Board of Visitors of the College of William and Mary in Virginia v. Norris Motion of the Appellee to Dismiss Appeal or Affirm Judgment

    I n  t h e

0u|irm£ (Hour! of %  Itutei* J t̂atps
O c to b er  T e r m , 1970 

No. 409

T h e  B oard oe E d u c a t io n  o f  t h e  L it t l e  R ock  
S c h o o l  D is t r ic t , et al.,

Petitioners,
■— v .—

D e l o r e s  C l a r k , et al.,
Respondents.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO CERTIORARI

J o h n  W . W a l k e r  
W a l k e r , R o t e n b e r r y , K a p l a n , 

L avey  a n d  H o l l in g s w o r t h  
1820 West Thirteenth Street 
Little Rock, Arkansas 72202

J a c k  G r e e n b e r g  
J a m e s  M. N a b r it , III 
N o r m a n  J .  C h a c h ii in  

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Respondents



I N D E X

PAGE

Citation to Opinions Below.............................................  1

Jurisdiction ........................................ -.......................... 2

Questions Presented ........................................................ 2

Statement .....    3
The Little Rock School District .................. .........  6
The Oregon and Parsons Plans ..................   9
Development of the Plan Rejected by the Court 

of Appeals ................................................ -.......- 11
Alternatives Available to the District ................    16

Argument .......................................................................  19

Conclusion .....................................................................  26

A p p e n d ix

Defendants’ Exhibit 24 ............................................  la
Defendants’ Exhibit 25 ................................ -........  2a
Defendants’ Exhibit 8 ............................................  4a
Defendants’ Exhibits P and G ...........................     6a
Exhibit H .................................................................. 8a



11

T a b le  of C ases
page

Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark. 1956), 
affd 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957); 2 Race Eel. L. Rep. 
934-36; 938-41 (E.D. Ark. 1957), aff’d 254 F.2d 808 
(8th Cir. 1958); 156 F. Supp. 220 (E.D. Ark. 1957), 
aff’d sub nom. Faubus v. United States, 254 F.2d 797 
(8th Cir.), aff’d 358 U.S. 1 (1958), 261 F.2d 97 (8th 
Cir. 1958); 169 F. Supp. 325 (E.D. Ark. 1959) ....1, 2, 4, 5 

Aaron v. Cooper, 163 F. Supp. 13 (E.D. Ark. 1958), 
cert, denied 357 U.S. 566 (1958) was reversed 257 
F.2d 33 (8th Cir. 1958), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v.
Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) ................................ ........  4

Aaron v. McKinley, 173 F. Supp. 944 (E.D. Ark.), 
aff’d sub nom. Faubus v. Aaron, 361 U.S. 197 (1959) 2, 5 

Aaron v. Tucker, 186 F. Supp. 913 (E.D. Ark. 1960), 
rev’d sub nom. Norwood v. Tucker, 287 F.2d 798
(8th Cir. 1961) ............................ .................. ______....  2, 5

Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396
U.S. 19 (1969)  ............... .......................................... 24

Andrews v. City of Monroe, No. 29358 (5th Cir., April 
23, 1970) ...................................................................  21

Bivins v. Bibb County Bd. of Educ. and Thomie v. 
Houston County Bd. of Educ., No. 29,121 (5th Cir., 
Feb. 5, 1970) ............

Brewer v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, Va., 
No. 14,544 (4th Cir., June 22, 1970) cert, denied 38
U.S.L.W. 3522 (June 29, 1970) ............................20,21

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).. . .4, 24, 26 
Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) .... 4
Byrd v. Board of Directors of Little Rock School Disk,

Civ. No. LR 65-C-142 (E.D. Ark. 1965) .................  9

Caddo Parish School Board v. United States, 389 U S. 
940 (1967) ........................................................... 23



I ll
PAGE

Christian v. Board of Education of Strong, Civ. No.
ED-68-C-5 (W.D. Ark., Dec. 15, 1969) ......... ...........  24

Clark v. Board of Education of Little Bock School
District, 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1966) ...... .......1, 2, 5, 8

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) ............................ 4

Davis v. Board of School Commr’s of Mobile, No. 436
O.T. 1970 ............. .............................. ............ ..........  22

Davis v. School District of City of Pontiac, 309 F. Supp.
734, 742 (E.D. Mich. 1970) ................... ...................  25

Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County,
423 F.2d 203, n. 7 (5th Cir. 1970) ........... ................. 21

Graves v. Board of Edue. of North Little Rock, C. A.
No. LR-68-C-151 (E.D. Ark.) ...................................  20

Green v. County School Board of New Kent County,
Va., 391 U.S. 430 (1968) ................................. .....5, 22, 23

Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate School Dis­
trict, 409 F.2d 682 (5th Cir.) cert, denied, 396 U.S.
940 (1969)  ................................................................ 22

Hilson v. Ouzts, No. 28491 (5th Cir., April 3, 1970) .... 20

Jackson v. Marvell School District No. 22, 416 F.2d 380 
(8th Cir. 1969)  ....................................................  22

Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board of Educ. of Nash­
ville, Civ. No. 2094 (M.D. Tenn., July 16, 1970) ......  23

Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction of Hillsbor­
ough County, No. 28643 (5th Cir., May 11, 1970) .... 22 

Monroe v. Board of Comm’rs of Jackson, No. 19720 
(6th Cir., June 19, 1970) 23



PAGE

Northcross v. Board of Education of the Memphis City 
Schools, 397 U.S. 232 (1970) ...................................

Safferstone v. Tucker, 235 Ark. 70, 357 S.W. 2d 3
(1962) ...... .......................... ....................... ................

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., No.
14.517 (4th Cir., May 26, 1970), cert, granted on
other issues, 38 U.S.L.W. 3522 (June 29, 1970) ___ 21,

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., No.
14.517 (4th Cir., May 26, 1970) cert, granted on
other issues, 38 U.S.L.W. 3522 (June 29, 1970) ___21,

United States v. Board of Educ., Independent School 
List. No. 1, Tulsa, No. 338-69 (10th Cir., July 28,
1970) ............ ..............................................................

United States v. State of Georgia, No. 29067 (5th Cir., 
June 18, 1970) ..........................................................

S ta te  S t a t u t e s

Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.A. §§3601 et seq. 
(Supp. 1970) ..............................................................

O t h e r  A u t h o r it ie s

Abrams, Forbidden Neighbors, 233 (1955) ....... .........

Racial Isolation in the Public Schools, A Report of the 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 201-02, 254, Legal 
Appendix at 255-56 ...................................................

Race and Place—A Legal History of the Neighborhood 
School, Weinberg, (U.S. Gov’t Printing Office, Cat­
alogue No. FS 5.238:38005, 1967) .............. ...............

Weaver, The Negro Ghetto, 71-73 (1948) .....................

20

8

22

22

20

20

25

25

25

19

25



I n t h e

§uprmj> drntrt nf % Inttel*
O c to b er  T e r m , 1970 

No. 409

T h e  B oard o f  E d u c a t io n  o p  t h e  L it t l e  R ock  
S c h o o l  D is t r ic t , et al.,

Petitioners,
-v-

D e l o r e s  C l a r k , et al.,
Respondents.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO CERTIORARI

Citation to Opinions Below

The opinion of the Court of Appeals issued May 13, 1970, 
of which review is sought by Petitioners, is not yet re­
ported; it is appended to the Petition at pp. A-l to A-25. 
The opinion of the district court was unreported and 
appears as an Appendix to the Petition, pp. A-27 to A-57.

Prior reported opinions in this case and its predecessor 
action1 appear as follows: Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 
855 (E.D. Ark. 1956), aff’d 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957);

1 The district court and the Court of Appeals recognized that 
Clark v. Board of Educ. of Little Rock was hut the continuation 
of the original Aaron v. Cooper suit brought in 1956 to desegregate 
the Little Rock public schools. See Joint Appendix below, at p. 7; 
Appendix to Petition for W rit of Certiorari, pp. A-2 to A-3.



