Green v. New Kent County, VA School Board Appendix for Appellants

    APPENDIX FOR APPELLANTS

United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit

No. 10,792

C harles C. Gr e en , et a l .,

v.
Appellants,

Cou nty  S chool B oard of N ew  K en t  
Co u nty , V ir g in ia , et a l .,

Appellees.

S. W . T ucker  
H enry  L. M a rsh , III 
W illard H . D ouglas, J r .

214 East Clay Street 
Richmond, Virginia

J ack Greenberg 
J am es M. N abrit , I I I

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 

Counsel



INDEX

Appendix A
Page

Prayer of Complaint ......................... .................................................. 1

Interrogatories ...................... -.............................................................. 2

Answer to Interrogatories........ -......- .....................-....... -..........-.......  8

Addendum to Answer to Interrogatories.............. -.......................... 15

Memorandum of the Court, Dated May 7, 1966........................... —- 19

Order, Entered May 17, 1966.............................................................  20

Exception to Plan Supplement .................................. ....................... 21

Memorandum of the Court, Dated June 28, 1966............... -............  22

Order, Entered June 28, 1966.................................... ........................  50

Notice of Appeal ..................................................................... ............ 31

Appendix B

Memorandum of the Court, In
Wright v. Greensville, January 27, 1966 .....................................  32

Memorandum of the Court,
Wright v. Greensville, May 13, 1966............................... ...........  46



APPENDIX A

IN TH E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

C iv il  A ction  No. 4266 
F iled  M arch 15, 1965

C harles C. Gr een , Carroll A. Gr e e n , and R obert C. 
Gr een , infants by Calvin C. Green and Mary O. Green,

their father and mother and next friends,
* * *

vs.
Plaintiffs

County  S chool B oard of N ew  K e n t  Co u nty ,
V ir g in ia ,

*  *  *

B yrd W. L ong, Division Superintendent of Schools 
of New Kent County,

Jjs *

Defendants

COMPLAINT 
* * *

VII
W herefore , plaintiffs respectfully pray :

A. That the defendants be restrained and enjoined 
from failing and refusing to adopt and forthwith imple­



2

ment a plan which will provide for the prompt and efficient 
elimination of racial segregation in the public schools op­
erated by the defendant School Board, including the elimi­
nation of any and all forms of racial discrimination with 
respect to administrative personnel, teachers, clerical, cus­
todial and other employees, transportation and other facil­
ities, and the assignment of pupils to schools and classrooms.

* * *

Interrogatories

F iled  M ay 7, 1966 5
TO COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS :

Frederick T. Gray, Esquire 
State-Planters Bank Building 
Richmond, Virginia

Plaintiffs request that the defendant School Board, by 
an officer or agent thereof, answer under oath in accordance 
with Rule 33, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the follow­
ing interrogatories:

1. List for each public school operated by the defendant 
School Board the following:

a. Date on which each school was erected;
b. Grades served by each school during the 1964-65 

school term;
c. Planned pupil capacity of each school;
d. Number of white pupils in attendance at school 

in each grade level as of most recent dates for which 
figures are available for 1964-65 term;

e. Number of Negro pupils in attendance at school 
in each grade level as of most recent date for which 
figures are available for 1964-65 term;



3

f. Number of Negro teachers and other administra­
tive or professional personnel and the number of white 
teachers, etc., employed at each school during 1964-65 
school term;

g. Pupil-teacher ratio at each school during 1964- 
65 school term (most recent available figures) ;

h. Average class size for each school during 1964- 
65 school term (most recent available figures) ;

i. Name and address of principal of each school.

2. Furnish a map or maps indicating the attendance areas 
served by each school in the system during the 1963-64 term 
and the 1964-65 term. If no such map or maps can be fur­
nished, state where such maps or other descriptions 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 1964-65 
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 school division, and if there are 
any, give the average daily attendance of transported stu­
dents during 1964-65 term, stating separately the number 
of white pupils and the number of Negro pupils in the ele­
mentary grades and in the high schools and in the junior 
high schools.

5. Furnish a map or maps indicating the bus routes in 
effect throughout the school division during the 1963-64 
term and for the 1964-65 term (indicate for each bus route



4

the name and address of the bus driver and the race of the 
students transported).

6. State with respect to the 1964-65 term, the total num­
ber 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 to such 
pupils the following:

a. Number, by grade, residing in the attendance 
area of each Negro school;

b. The schools actually attended by white pupils 
residing in the attendance area of each Negro school.

7. State the total number of Negro pupils who were 
initially assigned to attend all-white or predominantly white 
schools for the first time during either the 1963-64 school 
term or the 1964-65 term. Give a breakdown of these totals 
by schools and grades.

8. State whether during the 1964-65 term it was 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 
Education is offered in the school system and if so at what 
schools it is offered.

10. Are any special teachers for subjects such as art and 
music provided?

11. If so, state:

a. The number of such special teachers in the sys­
tem;



5

b. The number of full-time special teachers;
c. The number of part-time special teachers;
d. The schools to which they are assigned for the 

current school year;
e. The schools to which they were assigned for the 

preceding school year.

12. Indicate whether a program of vocational education 
was offered in. any school or schools in the system during the 
1963-64 or the 1964-65 school term.

13. If so, state for each such year the name of each vo­
cational education course at each school and the number 
of pupils enrolled therein; and give the number of indi­
viduals teaching vocational education at each school.

14. Furnish a statement of the curriculum offered at each 
junior high school and each high school in the system during 
the 1964-65 term.

15. 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.

16. State whether any summer school programs operated 
by the School Board have been operated on a desegregated 
basis with Negro and white pupils attending the same 
classes.

17. Are any buildings of frame construction presently 
being utilized for schools? If so, which ones?

18. Are any of the school buildings in need of major 
repairs? If so, which ones?



6

19. 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, present and proposed number of 
classrooms, grades to be served, and projected capacity;

c. Estimated date of completion and occupancy;

d. Number of Negro pupils and number of white 
pupils attending grades to be served by such school 
who reside in existing or projected attendance area for 
such school.

20. State as to each teacher and principal first employed 
by the School Board during the school year 1964-65 and 
each of the four preceding school terms the following:

a. His or her name, age at time of such employment, 
sex, race;

b. Initial date of employment by the defendant 
School Board;

c. Teaching experience prior to employment by de­
fendant School Board;

d. College from which graduated and degrees 
earned;

e. Major subjects studied in college and in graduate 
school;

f. Certificate from State Board of Education held 
at time of initial employment by defendant School 
Board, date thereof, and specific endorsements thereon;

g. The school and (elementary) grade or (high



7

school) subjects which he was assigned to teach at 
time of initial employment;

h. Ratings earned for each year since initial employ­
ment by defendant School Board.

21. Are any records maintained which reflect the turn­
over of teachers in each school?

22. If so, state:
a. Type of records maintained;

b. For what periods such records are maintained;
c. Where they are located;
d. In whose custody they are maintained.

23. Are any records maintained which reflect the mobil­
ity of children in and out of the school system and in and 
out of specific schools, including transfers and dropouts?

24. If so, state:

a. Type of records maintained;
b. Where these records are located ;
c. In whose custody they are maintained.

25. State the amount of funds received through programs 
of Federal assistance to education during each of the school 
sessions 1963-64 and 1964-65.

26. State whether any pledge of non-discrimination has 
been signed by or on behalf of defendant School Board.

27. Give a copy of any plans for desegregation submitted 
to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare or 
to any other agency of the State or Federal Government.



8

P lease T ake  N otice  th a t a copy of such answ ers m ust 
be served upon the undersigned w ithin fifteen days a fte r 
service.

