Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board Decision

    IN THE

United States Court ©f Appeals
FOR TH E FIFTH  CIRCUIT

N o s .  2 6 4 5 0  a n d  2 7 3 0 3

LAW RENCE HALL, ET AL,
P lain tiffs-A ppellan ts,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
In tervenor-A ppellan t,

versus

ST. HELENA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees.

(Civil A ction No. 1068)

JAM ES W ILLIAM S, JR ., ET AL,
P laintiffs-A ppellants,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor-A ppellan t,

versus

IBERVILLE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees.

(Civil Action No. 2921)



2

YVONNE M ARIE BOYD, ET AL,
Plain tiffs-A ppellan ts, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
In tervener-A ppellan t,

versus

TH E POINTE COUPEE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil A ction No. 3164)

TERRY LYNN DUNN, ET AL,
P la in tiff s-A ppellants,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
In tervenor-A ppellan t,

versus

LIVINGSTON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil A ction No. 3197)

DONALD JEROM E THOM AS, ET AL,
Plain tiffs-A ppellan ts,

versus

WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees.

(Civil Action No. 3208)



IN THE

United States Court of Appeals
FOR TH E FIFTH  CIRCUIT

N o .  7 1 - 2 1 0 1

LAW RENCE HALL, e t al.,
P la in tiffs-A ppellan ts,

versus

ST. HELENA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, e t a l.f
D efendants-A ppellees.

JAM ES W ILLIAM S, JR ., e t al.,
P lain  tiffs-A ppellan ts,

versus

IBERVILLE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, e t al.,
D efendants-A ppeliees.

YVONNE M ARIE BOYD, e t al.,
P la in tiffs-A ppellan ts,

versus

POINTE COUPEE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, e t al.,
D efendants-A ppeliees.



2

YVONNE M ARIE BOYD, ET AL,
Plain tiffs-A ppellan ts, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor-A ppellan t,

versus

THE PO IN TS COUPEE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees.

(Civil A ction No. 3164)

TERRY LYNN DUNN, ET AL,
P la in tiff s-A ppellants,

UNITED STATES OF AM ERICA,
In tervenor-A ppellan t,

versus

LIVINGSTON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil Action No. 3197)

DONALD JEROM E THOM AS, ET AL,
Plain tiffs-A ppellants,

versus

WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees.

(Civil Action No. 3208)



a

versus

WEST FELICIANA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil Action No. 3248)

ROBERT CARTER, ET AL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

SHARON LYNNE GEORGE, ET AL,
Plain tiffs-A ppellan ts,

versus

C. W ALTER DAVIS, PRESIDENT, EAST FELICIANA 
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,

D efendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil A ction No. 3253)

W ELTON J . CHARLES, JR ., ET AL,
Plain tiffs-A ppellan ts,

UNITED STATES O F AMERICA,
In tervenor-A ppellan t,

versus

ASCENSION PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, and 
GORDON WEBB,

D efendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil Action No. 3257)

4 '

Appeals from  the United States District Court for the  
E astern  District of Louisiana



4

IN THE

United Stales Court ©I Appeals
FOR TH E FIFTH  CIRCUIT

N o s .  2 7 0 5 4 ,  2 7 0 8 7  a n d  2 7 1 0 6

RICKEY DALE CONLEY, ET AL,
P la in tiffs-A ppellan ts,

versus

LAKE CHARLES SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil A ction No. 9981)

URA BERNARD LEMON, ET AL,
P lain tiffs-A ppellan ts,

UNITED STATES OF AM ERICA,
In tervenor-A ppellan t,

versus

BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees.

(Civil Action No. 10687)

MARCUS GORDON, ET AL,
Plain tiffs-A ppellan ts,

JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees.

(Civil Action No. 10902)



5

versus

LA FAYETTE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL, •
B efendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil Action No. 10903)

ALFREDA TRAHAN, ET AL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

MARILYN MARIE MONTEILH, ET AL,
Plain tiffs-A ppellan ts,

versus

ST. LANDRY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil A ction No. 10912)

VIRGIE LEE VALLEY, ET AL,
Plain tiffs-A ppellan ts,

UNITED STATES OF AM ERICA,
In tervenor-A ppellan t,

versus

RAPIDES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D erendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil A ction No. 10946)

JOA NN GRAHAM , ET AL,
P la in tiffs-A ppellan ts,

versus

EVANGELINE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees.

(Civil Action No. 11053)



6

versus

NATCHITOCHES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil A ction No. 11054)

JOHN ROBERTSON, ET AL,
Flaintiffs-Appellants,

BERYL N. JONES, ET AL,
P la in tif f s- A ppellan ts,

UNITED STATES OF AM ERICA,
In tervenor-A ppellan t,

versus

CADDO PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil Action No. 11055)

CATHERINE BATTISE, ET AL,
F lain tiffs-A ppellan ts,

versus

ACADIA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil A ction No. 11125)

JAM ES H. HENDERSON, JR ., ET AL,
Plain tiffs-A ppellan ts,

versus

IBERIA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees.

(Civil Action No. 11126)



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor-Appellant,

versus

JACKSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellee*. 

(Civil Action No. 11130)

MARGARET M. JOHNSON, ET AL,
Plaintiff s-Appellants,

JIMMY ANDREWS, ET AL,
Plain tiffs-Appellants,

versus

CITY OF MONROE SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees.

(Civil Action No. 11297)

YVORNIA DECAROL BANKS, ET AL,
Plaintiff si-Appellants,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor-Appellant,

versus

CLAIBORNE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees.

(Civil Action No. 11304)



versus

ST. M ARTIN PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees, 

(Civil A ction No. 11314)

DOROTHY MARIE THOMAS, ET AL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

LINDA W ILLIAM S, ET AL,
P la in tiffs-A ppellan ts,

versus

MADISON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil A ction No. 11329)

GW EN BOUDREAUX, ET AL,
Plain tiffs-A ppellan ts,

versus

ST. MARY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil A ction No. 11351)

IRMA J .  SM ITH, ET AL,
P la in tif f s-A ppellants,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
In tervenor-A ppellan t,

versus

CONCORDIA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees.

(Civil Action No. 11577)



9

versus

VERMILION PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil A ction No. 11908)

VIRA CELESTA! N, ET AL,
Plain tiff s-Appellants,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
P lain tiff-A ppellan t,

versus

LINCOLN PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil A ction No. 12071)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
P lain tiff-A ppellan t,

versus

RICHLAND PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees. 

(Civil Action No. 12189)

JEREM IAH TAYLOR, ET AL,
Plain tiffs-A ppellan ts,

versus

OUACHITA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
D efendants-A ppellees.

(Civil A ction No. 12171)



10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
P laintif f - Appellant,

versus

BIENVILLE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees.

(Civil Action No. 12177)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
P laintif f-Appellant,

versus

GRANT PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees.

(Civil Action No. 12265)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DE SOTO PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees.

(Civil Action No. 12589)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

AVOYELLES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees.

(Civil Action No. 12721)



11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EAST CARROLL PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No. 12722)

BILLY GENE MOORE, ET AL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

WINN PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No. 12880)

ERIC CLEVELAND, ET AL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

UNION PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees. 

(Civil Action No. 12924)

Appeals from  the United States District Court for the  
W estern District of Louisiana



12 HALL, ET  AL. v. ST. H ELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET  AL.

No. 27391

JOY CE M ARIE MOORE, ET AL,
P laintiffs-A ppellees,

versus

TA N GIPA HO A PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defemdants-Appellanits.

(Civil A ction No. 1555S)

Appeal from  the United States District Court for the 
E astern  District of Louisiana

(M ay 28, 1969)

B efore BROW N, Chief Ju d g e , GODBOLD, C ircu it 
Ju d g e  and  CABOT, D is tr ic t Ju d g e

GODBOLD, C ircu it Jud g e : We h av e  befo re  us a p ­
p ea ls  fro m  th re e  d is tr ic t co u rt d ec re es  coverin g  th ir ty -  
s ix  p a r is h  school sy stem s  and  tw o c ity  school sy stem s, 
a ll in  th e  s ta te  of L ouisiana. T hese ca se s  w ere  su b ­
m itte d  and  a rg u e d  A pril 21, 1969, tw o y e a rs  a f te r  th e  
en  b an c  decision  of th is  co u rt in Jefferson II,' and

'U n ited  S ta tes  v. Je fferso n  C ounty  Bd. of Educ., 372 F .2d  836 (5th 
C ir. 1966) [h ere in a fte r, Je ffe rso n  I], a f f d  w ith  m odifica tions on  
rehearing  en banc, 380 F .2d  385 (5th Cir.) [h ere ina fte r, Je f f er ­
son  II], cert, den ied  sub. nom ., Caddo P a rish  Sch. Bd. v. U n ited  
S tates, 389 U.S. 840, 19 L.Ed. 2d 103 (1967).



HALL, ET  AL. v. ST. H ELEN A
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

13

e leven  m o n th s  a f te r  th e  decision  of th e  U n ited  S ta tes  
S u p rem e C ourt in  Green v. School Bd. of New Kent  
County.2 A ll of th e  school d is tr ic ts  involved  a re  u n d er 
th e  un ifo rm  d ecree  th a t Jefferson II re q u ire d  fo r school 
sy s tem s  in  th e  F if th  C ircu it o p e ra tin g  u n d er freed o m  
of choice p lans.

