Brief of O.R. Cross et al. as Amici Curiae

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE 

FIFTH CIRCUIT 

NOS. 28030 and 28042 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, 

HATTIESBURG DIVISION 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2216 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff- Appellant 

VS. 

LAWRENCE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

ET AL Defendants- Appellees 

BRIEF OF O. R. CROSS ET AL, 

AS 

AMICI CURIAE 

J. P. Patterson 

P. O. Box 11 

Monticello, Mississippi 

Frances Vining 

Monticello, Mississippi 

Attorneys for Amici Curiae 

 



  

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT 
  

After this matter had been set for hearing by order of Judge Dan 

M. Russell, Jr., a motion for leave to intervene as defendants was filed 

herein by O. R. Cross, Hunter Butler, James Ray Calhoun, Dr. J. W,. 

Waller, Pat Shivers and Eugene Myers, together with a large number of 

other persons whose signatures were affixed to the motion, all of whom 

are parents, guardians and patrons of children enrolled in Grades 9 

through 12 of the Lawrence County School District, and who filed said 

motion to intervene in their own right and on their own behalf and on behalf 

of their respective children and wards and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated. Annexed to said motion was a proposed response of the intervenor- 

defendants to the motion for supplemental relief. On April 20, 1970, the 

Court of Appeals entered an order denying the motion to intervene but fur- 

ther providing: ''Leave is granted to file an amicus curiae brief in this 

court and with Honorable Dan M. Russell, Jr. in any proceeding involving 

the school district before him." 

This brief, therefore is filed pursuant to the authority granted by 

the Court of Appeals on behalf of O. R. Cross and all others listed in said 

motion to intervene, as amici curiae. 

The amici, in the particular matter now before the Court, allign 

themselves generally in support of the position of the defendant, Lawrence 

County School District, and in opposition to the motion for supplemental 

relief. However, they reserve unto themselves, and to each of them, and 

do not waive, the right hereafter to seek further modifications of the 

desegregation plan and the orders of this Court, if it should appear that, 

 



  

based on subsequent experience, the constitutional rights of their children 

are being violated or the educational opportunities of their children are 

being impeded. 

The amici on whose behalf this brief is filed are those citizens of 

Lawrence County whose signatures appear on Exhibit 1 to the said motion 

to intervene, consisting of at least 216 parents, both Negro and White, 

whose children are enrolled in Grades 9 through 12 of the Lawrence County 

School District and whose children would be directly and adversely affected 

if the motion for supplemental relief were granted. Actually, many times 

more citizens similarly situated desired to actively and personally join in 

the motion to intervene and personally to urge the Court to maintain and pre- 

serve Monticello High School, New Hebron High School, Topeka-Tilton 

High School and McCullough Attendance Center, as these schools are pre- 

sently constituted and as presently operated under court order. However, 

it was not felt appropriate to burden this court with many hundreds of such 

applications but instead those signing and attempting to intervene, who are 

amici curiae in this brief, do so on their own behalf and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated. 

At the outset we wish to call the Court's special attention to the 

fact that the list of amici is not composed solely of white parents, nor is 

this brief presented solely on behalf of white parents. Instead, the motion 

to intervene was signed by at least 33 Negro parents, and this brief is 

submitted not only on their behalf but on behalf of all other Negro parents 

similarly situated. We protest the efforts of plaintiffs-intervenors, and 

the amicus curae appearing on their behalf, to divide and create discord 

and dissension between citizens of our county. We request the Court to 

 



  

consider this brief not on behalf of Negro parents or White parents - but 

simply on behalf of parents having children enrolled in the schools 

directly affected by this matter who have a mutual interest in educating 

their children in an atmosphere of harmony conducive to education and to 

prevent further disruption and possible destruction of the school system 

existing in our county. 

The amici join in and adopt the brief filed on behalf of the defend- 

ant school district and consequently will not repeat herein the legal or 

factual arguments contained in that brief except as may be supplemented 

herein. 

1. SUBSTITUTE PLAN IS BETTER 

FOR THE STUDENTS 
  

As parents, the amici submit to %e Court that the substitute plan 

adopted by the school district and approved by the Court of Appeals is far 

better for the students, and produces a higher quality of education, than 

the plan originally proposed by HEW. We feel that the operation of three 

separate high schools rather than consolidating all high school students 

into one central school affords much greater educational opportunity for 

our children. These matters have been fully covered by the brief of the 

school district and will not be repeated here except in summary: reduced 

transportation distances and travel time; closer supervision of students 

by principals and teachers; greater opportunity for use of educational faci- 

lities such as science laboratoris, libraries, office machines, sewing 

machines and the like; three times the opportunity for participation in 

athletics, extracurricular activities and character building programs 

such as debate teams, literary societies, student government offices and 

 



  

other school related activities; personal knowledge of students and parents 

by both the staff and faculty; better understanding between faculty, students 

and parents; and benefits to be derived from the pride and esprit de corps 

of the local school in the local community. As taxpayers, we are also 

interested in the efficient use of all school facilities. Ours is a relatively 

poor county, and we simply cannot afford to be wasteful with our hard- 

bought school facilities. The HEW plan would be a terrible waste. 

