Brewer v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, Virginia Appendix of Appellees
Public Court Documents
October 10, 1963
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Brewer v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, Virginia Appendix of Appellees, 1963. c9d93963-b69a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/83710791-bc77-4732-b8a8-57bae5f1089a/brewer-v-school-board-of-the-city-of-norfolk-virginia-appendix-of-appellees. Accessed October 10, 2025.
Copied!
I APPENDIX OF APPELLEES
IN THE
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
NO. 9898
CARLOTTA MOZELLE BREW ER, et al., etc.,
Appellants,
v .
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, et al.,
OF
Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
VIRGINIA — NORFOLK DIVISION
L eonard H. D avis
City Attorney
City Hall Building
Norfolk, Virginia 23510
W. R. C. Cocke
1200 Maritime Tower
Norfolk, Virginia 23510
Counsel for Appellees
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1—
Interrogatories of Plaintiffs ....................................... 2a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1 -A -
Answers of The School Board of the City of
Norfolk to Interrogatories of Plaintiffs................... 6a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1-A-l—
Map (Elementary Schools) ........................................ 53a
Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. l-A-2—
Map (Junior High Schools) ....................................... 54a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. l-A-3—
Map ( Senior High Schools) ....................................... 55a
Defendants’ Exhibit No. 1—
Principles To Be Applied In Determining
The Schools And Grades Which Children
Will Attend And Outline Of Method Of
Putting Such Principles Into Effect........................ 56a
Report of The School Board of The City of Nor
folk to the Court, with copy of Resolution at
tached, filed June 18, 1964 ............................. ...............60a
Letters of counsel for appellees to counsel for ap
pellants dated September 4, 1964 (1 ) trans
mitting copies of the Motion of The School
Board of the City of Norfolk for approval
of its action in granting permission to certain
children, etc. to change their choices of
schools for the 1964-65 school year, etc. and
11
the Resolution attached, which Motion was
filed September 4, 1964; and (2) advising
counsel for appellants when the Court could
hear the Motion and requesting counsel for
appellants to advise the Court and counsel
for appellees of their wishes........................................ 64a
Excerpts from Transcript of Court proceedings
on December 7, 1963:
Testimony of Edwin L. Lamberth, Superin
tendent of Schools of the City of Norfolk........ 70a
Remarks of the Court with regard to the
child of Mrs. Pruden.............................................148a
Colloquy between the Court and counsel for
appellants with regard to the school
faculties ...................................................................157a
Colloquy between the Court and counsel for
appellees...................................................................159a
Excerpt from Transcript of Court proceedings on
October 10, 1963:
Statement of the C ourt.................................................159a
TABLE OF CONTENTS-(Continued)
la
APPENDIX OF APPELLEES
IN THE
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
NO. 9898
CARLOTTA MOZELLE BREW ER, et al., etc.,
Appellants,
v.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, et al.,
Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
VIRGINIA — NORFOLK DIVISION
2a
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT N O . 1
INTERROGATORIES
TO: Leonard H. Davis, Esquire
City Attorney
Norfolk, Virginia
W. R. C. Cocke, Esquire
Maritime Tower
Norfolk 10, Virginia
Attorneys for Defendants.
Plaintiffs request that the defendant The School Board
of the City of Norfolk, Virginia, by an officer or agent
thereof, answer under oath in accordance with Rule 33,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following interroga
tories :
1. List for each public school operated by the defend
ant School Board the following:
a. Grades served by each school during 1963-64
school term;
b. Planned pupil capacity of each school;
c. Number of white pupils in attendance at school in
each grade level as of most recent date for which figures
are available for 1963-64 term;
d. Number of Negro pupils in attendance at school in
each grade level as of most recent date for which figures
3a
are available for 1963-64 term;
e. Number of Negro teachers and other administra
tive or professional personnel and the number of white
teachers, etc., employed at each school during 1963-64
school term;
f. Pupil-teacher ratio at each school during 1963-64
school term (most recent available figures);
g. Average class size for each school during 1963-64
school term (most recent available figures).
2. Furnish a map or maps indicating the attendance
areas served by each school in the system during the 1962-
63 term and for the 1963-64 term. If no such map or maps
can be furnished, state where such maps or other descrip
tions of the attendance areas may be found and inspected.
3. State the number of Negro pupils and the number
of white pupils, by grade level, residing in each attendance
area established by the School Board during the 1963-64
school term. If definite figures are unavailable, give the
best projections or estimates available, stating the basis for
any such estimates or projections.
4. State whether any pupils are transported by school
buses to schools within the city, and if there are any, give
the total number of pupils so transported, by race, during
the 1963-64 term.
5. State with respect to the 1963-64 term, the total
number of white pupils who reside in the attendance area
of an all-Negro school, but were in attendance at an all-
white or predominantly white school. Indicate with respect
4a
to such pupils, the following:
a. Number, by grade, residing in each Negro school
attendance area;
b. As to each Negro attendance area, the schools ac
tually attended by such pupils residing in that area.
6. List the names of all Negro pupils now still attend
ing the school system who have made requests for assign
ment or reassignment to attend all-white or predominantly
white schools in the system from 1959 to date, but who are
still attending all-Negro schools, and furnish with respect
to each such pupil the following information:
a. School and grade of assignment made for 1963-64
term;
b. Date of request or requests for assignment or re
assignment to white school, and school requested if given;
c. Date requests denied and reasons for denial of re
quests.
7. State the total number of Negro pupils who have
been initially assigned to attend all-white or predominantly
white schools for the first time during the 1963-64 school
term. Give a breakdown of this total by schools and grades.
8. State whether during the 1963-64 term it is neces
sary at any schools to utilize for classroom purposes any
areas not primarily intended for such use, such as library
areas, teachers lounges, cafeterias, gymnasiums, etc. If so,
list the schools and facilities so utilized.
9. State whether a program or course in Distributive
5a
Education is offered in the school system and if so at what
schools it is offered.
10. Furnish a statement of the curriculum offered at
each junior high school and each high school in the system
during the 1963-64 term.
11. Furnish a list of the courses of instruction, if any,
which are available to seventh grade students who attend
junior high schools in the system but are not available to
those seventh grade pupils assigned to elementary schools.
12. State whether any summer school programs op
erated by the school system have been operated on a de
segregated basis with Negro and white pupils attending the
same classes.
13. State with respect to any new school construction
which is now contemplated, the following with respect to
each such project:
a. Location of contemplated school or addition;
b. Size of school, number of classrooms, grades to be
served, and projected capacity;
c. Estimated date of completion and occupancy;
d. Number of Negro pupils and white pupils attend
ing grades to be served by school who reside in existing or
projected attendance area for such school.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a copy of such answers
must be served upon the undersigned within fifteen days
after service.
6a
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO. 1-A
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
Defendant, The School Board of the City of Norfolk,
by Edwin L. Lamberth, Division Superintendent of the
schools of said city, makes the following answers to the
Interrogatories propounded on behalf of Plaintiffs. But de
fendant does not waive, but expressly reserves, the right to
object to the introduction in evidence by Plain tiffs of any
of the said answers, or parts of said answers, as irrelevant,
incompetent, or immaterial to any proper issue in this pro
ceeding, or on any other legal ground.
1. For answer to Interrogatory 1. and the several sub
divisions a., b., c., d., e., f., and g., Defendant annexes here
to five separate sheets setting forth under the several sub
divisions the information requested.
2. For answer to Interrogatory 2., it is physically im
practicable to attach to these answers a map or maps such
as requested in the Interrogatory, but such a map will be
available for inspection by counsel in the board room of the
School Administration Building, 402 East Charlotte Street,
and will be produced on request at any hearing held by the
Court.
3. For answer to Interrogatory 3., there is attached
hereto a list such as requested which contains the most
accurate estimates possible from the records of the School
Board. These estimates are not broken down by grade
levels within the senior and junior high schools and the
elementary schools because from the information available
it is practically impossible to do so.
7a
4. For answer to Interrogatory 4., Defendant says:
The Norfolk Public School System does not operate or con
trol any school buses. The Virginia Transit Company trans
ports pupils to and from school at reduced fares furnished
by their parents. There is no way to make an accurate es
timate of the number of pupils riding Virginia Transit
Company buses.
5. For answer to Interrogatory 5., subdivision a. and
b., Defendant says that this Interrogatory is answered in
the figures hereto attached in response to Interrogatory 3.
6. For answer to Interrogatory 6., subdivision a., b.,
and c., Defendant annexes hereto the lists requested.
7. For answer to Interrogatory 7., Defendant annexes
hereto the list requested.
8. For answer to Interrogatory 8., Defendant annexes
hereto the said information requested.
9. For answer to Interrogatory 9., see the anwser on
the same sheet pertaining to the answer to Interrogatory 8.
10. For answer to Interrogatory 10., Defendant annexes
hereto the information contained on four sheets.
11. For answer to Interrogatory 11., Defendant says:
Pupils assigned to seventh grade classes in junior high
schools have available classes in shop, homemaking, and
foreign languages which are not available in elementary
schools. All other courses are provided for all seventh grade
pupils.
12. For answer to Interrogatory 12., Defendant says:
8a
Summer school programs at Granby High, Maury High,
Norview High, and Granby Elementary School were op
erated in 1963 on a desegregated basis with Negro and
white pupils in attendance.
13. For answer to Interrogatory 13., Defendant annex
es hereto two sheets giving the information requested in
subdivisions a., b., e., and d. of said Interrogatory.
9a
INTERROGATORY la lb
Grades Pupil
School Served Capacity
Granby High 10-12 1,976
Maury High 9-12 2,079
Norview Sr. High 10-12 2,029
Washington High 10-12 1,805
Azalea Jr. High 7-9 1,439
Blair Jr. High 7-9 1,154
Campostella Jr. High 6-8 1,086
Jacox Jr. High 7-9 1,152
Madison Jr. High 4-9 846
Northside Jr. High 7-9 1,309
Norview Jr. High 7-9 1,609
Rosemont Jr. High and Elementary 1-9 976
Ruffner Jr. High 7-9 1,407
Willard Jr. High 7-9 748
Ballentine 1-6 300
Bay View 1-6 900
Bowling Park 1-6 1,050
Calcott 1-7 870
Campostella Elementary 1-7 300
Carey 1-6 630
Chesterfield 1-7 690
Clay 1-6 240
Coleman Place 1-7 990
Coronado 1-5 180
Crossroads 1-6 1,020
Diggs Park 1-6 630
Douglas Park 1-3 120
East Ocean View 1-4 150
School
Easton
Fairlawn
Gatewood
Goode
Granby Elementary
Ingleside
Jackson
Lafayette
Lakewood
Lansdale
Larchmont
Larrymore
Lee
Liberty Park
Lincoln
Lindenwood
Little Creek Elementary
Little Creek Primary
Marshall
Meadowbrook
Monroe
Norview Elementary
Oakwood
Oceanair
Ocean View
Pineridge
Poplar Halls
Grades Pupil
Served Capacity
1-7 600
1-6 600
1-6 650
1-6 570
1-7 900
1-6 480
1-4 120
1-6 330
1-6 930
1-6 810
1-7 660
1-7 780
1-6 630
1-6 660
1-6 750
1-6 750
3-6 810
1-3 630
1-7 660
1-7 630
1-7 660
1-6 540
1-6 600
1-7 780
1-7 1,020
1-7 480
1-6 600
11a
School Served Capacity
Grades Pupil
Pretty Lake 1-4 150
Sherwood Forest 1-7 780
Smallwood 1-4 420
Stuart 1-7 810
Suburban Park 1-7 690
Taylor 1-7 420
Titus 1-6 660
Titustown 1-6 480
Tucker 1-5 540
West 1-6 600
Young Park 1-6 780
INTERROGATORY 1c
Number of white pupils in membership at school in each grade level as of most recent date for which figures are avail
able for 1963-64 term. (September 30,1963)
SCHOOL CRMD 1
SR, HIGH
Granby
Maury
Norview
JR, HIGH
Azalea
Blair
Northside
Norview
Willard
Grade Level
2 3 4 5 6 7
317
237
168
398
242
9 10 11 12
1,016 908 807
262 843 789 567
32 931 875 550
591 505
664 335
645 662
606 577
222 18832
INTERROGATORY 1 c— (Continued)
Grade Level
SCHOOL CRMD 1 2 3 4 5
ELEMENTARY
Bay View 164 148 161 177 169
Ballentine 72 44 39 64 36
Calcott 17 106 89 145 137 141
Chesterfield 37 109 78 79 64 53
Campostella Hgts, 24 16 17 14 23
Coleman Place 28 167 164 149 112 154
Crossroads 197 194 201 193 151
East Ocean View 63 36 46 25
Easton 93 84 84 84 65
Fairlawn 82 81 97 98 118
Granby Elem. 87 79 83 88 171
Ingleside 82 111 71 79 81
Lafayette 18 60 63 68 36 58
Lakewood 136 150 146 137 144
Lansdale 176 183 142 121 129
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
154
68
145 131
57 54
17 14
121 141
153
61 64
69
185 184
79
36
133
111
SCHOOL CRMD 1 2 3 4 5 6
INTERROGATORY 1 c— (Continued) Grade Level
ELEMENTARY—(Continued)
Larchmont 110 106 81 103 120 102
Larrymore 17 146 140 171 166 168 151
Lee 2 4 2 2
Little Cr, Elem. 32 315 263 283
Little Cr. Prim. 12 286 333 274
Meadowbrook 121 121 85 72 88 71
Marshall 30 61 61 44 48 45 48
Monroe 80 104 123 91 96 78
Norview Elem. 132 108 101 91 94 89
Oceanair 13 151 142 96 95 100 88
Ocean View 160 140 125 120 128 114
Pineridge 40 45 49 48 53 38
Poplar Halls 92 117 107 115 111 93
Pretty Lake 65 35 36 26
Sherwood Forest 114 147 164 145 123 135
Stuart 12 100 152 115 143 113 116
7 8 9 10 11 12
105
133
79
32
65
83
113
43
85
105
p
INTERROGATORY 1c— (Continued)
SCHOOL CRMD 1 2 3 4 5
Suburban Elem. 76 69 81 86 84
Taylor 46 63 58 58 66
TOTAL 216 3,400 3,407 3,272 3,151 3,147
Grade Level
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
82 76
73 56
2,950 2,925 2,728 2,561 2,790 2,572 1,9
OXP
INTERROGATORY Id
Number of Negro pupils in membership at school in each grade level as of most recent date for which figures are avail
able for 1963-64 term. (September 30,1963).
SCHOOL CRMD
SR. HIGH
Granby
Maury
Norview
Washington
JR. HIGH
Blair
Campostella 17
Jacox 18
Madison
Grade Level
4 5 6
216
35 124 171
7 8 9
3
12 5 2
390 293
522 517 517
177 173 130
10 11 12
11 5 4
17 1 6
22 8 4
1,050 766 641
INTERROGATORY I d — (C ontinued)
SCHOOL CRMD
Norview
Northside
Rosemont
Ruffner 30
ELEMENTARY
661 961 ZSI 112
Carey 34
Chesterfield
Clay
Coronado
Diggs Park 34
Douglas Park
Gatewood
Goode
Ingleside
Jackson
2 3 4 5
42 51 62 50
59 rjje j SujjMog
84 90 68 76
4 2 1 2
70 56 50 60
37 53 33 31
114 110 88 116
61 55
151 136 123 94
105 128 123 121
1 2 1
63 37 32
1
48
981
122
4
80
47
143
84
179
101
1
58
6 7
OO 9
3 2 3
1 1 3
130 183 148 104
416 425 602
196
77
1
65
36
36
110
INTERROGATORY 1 d---(Continued)
SCHOOL CRMD
Lee 52
Liberty Park
Lincoln 35
Lindenwood
Marshall
Meadowbrook
Monroe
Norview Elem.
Oakwood
Smallwood
Suburban Elem.
Stuart 1
Titus 27
Titustown
Tucker
West
Young Park
TOTAL 313 2,
2 3 4 5
91 101 87 79
124 131 125 122
122 96 80 121
159 148 154 161
19 15 8 11
4
10 8 8 3
3 3 4 4
142 119 117 95
169 127 104
1 7 4 5
122 131 95 94
98 79 76 79
117 81 99 97
89 96 115 86
147 138 125 131
2,360 2,155 2,014 1,962
1
146
157
135
155
30
1
10
1
152
192
12
162
111
127
92
172
,707
11 126 7
65
125
108
127
5 3
6 1
4
97
6 2
85
33
10
00p
107
124
1,929 1,711 1,564 1,364 1,100 780 655
19a
INTERROGATORY le I f
Pupil-
lg
Personnel Teacher Average
School White Negro Ratio Class Size
Granby High 112 0 24.7 31.4
Maury High 110 0 22.6 29.8
Norview Sr. High 106 0 22.8 27.6
Washington High 0 107 23.0 31.4
Azalea Jr. High 64 0 22.1 30.9
Blair Jr. High 60 0 20.9 30.0
Campostella Jr. High 0 34 25.4 28.8
Jacox Jr. High 0 66 23.5 35.5
Madison Jr. High 0 33 23.1 27.1
Northside Jr. High 66 0 22.4 31 2
Norview Jr. High 71 0 22.4 27.6
Rosemont Jr. High and Elem. 0 32 24.6 28.3
Ruffner Jr. High 0 64 22.3 34,0
Willard Jr. High 33 0 20.7 26.8
Ballentine 11 0 24.9 32.3
Bay View 35 0 27.8 29.5
Bowling Park 0 42 28.8 30.2
Calcott 31 0 29.4 31.4
Campostella Elementary 5 0 25.0 25.0
Carey 0 23 24.0 26.2
Chesterfield 24 0 22.7 24.8
Clay 0 13 29.3 31.8
Coleman Place 41 0 25.3 28.8
Coronado 0 6 33.5 33.5
Crossroads 38 0 28.7 31.1
Diggs Park 0 25 25.6 29.1
Douglas Park 0 6 33.3 33.3
East Ocean View 5 0 34.0 34.0
Easton 20 0 26.8 29.7
20a
INTERROGATORY le If
Pupil-
lg
Personnel Teacher Average
School White Negro Ratio Class Size
Fairlawn 21 0 26.0 28.7
Gatewood 0 24 30.0 32.7
Goode 0 24 28.7 31.3
Granby Elementary 31 0 28.3 30.2
Ingleside 19 0 26.7 31.8
Jackson 0 6 31.7 31.7
Lafayette 12 0 28.3 30.8
Lakewood 31 0 27.3 29.2
Lansdale 33 0 26.1 28.7
Larchmont 23 0 31.6 33.0
Larrymore 36 0 30.3 33.1
Lee 0 24 27.4 30.0
Liberty Park 0 28 28.0 31.4
Lincoln 0 26 26.8 29.0
Lindenwood 0 29 31.2 33.5
Little Creek Elementary 29 0 30.8 33.1
Little Creek Primary 31 G 29.2 31.2
Marshall 18 0 24.2 27.1
Meadowbrook 21 0 30.6 32.1
Monroe 24 0 28.5 31.0
Norview Elementary 22 G 28.8 31.7
Oakwood 0 23 28,5 31.2
Oceanair 26 0 29.5 32.0
Ocean View 33 G 27.3 30.0
Pine ridge 13 0 24.3 28,7
Poplar Halls 22 0 28.9 31.8
Pretty Lake 5 0 32.4 32.4
Sherwood Forest 32 0 28.5 30.4
Smallwood 0 20 29.6 32.9
Stuart 29 0 29.6 31.7
Suburban Park 23 0 25.7 28.1
21a
IN T E R R O G A T O R Y le I f
Pupil-
lg
Personnel Teacher Average
School White Negro Ratio Class Size
Taylor 17 0 23.3 28.0
Titus 0 27 26.5 28.6
Titustown 0 17 28.0 317
Tucker 0 19 27.0 30.6
West 0 22 26.6 29.3
Young Park 0 29 28.9 32.2
22a
INTERROGATORY 3
White Pupils Negro Pupils
in Attendance in Attendance
School Area Area
Granby High 2,751 150
Maury High 2,488 1,907
Norview High 2,422 400
Washington High 7,661 2,457
Azalea Jr. High 1,413 3
Blair Jr. High 1,255 1,807
Campostella Jr. High 10 1,000
Jacox Jr. High 150 1,574
Madison Jr. High 100 480
Northside Jr. High 1,480 150
Norview Jr. High 1,589 480
Rosemont Jr. High 1,589 435
Ruffner Jr. High 200 1,473
Willard Jr. High 684 0
Ballentine Elem. 323 0
Bay View Elem. 973 0
Bowling Park Elem. 0 1,209
Calcott Elem. 911 0
Campostella Elem. 120 2
Carey Elem. 0 551
Chesterfield Elem. 545 784
Clay Elem. 0 381
Coleman Place Elem. 1,036 0
Coronado Elem. 20 300
Crossroads Elem. 1,089 0
Diggs Park Elem. 5 641
Douglas Park Elem. 0 200
East Ocean View Elem. 170 0
Easton Elem. 535 10
Fairlawn Elem. 545 10
Gatewood Elem. 4 719
23a
8N1ERROGATORY 3-—(Continued)
School
Goode Elem.