Answer of County School Board of New Kent County, 
Virginia, to Interrogatories

Now comes Byrd W. Long, Division Superintendent of 
schools of New Kent County, Virginia, and submits the 
following answers to interrogatories filed by the plaintiffs, 
said answers correspond to the numbered paragraphs in 
the interrogatories, to-wit:

1. a. Date on which each school was erected:

1. New Kent High School erected 1930 (Addi­
tion 1934). Elementary Building erected 1954 (Ad­
dition 1961).

2. George W. Watkins High School erected 1950. 
Elementary Building erected 1958 (Addition 1961).
b. Grades served by each school during the 1964-65 

school term:

1. New Kent served grades one through twelve.
2. George W. Watkins served grades one through 

twelve.

c. Planned pupil capacity of each school:

2. George W. Watkins High School 207, George 
W. Watkins Elementary School 420.

U'1

1. New Kent High School 207, New Kent Ele 
mentary School 330.



9

d. Pupils by grades—New Kent (All White)
Elementary: 1-54; 2-61; 3-51; 4-57; 5-48; 6-54;
7-42.
High School: 8-41; 9-49; 10-42; 11-33; 12-20.

e. Pupils by grades—George W. Watkins (All 
Colored)

Elementary: 1-87; 2-73; 3-94; 4-79; 5-60; 6-77;
7-68.

High School: 8-49; 9-43; 10-34; 11-37; 12-38.

f. Negro school— 1 Principal, 1 Librarian, 26 Teach­
ers, 1 Supervisor, 1 Counselor

White school— 1 Principal, 1 Librarian, 26 Teach­
ers, 1 Supervisor, 1 Counselor

g. Pupil-teacher ratio at each school during 1964-65 
school term: New Kent-22—George W. Watkins-28

h. Average class size for each school during 1964-65 
school term, Grades 1-12: New Kent-21—George W. 
Watkins-26

i. Name and address of principal of each school: Ger­
ald W. Tudor, New Kent High School, New Kent Vir­
ginia; Todd W. Dillard, George W. Watkins High 
School, Quinton, Va.

2. New Kent County has no attendance areas. A map 
of the County may be obtained from the Virginia Depart­
ment of Highways.

3. As stated in No. 2 above, New Kent County is not 
divided into school attendance areas.



10

4. Eleven school buses transport pupils to the George 
W. Watkins school. Ten school buses transport pupils to 
the New Kent School. One bus transports 18 Indian chil­
dren to a Charles City School. By agreement this bus also 
transports 60 Charles City children.

White pupils transported—548
Negro pupils transported—710

5. Bus routes in 1963-64 and 1964-65 are the same. 
See attached maps—names of drivers of buses are shown 
on maps. (Exhibits A and B)

6. As stated in No. 2 and 3 above, New Kent County 
is not divided into attendance areas.

7. New Kent County Schools have been operated on a 
Freedom of Choice Plan administered by the State Pupil 
Placement Board since the establishment of the Pupil Place­
ment Board. To September 1964, no Negro pupil had applied 
for admission to the New Kent School and no White pupil 
had applied for admission to the George W. Watkins School.

8. Both schools are crowded beyond capacity in the 
high school departments.

New Kent High School: Two basement areas, a 
conference room, stage dressing room, and the audi­
torium are used for classes.

George W. Watkins High School: Two basement 
areas, clinic room, and a part of the Vocational Shop 
are used for classes.

9. Distributive Education is not offered in either school.
10. There are special teachers for subjects such as art 

and music.



11

11. a. New Kent High School—Part-time music teach­
er. George W. Watkins High School—Part-time music 
teacher. New Kent Elementary School—Part-time music 
teacher.

b. One—New Kent School—Full time.

c. One—George W. Watkins School—Part-time.
d. Stated in b. and c.
e. Same as stated in b. and c.

12. Vocational Home Economics and Vocational Agri­
culture were offered in both schools during 1963-64 and 
during 1964-65.

13. Substantially the same for 1964-65 and 1963-64.
New Kent High School offered Vocational Agricul­

ture and Home Economics. Vocational Agriculture: 
1 teacher, 63 pupils. Home Economics: 1 teacher, 32 
pupils.

George W. Watkins High School offered Vocational 
Agriculture and Home Economics. Vocational Agri­
culture : 1 teacher, 52 pupils. Home Economics: 1 teach­
er 56 pupils.

14. New Kent County has no junior high schools. Each 
of the two schools are operated on the plan called the 7-5 
plan, which consists of 7 elementary grades and 5 high 
school grades.

Each high school offers the following: Academic 
Curriculum, Vocational Curriculum, General Course.

The Academic Curriculum is geared mainly for pupils 
preparing for college.



12

The Vocational Course is offered pupils not planning for 
college, and a boy may major in Agriculture; a girl in Home 
Making; and a boy or girl may major in Commercial 
courses.

Those pupils planning to seek work in general employ­
ment may enroll in a general course.

Each high school has a guidance counselor who attempts 
to aid the pupil and parent in the selection of a course ac­
cording to the pupil’s aptitude and his desired type of 
employment after graduation.

15. New Kent County has no Seventh grade pupils who 
take courses in the high school department.

Each school in New Kent County is a combination high 
school and elementary school, but teachers do not work 
partly in high school and partly in elementary school.

16. The School Board of New Kent County offers no 
summer school program in any school.

17. At the George W. Watkins Schpol the Agriculture 
building is a frame building.

18. Extensive repairs were made at both schools during 
the summer of 1963 and 1964. No major repairs are needed 
at either school at the present time.

19. a. New Kent School—campus type addition. George 
W. Watkins School campus type addition.

b. New Kent School—4 classrooms planned: 2 sev­
enth grade classrooms; 2 sixth grade classrooms; two 
toilets to serve the four rooms. This addition will serve 
6th & 7th grade pupils at the above school. George 
W. Watkins School-—4 classrooms planned: 2 seventh 
grade classrooms; 2 sixth grade classrooms; two toilets

\



13

to serve the four rooms. This addition will serve 6th & 
7th grade pupils at the above school.

c. A completion date has not been set for this project 
as State Literary Loan funds have not been released.

The two above projects will be let to bid at the same 
time and one contract will be executed for both of the 
projects.

d. New Kent County has no attendance areas.

20. George W. Watkins High School and Grade School:
a. Todd W. Dillard, Principal, Male, age 30, Negro
b. Employed April, 1964, effective July 1, 1964

c. Four years experience

d. B.S- Virginia State College—Work completed 
for. Masters Degree

e. Science and Mathematics Major

f. Collegiate Professional Certificate
g. Does not teach—full-time Principal
h. Rated as superior

New Kent High School and Grade School:
a. Gerald W. Tudor, Principal, Male, age 28, White
b. Employed July 14, 1964

c. Five years experience
d. B.S. East Carolina College—Work completed for 

Masters Degree
e. Physical Education



14

f. Collegiate Professional Certificate
g. Does not teach—full-time Principal
For information regarding teachers, see attached 

Exhibit “C”

21. Records in the Schol Board Office will reflect the 
turnover of teachers in each school.

22. Contract with teachers are executed annually for 
a period of one year. A report of teachers contracted with 
for each year is filed in the school board office.

a. As stated above
b. For past 5 years

c. School Board Office
d. The Clerk of the School Board

23. Teachers’ attendance registers record entries, re­
entries and withdrawals. No other special records are kept.

24. Teachers registers
a. Same as above
b. School Board Office
c. Clerk of School Board

25. Federal Funds 1963-64
School Lunch ..............
PL 874 ........... ............
N D EA ........................
Guidance ..................... .

.$ 4,554.68 

. 9,612.00 

. 1,572.00

. 2 ,000.00

Total $17,738.68



15

Federal Funds—Estimated—1964-65
School Lunch .....................................
PL 874 ............... - .............. -..............
N D EA  ...............................................
Guidance .............................. -.............

Total ...................................................

$ 5,500.00 
9,800.00 
1,750.00 
2 ,000.00

$19,050.00

26. Yes
HEW  Form 441

27. Plan to accompany HEW  Form 441 has not been 
completed at this date.

/ s /  B yrd W. L ong 
Byrd W. Long, Division Superin­
tendent of Schools of New Kent 
County, Virginia

Subscribed and sworn to by B yrd W. L ong before me, 
Katie H. Harris, a Notary Public in and for the city of 
Richmond, Virginia, whose commission expires on March 
4, 1969, in my said City this 8th day of June, 1965.

/ s / K a tie  H. H arris
Notary Public

New Kent County School Board 
Addendum No. 1

Answer to Interrogatories, Civil Action No. 4266 
U. S. District Court, Richmond, Virginia

E x h ib it  C
20. Continued
Paul Gilley, age 22, white, male, b. 1963, c. None, d. 