2

2 Race Eel. L. Rep. 934-36; 938-41 (E.D. Ark. 1957), aff’d 
254 F.2d 808 (8th Cir. 1958); 156 F.Supp. 220 (E.D. Ark. 
1957), aff’d sub nom. Faubus v. United States, 254 F.2d 
797 (8th Cir. 1958); 163 F. Supp. 13 (E.D. Ark), rev’d 257 
F.2d 33 (8th Cir.), aff’d 358 U.S. 1 (1958); 261 F.2d 97 
(8th Cir. 1958); 169 F. Supp. 325 (E.D. Ark. 1959); Aaron 
v. McKinley, 173 F. Supp. 944 (E.D. Ark.), aff’d sub nom. 
Faubus v. Aaron, 361 U.S. 197 (1959); Aaron v. Tucker, 
186 F. Supp. 913 (E.D. Ark. 1960), rev’d sub nom. Nor­
wood v. Tucker, 287 F.2d 798 (8th Cir. 1961); Clark v. 
Board of Educ. of Little Rock, 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1966).

Jurisdiction

The jurisdictional prerequisites are adequately set forth 
in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Questions Presented

Respondents are unable to agree that the five “Questions 
Presented” in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari at pp. 
4-5 appropriately describe the issues posed by this litiga­
tion. Each of the “Questions Presented” described by Peti­
tioners assumes “fairly drawn attendance zones” although 
respondents contended, and the Court below found, that 
in the context of the forms discrimination and school seg­
regation took in Little Rock, the school board’s zoning plan 
was not fairly or constitutionally drawn.

The following statement of the Questions Presented is 
adapted from Respondents’ brief in the Court of Appeals:

1. Does a school district formerly segregated by law 
fulfill its constitutional obligation to convert to a uni­
tary system by adopting an assignment plan which 
conforms to racial residential patterns and which fails



3

to appreciably alter the pattern of racially separate 
school attendance characteristic of the dual system?
2. Can such an assignment plan be justified on the 
ground that it is a “neighborhood school” plan where 
the school district formerly assigned students to 
schools outside their “neighborhoods” in order to pre­
serve segregation?
3. Can such an assignment plan be justified on the 
ground that changing the segregated attendance pat­
terns in the public schools of the district may require 
the expenditure of funds to provide pupil transporta­
tion?

Statement
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari does not contain a 

reasonably detailed statement of the facts, the pleadings, 
or the desegregation plans presented to the district court; 
petitioners do not substantially rely upon the facts of rec­
ord as grounds for review. Yet the decision of the Court 
of Appeals is founded upon an assessment of the practical 
effects of the zoning plan in the light of the history of 
desegregation or the lack thereof, in this district since 
1954, and not upon abstract discussions of “racial balance.” 
See Appendix to Petition for Writ of Certiorari, pp. A-13, 
to A-16. Accordingly, and in view of the lengthy record, 
we think it appropriate to make available to the Court the 
following detailed recitation of the facts adapted from our 
Brief in the Court of Appeals.2

3 We have also reprinted as an Appendix to this Brief some of 
the trial exhibits reprinted in our Court of Appeals brief. The 
parties agreed that the joint Appendix would contain only the 
pleadings and the transcript but that either party might put before 
the Court of Appeals in the form of an appendix to its brief, such 
trial exhibits as it desired.



4

The current proceedings8 were formally commenced in 
Juy 1968 with the filing of a Motion for Further Relief

3 After Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the Little 
Rock school board adopted a plan of very gradual integration. 
When that plan was not implemented, Negro students and their 
parents brought suit in 1956. The initial plan, calling for complete 
desegregation by 1963, was approved by the district court that 
year, Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark. 1956). The 
Court of Appeals rejected arguments that more rapid desegrega­
tion should be required, in part for the reason that the first plan 
had been voluntarily adopted by the school board even before the 
second Brown decision (Brown v. Board of Educ., 349 IT.S. 294 
(1955)). Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). Subse­
quently, when white parents obtained a state injunction to prevent 
implementation of the plan in 1957-58, the district court restrained 
compliance with the order of the Arkansas court and mandated 
execution of the plan. Aaron v. Cooper, 2 Race Rel. L. Rep. 934-36, 
938-41 (E.D. Ark. 1957), ajf'd 254 F.2d 808 (8th Cir. 1958). The 
Governor of Arkansas then took measures to prevent Negroes from 
attending classes at the previously-white Central High School, in­
cluding the stationing of National Guardsmen with fixed bayonets 
at the school with orders to prevent the entry of Negro students. 
This conduct was enjoined in Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220 
(E.D. Ark. 1957) ajf'd sub nom. Faubus v. United States, 254 F.2d 
797 (8th Cir. 1958). However, intervention by federal troops under 
direct order of the President of the United States was required to 
effectuate compliance with the district court’s orders and with 
the Constitution. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 12 (1958).

After the conclusion of the 1957-58 school year, the board sought 
to delay implementation of the plan for at least three additional 
years because of the extent of white opposition to integration. The 
district court’s order approving a delay, Aaron v. Cooper, 163 F. 
Supp. 13 (E.D. Ark. 1958), cert, denied, 357 U.S. 566 (1958), was 
reversed, 257 F.2d 33 (8th Cir. 1958), ajf’d sub nom. Cooper v. 
Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).

Pursuant to emergency measures passed by the Arkansas Legisla­
ture in special session, the Governor of Arkansas then ordered all 
Little Rock high schools [the desegregation plan at that time ex­
tended only to the high school grades] to be closed indefinitely. 
Thereupon, the board undertook to lease its high school buildings 
to a segregated private school corporation. The district court denied 
an injunction against the leasing of the facilities, but the Court of 
Appeals reversed and required issuance of the decree, Aaron v. 
Cooper, 261 F.2d 97 (8th Cir. 1958). However, Little Rock public 
high schools remained closed during the 1958-59 school year, see



5

based upon Green v. County School Board of New Kent 
County, Virginia, 391 U.S. 430 (1968) and companion cases. 
In that Motion (A. 5a-14a),4 plaintiffs sought—and plain­
tiff-intervenors sought in their Complaint (see A. 27a-31a) 
—an order requiring the Little Rock School District to 
abandon its free choice plan of desegregation and to adopt 
and implement a plan of desegregation which “promises 
realistically” to convert now to a unitary school system.

Aaron v. Cooper, 169 F. Supp. 325 (E.D. Ark. 1959), until the 
Arkansas school closing legislation was declared void by a three- 
judge district court in Aaron v. McKinley, 173 F. Supp. 944 (E.D. 
Ark. 1959) (per curiam), aff’d sub nom. Faubus v. Aaron, 361 U.S. 
197 (1959).

The board then assigned pupils during the 1959-60 school year 
on the basis of regulations adopted by it pursuant to the Arkansas 
Pupil Placement laws, which required consideration of a multitude 
of factors other than residence (e.g., “the possibility of breaches of 
the peace or ill will or economic retaliation within the community”). 
An attack upon these laws was rejected by the district court, 
Aaron v. Tucker, 186 F. Supp. 913 (E.D. Ark. 1960), but its judg­
ment was reversed in Norwood v. Tucker, 287 F.2d 798, 802 (8th 
Cir. 1961), where the Court said, “ [wjhile we are convinced that 
assignment on the basis of pupil residence was contemplated under 
the original plan of integration, it does not follow that the school 
officials are powerless to apply additional criteria in making initial 
assignments and re-assignments.” The board’s use of the pupil 
placement laws was “motivated and governed by racial considera­
tions,” id. at 806, said the Court, and the board’s “obligation to 
disestablish imposed segregation is not met by applying placement 
or assignment standards, educational theories or other criteria so 
as to produce the result of leaving the previous racial situation 
existing as it was before.” Id. at 809.

The Clark plaintiffs in 1965 complained of continued manipula­
tion of the Pupil Placement laws to limit the movement of Negroes 
into previously all-white schools. The district court so found. See 
Clark v. Board of Educ. of Little Bock, 369 F.2d 661, 665 (8th 
Cir. 1966). While the district court’s opinion in that case was being 
prepared, the board determined to abandon the Pupil Placement 
laws in favor of a “freedom of choice” plan, subsequently approved 
by the district court and by the Eighth Circuit with certain di­
rected modifications. Clark v. Board of Educ. of Little Bock, supra.

4 Citations are to the Joint Appendix below.



6

After further proceedings, the district court approved a 
geographic zoning plan submitted by the board.

The L ittle  R ock School D istric t

At the present time there are five high schools, seven 
j u n i o r  high schools, and thirty-one elementary schools 
(Defendants’ Exhibit No. 24, p. la  infra)5 in the Little 
Rock School District, which served an estimated 1969-70 
student enrollment of 15,377 white students and 8,281 
Negro students (Defendants’ Exhibit No. 25, p. 3a 
infra). As the Court of Appeals noted in its opinion (See 
Appendix to Petition for Writ of Certiorari, p. A-6), the 
district generally forms an irregular rectangle with the 
longer side running from east to west along the Arkansas 
River. The most prominent exception to this pattern is 
the extension of the district in two finger-like projections 
at its northwest end. These have resulted from the district’s 
annexation, since 1956, of the white residential subdivisions 
of Walton Heights and Candlewood. Between the two “fin­
gers” lies a Negro residential area known as Pankey (A. 
485-589).