Granby Elem.
Ingleside Elem.
Jackson Elem.
Lafayette Elem.
Lakewood Elem.
Lansdale Elem.
Larchmont Elem.
Larrymore Elem.
Lee Elem.
Liberty Park Elem.
Lincoln Elem.
Lindenwood Elem.
Little Creek Elem.
Little Creek Primary
Madison (Elem. section)
Marshall Elem.
Meadowbrook Elem.
Monroe Elem.
Norview Elem.
Oakwood Elem.
Oceanair Elem.
Ocean View Elem.
Pineridge Elem,
Poplar Halls Elem.
Pretty Lake Elem.
Rosemont (Elem. section)
Sherwood Forest Elem.
Smallwood Elem.
White Pupils Negro Pupils
in Attendance in Attendance
Area Area
0 688
877 0
508 5
0 190
339 0
846 0
862 8
727 0
1,092 0
11 631
545 784
0 697
683 904
893 0
905 0
0 330
352 200
637 35
683 904
615 39
0 722
768 0
900 0
316 0
635 0
162 0
0 383
913 0
5 592
24a
INTERROGATORY 3— (Continued)
White Pupils Negro Pupils
in Attendance in Attendance
School Area Area
Stuart Elem. 857 0
Suburban Park Elem. 591 10
Tarrallton Elem. 600 4
Taylor Elem. 420 0
Titus Elem. 0 716
Titustown Elem. 200 476
Tucker Elem. 0 521
West Elem. 0 585
Young Park Elem. 350 837
INTERROGATORY 6
a a
Number Pupil’s Name
School
1963-64
Grade
1963-64
63-11 Butts, Charlene L. Rosemont Jr. 9
63-18 Daye, Kenneth L. IMRE*
63-47 Outlaw, Rickie R. Liberty Park 1
63-61 Smith, Larry Madison Jr. 9H
63-64 Tatem, Rosey L. Madison Jr. 9H
63-69 Turner, Betty J. Rosemont Jr. 8
63-70 Turner, Jacque E. Rosemont Jr. 8
63- 1A Cuffee, Delena Lincoln 3
63-2A Cuffee, Samuel L. Lincoln 5
63-4A Dorsey, Carroll T. B. T. Wash. 10
63-6A Exum, Earl V. B. T. Wash. 10
63-7A Humphrey, Theresa R, NRE
63-8A Jackson, James C. B. T. Wash. 10
63-12A Mackey, Betty L. B. T. Wash. 10
63-13A Mackey, Edith M. Ruffner 91.
cb b c
Date Date
Assignment School Request Reason for
Requested Requested Denied Denial
5 /17/63 Norview Jr.
Norview Sr.
8 /6 /6 3 J
5 /8 /6 3 Suburban Park 8 /6 /6 3 K
2 /6 /6 3 Chesterfield 8 /6 /6 3 G
5 /28 /63 Granby 8 /6 /6 3 F
4 /30 /63 Northside Jr. 8 /6 /6 3 F
5/29/63 Norview Jr. 8 /6 /6 3 J
5/29/63 Norview Jr. 8 /6 /6 3 J
6 /13 /63 James Monroe 9 /3 /6 3 H
6/13/63 James Monroe 9 /3 /6 3 H
6/13/63 Maury 9 /3 /6 3 H
6/18 /63 Norview Sr. 9 /3 /6 3 H
6 /6 /6 3 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
6/28/63 Granby 9 /3 /6 3 H
6 /6 /6 3 Granby 9 /3 /6 3 H
6 /6 /6 3 Northside 9 /3 /6 3 H
INTERROGATORY 6— (C ontinued)
a a
Number Pupil’s Name
School
1983-64
Grade
1983-64
63-14A Pledger, Christine A, Carey 1
63-23A Sheppard, Bobbie J. B, T, Wash. 10
63-24A Smith, Robert M. NRE
63-25A Stanley, Stephen P. Rosemont Jr. 6
63-26A Tatem, Carolyn V, Rosemont Jr. 7
63-27A Wynn, Mary E. B, T. Wash. 10
63-28A Barkley, Frederick Coronado 2
63-37A Brown, Bettie J, B. T. Wash. 10
63-58A McCiease, Larry L NRE
63-65A Raynor, Elverna Yeung Park 4
63-66A Robertson, Dorothy E. Young Park 5
63-78A Williams, Douglas E. Young Park 3
63-80A Williams, Gwendolyn Young Park 5
63-olA Williams, Sharon D. Young Park 1
63-84A Fowlkes, Sharon R, Young Park 3
Bate
Assignment School
Date
Request Reason
Requested Requested Denied Denii
6 /7 /6 3 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
6/13 /63 Maury 9 /3 /6 3 II
5 /29/63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
6/11 /63
6 /3 /6 3 Norview El. 9 /3 /6 3 H
7 /8 /6 3 Norview Jr. 9 /3 /6 3 H
6/10/63 Norview Sr. 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/19 /63 Norview El. 9 /3 /6 3 H
8 /2 /6 3 Norview Sr. 9 /3 /6 3 H
5/29/63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 II
8 /13 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
8 /20 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/13 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/13 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/13 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 II
8 /22 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 II
INTERROGATORY 6— -(Continued)
a a
Number Pupil’s Name
School
1353-S4
Grade
1963-64
63-88A McClease, Floyd T. Young Park 2
63-89A McClease, James A, Young Park 4
63-90A McClease, Larena J. Young Park 6
63-31A McClease, Malcom D. Young Park 3
63-92A McClease, Valerie P. Young Park 5
63-93A Sawyer, Barbara A. Young Park 5
63-94A Sawyer, Shirley A. Young Park 6
63-95A Sawyer, Larry T. Young Park 1
63-98A Skinner, Thomasine J. Lindenwood 4
63-99A Skinner, Madge A. Lindenwood 5
63-1O0A Smith, Linda L. Lindenwood 5
63-102A Wheaton, Lysandra A. Young Park 1
63-103A Wheaton, Shelia V. Young Park 2
63-104A Whitaker, Mack L. Young Park 5
63-106A Branch, Regina C. Coronado 1
63-108A Cameron, Alvin Young Park 1
cb b
Date
Assignment School
Requested Requested
8 /22 /63 John Marshall
8 /22 /63 John Marshall
8 /22 /63 John Marshall
8 /22 /63 John Marshall
8 /22 /63 John Marshall
8 /22 /63 John Marshall
8 /22 /63 John Marshall
8 /22 /63 John Marshall
8 /22 /63 James Monroe
8 /22 /63 James Monroe
8/22/63 John Marshall
8 /23 /63 John Marshall
8 /23 /63 John Marshal!
8 /22 /63 John Marshal!
8 /23 /63 Norview El.
8 /26 /63 John Marshall
c
Date
Request Reason for
Denied Denial
9/3/63 H
9/3/63 H
9/3/63 H
9/3/63 H
9/3/63 H to
9/3/63 H -1p
9/3/63 H
9/3/63 H
9/3/63 H
9/3/63 H
9/3/63 H
9/3/63 H
9/3/63 H
9/3/63 H
9/3/63 H
9/3/63 H
INTERROGATORY 6— (C ontinued)
a a
School Grade
dumber Pupil’s Name 1963-64 1963-64
63-109A Dixon, Carolyn D, Coronado 1
63-110A Dudley, Linwood E. Young Park 6
63-111A Dudley, Rocky C. Young Park 4
63-112A Farris, Alguster Young Park 6
63-113A Farris, Glenn Young Park 3
63-114A Farris, William H. Young Park 4
63-116A Hutti, An drey Liberty Park 4
63-117A Lambert, Dockery Coronado 1
63-118A Lambert, Dolly L Coronado 1
63-119A Lashley, Melvin T. Young Park 5
63-120A Lewis, Phyllis L, Ruffner 8L
63-124A Means, Cleo E. Liberty Park 5
63-132A Rotan, Anthony L. Ruffner 7L
63-133A Rotan, Bernadette B. Liberty Park 3
63-MSA Brickhouse, Dorine L Young Park 1
63-M5A Clayton, Jerome Lindenwood 5
b b c c
Date Date
Assignment School Request Reason for
Requested Requested Denied Denial
8 /23 /63 Norview EL 9 /3 /6 3 H
8 /19 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/19 /63 John Marshal! 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/26 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/26 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/26 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/19 /63 Chesterfield 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/23 /63 Norview El. 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/23 /63 Norview EL 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/26 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/23 /63 Blair Jr. 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/26 /63 Chesterfield 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/23 /63 Blair Jr. 9 /3 /6 3 H
8 /23 /63 Chesterfield 9 /3 /6 3 H
8 /27 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/28 /63 James Monroe 9 /3 /6 3 H
28a
INTERROGATORY 6 — (Continued)
a a
School Grade
Number Pupil’s Name 1963-64 1963-64
63-147A Crawford, Carol A. Young Park 5
63-148A Crawford, Wendy R. Young Park 4
63-149A Diggs, Ricardo R. Young Park 1
63-150A Diggs, Rita R. Young Park 1
63-151A Finnell, Margaret D. Y'oung Park 6
63-167A Nixon, Saundra P. B. T. Wash. 10
63-170A Ray, Kathy R. Young Park 4
63-171A Reid, Brenda A. Young Park 6
63-172A Walker, Robert B. T. Wash. 10
63-174A Wilson, Alphonson Young Park 4
63-176A Thomas, James M. B. T. Wash. 10
63-177A Wilson, Tony Gene Young Park 2
63-178A Blue, Gloria Jacox Jr, 9L
63-180A Brown, Marion Titustown 6
63-181A Brown, Patricia A. Titustown 2
63-189A Gipson, Denise C. Young Park 3
Cb b c
Date Date
Assignment School Request Reason for
Requested Requested Denied Denial
8 /27 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/27/63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/26 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/26 /63 John Marshal! 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/28 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/29 /63 Norview Sr. 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/27 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/23 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 II
8 /29/63 Norview Sr. 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/23 /63 John Marshall 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/30 /63 Norview Sr. 9 /3 /6 3 H
8/23/63 John Marshal! 9 /3 /6 3 H
9 /3 /6 3 Norview Jr. 9 /12 /63 H
9 /4 /6 3 John Marshall 9 /12/63 H
9 /4 /6 3 John Marshall 9 /12 /63 H
9 /3 /6 3 John Marshall 9 /12 /63 H
INTERROGATORY 6— (C ontinued)
a
School
Number Pupil's Name 1963-64
63-190A Gipson, Lawrence P. Young Park
63-191A Gipson, Kenney Young Park
63-193A Livingston, Michael L. Young Park
63-I94A Livingston, Samuel E. Young Park
53-201A Palmer, Gloria Young Park
63-207A Swann, Denise A, Madison
63-226A Miller, Greta D. Young Park
63-227A Owens, Samuel L. Young Park
63-240A Harvey, Gregory E, Young Park
63-241A Harvey, Larry C. Young Park
63-244A McCoy, Sheila T. Lindenwood
63-245A McCoy, Victor J. Lindenwood
63-258A Williams, Dennis K. Bowling Park
63-259A Allen, Regina! A. Young Park
63-272A Green, Van T. B. T. Wash.
63-183A Crenshaw, Alfred J. NRE
Cb b e
Date Date
Assignment School Request Reason for
Requested Requested Denied Denial
9 /3 /6 3 John Marshall 9 /12 /63 H
9 /3 /6 3 John Marshall 9 /12 /63 H
9 /3 /6 3 John Marshall 9 /12 /63 H
9 /3 /6 3 John Marshal! 9 /12 /63 H
9 /3 /6 3 John Marshall 9 /12 /63 H
9 /4 /6 3 John Marshall 9 /12 /63 H
9 /5 /6 3 John Marshall 9 /12 /63 H
9 /3 /6 3 John Marshal! 9 /12 /63 H
9 /5 /6 3 John Marshall 9 /12 /63 H
9 /5 /6 3 John Marshall 9 /12 /63 H
9 /5 /6 3 James Monroe 9/12 /63 H
9 /5 /6 3 James Monroe 9 /12 /63 H
9 /5 /6 3 John Marshal! 9 /12 /63 H
9 /5 /6 3 John Marshall 9 /12 /63 H
9 /1 /6 3 Norview Sr. 9 /12 /63 H
9 /3 /6 3 John Marshall 9 /12 /63 H
INTERROGATORY 6 — (C ontinued!
a a
Number Pupil’s Name
School
1963-64
Grade
1963-64
62-8 Clarke, James I. Madison Jr. 9H
62-10 Cole, Patricia A. Rosemont Jr, 9
62-15 Forbes, William E. Rosemont Jr. 9
62-16 Gardner, Gregory W. Madison Jr, 8L
62-25 Jacobs, William W. B, T. Wash, 10
62-26 Johnson, Antoinette K, Madison Jr, 81
62-29 Johnson, Joan B. Madison Jr, 8L
62-39 Mayfield, Martha J. Madison Jr. 8L
62-49 Shepard, Romona K. Madison Jr, 8L
62-50 Slade, Florence M. Titustown 3
62-55 Talley, Frederick L. Madison Jr. 8L
62-63 Whittaker, Maggie B, Madison Jr. 8L
62-15A Epps, Angela B, West 2
62-16A Epps, Wendell L West 3
62-25A Hill, Ethel M. Young Park 5
62-26A Hill, Felix Young Park 3
b b c c
Date Date
Assignment School Request Reason for
Requested Requested Denied Denial
5 /17 /62 Northside Jr. 8 /23 /62 F
5/18/62 Norview Jr. 8 /23 /62 j
5 /25/62 Norview Jr. 8 /23 /62 J
5/17/62 Granby EL 8/23 /62 B
5/17/62 Norview Sr. 8 /23 /62 J
5/31/62 Northside Jr. 8 /23 /62 F
5/17/62 Granby El. 8 /23 /62 B
5/24/62 Granby El. 8 /23 /62 B
5/17/62 Meadowbrook 8 /23 /62 B
5/17/62 Suburban Park 8 /23 /62 C
5 /3 /6 2 Granby El. 8 /23 /62 B
5/17 /62 Granby El. 8 /23 /62 B
8/24 /62 R. E. Lee 9 /6 /6 2 H
8/24 /62 R. E, Lee 9 /6 /6 2 H
8/24 /62 R. E. Lee 9 /6 /6 2 J
8 /24 /62 R. E. Lee 9 /6 /6 2 J
31a
INTERROGATORY 6— (Continued)
a a
School Grade
Number Pupil’s Name 1963-84 1963-84
62-27A Hill, James M. Ruffner Jr. 8L
62-28A Hill, Robert Young Park 1
62-29A Hill, Sandra Young Park 4
62-38A Jenkins, Cynthia Lindenwood 2
62-39A Jenkins, Howard M. Lindenwood 4
62-41A Johnson, Celeste G. Young Park 2
62-48A Lovely, Adrian P. Bowling Park 2
62-52A Nichols, Joseph Titus 2
62-58A Robinson, Godfrey, Jr, NRE
62-59A Robinson, Patrick A. Douglas Park 2
62-64A Smith, Belinda Young Park 2
62-72A Thomas, Joanie C. Young Park 2
61-4 Langley, Deborah A. Ruffner Jr. 9L
61-5 Moore, Linda M. Young Park 6
61-6 Moore, Gloria C, Young Park 4
61-7 Moore, Glenda F. Ruffner Jr. 7L
Date Date
Assignment School Request Reason for
Requested Requested Denied Denial
8 /24 /62 R. E. Lee 9 /6 /6 2 J
8 /24 /62 R. E. Lee 9 /6 /6 2 J
8 /24 /62 R. E. Lee 9 /6 /6 2 J
8 /29 /62 R. E. Lee 9 /6 /6 2 J
8 /29 /62 R. E. Lee 9 /6 /6 2 J
8 /29 /62 R. E. Lee 9 /6 /6 2 H
8/24/62 R. E. Lee 9 /6 /6 2 H
9 /4 /6 2 R. E. Lee 9 /6 /6 2 J
8 /24 /62 R. E. Lee 9 /6 /6 2 H
8/24 /62 R. E. Lee 9 /6 /6 2 H
8/24 /62 R. E. Lee 9 /6 /6 2 J
8 /24 /62 R. E. Lee 9 /6 /6 2 H
4 /5 /6 1 R. E. Lee 7/27/61 C
4 /6 /6 1 R. E. Lee 7/27/61 C
4 /6 /6 1 R, E. Lee 7/27/61 C
4 /6 /6 1 R. E. Lee 7/27/61 C
INTERROGATORY 6 — (C ontinued)
a a
School Grade
Number Pupil's Name 1963-64 1963-64
61-8 Moore, Augustus L, B. T. Wash. 10
61-13 Alston, Earven L Goode 4
61-14 Alston, Deloris J. Goode 3
61-16 Alston, Carolyn Jacox Jr. 8
61-17 Alston, Linda F. Goode 3
61-18 Poole, William H. Ruffner Jr. 7L
61-19 Poole, Almeta D. Young Park 5
61-20 Gillus, Christine Campostella 6
61-22 Tabb, Anthony L. Ruffner Jr. 7L
61-25 Rollins, Joseph S. Ruffner Jr. 8L
61-35 Branch, Willie E. B. T. Wash. 11
61-41 Sampson, Shirley J. Ruffner Jr. 9
61-42 Sampson, Cynthia Ruffner Jr. 7L
61-43 Sampson, Catherine Ruffner Jr. 7L
61-44 Holley, Mary E, Ruffner Jr. 8L
61-45 Moore, William H, Ruffner Jr. 9H
b b c c
Date Date
Assignment School Request Reason for
Requested Requested Denied Denial
4 /6 /6 1 Blair Jr. 7 /27/61 A
4 /6 /6 1 R. E. Lee 7/27/61 C
4 /6 /6 1 R. E. Lee 7/27/61 C
4 /6 /6 1 R. E. Lee 7/27/61 C
4 /6 /6 1 R. E. Lee 7/27/61 C
5 /7 /6 1 R. E. Lee 7/27/61 C
5 /7 /61 R. E. Lee 7/27/61 C
5 /7 /6 1 R. E. Lee 7/27/61 C
5 /7 /6 1 R. E, Lee 7/27/61 C
5/10/61 R. E. Lee 7/27/61 A
5/18/61 Maury 7/27/61 G;A
4/27 /61 R. E. Lee 7/27/61 A
4/27 /61 R. E. Lee 7 /27 /61 A
4/27 /61 R. E. Lee 7/27/61 A
4/27 /61 R. E. Lee 7/27/61 A
4/27/61 Blair Jr. 7 /27/61 C
INTERROGATORY 6 — (Continued)
a a
Number Pupil’s Name
School
1983-64
Grade
1963-64
61-46 Moore, James L. Ruffner Jr. 8L
61-49 Hood, Leroy B, T. Wash. 12
61-50 Moore, Ernest H. B. T. Wash. 10
61-52 Richardson, James A. B. T. Wash. 12
61-53 Richardson, Calvin K. B. T. Wash, 12
61-61 Sands, Angelia Goode 4
61-63 Brooks, Alfred G. B. T. Wash. 12
61-65 Campbell, Carolyn P, Madison Jr. 9H
61-73 Rivers, Eugene B. T. Wash. 10
61-75 Parham, Roger C. Madison Jr. 8L
61-80 Braxton, Cecelia T. B. T. Wash. 11
61-89 Thornton, Roland L. Madison Jr. 9L
61-91 Williams, Warded Ruffner Jr. 8L
61-96 Taylor, Paulette E. NRE
61-100 Jones, Robert E. B. T. Wash. 10
61-102 Rainey, Floyd J. Madison Jr. 9H
b b c c
Date Date
Assignment School Request Reason for
Requested Requested Denied Denial
4 /27 /61 Blair Jr. 7 /27/61 C
4/28 /61 Maury 7 /27/61 A
4/27 /61 Blair Jr. 7 /27/61 C
5 /1 /6 1 Maury 7/27/61 A
5 /1 /6 1 Maury 7 /27/61 A
5/10/61 Suburban Park 7 /27/61 A
5 /9 /6 1 Granby 7/27/61 A
5 /9 /6 1 Northside Jr. 7 /27/61 F;J;G;A
5 /8 /6 1 Northside Jr. 7 /27/61 A
5 /8 /6 1 Northside Jr. 7 /27/61 A
5 /5 /61 Granby 7/27/61 A
5/16/61 Northside Jr. 7 /27/61 A
5/17/61 R. E, Lee 7/27/61 C
5/24/61 Norview Jr. 7 /27/61 A
5/29/61 Northside Jr. 7 /27/61 A
5/29/61 Northside Jr. 7 /27/61 F;J;G;A
INTERROGATORY 6-— (Continued)
a a
Number Pupil’s Name
School
1383-64
Grade
1963-64
61-106 Cousins, Larry B. B. T. Wash. 11
61-107 Fires, Donald B, Madison Jr. 8L
61-108 Fires, Rubin D. Madison Jr. 8L
60-1 Ambrose, William W. B. T. Wash, 10
60-8 Garris, Earlene B. T. Wash. 10
60-9 Brown, Mary L. Madison Jr. 7L
60-10 Brown, Shirley A. Titustown 4
60-11 Ford, Betty M. B. T. Wash. 10
60-12 Ford, William J. B. T. Wash. 11
60-13 Ford, Joan D. Rosemont Jr. 8
60-14 Smith, Charlene B. T. Wash. 12
60-17 King, Mae Belle B, T. Wash. 11
60-28 Harris, Phyllis T. B. T. Wash. 10
59-3 Russell, Phyllis D. Coronado 5
59-4 McCoy, Gwendolyn Y. B. T. Wash. 11
59-8 Osborne, Wanda L. B. T. Wash. 11
cb b e
Date Date
Assignment School Request Reason for
Requested Requested Denied Denial
5/31/61 Maury 7 /27/61 A
5/31/61 Suburban Park 7 /27/61 A
5/31/61 Suburban Park 7 /27/61 A
** Norview Jr. 7 /25/60 J
Norview Sr. 7 /25 /60 A
Suburban Park 7 /25 /60 C
Suburban Park 7/25/60 C
Suburban Park 7/25/60 C
Suburban Park 7 /25 /60 C
Suburban Park 7 /25 /60 c
Norview Jr. 7 /25/60 c
Norview Jr. 7 /25 /60 A
Norview Jr. 7 /25/60 A
5 /7 /5 9 Norview El. 7 /20/59
5 /8 /5 9 Northside Jr. 7 /20/59
5/26/59 Northside Jr, 7 /20 /59
INTERROGATORY 6 — (C ontinued)
a a
School Grade
Number Pupil's Name 1963-84 1963-84
59-16 Bonds, Betty B. T. Wash. 11
58-14 Bryant, Daniel Oakwood 6
58-17 Green, Minnie A. Rosemont Jr. 7
58-19 Reese, Cloyde L. Campostella 8L
58-27 Beale, Cornelius B. T. Wash. 12
58-31 Griffin, Chrystal B. T. Wash. 12
58-34 Holmes, Rosa L. B. T. Wash. 12
58-51 Fulton, Dorothy B. T. Wash.