I. B ackg round

T w enty-n ine of th e  d is tr ic ts  a re  appellees  in ap p ea ls  
fro m  an  en b anc  decision3 of th e  D is tr ic t C ourt for 
th e  W este rn  D is tr ic t of L ou isiana, w hich  declined  to 
o rd e r  m odification , re q u e s te d  on th e  a u th o rity  of 
Green, in  ex isting  d eseg reg a tio n  p lan s .4

E ig h t p a rish e s  a re  appellees in s im ila r  ap p ea ls  from  
a  d ecree  of th e  D is tr ic t C ourt fo r th e  E a s te rn  D is tric t 
of L ou isian a .5

The T an g ip ah o a  P a r is h  School B oard  is a p p e llan t in 
an  a p p ea l fro m  an o th e r d ec ree  of th e  E a s te rn  D is tr ic t6

zG reen  v. C ounty  Sch. Bd. of N ew  K en t C ounty, 391 U.S. 430, 20 
L.Ed. 2d 716 (1968).

aC onley v. L ak e  C harles Sch. Bd., 293 F. Supp. 84 (W.D. La. 1968). 
4By o rd er of J a n u a ry  9, 1969, w ith o u t opinion, th is  court, a f te r  a 

poll of its  m em bers, den ied  th e  m otion  of appellan ts in  th e  
W estern  D istric t cases th a t those cases be h ea rd  b y  the cou rt 
en  banc. C leveland v. U nion P a rish  Sch. Bd., 406 F .2d 1331 
(5 th  Cir. 1969). The d issen ting  opinion to  th a t o rd er appears in  
406 F .2d a t  1333.

B oth  th e  W estern  D istric t and  th e  E astern  D istric t cases w ere  
am ong those consolidated  on appeal in A dam s v. M athew s, 403 
F .2d 181 (5 th  Cir. 1968).

s_____ F. S u p p .---------(E.D. La. 1969).
s_____ F. S u p p .----------(E.D. La. 1969).



14 HALL, ET AL. v. ST. H ELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

d irec tin g  it  to ch an g e  fro m  a  Jejferson-d ec re e  freed o m  
of choice p la n  to  one ca lling  fo r th e  a ss ig n m e n t of s tu ­
den ts  “ by adoption  of g eo g rap h ic  zones, or p a irin g  of 
c la sses , or bo th .”

We beg in  w ith  p rin c ip les  both  b as ic  and  fa m ilia r  to 
all who a re  co n ce rn ed  w ith  th e  com plex  p ro b lem  of 
end ing  th e  d u a l school sy s tem  in th e  South. T h ere  can  
be no doubt of th e  du ty  of school b o a rd s  to ac t a ff ir ­
m a tiv e ly  to abo lish  all v es tig es  of s ta te -im p o sed  se g re ­
ga tion  of th e  ra c e s  in  th e  public schools. United States  
v. Indianola Municipal Separate Sch. Dist., 5 Cir. 1969,
------ . F .2d ------  [No. 25655, A pr. 11, 1969]; H enry v.
Clarksdale Municipal Separate Sch. Dist., 5 Cir. 1969
------ - F .2d ____  [No. 23255, M ar. 6, 1969]; A d a m s v.
Mathews,  403 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1968); Jefferson II, 
supra.

The re sp e c tiv e  b u rd en s  and  ro les of school b o a rd s  
and  d is tr ic t co u rts  a re  a r tic u la te d  in  Green  itself:

. . . The b u rd en  on a school b o a rd  to d ay  is to 
com e fo rw ard  w ith  a  p lan  th a t  p ro m ise s  re a lis ­
tic a lly  to  w ork, an d  p ro m ise s  re a lis tic a lly  to 
w ork now.

The ob ligation  of th e  d is tr ic t courts, as it 
a lw ays h a s  been, is to a sse ss  th e  e ffec tiveness 
of a  p roposed  p lan  in  ach iev ing  d eseg regation . 
T h ere  is no  u n iv e rsa l an sw er to com plex  
p ro b lem s of d eseg reg a tio n ; th e re  is obviously 
no one p lan  th a t  w ill do th e  job in ev e ry  case.
T he m a tte r  m u s t be a sse sse d  in ligh t of th e



HALL, ET AL. v. ST. H ELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET  AL.

15

c irc u m s ta n c e s  p re se n t and  th e  options a v a il­
ab le  in  eac h  in s tan ce . I t  is in cu m b en t upon th e  
school b o a rd  to  e s tab lish  th a t  its  p roposed  p la n  
p ro m ise s  m ean in g fu l and  im m e d ia te  p ro g re ss  
to w ard  d ises tab lish in g  s ta te -im p o sed  se g re ­
gation . I t is in cu m b en t upon th e  d is tr ic t co u rt 
to  w eigh th a t  c la im  in  ligh t of th e  fa c ts  a t 
h an d  and  in  ligh t of any  a lte rn a tiv e s  w hich  
m a y  be show n as feas ib le  and  m o re  p ro m isin g  
in  th e ir  effectiveness. W here th e  co u rt finds 
th e  b o a rd  to be ac tin g  in  good fa ith  and  th e  p ro ­
posed  p lan  to  h av e  re a l  p ro sp ec ts  fo r d is­
m a n tlin g  th e  s ta te -im p o sed  d ual sy stem  “ a t 
th e  e a r lie s t p ra c tic a b le  d a te ,” th e n  th e  p la n  
m a y  be sa id  to p rov ide  effec tive  relief. Of 
course , w here  o ther, m o re  p ro m isin g  co u rses 
of ac tion  a re  open to th e  board , th a t  m a y  in ­
d ica te  a la ck  of good fa ith ; and  a t th e  le a s t it 
p la ce s  a  h eav y  b u rd en  upon  th e  b o a rd  to  ex­
p la in  its  p re fe ren c e  for an  a p p a re n tly  less  e f­
fec tiv e  m ethod. M oreover, w h a tev e r p lan  is 
adop ted  w ill re q u ire  ev a lu a tio n  in  p rac tice , 
and  th e  c o u rt should re ta in  ju risd ic tio n  un til 
it is c le a r  th a t  s ta te -im p o sed  seg reg a tio n  h as  
b een  com ple te ly  rem oved .

20 L .Ed. 2d a t 724.

If u n d er an  ex is ten t p la n  th e re  a re  no w hites, or 
only a  sm a ll p e rc e n ta g e  of w hites, a tten d in g  fo rm erly  
a ll-N egro  schools, or only a  sm a ll p e rc e n ta g e  of 
N egroes en ro lled  in  fo rm erly  all-w hite schools, th e n



16 HALL, ET  AL. v. ST. H ELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET  AL.

th e  p lan , as  a  m a tte r  of law , is no t w orking. H enry v, 
Clarksdale, supra; A d a m s  v. Mathews, suprai.

The good fa ith  of a  school b o a rd  in  ac tin g  to d e se g re ­
g a te  its  schools is a  n e c e s sa ry  co n co m itan t to th e  
a c h iev em en t of a  u n ita ry  school sy stem , bu t it is no t 
itse lf  th e  y a rd s tic k  of e ffec tiv en ess .7

The m a jo r ity  of th e  school b o a rd s  involved  in  th e se  
ap p ea ls  did n o t beg in  an y  ty p e  of d e seg reg a tio n  of th e ir  
schools p r io r  to  being  o rd e red  to  do so fo r th e  1965-1966 
school y e a r .8 All h av e  b een  o p e ra tin g  fo r th e  1967-68 
an d  1968-69 school y e a rs  u n d e r Jefferson-decree  f r e e ­
dom  of choice p lan s  fo r pup il a ss ig n m en t, w hich  u n d e r 
n u m e ro u s  decisions of th is  c irc u it a re  re q u ire d  to  be 
uniform .

All now  know, judges, la w y e rs  and  school boards, 
th a t  freed o m  of choice, Jefferson  v a r ie ty  or o therw ise , 
is no t a  co n stitu tio n a l end in  itse lf  bu t only a m e a n s  to 
th e  co n stitu tio n a lly  re q u ire d  end of th e  te rm in a tio n  of 
th e  d ual school sy stem . Green, supra; Jefferson 11, 
supra. S ince Green  th is  co u rt exp lic itly  h as  re je c te d

7“H ere  th e  d is tric t co u rt found  th a t the school b oard  ac ted  in  
good f  >ith. B u t good fa ith  does n o t excuse a b o ard ’s non- 
com pliance w ith  its  affirm ative  d u ty  to  liqu ida te  th e  dual 
system . Good fa ith  is re le v an t on ly  as a necessary  in ­
g red ien t of an  acceptab le desegregation  p la n .”

H en ry  v. C larksdale  M unicipal S ep ara te  Sch. D ist., supra  a t 
--------[Slip op. a t 2],

sT w en ty -tw o  of th e  school boards w ere  o rdered  to  in teg ra te  
th e ir  school system s beginn ing  w ith  th e  1965-66 school year. 
Two boards com m enced w ith  th e  1964-65 school year. N ine b e­
gan in  1966-67, and  five did no t begin  u n til the  1967-68 school 
year.



HALL, ET AL. v. ST. HELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET  AL.