Since 1956 the district has expanded almost exclusively to 
the west.6 Of thirteen new school facilities opened since

6 See note 2 supra.
6 Expansion of the district has not benefited both white and Negro 

citizens of Little Rock. Various urban renewal projects since 1954 
have eliminated areas of Negro residences near the present Hall 
High School (A. 289), and in Pulaski Heights (A. 290-91). Of 
more than one hundred and seventy-five subdivisions developed in 
Little Rock between 1950 and 1968 (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 4), only 
two—Granite Mountain and University Park—have Negro res­
idents (A. 746). On the other hand, William Meeks, a member 
of the Little Rock School Board and Little Rock “Realtor of the 
Year” in 1967, testified of discrimination against Negroes in the 
sale of housing (A. 743-44). He said that he knew of no Little



7

that year, only three have been located in the east-central 
section of the city: Booker Jr. High, Ish and Gillam Ele­
mentary Schools. All were named for prominent Negroes 
(A. 473, 482); all were initially opened as Negro schools 
(A. 473, 477, 482) with all-Negro faculties (Ibid).

On the other hand, the district built nine schools'7 in West­
ern Little Rock between 1956 and 1969: Parkview High 
School, Henderson Junior High and Southwest Junior 
High Schools, Bale, McDermott, Romine, Terry, Western 
Hills and Williams Elementary Schools. In each instance, 
these schools were initially filled with an all-white faculty 
(A. 154) and they have remained identifiable as “white” 
schools.

The district court accepted “as obvious the proposition 
that the Little Rock District located new schools in the 
center of concentrations of one race and limited the capac­
ities of those schools to service only that particular com­
munity” (A. 155-56). Faculty assignments to these schools 
were then based on the racial composition of the neighbor­
hood (A. 153). Schools built since 1956 have been either 
nearly all-white or all-Negro (A, 152) ; they have never 
been located so as to promote desegregation and achieve­
ment of a unitary school system (A. 476, 486, 508), although 
the district has been aware since 1956 of the trend of popu­
lation movement, including the tendency of whites to move

Rock realtor, even up to the time of the hearing in this case, who 
would knowingly sell a lot in a “white” subdivision to a Negro 
(A. 294). Newspaper advertisements reflecting listings of sale prop­
erty by race were also introduced in evidence (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 
No. 3).

7 The thirteenth facility opened since 1956 was Metropolitan 
High School, a vocational-technical school serving both Little Rock 
and the Pulaski County Special School District. I t  is located out­
side the district’s boundaries.



west and of Negroes to remain in the center or eastern 
section of the city (A. 286-296, 637).8

8 Between 1956 and 1969 there were many instances of specific 
actions taken by the district which developed or reinforced the 
racial identifiability of its schools:

Bale and Williams Elementary schools were constructed prior 
to 1961 in all-white neighborhoods and staffed with all-white facil­
ities.

In 1961, the district decided to “convert” the previously all-white 
Bightsell elementary school to an all-Negro school in order to 
relieve overcrowding at nearby all-Negro elementary schools. No 
consideration was given to the possibility of operating all schools 
in the area on an integrated basis (A. 166-67; Safferstone V. 
Tucker, 235 Ark. 70, 357 S.W. 2d 3 (1962)).

In 1963-64, while Henderson Junior High School was under con­
struction, white pupils living in the far western section of the 
city were transported by school district bus past West Side and 
Dunbar Junior High Schools to attend the previously all-white 
East Side Junior High (A. 171). No attempt was made to bus 
these students to the nearest “neighborhood school” and/or to in­
tegrate Dunbar. When construction of Booker Jr. High was com­
pleted and East Side closed, however, only the Negro East Side 
students were assigned to Booker; the white students went to West 
Side (A. 478). Booker also drew students from overcrowded Dunbar 
Jr. High (A. 496). Thus, the district did not make use of an_op­
portunity presented to it in 1964-65 to disestablish the identities 
of West Side and Henderson as white junior high schools and 
Booker and Dunbar as Negro junior high schools.

In 1963-64 the district opened Gillam Elementary School, located 
in an all-Negro area, as a Negro school with an all-Negro faculty 
(A. 473). Gillam was constructed nearly adjacent to the existing 
Negro Granite Mountain Elementary School. Both schools are pres­
ently operating under capacity, but when the district contemplated 
construction of Gillam, no consideration was given either to ex­
panding existing capacity at other elementary schools or to locating 
a new facility so as to promote desegregation (A. 474).

In 1965 another primary school named for a Negro citizen was 
opened with an all-Negro faculty—Ish Elementary School (A. 481- 
82). At the same time, all-Negro Capital Hill Elementary School 
was closed and its students assigned to other all-Negro schools, in­
cluding Ish, rather than to nearby white elementary facilities (A. 
482). Although the district was supposed to be operating under 
freedom of choice at the time, see Clark v. Board of Educ. of Little 
Bock, supra, 369 F.2d at 665, students assigned to Ish were not 
afforded a choice of schools until the district was ordered to permit



9

The O regon and P arsons Plans

In 1966, the school hoard contracted with a team from 
the University of Oregon to prepare a long range plan of 
desegregation for the district (A. 61-62). The findings of 
that team were reported in early 1967 and became known 
as the “Oregon Report” (Defendants’ Exhibit No. 7). Ba~

choice in Byrd v. Board of Directors of Little Bock School Dist., 
Civ. No. LR 65-C-142 (E.D. Ark. 1965).

When all-Negro Pfeifer and Carver schools became overcrowded, 
the district did not offer Negro students a second choice of schools 
(A. 315-16), but moved portable classrooms to the site to expand 
the capacity of the schools and contain the Negro student popula­
tion (A. 498-99). In contrast, Hall High School was declared over­
crowded under the freedom-of-choice plan, necessitating the estab­
lishment of an attendance zone. However, when the board drew 
the zone it made no attempt to maximize desegregation in the 
school (A. 222-23).

In addition to staffing new schools with all-white or all-Negro 
faculties, the district hired teachers on a strictly racial basis 
through 1964-65 (A. 28) ; thereafter, all attempts to achieve fac­
ulty integration were on a purely voluntary basis only (A. 255). 
And prior to July 1968, except for two white principals at Negro 
schools, the district maintained a racial allocation of prineipalships, 
with white principals at traditionally white schools and Negro 
principals at “Negro” schools (A. 121-22).

In 1966, the district purchased a school site in Pleasant Valley, 
an exclusively white upper-middle class subdivision (Defendants’ 
Exhibit No. 30; A. 213, 485), again without any consideration of 
the racial composition of the neighborhood or the past history of 
segregation (A. 486). Any school constructed on the site (there is 
still a sign announcing that a school will be built on the site) would 
be all-white; were Pleasant Valley, Walton Heights and Candle- 
wood subdivisions not within the Little Rock district, the closest 
school would be a predominantly Negro school in the Pankev area 
(A. 488-89).

Finally,—and this list is by no means exhaustive of the means 
by which this district maintained the segregated character of its 
system—the school district undertook to build a new senior high 
school (Parkview) in the far western section of the city in 1967 
despite the availability of over four hundred vacant classroom 
spaces at Horace Mann High School (A. 144-45). Three high 
schools could still serve the high school population of the district 
(A. 131) ; the overcrowding at the time was in junior high schools 
(A. 617-18).



10

sically, the report recommended abandonment of the neigh­
borhood school concept and restructuring of the district’s 
schools through a capital building program combined with 
pairing to create an educational park system (Ibid). The 
cost of implementing the “Oregon Report” in its entirety 
was estimated to be some ten million dollars; however, as 
the chief author and director of the study (Dr. Goldham- 
mer) explained, much of this amount would have had to be 
expended for building replacement and remodeling anyway 
(A. 367). The Oregon Report would also have required a 
transportation system for the school district (Ibid).