58-52 Garrison, William L, B. T. Wash. 11
58-53 Holmes, James, Jr. B. T. Wash. 10
58-54 Holmes, Ruverta Madison Jr. 8L
58-55 Holmes, Bernard Titustown 5
58-58 Merritt, Jacqueline B. T. Wash. 12
58-65 Johnson, Maybell P. NRE
58-71 Tyler, Gloria E. B. T. Wash. 12
58-74 Vaster, Sheila R. B. T. Wash. 12
Cb b e
Date Date
Assignment School Request Reason for
Requested Requested Denied Benia!
5/29/59 Norview Jr. 7 /20 /59
6 /11 /58 Norview El. 8 /18 /58 E
6/11 /58 Norview El. 8 /18 /58 B
6/11 /58 Norview El. 8 /18 /58 A
6/12 /58 Nearest Jr. Hi. 8 /18 /58 D
6/12 /58 Northside Jr. 8 /18 /58 C
6/12 /58 Nearest Jr. Hi. 8 /18 /58 C
6/13 /58 Northside Jr. 8 /18 /58 D
6 /13 /58 Northside Jr. 8 /18 /58 D
6/13 /58 Suburban Park 8 /18 /58 C
6/13 /58 Suburban Park 8 /18 /58 C
6/13 /58 Suburban Park 8 /18 /58 C
6/13 /58 Norview Jr. 8 /18 /58 D
6 /13 /58 Suburban Park 8 /18 /58 C
6/13 /58 Norview Jr, 8 /18 /58 C
6/13 /58 Norview Jr. 8 /18 /58 C
iNTERROGATORY 6— (Continued)
a a
School Grade
Number Pupil’s Name 1963-64 1353-64
58-80 Jackson, Viola D, T. Wash. 12
58-86 Stanley, Barbara B. T. Wash. 12
58-87 Stanley, Grover B. T. Wash. 11
58-103 Smith, Norma B. A. B. T. Wash. 12
58-111 Thompson, Mary L, B. T. Wash. 10
58-113 Thompson, Jimmie L. B. T. Wash. 11
58-114 Thompson, Roscoe C. Rosernont Jr. 8
58-115 Thompson, Ronald W. Rosemont Jr. 6
58-116 Steed, Vincent Jacox Jr. 8
58-118 Harris, Rosa Mae Rosemont Jr, 8
58-126 Washington, Clifton Campostella Jr. 7L
58-127 Holmes, Samuel T. Bowling Park 5
58-132 Bonds, James E. NRE
58-141 Brown, David No record
58-144 Francis, Carlton M. B. T. Wash. 12
b b c c
Date Date
Assignment School Request Reason for
Requested Requested Denied Denial
6 /16 /58 Norview Jr. 8 /18 /58 C
6/16 /58 Norview Jr. 8 /18 /58 C
6/16 /58 Nearest El. 8 /18 /58 c
6/18/58 Northside Jr. 8 /18 /58 D
6 /23 /58 Norview Sr. 8 /18 /58 D 5*
6 /23 /58 Norview El. 8 /18 /58 D
6/23 /58 Norview El. 8 /18 /58 D
6/23 /58 Norview El. 8 /18 /58 D
6/23 /58 Norview El. 8 /18 /58 C
6/25/58 Norview El. 8 /18 /58 B
6/26/58 Suburban Park 8 /18 /58 A
6/26/58 Suburban Park 8 /18 /58 D
7 /2 /5 8 Norview El. 8 /18 /58 C
7/17/58 Norview Jr. 8 /18 /58 C
7/17 /58 Norview Jr. 8 /18 /58 C
INTERROGATORY 6~~-(Continued)
a a b b c c
Date Date Reason for
School Grade Assignment School Request
Number Pupil's Name 1963-64 1983-64 Requested Requested Denied Denial
58-145 Smith, Sharon V. Rosemont Jr. 8 7 /17 /58 Norview El. 8 /18 /58 B
58-146 Smith, Edward H., Ill Rosemont Jr. 7 7 /17 /58 Norview EL 8 /18 /58 B
* No Record of Enrollment
** For the 1960-61 school year, dates of applications are unknown
* * * Probably A or J, but exact information not now available
* * * * III; has not reported for 1963-64 session.
KEY TO REASON FOR DENIAL
A—Scholastic achievements and abilities do not justify the transfers sought.
B—Too frequent transfers involved.
C— Failed to take the test or to submit to the personal interviews.
D— Did not file appropriate objections to the actions of the School Board.
E— Resides in a home nearer to the previously all-Negro school attended by him during the prior school year.
F—School applied for did not have grade requested.
G—Applied for a higher grade than which they were qualified.
H— Living at their present addresses on May 31 and failed to submit application prior to deadline.
J— Lives nearer to other schools which will have their grades than to the schools for which applications were made.
K— Lives in an area not served by the school for which he applied.
INTERROGATORY 6— (C ontinued)
39a
ELEMENTARY
Chesterfield 7
ingleside 1
Marshall 38
Meadowbrook
Monroe 13
Norview 1
Suburban 8
TOTALS 68
INTERROGATORY 7
SCHOOL 1
SENIOR HIGH
Maury
Norview
JUNIOR HIGH
Blair
Northside
Norview
5 2 1 2
1
21 17 9 13
3 1 1
10 9 11 7
3 3 4 4
1
43 32 26 27
2 3 4 5
1
6 3
6 1
4
1 1
17 13 10 6 39 4 3
Grand Total 294
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
4 17 1 2
22 3 1
10 6 1
1 1
2 3 1
40a
41a
INTERROGATORY 8
School Facilities Used For Classrooms
Granby High
Maury High
Norview High
Washington High
Azalea Jr, High
Blair Jr. High
Jacox Jr. High
Northside Jr. High
Norview Jr. High
Rosemont Jr. High
Cafeteria, Auditorium, Shop
Auditorium, Shop, Old Office
Storage Room, Cafeteria, Auditorium
Gym, Auditorium, Shop, Cafeteria
Auditorium, Cafeteria
Cafeteria, Auditorium
Cafeteria, Auditorium, Library
Auditorium, Cafeteria
Auditorium
Auditorium, Student Activity Room
Cafeteria, Auditorium
Bailentine
Bay View
Bowling Park
Chesterfield
Clay
Crossroads
Diggs Park
East Ocean View
Lansdale
Larchmont
Larry mo re
Liberty Park
Little Creek Primary
Marshall
Oakwood
Pineridge
Poplar Halls
Pretty Lake
Sherwood Forest
Basement
Music Room, Art Room
Conference Room, Library
Music Room
Library
Art Room, Cafeteria
Music Room, Conference Room
Supply Room
Music Room
Music Room
Clinic
Teachers’ Lounge
Conference Room
Teachers’ Lounge, Basement
Conference Room, Storeroom
Cafetorium
Auditorium
Storage Room
Music Room, Cafeteria
^
42a
School Facilities Used For Classrooms
INTERROGATORY 8— (Continued)
Stuart Music Room, Art Room
Taylor Hailway
Young Park Conference Room
INTERROGATORY 9
A course in Distributive Education is offered in Maury, Granby, and
Norview Senior High Schools.
43a
INTERROGATORY 10
Curriculum offered at each junior high school and each
high school in the system during 1963-64 term.
Junior High Schools
Azalea
Blair
O
3
■33O
Jacox o_
§ '
2o
3-3"
s s
o
i.m
33O
8
3
3 Ou 3g o3€8
September 30,1963
English 7
English 8
English 1-2
Reading
Remedial Reading
Journalism
Exploratory Bus.
Intro, to Bus.
Bus. Arith.
Math 7
Math 8
Gen. Math 1-2
Algebra 1-2
Geom. Plane
Gen. Science 7
Gen. Science 8
Science 1-2
Social Studies 7
Social Studies 8
Social Studies 9
Latin 1-2
Latin 3-4
Exp. Latin 7th
French 1-2
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X
X X
X X
X
X X X X
X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X . X X X
X X X X
X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X
X X
X X
X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X
X
X
X X X
X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X
X X X X X
X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X
X X
X
X X X X
Ruffner
44a
IN T E R R O G A T O R Y 1 0 — (C o n tin u ed ?
Junior High Schools (Continued)
1
Blaii
CD
French 3-4 X X
Exp. French 7th X X
Spanish 1-2 X X
Spanish 3-4 X
Expl. Sp. 7th X X
Music 7 X X
Music 8 X X
Music 9 X X
Band X X
Chorus X X
Homemaking 7 X X
Homemaking 8 X X
Homemaking 9 X X
Art 7 X X
Art8 X X
Art 1-2
Arts and Crafts
X X
Rhys, Ed. 7 X X
Phys. Ed. 8 X X
Phys. Ed. 9
Expl. Shop 7
Gen. !nd. Arts 8-9
X X
Elec. Shop 7 X
Elec. Shop 8 X
Elec. Shop 9 X
Wood Shop 7 X X
Wood Shop 8 X X
osa
B § Q .
o 2®3
5 0© 5S3
© §
13r:
r t*
X g '31 w.
CL
re's
©
B©
3a>
—s
QJ
EL
cs CD 3ii" 4
s r
X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X l X X
X X
X X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X
X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X
X X
X X X
X X X X X
X X X X
X X X
X X X X X X
45a
INTERROGATORY 10— (Continued)
Junior High Schools— (Continued)
Azalea
Blair
oaj
3
o
c/>f-v-
CP
Jacox
Madison
Northside
Norview
5T
Wood Shop 9 X X X X X X
Metal Shop 7 X X X X X
Metal Shop 8 X X X X X X X
Metal Shop 9 X X X X X X
Mech, Drw. 7 X X X X X
Mech. Drw. 8 X X X X X X
Mech. Drw. 9 X X X X X X
Senior High Schools
O 3 2!OSS3 &>©vc
©
s .<©'
September 30,1963
English 1-2 X X X X
English 1-2IVI X X X
English 1-2X X X X
English 34 X X X X
English 3-4M X X X X
English 3-4X X X X X
English 5-6 X X X X
English 5-6M X X X X
English 5-6X X X X X
English 7-8 X X X X
SOOV)CD
O
=3
50
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
Willard
46a
Senior High Schools—(Continued)
INTERROGATORY 10— (ConfinuedS
o 03“ns&i3 £̂3 O
i . ss< o'sg
English 7-8M X X X
English 7-8X X X X X
Adv. PI. English X
World Literature X
Debate X
Speech X
Drama X
Journalism X X
Spanish 1-2 X X X X
Spanish 3-4 X X X X
Spanish 5-6 X X X X
Spanish 7-8 X X X
Spanish 9 X
German 1-2 X X
German 3-4 X X
German 5-6 X X
Latin 1-2 X X X
Latin 3-4 X X X
Latin 5-6 X X X
Latin 7-8 X X
French 1-2 X X X X
French 3-4 X X X X
French 5-6 X X X X
French 7-8 X X
French 9-10 X
Home Economics 1-2 X X X X
47a
Senior High Schools—(Continued)
S"J s S2 GO
I l l s
E 3 I '
INTEROGATORY 10— (Continued)
Home Economics 3-4 X X X X
Home Economics 5-6 X X X X
Home Economics 7-8* X X X
*lnciudes General Homemaking for seniors who have not yet elected
homemaking.
Social Studies 1-2 X X X
(World Hist. & Geog.)
Va. & Am. History X X X X
Va. & Am. Government X X X X
Economics X X X X
Problems of Democ. X X X
Intern’t!. Relations X X X X
Ancient History X
World History X X
Personal Finance X
Va. & Am. History X X X X
Consumer Math X
Trig. X X X X
Solid Geometry X X X X
Algebra 1-2 X X X X
Geometry Plane X X X X
Mod. Gen. Math X
Adv. Math X X
Adv. Algebra X X X
Gen. Math 1-2 X X X
Gen. Math 3-4 X X
48a
INTEROGATORY 10— (Continued)
Senior High Schools--(Continued)
C3 s 00
=3 £3£= ©"l
isr
M S <2 ©’Ss
College Alg. X X
Analy. Geom.
(Advanced Placement) X
Distributive Educ. 1-2 X X X
Distributive Educ. 3-4 X X
Ind. Coop. Trng. 1-2 X X
Diversified Occup. X
Chemistry X X X X
Physics X X X X
Physics X X
Physics PSSC X
Biology X X X X
Biology M X X X X
Biology X X X
Gen. Science X X X X
Gen. Science M X
Personal Typing 1-2 X
Typing 1-2 X X X X
Typing 3-4 X X X X
Shorthand 1-2 X X X X
Shorthand 3-4 X X X
VOT 1-2 X X
Bus. Arith. 1-2 X X X
Bookkeeping 1-2 X X X X
Bookeeping 3-4 X X
Bus. Law & Mangmt. X X X
49a
INTEROGATORY 10— (Continued)
Senior High Schools— (Continued)
O—ta> o"
3cr «■£
Clerical Training X X X X
(Office Practice)
Gen. Bus. 1-2 X X
Plumbing X
Print Shop 1-2 X X X X
Print Shop 3-4 X
Print Shop 5-6 X
Print Shop 7-8 X X
Electricity 1-2 X X X
Electricity 3-4 X X
Mech. Draw. 1-2 X X X X
Mech. Drawing 3-4 X X
Mech. Drawing 5-6 X
Mech. Drawing 8 X
Wood Shop 1-2 X X X X
Wood Shop 3-4 X X X X
Wood Shop 8 X X
Machine Shop 1, 2,3, 4 X
Metal Shop 1-2 X X X
Metal Shop 3-4 X
Metal Shop 8 X
Auto 1 X X
Auto 3-4 X
Art 1-2 X X X X
Art 3-4 X X X X
Art 5-6 X X
Art 8 X
Adv. Art X X
50a
Senior High Schools—(Continued)
INTEROGATORY lO — CCeratirwed)
o s 3 8 W
O
i . s
GT * 2 to"'bc S
Music Apprec. X X X
Strings X
Band X X X X
Concert Chorus X X X X
Boys Ch. X
Girls Ch. X X X
Piano X
Orchestra X
Gen. Music X
Music Theory X X
Mixed Chorus X
Phys. Ed. X X X X
Driver Training X X X X
INTERROGATORY 13
New Construction Contemplated
a b
Schools Location
Size & No.
Classrooms
Tidewater Pk. Elem,Tidewater Dr. at 16
Roberts Pk. Elem.
Brambleton Ave.
E. Princess 20
Tarrallton Elem.
Anne Road
Tarrallton Rd. 20
Junior High Kempsville Rd, 46
Senior High Near Kempsville Rd. not
Senior High no site selected
determined
not
Elementary School Rosemont
determined
20
Rosemont Addition Rosemont 8-10
Elementary School St. Helena
spaces
14
b b c d
Grades Projected Date of Pupils Living in Area
to Serve Capacity Completion White Negro
1-6 480 1964 0 400
1-6 600 1964 0 500
1-6 600 1964 590 10
7-9 1350 1965 not established
10-12 1500 unknown not established
10-12 1500 unknown not established
1-6 600 1965 not established
10-12 500 1965 not established
1-6 420 1964 or
1965
not established
S INTERROGATORY 13-—(Continued!
Additions and Modifications Contemplated
b b
a Size & Ns, Grades
Schools Location Classrooms to Serve
Coronado Elem Widgeon Road 2 Classrms. 1-6
Library &
Multi-pur
pose room
Coleman Place Rush Street Kitchen 1-6
facilities
Diggs Park Diggs Park 4 1-6
Larchmont Hampton Blvd. Storage Rm. —
Liberty Park Liberty Park Kitchen —
Monroe 29th Street & Cafeteria & —
Newport Ave. Kitchen
Jacox Jr, Marshall Ave. not determined at this date
Maury 15th Street & not determined at this date
Moran Ave.
Washington Reservoir Ave, not determined at this date
Norview Sr. Middleton PI. not determined at this date
Granby High Granby St. not determined at this date
W i l l a r d J r , T i d e w a t e r D r . n o t d e t e r m i n e d a t t h i s d a t e
b c
Projected Date of
Capacity Completion
Increase 60 1964
No increase unknown
120 unknown
— unknown
— unknown
250 unknown
d
Pupils Living in Area
White Negro
same as at present
same as at present
same as at present jS
same as at present
same as at present
same as at present
NORFOLK
AND V IC IN IT Y
WESTERN SECTION
PLANNFNG COMMISSION
NORFOLK VIRGINIA
SCALE
CITY
JUNE 1945
REVISED JUNE 19 59
is
CRANEY ISLAND
t a y l o k
FAIR.LA>j?A
tw tu S » W *
CHILDREN FROM BENMOREELL AND THE NEW CAPEHART
HOUSING BACK OF THE ARMED FORCES STAFF COLLEGE.
TITUSTOWN
MADISON JR.
3. T.WASHINGTON
JOHN MARSHALL
BLAIR JR.
MAURY HIGHON THE ORIGINAL EXHIBIT THE LINES BETWEEN DUAL
ATTENDANCE AREAS APE COLORED WITH RED CRAYON.
FOR REPRODUCTION PURPOSES THESE AREAS ARE SHOWN
HERE BY A GRID OR CROSSHATCHING.
CHILDREN FROM CAMP ALLEN ATTEND THE FOLLOWING
(GR. I % 2) TITUSTOViN
" 3 THRU 6) MADISON" 7 & 8
» 9 THRU 12) B.T.WASHINGTON
MEADOWBROOK
MONROE
BLAIR
MAURY '
53a
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO. I -A - l
MAP (Elementary Schools)
53a
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT N O . 1 -A - l
MAP (Elementary Schools)
54a
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO. l-A-2
MAP (Junior High Schools)
54a
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO. 1-A -2
MAP (Junior High Schools)
f l A Z A L E A
CRANEY ISLAND
ON THE ORIGINAL EXHIBIT THE LINES ON THIS MAP FOR
EACH ATTENDANCE AREA ARE SHOWN IN A DIFFERENT COLOR.
THE DUAL ATTENDANCE AREAS WERE SHOWN BY A THIRD LINE.
FOR REPRODUCTION PURPOSES,THESE DUAL AREAS ARE SHOWN
HERE BY CROSS-HATCHING BETWEEN THE LINES.
