Exhibits No. 1-4

    Exhibit No, 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION 

PRVEVIVEVEVIVEVEVEVEVEVENEETTR SORE TR REE AEE ed 
* 

EARL BENJAMIN BUSH, et al, * 

Plaintiffs * 

versus * 
* No, 3630-B 

ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al. * 
* CIVIL ACTION 

Defendants * 

CONNIE REED, a minor, by Gerald Rener, * 

her guardian and next friend, et al. * 

Plaintiff-Intervenors * | | | | 
Jack Greenberg 
A. P., Tureaud 
Ernest N, Morial 
James M, Nabrit, III 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Plaintiff- 
Intervenors 

Samuel I, Rosenberg 

Attorney for Orleans Parish School Board 

WRIGHT, District Judge: 

Plaintiffs, now supported by 101 additional intervenors, 

petition this court for further relief in this long pending 1liti- 

astion.’ The further relief requested is based on plaintiffs’ 

allegations that the defendant, Orleans Parish School Board, has 

not complied with this court's order of May 16, 1960, with respect 

to desegregation of the public schools of New Orleans, In addition, 

they maintain that the segregated schools operated for negroes by 

the Board cannot pass the separate but equal test of Plessy Vv, 

Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537. 

lFor the prior history of this litigation, see Bush v, 

Qrleans Parish School Board, E.D. La., 138 F, Supp. 
337, affirmed, 5 Cir,, 242 F.2d 156; id., 163 F. Supp. 
701, affirmed, 5 Cir., 268 F.2d 78; id,, 187 F. Supp. 
42, affirmed, 365 U.S. 569; id., 188 F, Supp, 916, 

affirmed, 365 U.S. 569; id,, 190 F, Supp, 861, affirmed, 

365 U.S. 569; id., 191 F. Supp. 871, affirmed, 367 U.S. 



On May 16, 1960, when the defendant failed to file a 

plan of desegregation? of the Orleans Parish schools as ordered 

by this court, this court filed one. The court's plan simply 

provides that beginning September, 1960, all children entering 

the first grade may attend either the formerly all white public 

schools nearest their homes or the formerly all negro schools 

nearest their homes, at their option, There is a further provision 

for transfers not based on consideration of race.” 

The Orleans Parish School Board maintains a dual system 

of segregated schools based on race? This segregation is accom- 

plished by dividing the city geographically into negro school 

districts and white school districts based upon the residence and 

race of the children attending such schools. On the opening of 

school in September, 1960, instead of complying with the court's 

desegregation order, the Board announced a testing program° for 

any first grade child electing a school other than the one to 

which he would be automatically assigned under the Board's segre- 

gated system,® This program involved four steps consisting of 

20n February 15, 1956, this court ordered the School Board 

to desegregate the Orleans Parish public schools "with 

all deliberate speed." On July 15, 1959, after no action 

in compliance had been taken, the Board was ordered to 

file a desegregation plan. To date no Board plan has 

been filed and it was admitted at the hearing that sub- 

mission of a plan is not in contemplation. This court 

will, therefore, continue to order desegregation on an 

ad hoc basis until an acceptable plan for integration of 
the Orleans Parish schools is forthcoming. 

3The order reads: 

"IT IS ORDERED that beginning with the opening of school 

in September, 1960, all public schools in the City of 

New Orleans shall be desegregated in accordance with 

the following plan: 

"A, All children entering the first grade may attend 

either the formerly all white public school nearest 

their homes, or the formerly all negro public school 
nearest their homes, at their option. 

“B, Children may be transferred from one school to 

another, provided such transfers are not based on 
consideration of race." 

4Enrollment in the Orleans Parish schools as of October 18, 
1961, is as follows: White 37,845; Negro 55,820. 

SThis testing program was promulgated pursuant to the 
Louisiana Pupil Placement Act. La.R.S, 17:10] et seq. 
The constitutionality of the Act is not attacked in 
these proceedings. 