17

freed o m  of choice p la n s  th a t  w ere  found to  be dem on­
s tra b ly  u n su ita b le  fo r e ffec tu a tin g  tra n s itio n  fro m  
d u a l school sy s tem s  to  u n ita ry  m ond ise rim inato ry  sy s­
te m s . See, e.g., Anthony v. Marshall County Bd. of
Educ., 5 Cir. 1969, ...  F .2d ____  [No. 26432, A pr. 15,
1969]; United States v. Greenwood Municipal Separate  
School Dist., 406 F.2d 1086 (1969). See also Graves v. 
Walton County Bd. of Educ., 403 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1968); 
Bd. of Public Instruction of Duval County v. Braxton, 
402 F .2d 900 (5th Cir. 1968).

II. T he W este rn  D is tr ic t C ases

T he W este rn  D is tr ic t C ourt, s ittin g  en  banc, found 
th a t  th e  o p e ra tio n  of Jefferson- ty p e  freed o m  of choice 
in  th e  school d is tr ic ts  befo re  it “h as  re a l p ro sp ec ts  fo r 
d ism a n tlin g  th e  d ual sy s tem  a t th e  e a r l ie s t  p ra c tic a b le  
date . . . .” and  concluded  th a t  th e  b es t m ethod  a v a il­
ab le  to  e ra d ic a te  th e  d ual sy stem  of schools in  th e se  
d is tr ic ts  is freed o m  of choice.9

A pp ellan ts  in th e  W este rn  D is tr ic t c a se s  con tend  th a t  
th e  s ta t is t ic a l  re c o rd  m a n ife s tly  re v e a ls  th a t  th e  d ual 
sy s tem  con tinues and  th a t freed o m  of choice h a s  fa iled  
to  p ro d u ce  m ean in g fu l re su lts . T hey  u rg e  th a t  th e  
s ta t is t ic a l  re c o rd  re q u ire s  re v e rs a l w hen considered  
in  ligh t of Green  and  th e  ca se s  in  th is  c irc u it follow ­
ing  Green.

9“W ith  ev e ry  ounce of s incerity  w h ich  w e possess w e th in k  
freedom  of choice is th e  b est p lan  availab le . W e a re  no t 
today  going to  jeopard ize th e  success a lread y  achieved 
by  casting  aside som ething th a t is w ork ing  and  reach  
b lin d ly  in to  an  experim en ta l ‘g rab  bag.’ ”

293 F. Supp. a t 88.



18 HALL, ET AL. v. ST. H ELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

T he ap p e llee  school b o a rd s  in s is t th a t  Green  does not 
fo rec lo se  th e  co n tin u a tio n  of th e ir  Jefferson -decree  
freed o m  of choice p lans. T hey re a d  th e  s ta tis tic s  as 
re v e a lin g  th a t  p ro g re ss , th o u g h  in  m o st in s ta n ces  
s ta tis tic a lly  nom inal, h as  been  m a d e  to w ard  th e  e lim i­
n a tio n  of th e  d u a l sy stem . T hey u rg e  th a t  th e  d is tr ic t 
co u rt a p p ro p ria te ly  could conclude th a t  th e  un ifo rm  
Jefferson -d ecree  freed o m  of choice p lan s  u n d er w hich  
th e y  a re  o p e ra tin g  do p rov ide  th e  effec tive  re lie f  r e ­
fe r re d  to by Green, b ecau se , in th e  la n g u ag e  of Green , 
th e y  a re  o p e ra tin g  in good fa ith  an d  u n d er p lan s  w hich 
h av e  re a l  p ro sp ec ts  fo r d ism an tlin g  th e  s ta te -im p o sed  
d u a l sy stem  “a t th e  e a r l ie s t p ra c tic a b le  d a te .” 20 L.Ed. 
2d a t  724.

W e tu rn  to  th e  fac ts . In  th e  A ppendix  to th is  opinion 
we se t ou t th e  b e s t s ta t is t ic a l  d a ta  m a d e  a v a ilab le  to 
th is  co u rt fo r th e  1987-68 and  1968-69 school y e a rs , and  
such  d a ta  as p re se n tly  is a v a ilab le  fo r 1969-70 (reco g ­
n iz ing  th a t  th e  la t te r  n e c e ssa r ily  is no t com plete : see 
n o te  2. to  th e  A ppendix .) In  th e  c u r re n t school y ea r, 
1968-69, in ev e ry  one of th e se  school d is tr ic ts  th e re  is a t  
le a s t one a ll-N egro  school, in  m o st d is tr ic ts  m a n y  m o re  
th a n  ju s t  one.

In  a ll of th e  tw en ty -n ine  d is tr ic ts , fo r th e  c u r re n t 
school y e a r , only tw o w hite s tu d en ts  ex e rc ised  th e ir  
freed o m  of choice by  e lec ting  to  a tte n d  a ll-N egro  
schools. To th e  ex ten t d a ta  is av a ilab le  fo r th e  1969-70 
school y e a r , fro m  choice fo rm s a lre a d y  ex e rc ised  and  
re p o r te d  to us since  o ra l a rg u m e n t of th e se  cases , no



HALL, ET  AL. v. ST. H ELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

19

ch an g e  of su b s ta n tia l consequence in th is  s itu a tio n  c a n  
be p ro jec ted . See  A ppendix.

The n u m b e r of N egro  s tu d en ts  a tten d in g  fo rm e rly  
all-w h ite  schools h a s  r is e n  s ligh tly  since  th e  adoption  
of th e  Jefferson -d ec ree  p lans, bu t fo r th e  c u r re n t 
school y e a r  th e  p e rc e n ta g e  th is  re p re se n ts  of th e  to ta l 
N egro  s tu d en t popu la tion  is m in im a l — only five of 
th e se  tw en ty -n ine  sy stem s  h av e  m o re  th a n  te n  p e rc e n t 
of th e ir  N egro  ch ild ren  a tten d in g  fo rm e rly  all-w hite  
schools. F o u r  p a r ish e s  h av e  le ss  th a n  one p e rc e n t in ­
te g ra tio n .

In  no in s ta n ce  does th e  d a ta  m a d e  av a ila b le  to  us fo r 
ex p ec ted  1969-70 pupil a ss ig n m e n t v a ry  th e  s itu a tio n  
e x is ten t fo r th e  c u rre n t y e a r  su ffic ien tly  th a t com ­
p lian ce  w ith  co n stitu tio n a l s ta n d a rd s  ca n  be p ro jec ted .

We do no t a b d ica te  our ju d ic ia l ro le  to  s ta tis tic s . B ut 
w hen fig u res  sp eak  we m u st listen . I t is ab u n d an tly  
c le a r  th a t  freed o m  of choice, as  p re se n tly  co n stitu ted  
and  o p e ra tin g  in th e  W este rn  D is tr ic t school d is tr ic ts  
befo re  us, does not offer th e  “re a l  p ro sp e c t” con­
te m p la te d  by Green, and  “can n o t be acc ep ted  as a 
su ffic ien t s tep  to  ‘e ffec tu a te  a  tra n s it io n ’ to a  u n ita ry  
sy s te m .” 20 L.Ed. 2d a t  726-727.

In  add ition  th e  b o a rd s  a re  re q u ire d  to ex am in e  o th e r 
a lte rn a tiv e s . T he p re sen ce  of o th e r and  m o re  p ro m is ­
ing co u rses  of ac tion  a t th e  le a s t m a y  in d ica te  la ck  of 
good fa ith  by th e  b o a rd  and  p lace  a h eav y  b u rd en  on 
th e  b o a rd  to ex p la in  its  p re fe ren c e  fo r an  a p p a re n tly



20 HALL, ET  AL. v. ST. H ELEN A
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET  AL.

le ss  effec tive  m ethod . Green, a t 20 L .Ed. 2d 724. If th e re  
a re  re a so n a b ly  av a ila b le  o th e r w ays p ro m isin g  
sp eed ie r  and  m o re  effective  convers ion  to  a u n ita ry  
n o n -ra c ia l sy stem , freed o m  of choice m u s t be held  u n ­
accep tab le . Id. a t 725. Anthony v. Marshall County, 
supra; United States v. Greenwood, supra.

W e re v e rse  and  re m a n d  th e se  ca se s  to  th e  d is tr ic t 
c o u rt in  o rd e r th a t  a  new  p la n  m a y  be pu t into effect 
in  eac h  school d is tric t. The ob ligation  is upon th e  
school b o a rd s  to  com e fo rw a rd  w ith  re a lis tic  and  w ork ­
ab le  p lans, and  th e  a sse ssm e n t and  in itia l rev iew  and  
a p p ro v a l o r re je c tio n  of ea c h  p la n  is fo r th e  d is tr ic t 
court, no t fo r th is  court, rem o v ed  as we a re  fro m  “th e  
c irc u m s ta n c e s  p re se n t an d  th e  options av a ilab le  in  
ea c h  [of tw en ty  n ine] in s ta n c e [s ] .” Green, supra, 20 
L .Ed. 2d a t  724; Anthony v. Marshall County, supra; 
United States v. Greenwood, supra; A d a m s  v. Mathews, 
supra; Bd. of Public Instruction of Duval County v. 
Braxton, supra; Henry v. Clarksdale, supra.'0 This is

,0 See th e  concurring  opinion of Judge  R ubin  in  D uval C ounty: 
“G reen  em phasizes th a t school officials have a con tinu­

ing d u ty  to  ta k e  w h a tev er action  m ay  be necessary  to  
p rov ide  ‘p ro m p t and  effective d isestab lishm ent of a dual 
system .’ If one m ethod  is ineffective, th e y  are  to  try  a n ­
other. H ence, no single p la n  is o r  can  be ju d ic ia lly  ap ­
p roved  as a catholicon.