NORFOLK
AND V IC IN IT Y
WESTERN SECTiON
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
NORFOLK VIRGINIA
SCALE
NORFOLK
AND V IC IN IT Y
WESTERN SECTION
JUNE 1945
REVISED JUNE 1959
CRANEY ISLAND
§ § »
mIR hril! h In.A.
p i s t e
~T -V BOOKER T. WASHINGTON
WHOLE CITY
adpnISrfdsC
m U M m h ^
W m rn M
u w M
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO, l - A - 3
M A P (Senior High Schools)
5 5 a
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
NORFOLK VIRGINIA
SOAT.R
55a
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT NO. l-A-3
MAP ISenior High Schools)
56a
D E F E N D A N T S ’ E X H IB IT N O . 1
PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED IN DETERMINING THE SCHOOLS
AND GRADES WHICH CHILDREN WILL ATTEND AND
OUTLINE OF METHOD OF PUTTING SUCH PRINCIPLES
INTO EFFECT.
PRINCIPLES
1. If only one school serves an area, all children living
in the area will attend such school; provided, that any child
who at the end of the 1963-64 school year is/was attending
a school which does not/did not serve the area in which he
lives may, at the option of him and his parent or guardian,
continue to attend such school as long as he is in a grade
which such school has.
2. If two schools serve an area, all children living in
the area may choose, subject to the approval of their par
ents or guardians and subject to the maximum capacities of
the schools, the school which they wish to attend. The
choice for the ensuing school year must be made not later
than June 15 of the current school year, provided, however,
that as to any child who moves into the City of Norfolk or
from one area of the City to another and any child who
enters the public school system of the City from a private
or parochial school in the City subsequent to June 15, the
choice must be made promptly after such move or entry is
made.
3. The program of special tests will be eliminated and
the grade levels at which the children are expected to
achieve satisfactorily will be determined by the School Ad
ministration, guided by the cumulative records, routine
tests and performances of the children.
METHOD
1, Prior to May 1 of each year every child in attend
ance in the public schools of the City of Norfolk who lives
in a school attendance area which is served by two or more
schools will be furnished a form designating the schools
which the child may attend during the ensuing school year
and on which the child and his parent or guardian shall
select the school which they wish the child to attend. Such
form shall be completed, signed by the child and his parent
or guardian and returned promptly to the person named
on the form.
2. Every child who is not in attendance in a public
school of the City of Norfolk when the forms mentioned in
the preceding paragraph are distributed and who wishes to
enter a public school of the City for the ensuing school
year, and every child who is in attendance in a public
school of the City when such forms are distributed but who
moves from one school attendance area to another after
such form is completed and returned, and the parents or
guardians of such children, shall complete and sign such a
form for the ensuing school year and file the same with the
Superintendent of Schools of the City of Norfolk, or some
one designated by him, as soon as possible after such chil
dren and their parents or guardians decide that such chil
dren will enter a public school of the City, or move from
one school attendance area to another, as the case may be,
and, in any event, not later than the day before such chil
dren wish to enter school for the ensuing year.
58a
3. Subject to the maximum capacities of the schools,
the School Board of the City of Norfolk will place children
who live in an area which is served by two or more schools
in the schools which they and their parents or guardians
select and will cause such children and their parents or
guardians to be notified of the schools which, such children
will attend as soon as possible after such forms are return
ed or filed.
4. The option mentioned in Principle numbered 1
shall be exercised by a statement in writing, signed by the
child and his parent or guardian, and delivered to the Su
perintendent of Schools of the City of Norfolk, or someone
designated by him, at least ten (10) days prior to the open
ing of the public schools of the City for a school year. If
the option is exercised, it may subsequently be cancelled
at any time by a statement in writing, signed by the child
and his parent or guardian, and delivered to the Superin
tendent of Schools of the City of Norfolk, or someone des
ignated by him.
5. Each child will attend the grade which the School
Administration, guided by the cumulative record of the
child, his routine tests and his performance, determines to
be the level at which he is expected to achieve satisfac
torily.
6. The School Administration will make such admin
istrative transfers of classes of children and/or individual
children as are necessary for the orderly operation of the
public schools of the City, such transfers being necessary
from time to time for various reasons which include but are
not limited to the following: to prevent overcrowding of a
school building, to comfortably fill a school building, dam-
59a
age to or destruction of a school building, disciplinary
problems, the need of a child for special subjects, mental
or physical disability of a child.
7. The School Board of the City of Norfolk will cause
a copy of this statement of Principles and Method to be
published in a newspaper having a general circulation in
the City of Norfolk at least once during the month of April
and once during the month of August of each calendar
year.
60a
REPORT OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK
TO THE COURT, WITH COPY OF RESOLUTION AT-
TACHED, FILED JUNE 18, 1964.
June 15, 1964
Honorable Walter E. Hoffman
Judge of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia
U. S. Post Office and Court House Building
Norfolk, Virginia
Re: Leola Pearl Beckett, et al
v. The School Board of the
City of Norfolk, et al,
Civil Action No. 2214.
Dear Judge Hoffman:
For The School Board of the City of Norfolk and E. L.
Lamberth, Division Superintendent, I make this report
with regard to the 1964-65 school year.
Attached is a certified copy of the resolution adopted by
the School Board on June 11, 1964 by which the School
Board took action with regard to all of the selections of
schools for the 1964-65 school year which had then been
made.
I believe that the Resolution, by which all of some 32,000
children were placed in the school of their choice, is self-
explanatory.
Respectfully submitted,
Leonard H. Davis
61a
City Attorney
Of Counsel for the Defendants
LHD:vcs
Attach.
ccs: Messrs. Victor J. Ashe, 1134 Church Street, Norfolk
10, Va.
J. Hugo Madison, 1017 Church Street, Norfolk 10, Va.
S. W. Tucker, 214 E. Clay Street, Richmond 19, Va.
Henry L. Marsh, III, 214 E. Clay Street, Richmond
19, Va.
Honorable Walter E. Hoffman - 2 - June 15, 1964
ccs: Messrs. Jack Greenberg, 10 Columbus Circle, New
York 19, N. Y.
James N. Nabrit, III, 10 Columbus Circle, New York
19, N. Y.
W. R. C. Cocke, Maritime Tower, Norfolk 10, Va.
E. L. Lamberth, Division Superintendent of Schools,
402 E. Charlotte Street, Norfolk, Va.
(with copy of said resolution attached to each)
62a
RESOLUTION OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE
CITY OF NORFOLK
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Principles To Be
Applied In Determining The Schools And Grades Which
Children Will Attend And Outline Of Method of Putting
Such Principles Into Effect, every child in attendance in
the public schools of the City of Norfolk who lives in a
school attendance area which is served by two or more
schools was furnished a statement of choice form designat
ing the schools which the child may attend during the
1964-65 school year and providing for the selection by the
child and his parent or guardian of the school which they
wish the child to attend during the 1964-65 school year;
and
WHEREAS, such children, and their parents or guard
ians, have completed these forms and have made thereon
their selections of schools for the 1964-65 school year, and
these forms, signed by such children and their parents or
guardians, which number approximately 32,000, have been
returned to the School Administration and are a part of the
official records of the School System; and
WHEREAS, tire School Board has considered the se
lections of schools for the 1964-65 school year made by
such children and their parents or guardians; now, there
fore,
BE IT RESOLVED by The School Board of the City
of Norfolk:
1. That all of the children whose statement of choice
forms have been received by the School Administration
are hereby placed for the 1964-65 school year in the schools
63a
which they and their parents or guardians selected, and
that the assignments of these children to such schools for
the 1964-65 school year are hereby recommended. This
action assumes that all of these children will pass their
work for the 1963-64 school year. As to any of them who
does not and at the beginning of the 1964-65 school year
must repeat work, there may not be available in the school
selected, at the beginning of the 1964-65 school year, the
grade which such a child must repeat. In such event this
action must be changed in such manner as is necessary to
place such child where his or her grade is available.
2. That Dixie W. Moore, Director of Pupil Services,
execute for and on behalf of the School Board the appro
priate forms provided by the Pupil Placement Board em
bodying the foregoing recommendation with regard to said
children and transmit such forms to the Pupil Placement
Board.
3. That the principals of the schools which said chil
dren now attend notify said children and their parents or
guardians of the schools which the children will attend
during the 1964-65 school year.
4. That in the event the Pupil Placement Board does
not take action in accordance with the foregoing recom
mendation, the School Board will make the assignments
and enrollments of said children in accordance therewith.
ADOPTED: June 11, 1964
A TRUE COPY, TESTE:
R. W. Woolridge
Clerk of The School Board
of the City of Norfolk
64a
LETTERS OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES TO COUNSEL FOR
APPELLANTS DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 1964 0 ) TRANS-
MUTING COPIES OF THE MOTION OF THE SCHOOL
BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK FOR APPROVAL OF
ITS ACTION IN GRANTING PERMISSION TO CERTAIN
CHILDREN, ETC. TO CHANGE THEIR CHOICES OF
SCHOOLS FOR THE 1964-65 SCHOOL YEAR, ETC. AND
THE RESOLUTION ATTACHED, WHICH MOTION WAS
FILED SEPTEMBER 4 , 1964; AND (2) ADVISING COUN
SEL FOR APPELLANTS WHEN THE COURT COULD
HEAR THE MOTION AND REQUESTING COUNSEL FOR
APPELLANTS TO ADVISE THE COURT AND COUNSEL
FOR APPELLEES OF THEIR WISHES.
(These letters are not parts of the record but are printed
because they are pertinent to the Motion and the reason
why it has not been heard by the Court.)
September 4, 1964
Mr. Victor J. Ashe
1134 Church Street
Norfolk 10, Virginia
Mr. Henry L. Marsh, III
214 E. Clay Street
Richmond 19, Virginia
Mr. J. Hugo Madison
1017 Church Street
Norfolk 10, Virginia
Mr. Jack Greenberg
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Mr. S. W. Tucker
214 E. Clay Street
Richmond 19, Virginia
Mr. James M. Nabrit, III
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Re: Leola Pearl Beckett, etc., et al,
P la in tiffs ,
v.
O u a
The School Board of the City of
Norfolk, Virginia, et al,
Defendants,
and
Greta Denise Miller, etc,, et al,
Intervenors.
Civil Action No. 2214.
Gentlemen:
Attached, to each of you, are copies of the Motion and the
certified copy of the Resolution attached thereto which I
will file in the Office of the Clerk of the United States Dis
trict Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Norfolk
today, and the Notice and my Certificate.
I shall endeavor to ascertain from Judge Hoffman and ad
vise you whether he will hear the Motion on September
14,1964, the return
Messrs. Victor J. Ashe
J. Hugo Madison
S. W. Tucker
Henry L. Marsh, III
Jack Greenberg
James M. Nabrit, I II - 2 - September 4, 1964
date thereof, or on some other date.
Yours very truly,
Leonard H. Davis
City Attorney
LHD:vcs
Attach.
ccs: Mr. W. R. C. Cocke
Maritime Tower
Norfolk 10, Virginia
6Ga
Mr. E. L. Lamberth
Division Superintendent of Schools
402 E. Charlotte Street
Norfolk, Virginia
(W ith copies of attachments to each)
September 4, 1964
Mr. Jack Greenberg
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Mr. James M. Nabrit, III
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Mr. W. R. C. Cocke
Maritime Tower
Norfolk 10, Virginia
Mr. E. L. Lamberth
Division Superintendent
of Schools
402 E. Charlotte Street
Norfolk, Virginia
Re: Leola Pearl Beckett, etc., et al,
Plaintiffs,
v.
The School Board of the City of
Norfolk, Virginia, et al,
Defendants,
and
Greta Denise Miller, etc., et al,
Interveners.
Mr. Victor J. Ashe
1134 Church Street
Norfolk 10, Virginia
Mr. J. Hugo Madison
1017 Church Street
Norfolk 10, Virginia
Mr. S. W. Tucker
214 E. Clay Street
Richmond 19, Virginia
Mr. Henry L. Marsh, III
214 E. Clay Street
Richmond 19, Virginia
67a
Civil Action No. 2214.
Gentlemen:
I discussed with Judge Hoffman this morning the setting
of the Motion which I filed today and I told Judge Hoffman
that I would
Messrs. Victor j . Ashe
J. Hugo Madison
S. W. Tucker
Henry L. Marsh, III
Jack Greenberg
James M. Nabrit, III
W. R. C. Cocke
E. L. Lamberth - 2 - September 4, 1964
convey to you the information which he gave me with re
gard to available dates.
Judge Hoffman cannot hear the Motion on September 14,
1964, the return date thereof. He will be in Newport News
during all of the week beginning September 14 except for
September 16 when he will be in Norfolk with Judge Butz-
ner. Two cases are set for trial on September 16 and if one
of them should be settled or continued he can hear our
Motion on that date.
On September 22 one admiralty case is set for trial and
Judge Hoffman must leave the City late that afternoon for
Washington to attend a judicial conference. If this admiral
ty case is settled or continued he could hear the Motion
before he has to leave for Washington.
He will be in Washington on September 23 and 24 and
68a
expects to leave there on the night of the 24th. He can
probably hear the Motion on the morning of September 25,
Judge Hoffman assumes that Counsel wish to have the Mo
tion heard as promptly as possible and, therefore, has sug
gested these possible dates in September. If additional
time and a later date are desired such is agreeable with
him.
It may be necessary for Mr. Lamberth to testify at the
hearing of the Motion and he will be out of the City on
September 16. Therefore, Mr. Cocke and I must suggest
either September 22 or 25.
Please advise Judge Hoffman and me of your wishes.
Yours very truly,
Leonard H. Davis
City Attorney
LHD:vcs
cc: Honorable Walter E. Hoffman
Judge of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia
U. S. Post Office and Court House Building
Norfolk, Virginia
Messrs. Victor J. Ashe
J. Hugo Madison
S. W. Tucker
Henry L. Marsh, III
Jack Greenberg
James M. Nabrit, III
W. R. C. Cocke
E. L. Lamberth - 3 - September 4,1964
P.S. Since writing this letter I have read the Notice
served on me and others by Mr. Marsh stating that on Sep
tember 25, 1964 the plaintiffs in the case of COCHYESE
69a
GRIFFIN, etc., et al vs. STATE BOARD OF EDUCA
TION, et al pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Divison,
will move the Court for an interlocutory injunction. Mr.
Cocke and I will appear in that case as counsel for the de
fendant, Council of the City of Norfolk, Virginia. There
fore, Mr. Cocke and I must suggest September 22 as the
date for hearing the Motion in the Norfolk case.
L.H.D.
70a
EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS
O N DECEMBER 7 , 1963
# # *
( T. 15 through T. 107 No reply.)
EDW IN L. LAMBERTH
called as a witness by and on behalf of the Plaintiffs, hav
ing been duly sworn, testified as follows:
D IRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. TUCKER
Q Will you state your name and address and occu
pation?
A Edwin L. Lamberth, 7421 Shirlane Avenue, Nor
folk, Virginia, Superintendent of Schools, Norfolk City.
Q And how long have you been Superintendent of
Schools ,sir?
A Since July 1, 1960.
Q 1960?
A 1960.
Q 1950?
71a
A 1960.
Q Just for a minute, Mr. Lamberth, I want to direct
your attention to what has been admitted in evidence as
Plaintiff’s Exhibit l-A-3, that being a map of—showing the
assignment areas for high schools in the City of Norfolk,
and I think I have to just ask you one question in regard
to that, and that is—am I correct in assuming that the high
school attendance area for Booker T. Washington High
School is the entire city7 of Norfolk?
A It has been in the past, yes.
Q Well, what is it now, sir?
A It is now by the free choice of the pupil whether
he will go or not, according to the principles that we have
presented in court.
Q Booker T. is the Negro high school?
A It Is completely Negro now, yes.
Q Otherwise, forgetting about the Booker T. for a
minute, the City of Norfolk is divided into three zones, one
of which is assigned as the attendance area of Nor view
High School, one of which is designaed as the attendance
area of Granby High School, and the third of which is des
ignated as tire attendance area of Maury High School. Am
I correct in that?
A That’s right.
Q And as far as those areas are concerned white chil
dren attend the school which serve the area in which they
live?
72a
A They have, in the past, yes.
Q Well, do they now?
A Well, at some time in the immediate past we pre
sented to this Court, I believe our attorneys did, principles
by which students would choose between at least two
schools in the senior high school category. In other words,
every child would indicate—every child and his parent
would indicate a choice.
Q Do I understand then a white child can go to any
high school he wants to in the City of Norfolk?
A No, no, depending upon his residence he might
choose either of two schools. One would be Booker T.
Washington and the other would be Norview, if he lived
in that general area. These lines that you see for the three
high schools that are drawn there are lines that have been
in existence for the older schools for generations.
Q In other words, I understand the white child
would have a choice to go to the school which serves his
area or go to the Booker T?
A No, because he would be in the Booker T. area—
every child would have a choice of two schools in the
senior high school level.
Q Well, a child—a white child who lived in the
Norwood [Norview] area, what would be his choice?
A He would have a choice of Norwood [Norview]
and Booker T. Washington.
Q And a child who lives in the Granby area, what
would be his choice?
A Granby and Booker T.
Q And a child who lives in the Maury area, what
would be his choice?
A Maury and Booker T. Washington.
Q All right. A Negro child who lives in the Maury
area, what would be his choice?
A He would have Maury and Booker T.
Q And a Negro child who lives in Norview area,
what would be his choice?
A He would have a choice of Norview or Booker T.
Washington.
Q That was put into effect when?
A It was presented—I don’t know the exact date, but
it was in answer to some official paper from this Court.
Q Well, can we have an approximation of how many
months ago that has been in effect?
A Well, we haven’t had a change of school term
since it was presented to the Court. That is why I think it
was presented in September and school was already open.
THE COURT: The record would show. It was in
response to a motion for further relief. Mr. Tucker,
74a
you filed it, you ought to know when you filed it.
MR. TUCKER: I am satisfied with the—
THE COURT: It is answered; I don’t know when
they answered it.
BY MR. TUCKER:
Q So that so far as the current school term is con
cerned this plan has had no effect upon this assignment of
high school children?
A Yes, it has, in that a child has moved his residence
since school began and he has indicated his choice, he has
been placed.
Q Well, then, other than those who have moved
their residence it has had no effect upon the current school
term?
A You couldn’t—you don’t pick up children in the
middle of the term.
Q Now, then, I want to refer you to the Answers to
the Interrogatories—Number 3—1 assume you are familiar
with this document—Answers to Interrogatories?
A Yes, sir.
Q In response to Interrogatory Number 3, it appears
that there are 1589 white junior high school children living
in the junior high school attendance area—living in the at
tendance area of Norview Junior High School.
75a
A This doesn’t have a copy of the questions attached.
I think I have a copy over there with the questions attach
ed, and I’m sure I can follow you. What is Question 3?
Question Number 3 says: “State the number of Negro
pupils and the number of white pupils, by grade level,
residing in each attendance area established by the School
Board during the 1983-64 school term. If definite figures
are unavailable, give the best projections or estimates avail
able, stating the basis for any such estimates or projec
tions.” Here is the answer. Yes, sir, I have it now.
Q Now, that discloses that there are 1500 white
junior high school children living in the attendance area of
Norview Junior High School, is that correct?
A This says 1589.
Q It also shows 1589 white children living in the
attendance area of Rosemont Junior High School, is that
correct?
A That’s right.
Q Norview Junior High School and Rosemont Junior
High School have contiguous areas, don’t they?
A That’s right.
Q Norview Junior High School is predominantly
white and Rosemont is predominantly Negro?
A Right.
Q And the 1589 whites that you have indicated as
residing in the area are the same 1589 that you have in-
76a
A That’s right, very similar situation that I described
with the senior high school. In other words, those children
would make a choice, that’s right, at the junior high school
level.
Q What I am trying to clear up is that the 1589
children refers to the same 1589 children?
A That’s right.
Q I take it from that then that there are white junior
high school children living in what is designated on the
map as the Rosemont area?
A Well, they are living in an area, that’s right, where
children now go to Rosemont, that’s right.
Q So in other words we have some of those 1589
children living in the area that is delineated on the map as
Norview Junior High School—
A That’s right.
Q —area?
A That’s right,
Q And some of them living in the Rosemont area?
A That’s right.
Q All right. With reference to the elementary schools
in this same answer to interrogatory, I think we have a
showing of 545 whites and 784 Negroes of elementary
dicated reside in the area of the other?
77a
school age living in the Chesterfield elementary school
zone, is that correct?
A That’s right—545.
Q And we have those same figures of 545 white and
784 Negro elementary school children living in the adja
cent Liberty Park Elementary School area, is that correct?
A Well, they are served—I don’t know that they live
near the school, but they are served by the same school.
In other words, these are two contiguous schools and chil
dren are now crossing that line.