Following issuance of the Oregon Report, a school board 
election was held in November 1967. Two incumbent mem­
bers of the board who supported the recommendations of 
the Oregon Report were replaced by candidates who cam­
paigned against it (A. 416-18), and the vote was interpreted 
as an indication (a) that the public would not support 
implementation of the recommendations, and (b) that the 
public would not vote bond monies or tax levies sufficient 
to implement them.

The school board then directed the Superintendent and 
his staff to prepare their own recommendations of a deseg­
regation plan for Little Rock (A. 69). The Superintendent’s 
proposals quickly became known as the “Parsons Plan” 
(A. 70). The Parsons Plan proposed measures to deseg­
regate Little Rock high schools and two groups of elemen­
tary schools, but made no proposals for other elementary 
schools or for junior highs. In March 1968, the board placed 
a $5 million bond issue for implementing the Parsons Plan 
on the ballot (A. 73-74). The millage increase for the bonds 
was rejected (A. 75) and again, candidates favoring no 
change in the status quo defeated incumbents wffio sup­
ported the Superintendent’s plan (A. 180-81. See also, A. 
417-21).



11

D evelopm en t o f the P lan R ejec ted  by the  
Court o f A ppeals

After the school district had responded to the Motion 
for Further Relief, the district court set a hearing for 
August 15, 1968 and suggested that the Board devise a 
geographic zoning plan (A. 32a). The district did present 
a geographic attendance zone plan at the August hearing 
(A. 76). However, this plan was characterized as an “in­
terim” measure (A. 320) which required further study (A. 
91); the district opposed making any change from freedom- 
of-choice for 1968-69 and the hearing was limited to whether 
or not a shift ought to be required for 1968-69. After the 
second day of testimony, the hearing was recessed in order 
to allow the district to develop and present a final plan 
to completely disestablish the dual system effective with 
the 1969-70 school year (A. 403-04). That plan was sub­
mitted November 15, 1968 (A. 408d-408g).

Although cost was a major factor in the decision to 
submit a zoning plan, no cost analysis of various alterna­
tive approaches was ever requested or made (A. 513-14, 
548-49).

The plan of the school board established mandatory at­
tendance areas for all schools except the district-wide vo­
cational-technical facility, Metropolitan High School. The 
zones were approved as submitted except that the district 
court required (A. 912-13) that the Hall High School zone 
be redrawn in accordance with the October 10th proposal 
of the Superintendent putting 80 Negro students in Hall 
High School (which had been rejected by the Board).

The results under the two zoning plans and the past 
enrollments at Little Rock schools are shown in the follow­
ing table:



TABLE 1

(Pupil
(Segregation) ' Placement)

1956 
Enrol­
lment

1960-61
Enrol­
lment

(Limited
Free Choice) (Free Choice) (Aaron)

196U-65
Enrol­
lment

1968-69
Enrol­
lment

Zones
1956
Plan

(Clark I ) 
Zones
1965
Plan

(Clark II)
Zones Zones

8/68 11/68
Plan Plan

Faculty 
Assignments 
11/68 Plan

School w N . w K V N W N N w N w N w N w N
“ ~ “ ” r r

HIGH SCHOOLS 

White:

3 3 ^Central 21*75
*/or 1686 7 2206 76 151*2 512 2107 2005 210 121*9 61*1* 11*1*7 1*81 85 15

Hall ' — . . . 881* 5 1 5 U0 18 11*36 1* 835 0 11*58 60 11*08 3 1361 U 81* 16

Parkview

Negro:

--- — — “““ 519 1*6 « — "— —“ 863 56 72 9 52 81* 16

Mann

JR. HIGH SCH00I

0

s

582 0 821 0 1239 0 801 363 1*13 359 1065 233 912 66 978 71 29

White:

East Side 852 0 6o 6 0 — — — — 355 255 — — — — — — —

West Side 1268 0 1006 0 9l*7 36 657 318 807 283 252 738 1*71 398 1*95 395 80 20

Pulaski Heights 1*83 0 880 0 800 12 613 36 61*1* 1*0 779 39 672 65 61*9 56 78 22

Forest Heights 678 0 851* 0 975 1* 101*0 8 760' 0 937 1 908 0 901* 1* 8 1 . 19
Henderson — — — — 1*52 1* 822 16 — 683 66 808 2 813 0 79 21

Southwest 938 0 991* 2 98? 27 866 51* 966 1*2 859 62 911* 1*1 80 20



TABLE 1 (continued) P. 2

{Segregation)
1956

Enrol­
lment

(Pupil 
' Placement) 

1960-61 
Enrol­
lment

(Limited 
Free Choice) 

1961*-65 
Enrol­
lment

(Free Choice) 
1968-69 
Enrol­
lment

(Aaron)
Zones
1956
Plan

(Clark I> 
Zones
1965
Plan

(Clark II)  
Zones 
8/68 
Plan

Zones
11/68
Plan

Faculty 
Assignments 
11/68 Plan

School ~~~Y~ E W N W N W N W “ W N W N W N w N

JR. HIGH SCHOOIS % %

Negro?

Dunbar o 1053 0 11*07 0 952 0 685 283 717 289 661* 79 800 27 71*1 si L3

Booker —  — 0 669“ 0 756 0 703 .................. 252 738 136 705 89 71*7 56 1*1*

ELEMENTARY SCH('OLS

White?

Bale 1*1* 2 '0 508 0 501 3 31*9 0 U6l 1 1 1*61 11 67 33

Brady 1*85 0 ^ 669 o ■ 669 1 657 0 665 0 665 0 68 32

Centennial 283 0 306 10 138 202 217 29 129 11*9 109 231 57 1*3

Fair Park 35U 0 266 0 253 0 208 0 227 0 227 0 67 33

Forest Park 532 0 51*1* 0 383 2 1*51 0 370 1 370 1 71 29

Franklin 706 0 61*9 0 511 11 607 56 526 61 526 61 72 28

Garland 1*37 0 371 0 283 15 263 1 213 7 260 62 71 28

Jacks cn 21*6 0 278 3 — 250 89 — — — — — —
Jefferson 672 0 612 0 513 0 623 0 531* 0 531* 0 71 29

Kramer 31*7 0 283 0 91 76 139 63 118 95 78 70 63 37

Lee 1*33 0 376 2 210 155 267 11* 218 70 219 70 62 38



TABLE 1 (continued)

(Pupil
(Segregation) ' Placement) 

1956 1960-61

(Limited
iVee Choice) (Free Choice) 

196U-65 1968-69
Enrol- Enrol- Enrol- Enrol-
lment _____ Iment lment lment

School W to w tt W w M

ELEMENTARY SCH( OLS

<hlte:

McDeimott —  . . . . — — . . . — 1*1*8 1

Meadow: l i f  f . U29 1*99 0 579 0

Mitchell 379 0 355 27 1*1 331*

Oakhurst 1*73 0 396 2 281 53
Parham 1*38 0 1*07 0 270 81

Pulaski Heights 569 0 530 0 1*1*6 5
Romine 336 0 1*81 7 ' 316 97
Terry — — 267 0

1*/
12

1*90 0
Westfem Hills — — 178 206 6
Williams 1*23 0 615 0 71*5 6
Wilson 81*3 0 551 10 1*11 77
Woodruff 329 0 328 2 212 62

fegro:

Bush 0 196 0 199 0 113
Capital Hill 0 1*57 0 237 — —

(Aaron)
Zones
1956
Plan

P- 3

(Clark I ) (Clark IX)
Zones Zones Zones Faculty
1965 8/68 11/68 Assignments
Flan P lan________ Plan 11/68 Plan

W N W N w N w
%

N
%

___ . . . 1*11* 0 1*12 0 6 9 31

1*85 0 553 0 553 0 73 27

276 25 102 292 97 290 . 67 33

360 31 330 21* 330 21* 69 31

209 130 187 151* 199 161 71 29

l*5o 7 333 0 333 0 69 •3̂

1*35 86 380 100 380 100 72 28

21*2 0 1*1*2 0 1*1*2 0 72 28

— — 201* 0 201* 0 67 33

592 2 616 3 616 3 67 33

521 11 1*37 1*6 1*37 1*6 70 30

235 0 216 18 232 1*6 70 30

— . . . — — — — — —

. . . . . . —  - — — —



TABLE 1 (continued) p. 1*

(Pupil (Limited
Segregation) 

1956 
Enrol­
lment

‘ Placement) 
1960-61 
Enrol­
lment

Free Choice) 
196U-65 
Enrol­
lment

(Free Choice) 
1968-69 
Enrol­
lment .