“B ro w n  I  an d  all of its  successors, as w ell as 
G reen, M onroe, dnd  R aney, con tem plate th a t school p lan s 
w ill be p rep a re d  b y  local o fficials an d  school boards, no t 
by  courts. B u t if local officials fa il to  assum e th e ir  r e ­
sponsib ilities u n d e r the  C onstitu tion , d is tric t courts  m u st 
con tinue to  a ttem p t to  fo rm u la te  th e  p lans th a t  should 
be p rep a re d  by  school officials based  on th e ir  ex p e rt 
know ledge, tra in in g  an d  sk ill.” (C ita tions om itted.)

402 F .2d  a t 908.



HALL, ET  AL. v. ST. H ELEN A
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

21

n o t to say  th a t  th e  d is tr ic t c o u rt on th e  scene  m a y  not, 
if it th in k s  best, re q u ire  a  u n ifo rm  ap p ro ac h  by  all d is­
t r ic ts .”

T h ere  a re  m a n y  m eth o d s and  com b in a tio n s  of 
m e th o d s a v a ilab le  fo r co n sid era tio n , e ith e r  on a  dis- 
tr ic t-b y -d is tr ic t b a s is  o r on a  u n ifo rm  b as is  if th e  d is­
t r ic t  c o u rt so d irec ts . Som e of th e se  a re  g eog raph ic  
zoning if it ten d s  to d ise s ta b lish  th e  dual sy stem , Davis  
v. Bd. of School Comm, of Mobile, Ala., 393 F.2d 690 
(5th  Cir. 1968),,z p a irin g  of g ra d e s  or of schools, ed u c a ­
tio n a l c lu s te rs  or p a rk s , d isco n tin u an ce  of use  of sub ­
s ta n d a rd  bu ild ings and  p rem ises , r e a r ra n g e m e n t of 
tra n sp o r ta tio n  ro u tes , conso lidation  of schools, a p p ro ­
p r ia te  loca tion  of new  constru c tio n , and  m a jo rity -to - 
m in o rity  tra n s fe rs . The re so u rc e s  of th e  E d u ca tio n a l 
R eso u rces  C en ter fo r School D eseg reg a tio n , a t  N ew  
O rleans, a re  av a ilab le  to th e  b o a rd s  an d  m a y  be 
u tiliz ed .'3 We se t out in  th e  m a rg in  th e  a p p ro a c h  re -

iiS ee , e.g. th e  discussion of W hittenberg  v. G reenv ille  C ounty  School 
D istric t, (D.C. S.C., M arch  31, 1969), a t  no te  14, in fra , an d  ac­
com panying  tex t.

iz B u t a p la n  w hich  co n trib u tes  to w ard  p rese rv in g  segregated  
schools b y  inco rpo ra ting  zones co rresponding  to  rac ia lly  sep­
a ra te  resid en tia l p a tte rn s  is unacceptab le. U n ited  S ta te s  v.

..Ind iano la, supra.
SA h ea rin g  has n o t y e t been  held  on w h e th e r  th e  C en te r’s p lan

a d o p te d f '^ F lia lF tw o O H s trlet'Tu3ges*m “L o u isian a  have or- 
iereHTEe use of th e  fac ilities of th is  cen ter. T angipahoa P arish , 

before us on th is  appeal, w as o rdered  on O ctober 15, 1968 to  
p roduce a p lan  fo r th e  1969-70 school y ea r  fo r  u n ita ry  opera­
tion  of its school system . W hen th e  school b oard  in fo rm ed  th e  
co u rt th a t  i t  w as unab le  to  fin d  a p lan  b e tte r  th a n  th e  one 

e x i s t e n c e ,  th e  co u rt appo in ted  th e  C en ter to  p rep a re  a p la n /  
In  H arris  v. St. Jo h n  th e  B ap tist P a rish  Sch. Bd., Civ. No. 

13212 (E.D. La. A pr. 23, 1969), th e  school board, a f te r  i t  d id



cen tly  ta k e n  by th e  U nited  S ta te s  D is tr ic t C ourt fo r th e  
D is tr ic t of South C aro lina, s ittin g  en  b an c  in  W hitten -
berg v. Greenville County School D is tr ic t ,____ F. Supp.
------ - (D.C. S.C. M arch  31, 1989) a case  co n cern ing  22 of
th e  93 school d is tr ic ts  in South C aro lin a .’4

22 HALL, ET AL. v. ST. HELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

We a re  u rg ed  by a p p e llan ts  to o rd e r  on. a p le n a ry  
b as is  fo r all th e se  school d is tr ic ts  th a t  th e  d is tr ic t 
c o u rt m u s t re je c t freed o m  of choice as  a n  a c c e p ta b le  
in g red ien t of any  d eseg reg a tio n  p lan . U nquestionab ly  
as  now  constitu ted , ad m in is te re d  and  o p e ra tin g  in  
th e se  d is tr ic ts  freed o m  of choice is no t effectual. The 
S u p rem e C ourt in  Green  recogn ized  th e  g e n e ra l in ­
e ffec tiv en ess  of freedom  of cho ice.’8 B ut in th a t  case ,

n o t com e u p  w ith  a p lan  of its  own, w as o rd ered  to  consu lt w ith  
th e  C enter. A  h ea rin g  w as set on the  C en te r’s p lan . T he b o ard  
cam e in  w ith  tw o p lans of its  own. T he d is tric t judge accepted  
one of the  b o a rd ’s plans, w hich  in co rpo ra ted  som e of the  C en­
te r ’s suggestions.

,4Tfae d is tr ic t cou rt d irec ted  th a t a ll school d is tric ts  subm it to  the  
Office of Education , HEW, th e ir  ex isting  m ethod  of operation , 
along w ith  any  changes proposed  b y  them , an d  to  seek to  de­
velop in  conjunction  w ith  HEW  an  accep tab le  p lan  of opera tion  
“conform able to  the  constitu tional rig h ts  of the  p la in tiffs  . . . and  
consonant in  tim ing  and  m eth o d  w ith  th e  p rac tica l an d  ad ­
m in is tra tiv e  problem s faced by the  p a r tic u la r  d is tric ts .” If  a 
p lan  is ag reed  upon  by  the school d is tric t and  HEW , th e  S ou th  
C aro lina d is tric t court w ill approve it  un less th e  p la in tiffs  show  
it does not m ee t constitu tional standards. If  th e  school d is tr ic t 
a lread y  is opera ting  u n d er a p lan  approved  by  HEW, it  w ill be 
adop ted  by  the  co u rt absen t a show ing of constitu tiona l in ­
f irm ity . If  no ag reed  p la n  is developed, the  co u rt w ill ho ld  a 
h ea rin g  and e n te r  its decree, considering th e  respective  p ro ­
posed p lans of the  d istric t, th e  p la in tiffs, an d  HEW.

'5 T h e  S uprem e C ourt said: “ [T ]he genera l experience u n d e r ‘f re e ­
dom  of choice’ to  d a te  has been  such as to  ind icate  its  ineffec­
tiveness as a tool o f desegregation .” 20 L.Ed. 2d a t  725.

S ee  also th e  opinion of D istric t Ju d g e  H eebe in  M oses v.



HALL, ET  AL. v. ST. H ELEN A  23
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET  AL.

W ashington P a rish  School B oard , 276 F. Supp. 834 a t  851- 
852 (E.D. La. 1967):

“If  th is  C ourt m u st p ick  a m e th o d  of assign ing  s tu ­
den ts to  schools w ith in  a  p a r tic u la r  school d is tric t, 
b a rr in g  v e ry  u n u su a l circum stances, w e  could  im ag­
ine  no m ethod  m ore in ap p ro p ria te , m ore u n reaso n ­
able, m ore  needlessly  w astefu l in  ev e ry  respect, 
th a n  th e  so-called ‘free-cho ice’ system .

“U n d er such a system  th e  school b oard  canno t 
know  in  advance how  m a n y  stu d en ts  w ill choose 
an y  school in  th e  system. —  it  canno t even  begin  
to estim ate  th e  num ber. T he f irs t p rin c ip le  of pup il 
assignm ent in  th e  schem e of school ad m in is tra tio n  is 
th u s th w arte d ; the  p rinc ip le  ough t to  be to  u tilize  all 
ava ilab le  classroom s an d  schools to  accom m odate the 
m ost favo rab le  nu m b er of students; instead, th is  aim  
is su rre n d e red  in  o rd er to  in troduce  an  e lem en t of 
‘lib e r ty ’ (never befo re  p a r t  of effic ien t school ad ­
m in is tra tio n ) on the  p a r t of the s tuden ts in  th e  choice 
of th e ir  ow n school. O bviously  th e re  is n o  constitu ­
tiona l ‘r ig h t’ fo r an y  s tu d e n t to  a tte n d  the  public 
school of h is  ow n choosing. B u t the ex tension  of the  
priv ilege  of choosing one’s school, fa r  fro m  being  a 
‘r ig h t’ of the  studen ts, is n o t even consisten t w ith  
sound school adm in istra tion . R a ther, th e  creation  of 
such a choice on ly  h as th e  re su lt of dem ora liz ing  the  
school system  itself, an d  ac tu a lly  depriv ing  ev e ry  s tu ­
d en t of a good education .