Q I understand, I ’m—
A They’re the same children, you’re right, they are
the same children.
Q And the Chesterfield Elementary School is pre
dominantly white?
A That’s right.
Q And the Liberty Park Elementary School is pre
dominantly Negro?
A That’s right.
Q A similar situation is true with respect to the
Lindenwood Elementary School area? Your answer to the
Interrogatory indicates 683 White and 904 Negro children
of elementary school age living in the Lindenwood area,
is that correct?
A That’s right.
78a
Q And 683 White and 984 Negro living in the Mon
roe Elementary School area?
A That’s right.
Q Those two areas are contiguous?
A That’s right.
Q And the Lindenwood School is totally Negro?
A That’s right.
Q And the Monroe School is predominantly white?
A That’s right.
Q And the figures there are referring to the same
children?
A Same children. In other words, an attendance
area in this answer is an area served by a school, and these
two areas are joint and the children cross the line between
the two schools, that’s right.
Q And the same—
THE COURT: Off the record, we have to inter
rupt for a jury in another case and excuse them for
lunch.
(At this juncture in the proceedings a jury in
another case reported to the Court that they desired
to recess for lunch. The jury was excused for lunch
until 2:15 o’clock P.M., at which time the Court tool
79a
a luncheon recess until 2:15 o’clock P.M. also.)
# # #
AFTERNOON SESSION
December 7,1983, 2:15 o’clock P.M.
# # # #
THE COURT: Gentlemen, are you ready to re
sume? All right, Mr. Tucker, you may resume the
examination of Mr. Lamberth.
EDW IN L. LAMBERTH
resumed the witness stand, and testified further as follows:
D IRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. TUCKER
Q Mr. Lamberth, we will still be referring to the
Answers to Interrogatories Number 3 for one more com
parison at least, and that is your answer was that in the
area of the Marshall Elementary School there are some 352
white elementary school children, and in the area of the
Young Park Elementary School there are some 350 white
elementary school children.
A Yes, sir.
Q Am I correct in assuming that those figures refer
to the same children?
80a
A That’s right.
Q The two school areas are contiguous?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the Marshall Elementary School is predomi
nantly white?
A That’s right.
Q And Young Park Elementary School is predomin
antly Negro? Is totally—
A Right.
Q Is totally Negro?
A Right.
Q We will for a few minutes be referring to the map
showing the elementary school areas, which has been in
troduced into evidence as—
THE COURT: Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1-A-l.
Q —as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1-A-l. And I think another
question will also refer to the Answers to Interrogatory 3.
The—I believe that prior to the close of the last school
session—that is during the 1962-63 school session—and in
prior years, the Lee School—the Lee Elementary School
was predominantly white as far as the student body was
concerned?
A Was prior to—it was predominantly white prior to
the present school session, yes.
81a
Q And the faculty and the staff was all white?
A Yes, sir, that’s right.
Q Prior to that time. And I believe that now the
faculty is all Negro?
A Yes.
Q When was the change made, sir?
A July 1st, 1963.
Q The—in earlier years the character of the neigh
borhood surrounding Lee School was predominantly white?
A Yes.
Q And in more recent years has changed to be pre
dominantly Negro?
A Yes.
Q When was the present boundary for Lee School
established?
A It was established—I would have to look at the
Board minute—but it was established prior to July 1, 1963.
That is when the official school year begins. Although the
children do not start until September, business that is trans
acted for that year, as much as possible, is transacted be
fore July 1st, and it was prior to July 1st.
Q And approximately how long prior?
A Not—a matter of weeks, I think, maybe a couple
of months, that would still be eight weeks. I’m not sure.
82a
Q Now, before that time did it have a definite pre
scribed boundary?
A Yes, it had a boundary, and there were more chil
dren in the area that it formerly served than it could house.
Q In earlier times—-and by that I mean before this
last change of the boundary, was the area which is now
embraced in Marshall and Lee, we notice that there are
two parts of the Marshall area—a northern part and a south
ern part, with a corridor connecting the two—was this com
bined area of Marshall and Lee divided into two parts or
one—two parts or three parts as it now is?
A Two parts.
Q In other words, there was—there was no corridor
conectinng two separate parts of the Marshall School zone?
A Yes, sir, there always was.
Q I see, sir.
A Always was. The children living closer downtown
always went to Marshall because Marshall is—lacks one
city lot of being on Granby Street. There is only one busi
ness—it backs up to Granby Street—and it is a natural way
for children to get to that school.
Q Now, I think your Answer to Interrogatory Num
ber 3 shows that there are 631 Negro and 11 White ele
mentary children living in the area which is now delineated
on the map as Lee School area.
A That was true when this interrogatory was made.
83a
I understand there are more white children than that in
Lee School now, so there must be more white children
there. That was the best estimate according to the question
that I could make at that time.
Q And your best estimate at that time as to—oh,
yes,—-
A (continuing): I think there are more white chil
dren than eleven in Lee School at this moment. I would
have to go over and count them, but my understanding is
there may be eighteen in school now.
Q Well, at the time that you made up the Answers
to the Interrogatories you report—
A That’s right.
Q —that there were 631 Negroes and 11 Whites at
tending the school.
A That’s right.
Q And you now are saying that there may be a few
more whites?
A That’s right.
Q Now, returning to the map—and we notice certain
boundaries here are marked in red.
A That’s right.
Q Specifically I see a red boundary separating the
Coronado School zone from the Norview Elementary
School zone.
84a
Q And the Coronado School is one that is all Negro?
A Yes, sir.
Q And Norview is one which is predominantly
white?
A Yes, sir.
Q A similar boundary marked in red separates the
Lindenwood School from the Monroe School areas, is that
correct?
A That’s right.
Q And Lindenwood School is all Negro and the
Monroe School is predominantly white?
A Yes, sir.
Q A similar boundary separates the Marshall School
area from that—from the Young Park School area?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the Marshall School is predominantly white
and the Young Park School is all Negro?
A Right.
Q A similar boundary separates Liberty Park School
area from the area of the Chesterfield School, is that cor
rect?
A Yes, sir.
85a
Q And the Liberty Park School area is all Negro and
the Chesterfield Elementary School is predominantly
white?
A Right.
Q Then there are similar boundaries separating Lin
coln from Gatewood, and Gatewood from Diggs Park, and
one separating Diggs Park from Campostella and Tucker,
and one separating Campostella and Tucker?
A Right.
Q That is correct?
A That’s right.
Q And those five schools are all Negro schools?
A One of them is predominantly white; Campostella
School is not.
Q Campostella is predominantly white; the other
four are all Negro?
A All Negro.
Q And I have covered all of the boundaries that are
colored on this map as red?
A I think you have. I haven’t checked it; I believe
you have.
Q Now, what was the significance of the red boun-
A Yes, sir.
86a
A The significance of the red boundary is this: Thai
there are fifty-two schools pictured on this map. In those
few instances that you have mentioned, those schools are
next to each other. They have a rapidly changing and
mobile population, just as you mentioned, that you gave
the illustration yourself of the Lee School District. As a
result—and as a result of the gradual transition period we
have proceeded through desegregation liberalizing our orig
inal procedures. These areas have children who are in one
area of one school district going to another, back and forth,
across those red lines, and under the new principles that
we gave in the answer to your petition to the Court, we
would keep these lines, certainly for this time, so that no
child would be forced out of a school where he had chosen
to go or where the Court had put him, because we were-
we would make those, as the other forty-some schools are-
single school serving single areas where every child would
go to the school. In other words, this is to preserve the
choice of a child of either race where we have let him go
in the past or where the Court may have sent him. It could
happen—I don’t know that this is true—or somebody had
sent him—but that is to1 preserve in those rapidly changing
areas where our past procedures have caused people to
cross from one line to another, and that is the purpose of
the line—to preserve freedom of choice.
Q I believe I did omit a red boundary line here be
tween Smallwood—
A Between Smallwood and—
Q —on the one side and Stuart and Monroe on the
dary, sir?
87a
other?
A That’s right. Using this map, now, a child moving
into one of these districts — or at the end of a school year
making a choice if he’s in school — or moving into the city
during the summer — if he moves into a section where
there are no red lines he would attend the school as out
lined there, and those boundaries are generations old and
have nothing to do purposefully except to keep the build
ing comfortably and not overcrowded. If he moved into
one of the areas that you have pointed out, he would have
a choice of two schools, completely unfettered, and make
his choice — he and his parents — and he would be assign
ed to that school.
Q Is either Smallwood or Stuart School a totally
Negro school?
A Smallwood is, I think.
Q And Stuart School then is a predominantly white
school?
A That’s right.
Q So that I take it then that any of these school
areas, the boundary of which is not colored in red, that a
child living in that area attends the school designated for
that area?
A Yes. The building — the building capacity of the
school in that area will meet the need of that area.
Q Are we speaking in terms of what is the present
practice — of the School Board and what has been the
88a
present practice — what has been the practice of the School
Board with reference to school assignments, or are you
speaking with reference to what the School Board is pro
posing to do in — some time in the future?
A I’m talking about what we did for every child who
applied before the May 31st deadline this past year, be
cause that was still in effect last year, and I am talking
about what we have done since May 31st with children
who have moved into the city and have changed their
school districts. On May 31st this year we were operating
under the procedures as approved by this Court and ac
cepted by everybody, and we accepted applications up to
that date and all children who applied as of that date were
handled by the way that you have there, because during
the summer we presented that as an answer to your plea
to the Court.
Q Mr. Lamberth, —
A And we will continue unless the Court tells us not
to do it.
Q Mr. Lamberth, my questions aren’t always with
reference to the racial picture. I am trying to get what is
the pattern of the School Board. To illustrate, here is an
area indicated as Suburban Park.
A That’s right.
Q Which is an elementary school, which I take it, is
one that is predominantly white.
A That’s right.
Q Now, do I understand that a child who lives in
89a
the area described on this map as Suburban Park —
A Yes.
Q — must attend the Suburban Park Elementary
School?
A You will find that in these principles we said that
some schools — most schools would be single attendance
areas and that these that you have mentioned would have
two schools serving areas —
Q Mr. Lamberth, can I get a yes or not answer to
that? Does a child who lives in the area marked on this
map as Suburban Park—is he required to attend the Sub
urban Park Elementary School?
A He will be if the Court approves the principles
that we have given him during the summer.
Q Well, in the past — in the last school term.
A He wasn’t — before May 31st, no — he wasn’t.
THE COURT: Mr. Tucker, you were not in this
matter originally, and I think the record will show that
you came in later. Mr. Ashe and Mr. Madison filed a
petition some months ago. Counsel met with the Court
—I don’t remember the date — but at that time Mr.
Davis and Mr. Cocke, representing the School Board,
stated that a plan was going to be submitted to the
School Board, which involved a complete change of
operation. I myself have intimated that there would
have to be changes made. The Hill case, which went
up from this Court and was affirmed by the Court of
90a
Appeals intimated that there would have to be changes
made. There were changes made following the Hill
case — but I pointedly suggested to counsel that as to
initial enrollees something would have to be done and
done promptly, and I assume that this is the — the res
ponse of the School Board, which was in connection
with the motion for relief filed by Mr. Ashe and Mr.
Madison, and in connection with the urging of the
Court that something would have to be clone; that the
time had come when there would have to- be at least,
at the very minimum, compliance with this initial en-
rolee matter which was giving me grave concern be
cause the Hill case stated very pointedly that had to
be changed, and it had not been changed, and I gather
that this is the proposed change, is it?
THE W ITNESS: These principles, Judge, if ac
cepted, with some techniques or methods that we
have here today would not only guarantee to every
child initially enrolling in Norfolk Schools that he
could go to the school of his district, or, if he lived in
one of these few districts where two schools served the
district that he would have a choice of the two with no
coming to the School Board office or that sort of thing,
but that every child now in school, just as he chooses
his option, that he would have that choice if he lived
in these contiguous areas, he would have that choice
too.
THE COURT: If you are trying to impress upon
the Court, Mr. Tucker, that the past acts of the School
Board have not been in accordance with this line, you
just are wasting your time. I know it hasn’t. In other
words, we can go back to 1959 when the schools were
91a
first integrated. There were seventeen Negro school
children that walked in certain schools. Everybody
was — well, the Negroes at least were very pleased at
the so-called massive resistance laws that had been
broken down. We recognize that there has been a lot
of water over the dam since 1959. This is the first
time I have ever gotten anything concrete, that I
could put my finger on, and even begin to review. I
am not going to be impressed by the fact that the
School Board has not done this in the past. I know
they haven’t done it in the past, so let’s deal with what
they’re going to do from now on.
MR. TUCKER: Well, Your Honor please, on that
one point, I am trying to develop this case to show
that we are entitled to a — to further relief — shall I
say a different type of injunction than was issued in
1959.
THE COURT: I have quit issuing injunctions.
MR. TUCKER: I beg pardon.
THE COURT: I issued my one injunction which
says that the School Board shall not discriminate. I
issued that injunction. I stop issuing injunctions. From
now on we operate under a plan or under some pro
cedure. I don’t think there will be any plan that will
ever please anybody universally. I said that, and it is
in the record. It wouldn’t please you gentlemen; it
wouldn’t please the Court of Appeals, it wouldn’t
please the School Board. So as far as plans are con
cerned, that is impossible. My purpose is to see to it
that there is no improper unjust discrimination that
affects the constitutional rights of children.
MR. TUCKER: I understand, but I would like to
— I hadn’t planned, really, to complete my examina
tion of this witness within one-half hour. If I may
develop it as I had planned it —
THE COURT: I want you to, I want you to take
as much time as you want, but I know that the School
Board has not assigned the children. This is a com
plete departure from what they have previously done.
This is the response to Mr. Ashe’s and Mr. Madison s
objections. I don’t mean the details of what they now
are saying they are going to do, but this is in response
to their urging and also some urging from me to the
effect that there would have to be some changes made,
so what I am interested in is how is the City of Nor
folk going to operate from now on. That is what I am
interested in.
MR. TUCKER: If His Honor will indulge me ten
minutes more as I had planned it, because I think
both the witness and His Honor misinterpreted what I
am driving at. I am certain of that, because now I am
going to change my question just a bit.
D IR EC T EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. TUCKER
Q I — returning to Suburban Park Area, Mr. Lam-
berth — and ask you does the fact that there is no boundary
for that area colored in red indicate that a white child who
lives in that area and is of elementary school age must
attend Suburban Park Elementary School?
93a
A Yes, every child in that area, yes, every child in
that area will attend that school.
Q All right.
A That’s right.
Q And the same thing is true with every other
boundary — with every other school zone the boundary of
which is not marked in red?
A That’s right.
Q That this option of a choice between one of two
schools pertains—or will pertain only where the red bound
ary so indicates?
A Yes, sir, and all races will choose, that’s right.
Q Now, to go back to the Suburban Park — and I
will ask you a question with reference to a White child
a year ago, was he required to attend school in Suburban
Park?
A Unless he went through some same procedures as
anyone else and was, through testing or adjustive services,
determined to be better off somewhere else.
Q But as a rgular routine matter if he lived in the
Suburban Park area he attended Suburban Park School?
A That’s right.
Q That’s what I’m trying to establish.
A That’s right.
94a
Q Now, suppose a parent of this — of a White child
— suppose a White family moved in Suburban Park area,
we’ll say in August, had moved there in August of 1963?
A Yes.
Q Coming in from out of the city, having children of
several ages, and the parents want to get the children in
school?
A Yes.
Q He is a stranger to Norfolk.
A That’s right.
Q What does the child do to get in — what does the
parent do to get the child in school?
A Applies for admission.
Q Where does he apply?
A In some cases they apply to the School Board of
fice and in some cases to the school.
Q What determines whether he will apply to the
School Board Office or the school?
A In most cases it would be the particular situation
in that case; that is exactly what would determine it, hut
regardless of where he applied it would have to be report
ed to the Pupils Services Office and handled the same way.
95a
Q Mr. Lambert}}, —
A Let me answer —
Q — let’s narrow —
A Let me answer your question. It will exactly
answer what you want. Both Negro and White students
applied at the schools and were admitted on October 19th
did not come to the school board.
Q Mr. Lamberth, let’s suppose a white family —
A That’s right.
Q — moved into the area of Suburban Park School—
A They might be taken without coming downtown;
they might have to come downtown; I can’t tell you unless
you show me the family.
Q How does the family know —
A Because the principal would tell them.
Q All right. Initially the parent would come to the
principal of the Suburban Park School.
A Not necessarily; some people wouldn t know where
the school was and they might call the office and come to
the office first.
Q If the parent - and this is still in Suburban Park
Area, if a parent took his child to the principal of the Sub
urban Park School, what, under your instructions, would
96a
the principal do with respect to enrolling those children.?
A What would he do? It would depend on the case.
Of course, he has a great deal to do. He has to fill out cer
tain papers, he has to fill out Pupil Placement blanks; it
depends upon what particular family you’re talking about.
There is no way in the world I can answer your question.
Q Let me ask you to tell me one thing which might
dictate to the principal of Suburban Park School that this
newly-arrived White family that came into his area must
come to the Superintendent of School’s office?
A Well, it might be that a matter of grade placement,
it might be a matter of a child’s past history. I think what
you’re trying to get at, Mr. Tucker, is if a Negro child —
Q I am not asking about Negroes, and if you would
stop thinking about that and merely answer the question I
think we will get along a lot better. All right, I am asking
you what consideration would the principal — what would
cause the principal of Suburban Park School to send that
White child to the office?
A Well, I can think of two right offhand. It might
be a question of whether he lived with his parent or guard
ian; it might be if he had something wrong in the school
from which he was coming; he might have come from an
other school in the city and there might be some — I don’t
know what the conditions are.
Q W e have eliminated the first one because we have
said it is a parent.
A All right.
97a
Q So he’s a parent, he is white, his wife is white, the
children are white, they live in the area of Suburban Park
School, and they carry the children on opening day of
school to Suburban Park and enroll them in school as a
normal —
A As a normal routine most of them would be taken
and approved by the School Board at a later time, if that
is what you want me to say.
Q What would the parent have to do to get that
child sitting in the classroom?
A He fills out the papers to be required — applica
tion for enrollment, every parent fills it out, and fills it —
Q And he can do all of that in the principal’s of
fice?
A Yes, he could, conceivably.
Q And the child could take the seat in the class room
on that day?
A No, because we are not open in August.
Q Let’s say it was in September, he could fill out
all the papers in the principal’s office?
A He probably could have, if it was a case you’re
talking about, perfectly routine, yes.
Q And the child could take his seat in the class room
that day?
A Yes.
98a
Q Nothing complicated about that, is there?
A I don’t think so.
Q And the same thing — now —
A The same thing would be true of a Negro child
moving into Suburban Park in August, if that is what you
want to say. I just wanted to finish the sentence for you.
Q I want to take a White parent who moves into the
Liberty Park area.
A All right.
Q In August, and on the first day of September pre
sents his child to the Chesterfield Elementary School.
A All right, presents his child to the Chesterfield
Elementary School. Under our system that we operated
under this summer, under our system that we operated
under this summer he would probably be turned down,
but you see, just as Judge Hoffman has said we’re talking
about two different things. You’re talking about what we
did and you’re showing me a map which shows me what
we’re doing immediately now and going to do in the fu
ture, and the two don’t match.
Q Was there a Liberty Park School area last year?
A Yes.
Q Was there a Chesterfield School area last year?
A Yes, there was, but —
Q And the boundary is approximately where it was?
99a
A But we didn’t give freedom of choice last year.
Q Was the boundary approximately where it is?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right, then, let’s go back to last year — and if a
White parent last year had moved into the Liberty Park
area —
A Yes.
Q — and carried his child to the principal of the
Chesterfield School, could the forms be filled out and the
child take his seat on the first day of school?
A It is a White child and he moved somewhere ad
jacent — let me get this straight.
Q Somewhere in the Liberty Park area.
A Yes, he probably could.
Q All right, if a colored family had moved into the
Chesterfield area and took the child to the principal of
Liberty Park school, could they fill out the forms in the
principal’s office and the child take his seat in the Liberty
Park School?
A Yes, I think so.
Q Now, if a colored child—the colored family moved
into the Chesterfield area and carry the child to Chester
field School, what would the parent have to do to get the
child in the school last year?
100a
A Well, prior to May 31st, you’re talking about after
the school started — after the —
Q I am assuming the family moved into the Nor
folk area during the summer recess.
A The family moved into Norfolk during the sum
mer recess, and it was a Negro family?
Q And on the first day of school of September, 1962,
the Negro family that had moved into Chesterfield area
carried the child to the Chesterfield school, what would
he have to do.
A On the first day of school, at the Chesterfield high
school we were operating under this present plan and that
child would not have had to come downtown.
Q Last year — September, 1962?
A In 1963 I am talking about.
Q No, I said 1962.