(Aaron)
Zones
1956
Plan

(Clark I> 
Zones 
1965 
Plan

(Clark XI) 
Zones 

8/68 
Plan

Zones
11/68
Plan

Faculty- 
Assignments 
11/68 Plan

School W N •W N ¥ N W N W N W N W N W N w N

ELEMENT ARE SCH<OLS % %

tfegro;
%

Carver 0 785 0 901* 0 81*2 281* 731 16 791* 16 791* 56 Ui

Gibbs 0 839 0 1*97 0 390 70 289 20 317 1*8 389 56 1*1*

Gillam 0
2,

188 0 185 0 213 . . . — 18 11*1 18 11*1 56 1*1*

Ish — . . . 0 587^ 0 589 391 355 13 606 8 1*81* 56 1*1*

Granite Mounta: n 0 557 0 176 0 U66 12 611* 0 1*71 0 1*71 59 la

Pfeifer 0 136 0 178 0 190 281* ¥
731 11* 11*1 11* 11*1 57 1*3

Rightsell 0 373 0 901 0 390 109 329 51 391* 5U 390 56 1*1*

Stephens 0 1*86 0 582 0 369 1U5 369 83 365 31* 313 57 1*3

Washington 0 538 0 580 0 506 1*1* 1*99 10 505 7 1*83 58 1*2

%*/ Including Te hnical High S :hool students In itia l Enrollment 1 >63-61* Y I n i t ia l  Enrc  ̂lment 1961-6

t^ /  In itia l Enro: .lment 1966-67 'H \ /  Carver- Pfeifer A y  In it ia l  Enrc .lment 1965-6 $



16

Fewer Negro students wrould attend predominantly white 
schools under the zoning plan than had been enrolled in 
such schools under freedom of choice (A. 534-35); there 
would be “very little” integration under the zoning plan 
(A. 162) since the zones were drawn in a manner that al­
lowed schools to remain all-white and all-Negro (see A. 
434).

Most of the witnesses at the hearing agreed that the 
Parsons Plan was a better integration plan, albeit incom­
plete, than the board’s zoning proposal (A. 129 [superin­
tendent Parsons], 194 [Board President Barron], 298-99 
[Board member Meeks], 678 [Dr. Dodson], 819 [Dr. Gold- 
hammer, principal author of the Oregon Beport]). The 
Superintendent also testified that various zones drawn in 
the board’s plan, such as those for Gillam Elementary and 
Hall High Schools, did not further the goal of integration 
(A. 158). From his study of the board’s proposals, Dr. 
Goldhammer concluded that they did not provide for a 
unitary school system, and wmuld not be an improvement 
over free choice (A. 381-82).

A lternatives A vailable to  the D istric t

Plaintiffs’ expert witness Dr. Dodson said that the zones 
froze in the segregated character which the schools had 
developed in the past (A. 686). He recommended imple­
mentation of a plan not based on the neighborhood school 
concept (A. 673-74). He traced the origin of the concept 
to the “common school” notion at the base of public educa­
tion (A. 658-59) but said that the neighborhood school had 
become “a place where people who are more privileged try 
to hide . . . and it’s been, made sacred in recent thinking 
about in proportion as Negroes get close to it. It has be­
come an exclusive device, that is the opposite of the com-



17

munity school” (A. 659). Dr. Dodson pointed out that in 
a city with racially segregated housing patterns, effective 
desegregation could not be accomplished if the neighbor­
hood school concept were adhered to (A. 673-74). Only by 
eliminating the racial identities of the schools and allowing 
them to take on new identities as common schools could an 
integrated unitary system be achieved (A. 681-82). He dis­
cussed alternative approaches used in other districts (A. 
674-76). He was of the opinion that if Little Rock’s high 
schools were to be zoned to desegregate them, the zones 
should have been drawn from east to west as in the Parsons 
Plan (A. 678).

Dr. Gfoldhammer testified that the initial study of the 
Little Rock School District by the team which drafted the 
Oregon Report demonstrated that the district’s progress in 
eliminating the dual system was much slower than could 
have been expected; that considering the rapid growth in 
enrollment in the school system, free choice would never 
have worked (A. 357-59).9 Whereas the board’s plan pro­
posed to zone all schools, the University of Oregon team 
had concluded that in a residentially segregated commu­
nity such as Little Rock, no single approach would do the 
entire job of conversion to a unitary system (A. 365). The 
Oregon team’s recommendations therefore incorporated 
several different features: a capital construction program 
to develop educational parks and larger attendance cen­
ters, pairing some schools and a busing system of student 
transportation (A. 365-67). Although the report carried 
a cost estimate of $10 million, this price included consider­
able replacement or modernization of facilities which would 
have had to be carried out irrespective of any desegrega-

9 Superintendent Parsons stated that he had never expected 
white students to choose identifiably Negro schools under freedom 
of choice (A. 330-31).



18

tion plan (A. 367). The cost of coming as close to the 
Report as possible without abandoning or remodeling build­
ings would require less than $500 thousand, for busing, 
inservice training and compensatory education programs 
(A. 368-69).

Dr. Goldhammer said that the Parsons Plan, the Oregon 
Report and the “Walker”10 plan were each better means 
of desegregating the schools than the board’s zoning pro­
posals (A. 399, 819). (He estimated that the “Walker” 
plan would be the least expensive to implement, A. 821). 
The Board President, also, was of the opinion that these 
plans would result in more integration in the Little Rock 
public schools than would be accomplished under the zoning 
plan. They would thus eliminate the racial identifiability 
of the schools, something which the zoning plan would fail 
to achieve (A. 762. See also, A. 298, 636).

The district rejected these alternatives because they each 
required expenditure of funds which Little Rock voters 
had demonstrated, by their votes on the bond issues, that 
they would not provide (A. 334, 337-40, 415-23, 428, 456, 
653-54). The Superintendent said, in fact, that the com­
munity had “turned down every educationally desirable 
plan and now we are left with only zoning as a feasible 
plan” (A. 556-557). Some funds were available to the dis­
trict, however, including State monies for a transportation 
system (A. 341-43, 641-46) and Dr. Goldhammer suggested 
that funds might have to be diverted in order to accom­
plish unification of the system (A. 821).

The District Court approved the Board’s zoning plan. 
The Court of Appeals held that action was error.

. 10 A Plan developed by a group of Negro citizens and organiza­
tions which combined grade restructuring, pairing and transporta­
tion with recommendations for future development of larger, more 
centralized attendance centers.



19

ARGUMENT

As we read the Petition, the Little Rock School Board 
urges review of the decision below on two major grounds: 
that the Eighth Circuit has required Little Rock to abandon 
the “neighborhood school” method of assignment, and that 
the Courts of Appeals are divided in their interpretations 
of this Court’s school desegregation decisions.

Petitioners assert (p. 11) that
[t]he effect of the majority opinion below is to deny 
to the Little Rock School District the right to assign 
its public school students as they are assigned, and 
have been for decades, by the vast majority of the 
nation’s school districts.

The fact is that “neighborhood schools” have been paid lip 
service only, and not much more, not only in Little Rock 
but throughout most of the country. See Weinberg, Race 
and Place—A Legal History of the Neighborhood School 
(LT.S. Gov’t Printing Office, Catalogue No. PS 5.238:38005, 
1967). When “neighborhood schools” would have meant 
integrated schools, this school system was unwilling to draw 
geographic attendance zones.

Petitioners correctly state that when this litigation was 
begun plaintiffs suggested the remedy of attendance zoning. 
That remedy would have meant desegregation so the school 
district opposed it while it built white schools in western 
Little Rock. However, to say, as petitioners do (p. 7), that 
when zoning was adopted in 1969 “plaintiffs achieved the 
basic relief they had earlier sought in the suit” is to con­
fuse form with substance. Surely the majority of the Court 
of Appeals was correct in not assigning any magic value to 
“neighborhood schools” but investigating whether there 
would be integrated schools.



20

No other Court of Appeals would have approved the 
Little Rock plan.11 In an opinion remarkably similar to 
that below, for example, the Tenth Circuit has recently 
held:

The attendance zones as originally formulated were 
superimposed upon racially defined neighborhoods and 
were, therefore, discriminatory from their inception 
[citing Brewer v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk, 397 
F.2d 37 (4th Cir. 1967)]. . . . Similarly, the pattern 
of new school construction has preserved, rather than 
disestablished, the racial homogeny of the Tulsa at­
tendance zones.
As conceived and as historically and currently admin­
istered, the Tulsa neighborhood school policy has con­
stituted a system of state-imposed and state-preserved 
segregation, a continuing legacy of subtle yet effective 
discrimination.