“U nder a ‘free-choice’ system , th e  school board  
canno t know  o r estim ate th e  nu m b er of s tuden ts w ho 
w ill w a n t to  a tten d  any  school, o r the  id e n tity  of those 
w ho w ill ev en tu a lly  ge t th e ir  choice. C onsequently , 
th e  b oard  canno t m ake p lans fo r  the  tran sp o rta tio n  of 
s tuden ts to  schools, p lan  cu rricu la , o r  even  p lan  such 
th ings as lunch  allo tm en ts and  schedules; m oreover, 
since in  no case excep t by  p u res t coincidence w ill an 
ap p ro p ria te  d is trib u tio n  of s tuden ts resu lt, an d  each 
school w ill have e ith e r  m ore  or less th an  the  num ber 
it is designed to  e ffic ien tly  handle, m any  s tu d en ts  at 
the  end  of th e  free-choice period  have  to be rea s­
signed to schools o th e r th an  those  of th e ir  choice —  
th is  tim e on a s tr ic t geograph ica l-p rox im ity  basis, 
see th e  Jef f erson C ounty  decree, th u s  b u rd en in g  th e  
board , in  th e  m idd le of w h a t should  be a period  of



24 HALL, ET  AL. v. ST. H ELEN A
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET  AL.

co n cern in g  only a  sing le  d is tr ic t h av in g  only tw o 
schools, th e  c o u rt declined  to hold “ th a t  ‘freed o m  of 
ch o ice’ ca n  h av e  no p la ce  in  . . .  a p la n ” th a t  p ro v id es  
e ffec tive  re lief, and  recogn ized  th a t  th e re  m a y  be in ­
s ta n c e s  in  w hich  freed o m  of choice m a y  se rv e  as an  
e ffec tive  device, and  re m a n d e d  to  th e  d is tr ic t co u rt 
w ith  d irec tio n s  to  re q u ire  th e  b o a rd  to fo rm u la te  a  new  
p la n .16

W hile we h av e  d ire c te d  m o st of our d iscussion  to 
p up il ass ig n m en t, in te g ra tio n  of facu lty  is of eq u a l im ­
p o rtan c e , and  th e  b o a rd s  m u s t com e fo rw ard  w ith  af­
f irm a tiv e  p lan s  in  th a t  re g a rd . “ [T ]he school b o a rd  
m u s t do e v e ry th in g  w ith in  its  pow er to  re c ru it  and  r e ­
a ss ig n  te a c h e rs  so as  to p rov ide  fo r a  su b s ta n tia l de­
g ree  of facu lty  in te g ra tio n ,” w hich  inc ludes w ithhold­
ing  of te a c h e r  c o n tra c ts  if n e c e ssa ry , United States v. 
Indianola, supra; United States v. Greenwood, supra. 
T he p a t te rn  of te a c h e r  a ss ig n m e n ts  to  a  p a r t ic u la r  
school m u s t no t be  iden tifiab le  as ta ilo re d  fo r a  h eav y

firm in g  up th e  system  an d  m ak ing  fin a l adjustm ents, 
w ith  the  aw esom e ta sk  of d e term in ing  w hich  studen ts 
w ill have to  be tra n sfe rre d  an d  w hich  schools w ill r e ­
ceive therm. U n til th a t  fin a l ta sk  is com pleted, n e ith e r  
th e  b oard  n o r any  of th e  studen ts can b e  su re  of w hich 
school th ey  w ill be attend ing ; an d  (many studen ts w ill 
in  the  end  be den ied  th e  v e ry  ‘f re e  choice’ th e  system  
is supposed to prov ide th em .” (Em phasis in  original.) 

is  See D avis v. M obile County, supra, in  w hich  th is  co u rt req u ired  
a zone p lan  fo r u rb an  areas b u t le ft freedom  of choice in  effect 
in  r u ra l  areas. See  also th e  d issen ting  opinion to  th e  d en ia l of 
en banc h ea rin g  in  th e  in stan t cases, 406 F .2d  a t  1338-39: “I 
am  n o t suggesting th a t  freedom  of choice should  necessarily  
be abandoned  in  favo r of zoning. . . . T here  is no th ing  neces­
sa rily  unconstitu tional abou t freedom  of choice o r geographic 
zoning or a com bination  of th e  tw o .”



HALL, ET AL. v. ST. H ELEN A
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET  AL.

25

c o n ce n tra tio n  of e ith e r  N egro  o r w hite  s tuden ts. Davis  
v. Mobile County, supra; United States v. Greenwood, 
supra; United States v. Indianola, supra.

A lso a  p la n  w hich  w ill “e ffec tu a te  a  tra n s itio n  to a  
ra c ia lly  n o n d isc rim in a to ry  school sy s te m ” m u s t in ­
clude e ffec tu a l p rov isions co n ce rn in g  staff, fac ilitie s , 
tra n s p o r ta tio n  and  school ac tiv itie s  — th e  en tire  school 
sy stem .

III. The E a s te rn  D is tr ic t cases

In  th e  E a s te rn  D is tr ic t c a se s  th e  d is tr ic t ju d g e  con­
cluded  th a t  freed o m  of choice w as w ork ing  w ell and  
w as th e  b es t av a ilab le  m e th o d  fo r th e  school b o a rd s  to 
re a c h  th e ir  co n s titu tio n a l obligations.

A p p ellan ts  an d  th e  school b o a rd s  m a k e  th e  sam e  con­
ten tio n s  in  th e se  c a se s  as  w ere  m a d e  in  th e  W este rn  
D is tr ic t cases. A gain , th e  s ta t is t ic a l  ev idence m a k es  
ab u n d an tly  c le a r  th a t  th e  freed o m  of choice p lan s  as  
p re se n tly  constitu ted , a d m in is te re d  and  opera tin g , a re  
fa ilin g  to  e ra d ic a te  th e  d ual sy stem . See  A ppendix. F o r 
th e  c u rre n t y e a r  no t one of th e se  d is tr ic ts  h as  as  m a n y  
as  te n  p e rc e n t of its  N egro  s tu d en ts  en ro lled  in  fo r­
m e rly  all-w hite  schools. T he 1969-70 d a ta  show s th a t  
Ib e rv ille  P a r is h  h a s  ach iev ed  te n  p e rce n t, up  fro m  
9.2% fo r th e  c u rre n t y e a r . In  a ll th e se  d is tr ic ts  no w hite 
s tu d en t chose to  a tte n d  an  a ll-N egro  school in  th e  c u r­
re n t y e a r , an d  none h a s  chosen  an  all-N egro  school 
fo r 1969-70. F o rty -s ix  a ll-N egro  schools ex ist in  th e se  
p a r ish e s  in  1968-69. A s in  th e  W este rn  D istric t, th e



26 HALL, ET AL. v. ST. H ELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET  AL.

p a r t ia l  1969-70 d a ta  supp lied  to th is  co u rt does not in ­
d ic a te  any  r e a l  ch an ce  of a t ta in m e n t of co n stitu tio n a l 
s ta n d a rd s  in  1969-701 T he b o a rd s  m u s t adop t n ew  p lans.

In  addition , in  e v a lu a tin g  th e  p lan s  befo re  h im  th e  
d is tr ic t ju d g e  did no t app ly  th e  s ta n d a rd  of w h e th e r 
th e  p lan s  a re  w ork ing  b u t r a th e r  th a t  of w h e th e r th e y  
could w ork. This is an  e rro n eo u s  s ta n d a rd . W hen te s t­
ing  th e  su ffic iency  of a  p la n  th a t  h a s  b een  in  o p e ra tio n  
su ffic ien tly  long to  p roduce  m ean in g fu l e m p ir ic a l d a ta , 
th a t  d a ta  m u s t be co n sid ered  an d  a  d e te rm in a tio n  
m a d e  of w h e th e r  th e  p la n  is e ffec tu a tin g  a  tra n s itio n  
to  a  ra c ia lly  n o n -d isc rim in a to ry  school sy stem . A nd 
Green  re q u ire s  th e  d is tr ic t ju d g e  to w eigh  th e  ex is t­
ing  p la n  in  th e  ligh t bo th  of th e  fa c ts  a t  h an d  and  of 
an y  a lte rn a tiv e s  w hich  m a y  be  show n as  feas ib le  and  
m o re  p rom ising . T he d is tr ic t co u rt m u s t co n sid er th e  
a lte rn a tiv e s .

A lso th e  d is tr ic t co u rt e r re d  in  holding th a t  s e g re ­
g a tion  w hich  con tinues to  ex ist a f te r  th e  ex e rc ise  of u n ­
fe tte re d  free  choice is “ de fa c to ” seg reg a tio n  an d  as 
such  co n stitu tio n a lly  p e rm issib le .

T hese  ca se s  m u s t be re v e rs e d  and  re m a n d e d  u n ­
d e r th e  sa m e  d irec tio n s  as th e  W este rn  D is tr ic t cases.

IV. The T an g ip ah o a  P a r is h  ca se

P u rsu a n t to  Green  th e  d is tr ic t co u rt re q u ire d  th e  
T an g ip ah o a  School B o ard  to  p re se n t a  n ew  p la n  to  r e ­
p la ce  th e  ex istin g  freed o m  of choice p la n  w hich on



HALL, ET AL. v. ST. H ELEN A
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET  AL.