A You’re going back so far I can’t even remember
where we are. Now are you changing the year on me?
Q Let me re-state the question. If, on the opening
day of school, 1962, a White family—a Negro family which
had moved into the Chesterfield area had presented their
child to the Chesterfield school principal, what would he
have done to get the child enrolled?
A That would be a year ago last September.
Q Yes.
101a
A He would have had to come to the School Board
office to the Director of Pupil Service and fill out an ap
plication there rather than go to school because we were
operating under a different procedure, yes.
Q Now, the same picture, the Negro family moving
into the Chesterfield area in the summer of 1963 and hav
ing carried his child to the Chesterfield school, what would
have been the story?
A As soon as we accepted your and Mr. Ashe’s com
plaint — or whatever it is — and sent in those principles
we started taking the applications at the schools. Now, if
you ask me what day we started I would have go to and
check with Mr. Wooldridge.
Q Would that child’s application have been accept
ed in September of this year and the child accepted and
seated in his class room on that day?
A If he got it in before the May 31st deadline or
moving into the area after the deadline.
Q He would have been accepted at the school?
A That’s right.
Q I thank you.
A That’s right.
Q But if he did not get the application in before
the May 31st deadline — and again I am talking about the
Negro parent who — let us assume — assume a Negro par
ent has been living in the Chesterfield area and he has a
child who he wants to enroll in the Chesterfield school.
102a
A Yes.
Q And he did not make an application by the May
31st deadline, what does he have to do on the first day
of the school term?
A Well, he takes the child — you say he wants to
take the child to Chesterfield —
Q Yes, to the school serving the area.
A He applies — and up until this plan was presented,
through our answer to you, he would be informed of the
fact that the May 31st deadline was past and that would
be it.
Q I see. A white family similarly situated living in
the Chesterfield School area carrying that child to the
Chesterfeild School under the same circumstances would
be admitted.
A White child would have been — would have been
already in school. He would have been there before May
31st.
Q If he hadn’t been truant.
A I am not here to discuss truancy. You’re making
an impossible situation. A child living in the Chesterfield
area and to go to school one year and not go the next, that
is very unusual. That is very unusual. He would have been
in school on the deadline.
Q But if he had not been, and he was going to a
white school, the fact that he did not apply before May
31st would not stop him from going to that school?
103a
A That’s right, because the date that you’re talking
about, we were operating under procedures that have
gradually been modified, first presented in 1959, and it
stated that children of one race applying for a predomin
antly — a school of predominantly another race, that they
had to make application in unusual circumstances, and
this is a change away from that so that there is no mention
of race whatsoever.
Q And as long as that is a white child —
A No, not now. Don’t change your tense. You’re
talking about two years ago.
Q Let me finish my question.
A Yes, sir.
Q All right. As long as we have a white child who is
applying to go to a white school whether he’s attended
school before or not, whether he has moved to the city or
not, the May 31st deadline did not apply?
A I can’t answer that yes or no because I don’t know
of any such case.
Q You don’t know of any case when it has applied?
A I don’t know of any case where a child applied in
a situation in which you’re talking about.
Q All right.
A I don’t know which year you’re talking about,
we’re talking about now — 1963 and 1962 — and I don’t
know what year you’re talking about.
104a
Q As a matter of fact on that sample question the
May 31st deadline doesn’t affect the right of a White child
to attend a certain school last year, this year, or any year?
A I am saying that every child will make a choice by
whatever deadline we have set, which is part of the pro
cedure that we have set. That is what I am saying. If a
child is in a school, he will make a choice.
Q What I am really asking you —
A I’ll not ask one child to do anything that we are
not asking every other child to do.
Q What I really want to know is —
A Up until this time it’s made a difference, yes.
Q I ’ll come to that. I want right now to direct your
attention to your answer to Interrogatory Number 6.
A Interrogatory 6?
Q And from that I get that Charlene L. Butts, Betty
J. Turner, and Jacque E. Turner applied to attend Norview
Junior High School, and on August 6, 1963 their applica
tions were refused and they were retained in Rosemont
Junior High School.
A That’s right.
Q And the reason assigned there is “J ”, and accord
ing to your key, “J” indicates—and I quote—“Lives nearer
to other schools which will have their grades than to the
schools for which applications were made.” Now, are white
children who live in the Rosemont — Norview area and
105a
live closer to the Rosemont School, are they permitted to
attend the Norview Junior High School?
A Yes, they are.
Q Now, your answer to the Interrogatory also dis
closes that Kenneth L. Daye applied to attend Suburban
Park School and on August 6, 1963 application was denied
for reason “K”.
A Kenneth who?
Q Kenneth L. Daye.
A What page is that on? I see him—the second child.
I beg your pardon. All right.
Q And your key indicates that the symbol “K” means
“Lives in an area not served by the school for which he
applied.” That is correct?
A I don’t have his address before me. We’re talking
about 350 people here and I can’t say that that’s correct
until — I mean some clerk can make some error in copying
it — but I assume it is correct.
Q All right, assuming that it is correct, and also not
ing that an answer to Interrogatory Number 3 shows that
twenty white elementary school children live in the Coron
ado Elementary School area, I ask you the question where
do these twenty children attend school?
A Well, you’ve got two schools that are not con
tiguous. You’re talking about Kenneth Daye, and that is
Suburban Park, and Coronado has nothing to do with
Suburban Park. They are not contiguous.
106a
Q Mr. Lamberth, if you could just try to stop debat
ing this case with me and just answer my questions —
A Well, we’re talking about Kenneth Daye.
Q Forget Kenneth Daye for a minute, please, and
let us — am I correct that your answer to Interrogatory
Number 3 shows that twenty white elementary children
live in the Coronado School area?
A That’s right.
Q That is correct?
A That’s right.
Q Now, I ask you where do those twenty children
attend school?
A They attend Norview Elementary, I suppose.
That’s right.
Q And none of them attend any other school, that is
Rosemont or Smallwood or Suburban Park or Lakewood?
A Not to my knowledge, no, sir, they are not sup
posed to, that’s right.
Q I see. If a parent of a White child living in Cor
onado School area carried his child over to the Suburban
Park School and told the principal there where he lived
and said that he wanted to enroll his child there, under
your instructions to the principal what would the principal
do?
107a
A Tell him that he didn’t live in the Suburban Park
area.
Q Where would he send him?
A He might sent him to my office, to Air. Aloore,
who is Pupil Services Director. He might call up and find
out where he should — I doubt that the principal of sixty-
six schools would know, according to the street, just what
school he would go to.
Q I see, but eventually the administrator would send
him to some school, would he not?
A Yes.
Q According to what school? Would you indicate?
A The day —
Q I am not asking about Daye. I want to know —
A I have to know the day —
THE COURT: I don’t want you to interrupt the
witness; I don’t want the witness to interrupt you. But
it is fundamental that the witness has a right to get his
answer in, and I am confused, you jump from one, two
years ago, to what is going to happen next year, and
things like that.
AIR. TUCKER: I think what happened in that
instance, the name “Dayne” was in, and I understand
instance, the name “Daye” was in, and I understand
THE CO U RT: He said, “the day”, and you never
108a
let him go any further. Now, let the witness get it in.
I have got to understand, and I assume the Court of
Appeals will have to understand in due time, whether
we’re talking about what is contemplated to be done
from now on, or what was done — what was to be done
back in 1959, when there were seventeen Negro chil
dren led into the schools and everybody all over the
country thought that was significant because the back
of the resistance laws was broken. Times have chang
ed. I am not interested a bit in what happened in the
past. I say right now I am interested in what is going
to happen from now on, and don’t interrupt this wit
ness any more when he is giving an answer.
MR. TUCKER: I am sorry. I wanted to explain
when he said “day” I thought he was going to Kenneth
Daye. I apologize.
THE COURT: All right, go ahead.
THE W ITNESS: What is the question now?
D IRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. TUCKER
Q I am speaking now with reference to this current
school year, and I’m assuming that a white family had
applied to the principal of the Suburban Park School —
A That’s right.
Q — for the admission of his child to that school -
A Yes.
109a
Q — and I am trying to see what instructions your
office had been told as to where his child would go — what
school?
A The most usual instruction would be the principal
of Suburban Park would tell him that he did not belong in
that school; his school was not in the Suburban Park Dis
trict.
Each principal has — and will have this map — a cut
of this map — showing his old school district, they have had
for years, and, as pointed out here a dozen times, prior to
the answers which we are prepared to give today there were
overlapping school districts, and there was a difference in
handling unusual cases where races wanted to mix prior to
this year, that is true, so this child would go to Suburban
Park, which is completely across the natural boundary,
across the Virginia Railroad and all, and risk his life and
apply at Suburban Park School, the principal, if he knew
where he lived and knew the neighborhood, which he pro
bably would not, it is an annex part of the town, he may
tell him a school to go to. I am not saying that he wouldn’t,
but his instructions are never to recommend any school
unless he’s absolutely certain that he has the district be
cause this is a big city, and to come to the office, and the
answer would be to the person, under the present — this
school year arrangement — “You live in Coronado.” It is
served by both Coronado and Norview elementary, and
you may take your choice. And if it is a white person, they
have always up to this point taken Norview Elementary be
cause it has more white children. That’s the answer. Now,
that is the exact answer he would get. And there are white
people in that situation today — twenty or thirty — I don’t
know how many families — that live in Coronado.
Q So I understand that the white person who applied
110a
to Suburban Park School would be told that he has a choice
between Norview and Coronado?
A That’s right. That’s right, because that is what that
red line is between the two schools for. It is an area served
by the two schools, and it would prevent us from forcing
him to go to one school as much as it would keep us from
forcing a Negro* child to go to a certain school.
Q Was that true as of August 6,1963?
A We have been following that ever since we filed
this proposal as an answer to your attorney’s questions.
Q May I finish my question?
A Yes, sir.
Q As of August 6, 1963 would this white person have
been told that he had a choice between Coronado and
Norview?
A I think your reference to August 6th is probably the
date of the application of some — of the assignments on
some of these sheets. Well, to the best of my knowledge we
filed the answers in July or August and we perhaps hadn’t
started working on them. I don’t know; I can’t answer that
directly, and if you were school administrator with as many
assignments requested as we have you would understand
why I would have to go to the records to find out, but we
filed that answer —
TH E W ITN ESS: Does anybody know the date
of that answer?
THE COURT: Yes.
111a
MR. DAVIS: Your Honor please, could we get
that date from the file and put it in the record?
THE W ITN ESS: I would like to know, because
as soon as the Court accepted it arid your attorneys
did not complain, we decided that it might have a
chance, and we started operating under it as far as
then, but we did not go back and work — retroactive
— and work on 1962-63 and 1961-62 applicants.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. TUCKER
Q Well, whatever the date of the filing of the answer-
then, going back then — or the date of the — on which you
adopted the policy that led to the filing of the answer?
A What was it? 8th of August - so August 6th we
were operating under the old plan; beyond the 8th of Aug
ust too, because we didn’t start the day we filed it.
Q So now, then, can you answer my question?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would this white person on August 6th, who lived
in the Coronado school zone and applied to the Suburban
Park School, would he have been told that he had a choice
between Coronado and Norview?
A I think on August 6th it would have been a case
such as the Judge said in which we weren’t doing all that
we planned to, and we would have told him probably to
go to Norview.
Q You would have directed him to Norview School?
A Probably, probably so, that’s right; that’s right.
Q I thank you! Whew! Now, again referring to your
answer, your Interrogatory Number 6, we find that Rickie
R. Outlaw, presently attending Grade 1 in Liberty Park
School, applied on February 6, 1963 to attend Chesterfield
School. We’ll assume the parents applied for him, and the
application was denied on August 6, 1963 for reason letter
“G”, and the symbol indicates that that means, “Applied
for a higher grade than which they were qualified.” From
that I assume his parents sought to enter him in the Ches
terfield School in a grade higher than Grade 1. My ques
tion is had the child been white would he not have been
assigned to Grade 1 in Chesterfield School?
A This was under the old plan. Yes, yes. This would
have come before we were into the new procedures, that s
right.
Q Well, as a matter of fact were it a white child and
his parents wanted to enroll him in Chesterfield School and
believed he belonged in Grade 3, he would have been ac
cepted in Chesterfield School and put in the grade in
which he belonged in the judgment of the school author
ities, would he not?
A The same thing would happen to the same child
of any race today, that’s true.
Q Could that question have been answered, “Yes,
Mr. Lam'berth?
A Yes, I can answer yes, yes, that’s true.
113a
Q Now, the answers to the Interrogatories indicate
that several children were denied for reason H , which is
the symbol for “Living at their present addresses on May
31 and failed to submit application prior to deadline.”
Now, to save a lot of time, let’s forget about race in this
question. The question is has any child ever been denied
the right to attend public school in the City of Norfolk
because application for attendance was not made on or
prior to May 31st?
A May I repeat the question? Has any child ever
been denied the right to attend school in Norfolk because
he did not apply before May 31st?
Q That is my question.
A The answer is no; no child has ever been denied.
Q As a matter of fact a parent of a beginner may
enroll a child on the first day of the term that begins in
September.
A Yes, a child may enroll the first day of the term.
Q Now, how about a child commencing Junior High
School, a child commencing Junior High School enrolled in
that high school on the first day of term without an appli
cation made prior to May 31st?
A Under the procedures we have operated under,
this and the case you just cited would depend on the race
of the child prior to this because we had special procedures
for unusual cases. You are not familiar with our procedure
evidently.
Q I certainly am not.
114a
A Well, I don’t see how in the world you can ask me
questions because you’re talking about them all the time.
Q I asked you the question, can a child in junior
high school, if his first application to enter junior high
school was made at the beginning of school in September—
A You can’t give a yes or no answer to that. You
just can’t give it. I see you don’t know our procedures.
THE COURT: Let’s apply it as of now, or as of
the first day of September, 1964. Let’s get the answer
in now.
THE W ITN ESS: All right. On the first day of
September, 1964, a child could enter school by apply
ing on that day.
Q May 31st deadline won’t bother him with refer
ence to beginning at junior high school?
A Beginning junior high school?
Q Yes.
A Not if he — no, it wouldn’t, because if he was in
school we would know where he wanted to go. If he were
in school we would have his choice; if he wasn’t in school
— had come here since the May 31st deadline — so
it wouldn’t bother him at all. If he was in one of our ele
mentary schools and he went to junior high school, we
would know where he wanted to go.
Q How would you know?
A Because we would have his parent and him both
115a
put it down.
Q When is that done?
A We’re ahead of ourselves. That is going to be done
at the same time they indicate whether they want to take
Latin, French or music.
Q Let’s see if we can get an answer as to what was
the situation on the first day of September, 1963.
A The first of September, 1963 you could have two
things happening; you could have people who were regu
lar applicants before May 31st who were handled one way,
and then you could have people who moved in the city or
first-grader or something on August 25th that were handled
another way. You don’t know anything about it. I under
stand it; you don’t. Because we changed it the middle of
the summer and I have been trying to tell you all after
noon.
Q Let’s go back a year before that.
A I don’t see it matters what we did in 1962. You
can’t put me in jail for what happened then.
MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, -
THE COURT: I will permit Mr. Tucker to ask
the questions, but I am surprised, Mr. Tucker, as to
your candid admissions that you don’t know what was
going on down here before. You are counsel in this
case. It is true that you did come in late, but I would
assume that if you didn’t know, Mr. Ashe and Mr.
Madison could certainly tell you.
116a
MR, TUCKER: Well, if Your Honor please, as
Your Honor has indicated, that what we’re really do
ing is making a record which will be read by people
who really know less about it than I am admitting
that I know.
THE COURT: I expect that is true, because it
is true that anyone with any slight intelligence — and
I am admitting I only have a grain of it — will know
that since February, 1959 when the first negro child
was first admitted into a previously all-white school,
that there has been a period — an interim period. It
was approved as such in the Hill case that went right
up from this Court, and you know the Hill case and I
know the Hill case.
MR. TUCKER: I am very well familiar with the
Hill case, Your Honor please.
THE COURT: And the Court of Appeals there
said — and I said — that the Norfolk system of opera
ting was nothing than an interim matter — an interim
proposition. They would have to get their house in
order, and they’re trying to get it in order, and you
can’t get it in order and the Circuit Court of Appeals
can’t get it in order, and I am saying I am interested
in what the Norfolk board is going to do in the future.
You may go and whoop and holler what they have
done in the past, but when I have ordered something
in the past they have done it, and it is just of no con
cern to me. You can fill up this record, if you want
to, go back twenty-five years as far as I am concerned.
I don’t know whether Mr. Lamberth was here or not.
D IRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
117a
BY MR. TUCKER
Q Incidentally let’s get that part of the record
straight, Mr. Lamberth. I think you have testified you were
superintendent of schools since 1980 and beyond that you
have been —
A Assistant superintendent.
Q And for how long before —
A Since 1949.
Q And before that time you were —
A Before that time I was principal, assistant prin
cipal, and teacher in more years than I care to mention.
Q Now, then, before the answer to the motion for
further relief, how was the junior high school to which an
elementary school graduate would be assigned —how was
that determination made?
A That determination was generally made by the
school — elementary school he attended going into a junior
high school, with the exception of those who chose to apply
before May 31st and to avail themselves of the procedures
which were put into force in 1959.
Q So that if a child got started into one elementary
school, unless something changed him from that school
and he graduated from that school, he would go to the
same junior high school as all other children from that ele
mentary school went?
A That’s right.
118a
Q You have certain elementary schools which feed
or satisfy certain junior high schools?
A That’s right, and after 1959, as the desegregation
has increased, of course, if children of different races were
in those schools they went on together, that’s right.
Q But if a Negro child were in a Negro elementary
school and unless he took steps to get out of the stream,
he went to a Negro Junior high school and thence to the
Negro high school?
A That was true prior to desegregation and prior to
— well — of course — no, a Negro child could have been in
an elementary school like Suburban Park in 1960 and gone
on up to —
Q No, if he started in a Negro elementary school.
A Yes, if he went to a totally Negro elementary
school, that’s right, he would have gone to a Negro high
school prior —
THE COURT: Unless he applied for a transfer.
Q As a matter of fact isn’t that yet true?
A No, it wouldn’t be true now with this plan.
Q Will you tell us when the break comes?
A The break comes at the end of the sixth grade or
the seventh grade, whichever is the last grade in the ele
mentary school, and every child, as I have explained here
about a dozen times, who lives in an area served by more
119a
than one junior high school, he would have a choice. V on
have the elementary map up there now. That is the junior
high school map. Yes, that’s it.
Q And where do we have areas served by more than
one junior high school delineated on this map?
A This map — doesn’t hardly — this drawing — this
is not easy, Mr. Tucker, but this map indicates, and we
have some legend that — with me — that I could give you
that will help you understand both what we have been
trying to say about the elementary and the junior and the
senior high, but in all but two junior high school areas, to
keep from forcing children of both races who are now
where they want to be from being elsewhere, children who
live in those areas, except for those two junior high schools,
would have a choice when they finish the school. They
have to make choices anyway, and it would be just one
more choice; they have to choose whether they want to
study one thing or another in high school, and along with
that the parent would have to choose a school.
Q Did you say you have a key or something that
would indicate zones on this high school map wherein
children have choice?
A Yes, sir, I have a list of the schools with the at
tendance areas and the area served by the schools and in
which area you would live to get a choice. Yes, sir, I think
Mr. Davis is holding one up right now.
MR. DAVIS: Your associate counsel has some.
Your Honor please, would you like to have one of
these at this time? We were going to introduce one in
120a
evidence.
THE COURT: Yes.
I think the best thing would be to mark the so-
called legend to correspond with Plaintiffs Exhibit
1-A-l, l-A-2 and l-A-3. Let’s mark this legend as
Plaintiffs Exhibit l-A-4.
D IRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. TUCKER
Q Mr. Lamberth, what is contemplates if the child
graduating from elementary does not make a choice; he
trusts the judgment of the school board to determine what
junior high school he should attend?
A I don’t think we will have a case like that; we
never have.
Q You have never had them because you have had
the voter system.
A We have had people make choices of other types.
Children have to choose a course in school. Every high
school has four or five courses; they have industrial shop,
commercial, business —
Q Wait a minute, Mr. Lamberth.
A la m just telling you the truth.
Q I thought I just understood that last year or year
before last you had an automatic system that certain chil
dren who went to certain junior high school went to cer
tain high school.
121a
A That’s right. Those people choose some things;
now we’re asking them to choose the school. W ell handle
that when we get to it. I don’t know what we would do.
I can’t imagine a person not having a choice of school. Can
you imagine it?
Q Yes.
A If he doesn’t want to make a choice, he doesn t
have to go to school, except the law will force him to make
a choice. I don’t know. We have a compulsory Law. I be
lieve anybody of high school age who can’t make a choice,
shouldn’t go to school.
