Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County Briefs & Appendices

    In t h e

i>upr?mp (Unurt n f ilf? lu itTfc i>tat?B
October Term, 1970

No.'jBfe

B iedie M ae Davis, et al.,

v.
Petitioners,

B oard op S chool Commissioners op 
M obile County, et al.

MOTION TO ADVANCE AND 
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Jack Greenberg 
James M. N abrit, I II  
M ichael Davidson 
N orman J. Chachkin  

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

V ernon Z. Crawford 
A lgernon J. Cooper 

1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

Attorneys for Petitioners





Opinions Below 

Jurisdiction ....

I N D E X

PAGE

1

2

Question Presented ............................................................ 2

Constitutional Provision Involved ..................................  3

Statement:
1. A Brief Overview of the School System........... 3

2. Summary of Proceedings in the Courts Below 4

3. The Techniques of Segregation ......................... 12

Beasons for Granting the W rit:

I. The Decision Below Conflicts With Rulings 
Both of This Court Since Brown and of Other 
Courts of Appeals. It Absolves School Boards 
of Responsibility to Provide Equal Educational 
Opportunity to Black Students Contained in 
Segregated Schools by “Neighborhood Resi­
dential Patterns” Which Are Themselves the 
Result of State Action Combined With Private
Discrimination............................... ........................  15

II. This Court Should Grant Certiorari in Order 
to Insure Petitioners’ Due Process Right to an 
Evidentiary Hearing- in the District Court ..... 28

Conclusion 31



11

Appendix:

Order of District Court of January 31, 1970...........  la

Opinion of Court of Appeals dated June 8, 1970 .... 8a

Judgment of Court of Appeals dated June 8, 1970 23a

Orders of Court of Appeals on Rehearing dated 
June 29, 1970 .......................................................... 25a

Orders of Court of Appeals Denying Rehearing 
dated June 29,1970..................................................  26a

Tables of Cases:

Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396
U.S. 19 (1969) ..........................................................17, 27, 30

Anthony v. Marshall County Board of Education, 419 
F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1969), rev’d on other grounds, 
sub. nom. Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School 
Board, 396 U.S. 290 (1970) ..........................................  16

Bradley v. Board of Public Instruction of Pinellas
County, No. 28639 (5th Cir., July 1, 1970) .............16,29

Brewer v. School Board of City of Norfolk, 397 F.2d
37 (4th Cir. 1968) ........................................................ 21, 24

Brewer v. School Board of City of Norfolk, No. 14,544 
(4th Cir., June 22, 1970), cert, denied, 38 U.S.L.W.
3522 (June 29, 1970) .................................................. 15,25

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).... 15

Calhoun v. Cook, Civ. No. 6298 (N.D. Ga., Feb. 19,
1970) .................................................................................. 16

Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U.S. 263 (1964) ....................... 15
Carr v. Montgomery County Board of Education, No.

29521 (5th Cir., June 29, 1970) ..................................... 16
Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396

U.S. 290 (1970) ................................. 1,4,6,17,19,29
Clark v. Board of Education of the Little Rock School 

District, No. 19,795 (8th Cir., May 13, 1970) .............  23

PAGE



Ill

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) ..............................  15
Crawford v. Board of Education of City of Los 

Angeles, No. 822-854 (Super. Ct. Cal., February 11, 
1970) .................................................................................  25

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile
County, 414 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1969) .......................12, 28

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile
County, 364 F.2d 896 (5th Cir. 1966) ......................... 17

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

Dove v. Parham, 282 F.2d 256 (8th Cir. 1960) ............. 15

Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, 
Florida, 423 F.2d 203 (5th Cir. 1970) ...........10,16,19, 25

Goss v. Board of Education of Knoxville, 373 U.S. 683
(1963) ..............................................................................15,20

Green v. County School Board of New Kent County,
391 U.S. 430 (1968) .... ......................................15,16,19, 21

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer & Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1969).... 21

Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction of Hills­
borough County, No. 28,643 (5th Cir., May 11,
1970) .............................................................................. ..10,16

McFerren v. Fayette County Board of Education, Civ.
No. C-65-136 (W.D. Tenn., December 24, 1969) ........... 16

Monroe v. Board of Commissioners of Jackson, No. 
19720 (6th Cir., June 19, 1970) ..................................... 15

Northcross v. Board of Education of Memphis, 397 
U.S. 232 (1970) ..............................................................  17

Boss v. Eckels, Civ. No. 10,444 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 
1970)

PAGE

16



IV

PAGE

Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dis­
trict, No. 26285 (5th Cir., Jan. 15, 1970) ..................... 29

Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dis­
trict, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1969) ............................  1, 6

Spangler v. Pasadena City Board of Education, Civ.
No. 64-1438-R (C.D. Cal., March 12, 1970) ............... 25

Stell v. Savannah-Chatham County Board of Educa­
tion, 333 F.2d 55 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 379 U.S.
933 (1964).......................................................................... 15

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education,
No. 281, O.T. 1970, cert, granted, June 29, 1970, 38
U.S.L.W. 3522 .................................................................. 25

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education,
300 F. Supp. 1358 (W.D. N.C. 1969) ...................20, 24, 31

United States v. Lincoln County Board of Education,
301 F. Supp. 1024 (S.D. Ga. 1969) ..............................  16

Valley v. Rapides Parish School Board, Civ. No. 10,946 
(W.D. La., July 5, 1970) .............................................  16

Statutes:

Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 3601 et seq. 21 

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ............................................................  2

Other Authorities :

Abrams, Forbidden Neighbors (1955) ........................... 21

Racial Isolation in the Public Schools, A  Report of the 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1967) ................... 21

Weaver, The Negro Ghetto (1948) ................................. 21

Weinberg, Race and Place—A Legal History of the 
Neighborhood School (U.S. Gov’t Printing Office, 
Catalogue No. FS 5.238:38005, 1967) ......................... 19



In t h e

Supreme (Court of tho llmtri) Stairs
October T erm 1970 

No..........

B irdie M ae Davis, et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

B oard of S chool Commissioners of 
M obile County, et al.

MOTION TO ADVANCE

Petitioners, by their undersigned counsel, respectfully 
move that the Court advance its consideration and disposi­
tion of this case, which presents issues of national im­
portance about which the court below and other United 
States Courts of Appeals are divided in their interpretation 
of Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent County, 391 
U.S. 430 (1968), Alexander v. Holmes County Bd of Educ., 
396 U.S. 19 (1969) and Carter v. West Feliciana Parish 
School Bd., 396 U.S. 296 (1970). These issues require 
prompt resolution by this Court for the reasons stated in 
the annexed Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

W herefore, petitioners pray that the Court:

1. Consider this motion immediately;

2. shorten the time for filing respondents’ response to 
the annexed petition and



2

3. consider the annexed petition at the Court’s earliest 
possible opportunity.

Respectfully submitted,

Jack Greenberg 
James M. N abrit, III 
N orman J. Chachkin  

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

V ernon Z. Crawford 
A lgernon J. Cooper 

1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

Attorneys for Petitioners



In t h e

(Efluri at tlie H&mtib States
October Term, 1970 

No..........

B irdie M ae D avis, et al.,

v.
Petitioners,

B oard of S chool Commissioners of 
M obile County, et al.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Petitioners pray that a writ of certiorari issue to review 
the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Fifth Circuit, entered in the above entitled case on 
June 8, 1970. Petition for rehearing was denied June 29, 
1970.

Opinions Below

The opinions of the courts below directly preceding this 
petition1 are as follows: 1

1 Earlier proceedings in this case are reported as Davis v. Board 
of School Comm’rs of Mobile County, 318 F.2d 63 (5th Cir. 1963); 
322 F.2d 356 (5th Cir.), stay denied, 11 L.Ed.2d 26 (Mr. Justice 
Black, Circuit Justice), cert, denied, 375 U.S. 894 (1963), rehear­
ing denied, 376 U.S. 898 (1964) ; 333 F.2d 53 (5th Cir.), cert, de­
nied, 379 U.S. 844 (1964); 364 F.2d 896 (5th Cir. 1966) ; 393 F.2d 
690 (5th Cir. 1968) ; 414 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1969); sub nom. 
Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist., 421 F.2d 
1211 (5th Cir.), interim relief ordered, 38 U.S.L.W. 3220 (1969), 
rev’d sub nom. Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Bd., 396 
U.S. 290 (1970).



2

1. Opinion and order of the District Court filed Janu­
ary 31, 1970, unreported (la-7a).

2. Opinion of the Court of Appeals filed June 8, 1970, 
not yet reported (8a-22a).

3. The judgment of the Court of Appeals (23a-24a).

4. Orders of the Court of Appeals on the petition for 
rehearing (8a-22a).

Jurisdiction

The judgment of the Court of Appeals was entered on 
June 8, 1970 (24a). The jurisdiction of this Court is in­
voked under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1).

Question Presented

Upon request from the courts below, the United States 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare developed 
several plans to desegregate public schools in Mobile 
County, Alabama. One plan integrated each school in the 
system by establishing a number of school pairings and 
clusters which necessitate the incidental transportation of 
both black and white students. This technique of student 
assignment—the use of school attendance zones with non­
contiguous parts and the transportation of students—had 
long been used in the Mobile school system to maintain 
segregated schools. In spite of this history and without 
any evidentiary hearing in the District Court, the Court 
of Appeals rejected this H.E.W. plan and ordered the 
implementation of a plan which leaves 7,725 black students 
in eight all-black schools. The rejection of the H.E.W. 
plan was based solely on the Court’s deference to a hypo­
thetical “neighborhood school concept” (13a) which Mobile 
had not theretofore had.



3

The fundamental question presented to this Court is 
whether black students are denied the equal protection of 
the laws when they continue to be assigned to segregated 
black schools despite the availability of an alternative 
method of student assignment which would desegregate 
every school in the system and which is proved feasible 
by the school board’s past use of the same assignment 
techniques.

Constitutional Provision Involved

This case involves the Equal Protection Clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States.

Statement

1. A Brief Overview of the School System.

Mobile has a combined rural and metropolitan school 
system serving the whole of Mobile County. It is the 
largest school system in Alabama; 91 schools in the sys­
tem served 73,504 students during 1969-70. The total 
number of white students is 42,620, or 58% of all students 
and the total number of black students is 30,884, or 42% 
of all students.

Throughout the litigation to desegregate Mobile’s schools, 
the rural and metropolitan portions of the system have 
been treated separately. Since September 1969 the rural 
portion of the system has been desegregated adequately 
and this petition concerns only the metropolitan area com­
prised of the contiguous cities of Mobile, Pritchard and 
Chickasaw. Within the metropolitan area there are 65 
schools serving 54,913 students, of whom 27,769 or 50.5% 
are white and 27,144 or 49.5% are black.



4

In addition to the rural-metropolitan division, another 
division has more recently been advanced in this litigation. 
This newer division is between the eastern and western 
parts of the metropolitan area with Interstate Highway 
1-65 used as a north-south divider. The western part is 
predominantly white with 17 schools serving 13,875 stu­
dents, of whom 12,172 or 88% are white and 1,703 or 
12% are black. The eastern part is majority black with 
48 schools serving 41,038 students, of whom 15,597 or 
38% are white and 25,441 or 62% are black.

The controversy which led to this Court’s decision in 
Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 
290 (1970), concerned the decisions of the courts below 
to treat separately the predominantly white and majority 
black parts of metropolitan Mobile by permitting the for­
mulation of separate plans for each, and to delay desegre­
gating the majority-black part until 1970-71. It is the 
continuing effort by the school board and the courts below 
to subdivide the metropolitan area which necessitates action 
by this Court.

2. Summary of Proceedings in the Courts Below.

This action by black parents and students to desegregate 
Mobile County’s public schools began in 1963. The United 
States intervened in 1967 and successive groups of white 
parents intervened in 1968 and earlier this year. The cur­
rent phase of this litigation began with the Court of Ap­
peals’ June 3, 1969 decision.

The main issue before the Court of Appeals at that time 
was whether the School Board and the District Court had 
complied with a previous decision of the Court of Ap­
peals2 by establishing school attendance zones for elemen-

2 The June 3, 1969 decision is reported at 414 F.2d 609; the 
previous decision is reported at 393 F.2d 690.



5

tary and junior high schools, and maintaining freedom of 
choice for high school students in metropolitan Mobile. 
A second issue was retention of freedom of choice for all 
students in rural Mobile County. The Court of Appeals 
found that the District Court had “ ignored the unequivocal 
directive to make a conscious effort in locating attendance 
zones to desegregate and eliminate past segregation.” 
414 F.2d at 611. Freedom of choice in metropolitan high 
schools and all rural schools was also held to be unac­
ceptable. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals ordered the 
prompt formulation of a plan “to fully and affirmatively 
desegregate all public schools in Mobile County, urban 
and rural . . .” and directed the District Court to request 
the Office of Education of the United States Department 
of Health, Education, and Welfare to collaborate with the 
School Board and submit its own desegregation plan if 
agreement with the Board was not possible. Ibid.

H.E.W. and the School Board could not agree on a plan 
and H.E.W. submitted its own county-wide desegregation 
plan on July 10, 1969. The plan provided for zoning all 
schools in rural and metropolitan Mobile (some schools 
would be paired within zones), closing four black schools 
in eastern Mobile, and transporting 2,000 black students 
from the closed schools to white schools in the western 
and southern parts of the metropolitan area. Petitioners 
sought implementation of the plan with amendments to 
correct two deficiencies: (1) the plan retained five large 
all-black elementary schools serving 5,500 students because 
H.E.W. was unwilling to recommend the transportation 
of white students in addition to the transportation of 
black students; and (2) the plan deferred desegregation 
in eastern metropolitan Mobile, where 85% of the system’s 
black students live, until 1970-71. On August 1, 1969, with­
out a hearing, the District Court ordered the implemen-



6

tation of H.E.W.’s plan for rural and western metropoli­
tan Mobile, as modified by the Court to eliminate the 
H.E.W. proposal to transport 2,000 black students from 
eastern to western metropolitan Mobile. The District Court 
did accept H.E.W.’s plan to defer desegregation in eastern 
metropolitan Mobile until 1970-71.

Petitioners appealed the delay, the Court of Appeals 
affirmed,3 Mr. Justice Black ordered the School Board to 
prepare for desegregation by February 1, 1970,4 and this 
Court reversed the delay.5 The case returned to the Dis­
trict Court in late January 1970 for second semester im­
plementation of a plan to complete the desegregation of 
Mobile’s schools.

In the meanwhile, H.E.W. had submitted two additional 
plans to the District Court on December 1, 1969.6 Using 
the July 10, 1969 plan as a base (and labelling it Plan B), 
H.E.W. proposed one modification (Plan B Alternative) 
which totally eliminated the transportation of students 
by continuing in operation the four black schools which 
the July, 1969 plan closed. Plan B Alternative would 
leave nine all-black schools serving 7,971 students (15a). 
The second modification (Plan B -l Alternative) recom­
mended closing two black schools, and pairing or clustering 
all other black schools in eastern Mobile with white school 
in western or southern Mobile. Transportation of both

3 Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 
F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1969).

4 38 U.S.L.W. 3220 (1969).
5 Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 290 

(1970).
6 These additional H.E.W. plans were submitted in accordance 

with the District Court’s August 1, 1969 decision which established 
December 1, 1969 as the time for submitting plans for the 1970-71 
school year.



7

black and white students would be required and all schools 
in the system would be integrated {Ibid,.).7

The same day, the School Board submitted its own plan 
for eastern Mobile. It assigned 18,832 black students to 
21 all or nearly all black schools.8

The District Court called attorneys for all parties to a 
“pre-trial conference” in chambers on January 23, 1970 
(2a). At the conference the following positions were taken: 
(1) petitioners contended that the elementary school pro­
visions of H.E.W.’s Plan B-l Alternative and the junior 
and senior high school provisions of H.E.W.’s Plan B 
should be implemented forthwith, but if the transportation 
proposals made immediate relief impossible and the Dis­
trict Court selected another plan pendente lite, then a 
hearing should be promptly set to determine a permanent 
plan; (2) the United States proposed that the H.E.W. 
plan involving no transportation (Plan B Alternative) be 
implemented pendente lite while discovery and hearings on 
a permanent plan proceeded; (3) the School Board argued 
against any changes in its operations; and (4) the District 
Court stated it would not consider the plans petitioners 
supported and that the School Board’s December 1, 1969 
plan was unacceptable without modifications.

The District Court concluded the conference by asking 
the School Board for modification of its December 1, 1969 
plan and the United States “ for [a] revision of the H.E.W. 
plan which the government thought should be followed 
for the remainder of the present school year” (2a). The

7 Plan B-l Alternative involved only elementary schools. For 
junior and senior high schools it proposed to incorporate the pro­
visions of Plan B.

8 Petitioners, despite repeated requests, were not served with a 
copy of the Board’s plan and had to move on January 2, 1970 for 
an order compelling service which was not made until the District 
Court granted the motion February 27, 1970.



8

School Board failed to respond to the court’s request.9 The 
United States submitted a revision of H.E.W.’s no-trans­
portation alternative (Plan B Alternative) “as a plan 
which could be implemented immediately to remain in 
effect only for the present school year.” 10 11 Then, despite 
its own characterization of the January 23 conference as 
a “pretrial conference” and both petitioners’ and the United 
States’ clearly stated position that plaintiffs sought only 
mid-year relief pending hearings on a permanent deseg­
regation plan, the District Court without an evidentiary 
hearing entered an order on January 31, 1970 which pur­
ported to finally disestablish the dual system in Mobile 
(la-7a).

Mindless of its expressed view at the January 23, 1970 
conference that the Board’s proposals were unacceptable, 
the District Court’s order adopted the School Board’s De­
cember 1, 1969 plan with only several modifications. The 
order left 18,623 black students, or 60% of the system’s 
black students, in 18 all- or nearly all-black schools (18a- 
22a). The court dismissed H.E.W.’s Plan B-l Alternative, 
which would establish pairings and clusters of non-con- 
tiguous zones and require transporttion of students, by 
making the general observation that it “would require 
busing of children from areas of the city to a different 
and unfamiliar area” (3a) and by singling out one11 of

9 In its January 31, 1970 order the District Court commented 
on the Board’s failure:

“ The school board and its staff of administrators and profes­
sional educators, who know the Mobile Public School System 
best, who have all the facts and figures which are absolutely 
necessary for a meaningful plan, have not assisted or aided 
the Court voluntarily. Consequently, the plan which is by 
this decree being ordered is not perfect . . .” (2a-3a).

10 Brief for the United States in the Court of Appeals, p. 22.
11 The one elementary arrangement which the court singled out 

involved three schools, two white and one black, in a cluster. All



9

the sixteen H.E.W. proposed pairs or clusters, presumably 
to illustrate the court’s conclusion that H.E.W.’s proposal 
was “motivated for the sole purpose of achieving racial 
balance” (4a). Similarly, the court dismissed H.E.W.’s 
Plan B for junior high schools by citing but one atypical 
proposal to establish a cluster of three junior high schools, 
stating that in the court’s view “ the Supreme Court has 
not held that such drastic techniques are mandatory for 
the sole purpose of achieving racial balance” (4a).

Petitioners, the United States, and the School Board 
appealed. Petitioners challenged both the failure of the 
District Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing before 
ordering a final plan and the court’s failure to require the 
School Board to implement H.E.W.’s plan to establish non­
contiguous pairings and clustering and transport both 
black and white students to achieve complete desegregation. 
The United States, while acknowledging that the School 
Board’s past practices indicate that any of H.E.W.’s plans 
would be feasible, asked the Court of Appeals to require 
the implementation of H.E.W.’s sole no-transportation plan 
for the negative reason that “no argument can be made 
that plan B Alternative, which is the most modest plan,

students in the cluster would attend one of the white schools for 
the first and second grades, the second white school for the third 
grade, and the black school for grades four through six (4a). Of 
the remaining fifteen elementary school arrangements in H.E.W.’s 
Plan B-l Alternative, only one other was similar. Eleven involved 
only two schools with all students attending either the black or 
white schools for two or three years and then attending the other 
school for the remaining elementary school grades. Three other 
arrangements involved three schools but required attendance at 
only two schools. Under these arrangements all students in the 
cluster would attend one school for grades one and two and then 
divide, with one-half attending the second school in the cluster 
for grades three through five and the other half attending the third 
school for the same grades. Neither the simple pairing of two 
schools serving non-contiguous black and white zones nor this latter 
type of clustering were discussed by the District Court.



10

is either educationally unsound or administratively in­
feasible.” 12 The School Board, although cross appealing, 
sought affirmance of the District Court’s order.

The Court of Appeals, after remanding for further find­
ings of fact,13 decided the appeal on June 8, 1970. The 
court defined its judicial task in these words:

We have examined each of the plans presented to 
the district court in an effort to determine which would 
go further toward eliminating all Negro or virtually 
all Negro student body schools while at the same time 
maintaining the neighborhood school concept of the 
school system (13a).

In the court’s view the neighborhood assignment system 
allows two alternatives. One alternative requires the as­
signment of each student to the school nearest his home 
with such assignments limited only by the capacity of the 
schools. Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange 
County, Florida, 423 F.2d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 1970). The 
other alternative is the establishment of attendance zones 
“ on a discretionary basis as distinguished from a strict 
neighborhood assignment. . . . ” Mannings v. Board of 
Public Instruction of Hillsborough County, Florida, No. 
28643 (5th Cir., May 11, 1970) (Slip Op., p. 6). Mobile, the

12 Brief for the United States in the Court of Appeals, p. 47.
13 The remand was required by the District Court’s failure to 

determine how the School Board’s plan, which it adopted, would 
affect the racial composition of any of the system’s schools. The 
remand also directed the District Court to make findings on the 
extent of desegregation of faculty, transportation and extracur­
ricular activities. Petitioners moved in the District Court on 
April 6, 1970 to establish a procedure whereby after the Board 
submitted proposed findings of fact an evidentiary hearing would 
be held. The School Board submitted an affidavit which the Dis­
trict Court accepted in toto “excluding self-serving declarations 
and speculative opinions.” Order of April 14, 1970. Petitioners’ 
motion for a hearing was denied the same day.



11

court concluded, had itself chosen not to use “ the strict 
neighborhood assignment system” but instead uses “discre­
tionary zones lines” (13a). As Mobile had made that deci­
sion for itself, the Court ruled that the desegregation plan 
“can be greatly improved by pairing some schools located 
in proximity to each other . . . [and] also be improved by 
recasting the grade structure in some of the buildings but, 
at the same time, maintaining the neighborhood school 
concept” (Ibid.).

The plan which found favor with the court was the 
plan submitted by the United States as a modification of 
H.E.W.’s no-transportation Plan B Alternative. The plan 
left 8,515 black students in all-or nearly all-black schools 
(Ibid.) ; the court required modifications of the plan to 
reduce the number of black students in all-black schools to 
7,725 students in 8 elementary schools, which it noted 
amounted to 25% of Mobile’s black students being assigned 
to all-black schools (24a). In terms of elementary school 
students in metropolitan Mobile, the plan results in the 
assignment of 58% of black elementary school students 
to all-black schools.

These results were justified by the court in four ways: 
(1) “every Negro child would attend an integrated school 
at some time during his education career” (13a); (2) “ the 
all Negro student body schools which will be left after the 
implementation of the Department of Justice plan, as 
modified, are the result of neighborhood patterns” (15a- 
16a); (3) the remaining segregation can be “ alleviated” 
through a policy allowing black students to transfer to 
white schools with transportation provided (16a) ; and (4) 
the situation may be further alleviated by the establish­
ment of a bi-racial committee to serve in an “advisory 
capacity” to the School Board (Ibid).



12

The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District 
Court with instructions to implement a new plan by July 1, 
1970. On remand the District Court ordered the implemen­
tation of the plan submitted by the United States except 
for amendments to two school districts which the Court 
will make.

3. The Techniques of Segregation.

Although the District Court has not permitted any evi­
dentiary hearings on a desegregation plan since the sum­
mer of 1968, the record of the extensive hearing that sum­
mer and in previous years fully documents the various 
techniques used by the School Board to segregate Mobile’s 
schools.14

a. Grade Structures. The Mobile school system has used 
an extraordinarily wide variety of grade structures, in­
cluding schools serving grades 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-12, 
2-5, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10, 6-12, 7, 7-8, 7-9, 7-11, 7-12, 8-12, 
9-12, 10-11, 10-12. By selectively decreasing or increasing 
the number of grades served at particular schools, the 
School Board has increased or decreased the area served 
by the school to coincide with racial residential patterns 
(R. 26,886 Yol. V, pp. 1527-1534). For example, the 
School Board established the Hillsdale School as the only 
metropolitan school serving grades 1-12 in order to restrict 
its attendance area to a small black community in the 
western part of the metropolitan area. In downtown Mo­
bile, the School Board between 1962 and 1967 candidly re­
organized grade structures, and assigned portables and 
closed schools, to maintain segregated schools in the face 
of rapidly shifting racial residency patterns (R. 26,886

14 This portion of the petition is a summary of a longer analysis 
of these techniques contained in the Brief for the United States 
in the Court of Appeals, pp. 4-18. Citations to R. 26,886 are to the 
record before the Court of Appeals in Davis v. Board of School 
Commissioners of Mobile County, 414 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1969).



13

Vol. VI, pp. 25-35). School segregation was also the ob­
jective in arranging grade structures at four white schools 
surrounding a black school in northern metropolitan Mo­
bile to enable white students to attend one white school for 
grade 6, a second for grades 7 and 8, a third for grade 9, 
and a fourth for grade 10, all in order to prevent their 
attendance at a nearby black school (R. 26,886 Vol. IV, pp. 
1331-32).

b. Zones. The splitting of school attendance zones (i.e., 
non-contiguous zones) has been a common method of school 
assignment in Mobile. As many as nineteen non-contiguous 
zones were used in one year, 1964-65, including one split 
zone in which the parts were separated by over 11 miles.15 16 
Transportation between split zones was provided by the 
School Board (R. 26,886 Vol. I, pp. 5-6).

c. Portable Classrooms. The selective assignment of 
portable classrooms in order to expand the capacity of 
black schools as a way of avoiding the assignment of black 
students to under-utilized nearby white schools has been 
a method of maintaining segregated schools (R. 26,886 
Vol. I, pp. 90-93).

d. Transportation. Busing has not been limited to the 
rural parts of the school system. During 1966-67 the School 
Board bused 7,116 students daily in the metropolitan area. 
Approximately 2,350 of these students were bused because 
of non-contiguous zoning (R. 26,886 Vol. I, pp. 5-6) A 
considerable amount of busing was designed to maintain 
segregation. As an example, 582 black students were bused 
over 6 miles from rural Saraland and Satsuma to a black 
school in metropolitan Mobile to prevent integration at 
white schools in their communities (Ibid).

15 The facts were culled from numerous exhibits and appear in
summary form in the Brief of the United States in the Court of 
Appeals, pp. 7-9 and Appendix C.



1 4

e. Construction. New schools in Mobile have been lo­
cated in order to serve only selected racial groups. For 
example, although population movements in downtown Mo­
bile left unused classrooms in white schools, the Board 
embarked on a plan during the 1966-67 school year to 
construct four schools for black students in order to avoid 
the reassignment of blacks at overcrowded black schools 
to available space at white schools (R. 26,886 Vol. VI, pp. 
25-35). A few years earlier, in 1963, the School Board 
sought to justify to this Court its failure to even begin 
desegregation by pointing to its ongoing construction of 
“colored schools.” Justice Black’s opinion in chambers 
recited the Board’s contentions:

Yet this record fails to show that the Mobile Board 
has made a single move of any kind looking towards 
a constitutional public school system. Instead, the 
Board in this case has rested on its insistence that 
continuation of the segregated system is in the best 
interests of the colored people and that desegregation 
would “ seriously delay and possibly completely stop” 
the Board’s building program “particularly the im­
provement of and completion of sufficient colored 
schools which are so urgently needed.” In recent years, 
more than 50% of its building funds, the Board pointed 
out to the parents and guardians of its colored pupils, 
had been spent to “build and improve colored schools,” 
and of eleven million dollars that would be spent in 
1963, over seven million would be devoted to “ colored 
schools.”

It is quite apparent from these statements that Mobile 
County’s program for the future of its public school 
system “ lends itself to perpetuation of segregation” 
. . . Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 
County, 11 L. Ed. 2d 26, 28 (1963)



1 5

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

I.
The Decision Below Conflicts With Rulings Both of 

This Court Since Brown and of Other Courts of Ap­
peals. It Absolves School Boards of Responsibility to 
Provide Equal Educational Opportunity to Black Stu­
dents Contained in Segregated Schools by “ Neighbor­
hood Residential Patterns”  Which Are Themselves the 
Result of State Action Combined With Private Discrimi­
nation.

Since Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954), this 
Court has consistently invalidated subterfuges by which 
school districts have sought to maintain racially separate 
and identifiable schools, whether such devices relied upon 
school board or private initiative to produce the desired 
result. E.g., Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) (delay 
sought due to community opposition); Goss v. Board of 
Educ. of Knoxville, 373 U.S. 683 (1963) (minority-to- 
majority transfer allowing avoidance of integration); 
Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 
430 (1968) (free transfer plan permitting same result); 
cf. Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U.S. 263 (1964) (grade-a-year 
desegregation). Lower courts have done the same. E.g., 
Dove v. Parham, 282 F.2d 256, 258 (8th Cir. 1960) (pupil 
placement); Brewer v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk, No. 14, 
544 (4th Cir., June 22, 1970) (en banc) (assignments based 
on social class); Monroe v. Board of Comm’rs of Jackson, 
No. 19720 (6th Cir., June 19, 1970) (same); Stell v. 
Savannah-Chatham County Bd. of Educ., 333 F.2d 55, 62 
(5th Cir.), cert, denied, 379 U.S. 933 (1964) (assignment 
based on purported intelligence differences among races), 
compare Anthony v. Marshall County Bd. of Educ., 419



16

F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1969), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. 
Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Bd., 396 U.S. 290 
(1970) (assignment by achievement test scores); United. 
States v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., 301 F. Supp. 1024 
(S.D. Ga. 1969) (sam e); McFerren v. Fayette County Bd. 
of Educ., Civ. No. C-65-136 (W.D. Tenn., December 24, 
1969) (sex segregation).

The progress so far been realized in converting dual 
school systems into unitary ones from which all vestiges 
of discrimination have been extirpated, Green v. County 
School Bd. of New Kent County, supra, is severely jeopar­
dized by the decision below and others like it which have 
seized upon a justification for continued segregation in the 
so-called “neigiiborhood school concept.” 16

This concept, whatever it means—imprecision is one of 
its characteristics, compare Ellis v. Board of Public In­
struction of Orange County, supra, with Mannings v. Board 
of Public Instruction of Hillsborough County, supra—has 
been advocated in the past as in the present by those seek­
ing to preserve segregation. As former Chief Judge Tuttle 
observed earlier in this very litigation, the “neighborhood 
school is a euphemism for separation.”

Both in the testimony and in the briefs, much is said 
by the appellees about the virtues of “ neighborhood 
schools.”  Of course, in the brief of the Board of Educa­
tion, the word “neighborhood” doesn’t mean what it 
usually means. When spoken of as a means to require 
Negro children to attend a Negro school in the vicinity

16 E.g., Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, 
supra; Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough 
County, supra; Carr v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., No. 
29521 (5th Cir., June 29, 1970); Bradley v. Board of Public In­
struction of Pinellas County, No. 28639 (5th Cir., July 1, 1970); 
Boss v. Eckels, Civ. No. 10,444 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 1970) ; Calhoun 
v. Cook, Civ. No. 6298 (N.D. Ga., Feb. 19; 1970) ; Valley v. Rapides 
Parish School Bd., Civ. No. 10,946 (W.D. La., July 5, 1970).



17

of their homes, it is spoken of as a “neighborhood” 
school plan. When the plan permits a white child to 
leave his Negro “neighborhood” to attend a white 
school in another “neighborhood” it becomes apparent 
that the “neighborhood” is something else again. As 
every member of this court knows, there are neighbor­
hoods in the South and in every city of the South 
which contain both Negro and white people. So far as 
has come to the attention of this court, no Board of 
Education has yet suggested that every child be re­
quired to attend his “neighborhood school” if the neigh­
borhood school is a Negro school. Every board of edu­
cation has claimed the right to assign every white child 
to a school other than the neighborhood school under 
such circumstances. And yet, when it is suggested that 
Negro children in Negro neighborhoods be permitted 
to break out of the segregated pattern of their own race 
in order to avoid the “ inherently unequal” education of 
“ separate educational facilities,” the answer too often 
is that the children should attend their “neighborhood 
school.”

So, too, there is a hollow sound to the superficially ap­
pealing statement that school areas are designed by 
observing safety factors such as highways, railroads, 
streams, etc. No matter how many such barriers there 
may be, none of them is so grave as to prevent the white 
child whose “ area” school is Negro from crossing the 
barrier and enrolling in the nearest white school even 
though it be several intervening “areas” away.

Davis v. Board of School Comm’rs of Mobile 
County, 364 F.2d 896, 901 (5th Cir. 1966).

It is only now, after the decisions of this Court in Alex­
ander, Carter and Northcross have made unmistakable the



1 8

requirement of integration, that the “neighborhood school” 
is offered as an inviolate principle of student assignment. 
Like its predecessors—pupil placement and similar schemes 
—its purpose is obvious: to provide a superficially neutral 
gloss to the maintenance of racially separated schools.

Manipulating the “neighborhood school concept” today, 
as many school boards seek to have it applied, and as the 
Court of Appeals used it, means in almost every instance 
(except in small, rural districts) that a significant segment 
of a school district’s black student population will continue 
to be assigned to all-black schools. This departure from the 
clear mandates of this Court from Brown to Northcross is 
offered as justifiable because of “neighborhood residential 
patterns.”

Nowhere is this new rule more anomalous in result than 
in Mobile. The district court had before it a number of 
different desegregation plans for the Mobile school system, 
submitted under court order because freedom of choice 
had failed to change Mobile’s dual school system. Yet 
neither the district court nor the Court of Appeals chose 
the plan which would integrate every school and destroy 
racial identifiability in the school system. Instead, both 
courts left black students and white students alike in 
segregated schools to preserve what they erroneously per­
ceived to be Mobile’s “neighborhood school system.”

But we do not deal here, as Judge Tuttle recognized four 
years ago, with a school system in which the neighborhood 
school concept has a long, hallowed or neutral history. 
Mobile never considered the neighborhood school concept 
a bar to its efforts to prevent the attendance of black and 
white students at the same schools. The extensive record 
and prolonged proceedings in this case show that the pair­
ing of non-contiguous attendance zones, the transportation 
of students from one school zone to another, the closing



1 9

and conversion of schools, and the manipulation of grade 
structures—techniques proposed by HEW to completely 
dismantle Mobile’s dual system by desegregating every 
school—were all established techniques of school adminis­
tration when the objective was segregation.

This Court held in Green that school districts must con­
sider proposed desegregation plans not in isolation and 
abstraction but in “light of any alternatives which may be 
shown as feasible and more promising in their effective­
ness.” 391 U.S. at 439. In Mobile, there is an alternative 
plan to test the effectiveness of that approved below.17 The 
appropriate allocation of burdens requires the School Board 
to demonstrate its unworkability beyond question. That 
task has not been undertaken because the Court of Appeals 
saw fit to create, on its own, a new and absolute principle—

Under the neighborhood assignment basis in a unitary 
system, the child must attend the nearest school whether 
it be a formerly white school or a formerly Negro 
school. Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange 
County, 423 F.2d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 1970)

—and then excuse the board from burdens it must carry 
under decisions of this Court. The fashioning by the Court 
of Appeals of the neighborhood school concept in absolute 
terms is as new a judicial invention as it is a principle of 
school administration in Mobile.18 Invoking this concept

17 Where, as here, the alternative was formulated with the ex­
pertise of the United States Department of Health, Education and 
Welfare at the request of the district court, the “ school districts are 
to bear the burden of demonstrating beyond question, after a hear­
ing, the unworkability of the proposals. . . . ” Carter v. West Feli­
ciana Parish School Bd., 396 U.S. 290, 292 (1970) (concurring 
opinion).

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



2 0

as an absolute bar to considering feasible alternatives in 
a process which requires the examination of individual 
circumstances of individual districts is plainly contrary to 
the decisions of this Court.

The absoluteness of the neighborhood school concept 
employed by the Court below cannot be overstated. Only 
the pupil assignment techniques of contiguous single-school 
zoning or contiguous pairing have been held permissible; 
any segregated school remaining after these two techniques 
have been exhausted is judicially sanctioned on the ground 
that it results solely from “neighborhood residential pat­
terns.” Yet the Court overlooks the vital role played by the 
school system itself in creating and defining the “neighbor­
hoods” which are now held to be beyond the pale of school 
board corrective action. As Judge McMillan has said, re­
ferring to Charlotte, “Putting a school in a particular loca­
tion is the active force which creates a temporary com­
munity of interest among those who at the moment have 
children in that school,” Swann v. Charlott e-Mecklenburg 
Bd. of Educ., 300 F. Supp. 1358, 1369 (W.D.N.C. 1969) 
(emphasis omitted). We have pointed out above that the 
record in this case vividly demonstrates the degree to which 
the Mobile school board has in the past been able to main­
tain white and black school “neighborhoods”  through ma­
nipulation of attendance boundaries, grade structures, port­
able classroom placement and the pupil transportation 
system.

Like the minority-to-majority transfer disapproved in 
Goss v. Board of Educ. of Knoxville, supra, the “neighbor­
hood school concept” permits private action which results 
in the maintenance of segregated schools. To begin with, 
there is a historic and pervasive pattern of housing segre­
gation caused by discrimination against black people 
throughout the Nation. In the past, the policy of discrimi-



21

nation received the blessing of the federal government. 
Racial Isolation in the Public Schools, A Report of the U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights 254 (1967). See also, Abrams, 
Forbidden Neighbors 233 (1955) and Weaver, The Negro 
Ghetto 71-73 (1948). In 1968, recognition of the problem 
led the United States to take affirmative steps to make 
housing available to minorities with the passage of the 
Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 3601 et seq. 
(Supp. 1970); see also, Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer & Co., 
392 U.S. 409 (1969). But even if active housing discrimina­
tion were to cease, its residual effects persist. See Racial 
Isolation in the Public Schools, supra, at 201-02, Legal Ap­
pendix at 255-56.

Furthermore, the record in this case shows that the pres­
ent residential patterns in Mobile result to a substantial 
degree from discriminatory policies of the federal, state 
and local governments. For example, there has been a close 
relationship between the school board and the public hous­
ing authorities in the Mobile area regarding location of 
racially identifiable housing projects and the concommitant 
nearby location of school facilities which have traditionally 
been, and which continue to be racially identifiable. E.g., 
PI. Int. Ex. 87 (July 1967 hearing).

Making pupil assignment merely reflective of housing 
patterns will therefore often but mirror community segre­
gation and discrimination; it ignores the affirmative duty 
of school boards formerly operating dual systems to bring 
about integration. Green v. County School Ed. of New 
Kent County, supra.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recog­
nized the problem. In Erewer v. School Bd. of City of 
Norfolk, 397 F.2d 37, 41-42 (4th Cir. 1968), that Circuit 
held that



22

Assignment of pupils to neighborhood schools is a 
sound concept, but it cannot be approved if residence 
in a neighborhood is denied to Negro pupils solely on 
the ground of color.

Other Courts have likewise measured the “neighborhood 
school concept” as a permissible desegregation device by 
examining the alternatives available and the results of its 
application.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 
Circuit recently considered the mandates of this Court in 
a challenge to Little Bock, Arkansas’s continuing failure 
to desegregate its schools. At issue in this urban school 
system was the acceptability of a geographic zoning plan 
in light of several alternative plans involving the pairing 
of schools and transportation of students. The Eighth 
Circuit reviewed the results of Little Rock’s geographic 
zoning plan against this statement of the law :

Thus, as of this date it is not enough that a scheme 
for the correction of state sanctioned school segrega­
tion is non-discriminatory on its face and in theory. It 
must also prove effective. As the Court observed in 
Green:

“In the context of the state imposed pattern of long 
standing, the fact that in 1965 the Board opened 
the doors of the former ‘white’ school to Negro 
children and of the ‘Negro’ school to white children 
merely begins, not ends, our inquiry whether the 
Board has taken steps adequate to call for the 
dismantling of a well-entrenched dual system.” 
391 U.S. at 437.

We believe that geographic attendance zones, just as 
the Arkansas pupil placement statutes, “ freedom of 
choice” or any other means of pupil assignment must



2 3

be tested by this same standard. In certain instances 
geographic zoning may be a satisfactory means of de­
segregation. In others it alone may be deficient. 
Always, however, it must be implemented so as to 
promote desegregation rather than to reinforce segre­
gation [citations omitted]. Clark v. Board of Educa­
tion of the Little Rock School District, No. 19,795 (8th 
Cir., May 13, 1970) (en banc) (Slip op., pp. 14-15).

Applying this test to the results of Little Rock’s geographic 
zoning plan the Eighth Circuit found that the plan retained 
racially identifiable schools in the face of at least one alter­
native which would eliminate the racial identifiability at 
several such schools. The court held that the record could 
not sustain a holding that the geographical zoning plan 
“is the only ‘feasible’ means of assigning pupils to facilities 
in the Little Rock School System” (Ibid.) and while declin­
ing to decide on an absolute basis whether “geographical 
zoning or the neighborhood school concept are in and of 
themselves either constitutionally required or forbidden” 
the Court held “ that as employed in the plan now before 
us they do not satisfy the constitutional obligations of the 
District” (Id. at 19-20).

The Eighth Circuit also declined to establish an absolute 
rule of transportation:

Lastly, we do not rule that busing is either required 
or forbidden. As Judge Blackmun stated in Kemp III, 
“Busing is only one possible tool in the implementation 
of unitary schools. Busing may or may not be a useful 
factor in the required and forthcoming solution of 
the . . . problem which the District faces.”

Kemp III, the El Dorado, Arkansas school case, focused on 
the feasibility of transportation as a technique of deseg­
regation :



2 4

It may or may not be feasible to use it [busing], in 
whole or in part, for Fairview-Watson-Murmil Heights 
and it may or may not be feasible to use it, in whole 
or in part, elsewhere in the system. Busing is not an 
untried or new device for this District. Kemp v. Beas­
ley, No. 19,782 (8th Cir., March 17, 1970) (Slip op., 
p. 14).

Similarly in Little Rock the Court took occasion to note 
“ that busing is not an alien practice” and had been used 
by the District “ to preserve segregation” (Slip op. p. 20).

Following its 1968 decision in Brewer, supra, the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has refused 
to make the neighborhood school concept an inviolate prin­
ciple in the way the Fifth Circuit believes it is. The Fourth 
Circuit, although observing that “ [busing] is not a pana­
cea,” has held that “busing is a permissible tool for achiev­
ing integration.. . . ” Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board 
of Education, No. 14,517 (4th Cir., May 26, 1970) (Slip op., 
p. 18). The court specifically condemned the School Board’s 
rejection of a variety of legitimate techniques of desegre­
gation.

The district court properly disapproved the school 
board’s elementary school proposal because it left 
about one-half of both the black and white elementary 
pupils in schools that were nearly completely segre­
gated. . . . The consultants that the board employed 
were undoubtedly competent, but the board limited 
their choice of remedies by maintaining each school’s 
grade structure. This, in effect, restricted the means 
of overcoming segregation to only geographical zon­
ing, and as a further restriction the board insisted on 
contiguous zones. The board rejected such legitimate 
techniques as pairing, grouping, clustering, and satel­
lite zoning (Slip op., pp. 22-23).



2 5

On remand, the Court held that “ every method of deseg­
regation, including rezoning with or without satellites, 
pairing, grouping, and school consolidation” should be ex­
plored, and that “undoubtedly some transportation will be 
necessary to supplement these techniques” (Slip op., p. 
25). Nowhere is there any suggestion that the neighbor­
hood school concept is an absolute bar to a plan entailing 
the transportation of students.19 20

See also, Davis v. School Dist. of City of Pontiac, 309 F. 
Supp. 734 (E.D. Mich. 1970); Spangler v. Pasadena City 
Bd. of Educ., Civ. No. 64-1438-R (C.D. Cal., March 12, 
1970); Crawford v. Board of Educ. of City of Los Angeles, 
No. 822-854 (Super. Ct. Cal., February 11, 1970).

Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, 
Florida, supra, suggests that the objectives served by 
neighborhood schools are “ to eliminate transportation costs 
and to permit the student to remain as near home as pos- 19 20

19 Petitioners wish to make clear that noting the conflict between 
the Fourth and Fifth Circuits does not in any way constitute an 
endorsement of the Fourth Circuit’s limitation of remedial power 
by its “reasonableness” doctrine. See Petition for Writ of Certi­
orari, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenhurg Bd. of Educ., No. 281, O.T. 
1970, cert, granted, June 29, 1970, 38 U.S.L.W. 3522.

20 In a concurring opinion in 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), Judges Sobeloff and Winter wrote:

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 “neighborhood school’ concept, a shibboleth decisively re­
jected by this court in Swann (Judge Bryan dissenting), as 
an impediment to the performance 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 partici­
pated. A new plan for Norfolk that is no more than an overlay 
of existing residential patterns likewise will not suffice. (Slip 
op. at pp. 1-2)



2 6

sible” . Ibid. The absoluteness of the principle prevents 
any inquiry into the extent to which alternative assignment 
methods may in fact or law counteract these objectives.

If the saving of transportation costs is a legitimate objec­
tive then the actual impact of a plan on these costs must 
be appraised. Yet the Court of Appeals’ formulation of the 
neighborhood school concept bars any determination of 
these increased costs, the school board’s ability to bear 
them, and the availability of state assistance to defray a 
portion of the costs. Mobile is a school district which en­
gages in extensive busing (during 1967-68 207 buses trans­
ported 22,094 students daily)21 and by examining its past 
operation and present financial situation it would be pos­
sible to determine the actual impact of an order requir­
ing the transportation of additional students. Furthermore, 
the court’s formulation permits no consideration of the 
savings which transportation might enable in the system’s 
school construction program. The School Board has been 
enjoined since 1969 from constructing two additional schools 
in Mobile’s black ghetto. 414 F. 2d at 610. The use of 
presently unused capacity in white schools would eliminate 
the need to construct these facilities and the use of trans­
portation to better utilize existing facilities might actually 
save the school system money. Finally, if the facts show 
that Mobile’s transportation expenditures must actually 
increase beyond state assistance and savings in school con­
struction costs, then the absoluteness of the court’s neigh­
borhood school concept forecloses judicial consideration 
whether the saving of money is a legitimate basis for main­
taining racially separated schools.

The other objective which the neighborhood school con­
cept is said to serve is allowing students to remain as close

21 The average round trip was 31 miles. (H.E.W. Report, July 
10, 1969, p. 61).



27

to home as possible. Again the absoluteness of the neigh­
borhood school concept prevents inquiry into the extent to 
which alternative assignment systems counteract this objec­
tive. The non-contiguous zoning plan proposed by the 
H.E.W. does not disperse students throughout the school 
system without relationships to any neighborhood schools. 
What the H.E.W. plan typically proposes to do is to re­
quire students and parents to relate to two neighborhoods, 
one black and one white, instead of to just one racial 
neighborhood. If parents living in proximity to one an­
other wish to organize to act upon school problems they 
may still do so, except that they would hopefully work in 
concert with the parents of the paired zone to solve mutual 
problems. Yet no consideration may be given to these 
views given the absoluteness of the court’s ruling below.

The Court of Appeals offers three alternatives to the 
desegregation of all schools: an integrated educational 
experience at some point in a child’s educational career, 
a transfer policy allowing black students to transfer to 
white schools with transportation provided, and the estab­
lishment of a bi-racial committee to advise the School Board 
(16a). None of these alternatives provides a remedy for 
the constitutional wrong involved in maintaining racially 
segregated elementary schools.

Offering an integrated education in junior and senior 
high schools merely postpones the constitutional right to an 
integrated education and does not grant it “ now” . Alex­
ander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 
(1969). It also fails to consider the damage caused by five 
or six years of segregated elementary education and the 
difficulties black children will face in integrated junior and 
senior high schools after a segregated elementary educa­
tion. The second alternative, transfers with transportation 
provided, unlawfully seeks to shift the burden from the 
School Board back to black children. Freedom of choice



2 8

by whatever name has never worked in Mobile. Davis v. 
Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 393 F.2d 
690 and 414 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1968-69). The third “alter­
native,” a bi-racial advisory committee, while probably sal­
utary is not an alternative in fact. It is just an advisory 
committee to an all-white and recalcitrant school board.

Finally the Court of Appeals offers the illusion that 
“ open housing, Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968 . . . 
[and] Jones v. Mayer, 392 U.S. 409 (1969) . . . will serve 
to prevent neighborhood entrapment” (16a). To the con­
trary, open housing, which is a difficult enough goal to 
achieve, will probably become even more difficult now that 
the Court of Appeals has provided an added inducement 
for whites to maintain neighborhood segregation. If, on the 
other hand, everyone realized that no matter where any 
one moved in the school system his children would attend 
an integrated school—and assuming that local interest in 
a neighborhood school system is strong—then the more the 
Mobile community integrated its neighborhoods the less it 
would have to transport students.

II.

This Court Should Grant Certiorari in Order to In­
sure Petitioners’ Due Process Right to an Evidentiary 
Hearing in the District Court.

The instructions of the Court of Appeals to the district 
court on June 3, 1969, Davis v. Board of School Comm’rs of 
Mobile County, 414 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1969), provided for 
the submission of a new desegregation plan to replace free­
dom of choice in Mobile, and that

3 . . . (e) For plans as to which objections are made 
. . . the District Court shall commence hearings begin­
ning no later than ten days after the time for filing 
objections has expired.



2 9

Id. at 611 (emphasis supplied). Despite this clear man­
date, and petitioners’ expressed objections to provisions 
of the plan filed by the Mobile school board, the district 
court acted August 1, 1969 without a hearing. Similarly, 
on remand from this Court (sub nom. Carter v. West Feli­
ciana Parish School Bd., supra, implemented sub nom. 
Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist., No. 
26285 (5th Cir., Jan. 15, 1970)), the district court merely 
held a “pre-trial conference” and then entered an order 
on a permanent desegregation plan without affording an 
opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.

The absence of a record upon which to review the district 
court’s judgment led the Court of Appeals to issue a limited 
remand for fact finding by the district court on specific 
issues vital to determining the propriety of the district 
court’s action, such as the extensiveness of Mobile’s pupil 
transportation system. Yet again, the district court denied 
petitioners’ motion for a hearing and made its findings 
without petitioners’ having been able to confront the board’s 
version of the facts and introduce evidence contradicting it. 
Petitioner’s appeal below raised the denial of an eviden­
tiary hearing as one of the issues, but the Court of Appeals, 
which also acted summarily,22 ignored it.

22 The last regularly scheduled oral argument in a school deseg­
regation case in the Fifth Circuit was held last summer, except for 
one argument held March 18, 1970 in Bradley v. Board of Public 
Instruction of Pinellas County, supra. Ten cases were removed 
from the regular calendar and argued together en banc November 
15-16, 1969. Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist., 
supra, rey’d sub nom. Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Bd., 
supra. Since that time, more than twenty decisions in such cases 
have been issued, all—with the exception of Bradley—without the 
benefit of oral argument. In addition, since Singleton, all school 
desegregation appeals have been subject to its vastly accelerated 
time schedule, see 419 F.2d at 1222, which often requires briefing 
and decision without benefit of a transcript. In light of the accel­
erated and summary procedures of the Court of Appeals, the dis­
trict court’s refusal to hold a hearing assumes even greater signifi­
cance.



30

Petitioners submit that this consistent refusal to permit 
them to present their case is contrary to the most funda­
mental notions of due process. Particularly in our adver­
sary system, courts rely upon the vigorous presentations 
of counsel to sharpen issues, focus litigation, and bring out 
the facts. Yet neither the district court, which selected and 
modified a plan, nor the Court of Appeals, which selected 
and modified a different plan, has heard counsel in this case.

The plans do, in a limited sense, speak for themselves. 
Assuming arguendo that the district court might have se­
lected a plan to be implemented pendente life without a 
hearing, (and we submit that under the principles of Alex­
ander and Carter, this Court should require the implemen­
tation of Plan B-l Alternative pendente life) the final dis­
position of a case of this magnitude affecting tens of 
thousands of students should not be attempted without full 
exploration of the facts. If the district court was under 
the impression that it had an obligation to finally dispose 
of the case by February 1, 1970 at the cost of a full explora­
tion of the facts at a hearing, then the court misread 
Carter and Alexander.

Only after a full hearing at which all parties have the 
opportunity to present their evidence should the district 
court rule on a permanent plan and in so doing, make 
detailed findings of fact. The findings of the district court 
in its January 31, 1970 order hardly acquit the court’s 
obligation. The selection of isolated facts from a com­
prehensive plan to desegregate a large school district pro­
vides plainly inadequate support for whatever ultimate 
conclusion the court may reach. Finally, if the court by 
an appropriate standard does find isolated problems with 
a comprehensive plan it should require amendments rather 
than reject the plan in its entirety.



31

Merely remanding to the district court for an eviden­
tiary hearing will serve no purpose, however, unless this 
Court also makes clear that in devising a remedy for the 
state-imposed dual school system in Mobile, neither the 
school board nor the district court is in any way limited 
by the “neighborhood school concept” expounded by the 
Court of Appeals. And, pending such hearing and the 
district court’s determination, this Court should require 
Mobile to implement Plan B-l Alternative pendente lite. 
Cf. Swatm v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., supra 
note 19.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons it is submitted that the peti­
tion for certiorari should be granted to review the judg­
ment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit.

Respectfully submitted,

Jack Greenberg 
James M. N abrit, III 
M ichael Davidson 
N orman J. Chachkin  

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

V ernon Z. Crawford 
A lgernon J. Cooper 

1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

Attorneys for Petitioners





APPENDIX





Order of District Court

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F ob the S outhern D istrict of A labama 

Southern D ivision 

Civil A ction N o. 3003-63

B irdie M ae Davis, et al., 

and
Plaintiff,

U nited States of A merica, by R amsey Clark, 
Attorney General, etc.,

Plaintiff -Intervenor, 
vs.

B oard of S chool Commissioners of M obile County, et al.,

Defendants,
and

Twila F razier, et al.,
Intervenors.

This Court entered a decree in this case on August 1, 
1969, under which the public school system of Mobile 
County opened and operated through the first semester of 
1969. That part of the desegregation plan devised in said 
order which was to be implemented in September 1970, was 
in accord with recommendations of Health, Education and

la



2a

Welfare, with alterations or modifications to meet par­
ticular educational principles. This Court’s decision was 
appealed and was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of 
Appeals sitting en banc on December 1, 1969.

On January 14, 1970, the Supreme Court of the United 
States reversed the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and 
remanded the decision to the Court of Appeals for further 
proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. 
On January 21, 1970, the Court of Appeals issued its man­
date to this Court, which in effect stated that there could be 
no deferral of school desegregation beyond February 1, 
1970.

Faced with this mammoth task, the Court on its own 
motion sought the advice and professional assistance of all 
the parties. On the afternoon of January 23, 1970, the 
Court conducted a pretrial conference with the attorneys 
representing all of the parties and at such time the Court 
requested attorneys for the school board and the govern­
ment to submit a revision of the plans submitted by the 
school board on December 1, 1969. The Court realizing 
its plan of August 1, 1969, in some respects was still a 
dual system, ordered the school board to submit a plan not 
later than December 1, 1969, which would disestablish such 
system, which plan was to be implemented on September 
1, 1970. The Court also called upon the government for 
revision of the HEW plan which the government thought 
should be followed for the remainder of the present school 
year. These revised plans were to be furnished to the 
Court by 9 o’clock A.M. on the 27th day of January. The 
government furnished the requested plans. The school 
board did not, and by order dated January 28, 1970, at 9:30 
A.M., the school board was ordered to submit such revised 
plans. As of this date, they have not done so. The school

Order of District Court



3a

board and its staff of administrators and professional edu­
cators, who know the Mobile Public School System best, 
who have all the facts and figures which are absolutely 
necessary for a meaningful plan, have not assisted or aided 
the Court voluntarily. Consequently, the plan which is by 
this decree being ordered is not perfect, but the ten day 
period from January 21st to February 1st obviously allows 
inadequate time to work out an ideally legal and workable 
plan for educating approximately 75,000 school children, 
particularly when the change comes in mid-semester. This 
plan pleases no one—the parents and students, the school 
board, Justice Department, NAACP, nor in fact, this Court. 
The Court’s plan closes schools which the school board 
wants open. It opens schools which the Justice Department 
wants closed. But a decision had to be made and it was 
the duty and the responsibility of this Court to make that 
decision. The Supreme Court of this country has spoken, 
and this Court is bound by its mandate. It is the law. It 
must be followed.

The revised HEW plan which the government submitted 
to the Court would require no busing of students, but ex­
tensive pairing of several schools. An alternate plan sub­
mitted by HEW and upon which the plaintiffs insist, would 
require the busing of children from areas of the city to a 
different and unfamiliar area as well as the pairing of many 
schools. The distance between some of the schools by 
vehicular traffic would be approximately fifteen miles. The 
government plan and the HEW plan would materially 
change the grade structure for approximately thirty-four 
schools, and in some instances, would completely change 
each school’s identity. The government asked the Court 
to close many of the high schools which are attended by 
90% or more of Negro pupils, among them, Central High

Order of District Court



4a

and Mobile Training. This I am unwilling to do as I think 
it would be unfair to the Negro population of this city. 
Many of them have graduated from one or more of these 
schools. They take pride in them. In many areas, includ­
ing sports, there is much rivalry between these schools and 
I do not think the traditions which they have created over 
the years should be destroyed.

Under one of the HEW  plans it would have necessitated 
a child in the Austin area to attend Austin in the fifth grade 
and from the sixth through ninth grades he would have to 
change three times, namely, to Phillips, Washington and 
Toulminville, and in the tenth grade to Murphy, thus at­
tending five different schools in six years. Under one of 
the HEW plans of pairing schools, a child would have gone 
to Dodge in the first and second grades, Williams in the 
third grade, and Owens in the fourth, fifth and sixth grades. 
The distance from Dodge to Williams is approximately 8.6 
miles and from Williams to Owens approximately 7.4 miles 
and from Dodge to Owens, approximately 11.4 miles.

Admittedly these material changes in grade structures 
and in identity, and the pairing of schools and the necessity 
of busing great distances, are motivated for the sole pur­
pose of achieving racial balance. In this Court’s opinion, 
the Supreme Court has not held that such drastic techniques 
are mandatory for the sole purpose of achieving racial bal­
ance. By the same token, the Court is of the opinion that 
such techniques in certain instances, must be utilized to re­
move the effect of the dual school system. Therefore, it was 
necessary to change the grade structure on a limited basis 
and in one instance, the identity of a school. These altera­
tions were not motivated to achieve racial balance, but to 
desegregate the public school system.

Order of District Court



5a

I have said many times that the best thing that could 
happen would be for this litigation to come to an end. This 
is true. But I am unwilling to disregard all common sense 
and all thoughts of sound education, simply to achieve racial 
balance in all schools. I do not believe the law requires it. 
And this litigation will continue to be stirred as long as 
adequate funds are provided for those who want litigation, 
for the sake of litigation, without regard to the rights of 
the children and parents involved.

The Court has attempted as nearly as possible to com­
ply with the mandate of the Appellate Courts and yet leave 
it humanly and educationally possible to operate the schools. 
Laboring under the handicap of time, the Court has accom­
plished what it finds to be the plan most workable under 
the circumstances, both from an educational and imple- 
mental point of view.

Therefore, it is Ordered, A djudged and Decreed by the 
Court that the area attendance desegregation plan sub­
mitted by the school board on December 1, 1969, for those 
school zones lying East of 1-65, with one exception set out 
below, is hereby adopted and put into effect as of Febru­
ary 1, 1970, with the following exceptions:

Elementary Schools East of 1-65

1. The Emerson Elementary School serving Grades 1-6 
shall be closed. Those students who attend Emerson will 
now attend Council or Leinkauf Elementary Schools, as il- 
lustraetd by the map attached hereto and identified as Ex­
hibit “A ” . Those sixth grade students now attending Emer­
son shall be enrolled at Hall Junior High School. The 
placement of the Emerson students in other area attendance 
zones are reflected by modification of the Couneil-Leinkauf 
area attendance zones.

Order of District Court



6a

Order of District Court 

Middle Schools East of 1-65

2. The Hall area attendance zone shall he increased to 
relieve the overcrowding situation at Dunbar Junior High 
and to include those sixth grade students who previously- 
attended Emerson or Old Shell Road. The area attendance 
zones for Washington Junior High, Phillips Junior High, 
Mae Eanes Junior High, and Dunbar Junior High, have all 
been altered to achieve a desegregated school system, as 
reflected by area attendance zone map attached hereto and 
identified as Exhibit “B” .

High Schools East of 1-65

3. Trinity Gardens School is hereby changed to a middle 
school serving Grades 6-8. The high school students who 
previously attended Trinity Gardens shall attend Blount 
High School.

Murphy High School area attendance zone has been in­
creased to achieve desegregated school system and to elimi- 
nat the overcrowded enrollment at Toulminville High 
School, as reflected by area attendance zone map attached 
hereto and identified as Exhibit “ C” .

It is F urther Ordered, A djudged and Decreed by the 
Court that those graduating high school seniors who are 
not presently attending the high school which serves their 
area under the Court’s plan submitted this date, shall be 
allowed to remain in the high school which they presently 
attend for the remainder of the 1969-70 school year.

However, since the identity of the Trinity Gardens school 
has been changed from a high school to a school serving the 
middle grades, the seniors at Trinity Gardens shall now 
be attending Blount High School. Under the circumstances, 
the Court authorizes the Board, faculty, and the students 
themselves, in instituting this plan, to maintain the identity



7a

of the Trinity Gardens seniors as a unit by whatever proper 
programs they deem necessary at Blount High School.

Schools Lying West of I-65

4. The Davidson High School attendance area is hereby 
enlarged to include those students who previously attended 
Murphy High School under the area attendance zone lying 
West of 1-65 as illustrated by Exhibit “ C” attached hereto.

It is F urther Ordered, A djudged and D ecreed that the 
area attendance zones lying West of 1-65 as decreed by this 
Court on August 1, 1969, with the one exception above 
noted, shall remain in effect.

Paragraph V II of the Court’s order of August 1, 1969, 
pertaining to faculty is incorporated in its entirety in this 
order and should be implemented forthwith.

The Board shall publish or cause to have published in 
the local newspaper, the complete text of this decree and 
the maps attached, not later than Wednesday, February 4, 
1970. In addition, the school board shall post or cause to be 
posted, in a conspicuous place in each school in the system 
in which this decree changes area attendance zones from 
that established in the August 1, 1969, decree, and at the 
offices of the school board.

The Court finds that this decree disestablishes the opera­
tion of a dual school system in Mobile County and estab­
lishes a unitary system.

This plan shall be implemented forthwith.

Done at Mobile, Alabama, this the 31st day of January 
1970.

/ s /  Daniel H. T homas 
United States District Judge

Order of District Court



8a

I n the

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
F oe the F ifth Ciecuit

Opinion of Court of Appeals

No. 29332 
Summary

B iedie M ae Davis, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross Appellees,

and

U nited S tates of A meeica, E tc.,
Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellants-Cross Appellees,

versus

B oabd of S chool Commissionees of 
M obile County, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees-Cross Appellants,

and

T wila F eaziee, et al.,

Intervenors-Appellees.

APPEALS FEOM THE UNITED STATES DISTBICT COUET FOE THE 

SOUTHERN DISTBICT OF ALABAMA

(June 8, 1970)

Before B ell, A inswoeth , and Godbold, Circuit Judges.



9a

B ell, Circuit Judge: We consider again the effort to 
convert the Mobile County School System from dual to 
unitary status. This is the ninth appeal of the matter to 
this court.1 The system is now operating on a student as­
signment system fashioned by the district court after con­
sidering a school board plan of assignment, three separate 
HEW plans, and one plan submitted by the Department 
of Justice.

In Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dis­
trict, supra, fn. (1), we approved the student assignment 
plan of the Mobile County system then in effect for all 
schools located west of Interstate Highway 65. This ap­
peal basically complains only of the student assignments 
in the schools located east of 1-65. However, in an effort 
finally to adjudicate the status of this system from the 
standpoint of all of the essentials required to convert a 
dual school system into a unitary school system, we have 
obtained supplemental findings of fact from the district 
court. See Ellis v. The Board of Public Instruction of
Orange County, Florida, 5 Cir., 1970,------ F .2 d -------- [No.
29,124, slip opinion dated February 17, 1970] ; Mannings 
v. The Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough County,
Florida, 5 Cir., ------  F.2d ------  [No. 28,643, slip opinion
dated May —, 1970], as examples of the same approach. 1 * * * 5

1 Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 5 Cir.,
1969, 419 F.2d 1211 (en banc consideration of Mobile case and 12
additional school desegregation cases) ; Davis v. Board of School
Commissioners of Mobile County, Ala., 5 Cir., 1969, 414 F.2d 609; 
Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, Ala.,
5 Cir., 1968, 393 F.2d 690; Davis v. Board of School Commissioners 
of Mobile County, Ala., 5 Cir., 1966, 364 F.2d 896; Davis v. Board 
of School Commissioners of Mobile County, Ala., 5 Cir., 1964, 333 
F.2d 53; Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 
Ala., 5 Cir., 1963, 322 F.2d 356; Davis v. Board of School Commis­
sioners of Mobile County, Ala., 5 Cir., 1963, 318 F.2d 63; Davis v. 
Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, Ala., 5 Cir., 1970, 
422 F.2d 1139.

Opinion of Court of Appeals



10a

In Ellis v. Orange County and in Mannings v. Hills­
borough County, we adverted to the school desegregation 
requirements set out in Alexander v. Holmes County Board 
of Education, 1969, 396 U.S. 19, 90 S.Ct. 29, 24 L.E.2d 19; 
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 1968, 
391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716, and the deci­
sion of this court in Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Sepa­
rate School District, supra. In Ellis v. Orange County, 
we said:

“ . . .  In Green v. County School Board of New Kent 
County, . . . the mechanics of what must be done to 
bring about a unitary system were outlined. They were 
stated in terms of eliminating the racial identification 
of the schools in a dual system in six particulars: 
composition of student bodies, faculty, staff, transpor­
tation, extracurricular activities, and facilities. . . .  It 
was such dual systems, organized and operated by the 
states acting through local school boards and school 
officials, which were held unconstitutional in Brown v. 
Board of Education, 1954, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 
98 L.Ed. 873 (Brown I), and which were ordered abol­
ished in Brown v. Board of Education, 1955, 349 U.S. 
294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (Brown II).

“In Green the court spoke in terms of the whole 
system— of converting to a unitary, nonracial school 
system from a dual system. Then, in Alexander v. 
Holmes County Board of Education, . . . the court 
pointed to the end to be achieved. The result, if a 
constitutionally acceptable system may be said to exist, 
must be that the school system no longer operates as a 
dual system based on race or color but as a ‘unitary 
school . . . [system] within which no person is to be

Opinion of Court of Appeals



11a

effectively excluded from any school because of race 
or color.’ . . .” ------ F.2d at p . --------.

We thus proceed to a determination of the status of the 
Mobile system with respect to each of the six essential 
elements which go to disestablish a dual school system.2 
We find the system deficient in student assignment in cer­
tain schools and also in faculty and staff assignment.

The Mobile system covers the whole of Mobile County 
including the City of Mobile. The county is quite large in 
area, embracing 1,222 square miles. There are a total of 
96 schools in the system in 91 buildings, and the 96 schools 
consist of senior high, junior high, and elementary schools 
plus one special school. Some of the buildings house sepa­
rate elementary or junior high or high schools; others 
house combinations of these. There were 73,504 students 
in the system as of September 26, 1969. This total breaks 
down into 42,620 or 58 percent white students, 30,884 or 
42 per cent Negro students. Under the present plan 18,622 
or 60 per cent of the Negro students in the system are as­
signed to schools having all or virtually all Negro studen’ 
bodies. These Negro students are housed in 12 elementary. 
3 junior high schools, 1 combination junior-senior high, and 
3 senior high schools.

2 Under the stringent requirements of Alexander v. Holmes 
County Board of Education, supra, which this court has carried 
out in United States v. Hinds County School Board, 5 Cir., 1969 
417 F.2d 852 [Nos. 28030, 28042, Nov. 7, 1969], this court has 
judicially determined that the ordinary procedures for appellate 
review in school segregation cases have to be suitably adapted to 
assure that each system, whose case is before us, “begin immediately 
to operate as unitary school systems.” Upon consideration of the 
record, the court has proceeded to dispose of this case as an ex­
traordinary matter. Rule 2, FRAP

Opinion of Court of Appeals



12a

Opinion of Court of Appeals 

F aculty and Staff

The faculty and staff desegregation standard enunciated 
in Singleton v. Jackson, supra, requires assignment on a 
basis whereunder the ratio of Negro to white teachers and 
staff members in each school is substantially the same as 
each such ratio is to teachers and staff in the entire school 
system. The faculty ratio for the system is approximately 
60 per cent white and 40 per cent Negro. As of April 7, 
1970, there were 1,642 white faculty members and 1,098 
Negro members or a total of 2,740. We have no informa­
tion on staff ratios.

The Mobile County school system has almost totally failed 
to comply with the faculty ratio requirement although or­
dered to do so by the district court on August 1, 1969. Only 
a few schools approach the 60-40 faculty ratio. The district 
court is directed to require strict compliance with the 
Singleton v. Jackson rule for faculty and staff on or before 
July 1, 1970.

T ransportation, F acilities and 
E xtracurricular A ctivities

In the 1967-68 school term, 207 school buses transported 
22,094 students daily. The facts disclose that school buses 
are used in all rural areas of the county and in the out­
lying areas of metropolitan Mobile and that they are oper­
ated on a non-segregated, non-discriminatory basis. The 
facts also demonstrate that all extracurricular activities 
and facilities are operated on the same basis. Indeed, there 
is no complaint regarding transportation, facilities and 
extracurricular activities. The district court is directed to 
enter an order requiring the continued desegregation of 
facilities and extracurricular activities and to include the 
requirements of Singleton v. Jackson, supra, as to trans­



1 3 a

portation, school construction and school site selection as 
a part of the order.

S tudent A ssignment

We have examined each of the plans presented to the 
district court in an effort to determine which would go fur­
ther toward eliminating all Negro or virtually all Negro 
student body schools Avhile at the same time maintaining 
the neighborhood school concept of the school system. Un­
like Orange County {Ellis v. Orange County, supra), Mobile 
does not purport to use the strict neighborhood assignment 
system. It employs zones based on discretionary zone lines. 
In that sense it is like the Hillsborough County system 
(Mannings v. Hillsborough County, supra), and the situa­
tion, as in Hillsborough, can be greatly improved by pairing 
some schools located in close proximity to each other. See 
the description of neighborhood pairing used in Mannings 
v. Hillsborough County. The situation can also be improved 
by recasting the grade structure in some of the buildings 
but, at the same time, maintaining the neighborhood school 
concept.

The plan submitted by the Department of Justice on 
January 27, 1970, contemplates both pairing and the recast­
ing of grades. It produces a result of 9 all or virtually all 
Negro student body elementary schools instead of 12 as 
at present, and 1 senior high school of the same type in­
stead of 7 junior and senior high schools as at present. 
Instead of 60 per cent of the Negro students being assigned 
to such schools, the result under the Department of Justice 
plan would be 28 per cent (8,515 students instead of 18,623). 
Every Negro child would attend an integrated school at 
some time during his education career under the Department 
of Justice plan.

Opinion of Court of Appeals



1 4 a

The result to be achieved under this plan proves an obvi­
ous fact. Ordinarily, it is easier to desegregate high and 
junior high schools than elementary schools. This is due 
to the difference in the size of the schools. Elementary 
schools are generally smaller and thus they receive students 
from a more restricted area. On the other hand, high and 
junior high schools, with their large student capacities, 
encompass larger areas and, more likely, areas containing 
diverse racial groups.

We conclude that the Department of Justice plan, as 
hereinafter modified, must be invoked. By way of modifica­
tion, it will be necessary to desegregate the one all Negro 
high school— Toulminville. It appears from maps of record 
that the zone line between Murphy high and Toulminville 
high can be redrawn so as to include some of the students 
living in the area of the Crichton elementary school. Some 
of these students appear to reside nearer Toulminville than 
Murphy. In addition, the Department of Justice plan must 
be modified to close the Emerson elementary school (soon 
to be eliminated in an urban renewal project). This school 
would have an all Negro student body under the Justice 
Department plan. The 450 students who would be assigned 
to Emerson are to be assigned as follows: 200 to Council, 
200 to Caldwell, and 50 to Lienkauf.

This will leave only 8 all Negro student body schools 
(all elementary), with 25 per cent of the Negro students 
assigned thereto (7,725 instead of 18,623), and every Negro 
child in the Mobile system will attend school in a desegre­
gated junior high and high school on a neighborhood basis.3

3 The Department of Justice plan coupled with the Toulminville 
and Emerson feature seems superior to the HEW plans. Any one 
of the plans, HEW or Department of Justice as modified, would 
lead to a unitary system. The original HEW plan (Plan B ), filed

Opinion of Court of Appeals



1 5 a

Attached as Appendix A  is a chart depicting student 
body composition by school and race under the present 
district court plan and the Department of Justice plan 
of January 27, 1970.4 The district court is directed to im­
plement the Department of Justice plan on or before July 
1, 1970 together with the Toulminville-Murphy and Emer­
son changes above described.

From the standpoint of demography, a majority of the 
Negro population in the Mobile school system is situated 
in a concentrated area within the City of Mobile to the east 
of Highway 1-65. The all Negro student body schools which 
will be left after the implementation of the Department of

Opinion of Court of Appeals

on July 10, 1969, principally utilized zoning, but also proposed 
transporting approximately 2,000 Negro students from the heavy 
Negro concentration in eastern Mobile to predominantly white 
schools in the western and southern part of Mobile. It did not 
contemplate transporting white students in exchange. This plan 
would retain 6 all Negro schools serving 5,949 Negro students, or 
19 per cent of the total Negro students in the system. HEW Plan 
B-alternative, filed December 1, 1969, employed contiguous zoning 
as well as contiguous pairing. The plan contemplated no transpor­
tation of students. It would leave 9 all Negro schools serving 7,971 
students, or 26 per cent of the total. HEW Plan B-l-alternative, 
filed December 1, 1969, was limited to elementary schools and in­
corporated Plan B-alternative for junior and senior high schools. 
The plan involves non-contiguous pairing of each all Negro school 
in eastern Mobile with a predominantly white school in western or 
southern Mobile (across the system). The plan calls for cross­
transportation of both whites and Negroes. There would be no all 
Negro schools under this plan. This non-neighborhood plan is 
euphemistically referred to in plaintiff’s brief as a “ Shared Neigh­
borhood Plan.”

4 The defendants warn that the figures used by the Department 
of Justice and HEW are inaccurate. This may be true but the 
defendants, the only parties in possession of current and accurate 
information, have offered no help. This lack of cooperation and 
generally unsatisfactory condition, created by defendants, should 
be terminated at once by the district. Such errors in information 
as do exist may be corrected and the situation adjusted accordingly 
by the district court.



16a

Justice plan as modified, are the result of neighborhood 
patterns. This condition can be further alleviated through 
a majority to minority transfer policy and through the 
functioning of a bi-racial committee. The student assign­
ments in the school system depend on zone lines which are 
drawn on a discretionary basis and therefore may be sub­
ject, in some instances, to abuse and in others, to improve­
ment. The proper administration of zone lines depends 
upon good faith in establishing and maintaining the lines 
as well as continuing supervision over them.

The district court is directed to see that a bi-racial com­
mittee of the type described in Ellis v. Orange County, 
supra, is established. See Singleton v. Jackson Municipal
Separate School District, 5 Cir., 1970,------F .2d -------- [No.
29226, slip opinion dated May, 1970]. In addition, the 
district court is directed to require the majority to minority 
transfer rule of Ellis v. Orange County. All transferring 
students must be given transportation if they desire it and 
the transferee is to be given priority for space.

The district judge is also directed to require that the bi- 
racial committee serve in an advisory capacity to the school 
board in the areas of the operation of the majority to 
minority transfer rule, the promulgation and maintenance 
of zone lines, and in school site location. As we said in 
Ellis v. Orange County, with respect to eliminating all 
Negro student body schools:

“ . . . The majority to minority transfer provision 
under the leadership of the bi-racial committee is a 
tool to alleviate these conditions now. Site location, 
also under the guidance of the bi-racial committee, will 
guarantee elimination in the future. In addition, open 
housing, Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 USCA, 
§3601, et seq., Jones v. Mayer, 1968, 392 U.S. 409, 88

Opinion of Court of Appeals



17a

S.Ct. 2186, 20 L.Ed.2d 1189, will serve to prevent 
neighborhood entrapment.”

D eficiencies to be R emedied

We conclude that three of the six elements that go to 
make up a unitary system have been accomplished in Mobile 
County: transportation, extracurricular activities, and
facilities. The remaining deficiencies in faculty and staff 
desegregation and in student assignment must be remedied 
on or before July 1, 1970 on the basis heretofore stated. All 
other diretion herein given to the district court must also 
be accomplished not later than July 1, 1970.

Once done, and when the district court, by the standards 
herein stated, has made its own conclusion as to the system 
being unitary, the district court must retain jurisdiction 
for a reasonable time to insure that the system is operated 
in a constitutional manner. As the Supreme Court said in 
Green, “ . . . whatever plan is adopted will require evalua­
tion in practice, and the court should retain jurisdiction 
until it is clear that the state-imposed segregation has been 
completely removed.” 391 U.S. at 439.

Revebsed and R emanded with direction.

Opinion of Court of Appeals



A PPE N D IX  “A ”

COMPARISON OF DEPARTM EN T OF JUSTICE 
PLAN WITH DISTRICT COURT PLAN

P rojected  Enrollment-
Under Zone Lines Of- Assignm ents Under
fered  by the U. S. on District Court Plan
1/27/70 of 1/31/70

E LE M E N TA R Y SCHOOLS
SCHOOL
South Brookley
M orningside
W illiam s
M aryvale
Mertz
Craighead
Arlington
Council
*Em erson
Lienkauf
W ood cock

GRADES WHITE
1-6 502
1-5 631
1-6 571
1-5 414
1-5 498
1-5 347
1-5 160
1-5 4
1-5 0
1-5 273
1-5 424

NEGRO GRADES
71 1-6
0 1-5

43 1-6
117 1-5
104 1-5
489 1-5
170
391 1-5
450
165 1-5
167 1-5

WHITE NEGRO
484 76
751 0
554 60
453 171
453 0
290 569

- closed
2 548

- closed -
224 235
193 186

O
pinion of C

ourt of A
ppeals



P rojected  Enrollm ent Assignm ents Under
Under Zone Lines Of- District Court Plan
fered  by the U. S. on of 1/31/70
1/27/70

E LE M E N TAR Y SCHOOLS — cont.

SCHOOL GRADES WHITE NEGRO GRADES WHITE NEGRO
Westlawn 1-5 532 0 1-6 541 0
Crichton 1-5 438 348 1-6 457 240
Old Shell Road 1-5 232 295 1-6 267 106
Caldwell 1-5 0 350 1-8 20 390
Howard - closed - 1-6 12 432
Owens 1-5 2 1414 1-6 0 1121
Fonvielle 1-5 0 1000 1-6 4 1163
Stanton Road 1-5 6 900 1-6 6 976
Gorgas 1-5 7 963 1-6 ' 4 1168
Brazier 1-5 10 1022 1-5 0 955
Grant 1-5 15 1285 1-5 0 1231
Palm er/G lendale 1-5 434 931 1-5 66 600
G lendale/Palm er 1-5 434 931 1-5 385 192
Whitley 1-5 216 481 1-5 0 383
Robbins/H am ilton 1-5 638 855 1-5 0 859

O
pinion of C

ourt of A
ppeals



P rojected  Enrollm ent
Under Zone Lines Of- Assignm ents Under
fered  by the U. S. on District Court Plan
1/27/70 o f 1/31/70

E LE M E N TA R Y SCHOOLS —  cont.

SCHOOL GRADES WHITE NEGRO GRADES W H IW ' TEGRO
H am ilton/Robbins 1-5 638 855 1-6 621 0
Chickasaw 1-5 473 100 1-6 3

WEST" OF 1-65
Whistler 1-5 181 206 1-6 :p.i 231
Thom as 1-5 180 95 1-6 101
Indian Springs 1-5 535 11 1-6 520 12
Eight Mile 1-6 280 66 1-8 586 110
Shepard 1-6 409 29 1-6 409 29
Dodge 1-6 675 65 1-6 675 65
Austin 1-6 396 22 1-6 396 22
Fonde 1-6 679 11 1-6 679 11
Dickson 1-6 835 193 1-6 835 193
O rchard 1-5 754 113 1-5 754 113
Will 1-5 657 175 1-5 657 175
Forest Hill 1-5 560 0 1-5 560 0

O
pinion of C

ourt of A
ppeals



P rojected  Enrollment
Under Zone Lines Of- Assignm ents Under
fered  by the U. S. on District Court Plan
1/27/70 of 1/31/70

M IDDLE SCHOOLS
SCHOOL GRADES WHITE NEGRO GRADES WHITE NEGRO
Rain 7-12 1150 97 7-12 1089 112
E anes/H all 6-9 1292 977 6-8 978 280
^lall/Eanes 6-9 1292 977 6-8 180 838
Phillips/W ashington 6-9 1170 1716 7-8 691 179
W ashingt on/Phillips 6-9 1170 1716 7-9 0 1463
Dunbar 6-9 181 985 7-8 5 738
Central 6-9 468 1206 9-12 0 1233
M obile Co. Training 6-7 432 859 6-12 57 1125
Prichard 6-7 240 410 6-8 299 201
Trinity Gardens 6-7 380 690 6-8 0 996
Clark 8 536 948 7-9 T080 290

W EST OF 1-65
Azalea Road 7-8 1039 38 7-8 1039 38
Scarbrough 6-8 638 77 6-8 638 77
Hillsdale 6-8 431 217 6-8 431 217

O
pinion of C

ourt of A
ppeals



P rojected  Enrollm ent
Under Zones Lines Of- Assignm ents Under
fered  by the U. S. on District Court Plan
1/27/70 of 1/31/70

HIGH SCHOOLS
SCHOOL .. GRADES WHITE NEGRO GRADES WHITE NEGRO
Rain 7-12 1150 97 7-12 1089 112
Williamson 10-12 880 471 9-12 472 383
Vlurphy 10-12 1643 1761 9-12 2340 513
**Toulminville 10-12 9 740 10-12 0 1125
lilount/C arver d-lz, 854 1846 n in

U  * J . i u 8 1818
Carver/B lount 9-12 854 1546 6-8 1 899
V igor/B ienville 9-12 1134 1211 9-12 1447 439
B ienville/V igor

WEST OF 1-65
9-12 1134 1211 1-6 288 313

.Davidson. 9-12 2302 72 9-12 2296 72
Shaw 9-12 1250 240 9-12 1242 237

* An optional provision of the Department of Juslice plan called for closing all Negro Emerson elemen­
tary school and assigning its 450 students to six non-contiguous schools: Maryvale, Woodcock, West- 
lawn, Fonde, Morningside, and Licnkauf. This option is eliminated. As modified by the court, the stu­
dents who would attend Emerson will, instead, attend Council, Caldwell and Lienkauf. Council will 
have 4 white and 591 Negro students, Caldwell will have 550 Negro students, and Lienkauf will have 
2 7 3  w h it e  a n d  2 1 5  N e g r o  s t u d e n t s .

*• To be rezoned and integrated (see mcdif.'cation in text).

O
pinion of C

ourt of A
ppeals



23a

F oe the F ifth Circuit 

October T erm, 1969 

No. 29332

D. C. D ocket N o. CA 3003-63

Judgment of United States Court of Appeals

B irdie Mae Davis, et al,

Plaintiffs-Appellants- 
Gross Appellees,

and

U nited S tates of A merica, etc.,

Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellants- 
Cross Appellees,

versus

Board of S chool Commissioners of M obile County, et al,

Defendants-Appellees- 
Cross Appellants,

and

T wila F razier, et al,

Intervenors-Appellees.

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

B e f o r e  :
B ell, A insworth and Godbold,

Circuit Judges.



24a

Judgment of United States Court of Appeals 

J U D G M E N T

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the 
record from the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of Alabama, and was taken under sub­
mission by the Court upon the record and briefs on file;

On Consideration W hereof, It is now here ordered and 
adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the said Dis­
trict Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, re­
versed; and that this cause be, and the same is hereby 
remanded with direction to the said District Court in 
accordance with the opinion of this Court.

It is further ordered that defendants-appellees-cross 
appellants and intervenor-appellees pay the costs on appeal 
to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court.

June 8, 1970

Issued as Mandate: Jun 8 1970



2 5 a

I n  the

U nited States Court of A ppeals 

F or the F ifth Circuit 

No. 29332

Orders of Court of Appeals on Rehearing

B irdie M ae Davis, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appelants-Cross Appellees,

U nited States of A merica, E tc.,

Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellants-Cross Appellees,

versus

Board of S chool Commissioners of M obile County, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees-Cross Appellants, 

and

T wila F razier, et al.,

Intervenors-Appellees.

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

Before:
B ell, A insworth, and Godbold,

Circuit Judges.

I t I s Ordered that appellees’ motion for leave to file 
petition for rehearing out of time and leave to file peti­
tion for rehearing in excess of 10 pages but not to exceed 
20 pages is hereby Granted.



2 6 a

I n  the

U nited S tates Court of A ppeals 

F or the F ifth  Circuit

Orders of Court of Appeals Denying Rehearing

No. 29,332

B irdie M ae Davis, et al.,

Appellants-Cross Appellees,

v.

B oard of S chool Commissioners of M obile County, et al.,

Appellees-Cross Appellants.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

B efore :

(June 29, 1970)
(On Petition for Rehearing)

Bell, A insworth, and Godbold,

Circuit Judges.
B y  the Court:—

It is Ordered that the petition for rehearing filed in the 
above entitled and numbered cause be, and the same is 
hereby D enied.





MEILEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. C. 219



§>uptmt (Erntrt nf %  llxntzb States
October T erm, 1970 

No. 436

I n  t h e

B irdie M ae Davis, et al.,

v.
Petitioners,

Board of S chool Commissioners of M obile County, et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Jack Greenberg 
James M. N abrit, III  
M ichael Davidson 
N orman J. Chachkin  

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

V ernon Z. Crawford 
A lgernon J. Cooper 

1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

A nthony  G. A msterdam

Stanford University Law School 
Stanford, California 94305

Attorneys for Petitioners





In t h e

(ftmirt of tljp llxnUb States
October T erm, 1970 

No. 436

B irdie M ae Davis, et al.,

v.
Petitioners,

B oard of S chool Commissioners of M obile County, et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioners, by their attorneys respectfully move that 
they be permitted to amend or supplement their petition 
for writ of certiorari pending herein in order to request 
that the Court review the subsequent decisions of the 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in this cause filed 
on August 4, 1970 and August 28, 1970. The August 4, 
1970 order recited that the Court was amending its order 
of June 8, 1970:

This opinion and order amends and supplements 
our decision and order of June 8, 1970, and together 
they shall be considered the final order on this appeal 
for mandate and certiorari purposes.

A copy of the August 4, 1970 opinion and order has already 
been made available to this Court as it is printed as an



2

Appendix to the Brief In Opposition to Certiorari and 
also as an Appendix to the Memorandum of the United 
States.

The order entered August 28, 1970 further amends the 
orders of the Fifth Circuit. A  copy of the August 28th 
order is appended hereto, infra.

It is submitted that neither of these recent Fifth Circuit 
orders makes any substantial change in the issue presented 
for review in this case. The matter is entirely technical 
and the purpose of this motion is merely to insure that 
the most recent proceedings are technically brought before 
this Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Jack Greenberg 
James M. N abrit, III 
M ichael. Davidson 
N orman J. Chachkin  

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

V ernon Z. Crawford 
A lgernon J. Cooper 

1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

A nthony  G. A msterdam

Stanford University Law School 
Stanford, California 94305

Attorneys for Petitioners



3

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on the 18th day of September, 1970, 
I served the foregoing motion on the parties by mailing a 
copy to each of the attorneys named below by United States 
air mail, special delivery, postage prepaid. All parties 
required to be served have been served.

Abram L. Philips, Jr.
Palmer Pillans 
George Wood
510 Van Antwerp Building 
Mobile, Alabama 36602

Samuel L. Stockman
951 Government Street, Boom 112
Mobile, Alabama 36604

Honorable Erwin N. Griswold 
Solicitor General of the United States 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C.

Pierre Pelham 
P. 0. Box 291 
Mobile, Alabama 36602





APPENDIX





la

Order of Court of Appeals

(Dated August 28, 1970)

I n  the U nited S tates Court of A ppeals 

F or the F ifth Circuit 

No. 29,332

B irdie M ae Davis, et al.,

Plaintiff s-A ppellants-C ross- 
Appellees,

and

U nited S tates of A merica, etc.,

Plaintiff -Intervenor-Appellants- 
Cross-Appellees,

v.

B oard of S chool Commissioners of 
M obile County, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees-Cross-
Appellants,

and

T wila F razier, et al.,

Intervenors- Appellees.

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

(August 28, 1970)

Before B ell, A insworth , and Godbold, Circuit Judges.



2 a

Order of Court of Appeals 

B y  the Court:—

This Court mandated a plan of pupil assignment for 
the Mobile school district in its order of June 8, 1970. 
This plan was modified by the district court in its order 
dated July 13, 1970. The district court further modified 
the plan in an order dated July 30, 1970. On August 4, 
1970, we substantially affirmed the modifications made in 
the assignment plan by the July 13, 1970 order of the dis­
trict court. We did not have the changes embraced in the 
July 30, 1970 order before us at the time. Plaintiff s-ap- 
pellants have now appealed from the July 30, 1970 order.

The July 30, 1970 order makes changes in the attendance 
zones of 32 separate schools. Some of the changes had no 
effect from the standpoint of desegregation. Others dimin­
ished the degree of desegregation accomplished in the prior 
orders of this court and the district court. Most of the 
changes can be affirmed on the basis of efficient school 
administration and because there is no claim of a racially 
discriminatory purpose. It is clear that some of the other 
changes cannot be affirmed and that time is of the essence 
in resolving the controversy which has arisen over the 
July 30, 1970 changes in light of the short time before 
school is to commence in Mobile.

The court has considered the motion for summary rever­
sal, the memoranda in support of and opposition thereto, 
and in addition, a pre-hearing conference with counsel has 
been conducted by Judge Bell for the court pursuant to 
Rule 33, FRAP. After due consideration, the appeal is 
terminated on the following basis:

(1) The middle school and high school zone lines shall 
be the same as those set forth in the July 13, 1970 
order of the district court.



3a

Order of Court of Appeals

(2) The elementary school zones shall be modified as 
follows:

(a) Palmer and Glendale schools shall he paired.

(b) Council and Leinkauf schools shall be paired.

(c) The area of the Whitley zone as described in 
the July 30, 1970 order of the district court 
that lies west of Wilson Avenue shall become 
a part of the Chicasaw zone.

(d) The area in the Westlawn zone as described 
in the July 30, 1970 order of the district court 
that lies north of Dauphin Street shall become 
part of the Old Shell Road school zone.

(3) Counsel for the school board agrees with counsel 
for plaintiffs-appellants that they will confer and 
make facts available regarding desegregation of 
the school system staffs.

(4) Students who refuse to attend the schools to which 
they are assigned by the school board under the 
order of the district court shall not be permitted 
to participate in any school activities, including 
the taking of examinations and shall not receive 
grades or credit.

(5) Henceforth, any time the school board desires to 
have changes in zone lines made, it shall give 
reasonable notice to the parties.

The order of the district court of July 30, 1970 is in all 
other respects A ffirmed.

I t I s S o Ordered.





1



MEILEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. C. 2)9



I n  t h e

îtyrinu? GJnurt of %  llnxUb &Uxi?&
October T erm 1970

No. 436

B irdie M ae Davis, et al.,

v.
Petitioners,

B oard op S chool Commissioners of 
M obile County, et al.

ON WRIT OP CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 
COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS

Jack Greenberg 
James M. N abrit, III 
M ichael Davidson 
N orman J. Chachkin  

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

V ernon Z. Crawford 
A lgernon J. Cooper 

1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

A nthony  G. A msterdam
Stanford University Law School 
Stanford, California 94305

Attorneys for Petitioners





I N D E X

Opinions B elow ................................................................ 1

Jurisdiction ...................................................................... 5

Constitutional Provision Involved ..............................  5

Questions Presented........................................................  6

Statement .........................................................................  7

1. A Brief Overview of the School System .......  7

2. Summary of Proceedings in the Courts Below 9

3. The Techniques of Segregation........................... 27

Summary of Argument ......................................................  40

A rgument :—

I. Introduction ...................................................  44

II. The Fifth Circuit’s Approach to Final
School Desegregation Plans Since Alexan­
der and C arter ...................................... 49

A. Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of
Orange County: Announcement of the 
“ Neighborhood School” Concept......  49

B. Analysis of the “ Neighborhood School”
Concept, Fifth Circuit Style .................  52

C. Application of the Fifth Circuit Ap­
proach in Mobile—the Opinion Below 58 III.

III. The Parallel Doctrine Applied by the
Fourth Circuit ..............................................  62

PAGE



XI
PAGE

IV. The Legal Principles This Court Should
Declare ............................................................ 63

V. Final School Desegregation Plans Should 
Not Be Approved Without Evidentiary 
Hearings. Petitioners Were Denied Due 
Process by the District Court’s Ex Parte
Procedures in Deciding the Case .............. 80

Conclusion ................................................................................. 85

A ppendix .....................................................................................  la

Table of Cases:

Adams v. Mathews, 403 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1968) .... 50,78 
Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education,

396 U.S. 19 (1969) ...........................8,44,45,49,76,78,79
Allen v. Board of Public Instruction of Broward 

County, No. 30032 (5th Cir., Aug. 18, 1970) ....53, 55, 57,
71, 74

Andrews v. City of Monroe, 425 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir.
1970) ..........................................................................52,53,71

Bradley v. Board of Public Instruction of Pinellas 
County, No. 28639 (5th Cir., July 1, 1970), new 
opinion substituted on rehearing (July 28, 1970) 52, 55 

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) 40, 43,
44, 45, 46, 48, 58, 61, 64, 66, 71, 

72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79
Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) 44,46 
Brown v. Board of Education of City of Bessemer,

No. 29209 (5th Cir., Aug. 28, 1970) ...................53, 71, 79
Brunson v. Board of Trustees of School District 

No. 1 of Clarendon County, South Carolina, No.
14,571 (4th Cir., June 5, 1970) 6 4



Ill

Carr v. Montgomery County Board of Education,
No. 29521 (5th Cir., June 29, 1970) ....................... 52

Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396
U.S. 290 (1970) .... ..........................8,18,42,44,49,62,64,

78, 79, 82, 2a

PAGE

Conley v. Lake Charles School Board, No. 30100
(5th Cir., Aug. 25, 1970) ..........................................  53

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) ........................... 73

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 
County, 318 F.2d 63 (5th Cir. 1963) ....................... 10

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 
County, 322 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1963), amended 
in part on rehearing, 322 F.2d 359 (5th Cir. 1963), 
stay denied, 11 L.Ed.2d 26, cert, denied, 375 U.S.
894 (1963), rehearing denied, 376 U.S. 898 (1964) 10,38,

47
Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 

County, 333 F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1964), cert, denied,
379 U.S. 844 (1964) ..................................................  10

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile
County, 364 F.2d 896 (5th Cir. 1966) ...........9,11, 47, 59

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile
County, 393 F.2d 690 (5th Cir. 1968) ...................7,11,12

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile
County, 414 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1969) ...................  50, 81

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 
County (Davis v. United States), 422 F.2d 1139 
(5th Cir. 1970) ..................................................9,12,76,83

Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange 
County, Fla., 423 F.2d 203 (5th Cir. 1970) ....23, 41, 50, 51,

56, 57, 59, 72, 75

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) 43, 84



IV

Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 (1914) ....................... 84
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County,

391 U.S. 430 (1968) .............................. 44, 49, 70, 76, 78, 79

Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board, 417 F.2d 801 
(5th Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 396 U.S. 904 (1969) .... 50

Hall v. West, 335 F.2d 481 (5th Cir. 1964) ............... 84
Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier

County, Ark., 410 F.2d 920 (8th Cir. 1969) .............  63
Harvest v. Board of Public Instruction of Manatee

County, No. 29425 (5th Cir., June 26, 1970) ........... 52
Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate School Dist.,

409 F.2d 682 (5th Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 396 U.S.
940 (1969) ................................................................ 50,54,78

Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate School Dist.,
No. 29165 (5th Cir., Aug. 12, 1970) .....................53, 55, 57

Hightower v. West, No. 29993 (5th Cir., July 14,
1970) ..........................................................................52,57,75

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville &
N. R. Co., 227 U.S. 88 (1912)........................................  84

Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, No. 29584
(5th Cir., July 15,1970)................................................ 52

Louisville ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP, 366 U.S.
293 (1961) ......................................................................  83

Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction of Hills­
borough County, No. 28643 (5th Cir., May 11,
1970) .............................................................. 23,52,56,60,61

Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, 391 U.S. 450
(1968) ............................................................................ 49

Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468 (1936) ...........  43, 84

Northcross v. Board of Education, 397 U.S. 232 
(1970)

PAGE

44



V

Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commis- 
ison, 301 U.S. 292 (1937) ..........................................  43, 84

Pate v. Dade County School Board, Nos. 29039 and 
29179 (5th Cir., Aug. 12, 1970) ..............................  53

Raney v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 443 (1968) .... 50
Robertson v. Natchitoches Parish School Board, No.

30031 (5th Cir., Aug. 31, 1970) ..............................  53
Ross v. Eckels, No. 30080 (5th Cir., Aug. 25, 1970) .... 53, 55,

57, 76, 77
Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School, 426 

F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1970) ..........................................  52, 53
Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School 

Dist., 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1969) ....................... 18
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educa­

tion, ------ F .2d------- (4th Cir., May 26,1970) .......45, 60, 62,
64, 69, 71, 75

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educa­
tion, No. 281, O.T. 1970 .................................... 53, 62, 63, 68

Tillman v. Board of Public Instruction of Volusia 
County, No. 29180 (5th Cir., July 21, 1970) ...........  52

United States v. Greenwood Municipal Separate 
School District, 406 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1969), cert, 
denied, 395 U.S. 907 (1969) ......................................  50, 54

United States v. Hinds County School Board, 417 
F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1969), reversed sub nom. Alex­
ander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 
U.S. 19 (1969) ..............................................................  50

United States v. Indianola Municipal Separate 
School District, 410 F.2d 626 (5th Cir. 1969), cert, 
denied, 396 U.S. 1011 (1970) ................................ 50, 72, 78

PAGE



VI
PAGE

Valley v. Rapides Parish School Board, No. 30099 
(5th Cir., Aug. 25, 1970) ..........................................  53

Wright v. Board of Public Instruction of Alachua
County, No. 29999 (5th Cir., Aug. 4 ,1970)............... 53

Wright v. County School Board of Greensville
County, Va., 309 F. Supp. 671 (E.D. Va. 1970) .....  63

Youngblood v. Board of Public Instruction of Bay
County, Fla. ------  F.2d ------  (5th Cir. No. 29369,
May 24, 1970) ..............................................................  53

Statutes:

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ..........................................................  5

42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2..........................................................  9

Other Authority:

Statement of the United States Commission on Civil 
Rights Concerning the “ Statement by the Presi­
dent on Elementary and Secondary School Deseg­
regation,” April 12, 1970 ...................................... 68, 74, 77



In t h e

^ l t p r r m r  C o u r t  n f  t lir  l ln t tr li  S t a t e s

October Term, 1970 

No. 436

B irdie M ae Davis, et al.,

v.
Petitioners,

B oard op S chool Commissioners op 
M obile County, et al.

ON WRIT OP CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS

Opinions Below

The opinions and orders of the courts below are as 
follows:

1. Order of the district court filed April 25, 1963, re­
ported at 8 Race Rel. L. Rep. 480.

2. Opinion of the court of appeals dismissing the ap­
peal, filed May 24, 1963, reported at 318 F.2d 63.

3. Opinion and order of the district court filed June 24, 
1963, reported at 219 F. Supp. 542.



2

4. Opinion of the court of appeals issuing an injunction 
pending appeal July 9, 1963, and denying rehearing July 
18, 1963, reported at 322 F.2d 356.1

5. Order of the district court filed July 26, 1963, re­
ported at 8 Race Rel. L. Rep. 901.

6. Order of the district court filed August 23, 1963, re­
ported at 8 Race Rel. L. Rep. 907.

7. Opinion of the court of appeals filed June 18, 1964, 
reported at 333 F.2d 53.1 2

8. Order of the district court issued June 29, 1964, re­
ported at 9 Race Rel. L. Rep. 1177.

9. Order of the district court issued July 31, 1964, re­
ported at 9 Race Rel. L. Rep. 1179.

10. Opinion and order of the district court issued March 
31, 1965, reported at 10 Race Rel. L. Rep. 1016.

11. Opinion of the court of appeals filed August 16, 
1966, reported at 364 F.2d 896.

12. Opinion and order of the district court filed October 
13, 1967, reported at 12 Race Rel. L. Rep. 1820.

13. Opinion of the court of appeals filed March 12, 1968, 
as modified on denial of rehearing, April 26, 1968, reported 
at 393 F.2d 690.

1 Stay denied, 84 S.Ct. 10, 11 L.Ed.2d 26 (1963) (Mr. Justice 
Black, in Chambers) ; cert, denied, 375 U.S. 894 (1963).

2 Cert, denied, 85 S.Ct. 85 (1964).



3

14. Opinion and order of the district court filed July 29,
1968, unreported.

15. Order of the district court filed August 2, 1968, 
unreported.

16. Order of the district court filed December 20, 1968, 
unreported.

17. Order of the district court filed March 14, 1969, 
unreported.

18. Order of the court of appeals denying injunction 
pending appeal, filed March 20, 1969, unreported.

19. Order of the district court filed April 7, 1969, 
unreported.

20. Order of the court of appeals granting reconsidera­
tion and issuing injunction pending appeal, filed May 6,
1969, unreported.

21. Opinion of the court of appeals filed June 3, 1969, 
reported at 414 F.2d 609.

22. Opinion and order of the district court filed August 
1, 1969, unreported.

23. Opinion of the court of appeals filed December 1, 
1969, reported at 419 F.2d 1211.

24. District court order of January 28, 1970, unreported.

25. Opinion and order of the district court filed January 
31, 1970, unreported.



4

26. Order of the district court filed February 4, 1970, 
unreported.

27. Opinion of the court of appeals filed February 16, 
1970, reported at 422 F.2d 1139.

28. Order of the district court filed February 27, 1970, 
unreported.

29. Order of the district court of March 12, 1970, un­
reported.

30. Order of the district court of March 16, 1970, un­
reported.

31. Remand order of the court of appeals of March 25, 
1970, not yet reported.

32. Order of the district court of March 31, 1970, un­
reported.

33. Order of the district court of April 14, 1970, un­
reported.

34. Opinion of the court of appeals filed June 8, 1970, 
not yet reported.

35. Judgment of the court of appeals issued June 8,1970.

36. Order of the district court of June 12, 1970, un­
reported.

37. Court of appeals orders on rehearing of June 29, 
1970, not yet reported.

38. Opinion-order of the district court filed July 13, 
1970, unreported.



5

39. Opinion-order of the district court issued July 30, 
1970, unreported.

40. Opinion of the court of appeals issued August 4, 
1970, not yet reported.

41. Judgment of the court of appeals issued August 4, 
1970, recalling the judgment issued June 8, 1970, and sub­
stituting therefor.

42. Opinion-order of the court of appeals issued August 
28, 1970, not yet reported.

43. Orders of the district court filed September 4, 1970, 
unreported.

Jurisdiction

The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on 
June 8, 1970. Additional orders supplementing the man­
date were entered August 4, 1970, and August 28, 1970. 
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 
§1254(1). The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed 
in this Court on July 23, 1970. August 31, 1970, the Chief 
Justice entered an order setting a briefing schedule and 
argument date, and deferring action on the petition.

Constitutional Provision Involved

This case involves the Equal Protection Clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States.



6

Questions Presented

Upon request from the courts below, the United States 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare developed 
several plans to desegregate public schools in Mobile 
County, Alabama. One plan integrated each school in the 
system by establishing a number of school pairings and 
clusters which necessitate the incidental transportation of 
both black and white students. This technique of student 
assignment—the use of school attendance zones with non­
contiguous parts and the transportation of students—had 
long been used in the Mobile school system to maintain 
segregated schools. In spite of this history and without 
any evidentiary hearing in the district court, the court of 
appeals rejected this H.E.W. plan and ordered the imple­
mentation of a plan which leaves 50% of the black ele­
mentary students in metropolitan Mobile in all-black 
schools. The rejection of the H.E.W. plan was based solely 
on the court’s deference to a hypothetical “neighborhood 
school concept” which Mobile’s history demonstrates it 
never had. Two questions are presented to this Court:

(1) Whether black students are denied the equal pro- 
tion of the laws when in the name of a newly conceived 
“neighborhood school concept” they continue to be assigned 
to segregated black schools despite the availability of al­
ternative methods of student assignment which would de­
segregate every school in the system and which are proved 
workable by the school board’s past use of the same as­
signment techniques, and

(2) Whether petitioners are entitled to an evidentiary 
hearing in the district court prior to the approval of a 
final desegregation plan?



7

Statement

1. A Brief Overview of the School System.

Mobile has a combined rural and metropolitan school 
system serving the whole of Mobile County. It is the 
largest school system in Alabama. During the 1969-70 
school year, 91 schools served 73,504 students, of whom 
42,620, or 58%, were white and 30,884, or 42%, were black.3

Throughout the litigation to desegregate Mobile’s schools, 
the rural and metropolitan portions of the system have 
been treated separately. Since September 1969, the rural 
portion of the system has been desegregated adequately 
and this brief concerns only the metropolitan area com­
prised of the contiguous cities of Mobile, Prichard and 
Chickasaw. Within the metropolitan area, 65 schools served 
54,913 students during 1969-70, of whom 27,769, or 50.5%, 
were white and 27,144, or 49.5% were black.

In addition to the rural-metropolitan division, another 
division has more recently been advanced in this litigation. 
This newer division is between the eastern and western 
parts of the metropolitan area with Interstate Highway

3 The school board is under an order to submit reports to the 
district court and opposing counsel within one week after the 
beginning of every school year “showing the number of students 
by school, grade, and race, expected and actually enrolled at the 
schools in Mobile County.” 393 F.2d at 699. The statistics cited 
in this brief overview are taken from the school board’s last report 
which was filed on November 20, 1969, more than two months 
after it was due and only after petitioners and the United States 
moved to hold board officials in contempt. If the school board 
complies with the order this year and files reports within a week 
of the system’s September 9, 1970, opening, the petitioners will be 
able to furnish the Court with current statistics. Most importantly, 
the school board report will indicate the actual results of the 
desegregation plan implemented by the courts below.



8

1-65 used as a north-south divider.4 The western part is 
predominantly white with 17 schools serving 13,875 stu­
dents during 1969-70, of whom 12,172, or 88%, were white 
and 1,703, or 12%, were black. These statistics reflect the 
concentration of a majority of Mobile’s black citizens in a 
racial ghetto located in the northeastern part of the City.

The controversy which led to the inclusion of Mobile 
among the cases considered by this Court in Carter v. West 
Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 290 (1970), con­
cerned the decisions of the courts below to treat separately 
the predominantly white and majority black parts of met­
ropolitan Mobile by permitting the formulation of sepa­
rate plans for each and delaying the desegregation of the 
majority-black part until 1970-71. Now that this Court’s 
mandates in Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Edu­
cation, 396 U.S. 19 (1969), and Carter v. West Feliciana 
Parish School Board, supra, have precluded any further 
delays by making clear that desegregation must be accom­
plished “now” the school board and the courts below have 
justified the continued segregated education of at least 
50% of the black elementary school students living in 
metropolitan Mobile by continuing to insulate the predomi­
nantly white portions of metropolitan Mobile from par­
ticipation in a system-wide plan of desegregation through 
the adoption of a “neighborhood school concept.”

41-65 is a federally aided highway which for a considerable 
extent of its route through Mobile acts as the dividing line between 
black and white residential areas; it was constructed during the 
1960’s.



9

2. Summary of Proceedings in the Courts Below.

This action by black parents and students to desegregate 
Mobile County’s public schools began in 1963.5 The United 
States intervened in 1967 as a plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
§ 2000h-2 and has participated in all stages of this litiga­
tion since that time. Successive groups of white parents 
intervened in 1968 and earlier this year to press for the 
adoption of freedom-of-choice plans. Neither group of 
white parents participated in the recent proceedings in the 
court of appeals nor responded to the petition for certiorari.

a. March 1963— June 1969.

The early years of this litigation were consumed by peti­
tioners’ efforts against strong resistance to initiate the 
desegregation process in Mobile. The first of the many 
appeals in this action concerned the district court’s failure 
to rule on petitioners’ motion in March, 1963, to begin inte­

5 The school board, although petitioned on several occasions by 
black citizens, did nothing to begin desegregation between 1954 
and 1963. As Judge Tuttle subsequently stated:

It must also be borne in mind that this school board ignored 
for nine years the requirement clearly stated in Brown that 
the school authorities have the primary responsibility for 
solving this constitutional problem.

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 364 
F.2d 896, 898, n. 1 (5th Cir. 1966) (67a). The delay in initiating 
desegregation has been further compounded by the painfully slow 
progress of this litigation. In a recent opinion in a collateral pro­
ceeding Judge Goldberg observed:

For almost a decade there have been judicial efforts to deseg­
regate the schools of Mobile County, Alabama. We do not 
tarry now to count the many appeals to this court in further­
ance of this hope, for we are concerned today with only a 
single recent episode in this almost Homeric Odyssey. We 
wonder when the epilogue will be written.

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 422 
F.2d 1139, 1140 (5th Cir. 1970) (611a).



10

gration in the 1963-64 school year. The court of appeals 
denied relief while instructing the district court that Mo­
bile’s schools were unlawfully segregated and that it was 
under a duty to rule promptly on petitioners’ motion. Davis 
v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 318 
F.2d 63-64 (5th Cir. 1963) (3a). After the district court did 
rule by postponing any relief until the 1964-65 school year, 
petitioners appealed and the court of appeals ordered the 
school board to start desegregation by enrolling without 
discrimination only those first grade students, and other 
students moving into the county for the first time, who 
satisfied the stringent requirements of the Alabama Pupil 
Placement Law. Davis v. Board of School Commissioners 
of Mobile County, 322 F.2d 356, amended in part on rehear­
ing, 322 F.2d 359 (5th Cir. 1963) (14a), stay denied, 11 
L.Ed.2d 26 (Mr. Justice Black, Circuit Justice), cert, denied, 
375 U.S. 894 (1963), rehearing denied, 376 U.S. 928 (1964). 
On remand the district court ordered the implementation 
of a plan which was limited to high school seniors and ex­
cluded first grade elementary students. Another appeal 
followed immediately and the court of appeals ordered the 
implementation of the assignment and transfer provisions 
of the Alabama Pupil Placement Law at a rate faster than 
one grade a year and required the abolition of Mobile’s 
dual attendance zones as the plan affected each additional 
grade. Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 
County, 333 F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1964) (36a), cert, denied, 379 
U.S. 844 (1964).

In response to the orders to abolish dual attendance zones 
Mobile devised an assignment plan which the court of ap­
peals in a fourth appeal struck down as effectively perpetu­
ating the effects, if  not the form, of the dual system. First, 
attendance zones were drawn which conformed generally 
with the racial character of neighborhoods and assignments



11

from elementary schools to junior high schools and then to 
senior high schools were determined on a racial basis. 
Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 
364 F.2d 896, 900 (5th Cir. 1966) (67a). Then, students 
“were given the option of attending the school of their 
‘area’ (unmistakingly identifiable as either a Negro or 
white ‘area’ ) or the nearest school, outside the area, 
formerly predominantly of the race” (id. at 903), a device 
which the court of appeals found was plainly designed to 
permit white students living in a black area to transfer to 
white schools and “a plain violation of the oft-repeated 
requirement that dual school zones must be abolished” 
(ibid.). As a result, the court of appeals found that “ less 
than two-tenths of one percent of the Negro children in 
the system are attending white schools” and concluded 
“there is no true substance in the alleged desegregation” 
(id. at 901).

The school board then responded by drawing new bound­
ary lines for some metropolitan attendance areas but still, 
rather than actually assigning students to schools serving 
their attendance area, offering options to students to at­
tend either the school serving his attendance zone or the 
nearest “ formerly” white or black school. Although little 
additional desegregation occurred (only 692, or 2%, of 
Mobile’s black students attended white schools), the dis­
trict court approved the school board’s plan and petitioners 
appealed for the fifth time. The court of appeals found 
that the results of the board’s plan “make inescapable the 
inference that discrimination yet exists.”  Davis v. Board 
of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 393 F.2d 690, 
693 (5th Cir. 1968) (122a). Addressing itself solely to 
schools in metropolitan Mobile, the court of appeals re­
jected the school hoard’s zones and ordered the redrawing 
of attendance areas “according to strictly objective criteria



1 2

with the caveat that a conscious effort should be made to 
move boundary lines and change feeder patterns which 
tend to preserve segregation.” Davis v. Board of School 
Commissioners of Mobile County, 393 F.2d 690, 694 (5th 
Cir. 1968) (122a). The court of appeals further ordered 
that following the revision of attendance zones all students 
should be required to attend the school serving their zone 
in the absence of a compelling non-racial reason {id. at 
697). In the rural portion of the system the court o f appeals 
allowed the board to use a freedom-of-choice plan {id. at 
695).

Once again a remand to the district court failed to re­
sult in an adequate desegregation plan. Three appeals 
were taken from orders of the district court (the sixth, 
seventh and eighth in this litigation), consolidated by the 
court of appeals, and decided on June 3, 1969. Davis v. 
Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 414 
F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1969) (186a). The current phase of this 
case began with this decision.

b. June 1969—June 1970.

The main issue before the court of appeals in June 1969 
was whether the school board and the district court had 
complied with the previous decision of the court of ap­
peals in establishing school attendance zones for elemen­
tary and junior high schools, and maintaining freedom of 
choice for high school students in metropolitan Mobile. 
A second issue was retention of freedom of choice for all 
students in rural Mobile County. The court of appeals 
found that the district court had “ignored the unequivocal 
directive to make a conscious effort in locating attendance 
zones to desegregate and eliminate past segregation.” 414 
F.2d at 610. Freedom of choice in metropolitan high 
schools and all rural schools, where only 6% of all black



13

students attended white schools, was also held to be un­
acceptable. Accordingly, the court of appeals ordered the 
prompt formulation of a plan “ to fully and affirmatively 
desegregate all public schools in Mobile County, urban 
and rural . . . ” and directed the district court to request 
the Office of Education, of the United States Department 
of Health, Education, and Welfare to collaborate with the 
school board and submit its own desegregation plan if 
agreement with the board was not possible (ibid.).

The original plan of the team of educators organized by 
H.E.W.,6 consistent with the court of appeals’ directions, 
placed the initiative with the school board. The board was 
asked to develop a plan which would be jointly reviewed 
by the H.E.W. team and school officials to determine 
whether amendments could be made to increase desegre­
gation by changing zone lines, pairing schools, and re­

6 Four educators were involved in the preparation of H.E.W. 
recommendations: Mr. Jesse Jordan, the Senior Program Officer 
in the Atlanta Regional Office of the Equal Educational Oppor­
tunities Division of the United States Office of Education repre­
sented the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Prior 
to joining H.E.W. Mr. Jordan had been a teacher, principal, and 
Assistant Superintendent of Schools in Cobb County, Georgia. 
The actual study of Mobile was undertaken by Dr. Joe Hall, a 
Visiting Professor of Education at the University of Miami and 
Assistant Director of the Florida School Desegregation Consulting 
Center. The desegregation center is located at the University of 
Miami and financed under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 
Prior to joining the desegregation center, Dr. Hall served eleven 
years as Superintendent of Schools for Dade County (Miami), 
Florida. Dr. Hall also has been employed as a teacher and prin­
cipal in Carrabelle and Leon County, Florida, Director of the 
Division of Instruction in the Florida State Department of Edu­
cation, and Director of Instruction, Assistant Superintendent for 
Instruction and Associate Superintendent of Instruction in Dade 
County, Florida (362a). Dr. Hall was assisted by Dr. Michael 
Stolee, Director of the Florida School Desegregation Consulting 
Center, and Dr. Larry Weinkoff of the University of South Carolina.



14

structuring grades (396a).7 School officials did de­
velop plans for both rural and metropolitan schools. How­
ever, after joining the H.E.W. team in a review of the 
rural plan school officials severed working relationships 
with H.E.W. and obliged the H.E.W. team to prepare its 
own recommendations (440a).

In the absence of agreement with the school board, 
H.E.W. submitted its own county-wide desegregation plan 
on July 10, 1969.8 The plan provided for zoning all schools

7 The school board took the depositions of Dr. Hall and Mr. 
Jordan on July 15 and 16, 1969, after H.E.W. submitted its report 
to the district court on July 10, 1969. The depositions were filed 
in the district court on July 23, 1969, but in the absence of any 
evidentiary hearing on H.E.W.’s plan were never moved into evi­
dence. Apart from subsequent self-serving affidavits prepared by 
Mobile’s Associate Superintendent of Schools, James A. McPherson, 
these depositions are the only testimony concerning the preparation 
of H.E.W.’s July 10, 1969 plan. An effort by the United States 
to depose William B. Crane, president of the Mobile School Board 
and Associate Superintendent McPherson was blocked when the 
district court granted the school board’s motion that these deposi­
tions not be taken (Docket Sheet No. 12).