27

O ctober 15, 1968 it found to  be ineffective. The co u rt 
conducted  h ea rin g s , s im ila r  to  th o se  now  m a n d a te d  
'to be  held  in  th e  W este rn  D is tr ic t and  fo r th e  o th e r 
E a s te rn  D is tr ic t cases , and  ap p ro v ed  a  n ew  plan . This 
c o u rt h a s  sa id  re p e a te d ly  w h at we say  in  th is  opinion, 
th a t  th e  re sp o n sib ility  fo r s tru c tu rin g  and  a d m in is te r ­
ing  ex isting  and  new  p lan s  fo r d ises tab lish in g  th e  d ual 
sy s tem  is upon  th e  school b o a rd s  and  th e  a d m in is tra ­
to rs , an d  th e  p r im a ry  re sp o n sib ility  fo r a ssessin g  and  
rev iew ing  th e  p la n  an d  adop ting  n e c e ssa ry  ch an g es is 
upon  th e  d is tr ic t co u rt on th e  scen e  r a th e r  th a n  a t th e  
ap p e lla te  level. In  th e  Tangipahoa  ca se  th e  d is tr ic t 
co u rt c o rre c tly  app lied  th is  policy, a f te r  a  rev iew  of 
th e  fac ts . W e a ffirm  its  decision.

V

Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish, No. 27391, is A F F IR M ­
ED . A ll o th e r ca se s  a re  R E V E R S E D  and  R EM A N D ED  
to th e  d is tr ic t co u rts  w ith  th e  follow ing in s tru c tio n s .

(a ) T hese  ca se s  sh a ll rece iv e  th e  h ig h est p rio rity .

(b) No la te r  th a n  th ir ty  d ay s fro m  th e  d a te  of the  
m a n d a te  ea c h  school b o a rd  sh a ll su b m it to th e  d is tr ic t 
co u rt a  p roposed  new  p lan  fo r its  school d is tr ic t to  be 
e ffec tive  w ith  th e  co m m en ce m en t of th e  1969-70 school 
te rm . P ro v id ed , how ever, if th e  d is tr ic t co u rt d e s ire s  to  
re q u ire  a  u n ifo rm  ty p e  of p lan , o r a  u n ifo rm  a p p ro ac h  
to  th e  fo rm u la tio n  of p lans, or issue  in s tru c tio n s  to th e  
b o a rd s  of m eth o d s th a t  it w ill o r w ill n o t consider, o r 
o th e r a p p ro p ria te  in s tru c tio n s , it sh a ll e n te r  its  o rd e r



28 HALL, ET  AL. v. ST. H ELEN A
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET  AL.

to  th a t  e ffec t w ith in  te n  d ay s of th e  d a te  of th e  m a n ­
date . If th e  d is tr ic t c o u rt e n te rs  su ch  an  o rd e r  th e  
m a x im u m  tim e  fo r filing  p la n s  sh a ll be th ir ty  days 
fro m  th e  d a te  of su ch  o rder.

(c) T he p a r tie s  sh a ll h av e  te n  d ay s fro m  th e  d a te  
a  p la n  is filed  w ith  th e  d is tr ic t co u rt to file  ob jections 
or su g g es ted  a m en d m en ts  th e re to .

(d) F o r  p lan s  as  to  w hich  ob jections a re  m a d e  or 
a m e n d m e n ts  suggested , o r w hich  in  any  even t th e  d is­
t r ic t  c o u rt w ill no t ap p ro v e  w ithout h ea rin g , th e  d is­
t r ic t  co u rt sh a ll co m m en ce  h e a r in g s  beg inn ing  no 
la te r  th a n  te n  days a f te r  th e  tim e  fo r filing  ob jections 
h a s  exp ired .

(e) N ew  p lan s  fo r a ll d is tr ic ts  effective  fo r th e  
beg inn ing  of th e  1969-70 school te rm  sh a ll be com ­
p le ted  an d  ap p ro v ed  by th e  d is tr ic t co u rts  no la te r  th a n  
Ju ly  25, 1969.

B ecau se  of th e  u rg e n c y  of fo rm u la tin g  and  ap p ro v ­
ing  p lan s  to  be effec tive  fo r th e  1969-70 school te rm  it 
is  o rd e red  as follows. The m a n d a te  of th is  co u rt sh a ll 
issu e  im m ed ia te ly . This co u rt w ill no t ex ten d  th e  tim e  
fo r filing  pe titio n s  fo r re h e a r in g  or b rie fs  in  su p p o rt 
of o r in  opposition  th e re to . A ny ap p ea ls  fro m  o rd e rs  or 
d ec re e s  of th e  d is tr ic t co u rt on re m a n d  sh a ll b e  ex ­
ped ited . A ny a p p ea l m a y  be on th e  o rig in a l reco rd . 
T he re c o rd  on an y  a p p e a l sh a ll be lodged  w ith  th is  
c o u rT a ^  filed, a ll w ith in  th ir ty  days
of th e  d a te  of th e  o rd e r  or d ec re e  of th e  d is tr ic t co u rt 
fro m  w hich  th e  a p p e a l is tak en .



HALL, ET AL. v. ST. HELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

A PPEND IX



30 HALL, ET AL. v. ST, HELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

School System

'

Total
Number
Negro

Total
Number

W hite

No. of 
Negro 

in
Formerly

W hite
Schools

% %
Change

No. of 
W hites 

in
Form erly

Negro
Schools

%

N o . 27087, 27054
27106
W e s t e r n  D i s t r i c t

A c a d i a
1967-68 N .A .' — — 2.2 i N .A .

1968-69 2694 8930 149 5.5 +  3.3 0 0

1969-70* 2062 8199 190 9.2 +  3.7 0 0

A v o y e l le s
1967-68 3249 5909 203 6.25 0 0

1968-69 3407 5982 410 12.03 +  5.78 0 0

1969-70 N .A . — — *— — — —

B ie n v i l l e
1967-68 2429 1760 55 2.26 0 0

1968-69 2580 1944 60 2.33 +  .07 0 0 *

1969-70 2487 1865 81 3.25 +  .92 0 0

B o s s i e r
1967-68 4249 12,760 137 3.22 0 0

1968-69 4268 13,949 188 4.4 +  1.18 1 .007

1969-70 3726 13,408 286 7.67 +  3.27 0 0

C a d d o
1967-68 24,700 33,044 396 1.6 1 .003

1968-69* 2 * * * 6 25,414 33,879 642 2.5 +  .9 1 .003

1969-70 22,600 32,002 1113 4.9 +  2.4 158 .49

C a lc a s i e u
1967-68 N .A . _ _ — 7.6 N .A . —

1968-69 9787 28,758 956 9.8 +  2.2 0 0

1969-70 N .A . —' — — — — —

tNot available. This signal followed by dashes in adjoining columns 
means figures for all such columns are unavailable.

2The 1989-70 figures for all school systems, w here shown, are
based upon the incomplete results of the la test choice period 
(March 1, 1969 to A pril 1, 1969). They are  not intended to be
a completely accurate forecast of the racial m ake-up of the 
schools involved for 1969-70. A t oral argum ent of these cases
the parties w ere directed to furn ish  this inform ation to the 
court to  the  ex ten t possible, and in m ost instances they have 
done so.

6In this parish there  are m inor discrepancies between those figures 
collated by the appellants and these by the U nited States. 
The differences are nom inal and do not impel a d ifferent con­
clusion on any issue in the case. We use appellants’ figures.



HALL, ET AL. v. ST. HELENA 31
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

Total 
No. of 

! Negro 
'Teachers

T o ta l 
No. of 
W hite  

T eachers

CROSSOVERS T otal STU DEN TS FACULTY
No. of 
N egro  

T eachers 
in

F o rm erly
W hite
Schools

%

No. of 
W hite  

T eachers  
in

F o rm erly
N egro

Schools

%

No. of 
Schools 

in
S ystem

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

N egro  
S tu d en ts

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 
W hite  

S tu d en ts

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

N eg ro  
F ac u lty

No. of 
• Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

W hite  
F ac u lty

N.A. N .A .
127 389 23 18.1 12 3 .08 22 4 9 — 6
1403 357 41 29 .28 12 3 .36 22 4 8 0 0

126 293 6 4 .76 3 1.02 N .A .
126 317 8 6 .35 9 2 .84 17 3 1 0 6

N .A . — — — — — N .A . — — — —

118 104 7 5.93 4 4 .0 4 N .A .
1334 121 13 10.11 13 10.67 11 5 0 0 0

N .A . — — — — — 11 5 2 N .A . —

212 551 14 6.6 7 1.27 N .A ,
213 6 14 33 15 .49 22 3 .58 24 5 5 0 1

N .A .5 — — — — — 25 6 2 N .A . —

1117 1418 15 1 .34 7 .49 N .A .
1099 1408 96 8.73 66 4 .68 77 26 15 0 2
N .A .7 — — — — — 76 27 10 N .A . _

N .A . N .A .
417 1,379 31 7.4 28 2.03 73 21 13 16 34

N .A . — — — — — ■ N .A . — - — —

sFigures given fo r faculty  cross-overs for 1969-70 in a ll school 
systems, w here shown, represent only the planned ct ten ta ­
tive assignments as reported  to the court by the school boards 
since oral argument.

^Fractions have been dropped from  teacher cross-over figures, w ith 
no attem pt to round off the figure.