Q Does the school board contemplate guiding them
in making a choice?
A I think the matter of making a choice of the school
is one for the parent and the child because it is a location
problem and not an educational problem.
(At this juncture in the proceedings, the ques
tioning was halted while a jury reported in another
case.)
THE COURT: All right, gentlemen.
MR. TUCKER: No further questions.
THE COURT: Mr, Davis?
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. DAVIS
Q Mr. Lamberth, let me ask you one question, and I
think it will be the only one I have, with regard to the
122a
various procedures that were followed for the school year
1962, 1963 and the prior years and the various things that
were done up until the promulgation of the new principles,
isn’t it a fact that all of those procedures were approved
by this Court?
A Yes, sir.
MR. TUCKER: Your Honor please, I think this is
calling for a legal conclusion.
MR. DAVIS: Your answer was yes, wasn’t it?
THE W ITN ESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Well, I will say that not every
procedure as it continued on throughout the years
was specifically approved by the Court in the sense
that the Court must state that in several conferences
with counsel, starting shortly after the Hill decision,
that I had urged that at least there be prompt action
taken to change the system as to initial enrollees and
that dragged a little bit more than I anticipated —
MR. DAVIS: But it was done, was it not, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: You mean prior to this summer?
MR. DAVIS: It has been done now.
THE COURT: Oh, well, that’s a matter for me
to worry about later.
MR. DAVIS: All right.
123a
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. DAVIS
Q Now, Mr. Lamberth, with regard to these maps
which have been introduced in evidence, the three of them,
and I am talking about all of them now, one that sets out
attendance areas for the elementary schools, one that sets
and shows attendance areas for the junior high schools, and
the third, which shows the attendance areas for the senior
high schools. Will you state whether or not those various
areas that are shown on those maps are substantially the
same — I’m talking about their boundaries — now as they
have been for many years?
A They are substantially the same.
Q Has there been any change in the boundaries of
the senior high schools, the area serving the senior high
schools.
A None.
Q Your answer is none?
A None.
Q Has there been any change with regard to the
boundaries of the areas serving the junior high school?
A Only when new junior high schools are built.
Q Could you tell us in what respects the boundaries
of the areas serving the elementary schools have been
changed? I don’t mean necessarily in detail, street by
street, but generally speaking I understand they are sub
124a
stantially the same as they have been for years and years.
What, generally speaking, are the changes that have been
made there?
A Generally speaking when a new school is built it
is assigned to a certain area of the city, and that area is
divided. That would be one change, and the other would
be where, because of rapid change in population density
that certain school districts had to be made smaller or
larger, and that is the only time that they have been
changed.
Q Now, Mr. Lamberth, I believe there has already
been introduced in evidence an exhibit which has been
identified as Plaintiff’s Exhibit l-A-4.
A That is correct.
Q For the purpose of the record would you explain
that exhibit and what it shows?
A This exhibit is more or less a legend for use with
those three maps which have been prepared. In the left-
hand corner it shows school attendance areas as shown on
the maps. In the right-hand comer it says schools serving
such attendance areas. In the case of all four senior high
schools it shows, for instance, that a child living in the at
tendance area shown on the map marked “Granby” on the
senior high school map, which is not showing right at this
moment, would — through these principles that were pro
mulgated this summer, or rather sent to this Court and to
the attorneys here today — that the operation of those
principles would mean that a newcomer to that area would
have a choice of the two schools in the right-hand comer
—Granby or Booker T. Washington. The child already en
125a
rolled in the Norfolk schools and now attending a school,
but who would be by grade and residence eligible or —
living in the Granby area as depicted on the map — and
eligible for grades taught at Granby would have a choice
of Granby or Booker T. Washington.
Q This exhibit then puts into words what is shown
by the markings on the map?
A That’s right.
Q Or I should say maps?
A Right. And in the junior high school the same
thing would apply with the exception of two areas — two
junior high schools. In the elementary, I believe we have
already been through and shown the few contiguous
schools were the choice would have to be made.
THE COURT: What would you do if, for ex
ample all of the children who lived in the school at
tendance area designated as Rosemont applied to go to
Norview school — junior high school?
THE W ITNESS: We have, Judge, an addition to
this which hasn’t been shown yet, I believe, Mr.
Davis.
MR. DAVIS: That’s right.
THE W ITNESS: A statement of the principles
and the methods which we would employ and I think
it is at least an attempt in answering that very ques
tion in this.
Is this a proper time —
126a
MR. DAVIS: It is. And, if Your Honor please,
may I introduce that at this time and it may help clar
ify the situation.
THE COURT: Yes. Defendant’s Exhibit 1.
MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. DAVIS
Q Mr. Lamberth, I hand you that document and ask
you first, please, if you will identify it and possibly you
may do that by reading the caption to it?
A “Principles to be applied in determining the
schools and grades which children will attend and outline
of method of putting such principles into effect.”
Q Now, will you first read to the Court the prin
ciples?
A “1. If only one school serves an area, all children
living in the area will attend such school; provided, that
any child who at the end of the 1963-64 school year is/was
attending a school which does not/did not serve the area
in which he lives may, at the option of him and his parent
or guardian, continue to attend such school as long as he
is in a grade which such school has.
“2. If two schools serve an area, all children living
in the area may choose, subject to the approval of their
parents or guardians and subject to the maximum capac
ities of the schools, the school which they wish to attend.
The choice for the ensuing school year must be made not
127a
later than June 15 of the current school year, provided,
however, that as to any child who moves into the City of
Norfolk or from one area of the City to another and any
child who enters the public school system of the City from
a private or parochial school in the City subsequent to
June 15, the choice must be made promptly after such
move or entry is made.
“3. The program of special tests will be eliminated
and the grade levels at which the children are expected to
achieve satisfactorily will be determined by the School
Administration, guided by the cumulative records, routine
tests and performances of the children.”
Q Now, Mr. Lamberth, before you continue —
MR. DAVIS: If Your Honor please, may I make
this statement, which is apparent from the record it
self. These three principles are the same three prin
ciples which were set forth in the answer of the De
fendants to the motion for further relief with two
amendments. The first amendment appears in Prin
ciple Number 1 and consists of the proviso therein.
The second amendment is in Principle Number 2,
and the date of June 15th was shown to be May 31st
in the principles filed with the Answer.
On reconsideration it appeared to us that June
15th, which is a date always a day or two after the
end of a current school session was a better date than
May 31st. The amendment made in Principle Number
1 was made because on further consideration it ap
peared to us that it was the fair thing to do so far as a
child who might right now, this year, be in attendance
in an area outside of the area which would serve the
128a
school that he would normally go to under these prin
ciples.
It was the idea of not — of trying to keep, if the
child wanted to stay where he was — from shuffling
him around.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. DAVIS
Q. Now, Mr. Lamberth, will you go to the next page
and paragraph by paragraph read, please, the method
which is proposed of putting these principles into effect
and operation?
A ‘T. Prior to May 1 of each year every child in
attendance in the public schools of the City of Norfolk
who lives in a school attendance area which is served by
two or more schools will be furnished a form designating
the schools which the child may attend during the ensuing
school year and on which the child and his parent or guard
ian shall select the school which they wish the child to
attend. Such form shall be completed, signed by the child
and his parent or guardian and returned promptly to the
person named on the form.
“2. Every child who is not in attendance in a public
school of the City of Norfolk when the forms mentioned
in the preceding paragraph are distributed and who wish
es to enter a public school of the City for the enusing
school year, and every child who is in attendance in a
public school of the City when such forms are distributed
but who moves from one school attendance area to an
other after such form is completed and returned, and the
129a
parents or guardians of such children, shall complete and
sign such a form for the ensuing school year and file the
same with the Superintendent of Schools of the City of
Norfolk, or someone designated by him, as soon as poss
ible after such children and their parents or guardians de
cide that such children will enter a public school of the
City, or move from one school attendance area to another,
as the case may be, and, in any event, not later than the
day before such children wish to enter school for the en
suing year.
“3. Subject to the maximum capacities of the
schools, the School Board of the City of Norfolk will place
children who live in an area which is served by two or more
schools in the schools which they and their parents or
guardians select and will cause such children and their
parents or guardians to be notified of the schools which
such children will attend as soon as possible after such
forms are returned or filed.
“4. The option mentioned in Principle numbered 1
shall be exercised by a statement in writing, signed by the
child and his parent or guardian, and delivered to the
Superintendent of Schools of the City of Norfolk, or some
one designated by him, at least ten days prior to the open
ing of the public schools of the City for a school year. If
the option is exercised, it may subsequently be cancelled
at any time by a statement in writing, signed by the child
and his parent or guardian, and delivered to the Super
intendent of Schools of the City of Norfolk, or someone
designated by him.
“5. Each child will attend the grade which the
School Administration, guided by the cumulative record
of the child, his routine tests and his performance, deter
130a
mines to be the level at which he is expected to achieve
satisfactorily.
“6. The School Administration will make such admin
istrative transfers of classes of children and/or individual
children as are necessary for the orderly operation of the
public schools of the City, such transfers being necessary
from time to time for various reasons which include but
are not limited to the following: to prevent overcrowding
of a school building, to comfortably fill a school building,
damage to or destruction of a school building, disciplinary
problems, the need of a child for special subjects, mental
or physical disability of a child.
“7. The School Board of the City of Norfolk will
cause a copy of this statement of Principles and Method
to be published in a newspaper having a general circula
tion in the City of Norfolk at least once during the month
of April and once during the month of August of each
calendar year.”
MR. DAVIS: I have no other questions of this wit
ness.
THE COURT: Getting back to my question, I
see the answer but I don’t know that it’s the — whether
it can be constitutionally applied as such. What would
you do if al lthe children living in the Rosemont area,
according to the junior high school area, should des
ignate “Norview” on the form to attend? Obviously, it
couldn’t take them all. That we know. Now, how
would the School Board determine which ones to take
and which ones not to take?
TH E W ITN ESS: A member of my staff asked
131a
me that question this week, Judge, and my answer
was that, first, I do not think that that — exactly that
would happen. And secondly, —
THE CO U RT: You never know —
THE W ITN ESS: Secondly, I think that the par
ents would have to give the Superintendent and the
Administration the benefit of their advice as to who
was closer to which school, and who would — leaving
all other considerations out — be better off at one
school than at another, and, of course, I can conceive
that even though a child lived across the street from
one school, even though that school was crowded, he
might say, CT want to go to the other one, and then
if the judgment of the Superintendent was not upheld
by the School Board, then the Superintendent would
be in trouble and we might land back here. I don’t
know; I hope not. But I think it can be administered
constitutionally, and I certainly, as far as I understand
the court order in this case, would administer it that
way.
Now, — and I know in somebody else’s judgment
they might not think it was constitutional, but when
we got in that hassle it would have to be decided, but
we certainly would try to solve it in a constitutional
manner.
The thing about this that I like is that it allows the
children, regardless of creed or anything else, to have
some choice, and the second thing is that it gives us
a chance to put children in grades, and all, as you
read in there, as I have been saying, in years accord
ing to their ability rather than according to what one
132a
test we gave them at one time showed about them,
which is unfair. Then — it gives us a chance, with that
first principle, with that proviso to allow a child who
is now in school not be uprooted, because we have
said that all children in that district, until he elects
to do so and he cares to stay in that school, and that
school has a grade and it treats everybody alike, every
body makes the same choice, and it is conceivable with
our school system operating as it is that some children
of the white race might choose to go to a predomin
antly Negro school. We have that in the City of Nor
folk right now, but everybody has his choice.
THE COURT: Well, I am not commenting upon
the freedom of choice.
THE W ITN ESS: I think the administration
would have to be decided. Of course, any plan can
be constitutional and still be administered unconsti
tutionally.
THE CO U RT: There could be no chance, of
course, of all children living in a certain area select
ing to go outside of that area except for — except by
actions of an organization, but those actions are not
beyond the reahn of possibility and we might just as
well meet it, because I don’t see any need of either
approving or disapproving of a plan which doesn’t
meet the inevitable. We are going to be returning here
for the next hundred years and we might as well get
down to it and it might be by lot, that might be the
final determination. That, in my opinion, is not good
school administration to determine where a child
should go to by lot, but if we come down to the final
analysis that here is a proposal, that all Rosemont
133a
children have got a right to select either Rosemont or
Norview, and they proceed then to select Norview,
they have then complied with the — with what the
School Board has given them as an alternative, and
once having complied they would not have any right
to be shuttled back to Rosemont under those circum
stances, any more than unless everybody in Norview
should be handled in the same manner.
MR. DAVIS: Your Honor please, I don’t know
whether this is the proper time for me to say this, but
in the event it is, while it is not expressly stated in so
many words in that particular paragraph, it is our
understanding that as the Court has said before, that
the test of whether or not it is administered constitu
tionally is whether or not it is applied equally to all
children alike, and I can say to the Court that there
is implied in there that whatever may be done to solve
that situation in the event it occurs, all children,
whether they are white, black, yellow or whatever
color, they will be treated in the same overall general
manner.
There are so many situations that could arise. It
seems to us, first, as Mr. Lamberth says, we don’t think
that problem will arise, but if it does it will be no
different possibly from the problems that are con
stantly arising in the administration of the school sys
tem, wherein, for example, this year “X ” elementary
school has a seventh grade. Next year “X” elementary
school doesn’t have a seventh grade, but that seventh
grade has moved to “Y” junior high school. In the
constant changing of population shifts and the con
stant effort on the part of the school system, it is a
comfortably filled but not overcrowded building. We
134a
have been into that, as Your Honor will recall, before.
Frequently one year an elementary school will
have a seventh grade; the next year it won t have a
seventh grade. That is the type of thing that could —
that could arise in this situation, and it seems to us —
I’ve discussed this question with Mr. Lamberth and
with others on his staff, and it seemed to us that to
attempt to cover every eventuality was next to im
possible.
However, as I say, it is our purpose to meet the
situation, if it should arise, in the best manner, educa
tionally speaking, for the school system, treating all of
the children just alike.
THE COURT: All I want to say, gentlemen, is
that assuming arguendo that you can have a freedom-
of-choice plan applicable to various sections of a city
and not to all sections, then it is perfectly clear that in
the application of that plan it must be done without
regard to race.
MR. DAVIS: We understand that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, do you have anything
else, Mr. Davis?
MR. DAVIS: No, sir, we have no further ques
tions of Air. Lamberth.
MR. TUCKER: If Your Honor please, at this
point we just like to make a motion to strike the testi
mony that has been brought out on cross examination
as not responsive to the direct examination and not in
135a
issue in the pleadings.
THE COURT: The motion is denied. What dif
ference does it make whether you put it on or whether
they put them on after you have rested?
MR. TUCKER: I say it isn’t germane to the issue
made by the pleadings. That is more important than
the lack of responsive to the direct examination.
THE COURT: You mean this proposed plan —
or whatever you call it — is not germane to the issue?
If so I made a terrible mistake granting you all a
hearing today and spending my Saturday listening to
you all when I could have been looking at the Army-
Navy game over television. It is raised in the answer,
isn’t it?
MR. TUCKER: Part of it is and part of it was
just served on us —
THE COURT: I won’t argue with you. I ’ll just
deny the motion.
MR. TUCKER: Very well.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. TUCKER
Q I want to ask you a few questions with reference
to it, and directing your attention to Paragraph 3 on the
first page, third principle, I understand the part which
reads: “The program of special tests will be eliminated
* but what, I want to ask you, is the significance of this
other part about determination of grade levels?
A Significance of that is that heretofore we have de
136a
termined tlie grade level under our old procedures by a
special test. The child made a certain grade, he was allow
ed to transfer, some years ago, if he didn’t make a certain
grade level he wasn’t allowed to transfer. Under this pro
gram, as you see we would eliminate the test and go hack
with everybody regardless of who he is or where he comes
from or anything — is something — the last phrase in this
sentence is exactly what we have been doing the last one
hundred years in Norfolk Schools, certainly for as long as I
have been here, and that is if a child applies from New
York City moving here and his report shows the third
grade; we find he can’t read, we put him in the first grade,
but we used to give him a test under the old procedures
and keep him out of the schools entirely when vt7e started
racially mixing the schools because he couldn’t do third
grade work, see.
Q Well, what I want to know is will the determina
tion of the grade level affect the school assignment?
A No, sir. That has nothing to do with it; it has noth
ing to do with it. It doesn’t have anything to do with what
school he goes to. No. You see, our old procedures, with
which you seem to be entirely unfamiliar, the grade assign
ment was a very important thing.
Q I think I understood you to testify on cross-exam
ination that these boundaries are substantially the same as
the boundaries have been over the years?
A I did say that.
Q That’s been true with reference to the junior high
schools?
A True in the case of all of them except where we
137a
have built new schools or have slightly moved some bound
aries to take care of changes in population area.
Q Then, do I understand then that the assignments
of junior high schools — the assignments to junior high
schools in years past have been made in accordance with
this map which is exhibited before the Court — the junior
high school map?
A With the exception, Mr. Tucker, that if a child
lived in an area served by a predominantly white school
he had to make application under our old procedures to go
into the adjoining school area. Under the new plan he
doesn’t make any application; he chooses his school when
he finishes elementary — before he finishes.
Q I am directing my question now to the old plan.
Let’s forget about the new plan for just a minute, and ask
ing you under your old plan were children assigned to
junior high schools in accordance with this map?
A Unless they applied to go differently, yes, unless
they applied to go differently. If you put your pencil on a
place on the map and asked me if a child living there went
to that school, he would, unless he were of a race different
from the predominant race and applied to go.
Q Noting the location of the Chesterfield Elementary
School shown on the elementary school map, and project
ing that on the junior high school map —
A That’s right.
Q — that territory would be embraced in what you
have on the junior high school map as Ruffner Junior High
School zone?
138a
A That is right, and what I am telling you is that
prior — we went over this for years — in this case we had
elementary schools fitting into junior high school by race
unless people made a special application under the proced
ures and were assigned to one of a different race.
Q So the truth about the matter is that you did not
make junior high school assignments based on a map show
ing boundaries as this junior high school map shows, you
made junior high school assignments based on your feeder
system, didn’t you?
A Feeder system, correct, but these were the areas
which those high schools had to be — those elementary
schools had to be to go into these schools. It is exactly —
what I have said is that these boundaries are the same and
there has been no change in them to encompass certain
people of certain races; they are exactly the same bound
aries we have always used. In other words, we did not
draw a different set of boundaries when you sent us the
request for further relief to fit our needs to any national
pattern. We used the boundaries we had and we said
everybody goes there or has a choice to do different.
Q Just as I pointed out, Mr. Lamberth, that the Ches
terfield Elementary area is within the territory that this
map designates for Ruffner Junior High School.
A There are two different maps though. Remember
that. And the feeder system, remember that. This is a junior
high school map; the other is an elementary school map.
THE COURT: Mr. Tucker, it is very simple.
Under the decisions of the Court of Appeals for this
Circuit, the past procedures of the Norfolk City School
139a
Board have been unconstitutional, but you must bear
in mind the City of Norfolk was probably the first
place in the country that broke this ice. Something
had to be put in writing. It was put in writing. It has
been changed from time to time and will probably be
changed in the future. Mr. Davis and I many, many
years ago argued about this. I told him it is going to
get knocked out; he said no, it is perfectly valid. It
was and has been knocked out and it’s got to be
changed.
I don’t know what you’re devoting all this time
to, unless you just want to go ahead and whoop and
holler in the Court of Appeals and say, “Look what
the city has done.”
I say for this record that the city, in accordance
with the decided cases of the Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit, acted in an unconstitutional
manner, but those cases were not decided then. You
ail have built up all this law here and we have to get
in line, of course. I am not fussing about that, but I
don’t know what you’re devoting all this time about
the past unless you want to get up in the Court of
Appeals and whoop and shout. All I can say is that I
have got a lot of cooperation from Mr. Ashe and Mr.
Madison. They previously told me a number of times
they were not going to take up these matters because
progress was being made.
MR. TUCKER: Your Honor please, I was trying
to test the accuracy of the statement that the bound
aries are the same as they were previous.
THE COURT: They are not the same. The
140a
boundary line was the same but the method of your
operation is not the same.
RED IRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. TUCKER
Q As I understand, you have already had the bound
aries on paper but the controlling thing was to keep your
stream based on racial lines?
A You’re right; you’re right.
Q I ’m satisfied with your answer. All right, now,
there was something in your testimony on cross examina
tion just now which is not clear about, and that is I think
the application of Principle Numbered 1 to newcomers, and
I am not at all clear as to whether you were saying that
Principle Number 1 was applicable to newcomers or to
persons who were not newcomers?