8 The failure of the school board to cooperate with H.E.W. in 
preparing a plan for metropolitan Mobile inevitably meant that 
there would be inaccuracies in H .EW .’s recommendations. Dr. 
Hall described the July 10, 1969, report as a “basic concept” (413a) 
in which “adjustments” would be necessary (412a). Among the rea­
sons why complete accuracy was not possible was that the school 
board never amended the statistical information furnished by it to 
the district court in 1968 pursuant to an order of the court of ap­
peals, 393 F.2d at 698. Aware of this fact, Dr. Hall specifically 
invited the school board to correct H.E.W.’s work. In a colloquy 
with the school board’s attorney, Dr. Hall said: “ If you or the mem­
bers of the school system found some error, I think you would have 
an obligation to tell us.” The school board attorney responded: “I 
am sure we would if we did” (439a). The district court reiterated 
H.E.W.’s invitation to the school board: “H.E.W. readily acknowl­
edges that this plan is not perfect and invites the school board to 
suggest improvements” . Yet, in spite of the fact that this invitation 
was ignored, the school board has continued to cite inaccuracies in 
H.E.W.’s recommendations. Subsequently, the court of appeals 
noted the school board’s failure to cooperate in response to the 
board’s claim that H.E.W. was inaccurate: “ The defendants warn



15

in rural and metropolitan Mobile (some schools would be 
paired within zones), closing four black schools in eastern 
Mobile, and transporting 2,000 black students from the 
closed schools to white schools in the western and southern 
parts of the metropolitan area. The plan failed in two 
respects to adequately desegregate Mobile’s schools: (1) 
it retained five large all-black elementary schools serving 
5,500 students because H.E.W. was unwilling to recom­
mend the transportation of white students in addition to 
the transportation of black students; and (2) the plan 
deferred desegregation in eastern metropolitan Mobile, 
where 85% of the system’s black students live, until 
1970-71.

The retention of all-black schools in H.E.W.’s plan was 
explained by H.E.W. in terms of its uncertainty whether 
“assignments legally are required to be in the desegrega­
tion plan if they require substantial additional transporta­
tion,” an issue which H.E.W. considered to be “a legal 
question which we can only leave to the parties and to 
the court” (329a). In reality, however, H.E.W. was less 
concerned about the legality of transportation generally 
than it was about the transportation of white students.

As an educational matter, Dr. Joe Hall, who was prin­
cipally in charge of preparing H.E.W.’s recommendations, 
stated that while he always felt that it was better to have 
less than more busing, he “always recognized that you had 
to have busing in order to operate schools to get groups 
of people together for educational purposes” (369a), 
that “ in our society today it is good for whites and

that the figures used by the Department of Justice and H.E.W. are 
inaccurate. This may be true but the defendants, the only parties 
in possession of current and accurate information, have offered no 
help. This lack of cooperation and generally unsatisfactory condi­
tion, created by defendants, should be terminated at once by the 
district court” .



1 6

blacks to have associational experiences in a school situa­
tion with each other” (371a), and “ if it takes some 
bussing to achieve that, I would say it would be to the 
advantage of all the children concerned” (372a). Con­
cerning the competing value of neighborhood schools, Dr. 
Hall held the view that while as a “general proposi­
tion” he would not favor assigning children to schools out­
side their neighborhoods, he did favor such assignments 
“as a specific proposition to achieve desegregation” (379a). 
He noted that “all of us in education have been brought 
up with the idea that the neighborhood school was 
a good idea, and that the community and the school should 
work together as a total situation (but) again I have 
undergone some change in my thinking because in your 
metropolitan areas your neighborhoods break down and 
you just don’t have the neighborhood any more even 
though you have a group of people that live close together” 
(379a-380a).9

However, in applying these views, Dr. Hall only recom­
mended the transportation of black students to available 
spaces in white schools. As for the transportation of both 
white and black students, Dr. Hall stated that “ at this 
point in our educational philosophy we have not been will­
ing to go to the cross-bussing idea” (448a) (em­
phasis added). In his view “ cross-bussing doesn’t have the 
financial support or the legal support or the community 
support unless something in this case decides that it does 
the legal support”  (449a) (emphasis added). Of all

9 Mr. Jordan, in his deposition, expressed the view that it is 
desirable to assign students to schools outside their neighborhoods 
“ if they obtain (a) better education where they are being trans­
ferred to. . . .  I think it’s better to take (students) to the point 
where they can get the better education. Now, firmly believing, 
based on research, that desegregated education is superior to segre­
gated education, if a community school results in segregated educa­
tion, then I think that is bad education” (477a).



1 7

these factors, it was the legal question to which Dr. 
Hall would return. Speaking of the problem of desegre­
gating the remaining all-black schools he said: “ [W ]e 
could not figure out a way to do that without getting into 
the problem of cross-bussing and we didn’t have a legal 
decision yet on busses” (452a). The “ long-range” solu­
tion which Dr. Hall envisaged was the construction of 
new schools in integrated areas. For the present, in re­
sponse to the question whether students in all-black schools 
“will then continue to suffer as those in the past for the 
lack of better educational opportunities,” Dr. Hall testi­
fied : “ That’s right, and the only recommendation, the only 
part (sic) I can say at all to justify that is . . . that the 
school system ought to make a strong effort there for 
other aspects of compensatory education, which I said I 
didn’t think were as effective as integration” (453a-454a).

Petitioners moved for an order implementing the H.E.W. 
plan with amendments requiring the desegregation of the 
five remaining all-black elementary schools and the im­
mediate implementation of a plan throughout all of Mobile. 
The United States moved for an order requiring the im­
plementation of the H.E.W. plan without modifications, 
and the school board moved to strike and expunge the 
H.E.W. plan from the record but, in the words of the dis­
trict court, “ filed absolutely no plan for the assistance 
of the court” .

The directions of the court of appeals required that 
“ [f]or plans as to which objections are made or amend­
ments suggested or which in any event the District Court 
will not approve without hearing, the District Court shall 
commence hearings beginning no later than ten days after 
the time for filing objections has expired.” 414 F.2d at 611 
(emphasis added). Nevertheless, in spite of petitioners’ 
timely objections, the district court, without an evidentiary



18

hearing, denied petitioners’ motion on August 1, 1969.10 11 
The district court’s order provided only for the implemen­
tation of H.E.W.’s plan for rural and western metropolitan 
Mobile as modified by the court to eliminate the H.E.W. 
proposal to transport 2,000 black students in northeastern 
metropolitan Mobile to white schools in western and south­
eastern metropolitan Mobile. The order also accepted 
H.E.W.’s plan to defer desegregation in eastern metro­
politan Mobile until 1970-71. Moreover, without the benefit 
of evidence, and without offering any elaboration, the dis­
trict court rejected H.E.W.’s deferred plan for eastern 
metropolitan Mobile by finding that the plan “ contains 
some provisions which I think are both impractical and 
educationally unsound” . The district court accordingly 
ordered the school board to file a desegregation plan by 
December 1, 1969, and directed further collaboration with 
H.E.W.

Petitioners appealed the delay, the court of appeals 
affirmed,11 Mr. Justice Black ordered the school board to 
prepare for desegregation by February 1, 1970,12 and this 
Court reversed the delay.13 The case returned to the dis­
trict court in late January 1970 for second semester im­
plementation of a plan to complete the desegregation of 
Mobile’s schools.

10 The district court did hold an ex parte conference with the 
school hoard and H.E.W. officials on July 3, 1969. Petitioners’ 
attorneys had no notice of the meeting and were not present. The 
meeting was acknowledged by the school board’s attorney in his 
motion to Mr. Justice Black in July 1969 seeking a stay of the 
court of appeals’ June 3, 1969, decision.

11 Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 
F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1970).

12 38 U.S.L.W. 3220 (1969).
13 Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 290 

(1970).



19

In the meanwhile, H.E.W. had submitted two additional 
plans to the district court on December 1, 1969.14 Using 
the July 10, 1969 plan as a base (and labeling it Plan B), 
H.E.W. proposed one modification (Plan B Alternative) 
which totally eliminated the transportation of students by 
continuing in operation the four black schools which the 
July 1969 plan closed. Plan B Alternative would leave nine 
all-black schools serving 7,971 students. The second mo­
dification (Plan B-l Alternative) recommended closing two 
black schools, and pairing or clustering all other black 
schools in eastern Mobile with white schools in western 
or southern Mobile. Transportation of both black and 
white students would be required and all schools in the 
system would be integrated.15

The same day the school board submitted its own plan 
for eastern Mobile. It assigned 18,832 black students to 
21 all or nearly all-black schools.16

The district court called attorneys for all parties to a 
“pre-trial conference”  in chambers on January 23, 1970 
(603a). At the conference the following positions were 
taken: (1) petitioners contended that the elementary school 
provisions of H.E.W.’s Plan B -l Alternative and the junior 
and senior high school provisions of H.E.W.’s Plan B should

14 The December 1, 1969, recommendations were prepared by Mr. 
Jordan’s successor, Ernest E. Bunch, Acting Senior Program Offi­
cer in the Atlanta Regional Office, Equal Opportunities Division 
of the United States Office of Education.

15 Plan B-l Alternative involved only elementary schools. For 
junior and senior high schools it proposed to incorporate the provi­
sions of Plan B.

16 Petitioners, despite repeated requests, were not served with a 
copy of the hoard’s plan and had to move on January 2, 1970, for 
an order compelling service which was not made until the district 
court granted the motion February 27, 1970.



2 0

be implemented forthwith, but if the transportation pro­
posals made immediate relief impossible and the district 
court selected another plan 'pendente lite, then a hearing 
should be promptly set to determine a permanent plan; 
(2) the United States proposed that the H.E.W. plan in­
volving no transportation (Plan B Alternative) be imple­
mented pendente lite while discovery and hearings on a 
permanent plan proceeded; (3) the school board argued 
against any changes in its operations; and (4) the district 
court stated it would not consider the plans petitioners 
supported and that the school board’s December 1, 1969, 
plan was unacceptable without modifications.

The district court concluded the conference by asking the 
school board for modifications of its December 1, 1969, 
plan and the United States “for [a] revision of the H.E.W. 
plan which the government thought should be followed for 
the remainder of the present school year” (ibid.). The 
school board failed to respond to the court’s request.17 
The United States submitted a revision of H.E.W.’s no­
transportation alternative (Plan B Alternative) “ as a plan 
which could be implemented immediately to remain in 
effect only for the present school year.” 18 Then, despite its 
own characterization of the January 23 conference as a

17 In its January 31, 1970, order, the district court commented 
on the hoard’s failure:

The school board and its staff of administrators and profes­
sional educators, who know the Mobile Public School System 
best, who have all the facts and figures which are absolutely 
necessary for a meaningful plan, have not assisted or aided the 
Court voluntarily. Consequently, the plan which is by this 
decree being ordered is not perfect. . . .

18 Brief for the United States in the court of appeals, p. 22. The 
memorandum of the United States in this Court in response to the 
Petition for Certiorari reiterated the government’s position that in 
the district court its plan had been proposed only for implementa­
tion “immediately, pendente lite, to remain in effect until the con­
clusion of the then-current school year” (p. 2, n. 1).



2 1

“pretrial conference” and both petitioners’ and the United 
States’ clearly stated position that plaintiffs sought only 
mid-year relief pending hearing’s on a permanent dese­
gregation plan, the district court without an evidentiary 
hearing entered an order on January 31, 1970, which pur­
ported to finally disestablish the dual system in Mobile 
(603a).

Mindless of its expressed view at the January 23, 1970, 
conference that the board’s proposals were unacceptable, 
the district court’s order adopted the school board’s Decem­
ber 1, 1969, plan with only several modifications. The order 
left 18,623 black students, or 60% of the system’s black 
students, in 18 all- or nearly all-black schools (680). The 
court dismissed H.E.W.’s Plan B -l Alternative, which would 
establish pairing and clusters of non-contiguous zones and 
require transportation of students, by making the general 
observation that it “would require busing of children from 
areas of the city to a different and unfamiliar area (603a) 
and by singling out one19 of the sixteen H.E.W. proposed 
pairs or clusters, presumably to illustrate the court’s con­
clusion that H.E.W.’s proposal was “motivated for the sole

19 The one elementary arrangement which the court singled out 
involved three schools, two white and one black, in a cluster. All 
students in the cluster would attend one of the white schools for 
the first and second grades, the second white school for the third 
grade, and the black school for grades four through six. Of the 
remaining fifteen elementary school arrangements in H.E.W.’s Plan 
B-l Alternative, only one other was similar. Eleven involved only 
two schools with all students attending either the black or white 
schools for two or three years and then attending the other school 
for the remaining elementary school grades. Three other arrange­
ments involved three schools, but required attendance at only two 
schools. Under these arrangements all students in the cluster would 
attend one school for grades one and two and then divide, with 
one-half attending the second school in the cluster for grades three 
through five and the other half attending the third school for the 
same grades. Neither the simple pairing of two schools serving non­
contiguous black and white zones nor this latter type of clustering 
were discussed by the district court.



2 2

purpose o f achieving racial balance” {ibid.). Similarly, the 
court dismissed H.E.W.’s Plan B for junior high schools 
by citing but one atypical proposal to establish a cluster 
of three junior high schools, stating that in the court’s 
view “the Supreme Court has not held that such drastic 
techniques are mandatory for the sole purpose of achieving 
racial balance” {ibid.).

Petitioners, the United States, and the school board, ap­
pealed. Petitioners challenged both the failure of the dis­
trict court to conduct an evidentiary hearing before 
ordering a final plan and the court’s failure to require the 
school board to implement H.E.W.’s plan to establish non­
contiguous pairings and clustering and transport both 
black and white students to achieve complete desegregation. 
The United States, while acknowledging that “ if the past 
practices of the school board can be relied upon as a guide, 
they suggest that implementation of any of these plans 
would be feasible,” asked the court of appeals to require 
the implementation of H.E.W.’s sole no-transportation plan 
for the negative reason that “no argument can be made 
that Plan B Alternative, which is the most modest plan, 
is either educationally unsound or administratively un­
feasible.” 20 The school board, although cross appealing, 
sought affirmance of the district court’s order.

The court of appeals, after remanding for further find­
ings of fact,21 decided the appeal on June 8, 1970. The 
court defined its judicial task in these words:

20 Brief for the United States in the Court of Appeals, p. 47.
21 The remand was required by the district court’s failure to 

determine how the school board’s plan, which it adopted, would 
affect the racial composition of any of the system’s schools. The 
remand also directed the district court to make findings on the 
extent of desegregation of faculty, transportation and extracur­
ricular activities. Petitioners moved in the district court on April 6, 
1970, to establish a procedure whereby after the board submitted



2 3

We have examined each of the plans presented to 
the district court in an effort to determine which would 
go further toward eliminating all Negro or virtually 
all Negro student body schools while at the same time 
maintaining the neighborhood school concept of the 
school system.

In the court’s view the neighborhood assignment system 
allows two alternatives. One alternative requires the as­
signment of each student to the school nearest his home 
with such assignments limited only by the capacity of the 
schools. Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange 
County, Florida, 423 F.2d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 1970). The 
other alternative is the establishment of attendance zones 
“on a discretionary basis as distinguished from a strict 
neighborhood assignment . . . .”  Mannings v. Board of 
Public Instruction of Hillsborough County, Florida, No. 
28643 (5th Cir., May 11, 1970) (Slip Op., p. 6). Mobile, the 
court concluded, had itself chosen not to use “the strict 
neighborhood assignment system” but instead uses “ discre­
tionary zone lines” (Court of Appeals, June 8, 1970). As 
Mobile had made that decision for itself the court ruled that 
the desegregation plan “ can be greatly improved by pair­
ing some schools located in proximity to each other . . . 
[and] also be improved by recasting the grade structure 
in some of the buildings, but, at the same time, maintain­
ing the neighborhood school concept” (ibid.).

The plan which found favor with the court was the plan 
submitted by the United States as a modification of 
H.E.W.’s no-transportation Plan B Alternative. The plan

proposed findings of fact an evidentiary hearing would be held. 
The school board submitted an affidavit which the district court 
accepted in toto “ excluding self-serving declarations and specula­
tive opinions.” Order of April 14, 1970. Petitioners’ motion for a 
hearing was denied the same day.



2 4

left 8,515 black students in all- or nearly all-black schools 
(ibid.). The court required modifications of the plan to 
reduce the number of black students in all-black schools to 
7,725 students in 8 elementary schools, which it noted 
amounted to 25% of Mobile’s black students being assigned 
to all-black schools (ibid.). In terms of elementary school 
students in metropolitan Mobile, the plan resulted in the 
assignment of 58% of black elementary school students to 
all-black schools.

These results were justified by tbe court in four ways: 
(1) “ every Negro child would attend an integrated school 
at some time during his education career” ; (2) “ the all 
Negro student body schools which will be left after the 
implementation of the Department of Justice plan, as modi­
fied, are the result of neighborhood patterns” ; (3) the re­
maining segregation can be “ alleviated” through a policy 
allowing black students to transfer to white schools with 
transportation provided; and (4) the situation may be 
further alleviated by the establishment of a bi-racial com­
mittee to serve in an “ advisory capacity” to the school 
board (Ibid.).

c. June 1970—August 1970

The court of appeals remanded the case to the district 
court with instructions to implement a new plan by July 1, 
1970. On remand the district court on June 12,1970 ordered 
the implementation of the plans submitted by the United 
States except for amendments to two school districts which 
the court announced it would make.

Then, on July 13, 1970, with neither notice to petitioners 
that revisions in attendance areas were being considered 
nor an evidentiary hearing, the district court issued an 
order establishing new attendance zones for metropolitan 
Mobile. The order recited as its authority a provision in



2 5

the court of appeals June 8, 1970 decision that the district 
court may make adjustments based on current demographic 
information possessed by the school board (699a). How­
ever, there is no indication that the school board officially 
furnished any such demographic data to the district court; 
at least no new demographic information has ever been 
served by the school board on petitioners.22 Two weeks 
later, on July 27, 1969, information showing projected en­
rollments by race at each metropolitan school under the 
district court’s July 13, 1970 plan was filed in the Clerk’s 
office, presumably by the district judge although the origin 
of the information is unclear and its accuracy unverified 
(Docket Sheet No. 16). The projections revealed extensive 
changes between the plan approved by the court of appeals 
on June 8, 1970, and the plan ordered by the district court. 
The district court also dissolved three proposed school pair­
ings and closed one black school. Petitioners and the United 
States appealed.

On August 4, 1970, the court of appeals affirmed the 
district court’s entire revision of its June 8, 1970 decision 
with the exception of the district court’s dissolution of one 
elementary school pairing which the court of appeals again 
ordered paired (704a). Relying on the statistics furnished

22 The court of appeals when it first ordered the school board to 
redraw its attendance zones required the hoard to undertake a 
survey of the school system and, inter alia, prepare maps showing 
the location, by race and grade, of each student in the school system 
during the 1967-68 school year. 393 F.2d at 698. Accordingly, 
pupil locator maps were not only filed but also provided to peti­
tioners and the United States. The purpose of the pupil locator 
maps and other survey information was to provide to the district 
court and the parties evidence to test the racial consequences of any 
new attendance zones established by the board. 393 F.2d at 693-94. 
If new information on residential patterns was used by the district 
court to establish new attendance zones then that new information 
should have been furnished to allow petitioners to assess the conse­
quences of any such revisions.



2 6

by the district court, which as noted above were unverified, 
the court of appeals concluded that the district court’s 
amendments as modified by the court of appeals would re­
duce the number of all-black schools to 6, and the number of 
black students attending these schools to 5,310, or 17% 
of all black students in Mobile County and consequently 
constituted an “ improved result” . However, this conclusion 
is marred by the fact that the district court’s order un­
accountably fails to assign 1,740 black students to any 
schools.23 Nevertheless, it still appears that at least 50% 
of black elementary students in metropolitan Mobile have 
been assigned to all-black schools.24

In order to allow this Court to consider its August 4, 
1970 decision to be “ the final order on this appeal for 
mandate and certiorari purposes” the court of appeals 
recalled and amended the mandate issued after its June 8, 
1970 decision (704a). However, the court of appeals acted 
without knowing that several days earlier, on July 30, 1970, 
the district court had once again, without a hearing, estab­
lished new zone lines to govern attendance in metropolitan 
Mobile. The district court’s order explained two zone line 
changes, stated that since the July 13, 1970 order the school 
board had suggested certain changes (petitioners were 
never notified that zone changes had been proposed by the

23 The last attendance report filed by the school board shows 
25,441 black students attending schools in metropolitan Mobile. 
The district court plan approved by the court of appeals assigns 
only 23,701 black students to metropolitan schools. This inaccuracy 
underscores the need for evidentiary hearings prior to the entry 
of orders governing a school system as complex as Mobile. If the 
board’s reports for the current year show that these black students 
reappear at all-black schools, then the improvement found by the 
court of appeals will prove illusory.

24 Petitioners’ calculations from the data in the court of appeals 
August 4th opinion show 5,351 black students assigned to all-black 
elementary schools out of a total black metropolitan elementary 
school population of 10,648.



27

school board and indeed no amendments were ever filed by 
the board), and found that “ some changes” should he made 
but that “ these changes in the court’s opinion have no 
racial significance” (702a). No statistical projections of the 
effects of these zone line changes were filed until three weeks 
later, on August 20, 1970, when the district court filed 
projections which again were unverified (Docket Sheet 
No. 17).

Petitioners appealed for the thirteenth time in the 
history of this litigation, Judge Bell conducted a pre- 
hearing conference with counsel, and on August 28, 1970, 
the court of appeals “ terminated” the appeal. Rather than 
merely “ some changes,”  the court of appeals found that 
“the July 30, 1970 order makes change in the attendance 
zones of 32 separate schools” (720a). The court further 
found that while “ some of the changes had no effect from 
the standpoint of desegregation [ojthers diminished the de­
gree of desegregation accomplished in the prior orders of 
this Court and the district court.” The court rejected the 
district court’s new junior and senior high school zones 
and accepted the district court’s elementary school zones 
while requiring some modifications (ibid.). The record 
does not show what the effect of the modifications will be 
on the extent of desegregation. Finally, the court of ap­
peals, responding to the problems caused by the continuing 
ex parte dealings between the school board and district 
court ruled that “henceforth, any time the school board 
desires to have changes in zone lines, it shall give reason­
able notice to the parties” (ibid.).

3 . The Techniques of Segregation.

Although the district court has not permitted any evi­
dentiary hearings on a desegregation plan since the sum­
mer of 1968, the record of the extensive hearing that



2 8

summer and in previous years fully documents the various 
techniques used by the school board to racially segregate 
Mobile’s schools.25

Prior to the initiation of this litigation in 1963 the 
Mobile School Board had no need for the great variety 
of assignment techniques subsequently used to maintain 
segregated schools simply because segregation was easily 
achieved through the maintenance of dual attendance zones, 
one for whites and the other for blacks. Since 1963 the 
school board has achieved the same result (1) by establish­
ing racially defined attendance zones, increasing or de­
creasing the capacity of schools or the grades served by 
schools to commensurately increase or decrease the areas 
served by schools in accordance with the racial character 
of residential patterns, and closing or constructing schools 
to serve predetermined racial groups, and (2) by providing 
procedures for optional assignments to assure that those 
few students who were “unavoidably” assigned to schools 
serving a different race would continue to attend the 
schools serving their race.

An examination of these assignment techniques over­
whelmingly demonstrates that Mobile’s passing acknowl­
edgements of a “neighborhood school concept” have never 
in reality governed the way in which children are assigned

25 The first hearings in this litigation were held in 1963 and are 
incorporated in the record before the Court of Appeals in No. 20,657 
(333 F.2d 356). The next hearings were held in 1965 and are 
reproduced in the record before the Court of Appeals in No. 22,759 
(364 F.2d 896). Hearings held during 1967 and 1968 are re­
produced in a combined record before the Court of Appeals in 
No. 26,886 (393 F.2d 690 and 414 F.2d 609). Additional 1968 
hearings limited to school construction problems are reproduced 
in the record before the Court of Appeals in Nos. 27,491— 27,260 
(414 F.2d 609). The record in this Court includes the records in 
each of these former proceedings in the Court of Appeals except 
the 1963 case No. 20,657.



29

to schools. To be sure, the rhetoric of neighborhood schools 
has periodically appeared in this litigation. However, the 
meaning of the neighborhood school as an organizing device 
has never been clear. In 1965, the Associate Superintendent 
of Schools, James A. McPherson, in response to a motion 
by petitioners stated that while the hoard “considers the 
neighborhood elementary school . . .  to be the desirable 
organizational pattern where it is practicable to achieve . . . 
the neighborhood school should not be misconstrued to 
necessarily mean the school nearest a pupil’s residence” 
(E. 22,759, pp. 25-26).26 Instead, as conceived by the school 
board, neighborhoods are the product of not only physical 
but also sociological factors.

There are many factors that determine a natural neigh­
borhood. These include natural and physical barriers, 
for example, traffic thoroughfares, railroads and drain­
age canals, housing developments; and neighborhood 
agencies and institutions such as churches, play­
grounds, etc.; all of which tend to promote cohesive­
ness between and among families (Ibid.)

But three years later, Cranford Burns, Mobile’s Super­
intendent of Schools, testified that the school board had 
not instructed personnel in charge of establishing atten­

26 The school board had stated at the outset of this litigation its 
opposition to any rule requiring the assignment of students on the 
basis of proximity to schools or by free choice. In its first plan sub­
mitted pursuant to an order of the district court in 1963 the hoard 
stated:

D. The Board considers that any general or arbitrary reas­
signment of pupils presently in attendance at the 89 exist­
ing schools, according to any rigid rule of proximity to 
schools or solely by request on the part of the parents of 
pupils, would be impractical and a disservice to the sys­
tem. . . . (R. 22,759, p. 2).



30

dance zones how to define neighborhoods. Further when 
asked:

Q. Is there a workable definition or a standard 
definition which the school board has used to define 
neighborhoods as such?

Superintendent Burns responded:

A. Not unless it would be something very informal 
indeed that neighborhoods—We look upon neigh­
borhoods in two different ways. You can create a 
neighborhood on a map in terms of geographic 
and natural barriers and that, but it’s mighty, 
mighty, hard to identify a neighborhood sociologi­
cally and otherwise because that has to do with 
factors not fully understood and involves informa­
tion we do not always have at our command, plus 
the fact that neighborhoods are constantly chang­
ing both psychologically and geographically and 
this makes the problem of organizing the School 
System very complex indeed (R. 26,886, Vol. IV,
pp. 1081-82).

Moreover, no matter what values the Mobile School Board 
has attributed to the neighborhood school concept it has 
never been advanced as the determinative basis for student 
assignment when race has been the issue. Rather than 
through the abstraction of the “neighborhood school con­
cept” assignments in Mobile have been determined by a 
combination of decisions concerning attendance zones, grade 
structures, assignment of portable classrooms, transporta­
tion of students, and the closing and construction of 
schools.27

27 This portion of the brief is in large part a summary of a 
longer analysis of these techniques contained in the Brief for the



31

a. Attendance Zones. The most straightforward way in 
which the school board determines student assignments is 
through the establishment of attendance zones. On four 
separate occasions the court of appeals has faulted zone 
lines established by the school board. In 1966 the court of 
appeals noted “the school superintendent testified (as was 
obvious to any who studied neighborhood patterns) that it 
was ‘generally true than the actual make-up of the school 
district [sometimes called ‘area’ ] tends to conform with 
the race of the school within that district’.” 364 F.2d at 
900. In 1968, the court of appeals found the school board’s 
rebuttal “ somewhat unpersuasive” to petitioners’ charge 
that racial factors determined zone lines. 393 F.2d at 694, 
n. 3. Again, in 1969, the court of appeals found “that the 
attendance zones formulated by the district court are con­
stitutionally insufficient and unacceptable. . . .” 414 F.2d at 
610. Zones established by the school hoard and the district 
court were again rejected by the court of appeals in the 
recent proceedings below.

In addition to racially identifiable attendance zones, the 
splitting of school attendance zone (i.e., non-contiguous 
zones) has been a common method of school assignment in 
Mobile. As many as nineteen non-contiguous or split zones 
were used in one year, 1964-65, including one split zone in 
which the parts were separated by over 11 miles (Brief 
Appendix, App. C). This non-contiguous zoning involved 
both the combination of rural and metropolitan zones as 
well as two or more non-contiguous zones in metropolitan

United States in the Court of Appeals, pp. 4-18, and Appendices 
B, C and D to that brief. The analysis contained in the United 
States’ brief is, in petitioners’ view, an accurate and extremely 
helpful compilation of facts concerning the board’s past practices 
and for this reason is appended to this brief and will hereinafter 
be cited as Brief Appendix,------ .



3 2

Mobile.28 The board’s non-contiguous zoning invariably 
linked only racially similar areas. Transportation between 
split zones was provided by the school board (R. 26,886, 
Yol. I, pp. 5-6).

b. Transportation. The use of buses to transport stu­
dents to school has long been a practice in Mobile. During 
1967-68 (the last year for which the record shows these 
facts) the Mobile School Board used 207 buses to transport 
22,094 students daily for an average round trip of 31 miles 
spending $480,156 or $21.73 per each student transported. 
(HEW  Report, July 10, 1969, p. 61) A  summary of the 
extent to which transportation has been used to facilitate 
student assignments in Mobile is contained in the following 
chart prepared by H .E.W .:

28 Maps illustrating some of the board’s non-contiguous zones are 
included in the Brief Appendix, p. 7a.



CURRENT OPERATIONAL COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION

Year

Transportation
Total

Expenditure

Enrollment 
of all

Transported

Per
Transported 

Pupil Enrolled 
Per Year

Number
of

Buses

Seating
Capacity
Average

Total miles 
Traveled for 

Year

Length of 
Bound trip 

in Miles

1964-65 $405,833 24,972 $16.25 218 59 1,271,585 31
1965-66 414,192 24,101 17.18 203 59 1,209,608 33
1966-67 503,934 22,218 22.68 229 59 1,221,207 32
1967-68 480,156.75 22,094 21.73 207 59 1,188,204 31

Four Year Average Cost Per Transported Pupil Enrolled $19.46 
Each New Bus 1st Year $6,648.14— 6,948.14

Each Year for Next 8 Years at $1,148.14 plus increases in cost which cannot be calculated

For an average seating capacity of 59, the average operational cost equals $1,148.14

Cost of New Bus $5500—5800 
(State Purchase)

TABLE 3-7

H
.E

.W
. R

eport, July 10, 1969, p. 61:



3 4

This extensive use of busing has not been limited to the 
rural parts of the school system. During 1966-67 the 
school board bused 7,116 students daily in the metropolitan 
area. Approximately 2,350 of these students were bused 
because of non-contiguous zoning (R. 26,886, Vol. I, pp. 
5-6). A  considerable amount of busing was designed to 
maintain segregation. As an example, 582 black students 
were bused over 6 miles from rural Saraland and Satsuma 
to a black school in metropolitan Mobile to prevent integra­
tion at white schools in their communities (Ibid.). Simi­
larly, 381 black elementary and junior high school students 
were transported from the Austin attendance area in the 
City of Mobile, which was served by a white school, to two 
black schools, Warren Elementary School and Booker T. 
Washington Junior High School, also located in the City of 
Mobile (Ibid.).29 * III.

29 In February 1967 the school board considered a proposal to 
transport students from the Russell Elementary School which the 
board had closed to the Leinkauf Elementary School, both in the 
City of Mobile. An assistant superintendent of schools reported 
to the school board the results of a survey to determine the board’s 
practices in transporting students. His survey reported the use of 
busing to transport black students away from their “neighborhood” 
schools:

“ Set forth below is a summary of schools serving elementary 
children who have to travel at least as far or further than will 
the pupils formerly attending Russell. . . .

III. Schools where elementary children are now furnished 
public school bus transportation from out-of-district 
attendance areas as approved by the Board.
A. Warren-Negro pupils residing in the Austin area.
B. Hillsdale-Negro students residing in the Semmes 

area.
C. Hall-Negro pupils residing in the Kate Shepard 

area and Negro pupils residing in the South Brook- 
ley area.”

(R. 26,886, pp. 24-25).



3 5

c. Portable Classrooms and Grade Structures. In addi­
tion to the way in which zones are established and the 
transportation of students, the school hoard has used port­
able classrooms and the grade structures of schools to re­
late the capacity of schools to selected racial neighborhoods. 
For example, the selective assignment of portable class­
rooms in order to expand the capacity of black schools as 
a way of avoiding the assignment of black students to 
under-utilized nearby white schools has been a method of 
maintaining segregated schools. The most striking exam­
ples of this practice have occurred in downtown Mobile. A  
school board study shows that between 1962 and 1967 resi­
dential movements decreased the number of white students 
attending white downtown schools from 14,128 to 9,897 
while the number of black students attending black down­
town schools increased from 13,022 to 15,120 (R. 26,886, 
Vol. VI, pp. 26-27). This led to overcrowded conditions in 
black schools which the school board responded to by as­
signing 39 portable classrooms to black schools instead of 
using 44 available empty classrooms in white schools (id. 
at 29).

Besides effecting the racial composition of schools 
through the selective assignment of portables or non­
utilization of vacant classrooms, the Mobile School Board 
has also determined the grade structures of numbers of 
schools in order to effect the racial composition of these 
schools.

The Mobile school system has used an extraordinarily 
wide variety o f grade structures, including schools serving 
grades 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-12, 2-5, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10, 
6-12, 7, 7-8, 7-9, 7-11, 7-12, 8-12, 9-12, 10-11, 10-12. A  school 
which serves a small number of grades may house more 
students in each grade than the same school serving a large 
number of grades. Consequently, the smaller the number



3 6

of grades served, the larger the attendance area served by 
the school may be. By selectively decreasing or increasing 
the number of grades served at particular schools, the 
school board has increased or decreased the area served by 
the school to coincide with racial residential patterns 
(R. 26,886, Vol. V, pp. 1527-1534). For example, the school 
hoard established the Hillsdale School as the only metro­
politan school serving grades 1-12 in order to restrict its 
attendance area to a small black community in the western 
part of the metropolitan area. School segregation was also 
the objective in arranging grade structures at four white 
schools surrounding a black school in northern metropoli­
tan Mobile to enable white students to attend one white 
school for grade 6, a second for grades 7 and 8, a third for 
grade 9, and a fourth for grade 10, all in order to prevent 
their attendance at a nearby black school (R. 26,886, Yol. 
IV, pp. 1331-32). An expert witness for petitioners, Dr. 
Myron Lieberman, a Professor of Education at Rhode 
Island College, testified without contradiction that he had 
never encountered a school system with as many deviations 
in grade structures as Mobile and that, while not question­
ing the necessity for deviations in grade structures, the 
problem in Mobile is “ that the deviations always seem to 
result in more segregation, not less” (R. 26,886, Vol. V, pp. 
1526-32).

d. Classroom Additions, Construction, Closings, and 
Conversions. The Mobile School Board has not always been 
able to determine the racial composition of schools by the 
establishment of zone lines, transportation of students, 
reassignment of portables, and reorganization of grade 
structures. The task of maintaining school segregation 
has often involved more permanent decisions concerning 
construction of both new schools and additional classrooms 
to existing schools, the closing of some white schools to



3 7

avoid integration, and the conversion of other white schools 
to black schools.

The use of construction programs to perpetuate segre­
gation is perhaps best illustrated by the board’s response 
to the change in racial residential patterns in downtown 
Mobile which resulted in underutilization of white schools 
and the overcrowding of black schools. The hoard’s short 
term response was the assignment of portable classrooms 
to black schools. Its long term solution was the construc­
tion of four new black schools and additions to a fifth exist­
ing black school in order to “ relieve 35 of the 39 portables 
now in use in the formerly Negro schools of this area” (R. 
26,886, Vol. VI, pp. 29-30). More generally, the board’s 
procedures in determining the need for new schools, both 
in terms of location and size, have been based on the as­
sumption that new schools will only serve predetermined 
racial groups (Brief Appendix, pp. 13-15).

The school board’s use of its construction program to 
perpetuate segregation has received judicial recognition 
since the outset of this litigation. In 1963, when the school 
board sought to justify to this Court its failure to even 
begin desegregation by pointing to its ongoing construc­
tion of “ colored schools,” Justice Black’s opinion in cham­
bers observed:

Yet this record fails to show that the Mobile Board 
has made a single move of any kind looking toward a 
constitutional public school system. Instead, the Board 
in this case has rested on its insistence that continua­
tion of the segregated system is in the best interests 
of the colored people and that desegregation would 
“seriously delay and possibly completely stop” the 
Board’s building program “particularly in the improve­
ment of and completion of sufficient colored schools



3 8

which are so urgently needed.” In recent years, more 
than 50% of its building funds, the Board pointed out 
to the parents and guardians of its colored pupils, had 
been spent to “build and improve colored schools,” 
and of eleven million dollars that would he spent in 
1963, over seven million would be devoted to “ colored 
schools.”

It is quite apparent from these statements that 
Mobile County’s program for the future of its public 
school system “lends itself to perpetuation of segre­
gation,” . . . Davis v. Board of School Commissioners 
of Mobile County, 11 L.ed.2d 26, 28 (1963).

Concern that the school board’s construction program is 
being used to maintain segregation has also led the court 
of appeals on two occasions to order the suspension of 
school construction projects. 393 F.2d 690 at 697, and 
414 F.2d 609 at 610.

The closing and conversion of schools is a segregation 
technique used by the school board often in conjunction 
with its school construction program. In downtown Mobile 
the school board has persistently sought to close under­
utilized white schools located close to overcrowded black 
schools in order to avoid the assignment of black students 
to these schools (Brief Appendix, p. 16). This has been 
done at the same time that portable classrooms have been 
assigned to black schools and proposals advanced to con­
struct new black schools.

On other occasions the school board has converted white 
schools to black schools rather than close them. One ex­
ample of this process occurred in the Prichard area of 
metropolitan Mobile where the board, in order to provide 
classroom space for black students, converted the Snug



3 9

Harbor and Turnerville Elementary Schools to black 
schools, renaming them as Adams and Palmer after locally 
prominent blacks, and reassigning white students elsewhere 
(Brief Appendix, pp. 12a-14a). The explicit racial consider­
ations involved in these decisions are revealed by the school 
board memorandum set forth in the note below.30 * I

30 R. 26,886, Vol. VI, p. 36 (Pit. Int. Exh. No. 72) :

“May 1, 1963
“Memo : Dr. Burns 

Prom: Dr. Scarborough
Re : Your memo of April 26—Neece Property in the 

Snug Harbor area.
“The population in Prichard is fairly well stabilized by now it 
appears, so far as the total population is concerned. It appears 
to me that our difficulty lies not in too many or not enough 
schools, but in the matter in having the schools adjusted to the 
Negro or white population. With the addition of this new 
Prichard building for the Negroes, north of Carver Road, and 
the use of Snug Harbor and Turnerville School for Negro 
schools that for some time this would meet the needs of the 
population of the Negroes from Telegraph Road to St. Stephens 
Road and from the Prichard City Limits northward to High­
way 1-65.

“If the Board is to go along with permanent use of Snug Harbor 
and Turnerville for housing Negro children and by the build­
ing of the new Prichard Elementary School, north of Carver,
I think you can see that they are fairly well housed. It is my 
opinion that if more Negroes move in that area we again would 
have to abandon another white school and that it in turn could 
house the increase of Negroes in a school between Craft High­
way and Telegraph Road in the vicinity of Happy Hill. This 
would be a desirable substitution for Snug Harbor in that they 
would not have to cross the Craft traffic lane, but to make this 
exchange would cost the Board approximately one half of a 
million dollars. It is my opinion that they will want to forego 
crossing Craft Highway and continue with the present facility 
at Snug Harbor in order to save this one half million dollars 
in buildings.

“It might be worth consideration if the people, who resist our 
turning Snug Harbor into a Negro school, could find a way to 
make that property worth as much as a half of a million dol-



40

Summary of Argument

I .

The issue presented is what are the requirements of a 
final school desegregation plan that satisfies the require­
ments of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 
Petitioners believe that nothing less than total desegre­
gation will suffice. But the Fifth Circuit and the Fourth 
Circuit are accepting the idea that some “ reasonable” de­
gree of desegregation satisfies the Constitution. We believe 
that this is incorrect. Brown decided that it was the indi­
vidual constitutional right of each and every black child to 
have an education free of racial segregation. No black 
child should be assigned to a “black school”—that is one 
identified as the repository of minority children. The focus 
through the years since Brown on effecting a gradual tran­
sition to non-discriminatory systems has led the courts 
below into dealing with desegregation in a manner that 
now distorts the final objective by forever denying a de­
segregated education to large numbers of black children.

The goal required by the Constitution is that: every 
black child, at every grade in his educational career, must 
be free of assignment to a “black”— a racially identified

lars. In such cases it might be worth the Board’s consideration 
to abandon the use of Snug Harbor School and making use 
of the Neece property that we looked at. As I see it, these are 
the only reasons for our making use of the Neece property of 
which we looked.

“Naturally if we had the Neece property and an 18 room build­
ing with modern facilities, it would be much more valuable 
than our present Snug Harbor assignment, but it would house 
no more children. As an investment it might be wise, hut in 
the matter of housing our children at the least possible cost 
to the citizens, it looks as if Snug Harbor is our best bet.

C. L. Scarborough”



41

minority—school. Racially identified minority schools are 
those which by reason of a very considerable racial con­
centration or disproportion are conceived as designed to 
receive black children.

n.
The Fifth Circuit’s “neighborhood school concept” first, 

announced in Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange 
County, Fla., 423 F.2d 203 (5th Cir. 1970), and later de­
veloped and applied in more than a score of cases during 
1970 including the opinion below, is unworkable, undesir­
able and unconstitutional. The doctrine is not defended or 
defensible as non-racial or as affording a neutral basis for 
assignment. The doctrine does not reflect past school hoard 
policy. It was invented by the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth 
Circuit “neighborhood school concept” requires a balancing 
of a set of values labeled “neighborhood” against the value 
of total integration. The policy is unclear, and it involves 
complicated judgmental appraisals with differing results 
when applied by different judges.

Mobile has never had any neighborhood school assign­
ment policy. Assignments have been based on a multitude 
of methods designed to further racial segregation includ­
ing the use of busing to promote segregation. The Fifth 
Circuit principle as applied in the decision below leaves a 
full half of the black elementary children in metropolitan 
Mobile (where most of the blacks in the county reside) in 
schools which are all-black or virtually all-black.

III.

The Fourth Circuit is applying parallel doctrine of 
“reasonableness” which even more explicitly acknowledges 
that complete desegregation is not required. The concept 
is not based on an appraisal of the workability (Mr. Jus­



42

tice Harlan, concurring in Carter v. West Feliciana Parish 
School Board, 396 U.S. 290, 292) of desegregation plans. 
Nevertheless at least in the Charlotte case the Fourth Cir­
cuit is requiring more integration than the Fifth. The 
contrast is striking. By a vote of 5-1 the Fourth Circuit 
in Charlotte rejected the school board’s elementary plan 
on the ground that it left half of the black elementary school 
children in all-black schools. The opinion below in Mobile 
orders a plan which leaves half of the black elementary 
school children in all-black schools.

IV.

This Court should declare that every black child is to be 
free from assignment to a “black” school—an identifiable 
racial minority school—-at every grade of his education. 
The only excuse from this general principle should be the 
case of absolute umvorkability of any proposal for eliminat­
ing the racially identifiable black schools. Our concept 
of absolute unworkability refers to really extreme demog­
raphic or geographic flukes far beyond the range of con­
cerns evidenced by recent Fifth Circuit decisions leaving 
all-black schools in most systems.

The general principle should not be relaxed on the basis 
of transportation inconveniences and costs, rigid theories 
of desired grade structures, neighborhood associational 
values, or fears of sending children to “ strange or hostile” 
neighborhoods. When these rationalizations for continuing 
segregation are properly examined (particularly in the 
context of the practices in Mobile) they are all insufficient 
to justify failure to eliminate state imposed racial segre­
gation. Mobile schools can be fully integrated merely by 
using the administrative techniques which have long been 
used in Mobile to keep schools separate.

We believe that the principles we urge will be easier to 
administer than those now employed by the lower courts.



43

They have the advantages of simplicity, uniformity, flexi­
bility, and accomplishment of the objectives of the Constitu­
tion as construed in Brown I. The Constitutional goal of 
eliminating racially identifiable minority schools in dual 
systems is within the capacity of this nation to achieve. 
The promise of Brown is broken by the current approach 
of the courts below.

V.

Final school desegregation plans should not be approved 
without evidentiary hearings. The district court in this 
case failed to follow fundamentals of procedural fairness. 
We do not complain of mere isolated events or of irregular­
ities caused by the need for speedy disposition of a difficult 
and complicated case. This record shows a consistent pat­
tern of denial of hearings, and a repetitious pattern of 
deciding important issues based on the school board’s 
ex parte factual submissions to the district court. This 
consistent course of conduct denied the fundamentals of 
due process: the right to be heard and to have the case 
decided on evidence introduced in court. Ohio Bell Tele­
phone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 301 U.S. 292 
(1937); Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468 (1936) ; 
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).



4 4

ARGUMENT

I.

Introduction

This case presents a fundamental question with respect 
to the meaning and validity of this Court’s historic deci­
sion rendered over sixteen years ago in B row n  v. Board  
o f Education , 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (B row n I ) .  The issue 
presented is : What are the requirements of a final school 
desegregation plan: one that finally fulfills the commands 
of Brown I  by vouchsafing to all black school children their 
rights to a desegregated education. Since 1955 when the 
Court announced in B row n I I  (Broivn  v. Board o f Educa­
tion, 349 U.S. 294 (1955)) that more time might be allowed 
to effect a transition to racially non-discriminatory school 
systems, and increasingly in recent terms (see, e.g., Green  
v. County School Board o f New K en t County, 391 U.S. 
430 (1968); A lexander  v. H olm es County Board o f  Educa­
tion, 396 U.S. 19 (1969); C arter v. W est Feliciana Parish  
School Board, 396 U.S. 290 (1970); N orthcross v. Board  
o f Education, 397 U.S. 232 (1970)) this Court’s school 
desegregation decisions have been concerned with the ques­
tion, how soon ? The Court has finally answered that ques­
tion. The answer is, now.31 The remaining question is, 
how much— that is, how much desegregation must occur 
before a school district has finally satisfied the require­
ments of Brown I. The answer will determine whether the 
promise of Broivn  will be kept or broken for countless black 
children.

31 “Under explicit holdings of this Court the obligation of every 
school district is to terminate dual school systems at once and to 
operate now and hereafter only unitary schools.” Alexander v. 
Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 20 (1969).



45

One would have supposed that the answer to that ques­
tion was plain from Broivn 1 itself; nothing less than total 
desegregation will suffice.32 But this is not the answer 
that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has accepted 
in this case, nor in other recent school desegregation deci­
sions, nor is it the answer of the Court of Appeals for 
the Fourth Circuit in Sivann v. Charlotte-M ecklenburg
Board, o f  Education, ------  F.2d ------  (May 26, 1970),
certiorari granted, 399 U.S. 926 (1970). Both the Fourth 
and Fifth Circuits, by differing formulations which amount 
to the same thing in the end, have accepted the notion 
that a “ reasonable” degree of desegregation discharges 
the obligation of Broivn 1— with the result that now, at the 
end of the road of desegregation, as a final fulfillment of 
the promise of Brown  7, thousands upon thousands of 
southern black school children are to be permitted to re­
main in “black”  schools. In the recent Fifth Circuit deci­
sions, frequently as many as one-fifth or one-fourth of the 
black school population of a district is required to remain 
in all-black or virtually all-black schools and, doubtless, 
the effect of Sivann, supra , will be much the same in the 
Fourth Circuit.

This remaining segregation is not the result of a shirking 
of desegregation efforts by the Fifth Circuit (or the 
Fourth). To the contrary, the Fifth Circuit has worked 
tirelessly to desegregate the schools, and has afforded 
review of a large number of school cases at a greatly 
accelerated pace since this Court’s decision in A lexander  v. 
Holmes County Board o f  Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969).

32 “We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine 
of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities 
are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and 
others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought 
are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the 
equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amend­
ment.” Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954).



4 6

Nor is the continuing segregation the result of failures 
in the details of specific desegregation plans which the 
courts in both circuits—particularly the Fifth—have 
worked to hammer out in painstaking detail. Rather, the 
breaking of the promise of Brown 1 to perhaps 20 or 25 
percent or more of southern black school children is the 
result of a mistake of basic principle which, paradoxically, 
seems to arise precisely from the long desegregation efforts 
of both circuits. Even more than this Court, the Courts 
of Appeals of the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have been 
long and continuously concerned with hoiv soon, and with 
how to speed the process of desegregation. In this concen­
tration upon means—and particularly the means of interim 
adjustment—the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have developed 
principles and outlooks which, while quite serviceable dur­
ing the period of transition envisaged by Brown II, distort 
the ultimate end which it was the purpose of that transi­
tion to attain.

What we mean is this: Brown I decided that it was the 
right—the individual and particular right— of every black 
school child to have an educational experience free of the 
demeaning and damaging effects of racial segregation. It 
was the right of each not to be compelled to attend a “black” 
school—that is, one identified as the repository of black 
children because they were black. Brown II  recognized 
that the creation of school systems which would fulfill 
this right could not be instantaneously achieved, and it 
ushered in a period of adjustment during which it was 
quite candidly recognized that some black children would 
be denied this right while changes in the system were made, 
looking to a time when all should have realization of the 
right. The adjustment took—and perhaps had to take—a 
number of forms. Black children were denied an integrated 
education in 1955 and 1960 which it was recognized that



47

identically situated black children would be getting- in 1965 
and 1970.33 Black children were denied an integrated 
education for six years—throughout grammar school— 
which it was planned that those same black children would 
get for three years—in junior high or high school.34 Black 
children in some schools were denied an integrated educa­
tion under a comprehensive school plan which g’ave an in­
tegrated education to other black children in other schools.35 
True to Brown I , it could not be said that any of these 
children were receiving the desegregated education to 
which they were constitutionally entitled: But the denial 
to them of a constitutional, desegregated education was 
accepted as a part of the process of transition, while the 
focus of attention was upon the development of school 
systems that could eventually give all black children their 
constitutional rights.

Concentration on desegregation of systems was neces­
sary during the transitional period, and it remains neces­

33 See, for example, the approval of stair-step grade-a-year deseg­
regation plans as in Mobile in 1963. Davis v. Board of School Com­
missioners of Mobile County, 322 F.2d 356, 359-360 (1963) (14a).

34 Thus, for example, in 1966 the Fifth Circuit described Mobile’s 
plan: “ The plan was to have application in the school year 1963-64 
to the twelfth grade in the city of Mobile only, in the school year 
1964-65 it was to have application to the eleventh and twelfth grades 
in all schools in Mobile County and to the first and tenth grades in 
the city of Mobile schools. In 1965-66 it was to have application to 
grades one, two, nine, ten, eleven and twelve of all schools of Mobile 
County. In 1966-67, grades three and eight were to be added, in 
1967-68, grades four and seven were to be added, in 1968-69, grade 
five was to be added, and in 1969-70 it became applicable to grade 
six.” (Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile Cty., 364 
F.2d 896, 900 (1966) (67a). The court later ordered that all grades 
be desegregated by September 1967 (374 F.2d at 904).

35 See, for example, the Fifth Circuit order allowing the district 
judge in the Mobile case to defer the start of desegregation in rural 
Mobile schools for a year after it was to begin in the city of Mobile. 
Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 322 F.2d 
356, 359 (1963) (14a).



4 8

sary in the sense that the end result of the transition must 
be school systems that provide the opportunity for de­
segregated education. But concentration upon systems can­
not be permitted to obscure the ultimate goal which is the 
vindication of every black child’s right to a desegregated 
education. This right—recognized by Brown 1—is not 
simply to be educated within a system in which some other 
black children, even a majority of black children, are given 
a desegregated education. It is a right of each and every 
black child to have a desegregated education himself. (And 
it is not a right to merely 3 or 6 years of desegregated 
education, but to a complete—twelve year—desegregated 
education.) So the necessary feature of a final school 
desegregation plan, one that ends the transitional period 
and fulfills the promise and command of Brown, is that 
every black child receive an education during no part of 
which he is assigned to a “black” school— a school identi­
fiable as a school for blacks. Brown requires the end of the 
racially identifiable minority schools—the schools which 
by reason of a very considerable racial concentration or 
disproportion are conceived as designed to receive black 
children. The final Fifth Circuit plans, as exemplified by 
its Mobile decision below, and the final Fourth Circuit plans 
envisaged by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg decision (Swann, 
supra), which leave large numbers of black children in 
identifiable “black” schools, simply do not satisfy this ulti­
mate goal. What has happened is that the Fourth and Fifth 
Circuits have permitted the thinking of the transitional 
period—that some black children might be denied their 
rights for a time—to carry over and define the ultimate 
goal of the transition, as a measure of finally satisfactory 
desegregation, so that it is now accepted that “desegrega­
tion” is satisfactory which will forever deny twenty to 
twenty-five percent of black children (or even more) a 
desegregated education.



49

We deal below with the doctrines that have led to this 
result. But what is required in these cases is that this 
Court set right, once and for all, the ultimate matter of 
principle, of the goal which every desegregation plan must 
achieve (and under Alexander v. Holmes County Board of 
Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969), and Carter v. West Feliciana 
Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 290 (1970), must achieve 
now). That goal is: that every black child, at every grade 
in his educational career, must be free of assignment to a 
“black”—a racially identified minority— school. If and 
when this Court announces that principle clearly, we are 
sure that the Fourth and Fifth Circuits will find it no more 
difficult to administer—and in many ways easier to ad­
minister—than the principles which they are now adminis­
tering, which call for most—some uncertain number less 
than all—black children to realize their constitutional rights.

II.

The Fifth Circuit’s Approach to Final School Desegre­
gation Plans Since Alexander and Carter.

A. Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County: 
Announcement of the “Neighborhood SchooP’ Con­
cept.

On February 17,1970, shortly after this Court’s decisions 
in Alexander36 and Carter?1 the Fifth Circuit announced 
for the first time36 37 38 that it would require application of a

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

37 Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U S 290 
(1970).

8 Before Alexander, the Fifth Circuit had been engaged in de­
ciding a number of cases involving the adequacy or inadequacy of 
freedom of choice plans under this Court’s decisions in Green v. 
County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1963); 
Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, 391 U.S. 450 (1968) ; and



50

“ neighborhood school” concept in final desegregation plans. 
This announcement came in a decision by Judge Bell in 
Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Fla., 
423 F.2d 203 (5th Cir. 1970). In the Orange County case 
(Ellis, supra) the Fifth Circuit found that the board’s geo­
graphic zoning plan left 51% of the black students in 
eleven all-black schools. The board said it wished to main­
tain a neighborhood basis of assignment but the Fifth Cir­
cuit found “variances . . . from the neighborhood school 
assignment system with the result that some white students 
are attending schools located greater distances from their 
home than nearby schools where the student body is all

Raney v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 443 (1968). See, e.g., Adams 
v. Mathews, 403 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1968) ; Hall v. St. Helena 
Parish School Board, 417 F.2d 801 (5th Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 
396 U.S. 904 (1969); United States v. Hinds County School Bd., 
417 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1969), reversed as to delay granted sub nom. 
Alexander, supra. In Adams v. Mathews, supra, at 189, the Fifth 
Circuit announced that plans leaving all-Negro schools were un­
satisfactory.

“If in a school district there are still all-Negro schools or 
only a small fraction of Negroes in white schools, or no sub­
stantial integration of faculties and school activities then, as 
a matter of law, the existing plan fails to meet constitutional 
standards as established in Green.

This language was reiterated in Henry v. Clarhsdale Municipal 
Separate School Hist., 409 F.2d 682, 689 (5th Cir. 1969%

The Fifth Circuit held in several cases that geographic zoning 
plans for desegregation could he accepted only if they actually 
worked to desegregate the schools—they were to be judged by the 
same principle applied to free choice plans. See, e.g., United States 
v Greenwood Municipal Separate School Hist., 406 F.2d 1086 (5th 
Cir. 1968), cert, denied, 395 U.S. 907 (1969) ; Henry v. Clarhsdale 
Municipal Separate School Hist., 409 F.2d 682 (5th Cir. 1969), cert, 
denied, 396 U.S. 940 (1969) ; United States v. Indianola Municipal 
Separate School Hist., 410 F.2d 626 (5th Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 
396 U.S. 1011 (1970). The same rule was applied in an earlier 
appeal in the Mobile County cases holding that the hoard zones 
failed to achieve sufficient desegregation. Havis v. Board of School 
Commissioners of Mobile County, 414 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1969).



51

Negro” (423 F.2d at 207). The Fifth Circuit decided “ this 
cannot be permitted in a school system operated on a neigh­
borhood basis” (ibid.) and required that the board adopt 
what the Fifth Circuit called “ a true neighborhood assign­
ment system, assigning students to the school nearest the 
student’s home up to the capacity of the given school” 
(ibid.).

The Ellis decision ordered a plan based on zone lines 
equidistant between schools, but limited by the existing 
capacity of schools, and also leaving to the board the de­
cision whether “ to expand present facilities” (ibid.). The 
court said that the principle must be applied “without ex­
ception” and without “variances” :

We also hold that the neighborhood system, based 
on school capacity, must be observed without exception. 
This will prevent any variance based on traffic condi­
tions, such as are disclosed in the supplemental find­
ings of fact with respect to 53 students who should 
go to Callahan school, or by zone line locations as is 
the case with five children who should be assigned to 
the Webster Avenue school. Variances by arbitrary 
zone lines, or for reasons of traffic, while reasonable on 
their face, may destroy the integrity and the stability 
of the entire assignment plan. If Orange County wishes 
to maintain a neighborhood assignment system, then 
it must do so without variances. Each student in the 
system must be assigned to attend the school nearest 
his or her home, limited only by the capacity of the 
school, and then to the next nearest school. (Ellis, 
supra, 423 F.2d 203, 207-208.)

Applying this Fifth Circuit no-variances “neighborhood” 
principle to the Orange County system—which had 68,012 
white pupils (82%) and 14,856 blacks (18%)—left three 
all-black schools which would serve 2,397 black elementary



5 2

students (27% of black elementary pupils and 16% of all 
black pupils). The Fifth Circuit’s neighborhood plan left 
these 2,397 black pupils in all-black schools because— the 
court said—their segregation resulted from residential pat­
terns. The court concluded that student desegregation “will 
be accomplished once the district court requires and ascer­
tains as a fact that the neighborhood student assignment 
system, based on the definition herein contained is invoked 
and the transfers made necessary thereby have been made” 
(423 F.2d at 208).

B. Analysis of the “ Neighborhood School”  Concept, Fifth 
Circuit Style.

Analysis of the “neighborhood school” concept—Fifth 
Circuit style—requires a consideration of the host of deci­
sions in which the concept has been applied since Orange 
County, supra.3* A number of characteristics of the * 1

39 There have been several dozen Fifth Circuit school desegrega­
tion decisions during 1970 to date. The following is a selective list­
ing of cases since Orange County which deal with the “neighborhood 
school” concept.

1. Andrews v. City of Monroe, 425 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1970)
2. Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist., 426

F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1970)
3. Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough

County, 427 F.2d 874 (5th Cir. 1970)
4. Harvest v. Board of Public Instruction of Manatee County,

No. 29425 (5th Cir., June 26, 1970)
5. Carr v. Montgomery County Board of Education, No. 29521

(5th Cir., June 29, 1970)
6. Bradley v. Board of Public Instruction of Pinellas County,

No. 28639 (5th Cir., July 1,1970), new opinion substituted 
on rehearing (July 28, 1970)

7. Hightower v. West, No. 29993 (5th Cir., July 14, 1970)
8. Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, No. 29584 (5th

Cir., July 15, 1970)
9. Tillman v. Board of Public Instruction of Volusia County,

No. 29180 (5th Cir., July 21, 1970)



53

“neighborhood” concept have unfolded as it has been ap­
plied to a variety of factual contexts by different panels of 
the Fifth Circuit:

First, the Fifth Circuit concept is not a doctrine which 
asserts that strict geographic zoning, in the context of these 
school systems, is “non-racial.” This is admitted by the 
Fifth Circuit in the Orange County and Mannings cases 
and is the holding of a number of the recent Fifth Circuit 
decisions (Andrews v. City of Monroe; Henry v. Clarksdale 
Municipal Separate School Dist.; Ross v. Eckels, all cited 
in note 39, supra). As recognized also by both courts below 
in Swarm v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 
Oct. Term, 1970, No. 281, the “neighborhood” assignment 
is not non-racial, because the very school neighborhoods in 
question were created by state action to achieve school 
segregation. On the one hand housing, zoning, public hous­
ing, urban renewal and construction, and racial discrimina­ * 11

te). Youngblood v. Board of Public Instruction of Bay County, 
No. 29369 (5th Cir., July 24, 1970)

11. Wright v. Board of Public Instruction of Alachua County,
No. 29999 (5th Cir., Aug. 4, 1970)

12. Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist., No.
29226 (5th Cir., Aug. 12, 1970)

13. Pate v. Dade County School Board, Nos. 29039 and 29179
(5th Cir., Aug. 12, 1970)

14. Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate School Dist., No.
29165 (5th Cir., Aug. 12, 1970)

15. Allen v. Board of Public Instruction of Broward County,
No. 30032 (5th Cir., Aug. 18, 1970)

16. Valley v. Rapides Parish School Board, No. 30099 (5th Cir.,
Aug. 25, 1970)

17. Conley v. Lake Charles School Board, No. 30100 (5th Cir,
Aug. 25, 1970)

18. Ross v. Eckels, No. 30080 (5th Cir., Aug. 25, 1970)
19. Brown v. Board of Education of City of Bessemer, No. 29209

(5th Cir., Aug. 28, 1970)
20. Robertson v. Natchitoches Parish School Board, No. 30031

(5th Cir., Aug. 31, 1970)



5 4

tion in housing, and on the other hand, school board deci­
sions relating to school site selection, the determination of 
building sizes and capacities (including use of portable 
classrooms), grade structures, optional zones, non-con- 
tiguous zones, and bussing were all adjusted to create 
neighborhoods of convenience with the structure o f the 
legally established dual school systems. To stop calling 
the system dual but assign pupils along the lines of con­
venience thus established is merely to permit the mainte­
nance of identical—indeed, continuation of the same— 
segregation patterns under a different name. As Judge 
Wisdom observed in Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Sep­
arate School Dist., 409 F.2d 682, 689 (5th Cir. 1969):

A  school board’s zoning policy may appear to be neu­
tral but in fact tend to retard desegregation because 
it binds pupils to custom-segregated neighborhoods. 
In this situation, the board’s failure to take corrective 
action amounts to the State’s giving official sanction to 
continued school segregation, contrary to the mandate 
of this Court and of the Supreme Court.

And the court held, in the same Clarksdale case (409 F.2d 
at 683):

As this case demonstrates, a school board’s adoption 
of a geographic zoning system instead of a “ freedom of 
choice” system is not a guarantee of effective desegre­
gation. “ Geographic zoning, like any other attendance 
plan adopted by a school board in this circuit, is ac­
ceptable only if it tends to disestablish rather than re­
inforce the dual system of segregated schools.” United 
States v. Greenwood Municipal Separate School Dis­
trict, 5 Cir. 1968, 406 F.2d 1086.

The Fifth Circuit has simply made a determination to 
permit some values, generally expressed under the rubric



5 5

of “neighborhood school concept,” to prevail over the rec­
ognized conflicting values and goals of a fully integrated 
school system (i.e., one in which no black child is ever as­
signed to a black school). For the Fifth Circuit holds that 
“neighborhood” assignment is not non-racial (see Henry 
v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate School Dist., No. 29165 
(5th Cir., Aug. 12, 1970); Ross v. Eckels, No. 30080 (5th 
Cir., Aug. 25, 1970); and the treatment of Toulminville 
school in the opinion below in Mobile). It holds that “black” 
schools must be disestablished “where reasonable alterna­
tives exist,” Allen v. Board of Public Instruction of Brow­
ard County, No. 30032 (5th Cir., Aug. 18, 1970) ;40 and 
the “neighborhood school concept” is simply a verbal 
formula for indicting some alternatives as “unreasonable” 
where they involve “ impracticable attendance zones or in­
ordinate transportation problems,” Bradley v. Board of 
Public Instruction of Pinellas County, No. 28639 (5th Cir., 
July 28, 1970) (new opinion on rehearing).

Second, the “neighborhood school concept”  so used is not 
a description of any policy actually adopted in the past, or 
even used in the present, by any of the school hoards. It is

40 Slip opinion, p. 10 (footnotes omitted) (per Judge Goldberg) : 
In the conversion from dual school systems based on race to 

unitary school systems, the continued existence of all-black or 
virtually all-black schools is unacceptable where reasonable 
alternatives exist. And it is clear that one acceptable way to 
achieve reasonable alternatives is by pairing schools. The tenor 
of our decisions is unmistakable: where all-black or virtually 
all-black schools remain under a zoning plan, but it is prac­
ticable to desegregate some or all of the black schools by using 
the tool of pairing, the tool must be used. Thus we have re­
quired the pairing or clustering of schools in Dade County, 
Florida, in Pinellas County, Florida, in Hillsborough County, 
Florida, in Alachua County, Florida, in Clarksdale, Mississippi, 
and in Jackson, Mississippi, to mention only a few instances. 
It is now clear beyond peradventure that the tool of school 
pairing— a most viable tool in the school desegregation process 
—must be embraced where it is practicable and desegregation 
cannot be achieved by other means.



5 6

invoked (as in Davis, the opinion below) where the school 
board has never used a true “neighborhood school” system; 
and (as in Mannings41 and Davis) where it does not now 
use a true “neighborhood school” system as defined in the 
Orange County case (Ellis, supra). This indicates both (a) 
that the Fifth Circuit is not accommodating local educa­
tional policy, but is inventing its own;41 42 and (b) that the 
nature of the policy is to prefer certain values, labeled 
“neighborhood” to the value of the total integration.

Third, the “neighborhood school concept” so used is un­
workable, undesirable, and unconstitutional:

(a) The concept is inherently unclear. “Neighborhood” 
means any one of a number of different pupil-assignment 
systems. For example, in Ellis (Orange County), supra, it 
means strict equidistant zoning based on school capacity. 
In Mannings (Hillsborough County), supra, it means either 
a strict Ellis neighborhood plan or pairing of schools for 
high schools, a requirement that schools be “paired on a 
neighborhood basis” for junior highs, and for elementary 
schools some zoned by what the court calls variously “ dis­
cretionary” or “arbitrary” zone lines, with other schools 
required to be paired “without departing from neighbor­
hood concepts.” In Davis (the opinion below), it means

41 Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough 
County, 427 F.2d 874 (5th Cir. 1970).

42 The Orange County decision indicates very explicitly that the 
Fifth Circuit is creating its own definition of “neighborhood school 
policy” :

It was not clear from the opinion and findings of the district 
court that the defendants were in fact maintaining a neighbor­
hood school system as we would define such a system. A  neigh­
borhood school system cannot be a system where variances are 
allowed to permit children a choice of not attending the nearest 
school to his or her residence and thereby avoiding assignment 
to a formerly Negro or formerly white school as the case may 
be.” (Ellis, supra, 423 F.2d 203, 206) (emphasis added).



57

use of arbitrary zone lines in a Justice Department plan 
for pairing schools and recasting grade structures within 
a generalized “neighborhood concept.” In Ross v. Eckels 
(Houston, Texas), supra, it means rejecting the trial 
judge’s strict Orange County type plan based on equidis­
tant capacity zoning in favor of the school board’s discre­
tionary zones for secondary schools (to get more desegre­
gation) and court-ordered pairing of contiguous school 
zones for a number of elementary schools, with the pair­
ings described only as “well within any reasonable defini­
tion of a neighborhood school system.”

(b) It inevitably involves judgmental appraisals, with­
out a consistent goal or measure, as to how far “neighbor­
hood” considerations may weigh against the goal of total 
desegregation. It therefore leads to conflicting decisions 
by different Fifth Circuit panels (compare Clarks dale and 
Houston with Orange County and Fulton County),43 and 
still more conflict in the decisions of differing district 
judges. This is inevitable because the only principle of 
decision is that “neighborhood” considerations are some­
how to be “balanced” against considerations of eliminating 
the all-black schools. The weights to be assigned in balanc­
ing are left to the balancing judge.

(c) Its common result (except where geographic fortuity 
makes “neighborhood” considerations essentially insignifi­
cant (as in Broward County) ) 44 is to leave a significant

43 Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate School Dist., No. 29165 
(5th Cir., Aug. 12, 1970) ; Ross v. Eckels, No. 30080 (5th Cir., 
Aug. 25, 1970); Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange 
County, 423 F.2d 203 (5th Cir. 1970); Hightower v. West, No. 
29993 (5th Cir., July 14, 1970).

44 Allen v. Board of Public Instruction of Broward County, 
No. 30032 (5th Cir., Aug. 18, 1970). The Fifth Circuit applied 
the pairing technique to desegregate each one of 13 schools left 
all-black or virtually all-black by the board’s discretionary zone 
lines.



5 8

number of “black” schools—usually 20 or 25% of the black 
school population and a much larger percent of the black 
elementary school population. This is the ultimate evil and 
deficiency of the Fifth Circuit “neighborhood school con­
cept” : it simply denies the rights vouchsafed by Brown I 
to 20 to 25% of black children—or even more—forever.

C. Application of the Fifth Circuit Approach in Mobile—  
the Opinion Below.

Mobile has never had “neighborhood schools.” All of the 
values which are supposedly embodied in the “neighbor­
hood school concept” have consistently been subordinated 
by the Mobile School Board to the goal of racial segrega­
tion. This is so thoroughly documented in this record as 
to be virtually incontestable. (See the Statement, supra, 
pp. 27 to 37, and the Appendix to this brief containing the 
Statement from the Brief of the United States in the Fifth 
Circuit, infra.) In Mobile “neighborhood school” has been 
only a euphemism for racial separation. In his 1966 opinion 
in this case Judge Tuttle described the Mobile practice:

Both in the testimony and in the briefs, much is said 
by the appellees about the virtues of “neighborhood 
schools.” Of course, in the brief of the Board of Edu­
cation, the word “neighborhood” doesn’t mean what it 
usually means. When spoken of as a means to require 
Negro children to continue to attend a Negro school 
in the vicinity of their homes, it is spoken of as a 
“neighborhood” school plan. When the plan permits 
a white child to leave his Negro “neighborhood” to 
attend a white school in another “neighborhood” it 
becomes apparent that the “neighborhood” is some­
thing else again. As every member of this court knows, 
there are neighborhoods in the South and in every city 
of the South which contain both Negro and white



59

people. So far as has come to the attention of this 
court, no Board of Education has yet suggested that 
every child be required to attend his “neighborhood 
school” if the neighborhood school is a Negro school. 
Every board of education has claimed the right to 
assign every white child to a school other than the 
neighborhood school under such circumstances. And 
yet, when it is suggested that Negro children in Negro 
neighborhoods be permitted to break out of the segre­
gated pattern of their own race in order to avoid the 
“ inherently unequal” education of “separate educa­
tional facilities,” the answer too often is that the 
children should attend their “neighborhood school.” 

So, too, there is a hollow sound to the superficially 
appealing statement that school areas are designed 
by observing safety factors such as highways, rail­
roads, streams, etc. No matter how many such barriers 
there may be, none of them is so grave as to prevent 
the white child whose “area” school is Negro from 
crossing the barrier and enrolling in the nearest white 
school even though it be several intervening “areas” 
away. (Davis v. Board of School Comm’rs of Mobile 
County, 364 F.2d 896, 901 (5th Cir. 1966) (67a).)

Mobile did not have “neighborhood schools” under its 
plan during the last school year (1969-70), nor does it have 
“neighborhood schools” under the Justice Department plan 
ordered into effect by the Fifth Circuit for the current 
school year (1970-71). The opinion below states: “Unlike 
Orange County (Ellis v. Orange County, supra), Mobile 
does not purport to use the strict neighborhood assignment 
system. It employs zones based on discretionary zone 
lines.” The Justice Department plan promotes desegre­
gation on the basis of arbitrary zones by pairing zones and 
changing grade structures.



60

There is nothing in the record in this case which demon­
strates that the values involved in “neighborhood schools” 
amount to anything, or what they amount to. As “neigh­
borhood schools” have never really been tried in Mobile as 
a policy of the system there is nothing in the Mobile ex­
perience which supports such a policy. The fact that the 
district judge repeatedly denied an evidentiary hearing 
(see part V, infra), masks the fact that the actual costs 
involved in establishing non-contiguous zones, or in pairing 
non-contiguous zones, or in providing more transportation 
are not established on this record. Unlike the record in the 
Charlotte case (Swann), there has never been any oppor­
tunity for factual inquiry in this case by which the courts 
might appraise the costs or the relative convenience of the 
various proposals to desegregate the system. For example, 
there is no factual data in the record at all relevant to the 
policy embodied in the plan approved by the Fifth Circuit 
of limiting pairings to schools with adjacent zones. Obvi­
ously in some instances the transportation required to bus 
pupils from non-contiguous zones will he no different than 
the transportation required in busing pupils between con­
tiguous zones. In such circumstances, a policy of not pair­
ing schools with non-contiguous zones does not even have 
any rational basis. There is no evidence in this record 
upon which one might make an informed judgment about 
whether pairing schools in Mobile with non-contiguous 
zones would require “ inordinate transportation require­
ments.” The last phrase was the one used in Mannings, 
where the court gave a particularly opaque explanation of 
the difference between “pairing on a neighborhood school 
concept”—which it approved— and the “ other” kind of 
pairing that it disapproved. After noting that the pairings 
the Fifth Circuit was requiring were between schools which 
were adjacent and in close proximity, the court said:



6 1

This type of assignment, denominated as pairing, is 
singularly distinguishable from the grouping of several 
schools, located in other than a neighborhood area, 
into one group for assignment purposes in order to 
manipulate racial balances through inordinate trans­
portation requirements.

(Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction of Hills­
borough County, No. 28643 (5th Cir., May 11, 1970), 
slip opinion, p. 7, note 2.)

Nothing in the record demonstrates that the Fifth Circuit 
neighborhood school concept has any particular educa­
tional or other community value. One must speculate at 
large about the relative merit of the Fifth Circuit “neigh­
borhood school policy” as it has been applied in the opinion 
below.

The one thing that is plain about the policy as applied 
in Mobile is its result in leaving a substantial number of 
black children in all-black schools. The plan will leave six 
all-black or virtually all-black schools enrolling 5,351 black 
pupils. These 5,351 pupils represent 22% of the black 
pupils in metropolitan Mobile schools and a startling 50% 
of the black elementary pupils in metropolitan Mobile 
schools. The stark reality of the plan approved by the 
court below is that half of all black pupils will—during 
their elementary school years—attend schools that are all­
black, the very schools that Brown I  held unconstitutional.



62

III.

The Parallel Doctrine Applied by the Fourth Circuit.

The Fourth Circuit’s “ resonableness” test announced in
Swann v. Charlotte-M ecklenburg Board o f E d u ca tion ,-------
F.2d------ (4th Cir. 1970), amounts to a process of weighing
the same sorts of “neighborhood” values against total de­
segregation that the Fifth Circuit has been weighing. How­
ever, the Fourth Circuit decision is more explicit that total 
desegregation is not required, but only a reasonable amount 
of desegregation:

. . . not every school in a unitary school system need 
be integrated; second, nevertheless, school boards must 
use all reasonable means to integrate the schools in 
their jurisdiction; and third, if black residential areas 
are so large that not all schools can be integrated by 
using reasonable means, school boards must take fur­
ther steps to assure that pupils are not excluded from 
integrated schools on the basis of race. (Swann, No. 
281, O.T. 1970, Appendix p. 1267a.)

The Fourth Circuit’s disregard of factual findings of the 
district court in Swann relating to the feasibility of the 
transportation requirements of the district court desegrega­
tion plan highlights that the balancing process being utilized 
is not an appraisal of the “workability” of the plan (Mr. 
Justice Harlan, joined by Mr. Justice White, concurring in 
Carter v. W est Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 
290, 292), but a balancing of values. As Judge Sobeloff ex­
pressed it the majority in Swann made “no more than an 
abstract, unexplicated judgment—a conclusion of the ma­
jority that, all things considered, desegregation of this 
school system is not worth the price.” (Swann, supra, No. 
281, O.T. 1970, Appendix 1288a). The dissenting opinions 
of Judges Sobeloff and Winter in Swann demonstrate that



63

there was no conclusion by the majority that the district 
court’s plan was unworkable or not feasible.

At least in the Swann case the Fourth Circuit’s “ reason­
ableness test” seems to require significantly more desegre­
gation than the Fifth Circuit requires by its “neighborhood 
school concept.” This is strikingly demonstrated by the 
fact that the Fourth Circuit upheld the trial judge’s rejec­
tion of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg board’s plan because the 
“board’s elementary school proposal . . . left about one- 
half of both the black and white elementary pupils in 
schools that were nearly completely segregated.” Yet, 
precisely that result—one-half of the black elementary 
pupils completely segregated—-was approved by the de­
cision of the Fifth Circuit for Mobile.

IY.

The Legal Principles This Court Should Declare.

Petitioners urge that this Court declare the following 
general principle stating the goal which the courts should 
require to bring dual systems into compliance with the 
Constitution: Every black child is to be free from assign­
ment to a “black” school— an identifiable racial minority 
school—at every grade of his education. We would define 
“identifiable racial minority schools” as those schools which 
by reason of a very considerable racial concentration or 
racial disproportion are conceived as designed to receive 
black children.45 46 Our statement of the principle focuses on

45 In judging concentration and disproportion, we refer to the 
racial make-up of the school administrative unit, leaving for sep­
arate resolution disputes relating to the racial composition of such 
political or administrative units. See, for example, the problem 
of a separate black school system located within a white county 
school system dealt with by the Eighth Circuit in Haney v. County 
Board of Education of Sevier County, Ark., 410 F.2d 920 (8th 
Cir. 1969); and cf. Wright v. County School Board of Greensville
County, Va., 309 F. Supp. 671 (E.D. Va. 1970), appeal pending.



6 4

the black schools because we regard the elimination of 
racially identifiable “white” schools as an incident—albeit 
a necessary incident— to desegregation of these minority 
schools where black children are set apart as a separate 
caste.46

We believe that the only excuse from the general prin­
ciple stated should be the case of absolute unworkability 
(cf. the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan in Carter 
v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 290, 292)47 
of any proposal for eliminating the black schools. The 
available techniques of desegregation are adequate to cope 
with most school systems without even approaching the

46 Judge Sobeloff has well-stated the significance of Brown in a 
recent decision:

Certainly Brown had to do with the equalization of educa­
tional opportunity; but it stands for much more. Brown 
articulated the truth that Plessy chose to disregard: that 
relegation of blacks to separate facilities represents a declara­
tion by the state that they are inferior and not to be associated 
with. By condemning the practices as “ inherently unequal,” 
the Court, at long last expunged the constitutional principle 
of black inferiority and white supremacy introduced by Bred 
Scott, and ordered the dismantling of the “ impassable barrier” 
upheld by that case. (Brunson v. Board of Trustees of School 
District No. 1 of Clarendon County, South Carolina, No. 14,571 
(4th Cir., June 5, 1970) (concurring opinion), slip opinion 
pp. 8-9.)
Judge Sobeloff also wrote: “ Certainly it is hoped that under 
integration members of each race will benefit from unfettered 
contact with their peers. But school segregation is forbidden 
simply because its perpetuation is a living insult to the black 
children and immeasurably taints the education they receive. 
This is the precise lesson of Brown.” (Id. at p. 11.)

47 See also the language of Judge Sobeloff in Swann v. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Board of Education, ------  F .2 d ------  (4th Cir., May
26, 1970) (dissenting opinion) :

Of course it goes without saying that school boards are not 
obligated to do the impossible. Federal courts do not joust at 
windmills. Thus it is proper to ask whether a plan is feasible, 
whether it can be accomplished.



65

range of real unworkability. We have in this country the 
available technology to integrate the schools. The concept 
of absolute unworkability refers only to extreme circum­
stances of geographical or demographic flukes—such as all­
black towns far removed from . whites—cases far beyond 
the range of concerns evidenced in the recent Fifth Circuit 
opinions leaving all-black schools.

Specifically, a relaxation of the general principle that 
every black child shall be free from assignment to a “black” 
school, cannot be justified on the basis of (a) transporta­
tion inconveniences and costs, (b) rigid theories about 
maintenance of grade structures, (c) “neighborhood” 
associational values such as facilitation of P.T.A. meetings, 
or (d) concerns that children not be sent to school in a 
“strange or hostile” neighborhood. We discuss below the 
inadequacy of each of these concerns as a basis for not 
achieving total desegregation of dual systems.

Transportation inconveniences and costs do not justify 
the retention of black schools. As the facts with respect 
to school busing become known, it is apparent that it is 
a wide-spread, normal and sensible part of the daily life 
of 18 million American pupils—forty percent of all school 
children. The United States Civil Rights Commission has 
put the busing issue in a fair perspective:

In his statement, the President raised the issue of 
busing and cautioned that we must proceed with the 
least possible disruption to our children’s education. 
Busing has become an emotionally charged word and 
the issues involved have been the subject of consider­
able misunderstanding. Many who oppose busing do 
so on the basis of certain assumptions, one of which 
is that riding to school disrupts a child’s education 
and causes harm. This is a serious issue which should



6 6

not be argued solely in terms of assumptions or emo­
tion. The Commission believes that facts which it has 
found in the course of its investigations may contribute 
to clarifying the issue and sharpening the debate 
over it.

Busing is neither a new nor a unique technique, and 
its use is not limited to facilitating desegregation. For 
example, for decades, black and white children, alike, 
in the South were bused as much as 50 miles or more 
each day to assure perfect racial segregation. In many 
cases, busing was the exclusive privilege of white 
children—black children often were required to walk 
considerable distances. No complaints then were heard 
from whites of any harmful effects. Nor was any 
concern exhibited over the damage suffered by black 
children through their deliberate segregation. The 
Supreme Court in Brown described vividly the nature 
of the harm to which Negro children were being 
subjected.

“ To separate them from others of similar age and 
qualifications solely because of their race gener­
ates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in 
the community that may affect their hearts and 
minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”

Thus the arguments that some now make about the 
evils of busing would appear less than ingenuous. 
The plain fact is that every day of every school year 
18 million pupils—40 percent of the Nation’s public 
school children— are bused to and from school, and 
the buses log in the aggregate more than two billion 
miles—nine billion passenger miles— each year. It also 
should be understood that the overwhelming majority 
of school busing has nothing to do with desegregation



6 7

or achieving racial balance. The trend toward con­
solidation of schools, for example, particularly in rural 
areas, requires extensive busing. It causes no disrup­
tion to the educational routines of the children and is 
treated as normal and sensible.

Amid the controversy over busing, in many school 
systems, North and South, transportation is being used 
quietly and effectively as a means of bringing about 
desegregation. The bus rides are not long—in Berk­
eley, California, for example, a city of 120,000 people, 
the bus trip never exceeds 20 minutes—and it causes 
no harm. In the South, of course, the amount of bus­
ing needed to bring about desegregation frequently is 
considerably less than was required to maintain dual 
school systems. For example, at the Commission’s 
1968 hearing in Montgomery, Alabama, we found that 
black students in Selma, seeking to attend trade school, 
were bused some 50 miles to the nearly all-black 
Trenholm School in Montgomery, although the Rufus 
King trade school was located in Selma. Rufus King, 
however, was all-white.

It is a mistake to think of the problems of desegrega­
tion and the extent that busing is required to facilitate 
it solely in the context of the Nation’s relatively few 
giant urban centers such as Chicago, New York, Los 
Angeles. In most of our cities the techniques necessary 
to accomplish desegregation are relatively simple and 
busing creates no hardships. The experience in com­
munities which have successfully desegregated could 
easily be transferred to cities of greater size.

Even in giant urban centers, progress in desegrega­
tion does not require interminable bus rides or disrup­
tion of our children’s education. The President, in dis­
cussing the recent California court decision requiring 
desegregation of the Los Angeles school system, quoted



6 8

“ local leaders” as estimating that the total cost of bus­
ing will amount to 40-million dollars over the next 
school year. This estimate represented the contention 
of the defendants in that litigation. It was presented 
to the court for the purpose of arguing against the 
feasibility of desegregation in that city’s school system, 
in fact, the court rejected this estimate as unrealistic.

In Los Angeles, as in other cities, substantial 
desegregation can be accomplished through relatively 
simple devices such as alteration of existing school 
attendance areas, school pairing, and the establish­
ment of central schools. To be sure, transportation is 
necessary in giant urban centers as it is in smaller 
cities, but here too, it is false and defeatist to assume 
that the bus rides must be lengthy or that the educa­
tion of our children will be disrupted.

In the Commission’s view, the emphasis that some 
put on the issue of busing is misplaced. As most 
Americans would agree, it is the kind of education 
that awaits our children at the end of the bus rides 
that is really important.

(Statement of the United States Commission on Civil 
Rights Concerning the “ Statement by the President 
on Elementary and Secondary School Desegregation” , 
April 12, 1970.)

The fully developed record in the Swann case (No. 281, 
O.T. 1970), shows that furnishing bus transportation costs 
a relatively small amount of money in the context of the 
total costs of a school system. The average annual cost of 
busing in North Carolina is only about $20 per child. The 
figures on cost in this record indicate that the same thing 
is true in Mobile and that busing in Mobile also costs some­
thing around $20 per child per year (see Statement, supra,



6 9

p. 31). School busing frequently results in substantial 
savings in construction and other costs because it enables 
a system to purchase less expensive suburban land away 
from concentrated population areas (this is the pattern of 
new site acquisitions shown in the Charlotte case) and 
enables more complete use to be made of existing facilities 
notwithstanding population movements in a community.

It is generally recognized throughout the United States 
that school buses furnish the safest transportation avail­
able for school children. Judge McMillan’s findings in the 
Charlotte ease are based on the national data: “Upon the 
basis of data furnished by the school board and on the basis 
of statistics from the National Safety Council, it is found 
as a fact that travel by school bus is safer than walking or 
than riding in private vehicles” (Appendix in No. 281, p. 
1202a) and “ School bus transportation is safer than any 
other form of transportation for school children” (Swarm, 
swpra, Memorandum Decision of Aug. 3, 1970, not yet re­
ported).

The widespread use of busing to achieve racial segrega­
tion has been completely established on this record in 
Mobile. The same thing has been shown in the Charlotte 
record and—as the Civil Rights Commission has reported 
—it is true in the South generally. The analysis done for 
the court below by the Department of Justice describing 
the use of busing to preserve segregation in Mobile in 1965 
and 1967 is reprinted as an appendix to this brief. The 
Mobile board has made extensive use during very recent 
years of non-contiguous or split attendance zones with 
pupils transported outside their neighborhoods to promote 
racial segregation. The HEW plan urged by petitioners in 
the courts below (Plan B -l Alternative) would integrate 
all schools in Mobile by use of transportation facilities and 
techniques of the same kind used by the Mobile board to



7 0

keep the system rigidly segregated. The court below ac­
knowledged that “any one of the” HEW plans “would lead 
to a unitary system” but declined to require the board to 
make use of the same techniques to integrate the system 
that were used to keep it segregated. In the absence of any 
record showing that use of transportation to integrate all 
the Mobile schools as proposed by the HEW Plan B -l 
Alternative is “unworkable” the hoard has not carried the 
“heavy burden” necessary to support the use of “a less 
effective method” of desegregation. Green v. County School 
Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 439 (1968).

The concern for maintenance of traditional grade struc­
tures—for example, all six elementary grades in each school 
— should not be permitted to justify continued racially 
identifiable minority schools. The pairing technique widely 
used to promote desegregation usually involves the altera­
tion of grade structures. For example, pairing might com­
monly involve combining the attendance areas for two 
schools serving grades one to six and assigning grades 1-3 
to one school and 4-6 to the other. This has the effect of 
enlarging the attendance area of each school, and fre­
quently that will he sufficient to integrate two previously 
segregated schools. The same effect can also he achieved 
by other techniques such as closing small schools and con­
solidating programs in larger schools, building larger facili­
ties so that larger geographic areas can he served, provid­
ing non-adjacent attendance areas—variously called 
attendance islands, non-eontiguous zones, satellite zones, 
etc.—for schools so as to promote integration, and re­
adjusting grade structures in clusters of more than two 
schools. Although pairings require students to change 
buildings, they will not he constantly shifting to new 
environments for their entire classes will move together 
at the appropriate grade levels to the buildings serving



7 1

their schools. Each pupil will attend his nearest school 
during some years. In other years, he and his neighbors 
will go to a school which may be more distant. The court 
below said petitioners used a euphemism in calling this a 
“shared neighborhood” plan, but that phrase accurately 
describes the pairing technique. Each pupil will share his 
“neighborhood school” at some point with pupils from 
another “neighborhood.”

Both the Fourth and Fifth Circuits are now firmly on 
record in support of the use of the pairing technique.48 The 
Fifth Circuit has made it clear that it will not permit any 
abstract idea of grade structure maintenance to block 
desegregation: “ The restructuring of the grade system in 
the proposed ^pairings is not, by itself, such an indicium 
of educational unsoundness as to render an otherwise 
feasible alternative unacceptable. Andrews v. City of 
Monroe, 425 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1970). No particular 
grade structure can be considered inviolate when constitu­
tional rights hang in the balance.” Brown v. Board of Ed­
ucation of the City of Bessemer, No. 29209 (5th Cir., Aug. 
28, 1970) (Ingraham, J.). The Fourth Circuit in Swarm 
also has required that there be consideration of “ every 
method of desegregation, including rezoning with or with­
out satellites, pairing, grouping and school consolidation” 
(Appendix No. 281, p. 1277a). The Mobile School Board 
has used a great variety of differing grade structures in 
organizing the schools to keep them segregated. This is 
detailed in the Statement, supra. Whatever educational 
values there may be in particular grade structures have 
been subordinated to the value of racial segregation by the 
Mobile Board. Now, to satisfy the obligation of Brown I,

48 See, e.g., Judge Goldberg’s opinion in Allen v. Board of Public 
Instruction of Broward County, No. 30032 (5th Cir. Aug. 18, 
1970), quoted at note 40, supra, wherein he collects a sampling of 
cases where pairing has been required.



7 2

these values must be subordinated to the value of integra­
tion.

The concerns often voiced for maintenance of psychologi­
cal or sociological “neighborhood” values often mask an 
appeal for preservation of racial homogeneity which is in 
the teeth of Brown I. The only sense in which such neigh­
borhood values have been honored in Mobile is that where 
neighborhoods have been racially homogeneous the racial 
lines have coincided with the school lines. But assertions 
of such concerns as having schools accessible to homes so 
that parents can attend PTA meetings easily, and pupils 
can relate to a “neighborhood institution” are mostly re­
flections of a sentimentalized view of neighborhood schools 
having little relationship to reality in a nation where 40% 
of all children routinely ride the buses to school every day. 
For the small child whose school is far enough from home to 
require a bus ride, the value of closeness to home is al­
ready dissipated. Our nation’s public schools (and often 
private schools, too) have been organized so as to utilize 
transportation technology and to subordinate values of 
closeness to home. The whole movement away from the 
one-room schoolhouse to the consolidated school has been 
based in part on use of the school bus and on a judgment 
that busing is a routine and useful tool of educational 
administration.

The Fifth Circuit “neighborhood school concept” does 
not rest on any established concern for the safety of chil­
dren traveling to school. The rigid rule of Orange County 
using strict proximity zoning and building capacity ex­
pressly disclaims any variances for traffic problems {Ellis, 
supra, 423 F.2d 203, 208). Judge Simpson’s opinion in 
United States v. Indianola Municipal Separate School Dist., 
410 F.2d 626 (5th Cir. 1969), demonstrates that claims 
based on safety must be closely analyzed, and that where



73

pupils of both races have freely crossed alleged “hazards” 
to attend segregated schools such claims are often mere 
excuses for not desegregating schools. Generally speaking, 
real safety hazards can be overcome by furnishing trans­
portation to students if other means will not suffice. Segre­
gation cannot be maintained on the theory that desegrega­
tion involves “ safety hazards.”

The concern that pupils not be bused to a neighborhood 
mainly inhabited by persons of another race because that 
neighborhood may be strange or “hostile” rests in essence 
on opposition to integration. This kind of hostility can no 
more be used to justify preserving segregation than any 
other form of opposition to integregation. Cooper v. Aaron, 
358 U.S. 1 (1958). When segregation was the legal norm— 
and in places like Mobile long after Brown I—it was never 
thought that the value of going to school in a familiar neigh­
borhood was sufficiently important to justify a breach of 
the racial rule decreed by segregation laws and practices. 
Such a value cannot be asserted now as an excuse for con­
tinuing the segregation patterns created by law. Segrega­
tion cannot be maintained on the basis of an appeal for 
maintenance of the comfortable patterns of the segregated 
past. To be sure, it wall be a new experience for white 
children to be bused to a black residential area in many of 
our communities. This novelty consists mainly in the new­
ness of integration, for the same children are now frequently 
bused equal distances from their homes in all-white neigh­
borhoods. The opposition of white parents to busing of 
their children to black schools (or formerly schools now 
integrated but in black residential areas) is grounded in 
fear, prejudices and opposition to integration. Such ob­
stacles must be overcome if the Equal Protection Clause is 
to be given full meaning. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U S  1 
(1958).



7 4

The elimination of racially segregated dual systems can­
not be accomplished on the basis of desegregation tech­
niques that require only busing of black pupils and which 
place all of the burdens of change on the black community. 
The Fifth Circuit now uniformly requires that school boards 
offer blacks left in all-black schools the option of trans­
ferring to any white school under a majority-to-minority 
transfer plan with free transportation and a priority for 
space— they can “bump” neighborhood whites if necessary. 
See, e.g., Allen v. Board of Public Instruction of Broward 
County, No. 30032 (5th Cir., Aug. 18, 1970). The d ev ice - 
like freedom of choice—depends on the courage of black 
children to break segregation patterns. It also disregards 
the professed concern about placing children in “ strange 
and hostile” neighborhoods.

No lasting change can be expected by the use of desegre­
gation plans which limit desegregation to those white 
citizens—mostly of lower incomes—who reside closest to 
the black ghettos while affluent areas remain segregated. 
Such plans are mere blueprints for racial separation in the 
future because of resegregation and the flight of whites 
from heavily black areas.

We cannot, under the Constitution, “ consign another gen­
eration of children to education in racially isolated schools” 
while hoping for residential desegregation to be achieved 
through open housing laws.49 It may be plausible to hope 
that fair housing laws will enable blacks to escape the 
ghetto. But there is little reason to expect that even a 
vigorous enforcement of such laws—and they now depend 
for the most part on case by case litigation by private 
citizens—will have any impact on the all-black schools.

49 Statement of the United States Commission on Civil Rights 
concerning the “ Statement by the President on Elementary and 
Secondary School Desegregation,” April 12, 1970.



75

The concept that the black schools in the all-black neigh­
borhoods might become integrated as the result of fair 
housing laws rests on assumptions entirely outside the 
experience with such laws— that whites will use fair housing 
law to move into black neighborhoods and thus integrate 
those neighborhoods and in turn integrate the all-black 
schools. The Fifth Circuit’s statement that its policy of 
leaving all-black schools will be alleviated in the future by 
fair housing (see, e.g., Hightower v. West, No. 29993 (5th 
Cir., July 14, 1970) is merely an illusion. The idea that 
fair housing laws will enable Negroes to move to white 
neighborhoods (see Ellis and the opinion below) expresses 
a very long range hope. However, there is reason to 
fear the opposite result, that the “neighborhood school con­
cept” will encourage housing segregation as an escape from 
school integration. As Judge Sobeloff observed in Swann, 
the rule “ furnishes a powerful incentive to communities to 
perpetuate and deepen the effects of race separation so 
that, when challenged, they can protest that belated remedial 
action Avould be unduly burdensome” (Appendix No. 281, 
pp. 1290a-1291a).

We believe that our proposed principle, forbidding rele­
gation of pupils to black schools except in cases of absolute 
unworkability of integration plans, has a number of merits. 
They include simplicity, uniformity, flexibility and satis­
faction of the constitutional objectives stated in Brown I.

The virtue of relative simplicity is found in the sole 
exception based on the test of “workability.” A test focus­
ing on the goal of complete integration in every case except 
where desegregation simply cannot work can hope to reduce 
litigation and bring protracted litigation to an end. The 
multiple appeals in this case led Judge Goldberg to call 
plaintiffs’ efforts to integrate the schools of Mobile County



7 6

“an almost Homeric odyssey.” 50 Unfortunately, Mobile is 
not unique in being a community still largely having segre­
gated schools notwithstanding years and years of litiga­
tion by Negro pupils seeking their rights under Brown. 
Our proposed principle is not offered as a panacea that 
will bring all litigation about school segregation to an end— 
that is too much to expect in the area of disputes about 
racial equality. But the relative simplicity of the rule, and 
its focus upon the practical workability of desegregation 
proposals should hasten the end of litigation in the same 
way this Court’s decisions in Green and Alexander have 
accelerated the same process.

The principle petitioners urge will do much more to 
promote uniformity in desegregation enforcement than the 
approaches of the Fourth and Fifth Circuits. Our approach 
is not based on “balancing” the values of a “neighborhood” 
concept against the value of integration. The Fifth Cir­
cuit’s “neighborhood” formula and the Fourth Circuit’s 
“ reasonableness” test involve the kind of judgmental bal­
ancing and evaluation of competing values in every case 
which insures that there will be little uniformity in de­
segregation case results where different men do the judg­
ing. The Fifth Circuit approach puts a premium on ad hoc 
evaluation of whether a particular school pairing for ex­
ample, is really “worthwhile” to achieve integration or 
whether there has already been “ sufficient” integration of 
other pupils in the system. There is no way to get uni­
formity with such a principle, and the best response that 
the Fifth Circuit can make when there is a criticism of the 
lack of uniformity of decision-making (as in Judge Clark’s 
dissent in Ross v. Eckels, No. 30080 (5th Cir., Aug. 25, 
1970)) is to say that “ each case had to be judged on all

50 Davis v Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County 
(Davis v. United States), 422 F.2d 1139, 1140 (1970) (611a).



77

facts peculiar to this particular system,” that “ school cases 
are unique” and that “ each school case must turn on its own 
facts.” (Ross v. Eckels, supra, opinion of the court.)

The approach we urge has flexibility. It is flexible in that 
the means of desegregation may remain in local control so 
long as the goal is achieved. The major means of desegrega­
tion currently being used are discussed elsewhere in this 
brief. School consolidation and school closing, pairing or 
clustering schools, readjusting school zone lines, controlling 
school sizes through construction, expansion, portable 
classrooms and other means, site location, the use of non­
contiguous or split zones, and transportation systems are 
all part of the technology of educational administration 
which can be adapted to serve the goal of desegregation. 
The Fourth Circuit has declared broadly in Swann that all 
such methods and any others must be considered. We urge 
that this Court follow the same pragmatic view of the avail­
able techniques. None of the techniques will suffice in every 
case. But generally flexible practical approaches can solve 
desegregation problems where there is the will to find such 
solutions.

The test of “absolute unworkability” leaves a doctrinal 
basis for dealing with the really extreme situations that 
may exist in a few communities, without allowing the un­
usual problems to paralyze the search for solutions of more 
typical desegregation problems. As the Civil Rights Com­
mission has stated :51

It is a mistake to think of the problems of desegrega­
tion and the extent that busing is required to facilitate 
it solely in the context of the Nation’s relatively few 
giant urban centers such as Chicago, New York, or

51 Statement of the United States Commission on Civil Rights 
concerning the “ Statement by the President on Elementary and 
Secondary School Desegregation,” April 12, 1970.



7 8

Los Angeles. In most of our cities the techniques 
necessary to accomplish desegregation are relatively 
simple and create no hardships.

And also:

The Commission is aware that the problem of school 
segregation is one of enormous difficulty and com­
plexity. Yet a realistic assessment of the scope and 
dimensions of the problem should not result in re­
signed acceptance of its indefinite continuation or a 
defeatist conclusion that it is beyond our capacity 
to resolve. The Commission is convinced of the ability 
and will of the American people to respond affirma­
tively to a call to end the injustice that school segre­
gation represents.

Finally, the principle stated by petitioners satisfies the 
Constitution. The Fifth Circuit has offered no satisfactory 
alternatives in a “neighborhood school concept” which can 
function as it has in Mobile to leave half of the black 
elementary pupils in schools which are unmistakably 
black—either all-black or virtually all-black. Brown must 
promise something more than a regime in which black 
children remain in the same black schools under a new 
justification. We believe our statement of the goal—no 
more black schools—is consistent with Brown. The Fifth 
Circuit announced this rule shortly after the Green deci­
sion (in Adams v. Mathews, 403 F.2d 181, 188 (5th Cir. 
1968); Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate School 
Dist., 409 F.2d 682, 689 (1969); United States v. Indianola 
Municipal Separate School Dist., 410 F.2d 626, 628 (1969)), 
and retreated from it after the requirement of immediate 
desegregation became established by Alexander and Carter, 
supra. We believe that our statement of the goal of dese­



7 9

gregation is entirely supported by this Court’s decision in 
Green v. County Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 
430, 435, 442 (1968):

The pattern of separate “white” and “Negro”  schools 
in the . . .  system established under compulsion of state 
laws is precisely the pattern of segregation to which 
Brown I and Brown II were particularly addressed, 
and which Brown I declared unconstitutionally denied 
Negro school children equal protection of the laws. 
(391 U.S. at 435)

# # #

The Board must be required to formulate a new 
plan and . . . fashion steps which promise realistically 
to convert promptly to a system without a “white” 
school and a “ Negro” school but just schools. (391 
U.S. at 442)

The decision of the Court in these cases may decide 
whether the promise of Brown will be kept for thousands 
upon thousands of black children. That promise is broken 
by the current approach of the Fifth Circuit which leaves 
segregation intact in the main institutions of dual sys­
tems------ the all-black schools. The current approach of
the lower courts represents a new kind of gradualism which 
functions in much the same manner as the doctrine of 
“deliberate speed,” now repudiated by Alexander and 
Carter. This Court should require that school districts 
maintaining dual systems desegregate the schools now and 
maintain them in a desegregated status without separate 
racially identifiable minority schools.



8 0

V.

Final School Desegregation Plans Should Not Be 
Approved Without Evidentiary Hearings. Petitioners 
Were Denied Due Process by the District Court’s Ex 
Parte Procedures in Deciding the Case.

The Fifth Circuit’s “neighborhood school principle” is 
so inherently unclear and subjective, as to highlight the 
need for a full and fair development of the facts in adver­
sary proceedings following the usual procedures. Findings 
of Fact based on such an adversary record and evidentiary 
hearings are all the more vital in a case such as this where 
the Fifth Circuit, and now this Court, is called upon to 
announce general principles of law which will vitally affect 
hundreds of thousands of citizens. Adherence to funda­
mentals of procedural fairness is essential where such vital 
public interests are at stake. Regretfully this case has been 
litigated in the district court by procedures which fall so 
far short of the essentials of fair play and due process as 
to call for special condemnation and the exercise of this 
Court’s supervisory powers over the functioning of the 
lower federal courts. We are not complaining about some 
minor or isolated irregularity caused by the need for expe­
ditious decision of the case, or the stringent time limita­
tions imposed by the court of appeals. This record shows 
a consistent denial of evidentiary hearings over a period 
of years and the decision of important constitutional rights 
upon the basis of ex parte unsworn factual submissions to 
the district judge by the respondent school board. This 
consistent course of denials of fundamental fairness under­
mines the integrity of the entire judicial process.

The principal episodes we complain of are these: (a) 
denial of a hearing prior to entry of order of August 1,



81

1969 ordering a desegregation plan based in part on an 
HEW submission— ex parte meetings with court, school 
board and H E W ; (b) denial of hearing prior to entry of 
order of January 31, 1970 approving school board plan 
with modifications—board plan never served on plaintiffs 
until February 27, 1970, nearly a month after its approval 
by court; (c) denial of hearing prior to order of April 14,
1970 making findings of fact at request of court of appeals 
entirely based on school board affidavits; (d) denial of 
notice or hearing and consideration of ex parte factual sub­
missions prior to entry of order amending desegregation 
plan entered July 13, 1970; and (e) denial of notice or 
hearing and consideration of ex parte factual submissions 
prior to order of July 30, 1970 changing zones for 32 
schools.

August 1,1969 Order. Denial of a hearing following the 
Fifth Circuit’s decision of June 3, 1969 was in direct dis­
obedience of that court’s order which stated that: “ For 
plans as to which objections are made or amendments sug­
gested, or which in any event the district court will not 
approve without hearing, the district court shall commence 
hearings beginning no later than ten days after the time 
for filing objections has expired.” (414 F.2d 609, 611; em­
phasis added.) Nevertheless the district court held no 
hearing. The school board took the depositions of Dr. Joe 
Hall the responsible HEW official. When the United States 
attempted to take the depositions of the school board presi­
dent and associate superintendent of schools the district 
court prevented this by granting a board motion that the 
depositions not be taken. On July 3, 1969, the district 
judge held an ex parte conference with school board repre­
sentatives and HEW  officials. Petitioners’ attorneys had 
no notice of the meeting and learned of it when the board 
filed a stay application with Mr. Justice Black in July



8 2

1969, seeking a stay in part based on “ facts” from the ex 
parte meeting.

January 31,1970 Order. The court bad before it two new 
HEW  plans filed December 1, 1969, a school board plan of 
the same date and a Justice Department proposal submitted 
for the balance of the school year, at the time it entered 
the January 31, 1970 order. On January 14, 1970, this 
Court ordered that complete desegregation proceed in 
Mobile County not later than February 1, 1970. Carter v. 
West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 290 (1970). 
The court held a “pretrial conference” January 23, but no 
trial. The district court thus ignored the suggestion in Mr. 
Justice Harlan’s concurring opinion in Carter v. West 
Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 290, 292 (1970), 
that where HEW  desegregation proposals were “ already 
available the school districts are to bear the burden of 
demonstrating beyond question, after a hearing, the un­
workability o f the proposals . . . .”  (Emphasis added). On 
January 2, 1970—a month after the board’s plan was filed 
and when informal efforts were exhausted—petitioners filed 
a motion asking that they be served with a copy of the 
board’s plan, which was filed with the court. The January 
31 order adopted the board’s plan with some modifications. 
Nearly a month later the district court on February 27,1970 
granted petitioners’ motion for a copy of the board’s plan, 
which was then served by the board. The district judge 
chose between the four plans presented without hearing 
any evidence. There was no opportunity for the parties to 
examine witnesses and present evidence with respect to the 
workability of the four plans under consideration.

April 14,1970 Order. Because the district court had made 
no fact findings on matters the Fifth Circuit believed to be 
relevant, that court remanded the appeal for the trial 
judge to make findings o f fact. Petitioners moved in the



83

district court on April 6, 1970 to establish a procedure 
whereby the board’s proposed findings might be tested by 
an evidentiary hearing. This motion was denied April 14th. 
The district judge accepted the board’s affidavit “ excluding 
self-serving declarations and speculative opinions” as its 
own fact findings.

July 13,1970 and July 30,1970 Orders. The district court 
twice amended the desegregation plan in July, 1970 without 
any notice to petitioners. On at least two occasions new 
statistical information listing the numbers of pupils in each 
school by race under various versions of the plan were 
filed in the clerk’s office by someone—presumably the court. 
The data apparently comes from the school board but its 
origin is not indicated. Nevertheless it has promptly been 
adopted in the district court order, and in the Fifth Circuit 
opinion of August 4, 1970.

Petitioners’ repeated complaints to the Fifth Circuit 
about ex parte dealings and denial of hearings evoked little 
response from that court62 until the Fifth Circuit opinion 
of August 28, 1970, which finally ordered rather cryptically 
that:

(5) Henceforth, any time the school board desires to 
have changes in zone lines made, it shall give rea­
sonable notice to the parties.

62 In a collateral proceeding, wherein district judge Thomas had 
enjoined certain civil rights advocates from engaging in certain 
demonstrations on the request of the school board, the Fifth Circuit 
did reverse because of the trial court’s failure to make findings 
of fact. Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County 
(Davis v. United States), 422 F.2d 1139 (5th Cir. 1970) (611a). 
The court refused a hearing on the evidence insisting that testimony 
be by affidavit only in connection with the preliminary injunction. 
This practice, too, may deny litigants a fair opportunity to develop 
the facts. See Louisiana ex rel Gremillion v. N.A.A.C.P., 366 U.S. 
293, 298 (1961) (Mr. Justice Frankfurter, concurring).



84

As the case now stands a final desegregation plan for 
Mobile’s thousands of pupils has been approved without 
any semblance of an evidentiary hearing.

There can he no doubt that the procedures followed by 
the district court in this case do not comport with the 
fundamentals of due process. “The fundamental requisite 
of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.” 
Grannis v. Or dean, 234 U.S. 385 (1914). Important rights 
may not be adjudicated on the basis of the privately ac­
quired knowledge of the judge where a litigant is given no 
opportunity to make a showing about contested matters. 
Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 
301 U.S. 292 (1937). Due process is plainly not satisfied 
where one litigant communicates the vital facts to the 
court on an informal ex parte basis. See Hall v. West, 
335 F.2d 481, 483-484 (5th Cir. 1964) condemning such 
ex parte consideration of another school desegregation case. 
A  fair and open hearing is vital to the integrity of judicial 
proceedings. “Nothing can he treated as evidence which 
is not introduced as such.” Morgan v. United States, 298 
U.S. 468, 480, 481 (1936); Interstate Commerce Commis­
sion v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 227 U.S. 88 (1912). “ The 
right to such a hearing is one of the ‘rudiments of fair 
play’ (Chicago, M. <& St. P.R. Co. v. Pott, 232 U.S. 165,168) 
assured to every litigant by the Fourteenth Amendment 
as a minimal requirement.”  Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. 
Public Utilities Commission, supra at 304. “ In almost 
every setting where important decisions turn on questions 
of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront 
and cross-examine adverse witnesses.”  Goldberg v. Kelly, 
397 U.S. 254, 269 (1970).



8 5

CONCLUSION

W herefore, it is respectfully submitted that the judg­
ment below should be reversed insofar as it fails to provide 
for the elimination of all remaining racially identifiable 
minority schools and the cause remanded for the imme­
diate implementation of a complete desegregation plan in 
accordance with the principles urged in this brief.

Respectfully submitted,

J ack Greenberg 
J ames M. N abrit, III 
M ichael Davidson 
N orman J. Chachkin  

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

V ernon Z. Crawford 
A lgernon J. Cooper 

1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

A nthony  G. A msterdam
Stanford University Law School 
Stanford, California 94305

Attorneys for Petitioners





Brief of the United States in the Court of Appeals: 
Statement of Facts and Appendices B, C and D

A P P E N D I X





A P P E N D I X

Brief of the United States in the Court of Appeals: 
Statement of Facts and Appendices B, C and D

I n  the

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
F oe the F ifth  Cibcuit

No. 29,332

B irdie M ae Davis, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

U nited S tates of A merica,

Plaintiff -Intervenor-Appellant,

v.

B oard of S chool Commissioners 
of M obile County, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

B rief for the U nited States



2a

I ssue Presented

Whether, in view of the circumstances of this case and 
more effective options available, the district court erred 
in substantially adopting the school board’s desegregation 
plan.

S tatement

1. Procedural History

This Court has twice recently considered this case.1 In 
June 1969 the Court disapproved a plan combining ele­
ments of freedom of choice, zoning, and minority-to-major- 
ity transfers, 414 F.2d 609. The district court was directed 
to request the assistance of the Office of Education of the 
United States Department of Health, Education and Wel­
fare. The Office of Education developed a two-step deseg­
regation plan, reaching all rural schools and the schools 
in the western portion of metropolitan Mobile in 1969-70, 
and reaching the eastern urban schools in 1970-71. The 
district court adopted a plan substantially the same as the 
first step of the HEW plan and directed submission of a 
revised plan for the eastern schools. That decision was 
affirmed by this Court in Singleton v. Jackson Municipal 
Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1969) 
(en banc) (per curiam), rev’d as to timing sub nom. Carter 
v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 290 (1970) 
(per curiam).

On December 1, 1969, plans were filed by the school 
board and HEW. (At the court’s request, the Department 
of Justice filed on January 27, 1970, a separate proposal 
for implementation pendente lite.) On January 31, 1970, 
the district court adopted, with some modification, the 
school board’s submission based on geographic zoning. 
After the board directed the staff to discontinue prepara­

1 For earlier proceedings see 364 F.2d 896, 898-900 (5th Cir. 
1966); 393 F.2d 690 (5th Cir. 1968).



3a

tions for desegregation in view of the enactment of a state 
statute prohibiting assignment of students to schools on 
the basis of race, the district court on March 16 directed 
that students be reassigned according to its January 31 
order, as modified. On March 20 the order was imple­
mented by the board.

This Court on March 25 remanded the case for supple­
mental findings. The district court ordered the school board 
to submit by affidavit the facts sought and adopted the 
information furnished by the board.2

2. Facts

A. The Mobile County school system, with 42,620 white 
and 30,884 Negro students, (November 26, 1969 Report to 
the Court) is the largest in Alabama. In maintaining and 
operating a system of this size educational and adminis­
trative decisions have been made periodically affecting 
such matters as construction, location of new facilities, 
alteration of zone lines, grade structures and the use of 
school transportation.

Grade Structures. The Mobile schools have had grade 
structures which include 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-12, 2-5, 
6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10, 6-12, 7, 7-8, 7-9, 7-11, 7-12, 8-12, 9-12, 
10-11, 10-12. One school housed grades 1-4, 6 and 8 during 
the 1962-63 school year. (PL Ex. 22, 23, Pl.-Int. Ex. 29, 
July 1967 Hearing; A. in Nos. 27,260 and 27,491 Vol. I 
pp. 6-13; November 26, 1969 Report to the Court.)3 Many

2 The district court adopted the statistical information attached 
to the affidavit and indicated its belief that the “ general informa­
tion” furnished in the document “ excluding self-serving declara­
tions and speculative opinions” was correct.

3 There are printed records from previous appeals in this ease 
on file with the Court, and evidence has been introduced at several 
hearings. We will cite the printed records filed in early appeals 
by using R. for the 1965 appeal and A. for the printed appendices 
in the three appeals taken in 1968 and 1969. When referring to 
exhibits which are not part of printed records, we will indicate 
the date of the hearing and the exhibit number.



4a

of the grade organizations had a clear racial effect: The 
Hillsdale school (Negro), located in a small Negro com­
munity surrounded by white neighborhoods, was the only 
facility in the metropolitan area that has served grades 
1-12 (A. in No. 26,886 Vol. V P. 1527-1530) ;4 5 the Marechael 
building was used as a one-grade school in 1963-64 to 
supplement the Emerson and Southside plants (both Negro) 
(Appendix A to our Trial Brief filed in this Court on 
September 23, 1967 in No. 25,175, p. A -2 ); and the Turner- 
ville (Adams) plant covered grades 6-7 during 1965-66 and 
1966-67 in order to absorb the 6th grade at all-Negro Whit­
ley and the 7th grade at the Mobile County Training School, 
also a Negro school, (id. p. A-7).

Grade reorganizations were also made to cope with en­
rollment trends in the downtown Mobile and Prichard 
schools. White schools in this area were losing students 
while the enrollment at Negro schools increased,6 and, 
as the number of students living in the area served by a 
school decreased, additional grades were often added to 
maintain the level of enrollment. The Gorgas school, for 
example, was expanded from grades 1-6 in 1964-65 to 1-7 
in 1965-66 (PI. Ex. 22 and Pl.-Int. Ex. 29 at July 1967 
Hearings), and the Toulminville School was expanded from 
7-9 in 1962-63 to 7-10 in 1963-64 and 7-11 in 1964-65 (Id. 
Pl.-Int. Ex. 29).6

Students have often been required to attend schools for 
a brief period before changing to another facility. For 
example, 6th grade students who attended Gorgas in 1965- 
66, were assigned to Old Shell Road for the 7th grade in 
1966-67 (Appendix A to Trial Brief at p. A-10), Phillips

4 In 1968 it was reduced to 1-9 and in 1969 to 6-8.
5 In 1966 the school board studied this problem and made a de­

tailed report on it. See Trial Brief, Appendix B.
6 In 1965-66 Toulminville was made a Negro school covering 

grades 10-11 only. See p. 18, infra.



5a

for the 8th grade in 1967-68 (Ibid.), and Murphy in 1968-69 
for grade 9 (A. in Nos. 27,260 and 27,491 Yol. I, p. 10). 
A 6th grade student at Emerson in 1963-64 would attend 
four schools in five years: grade 6 at Emerson, 7 at Mare- 
chael, 8 and 9 at Southside (Appendix A to Trial Brief, 
p. A-2), and grade 10 at Williamson (PI. Ex. 23 at July 
1968 Hearing). While some of these school changes were 
the result of opening and closing schools for racial reasons,7 
the board has used similar feeder organizations on a per­
manent basis. Pupils in the Indian Springs zone go to 
Indian Springs for the 6th grade, Eight Mile for the 7th 
and 8th, Clarke for the 9th, and Vigor for the 10th (A. in 
No. 26,886 Vol. IV, pp. 1331-1332).

The board’s alterations in the grades taught at particular 
schools required, from time to time, that elementary school 
facilities be used for junior high or middle school grades,8 
that junior high plants be used for senior high grades,9 and 
that senior high buildings house elementary and junior high 
grades.10

In making grade changes the board has paired (or 
grouped) two or more schools located on separate campuses 
to serve one set of grades. For 1963-64 the Emerson School 
zone was served by three schools: Emerson, grades 1-6; 
Marechael, grade 7; and the Old Lee School (later renamed 
Southside), grades 8-9. (See Appendix A to Trial Brief,

7 See infra, pp. 16-18.
sE.g., Carver and Hall which are now being used as middle 

schools were both built as elementary schools, and last year Craig­
head was a junior high.

9-E.gr., Toulminville was built to house only junior high students, 
and Williamson, which is now a senior high, covered grades 8-12 
last year.

10 E.g., Hillsdale originally covered grades 1-12, but last year 
the board recommended using the plant for grades 1-9.



6a

p. A-2).11 During the 1964-65 school year, four schools were 
grouped to educate the white children in grades 1-6 in 
the Saraland-Satsuma area. {Id. at A-4). From 1965 to 
1967 the Turnerville (Adams) school was grouped with 
Whitley and Mobile County Training Schools, located about 
1.6 miles from Turnerville.11 12

Zones. In order to utilize efficiently available classroom 
space, the board has employed zoning, including noncon­
tiguous or split attendance zones. As many as 18 noncon­
tiguous attendance areas were used in a single year. (Ap­
pendix A  to Trial Brief).13 The zones included instances of 
combining rural areas with portions of metropolitan Mo­
bile14 and combining two or more noncontiguous areas in 
the city.15 Maps on page 7a illustrate split elementary 
zones by shading in the same color areas served by the 
same school.16

11 Marechael was evidently always paired with Southside and is 
never mentioned separately when reports were made even though 
they are located several blocks apart.

