment of 
the students in the particular school who transferred pur­
suant to your freedom of choice plan? A. No.

Q. Did the Board approve of the allotment to the various 
schools adopted by the superintendent? A. Yes.

Q. Did the Board approve of the teachers recommended



354a

by the principals and superintendent to the various schools ? 
A. Yes, we approved the list intact that was sent to us.

Q. Did the Board know of the negro teachers or others 
who might have lost their jobs because of reduction in the 
allotment of teachers to the particular schools? A. We 
only knew the names presented to us for approval.

Q. Did the Board make any specific inquiry as to the 
reaction if any, of teachers not recommended by principals ? 
A. No, that was up to the principals.

Q. Is it your understanding Mr. McSwain, that the Board 
of Education has the final authority about the employment 
of teachers? A. Yes.

Q. You can reject or accept a teacher that might be rec­
ommended by an administrative office of the School Board? 
A. No, we can approve.

—7—
Q- Or disapprove? A. Wait a minute. We can—let’s 

go back here—its got to start with the principal.
Q. My question is—is it within the authority of the school 

Board to either approve or disapprove of the person who 
might be recommended by the principal? A. Yes, we can 
approve or disapprove.

Q. And is it your policy that the superintendent might 
also approve or disapprove of the person who might be 
recommended by the principal? A. That’s right.

Q. So the final authority would vest in the School Board 
to either approve or disapprove, is that correct? A. Of 
the list of the teachers that is presented to them but if a 
teacher is not approved by the principal and the superin­
tendent, that name never comes before the Board of Educa­
tion.

Q. It would never come before the Board of Education? 
A. That’s right.

Deposition of Reece B. McSwain



355a

Q. This would be true with respect to employment of the 
teacher in the school system? A. Yes.

Q. Isn’t it true that under the present law of North Caro­
lina a teacher executes a contract to teach in any school in 
the school system? A. I don’t know.

—8—
No further questions.

Cross Examination (Mr. Doby):
Q. With regard to approving or disapproving the list of 

teachers recommended by the superintendent who, in turn, 
receives the recommendation from the principal, has the 
Board ever, in fact, disapproved any teacher that a princi­
pal has recommended? A. Not in the last twelve years.

Q. How long have you been on the Board? A. Twelve 
years.

Q. Is it my understanding that the Board, during the 
twelve years that you have been a member, have always ac­
cepted the recommendation of the principal in the hiring of 
teachers? A. That’s right.

That is all.

Re-direct Examination (Mr. Chambers):
Q. Has the Board to your knowledge, at any time during 

the twelve years you have been a member, adopted a resolu­
tion or any directive advising the principals of the school

— 9 —

system that they can employ or assign teachers to the vari­
ous schools without regard to their race? A. No. They 
have all been furnished copies of the law.

Q. But there was no resolution passed by the Board to 
your knowledge? A. No.

That is all.

Deposition of Reece B. McSwain



356a

Deposition of Reece B. McSwain

Recross Examination (Mr. Doby):
Q. On the contrary, has the Board ever adopted a reso­

lution or taken any official recommendation requiring a 
principal to hire one of his own race? A. No.

That is all.



357a

A udrey Gillis W all, having been first duly sworn, tes­
tified as follows:

Direct Examination (Mr. Doby):
Q. You are Mrs. Audrey Gillis Wall? A. That’s cor­

rect.
Q. And you are the plaintiff in this matter, one of the 

plaintiffs? A. Yes I am.
Q. Mrs. Wall, where do you live? A. 3115 Clearview 

Drive, Charlotte.
Q. How long have you been living there? A. Since 

November.
Q. November of 1965? A. That’s correct.
Q. I believe you are a school teacher? A. Yes I am.
Q. What schools or colleges did you attend to prepare 

yourself? A. I did undergraduate work at Barber Scotia 
College in Concord and graduate work at A. & T. College 
in Greensboro and I had an in-service course at Appala­
chian.

Q. When did you graduate from Barber Scotia? A. ’51.
Q. What field did you—what was your major? A. Ele­

mentary education.
Q. What degree if any, did you get? A. A. B.
Q. What years did you attend A. & T.? A. I graduated 

in 1958 from A. & T.
Q. What degree, if any did you get? A. M. S.
Q. In what? A. Elementary education.
Q. How many years have you been teaching? A. I com­

pleted thirteen years.
Q. Where have you taught? A. Most of my experience 

has been in Stanly County.

— 2—
Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



358a

Q. Have you taught any place but Stanly County! A. 
This is my first year outside Stanly County.

Q. Where are you presently teaching! A. Oaklawn Ele­
mentary School, Charlotte.

Q. What grade are you teaching! A. Third grade.
Q. What size school is Oaklawn School! A. We have 

grades one through six.
Q. How many pupils do you have in the whole school! 

A. I am not sure; near 700 I would say.
Q. Do you know how many teachers you have! A. Ap-

— 4 —

proximately 25, excluding our special teachers.
Q. Who is your principal! A. Mrs. Sasso.
Q. Do you have any supervisors in the school there or 

in the system! A. Yes, we have supervisors in all areas!
Q. Who are your supervisors! A. I haven’t met my im­

mediate supervisors yet other than my principal.
Q. You do not know who they are! A. No, I do not.
Q. When did you first apply for employment in the 

Charlotte school! A. I applied last year but I did not 
follow through.

Q. By ‘last year’ you mean at the end of the 1963-64 
year! A. 1964-65. This is 1965-66.

Q. You applied at the end of the 1964-65 year! A. Yes. 
Q. For employment in the 1985-66 year! A. No. I guess 

it was 1963-64 for the 1964-65 school year.
Q. In other words, you made application a year prior to 

the time you were actually accepted! A. Yes. I did not 
follow through on that.

Q. When did you make application again to them! A. 
During this past summer of 1965.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall

Q. The summer of ’65! A. Yes.
—5—



359a

Q. Do you recall the approximate date? A. I think it 
was during July. I think during the month of July.

Q. July of 1965? A. Yes. I believe; Pm not quite sure.
Q. How many students did you say you have? A. I 

have 28.
Q. Is this a system whereby you stay with these students 

the entire day? You do not have different classes? A. No, 
I am with the students during the entire day.

Q. What is your annual salary now? A. Well actually, 
I haven’t noticed that too much. I think its around $6,000.00; 
I’m not sure.

Q. In addition do you receive . . .  A. I think its more; 
I’m not sure.

Q. Do you know how much you receive from the State of 
North Carolina under your certificate? A. I don’t even 
know that. I haven’t noticed. I haven’t been too con­
cerned with salary.

Q. I don’t believe I asked you—what type of certificate 
do you hold now? A. I have an M. S. degree and it’s up 
to date.

— 6—

Q. As I understand it, the State School Board issues cer­
tificates on the basis of your educational qualifications. 
What type teacher certificate do you have? A. It says— 
“State Department of Public Instruction, Raleigh, N. C.” 
It just gives my number and it says—“This is a permanent 
number. It will appear on all certificates issued to you cor­
responding with the division of professional services, State 
Department of Public Instruction”. It just has a certificate 
number.

Q. You stated that most of your teaching prior to your 
employment in Charlotte, was in Stanly County? A. That’s 
correct.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



360a

Q. When did you first start teaching in Stanly County? 
A. In 1952.

Q. What school was that? A. It was a small school at 
New London.

Q. What grades did you teach? A. I had grades one 
through four for a while and then grades one through 
three after that.

Q. How long did you stay at New London? A. Three 
years.

Q. When did you leave there—what year? A. At the 
end of 1955. The school was consolidated with Kingville.

— 7—«
Q. Where were you employed after the consolidation of 

the New London school? A. At Kingville.
Q. Mrs. Wall, the New London school is in the Stanly 

County system as I understand it? A. That’s correct.
Q. And the Kingville school is in the city system? A. 

Yes.
Q. What grades did you teach at Kingville? A. First 

grade.
Q. And your first year there was 1955? A. 1955-56 I 

think, yes.
Q. How long did you stay at Kingville? A. Two years.
Q. At the end of what school year was it that you de­

parted? A. At the end of ’57.
Q. Who was your principal at Kingville? A. Mr. E. E. 

Waddell.
Q. After you left Kingville, where did you go to teach 

if any place? A. South Oakboro Elementary School.
Q. What year was this? A. I think my first year there 

was 1957-58.
Q. What grades did you teach there? A. Grades one

•— 8—

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall

and two.



361a

Q. How long did you teach there? A. I taught there 
two years.

Q. You left at the end of what school year, do you re­
call? A. 1959-60 I believe was my first year with my new 
job.

Q. Who was your principal at South Oakboro? A. Mr. 
B. K. Williams.

Q. Is this the same Mr. B. K. Williams who is now prin­
cipal at the Kingville School in the city of Albemarle? A. 
That’s correct.

Q. The South Oakboro School is in what system? A. 
The Stanly County system.

Q. You left as I understand it, at the end of the 1960 
school year from 1959? A. I’m not sure. If you check 
your date that I gave you.

Q. Do you recall the end of the school year that you left? 
A. I think the end of ’59.

Q. Where did you go? A. West Badin.
Q. In what system is West Badin? A. The Stanly 

County system.
Q. What grades did you teach there? A. My first year 

there I taught a combination of third and fourth grades.
— 9 —

Q. Who was your principal? A. Mr. G. L. Hines, and 
of course, I taught first grade the next year.

Q. You stayed there how many years? A. Two years.
Q. After you left West Badin where did you go? A. 

Lakeview Elementary School.
Q. What system is that in? A. Stanly County.
Q. What grades did you teach there? A. I taught first 

grade a while and then third grade and my last year I 
taught fourth grade.

Q. How many years did you stay there? A. Four.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



362a

Q. Who were your principals? A. Mr. B. K. Williams 
and Mr. R. E. McLendon.

Q. Is this the same Mr. B. K. Williams that was prin­
cipal at the South Oakboro school? A. That’s correct.

Q. What system is the Lakeview school in? A. The 
Stanly County system.

Q. When did you leave the Lakeview School? A. At the 
end of the 1964-65 school year.

Q. Mrs. Wall, with regard to the employment at the
— 10—

New London school, do you recall who was the principal 
there? A. Mr. J. R. Davis. There were just two of us.

Q. Why did you leave that school? A. It was consoli­
dated with Kingville.

Q. Why did you leave your employment at the Kingville 
school? A. A friendly agreement between the principal 
and myself to exchange positions with another teacher at 
South Oakboro. In other words, she came to Kingville and 
I want to South Oakboro.

Q. And you just agreed with your principal to swap with 
her? A. Yes, a mutual agreement.

Q. Who was this teacher? A. Mrs. Ruby Williams.
Q. Why did you leave the South Oakboro school? A. 

At that time Mr. Williams had been offered a better posi­
tion at Lakeview and during the same period a teacher 
passed at West Badin and the principal asked me to accept 
her job which I did.

Q. Mr. Williams did? A. No, Mr. Hines.
Q. Go ahead. A. Mr. Williams left Oakboro—he and I 

were together there—to go to Lakeview, and Mr. Hines 
lost a teacher through death that summer and he asked me 
to accept her position.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



363a

— 11—

Q. At what school? A. West Badin, and I agreed.
Q. You stayed there at West Badin for two years? A. 

Yes.
Q. Why did you leave your employment at West Badin? 

A. Mr. Hines told me there was a decrease in enrollment 
and he was losing a teacher.

Q. When did you first learn you were not going to be 
re-employed at Lakeview? A. I believe that was during 
the month of July, I am not sure.

Q. July of what year? A. 1965. July or August; Pm 
not sure when those contracts were mailed.

Q. And at that time, July . . .  A. I am not sure. It may 
have been August.

Q. July or August? A. Yes.
Q. 1965? A. Yes.
Q. You learned that you were not to be re-hired at the 

Lakeview school? A. Yes.
Q. Did you make any inquiry as to why you were not 

being re-hired at that time? A. Yes I did.
— 12—

Q. To whom did you make inquiry? A. Mr. Adams the 
superintendent.

Q. Mr. Adams, the superintendent of the Stanly County 
School system? A. That’s correct.

Q. Do you recall about when that inquiry was made? 
A. The same day that I got the letter, whatever date that 
was.

Q. What did you ask of Mr. Adams? A. I asked him 
why.

Q. What did Mr. Adams tell you? A. He said they were 
losing a number of teachers, you know, due to decrease in 
pupil enrollment.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



364a

Q. Is that all he said? A. I don’t remember. We had 
quite a long conversation and I asked why I was chosen 
and he did not know that I was the one chosen to be dis­
missed and he expressed a desire to help me to seek em­
ployment in the system.

Q. Mr. Adams at that time expressed his desire to help 
you find employment in the school system, the Stanly 
County school system? A. That’s correct.

Q. Did he in fact, make any suggestions as to what you 
should do to seek employment in this system? A. Yes he 
did.

—13—
Q. What were those suggestions? A. He told me about 

the school up at Meisenheimer. They would need a teacher, 
and he gave me the name of the principal and asked me to 
call him.

Q. What was the name of the principal? A. I believe 
Mr. Turner; I am not sure.

Q. The school he was referring to—was this an all white 
or all colored school? A. All white.

Q. Did you contact the principal? A. Yes, I called him 
the same day.

Q. What did the principal tell you? A. He told me that 
he was considering a man because he needed someone to 
coach for him and if he found that he could use me he would 
be happy to recommend me for the job.

Q. Did you make any application any place else in the 
county? A. Yes, I made application to all schools in the 
county system.

Q. How were those applications made? A. In writing.
Q. Did you hear from any of the applications? A. I 

think I heard from one; that was at Millingport.
Q. What did that answer tell you? A. It said they did

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



365a

not have any vacancies at that time. However, if they did,
—14—

they would he happy to consider me.
Q. Millinport school is an all white or all colored school? 

A. All white.
Q. After you made application in writing to the various 

schools in the county, did you follow up on any of the ap­
plications by request for a personal interview? A. That 
was stated in the letter, that I would be happy to.

Q. Did you after mailing the letter, take any further 
steps to try to secure an interview? A. No, I did not.

Q. In the past when you made applications for employ­
ment at these other schools in Stanly County, to whom did 
you make application? A. I sent the letters to the princi­
pals and I sent a duplicate to the superintendent.

Q. To whom was this application made when you ap­
plied for employment at New London, do you recall? A. 
Yes, to the superintendent.

Q. Of the County schools? A. Yes.
Q. Who was he? A. Mr. Sifford.

—15—
Q. To whom was the application made when you sought 

employment at Kingville? A. Actually I did not apply 
there because the teachers moved with the school.

Q. Did you make application prior to your employment at 
South Oakboro? A. No.

Q. Did you make application prior to your employment 
at West Badin? A. No, I was asked to go there.

Q. Did you make application prior to your employment 
atLakeview? A. I believe I wrote a letter to Mr. Williams. 
I’m not sure whether there was personal contact or by 
letter.

Q. In each of these cases the principal, of course, recom­

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



366a

mended you for employment? A. Well, the first case, New 
London school did not have a principal at the time so I was 
hired by—well, Mr. Culp was Chairman of the Board in 
New London at the time. He called me so I was hired by 
the Board.

Q. Mrs. Wall, in asking you about the schools you at­
tended, you stated you attended Barber Scotia and gradu­
ated in 1951? A. That’s correct.

—16—
Q. How many years did you attend Barber Scotia prior to 

graduating? A. I went to Junior College earlier. I gradu­
ated in 1939. In the meantime I was married and had my 
family.

Q. What Junior school was that? A. Barber Scotia.
Q. How many years prior to graduating in 1939 did you 

go there? A. Two years.
Q. And then you returned to school in what year? A. 

1950.
Q. And went for how many years? A. I went January, 

1950 and then I went to summer school during that same 
year which meant I was able to complete that two years in 
a year and a half.

Q. Were you a day student? A. No, I lived in the 
dormitory.

Q. Were you a day student when you attended Junior 
college? A. One year and one year I was on the campus. 
My home is in Concord.

Q. When you went to A. & T. College, how long did you 
go there? A. I did my first renewal in 1955 and I attended 
the following year.

—17—
Q. By ‘renewal’, you mean renewing your teacher’s cer­

tificate? A. For five years, yes, and then after that I de­
cided to go on and complete my degree.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



367a

Q. Renewal work then was not credited for work toward 
yonr degree! A. Yes, because I immediately renewed my 
studies.

Q. How long did you study for your degree! A. Until 
1958.

Q. How many years was that! A. I would say approxi­
mately two and a half to three years.

Q. Were you constantly enrolled in school for two and a 
half years at A. & T.! A. Excluding the summer during 
the school year.

Q. Were you a day student! A. Yes.
Q. And where did you stay! A. Night student actually, 

because I taught during the day.
Q. You taught during the day! A. And I commuted.
Q. Where were you teaching then! A. In South Oak- 

boro a while and Kingville a while.
Q. And you drove to Greensboro from Albemarle each 

night! A. About two nights a week along with other 
teachers in the system.

—18—
Q. Then as I understand it, you attended night school at 

A. & T. for a period of two and a half years! A. Yes.
Q. And you attended classes approximately two nights a 

week! A. Yes.
Q. How many hours! A. Three hours per night.
Q. Back to your salary in the Charlotte system—how 

much do you make per month! A. I believe it’s $605.00.
Q. Do you have any supplement on that! A. On that, no.
Q. This is your take-home pay! A. No, not take-home 

pay; it’s before taxes.
Q. And before social security! A. Yes.
Q. $605.00 per month! A. Yes, I think.
Q. This is all! A. Yes.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



368a

Q. Now the Charlotte School system pays a supplement, 
does it not? A. Yes, that is paid during the summer.

Q. And you will receive that, of course? A. Yes.
—19—

Q. How much would you receive during the summer? 
A. I don’t know how much that is.

Q. What was your salary the last year when you were 
teaching in the Stanly County system? A. Whatever the 
salary is for experience of twelve years, State.

Q. Do you not know? A. No, I don’t; I don’t remember.
Q. Do you have any idea what your monthly check was? 

A. I think it was $500.00 something. Each year of course 
you get a little more, according to the number of years you 
have taught and according to the type of certificate you 
have.

Q. Do you have a different certificate now that you are 
teaching in the Charlotte system than you had? A. No, I 
would make the same thing here.

Q. Do I understand you are making approximately 
$100.00 a month more? A. No, I wouldn’t say that.

Q. How much more would you say? A. I don’t know. 
If I had known you were going to ask I would have brought 
the vouchers with me because I don’t remember details 
about salary, but that is the same throughout North Caro­
lina until you reach the maximum and I haven’t reached 
that yet.

— 20—

Q. The salary you are getting now is more or less than 
the salary you were getting while employed in Stanly 
County? A. The salary is more because I have another 
year of experience more.

Q. Is that the only difference? A. Yes, because my sup­
plement is not included in this.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



369a

Q. You will receive a supplement? A. Yes.
Q. At the end of the year, your annual salary, will it be 

more now that you are teaching in the Mecklenburg-Char- 
lotte system, or less! A. Definitely more.

Q. Mrs. Wall, when you were teaching in the Kingville 
school, Mr. E. E. Waddell was your principal? A. That’s 
correct.

Q. How did you get along with Mr. Waddell? A. I 
got along as well as anyone else.

Q. By that do you mean you had no problems with him 
at all? A. Of course. We always have some problems 
wherever we work and I found no more, no less.

Q. Did he ever talk with you about the manner in which 
you were conducting yourself as a teacher? A. No, be­
cause he told me I was an excellent teacher.

Q. Do you know any reason why he should not recom­
mend you for employment? A. I do not.

— 21—

Q. Did you ever have any disagreement while you were 
in the school system under Mr. Waddell with him, with re­
gard to the methods of teaching? A. No.

Q. With regard to your participation in outside activities 
in the community related to the school work? A. No, not 
that I know of.

Q. Then I understand it, your relationship with Mr. Wad­
dell was good? A. Yes.

Q. And you never had any problems with him? A. I 
didn’t say that.

Q. You did have problems? A. I didn’t have any more 
than I would incur in any other situation—problems of a 
teacher, we will say.

Q. Just explain what the problems were. A. I don’t re­
member because they weren’t significant problems.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



370a

Q. You never had any significant problems with him? 
A. No.

Q. Or at the time you were in that school? A. No.
Q. Did you ever have any problems with Mr. Hines your 

principal, when you were at the West Badin school? A. 
None that I know of.

— 22—

Q. Did he never talk with you about the manner in which 
you were conducting yourself? A. He did not.

Q. Did he ever admonish you for leaving your class and 
going to talk to other teachers ? A. He did not.

Q. I believe your husband taught in that school? A. 
Yes he did.

Q. And I believe you contacted your husband quite fre­
quently during school hours? A. I did not.

Q. Did you ever? A. Occasionally. If he were going to 
have a meeting, I would need to get home—something of 
that type—or if I were going to have a meeting, I would 
notify him.

Q. You would leave your room and— A. No.
Q. You never left your room to talk to anybody? A. No.
Q. Did you ever have Mr. Hines say anything to you 

about your talking in the community about school affairs? 
A. No, because I did not live in the community over there. 
I did not visit in the community.

Q. Did you ever attend P.T.A. meetings? A. Yes.
—23—

Q. How regularly did you attend them? A. I attended 
all or most of the P.T.A. meetings.

Q. You had contact with people in the community did you 
not, the parents, etc.? A. At meetings but we didn’t con­
tact the parents unless we had problems.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



371a

Q. You did not have any association, as I understand it, 
with the people in that community! A. No.

Q. When you did have contact, did you ever criticize the 
Badin School to these people! A. No I didn’t.

Q. The manner in which it was operating? A. No.
Q. Did you offer any criticism whatsoever! A. No.
Q. Did you ever talk to other members of the faculty 

concerning either how the school was being operated or how 
Mr. Hines was conducting that school! A. No I didn’t. I 
talked to the faculty during faculty meetings.

Q. What would you say at those meetings! A. What­
ever the problems were.

Q. Do you recall whether there were any big problems? 
A. Not problems of administration.

—24—
Q. How did you get along with members of the faculty? 

A. As well as anyone else, I would say.
Q. Did you have very many friends among the faculty? 

A. I was friendly with all of them?
Q. Did Mr. Hines ever admonish you for not being co­

operative while you were teaching in his school? A. No, 
he did not.

Q. Did he ever admonish you for talking too much to 
people about school problems? A. No he didn’t.

Q. Do you know of any reason why Mr. Hines would not 
want to hire you as a teacher? A. No, I do not.

Q. After you left the system, did you ever make applica­
tion to be re-employed at that school? A. I don’t remem­
ber whether I wrote a letter or not. I made a personal con­
tact.

Q. When was this?. A. This was during the past sum­
mer of ’65.

Q. You saw Mr. Hines personally? A. I called him.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



372a

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall

Q. What did he tell you? A. He told me that he did not 
have any vacancies.

Q. How did you get along with Mr. Baxter Williams?
—25—

A. Fine.
Q. Did you ever have any problems with him? A. No, 

not that I recall.
Q. Did he ever have to admonish you for the manner in 

which you operated as a school teacher? A. No.
Q. Do you know Mr. Robert McLendon? A. Yes.
Q. How did you and Mr. McLendon get along when you 

were teaching for him in the Lake view School? A. Like 
all of his teachers did, we had problems.

Q. You had problems with Mr. McLendon? A. Yes.
Q. What were those problems? A. I would say they 

were little mole hills made into mountains.
Q. Can you just give us an example of what you are 

talking about. A. I am trying to think of some. We had 
one this past year I believe—the year before last—over— 
what was it? Something that we did not agree about. I 
don’t know what it was but anyway we had the problem and 
we tried to discuss it, since we did not reach an agreement 
we decided to seek the help of the superintendent. He 
changed his mind and I told him that I would still like a 
conference with the superintendent and, of course, I had 
the conference.

—26—
Q. Was this disagreement related to school problems? 

A. I don’t know if they were school problems or not. They 
were not instructional problems.

Q. Why would you—you wouldn’t want to talk to the 
school superintendent if they were not related to school 
problems, would you? A. If it happened within the school, 
yes. It could be personality problems.



373a

Q. But it was related to the school? A. While I was at 
school.

Q. Did you and Mr. McLendon have frequent disagree­
ments? A. We did that year.

Q. How often did you all have disagreements? A. May­
be once a month; maybe once every two months.

Q. You say you did that year. You are referring to— 
A. His first year there.

Q. What year would that be? A. 1963-64 I believe; I’m 
not sure.

Q. You say you had rather frequent quarrels with him. 
What was the nature of these quarrels? A. He would ac­
cuse me of things I knew nothing about.