V.P.L, B.S., e. Agriculture, f. Collegiate Professional,



16

Agricultural, g. Agriculture, New Kent High School h. 
Teachers are not rated in this Division.

Edward J. Stansfield, age 24, white, male, b. 1961, c. 
None, d. Houghton, B.A., e. Sociology, f. Collegiate, Soci­
ology, History, English, g. History, English, New Kent 
High School.

Billy R. Ricks, age 21, white, male, b. 1964, c. None, d. 
East Carolina, B.A., e. History and Social Science, f. Col­
legiate History and Social Science, g. History, New Kent 
High School.

John E. Averett, age 25, white, male, b. 1963, c. 2 years,
d. University of Richmond, no degree, e. Physical Educa­
tion, f. Special License, g. Math, Physical Education, New 
Kent High School.

Jayne P. Thomas, age 31, white, female, b. 1962, c. 2 
years, d. Madison, B.M. Education, e. Music, f. Collegiate 
Professional, Music, g. Music, New Kent High and Ele­
mentary School.

Mary W. Potts, age 38, white, female, b. 1963, c. 4 years,
d. Longwood, B.S., e. English, Chemistry, f. Collegiate 
Professional 6th and 7th grades, g. 7th grade, New Kent 
Elementary School.

Alice V. Fisher, age 56, white, female, b. 1963, c. 16 
years, d. Mary Washington, no degree, e. Elementary Edu­
cation, f. Special License, g. 5th grade, New Kent Ele­
mentary.

Shirley F. Francisco, age 31, white, female, b. 1964, c. 2 
years, d. Madison, no degree, e. Elementary Education, f. 
Special License, g. 2nd grade, New Kent Elementary.



17

Patricia B. Averett, age 20, white, female, b. 1963, c. 
None, d. Ferrum, no degree, e. Elementary Education, f. 
Special License, g. 1st grade, New Kent Elementary School.

Murray Carson, age 53, white, male, b. 1964, c. None 
d. Averett, no degree, e. English and History, f. Special 
License, g. 1/2 day English, New Kent High School.

Laurenstine Porter, age 22, Negro, female, b. 1964,
c. None, d. North Carolina College B.S., e. Library, f. Col­
legiate, Health and Physical Education, Library Science, 
g. Librarian, G. W. Watkins High & Elementary School.

Guy A. Boykins, age 57, Negro, male, b. 1960, c. None,
d. Virginia Union University, A.B., e. Social Studies and 
History, f. Collegiate Professional, English, g. Social Stud­
ies and History, G. W. Watkins High School.

James E. Coleman, age 23, Negro, male, b. 1964, c. None, 
d. Virginia Union, no degree, e. Chemistry, f. Special Li­
cense, Science and Physical Education, g. Science and Phys­
ical Education, G. W. Watkins High School.

*Edith Jackson, age 24, Negro, female, b. 1960, c. None, 
d. Virginia Union, B.S., e. Business, f. Collegiate Profes­
sional, Business, g. Commercial, G. W. Watkins High 
School.

Gloria Miller, age 41, Negro, female, b. 1964, c. 2 years, 
d. Virginia Union, B.A., e. Elementary, f. Collegiate Pro­
fessional—English and History, g. English and French, 
G. W. Watkins High School.

John A. Baker, age 39, Negro, male, b. 1961, c. 13 years, 
d. Wilburforce University B.S., e. Agriculture, f. Collegiate 
Professional, g. Agriculture, G. W. Watkins High School.



18

Charles J. Washington, Sr., age 53, Negro, male, b. 1962,
c. None, d. Virginia Union, B.A., e. English, f. Collegiate 
Professional—English and Latin, g. English, G. W. W at­
kins High School.

Seth Pruden, age 37, Negro, male, b. 1960, c. None, d. 
Virginia Union, B.S., e. History, £. Collegiate Professional 
—French and History, g. 7th grade, G. W. Watkins 
Elementary School.

Phillip Battle, age 24, Negro, male, b. 1963, c. None, d. 
St. Paul’s, B.A., e. History and Social Sciences, f. Col­
legiate—History and Social Sciences, g. 7th grade, G. W. 
Watkins Elementary School.

Natalie Boykins, age 24, Negro, female, b. 1964, c. 2 
years, d. Virginia State, B.A., e. Sociology, f. Collegiate— 
Sociology, g. 6th grade, G. W. Watkins Elementary School.

Julia Boyce, age 34, Negro, female, b. 1961, c. 10 years,
d. Virginia State, B.S., e. English and Physical Education,
f. Collegiate Professional—All grade subjects in 6th and 
7th, g. 5th grade, G. W. Watkins Elementary School.

Willie Gillenwater, age 34, Negro, female, b. 1963, c. 2, 
d. Virginia Union, B.A., e. Elementary Education, f. Col­
legiate Professional—English, g. 4th grade, G. W. Wat­
kins School—Elementary.

Audrey Dillard, age 28, Negro, female, b. 1963, c. 6 years, 
d. Virginia State, A.B., e. Social Studies, f. Collegiate Pro­
fessional—History, g. 4th Grade, G. W. Watkins School 
—Elementary.

Dorothy Joyner, age 28, Negro, female, b. 1961, c. 3 
years, d. Winston Salem, B.S., e. English & History, f. Col­
legiate Professional—Elementary, g. 2nd grade, G. W. 
Watkins School—Elementary.



19

Susie Bates, age 23, Negro, female, b. 1962, c. None, 
d. Virginia State, B.S., e. Elementary, f. Collegiate Pro­
fessional-Grades 1-7, g. 1st grade, G. W. Watkins School 
—Elementary.

Memorandum of The Court

F iled  M ay 17, 1966
The infant plaintiffs, as pupils or prospective pupils in 

the public schools of New Kent County, and their parents 
or guardians have brought this class action asking that the 
defendants be required to adopt and implement a plan which 
will provide for the prompt and efficient racial desegration 
of the county schools, and that the defendants be enjoined 
from building schools or additions and from purchasing 
school sites pending the court’s approval of a plan. The 
plaintiffs also seek attorney’s fees and costs.

The defendants have moved to dismiss on the ground that 
the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can 
be granted. They have also answered denying the material 
allegations of the bill.

The facts are uncontested.
New Kent is a rural county located east of the City of 

Richmond. Its school system serves approximately 1,300 
pupils, of which 740 are Negro and 550 are White. The 
school board operates one white combined elementary and 
high school, and one Negro combined elementary and high 
school. There are no attendance zones. Each school serves 
the entire county. Indian students attend a school in Charles 
City County.

On August 2. 1965 the county school board adopted a 
freeHom of choice plan to comply with Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000.d-1, et seq. The 
choices include the Indian school in Charles City County.



20
The county had operated under the Pupil Placement Act, 
§§ 22-232.1, et seq., Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 
As of September 1964 no Negro pupil had applied for 
admission to the white school. No Negro faculty member 
serves in the white school and no white faculty member 
serves in the Negro school.

New construction is scheduled at both county schools.
The case is controlled by the principles expressed in 

Wright v. School Bd. of Greenville County, Va., No. 4263 
(E.D. Va., Jan. 27, 1966). An order similar to that en­
tered in Greenville will deny an injunction restraining con­
struction and grant leave to submit an amendment to the 
plan for employment and assignment of staff on a non- 
racial basis. The motion for counsel fees will be denied.

/ s /  J o h n  D. B u t z n e r , J r .
United States District Judge

Order
F iled  M ay 17, 1966

For reasons stated in the Memorandum of the Court this 
day filed and in the Memorandum of the Court in Wright 
v. County School Board of Greensville County, Virginia, 
Civil Action No. 4263 (E.D. Va., Jan. 27, 1966),

It is adjudged and ordered :

1. The defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied;
2. The plaintiffs’ prayer for an injunction restraining 

school construction and the purchase of school sites is 
denied;

3. The defendants are granted leave to submit on or be­
fore June 6, 1966 amendments to their plan which will pro­
vide for employment and assignment of the staff on a non­



21

racial basis. Pending receipt of these amendments, the court 
will defer approval of the plan and consideration of other 
injunctive relief;

4. The plaintiffs’ motion for counsel fees is denied;

5. This case will be retained upon the docket with leave 
granted to any party to petition for further relief.

The plaintiffs shall recover their costs to date.
Let the Clerk send copies of this order and the Memo­

randum of the Court to counsel of record.
/ s/ J o h n  D. B u tzn er , J r .