6The testing program applied only to the first grade and 

there only to children requesting "transfer," 

-8e 



(1) a review of the "transfer" application form and verification 

of the information contained therein, (2) testing of the petition- 

ing pupils to determine "scholastic aptitude," "intelligenc
e or 

ability" and "adequacy of pupil's academic preparation or
 readi- 

ness for admission to school or curricula," (3) "test interpreta- 

tion and personal evaluation to consider" ten listed crite
ria 

relating generally to education, psychology, home environ
ment and 

health, and (4) a "general administrative review and preparation 

of recommendation to Orleans Parish School Board to consider" 
all 

of the information collected, the "choice and interests
" of pupil, 

as well as the possibility or threat of friction
 or disorder among 

pupils or others, and the possibility of breach of peace
 or ill 

will or economic retaliation within the community.’ The bulletin 

announcing the program further provides that pupils permi
tted to 

transfer under these procedures and criteria "may be rea
ssigned 

to the school to which they are assigned by virtue of th
eir place 

of residence by order of the Orleans Parish School Boa
rd if they 

do not make satisfactory adjustment to the newly assig
ned situa-~ 

tion,*S The announcement further requires the separation of 

pupils by sex in each class desegregated under this program,
 

An analysis of the test program demonstrates that the 

Board, instead of allowing children entering the first gr
ade to 

make an election as to the schools they would attend, a
ssigned 

all children to the racially segregated schools in their r
esiden- 

tial areas. Then, after being so assigned, each child wishing to 

"While these broad criteria were upheld as valid element
s 

of a pupil placement law, Shuitlessorth v. Birmingham 
, N.D. Ala,, 162 F, Supp. 372, affirmed, 

358 U.S. 101, the application of such criteria to deny 

admittance or transfer on the ground of potential ra
cial 

disturbance would be improper, Cooper ¥, Aaron, 358 U.S. 

1, 16, See Buchanan v. Warlev, 245 U,S. 60, 81, 

BThis portion of the program in effect "repeals" 
the statu- 

tory criteria since it leaves ultimate pupil assignment 

in the unfettered discretion of the Board, This absence 

of permissible standards for placement sealed the fate 

of Louisiana's first pupil placement law. Bush v., Orleans 

Parish School Board, E,D, La,, 138 F, Supp, 337, 341, 

affirmed, 5 Cir,, 242 F, 2d 156, See Higa County Ve 

567, affirmed, 4 Cir., 252 F.2d 929. 

wd 



exercise his right to elect pursuant to the court's plan of desegre- 

gation was subjected to the testing program, No children other 

than first grade were required to take the tests. Pursuant to 

this testing program, four negro first grade children out of 134 

applicants were allowed to "transfer" to the white schools nearest 

their homes during the school year 1960-61, and eight negro 

children of 66 applying successfully overcame the hurdles of the 

1961-62 testing program. Consequently, 12 of the 13,000-odd negro 

children entering the first grade in the years 1960-61 and 1961-62 

were admitted to and are attending "white" schools, 

The Board maintains that it was justified in applying 

the pupil placement law to the desegregation order of this court 

in an effort to make certain that the children applying to "trans- 

fer" were intellectually and psychologically acceptable in the 

schools they sought to attend. The Board makes no explanation 

for its failure to test all children seeking to enter the first 

grade, or any other grade, in an effort to determine whether or 

not they were intellectually and psychologically acceptable in 

the segregated schools to which they were automatically assigned. 

This failure to test all pupils is the constitutional vice in 

the Board's testing program. However valid a pupil placement act 

may be on its face, it may not be selectively applied: Moreover, 

where a school system is ssareagted,t” there is no constitutional 

basis whatever for using a pupil placement law, tt A pupil place- 

ment law may only be validly applied in an integrated school 

The admission of thirteen Negro pupils, after a scholastic 
test, which the white children did not have to take, out of 
thirty-eight who made application for transfer, is not 
desegregation, nor is it the institution of a plan for non- 

racial organization of the Memphis school system," 
0s, et a e «sy 6 Cirv,, 

F.2d (2/23/62), p. 10, slip opinion, See also 
Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction, 5 Cir., 277 F.2d 