12 See also, e.g., Snug Harbor (later Palmer) which was paired 
wtih Carver and Grant; and Toulminville, which was paired with 
Central. App. A  to our Trial Brief at p. A-10.

13 Appendix C, infra, lists the noncontiguous zones which were 
proposed or noted by the pupil placement recommendations each 
school year. It should be understood that the placement bulletins 
do not mention many of the split zone assignments that are to be 
continued without change.

14 See e.g., Old Shell Road-Griggs areas (Appendix to Trial 
Brief pp. A-4, A-10, A -l l ) ,  St. Elmo-Hillsdale area (Id. p. A-5), 
and Brookley Air Force Base-Theodore (Id. p. A-2).

15 See e.g., Whistler zone (R. in No. 22,759, p. 253).
16 Because most of the zones shown were used between 1964 and 

1967 a 1965 map is used. See A. in No. 26,886, Vol. VI, P. 1. In 
some instances only certain grades were assigned to a school from 
its noncontiguous zone, and in other cases only Negro or white 
children in an area were assigned on the split-zone basis. The 
zones are taken from Appendix A to Trial Brief, except for the 
students transported to Rail from South Brookley which is taken 
from Appendix B to Trial Brief, p. 5.











7a



8 a

Portable Classrooms. The Mobile County school system 
presently has 268 portable classrooms (A. in No. 26,886 
Vol. I, pp. 90-94) which are shifted among schools as they 
are needed. For example, in preparing for the 1964-65 
school year the board discontinued use of portables at the 
Lott and Brazier schools and added portables at twelve 
other schools. (Appendix A  to Trial Brief, p. A-6). In 
1963-64 the Hillsdale School (grades 1-9) had 24 portable 
and no permanent classrooms. (PI. Int. Ex. 29, July 1967 
hearing). In 1967-68 portable classrooms composed 50 
per cent or more of the regular classroom space at thir­
teen schools in the system.17

Assignment of portables often reflects racial considera­
tions. Thirteen portable classrooms were in use in 1967-68 
at all-Negro Toulminville High School while traditionally 
white Murphy High, serving an adjacent attendance area, 
had none and was 410 students undercapacity. (A. in No. 
26,886 Yol. I, pp. 92-93). In the same year the Negro 
Washington school had 15 portables while Phillips, a tra­
ditionally white junior high serving the adjacent attend­
ance zone, had no portables and was 114 students under­
capacity. The Nelson Adams School (Negro) serving 
grades 1-12 had no portables in 1967-68 although the 
(white) Lee (1-6), Saraland (1-6), and Satsuma (7-12) 
schools together serving basically the same attendance 
area as Adams, needed 14 portables, with 12 at Satsuma. 
All-Negro Blount High School (Negro) had 19 portables 
in 1967-68, while traditionally white Vigor High, located 
about six blocks away, had no portables and was 62 stu­
dents under its normal capacity. (Id. pp. 90, 93).

Transportation. Mobile County school officials have tra­
ditionally provided transportation to students in the urban

17 An appendix to this brief, infra, p. 64, contains the number 
of portable classrooms used or recommended between 1964 and 
1968 at schools where portables constituted substantial portions of 
the total capacities.



9a

as well as the rural portions of the system. Between 1964- 
65 and 1967-68 the board bused from a high of just under 
25,000 students to 22,094 per year. During this time it 
spent from $405,833 to $503,934 per year to operate the 
buses and between $43,787 and $137,911 on new buses each 
year. (Office of Education July 10, 1969, submission)

In 1966-67, in the metropolitan area alone, the board 
bused more than 7,000 students, approximately 2,350 of 
whom were transported because of noncontiguous zones.18 
(A. in No. 26,886, Vol. I, pp. 5-6). Over 580 were bused 
about 6.3 miles from the rural Saraland and Satsuma areas 
to the Mobile County Training School (Negro) located in 
the eastern section of metropolitan Mobile; 381 elementary 
and junior high school children were bused from the at­

18 The 1964-65 pupil-reassignment notice provides in part:
South Brookley—will serve its district for grades 1-5. The 
sixth grade will be transported to Craighead along with stu­
dents presently transported.
Craighead—will serve its district for grades 1-6, plus the stu­
dents formerly transported to Oakdale from Morningsdale 
in grades 1-6, those formerly transported to Arlington from 
Williams in grades 1-6, those presently transported to Craig­
head from South Brookley in grades 1-6 and the 6th grade 
from South Brookley.
Tanner Williams—grades 1-9 for its district only. Students 
now transported from Shaw and Semmes will return to those 
schools.
Fonvielle—reduce district and assign to Stanton Road. Will 
serve grades 1-5 with 6th grade transported to Palmer. 
Hillsdale—grades 1-12. Discontinue transportation to St. 
Elmo. Double session grades 1-4 until building is complete in 
November. Add to Hillsdale students transported from High­
way 98 west (beyond Howell’s Perry Road), formerly trans­
ported to Warren, Washington and Central.
Thomas—grades 1-8. Assign 8th grade to Blount. Continue 
to transport those students enrolled at Mobile County Training.

The assignments are taken from our Trial Brief, Appendix A, 
p. A-4, A-5. For a more complete list of split zones where trans­
portation was offered see the remainder of Appendix A to the 
Trial Brief and appendix to this brief, infra p. 61.



10a

tendance areas served by the white Austin school (white) 
to the Warren and Washington schools (Negro), all of 
which are located in the city. (Ibid.)

Some schools in the city have a high percentage of their 
students transported from other areas. In 1966-67, ap­
proximately 61 per cent of the third grade pupils at Craig­
head school were came from other attendance zones (Ap­
pendix C to Trial Brief, p. C-33) with the majority of the 
out-of-district students bused from the South Morningside 
and South Brookley areas about 5.5 and 7.4 miles away. 
At the Old Shell Road School for the same year 46 per 
cent of the third graders lived in other attendance zones, 
(Id. p. C-34), coming from as far as the Todd Acres area, 
located outside the city limits about 11.4 miles away. The 
Todd Acres students (white) who were bused lived closer 
to at least 10 other elementary schools, most of which are 
also white schools.

Construction. The board has consciously selected build­
ing sites and constructed schools in a manner designed to 
perpetuate separate schools for Negro and white children. 
A report prepared by the school staff in 1967 discussing 
some of the existing school capacity problems treated sep­
arately problems of overcrowding in Negro schools and 
problems of underpopulation in white facilities in the same 
downtown Mobile area.19 Rather than reassign the stu­
dents to utilize the existing schools equally, the board made 
plans to construct four schools in Negro areas and build 
an addition to a fifth which “will relieve 35 of the 39 
portables now in use in the formerly Negro schools of this 
area.” (Report, Appendix B to Trial Brief, pp. 5-6)

19 The reports notes 23 vacant classrooms at “ formerly white 
schools” and predicts a possible additional 21 vacant classrooms at 
those schools; separately treated were “ formerly Negro schools” 
having 39 portables. See Report on Research of the Pupil Per­
sonnel for Use in Planning for the Full Utilization of School Facil­
ities in Downtown Area. See Appendix B to Trial Brief.



11a

The school system has a standard form used to justify 
the need for establishing a new plant on a particular site 
(PI. Int. Ex. 61 July 1967 hearing). The form requires a 
listing of the distances to the closest schools offering the 
same grades, distances to the closest schools accommodat­
ing higher grades, and schools where children in the pro­
posed new district are now enrolled. In every case where 
these questions are unanswered, the schools listed are of the 
same race. If a school for Negroes is contemplated, all the 
schools listed are Negro; if a school for whites is planned, 
all the schools named are white.

Mobile County school officials, in order to determine the 
racial composition of a contemplated new school, consult 
with agencies whose programs may affect the need for 
school facilities. For example, in 1964 the Prichard Hous­
ing Authority informed the school system of the number 
of nonwhite students who would be living in the “newly 
formed Robbins District” 20 (PI. Int. Ex. 87, July 1967 
hearing) and, after the school officials asked about white 
children, replied that in calculating the number of students 
living in the urban renewal area to be included in the 
school attendance zone, “ [t]he ratio of white families and 
children is not included as we believe that each and every 
white family located within this 116 acres will relocate 
outside of the area.” (Ibid.)21 When the Robbins school was 
completed, it housed only Negro children.22

20 Similar letters were written concerning the all-Negro Blount 
High School (PL Int. Ex. 87, July 1967 hearing).

21 The area served by Robbins had previously been discussed on 
May 1, 1963, in a memorandum from an assistant superintendent 
to Dr. Burns saying (PI. Int. Ex. 87, July 1967 hearing) :

If the Board is to go along with permanent use of Snug Harbor 
and Turnerville for housing Negro children and by the build­
ing of the New Prichard Elementary School, north of Carver, 
I think that you can see that they are fairly well housed.

22 In addition to consulting with other governmental agencies, 
the school officials sometimes checked with the leaders of the Negro



\

The location and design of many schools reflect the 
racial considerations in their planning.23 Blount High 
School (Negro) with a capacity of 1972 students was built 
about six blocks from the traditionally white Vigor High 
School (capacity 1769) (A. in 26,886, Vol. VI, p. 40). The 
Williamson Junior-Senior High School (capacity 1350), 
also Negro, was built about 14 blocks from the white Eanes 
Junior High School (capacity 1218) and less than 20 
blocks from the white Murphy High School (capacity 
2813) (Id. pp. 40, 42). The Mobile County Training School 
was rebuilt in 1967 on the back edge of a Negro neighbor­
hood, and is bordered on the other side by the Mobile 
River, even though, as the Acting Director of the Mobile 
City Planning Commission testified, the population in its 
service area was not sufficient to support a high school 
(Id. Vol. I ll , p. 929).24

School Closings and Conversions. The school board has 
closed white schools with declining enrollments which were 
located near overcrowded Negro schools and has converted

1 2 a

or white communities depending on which racial community a new 
school was planned to serve. When the new Cleveland School (now 
called Adams) was being considered, the hoard sought the advice 
and assistance of the Negro community in the areas to he served. 
(A. in No. 26,886, Vol. I ll, pp. 758-765; PI. Ex. 25, July 1967 
hearing).

23 The most recent construction efforts of the school board—to 
build a new high school on the same campus as the existing all- 
Negro Gorgas and Toulminville schools, and replace the Negro 
Howard Elementary School—were enjoined by this Court pending 
the appeal which resulted in the June 3, 1969, decision. 414 F.2d 
609. The June 3 order continued the injunction until attendance 
zones were drawn in accordance with the Court’s mandate. 414 
F.2d at 610.

24 Similarly, the Hillsdale School was planned and equipped for 
students in grades 1-2 because there was no Negro junior or senior 
high school nearby. The Toulminville and Prichard schools were 
constructed as white junior high facilities with capacities of only 
609 students—far less than any other junior high in the metro­
politan area. Such design is consistent with the fact that they



13a

other underpopulated white schools into all-Negro facili­
ties. Predominantly white Oakdale, Barton, and Russell, 
all serving areas adjacent to zones served by overcrowded 
Negro schools, were all closed because their white enroll­
ments were too small to permit their efficient operation 
as white schools.25 After several years of declining white 
enrollment at Arlington school, the board proposed for 
1968-69 that the school serve students transported from 
South Brookley, a noncontiguous area (A. in No. 26,886, 
Vol. VI, p. 41). Arlington served an attendance zone ad­
jacent to the area served by the Council school (Negro). 
The district court ordered that Arlington be used to serve 
the elementary students in the area surrounding it, and 
its enrollment was 384 white and 153 Negro. (A. in Nos. 
27,260 and 27,491, p. 6). The board’s December 1969 plan 
proposed closing Arlington, and it is now closed pursuant 
to the district court’s adoption of that plan.

An alternative to closing white schools was suggested in 
a May 1963 memorandum from an assistant superintendent 
suggesting that there were enough schools in the Prichard 
area and the only problem was “ in having the schools ad­
justed to the Negro or white population.” (PI. Int. Ex. 87, 
July 1968 hearing). Thus, in that year, the board changed 
two previously white schools in the Prichard area, Snug 
Harbor and Turnerville, to all-Negro schools.26 For the

served small white neighborhoods with the former school’s zone 
surrounded hy Negro residential areas and the latter’s bordered 
on three sides hy Negro areas. The new Southside Junior High 
School proposed by the hoard was planned as another small facil­
ity, with just enough space to accommodate the pupils feeding in 
from the Negro Emerson and Council elementary school areas.

25 The board proposed a similar closing for old Shell Road, but 
the proposal was successfully opposed by the white community and 
the private plaintiffs and the government in this case.

26 Even with the conversion of these two schools, Dr. Scarborough 
suggested other facilities might have to be changed. On May 1 he 
wrote a memorandum to the Superintendent saying: “ [I]t is my



14a

1963-64 school year the white students and teachers were 
reassigned to other schools.27 The schools were renamed 
Adams (Turnerville) and Palmer (Snug Harbor) after 
prominent Negroes (Id., Addenda to Board Agenda dated 
August 28, 1963) and given new attendance zones (Id., 
Memorandum from McPherson to Scarborough dated Au­
gust 20, 1963). Only Negro students and teachers were 
assigned to the schools; and they opened the following 
year as all-Negro schools, each having effectively been 
“converted from a white school to a Negro school” (PI. Int. 
Ex. 87, July 1968 hearing, undated recommendations at­
tached to minutes of August 28, 1963, board meeting).28

Similar conversions were effected at Toulminville, Gor- 
gas, Southside, and Howard schools. Toulminville, for 
example, offering grades 7-11, was officially “closed” in 
March 1965.29 (A. in No. 26,886, Vol. II, p. 95; PI. Int.

opinion that if more Negroes move in that area [Prichard] we 
again would have to abandon another white school and that it in 
turn could house the increase of Negroes. . . .”  (PL Int. Ex. 87, 
July 1967 hearing).

27 In effecting the conversion the board sent a questionnaire to 
each parent asking whether he planned to be living in the atten­
dance zone for 1963-64 and requesting that he indicate a preference 
of three white schools in case the school his child attended was 
closed. (Such practices indicate how a school board can affect 
residential make-up.) These and other school conversions are dis­
cussed in detail in our trial brief, pp. 39-63.

28 Adams was closed at the end of the 1966-67 school year, with 
students reassigned to the new Cleveland school (later renamed 
Adams) and to Mobile County Training School, both of which are 
Negro schools (Id. Ex. 14).

29 At that time, students were reassigned, on paper, to two other 
schools and parents were notified of the reassignments. Actual re­
assignments were made the following fall. Toulminville had been 
expanded from grades 7-9 to 7-11 before the closing, was subse­
quently again expanded from 10-11 to 10-12 after the conversion. 
(PI. Int. Ex. 23, July 1967 hearing). The school was also con­
verted from an annex to Central to an independent facility with 
its own attendance area. (PI. Int. Ex. 84, July 1967 hearing). 
See p. 5 supra.



15a

Ex. 1, 83, 87, July 1967 hearing). At the commencement 
of the following year, after its students, teachers, and 
administrators were transferred to other schools, Toulmin- 
ville opened with a Negro student body and faculty, and 
a grade structure of 10-11, as an annex to Central High 
(Negro). (PL Ex. 17, 22, PI. Int. Ex. 94, 84, July 1967 
hearing). In 1966-67 and 1967-68 the school board acted 
on the Gorgas school in the same manner. (A. in No. 26,886, 
Vol. n , p. 95).

16a

APPENDIX B

This Appendix shows for each school in the system which 
was used this year, its normal capacity, the enrollment 
and grade structure as of September 26, 1969, the grade 
organization and projected enrollment under each of the 
desegregation plans before the district court on January 
31, 1970, and the enrollment and grade structure as of 
March 23, 1970, under the district court’s order.

The chart is based on the November 26, 1969, Report to 
the Court filed by defendants, the desegregation plans filed 
by the United States Office of Education on July 10, and 
December 1, 1969, the attendance zone maps and projected 
enrollments filed by defendants on December 1, 1969, the 
attendance zone maps and projected enrollments submitted 
by the United States on January 27, 1970, and the Attach­
ment D1 to the affidavit of James McPherson filed in the 
district court on April 10, 1970. The latter data should 
reflect the assignments under the January 31 Order, as 
amended on February 4 and March 12.

Figures submitted by the Office of Education with its 
December 1, 1969, recommendations were in some aspects 
corrected during a January 22, 1970, conference with the 
Court and all parties. The chart reflects the corrected 
statistics.



16a

APPENDIX B

This Appendix shows for each school in the system which 
was used this year, its normal capacity, the enrollment 
and grade structure as of September 26, 1969, the grade 
organization and projected enrollment under each of the 
desegregation plans before the district court on January 
31, 1970, and the enrollment and grade structure as of 
March 23, 1970, under the district court’s order.

The chart is based on the November 26, 1969, Report to 
the Court filed by defendants, the desegregation plans filed 
by the United States Office of Education on July 10, and 
December 1, 1969, the attendance zone maps and projected 
enrollments filed by defendants on December 1, 1969, the 
attendance zone maps and projected enrollments submitted 
by the United States on January 27, 1970, and the Attach­
ment D1 to the affidavit of James McPherson filed in the 
district court on April 10, 1970. The latter data should 
reflect the assignments under the January 31 Order, as 
amended on February 4 and March 12.

Figures submitted by the Office of Education with its 
December 1, 1969, recommendations were in some aspects 
corrected during a January 22, 1970, conference with the 
Court and all parties. The chart reflects the corrected 
statistics.



ENROLLMENTS UNDER DESEGREGATION PLANS

ELEMENTARY

School
September

1969
Board
Plan

HEW 
Plan B

HEW Plan 
B -A lt .

AND THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDERS 

3CHGGLS

i i /
HEW Plan 
B - l A l t .

Arlington W 307
Cap. 462

N
(1 -5 )

237

Austin W 396
Cap. 396

N
( 1- 6 )

22

Bienville W 262
Cap. 660

N
( 1- 6 )

299
( 1- 6 )

Brazier W 0
Cap. 1122

N
(1 - 6 )

1123
(1 -5 )

Caldwell W 0
Cap. 594

N
( 1- 6 )

314
( 1- 6 )

Chickasaw W 494
Cap. 627

N
( 1 - 6 )

3
( 1- 6 )

Council W 0
Cap. 561

N
(1 -5 )

481
(1 -5 )

Craighead W
Cap. 891 MIDDLE SCHOOL (1 -5 )

N

Crichton K 507
Cap. 759

N
( 1 - 6 )

237
( 1- 6 )

CLOSE
■43 /  3 50 

( 1 - 5 F  
Council 659

(1 -5 )
Council

•L3E0

659
(3 -5 )

737
(M om ingside 1- 2 ) 

437 T o t. Cap. 1584
(1 -5 )

< 5 / 331
(1 -5 )

84
(1 -5 )

331

22
(4 -5 )

311
(Old S h e ll Road 1 -3 )  
139 T ot. Cap. 891

( 1- 6 )

300

313
CONVERTED TO HIGH SCHOOL

0

983

10
(1 -5 )

1C22
(1 -5 )

10

1022
(3 -5 )

3 55
(la d . Springs 1 -2 )  
812 T o t. Cap. 1551

(1 -5 )

13

401
CLOSE (1 -5 )

1

404
(1 -3 )

291
(South Brookley 4 -5 )  
255 T o t. Cap. 1023

(1 -5 )

500

0

473
(1 -5 )

100
(1 -5 )

473

100
( 1 - 2 )

311
(Robbins-Ham ilton 3- 5 ) 
662 T o t. Cap. 2112

(1 -5 )

6

525

, , 4 6 /3  50 
( 1 -5 ) —

A r l .  659
(1 -5 )

A r l .

3 50 

659
(3 -5 )

A r l .

737
(M om ingside 1- 2 ) 
437 T o t. Cap. 1584

(1 -5 )

383

512
CONVERTED TO HICH SCHOOL

(1 -5 )

518

243

438
(1 -5 )

348
(1 -5 )

343
(3 -5 )

431
(S lemurd 1 - 2 )
2 1 1 'T o t. Cap. 1287

(1 -5 )

Government 
Jan. 27 Plan

160

396

22

10
1022

0
350

473

100

4

391

347 

409

*  '40

348

March 23 
A tt cndance

CLOSED

(1-6)

(1 -5 )

(1-6)

( i - e )

(1 -5 )

(1 -5 )

(1-6 )

300

329

0
800

20

375

500

0
*5

543 

2 2  6 

560 

460 

260

12/ Under th is  plan two or more sch o ols  a re  p a ired  in order to  house one groupnf *
suggested for the sc h o o l, th e sch o ols  which are to  be included in th e p a ir in g  and thS' s tu d e n ts . This column in d ic a te s  th e p a r tic u la r  m , ’ , .
L  ebe Uped f ? f  th e one 9 rouP grad es, the sch ool other than the one m  9 ' the l e f t  hand £ he ° u i - dAnrP .- Where more than one ifclw o!
5e?, eng  ̂ Council. tn e Aert hfird CJlunn w il l  be shewn in  th is  column w ithout p a re n th e sis .

iy The to ta l ca p a city  fo r  th e  A rlin g to n -C o u n c il f a c i l i t i e s  i s  1023 .

re does no<- propose any change in  th e elem entary and middle sch ools located  want or 1 -6 5  and no enrollm ent p r o je c tio n  s t a t i s t i c s
it available ror th ose s c h o o ls .

« those schools® west0 o f ' t h e " ' ^  aUeK™ ,ca statA£itlcs does not abow oni-oUseot tigur 
$/ tootnote A'  ̂ ‘-,LQeir-

-  54 -





Sentember Bos rd HEW HEW Plan
School I960 Plan Plan B 3-■Alt.

Dickson W 835 680 630
Gap- 742 ( 1 - 6 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

H 193 125 125

Dodge W 675 565 555
Cap. 793 ( 1- 6 ) -----— (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 65 45 45

Eight Mile W 5C6 230 280
CaD. 660 (1 -3 ) ( 1 - 6 ) ( 1- 6 )

M 110 '56 66

Emerson 47 /
(Southside) — ' w 4 16 CLOSE 3

Cap. 696 ( 1- 6 ) ( 1 - 6 ) (1 -5 )
a 354 340 518

Fonde w 679 605 605
Gap. 825 ( 1- 6 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 11 236 11

Fonviolle w 0 8 CONVERTED 0
Cap. 1155 ( 1- 6 ) (1- 6 ) TO MIDDLE (1 -5 )

N 1209 1153 SCHOOL 1000

Forest H ill W 550 536 536
Oio. 660 (1 -5 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 0 355 0

Glendale V? 503 444 ,0 /4 3 4 434
Cap. 633 (1 -3 ) (1 -5 ) ( l - 5 ) ~ (1 -5 )

N 149 205 Palmer 931 Palmer 931

Go r gas W 2 8 7 3
Cap. 8.50 (1- 6 ) ( 1- 6 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 1153 1150 960 953

Grant V 1 15 15 15
Cap. USB (1 -5 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 1274 1250 1285 1235

j j/  The Emerson School b u ild in g  was apparen tly  abandoned sometime during th< 
Southside Junior High School which the Board had clo sed  in 1968 because o f  
-isted capacity fo r  the South side p la n t . The ca p acity  o f  th e Emerson School

~  Th- to ta l capacity fo r  the Falmer-Giendale f a c i l i t i e s  is  12E:7.

-  55 -

HEW Plan 
B -l A l t .

March 23 
A tte ndance

Government 
Jnn. 27 Plan

( 1- 2 )
195

(Stanton Road 3 -5 ) ( 1- 6 )
835

534 T o t. Cap. 1714 .193

351 67 5
( 1- 2 ) (W illiam s 3, Owens 1 -2 ) ( 1- 6 )

506 T o t. Cap. 2674 65

98 280
( 1- 2 ) (Grant 3 -5 ) ( 1- 6 )

250 T o t. Cap. 1848 66

CLOSE CLOSED

405 679
( 1- 2 ) (Palm er-G lendale 3 -5 ) ( 1- 6 )

450 T o t. Cap. 2112 161

400 0 3
(3 -5 ) (F orest H i l l  1 -2 ) (1 -5 ) (1- 6 )

666 T o t. Cap. 1815 1000 1178'

204 560
(1- 2 ) (F o n v ie lle  3 -5 ) (1 -5 )

334 T o t. Cap. 1815 95

634 434 402
(3 -5 ) (Fonde 1 -2 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )
Fainter 717 T o t. Cap. 2112 Palmer 913 18fl

449 7 2
(1 -3 ) (Orchard 4 -5 ) (1 -5 ) ( 1- 6 )

441 T o t. Cap. 1597 963 1171

197 15 1
(3 -5 ) (Eight M ile  1 -2 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

1101 T o t. Cap. 1848 1285 ' 1275'

1969 -7 0  school year and the ch ild ren  were moved to  the o ld  
i t s  co n d itio n . The ca p acity  fig u r e  used fo r  Emerson i s  the
when i t  was used was 528.





September Board HEW HEW Plan
School 1969 Plan Plan B B--A lt .

Hall W 0 CONVERTED TO 483 483
Cap. 1188 (1 - 6 ) MIDDLE SCHOOL (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 686 664 664

Hamilton W 629 625 ,638 638
Cap. 600 ( 1 - 6 ) ( 1- 6 ) ( 1 -5 ) 4 2 / (1 -5 )

N 0 0 Robbins 855 :Robbins 855

Howard W 0 21 0
Cap. 429 ( 1- 6 ) (1 - 6 ) CLOSE (1 -5 )

N 447 465 465

Indian Springs W 520 53 5 535
Cap. 429 ( 1- 6 ) ( 1- 6 ) ( 1- 6 )

N 12 11 :a

Lienkauf W 268 258 273 273
Cap. 495 ( 1 - 6 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 177 96 165 16 j

Haryvale W 548 478 472 472
Cap. 594 (1- 6 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 55 130 145 15

Mertz W 461 496 402 402
Cap. 528 ( 1- 6 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 0 0 120 0

Momingside W 740 631 636 636
Cap. 561 ( 1- 6 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 0 0 120 0

Old Shell Road W 249 250 232 232
Cap. 495 ( 1- 6 ) (1- 6 ) ( 1- 6 ) (1 -5 )

N 112 120 295 295

Orchard W 754 7 59 75S
Cap. 792 (1 -5 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 113 125 117

Owens W 0 0 2 2
Cap. 1485 ( 1- 6 ) ( 1- 6 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 1100 1237 1414 1414

42/ The total capacity fo r  the Robbins-Hamilton f a c i l i t i e s  is  1485.

56 -

HEW fla n Government March 23
B -l  A '.t . Jan. 2.7 Plan ATLCi, .UOIlC'

591
(1 -3 )  (Haryvale 4 -5 ) MIDDLE SCHOOL

450 T o t. Cap. 1782 

300 638 586
(3 -5 )  (Chickasaw 1 -2 ) (1 -5 ) ( 1- 6 )
Robbins 693 T o t. Cap. 2112 Robbins 855 C

CLOSE CLOSE ( 1- 6 )
8

190
(1 -2 )  (B razier  3 -5 )

535
(1 -5 )

410

221 T o t. Cap. 1551 

273

11

273 176
(5) (Westlawn 1 -2 ,  Mertz 3 -4 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

33 T c t . Cap. 1551 215 273

380 414 479
(4 -5 )  (H all 1 -3 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

236 T o t. Cap. 1782 167 167

402 498 438
(3 -4 )  (Westlawn 1 -2 , Lienkauf 5) (1 -5 ) ( 1- 6 )

66 T or. Cap. 1551 104 0

369 631 749
(1 -2 )  (A rlin g tcn -C o u n cil 3 -5 ) (1 -5 ) (1 - 6 )

222 T o t. Cap. 1534 100 0

CLOSE
232

(1 -5 ) ( 1- 6 )
269

313
(4 -5 )  (Gorgas 1 -3 )

295 

7 54
(1 -5 )

11C

639 T o t. Cap. 1815 113 -

184 2 r»
(4 -6 )  (Dodge 1 -2 ,  W illiam s 3) (1 -5 ) ( 1- 6 )

1100 T c t . Cap. 2674 1414 1328





September Boa rd HEW HEW Plan
School 1969 Plan Flan B E -A lt .

Palmer W 57 60 50 /434 434
Cap. 594 (1 -5 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 674 660 Glen. 931 G len . 931

Robbins — W 6 2 51/63e 633
Can. 825 (1 -5 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 ! (1 -5 )

N 815 805 Kami1 . 855 Ham il. 855

S’nepa rd W 409 383
Cap. 528 ( 1 - 6 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 29 160 43

South Brookley W 493 502 514 5i4
Cap. 429 ( 1 - 6 ) ( 1- 6 ) (1 - 6 ) ( 1- 6 )

N 75 71 72 72

Stanton Road w n 14 6 6
Cap. 990 ( 1- 6 ) ( 1- 6 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 977 1077 900 900

Thomas W 222 180 190
Cap. 297 ( 1- 6 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 101 95 95

West lawn W 516 483 495 495
Cap. 528 ( 1 - 6 ) ( 1- 6 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 0 0 75 0

Whistler W 227 181 191
Cap. 726 (1-6) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 231 205 205

Whitley w 0 0 216 216
Cap. 594 (1 -5 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 395 421 481 481

Will W 657 6 78 678
Cap. 792 / - r- \V J--_> 1 (1 -5 ) (1 -5 )

N 175 395 355

Williams W 497 571 571 571
Cap. 396 ( 1- 6 ) ( 1 - 6 ) ( 1- 6 ) (1-6)

N 60 43 43 43

Woodcock W 239 249
Cap, 594 (1 - 6 ) (1 -5 ) co;t/ fp.ted to MIDDLE SCHOOL

N 119 170

jC/ See footn ote  4 8 .

See footn ote 4 8 .
-  57  -

HEW Plan 
B- l  A l t .

634
(3 -5 )  (Fonde 1 -2 )
Glen. 717 T o t. Cap. 2112

800
(3 -5 )  (Chickasaw 1 -2 )

Kamil. 693 T o t. Cap. 2112

410
(1 -2 )  (C richton 3 -5 )

150 T o t. Cap. 1287

224
(4 -5 )  (Caldw ell 1 -3 )

218 T o t. Cap. 1023

491
(3 -5 )  (Dickson 1 -2 )

491 T o t. Cap. 1717

123
(1 -2 )  (W hitley  3 -5 )

235 T o t. Cap. 891

495
(1 -2 )  (Mertz 3 -4 ,  Lienkauf 5) 

66 T o t. Cap. 1551

462
(1 -2 )  (W ill 3 -5 )

178 T o t. Cap. 1518

273
(3 -5 )  (Thomas 1 -2 )

341 T o t. Cap. 891

397
(3 -5 )  (W h istle r  1 -2 )

422 T o t. Cap. 1518

303
(3) (Dodge 1 -2 ,  Owens 4 -6 )

225 T o t. Cap. 2674

AS PAKT OF EAMES

Government March 23
Jan. 27 Flan Attendance

<34 65
(1 -5 )
G len. 931

(1 -5 )
610

638 9
(1 -5 )  
Ham il. 855

(1 -5 )
841

( 1- 6 )
409

29

502 501
( 1- 6 )

71
( 1 - 6 )

79

6 1
(1 -5 )

900
0 - 6 )

984

(1 -5 )
180

95

432 507
(1 -5 )

50
( 1- 6 )

0

(1 -5 )
181

205

216 0
(1 -5 )

481
(1 -5 )

388

(1 -5 )
657

175

571' 562
( 1- 6 )

43
( 1- 6 )

,56

424 191
(1 -5 )

217
(1 -5 )

203



-



MIDDLE SCHOOLS
September Board HEW HEW Flan HEW Plan Government March 23

School 1959 Plan Plan B S -A lt . B -l A l t . Jar.. 27 Plan Attendance

Azalea Rd. 
Cap. 1015

W
(7 -8 )

1C39 857
(6 -7 )

eST
(6 -7 )

S 2 /
(7 -8 )

1039

N 38 133 133 38

Carver — 
Cap. 1023

W
(6 -7 )

1
<6 - 0

8
CONVERTED TO HIGH SCHOOL --------------------  USED AS HIGH SCHOOL (6 - 8 )

0

N 857 867 920

Central vr 122/1044 10-14 468
Cap. 1508 USED AS HIGH ;SCHOOL (6 -9 ) (6 -9 ) (6 -9 ) USED AS HI31 SCHOOL

N 1562 1562 1206

Clark W 1089 1242 535 536 536 .1071
Cap. 1390 (7 -9 ) (7 -9 ) (8 ) (8 ) (8 ) (7 -9 )

N 203 278 948 943 948 267

Craighaad ».Tft 119 ELEMENTARY
Cap. 891 (6 -7 ) SCHOOL CONVERTED TO HIGH SCHOOL --------------------  USED AS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

N 405

Dun tar W 2 6 A 4 / 1044
( 6 - 9

1044 181 4
Cap. 1131 (7 -8 ) (7 -8 ) (6 -9 ) (6 -9 ) (7 -8 )

N 837 912 C entral 1562 1562 985 806

Eanes W 966 911 930 , 980 
( 6 -9 ) 5^

J56/1292 994
Cap. 1218 (7 -9 ) ( 6- 8 ) (6 - 8 ) (6 -9 ) (6 - 8 )

N 134 160 Wdck. 764 Wdck. 764 H all 977 203

Fonvielle w ,52/lC  40
Cap. 11S3 USED AS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ( 6 - 9 ) USED AS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

N P h il-W ash. 1562

Hall W 0 182
(6 -9 )

1292
(5 -8 )

137
Cap. 1183 ( 1- 6 ) ( 6 - 8 ) USED AS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

N 686 573 Eanes 977 817

Under Plan B -l  A lte r n a tiv e  the sane m iddle sch ool and high school plans proposed in Plan 0 or Plan B -A lte m a tiv e  could be used. I f  Plan B 
were used, T ou im in ville  would be su b stitu te d  fo r  F o n v ie lle  as part o f th e W ash in gton -P h iH ips m iddle sch ool f a c i l i t y .

W  The to ta l ca p acity  fo r  th e Dunbar-Central f a c i l i t i e s  i s  2539 .

P  Ib id .

Under Plans E and B -A lte m a t iv e  Eanes would be used with Woodcock as a m iddle S ch ool.

The to ta l cap acity  fo r  th e E an es-K all f a c i l i t i e s  i s  :!4'16.
■*-' The to ta l capacity fo r  the P h iilip s -W a s h in g to n -!o n v ie lle  f a c i l i t i e s  is  327 i -

The combined capacities o f the two f a c i l i t ie s  would be

- 58 -





September Board HEW HEW Plan
’ School 1969 Plan Plan B B—A l t .

Hillsdale W 431 858 853
Cap. 847 (6 - 8 ) (8 ) (8 )

N 217 131 131

Hob. Co. Tr. W 0 102 432 432
Cap. 1305 ( 6 - 12 ) ( 6 - 12 ) (6 -7 ) (6 -7 )

( N 1283 1177 859 859

Phillips W 752 861 t.o/1040 .1040
CaD. 1073 (7 -8 ) (7 -8 ) (6 -9 ) (6 -9

N 122 171 Wash-Fton1562 Wash-Eton 1562

Prichard W 353 340 240 240
Cap. 609 (6 -9 ) ( 6 - 8 ) (6 -7 ) (6 -7 )

1
N 170 167 410 410

Rain W 1296 1150 1150 1160
Cap. 986 (7 -1 2 ) (7 -1 2 ) (7 -1 2 ) (7 -1 2 )

h’ 112 97 97 97

Scarborough W 638 855 855
Cap. .1000 (6 - 8 ) (6 -7 ) (6 -7 )

N 77 133 133

Toulir.inville W 6 0 / ] 040
, Cap. 609 USED AS HIGH SCHOOL (6 -9 )

N Fon- P h il . 156 2

Trinity Sard. W 0 0 380 360
1 Cap. 899 (7 -1 2 ) (6 - 8 ) (6 -7 ) (6 -7 )

N 1084 992 690 690

Washington W 0 16 6J /1040 1040
Cap. 1043 (7 -9 ) (7 -9 ) (6 -9 ) (6 -9 )

j N 1528 1559 Fon-Phi 1 1562 Phi 1-Toul 1562

Williamson W TJ.
Cap. 1350 (8 - 12 ) USED AS HIGH SCHOOL ONLY

N 1142

Woodcock W 980 960
USED AS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (6 -9 ) (6 -9 )

1 N Eanes 764 Eanes 704

58/ Ibid.
5§/ The to ta l ca p a city  o f th e  Phi H ip s-W a sh in gto n  f a c i l i t i e s  i s  2116 . 
iS/ The to ta l ca p a city  o f  th e T o u lm in v ille -F o n v ie lle -P h illip s  f a c i l i t i e s  is  

j M/ See footnote 57.

Si' See footnote 57.
59

HEW Plan 
b-1  A l t .

Government March 23
Jan. 27 Plan Attendance

638 ft
(6 - 8 )

77

432 2
(6 -7 ) ( 6 - 8 )

859 1188

CfO 1 *7 A 710
(6 -9 ) (7 -8 )
Wash. 1716 176

240 308
(6 -7 ) (6 - 8 )

410 209

1150 1106
(7 -1 2 ) (7 -1 2 )

97 116

638
(6 - 8 )

77

USED AS HIGH SCHOOL

38C 0
(6 -7 ) U - 8 )

690

62/ 1170 0
(6 -9 ) (7 -9 )

P h ill ip s 1716 1462

USED AD HIGH SCHOOL.





HIGH SCHOOLS

September Board HEW HEW Plan HEW Plan Government March 23
School 1969 Plan Plan B B -A lt . B -l  A l t . Jan . 27 Plan Attendance

Bienville W 6 1 /
B lt-C arv 1908 B lt-Q uv 1908 64/1144

Cap. 660 USED AS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 ) -------------------- (9 -1 2 ) ELEMENTARYN Vigor 2962 V igor 3516 Vigor 1211 SCHOOL

Blount w 0 22 Vig-ISef; 1908 Vig-Bien 1908 66/  854 0
Cap. 1972 (8 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 ) -------------------- (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 )N 1893 1875 Carver 2962 Carver 3516 Carver 1846 1748

Carver w Vig- Bien 1903 Vig-Bien 1908 854
Cap. 1023 USED AS MIDDLE SCHOOL (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 ) -------------------- (9 -1 2 ) MIDDLE SCHOOLN Blount 2962 Blount 3516 Blount 1846

Central W 0 17 0
Cap. 1508 (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 ) CONVERTED TO MIDDLE SCHOOL _____________ MIDDLE SCHOOL (9 -1 2 )N 1470 1372 1254

Davidson w 2302 2150 1738 1738 2302 2363
Cap. 1972 (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 ) _ _ _  _ (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 )

N 72 70 604 51 72 73

Mobile Co. Tr. W 0 102 2
Cao. 1305 (d- j 2) (6 -1 2 ) USED AS MIDDLE SCHOOL ONLY _____________ MIDDLE SCHOOL (6 -1 2 )

N 1283 1177 1188

Murphy w 2602 2171 1440 1440 1643 2247
Cap. 2913 (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 ) (1 0 -1 2 ) (1 0 -1 2 ) -------------------- (1 0 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 )

N 239 425 1360 1913 1761 490

Rain VI 1296 1150 1150 1150 1150 1106
Cap. 986 (7 -1 2 ) (7 -1 2 ) (7 -1 2 ) (7 -1 2 ) _____________ (7 -1 2 ) (7 -1 2 )

N 112 97 97 97 97 116

Shav W 1242 1250 1150 1150 1250 1179
Cap. 1044 (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 ) _____________ (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 )

N 237 240 471 196 240 220
Toulminville vr 0 20 0 9 0

Cap. 609 (1 0 -1 2 ) (1 0 -1 2 ) (12) CONVERTED TO (1 0 -1 2 ) (1 0 -1 2 )
N 1135 1145 365 MIDDLE SCHOOL 940 1097

Vigor w 1504 1296 ELt-Carv 3 908 nt-Carv 1908 1134 1474
Cap. 1769 (1 0 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 ) _____________ (9 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 )

M I Q ' S 468 B ien . 1962 Bien. 3516 Bien. 1211 4G0

Williamson w i 762 .£5/1008 1008 880 625
Cap. 1350 (8 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 ) (1 0 -1 2 ) (1 0 -1 2 ) (1 0 -1 2 ) (9 -1 2 )

N 1142 474 C raig . 767 C raig . "’67 471 9 a

*2/ The to ta l ca p a city  o f  the E ie n v ille -B lo u n t-C a r v e r -V ig o r  f a c i l i t i e s  as 5424.
The to ta l ca p a city  fo r  the V ig o r -E ie n v ille  f a c i l i t i e s  is  2241 .

®L/ .he to ta l ca p a city  fo r  the E lount-C arver f a c i l i t i e s  i s  2995 .
The to ta l ca p a city  o f the W illiam sor-C raigh ead  f a c i l i t i e s  i s  2241 . 60





17a



18a

APPENDIX C

This appendix lists the non-contiguous or split attend­
ance zones which were recommended or noted on the annual 
Pupil Placement Recommendations of school board (Ap­
pendix A to Trial Brief), except for the inclusion of a 
part of South Brookley in the Hall zone. The latter ex­
ample is taken from the Report on Research Of The Pupil 
Placement Office For Use In Planning For The Full 
Utilization Of School Facilities In The Downtown Area 
(Appendix B to Trial Brief). In some instances not all 
grades are assigned from the split part of the zone, and 
in other cases only students of one race living in the split 
zone are assigned. The chart shows the area assigned to 
a school other than the one located in its geographic zone, 
the school to which it is assigned, and the approximate 
distance from the middle of the split area to the school to 
which it is assigned.



19a

INSTANCES WHERE THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS ASSIGNED OR 
RECOMMENDED STUDENT ASSIGNMENT USING 

NON-CONTIGUOUS ZONES

Year
Non-Contiguous 
Area Assigned

Distance between 
Area and School School

1963-64 Brookley Air 3.6 miles Woodcock
Force Base 

Owens 3.6 miles Carver
Highway 98 8.8 miles Washington
Whistler 1 mile Whistler
Highway 98 10 miles Warren
So. Morningside 5.1 miles Oakdale
Hillsdale 14.5 miles St. Elmo
Mobile Terrace Unknown St. Elmo
Brookley Air 9.5 miles Theodore

Force Base 
Highway 98 9.6 miles Toulminville

1964-65 Highway 98 3.5 miles Hillsdale
Oakdale 2.2 miles Barton
Lee 4.5 miles Ellicott
Lee 7.8 miles Gorgas
So. Morningside 4.5 miles Craighead
Griggs 11.4 miles Old Shell Rd.
Indian Springs 9.8 miles Prichard Jr. Hi.
Whistler 3.4 miles Prichard Jr. Hi.
Shaw 16 miles Tanner-Williams
Shaw 10 miles Semmes
Shaw 10.8 miles Barton
Adams 2 miles Blount High
Fonvielle 1.9 miles Palmer
Highway 98 West 3.5 miles Hillsdale
Thomas 3.2 miles Mobile Cty. Trng
So. Brookley 6.6 miles Hall
Owens 3.8 miles Williamson Hi.
Owens 4.1 miles Hall
Wolf Ridge Area 3.1 miles Crichton

1965-66 Whitley 1.6 miles Adams
Mobile Co. Trng. 2 miles Adams
So. Morningside 4.5 miles Craighead
So. Brookley 7.4 miles Craighead

1966-67 Gorgas 1.9 miles Old Shell Rd.
Gorgas 3.4 miles Phillips
Saraland-Satsuma 6.3 miles Mobile Co. Trng.
Cottage Hill 5.7 miles Dickson
Lloyd Station 3.8 miles Hall
Lloyd Station 4.1 miles Williamson Hi.
Austin 3.2 miles Warren
Austin 4.6 miles Washington Hi.
Austin 5.1 miles Toulminville Hi.



20a

APPENDIX D

This Appendix reflects the number of portable and per­
manent classrooms used or recommended at schools in 
the Mobile system between 1964 and 1968 where there were 
substantial portions of the total capacities housed in port­
able classes. The data were obtained from PI. Ex. 22, 23 
and Pl.-Int. Ex. 29 at the July 1967 Hearing and A. No. 
26,886, Vol. I, pp. 90-94.

Schools W hich Have Had Major Portions of Their
Students Housed in Portables

Portable Permanent
Year School Classrooms Classrooms
1964-65 Burroughs 3 10

Calcedeavor 3 8
Cleveland 7 8
Cottage Hill 1 3
Council 5 18
Dixon 7 5
Ponde 7 14
Forest Hill 6 20
Griggs 12 16
Hillsdale 24 0
Hollinger’s Island 4 12
Mobile County 6 20
Mobile County Training 11 19
Morningside 5 15
Mount Vernon Elementary 8 10
Semmes 12 27
Shepard 9 16
Stanton Eoad 15 11
Trinity Gardens 5 25
Williamson 15 35

20 Schools 165 292
1966-67 Baker 9 20

Blount 14 38
Calcedeavor 3 7
Citronelle 18 33
Cleveland 7 8
Cottage Hill 2 2
Council 7 17



2 1 a

Schools W hich Have Had Major Portions of Their 
Students Housed in Portables (Continued)

Year School
Portable
Classrooms

Permanent
Classrooms

1964G65 Dixon 7 5
(Cont’d.) Fonvielle 13 35

Grant 10 36
Griggs 10 16
Hillsdale 7 15
Hollinger’s Island 5 12
Mobile County High School 12 19
Mobile County Training 17 18
Morningside 7 15
Mount Vernon Elementary 9 10
Northside 8 13
Palmer 7 17
Shaw 7 16
Shepard 17 16
Thomas 4 8
Vigor 8 29
Washington 9 24

24 Schools 211 429
1967-68 Baker 9 20

Belsaw 10 10
Blount 18 38
Caleedeavor 3 7
Cleveland 6 8
Council 5 17
Dixon 8 5
Garc 1 0
Griggs 11 16
Hillsdale 8 15
Hollinger’s Island 4 12
Howard 7 13
Mobile County High School 15 19
Mobile County Training 21 14
Morningside 7 15
Palmer 5 18
Bain 8 14
Satsuma 9 25
Shaw 17 16
Shepard 11 16
Thomas 5 8
Vigor 8 29
Washington 10 24
Williamson 10 18

24 Schools 216 377







MEILEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. C. 21S



i>upriw (Hour! nf %  MnxUb States
October T erm, 1970

No. 436

I n  t h e

B irdie M ae Davis, et al.,

v.
Petitioners,

B oard oe S chool Commissioners op 
M obile County, et al.

on writ op certiorari to the united states
COURT OP APPEALS POR THE PIPTH CIRCUIT

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS * 1407

Jack Greenberg 
James M. N abrit, III 
M ichael Davidson 
N orman J. Chachkin  

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

V ernon Z. Crawford 
A lgernon J. Cooper

1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

A nthony  G. A msterdam
Stanford University Law School 
Stanford, California 94305

Attorneys for Petitioners



.



I n  t h e

g>itprpmp (Emtrf of %  lotted States
October T erm, 1970 

No. 436

B irdie M ae Davis, et al.,
Petitioners,

v.

B oard op S chool Commissioners op 
M obile County, et al.

ON WRIT OP CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 
COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS

Petitioners file this Supplemental Brief pursuant to Rule 
41(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United 
States to bring to the attention of this Court the actual 
enrollment in the public schools of respondent school dis­
trict under the orders of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit here reviewed. This information is 
contained in a Report filed with the district court October 2, 
1970 which was not available to Petitioners in time for 
inclusion in their Brief in chief.

The transmittal letter of the district court clerk and 
the actual enrollment figures in the Mobile County public 
school on September 21, 1970 as shown in the Report are 
reprinted in their entirety as an Appendix to this Sup­
plemental Brief.



2

Petitioners’ analysis of the enrollment figures for 
September 21, 1970 reveals the following results of im­
plementation of the Fifth Circuit plan:

1. Nine (9) elementary schools are definable as “all­
black” under the Fifth Circuit’s standard, which de­
fines “all-black” schools as having 10% or fewer white 
students:

Schools Black White

Brazier 1039 0
Caldwell 408 7
Council 363 14
Fonvielle 919 2
Grant 1087 4
Owens 1476 0
Palmer 646 61
Bobbins 694 8
Stanton Road 1019 3

Total 7651

The report further shows that there are 11,894 black 
elementary school students in Metropolitan Mobile. The 
percentage of these assigned to “ all-black” schools is 
64%. The number of black students actually assigned 
to “all-black” schools is 1576 more than the Court of 
Appeals thought were being assigned (compare these 
statistics with those at page 707a of the Appendix).

2. Additionally, 402 black students are assigned to 
a school which is only slightly more than 10% white:

Schools Black White

Whitley 402 46



3

I f this school is treated as being “ all-black” the total 
number of black students assigned to all-black schools 
is 8053, or 67 % of all black elementary school students 
in Metropolitan Mobile.

3. The Report also indicates a clear problem in 
several junior high schools and high schools:

Schools Black White

Blount 2033 41
Central 1508 17
Dunbar 816 18
Mobile County Training 712 20
Trinity Gardens 868 61
Washington 809 59

Total 6746

Thus, contrary to the Fifth Circuit’s expectations, 6746 
junior and senior high school students are attending 
“all-black” schools. Significant numbers of the students 
attending “ all-black” elementary schools will attend 
these “all-black” junior and senior high schools. The 
Fifth Circuit’s assumption that every black student 
will attend an integrated school at some point in his 
education in unwarranted.

This miscalculation on the Fifth Circuit’s part further 
demonstrates the need for thorough evidentiary hearings 
under standards declared by this Court. Petitioners sub­
mit that Mobile’s experience under the Fifth Circuit plan 
underscores the necessity for the declaration of a Con­
stitutional standard that in a unitary school system, no 
black student may be assigned to a racially identifiable 
black school, at any grade level.



4

As we suggested in our Brief, Plan B -l Alternative pro­
posed by the Department of H.E.W. on December 1, 1969 
meets that standard in an educationally sound and ad­
ministratively feasible manner. We suggest, therefore, that 
not only should future hearings in the district court pro­
ceed under the Constitutional standard above, but that they 
must be expedited in accordance with a schedule consistent 
with Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 
(1969) and Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Bd., 396 
U.S. 290 (1970), and the respondents should bear the bur­
den at such hearings “ of demonstrating beyond question . . .  
the unworkability of” Plan B -l Alternative and “devis[ing 
other] measures to provide the required relief.” Carter v. 
West Feliciana Parish School Bd., 396 U.S. at 292 (Mr. 
Justice Harlan, concurring).

Respectfully submitted,

Jack Greenberg 
James M. N abrit, III 
M ichael D avidson 
N orman J. Chachkin  

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

V ernon Z. Crawford 
A lgernon J. Cooper 

1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

A nthony G. A msterdam
Stanford University Law School 
Stanford, California 94305

Attorneys for Petitioners



APPENDIX





is 69,697
United sta tes  District Court

3. Report file d  October 2, 1970, by the Board of School Com­
missioners showing the number of non-conformers for Thursday, 
September 17, 1970, and Friday, September 18, 1970.

Report file d  Octobter 2 , 1970, by the Board of School Com­
missioners showing the enrollment figures for Monday, September 
14, 1970.

5. Report file d  October 2 , 1970, by the Board of School Com­
missioners showing the cumulative enrollment figures for the second 
day, Thursday, September 10, 1970.

6. Report file d  October 2 , 1970, by the Board of School Com­
missioners showing the enrollment' report for the f ir s t  day of 
school, Wednesday, September 9, 1970.

I do not send to you the Report to the Court that was file d  on 
September 25, 1970, setting out the administrative action taken by 
the Pupil Personeel O ffice with regard to each transfer application  
received and acted updn in the period bettween September 18 and Sep­
tember 24, 1970.





United States District Court
S o u t h e r n  D is t r ic t  o f  A l a b a m a

2 1 3  U . S .  C o u r t  H o u s e  & C u s t o m  H o u s e

W IL L IA M  J . O 'C O N N O R  M O B IL E . A L A B A M A  3 6 6 0 2

CLEBK OCTOBER 7, 1970

Mr. Michael Davidson,
Attorney at Law,
Suite 2030 -  10 Columbus C ircle,
New York, N. Y . 10019

In Re: C ivil Action No. 3003-63 -  Birdie
Mae Davis, et a l v. Board of School 

Commissioners of Mobile County

Dear S ir :

Pursuant to your telephone request of yesterday, I hand you 
herewith the following:

1. Report file d  October 2, 1970, by the Board of School Com­
missioners showing the number of non-conformers by school and 
race for Monday, September 28, 1970. This id in the form of a 
Memo dated September 28, 1970, from Mr. J. A. McPherson to Mr. 
Abram L. Philips.

2 . Report file d  October 2 , 1970, by the Board of School Com­
missioners showing the e n r o T I m p n t - .  f o r *  M A ^ o r ,  o  —  ---------





Mr*. Michael Davidson 
P age N o .  2  
O ctober 7 , 1970

I do not send to you the Report to the Court that was file d  
on September 18, 1970* setting out action on student transfers 
with regard to each transfer application received and acted 
upon for the fi lin g  of transfer applications that closed on 
Friday, September 11, 1970.

The reason I do not send to you the two foregoing reports 
is that they are lnany, many pages and I do not think you would 
want to spend your money for this information. I f  I am in 
error, advise me.

You may send to me a check for $5.00 for the enclosures.

Very truly yours

Clerk.



czisa-a

CENTRAL
CHICKASAW

; dMj /O

(S3 Oaq

CITRONELLE </36 (,93

CLARK <?}) /o3ST 53 (q

COUNCIL .363 /a

CRAIGHEAD MS' GOO

CRICHTON /M 3^3

DAUPHIN ISLAND OQ

DAVIDSON /tT 00 .7/36

S E P T .  a t  ( I<¥70 -

GRAND BAY /<// (s foQ*' *03
00-5 GRANT /O V O 0 /C G I

3 / 3 . GRIGGS 0 63 M S . •/?*T
HALL 4 5 U /U 3 C / O'S'jd

/ /O  9 HAMILTON 1 0 1  / 9 z l 3c^ J2.0TL
J 5 3  / HILLSDALE 3 0 1 U ( o 3 O C 'J

S ')-9 HOLL. ISLAND 0 3 Q ^ 0 0 3 s

C2ZE29
55-7 INDIAN SPRINGS S U 6 0 ^ 6 0 3 .

<?3 LEE /O'O' 636, n y i

«?<?33 LEINKAUF f l i J j '  u S . f ^ O
CU:l/?K’S OfF/Cc

. ° C r^ /970
W t o L L / n a i ' N ^

C'O O .

cUnK



ADAMS c0 /3

ALBA /9k>

C5S5SBMflB
AUSTIN
AZALEA ROAD 3 U

BAKER <?5T

BELSAW £>50

E 222E 223

BLOUNT 5 0 3 3

BRAZIER /0 3 9

BROOKLEY no

BURROUGHS -0(r !

CALCEDEAVER
CALDWELL </0 ^

^  A*
J22£l /O 0 3  DAVIS
/ < / /o n ~ > 3

- DICKSON
f f l T ( /5  / DIXON

/out* /O M DODGE
SO "! / n z DUNBAR

0 5 ou n EANES
EIGHT MILE

0 / £>i OU ggftaraea

/U 39 EVANS
& 95 51p5 FONDE

J5Ls_ o /n FONVIELLE
/O q /n q FOREST HILL

O O /o GLENDALE

/no 0/ 09/

.5 yn. 'ISO

f*9. . £>05

■ GO n/o non

Vila /V kzu

93  9 00 ton. n.oo

/O  //(J 5 0 5  /.(/3

/30 93 903

J' non 0 3 0

9/9 0- 99)

a 5/9 5/9

■ - 1 -  -  6/-7 JQO 9/5'
G3KSE23 GSZSZ3S





LOTT

l i t o u c a i i  «  & P £ c .

J *  J ?  /o  *

*  * *  /  / «
-/Cn 0')U THEODORE

. v
y  * *  /

__ (a 3 0 0  /63U

* S P t *

1MARYVALE . £ 2 J - 391 CO? THOMAS YY 103

MERTZ •30U 3 0 9  TOULM INVILLE 5 3 0 SO 3Y0

MOBILE C O . HIGH OO? SYS X33 T R IN IT Y  GDNS .  YG9 (j>! 901

MOBILE C O . TRNG. mcL 6 0 1903 VIGOR SO jOloU /on? IS  id

ycyMONTGOMERY - 9 9 3U QSln 9Y0> WASHINGTON m 5 9

MORNINGSIDE / / .g q? . (pU? WESTLAWN 10 39>Y SO?

M T . VERNON 3/Q 5 9 3 1 ?  WHISTLER / ? ? /0 3 901

MURPHY /OO/ VC 9 'pCoO WHITLEY OOd 00 0 0 ?

OLD SHELL ROAD ^3 300 o ? OOO W ILL J03 GOO 0(/3

ORCHARD n o nod V3U W ILLIAM S 5 3 6 0 0 6 5 3

OWENS /o n e /O le  WILLIAMSON 6 3 0 3 5 9 -?X0

PALMER CVO Cr/ l o o  WILMER 5 ? 3SO ouv

P H IL L IP S ¥59 3SU 1013 WOODCOCK / 6 3 M - X 3 1 .

PRICHARD l -5  VO 190 n^q T * “ " 0 1 /  3 o W ~ , Of/iOT/

R AIN U n ? 1391 /0 5 l

ROBBINS 0 9 0 <1 lOZd

S T .  ELMO odO o n ?

SARALAND ion CO’? OSS'

SATSUMA 0 0 3 <910* i n s '

SCARBOROUGH cr JQ VoO V3U

SEMMES i 0-9 1030 /OUp

SHAW r003 / 3 5 3

SHEPARD 039 Odd

STANTON ROAD /0 /9 3 /oop
" ': ^ z

TANNER WILLIAMS (I 3 S ? 3 0 0 ;

Wi T z  1970
WilUAMj  n ,

* °CONno



MEILEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. C. 219



Nos. 281, 349, 436

In the

§ujjtnmtp GImtrt of tljo llmtib
October Term, 1970

James E. Swann, et al.,
Petitioners, Cross-Respondents, 

v.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, et al.,

Respondents, Cross-Petitioners.

Birdie Mae Davis, et al.,

v.
Petitioners,

Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, et al.,

ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 
COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH AND FIFTH CIRCUITS

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND PETITIONERS’ 
REPLY TO BRIEF OF THE UNITED STATES

Jack Greenberg 
James M. Nabrit, III 
Michael Davidson 
Norman J. Chachkin 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

J. LeVonne Chambers 
A dam Stein
Chambers, Stein, Ferguson & Lanning 

216 West Tenth Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

C. O. Pearson
203% East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina 27702

A nthony G. A msterdam
Stanford University Law School 
Stanford, California 94305

Vernon Z. Crawford 
A lgernon J. Cooper 

1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

Attorneys for Petitioners and 
Cross-Respondents





I n  t h e

§aprmz (Eourt of %  HbniUb States
October T erm, 1970

James E . S w a n n , et al.,

Petitioners, Cross-Respondents,

v.

Charlotte-M ecklenburg B oard of E ducation, et al.,

Respondents, Cross-Petitioners.

B irdie M ae Davis, et al.,

v .
Petitioners,

Board of School Commissioners of M obile County, et al.

on petitions for writs of certiorari to the united states

COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH AND FIFTH CIRCUITS

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF

Petitioners respectfully request leave to file the attached 
reply to the brief of the United States. This reply is being 
filed less than three days before the time the case will be 
called for hearing. See Rule 41, Rules of the Supreme 
Court.

The brief of the United States was filed on October 6 
and received by petitioners’ counsel on October 7 and 8.



2

Accordingly, it was not possible to complete this reply and 
have it printed for filing until October 10. Special arrange­
ments are being made to serve counsel wbo will be arguing 
the case, prior to the arguments.

Respectfully submitted,

Jack Greenberg 
James M. Nabrit, III 
M ichael D avidson 
N orman J. Chachkin  

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

J. L eV onne Chambers 
A dam S tein
Chambers, S tein, F erguson & L anning 

216 West Tenth Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

C. O. P earson
2031/2 East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina 27702

A nthony G. A msterdam
Stanford University Law School 
Stanford, California 94305

V ernon Z. Crawford 
A lgernon J. Cooper 

1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

Attorneys for Petitioners and 
C ross-R esp ondents



I n  t h e

Supreme QInurt of tho Ittited States
October T erm, 1970

James E. S w a n n , et al.,

Petitioners, Cross-Respondents,

v.

Charlotte-M ecklenburg B oard of E ducation, et al.,

Respondents, Cross-Petitioners.

B irdie M ae D avis, et al.,
Petitioners,

v.

Board of S chool Commissioners of M obile County, et al.

ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 

COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH AND FIFTH CIRCUITS

PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO 
BRIEF OF THE UNITED STATES

Several arguments advanced by the United States in its 
brief amicus curiae occasioned this reply.

(1) At p. 17, the Government attributes to petitioners 
the position that the Constitution requires “ the ratio of 
white to black students in each school [to be] . . .  as near 
as possible to the ratio of white to black students in the 
system as a whole.” This is not petitioners’ position. 
Nothing in petitioners’ briefs suggests this position, which



2

the Government elsewhere characterizes as “ racial balance” 
(pp. 16, 18-21, 23).

Petitioners’ plan for the desegregation of the Mobile 
public school system in No. 436 does not depend upon a 
theory of “ racial balance.” 1 Nor does Judge McMillan’s 
plan for the desegregation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
public school system in Nos. 281 and 349 depend upon a 
theory of “ racial balance.” 1 2 “Racial balance” is a whipping- 
boy that respondents and the Government find it convenient 
to belabor. But it has nothing to do with petitioners’ con­
tentions respecting the requirements of the Constitution.

(2) Petitioners’ contentions do not depend upon “ratios.” 
They would permit 50-50 schools to exist, for example, in a 
70-30 school district where residential stability and other 
characteristics of the school population did not threaten 
resegregation, and the history of the school board per­

1 See Brief for Petitioners in No. 436, pp. 63-79.
2 See the Government’s quotation from Judge McMillan’s opinion 

at p. 21. After the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school board had con­
sistently failed to produce an acceptable desegregation plan, Judge 
McMillan was compelled to appoint an expert to devise a plan. 
He was thereby obviously required to instruct the expert concern­
ing the ideal objectives of the plan—something that would not 
have been necessary if the board had developed anything approxi­
mating a satisfactory plan of its own. In this context only, Judge 
McMillan resorted to ideals defined by ratios—but with the clear 
recognition that substantial deviations from the ratios would be 
permitted where other practical and educational considerations 
called for them. And the ultimate plan approved by Judge Mc­
Millan does not in fact involve racial ratios in each school that 
reflect those of the district as a whole.

Judge McMillan expressly noted that his decision does not rest 
on a conclusion that “racial balances” are constitutionally required. 
He said:

“ This court has not ruled, and does not rule, that ‘racial bal­
ance’ is required under the Constitution; nor that all black 
schools in all cities are unlawful; nor that all school boards 
must bus children or violate the Constitution; nor that the 
particular order entered in this case would he correct in other 
circumstances not before the court” (emphasis in original) 
(Brief Appendix, p. i2 ).



3

formance did not require more exacting demands to guard 
against evasions. What petitioners do urge is simply that 
this Court should announce principles for the ultimate 
form of school desegregation plans which meet two re­
quirements :

First, they fulfill the promise and the constitutional hold­
ing of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), 
that no black child is to be assigned to a racially identi­
fiable “black” school such as the all-black and virtually all­
black schools which the Fifth Circuit has permitted to exist 
in Mobile and which the HEW plan would permit to exist 
in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.

Second, they announce this first requirement in terms 
that are sufficiently clear, unmistakable, and decisive so 
that the Court’s opinion in these cases will not spawn 16 
more years of litigation like the 16 years of litigation that 
followed Brown.

(3) The Government’s position fails to meet either re­
quirement. The Government urges that:

An appropriate standard should give proper attention 
to a number of circumstances, such as the size of the 
school district, the number of schools, the relative 
distances between schools, the ease or hardships for 
the school children involved, the educational sound­
ness of the assignment plan, and the resources of the 
school district. (P. 8)

If 16 years of litigation under Brown have demonstrated 
anything, it is that the enunciation of this “ standard” by 
this Court in this year 1970 would be an unmitigated 
disaster. Under this standard, southern desegregation will 
remain an unresolved issue, and litigation of how many 
black children can be penned in all-black schools will still 
be going on, in 1986.



4

(4) The only justification that the Government offers 
for this unserviceable standard is the notion of deference 
to “ the traditional neighborhood method of school assign­
ment” (p. 9; see p. 24). But we are talking about desegre­
gating schools that have never had a “traditional neigh­
borhood method of school assignment.” Time out of mind 
prior to Brown, both Mobile and Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
had school assignment systems that took black children 
out of their “neighborhoods” to black schools and white 
children out of their “neighborhoods” to white schools. 
After Brown, both used plans that were not “neighborhood” 
plans.3 Recently, both developed “neighborhood school” 
schemes whose design and effect were to perpetuate segre­
gation. If the neighborhood school system had any other 
“benefits” (p. 9), they had escaped local notice altogether 
during many years, and now continued to be subordinated 
to the interests of segregation for schools were located, 
their capacities designed, their grades structured, their 
zone lines drawn, and their “neighborhoods” thus shaped 
to achieve continued segregation of the races.

The Government admits that all of this is so as to Mobile 
and Charlotte-Mecklenburg (pp. 12-16), but seem to suggest 
that Mobile and Charlotte-Mecklenburg are aberrations. 
They are not aberrations. If one is to go outside these 
records, one will find that no school district which practiced 
the sort of racial discrimination condemned in Brown had 
a “ traditional neighborhood” school system. They all sent 
blacks to black schools and whites to white schools without 
regard to “neighborhoods”  or geographic proximity. These 
are the school systems that are at issue here.

But we do not think that the Court should go outside 
the record. If there are school districts which have truly

3 Indeed, in No. 436, the Mobile School Board adamantly re­
sisted the principle of neighborhood schools. See petitioners’ brief 
in No. 436, p. 29, n. 26.



5

had “traditional neighborhood” school systems, they lie 
beyond the scope of this Court’s post-Brown experience 
and doubtless differ in so many ways from Mobile and 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg that nothing the Court decides 
herein could affect them. To reason from the supposed 
nature and “benefits” of those systems without a record 
adequately describing them would be perilous enough even 
if such systems were in question. But the only systems 
in question here are those that have traditionally subordi­
nated or shaped neighborhoods to race; and, as to them, 
the Government’s “ traditional neighborhood” school prin­
ciple is manifestly hollow.

(5) The Government’s reasoning from the “neighbor­
hood” school premise is as faulty as the premise. We 
understand it to say that because various devices have been 
used by southern school boards to make the “neighborhood” 
school principle a serviceable tool of segregation—i.e., 
school location, school size manipulations, grade structure 
manipulation, zone line manipulation (pp. 12-16)—these 
same devices, but only these, may be used as “the focal 
point of a proper remedy . . .  to disestablish the dual 
system and eliminate its vestiges (p. 16; see p. 25). Two 
things are wrong with this argument as a basis for con­
cluding that “a system of pupil assignment on the basis 
of contiguous geographic (residence) zones . . .  is consti­
tutionally acceptable in desegregating urban school sys­
tems”  (p. 24).

First, southern school boards— and these school boards— 
have used not merely manipulative practices within con­
tiguous zones but also non-contiguous zones and busing 
to achieve segregation. If the measure of desegregation 
devices is to he determined by those devices previously 
used to segregate, then non-contiguous zones and busing- 
are included.



6

Second, there is no doctrinal, logical or practical reason 
why the roster of desegregation devices should be mea­
sured by that of segregation devices. So far as we are 
aware, it has never been supposed that the remedial means 
of a court of equity were those used by a malefactor in 
creating the situation that requires remedying.

(6) It is not only, however, the Government’s reasoning 
that troubles us, but the consequences to which it inevitably 
leads:

First, as we have said in paragraph (3), supra, the 
Government’s vague and elastic “ standards to he applied 
in fashioning remedies for state-imposed segregation” 
(p. 8) will unquestionably produce another desolating, 
wasteful and protracted era of school desegregation 
litigation. We had hoped that this Court’s decision in 
Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 
19 (1969); and Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School 
Board, 396 U.S. 290 (1970), were meant to end that sort of 
thing.

Second, standards of this sort cannot he fairly and uni­
formly administered. In practice, they boil down to tie 
disposition of the school board, or local district judge, or 
the sitting panel of the court of appeals. Experience in 
the Fifth Circuit in the past year demonstrates the effect 
of standards such as the Government proposes. The Gov­
ernment’s description of the Fifth Circuit jurisprudence 
at pp. 19-20, 25-26, suggests a sort of consistency that the 
cases entirely lack. In the Fifth Circuit, as we have shown 
in petitioners’ brief in No. 436, the degree of desegregation 
ordered varies from panel to panel.

Third, in the last analysis, as the Government admits on 
p. 26, its “ standards” amount to nothing more than a 
promise of judicial review of the “good faith” of school 
officials. Sixteen years of school desegregation litigation



7

since Brown teach the delusiveness, the utter futility of 
any such approach to desegregation.

(7) This Court should order that the schools be desegre­
gated by declaring that each black child in Mobile and 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg must be assigned to a school which 
is not a racially identified “black” school. See para. (2), 
supra. Judge McMillan’s order on Nos. 281 and 349 should 
be approved as a practicable plan found effective to achieve 
this result in Charlotte-Mecklenburg; and the judgment of 
the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in No. 436 
should be reversed.

Respectfully submitted,

Jack Greenberg 
James M. Nabrit, III 
M ichael D avidson 
N orman J. Ch achkin  

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

J. L eV onne Chambers 
A dam S tein
Chambers, S tein, F erguson & L anning 

216 West Tenth Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

C. 0. P earson
203V2 East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina 27702

A nthony  G. A msterdam
Stanford University Law School 
Stanford, California 94305

V ernon Z. Crawford 
A lgernon J. Cooper 

1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

Attorneys for Petitioners and 
Cross-Respondents









1



MEILEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. C. 219



APPEN D IX

Volume I —  pp. la  - 356a

Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1970

N o. 436

BIRDIE MAE DAVIS, ET AL., PETITIONERS,

— v.—

BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS 
OF MOBILE COUNTY, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 

COURT OF APPEARS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

ACTION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 
DEFERRED AUGUST 31, 1970

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED JULY 23, 1970





I N D E X

Volume I
PAGE

Docket Entries ...............................................................  la

District Court Order of April 25, 1963 ....................... 2a

Court of Appeals Opinion of May 24, 1963 ............... 3a

District Court Opinion of June 24, 1963 ..................... 5a

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9,1963 ................... 14a

District Court Order of July 26, 1963 ..........................  29a

Opinion of Mr. Justice Black, 8/16/63, Denying Stay 31a

District Court Order of August 23, 1963 ................... 35a

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 18, 1964 ............... 36a

District Court Orders of July 29, 1964 and July 31,
1964 ...............................................................................  40a

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965 ................. 45a

Appendix A .............................................................. 65a

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966 ........... 67a

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967 84a

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968 ...........  122a

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968 .....................  142a



Explanatory Letter ................................................  173a

Choice Form ............................................................ 175a

District Court Order of December 20, 1968 ............... 177a

District Court Order of March 14, 1969 ....................... 179a

Court of Appeals Order of March 20, 1969 ...............  181a

District Court Order of April 7, 1969 ......................... 182a

Court of Appeals Order of May 6, 1969 .......................  185a

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 3,1969 ...................  186a

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commis­
sioners of Mobile County on August 19, 1963 .......  193a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6 at July 1967 Hearing .......  201a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 24 at July 1967 H earing.......  204a

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 
H earing.......................................................................... 207a

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 72 at July 1967 
H earing.......................................................................... 221a

Excerpt from Transcript of Proceedings, July 17,
1968, page 1031 ............................................................ 223a

Excerpt from Transcript of Proceedings, July 19,
1968, pages 1526-1532 ................................................  224a

HEW  Plan of July, 1969 ................................................  229a

11

PAGE

District Court Order of August 2, 1968 ........................ 169a



Ill

Volume II

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969 .......  473a

District Court Order of August 1, 1969 ..................... 512a

School Board Report to the Court Filed November 
26, 1969 .........................................................................  518a

Opinion of Court of Appeals of December 1, 1969 .... 543a

Second HEW Report Filed December 1, 1969 ........... 554a

Plan A .....................................................................  559a

Plan B ...................................................................... 566a

Plan B—Alternative ..............................................  574a

Plan B -l—Alternative ..........................................  581a

School Board Plan Filed December 1, 1969 .............  586a

District Court Order of December 4, 1969 ................... 588a

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Require Service of Desegre­
gation Plan Filed January 2, 1970 ........................... 589a

Volume III

Statistical Exhibits Submitted by the United States 
to the District Court on January 27, 1970 ...........  591a

District Court Order of January 28, 1970 .................  602a

PAGE

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969 .............. 357a

District Court Order of January 31, 1970 .................. 603a



IV

Court of Appeals Opinion of February 16, 1970 .......  611a

District Court Order of February 27, 1970 ............... 616a

District Court Order of March 12, 1970 ...................  617a

District Court Order of March 16, 1970 ...................  619a

Court of Appeals Order of March 25, 1970 ............. 620a

District Court Order of March 31, 1970 ................... 622a

Plaintiff’s Motion to Establish Procedures on Re­
mand Filed April 6, 1970 ........................................  623a

District Court Order of April 14, 1970 ...................  623a

District Court Order of April 14, 1970 ...................  624a

Affidavit of James A. McPherson Filed April 10,
1970 ...............................................................................  625a

Attachment A  ..........................................................  651a

Attachment B ..........................................................  652a

Attachment C ..........................................................  653a

Attachment D-l ......................................................  657a

Attachment D-2 ......................................................  659a

Attachment D-3 ......................................................  661a

Attachment E ..........................................................  663a

Attachment F ..........................................................  667a

PAGE

District Court Order of February 4, 1970 ................ 610a



Attachment G ..........................................................  671a

Attachment H ..........................................................  674a

Attachment J ............................................................ 677a

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 8, 1970 ............... 680a

Appendix A .............................................................. 689a

Court of Appeals Judgment of June 8, 1970 ............... 694a

District Court Order of June 12, 1970 ....................... 695a

Court of Appeals Orders of June 29, 1970 ...............  698a

District Court Order of July 13, 1970 ....................... 699a

Exhibit 4 .................................................................... 701a

District Court Order of July 30, 1970 ....................... 702a

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 4, 1970 ...........  704a

Charts ........................................................................ 709a

Projected Enrollment Data for Elementary, Middle 
and High Schools Broken Down as to U.S. District 
Court Plan Under Order of 7/13/70; Fifth Circuit 
Plan; and U.S. District Court Plan under Order 
of 7/30/70, Filed August 20, 1970 ...........................  717a

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 28, 1970 .........  720a

District Court Order of September 4, 1970 ................  723a

V

PAGE

District Court Order of September 4, 1970 .................  724a



VI

District Court Decree of May 13, 1968 ....................... 728a

School Board’s Response to HEW ’s July 1969 Plan,
Filed July 21, 1969 .................................................... 737a

School Board Affidavit, Filed July 29, 1969 ............... 743a

Attachment A .......................................................... 768a

School Board Report to the Court, Filed October 13,
1969 ...............................................................................  770a

School Board Report to the Court, Filed Novem­
ber 20, 1969 .................................................................. 771a

District Court Order of January 22, 1970 .................. 773a

School Board Response to Order, Filed January 30,
1970 ...............................................................................  774a

District Court Order of January 31, 1970 .................. 778a

School Board Report to the Court, Filed Febru­
ary 23, 1970 .................................................................. 779a

School Board Report to the Court, Filed Febru­
ary 24, 1970 .................................................................. 781a

School Board Affidavit, Filed January 30, 1970 ......... 785a

School Board Motion for Stay, Filed March 17,
1970 ...............................................................................  797a

Exhibit A .................................................................. 801a

PAGE

District Court Order of September 14, 1970 .............. 726a



vn

School Board Objection to a Portion of the Record,
Filed March 27, 1970 .................................................. 803a

District Court Order of August 12, 1970 ................... 804a

District Court Order of August 12, 1970 ................... 806a

Court of Appeals Order of September 18, 1970 .......  807a

PAGE





PATH!

3- 27-63
3- 27-63

3 -2 7 -6 3
3 -2 7 -6 3

4 -5 -6 3

P R O C E E D IN G S

Complaint f i l e d ,
S tip u la t io n  o f counsel as to  se r v ic e  o f papers in t h is  d i s t r i c t

D a te  Ord  
J u d gm en t

f i l e d ,
Motion f o r  p re lim in ary  in ju n c tio n  f i l e d ,  n o tic e d  fo r  h earin g  A p r.25t  
Summons is s u e d , w ith 7 co p ies  o f  summons, com plain t, and motion fo r  

p relim in ary  in ju n c tio n , w ith n o tic e  o f h earin g  a tta ch e d ,
(Summons and co p ies d e liv e re d  to Marshal on 4 -1 -6 3 )

h ,9 :3<

Summons returned execu ted ,

4-23-63
4-24-63

4-25-63

1^-29-63
; 4 - 2 6 -6 3  
i 4 - 2 6 -6 3

Motion to  d ism iss  f i l e d  by d efen d an ts,
A f f id a v i t s  o f  MRS. OLLIE MAE DAVIS and MR. ALGEA BOLTON w ith a tta c h ­

ments f i l e d  in  support o f  p l a i n t i f f s '  Motion fo r  p re lim in ary  
in ju n c tio n ,

Order entered  GRANTING o r a l motion o f  p l a i n t i f f  to  su b s titu te
C harles E. McNeil as P resid en t o f  Board o f  School Commissioners 
in  p laced  o f  W illia m  B. Crane, who was named Chairman; and 
GRANTING o r a l motion o f  p l a i n t i f f  to  amend a f f i d a v i t  o f  Mrs. Ola 
Mae D avis w ith in  one week. Motion fo r  p re lim in a ry  in ju n c tio n  
subm itted on a f f i d a v i t s  and taken under subm ission by the Court 
and P l a i n t i f f s  are allow ed  to  and In clu d in g May 2 4 , 1963  to  f i l e  
i t s  b r i e f  in  support o f  motion and Defendants allow ed to  and in ­
c lu d in g  June 1 0 , 1963  to  r i l e  r e p ly  b r i e f ,  
see Minute Entry No. 1 4 ,9 7 2  ,

Copy o f  M/E No. 1 4 ,9 7 2  m ailed to  a l l  a tto rn e y s  o f  record ,
A f f id a v i t  o f  MR. ALGEA BOLTON f i l e d ,
P oin ts and A u th o r it ie s  in  Support o f  P l a i n t i f f s '  motion fo r  

p re lim in a ry  in ju n c tio n  f i l e d  by p l a i n t i f f s ,

5 - 9 -6 3

»

5-13-63 
' 5 -1 7 -6 3  

| 5-27-63
V

16-  10 -6 3

; 6 -2 4 -6 3

i1
1

j 6 - 2 6 - 6 3
1 7 -  1 - 6 3

I 7-3-63 
| 7'-1 1 ^ 6 -3

N o tice  o f  Appeal f i l e d  by p l a i n t i f f s ,
D esign ation  o f Contents o f  Record o f Appeal f i l e d  by p l a i n t i f f s ,
Copy o f n o t ic e  o f appeal m ailed to  Mr. George F . Wood, and Mr. Joseph 

F . Johnson,-^a^tog^eys fo r  d efen d an ts,
$ 2 5 0 .0 0  cash/Dond on appeal d ep o sited  in  R e g istry  o f Court by appellants, 
C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  Clerk executed as to  d e p o sit o f  $ 2 5 0 .0 0 ,
Copy o f a p p e lla n ts ' mimeographed record  on appeal received  from a p ­

p e l la n t s ' co u n se l, and f i l e d ,
Judgment o f  F ifth  C ir c u it  Court o f  Appeals received  showing DENIAL 

o f  A p p e lla n ts  P e t it io n  on Appeal and DISMISSING the Appeal,
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF f i l e d  w ith  c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v ic e  attach ed  
AFFIDAVIT o f  CRANFORD H. BURNS f i l e d ^
F indings and Opinion on Motion fo rP re lim in a ry  In ju n ctio n  f i l e d ,
Order entered  DENYING motion o f p l a i n t i f f s  f o r  p re lim in ary  in ju n c tir  

and s e t t in g  case fo r  t r i a l  a t 9 :3 0  a . m. on November 1 4 , 1 9 6 3 . 
(Minute Entry No. 15247 ) .

Copies m ailed to  a tto rn e y s  o f  reco rd ,
N otice  o f  Appeal f i l e d  by p l a i n t i f f s ,
Copies o f  N o tice  o f  Appeal m ailed to  George F. Wood and Joseph F. 

Johnson, A ttorn eys fo r  P l a i n t i f f s ,
Supplemental Record on Appeal forwarded to  CCA, F ifth  C irc u it .
Qrdor o n to red on o ra l --m o tio n -o f-' De f endants-,—GRANTING- e x te n sio n , o'' rie

o f  t h ir t y -d a y o- or to ctnd in clu d in g  the 12th--day o f  - A sgost ■] 9 6 3 . 
within-whi ch to f i  i s -answer-%





D. C. 110A R ev . C ivil D ock et C o n tin u a tio n

D ATE P RO C EED IN G S

ATTORNEYS IN CIVIL ACTION 3 0 0 3 -6 3

D ate
Judgin '

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS:
M essrs. Jack Greenberg, Jonathan S h ap iro , and M ichael Davidson, 
S u ite  1790 -  10 Columbus C ir c le ,
New Y ork , N. Y . 10019

Mr. Vernon Z . Crawford and Mrs. Frankie F ie ld s  Sm ith, 
1407 Davis Av.
M ob ile , A la . 3S603

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

Mr. J e r r is  Leonard,
A s s is ta n t  A ttorney G eneral,
Department o f  J u s tic e ,
W ashington, D .C . 20530

M essrs. Frank M. Dunbaugh and W alter Gorman,
A tto rn e y s ,
The Department o f  J u s t ic e ,
W ashington, D .C . 20530

Mr. Charles S . White Spunner, J r .
U nited S ta te s  A tto rn e y ,
P. 0 .  Drawer "E " ,
M o b ile , A la . 36661

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS, ET AL: 
M essrs. Abram L. P h ilip s  J r . and James D. Brooks,
P. 0 . Box 2 24 5 ,
M ob ile , A la . 360OI

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS, TWILA FRAZIER, ET AL: 
Mr. Ralph Kennamer, P] 0 . Box 0 2 4 , M ob ile , A l a . Sj^O l 
Mr. P ierre  Pelham, P. 0 . Box 2 9 1 , M ob ile , A la . 3ub01

ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANTS FOR INTERVENTION. MOBILE COUNTY COUNCIL L-1 
PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS, ET AL:
Mr. Samuel L. Stockman,
P. 0 . Box 4433 ,
M ob ile , A la . 36604

ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANTS FOR INTERVENTION AS PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR, 
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, IN C ., and INTERVENOR, ALABAMA
STATE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION. IN C .:_________________________________________
Mr. Solomon S . Seay J r . ,
352 D exter Av.
Montgomery, A la . 3S104





c iv il  ' action " S o . 3 0 0  3

D o c k e t  S h e e t  -
D . C. 110A R e v . C iv il D o ck e t  C on tin u a tion  1'

D A T E P R O C E E D IN G S

7 -1 1 -6 3

7 -1 1 -6 3

7 -1 1 -6 3

JUDGMENT and ORDER under Mandate o f  F if t h  C irc u it  Court o f  Appeals 
dated Ju ly  9 , 1963 entered  by Judge Thomas r e s tr a in in g  and 
e n jo in in g  the D efendant, Board o f  School Commissioners o f  Mobile 
County and i t s  members from re q u ir in g  and p erm ittin g  segrega­
t io n  o f  the races in  any sch ool under th e ir  su p erv isio n ^  from 
and a f t e r  such tim e as may be n ecessary  to  make arrangements 
f o r  adm ission  o f  c h ild re n  to  such sch o o ls  on a r a c i a l ly  non- 
d isc r im in a to ry  b a s is  w ith  a l l  d e lib e r a te  speed; and fu rth e r  
ordered th a t the defendants are requ ired  to  make an immediate 
s t a r t  in  d eseg reg a tio n  o f  sch o o ls  o f  M obile County and that a 
plan  be subm itted not la t e r  than August 1 , 19 6 3 , e t c . .
See Minute Entry No. 1 3 ,2 8 9  ,

S ix  co p ie s  o f  Judgment and Order d e liv e re d  to  U. S . Marshal fo r  
s e r v ic e  od each member o f  Board o f  School Commissioners o f  
M obile County, and Cranford H. Burns, i t s  Superintendent.

Copies o f  M/E No. 1 5 , 2 8 9 , m ailed to  a l l  a tto rn e y s  o f  reco rd ,
7 -1 1 -6 3

7 -1 5 -6 3
7 -1 5 -6 3

7 -1 9 -6 3

Order entered  on o ra l motion o f  D efendants, GRANTING exten sio n  o f  
time o f  t h ir t y  days , or to and in clu d in g  the 12th day o f  August 
1963 , w ith in  which to f i l e  answer, Minuet Entry No. 1 5 ,2 9 3 ,

C opies o f  order m ailed  to a tto rn e y s  (5 ) ,
R etu rn sof Marshal f i l e d ,  showing se r v ic e  o f Order on EACH defendant, 

Copy o f OPINION-ORDER on P e tit io n  fo r  Rehearing re ce iv ed  and f i l e d  
as Mandate from CCA, which amends judgment and order o f July 9 , 
19 6 3  so th a t th e "p la n  s h a ll  be subm itted to  the D is t r ic t  Court 
not la t e r  than August 1 8 , 1 9 6 3 . . . t o  provide f o r  carryin g  in to  
e f f e c t  not la t e r  than beginning o f sch ool year September 19 6 3 
and th e r e a fte r  o f  the Alabama Pupil Placement Law as to  a l l  
sch ool grades w ithout r a c ia l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . . . " .

7 -2 6 -6 3

7 -3 1 -6 3
8 - 7 -6 3

Order entered  AMENDING judgment and order entered Ju ly  1 1 , 1963
accordin g to  O pinion-O rder o f CCA f i l e d  7 -1 9 -6 3 .  (Minute Entry 
No. 1 5 3 9 1 ) .

Copies o f  order m ailed to  a tto rn e y s  o f  reco rd , (5  firm s)
Motion f i l e d  by defendants to  d e fe r  d esegregation  o f  ru ra l sch ools  

in  M obile County u n t i l  September, 1 96 4 , n o tic e d  fo r  hearin g on 
August 1 2 , 1 96 3 , a t 9 :3 0  A. M.

Date Or« 
Judgement

8 - 12 -6 3 ANSWER o f  defendants f i l e d ,  w ith  c e r t i f i c a t e  a tta ch e d ,
8 -1 2 -6 3

8 -1 3 -6 3
* 8 -1 2 -6 3

8 - 1 5 -6 3

8 -1 9 -6 3

ORDER entered GRANTING defendants motion to  d e fe r  d esegregation  o f  
r u r a l sc h o o ls  in  M obile County u n t i l  September, 1964 and 
d e sig n a tin g  &LL sc h o o ls  o u tsid e  the C ity  L im its o f  the C ity  
o f  M obile as r u r a l sch o o ls  fo r  the purposes o f  t h is  order, 
see Minute Entry No. 1 5 ,4 7 3  ,

Copy o f  M/E No. 1 5 ,^ 7 3  m ailed to  a l l  a tto r n e y s ,
A f f id a v it  o f  Cranford H. Burns and A f f id a v it  o f  C. L. Scarborough  

f i l e d ,
Motion fo r  H earing im m ediately a f t e r  the Defendant submit a plan  

fo r  d eseg reg a tio n  o f  sch o o ls  o f  M obile County, Alabama f i l e d  
by P l a i n t i f f s ,

Plan subm itted by the Board o f School Commissioners o f  Mobile County 
pursuant to  Order Dated July 1 1 ,1 9 6 3 ,as amended July 2 6 ,1 9 6 3 ,  
f i le d ,

(Continued to  n ext page)





D A T E P R O C E E D IN G S
D a te  O rd er 

J u d g m e n t N«

8 - 2 1 -6 3

3-21-63 0

3-21-63

3-23-63

8-23-63
8 - 2 8 -6 3

5-3-63
9-9-63

9-13-63

5-16-63

5- 1 8 -6 3
9-20-63

9-23-63

Plaintiffs' objections to defendants' Plan of Desegregation 
filed,

Transcript of proceedings had before Hon. Daniel H. Thomas 
at hearing on Aug. 21, 19 6 3 , filed,

Order of Submission on Plaintiff's objections to Plan of Desegrega­
tion as filed on Aug.' 19, 1963, see Min. Entry No. 1 5 ,4 9 2  

Order entered Approving Plan of Desegregation as filed on Aug. 19, 
1963 with exceptions of two amendments as set out in this 
order, see Minute. Entry No. 1 3 ,5 0 6  ,

Copies of Min. Entry Nos. 15,4-92 and 1 5 ,5 6 6  mailed to attorneys, 
Notice of Appeal filed by plaintiffs,
Copies mailed to Messrs. George F. Wood and Joseph F. Johnson, 

Attorneys for Defendants.
Plaintiffs' Designation of Contents of Record on Appeal filed,
Motion for Issuance of Order to Show Cause filed by plaintiffs, with 
Affidavit of Clarence E. Moses,
Affidavit of Vernon Z. Crawford,
Executive Order # 12 of Governor of Alabama, attached,
Order to Show Cause issued by Judge Daniel H. Thomas, set for hearing 

at 3:00 p. m. on September 16, 1 9 6 3 , directed to Governor George 
C. Wallace, (Minute Entry No. 15,555)*

Motion for temporary restraining order filed by plaintiffs,
Temporary Restraining Order issued, restraining Governor Wallace

from interfering with desegregation of Murphy High School, etc. 
(Minute Entry No.15,555 )*

Bond on issuance of temporary restraining order filed in sum of
$1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ,

9 copies of motions, affidavits, and orders Issued to Marshal for 
service on Governor Wallace, et al.

Marshal's return of service of motions and order to show cause l- nd 
restraining order on Governor Wallace by service on his executive 
secretary and on Governor Wallace personally, filed,

Order entered CONTINUING and RE-SETTING hearing on motion for order 
to show cause to September 26, 19 6 3  at 9:30 a.m. and continuing 
temporary restraining order entered 9-9-63; (Minute Entry No. 
15,590).

Copies mailed to attorneys of record,
Order entered, on oral motion of Mr. D. R. Coley, extending time

within which George C. Wallace may file  responsive pleadings to 
Order to Show Cause etc. to and including September 2 6 , 1 9 6 3 . 
(Minute Entry No. 1 5 6 2 1 ) .

Copies mailed to attorneys of record,

9-26-63
5-26-63

Responsive pleading on Hon. George C. Wallace,Governor of Alabama
filed this date,Return pf U. S. Marshal filed, showing service of Motion for Restrain­
ing order, Restraining Order, Motion for Order to Show Cause, and
Order to Show Cause on Charles E. McNeil, Jack C. Gallalee, 
Smith, William B. Crane, Kenneth Reed, Dr. Cranford Burns, 

Joe Smelley, member of Alabama Highway Patrol.

Art
and

hur

Order entered CONTINUING hearing on motion for order to show cause
pending further orders of the court, (Minute Entry No. 15,674 )9-26-63





CONTINUATION OF CIVIL ACTION

D o c k e t  S h e e t
D . C. 110A R e v . C iv il R o c k e t  C on tin u a tion

D A T E

9 -2 7 -6 3
9 -2 7 -6 3

Et-8-63

H - 8-63

11-12-63

11-13-63

11-14-63
11-14-63

11-14-63

11-15-63

11-29-63

11-13-63

6- 19-64

P R O C E E D IN G S

Copies o f  order o f  continuance m ailed to  a tto rn e y s ,
Certified Supplemental Record on Appeal m ailed to  U .S .C ou rt o f Ap­

p e a ls , Fifth C ir c u it ,
Motion f o r  leave  to  amend Answer filed by defendants and Order 

entered  gra n tin g  same, Min. Entry No. 1 5 ,8 7 0  ,
AMENDMENT TO ANSWER filed by defendants,
Copy o f  M/E No . 1 5 ,8 7 0  and Amendment to  Answer m ailed to  A tty s .  

fo r  P l a i n t i f f ,
Motion fo r  D iscovery  f i l e d  by Defendants and set down fo r  hearing  

on Nov. 14 , 1963 a t 9 :3 0  A .M ., by Judge D aniel H. Thomas,
Copy o f  Motion fo r  D iscovery  and n o tic e  o f  setting mailed to 

a tto rn e y s  o f  reco rd ,
Motion fo r  order o f  t h is  Court a u th o riz in g  and p erm ittin g  the 

in tro d u c tio n  in to  evidence in  t r i a l  o f  th is  case c e r ta in  
testim on y taken in  the t r i a l  o f  Ralph S t e l l ,  e t a l . ,  v s .
The Savannah-Chatom County Board o f  Education, et al. in 
the Sou. D i s t .  o f  G eorgia , f i l e d  with Affidavit of GEORGE F. 
WOOD a tta c h e d ,

Plaintiffs' Plan of Desegregation filed with certificate attached,
Motion to Strike Defendants' Amendment to Paragraphs 9 , 10 and 11 

of Answer filed by Plaintiffs' with Memorandum B r ie f  in  support thereof attached, certificate of se rv ic e  a tta ch e d ,
T r ia l  o f  M erits begun, Motion to  D ism iss complaint filed by De­

fe n d a n ts ' on 4 -2 3 -6 3  taken under subm ission and the trial of 
t h is  case ndt being com pleted sa id  t r i a l  is recessed until 
November 1 5 , 1963 a t  9 :3 0  a .m ., Min. Entry No. 1 5 ,8 9 0 -A  ,

T r ia l  resumed, w itn esse s  fu r th e r  examined, and P l a i n t i f f s '  motion 
s tr ik e  D efendants' Amendment to  Para. 9 , 10 and 11 f i l e d  on 
1 1 -1 4 -6 3  i s  D enied; and t h is  case i s  TAKEN UNDER SUBMISSION 
by the C ourt, Min. Entry No. 1 5 ,8 9 7  ,

T ra n scrip t o f  proceedin gs had b e fo re  Judge Thomas, U. S % District 
Judge a t  M ob ile , Alabama, on November 14 and 15 , 1963-

Order en tered  gRANTING motion fo r  order o f  Court authorizing and 
p erm ittin g  the in tro d u c tio n  in to  evidence in trial of this case 
c e r ta in  testim ony taken in  the t r i a l  o f  Ralph Stell,et al., vs. 
The Savannah-Chatom County Board o f  E ducation , e t  al. in the 
Sou. D i s t .  o f  G eorgia , f i l e d  w ith a f f i d a v i t  o f  George F.Wood,atts 
See Minute Entry No. 1 5 ,8 8 6 -A  ,

JUDGMENT and ORDER under Mandate o f  F if t h  Circuit Court of Appeals 
dated June 1 8 , 1964 re ce iv e d  and f i l e d  showing following ruling 
t o -w i t ;
"it? i s  now ordered and adjudged by t h is  Court th a t th is  cause be, 
remaned to  the sa id  D i s t r i c t  Court w ith  instructions to require 
the Board o f  School Commissioners o f  Mobile County, Alabama to 
p resen t to  the D i s t r i c t  Court f o r t h w lt h /i t s  consideration a 
plan  o f  d eseg reg a tio n  which w i l l  meet the minimum standards 
s e t  fo r th  and o u tlin e d  in  the Birmingham c a se , being cause 
No. 20595 on the docket o f  t h is  C ourt. The order of the Dlstric 
Court h e re to fo re  entered  on June 2 4 , 1963 , denying injunctive 
r e l i e f ,  i s  v a ca te d ; the orders o f  the sa id  District Court enuere 
on July 11 and 26, 1963, pursuant to  the mandate of tnis Court
(continued to next page)

ji





6 -1 9 -6 4

D A T E

6 -2 9 -6 4

6 -3 0 -6 4
j 7 -8 -6 Ii

7 -1 1 -6 4

7 -1 3 -6 4
; 7 -1 4 -6 4

( x )
7 -3 1 -6 4

(x)
7 -2 1 -6 4

7 -2 7 -6 4

;1 2 -2 1 -6 4  
1 2 -2 3 -6 4  

j 1 2 -3 0 -6 4
t

1- 6- 6̂

1 -6 -6 5

I 1 -1 4 -6 5  
1 -2 0 -6 5

; 1-26-65 
! 2-23-611

P R O C E E D IN G S

in  t h is  c a s e , are continued u n t i l  m odified  by the District Court, 
a l l  in  accordance w ith  th e opin ion  o f  t h is  Court;"
" I t  i s  fu r th e r  ordered and adjudged that the appellees, Board of 

School Commissioners o f  M obile County, and others be condemned,
In  s o l id o , to  pay the c o s ts  o f  t h is  cause in this Court, for which 
l e t  execu tio n  issu ed  out o f  the s s id  Distrixt Court."
Order entered by Thomas, Judge, requiring subm ission o f plan fo r  

desegregation in accordance with opinion and mandate of CCA 
rendered and issued June 1 8 , 1 96 4 , requiring Board o f School 
Commissioners to submit on or before July 1 7 , 1964 a plan fo r  
desegregation in accordance with the opinion and mandate o f  CCA, 
hearing on any objections filed to said plan to be heard on 
July 2 9 , 1 9 6 4 . (Minute Entry No. 1 6 ,9 0 0 ) .

Copies of order mailed to all attorneys of record,
Defendants’ motion to extend time for the Defendants to submit a 

Plan for Desegregation, from July 1 7 th , 1 9 6 4 ,in  crdor fo r  the 
U.S.Court of Appeals to rule on the Defendants' P e tit io n  fo r  
a Re-Haaring, e t c . ,  f i l e d ,

Order entered  AMENDING c o u r t 's  order o f June 2 9 , 1964 to extend the 
tim e f o r  f i l i n g  o f a d eseg rega tion  plan from "on or before July 
1 7 , 1 9 6 4 " to  "on or b efo re  the 2 1 st  day o f Ju ly 1 9 6 4 " . (Minute 
Entry No. 1 6 ,9 4 1  )

Copies mailed to attorneys of record,
Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion for an extension of 

time in which to present a plan of desegregation filed,
Order Approving Plan as Modified, Min. Entry No. 1 7 ,0 1 6 . Copy o f  

M.E. 17016 mailed to  Messrs. George F. Wood and Vernon Z. Craw­
ford: on July 3 1 , 1964 .

Amendment to Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners o f  
Mobile County, Pursuant to Order Dated June 2 9 , 1964 , with  
Certificate of SerfvicePlaintiffs' Objections to Desegregation Plan submitted by the 
Defendant Board of School Commissioners of Mobile Cou nty and 
Motion for a Revised Plan, with Certificate of Service.

Motion filed by plaintiffs for Further Relief,
In te r r o g a to r ie s  propounded to  defendants f i l e d  by plaintiffs,
Motion for Additional Time to Answer interrogatories filed by 

defendants, noticed for hearing at 9 :3 0  A.M. January 5 , 1 9 6 5 . 
Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' motion for additional time to 

answer I n  ter rogatories, SHOWING NO OBJECTION to the g r a n t - i - r . g  ox 
motion and extension filed,

Order entered GRANTING defendants' motion for extension of time to 
JANUARY 2 5 , 19 6 5  within which to answer plaintiffs' interroga­
tories. (Minute Entry 1 7 ,7 5 2 ) .

Copies mailed to attorneys,
Notice to withdraw his name as counsel for defendants filed by 

Mr. Joseph F. Johnston, Attorney.
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES f i l e d  by d efen d an ts.
Defendants answer to motion for further relief filed,

(SEE NEXT PAGE)

D a te  O rde 
J u d g m e n t 1





cmiATion O f  CTVIT, ACTTO.i 3 0 0 3 -CO

Docket Sheet #14.
D . C. X10A R e v . C iv il D o c k e t  C on tin u a tion

D A T S

2- 26-65

3 - 5 - 6 5
3-5-65

3 -1 0 -6 5  
3 -1 5 -6 5
3 -1 5 -6 5  

3 -2 3 -6 5

3 -3 0 -6 5  < 

3 -3 1 -6 5

4 — 2 -6 5

U-lU—65 
4-14-65
4 -  23-65
5 -  24-65

5-26-65

5-26-65

5 -  2 6 -6 5

6 —  1 - 6 5
6 -  2 8 -6 5
7 -  7-65

7 -  7-65

8 -  12-65

P R O C E E D IN G S

H earing on P l a i n t i f f ’ s motion fo r  fu rth e r  r e l i e f , witnesses examined, 
e x h ib its  o ffe r e d  in evidence and order entered continuing hear­
ing to Friday Morning,March 5 ,1 9 6 5 ,a t  9 :3 0  A .M . ,(MINUTE ENTRY
n o . 1 7 9 7 5 ) ,

Copy of M .E.NO.17975 m ailed to a l l  A tto rn e y s ,
Hearing on P la in t i f f s *  motion for fu rth er  r e l i e f  resumed,witnesses 

fu rth e r  examined, e x h ib its  o ffe re d  in evidence and case taken 
under SUBMISSION, (MINUTE ENTRY N 0 .1 7 9 9 4 ) ,

Copy o f  M .E .N O .17994 m ailed to  a l l  A tto rn e y s ,
BRIEF o f  d efen d an ts, opposing m otion, f i l e d ,  and d e liv e re d  to  Judge,

MAP o f  C ity  o f  M obile showing the re-drawn attendance areas fo r  
elem entary sch o o ls  f i l e d  by d efen d an ts,

T ra n scrip t o f  proceedin gs had b e fo re  Judge D aniel H. Thomas a t  
M obile , Alabama on February 26 and March 5 , 1965 f i l e d  by 
Court R eporter,

F in din gs o f  Fact and C onclusions o f  Law f i l e d  by Thomas, Judge,
DECREE entered  by c o u rt, on p l a i n t i f f s '  motion for further relief 

and on d e fen d an ts ' answer th e r e to , e t c . striking provision in 
Plan th a t re q u ire s  retu rn  o f completed form in person, and 
s tr ik in g  c r i t e r ia  fo r  tr a n s fe r  in  th e plan designated (I), (1), 
(m) and ( n ) ,  d ir e c t in g  Board to  g ive  reasonable notice to 
sch ool patrons o f terms and tim e l im ita t io n s  of the Plan, and 
approving d esegregation  plan o f  the Board in ail other respects 
as c o n s t itu t io n a l  and n o n -d isc r im in a to ry , and except as ordered), 
motion o f p l a i n t i f f s  d en ied . (Minute Entry Mo. 1 8 ,1 4 4 ) .

Copies o f  F in d in g s, C onclusions and Order mailed to attorneys of 
re co rd , mpcox.

NOTICE OF APBiAL f i l e d "  by B ird ie  Mae D a v is , e t  e l ,
Copy o f  N o tice  of Appeal m ailed to  George F . Wood and D.R.C o le y ,J r .,
A p p e lla n t 's  D esignation  of Contents of Record on Appo-.-i Mlao,

Order en tered  extending time fo r  f i l i n g  and docketing Transcript
Record in the U .S .C ou rt o f  Appeals,New O rlean s, L o u i s i a n a , t o , -  
and in clu d in g  the 13th  day o f  J u l y ,  1 96 5 , (MINUTE ENTRY NO.I0 4 4 5 ).,

C e r t i f ie d  copy o f  N otice o f Appeal and Order Extending Time,eoc.,
m ailed to  Clerk,U .S .C o u rt o f A p p e a ls ,F ifth  Circuit,New Orleans,
L om i  s i- Q-Ti &

Copy of Minute Entry N o .18445 m ailed to D errick  A . B e l l ,  j r . , "Vernon 
Z.C raw ford ,C laren ce E .M oses, George F.Wood and D .R .C o ^ e y ,J r .,

D
Ju<

of

Motion f i l e d  by p l a i n t i f f s  f o r  refund o f $ 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0  cash bond,

Copy o f motion o f 5 - 2 6 -6 5  m ailed to  d efen d an ts' a tto rn e y s ,
Motion f o r  refund o f $ 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0  su b m itted , w ithout argument, 
C e r t i f ie d  copy of O rig in a l T ra n scrip t o f Record on Appeal r 

C le rk ,U .S .C o u rt of Appeals,New O rlea n s, L a . , an^ 2 P^ck* 
e x h ib its  m ailed v ia  P arcel Post,Under separate  cover.

Copy o f l e t t e r  o f tr a n s m itta l m ailed to  D errick a .3 e . ' . l ,u.
Z.Crawford,Clarence E.Moses and George F.Wood,  ̂  ̂ ,

Order en tered  GRANTING P l a i n t i f f s '  motion for  re'kmu o . 
cash bond and d ir e c tin g  Clerk to  draw and sign, a .c -  
R e g istry  Account in the sum o f  $ 1 ,C 0 ^ . j u ,

• f

-.ailed to 
;es of
Vernon

1 .00 0 .00

y>;
‘-t-nO . :

rr.cv.





D A T E P R O C E E D IN G S Date Orde 
Judgment I

8-12-6?
8 -1 6 -6 ?
10- 6- 6?

i
10-6-6?

10 - 8- 6?

10- 11- 6?

8—17-66 

8-17-66

8 - 17-66

8-17-66

8-19-66

8-19-66

8 - 26-66

8-30-66

)-6 6
-66
-66
-66

tvt n . • r; O ; ' / '■* — /Crawford, As Attorney for Plaintiffs, (MINUTE 
Copy of M•E AT'lpp*eYi9e°e2gf158H ed fco Attorneys, ( ? ) ,
Defendants-Jc^^aiiscaiac1 Additional Designation o f  Record on Appeal 
Annea^i10^  and request.for.permission to send e x h ib it  to U .S .C ou rt 
ureter SAtered granting request that a map o f the City-

Mobile, showing the re-drawn attendance areas be c e r t i f i e d  up 
the U .S .Court of Appeals, Fifth C ircuit, New O rlean s, L ou isi  
(MINUTE ENTRY NO. 1911+3),

Copy of M.E.NO.191^3 mailed to George F . Wood,Jack Greenberg,
Vernon Z. Crawford, Clarence E. Moses and D errick A . B e l l , j r . , 

Certified copy of Appellees’ Additional D esignation  o f  Record on
Appeal,order entered granting the perm ission  to  f i l e  a d d itio n ­
al designation of record and ORIGINAL PLEADING, to geth er w ith  
MAP, MARKED EXHIBIT "A" a ll  sen t to  Clerk, U .S .C ou rt o f  Ap­
peals,F ifth  Circuit,New Orleans, Louisiana, and l e t t e r  o f  
transm ittal, (copy) mailed to Attorneys, (ij) , i . e . ,G .F .W ood,
Jack Greenberg,Vernon Z.Crawford,Clarence E.Moses and D.R. 
C oley ,Jr.,

o: 
to  
ana.

Judgment o f  CCA re c e iv e d , re v e rs in g  and remanding d i s t r i c t  co u rt. 
Opinion o f CCA re c e iv e d ,
Order entered  by Thomas, Judge, pursuant to  opinion  and mandate

o f  CCA d ir e c t in g  a p p e lle e s  (respon den ts) to  f i l e  modification: 
o f  i t s  plan fo r  d eseg ra tio n  in  order to  conform w ith order of

)Wood, Attorney for 
Crawford,

a p p e lla te  c o u rt, (Minute Entry No. 20703  
S ervice  o f  copy o f order accepted by George F 

d efen d an ts,
Copy m ailed to  a tto rn e y s  D errick  A. B e l l ,  J r .

Clarence E . Moses, and D. R. C oley, J r .
Motion fo r  an exten sio n  o f  time o f  60 days w ith in  which to f i l e  an 

o v e r a ll  plan to In corp orate  the a d d itio n  requirem ents by the 
Court o f  A p p eals, f i l e d  by the defen dan t,

Order by the Court gra n tin g  m otion fo r  a d d itio n a l time in  which to  
f i le c a n  o v e r a ll  d eseg reg a tio n  plan is  GRANTED and defendants  
have and u n t i l  and in clu d in g  O ct. 19 , 1966, in  which to  f i l e  
such p la n ; M o d ific a tio n s  f i l e d  Aug. 19 , 1966 , in  response to  

• an order entered  Aug. 17 , 1966 , d ir e c t in g  th at such
m o d ific a tio n s  be subm itted are hereby APPROVED, Min. Entry  
No. 2 0 ,7 1 9 .
Copy o f  M .E. 20719 m ailed on Aug. 1 9 , 1966, to Messrs. Derrick 
A. B e l l  J r . ,  Vernon Crawford, Clarence E. Moses, George F.
Wood, and D.R. C oley J r .

Motion f i l e d  Aug. 2 6 , 1 9 6 6 , by the P la i n t i f f s  fo r  Further Relief, 
w ith C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S ervice

Motion f i l e d  Aug. 2 6 , 1 9 6 6 , by the P la i n t i f f s  fo r  Further Relief 
i s  DENIED, Minute Entry No. 2 0 ,7 7 b  Copy m ailed on
Aug. 3 0 , 1966 . to  M essrs. Vernon Z . Crawford and George F.
Wood. 8 - 30 - 06 - .N otice  o f Appeal f i l e d  to  order denying fu rth e  

Motion to D ism iss the appeal f i l e d  on Aug. 3 0 , 1966  f i l e d ,  by p l a i n t i f f  
Order entered  GRANTING the mobion to  d ism iss the appeal(M /E  No. 2 0 8 0 f)  
Copy o f  M/E m ailed- to  D errick  A. B e l l ,  J r . ,  C larence E. Moses, George 

F-. Wood, D. R. C o ley , J rr , and Vernon Z . Crawford, a tto rn e y s ,

(SEE NE

of

r r e l :

XT PAGe) (SEE-NEXT PAGE)





D . C. 110A R e v . C iv il D o c k e t  C on tin u a tion

DATE PROCEEDIN GS

IO -19-66 School Attendance Plan filed Oct. 19 , 1966, by Defendants to  have 
effect in the schools of Mobile County fo r  School Year 1967t6S, with Certificate of Service.

4 -  18-67

4-25-67

5-8-67
5 -  15-67 
5-22-67

5-22-67
5-23-67

5- 26-67

5-29-67

5 -  29-67
6 - 7-67 
6-7-67

6-14-67

6-14-67

6-14-67

6-14-67

6-20-67

6-20-67

6-22-67

Motion for Further R elief f i le d  by p la in tiffs , requesting a 30 day 
registration period commencing May 1, 1967 for the 1967-68 school 
year, and to enter the decree proposed by the u.S.Court of Appeal 
in i t s  decision in the Jefferson County case, as the desegregatic 
plan in the present case,

Motion to S tr ik e  f i l e d  by defendants w ith answer to the Motion fo r  
Further R e l ie f  f i l e d  by p l a i n t i f f s  on 4 -1 8 -6 7 ,

P la in t if f 's  interrogatories to defendants, filed 
Objections to Interrogatories file d  by defendants,
Notice o f taking oral deposition of Sam H. Stout, Joseph W. LuQuire, 

Joseph A. McPherson and Cranford H. Burns filed by plaintiffs,
Motion that Depositions not be taken, file d  by the defen d an ts,
Answers Filed by the Defendants to the Interrogatories propounded by 

the Plaintiff, with Certificate of Service.
Motion for continuance of hearing on plaintiffs’ Motion for Further 

Relief and defendants' Motion to Strike filed by attorneys for defendants,
Motion for continuance of depositions scheduled on May 3 1 , 19 6 7  

filed by defendants' attorneys,
ORDER entered, Motion for continuance of hearing and motion fo r  

continuance of depositions file d  by the defendant on May 
26, 1967 is  GRANTED. See M/E no. 22,175  

Motion to Modify subpoenas duces tecum file d  by defendants,
Copy of M/E 22, 175 mailed to each attorney,
Notice of taking of depositions of DR. CRANFORD H. BURNS, JAMES A. j 

MCPHERSON, JOSEPH LUQUIRE, and SAM H. SHOUT on June 15, 1967 at 
9:30 A. M. f i le d  by p la in t iffs .

Motion to intervene as p la in tiff  f i le d  by United States of America, 
Supporting Memorandum file d  by U .S.,
Motion for Supplemental R elief fi le d  by U .S.,
Order entered, a fter argument in open court, GRANTING motion to

modify subpoenas duces tecum, and lim iting production of docu­
ments to 1966-67 except attendance areas and feeder patterns 
prior to year 1966- 67, and lim iting evidence as to school cons­
truction, school closings and school consolidations, to the 
year 1964-65 and succeeding years. (Minute Entry 22244).

Order entered GRANTING motion of United States to intervene as 
p la in t if f , and notices mailed.

Copy of Minute Entry 22244 mailed to attorneys of record.
C ertificate of service as to Motion for leave to intervene, etc. 

f i le d  by in terven or-p lain tiff,
Motion to lim it the testimony of the witness Sam Shout file d  by de­

fendants.
Oral order issued granting motion to lim it testimony.
Notice of motion and ,
Motion for Production of Records under Rule 34, F.R.C.P. f i le d  by

p lain tiff-ln terven or, United States of America,
Motion to Limit the Testimony of the witness Cranford H. Bums filed  

by the defendants,





D A T E P R O C E E D IN G S D a te  Ord( 
J u d g m e n t !

6 - 2 2 -6 7

6 -  2 2 -6 7

7 —  1 8 -6 7

7 — 1 9 -6 7

7 -2 Q -6 7

7 -2 4 -6 7

7 -2 5 -6 7

7 - 2 6 -6 7

7 - 2 7 -6 7

7 -2 7 -6 7

7 - 2 8 -6 7

Motion to  have In te r v e n o r 's  motion fo r  production  o f documents se t  
upon the re g u la r  motion docket f o r  h earin g  f i l e d  by defen dan ts, 

Motion in  O pposition  to  D efen dan ts' Motion to  se t  In te r v e n o r 's  
motion f o r  production  o f documents upon the re g u la r  motion  
docket f o r  h ea rin g  f i l e d  by United S ta te s  o f  Am erica, In terven or,

Amended Motion f o r  fu r th e r  r e l i e f  o r , on the a lt e r n a t iv e ,
Motion in  o p p o sitio n  to  D efen dan ts' "Sch ool Attendance p la n ", f i l e d  

in  open cou rt by p l a i n t i f f s ,
Motion to  quash or m odify subpoena duces tecum served upon Cranford  

Burns e t  a l ,  f i l e d  by defendants
Motion to  s tr ik e  th e  Motion fo r  Supplemental R e lie f  f i l e d  by P la in -  
„  ^ t i f f - in t e r v e n o r  on June 1 4 , 1 9 6 7 , f i l e d  in  ooen c o u rt,
Motion to  suppress d e p o sitio n  o f  CRANFORD H. BURNS f i l e d  by defen dan ts,
Motion to  suppress d e p o sitio n  o f  JAMES A. MCPHERSON f i l e d  by the  

d efen d an ts, , J
HEARING begun on P l a i n t i f f s '  Motion f o r  Further R e l ie f ,  w itn esses  

examined and e x h ib its  o f fe r e d , and h earin g  continued u n t i l  July  
1 9 , 1967 a t 9 :3 0  a . M. (Minute Entry No. 2 2 , 389 -B ).

Motion to  compel answers to  P l a i n t i f f s '  In te r r o g a to r ie s  f i l e d  bv 
p l a i n t i f f s ,  in  open c o u rt,

HEARING on motion f o r  fu r th e r  r e l i e f  resumed, w itn esses  fu rth e r  
examined and e x h ib it s  o ffe r e d  in  ev id en ce , and hearin g recessed  
u n t i l  Ju ly  2 0 , 19 6 7  a t 9 :3 0  A. M. (Minute Entry No. 22 ,391-A )  

H E A R IN G o q n n ip o fc lO n e fo rs fu rfc h e rs a ^ lie fiiresum ed,’ . w itn esse s  ' fu r th e r
examined and e x h ib its  o ffe r e d  in  ev id en ce , and hearing recessed  
u n t i l  Ju ly  2 4 , 19 6 7  a t  9 :3 0  A.M. (Minute Entry No. 2 2 7 ;39<3-A)

HEARING on motion fo r  fu rth e r  r e l i e f  resumed, w itn esse s  fu rth e r
examined and e x h ib its  o ffe r e d  In evid en ce , and hearing recessed  

• u n t i l  Ju ly  2 5 , 19 6 7  a t  9 :3 0  A.M. (Minute Entry No. 2 2 ,4 0 2 -A )
HEARING on motion fo r  fu r th e r  r e l i e f  resumed, w itn esse s  fu rth e r

examined and e x h ib its  o ffe r e d  in  ev id en ce , and hearing recessed  
u n t i l  J u ly  2 6 , 19 6 7  a t  $ ;3 0  A.M. (Minute Entry No. 2 2 ,4 0 3 -c )

HEARING on motion fo r  fu r th e r  r e l i e f  resumed, w itn esse s  fu rth e r
examined and e x h ib its  o ffe r e d  in  ev id en ce , and hearing recessed  
u n t i l  Ju ly  2 7 , 19 6 7  a t  9 :3 0  A.M . (Minute Entry No. 2 2 ,4 0 5 -A )

HEARING on motion fo r  fu r th e r  r e l i e f  resumed, w itn esse s  fu rth e r
examined and e x h ib its  o ffe r e d  in  ev id en ce , and hearing recessed  
u n t i l  Ju ly  2 8 , 19 6 7  a t  9 :3 0  A.M. (Minute Entry No. 2 2 ,4 o3 - a )

Motion to  suppress d e p o sitio n  o f  SAM SHOUT f i l e d  by defendant 
Motion to  suppress d e p o sitio n  o f  JOHN R. MONTGOMERY f i l e d  by defendant
Response to  p l a i n t i f f ' s  motion to . cmmpel answers to  in te r r o g a to r ie s  

f i l e d  by d efen d an t,
7 -  2 8 -6 7

8 -  4 -6 7  

8 — 7 - 6 7  

8— 7 - 6 7  

8— 8 -6 7

HEARING on motion f o r  fu r th e r  r e l i e f  resumed, a l l  p a r t ie s  r e s ts
case taken under su b m ission , p l a i n t i f f s  and p la in t i f f - in t e r v e n o r  
given  u n t i l  Aug. J ,  1967 to  f i l e  t h e ir  b r i e f s ,  defendant given  
u n t i l  Aug. 1 5 , to  f i l e  i t s  b r i e f ,  see Minute Entry No. 2 2 ,4 l7 -A ,  

Copy o f  M/E 2 2 ,4 1 7  m ailed to  a tto r n e y s ,

P l a i n t i f f s ' -B r ie f , Memorandum o f  Law, P l a i n t i f f s '  proposed D ecree, 
and C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S erv ice  f i l e d ,

P la in t i f f - I n t e r v e n o r 's  T r ia l  B r ie f  f i l e d ,  w ith Proposed Decree and 
Appendices to  P la in t i f f - I n t e r v e n o r ' s T r ia l  B r ie f ,

( A l l  a b o v e -l is t e d  b r i e f s ,  e t c .  p laced  in  Judge Thomas' box)





D . C. 110A R e v . C iv il D o ck e t  C on tin u a tion

Doclcet Piheet #  6.