United States District Judge

Exception to Plan Supplement
F iled  J u n e  10, 1966

The plaintiffs take exception to the defendants’ Plan 
Supplement adopted May 23, 1966 and filed herein pur­
suant to leave granted in this Court’s order of May 17, 
1966 to submit amendments which will provide for employ­
ment and assignment of the staff on a non-racial basis.

I

The Supplement does not contain well-defined proced­
ures which will be put into effect on definite dates. The 
Supplement does not even provide the “token assignments” 
which this Court warned would not suffice.

II

In all reality, the Supplement states the defendant school 
board’s refusal to take any initiative to desegregate the 
faculties of the several schools.



22

W herefore , the plaintiffs pray that their exceptions be 
sustained and that the defendants be required to forthwith 
eliminate all facets of racial segregation and discrimination 
with respect to administrative personnel, teachers, clerical, 
custodial and other employees, transportation and other 
facilities, and the assignment of pupils to schools and class­
rooms in the public schools of New Kent County and that 
the defendants be required to establish geographic attend­
ance areas for each public school in said county and assign 
each child to the school so designated to serve his area of 
residence.

Memorandum of The Court
F iled  J u n e  28, 1966

This memorandum supplements the memorandum of the 
court filed May 17, 1966. The court deferred ruling on the 
school board’s plan of desegration until after the board had 
an opportunity to amend the plan to provide for allocation 
of faculty and staff on a non-racial basis. The board has 
filed a supplement to the plan to accomplish this purpose.

The plan and supplement are:
I .

A n n u a l  F reedom of C ho ice  of S chools

A. The County School Board of New Kent County has 
adopted a policy of complete freedom of choice to be offered 
in grades 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of all schools without 
regard to race, color, or national origin, for 1965-66 and all 
grades after 1965-66.

B. The choice is granted to parents, guardians and per­
sons acting as parents (hereafter called ‘parents’) and their 
children. Teachers, principals and other school personnel



23

are not permitted to advise, recommend or otherwise in­
fluence choices. They are not permitted to favor or penalize 
children because of choices.

II.
P u p il s  E n ter in g  O th e r  Grades

Registration for the first grade will take place, after con­
spicuous advertising two weeks in advance of registration, 
between April 1 and May 31 from 9 :Q0 A.M. to 2 :00 P.M.

When registering, the parent will complete a Choice of 
School Form for the child. The child may be registered at 
any elementary school in this system, and the choice made 
may be for that school or for any other elementary school 
in the system. The provisions of Section VI of this plan 
with respect to overcrowding shall apply in the assignment 
to schools of children entering first grade.

III.

P u pil s  E nterin g  O th er  Grades

A. Each parent will be sent a letter annually explaining 
the provisions of the plan, together with a Choice of School 
Form and a self-addressed return envelope, by April 1 of 
each year for pre-school children and May IS for others. 
Choice forms and copies of the letter to parents will also 
be readily available to parents or students and the general 
public in the school offices during regular business hours. 
Section VI applies.

B. The Choice of School Form must be either mailed 
or brought to any school or to the Superintendent’s Office 
by May 31st of each year. Pupils entering grade one (1) 
of the elementary school or grade eight (8) of the high 
school must express a choice as a condition for enrollment. 
Any pupil in grades other than grades 1 and 8 for whom



24

a choice of school is not obtained will be assigned to the 
school he is now attending.

P u p il s  N ew ly  E n ter in g  S chool System  or 
C h a n g in g  R esidence  W it h in  I t

A. Parents of children moving into the area served by 
this school system, or changing their residence within it, 
after the registration period is completed but before the 
opening of the school year, will have the same opportunity 
to choose their children’s school just before school opens 
during the week of August 30th, by completing a Choice 
of School Form. The child may be registered at any school 
in the system containing the grade he will enter, and the 
choice made may be for that school or for any other such 
school in the system. However, first preference in choice of 
schools will be given to those whose Choice of School Form 
is returned by the final date for making choice in the regular 
registration period. Otherwise, Section VI applies.

B. Children moving into the area served by this school 
system, or changing their residence within it, after the late 
registration period referred to above but before the next 
regular registration period, shall be provided with regis­
tration forms. This has been done in the past.

V.
R esident  and N on-resident  A ttendance

This system will not accept non-resident students, nor 
will it make arrangements for resident students to attend 
public schools in other school systems where either action 
would tend to preserve segregation or minimize desegre­



25

gation. Any arrangement made for non-resident students 
to attend public schools in this system, or for resident stu­
dents to attend public schools in another system, will assure 
that such students will be assigned without regard to race, 
color, or national origin, and such arrangement will be ex­
plained fully in an attachment made a part of this plan. 
Agreement attached for Indian children.

VI.
Overcrowding

A. No choice will be denied for any. reason other than 
overcrowding. Where a school would become overcrowded 
if all choices for that school were granted, pupils choosing 
that school will be assigned so that they may attend the 
school of their choice nearest to their homes. No preference 
will be given for prior attendance at the school.

B. The Board plans to relieve overcrowding by building 
during 1965-66 for the 1966-67 session.

VII.
T ransportation

Transportation will be provided on an equal basis with­
out segregation or other discrimination because of race, 
color, or national origin. The right to attend any school in 
the system will not be restricted by transportation policies 
or practices. To the maximum extent feasible, busses will 
be routed so as to serve each pupil choosing any school in 
the system. In any event, every student eligible for bussing 
shall be transported to the school of his choice if he chooses 
either the formerly white, Negro or Indian school.



26

S ervices, F a c il it ie s , A c tiv ities  and P rograms

There shall be no discrimination based on race, color, or 
national origin with respect to any services, facilities, ac­
tivities and programs sponsored by or affiliated with the 
schools of this school system.

IX.

Sta ff  D esegregation

A. Teacher and staff desegregation is a necessary part of 
school desegregation. Steps shall be taken beginning with 
school year 1965-66 toward elimination of segregation of 
teaching and staff personnel based on race, color, or national 
origin, including joint faculty meetings, in-service pro­
grams, workshops, other professional meetings and other 
steps as set forth in Attachment C.

B. The race, color, or national origin of pupils will not 
be a factor in the initial assignment to a particular school 
or within a school of teachers, administrators or other em­
ployees who serve pupils, beginning in 1966-67.

C. This school system will not demote or refuse to re­
employ principals, teachers and other staff members who 
serve pupils, on the basis of race, color, or national origin; 
this includes any demotion or failure to reemploy staff mem­
bers because of actual or expected loss of enrollment in 
a school.

D. Attachment D hereto consists of a tabular statement, 
broken down by race, showing: 1) the number of faculty 
and staff members employed by this system in 1964-65; 2) 
comparable data for 1965-66; 3) the number of such per­
sonnel demoted, discharged or not re-employed for 1965-

VIII.



27

66; 4) the number of such personnel newly employed for 
1965-66. Attachment D further consists of a certification 
that in each case of demotion, discharge or failure to re­
employ, such action was taken wholly without regard to 
race, color, or national origin.

X.
P u b lic ity  and Co m m u n ity  P reparation

Immediately upon the acceptance of this plan by the U. S. 
Commissioner of Education, and once a month before final 
date of making choices in 1966, copies of this plan will be 
made available to all interested citizens and will be given to 
all television and radio stations and all newspapers serving 
this area. They will be asked to give conspicuous publicity 
to the plan in local news section of the Richmond papers. 
The newspaper coverage will set forth the text of the plan, 
the letter to parents and Choice of School Form. Similar 
prominent notice of the choice provision will be arranged 
for at least once a month thereafter until the final date for 
making choice. In addition, meetings and conferences have 
been and will be called to inform all school system staff 
members of, and to prepare them for, the school desegrega­
tion process, including staff desegregation. Similar meet­
ings will be held to inform Parent-Teacher Associations 
and other local community organizations of the details of 
the plan, to prepare them for the changes that will take 
place.

