United States v. Marion County School District Findings of Fact and Recommendations

    SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI o 
FILED 

JUL271970 
ROBERY ,C. THOMAS, CLERK i, 

BY hg (2 J { 
LGA lpury 

7 
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

    
  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF 

VERSUS NOS. 28030 and 28042 

HINDS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL, DEFENDANTS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF 

VERSUS Civil Action No. 2178(H) 

MARION COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANTS 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
  

In the above styled school desegregation case, consolidat=     ed with other school cases, Nos. 28030 and 28042, on the docket 

of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Marion County 

School District was ordered by the Appellate Court on November       
7, 1969, to implement not later than December 31, 1969, a 

desegregation plan prepared and filed by the Office of Education | 

of Health, Education and Welfare. On November 19, 1969, the 1g 

Court of Appeals entered an order modifying the provisions of the 

plan previously ordered into effect by that Court. After operat=-   
ing its school system for approximately four months under the 

modified plan, the defendant school board, on May 1, 1970, in     accordance with the procedure outlined in the Appellate Court's 

order of November 7, 1969, filed a motion to modify the plan as 

implemented. On June 1, 1970, the United States of America, as 

plaintiff, responded to the board's motion contending that the 

board's 2rondssl would re-establish a nearly all-black school at 

Marion Central. As shown hereinafter the school board, by 

successive amendments, has offered a proposal in an effort to off       
 



  

set the government's objection. 

The geographical configuration of Marion County is multi=- 

sided, roughly a rectangle 30 miles long north to south and 24 

miles wide east to west. The Pearl River splits the county in 

half, meandering southeasterly from the northwest perimeter 

through the county seat, Golumbia, located in the center of the 

county, down to the southeast border. In the entire county there 

is only one bridge which crosses the river at Columbia. The town 

of Columbia has its own municipal school district, consisting 

of a corridor extending from the municipal limits northwesterly 

to the county line, the Pearl River being its west boundary. The 

defendant school district includes the remainder of the county     
east, south and west of the municipal district. 

Prior to the HEW plan, the school district, for many 

years, operated five schools, all grades 1-12, two being large 

schools with capacities for 1350 students each. One, West 
Be VR 

Marion, formerly a white school, is the only school located west 

of Pearl River. The other, Marion Central, a formerly black   school is located on the east side of the river immediately south 

of the municipal district in a heavily populated negro community. | 

"Bunker Hill, Improve and Hub, all formerly white schools and 

housing from 390 to 510 students each, fan out east of the river, 

located respectively in the northeastern, east central and south- 

eastern parts of the county. 

The HEW plan drastically changed the grade structure of 

these 1-12 schools, assigning grades 1-4 to Bunker Hill, Improve, 

and Hub, for the 1-4 grade students residing in those respective 

communities, grades 5-8, county-wide, to Marion Central, and 

grades 9-12, county-wide, to West Marion. The transportation 

«Zu       
 



      

problems were obvious in the requirement that all students in 

grades 1-8, vest of the river, be funnelled to one crossing 

point for distribution to the three 1-4 grade schools and the 

5-8 grade school, a distance for some of as far as 25 miles each 

way. Conversely, all 9-12 grade students east of the river had 

to converge at the one crossing point to go to West Marion. 

Likewise, these schools, furnished to house students from grades 

1-12, would have had to be re-fitted to serve students of the 

lowest elementary grades. The Appellate Court, acting promptly, 

and, though referred to as a modification, in effect substituted 

a new plan on November 19, 1969, by assigning all high school 

students, grades 9-12, county-wide, to Marion Central, and assign- 

ing grades 1-8 to each of the other four schools, all 1-8 grade 

students west of the river being assigned to West Marion, and Hub, 

Improve and Bunker Hill designated to serve students in grades 

1-8 in their respective communities. The projected attendance 

under this modification and the loss of students following a 

four months' period of implementation, are shown below: 

    

    

        Projected Attendance Actual Attendance 

School Grades W N T W N T 

Marion Central 9-12 602 551 "1153 312 509. 821 
West Marion 1-8 746 450 1196 578 393 971 

Bunker Hill 1-8 170 102 272 98 148 246 

Improve 1-8 255..:.205 460 62 207 269 

Hub 1-8 220 146 366 162. 158320 

1993 1454 3447 1212 1415 2627 

The school board attributes the drop in attendance of 820 | 

students, of which 687% are white and the remainder negro, EohroRle 

mately one-fourth of the total, to the hardships imposed by forced | 

attendance at schools outside their neighborhoods, particularly 

for those who cross the river, and the inadequacy of facilities 

at the centralized high school to care for all high school students 

“3   
 



  

  

  
  

          

county-wide. 

The board's first proposed modification, filed on May 

1, 1970, was to return all schools to a 1-12 grade status; each 

school being zoned as reflected on a map attached to the propodsl, 

which would have anticipated an attendance at Marion Central of 

421 students, only 23 of whom would be white. Plaintiff did hot 

object to the zoning of West Marion, Bunker Hill, and Improve 

and the assignment of grades 1-12 to each of these schools, but 

as stated above, did object to separately zoning the Marion 

‘Central and Hub schools on the grounds that under such an assign- 

ment, Marion Central would regain its identity as a negro school. 

