Chance v. Board of Examiners

1 page

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

Matter
- Chishom v. Edwards (Chisom v. Roemer) (Perschall v. State of Louisiana)
Case
- Perschall v. State of Louisiana
U.S. state
- Louisiana, Georgia
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 74b180c6-f211-ef11-9f8a-6045bddbf119

Cite this item

Press Releases, Volume 6. Chance v. Board of Examiners, 1971. 4b88bfa0-ba92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/61056535-8ae1-4748-9e5d-9a17e2d143fe/chance-v-board-of-examiners. Accessed August 27, 2025.

Copied!

PressRelease B Sime ae Se

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JULY 14, 1971

CHANCE v. BOARD OF EXAMINERS

NEW YORK, N. Y. --- On July 14 the Federal District Court,

Southern District, New York issued a preliminary injunction

prohibiting the Board of Examiners from conducting any further

examinations for supervisory positions in the New York City

School System. The judge also prohibited the Board from issuing

licenses on the basis of such supervisory examinations.

This injunction resulted from a lawsuit brought by the NAACP

Legal Defense Fund on behalf of black and Puerto Rican applicants

for supervisory positions.

The Legal Defense Fund claimed: (1) that the Board's exams

discriminated against blacks and Puerto Ricans and (2) that the

exams were not "job-related" -- that is, that they failed to

select the best applicants for the positions tested for.

In a 56-page opinion, Judge Mansfield upheld the Legal

Defense Fund's claims. He found specifically that:

(1) The exams conducted by the Board of Examiners
over the past 7 years have had a significant
discriminatory effect upon black and Puerto
Rican applicants.

(23 The Board of Examiners has the burden of
showing that their exams are justified as
necessary to select supervisors, and it
has failed to sustain this burden. Indeed
the Court found that the Board has not
succeeded in developing job-related exams.

= This decision constitutes a significant breakthrough in the

struggle to improve the quality of education in the City of

(More)

ACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. | 10 Columbus Circle | New York, N.Y. 10019 | (212) 586-8397

ilNliam T. Coleman, Jr. - President Sos bake: Jack Greenberg - Director-Counsel

CHANCE v. BOARD OF EXAMINERS PAGE TWO

New York,not only for blacks and Puerto Ricans, but for all

students. It has long been recognized that the exam system

administered by the Board of Examiners has acted to perpetuate

a sterile, bureaucratic system and to keep out many of the most

qualified and imaginative applicants, both black and white,

from positions in the New York City School System.

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Judgement

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in