S u ppl em en t

“The School Board of New Kent County recognizes its 
responsibility to employ, assign, promote and discharge 
teachers and other professional personnel of the school sys­
tems without regard to race, color or national origin. We



28

further recognize our obligation to take all reasonable steps 
to eliminate existing racial segregation of faculty that has 
resulted from the past operation of a dual system based 
upon race or color.

“The New Kent Board recognizes the fact that New 
Kent County has a problem which differs from most coun­
ties in that the white citizens are the minority group. The 
Board is also cognizant of the fact that race relations are 
generally good in this county, and Negro citizens share in 
county government. A Negro citizen is a member of the 
County Board of Supervisors at the present time.

“In the recruitment, selection and assignment of staff, the 
chief obligation is to provide the best possible education for 
all children. The pattern of assignment of teachers and 
other staff members among the various schools of this sys­
tem will not be such that only white teachers are sought for 
predominantly white schools and only Negro teachers are 
sought for predominantly Negro schools.

“The following procedures will be followed to carry out 
the above stated policy:

1. The best person will be sought for each position 
without regard to race, and the Board will follow the 
policy of assigning new personnel in a manner that 
will work toward the desegregation of faculties. We 
will not select a person of less ability just to accomp­
lish desegregation.

2. Institutions, agencies, organization, and individ­
uals that refer teacher applicants to the school system 
will be informed of the above stated policy for faculty 
desegregation and will be asked to so inform persons 
seeking referrals.

3. The School Board will take affirmative steps to 
allow teachers presently employed to accept transfers



29

to schools in which the majority of the faculty members 
are of a race different from that of the teacher to be 
transferred.

4. No new teacher will be hereafter employed who 
is not willing to accept assignment to a desegregated 
faculty or in a desegregated school.

5. All workshops and in-service training programs 
are now and will continue to be conducted on a com­
pletely desegregated basis.

6. All members of the supervisory staff will be as­
signed to cover schools, grades, teachers and pupils 
without regard to race, color or national origin.

7. All staff meetings and committee meetings that 
are called to plan, choose materials, and to improve the 
total educational process of the division are now and 
will continue to be conducted on a completely desegre- 
ated basis.

8. All custodial help, cafeteria workers, maintenance 
workers, bus mechanics and the like will continue to 
be employed without regard to race, color or national 
original.

9. A rrangem ents will be made for teachers of one 
race to v isit and observe a classroom consisting of a 
teacher and pupils of another race to promote acquaint­
ance and understanding.”

The plaintiffs filed exceptions to the supplement charging 
that it does not contain well defined procedures which will 
be put into effect on definite dates and that it demonstrates 
the board’s refusal to take any initiative to desegregate the 
staff.



30

The plan for faculty desegregation is not as definite as 
some plans received from other school districts. The court 
is of the opinion, however, that no rigid formula should be 
required. The plan will enable the school board to achieve 
allocation of faculty and staff on a non-racial basis. The 
plan and supplement satisfy the criteria mentioned in 
Wright v. School Board of Greensville County, Va., No. 
4263 (E.D. Va., Jan. 27 and May 13, 1966).

Provision should be made for a registration period in the 
summer or immediately prior to the beginning of the 1966- 
67 term to allow pupils to exercise their choice of school. 
This is necessary because the supplement to the plan was 
adopted late in the school year. The summer or fall regis­
tration should present no administrative difficulties. Many 
of the schools which have adopted a freedom of choice plan 
provide for such registration as a matter of course.

It may become necessary for the board to modify the plan. 
It may become necessary to revoke in full or in part the 
approval that the court has given the plan. The case will 
remain on the docket for any of the parties to seek relief 
which future circumstances may require.

/ s /  J o h n  D. B utzner , J r .
United States District Judge

Order
E ntered J u n e  28, 1966

For reasons stated in the memorandum of the court this 
day filed and in Wright v. School Board of Greensville 
County, Va., No. 4263 (E.D. Va., Jan. 27 and May 13, 
1966), it is ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the plan 
adopted by the New Kent County School Board is ap­
proved.



31

This case will be retained on the docket with leave granted 
to any party to seek further relief.

Let the Clerk send copies of this order and of the mem­
orandum of the court to counsel of record.

/ s /  J o h n  D. B u tzn er , Jr.
United States District Judge

Notice of Appeal
F iled  J uly 28, 1966

Notice is hereby given that Charles C. Green, Carroll A. 
Green and Robert C. Green, infants, by Calvin C. Green and 
Mary O. Green, their father and mother and next friends, 
and all others of the plaintiffs, hereby appeal to the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from the 
order of this Court entered on June 28, 1966 by which the 
plan adopted by the defendants was approved.



32

APPENDIX B

IN TH E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

RICHMOND DIVISION

PECOLA ANNETTE WRIGHT, et al

Plaintiffs
v.

County  S chool Board of Greensville  
Co u n ty , V ir g in ia , et al

Defendants

C iv il  A ction  
No. 4263

Memorandum of The Court

The infant plaintiffs, as pupils or prospective pupils in 
the public schools of Greensville County, and their parents 
or guardians have brought this class action asking that the 
defendants be required to adopt and implement a plan which 
will provide for the prompt and efficient racial desegrega­
tion of the county schools, and that the defendants be 
enjoined from building schools or additions and from pur­
chasing school sites pending the court’s approval of a plan. 
The plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees and costs.

The defendants have moved to dismiss on the ground 
that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief



33

can be granted. They have also answered denying the ma­
terial allegations of the bill.

Greensville County is a rural county located on the North 
Carolina line. Approximately 4,500 pupils attend county 
schools, about 2,700 are Negro and 1,800 are white. Its 
school board operates one white and four Negro elementary 
schools, and separate Negro and white high schools. Both 
white schools are located in Emporia, a town near the 
center of the county.)Homes of Negro and white persons 
are scattered throughout the county. ||

Prior to September 1965, the county operated segregated 
schools based on a system of dual attendance areas. The 
white schools in Emporia served all white pupils in the 
county. The four Negro elementary schools were geo­
graphically zoned, and the Negro high school served all 
Negro pupils in the county.

Until April 1965 the county operated under the Virginia 
Public Placement Act, §§ 22-232.1, et seq., Code of Vir­
ginia, 1950, as amended. During that time only one Negro 
applied for admission to a white school, and she withdrew 
her application.

In April 1964 Negro citizens petitioned the school board 
to adopt a plan to desegregate the schools. The board did 
not comply with their request, and this suit was filed on 
March 15, 1965.

On April 21, 1965 the school board adopted a plan to 
comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 
U.S.C. § 2000.d-1, et seq. This plan has been amended 
several times. It was approved by the United States Com­
missioner of Education on January 12, 1966 after the hear­
ing in this case.

In September 1965, 72 Negro pupils were transferred, 
upon their applications, to white schools 35 to Emporia

4



34

Elementary School and 37 to the high school. One or more 
Negro pupils are in every grade from the first through the 
tenth.

There are no white teachers in the Negro schools and no 
Negro teachers in the white schools. The board has held 
integrated faculty meetings. Last summer an integrated 
faculty conducted a “Head Start” program in a Negro 
school, which was attended by 97 Negro children.

The Greensville County plan provides:
“The Greensville County School Board has adopted a 

policy of complete freedom of choice to be offered annually 
in all grades of all schools without regard to race, color or 
national origin.

Sectio n  I. A ssig n m en t  of P u pil s

“A form letter will be sent home by every child contain­
ing provisions of the freedom of choice plan with a place­
ment form at least 15 days before the date when the form 
must be returned. This procedure will be followed annually.

a . pre-registration  of first  grade 
p u p il s  for fall  of 1966

“Pre-registration of pupils planning to enroll in first 
grade for the fall 1966 semester will take place in all of the 
elementary schools on Friday, May 13. Under policies 
adopted by the Greensville County School Board parents 
or guardians may go directly to the school of their choice 
wherein they wish to send their child to school next year. 
At the time of pre-registration a choice may be expressed 
by filling in a Greensville County pupil placement form. 
The assignment will be made without regard to race, color, 
creed, or national origin. In the event of overcrowding pref­



35

erence will be given without regard to race to those 
choosing the school who reside closest to it. No choice sub­
mitted prior to the deadline will be rejected for any reason 
other than overcrowding of facilities.