DATS

8-14-67

8 - 1 8 - 6 7

8-24-67

8 - 2 5 -6 7

8 - 2 8 -6 7

1 0 - 4 -6 7

1 0 - 1 3 - 6 7

1 0 - 1 3 - 6 7

1 0 - 1 6 -6 7

1 0 - 1 7 - 6 7

10,-17-67
10-18-67

PROCEEDINGS

Copy o f  Proposed F in d in gs o f  F act and C onclusions o f Law f i l e d  by 
P l a i n t i f f - In te rv e n o r ,

Amendments to  P l a i n t i f f s '  proposed D ecree, f i l e d  on August 1 8 , 1 9 6 7 , 
by th e p l a i n t i f f s ,  w ith  C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S ervice  

Arguments o f  cou n sel heard by c o u rt,

D
Ju<

In terim  Order issu e d  by Court r e la t iv e  to  changes in  attendance  
area boundary l i n e s ,  s e t t in g  s p e c ia l tr a n s fe r  p eriod  f o r  August 
28 - 3 1 ,  during which tim e a p p lic a t io n s  f o r  tr a n s fe r s  may be made 
to  a ffo r d  stu d en ts whose p la c e s  o f  resid en ce  have been changed 
from  one elem entary attendance area to  another to  tr a n s fe r  to  the  
sch ool se rv in g  the attendance area in  which th e ir  resid en ce  now 
l i e s ,  e t c .  (Minute E ntry No. 2 2 ,5 2 2 ) .  N o tice  to  be pu blish ed  in  
paper, a ttach ed  to  ord er, approved by Judge Thomas.

Copies o f  order w ith  n o tic e  attach ed  m ailed to  a l l  a tto rn e y s  o f  
re co rd .

N o tic e  o f  Appeal from  order en tered  on August 2 4 , 19 6 7  f i l e d  by 
p l a i n t i f f s ,

P a r t ia l  T ra n sc rip t o f  T r ia l  f i l e d ,
N o tice  o f  Appeal from  order entered  on August 2 4 , 19 6 7  f i l e d  by 

p la i n t i f f - i n t e r v e n o r ,  th e U nited S ta te s  o f  Am erica,

2.
3.
4.

5.
6 .

F ollow in g  documents f i l e d  by d efen d an ts:
1 . A f f id a v i t  o f  Judson R. M artin , J r .

A f f id a v i t  o f  Sam H. Shout
A f f id a v i t  o f  Angie R u sse ll Holmes w ith copy o f d isp la y  ad 
A f f id a v it  o f  E . E . Koch a t t e s t in g  to  p u b lic a tio n  o f d isp la y  

a d v e r t is in g
A f f i d a v i t  o f  E . E. Koch w ith attach ed  map o f M obile County
A f f id a v it  o f  E . E . Koch w ith map o f elem entary attendance a re a s . 

T ra n sc rip t o f  Record m ailed to U. £>. Court o f  A o o ea ls , New O rlean s, 
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECREE entered  on p la in ­

t i f f s '  motion f o r  fu r th e r  r e l i e f ,  as amended, and p l a i n t i f f -  
in te r v e n o r 's  motion f o r  Supplemental R e l i e f ,  d ir e c t in g  defendants  
to  provide option  p la n , p u b lish  n o t ic e s , to  f i l e  annual rep orts  
to  th e c o u rt, e t c . ,  and APPROVING d e fe n d a n t's  d esegregation  plan  
f i l e d  on O ctober 1 9 , 1 96 6 , w ith  c e r ta in  requirem ents fo r  the  
op eratio n  o f th e p la n , and in  a l l  oth er r e s p e c ts , except the 
r e l i e f  In clu ded  in  in te rim  order o f  8 -2 4 -6 7 ,  DENYING p l a i n t i f f ' s  
motion f o r  fu r th e r  r e l i e f  and p la i n t i f f - I n t e r v e n o r 1s motion fo r  
supplem ental r e l i e f .  (Minute Entry No. 2 2 ,8 1 5 )

Copy o f  F in d in g s , C onclu sion s and Order d e liv e re d  to  U. S. Marshal 
f o r  se r v ic e  on d efen dan t,

Copies o f  F in d in g s , C onclusions and Order d e llv e r e d to  Abe L. p h ilip s ,  
and V ernol R. Jansen, J r . ;  co p ies  m ailed to  A ttorn eys Charles 
Jon es, Vernon Crawford, W alter Gorman, mpcox 

Return on S e rv ice  o f W rit f i l e d  by U .S .M a rsh a l, showing se rv ic e  o f  
Order e t c .  on Board o f School Commissioners o f M obile County, A la . 
by se r v ic e  on Mr. J . A. McPherson, A sso c ia te  Superin ten den t,

N o tice  o f  Appeal from F in din gs o f  F a c t, C onclusions o f Lav; and Decree 
en tered  on O ctober 1 3 , 1 9 6 7 , f i l e d  by p ia in t l f f - ln t e r v e n o r , U. S.

T ra n sc rip t o f  record  6h appeal re ce iv e d  from CCA f o r  use o f  a tto rn ey s  
in  preparin g supplem ental b r i e f s ,

Copy o f order entered  by CCA re c e iv e d , con tin u in g  a p p e a ls , to  be
reset for hearing at earliest p o s s ib le  date a f t e r  November 1 5 , 19p





D A T E P R O C E E D IN G S
D a te  Ordi 

J u d gm en t

1 0 - 26-67
1 1 - 14-67
1 2 - 12-67
2- 20-68

and p ro v id in g  f o r  f i l i n g  o f supplem ental b r i e f s ,  e t c .
N otice  o f  Appeal f i l e d  by the P l a i n t i f f s ,  f r0 m the Decree 1 0 -1 3 -6 7 ,  
P a r t ia l  tr a n s c r ip t  o f  t r i a l  f i l e d ,  sen t to  Court o f  Appeals I I - 1 5 - 6 7  
Balance o f  tr a n s c r ip t  sen t to  Court o f  A ppeals,

A p p lic a tio n  fo r  approval o f  proposed expansion o f  sch ool b u ild in g
f a c i l i t i e s  a t  T o u lm in v ille  High S ch o o l, f i l e d  by defendant on 
February 20, 1968.

3 - 4 -6 8

3 -  4-68

4 -  22=68

5 -  7-68

|

5 -7 -6 8

!

5- 15-68
5- 13-68

: 5-17-68
i 5-17-68

5- 21-68

1 5- 22-68 
5- 22-68

5- 22-68

O p p osition  to  D efen d an ts ’ A p p lic a tio n  fo r  Approval fo r  Proposed 
Expansion, f i l e d  by P l a i n t i f f s .

Response o f  P la in t i f f -I n t e r v e n o r  U. S . to  D efen dan ts' A p p lic a tio n  
fo r  approval o f  expension p la n s , f i l e d ,

A p p lic a tio n  fo r  approval o f  proposed c o n stru c tio n  on the Howard 
Elem entary School s i t e ,  f i l e d  by defendant on A p r il  2 2 , 1 96 8 , 

C e r t i f ie d  copy o f  ju dgm en t,cou rt o f  a p p e a ls , rendered May 6 , 19 6 8 , 
re ce iv e d  and f i l e d ,  REVERSING d i s t r i c t  cou rt and REMANDING case  
fo r  en try  o f  decree attach ed  to  op in ion  o f  appeal c o u r t , and ta x ­
in g  c o s ts  o f  dause a g a in st a p p e lle e s , Board o f  School Commission­
e r s , e t  a l .  (CCA c o s t s )  (Appeal Court No. 25*162)

C e r t i f ie d  copy o f  judgm ent, Court o f  A p p e a ls , issu ed  May 6 ,  19 6 8 , 
re ce iv e d  and f i l e d ,  DENYING a p p e lle e 's  motion fo r  reh ea rin g , but 
m od ifyin g Decree issu e d  fo r  en try  by th e D i s t r i c t  Court in  c erta in  
r e s p e c ts . (Appeal Court No. 25*175)

H earing begun in  open cou rt on pending m otion s, w itn esse s  examined, 
e x h ib its  o f fe r e d  in  e v id en ce , and fo llo w in g  m otions taken under
SUBMISSION: _
(1 )  A p p lic a tio n  fo r  approval o f  proposed expansion o f  sc .ioo l 

b u ild in g  f a c i l i t i e s  a t T o u lm in v ille  High S c h o o l .f i le d  2 -2 0 -6 c ;
(2 )  O p p osition  to  D efen d an ts' A p p lic a t io n , f i l e d  3 -4 -6 8 ;
(3) Response o f  P la in t i f f -I n t e r v e n o r  to  D efen dan ts' A p p lic a tio n , 

f i l e d  3 -4 -6 8 ;
(4) A p p lic a tio n  fo r  approval o f  proposed c o n stru c tio n  or. tne  

Howard Elem entary School s i t e ,  f i l e d  on 4 -2 2 -6 8 .  (M /i 2 3 /^ol-C)
Copies o f  M/E 2 3 ,7 8 l -C  m ailed to  a l l  a tto rn e y s o f  reco rd ,
DECREE entered  by Thomas, Judge, pursuant to  opin ion  and judgment of 

CCA, F i f t h  C ir c u it ,  (Minute Entry No.5 3 7 7 . - ,  )
Copies o f  decree m ailed  to  a l l  a tto rn e y s  o f  reco rd .
OBJECTIONS to  survey in fo rm ation  subm itted by defendants ar.c 
M otion to  con tin u e th e h earin g p r e s e n tly  scheduled fo r  May 2 7 , i 960 

f i l e d  by p la i n t i f f - i n t e r v e n o r ,  United S ta te s  o f  Am erica.  ̂ _
P l a i n t i f f s  o b je c tio n s  to  survey in form ation  subm itted by deiendant 

and m otion to  con tin u e h earin g  Scheduled May 27* 1 9 6 8 , fiicsd ,
D e p o sitio n  o f  Dr. F red erick  P. V e n d itt i  f i l e d  by p la in t i f f - in t e r v e n o .  
M otion f i l e d  May 2 2 , 1 9 6 8 , by the D efendants fo r  a Continuance, with

C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S e rv ice  , . . . , c iv  A a  pjr at
M otion to  con tin u e h earin g  f i l e d  by
M otion to  con tin u e h earin g f i l e d  by p l a i n t i f f s  on 5 -2  r ranted*
M otion to  con tin u e h earin g  f i l e d  by defendants on 5 -2 2 -6 8  GRANTED.

r*

ITED;





Doclcet. Stu

D . C. 1X0A R e v . C iv il D o c k e t  C on tin u a tion

D A T E

5 - 7 -6 3

5 -  29-68
6—  1-68

6- 10-68
6 t 1 2 - 6 8

6-17-68
6- 21-68

6 -  26-63

7 -  1-68

7- 1-68

7-15-68

P R O C E E D IN G S

7-16-68
7 -1 7 -6 8

7-18-68
7 -1 9 -6 8

7- 22-68

7-23-68

F ollow in g maps f i l e d  in  open court by d efen dan t:

Map No. 1 , Elem entary Areas
Map No. 2 , Junior High Areas
Map No. 3 , S en io r High Areas
Map No. 4, Pupil P o p u la tion , S en io r High Grades, ( 1 0 -1 2 ) ,
Map No. 5, Pupil P o p u la tion , Junior High Grades, ( 7 -9 ) ,
Map No. 6 , ^ Pupil P o p u la tion , Elementary Grades, ( 1 -6 ) ,
Map No. 7 , P upil P o p u la tion , S en ior High Grades, ( 1 0 -1 2 ) ,
Map No. 8 , P upil P op u lation , Elementary Grades ( 1 - 6 ) ,
Map No. 9 , Pupil P o p u la tion , Junior High Grades, ( 7 - 9 ) ,

Application to intervene as party defendants f i l e d  by Tw ila F ra zie r . 
In form ation  pursuant to  Decree entered by Court on May 1 3 , 1968 

f i l e d  by d efen d an ts,
Motion for Further R elief file d  by the P l a i n t i f f s  
M otion f i l e d  June 12, 1968  ̂ by the Defendants to  r e je c t  the propose 

r e v is io n s  o f  attendance area boundaries and feed er p attern s and t 
approve the d eseg reg a tio n  plan attach ed  to  the M otion, with  
C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S e rv ice  

Memorandum in opposition to Motion to In terven e f i l e d  by P l a i n t i f f s ,
Order entered GRANTING petition for In te r v e n tio n , f i l e d  on May 2 9 , 

1963 and continuing hearing set for June 26, 1963 u n t i l  a la t e r  
date; Minute Entry No. 23, 968,

Copies mailed to attorneys,

Opposition to defendants' motion to reject their proposed zone 
lin es file d  by p la in t if fs ,

Reporter's transcript o f conference o f a tto rn e y s f i l e d ,  
In te r r o g a to r ie s  propounded to  defendant f i l e d  by p la in t i f f -in te r v e n e ^  

U nited S ta te s  o f  Am erica,
Motion for extension of time to answer In te r r o g a to r ie s  No. 3 ^ , 3 5 ,

36, 37 & 385 file d  by defendants,
Notice of substituting maps of school attendance zones f i l e d  by 

defendants,
Summary of Enrollment and U tilization  o f  F a c i l i t i e s  by Schools f i l e d  

by defendants,
Answer to  in te r r o g a to r ie s  propounded by P la in t i f f -I n t e r v e n o r  f i l e d  

by d efen d an t, Board o f  School Com m issioners,
M otion to  d ism iss com plaint o f  D e fe n d a n ts-In terv en o rs , o r , in  the  

a lt e r n a t iv e , to  S tr ik e  A lle g a t io n s  from the com plain t.
Trial on merits begun; witnesses examined, e x h ib its  o ffe r e d  and

tr ia l  RECESSED un til July 18, 1968 a t 9 :3 0  A. M. (M/E #  2 4 ,0 5 9 -A )  
Trial resumed; witnesses examined, exhibits o ffe r e d  in  evid en ce, and 

tr ia l  RECESSED un til July 19, 1968 at 9 :30  A . M. (M/E #  2 4 ,0 6 0 -A )  
Trial resumed; witnesses examined, exhibits o f fe r e d , e t c . and t r i a l  

RECESSED u n til July 22, 1968 at 9:30 A. M. (M. E. No. 240o2-B ) 
Trial resumed; witnesses examined, exhibits o ffe r e d  in  evid en ce, anc 

tr ia l RECESSED u n til July 23, 1968 at 9 :30  A. M. a t 9:30 A. M. 
(Minute Entry No. 24,065-A)

Trial resumed;
Motion file d  in open court by defendant Board o f  School Commissioner 

to quash subpoena duces tecum issued to Dr. Cranford Burns at  
request of U. S .,





D A T E P R O C E E D IN G S Dale Or 
Judipnen

7 -2 3 -6 8

7 -2 4 -6 8

7 -2 5 -6 8

7 -2 9 -6 8

7 - 31-68

7 -3 1 -6 8

W itn esses examined and e x h ib its  o ffe r e d  in  evidence fo r  p l a i n t i f f ;
The t r i a l  not bein g com pleted a t 4 :3 0  P. M ., t r i a l  RECESSED until 

Ju ly 2 4 , 1968  a t 9 :3 0  A. M. (Minute Entry No. 2 4 ,0 7 3 }
N otice  o f  ta k in g  d e p o sitio n  o f  Dr. E rnest Stone f i l e d  in  open court  

by defendant Board o f  School Com m issioners,
T r ia l  resumed; w itn esse s  fu rth e r  examined and e x h ib its  o ffe r e d  in  

evidence on b e h a lf  o f  p la i n t i f f - i n t e r v e n o r  a n d -p la i n t i f f - i n t e r -  
venor r e s t s .  D e fe n d a n t-In te rv e n o rs ’ w itn esses and e x h ib its  
o ffe r e d  in  evidence and d e fe n d a n t-in te rv e n o rs  r e s t  A l l  p a r tie s  
r e s t .  A t 4 :1 0  P. M. case  ordered taken under SUBMISSION by the 
C ourt. (Minute Entry 2 4 ,0 7 5 ) .

Order fo r  d is p o s it io n  o f  e x h ib its  o ffe r e d  a t hearing held  on July l 8 j, 
1 9 , 20 , 2 4 , 2 5 , 2 6 , 27 and 28 , 1 9 6 7 , d ir e c t in g  th e ir  retu rn  to  
r e s p e c tiv e  a tto rn e y s  o f  re co rd . (Minute Entry No. 2 4 ,0 7 7 ) -  

Copy o f  t h is  order m ailed to  a tto rn e y s Jon es, Dunbaugh, Jansen and 
P h il l ip s  on 7 -3 0 -6 8 .  w et.

OPINION and DECREE entered by Thomas, Judge, perm anently e n jo in in g  
defendants from d isc r im in a tin g  on the b a s is  o f  race or c o lo r  in  
the o p eratio n  o f  the sch ool system , and to  take a ffir m a tiv e  a ctio fi  
to  d is e s t a b lis h  a l l  sch ool se g reg a tio n  and to  e lim in a te  the 
e f f e c t s  o f  the dual sch ool system  as to  d e se g re g a tio n , e x e rc ise  o 
c h o ic e , t r a n s fe r s , p ro sp e c tiv e  s tu d e n ts , and p rov id in g  fo r  a r e ­
p o rt to  the cou rt on or b e fo re  December 1 6 , 19 6 8 , e t c . (Minute 
Entry No. 2 4 ,0 8 6 ) .

Copies m ailed and fu rn ish ed  to  a l l  a tto rn ey s o f  reco rd .
M otion fo r  M o d ific a tio n  o f  Decree f i l e d  by U. S . p la in tif f -In te r v e n o ^ r , 

w ith proposed order o f  m o d ific a tio n  a tta ch e d ,
C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  s e r v ic e  o f  m otion fo r  m o d ific a tio n  f i l e d  by U .S .

8- 1-68
i

I

8 - 1-68
8- 2-68

8- 2-68
ji

M otion fo r  In terim  Order f i l e d  by d efen d an ts, Board o f  School Com­
m is s io n e r s , praying th a t the School Board be allow ed to  operate  
in s o fa r  as the method o f  student assignm ent i s  concerned, on the  
same b a s is  as i t  operated l a s t  y e a r , or in  the a lt e r n a t iv e , fo r  
an order p e rm ittin g  the defendant to  prepare fo r  and to  operate  
the sch o o l system  on the b a s is  o f  the desegregation ^p lan s sub­
m itted  to  the cou rt w ith  i t s  m otion o f  June 1 2 , 1 9 6 8 .

Motion DENIED by D an iel H. Thomas, Judge, (n o tic e s  m ailed 8 - 7 - 6 8 ) 
ORDER ENTERED in  response to  motion o f  p la i n t i f f - i n t e r v e n o r  United  

S ta te s  fo r  m o d ific a tio n , MODIFYING and AMENDING decree o f  7-29-68 
in  c e r ta in  r e s p e c ts . (Minute Entry No. 2 4 ,1 0 1 )

Copy o f  M/E 2 4 ,1 0 1  m ailed  to  a tto rn e y s Jon es, Crawford, P h ilip s ,  
Dunbaugh, Jansen and Pelham.

8—9 -6 8

8- 13-68

8- 16-68
8- 1 5 - 6 8

8 -1 9 -6 3

8 - 22-68

P e tit io n  fo r  m o d ific a tio n  o f  Decree o f  July 2 9 , 1 9 6 8 , under S ection  
I I ,  p e r ta in in g  to  attendance zon es, f i l e d  by d efen d an ts.

M otion to' s e t  a sid e  order o f  July 2 5 , 1968 d isp o sin g  o f  e x h ib it s ,  
f i l e d  by U. S „

F acu lty  Progress R eport, f i l e d  by th e d efen d an ts,
Order entered  m odifying C o u rt’ s decree o f  Ju ly 2 9 , 1 9o3, Minute

Copies^'m alled to  Jones, Crawford, P h ilip s , Dunbaugh, Jansen, Pelham 
and Kennamer,

M otion In support o f  P la in t i f f - in t e r v e n o r 1s motion to  se t  aside the 
order o f  Ju ly  2 5 , 1 96 8 , d isp o sin g  o f  e x h ib its  f i l e d ,b y  p l a i n t i f f ,





D ock et  S h eet / /  8 .
E>. C. 110A. R ev . Civil D o ck e t C ontinua tion

D A T E

9 — 6 -6 8

9- 12-68
9- 13-68
9- 16-68

9 -1 7 -6 8

9 - 2 7 -6 8
9 - 30 -6 8

1 0 - 1 -6 8

10 - 9-68

1 0 - 1 0 -6 8

10 - 11-68
( * )

1 0 - 1 5 -6 8

P R O C E E D IN G S D
Juc

Motion to  s e t  a sid e  order o f  Ju ly  2 5 , 1968 d isp o sin g  o f  e x h ib its  
f i l e d  on 8 -1 3 -6 8  by U .S . ,  and M otion in  support o f  P l a i n t i f f -  
In terven or m otion to  s e t  a sid e  order f i l e d  on 8 -2 2 -6 8  by p l a i n t i f f  
GRANTED as to  each m otion , n o tic e  to  a tto rn ey s o f  reco rd .

Petition for Modification of Court’ s Decree f i l e d  by the defendants
Order entered correcting and modifying in it ia l  paragraph o f  S e c . I l l  

of Court's decree of July 2 9 , 1 96 8 , Min. Entry N o .2 4 ,2 8 2 ,
Copies of Min. Entry No. 2 4 ,2 8 2  mailed to a tto rn e y s  Jones, Crawford, 

Philips, Dunbaugh, Jansen, Pelham and Kennamer,
F acu lty  P rogress Report f i l e d  on Sep. 1 7 , 19 6 8 , by the Defendant, 

Board o f  School Commissioners o f  M obile County, with C e r t i f ic a te  
o f  S e r v ic e .

N otice o f  Appeal f i l e d  by the P l a i n t i f f s ,  with C e r t i f ic a t e  o f Service 
Copy o f  N otice  o f  Appeal m ailed to  M essrs. Abram L. P h ilip s ; P ierre  

Pelham; Ralph Kennamer; M essrs. Frank Dunbaugh & W alter Gorman; arjc 
V ernol R. Jansen, J r .

N otice  o f  Appeal f i l e d  by the U nited S ta te s , P la in t i f f -I n t e r v e n o r ,  
W ithout C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S ervice

Copy o f  N otice o f  Appeal f i l e d  by the U nited S ta te s  on October 1,
1 96 8 , m ailed to  Miss Frankie L ." 'F ie ld s ; Mr. Vernon Z."''Crawford; 
M essrs. Charles H.<Tones J r . ,  M ichael "D avidson, a nd^ Jack "'Greenberg; 
Mr. Abram ^ " P h i l i p s ;  Mr. P ie r r e ^ e lh a m ; Mr. Ralorf'Kennamer; and 
Mr. W alter"Uorm an.

N otice  o f  Appeal f i l e d  by the D efendants, Board ot" School
Commissioners o f  M obile County, Et A l , With C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S ervice  

N otice o f  Appeal f i l e d  by the D e fe n d a n t-In terv en o rs , Twila F r a z ie r , 
et a l ,  W ithout C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S ervice  

Copy o f  N otice  o f  Appeal f i l e d  by the D efendants, Board o f School 
Commissionrs o f  M obile County, e t a l ,  and copy o f  N otice o f Anneal! 
f i l e d  by the D e fe n d a n ts-In terv en o rs , Twila F r a z ie r , e t a l ,  mailed ! 
on 15 O ct. 1968  to  M essrs. Stephen J . P o lia k ; Frank ! ' .  Dunbaugh; 
V ernol R. Jansen J r . ;  Vernon Z . Crawfor d ; Charles H.
M ichael D avidson, and Jack Greenberg; Ralph Kennamer;
Gorman; and Miss Frankie L. F ie ld s .

Copy o f  N otice  o f Appeal f i l e d  by the D efendants, Board 
m issions rs  o f  M obile County, e t  a l ,  m ailed on 15 O ct.
P ierre  Pelham

Copy o f  N otice  o f  Appeal f i l e d  by the D e fe n d a n t-In terv ero rs , Twila  
F r a z ie r , e t  a l ,  m ailed to  Abram L. P h ilip s J r . on 15 O ct. 1968 

Designation by defendant of Record on Appeal and
Motion to lim it p laintiff-intervenors d e sig n a tio n , f i l e d  by defendant

Jones 
and Us I t e r

o'6* School Com
1963 to

10 - 15-68

1 0 - 1 5 -6 8  

10-18-68

( * )
1 0 -1 4 -6 8  D esig n a tion  by the A p p e lla n t, United S ta te s  o f  America, o f  Record

o f Appeal and Request fo r  Immediate C e r t i f ic a t io n  and T ran sm ittal
1 0 -  2 1 -6 8  D esign ation  by the A p p e lla n ts , B ird ie  Mae D avis, e t a l ,  o f  Record or 

Appeal and Request fo r  Immediate C e r t i f ic a t io n  and T ran sm ittal
, 1 0 -2 5 -6 $  Report to  the Court f i l e d  by defen d an ts,

" 1 1 — 1 —63 Report to  the C o u r tfile d  on Nov. 1 , 1968 , by the Defendant, with
C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S e rv ice

1 1 —  7 —6 g| Order by the Court th a t d e sig n a tio n  o f  record on appeal s h a l l  con­
s i s t  o f  proceedings which have tra n sp ire d  sin ce  most recen t decree  
of Court o f  Appeals entered  on 12 March 1 9 6 8 ,M in.Entry  
No. 2 4 ,5 1 5

(SEE OTHERSIDE)





DOCKET SHEET NO. 8  —  PAGE 2

D A T E

1 1 - 8 - 6 8

11- 8-68
1 2 -4 -6 8

12- 6-68

1 2 -4 -6 8

12- 11-68

1 2 - 19 -6 8

1 2 - 19 -6 8

12 - 20-68

1 2 - 2 6 -6 8

P R O C E E D IN G S

a n d  E x h i b l t o -

1 2 - 2 7 -6 8

12- 20-68

1 2 - 2 7 -^ 8
1 2 - 2 0 - 6 8

1 2 -2 7 -6 3 -
1-2-69
1 - 3 - 6 9

1 -9 -69

D a t e '
Ju d g m

T ra n scrip t o f  R ecord/m ailed  to  the U .S . Court o f  A ppeals, F ifth  
C ir c u it , HKufimSMfaiifcjMiBUiion 8 Nov. 1968 

Copies o f  Minute Entry No. 2 4 ,5 1 5  m ailed to  a tto rn ey s o f  r e c o r d ,

R e p o r te r 's  tr a n s c r ip t  o f  Hearing on Motion on O c t. 2 3 , 1963 , f i l e d
M otion to  S u b stitu te  p a r t ie s , f i l e d  United S ta te s ,
A p p lic a tio n  fo r  an Order to  Show Cause, f i l e d  by United S ta te s ,

Report to  th e Court f i l e d  on Dec. 4 , 1968 , by the D efendants^in  
com pliance w ith Para. VI (b )o f  C o u rt 's  Order o f  Aug. 2 , 19 6 8 , 
m od ifyin g i t s  decree o f  July 2 9 , 19 6 8 , w ith C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  
S e r v ic e .

Motion to  S tr ik e  an d /o r  D ism iss A p p lic a tio n  fo r  Order to  Show Cause, 
f i l e d  by the defendant w ith Memorandum in  support o f  Motion to  
S tr ik e ,

Report to  the Court f i l e d  by d efen d an ts, in  response to  para . V (a) 
and (b) o f  the C o u rt 's  Order o f  Aug. 2 , 1 9 6 8 ,

Court R e p o rte r 's  T ra n scrip t o f  the Testimony o f the Hearing  
h eld  on July 17 , 1 9 , 1 9 , 2 2 , 2 3 , 2 4 , 1968  ^

Order o f  the US D is t r ic t  Court fo r  the F ifth  C ir c u it  DENYi a G the  
A p p e lle e s ' Motion to  Dism iss and orderin g th a t the Motions o f  
A p p ellan ts to  req u ire  tra n sm issio n  o f  the supplem ental record is
GRANTED  ̂ _ , .

Supplem ental Record o f Appeal m ailed to  the U .S . C o u r o  oj . r . p p e a l s  
o f  the Court R e p o rte r 's  T ra n scrip t o f  the Testimony o f f e r e d  on 
July 1 7 , 1 8 , 19 , 2 2 , 2 3 , and 24y I 96S numbered from P a g e s ^  1092 to  
2651 I n c l . ,  ma±±Edx±s3 and Hearing on Motion held o n  O c t o b e r  
2 3 , 19 6 8 , as rep orted  by the Court R eporter and n u m b e r e d  from
pages 2652  to  2 6 6 l ,  I n c l .  . . .  . . ._

Record on Appeal as per order o f  the F ifth  C irc u it  r e c e i v e d ^  n
o f f ic e  onPDec. 2 0 , 19 6 8 , c o n s is t in g  o f fou r volumes m ailed to  the
U .S . Court o f  Appeals

ORDER S u b s titu t in g  P a r t ie s , Sidney C. P h i l l ip s  and Homer L. Session^  
.and replaced  Jack C. G a lla le e  and Kenneth Reed as members o f  the 
Board o f School Commissioners o f  M obile C o ., A la . See M/E 2 4 ,7 4 2  

Copy o f M/E 2 4 ,7 4 2  m ailed to  each A tto rn e y ,
Order entered  GRANTING defendant *s. a p p lic a tio n  fo r  new con stru ction  

3n the Howard Elem entary School and DENYING the a p p lic a tio n  fo r  
new c o n stru c tio n  a t the lo u lm in v il le  S ch ool, (M/E No. 2M ,750). 

Copies m ailed  to  a tto r n e y s ,Report to the Court on reports required by Courts order o f Aug. 2, 
to be filed on Dec. 16, 1968, filed by Defendants,

Report to  the Court f i l e d  on Jan. 3 , 1969, by the D efendants, witn  
C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S e rv ice  x

Motion for Rehearing or Reconsideration, f i l e d  by defen dan ts,

1 968





C O N T I T k r A T X O N  O F  C I V I L  A C T I O N  N O .  3 0 0 3 -  
DOCKET SHEET NO. 9

D . C. 110A R e v . C iv il D o ck e t  C on tin u a tion

DATE PROCEEDINGS

1 -2 8 -6 9 N otice  o f  Appeal f i l e d  on Jan. 2 8 , 19 6 9 , by the United S ta te s ,  
P la in t i f f - I n t e r v e n o r , the appeal bein g  from th a t part o f  C o u rt 's

1 -2 8 -6 9
order approving c o n stru c tio n  a t the Howard Elementary S ch ool.

Motion f i l e d  Jan. 2 8 , 19 6 9 , by the United S t a t e s , p l a i n t i f f -  

in te rv e n o r , fo r  Suspension o f  C o u rt 's  Order o f  Dec. 2 0 , 19 6 8 , 
G ranting approval o f  th e C o n stru ction  Plans fo r  the new 
Howard Elem entary Sch ool Pending A ppeal, w ith C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  
S e rv ice

1 -2 8 -6 9 Order by the Court dated Jan. 2 8 , 1969 , on M otion f i l e d  by the 
U nited S ta te s  f o r  Suspension  o f  C o u rt 's  Order Granting  
Approval o f  th e /C o n str u c tio n  Plans fo r  the new Howard 
Elem entary S ch ool,tM in ’: Entry No. 2 5 0 1 0 . Copy o f  M .E. 25010 m a il­
ed on Feb. 2 0 , 19 6 9 , to  M essrs. Jack Greenberg, Charles H. Jones, 
J r . ,  Vernon Z . Crawford, Abram L . P h ilip s  J r . ,  Frank M. Dunbaugh,

V W alter Gorman, V ernol R. Jansen, J r . ,  Ralph Kennamer, and 
P ierre  Pelham.

1 -2 9 -6 9 N otice  f i l e d  Jan. 2 9 , 19 6 9 , o f  D ep osition  on o ra l exam ination o f  
Harry A tk in so n , f i l e d  by the U nited S t a t e s , P la in t i f f -I n t e r v e n o r ,  
w ith C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S e r f i c e .

1 -3 1 -6 9 M otion f i l e d  Jan. 3 1 , 1969 , by the Defendants fo r  Order fo r

1 -3 1 -6 9
P ro te c tio n  o f  P arty , with C e r t i f ic a t e  o f S e r v ic e .

Order o f  the Court GRANTING the Motion f i l e d  Jan. 3 1 , 19 6 9 , by the 
Defendants f o r  Order fo r  P ro te c tio n  o f  Party and postponing the

2 - 4 - 6 9
ta k in g  o f  the D ep o sitio n  to  a la t e r  d a te .

N otice  f i l e d  Feb. 4 , 19 6 9 ,  o f  D ep o sitio n  on o ra l exam ination o f  
Dr. Cranford Burns, James A. McPherson, Bobby Ray C lardy, Harry 
A tkinson  Hammer, and Jesse Jordan, w ith C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S e rv ic e ,

2 — 4 -6 9
F ile d  by the U nited  S t a t e s , P la in t i f f -I n t e r v e n o r  

M otion f i l e d  Feb. 4 , 19 6 9 , by the Defendant fo r  Order fo r

2 = 4 - 6 9
P ro te c tio n  o f  P arty , with C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S ervice  

M o tin n ffile d  Feb. 4 , 19 6 9 ,  by the Defendant fo r  Order fo r  
P ro te c tio n  o f  P a rty , with C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S ervice

2 — 4 -6 9 D esig n a tion  o f  Record on Appeal and Request fo r  Immediate 
C e r t i f ic a t io n  and T ra n sm itta l, f i l e d  on Feb. 4 , 19 6 9 , by the

2 -1 1 -6 9
U nited S t a t e s , P la in t i f f - I n t e r v e n o r .

M otion f i l e d  Feb. 1 1 , 19 6 9 , by the United S ta te s  o f  America, 
P la in t i f f - I n t e r v e n o r , fo r  Production o f  Records Under Rule

2  - r £ -6 9
3 4 , F .R .C . P .,w ith  C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S erv ice  

Order o f  the Court en tered  on Feb. 11 , 19 6 9 , on Motion fo r  Pro­
d u ction  o f  Documents Under Rule 3 4 , GRANTING the m otion,
Minute Entry No. 2 5 0 7 8 . Copy o f  M.E. 2 5 0 7 S m ailed on Feb. 2 0 , 
1 96 9 , to  M essrs. Jack Greenberg, Charles H.Jones J r . ,  Vernon Z. 
Craw ford, Abram L. P h ilip s  J r . ,  Frank M. Dunbaugh, W alter Gor­
man, V ernol R. Jansen J r . ,  Ralph Kennamer, and P ierre Pelham

2 -1 7 -6 9 N otice  o f  Appeal f i l e d  Feb. 1 7 , 1969 , by the P l a i n t i f f s ,  with

2 -  2 0 -6 9
3 -  7 -6 9

C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S erv ice
D e p o sitio n  o f  Harry W alter A tkinson  f i l e d  on Feb. 2 0 , 1 9 ^ 9 . ' C/a 0/1

M otion to  quash or l im it  subpoena duces -tecum served on W illiam  
B. Crane f i l e d  by d efen d an ts,

3— 7 -6 9 In form ation  f o r  the Court f i l e d  by d efen d an ts, ( t h is  document p laced  
in  red fo ld e r )

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE





DOCKET SHEET NO. 9 PAGE NO. 2

DATE

2 -  2 4 -6 9

3 —  7 -6 9

3 -1 2 -6 9

3 -1 4 -6 9

3 - 2 7 -6 9
3 -2 8 -6 9

3 -2 7 -6 9

P R O C E E D IN G S

T ra n scrip t o f  Testim ony taken on May 7 , 19 6 8 , f i l e d  by the Court 
R eporter on 24 Peb. 1969

A p p lic a tio n  fo r  Order to  Show Cause, f i l e d  by United S ta te s  on Dec. 
6 , 19 6 8 ,  taken under Subm ission ; Motion to  S tr ik e  an d /o r  Dism iss 
A p p lic a tio n  fo r  Order to  Show Cause f i l e d  by Defendants on Dec.
1 1 , 1968 , taken under Subm ission ; Motion f i l e d  by Defendants on 

9 9 Jan. 1969 , fo r  reh earin g  o f  arguments on Motion o f Defendants 
seek in g  approval o f  Proposed C on stru ction  o f T o u lm in v ille  S ch ool, 
taken under Subm ission ; and Motion to  Quash or Lim it subpoena 
duces tecum served on W illiam  B . Crane is  GRANTED, Minute Entry 
No. 2 3 1 7 0 . Copy o f  M.E. 2 5 17 0  m ailed on Mar. 1 7 , 19 6 9 , to  M essrs. 
Jack Greenberg, C harles H. Jones, J r . ,  Vernon Crawford, Abram L. 
P h ilip s  J r . ,  Prank Dunbaugh, W alter Gorman, V ernol R. Janesn J r . ,  
Ralph Kennamer, P ierre  Pelham, and Miss Frankie F ie ld s  

M otion f i l e d  Mar. 12 , 19 6 9 , by the U nited S t a t e s , P l a i n t i f f -  
In te rv e n o r , to  Supplement the Record o f the March 7 , 19 6 9 ,
H earing, w ith C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S ervice  

Order o f  the Court th a t the Defendant Sch ool B oard 's Motion fo r  
R econ sid eratio n  C o u rt 's  Order o f  Dec. 2 0 , 19 6 8 , in  which the 
Court DENIED School B oard 's  A p p lic a tio n  fo r  New C on stru ction  fo r  
the T o u lm in v ille  High School is  GRANTED and COURT fu rth e r  ORDERED 
th a t A p p lic a tio n  fo r  New C o n stru ction  o f the T ou lm in ville  High 
Sch ool i s  GRANTED, Min. Entry No. 2 5 2 1 7 . Copy o f M.E. 25217  
m ailed on Mar. 1 7 , 1969 , to '.M e ssrs .; •Jack Greenberg, Charles H. 
Jones J r . ,  Vernon Z . Craw ford, Abram L. P h ilip s  J r . ,  Frank Dun­
baugh, W alter Gorman, Vernol R. Jansen J r . ,  Ralph Kennamer,
P ierre  Pelham, and Miss Frankie F ie ld s  

A f f id a v i t  o f  J . Howe Hadley
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING HELD ON MAY 7 ,  1968 ; DOCUMENTS FILED ON FEB. 

2 0 , 1968, MARCH 4 , 1968 , and APR. 2 2 , 19 6 8 , IN REFERENCE TO THE 
BUILDING OF TOULMINVILLE HIGH SCHOOL AND HOARD ELEMENTARY 
SCHOOL; AND DOCUMENTS FILED ON DEC. 6 , 1969 , AND THEREAFTER, 
INCLUDING A DOCUMENT FILED ON MAR. 2 7 , 1969 , MAILED TO U .S .
COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT, NEW ORLEANS, LA. (MEMO: NUMBER 
OF FINAL PAGE OF THIS TRANSCRIPT,INCLUDING CLERK'S CERTIFICATE
i s  3 0 5 2 ) .

Order o f  the Court on the Show Cause requested  by the P l a i n t i f f -  
In te rv e n o r , U nited S ta te s  o f  A m erica ,as to  why the School Board 
s h a ll  not be h eld  in  c i v i l  contem pt; D efen dan t's  Motion to S trik e  
or a lt e r n a t iv e ly  to  DISMISS the a p p lic a tio n  fo r  a show cause 
order is  DENIED; and 30 days from r e c e ip t  o f  th is  order School 
Board s h a l l  f i l e  rep o rts  requ ired  by S ectio n s IV D 5 and IV G 
o f  Court|s Decree o f  May 13, 1968, Min. Entry No. 25274 . On Mar.
29 , 1969 , copy o f th is  order m ailed to  Vernon Z. Crawford and Miss 
Frankie L. F ie ld s ; Charles H. Jones J r . ,  M ichael Davidson, and 
Jack Greenberg; Vernol R. Jansen J r . ;  Stephen J. P o liak ; Frank M. 
Dunbaugh and W alter Gorman; Abram L. P h ilip s  J r . and James D. 
Brooks; P ierre  Pelham; and Ralph Kennamer.

CONTIN ED ON NEXT PAGE— SEE NEXT PAGE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

Date C
Judgme





D A T E

5 - 8 - 6 9

5 -1 2 -6 9

5 -1 2 -6 9

5 -1 2 -6 9

5 -1 3 -6 9

P R O C E E D IN G S

Amended P e t it io n  o f  the Board o f  School Commissioners o f  M obile  
County, A l a . ,  Temporary and Permanent In ju n c tiv e  R e lie f  
f i l e d  May 8 , 19 6 9 ,  a g a in st R. L . Dawson and Percy L. E ly  

M otion F iie d  May 12, 19 6 9 , by the Respondents, American Friends 
Commlttee* B i l l  R o sse r , and David Jacobs, to  Dism iss

P e tit io n
Motion F ile d  May 12, 19 6 9 ,  by the Respondents, American Friends
u « f ef VlCo David L. Jacobs, and B i l l  R osser To Set Aside Show
H earing Set f o r  th is  Date Continued to  May 1 3 , 1 9 6 9 , a t  1 -0 0  P m 

req u est o f  the A ttorn eys fo r  the P la in t i f f s  and A ttorneys  
fo r  Noble B easley  and Neighborhood Organized Workers

M otion to  D ism iss C ross-C om plaint f i l e d  by Respondents, Noble 
B easley  and Neighborhood Organized W orkers,

A f f id a v it  f i l e d  by Noble C. B easley  in  Support o f  M otion to  
Dism iss C ross-C om plaint

D ate
Judgrm

; 5 - 13 -6 9
! 5 -1 3 -6 9
i
I 5 -1 3 -6 9
i
I

| 5 - 13 -6 9  

| 5 - 13 -6 9  

j 5 - 1 4 - 6 9

I 5 - 1 4 -6 9

1

5 - 1 4 -6 91i
I
I
I 5 -1 4 -6 9

j 5 -1 4 -6 9  

i 5 -1 4 -6 9  

5 -1 4 -6 9

I 5 -1 4 -6 9
1

jI
5- 14-69

Motion f i l e d  on May 1 3 , 19 6 9 , by the P la in t i f f s  to  Dismiss Petition
A f f id a v it s  f i l e d  in  open cou rt on May 13, 1969, by the Plaintiff - 

In te rv e n o r , U nited S ta te s  o f  America
Supplement to  M otion to  D ism iss and P resen tation  o f Affirmative 

Defense F ile d  in  Open Court on May 13, 1969, by Respondents, 
American Friends S e rv ice  Committee, David L. Jacobs Jr., and 
W illia m  R osser

A f f id a v it s  f i l e d  in  open cou rt on May 1 3 , 19 6 9 , by the American 
Friends S erv ice  Committee I n c . ,  e t  a l  ____

A f f id a v it s  f i l e d  in  open cou rt on May 1 3 , 19 6 9 ,  by the Defendants, 
Board o f  School Com m issioners, e t  a l

Drder o f  Court (Min. Entry No. 25434) r e la t iv e  to  se r v ic e  o f  P et­
i t i o n  to  In te rp le a d  A d d itio n a l Defendants f i l e d  on May 8 ,  1 9 6 9 , 
retu rn ed , execu ted ,

Renewal o f  fo llo w in g  m otions f i l e d  by respondents American Friends  
S e rv ice  Committee, e t  a l . :

1 .  M otion to  d ism iss p e t i t i o n ;
2 . Supplement to  m otion to  d ism iss and p re se n ta tio n  o f  a ffir m a tiv e  

d e fe n se ;
3 . M otion to  s e t  a sid e  show cause ord er.
B r ie f  in  support o f  "m otion  to  d ism iss p e t i t i o n * ,  o f  "supplem ent to  

m otion to  d ism iss  and p re se n ta tio n  o f  a ff ir m a tiv e  d e fe n s e ", 
and o f  "m otion to  s e t  a sid e  show cause o r d e r " , f i l e d  by American 
F rien ds S e rv ice  Committee and B i l l  R osser and David L. Jacobs,

Memorandum f i l e d  May 14 , 19 6 9 ,  by the U nited S ta te s  o f  America on the 
May 8 , 19 6 9 ,  P e t it io n  o f  the Board o f  School Com m issioners, w ith  
C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S erv ice

C o u n te r -A ffid a v its  f i l e d  on May 14, 19 6 9 , by Noble C. B easley  and
Neighborhood Organized W orkers, w ith C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S e r v ic e .

A f f id a v it  o f  James A. McPherson f i l e d  by the Board o f  School Com­
m issio n ers o f  M obile County, e t a l

A f f id a v it  o f  Sam H. Shout f i l e d  by the Board o f  School Commissioners 
o f  M obile County, e t a l

O b je ctio n  and M otion to  S tr ik e  f i l e d  on May 14, 19 6 9 , by Resoondents, 
American F riends S e rv ice  C o m m itte e , e t  a l

T ra n scrip t o f  H earing h eld  on May 12 and 13 , 19 6 9 , f i l e d  by the 
Court R eporter





CONTINUttTIUN Ur Uivi
D O C K E T  S H E E T  N O .  1 C

D . C. 110A R e v . C iv il D o c k e t  C on tin u a tion

D A T E

3 -1 9 -6 9

3 -  2 4 -6 9

4 -  7 -6 9

4 - 2 3 - 6 9

4 -2 4 -6 9

5 - 2 - 6 9

5 - 7 - 6 9

5 - 5 -6 9

5-8-69*fl:rJ

5 - 8 -69

P R O C E E D IN G S

N otice  o f  Appeal f i l e d  Mar. 19 , 19 6 9 , by the United S ta te s ,  
P la in t i f f -I n t e r v e n o r , ap p ealin g  from the order and opinion  
g ra n tin g  D efen dan t’ s A p p lic a tio n  fo r  New C on stru ction  o f  
the T o u lm in v ille  High School 

N otice  o f  Appeal f i l e d  Mar. 2 4 , 19 6 9 , by the P l a i n t i f f s ,
ap p ealin g  from the order g ra n tin g  D efen d an t's  A p p lic a tio n  fo r  
c o n stru c tio n  o f  sch o o l a t T o u lm in v ille  

Order o f the Court permanently e n jo in in g  the DEFENDANTS from d i s ­
c r im in a tin g  on the b a sis  o f  race or c lo r  in  the operation  o f  the  
sch o o l system ; th a t a l l  r u r a l sch ools s h a l l  continue to  operate  
under the freedom o f ch oice d eseg rega tion  plan fo r  the sch ool 
year 19 6 9 - 7 O; s e t t in g  the Choice Period from Apr. 14 , 19 6 9 , and 
ending 12 May 1969; approval o f  area attendance zones as p ro ­
posed by the School B o a r d ;e t c .,  Minute Entry No. 2p342. Copy 
o f  M.E. 25342 m ailed on 9 A p r il 1969  to  M essrs. Jack Greenberg, 
Charles H. Jones, and M ichael Davidson; Vernon Z.Crawford and 
Miss Frankie F ie ld s ; Vernol R. Jansen J r . ;  Frank M. Dunbaugh 
and W alter Gorman; Abram L. P h ilip s  J r . and jatr.es D. Brooks;
Ralph Kennamer; P ierre Pelham; and Stephen J. Poliak  

Motion filed by plaintiff to require defendant Board o f  School Com­
missioners to submit within 30 days a plan o f  fa c u lty  d esegre­
gation,

Order o f the Court g ra n tin g  A d d itio n a l Time fo r  D efendant, School 
Board, to  preare and f i l e  rep o rts  as s e t  fo rth  in  C o u rt's  
Order o f  Mar. 2 7 , 19 6 9 , and School Board elver, to  May fM 
19 6 9 , to  f i l e  report with the C ourt, Min. Entry No. 25394 .
Copy o f M.E 25394 m ailed on 4 -2 5 -6 9  to  M essrs. Jack Green­
b erg , M ichael D avidson, Vernon Z . Crawford, Miss Frankie 
F ie ld s , V .R . Jansen, J r . ,  Frank jM. Dunbaugh, W alter Gorman,
A. L. P h ilip s  J r . ,  James D. Brooks, Ralph Kennamer, Pierre  
Pelham, and Stephen J . P o lia k .

Motion to require defendant to submit p lan  fo r  fa c u lty  desegregation  
filed by plaintiff on 4 -2 3 -6 9  ARGUED, and taken under SUBMISSION.

Order of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rece iv ed  May 7 , 1969, 
GRANTING Appellant's Motion for R econ sid eration  o f  F ifth  C ir c u it  

Court's Order of March 20, 1969, and A p p e lla n ts ' motions fo r  
Injunction pending appeal are GRANTED.

M otion to  req u ire  defendants to  submit a p lan  fo r  fa c u lty  desegreg­
a tio n  f i l e d  by the United S ta te s  o f  Am erica, PI a ir .t i  f  f  — a t  e r ve no r

Petition of the Board of School Commissioners o f  M obile County,
A la ., for Temporary and Permanent Injunctive R e lie f  f i l e d  May 3 , 
1969, against American Friends Service Committee, Neighborhood 
Organized Workers (NOW), B ill  Rosser/ David L. Jacobs, and Noble 
Beasley

Order of the Court setting the Petition for Temporary and Permanent 
Injunction for May 12, 1969, at 10:00 A.M., Minute Entry  
No. 25,434 Copy of M.E. No. 2 5 ,4 3 4  m ailed on May 3,
1969, to Messrs. Jack Greenberg and M ichael D avidson; Vernon Z . 
Crawford and Frankie Fields; V. R. Jansen J r . ;  Frank M. Dunbaugh 
and Walter Gorman; Abram L. Philips Jr. and Jame3 D. B rooks;

Ralph Kennamer; and Pierre Pelham; and Stephen J . P o lia k .





D . C. 110A R ev . C iv il D o c k e t  C on tin u a tion

CONTINUATION OF C IV IL  ACTION NO. 3' 
DOCKET SHEET NO. 1 1

D A T E

5 -1 4 -6 9

5- 16-69

5- 16-69

5 - 16-69

5 - 16-69

5 - 16-69

- 5 - 16-69

5 - 16-69

5 ^ 1 9 -6 9

5- 19-69

N o tice  o f  Motion and M otion fo r  le a v e  to  in terven e as p l a i n t i f f  
f i l e d  by Alabama S ta te  Teachers A s s o c ia t io n , I n c . ,  w ith  
proposed com plaint a tta c h e d ,

Order entered adding R. L. Dawson and Percy L. E ly  as p a r t ie s  
defendant and d ir e c t in g  th a t they appear and show cause why 
r e l i e f  should not be granted by answ ering sa id  p e t i t io n  fo r  
in ju n c tiv e  r e l i e f  by a f f i d a v i t  o n ly , to  be f i l e d  w ith the Clerk  
o f  t h is  Court on or b e fo re  Wednesday, May 2 1 , 1969  a t 12 
o 'c lo c k  noon, and th a t th e U .S . Marshal serve a copy o f  the  
p e t i t io n  and amendment to  in te rp le a d  a d d it io n a l defendants  
f i l e d  5 - 8 -6 9  w ith  a copy o f  t h is  order on said  d efen d an ts,
M/E No. 25473
C e r t i f ie d  copy o f  o rd e r , to g e th e r  w ith  copy o f  p e t i t io n  and 

amendment to  in te rp le a d  a d d it io n a l defendants f i l e d  on 
5 - 8 -6 9  g iven  to  U .S . M arshal fo r  se r v ic e  on each defen dan t, 

M otion f i l e d  May l 6 ,  19 6 9 * by Board o f  School Commissioners o f  
M obile County to  S tr ik e  c e r ta in  a f f id a v i t s  f i l e d  by U .S . D epart­
ment o f  J u s t ic e , w ith C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S erv ice  

REPORT TO THE COURT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT, BOARD OF SCHOOL COM­
MISSIONERS OF MOBILE COUNTY, w ith C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S ervice  

Order by the Court d ir e c t in g  th a t R.L.Dawson and Percy L .E ly  be made; 
p a rty  D efen dan ts; d ir e c t in g  th a t Dawson & E ly  to  appear and show 
cause why such r e l i e f  should not be gra n ted ; and d ir e c t in g .th a t  
the U .S . M arshal serve R. L. Dawson and Percy L. E ly , Min.
Entry No. 2 5 4 7 8 . Copy o f  M.E. 25478  m ailed on May 16, 196 ,9 , to  
M essrs, Vernon Z . Crawford, ^ohathan S h a p ir o , Vernol R. -Jansen J r . ,  
Frank M. Dunbaugh and W alter Gorman, Abram L. • 'philips J r . ,  C-eorge 
W. /Dean, and Reber F. B oult J r .

P relim inary In ju n c tio n  issu ed  by the Court a g a in st B i l l  R osser,
David L. Jacobs, American Friends S erv ice  : Committee and other  
persons In  a c tiv e  con cert and p a r t ic ip a t io n  with these p a rtie s  
d efen d an t, e t c . ,  Min. Entry No. 2 5 4 8 0 . On May 2 0 , 1949, copy 
o f  M.E. 25480  m ailed to  M essrs. Jonathan Sh ap iro , Vernon Z. 
Crawford, Vernol R. Jansen J r . ,  Frank M. Dunbaugh, W alter Gor­
man, Abraml L. P h ilip s  J r . ,  James D. B rooks, Ralph Kennamer,
P ierre Pelham, Stephen J . P o lia k , Gerrge W Dean, and Reber F. 
B ou lt J r . ,  and Miss Frankie F ie ld s  

W rit issu ed  to  the U .S . Marshal with copy o f M.E 25480 attach ed  fo r  
s e r v ic e  on B i l l  R osser, David L. Jacobs, and American Friends 
S e rv ice  Committee

N otice  o f  Appeal f i l e d  on May 19, 1969 , by American Friends Service  
Committee, David L. Jacobs, and B i l l  R osser . Copy o f  N otice o f  
Appeal m ailed on May 2 0 , 19 6 9 , to  Miss Frankie Fields, and M essrsj 
Jonathan S h ap iro , Vernon Z. Crawford, Vernol R. Jansen, J r . ,

F Frank M. Dunbaugh, W alter Gorman, Abram L. P h ilip s  J r . ,  James D 
B rooks, Ralph Kennamer, P ierre  Pelham, and Stephen J . P o lia k . 

M otion f i l e d  May 19, 1969, by American Friends S ervice  Committee, 
David L. Jacobs, and B i l l  R osser fo r  S ta y , with C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  
S e r v ic e .

(SEE NEXT PAGE) (SEE NEXT PAGE)





DOCKET S H E E T  N O . 1 1 -------PAGE N O . 2

D A T E

■ 5 -1 9 -6 9

5 -1 9 -6 9  

5 -2 1 -6 9  

5 -2 0 -6 9  

5 -2 1 -6 9  

( 5 -1 9 -6 9 )

5 -  2 6 -6 9

6 -  - 21-69

6 — 6 -6 9  

6 - - 6  -69

5 -2 3 -6 9

6 -1 0 -6 9

6 - 16 -6 9

6 - 1 7 -6 9

6 -2 7 -6 9

6 - 2 3 -6 9

M otion fo r  Stay f i l e d  on May 19 , 19 6 9 , by American Friends
S erv ice  Committee, e t  a l ,  is  DENIED, Mirtute Entry N o .252187.
Copy o f  M E. 252187 m ailed on May 2 0 , 19 6 9 , to  Miss Frankie 
F ie ld s , and M essrs. Jonathan S h ap iro , Vernon Z .C raw ford,
Vernol R. Jansen J r . ,  Frank M. Dunbaugh and W alter Gorman,
Abram L. P h ilip s  J r . ,  James D. Brooks, Ralph ICennamer, P ierre  
Pelham, Stephen J . P o lia k , George W. Dean, Charles Morgan J r . ,  
and Reber F . B o u lt , J r .

C ost Bond on Appeal in  sum o f  $ 2 5 0 .0 0  f i l e d  on May 1 9 , 19 6 9 , by 
American Friends S erv ice  Committee, e t  a l

W rit re P relim inary In ju n c tio n  retu rn ed , executed by USM as to  
BILL ROSSER, DAVID L . JACOBS & THE AMERICAN FRIENDS COMMITTEE*

Answer o f  Percy L. E ly  to  P e tit io n  fo r  In ju n c tiv e  R e lie f  f i l e d  with  
a f f i d a v i t ,

M otion and P resen tation  o f D efense and a f f i d a v i t  o f  Rev. R. L. Dawson 
f i l e d ,

W rit RE P e t it io n  fo r  in ju n c tiv e  r e l i e f  returned by USM executed  
as to  R. L . DAWSON & PERCY L . ELY,

Amendment and supplement to  b r i e f  in  support o f  Motion and Presenta­
t io n  o f  defense f i l e d  by respon den ts,

JUDGMENT o f  the U .S . Court o f  Appeals fo r  the F ifth  C irc u it
REVERSING the order o f  the U .S . D is t r ic t  Court and cases are  
REMANDED to  the D is t r ic t  Court fo r  fu rth e r  proceedings in  a c ­
cordance with the opin ion  o f the U .S . Court o f  A ppeals.
Copy o f  opin ion  a tta c h e d .

M otion f i l e d  May 5 , 19 6 9 , by U nited S t a t e s , P la in t i f f -I n t e r v e n o r ,  
to  Require Subm ission o f F acu lty  D esegregation  Plan is  
SUBMITTED WITHOUT ARGUMENT

M otion f i l e d  May 1 6 , 19 6 9 , by Board o f  School Commissioners o f  
Mobile County to  STRIKE CERTAIN AFFIDAVITS is  SUBMITTED 
WITHOUT ARGUMENT

Order o f the U S . Court o f  Appeals fo r  the F ifth  C ir c u it  GRANTING 
A p p e lla n ts ' M otion fo r  Stay o f  In ju n c tio n  Pending Appeal

Record on appeal sen t to  U .S . Court o f  A p p eals, F if t h  C ir c u it ,
beginning w ith 8 th day o f May, 1969 docket entry to May 23, 1969, 
(page 3053 to  3353) a t o t a l  o f  300 pages. Copies were sent to  the, 
a tto rn ey s o f  the above e n tr ie s  th at were sen t to f i f t h  c ir c u it  
along w ith  page numbers,

V e r if ie d  B i l l  o f  C osts in  sum o f  $ 1 3 7 2 .0 0  as c o s ts  incurred in  
U .S . Court o f  Appeals f i l e d  by p l a i n t i f f s 'w i t h  c e r t i f i c a t e  
a tta c h e d ,

V e r if ie d  B i l l  o f  Costs in  sum o f  $ 1 3 6 0 .2 0  as c o s ts  incurred in  
U .S . Court o f  Appeals f i l e d  by p la in t i f f - in t e r v e n o r  with  
c e r t i f i c a t e  a tta c h e d ,

M otion fo r  lea v e  to  in terven e  as p l a i n t i f f  f i l e d  by A la . S tate  
Teachers A s s o c ia t io n  In c . on 5 / l ^ /6 9  argued and taken under 
su bm ission ,

Order o f  the F ifth  C ir c u it  Court o f  Appeals on the P e tit io n  For 
Rehearing In which the F ifth  C ir c u it  DENIED the P e tit io n  fo r  
Rehearing and Motion o f  A ppelles fo r  a Stay o f  Execution and 
Enforcement o f  Judgment Is DENIED





1 c r T i t  R o u o " !  : t o  .  ^ - CT0 3 -

DOCKET SHEET 170 . 1 2

D. C. 110A  R e v . C iv il D o ck e t  C on tin u a tion

D A T E P R O C E E D IN G S Dulo

7 /1 /6 9

7 -2 -6 9

N otice  o f  talcing o f  d e p o sitio n  o f DR. JOSEPH HALL and MR. J . J .
JORDAN f i l e d  by d efen dan t, subpoenas is su e d ,

Judgment o f  the U .S . Court o f  Appeals fo r  the F ifth  C ir c u it  o rd e r ­
ing th a t "a p p e lle e s ' motion fo r  sta y  o f  execu tio n  and e n fo r c e ­
ment o f  the Judgment and mandate entered in the above causes 
pending the p e t it io n  fo r  w rit o f c e r t io r a r i  to  be f i l e d  in the 
Supreme Court o f  the United S ta te s , is  hereby DENIED."

7 -1 0 -6 9

7 -1 0 -6 9

7 -1 6 -6 9

-  7 -1 7 -6 9
T>

7 -1 8 -6 9

7 -2 1 -6 9

7 -2 2 -6 9

7 -2 2 -6 9

7 -2 3 -6 9

DESEGREGATION PLAN FOR THE MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS f i l e d  by
the D iv is io n  o f  Equal E du cation al O p p o rtu n itie s , O ffic e  o f  Educat­
io n  o f  The Department o f  H ealth , Education and W elfare  fo r  the 
o p eratio n  o f  sch o o ls  in  M obile School D i s t r i c t ,  pursuant to  
Mandate o f  U .S .C ou rt o f  Appeals o f  6 - 3 - 6 9 ,  w ith  accompanying 
maps.

Copies o f  p lan  fu rn ish ed  to  Mr. Abe P h i l ip s , Mr. Vernon Crawford,
Mr. V ern ol R. Jansen, J r . ,  U. S . A tto rn e y , and Mr. P ierre  Pelham, 

N o tice  o f  takin g d e p o sitio n s  o f  W illia m  B. Crane and James A.
McPherson on July 2 3 , 19 6 9  f i l e d  by p la in t i f f - in t e r v e n o r ,

M otion f i l e d  by p l a i n t i f f s  fo r  cou rt order to  im m ediately implement 
the p lan  o f  d eseg reg a tio n  form ulated by HEW f i l e d  on Ju ly  1 0 ,
19 6 9 ,  w ith  c e r ta in  m o d ific a tio n s ,

M otion to  s t r ik e  and expunge from the Record the Report and Proposed 
Plan o f  D esegregation  f i l e d  by HEW on July 1 0 , 1 9 6 9 , f i l e d  by 
defendants Board o f  School Com m issioners,

O b je ctio n s  and Suggested Amendments to  proposed p lan  o f  d esegregation  
o f  HEW f i l e d  by defendant Board o f  School Com m issioners,

M otion to  continue d e p o sitio n s  o f  McPherson and Crane, p r e se n tly  se t  
fo r  Ju ly 2 3 , 1 9 6 9 , f i l e d  by d efen d an ts.

M otion in  o p p o sitio n  to  d e fe n d a n ts• a lte r n a t iv e  d eseg reg a tio n  p lan s  
and fo r  an Order re q u ir in g  defendants to  adopt and implement 
the d eseg reg a tio n  p lan  proposed by the HEW, f i l e d  by United  
S t a t e s , p la i n t i f f - i n t e r v e n o r ,

D e p o sitio n s  o f  DR. JOE HALL and JESSE J . JORDAN f i l e d  by defendant 
M obile County School Board,

7 -2 5 -6 9  M otion in  o p p o sitio n  to  d e fe n d a n ts1 a lte r n a t iv e  d eseg rega tion  p_ar.e 
f i l e d  by p l a i n t i f f s ,  moving fo r  an order d ism issin g  or denyin  
the Suggested Amendments and O b jectio n s as f i l e d  by Board o f  
School Commissioners on Ju ly 2 1 , 1 9 6 9 .

7 -2 9 -6 9  A p p lic a tio n  fo r  in te r v e n tio n  as p a r t ie s  defendant f i l e d  by MOBILE COUNT 
! COUNCIL OF PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS, e t  a l .

7 - 2 2 - 6 9  M otion th a t d e p o sitio n s  not be taken , f i l e d  by the d efen d an ts,
7 -2 2 -6 §  Motion f i l e d  Ju ly 722, 19 6 9 , by D efen dan ts,.B oard  o f School Com­

m iss io n e rs , to  Continue D ep osition s o f  James A. McPherson 
and W illiam  B. Crane i s  g ra n ted .

7 -2 2 -6 9  M otion f i l e d  July 2 2 , 19 6 9 , by D efendants, Board o f  School Com­
m iss io n e rs , th a t D ep osition s o f  W illia m  B. Crane and James A 
McPherson NOT BE TAKEN Is  GRANTED.

7 -2 9 -6 9  For a s s is ta n c e  and in form ation  or the c o u rt, f i l e d  by defendant, 
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)





PAGE N O .  2D O C K E T  S H E E T  N O .  1 2  -----

D A T E

8-1-69

8-1-69 

8 —  1-69

8 —  1-69

8 —  1-69 

8 —  1-69 

8 —  1-69

8— 6 -6 9  

8 — 6 -6 9

8 -  1 1 - 6 9

9- 17-69

P R O C E E D IN G S

Motion filed July 18, 1969, by Defendants, Board of School Com­
missioners, to Strike and Expunge from the record the report 
and proposed plan of desegregation submitted by the Office of 
Education of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare 
is DENIED.

Motion filed July 17, 1969, by Plaintiffs, Birdie Mae Davis, et al, 
to Accept H.E.W. Plan of Desegregation with Modifications 
is DENIED.

Motion f i l e d  July 2 1 , 19 6 9 , by D efendants, Board of School Com­
m iss io n e r s , o b je c tin g  to  the proposed plan o f d eseg rega tion  
f i l e d  by the O ffic e  o f  Education o f  the Department of H ealth , 
Education and W elfare and su g g e stin g  amendments to  the plan  
o f  d e seg reg a tio n  f i l e d  by the O ffic e  o f  Education of the  
Department o f  H ea lth , Education and W elfare is  DENIED.

Motion filed July 2 2 , 19 6 9 , by the United S ta te s  In O p p osition  
to Defendants' Alternative Desegregation Plans and fo r  an 
Order requiting Defendants to  Adopt and Implement the De­
segregation Plan Proposed by the Office of Education Is 
DENIED.

Motion filed July 25, 1969, by Plaintiffs, Birdie Mae Davis, 
et al, In Opposition to Defendants' Alternative Desegregation 
Plans Is DENIED.

Notice of Motion, and Motion for leave to intervene as plaintiff
filed by the NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, INC., with proposed 

Complaint in Intervention attached,
Order o f  the Court and DECREE directing plan o f  d eseg reg a tio n ,

Min. Entry No. 25326. Copy of Min. Entry 25826 mailed on Aug. 1, 
1969 to Miss Frankie Fields; Messrs. Jack Greenberg, Jonathan 
Shapiro, and Michael Davidson; Mr. Vernon Z. Crawford; Mr. C. S. 
White Spunner Jr., the United States Attorney; Messrs. Frank M. 
Dunbaugh and Walter Gorman; Messrs. Abram L. Philips Jr. and 
James D. Brooks; Mr. Ralph Kennamer; Mr. Pierre Pelham; Mr.Stephen 
J. Poliak; Mr. George W. Dean; Messrs. Charles Morgan Jr. and 
Reber F. Boult Jr.; Mr. Solomon S. Seay Jr.; and Mr. Samuel L. 
Stockman.

N otice  o f  Appeal F ile d  on Aug. 6 , 19 6 9 , by the P l a i n t i f f s ,  with 
C e r t i f ic a t e  of S e rv ice

D esign ation s o f  Record on Appeal and Request fo r  Immediate 
C e r t i f ic a t io n  and T ran sm itta l f i l e d  on Aug. 6, 1969, by the 
P l a i n t i f f s ,  w ith C e r t i f ic a t e  o f  S e r v ic e .

Record on Appeal m ailed on Aug. 11 , 19 6 9 , to  the U. S.  Court o f
Appeals, Fifth Circuit, New Orleans, La. (MEMO: NUMBER OF FINAL
PAGE OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, INCLUDING CLERK'S CERTIFICATE IS 37^0).

Order of the Court directing that Exhibits offered In 1968 and 
1967 be returned to party offering said exhibits, Min. Entry No. 
25959. Copy of M.E. 25959 mailed on Sep. 19, 1969, to Messrs.Jack' 
Greenberg, Michael Davidson, and Johathan Shapiro; Vernon Z.Craw­
ford and Miss Frankie Fields; Messrs. Charles S. White Spunner Jr., 
Frank M. Dunbaugh, Walter Gorman, Abram L. Philips Jr. and James D. 
Brooks, Ralph Kennamer, Pierre Pelham, Stephen J. Poliak, George 
W. Dean, Charles Morgan Jr., Reber F.  Boult Jr., and Solomon S. Seay, Jr., and Samuel L.  Stockman.





D. C. 110A Rev. Civil Docket Continuation

C O N T I N U A T I O N  O N  C I V I L  N O .  3 0 0 3 - 5 3

DOCKET SHEET NO. 1 3

DATE

10- 6 -6 9

10-  13-69

10-20-69

10- 27-69

11- 7-69 
1 1-10-6S 

1 1-17-69

1 1 - 20-69 

1 1 -20-69 

H - 20-69 

1 1-26-69

1 1 - 26-69

PROCEEDINGS

Application for an Order to Show Cause filed by p l a i n t i f f ,  with  
certificate of service attached, and proposed ord er,

Report to the Court filed on 13 Oct. 1969 by the D efendants, Board 
of School Commissioners of Mobile C oujn ty , e t  a l ,  w ithout 
Certificate of Service. ©n 13 Oct. 1969 the Clerk forwarded to  
All Attorneys in this case a copy o f th is  Report f i l e d  1 0 -1 3 -5 9  

Motion to Dismiss Application for Order to Show Cause f i l e d  by 
Defendants, The Board of School Commissioners o f  M obile County, 
et al,

Memorandum in o p p o sitio n  to  School B oard 's M otion to  Dismiss
Application for an order to show cause and Motion fo r  A ttorn eys  Fees filed by Plaintiffs,

Report to  the court fo r  the in form ation  o f  the court f i l e d  by 
Board o f  School Commissioners o f  M obile County,

Application fo r  an order to  show cause f i l e d  by P l a i n t i f f -  
intervenor, The United S ta te s  o f  Am erica,

Request fo r  execu tion  fo r  amount o f  court c o sts  on a p p e a l  due i n  
sum o f  $ 1 ,3 7 2 .0 0  f i l e d  by atto rn ey  fo r  p l a i n t i f f s .

W rit o f  execu tion  is s u e d ,
Report to the Court of November 20, 1969 filed by Board of School 

Commissioners of Mobile County, Alabama,Interrogatories directed to Mr. ABRAM PHILIPS, attorn ey  fo r  d efen ­
dants filed by plaintiffs,

Motion for clarification of the C o u rt 's  Order f i l e d  by d e f e n d a n t s  
BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF MOBILE COUNTY, ET AL,

REPORT TO THE COURT dated November 26, 1969 f i l e d  by d efen d an ts, 
BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS,

Writ of Fieri Facias returned, NOT EXECUTED, W rit o f  Garnishment no 
be issued,

ji

12— 1-69

12-4-69

12-5-69

1 2 - 3 0 -6 9

Suggested Desegregation plan for all metropolitan schools located 
east of I-65, for implementation for the 1970-71 school term, 
filed by defendant School Board, pursuant to Court's decree of 
August 1, 1969, with Maps 1, 2 and 3 attached.

Order entered by Court allowing defendant School Board to substitute! 
corrected map, designated Map # 1-A, for Map # 1 submitted with 
suggested desegregation plan filed 12-1-69, (Minute Entry No. 
26,285)•Certified copy of judgment of U.S.Court of A p p eals, F if t h  C ir c u it ,  
received, AFFIRMING order of District Court appealed from, w ith  
directions to desegregate the eastern part o f  the m etrop olitan  
area of the Mobile County School System and to  otherw ise crea te  
a unitary system in compliance with other p ro v is io n s  and con di­
tions of order of court then entered, and ta x in g  c o sts  on appeal 
in appeals court against appellee, School Board.

Copy of Court's opinion received from F ift h  C ir c u it  and f i l e d ,
Copy of School Board's desegregation p lan  and copy o f  o rd e r^substi­

tuting map mailed to following attorneys: D avidson, Crawford,^ 
Fields, Gorman, White-Spunner and Pierre Pelham, and Abe P h ilip s .

Application for an Order to Show Cause, f i l e d  October 
nlaintiffs Oct. 6, 1969 DENIED,Motion to Dismiss Application fo r  Order to  Show Cause, defendants, Board of School Commissioners Oi

6 , 1 9 : 9  V
~ ■>

O ’ v' J





1 PAGE NO. 2DOCKET SHEET NO. 13 ------

D A T E

12-30-69
1 - 2 -7 0
1 -2 -7 0

1 - 2 - 7 0

1-5-70
1-5-70

1 — 2 . 7 0  
1— 6-70

1-7-70
1 -6 -7 0

1-7-701-7-70
1 - 8-70
1-13-70

L-1 5-7 0

1-22-70

1-22-70

1-28-70

.-28-70

. - 28-70

P R O C E E D IN G S

Vv 'one

D a te  O rd er i 
J u d g m e n t N o

Order entered that the motion for attorney's fees filed 
Plaintiff is DENIED, see M/E Number 26,410,

Copy of Minute Entry Number 26,410 sent to each attorney,
Affidavit for issuance of Garnishment against First Nat11 Bank 

of Mobile, Merchants National Bank of Mobile and American 
National Bank of Mobile on judgment for costs filed by plaintiff 

Writs of Garnishment issued against EACH of the following named
banks, and notice issued to defendant in EACH instance: _
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MOBILE, MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK OF MOBILE 
and AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF MOBILE,

Writs of Garnishment issued on 1/2/70 and notices to defendant of 
issuance returned executed by U.S. Marshal,

Motion filed by plaintiffs for order of court to limit Writs of 
Garnishments issued on 1/2/70 to sum of $1,372.00 being the 
amount by judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit,

Motion to require service of desegregation plan filed by plaintiffs, 
Motion filed by defendants for order of court limiting garnishments 

to sum of $1,372.00 to be held by each bank GRANTED. Notices 
mailed to banks, and to Abe Philips, Attorney for defendants. 

Notice of granting of defendants' motion mailed to attorneys David­
son, Crawford, Pelham and White-Spunner,

ANSWER to garnishment served on the bank , The First Nat'l Bnk of 
Mobile on January 5, 1970 filed,

Copy of Answer sent to Michael Davidson,ANSWER to garnishment served on the American National Bank & Trust 
Company filed,

Copy of Answer sent to Michael Davidson,
Copy of bill of costs in amount of $25.00 taxed against appellee 

School Board by Circuit Court of Appeals received and filne,
A Desegregation Plan for the Mobile County School System, filed by 
the Division of Equal Educational Opportunities, U. S. Office of 
Education, Atlanta, Georgia,

Certified copy of Court's Opinion-Order entered by U.S.Court, of 
Anneals forthe Fifth Circuit on January 21, 1970, directingj z r at 
the order of the Supreme Court entered in the S i n r _ e t o n ^ v .  -7 9 - 
Municipal Separate School District et al, case, No. 2° _
respect to the deferrel of student desegregation soyont 
lo?6 is made the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 1 ~
visions of th<3 order of CCA in Singleton to

effec
the order of CCA in 

,, received and filed,
Order entered GRANTING application for intervention as parties de- 

fSndant H l e d V S  July 29, 1969 by MOBILE COUNTY COTOIL OF PARENT- 
TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS, et al. (Minute Entry No. 2o,5^0-A.;

Copies mailed to all attorneys of record, . . .Order entered ORDERING Board of School Commissioners of Mobile ocn.ty, 
to forthwith submit to the Court a revision of plans iordese0rca- 
tion in accord with the mandates of the Supreme Court and the n m  
Circuit Court of Appeals. (Minute Entry No. 26,553)- 

7 certified copies of order delivered to U. S. Marshal for service 
' on Abe Philips, Attorney, Dr. Cranford Burns, and each member Oi
School Board. ...Order to School Board returned EXECUTED,





D . C. 110A. R e v . C ivil D o ck e t C ontinua tion

DOCKET SHEET NO . X̂+

D A T E

1 -26-
1-30-
1-31-

70
70

1-31

1-31-70

1- 31
2 —  2 
2--4

-70
-70

2-11

2-11
2-12

2 - 1 6

2 - 1 8

-70
-70
-70
-70
-70

PROCEEDINGS

2-18 -7 0

Copies of order to school "board mailed to attorneys,
PCharlesS01arknf i? ld niOnS ° f  Judge James P’ Ooleman and Judge

Response to order of court of January 2 8 , 1 9 7 0, filed by Board of School Commissioners,
70 DECREE entered by court pursuant to reversal by Fifth Circuit Court 

of Appeals as directed by U. S. Supreme Court, ADOPTING area at­
tendance desegregation plan submitted by the school board on 
December 1, 1969* for those school zones lying East of I-6 5  
with the exceptions as set out in the order, to be adooted and 

7. Put iJlto effect as of FEBRUARY 1, 1970; (Minute Entry No. 26,573) -70.'"Order entered re-establishing an elementary school on Dauphin Island 
for children living in the Island at the elementary grade level 
and directing order implemented forthwith. (Minute Entry No.
2o y574).

Certified copy of Minute Entry No. 26,573 and 26,574 with set of 
Mapsy Exhibits B and C, dsliverad to U. S. Marshal for service 
on Board of School Commissioners, C/0 its Attorney, Abi'am L Philips,

Copies of each order mailed to attorneys of record,
Certified copies of orders returned EXECUTED by U. S. Marshal 

70v^ORDER entered amending order of this court of January 3 1 , 19 70 in
order to add "the majority to minority transfer policy", provid­
ing that a student attending a school in which his race is in the 
majority to choose to attend another school where space is avail- 1 

261 5&3)'nd W-ere hiS race is in the roiHority. (Minute Entry No.
NOTICE OF APPEAL filed by plaintiffs from order and judgment of the District Court entered on January 3 1 , 1 9 7 0 .
Designation of contents of record on appeal filed by plaintiffs- appellants.
Copy of order of 2-4-70 and copy of notice of appeal mailed to all attorneys of record,
NOTICE OF APPEAL from order and judgment entered on January 3 1 ,

1970 filed by United States of America, plaintiff-intervenor.
Copy of notice of appeal filed 2-16-70 mailed to all attorneys of 

record, with copy of "timetable" for school desegregation apoeals as set out in Singleton opinion, Part III,
Petition filed by defendant School Board, asking for immediate con­

sideration, to be allowed to maintain a 1 2th grade program at 
Trinity Gardens for remainder of this school year.

r
Ju

2-19-70

2-24-70
2-24-70
2-24-70
2-24-70

NOTICE OF APPEAL filed by defendants Board of School Commissioners 
of Mobile County, et al. from order and judgment entered on 
January 31 > 1970, as amended by order entered on February k, 197C).

Additional designation of contents of record on appeal filed by de­fendants,
Affidavit testimony of James A. McPherson’filed by defendant in sup­

port of its Response to Order filed on January 3 0, 1970.
Report to the Court, filed by defendant, for the information and 

assistance of the court,
Report to the Court filed by defendant for the purpose of advising 

the Court of steps taken towards implementation of its Order of 
January 31, 1970.





(REVERSE OF DOCKET SHEET NO. 1 4 )

D A T E

2-23-70
2— 25-70

2- 27-70

3- 2-70

3-10-70 

3 - 10-70  ✓

3-11-70
3-11-70
3- 12 -70

$-13-70

3-16-70
3-16-70

3-16-70

- 1 7 - 7 0

P R O C E E D IN G S

Answers to plaintiff's interrogatories filed "by Defendants,
Copies of Notice of Appeal filed by Defendant School Board mailed 

to all attorneys of record,
Certified record on appeal mailed to CCA, New Orleans, La.
Motion to require service of desegregation plan filed on 1/2/70 

by plaintiffs is GRANTED, notice mailed to Attys. Michael 
Davidson and Abram L. Philips, Jr.,

Petition filed pertaining to Westlawn and Mertz Schools,
Petition filed pertaining to Mertz and Mae Eanes Schools,
Petition filed pertaining to Momingside School and Mae Eanes School 

The above Petitions filed by the Mobile Co. School Board 
Petition for modification of court's order of January 31, 1970 with 

respect to maintaining a ninth grade at Mae Eanes School, filed 
by defendant School Board,

Motion for leave to amend summons and complaint by adding thereto 
as party defendants, ALBERT BREWER, Governor of the State of 
Alabama, and MacDONALD GALLION, Attorney General of the State 
of Alabama, and to file supplemental complaint attacking legis­
lative act enacted on March 4, 1970, by the State Legislature, 
known as the "Freedom of Choice Act, filed by plaintiffs, 

Certificate of service of copy of supplemental complaint and plain­
tiffs' brief as filed on March 10, 1070, filed by plaintiffs. 

Motion filed by plaintiff for an order commanding the garnishee to pay over monies and for an order condemning same,
ORDER entered by court, AMENDING order of January 3 1 , 1 9 7 0, as to 

petitions filed on March 2, 1970 and March 10, 1970 relating to 
Westlawn, Mertz, Mae Eanes and Morningside, and Trinity Gardens 
schools for remainder of this school year. (Minute Entry No. 
2 6 76 0). Copies of order mailed to all attorneys of record.mpcox 

Petition filed by plaintiffs for order modifying decree of January 
3 1 , 19 70 relating to graduating seniors and future status as 
senior high school of Trinity Gardens, filed by plaintiff,

Motion for continuance of hearing set for 9 ;30 A.M. this date, filed 
by defendant, Mobile County Council PTA,

Application for an Order to Show Cause why defendants should not be 
adjudged in civil contempt of this court for failing and refus­
ing to comply with this court's decree of January 21, 1970, 
filed by plaintiffs, , . _ ,Hearing in open court on motion filed by plaintiffs on Marcn 10, l - j ; o 
for leave to amend summons and complaint by adding Brewer and. 
Gallion, and to file supplemental complaint, and 

ORDER entered, DISMISSING petition, and requiring School Board to
follow the order of this court of January 31* 1970, as emended, 
within three (3 ) days from date, or a fin.e of $1 ,000.00 per 
day assessed for each such day against each member of the Boar 
of School Commissioners. (Minute Entry No. 26,771)

Certified copy of order delivered to U. S. Marshal for personal ser­
vice on Dr. Cranford Burns, Superintendent, and on each member 
of School Board.Copies of order delivered to attorneys Abe Philips, Walter Gorman, 
Vernon Crawford. .Copies of M/E 26,771 mailed to attorneys of record, ar.d̂  zo non.
Gordon Madison, Assistant Attorney General of Alabama.

Dato Ord« 
Judgment





CONTINUATION OF C I V I L  ACTION NO. 3' 

DOCKET SHEET N O. 1 5 .

D . C. 110A R e v . C iv il D o ck e t  C on tin u a tion

D A T E

3-17
3-17-70

3-1 8 -7 0

3-19

3-20

3-23

3-23

-70

-70

-70

- 7 0

3-23-70

3-23-70

3-26-
3-27-

70
70

3-30-70

3-31-70

PROCEEDINGS Dat
Jude

3-12-70 Judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, VACATING the 
preliminary Injunction issued by the U.S. District Court on 
May 16, 1969; case remanded to the District Court in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

70 |- NOTICE OF APPEAL filed by Defendant BOARD OF SCHOOL C0I1MI33I0NERS from order dated March 16, 1970.

4 - 3 - 7 0

Motion for stay of enforcement of order dated March 16, 1970, tendin'* 
appeal and thereafter until appellate remedies are exhausted", filed by defendant School Board.

Motion for stay of enforcement of orders of January 31, 1970 and 
March 16, 19 70 pending the filing of an action to test Legislative 
Act S. 1 passed on March k 3 1970 by Alabama Legislature, filed byj defendant School Board.

Motion for stay, filed by defendant on March 18, 1970, DENIED.
Return of Marshal filed, showing service of order of March 16, 1970 j 

on Superintendent and each member of School Board by personal service.
Certified copy of Order of Circuit Court of Appeals entered on 

March 19, 1970 DENYING appellants' motion for stay of orders of 
District Court dated January 31, 1970 and March 16, 1970 received; and filed,

Response to petition of plaintiffs filed on March 13, 1970 request-! 
ing that Trinity Gardens School be continued as a school serving j grades 7 through 12 f i l e d  by d e f e n d a n t  S c h o o l  B o a r d .

Motion to allow modification of Order of Court of January 3 1, 1970 j relative to ninth grade at Prichard Junior High School, Vigor Higfi 
School and Mobile County Training School, filed by defendant 
School Board,

Motion to modify court order of January 31* 1970 relative to Lein- 
kauf Elementary School, Hall Junior High School, Old Shell Rosi 
Elementary School, Caldwell Elementary School and Fmerson Elemen­
tary School, filed by defendant School Board,

Motion to modify court order of January 31* 1970 relative to Hall 
School, Craighead School, Williamson High School, Maryvale School, 
Woodcock Elementary School, Arlington Elementary School, filed 
by defendant School Board,

Withdrawal of Notice of Appeal from order dated March IS, 1370 
filed by defendant School Board.

Objection to supplementing the record on appeal by furnishing of 
certain maps and records and statistical tables by appellant 
United States Department of Justice filed by defendants,

Copy of order entered by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals directing 
district court to supplement its findings of fact in certain 
matters by filing within 20 days 9 items of information, and 
remanding case for purpose stated, entered by CCA 3-25-70.

Order entered by Thomas, Judge, pursuant to Order of CCA directing 
defendant Board of School Commissioners to furnish the court the 
information eet out in 9 paragraphs of CCA order not later than 
April 10, 1970 at 3:00 P. M. (Minute Entry No.- 26,887)

Copy of order mailed to all attorneys of record. WJO'C.
Motion filed by plaintiff on 3/H/79 for an order commanding the 

garnishee to pay over monies and for an order condemning same 
Is GRANTED

\



3-23-70

3-23-70

3-23-70

3-26-70
3-27-70

3-30-70

3-31-70

4-3-70

Motion to allow modification of Order of Court of January 31. 1970 j 
relative to ninth grade at Prichard Junior High School, Vigor Hig’ji 
School and Mobile County Training School, filed by defendant 
School Board,

Motion to modify court order of January 31, 1970 relative to Lein- 
kauf Elementary School, Hall Junior High School, Old Shell Ros j 
Elementary School, Caldwell Elementary School and Fmerson Elemen-| 
tary School, filed by defendant School Board,

Motion to modify court order of January 31, 1970 relative to Hall 
School, Craighead School, Williamson High School, Mary vale School!, 
Woodcock Elementary School, Arlington Elementary School, filed 
by defendant School Board,

Withdrawal of Notice of Appeal from order dated March lo, 1970 
filed by defendant School Board.

Objection to supplementing the record on appeal by furnishing of 
certain maps and records and statistical tables by appellant 
United States Department of Justice filed by defendants,

Copy of order entered by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals directing 
district court to supplement its findings of fact in certain 
matters by filing within 20 days 9 items of information, and 
remanding case for purpose stated, entered by CCA 3-25-70.

Order entered by Thomas, Judge, pursuant to Order of CCA directing 
defendant Board of School Commissioners to furnish the court the 
information eet out in 9 paragraphs of CCA order not later than 
April 10, 1970 at 3:00 P. M. (Minute Entry No.- 2 6,8 8 7)

Copy of order mailed to all attorneys of record. WJO'C.
Motion filed by plaintiff on 3/H/79 for an order commanding the 

garnishee to pay over monies and for an order condemning same 
Is GRANTED

(jQVBft)



D A T E

4 - 3 - 7 0

4-3-70
4 — 3 -7 0

4-3-70

4-3-70

4— 6 -7 0  

4-7-70

4-10-70
4-10-70

4-13-70

4-14-70
4-14-70

4— 15-70 
6— 2-70

6— 2-70

P R O C E E D IN G S  i
| J u d g m e n t

Petition filed by plaintiffs on 3/13/70 for order modifying decree 
of Jan. 31, 1970 relating to seniors attending Trinity Gardens 
High School is DENIED.

Response to plaintiff's motion for Order relative to Trinity Gardens 
School filed by defendants on 3/23/70 is DENIED.

Motion to allow modification of Order of Court of Jan. 31, 1970 
relative to ninth grade at Prichard Junior High School, etc., 
filed by defendants on 3/23/70 is DENIED.

Motion to allow modification of Order of Court of Jan. 31, 1970 
relative to Leinkauf Elementary School, etc., filed by de­
fendants on 3/23/70 is DENIED.

Motion to allow modification of Order of Court of Jan. 31, 1970 
relative to Hall School, etc., filed by defendants on 3/23/70 
is DENIED

Notice of all rulings of court of Apr. 3, 1970 mailed to all 
attorneys of record,

Motion to establish procedures on remand filed by plaintiffs,
ORDER entered directing Garnishee, The First National Bank of

Mobile to pay into Court the sum of $1,372.00 being the amount 
of costs owed by the defendants to the plaintiff and also 
DISMISSING garnishment proceedings as to Garnishees, The American 
National Bank & Trust Company of Mobile and the Merchants Nat'lj 
Bank of Mobile, see M/E 26,924,

Copy of M/E 26,924 mailed to attorneys of record and to Officer 
of each bank this date,

AFFIDAVIT filed by JAMES A. McPHERSON, Associate Superintendent of 
Mobile County Alabama Public School System, in response to 
Order of District Court dated March 31, 1970 requiring school 
board to furnish certain information, with exhibits attached,

Order received from CCA DENYING motion of appellants to enjoin m e  ; 
transfer pending appeal, of students from Trinity Gardens School 
to Blount School under Jan. 31* 1970 order.

Order received from CCA DENYING motion of appellants to require t h e , 
School Board to supplement the record, since matters sought will, 
be included in supplemental findings to be filed by district 
court.Motion to establish procedures on remand, filed by plaintiffs on 
April 6, 1970, DENIED. Notices mailed to attorneys.

SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT entered by Judge Daniel H. Thomas in 
response to order of appellate court entered March 25, 1970.
(Minute Entry No. 26,964). ^ _ ICertified copy of Findings of Fact mailed to Fifth Circuit Cour^ ô  
Appeals, with original affidavit of James A. McPherson and at­
tached exhibits. >Copy of Supplemental Findings of Fact mailed to attorneys ol record.;

Petition to implement order of desegregation entered by court on 1 
August 1, 1969 regarding Saraland (grades 1-5), Lee (grades 1-5), 
Adams (grades 1-7), and Satsuma (grades 8-12), filed by Board of 
School Commissioners,Petition,,to implement order of desegregation entered by court onAugust 19 6 9 regarding entire rural portion of the school sysT
tem, including the following schools: Alba (grades 1-12), Bur- ; 
roughs (grades 1-6), Davis (grades 1 -6 ), Dixon (grades 1-6),





D . C. 11OA R e v . C iv il D o ck e t  C on tin u a tion

CONTINUATION OF C IV IL ACTION NO. 300

DOCKET SHEET NO. l 6 .

DATE PROCEEDINGS Dat
Judg

' .6 — 2 -7 0

6 - 11-70

6 - 11-70

6-15-70

6 - 1 2 -7 0

6-29-70

Grand Bay (grades 1-6), Griggs (grades 1-6), Hollingers Island 
(grades 1-6), Mobile County High (grades 7-12), St. Elmo (grades 
7-8) and Theodore (grades 7-12), filed by Board of School Commis­
sioners,

Petition to implement order of desegregation entered by court on 
August 1, 1969 regarding that part of the netropolitan portion 
of the school system lying west of Interstate Highway 6 5* includ­
ing the area served by the following schools: Dickson (grades
1-5), Hillsdale (grades 6-8), Shaw (grades 1-5), Scarborough, 
(grades 6-8), Orchard (grades 9-f-12), and Will (grades 1-5), filed by 
Board of School Commissioners,

Received from the office of Judge Griffin B. Bell the Supplemental 
Record on Appeal in Case No. 29332 (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal^ 
Number) which recor d was filed in the Fifth Circuit on Aoril 1, 
1970. The documents were forwarded to the Clerk of the Fifth 
Circuit by Clerk of District Court by letter of trransmittal dated 
March 25, 1970. The documents received from Judge Bell's office are as follows:

1. Projected Enrollment under zone lines offered by the 
United States on Jan. 2 7, 1970.

2. Map No. 1 - Elementary
3. Map No. 2 - Middle Schools.
4. Map No. 3 - High Schools.

(MEMO: This item was placed in red manila file)
Judgment from U. S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, REVERSING 

U. S. District Court and remanding cause to District Court, 
issued as Mandate June 8, 1970,

Memorandum in opposition to school board's petition to modify 
attendance zones and grade structures filed by plaintiffs,

DECREE entered by court pursuant to reversal by Fifth Circuit Court 
of Appeals, ordering that the area attendance zones offered by 
U. S. Dept, of Justice on 1/27/1970 be assigned as the school 
zones under which the public school system will operate beginning 
with the 1970 Fall semester; further that the faculty and staff 
shall be assigned on a 60# white and 40# negro ratio; further 
that school board shall permit a student attending a school in 
which his race is in the majority to choose to attend another 
school where his race is in the minority, etc., further that 
school board is directed to continue to operate transportation, 
extra curricular activities and school facilities on a non- 
discriminatory basis, see Minute Entry No. 27,229 
copy of decree mailed to all attorneys on June 13, 1970.

Memorandum of United States in response to defendants' petitions 
to modify attendance zone lines and grade structures filed,

2-70 Order entered DENYING petition of defendant Board of School Commis-^ 
sioners to rearrange the attendance zones and grade structure of 
DIXON, HILLADALE, ORCHARD, SCARBOROUGH and WILL SCHOOLS as they 
were specified in the Court's order of August 1, 1969* (Minute 
Entry No. 27,316).Order entered GRANTING petition of School Board to amend its order 
of August 1, 1 9 6 9, as it concerns:7-2-70



f ' /-»i n - i r r\ • i o  m  3 .0  v» ^ r i I LJ/i 1

6-11-70

6-15-70

6 - 1 2 -7 0

6-29-70 

J — 2-70

7-2-70

.. -mu n s t  j  -  fgtf schools:
(MEMO: This item was placed in red manila file)
Judgment from U. S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, REVERSING 

U. S. District Court and remanding cause to District Court issued as Mandate June S, 1970,
Memorandum in opposition to school board's petition to modify 

attendance zones and grade structures filed by plaintiffs,
DECREE entered by court pursuant to reversal by Fifth Circuit Court 

of Appeals, ordering that the area attendance zones offered by 
U. S. Dept, of Justice on 1/27/1970 be assigned as the school 
zones under which the public school system will operate beginning 
with the 1970 Fall semester; further that the faculty and staff 
shall be assigned on a 60# white and 40# negro ratio; further 
that school board shall permit a student attending a school in 
which his race is in the majority to choose to attend another 
school where his race is in the minority, etc., further that 
school board is directed to continue to operate transportation, 
extra curricular activities and school facilities on a non­
disc riminatory basis, see Minute Entry No. 27,229 
copy of decree mailed to all attorneys on June 13, 1970.

Memorandum of United States in response to defendants' petitions 
to modify attendance zone lines and grade structures filed,

Order entered DENYING petition of defendant Board of School Commis­
sioners to rearrange the attendance zones and grade structure of 
DIXON, HILLADALE, ORCHARD, SCARBOROUGH and WILL SCHOOLS as they 
were specified in the Court's order of August 1, 1 9 6 9. (Minute 
Entry No. 27,316 ).

Order entered GRANTING petition of School Board to amend its order 
of August 1, 1 9 6 9, as it concerns:



D A T E P R O C E E D IN G S

Saraland School 
Lee School 
Adams School 
Satsuma School

Grades 1-5 
Grades 1-5 
Grades 6-8 
Grades 9-12

D ate Or<3«
Judtrment

7-2-70
7-7-70

7-9-70

students at which schools will attend as designated regardless of 
race. (Minute Entry No. 27,317)*
Copies of each above order mailed to attorneys of record.

ORDER entered that the school "DIXON" in the order of July 2, 1970 
in this cause should be corrected to read "DICKSON" (Min. Entry No. 
27342)Copies of Min/ Entry No. 27342 mailed to attorneys of record,

7-13-70

7-13-70

7-13-70

f-16-70 
I - 27-70
7-28-70
7-28-70

7-29-70
7-30-70

7 -3 0 -7 0

7-31-70

ORDER entered by court AMENDING court's order of June 12, 1970 
in the following respect:

"Pursuant to Footnote "4" of the opinion of the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals, entered on 6/8/70 the area attendance zones 
for the 19 6 9 -7 0 school year are amended as shown by the maps 
attached hereto marked Exhibit 1, 2, and 3 for the elementary, 
middle school and high schools respectively, Exhibit 4 attached 
hereto shows the feeder pattern for the entire school district,
In all other respects the Order of June 12, 1970, remains in 
full force and effect, see Min. Entry No. 27,371

Copy of court's order with Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 delivered to 
Abe Philips, C. S. White-Spunner, Jr., Vernon Z. Crawford 
and Wm. A. Kimbrough, Jr. this date,

Copy of court's order and Exhibit 4 only mailed to attorneys,
Michael Davidson, Walter Gorman, Ralph Kennamer, Pierre Pelham, 
Solomon S. Seay, Jr., this date,

Notice of Appeal, filed by Birdie Mae Davis, et al, plaintiffs, 
Projected Enrollment Date Under Zones Lines for High Schools,
Middle Schools, and Elementary Schools 

Notice of Appeal filed by Plalntiff-Intervenor, United States of 
America,Drder entered DENYING modification in reference to Griggs, Davis and 
Burroughs Schools as requested by defendants June 2, 1970, M/E 
No. 27,464

Order entered in regard to establishing bi-racial committee to serve 
in advisory capacity to School Board, Min. Entry No. 27,4o5,

Copies of Min. Entry No. 27,464 and 27,465 mailed to attorneys, 
Designation of contents filed by plaintiffs,
Designation of Record on Appeal and Request for Immediate Certifica­

tion and Transmittal, filed by Plaintiff-Intervenor, United States. 
Order entered making certain changes in July 13, 1970 order pertain­

ing to Dodge School, Dickson School and Westlawn, Min. Entry uo. 
27,472, Copies mailed to attorneys of record/Exhitits 1,2,3 (maps) Record on appeal mailed to U. S. Court of Appeals, New Orleans, La., 
with 3 exhibits (3maps), and letter of transmittal, copies of 
which were mailed to attorneys,Designation of Record on Appeal, filed by defendants; Supplemental 

Record on Appeal, mailed to U. S. Court of Appeals, New Orleans, La.





v / v / w  j. x n u n x  a n c m  u r  o x  v  j . jl» I I U 'O T W W I  1N U  .  ^ U U 3 -

DOCKET SH EET N O . 1 7 -

D . O. 110A H er. C lr ll  D o ck e t  C o n t in u a tio n

D A T E

8— 5-7C

8-12-70

8 - 12-70

8 - 12-70

8 -1 7 -7 0

8 - 20-70

8-21-70

8-21-70
3-23-70

8-31-70

PROCEEDINGS

OPINION-ORDER on motion for Injunctive relief pending application 
for certiorari, or in the alternative, to vacate the order of the 
district court entered on July 13, 1970 in implementation of CCA 
decision of June 8, 1970 as to student assignment. By order of 
CCA injunctive relief DENIED, and order of July 13, 1970, modifie 
establishment of a bi-racial advisory committee to the school 
board ordered established forthwith. This opinion and order amen 
and supplements CCA decision and order of June 8 , 1970 and shall 
be considered the final order on this appeal for mandate and cert

Da
Judi

a,

is

iorari purposes.
Order entered appointing BI-RACIAL COMMITTEE pursuant to order of 

this court of July 28, 1970, (Minute Entry No. 27527), committee 
to be composed of DR. SANFORD D. BISHOP, MR. ISOM CLEM0N, MR.
M. C. FARMER, MRS. H. EUGENE GIBBONS, MRS. T. C. GILL, MR. ARTHUF 
OUTLAW, BISHOP W. T. PHILLIPS, MR. 0. B. PURIF0Y, MR. K. MINGE 
REED, JR. and MR. BEVERLY R. WILSON, JR. (Copies of order mailed 
to each member by Judge Thomas).

Order entered AMENDING ORDER of July 13, 1970, as amended July 30, 
1970, so that ROBBINS and HAMILTON elementary schools are to be paired. (Minute Entry No. 27,528).

Copies of Minute Entries 27527 and 27528 mailed to attorneys of 
record

N O U l c e  or *HppeajL irom uruex- ui duxyBirdie Mae Davis, et al, copies mailed to attorneys o* reooro..
Notice of Appeal from Order of August 12, 1970 filed by p-aintiffs,

_ . .  ~ ~  -r ^  r-, <-> -t T /-s 4- /-n c f  f  r\ ir - ^  6  C O T - ^  -
L /1 C C  U i  x a  win ------o -------- --------- j  ^ ‘Birdie Mae Davis, et al, copies mailed to attorneys o:

___ . /■%___ nr TOiTPMmADV IATHTiT T? onH T-TTH-T-
d ,rsiraie i»ictc w v i d ,. "rrtrir a utpu on,rnnT <;Prolected Enrollment Data for ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE and HIGH SPOOLS 

broken down as to U. S. District Court Plan unaer order o, 
7/13/70* Fifth Circuit Plan; and U. S. District Court *1»n
under order of 7/30/7 0, filed by court. .. „ .ORDER entered that defendants are directed to  report oo the Couxt 

weekly as to each transfer request filed with the school auw^. 
ities or School Board during said week and a report snowing *n- 
disp?s??lon made to such requests, both by the p ro fessio n a ls  and
the School Board (Min. Entry No. 27565) . .. .Copies of Min. Entry No. 27565 mailed to attorneys ox record t ..is
date by Mr. O ’Connor,Record on Appeal mailed to U. S. Court o f  Appeais New Crleans, L.., 
with letter of transmittal, copy of which was mailed^ *0 attorneys, 

OPINION-ORDER OF the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, said order 
dated Aug. 23, 1970, ruling as follows:1 Middle School & High School Zone lines shall De same ao tnose 

set for in July 13, 1970, order of district ̂ court 
Elementary school zones shall be modified as iox-OWa.

'a) Palmer & Glendale Schools shall be paired.^
Council & Leinkauf Schools shall be paired Area of Whitley zone * * * that lies west ox V.ixson 
Avenue shall become a part of Chickasaw zone.Area In Westlawn zone * * * that lies north Ox Dauphin 
St. shall become part of Old Shell Road school zone.

3 . Counsel will confer & make facts available regarding de­
segregation of the school system staxfs. 

i|. (See Other side)_____

(d)



b - 1 7 - 7 0

8-2 0 -70

8-2 1 - 7 0

8-2 1 - 7 0

8-2 8 -7 0

8-3 1 - 7 0

Notice of Appeal from Order of July 3 0, 1970 filed by pia^t^ffs/ 
Birdie Mae Davis, et al, copies mailed to attorneys of --ecô d 

Notice of Appeal from Order of August 12, 19 70 filed by ulaintlffs 
Birdie Mae Davis, et al, copies mailed to attorneys of record ' 

Projected Enrollment Data for ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE and HIGH SCHOOLS 
broken down as to U. S. District Court Plan under order of7/13/70; Fifth Circuit Plan; and U. S. District Court Plan 
under order of 7/30/70, filed by court.

ORDER entered that defendants are directed to report to the Court 
weekly as to each transfer request filed with the school author­
ities or School Board during said week and a report showing the 
disposition made to such requests, both by the professionals and 
the School Board (Min. Entry No. 27565)

Copies of Min. Entry No. 27565 mailed to attorneys of record this date by Mr. O ’Connor,
Record on Appeal mailed to U. S. Court of Appeals, New Orleans, La.

with letter of transmittal, copy of which was mailed z o attorneys 
OPINION-ORDER OF the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, said order dated Aug. 28, 1970, ruling as follows:

1 . Middle School & High School Zone lines shall be same as those 
set for in July 13, 19 7 0, order of district court 

Elementary school zones shall be modified as follows

3.
4 .

Palmer & Glendale Schools shall be paired.
Council & Leinkauf Schools shall be paired.
Area of Whitley zone * * * that lies west of Wilson 
Avenue shall become a part of Chickasaw zone.
Area in West lawn zone * * * that lies north of Dauphin 
St. shall become part of Old Shell Road school zone. 

Counsel will confer & make facts available regarding de­segregation of the school system staffs.(See Other side)

(d)



9-1-70

PR O C EE D IN G S D ate OrcU
J u d gm en t

/

if. Students who refuse to attend the schools to which they are 
assigned by school board under order of District Court shall 
not be permitted to participate in any school activities, 
including the talcing of examinations and shall not receive grades or credit.

*(. Any time School Board desires to have changes in zone lines 
made, it shall give reasonable notice to the parties 

ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF JULY 30, 1970, IS IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS AFFIRMED.
Petition filed by School Board to be allowed to modify implementatior 

of court's orders of July 13 and 30, 1970 to BE ALLOWED TO CON­
TINUE OPERATION OF THE SIXTH GRADE AT WESTLAWN SCHOOL. (Court 
orders eleminated the sixth grade at Westlawn School and reassign­
ed sixth grade students in Westlawn zone to Washington Junior 
High School and Sidney Phillips Junior High School.)

Petition filed by School Board to be allowed to modify implementation 
of court's orders of July 13 and 30, 1970 to be ALLOWED TO CON­
TINUE OPERATION OF THE SIXTH GRADE AT MORNINGSIDE SCHOOL. (Court 

I order aleminated the sixth grade at Morningside School and reas­
signed sixth grade at Morningside to Mae Eanes Junior High 
School.)

Petition filed by School Board to be allowed to Modify implementation 
; of court's orders of July 13 and 30, 1970 to REDRAW ZONE BOUNDARY 

LINES BETWEEN THE MERTZ ZONE AND THE MORNINGSIDE ZONE to provide 
for reassignment of students in Belvedere Park and Gulf Terra 
areas.

Petition filed by School Board to be allowed to modify implementatior 
of court's orders of July 13 and 30, 1970 to BE ALLOWED TO AS­
SIGN STUDENTS IN GRADES 7-9 LIVING IN MERTZ ELEMENTARY ZONE, to 
MAE EANES JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL. (Court orders assigned.students 
in grades 7-9 to Washington Junior High School.)

Petition filed by School Board to be allowed to modify implementation 
of court's orders of July 13 and 30, 1970 to CONTINUE OPERATION 
OF THE SIXTH GRADE AT THE MERTZ SCHOOL. (Court order eliminated 
the sixth grade at Mertz School and reassigned sixth grade in 
the Mertz Zone to Washington Junior High School.)

Petition filed by School Board requesting the court to reopen
Arlington School to serve grades 1-5 for the 1970-71 school yr,



■



Docket Entries



2a

Oral motion of the plaintiffs that Charles E. McNeil be 
substituted as President of the Board of School Commis­
sioners of Mobile County in place of William B. Crane, who 
was named as Chairman of the Board, is hereby granted.

Oral motion of plaintiff to amend affidavit of Mrs. Ola 
Mae Davis is granted and plaintiff is allowed one week 
within which to file said amendment.

Motion for preliminary injunction set for hearing this 
date, at 9 :30 a.m., submitted on affidavits pursuant to the 
order of court of April 12,1963, is taken under submission. 
The plaintiffs are allowed to and including May 24, 1963, 
within which to file brief in support thereof, and defendants 
are allowed to and including June 10, 1963, to file reply 
brief.

Done at Mobile, Alabama, this 25th day of April 1963.

Daniel H . T homas 
District Judge

District Court Order of April 25 , 1963



3a

Before T uttle, Chief Judge, 
and R ives and B ell, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam.

This case is here on a petition for an order directing 
Honorable Daniel H. Thomas, United States District Judge 
for the Southern District of Alabama, to amend an order 
entered April 25, 1963, to show a motion on behalf of ap­
pellants for an immediate order requiring the School Com­
missioners to submit a plan of desegregation within thirty 
days and that this motion was denied by the court, or in 
the alternative, for an order directing a prompt deter­
mination of the motion of appellants for a preliminary 
injunction, now under submission in the District Court.

AppeHants have filed a notice of appeal. Their petition 
is in the nature of an appeal from the denial of the injunc­
tion sought on the premise that a failure to rule amounts 
to denial, and is therefore appealable, citing United States 
v. Lynd, 5 Cir., 1962, 301 F.2d 818. The petition is also in 
the nature of an application for writ of mandamus, but is 
deficient in this respect in that it was not brought against 
the District Judge, nor was he accorded an opportunity to 
answer.

We test the petition on the basis of whether there has 
been an abuse of discretion on the part of the District 
Judge. The assertion is that there was an abuse because 
briefs were requested, and time allowed for the filing there­
of, by the court at the time of taking the motion under 
submission. Appellants contend that the court should have 
ruled forthwith in view of the undisputed fact that the pub­
lic schools in Mobile are segregated according to race.

Court of Appeals Opinion of May 24, 1963



4a

We hold that there was no abuse of discretion, but with 
this caveat. The matter of the grant or denial of the motion 
for preliminary injunction, should, as in every case, be 
promptly determined. It is the duty of Judge Thomas to 
promptly rule on this motion for preliminary injunction.

It appears that the public schools of Mobile are in fact 
segregated according to race. This will not do under Brown 
v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1954, 347 U.S. 483, 71 
S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873. This decision is binding on Judge 
Thomas. It is binding on all District Courts and all District 
Judges, just as it is binding on this court. The Supreme 
Court in the second Brown case, 1955, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 
753, 99 L.Ed. 1083, and in Cooper v. Aaron, 1958, 358 U.S. 
1, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5, wisely left an area of dis­
cretion in the desegregation process to the District Courts, 
feeling that they were close to the local problems, and to 
school officials, and the children involved. However, the 
amount of time available for the transition from segregated 
to desegregated schools becomes more sharply limited with 
the passage of the years since the first and second Brown 
decisions. Thus it is that this court must require prompt 
and reasonable starts, even displacing the District Court 
discretion, where local control is not desired, or is abdi­
cated by failure to promptly act.

The petition is denied and the appeal dismissed. The 
Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.

Court of Appeals Opinion of May 24, 1963



5a

Daniel H olcombe T homas, District Judge.

This cause was submitted on plaintiffs’ motion for a pre­
liminary injunction, directing defendants to present for 
approval of the court, within a period to be determined by 
the court, a plan for the reorganization of the entire school 
system of Mobile County, Alabama, into a unitary non- 
racial system.

The motion purportedly sought relief in the alternative, 
but the first alternative prayed permanent relief “upon the 
conclusion of the trial” and hence did not seek interlocutory 
relief.

The complaint and motion in this case were filed on 
March 27, 1963. On April 25, plaintiffs urged the granting 
of the motion and suggested, in open court, without pre­
vious notice, thirty days as the period of time to be de­
termined by the court in which defendants should be or­
dered to submit a plan for the reorganization of the Mobile 
County School system. The court took the motion under 
submission on that date, and directed the parties to file 
briefs within designated times. The court’s action in this 
matter was appealed by plaintiffs, and the appeal was dis­
missed by the Court of Appeals by order dated May 24, 
1963.

For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied as to 
the specific relief requested, requiring the presentation of 
a plan within thirty days. However, an interlocutory order 
will be entered which will assure the protection of the rights 
of the plaintiffs.

Based upon the affidavits filed by plaintiffs and respon­
dents and on facts of which the court takes judicial notice, 
the court makes the following findings of fact.

District Court Opinion of June 24, 1963



6a

District Court Opinion of June 24, 1963 

F indings of F act

1. The Mobile County School System is administered by 
the Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, a 
five-man Board. The professional staff is under the direc­
tion of a County Superintendent of Education and his sev­
eral Assistant Superintendents, each being in charge of 
a particular phase of Board activities.

2. During the school year 1962-63, there were 89 schools 
in the Mobile County School system, accommodating a 
pupil load of approximately 75,000 pupils. More than 2,370 
teachers are employed in addition to 105 non-teaching 
school principals and assistants. More than 200 public 
school busses are operated by the Board in the transpor­
tation of school children in Mobile County.

3. The schools of Mobile County are, and have been since 
the end of World War II, seriously overcrowded. During 
this period, the pupil load has doubled. Forty-two percent 
of the increase in the number of pupils in the State of 
Alabama since 1940, has occurred in Mobile County. The 
average annual pupil increase has been 3,000.

4. As a result of the rapid growth of the school popu­
lation, a building program sufficient to house properly the 
students fell five years behind. As a consequence, it was 
necessary to institute half-day or “ double” sessions, the 
number of pupils in double sessions amounting to as many 
as 14,000 at one time.



7a

5. In an effort to accommodate the pupil load, the School 
Board has engaged in an accelerated building program, and 
as a result the physical facilities are gradually overtaking 
the deficit. The administrative staff of the School Board 
has employed careful planning to utilize the space avail­
able, and throughout this period has resorted to the trans­
portation of pupils from crowded schools nearer their 
homes to more distant schools where less crowded condi­
tions existed. Many wooden portable classrooms have been 
constructed and utilized at the more crowded schools. As 
a result of these efforts, the number of pupils in double 
sessions has gradually decreased over the years.

6. Fourteen new schools, with more than three hundred 
rooms, are under construction or are about to be com­
menced, designed for occupancy in September of 1964. At 
that time, for the first time since World War II, it is prob­
able that no student within the system will be in double­
session classes. However, double sessions must continue 
through the school year 1963-64.

7. In normal years, in the Mobile County School System, 
the planning for a school term commences in March before 
the term beginning in September. The Board of School 
Commissioners of Mobile County followed the stated prac­
tice, and the planning for the session 1963-64 began in 
March of 1963.

8. Planning by the School Board staff consists of an 
ascertainment of pupil load based upon careful estimates 
and formulae derived from the experience of past years.

District Court Opinion of June 24, 1963



8a

The gross pupil load for each school is then broken down 
into class-by-class figures which are furnished to the As­
sistant Superintendents. Based upon these figures, classes 
are organized and pupils assigned thereto; the curriculum 
is established for each school; necessary supplies are deter­
mined and ordered; class-room teachers are assigned, in­
volving in many cases individual transfers; and school 
busses are allocated and routed.

9. The registration of the first-grade pupils for the term 
1963-64 was accomplished before the end of the last pre­
ceding school term. Each registrant was placed in a class, 
and teacher assignments made.

10. Substantially all of the planning for the 1963-64 
school session has already taken place, and most of the 
necessary administrative details have been accomplished. 
Teachers and the administrative personnel of the various 
schools have largely departed the area for additional pro­
fessional schooling, or are on vacation, or in other summer 
employment. 11

11. Any major re-allocation of pupils, as would be re­
quired in a general desegregation process, would require 
the abandonment of planning already accomplished and 
the evolving of new plans. Such planning would he more 
difficult of accomplishment than a normal plan in that the 
administrative personnel would be without knowledge of 
pupil distribution, and the formulae evolved in normal 
years would be inappropriate. Many administrative details 
already accomplished would require cancellation. It would 
he necessary that administrative and teaching personnel he

District Court Opinion of June 24, 1963



9a

available for consultation and study of the problems pecu­
liar to each of the schools involved. Many of these per­
sonnel are unavailable.

12. Teaching personnel would have to be re-assigned in 
many instances. In the realm of teacher assignment and 
transfer, many human difficulties exist. Consideration of 
community needs must be co-ordinated with consideration 
of individual teacher qualifications and personality. It 
would be necessary to ascertain the qualifications of each 
teacher to be assigned to desegregated schools.

13. By reason of limited physical facilities, personnel 
problems, and administrative commitments, it is not now, 
nor has it been since the hearing of the motion, reasonably 
possible to reorganize the school system of Mobile County 
within such time as to affect the school year 1963-64.

14. The applications by the individual student plaintiffs 
for transfer to Baker High School during January 1963, 
were denied for valid administrative reasons.

Opinion

Under the circumstances disclosed by the findings of fact, 
it is clear that the motion for interlocutory relief cannot be 
granted as a practical matter, independent of other consid­
erations. The radical revision of school attendance areas 
and other far-reaching administrative changes in the city- 
county school system contemplated by the motion, simply 
cannot be managed within the time available. It is very 
doubtful that it could have been managed within a period

District Court Opinion of June 24, 1963



10a

of four to six months, even if all teachers and other admin­
istrative personnel were available for the entire time, which 
they are not. It is certain that no such order could now be 
made effective in the absence of every element which would 
be essential to its success—time, people, and, in all prob­
ability, money.

No plan or basis for general rearrangement of an entire 
local school system should be required by this or any court 
without affording to both the school authorities and the 
public ample time for consideration and discussion of alter­
natives. The arbitrary, hasty, and premature imposition 
of a plan would defeat the intended purpose and would 
create confusion, and impair the educational process for 
all pupils.

That it is impossible to predict what specific plan would 
be required upon the final outcome of this case, is made 
plain by the decision of Judge Lynne for the Northern Dis­
trict of Alabama in Armstrong v. Birmingham Board of 
Education, 220 F.Supp. 217. That decision was filed on 
May 28, 1963, after the submission of this motion. It holds, 
following the decision upholding the validity of the Ala­
bama school placement and related laws by the Supreme 
Court of the United States in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 
Board of Education, 358 U.S. 101, 79 S.Ct. 221, 3 L.Ed.2d 
145 (1958), that the principle of the Brown case can be 
fairly and adequately applied by the school authorities 
through the processing of applications pursuant to the 
State laws, and that any denial of constitutional rights in 
the handling of such applications can be corrected by the 
District Court on motion or by other proper proceeding.

District Court Opinion of June 24, 1963



11a

Although the Armstrong decision would not necessarily 
be controlling here after final hearing, it does furnish a 
sound and appropriate basis for rejecting the notion that 
the sweeping reorganization proposed by the motion is now 
necessary for plaintiffs’ protection.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 318 F.2d 63, in its 
per curiam opinion in this case, handed down on May 24, 
1963, had this to say: “ The Supreme Court in the second 
Brown case [Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka], 
1955, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083, and in 
Cooper v. Aaron, 1958, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 
5, wisely left an area of discretion in the desegregation 
process in the District Courts, feeling that they were close 
to the local problems, and to school officials, and the chil­
dren involved.”

In line with this, I feel compelled to state here that this 
court ordered the desegregation of the municipal golf 
course in Mobile on the 13th day of March 1961. That case 
had been held under advisement for fourteen months. The 
opinion was written long prior to its release. The time of 
release was chosen by the court as being opportune, and 
evidently it was. There has been no incident on the golf 
course since its integration.