A Principle Number 1 says: “If only one school
serves an area, all children living in the area will attend
such school,” is applicable to everybody except at the time
that these go into effect, which will be whenever we’re us
ing them — now and whenever they are decided to be us
able by whatever authorities have to decide it — from that
time on, if a child is now attending a school other than
one of those on the elementary level, that is marked, as
everybody attends in this area he may continue by his par
ents so expressing their desire, as long as that school has
his grade.
I will give you a direct example.
141a
You have used Suburban Park.
If you will turn the map, quite frequently — Subur
ban Park, true, is now and has always, since it was first
built, been a school district with both white and negro
pupils in it. At present that school district has not been
changed — prior, since, before or anything to do with any
racial litigation. But Suburban Park was built there and the
people live there.
Prior to the beginning of this case the Negro children
went a long distance to another school — which you have
been trying to prove — which is true — and White children
who live there went to the white school. Now, most of the
Negro children go because they have made applications
by our procedures, and have succeeded in being placed
there. Now, there are some few Negro children there who
have not seen fit to apply, and probably do not want to
apply. There are not many. If they do not want to, Prin
ciple 1, clause 2, says, “You don’t have to until you finish
elementary and then you make a choice,” and that is all it
says. I think that is fair to members of both races. It just
says we are not going to tear you out of sixth grade in the
middle of the grade just because we’re starting some good
procedures, and if that is not good education I’ll stake my
reputation on it.
Q My question was designed to see if you had testi
fied to some distinction between newcomers and persons
already in the school system.
A There is no difference at all. The only difference
is that the person already in school makes his choice in
school, where we have a captive audience and can get a
choice from everybody. The person who moves in makes it,
142a
according to this, as soon after he moves in — as soon as
possible. I think it reads in those words.
Q Now, that leaves us to the question then which
Judge Hoffman touched on, that is how are we to deter
mine which child or children first filed to get into a pai-
ticular school where this option applies? How are we to
determine the priority?
A Well, they’ll all apply on the same day. Those
forms will be given out to all children in school the same
day.
THE COURT: The only ones it wouldn’t be ap
plicable to would be some children sick —
THE W ITNESS: Well, would be dated the same
day. We are not going to pull that on you, Mr. Tucker.
THE COURT: You would treat it as an applica
tion completed that day even if the child were sick?
THE W ITNESS: We’re going to send it home
just like a child’s report, and we get them back 100%
and we expect to get these back 100%.
RED IREC T EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. TUCKER
Q So that with reference to children leaving ele
mentary school, as I understand it — your study — near
the end of the term every child will have a form to take
home to his parent to say what junior high school that par
ent wants his child to attend.
143a
A Prior to May 1st, I think this says.
Q I see. June 15th.
A June 15th, yes. Well, it says the advertising in
April, and we do send all that information now. That same
child has to make other choices; we send them all out at
the same time.
Q But do I understand you that some time prior to
the close of the school term, the children who are about
to graduate from the elementary school —
A That’s right.
Q — will be given a form to take home for their
parents to indicate the junior high school that the parent
wishes the child to attend?
A That’s right.
Q And —
THE COURT: Wait a minute. As I read this, the
names — it names the two schools —
THE W ITNESS: Two schools, that’s right.
THE COURT: And they would give the choice of
the child among those two schools.
THE W ITNESS: That’s right; that’s right.
BY MR. TUCKER:
Q That’s right, because this only applies where we
144a
have these red boundary line zones?
A That’s right.
Q And is it contemplated those forms will be re
turned to the school prior to graduation?
A Well, we get them back now. I mean we give
them out in April in fact.
Q Perhaps the date June 15th will be the deadline
and after that you will act upon the applications that have
been made and returned on or prior to June 15th.
A We would anticipate, Mr. Tucker, that as we now
send out what we call preliminary choice cards, that along
with them at the end of the six-weeks period, with a re
port — the child’s report that there will be a form on which
the parent of the child would make the choice. This is done
now in every school in the City in April at the latest, be
cause we have to prepare for the following September
early. This is done in April. These come back—these come
back to the school and they are counted and to be sure
that they are 100% there. We do this right now, decide
whether we need a new French teacher or a new bookkeep
ing teacher in the high school, and the same thing would
happen to the form you’re talking about. They would be
counted and rooms would be counted and we would know
the answer long before a child finished school on June 15th
and he would be notified that either he had been accepted
at the school of his choice or some explanation, as Judge
Hoffman has mentioned, would be made as to how the div
ision of that school area would be made.
Q Do I now understand that the decision as to what
145a
junior high school a child will attend will be made by the
School Board by June 15?
A It will be made in every case where a child is not
trying to enter a school that is overcrowded and he can’t
make the decision, which Judge Hoffman posed a few
moments ago. Yes, it would be made by them.
Q So that the provision that the choice must be made
not later than June 15th is meaningless, isn t it?
A No, no.
Q If the decision is going to be made by June 15th,
then it doesn’t serve any purpose for the child to make a
choice on June 15th?
A I don’t understand your question. I really don’t.
The trouble is that I understand school administration and
you do not understand our procedures, and we can t get
together. That is the honest truth. These people make the
decision in April. W e have from April to June. You seem
to think that on June 15th some of the pupils who are in
school are going to make the decisions. We close school on
June 15.
Q You close the schools on June 15. Well, the choice
must be made not later than June 15th of the current
school —
A The only reason that is put in there, just like in
the school regulation, Mr. Tucker, we say this report must
be returned on the day after it is assigned or immediately
thereafter if the child returns to school. That is put in there
because we want an affirmative statement that we re going
146a
to get back all the choices. We have that printed on our
forms in schools right now that we send out right now for
choices of courses. This form must be returned the day
after it is given out, and we have regulations that people
can be sent home for them, but if we have nothing in here
a child could not make a decision, as you propose they
might choose to do. We want something in there so that
we will have orderly administration. That is all that is in
there for. This is just June 15th because that is the latest
day on which school is ever closed in Norfolk, if you want
to know why we chose it.
THE COURT: One of the matters which came up
in one of our earlier discussions between counsel, Mr.
Ashe complained, and with some plausibility, that
there was no publication other than whatever the local
press may have reported. Now, this establishes an ad
vertisement in the newspaper during the month, of
April — sometime during the month of April, so it
gives the child — or parent, at least — forty-five days,
even if they don’t fill in the blanks. Incidentally, it
gives a lot of organizations time to make their plans
and get formulated as well. You gentlemen, I think
that — indirectly intimated that not enough time was
allowed for citizens to make up their minds what they
want to do. This gives them time. If you want that
June 15th cut down, I will cut it down to May 15th,
Mr. Tucker. I think it is to your advantage.
MR. TUCKER: Your Honor, I wasn’t arguing for
or against this. I was merely trying to understand it,
and I yet don’t understand how, if a person is told
that his choice is to be made not later than June 15th,
he goes on that in good faith, and makes his choice
147 a
on June 15 th, only to find out the choice has been
made out before June 15th. I don’t think there is any
choice; I am merely trying to get that explanation.
THE W ITN ESS: May I try to help Mr. Tucker,
Judge Hoffman? I think the problem is that he’s bas
ing his whole theory on the fact that — of the crowded
school. There are a dozen places on these maps where
if every child of a different race were to exercise his
privilege, Mr. Tucker, it would not overcrowd the
school. I gave you an example, the Suburban Park
School, and I would judge in Suburban Park School
if every child in that area chose not to exercise his
option to stay where he is and go to that school, he
would know the next day that is where he would go
because there is room in that school.
THE COURT: Do I understand, Mr. Tucker, that
you are disturbed about whether the School Board
would not distribute these forms to the children that
are then in school because that is specified in the
method too?
MR. TUCKER: If Your Honor please, I heard
the witness testify, I think he was testifying that the
decisions would have been made as to what junior
high schools these elementary graduates are going to
attend; that those decisions will be made on or prior
to June 15th. I just don’t understand what good it is
to tell me I have up until June 15th to make a choice
in the face of a verdict that the decision will already
have been made before I indicate what my choice is.
Now, —
THE COURT: Oh, no; oh, no.
148a
MR. TUCKER: It doesn’t matter to me. Either
you are dense or the lawyers are dense or the Superin
tendent of Schools are dense. We always just have —
THE COURT: I want you to argue it, but we’re
discussing the schools now. Let’s go ahead.
Anything else?
(No reply).
REMARKS OF THE COURT WITH REGARD TO
THE CHILD OF MRS. PRUDEN
# # #
(T . page 107 thru T. page 119 Mrs. Pruden.)
THE CO U RT: I don’t know whether this a pro
per time to bring it up, but I think this record should
show that a lady by the name of Mrs. Pruden testi
fied here earlier an eight-year-old child who is not
in school. I am concerned about it. I want to ask Mr.
Ashe and Mr. Madison if it is not true that just prior
to the time school opened that I told counsel that I
would be glad to conduct any hearing, morning, noon,
night, Saturday, Sunday or any other time, if it meant
that a child was being deprived of an opportunity to
attend school. I just want to make sure that it is Mrs.
Pruden’s fault and not mine.
MR. ASHE: Your Honor please, if I might an
swer that now?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. ASHE: Your Honor did say that in chain-
149a
bers, and did say that in this court. We appeared here
on October 10th. We presented certain motions
which you deferred over until today, but prior to your
referral, taking these matters up today, Mrs. Pruden
was here in court. I brought this matter up in court
at that time and Your Honor made mention of Mrs.
Pruden, if she were here, that she get that child in
school. I attempted to tell Your Honor the situation as
was testified to by Mrs. Pruden today, but Your
Honor, for some reason deferred that matter until
today. We did tell her to put the children in school.
We gave the message to all the people, the same as
Your Honor gave us.
THE COURT: I don’t know what the record
shows. Since you have the record, I think it is per
fectly clear what was said was said. I told you when
you gentlemen were up here — I am sure it was pro
bably late in the afternoon, or something like that,
when we were here, but I don’t know anything about
Mrs. Pruden’s particular situation. I am just saying
that I have never turned you and Mr. Madison down
on your problem. If you had an emergency situation—
MR. ASPIE: I was rather surprised that day, Your
Honor, because for some reason you didn’t want to
hear it.
THE COURT: What time did we close it?
MR. ASHE: I think it was about 3:30. It was
rather late.
THE COURT: Let’s see the record. The record
will show what it is.
150a
We were here total length of forty-three pages.
That is not much work for a day for me. I don’t know
what time we started. W e started at 4 :00 P.M. ac
cording to the Clerk’s Office, and we took forty-three
pages. That is a little bit different from 3:30, Mr.
Ashe.
MR. ASHE: Somewhat.
THE COURT: I have some distinct recollection
that we were here right late. I am not sure, but I had
other matters —
MR. ASHE: That is true. I wanted the Court to
know that we did bring this matter before the Court.
MR. TUCKER: If Your Honor please, I have no
further questions of the witness.
( The witness stands aside.)
THE COURT: Who do we have after this?
MR. TUCKER: The plaintiffs rest.
THE COURT: Mr. Davis?
MR. DAVIS: The defendants rest,
THE COURT: As soon as I get into the record
something about Mrs. Pruden’s child, that I am still
concerned about, because I didn’t realize that a child
was actually out of school and affected by this. I had
some recollection, Mr. Ashe, that we had several of
these children, and that you and Mr. Davis and Mr.
Cocke and Mr. Madison met ahead of time in my
library while I was busy tiying some other case and
151a
discussing the situation, and I don’t recall specifically
anything came up about these children except there
was a tacit agreement that they would continue on
going to schools that they formerly had gone to, and
with the understanding that if they wanted a hearing
that I would grant them a hearing and make a change
even though it was in the middle of the year, but the
record speaks for itself. That is the short answer.
MR. DAVIS: Your Honor please, there was an
agreement that they could go without any prejudice
to their rights, yes.
Your Honor please, before I forget it, while they
are looking for that, I would assume, as has been done
in the past, it is agreeable with counsel to stipulate
that any part of this record in Beckett against the
School Board can be used, whether introduced in
evidence in this case or not. That is the same thing
we have done before.
MR. ASHE: You mean in this particular hearing?
MR. DAVIS: Yes, insofar as any appeal or any
other proceedings are concerned.
THE COURT: Well, I have no objection. I can
take judicial notice of it, I suppose, but I want to let
you all know that once I terminate this new matter
that has come up here today that I am going to close
the Beckett case and dismiss it from the docket, and
from now on all suits are going to be new suits. We’re
getting such a file in the Beckett case that Leola
Beckett has grandchildren now.
MR. DAVIS: Your Honor please, may we have
152a
permission to withdraw from evidence these maps,
that we can get copies, that they constitute the only
map the School Board has with the various markings
on it.
THE COURT: I expect that counsel would ap
preciate it if you would make them a copy.
MR. DAVIS: They have one, Judge.
MR. MADISON: Your Honor, there seems to be
some discrepancies in our copy.
MR. DAVIS: All right, we will be glad to take
your copies back and make sure all copies are the
same.
THE COURT: Now, the only thing in the record
is on page 27 of the hearing of October 10, 1983, and
Mr. Ashe did mention something about several chil
dren, and I made this comment, beginning on the bot
tom of page 26:
(Reading): “THE COURT: Well, initial enrollee
gives me great concern. I take it that child who at
tended Young Park last year, that no application was
made to transfer out of Young Park until this fall,
something like that?
“MR. ASHE: Yes, Your Honor. The parents form
erly lived at Young Park — 2900 block — and they
went to Bowling Park School. This one is Bowling
Park School, I said Young Park, I meant Bowling
Park.
TH E COURT: Bowling Park is -
153a
“MR. ASHE: Princess Anne Road, Yes. And they
want to transfer to the other school. The parents pre
sented the child to the Robert E. Lee School, and at
the time they presented to school they were told John
Marshall. And the mother — she took both children
to the John Marshall School and they made applica
tion at the principal’s office and they receive a notice
on September 4, 1963 from the school board that they
were assigned to the Young Park School. The mother
is presently here. Now, this is —
“THE COURT: I am willing to hear you, especi
ally on any initial enrollee. I don’t see any necessity
at all, where the parent has neglected to file the Re
quest for transfer, to give it any special preference,
even if you assume, for the purpose of argument, that
— and which I do not assume until I get the facts —
assuming for the purpose of argument that the school
board has been one-sided in applying this transfer
proposition.
“Yet the parent is not blameless.
“I know they will say they didn’t know anything
about it, but they know just as much about it as any
body else knew about it as to the cut-off date. If they
expressed any interest in advance, if they read the
papers at all, and so on, they’d know generally what
the situation is.
“Now, I can’t get exercised about the urgency of
that type child.”
Now, that, I suppose is what you have reference
to, and I further on said in here — later on —
154a
“I don’t want —”
On page 29 of the record —
“I don’t want all these things where the parent,
for example, you take one of these children, I don’t
know who is keeping them out of school, but they can
go to Bowling Park, and the one who was there and
who lived in that area, and that child should now go
to Bowling Park until the Court permits him and her
go to to another school after an appropriate hearing,
I can’t get exercised about that child because if there
has been neglect it has been neglect of —
“MR. ASHE: Well, in that particular, while — if
I might say, Your Plonor, this parent — the only thing
— these parents they go to the schools, they go direct
to the principals and the teachers, and they are the
ones, through the years, that parents have been going
to the schools and to the teachers and talking with
them, getting advice what to do. It is true they can
go to the school boards, but these people go to the
school teachers and principals and they give them in
formation which may be misleading, or they don’t
know what they’re saying. This parent that is here —”
And then I interrupted, and said something about
a transfer that — that the teachers had no right to give
information as to administrative transfers, and then I
reiterated what we said in early September, about
four or five days after school started, I said to counsel
— about keeping the children out of school, “For
Heaven’s sake, get the children back to school. I will
give you a hearing, but get the children back to
school. Don’t deprive the children of an education just
1i u ' J a
because you’re standing on one leg for a principle. ’
And then I followed that — I said, “and I say that right
now.”
I still feel the same way, gentlemen, and this
mother, Mrs. Pruden was here, and on page 32 of the
record, I said — after you stated she was here —
“THE COURT: But certainly I say to her,
if she is here, that she is doing but hurting her
Children. I am going to give her a hearing, and
as to the initial enrollee I want to — I will do it
as early as you can pick up my docket and give
me a day, and I can hear it. I am limited by cer
tain physical ability.
“I was here Monday night until 11:00
o’clock; I was here last night until 7:00 o’clock,
and there are some limitations on the physical
endurance that anybody has.
“But I am not trying to duck the responsi
bility of giving a prompt hearing, and if you gen
tlemen will get the docket book, you can pick
any day you want to. It doesn’t make any dif
ference to me whether I am hearing a school de
segregation case or an automobile accident case.
I get the same salary. I still am going to try to
call them the way I see them, and if I am not
right, everybody appeals anyway, and if I decide
against your clients, you can appeal, and if I de
cide against Mr. Davis’ and Mr. Cocke’s clients,
they may appeal, and that is my attitude about it,
but I can’t take each child and hear this one this
day, this one this day, and this one this day.”
156a
And I take it that you gentlemen thereafter de
cided that you weren’t going to press the Pruden
matter.
MR. ASPIE: Well, Your Honor, we did — one
was an initial enrollee, and I believe later on in the
record, you said you would take up all these other
matters today.
I advised Mrs. Pruden when you told me, and she
was here when you said to get them back in school,
and as she testified today as to the reason why — she
was working and she couldn’t get the eight-year-old
child to school, and on that day, October 10th, I
wanted to put her on to testify as to that, but the
record speaks for itself.
Those are the facts as to the Pruden matter.
One of them did get into school — the initial
enrollee.
THE COURT: Well, I guess maybe that is the
inference that was conveyed, at least to the effect that
I was very anxious to hear the initial enrollees, and the
others, I thought in all good conscience, could wait,
and I didn’t realize that this woman was unable to
take this child to school. I don’t think that was ever
called to my attention along that line; maybe it was.
In any event I still say that I am not going to take
the responsibility for the Pruden child being out of
school. You gentlemen will have to answer for that,
or Mrs. Pruden.
157a
COLLOQUY BETWEEN THE COURT AND COUNSEL
FOR APPELLANTS WITH REGARD TO THE
SCHOOL FACULTIES
# # #
(T . page 119 thru T. page 121 Maybe we have.)
Do I understand that the only thing in this record
on the contentions of the plaintiffs that the school
faculties should be integrated is Mr. Lamberth s state
ment to the effect that they are not integrated, and
you gentlemen will rest on that basis, on the school
faculty situation?
MR. TUCKER: I should assume that that would
be adequate because that is all that we could prove. I
think the better proof is contained in the answers to
the interrogatories, that some schools have nothing
but negro faculty and other schools have nothing but
white faculties. This proves it.
THE COURT: Yes, but I don’t have any testi
mony similar to what the Supreme Court in Brown
vs. Allen based it on that this affects in any way the
children and their rights. In Brown against Allen, as
I remember, the Supreme Court placed great emphasis
upon the testimony in some of these cases. I don’t have
that. I don’t take judicial notice that the reaction
against — as to Negro children is the same if they’re
being taught by a Negro teacher or a White teacher.
Do I understand that is your contention; that it is
the same basis?
MR. TUCKER: That is not the basis of our con
158a
tention here. We don’t have any evidence of psycho
logical detriment, but the thing is based on Brown
versus the Board of Education of a transition to non-
racially non-discriminatory school systems, and some
of the conditions, through the court — as a matter of
fact the Fourth Circuit has indicated that the prayer
for a transition to a racially non-discriminatory school
includes everything else.
THE COURT: In the Lynchburg case Judge
Sobeloff said by dictum their plan did not mention
anything about it.
MR. TUCKER: And other courts have —
THE COURT: But he — I don’t remember that
he sent it back to the District Court in Lynchburg
and said, “Integrate the faculties,” did he? Judge
Michie may have thereafter done it, I don’t know.
Anyway that’s a matter you’re willing to rest on the
record.
I expected some very interesting evidence as to
the question of the effect on children, but you are
going to rest on the record, and the School Board
rests on the record, and I am very much interested
to see when the judges have got into the educating
classes. Maybe we have.
159a
C O U N S E L F O R APPELLEES
# # #
COLLOQUY BETWEEN THE COURT A N D
(T . page 121)
MR. COCKE: Did I understand that Your Honor
said that you wanted memorandum briefs on this some
time?
THE COURT: Yes, I want memorandums from
these gentlemen who are attacking what has been
presented. I offered to Mr. Ashe and Mr. Madison
the last time — Mr. Tucker was not here then — if
you have a better plan, you present it, but I take it
I am not going to get that better plan from the plain
tiffs. At least none has been presented to my knowl
edge at the present time.
EXCERPT FROM TRANSCRIPT OF COURT
PROCEEDINGS ON OCTOBER 10, 1963
STATEMENT OF THE COURT
# # #
(T. page 3)
THE COURT: . . . Mr. Davis has faithfully filed
reports with me as to the activities of the school
board, . . . * * *