370, 374; Jones v, School Board of City of Alexandria, 

282 F,2d 256, 258. 

10uopviously the maintenance of a dual system of attendance 
areas based on race offends the constitutional rights of 
the plaintiffs and others similarly situated and cannot 
be tolerated, ¥* %* * ¥ In order that there may be no doubt 
about the matter, the enforced maintenance of such a dual 
system is here specifically condemned," 

i i a, supra, 76. 

llCompare Gibson v. Board of Public Instruction of Dade 
County, 5 Cir,, 246 F,2d 913, 914; id., 272 F.2d 763, 767. 

wil] 



system, and then only where no consideration is based on race, 

To assign children to a segregated school system a
nd then require 

them to pass muster under a pupil placement law is discrimination 

in its rawest form, 

The plaintiffs, together with intervenors, also complain 

of the crowded conditions in the defendant's negro schools
, as 

compared to the white, The evidence shows that 5,540 negro elemen- 

tary school children are on platoon, but no white. 
The evidence 

shows further that the average class size in the 
negro elementary 

schools is 38.3 pupils compared to 28.7 in the white,
 13 that the 

pupil-teacher ration in the elementary schools is 36,0 to 1 for 

negro, 26.1 to 1 for white, and that negro classes are conducted 

in classrooms converted from stages, custodians' quarters, 
libraries 

and teachers! lounge rooms, while similar class
room conditions do 

not exist in the white schools, Even under the separate but equal 

test, these inequalities may not be maintained, It would be 

unconscionable to compel negroes, 67 years after Plessy 
v, Feragusor. 

supra, to continue to submit to these conditions. 

The Board states that in the next two or three years, 

when its present building program is completed, most of 
the pla- 

tooning and the crowded conditions in the negro scho
ols will be 

eliminated. But the Board®s projection gives no facts or figures,
 

12uThe Pupil Assignment Law might serve some purpose 
in the 

administration of a school system but it will not serve 

as a plan to convert a biracial system into a non-racial 

one." Northcroes. et al, v. Bd, of Educ... et al., supra, 
p. 6, slip opinion, See also id., p. 8: "Since that 

decision PBooun v. Board of Education, 347 U.S, 483], 

there cannot be "Negro! schools and ‘white! schools, 

There can now be only schools, requirements for adm
ission 

to which must be on an equal basis without regard to race.” 

13The maximum class size for elementary schools prescrib
ed by 

the Louisiana State Board of Education is 35 pupils. 
As of 

October 18, 1961, in the white elementary schools 7.4 per 

cent of the regular classes had over 36 pupils, w
hile in 

the negro elementary schools 75.6 per cent of the cl
asses 

had over 36 pupils. 

l4gee Sweatt v,. Painter, 339 U.S, 629; Wilson v, Board of 

Supervisors, E.D. La., 92 F. Supp, 086, affirmed, 340 U.S. 

909. 



nor does it make allowance for the increase in the school popula- 

tion to be anticipated, based on the current birth rate, The 

Board also suggests that in two successive elections property 

owners of New Orleans have voted down proposals for tax increases 

to defray the increased cost of operating the public schools in 

New Orleans, and that this failure has caused the crowded condi~ 

tions in the negro schools, Whether New Orleans will have adequate 

public schools is, of course, the responsibility of her taxpayers. 

But whatever is provided, inadequate as it is, must at least be 

made available on an equal basis to all school children, 

Generations of negroes have already been denied their 

rights under the separate but equal doctrine of Elessy v. Ferguson, 

supra, and, at the present pace in New Orieans, generations of 

negroes yet unborn will suffer a similar fate with respect to their 

rights under Brown unless desegregation and equal protection are 

secured for them by this court, 

The School Board here occupies an unenviable position, 

Its members, elected to serve without pay, have sought conscien- 

tiously, albeit reluctantly, to comply with the law on order of 

this court. Their reward for this service has been economic 

reprisal and personal recrimination from many of their constituents 

who have allowed hate to overcome their better judgment, But the 

plight of the Board cannot affect the rights of school children 

whose skin color is no choice of their own. These children have 

a right to accept the constitutional promise of equality before 

the law, an equality we profess to all the world. 