“Pupils who fail to register on May 13 may be registered 
at the school of their choice on August 26th immediately 
prior to the opening of schools for the 1966 fall semester, 
but first preference in choice of schools will be given to those 
who pre-register in the spring period.

B. P U P IL S  E N T E R IN G  O T H E R  GRADES

Each parent will be sent annually a letter, the text of 
which is attached, explaining the provisions of the plan, 
together with a choice of school form, the text of which 
is also attached, at least 15 days before the date when the 
choice form must be returned. Choice forms and letters to 
parents will also be readily available to parents or students 
in the school offices during regular business hours.

“The choice of school form must either be mailed or 
brought to the school or to the Superintendent’s office within 
15 days from the date the forms were initially sent home by 
that school. The annual date for sending these forms home 
shall be May 1st or the closest school day thereto. Anyone 
not registering his choice by that date must file his choice 
of school form at the time of registration when school 
opens. Pupils and their parents or guardians are required 
to exercise their choice of schools and no pupil will be 
admitted or readmitted to any school until such a choice 
has been made as herein specified.

“This choice is granted to parents, guardians and their 
children. Teachers, principals, and other school personnel 
are not permitted to advise, recommend or otherwise in­
fluence choices. They are not permitted to favor or penalize 
children because of choices.



36

C, OVERCROWDING

All choices of pupils, their parents or guardians for every 
grade in the Greensville County School System will be sub­
ject to the following qualification:

“In the event overcrowding of a school would result if 
all choices to attend that school were granted, priority shall 
be given without regard to race, color or national origin, 
and with no preference for previous attendance at the school, 
to those children choosing the school who reside closest to 
it. In the case of elementary schools those whose choices to 
attend a school are denied on this basis will be notified and 
permitted to make a choice of another formerly all white or 
all Negro school. In the case of high schools those whose 
choices to attend a school are denied on this basis will be 
assigned to the other school in the system at which the grade 
is taught. Otherwise, all choices will be granted; none will 
be denied for any reason other than overcrowding. The 
standards prescribed by the Virginia Department of Public 
Instruction as to overcrowding shall be used in determing 
[sic] whether overcrowding exists with respect to any 
application which is denied.
“d. Any newly enrolled pupil who moves into the county 
may secure placement forms from the principal of the 
school of their choice necessary to complete registration and 
enrollment. The same detailed instructions mentioned above 
regarding their right of free choice of schools will be fur­
nished to them at this time.
“ e . This system will not accept non-resident students, nor 
will it make arrangements for resident students to attend 
schools in other school systems, where either such action 
would tend to preserve segregation or minimize desegrega­
tion. Any arrangement made for non-resident students to



37

attend schools of this system, or for resident students to 
attend schools in another system, will assure that such stu­
dents will be assigned without regard to race, color or na­
tional origin, and such arrangement will be fully explained 
in attachment made a part of this plan.

Section  II. Bus R outes

Transportation will be provided on an equal basis without 
segregation or other discrimination because of race, color 
or national origin. The right to attend any school in the 
system will not be denied because of lack of school system 
transportation from the pupil’s home to the school chosen 
and the pupil or his family may have to provide their trans­
portation if the school system is not required to provide it 
under the next sentence of this paragraph. To the maximum 
extent feasible, buses will be routed so as to serve each 
pupil choosing any school in the system. In any event, every 
student eligible for bussing shall be transported to the school 
to which he is assigned as a provision of this plan if his first 
choice is either the formerly white or the formerly Negro 
school nearest his residence.

Section  III. E xtra-Curricular A c t iv it ie s , 
F a c il it ie s  and Services

There shall be no discrimination based on race, color, or 
national origin, with respect to any services, facilities, 
activities and programs sponsored by or affiliated with the 
schools of this system.

S ection  IV. Sta ff  D esegregation

a . The Greensville County School Board will assign all 
teachers on the basis of objective criteria such as certifica­
tion, overall preparation and qualification for the position



38

desired. In the case of each teacher employed by the school 
system in the 1964-65 school year who is not now employed, 
the race, color or national origin of such teacher was not a 
factor in the decision not to continue his or her employment. 
Steps shall be taken starting with the 1965-66 school year 
for the desegregation of faculty, at least including such ac­
tions as joint faculty meetings and joint in-service programs. 
Commencing immediately the following steps will be taken 
toward the elimination of segregation of teaching and staff 
personnel:

“1. The pre-school in-service county-wide teachers meet­
ings will be held on a completely integrated basis.

2. All countywide staff meetings will be completely 
integrated.

3. All inservice classes will be open to all teachers re­
gardless of race, color or national origin.

“b. This school system will not demote or refuse to re­
employ principals, teachers, and other staff members who 
serve pupils on the basis of race, color or national origin. 
Any reduction in staff which may be required as a result 
of a decrease in enrollment will be accomplished without 
regard to race, color or national origin.”

The school board has prefaced its plan by stating it has 
adopted a policy of complete freedom of choice for assign­
ments.

Freedom of choice is a term frequently used when speak­
ing of school desegregation. It has several meanings which 
should not be confused. It may refer to enrollment of pupils 
in segregated schools with the aid of state tuition grants in 
preference to attendance at public desegregated schools. 
See Griffin v. School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 222 (1964) ;



39

Dure, Individual Freedom versus “State Action,” 38 Va. 
Q. Rev. 400 (1962) ; Dillard, Freedom of Choice and Demo­
cratic Values, 38 Va. Q. Rev. 410 (1962).

In its plan the county uses the phrase, “freedom of 
choice,” in an entirely different context. It employs the 
term to describe its method of assigning pupils to the public 
schools. The phrase probably was adopted from, “A Gen­
eral Statement of Polices under Title VI of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964 Respecting Desegregation of Elementary and 
Secondary Schools,” published by the Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare.

The term freedom of choice has been used to describe 
various methods of assigning pupils. One method initially 
assigns pupils on a racial basis and allows freedom of choice 
to transfer from the initial assignment. This system of as­
signment is not sanctioned in this Circuit. In Bradley v. 
School Board of the City of Richmond, Va., 345 F.2d 310, 
319 (4th Cir. 1965) vacated and remanded on other grounds, 
34 U.S.L. Week 3170 (U.S. Nov. 15, 1965), Judge Hayns- 
worth said:

“In this circuit, we do require the elimination of dis­
crimination from initial assignments as a condition of 
approval of a free transfer plan.”

Cf. Bowditch v. Buncombe County Bd. of Educ., 345 F.2d 
329 (4th Cir. 1965); Nesbitt v. Statesville City Bd. of 
Educ., 345 F.2d 333 (4th Cir. 1965); Buckner v. County 
School Bd. of Green County, Va., 332 F.2d 452 (4th Cir. 
1964).

Freedom of choice also has been used to refer to a non- 
restrictive assignment system. Judge Haynsworth described 
this method of assignment in Bradley v. School Bd. of the 
City of Richmond, Va., 345 F.2d 310, 314 (4th Cir. 1965),



40

vacated and remanded on other grounds, 34 U.S.L. Week 
3170 (U.S. Nov. 15, 1965):

“ [Ejvery pupil initially entering the Richmond school 
system, or his parents for him, is required to state his 
choice as to the school he wishes to attend. He is as­
signed to the school of his choice. Every pupil promoted 
from any elementary school in Richmond, or his parents 
for him, is required to make a similar choice, and he is 
assigned to the school of his choice as are those pro­
moted from junior high school to senior high school. 
Every other pupil is assigned to the school he previously 
attended, but he may apply for a transfer to any 
other school, and, since transfer requests are routinely 
granted without hearings or consideration of any 
limited criteria, he is assigned to the school of his 
choice.”

The Richmond plan was approved tentatively in Bradley. 
The pupil assignment features of the Greensville County 
plan are similar in material respects to those found in the 
Richmond plan. Greensville County requires a mandatory 
choice to be made annually by both white and Negro pupils. 
In this respect it satisfies a more strict interpretation of 
the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment than that 
which was applied to the Richmond plan. In Bell v. School 
Board of the City of Staunton, Va., No. 65-C-H (W.D.Va., 
Jan. 5, 1966), Judge Michie disapproved a plan which did 
not contain a provision for annual mandatory choice in all 
grades.