United States v. Board of Educ., Independent School Dist. 
No. 1, Tulsa, No. 338-69 (10th Cir., July 28, 1970).

11 Virtually every district court opinion which petitioners claim 
(Petition, pp. 13-14) evidences confusion about the meaning of this 
Court’s decisions has been reversed, and appropriate guidelines 
given by the Courts of Appeals. Bivins v. Bibb County Bd. of Educ. 
and Thomie v. Houston County Bd. of Educ., No. 29,121 (5th Cir., 
February 5, 1970) ; Hilson v. Ouzts, No. 28491 (5th Cir., April 3, 
1970) ; United States v. State of Georgia, No. 29067 (5th Cir., 
June 18, 1970) (permitting intervenors to contest adequacy of 
desegregation formulas and suggesting their facial invalidity) ; 
Brewer v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk, No. 14,544 (4th Cir., June 
22, 1970), cert, denied, 38 U.S.L.W. 3522 (June 29, 1970). The 
Northcross decision cited by petitioners was reversed by this Court, 
397 U.S. 232 (1970). In Graves v. Board of Educ. of North Little 
Rock, where the parties are represented by the same counsel as in 
this litigation, it was agreed that plaintiffs’ appeal be dismissed on 
the condition that further proceedings in the district court would 
be governed by the outcome of the Little Rock appeal.



21

The Fourth Circuit since 1968 has consistently held that 
“neighborhood schools” cannot abort the constitutional im­
perative. Brewer v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk, supra; 
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ. No. 14,517 
(4th Cir., May 26, 1970), cert, granted on other issues, 38 
U.S.L.W. 3522 (June 29, 1970).12

The Fifth Circuit has approved plans which it views as 
preserving “neighborhood schools” only where such plans 
establish unitary school systems; no plan has been approved 
which results in as little actual desegregation as Little 
Rock’s. E.g., Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange 
County, 423 F.2d 203, 208, n. 7 (5th Cir. 1970) (“Under 
the facts of this case, it happens that the school board’s 
choice of a neighborhood assignment system is adequate to 
convert the Orange County school system from a dual to a 
unitary system”); Andrews v. City of Monroe, No. 29358 
(5th Cir., April 23, 1970) (typewritten slip opinion at p. 4: 
“However, we do not reject the School Board’s plan solely 
on the ground that it does not fit the Orange County defini­
tion of a ‘neighborhood’ system. Even if, as presently 
constituted, the plan were a true neighborhood plan, we 
would reject it because it fails to establish a unitary sys-

12 “The District Court should not tolerate any new scheme or 
‘principle,’ however characterized, that is erected upon and has the 
effect of preserving the dual system. This applies to the ‘neighbor­
hood school’ concept, a shibboleth decisively rejected by this court 
in Swann (Judge Bryan dissenting), as an impediment to the per­
formance of the duty to desegregate. The purely contiguous zoning 
plan advanced by the Board in that case was rejected by five of 
the six judges who participated. A new plan for Norfolk that is 
no more than an overlay of existing residential patterns likewise 
will not suffice.” Brewer v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk, No. 
14,544 (4th Cir., June 22, 1970) (concurring opinion of Sobeloff 
and Winter, JJ., pp. 1-2), cert, denied, 38 U.S.L.W. 3522 (June 29, 
1970).



22

tem.”) ; Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction of Hills­
borough County, No. 28643 (5th. Cir., May 11, 1970).13

Finally, the Sixth Circuit has recently rejected the argu­
ment that zoning is per se constitutional.

The District Court, in examining the record before it, 
has apparently determined that revision of the atten­
dance zones is necessary to insure the Board’s compli­
ance with its affirmative duty to disestablish segrega­
tion with a plan which “promises realistically to work 
now.” There is nothing in the record, including the 
failure of the prior reviewing courts to disturb the zon­
ing, which would justify disturbing the District Court’s 
determination. Nor does the absence of a finding that 
the present zones were racially gerrymandered or that 
the Board acted in bad faith preclude the District Court 
from ordering this remedial relief. Green v. County 
School Board, supra, at 439; Jackson v. Marvell School 
District No. 22, 416 F.2d 380, 385 (8th Cir. 1969) ; 
Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate School Dis­
trict, 409 F.2d 682, 684 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 396 U.S. 
940 (1969).
The Board’s assertion that the District Court’s order 
requiring revision of the zones was designed to achieve 
a predetermined racial balance [footnote omitted] in

13 In noting our view, based on our reading of the decisions, that 
none of the Courts of Appeals would have affirmed the district 
court’s acceptance of the Little Bock zoning plan, we do not mean 
to suggest agreement with the Fourth Circuit’s limitation of remedy 
by its “reasonableness” doctrine, see Petition for W rit of Certiorari. 
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., No. 281, O.T. 1970, 
cert, granted, June 29, 1970, 38 U.S.L.W. 3522, or with the Fifth 
Circuit’s use of the “neighborhood school” doctrine to justify a 
lesser number of segregated schools in a district than Little Bock’s 
plan would have produced, see Petition for W rit of Certiorari, 
Davis v. Board of School Commr’s of Mobile, No. 436, O.T. 1970.



23

the schools in violation of section 407(a)(2) of the 
Civil Bights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000c-6) is also 
without merit. . . .

Monroe v. Board of Comm’rs of Jackson, No. 19720 (6th 
Cir., June 19, 1970) (slip opinion at pp. 5-6). See also, 
Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board of Educ. of Nashville, 
Civ. No. 2094 (M.D. Tenn., July 16, 1970).

This matter is best put in its proper perspective by ex­
amining what the Court of Appeals did, and not what peti­
tioners say it did! Little Rock’s plan was not rejected 
because “several” (Petition, p. 8) schools remained racially 
identifiable. Compare Appendix to Petition, pp. A-15 to 
A-16, pp. 13-15 supra. It was rejected because it effected 
at most a de minimus change in the patterns of racially 
segregated school attendance which characterized the dual 
system in Little Rock. All that has been decided is that 
“desegregation” plans which don’t work are not constitu­
tional; racial balance has been neither required nor pro­
hibited. The arguments of Petitioners are thus much like 
those made three years ago by school boards when the Fifth 
Circuit indicated that free choice plans would not be in­
definitely approved if they failed to produce integration. 
Caddo Parish School Bd. v. United States, 389 TJ.S. 940 
(1967).

The decision below is completely in accord with the spirit 
of Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent County, 391 
U.S. 430 (1968), where in the context of free choice this 
Court refused to view any particular method of desegrega­
tion as sacrosanct, emphasizing instead the result. The 
Court of Appeals properly concluded that “geographic 
attendance zones . . . must be tested by this same standard.” 
(Appendix to Petition, p. A-14). Petitioners attempt to 
circumvent application of so pragmatic a test to their zon-



24

ing plan by interpreting Brown v. Board of Educ. to have 
sanctioned attendance zoning for all time.

This Court in Brown recognized geographic districting 
as the normal method of pupil placement and did not 
foresee changing it as the result of relief to be granted 
in that case. . . . the original command of Brown that 
public school systems must operate free from racial 
classifications has not been altered by this Court’s sub­
sequent decisions in the matter. This was confirmed 
as recently as Alexander v. Holmes County Board of 
Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969), in which this Court said 
it was the constitutional duty of every school district 
to operate “school systems within which no person is 
to be effectively excluded from any school because of 
race or color.”

(Petition, pp. 11, 16). Even if this Court in Brown had 
viewed zoning as a sufficient remedy in the cases before it14 
(perhaps in all cases) and had not foreseen changing it, 
we think it is also fair to say that this Court anticipated 
compliance with its decision rather than the fourteen years 
of evasion and continued discriminatory practices which 
mark this case. “Defendants contend that they have ex­
cluded no one from any school, but they are still effectively 
operating dual schools.” Christian v. Board of Educ. of 
Strong, Civ. No. ED-68-C-5 (W.D. Ark., Dec. 15, 1969).