Q. Could you give us an example of what he accused you 
of? A. He accused me of visiting people in the com­
munity; trying to undermine him, I think he said.

—27—
Q. Undermine him in what respect? A. In his position, 

he said.
Q. In his position as what? A. As principal.
Q. When did he first talk with you about this? A. Im­

mediately upon his arrival as principal.
Q. In the 1963-64 year? A. Yes, if that’s the year he 

came.
Q. And did he talk with you about this on more than one 

occasion? A. Yes.
Q. How often did he talk with you about it? A. I don’t 

know how often; a number of times, let’s say.
Q. What other matters did you all argue about? A. 

That’s about the essence of it I think.
Q. Did he ever reprimand you for not obeying school 

rules? A. No.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



374a

Q. Did yon ever disobey any school rules? A. No I 
didn’t.

Q. Did you have a rule that teachers had to eat with their 
children in the cafeteria? A. Not eat with the children. 
We had rules that we had to be in the cafeteria with our 
children.

Q. Did you follow this rule? A. Yes.
—28—

Q. Did Mr. McLendon ever accuse you of not following 
this rule? A. No.

Q. He has not said anything to you about this? A. No.
Q. While you were teaching in the Lakeview School, did 

you attend P.T.A. meetings? A. Yes I did.
Q. How often? A. Most of them.
Q. You attended most of the P.T.A. meetings? A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. McLendon ever say anything to you about 

your failing to attend or ever accuse you of failing to at­
tend? A. Once. I was ill that day and had a substitute 
and the P.T.A. meeting was at night and he felt that I 
should have attended anyway.

Q. Was that the only time? A. Yes.
Q. How long were you ill? A. I was out several days.
Q. Did he ever say anything to you about being out of 

school, being absent from school? A. What do you mean?
—29—

Q. Not present to teach? A. No.
Q. Did you ever get any excuses to be away from school? 

A. No.
Q. Did you ever secure leave to leave your job to go see 

a doctor or for any other reason? A. Well on Fridays if 
I had to see my neurologist he would let me leave a little 
earlier. School would be out but we had to stay until the 
busses came.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



375a

Q. Did you never leave school during teaching hours? 
A. Not unless he sent me.

Q. Where would he send you? A. He would send me a 
number of places.

Q. Where, for instance? A. Well, Standard Office 
Equipment—any place he needed something for the school. 
Even Durham for a meeting.

Q. What sort of attendance record did you have while 
you were teaching for him? Were you there every day? 
A. No, I wasn’t well every day.

Q. How many days were you out over this two year 
period? A. I wouldn’t know.

Q. You did not enjoy good health during this period? A. 
No.

Q. Did this require you to be out fairly frequently, away 
from school? A. No.

—30—
Q. How often were you away from school because of ill­

ness? A. I think I was out—I’m not sure now—but I think 
I was out this past year—I have two days sick leave left— 
I was out maybe about seven days; I may be exaggerating.

Q. This was seven days you say you were out. By that 
you mean— A. No, I am sorry, I wasn’t out seven days. 
I was out maybe three or four last year.

Q. This is days you did not go to school at all? A. 
That’s correct.

Q. How many days were you out that you went to school 
and then asked to be excused? A. I didn’t.

Q. None? A. No.
Q. You stated you were seeing a neurologist. A. Urolo­

gist.
Q. I’m sorry. Over what period of time were you seeing 

him ? A. I still see him.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



376a

Q. Is this a very serious affliction you have? A. No, it’s 
not serious.

Q. But it requires seeing a doctor on a regular basis? 
A. Yes.

—31—
Q. I don’t know whether I covered this or not, but did 

Mr. McLendon not have a rule that teachers had to be 
present in the cafeteria with the children when they ate? 
A. Yes.

Q. Did you follow this rule? A. Most of the time un­
less he had me doing something else.

Q. Did he ever accuse you of not following this rule? 
A. No, he did not.

Q. Did you ever refuse to go with your class? A. No, 
no.

Q. How did you get along with the other members of 
the faculty at Lakeview? A. As well as anyone else.

Q. Did you have no trouble with them? A. No more 
problems than you would encounter with anyone else.

Q. But you did have some problems? A. No problems. 
I had disagreements but I wouldn’t call them problems.

Q. What sort of disagreements? A. At faculty meet­
ings if we didn’t agree on points, we would argue our 
points out in faculty meetings.

Q. This was relating to the school problems? A. Maybe 
something extra curricular or something of that nature.

Q. Did you ever criticize the method of teaching? A.
—32—

I didn’t know anything about anyone’s method of teaching 
but my own.

Q. Did you ever criticize the manner in which Mr. Mc­
Lendon was operating that school? A. No, I did not.

Q. You had never criticized the method Mr. McLendon

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



377a

used? A. Other than that that he and I talked about to­
gether.

Q. What was this? A. We talked about ways of im­
proving the school; on a voluntary basis he asked me and 
I only contributed what he asked me.

Q. You never criticized Mr. McLendon to anyone other 
than himself? A. No.

Q. And only then on a voluntary basis? A. That’s cor­
rect and also when I had my conference with the superin­
tendent, he and I talked.

Q. Have you ever criticized any other school that you 
have taught in to other people? A. No.

Q. You never offered any criticism at all? A. No.
Q. While you were teaching at the Badin school, you 

never complained to Mr. Hines the principal, how the
- 3 3 -

school you had previously been teaching at, had been oper­
ating? A. No.

Q. And when you were teaching for Mr. McLendon in 
Lakeview you never criticized the Badin School? A. No.

Q. Did you resent Mr. McLendon’s authority over you 
when you were teaching for him? A. Definitely not.

Q. Did you co-operate with him in all respects? A. In 
every way.

Q. Did you ever request any special privileges of him? 
A. No.

Q. Did you ever question any instruction he had given 
you? A. No.

Q. Mrs. Wall, you stated you taught with Mr. McLendon 
in the Lakeview School for two years ? A. That’s right.

Q. And you set forth the problems you and Mr. Mc­
Lendon had. I believe you stated first that this was just the

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



378a

first year. During the second year did this type problem 
continue? A. No.

Q. And during the second year your relationship with 
Mr. McLendon was good? A. Yes, it was much better; it

—34—
was much improved.

Q. This was the 1964-65 year we are talking about? A. 
That’s correct.

Q. Would you state whether or not when you left the 
employment at Lakeview School, you were on good terms 
with Mr. McLendon? A. Yes I was.

Q. Do you know of any reason why he would not recom­
mend you for re-employment? A. No I do not.

Q. I believe you have already stated that you were em­
ployed at Kingville School? A. Yes.

Q. That is in the Albemarle system? A. Albemarle City 
school.

Q. Albemarle pays a supplement? A. Yes.
Q. Stanly County does not pay a supplement? A. No.
Q. Why were you selected to swap jobs with a teacher 

in the county when you were at Kingville? A. Personal 
reasons.

Q. What were those personal reasons? A. I don’t care 
to disclose those. They were of a very personal nature.

—35—
Q. Were they relating to school problems? A. No.
Q. This was reasons other than school problems? A. 

Yes.
Q. Reasons of your home life? A. No, just say per­

sonal.
Q. And you don’t care to discuss that? A. No.
Q. Do you know of any reason why Mr. Waddell would

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



379a

not recommend you for a job? A. No. I was asked to 
come back to Kingville later. I did not choose to go back.

Q. I don’t want to press so far as this personal reason, 
but do the reasons you describe as personal, have anything 
at all to do with that as a teacher? A. No.

Q. With your standing in the community as a teacher? 
A. No.

Q. With your relationship as a teacher to people in the 
community? A. No.

Q. Has anyone ever failed to recommend you for re­
employment? A. No. Other than decrease in enrollment 
at West Badin.

Q. That’s the only time you have not been recommended
— 36—

for re-employment? A. Yes, and of course, this past year.
Q. Now, you have alleged in your complaint I believe 

Mrs. Wall, that Stanly County has discriminated against 
you because of your color. What facts do you rely upon in 
making those allegations? A. Well, I relied upon the 
facts . . .

Mr. Chambers: Objection.

A. . . . Well, we lost our students and our students were 
still in Stanly County. They did not go to another system.

Q. And this is the reason you say you have been dis­
criminated against? A. Yes.

Q. Now in paragraph 6 you allege that you made a rea­
sonable effort to communicate your dissatisfaction with the 
school board’s racially discriminatory practice but without 
affecting any change. Now, what effort if any did you 
make?

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall

Mr. Chambers: Objection.



380a

Q. What efforts have yon made, if any, in communicating 
to the school board yonr dissatisfaction with its practice? 
A. I communicated with my superintendent and I still can­
not find a reason. I want to know the reason.

Q. Other than that have you made any other effort to 
communicate? A. With my principal.

—37—
Q. Who was this principal? A. Mr. McLendon.
Q. When was this? A. At a meeting we had. We had 

several meetings.
Q. When? A. After this happened.
Q. What did you tell Mr. McLendon? A. I wanted to 

know why.
Q. What did he tell you? A. He did not know why.
Q. Are there any other? A. No.
Q. When you talked about communicating to the prin­

cipal Mr. McLendon and to the superintendent of the 
school board, you were talking about not being re-hired 
yourself, were you not? A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever discussed with the school board or with 
any member affiliated with the school system, what you 
contend is the school board’s practices that discriminated 
against you?

Mr. Chambers: Objection.

A. I have not communicated with anyone else.
Q. As I understand it, you have not tried to communicate 

with the school board or anyone with regard to these prac-
—38—

tices that you contend are discriminatory? A. No.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall

That Is A ll.



381a

Cross-Examination (Mr. Chambers):

Q. Mrs. Wall, did you come by my office following your 
notification that you were dismissed? A. Yes I did.

Q. Did you seek my employment to assist you in at­
tempting to rectify what we allege to be a wrong by the 
school board? A. Yes.

Q. You are not familiar with any communications I had 
with the school board, are you? A. No.

Q. You don’t recall whether I wrote a leter to the super­
intendent of schools requesting that some steps be taken 
to eliminate racial discriminatory practices?

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall

Mr. Williams: Objection.
A. No.

Q. And you don’t recall any reply?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
A. No.

—39—
Q. Now Mrs. Wall, when you first came in the system 

did I understand you to say you wrote a letter directly to 
the superintendent? A. Yes I did and I also had an inter­
view with the superintendent.

Q. And you were placed by the school board? A. Yes.
Q. And you say you were placed in New London? A. 

That’s correct.
Q. Is that a Negro school? A. Yes.
Q. And you say that school had two teachers? A. Two 

teachers.
Q. What grades did that school teach? A. I think one 

through seven.
Q. How many students did it have? A. I believe it was 

less than 100.



382a

Q. You say that school had consolidated with Kingville? 
A. Yes.

Q. And did yon say the teachers moved over to King- 
ville with the students when the schools consolidated? A. 
Yes.

Q. Do you know of any other consolidation of schools 
in the county? A. Not Negro schools.

—40—
Q. Do you know of any consolidation of white schools? 

A. The three schools, senior high schools but I don’t know 
anything about what happened.

Q. The three senior high schools were consolidated? A. 
Yes.

Q. Into what school? A. There were several high schools 
in the county wide and there are only three high schools 
now.

Q. And they have been consolidated through some means? 
A. Yes.

Q. When did this take place ? A. I don’t know what year 
but it was during Mr. Sifford’s administration.

Q. Now Mrs. Wall, have you taught in all Negro schools 
throughout the time you taught in Stanly County? A. 
Yes.

Q. This includes the Albemarle, Kingville School? A. 
Yes.

Q. Were all Negro teachers there? A. Yes.
Q. And all Negro students? A. Yes.
Q. This is true at the Lakeview School too? A. Yes.

—41—
Q. Were you ever advised or was any communication 

ever sent out to the teachers of the school system while you 
were here advising that the school board would employ 
and assign teachers on a non-racial basis? A. Yes. I

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



383a

don’t recall—I don’t know whether I read it in the news­
papers or where.

Q. "Was that recently? A. Yes, it was during the com­
pliance.

Q. And do yon recall whether the superintendent met 
with the teachers to advise them the school board would 
employ and assign teachers on a non-racial basis? A. He 
didn’t meet with us.

Q. Did he send any directive to you advising this would 
be done? A. If so I didn’t receive it.

Q. Now, there’s been some talk about your attendance at 
Barber Scotia. Did you recevie a certification from the 
State Board of Education advising that you were certified 
to teach? A. Yes.

Q. And you stated you received your master’s degree 
from A. & T. College? A. Yes.

Q. And you stated you had done further studies at 
Appalachian? A. Yes.

—42—
Q. You were employed this year by the Charlotte-Meck- 

lenburg Board of Education? A. That’s correct.
Q. Was anything said to you about your qualifications 

there? A. Nothing at all.
Q. You stated that when you left West Badin you were 

told that the school was losing students and it would there­
fore lose a teacher? A. That’s correct.

Q. Were you advised at that time you could be employed 
in any of the schools in the Stanly County school system? 
A. He told me that he would be happy to recommend me.

Q. To a school? A. To any school.
Q. Did you communicate with the superintendent in any 

way at that time? A. No.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



384a

Q. Were you aware at that time whether you could be 
assigned to a white school? A. No.

Q. Were you aware you could not be assigned to a white 
school? A. I didn’t think it was possible so I didn’t even 
pursue that.

Q. Had you received any communication from the super­
intendent advising you that could be done? A. No.

—43—
Q. Now this difficulty that Mr. Doby referred to with 

Mr. McLendon, how did Mr. McLendon get along with 
the other teachers ? A. The same way he did with me.

Q. Were you the only teacher not re-hired? A. I was 
the only one actaully not re-hired because two resigned 
previously.

Q. Do you know why they resigned? A. One has em­
ployment in Charlotte and the other one was expecting 
at the time and she didn’t think she would be able to come 
back.

Q. Were you advised prior to the closing of the school 
year there wTould be some decrease in enrollment of students 
and decrease in the allotment of teachers to the school? 
A. No, we all signed contracts.

Q. When did you sign contracts? A. It was in the 
Spring.

Q. Was that for the 1965-66 school year? A. That’s 
correct.

Q. Was that prior to the close of school? A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. McLendon say anything to you at that time 

to indicate you would not be back in the system? A. No.
—44—

He had a conference with us and asked me if I would 
come back and at the time I told him I did not know; that 
I would let him know and later I did let him know that I 
would come back.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



385a

Q. And do yon know whether he submitted your name 
to the board recommending your re-employment for 1965- 
66? A. Yes he did.

Q. You stated that after you received a letter from the 
school board advising you would not be back in the system, 
that you had some communication with the superintendent 
regarding that? A. That was by phone.

Q. Would you state again what he told you? A. He did 
not know that I was the one selected not to come back 
and he said he would use every effort he had to help me 
to seek employment and he suggested the one school that 
he knew had a vacancy and asked me to pursue that and 
I did.

Q. And this was at the Meisenheimer School? A. Yes.
Q. Did he suggest any other school? A. No. He told 

me to try all and I did.
Q. Did he advise you then that the school system would 

employ and assign teachers on a non-racial basis? A. Yes.
Q. That’s what he said? A. Yes.

-4 5 —
Q. Do you know whether any Negro teachers were as­

signed to any of the white schools or formerly all white 
schools? A. No.

Q. Do you know whether any white teachers were as­
signed to all Negro schools or formerly all Negro schools? 
A. I don’t think so.

Q. Do you know why you had a decrease in the allotment 
of teachers at the Lakeview School? A. Yes. We lost a 
great deal of students to Norwood Elementary School, a 
previously all white school.

Q. When you say ‘lost’, what do you mean? A. They 
integrated.

Q. Do you mean they transferred? A. Yes.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



386a

Q. Pursuant to the Freedom of Choice Plan? A. Yes.
Q. And this reduced the number of teachers alloted to 

the Lakeview School? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know how many teachers you had during the

1964-65 school year at Lakeview? A. I think nine with 
the principal.

Q. Do you know how many students? A. Two hundred 
and something.

—46—
Q. Where is this Norwood Elementary School in rela­

tion to Lakeview? A. Its very near there.
Q. One block, two blocks, a mile? A. I would say maybe 

three blocks.
Q. And during 1964-65 were all white students who 

lived in that area assigned to the Norwood Elementary 
School? A. Yes.

Q. And all Negro students assigned to Lakeview? A. 
Yes.

Q. Where did the Negro high school students go to 
school? A. They came to Kingville in Albemarle.

Q. Is that a Negro school? A. Yes.
Q. Where did the white students go in that area? A. 

South Stanly.
Q. Is that a white school? A. Yes.
Q. That’s in Norwood too? A. Yes.
Q. Did South Stanly have any Negro teachers? A. No.
Q. Now this personal problem you are referring to at 

Kingville, you said that had nothing to do with your 
teaching duties? A. Nothing at all.

—47—
Q. And was in no way related to your performance as 

a teacher either in the school or in the community? A. 
No.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



387a

Q. Mrs. Wall, have yon at any time during the time 
you have been teaching in the Stanly County system, re­
ceived any communication whatever from the superin­
tendent or from any member of the school board criticizing 
your performance as a teacher? A. I have never received 
any communication from any of them at any time.

Q. Either with respect to your performance in the school 
or with respect to your performance outside the school? 
A. No.

No further questions.

Re-Direct Examination (Mr. Doby):
Q. Mrs. Wall, you said that the New London school you 

taught in for a while was consolidated with the Kingville 
School? A. Yes.

Q. Do you mean this was a consolidation or that the 
New London School was disbanded and the students came 
down to Albemarle? A. Yes, they came down in busses.

Q. And the Kingville School was in a different school
- 4 8 -

system than the New London School? A. Yes.
Q. In fact, it was not a consolidation but an abandon­

ment of the New London School? A. They called it con­
solidation but you can call it that.

Q. Mrs. Wall, have you ever been told by anyone that 
your application for employment would not be considered? 
A. No.

Q. That your application for employment in the Stanly 
County school system would not be considered? A. No.

Q. Were you satisfied to teach in the schools in Stanly 
County during the years in the schools you taught in? A. 
Yes.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



388a

Q. You did not want to teach in any school except the 
one you were teaching in at the time? A. During the 
year I had so much difficulty with Mr. McLendon, there 
was a vacancy in another school where I had taught pre­
viously; the principal asked me to come and I asked per­
mission from the superintendent to change and he advised 
me to stay on at Lakeview if I could.

Q. Your problems then with Mr. McLendon at Lakeview 
were of such import that you considered changing schools? 
A. Yes.

—49—
Q. But other than that, you were teaching at the school 

that you desired to teach at? A. Yes.
No further questions.

Re-cross Examination (Mr. Chambers):
Q. Mrs. Wall, did you state that you had filed applica­

tion for employment here at the school board? A. Yes, I 
sent a letter to Mr. Adams I believe and sent him a dupli­
cate of all the others.

Q. And when you originally came into the system, did 
you have an application here at the Superintendent’s of- 
fic? A. Mr. Sifford had one and their office at that time 
was not here.

Q. It was somewhere else? A. Yes.
Q. But it was in the system? A. Yes.
Q. This year did you have any application here in this 

superintendent’s office? A. All of us had to apply.
Q. And did you apply? A. Yes.

—50—
Q. Now Mr. Doby asked if where you taught was satis­

factory to you. Were you advised whether you could teach 
in a white school?

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



389a

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall 

Mr. Doby: Objection.
A. No.

Q. Would you have taught in a white school?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
A. Yes.

Q. Would you have taught in any white school this year? 
A. Yes, I enjoy teaching, period.

Q. And you would have taught in any school to which 
you would have been assigned by the school board? A. 
Yes.

That is all.

Re-Redirect Examination (Mr. Doby):
Q. Did anyone in the Stanly County school system ever 

advise you you couldn’t teach in a white school? A. No.
Q. You say you applied to the school board at the end of 

the 1964-65 year for employment? A. The same type that 
every teacher has to.

Q. What type of application is that? A. It’s a form 
letter which is sent.

—51—
Q. You send it to the board or do you send it to your 

principal? A. The principal I believe—I don’t know who 
the letter is made out to but he brings it to the board.

Q. You then give your application to your principal 
rather than to the school board? A. Yes, but I also mailed 
one to Mr. Adams.

Q. You mailed an application? A. I mailed a letter to 
Mr. Adams.

Q. When was that? A. During the Summer of 1965.
Q. That was a different application from what you had



390a

sent through the principal? A. Yes, that was after my 
dismissal.

Q. Did you mail him a letter! A. Yes.
Q. This was before or after you talked with him on the 

telephone? A. After.
Q. And he told you to apply to the various schools in the 

county? A. Yes.
Q. It was after this conversation that you mailed the ap­

plication to him? A. Yes.
—52—

Q. Do you have a copy of that letter? A. My attorney 
has.

Q. Could we see it?
(Mr. Chambers produces letter)
Q. Mrs. Wall, you have never had any signed contract to 

teach in the Stanly County system for the 1965-66 year, 
have you? A. No, I just signed it.

Q. You signed a paper that you say was a contract. The 
board never returned any contract to you, did they? A. 
The board did not.

Q. And you don’t contend you were under contract to 
teach for the 1965-66 year in the Stanly County system? 
A. I don’t know.

Q. What do you mean you don’t know? A. I don’t know. 
It’s hearsay. Would you like me to elaborate?

Q. Did you have a contract for the prior year? A. Yes. 
Q. Where is that contract? A. He has a copy.
Q. Mrs. Wall, I am asking you; I am not asking Mr. 

Adams.
Q. It’s some place. I only keep a contract for one year 

because that’s all it’s good for.
Q. Just one year? A. Yes.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



391a

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall

—53—
Q. And you did not receive one for the 1965-66 year, 

did you? A. All I did was to sign one as I said pre­
viously.

Q. In previous years you signed a contract and then 
the board executed it and sent it back to you? A. I have 
gotten a contract after I began teaching which was last 
year.

Q. And each of those years you did get a contract back? 
A. Yes.

Q. And you have not received a contract back for the
1965-66 year? A. No.

Q. You asked if I wanted you to elaborate. Now you 
just go ahead and say what you wanted to say? A. Well, 
I was recommended by the board, I know that.

Q. What board? A. This board.
Q. By the school board? A. Yes. .
Q. For what? A. To teach at Lakeview Elementary 

School.
Q. When did they recommend you? A. When the board 

met and recommended the other teachers.
Q. When was that? A. I don’t know when it was.

—54—
Q. How do you know you were recommended?

Mr. Chambers: Objection. I think for the rec­
ord we have in exhibit #8  submitted by the school 
board, the minutes of the Stanly County school 
board which shows the action of the school board 
on that date and the action taken by the school board 
with respect to the contracts for the school year
1965-66 and these are exhibits which speak for them­
selves.



392a

A. Our committee saw the minutes; that’s how I knew.
Q. What committee was that? A. The committee that 

met with Mr. Adams.
Q. Who was that committee ? A. This committee—I was 

on the committee but I did not come. This committee con­
sisted of Mr. Hines, Mr. Williams, Mr. McLendon and 
Mrs. Burris.

Q. What did this committee do? A. They came up to 
show Mr. Adams an article that they wished to publish.

Q. What did that article relate to? A. Protesting what 
happened.

Q. What action were they protesting? A. The action
—55—

—the things that happened to me.
Q. This committee was protesting the action the school 

board had taken with reference to you? A. Yes.
Q. And you alone? A. And others.
Q. Who were the others? A. They are on the record 

some place. I don’t care to elaborate on that.
Q. Who were the others? A. As I said, I don’t care to 

elaborate on that.
Q. Why don’t you care to elaborate? A. I will let my 

attorney tell you.

Mr. Chambers: If you know the names, you can 
tell.

A. Mr. Welborn is one and I don’t know the names of the 
others.

Q. You don’t know any of the others? A. I don’t know 
the names because I have not been in contact with them.

Q. Were you present when the committee met with the 
school board? A. I did not choose to come but we had a 
meeting immediately following.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



393a

Q. Where was this meeting! A. At the Kingville school.
— 56—

Q. Who was in attendance at that meeting!

Mr. Chambers: Objection. That’s not relevant to 
the subject.

Mr. Doby: It’s my understanding on depositions 
you can delve into any matter you care to.