This court took under submission on July 25, 1961, mo­
tions to dismiss in the desegregation case involving the 
facilities of the Mobile Municipal Airport. On October 3, 
1961, the motions were denied. The case is still pending, 
but will be dismissed as moot. The Airport facilities have 
long since been integrated. The court, close to the com­
munity and its problems, believed that this would come 
about voluntarily and without the necessity of judicial en­

District Court Opinion of June 24, 1963



12a

forcement. Relying upon this belief proved providential. 
There has not been the first incident.

There is now pending in this court a case for the deseg- 
regation of the City Bus Lines for the City of Mobile. The 
City Bus Lines have long since been integrated. There 
have been no incidents, though the court has never ruled 
on this case. This case, at the appropriate time, will also 
very likely be dismissed as moot, though there is one city 
ordinance which must either be repealed or be stricken 
down by the court.

The libraries in the City of Mobile have long since been 
integrated, though no case was ever filed for their inte- 
gation. Many drugstore lunch counters in Mobile are inte­
grated, and many chain-store lunch counters have been 
integrated, though no suits have been filed.

Mobile is perhaps the most desegregated city in the 
South, with no unfortunate incidents. I f and when the 
appellate courts are called upon to pass on the procedure 
which the District Court here outlines, is it too much to ask 
that they be mindful of that “ area of discretion in the 
desegregation process to the District Courts,” left by the 
Supreme Court in the second Brown case, and approved 
as wise by the Court of Appeals for this Circuit in the 
instant case? If so, this court has every reason to believe 
that the mandate of the court will be honestly, conscien­
tiously, and fairly carried out with the least possible, if not 
complete absence of, unfortunate incidents.

The specific relief prayed for in the motion will be de­
nied. The case will be set for trial on the 14th day of 
November 1963. Consideration of the motion to dismiss,

District Court Opinion of June 24, 1963



13a

District Court Opinion of June 24, 1963

filed by the defendants, will be reserved until the trial of 
the cause. Defendants will be granted twenty days from 
the date of this order to file an answer.

In addition to any other relevant evidence which defen­
dants may choose to offer, they will be directed to prepare 
and present at the trial a specific plan for the operation 
of the schools of Mobile County on a racially non-discrim- 
inatory basis, consistent with the principles established by 
the Supreme Court, to commence at the beginning of the 
1964-65 school year.

Entered this the 24th day of June 1963.



14a

Before Brown, W isdom and B ell, Circuit Judges. 

P er Curiam .

Plaintiffs here seek an injunction by this Court pending 
our determination of the merits of an appeal from an order 
entered on June 24, 1963, by the District Court for the 
Southern District of Alabama. This suit originated when 
Plaintiffs filed a class action seeking the desegregation of 
the Mobile County school system. Plaintiffs sought an im­
mediate order requiring the Defendant School Commis­
sioners to submit a plan of desegregation within thirty days. 
This motion was denied by the District Court. In the alter­
native, Plaintiffs sought a preliminary and permanent in­
junction prohibiting the further operation of segregated 
schools. The Court took this motion under submission and 
ordered briefs to be filed within a specified time. Plaintiffs 
appealed from this ruling asserting that the failure to im­
mediately rule on the motion for preliminary injunction 
amounted to a denial of the motion. On that appeal, this 
Court held that the trial Judge had not abused his discre­
tion. Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 
County, 5 Cir., 1963, 318 F.2d 63.

Subsequently, the District Court held a hearing and made 
the following determination. By its order of June 24, the 
Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. 
The case was set for trial on November 14, 1963 and the 
Defendants were directed “ to present at the trial * * * a 
specific plan for the operation of the schools under their 
authority and control on a racially non-discriminatory 
basis, consistent with the principles established by the Su-

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963



15a

prerae Court, to commence not later than the beginning of 
the 1964-65 school year.” It is from this order that Plain­
tiffs have appealed to this Court, seeking in the meantime 
an injunction requiring the Mobile County schools to com­
mence integration not later than September 1963.

We are in agreement with Plaintiff’s theory. The De­
fendant Board has not come forward with an acceptable 
reason why the integration program should be further de­
layed. No one disputes that the public schools of Mobile 
County are presently operated on a segregated basis.

“It is now more than nine years since this Court held 
in the first Brown decision * * # 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 
686, 98 L. Ed. 873, that racial segregation in state pub­
lic schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment.

# # # # #

“Given the extended time which has elapsed, it is far 
from clear that the mandate of the second Brown deci­
sion [349 U.S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 1083] re­
quiring that desegregation proceed with ‘all deliberate 
speed’ would today be fully satisfied by types of plans 
or programs for desegregation of public educational 
facilities which eight years ago might have been 
deemed sufficient. Brown never contemplated that the 
concept of ‘deliberate speed’ would countenance in­
definite delay in elimination of racial barriers in 
schools # * Watson v. City of Memphis, 1963, 373 
U.S. 526, 83 S. Ct. 1314, 10 L. Ed.2d 529.

“Now * * * eight years after [the second Brown deci­
sion] was rendered and over nine years after the first

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963



16a

Brown decision, the context in which we must interpret 
and apply this language [‘all deliberate speed’] to 
plans for desegregation has been significantly altered.” 
Goss v. Board of Education of City of Knoxville, 1963 
373 U.S. 683, 83 S. Ct. 1405, 10 L. Ed.2d 632.

The District Judge in his memorandum opinion discusses 
two principal reasons why preliminary injunctive relief 
should not now be granted. The first is that there would 
be an impossible administrative burden placed on the school 
system. The second is the Court’s belief, based upon ex­
perience over the past several years in other race civil 
rights matters, that if this action is not too hastily taken, 
the problem will work itself out with no strife or similar 
consequences.

For reasons which bear on both of them, we think neither 
of these grounds is sufficient. The administrative problem 
is not one created by the Plaintiffs. They have for nearly 
a year sought without success to get the school authorities 
to desegregate the schools. The fact that the suit was not 
filed until March 1963 is not therefore of controlling im­
portance. As to the second ground, there is nothing on the 
present record to afford either the District Judge or this 
Court any assurance that the requested forebearance will 
produce effective results. The Defendants have not even 
answered as yet. They have filed a motion to dismiss for 
failure to state a claim. Although it seems to be acknowl­
edged on all hands that a racially segregated system is still 
maintained, the Defendants’ legal position under this mo­
tion is that the Plaintiffs have not set forth a claim entitling 
them to relief. So far as this record shows, the Defendant

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963



17a

school authorities have not to this day ever acknowledged 
that (a) the present system is constitutionally invalid or 
(b) that there is any obligation on their part to make any 
changes at any time. At this late date the Plaintiffs, who 
represent Negro children who are presently being denied 
constitutional rights, are entitled to minimum effective re­
lief. With the trial date now fixed in November, it means 
that effective relief is denied for another school year with 
no assurance that even at such later date anything but a 
reaffirmation of the teaching of the Brown decision will be 
forthcoming. The Plaintiffs showed a clear case entitling 
them to interim relief pending a final hearing, and it was 
an abuse of the District Court’s discretion not to enter a 
preliminary injunction.

The “All Writs” statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651, gives us the 
power to grant the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Stell v. 
Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education, 5 Cir., 
1963, 318 F.2d 425. However, as in that case, we think it 
more appropriate to frame the injunction and direct by 
mandate that this injunction be made the order of the Dis­
trict Court.

It is therefore, Ordered that the District Court for the 
Southern District of Alabama enter the following judgment 
and order:

"The Defendant, Board of School Commissioners of 
Mobile County and the other individual Defendants 
(naming them specifically) and their agents, servants, 
employees, successors in office and those in concert with 
them who shall receive notice of this order, be and they 
are hereby restrained and enjoined from requiring and 
permitting segregation of the races in any school un­

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963



18a

der their supervision, from and after such time as may 
be necessary to make arrangements for admission of 
children to such schools on a racially non-discrimina- 
tory basis with all deliberate speed, as required by the 
Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education of 
Topeka, 1955, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 
1083.

“ It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that 
said persons be and they are hereby required to make 
an immediate start in the desegregation of the school 
of Mobile County, and that a plan be submitted to the 
District Court by August 1, 1963, which shall include a 
statement that the maintenance of separate schools for 
the Negro and white children of Mobile County shall 
be completely ended with respect to the first grade 
during the school year commencing September 1963, 
and with respect to at least one successively higher 
additional grade each school year thereafter.”

The District Court may modify this order to defer de­
segregation of rural schools in Mobile County until Sep­
tember 1964, should the District Court after further hear­
ing conclude that special planning of administrative prob­
lems for rural schools in the county make it impracticable 
for such schools to start desegregation in September 1963.

This order shall remain in effect until the final deter­
mination of the appeal of the within case in the Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on the merits, and until the 
further order of this Court. During the pendency of this 
order the trial court is further directed to enter such other 
and further orders as may be appropriate or necessary in 
carrying out the expressed terms of this order.

The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963



19a

Bell, Circuit Judge (dissenting).

I dissent. I would support the view of the District Judge 
that the time remaining before the opening of school in 
September is insufficient to make the change from a segre­
gated to a desegregated school system as requested.

The chance of disruption of the educational process in 
Mobile likely to be encountered in planning and effecting 
the necessary changes on such short notice outweighs the 
damage which may be incurred by Plaintiffs in waiting 
another year. Thus, I would not hold that the District 
Judge abused his discretion. The loss of the year can be 
made up by requiring that two grades be desegregated be­
ginning in 1964. I would join in the order if it encompassed 
this change.

Time for the effectuation of orderly school management 
procedures is essential, and we should be careful not to give 
rise to an untoward situation in school administration at 
this late hour. Registration for the upcoming term has been 
completed, and school officials and staffs are in the vaca­
tion season. This is particularly so where we are passing 
on a motion in a case not filed until March, 1963.

Ok  P etition for R ehearing

Per Curiam .

This matter is before the Court on the petitioners’ appli­
cation for a rehearing.

July 9, 1963, this Court by mandate directed the District 
Court to enter an injunction and order requiring the Board

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963



20a

of Commissioners of Mobile County to submit to the Dis­
trict Court by August 1, 1963, a step-ladder plan for de­
segregating the public schools in Mobile, starting with the 
first grade in September 1963. Three days later, another 
panel of the Court decided Armstrong v. Board of Educa­
tion of the City of Birmingham, No. 20595, 5 Cir., 323 F.2d 
333. In that case the Court declined to issue an injunction 
pending appeal which would go so far as to provide “when 
and how the complete desegregation of the public schools 
may be accomplished.” The Court’s mandate requires the 
Birmingham School Board to submit by August 19, 1963, 
a plan for an immediate start in desegregation by applying 
the Alabama Pupil Placement Law to all school grades.

At this initial stage in the travail of desegregating the 
public schools in Alabama, the School Boards of Mobile 
and Birmingham face substantially the same social, legal, 
and administrative difficulties. We express no opinion of 
the merits of uniformity in school desegregation as against 
a school board’s tailoring a plan and a trial judge’s shaping 
a decree, to fit a particular school system. But we have 
reached the conclusion that at this early point in the legal 
proceedings, at a time when no school board in Alabama 
has formulated any plan for desegregation, there should 
not be one law for Birmingham and another for Mobile. 
We have decided therefore to conform the Mobile order to 
the Birmingham order.

Accordingly, the Court amends the judgment and order 
of July 9, 1963, issued as the mandate, by deleting the fol­
lowing paragraph:

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963



21a

“ It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that 
said persons be and they are hereby required to make 
an immediate start in the desegregation of the school 
of Mobile County, and that a plan be submitted to the 
District Court by August 1, 1963, which shall include a 
statement that the maintenance of separate schools for 
the Negro and white children of Mobile County shall 
be completely ended with respect to the first grade dur­
ing the school year commencing September 1963, and 
with respect to at least one successively higher addi­
tional grade each school year thereafter.”

and, in lieu thereof, directs the District Court for the South­
ern District of Alabama to enter the following paragraph 
as its judgment and order:

“It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that 
said persons be and they are hereby required to submit 
to this Court not later than August 19, 1963, a plan 
under which the said defendants propose to make an 
immediate start in the desegregation of the schools of 
Mobile County, Alabama, which plan shall effectively 
provide for the carrying into effect not later than the 
beginning of the school year commencing September 
1963 and thereafter of the Alabama Pupil Placement 
Law as to all school grades without racial discrimina­
tion, including ‘the admission of new pupils entering 
the first grade, or coming into the County for the first 
time, on a nonracial basis,’ Augustus v. Board of Pub­
lic Instruction, 5 Cir., 1962, 306 F.2d 862, 869 (that 
opinion describes such a plan which has been approved 
and is operating in Pensacola, Florida).”

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963



22a

As in the Birmingham decision, the order contemplates 
a full hearing before the District Court. The District Court 
will therefore go forward with the trial already fixed for 
November 14, 1963.

Except to the extent expressly granted herein, the peti­
tioners’ application for a rehearing is denied.

The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate, as amended, 
forthwith.

B ell, Circuit Judge (concurring in part and dissenting 
in part).

The modification by the majority of their prior order in 
this case compounds error. Of course, I agree to the modifi­
cation to the extent that it may alleviate disruption of the 
educational process in Mobile during the 1963-1964 school 
term.

My understanding of this latest order is not altogether 
clear. It appears to simply require activation, under some 
plan yet to be worked out, of the Alabama School Place­
ment Law which was adopted by the Legislature of that 
State in 1957, and which was approved as constitutional on 
its face in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Board of Educa­
tion, N. D. Ala., 1958, 162 F. Supp. 372, affirmed 358 U.S. 
101, 79 S. Ct. 221, 3 L. Ed.2d 145. It is not likely that any 
appreciable amount of desegregation will take place under 
that law at this late date. The protective measures assured 
by Judge Lynne in the Armstrong case of a hearing on com­
plaints if and where the plan or law is administered on the 
basis of race on five days notice is not present in Mobile. 
It is an inherently complicated law providing many factors 
which may be considered in making pupil assignments. We

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963



23a

have only recently eliminated two of them in the Atlanta 
school case where we said that the use of scholastic stand­
ards and personality interviews as a basis in transfer and 
assignment were illegal per se which applied only to Ne­
groes. Calhoun v. Latimer, 5 Cir., 1963, 321 F.2d 302. 
Others were eliminated or limited when that case was in 
the District Court. Calhoun v. Board of Education, N. D. 
Ga., 188 F. Supp. 401. Working out a meaningful plan will 
not be easy, and will require more than the cursory and per­
functory treatment the case has received here.

Moreover, what was done in Birmingham may or may 
not be relevant to Mobile. The case there had been pending 
in the District Court some three years. The District Court 
conducted a hearing and had certain representatives from 
the school board as to how the Pupil Placement Law would 
be administered. Here no party has ever mentioned using 
this law. The District Court has never considered it.

This case is set for trial on the merits in November. A  
pending motion to dismiss is set at the same time. The 
District Court has ordered the school board to propose at 
that time a plan for desegregation of the school system be­
ginning in September 1964 within the teachings of the Su­
preme Court decisions on that subject.

It has been the position of appellants that their ultimate 
right to a desegregated school system is cast in doubt by 
the pending motion to dismiss, and the fact that the case 
is set for trial on the merits even though the school system 
is now segregated. One of the real thrusts of the appeal 
is their contention that they cannot be certain that desegre­
gation will become a reality in the school term commencing 
in September 1964 because of this posture of the case. An

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963



24a

order of the type originally entered blit making desegrega­
tion effective with the beginning of school in September 
1964, and in at least two grades, should serve to dispel this 
doubt and the record warrants such an order. In warrants 
nothing more. The school board would have the oppor­
tunity in the interim of formulating a desegregation plan, 
subject to court approval, and making ready for the good 
faith adaptation of the plan.

The modification has been neither sought nor considered 
and will come as a great surprise to all. It will in all prob­
ability be ineffective. I do not understand the inordinate 
hurry in this case. It has only been pending three and one 
half months. It has been to this court twice in that short 
time.

Probably no party will consider the relief granted or 
denied to be a victory, but what has been done is at the ex­
pense of the judicial process. A  Court of Appeals should 
not sit as a District Court in chancery to mold and enter 
an equitable decree affecting an entire school system in a 
metropolitan community without hearing from the parties 
on the nature of the decree, and without facts before it 
to serve as a basis for the decree. The All-Writs Statute, 
28 U.S.C.A., § 1651, does not authorize this. It must con­
template rules of procedure, notice, record facts, and an 
opportunity to be heard, all after time for consideration by 
the District Court. It applies only in cases of emergency 
proportions. To state this belief is to at once demonstrate 
that I cannot join in the procedure here. Therefore, I must 
dissent, except as otherwise stated, with the admonition 
that more constitutional rights will be lost than gained in 
the long run by departure from procedures which have

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963



25a

stood the test of time, and which are a part of due process 
of law as we have heretofore known it. In fact, more may 
be eventually lost in this very case.

While this appeal must have been considered as present­
ing something in the nature of a judicial emergency in the 
beginning; otherwise it would not have been twice advanced 
over the many other cases pending in this court, it is plain 
to me that it now has no emergency proportions. I would 
remand it to the District Court for action on the basis of 
reasoned and informed discretion in the light of necessary 
facts and argument, consistent with the law in the premises 
and the guidelines which I have set out regarding Septem­
ber 1964.

Cameron, Circuit Judge (dissenting).

On July 11, 1963, I requested a hearing of this case en 
banc by writing all of the Judges of the Court in active 
service as follows:

“Pursuant to Buie 25(a) of this Court, I hereby initi­
ate consideration by each of the Circuit Judges in ac­
tive service of whether to order a hearing or rehear­
ing of this case en banc. Included in this motion is the 
request that the issuance of the mandate be stayed until 
the attitude of the members of the Court can be ascer­
tained and that the Chief Judge proceed to poll the 
Court on this motion. * * *

“I am of the opinion * * * that the case was not 
legally advanced for hearing or placed on the docket 
for hearing at the time it was heard, it being my under­
standing that the order was signed by Judge Tuttle on

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963



26a

June 28th after the judgment of the district court had 
been entered June 24th.

“ I think, too, that there is considerable doubt about 
the jurisdiction of this panel to hear the case. It is my 
understanding that this panel had under consideration 
before we adjourned for the summer the Theron Lynd 
case * * * Its right to consider and adjudicate the Davis 
case is, I think, subject to serious question.

“ I assume that the record before the Court in New 
Orleans was sent up under our Rule 23(4), which is 
a substantial rescript of Rule 75 ( j ), Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure. That portion of our Rules refers only 
to a motion Tor any intermediate order.’ I do not think 
the order which this Court directed the district court 
to enter can be classified as an intermediate order. It 
seems to me it is the equivalent of a final judgment 
granting all of the relief which the plaintiffs-appellants 
would be entitled to under a hearing on the merits and, 
in fact, dispenses with a hearing on the merits.

“ For these reasons and others, including the fact 
that I see from the press that the appellees have made 
or intend to make a motion for a hearing en banc, I 
respectfully make this request.”

The panel of Judges B rown, W isdom and B ell filed two 
per curiam opinions, one dated July 9, 1963 in which Judge 
B ell dissented, and the second filed July 18, 1963 in which 
Judge B ell concurred in part and dissented in part.

Being advised that a majority of the members of this 
Court in active service did not support my request for en 
banc hearing, I respectfully dissent from the action of the

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963



27a

members of the Court in refusing to grant an en banc hear­
ing. The principles discussed in my dissenting opinion in 
No. 20595, Armstrong et al. v. Board of Education of the 
City of Birmingham, et al., 5 Cir., 323 F.2d 333, are in my 
judgment controlling in this case also and I adopt that opin­
ion as a part of this one.

The panel to which this case was assigned by the Chief 
Judge on July 1, 19631 was a panel designated for a former 
term of this Court. Assuming that it was empowered to 
act, during the intervening time, on a case which it had 
under consideration when the term ended, it would not, in 
my opinion, have jurisdiction to hear the present case un­
der special designation by the Chief Judge acting alone. 
As stated in the Armstrong case, it seems to me clear from 
the statutes and the Supreme Court decisions cited there 
and the Buies of this Court, that the assignment of Judges 
and of cases for hearing is a matter entrusted solely to the 
Court as a body.

To hold that one Judge is vested with authority to fix the 
time and place where a case is to be heard, and to select 
the Judges who shall hear it, is, in my judgment, to decide 
that one man has power in excess of any which has been 
committed to any individual under this government of laws.

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963

1 “The within motion for an injunction pending appeal is hereby 
set for hearing before a panel of this Court to be convened in New 
Orleans, Louisiana, July 8, 1963, to follow immediately after the 
hearing in the case of United States v. Lynd, 5 Cir., 321 F.2d 26. 

“This 28th day of June, 1963.
“ Elbert P. Tuttle 
“ Chief Judge 
“Fifth Circuit”



28a

Court of Appeals Opinion of July 9, 1963

It is clear, moreover, that there is no showing here that 
the case is exceptional or extreme or which demonstrates 
a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power 
such as the panel of this Court thought it discovered in 
Stell et al. v. Savannah-Chatham County Board of Educa­
tion et al., May 24, 1963, 318 F.2d 425. I

I respectfully dissent.



29a

In keeping with the mandate of the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, issued July 18, 1963, 
amending its judgment and order of July 9,1963, it is

Ordered, a d j u d g e d  a n d  d ecr eed  by this court that the 
judgment and order of this court entered July 11, 1963, be 
and it hereby is amended by deleting the following para­
graph :

“ It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that 
said persons be and they are hereby required to make 
an immediate start in the desegregation of the school 
of Mobile County, and that a plan be submitted to the 
District Court by August 1, 1963, which shall include 
a statement that the maintenance of separate schools 
for the Negro and white children of Mobile County 
shall be completely ended with respect to the first 
grade during the school year commencing September 
1963, and with respect to at least one successively 
higher additional grade each school year thereafter.”

and in lieu thereof the following paragraph is entered as 
the judgment and order of this court:

“It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that said 
persons be and they are hereby required to submit, to this 
Court not later than August 19, 1963, a plan under which 
the said defendants propose to make an immediate start 
in the desegregation of the schools of Mobile County, Ala­
bama, which plan shall effectively provide for the carrying 
into effect not later than the beginning of the school year

District Court Order of July 26, 1963



30a

District Court Order of July 26, 1963

commencing September 1963 and thereafter of the Alabama 
Pupil Placement Law as to all school grades without racial 
discrimination, including ‘the admission of new pupils en­
tering the first grade, or coming into the County for the 
first time, on a nonracial basis,’ Augustus v. Board of Public 
Instruction, 5 Cir. 1962, 306 F.2d 862, 869 (that opinion 
describes such a plan which has been approved and is oper­
ating in Pensacola, Florida).”

Dated this the 26th day of July 1963.

/ s /  Daniel H. T homas 
District Judge



31a

Mr. Justice B lack.

I am asked to stay an order of the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit requiring the Board of 
School Commissioners of Mobile County, Alabama, to take 
action in two respects: First: To refrain “ from requiring 
and permitting segregation of the races in any school under 
their supervision, from and after such time as may be 
necessary to make arrangements for admission of children 
to such schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with 
all deliberate speed, as required by the Supreme Court in 
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1955, 349 U.S. 
294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 1083.”

Second: To submit to the District Court “not later than 
August 19, 1963, a plan under which the said defendants 
propose to make an immediate start in the desegregation 
of the schools of Mobile County, Alabama, . . .  not later 
than the beginning of the school year commencing Sep­
tember 1963 . . . .”

Although a judge of the panel which entered this order 
refused to grant a stay, I would nevertheless stay the order 
if persuaded by the record that the questions presented for 
review in the petition for certiorari had sufficient merit to 
make review by this Court likely. I do not believe that the 
questions have such merit.

First. Under the facts in the record, the Court of Ap­
peals’ order that the Board refrain from “ requiring and 
permitting segregation” is completely justified by our hold­
ing in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 98 L. Ed.

Opinion of Mr. Justice Black, 8 /1 6 /6 3 , Denying Stay



32a

873, 74 S. Ct. 686, 38 ALR 2d 1180, and 349 U.S. 294,99 
L. Ed. 1083, 75 S. Ct. 753. And see Cooper v. Aaron, 358 
U.S. 1, 3 L. Ed. 2d 5, 78 S. Ct. 1401. The injunction was 
carefully limited to allow “ such time as may be necessary 
to make arrangements for admission of children to such 
schools on a racially non-discriminatory basis with all de­
liberate speed . . . . ” This injunction was necessary because 
the record showed without dispute that racial segre­
gation was and had been the unbroken practice in the 
Mobile schools and that the Board had no plans to do away 
with that practice in the foreseeable future. Under such 
circumstances our prior decisions plainly impose upon 
courts a duty to protect against such unlawful discrim­
ination.

Second. The Board also challenges the requirement that 
it submit, not later than August 19, 1963, a plan for “an 
immediate start in the desegregation of the schools of 
Mobile County” not later than the beginning of the Sep­
tember 1963 school year. In adopting this part of its order, 
the Court of Appeals rejected the District Court’s decree, 
which allowed the Board to postpone action until after the 
1963 school term had begun. The Board argues that to 
require action for the 1963 school year gives it too little 
time and could disrupt the school system. But the first 
Brown decision was rendered in 1954—nine years ago. 
That case and others that followed have made it abundantly 
clear that racial segregation in public schools is unconsti­
tutional. Yet this record fails to show that the Mobilei 
Board has made a single move of any kind looking towards 
a constitutional public school system. Instead, the Board

Opinion o f  Mr. Justice Black, 8/16/63, Denying Stay



33a

in this case has rested on its insistence that continuation 
of the segregated system is in the best interests of the 
colored people and that desegregation would “ seriously de­
lay and possibly completely stop” the Board’s building pro­
gram, “particularly the improvement and completion of 
sufficient colored schools which are so urgently needed.” 
In recent years, more than 50% of its building funds, the 
Board pointed out to the parents and guardians of its col­
ored pupils, had been spent to “build and improve colored 
schools,” and of eleven million dollars that would be spent 
in 1963, over seven million would be devoted to “ colored 
schools.” The record fails to indicate when, if ever, the 
Board intends to take a first step towards making its pub­
lic school system conform to the constitutional guarantee 
of equal protection of the laws. Far from claiming that it 
intended to desegregate the schools, the Board asked com­
plaining parents to believe that “ it would be detrimental 
to 99% of the colored children in the public schools for any 
token integration to be attempted at this time.”

It is quite apparent from these statements that Mobile 
County’s program for the future of its public school sys­
tem “lends itself to perpetuation of segregation,” a conse­
quence which the Court recently had occasion to condemn 
as unlawful. Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 683, 686, 
10 L. Ed. 2d 632, 635, 83 S. Ct. 1405. And while the second 
Brown decision said that elimination of racial segregation 
m public schools should proceed “with all deliberate speed” 
that term was not intended, as the Court recently empha­
sized in Watson v. Memphis, 373 U.S. 526,10 L. Ed. 2d 529, 
83 S. Ct. 1314, to excuse an indefinite withholding of con­
stitutional rights. Indeed, in the very Brown Case which

Opinion of Mr. Justice Black, 8/16/63, Denying Stay



34a

used the term “ deliberate speed,” the Court also unan- 
imously declared that “ While giving weight to . . . public 
and private considerations, the courts will require that the 
defendants make a broad and reasonable start toward full 
compliance with our May 17, 1954, ruling.” 349 U.S. at 300. 
It is difficult to conceive of any administrative problems 
which could justify the Board in failing in 1963 to make 
a start towards ending the racial discrimination in the pub­
lic schools which is forbidden by the Equal Protection 
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as authoritatively 
determined by this Court in Brown nine years ago. Com­
pare Watson v. Memphis, supra (373 U.S. at 529, 530); 
Goss v. Board of Education, supra (373 U.S. at 689).

I cannot believe that this Court would seriously consider 
upsetting the Court of Appeals’ order. The stay is denied.

Opinion of Mr. Justice Black, 8/16/63, Denying Stay



35a

District Court Order of August 23, 1963

This cause coming on to be considered by the Court 
pursuant to notice, with counsel for the respective parties 
being present and heard, on a proposed plan as heretofore 
filed by the Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 
County, Alabama, and objections to particulars thereto filed 
by plaintiffs, it is, upon consideration, hereby

Ordered:

1. The proposed plan as submitted by the Board of 
School Commissioners of Mobile County, Alabama, and 
filed herein on August 19, 1963, pursuant to previous order 
of this Court, be and it hereby is approved with the follow­
ing amendments and modifications:

(1) The so-called “ cut-off date” for the 1963-64 school 
term, referred to in paragraph (5) of the Plan and 
at other places therein, shall be changed from July 31, 
1963, to on or before August 28, 1963, for 12th grade 
pupils.

(2) The defendants, prior to the beginning of the 
1963-64 term of school on September 4,1963, shall proc­
ess all applications for transfer heretofore received, 
and all such applications for transfer of 12th grade 
pupils that may be received not later than said ex­
tended date, August 28, 1963.

This Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of mak­
ing and entering such further orders as may be necessary 
to accomplish the essential purposes of the Plan as herein 
modified and approved.

Done and ordered at Mobile, Alabama, this the 23rd day 
of August 1963.

Daniel F. T homas 
District Judge



36a

Before Mabis,* Gew in  and B ell, Circuit Judges. 

Gew in , Circuit Judge.

This appeal presents for our review litigation with re­
spect to the desegregation of the public school system of 
Mobile County, Alabama. The case has received the atten­
tion of this Court on two former occasions. The first time 
it arose on a petition in the nature of an appeal from an 
alleged denial of injunctive relief, which petition was 
grounded on the premise that the failure of the District 
Court to rule promptly constituted a denial of relief and I 
was therefore an appealable order. In addition the peti­
tioners sought relief in the nature of an application for 
writ of mandamus directed to the District Judge. The peti­
tion was denied and the appeal dismissed. Davis v. Bd. of 
School Commissioners of Mobile County, Alabama (5th 
Cir. 1963) 318 F.2d 63.

After hearing in the District Court, an appeal was taken, 
and the cause was advanced on our docket pursuant to a 
motion for an injunction pending appeal. This Court 
granted the injunction pending appeal on July 9, 1963, and 
on petition for rehearing amended its order on July 18, j 
1963. Davis v. Bd. of School Commissioners of Motile 
County, Alabama (5th Cir. 1963) 322 F.2d 356, cert, den, 
375 U.S. 894, 84 S.Ct. 170, 11 L.Ed.2d 123. We now con­
sider the appeal on the merits.

In its original order dated June 24, 1963, the District j 
Court denied injunctive relief against the Board of School 
Commissioners as sought by the plaintiffs (appellants).

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 18, 1964

* Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.



37a

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 
Alabama (D.C.S.D.Ala. 1963) 219 F.Supp. 542. Following 
our decision, supra, the District Court entered its order 
dated July 11,1963, amended July 26, 1963, pursuant to the 
mandate of this Court. Thereafter the School Board pre­
sented a plan to the District Court for its consideration. 
After a hearing on objections resulting in some modifica­
tions, the District Court approved the plan and the plain­
tiffs appealed. The plan operated during the school session 
commencing in September, 1963, but was limited to the 12th 
grade, and it was not applied to rural schools.

We deem it unnecessary to set forth the details of the 
proposed plan except to say that it was based essentially 
upon the Alabama Pupil Placement Law. W hile somewhat 
more detailed and precise, the Mobile plan was similar in 
many essential respects to the plan proposed in Birming­
ham, Armstrong v. Bd. of Education of the City of Birming­
ham, Alabama (5th Cir. 1964) 333 F.2d 47, the opinion in 
which has been rendered simultaneously with this opinion. 
It should be noted that the mandates of this Court in 
Mobile and in Birmingham, when we granted an injunc­
tion pending appeal, are essentially identical, except that 
in Mobile the District Court was authorized to defer de­
segregation of rural schools in Mobile County until Sep­
tember, 1964.1 There are other differences in the two cases.

1 “The District Court may modify this order to defer desegrega­
tion of rural schools in Mobile County until September 1964, should 
the District Court after further hearing conclude that special plan­
ning of administrative problems for rural schools in the county make 
it impracticable for such schools to start desegregation in September 
1963.” Davis v. Board of School Com’rs of Mobile County, Ala. 
(5th Cir. 1963) 322 F.2d 356.

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 18, 1964



38a

For example, in Mobile the Board of School Commissioners 
operates the entire school system for Mobile Connty and 
there is one Superintendent of Schools for the entire county 
Differences which do exist are not material to our con­
sideration here.

As mentioned above, we have rendered our opinion on 
the merits of the Birmingham case simultaneously with this 
opinion. Our decision in Birmingham is controlling here, 
and we consider it unnecessary to repeat now what was 
there said, except to point out some of the more salient 
factors with respect to minimum requirements in school 
desegregation cases of this type. We emphasize here as we 
did in Birmingham, that plans for desegregation must now 
proceed at a swifter pace in view of the ten-year period 
which has elapsed since the first Brown decision;2 the re­
sponsibility and duty resting on school boards to provide 
a constitutional plan of desegregation; the necessity for the 
constitutional administration of the Alabama Pupil Place­
ment Law without regard to race or color; the hearing of 
complaints by the District Court with respect to the denial 
of constitutional rights, thus avoiding cumbersome admin­
istrative procedure; timely notice of the plan to interested 
persons; the abolition of dual school zones, areas, or dis­
tricts;3 and the retention of jurisdiction by the District 
Court for further implementation and supervision.

2 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686,98 
L.Ed. 873 (1954). See also the implementing decision. Brown v. 
Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 
(1955).

3 As to such dual districts, school zones, or areas, the brief of the 
Board of School Commissioners states:

“By implication, at least, in reference to attendance at 
schools of the district of the residence of each of the pupils

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 18, 1964



39a

Upon consideration of the evidence before us and giving 
consideration to the circumstances here involved, it is our 
conclusion that this cause he remanded to the District Court 
with instructions to require the Board of School Commis­
sioners of Mobile County, Alabama, to present to the Dis­
trict Court forthwith for its consideration a plan of de­
segregation which will meet the minimum standards set 
forth and outlined in the Birmingham case.

The order of the District Court heretofore entered on 
June 24, 1963, denying injunctive relief is vacated; the 
orders of the District Court entered on July 11 and 26,1963, 
pursuant to our mandate in this case, are continued until 
modified by the District Court; and the cause is remanded 
for the entry of appropriate orders not inconsistent here­
with.

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 18, 1964

when the plan has progressed to that particular grade, the 
system would be operating under a single-type district or 
attendance area arrangement. Again, without all of the testi­
mony adduced in the trial of the cause on the merits, before 
this court presently, it is difficult to present the entire picture. 
At the time of the trial on the merits, the Superintendent 
testified that there -were only a few dual zones within the sys­
tem presently. He further testified that a major re-evaluation 
and re-draft of the school districts was in progress, or about 
tô  commence, which would eliminate even those few dual dis­
tricts that existed. Consequently, the objection by appellants 
to this aspect of the plan is one of letter rather than substance.”



40a

District Court Orders of July 29, 1964  
and July 31, 1964

T homas, District Judge.

It is hereby ordered that the Board of School Comrnis- 
sioners of Mobile County, and the members thereof, submit 
to this the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of Alabama by filing with the Clerk thereof, on or 
before July 17,1964, a plan for desegregation in accordance 
with the directions and terms of the opinion and mandate 
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 
(in case No. 20657, Birdie Mae Davis, et al, Appellants vs. 
Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, et al, 
Appellees) rendered and issued June 18, 1964.

It is further ordered that on or before the date of the 
filing thereof, a copy of said plan be served by defendants 
in the manner provided by the Federal Buies of Civil Pro­
cedure, by mail or otherwise, upon the attorneys for the 
plaintiffs in this action, and that any objections to said pro­
posed plan which plaintiffs may desire to make, be filed and 
served upon the attorneys for the defendants on or before 
the 27th day of July, 1964. Hearing on such objections as 
may be filed will be heard before this Court in Mobile, 
Alabama, at 10:00 o’clock A.M., on July 29, 1964.

Ordered 29th day of June, 1964.
*  *  #  #  #

-



41a

A mendment to Plan Submitted by the B oard 
of School Commissioners of M obile County, 

Pursuant to Order Dated June 29, 1964

This Amendment to the Plan heretofore submitted under 
order of this Court dated July 11, 1963, as amended July 
26, 1963, is submitted pursuant to the order of this court 
entered June 29, 1964. Said order requires the submission 
of a plan to conform to the opinion and mandate of the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, ren­
dered and issued June 18, 1964.

The plan heretofore submitted is amended as follows:

1. By deleting Paragraph E. thereof and substituting in 
lieu thereof the following:

“E. Pupils entering the first grade for the school year 
1964-65 were pre-registered near the end of last 
term and estimated enrollments for September, 
1964, were developed last February as to all grades 
except the first, eleventh and twelfth; following pre­
registration, the estimated enrollments were devel­
oped for the first grade; and, following the close of 
the April 1-15 transfer request period, for the 11th 
and 12th grades; building and classroom capacity 
have been adjusted thereto; school supplies, text­
books, and other materials and equipment have 
been allocated accordingly; schools have been 
staffed and teachers assigned on the same esti­
mated enrollments; and”

District Court Orders of July 29, 1964 and July 31, 1964



42a

2. By deleting Paragraph G. thereof and substituting in 
lieu thereof the following:

“ G. The problems in connection with any desegregation 
of the schools outside the corporate limits of the 
City of Mobile are substantially different from the 
problems involved for desegregation within the 
City of Mobile including the assignment of the com­
ponents of an intricate transportation system and 
it is not administratively feasible to expand this 
plan beyond the 11th and 12th grades for those 
schools outside the corporate limits of Mobile dur­
ing the term 1964-65.”

3. By deleting Paragraph (4) thereof and substituting 
in lieu thereof the following:

“ (4) Applicability of Plan: This plan had application 
in the school year 1963-64 to the 12th grade, in the City 
of Mobile schools only. In the school year 1964-65 it 
shall have application to the 11th and 12th grades in 
all schools of Mobile County; and to the 1st and 10th 
grades in City of Mobile schools. In 1965-66 it shall 
have application to Grades 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of all 
schools of Mobile County; in 1966-67 to grades above 
listed and in addition, to grades 3 and 8; in 1967-68 
to grades above listed and in addition to grades 4 and 
7; in 1.968-69 to grades above listed and, in addition, 
to grade 6; and in 1969-70 to grades above listed and, 
in addition, to grade 6.”

4. By deleting Paragraph (5) thereof and substituting 
in lieu thereof the following:

D istrict Court Orders o f  July 29, 1964 and July 31, 1964



43a

“ (5) Special Provisions for 1964-65: The period of 
August 4 through 6 is hereby established wherein 1st 
and 10th grade pupils in the City of Mobile may re­
quest transfers from schools to which they are as­
signed for 1964-65 or at which they are pre-registered. 
The transfer provisions of this plan shall apply and 
race or color will not be considered in acting upon these 
applications. Notice of action taken by the Assistant 
Superintendent on such requests will be given on or 
before August 22nd. Such action shall be final unless 
a Board hearing is requested in writing to reach the 
offices of the Board on or before 5:00 P.M., August 
28th. Public notice of this special transfer request 
period shall be given in a daily newspaper of general 
circulation in Mobile County, as a conscious reminder 
to parents and guardians.”

* * * * *

District Court Orders of July 29, 1964 and July 31, 1964

Thomas, District Judge.

Order A pproving Plan as M odified

This cause coming on to be considered by the Court pur­
suant to notice, with counsel for the respective parties 
being present, on a proposed Plan as heretofore filed on 
July 21, 1964, by the Board of School Commissioners of 
Mobile County, Alabama, and objections to particulars 
thereto filed by plaintiffs, it is, upon consideration, hereby

Ordered:

The proposed Plan as submitted by the Board of 
School Commissioners of Mobile County, Alabama, and 
filed herein on July 21, 1964, pursuant to the prior order



44a

of this Court, be and it hereby is a p p r o v e d  with the fol­
lowing amendments and modifications:

(1) The period established in said Plan wherein first and 
tenth grade pupils in the City of Mobile may request 
transfers, as set out in Paragraph (5) thereof, shall 
be changed from August 4 through 6, to August 3 
through 10. Tenth grade pupils outside the corpo­
rate limits of the City of Mobile may also request 
transfers during said period.

(2) The public notice of the special transfer request pe­
riod as called for in Paragraph (5) of said Plan shall 
consist of the publication for three consecutive days, 
commencing Saturday, August 1, 1964, in a daily 
newspaper of general circulation in Mobile County, 
of a notice setting out the period wherein transfer 
requests may be made; the grades affected thereby; 
and the procedures for requesting such transfer.

(3) The application of said Plan for the school year 
1964-65, as set out in Paragraph (4) thereof, shall 
be changed so that the Plan shall have application 
in school year 1964-65 to the 10th, 11th and 12th 
grades in all schools of Mobile County and to the 
first grade in City of Mobile schools.

This Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of mak­
ing and entering such further orders as may be necessary 
to accomplish the essential purposes of the Plan as herein 
modified and approved.

Done and entered at Mobile, Alabama, this the 31st day 
of July, 1964.

District Court Orders of July 29, 1964 and July 31, 1964



45a

Thomas, District Judge.

F indings of F act

1. Reduced to its basic terms the desegregation plan un­
der which the defendant Board is operating the schools is 
as follows:

a. Each elementary school has a single attendance area. 
Each Junior High School serves a combination of at­
tendance areas. Each Senior High School serves a 
larger combination of elementary attendance areas.

b. It divides students, for administrative purposes, into 
3 categories: (1) Those now attending a particular 
school, by race, because of their residence in what was 
formerly a dual zone; (2) those now in attendance at 
schools where dual racial zones have never been in­
volved; and (3) those entering the school system for 
the first time (either as 1st graders, newcomers to the 
system in other grades, or those who have moved from 
one attendance area to another).

c. Students remain where enrolled unless a transfer is 
granted. Those in category (1) are granted transfers 
unless some compelling non-racial consideration dic­
tates otherwise; those in category (2) are considered 
for transfer without regard to race but applying other 
proper factors alike to all.

d. Newcomers, 1st graders and persons moving to a dif­
ferent attendance area have the absolute right to en­
roll in the school of the attendance area of their resi-

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



46a

dence or the option to enroll at the nearest school 
formerly serving their race.

e. The plan has application to grades 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 
12 in the school year 1965-66; to two additional grades 
per year for the next two years; and to one additional 
grade per year for the last two years.

2. A  fifteen day transfer request period is prescribed for 
April 1-15 of each year, and prospective first grade pupils 
are pre-registered later in April for the following year. 
The practice of designating a period for transfer requests 
prior to the school year wherein they will be effective and 
the practice of preregistering first graders are adminis­
trative procedures long followed by the defendant Board, 
their inception having been before the knowledge of the 
present Superintendent who entered upon his duties with 
the Board in 1948.

3. The defendant Board makes no initial assignments 
of individual pupils, but permits the free exercise of op­
tions provided without regard to present racial make-up 
of the school or to the race of the pupil.

Initial enrollment involves no transfer nor other special 
action of the Board. The exercise of the option is accom­
plished simply by the pupil presenting himself at the school 
he selects and enrolling. This is the case whether the stu­
dent is entering the 1st grade, is a newcomer, or has moved 
from one district to another. It is also true regardless of 
the race of the pupil or the racial composition of the school.

4. The dual attendance areas based upon race have been 
abolished and a new single attendance area system estab­

D istrict Court Opinion of M arch 31, 1965



47a

lished. A map setting out the boundaries of the new at­
tendance areas has been furnished the court, considered by 
it and forms a part of the record in this cause. The practice 
of granting transfers to those enrolled in a particular 
school because of the old dual attendance areas has over­
come the discrimination existing because of these.

5. The newly adopted single attendance areas were not 
racially devised but arranged by giving due weight to 
proper factors, e.g., natural and nan-made barriers; safety 
factors, such as major thoroughfares; maximum use of fa­
cilities; transportation facilities and patterns, and other 
like considerations. The majority of these attendance areas 
have both races residing therein.

6. The neighborhood school organization is a longstand­
ing practice in the administration of the school system in 
Mobile County. It is founded on a sound educational basis 
and the defendant Board is amply justified in its use.

7. The defendant Board has historically permitted par­
ents some flexibility in selecting a school. A  rigid system 
that requires all children of an area, without exception, to 
attend a particular school fails to take into account that 
school patrons and pupils are individuals with choices, likes 
and dislikes. Such rigidity is a major handicap to proper 
educational processes. However, such flexibility is limited 
by good administrative practices which require a reason­
able amount of specificity to permit adequate planning.

8. There are more than 79,000 pupils in the Mobile 
County School System. There are 94 schools presently in

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



48a

the system with 8 additional schools in planning or con­
struction. Half-day sessions have been eliminated hut 
39,000 students are in overcrowded conditions. The schools 
in the system have not been designated by race since the 
adoption of the plan.

9. In the administration of its plan, there is no evidence 
of any discrimination by virtue of race. The evidence sup­
ports equal application of the policies and provisions of 
the plan to both races and the Court so finds as a matter 
of fact.

10. No special tests are administered to pupils of either 
race requesting transfer. No denial of transfer is based 
on any test result. No transfer has been denied arbitrarily 
or unevenly as between the races. Approximately 500 pu­
pils filed requests for transfer for the school year 1964-65 
and less than half were granted. None was denied on the 
basis of race. This is a normal proportion of denials based 
upon past years’ experiences of the Board.

11. Sixteen Negro pupils requested transfers for the 
term 1964-65 to formerly white schools or schools with pre­
dominantly white student bodies. Seven were granted and 
nine denied. Each denial was based upon a non-discrim- 
inatory factor and transfer requests for many white pupils 
were denied on the same grounds. 12

12. The plan of the defendant Board contains criteria 
for use in the consideration of transfers, some of which 
have been discredited by the Courts. The Board did not use

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



49a

any of such discredited criteria in the weighing of transfer 
applications for the year 1964-65. These criteria should be 
stricken from the plan.

13. This Court has retained jurisdiction of this cause 
for further proceedings and to hear any complaints or 
charges of discriminatory application of the defendant 
Board’s plan. No complaint has been lodged or filed with 
this court by any individual as to any discriminatory ac­
tions of the Board in the administration of the plan.

14. Normally all pupils enrolled in a particular school 
do not commence attendance at the school for several days, 
even up to two to three weeks after school opens. The aver­
age daily attendance at any school in the Mobile County 
system from students already enrolled there will normally 
increase during the first month of school.

15. It is not practicable nor desirable for the Board to 
attempt to advise parents as to what school a child should 
apply for transfer to. Parental desire is a factor in grant­
ing transfers. Further it is not feasible for the defendant 
Board to act on transfer requests individually as received, 
since the effect of the total transfer requests must be ap­
praised before any may fairly be granted. The defendant 
Board has, as a matter of practice over the years, deferred 
action on any request until all are received and the end of 
the transfer request period reached.

16. From 1,000 to 3,000 pupils change schools annually 
in the Mobile County school system because their parents

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



50a

move from one attendance area to another. These changes 
are in addition to the normal transfers for other valid rea­
sons. Those pupils so moving are permitted simply to re­
port to the school of their attendance area or the optional 
school without the necessity of transfer.

17. The teachers and administrators of those schools 
where Negro pupils attend with a predominantly white 
student body have been fair and have treated the Negro 
students as any other pupil. While two of the student wit­
nesses testified to minor harassment by some students, it is 
clear from their testimony that the teachers treated them 
in a normal relationship. Breach of good conduct by white 
pupils was promptly dealt with by administrative person­
nel when reported or observed.

18. It was the opinion of the student witnesses that the 
course of studies at Murphy High School was more difficult 
than their prior school, Williamson; that they were learn­
ing more and the facilities were better at Murphy. The 
Court accepts this as findings of fact. Facilities vary from 
school to school as do teaching quality and standards. The 
Court takes judicial knowledge that Murphy High School 
is the largest school in the Mobile system and one of the 
largest in the State of Alabama. A  large number of schools 
in the Mobile County system are overcrowded and the de­
fendant Board has been building new schools at a rapid 
rate. The actual physical plants in those schools attended 
predominantly by Negro pupils are essentially equivalent 
to those attended predominantly by white students; the 
teacher qualifications are the same; the salary schedules 
are the same; and the per capita expenditure is the same.

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



51a

19. A larger variety of special courses is offered at those 
schools attended predominantly by white pupils, although 
in many instances the number of schools offering a par­
ticular course is only one more in the case of white pupils. 
There are about 50% more white pupils in the system than 
Negro pupils, making it reasonable that more schools at­
tended predominantly by white pupils would offer a par­
ticular special subject. Many factors enter into a deter­
mination of courses offered in a particular school, and the 
course offerings vary from school to school without neces­
sary regard to the race of the pupils. Facilities, pupil in­
terest, location, and socio-economic factors all affect course 
offerings. There is no evidence that any application for 
transfer for the current year was predicated on a desire 
for a special course not offered by the school the pupil had 
been attending. The Assistant Superintendent in charge of 
pupil personnel could not recall a single such request.

20. The procedures for recpiesting a transfer have been 
administered without discrimination. It is required that a 
parent or guardian obtain the form from the School Board 
office. This is to prevent immature actions by pupils, who 
might abuse the transfer process. The requests must be 
signed by both parents, if reasonably possible; or when not 
practicable to do so, such circumstance must be noted. Not 
infrequently parents are divided over the choice of school, 
and a transfer should be granted only where the family is 
united in the request. The Court finds no good purpose to 
he served by the requirement that the executed form must 
be returned by the parent in person.

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



52a

21. The proceedings in this cause have had wide pub. 
licity in Mobile County. Details of the plan, orders of the 
Court, and periods designated by the plan and the Court 
have been disseminated through front page stories in the 
local press. In addition, a legal advertisement approved by 
this Court, was published. Some 500 pupils actually re­
quested transfer within the designated period.

22. The assignment of teachers and administrative per­
sonnel without regard to race raises different and even 
more delicate problems than are encountered in pupil de­
segregation. The close personal relationship that must 
exist between teacher, pupil and parents for maximum edu­
cational effect would be adversely affected by any efforts 
toward teacher and staff desegregation at this time. Local 
school officials testify that the supply of qualified teachers 
while increasing, is still inadequate and that any deseg­
regation of teachers or staff at this time would result in the 
loss of some qualified teachers now employed. The Court 
finds this to be a probable result.

23. It is not necessary or desirable to desegregate 
teachers and administrative personnel in the desegregation 
process as to pupils in the schools of Mobile County. It is 
the finding of the Court that such a step would render the 
desegregation of pupils more difficult and add a premature 
burden to the defendant Board, which is in good faith 
proceeding with the administration of its plan.

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



53a

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965 

Conclusions of Law

1. The selection of the desegregation plan is the function 
of the School Board, rather than the Court. Once formu­
lated by the Board, the Courts are charged with scruti­
nizing it for any discriminatory features.

It is elementary that the courts cannot plan, administer 
and operate the public school system. The selection and 
activation of the particular method or plan of desegre­
gating a school system is the responsibility and function of 
the School Board in the first instance. These two principles 
have been enunciated in most of the school desegregation 
suits. The Board, with its knowledge of local conditions, 
its experience with established administrative procedures, 
and having at its disposal persons possessed of profes­
sional training and skills, is the only entity fully qualified 
to carry out the “duty and responsibility to formulate a 
desegregation plan.” The case of Briggs v. Elliott, 132 
F. Supp. 776, adopted as to reasoning by the Court of 
Appeals for this Circuit in Avery v. Wichita Falls, 241 
F.2d 230 and in Boson v. Rippy, 285 F.2d 48, summarizes 
the philosophy underlying these principles, as well as the 
judicial function:

“The Supreme Court has pointed out that the solution 
of the problem in accord with its decisions is the pri­
mary responsibility of school authorities and that the 
function of the courts is to determine whether action 
of the school authorities constitutes ‘good faith imple­
mentation of the governing constitutional principles.’ ”



54a

The basis for these established principles is expressed 
somewhat differently in Kelley v. Board of Education of 
Nashville, 270 F.2d 209:

“Because of the nature of the problems and the local 
conditions, the school authorities often find that action 
taken by other school districts is inapplicable to the 
facts with which they are dealing . . .  the public interest 
must be considered, along with all the facts and con­
ditions prevalent in the school district. Educational 
standards should not be lowered.”

Following directly after this reasoning, the court goes on 
to point out the judicial function:

“ I f the school authorities have acted and are proceed­
ing in good faith, their actions should not be set aside 
by a court so long as their action is consistent with the 
ultimate establishment of a non-discriminatory school 
system at the earliest practicable dates.”

The Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County 
has selected and prescribed a plan founded in adminis­
trative procedures applicable to local conditions and estab­
lished by many years’ use. It is soundly conceived and 
developed from an educational standpoint. So long as the 
plan is non-discriminatory, the basic elements should not 
be disturbed by the Court. This is the only test the Court 
should apply.

2. The desegregation plan in use in Mobile County is 
a constitutional plan.

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



55a

The plan in use for the past two years in the Mobile 
school system is non-discriminatory. This Court, on two 
prior occasions, and the Court of Appeals for this Circuit, 
on one occasion, have considered the Mobile County plan 
and found it to meet constitutional standards in all par­
ticulars save speed of application and minor time pro­
visions. It is a plan founded upon educational concepts and 
administrative procedures in use in Mobile County for 
many years. It is, and has been, an attendance area system, 
utilizing the concepts of the neighborhood school, limited 
administrative control of enrollment but without utter 
rigidity, and provisions for a transfer request period for 
upper grades and a pre-registration time for 1st graders. 
These concepts and procedures are efficient and non-dis­
criminatory bases for the administration of a school sys­
tem.

The use of school attendance areas, if not devised on 
racial lines, is non-discriminatory and is a proper provision 
in a desegregation plan. Downs v. School Board, 336 F.2d
988, cert. den.------ U.S.------  (March 1, 1965). This Court
has considered the newly defined single zone attendance 
areas and the testimony of those who re-defined these areas 
and has found as a matter of fact that the attendance areas 
were not racially devised but were laid out in accordance 
with proper factors and are, therefore, constitutional.

The plan makes use of the Alabama Pupil Placement 
Law as a proper vehicle of administration. That portion 
of the plan founded upon the Alabama Pupil Placement 
Law continues all pupils at the schools where they are in 
attendance unless a transfer is granted. The plan provides

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



56a

for the consideration of transfer requests without regard 
to race. As a part of the transfer provisions, the Board has 
so interpreted the plan as actually to discriminate in favor 
of Negro students who, because they formerly lived in an 
old dual district, are attending a school predominantly of 
their own race. Under those circumstances transfers are 
permitted without the application of any of the criteria 
under the Pupil Placement Act. This has the effect of 
curing a discriminatory situation pre-existing the inception 
of the plan, for those pupils whose parents desire that 
result. The Alabama Pupil Placement Act is, on its face, 
constitutional, and the fact that the defendant School 
Board affords an opportunity to cure past inequities merely 
accentuates the propriety of the Board’s use of the Place­
ment Act.

Engrafted to the basic pupil placement law plan, the 
Board has made further provision to permit the initial 
enrollment, as a matter of absolute right, of first graders, 
newcomers, and people moving from one attendance area 
to another, in the school of the attendance area of the resi­
dence of the pupil. The option is granted to any pupil for 
any reason, to enroll initially at the nearest school formerly 
serving his race. The absolute right to attend a school 
within the attendance area of the residence, coupled with 
the option, is proper in the local situation, since it affords 
some flexibility but has a limiting effect desirable for plan­
ning purposes. Since the present attendance areas are not 
racially designed and a majority of the attendance areas 
have persons of both races living within them, the tendency 
of these provisions would be to promote desegregation bnt 
not to require integration. The Court is of the opinion that

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



57a

the option granted to initial enrolees does not violate the 
prohibition against “minority transfers.” The option is 
granted without regard to the race of the pupil, the reason 
for the exercise of the option, present racial makeup of the 
school within the attendance area, or the present racial 
makeup of the optional school. The “ minority transfer” 
rule, enunciated in Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 
683, deals, of course, with transfers as opposed to initial 
enrollment. The same principles would govern. There the 
court said:

“Our task then is to decide whether these transfer pro­
visions are likewise unconstitutional. In doing so, we 
note that if the transfer provisions were made avail­
able to all students regardless of their race and regard­
less as well of racial composition of the school to which 
he requested transfer we would have an entirely dif­
ferent case. Pupils could then, at their option, (or that 
of their parents) choose, entirely free of any imposed 
racial considerations, to remain in the school of their 
zone or to transfer to another.”

In addition, the case distinguished situations such as 
here presented, by saying:

“Likewise, we would have a different case here if the 
transfer provisions were unrestricted, allowing trans­
fers to or from any school regardless of the race of 
the majority therein.”

This plan meets the test prescribed in Northcross v. 
Board of Education, 302 F.2d 818, wherein the Court said:

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



58a

“ Minimal requirements for non-racial schools are geo­
graphic zoning, according to the capacity and facilities 
of the buildings and admission to a school according 
to residence as a matter of right.”

Except as to speed of application, the particular plan 
now before the court is the same plan as was before the 
Court of Appeals in 1964, Davis v. Board of School Com­
missioners, 333 F.2d 53. At that time, the Court approved 
it as to all elements except speed. Seven criteria were set 
out in that opinion, all of which have been met by the 
present plan. All of these criteria, except speed of appli­
cation, were present in the plan as considered at that time. 
It is a constitutional plan and if it be constitutionally ad­
ministered, any effort to effect a change therein must fail

3. The desegregation plan has been administered with­
out discrimination by the defendant Board.

The burden of much of plaintiff’s argument was that 
only a limited number of Negro students “ have experienced 
desegregated education” under the desegregation plan as 
administered in Mobile County.

The Supreme Court has declared that Brown v. Boarl 
of Education, 347 U.S. 483, “ decided that enforced racial 
segregation in the public schools of a State is a denial of 
the equal protection of the laws enjoined by the Fourteenth 
Amendment.” Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1.

As was said in Briggs v. Elliott, supra:

“ The constitution, in other words, does not require in­
tegration, it merely forbids discrimination. It does not

D istrict Court Opinion o f M arch 31, 1965



59a

forbid such segregation as occurs as the result of vol­
untary action.”

Again, in Downs v. School Board, supra, as to which the 
Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 1, 1965:

. The better ride is that although the Fourteenth 
Amendment prohibits segregation, it does not com­
mand integration of the races in public schools and 
Negro children have no constitutional right to have 
white children attend school with them.”

The Downs case is in accord with decisions from the 
Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Circuits, cited as supporting this 
basic rule.

The Court of Appeals for this Circuit in Boson v. Rippy, 
285 F.2d 43, 48 points out:

“Indeed, this Court has adopted the reasoning in Briggs 
v. Elliott . . . and has further said: ‘The equal pro­
tection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth 
Amendment do not affirmatively command integration, 
but they do forbid any state action requiring segre­
gation on account of their race or color of children in 
the public schools. Avery v. Wichita Falls, etc. 241 
F.2d 230, 233.’ ”

Those transfer requests that were denied by the defen­
dant Board for the current school term, were denied with­
out regard to race. Some requests for transfer were filed 
after the termination of the transfer request period and 
were properly denied for this reason. It is reasonable that

District Court Opinion o f M arch 31, 1965



60a

there be a deadline for making transfer requests since the 
Board makes no determination as to granting transfer 
requests until after all are received in order that the effect 
of such transfers on particular schools may be measured. 
This is a reasonable requirement and the Board has denied 
transfer requests by pupils of both races if they were filed 
after the end of the transfer request period. Other transfer 
requests were denied because they requested transfers out­
side the attendance area of the residence of the pupil and 
no valid reason for making an exception to the rule ap­
peared. These involved pupils who never resided in one 
of the old dual school zones and the denials were proper. 
Again, the Board acted in the same manner in the case of 
Negro and white pupils. Other transfer requests were de­
nied because they sought transfer to a school which was so 
overcrowded that as many as 100 students were then being 
transported away from the school to which the transfer was 
requested. These were denied for proper and reasonable 
reasons without regard to race.

Criteria set out in the plan from the Alabama Placement 
Act such as those lettered (1) and (n), have to do with 
public hostility; and, such as (i) and (m), have to do with 
psychological effects upon the transferee or the pupils in 
attendance at the school to which the transfer is requested, 
As a matter of law, these criteria are not properly retained 
in the plan and must be deleted. The Board does not give 
any special tests in considering transfers and test results 
have not formed the basis, and do not, for the granting or 
denial of transfers. While this Court will not require that 
the provisions for testing be stricken, it does require that

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



61a

if tests are used, they be used without regard to race. The 
Court finds no practice nor intention on the part of the 
Board to use any special testing procedure in acting upon 
transfer requests.

Earlier in this opinion, while considering the plan itself, 
the Court concludes that the redrawing of school attend­
ance area lines to eliminate the last vestiges of the dual 
zone system, has been done without regard to racial factors 
but upon proper educational considerations. In the admin­
istration of the plan the Court recognizes the right of the 
Board to make use of school attendance areas, and finds as 
a matter of law that the school attendance areas are pre­
pared without discrimination.

For the reasons set out in the Findings of Fact, the Court 
finds the requirement that a parent pick up a transfer 
request at the School Board office, and that it be signed by 
both parents unless such be impracticable of accomplish­
ment, are reasonable and proper safeguards in and about 
the administration of the public school system, so long as 
these procedures are administered alike to both races. The 
Court has found that the requirement was so administered. 
The requirement that the completed form be returned in 
person by the parent is unreasonable and said forms may 
be returned by mail. With this change, the transfer pro­
cedure is reasonable and not unduly burdensome.

The Court is convinced that the notice given of the terms 
of the plan and of the deadlines involved in prior years has 
been reasonable in view of the limited time available to give 
such notice. However, with the time now available to de­
fendant Board before the transfer request period and the 
beginning of the ensuing school year, the Court is of the

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



62a

opinion that some additional information should be fur­
nished to school patrons with regard to the terms of the 
desegregation plan and the various deadlines involved. 
The decree entered pursuant to these findings and conclu­
sions will direct the defendant Board to give such addi­
tional notice, through ordinary school channels, to school 
patrons as will afford them a reasonable and conscious op­
portunity to apply for transfer or admission of pupils to 
any school they would otherwise be eligible to attend with­
out regard to race. This notice has been approved by the 
Court and is a part of the record in this case. (See Appen­
dix A)

4. In 1964-65 the speed of application for the plan was 
doubled. It is now7 applicable to grades projected by the 
Court of Appeals to completion in 1969. One-half the 
grades will be affected in 1965-66 in the third year of the 
administration of the plan. Circumstances, as adduced 
from the testimony and the answers to interrogatories, 
demonstrate the desirability of continuing with a rate of 
speed as set out in the plan. The schools are still crowded, 
the system continues to grow, the pace of building new 
schools and adding to existing facilities to catch up con­
tinues without abatement. The maintenance of educational 
standards and provision of time to solve problems created 
by desegregation and crowded conditions dictate adherence 
to the schedule prescribed. As a matter of law, the defen­
dant Board has borne its burden of demonstrating justi­
fication for no additional increase of speed.

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



63a

5. There is no right, enforceable by these plaintiffs, to 
a desegregation of the teachers and administrative per­
sonnel unless such be a necessary or desirable factor in the 
desegregation of students. Such a move at this time would 
be harmful to the general relief originally sought by the 
plaintiffs and should not now be ordered.

The plaintiffs here are pupils in the public school system 
of Mobile County. The constitutional right which plaintiffs 
are entitled to have vindicated is the right not to be dis­
criminated against in the school system because of their 
race or color. Unless there be shown that the assignment 
of teachers and other personnel without regard to race is 
a necessary or indispensable factor in the vindication of 
plaintiffs’ rights, they are not entitled to this relief.

Dated this the 31st day of March 1965.
* * * * *

Decbee
This cause having come on to be heard on February 26 

and continued to March 5, 1965, on plaintiffs’ Motion for 
Further Relief and on defendants’ answer thereto; oral 
testimony, answers to interrogatories, exhibits and an affi­
davit having been considered, and the Court having heard 
and considered arguments of counsel; and Findings of Fact 
and Conclusions of Law having been made by the Court;

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed as fol­
lows : 1

1. The provision in the procedure for requesting trans­
fers in the Plan that requires the return of the completed

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



64a

form by the requesting parents, in person, is stricken, and 
said forms may be returned to the School Board offices by 
United States mail or any other convenient method.

2. Those criteria for transfer in the Plan designated 
(i), (1), (m), and (n) are improper criteria and hereby 
stricken from the Plan.

3. The defendant Board is directed to give such addi­
tional notice, through ordinary school channels, to school 
patrons of the terms and time limitations of the Plan as 
will afford them a reasonable and conscious opportunity 
to apply for transfer or admission of pupils to any school 
they would be eligible to attend without regard to race. 
(See notice listed as Appendix A)

4. In all other respects the desegregation plan of the 
defendant Board is approved as a constitutional plan and 
the administration thereof as non-discriminatory.

5. In all other respects except as ordered hereinabove, 
the motion of plaintiffs is denied.

6. Jurisdiction of this cause is retained to enter such 
further orders and to take such other proceedings as may 
be meet and just in the premises.

Entered this 31st day of March, 1965.

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



65a

APPENDIX A 

I nformation to Parents

Following are the terms of the Desegregation Plan 
adopted by the School Board pursuant to Court order:

If your child is presently in attendance in the Mobile 
County Public School System and will be in the 2nd, 9th, 
10th, 11th, or 12th grade next year and you wish him to 
attend a different school in September, 1965, for good rea­
son, without regard to race, you may make application 
therefor on or before April 15, 1965 and such transfer re­
quest will be considered by the Board without regard to 
race.

^Regulations require that a parent pick up a transfer 
request form in person and that both parents sign or the 
reason be stated why both parents cannot sign. The com­
pleted form may be returned in person on or before April 
15, 1965, or mailed back to the Board. I f mailed, it must 
be postmarked prior to midnight, April 15, 1965, to be con­
sidered.

If your child is to enter the 1st grade of the Mobile 
County Schools for the term 1965-66, he must be pre-reg- 
istered on Thursday, April 22nd, at either of two schools, 
depending upon your preference. He has the right to enroll 
in the school serving the attendance area in which you re­
side or, at your option, you may enroll him in the nearest 
school formerly serving your race. This is your choice.

If your child is a newcomer to the System or if you have 
moved from one attendance area to another and your child

District Court Opinion o f  March 31, 1965



66a

is in the 2nd, 9th, 10th, 11th, or 12th grades, yon have the 
same option for your child as if he were a first grader.

For the year 1966-67 two more grades will be added to 
the grades above set out; being the 3rd and 8th grades. 
Additional grades will be added year by year in accordance 
with the Plan.

District Court Opinion of March 31, 1965



67a

Before Tuttle, Chief Judge, T hornberry, Circuit Judge, 
and Lynne, District Judge.

Tuttle, Chief Judge:

This is the fourth appearance of this case before this 
court. This present appeal, coming as it does from an order 
of the trial court entered nearly eighteen months ago, on 
March 31, 1965, points up, among other things, the utter 
impracticability of a continued exercise by the courts of 
the responsibility for supervising the manner in which seg­
regated school systems break out of the policy of complete 
segregation into gradual steps of compliance and towards 
complete compliance with the constitutional requirements 
of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 
74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873, 38 A.L.R.2d 1180. One of the 
reasons for the impracticability of this method of oversee­
ing the transitional stages of operations of the school 
boards involved is that, under the Supreme Court’s “ de­
liberate speed” provisions, it has been the duty of the ap­
pellate courts to interpret and reinterpret this language as 
time has grown apace, it now being the twelfth school year 
since the Supreme Court’s decision. Another is that appel­
late court requirements have grown more exacting as time 
has passed, and during the last eighteen months pronounce­
ments of this court have interpreted the Supreme Court’s 
interim decisions as requiring considerably greater meas­
ures of desegregation. Thus a decision by a trial court

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966



68a

eighteen months ago is not likely to reflect the current law 
on the subject.1

In 1963, the Mobile County schools, both within the city 
of Mobile and outside the city limits, were completely seg­
regated according to race. In March 1963, the plaintiffs 
filed this suit to require compliance by the Mobile County 
School Commissioners with the requirements of Brown v. 
Board of Education of Topeka. The plaintiffs requested a 
temporary injunction in order to require a start in desegre­
gating the schools in the fall of 1963. The trial court, after 
a hearing in May, neither granted nor denied the motion, 
but granted time for the filing of written briefs. Appellants 
treated this as an order “ denying” an injunction. Cf. 
United States v. Lynd, 5th Cir., 1962, 301 F.2d 818, and 
appealed. We held this temporary delay was not an abuse 
of discretion by the trial court, but stated: “ The matter of 
the grant or denial of the motion for preliminary injunc­
tion, should, as in every case, be promptly determined.” 
Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 
5th Cir., 1963, 318 F.2d 63, 64. We also said: “ [T]his court 
must require prompt and reasonable starts, even displacing 
the District Court discretion, where local control is not de­
sired, or is abdicated by failure to promptly act.” (Empha­

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f A ugust 16, 1966

1 Lest this concept of changing requirements be criticized, we 
must call attention to the fact that the delaying of full vindication 
of a person’s constitutional rights as was done in the School De­
segregation Cases is itself a novel concept, requiring constant re­
appraisal of the degree of compliance by the school systems. It 
must also be borne in mind that this school board ignored for nine 
years the requirement clearly stated in Brown that the School 
authorities have the primary responsibility for solving this con­
stitutional problem.



69a

sis added.) id. p. 64. This was the first appearance of the 
case in this court.

On remand, the District Court still declined to grant an 
injunction and set the case for trial in November, thus per­
mitting the tenth year to pass without any compliance with 
the constitutional requirements. The order of denial was 
an appealable order. It was appealed, and a motion for an 
injunction pending appeal was filed and heard by this court.

On July 9,1963, this court granted appellant’s request for 
injunction pending appeal, requiring a measure of desegre­
gation to begin in at least one grade for the 1963-64 school 
year. Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 
County, 5th Cir., 322 F.2d 356. This was the second appear­
ance of the case here.

Upon the approval by the trial court of an initial plan, 
appellants again appealed to this court, contending that the 
rate of desegregation of the grades fell short of the current 
requirements of the decisions by the Supreme Court and 
this court, and that there had not been a complete abolition 
of dual zones for white and Negro children. This court re­
versed the District Court’s order approving the plan. We 
prescribed definite minimum standards and shortened the 
time eventually desegregating the several grades of the 
school. Included in the opinion of this court was the re­
quirement that dual school zones, areas, or districts be 
abolished. By incorporating the language of the opinion in 
Armstrong v. Board of Education of the City of Birming­
ham, 5th Cir., 333 F.2d 47, decided the same day, this court 
said: “The dual or bi-racial school attendance system, that 
is, any separate attendance areas, districts or zones, shall 
be abolished as to each grade to which the plan is applied

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f  A ugust 16, 1966



70a

and at the time of the application thereof to such grades, 
and thereafter to additional grades as the plan progresses. 
* * * The plan shall apply to the admission of new pupils 
coming into the school system for the first time.” Id. at 51. 
Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 
5th Cir., 1964, 333 F.2d 53. This was the third appearance 
of this case here.

After the mandate from the 1964 decision became the or­
der of the District Court, that court again approved a plan 
of desegregating the Mobile County schools. Its order ap­
proving the Board’s plan is now the subject of this fourth 
appeal. This plan embodies the following principal pro­
visions :

(1) All existing school assignments shall continue 
without change except when transfers are authorized hy 
the Assistant Superintendent in charge of pupil per­
sonnel under the provisions of the plan. (This means 
that all Negro and white children who had entered 
Negro and white schools respectively would continue 
to attend those schools unless transferred.)

(2) Transfers as to the desegregated grades could he 
applied for between April 1 and April 15 of each year 
for the next succeeding year. As originally written the 
transfers were subject to the requirements of the Ala­
bama Pupil Placement Act, having many subjective 
tests. It is apparent that during subsequent years 
these tests were not, in fact, resorted to, but transfers 
were granted or denied largely upon other factors, not 
announced publicly and not fully specified in this rec­
ord other than the general ground of the lack of space

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966



71a

for the student seeking transfer in the school to which 
transfer was requested.

(3) New student assignments. New students applying 
for admission to the first grade or pupils registering 
for the first time in other grades to which the plan has 
become applicable “may apply for attendance at the 
school in the district of their residence, or the nearest 
school formerly attended exclusively by their race at 
their option.”

(4) All faculties of the schools of Mobile County are 
assigned according to race.

The school population of the Mobile County School Sys­
tem for the year 1964-65 was approximately 75,000 pupils, 
and for the succeeding year some 79,000. 39% of the school 
population was Negro and 61% white. Substantially all of 
the school’s buildings were crowded in 1963-64, but a pro­
gram of building new schools was under way. The record 
does not disclose the present availability of seats in any 
particular school. The school system incorporated some 
90 different school buildings at the time of the promulga­
tion of this plan. Information supplied pending the appeal 
indicates that of the approximately 31,000 Negro students, 
39 were attending class with white students during 1965-66.

In order to understand fully the working of the plan, it 
must be borne in mind, as disclosed upon the trial of the 
case, that a new map of “ school areas” has been prepared 
by the Board of Education. These school areas are readily 
distinguishable as “white” and “ Negro,” although, in each 
of the areas, there is a sprinkling of persons of the opposite

Court o f Appeals Opinion o f  A ugust 16, 1966



72a

race. The trial court found as a fact, that the area bounda­
ries were not drawn with racial characteristics in mind for 
the purpose of maintaining a pattern of racial segregation 
in the area schools.13 However, the school superintendent 
testified (as was obvious to any who studied neighborhood 
patterns) that it was “ generally true that the actual make­
up of the school district [sometimes called “area” ] tends 
to conform with the race of the school within that district.” 
It must also be borne in mind that the junior high schools 
and senior high schools have operated on the “ feeder” 
system, and it is demonstrated on the record that allocation 
of students to the junior high schools and senior high 
schools follow the racial pattern because only Negro ele­
mentary schools are feeders to the Negro junior high 
schools, and the latter are the only feeders to the Negro 
senior high schools. In other words, no Negro elementary 
school prepared students for a junior high school that was 
not entirely Negro, and no white elementary school pre­
pared students for a junior high school that was not almost 
entirely white.* 2

The plan was to have application in the school year 1963- 
64 to the twelfth grade in the city of Mobile only, in the 
school year 1964-65 it was to have application to the elev­
enth and twelfth grades in all schools in Mobile County and

laW e do not here pass on the correctness of this determination 
nor determine the legal effect that might result if de facto segrega­
tion were to continue by reason of the setting up of school districts 
even without any improper motive.

2 The Board does not now class schools as white or Negro. How­
ever the use of the designation is meant to convey the fact that the 
schools of Mobile are still either entirely Negro or almost entirely 
white.

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966



73a

to the first and tenth grades in the City of Mobile schools. 
In 1965-66 it was to have application to grades one, two, 
nine, ten, eleven and twelve of all schools of Mobile County. 
In 1966-67, grades three and eight wrere to be added, in 
1967-68, grades four and seven were to be added, in 1968-69 
grade five was to be added, and in 1969-70 it became ap­
plicable to grade six.

Further factual material that must be noted is that, as 
found by the District Court, “A  larger variety of special 
courses is offered at those schools attended predominantly 
by white pupils.” 3 The Board has no policy of permitting 
a Negro student of a grade not yet desegregated to transfer 
to a white school in order to take a particular course of 
study.

Essentially, it can be said that this plan, operating in a 
system in which space is tight, and where all students are 
“frozen” into the segregated pattern of attendance unless 
transfers are approved, provides little opportunity to break 
up the heretofore open identification of schools as white 
and Negro. Recognizing, as we must, the binding effect of

3 A larger variety of special courses is offered at those schools 
attended predominantly by white pupils, although in many in­
stances the number of schools offering a particular course is only 
one more in the case of white pupils. There are about 50% more 
white pupils in the system than Negro pupils, making it reasonable 
that more schools attended predominantly by white pupils would 
offer a particular special subject. Many factors enter into a deter­
mination of courses offered in a particular school, and the course 
offerings vary from school to school without necessary regard to the 
race of the pupils. Facilities, pupil interest, location, and socio­
economic factors all affect course offerings. There is no evidence 
that any application for transfer for the current year was predi­
cated on a desire for a special course not offered by the school the 
pupil had been attending. The Assistant Superintendent in charge 
of pupil personnel could not recall a single such request.

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966



74a

the pronouncement in Brown v. Board of Education of 
Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 495, 74 S. Ct. 686, 692, 98 L. Ed. 873, 
38 A.L.R.2d 1180, that “ [sjeparate educational facilities are 
inherently unequal,” we conclude that the Mobile plan falls 
far short of the requirements of the law in several respects. 
Principal among these is the fact that even as to those 
grades which, under the plan, have actually become “de­
segregated” there is no true substance in the alleged de­
segregation. Less than two-tenths of one percent of the 
Negro children in the system are attending white schools. 
Another defect is in the length of time that the plan would 
require to come to a final fruition; another is the option 
given to white students living within the “ area” or “dis­
trict” of a given school to transfer to another district or 
area to attend a white school there, without the granting 
of a similar option to a Negro child residing within the 
area of a Negro school to transfer to a white school outside 
the area; a further significant defect is the lack of provi­
sion for a Negro child to attend a school offering particular 
subjects if such subjects are taught only in white schools; 
and finally, there is the failure of the plan to start desegre­
gation of the faculties of the schools.

Both in the testimony and in the briefs, much is said by 
the appellees about the virtues of “neighborhood schools.” 
Of course, in the brief of the Board of Education, the word 
“neighborhood” doesn’t mean what it usually means. When 
spoken of as a means to require Negro children to continue 
to attend a Negro school in the vicinity of their homes, it 
is spoken of as a “neighborhood” school plan. When the 
plan permits a white child to leave his Negro “neighbor­
hood” to attend a white school in another “neighborhood” 
it becomes apparent that the “neighborhood” is something

Court o f A ppeals Opinion o f  A ugust 16, 1966



75a

Court of Appeals Opinion o f  A ugust 16, 1966

else again. As every member of this court knows, there are 
neighborhoods in the South and in every city of the South 
which contain both Negro and white people. So far as has 
come to the attention of this court, no Board of Education 
has yet suggested that every child be required to attend 
his “neighborhood school” if the neighborhood school is a 
Negro school. Every board of education has claimed the 
right to assign every white child to a school other than the 
neighborhood school under such circumstances. And yet, 
when it is suggested that Negro children in Negro neighbor­
hoods be permitted to break out of the segregated pattern 
of their own race in order to avoid the “ inherently unequal” 
education of “ separate educational facilities,” the answer 
too often is that the children should attend their “ neigh­
borhood school.”

So, too, there is a hollow sound to the superficially ap­
pealing statement that school areas are designed by ob­
serving safety factors, such as highways, railroads, streams, 
etc. No matter how many such barriers there may be, none 
of them is so grave as to prevent the white child whose 
“area” school is Negro from crossing the barrier and en­
rolling in the nearest white school even though it be several 
intervening “areas” away. This court, in a number of de­
cisions, notably Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate 
School District, 5th Cir., 355 F.2d 865, and Price v. Deni­
son Independent School District, Board of Education, 5th 
Cir., 348 F.2d 1010, has called attention to the significant 
fact that the United States Congress, in passing the Civil 
Eights Act of 1964, declared a strong legislative policy 
against racial discrimination in public education.4 The

J i f *  July 2’ 1964> Public Law 88-352, Title IV, §§ 401-410, 
78 Stat. 246-249, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000c to 2000c-9.



76a

operative section of the statute expressly prohibits the ex­
clusion of any person in the United States from participa­
tion in being denied the benefits of, or being subjected to 
discrimination under, any program or activity receiving 
federal financial assistance.5

We have also called attention to the publication by the 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare of a “ Gen­
eral Statement of Policies Under Title V I of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 Respecting Desegregation of Elemen­
tary and Secondary Schools.” 6 We now call attention to 
the fact that a revised statement of policies has been issued 
by the Department as of March 1966.

In Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dis­
trict, 5th Cir., 348 F.2d 729, this court said:

“We attach great weight to the standards established 
by the Office of Education. The judiciary has of course 
functions and duties distinct from those of the execu­
tive department, but in carrying out a national policy 
the three departments of government are united by a 
common objective. There should be a close correlation, 
therefore, between the judiciary’s standards in enforc­
ing the national policy requiring desegregation of pub­
lic schools and the executive department’s standards 
in administering this policy. Absent legal questions, 
the United States Office of Education is better qualified

5 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000d provides as follows:
“ No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, 

color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be 
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under 
any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

6 45a C.F.R. Section 80(e), December 4, 1964, Pursuant to Sec­
tion 602 of the Act, 42 U.S.C.A. Section 2000d-l.

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966



77a

than the courts and is the more appropriate federal 
body to weigh administrative difficulties inherent in 
school desegregation plans. If in some district courts 
judicial guides for approval of a school desegregation 
plan are more acceptable to the community or substan­
tially less burdensome than H.E.W. guides, school 
boards may turn to the federal courts as a means of 
circumventing the H.E.W. requirements for financial 
aid. Instead of a uniform policy relatively easy to ad­
minister, both the courts and the Office of Education 
would have to struggle with individual school systems 
on ad hoc basis. If judicial standards are lower than 
H.E.W. standards, recalcitrant school boards in effect 
will receive a premium for recalcitrance; the more the 
intransigence, the bigger the bonus. * * *

“If Selma, Alabama, can commence with desegrega­
tion of four grades for 1965-1966, Jackson, Mississippi, 
can at least catch up. And indeed in all but the most 
exceptional cases, all school districts commencing de­
segregation in fall 1965 should be expected to do as 
well.”

After having made this pronouncement, this court granted 
an injunction pending appeal and directed the Board of Ed­
ucation of the City of Jackson, Mississippi “ to submit 
promptly a plan of desegregation extending to at least 4 
grades for the year 1965-1966.” With respect to this, the 
court then said: “ As to details of the plan, the Board should 
be guided by the standards and policies announced by the 
Lnited States Office of Education in establishing standards 
for compliance with the requirement of Title VI of the

Court o f  A ppeals Opinion o f  A ugust 16, 1966



78a

Civil Rights Act of 1964.” In  P r ic e  v . D en iso n  Independent 
S ch o o l D is tr ic t  B o a r d  o f  E d u ca t io n , 5th  C ir., 348 F .2 d  1010, 
th is co u r t  s a id : “ In  S in g le to n  v . J a ck so n  M u n ic ip a l Sepa­
ra te  S ch o o l D ist., * * * w e  a c co r d e d  th ese  m in im u m  stand­
a rd s  a  h ig h  p la ce  in  ou r  fu tu r e  h a n d lin g  o f  sch oo l cases 
totally without regard to whether a school district was seek­
ing (or desired) Federal grants in aid.”  (E m p h a s is  added) 
348 F .2 d  1010, 1013. T h en , in  the la te r  ca se  o f  S ingleton v. 
J a ck so n  M u n ic ip a l S e p a ra te  S ch o o l D is tr ic t , 5 Cir., 355 
F .2 d  865, w e  re s ta te d  the sam e p r in c ip le  o f  a ttach in g  great 
w e ig h t to  the s ta n d a rd s  e sta b lish ed  b y  the Office o f  Educa­
tion . W e  s a id : “ H E W ’s sta tem en t o f  A p r il ,  1965 estab­
lish es o n ly  minimum s ta n d a rd s  o f  g e n e ra l app lication . In 
ce r ta in  s ch o o l d is tr ic ts  a n d  in  ce r ta in  resp ects , HEW ’s 
s ta n d a rd s  m a y  b e  to o  lo w  to  m eet the req u irem en ts  estab­
lish e d  b y  the S u p re m e  C o u rt  a n d  b y  th is  C o u r t ; we doubt 
that they would ever he too high.”  (E m p h a s is  added.) 355 

F .2 d  865, 869.
T h en , d e a lin g  w ith  the sp ec ific  p r o v is io n s  o f  the Jackson 

p lan , th is co u r t  s a id : “ T h e  s ch o o l ch ild re n  in  still-segre­
g a te d  g ra d e s  in  N e g r o  s ch o o ls  a re  th ere  b y  assignment 
b a se d  on  th e ir  ra ce . T h is  a ss ig n m en t w as unconstitutional. 
T h e y  h a v e  an  a b so lu te  r ig h t , as in d iv id u a ls , to  transfer to 
s ch o o ls  f r o m  w h ich  th e y  w e re  e x c lu d e d  b eca u se  o f their 

race .
“ T h is  h as b een  the la w  s in ce  B r o w n  v . B o a r d  o f  Educa­

t io n  [ o f  T o p e k a ] ,  1954, 347 U .S . 483, 74 S. C t. 686, 98 L. Ed. 
873 [38  A .L .R .2 d  1 1 8 0 ]. M isu n d e rs ta n d in g  o f  this prin­
c ip le  is  p e rh a p s  du e  to  th e  p o p u la r ity  o f  an  oversimplified 
d ic tu m  th at the co n s t itu t io n  ‘ d o e s  n o t  re q u ire  integration

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966



79a

[Briggs v. E llio tt , E .D .S .C ., 1955, 132 F . S u p p . 776, 7 7 7 ]. 
But there sh ou ld  b e  n o  m isu n d e rs ta n d in g  n o w  as to  the 
right o f  any  ch ild  in  a  se g re g a te d  c la ss  to  tra n s fe r  to  a 
formerly all ‘w h ite ’ c la ss , re g a rd le ss  o f  the s lo w  p a ce  o f  
systematic d e se g re g a t io n  b y  c la sse s .”  T h en  p o in t in g  to  the 
case o f R o g e rs  v . P a u l, 382 U .S . 198, 86 S . Ct. 358, 15 
L. Ed.2d 265, the o p in io n  sh o w e d  that, as re q u ire d  b y  th at 
decision o f  the S u p re m e  C ou rt, it  w ill h e re a fte r  be r e ­
quired that, w h ere  a ss ig n m en ts  o f  p u p ils  w e re  on  a  ra c ia l 
basis, they m ust n o w  be p e rm itte d  to  a tten d  the s ch oo l 
from which th ey  w ere  o r ig in a lly  e x c lu d e d  b eca u se  o f  ra ce . 
Thus, a N egro  ch ild  l iv in g  in  a re a  “ A ”  w h ich  w as p re d o m i­
nantly white w ho w as a ss ig n e d  to  a  N e g ro  s ch o o l in  a rea  
“B” , and w ho is still in  a tten d a n ce  a t the N e g r o  s ch o o l b y  
reason o f con tin u in g  a tten d a n ce  w h ere  o r ig in a lly  a ss ign ed , 
is constitutionally en titled  to  an  im m ed ia te  t ra n s fe r  to  the 
school from  w h ich  he w as d e n ie d  a d m iss ion , b u t w h ich  he 
would have been en titled  to  a tten d  i f  o f  the o th e r  ra ce . W e  
find this to be c le a r ly  the h o ld in g  o f  the S u p re m e  C o u rt  in  
Rogers v. Paul.

Not only d id  this co u r t  sp e ll ou t  th is  re q u ire m e n t in  the 
Singleton case, bu t d u r in g  the su m m er o f  1965, u p o n  m o tio n  
made on beh alf o f  N e g ro  p la in t if fs , w e  en te re d  sev en  p e r  
curiam orders in o th er  ca ses  re m a n d in g  to  the D is tr ic t  
Court “ fo r  fu rth er  co n s id e ra t io n  in  the lig h t  o f  S in g le to n  
v. Jackson M un icipa l S e p a ra te  S ch o o l D is tr ic t  * * 349
F.2d 1020, 1022.

Thus, fo r  m any a y e a r , it  h as b een  a p p a re n t  to  a ll c o n ­
cerned that the req u irem en ts  o f  S in g le to n  an d  D en iso n  
were the m inim um  sta n d a rd s  to  a p p ly .

Thus it is, that re g a rd le ss  o f  the n u m b er  o f  g ra d e s  w h ich , 
beginning next fa ll, a re  u n d e r  th e  p la n  o f  d e se g re g a t io n ,

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966



80a

the a p p e llee  B o a r d  m u st g ra n t  to  a n y  ch ild  w h ose  original 
a tten d an ce  at h is p re se n t s ch o o l w as  d ic ta te d  b y  the policy 
o f  s e g re g a t in g  ch ild re n  b y  ra ce  (a s  w as  d on e  uniformly 
p r io r  to  S ep tem b er , 1963 ), the r ig h t, a t h is  requ est, to at­
ten d  the s ch o o l w h ich  he w o u ld  h a ve  been  p erm itte d  to at­
ten d  b u t f o r  su ch  ra c ia l p o licy .

A l l  o th e r  p u p ils , th a t is , th ose  w h o  h a ve  en tered  their 
p re se n t sch o o ls  w ith o u t r e fe re n ce  to  ra c ia l a tten dan ce  poli­
c ies , w e re  g iv e n  the o p t io n  o f  a tte n d in g  the s ch o o l o f  their 
“ a re a ”  (u n m ista k a b ly  id en tifia b le  as e ith er  a N egro or 
w h ite  “ a re a ” ) o r  the n e a re s t  sch oo l, ou ts id e  the area, for­
merly predominantly of their race. S in ce  it  is perfectly 
o b v io u s  th at th is  w a s  a ch o ice  w h ich  p e rm itte d  white stu­
d en ts  in  a  N e g ro  “ a r e a ”  to  t r a n s fe r  to  the n earest white 
sch oo l, w h ich  p r iv ile g e  w a s  n o t  g ra n te d  to  en terin g  Negro 
stu d en ts , th is is  a  p la in  v io la t io n  o f  on e  o ft-rep ea ted  re­
q u irem en t th a t d u a l s ch o o l zon es  m u st b e  abolished. We 
con c lu d e  th e r e fo r e  th a t a ll o f  su ch  N e g r o  students who 
h a v e  en tered  u n d e r  th is  p o l ic y  m u st b e  a cco r d e d  a similar 
ch o ice . T h a t  is , th ey  m u st b e  g iv e n  the o p p o r tu n ity  of re­
m a in in g  in  the N e g ro  s ch o o l o f  th e ir  a rea  o r  transferring 
to  the n e a re s t  w h ite  sch oo l. T h en , i f  a n y  stu den ts  who here­
a fte r  en ter  the sy stem  a re  g iv e n  the b lan k et o p tio n  o f choos­
in g  the n e a re s t  w h ite  s ch o o l ra th e r  th an  the N egro  school 
o f  the a rea  in  w h ich  th e y  res id e , as is  n o w  the plan, this 
o p t io n  m u st b e  a f fo r d e d  to  a ll, N e g r o  as w e ll as white. 
O th erw ise , th is  d e v ice  h as the e ffe c t  o f  perpetu ating  the 
se p a ra t io n  o f  p u p ils  in to  the N e g r o  an d  w h ite  schools. Such 
se p a ra t io n  o f  c la sses  b y  ra ce  is  the th in g  th a t is condemned 
in  B r o w n  v . B o a r d  o f  E d u c a t io n  o f  T o p e k a . Its  perpetua­
t io n  ca n n o t b e  co n d o n e d  on  the th e o ry  th a t the N egro child

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966



81a

is given the p r iv ile g e  o f  t r a n s fe r r in g  ou t o f  h is a rea  in to  
another N e g ro  s ch oo l an d  the w h ite  ch ild  is  g iv e n  the r ig h t  
to transfer ou t o f  h is  a rea  in to  a w h ite  sch oo l.

I f  the op tion a l t ra n s fe r s  w e h a ve  h ere  p re s c r ib e d  sh ou ld  
overcrow d the w h ite  s ch oo ls , th en  p re fe re n ce  m u st be 
given to the p u p il l iv in g  n e a re s t  the sch oo l. S ee  G ain es v . 
Douglitery C ou n ty  B o a r d  o f  E d u ca tio n , 5th C ir ., 329 F .2 d  
823, 825.

Furtherm ore, in  lig h t  o f  the sp ec ific  req u irem en ts  a n ­
nounced b y  the S u p rem e  C o u rt  in  R o g e r s  v . P au l, su p ra , 
every con sid era tion  m u st be g iv e n  b y  the B o a r d  to  m ake 
possible the tra n s fe r  o f  a n y  N e g r o  p u p il to  a n oth er  sch oo l 
which p rov id es  a co u rse  o f  in s tru c tio n  w h ich  he d e s ire s  to  
take, and w h ich  is  n o t  in c lu d ed  in  the cu rr icu lu m  o f  the 
school to w hich  the “ a r e a ”  a ss ig n m en t p ra c t ic e  p la ce s  h im .

Another panel o f  th is  co u r t  is  co n s id e r in g  a p p e a ls  in  e igh t 
other school d e se g re g a t io n  ca ses . In  a ll o f  th ese , the co u r t  
has asked f o r  b r ie fs  to u ch in g  on  the ex ten t to  w h ich  the 
courts could, and, i f  th e y  can , sh ou ld , g iv e  w e ig h t  to , o r  
rely on, H .E .W . g u id e lin es  an d  p o lic ie s  in  ca ses  n o w  b e fo r e  
the court.' B ecau se  th is  ca se  w as th en  p e n d in g , w e  a lso  
called on counsel to  re s p o n d  to  th ese  q u e stion s  in  th is  case .

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966

7 These questions, submitted to counsel were:
(a) To what extent, consistent with judicial prerogatives and 
obligations, statutory and constitutional, is it permissible and 
desirable for a federal court (trial or appellate) to give weight 
to or to rely on H.E.W. guidelines and policies in cases before 
the court ?
(b) If permissible and desirable, what practical means and 
methods do you suggest that federal courts (trial and appel­
late) should follow in making H.E.W. guidelines and policies 
judicially effective?



82a

A ll  o f  the ca ses  r e fe r r e d  to  w e re  a rg u e d  o ra lly  and sub­
m itted  to  the co u r t  on  M a y  24th. T h e  p re se n t a p p ea l was 
su b m itted  to  a  d iffe r e n t  p a n e l e a r lie r . In  n on e  o f  the other 
ca ses  is  th ere  in v o lv e d  a la rg e  m e tro p o lita n  s ch o o l district 
as is the ca se  h ere . W e  a re  re lu cta n t to  w a it  a n y  longer to 
p e rm it  the co u r t  fu l ly  to  re so lv e  a ll o f  the q u estion s  raised 
in  the o th er  a p p e a ls  b e fo r e  a n n o u n cin g  o u r  con clu sion  as 
to  m in im u m  ch a n ges  th a t m u st b e  p u t in to  e ffe c t  by  the 
a p p e lle e  B o a r d  o f  S ch o o l C o m m iss io n e rs  f r o m  Mobile 
C ou n ty  f o r  the n e x t  s ch o o l y e a r . W e  co n c lu d e  th at the re­
q u irem en ts  w e h a ve  o u tlin ed  a re  a b so lu te ly  essen tia l in or­
d e r  f o r  th is c o u r t ’s ju d g m e n ts  to  b e  co n s is te n t  as we ap­
p ro a ch  the tw e lfth  y e a r  fo l lo w in g  the S u p rem e  Court’s 
d e c is io n  in  B r o w n  v . B o a r d  o f  E d u ca t io n  o f  T opeka .

In  a d d it ion , tw o  fu r th e r  m o d ifica tio n s  o f  the M obile plan 
m u st b e  m ade . T h e  firs t  is  th a t the tim e  m u st b e  shortened 
in  su ch  m a n n er th a t a ll g ra d e s  w ill  b e  fu l ly  desegregated 
b y  the b e g in n in g  o f  s ch o o l in  the fa l l  o f  1967, the target 
da te  a n n ou n ced  in  the H .E .W . re g u la tio n s . T h e re  is noth­
in g  on  the r e c o r d  b e fo r e  us th a t d em on stra te s  the need 
f o r  a n y  a d d it io n a l tim e u n d e r  the fo r m u la  announced in 

the Brown d ecis ion .
S eco n d , the p la n  m u st b e  m o d ifie d  in  o rd e r  that there 

b e  an  en d  to  the p re se n t  p o l ic y  o f  h ir in g  an d  assigning 
tea ch ers  a c c o r d in g  to  ra ce  b y  the tim e the la s t  o f  the schools 
a re  fu l ly  d e s e g re g a te d  f o r  the s ch o o l y e a r  1967-68.

A s  h as a lre a d y  b een  sta ted , the a ctu a l supervision  by 
the co u r ts , e s p e c ia lly  an  a p p e lla te  co u r t , o f  the steps by 
w h ich  the co n s t itu t io n a l r ig h ts  o f  the p la in tif fs  and their 
c la ss  a re  u lt im a te ly  v in d ica te d  is  h ig h ly  unsatisfactory. 
T h e  d e g re e  to  w h ich  the a p p e lle e  a cce p ts  the legal prin­

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966



83a

ciples an n ou n ced  b y  the co u r ts  as the g u id in g  p r in c ip le s  
upon w hich  it u n d erta k es  an ew  the task  o f  o p e ra t in g  a 
constitutionally v a lid  sch o o l system , the s im p ler  a n d  m o re  
professionably  (sic) a ccep ta b le  to  a ll w ill it be. A s  the S u - 
professionably  (s ic )  a ccep ta b le  to  a ll w ill it be . A s  the S u ­
preme C ourt and  th is  co u r t  d e v e lo p  an d  an n ou n ce  a d d i­
tional lega l p r in c ip le s  a ffe c t in g  the “ d e lib era te  sp e e d ”  
principle, the B o a r d  sh ou ld  be g u id e d  a cco rd in g ly . I f  it 
fails to do so, the t r ia l co u rt , u n d er  the d o c tr in e  o f  sta re  
decisis, w ill he ab le  to  so lv e  su ch  a d d it io n a l q u estion s  as 
may arise in  the a p p lica tio n  o f  the le g a l p r in c ip le s  in v o lv e d .

In order that the tr ia l co u r t  m a y  p r o m p t ly  en ter  an o rd e r  
making, or a p p ro v in g , m o d ifica tio n s  in  the p la n  to  c o n fo rm  
to what is sa id  h ere , the o rd e r  o f  the tr ia l c o u r t  is  re v e rse d  
and the case is  rem a n d ed .

The ju dgm en t shall issu e  fo r th w ith .

Lynne, D istr ic t  J u d g e , h a v in g  re cu se d  h im se lf, to o k  
no part in the h e a r in g , co n s id e ra t io n , o r  d e c is io n  o f  th is

Court of Appeals Opinion of August 16, 1966

case.



84a

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967

T homas, D is tr ic t  J u d g e .

O rd e r

T h is  ca u se  h a v in g  co m e  on  to  b e  h e a rd  on  J u ly  18-20, 
1967, a n d  J u ly  24-28, 1967, an d  A u g u s t  18, 1967, on 
P la in t i f f ’s m o tio n  f o r  fu r th e r  r e lie f  as am en d ed , on Plain- 
t i f f - In te r v e n o r ’s m o tio n  f o r  su p p lem en ta l re lie f , and on 
D e fe n d a n t ’s a n sw ers  th e r e to ; o ra l te s t im o n y , testimony 
b y  d e p o s it io n s , a n sw ers  to  in te r r o g a to r ie s , affidavits, and 
exh ib its  h a v in g  b een  co n s id e re d , an d  the C o u rt  having 
re ce iv e d  an d  co n s id e re d  the w r itte n  b r ie fs  o f  counsel and 
h a v in g  h e a rd  an d  co n s id e re d  the a rg u m en ts  o f  counsel; 
an d  the C o u rt  b e in g  o f  the o p in io n  th a t an immediate 
in te r im  o rd e r  is  n e ce s s a ry  w ith  r e g a r d  to  ce rta in  action 
to  b e  taken  im m e d ia te ly ;

I t  is , th e re fo re , Ordered as fo l lo w s :

1. T h a t  th ose  stu d en ts  w h ose  p la ce s  o f  residen ce  have 
b een  ch a n g ed  fr o m  on e  e le m e n ta ry  a tten d a n ce  area  to an­
o th er  as a resu lt  o f  a ch a n g e  o r  a lte ra t io n  in  attendance 
a re a  b o u n d a ry  lin es  b e tw een  e le m e n ta ry  s ch o o l attendance 
a rea s , d u r in g  the 1966-67 s ch o o l y e a r , n a m ely  those changes 
in  a tten d a n ce  a re a  b o u n d a ry  lin es  set ou t  in  paragraph 2 
h e r e o f , sh ou ld  im m e d ia te ly  b e  a f fo r d e d  an  opportu n ity  to 
t r a n s fe r  to  the s ch o o l s e rv in g  the a tten d a n ce  a rea  in which 
th e ir  re s id e n ce  n o w  lies , o r  a n y  o th e r  s ch o o l afforded to 
th em  b y  the d e s e g re g a t io n  p la n .

2. T h e  a tten d a n ce  a re a  b o u n d a ry  lin e  ch a n ges  concerned

a r e :



85a

(a) The b o u n d a ry  lin e  b etw een  the W h is t le r  a tten d an ce  
area and the T h om a s  a tten d an ce  area .

(b) The b o u n d a ry  lin e b etw een  the B ie n v ille  a tten d an ce  
area and the C a rv e r  a tten d an ce  a rea .

(c) The b o u n d a ry  lin e  b etw een  the B a rn e y  a tten d an ce  
area and the B ie n v ille  a tten d an ce  a rea .

(d) The b o u n d a ry  lin e  b etw een  the B a rn e y  a tten d an ce  
area and the E ll ic o t t  a tten d an ce  area .

(e) The b o u n d a ry  lin e  b etw een  the O ld  S h e ll R o a d  a t ­
tendance area  an d  the F o n v ie lle  a tten d an ce  area .

(f)  The b o u n d a ry  lin e  b etw een  the W a r r e n  a tten d an ce  
area and the C r ich ton  a tten d a n ce  area .

3. In o rd er  to  a cco m p lish  the a b o v e , a sp e c ia l t ra n s fe r  
period shall be h e ld  on  M o n d a y  th ro u g h  T h u rsd a y , A u ­
gust 28-31, 1967, d u r in g  w h ich  tim e a p p lica tio n s  f o r  these 
transfers m a y  be m ade. N o tice  o f  th is  t ra n s fe r  p e r io d , 
approved b y  the C ou rt, sh a ll b e  g iv e n  b y  p u b lica tio n  o f  
a display ad n o tice  f o r  th ree  co n se cu tiv e  d a y s  im m e d i­
ately p rior to  the t r a n s fe r  p e r io d . T r a n s fe r  re q u e st  fo r m s  
shall be available  at the s ch o o l b o a r d  offices a n d  a t T h o m a s  
Elementary S ch o o l an d  E ll ic o t t  E le m e n ta ry  S ch o o l, d u r in g  
the transfer req u est p e r io d , a n d  sh a ll b e  p ick e d  u p  b y  
parents or gu a rd ia n s , o r  th e  stu d en t in v o lv e d  i f  s ix teen  
years old or  o ld er , in  p e rso n . A n y  o th e r  a p p ro p r ia te  
procedures n e ce ssa ry  to  a d m in is tra t io n  o f  th e  sp ecia l 
transfer p er iod  sh a ll b e  a d o p te d  an d  ca r r ie d  out.

4. In all other re sp e c ts , e x ce p t  as o rd e r e d  h e re in a b ov e , 
the motions o f  P la in t i f f  a n d  P la in t if f - In te r v e n o r  rem a in

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



86a

u n d er su b m iss ion , an d  ju r is d ic t io n  o f  th is  ca u se  is  retained 
to  en ter su ch  fu r th e r  o rd e rs  an d  to  take su ch  oth er pro­
ce ed in g s  as m a y  b e  m eet an d  ju s t  in  the p rem ises . 

E n te r e d  th is  24th  d a y  o f  A u g u s t , 1967.

* * * * *

N o tice

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967

To At.u S chool P atrons:

P u rsu a n t  to  the o rd e r  o f  the U n ite d  S ta tes  District 
C o u rt  f o r  the S o u th e rn  D is tr ic t  o f  A la b a m a , a special 
t r a n s fe r  re q u e st  p e r io d  is  h e re b y  e sta b lish ed  f o r  Monday, 
T u e sd a y , W e d n e s d a y  a n d  T h u rsd a y , A u g u s t  28, 29, 30, 
a n d  31, 1967, f o r  p a re n ts  o r  g u a rd ia n s  o f  p u p ils  in any 
o f  the ca te g o r ie s  set ou t b e low . S u ch  p a re n ts  o r  guardians 
m u st p ick  u p  the t ra n s fe r  a p p lica t io n  fo r m  at the school 
b o a r d  office, B a r to n  A c a d e m y  B u ild in g , 504 Government 
S tree t, M o b ile , A la b a m a , o r  T h o m a s  E le m e n ta ry  School, 
743 A lv a r e z  A v e n u e , P r ich a rd , A la b a m a , o r  E llico tt  Ele­
m e n ta ry  S ch o o l, 1250 C r a ft  H ig h w a y , C h ick asaw , Alabama, 
in  p e rso n , b e g in n in g  M o n d a y , A u g u s t  28 a t  8 :00 a.m., and 
m u st re tu rn  the co m p le te d  fo r m  to  sa id  s ch o o l b oa rd  offices 
b y  m a il o r  o th e rw ise  so  th a t it  w ill  b e  r e c e iv e d  on  or before 
5 :0 0  p .m ., T h u rs d a y , A u g u s t  31, 1967. A p p lica tion s  re­
c e iv e d  a fte r  th a t tim e  w ill  n o t  b e  co n s id e re d .

S tu d en ts  in  ju n io r  o r  s e n io r  h ig h  s ch o o l w h o  are sixteen 
y e a rs  o ld  o r  o ld e r  m a y  p ic k  u p  th e ir  ow n  tra n s fe r  appli­
ca t io n  fo r m  a t  a n y  o f  the a b o v e  p la ce s , b u t  sa id  form  must 

b e  s ig n e d  b y  th e ir  p a re n t  o r  g u a rd ia n .
N o t ic e  o f  a c t io n  tak en  on  the t r a n s fe r  requ est will be 

m a ile d  on  o r  b e fo r e  F r id a y , S e p te m b e r  1, 1967. I f  a trans­



87a

fer request is  d en ied , the p a re n t  o r  g u a rd ia n  o f  the p u p il 
affected m a y  a p p e a l to  the B o a r d  in  w r it in g  p r io r  to  S e p ­
tember 9, 1967. W h ile  su ch  a p p e a l is  p e n d in g , the p u p il 
concerned shall b e g in  a tten d a n ce  a t the s ch o o l he w o u ld  
normally be a tte n d in g  b u t f o r  the p e n d in g  t ra n s fe r  requ est.

This specia l t r a n s fe r  req u est p e r io d  is  o c c a s io n e d  b y  
changes in the b o u n d a ry  lin es  o f  ce r ta in  s ch o o l a tten d an ce  
areas. P u p ils  e lig ib le  to  t ra n s fe r  d u r in g  th is  sp e c ia l tra n s ­
fer period  a re  as f o l l o w s :

1. A ll those stu d en ts  in  G ra d es  1 th ro u g h  6, re s id in g  
within the fo llo w in g  b o u n d a r ie s  sh a ll b e  e lig ib le  to  req u est 
transfers to  the W h is t le r  S ch o o l, o r  to  the n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  
white school to  th e ir  re s id e n ce  ou ts id e  the W h is t le r  a tte n d ­
ance area, o r  to  the n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  N e g r o  s ch o o l to  th e ir  
residence ou tside  the W h is t le r  a tten d a n ce  a r e a :

Area bou n d  on  the W e s t  b y  the G M & O  R a ilr o a d , S ou th  
by 1-10 H ig h w a y , E a s t  b y  G um  T r e e  B ra n ch , a n d  on  
the N orth  b y  A tm o r e  A v e n u e  N o r th  a n d  F a ll  A v en u e .

2. A ll those stu den ts  in  G ra d e s  1 th ro u g h  6, re s id in g  
within the fo llo w in g  b o u n d a r ie s  sh a ll b e  e lig ib le  to  req u est 
transfers to the T h o m a s  S ch o o l, o r  to  the n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  
white school to  th e ir  re s id e n ce  ou ts id e  th e  T h o m a s  a tte n d ­
ance area, or  to  the n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  N e g r o  s ch o o l to  th e ir  
residence outside the T h o m a s  a tten d a n ce  a r e a :

Area bound on  the W e s t  b y  M a in  S tre e t , S o u th  b y  E lb a  
Avenue, E a st  b y  G M & O  R a ilr o a d , a n d  N o rth  b y  E ig h t  
Mile Creek.

3. All those stu den ts  in  G ra d e s  1 th ro u g h  6, r e s id in g  
within the fo llo w in g  b o u n d a r ie s  sh a ll b e  e lig ib le  to  req u est

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



88a

tra n s fe r s  to  the B ie n v ille  S ch o o l, o r  to  the n e a re s t  form erly 
w h ite  s ch o o l to  th e ir  re s id e n ce  ou ts id e  th e  B ie n v ille  attend­
an ce  a rea , o r  to  the n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  N e g r o  s ch o o l to their 
re s id e n ce  o u ts id e  the B ie n v ille  a tten d a n ce  a r e a :

A r e a  b o u n d  on  the S o u th w est b y  W h is t le r  Avenue, 
E a s t  b y  B r o c k  A v e n u e , an d  N o r th  b y  K ir b y  and  Cot­

to n w o o d  S tree t.

A r e a  b o u n d  on  the W e s t  b y  W h is t le r  A v en u e , South 
b y  M ea h er  A v e n u e , E a s t  b y  C r a ft  H ig h w a y , and  North 
b y  W e s t  B u t le r  S tre e t , W ils o n  A v e n u e  a n d  Peterson.

4. A l l  th ose  stu d en ts  in  G ra d es  1 th ro u g h  6, residing 
w ith in  the fo l lo w in g  b o u n d a r ie s  sh a ll b e  e lig ib le  to  request 
t ra n s fe r s  to  the E ll ic o t t  S ch o o l, o r  to  th e  n e a re s t  formerly 
w h ite  s ch o o l to  th e ir  re s id e n ce  ou ts id e  th e  E llic o t t  attend­
a n ce  a rea , o r  to  th e  n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  N e g r o  s ch o o l to their 
re s id e n ce  ou ts id e  th e  E ll ic o t t  a tten d a n ce  a r e a :

A r e a  w h ich  in c lu d e s  o n ly  H e n d r ick s  a n d  T a f t  Streets 

in  P r ich a rd .

5. A l l  th ose  s tu d en ts  in  G ra d e s  1 th ro u g h  6, residing 
w ith in  the fo l lo w in g  b o u n d a r ie s  sh a ll b e  e lig ib le  to request 
t ra n s fe r s  to  the F o n v ie lle  S ch o o l, o r  to  the nearest for­
m e r ly  w h ite  s ch o o l to  th e ir  re s id e n ce  o u ts id e  the Fonvielle 
a tten d a n ce  a rea , o r  to  th e  n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  N egro  school 
to  th e ir  re s id e n ce  o u ts id e  th e  F o n v ie lle  a tten d an ce  area:

A r e a  b o u n d  on  the W e s t  b y  L o u r d e s  C irc le , South by 
T h re e  M ile  C reek , E a s t  b y  R o n d o  R o a d , and on the 

N o r th  b y  P le a s a n t  A v e n u e .

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



89a

6. A ll th ose  stu d en ts  in  G ra d es  1 th ro u g h  6, re s id in g  
within the fo l lo w in g  b o u n d a r ie s  sh a ll be e lig ib le  to  req u est 
transfers to the C r ich to n  S ch o o l, o r  to  the n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  
white school to  th e ir  re s id e n ce  ou ts id e  the C r ich to n  a tte n d ­
ance area, o r  to  the n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  N e g ro  s ch o o l to  th e ir  
residence ou ts id e  the C r ich to n  a tten d a n ce  a r e a :

A rea  b ou n d  on  the W e s t  b y  M a rt in  S tre e t , S o u th  b y  
GM&O E a ilro a d , E a s t  b y  M o b ile  S tree t, a n d  on  the 
N orth b y  L e C re n  S tre e t , B a y  S h o re  A v e n u e  an d  
Springh ill A v en u e .

7. Parents o r  g u a rd ia n s  o f  p u p ils  in  ju n io r  o r  s e n io r  
high school, w h o re s id e  in  a n y  o f  the a b o v e  a rea s , a re  lik e ­
wise eligible to  req u est t ra n s fe r s . T h o se  p u p ils  in  ju n io r  
high school a re  e lig ib le  to  t r a n s fe r  f r o m  the s ch o o l th e y  
would n orm ally  a tten d  to  the n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  w h ite  ju n io r  
high school o r  the n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  N e g r o  ju n io r  h igh  
school to their res id en ce . T h o se  stu d en ts  in  sa id  a rea s  w h o  
are in senior h igh  s ch o o l a re  e lig ib le  to  t r a n s fe r  f r o m  the 
senior high sch oo l th e y  w o u ld  n o rm a lly  a tte n d  to  the n e a r ­
est form erly  w h ite  se n io r  h ig h  s ch o o l o r  the n e a re s t  f o r ­
merly N egro sen ior  h ig h  s ch o o l to  th e ir  res id en ce .

The em ployees o f  the S ch o o l B o a r d  a t  a n y  o f  the th ree  
above locations w h ere  a p p lica t io n s  m a y  b e  p ick e d  u p , w ill, 
upon request, fu rn ish  in fo r m a t io n  to  a ss is t  in  p r e p a r in g  
and filing the tra n s fe r  a p p lica tio n . P a re n ts  o r  g u a rd ia n s  
are invited to co n ta ct  the O ffice o f  P u p il  P e rs o n n e l at 
Barton A cadem y d u r in g  th is  t r a n s fe r  re q u e st  p e r io d , in  the 
event they have a n y  q u e stio n s  w h ich  ca n n o t b e  a n sw ered  
by persons h an din g  ou t the a p p lica tio n s .

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



90a

O n ly  th ose  p e rs o n s  r e s id in g  w ith in  on e  o f  the above 
seven  a rea s  a re  e lig ib le  to  a p p ly  f o r  t r a n s fe r  d u rin g  this 
sp e c ia l t r a n s fe r  p e r io d . I f  y o u  d o  n o t  re s id e  w ith in  one 
o f  the a b o v e  a rea s , d o  n o t  a p p ly  f o r  su ch  tra n s fe r .

B oabd of S chool Commissioners 
of M obile County 

* * * * *

F indings of F act

1. T h e  M o b ile  P u b lic  S ch o o l S y s te m  is  p rese n tly  oper­
a tin g  u n d e r  an  a m en d ed  d e s e g re g a t io n  p la n  subm itted  pur­
su an t to  a n  o r d e r  o f  th is  C ou rt, a n d  in  tu rn  a  mandate of 
the C o u rt  o f  A p p e a ls  f o r  the F i f t h  C ircu it . T h e plan is 
d a te d  O cto b e r  18, 1966, a n d  w a s  filed  in  th is  Court on 
O cto b e r  1 9 ,1 9 6 6 . T h e  C o u rt  fin ds th a t th is  p la n , on its face, 
su b sta n tia lly  co m p lie s  w ith  th e  M a n d a te  o f  the Court of 
A p p e a ls , a n d  the O rd e r  o f  th is  C ou rt.

2. T h e  S ch o o l S y s te m  is  a  co n s o lid a te d  system  in that 
it  e n co m p a sse s  a ll o f  the p u b lic  s ch o o ls  in  M ob ile  County, 
b o th  c i t y  a n d  ru ra l. T h e  c ity  p o r t io n  is  m a d e  up of the 
c it ie s  o f  M o b ile , P r ic h a r d  a n d  C h ick a saw , an d  the rural 
p o r t io n  the re m a in d e r  o f  M o b ile  C ou n ty .

(a )  T h e  c i t y  p o r t io n  o f  the sy s te m  is  d iv id e d  into geo­
g ra p h ica lly  d e s ig n e d  a tten d a n ce  a re a s  w ith  specific bound­
a r y  lin es . T h e  ru r a l p o r t io n  o f  the sy stem  is made up of 
c o n s id e r a b ly  la r g e r  g e n e ra l a rea s , w ith o u t  sh arp ly  defined 

g e o g r a p h ic  a tte n d a n ce  a re a  b o u n d a r y  lin es .

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



91a

(b) F o r  p u rp o s e s  o f  a d m in is tra t io n  o f  the P la n , the tw o  
portions o f  the system , c ity  a n d  ru ra l, a re  tre a te d  id e n ­
tically ex cep t f o r  on e  b a s ic  d iffe r e n ce , an d  th is  co n ce rn s  
the option  p ro v is io n s  o f  the p la n . U n d e r  the o p t io n  p r o ­
visions o f  the p la n , stu d en ts  in  the ru ra l p o r t io n  o f  the 
system h ave the r ig h t  o f  a tte n d in g  e ith e r  o f  tw o  sch oo ls , 
at the op tion  o f  th e ir  p a re n t  o r  g u a r d ia n ; w h ile  in  the c ity  
portion o f  the sy s te m  the o p t io n  is  to  a tten d  e ith er  o f  
three schools, at the o p t io n  o f  p a re n t  o r  g u a rd ia n .

(c) T he d iffe r e n ce  a r ise s  ou t o f  the fo l lo w in g  c ir cu m ­
stances: w id e ly  s ca tte re d  p o p u la t io n  in  the ru ra l p o r t io n ;  
com paratively fe w e r  s ch o o ls  in  the ru ra l p o r t io n , c o n s id ­
erably la rg er  g e n e ra l a rea s  to  b e  s e rv e d  b y  ea ch  s ch o o l in  
the rural p o r t io n ; an d  the ex is te n ce  o f  a b u s tra n s p o r ta t io n  
system in the ru ra l p o r t io n  o f  the system , o p e ra te d  b y  
defendants.

3. R educed  to  its  b a s ic  te rm s the d e s e g re g a t io n  p la n  
under w hich the d e fe n d a n t  b o a r d  is  o p e r a t in g  the M o b ile  
County schools is  as f o l l o w s :

In the c ity  p o r t io n  o f  th e  s y s t e m :

(a) E v e ry  stu den t u p o n  in it ia l en ro llm e n t in  the sy stem  
has the absolu te  r ig h t  to  e n ro ll in  a n d  a tte n d  the s ch oo l 
serving his a tten d an ce  a re a , o r  a t h is  o p t io n , the a b so lu te  
right to en roll in  a n d  a tte n d  th e  n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  w h ite  
school outside h is a tten d a n ce  a rea , o r  the n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  
Negro school o u ts id e  h is  a tte n d a n ce  a rea . T h is  a b so lu te  
right is available  to  e v e r y  stu d en t in it ia lly  e n ro llin g  in  the 
first grade, and  a t a n y  o th e r  g ra d e  lev e l.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



92a

(b )  E v e r y  stu den t, u p o n  p r o g r e s s in g  f r o m  elem entary 
s ch o o l to  ju n io r  h ig h  s ch o o l has the a b so lu te  r ig h t  to  enroll 
in  a n d  a tten d  the ju n io r  h ig h  s ch o o l s e rv in g  h is  attendance 
a rea , o r  a t h is  o p t io n , the a b so lu te  r ig h t  to  e n ro ll in  and 
a tten d  the n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  w h ite  ju n io r  h ig h  sch oo l out­
s id e  h is  a tten d a n ce  a re a  o r  the n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  Negro 
ju n io r  h ig h  s ch o o l o u ts id e  h is  a tten d a n ce  a rea .