IT IS ORDERED that the order of this court dated May 16, 

1960, be, and the same is hereby, amended to read as follows: 

(A) Beginning with the opening of school in September, 

1962, all children entering, or presently enrolled in, 

the public elementary schools of New Orleans, grades 1 

through 6, may attend either the formerly all white 

public schools nearest their homes or the formerly all 

negro public schools nearest their homes, at their 

option, 



(B) Children may be transferred from one school to 

another, provided such transfers are not based on con- 

siderations of race. 

(C) As long as the defendant, Orleans Parish School 

Board, operates a dual school system hesed on racial 

sagregation, the Louisiana Pupil Flacement Act shall 

not be applied to any pupil, 

Injunction to be drafted by the court, 

s/ J. Skelley Wright 

UNITED SIALES DISTRICT JUDGE 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

April 3, 1962 



Exhibit No, 2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION 

3 3 3 3 He JI HIE IE IIA IIH HH FI III IIH HII Te FHT He He 3 Fee He 

CONNIE REED, a minor, by Gerald Rener, 
her guardian and next friend, et al., 

Plaintiff-Intervenors 

* 

EARL BENJAMIN BUSH, et al., * 
* 

Plaintiffs * 
* 

versus x 
* 

ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al., * 
* No. 3630-B 

Defendants * 
* CIVIL ACTION 
* 

* 
* 

* 
2% 

Fi I 3 Fe JIE Ho Ho I HHH A Foe I He HoH Fe SFI HH IFN IH IK He HIN HHH H 

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION 

This case came on for hearing on plaintiffs' and intervenors' 

motion for further relief and temporary injunction. 

It being the opinion of the court that plaintiffs and intervenors 

are entitled to further relief; 

It is ORDERED that the motion to intervene be, and the same is 

hereby, GRANTED, 

It is further Ordered that the Orleans Parish School Board, its 

agents, representatives, attorneys, and all other persons who are 

acting or may act in concert with them, be, and they are hereby, 

restrained, enjoined and prohibited from assigning pupils in any 

manner AnCORSLatant with the following plan: 

(A) Beginning with the opening of school in September, 1962, all 

children entering, or presently enrolled in, the public elementary 

schools of New Orleans, grades 1 through 6, may attend either the 

formerly all-white public schocls nearest their homes, or the formerly 

i/ 
all negro public schools nearest their homes at their option, 

1/ This means that each child entering or attending grades 1 
through 6 may elect to go to either the white school in his 
or her residence district or the negro school in his or her 
residence district as shown on the defendant's maps of the 

City of New Orleans outlining the school district for each 

race. 



(B) Children may be transferred from one school to another 

provided such transfers are not based on considerations of race. 

(C) As long as the defendant, Orleans Parish School Board, 

operates a dual system based on racial segregation, the Louisiana 

Pupil Placement Act shall not be applied to any pupil. 

/s/ J. Skelley Wright 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

New Orleans, La, 
April 9, 1962 



Exhibit No, 3 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

NEW ORLEANS DIVISION 

EARL BENJAMIN BUSH, ET AL., 
PLAINTIFFS, 

VS. 

ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, 
ET AL., 

CIVIL ACTION 

DEFENDANTS, NO. 3630-B 

CONNIE REED, ET AL., 
PLAINTIFF -INTERVENQRS 

e
s
 
8
 
8
%
 

V
W
 

‘ 2
%
 

A
 

[
1
]
 

t
e
 

h
e
 

r
h
 

EEE EEE EEE EEE RE EEE EE EE EEE EE 
EE 

MEE EEEREERERERE EI EEE A BE EE ® ® ov 1
]
 

1
)
 

o
e
 

a
e
 

w
e
 

1
]
 

o
e
 

»
e
 

o
e
 [
 

o
e
 

h
k
 

e
o
 

o
e
 

o
e
 

e
e
 

0
 

o
t
 

PY
] 

o
t
 

Y
d
 

»
e
 

[1
] 

BE
. 

w
e
 

(1
) 

o
e
 

MOTION FOR NEW T 
RA aay 

et = 
© 0 5 0 060 00 508 0 60 ° PE EEE EEE NEN ENEEEEE BS] 