Mr. Chambers: That’s true providing it has rele­
vancy to a matter before the court.

Mr. Doby: I would think anything relating to the 
action this committee took is relevant.

Mr. Chambers: This is becoming more cloak and 
dagger type thing where you might involve some 
innocent people and as long as it has no relevancy 
to the matter that will be before the court, I don’t 
think we should go into it. We’ve been liberal on 
the thing.

Mr. Williams: It’s competent for the record here 
but it might be objectionable to the record on the 
trial.

Mr. Chambers: There are some matters she might 
not want to disclose that might be used not for the 
record but for other things.

— 57—

Mr. Williams: You have a right to instruct her 
not to answer.

Mr. Chambers: We will be glad to put it in the 
record. We will put it in the record that the witness 
was instructed not to answer.

Mr. Williams: The reason this examination was 
pursued on the matter of contract was she used a 
legal term and that has to be cleared up so we can-

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall



394a

not be left saying here that when she used it, she 
was stating she was under contract. We have to go 
back to find out what it is. Actually that’s a legal 
term and it may be or may not be and that was the 
reason for this.

Mr. Chambers: We are not suing you for damages 
or breach of contract or anything of that nature.

Mr. Williams: But this record can be used in the 
far reaches. We can’t leave in this record anything 
that has a legal effect we need to explain.

—58—
Mr. Chambers: If you can show any relevance 

into the inquiry into the meeting she attended or the 
committee attended, we will be glad to withdraw the 
statement that—

Mr. Williams : I’m going back to the objection you 
made about the contract. Our question about the 
contract was due to the fact that we were talking 
about a legal thing rather than what her conception 
might be, whether she was or was not under contract. 
This other part, I am not addressing my remarks 
now to that.

Mr. Doby: Is it my understanding that you are 
instructing her not to answer?

Mr. Chambers: That’s right.
Mr. Doby: In the interest of time, you are in­

structing her not to answer questions with regard 
to any meetings this committee had, what its func­
tions were, who was in attendance at the meeting.

Mr. Chambers: The question as I understand it 
was, who was in attendance at the meeting and I

instructed her not to answer that.

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall

—59—



395a

Deposition of Audrey Gillis Wall 

(Discussion off the record)
Mr. Chambers: I’ll stipulate she signed a paper 

writing; that the paper writing was submitted to 
the school hoard on the 7th of June; it was acted on 
and approved and a list of applications submitted 
by principals of teachers in the Stanly County school 
system and that this paper writing was not returned 
to Mrs. Wall.

(Discussion off the record)
No further questions.

Re-Re-Cross-Examination (Mr. Chambers):
Q. Mrs. Wall, in the letters that you wrote to the other 

principals of schools following your notice that you would 
not be back in the system, did you send a copy of that to 
Mr. Adams? A. Yes.

That is all.



396a

Transcript of Proceedings, April 26, 1966

PROCEEDINGS
—3—

The Court: This case for hearing is that of Audrey Gillis 
Wall and others vs. the Stanly County Board of Education. 
Are the plaintiffs ready?

Mr. Chambers: The plaintiff is ready.
The Court: The defendant?
Mr. Doby: The defendants are ready, Your Honor.
The Court: All right. Of course, as you know, from our 

Rules, we do not read the pleadings. However, in most 
cases, if counsel desires to make an opening statement as 
to what is proposed to be proved, which I find often— 
even though I am the factfinder—helpful, I am not insist­
ing that you make an opening statement, but on the other 
hand would leave that to your good judgment. What says 
the plaintiff in that regard, Mr. Chambers?

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we have a brief opening 
statement that we would like to make and set out our 
contentions.

The Court: I ’ll be glad to hear you.
Mr. Chambers: And what we are requesting in the way 

of relief in this proceeding. This is a civil action filed by 
a Negro teacher and the North Carolina Teacher Associa­
tion, which is an organization composed of Negro teachers 
in the State of North Carolina, seeking to have enjoined

—4—
practices of racial discrimination which we have alleged 
were followed by the Stanly County Board of Education 
and are presently followed by the Stanly County Board of 
Education, specifically and not attempting to include all 
of the practices that we are challenging here, we are con­
tending that the Stanly County Board of Education has



397a

followed a practice and presently follows a practice of 
assigning, employing and dismissing teachers on the basis 
of race, that Negro teachers have been employed and as- 
igned to Negro schools, and white teachers have been em­
ployed and assigned to white schools, that at the close of 
the 1964-65 school year, the Stanly County Board of Edu­
cation pursuant to the requirements of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964 and the regulations under that Act, adopted a 
plan which provided for free choice of schools with students 
in the school system, that approximately 300 students re­
quested transfer from formerly all-Negro schools to for­
merly all-white schools, that with the transfer of these 
students, the Stanly County Board of Education reduced 
the allotment of teachers at the Negro schools while in­
creasing the allotment of teachers at the white schools, 
and discharged and refused to rehire four Negro teachers, 
we contend, because of their race, and pursuant to the 
policy of the Stanly County Board of Education in not 
employing or even considering employing Negro teachers

—5—
at white schools, we are contending further that the Stanly 
County Board has followed a practice of failing to give 
fair and objective consideration to teachers in the school 
system, including the plaintiff and members of the plaintiff 
corporation, and that this deprived the plaintiff and mem­
bers of her class of due process of law as guaranteed by 
the United States constitution. These practices, we con­
tend, warrant here a finding by the Court that the Stanly 
County Board of Education has and does discriminate 
against Negro teachers and warrants an order by the 
Court, one, for reinstatement of the plaintiff and members 
of her class who were discriminated against by the Board; 
two, an order enjoining the Board from discriminating

Proceedings



398a

against teachers, Negro teachers in the school system in 
the employment, assignment or discharge; and, three, order­
ing the Board to cease failing to give fair and objective 
consideration to all applicants for employment or re­
employment. These are our basic contentions, and the 
basic relief that we are seeking here in this proceeding.

The Court: All right, Mr. Chambers. Thank you. All 
right, Mr. Williams and Mr. Doby.

Mr. Doby: May it please the Court, it’s the position of 
the defendant School Board in this case that the plaintiff

— 6 —

was dismissed for cause, and that she lacked the qualifica­
tions necessary for a good teacher, lacked qualifications in 
the sense that she could not get along with her fellow teach­
ers, that she disobeyed the rules of her principal, and gen­
erally was a troublemaker that upset the whole program 
of the school, program in her school, the Lakewood School. 
Further, it is our position that throughout the years, it 
has been the practice of the Stanly County School Board 
to hire its teachers on the basis of recommendations, par­
ticularly from the principal of the school involved, and 
that was done in this case, and that the defendant, or 
rather, the plaintiff was not recommended for hiring dur­
ing the 1965-66 year. We further contend that there was 
no one else involved in this matter other than this indi­
vidual plaintiff, Mrs. Wall, and that the evidence will 
warrant a finding by this Court that the School Board, in 
the exercise of its discretion, in effect, failed to rehire 
Mrs. Wall for cause, and that the complaint ought to be 
dismissed.

The Court: As I see it, gentlemen, it’s simply whether 
race had anything to do with the hiring or lack of hiring 
of the plaintiff in this case, as I see it. Isn’t that an a 
simple sort of way—

Proceedings



399a

Proceedings

Mr. Doby: Yes, sir.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we would go one step fur­
ther, whether the practices of the Board accord due process 
or has accorded due process to the plaintiff and her class, 
that is the practices of the Board in considering and ap­
praising teachers for employment and assignment.

The Court: All right. The case is with the plaintiff, 
then. It is our practice here, Mr. Chambers, to swear one 
witness at a time, and I advise the defendants of that. If 
you have several witnesses, we prefer to swear them one 
at a time. All right, Mr. Chambers.

Mr. Chambers: If it please the Court, we have some 
exhibits that we would like to introduce initially, because 
we want to examine some witnesses with respect to them. 
We have answers to interrogatories that were filed by de­
fendants in response to interrogatories of the plaintiff, 
and we would like permission of the Court to substitute 
the originals for the copies that we have. These have been 
filed with the Court.

The Court: No objection to substituting a copy of the 
interrogatories, is there?

Mr. Doby: No, sir.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Chambers: We’d like these marked as Plaintiff’s 

Exhibit No. 1.

(The document above referred to was marked 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1 for identification.)

Mr. Chambers: We have depositions of Mr. Luther 
Adams, Mr. Robert McLendon, Mr. G. L. Hines, Mr. Reece 
B. McSwain, and of Mrs. Audrey Gillis Mall, which we 
would like marked as Plaintiff’s Collective Exhibit No. 2.

—7—



400a

(The documents above referred to were marked 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2 for identification.)

The Court: All right. Now, would you give me those 
slowly so that I can get them down here in my notes?

Mr. Chambers: Mr. Luther Adams.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Chambers: Mr. Robert McLendon.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Chambers: Mr. G. L. Hines.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Chambers: Mr. Reece B. McSwain, and Mrs. Audrey 

Gillis Wall.
The Court: Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2.
Mr. Chambers: We again with the Court’s permission, 

substitute the originals for the copy.
The Court: Any objection by the defendant?
Mr. Doby: No, sir.

— 9 —

The Court: All right.
Mr. Chambers: In connection with the depositions that 

were taken of Mr. Luther Adams, we have ten exhibits 
that were introduced, and we would like to introduce these 
here at Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3, or mark them as Plain­
tiff’s Collective Exhibit No. 3.

(The documents above referred to were marked 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3 for identification.)

Mr. Doby: In regard to Exhibit 2, I do not have a copy 
of that, as far as the record shows. I don’t know whether 
that was ever introduced. If you have copies, we will have 
no objection.

Proceedings



401a

Mr. Chambers: These were furnished us by the Board, 
and I think in the deposition of Mr. McLendon, I’ll check 
the page on it—Mr. Adams, rather, the defendant agreed 
to furnish the defendant with those exhibits.

Mr. Doby: Is there something in the record to that effect!
The Court: Mr. Doby, you mentioned Exhibit 2. You 

are talking—what you have before you here! Mr. Chambers 
is proposing Exhibit 3. Is that what you’re questioning 
about!

Mr. Doby: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right.

— 10—

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, if there is an objection to 
those at this time, I cannot find the exact stipulation of the 
parties in the deposition of Mr. Adams at this time, but I 
do have a copy of a statement of Mr. Williams’ letter to 
me enclosing those exhibits. We also would like to refer 
the Court to the Pretrial Order, Final Pretrial Order, 
entered in this case in which we listed the exhibits that 
we were confident that we would proffer at this time. It’s 
one of the exhibits in which the defendant stipulated that 
if otherwise admissible, it would be admitted in evidence.

The Court: What page do you have that, Mr. Chambers!
Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. On page number 3, where we 

list, in number “C” .
The Court: “C” ! Teacher allotment form and allotments 

for the 65-66 school year!
Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. That’s what we were referring 

to.
The Court: Gentlemen, counsel for the plaintiff says 

that is what his proposed Exhibit 3 is about, and then, 
let’s see, reading, “It is stipulated and agreed that the 
defendant’s counsel has been furnished a copy of each

Proceedings



402a

exhibit identified by the plaintiffs” , and eight, “It is stipu­
lated and agreed that each of the exhibits that are identified

— 11—

by the plaintiff is genuine and if relevant and material, may 
be received in evidence, without further identification.” 
That being the case, it would seem that maybe it is just 
a question of materiality, and if it is, as it is stated in 
that list, I think it would be material, Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. If Your Honor please, we don’t 
object to them being offered, but we still don’t want to 
loose our objection, our right to object to the materiality 
or the competency of the material that might be maintained 
there. We do not say that the exhibits proffered here are 
not exhibits that we furnished, but we do not wish to be 
bound here as having—

The Court: Admitted that they are material and rele­
vant?

Mr. Williams : Yes, sir.
The Court: Really, he hasn’t offered them.
Mr. Williams: For identification purposes.
The Court: At that time, of course, you may, of course, 

make your objection, and then I will rule. All right—at 
the time they are offered into evidence.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, with respect to those ex­
hibits, we would like permission of the Court to permit us 
to substitute the originals which were filed with the depo­
sitions.

— 12—

The Court: There will be no objections?
Mr. Williams: No, sir.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Chambers: We proffer at this time the answers to 

interrogatories filed by the plaintiffs to interrogatories

Proceedings



403a

propounded by the defendant, and we’d like to have these 
marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 4.

(The documents above referred to were marked 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 4 for identification.)

Mr. Chambers: We’d like to call at this time Mr. Luther 
Adams.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Whereupon, L uther A . A dams was duly sworn, and testi­
fied as follows:

Direct Examination (By Mr. Chambers):
Q. Would you state your name, please! A. Luther 

Adams.
Q. Mr. Adams, you are superintendent of the Stanly 

County Board of Education! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Superintendent of public schools of Stanly County! 

A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Adams, you have testified in depositions which 

have been taken which have been introduced as part of
—1 3 -

Plaintiff’s Collective Exhibit No. 2, about the procedures 
followed by the Stanly County Board in considering for 
employment and employing teachers and school personnel. 
Would you state to the Court at this time the procedures 
that the Stanly County Board of Education followed for 
the 1965-66 school year for employing teachers! A. This 
current year!

Q. Yes. A. The procedure which we followed in em­
ploying teachers for this current year is generally this. 
Principals recommend teachers to me and to the Board of 
Education that they have interviewed, and upon their rec­



404a

ommendation, we take this to the Board of Education for 
approval or disapproval.

Q. What standards did you have in considering teachers 
for employment in the school system! A. The same stand­
ards that would be considered for employment in any school 
in North Carolina.

Q. Could you state to the Court what those would he! 
A. Yes. Basically, certification requirements that are es­
tablished by the State Board of Education, generally train­
ing, qualifications, and so forth.

Q. Would there be anything else besides certification 
and training! A. That we considered when we employed 
a person!

—14—
Q. For a teaching position in the school system. A. 

Oh, yes. We follow a procedure of checking any refer­
ences that might have been given, of course personal inter­
views, a personal contact with the applicant, and that sort 
of thing.

Q. Would there he anything else specifically that you 
would consider? A. At this point, I think not.

Q. With reference to the personal interviews, who would 
make the personal interview! A. The principal generally 
would make the personal interview. However, this isn’t 
done entirely by the principals. An applicant can place an 
application with the principal or with the Board of Educa­
tion, and if the interview takes place, it would generally 
take place with the principal, because they must make the 
recommendation. We do some referral, of course, of appli­
cations to principals.

Q. Did you do any referrals for the 1965-66 school year? 
A. I can’t recall any offhand.

Q. Now, you say that when the applicant makes an appli­

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



405a

cation with the principal, that the principal does the inter­
viewing? A. Yes.

Q. And when the aplicant files an application with the
- 1 5 -

Board, who does the interviewing? A. The principal.
Q. How is this done? A. In the same manner in which 

it would be done had the applicant applied directly to the 
principal.

Q. How does the applicant’s name get to the principal? 
A. By filing an application with him.

Q. Now, I’m talking about the instance where the appli­
cant files an application with the Board. A. The applica­
tions are on file in my office, and they are at the disposal 
of the principals anytime they wish to look at them.

The Court: How does he know an application has 
been made to the Board, Mr. Adams? Is there any 
procedure that you follow?

The Witness: Generally this, Your Honor. We 
have many applications come through the mail which 
we routinely acknowledge and send out reference 
forms to the references given, and these then are 
in turn filed in my office in an application file and 
which the principals have access to when they come 
to the office looking for applications that might fit 
some of their specific needs.

The Court: I see.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. When those applications come in to the Board of

- 1 6 -
Education, they are placed in your files according to race? 
A. In 1965 and ’66?

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



406a

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

Q. Yes. A. No.

The Court: I didn’t get that question. What was 
your question?

Mr. Chambers: I asked if those applications that 
came to the Board of Education were placed in files 
according to race.

The Court: Oh, I see. And your answer was?
The Witness: No.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Did you follow the practice at any time? A. Yes.
Q. When did you discontinue that practice? A. A year 

ago.
Q. You are stating that you did not follow that practice, 

that is that the applications were not in separate files for 
the 1965-66 school year, for the current school year? A. 
That’s correct.

Q. Do you recall testifying at the depositions that they 
were in separate files? A. That was the 64-65 year. I 
recall that, sir.

—17—
Q. But you don’t recall testifying that they were for the 

1965-66 vear?V

Mr. Williams: We’ll object to that, Your Honor. 
The Court: Yes. I think that should be sustained. 

Sustained. You have the deposition there, Mr. 
Chambers, and may use that in cross examining.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. How are the applications filed now in your file, Mr. 

Adams, with respect—are they separated according to de­
grees, or certificates? A. No.



407a

Q. Are they filed alphabetically? A. No.
Q. How are they filed? A. They are filed in the order 

in which they are received.
Q. Mr. Adams, I will show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2, 

which is the deposition of Mr. Luther Adams, on page 19, 
and ask you if you did make that statement as appears on 
that page, beginning here in reference to the question that 
was asked at the beginning of the page? A. Yes, I made 
this statement. I answered your question in the light of 
’64-’65, and ’65-66, now, it’s true that we did maintain sep­
arate files in ’64 and ’65, and I admit to this, yes. That 
is not the case at this point.

The Court: You simply say that for the ’65-66 year
—18—

they were not kept divided according to race, and 
that before that they were? Is that your answer?

The Witness: That’s correct, Your Honor, yes, sir.
The Court: All right.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Now, with reference to another item you say you 
consider in considering a teacher for employment, what 
is done in the personal contact that the principal or school 
board official might have with the applicant? A. By this 
I mean that we expect the applicant to come for a personal 
interview on the site.

Q. That would be the same then as the interview, the 
personal contact? A. Yes.

Q. Now, the reference you made to the Board making 
referral, would you explain Avhat you mean by that? A. 
Simply this, that when the Board receives an application 
in my office, this application is filed for referral to the

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



408a

principals at their pleasure. This generally is just an 
added service that we do for the principal or principals 
who might be looking for a specific qualified person.

Q. Mr. Adams, I am again going back to the matter of 
separate files, and again showing you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
No. 2, on page 24, and ask you to read to the Court the

- 1 9 -
third question that appears on that page and the answer 
that you gave to the question that you still maintained 
separate files for the Negro and white applicants. A. Yes.

Q. Was that referring to the 1965-66 school year? A. 
If you recall, when this was made, it was in early Septem­
ber, I believe, when the statement was made.

The Court: What is the date, Mr. Chambers, of 
the deposition?

Mr. Chambers: The date of the deposition?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Chambers: September the 28th, 1965.
The Witness: Late September.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Adams, one further question in regard to that. 

The first question that appears on that page, would you 
read that and the answer?

The Court: On page 24?
Mr. Chambers: Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2, deposi­

tion of Mr. Adams.
A. “For this year, how did you go about employing 
teachers for the school system for this year? 
Answer: Essentially the same as we have been
doing in the past, upon recommendation of the 
principal.”

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



409a

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Would you read the rest of it?

A. “Were your applications again made to the prin-
— 20—

cipal and to your office? Yes.”

Q. And the next question?

A. “Do you still maintain separate files for the 
Negro and white applicants? Answer: Yes.”

Q. Mr. Adams, do you furnish the principal of the schools 
with any written standards or criteria for considering ap­
plicants for employment? A. Presently?

Q. Did you at the beginning of the 1965-66 school year? 
A. No.

Q. Did you at the close of the 1964-65 school year? A. 
No.

Q. Did you at any time during your tenure there prior 
to the present? A. No.

Q. Did you have any written procedures for evaluating 
teachers? A. Here again, you need to, Mr. Chambers, state 
the time that you are referring to, please, sir. This is con­
fusing me somewhat, because I don’t know. You are switch­
ing from one year to the next, and I want to be absolutely 
correct in what I say.

Q. Have you adopted any such procedures? Has the 
Board adopted any such procedures at any time prior to

— 21—

the present? A. For the—
Q. For the evaluation of teachers? A. Yes.
Q. When was this done ? A. Within the past two months.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



410a

Q. Within the past two months? A. Yes.
Q. Is that looking for the 1966-67 school year? A. Yes.
Q. And it did not affect the employment for the 1965-66 

school year? A. No.
Q. Did the Board have any written policies or practices 

for considering teachers for re-employment at any time 
prior to the present? A. The only written policy I can 
recall offhand was the principal would recommend the 
teacher for the positions that were available in his school.

Q. Do yon know of yonr own knowledge what the prin­
cipal would consider? A. Yes. I think to some degree 
they would all consider basically the same things, how 
well they felt the teacher would fit into their particular 
situation, whatever position they might be seeking to fill.

— 22—

Certainly if you were lopking for a first grade teacher, 
you would try to find someone qualified in that area by 
not only the intangible things that you look for, but the 
tangible as well. And I am sure the principals would con­
sider both aspects.

Q. What did you consider, Mr. Adams, when you acted 
on the recommendaiton of the principal? A. Generally, 
this. I, in delegating the authority of the Board of Edu­
cation to the principals for the recommending and employ­
ing of teachers, generally took their recommendation, what­
ever it was. We generally conferenced about the teacher 
involved or in question, and if we felt that the teacher was 
the best person we could find for the particular position 
available, we made every effort then to employ that person.

Q. When did you confer with the principal? A. Gener­
ally after the principal had interviewed the prospective 
teacher, although this at times could be done beforehand 
as well, depending upon how much information we had on

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



411a

the particular applicant beforehand, whether the refer­
ences were good or bad, or perhaps average.

Q. That’s with respect to the new applicant, the confer­
ence then that you referred to. Is that true? A. Yes.

Q. What about the person being considered for re-
—2 3 -

employment? A. This is done upon the recommendation 
of the principal. If he certifies to me that this teacher is 
doing what he expects them to do and carrying out the 
program of that particular school, and he is willing to 
recommend her, this is all we require.

Q. What was your role at that time? What did you con­
sider? Just the recommendation? A. The recommenda­
tion, yes.

The Court: I understand that you make a dis­
tinction between reemployment and employment of 
a new teacher, the distinction being that you do not 
personally interview one for reemployment while you 
do for a new teacher?

The Witness: No, sir, Your Honor. I think what 
I was trying to say was this. That any new appli­
cant coming into the system is employed generally— 
or rather is employed generally by the principals. 
This does not conclude the fact that I might do it 
in case the principal is off from school or for some 
reason had to be out of the county for an extended 
period of time. We could do it through our office. 
We do not interview teachers who are presently 
employed and are seeking reemployment for the 
coming year.

The Court: All right.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



412a

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Have you on any occasions interviewed a teacher, an

— 24—

applicant for a position? A. I’m trying to search all the 
way back, but I can’t recall offhand having at this point 
interviewed any prospective teacher for our system.

Q. Mr. Adams, would you state in your professional 
opinion the role you think the superintendent plays or 
should play in the selection of applicants for employment 
in the school system?

Mr. Williams: Objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Mr. Chambers, what Mr. Adams might 

think about it—is that proper evidence before the 
Court? I understand your question to be what he 
thinks the role of the superintendent should be gen­
erally to employment. I doubt the competency of 
that.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, my question is going 
to the point that we made about the point about the 
failure to accord due process to the teachers, that 
is to thoroughly and objectively consider all appli­
cants for positions, and we think his opinion on the 
role that educators commonly accept of a superin­
tendent would have some bearing, would have some 
competency on the issues that we are considering 
here.

The Court: You take it that since he is a pro­
fessionally qualified educator, in that capacity, you 
are asking?

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir.
—25—



413a

The Court: I sustain the objection. You may ask 
him again and let’s see if you can’t phrase it a little 
more along the lines of his appearance as a person 
professionally qualified to give what would appear 
to he something verging on an expert opinion in the 
field of education. All right. I thought you might 
want to rephrase it.

Mr. Chambers: We would just as soon go on to 
another question, Your Honor.

The Court: You might rephrase it. I’d be inclined 
to overrule any objection if it was put in a little 
different facet, but I’ll leave that up to you.

Mr. Chambers: I’ll try rephrasing it this way, 
then.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Adams, do you have an opinion as a professional 

in the area of education which is satisfactory to yourself 
as to the role that a superintendent plays in the employ­
ment of teachers in a school system?

Mr. Williams: Objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Overruled. You can answer that yes 

or no.

A. I have no opinion at this point, really.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Adams, does the Stanly County Board of Educa­

tion follow a practice of requiring written communications
— 26—

from principals as to the qualifications of teachers? A. By

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



414a

written qualifications, what do you mean? What are you 
referring to?