( c )  E v e r y  stu den t, u p o n  p r o g r e s s in g  f r o m  ju n io r  high 
s ch o o l to  s e n io r  h ig h  s ch o o l h as the a b so lu te  r ig h t  to  enroll 
in  a n d  a tten d  the se n io r  h ig h  s ch o o l s e rv in g  h is  attendance 
a rea , o r  a t  h is  o p t io n , the a b so lu te  r ig h t  to  e n ro ll  in  and 
a tten d  th e  n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  w h ite  s e n io r  h ig h  sch oo l out­
s id e  h is  a tten d a n ce  a re a  o r  th e  n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  N eg ro  high 
s ch o o l ou ts id e  h is  a tten d a n ce  a rea .

(d )  E v e r y  stu d en t, u p o n  m o v in g  h is  re s id e n ce  fro m  one 
a tten d a n ce  a re a  to  a n oth er , h a s  the a b so lu te  r ig h t  to  enroll 
in  a n d  a tte n d  the s ch o o l in  h is  n ew  a tten d a n ce  area , or at 
h is  o p t io n , the a b so lu te  r ig h t  to  e n ro ll  in  a n d  attend the 
n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  w h ite  s ch o o l o u ts id e  h is  atten dan ce  area 
o r  the n e a re s t  fo r m e r ly  N e g r o  s ch o o l o u ts id e  h is  attendance 

a rea .

(e )  A s  to  the ru ra l p o r t io n  o f  the s y s te m : T h e  options 
a re  th e  sam e, w ith  th e  e x ce p t io n  th a t in s te a d  o f  a three 
s ch o o l o p t io n , ea ch  stu d en t h as th e  r ig h t  to  attend, at his 
o p t io n , the fo r m e r ly  w h ite  s ch o o l o r  th e  fo r m e r ly  Negro 
s ch o o l n e a re s t  to  h is  re s id e n ce , p r o v id e d  th a t the school is 
w ith in  w a lk in g  d is ta n ce , o r  th a t s ch o o l b u s  transportation 
is a v a ila b le  to  th e  s ch o o l, o r  th a t th e  stu d en t has private 

t r a n s p o r ta t io n  to  the s ch o o l.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



93a

( f )  W h ile  the p la n  lim its  o p t io n s  to  p h y s ica l sp a ce  a v a il­
able, the C ou rt fin d s  as a  fa c t  th a t n o  stu d en t to  d a te  has 
been denied the e x e rc is e  o f  an  o p t io n  du e to  p h y s ica l sp a ce  
limitations. I f  the o cca s io n  a r ise s , the s ta te d  p o l ic y  o f  the 
defendant b o a r d  is  to  p r o v id e  sp e c ia l co n s id e ra t io n  f o r  a n y  
student w ho m ig h t b e  o th e rw ise  d en ie d  the e x e rc ise  o f  h is  
option fo r  th is rea son .

(g ) It  is the s ta ted  p o l ic y  o f  the d e fe n d a n t  b o a r d  to  a r ­
range its tra n sp o rta t io n  ro u te s  to  p r o v id e  tra n s p o r ta t io n  
for every stu den t in  the ru ra l p o r t io n  o f  the system  to  
either o f  the tw o  s ch o o ls  se le cte d  in  the e x e rc ise  o f  the 
options p ro v id e d  u n d e r  the p la n . N o  s tu d en t has been  
denied the o p p o r tu n ity  o f  a tte n d in g  a s ch o o l a v a ila b le  to  
him under the p r o v is io n s  o f  the p la n , f o r  la ck  o f  p u b lic  
school bus tra n sp o rta tio n .

(h) In  ev e ry  in stan ce , the r ig h t  o f  o p t io n  r e fe r r e d  to  is  
a right to be e x e rc ise d  b y  p a re n ts  o r  g u a rd ia n s  f o r  a n d  on  
behalf o f  th eir ch ild ren . In  e v e r y  in sta n ce  w h e re  r e fe r ­
ence is had to  the nearest s ch o o l, th e  n e a rn e ss  r e fe r r e d  to  
is based u pon  p r o x im ity  to  th e  re s id e n ce  o f  p a re n t  o r  
guardian.

(i) The op tion s  p r o v id e d  b y  the p la n  a re  a p p lie d  in  the 
same m anner re g a rd le ss  o f  w h eth er  e n ro llm e n t takes p la ce  
at the beginning o f  sch o o l, la te r  on  d u r in g  th e  co u rs e  o f  the 
school year, d u r in g  p r e -r e g is t r a t io n  o f  p r o s p e c t iv e  firs t  
graders, or u pon  e x e rc ise  o f  the g ra d e  le v e l o p t io n  in  a d ­
vance o f p rom otion  f r o m  e le m e n ta ry  s ch o o l to  ju n io r  h ig h  
school and ju n io r  h ig h  s ch o o l to  s e n io r  h ig h  sch oo l.

4- Students a lre a d y  in  the sy stem , in  a tten d a n ce  a t a  p a r ­
ticular school in  the system , co n tin u e  a t th a t s ch o o l f r o m

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



94a

y e a r  to  y e a r  u n til (a )  th e y  re a ch  the n e x t  o p t io n  le v e l; or 
(b )  th e ir  p a re n ts  o r  g u a rd ia n s  m o v e  th e ir  res id en ce  to a 
d iffe r e n t  a tten d a n ce  a re a  a n d  e x e rc ise  th e  o p t io n  to  attend 
the o p t io n a l s ch o o l f o r  th a t a r e a ;  o r  ( c )  a  t ra n s fe r  is re­

q u e ste d  a n d  g ra n te d .

5. T h e  d e fe n d a n t  b o a r d  m akes n o  in it ia l assign m en ts of 
p u p ils , b u t p e rm its  the fr e e  e x e rc is e  o f  o p t io n s  provided 
b y  th e  p la n  w ith o u t r e g a r d  to  the p re s e n t  ra c ia l make-up 
o f  the s ch o o l o r  to  the ra ce  o f  the p u p il. In it ia l enrollment 
in v o lv e s  n o  t r a n s fe r  n o r  o th e r  sp e c ia l a c t io n  o f  the board; 
lik ew ise  the e x e rc is e  o f  the v a r io u s  o p t io n s  in  the plan 
re q u ire  n o  t r a n s fe r  o r  sp e c ia l a c t io n  o f  the b o a rd .

F o r  a ll s tu d en ts  a lr e a d y  in  the sy s te m  p ro g r e s s in g  from 
e le m e n ta ry  s ch o o l to  ju n io r  h ig h  s ch o o l a n d  fr o m  junior 
h ig h  s ch o o l to  s e n io r  h ig h  sch o o l, a  sp e c ia l fo r m  is pro­
v id e d , u p o n  w h ich  the p a re n t  o r  g u a rd ia n  o f  the students 
sta te  a  ch o ice  o f  ju n io r  h ig h  sch o o ls , o r  s e n io r  h ig h  schools 
a s  the ca se  m a y  be , in  e x e r c is in g  the o p t io n s  prov ided  by 
the p la n . I t  is  m a n d a to r y  th a t th is  f o r m  b e  com pleted  and 
re tu rn e d  to  s ch o o l officia ls. W it h  r e g a r d  to  a ll o th er  options 
(f ir s t  g ra d e rs , n e w co m e rs  in  a ll o th e r  g ra d e s , an d  students 
w h o  h a v e  m o v e d  f r o m  on e  a tte n d a n ce  a re a  to  another) the 
stu d en ts  p re s e n t  th em se lv es  a t  the o p t io n a l s ch oo l o f  their 
ch o ice  a n d  en ro ll.

6. In  M a rch  1967 a p p r o x im a te ly  14,300 students exer­
c is e d  g ra d e  le v e l o p t io n s  u p o n  m o v in g  fr o m  elementary 
s ch o o l to  ju n io r  h ig h  s ch o o l a n d  ju n io r  h ig h  sch o o l to senior 
h ig h  s ch o o l f o r  the 1967-68 s ch o o l y e a r . T h e re  w ere 6,615 
firs t  g r a d e r s  e n ro lle d  f o r  the 1967-68 s ch o o l year. Esti­

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



95a

mates, based upon past experience, indicate that there will 
be some 4,000 to 5,000 newcomers to the school system at 
grade levels other than the first grade during the 1967-68 
school year; and approximately 4,500 students who will 
move their residences from one attendance area to another 
during the 1967-68 school year. The Mobile Public School 
System has a total enrollment of slightly over 75,000 stu­
dents. With reference to the 1967-68 school year, based on 
past experience, more than one-third of this enrollment has, 
or will, during the course of the year, exercise an option 
as provided under the plan.
7. Dual attendance areas based upon race existed at one 

time in the system, but have been abolished and a single 
attendance area system established. A map setting out the 
boundaries of attendance areas as they existed upon the 
opening of school in September 1967 has been furnished to 
the Court, and forms a part of the record in this cause. The 
practice of freely granting transfers to those enrolled in 
a particular school because of residence in one of the old 
dual attendance areas, plus the basic option provisions of 
the plan, has tended to overcome the discrimination that 
once existed because of dual attendance areas. 8

8. The single geographic attendance areas as they pres­
ently exist are not racially devised but are arranged by 
giving due weight to proper factors, i.e., natural and man­
made barriers; safety factors, such as railroads and thor­
oughfares; maximum use of facilities; transportation fa­
cilities and other like considerations. Each attendance area 
ms a certain interrelation with every other attendance

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



96a

area, and the drawing of any attendance area boundary line 
must take into account the factors enumerated about as 
well as the interrelation of that line with all other lines of 
the particular attendance area concerned, and its relation­
ship with other attendance areas. A majority of the at­
tendance areas have both races residing within them.
9. The organization of attendance areas based on the 

neighborhood school concept is a long-standing practice in 
the administration of the school system in Mobile County. 
It is founded on a sound educational basis and the defen­
dant board is justified in its use.
10. The defendant board has historically permitted par­

ents some flexibility in selecting a school. A rigid system 
that requires all children of an area, without exception, to 
attend a particular school fails to take into account that 
school patrons and pupils are individuals with choices, likes 
and dislikes. Such rigidity is a major handicap to proper 
educational processes. However, such flexibility must be 
consistent with good administrative practices which require 
a reasonable amount of specificity to permit adequate plan­
ning and give some basis of stability to the system. 11
11. There are presently 93 schools in the system with 

additional schools in planning and construction. Half-day 
sessions have been eliminated but thousands of students are 
in attendance at schools where the enrollment exceeds the 
normal capacity of the school. This overcrowding is dis­
tributed evenly on a proportionate basis among schools 
where the enrollment is entirely Negro, schools where the

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



97a

enrollment is entirely white, and schools where the enroll­
ment is hi-racial. Much of this over-capacity, which other­
wise would he overcrowding, is accommodated by portable 
classrooms. The schools in the system have not been des­
ignated by race for several years, and are not now so desig­
nated, although certain records relating to the schools and 
to students are kept on a basis by which students are des­
ignated by race. This has been necessitated by the demands 
of desegregation litigation, including this cause.
12. Transfers are granted upon request, for cause, and 

sufficient cause includes a number of reasons concerning 
primarily the convenience and well-being of students. 
Transfers are also granted, as a matter of course, upon 
bona fide requests for transfer to obtain a particular course 
of study not available at the school where the student is in 
attendance, and upon the requests of students who are in 
attendance at a particular school based upon a racial as­
signment due to residence in a former dual zone. Transfer 
requests are required to be made on an official form pro­
cured from the School Board office by a parent or guardian 
in person, and must be signed by a parent or guardian. The 
forms may be returned to the school board office by hand 
or by mail. April 1 through April 15 of each year is desig­
nated as the transfer request period. All transfer requests 
are considered without regard to race and upon the basis 
of the reason assigned for the request and other proper 
factors such as availability of space, transportation consid­
erations, and the basic advantage of maintaining the neigh­
borhood school concept. Any parent or guardian may ap­
peal to the Board of School Commissioners from a denial

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



98a

of a transfer request in writing within ten days of the 
mailing of notice of action on the transfer request.
13. In the administration of the transfer provisions and 

option provisions of the plan, there is no evidence of any 
discrimination by virtue of race. The evidence supports 
equal application of the policies and provisions of the plan, 
to both races and the Court so finds as a matter of fact.
14. No special tests are administered to pupils of either 

race requesting transfers. No transfers have been denied 
arbitrarily or unevenly as between the races. During the 
April 1-15, 1967 transfer period approximately 387 com­
pleted transfer requests were received and acted upon; of 
these 288 were approved and 99 were disapproved. Of 121 
requests for transfer by Negro pupils to predominantly 
white schools, 112 were approved and 9 were disapproved; 
of these 96 were granted on the basis of residence in a for­
mer dual zone, 12 were granted on request to obtain a par­
ticular course, and 4 were for other reasons.
15. Notice of the transfer provisions of the plan is given 

by newspaper publication of a display advertisement type 
notice for three consecutive days immediately preceding 
the transfer period. This form of notice is adequate but 
the Court feels that it would better serve its purpose if 
published once a week for three consecutive weeks nest 
preceding the transfer request period. The content of the 
notice published prior to the transfer period in April 1967 
was not sufficient in that it omitted specific reference to 
transfers due to residence in a former dual attendance

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



99a

area. The content and time of publication of the notice 
must he changed accordingly.
16. Notice of the grade level options set out in para­

graphs 3(b) and 3(c) above is given to the students already 
in the system who are subject to the grade level option by 
a form hand delivered to such students for delivery to their 
parents, execution by them, and return to the schools. The 
forms were delivered on March 9, 1967 and required to be 
returned on March 10. The Court feels that this did not 
allow sufficient time, and must be corrected. Principals 
were instructed to see that all forms were returned, and it 
is stated on each form that it must be returned; a vast 
majority of the forms, approximately 14,300 were filled out 
and returned, however it is not clear that all were returned.
17. Notice of the basic options provided by the plan ex­

cepting the particular provisions with regard to grade level 
options, is given by newspaper advertisement in the form 
of a display notice published for three consecutive days 
during the month preceding the opening of school. Notice 
in this manner is adequate. The form of notice published 
prior to the opening of school in September 1967 was suffi­
cient. The Court feels that the publishing of this notice 
should be changed to once a week for three consecutive 
weeks immediately prior to the opening of school in Sep­
tember.

18. In addition to the specific published notices, defen­
dant has given further publicity to the transfer period and 
the option provisions of the plan by directing information 
concerning these things to all daily newspapers in Mobile

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



100a

County and all radio and television stations in Mobile 
County, with the request that the information be dissemi­
nated as news items.
19. Transfer request forms and the grade level option 

forms have not contained a designation of the specific 
schools to which transfer could be requested or to which 
grade level option may be exercised. Similarly, teachers 
and other employees of the board involved in the register­
ing of students for attendance in the system where the exer­
cise of an option is involved, have not volunteered infor­
mation as to the options available, in the absence of a 
request by parent or student for such information. The 
Court feels that parents should be thoroughly informed in 
this regard, and that such parents and students should be 
made aware in the notices mentioned in Paragraphs 15,16, 
and 17 above, that such information will be made readily 
available upon request, and likewise the method of request 
should be made known.
20. The enrollment of students in the system, where op­

tions provided by the plan are involved, and the handling 
of the grade level option forms, is done by teachers and 
other employees of the defendant board. Efforts in the 
form of instructional meetings with school principals and 
in the form of written instructions were made to properly 
instruct these people with regard to the provisions of the 
plan involved in their duties in that regard. In some in­
stances, with regard to some teachers and employees, these 
efforts were not sufficient to adequately instruct them. The 
Court finds that additional steps to inform and instruct 
such personnel must be taken in the future.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



101a

21. This Court has retained continual jurisdiction of 
this cause for further proceedings and to hear any com­
plaints or charges of discriminatory application of the de­
fendant board’s plan. No complaints have been lodged or 
filed in this Court by any individual as to any discrimina­
tory action of the board in the administration of the plan.
22. All services, facilities, activities and programs with 

regard to each particular school in the system, are available 
to every student in that school, without reference to race. 
This includes the use of all facilities of the school, such as 
rest-room facilities, lunchrooms, laboratory facilities, spe­
cial facilities and equipment; all programs of the school, 
such as athletic teams, band and choral programs, clubs 
and student groups; and all services and activities such as 
counseling, honor societies, dances and other social activi­
ties; and all other services, facilities, activities and pro­
grams. All services, facilities, activities and programs are 
available, as between various schools, without reference to 
the race of the pupils attending the schools. No services, 
facilities, activities or programs have been changed, cur­
tailed or limited due to the race of the students, or due 
to the fact that a school has a bi-racial student body. No 
special waiting period or other qualifying factors or cir­
cumstances have been attached as a qualification to par­
ticipation due to the race of any pupil. All student extra­
curricular activities, over which the defendant board has 
control, are conducted on a desegregated basis, as are all 
parent-related activities. There are some activities over 
which the defendant board has no compelling control.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



102a

23. The defendant board has formulated a specific initial 
plan for beginning faculty integration and has made an 
actual start upon that plan. There are presently, assigned 
permanently for the 1967-68 school year, 12 Negro teachers 
teaching in schools where the enrollment is predominantly 
white and 3 white teachers teaching in schools where the 
enrollment is predominantly Negro. Defendant has made 
a conscientious effort to select teachers for assignment to 
schools of their opposite race who would be thoroughly 
qualified by way of background, experience, training and 
disposition and who would be likely to do well in the posi­
tion, for the stated purpose of laying the foundation for 
additional faculty desegregation in the future.
All general faculty meetings, teacher institutes, new 

teacher orientation programs, in-service training pro­
grams, in-service contract classes with the University of 
South Alabama, faculty committees, and all other faculty 
activities and programs are carried out on an integrated 
basis. Special teaching positions, such as teachers for 
classes at the Sixth District Tuberculosis Hospital, home- 
bound classes, and special classes, are handled on an inte­
grated basis.
Defendant has adopted a stated policy of employing and 

assigning teachers without regard to race, but in most in­
stances continues to assign teachers with regard to race. 
The Court finds that it is the purpose and intent of defen­
dant board to continue steps toward ultimate total deseg­
regation of faculty personnel. The Court further finds that 
the policies adopted, the efforts made and the stated inten­
tions of the defendant board to this end are proper am; 
sufficient in the prevailing circumstances.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



103a

24. All staff and staff activities are integrated. Prior to 
the filing of the current plan the maintenance of separate 
oflice facilities at separate locations for Negro and white 
staff personnel were discontinued and the offices were 
consolidated in one place. The top staff positions of super­
intendent of schools and associate and assistant superin­
tendent are held by white persons. The positions of super­
visor and other staff positions, including secretarial and 
clerical positions and nurses, are integrated. All staff ac­
tivities, programs, and committees are handled on an inte­
grated basis.
25. The defendant board has instituted two remedial 

programs intended specifically to apply to and raise the 
educational level of Negro students in the system. One of 
these is carried on with the approval and cooperation of 
the Office of Economic Opportunity. The other has received 
the commendation of the Office of Education of the Depart­
ment of Health, Education and Welfare.
26. The defendant board has initiated and completed 

three school consolidations. In one of these, one bi-racial 
school was consolidated with another bi-racial school. In 
both of the other two consolidations, a school attended en­
tirely by Negroes has been discontinued and the school, its 
student body, and its attendance area consolidated into a 
school or schools that were, before the consolidation, in 
one instance entirely white and in another predominantly 
white. Additional consolidations would be difficult for the 
present due to a general lack of sufficient classroom ca­
pacity as compared to enrollment. The Court finds that

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



104a

the defendant board has exhibited an intent to proceed with 
the consolidation of schools, without regard to race, where 
feasible, desirable and sound from an educational stand­
point in light of all surrounding circumstances.
27. The Court finds as a fact that Mobile County has 

both a shifting population and a growing population; that 
there is commercial encroachment into former residential 
areas; that there are highway construction projects in the 
urban areas displacing population; that there are several 
urban renewal and other similar projects that have or will 
both displace population, temporarily and permanently, 
as well as attract population; and that there are other 
changes in residential patterns taking place, including ra­
cial changes.
The defendant board is pursuing a policy of locating new 

schools with relation to known or anticipated areas of pop­
ulation concentration. Some school sites are acquired many 
years in advance, some are never used because population 
does not develop as anticipated. Some school construction 
projects are planned many years in advance, and some are 
changed on one or more occasions before construction is 
commenced. An effort is made to locate new school con­
struction where it is needed. Since the beginning of this 
litigation the defendant board has pursued a policy of con­
structing, adding to, renovating and repairing its school 
facilities without reference to the race of the pupils con­
cerned.
28. Furnishings, fixtures, equipment and facilities are 

allotted to all schools on an equal basis without reference

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



105a

to the race of the pupils attending the school. All allot- 
ments of textbooks, supplies and funds for supplies are 
allocated on an equal basis without reference to the race 
of the pupils concerned. Courses of study are available 
to all schools on the same basis without reference to the 
race of the students attending the various schools. Many 
courses of study may be offered at one or more schools and 
not at others. These offerings are made without reference 
to the race of the pupils at the school and on the basis of 
requests of the principals of the schools. The Court finds 
as a matter of fact that facilities, equipment, furnishings, 
textbooks, materials, allocated funds, and courses of study 
are made available to all schools on the same basis, without 
regard to race.
During the 1967-68 school year twenty transfers were 

granted to pupils in order to take a particular course of 
study; of these 12 were granted to Negro pupils and 8 to 
white pupils.
29. A number of schools in the Mobile County Public 

School System have enrollments beyond the capacity of 
their permanent facilities. The defendant board has been 
building new schools at a rapid rate. The system is made 
up of schools of various ages; these schools therefore vary 
in appearance and quality of physical plant. The actual 
physical plants, as well as the furnishings, facilities, and 
equipment in those schools attended predominantly and 
entirely by Negro students are essentially equivalent to 
those attended predominantly and entirely by white stu­
dents.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



106a

30. The proceedings in this cause have had wide pub- 
licity in Mobile County. Details of the plan, orders of the 
Court, and periods designated by the plan and the Court 
have been disseminated through numerous news stories in 
the local press. In addition, radio and television coverage 
of these details has been widespread.
31. In the past there have been occasions where a school 

has, within a period of one or more years, undergone a 
total change in the racial composition of its enrollment. 
The court finds that this has occurred on six occasions; 
four of these since the defendant has been under court 
order. None have occurred since the filing of the current 
desegregation plan. In each instance the change has been 
contemporaneous with a corresponding change in the racial 
composition of the general neighborhood and the attend­
ance area surrounding the school.
The Court finds that none of these occurrences have re­

sulted from nor been accompanied by bad faith upon the 
part of the defendant board, in light of all prevailing cir­
cumstances.
The Court recognizes that there could possibly be similar 

occurrences in the future, as a result of natural processes; 
the Court now states however for the benefit of the future, 
that it will not tolerate any such change as may result from 
arbitrary action as opposed to natural processes.
32. Based upon current figures there are 692 Negro pu­

pils attending school in bi-racial schools, where the enroll­
ment is predominantly white; at this time last year then 
were 181 students so situated. At the present time there

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



107a

are 4 white students attending school in schools where the 
student body is predominantly Negro; at this time last year 
there were no white students so situated. At the present 
time there are in the system 33 bi-racial schools, or schools 
with hi-racial student bodies; at this time last year there 
were 15 schools so situated. There are presently 28 schools 
where the enrollment is entirely white, 32 schools where 
the enrollment is entirely Negro and 33 schools where the 
enrollment is bi-racial. Of the 33 bi-racial schools, 31 were 
formerly entirely white schools and 2 formerly entirely 
Negro schools. At the present time there are 29,031 stu­
dents in the Mobile County Public School System attending 
bi-racial schools and receiving their education under inte­
grated circumstances; at this time last year there were 
15,650 students so situated.

Conclusions of L aw

1. In order that a plan for the operation of schools meet 
constitutional standards, at least within this Circuit, it 
must reside within the four walls of United States, et al. 
v. Jefferson County Board of Education, et al. and com­
panion cases, 372 F.2d 836. In that case are set forth de­
tailed principles against which any plan must be measured. 
It prescribes no specific plan for application to all school 
districts but recognizes that “Freedom of Choice” or “Geo­
graphic Zoning” or indeed some hitherto non-categorized 
method may best serve the educational needs of an area. 
This Court, however, concludes that the same basic plan 
must be applied throughout any one system, since the ad­
ministration of one type of plan in rural areas and another 
in city schools, with the students shifting between the two

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



108a

frequently would be entirely too onerous and burdensome. 
The Mobile Plan, while differing in minor details as be­
tween rural and city schools is basically the same through­
out the system. This is as it should be.
The Court of Appeals for this Circuit approves, as does 

this Court, of the selection by the particular board of any 
type of plan so long as such plan meets generally the basic 
elements in the Jefferson County case. Since the chosen 
vehicle for desegregation of schools in the cases consol­
idated with Jefferson County was the “Freedom of Choice” 
plan, the Court of Appeals made its measurement in the 
specific terms of “Freedom of Choice” plans and shaped 
its model decree in the terms of such plan. As generally 
agreed by all parties, and as is clear from the evidence 
adduced including the plan itself, the Mobile Plan is not 
a “Freedom of Choice” plan and the decree in the Jefferson 
County case is not applicable as such. But the Mobile Plan 
must meet the general tests prescribed in the opinion en­
tered in that case. In fashioning conclusions of law in the 
instant case, this Court places the Mobile County plan 
alongside the pattern as set forth in Jefferson County and 
frames its decree in the terms of the method selected lo­
cally since this Court concludes as a matter of law that the 
Mobile County “Attendance Area— Option” plan is a con­
stitutional method conforming in basic provisions to the 
principles in the Jefferson County case. It is not unlike the 
plan prescribed by the Court of Appeals in Gaines et al. v. 
Dougherty County Bd. o f Ed. et al., 334 F.2d 983. However, 
in certain areas it falls short or misses the mark and the 
decree to be entered pursuant to these conclusions of lav 
is directed to a correction of those shortcomings. Reference

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



109a

is made specifically to the sub-heads of the Jefferson opin­
ion as these are set out beginning on page 890 of the re­
ported case.
2. Speed of Desegregation: Since all grades in the Mo­

bile System were reached by its plan in 1967, the plan meets 
standards as to speed.
3. Mandatory Exercise o f Grade Level Options: There 

does not exist under the Mobile plan, nor has there existed 
for at least one year prior to the current term, any initial 
assignment of students by race. The three school option 
in the city portion of the system and two school option in 
rural areas, each including a school formerly white and 
formerly Negro, to which any student may present himself 
initially and enroll as a matter of right, avoids any sem­
blance of assignment by race. Since all city attendance 
areas are non-racially devised; indeed being in most in­
stances bi-racial; and comprise a system of single zones 
completely replacing the old dual zone system, race is not 
a factor in any initial enrollment and the plan’s provisions 
in this respect are constitutional. The plan and regulations 
implementing it prescribe a mandatory choice with regard 
to the grade level options. The plan, to be constitutional, 
must make the exercise of the options mandatory, as to 
those parents or guardians whose children have reached a 
grade level option in moving from elementary to junior 
high and from junior high to senior high. The choice of 
optional schools by a student enrolling initially (including 
first graders) is already mandatory in that the presenting 
of the child to a particular optional school for enrollment 
is required and sufficient.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



110a

4. Transportation: The practice of the Board of trans­
porting any student, who meets statutory requirements to 
be a transported student, to either optional school selected 
by him is proper. However, such provision is not ade­
quately covered in the terms of the plan and this must be 
done. Notice of the availability of such transportation 
must be provided for and this is covered later in these con­
clusions under the subhead of “ Notice.”

5. Notice: The use of display advertisements to inform 
parents of the provisions of the plan as to options, initial 
enrollment and transfer rights; and the dissemination of 
this information through all public news media in the 
county; and the publication of maps showing the arrange­
ment of attendance area lines and school locations have 
been carried out under the general supervision of this court 
and are sufficient except in the following particulars: (1) 
At any time that the boundary line of an attendance area 
is changed, those parents or guardians residing in the af­
fected area shall be notified by letter, hand delivered or 
mailed, which letter shall specify the options which such 
parent or guardian has as to his children together with the 
method of exercising it. (2) The Board shall procure the 
publication each year prior to the opening of school of a 
map or maps showing arrangement of attendance areas in 
city schools and of rural schools; and the proposed bus 
routes based upon options theretofore exercised by students. 
(3) More attention must be given annually to insure that 
school personnel, including principals and teachers, are fa­
miliar with the option provisions of the plan, to the end 
that they may, with knowledge, assist parents in making

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



111a

a conscious exercise of options available upon enrollment, 
transfer or when reaching a grade level option point. (4) 
All such notices must include the assurance that public 
transportation will be furnished to any pupil in the rural 
portion of the system properly exercising an option if he 
is thereby required to travel more than the statutory two 
miles. (5) Each such notice must contain an assurance that 
clarification and further information is available by tele­
phone or personal conference at School Board offices.

This Court concludes that hand delivered notices to par­
ents of those pupils who have reached a grade level option 
point is sufficient without the necessity of published notice, 
since this is the most effective means of giving notice where 
those to be notified are specifically identifiable. However, 
the notices heretofore used must be changed to provide the 
following: (1) All such forms, with option selected, must 
be returned and more adequate steps must be instituted by 
the Board to insure the mandatory exercise of the option 
provisions; (2) Such forms shall provide in a prominent 
place that further information may be obtained and ques­
tions answered in person or by telephone to School Board 
offices, listing the address and telephone number and exten­
sion where the parent may call; (3) Parents shall be af­
forded seven days within which to exercise the grade level 
option.

6. Transfers: The Board has acted properly as to 
granting transfers to correct racial assignments arising 
during the times when dual zones existed and to permit 
students to obtain particular subjects not offered at the 
school in which he is enrolled. The transfer provisions of

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



112a

the plan and practices pursuant thereto are proper and 
constitutional except in the following particulars: (1) No­
tice of the transfer period shall, in addition to information 
contained in past display advertisements, contain in gen­
eral terms the bases upon which transfers shall be granted 
and specific reference to correcting past racial assignments 
and subject matter transfers; (2) In addition to being 
available at the School Board office, transfer request forms 
shall be made available at the office of the principal of each 
senior high school in the system and the published notice 
of the transfer period shall so state. (3) Students in senior 
high school grades or who are 16 years old or older shall 
have the right to procure their own transfer request forms, 
and the published notice shall so state; (4) The notice to 
parents of action taken on transfer request shall be revised 
to show with more specificity the reasons for denial in those 
cases where the request is denied.

7. Services, Facilities, Activities and Programs: The 
services, facilities, activities and programs of the Middle 
County School System to the extent that the Board has 
power to control them, have been integrated and this Court 
is of the opinion that in this area the defendant board is 
acting with complete propriety. 8

8. School Equalization: The activities of the Board in 
school equalization is constitutional and proper. In closing 
the two small schools which had total Negro student bodies 
and consolidating these pupils into larger, new and more 
adequate schools, the Board has largely cured the defi­
ciencies in this area. Two other small schools were also

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



113a

closed with one school having a bi-racial student body and 
the other all white. Because of the magnitude of the build­
ing program in the Mobile County School System in recent 
years, the number of inadequate physical plants has almost 
disappeared. Many pupils are still housed in portable 
classrooms but these form a part of the schools to which 
they are attached and the Court finds them to be adequate 
as school rooms for a limited time.

The remedial programs being conducted with the coop­
eration of HEW and OEO (being the Title 1 Summer 
School Program and the teacher improvement program 
styled “Project Mobile” ) are adequate to upgrade student 
and teacher performance in low income areas, inhabited 
primarily by Negroes.

9. Compliance Reports: By virtue of periodic motions 
and hearings in this case since its inception, the Court has 
been kept informed of the progress of desegregation in the 
Mobile School System. However, this is no substitute for 
the requirement of scheduled compliance reports. In order 
that the Court and all parties be kept informed, the plan 
must provide for a status report to this Court by June 30 
of each year and a second such report by September 30 
of each year. Copies of such reports must be served upon 
counsel for the plaintiffs and for the intervenors.

10. Desegregation of Faculty & Staff: Insofar as staff 
and administrative personnel are at present concerned, 
these have been satisfactorily integrated. In addition, the 
Court has found as a matter of fact that all in-service train­
ing, administrative meetings, and other activities involving

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



114a

teaching personnel at the school system level have com­
pletely abandoned separation by race and are, therefore, 
proper.

As a first year effort, the Court concludes that the as­
signment of 15 teachers to schools where the student body 
is predominantly of a race other than their own is a satis­
factory beginning of faculty desegregation. All courts who 
have dealt with the question of faculty desegregation rec­
ognize it as the most difficult of the transitions to make. 
This Court is of the opinion that the activities of the board 
in selecting teachers with qualifications that would prob­
ably insure their success in a bi-racial situation is sound. 
It is more important that a sound beginning be made upon 
which can be based more extensive future desegregation of 
faculty than a helter-skelter assignment of teachers simply 
to accomplish more in numbers. Teachers assigned to 
schools where the students are predominantly of a race 
other than their own include city and rural schools; high 
schools and elementary schools; and both races. For the 
current year this is sufficient. 11

11. Construction: The practice of the Board in con­
structing new schools where concentrations of students are 
presently found or reasonably anticipated ultimately to be 
found, is sound.

In view of current decisions, however, including the Jef­
ferson decision, this Court feels compelled to require that 
the defendant board keep the Court specifically informed 
with regard to its building program. The Board shall not 
construct or start construction on any new school without 
first making a comprehensive investigation concerning the

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



115a

advisability and location of such school or schools and sub­
mit the same to the Court for its approval or disapproval. 
It is not desirable or necessary that any report be now 
made with regard to any project already in progress, in­
cluding the Howard, Scarbrough, Emerson, and Williamson 
projects, as the Court is satisfied that none of these are 
racially motivated or inspired.

12. Curricula, Textbooks, Supplies and Equipment: The 
practice of the Board in allocating textbooks, supplies, 
equipment and all other items on an equal basis, without 
regard to race is sound and meets Constitutional standards. 
So too are the practices being pursued in arranging course 
offerings.

13. Results: The Jefferson opinion calls upon the 
Courts to scrutinize the results as one measure of the suc­
cess of a particular plan. Those Negro students in pre­
dominantly white schools for the school year 1967-68 have 
quadrupled as compared with the prior school year. The 
1966-67 school year likewise found the number of such stu­
dents multiplied by about four over the previous year. The 
number of schools with bi-racial student bodies have dou­
bled in the first year under the current plan and the number 
of total pupils in schools with bi-racial student bodies has 
doubled. In addition all pupils properly exercising an op­
tion in the rural areas are being transported to the school 
selected. A start has been made on faculty desegregation. 
All of these factors indicate that, measured by results, the 
plan is working. It is believed that the additional require­
ments set out in the decree, particularly as to the man­

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



116a

datory features of the grade level option, the requirements 
as to additional information to be contained in the various 
notices, the more adequate preparation of personnel to ex­
plain options and counsel with parents, and the modifi­
cation of procedures for requesting transfers all will have 
an effect upon results in future years.

Decree
This cause having come on to be heard on July 18-20 and 

July 24-28 and August 18, 1967, on plaintiffs’ Motion for 
Further Relief as amended and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Mo­
tion for Supplemental Relief and on defendants’ answers 
thereto; pleadings, oral testimony, depositions, answers to 
interrogatories, exhibits and affidavits having been consid­
ered, and the Court having received and considered the 
written briefs of counsel, and having heard and considered 
arguments of counsel; and Findings of Fact and Conclu­
sions of Law have been made by the Court; and the Court 
having heretofore entered an interim order in this cause 
dated August 24, 1967, but having retained the Motions 
under submission for further orders and proceedings:

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed as fol­
lows:

1. Transfer request forms shall be made available dur­
ing the transfer request period at the office of the principal 
of each senior high school of the system as well as at the 
School Board office and the published notice shall so state.

2. Students in senior high school or who have attained 
the age of 16 years shall be permitted to pick up forms for 
their own transfers and the published notice shall so state.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



117a

3. The form of notice to parents of action taken upon 
transfer requests shall be revised in such fashion as will 
indicate with more clarity the reason for the denial of the 
transfer request when such request is denied.

4. The published notice as to the transfer request period 
shall, in addition to information included in past display 
advertising, contain in general terms the bases upon which 
transfers shall be granted and shall make specific reference 
to the granting of transfers to correct past racial assign­
ments based upon residence in a former dual attendance 
area and the availability of subject matter transfers.

5. Appropriate steps shall be taken to insure as nearly 
as possible the mandatory exercise by parents of the grade 
level options where appropriate.

6. The form letter directed to parents with regard to the 
grade level options shall include therein, prominently, the 
assurance that additional information will be provided by 
telephone or in person from the offices of the defendant 
board upon request. Said letter shall contain the address 
of the School Board office and the telephone number and 
extension to be called for such additional information.

7. Parents shall be afforded seven days within which to 
exercise the grade level option. 8

8. The defendant board shall procure the publication, 
annually, prior to the opening of the school year of a map 
or maps of Mobile County showing attendance area bound­
aries ; location of schools; and anticipated bus routes.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



118a

9. The defendant board shall instruct its school per­
sonnel, including teachers and principals more adequately 
as to the provisions of the plan governing initial enroll­
ment, grade level options, and transfer provisions in order 
that intelligent assistance may be given parents in the exer­
cise of these rights.

10. The practice of the Board in furnishing transpor­
tation to eligible students who select a proper optional 
school shall be written into the plan itself and notice thereof 
included in the letter to parents regarding grade level op­
tions and the display advertising concerning initial enroll­
ment.

11. The plan shall be amended to provide that when the 
boundary line of any attendance area is altered, any parent 
or guardian whose residence is placed in a new attendance 
area as a result of a change shall be entitled to exercise 
the option provisions of the plan just as if such parent or 
guardian had moved his residence from one attendance 
area to another; and the plan shall be further amended to 
provide that actual notice be given to the parents whose 
children are known to be affected thereby, by letter, which 
letter shall include an outline of the options available to 
the parent and the method of exercising the same.

12. Regular status reports shall be filed with this Court 
and copies furnished to all parties, as follows:

(A ) By June 30 of each year, beginning June 30, 1968, 
the defendant will file with this Court a report con­
taining the following information:

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



119a

1. A  map showing the name and location of each 
school planned to be used during the coming 
school year, and the location of all attendance 
area boundary lines; as well as a description of 
any changes in attendance area boundary lines 
that have occurred since the last report to the 
Court, and any contemplated for the coming 
school year.

2. A  tabulation of the following as they are ex­
pected to exist for the coming school year:

(a) The total number of schools and the num­
ber of bi-racial schools in system.

(h) The total number of students in bi-racial 
schools.

(c) The number of Negro students in bi-racial 
schools by grade, and an indication of how 
each has been so enrolled.

(d) The number of white students in bi-racial 
schools by grade.

3. A tabulation of transfer applications filed dur­
ing the most recent April 1-15 transfer period, 
showing with regard to each:

(a) The name, grade and race of the student.

(h) The school from which and to which the 
transfer was requested.

(c) The action taken on the request, and the 
reason for denial, as to those denied.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



120a

4. (a) The planned faculty assignments for the 
coming year, listing each teacher by name, 
race, school and grade or subject taught.

(b) The number of faculty vacancies, by school, 
that have occurred since the last report. 
The name and race of the teacher employed 
to till each such vacancy, and an indication 
of whether such teacher is newly employed 
or was transferred from within the system. 
As to transferred teachers, the schools 
from which and to which transferred.

(B) By September 30 of each year, beginning Septem­
ber 30, 1968, the defendant will file with this Court 
a report containing the following information:

1. A  notation and explanation of any attendance 
area boundary lines that are in effect, other than 
as reported on the map referred to in 12 (A) 1 
above, with reference to the June 30 report.

2. A  tabulation of the information required by 12 
(A ) 2 above, as it exists after the opening of 
school.

3. A  tabulation of the information required by 12 
(A ) 4 (a) above, as it exists after the opening 
of school.

13. Except with respect to any building project already 
in progress, including the Howard, Scarborough, Emerson 
and Williamson projects, the defendant will, prior to be­
ginning construction of any new school, make a compre-

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



121a

tensive investigation as to the advisability and location of 
such school, and will submit the same to this Court for 
approval or disapproval.

14. The notice published prior to the opening of school 
each year, giving notice of the option provisions of the 
plan, shall contain the statement that information as to the 
optional schools available will be furnished upon request 
by the principals of all schools at the time of enrollment, 
or by telephone or personal request to the School Board 
office. And the address, and telephone number of the School 
Board office shall be given.

15. The plan shall be amended to require that all display 
advertisement notices published in the newspaper pursuant 
to the plan, shall be published once a week for three con­
secutive weeks, immediately preceding the occurrence of 
the event in connection with which the notice is given.

16. Defendants’ desegregation plan filed in this Court 
on October 19, 1966 meets current constitutional standards 
and is therefore approved by this Court. In order to insure 
better operation of the plan the foregoing requirements 
shall be effectuated promptly.

17. In all other respects, except as to relief included in 
the interim order of August 24, 1967, plaintiff’s Motion for 
Further Relief as Amended and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Mo­
tion for Supplemental Relief are denied.

18. Jurisdiction of this cause is retained to enter such 
further orders and to take such other proceedings as may 
be meet and just in the premises.

Entered this 13th day of October, 1967.

District Court Order and Opinion of October 13, 1967



122a

Before M akis,* T hornberry and A insworth, Circuit 
Judges.

T hornberry, Circuit Judge:

In the face of a vexing, continuing problem, this Court 
decreed that school boards in this Circuit have an affirma­
tive duty to effectuate a transition to unitary racially non- 
discriminatory school systems. This means integration of 
faculties, facilities, and activities, as well as students. The 
time for implementing programs that work is now. United 
States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 5th Cir. 
1967, 372 F.2d 836, aff’d en banc, 380 F.2d 385, cert, denied 
sub nom., Caddo Parish School Board v. United States, 
1967, 389 U.S. 840, 88 S. Ct. 67, 19 L. Ed.2d 103.

With the law in mind, we turn once again to Mobile 
County, Alabama.* 1 In 1966, another panel considered Mo­
bile’s plan for desegregation of schools and found it defi­
cient in several respects:

Principal among these [defects] is the fact that even 
as to those grades which, under the plan, have actually 
become “ desegregated” there is no true substance in 
the alleged desegregation. Less than two-tenths of one 
percent of the Negro children in the system are attend­
ing white schools. Another defect is the length of time 
that the plan would require to come to a final fruition;

* Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
1 Counting temporary measures and appeals on the merits, liti­

gation concerning the desegregation of Mobile schools has now been 
before the Fifth Circuit five times since 1963.

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968



123a

another is the option given to white students living 
within the “ area” or “ district” of a given school to 
transfer to another district or area to attend a white 
school there, without the granting of a similar option 
to a Negro child residing within the area of a Negro 
school to transfer to a white school outside the area; 
a further significant defect is the lack of provision for 
a Negro child to attend a school offering particular 
subjects if such subjects are taught only in white 
schools; and finally, there is the failure of the plan to 
start desegregation of the faculties of the schools.

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 
5th Cir. 1966, 364 F.2d 896, 901. The school board at­
tempted to meet these objections and to comply with the 
Court’s decision by (a) drawing new boundary lines for 
some of the school attendance areas or geographic zones, 
(b) making optional schools outside of attendance areas 
available to Negroes as well as whites, and (c) taking steps 
toward gradual faculty desegregation. In the urban areas 
of the county, a Negro or white student can now attend (a) 
the school serving his attendance area, (b) the nearest for­
merly white school serving his residence, or (c) the nearest 
formerly Negro school serving his residence. The optional 
schools, i.e., the nearest formerly white and formerly Negro 
schools, are available only to students in the following cate­
gories: (a) Those enrolling for the first time in the Mobile 
Public School System; (b) those enrolling in the first 
grade; (c) those who change their residence from one at­
tendance area to another; (d) those going from elementary 
to junior high school or from junior high school to senior

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12,1968



124a

high. Transfer subject to approval is available to students 
of any grade. In the rural areas of the county, a Negro or 
white student can attend (a) the nearest formerly white 
school serving his residence or (b) the nearest formerly 
Negro school serving his residence. Because of the rela­
tively small number of schools and the widely scattered pop­
ulation, the board did not consider attendance areas prac­
tical for the rural areas. As for faculty desegregation, the 
board selected a small number of white and Negro teachers 
to whom to offer the option of transferring to a school in 
which students and teachers of the opposite race pre­
dominate.

The district court held that the boundary lines for the at­
tendance areas had been drawn on a nonracial basis and 
that the school board’s over-all plan for desegregation of 
students was in substantial compliance with the Fifth Cir­
cuit decisions. The court also held that the board had made 
an adequate start toward desegregation of faculty.2 While 
many subsidiary issues are raised on this appeal, the funda­
mental ones are whether this Court can put its stamp of 
approval on the attendance-zone lines drawn by the school

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12,1968

2 After exhaustive hearings the district court entered an “interim 
order” on August 24, 1967 requiring the Board of School Commis­
sioners to afford Negro students in the metropolitan area an oppor­
tunity to transfer to predominantly white schools serving the areas 
of their residences as a result of boundary changes. The transfer 
period was to be held from August 28 through August 31; pupils 
were to be allowed to transfer to the new schools made available by 
the boundary changes or to the nearest formerly white or formerly 
Negro schools serving their residences. On October 13, 1967, the 
court denied the motions filed by appellants for further relief and 
entered the findings discussed in the text. This Court had previ­
ously denied appellants’ motion for injunction pending appeal on 
September 13, 1967. This appeal was expedited.



125a

board and the free-choice plan engrafted onto attendance 
zones and whether it can affirm the finding that the board 
has made an adequate start toward desegregation of 
faculty.

I. Students

We look first to the results produced by appellee’s plan 
for integrating students in Mobile County. The Mobile 
Public School System, the largest in Alabama, has 93 
schools. In round numbers, there are 44,000 white students 
and 31,000 Negroes for a total of 75,000. According to ap­
pellee’s figures for the current school year (1967-68), there 
are 33 biracial schools in the system as compared with 15 
a year ago. 29,031 students attend biracial schools as com­
pared with 15,650 in 1966-67. 27,023 of the students at­
tending biracial schools are white and 2,008 are Negro. 
There are 692 Negroes attending schools of predominantly 
white enrollment and 4 white students attending schools of 
predominantly Negro enrollment. Accepting the fact that 
this Court uses the HEW  guidelines as a yardstick for 
measuring the progress of desegregation in particular 
school districts, the school board argues that it has more 
than satisfied HEW percentages. While the Guidelines re­
quire that a district employing a freedom-of-choice plan for 
at least two years have 15 to 18 per cent of its student pop­
ulation in desegregated schools, Mobile now has 29,031 or 
38 per cent of its students in biracial schools.

The percentage of total students in biracial schools is 
superficially acceptable, but beneath the surface the picture 
is not so good. In its per curiam adopting the panel’s opin­
ion in Jefferson County, this Court said that school desegre­

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12,1968



126a

gation can first be measured quantitatively, using percent­
ages as a rough rule of thumb, but ultimately must be 
measured qualitatively, judging whether schools are still 
identifiable as white or Negro. 380 F.2d, at 389-390. Judg­
ing by the qualitative standard and by what we conceive 
to be the spirit of Jefferson County, we are unable to say 
that Mobile’s plan is working so well as to make judicial 
interference unnecessary at this time. Two-thirds of the 
schools remain totally segregated and unquestionably iden­
tifiable as Negro or white; desegregation of the remaining 
schools has been so minimal that it would be generous to 
say they are no longer identifiable as Negro or white. 
Though Negroes comprise about 41 per cent of the student 
population, the crucial fact is that only 2,008 or 6.5 per cent 
of them are experiencing a desegregated education. More­
over, this figure of 6.5 per cent can realistically be reduced 
to 2 per cent (692) because 1,316 of the 2,008 Negroes at­
tending biracial schools are in schools attended by only 4 
white students. The only Negroes really experiencing a 
desegregated education are the 692 attending schools of 
predominantly white enrollment. Although this is 511 more 
than the number of Negroes who attended predominantly 
white schools last year (181), it is inarguable that the per­
centage of Negroes experiencing a desegregated education 
is still too low. The number of Negro children in school 
with white children is so far out of line with the ratio of 
Negro school children to white school children in the system 
as to make inescapable the inference that discrimination yet 
exists. See Jefferson County, supra, 372 F.2d, at 887.

Having found the results of the present plan unsatisfac­
tory, we turn to the difficult question of what should be

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968



127a

done. Our primary concern is to see that attendance zones 
in the urban areas of Mobile County be devised so as to 
create a unitary racially nondiscriminatory system. Ap­
pellee contends, and the district court found, that boundary 
lines for the zones were drawn on a nonracial basis, using 
objective criteria such as natural landmarks and safety fac­
tors; but there is no information in the record by which 
this Court can judge whether the district court’s determina­
tion was correct or not. The school officials who testified 
were unable to state clearly what criteria they used in de­
termining the location of the various lines, and they were 
unable to produce the source material—maps, charts, mem­
oranda, etc.—they used. For the benefit of reviewing judges 
who may be unfamiliar with the city or county in question, 
it is essential that school officials be able to state what cri­
teria were used in determining geographic zones and to 
produce evidence to support their statements. In this case, 
it will be necessary for the board to do the job again, this 
time making a survey of the type suggested by appellants. 
On the basis of information obtained from the survey, 
school officials will draw attendance-zone lines on what they 
conceive to be a nonracial basis. If there is further litiga­
tion, evidence should be available to test the validity of the 
board’s action.3

To support their assertion that the present attendance zones 
perpetuate segregation, appellants point out that in downtown 
-Vlobile there are overcrowded Negro schools in the same vicinity 
as under-populated white schools and also that in many instances 
a school is located on the periphery of the attendance area it serves 
rather than in the center. These facts, they say, suggest that con­
siderations other than convenience of the students, namely race, 
etermmed the prseent zones. The board makes somewhat unpersua- 

sne rebuttals to these points. We trust that when a survey is made 
and attendance-zone lines are thereafter drawn on a nonracial basis, 
these objections will not have to be renewed by appellants.

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968



128a

The school board has decided that assignment of students 
in its system should be based primarily on an attendance- 
area plan. Indeed, in a system as large as Mobile’s, this 
approach is surely more practical than a pure free-choice 
plan. We therefore accept the board’s policy decision in 
this regard but insist on a survey and a new effort to draw 
zone lines on a nonracial basis so that the attendance-area 
plan will promote desegregation rather than perpetuate 
segregation. It is intended that attendance areas be desig­
nated according to strictly objective criteria with the caveat 
that a conscious effort should be made to move boundary 
lines and change feeder patterns which tend to preserve 
segregation.4 In the future, any boundary lines which sim­
ply encircle Negro residences without being explainable in 
terms other than race will be constitutionally suspect. To 
go a step farther, we hold that once attendance zones have 
been properly designated, the student’s option to attend the 
nearest formerly white or formerly Negro school outside 
his zone must be eliminated.

It is important to clarify our reason for interfering with 
school management to the extent of requiring abandonment 
of the limited options. Under Jefferson County, a court is 
justified in requiring a board to change a particular school- 
attendance plan only when it is shown that the current plan

4 We have the impression that desegregation will be greatly 
advanced in Mobile if all students attend schools serving nonracial 
zones. In this regard, we quote from footnote 1 of the per curiam 
entered by the Court in Jefferson County:

“ In the South,” as the Civil Rights Commission has pointed out. 
the Negro “has struggled to get into the neighborhood school. 
In the North, he is fighting to get out of it.” Civ. Rts. Comm. 
Rep., Freedom to the Free. 207 (1963)

380 F.2d, at 389.

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12,1968



129a

does not work.5 In the instant case, the board has been on 
notice since it was last before this Court that a small per­
centage of Negroes attending school with white students 
represents a significant defect. After nearly two years, the 
percentage of Negroes experiencing a desegregated educa­
tion has increased from .2 per cent to 2 per cent. Coming 
so late in the day, this is not enough progress. The idea 
of superimposing limited options on an attendance-area 
plan has failed to bring Mobile very far along the road to­
ward the ultimate goal of a unitary system wherein schools 
are no longer recognizable as Negro or white. Since it is 
evident that the process of selecting optional schools has 
somehow thwarted the progress of desegregation, the logi­

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12,1 9 6 8

6 We do not say that we are imposing a full-scale change of at­
tendance plan on Mobile. The hoard has said that its primary 
allegiance is to the attendance-area or neighborhood-school concept 
as distinguished from pure freedom of choice. We would merely 
require the board to be true to that allegiance. In Jefferson County, 
the Court accepted local decisions to use freedom of choice but 
required certain changes which would promote desegregation rather 
than perpetuate segregation. In this case, we accept the local 
decision to use an attendance-area plan but require a change which 
we are convinced will promote desegregation. It seems clear to us 
that the selection of schools outside of geographic zones is thwarting 
progress that could be made if each student were confined to the 
schools serving his zone absent a nonracial reason for transfer. 
Therefore, we require the elimination of optional schools.

The district judge found that the limited options add a needed 
flexibility to the attendance-area plan—needed because students and 
parents have likes and dislikes that should be respected. In the 
interest of creating a system that measures up to constitutional 
standards, these options must nevertheless give way. As the Court 
said in Jefferson County, a student has no constitutional right to 
free choice of schools. 380 F.2d at 390. The school board, on the 
other hand, has a constitutional duty to desegregate its system.



130a

cal solution is the abandonment of limited options.0 As the 
Court said in the per curiam entered in Jefferson County, 
freedom of choice is not a goal in itself but one of many 
approaches available to school boards. If it does not work, 
another method must be tried. 380 F.2d, at 390. Since the 
limited options have not worked, we hold that after the 
boundary lines have been redrawn on a nonracial basis, 
each student in the urban areas must attend the schools 
serving his attendance zone absent some compelling non­
racial reason for transfer.

Our discussion of attendance zones is confined to the 
urban areas; at this time, we defer to the board’s view that 
zones would be impractical in the rural parts of the county. 
If school officials should change their minds and decide to 
try an attendance-area plan in the rural areas, there must, 
of course, be a survey. If, on the other hand, the board 
should continue to limit the options of rural students to the 
nearest formerly white and formerly Negro schools serving 
their residences, the steps outlined for a free-choice plan 
in the Jefferson County decree must be followed. We 
stress particularly the transportation provision of that de­
cree. 380 F.2d, at 392.

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12,1968

6 The district court found that a majority of the present geo­
graphic zones have both races residing within them. This finding 
persuades us that if all students attended schools serving their 
zones, there would be more desegregation than there is. When a 
further effort is made to devise nonracial zones and to eliminate 
boundary lines and feeder patterns designed to perpetuate segrega­
tion, Mobile may at least achieve a unitary system.



131a

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968 

II. Faculty

In the last Mobile case, Judge Tuttle said there must “ be 
an end to the present policy of hiring and assigning 
teachers according to race by the time the last of the schools 
are fully desegregated for the school year 1967-68.” 364 
F.2d, at 904. In response to this directive, the board of­
fered to a small group of teachers the option to transfer 
to a school in which students and teachers of the opposite 
race predominate. The most recent figures indicate that 12 
Negroes have elected to teach in predominantly white 
schools and 3 whites have elected to teach in predominantly 
Negro schools. Despite the Court’s decree, it seems appar­
ent that the policy of hiring and assigning teachers accord­
ing to race still exists. In a system having approximately 
2700 teachers, the surface of the problem of faculty segre­
gation is hardly scratched by the transfer of 15 teachers to 
schools of the opposite race. The reason for the lack of 
progress is that the board has not yet shouldered the bur­
den. While any sound program should encourage voluntary 
transfers, the responsibility for faculty desegregation, just 
as the responsibility for student desegregation, lies ulti­
mately with the board, not the teachers. Accordingly, we 
have entered a decree requiring the board to take positive 
steps by way of assigning teachers to schools of the oppo­
site race. In the final analysis, the pattern of teacher as­
signment to a particular school must not be identifiable as 
tailored for a heavy concentration of either Negro or white 
students. Our provisions for faculty desegregation follow 
the ones entered by another panel of this Court in Stell v. 
Board of Education for the City of Savannah and the 
County of Chatham, 5th Cir. 1967, 387 F.2d 486.



132a

We enter a decree along these lines because faculty inte­
gration has been recognized as the key to integration of all 
phases of education in a school system. As Judge Wisdom 
said in Jefferson County,

Yet until school authorities recognize and carry out 
their affirmative duty to integrate faculties as well as 
facilities, there is not the slightest possibility of their 
ever establishing an operative nondiscriminatory 
school system.

372 F.2d, at 892. He goes on to quote with approval the fol­
lowing statement by the Eighth Circuit in Clark v. Board 
of Education of the Little Rock School District, 8th Cir. 
1966, 369 F.2d 661, 670:

The lack of a definite program will only result in fur­
ther delay of long overdue action. We are not content 
at this late date to approve a desegregation plan that 
contains only a statement of general good intention. 
We deem a positive commitment to a reasonable pro­
gram aimed at ending segregation of the teaching staff 
to be necessary for the final approval of a constitu­
tionally adequate desegregation plan.

On the whole, the provisions of our decree are designed 
to effectuate (a) the survey of the system, (b) the establish­
ment of an attendance-area plan with attendance-zone lines 
drawn on a nonracial basis, and (c) desegregation of 
faculty. The decree does not concern assignment of stu­
dents in the rural areas; but we repeat that if there are to 
be options but no attendance zones, the steps outlined in 
the Jefferson County decree for a free-choice plan must be

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968



133a

followed. Somewhat apart from the general objectives just 
enumerated, we have also decreed full integration of inter­
school activities. Although Negroes and whites play to­
gether on athletic teams in bi-racial schools, the board ac­
knowledges that all-Negro teams are not scheduled against 
all-white teams. Such a distinction based on race is no 
longer tolerable; the integration of activities must be com­
plete. Jefferson County, supra, 372 F.2d, at 846, footnote 5.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case 
is remanded for entry of the decree attached to this opinion.

D ecree

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the appellees, 
their agents, officers, employees and successors and all 
those in active concert and participation with them be and 
they are permanently enjoined from discriminating on the 
basis of race or color in the operation of the Mobile school 
system. As set out more particularly in the body of the 
decree, they shall take affirmative action to disestablish all 
school segregation and to eliminate the effects of the dual 
school system. As stated in the opinion of the Court of 
Appeals, the primary concern is that attendance-zone lines 
be drawn on a nonracial basis. To this end the board will 
conduct a survey as more specifically described in Section 
IV herein.

I .

Student A ssignment

A. The appellees shall, to the extent feasible, make as­
signments of students and draw attendance area lines in 
such a way as to eliminate the effects of past racial deci­

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12,1968



134a

sions in assigning students, drawing attendance lines, and 
constructing school buildings.

B. Appellees shall arrange for the conspicuous publica­
tion of an announcement, giving detailed information as to 
the name and location of schools to which students have 
been assigned for the coming school year pursuant to the 
desegregation plan, in the newspapers most generally cir­
culated in the community between March 1 and March 31 of 
each year. Publication as a legal notice is not sufficient. 
Whenever any revision of attendance zones is proposed, 
appellees shall similarly arrange for the conspicuous pub­
lication of an announcement at least 30 days before any 
change is to become effective, naming each to be affected 
and describing the proposed new zones. Copies of all ma­
terial published hereunder must also be given at that time 
to all television and radio stations serving the community. 
Copies of this notice and decree shall be posted in eacli 
school in the school system and at the office of the Superin­
tendent of Education.

C. A street or road map showing the boundaries of, and 
the school serving, each attendance zone and a chart show­
ing feeder patterns must be freely available for public in­
spection at the office of the Superintendent. Each school 
in the system must have freely available for public inspec­
tion a map showing the boundaries of its attendance area, 
and a chart showing its feeder pattern. A copy of this map 
and chart shall be given to the Parent Teachers Associa­
tion at each school.

D. After the attendance areas are redrawn to achieve 
the desegregation of the system as provided in section II

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968



135a

of this decree, all students will be required to attend the 
school serving their zone, absent some compelling nonracial 
reason.

Court of Appeals Opinion of March, 12, 1968

n.
Construction

To the extent consistent with the proper operation of 
the school system as a whole, the school board will, in locat­
ing and designing new schools, in expanding existing facili­
ties, and in consolidating schools, do so with the object of 
eradicating past discrimination and of effecting desegrega­
tion. The school board will not fail to consolidate schools 
because desegregation would result.

Until such time as the Court approves a plan based on 
the survey conducted pursuant to section IV herein, con­
struction shall be suspended for all planned building proj­
ects at which actual construction has not been commenced.

Leave to proceed with particular construction projects 
may be obtained prior to the completion of the survey upon 
a showing by the appellees to the Court, that particular 
building projects will not have the effect of perpetuating 
racial segregation.

III.

F aculty and Staff A ssignments

A. Faculty Employment. Kace or color shall not be a 
factor in the hiring, assignment, reassignment, promotion, 
demotion, or dismissal of teachers and other professional 
staff members, including student teachers, except that race 
may be taken into account for the purpose of counteracting



136a

or correcting the effect of the segregated assignment of 
faculty and staff in the dual system. Teachers, principals, 
and staff members shall be assigned to schools so that the 
faculty and staff is not composed exclusively of members 
of one race. Wherever possible, teachers shall be assigned 
so that more than one teacher of the minority race (white 
or Negro) shall be on the desegregated faculty. The Board 
will continue positive and affirmative steps to accomplish 
the desegregation of its school faculties and to achieve sub­
stantial desegregation of faculties in its schools for the 
1968-69 school year notwithstanding teacher contracts for 
1968-69 may have already been signed and approved. The 
tenure of teachers in the system shall not be used as an 
excuse for failure to comply with this provision. The appel­
lees shall establish as an objective that the pattern of 
teacher assignment to any particular school not be identifi­
able as tailored for a heavy concentration of either Negro 
or white pupils in school.

B. Dismissals. Teachers and other professional staff 
members may not be discriminatorily assigned, dismissed, 
demoted, or passed over for retention, promotion, or re­
hiring, on the ground of race or color. In any instance 
where one or more teachers or other professional staff 
members are to be displaced as a result of desegregation, 
no staff vacancy in the school system shall be filled through 
recruitment from outside the system unless no such dis­
placed staff member is qualified to fill the vacancy. If, as 
a result of desegregation, there is to be a reduction in the 
total professional staff of the school system, the qualifica­
tions of all staff members in the system shall be evaluated 
in selecting the staff member to be released without con­

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968



137a

sideration of race or color. A report containing any such 
proposed dismissals, and the reasons therefor, shall be 
filed with the clerk of the Court, serving copies upon oppos­
ing counsel, within five (5) days after such dismissal, de­
motion, etc., as proposed.

C. Past Assignments. The appellees shall take steps to 
assign and reassign teachers and other professional staff 
members to eliminate the effects of the dual school system.

IV.

S urvey

The appellees shall conduct a survey of their school sys­
tem and report to the Court, by June 1, 1968, the results of 
such survey, and shall specifically report as follows:

A. The appellees shall prepare a map for each school 
showing the location, by race and grade, of each student in 
the school system during the 1967-68 school year.

B. Recommendations for redrawing attendance zone 
lines to achieve desegregation of the schools.

C. Recommendations for the reorganization of the 
feeder’ system consistent with the objective of achieving 

desegregation.

D. A description of each school in the school system to 
include: 1

1. The size of each site and whether it is suitable 
for permanent use, suitable for temporary use, or 
should be abandoned;

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968



138a

2. The number of buildings on each site and as to 
each, whether it is suitable for permanent use, suit­
able for temporary use or should be abandoned;

3. The standards and criteria used to determine 
whether buildings and sites are suitable for permanent 
use, suitable for temporary use, or should be 
abandoned;

4. The number of regular, special and portable 
classrooms at each school building and the number of 
square feet in each such classroom;

5. Kecommendations for the future use (including 
grades to be accommodated) of each school building 
and site for the next ten years, including the need for 
additional classrooms and the information upon which 
such recommendations are based.

E. A  property inventory to include:

1. A  list of all sites currently owned;

2. A  list of all sites which the appellees have pres­
ent plans to acquire and the size and intended use of 
such sites;

3. The basis for selection of all sites listed under 
numbers 1 and 2.

F. The status of construction of each school building 
currently under construction and the status of planning for 
the use of sites currently owned.

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968



139a

G. A forecast of enrollment at each school for the next 
ten years and the information npon which such forecast 
shall be based.

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12,1968

y .

Sekvices, F acilities, A ctivities and Programs

No student shall be segregated or discriminated against 
on account of race or color in any service, facility, activity, 
or program (including transportation, athletics, or other 
extra-curricular activity) that may be conducted or spon­
sored by the school in which he is enrolled. A  student at­
tending school for the first time on a desegregated basis 
may not be subject to any disqualification or waiting period 
for participation in activities and programs, including ath­
letics, which might otherwise apply because he is a transfer 
or newly assigned student except that such transferees 
shall be subject to longstanding, non-racially based rules of 
city, county, or state athletic associations dealing with 
the eligibility of transfer students for athletic contests. All 
school use or school-sponsored use of athletic fields, meet­
ing rooms, and all other school related services, facilities, 
activities, and programs such as commencement exercises 
and parent-teacher meetings which are open to persons 
other than enrolled students, shall be open to all persons 
without regard to race or color. All special educational pro­
grams conducted by the appellees shall be conducted with­
out regard to race or color. Athletic meets and competi­
tions and other activities in which several schools partici­
pate shall be arranged so that formerly white and formerly 
Negro schools participate together.



140a

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12, 1968

VL

R eports

A. On June 10, of each year beginning in 1968, appel­
lees will submit a report to the Court, and serve copies on 
opposing counsel, showing the number of persons, by 
school, grade (where appropriate), and race they antici­
pate will be employed for the fall semester. Within one 
week after the day classes begin for the fall semester in 
1968 and each succeeding year appellees will submit a re­
port to the Court, and serve a copy on opposing counsel, 
showing the number of teachers actually working at each 
school by grade (where appropriate) and race. In 1968, a 
date later than June 10 may be appropriate because of the 
survey.

B. On the same dates set forth in V I(A ) above, reports 
will be submitted to the Court, and a copy served on op­
posing counsel, showing the number of students by school, 
grade, and race, expected and actually enrolled at the 
schools in Mobile County.

C. Within one week after the opening of each school 
year, appellees shall submit a report to the Court and serve 
copies on opposing counsel, showing the number of faculty- 
vacancies, by school, that have occurred or been filled by 
the appellees since the order of this Court or the latest 
report submitted pursuant to this subparagraph. This re­
port shall state the race of the teacher employed to fill each 
such vacancy and indicate whether such teacher is newly 
employed or was transferred from within the system. The



141a

tabulation of the number of transfers within the system 
shall indicate the schools from which and to which the 
transfers were made. The report shall also set forth the 
number of faculty members of each race assigned to each 
school for the current year.

On  Petition for R ehearing

Per Curiam:

Appellee’s motion for rehearing in the above styled cases 
is denied, except that the Decree issued by this Court for 
entry by the District Court will be modified as follows:

1. Under Section IV-A, appellee will be permitted to 
consolidate the survey information on two maps— one to 
cover the urban area and the other the rural area—so long 
as the information is reported on the consolidated maps in 
a clear and comprehensible manner. However, the survey 
must designate students by grade.

2. Under Section IV-C, the date of submission of rec­
ommendations for the reorganization of the feeder system 
of assignments to secondary schools will be postponed from 
June 1,1968 to August 1, 1968.

3. Likewise, under Section IV-D-5, the date of submis­
sion of recommendations for the future use of all school 
plants and sites for the next ten years will be postponed 
from June 1, 1968 to August 1, 1968. 4

4 Inder Section IV-G, the date of submission of the 
forecast of enrollment at each school for the next ten years 
will be postponed from June 1, 1968 to December 1, 1968.

Court of Appeals Opinion of March 12,1968



142a

On March 12, 1968, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 
reversed a prior order of this court in this case and in 
the reversal opinion included a specific decree to be fol­
lowed. See Davis, et al. v. Board of School Commissioners, 
393 F2d 690 (1968). This decree was later modified and is 
set out in the same citation.

Pursuant to said decree, as amended, the Board of School 
Commissioners of Mobile County filed its survey and sug­
gested area attendance lines with the court on the 7th day 
of May 1968 and on the 12th day of June 1968, moved the 
Court to disapprove said area attendance zones and to place 
the entire school system on freedom of choice.

On the 29th day of May 1968, a petition to intervene 
was filed by defendant-intervenors representing many par­
ents of students attending the public schools, who join in 
vigorous opposition to any compulsory zoning plan. On 
June 17, 1968, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition 
of motion to intervene. The petition to intervene was 
granted on June 21, 1968. On July 1, the plaintiffs filed 
memorandum in opposition to defendants’ motion to rejeo 
their own zone plans which were filed May 7th. Hearing on 
the area attendance zones and petition for freedom of 
choice was set on July 10th but was continued for one week, 
and hearing was commenced at 9 :30 A.M. on the morning of 
the 17th of July and concluded after six days in court at 
about 4 :20 P.M. on July 24th. During this hearing the plain­
tiffs introduced their suggested Alternate “B” area atten­
dance zones which were based on a computer analysis made 
by APT Associates in conjunction with Dr. Myrom Liefer-

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



143a

man, Professor of Education at Rhode Island College. The 
Government, plaintiff-intervenor, filed its suggested Alter­
nate “A” attendance area zone plans which were prepared 
by Mr. Frank Dunbaugh, attorney for plaintiff-intervenor. 
If there is any one thing on which plaintiffs, plaintiff-inter­
venor, defendants, and defendant-intervenors agree, it is 
that no party likes the other parties suggested zones. Dr. 
Lieberman, who testified at length as an expert, readily 
stated that he did not have as much information as he would 
have liked in preparing plaintiffs’ suggested Alternate “B ” 
zones and that if he had had more information he could 
have done a better job, that his zones were not perfect and 
that a qualified person with more information perhaps 
could do a better job. Mr. Dunbaugh stated that he prepared 
Alternate “A” suggested area zones on behalf of the Gov­
ernment and he readily stated that he was not an expert 
educator, that his zones were not perfect and can doubtless 
he improved upon in certain areas. The defendant is not 
satisfied with its own area zones as it asked the Court to 
disapprove them. These three vastly different zone plans 
give the Court very little assistance and demonstrate the 
difficulty in preparing any practical area attendance zones.

All three plans recognize the fact and the Court finds, 
that due to concentration of races in certain areas, atten­
dance area zones will leave some schools wih one hundred 
percent white attendance and some with one hundred per­
cent Negro attendance.1 However, the decree of the Court 
of Appeals contains an explicit mandate that Mobile 
metropolitan schools shall be organized into attendance

’ Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 16 and 17, Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit 6 
and Defendants’ Exhibit 16.

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



144a

zones on a nonracial basis, and this Court has no discre­
tion to grant the motions for adoption of a purely freedom- 
of-choice system.

Under certain of the suggested zoning plans, and per­
haps all, it would in some instances require children in tie 
system who are scheduled to graduate next year to transfer 
from the school they have attended and thus spend a single 
year in a school new to them and separated from familiar 
surroundings and friends. This has met with much opposi­
tion both from students and parents. It seems to the Court 
that the opposition is justified. Therefore, transfers will 
be granted to any student who has only one grade remain­
ing in the school he last attended, whether the school is ele­
mentary or secondary. This transfer provision is granted 
to preserve the school-identify relationship which all par­
ties agree is most important to the educational process.

The Court recognizes the fact that its first order in the 
Birdie Mae Davis case many years ago requiring school 
integration resulted initially in a low percentage of the 
minority group attending a school or schools of the op­
posite race. This percentage has increased as time went on. 
The plan herein decreed by the Court will increase the per­
centage of integration substantially, but due to concentra­
tion of races in certain areas, it will of necessity in some 
instances place a very small percentage of minority groups 
in schools of the opposite race. It seems to be the con­
sensus of educators that this is not a sound educational 
program for either race. Consequently in the plan herein 
decreed, in instances which the minority race is less than 
five percent (5%) of the entire school attendance, such 
minority students will upon request, and at such time as the

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



145a

Board may require, be granted transfers to the available 
school of their choice nearest their residence serving their 
grade level.

There were several criticisms of the Board’s proposed 
plan in which both the plaintiffs and the plaintiff-intervenor 
joined, one of which was the closing of Old Shell Road 
School. Based on the evidence presented in court, together 
with the Court’s knowledge of the Old Shell Road School 
and its environs, the Court feels that Old Shell Road should 
not be closed. The Court is cognizant of the fact that it is 
housed in an old two-story building and that the grounds 
on which it is situated should be larger for an ideal loca­
tion. Nevertheless, weighing the age of the school, the fact 
that it is two-story, the fact that its grounds should be 
larger, against the many advantages of keeping it open, the 
Court’s plan, by increasing its area attendance zone, re­
quires that it be left open as a school. This thought was 
concurred in by Dr. Lieberman.

It will be noted in the Court’s plan that both Old Shell 
Road School and Augusta Evans School are in the same 
area attendance zone. Under the Court’s plan, Old Shell 
Road is to be operated as the elementary school of that 
zone and Augusta Evans is to be operated for special edu­
cation classes for the handicapped of the entire system on 
a completely integrated basis.

Another criticism joined in by both plaintiffs and plain- 
tiff-intervenor, was that of operating Hillsdale Heights as 
a 1-12 school. The Court feels that this should be changed 
and that the high school heretofore operated at Hillsdale 
Heights should be transferred to Shaw High School.

One other area in which the Government criticized the 
plan proposed by the defendants is that of closing Elli-

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



146a

cott and keeping Whitley open. Dr. Lieberman placed great 
importance on the closeness of Whitley to both Interna­
tional Paper Company and Scott Paper Company plants 
which of necessity create some objectionable features. 
What Dr. Lieberman is overlooking, is the fact that not only 
the areas of both of these schools, bnt the entire Mobile 
County area is the site of a number of large paper mills, 
which constitute a major factor in the economy of the area, 
and around which has grown up housing communities of 
substantial size. Hence, the main objection expressed by 
Dr. Lieberman could be stated as to almost any area of 
metropolitan Mobile, dependent upon the direction of the 
wind. Those acquainted with and dependent upon the paper 
making industry, soon adjust themselves to the aroma and 
realize that its advantages far outweigh its objections.

A- comparison of defendants’ Exhibits 25 and 26 certain! 
demonstrate the fact that not only the closing of Whitley 
would be a mistake but to keep Edicott open as a school 
would likewise be a mistake. All parties seem to be in 
accord that Southside and Barney Schools should be closed. 
Consequently, the decree provides for the closing of Elli- 
cott, Barney and Southside.

It will be noted from the area attendance zones adopted 
by the Court that as to the Hall School, there will be in 
addition to the elementary classes, sufficient room to ac­
commodate special education classes for South Mobile, such 
as adult basic education and a number of groups with fed­
eral reimbursement, in addition to federal programs, in­
cluding the Head Start Program, as administered by the 
Community Action Organization.

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



147a

In drawing the area attendance zones, the Court elimi­
nated any significant amount of bussing students from one 
area of the city to another area. One area attendance zone 
will be bussed to Warren Elementary School. This is a 
temporary measure since the defendants contemplate the 
construction of an elementary school in this area.

The area attendance zones drawn and adopted by the 
Court apply only to Elementary and Junior High Schools 
and are hereto attached and made a part of this opinion. 
The defendants are directed to have these maps published 
in a newspaper of general circulation in Mobile County, 
Alabama, in the afternoon edition of the paper on July 31, 
1968, the morning of August 2, and the morning of August 
4,1968. They are further directed to post both the elemen­
tary school map and the junior high school zone map in a 
conspicuous place in each school house in the urban area 
and in the office of the Superintendent of Education, Yerby 
Building, 504 Government Street, for public examination. 
Said maps shall remain posted and available for inspection 
at the schools and at the School Board Office continuously 
throughout the school year.

The defendants are further directed to make available to 
the news media in Mobile County, such information as will 
enable the public to he fully informed as to the operation 
of the schools commencing the September 68-69 term pur­
suant to this decree and order.

Senior H igh S chools

As to the students who will attend the senior high schools 
(grades 9 through 12) and those 8th grade students resid­

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



148a

ing in the Carver and Craighead attendance zones2 at the 
beginning of the 68-69 semester, the Court finds that none 
of the plans suggested are feasible. The Court is further 
of the opinion that no one at this time, however well versed 
or experienced, could draw sound attendance area zoning 
plans for the high schools in the system. On the contrary, 
the Court finds that imposition of attendance zones for 
high schools at this time would result in loeked-in segrega­
tion to a substantially greater degree than will be the case 
under the freedom-of-choice system. The Court of Appeals 
recognizes that there may be exceptions to the requirement 
for zoning for “ compelling non-racial reasons” and this 
Court is compelled to find under the evidence that such 
reasons exist for deferring the attempt to devise rigid at­
tendance zones for Mobile’s high schools for the time being. 
The zones for elementary and junior high schools as 
adopted by this Court, no doubt have some imperfections3 
which experience will disclose. The Court feels that the 
knowledge acquired by the use of the zones adopted by the 
Court and such facts as will be disclosed from their use 
is necessary before any practical, workable, attendance zone 
area can be established for the high school level. Therefore, 
for the 1968-69 school year the grades specified above in 
this paragraph in the metropolitan area will operate on a 
freedom of choice desegregation plan. The Court is of the 
opinion that such a plan is more feasible at this time than 
the attendance zones. This conclusion by the Court was

2 This deviation from the 9-12 grade structure is necessitated by 
the absence of a Junior High School in the Craighead and Carver 
attendance zones.

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968

3 See footnote number 2.



149a

reached after consideration of all the proposed plans, none 
of which offer satisfactory workable zones on the secondary 
level. The Court also considered legitimate local problems 
which would deter effectual desegregation on an attendance 
zone plan. Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 683, 689 
(1963). The Court feels that in the light of the facts dis­
closed by the evidence, the adoption of freedom of choice 
to this limited extent, is not in contradiction to the mandate 
of the Court of Appeals since that Court has expressly 
affirmed a form of freedom of choice for the rural schools 
in the Mobile System, in recognition of a number of prac­
tical considerations.

The freedom of choice plan for the high schools shall 
operate on an interim annual basis and its continuance will 
be totally dependent upon the speed of desegregation in the 
secondary schools. If at the end of the 1968-69 school year 
the Court determines that such a plan fails in reaching 
the desired results, freedom of choice will be abandoned 
for a more effective plan. Green v. County School Board 
of New Kent County, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 391 U.S. 430 (May 27, 
1968).

The defendants are ordered to file with the Court on De­
cember 16, 1968, a report showing the racial composition 
of each senior high school and each grade therein. The 
Court will then determine whether some other plan must 
be devised for institution at the commencement of the 1969- 
70 school year.

Attached to and made a part of this opinion is the de­
cree setting out in specific detail the steps which the Court 
orders the School Board to administer in establishing the 
freedom of choice plan. This decree was designed after the 
Jefferson decree entered by the Fifth Circuit Court of Ap­
peals on March 29,1967. 380 F2d 385, 390 (1967).

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



150a

Due to the time element the decree is somewhat modified 
to allow the School Board ample opportunity to tabulate 
and coordinate the results of the choice forms and to imple­
ment this plan for the opening of the 68-69 school year.

The six day hearing just concluded in this case attracted 
wide public interest. For the first few days the courtroom 
was filled to capacity and crowds standing in front of the 
Federal Building required the closing of the street. At all 
other times the courtroom was filled substantially to capac­
ity. The trial was widely publicized by all news media. 
Due to the time element and in the light of the general 
public interest displayed during the hearing, and the pub­
lication required by this decree, the Court feels that choice 
forms may be effectively hand distributed from the schools 
and is therefore not required that the postal service be used. 
See Section 11(f) of the decree hereto attached.

The decree does not contain any provision dealing with 
desegregation of faculty, new construction, or desegrega­
tion of facilities and activities. This Court’s order dated 
May 13, 1968, fully sets forth the obligation of the School 
Board in these respects and must be implemented for the 
1968-69 school year.

D one in Mobile, Alabama, this 29th day of July 1968.

D aniel H . T homas 
Chief Judge

United States District Court 
Southern District of Alabama

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



151a

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968 

DECREE

It is obdered, adjudged and decreed that the defendants, 
their agents, officers, employees, and successors and all 
those in active concert and participation with them, be and 
they are permanently enjoined from discriminating on the 
basis of race or color in the operation of the school system. 
As set out more particularly in the body of the decree, they 
shall take affirmative action to disestablish all school segre­
gation and to eliminate the effects of the dual school 
system.

I

Desegregation

Commencing with the 1968-69 school year, the school 
grades, 1 through 8, with a minor exception,1 shall operate 
under area attendance zone desegregation plan. The spe­
cific area attendance zones are attached to and made a part 
of this decree. No alterations or deviations shall be al­
lowed without the expressed approval of the Court. The 
schools and their grade level which shall operate under area 
attendance zones for the school term 1968-69, are listed 
below.

Arlington Grades 1-5
Austin Grades 1-6
Bienville Grades 1-6

1 The prospective eighth grade students residing in the Carver 
and Craighead area attendance zones shall exercise a freedom of 
choice for 1968-69.



152a

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968

Brazier
Brookley
Caldwell
Chicasaw
Council
Crichton
Dickson
Dodge
Eight Mile
Emerson
Fonde
Fonvielle
Forest Hill
Glendale
Gorgas
Grant
Hall
Hamilton
Hillsdale
Howard
Indian Springs
Leinkauf
Maryvale
Mertz
Morningside 
Old Shell Road 
Orchard 
Owens 
Palmer 
Robbins 
Shepard 
Stanton Road

Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-5 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-8 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-5 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-8 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-5 
Grades 1-5 
Grades 1-5 
Grades 1-5 
Grades 1-6 
Grades 1-6



153a

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968

Thomas Grades 1-6
Warren Grades 1-6
Westlawn Grades 1-6
Whistler Grades 1-6
Whitley Grades 1-5
Will Grades 1-5
Williams Grades 1-6
Woodcock Grades 1-6
Azalea Road Grades 7-8
Carver Grades 6-7
Clark Grades 7-8
Craighead Grades 6-7
Dunbar Grades 7-8
Eanes Grades 7-8
Phillips Grades 7-8
Prichard Grades 6-8
Scarborough Grades 6-8
Washington Grades 7-8

II
A rea A ttendance Z ones

The area attendance zones were drawn by the Court 
on a non-racial basis. The main considerations in drawing 
the zones were sound educational policies and geographical 
data of the metropolitan area. The area attendance zones 
may produce unforeseen educational problems. In such 
instances, the defendants may file with the Court, with 
copies to opposing counsel, a petition setting forth specif­
ically the educational defect in the Court’s zone or zones. 
The Court may rule on such petition without a formal 
evidentiary hearing.



154a

Under the area attendance zones, the following schools 
are closed for the 1968-69 school year: Southside Junior 
High, Barney Elementary and Ellicott Elementary.

I l l

T ransfers

Upon request, students may transfer from the school 
serving their attendance area to the school nearest their 
residence which serves their grade level, provided space is 
available, for one of the following reasons:

(a) Transfer shall be granted to a student whose race 
composes the student minority and such minority is five 
percent (5%) or less of the entire student enrollment of 
the school.

(b) Transfer shall be granted to a student who has one 
grade remaining in the school’s grade level which he or 
she last attended and under the area attendance zone, 
would be required to attend a different school than the 
school last attended. The rule of proximity of school to 
residence shall not apply where the school last attended is 
not the nearest school to the student’s residence.

(c) Transfers shall be granted to a student for good 
cause, other than (a) and (b) above. Racial matters shall 
not constitute good cause.

A time period for filing request for transfers shall be 
established by the defendant as soon as accurate enroll­
ment figures are ascertained.

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



155a

IV

P ublic N otice

The defendants shall publish the attendance area zones 
and the text of this decree in the newspaper of general 
circulation in Mobile County, Alabama, in the afternoon 
edition of the paper on July 31, 1968, the morning edition 
of August 2, 1968, and the morning edition of August 4, 
1968. Copies of the attendance area zones and decree 
shall be posted in a conspicuous place in each elemen­
tary and junior high school in the urban system and in the 
office of the Superintendent of Education for public ex­
amination for the entire 1968-69 school term.

The defendants shall make available to the radio and tele­
vision stations in Mobile County such information as will 
enable the general public to be fully informed as to the 
operation of the schools for the 1968-69 school term. V

V

R eports

The defendants shall file with the Clerk of this Court and 
npon opposing counsel, on or before December 31, 1968, a 
report which shall contain the percentage of integration 
and the racial composition of each school operating under 
the area attendance zone plan as of December 16, 1968.

Done in Mobile, Alabama, this 29th day of July 1968.

D aniel H. T homas 
Chief Judge

United States District Court
Southern District of Alabama

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



156a

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968 

DECREE

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendants, 
their agents, officers, employees and successors and all 
those in active concert and participation with them, he and 
they are permanently enjoined from discriminating on the 
basis of race or color in the operation of the school ssytem. 
As set out more particularly in the body of the decree they 
shall take affirmative action to disestablish all school segre­
gation and to eliminate the effects of the dual school 
system:

I

D esegregation

Commencing with the 1968-69 school year, in accordance 
with this decree, the schools and their grade level listed 
below, shall operate on a freedom of choice desegregation 
plan. All pupils entering the ninth or higher grade and 
eighth grade students residing in the Craighead and Carver 
attendance zones, shall exercise their choice of any school 
in the metropolitan system. Each reference hereafter to 
schools only means the schools and grades set out belorr. 
The provisions of this decree have no application to the 
desegregation plan of the rural schools of Mobile County.

Schools available to students who will enter the ninth or 
higher grade for the 1968-69 school year:

B. C. Rain 
Blount 
Central 
Davidson

Grades 9-12 
Grades 8-12 
Grades 9-12 
Grades 9-12



157a

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968

Hillsdale 9 th Grade only
K. J. Clark 9th Grade only
Mae Eanes 
Mobile County

9th Grade only

Training School Grades 9-12
Murphy Grades 9-12
Prichard 9th Grade only
Shaw Grades 9-12
Toulminville Grades 10-12
Trinity Gardens Grades 9-12
Vigor Grades 10-12
Washington 9th Grade only
Williamson Grades 8-12

Schools available to the students residing in the Craig-
head and Carver attendance area zones who will enter the 
eighth grade are:

Azalea Road 8th Grade only
Blount Grades 8-12
B. C. Rain Grades 8-12
Dunbar 8th Grade only
Eight Mile 8th Grade only
Hillsdale Grades 8-9
K. J. Clark Grades 8-9
Mae Eanes 
Mobile County

Grades 8-9

Training School Grades 8-12
Prichard Grades 8-9
Scarborough 8th Grade only
Sidney Phillips 8th Grade only
Washington Grades 8-9
Williamson Grades 8-12



158a

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968 

E xekcise of Choice

(a) Who May Exercise Choice. A choice of schools may 
he exercised by a parent or other adult person serving as 
the student’s parent. A  student may exercise his own choice 
if he is exercising a choice for the ninth or higher grade. 
Such a choice by a student is controlling unless a different 
choice is exercised for him by his parent or other adult 
person serving as his parent during the choice period or 
at such later time as the student exercises a choice. Each 
reference in this decree to a student s exercising a choice 
means the exercise of the choice, as appropriate, by a par­
ent or such other adult, or by the student himself.

(b) All students affected by this decree, both white and 
Negro shall be required to exercise a free choice of schools 
for the school year 1968-69.

(c) Choice Period. The period of exercising choice shall 
commence on August 5, 1968, and end August 16, 1965. 
The date for choice periods for subsequent years will be 
determined by the Court, dependent upon the continuation 
of the freedom of choice plan. No student or prospective 
student who exercises his choice within the choice period 
shall be given any preference because of the time within 
the period when such choice was exercised.

(d) Mandatory Exercise of Choice. A failure to exer­
cise a choice within the choice period shall not preclude an; 
student from exercising a choice at any time before he com­
mences school for the year with respect to which the choice 
applies, but such choice may be subordinated to the choice, 
of students who exercise choice before the expiration of 
the choice period. Any student who has not exercised to



159a

choice of school within a week after school opens shall be 
assigned to the school nearest his home where space is 
available under standards for determining available space 
which shall be applied uniformly throughout the system.

(e) Public Notice. The defendants shall arrange for the 
conspicuous publication of a notice describing the provi­
sions of this decree in the newspaper most generally cir­
culated in the community. This notice must be published 
daily for a five day period preceding the choice period. 
Publication as a legal notice will not be sufficient. The text 
of the notice shall be substantially similar to the text of 
the explanatory letter to the parent. Copies of this notice 
must also be given promptly to all radio and TV stations 
located in the community. Copies of this decree shall be 
posted in each school and at the office of the Superintendent 
of Education.

(f) Distribution of Explanatory Letters and Choice 
Forms. On the first day and each day thereafter of the 
choice period explanatory letters and choice forms shall 
be distributed by hand at the schools and at the office of 
the Superintendent of Education, 504 Government Street. 
The choice forms and explanatory letter will be available 
from 7:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M. and 1 :00 P.M. to 5 :30 P.M. 
each day of the choice period excluding Saturday and Sun­
day. Copies of the explanatory letter and choice forms 
shall be freely available to parents and students, prospec­
tive students and the general public at each school and at 
the office of the Superintendent of Education.

(g) Contents of Choice Forms. Each choice form shall 
set forth the name and the grades offered at each school

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



160a

and may require of the person exercising the choice the 
names, address, age of student, school and grade currently 
or most recently attended by the student, the school chosen, 
the signature of one parent or other adult person serving 
as parent, or where appropriate, the signature of the stu­
dent, and the identity of the person signing. No statement 
of reasons for a particular choice, or any other informa­
tion, or any witness or other authentication, may he re­
quired or requested, without approval of the Court.

(h) Return of Choice Form. At the option of the person 
completing the choice form, the choice may be returned by 
mail, in person, or by messenger to any Junior High or 
Senior High School in the school system or to the office of 
the Superintendent.

(i) Choices Not on Official Form. The exercise of choice 
may also be made by the submission in like manner or any 
other writing which contains information sufficient to iden­
tify the student and indicates that he has made a choice 
of school.

(j) Choice Forms Binding. When a choice form has been 
submitted and the choice period has expired, the choice is 
binding for the entire school year and may not be changed 
except in cases of parents making different choices from 
their children under the conditions set forth in paragraph 
11(a) of this decree and in exceptional cases where, absent 
the consideration of race, a change is educationally called 
for or where compelling hardship is shown by the student. 
A  change in family residence from one neighborhood to 
another shall be considered an exceptional case for pur­
poses of this paragraph.

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



161a

(k) Preference in Assignment. In assigning students to 
schools, no preferences shall be given to any student for 
prior attendance at a school, except when necessary, prefer­
ence shall be given to students who choose to attend their 
previous school of attendance and have only one year re­
maining before completion of that school’s grade level, and 
except with the approval of court in extraordinary circum­
stances, no choice shall be denied for any reason other than 
overcrowding. In the case of overcrowding at any school, 
preference shall be given on the basis of the proximity of 
the school to the homes of the students choosing it, without 
regard to race or color. Standards for determining over­
crowding shall be applied uniformly throughout the system.

(l) Second Choice Where First Choice is Denied. Any 
student whose choice is denied must be promptly notified 
in writing and given his choice of any school in the school 
system serving his grade level where space is available. 
The student shall have seven days from the receipt of notice 
of a denial of first choice in which to exercise a second 
choice.

(m) Transportation. Where transportation is generally 
provided, buses must be routed to the maximum extent 
feasible in light of the geographic distribution of students, 
so as to serve each student choosing any school in the sys­
tem. Every student choosing either the formerly predomi­
nantly white or the formerly predominantly Negro school 
nearest his residence must be transported to the school to 
which he is assigned under these provisions, whether or not 
it is his first choice, if that school is sufficiently distant from 
his home to make him eligible for transportation under gen­

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



162a

erally applicable transportation rules and the School 
Board’s transportation policy.

(n) Officials Not to Influence Choice. At no time shall 
any official, teacher, or employee of the school system in­
fluence any parent, or other adult person serving as a par­
ent, or any student, in the exercise of a choice or favor 
or penalize any person because of a choice made. If the 
defendant school board employs professional guidance 
counselors, such persons shall base their guidance and 
counselling on the individual student’s particular personal, 
academic, and vocational needs. Such guidance and conn­
selling by teachers as well as professional guidance coun­
selors shall be available to all students without regard 
to race or color.

(o) Protection of Persons Exercising Choice. Within 
their authority school officials are responsible for the pro­
tection of persons exercising rights under or otherwise 
effected by this decree. They shall, without delay, take 
appropriate action with regard to any student or staff 
member who interferes with the successful operation of the 
plan. Such interference shall include harassment, intimi­
dation, threats, hostile words or acts, and similar behavior. 
The school board shall not publish, allow, or cause to be 
published, the names or addresses of pupils exercising 
rights or otherwise effected by this decree. If officials of 
the school system are not able to provide sufficient pro­
tection, they shall seek whatever assistance is necessary 
from other appropriate officials.

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



163a

i n

Prospective Students

Each prospective new student shall be required to exer­
cise a choice of schools before or at the time of enrollment. 
All such students known to defendants shall be furnished 
a copy of the prescribed letter to parents, and choice form, 
by mail or in person, on the date the choice period opens 
or as soon thereafter as the school system learns that he 
plans to enroll. Where there is no pre-registration pro­
cedure for newly entering students, copies of the choice 
forms shall be available at the office of the Superintendent 
and at each school during the time the school is usually 
open.

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968

IV

T ransfers

(a) Transfers for Students. Any student shall have the 
right at the beginning of a new term, to transfer to any 
school from which he was excluded or would otherwise be 
excluded on account of his race or color.

(b) Transfers for Special Needs. Any student who re­
quires a course of study not offered at the school to which 
he has been assigned may be permitted, upon his written 
application at the beginning of any school term or semester, 
to transfer to another school which offers courses for his 
special needs.

(c) Transfers to Special Classes or Schools. I f the de­
fendants operate and maintain special classes or schools 
for physically handicapped, mentally retarded, or gifted



164a

children, the defendants may assign children to such 
schools or classes on a basis related to the function of the 
special class or school that is other than freedom of choice. 
In no event shall such assignments be made on the basis 
of race or color or in a manner which tends to perpetuate 
a dual school system based on race or color.

v
R eport to the Court

The defendants shall serve upon the opposing parties 
and file with the Clerk of the Court, on or before December 
16, 1968, a report tabulating by race the number of choice 
applications received for enrollment in each grade in each 
school in the system operating under the freedom of choice 
plan, and the number of choices and transfers granted and 
the number of denials in each grade of each school. The 
report shall also state any reasons relied upon in denying 
choice and shall tabulate by school and by race of student, 
the number of choices and transfers denied for each such 
reason.

The defendants shall in addition to the above infor­
mation, report the racial composition of each grade (9-12) 
in each school operating under the freedom of choice plan, 
plus the name, address, and the name of school attended 
by the eighth grade students who exercised freedom of 
choice.

D one in Mobile, Alabama, the 29th day of July 1968.

Daniel H. T homas

Chief Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Alabama

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968



165a

Mobile County P ublic S chool System 
504 Government Street

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968

Dear Parent:

Every student who will be entering the ninth or higher 
grade, and those students who reside in the Carver and 
Craighead attendance zone area who will be entering the 
eighth grade, for the upcoming school year may choose to 
attend any school in our system.

It does not matter which school your child attended last 
year. You and your child may select any school listed on 
the attached choice form which serves your child’s grade 
level. It does not matter if the school you choose was for­
merly predominantly white or Negro. A  child enrolling in 
the school system for the first time must make a choice of 
schools before, or at the time of his enrollment.

The form on which the choice should be made is attached 
to this letter. It should be completed and returned by 
August 16,1968. You may mail it, deliver it by messenger, 
or by hand, to any school on the list or to the Office of the 
Superintendent of Education at any time between August 
5,1968, and August 16, 1968. No one may require you to 
return your choice form before August 16, 1968, and no 
preference is given for returning the choice form early.

No principal, teacher or other school official is permitted 
to influence anyone in making a choice or to require early 
return of the choice form. No one is permitted to favor 
or penalize any student or other person because of a choice 
made. A choice once made cannot be changed except for 
serious hardship.



166a

No child will be denied his choice unless for reasons of 
overcrowding at the school chosen, in which case children 
living nearest the school will have preference.

Your School Board and the school staff will do every- 
thing we can to see to it that the rights of all students are 
protected and that desegregation of our schools is carried 
out successfully.

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968

Sincerely yours,

Enc:
Superintendent

Choice F orm

All students who will be entering the Ninth or higher 
grade and students who will be entering the Eighth grade 
who reside in the Carver and Craighead attendance zone 
areas, are eligible to choose any school he or she wishes to 
enter for the 1968-69 school term which offers the grade 
level to which he is eligible to enter. The names and grade 
levels of the available schools are listed below. Each stu­
dent shall have a freedom of choice of the school he or she 
wishes to attend, without regard to the school attended last 
year, or whether or not the school he chooses was formerly 
or predominantly white or Negro. You have 12 days to 
make your choice. Each student must make a choice.

This form is for your use in making your choice and must 
be mailed or brought to the principal of any school listed 
below, or to the office of the Superintendent, located at 
504 Government Street, by August 16, 1968.



167a

Name of child..................................................................
(Last) (First) (Middle)

Address ...............................................................................................

Name of Parent or other
adult serving as parent................................................

Grade child is entering............................................

School attended last y e a r ..........................................

For students entering the Ninth or higher grade the fol­
lowing schools and the grades they offer are set out below. 
Please check the school your child wishes to attend com­
mencing the 1968-69 term.

..... B. C. Eain
(Grades 9-12)

..... Blount
(Grades 9-12)

..... Central
(Grades 9-12)

..... Davidson
(Grades 9-12)

.....Hillsdale
(9th grade only)

.....K. J. Clark
(9th grade only)

.....Mae Eanes
(9th grade only)

.....Mobile County
Training School 
(Grades 9-12)

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968

..Murphy
(Grades 9-12) 

..Prichard
(9th grade only) 

.Shaw
(Grades 9-12) 

.Toulminville
(Grades 10-12) 

.Trinity Gardens 
(Grades 9-12) 

.Vigor
(Grades 10-12) 

-Washington
(9th grade only) 

Williamson
(Grades 9-12)



168a

District Court Opinion of July 29, 1968

Schools available to the students residing in the Craighead 
and Carver attendance zone areas who will enter the 
Eighth grade are listed below. Please check the school 
your child wishes to attend commencing the 1968-69 term.

.......Azalae Road

.......Blount
...Mae Eanes 
....Mobile County

Training School
_...B. C. Rain

.......Dunbar
....Eight Mile 

Hillsdale 
....K. J. Clark

....Prichard 

....Scarborough 

....Sidney Phillips 

....Washington 

....Williamson



169a

On July 31, 1968, the plaintiff-intervenor United States 
filed a motion for modification of this Court’s order dated 
July 29, 1968, and after consideration thereof, it appears 
to the Court that its order dated the 29th day of July 1968, 
does require modification and amendment thereof.

It is Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the first portion 
of this Court’s decree of July 29, 1968, is hereby modified 
and amended in the following respects:

1. The list of schools contained in Section I is amended 
to show the Owens School as serving Grades 1-6, to add the 
Mobile County Training School, which will serve Grades 
6-8 and to add the Rain and Trinity Gardens Schools, which 
will serve Grades 7-8.

It is further Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the sec­
ond portion of this Court’s decree of July 29, 1968, is 
hereby modified in the following respects:

1. By Striking Section V . entitled “ Reports” and insert 
the following:

District Court Order of August 2 , 1968

Y .

Surveys

The defendant school board shall continue its survey for 
the purpose of obtaining sufficient data for future planning. 
Specifically, the defendants shall take the following steps:

(a) Building and Sites - A  survey shall be made of all 
school buildings and all school sites. Based upon this sur­
vey the defendant superintendent shall prepare a detailed



170a

report which shall be filed with the court and served upon 
each party no later than December 16, 1968. With respect 
to each site, this report shall include a detailed statement 
concerning its suitability, the feasibility of improving or 
expanding the site, a description of the building located on 
the sites, the suitability of each building, particularly with 
respect to fire hazards, construction defects, etc. and all 
other information necessary to a determination of the ap­
propriate uses that could be made of the sites and buildings. 
This report shall also include the superintendent’s recom­
mendation with respect to the grades to be served at each 
site for the 1969-70 school year and his evaluation or alter­
native uses.

(b) Student Census - A  student census, by race and 
grade, shall be conducted at the beginning of the 1968-69 
school year for the metropolitan system. The defendant 
superintendent shall file with the court and serve upon each 
party no later than December 16, 1968, appropriate maps 
reflecting the results of the student census.

(c) Long Range Plans - On or before October 25, 1968, 
the defendant superintendent shall file with the court and 
serve upon each party an interim report with respect to 
that portion of the survey called for in paragraph IV.D.a 
and IV.G. of this Court’s order of May 13, 1968.

V I .

R eports

On the dates specified the defendant superintendent shall 
file with the Court and serve upon each party the following 
reports:

District Court Order of August 2, 1968



171a

(a) Enrollment - On or before November 1, 1968, a re­
port shall be submitted showing the number of students 
by school, grade and race actually enrolled at the school in 
Mobile County. The report shall also contain the racial 
composition of each school operating under the freedom of 
choice desegregation plan.

(b) Faculty - The report which under paragraph VI.A. 
of this Court’s decree of May 13, 1968, was to be submitted 
on June 10, 1968. The defendants shall file with the Court 
and the opposing parties a progress report on the faculty 
on or before August 16, 1968, and a final report on Sep­
tember 16,1968. VII.

District Court Order of August 2, 1968

VII.

Recommendations foe 1969-70 School Y ear

On or before December 31, 1968, the defendant school 
board shall submit to this Court and serve upon each party, 
maps containing proposed area attendance lines for use 
commencing with the 1969-70 school year and a statistical 
table showing the forecasted enrollment by race and grade 
for each school. These proposed attendance zones shall 
include all schools and grades in the metropolitan system, 
including the high schools.

In drawing the area attendance zones for 1969-70, the 
Court orders the defendant to draw the zones from the 
standpoint of achieving a uniform grade structure through­
out the system. The Court recognizes that the transition 
from one grade structure to another may require more than 
one school term. Nevertheless, the Court directs the defen-



172a

dant to act with the greatest expediency in achieving the 
maximum degree of uniformity possible for the 1969-70 
school year.

As a further recommendation for the 1969-70 school year, 
the defendant is directed to program those school areas 
where “ locked-in” segregation exists, to achieve the best 
utilization of the school facilities from an educational point 
of view, but in accordance with the provisions of this decree.

In its motion for modification, the plaintiff-intervenor 
United States moves the Court to adopt a pure freedom of 
choice for the rural schools for Mobile County. Pursuant to 
the mandate of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the 
motion of the United States of America, the Court adopts 
the freedom of choice desegregation plan for the rural 
schools in accordance with the following provisions.

R ural S chools

All students in the rural portion of the Mobile County 
school system shall be assigned to the schools in accordance 
with the provisions of the section of the decree entitled 
“E xercise of Choice,” which shall be modified by the inser­
tion of the Roman numeral II before the caption and which 
shall be amended for the rural schools only in the follow­
ing respects:

District Court Order of August 2, 1968

I I
E xercise of Choice

1. Subsection (c) shall be amended as follows: The 
period of exercising choice shall commence on August 19, 
1968, and end on August 30, 1968.



173a

2. Subsection (m) shall be amended by adding to the 
last sentence of the section: The policy of the defendant in 
regard to transportation in the rural areas is that transpor­
tation shall be provided if reasonably possible.

Except where the metropolitan system is specifically 
designated, all provisions of the decree entitled “ Exercise 
of Choice” with the above amendments, shall apply to the 
rural schools in Mobile County.

Copies of the explanatory letter and the choice form are 
attached and made a part of this order.

Done in Mobile, Alabama, this the 2nd day of August 
1968.

D aniel H. T homas 
Chief Judge

United States District Court 
Southern District of Alabama

District Court Order of August 2, 1968

E xplanatory L etter

Dear Parent:

All schools and grades in our rural school system will 
operate on the freedom of choice desegregation plan for 
the upcoming school year. Any student who will be enter­
ing one of these grades next year may choose to attend any 
school in our system, regardless of whether that school was 
formerly all-white or all-Negro. It does not matter which 
school your child attended this year. You and your child 
may select any school you wish.

Every student white and Negro, must make a choice of 
schools. If a child is entering the ninth or higher grade,



174a

he may make the choice himself. Otherwise a parent or 
other adult serving as parent must sign the choice form. 
A  child enrolling in the school system for the first time must 
make a choice of schools before or at the time of this enroll­
ment.

The form on which the choice should be made is attached 
to this letter. It should be completed and returned by Au­
gust 30, 1968. You may mail it or deliver it by messenger 
or by hand to any school principal in the schools listed on 
the choice form or to the Office of the Superintendent, 504 
Government Street, at any time between August 19, 1968, 
and August 30, 1968. No one may require you to return 
your choice form before August 30, 1968, and no prefer­
ence is given for returning the choice form early.

No principal, teacher or other school official is permitted 
to influence anyone in making a choice or to require early 
return of the choice form. No one is permitted to favor 
or penalize any student or other persons because of a choice 
made. A  choice once made cannot be changed except for 
serious hardship.

No child will be denied his choice unless for reasons of 
overcrowding at the school chosen, in which case children 
living nearest the school will have preference.

Transportation will be provided, if reasonably possible, 
no matter what school is chosen.

Your school board and the school staff will do everything 
we can to see to it that the rights of all students are pro­
tected and that desegregation of our schools is carried out 
successfully.

Yours very truly,

Superintendent
Enc.

District Court Order of August 2, 1968



175a

District Court Order of August 2, 1968 

Choice F orm

This form is provided for you to choose a school for 
your child to attend next year. You have 12 d&ys to make 
your choice. It does not matter which school your child 
attended last year, and it does not matter whether the 
school you choose was formerly a white or Negro school. 
This form must be mailed or brought to the principal of 
any school listed below or to the Office of the Superinten­
dent, 504 Government Street, by August 30, 1968. A  choice 
is required for each child.

Name of child .............................................................................
(last) (first) (middle)

Address

Name of Parent or other 
adult serving as parent .

If child is entering first grade,
date of birth: ....................................................................

(Month) (Day) (Year)

School attended last y e a r ..........................................................

Choose one of the following schools by marking an X  beside 
the name:

.Nelson Adams

.Alba

.Baker

.Belsaw
•Burroughs

Grades 1-12 
Grades 1-12 
Grades 1-12 
Grades 1-8 
Grades 1-6



176a

District Court Order of August 2, 1968

....Calcedeaver Grades 1-12

....Calvert Grades 1-6
Citronelle Grades 1-12

....Dauphin Island Grades 1-6

....Davis Grades 1-6

....Dawes Union Grades 1-6

....Dixon Grades 1-6

....Griggs Grades 1-6

....Hollinger’s Island Grades 1-8

....Robert E. Lee Grades 1-6

....Lott Grades 1-12
.....Mobile County High Grades 7-12
.....Mt, Vernon Grades 1-8
....St. Elmo Grades 7-12
....Saraland Grades 1-6
.....Satsuma Grades 7-12
....Semmes Grades 1-8
....Tanner Williams Grades 1-6
....Wilmer Grades 1-6

Signature

Date ....

To be filled in by Superintendent: 

School Assigned ............................



177a

Pursuant to this Court’s order and the mandate of the 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the defendant-School 
Board seeks the Court’s approval for proposed building 
expansion for two existing school sites. The applications 
were filed on February 20, 1968 and April 22, 1968, re­
spectively. The plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor objected 
to the proposed construction and requested a special set­
ting to determine if the plans were in compliance with the 
orders of this Court. This Court granted the request and 
this matter came on for hearing on the 7th day of May 
1968.

At the hearing, the defendants offered evidence to prove 
that the existing facilities at the Howard Elementary 
School and the Toulminville High School were inadequate 
and outdated for present and future needs. The defendant 
showed that projected enrollment figures require additional 
and modern facilities. The Government and the plaintiff 
asserted that the new construction was racially motivated 
and would tend to promote segregation of the races in the 
particular school areas.

Now after consideration thereof,

The Court finds that the proposed expansion for the 
Howard Elementary School is indeed necessary and finds 
that such construction would not perpetuate segregation 
within the Howard area particularly when the proposed 
urban renewal plans of the City are taken into consider­
ation. The Court hereby approves and authorizes the pro­
posed Howard construction plans. The Court does find that 
the proposed construction in the Toulminville High School 
area would tend to serve a school area with one dominant

District Court Order of December 20, 1968



178a

race, thus creating a “ locked-in” segregation area, which 
this Court’s order of July 29, 1968, expressly denounced.

Therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the 
defendant’s application for new construction in the Howard 
Elementary School is hereby granted.

It is further ordered by the Court that the defendant’s 
application for new construction for the Toulminville High 
School is hereby d e n i e d .

D one this the 20th day of December 1968.

D aniel H. T homas 
United States District Judge

District Court Order of December 20, 1968



179a

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of the 
defendant-school board requesting the Court to reconsider 
its order of December 20, 1968, in which the Court denied 
the school board’s application for new construction for the 
Toulminville High School. The matter was set down for 
rehearing on March 7, 1969, and now after consideration 
thereof,

The Court finds that the proposed school for the Toul­
minville area will be located in the most logical, rational 
and economical site available. It is not disputed that the 
new school is necessary. The property has been acquired; 
the school will be centrally located; the site is convenient 
to traffic and bus routes; and the adjacent facilities (public 
library and playground) will contribute to the educational 
program.

The only objection of the plaintiffs and the plain tiff - 
intervenor is that the new school may be totally or at least 
predominantly Negro when completed. Such objection has 
as a premise, the supposition that the School Board will 
disregard its affirmative duty to disestablish the dual school 
system. The Court finds such a supposition faulty.

To deny new construction of the Toulminville High 
School at this time, in the opinion of the Court, would be 
inconsistent with proper operation of the school system 
as a whole.

Therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the 
Court that the defendant school board’s motion for recon­
sideration is GRANTED.

District Court Order of March 14, 1969



180a

It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court 
that the application for new construction of the Toulmin- 
ville High School is hereby granted.

D one at Mobile, Alabama, this the 14th day of March 
1969.

District Court Order of March 14, 1969

Daniel H. T homas 
United States District Judge



181a

Before Bell, Godbold and D yer, Circuit Judges.

By the Court:

It is ordered as follows :

Appellants’ motions for injunction pending appeal, filed 
in the above causes, are hereby denied.

Appellants’ motions for consolidation of the above ap­
peals with Cause No. 26886, United States of America, 
Et A1 v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 
Et Al, are hereby granted.

The appellees shall give 30 days written notice to appel­
lants before putting out for bids the construction of the 
proposed Howard School and the proposed Toulminville 
School.

The Clerk shall set a briefing schedule for the filing of 
briefs in the above causes which shall not extend or delay 
the hearing of the causes as consolidated with No. 26886.

Court of Appeals Order of March 20, 1969



182a

On July 29, 1968, with an amendment on August 2, 1968, 
the Court entered a decree for the operation of the Mobile 
County Public School System for the school year, 1968- 
1969. The decree ordered the adoption of the freedom of 
choice desegregation plan for certain grades within the city 
system and all schools and grades within the county sys­
tem. The grades not designated for freedom of choice 
within the city system were to operate under the area 
attendance zone desegregation plan, with the particular 
zones being drawn by the Court.

In the decree, the Court stated that the freedom of choice 
plan was to operate on an annual interim basis and that 
the attendance zones were subject to revision for subse­
quent years. The continuance of the plans was dependent 
upon the desegregation results.

In December 1968, pursuant to this Court’s direction, the 
defendant-School Board filed certain reports stating the 
enrollment and racial composition of each school in the 
system. The reports reflect that meaningful desegregation 
has been accomplished and the effects of the once existent 
“ dual school system” are being permanently disestablished. 
The Board also filed with the Court and upon opposing 
parties, maps illustrating the proposed area attendance 
zones for the school year 1969-70.

Now after consideration thereof and pursuant to this 
Court’s continuing jurisdiction over the desegregation 
process of the Mobile County Public School System, the 
Court enters the following decree for the operation of the 
public schools for the school term, 1969-70.

District Court Order of April 7, 1969



183a

District Court Order of April 7, 1969 

Decree

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendants, 
their agents, officers, employees and successors and all 
those in active concert and participation with them, be and 
they are permanently enjoined from discriminating on the 
basis of race or color in the operation of the school system. 
As set out more particularly in the body of the decree they 
shall take affirmative action to disestablish all school seg­
regation and to eliminate the effects of the dual school 
system.

It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court 
that all rural schools and those grades and schools, as 
specified in this Court’s decree of July 29, 1968, and amend­
ment of August 2, 1968, shall continue to operate under the 
freedom of choice desegregation plan for the school year 
1969-70.

Choice Period: The period for exercising choice shall 
commence on Monday, April 14, 1969, and end on Monday, 
May 12,1969. No student or prospective student who exer­
cises his choice within the choice period shall be given any 
prefeience because of the time within the period when such 
choice was exercised.

Distribution of Explanatory Letters and Choice Forms: 
On the first day and each day thereafter of the choice 
period, explanatory letters and choice forms shall be dis­
tributed by hand at the schools during regular school hours, 
8:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. and at the office of the Superin­
tendent of Education, 504 Government Street, during reg­
ular office hours, 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. In addition, the



184a

choice forms and explanatory letter shall be hand distrib­
uted at the schools to all students who are eligible to make 
a choice for the 1969-70 school year during the first week 
of the choice period. The choice forms and explanatory 
letters shall be identical in form and substance as ordered 
by the Court in July 1968, except for necessary changes.

With the exception of Section V, styled “ Surveys”, all 
sections of the July 29, 1968, and August 2, 1968, decree 
pertaining to the operation of the freedom of choice de­
segregation plan shall remain in full force and effect for 
the school year, 1969-70. Such provisions include, but not 
limited to, publication, transfers, reports and assignment 
of students.

It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court 
that the area attendance zones as proposed by the School 
Board for the elementary and junior high grades within 
the city system, are hereby approved and adopted for the 
school year 1969-70.

All provisions of this Court’s July 29, 1968, and August 
2, 1968, decree pertaining to the area attendance zone de­
segregation plan shall remain in full force and effect for 
the 1969-70 school term. Such provisions include, but not 
limited to, publication, transfers and reports.

D one at Mobile, Alabama, this the 7th day of April 1969.

Daniel H. T homas 
United States District Judge

District Court Order of April 7, 1969



185a

Before Bell, Godbold and D yer, Circuit Judges.

By the Court:

It is ordered that appellant’s motion for reconsidera­
tion of that portion of this Court’s order of March 20, 
1969, denying appellants’ motions for injunction pending 
appeal in the above entitled and numbered causes be, and 
the same is hereby Granted, and appellants’ motions for 
injunction pending appeal are Granted.

(Original filed May 6, 1969)

Court of Appeals Order of May 6, 1969



186a

Before John R. B rown, Chief Judge, Dyer, Circuit Judge, 
and H unter, District Judge.

Per Curiam:

In No. 26,886 the District Court on July 29, 1968, entered 
an order formulating attendance zone lines for grades 1-8 
in the city portion of the Mobile School System, adopted 
freedom of choice in the high school system, permitted 
transfer from a school into which a student was zoned if 
the student was in a racial minority of less than five per­
cent, and continued a freedom of choice plan in the rural 
areas.

In Nos. 27,260 and 27,491 the District Court on December 
20, 1968, and March 14, 1969, approved construction plans 
for the Howard and Toulminville schools respectively.

We consolidated and expedited these appeals for oral 
argument.

It is apparent that the District Court relied wholly upon 
and gave literal interpretation to the directive in our de­
cision of March 12, 1968, 5 Cir., 393 F.2d 690, that new at­
tendance zones be drawn on a non-racial basis and ignored 
the unequivocal directive to make a conscious effort in lo­
cating attendance zones to desegregate and eliminate past 
segregation. The record shows and the statistics prove that 
the attendance zones formulated by the District Court are 
constitutionally insufficient and unacceptable, and such 
zones must be redrawn.

In approving a freedom of choice plan for high school 
students the District Court failed to follow the m andate in 
our opinion that no distinction was to be drawn between

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 3, 1969



187a

elementary and high school students with respect to attend­
ance zones, and that the same principles were to govern the 
assignment of students to secondary as to primary schools.

[1] A provision permitting transfers from racial ma­
jority to racial minority schools is entirely proper and 
should he included in a plan.

[2] The converse, transfers from racial minority to ra­
cial majority schools, permitted by the District Court, even 
when restricted to those instances when the racial minority 
is 5% or less, is erroneous. This is tantamount to an au­
thorization to white students to resegregate and is imper­
missible as a means for the perpetration of segregation. 
Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, 1968, 391 U.S. 450, 88 
S.Ct. 1700, 20 L.Ed.2d 733; Goss v. Board of Education, 
1963, 373 U.S. 683, 83 S.Ct. 1405, 10 L.Ed.2d 632.

[3] The freedom of choice plan for the rural schools ap­
proved by the District Court has singularly failed. Only 
about 6% of the rural Negro school population in Mobile 
County chose to attend traditionally white schools and no 
white children chose to attend traditionally Negro schools. 
Green v. County School Board, 1968, 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 
1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716, makes it clear that freedom of choice 
was an impermissible desegregation plan here.

[4] With respect to the construction of new facilities in 
the Howard and Toulminville sites, whether these schools 
should be built as presently proposed, abandoned, or the 
location changed will largely depend on what the student 
demands will be after new attendance zones are established 
to eliminate past segregation. Until new attendance zones 
are formulated in accordance with this order, the order of

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 3, 1969



188a

this court enjoining the construction of the Howard school 
and the Toulminville project will be continued in effect.

Actually, the formulation of appropriate decrees in 
the cases before the Court present few, if any, justici­
able issues of constitutional import. Such issues have 
been largely resolved. The difficulties involved in de­
veloping a proper decree concern basically practical 
operational questions and matters of educational ad­
ministration. H.E.W., with its staff of trained educa­
tional experts “ with their day to day experience -with 
thousands of school systems”, is far better qualified to 
deal with such operational and administrative prob­
lems than the Courts presided over by Judges, who, as 
one Court has phrased it, “ do not have sufficient com­
petence—they are not educators or school administra­
tors—to know the right questions, much less the right 
answers.” United States v. Jefferson County Board 
of Education, 5th Cir. 1966, 372 F.2d 836, 855; * * *.