EEE EEE EER EE RE RR ER EE ER EE ERI 
RE EE RE L 1

]
 

N
M
 

*»
 

a
k
 

\
M
d
 

t L
J
 

*
°
e
 

e
o
 

\
a
n
 

A
 

L 1
]
 

o
n
 

h
e
 

n
e
 

A
A
 

L
L
 

LJ
 

*
e
 

w
e
 

L 1
]
 

a
n
 

*
®
 

1
]
 

a
e
 

11
] 

L 1
]
 

a
n
 

Defendant, Orleans Parish School Board, moves the Court to set 

aside the temporary injunction entered herein on the 9th day of April, 

1962, and to grant defendant a new trial, on the grounds that: 

1. The judgment is contrary to law, in that: 

(a) The Orleans Parish $chool Board has made a 

prompt and reasonable start toward full com- 

pliance with the May 17, 1954 ruling of the 

United States Supreme Court, and this Court 

may, and should, find that additional time is 

necessary to carry out the ruling in an ef- 

fective manner, 

(pb) It is not true that during the period of 

transition to a racially non-discriminatory 

school system, the Louisiana Pupil Placement 

Law (R.S. 17:101) may "only be validly applied 

in an integrated school system." (Opinion, p. 4) 

(c) No plaintiff, or plaintiff-intervenor, has 

exhausted the administrative remedies provided 

for in Louisiana Act 492 of 1960, (R.S. 17:101, 

et seq.), nor have any of them exercised the 

option given to them in earlier orders of this 

Court to attend "...either the formerly all 

white public school nearest their home, or the 



- Page 2 =~ 

formerly all negro public school nearest the
ir 

home..."3 and the pleadings do not allege that 

they have so done. 

(d) No pupil, whose application for transfer was 

denied, has filed, in writing, with the Orleans 

Parish School Board objections to the assignm
ent 

of the pupil to a particular school; or has re- 

quested by petition, in writing, assignment or 

transfer to a designated school, or to another 

school to be designated by the Board, all as is 

provided for in R.S. 17:106; and no such pupil 

appears as either plaintiff, or plaintiff-inte
rvenor. 

(e) The constitutionality of Louisiana Act 492 of 19
60 

is not here attacked (See fn. 5 of opinion). Its 

provisions are therefore binding upon defenda
nts, 

plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenors, and the Cou
rt; 

and injunctive relief can be granted only to
 those 

who allege, and prove, that they have exhausted the 

administrative remedies set forth in the sta
tute, 

and the rights which they claim must be ass
erted 

as individuals, and not as a class or group. 

(f) It is not a proper function of this Court to secure 

desegregation for "generations of negroes 
yet un- 

born" (Opinion, p. 6). NOthing in the United States 

Constitution or in Brown v. Topeka gives t
o a child 

the right to attend a school of his choice solely 

because of his race. The simple requirement is that 

no child shall be denied admission to a school of his 

choice on the basis of race or color. The constitu-~ 

tion does not require desegregation, it merely forbids 

discrimination. 



- Page 3 ~- 

2. The judgment is contrary to fact, in that, it is based 

largely upon a finding that school facilities for negroes are unequal 

to those for whites: The findings are erroneous in the following 

respects: 

(a) While some few "negro classes are conducted in 

classrooms converted from stages, custodians’ 

quarters, Tibraties and teachers' lounge rooms," 

similar classroom conditions exist in the white 

schools. (Opinion, p. 5) 

(b) When the present building program of the Orleans 

Parish School Board is completed, all platooning 

in negro schools will be eliminated, even after 

making allowance for the increase in the school 

population to be anticipated, based on the current 

birth race. (Opinion, p. 5) 

(c) A vast preponderance of building funds spent in 

the last ten (10) years have been for negro schools 

(Exhibit OPSB__3__). 