Q. You stated in your earlier testimony that the super­
intendent considered all applicants—I mean the principal 
considered all applicants for employment and made his rec­
ommendation to the superintendent, who in turn made his 
recommendation to the Board. My question is whether the 
superintendent makes a written evaluation of the teacher, 
or the applicant for a teacher’s position? A. A written 
evaluation, no, sir.

Q. Does the communication from the principal to the 
superintendent, is it oral at all times? A. Not exactly. 
The principal gathers all the information that’s available 
about the teacher in terms of proper certification, training, 
and so forth, and then transmits this teaching certificate 
and so forth to the office for safekeeping.

Q. Is that the only written information that you are 
furnished with? A. Yes, to the extent that we do seek out 
other information about the teacher for payroll purposes 
and bookkeeping purposes, and that sort of thing, which 
more or less is personal in nature.

—27—
Q. Is there written communication between the principal 

and superintendent regarding the performance of a teacher 
in the school system? A. At times, yes.

Q. And where is this information kept? A. Filed in the 
personnel files.

Q. Now, Mr. Adams, generally, how many new teachers 
does the Stanly County Board employ each year? A. Gen­
erally, new teachers?

Q. Yes. A. Mr. Chambers, I could just hazard a guess, 
because it would be—I would have no knowledge other than 
the past three years, but I would think that we would em­

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



415a

ploy anywhere from perhaps forty to sixty new teachers 
each year.

Q. This would he a normal average of your employment? 
A. For the last three years it would be, yes.

Q. Was there a reduction in the teacher allotment in the 
Stanly County School System for the 1965-66 school year 
from what it was during the 1964-65 school year? A. I be­
lieve I’ve covered all or most of that in the deposition as 
I recall, and these figures are rather hazy in my mind, but 
I think all of that is in the deposition. I do recall that we 
had a reduction in academic teachers, but an increase in 
vocational teachers.

Q. You testified during the deposition that you lost or
—28—

had a reduction of three in the number of teachers at the 
Lakeview Elementary School for the 1965-66 school year? 
A. That’s correct. We did not assign—

Q. Was there a corresponding increase in the number of 
teachers at the Norwood School for the 1965-66 school 
year? A. This again would have to be a guess. I think you 
have all those figures there that I have supplied to you.

Q. This is Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3 which carries the 
figures you were talking about? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would you repeat your answer? A. We have allotted 
six and a half teachers to Lakeview this year and Norwood 
—let’s see—and twenty-seven teachers to Norwood this 
year.

The Court: Was that, Mr. Adams, at Lakeview in 
the question where you said there were three teachers 
less. Is that right? Now you said you allotted six 
at Lakeview. Is that three less?

The Witness: Actually, Your Honor, we have a 
half a teacher at Lakeview that serves as the librar­

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



416a

ian part-time at that school and part-time at another 
school. Actually it’s two and a half teachers, but in 
effect, really, we are three teachers short, or shy, 
rather, from the previous year, because we were 
using the half teacher the previous year also.

—29—
The Court: All right.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. I will show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1, which is the 

answers to interrogatories filed by the defendant, and ask 
if the number of teachers employed at the Norwood School 
for the 1964-65 school year—

The Court: Are you saying Norwood?
Mr. Chambers: N-o-r-w-o-o-d.
The Court: All right.

By the Witness:

A. Twenty-five.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Now, you stated that the number allotted for the 1965- 

66 school year was twenty-seven? A. That’s correct.
Q. That would represent an increase of two, would it not? 

A. Yes.
Q. Now, you had a reduction of teachers at West Badin 

for the year 1965-66 school year of four. Is that correct? 
A. I think it was from fifteen—from nineteen to fifteen and 
a half.

Q. What school serves the white students in the Badin 
area? A. The elementary school?

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



417a

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

Q. Yes. A. The Badin Elementary School.
—30—

Q. Would you state the number of teachers allotted to 
the Badin School for the 1964-65 school year? A. The 
Badin School, eleven.

Q. And would you state the number allotted for the 
1965-66 school year? A. Twelve.

The Court: That was ’64-65, eleven?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: And ’65-66, twelve?
The Witness: Twelve.
The Court: All right, sir.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. What high school serves the white students in the 

Badin area? A. The North Stanly High School.
Q. Would you state the number of students allotted to 

the North Stanly School for the 1964-65 school year? A. 
You said the number of students?

Q. Number of teachers. A. The number of teachers al­
lotted to the North Stanly School?

Q. For the 1964-65 school year. I think that would be on 
the interrogatories. A. ’64-65?

Q. Yes. A. In North Stanly, it would be thirty-three.
—31—

Q. An the number allotted for the 1965-66 school year? 
A. Thirty-four.

Q. Thirty-four? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, what school serves the white schools in the south 

or Oakboro area? A. The Oakboro Elementary School.
Q. And what school serves the white students in the high



418a

school in the Oakboro area? A. The West Stanly High 
School?

Q. Would you state the number of students allotted to 
the Oakboro School for the 1965—, for the ’64-65 school 
year? A. Again I presume you mean teachers?

Q. Teachers, yes, sir. I’m sorry. The number of teachers 
allotted? A. To the West Stanly High School for 1964-65, 
thirty-four and a half.

Q. And the number allotted for the 1965-66 school year? 
A. Thirty-five.

Q. Would you state the number of teachers allotted to the 
North Stanly High School for the 1964-65 school year? A. 
North Stanly, thirty-three.

—32—
Q. Is that the high school that serves the Oakboro high 

school students? A. No. You said North Stanly.
Q. What school serves those students? A. The West 

Stanly.
Q. The West Stanly. Would you state the number of 

teachers allotted to the West Stanly School for the 1964-65 
school year ? A. Thirty-four and a half.

Q. And the number of teachers allotted for the 1965-66 
school year? A. Thirty-five.

Q. Is that the high school? A. Yes, sir. That’s what you 
asked me.

Q. Yes.

The Court: You said thirty-five for the ’65-66 
school year?

The Witness: Yes, sir. Thirty-four for the ’64-65 
and thirty-five for the ’65-66.

The Court: Gentlemen, let me make this inquiry 
right here. I need to get these notes on this down,

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



419a

but it makes some difference—has there been any 
thought as to whether either side, and I’m not in­
sisting that you do, you use your own judgment— 
will either side, or does either side now know that 
they will want a copy of the transcript ? It will make

—33—
a difference in my note-taking, but I don’t want that 
to have any influence on your decision. Have you 
made any decision about that yet, Mr. Chambers, 
you and Mr. Pearson?

Mr. Chambers: What?
The Court: Whether you want a transcript of this 

record or not. You don’t have to. It would make a 
difference in my notebook.

Mr. Chambers: I think we would, Your Honor, 
want a transcript.

The Court: Pm not positive, but I would think so. 
Pm not trying to drive you to a decision. Have you 
gentlemen made a decision on it yet?

Mr. Doby: We would want a copy, Your Honor.
The Court: All right. It can make this a little 

faster—when I have to get these figures down, why, 
it takes me a little longer with the delay.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Now, Mr. Adams, looking at the overall allotment on 

the exhibits that you have for the 1964-65 school year and 
the 1965-66 school year, did you have an increase in the 
number of teachers allotted for the 1965-66 school year? 
A. Are you talking about academic teachers or vocational 
teachers? You know these come separate.

Q. I ’m talking about the total number allotted. A. We
—34—

had a decrease in the academic teachers.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



420a

Q. And how much of a decrease1? A. I don’t know. I 
would have to check.

Q. Was there an increase in the overall number of teach­
ers for the 1965-66 school year? A. Yes.

Q. And do you know the number of increase from the 
1964-65 school year? A. Here again, all this I think is in 
the depositions, and this would resort purely to memory 
again.

Q. In the schools that we were referring to, that is, the 
Norwood School and the Badin Elementary School and the 
North Stanly and West Stanly and Oakboro, there was an 
increase in the number of teachers for the 1965-66 school 
year. Is that correct? A. Name those schools again, Mr. 
Chambers.

Q. The Norwood School, the Badin Elementary School, 
the North Stanly School, the Oakboro School, and the West 
Stanly School. A. I question the Oakboro School. I’d have 
to check that. I think the others are correct.

Q. Would you check the figure for the Oakboro School for 
the year 1964-65 school year? A. Seventeen.

Q. And the number for the 1965-66 school year?
—35—

The Court: I believe the testimony was before that 
the ’64-65 that the Oakboro School was thirty-four 
and a half allotted, and ’65-66—

The Witness: That was the West Stanly School, 
Your Honor. I believe you said the Oakboro School 
at this point.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Yes. A. We had seventeen in ’64-65 and seventeen 

in ’65-66.
Q. Now, the increase at West Stanly, are you saying that

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



421a

this was an increase in the number of academic teachers? 
A. No, sir.

Q. How many teachers were in the academic field in West 
Stanly for the 1965-66 school year? A. I don’t have those 
figures readily available, but I can say from memory that 
we had a reduction in academic teachers at West Stanly, 
but an increase in vocational teachers, which actually gave 
us an overall increase at this particular school for this year.

Q. Do you know the number of the loss of academic teach­
ers at West Stanly? A. I think—here again it’s memory— 
but I think it was one.

Q. One? A. Yes. We have lost one, as I recall, one 
teacher due to average daily attendance.

—36—
Q. What about North Stanly? A. As I recall, the North 

Stanly gained. We had no gain in academic teachers, but 
we did have in the vocational area.

The Witness: May I have a glass of water?
The Court: Yes. Would you get Mr. Adams a 

glass of water there, please? Do you want a break?
The Witness: No, sir. I could just use a little 

water. Thank you.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Adams, you have referred to a change in policy 

that the Board adopted approximately two months ago re­
garding employment and assignment of teachers. A. Yes.

Q. When was this policy or practice changed? A. The 
policy was adopted—well, actually, the policy itself has 
been in the developmental stage for perhaps a year or 
longer. It was actually adopted just at a recent meeting 
within the last month or two.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



422a

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

Q. Are yon referring—

Mr. Chambers: Yonr Honor, for purposes of 
identification, this is an exhibit that was sent to the 
plaintiffs by the defendant’s counsel. I am not sure, 
but I think the defendants entered it in evidence, but 
we would like to examine Mr. Adams with respect to 
it now, and if we could get it marked temporarily 
as a Plaintiff’s Exhibit, No. 5.

—37—
The Court: If they wanted to have it later marked 

as one of their exhibit, why, it can be likewise marked 
as a defendant’s exhibit, so you may mark it and 
refer to it by its identification number.

(The document above referred to was marked 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 5 for identification.)

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. I show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 5 and ask if that 

is the new policy change you were referring to? A. That’s 
correct.

The Court: Counsel might like to see that before 
we go further. If so, you might want to examine it. 
I presume it is a copy.

Mr. Doby: Yes, sir, it is.
The Court: All right.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Adams, would you explain generally how this 

policy change will be implemented for the 1965-66 school 
year? A. Now, that’s the year that we are just concluding.

Q. 1966-67 school year. A. Yes. Basically, the matter



423a

will be detailed in its entirety to our principals, to whom 
I will explain the full policies, the full policy as projected 
by the Board and adopted by the Board, and from this ex­
planation, from this meeting, then it will be implemented

—38—
from that point at the coming year.

Q. Would you explain to the Court how you will imple­
ment the provision in the plan providing for non-racial em­
ployment and assignment of personnel? A. Race is no 
longer a factor in our employment procedure, Mr. Cham­
bers. We ask for no race or no designation of race whatso­
ever.

Q. What will be the policy of the Board, or how specifi­
cally will the Board proceed to desegregate the teachers 
now in the school system?

Mr. Williams: I object, Your Honor. He’s asking 
him to give an opinion of another body.

The Court: Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Adams, do you know of your own knowledge how 

you will proceed in desegregating the teachers in the school 
system? A. Our procedure in employment, Mr. Chambers, 
has been outlined in the policy that you have a copy of there. 
This will be implemented in this manner. The principals 
will conduct the interviews and evaluate the applicants for 
the positions that are available that have been allotted to 
them, and they will follow the policy procedure as outlined 
there in the policy in their interviews, cataloging and so 
forth, and make their recommendations.

—39—
Q. Mr. Adams, is it true that you now have only Negro

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



424a

teachers at West Badin, Lakeview and South Oakboro 
School! A. Yes, to some extent.

Q. What do you mean by to some extent! A. We do 
have white teachers who do serve these schools in some 
other capacities, in special education areas, perhaps, or 
supervision.

The Court: The question was that they only have 
Negro or white at these schools, which!

Mr. Chambers: Whether it was true that the 
School Board only had Negro teachers at West 
Badin, Lakeview and South Oakboro.

The Witness: That’s true.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Is it also true, Mr. Adams, that the School Board has 

only white teachers at all the other schools! A. All the 
other schools in the county!

Q. Yes. A. No, sir.
Q. Where is the exception! A. I presume now you’re 

talking about academic teachers !
Q. Yes. A. At North Stanly.
Q. You have a Negro teacher at North Stanly! A.

- 4 0 -
Academic teacher, yes.

Q. And what field is this teacher teaching in! A. United 
States history.

Q. Is that the only Negro teacher you have in otherwise 
a predominantly white school! A. Yes.

Q. Or entirely white! A. Yes.
Q. When was this teacher hired, Mr. Adams! A ..I be­

lieve early January of this year.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



425a

Q. Not at the beginning of the 1965-66 school year? A. 
No, sir.

Q. Was this teacher employed in the school system prior 
to the 1965-66 school year? A. No.

Q. This teacher now is new to the system? A. Yes.
Q. Does this teacher’s position represent an increase in 

the number of teachers at West Stanly? A. North Stanly.
Q. North Stanly? A. No.
Q. You lost a position at North Stanly? A. Yes.
Q. You lost a teacher? A. Yes.

—41—
Q. Now, Mr. Adams, considering the fact that you have 

Negroes at, Negro teachers at the three Negro schools we 
named and white teachers at white schools with the excep­
tion of the one Negro teacher at West Stanly? A. North 
Stanly.

Q. North Stanly. How does your staff plan to proceed 
with desegregating the schools with respect to teachers? 
A. Well, here again, it’s outlined in the policy there or pro­
cedure for employing teachers, Mr. Chambers.

Q. Are you referring to the initial employment? A. Yes. 
I presume that’s what you’re referring to.

Q. I am referring to the teachers presently in the school 
system. Does your staff plan to take any steps to desegre­
gate the teachers in these schools now? A. Yes. This is 
stated in our plan for compliance, which I believe you have 
a copy of also.

Q. Would you pick out the provision in this plan that 
would cover desegregation of the teachers now in the school 
system? A. Well, now, I don’t follow your line of ques­
tioning, Mr. Chambers. Honestly, this procedure would ap­
ply to any person applying for a position regardless of 
their race. We do not specify by race in here anywhere.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



426a

Q. You are referring, Mr. Adams, to a person making
—42—

an application for employment? A. Yes. Well, now, all 
teachers, you understand, must make an application each 
year regardless of whether they are new to the system or 
not.

Q. Mr. Adams, does your staff plan to take any steps to 
move any of the Negro teachers from Lakeview, South Oak- 
boro, West Badin to some formerly all-white schools? A. 
It depends upon whether they apply and how they apply.

Q. And when are they to apply? A. They are in the 
process of doing this now.

Q. How do they apply, Mr. Adams? A. To the princi­
pal.

Q. To the principal? A. Yes.
Q. And what happens after they apply to the principal? 

A. Then he passes on their application and makes his rec­
ommendation.

Q. And who makes the assignment? A. The Board of 
Education.

Q. The Board of Education will assign the teacher? A. 
Yes.

Q. The teacher will make the application to the principal? 
A. Yes.

—43—
Q. The principal will act on the application, and if favor­

able, the Board will act on the application and accept the 
teacher and employ the teacher, and the Board will assign 
the teacher to a school? A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Adams, does your Board envision under the new 
statement of policy that teachers will indicate the school 
that they will intend—

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Mr. Williams: Object again, Your Honor.



427a

The Court: Isn’t that a matter—that is a matter 
of this record, isn’t it?

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right. Sustained.

By Mr. Adams:

Q. Does your staff envision that teachers will indicate 
the school that they are applying to teach at? A. Yes.

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Well, overruled. He said his staff, 

and that’s him knowing what someone else is going 
to do, but overruled. Go ahead.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. The teachers then indicate the school in which the 
teacher is applying for employment? A. A choice, yes.

Q. You are proposing a freedom of choice in respect to 
teachers? A. Yes.

■— 44.-
Q. And you now have only Negro principals at the 

schools that we referred to, the South Oakboro, the Lake- 
view, and the West Badin? A. Yes.

Q. And the teacher is to indicate in an application to the 
principal a school that the teacher would like to teach at? 
A. Yes.

Q. Is that different from what the Board did last year? 
A. Yes.

Q. How does it differ? A. The Board did not last year 
require a teacher to stipulate a school, a choice of school. 
They merely applied for work in the system or school in 
which they were presently employed.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



428a

Q. The Board did not require the teacher to indicate 
the school? A. Yes.

Q. It did not require? A. It did not, no. Yes.
Q. Mr. Adams, what do you mean by desegregation of 

schools ?
—45—

Mr. Williams: Objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Just a minute. G-entlemen, wouldn’t 

it he a proper question—
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I ’ll rephrase that.
The Court: All right. He withdraws the question.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Adams, I show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 5, para­

graph 5, in the mechanics—or the administration and exe­
cution of the policy and the plan, and ask how the paragraph 
—would you read paragraph 5? A. “The superintendent 
shall distribute and assign all teachers and auxiliary per­
sonnel among the several schools of the administrative unit, 
and he shall make such distribution and assignment with­
out regard to race, color or national origin.”

Q. Would you explain how the superintendent will im­
plement that policy? A. Yes. The applications as they 
come to me from the principals with their recommendation 
will be acted upon in that manner. If the principal has rec­
ommended to me that we assign a particular teacher to a 
particular school, we will follow his recommendation.

Q. Is the principal to recommend that a teacher be as­
signed to a particular school? A. No. This is a choice 
matter. Of course, if the principal himself is interested in 
employing a teacher, a particular teacher, then he would

—46—
recommend that teacher for his school, and more than likely,

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



429a

this teacher would he assigned there, if that was the par­
ticular teacher’s choice.

Q. Would you state, specifically, Mr. Adams, how this 
will occur ? Is the teacher to first indicate a choice of school, 
and then the principal act and recommend that the teacher 
he assigned back to the school? A. The form is here that 
we plan to use, that we will put into operation, is that she 
fills out the application which would state her choice of 
schools, first, second or third choice—I don’t think you have 
a copy of it here—but this is the procedure, the application 
form which she would use, that is teachers presently em­
ployed, and upon her application and her expression of a 
choice of schools, one, two, three, whichever it may be, then 
the principal, if he is interested in that particular teacher 
to the point that she has requested, say to school number 
one, if he happens to be principal of school number one, then 
he would recommend this teacher be employed and assigned 
to that particular school. This is in order to achieve com­
patibility between the principal and the teacher.

The Court: That is your Exhibit No. 5?
Mr. Chambers: Number 5.
The Court: What paragraph was that?
Mr. Chambers: Paragraph 5.

—47—
By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Adams, does your office plan to take any steps if, 
following the procedure that you have stated that you plan 
to follow, you end up with the same result in the racial com­
position of teachers in the school for the 1966-67 school 
year?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Overruled. You may go ahead.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



430a

A. Mr. Chambers, this would just he hypothetical. I 
wouldn’t know. This would he theoretical, really. We have 
no way of knowing. This would just he a pure guess.

Q. At present, you know of no steps that your office plans 
to take, that you plan to take if you end up again with all 
Negro teachers at South Oakboro, West Badin and Lake- 
view? A. Well, I think I might interject this, that if we 
have a plan at this point, it is not perfected, because we 
haven’t reached the point to where this is a problem, or 
perhaps imminent even.

Q. I’m asking, Mr. Adams, though, if you know at present 
of any steps you plan to take if the South Oakboro, West 
Badin, and Lakeview School end up for the 1966-67 school 
year with the same racial composition as this year ? A. No.

Q. Now, Mr. Adams, I show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2, 
the depositions of Mr. Adams, on page 49, about middleway 
to the page, and ask you to read beginning with the question

—4 8 -
in the middle of the page, what appears on that page. A. 
“Under the state system—” this is the question, “Under the 
state system for the 1965-66 school year, the concept at 
least is that all teachers belong to one school system and 
may be assigned by the school system to schools in the 
school system? Answer: That’s correct. Question: Do you 
have a Negro principal at any of the white or predominantly 
white schools? Answer: No. Do you have a white
principal at any of the Negro or predominantly Negro 
school? Answer: No. Question: In other words, your as­
signment for this school year is basically the same as for 
last year? That is, you have white at white schools and 
Negro at Negro schools? Answer: We have no assignment 
of teachers based on race.”

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



431a

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Okay. Mr. Adams, I ask yon if that isn’t basically 

what yon testified that yon propose to follow for the 1966- 
67 school year?

Mr. Williams: Object to that, Your Honor. He’s 
taking something out to try to get the meaning of the 
testimony by another question. I don’t think that’s 
competent.

The Court: Overruled.

A. Would you restate your question, please? I still don’t 
follow.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Do you view for the 1966-67 school year the school

—4 9 -
system as one school system in which teachers may be as­
signed to any school in the school system? A. Yes.

Q. Do you not propose, or does your policy provision pro­
vide that teachers will be assigned without regard to race 
or color? A. Yes.

Q. My question is, isn’t that basically the same that you 
followed for the 1965-66 school year? A. We had no policy 
then.

Q. Did you follow that practice for the 1965-66 school 
year? A. I presume so, yes.

Q. Is your answer that you did follow the practice? A. 
Yes.

Q. And the result in the 1965-66 school year was as we 
stated, that is, Negro teachers at Negro schools and white 
teachers at white schools? A. With some exceptions.



432a

Q. The one exception yon referred to? A. Yes, and then 
of course, as we mentioned earlier, there are white teachers 
teaching in predominantly Negro schools or what were pre­
dominantly Negro schools in some areas of driver educa­
tion, supervision.

Q. You do not mean an academic field? A. Well, it’s
— 50-

all academic, I presume.
Q. Is it full-time employment ? A. Yes.
Q. Is it full-time employment at the school? A. Yes. If 

it’s driver education, the teacher teaching at the West Badin 
School, it would be full-time, yes.

Q. Do you have a white teacher teaching in the West 
Badin School driver education? A. Yes.

Q. Does the teacher also teach at another school? A. 
Yes.

Q. So the teacher does not teach full-time at West Badin? 
A. Well, yes, whatever time he requires to do the particular 
teaching job, he’s a full-time teacher, employed twelve 
months.

Q. The teacher doesn’t go there with the other teachers 
at eight something in the morning and leave at three some­
thing in the afternoon. Is that correct? A. Yes. If he 
happens to be teaching a group at West Badin, he goes there 
in the morning and spends the day, yes.

Q. I see. Now, would you state the name of the driver 
education teacher at West Badin? A. Well, this varies, 
but I believe at this point, Mr. Brown is doing this par-

— 51—
ticular work.

Q. Now, where else does Mr. Brown teach? A. He 
teaches, these teachers are assigned through the Board of 
Education office to the particular schools.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



433a

Q. Where else does Mr. Brown teach? A. He teaches in 
all the schools, wherever the driver education is needed.

Q. He teaches in all the schools in the school system? 
A. If needed, yes. However, he’s teaching now only at 
North Stanly and at West Badin.

Q. Now he teaches at North Stanly and West Badin? 
A. Yes.

Q. How frequently during the week is Mr. Brown at West 
Badin? A. Well, if he’s teaching there, he’s there all week.

Q. And how frequently does he teach there during the 
month? Does he teach there every week during each month? 
A. Well, yes. You see, driver education is set up on a 
thirty-six hour basis.

Q. Does Mr. Brown teach five days a week each month 
at West Badin? A. Yes.

Q. For the full day each month? A. Yes, when he’s 
teaching at West Badin.

—52—
Q. When does he teach at North Stanly? A. When he’s 

assigned to that particular school.
Q. And when is he assigned to that school? A. It de­

pends upon the number of students that we have that need 
driver education.

Q. Is Mr. Brown teaching at North Stanly now? A. Yes. 
Q. Is he teaching at West Badin now? A. I don’t be­

lieve so, no.
Q. Who teaches drive education at West Badin now? A. 