Whittenberg v. Greenville County School District, etc, 
(D.S.C. March 31, 1969), 298 F.Supp. 784, 789, 790.

The orders of the District Court are reversed and the 
cases are remanded to the District Court with the following 
instructions:

1. This case shall receive the highest priority.

2. The District Court shall forthwith request the Office 
of Education of the United States Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare to collaborate with the Board of 
School Commissioners of Mobile County in the preparation

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 3, 1969



189a

of a plan to fully and affirmatively desegregate all public 
schools in Mobile County, urban and rural, together with 
comprehensive recommendations for locating and design­
ing new schools, and expanding and consolidating existing 
schools to assist in eradicating past discrimination and 
effecting desegregation. The District Court shall further 
require the School Board to make available to the Office of 
Education or its designees all requested information relat­
ing to the operation of the school district.

3. Proceed according to an expedited time schedule for 
the submission, review and approval of the plan, as follows:

(a) The board shall within 30 days of this order de­
velop, in conjunction with the experts of the Office of 
Health, Education and Welfare, an acceptable plan of 
operation, conformable to the constitutional rights of 
the Negro students as we have delineated in this 
opinion.

(b) If such plan is agreed upon by the school board 
and the Office of Education within the time fixed, the 
Court will approve such plan, unless the plaintiffs 
within ten days make proper showing that the plan 
does not meet constitutional standards.

(c) If no such agreed plan is developed within 30 days, 
the Office of Education is requested to submit within 
10 days its recommendation of a plan for the school 
district.

(d) The parties shall have ten days from the date a 
plan is filed with the District Court to file objections or 
suggested amendments thereto.

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 3, 1969



190a

(e) For plans as to which objections are made or 
amendments suggested, or which in any event the Dis­
trict Court will not approve without hearing, the Dis­
trict Court shall commence hearings beginning no 
later than ten days after the time for filing objections 
has expired.

(f) A  new plan for the district effective for the begin­
ning of the 1969-70 school term shall be completed and 
approved by the District Court no later than August 1, 
1969.

(g) The recommendations as to new construction shall 
be submitted to the District Court within 120 days of 
this order.

Because of the urgency of formulating and approving 
plans to be effective for the 1969-70 school term it is or­
dered as follow s: The mandate of this court shall issue im­
mediately and will not be stayed pending petitions for re­
hearing or certiorari. This court will not extend the time 
for filing petitions for rehearing or briefs in support of or 
in opposition thereto. Any appeals from orders or decrees 
of the District Court on remand shall be expedited. The 
record on appeal shall be lodged with this court and appel­
lants’ brief filed, all within ten days of the date of the order 
or decree of the district court from which the appeal is 
taken. Appellee’s brief shall be due ten days thereafter. 
The court will determine the time and place for oral argu­
ment if allowed.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 3, 1969



191a

Hotter, District Judge (concurring):

In my judgment “ non racial zoning” coupled with a ma­
jority to minority transfer provision would best serve the 
interests of all the school children in metropolitan Mobile. 
However, this court in its opinion of March 12, 1968, added 
a caveat to its instructions that attendance zones be based 
on objective criteria (393 F.2d at 694):

“ * * * conscious effort should be made to move bound­
ary lines and change feeder patterns which tend to 
preserve segregation.”

This is the law of the case and is consistent with recent de­
cisions of the Fifth Circuit. United States v. Greenwood 
Municipal Separate District, 406 F.2d 1086 (5 Cir. Feb. 
1969).

Students in the rural portion of the system have been 
assigned to schools on the basis of freedom of choice. In 
29 consolidated cases involving factual settings very simi­
lar, I have held that Jefferson-type freedom of choice in 
Louisiana School Districts “had real prospects of dis­
mantling the dual system at the earliest practicable date” 
and that this was the best method available to do the job. 
Conley v. Lake Charles Sch. Bd., W.D.La. 1968, 293 F.Supp. 
84. These cases have been reversed. Hall et al. v. St. 
Helena Parish School Board, Nos. 26450 and 27303, May 28, 
1969. There can be no doubt that Hall, supra, requires a 
holding here that as now constituted, administered and 
operating in the Mobile Public School System, freedom of 
choice is not effectual.

Court of Appeals Opinion of June 3, 1969



Court of Appeals Opinion of June 3, 1969 

On Petition fob R ehearing

Per Curiam:

It is ordered that the petition for rehearing filed in the 
above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is 
hereby denied, and the motion of appellees for a stay of 
execution and enforcement of the judgment is denied.

H unter, District Judge:

Under the total circumstances I would grant the petition 
for rehearing.



193a

This plan for the beginning of desegregation of the 
schools of Mobile County is submitted pursuant to the or­
der of the court entered July 11, 1963 as amended July 26, 
1963. Said order contains a preliminary injunction requir­
ing the beginning of desegregation by order of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit pending trial 
of the case and final decree.

The plan is presented after full consideration by the 
Board and in the light of the following facts, among others:

A. The Board is in the midst of an accelerated building 
program designed to remove the necessity of half day ses­
sions and provide adequate housing for more than 75,000 
pupils of grades 1-12 and to cope with a continuing annual 
pupil load increase of approximately 3,000 pupils.

B. The residential pattern is continually being reshaped, 
causing major changes in neighborhood patterns. These 
patterns are being further altered by the construction of 
new thoroughfares, 1-65 and 1-10, through the community, 
displacing between 1200 and 2000 residences; and

C. These changes have brought about the transfer of 
students within the system, the admission of new students, 
and the withdrawal of old students, and have created a 
major problem for the Mobile School System both within 
the central office of the Superintendent’s staff and at the
offices of the respective principals of the 89 local schools; 
and

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners
of Mobile County on August 19, 1963



194a

D. The Board considers that any general or arbitrary 
reassignment of pupils presently in attendance at the 89 
existing schools, according to any rigid rule of proximity 
to school or solely by request on the part of the parents of 
pupils, would be impractical and a disservice to the system, 
to the local schools, and to the pupils being transferred; 
such transfers would tend to overload some schools and 
leave other facilities in less than full use and at the same 
time result in an unbalanced teacher-pupil ratio throughout 
the system; and

E. The estimated enrollments for September, 1963 were 
developed last February and building and classroom ca­
pacity has been adjusted thereto; school supplies, text­
books, and other materials and equipment have been allo­
cated accordingly; schools have been staffed and teachers 
assigned on the same estimated enrollments; and

F. Portable classrooms, half day sessions, makeshift 
rooms, and other emergency measures have been utilized 
as means of coping with the current pupil overload in the 
Mobile Public Schools, toward the end of providing seating 
space for the 75,000 pupils of 1962-63 and an estimated 
additional 3,000 pupils for September of 1963-64. These 
facts lead to the conclusion that great caution in continu­
ous, system-wide study of facilities available, as well as 
other factors relating to educational policies governing ad­
missions, transfers, and placement of pupils as are set forth 
in this document, is vitally essential to orderly procedures; 
and

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners
of Mobile County on August 19, 1963



195a

G. The problems in connection with any desegregation 
of the schools outside the corporate limits of the City of 
Mobile are substantially different from the problems in­
volved for desegregation within the City of Mobile and this 
plan is confined in its first year of operation to schools 
within the corporate limits of Mobile.

H. The number of pupils both white and negro in the 
first grade of schools in the City of Mobile for the year 
beginning in September 1963 will be approximately 8025 
and the number in the 12th grade in the city schools will 
be 3836.

I. The school year 1963-64 begins on September 4, 1963.

J. In the judgment of the Board it is not practicable, 
on account of the short space of time remaining, to consider 
individual applications in behalf of negro pupils for as­
signment or transfer to schools which have been attended 
only by pupils of the white race except applications per­
taining to one grade only, for the school year commencing 
September 4, 1963; and

It is the judgment of the School Board that it is for the 
best interests of the pupils of all grades and the orderly 
and efficient operation of the Mobile School system that 
the 12th grade be selected as the grade for the processing 
of such transfers for the school year 1963-64 and that trans­
fers and assignments pertaining to any other grade cannot 
as a practical matter be granted for the term commencing 
in September, 1963.

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners
of Mobile County on August 19, 1963



196a

The Board, therefore, proposes the following plan, pur­
suant to the said order of the Court:

(1) Assignments: All existing school assignments shall 
continue without change except when transfers are author­
ized by the Assistant Superintendent in Charge of Pupil 
Personnel under the provisions of this plan. Pupils enter­
ing the first grade, when the plan shall have become appli­
cable thereto, and pupils otherwise entering the school 
system for the first time, when the plan shall have become 
applicable to the grade entered, shall be assigned without 
regard to race, as is provided hereinafter.

(2) Transfers:

(A ) Parents or guardians of pupils in grades to which 
this plan shall have become applicable, wishing school 
assignment for the pupils other than as previously as­
signed or as pre-registered, may make application to 
that end between April 1 and April 15 of each year for 
transfer for the next succeeding school year. After 
1963, such period shall replace the normal July 31st 
cut-off date for transfer applications of former years.

(B) Designation of Assistant Superintendent: In the 
assignment, transfer or continuance of pupils to spe­
cific schools, subject to the supervision and review by 
the Superintendent and Board, the Assistant Super­
intendent in charge of Pupil Personnel shall be charged 
with the responsibility for and the assignment of pupil 
admission by transfer and by original enrollment.

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners
of Mobile County on August 19, 1963



197a

(C) Transfer Bequests: Applications for transfer or 
initial assignment shall be in writing on forms pre­
scribed and supplied by the Board. The proper forms 
will be furnished to parents of pupils on request. Sepa­
rate Applications must be filed for each pupil for 
whom an assignment or transfer is requested.

(D) Pupil Placement Act Criteria Used: For the 
grade or grades as to which this plan is effective, race 
or color of the pupil shall not be a factor in assign­
ment or the granting of transfer, but the following 
criteria shall be considered in making the assignment 
or granting the requested transfer, along with other 
relevant factors: (a) available room at the school to 
which transfer or assignment is requested; (b) the 
availability of transportation facilities; (c) suitability 
of established curricula for particular pupils; (d) the 
choice and interests of the pupil; (e) the request or 
consent of parents or guardians and the reasons as­
signed therefor; (f) the effect of the admission of new 
pupils upon established or proposed academic pro­
grams; (g) the adequacy of the pupil’s academic 
preparation for admission to a particular school and 
curriculum; (h) the scholastic aptitude and relative 
intelligence, or mental energy or ability of the pupil; 
(i) the psychological qualification of the pupil for the 
type of teaching and associations involved; (j) the 
effect of admission of the pupil upon the academic 
progress of other students in a particular school or 
facility thereof; (k) the effect of admission upon pre­
vailing academic standards at a particular school;

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners
of Mobile County on August 19, 1963



198a

(1) the possibility or threat of friction or disorder 
among pupils or others; (m) the psychological effect 
upon the pupils in attendance at a particular school 
(n) the possibility of breaches of the peace or ill will 
or economic retaliation within the community; (o) the 
home environment of the pupil; (p) the maintenance 
or severance of established social and psychological 
relationships with other pupils and with teachers; 
(q) the morals, conduct, health and personal standards 
of the pupil.

(E ) Tests and Interviews: The Assistant Superin­
tendent in Charge of Pupil Personnel may require 
interviews with the parents or guardian and the pupil, 
with the parents or guardian, or with other persons. 
He may conduct or authorize such examinations or 
tests and other investigations as he deems appropriate. 
In the absence of excuses satisfactory to the Pupil 
Personnel Office, failure to appear for any requested 
examination, test, or interview by the pupil or parents 
or guardian, will be deemed a withdrawal of the 
application.

(P) Notice of Action Taken: Notice of the action 
taken by the Assistant Superintendent in Charge of 
Pupil Personnel on each application will be made on 
or before June 15. For the school year 1963-64 the 
notice of action taken by the Assistant Superintendent 
will be made on or before September 3. Such action 
shall be final, unless a Board hearing is requested in 
writing within ten days from the date when the notice 
of action taken on the transfer request is mailed.

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners
of Mobile County on August 19, 1963



199a

(Gr) Review. I f a hearing is requested by the parents 
or guardian or the Board feels a need for a hearing, 
such a hearing shall allow for a minimum of ten days 
notice, but will be held within twenty days. Failure of 
parents or guardians to appear, with the pupil, at the 
hearing will be deemed a withdrawal of the application. 
Hearings may be conducted by the Board as a whole, 
or the Board may designate not less than three Board 
members to conduct the hearing. In either case, the 
majority decision of the Board or the committee of 
the Board will be deemed a final decision. The Board 
may designate a Board member or other competent 
representative to conduct such a hearing, take testi­
mony, and report evidence with his recommendation 
to the Board within fifteen days following the hearing. 
The Board’s decision after a hearing, report of evi­
dence, and recommendation will be deemed final. The 
Board shall be authorized to investigate objections 
or problems relating to the decision at hand, including 
an examination of the pupil involved, or the Board 
may authorize its administrative staff or other com­
petent person to perform this investigation for them. 
If the Board determines that a pupil is physically or 
mentally incapacitated to benefit from further normal 
schooling, the Board may assign the pupil to an excep­
tional class or to some available special school, or 
terminate the enrollment of said pupil.

(3) Initial Assignments: When this plan shall have be­
come applicable to the first grade, pupils registering for 
the first grade may apply for attendance at the school in

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners
of Mobile County on August 19, 1963



200a

the district of their residence or the nearest school for­
merly attended exclusively by their race, at their option,

Pupils entering the Mobile County school system for the 
first time, in grades to which the plan has become appli­
cable, may apply for attendance at the school in the district 
of their residence, or the nearest school formerly attended 
exclusively by their race, at their option.

Upon the submission of this plan, schools shall no longer 
be designated by race.

(4) Applicability of Plan: This plan shall have applica­
tion in the school year 1963-64 to the 12th grade, in the 
City of Mobile schools only. In the school year 1964-65 
it shall have application to the 11th and 12 grades in all 
schools of Mobile County. It shall have application to 
grades already included and to one additional lower grade 
each school year thereafter until all 12 grades are affected.

(5) Special Provisions for 1963-64: The normal July 
31 cut-off date for making applications for transfer for 
the 1963-64 school term shall be observed. For 12th grade 
pupils in the City of Mobile schools requesting transfer 
on or before July 31, the transfer provisions of this plan 
shall apply and race or color shall not be considered as 
a factor in acting upon such application. Public notice 
of the deadline was given by publication in a daily news­
paper of general circulation in Mobile County one week 
prior to the closing of the period for receiving transfer 
applications, as a conscious reminder to the parents and 
guardians.

B oard of S chool Commissioners 
of M obile County

Plan Submitted by the Board of School Commissioners
of Mobile County on August 19, 1963



201a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No,. 6 at July 1967 Hearing

NUMBER OF STUDENTS
TRANSPORTED (1 9 6 6 -6 7 )  ATTENDANCE AREAS UFON WHICH

KTTR0P0UTAN AREA NEGRO WHITE STUDENTS ARE TRANSPORTED

Mas 80 S a ra la n d  6 Satsuma ( d i s c o n ’ t .  
fo r .  1 9 6 7 -1 9 6 8 )

1 Azalea Road 721 A rea s e r v e d  by  A za lea  Road

B i e n v i l l e 2 9 S p e c ia l  E d u ca t io n  S tu d en ts

Blount 99 Thomas area

i Central 99 Area s e r v e d  by  C e n tr a l 6 
A u stin  (A u s t in  d i s c o n 't .  
f o r  1 9 6 7 -1 9 6 8 )

Clark 378
*• ‘ a V

Area s e r v e d  by C lark

C raighead 2 6 9 S . B r o o k le y  6 S . H o m in g s id e

i Javidson 977 A rea s e r v e d  by D avidson

1 Sick son 115 Dodge ( d i s c o n ' t .  f o r  1 9 6 7 -1 9 6 8 )

Eight Mile 121 Area s e r v e d  by E ig h t M ile

'Hall 126 S , B ro o k le y  6 Shepard (Shepard  
d i s c o n 't .  f o r  1 9 6 7 -1 9 6 8 )

'  H illsdale 18 Semraes 6 O rchard  ( d i s c o n ' t .
f o r  1 9 6 7 -1 9 6 8 )

‘ Nobile Co. Trng. 582 Satsum a 6 Saikaland ( d i s c o n ' t .  
f o r  1 9 6 7 -1 9 6 8 )

> Old S h e ll Road 93 G r ig g s  ( d i s c o n ’ t .  f o r  1 9 6 7 -1 9 6 8 )

' Orchard 190 Serames (Some w i l l  b e  d i s c o n 't .
f o r  1 9 6 7 -1 9 6 8 )

‘ Prichard Jr. High 110 Area s e r v t  P r ich a rd

Pain 935 A rea s e r v e d  by  Rain

* Russell 89 S p e c ia l  E d u ca t io n  S tu d e n ts , 
s c h o o l  c l o s e d  f o r  1 9 6 7 -1 9 6 8 )

Shau 650 A rea se rv e d  by  Shaw

1 Shepard 293 A rea servo4$|»y Shepard

‘  T ou lu inviiie 75 Area se r v e d  by T o u lm in v i l le  
and A u st in  (A u s t in  d i s c o n 't .
f o r  1 9 6 7 -1 9 6 8 )

' Vigor 699 A rea se r v e d  by V ig o r



Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6 at July 1967 Hearing

6

202a

metropolitan area

*** Warren

NUMBER OF STUDENTS 
TRANSPORTED (1 0 6 6 -6 7 ) 

NEGRO WHITE

21

ATTENDANCE AREAS UPON IHj 
STUDENTS ARE TRANSPORT?'

A u stin  area  (d iseon 't, f t

1967-1968 )

* * *  W ashington 360

* W h is t le r 2 1 5

W ill 2 3 ?

* * *  W illiam son 94

* Woodcock 8 93

RURAL AREA

NUMBER OP 
TRANSPORTED 

NEGRO

STUDENTS
(1 9 6 6 -6 7 )

WHITE

Alba 739

Baker 99  5

Belsaw 2 3 9

Burroughs 100

C a lced ea v er 269

* C it r o n e lle 691

C lev e la n d 196

Dauphin I s la n d 39

D avis

Dawes Union

* ^

/

150

993

Dixon 356

G riggs 392

H o l l in g e r 's  Is la n d 2 9 6

In d ia n  S p rin gs 2 7 1

Lee 905

Area served by Washington 
and Austin (Austin d W  
fo r  1967-1963)

E. Parks (No school in mi

Beau Terra (No school inn

S. B rook ley  6 Shepard (Stupe 
d i s e o n 't .  f o r  19 67-196!)

B rook ley  A ir  Force Base

( RURAL SCHOOLS HAVE NO 
GEOGRAPHIC ATTENDANCE 
AREAS )

L ott 7 26



203a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6 at July 1967 Hearing

HUMBER OF STUDENTS 
TRANSPORTED (1966-67 )

NEGRO

722

1
’ 51

WHITE

899

426

56

938

991

2*8

1310

272

(RURAL SCHOOLS HAVE X ';  
GEOGRAPHIC ATTENDANCE•! 
AREAS) v. U'

' It is anticipated that thosa achoola starred  once w ill  have 
daiegregated bus serv ice  in 1 967 -1968 . I t  ia  Impossible  
to project mssbere with accuracy at th ia  t i a e .

M Bulling w ill be diacontinued in  1967-1968
" - j'#' .

*** Bulling w ill be p a r tia lly  discontinued in 1967-1968 " i  /
• > , L , -  •' ,? -~ t

19 74



204a

C O P Y

February 17,1967 

B oard A genda I tem 

From : Mr. Shout

TRANSPORTED ELEMENTARY CHILDREN IN THE 
METROPOLITAN AREA: The Pupil Personnel Office has 
studied the geographical location of elementary school 
buildings within each metropolitan area including Mobile, 
Chickasaw, and Prichard. This study was conducted for the 
purpose of determining the distance that children have to 
travel who live at the furthermost point in each attendance 
area from the school which they attend. Time did not per­
mit a comprehensive survey or having maps prepared by 
individual schools which would have determined the exact 
location of the residence of each pupil in attendance at a 
particular school. The distance from each school was de­
termined by measurement in accord with the scale to which 
the map was drawn. The criteria used in all cases was the 
greatest distance that Russell pupils would be required to 
travel during the next school year in order to get to the 
Leinkauf School and back home.

Set forth below is a summary of schools serving elementary 
children who have to travel at least as far or farther than 
will the pupils formerly attending Russell.

I. Schools where elementary children reside within the 
attendance area but have no public school bus trans­
portation provided:

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 24  at July 1967 Hearing



205a

A. Austin School—Pupils residing as far or far­
ther from school as the formerly Russell pupils 
are not in the same socio-economic situation.

II. Schools where elementary school children reside 
outside the attendance area and no public bus trans­
portation is provided but because of approved ear­
lier patterns of school attendance or the closing of 
a school and re-assignment do not attend the school 
serving the area of their residence.

A. Old Shell Road (pupils from the Toulminville 
area)

Previously the Board denied the request of the 
Toulminville group for public bus transporta­
tion to the Old Shell Road School.

B. Hall School—Pupils residing in the Texas 
Street area.

C. Leinkauf— Pupils re-assigned from Russell.

III. Schools where elementary children are now fur­
nished public school bus transportation from out- 
of-district attendance areas as approved by the 
Board.

A. Warren—Negro pupils residing in the Austin 
area.

B. Hillsdale—Negro students residing in the 
Semmes area.

C. Hall—Negro pupils residing in the Kate Shep­
ard area and Negro pupils residing in the South 
Brookley area.

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 24 at July 1967 Hearing



206a

D. Craighead— Pupils residing in the South Brook- 
ley attendance area and pupils residing in the 
South Morningside area.

IV. Schools where elementary children are presently 
being transported by public school bus from out-of­
district attendance area approved by the Board but 
will not be transported by public school bus trans­
portation during the 1967-68 school year.

A. Dickson—Pupils who reside in the Fonde atten­
dance area.

B. Old Shell Road—Pupils who reside in the Cy­
press Shores-Todd Acres area.

V. Schools where elementary children have been 
granted transfers from out-of-district or have 
elected to exercise options as provided for under 
policy.

A. There was no way to make an estimate within 
such a short period of time as to the number of 
pupils who live as far or farther from the school 
that they attend than those pupils formerly as­
signed to Russell School.

B. Based on present policy none of these out-of- 
district children are being furnished public 
school bus transportation.

In considering providing public school bus transportation 
for those pupils re-assigned from Russell to Leinkauf or 
for those pupils attending other schools listed in this re-

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 24 at July 1967 Hearing



207a

port, the Board would also need to consider another related 
problem. If the Board approves transporting by public 
school bus those pupils from Bussell to Lein Iran f or those 
pupils from other schools listed in this report, they must 
decide if they are going to provide transportation for those 
pupils residing in the metropolitan attendance area who 
elect to attend an out-of-district school by the exercising 
of an option as provided for under present Board policy. 
It is recommended by the Pupil Personnel Division that 
public school bus transportation should not be expanded to 
include pupils residing in the metropolitan areas because 
our present Court Plan and Board policy do not include 
provisions for this type of service. Neither does our Court 
Plan or present policies provide for this type of service to 
be offered to those students who are attending school out- 
of-district either by approved transfer or option. With the 
exception of the Austin School there are no children includ­
ing those formerly assigned to Russell School who reside 
within the attendance area of the school to which they are 
assigned that are two miles or more from that school. 
Pupils who do reside a greater distance are out-of-district 
pupils who have elected by previously established approved 
patterns of attendance, by transfer, or by option to attend 
an out-of-district school.

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 24 at July 1967 Hearing

SHS/tlp
/ s /  Sam  H. S hout

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64  
at July 1967 Hearing

[Map Omitted— See Original Record]



208a

R eport on R esearch of the P upil Personnel Office fob 
U se in  Planning  for the F ull U tilization of 

S chool F acilities in  the D owntown A rea

During the past several years there has been an increase 
in the shifting of population from the downtown area and 
also within the downtown area with many schools increas­
ing in enrollment while others have shown a decrease. Be­
cause of this it was felt that a study of the downtown area 
was necessary with the purpose in mind of reviewing what 
has been happening concerning the student population and 
to look at the developments that have taken place and are 
planned that would affect the school enrollment in this area 
of Mobile.

It was suggested that a report on alternatives which 
might merit consideration in making a full utilization of 
the public school facilities in this area be made. For the 
purpose of this study, the schools included were those in 
the city of Mobile east of the 1-65 Highway and north of 
the 1-10 Highway. We excluded the Morningside School 
attendance area. Morningside was excluded because the 
students completing elementary there will go to Azalea 
Road and Davidson for Grades 7 through 12.

Enrollment Trends

The enrollments of the schools during the school years 
1962-63 through 1966-67 were used to see what the trend 
has been. The students who are assigned and transported 
to the schools in this area from other areas of Mobile 
County have been excluded from the enrollments for each 
school. The students transported out of this area by the 
Board during this period have been added.

The following is a table showing the enrollments in the 
different schools and the trend that has developed.

Plaintiff -I ntervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing



FORMERLY WHITE SCHOOLS ENROl i m e ^f^Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing

1962-63
School El era. Jr. Sr.

Arlington 299

Barton 854

Craighead 57i

Crichton • - - 631

Eanos 1248

Evans 421

Gorges
. i 836

Leinkauf 433 62 t

. 1  Maryvalc 959
(0
1 Hertz 611

Murphy 3219

Oakdale 351 73

Wd Shell Road 365
Thin ipa 1273
Russell 312
Toulminville 465
Westlawn 524
Woodcock 621

1963-64
Elem. Jr. Sr. Elera.

1964*
Jr.

■65
Sr.

242
\

400 i

673 531 •
611 432

648 642

894 1038

410 405

635 , 520

415 57 364 53

915 793

639 630

2983 2*•21

279 48 Closed---

333 328
1175 1166

315 292
384 112 295 L77

523 495
614 575

1965-66 1966-67
Elem. Jr. Sr. Elem. Jr. Sr.

396

Closed

358

Cloaed

397
i

317

641 108 569 97

•1136
✓

1061

328 330 39

274 166 Closed —

311 64 304 34

729

577

2732

' 628 

527

2413

312 59

1283

553 102

1264
268 259 29
Closed •••«* 

•493 493
•

540 60 476 4444





210a
Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Eearina

FORMERLY NEGRO SCHOOLS ENROLLMENTS

1962-63 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67Schoolo Elem. Jr. Sr. Elem. Jr. Sr. Eletn. Jr. Sr, Elem.► r * Sr • Elem. Jr. Sr.

Caldwell 801 827 683 650 601
Central 1675 1749 1840 1917 1428
Council 806 78i 773 772 748
Duiil̂ £2T *• . U73. 1252 1152 . 1116 1111
Emerson 603 624 590 605 629 643
Fonvielle 1286 1357 1319 1600 - 11171
Gorgas

'Hall
i •

913
-

964

• 1036
Howard 629 617 658 684 665
Owens 1587 1604 1770 1625 1433
Palmer 269 273
Southside 607 582 534 497
Stanton Road 434 774 1053 1187 - 1059
Toulminville

Warren
■ 623

441 458 447 424 408 •

Washington 261 930 1170 1284 . 1355 1503 -
Williamson 816 427 449 857 385 585 391 786 383 761 532 752

totals 7744 3154 2124 8134 3414 2334 7581 5409 2626 8484 3388 2678 3643 2803.





211a

It should be noted that from 1962-63 to 1966-67 the 
formerly white schools have consistently decreased in 
enrollment: Elementary 2120 (6934-4814), Junior High 
School 1305 (3975-2670), and Senior High School 806 
(3219-2413). Total decreased in formerly white schools is 
4231. The formerly Negro schools during the same period 
showed an increase: Elementary 930 (8674-7744), Junior 
High School 489 (3643-3154), and Senior High School 679 
(2803-2124). Total increased in formerly Negro schools is 
2098.

Changes Made in Availability of Facilities

During the period 1962-63 through 1966-67, the Oakdale 
Elementary School and the Barton Junior High School 
were discontinued as schools. An eight-room annex to the 
Owens Elementary School and five rooms at Howard 
(Northside) were destroyed by fire, and 15 classrooms at 
Williamson were destroyed by vandalism. The size of the 
school at Maryvale was reduced from thirty classrooms to 
18 classrooms by the construction of a new school building. 
The Gorgas and Toulminville school buildings were closed 
but later re-opened as predominantly Negro schools. Dur­
ing the same period George Hall Elementary School was 
constructed, and additions were added at Stanton Road and 
Mae Eanes.

Present Availability of Classrooms

There are at the present time in the formerly white 
schools 23 vacant elementary classrooms and space to 
accommodate additional students at Murphy High School 
and Mae Eanes Junior High School.

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing



212a

Phillips Junior High School is overcrowded. There are 
six portable classrooms being used at schools in this area: 
one at Mertz, one at Old Shell Road, and four at Phillips, 
We are now accommodating nine classrooms of elementary 
students transported to Craighead and Old Shell Road from 
the South Brookley, and the Cypress Shores and Todd 
Acres areas. We are also providing for twelve classrooms 
of junior high school students in the elementary schools of 
the downtown area. If the transportation of students into 
this area and the housing of junior high school children in 
the elementary schools should be discontinued at some time 
in the future, there should be an additional 21 vacant class­
rooms available on the basis of our present enrollment. 
This would mean a total of 44 elementary classrooms would 
become vacant and this number could increase if present 
trends in enrollment continue.

There are at the present time 10 vacant classrooms in the 
formerly Negro elementary schools of this area. There are 
now 39 portable classrooms being used to relieve crowded 
conditions at seven of the formerly Negro schools and in 
two or three places additional portables are needed. We 
are accommodating eight classrooms of students trans­
ported to Hall and Williamson from the South Brookley 
and Lloyd Station areas. In four schools (Southside, 
Emerson, Howard and Williamson), there is at the present 
time a need to replace part or all of the available facilities,

Plans Approved or Recommended:

The following building programs have been approved by 
the Board or have been recommended for consideration:

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing



213a

1. Construction of a thirty teacher school at Howard 
to replace the present facility and portables and to 
provide relief for Caldwell and Owens.

2. Construction of an addition to Williamson High 
School to replace all substandard facilities and 
portables.

3. Construction of a new elementary school to replace 
the present Emerson building and provide relief for 
Council School.

4. Construction of a new junior high school to replace 
the present Southside building.

5. Construction of a new senior high school in the 
Toulminville area to relieve Central and release 
the present building to be used for a junior high 
school to relieve Washington.

The above new construction will relieve 35 of the 39 
portables now in use in the formerly Negro schools of this 
area. The remaining four portables are assigned to Stanton 
Road and Gorgas Schools. If the enrollment trend in the 
Toulminville area continues, there will be an increased need 
for relief in this area.

Developments Planned By Other Agencies

Other proposed developments which would have an effect 
on school population and the need for facilities have been 
discussed with the Mobile Housing Board, the Mobile City 
Planning Commission, and Mobile State Junior College.

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing



214a

According to information which has been furnished to the 
Pupil Personnel Office by the Mobile Housing Board, at the 
present time three major projects are being developed in 
the downtown area. Others will be developed in the future.

Michigan Avenue Project (Project Alabama 2-10)

This project will contain 450 dwelling units with 212 
units reserved for elderly families and 238 units for 
regular family occupancy. It is estimated that there 
will be about 500 children in the project. It is estimated 
that of these children 150 will be pre-school age, 200 
elementary, and 150 junior high and senior high 
students. It should be assumed that many of the 
families moving into the project housing are at the 
present time residents of the downtown area, and only 
part of the students would represent growth for the 
general area. It would mean though that we would 
have some shifting of population which will result in 
vacant classrooms being shifted from one school to 
another.

The Central-Texas Street Project (Project Alabama 
R-38)

According to the Housing Board, there will be fewer 
families in the Central-Texas Street area after re­
development, but the number of children to be served 
by the schools probably will remain about the same as 
it is at the present time. This is because the average 
family in public housing units will have more children 
of school age.

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing



215a

Water Street Project (Project Alabama R-34)

The acquisition of houses in the Water Street Project 
area has resulted in a decrease in the number of 
children in the area at the present time, but it is antic­
ipated by the Housing Board that the number of 
school age children will increase after the project has 
been completed.

The Mobile City Planning Commission’s zoning regula­
tions for this downtown area are expected to result in some 
increase in the population inside Broad, Beauregard, and 
Canal Streets. They are attempting to promote the re­
development of some of the residential areas into desirable 
neighborhoods. The street plans, when completed, will 
result in some major changes in the traffic patterns and 
may make it necessary to re-design some of the school 
attendance areas in order to prevent children having to 
cross major streets to attend school.

A conference was held with Mr. Bishop, president of 
Mobile State Junior College, concerning their plans for 
the expansion of their present facilities. Mr. Bishop indi­
cated that he plans to request of the Board of School Com­
missioners that the Caldwell School building located 
adjacent to the college campus be sold to the college for 
use m their expansion program. It seems that the college 
is at the present time in need of additional facilities to 
accommodate the students enrolled.

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing



216a

Suggestions For Maximum Utilisation of Facilities In the 
Downtown Area

A lternative I

As reported to Dr. Burns in an earlier report, Augusta 
Evans’ enrollment held up until the last year and estimated 
for next year. The drop seems to have resulted because of 
two major factors. First, the area served by Evans is 
about completely developed and the children of the resi­
dents are in higher grade levels with few young couples 
with younger children moving into the area. Second, much 
of the enrollment over the past few years has been made up 
of out-of-area children. With a decline in enrollments in 
areas such as Mertz, Woodcock, Westlawn so that the 
schools in those areas can adequately house the children, 
the new addition of Fonde, and the construction of John 
Will relieving Crichton of the Forest Hill Area children 
has resulted in a reduction in the number of transfer 
requests each year to attend Evans and has increased the 
requests to return to the school in the area of the residence. 
For example—In 1962-63 a total of 106 transfer requests 
were granted to Evans and in 1966-67 only 18 has been 
requested and granted.

In reviewing the census reports, it was determined that 
205 children of elementary school age reside in the Evans 
School attendance area. The report shows only 100 pre­
school age children ages 2 to 5, in this same attendance area. 
It would be anticipated that many of these pre-school age 
children would enroll in either private or parochial schools 
upon attaining school age. These figures are not com­
pletely accurate in that it is possible that some residents 
were not contacted by the census takers. However, assum­

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing



217a

ing the census information is reasonably accurate, we 
calculate that approximately 82 pupils out of a total of 367 
pupils enrolled at Augusta Evans are out-of-district pupils.

The Augusta Evans building has 12 classrooms now being 
used to serve grades 1-7. The following suggestions are 
offered for consideration in regard to the re-assignment of 
pupils now attending the Evans School. I f approved, the 
suggested plan would enable us to make better utilization 
of not only the Evans School but several other schools 
included in our downtown area study.

Pupils enrolled in grade 7 at Augusta Evans would be 
re-assigned to the 7th grade at Sidney Phillips. Pupils 
enrolled in grades 1-6 would be re-assigned to either Old 
Shell Road, Crichton, or Westlawn depending on the 
geographical location of the residence of their parents. 
Out-of-district pupils would be re-assigned to either the 
school serving their attendance area or the school approved 
for them by transfer request during the April 1-15 transfer 
period. This action would permit using the Augusta Evans 
building to accommodate special education classes from 
Craighead, Crichton, and Russell and at least two physi­
cally handicapped classes to be organized by the Division of 
Curriculum and Instruction. The Evans building is 
properly located and constructed to serve adequately as a 
school for special education and the physically handicapped. 
In addition, this plan would permit the re-assignment of 
those pupils housed in the Russell School in regular classes 
in grades 1-6 to either Woodcock or Leinkauf depending 
on the geographical location of the residence of their 
parents. Support for this alternative is indicated in the 
report on the conference with the Augusta Evans delega­
tion as reported in the attached report.

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing



218a

This would eliminate the need for continued operation 
of the Russell School. Pupils in grade 7 at the Leinkauf, 
Crichton and Old Shell Road Schools would be re-assigned 
to Sidney Phillips and those in the Woodcock and the 
Russell Schools to Mae Eanes.

In order to accommodate these additional 7th grade 
pupils at Sidney Phillips, it is proposed that the 9th grade 
pupils at Sidney Phillips School be re-assigned to Murphy 
High School, thereby making Murphy a four-grade school. 
This would accomplish five desirable goals: (1) to fully 
utilize the existing facilities at Murphy and Augusta Evans 
(2) to eliminate having 7th grade students housed in 
elementary schools included in this study (3) to eliminate 
operation of Russell School (4) to eliminate the portable 
buildings presently assigned to Sidney Phillips, and (5) 
to provide for more adequate facilities for special education 
and physically handicapped pupils.

Consideration could be given to the use of the Russell 
School to temporarily house the administrative offices 
during the renovation of the Barton building.

Since the Oakdale School is presently being used for 
storing of furniture, consideration could he given to the 
continued use of this facility for this purpose until final 
decisions have been made concerning the long range plan 
for furniture storage and finalizing plans on the Emerson 
and Southside Schools or consideration could be given to 
disposing of the property at this time.

If these suggestions are met with favorable considera­
tion, it will be necessary that approval be given for a survey 
to be conducted in most of those schools involved in either 
losing or gaining students for the purpose of collecting

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing



219a

empirical data to be utilized in planning for implementa­
tion of the above mentioned changes.

Long range it may be possible to consider the re-assign­
ment of 9th grade pupils from Mae Eanes to Murphy.

Successful acquisition of the Caldwell School by the 
Mobile State Junior College will make it necessary to plan 
for the construction of a new predominantly Negro ele­
mentary school to serve that area.

Alternative I I

If the decision is made to retain the 9th grade pupils at 
Phillips and not to organize a school for special education 
and physically handicapped at Augusta Evans, the follow­
ing proposal might be considered. Leave the special educa­
tion classes in those schools to which they are presently 
assigned. All students in grades 1-6 at Evans will be re­
assigned to either Crichton, Westlawn or Old Shell Road 
School based on the geographical location of the residence 
of their parents. All junior high pupils presently housed in 
elementary schools except %  of those attending Woodcock 
and all of those attending Russell would be re-assigned to 
the Evans School. Approximately %  of the junior high 
students at Woodcock and all of those at Russell will be 
re-assigned to Mae Eanes, thereby eliminating having 
junior high pupils housed in elementary schools in the 
downtown area. This would provide for approximately 262 
ith grade pupils to be accommodated in the new junior high 
school organized at Evans. There would be a need to 
continue the use of portables at Phillips Junior High 
School or consider the construction of new permanent class­
rooms to accommodate those pupils presently housed in 
the portables at Phillips.

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing



220a

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 64 at July 1967 Hearing 

A lternative III

Re-assign the 7th grade pupils at Evans to Phillips or 
either to Crichton, Old Shell Road or Westlawn depending 
on the geographical location of the residence of their 
parents. Re-assign the pupils in grades 1-6 at Evans to 
either Crichton, Westlawn or Old Shell Road depending on 
the geographical location of the residence of their parents.

Use the Augusta Evans building to temporarily house the 
administrative offices during the period of renovation of 
the Barton building. The future use of the Evans School 
could be decided upon during the next school year.

A lternative IV

Permit all pupils to attend those schools in the downtown 
area to which they are presently assigned and utilize the 
vacant classrooms in the downtown schools by transporting 
in pupils from overcrowded schools when portable class­
rooms are not available to those schools.

In regard to the inquiry that was made by members of 
the Board as it appeared in the Board Minutes of October 
12, 1966, it is felt that the decision concerning future needs 
of additional property at the Augusta Evans School will of 
a necessity need to be delayed until final decisions are made 
concerning the report of the downtown area schools.



221a

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 72 
at July 1967 Hearing

May 1, 1963

Memo : Dr. Burns 

From : Dr. Scarborough

R e : Your memo of April 26—Neece Property in 
the Snug Harbor area.

The population in Prichard is fairly well stabilized by now 
it appears, so far as the total population is concerned. It 
appears to me that our difficulty lies not in too many or not 
enough schools, but in the matter in having the schools 
adjusted to the Negro or white population. With the addi­
tion of this new Prichard building for the Negroes, north 
of Carver School, and the use of Snug Harbor and Turner- 
ville School for Negro schools that for some time this would 
meet the needs of the population of the Negroes from Tele­
graph Road to St. Stephens Road and from the Prichard 
City Limits northward to Highway 1-65.

If the Board is to go along with permanent use of Snug 
Harbor and Turnerville for housing Negro children and by 
the building of the new Prichard Elementary School, north 
of Carver, I think you can see that they are fairly well 
housed. It is my opinion that if more Negroes move in that 
area we again would have to abandon another white school 
and that it in turn could house the increase of Negroes in a 
school between Craft Highway and Telegraph Road in the 
vicinity of Happy Hill. This would be a desirable substitu­
tion for Snug Harbor in that they would not have to cross 
the Craft traffic lane, but to make this exchange would cost 
the Board approximately one half of a million dollars. It



222a

is my opinion that they will want to forego crossing Craft 
Highway and continue with the present facility at Snug 
Harbor in order to save this one half million dollars in 
buildings.

It might be worth consideration if the people, who resist 
our turning Snug Harbor into a Negro school, could find a 
way to make that property worth as much as a half of a 
million dollars. In such cases it might be worth the Board’s 
consideration to abandon the use of Snug Harbor School 
and making use of the Neece property that we looked at, 
As I see it, these are the only reasons for our making use 
of the Neece property of which we looked.

Naturally if we had the Neece property and an 18 room 
building with modern facilities, it would be much more valu­
able than our present Snug Harbor assignment, but it would 
house no more children. As an investment it might be wise, 
hut in the matter of housing our children at the least possi­
ble cost to the citizens, it looks as if Snug Harbor is our 
best bet.

Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Exhibit No. 72 at July 1967 Hearing

CLS :wt
C. L. Scarborough



223a

[1031]
Excerpt from Transcript of Proceedings, July 17, 1968

BijMr. Jones:

Q. Did you give any instructions or did anyone on your 
staff give any instructions to Mr. Clardy as to how to either 
determine neighborhoods or how to define neighborhoods? 
A. No, sir.

Q. Is there a workable definition or a standard definition 
which the School Board has used to define neighborhoods 
as such? A. Not unless it would be something very in­
formal indeed that neighborhoods— We look upon neigh­
borhoods in two different ways. You can create a neighbor­
hood on a map in terms of geographic and natural barriers 
and that, but it’s mighty, mighty, hard to identify a neigh­
borhood sociologically and otherwise because that has to do 
with factors [1082] not fully understood and involves in­
formation we do not always have at our command, plus the 
fact that neighborhoods are constantly changing both psy­
chologically and geographically and this makes the problem 
of organizing the School System very complex indeed.

Q. How many racially integrated neighborhoods are there 
in the City of Mobile? A. I really don’t know.

Q. Do you have any estimate as to how many there are? 
A. No.

Q. How many all-white neighborhoods would you say 
there are? A. I do not know.

Q. How many all-negro neighborhoods? A. I do not 
know.



224a

A. Wait, let me comment a bit about the relationship of 
grade structures.

First of all, as I mentioned previously, it was not my 
purpose to evaluate the particular grade structures used 
by the School System, but simply to make some kind of 
evaluation that whatever grade structure the System had 
adopted was being applied in a non-racial way. Now, one 
other point here I  think, my view was that the grade struc­
ture should be applied consistently, but that did not mean 
there wouldn’t be deviations from it. It would only mean 
that the deviations would have to be justified on some edu­
cational basis. In one way, it’s difficult to say that the 
System actually has a grade structure. There are so many 
different grades in the—by school in the System.

The Court: Is that unique to this System?
The Witness: I have never encountered a System 

like this.
The Court: Have you ever encountered a system 

of this size that was uniform completely?
The W itness: [1527] No, sir, but as I say, I have 

never encountered one with such deviations as this 
one. Seven schools from 1 to 5; seven grades 1 to 6; 
one, grades 1 to 8; one, grades 1 to 12; one, grades 6 
to 7; one, grades 6 to 8; and one 6 to 12; two with 
grades 7 and 8; four with grades 7 to 9; there are 
two, grades 7 to 12; two, grades 8 to 12; three, grades 
9 to 12, and three, grades 10 to 12. So, there is a very

[1526]
Excerpt from Transcript of Proceedings, July 19, 1968



225a

considerable amount of variation, although the pres­
ent pattern at the elementary level is six grades at 
the school.

Mr. Philips: Your Honor, he has read that off 
from a list much too fast for us to copy to determine 
the validity of what he has said.

The Witness: By all means—
The Court: Surely.
Mr. Jones: Here it is. Would you continue, Dr. 

Lieberman.
The Witness: I need my notes.
[1528] Mr. Philips: I f  he needs his script to tes­

tify further, we can copy it later.
Mr. Jones: Your Honor, for the record, I don’t 

think that the—Dr. Lieberman’s notes can be 
referred to as the script.

Bij Mr. Jones:

Q. Dr. Lieberman, is it true that the summary of grade 
structures as made from you are notes that you previously 
referred to? A. That is correct.

Q. All right. Continue. A. Now, taking into account 
grade structure, one very obvious situation that called for 
analysis is the one at the west end of the district in the 
Hillsdale area.

Q. Is that a 1 to 12? A. That is a 1 to 12 grade 
structure, and the Hillsdale complex, the high school there 
had 49 graduating last year. Now, I think it’s universally 
accepted among educators, especially those in secondary 
education, that a high school that has only 49 graduates is

Excerpt from Transcript of Proceedings, July 19, 1968



226a

far too small for a good educational [1529] program. 
Either you cannot offer or arrange the subjects necessary to 
meet the diverse needs and interests of pupils at that age, 
or if you did, you would have to do so at the cost of the 
taxpayers. If for example, there were three students that 
wanted to take physics or advanced math or something like 
that in a high school that had that few students, you 
wouldn’t be able to supply the subject, or if you did so, to 
hire teachers that would only teach three or four pupils. 
I might add here that the most significant study of the 
American high school, the one by Dr. James Bryant Conant 
said that the elimination of small high schools was the 
biggest, most important step that could be taken to the im­
provement of secondary education in this country. Now, the 
Board has given great weight to, considerable attention to 
grade structure as I understand it. It has adopted a policy 
change of going from a 6-3-3 to a 5-3-4 plan and in the docu­
ment that I read supplied by the Board, it was called a 
middle school montage, the rationale for the change was 
set forth. One of the things set forth in that rationale was 
the difference between the pupils in grades 5 and 6.
[1530] That is when the difference in the pupils is 
the greatest. Now, we have a situation then, you know, 
if the difference between those grades is so important and 
the Board is considering reorganizing the entire System on 
that basis, it was impossible for me to understand how they 
could maintain the complex of grades 1 through 12. They 
say with the very small high school, for example, these 
students could have gone, for example, to Davidson which 
was under capacity. So Davidson was, I think, a hundred

Excerpt from Transcript of Proceedings, July 19, 1968



227a

and eighty-eight, was close to 200 under capacity and some 
students in that area, by my measurements were further 
away than the Hillsdale group. Now, I might say very 
candidly that this example seemed to me to be so flagrant 
to maintain a negro high school with only 49 in the class 
when there was room at another school, and considering the 
overwhelming educational reasons for phasing out a high 
school of that size that— I would say very candidly, that 
that alone in my judgment would have been the basis for 
questioning the entire approach of the Board.

Now, another illustration, there are two high schools that 
are very close together, Blount and Vigor.

[1531] Q. You want to refer to “ Defendants’ Exhibit 6” ? 
A. Yes, which is the high school zone map supplied by the 
Board.

Now, here are the two high schools and they are very 
close together. The Vigor grade structure is either 8 or 9 
to 12,1 believe. Let’s see, Vigor is 10 and Blount— It’s the 
other way around, Blount is 8 to 12. So, the overwhelming 
or 100 percent negro high school is 8 to 12 and Vigor is 10 
to 12. Now, obviously the only way— The dividing line here 
is a racial line. This is 1-65 and to the west there are 
whites, and you notice how large the Vigor district is. Now, 
obviously the only way you could fill Vigor with grades 10 
through 12, or the only way you could fill it with white 
students would be to have a tremendous area. If the two 
high schools had the same grade structure— Let’s say 
Blount was 10 through 12. Then obviously it would have 
had to absorb some of the students since it’s closer to the 
students than the Vigor area.

Excerpt from Transcript of Proceedings, July 19, 1968



228a

So, this was another example of where I think grade 
structure raised some question.

Then, another illustration, the Hall area. The Board
[1532] plan calls for using or adding a seventh grade to 
Hall and it’s on the junior high map, the seventh grade. It’s 
listed as a junior high, hut that is only for the seventh grade 
and that will be— In other words, only white seventh grad­
ers from this area, and the Board has indicated that it wants 
to keep them together because they are going to another 
eighth grade school, so that even now on paper it looks like 
there is considerable integration at Hall. Actually, they 
will have a segregated class in that school. It will be 
predominantly, regardless of whether it will be predomi­
nantly or under, the white students will be seventh graders 
and the intention is to keep them together in that school, 
Then—  Well, those are some of the examples on grade 
structure.

Now, as I say, I certainly do not question the necessity 
for deviation in grade structure. The problem that I have 
is that the deviations always seem to result in more segrega­
tion, not less.

Excerpt from Transcript of Proceedings, July 19, 1968



229a

department of h ealth , edu catio n , and w elfare
W ashin gton , D. C.

HEW Plan of July, 1969

J u ly  7 , 1969

Honorable D aniel H olcom be Thomas 
Judge, D is t r ic t  C ourt 
p, 0. Box 137 
Mobile, Alabama 36601

Re: D a v is , ET AL, U n ited  S ta te s  o f
A m erica , ET AL, v s .  B oard o f  
S c h o o l C om m issioners o f  M ob ile  
C oun ty , ET AL.

Dear Judge Thomas:

Pursuant t o  C ourt O rder o f  June 3 , 19 69 , we a r e  e n c lo s in g  
six (6) cop ie s  o f  the p la n  fo rm u la ted  and recommended by  th e  O f f i c e  
of Education o f  The Departm ent o f  H e a lth , E d u ca tion  and W e lfa re  f o r  
the operation o f  s c h o o ls  in  M o b ile  S c h o o l D i s t r i c t .

S in c e r e ly ,

(
- f o  /— Dr. G reg ory  A n r ig  

D ir e c t o r
D iv is io n  o f  Equal E d u ca t io n a l O p p o r tu n it ie s  
U. S. O f f i c e  o f  E d u ca tion



230a

HEW Plan of July, 1969
A DESEGREGATION PLAN FOR THE 

MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

A REPORT TO THE 
SUPERINTENDENT

BY THE
DIVISION OF EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION 
ATLANTA, GEORGIA



231a

HEW Plan of July, 1969
CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

X. Background In fo rm a t io n  ab ou t M o b ile  County .................................  1

XI. S ta tu s o f  S c h o o l D e s e g r e g a t io n  19 68 -6 9    21

I I I .  A n a ly s is  o f  F in a n cin g  th e  M o b ile  County
P u b lic  S c h o o ls    48

IV. Program o f  S tu dy   68

V. D e se g re g a t io n  P la n s    83

VI. Suggestions for Plan Implementation ............................................ 109



232a

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 
R egion a l O f f ic e

Room 404, 50 Seventh S t r e e t ,  N. E. 
A tla n ta , Georgia

HEW Plan of July, 1969

July  7 ,  1969

Dr. Cranford H. Burns 
S uperint endent
Board o f  S ch oo l Commissioners 

o f  M obile County 
P. 0 . Box 1327 
M ob ile , Alabama 36601

Dear Dr. Burns:

In  accordance w ith  th e June 3» 1969, ord er o f  the United 
S ta tes  Court o f  Appeals f o r  th e  F ifth  C ir c u it ,  the following 
d esegrega tion  plan  f o r  ending th e  dual s ch o o l system in  Mobile 
County i s  subm itted f o r  your co n s id e ra tio n .

We wish t o  express our a p p re c ia tio n  f o r  the cooperation 
re ce iv e d  from you and your s t a f f .

S in ce re ly  you rs ,

Jesse J . Jordan 
S en ior Program O fficer 
O f f ic e  o f  Education 
Equal E ducational Opportunities 
T i t l e  IV



233a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

CHAPTER X

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT MOBILE COUNTY

A. Location

Mobile i s  the o ld e s t  c i t y  in  th e  s t a t e  o f  Alabam a, th e  secon d  in  s i z e ,  and 

the only seaport s e r v in g  th e  s t a t e .  L oca ted  on M o b ile  Bay in  c l o s e  p r o x im ity  t o  

the Gulf o f  M exico and th e  la r g e  r i v e r  system s w h ich  fe e d  th e  b a y , th e  community i s  

geographically fa vored  by w a ter  r e s o u r c e s  o f  v a r io u s  t y p e s . The c i t y  o f  M o b ile  i s  

part of the r a p id ly  grow ing  and d e v e lo p in g  G u lf  C oa st r e g io n ,  an a re a  in  w h ich  

cities are merging p h y s i c a l ly  in  a lo n g  s t r i p  s t r e t c h in g  from  New O rlea n s  t o  

lanpa. The p u b lic  s c h o o l  system  o f  M o b ile  in c lu d e s  th e  m e tr o p o lit a n  a re a  o f  

Hobile c ity  and the su rrou n d in g  co u n ty  a re a  o f  M o b ile  C ou n ty . The t o t a l  a rea  

of the county i s  1 ,2 22  squ are m i le s ,  o r  7 3 2 ,0 8 0  a c r e s .  M o b ile  C ounty i s  s i t u a t e d  

lo the extreme sou th w estern  p a r t  o f  th e  s t a t e .  I t  i s  bounded on th e  n o r th  by  

Washington County, on th e  e a s t  by  B aldw in C ou n ty , on th e  sou th  b y  th e  M is s i s s ip p i  

Sound of the G u lf o f  M e x ico , and on th e  w e st  by  J a ck s o n , G eorge and Green 

Counties, M is s is s ip p i. From n o r th  t o  s o u th  i t s  ex trem e le n g th  i s  60 m ile s .  From 

east to vest i t s  w id th  i s  from  17 t o  30 m i le s .

Hajor industries lo c a te d  in  th e  a re a  a r e  s h ip b u i ld in g ,s h ip  r e p a i r ,  cem en t, manu­

facturing o f  wood p u lp  and p ap er  p r o d u c t s ,  s t e e l  f a b r i c a t i n g ,  f o u n d r ie s ,  aluminum 

Maatry, rayon f i b e r s ,  n a v a l s t o r e s ,  o i l  r e f i n i n g ,  c l o t h in g  m a n u fa ctu r in g ,

•cmlture m anufacturing, pumps, b a t t e r i e s ,  p a in t ,  ch e m ica ls  and f i s h  and s e a fo o d  

Mobile i s  serv ed  by f i v e  r a i l r o a d s ,  f o u r  m a jor a i r l i n e s ,  100 steam sh ip

a. 55 trunk l in e s ,  and one o f  th e  m ost e x t e n s iv e  r i v e r  and c a n a l system s in



234a

t

th e  n a t io n . The s t a t e  o f  Alabama owns and o p e r a te s  th e  m odem  ocean terminal,. 

M o b i le ,  w h ich  can  accom m odate 32 v e s s e l s  s im u lta n e o u s ly . The P ort o f  Mobile ;f  

in  th e  n a t i o n 's  t o p  te n  in  term s o f  g r o s s  ton n a g e .

B. P o p u la t io n

As can b e  seen  b y  exam ining T a b le  1 -1 ,  s in c e  1950 th e  p opu lation  o f Mobil! 

C ounty has co n t in u e d  t o  r e c o r d  a m odest g a in  in  s p i t e  o f  th e  phase-out of 

B r o o k le y  A ir  F o rc e  B ase. Between 1950 and 1960 M ob ile  C ou n ty 's  population 

in c r e a s e d  27 p e rc e n t  w h ile  th a t  o f  th e  m e tr o p o lita n  a re a  o f  M obile  increased 3!,! 

p e r c e n t ,  w h ich  i s  w e l l  ab ove  th e  n a t io n a l  a v era g e  o f  1 8 .5  p ercen t and still 

fa r t h e r  ahead o f  A la b a m a 's  r a t e  o f  6 .7  p e r c e n t .  The p h a se -o u t  o f  Brookley did, 

h ow ever , a f f e c t  M o b ile  C o u n ty 's  e s t im a te d  r a t e  o f  g row th . In  fa c t ,  1968 populi- 

t i o n  e s t im a te s  a r e  o n ly  1 8 ,1 0 0  ab ove  th e  1960 f ig u r e s  r e p o r te d  by the U. S, 

Census o f  P o p u la t io n , a g a in  o f  4 .5  p e r c e n t ,  w h ich  i s  s u b s t a n t ia l ly  less than 1 

p e r c e n t  a n n u a lly . I t  m ust b e  n o te d  th a t  th e  fu tu r e  use  o f  B rookley Facility 

b y  th e  C ity  o f  M o b i le ,  p r iv a t e  I n d u s t r ie s ,  and e d u c a t io n  i s  expected to have I 

trem endous in f lu e n c e  on p o p u la t io n  chan ges in  M o b ile . I t  has been projected the 

th e  p o p u la t io n  o f  M o b ile  County w i l l  reajfh  5 0 7 ,3 0 0  by  1995.

A p p ro x im a te ly  32 p e r c e n t  o f  th e  t o t a l  p o p u la t io n  o f  M ob ile  County Is non- 

w h it e .  I t  has b een  p r o je c t e d  th a t  th e  n o n -w h ite  p o p u la t io n  w i l l  experience an 

i n s ig n i f i c a n t  d e c l in e  from  3 2 .2  p e r c e n t  in  1965 t o  31 p e rce n t  in  1995. The pro­

p o r t i o n a l  d e c l in e  w i l l  b e  cau sed  p r im a r i ly  by  in c r e a s e d  in -m ig ra tion  o f whitest-' 

f i l l  em ploym ent demands in  th e  w h ite  c o l l a r  and s k i l l e d  b lu e  c o l la r  categories. 

I t  i s  e s t im a te d  th a t  7 8 .6  p e r c e n t  o f  th e  t o t a l  n o n -w h ite  p opu lation  o f  Mobile-’- 

l i v e  in  th e  M e tr o p o lita n  M o b ile  A rea .

HEW Plan of July, 1969



235a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

POPULATION

MOBILE COUNTY 
I960

Year M etropolitan  M obile M obile County

I960 264,747 314,301
1950 152,682 231,105

CHARACTERISTICS OF POPULATION— 1960

Item

Total P opu la tion  
Male 
Female 

White 
Male 
Female 

Non-white 
Male 
Female

M etropolitan  1

26A,747
128.373
136.374
176,072
86,136
89,936
88,675
42,230
46,445

M obile County

314,301
152,703
161,598
212,873
104,641
108,232
101,428

48,062
53,366

ANALYSIS OF POPULATION— 1960

Item M etropolitan  M obile M obile County

White percent 6 6 .5 67.72
Non-white percent 33 .5 3 2 .28
Population per household * 3 .6 9
Median age 24 .9
21 years and over * 172,382

* Not available

TABLE 1-1



236a

t.

Maps 1 -2  and 1 -4  and T a b le s  1 -3  and 1 -5  show th e  d i s t r ib u t i o n  by percent^ 

o f  th e  n o n -w h ite  p o p u la t io n  o f  M e tr o p o lita n  M o b ile  and r u r a l  M ob ile  County re«p«. 

t i v e l y ,  a c c o r d in g . t o  zon es  d e v e lo p e d  b y  th e  M ob ile  County R eg ion a l Planning C* 

m is s io n .

C. P o p u la t io n  and Employment

As a  fu n c t io n  o f  em ploym ent, th e  grow th  o f  p o p u la t io n  in  M obile  County hsi 

resp on d ed  p r im a r i ly  t o  in c r e a s e s  in  l o c a l  jo b  o p p o r t u n i t i e s ,  although the avails* 

b i l i t y  o f  em ploym ent o u t s id e  M o b ile  County has been  q u it e  I n f lu e n t ia l  at tines. 

M o b ile  C o u n ty '8 r e c e n t  econ om ic g row th , h ow ever, has o c cu r re d  w ith  only modest 

in c r e a s e s  in  em ploym ent and p o p u la t io n , p r im a r i ly  b eca u se  grow th has come fro« 

th e  c o u n t y 's  a u to m a t io n -o r ie n te d  in d u s t r ia l  s e c t o r .  F or  exam ple, between 1960 

and 1965, th e  M o b ile  a re a  g en e ra te d  o v e r  $ 1 6 4 ,5 1 3 ,0 0 0  o f  new and expanded 

I n d u s t r ia l  in v e stm e n t , 6 8 .7  p e r c e n t  o f  w h ich  came from  ch e m ica l, paper, and power 

f a c i l i t i e s  — a l l  h ig h ly  o r ie n t e d  tow ard  a u tom a tion .

A lth ou g h  th e  19 6 0 -6 5  In vestm en t was s u b s t a n t ia l ,  and r e f l e c t e d  conaldersMs 

econ om ic  ach iev em en t, n e t  new jo b s  d u r in g  t h i s  p e r io d  t o t a le d  4 ,8 00  (the teres!, 

new jo b s  r e p r e s e n ts  a c c e s s io n s  l e s s  s e p a r a t io n s ,  and i s  th e  o n ly  true measure.- 

employm ent g r o w th ). Between 1965 and 1968 new and expanded in d u s tr ia l investor, 

t o t a l e d  $ 2 9 8 ,6 0 7 ,0 0 0 , 73 p e rc e n t  o f  w h ich  r e p r e s e n te d  p a p er , chem ical, and power 

e x p a n s io n . D u rin g  t h i s  p e r io d ,  h ow ever, n e t  new jo b s  g en era ted  by the non- 

B r o o k le y  s e c t o r  o f  th e  econom y numbered o n ly  3 ,4 0 0 .

As o f  1965 M o b ile  C o u n ty 's  la b o r  f o r c e  p a r t i c ip a t i o n  r a t io  was 35.9; i j i .

3 5 .9  p e rc e n t  o f  th e  c o u n t y 's  p o p u la t io n  was a c t i v e l y  seek in g  employment or vas 

g a i n f u l l y  em ployed , e i t h e r  w it h in  th e  co u n ty  o r  o u t s id e  i t s  boundaries. u!> 

a r e s id e n t  la b o r  f o r c e  o f  1 1 9 ,3 0 0  in  1965, M o b ile  C o u n ty 's  popu lation  totaled a

HEW Plan of July, 1969



237a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

S P l - 2

‘  !,"bution of

, "k'l,le Population 
Mobile 1960



238a

POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT 
METROPOLITAN MOBILE 

I960

HEW Plan of July, 1969

Census
T racts

T ota l
Population

T ota l
White

T ota l
Nonwhite

Percent
Nonwhite

1. 551 423 128 23.2
2. 7 ,566 3 ,141 4,425 58.3
3 . 4 ,225 95 4 ,130 97.6
4 . 8,675 15 8,660 99.8
5. 6 ,710 257 6,453 96.0
6. 5 ,822 1,522 4 ,300 73.8
7. 8,046 5,693 2,353 29.2
8. 5 ,908 3 ,151 2,757 46.5
9. 8 ,328 8,173 155 1.8

10. 6,993 6,289 704 9.9
11. 9 ,944 1 ,600 8,344 83.4
12. 5,750 2,114 3 ,636 64.3
13. 6 ,517 5,695 822 12.8
14. 5 ,522 684 4,638 87.6
15. 7,015 6,367 648 9.1
1 6 . 861 821 40 2.2
17. 3 ,120 3 ,018 102 3.1
18. 2 ,251 1,901 350 1.5
19. 4 ,723 4 ,589 134 2.6
20. 1 ,577 1,522 55 3.1
21. 4 ,144 4 ,135 9 .0
22. 4 ,384 4 ,376 8 .4
23. 6 ,797 6 ,789 8 .1
24. 4 ,702 4,696 6 1.1
25. 9*666 9,634 32 .2
2 6 . 5 ,199 3 ,689 1,510 29.0
27. 4 ,400 3 ,020 1,380 31.3
28. 5 ,641 5,626 15 .1
29. 3 ,360 3 ,353 7 .1
30. 2 ,109 1,986 123 5.6
31. 2 ,949 2,813 136 4.4
32. 5 ,271 5,225 46 .8
33 . 3 ,6 21 3 ,314 307 8.4
34. 9 ,280 9,236 44 .3

35. 4 ,729 4 ,705 24 .5
36. 3 ,937 2 ,130 1,807 4 5 .9

37. 2 ,220 2,040 180 8 .1

38. 2 ,343 52 2,291 9 7 .7

39. 7,923 2,997 4,926 62,1
Prichard 47 ,371 25,048 22,323 47.37

Saraland 4,595 4,136 459 1 0 ,0

Chickasaw 10,002 10,002 none .0

T ota l 264,747 176,072 88,675 3 3 .5

TABLE 1 -3



239a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

7.

0 -  6%

6-12%

20-50%

51-75%

Distribution of I’lfrP  1 - 4
fon-Hliite Population 
*°bile County I960



240a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT 
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA 

1960

T o ta l
P o p u la t io n

T o ta l
W hite

T o ta l  o f  
N on-w hite

Percent of 
Non-Whit!

Bayou La B atre 6 ,6 0 4 5 ,8 5 3 751 iu? 1
Chickasaw 1 0 ,1 3 0 1 0 ,1 3 0 0 0

C i t r o n e l l e 4 ,2 3 0 3 ,2 4 3 987 23,3!

E ig h t  M ile 1 ,7 0 6 1 ,3 6 8 338 19,81

Grand Bay 6 ,1 7 4 4 ,0 9 1 2 ,0 8 3 33,73

M ob ile 20 2 ,7 7 9 1 3 9 ,1 6 0 65 ,619 32.38

M t. Vernon 6 ,8 8 1 2 ,0 2 7 4 ,8 5 4 70.58

P rich a rd 4 7 ,4 3 1 2 5 ,0 2 8 22 ,403 47.23
_____ _

S ara lan d 9 ,5 2 7 6 ,5 2 0 3 ,0 07 31.58

Semites 4 .4 9 8 4 ,1 5 5 343 7.62

T a n n er-W illia m s 4 ,2 7 3 3 .2 4 9 1 ,0 24 23,96

T h eod ore 1 0 ,0 6 8 9 ,2 6 2 806 8.00

TOTALS 3 1 4 ,3 0 1 2 1 2 ,0 8 6 102,215 32.52

t



241a

332,300 persons. By 1995 p o p u la t io n  sh ou ld  f a l l  betw een  4 6 4 ,4 0 0  and 5 5 0 ,0 0 0 , as 

tbe result o f  a r e s id e n t  la b o r  f o r c e  o f  from  1 7 6 ,5 0 0  t o  2 0 9 ,0 0 0  p erson s  and a 

participation r a t io  o f  a p p ro x im a te ly  38 p e rc e n t  ,

Although p o p u la t io n  and em ploym ent have been  a d v e r s e ly  a f f e c t e d  s in c e  th e  

phase-out o f  B rook ley  A ir  F o rce  Base b eg a n , i t  ap p ears  th a t  M o b ile  C oun ty , 

without B rookley, i s  g o in g  t o  ha ve  a m ore d e s i r a b le  b a la n c e  betw een  th e  m a jor  s e g ­

ments o f i t s  economy. F or  exam ple, com pared w ith  1964, M o b ile  C o u n ty 's  1995 

employment p r o f i l e  w i l l  have a much h ig h e r  p e rc e n ta g e  o f  m an u factu rin g  em p loy ees , 

and a smaller p r o p o r t io n  o f  governm ent w o r k e r s . (S ee  T a b le  1 - 6 . )  A lth ou g h  

government employment c o n t r ib u t e s  much t o  a  co n m u n lty 's  stan d ard  o f  l i v i n g ,  em ploy ­

ment associated w ith  th e  p r o d u c t io n  o f  g ood s  and s e r v i c e s  f o r  e x p o r t  and l o c a l  

consumption p rov id es  a  more l u c r a t i v e  b a se  f o r  e x p a n s io n .

By 1995 — fo l lo w in g  th e  m a n u fa ctu rin g  tren d  - -  c o n s t r u c t io n ,  r e t a i l  t r a d e , 

wholesale tra de , f in a n c e , in s u r a n c e , r e a l  e s t a t e ,  and s e r v i c e s  w i l l  expand in  

importance. On the o th e r  hand, a g r i c u l t u r e ,  t r a n s p o r t a t io n ,  co m n u n ica tion s  and 

utilities employment, as w e l l  a s  s e l f -e m p lo y e d  p e rs o n s  and d o m e st ic  w o r k e r s , w i l l  

decline as a p ercen tage  o f  t o t a l  em ploym ent. E x cep t f o r  a g r i c u l t u r e ,  h ow ever , 

these la tter  c a te g o r ie s  w i l l  s t i l l  in c r e a s e  in  a b s o lu t e  num bers.

Except fo r  the m assive  e f f e c t  on  governm ent em ploym ent o f  B r o o k le y * s  p h a se - 

“ t, proportional s h i f t s  in  th e  m a jor  em ploym ent c a t e g o r ie s  betw een  1965 and 1995 

■111 be caused p r im a r ily  b y  t e c h n o lo g y  and a u tom a tion . T e ch n o lo g y  and au tom ation  

-11 also be r e s p o n s ib le  f o r  in c r e a s in g  p r o p o r t io n s  o f  p r o f e s s io n a l  and t e c h n ic a l  

occupations and sm a ller  p r o p o r t io n s  o f  b lu e  c o l l a r  j o b s .  O th er s i g n i f i c a n t

c te r is t ics  o f  the work f o r c e  w i l l  b e :  m ore em ployed women; fe w e r  em ployed

HEW Plan of July, 1969

9.



TABLE 
1-6

Percent of Total Employment

M a n u fa ctu rin g  

C o n s tr u c t io n  

T C U 

R e t a i l  

W h o le sa le

F ir e

S e r v ic e s

Government

Other
Agriculture

O Ul to
o

toUl

1964 
1995

05

B

242a



243a

1 1

HEW Plan of July, 1969

persons under 18 y ea rs  o f  a g e ; o ld e r  w ork ers  r e t i r i n g  e a r l i e r ;  g r e a t e r  la b o r  

m obility; a s h o r te r  w ork w eek ; b e t t e r  ed u ca ted  w o r k e r s ; and In c r e a s e d  f r in g e  

benefits and "tak e -h om e" p ay . (  See T a b le s  1 -7  and 1 - 8 . )

In 1965 unemployment In  M o b ile  County t o t a l e d  5 ,1 0 0 , o r  4 .3  p e r c e n t  o f  

the c iv i l ia n  ’ a t  p la c e "  la b o r  f o r c e .  By 1995 th e  unemployment r a t e  w i l l  more 

than l ik e ly  remain ab ou t th e  same as In  19 65 ; in  a b s o lu t e  num bers, h ow ever , I t  

should range somewhere betw een  7 ,9 0 0  and 9 ,3 0 0 . A lth ou g h  jo b s  w i l l  be  

"steadier," c o m p e t it io n  f o r  la b o r ,  com bined w ith  g r e a t e r  la b o r  m o b i l i t y ,  w i l l  

prevent the unemployment r a t e  from  Im proving  d r a s t i c a l l y .



244a

AVLR/GL ANNUAL CIVILIAN "AT PLACE" LLFLOYl'LNT 

MOBIU COUNTY: 1960-95

( i n  T hou sands)

HEW Plan of July, 1969

P lan n in g  A rea

Low Medium High

I960 108.9

1961 108.2

1962 108.6

1963 112.3

1964 113.2

1965 113.7

1966 111 .1

1967 105.7

1966 105.1

1969 106.0 107 .0 106.0

1970 107.0 110 .8 114.6

1975 114.5 120.7 126.9

I960 124.5 134.0 143.4

1965 137.0 149.5 162.1

1990 152.0 1 6 6 . 0 180.1

1995 169.5 165.0 200.6

TABLE 1 - 7



245a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

13

CIVILIAN "AT PUCE" LHPLOYILNT FROEILE 

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION, BY i-AOOR CATEGORY 

MOBILE COUNTY: I 9 6 4  and 1995

Honagri cu ltu ra l

1964

98.7
Wage and Salary 84.7

tanufacturing 15 .2
Food and Kindred Froducts 2 . 2
T extiles and Apparel 0 .1
Lumber and Wood Froducts 1 . 1
Paper and Paper Products 5 .6
Chemical end A ll ie d  Froducts 1 . 6
Shipbuilding and Repair 2 .3
Other Manufacturing 2 . 1

Nonmanufacturing 69 .5
Construction 5 .7
TCU 1 / 8 .5
Trade 16 .2

R etail 13 .3
Wholesale 4 .9

FIRE 2 / 3 .5
Services and M iscellaneous 11.3
Government 22 .3
Other Wage and Salary _

Other N onagricu ltural 1 4 .O
Agricultural h i

2221
99.5
89 .0
1975

2 .3
0 .4
0.6
4 .2
3 .2
2 .9
6.0

6.0
16 .6
1 3 .8

5 .0
5 .0  

15 .4  
17 .3
0.2

Total 100.0 100.0

1/ Transportation, Communications and U t i l i t i e s  
2/ Finance, Insurance and R eal E state

Sources: Department o f  In d u s tr ia l R e la t io n s , Alabama 
State Employment S e rv ice , 1964 
John H. F riend , I n c . ,  1995

TABLE 1 - 6



246a

it

D. P ersonal Income

T o ta l p erson a l income in  M obile County to ta le d  $747.7  m illion  in 1965 

and i s  p r o je c te d  t o  reach  $610 m i l l io n  by 1970. The com bination o f  gain in 

p op u la tion  and in cre a se  in  per ca p ita  income w i l l  be resp on s ib le  for the large 

growth o f  t o t a l  p erson a l income.

W ith th e per ca p ita  income in cre a se  from  $2 ,250  in  1965 to  $2,500 ir, 7 

the average fam ily  annual income i s  expected  t o  reach  $ 9 ,0 6 6  fo r  the same perl 

o f  t im e . The average annual fam ily  income in  M obile County should approach 

$15 ,400  by 1995. The ga in  rep resen ts  an in cre a se  o f  over 85 percent. In 1995 

approxim ately  20 percen t o f  a l l  fa m ilie s  in  th e County w i l l  earn $15,000 or m 

compared w ith  6 . 6  percen t in  1965. Only 6 .5  percen t o f  a l l  fam ilies will ear 

$7 ,455 or le s s  in  1995. In  1965 the percentage was 6 1 .6 .

See Table 1 -9  f o r  p r o je c te d  per ca p ita  incom e, t o t a l  personal inccoe, c 

average fa m ily  income f o r  M obile County.

The I960 Census rev ea led  th a t o f  the 73,993 fa m ilie s  in  Mobile County, 

4 , 8 0 6  fa m ilie s  had annual fa m ily  incomes o f  under $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 6,525 had annual fan' 

incom es between $ 1 ,0 0 0  and $ 1 ,9 9 9 , and a t o t a l  o f  18,815 (25 percent) had ami 

fa m ily  incomes o f  under $ 3 ,00 0 . The median fa m ily  income in  I960 was

Table 1 -1 0  o f f e r s  a more u p -to -d a te  d is t r ib u t io n  o f  fam ilies by incos 

c la s s .  Map 1 -11  and Table 1 -12  show th e  p ercentage o f  d is tr ib u tion  of fanili« 

in  M etropolitan  M obile earning an annual fa m ily  income o f  $3,000 or less.

H E W  Plan of July, 1969



247a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

15 .

NOTE:

P opulation, incom e, and employm ent d a ta  r e fe r r e d  t o  in  t h i s  d is c u s s io n

ires obtained from the fo l lo w in g  p u b l i c a t i o n s :

Friend, John H. The Shape o f  th e  F u tu re : An E conom ic and P o p u la t io n
Study o f  M o b ile , B a ld w in , and Escam bia C o u n tie s . Alab°™<». 
C le a r in g h o u se  f o r  F e d e r a l S c i e n t i f i c  and T e c h n ic a l  In fo rm a - 
t i o n ,  W ash in gton , D . C . ,  1969.

M obile, Alabama: An E conom ic A b s t r a c t .  M o b ile  A rea  Chamber o f
Com nerce, 1969.

M obile, Alabama: An E conom ic H andbook. M o b ile  A rea  Chamber o f
Commerce, 1969.



248a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

TOTAL PERSONAL INCOiJ, t - i l  CATITA INCOME, 
AVERAGE F, t-iIIY I : CC;E 

MOBILE COUNTY: 1965-95 
In  Constant 1965 D o lla rs )

AND

T o ta l
(000 ,000 )

Fer
Capita

Average
Family

1965 747.7 2 ,250 8,300

1970 810.0 2 ,5 0 0 9,100

1975 966.6 2 ,600 10,100

1980 1 ,2 0 2 .2 3 ,200 11,500

1985 1 ,4 8 4 .6 3 ,600 12,600

1990 ■ 1 ,7 7 9 .6 3 .900 13,800

1995 2 , 2 3 2 .1 4 ,400 15,400

TABLE 1-9

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF F A ilL IiS , BY INCOtE 
MOBILE COUNTY: 1965 and 1995

CLASS

1965 1995

Under ^3,000 1 4 .0 1.5

$3 ,000  -  7 ,499 4 7 .6 5.0

-,,7,500 -  14,999 3 1 .8 73.5

$15 ,000  and over 6 .6 20,0

T ota l 100 .0 100.0

'l

TABLE. 1 -10



249a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

'•ion of

S r ^ - M . O O O  and Bel 
'“ '"on Mobile 1960

o w ) MAP 1 -  11

0 - 10*

11 - 20%

21- 30%

31- 40%

41- 50%

5 1 - 6 5 %



HEW Plan of July, 1969

18,

METROPOLITAN MOBILE

LOW INCOME FAMILIES . BY CENSUS TRACTS 1960

Census
Location Tract

T otal
Population

T otal
Fam ilies

Family Income 
o f  Less Than 

$3,000 Percentm

Mobile 1 551 42 15 38

2 7 .56 6 1 .606 769 48

3 4 .22 5 924 495 54

4 8 .67 5 1 .85 2 1 .13 4 81

5 6 .7 1 0 1 .54 2 638 41

6 5 .82 2 1 .21 8 552 45

7 8 .0 4 6 2 .00 1 336 w

8 5 .90 8 1 .3 4 0 244 18

9 8 .3 2 8 2 .24 2 274 12

10 6 .9 9 3 1 .80 0 403 22

11 9 .9 4 4 2 .18 5 1 .006 48

12 5 .7 5 0 1 .16 8 563 48

13 6 .5 1 7 1 .73 3 357 21

14 5 .5 2 2 1 .15 9 446 38

15 7 .01 5 1 .712 766 45

16 861 174 16 5 .

17 3 .1 2 0 833 72 5

18 2 .25 1 538 103 1!

19 4 .7 2 3 1 .192 130 11 _

20 1 .57 7 391 19 5 _

91 L \ L L 1 .05 3 77

_____________________ 22 4 .384_________1.128______________82----------------------

TABLE 1-12



251a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

METROPOLITAN MOBILE

LCW INCOME FAMTLITES. BY CENSUS TRACTS 1960

18a.

Location
Census
T ract

T o ta l
P o p u la t io n

T o ta l
F a m ilie s

F am ily  Income 
o f  L ess Than 

$ 3 ,0 0 0 P e rcen ta g e

Habile 23 6 .7 9 7 1 .7 7 8 158 9

24 4 ,7 0 2 1 .3 6 6 172 13

25 9 .6 6 6 2 ,7 4 7 206 7

26 _____ 5 .1 W 1 .1 6 6 350 30

27 4 ,4 0 0 1 ,0 6 4 323 30

28 5 ,6 4 1 1 .5 7 6 92 9

29 3 ,3 6 0 849 4 0 .5

30 2 ,1 0 9 573 58 10

31 2 ,9 4 9 743 53 7

32 5 ,2 7 1 1 ,4 0 2 51 4

33 3 ,6 2 1 728 71 10

34 9 ,2 8 0 2 ,4 3 2 143 6

35 4 ,7 2 9 1 ,2 1 8 52 4

36 3 ,9 3 7 880 174 20

37 2 ,2 2 0 532 82 15

38 2 ,3 4 3 485 218 45

39 7 ,9 2 3 1 ,6 0 9 564 35
. M chard 4 7 ,3 7 1 1 0 .7 1 2 3 .Aft?

~ ^ a°aw 10 OQ2 2 .4 2 8 _____________ 509_________________ 2 0 _

~a£i^ --------- --------- ----------- £*595_________ 1 ,7 4 3 _____________ 549_________________ 31___

TABLE 1 - 12A



252a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

i)

E. E ducational L evel o f  the Adult P op u lation  o f  M obile County

S t a t i s t i c a l  data a v a ila b le  from  th e  M obile Chamber o f  Commerce indicates 

th a t 156 ,448  persons 25 years o ld  and over r e s id e  in  M obile County. Included 

in  t h is  age l e v e l  are 3 j677 persons (2 .3  p e rce n t) who have not completed one yea- 

o f  s c h o o l , 13,165 (8 .4  p e rce n t) who have com pleted fo u r  years or le s s , and 46,34; 

(2 9 .6  p e rce n t) who have com pleted between fou r  and e ig h t years o f  formal educatii. 

Consequently, f o r t y  percen t (63 ,1 9 1  person s) o f  th e p op u la tion  25 years old or 

o ld e r  have com pleted e ig h t or le s s  years o f  form al edu cation .

I960 Census data in d ic a te s  the fo l lo w in g  r e la t iv e  t o  the educational 

l e v e l  o f  th e adu lt p op u la tion  o f  the r e s id e n ts  o f  M obile County 25 years old or 

o ld e r ;

1 . R ural M obile County—median s ch o o l years com pleted: 8.7

2 . P rich ard — median s ch o o l years com pleted: 8 .8

3 .  Chickasaw and Saraland— median s ch o o l years com pleted: 9.0

4 . C ity  o f  M obile—median s ch o o l years com pleted: 11.2

5 . Average ed u ca tion a l l e v e l  o f  persons 25 years o ld  or older residing
w ith in  the boudary o f  th e C ity  o f  M ob ile : 1 0 .3 .

However, tr a in in g  programs f o r  a d u lts  have been a v a ila b le  in  the Mobile 

area fo r  a number o f  y e a rs . The l o c a l  s ch o o l system has o f fe r e d  adult basic 

edu cation  f o r  th ose  persons who have n ot com pleted e ig h t years o f  formal educa­

t i o n .  Murphy High S ch oo l a ls o  o f f e r s  t e c h n ic a l  and g en era l educational courses 

t o .a d u lt s  in  v a r iou s  f i e l d s  such as m echanical draw ing, e le c tro n ic s , etc. 

Carver S ta te  T ech n ica l S ch ool and Southwest S ta te  T ech n ica l In stitu te  are a r ­

a b le  t o  prepare h igh  s ch o o l graduates and persons 16 years o ld  and older for



253a

cioyment in  v o c a t io n a l ,  t e c h n i c a l ,  and in d u s t r i a l  o c c u p a t io n s .

Qualified p erson s who d e s i r e  t o  c o n t in u e  t h e i r  e d u c a t io n  may e n r o l l  a t  

labile State Junior C o l le g e , W illia m  Lowndes Y ancey  S ta te  J u n io r  C o l l e g e ,  M ob ile  

College, Spring H i l l  C o l le g e , o r  a t  th e  U n iv e r s it y  o f  South  Alabama.

i, Conclusions

An analysis o f  C hapter I  in d i c a t e s  an in c r e a s in g  p o p u la t io n  w ith  a 

relatively stable r a t io  betw een  w h ite  and n o n -w h ite .

Employment w i l l  demand an in c r e a s e  in  t e c h n i c a l  s k i l l s  and a h ig h e r  l e v e l  

c.'education. M anufacturing w i l l  in c r e a s e ,  b u t w ith  h e a v ie r  em phasis on  t e c h -  

xlogy and automation.

These c h a r a c t e r is t ic s  in d i c a t e  a g r e a t  n eed  f o r  in c r e a s e d  e d u c a t io n a l  

tffortunities that p ro v id e  maximum " h o ld in g  pow er" o f  s t u d e n t s . In  th e  d eca d e  

'• the 1960's, 40 p ercen t o f  th e  a d u lt  p o p u la t io n  had com p leted  8 y e a r s  o r  l e s s  

-  tonal education, hany o f  th e s e  c i t i z e n s  a r e  N eg ro .

The economic, e d u c a t io n a l ,  and s o c i a l  n eed s  o f  th e  n e x t  d e ca d e s  le n d  

nulling support f o r  a u n ita r y  s c h o o l  system  o f f e r i n g  in t e g r a t e d  e d u c a t io n a l  

Jfportunities at a l l  l e v e l s  w ith  a la r g e r  em phasis on  i n s t r u c t i o n a l  program s

:ured to developing th e  c o n p re h e n s iv e  s k i l l s  n eed ed  t o  manage a com p lex  

•fchnology, ,

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

20



254a

-

CHAPTER XI

STATUS OF SCHOOL DESEGREGATION 1 9 6 8 -6 9 .

A . D e s e g r e g a t io n  o f  P u p ils

In  19 68 -6 9  t h e r e  w ere some 7 5 ,4 2 1  p u p i ls  In  th e  M o b ile  County School Spa 

O f t h i s  t o t a l  4 3 ,9 9 2 , o r  5 8 .3  p e r c e n t  w ere  w h ite  and 3 1 ,4 2 9 , o r  41.7 percent* 

N eg ro . T hese p u p i ls  w ere  h ou sed  In  91 s c h o o l  c e n t e r s .

The p ro c e d u r e s  f o r  d e te rm in in g  th e  a tte n d a n ce  o f  p u p i ls  a t  Individual itk, 

c e n t e r s  w ere  e s t a b l is h e d  b y  c o u r t  o r d e r s  o f  J u ly  2 9 , A ugust 2 , and Auguat IS,18 

A c t u a l ly  th e s e  com p r ise  on e  c o u r t  o r d e r  w ith  amendments and h erea fter  In thlt 

r e p o r t  w i l l  b e  r e f e r r e d  t o  a s  th e  c o u r t  o r d e r  o f  J u ly  2 9 , 1968.

T h is  c o u r t  o r d e r  o f  J u ly  2 9 , 1 9 6 8 , d i r e c t e d  th a t  th e  fo llo w in g  provitloci 

b e  made f o r  a tte n d a n ce  o f  p u p i ls  a t  s c h o o ls  In  1 9 6 8 -6 9 :

1 .  P u p ils  In  r u r a l  M o b ile  C ounty sh o u ld  e x e r c i s e  freedom  o f  

c h o i c e  In  th e  s e l e c t i o n  o f  a  s c h o o l .

2 . P u p ils  In  g ra d e s  9 -  12 In  th e  m e tr o p o lit a n  a re a  and pupila 

In  g ra d e  8 In  th e  C ra ig h ea d  and C a rv er  zon es  sh ou ld  exercise 

freed om  o f  c h o ic e  In  d e te rm in in g  th e  s c h o o l  w h ich  they would 

a t t e n d .

3 .  P u p ils  In  g ra d e s  1 - 8 ,  e x c e p t  th e  8 th  g ra d e  stu d en ts  in  the 

C ra ig h ea d  and C arv er  zo n e s  In  th e  m e tr o p o lit a n  a re a , should attend 

s c h o o ls  In  th e  a t te n d a n c e  zon e  p r e s c r ib e d  b y  geogra ph ic  boundaries 

e s t a b l is h e d  ' b y  th e  c o u r t .  D i f f e r e n t  b o u n d a r ie s  were established 

f o r  e lem en ta ry  s c h o o ls  and ju n io r  h ig h  s c h o o ls .

H E W  Plan of July, 1969



255a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

22

Provision in  the J u ly  29 c o u r t  o r d e r  was made f o r  t r a n s fe r  o f  p u p i ls  t o  

|schools other than the one in  th e  g e o g ra p h ic  zon e w here th e  p u p i l  r e s id e d ,  t h e  

pupil or his parents had t o  make a p p l i c a t io n  f o r  t r a n s fe r  w it h in  p r e s c r ib e d  d a te s  

tid the Central O f f i c e  f o r  th e  s c h o o l  system  was r e q u ir e d  t o  k eep  a r e c o r d  o f  a l l  

tnufen granted. T ra n s fe rs  w ere t o  b e  g ra n te d  t o :

1. Students whose r a c e  com p rised  th e  s tu d e n t  m in o r ity  in  a s c h o o l  i f  

such m inority  ware f i v e  p er  c e n t  o r  l e s s ;

2. Students who had o n ly  one g ra d e  t o  co m p le te  b e f o r e  m oving up from  

the school la s t  a t te n d e d , b u t  who v o u ld  b e  p la c e d  in  a d i f f e r e n t  

school by g eog ra p h ic  l i n e s  p r e s c r ib e d .

3. Students who c o u ld  show good  ca u se  f o r  d e s i r in g  a t r a n s f e r ,  w ith  

racial m atters b e in g  d e f i n i t e l y  e l im in a te d  as g ood  c a u s e .

4. Students re q u ir in g  a c o u r s e  o f  s tu d y  n o t  o f f e r e d  a t  th e  s c h o o l  

where geograph ic b ou n d a r ie s  w ou ld  p la c e  them;

5. Students a tten d in g  s p e c ia l  s c h o o ls  su ch  as th o s e  f o r  p h y s i c a l l y  

handicapped, m en ta lly  r e ta r d e d , o r  g i f t e d  c h i ld r e n ,  p ro v id e d  

the matter o f  ra ce  was n o t  in v o lv e d .

The July 29 order gave th e  fo l l o w in g  d i r e c t i v e  r e g a r d in g  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n :

.. Whe"  Crans p o r ta t io n  i s  g e n e r a l ly  p r o v id e d , b u s s e s  must b e  r o u te d  t o  
max mum exten t f e a s i b l e  in  l i g h t  o f  th e  g e o g r a p h ic  d i s t r i b u t i o n  o f  s t u -  

,  “  aB 8erve each  s tu d e n t  c h o o s in g  any s c h o o l  in  th e  system ,
every atudent ch oosin g  e i t h e r  th e  fo r m e r ly  p red om in a n tly  w h ite  o r  th e  

merly predom inantly Negro s c h o o l  n e a r e s t  h i s  r e s id e n c e  m u st 'b e  t r a n s -  
vhether °  5 °  w h ich  h e  i s  a s s ig n e d  u n d er  th e s e  p r o v i s i o n s ,
distant fr  n°fc«it:».i8  h lS  f l r S t  c h o l c e > l f  t h a t  s c h o o l  i s  s u f f i c i e n t l y  

'  u f"®  t0  mak*  h l "  e l i 8 l b l e  f o r  t r a n s p o r t a t io n  under 
Potation ^ l l c y  tra n sp orta tion  r u le s  and th e  S c h o o l B o a r d 's  t r a n s -

e££ect o f  th la  c o u r t  o r d e r  in  th e  d e s e g r e g a t io n  o f  s c h o o ls  i s  shown in  

«  2 1 through 2 -6 . These t a b le s  show th e  name o f  th e  s c h o o l  w h ich  was in  

on on September 27, 1968, th e  g ra d e  l e v e l s  s e r v e d  b y  th e  s c h o o l ,  and th e



256a

?
r a c i a l  c o m p o s it io n  o f  th e  s tu d en t b o d y . They a l s o  show th e  t o t a l  number ci* 

t r a n s p o r te d , w ith o u t  re g a rd  t o  r a c e .  In  m ost I n s ta n c e s ,  how ever, the racef 

b e in g  t r a n s p o r te d  can  b e  d eterm in ed  by  th e  c o m p o s it io n  o f  the student body t 

s c h o o l  t o  w h ich  th e y  w ere t r a n s p o r te d .

The t a b le s  g iv e  th e  c a p a c i t y  o f  th e  s c h o o l 's  perm anent fa c i l i t i e s  in a- 

s c h o o l  c e n t e r  In  a c c o rd a n ce  w ith  th e  m ethod fo l lo w e d  b y  th e  sch ool systoh 

d e te rm in in g  c a p a c i t y .  T h is  m ethod p r o v id e s  t h a t  th e  c a p a c it y  o f  an elemental 

s c h o o l  i s  d e term in ed  b y  m u lt ip ly in g  th e  number o f  c la ssro o m s  by 34. For jail 

and s e n io r  h ig h  s c h o o l s ,  th e  number o f  t e a c h in g  s t a t io n s  i s  m ultiplied by !ifc 

s c h o o ls  w ith  l e s s  them 1 ,0 0 0  p u p i ls  and b y  29 f o r  s c h o o ls  w ith  over 1,000 pop. 

In  th e  c a s e  o f  e x tr e m e ly  sm a ll h ig h  s c h o o l s ,  s m a lle r  numbers than 28 or 19 in 

u sed  f o r  t e a c h e r  a l l o c a t i o n  p u r p o s e s . F or  th e  s p e c ia l  s c h o o l ,  shown in Table: 

no  fo rm u la  f o r  c a p a c i t y  i s  u s e d .

The t a b le s  a l s o  g iv e  th e  number o f  p o r t a b le s  u sed  a t  each school In tie

1968-69  s c h o o l  y e a r .

The o r d e r  o f  l i s t i n g  th e  s c h o o ls  In  th e  v a r io u s  t a b le s  i s ,  generally 

sp e a k in g , b y  g e o g r a p h ic  p r o x im ity  from  th e  sou th  t o  th e  n o r th . This wanted 

o r d e r  th a t  d a ta  c o n c e r n in g  a d ja c e n t  s c h o o ls  c o u ld  b e  s tu d ie d .

In  T a b le  2 - 1 ,  w h ich  p r o v id e s  d a ta  f o r  th e  r u r a l  s c h o o ls ,  I t  w illbeobr 

th a t  some N egro p u p i ls  c h o s e  t o  a t te n d  p red om in a n tly  w h ite  schools but that s 

w h ite  p u p i ls  c h o se  t o  a t te n d  D ix o n , S t .  E lm o, B u rrou gh s, Dawes-Union, Adam, 

B e lsa w , o r  L o t t .  The t o t a l  o f  th e  number o f  p u p i ls  in  the ru ra l schoola Is 

1 9 ,0 2 3 , o f  whom 1 5 ,1 3 6 , o r  7 9 .8  p e r c e n t  a r e  w h ite  and 3 ,8 3 7 , o r  20.2 percec.! 

N eg ro . The 27 s c h o o ls  l i s t e d  In  T a b le  2 -1  s e r v e  an area  ranging from 17 to- 

m ile s  w id e  and a b ou t 60 m ile s  l o n g ,  w it h  M e tr o p o lita n  M ob ile  being excluded

HEW Plan of July, 1969

t h i s  l i s t i n g .



257a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

Table 2-2 deals with sen ior  high s ch oo ls  in  the m etrop olitan  a rea , where 

freedom of choice was a lso  in  o p e ra t io n . I t  in d ic a te s  th a t a number o f  Negro 

s-'ils elected to  attend predom inantly w hite s ch o o ls  but th a t no w hite p u p ils  

4ose to attend C entral, T ou lm in v ille , M obile County T rain ing S ch o o l, B lou nt, and 

Irinity Gardens, and on ly two w hite p u p ils  e le c te d  to  attend W illiam son.

The 11 senior high sch oo ls  serv in g  M etropolitan  M obile serve  15 ,498 p u p ils ,  

of whom 8,458, or 54.5 percent are w hite and 7 ,0 4 0 , o r  4 5 .5  p ercen t are Negro.

Table 2-3 gives data fo r  the ju n io r  h igh  s ch o o ls  in  the m etrop o lita n  area , 

toe provision for  tra n s fe rs  as p r e v io u s ly  d e scr ib e d  was made. I t  shows th at 

iiashington, Mobile County T ra in in g , C arver, T r in it y  Gardens, and H ills d a le  

[toned a ll Negro, and Dunbar has 5 w hite p u p ils  in  a student body o f  933. R ain , 

lanes, Azalea Road, Sea.Thorough, and E ight M ile each had l e s s  than 60 Negro 

pupils, although these f iv e  sch o o ls  d id  serve  a l l  Negro students l iv in g  in  th e ir  

sttmdance areas.

The 15 junior high sch oo ls  in  M etropolitan  M obile have a t o t a l  o f  11,976 

rails in attendance, o f  whom 6 ,3 6 6 , or 53.3 percen t are w hite and 5 ,5 9 0 , or 

47 percent are Negro.

Table 2-4, which provides in form a tion  about th e  elem entary s ch oo ls  o f  th e 

-dropolitan area, where attendance was c o n tr o lle d  by boundaries w ith  p r o v is io n  

:sr transfer as previously  in d ic a t e d , shows th a t Howard, F o n v ie l le , W h itley ,

"=ner, and H illsdale remained a l l  Negro and a number o f  o th er  s ch o o ls  had 

B ' " l- ,elJ few white p u p ils . There were a number o f  predom inantly w hite  s ch o o ls ,

: “ihch had e ith e r no Negro p u p ils  o r  a very  few .



258a

There are 28,142 p u p ils  in  attendance in  the 42 elem entary schools of tis 

m etrop olitan  a rea , o f  whom 13 ,88 6 , or 4 9 .4  p ercen t are w hite and 14,236, or 

50 .6  percent a re  Negro.

Table 2 -5  g iv e s  data on a s p e c ia l  s ch o o l f o r  tr a in a b le  pu pils . This sin 

serves  th e e n t ir e  county . I t  w i l l  be noted th a t i t  i s  desegregated, with 76 

w hite and 86 Negro p u p ils .

Table 2 -6  p rov id es  summary data f o r  T ables 2 -1  through 2 -5 . The overall 

r a t i o  o f  th e  p u p il  p op u la tion  i s  58.3 percent w hite and 4 1 .7  percent Negro, 

From in form a tion  p r e v io u s ly  p resen ted , however, i t  w i l l  be noted that thisrc 

v a r ie s  co n s id e ra b ly  between m etrop o lita n  and r u r a l  areas and between grade 

le v e ls  w ith in  the m etrop o lita n  a rea .

The t o t a l  o f  th e  s ch o o ls  l i s t e d  on a l l  ta b le s  i s  96. Five schools inUt 

m etrop olitan  a rea , however, are l i s t e d  on two ta b le s  s in ce  they have both 

elem entary and ju n io r  high sch o o l grades o r  both ju n io r  high and senior high 

sch o o l g ra d es . The t o t a l  number o f  s ch o o l cen ters  operated as separate adrihi- 

t r a t iv e  u n it s ,  th e r e fo r e ,  i s  91.

HEW Plan of July, 1969



September 27» 1968

R U R A L  S C H O O L S , G R A D E S , P U P IL  M E M B E R S H IP  B Y  R A C E , N UM BER P U P I L S  T R A N S P O R T E D , S C H C C L  C - . f / . C m  O F  F L Id J -L E N T  F A C I L I T I E S
N UM BER P O R T A B L E S

S c h o o l8 G rades
P u p il Metnber s h ip Number

P u p ils
T ra n sp orted

C a p a c ity
Permanent
F a c i l i t i e s

Number
o f

W hite Negro T o ta l

1 . Dauphin Is la n d 1 - 6 57 2 .5 9 50 102 o
2 . A lb a 1 -  12 1 .5 7 8 2 1 .5 8 0 709 1 .4 7 0
3 . D ixon 1 -  6 0 391 391 311 408 o
4 .  Grand Bay 1 - 6 715 19 734 514 850 o

5 . M o b ile  C ountv H igh S c h o o l 7 -  12 578 29 607 425 700 7

6 .  S t ,  Elmo 7 - 1 2 0 748 748 725 644 3

7 . B o l l i n g e r 's  I s la n d 1 - 8 486 1 487 261 390 4

8 .  B urroughs 1 - 6 0 444 414 97 612 o

9 . D av is 1 -  6 779 5 784 495 850 0

1 0 . T h eod ore 7 - 1 2 1 ,7 4 3 34 1 ,7 7 7 1 ,4 02 1 .4 0 0 14

1 1 . G r ig g s ________________ 1 -  6 1 ,0 4 2 0 1 .0 4 2 393 544 15

1 2 . D aw es-U nion 1 -  6 0 158 158 124 204 0

13 . B aker 1 - 1 2 1 ,0 3 8 0 1 .0 3 8 845 806 11 v

14 . T a n n e r -W illia m s 1 -  6 282 0 282 260 476 0

TABUE 2-1

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



Rural Mobile County
September 27, 1969

S c h o o ls G rades
Pup11 M em bership Number

P u p ils
C a p a c ity
Permanent

Number
o f

W hite N egro T o ta l T ra n sp orted F a c i l i t i e s P o r ta b le s

1 5 . W llm er 1 _ 6 305 60 365 271 408 0

16 . M ontgom ery 9 _ 12 759 28 787 646 784 0

17 . Semmes 1 _ 8 994 26 1 ,0 2 0 901 1 ,0 5 8 2

18 . S a ra la n d 1 _ 6 830 0 830 0 850 0

19 . Lee 1 _ 6 924 1 925 463 850 2

20 . Adams 1 . 12 0 779 779 270 1 ,1 6 0 0

21 . Satsum a 7 . 12 1 ,3 4 4 3 1 ,3 4 7 1 .0 2 8 1 ,0 3 6 14

22 . M t. V ernon 1 . 8 173 18 191 47 158 1

23 . B elsaw 1 . 8 0 551 551 137
305

9

2 4 . C a lv e r t 1 . 6 86 0 86 42 102 0

25 . C a lc e d e a v e r 1 . 12 300 0 300 269 304 4

26 . L o t t 1 _ 12 0 568 568 509 816 0

27 . C t t r o n e l l e 1 _ 12 1 .1 73 0 JL.1.73____ 754 1 ,3 8 0 0

1 T o t  a 1n 1 5 . 1 8 6 3 . 8 3 7 1 9 . 0 2 3 1 1 . 9 6 8 1 8 . 6 6 8 9 4

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



Metropolitan Mobile 
S e p t e m b e r  2 7 *  1 9 6 8

SENIO R HIGH SCHOOLS, GRADES, PU PIL MEMBERSHIP BY RACE, NUMBER PU PILS TRANSPORTED, SCHOOL CAPACITY PERMANENT
FACILITIES, NUMBER PORTABLES

S ch o o l Grades P u p il  M embership Number
P u p ils

C a p a c ity
Permanent

Number
o f

W hite Negro T o ta l T ra n sp orted F a c i l i t i e s P o r ta b le s

1 . R ain 9 - 1 2 760 49 809 12 <10-121 448 0

2 . W illia m so n 8 - 1 2 3 1 ,1 3 1 1 ,1 3 4 0 1 ,3 3 4 0

3 . Murphy 9 -  12 2 ,7 0 7 147 2 ,8 5 4 0 2 ,9 0 0 0

4 .  C e n tr a l 9 -  12 0 1 ,6 1 4 1 ,6 1 4 0 1 ,5 66 2

5 . T o u lm in v i l le 10 -  12 0 1 ,1 0 7 1 ,1 07 0 638 15

6 . M o b ile  County T r a in in g 9 - 1 2 0 710 710 0 700 0

7.  B lou n t 8 -  12 0 1 ,8 9 4 1 .8 9 4 0 2 ,0 0 1 0

8 . V ig o r 10 -  12 1 ,5 6 4 109 1 .6 7 3 454 1 .7 4 0 0

9 .  T r i n i t y  Gardens 9 -  12 0 637 637 0 476 0

10 . D av id son 9 - 1 2 2 , 2 8 9 66 2 .3 5 5 1 .1 15 1 .9 4 3 15

11 . Shaw 9 - 1 2 1 ,1 3 6 196 1 ,3 3 2 448 928 16

T o t a ls 8 ,4 5 9 7 ,6 6 0 1 6 ,1 1 9 2 ,0 2 9 1 4 ,6 7 4 48

TABLE 2 -2  .

H
E

W
 P

lan of July, 1969



Metropolitan Mobile
September 27, 1968

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS, GRADES, PUPIL MEMBERSHIP BY RACE, NUMBER PUPILS TRANSPORTED, SCHOOL CAPACITY PERMANENT
FACILITIES, NUMBER PORTABLES

S c h o o l G rades
P u p il  M em bership Number

P u p ils
C a p a c ity
Permanent
F a c i l i t i e s

Number
o f

P o r ta b le sW hite N egro T o ta l T ra n sp orted

. R ain 7 -  8 415 38 453 30 (7 - 9 ) 476 13

. Eanes 7 -  9 982 57 1039 214 1148 0

. C ra igh ead 6 - 7 153 394 547 0 728 0

. P h i l l i p s 7 - 8 838 113 951 0. 980 0

. Dunbar 7 -  8 5 928 933 0 1064 0

. W ash in gton 7 -  9 0 1493 1493 0 1015 15

. M o b ile  Countv T ra in in g 6 - 8 0 568 568 0 560 4

. P r ich a rd 6 -  9 387 163 550 27 616 0

3. C arv er 6 -  7 0 881 881 0 784 4

LO. T r i n i t y  Gardens 7 -  8 0 420 420 0 392 7

11 . C la rk 7 - 9 1317 239 1556 253 1392 0

L2. A z a le a  Road 7 - 8 1044 40 1084 411 1015 5
L3. H i l l s d a l e 7 - 9 0 225 225 0 816 0
L4. ScarborouR h 6 - 8 1039 1 1040 658 928 o
0.5. Eight M ilo 7 - 8 206 30 236 81 252 o
\ “ _________________________ -- -----aayp_ ___ jx jo jtj*_________ __a _______ ----Ml---------------

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



Macropolltan Mobile
SepComber 27, 1968

E L E M E N T A R Y  S C H O O L S , G R A D E S , P U P IL S  M E M B E R S H IP  B Y  R A C E , NUMBER P U P IL S  T R A N S P O R T E D , S C H O O L  C A P A C I T Y
PERMANENT F A C IL IT IE S , NUMBER PORTABLES

S c h o o ls Grades P u p il M embership
Number
P u p ils

T ra n sp orted

C a p a c ity
Permanent
F a c i l i t i e s

Number

W hite Negro T o ta l

1. South  B ro o k le y i -  6 514 72 586 83 442 5
2 . M orning S id e i -  6 756 0 756 90 578 6
3 . W illia m s i -  6 513 43 556 12S 408 5
4 . M arvvale i -  6 588 30 618 0 612 2

5. M ertz i -  6 482 0 482 0 510 o

6 . W estlaw n i -  6 595
V
0 595 0 510 3

7. W oodcock i -  6 380 80 460 58 612 0

8 . H a ll i -  6 3 701 704 l a 1224 0

9 . A r l in g t o n i -  5 384 153 537 0 476 2

10. C o u n c il i -  5 0 560 560 0 578 0

11. Emerson i -  6 3 518 521 0 442 4

12. L e in k a u f i -  6 323 125 448 0 442 0

13. Owens i -  6 0 1254 1254 0 1496 0

Table 2-4

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



Metropolitan Mobile
September 27, 1968

S c h o o ls Grades
P u p il  M embership - Number

P u p ils
T ra n sp orted

C a p a c ity
Permanent
F a c i l i t i e s

Number
o f

P o r ta b le sW hite N egro T o ta l

16 C a ld w e ll 1 -  6 1 401 402 0 578 0

17 Howard 1 -  6 0 465 465 0 408 3

18 Old S h e l l  Road 1 -  6 282 130 412 0 476 0

19 C r ich to n 1 -  6 520 253 773 0 782 1

*20 S ta n ton  Road 1 -  6 3 1077 1080 0 1020 3

^21 F o n v ie l le 1 -  6 0 1191 1191 0 1190 2

- 1 - 6 1 1138 1139 0 884 8

1 - 5 52 688 740 0 578 6

1 - 6 549 172 721 0 680 1

1 - 5 0 421 421 0 612 1

1 - 6 0 1197 1197 0 1156 1

1 - 5 3 1300 1303 0 1292 3

1 - 5 2 805 807 0 850 0

2 9  B i e n v i l l e 1 - 6 3 3 6 3 1 3 6 4 9 0 6 1 2 1
1 - 6 64-3 o 6 * 3 o 6 * 6 _______________2__________ 1

31- Chlcte»»nw 1 - 6 —a s a — _________fi____ o _______6 1 2 _____ _______________o ................. 1

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



265a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

&

5, ^segregation o f  S t a f f

The court order o f  J u ly  2 9 , 1 9 68 , makes o n ly  th e  fo l l o w in g  sta tem en t about 

s t a f f  desegregation:

The decree does n ot c o n ta in  any p r o v is io n  d e a lin g  w ith  d e s e g r e g a t io n  
o f  fa cu lty , new c o n s t r u c t io n ,  o r  d e s e g r e g a t io n  o f  f a c i l i t i e s  and 
a ct iv it ie s . T his C o u r t 's  o r d e r  d a ted  May 1 3 , 1 9 6 8 , f u l l y  s e t s  f o r t h  
the o b lig a tion  o f  th e  S c h o o l  B oard i n  th e s e  r e s p e c t s  and must b e  
implemented f o r  th e  1 9 6 8 -6 9  s c h o o l  y e a r .

The May 13, 1968 o rd e r  d i r e c t e d  th e  im p lem en ta tion  o f  th e  March 1 2 , 1968 

decree of the Court o f  A p pea ls f o r  th e  5th  C i r c u i t .  T h is  d e c r e e  r e a d s  a s  f o l l o w s :

H I .

FACULTY AND STAFF ASSIGNMENTS

A. F acu lty  Employment. R ace o r  c o lo r  s h a l l  n o t  b e  a f a c t o r  i n  th e  
hiring, assignm ent, re a ss ig n m e n t, p ro m o tio n , d e m o tio n , o r  d is m is s a l  o f  
teachers and o th er  p r o f e s s i o n a l  s t a f f  m em bers, in c lu d in g  s tu d e n t  t e a c h e r s ,  
except that ra ce  may b e  ta k en  i n t o  a cco u n t  f o r  th e  p u rp o s e  o f  c o u n te r ­
acting or c o r r e c t in g  th e  e f f e c t  o f  th e  s e g r e g a te d  ass ign m en t o f  f a c u l t y  
and s ta ff  in  the d u a l system . T e a c h e r s , p r i n c i p a l s ,  and s t a f f  members 
shall be assign ed  t o  s c h o o ls  so  th a t  th e  f a c u l t y  and s t a f f  i s  n o t  com posed 
exclusively o f  members o f  one r a c e .  W herever p o s s i b l e ,  t e a c h e r s  s h a l l  be 
assigned so th a t  more than  on e  t e a c h e r  o f  t h e  m in o r ity  r a c e  (w h ite  o r  
Negro) sh a ll be on th e  d e s e g re g a te d  f a c u l t y .  The B oard  w i l l  c o n t in u e  
positive and a f f ir m a t iv e  s t e p s  t o  a cco m p lish  th e  d e s e g r e g a t io n  o f  i t s  
1010° ^  f °r  th e  s c h o o l  y e a r  n o tw ith s ta n d in g  t e a c h e r  c o n t r a c t s  f o r
- 9 m y  have a ir e a d y  been  s ig n e d  and a p p rov ed . The te n u r e  o f  t e a c h e r s
in the system s h a l l  n o t  be u sed  a s  an ex cu se  f o r  f a i l u r e  t o  com ply w ith  
his p rov is ion . The a p p e l le e s  s h a l l  e s t a b l i s h  a s  an  o b j e c t i v e  t h a t  th e  

pattern o f  teach er  assign m en t t o  any p a r t i c u la r  s c h o o l  n o t  b e  i d e n t i f i a b l e  
as ta ilored  fo r  a heavy c o n c e n t r a t io n  o f  e i t h e r  N egro o r  w h ite  p u p ils

_ ,  , B> D ism issa ls . T ea ch ers  and o th e r  p r o f e s s i o n a l  s t a f f  members may 
. . . .  f .  “ -s c r im in a to r ily  a s s ig n e d , d is m is s e d , dem oted , o r  p a sse d  o v e r  f o r  
retention, prom otion , o r  r e h i r in g ,  on  th e  grou n d  o f  r a c e  o r  c o l o r .  In  
senh»,.StanCe* e re  0ne o r  m ore t e a c h e r s  o r  o th e r  p r o f e s s i o n a l  s t a f f  
intheSJ ^  i °  b a d i s p la c e d  as a r e s u l t  o f  d e s e g r e g a t io n , n o  s t a f f  v acan cy  
r ’stpm 1 system  sha11 b e  f i l l e d  th rou g h  r e cr u itm e n t  from  o u t s id e  th e
v a ca n rJ ^ p 3 " °  SUCh d i s P la c e d s t a f f  member i s  q u a l i f i e d  t o  f i l l  th e  
in t h ft 'n t li  aV  reS u lb  o:f d e s e g r e g a t io n ,  th e r e  i s  t o  b e  a r e d u c t io n

p r o fe s s io n a l  s t a f f  o f  t h e  s c h o o l  sy stem , th e  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  o f  a l l



266a

H EW  Plan of July, 1969

rf.

s t a f f  members In  th e  system  s h a l l  b e  e v a lu a te d  In  s e le c t in g  
th e  s t a f f  member t o  b e  r e le a s e d  w ith o u t  c o n s id e r a t io n  o f  
r a c e  o r  c o l o r .  A r e p o r t  c o n t a in in g  any such  prop osed  d is ­
m is s a ls ,  and th e  r e a so n s  t h e r e f o r ,  s h a l l  b e  f i l e d  w ith  the 
c l e r k  o f  th e  C o u r t , s e r v in g  c o p i e s  upon op p o s in g  cou n se l, 
w it h in  f i v e  ( 5 )  d ays a f t e r  su ch  d i s m is s a l ,  d em otion , e t c . ,  
a s  p ro p o s e d .

C . F ast A ss ig n m en ts . The a p p e l le e s  s h a l l  tak e  steps 
t o  a s s ig n  and r e a s s ig n  t e a c h e r s  and o t h e r  p r o fe s s io n a l  
s t a f f  members t o  e l im in a t e  th e  e f f e c t s  o f  th e  d u a l sch oo l 
sy stem .

T a b le  2 -7  p r o v id e s  In fo r m a t io n  on  th e  nun&er o f  In stru ction a l 

em p loy ees b y  r a c e  in  th e  v a r io u s  s c h o o ls  in  M o b ile  County. Table

2 -8  g iv e s  th e  same ty p e  o f  In fo r m a t io n  a b ou t a d m in is tra t iv e  and 

s u p e r v is o r y  em p loy ees In  th e  C e n tr a l  C oun ty  O f f i c e .

I t  w i l l  b e  n o te d  in  T a b le  2 -7  t h a t  a l l  s c h o o ls  ex cep t  Dauphin 

I s la n d ,  a s m a ll s c h o o l  w ith  3 I n s t r u c t io n a l  em ployees, and Fonevellle, 

a  la r g e  s c h o o l  w ith  38 i n s t r u c t io n a l  em p lo y e e s , have a t le a s t  1 parson 

o f  ea ch  r a c e .  A number o f  s c h o o ls  h a v e  2 o r  m ore p erson s o f  each 

r a c e .  The 12 c h i l d  g u id a n ce  p e r s o n n e l  l i s t e d  as the la s t  Item in 

T a b le  2 -7  w ork f u l l  tim e In  th e  s c h o o ls  b u t  a r e  n o t  attached  to 

any p a r t i c u la r  a a h o o l .

The to ta l  number o f  in s tru c tio n a l personnel serving In the sohooli m 

O ot. 1 1 ,1 9 6 8 , was 2 ,781% , o f  whom 1,648%  or 3 9 .2  peroent were white snd 1,U!



KACIAL DTSTRIBCTIOU OF DJBTBVCTIONAL STAFF
MOBILE COUNTY SCHOOLS
OCTOBER 11, 1968

School of Class- eachers Principals OtherPersonnel Title of Position of Other Personnel* TOTAL
White Nez-rc White Nezro White! Negro A. P. c. L. White ____Negro_

ADAMS 2 28 1 3 i 1 i 2 32

AIK 52 2 i 3 i 1 i 56 2

ASXXNSTOK 14 2 i 15 2

acstis 10 2 i 11 2

A7AI35A BEAD 37% 2 i 3 i 1 i 41% 2

32 2 i 3 i 1 i 36 2

wet <ua 1 17 1 1 18

BISSTILLE 16 3 i 17 3.