5In a repo rt filed in the district court February 27, 1967, a copy 
of which has been filed w ith  this court pursuant to our oral 
order for additional data, the Bossier Parish School Board 
states th a t it has set as a m inim um  goal for 1969-70 a 100% 
increase in faculty integration.

7In a rep o rt filed in the  d istrict court on February  21, 1969 Caddo 
Parish  states it has a goal of increasing faculty cross-overs 
by 50% for the 1969-70 school year.



32 HALL, ET AL. v. ST. HELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

School System

Total
Number
Negro

Total
Number

White

No. of 
Negro 

in
form erly
W hite
Schools

% %
Change

No. of 
Whites 

in
Form erly

Negro
Schools

%

C ity  o f  M o n r o e
1967 -68 5249 5775 22 .4 0 0
196 8 -6 9 4952 5703 54 1.0 +  .6 0 0
196 9 -7 0 N .A . — — — — — —

C la ib o r n e
1967 -68 2362 1695 24 1.02 0 0
196 8 -6 9 2 3 3 4 1704 23 .99 - . 0 3 0 0
1 9 6 9 -7 0 N .A . — — — — — —

C o n c o r d ia
1967 -68 3240 3767 32 .99 0 0
196 8 -6 9 318 9 3767 37 1.16 +  .17 0 0
1969 -70 N .A . — — — — — —

D e  S o to
1967 -68 3951 2487 26 .66 0 0
196 8 -6 9 37 6 8 2430 34 .90 +  .24 0 0
1969 -70 3720 24 3 2 36 .96 +  .02 0 0

E a s t  C a r r o l l
1967 -68 2611 1482 106 4 .06 0 0
1968 -69 26 2 7 1479 133 5 .06 +  1.0 0 0

196 9 -7 0 2049 1439 124 6.05 +  .99 0 0

E v a n g e l i n e
1967 -68 N .A . 2.9 0 0

1968 -69 311 4 562 4 71 2.3 - . 6 0 0

196 9 -7 0 N .A . — 58 — 1 —



HALL, ET AL. v. ST, HELENA 33
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

Total 
No. of 
Negro 

Teachers

T o ta l 
No. of 
W hite  

T eachers

C RO SSO V ERS T o ta l 
No. of 
Schools 

in
System

STU D EN TS FA C U LTY
N o. of 
N egro  

T eachers  
in

F o rm erly
W hite

Schools

%

No. of 
W hite  

T each ers  
in

F o rm erly
N egro

Schools

%

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

N egro  
S tuden ts

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 
W hite  

S tu d e n ts

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

N eg ro  
F a c u lty

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

W hite  
F a c u lty

214 253 4 1.86 i .39 18 5 6 5 7
215 2 6 4 25 11.6 27 10.2 18 6 2 0 0

N .A . — — — — — N .A . — — — —

115 102 0 0 8 7 .84 N .A .
112 108 0 0 8 7.41 10 5 2 1 5

N .A . — — — — — N .A . — — — —

14V 184 2 1.36 4 2 .17 N .A .
160 184 14 8 .75 13 7 .05 12 4 4 0 0

N .A . — — — — — N .A . — — — —

193 154 8 4 .15 7 4 .55 N .A .
184 136 14 7 .61 14 10 .29 14 7 4 0 0

N .A . — — — — — N .A . — — — —

109 84 4 3 .67 5 5 .95 N .A .
97 83 4 4 .12 7 8 .43 9 5 2 0 2

N .A .S — — — — — 9 5 0

N .A . N .A .
142 2 7 4 19 13 .38 12 4.3 14 5 2 N .A . _

N .A . — — — — — N .A . — — — —

8In  its repo rt to  the d istric t court in February, the East C arroll 
School Board states it has plans to increase faculty  in tegra­
tion by approxim ately 100% in 1969-70.



34 HALL, ET AL. v. ST. HELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

School System

Total
N um ber
Negro

Total
Number

W hite

No. of 
Negro 

in
Formerly

W hite
Schools

% %
Change

No. of 
Whites 

in
Form erly

Negro
Schools

G r a n t
1967-68 943 2405 48 5.09 0 0

1968-69 1061 2676 39 3.68 - 1 . 4 1 0 0

1969-70 N .A . — — — — — —

I b e r i a
1967-68 N .A . — — 6.2 0 0

1968-69 4897 10,070 426 8.7 +  2.5 0 0

1969-70 N .A . — — — — 0

J a c k s o n
1967-68 1525 2354 78 5.11 0 0

1968-69® 1564 2317 83 5.31 +  .2 0 0

1969-70 1581 2278 82 5.18 - . 1 3 0 0

J e f f e r s o n  D a v i s
1967-68 N .A . — — 8.3 0 0

1968-69 2069 5976 270 13.0 +  4.7 0 0

1969-70 N .A . — 280 N .A . — — —

L a f a y e t t e
1967-68 N .A . — — 10.0 0 0

1968-69 6984 20,311 1,195 17.0 +  7.0 0 0

1969-70 6533 21,011 1539 23.5 +  6.5 2 .00009

L in c o ln
1967-68 3126 3630 96 3.07 0 0

1968-69 3139 3682 116 3.70 +  .63 0 0

1969-70 — N .A . — — — — —

sin  th is  parish there  are .minor discrepancies between those figures 
collated by the appellants and these by the United States. 
The differences are nominal and do not impel a d ifferent con­
clusion on any issue in the case. We use appellants’ figures.



HALL, ET AL. v. ST. HELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

35

Total 
No. of 
N egro 

Teachers

T o ta l 
No. of 
W hite  

T each ers

CRO SSO V ERS T o ta l 
No. of 
Schools 

in
S ystem

STU D EN TS FA C U LTY
No. of 
N egro  

T eachers 
in

F orm erly
W hite

Schools

%

No. of 
W hite  

T eachers  
in

F o rm erly
N egro

Schools

%

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

N egro  
S tuden ts

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 
W hite  

S tu d e n ts

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

N eg ro  
F a c u lty

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

W hite  
F ac u lty

49 127 0 0 0 0 N .A .
51 138 3 5 .88 4 2 .90 8 2 4 0 4

N .A . — — — — — N .A . — — — —

N .A . _ _ N .A .
231 430 2 4 5 .58 2 4 .65 30 11 4 9 7

N .A . — — — — — N .A . — — — —

84 124 8 9 .52 7 5 .64 N .A .
81 128 8 9 .87 8 5 .25 11 4 2 0 0

N .A . — _ _ — — — 11 4 2 N .A . —

N .A . _ _ N .A .
110 287 11 10.0 2 .69 19 5 1 3 2

N .A . — — — — — N .A . — — — —

N .A . _ _ N .A .
283 911 45 15 .9 28 3 .07 35 10 4 1 0

N .A . — — _ _ — — 36 9 2 N .A . —

133 174 5 3 .76 7 4 .02 N .A .
142 182 16 11 .74 17 9 .34 19 9 4 2 1

N .A . — — — — ~  1N .A . — — —



36 HALL, ET AL. v. ST. HELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

School System

Total
Number
Negro

Total
Number

White

No. of 
Negro 

in
"'onmerly
W hite
Schools

% %
Change

No. of 
Whites 

in
Form erly

Negro
Schools

%

M a d i s o n
196 7 -6 8 N .A . — — 2 .4 0 0

1 9 6 8 -6 9 32 3 5 1255 83 2 .6 +  .2 0 0

1 9 6 9 -7 0 29 2 9 1202 91 3.1 +  .5 0 0

N a t c h i t o c h e s
1 9 6 7 -6 8 N .A . — — 2.1 N .A . —

196 8 -6 9 4601 4327 101 2 .2 +  .1 N .A . —

196 9 -7 0 N .A . — — — _ _ — —

O u a c h i t a
196 7 -6 8 48 5 8 12 ,801 47 .9 0 0

196 8 -6 9 4831 13 ,044 79 1.6 +  .7 0 0

196 9 -7 0 4071 12 ,392 102 2.5 +  .9 1 .0008

R a p id e s
1967 -68 9168 17 ,712 302 3 .29 0 0

1968-69® 9671 18 ,856 4 02 4.3 +  1.01 0 0 '

1 9 6 9 -7 0 N .A . — — — “ — —

R i c h l a n d
1 9 6 7 -6 8 3260 326 0 11 .34 0 0 '