The principal attack leveled by the plaintififs against the 
plan is its failure to assign pupils on a geographical basis. 
They contend that a freedom of choice plan does not satisfy 
the school board’s obligation to eliminate racial segregation 
from the school system.

In this circuit both freedom of choice plans and geograph­



41

ical zoning plans have been found constitutional. Bradley v. 
School Board of the City of Richmond, Va., 345 F.2d 310 
(4th Cir. 1965) vacated and remanded on other grounds, 
34 U.S.L. Week 3170 (U.S. Nov. 15, 1965) (freedom of 
choice plan); Gilliam v. School Board of City of Hopewell, 
Va., 345 F.2d 325 (4th Cir. 1965) vacated and remanded 
on other grounds, 34 U.S.L. Week 3170 (U.S. Nov. 15, 
1965) (geographical zoning plan).

The school authorities have the primary responsibility for 
initiating plans to achieve a lawful school system. Brown 
v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299 (1955). This 
circuit has recognized that local authorities should be 
accorded considerable discretion in charting a route to a 
constitutionally adequate school system. Freedom of choice 
plans are not in themselves invalid. They may, however, 
be invalid because the “freedom of choice” is illusory. The 
plan must be tested not only by its provisions, but by the 
manner in which it operates to provide opportunities for a 
desegregated education. In this respect operation under the 
plan may show that the transportation policy or the capacity 
of the schools severely limits freedom of choice, although 
provisions concerning these phases are valid on their face. 
This plan, just as the Richmond plan approved in Bradley, 
is subject to review and modification in the light of its 
operation. Mr. Justice Stewart in Abington School Dist. v. 
Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 317 (1963) (dissenting opinion) 
said:

“A segregated school system is not invalid because its 
operation is coercive; it is invalid simply because our 
Constitution presupposes that men are created equal, 
and that therefore racial differences cannot provide a 
valid basis for governmental action.”



42

The Court recognizes that great weight should be given 
the approval of the plan by the United States Commissioner 
of Education. Singleton v. Jackson Municipal School Dist., 
348 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1965). The plan also must be tested 
by pertinent court decisions. Some of these have been pub­
lished since the plan was adopted. In general, the plan con­
tains adequate provisions for transition of the Greensville 
County school system.

The plan, however, is defective in one respect. Its pro­
visions for staff desegregation are too limited. A satisfactory 
freedom of choice plan must include provisions for the em­
ployment and assignment of staff on a non-racial basis. 
Bradley v. School Board of the City of Richmond, Va., 34 
U.S.L. Week 3170 (U.S. Nov. 15, 1965); Rogers v. Paul, 
34 U.S.L. Week 3200 (U.S. Dec. 6, 1965) ; Kier v. County 
School Bd. of Augusta County, Va., No. 65-C-5-H (W.D. 
Va. Jan. 5, 1966).

The primary responsibility for the selection of means to 
achieve employment and assignment of staff on a non-racial 
basis rests with the school board. Witnesses for the plain­
tiffs and the defendants were in general agreement about the 
steps that must be taken to satisfactorily resolve this prob­
lem. They were not in agreement on the time table for taking 
these steps. The time may vary from community to com­
munity. The court is of the opinion that in the first instance 
the board should have the opportunity to appraise realisti­
cally the time and methods required. Several principles must 
be observed by the board. Token assignments will not suf­
fice. The elimination of a racial basis for the employment 
and assignment of staff must be achieved at the earliest 
practicable date. The plan must contain well defined pro­
cedures which will be put into effect on definite dates. The 
board will be allowed ninety days to submit amendments



43

to its plan dealing with staff employment and assignment 
practices.

The plaintiffs request that the defendants be restrained 
from proceeding with the construction of new school build­
ings and additions or purchasing new school sites until an 
adequate plan has been adopted. In their pre-trial brief, 
filed November 17, 1965, the plaintiffs urge that the court 
should require the school board to eliminate the segregated 
character of the school system by locating new schools in 
the system so as to promote integration. Little evidence was 
introduced concerning new construction. Apparently the 
school board plans to add additional classrooms to both high 
schools. It also plans to construct a Negro elementary school 
with fifteen classrooms to serve grades one through seven 
with a capacity for approximately 450 pupils. This con­
struction is designed to rid a Negro school, known as the 
Greensville County Training School, of its outdated frame 
buildings.

This court is loathe to enjoin the construction of any 
schools. Virginia, in common with many other states, needs 
school facilities. New construction, however, cannot be used 
to perpetuate segregation. White pupils in the county have 
not transferred to Negro schools. Greensville County’s re­
cent experience shows that Negro pupils seek transfers to 
white schools. This could cause overcrowding of white 
schools coupled with vacancies in Negro schools. Denial of 
requests for transfers to white schools under these circum­
stances could require a geographical zoning plan or some 
other equitable means of assignment. The problem is rec­
ognized in Wheeler v. Durham City Bd. of Educ., 346 F.2d 
768, 774 (4th Cir. 1965), where Judge Boreman said:

“ [4] From remarks of the trial judge appearing in the 
record, we think he was fully aware of the possibility 
that school construction program might be so directed



44

as to perpetuate segregation. At the same time, he was 
reluctant to enter an order determining the location 
and size of new school facilities or what existing facili­
ties should be enlarged. He clearly indicated his cogni­
zance of the multitude of factors involved, such as the 
availability and cost of sites, the concentration of popu­
lation, the present overcrowed conditions, etc. How­
ever, he was not unmindful of the responsibility of the 
Board in this area and he made known his conclusion 
that the burden would be on the Board to reasonably 
justify its actions and to demonstrate its good faith. 
Without specific or binding direction, the court ex­
pressed the hope that there would be some consultation 
between the parties to the litigation concerning the ex­
pansion program. The order last entered stated that 
the court had the assurance of the Board that its con­
struction program would not be designed to perpetuate, 
maintain, or support desegregation. It has been held 
that a school construction program is an appropriate 
matter for court consideration. Conceivably the de­
termination of the extent to which a busy court might 
or should undertake to formulate, direct, supervise, or 
police such a program would pose many problems. In 
view of the numerous factors involved in determining 
what, how, where and when new facilities are to be 
constructed or what old facilities may best be enlarged 
and renovated to meet pressing needs, the court’s 
reluctance to issue a specific injunction is understand­
able, particularly since the Board was still subject to 
the provisions of the order of January 2, 1963, by 
which any and all acts that regulate or affect the 
assignment of pupils on the basis of race or color were 
enjoined.”

The primary responsibility concerning the selection of 
school sites and the construction of schools is the board’s. 
This responsibility includes the obligation of not thwarting 
the county’s freedom of choice plan by new construction.



45

The court concludes that new construction should not be 
enjoined. The evidence does not show that the plaintiffs 
will suffer irreparable harm. A new school building in itself 
cannot defeat the plaintiffs’ choice of a desegregated educa­
tion. The use, however, to which new facilities are put by 
the school board could cause a freedom of choice plan to 
become invalid. Then it will be necessary to modify the plan.

The plaintiffs’ motion for the allowance of counsel fees 
will be denied. At the time the suit was filed no Negro 
pupils were being denied transfers to white schools. The case 
primarily involves a plan of desegregation. The situation is 
similar to that found in Bradley v. School Board of the City 
of Richmond, Va., 345 F.2d 310, 321 (4th Cir. 1965) va­
cated and remanded on other grounds, 34 U.S.L. Week 
3170 (U.S. Nov. 15. 1965), where counsel fees were not 
allowed for that part of the litigation pertaining to consid­
eration of a plan.

The court concludes that defendent’s motion to dismiss 
the complaint for failure to state a claim should be over­
ruled. Cf. Rogers v. Paul, 34 U.S.L Week 3200 (U.S. Dec. 
6, 1965).

/ s/ J o h n  D. B utzner , J r .
United State District Judge

January 27, 1966



46

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

R IC H M O N D  D IV IS IO N

P ecola A n n e t t e  W r ig h t , et  al,

v.

Planitiffs

County  S chool B oard of Greensville  
Co u nty , V ir g in ia , et al,

Defendants

C iv il  A ction  
No. 4263

Memorandum of The Court

On May 4, 1966 the court considered a supplement to the 
plan for the desegregation of the Greensville County schools. 
The original plan is set forth in Wright v. School Bd. of 
Greensville County, Va., No. 4263 (E.D. Va., Jan. 27, 
1966).