The classes are completed there now.
Q. The classes are completed? A. Yes, so far as I know. 
Q. Who taught driver education at West Badin? A. 

Well, we’ve had—you mean last?
Q. During the year 1965-66? A. Mr. Brown, I believe. 

I think Mr. Brown was assigned to this particular school.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



434a

Q. He taught a full year? A. Well, here again, no. 
What I’m trying to say is that the driver education program 
is one that is county-wide.

Q. I understand that. Mr. Brown did not teach a full 
year at West Badin? A. We have three teachers to teach 
driver education on a twelve-months basis for about 800

- 5 3 -
children who turn sixteen each year.

Q. And these teachers do not spend a full day at either 
of these schools? A. It would he impossible. Well, yes, 
now, wait—no. They would if they were teaching in this 
particular school.

Q. But they do not teach at any particular school for the 
full year? A. If necessary, yes.

Q. Is it necessary or was it necessary for the 1965-66 
school year? A. For which school?

Q. Any of the schools, Mr. Adams? A. Oh, yes.
Q. Was it necessary at West Badin? A. No.
Q. Thank you. Now, what other white teacher teaches 

or has taught at West Badin, teaches or has taught at 
West Badin? A. Well, here again, I’m drawing on mem­
ory, but I think Mr. Brown, our driver education man who 
handles this for us and is our driver education supervisor, 
would be in a better position to answer this than I, but 
I’m thinking now that it was Mr. Brown who did this par­
ticular year, and you must understand—

Q. You’re talking about driver education? A. Yes. You 
must understand that Mr. Brown is meeting the needs of 
just a few children at West Badin.

Q. I understand, Mr. Adams, but is there another white 
teacher who teaches or has taught at West Badin? A. I 
couldn’t say.

Lutlier Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



435a

Q. During your tenure as superintendent? A. It’s pos­
sible, but I couldn’t say.

Q. You do not know of any instances. Is that correct? 
A. I can’t recall, no, sir.

Q. Is there a white teacher who teaches or who has taught 
at South Oakboro during your time as superintendent of 
the schools? A. No, sir.

Q. Is there a white teacher who teaches or has taught at 
Lakeview? A. No.

Q. Now, again, going back to my question, the results 
for the 1965-66 school year following the practice that you 
stated a moment ago was that all Negro teachers were at 
Negro schools and white teachers were at white schools. 
Is that correct? A. Are you saying this is the way it 
resulted?

Q. Yes. A. It’s evident, yes.
Q. Thank you. Now, what factors or what consideration

—5 5 -
ha s the Board given, or has the Board considered in finding 
that this practice might result in anything other than what 
it did for the 1965-66 school year? A. I don’t know that the 
Board has done anything in that regard other than to try 
to implement its policies that have been adopted just re­
cently and trying to follow its plan of compliance that 
has been approved by the Office of Education in Washing­
ton.

Q. And you stated, did you not, Mr. Adams, that the 
practice you proposed here is in fact the same practice 
you followed for the 1965— A. I did not state that.

Q. The procedure in considering this one school system 
and permitting the teachers to indicate the school that 
they wanted to teach at? A. That’s the practice that we 
are following this coming year.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



436a

Q. Is that not the practice yon propose for the next 
school year? A. No. This policy that we are talking 
about now, Mr. Chambers, has just been instituted this 
year for implementation this coming year. Now, we have 
employed teachers in years past, as you know, based upon 
their applications and recommendation of the principal, 
which has resulted, as you stated, in Negroes being assigned 
to Negro schools, or what were Negro schools, and white

—5 6 -
teachers to what were white schools.

Q. How specifically, Mr. Adams, do you plan, or does 
the Board plan, or does this plan here envision you will 
change that policy for the 1966-67 school year? A. Well, 
there are no pre-rates in it, so to speak. A teacher can 
apply to teach in any school in our system.

Q. Could the teacher apply to teach in any school in 
the system for the 1965-66 school year? A. Yes.

Q. Is that a change from what you propose to follow 
for the ’66-67 school year? A. No.

Q. Is there another specific that you can state here that 
would differ from what you followed in 1965-66? A. You 
keep referring to ’65 and ’66, and ’66 and ’67, you must 
understand that we had no written policy at that point in 
’65-66.

Q. Are you stating, then, Mr. Adams, that all you have 
done here in this proposal is to write up what you have 
followed in the past? A. No, sir. I think this goes far 
beyond that.

Q. How does it go far beyond that? A. In that we have 
a set procedure established here to determine as best we 
can where the teacher wants to teach, what his or her quali-

—57—
fications are, his competence, his training, his personality,

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



437a

his conversational ability, his appearance, all these things 
that go to making np a good teacher we are trying to evalu­
ate before we place them in the system.

Q. I see. And yon did not follow that practice last 
year? A. We followed the practice to some degree, yes, 
certainly, because we were trying to get the best teacher 
we could. Maybe we did not have it as a written policy, 
however.

Q. And that is the difference you mentioned, which you 
mentioned between what took place last year and previous 
years and what you plan to follow for ’66 and ’67? A. 
Basically, yes.

Q. Now, Mr. Adams, I show you again Plaintiff’s Ex­
hibit No. 5 and refer you to Roman Number III, or the 
teacher interview record, and ask you to read that pro­
vision. A. “III. Is applicant willing to teach in the follow­
ing situations,” and they are to check one, “Integrated, 
All-White, or All-Colored.”

Q. Now, do you propose for the 1966-67 school year to 
have all-white and all-colored schools? A. Under the plan 
adopted and approved by the U. S. Office of Education, I 
suspect this will perhaps happen.

Q. That you will have all-white and all-Negro schools?
—58—

A. This is a possibility.
Q. Mr. Adams, suppose a teacher indicates, that an ap­

plicant indicates that she is Avilling to teach only in an all- 
white school. Do you plan to employ the teacher?

Mr. Williams : Objection, Your Honor. It will have 
to be passed over among a number of things.

The Court: I don’t think that would be a proper 
question. Besides, he doesn’t actually do the hiring.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



438a

Isn’t the Board ultimately the one that makes a de­
termination upon your recommendation?

The Witness: Yes, the Board. I make the recom­
mendation to the Board of Education who in turn 
either approves it or disapproves it.

The Court: All right. Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Adams, with all of the factors that you refer to 

here in this are acceptable, and the applicant indicates that 
she is willing to teach only in an all-white school, do you 
plan to propose to recommend her?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.

A. She’s willing—she was what?

Mr. Williams: I object to that, Your Honor. They 
ask the man what he proposes to do, to project some­
thing out in the future that’s based upon a whole lot 
of facts, to say now what he proposes to do there now

— 59—
then, and the answer, I think, is just going beyond 
the stretch of the competency of evidence.

The Court: Well, I had my doubts, Mr. Williams, 
about it. However, heretofore, seemingly, the an­
swer kindly took care of itself. As I understand this, 
Mr. Chambers, to have him now state that he would, 
it has got to he a comparative sort of thing, as I 
understand it. The Board is supposed to consider 
these teachers without regard to race, and purely on 
their qualifications. Now the question is, assuming

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



439a

Colloquy

that on that form, everything should be favorable 
and a Negro teacher applies and says that I will teach 
only in a white school, the question then is will you 
recommend hiring her, that he or she be hired. Well, 
of course, that presupposes that qualification-wise, 
that that teacher is better qualified than the other. 
In that sense, isn’t it an improper question!

Mr. Chambers: No, sir, Your Honor. We think 
that the question goes not only to the point of where 
the Board has employed teachers without regard to 
race and on the basis of qualification alone, but to 
the point of the right of the teacher. Now, we have 
a teacher involved in this litigation to insist com­
plete non-racial consideration by the Board, and the 
employment and assignment of personnel. We sub­
mit that the teacher has this right, and that no state

—6 0 -
agency can validly carry on or practice such a policy. 
Now, what the Board has as one of its questions, we 
can see no valid reason at all for this question. In 
fact, we see it as intimidation to the Negro teacher 
under the circumstances that exist in Stanly County. 
Where the Board asks a teacher do you want to 
teach in an integrated school, an all-white school, or 
an all-Negro school, why is this a valid consideration 
by a state agency? We submit that it isn’t, and we 
submit further that the plaintiff here, an employee 
or former employee, has a standing to insist that 
this practice be continued by the state agency.

Mr. Williams: Our answer to that is, may it please 
the Court, that the teacher simply because that she 
says she would not like to teach in this type of 
school or that type of school, would not be discrimi-



440a

Colloquy

natory if the Board would not follow the suggestion. 
In other words, the Board would not want a situa­
tion where a teacher was coming into the system to 
get placed at a place other than she’d like to he. If 
the Board could assign them, if placing her there, 
would make it disagreeable for the reason that she 
would want as far as possible to have a system 
whereby the individual’s choice could be granted as 
much as possible, and if she would say she would 
not want to teach in this particular situation, then 
the Board ought to have some discretion as to

—61—
whether or not the refusal to employ would be dis­
criminatory. It certainly wouldn’t, and it occurs to 
me, and I don’t say where his question here, on what 
he proposes to do, could be answered not until the 
thing happened, and it occurs, and if what he does 
then, of course, is discriminatory, then having—I 
think now he’s trying to stake him out on something 
that may happen in the future.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I think Mr. Williams 
brought out the exact point that we are talking about. 
If the Board—and our question to Mr. Adams was 
that under the plan proposed by the Board here, 
whether they would consider these factors and in an 
attempt to give the teacher this type of choice in the 
school system, we submit that that would be violat­
ing the rights of this plaintiff and others similarly 
situated, and if Mr. Adams knows at this time—ap­
parently they are sending out these forms now—this 
is Mr. Adams’ testimony that they are already get­
ting these forms back, the teachers are indicating 
this choice, and our question was whether they plan 
to honor this type of choice by a teacher.



441a

The Witness: Mr. Chambers—
The Court: Just a minute. I’m going to overrule 

the objection. Go ahead.

By the Witness:
A. This, you’re talking about something to be implemented

—62—
next year, this policy you’re on now. Now, the purpose in 
this particular question is to try to place the best teacher 
that we can find in the best situation that we can find for 
them, so that their success as a teacher is our first concern.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Going back again, Mr. Adams, to the question, do you 

plan to consider this indication as a factor in assigning or 
employing a teacher? A. Well, as I understand the ques­
tion, if a Negro teacher indicated that she would teach in a 
white school, would we recommend it?

Q. Yes. A. Absolutely.
Q. And if a white teacher indicates that she would teach 

only in a white school, would you recommend it? A. Yes. 
Q. To the white school? A. Yes.
Q. And if a Negro teacher indicated that she would teach 

only in a Negro school, would you grant it? A. I would 
say this. These are relevant factors which would have to be 
considered if you are thinking in terms of success of the 
teacher and what we are trying to do in the classroom.

Q. There’s an indication of the racial composition in the
- 6 3 -

school in which they would teach? A. Yes. You have got 
to be practical.

The Court: Mr. Chambers, I’m not trying to re­
strict your examination, but how much longer do you

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



442a

think we’ll be entailed with Mr. Adams ? If it is some 
considerable time, we usually take one break in the 
afternoon, and it is a little past that time. We might 
take it now. But if on the other hand, you are going 
to be able to conclude in the next five or ten minutes, 
we might go ahead.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I think we would 
have about fifteen or twenty more minutes with Mr. 
Adams.

The Court: All right. Let’s take just an unde­
clared recess.

(A recess was taken.)
The Court: All right. Mr. Adams, if you will re­

turn to the stand. Mr. Chambers—

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Adams, would you state the procedure followed 

by the Board for the 1965-66 school year, the previous 
school year, employing principals of various schools? A. 
Yes. Basically, the job of employing principals followed 
this procedure. The district school committee, which each 
district within our county had a committee serving this 
district, would recommend or nominate a principal, and in

—6 4 -
turn, this nomination or recommendation would be pre­
sented to the superintendent and Board of Education for 
approval.

Q. Would you state the procedure you propose to follow 
for the 1966-67 school year? A. Yes. The superintendent 
will recommend or nominate the principal of the various 
schools, and the Board of Education will elect.

Q. Will the principal apply for a particular school or

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



443a

apply in the school system for a job? A. This is permis­
sive. He may apply for a particular school, or he may ap­
ply for one of several schools.

Q. Is there a recommended procedure? A. No.
Q. In applying? A. No.
Q. Is there a standard procedure in applying, or a pro­

cedure that one would follow generally? A. Yes. See, a 
principal could apply to the superintendent—now, you’re 
speaking of next year?

Q. Yes. A. Yes. Next year the principal would apply 
directly to the superintendent.

Q. For a particular school? A. This could he true, or it 
could be applying for a position that might not be available 
at that time, seeking consideration.

—65—
Q. Mr. Adams, the proposal that we have considered as 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5, has this been presented to the Depart­
ment of Health, Education and Welfare under the Title VI 
provision? A. No. Not to my knowledge. We have signed 
Form 441-B, which implements any changes in our com­
pliance plan, and this has been filed with the Office of Edu­
cation.

Q. The Form 441-B? A. Yes.
Q. Is it true, Mr. Adams, that the new guidelines of the 

Department require specific steps by school boards in elimi­
nating racial discrimination with respect to teachers?

Mr. Williams: Object, Your Honor. Whatever 
those guidelines are, they’ll speak for themselves.

The Court: Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Adams, in reference to the new guidelines, is the 

proposal that is represented by Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 5

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



444a

adopted pursuant to the new guidelines? A. To some ex­
tent, yes.

Q. Is there any other proposal or plan that the Board has 
adopted for compliance with respect to the teachers with 
the new guidelines? A. No. This is the only new pro­
cedure that we are implementing.

— 66—

Q. Has the Board taken any specific steps other than 
this plan, Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 5, to eliminate the prior 
practices in the racial composition of the schools? A. No. 
This is part of our plan and procedure, and we are comply­
ing with the rules and regulations under Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Law, and we are trying to eliminate from our 
system.

Q. There is no other specific plan or steps that have been 
adopted by the Board to comply with that set of new guide­
lines? A. (No answer)

Q. Mr. Adams, did you have occasion to visit Kingsville 
School at the close of the 1964-65 school year? A. Yes.

Q. To talk with the students there? A. Yes.
Q. What was your purpose for talking with the students 

on that occasion?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Is Kingsville a school in your—
The Witness: No, sir. That is in the Albemarle 

City, Your Honor.
The Court: Not in your city?
The Witness: No.

—67—
Mr. Chambers: I think I can lay some foundation 

for that.
The Court: I should think you would have to be­

fore that would be competent. All right. Sustained.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



445a

But you may go ahead and see if there’s some founda­
tion you can lay for it.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Were any students from the Stanly County school dis­
trict assigned to the Kingsville School for the 1964-65 school 
year? A. Yes.

Q. Approximately how many students? A. I believe 
around 225 or so. I’m not sure whether this is just elemen­
tary or elementary and high school, but I think it was 
around 225.

Q. And these were students over which the Stanly County 
Board exercised jurisdiction? A. They resided in the 
Stanly County administrative unit, yes.

Q. Now, going hack to the question, Mr. Adams, what 
was the purpose of your visit to the Kingsville School at 
the close of the 1964-65 school year?

Mr. Williams: I still object, Your Honor.
The Court: I fail to see what this would have to 

do with the issue that we have before us, Mr. Cham­
bers.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I would agree at 
present that there might be some question about the

- 68-

relevancy here, but I think if we were permitted to 
proceed, I think we’ll be able to tie it in with the 
particular issue here before the Court.

The Court: If we run down every one of these 
avenues that these school people go out, why, we cer­
tainly will open up Pandora’s box.

Mr. Chambers: I think I have just about three 
questions here, if I may go ahead for just a minute.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



446a

The Court: Overruled. Co ahead, and let’s see 
what it is. The question was for what purposes did 
you go there!

A. I was invited to the Kingsville School by the superin­
tendent of the Albemarle City administrative unit to ex­
plain the plan for compliance which our Board had adopted 
relative to the Civil Eights of 1964.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Do you recall making any statement at that meeting 

relative to the employment of Negro teachers in the Stanly 
County school system! A. I don’t recall—in fact, I don’t 
believe the teacher matter was an issue at all.

Q. Do you recall any statement at that meeting relative 
to the employment of Negro teachers if a Negro student re­
quested transfer to a white school? A. No, sir. I don’t re­
call. I don’t recall discussing the faculties at all with the

- 6 9 -
children.

Q. Do you recall making a statement to the effect at 
that meeting that if Negro students requested transfer to 
white schools in the Stanly County system that Negro 
teachers would lose their jobs? A. No, I did not make any 
statement such as that.

Q. Do you recall making a statement to the effect at 
that meeting that you did not plan to employ Negro 
teachers in white schools? A. No.

Mr. 'Williams: Objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



447a

Lutlier Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Adams, going to Mrs. Wall, you have testified 
in depositions that you received a. reduction of allotment 
or of Negro teachers—no, an allotment of teachers at Lake- 
view School. Is it true that prior to this, Mrs. Wall had 
been recommended for employment by the principal of 
Lake view School1? A. I think all that, too, is in the depo­
sition, Mr. Chambers.

Q. I know, but would you state whether or not that is 
true? A. Now, Mrs. Wall had applied for work, that’s 
true.

Q. Is it true, Mr. Adams, that Mrs. Wall had been recom­
mended by the principal of Lakeview School for employ-

—70—
ment for the 1965-66 school year? A. Yes.

Q. Is it true, Mr. Adams, that the Board of Education 
had acted upon her application and approved her for 
employment for the 1965-66 school year? A. Yes, con­
tingent upon the allocation for these positions being al­
lotted to this particular school.

Q. It is true, however, that she was approved by the 
Board? A. Yes.

Q. Now, Mr. Adams, you referred in your deposition— 
strike that—Following the allocation of the teachers in 
the school system for the 1965-66 school year, is it true 
that Mrs. Wall was not recommended by Mr. McLendon? 
A. I didn’t follow you at the beginning of your question, 
Mr. Chambers. I’m sorry.

Q. Following the allotment of teachers for the 1965-66 
school year, is it true that Mrs. Wall was not recommended 
by Mr. McLendon, the principal of Lakeview School? A. 
Yes.



448a

Q. Do you know the reason why she was not recom­
mended? A. Yes. Basically, what Mr. McLendon stated 
to me was he had had some difficulty with her over the 
past two years, that she seemed to he, to create problems 
for him, that she was more of a trouble-maker for him

—71—
than perhaps he could manage at that time.

Q. Now, did he state, Mr. Adams, that this criticism 
was something that existed prior to his recommendation of 
her for the ’65-66 school year? A. Yes.

Q. And in view of that, he recommended her for employ­
ment? A. Yes.

Q. Did you know of any reason why Mrs. Wall should 
not have been recommended? A. My first encounter with 
Mr. McLendon regarding Mrs. Wall was the first year 
that he was principal at this school, and I happened to be 
there on a visit, and I asked him how things were getting 
along, and he stated fine, that he was getting along all 
right, but he said that he was having some difficulty with 
one of his teachers, and I asked him who it was and he 
said Mrs. Wall, and I said, ‘Well, what type of difficulty? 
What is involved,” and he said, ‘Well, I just can’t get 
her to do things that I ask her to do. I ’ve asked her to 
take children to the cafeteria and supervise them during 
the lunch period, and she just flatly refuses to do it.” 
I said, “Well, Mr. McLendon, maybe perhaps you need to 
work with her a little and talk with her and encourage 
her and try to solve the thing in that manner, that per­
haps it is just a passing thing that you can work out.” 
That was my first experience or encounter rather with 
Mr. McLendon when he mentioned specifically Mrs. Wall 
and her deficiencies.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



449a

The Court: And about when was that?
The Witness: This was the first year he was 

principal, which was, I believe—Mrs. Wall taught 
for him for two years. This was the first year of 
her employment. It was my first year in the system, 
1963-64.

The Court: All right.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. You state that was your first encounter. Was there 

a second? A. Yes, when he discussed her, his failure to 
recommend her.

Q. Is that the—are these the only two times that you 
discussed this with Mr. McLendon? A. No, not at all. 
We talked, of course, I don’t recall all of these things be­
cause we discussed various teachers throughout the year, 
with seventeen different principals, and it’s difficult to re­
member all the little encounters that you have with prin­
cipals, but I do remember that there were two or three 
or four times that she was mentioned.

Q. Do you remember another specific incident when she 
was mentioned? A. I recall one incident that came up, and 
I don’t remember just exactly who was involved, but there

—73—
were principals, and I believe there was Mr. Hearns and 
Mr. Williams. I asked them about an occasion which 
evidently took place at South Oakboro when Mrs. Wall 
left that school to go somewhere else to work, and I was 
just inquiring as to facts.

Q. What was that incident? A. This was an occasion, 
as I understood it, that Mrs. Wall left the employment of 
the South Oakboro School either voluntarily or otherwise,

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



450a

and I understood that she had employed an attorney or 
engaged an attorney to discuss the matter, and I was just 
trying to find out exactly what this matter was from these 
two gentlemen who I thought perhaps might have some in­
formation.

Q. Did you find out what it was? A. No, sir. In fact, 
one of them, Mr. Williams, said he had no knowledge of 
her having engaged an attorney at this point.

Q. What year was that, Mr. Adams? A. This was evi­
dently before I came into the system.

Q. And why were you trying to find out at this time 
something about her— A. Mr. Chambers, I think mainly 
for this reason. I had begun, as you often do, in this 
work, I had heard of—well, for lack of a better word, her 
reputation as a teacher and as perhaps a trouble-maker, 
and that her employment record was such that it com-

—74—
manded my attention. I just wanted to find out if there 
were facts involved, if there were reasons that she had 
moved from one school to another over a period of several 
years and why.

Q. Did you find out any reason? A. To the best of 
my knowldege, yes. Basically I got the same indication 
from all sources, and that was that Mrs. Wall usually got 
along well the first year in the school that she was employed 
in, but the second year seemed to be the one that reached 
a climax between her and the principal and perhaps the 
other teachers, that she created an atmosphere that just 
wasn’t conducive to a wholesome program, and the princi­
pals just felt like the school would be better off without her 
in their program.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



451a

Q. Was she in the school system for thirteen years? A. 
That’s correct.

Q. Did you have occasion to approve or disapprove Mr. 
McLendon’s recommendation at the close of the 1965-66 
school year? A. Yes.

Q. And did you recommend her to the Board? A. Yes.
Q. Did you follow up Mr. McLendon’s first encounter 

with you, in his discussion with you about Mrs. Wall? A. 
On the cafeterial matter?

—75—
Q. Yes. A. Yes. We discussed it, I think, more just 

in passing than specifically, but I gathered from talking 
with him later that he had just overlooked this and just 
from what I gathered, he said, what I remember him say­
ing, was this, that he thought it best just to tolerate it, 
that when he did wish to explain something to her or dis­
cuss something with her, that oftentimes it would cause 
her to have to leave school to go to the doctor or to the 
hospital for, evidently from what he said, to—he didn’t 
know the reason, she would just have to leave, and this 
was of some concern to him, that she would have to leave 
school quite often when he would have to have a conference 
with her.

Q. Was there anything else specifically that he referred 
to? A. The only other thing that I recall is that he would 
require her, or all his staff, to attend P.T.A. meetings and 
other functions that were of a school-sponsored nature, 
and that Mrs. Wall, if she chose to, would attend and if she 
did not, she did not, and he would oftentimes, as he said 
in expressing it to me, fail to say something to her for 
fear it would provoke another incident where she would 
have to leave to go back to the doctor or to leave school 
for some purpose.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



452a

Q. Did yon investigate that any further than you dis-
— 76—

cussed it with Mr. McLendon? A. No, sir. I assumed 
that he knew what he was talking about.

Q. And you accepted what he said? A. Absolutely, yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Adams, you knew of these things at the 

close of the 1964-65 school year? A. Yes.
Q. Will you explain to the Court why you recommended 

her to the school board for employment for the 1965-66 
school year? A. Yes. Basically because at this point, the 
teacher situation being what it is, we often recommend 
people that perhaps aren’t as strong as we would like them 
to be for fear that if we have to replace a particular person, 
and we don’t do this unless it is absolute necessary, we 
may get someone even weaker.

Q. Now, at the close of the 1965—’64-65 school year, you 
had several applicants for these positions at the elementary 
schools. Is that correct? A. Yes.