One final argument of the Petitioners deserves note. They 
seek to characterize a school district’s choice of the zoning 
attendance assignment method as an innocent choice, which 
may produce racially identifiable schools only “ [b]ecause 
of the tendency of the people in this country, north, south, 
east or west, to reside in those areas of a city populated

14 As noted above, geographic zoning in Little Eock in 1956 
would have meant desegregation. See p. 19 supra.



25

by other citizens of their race” . . This pernicious argu­
ment is, first, totally unsupported by any evidence in this 
record. In fact, this record contains uncontradicted evi­
dence to the contrary concerning racial discrimination 
which is pervasive in Little Rock (A. 294, 743-44, Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit No. 3; cf. A. 289-91, 746). Second, petitioners’ bald 
assertion is rebutted by innumerable studies by govern­
mental bodies., Racial Isolation in the Public Schools, A 
Report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 201-02, 254, 
Legal Appendix at 255-56, and private authors, e.g., 
Abrams, Forbidden Neighbors 233 (1955); Weaver, The 
Negro Ghetto 71-73 (1948). Third, it is disproved by re­
cent affirmative action of the Congress, Fair Housing Act 
of 1968, 42 TJ.S.C.A. §§3601 et seq. (Supp. 1970). Finally, 
it ignores the very real complicity, through site selection, 
staffing, etc., of the school district in the existing pattern 
of racially identifiable schools. See the opinion below, 
Appendix to Petition, pp. A-15 to A-16, nn. 19-22 and ac­
companying text. “The question is no longer where the 
first move must be made in order to accomplish equality 
within our society; the question has become and possibly 
always has been who has the power and duty to make those 
moves so as to advance the accomplishment of that equal­
ity.” Davis v. School Dist. of City of Pontiac, 309 F. Supp. 
734, 742 (E.D. Mich. 1970).

This case is an inappropriate one for review, then, be­
cause (1) there is no difference of opinion between the 
various Courts of Appeals on the constitutionality of a 
zoning plan which produces as little real desegregation as 
Little Rock’s; (2) the opinion below neither forbids “neigh­
borhood schools” nor mandates “racial balance” in the pub­
lic schools—it is the rejection of a specific plan evaluated 
in the context of the specific factual circumstances of this 
district; (3) the Court was clearly correct in insisting that



26

desegregation plans achieve desegregation in order to win 
judicial approval. This school district’s distortion of Brown 
v. Board of Educ., supra, is deserving of no less rapid dis­
patch by this Court than the similarly twisted interpreta­
tion of that decision offered by the Norfolk School Board. 
(Review of the Fourth Circuit’s rejection of their theory 
was denied by this Court one week after the Court of Ap­
peals’ decision). At best, this case is one for summary 
affirmance.

CONCLUSION

W h e r e f o r e , Respondents respectfully pray in light of 
the foregoing that the writ be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

J o h n  W . W a l k e r  
W a l k e r , R o t e n b e r r y , K a p l a n , 

L avey  a n d  H o l l in g s w o r t h  
1820 West Thirteenth Street 
Little Rock, Arkansas 72202

J a c k  G r e e n b e r g  
J a m e s  M. N a b r it , III 
N o r m a n  J .  C h a c h k in  

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Respondents



APPENDIX



LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 
FACULTY DESEGREGATION 

1969-70

The L it t le  Rock Public Schools w ill assign and reassign  teachers fo r the 
1969-70 school year to achieve, the following:

1. The number cf Negro teachers w ithin each school of the d i s t r i c t  w ill 
range from a minimum of 15% to a maximum of 45%.

2. The number of white teachers w ithin each school of the d i s t r i c t  w ill 
range from a mininun of 55% to a naxinun of 65%.

A pplication of the above regulations to incumbent personnel would 
re su lt  in the following facu lty  assignments for 1969-70. However, loss of 
incumbent personnel through normal a t t r i t i o n  and resignations due to these 
proposed reassignm ents, and the re su ltin g  necessity  to employ replacement 
personnel, make i t  impossible to cake a p rec ise  estim ate of the faculty  
assignments by race for 1969-70 a t th is  time.

School

1968-69 
teachers 

N W T N

1969'
teach

w.

-70
era

T
Negro 

No. %
Whit

No.
:e

/•

• or -
teach
N

in
ers

W

Sr. High

Central 5 93 98 14 78 92 14 15 78 85 + 9 -15

Hall 1 68 69 10 54 64 10 16 54 84 + 9 -14

Mann 36 5 41 14 34 48 14 29 34 71 -22 +29

M etropolitan 2 39 41 7 34 41 7 17 34 83 + 5

Parkview 7 24 31 6 31 37 6 16 31 84 -  1 + 7

Total Sr. H. 51 229 280 51 231 282 51 231

J r .  High

Booker 31 4 35 17 22 39 17 44 22 56 -14 +1S

Dunbar 30 4 34 16 21 37 16 43 21 57 -14 a-17

For. H ts. 1 44 45 8 34 42 8 19 34 81 + 7 - 1 0

Henderson 4 36 40 8 31 39 8 21 31 79 + 4 - 5

Pul. Hts. 1 30 31 7 25 32 7 22 25 78 + 6 C*“ J

Southwest 1 44 45 9 35 44 9 20 35 80 + 8 -  s

West Side 5 39 44 8 33 41 8 20 33 80 + 3 -  6

Total J r . H. 73 201 274 73

I1 
° C4 274 73 201



1968-69 1969-70 + or -  in
teachers teachers Negro White teachers

School N W T N W T No. % •No. % N W

Elementary
:

Bale 2 16 18 6 12 18 6 33 12
1 :

67 + 4 -  4

Brady 2 22 24 8 17 25 8 32 17 68 + 6 -  5

Bush 5 1 6

Carver 29 4 33 16 20 36 16 44 20 56 -13 +16

Centennial 4 9 13 6 8 14 6 43 8 57 + 2 -  1

Fair Park 1 9 10 3 6 9 3 33 6 67 4- 2 -  3

For. Park 2 13 15 4 10 14 4 29 10 71 + 2 -  3

Franklin 2 20 22 7 18 25 7 28 ' 18 72 + 5 - 2

Garland 1 12 13 4 10 14 4 28 10 71 + 3 -  2

Gibbs 16 0 16 8 10 18 8 44 10 56 - 8 +10

Gillam *7
i

o*m Qy 4 5 9 4 44 5 56 -  3 + 3

Gr. Mtn. 13 3 16 7 10 17 7 41 10 59 -  6 + 7

Ish 15 5 20 8 10 18 8 44 10 56 -  7 + 5

Jefferson 2 18 20 6 15 21 6 29 15 71 + 4 -  3

Kramer 2 6 8 3 5 8 3 37 5 63 + 1 -  1

Lee 3 11 14 5 8 13 5 38 8 62 + 2 '  -  3

McDermott 3 14 17 5 11 16 5 31 11 69 + 2 -  3

M e ad o w c l i f f 2 20 22 6 16 22 6 27 16 73 + 4 -  4

M i t c h e l l 3 11 14 5 10 15 5 33 10 67 + 2 -  1

Oakhurst 2 10 12 4 9 13 4 31 9 69 + 2 -  1

Parham 3 10 13 4 10 14 4 29 10 71 + 1 0

P fe ife r 7 1 8 3 4 7 3 43 4 57 -  4 + 3

Pul.. H ts 1 17 18 4 9 13 4 31 9 69 + 3 -  8

R i g h t s e l l 13 • 4 17 8 10 18 8 44 10 56 -  5 + 6



1968-69
teachers

1969-70
teachers Negro White

+ or -  in
teachers

School N W T N W T No. % No. % N W

Rom in e 2 14 16 5 . 13 18 5 28 13 72 + 3 -  1

Stephens 12 2 14 6 8 14 6 43 ' 8 57 -  6 + 6

Terry 1 18 19 5 13 18 5 28 13 72 + 4 -  5

Washington 16 3 19 8 11 19 8 42 11 58 -  8 + 8

Western H ills 1 8 9 3 6 9 3 33 6 67 + 2 -  2

Williams 2 23 25 7 17 24 7 29 17 71 + 5 -  6

Wilson 2 17 19 6 14 20 6 30 14 70 + 4 -  3

Woodruff 1 9 10 3 7 10 3 30 7 70 + 2 -  2

Total Elem. 177 332 509 177 332 509 177 332

I f  a l l  t e a c h e r s  i n  t h e  L i t t l e  Rock S c h o o l  System r e t u r n e d  f o r  t h e  1969-70  
s c h o o l  y e a r ,  t h e  f o l l o w i n g  numbers  o f  Negro and w h i t e  t e a c h e r s  would be 
t r a n s f e r r e d  from t h e i r  1968-69  s c h o o l  o f  a s s i g n m e n t .