196 8 -6 9 3112 3 3 5 4 28 .90 +  .56 0 0

1969-70 3497 3340 77 2.2 +  1.3 0 0

S t. L a n d r y
196 7 -6 8 N .A . — — 3.0 — 0 0

196 8 -6 9 10 ,754 11 ,779 330 3.0 .0 0 0

196 9 -7 0 N .A . — — — — — —



HALL, ET AL. v. ST. HELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

37

Total T o ta l C EO S SO V ER S T o tal STU D EN TS FA C U LTY
No, of 
N egro 

Teachers

I

No. of 
W hite  

T eachers

No. of 
N egro  

T eachers 
in

F o rm erly
W hite

Schools

%

No. o f 
W hite  

T each ers  
in

F o rm er ly
N egro

Schools

No. of 
Schools 

in
S ystem

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

N egro  
S tuden ts

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

W hite  
S tu d en ts

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

N egro  
F ac u lty

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

W hite  
F a c u lty

N .A . I _ N .A .
137 81 j 5 3 .64 13 16 .04 8 5 0 0 i

N .A . _ 9 — 19 — 8 5 0 0 0

N .A. _ N .A .
247 301 29 11 .74 33 10 .96 2 6 10 7 N .A . —
N .A . — — — — — N .A . — — — —

200 542 7 3.5 1 .018 37 12 15 10 23
N .A . — — — — _ _ 37 12 13 N .A . —

36 10 12 N .A . —

409 766 5 1.22 3 .39 N .A .
392 786 19 4 .84 23 2 .92 51 19 16 4 5
N .A . — — — — — N .A . — — — —

139 168 0 0 0 0 N .A .
150 175 11 7.33 11 6 .76 14 8 2 0 0

N .A . — — — — — 14 8 1 N .A . —

N .A . N .A .
484 547 23 4 .75 21 3 .83 43 20 3 N .A . _

N .A . — — — — — N .A .
______ — — — —



38 HALL, ET AL. v. ST. HELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

School System

Total
Number
Negro

Total
Number

White

No. of 
Negro 

in
Formerly

W hite
Schools

%
Change

No. of 
Whites 

in
Form erly

Negro
Schools

%

S t. M a r t i n
1967-68 N .A . — __ 3.2 0 0

1968-69 3516 4871 128 3.6 +  .4 0 0

1969-70 3633 5178 195 5.36 +  1.76 0 0

S t. M a r y
1967-68 N .A . — 467 11.7 __ 0 0

1968-69 5390 10,537 729 13.5 +  1.8 0 0

1969-70 5137 10,283 977 19.01 +  5.51 0 0

U n io n
1967-68 2058 2558 9 .4 0 0

1968-69 2098 2589 14 .6 +  .2 0 0

1969-70 1855 2588 35 1.8 +  1.2 0 0

V e r m i l io n
1967-68 N .A . — — 19.5 0 0

1968-69 1644 8138 722 44.0 +  24.5 0 0

1969-70 1493 7862 686 45.9 +  1.9 0 0

W in n
1967-68 1528' 2402 58 3.8 0 0

1968-69 1520 2392 69 4.5 +  .7 0 0

1969-70 1400 2256 73 5.2 +  .7 0 0

' ’Statistics on student integration in 1967-68 in W inn Parish  
appear to be derived from choice form  reports to the  district 
court dated Septem ber 8, 1967. They do- not necessarily rep re­
sent the num ber of students attending integrated schools during 
th a t year.



HALL, ET AL. v. ST. HELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

39

Total 
No. of 
N egro 

Teachers

T o ta l 
No. of 
W hite  

T eachers

CRO SSO V ERS T o tal 
No. of 
Schools 

in
System

STU DEN TS FACULTY"
No. of 
N egro  

T eachers 
in

F orm erly
W hite

Schools

%

No. of 
W hite  

T each ers  
in

F o rm er ly
N egro

Schools

*

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

N egro  
S tuden ts

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

W hite  
S tuden ts .

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

N eg ro  
F ac u lty

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

W hite  
F a c u lty

N.A. _ _ N .A .
161 215 15 9.3 8 3.7 15 7 i 3 i

N .A . — 19 — 11 — 15 7 i 2 0

N .A . _ _ N .A .
246 455 52 21.1 12 2 .63 26 9 i 2 N .A .
N .A . — _ — — — 27 9 i N .A . —

86 140 N .F .T .9 N .F .T . 9 2 5 N .A .
91 134 17 18.5 12 8.9 9 2 4 N .A . _

N .A. — 20 — 20 — 9 1 3 N .A . —

N .A . _ N .A .
62 371 23 37 .0 3 .8 18 1 2 0 1
74 3 75 39 52.7 5 '° 1.3 18 1 2 0 0

65 134 0 0 0 0 12 4 4 4 8
68 140 7 10.3 3 2.1 12 4 3 3 1

N.A. — — — — — 12 4 3 N .A . | —

91967-68 reports of school board to the  district court show th a t 
no teacher served fu ll tim e in a cross-over situation. 1968-69 
reports do not distinguish between fu ll and part-tim e teachers.

’oVermilion Parish has only one rem aining school in which 
Negroes a re  predom inant. That school is all-Negro.



40 HALL, ET AL. v. ST. HELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

School System

Total
Number
Negro

Total
Number

W hite

No. of 
Negro 

in
Formerly
W hite
Schools

% %
Change

No. of 
Whites 

in
Form erly

Negro
Schools

%

i
N o . 26450 & 27303
E a s t e r n  D i s t r i c t

S t. H e le n a
1967-68 1917 1035 60 3.1 0 0
1968-69 1954 1073 71 3.6 +  .5 0 0
1969-70 2019 1079 57 2.8 — .8 0 0

I b e r v i l l e
1967-68 4850 3459 370 7.3 0 0

1968-69 4882 3464 448 9.2 +  1.9 0

1969-70 4763 3508 477 10.0 +  .8 0 0

L iv in g s to n
1967-68 1486 7739 12 0.8 0 0

1968-69 1530 8255 7 0.45 — 0.35 0 0

1969-70 N .A . — 4 — — 0 0

P o i n t e  C o u p e e
1967-68 3476 2270 233 6.7 0 0

1968-69 3700 2346 168 4.5 - 2 . 2 0 0

1969-70 3340 2505 182 5.4 +  .9 0 0

A s c e n s io n
1967-68 3190 5776 58 1.8 0 0

1968-69 2368 6245 101 4.3 +  2.5 0 0

1969-70 2952 6464 161 5.45 +  1.15 0 0

W e s t  B a to n  R o u g e
1967-68 N .A . — 126 N .A . 0 0

1968-69 2442 2419 143 5.8 N .A . 0 0

1969-70 1576 2199 144 9.1 +  3.3 0 0



HALL, ET AL. v. ST. HELENA 41
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

T otal T o ta l CROSSOVERS T o ta l 
No. of 
Schools 

in
S ystem

STU D EN TS FACULTY
No. of 
N egro 

Teachers

No. of 
W hite  

T eachers

No. of 
N egro  

T eachers  
in

F o rm e r lj
W hite
Schools

%

No. of 
W hite  

T eachers  
in

F o rm erly
N egro

Schools

%

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

N egro  
S tu d en ts

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

W hite  
S tu d e n ts

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

N eg ro  
F ac u lty

No. of 
Schools 

w ith  
A ll- 

W hite  
F a c u lty

89 61 6 6.7 3 4 .9 N .A .
97 68 6 6.1 2 2 .9 11 7 2 5 i

N .A . — — — — — 11 7 2 N .A . —

211 179 5 2 .4 2 1.1 N .A .
232 196 17 7.3 20 10.2 17 9 0 1 i

N .A . — — — — — 17 9 0 N .A . —

73 367 0 0 0 0 N .A .
110 363 36 32 .7 4 1.1 24 4 19 2 i

N .A . — — — — — N .A . — — — —

149 112 5 3 .4 4 3.6 N .A .
151 116 11 7.3 10 8.6 10 5 0 0 0

N .A . — — — — — 10 5 0 N .A . —

161 258 5 3.1 2 0 .77 N .A .
131 269 16 12.2 11 4.1 12 5 2 0 0

N .A . — — — — — 13 6 0 N .A . —

N .A . N .A .
125 125 24 19.2 26 20 .8 9 5 1 N .A . —

N .A . — — — — — 8 4 1 N .A . —



42 HALL, ET AL. v. ST. HELENA
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

School System

Total
Number
Negro

Total
Number

White

No. of 
Negro 

in
Form erly

W hite
Schools

% %
Change

No. of 
Whites 

in
Form erly

Negro
Schools

%

W e s t  F e l i c i a n a
1967-68 1856 844 140 5.0 0 0

1968-69 1760 734 119 6.7 +  1.7 0 0

1969-70 1707 759 112 6.5 — .2 0 0

E a s t  F e l i c i a n a
1967-68 2930 1320 33 1.0 0 0

1968-69 2912 1396 52 1.7 +  .7 0 0

1969-70 2934 1381 78 2.65 +  .95 0 0

N o . 27391 
E a s t e r n  D i s t r i c t

T a n g i p a h o a
1967-68 N .A . _ ___ ___

1968-69 N .A . — — — — — —

1969-70 N .A . ~ _ — — —



HALL, ET AL. v. ST. HELENA 43
PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

Total 
No. of 
Negro 

Teachers

Total 
No. of 
W hite 

Teachers

CROSSOVERS Total 
No. of 

Schools 
in

System

STUDENTS FACULTY
No. of 
Negro 

Teachers 
in

Formerly
White
Schools

%

No. of 
W hite 

Teachers 
in

Form erly
Negro

Schools

%

No. of 
Schools 

w ith 
All- 

Negro 
Students

No. of 
Schools 

w ith 
All- 
W hite 

Students

No. of 
Schools 

w ith 
All- 

Negro- 
Faculty

No. of 
Schools 

w ith 
All- 

White 
Faculty

80 46 2 2 .5 i 2.2 7 5 0 3 0
85 44 3 3 .5 i 2.3 6 4 i 3 0

N .A . — — — — — 6 4 i N .A . —

N .A . 11 7 i N .A .
135 81 4 2.9 5 6.2 11 7 i 4 1

N.A. — — — — — 11 7 0 N .A . —

N .A . N .A .
N .A . — — — — — N .A . — — --- —

N .A . — _ _ — — — N .A . — — — —

Adm. Office, U.S. Courts—Scofields’ Quality Printers, Inc., N. O., La.



■ <

J