Prior to a hearing before this Court on June 22, 1970, the school 

board amended its motion to combine Marion Central and Hub into 

one zone, designated Zone IV, with grades 9-12 to be assigned to 

Marion Central, and grades 1-8 to be housed at Marion Central and 

Hub each in their respective sub-zones. The attendance, as 

anticipated by the school board, would be 117 whites and 383 

blacks at Marion Central in grades 1-12, and 137 whites and 160 

blacks at Hub in grades 1-8. | 

In a pre-trial conference, the government again objected 

to the board's proposal for the schools in Zone IV, as, under. 

this proposal only 20 whites would attend Marion Central at the 

elementary level. Plaintiff proposed as an acceptable alternate 

that Hub and Marion Central be paired, by assigning grades La sy, 

to Hub and grades 5-12 to Marion Central. From this impasse, 

the case went to trial, plaintiff, for purposes of trial, endors=- 

ing the currently implemented plan. 

At a post-hearing conference on July 14, 1970, the school 

board filed a second amended proposal, acceeding to the govern- 

ments position taken prior to trial, and agreeing to pair Hub and 

whi 

      
  

  
 



              

Marion Central. The government expressed no objection to the 

filing of this amendment. Under the amendment the school board's 

anticipated enrollment at Hub in grades 1-4 would be 109 whites 

and 173 negro students, and at Marion Central 211 whites, cont iced 

from 145, and 370 negroes. 

At the hearing the board undertook through the school 

superintendent and one board member to justify administratively’ 

‘and educationally its preference for four high schools instead 

of one centralized high school. It was noted that the high school | 

portion of the Marion Central facility is not suitable nor 

sufficiently equipped to absorb all county-wide students at the 

high school level; for example, there is insufficient space for 

an adequate science laboratory. On the other hand, all the   schools were constructed and equipped for high school students 

| 

and courses. The board has had complaints from parents as to the 

length of and time required in transportation required to assemble 

all high school students at one facility. The re-establishment 

of high schools at West Marion, Bunker Hill and Improve would   
reduce these items, as well as costs. Although conceding the 

high schools would be proportionately small, the board contends 

that each, from an educational standpoint, is equipped with a 

science lab and vocational shop. These are primarily rural 

schools, each formerly having an agricultural program and its own 

  faculty member. This program, lost under the present plan, 

would be re-instated at the separate high schools. The board 

contends that participation in athletics promotes integration, 

and that under the board's proposal there would be four schools 

with atliletic programs and greater student participation that at 

one high school. The witnesses for the board conceded that there 

are corresponding educational advantages in a consolidétion of 

the high schools with as many reasons for a centralized school as       5 

 



        

there are opposed, but that the overriding factors considered 

by the board are that community high schools will restore 

community pride and support for the schools, will reduce forced 

transportation, will insure adequate high school facilities for 

high school students, will offer the most effective use of 

athletic, agricultural and academic facilities, and will aid in 

the reclamation of students who refuse to attend under the present 

plan. The board concedes that the ratio of whites to black will 

reflect the county ratio in all the schools except Marion Central 

and Hub where negroes will be in a majority, but point out that 

these schools are located in an area where blacks are predominant. 

The board has had the benefit of numerous suggestions from the 

black community, one of these suggestions being the pairing of 

Marion Central and Hub as now proposed. 

The projected attendance under the school board's last 

proposal is: 

  

STUDENTS 

SCHOOL GRADES W N I 

Zone . I - West Marion 1-12 895 561 1456 

Zone II-Bunker Hill 1-12 207 103 310 

Zone III-Improve 1-12 244 185 429 

Zone IV-Hub 1-4 109 173 282 

Marion Central 5-12 211 370 581 

The obvious biggest factor in any plan for this school 

district is the degree of transportation required in trying to 

pair any schools separated by the river with only one point of 

crossing. There is no constitutional objection to the anticipat- 

ed attendance at West Marion under the board's proposal. ‘Any 

arrangement as to assignments to the four schools east of the 

river depends necessarily on the capacity of these schools. 

Under the board's proposal the degree of racial mixture in Zones 

IT and III, compare favorably with the overall county ratio. 

Despite the government's objection that both Marion Central and 

-fy 

  

     



      

Hub will be majority negro whereas the county-wide ratio is 

majority white, the anticipated attendance at these schools will 

reflect the racial ratio of that area. This Court is not aware 

of any decision that requires the degree of racial mixture be 

uniform throughout the district. 

Although the Court feels that this school system may 

eventually consider the wisdom of centralizing its high schools, 

once constitutional requirements are met, this decision becomes 

an administrative one best resolved by the school board in the 

light of the circumstances pertaining to its particular situation. 

This Court does recommend approval of the school board's 

proposal with assignments as reflectéd on page _ 6 hereof, the 

zones to be as outlined in the school board's last amended 

proposal. 

Recommended and signed in duplicate, the Clerk of this 

Court being directed to file one signed duplicate in his office 

and forward the other signed duplicate to the Clerk of the U.s. 

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and mail a copy to each 

party of record. 

  

DATED : p74