Negro White

Senior High 23 34

Junior High 28 35

Elementary 60 63

Total 111 132

Grand Total 243



la

Defendants’ Exhibit 24



2a

Defendants’ Exhibit 25

(See Opposite) GET



ST U D E N T  D E S E G REGATION - 1969-70
/

The Little Rock School District will he divided into geographic attendance zones 
for elementary, junior high, and senior high schools ns indicated on the accompanying map 
The distribution of students according to race will he approximately that indicated in 
Tables I, II, and III.

TABLE T

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL PROJECTIONS 
ACCOMPANYING MAP MIT:] 11th AD
school attended in iocs- go a*in
IN 196S-61:

IT)?. 1962-70 USING ZONES AS SHOWN ON' THE 
12th GRADE STUDENTS CONTINUING IN TIE 
TIE RACIAL COMPOSITION OE EACH SCHOOL

High School
1968-6 9 Enrollment 1969--70 Projections

W Total ~~lr~ W Total
Central s i : 1,542 2,054 481 1,447 1,928
Hall 4 1,436 1,440 4 1,361 1,365
I !ann 801 0 801 978 GG 1,044
Parkview h6 519 565 52 729 781

* Parky iev; consisted  of grades 8, 9, and 10 in  1968-69. 
I t  w ill serve grades 9, 10, and 11 in 1969-70.

TABLE II

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL PROJECTIONS FOR 1969-70 USING ZONES AS SHOWN ON THE 
ACCOMPANTING HAP WITH 1950-70 NINTH GRADE STUDENTS CONTINUING IN  T IE  
SCHOOL ATiTNDEI) IN 19C3-69 AND THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF EACH SCHOOL 
IN 1968-69:

Jun io r High School
1968-69 Enrollment -----^ --------- Total

1969-70 Projections. J W W Total
Booker 703 0 703 747 89 836
Dunbar 685 0 605 741 27' 768
Forest Heights 8 1,040 1 ,043 4 904 908
I ierderson 16 822i 83S 0 813 813
Pulaski Heights 36 613 649 56 649 705
Southwest 27 987 1,014 41 914 955
West Side 657 318 975 495 395 890



table III

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECTIONS FOR 1969-70 IJSI MO ZONES AS SHOV7N OM THE 
ACCOMPANYING MAP AND THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF EACH SCHOOL IN 1968-69

Capacity -  1968-69 Enrollment ’ 1969-70 Projections
Elementary
School

28 x No. of 
Classrooms N W T otal N W Total

Bale 532 3 501 504 11 461 472

Brady 644
»

. 1 669 670 0 665 665

Carver 840 822 0 822 794 16 810

Centennial 336 202 138 340 231 109 340

F a ir Park 308 0 253 253 0 227 227

Forest Par’: 532 2 383 385 1 370 371

Franklin 700 11 511 522 61 526 587

Garland 392 15 283 298 62 260 322

Gibbs 504 390 0 390 389 48 437

Gillam 364 213 0 213 141 18 159

Granite Mount 504 466 0 466 471 0 471

Ish 504 589 0 589 484 8 492

Jefferson 672 0 513 513 0 534 534

Kramer 308 76 91 167 70 78 148

Lee 448 155 210 365 70 219 289

McDermott 364 1 448 449 0 412 412

Meadcwcliff 672 0 579 579 0 553 553

M itchell 364 334 41 375 290 97 387

Oakhurst 392 53 281 334 24 330 354

Parham 364 81 270 351 161 199 360

P fe ife r 112 190 0 190 141 14 155

Pulaski Hgts,, 448 5 446 451 0 333 333



F-LL'ICTTARY SCHOOLS, Continued, page 2

Elementary
Capacity - 
28 x No. of

1968--69 Enrollment 1969--70 P rojections

School Classrooms N W Total N W Total

R igh tsell ifd8 390 0 390 390 54 444

Ronine son 97 316 413 100 380 • 480

Stephens 560 369 0 369 313 34 347

Terry 532 0 490 490 0 442 442

Washington 560 506 0 506 483 7 490

Western H ills  280 6 206 212 0 204 204

Williams 700 6 745 751 3 616 619

Wilson 504 77 411 488 46 437 483

Woodruff 336 62 212 274 46 232 278





4a

Defendants’ Exhibit 8

(See Opposite) B5r'



LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS

If n on -over lap p in g  attendance d is t r ic t s  w ere  cre a te d  at a ll  l e v e l s  
(e lem en ta ry , junior high sch o o l,  and sen io r  high sch o o l) ,  the pattern  
of e n ro llm en t  by r a c e s  would c lo s e ly  approxim ate  the fo llow ing:

Senior High School E ff ic ien cy
C apacity

White N egro Total

C entral High School 2, 400 2, 005 210 2, 215

Hall High School 1 ,4 0 0 1 ,4 5 8 60 1, 518

Mann High School O o 359 1 ,0 6 5 1 ,4 2 4

T otals 5, 200 3, 822 1, 335 5, 157

Junior High School
E ff ic ie n c y
Capacity White N egro Total

B ooker 900 252 738 990

Dunbar 1 ,0 0 0 289 664 953

F o r e s t  H eights 1 ,0 0 0 937 1 938

H enderson 750 683 66 749

P u la sk i  Heights 750 779 39 818

Southwest 1 ,0 0 0 966 42 1 ,0 0 8

West Side 900 538 316 854

Total 6, 300 4 ,4 8 9 1 , 8 6 6 6, 355



E L E M E N T A R Y  S C H O O L S

School
Efficiency
Capacity White Negro

Bale 532 349 0Brady 672 657 0C arver-Pfeifer 1008 284 731Centennial 336 217 29F air Park 336 208 0Forest Park 560 451 n
Franklin 728 607 56Garland 532 263 1Gibbs 784 70 289Granite Mt, 896 12 614Jackson 308 250 89Jefferson 700 623 0Kramer 336 139 63Lee 504 267 14Meadowcliff 504 485 0M itchell 420 276 25Oakhurst 448 360 31Parham 392 209 130Pulaski Heights 588 450 7
R ightsell 448 109 329Romine 532 435 86Stephens 560 145 369Washington 560 44 499Williams 532 592 2Wilson 532 521 11
Woodruff 336 235 o30th 6 Pulaski 504 391 355Terry 364 242 __ 0

Total 14952 8891 3730

Total

349
657

1015
24620S
451
663
264
359
626
339
623
202
281
485
301
391
339
457
438
521
514
543
594
532
235
746
242

12621

GRAND TOTAL 26452 17202 6931 24123



5a

:



6a

Defendants’ Exhibits F and G

(See Opposite) ESP



EXHIBIT ¥

Residence! Location of White and Nostro Senior High 
School Students by School Attendance Areas and 

Grades—November 1 Oof)
C entral and T ech n ic a l  H igh  S cjiool

10th 11th 12th Total
T otal W h it e ................  902 821 752 2475'

H orace M anx H igh S chool

T otal N egro ................. 248 204 150 ZJ'
l

CO lO

T otal W h it e  and N egro

EXHIBIT G

School District Enumeration—May, 1956

Little Rock Public Schools
Senior High School Attendance Areas
Grades 10-12 Inclusive

%
White Colored Total Colored

Horace Mann High School 363 413 776 53.2%

Central High School and 
Tech High School ....... 2107 337 2444 13.6%

West End High School 
(Est, 1957) . . ............... 835 0 835 0.0%

G rand T otal 4055



7a



8a

Exhibit H

(See Opposite) SSF”



EXHIBIT If

Forecast of Junior Highi School Pupils Entitled to Free
Public Education by Junior High School Atte ndance Areas
for the School Year 1957-58 Based Upon the Enumeration

Completed May, 1956
% of % of Total

No. School Jr. Hi. Age
1hipils Membership Enumeration

East Side "White 355 58.2
Negro 255 41.8
Total 610 100.0 12.14

West Side White 807 74.1
Negro 283 25.9
Total 1090 100.0 21.30’

Pulaski Heights White 644 92.7
Negro 40 7.3
Total 684 100.0 13.56'

Forest Heights White 760 100.0
Negro 0 0.0
Total 760 100.0 15.10

Southwest White 866 94.4
Negro 54 5.6
Total 920 100.0 18.20

Dunbar White 283 28.3
Negro 717 71.7
Total 1000 100.0 19.70

G rand T otal 5084 100.00



9a



MEILEN PRESS INC. —  N, Y. C. 219