(d) Ten Million ($10,000,000.00) Dollars of Orleans 

Parish School Bonds were delivered on April 4, 1962; 

and this enabled Defendant to begin its current 

construction program. On April 9, 1962 Defendant 

awarded a construction contract for the construction 

of twenty (20) additional classrooms at the Woton 

School and twenty (20) additional classrooms at 

the Dunn School; and in addition, Defendant authorized 

the construction of sixty-four (64) portable classrooms. 

The bulk of the funds available for the current 

construction program of the defendant is already 

earmarked for construction which will eliminate the 

inequalities complained of, 



- Page 4 ~- 

3. The Court erred in enjoining the Orleans Parish S
chool 

Board, et als., from assigning pupils in any manner inconsis
tent 

with the plan set forth by the Court, in that: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

School authorities have the primary responsibility 

for elucidating, assessing, and solving, varied 

local school problems. In assuming this responsi- 

bility, the Court has stripped Defendant of its 

administrative powers, and allows each child in 

the system to decide which school he will attend. 

The plan requires the present non-segregated admi
ssion 

of all negro children, whether qualified or 
not, on 

the theory that this is a guaranteed constitutional 

right, but the United States Supreme Court has he
ld 

that a District Court might conclude that justifi
ca- 

tion exists for not requiring the present non- 

segregated admission of even qualified negro chil
dren. 

Its order seeks to require the desegregation of
 

all six elementary grades in one fell swoop, and
 

prohibits the use of the Louisiana Pupil Placement 

Law during the transitional period. No other School 

Board in the deep South has been ordered to take 

such drastic, sweeping, sudden action, and the Court 

of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a simil
ar 

order issued to the Dallas School Board and order
ed 

the District Court to accord school authorities a 

reasonable further opportunity to promptly meet 

their primary responsibility in the premises. 

The plan handed down by the Court is impractical
, 

and is virtually impossible to comply with. 
If 

school children are permitted to go to schoo
ls of 



- Page 5 - 

their choice, without regard to attendance areas, 

distances, school bus routings and other pertinent 

factors, some of the schools would be crowded be- 

yond their capacity and others would be practically 

vacant. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that the above Motion be granted. 

' 

Samuel I, Rosenberg 
Attorney for the Orleans Parish School 
Board 
747 National Bank of Commerce Building 
New Orleans 12, Louisiana 
JAckson 2-5128. 



yy x Exhibit No. 4 

UNITED STATES DISIRICT COURT 

EOR_THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

NEW ORLEANS DIVISION 

EARL BENJAMIN BUSH, ET AL., 
PLAINTIFFS, 

VS. 

ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, 
ET AL., 

CIVIL ACTION 

DEFENDANTS, NO. 3630-B 

CONNIE REED, A MINOR BY 
GERALD RENER, HER GUARDIAN 
AND NEXT FRIEND, ET ALS., 

PLAINT IFF-INTERVENORS 
$ & 99 0 6 5 5 08 OW 6 OO 0% 4° 00 
® 9 5 FO 0 0° 0 Pe SSP Oe ED OES 

e
e
 
9
%
 
3
¢
 

0
6
 
#
6
 

9
9
%
 
g
o
 
0
9
 
2
8
 
9
s
 
P
S
 

\. 

* ® ® 4 06 ¢ & 0 
¢ & & 0 0° 8 

MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING DISPOSITION OF MOTION FOR 
NEW_TRIAL 

a © 00 0 0 ® ® 5 6 8 9 68 SS SO SB Se 2s 
« © © 9 0° 0° ® ® 5 4 8 5 9 0 9 Se "PO SHE Se w

h
 

® 6 5 9 © © 0 95 5 6 8 OO SS Se 9 Oe see vs 
» 2 9» 2" O° 9 LB 

Defendant, Orleans Parish School Board, moves the Court 

for an order staying execution of, or any proceedings to enforce, 

the judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors 

herein, on April 9, 1962, pending disposition of defendants’ motion 

for a new trial, on the ground that irreparable injury might other- 

wise result to defendant. 

Samuel I. Rosenberg 
Attorney for Orleans Parish School 
Board, 
747 National Bank of Commerce Building 
New Orleans 12, Louisiana 
JAckson 2-5128. 

[Defendants' Proposed Order Omitted]