Q. And you had the applications at the time you recom­
mended Mrs. Wall for employment? A. Well, here again, 
this would be a guess, but we have applications of course 
all along.

—77—
Q. Now, do you recall the testimony of Mr. McLendon 

at the deposition? A. Vaguely. It’s been about a year.
Q. Just about. I refer you to Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2.

Mr. Doby: We object, Your Honor. As I under­
stand it, this is Mr. McLendon’s deposition rather 
than the witness’s.

The Court: Well, let’s see what his question is, 
and then I’ll rule on it. All right.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



453a

Q. I refer yon to Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2, page 41, at the 
bottom of the page. Would you read the question and an­
swer appearing there?

Mr. Doby: Object.
The Court: Just a minute. These depositions are, 

I presume, going to be offered in evidence, gentle­
men, and I assume they are proper evidence. What 
is it, that to read it out of context with the other, Mr. 
Doby? What is the objection here? Just in reading, 
now. That’s the question now.

Mr. Doby: As I understand it, as yet these deposi­
tions have not been offered in evidence. He cannot, 
as I understand it, as I understand the Rule, intro­
duce any part without introducing other parts. He’s 
made no indication in his Pretrial Order that he 
would just introduce a part of the whole. Now, I

—78—
don’t know what he’s offering this for. Is it not the 
deposition of Mr. McLendon?

Mr. Chambers : It is, and Your Honor—
Mr. Doby: I fail to see how he can use the deposi­

tion of Mr. McLendon to interrogate the witness Mr. 
Adams.

The Court: I don’t know just where he’s going. 
Are you planning to introduce these?

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. We plan to introduce all 
of the exhibits that we had marked. If it would help, 
I will tender those now in evidence.

The Court: All right. He is tendering Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit No. 2, which consists of the depositions of 
Robert McLendon, Gr. L. Hines, Reece B. McSwain,

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct

By Mr. Chambers:



454a

and Audrey Gillis Wall. Does the defendant object 
to the materiality of those ?

Mr. Doby: No, sir, we will not.
The Court: Let the record show that Plaintiff’s 

Exhibit No. 2, consisting of those depositions, is re­
ceived into the evidence.

(The documents above referred to, heretofore 
marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2 for identifi­
cation, were received in evidence.)

The Court: Mr. Doby, having gone past that step, 
are you still—do you still object to this method?

—79—
Mr. Doby: Yes. We object to using the testimony 

of another witness to interrogate this witness.
The Court: I am going to sustain that objection. 

If there is some part of this that you want to read 
and ask this witness something about it—but I just 
don’t know where we are proceeding from.

Mr. Chambers: That was my purpose, Your Honor. 
I was just going to ask him about a statement that 
Mr. McLendon made and ask him if he would agree 
with that statement. That was simply the purpose of 
that.

Mr. Doby: Objection.
The Court: I sustain that, then. You might ask 

him his opinion of whatever that is about, but I don’t 
believe it would be proper to ask him to read some­
thing and then ask him if he agreed with that par­
ticular witness’s statement about it. You can ap­
proach it in another way certainly.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



455a

Q. Mr. Adams, did yon have several applicants that ap­
plied for elementary teaching positions at the close of 1964- 
65 season? A. Yes. And I believe we have furnished you 
a copy of all of those.

Q. I’m not sure— A. You requested them some time 
ago.

Q. Persons who applied for teaching positions? A. We
—80—

furnished you a list of all teachers who taught in the system 
the previous years—well, it was the current year—and their 
qualifications, their term and length of employment, and 
that sort of thing. I think you have that in the record.

Q. You are referring to Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1, I be­
lieve, the answers to interrogatories? A. Yes. Here it is. 
Here’s part of it.

Q. Does that exhibit also show the new teachers who ap­
plied for employment in the elementary grades? A. Mr. 
Chambers, I’m just thinking now back—I thought we had 
provided you with a list of teachers who had applied.

Q. I think, Mr. Adams, you have answered the question 
that you did have several applications? A. Oh, yes. Quite 
naturally.

Q. Mr. Adams, did you have occasion in the Stanly 
County School System to consolidate schools in the past? 
A. Did I?

Q. Did the School Board? A. The School Board did, 
yes.

Q. Would you state the schools that were consolidated?

The Court: Can we restrict that to recent years 
or something?

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct

By Mr. Chambers:



456a

Q. Since 1954. A. Yes. I am thinking out loud, now.
—81—

We consolidated all or several of our small high schools, 
or all of our small high schools actually except one into 
three consolidated high schools. This was done, I believe 
the first year we were in them was in 1962-63.

Q. Following consolidation, how were these schools 
staffed? A. Of course, here again I am speaking about 
something I know little about, because I wasn’t there when 
this was done, but in discussing it—-

Mr. Doby: We object.
The Court: If it’s something he doesn’t know 

about, that’s sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Did you have occasion, Mr. Adams, to examine the 
records of the Board to determine how these schools were 
staffed? A. I made no effort to, no, sir.

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge how they were 
staffed? A. Yes. I think, from what I’ve been told, yes.

Mr. Doby: Object.
The Court: Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Have you had occasion to consolidate any schools since 
you’ve been superintendent? A. No.

—82—
Q. Have you had occasion to move a teacher from one 

school to another since you’ve been superintendent? A. 
Now, I don’t follow you—by move—

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct

By Mr. Chambers:



457a

Q. To assign a teacher from one school to another school 
in the school system? A. Oh, yes. Where a teacher might 
have taught in one school one year and perhaps tanght in 
another the next?

Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Q. Has that been done on several occasions? A. I would 

think so.
Q. How was the teacher transferred? A. The teacher 

would make application to the principal of the particular 
school that she was interested in teaching and upon recom­
mendation of the principal, we would assign that teacher 
to that particular school.

Q. Was that a written application? A. Yes.

The Court: How long have you been a superin­
tendent in the Stanly County System?

The Witness: I am completing three years, Your 
Honor, in July.-

The Court: All right.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Adams, when the teacher allotment at Lakeview 
School was reduced from the previous year and Mr. Mc-

— 83—
Lendon stated that Mrs. Adams was one of the teachers 
selected not to be employed for the following school year, 
did you inquire of the procedure that Mr. McLendon fol­
lowed in reaching this conclusion? A. I presume you are 
referring to Mrs. Wall instead of Mrs. Adams?

Q. Mrs. Wall. A. Yes.
Q. Yes? A. I inquired to the extent that he came to me 

with his recommendation, and I asked him to explain to 
me what his reasons were, yes.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



458a

Q. Mr. Adams, of your own knowledge, was there any 
comparison between Mrs. Wall and other elementary 
school teachers in the school system! A. Presumably so, 
yes.

Q. Now, would you explain what you mean by presumably 
so! A. Well, the principal must evaluate all the appli­
cants that he has for his positions.

Q. No, I’m asking about all the other teachers in the 
school system, not just the teachers at Lakeview but all 
the teachers in the elementary grades in the school system. 
A. Did we do what not!

Q. Did you make any evaluation or comparison between
—84—

Mrs. Wall and the other teachers in the school system, or 
the elementary teachers! A. No. We don’t have a habit 
of comparing teachers.

Q. You did not compare Mrs. Wall with the other teach­
ers in the school system! A. No, not in the sense that you 
are asking.

Q. Did you make any further investigation beyond Mr. 
McLendon’s statement concerning Mrs. Wall’s qualification 
and performance as a teacher! A. No, other than to be 
convinced myself that Mr. McLendon had evaluated prop­
erly her as a teacher, and he was sharing this evaluation 
with me.

Q. How were you convinced! How did you convince 
yourself! A. Well, I rely greatly on the judgment of our 
principals in matters such as this.

Q. Was that the extent of your investigation! A. Yes.
Q. With the reduction in allotment of teachers at the 

Lakeview School and the reduction in the allotment of 
teachers at West Badin, this meant, did it not, that the

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



459a

Negro teaching positions had been reduced in the Stanly 
County School System? A. This year? In ’65-66?

Q. Yes. A. No.
—85—

Q. Why did it not? A. The teacher allotment this year 
was based on one-district principle in which the State 
Board of Education allocated teachers to the system with­
out regard to race or color.

Q. The State Board allotted teachers to the system? A. 
Yes.

Q. The School Board allotted teachers to the schools? 
A. Yes.

Q. And you had only Negro teachers at the three schools 
we referred to, Lakeview, West Badin, and South Oakboro? 
A. Not in its entirely. We mentioned a moment ago, we 
have some others. We have a speech therapist, for instance, 
that works in the Negro schools and white schools, and of 
course, you have these exceptions, but basically—

Q. You say that was the decision of the schools? A. 
Yes.

Q. And with the reduction of the allotment—the reduc­
tion of the allotment of teachers at West Badin and Lake- 
view meant a reduction in the allotment of the teaching 
positions in the school system? A. No, Mr. Chambers, 
because positions are not allotted on the basis of race.

Q. Although you did have these Negro teachers in the 
schools we referred to? A. Yes.

— 86—

Q. And only in these schools—

Mr. Williams: I believe he’s been over that about 
twice, and I object to any further examination.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



460a

The Court: Yes. All right. Let’s move on to 
another point.

Mr. Chambers: I have no further questions, Your 
Honor.

The Court: All right.
Mr. Doby: We have no questions.
The Court: No questions?

Examination by the Court:
Q. Were you, Mr. Adams—you mentioned the Oakboro 

School? A. South Oakboro.
Q. South Oakboro? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you in the system at the time she was teaching 

then? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know where she went to from the South Oak­

boro School? To what school? A. I believe she went to 
West Badin. I think Mr. Chambers has a whole list of 
these, too.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, this is covered in the
- 8 7 -

depositions.
The Court: That’s in there?
Mr. Chambers: Yes.
The Court: You may come down.
Mr. Chambers: May I ask one other question? 
The Court: All right.
Mr. Chambers: Mr. Adams, is it true that one 

teacher that was teaching in the Lakeview School 
was employed in the South Oakboro School for the 
1965-66 school year?

The Witness: Yes.

Luther Adams—for Plaintiffs—Direct



461a

Mr. Chambers: Following the reduction in the 
allotment of teachers at Lakeview?

The Witness: Yes.
The Court: All right. Anything further?
Mr. Chambers: No, sir.
Mr. Doby: That’s all.
The Court: You may come down.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Chambers: I’d like to call Mrs. Wall.

Audrey Gillis Wall—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Whereupon, A udrey Gillis W all was duly sworn and 
testified as follows:

Direct Examination:
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, before I begin with

— 88—

the examination of Mrs. Wall, I would like to tender 
in evidence Plaintiff’s Exhibits No. 1, 3, 4 and 5.

The Court: Any objection by counsel for the de­
fendant?

Mr. Chambers: #1, 3 and 4. I’m sorry.
The Court: #1  is answer to interrogatories, as is 

4, and to the teacher allotments. Any objections? 
Mr. Doby: We have no objection.
The Court: Let the record show that Plaintiff’s 

Exhibits 1, 3 and 4 were received into the evidence.
(The documents above referred to, heretofore 

marked Plaintiff’s Exhibits Nos. 1, 3 and 4 
for identification, were received in evidence.)



462a

Audrey Gillis Wall—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Would you state your name, please? A. Audrey 

Gillis Wall.
Q. Mrs. Wall, you are the plaintiff in this action? A. 

Yes, I am.
Q. And you were employed during the 1964-65 school 

year in the Lakeview Elementary School? A. Yes, I was.
Q. Would you speak a little louder so that we can hear 

you? A. Yes, I was.
Q. What grade did you teach in the Lakeview School?

—89—
A. My first year there, I taught—my first two years there 
I taught first grade. The third year, I taught third, and 
my last year there, I taught fourth.

Q. Now, how long have you been in the Stanly County 
School System, or were you in the Stanly County School 
System? A. I think I completed fourteen years there. 
All my teaching experience, in fact, except this year.

Q. Where did you begin teaching the Stanly County 
School System? A. At a small school in New London. It 
was in New London Elementary School, just a two-teacher 
school.

Q. How long did you teach there? A. I think three 
years.

Q. Where did you go from the New London School? A. 
The New London School was consolidated with the Kings­
ville City School there in Albemarle, and we went with the 
school.

Q. The teachers moved over to the Kingsville School? 
A. Yes.

Q. All of the teachers in the New London School? A. 
Yes.



463a

Q. How long were yon in the Kingsville School? A. Two 
years.

Q. Where did you go from there? A. I went from there 
to South Oakboro Elementary School.

—90—
Q. Why did you go from Kingsville to South Oakboro? 

A. Well, mutual agreement between myself and another 
teacher there, personal reasons.

Q. Did you exchange positions? A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Wall, in fact, has there been a rather loose ar­

rangement or loose procedure between the Stanly County 
School Board and the Albemarle School Board which has 
jurisdiction over the Kingsville with respect to the Negro 
students ?

Mr. Doby: Objection.
The Court: Sustained: That’s a conclusion. She 

might tell what she knows about it, but, Mr. Cham­
bers, I think the question whether there was a loose 
agreement or not would not be competent.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mrs. Wall, is it true that Negro students in the county 

were assigned to the Kingsville School? A. Yes. All of 
New London high school and elementary children were 
assigned to Kingsville School, and the high school student  ̂
from Norwood and Oakboro were also assigned to Kings­
ville School.

Q. And this Kingsville School is in the Albemarle School 
District? A. Yes. A city administrative unit.

—91—
Q. A separate school district from the Stanly County 

School District? A. Yes.

Audrey Gillis Wall—for Plaintiffs—Direct



464a

Q. And yon stated at the closing of the New London 
School that Negro teachers at New London moved over to 
the Kingsville School? A. That’s correct.

Mr. Williams: Your Honor, I wish Mr. Chambers, 
who is a good lawyer, would not repeat what he 
wants the witness to say in his question. What he 
does, he goes in and he rephrases exactly what has 
been previously said. He states a set of facts in his 
question rather than to ask her what was or was 
not done.

The Court: All right. Mr. Chambers, let the wit­
ness tell the story, of course, without any prompting. 
Of course, sometimes it makes to expedite matters 
to handle it in that way rather than to let the wit­
ness tell a story, but counsel is proper in objecting 
to it. All right. Proceed.

By Mr. Chambers'.
Q. Mrs. Wall, would you state where you went after you 

left the South Oakboro School? A. Yes. I went to West 
Badin School. One of the teachers there died during that 
summer, and Mr. Hines asked me to work there.

Q. Who is Mr. Hines? A. Mr. Hines in the principal
— 92—

at West Badin School.
Q. How long were you at South Oakboro? A. I was at 

South Oakboro two years.
Q. How long were you at West Badin? A. Two years.
Q. Why did you leave West Badin? A. Well, Mr. Hines 

told me that he was having a decrease in enrollment.

Mr. Doby: Objection, Your Honor.

Audrey Gillis Wall—for Plaintiffs—Direct



465a

The Court : Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Do you know why you left West Badin of your own 
knowledge? Not referring to what someone told you? A. 
Well, the principal told me. That’s all I know.

Q. All right. And where did you go after you left West 
Badin? A. Lakeview Elementary School.

Q. How long were you at Lakeview? A. Four years.
Q. Mrs. Wall, it has been stated in some of the deposi­

tions that have been introduced and the testimony of Mr. 
Adams—

Mr. 'Williams: Your Honor, I just object again 
to counsel beginning to say what has been stated 
in anything. Now, he can ask her a question. That

—93—
doesn’t give him the right to state what has been 
said before in something and then ask her something 
about it.

The Court: Mr. Chambers, what happens with 
that, that often the witness is prompted to an answer. 
I realize the deposition of a witness can be used to 
impeach his or her testimony, but I rather think 
the use of it by reading someone else’s deposition 
and then going from there with a given witness is 
not proper. I sustain the objection.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mrs. Wall, while you were at West Badin and at 
Lakeview, were you frequently absent from school? A. 
No, I wasn’t.

Audrey Gillis Wall—for Plaintiffs—Direct



466a

Q. Did you frequently ask to be absent from school in 
the afternoon? A. Well, not at West Badin ever.

Q. What about at Lakeview? A. Well, at Lakeview, 
once a month I had to attend a doctor who lived in another 
city, and his last appointment was at four o’clock, and it 
was absolutely necessary that I go, and I asked for per­
mission from my principal there at Lakeview to leave at 
two-thirty or quarter of three, and he granted the per­
mission.

Q. Who was the doctor? A. Dr. Youngblood Tomlin 
Clinic there.

—94—
Q. Where does he reside or practice? A. Concord.
Q. What time in the afternoon would you leave Lake- 

view to go to your appointment? A. Two-thirty or quarter 
of three.

Q. Did you have occasion to leave earlier than that? 
A. Well, yes. I had a substitute for a half day. Mr. Mc­
Lendon, the principal there, engaged a substitute, and I 
gave Mr. McLendon the five dollars from my pocket to 
pay the substitute. It was not taken from my check.

Q. How frequently did this occur, Mrs. Wall? A. Oh, 
I don’t know, several times. I used two different substitutes.

Q. How frequently did you leave school in the after­
noon to go to see your doctor ? A. Only once a month, and 
sometimes every three weeks, but it usually would be within 
that one month.

Q. Mrs. Wall, while you were at Lakeview, did you at­
tend P.T.A. meetings? A. Yes, I did.

Q. Were you absent at any time from P.T.A. meeting? 
A. I was absent once during this past year. I was ill that 
day and had had a substitute.

Audrey Gillis Wall—for Plaintiffs—Direct



467a

Q. Did yon participate in the P.T.A. meeting? A. I was 
very active in P.T.A. In fact, I was chairman of the

- 9 5 -
program committee one year, and I made all of the signs, 
and what not, for various committees in the P.T.A., and I 
always functioned at the annual P.T.A. banquet, appear­
ing on programs, introducing various people, and helping 
to plan for it—well, generally run errands to help purchase 
the things for the banquet.

Q. Did you hold any position in the P.T.A. at Lakeview? 
A. Just program dirctor and I served on another commit­
tee. I don’t remember which one it was. I worked with 
as many as I could, those who asked me. I never said no.

Q. Did you go with your students to the cafeteria for 
meals? A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you have occasion to be absent? A. Well, only 
when I was on an errand for the principal, and at other 
times when I asked the principal, since I had more stu­
dents who did not eat in the cafeterial, who either brought 
their lunches or did not have lunches, if I could keep them 
in the room, and the few who did eat go, and he granted 
that permission, and of course, I stayed in the classroom 
with those.

Q. What principal was that? A. Mr. McLendon.
Q. Mrs. Wall, did you have difficulty in getting along

—96—
with your fellow teachers at Lakeview or any other school 
in the school system? A. No, I did not.

Q. Were you able to get along professionally and socially 
with the teachers? A. Professionally, yes. Socially, I 
didn’t see many of them afterwards, because many of 
them commuted.

Q. Did you criticize Mr. McLendon or any of your prin­

Audrey Gillis Wall—for Plaintiffs—Direct



468a

cipals because of the way they were operating the school? 
A. No, I did not make any derogatory statements about 
Mr. McLendon other than when he asked an opinion at 
faculty meetings and what not, and the statements what 
I made then were certainly not of a derogatory nature. 
They were statements that he asked for improvement of 
our school.

Q. Mrs. Wall, did you sell candy at the school! A. Yes, 
all of us did at two occasions a year, money-raising 
projects.

Q. When did you sell candy? A. Well, the first project 
was a Christmas parade. We had a Miss Merry Christmas 
contest, and the other was for May Day, for the May Day 
drive. All of us engaged in that.

Q. When was the May Day drive? A. Approximately 
two months, maybe a little longer, but approximately March 
and April.

Q. When was the Christmas parade drive? A. Approxi-
—97—

mately a month, because it was climaxed always before we 
dismissed for the Thanksgiving holidays.

Q. Mrs. Wall, did you sell candy at any time other than 
during the periods of these drives? A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you participate in extracurricular activities there 
at the school? A. Yes, I did.

Q. What activities did you participate in? A. I was 
chairman of many committees. I was chairman of May 
Day for three years, and I was co-chairman the other year. 
I had had back surgery and I wasn’t able to do this par­
ticular thing, but the other members of the faculty were 
asked to coach basketball, and when they refused, I coached 
the eighth grade girls’ basketball team, because the princi­
pal asked me, and I didn’t ever say no at any time.

Audrey Gillis Wall—for Plaintiffs—Direct



469a

Q. Now, was Mr. McLendon at this school when yon were 
participating in these activities? A. Oh, yes. He asked 
me to.

Q. Mrs. Wall, did yon consider yonrself a troublemaker?

Mr. Doby: Object.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, may I he heard on 

that?
The Court: Yes. I ’ll he glad to hear you. It’s

— 98—

a little bit conclusary, isn’t it?
Mr. Chambers: I think that charge of being a 

trouble-maker is conclusive. We have testimony, we 
have depositions that have been introduced in evi­
dence, and we have the testimony of Mr. Adams a 
moment ago and some statement that was made to 
him by Mr. McLendon about the general reputation 
of the plaintiff. Now, my question was to focus on 
these specific charges that were made against the 
plaintiff, and I think the only way that we can get 
this in to focus on this is to refer to these specific 
charges that were made by the defendant, and these 
are the things that I was referring to in my question.

The Court: I thought what you were doing here 
was putting in factual evidence to refute that that 
charge was true. In other words, that you were put­
ting in facts so that the fact finder might use those 
facts to arrive at a conclusion as to whether that 
situation existed or not. I don’t believe she can 
answer just the ulitmate issue. She can tell what 
she did, which you have been doing through the 
examination of your other, which are the probative

Audrey Gillis Wall—for Plaintiffs—Direct



470a

facts, but the ultimate facts, I believe that the fact 
finder would have to answer.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mrs. Wall, what school did you finish, or schools! A.
—99—

I did my undergraduate work at Barbara-Scotia College 
at Concord. My graduate work at A & T College at Greens­
boro. And I have had other courses. I had one through 
Appalachain State Teachers College.

Q. What certificate do you now hold? A. Graduate Ele­
mentary.

Q. How long have you held that certificate? A. Since 
1958.

Q. Do you belong to any professional organizations? A. 
I am a life member of the National Education Association. 
I’m a member of N.C.T.A. I ’m a member of A.C.E., that 
is the Association for Childhood Education, and I’m a mem­
ber of I. R. A., and I am a member of an honorary educa­
tion sorority, of Delta Kappa Phi. Is that enough? Pm 
trying to remember them.

Q. Have you attended any professional institutes fol­
lowing the receipt of your graduation— A. Yes.

Q. Would you name some of those institutes that you 
have attended? A. I was awarded a scholarship last sum­
mer through the recommendation of Mr. Adams, I think, 
and Mr. McLendon to A & T College, but I wasn’t able 
to attend that. I have done further work at A & T, and 
as I said, Appalachain. Is that what you meant?

— 100—

Q. Yes.
The Court: Do you have a degree, a graduate 

degree?

Audrey Gillis Wall—for Plaintiffs—Direct



471a

The Witness: In elementary education.
The Court: What is that known as? For instance, 

in law, it’s an LL.B. M.A.?
The Witness: M.A., yes.
The Court: Now, that means to me a Master.
The Witness: An M. S., Master of Science.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mrs. Wall, you stated that Mr. McLendon had recom­

mended you for the—recommended you for one of the pro­
fessional institutes? A. Yes.

Q. When was that, Mrs. Wall? A. During this past 
school year, 1964-65.

Q. What month did he do it? A. In the spring, the 
same time that Mr. Adams sent his. I had to have two. 
I had to have one from Mr. Adams as my superintendent 
and one from Mr. McLendon.

Q. What institute was that? A. That was the Institute 
for Under-achievers at A & T. It was one from N.T.E.A.

Q. Did Mr. Adams have occasion to recommend you for
— 101—

another institute? A. Yes, he did. He told me that he 
knew—I don’t remember the doctor’s name at the Univer­
sity of North Carolina, when he came to our school, I first 
met him there at the P.T.A. there, I had occasion to talk 
with him, and he told me that he would like to see me 
pursuing special education, and he knew of a man there 
who was a personal friend of his, and that he would send 
him a letter and when I went to his office for a conference 
some time later, he read the letter to me that he wrote to 
this individual listing my qualifications and what not.

Q. Did you cooperate with your principal at Lakeview

Audrey Gillis Wall—for Plaintiffs—Direct



472a

in the activities and functions that were sponsored by the 
school?