The HEW plan would close New Hebron and Topeka-Tilton as 

high schools. Parents having children in those areas strenuously protest. 

They feel that their children are obtaining a good education at these schools 

and that the advantages of maintaining these high school facilities far out- 

weigh any disadvantages, if any exist. In this regard it is important to 

note the testimony of the witnesses in this case. Albert Mikell has a 

daughter attending New Hebron School for the first time. Last year she 

attended McCullough. He told the Court that he wanted his child to stay 

at New Hebron and wanted the high school maintained at New Hebron so 

his child could attend the high school in the neighborhood where she lives. 

He said that she was improving at New Hebron and was obtaining a better 

education than she did at McCullough. Bob Newsom has a boy attending 

New Hebron for the first time. Last year he was at Beulah Williams 

School. Bob Newsom said that he wants his child to keep going to New 

Hebron School, that he was raised at New Hebron and wants his child 

to go to school there, that he feels New Hebron to be a good school and 

stated that his child is getting a good education, a better education than 

he received at Beulah Williams. Hollis Wilson also has a child in New 

Hebron School for the first time. He told the Court that his child was 

 



  

being taken care of very well at New Hebron School and that he was doing 

better than he ever did before, that he wanted his child to remain at New 

Hebron through high school and to attend school in New Hebron with his’ 

friends. James Herron has five children at Topeka-Tilton School this 

year for the first time. Previously all of these children had attended 

McCullough. He told the Court that he felt that his children were getting 

a good education at Topeka-Tilton, that the travel time was 13 hours 

less each day for his children, that his son is now participating on the 

track team at Topeka-Tilton, whereas he was unable to participate at 

McCullough the previous year because of the bus schedule, and that he 

wants the high school to remain at Topeka-Tilton. Similar testimony 

was offered by Charles Little who has two children in the New Hebron 

School, by O. R. Cross who has a child in the Monticello High School, 

and by James Ray Calhoun who has a child in Topeka-Tilton School. 

These parents are more concerned and interested with their 

own children's education than anyone else in the world. They have stated 

to the Court that they are satisfied with the plan as it is now working 

and they implore the Court to leave the situation as it is. Their testi- 

mony could be multiplied a hundredfold with other parents similarly 

situated if time permitted. 

II. CHILDREN ARE ENTITLED 

TO EDUCATION WITHOUT 

FURTHER DISRUPTION 
  

As parents, we are concerned with the tremendous disruption and 

upheaval which has already been caused in the school system this year 

by virtue of the Court's order for desegregation. The disruption would 

 



  

have been many times greater had the plan originally proposed by HEW 

been Placed into effect. Nevertheless, most of the children have suf- 

fered greatly from the new arrangement, and many have virtually wasted 

the fast half of this school year. Things are beginning to settle down, 

and with great respect we say to the Court that these children should not 

again be disturbed in their normal educational process. 

We freely accord to all Negro and White children alike the con- 

stitutional right to education without discrimination on account of race 

or color. This has been accomplished in our county, and our children 

are now attending fully integrated schools. We as parents insist that 

our children also have the constitutional right to an education in an 

atmosphere of harmony and good will, which is essential to education, 

and they have the constitutional right not again to be disrupted and their 

learning interfered with, as the motion for supplemental relief seeks 

to do. 

We must not lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of 

the school system is to educate the children. This cannot be done in 

the absence of a substantial amount of permanence and stability. 

CONCLUSION   

Our children should be left alone so that they may become 

educated. They should not be subjected to further disruption. The sub- 

stitute plan adopted by the Lawrence County School District has desegre- 

gated the school system at all levels, while at the same time making the 

 



  

best use of the facilities and educational assets of the county. We as 

parents respectfully urge the Court to deny the motion for supplemental 

relief. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Francis Vining 

J. P. Patterson 

[oof ef i By [il fal £ f os 

7 J. P. Patterson 
  

Attorneys for Amici Curiae 

P,. O,. Box 11 

Monticello, Mississippi 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I, the undersigned attorney at law, Monticello, Mississippi, do 

hereby certify that I have mailed a copy of the foregoing brief by United 

States mail to the following counsel of record: 

Hon. Ben L.. Krage, Attorney 

United States Department of Justice 

Washington, D. C. 20530 

Attorney for plaintiff-appellant 

Hon. Melvyn R. Leventhal 

‘Hon. Reuben V. Anderson 

Hon, Fred 1.. Banks, Jr. 

Hon. John A. Nichols 

5381 North Farish Street 

Jackson, Mississippi 39202 

Hon. Jack Greenberg 

Hon. Norman Chachkin 

Hon. Jonathan Shapiro 
Suite 2030 

10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for plaintiffs- intervenor s-appellants 

Hon. James S. George 

Monticello, Mississippi 39654 

Attorney for defendants-appellees 

Hon. Robert G. Turnage 

Monticello, Mississippi 39654 

Attorney for defendants-appellees 

Hon. R. W. Heidelberg 

P. O. Box'1070 

Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39401 

Attorney for defendants-appellees 

WITNESS my signature on this 30th day of April, A. D. 1970. 

7 if of ri : 

vd 7 / EA £ FPN 
  

//' J. P. Patterson