It is the plaintiffs’ position that the proper way to achieve 
desegregation of the schools is by geographical zones. The 
school board’s plan provides for the assignment of pupils 
by the freedom of choice method. The supplement pertains 
to assignment of staff.

Reference is made to the January 27, 1966 memorandum 
for the principles which control this case. The court observed



47

that the freedom of choice plan generally contained adequate 
provisions for transition of the Greensville County School 
system. The court held, however, the provisions for staff 
desegregation were too limited. It granted the school board 
ninety days to file an amendment to the plan providing for 
the employment and assignment of the staff on a non-racial 
basis.

The board has submitted this supplement to its plan:

A REVISED P L A N  FOR IM P L E M E N T I N G  C O M P L IA N C E  W I T H

pu blic  law 88-352 by t h e  Greensville County  
S chool B oard for t h e  operation  and m a in t e ­
n a n c e  of t h e  p u b l ic  e l e m e n t a r y  and  h ig h  
schools in  Greensville  County , V ir g in ia

Adopted April 20, 1966 

faculty  su pplem en t

Add in Section IV five sub-sections as follows:
C. When vacancies occur in the future in teaching 

positions in the schools operated by this board, they 
will be offered without regard to race, color or national 
origin, and to the end that such may be effectuated, 
whenever such vacancies occur, notice of the vacancies 
and of the opportunity for employment therefor shall 
be advertised generally and notice thereof shall be 
posted publicly and prominently in all of the schools so 
operated.

D. In the recruitment and employment of teachers 
and other professional personnel, all applicants and 
other prospective employees will be informed that the 
Greensville County School Board operates a racially 
integrated school system and that the teachers and other 
professional personnel in the System are subject to as­
signment in the best interest of the System and without 
regard to their race or color.



48

E. Earnest effort will be immediately exerted to 
effectuate arrangements for the placing of at least one 
Negro on the faculty of every formerly white school, 
and at least one white person on the faculty of every 
formerly colored school by the beginning of the next 
school session, which will begin in September 1966.

F. For the Negro faculty members who are selected 
to enter the formerly white schools and for the white 
faculty members selected to enter the formerly Negro 
schools, as aforesaid, an in-service training program 
will be conducted beginning prior to September 1966 
with the purpose of enabling them to meet the challenges 
and problems of transition and so that they may be 
better enabled to contribute to the progress of public 
education in their new positions.

G. In the future, generally and so long as need there­
for appears to exist, an in-service training program will 
be offered to all teachers of all races in order to en­
hance their ability to adjust to new challenges brought 
about by desegregation, and in order to promote the 
educational progress and general welfare of all students 
of all races.

The court conducted a hearing, at which the supplement 
to the plan and exceptions filed by the plaintiffs were con­
sidered. The court concludes that the Greensville County 
freedom of choice plan, as supplemented by the provisions 
adopted April 20, 1966, cannot be approved.

In the memorandum filed January 27, 1966 the court said 
in part:

satisfactory freedom of choice plan must 
include provisions for the employment and assignment 
of staff on a non-racial basis, [citing cases]

“The primary responsibility for the selection of 
means to achieve employment and assignment of staff 
on a non-racial basis rests with the school board. Wit­
nesses for the plaintiffs and the defendants were in



49

general agreement about the steps that must be taken 
to satisfactorily resolve this problem. They were not 
in agreement on the time table for taking these steps. 
The time may vary from community to comunity. The 
court is of the opinion that in the first instance the 
board should have the opportunity to appraise realis­
tically the time and methods required. Several principles 
must be observed by the board. Token assignments will 
not suffice. The elimination of a racial basis for the 
employment and assignment of staff must be achieved 
at the earliest practicable date. The plan must contain 
well-defined procedures which will be put into effect on 
definite dates.”

The proposal submitted by the school board does not fol­
low the standards mentioned above. The plan has no well- 
defined procedures which will be put in effect on definite 
dates. It contains no assurance that the present pattern of 
allocation of staff on a racial basis will ever be changed. 
Its basic deficiency is the transfer of responsibility from the 
school board to individual teachers. It thrusts upon the 
teachers the onus of discharging the school board’s responsi­
bility to allocate the faculty on a non-racial basis.

This court recognizes that freedom of choice plans are 
under serious attack. Such plans, however, have been ap­
proved. E.g. Bradley v. School Board of the City of Rich­
mond, Va., 345 F.2d 310 (4th Cir.) vacated and remanded 
on other grounds 382 U.S. 103 (1965). This court does not 
intend to compromise or discredit the acceptability of free­
dom of choice as a method of assigning pupils in Virginia by 
approving Greensville’s plan.

The court recognizes that plans for employment and as­
signment of staff necessarily vary from district to district. 
A number of districts with diverse circumstances have sub­
mitted plans for the assignment of pupils and staff which 
have been approved on the joint motion of the parties.



50

Among these are plans adopted by school boards in Rich­
mond, Hanover, Hopewell and Goochland. The most recent 
of these is Goochland. The plan which it originally submitted 
is set forth in Turner v. School Bd. of Goochland County, 
Va., No. 4343 (E.D. Va., Jan. 27, 1966). In that case, as 
in Greensville, the court declined to approve the plan be­
cause of the limited nature of the provisions for the employ­
ment and assignment of staff. On May 4, 1966 the school 
board of Goochland County submitted a supplement which 
the court approved. The provision for the desegregation of 
the staff of the Goochland County schools is appended to this 
memorandum.

At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the Greens­
ville County School Board requested ten days time to amend 
the plan if the court disapproved it. This request will be 
granted.

/ s/ J o h n  D. B u tzn er , J r.
United State District Judge

APPENDIX
P lan of t h e  County  S chool B oard of Goochland 

County , V ir g in ia , to D esegregate 
I ts S chool F aculties

In order to meet the requirements of the opinion of the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Virginia filed on January 27, 1966, the County School Board 
of Goochland County, Virginia, hereby adopts this plan for 
the desegregation of its school faculties.

It shall henceforth be the policy of this School Board to 
take positive and affirmative steps to accomplish the desegre­
gation of its school faculties and it will achieve desegrega­
tion of faculties in as many of the schools as possible for



51

the 1966-67 school year in order that desegregation of facul­
ties in all schools will be accomplished no later than the 
1967-68 school year. The School Board adopts as its goal 
that the pattern of assignment of teachers and other profes­
sional staff among the various schools in its system may not 
be such that schools are identifiable as intended for students 
of a particular race, color, or national origin, or such that 
teachers or other professional staff of a particular race are 
concentrated in those schools where all, or the majority of, 
the students are of that race. In order to accomplish this 
purpose, it hereby adopts the following procedures (some 
of which have heretofore been in effect).

1. All members of the supervisory staff will be as­
signed to serve schools, teachers and pupils without 
regard to race, color or national origin.

2. It is recognized that it is more desirous, where 
possible, to have more than one teacher of the minority 
race (white or Negro) on a desegregated faculty.

3. The superintendent will review the membership 
of the present instructional staff to determine what 
teachers are to be transferred in order to accomplish 
desegregation, and will arrange such transfers when it 
will be to the best interests of the school system as a 
whole.

4. New teachers and staff members who may serve 
more than one school, such as librarians, music and 
physical education teachers will be assigned to serve 
schools, teachers and pupils without regard to race, 
color, or national origin.

5. As vacancies occur in the instructional staff, the 
superintendent will consider all applicants on the basis 
of their qualifications with a view to making employ­
ment selections of teachers who can be assigned in such 
a way as to further the program of faculty desegre­
gation.



52

6. All general faculty meetings, in-service programs, 
and workshops are and will continue to be racially de­
segregated.

7. The School Board and superintendent will exercise 
their best efforts, individually and collectively, to explain 
this program to school patrons and other citizens of 
Goochland County and to solicit their support of it.

8. Institutions, agencies, organizations and individ­
uals that refer teachers and staff to school systems in 
this State will, during the school year 1965-66, and 
thereafter, be informed of this school system’s policy 
of faculty desegregation and they will be asked so to 
inform persons seeking referrals.