Audrey Gillis Wall—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Mr. Doby: Objection, Your Honor.
The Witness: Couldn’t I tell what I did?
Mr. Williams: The word “cooperate” . That’s a 

conclusion; it’s a self-serving declaration.
Mr. Chambers: I ’ll change it to “work with” .

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Did you work with the principal in the social func­

tions at the Lakeview School? A. Yes, I did, Mr. Cham­
bers, and I brought our school handbook with me with all 
the school policies and what not in it, which state the 
different committees that I was chairman of and the things 
that I did, the things that he appointed me and other 
things that I did, I have that with me if you would like

— 102—

me to read from it, or introduce it, or whatever you would 
like.

Q. Are you referring to the “Teachers’ Handbook” ? A. 
Yes. Mr. McLendon passed it out to all of us.

Mr. Chambers: We’d like to have this marked as 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 6.

(The document above referred to was marked 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 6 for identification.)

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mrs. Wall, is this the “Teachers’ Handbook” that 
you were referring to? A. Yes, it is.

Mr. Doby: We object.



473a

The Court: It looks like we will have to find out 
what it is first. You say it’s a teachers’ handbook? 
Overruled at this point. All right. What’s your 
next question?

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Is that the “Teachers’ Handbook” ? A. Yes, it is.
Q. By whom is that handbook prepared? A. Well, the 

foreword in it—

The Court: Now, if you know, you may answer 
that.

A. The principal, R. B. McLendon, principal.

Mr. Chambers: That’s all, Mrs. Wall.
The Court: We can’t identify it by its own con­

tents, I’m afraid. This hasn’t been offered?
—103—

Mr. Chambers: No, sir. I was just identifying it. 

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mrs. Wall, did you receive a letter from Mr. McLendon 

at the close of the 1964-65 school year advising you that he 
was not recommending you for employment for the ’65-66 
school year? A. I think the letter came I believe in July. 
I’m not sure what month.

Q. Mrs. Wall, following the receipt of the letter you 
referred to, what did you do? A. Well, I called Mr. Adams 
immediately, and he said he didn’t know anything about it, 
and I talked with him, I guess about fifteen minutes on 
the phone. I was on my way to Durham and I stopped 
at a pay phone as I picked my mail up from the post office,

Audrey Gillis Wall—for Plaintiffs—Direct



474a

and as he said, he didn’t know anything abont it. He didn’t 
know that I was the one chosen, and he suggested that I 
write letters of application to other schools, and he named 
one school in particular, at Misenheimer, I believe, and I 
called him, and he was very, very favorable.

The Court: Yon called him? The Misenheimer 
School.

The Witness: I think his name was Mr. Turner. 
I’m not sure. I don’t know whether it was a Turner 
School or a Mr. Misenheimer, but it was one of them.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Did you make application for employment at Misen­

heimer? A. Yes, I did.
— 104—

Q. Were you employed at Misenheimer? A. No, I 
wasn’t.

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge why you were 
not employed? A. No, I don’t.

Q. Is Misenheimer a school attended by Negro or white 
students? A. White students.

Mr. Chambers: No further questions.
The Court: All right. What says the defendant?
Mr. Doby: Your Honor, it’s five after five, and 

our cross examination might run some time.
The Court: Your cross examination will likely be 

lengthy?
Mr. Doby: We feel at this time that it would, and 

frankly, we would like some time to mull this over 
a little bit.

The Court: All right. Sometimes we use late

Audrey Gillis Wall—for Plaintiffs—Direct



475a

hours to shorten trials, hut I won’t do that to you. 
About how many more witnesses do you have, Mr. 
Chambers I You may come down if you like.

(Witness excused.)
Mr. Chambers: At the present time, we anticipate 

one more.
—105—

The Court: One more?
Mr. Chambers: Yes.
The Court: And any subsequent witnesses we call 

would be rebuttal testimony. The defendant had no 
commitment as to number. About how many—

Mr. Doby: We have two to call.
The Court: Is there any reason that you gentle­

men know that barring some eventuality that we 
don’t now perceive that we couldn’t conclude this 
case tomorrow?

Mr. Doby: I know of no reason.
Mr. Williams: I think, Your Honor, we can.
The Court: I have court in Durham involving pre­

trials that involves a number of lawyers, as you 
people know, and it would be right inconvenient for 
me to change that around by reason of the great 
number of lawyers, so I am not trying to hurry you 
with your case, but just wanted to make that in­
quiry. So with that, it looks like we might conclude 
it tomorrow. In fact, we will go at it with the idea 
that we will conclude regardless of the time. All 
right. Well, let’s take a recess until the morning at 
9:30.

(Whereupon, at 5 :10 o’clock p.m., the hearing was ad­
journed until 9:30 o’clock a.m., Thursday, April 28, 1966.)

Audrey Gillis Wall—for Plaintiffs—Direct



476a

Transcript of Proceedings, April 27, 1966
—3—•

PROCEEDINGS
The Court: Good morning, gentlemen. I believe Mrs. 

Wall was on the stand at the conclusion of court yesterday. 
Will you come hack to the stand, please?

Whereupon, A udrey Gillis Wtall resumed the stand and 
testified further as follows:

Mr. Doby: Your Honor, the defendant chooses not to 
cross examine Mrs. Wall.

The Court: I didn’t understand you.
Mr. Doby: The defendant chooses not to cross examine 

Mrs. Wall.
The Court: All right. Mrs. Wall, you may come down. 

Counsel for the plaintiff has another question. Was that 
of Mrs. Wall?

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. Just for the purpose of identify­
ing an exhibit we would like to introduce.

The Court: All right.
Mr. Chambers: We would like to have this marked as 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 7 for purposes of identification.
(The document above referred to was marked 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 7 for identification.)
The Court: Does counsel for the defendant—have they 

seen that exhibit, Mr. Chambers?
—4—

Mr. Chambers: Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Williams: We have, Your Honor, and we have no 

objections.
The Court: All right. Are you offering that?
Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. I just wanted her to identify it.



477a

Further Direct Examination (By Mr. Chambers):
Q. Mrs. Wall, is this a copy of the letter that you re­

ceived in July of 1965? A. Yes, it is.
Q. Would you state whether that is a letter from Mr. 

McLendon, your former principal? A. Yes, it is.

Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. We’d like to offer this 
in evidence, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7.

The Court: Let the record show that Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit No. 7, being a letter from Mr. McLendon, 
is received in evidence.

(The document above referred to, heretofore 
marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 7 for identi­
fication, was received in evidence.)

Mr. Chambers: Thank you, Mrs. Wall.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Chambers: I would like to call Professor 

Reutter.
— 5 —

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Whereupon, E. E dmund Reutter7 Jr. having been duly 
sworn, testified as follows:

Direct Examination (By Mr. Chambers):
Q. State your name, please. A. E. Edmund Reutter, Jr. 
Q. Mr. Reutter, what is your occupation? A. Professor 

of Education at Columbia University Teachers’ College.
Q. Would you state your educational background? A. 

I received a Bachelor’s Degree from Johns Hopkins Uni­
versity, a Masters Degree from Columbia University, and 
a Ph.D. from Columbia University.



478a

Q. Are you a member of any professional organization? 
A. Yes, sir, quite a number.

Q. Would you state some of the organizations of which 
you are a member? A. Well, Phi Beta Kappa, Kappa 
Delta Ti, Phi Delta Kappa, American Association of School 
Administrators, National Education Association, American 
Association of University Professors, National Conference 
of Professors of Educational Administration, National Or­
ganization on Legal Problems of Education, American As­
sociation of School Personnel Administrators, Public Per­
sonnel Association. I think that includes most of them.

— 6—

The Court: Where did you say you got your 
Bachelor’s Degree from?

The Witness: At Johns Hopkins, Your Honor.
The Court: All right.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Reutter, are you an officer in any of these organi­

zations? A. I ’m president elect of the National Organi­
zation on Legal Problems of Education.

Q. How long have you been teaching at Columbia Uni­
versity? A. I ’ve been on the professorial staff since 1950, 
and in the various ranks, and have been full professor 
since 1957.

Q. Do you have any publications? A. There are four 
or five of a book nature and a large number of periodical 
magazine articles. The books would include—I am co­
author of a textbook on staff personnel administration 
entitled “Staff Personnel in the Public Schools,” published 
by Prentice-Hall. I am co-author of a book called, “Legal 
Aspects of School Board Operation,” published by the

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



479a

Teachers College Bureau of Publications, author of a book 
called, “Schools and the Law,” two editions published by- 
Oceana Publications, a publication, “The School Adminis­
trator in Subversive Activities,” pubished by Teachers 
College Bureau of Publications, and the joint author of a

— 7—
research monograph entitled, “Principles of Staff Person­
nel Administration,” which monograph reports on an ex­
tensive study of what authorities in the field of personnel 
administration and particularly public school administra­
tion, public school personnel administration, agree upon. 
In other words, this rsearch was designed to elicit from 
the literature principles of public school administration, 
public school personnel administration, on which there was 
almost unanimity of the authorities in the area, and then 
among the very numerous—since I’ve been engaged in this 
for seventeen years—numberous periodical articles would 
include articles in such items as “Law and Contemporary 
Problems,” the Duke University Law School Publication, 
the “School Board Journal,” Nations School Teacher Col­
lege Record,” “Better School Executive,” and really quite 
a large number of others I have here, and many, many 
proceedings and what speeches I made up and recorded, 
and chapters in several books that have been written by 
joint authors.

Q. Have you attended other schools other than Columbia1? 
A. Well, I of course made speeches and participated in 
work shops at other institutions, including four or five ad­
dresses at the Duke University Annual Law Conference 
through the years. I held the title of Visiting Professor 
at the University of Alaska, the University of Puerto Rico,

— 8—

and the University of Southern California. Those were

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



480a

extended sessions, and title, Visiting Professor was the 
title.

Q. Have yon served as a consultant with any local hoards 
of education or state hoards of education? A. Through 
the years a substantial number of hoards of education in 
connection with, primarily with the personnel policies, but 
also in connection with problems of racial balances. In 
the north it’s called desegregation or racial balance.

Q. Have you had occasion to examine the documents 
that have been introduced in evidence here relating to the 
Stanly County Board of Education? A. Well,—

Q. The several exhibits? A. Yes. I think I have studied 
all of the exhibits as you introduced them yesterday. I 
have read and studied all of the interrogatories that were 
filed in the case, the answers to the interrogatories, the 
depositions of Mr. Adams, Mr. McLendon, Mr. Hines, Mr. 
McSwain, and Mrs. Wall.

Q. Did you have the opportunity of hearing the testi­
mony that has been introduced here in evidence during this 
trial? A. Yes, sir. I was here yesterday and tried to 
listen attentively.

Q. At whose request did you examine these documents?
—9—

A. At your request.
Q. And how did you come about my requesting of you 

to examine these documents? A. Since my teaching field 
at Columbia, as well as my personal interest, lie in the 
areas of personnel administration, school law and educa­
tional policy, the question of desegregation is one in which 
all three of these areas impinge, so I have given a great 
deal of time and study to it. The NAACP Legal Defense 
and Educational Fund, Incorporated, engaged me as a 
consultant to them in connection with cases dealing with

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



481a

educational matters, and through this consultantship, I have 
been advising and trying to help the organization in its 
activities, in its legal activities dealing with educational 
aspects. This particular spring session, I am on sabbatical 
leave from my teaching responsibilities, therefore I have 
more control over my time than normal, and so I have 
elected to, in addition to working from New York, visited 
the scene of some of the cases I am participating in. I am 
participating in a selective number of cases where selective 
issues were coming to trial, and on that basis, since I was 
free at this time and since you requesting my coming, I 
came.

Q. Mr. Reutter, from your examination of the matters 
that have been introduced in evidence and the testimony, do 
you feel that you are able to form some opinion about the 
practices and procedures that are followed by the Stanly

- 10-

County Board of Education! A. I do.
Q. Bo you have some opinion about the practices and 

procedures followed by the Stanly County Board of Edu­
cation employing teachers, or teachers and school person­
nel! A. Well, that is sort of a general question. I will 
make a few comments, and then you can follow up.

Q. First do you have an opinion! A. I do very definitely 
have an opinion with several sub-opinions.

Q. Would you state your opinion!

Mr. Williams: That’s where we object, Your
Honor.

The Court: Let’s hear what his question is. Do 
not answer this question, Mr. Reutter, until I have 
considered the objection of counsel. Go ahead and 
pose your question, Mr. Chambers.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



482a

Q. Upon your examination of these records and docu­
ments, what is your opinion about the practice and pro­
cedure followed by the Stanly County Board of Education 
in employing teachers and school personnel?

The Court: And you are objecting to that?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
The Court: Let me hear what you have to say, 

Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Well, Your Honor, I don’t think 

his opinion about the policies or plans of the Stanly
— 11-

County Board of Education, in the first place, from 
what he has familiarized himself from, I don’t believe 
he could qualify himself in the field of an expert in 
that respect. Now, furthermore, our objection is as 
to what his opinion may be about, what has been said 
here or what he has read about what has been intro­
duced as exhibits here. We do not think it is compe­
tent because we don’t think it’s relevant about it. I 
think the question of whether or not the procedures 
and things that have been followed by the Board of 
Education is within the preference of the Court, and 
what his opinion might be about it, I can’t see where 
it would throw any light on it. The question would be 
as to whether or not what has been done by the Board 
is something that comes within the prohibition of the 
law, statutory, constitutional, and otherwise. And I 
don’t believe—as well schooled and as well educated 
as the professor is—that this is an area in which his 
opinion ought to be allowed.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct

By Mr. Chambers:



483a

Colloquy

The Court: All right. Mr. Chambers, I have seri­
ous doubts about this. Actually, you might be fixing 
to give opinions on the law, which certainly, on a 
legal conclusion of which undoubtedly would be for 
the Court to determine. I’ll be glad to hear from you 
on this. I have no reservation about the fact that

— 12—

Mr. Reutter is well versed in the field of education, 
but the competency of his opinion on the various 
facets of this is questionable. I’ll be glad to hear 
from you.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, first of all, I would 
say that we have no desire here, or we do not pro­
pose to use this witness to express an opinion about 
the law. We think, and we have referred here to 
Stansbury on North Carolina Elements, Section 132 
and following, and to Wakemore’s Evidence, Volume 
Two, Section 556, on who is an expert and when do 
we use, or when is it proper to use an expert. We 
have here questions involving due process and equal 
protection under the law, due process as it relates 
to the practice of the School Board in considering 
teachers for employment, and retention of employ­
ment in the school system; equal protection as it re­
lates to the matter of assigning Negro teachers to 
Negro schools and white teachers to white schools 
and refusing to consider Negroes for employment in 
white schools. Now, practices and procedures that 
are followed by the School Board are of course sub­
ject to procedures or should be comparatively stand­
ard, that have been accepted by educational experts, 
and have been compared with practices throughout 
the country. In order for the Court to determine



484a

Colloquy

whether the practice followed by the School Board
—13—

here accords due process to the parties or teachers 
in the school system, I don’t think that I am an ex­
pert in the area of education, and I think that it 
would be of help to the Court in getting some idea of 
the practices that are followed or that might be fol­
lowed by some school boards, or standards that have 
been accepted by educational experts as the stand­
ards that school boards should follow in the employ­
ment and personnel procedures. Now, we are not say­
ing here that the Court must adopt or accept what 
the witness, that we are posing that the witness would 
testify to. All we are saying is that the Court might 
be benefited in its decision if it has some comparison 
between what we have shown this School Board has 
done and what this witness will be able to say that 
the standards have been found to be, or what other 
school board have followed. I don’t think the Court 
would have this benefit if we had only the practice 
that has been followed by the Stanly County Board 
and no other comparison. We propose to use this 
witness here only to testify about the accepted stand­
ards and practices that are followed and found to be 
proper standards to accord the due process to the 
teachers in the school system.

The Court: Let me ask you—now, let’s say that 
you show standards, Mr. Chambers, in other areas.

—14—
Now, you say upon showing those that the Court 
would be better able to decide the question of whether 
due process has been complied with. Is that the way 
you reason this, that upon showing what they were



485a

Colloquy

doing in other localities would be pertinent and rele­
vant on the decision by the Court of whether the 
Stanly County Board had given due process in this 
case?

Mr. Chambers: That is one prong. The other 
would be that this witness has studied the practices 
of the Stanly County Board and would be able to 
express an opinion about that, the practices of the 
Stanly County Board, and certainly that would be 
relevant to the issue in this case. Also, and again, 
we would only refer to the statute and section we 
cited as to the basis to what we propose to proffer.

The Court: Well, of course, the texts say where 
the witness is so situated and so trained, that he or 
she is in a better position to draw inferences from 
the facts than the jury in an ordinary case, then he 
might give an opinion, but I don’t believe that that 
means that his opinion or inference can come in the 
realm of going to the issue that we have here, whether 
due process has been afforded the plaintiff or not. 
Now, I think that there are possibly certain infer­
ences from these facts that he might draw and that 
would be proper, but your question before him now

—15—
is—I have forgotten the exact wording of it—I do not 
recall. Do you have it written there ?

Mr. Chambers: Generally I asked his opinion
about the employment practices followed by the 
Stanly County Board, the practices employing teach­
ers and school personnel.

The Court: That is a rather broadside sort—
Mr. Chambers: That is true. I could limit that.
The Court: —question. And if you limit it some, 

I think possibly it might be competent in certain re-



486a

spects, but I do not believe to allow him to take from 
that question and go into the various areas that pos­
sibly he might would be competent. I am going to 
sustain the objection to that question. Now, it could 
be, but in order to protect you, that the answers that 
you might want to put into the record on anything I 
might sustain—I would want you protected on the 
record in case I commit any error, but you use your 
own judgment about that. But I will sustain the ob­
jection to that question.

Mr. Chambers: That’s what I—I was going to try 
to rephrase it, Your Honor.

The Court: All right.
Mr. Chambers: And if we were unable to get it 

properly, then we’d like to proffer it under Buie 46.
—16—

The Court: It could be that the answers that you 
might want to dictate into the record after, or pos­
sibly better now, you know, as we go along. All right.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Beutter, again referring to your opportunity to 
examine the record of the, or the practices of the Stanly 
County Board of Education in the employing teachers and 
school personnel, you stated that you do have—or from your 
examination you feel that you are able to express an opinion 
about these practices and procedures. My question is what 
is your opinion in reference to the practices and policies of 
the Stanly County Board of Education as related by the 
depositions of Mr. Adams and the testimony of Mr. Adams, 
and the interrogatories that you state you have had an 
opportunity to examine? A. I can only answer from the 
point of view of personnel administration.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



487a

The Court: Just a minute. He hasn’t finished his 
question.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. What is your opinion of these practices as they com­
pare with the standard procedures that are followed by the 
administrative personnel in other school systems?

Mr. Williams: I object, Your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, may I proffer that? 

May I get his answer into the record?
—17—

The Court: All right. You may. Gentlemen, I 
think that is entirely proper, that the answer go in 
the record. The question is not the thing that’s ob­
jectionable; it’s the answer. You may at this junc­
ture, then—I am sustaining the objection to that, but 
you may give your answer, Professor Reutter, to that 
question for the record.

A. Well, I would answer at this point, because I am very 
conscious of that which I believe I do have a competence 
to evaluate and that which I don’t. Compared to other 
school districts throughout the country, based upon my ex­
perience, and compared to theory of personnel administra­
tion as it is taught and accepted, there are certain points 
within the procedure as described by Mr. Adams in his 
deposition and in testimony yesterday, that are in marked 
difference with general accepted practice as personnel ad­
ministrators in public education see it.

Q. What would be those marked variations or points of 
departure ?

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



488a

Mr. Williams: I understand that that objection 
takes care of all of this ?

The Court: I would prefer, in order that there be 
no question when you object, if you would object and 
let me make a ruling.

— 18—

Mr. Williams: All right, sir. I object to the answer 
to that.

The Court: You need not feel that you are irritat­
ing the Court. I want all parties protected on the 
record. Let the record show that the defendant—it is 
the defendant, it’s just one defendant?

Mr. Williams: That’s correct.
The Court: That the defendant objects and the 

Court sustains the objection. You may go ahead and 
answer the question.

A. The fact that almost complete authority is given the 
principal to select the teachers, particularly for retention, 
without any written records, without any stated criteria, 
without any personal check by the superintendent, this is a 
marked variation with the generally accepted principles 
which appear on the basis of the research study that I re­
ferred to earlier. The fact that only one person makes the 
evaluation that has the effect of whether the plaintiff or 
whether a teacher is retained or not is in variance, I think 
I could say, with any reputable personnel administration 
practice. It has no imputation about the fact that the 
principals may not be good, but that no one man is in a 
position to evaluate alone and have his evaluation accepted 
on a matter as subjective and as professional as teaching. 
So that is the crux where I do feel competent to comment.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



489a

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Reutter, it is standard practice and procedure for 
several persons to evaluate or appraise a teacher’s per­
formance in the school system?

Mr. Williams: Object, Your Honor.
The Court; All right. Sustained. Now you may 

go ahead and answer,

A. May I read from the basic research study that I referred 
to earlier the principles that were derived from the litera­
ture which would be a better consensus ? Reading from this 
document, Your Honor, would put into the record something 
that is not my opinion, but is the result of a substantial 
research study. I happen to agree with it. But this would 
have more validity, perhaps, than my opinion, and I agree 
with what’s in there and I can state it more succinctly by 
reading what’s in there.

Mr. Chambers: Let me try—
The Court: You are objecting to that?
Mr. Williams: I’m objecting to that, Your Honor, 

because I understood the record—now what’s going 
in the record is his opinion, and I don’t want him to 
put it in.

The Court: I sustain the objection.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Reutter, did you participate in the study? Is this 

pamphlet here entitled, “Principles of Staff Personnel Ad­
ministration in Public Schools,” the pamphlet that you are

- 20-

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct

—19—

ref erring to? A. It is.



490a

Q. Did you participate in the preparation of that pam­
phlet? A. I was one of the two key directors of the study. 
Willard Elsbree was the other.

Q. Did you participate in the research for the prepara­
tion of the study? A. Well, actually, I was listed as co­
director, and behaviorally, was the key director of the re­
search which was carried out by some twenty people.

Q. What was the purpose of that study?

The Court: Let the record show that the defendant 
objects and that it is sustained. Go ahead.

A. The purpose of the study was to try to determine from 
the vast body of accumulated literature, experience, re­
search, and so forth, those points on which those who had 
had tested experience, those who had done research studies, 
were in agreement. The principles enunciated in this vol­
ume, and now I quote, ^constitute a common core of gen­
erally accepted concepts as found through a thorough ex­
amination of recorded research and experience. The princi­
ples selected are those on which there is substantial agree­
ment among authorities.” And then I would add that there 
are many points which you won’t find in here simply because 
the literature is not in agrement on the points or it does not

- 21-

deal with the points. Now, getting back to the question that 
Mr. Chambers asked. One of these principles that we found 
had been agreed upon by the authorities which we drew to­
gether—

Mr. Williams: I want to object, Your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.

A. Was No. 31 on page 43, personnel should be evaluated 
by more than one supervisor. I won’t read the paragraph

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



491a

that describes this; however, I would add personally or 
even from this that a single rater—or I won’t read from this, 
I will just state it—this can be read from later, if you want.

Mr. Williams: I’m objecting.
The Court: Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Reutter, let me state it this way. Again going 

back to the question I posed, what is the general accepted 
practice in evaluating teachers and school personnel?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Sustained. You may put his answer 

in the record as heretofore if you desire.

A. This is a very complex area, but among the specifics, 
and in the interest of time, that are possibly pertinent to 
this case are, reading from here, “Principle 31. Personnel 
should be evaluated by more than one supervisor. No. 32.

-— 22—

The evaluation process should include conferences between 
the evaluator and the person being evaluated. No. 29. 
Every staff member should be evaluated periodically.” 
And to some extent, No. 30. “The evaluation should involve 
a variety of approaches and be flexible enough to allow for 
differences in teachers and in teaching situations.” The 
psychological and point of view valuation, the two points 
that are bing made are validity and reliability.

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Let the record show that the defendant 

objects, and that is sustained, and the answer is 
allowed to be put in the record.

E. Edmund Rentier, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



492a

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Reutter— A. Could I just add to what I meant 
by reliability and validity? It might not be completely 
clear.

Mr. Williams: We object.
The Court: Sustained. Unless there is a question, 

Professor Reutter, why, wait until one is posed.
The Witness: Very well, Your Honor.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Reutter, have you had occasion to work with 
school boards in the desegregation of teachers and school 
personnel? A. I have.

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Objection overruled. The question is

—23—
has he had occasion to work with them. I think that 
would be competent.

By the Witness:

A. I have.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. You have? A. Yes.
Q. Have you had occasion to work with school boards 

recently in the desegregation of schools? A. I have.

Mr. Williams: Object to that, too, Your Honor. 
The Court: Overruled.



493a

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. What was the most recent occasion? A. Richmond, 
Virginia.

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Reutter, was there in your consultations with 
the school boards and desegregation of these schools con­
cerned with the desegregation of teachers and school per­
sonnel already in the school system, or only with the teach­
ers and school personnel that could be hired by the school 
hoard?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Overruled. He is finding out where, 

Mr. Williams, where he worked. I don’t think that’s 
gotten around to any opinion yet, and that’s the

- 24-

reason I am overruling.
Mr. Williams: I am just unable to see the rele­

vancy of it.
The Court: All right. Well, I’ll overrule your 

objection at this juncture.

By the Witness:

A. I’ve lost the question now.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. The question was whether your consultation dealt 
with the desegregation of teachers already in the school



494a

system, or only with teachers to he hired by the school 
board? A. The entire process of desegregation—

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Let the record show that the defendant 

objects and that is overruled.

A. It involved the whole plans for desegregation, including 
faculty, students, facilities, and so on, the whole gamut.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Now, in your opinion, is it an educationally sound 
practice for the school board to desegregate faculties?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: The defendant objects and the objec­

tion is sustained. You may put the answer in the 
record, if you wish.

By the witness:

A. Would you mind repeating that again?
—25—

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. In your opinion, is it an educationally sound practice 
or principle, sound practice for school boards to desegre­
gate faculties?

The Court: Let the record show that the defen­
dant objects, and that objection is sustained.

A. Education is exceedingly desirable that there not be 
segregated staffs.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



495a

Q. Why is that, Mr. Beutter?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Go ahead. A. He sustained it.
Q. But you can answer for the record.

The Court: You can put it in the record.

A. Excuse me. I misunderstood.

The Court: All right.

A. Essentially the reason, educationally, involves the fact 
that the purpose of the public schools historically, and this 
has found its way into judicial opinions as well as the 
history of education hooks, is to create an enlightened 
citizenry capable of working together to continuously im­
prove the country, and also in connection with the process, 
to allow each individual to fullfill to the maximum his own 
potential. Where students are assigned to schools where

—26—
the staffs are all of one race, the children are very likely, 
in my opinion, to run into the same kinds of psychological 
disadvantages and therefore educational disadvantages 
that were found to prevail in the Supreme Court decisions 
regarding desegregation of pupils. The reason for the 
psychological consideration, in my opinion, is that where 
white children can be taught only by white teachers and 
Negro children see the leaders of their race only able to 
teach Negroes, this gives to them a feeling of inferiority

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



496a

in that the leaders of their race are not considered good 
enough to teach white children. There also are some other 
factors, I think, along this line.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Reutter, you had occasion to examine the pro­
posed plan of the Stanly County Board of Education for the 
next school year for the assignment of teachers and school 
personnel? A. Yes, I read that carefully.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to the feasibility of this 
plan to effectuate the desegregation in the school system?

Mr. Williams: Objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Sustained. You may put his answer 

in the record.

A. Based on the fact that I can find no substantial differ­
ence other than that certain things are put in writing be-

— 2 7 -
tween the testimony I read in depositions and the testimony 
I heard yesterday, in the plan for next year, since the 
plan did not work this year to effect any desegregation of 
staff, I see no reason to believe that it will next year if 
it as I believe it to be essentially the same plan. I would 
not have expected it to work anyway, based upon my ex­
perience with this type of situation.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Reutter, you recall that in the plan which is 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 5, the Board proposes to consider in 
determining whether to employ teachers and school per­
sonnel, whether the teacher desires to teach in an all-white,

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



497a

in an all-colored, or an integrated school. In your opinion, 
is the consideration of those factors a proper consideration, 
educationally, for a school board as to employ and assign 
a teacher ?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Sustained. You may put the answer 

in the record, if you wish.

A. The question reads is applicant willing to teach. My 
answer would be that if the school board exercises its 
legal right, it would be up to the Court to determine its 
legal responsibility, if the school board exercises its right 
to assign teachers regardless of race, as has been indicated 
constantly in the testimony, to ask the applicant if he is 
willing to do it is irrelevant, and in a situation such as

—28—
exists in North Caroilna which is very unusual, where 
each teacher has to reapply each year, I think that this 
would constitute a threat and would discourage presently 
employed teachers of either race from seeking employment 
in school with the opposite race.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. In your consultation with the school boards you 
stated that you have worked with recently, did they develop 
a plan for desegregation of the teachers? A. Yes. And 
the Courts accepted the plans.

Q. Would you describe those plans?

Mr. Williams: I object, Your Honor.
The Court: All right. The objection to the last 

question and answer is sustained.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



498a

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Would you describe again, for the purposes of the 
record, the objection was sustained, for the record would 
you describe the plan that was adopted by the Richmond 
School Board for desegregating the teachers?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.

A. I don’t have a copy of it with me. In effect, the School 
Board indicated that it was going to take a number of 
positive steps to bring about more effective desegregation 
both in terms of reassignments of teachers already em­
ployed and in terms of taking advantage of the turnover 
situation, getting new employees into the system, I think.

— 29—
Without having the exact wording in front of me, I couldn’t 
—I shouldn’t say anything more than the fact that the 
School Board did have a plan, and they had certain state­
ments of goals to be attained.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Did you have occasion to work with another school 
board in the preparation of a plan for desegregation? A. 
Well, during this spring, yes, the Norfolk, Virginia—in 
Norfolk, Virginia.

Q. Do you recall the provisions of that plan that was 
finally adopted by the Norfolk School Board? A. Theirs 
was—

Mr. Williams: Object to that, Your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.



499a

Mr. Williams: Not in response to his question. 
He asked him if he recalled and then he proceeds 
to go forth.

The Court: Sustained.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Just say whether yes or no, if you recall the pro­
visions of the Norfolk plan? A. I recall them in a general 
sense.

Q. Mr. Reutter, going to Mrs. Wall, the plaintiff in this 
suit, did you have occasion to examine the practices fol­
lowed by the School Board in refusing to reemploy her

—30—
for the 1965-66 school year? A. As recorded in the depo­
sitions and as stated yesterday.

Q. Now, did the practice in your opinion followed by the 
Stanly County Board vary from the generally accepted 
practice for considering persons for reemployment?

Mr. Williams: Objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Sustained. You may get his answer 

in the record, if you wish.

A. Yes.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. How did they vary?

Mr. Williams: Objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.

A. Along the lines that I mentioned earlier, there appeared 
not in the testimony yesterday nor in any deposition accu­

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



500a

sations with specific enough specificity to in my opinion 
enable one to reach a decision at to their interpretation. 
They lack specificity; there was nothing in writing; no 
criteria were given to the teacher as to what was expected 
of her; no criteria were given to the principal as to what 
to expect of teachers. Two principals in depositions dis­
agreed markedly on certain specific facts. One principal, 
in the deposition, expressly said that she always followed 
instructions; another said she didn’t. Good personnel 
administration would certainly dictate that where there 
is a conflict, this should be investigated. So that I don’t

- 3 1 -
know—well, let me put it this way—and that is without 
criteria given to the teacher, without criteria given to the 
principal, with only the word of the principal taken, cer­
tainly the superintendent of the School Board did not 
follow the general accepted practice of good personnel 
administration.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Is it a general accepted practice for school boards 
or school systems to weigh where there is a conflict or an 
alleged conflict between the teacher and the principal to 
investigate this further rather than to merely accept the 
statement of the principal?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.

A. Very definitely. Particularly when the charges are of 
such a vague nature as trouble-maker, she didn’t get along 
with other teachers. These are so general that without

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



501a

factual verification, I don’t see how either the superinten­
dent or the Board could have made this decision, which 
does not mean to say that they made the wrong decision, 
hut they had no basis in my opinion for making any de­
cision.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Is it a general practice in the school systems to main­
tain written records of teacher performances?

Mr. Williams: Objection.

A. Absolutely

The Court: Just a minute. The objection is sus­
tained. You may put the answer in the record, if 
you wish.

A. Absolutely.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Would this written record reflect not only any possible 
deficiency in the teacher but other problems like the alleged 
trouble-maker or unable to get along with teachers?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Sustained. You may put your answer 

in the record, if you wish.

A. The absence of written records upon any matter of im­
portance and certainly the retention of teachers is a mat­
ter of critical importance, is a very rare and heartily dis­
approved procedure.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



502a

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. What practice is generally followed where there is a 
reduction in the allotment of teachers and the necessity for 
reducing the teachers in a system?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Sustained. You may put the answer 

in the record.
Mr. Williams: Your Honor, this is not for the 

record, but I have a little trouble getting up and 
down. May I stand while this examination is going 
on?

The Court: You may sit down, if you wish. You
—3 3 -

may make your objections sitting since there are so 
many of them, or you may stand, if you wish.

Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir.
The Court: All right. Go ahead.

By the Witness:
A. When reductions in force take place, I refer to govern­
mental employment since collective bargaining agreements 
usually take care of this or some other kind of arrange­
ments, so reading the answer in public employment and 
particularly in public school systems, when a reduction in 
force takes place, the recognized procedure is to make a 
very careful examination of all of the persons in the school 
system, and then to remove from the school system that 
person or persons least well qualified. In other words, to 
remove the poorest teachers first. And the criteria of poor­
ness would have to, some way or another, would have to 
be made objective, but the teacher would have to be com­
pared with other teachers in order to find out who was in­



503a

deed the one to be let go. It could be such factors as senior­
ity. It could be factors of personality. It could be all sorts 
of things. There are chapters in my book on that and also 
in the Statement of Principles there are sections on that.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Going again to the specific charges against the plain­
tiff, do you have an opinion whether these charges are suf­
ficient as to warrant the action of the dismissal of the plain­
tiff?

—34—
Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Sustained. You may put the answer 

in the record, if you wish.

A. Based strictly on what I have read in the depositions 
and what I have heard in the Court till this moment, for a 
teacher with fifteen years’ experience and a graduate level 
certificate, I would think further investigation would have 
to be made before a decision was reached. I would not 
presume from the record to say whether the Board had 
indeed errored except by failure to do these other things. 
In having made the decision to dismiss her, I think they 
did commit an injustice which good personnel administra­
tion is designed to prevent.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Are you familiar with the Code of Ethics of the Na­
tional Education Association? A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall the provisions of the Code in reference 
to the matter of retention of teachers or considering teach­
ers for reemployment in the school system? A. The Code 
was recently revised—

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



504a

Mr. Williams: Objection.

A. I ’ll have to say no to that.

The Court: Overruled, on the objection.

A. I don’t.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. In reference to the plan that was recently adopted by
—35—

the Stanly County School Board for assignment and em­
ployment of teachers for the next school term, do you have 
an opinion whether the proposal would satisfy the prac­
tices you say deviate from the accepted standards or prac­
tices ?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Sustained. You may put the answer in 

the record, if you wish.

A. Do you mean in terms of retaining teachers or—

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.

A. In terms of retaining teachers, there seems to be no 
change, period. In terms of desegregating the faculty of 
the system, as I commented earlier, I doubt that it would 
have any more effect next year than it had this year in 
terms, because the only change that I see in it is that current 
practices were put in writing. I compared it last night with 
Mr. Adams’ deposition, and it sems to me that it is merely 
putting it in writing and adding some forms, which is not

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



505a

to disparage it, but simply to say in my opinion that it is 
not substantially different, and without anything in addi­
tion to that, I don’t think it will lead to any difference. See, 
one of the problems is there is no goal. No one has yet 
said—

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.

—36—
A. My opinion is—

The Court: Just a minute now. Let’s have another 
question.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Reutter, what is the generally accepted function 
of a superintendent in this school system?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Sustained. You may put your answer 

in the record.

A. The general accepted function of the Superintendent of 
Schools is to be the chief administrator, officer of the school 
system, to carry out the policies of the Board, and to oper­
ate, be responsible for the operation of the school system.

By Mr. Chambers:
Q. What role generally does the superintendent play in 

employment of personnel?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



506a

A. This would vary to an extent depending upon the size 
of the system. I would say, based upon my experience, that 
in a system the size of Stanly County, most superintendents 
do and most superintendents should, in my opinion, exer­
cise more of a role than Mr. Adams said that he did. In 
taking the word of the principal alone, to me, he was abdi­
cating some of his responsibility. It’s still part of the sen­
tence ; I just took a breath.

—37—
Mr. Williams: Objection.
The Court: This is an objection to the entire an­

swer, and it’s sustained.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I do not recall 

whether I tendered this witness as an expert at the 
beginning. With the Court’s permission, I would like 
to for the record tender the plaintiff, or the witness 
as an expert in the school of—in the field of school 
administration and personnel.

The Court: What says the defendant about that 
question?

Mr. Williams: We have yet—we object to that. 
I don’t think that he has qualified him as an expert 
in the field of inquiry before this tribunal, and there­
fore I object. I object to him being tendered as an 
expert. I object to him as being admitted.

The Court: Mr. Chambers, do you have much fur­
ther examination of this witness?

Mr. Chambers: Not much further, Your Honor. 
Your Honor, I would like to say in practically every 
case of this nature, particularly in cases involving 
teachers and school personnel, in the Middle District 
Court with Judge Stanley, we have used expert wit­
nesses for this problem. Even in the case with Judge

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



507a

Colloquy

Stanley, and this is Willard vs. the Durham Board of 
Education, an expert witness was used, his expert

- 3 8 -
testimony was permitted. I don’t think our procedure 
here is varied from that. That’s why we continued 
to proffer the evidence here, because I think it’s 
proper procedure. This is an area that I am cer­
tainly not familiar with, and I think that we could 
use or utilize the expertise of a person who has de­
voted his entire life to this area. And this is why we 
have proffered him, and this is why we have con­
tinued to proffer the evidence.

The Court: Yes, I think it is a field, Mr. Chambers, 
that expert testimony could he competent in. The 
questions which have been offered or have been asked, 
and the answers that Professor Reutter has made, 
in most instances, go to the very finding or conclu­
sion of law that this Court has got to make, and 
for that reason I have sustained the objection. Now, 
I could be in error in that. I realize that in some 
cases heretofore in this district that the matter of 
expert testimony has been admitted, and I believe 
that you were in a case in Durham where one of the 
witnesses said he believed that some witness who 
preceded him had spoken on that subject before. 
I am going to find that Professor Reutter is an ex­
pert in the field of education, and let the record ac­
cordingly show. Has there been, Mr. Chambers, a 
case up on this direct point that you could cite the 
Court to in our circuit?

—39—
Mr. Chambers: Not on these direct points of a per­

son expressing an opinion, but in this type of case,



508a

your reference about the witness stating opinions 
about matters that the Court would actually have 
to decide, it is generally though the problem that 
we have with most experts, when they really do 
express an opinion involving matters that are at 
issue before the Court and generally express an 
opinion about what the Court would really be decid­
ing, whereas in automobile cases we have a problem 
of a medical expert delving into the area where the 
jury will actually have to resolve, and here, too, we 
have a problem of whether the practices here fol­
lowed by the Stanly County Board of Education 
would accord the fair treatment of the personnel in 
the school system. We are contending that these 
practices do not, and the way we are trying to show 
this—we can’t make a comparison unless we have 
something else other than just what the Stanly 
County Board of Education does, and we are trying 
to show some practices are generally accepted prin­
ciples by educators on how you really consider per­
sonnel or teachers in the school system. And this 
is why we have proffered this evidence. Not to really 
divest the Court of the question that is before the 
Court, but rather to give the Court something to

- 4 0 -
make some comparison to see what is done can be 
done better or should be done better to properly 
and fairly treat all the personnel in the school sys­
tem. And here is where we think an expert can be 
of some help, where he has made studies, as Mr. 
Reutter has testified he’s made about these prac­
tices, where he has studied not only the practices 
of other school systems, but the practices right here

Colloquy



509a

Colloquy

in Stanly County, and can give the Court some aid 
in reaching an opinion about the fair treatment of 
the personnel here.

The Court: This is not just exactly an analogous 
situation, but you refer to a personal injury action. 
You have, Mr. Chambers, a case where a witness is 
allowed to give an opinion on speed. Now, of course, 
that we know is competent, but yet, he could not 
answer the question of whether the defendant was 
negligent or not. He can give an opinion on that fact. 
Now, that’s the way I am bothered by the expert wit­
ness, the testimony here. It kind of strikes me that 
comparably this witness is reaching an opinion on 
was he negligent or not in your personal injury 
action. I say there’s no real comparison between 
the negligence case and what we’re dealing with 
here, but that is what it seems to me that this wit­
ness—the questions that have been asked and the 
answer go to this ultimate question that the Court is

—41—
to decide. I do not know. In any event, you have 
got it in the record, and if I should be wrong—I do 
not know—at the conclusion here, it will probably 
be a question that you’ll want oral argument later 
or now, or I’ll give some time for oral argument. 
I could kind of give you an opportunity to make any 
research that you wish, and I’ll do so likewise as 
the defendants, and maybe we might come to a more 
exact resolution of this question. But as you say, 
as far as this direct point is concerned about how 
far an expert witness can go in these cases, you 
know of no case that’s been decided directly on this 
point, do you?



510a

Mr. Chambers: Directly on the point of the wit­
ness here testifying about educational practices?

The Court: His opinion on whether the practices 
of this Board are—you know—in compliance with 
the usual and customary practices and other ques­
tions that you have asked. You know of no decision?

Mr. Chambers: I have no decisions directly on 
that point. I was just using the analogy, though, of 
the doctor talking about whether a person who has 
sustained a broken arm, or the extent of the injury, 
or something that might be attributed to an act of 
a party, the doctor here was delving into the provi­
dence where the jury is going to be determining the

- 4 2 -
question of probable cause. And again, I was really, 
for the purpose of the Court having the benefit of 
some practice, we have no other way of getting into 
the record what generally accepted practices would 
be unless we could call somebody who knew what 
these practices were.

The Court: All right. Let’s go ahead. And I will 
let you put into the record the answers, and let’s go 
ahead and conclude this witness, then.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Reutter, I have just one or two other questions.

Mr. Doby: Just one minute, Your Honor.
Mr. Williams: I didn’t understand Your Honor to 

make any ruling that reversed the ruling that you 
sustained the objection that has been made along to 
the question.

E. Edmund Reutter, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



511a

Colloquy

The Court: No, I haven’t changed that ruling. 
All right.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I have no further 
questions.

The Court: All right.
Mr. Chambers: I would like the right, if the Court 

permits, to recall Mr. Reutter in rebuttal if it be­
comes necessary in the case.

The Court: All right. You may come down.
(Witness excused.)

—43—
The Court: Let’s have an undeclared recess, and 

let me talk to the attorneys for both sides.
(A brief recess was taken.)
The Court: Have you concluded your testimony?
Mr. Chambers: Yes, we have.
The Court: I see.
Mr. Chambers: Plaintiffs rest.
The Court: All right. Just a minute. Let the 

record show that where there was an objection to 
the witness Reutter’s testimony and the objection 
was sustained and the answer then appears in the 
record, that the answer was allowed placed in the 
record for the purpose of preservation of any rights 
of the plaintiff on appeal, if there should be an ap­
peal. I think that will protect both sides in case 
I have committed an error. All right. The case is 
with the defendant.

The Clerk: Your Honor, might I inquire? Ac­
cording to my records, Exhibits 5 and 6 were intro­
duced, were identified but not introduced. Am I 
correct in that?



512a

Mr. Chambers: That’s correct.
The Court: I will allow you to introduce them, 

if you wish.
Mr. Chambers: We would like—the 5th Exhibit 

was the plans of desegregation proposed by the de­
fendant Board, and the 6th Exhibit was the hand­
book. We don’t care to introduce the handbook, but

...44—
we would like to introduce the plans for desegrega­
tion. That’s Exhibit No. 5.

The Court: I think that he would be entitled to 
that. Is there any objection by the defendant?

Mr. Williams: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Let the record show that Plaintiff’s 

Exhibit No. 5 is received into the evidence.
(The document above referred to, heretofore 

marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 5 for identifi­
cation, was received in evidence.)

The Court: All right. The case is with the de­
fendant.

Mr. Doby: May it please the Court, the defendant 
will offer no evidence, and at this time would like 
to make a motion that the Court find the facts for 
the defendant.

The Court: Gentlemen, what I am deliberating 
about is what to put on the record with reference to 
that. I want you to—both sides—to submit proposed 
findings of facts and conclusions of law with a brief 
supporting any conclusion that you say the Court 
should find. Let me inquire. In view of this junc­
ture, would you be inclined to put on anything fur-

Colloquy



513a

ther? I would presume not, Mr. Chambers. There 
has been nothing to rebut.

—45—
Mr. Chambers: That’s true, Your Honor. I was 

just checking. We couldn’t care to put on anything 
further.

The Court: I will reserve my decision on the mo­
tion and enter a memorandum. Before we do that, 
Mr. Chambers, how much time would you like to 
have for your submitting your proposed findings of 
fact and conclusions of law and such additional 
brief you desire, and this being an adversary pro­
ceeding, I would assume that the proper way to 
handle it would be for you to present yours and 
then to allow the defendant some time thereafter to 
submit theirs. About how much time would you like ?

Mr. Chambers: I don’t want to prolong this deci­
sion, but I think it would be about fifteen days before 
I could do it.

The Court: I certainly expect to give you that 
much.

Mr. Chambers: Could we have twenty days to 
submit—

The Court: Yes. I’m going to be in Court, as 
you know, next week, and then I have a two-week 
term up in Wilkes County, so actually it is going to 
be a few weeks before I can work on it, and the 
twenty days certainly would not delay the case any. 
Do you think that would be adequate time for you 
to get yours in?

Mr. Chambers: I think so.

Colloquy

—46—



514a

The Court: All right. The defendant, of course, 
need not wait until the plaintiff has filed theirs. 
Following that by ten days, would that be sufficient 
for the defendant?

Mr. Doby: That would be all right, Your Honor. 
The Court: All right. Let’s adjourn.

(Whereupon, the hearing in the above entitled matter was 
closed.)

Colloquy



515a

Notice of Appeal

I n' the

U nited S tates D istrict C ourt 

for THE

M iddle D istrict of N orth  C arolina 

S alisbury D ivision  

C ivil  A ction  N o. C-140-S-65

A udrey G illis  W all and T h e  N orth  Carolina T eachers 
A ssociation , a corp ora tion ,

Plaintiffs,
v.

T h e  S ta n ly  C oun ty  B oard of E ducation , 
a public body corporate,

Defendant.

I.

N otice of A ppeal

Notice is hereby given that Audrey Gillis Wall and the 
North Carolina Teachers Association, plaintiffs above 
named on this 26th day of September, 1966, hereby appeal 
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 
Circuit, from the Final Judgment entered in this action 
by the United States District Court for the Middle District 
of North Carolina on the 26th day of September, 1966.



516a

Notice of Appeal 

II.
D esignation  of R ecord on A ppeal

Plaintiffs, by their undersigned attorney, pursuant to 
Rule 75(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby 
designate all the original files and the complete transcript 
of the evidence in the subject case for inclusion in the 
record on appeal, including all pleadings, exhibits, affi­
davits, depositions, testimony, orders, notice of appeal and 
this designation.

This 26th day of September, 1966.

C onrad 0 .  P earson

203% East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

J . L evonne  C ham bers

405% East Trade Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

J ack  Greenberg

J ames M. N abrit , III 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



517a

Notice of Appeal 

C ertificate of S ervice

This is to certify that the undersigned has this day 
served copies of the foregoing Notice of Appeal and 
Designation of Record on Appeal upon counsel for the 
defendant by depositing copies of same in the United 
States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to Stanton P. 
Williams, Esq., 501-504 Hill Building, Albemarle, North 
Carolina, and Henry C. Doby Esq., Post Office Box 806, 
Albemarle, North Carolina.

This 26th day of September, 1966.

Attorney for Plaintiffs



MEILEN PRESS INC. —  N . Y. C. 2 1 9