3IOTST 2 70 1 5 2 2 i 2 76

B5A2TE5 2 33 1 2 34

B300KLEY 14 4 i 15 4

BDSSOOGSS 2 11 1 2 12

CALCEDEAVER 5 2 i 10 2

CAIEWEU, 1 13 1 1 14

* A.?. - Assistant Principal: C. - Counselor; L. - Librarian

T able 2 - 7

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
MOBILE COUNTY SCHOOLS

OCTOBER 11, 1968

School
Number of Class*- • C 

Room Teachers Principal
. ‘ Other " Title of Position TOTAL 
s Personnel of Other Personnel i

White legro | White Negro White Negro l.P. C. \ L. \ White Negro

Calvert 1 1 1 T.P. 2 1

Carver 1 31 1 3 1 1 1 1 35

Central 2 62 1 4 1 2 1 2 67

Chickasaw 13 3 1 14 3

Citronelle 38 3 1 2 1 1 41 3

Clark 49 4 1 2 1 1 52 4

Council .1 16 1 1 17

Craighead 12 10 1 2 1 1 15 10

Crichton 21 4 1 22 4

Dauphin Islam 2 1 T.P. 3

Davidson 86 2 1 4 2 2 2 2 91 4

Davis 22 2 1 23 2

Dawes-Union 1 3 1 T.P. 1 4
Dickson 21 2 1 22 2
5 i x  on 2 lO 1 2 11

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OR INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
MOBILE COUNTY SCHOOLS

OCTOBER 11, 1968

School Number of Class- Room Teachers Principals OtherPersotnel Title of Position of Other Personnel Total
White Negro White Negro White Negro A . P. C. L. White

Dodge 20 2 i 21 2
Dunbar 2 34 i 3 i i i 2 38
Eanes 35 3 i 3 i i i 39 3
Eight Mile 17 4 i 1 i 19 4
Emerson 1 16 i 1 17
Evans 7 7 i 8 7
Fonde 20 2 i 21 2
Fonveille 37 i 38
Forest Hill 17 2 i 18 2
Glendale 18 2 i 19 2

Gorgas 1 33 i 1 34
Grand Bay 19 2 i 20 2

Grant 1 38 i 1 39

Gri8B3________ 30 1 i 31 1

Hall 2 20 i 2 21

Hamilton 17 2 i 18 2

TABLE 2-7b

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
MOBILE COUNTY SCHOOLS

OCTOBER 11, 1968

School
Number of Class- 
Room Teachers

Principals Other Personnel Title of 
Other

PositJ
Personi

Lon
lel

of Total

White Negro White | Negro White Negro A.P. C. L. White Negro

Hillsdale 4 25 1 2 1 1 4 28

Hollinger's Island 16 1 1 17 1

Howard 2 13 1 2 14

Indian Springs 13 2 1 14 2

Lee 25 2 1 26 2

Leinkauf 10 3 1 11 3

Lott 1 21 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 24

Marvvale 17 3 1 18 3

Mertz 13 2 1 14 2

Momingside 20 2 1 21 2

Mobile Countv High 19 3 1 2 1 1 22 3

Mobile County Training 1 48 1 4 1 2 1 1 53
Montgomery 27 2 1 3 1 1 1 31 2
Mt. Vernon 4 1 T . P . * 5 1
Murphy 99 1 a X 8 3 3 12 108 6

Inclpal

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFFMOBILE COUNTV SCHOOLS
OCTOBER 11, 1969

.School 1 Number o Room Tea 6 Class- ihers Principals OtherPersonnel Title of Position of Other Personnel Total
White Negro White Negro White Negro A . P. C. L. White Negro

Old Shell 10 2 i u 2
Orchard 21 2 i 22 2
Owens 2 38 i 2 39
Palmer 1 ___22, i 1 23
Phillips 33 3 i 3 i i i 37 3
Prichard 17 2 i 3 i i i 21 2
Rain 45 3 i 3 i i i 49 3

Robbins 2 23 i 2 24

St. Elmo 3 26 i 3 i i i 3 30

Satsuma 50 2 i 2 1 i i i 53 3
Saraland 23 2 i 24 2
Scarborough 32 4 i 3 3 i i i 36 4
Semmes 32 2 i 3 i i i 36 2
Shaw 46 3 i 3 i i i 50 3
Shepard 14 1 i 15 1

Stant on Road 2 31 i 2 32

TABLE 2-7d

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
MOBILE COUNTY SCHOOLS

OCTOBER 11, 1968

School
Number of Class- Principals 
Room Teachers

Other Title of Position Total 
Personnel of Other Personnel

White Black White Negro White Negro A. P. C. L. White Negro
Tanner-Williams 7 2 1 8 2
Theodore 61 4 1 4 1 2 1 66 4
Thomas 7 33 1 8 3
Toulminville 2 39 1 3 1 1 1 2 43

Trinity Gardens 2 39 1 3 1 1 1 2 43

Vigor 63 3 1 4 1 2 1 68 3

Washington 2 50 1 4 1 2 1 2 55

Westlawn 16 2 1 17 2

Whistler 17 3 1 18 3

Whitley 1 12 1 1 13
Will 18 2 1 19 2
Williams 14 2 1 15 2
Williamson 3 40 1 3 1 1 1 3 44
VJilmer 10 2 1 11 2

1 W ood cock 14. 2 2 1 15 2
\ Child Guidance. _ 9 l_ 3

V” ______- 3 L • =» ^_ - t _______ t

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



273a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

or 40.8 percent were Negro. Of the 91 principals or teaching principals, 60, or

65.9 percent are white, and 31, or 34.4 percent are Negro. The "other" positions 

in schools consist of Assistant Principals, Counselors, and librarians. There 

are 1X0 persons in this group, of whom 65, or 59 percent are white, and 45, or 

Id percent are Negro.

In Table 2-8 the total number of personnel in the Central Office is shown 

to be 90, of whom 77, or 85.5 percent are white, and 13, or 14.5 percent are 

Negro. There is no Negro holding any of the first eight administrative ' 

positions listed.



274a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

RACIAL DISTRIBUTION ADMINISTRATIVE 
AND SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL 

' CENTRAL OFFICE

MOBILE COUNTY SCHOOLS 
December 17, 1968

ADMINISTRATION White Negro Total

Superintendent 1 1
Associate Superintendent 1 1
Assistant Superintendents 5 5
Treasurer-Comptroller 1 1
Psychologist 1 1
Psychometrists 1 1 2
Social Worker 1 1
Coord. Vocational Education 1 1
Librarian Material Center 1 1
Engineer 1 1
Adm. Asst, to Engineer 2 2
Coordinators 7 1 8
Supervisors 26 4 30
Supervisors Project Mobile 3 3
Specialists Project Mobile 
Helping Teachers Project

1 1 2

Mobile 8 1 9
Attendance Workers 3 4 7
Nurses 3 1 4
Forester 1 1
Woodsman 1 1
Supervisors Maint., Trans. 2 2
Attorney
Vocational Coordinator

1 1

(Adults) 1 1
Counselor (MR) 1 1
Rehabilitation Counselors 3
Totals 77 13 90

TABLE 2-8



275a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

43.

c .  Npw  Construction

Tie passage from the July 29, 1968, court order quoted In the preceding 

section on Staff Desegregation also covers new construction. The Fifth 

Circuit Decree of March 12, 1968, gives the following directive on this

subject:

II.

CONSTRUCTION

To the extent consistent with the proper operation of the 
school system as a whole, the school board will, in locating and 
designing new schools, in expanding existing facilities, and in 
consolidating schools, do so with the object of eradicating past 
discrimination and of effecting desegregation. The school board 
vill not fail to consolidate schools because desegregation would 
result.

Until such time as the Court approves a plan based on the sur­
vey conducted pursuant to Section IV herein, construction shall be 
suspended for all planned building projects at which actual con­
struction has not been commenced.

Leave to proceed with particular construction projects may 
be obtained prior to the completion of the survey upon a showing 
by the appellees to the Court, that particular building projects 
will not have the effect of perpetuating racial segregation.

Section IV, referred to in paragraph 2 of the above quoted part of the 

decree, outlines in detail the nature of the survey which the Court ordered 

the school district to make. It calls for a description of each school in 

the school system, giving the size of each site, the number of buildings, 

the number of regular and portable classrooms, recoutnendations for future 

use and a number of other items of information. The Mobile County school 

system has provided this information in a document which bears the title 

Report Required by Decree Issued by U. S. District Court for the 

Southern District of Alabama Dated August 2, 1968, Section V.--Surveys 
faragraph (a) Building and Sites".



276a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

u
The Office of Education Study Team did not inapect every building in the 

school system. A number of buildings were inspected, however, as a test check, 

and the team found no inaccuracies in the Mobile County Report. No report m 

the condition of school plants is included in this Office of Education Study, 

Those interested in detailed descriptions are referred to the above listed 

document. As for use of the facilities described, the Office of Education Study 

Team would point out that subsequent court orders may affect the proposed use 

of the facilities as set forth in the Mobile County Report.

D. Facilities and Activities

The quotation from the July 29, 1968, court order, which is given under Sti: 

Desegregation, also makes reference to facilities and activities. The Merck.. 

1968, Fifth Circuit Decree gives the following order:

V.

SERVICES, FACILITIES, ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS

No student shall be segregated or discriminated against on 
account of race or color in any service, facility, activity, or 
program (including transportation, athletics, or other extra­
curricular activity) that may be conducted or sponsored by the 
school in which he is enrolled. A student attending school for 
the first time on a desegregated basis may not be subject to any 
disqualification or waiting period for participation in activities 
and programs, including athletics, which might otherwise apply be­
cause he is a transfer or newly assigned student except that such 
transferees shall be subject to longstanding, nonracially based 
rules of city, county or state athletic associations deal*“8 
eligibility of transfer students for athletic contests. All sc o 
use or school-sponsored use of athletic fields, meeting rooms, an 
programs such as commencement exercises and parent-teac er 
which are open to persons other than enrolled students, shall P 
to all persons without regard to race or color. All e “ h‘ t
tional programs conducted by the appellees shall be conducted 
regard to race or color. Athletic meets and competitions and



277a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

47.

activltes in which several schools participate shall be 
arranged so that formerly white and formerly Negro schools 
participate together.

The Office of Education Study Team was not in Mobile County during 

the time school was in session. As a consequence, there was no oppor­

tunity to make personal observations in the areas covered by this por­
tion of the Court Order.

Chapter II has attempted to portray in some detail the status of 

desegregation in Mobile County in 1968-69 as related to court orders 

preceding that school year. The next two chapters of this report, 

dealing with finance and program of studies, also have a bearing upon 

present status. These three chapters, plus Chapter I, provide needed 

teckground information for Chapter V which deals specifically with 
the directives in the Court Order of June 3, 1969,



278a

«.

CHAPTER in

ANALYSIS OF FINANCING THE MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
A. Introduction

Since the outbreak of World War II and up to the present time, the 

Mobile County Public Schools have been fighting an up-hill battle to pro­

vide adequate housing for a school population explosion; to provide ade­

quate transportation in safe vehicles; to staff the schools adequately in­

competent, well-qualified teachers; and to provide a school program which 

the Mobile Board of School Conmissioners and school officials desire.

Mobile County ranks at the top among the sixty-seven counties in 

Alabama in the percentage of local support in relation to state support. 

In addition to the levy of extra millage (a total of 14 mills for school!) 

the county has a beer tax, a tobacco tax, an oil and gas tax, and a forestry 
tax for school support.

In 1940-41 the enrollment In all of the schools in Mobile County vas 

25,577 pupils. In 1964-65, the peak year, the enrollment was 80,749 

pupils. Since 1964-65 enrollment has gradually declined. During this 

period of time from 1940-41 through 1967-68, a total of $55,026,970 has 

been spent for capital outlay including acquisition of sites, new building!, 

alterations of buildings, new school buses, and new equipment.

Of the $55,026,970 expended, $9,101,897 came from the two statehood 

Issues for school construction, $5,245,036 from federal funds, and 

$40,630,037 from the citizens of Mobile County. During the 1968-69 school 

year, it was necessary to use 265 portable classrooms in various school

HEW Plan of July, 1969

centers.



279a

49.

At the fall conference of the Alabama Association of School Administra­

tors held In Mobile In November of 1962, Superintendent Cranford Burns told 

the group that of the total Increase In public school enrollment In the entire 

state, 45 percent of this Increase took place In Mobile County.

Enrollment In Mobile County Schools 1940-41 to 1967-68

Table 3-1 which follows shows how the enrollment has grown In Mobile 
County since the school year 1940-41.

H E W  Plan of July, 1969



280a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

50.

ENROLLMENT IN MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Year Enrollment

1940-41 25,577

1941-42 27,037

1942-43 29,324

1943-44 35,399

1944-45 35,708

1950-51 39,962

Year Enrollment

1955-56 55,203

1960-61 71,136

1964-65* 60,749

1965-66 80,083

1966-67 79,469

1967-68 76,833

* Total Growth at Peak Year—55,172

Source o f  Data: The Annual F in a n c ia l and S t a t is t ic a l

R eports o f  the Alabama S ta te  Department of 

E ducation .

TABLE 3-1



281a

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

51.

8, Analysis of Expenditure Patterns

In making this financial analysis, it was decided to use the last four 

completed scholastic-fiscal years in order that all figures used would be 

official figures.

general Overview of Expenditures 1964-65 to 1967-68

Table 3-2 which follows presents an overview of the expenditure pattern 

over these four years under the broad categories of Current Expense, Capital 

Outlay, Debt Service, and the grand total of expenditures.

The figures show a stable pattern over the period in total expenditures.

The amount available for current operational expenses has been influenced by 

required capital expenditures and debt service. As these latter two have 

declined,a corresponding increase in current operational expenditures is ob­

served. The main point to be noted from this table is that there has been no 

appreciable gain at any time in total funds available. In fact, total expendi­

tures in 1967-68 were almost $450,000 under total expenditures for 1965-66.

&r Pupil Expenditures by Enrollment and Average Dailv MembernM„ 1964-65
<a~W-68.--------- — ------------------— — ------------------------ — ---------- -------------

Studies of expenditures become more meaningful when related to the 

Individual pupil. Table 3-3 which follows breaks down the sums in Table 3-2 

to expenditures per pupil enrolled and per pupil in average daily attendance.

The figures in Table 3-3 show only slight variations over the four years, 

-e low expenditure per pupil enrolled was $356.61 and the high was $367.94.



MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

General Overview

Year
Cureent Expense Capital Outlay Debt Service Total

Amount Per Cent Amount Per Cent Amount Per Cent Expenditures Day Schools 
Amount Per Cent

1964-1965
$
18,257,491 62.77

$
9,149,571 31.46

$
1,677,417 5.77

$
29,084,479 100.00

1965-1966 21,011,067 71.33 4,296,128 14.58 4,146,803 14.08 29,453,998 99.99

1966-1967 23,023,455! 81.24 3,462,436 12.22 1,853,552 6.54 28,339,443 100.00

1967-1968 23,855,635 82.24 3,127,053 10.78 2,022,991 6.98 29,005,679 100.00

SOURCE OF DATA: ANNUAL STATISTICAL REPORTS OF THE ALABAMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

TABLE 3 - 2

H
E

W
 P

lan of J
u

ly, 1969



283a

The same slight variation applied per pupil In average dally attendance.

The low was $395.45 and the high was $412.11.

The most widely used figure for looking at a school system's level of 

support is the amount of current expense per pupil In average dally attendance. 

Current expenditures are annual whereas capital expenditures may show In one 
year and not show again for a number of years.

Current Expense Expenditures Eer Pupil 1964-65 to 1967-68.

Table 3-4 presents the current expenditures per pupil In average daily 
attendance over the four year period.

The figures show a steady Increase In the amount expended per pupil In 

sverage daily attendance. There has been an increase of almost $88 per pupil 

la this four year period. If the gradual decline in enrollment holds, this 
expenditure will continue Its upward climb.

HEW Plcm of July, 1969

53.



MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

T o ta l Expenditure Per Pupil E n rolled  and Per Pupil in  Average D a ily  Attendance

Year Total Expense 
Day Schools

Total Pupils 
Enrolled

Expenditure Per 
Pupil Enrolled

Total Pupils 
in A. D. A.

Expenditure Per 
Pupil in A. D. A.

1964-1965
$
29,084,479 80,749

$
360.18 72,741

$
399.84

1965-1966 29,453,998 80,083 367.79 72,261 407.61

1966-1967 28,339,443 79,469 356.61 71,663 395.45

1967-1968 29,005,679 78,833 367.94 70,384 412.11

SOURCE OF DATA: ANNUAL STATISTICAL REPORTS OF THE ALABAMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

TABLE 3-3

Se

H
E

W
 Plan of J

u
ly, 1969



285a

HEW Plan of July, 1969
55.

Current Expense Per P u p il in  ADA

Year Total Current 
Expense

Total Average 
Daily Attendance

Expenditure Per 
Pupil in ADA

1964-65 18,257,491 72,741 3>250.99

1965-66 21,011,067 72,261 290.77

1966-67 23,023,455 71,663 321.77

1967-68 23,855,635 70,384 338.94

TABLE 3-4



286a

Comparison o f  Current Expense Expenditures Per Pupil In S elected  School s«>>

One question that is always asked In studies such as this is 'How do vt 

compare with other school systems similar in size to ours?" Table 3-5 at- 

temps to answer this question.

Actually there are only two other school systems in Alabama comparable 

to Mobile in size, but the fourth and fifth largest have been included. lie 

figures in Table 3-5 place Mobile in a favorable position in Alabama. One 

of the five systems spends more and three spend less. Mobile is slightly be­

low the average for the entire state and well below the national average.

H E W  Plan of July, 1969



287a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

57.

MOBILE COLFaRLD WITH ETA.TL AVERAGE 

AND SELECTLD SCHOOL SYSTEMS 

1967-68

System
Total Current 

Expense
Expenditure Per 

Total ADA Pupil in ADA

State Average $343.53
.obile *23,855,635 70,384 338.94
Jefferson County 18,944,210 62,127 304.93
Birmingham 22,641,773 *3,118 358.72
hontgomery 11,643,339 18,259 304.33
Huntsville 10,679,926 31,895 334.85

National Average (School iuanagement -
January, 1969 Issue) 465.00

Source of Data: Annual Statistical Reports of Th® Alabama State

Department of Education.

TABLE 3-5



288a

Analysis of Current Expense Budget

Table 3-6 presents an analysis of the current expense budget shoving 

amounts expended under each category and the percentage relationships, & 

table also shows the state average for 1967-68.

A study of the figures In Table 3-6 shews again a steady pattern of 

consistent management of the school dollar. There are no really marked 

fluctuations In any of the six categories. The high percentage of the 

dollar denoted in the category of instruction is typical in all Alabama 

school systems. There has never been enough money to operate a complete 

program, so more of the dollars must go into instruction for salaries la 

order to keep teachers.

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

i



MOBILE COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM
A n a l y s i s  o f  C u r r e n t  E x p e n s e  B u d g e t

Total
1 Year Current

General
Amount

Control
7o

Instruction 
Amount 7a

Operation of 
Plant

Maintenance 
of Plant

Auxiliary
Agencies

Fixed
[ 19 Expenses

$ _____________ _ § _________
Amount
|$

7. Amount
$

7. Amount
$ 7.

Amount
$

7.

64-65 18,257,491 441,504
i

2.42 15,304,612 83.83 1,117,185 6.12 603,347 3.3 514,406 2.82 276,437 1.51

65-66, 21,011,067 518,523 2.47 17,748,442 84.47 1,271,639 6.05 660,454 3.14 535,435 2.55 276,574 1.32

66-67 | 23,023,455
- - - - - - - j- - - - - - - - - - - - -

583,741 2.53 19,306,542 83.86 1,454,405 6.32 698,955 3.04 663,471 2.88 316,341 1.37

67-68 ! 23,855,635
Ti

596,261 2.50 19,696,253 82.37 1,598,510 6.68 757,474 3.17 892,548 3.73 314,589 1.31

State Average for 1967-68 2.8 82.8 5.0 2.5 5.8 1.1

SOURCE OF DATA: ANNUAL STATISTICAL REPORTS OF THE ALABAMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

TABLE 3-6

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



290a

Analysis of Transportation Costs.

There Is one category that requires further comnent. This Is the eit* 

gory known as Auxiliary Agencies, of which transportation Is the prindje; 

element. Table 3-7 shows an analysis of current operational costs of tru 

portation.

The figures show that a four-year average on cost per transported 

was $19.46 per year and that the seating capacity average was 59 pupils, 

Thus the average operational costs of one bus was $1,148.14 per yesr.

The bids received by the State of Alabama this year (1969) ranged fm 

$5,500 to $5,800 per bus. Thus each new unit of transportation added till 

cost from $6,648.14 to $6,948.14 during the first year of operation.

Analysis of Capital Expenditures.

Table 3-8 simply shows the breakdown of capital expenditures over the 

past four years. As can be seen, there are four categories for which a- 

penditures were required.

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

i



CURRENT O PE R A T IO N A L  C O S T S  OF T R A N S PO R T A T IO N

Year

T ran sportation
T ota l

Expenditure

Per
Enrollm ent Transported 

o f  a l l  P u p il E n rolled  
Transported Fer Year

Number
o f

Buses

Seating
Capacity
Average

T o ta l m iles  
T raveled fo r  

Year

Length o f  
Round T rip  

in  id le s

1964-65 $405,833 24,972 $16.25 218 59 1,271 ,565 31

1965-66 414,192 24,101 17.18 203 59 1 ,209 ,606 33

1966-67 503,934 22,218 22.68 229 59 1 ,221 ,207 32

1967-68 460,156 .75 22,094 21.73 207 59 1 ,168 ,204 31

Four Year Average Cost Per Transported P u p il E n rolled  $19.46 

Each New Bus 1 s t  Year $6 ,64 8 .1 4  -  6 ,9 48 .1 4

Each Year f o r  Next 8 Years a t $ 1 ,14 8 .1 4  p lu s  in cre a se s  in  co s t  which cannot be ca lcu la te d

For an average sea tin g  ca p a c ity  o f  59, th e  average o p e ra t io n a l c o s t  equals $ 1 ,146 .14

Cost o f  New Bus $5500 -  5800 
(S ta te  Purchase)

TABLE 3-7

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



292a

tt

H E W  Plan of July, 1969

ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL EXP-NDITUFiLS

Year
New B u ild in gs 

and S ite s A lte ra t io n s
New

Buses
New

Equipment
Total Capital 
Expenditures

1964-65 $6,421 ,307 $2 ,257 ,917 $137,911 $332,436 $9,149,571

1965-66 2 ,936 ,224 1 ,059 ,362 43,787 256,735 4,296,126

1966-67 2 ,254 ,422 807,276 46,659 354,079 3,462,436

1967-68 1 ,693 ,794 911,327 94,518 427,412 3,127,051*

*  ($2  descrepancy from  Table 3 -2 )

TABLE 3 -8



293a

HEW Plan of July, 1969
63.

C. A n a ly s is  of Sources of Revenue

Up to this point, the discussion has dealt with expenditure patterns.

The appropriate step now is to detenuine the sources of revenue to support 
these expenditures.

There are four levels of government from which revenues are derived.

In order of Importance from the standpoint of revenue produced for Mobile 
County these levels are:

(1) The State

(2) The County

(3) The District

(4) The Federal Government

For all practical purposes, (2) and (3) can be combined as "local funds" for 

Mobile County since this is a county unit of school government. The City of 
Mobile is not an independent district.

Table 3-9 shows sources, amounts, and percentage distribution of revenue 

receipts over the past four years. State funds have increased approximately 

53,100,000 over the four year period; federal funds have increased some 

$2,300,000; and local funds have stayed on a relatively stable plane, yet 
produce dollarwise the second largest amount of revenue.

Growing out of actions taken by the Alabama Legislature in Special Session 

tang April and the first few days in May of 1969, there will be an increase 

15 '"ate funds for Mobile County schools for the next biennium beginning 
Ctober 1, 1969. in passing revenue measures, the legislature included a 

..°f mandates that seriously restrict^ local boards of education in making



294a

decisions to fit the local situation. For example, take the case of mandate 

salary increases for teachers. The legislature appropriated to the Mlntac 

Program Fund only for those teacher units earned through average daily atte- 

dance but required that all teachers employed last year must receive the aaa 

raise. This past year Mobile County employed 197 more teachers than were 

earned through average daily attendance. In addition to paying all of their 

salaries, the school system must now come forward with the raise for whichtc 

state money is received. It is estimated that this will cost Mobile County 

some $140,000 to $150,000 from local funds.

Non-Revenue Receipts.

Another source of money is from what is classified as non-revenue reed:; 

which are Itemized in Table 3-10. These are receipts which either reduce tit 

assets or increase the indebtedness of a school system and flow into the 

treasury on a non-receiving basis. There seems to be one exception to tbit 

general rule here in Mobile County. Under the "Others" category, intereet 

on Investments produced $212,788, $168,915, $204,717, and $249,922 for the 

four years included in this study.

Bonding Capacity of Mobile County Schools.

As of September 30, 1969, the bonded debt of the Mobile County Public 

School System will be $33,728,985.85. Of this amount, $ 2 5 ,1 5 5 ,0 0 0  is  for 

principal and $8,573,985.85 is for interest. These bonds are secured by the

3-mill county tax and the 5-mill special district tax. They will be reta­

HEW Plan of July, 1969

64.

in 1987.



M e t r o p o l i t a n  Mobile 
September 27, 1968

Schools Pupil Membership - CapacityPermanentFacilities
Numberof
PortablesWhite Negro Total Transported

32 Shepherd 1 _ 6 453 43 496 66 544 0
33 Dodge 1 _ 6 678 54 732 143 816 0
34 Fonde 1 _ 6 715 11 726 0 850 0
35 Austin 1 _ 6 391 22 413 0 408 0
36 Dickson 1 6 772 1 773 0 816 0
37 Hillsdale 1 . 6 0 586 586 0 510 4

38 Orchard 1 5 759 2 761 150 816 0

39 Will 1 5 678 0 678 0 816 0

40 Forest Hill 1 5 604 0 604 0 578 1

41 Whistler 1 6 251 247 498 0 680 0

42 Thomas 1 6 210 114 324 0 272 3

43 Indian Springs 1 6 535 11 546 282 408 4

44 Eight Mile 1 6 344 78 422 163 340 4

TOTALS 13,886 14,256 28,142 1,160 28,560 74

TABLE 2-4b

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



NON-GRADED SCHOOL FOR TRAINABLE PUPILS, AGES, PUPIL MEMBERSHIP BY RACE, NUMBER PUPILS TRANSPORTED, 
NUMBER PERMANENT CLASSROOMS, NUMBER PORTABLES, MOBILE COUNTŶ 0E.pt e,;lber 2 ? , 1968

School Ages
Pupil Marcher ship 

White Negro Total
Number
Pupils

Transported

Number
Permanent

Classrooms

Number
of

Portable*

Augusta Evans 6 - 18 76 86 162 142 12 2

Totals 76 86 162 142 12 2

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



SUMMARY
MOBILE COUNTY SCHOOLS 

MOBILE COUNTY, £e»-t*.mbcr 27 , 1968

Pupil Membership Number
Pupils

Transported
Capacity
Permanent

Facilities
Number

of
Portables

White Negro Total

Rural Schools 1.5,186 3,837 19,023 11,968 18,492 94

Metropolitan Senior High 8,458 7,660 16,118 2,029 14,674 48

Metropolitan Junior High 6,386 5,590 11,976 1,674 11,686 48

Metropolitan Elementary 13,386 14,256 28,142 1,160 28,560 73

School for Trainable Pupils 76 86 162 142 162* 2

Totals *3,992 31,429 75,421 16,973 73,574 265

Percent White Pupil Membership - 58.3 
Percent Negro Pupil Membership - 41.7

*Capacity of Augusta Evans is represented by the current total enrollment of Trainable Pupils.

Table 2 - 6

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



298a

65,

According to officials In the office of the Board of School Connie- 

sloners, there Is now approximately $10,000,000 leeway for borrowing. 

borrowing capacity will fluctuate with changing Interest rates.

For additional revenue, consideration could be given to Amendment 202 
of the Constitution of Alabama, which permits any county school system In 

Alabama to levy a special school tax not exceeding fifty cents on each one 

hundred dollars of taxable property in addition to all other taxes now levied 

or that may hereafter be levied. Thus the citizens of Mobile County could,'; 

they so wished, levy up to five additional mills of property tax for school 

support in this county.

HEW Plan of July, 1969



REVENUES a JMD RE C E IPTS

Year
S ta te  Funds 

Amount Percent
F ederal Funds 

Amount percent
l o c a l  Funds 

Amount percent
T o ta l Revenue 

R ece ip ts  Amount

1964-65 $12 ,459 ,338 58.75 $1 ,320 ,936 6 .22 $7 ,424 ,926 35.02 $21,205 ,200

1965-66 13,666 ,403 54.06 3 ,4 99 ,5 6 7 13.64 8 ,114 ,531 32.09 25,280 ,501

1966-67 15 ,344 ,829 57.49 3 ,513 ,325 13.16 7 ,833 ,705 29.35 26,691 ,859

1967-66 15,551 ,365 57.41 3 ,664 ,408 13.53 7 ,871 ,313 29.06 27,087 ,066

TABLE 3 -9

ON
ON

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



300a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

n

NON-REVENUE RECEIPTS

Year Insurance 
Adjustments

Sale of 
Property

Sale of Refunds 
School Warrants

Others Total

1964-65 $63,766 $23,555 $6 , 390,000 $20,540 $286,781 $6,761,51;

1965-66 67,875 37,123 277 207,519 312,79

1966-67 132,357 32,796 5 , 400,000 1,479 225,516 5,792,4!

1967-68 8 ,557 120,624 5,888 313 ,226 448,29:

TABLE 3 -1 0



301a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

68.

CHAPTER IV

Program of Study

The purpose of this chapter is to determine the extent to which course 

offerings should affect assignment of pupils. In no way is there an attempt 

to measure the quality of the total school program or detemlne the effective­

ness of the curriculum. Some schools, however, may need to change their course 

offerings in order to meet the needs of new student body composition, and some 

pupils may need to attend schools outside their attendance zones to obtain 
the courses they need.

The basic g\i deline for the Mobile County schools to follow in their 

efforts to meet the needs of the students in their schools is a directive from 

the superintendent, dated November 23, 1965. Two significant statements from 
the directive read as follows:

1. Guide for instructional programs:

The State Course of Study shall be followed as a guide for 
the instructional program in the Mobile Public Schools 
except as otherwise approved by the Superintedent. Signifi­
cant departures from Courses of Study developed for the Mobile 
Public Schools also shall be approved by the Superintendent.

2. Credit Courses:

All credit courses offered In the secondary schools which 
are not described and approved in the State Course of Study 
shall be approved by the Superintendent and reported to the 
“f4” "- Course applications submitted for the first time 
shall be presented to the Superintendent not later than 

1’ thUS allowin8 sufficient time to facilitate 
student counseling and student registration for courses 
to be offered the following year. The need for said 
courses shall be firmly established by furnishing an 
informational report on each course r commended, in- 
o u ng purposes of the course, the major units or topics 
° e treated and the ages, the grades and the types of 

students to be served. It shall not be the purpose of



302a

this policy to discourage the planning and offering of 
courses not described in the State Course of Study. To 
the contrary, local school faculties shall be encouraged 
to expand course offerings to meet the multiplicity of 
needs, abilities and achievement backgrounds of secondary 
youth.

As a matter of practical school administration, the Mobile County School 

system offers each school the opportunity to select courses for credit, non­

credit, and special interest provided there is an identified need, sufficient 

number of interested students, adequate facilities, qualified teaching 

personnel, and provisions for materials and equipment. It is also an admini­

strative procedure to delete all elected courses with insufficient demand to 

warrant the use of space, time, and staff.

A. Elementary Schools

The program of study for the elementary schools in the Mobile County 

system is constant. Teachers are encouraged to exercise their ingenuity 

and creativity in helping the children in the learning process. Course of 

study materials are conceived and developed in the form of resource units.

The resource units embrace most of the major topics treated in the State 

adopted textbooks. In addition to the units, the teaching of short subjectj •> 

is encouraged, particularly in grades 4 - 6 in social studies and science. 

Across the board, grouping of students based on needs and achievement back­

ground is practiced in the elementary schools.

The directive from the Superintendent indicates that the greatest 

priority on the elementary level should be given to reaiig. The general 

subjects covered in the elementary school curriculum are:

HEW Plan of July, 1969

69.



HEW Plan of July, 1969

1. Language arts, including reading, writing, spelling, English, 
grammar and listening;

2. Social studies, including history, geography,and government;
3. Arithmentic;

4. Science;

5. Art and music;

6. Health and physical education.

The 1965 directive from the Superintendent states that the major pur­

pose of the Mobile County elementary schools is to educate boys and girls 
for good citizenship.

B. Junior High Schools

According to the Superintendent's directive, the junior high schools 

are allowed to disregard grade levels in progranming instruction in the 

basic skills, which indicates that limited grouping based on achievement 

background and individual interests is practiced at this level. The fol­
lowing courses are offered:

l. English - 7 9. Science - 8
2. Basic English - 7 10. P. E. - 7
3. English' - 8 11. P. E. - 8
4. Basic English - 8 12. Mathematics - 7
5. Social studies - 7 13. Basic mathematics
6. Social studies - 8 14. Mathematics - 8
7. Basic social studies - 8 15. Basic mathematics
8. Science - 7 16. Algebra - 8



304a

17. Home economics - 7 & 8 27. Reading - 7 & e

18. Exploratory industrial arts 28. Creative writing - 7

19. French - 7 29. Creative writing - 8

20. French - 8 SO. Spanish 1 - 9

21. Spanish - 7 31. Art I - 9

22. Spanish - 8 32. Woodworking 1 - 9

23. General music - 7 6 8 33. Metal working 1 - 9

24. Chorus 34. General business - 9

25. Band 35. Business arithmetic - 9

26. Art - 7 & 8

Not all of the above listed courses are offered I d  all schools. 

Table- 4-1 lists those courses which are offered on a discretionary basis 

and Indicates the schools which offered these courses in 1968-69.



305a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

72

TABLE 4-1



306a

C. Senior High Schools

All required high school courses can be taken regardless of the school 

attended. However, for some specialized courses, such as those in the area 

of industrial arts, where expensive equipment and special facilities are 

necessary, students must attend the school where the requested courses are 

offered.

HEW Plan of July, 1969

73.

At the senior high school level the following courses are offered:

1. English - 9 21. World literature

2. English - 10 22. Western civilization

3. English - 11 23. Journalism 1

4. English - 12 24. Journalism II

5. Social studies - 9 25. Speech I

6. World history 26. Speech II

7. American history 27. Dramatics

8. American government and economics 28. Basic world history

9. Mathematics - 9 29. World geography

10. Algebra I 30. Psychology

11. Science 9 31. Home, family & persons! 
problems

12. Basic home economics
32. Basic American history

13.

14.

Advanced home economics

Health and physical education 9-12
33. Basic American govern­ment and economics

Basic mathematics - 934.
15. Basic English - 9

35. Geometry
16. Basic English - 10

36. Algebra II
17. Basic English - 11

37. Introductory analysis
18. Basic English - 12

38. Advanced placement
19. Advanced English mathematics

20. Creative writing and English 
composition

39. Advanced general 
mathematics (basic)



307a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

40. Advanced general mathematics 68. Driver education

41. Basic biology 1 69. Art I

42. BSCS biology I 70. Art II

43. General biology I 71. Art III

44. BSCS biology II 72. Crafts

45. Chemistry (modern) 73. Art appreciation

46. Chemistry (chem. study) 74. Band

47. Chemistry II 75. Chorus

48. Physics (mod.) 76. Music appreciation

49. Physics (PSSC) 77. Creative music
50. Advanced general science 78. Music theory
51. Physical science 79. Orchestra
52. Cosmetology I 80. Woodworking I
53. Cosmetology II 81. Woodworking II
54. Drafting I 82. Woodworking III
55. Drafting II 83. Metal working I
56. Fisheries 84. Metal working II
57. Basic bookkeeping 85. Metal working III
58. Bookkeeping I 86. Mechanical drawing I
59. General business 87. Mechanical drawing II
60. Business arithmetic 88. Mechanical drawing III
61. Business communication 89. Special home economics
62. Business law 90. Family living
63. Typewriting I 91. Restaurant management
64. Typewriting II 92. Agriculture I
65. Personal typewriting 93. Agriculture II
66. Office practice 94. Agriculture III
67. Shorthand I 95. Auto mechanics I



308a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

96. Auto mechanics IX 115. Off. occ. prep I

97. French I 116. Off. occ. prep. II

COa* French II 117. Off. occ. prep. Ill

99. French III 118. Off. occ. coop.

100. French IV 119. Machine shop I

101. German I 120. Machine shop II

102. German II 121. Radio & T.V. I

103. German III 122. Radio & T.V. II

104. German IV 123. Tailoring I

105. Latin I 124. Tailoring II

106. Latin II 125. Dist. education (prep)

107. Latin III 126. Distributive education

108. Latin IV 127. Ind. coop, training

109. Spanish I 128. Office machine

110. Spanish II

111. Spanish III

112. Spanish IV

113. Shorthand II

114. Notehand

Courses numbered 1 through 14 are offered in all high schools. 

Courses numbered 15 through 128 are offered only at the high schools 

indicated by a check in Tables 4 - 2 .



309a

HEW Plan of July, 1969
76

WILLIAMSON______________

|<H
8

H53
H
ZH
a
g
g
§CO

H01 
§

5

-3X H 

|§
CO
1 l

V

O:
*n

§MZ

MUKFHY
MONTGOMERY
MOBILE COUNTY TRAINING
MOBILE COUNTY HIGH
LOTT
DAVIDSON
CITRONELLE
CENTRAL

BAKER
BLOUNT
CALCEDEAVER

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 

SPECIALIZED COURSES 

1968 - 69

ADAMS
ALBA

X X X X X X X X X X X X X  X * Basic English - 9

{ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X  X Basic English - 10

< < X  X X X X X X X X X X X X  X x Basic English - 11

<< X  X X X X X X X X X X X X  X * Basic English - 12

( X X X X x Advanced English

X X X X Creative writing and 
English composition

< X X X X X X X World literature

< Western civilization

X  X X X X X X X X X Journalism I

X X Journalism II

<* X X X X X X X X X X X X  X Speech I

< 3- X x Speech II



of
 J

u
ly

, 
19

69

CO
<3

tel

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 
SPECIALIZED COURSES 

1968 - 69

Dr
am

at
ics

Ba
si

c 
wo

rld
 h

ist
or

y

j W
or

ld
 g

eo
gr

ap
hy

Ps
yc

ho
lo

gy

Ho
me

, 
fa

m
ily

 a
nd

 
pe

rs
on

al
 p

ro
ble

ms

Ba
si

c 
Am

er
ica

n 
his

tor
y

Ba
si

c 
Am

er
ica

n 
gov

ern
­

me
nt

 a
nd

 e
co

no
mi

cs

Ba
si

c 
ma

th
em

ati
cs 

- 9

Ge
om

etr
y

Al
ge

br
a 

II

ADAMS X
ALBA X X X X X
BAKER X X X
BLOUNT X X X X X X X X
CALCEDEAVER
CENTRAL X X X X X X X
CITRONELLE X X X X X X
DAVIDSON X X X X X
LOTT X X X X X X
MOBILE COUNTY HIGH X X X X X X
MOBILE COUNTY TRAINING X X X X X X X
MONTGOMERY X X X X
MURPHY X X X X X X X
B. C. RAIN X X X X X X
SATSUMA X X X X X X X X
SHAW X X X X
ST. ELMO X X X X X
THEODORE X X X X X X X X
TOULMINVILLE X X X X X X
TRINITY GARDENS X X X
VIGOR X X X X
WILLIAMSON Zl X X X X X X X

TABLE 4-2a



of
 J

u
ly

, 
19

69

eo Si
£ft*

g

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 

SPECIALIZED COURSES 

1968 - 69 In
tr

od
uc

to
ry

an
al

ys
is

Ad
va

nc
ed

 p
la

ce
m

en
t 

m
at

he
m

at
ic

s

Ad
va

nc
ed

 g
en

er
al

 
m

at
he

m
at

ic
s 

(b
as

ic
)

Ad
va

nc
ed

 g
en

er
al

 
m

at
he

m
at

ic
s

Ba
si

c 
bi

ol
og

y 
I

BS
CS

 b
io

lo
gy

 I

Ge
ne

ra
l 

bi
ol

og
y 

I

BS
CS

 b
io

lo
gy

 I
I

Ch
em

ist
ry

 -
 m

od
er

n

Ch
em

ist
ry

 (
ch

em
. 

st
ud

y)
Ch

em
ist

ry
 I

I

Ph
ys

ic
s 

(m
od

.)

Ph
ys

ic
s 

(P
SS

C)

Ad
va

nc
ed

 g
en

er
al

 
sc

ie
nc

e

Ph
ys

ic
al

 s
ci

en
ce

ADAMS X X X
ALBA X X X
BAKER X X X X
BLOUNT X X X X X X X X X
CALCEDEAVER
CENTRAL X X X X X X X X
CITRONELLE X X X X
DAVIDSON X X X X X X X X X
LOTT X X X X
MOBILE COUNTY HIGH X X X X X
MOBILE COUNTY TRAINING X X X X X X
MONTGOMERY X X X X X
MURPHY X X X X X X X
B. C. RAIN X X X X X X X
SATSUMA X X X X X
SHAW X X X X X X X
ST. ELMO X X X X
THEODORE X X X X X
TOULMINVILLE X X X X X X X X
TRINITY GARDENS X X X X X X X X X
V I G O R X X X X X X X ....
WILLIAMSON----------------- _ £ __ X -X— — X  1

TABLE A-2b



H
E

W
 P

la
n 

of
 J

u
ly

, 
19

69

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 
SPECIALIZED COURSES 

1968-69

Fr
en

ch
 I

Fr
en

ch
 I

I

Fr
en

ch
 I

II

Fr
en

ch
 I

V

Ge
rm

an
 I

Ge
rm

an
 I

I

Ge
rm

an
 I

II

Ge
rm

an
 I

V

La
tin

 I

La
tin

 I
I

La
tin

 I
II

La
tin

 I
V

Sp
an

ish
 I

Sp
an

ish
 I

I

Sp
an

ish
 I

II

Sp
an

ish
 I

V

ADAMS X X
ALBA X X
BAKER X X
BLOUNT X X X X X X
CALCEDEAVER
CENTRAL X X X X X
CITRONELLE X X
DAVIDSON X X X X X X X X X X X X X
LOTT X
MOBILE COUNTY HIGH X X
MOBILE COUNTY TRAINING X X
MONTGOMERY X X
MURPHY X X X X X X X X \r X X X X X
B. C. RAIN X X X
SATSUMA X X X X
SHAW X X X X X
ST. ELMO X X X
THEODORE X X X XratjumwnxE X X X X
TRINITY gardens X X X X
VIGOR X X X X X X X X
Williamson . X __x_ X X

TABLE 4 -2 c



H
E

W
 P

la
n 

of
 J

ul
y,

 1
96

9

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 

SPECIALIZED COURSES 

1968  - 69

Dr
iv

er
 e

du
ca

tio
n

Ar
t 

I

Ar
t 

II

Ar
t 

II
I

Cr
af

ts

Ar
t 

ap
pr

ec
ia

tio
n

Ba
nd

Ch
or

us

M
us

ic 
ap

pr
ec

ia
tio

n

Cr
ea

tiv
e 

m
us

ic

M
us

ic 
th

eo
ry

Or
ch

es
tr

a

W
oo

dw
or

ki
ng

 I

W
oo

dw
or

ki
ng

 I
I

W
oo

dw
or

ki
ng

 I
II

ADAMS___________________ X X
ALM____________________ X _x__ X
MKEB___________________ ■ _X X XBLOUNT__________________ X X. X X _x_ X X X
GALCEPEAVSR_____________
CENTRAL_________________ X X _x_ X X X XCITRONELLE______________ X X
MVIBSQB________________ L- £ . X . X _2:__ X _x_ X X X xLOTT X X X X XMOBILE COUNTY HIGH_______ X X
MOBILE COUNTY TRAINING X X X X X XMONTGOMERY X X :x X X XMURPHY X X X X X X X X XB. C. RAIN X X X X X X X XSATSUMA X X X X X XSHAW X X X X VA X X XST. ELMO X X X XTHEODORE X X X X X X X XTOULMINVILLE X X X X X X X X XTRINITY GARDENS X X XVIGOR X X X X X X X X x
WILLIAMSON _ X ___ ___x _ __x____ -JJ____ __ 1

TABLE U - 2d



of
 J

u
ly

, 
19

69
1

co §C3

tel

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 
SPECIALIZED COURSES 

1968 - 69

M
et

al
 w

or
kin

g 
I

M
et

al
 w

or
ki

ng
 II

M
et

al
 w

or
kin

g 
III

M
ec

ha
ni

ca
l d

raw
ing

 I

M
ec

ha
ni

ca
l d

raw
ing

 II

M
ec

ha
ni

ca
l d

raw
ing

 III

Sp
ec

ia
l 

ho
me

 ec
ono

oiu

Fa
m

ily
 l

iv
in

g

Re
sta

ur
an

t 
ma

nag
ene

nt

Ag
ric

ul
tu

re
 I

Ag
ric

ul
tu

re
 I

I
__

__
__

__
__

1
Ag

ric
ul

tu
re

 I
II

Au
to

 m
ec

ha
nic

s 
I

Au
to

 m
ec

ha
nic

s 
II 

_—
---

--
---

---
---

---
---

-

ADAMS X
ALBA X X
BAKER X X
BLOUNT X X X
CALCEDEAVER
CENTRAL X X X X
CITRONELLE X X X X
DAVIDSON X X X X X X X
LOTT X
MOBILE COUNTY HIGH X X X
MOBILE COUNTY TRAINING X
MONTGOMERY X X X X X X
MURPHY X X X X
B. C. RAIN X X X
SATSUMA X X X
SHAW X X X X X X
ST. ELMO X
THEODORE X X X
TOULMINVILLE
TRINITY GARDENS X X
VIGOR X X X X X X X X X
WILLIAMSON X

TABLE 4 -2e



H
E

W
 P

la
n 

of
 J

ul
y,

 1
96

9

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 

SPECIALIZED COURSES 

1968 - 69

Co
sm

et
ol

og
y 

I

Co
sm

et
ol

og
y 

II

Dr
af

tin
g 

I

Dr
af

tin
g 

II

Fi
sh

er
ie

s

Ba
si

c 
bo

ok
ke

ep
in

g

Bo
ok

ke
ep

in
g 

I

Ge
ne

ra
l 

bu
si

ne
ss

0•H41
1 4J fl U C
cr.-id
3
I Bu

si
ne

ss
 c

om
m

un
ica

tio
n

Bu
si

ne
ss

 l
aw

Ty
pe

w
ri

tin
g 

I

Ty
pe

w
ri

tin
g 

II

Pe
rs

on
al

 t
yp

ew
ri

tin
g

O
ffi

ce
 p

ra
ct

ic
e

Sh
or

th
an

d 
I

AMMS___________________
ALBA X X X
BAKER X X X X X
BLOUNT X X X
CALCEDEAVER X X X
CENTRAL X X X X X X X
CITRONELLE X X X X X X X
DAVIDSON X X X X X X X X X
LOTT
MOBILE COUNTY HIGH X X X X X X x X
MOBILE COUNTY TRAINING x X
MONTGOMERY X X X XMURPHY X X X X X X X X X XB. C. RAIN X X X X X XSATSUMA X X X X X XSHAW X X X X X XST. ELMO X XTHEODORE X X X X X XTOULMINVILLE XTRINITY GARDENS X XVIGOR x x x * X X X x X X X X X
WILLIAMSON______________ _X__ _x__

TABLE 4 - 2 f



of
 J

ul
y,

 1
96

9

CO

Oh

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 
SP EC IA LIZE D  

COURSES

1968-1969

Sh
or

th
an

d 
II

No
teh

an
d

O
ff

. 
Oc

c. 
Pr

ep
. I

O
ff.

 O
cc

. 
Pr

ep
. I

I

O
ff

. 
Oc

c. 
Pr

eo
. I

ll

O
ff.

 O
cc

. 
Co

od
.

Ma
ch

in
e 

Sh
op

 -
 I

M
ac

hi
ne

 S
ho

p 
11

Ra
di

o 
& 

T.
V.

 1

Ra
di

o 
& 

T.
 V

. I
I

Ta
ilo

ri
ng

 I

Ta
ilo

ri
ng

 I
I

D
ie

t. 
Ed

uc
ati

on
 (P

rep
)

Di
st

ri
bu

tiv
e 

Ed
uca

tio
n

In
d.

 C
o

o
p

. 
Tr

ain
ing

O
ffi

ce
 M

ac
hin

e

Adame -XAlba JL_ _ZLBaker JL_ _X_ JL_Blount JL_ X X YCalcedeaver
Central X X X X x x X X x XCitronelle JL. X X
Davidson _JL_ X. X X XLott _x_ X XMobile County High
Mobile County Training JL_ _x_ X XMontgomery X X XMurphy x X X X x x x x x X x XB. C. Rain X XI X X XSatsuma X X X X XShaw X X X
St. Elmo X X

X X X YToulmlnville X X X
Trinity Gardens X X
Vigor X x X X X x x X Y
WILLIAMSON _x_ _x_

TABLE 4-2g



317a

])_ Program fo r  E xceptional C hildren

The special needs of handicapped children are served by a Special Educa­

tion Program designed to offer appropriate education experiences to the 

Trainable Mentally Retarded, Educable Mentally Retarded, Hospital and Home- 

bound, Deaf and Hearing Impaired, Speech Impaired, Visually Limited, and 

Dyslexic children. Referrals are made to the Child Guidance Center for 

complete evaluation to determine proper placement. New classes are 

established in appropriate schools on the basis of need for special service. 

See Table 4-3 for a summary of the type and location of all Special Classes 
during the 1968-69 school year.

I. Adult Education

In addition to the educational program for grades 1 - 1 2 ,  Mobile County 

has a number of programs for adults, as follows:

Adult Basic Education. Classes in Adult Basic Education have 

been carried on under the supervision of the Mobile County Board of 

Education for the last three years with funds from Title III, Public 

Law 89-750. The purpose of the Adult Basic Education Program is to 

provide an opportunity for basic education to all persons over 

eighteen years of age whose lack of educational skills (grades 1 - 8 )  

constitutes a substantial impairment of ability to adapt to 

and function successfully within contemporary society.

During the 1968-69 school years, forty classes were in operation 

with a total enrollment of 542 students. Classes met four house a 

week during the evening hours. There is no tuition charged, and 
all supplies and materials are furnished.

HEW Plan of July, 1969

77.



318a

MOBILE COUNTY
SPECIAL EDUCATION -  1968-69

S ch ool Type C lass School Type Cks<

Adams 1 EMR Sec.
1 ERR Elem.

H all 1 EMI Elem,

Alba 1 EMR Elem.
H ills d a le  

H o llin g e rs  I s .

1 EMR Elea, 

1 EMR Elea.

A zalea Rd. 1 EMR Jr. High
L ott 1 EMR Elec.

Baker 1 EMR J r . High 
1 EMR Elem. Marvvale 2 EMR Elec.

Blount 1 EMR S ec.
1 EMR J r . High

Mo. Co. Trng. 1 EMR Jr, Hif 
1 EMR Sec. '

So. B rook ley 1 EMR Elem. Murphy 3 EMR Sec.
Burroughs 1 EMR Elem. Owens 2 EMR Elea.
C aldw ell 2 EMR Elem. Palmer 1 EMR Elec.
C entral 2 EMR Sec. P h i l l ip s 1 El® Jr. Hie
C h ild  G uidance. 2 D yslex ia  

1 Deaf/Hard o f  
Hearing 

1 H osp ita l 
4 Homebound 
4 Speech Ther.

P richard 1 EMR Jr. Hie

Rain 1 EMR Jr. Hi# 
1 EMR Sec.

Saraland 1 EMR Elec.
C it r o n e lle 1 EMR Elem. 

1 EMR S ec.
Satsuma 1 E * Sec,

Clark 2 EMR J r . High
Semmes 1 El® Elea,

1 EMR Jr. Hid.
Craighead 3 EMR Elem. S t . Elmo 1 EMR Sec,
C rich ton 1 EMR Elem. Theodore 1 EMR Sec,
Davis 1 EMR Elem. T ou lm in v ille 1 'EMR Sec,
D ickson 1 EMR Elem. T r in it y  Gardens 1 EMR Sec, .
Dunbar 2 EMR J r . High V igor 2 EMR Sec, J

2 EMR J r . High Washington 1 El® Jr. Hit
Emerson 1 EMR Elem. W h istler S EMR Elea, .

14 TMR W h itley 1 El® El®. _
W illiam son 2 EMR Sec,
Wilmer 1 EMR Elec, _

Grant 2 EMR Elem. Woodcock 1 EMR Elea. _

TABLE 4 -3



319a

The in stru ction  i s  designed  w ith  emphasis on th e communication s k i l l s  

of reading, speaking, and l i s t e n in g ,  and th e  com p etitiv e  s k i l l s  

of good buying, h e a lth , human r e la t io n s ,  and home and family- 

liv ing. A pplicants a re  p la ced  a ccord in g  t o  broad sa la ry  b ra ck e ts , 

such as $3,000, $ 5 ,0 0 0 , $ 7 ,00 0 , and o v e r . Undereducated ad u lts  who 

are c la s s if ie d  in  grades 1 - 4  are g iven  p r i o r i t y .  However, the 

school system i s  concerned w ith  a l l  g ra d es , 1 - 8 .  Check T able 4 -4  

for the enrollment o f  b a s ic  a d u lt edu cation  students by s c h o o ls .

2. Work Incentive Now. The Work In ce n t iv e  Now Program (W .I .N .) i s

carried on jo i n t ly  by th e h o b ile  P u b lic  S ch oo l System and the Alabama 

State Department o f  In d u s tr ia l  R e la t io n s  w ith  funds from  th e  S o c ia l  

Securities A c t ,  Part IV , T i t l e  C, 1967. I t  was implemented in  

December o f  th is  year under a co n tra ct  p e r io d  ending in  ilay. Due 

to the success o f  th e  program, however, the co n tra ct  p e r io d  has 

been extended over the summer months, and i t  i s  a n t ic ip a te d  th a t the 

program w il l  be continued during the 19 6 9 -70  s ch o o l y e a r .

The purpose o f  the program i s  t o  p rov id e  ed u ca tion a l exp erien ces  

for persons on w elfare  to  the end th a t th e  c y c le  o f  dependency 

can be broken. The oourse o f  study in c lu d e s  o r ie n ta t io n  to  th e 

w rld of work, groom ing, h yg ien e , jo b  in te rv ie w in g  te ch n iq u es , 

money management, rea d in g , m athem atics, communication s k i l l s ,  and 

a program o f  study lea d in g  to  th e  s u c c e s s fu l  com pletion  o f  the 

general education developm ent t e s t  and a c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  h igh  sch o o l 

equivalency.

HEW Plan of July, 1969
79



320a

MOBILE COUNTY

ADULT BASIC EDUCATION 
JANUARY 1969

MONTHLY ATTENDANCE REPORT

HEW Plan of July, 1969
80.

SCHOOL % ATT. SCHOOL ENROLLMENT f i r

Adams 10 70 Grant 11 7!

II 15 70 It 12 — 1
It 14 87 II _______ I k ____ _JL

Belsaw 12 72 II _______ U____

B razier 16 88 II 12 _ I

II 19 87 II 12 _ !

5 56 H all 11 ji

Cnl rtwfiT 1 14 88 II 17 __ Si.

II 10 74 H ills d a le 17____ _JL

II 13 86 L ott 11 a

II 10 77 Murohy 16

10 81 Owens 13____ 71

It 10 88 Palmer 11 D

II 1 83 Prichard 20 „J L

11 79 Robbins 13_____ a

12 92 II ^2____ a

20 89 Thomas __X
16 62 11 11 .

II 16 84 W hitley 19 .

II 14 78_______ 11 20 5,

T o ta l C lass .......................... ’  '  ’  ' w
T o ta l Enrollment . . . • • • •  
T o t a l  Percentage o f  Attendance .

TABLE 4 -4



321a

3 , Adult and Veterans S ch o o ls . The Adult and Veterans D iv is io n  housed 

at Murphy High S ch ool o f f e r s  p r e r e q u is ite  courses n ecessa ry  to  

enter high s ch o o l , h igh  s ch o o l cou rses lead in g  t o  h igh sch o o l 

general education  developm ent c e r t i f i c a t e s ,  and s p e c ia l  in te r e s t  

courses based on demand in  th e community. I t  i s  operated  on a 

se lf-su sta in in g  b a s is  from  t u it io n  f e e s .  I t  i s  operated  a ft e r  

regular s ch oo l hours and fo r  th e  most p a rt uses p a rt -t im e  te a ch e rs .

F, Observations

From a consideration  o f  th e cou rse  o f f e r in g s ,  th e fo llo w in g  ob serva tion s  

nay be made fo r  the th ree  le v e ls  o f  p u b lic  ed u ca tion :

Elementary S ch oo ls : S in ce th e  elem entary program i s  con stant in  a l l

schools, the course o f fe r in g s  shou ld in  no way a f f e c t  assignm ent o f  

pupils.

Junior High S ch oo ls : At th e ju n io r  high l e v e l ,  cou rse  o f fe r in g s  are

basically s im ilar except f o r  the areas o f  language and in d u s t r ia l  

arts. In stitu tin g  new language programs would not r e q u ire  s p e c ia l  

fa c ilit ie s . S p ecia l f a c i l i t i e s  would be re q u ire d  f o r  in d u s t r ia l  a r t s .

Senior High S ch ools : At th e  se n io r  h igh  s c h o o l l e v e l ,  cou rse  o f fe r in g s  

are more varied . Of the 128 cou rses o f fe r e d  a t th e  secondary l e v e l ,

115 nay be considered s p e c ia liz e d  co u rse s . Most o f  th ese  cou rses ,

*dth the exception  o f  th ose  in  th e areas o f  in d u s t r ia l  a r ts  and exten ­

sive conmercial prepara tion  and o th er v o c a t io n a l co u rse s , can be 

instituted without th e a c q u is it io n  o f  s p e c ia l  f a c i l i t i e s  o r  expensive

HEW Plan of July, 1969
81



322a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

82

equipment. Except fo r  cou rses  in  th ese  th ree  a rea s , no unusual 

d i f f i c u l t i e s  should be encountered in  in s t it u t in g  sp e c ia liz e d  offer­

in gs  t o  meet the needs o f  desegregated  student b o d ie s . The only 

co n d it io n s  t o  be met would be the normal ob serva tion  o f  the superin- 

te n d e n t 's  d i r e c t iv e s ,  as quoted on pages 1  and 2 .

I t  i s  ev id en t from  a study o f  Table 4 -2  th a t in  the la rg er  secondary 

s ch oo ls  g rea t d i f fe r e n c e s  e x is t  between th e predom inantly white and predomnar.. 

Negro s ch o o ls  in  the number o f  cou rses o f fe r e d .  The sch o o l system w ill 

undoubtedly w ish t o  g iv e  s p e c ia l  a t te n t io n  t o  a l l  sch oo ls  in  determining whê. 

th e needs o f  students are being  f u l l y  met w ith  th e courses now offered in 

each ce n te r . S ch ool person nel w i l l  a ls o  w ish t o  reassure themselves that all 

stu den ts and th e ir  parents a re  f u l l y  aware o f  the programs requiring special 

f a c i l i t i e s  which are a v a ila b le  in  th e s ch o o l system . The fa cu lty  and adminis­

t r a t iv e  com mittees suggested in  Chapter VI might be appropriate school groups 

t o  examine the program o f  stu d y•



323a

CHAPTER V

HEW Plan of July, 1969
83

desegregation plans

a. Desegregation Plan fo r  1969-70 For Rural S ch ools  o f  M obile County 

The proposals fo r  the op e ra tio n  o f  the ru ra l s ch o o ls  o f  M obile 

County are shown on separate maps fo r  sen io r  h igh , ju n io r  h ig h , and elem entary 

schools. The zone lin e s  shown on the maps are te n ta t iv e  l in e s  and 

may be adjusted to  b u ild in g  ca p a c ity  prov ided  the r a c ia l  com position  

of each school i s  not s u f f i c i e n t ly  changed. The ca p a city  o f  the 

permanent f a c i l i t i e s ,  the number o f  p o r ta b le s  re q u ire d , and the 

approximate number o f  p u p ils  by ra ce  are shown on th e Composite B u ild ing  

Infornation form found on pages 87 and 88.

Alba (1 through 1 2 ): The Alba attendance a rea , as in d ica te d  on the

accompanying maps, has a student pop u la tion  o f  approxim ately  

1395 white students and 222 Negro students in  grades 1 -1 2 .

Mobile Co. High (7 -1 2 ) : The M obile County High S ch o o l, as in d ic a te d  on

the accompanying maps, has a student p op u la tion  o f  approxim ately  

512 white students and 231 Negro students in  grades 7 -1 2 .

Theodore High (9 -1 2 ): The Theodore High S ch o o l, as in d ica te d  on

the accompanying maps, has a student p op u la tion  o f  approxim ately  

1083 white students and 219 Negro stu den ts in  grades 9 -1 2 .

~ er High School (1 -1 2 ) :  The Baker High S ch o o l, as in d ic a te d  on the

accompanying maps, has a student p op u la tion  o f  approxim ately  962 

white students and 62 Negro stu den ts in  grades 1 -1 2 .

ligntfiomery High School (9 -1 2 ) :  The Montgomery High S ch o o l,

43 indicated on the accompanying maps, has a student



324a

population of approximately 753 white students and 28 Negro studoot, 

in grades 9 - 1 2 .

Cltronelle High School (6-12): The Citronelle School, as indicated on the

accompanying maps, includes the students in grades 6 - 8  from the Belts 

area and the grade 6 - 8  students from the Calcedeaver area. The 

student population would be approximately 898 white students and 623 

Negro students.

Satsuma High School (8-12): The Satsuma High School, as Indicated on the

accompanying maps, has a student population of approximately 1,056 

white students and 287 Negro students in grades 8 - 12 .

St. Elmo (7-8): This attendance area will serve approximately 432 white

students and 71 Negro students in grades 7 and 8.

Burroughs (6-8): This attendance area will serve approximately 301 white

students and 176 Negro students in grades 6-8.

S— (1-8): This attendance area will serve approximately 955 white

students and 26 Negro students in grades 1 - 8 .

Calcedeaver: This school will be closed. Grades 6-8 will attend Citronelle

and grades 1-5 will attend the Belsaw-Mt. Vernon complex.

Belsaw-Mt.Vernon (1-5): Belsaw and Mt. Vernon will house all students In

the Calcedeaver and Belsaw-Mt. Vernon area. The student population

HEW Plan of July, 1969

84.



325a

has approximately 324 white students and 354 Negro students. Belsaw 

and Mt. Vernon would be paired on a temporary basis. A new school 

serving an expanded attendance zone as shown on the accompanying maps 

should be constructed to replace these facilities.

Adams (1-7): This attendance area will serve approximately 812 white

students and 296 Negro students in grades 1-7.

Dixon (1-6): This attendance area will serve approximately 268 white

students and 125 Negro students in grades 1-6.

Grand Bay (1-6): This attendance area will serve approximately 617 white

students and 210 Negro students in grades 1-6.

fevi-s (1-5): This attendance area will serve approximately 582 white 
students and 375 Negro students in grades 1-5.

Griggs (1-6): This attendance zone will serve approximately 842 white

students in grades 1-6. It should be possible to assign Negro 

students from the Davis-Burroughs area to Griggs. Pupil locator 

maps were not available for the rural area, so this line could not 
be established.

Hollln̂ er8 Island (1-6): This attendance area will serve approximately

350 white students and 8 Negro students in grades 1-6. It should 

be possible to assign Negro students from the Davis-Burroughs area 

to this school, but in the absence of pupil locator maps, zone lines 
could not be established.

_ adowlake (1-6): This attendance area will serve approximately 351

white students and 62 Negro students in grades 1-6.

HEW Plan of July, 1969

85



326a

Wilmer (1-6): This attendance area will serve approximately 328 white

students and 51 Negro students in grades 1-6.

Tanner-Williams (1-6): This attendance area will serve approximately

348 white students and 8 Negro students in grades 1-6.

Lott (1-5): This attendance area will serve approximately 466 white

students and 115 Negro students in grades 1-5.

Sara land (1-5): This attendance area will serve approximately 713 white

students and 63 Negro students in grades 1-5.

Lee (1-5): This attendance area will serve approximately 675 white

students and 98 Negro students in grades 1-5.

Dauphin Island: This school is considered too small for effective

operation. The school will be closed for 1969-70. The students 

will be transferred to Alba school.

Dawes-Unlon: The name of the school serving this area is designated on

HEW Plan of July, 1969

86

the map as Meadowlake.



COMPOSITE BUILDING INFORMATION FORM

MOBILE RURAL AREA

Name of School Grades
Capacity Students Staff Estimated

PortablesPerm. W. Ports. W N T W N T

Alba i - 12 1470 1620 1395 222 1617 5

^Mobile County High 7 - 12 700 760 512 231 743 2

Theodore 9 - 12 1400 1083 219 1302 0

- Baker 1 - 12 806 1016 962 62 1024 7

-■'Montgomery 9 - 12 784 753 28 781 0

Citronelle 6 - 12 1380 898 623 1521 5

Satsuma 8 - 12 1036 1336 1056 287 1343 7

St. Elmo 7 - 8 644 432 71 503 0

Burroughs 6 - 8 612 391 176 567 0

^ Semmes 1 - 8 1058 955 26 981 0

Calcedeaver CLOSE 0

Adams . 1 - 7 1160 812 296 1108 0
7

^  Dixon 1 - 6 408 268 125 393 0

s '  Grand Bay 1 - 6 850 617 210 827 0

TABLE 5-1

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



COMPOSITE BUILDING INFORMATION FORM

MOBILE RURAL AREA

Name of School Grades
Capacity Students Staff

Estimated PortablesPerm. W. Ports W N T W N T

Davis 1 . 5 850 1000 582 375 957 3

Griggs_____ 1 6 544 844 842 0 842 10

Hollinger's Island 1 . 6 390 350 8 358 0

Meadowlake 1 6 204 324 351 62 413 4

Wilmer 1 6 408 328 51 379 0

Tanner-Williams 1 6 476 348 8 356 0

Lott 1 5 816 466 115 581 0

Belsaw-Mt. Verrton 1 5 464 674 324 354 678 7

Saraland 1 5 850 713 63 776 0

Lee 1 5 850 675 98 773 0

TOTAL 18,164 19,660 15.113 3,710 18,823 45

TABLE 5 - l a

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



329a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

89.

B Desegregation Flans for the Metropolitan Secondary Schools

1 , northern Sector: Senior High School

The accompanying maps give the approximate attendance zones dis­

cussed In the narrative belcw.

In grades 9 through 12, for the Northern Sector of the Metropolitan 

sres, there are approximately 4,870 students. Of these, 1,908 are white and 

2,962 are Negro. The most equitable approach to desegregation In this area 

vould be to establish one central senior high school (9 through 12) complex. 

This can be done by utilizing Vigor, Bienville, Blount and Carver. These 

four facilities are located on two large sites only two blocks apart. The 

total capacity of these four buildings Is 5,280, which will comfortably bouse 

the 4,870 students, grades 9 through 12, who reside in this expanded atten­

dance zone.

It Is recommended that the school officials make every effort to 

acquire a corridor connecting the two school sites, which might be used for 

foture expansion or as additional playground and extracurricular activities 

space. One overhead walkway over the railroad could be constructed near 
the end of July Street,

2. Northern Sector: Junior High School ■

The most equitable plan for eliminating discrimination at the Junior 

high school level, grades 6 through 8, for this northern sector would be to 

house all 8th grade students residing In this sector in the present Clark 

•Junior High facility. This would include 948 Negro students and 531 white 

students, for a total of 1,479.

Three centers would serve grades 6 and 7, Trinity Gardens Junior and 

eulor High Schools, Prichard Junior High School, and Mobile County Training



330a

Junior and Senior High Schools. The capacity of theae three facilities Is 

approximately 3,080, and would comfortably house the 3,011 6th and 7th 

grade studentB residing In the sector. Of these, 1,959 are Negro and 1,052 

are white. Attendance areas for each school would be established to run

from northwest to southeast so that each school would be filled to Its 

approximate capacity.

3. Central Sector: Senior High School

This plan projects two high school attendance areas to serve the 

4,575 students In Grades 10 through 12 residing In this aroa. Murphy, 

with a capacity of 2,900, would house 1,360 Negro students and 1,440 white 

students. A single administrative facility composed of Williamson-Craighead, 

with a capacity of 2,062, would house the remaining 767 Negro students and 

1,008 white students. The 1,045 students In the Toulmlnvllle area are 

reassigned so that approximately 200 attend Murphy, 540 attend Davidson, and 

305 attend Shaw, beginning with the school year 1970-71. In 1969-70, however, 

approximately 685 11th and 12th grade pupils are assigned to Toulmlnvllle 

and the approximately 360 10th grade pupils as follows:

120 to Shaw, 240 to Davidson.

Additional construction should Increase facilities In the Shaw-Davldson 

areas to absorb all the students of the Toulmlnvllle area except those assign*1 
to Murphy. There should be sufficient construction at Shaw and Davidson 

so that the attendance area for these two schools can be extended Into the

HEW Plan of July, 1969
90.

Mobile Training School area.



331a

HEW Plan of July, 1969
91

It, Central Sector: Junior High School

Three junior high school attendance areas will be established in 

this sector to house all students in grades 6 through 9. Students 

living in the southernmost portion of the sector will attend Eanes and 

Woodcock. Woodcock should probably serve all students at one grade 

level, either grade 6 or grade 8, Eanes would serve all students in 

the remaining two grade levels.

Students residing in the central portion of this sector would 

attend Dunbar and Central for grades 6 through 9. Dunbar might house 

all students in grade 6 and most students in grade 7. Central could 

then house the remaining students in grade 7, as well as all students in 

grades 8 and 9.

The northern portion of this sector for grades 6 through 9 

will be served by Phillips and the Washington-Fonvielle complex.

Phillips might serve all students at one grade level, either 6 or 9, as 

veil as a few students in either grade 7 or 8.

5. Western Sector

Grades 9-12 in the western sector will be served by two high 

schools, Shaw and Davidson. Facilities should be made available at 

these two sites to absorb approximately 5U0 students at Davidson and 

305 at Shaw from the Toulminville area.

In this sector, students in grades 6 and 7 will attend Scarborough 

and Azaloa Road. Approximately one half of the students in the Hillsdale



332a

92

area  w i l l  a tten d  Scarborough, w ith  the o th er h a l f  a ttend ing Azalea Road.

A l l  students in  grade 8  w i l l  a tten d  H il ls d a le .  Three a d d itio n a l portables 

w i l l  be needed t o  make t h is  f a c i l i t y  adequate. These might be obtained 

from  Emerson Elem entary, which i s  recommended f o r  c lo s in g .

6 . Southern Sector

The southern s e c to r  w i l l  be served  by Rain Sen ior High School in 

grades 9 -12  and Rain Junior High S ch oo l in  grades 7 -8 .

HEW Plan of July, 1969



COMPOSITE BUIUDINO INTORMATXOH FORM

MOBILE METROPOLITAN AREA, SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Name of School Grades
Capacity

w
Students Staff Estimated 1

Perm. W. Ports N T w N T Portables
Senior High School 

Rain 9 - 1 2 448 812 735 59 794 13
Wllllamson-
Craighead 10 -  12 2062 1008 767 1775 0

Murphy 10 -  12 2900 1440 1360 2800 0

Toulminville 12 638 0 36! 365 0

Blount-Vigor 9 - 1 2 5101 1908 2962 | 4870 0

Davidson 9 - 1 2 1943 2146 1738 604 2342 3

Shaw 9 - 1 2 928 1150 471 1621 0

Junior Hi eh School 
Rain 7 -  8 476 415 3S 453 0

Eanes-Woodcock 6 -  9 1760 980 76^ 1744 0

Dunbar-Central 6 -  9 2630 1044 1561 2606 0

Washington - 
Fonville-Fhillips 6 -  9 2975 1040 156: 2602 0

TABLE 5-2

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



COMPOSITE B UIIDIN G  INFORMATION FORM

MOBILE METROPOLITAN AREA, SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Name of School Grades
Capacity Students Staff Estimated

PortablesPerm. W. Ports W N T W N T

Clark 8 1392 1512 531 948 1479 4

Trinity Gardens 6 - 7 86 8 1078 380 690 1070 7

Prichard 6 - 7 616 646 240 410 650 1

Mobile County 
Training School 6 - 7 1260 1290 432 859 1291 1

Azalea Road 6 - 7 1015 85? 133 990 0

Hillsdale 8 844 858 131 989 7

Scarborough 6 - 7 984 855 133 988 0

Eight Mile 7 - 8 252 312 270 42 312 2

TOTAL 2SJP90 3C£09 1^878 13595 29473 38 1

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



335a

Desegregation Plans fo r  the M etropolitan Elementary Schools

In developing the proposed desegregation plans for the elementary schools 

of the metropolitan area, a variety of approaches have been utilized to move 

tovard the elimination of a dual school structure. No single approach has 

been utilized throughout the area. Each school and school community was 

eumlned from various perspectives before an approach was established.

Because of the nature of housing patterns, particularly In the eastern 

lector of the metropolitan area, total elimination of all Negro school 

itructures would not seem feasible at this time. However, the local school 

officials should strive to eliminate the remaining all-Negro schools by 

eddltlonal construction, as discussed at the end of this chapter.

The following descriptions apply to the schools In a clockwise direc­

tion, beginning with Chickasaw In the northeast corner of the metropolitan 

area. It should be noted that several schools have been closed and others 

utilized at other than elementary grade levels. Schools recommended for 

dosing are: Howard, Caldwell, Emerson and Toulmlnvllle. S ch ools  recom­

mending for housing non-elementary grades are: Bienville, Foneveille,

Voodcock and Hillsdale.

All schools at the elementary level are projected as 1-5 centers with 

the exception of Williams, South Brookley, Indian Springs, and Eight Mile, 

vhlch vill continue to serve as 1 - 6  elementary centers.

There Is an error factor of less than 1 percent In transposing 

figures from pupil locator maps to actual student attendance figures.

HEW Plan of July, 1969
95.



336a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

%
Chickasaw ( 1 - 5 ) :  The Chickasaw attendance a rea , as in d ica ted  on the acco;

panying maps, has a student p op u la tion  o f  approxim ately 473  

students and 100 Negro students in  grades 1 through 5.

W h itley  ( 1 - 5 ) :  The zone in d ic a te d  on the accompanying map fo r  the Whitle-

s ch o o l has a student p op u la tion  f o r  grades 1  through 5 o f  481  Negro to* 

and 2 1 6  w hite stu den ts.

G lendale-Palm er ( 1 - 5 ) :  One attendance area  w i l l  be established for both tie

G lendale and Palmer f a c i l i t i e s .  • T h is area  has a t o t a l  o f  1-5 student 

p op u la tion  o f  434 w hites and 931 N egroes. G lendale should probably hois 

grades 1 through 3 ,  and Palmer grades 4 and 5 . I t  may be necessary to hr 

s e v e ra l s e c t io n s  o f  grade 3 a t Palmer.

Grant ( 1 - 5 ) :  The attendance area f o r  Grant S ch oo l i s  composed of 1,285 Negro

students and 1 5  w hite stu den ts in  grades 1  through 5 .

R obbins-H am ilton ( 1 - 5 ) :  A s in g le  attendance area w i l l  contain both Robbins a

Hamilton S ch o o ls , A pproxim ately 638 w hite students and 855 Negro stiukli 

in  grades 1 through 5 l i v e  in  t h is  a rea . Robbins should probably serve 

grades 1 , 2 and 3> and Hamilton grades 4 and 5* although several sections 

o f  grade 3 w i l l  be n ecessa ry  a t H am ilton.

Gorgas ( 1 - 5 ) :  In  th e Gorgas attend ance area th ere  are 963  Negro students an:

7 w h ite  s tu d en ts .

Owens ( 1 - 5 ) :  In  th e  Owens attendance area  th ere  are approximately 1,414

Negro stu den ts and 2 w hite stu d en ts .

Leinkauf ( 1 - 5 ) :  There a re  app roxim ately  273 w hite students and 165 Negro

students r e s id in g  in  th e  Leinkauf attendance area.



337a

HEW Plan of July, 1969
97.

■..Hngtrin-Council (1-5): One attendance area will serve Arlington and Council

schools. Council should probably house grades 1 through 3, and 

Arlington grades 4 and 5, with several sections of grade 3. There are 

approximately 350 white students and 659 Negro students in this atten­

dance area.

Hall (1-5): The Hall School will serve the 483 white students and 664 

Negro students who reside in this attendance area.

Hanvale (1-5): The attendance area for the Maryvale School is divided into 

tvo non-contiguous areas. This school will serve the 472 white 

students residing in the imnedlate school vicinity. It will also serve 

145 Negro students residing in the zone designated as M on the 
accompanying map.

Herts (1-5): The Mertz School will serve the 402 white students who live 

In the imnedlate vicinity, and the 120 Negro students from zone ME, 
as shown on the attached map.

Mestlawn (1-5): The Westlswn School will serve the 495 white students 

living in the immediate vicinity of the school, and the 75 Negro 
Btudents living in zone W.

Old Shell Road (1-5): There are approximately 232 white students and 295

Negro students who live in this area and who attend the Old Shell Road
School.

(1-5): In the Crichton School zone there are approximately 438 
white students and 348 Negro students.



338a

Stanton Road (1-5): Stanton Road School will house the 6 white student! t

the 900 Negro students who live In this attendance area. This ichoc 

will temporarily remain predominantly Negro In student population, 

Every effort should be made to house these students In a school ye!t 

of the expressway.

Brazier (1-5): In grades 1 through 5, there are approximately 10 white

students and 1,022 Negro students in this attendance area. This 

situation la similar to Stanton Road.

Whistler (1-5): The Whistler attendance zone Is made up of two non-contl; ;
11

uous areas. In the area in the Immediate proximity of the school, 

there are approximately 181 white students and 205 Negro students.

Thomas (1-5): The Thomas facility will serve the 180 white students and

95 Negro students who live In the area.

Forest Hill (1-5): The Forest Hill School attendance area sill bemads: : 1

two non-contiguous areas. As indicated on the map, this school sill 

serve the 586 white students who live In the immediate area and the 

355 Negro students who live in zone F. In order to house this mute 

of students, 12 portables will be necessary, all of which are avail!: 

in the district.
Present location of available portables: Emerson (1); Stantrc

Road (3); Howard (3); Gorgas (4); and Brazier (1).

Austin (1-5): Austin will serve the 331 white students and 19 Negro

students living In the school vicinity and 65 Negro students vho •• 

in zone A.

HEW Plan of July, 1969

91. !



339a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

99.

F o a d e  (1-5): Fonde will house the 605 white students and 11 Negro students 

who live in the school vicinity, and 236 Negro students from zone F.

5heparj (1-5): Shepard will serve the 383 white students and 36 Negro

students who live in the area, and 124 Negro students who live in

zone S.

Homlngslde (1-5): Morningside will serve the 636 white students who live 

In the school vicinity, ar.d the 120 Negro students who live in zone MO.

Bodge (1-5): Dodge will house the 565 white students and 45 Negro students 
who live in the vicinity of the school.

Dickson (1-5): Dickson will house the 680 whits students and 125 Negro 

students who live in this attendance area.

kill (1-5): The 678 white students and 155 Negro students who live in 

this attendance area will attend the Will school, in addition to the 

240 Negro students living in zone WH shown on the map. In order to 

house these students, portables will be necessary.

Ward (1-5): The 759 white students and 117 Negro students who live in 

this attendance area will be housed at Orchard. For this, two portables 

will be necessary. These two portables may be obtained from Arlington.

faith Btookley (1-6): South Brookley will continue to serve as a 1 through 6

school for the student population of 514 white and 72 Negro.

-iUlSSs (1-6): Williams will serve as a 1 through 6 school with 571 white and 
43 Negro students.



340a

Indian Springs (1-6): Indian Springs will serve as a 1 through 6 center ft-

the 535 white and 11 Negro students In Its attendance area.

Eight Mile (1-6): Eight Mile will serve as a 1 through 6 school for the 21‘

white students and 66 Negro students In its attendance area.

Where two or more schools serve a single attendance area, the school 

officials should determine the exact composition of each school, keeping it 

mind that all students, white and Negro, should progress through each of tie 
schools as they complete the various grade levels. Suggestions are made In 

the presentation of such attendance areas to help guide school officials 

toward meaningful school desegregation.

Our recommendations undoubtedly raise the question whether, under the cl:- 

cumstances here, assignments legally are required to be in the desegregation 

plan If they require substantial additional transportation. This, we belleti 

Is a legal question which we can only leave to the parties and to the court.

An alternative In lieu of transportation would result in additional 

majority Negro schools. The alternative would involve pairing Leinkauf, 

Caldwell, and Emerson; and the rezonlng of Chrichton, Old Shell Road, and 

Foneville into majority Negro schools.

HEW Plan of July, 1969

100.



COMPOSITE BUILDING INFORMATION FORM
MOBILE METROPOLITAN AREA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Name o f  S ch ool Grades
C apacity  

Perm. W. F o r ts .
Students

W N T
S t a f f

W N T
Estim ated
P ortab les

South B rook ley 1-6 592 514 72 586 5 .

M orningside 1-5 578 758 636 120 756 6

W illiam s 1-6 408 618 571 43 614 7

Woodcock CHANCED FROM ;lementa RY TO J1INICE H :gh CO iPLEX

Maryvale 1 -5 612 672 472 145 617 2

Mertz 1 -5 510 4 0 2 120 522 0

Westlawn 1-5 510 590 495 75 573 3

H all 1 -5 1224 483 664 1147 0
A r lin g to n -
C ou n cil 1-5 1054 1110 350 659 1009 2

Emerson CLC 3ED

Leinkauf 1 -5 442 273 165 438 0

Sub T o ta l 
B n a .ja f ie _______ 59?o. ,. 6516 419,6__ 2063 6 2 5 9 ,,. 25_____

TABLE 5-3

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



COMPOSITE BUILDING INFORMATION FORM
MOBILE METROPOLITAN AREA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Name o f  S ch oo l Grades
C apacity

Perm, W. P o r ts .
Students

W N T
S t a ff

----------u----------T
Estim ated
P ortab les

Sub T o ta l 
3rought Forward 5930 6516 4196 2063 6259 25
Owens 1-5 1496 2 1414 1416 0
C a ldw ell CLOSED

Howard CLOSED

Old S h e ll  Road 1-5 476 536 232 295 527 2

C rich ton 1-5 782 820 438 348 786 1

Stanton  Road 1-5 1020 1050 6 900 906 1

F o n v ie lle CHAM ED FROM ELEME fTARY TO J\INI OR HIGH CCjyJPLEX

Sorgas 1 -5 884 1034 7 963 970 5
Palmer -  
G lendale 1-5 1258 1408 434 931 1365 4

d h it le y 1-5 6 1 2 702 2 1 6 481 697 3

3 ra z ie r 1-5 1156 1186 10 1022 1032 1
3ub T o ta l 
This Page 7684 6232 1345 6354 7699 17

Bub Total 13,61a 14,82*8 ___ 5 ,5 4 1 ____6 ,4 1 7 ____ __ 1 3 ,9 5 8 42

H
E

W
 P

lan of Ju
ly, 1969



COMPOSITE BUILDING INFORMATION FORM
MOBILE METROPOLITAN AREA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Name of School Grades
Capacity Student S Staff EstimatedPerm. W. Ports W N T W N T

Sub Total Brought 
Forward 13.614 14.848 5.541 8.417 13.958 42

Grant 1 - 5 1.292 1,382 15 1.285 1.300 3
Robbins-Hamilton 1 - 5 1.496 638 855 1.493 0
Chickasaw 1 - 5 612 473 100 573 0

Shepard 1 - 5 544 383 160 543 0

DodRe 1 - 5 £16 565 45 610
—

0

Fonde 1 - 5 850 605 236 841 0

Austin 1 - 5 408 331 84 415 0

Dickson 1 - 5 816 680 125 805 0

Orchard 1 - 5 816 876 759 117 876
----1-------------------------

2

Will 1 - 5 816 1,086 678 395 1.073
----1---------------------------------

9

Forest Hill 1 - 5 578 938 586 355 941 12

Hillsdale CHANGED TO JUNIOR HIGH COMPLEX
Sub Total
3*9 ___________ 9.044 9.824 5.713 3,757 9,470 26
Sub Total -  22,§58. . 24,672 11.254 23,420 ____ 68

TABLE 5-3b

H
E

W
 Plan of July, 1969



COMPOSITE BUILDING INFORMATION FORM

MOBILE METROPOLITAN AREA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Name of School Grades
Capacity Students Staff Estimated

PortablesPern. W. Ports. W N T W N T
Sub Total 
Brought Forward 22,658 24,672 11,254 12,174 23,428 68

Whistler 1 - 5 680 181 205 386 0

Thomas 1 - 5 272 180 95 275 0

Indian Springs 1 - 6 408 538 535 11 546 4

Eight Mile 1 - 6 340 280 66 346 0

Bienville CHANGEDTO junior h: GH COMPLE?
Sub Total 
This Page 1,700 1,830 1,176 377 1,553 4

Total 24,358 26,502 12,430 12,551 24,981 72

TABLE 5-3c

H
E

W
 P

lan of J
u

ly, 1969



construction

The exact locations fo r  new co n stru ctio n  have not been made a t  t h is  tim e. 

General construction recommendations are  as fo l lo w s :

Sural Area:

1. Close C alcedeaver, Mt. Vernon, and Belsaw and b u ild  a new 

elementary s ch o o l t o  house th ese  students in  an expanded 

attendance area.

2, Build replacement s ch oo ls  in  the fo llo w in g  zon es :

a. Satsuma High area

b. Baker High area

c. headowlake area

d. Alba area

Metropolitan A rea:

It is  recommended th at no a d d it io n a l b u ild in g  take p la ce  ea st o f  

1-65 Expressway and Mobile R iv e r . A d d ition a l c o n stru ctio n  shou ld be lo c a te d  

in the Davidson-Shaw area and near 1 -1 0  and 1 -65  north  and south o f  the 

city limits. This would a llow  the movement o f  stu den ts away from  th e  a l l -  

tegro areas o f  the core c i t y ,

" -'-"e Table for Plan Implementation

1969-70 -  The entire ru r a l plan can be implemented f o r  1969-70 .

HEW Plan of July, 1969

105

The closing  o f  T o u lm in v ille , excep t fo r  11th and 12th grad e , and



346a

im plem entation o f  th e h igh  s c h o o l , ju n io r  h igh , and elementary parts of 

th e  m etrop o lita n  plan  west o f  1-65  can be accom plished fo r  1969-70.

1970-71 -  The e n t ir e  m etrop o lita n  plan  can be implemented.

F . D esegregation  o f  F acu lty  and Other S t a f f

The M obile County S ch ool Board s h a ll  announce and implement the following 

p o l i c i e s :

1 . The p r in c ip a ls ,  te a c h e r s , t e a c h e r -a id e s , and oth er s t a f f  who work 

d i r e c t ly  w ith  ch ild re n  a t a s ch o o l s h a l l  be so assigned for  the school 

year 1969-70 and subsequent y ears  th a t in  no case w i l l  the racial 

com position  o f  a s t a f f  in d ic a t e  th a t a s ch o o l i s  intended for Negro 

students o r  w hite s tu d en ts . For th e 1969-70 sch oo l year the district 

s h a ll  a ss ig n  th e  s t a f f  d e s cr ib e d  above so th at th e r a t io  o f Negro 

t o  w hite te a ch e rs  in  each s c h o o l  and th e  r a t i o  o f  other s ta ff in each 

s ch o o l a re  s u b s ta n t ia lly  th e  same as each such r a t io  i s  to  the 

te a ch e rs  and o th er s t a f f ,  r e s p e c t iv e ly ,  in  the e n tire  school system.

The s c h o o l d i s t r i c t  s h a l l ,  t o  the extent necessary to  carry 

out t h is  d eseg reg a tion  p la n , d i r e c t  members o f  i t s  s ta f f  as a 

co n d it io n  o f  con tinued  employment t o  a ccep t new assignments.

2 . S t a f f  members who work d i r e c t ly  w ith  ch ild re n , and professional 

s t a f f  who work on th e  a d m in is tra tiv e  l e v e l  w i l l  be h ired , assigned, 

prom oted, p a id , dem oted, d ism issed  and otherw ise treated without 

regard  t o  r a c e , c o l o r ,  o r  n a t io n a l o r ig i n ,  except to  the extent 

n ecessa ry  t o  c o r r e c t  d is c r im in a t io n .

HEW Plan of July, 1969
106



347a

If there i s  to  be a red u ction  in  the number o f  p r in c ip a ls ,  te a ch e rs , 

teacher-aides or other p r o fe s s io n a l  s t a f f  employed by the sch o o l 

district, which w i l l  r e s u lt  in  a d ism issa l o r  dem otion o f  any such 

staff members, the s t a f f  member to  be d ism issed  o r  demoted must be 

selected on the b a s is  o f  o b je c t iv e  and reason ab le  n on -d iscr im in a tory  

standards from among a l l  th e s t a f f  o f  th e  s ch o o l d i s t r i c t .  In 

addition, i f  there i s  any such d ism issa l o r  dem otion , no s t a f f  

vacancy may be f i l l e d  through recru itm en t o f  a person  o f  a r a c e ,  

color, or national o r ig in  d i f f e r e n t  from  th a t o f  th e  in d iv id u a l 

dismissed or demoted, u n t i l  each d isp la ce d  member who i s  q u a l i f ie d  

has had an opportunity t o  f i l l  the vacancy and has f a i l e d  to  a ccep t 

an offer to  do s o .

Prior to  such a re d u c t io n , th e sch o o l board w i l l  d evelop  or 

require the development o f  n o n -r a c ia l  o b je c t iv e  c r i t e r i a  t o  be used 

in selecting the s t a f f  member who i s  t o  be d ism issed  o r  dem oted. These 

criteria sha ll be a v a ila b le  f o r  p u b lic  in s p e c t io n  and s h a l l  be 

retained by the school d i s t r i c t .  The s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t  a ls o  s h a l l  

record and preserve the ev a lu a tion  o f  s t a f f  members under th e  c r i ­

teria. Such evaluation  s h a ll  be made a v a ila b le  upon req u est t o  

the dismissed or demoted em ployee.

"Demotion" as used above in c lu d e s  any reassignm ent ( l )  under 

which the s ta ff  member r e c e iv e s  le s s  pay o r  has l e s s  r e s p o n s ib i l i t y  

than under the assignment he h eld  p r e v io u s ly , (2 )  which r e q u ire s  a 

lesser degree o f  s k i l l  than d id  the assignm ent he h e ld  p r e v io u s ly , 

or (3) under which the s t a f f  member i s  asked t o  teach  a s u b je c t  or

HEW Plan of July, 1969

107



348a

grade o th er than one f o r  which he i s  c e r t i f i e d  or fo r  which he has 

had s u b s ta n tia l exp erien ce  w ith in  a reasonably  current period, in 

gen era l and depending upon th e  s u b je c t  m atter in v o lv e d , f iv e  years 

i s  such a reason ab le  p e r io d .

G. T ran sportation

The tra n sp o rta tio n  system s h a l l  be com plete ly  re-exam ined regularly by 

th e  sup erin tend ent, h is  s t a f f ,  and the s ch o o l board. Bus rou tes and the 

assignm ent o f  students to  buses w i l l  be design ed  to  in su re  the transportation 

o f  a l l  e l i g i b l e  p u p ils  on a n on -segregated  and otherw ise non-discriminatory 

b a s is .

H. S ch ool C on stru ction  and S ite  S e le c t io n

The s iz e  and lo c a t io n  o f  new s ch o o l b u ild in g s  and a d d ition s  to  existing 

b u ild in g s  can s ig n i f i c a n t ly  a f f e c t  d eseg reg a tion  now and in  the future.

A l l  s ch o o l c o n s tru c t io n , s ch o o l c o n s o l id a t io n , and s i t e  s e le c t io n  (including 

th e  l o c a t io n  o f  any tem porary classroom s) s h a l l  be done in  a manner which 

w i l l  prevent th e re cu rren ce  o f  the du a l s ch o o l s tru ctu re  once th is  desegre­

g a t io n  p lan  i s  im plem ented.

I .  M a jor ity  t o  M in ority  T ran sfer P o l ic y

Whenever th e re  s h a ll  e x is t  s ch o o ls  con ta in in g  a m a jor ity  o f  Negro students, 

t h is  s c h o o l d i s t r i c t  s h a l l  perm it a student (Negro o r  w hite) attending a 

s ch o o l in  which h is  ra ce  i s  in  th e  m a jo r ity  t o  choose t o  attend another 

s ch o o l where space i s  a v a ila b le  and where h is  ra ce  i s  in  a minority.

HEW Plan of July, 1969
108



349a

HEW Plan of July, 1969
1 0 9 .

CHAPTER VI

SUGGESTIONS FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Successful implem entation o f  d esegrega tion  p lans la r g e ly  depends upon 

local leadership and good fa i t h  in  com plying w ith  mandates o f  th e  Courts 

and the laws upon which the Courts a c t .  The fo llo w in g  su g gestion s  are 

offered to assist lo c a l  o f f i c i a l s  in  planning f o r  im plem entation  o f  

desegregation orders.

A, Community

1. The Superintendent and Board o f  E ducation  shou ld  fra n k ly  

and fu lly  in form  a l l  c i t iz e n s  o f  the community about the 

legal requirements f o r  s ch o o l d eseg reg a tion  and t h e ir  plans 

for complying with th ese  le g a l  requ irem ents.

2. The Board o f  Education shou ld is s u e  a p u b lic  statem ent 

clearly se tt in g  fo r th  i t s  in te n t io n  t o  a b id e  by  th e  law 

and comply w ith ord ers o f  th e  Court in  an e f f e c t i v e  and 

educationally re sp o n s ib le  manner.

3. School o f f i c i a l s  should seek and encourage support and 

understanding o f  the p ress  and community o rg a n iza tio n s  

representing both r a ce s . 1

1. The Board o f  Education or some o th er  a p p rop ria te  govern ­

ment unit should e s ta b lis h  a b i r a c ia l  a d v iso ry  committee

\



350a

no.

to advise the Board of Education and its staff throughout 

the implementation of the desegregation plan. Such com­

mittee should seek to open up community understanding and 

communication, and assist the Board in interpreting legal 

and educational requirements to the public.

5. The Superintendent should actively seek greater involvement 

of parents of both races through school meetings, newsletters, 

an active and biracial P.T.A., class meetings, parent 

conferences, and through home visits by school personnel,

6 . The Superintendent and Board of Education should regularly 

report to the community on progress in implementing

the desegregation plan.

HEW Plan of July, 1969



351a

ci-hnol Personnel

1. The Superintendent should provide all personnel copies of the dese­

gregation plan and arrange for meetings where the personnel will have 
an opporunity to hear it explained.

2. The Board of Education should issue a policy statement setting forth 

in clear terms the procedures it will follow in reassignment of 

personnel (see section on Desegregation of Staff).

3. Assignments of staff for the school year should be made as quickly

as possible with appropriate followings by school principals to assure 

both welcome and support for personnel new to each school. Invita­

tions to visit school before the new school year begins should be 
offered.

4. The Superintendent should see that a special orientation program is 

planned and carried out for both the professional and non-professional 

staffs (including bus drivers, cafeteria workers, secretaries and 

custodians) preparatory to the new school year. He should make every 

effort to familiarize new and reassigned staff with facilities, 

services and building policies and prepare them to carry out their 

important role in a constructive manner. The Superintendent should 

direct each principal to see that each teacher new to a school is 

assigned for help and guidance to a teacher previously assigned to 

that school. Each such pair of teachers should have an opportunity

to meet before the school year actually begins.

The Superintendent should arrange an in-service training program 

during the school year to assist personnel in resolving difficulties 

>nd improving Instruction throughout the implementation period.

HEW Plan of July, 1969

1 1 1 .



352a

112.

Help In doing this la available from the Center for Intercultural 

Education at the Unlver8 lty of South Alabama.

6 . It 18 Important that, through peraonal obaervstlona, 8tudents see 

that nonprofeaalonal 8 ervice positions In their schools are not for 

members of one race and that harmonious working relationships can 

exist between members of both races. The Superintendent and Board 

of Education should therefore take all necessary steps to assure 

that all staffs are bi-racial.

HEW Plan of July, 1969



353a

(t instructional Program

1. Each principal should be required to appoint bi-radal faculty com­

mittees to study and, as necessary, revise each area cf the curriculum 

to assure better learning opportunities for all students. This should 

become a continuous activity in each school and throughout the district.

2. Student evaluation policies and procedures should be reviewed con­

tinuously for areas in need of improvement and adjustment to encourage 

the educational growth and motivation of students.

3. Remedial programs in reading and mathematics skills, as appropriate, 

should be introduced and/or expanded for all students in need of 

special help. Such program should supplement regular course offerings 
and assignments of students.

4. Grouping procedures should be reviewed and revised as necessary to 

assure they support the spirit as well as letter of desegregation plan 

the district has accepted responsibility for implemeting in good faith.

5. Participation in extracurricular activities by students of both races 

should be actively encouraged by administrators and teachers as a means 

for developing school spirit and a feeling of belonging.

4- School organizations - student government, cheerleaders, musical or­

ganizations, athletic teams must be operated on a nondiscriminatory 
basis and should include students of both races.

Guidance counselors should be oriented and urged to play a leading role 
n successful implementatl on of the desegregation plan.

HEW Plan of July, 1969

1 1 3 .



354a

8 . The curriculum should be reviewed and, as necessary, revised to provide 

recognition of Negro history, culture and contributions to our society 

Library books riiich deal with sucj subjects should be added to school 

book collections.

9. Vocational education offerings should be reviewed and improved as a 

means of providing students of both races with education relevant to 

vocational interests and as a means of reducing dropouts.

10. Headstart or similar preschool programs for children of both races 

should be implemented.

11. Use of Federal and Station education funds should be planned compre­

hensively for maximum educational benefit to all egible children.

D. Students

1. The Superintendent should direct each principal to hold special 

orientation programs welcoming students who will be new to a school, 

before the regular school year begins.

2. The Superintendent should require each principal to see that students 

are frankly and fully informed about the desegregation plan and their 

responsibilities to help carry it out. Each principal should seek to 

establish rapport and communication links with new students to encourage 

mutual understanding and confidence.

3. The Superintendent should direct each principal to establish a student- 

faculty human relations committee representing both races to aid in 

the successful implementation of desegregation.

HEW Plan of July, 1969

114.



355a

115.

H sch00i staff and members o f  the student body should exert extra 

effort to assure the fu l l  p a rtic ip a tion  o f  a l l  students o f  both 

races in extracurricular programs, including when appropriate the 

provision of a "late  bus" for  those staying a fte r  school t o  participate  

in such programs.

Each principal should request teachers to  make themselves availab le  

to students outside o f  regular c lass fo r  counseling and extra in stru c­

HEW Plan of July, 1969

tional help.



356a

HEW Plan of July, 1969

116.

RESOURCES FOR ASSISTANCE

In addition to the regular resources for assistance available to 

school officials, districts developing or carrying out plans of 

desegregation in Alabama may call upon the following agencies for help:

Name:

Address:

Telephone:

Center for Intercultural Education
Title IV Center
College of Education
University of South Alabama
307 Gaillard Drive
Mobile, Alabama 36608
(205) 344-3400 Ext. 286

U. S. O ff ic e  o f  E ducation
D iv is io n  o f  Equal E d u ca tion a l O pportunities
50 Seventh S t r e e t ,  N. W.
M ail Room 404 
A tla n ta , G eorgia 30323

Phone: (404 ) 526-3076

[Maps omitted— see original record]





RECORD PRESS, INC., 95 M O RT O N  ST., N EW  YORK, N. Y. 10014, (212) 243-5775



AP P E N D IX

Volume II —  pp. 357a-590a

Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1970

N o. 436

BIRDIE MAE DAVIS, ET AL., PETITIONERS,

— v .—

BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS 
OF MOBILE COUNTY, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO TH E UNITED STATES 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR TH E FIFTH  CIRCUIT

ACTION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 
DEFERRED AUGUST 31, 1970

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED JULY 23, 1970





I N D E X

Volume II
PAGE

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hail on July 15, 1969 .............  357a

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969 .......  473a

District Court Order of August 1, 1969 ..................... 512a

School Board Report to the Court Filed November 
26, 1969 .........................................................................  518a

Opinion of Court of Appeals of December 1, 1969 .... 543a

Second HEW Report Filed December 1, 1969 ...........  554a

Plan A ...................................................................... 559a

Plan B ...................................................................... 566a

Plan B—Alternative ............................................... 574a

Plan B-l—Alternative ........................................... 581a

School Board Plan Filed December 1, 1969 .............  586a

District Court Order of December 4, 1969 ...................  588a

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Require Service of Desegre­
gation Plan Filed January 2, 1970 ........................... 589a



■



357a

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969

In the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

For the Southern District of Alabama 
Southern D ivision 

Civil Action No. 3003-63

Birdie M ae Davis, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

and

United States of A merica, by Ramsey Clark, 
Attorney General, etc.,

Plaintiff -Intervenor,
—v.—

Board of School Commissioners of 
M obile County, et al.,

Defendants,
and

J. Twila Frazier, et al.,
D ef endants-Intervenors.

A p p e a r a n c e s  :

For Plaintiffs—

Crawford & Fields 
By: Vernon Z. Crawford, Esq. 

William Robinson, Esq.



358a

For Plaintiff-Intervenor—

W alter Gorman, Esq.

For Defendants—

P jllans, Reams, T appan, W ood & R oberts 
B y: Abram L. Philips, Jr., Esq.

A lso P resent:

James A. M cP herson, Associate Superintendent, 
Mobile County Public School System

B obby R. Clardy, Board of School Commissioners of 
Mobile County

[4] Mr. Gorman: Before we start, I object to hav­
ing non-parties and non-counsel for the parties pres­
ent and I would ask that the deposition not continue 
until this matter has been ruled on.

Mr. Philips: Okay. Mr. McPherson is a party and 
so is Mr. Clardy, party defendants to the litigation, 
and I think their presence is entirely proper, either 
in their individual capacity as parties or in their 
representative capacity as representatives of the 
School Board.

Mr. Gorman: Well, I disagree. I think that the 
privilege to attend depositions applies really to 
named parties and not to all the agents of the parties,

Mr. Philips: Okay. Do you have any further ob­
jections you want to make?

Mr. Gorman: I have no further objections but I 
will ask that a ruling be obtained on this before we 
continue it, a ruling from the Court.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



359a

Mr. Philips: Well, I am going to continue with 
the depositions unless the witness, unless you wish 
to instruct the witness not to answer.

Mr. Gorman: Well, I do not represent this witness 
as such, and I think it would be inappropriate for 
me to instruct him not to answer, but I would ask 
that this matter be presented to the Court for a rul­
ing if you feel it is proper for Mr. Clardy [5] and Mr. 
McPherson to be here.

Mr. Philips: I think it is entirely proper for them 
to be here and I intend to go ahead with the deposi­
tions. If you want to present it to the Court, I think 
it would perhaps be best that you contact the Court.

Mr. Gorman: Well, could we take a brief adjourn­
ment?

Mr. Philips: No, we are going to continue.
Mr. Gorman: So what you are saying is that you 

are making it impossible for me to present it to the 
Court without excusing myself from my attendance 
here.

Mr. Philips: Well, you can have Mr. Crawford go 
if you would like.

Mr. Gorman: Well, Mr. Crawford has the re­
sponsibility to be here as I do a  ̂ representing one 
of the parties. I  would like to take a brief break and 
contact the Court and see if we can obtain a ruling.

Mr. Philips: Well, I am going to continue with 
the deposition. If you want to go to the Court, that’s 
all right with me.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



360a

Mr. Gorman: Okay.
Mr. Crawford: Before you begin, when you two 

finish—
Mr. Philips: We seem to he finished temporarily.
Mr. Crawford: I would like to object to it on the 

grounds that on July 3rd when there was a meeting, 
supposedly conference, between Mr. Hall and other 
representatives of H.E.W. and the [6] School Board, 
that counsel for the plaintiff was not even notified of 
this conference; that—

Mr. Philips: Vernon, this doesn’t have a thing to 
do with the depositions. I f you want to make such 
an objection as that, you might ought to take that to 
Judge Thomas. He called the conference and invited 
the people that he wanted to—

Mr. Crawford: And I would like to state for the 
record that counsel for the plaintiff has been at­
tempting to reach Doctor Hall ever since he learned 
that he was in town, that he has called repeatedly 
and left messages asking him to call which on only 
one occasion was returned. I understand that there 
have been several conferences between Dr. Hall and 
the School Board, of course, without plaintiff’s coun­
sel being present.

Mr. Philips: That, of course, is between you and 
Dr. Hall, and if you wish to inquire into that in the 
course of the deposition, I am sure you will feel free 
to do so.

We are ready, Mrs. Leamy.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



361a

Dr. Joe H all, having been first duly and legally sworn, 
testified on his oath as follow s:

On Direct Examination by Mr. Philips:

Q. State your full name, if you will, please, Dr. Hall? A. 
The name I go by is Joe, Joe, Hall. I was born Josiah, 
[7] Josiah, Calvin Hall, Jr., and you can see why I go by 
Joe.

Q. And your address ? A. My address is 7830 Southwest 
57th Court, that’s 57 Court, South Miami, Florida.

Q. Is that a permanent address? A. Yes.
Q. How long have you lived there? A. Oh, since Janu­

ary. Prior to that I lived at 500 Hardy Road, Coral Gables, 
for the preceding—well, since ’52 I guess it was I moved 
there.

Q. Are you married? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have children ? A. Five.
Q. What ages? A. I have twin boys who are twenty- 

four or twenty-five. That won’t make any difference, will 
it? I can figure it out if it does.

Q. No. A. And twin girls who are twenty-one and one 
girl who is fifteen.

Q. If you will, Dr. Hall, give us your professional back­
ground, not your educational experience! I don’t think we 
need to [8] go that far back, but your professional back­
ground. A. That is, where I have worked?

Q. Where you have worked and so forth. A. Clear on 
back?

Q. Well, insofar as it deals with schools and— A. Well, 
I taught school and served as principal in Leon County in

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



362a

Florida. From that—that was back in 1932 to ’35, and I was 
principal at a school at a place called Carrabelle, Florida. 
Then I worked in the State Department of Education in 
various capacities, the last one being the Director of the 
Division of Instruction, until 1948. In 1948 I went to Dade 
County as the Director of Instruction and held successive 
positions as Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, 
Associate Superintendent for Instruction, and then became 
Superintendent in January of 1957. I served in that ca­
pacity until January 16th, 1968, at which time I retired. 
Then I subsequently took the position in June, June the 
4th, 1968, with the University of Miami with the title of 
Visiting Professor of Education, and three-fourths of my 
time was supposed to be spent in teaching and various 
kinds of work at the college and one-fourth in part of 
the college known as the Florida School Desegregation Con­
sulting Center which is a Title IV  project.

[9] Q. In your superintendency you said Dade County, 
Florida. Is that the Miami, Florida— A. Yes, that is—

Q. All of Dade County is Miami? A. All of Dade 
County, which includes all the incorporated as well as the 
unincorporated parts of the County.

Q. It’s a consolidated City-County system? A. Well, 
it’s a County system, yes.

Q. Now, you are currently engaged then at the Uni­
versity of Miami you said in the combination teaching- 
consulting capacity? A. Yes.

Q. Now, Dr. Hall, have you had occasion in any of your 
capacities to work for or with the Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare, the Office of Education of the 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare? A. Yes.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



363a

Q. When did your work in this regard first begin? A. 
Well, the Florida School Desegregation Consulting Center 
is a Title IY project of the University of Miami, and I 
became officially connected with that on June the 4th, 
1968.

Q. All right. In that capacity— A. But it’s not a 
direct, you wouldn’t call it a direct relationship with
H.E.W. I guess it really works under the Office [10] of 
Education which is, of course, under H.E.W.

Q. A department of it? A. Yes.
Q. Okay. In your work in that regard, what capacity 

do you work in? What do you consider yourself or what 
do they consider you? A. Well, my title is Assistant 
Director of the Florida School Desegregation Consulting 
Center.

Q. And what actual work do you do? A. Well, in vary­
ing capacities, among them to go out and help Counties in 
Florida develop plans for the desegregation of their 
schools.

Q. And what Counties in Florida have you worked with 
in this regard? A. I don’t know that I can name all of 
them. I can name several of them. Columbia—

Q. Now, these are Counties you are naming? A. Yes. 
Florida is all a County unit system. Columbia County, 
Nassau County, Alachua County—

Q. How do you spell that? A . A l a c h u a , Dixie 
County, Levy County, Sumter County. In that particular 
capacity there are some more. I think I have copies of 
all this. (Pause) Palm Beach County. Now, those [11] I 
have worked with to the extent of helping develop complete

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



364a

plans. Other Counties I have worked with just briefly, 
go in and talk with them about their program. Also I 
have helped in workshops for the personnel in the school 
system that is moving into a desegregation plan, sup­
posedly helping them to adjust to the new situations in 
which they will be working.

Q. In these others that you have talked with about their 
programs, can you give us those? A. The names of them!

Q. Yes. A. Oh, great goodness, I guess I have met 
with all the superintendents. I have had conferences with 
them, so I will just say to varying degrees probably every 
County in Florida, from a brief conference say with the 
superintendent or to an overall work conference to, oh, 
a day or a day and a half. Now, do you want those that 
I have spent time in the County itself, is that what you 
are asking?

Q. Well, I guess that is not necessary, Dr. Hall, unless 
you feel that you can recall those where you have actually 
gone in. A. Well, I can name off a bunch of them. I don’t 
know if I can name all of them.

Q. All right. Name as many as you can. A. Manatee 
County, Duval County, Escambia County, Orange, Pinellas, 
[12] Hillsborough. I just hit Glades coming up here. Those 
are all I can think of right off. There may be others that 
I have actually been in the County.

Q. Now, in connection with your working with these 
various systems, how were you brought into it? A. I was 
invited by the school system.

Q. By the school system? A. Either the superinten­
dent or the board or generally both. I take it back. Duval

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



365a

—well, I was there at one time just as I described it, but 
Duval had a court order in which the Florida School De­
segregation Consulting Center was ordered by the court 
to develop a plan, and that order came before I joined 
the Center so the work had not been completed until after 
I joined the Center and that one they were not in there 
at the request of the local school officials. They were in 
there by the order of the court.

Q. Okay. Are there any others where they were in 
there by the order of the court other than Duval? A. No, 
I believe not. I believe that is the only one. There were 
some others that were under court order but not order 
asking the Center in.

Q. Okay. Have you had occasion to perform similar 
functions for any school systems outside of Florida? [13] 
A. I did some work with—what is it?—Rockingham. I just 
spent one day working with some people there. It was 
more the school principals than the County office. Rock­
ingham, North Carolina. I spent about three days last 
summer in West Virginia at, I believe the name of the 
school is West Virginia Wesleyan where they were hav­
ing a desegregation conference and I was there as a con­
sultant.

Q. That is a university or a college? A. Yes. It’s a 
State—well, no, it’s a Methodist school, I believe, although 
I am not sure about their work.

Q. Okay. Now, I believe all these you have described 
so far are where you have been there in your capacity as 
a consultant or in connection with your work with the 
Florida Desegregation Center. Have you had occasion to

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



366a

consult with school officials or work with school systems 
in this regard in any other capacity, as a consultant to 
any other group? A. Are you talking about desegrega­
tion or about anything else?

Q. About desegregation. For example, the Department 
of Justice or the NAACP or anything like that. A. No, 
sir. I was a witness in a case in Orlando but I was called 
by the School Board attorneys, I guess, as a witness. I 
was supposed to be an expert witness or something.

Q. Is this the only occasion where you have had occa­
sion to testify [14] in court as a witness, either in court or 
by deposition in a school desegregation case? A. Well, I 
on my own, I mean—are you talking about since I joined 
the Center or before?

Q. Well, either way. A. Well, when I was Superinten­
dent of Schools, I spent a lot of time in the courts, yes.

Q. Testifying—  A. For the school system.
Q. For the school system? In desegregation litigation 

involving that school system? A. Yes.
Q. All right. Other than that, is the testimony in the 

Orlando, Florida—did you say Orlando? A. Yes. That 
is Orange County.

Q. Orange County. A. No, I haven’t.
Q. No other occasion to testify? A. Not that I recall.
Q. And no occasion to work with—have you ever had 

occasion to work with the United States Department of 
Justice as a consultant? A. No, sir.

[15] Q. Or the NAACP or any other group? A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, are you presently involved in working 

with a school system in the desegregation process as a

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



367a

result of a court order or for any other reason? A. Say 
the first part of that again.

Q. Are you presently involved in working with a school 
system? A. Yes.

Q. What school system? A. Well, here with Mobile is 
one, but I am working with Orange County and with— 
well, I don’t know what the extent of my work will be yet 
with Glades County, the one that I stopped by yesterday. 
I guess I just terminated my work on Palm Beach County 
so I guess, I don’t know whether they will ask me back 
or not. I doubt it.

Mr. Crawford: Is this West Palm Beach or Palm 
Beach?

A. Palm Beach is the name of the County. The town is 
West Palm Beach.

Q. And your assignment now involves Glades County 
and Orange County in addition to whatever work you may 
now be doing with the Mobile system? You will have to 
answer verbally. She can’t see you. A. Oh, yes, I see.

[16] Q. Sometimes she will pick up the nod of your head 
but normally you will have to answer. A. Yes. Well, I 
am not sure to what extent that Glades County thing will 
run, as I say. We have one unfinished project with Pinellas 
County. That is St. Petersburg. They have asked us to 
quit. They invited us. We were invited by the superin­
tendent and they asked us to hold it in abeyance for the 
time being so, as you say, that is an unfinished item.

Q. Excuse me just a moment. (Pause) Dj. Hall, I would 
like to get your opinion on several matters. I would like

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



368a

to get your opinion on the proposition of bussing students 
or transporting students by bus in the school system for 
the purpose of achieving a racial balance in the schools. 
What is your opinion on that? A .  You are talking about 
my personal opinion?

Q. Yes.

Mr. Crawford: I am going to object to that. I 
think this question and answer as to his personal 
opinion has nothing to do with this matter in terms 
of his professional opinion. His personal life has 
nothing, does not enter into play in this. His per­
sonal experiences as it relates to the witness, Joe 
Hall, has nothing to do with his ability to devise a 
place, and I object to his personal opinion on it.

[17] A. Maybe you meant professional.

Mr. Philips: Well, I assume in his personal 
opinion he would have to take into account every­
thing that affects him as a professional man.

Your personal professional opinion then.

A. Well—

Mr. Crawford: You see, his personal character 
or integrity is not in question here, I hope.

Mr. Philips: I am not questioning his integrity. 
I am asking for his opinion.

Mr. Crawford: I think the question should be 
limited and his answer should be limited to his

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



369a

expertise in terms of the job that he was hired or 
sent here to do.

Mr. Philips: I am asking for his personal pro­
fessional opinion as a professional educator.

A. Can I go on now?
Q. Sure. A. Well, generally speaking I have always 

felt that the less bussing you could have, the better you 
were, but I have also always recognized that you had to 
have bussing in order to operate schools to get the groups 
of people together for educational purposes, so I think 
bussing is essential for the operation of schools.

[18] Q. In a rural system. Now, the question I asked—

Mr. Crawford: Now, we are going to object to 
the leading question—

Q. The question I asked was bussing students to achieve 
a racial balance. A. Well, to achieve a racial balance. I 
don’t know that I would have a particular opinion on the 
balance. I have felt that some bussing would probably 
be necessary for the desegregation of schools and in some 
school systems in which I have worked I concurred with 
the superintendent who felt that he did want a racial bal­
ance and he was going to try to use bussing to attain that 
particular balance. In his situation I thought it was a 
good idea.

Q. You said in order to achieve desegregation. I asked 
your opinion as to the advisability of your personal feel­
ing, your personal professional feeling with reference to 
bussing strictly to achieve racial balance.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969

Mr. Gorman: I am going to object. The witness 
has already given his personal professional opinion 
concerning bussing with respect to desegregation and 
bussing in general. Now, the term “ racial balance” 
isn’t sufficiently descriptive, I think, to show the 
area that the question is directed to.

Q. All right. Dr. Hall, you have said, as I understood 
your [19] testimony, you have sometimes found that it was 
necessary in order to achieve desegregation. Do you think 
it is desirable ? A. In some individual situations, yes, I 
I think it would be desirable.

Q. It is desirable from the standpoint of what, the 
school system, the children? A. Yes, all, the community, 
the school system, and the children, but I wouldn’t want 
to make that an universal application. I would just say 
that in some situations I would think that would be good, 
I am thinking of Alachua County where we worked through 
the whole thing and thought it would be best for every­
body involved to try for some balancing.

Q. Do you think it is undesirable in some situations to 
bus students in a school system to achieve a racial balance!

Mr. Gorman: I object again. I think your use 
of the term “ racial balance” isn’t sufficiently de­
scriptive.

Mr. Philips: I f the witness has an opinion on it, 
I assume that it is.

Mr. Crawford: That results in the question
whether the witness knows what racial balance is,



371a

the definition of it. We have had so many defini­
tions of racial balance.

Mr. Gorman: It’s a term that has a legal defini­
tion as well as a—

[20] Mr. Philips: Well, let’s let the witness then 
give us his opinion based on what he understands it 
to mean.

A. Well, let’s say, if I can illustrate, suppose you have an 
eighty-twenty white-black ratio in a school system, but say 
one school, when you set everything up, winds up to be 
about eighty-twenty black versus white. I think that there 
would be advantages to the school system and to all con­
cerned to do some bussing to achieve a racial balance in a 
situation of that kind.

Q. Can you tell us if you have an opinion as to whether 
there are undesirable effects of bussing to achieve a racial 
balance? A. If there are undesirable effects?

Q. You say that you feel it is desirable in some situations 
and undesirable in others. Why is it undesirable? A. I 
am trying to comprehend fully your question. Just give me 
a chance to— I gave you an illustration of where I thought 
it would be desirable. I wouldn’t think if you had, say your 
overall ratio was eighty-twenty again and you had one 
school with five percent and another school with fifteen 
percent say of one race, I would see no point or any 
desirability or anything to be gained by bussing to get them 
all say ten percent or twenty percent, to get them all the 
same percentage or the same ratio.

[21] Q. You are basing everything then on strictly per­
centages as they exist in a certain situation and you don’t

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



372a

attach any significance beyond that from the standpoint of 
the desirability or non-desirability of the general concept 
of bussing to achieve a racial balance?

Mr. Gorman: Well, once again I object. I think 
that the witness has already explained what his 
opinions were concerning bussing to achieve desegre­
gation within the context of what he believes racial 
balance to mean, and he has already answered that.

Mr. Philips: Will you read the question back to 
him, please, Mrs. Leamy?

Beporter: You are basing everything then on 
strictly percentages as they exist in a certain situa­
tion and you don’t attach any significance beyond 
that from the standpoint of the desirability or non­
desirability of the general concept of bussing to 
achieve a racial balance?

A. Well, let’s get into the educational thing of it. I think 
that in our society today it is good both for whites and 
blacks to have associational experiences in a school situa­
tion with each other. I don’t know whether that—

Q. All right. Belate that to the question that I asked 
about the bussing to achieve racial balance. [22] A. If it 
takes some bussing to achieve that, I would say it would be 
to the advantage of all the children concerned, yes.

Q. You agree with that as your personal professional 
opinion? A. Now, I have tried to say that I didn’t want to 
speak in terms of generalizations, that I would rather speak 
in terms of specifics, and I think you are saying more than

D eposition  o f  Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



373a

I said when yon stated what I said. I said I thought it was 
desirable for our white people and our black people to have 
associational experiences in a school system. It would 
depend on the individual situation involved as to whether 
I would think that would warrant bussing. As a general 
principle, as I have also stated, that the less bussing you 
have, I think the better off you are.

Q. Okay. We are dealing with a concept, of course, and 
you and I probably because of our backgrounds, you being 
an educator and me a lawyer, perhaps we can’t communicate 
fully on it, but I was just trying to explore as fully as 
possible your professional opinion as an educator on this 
point. A. W ell, what you run into, of course, is a weighing 
of values and you have to, you can’t put any of your values 
in ultimates and establish a general principle. You have 
to weigh values along the line.

Q. All right. Now, can we move along and get your opin­
ion in [23] the same manner, your personal professional 
opinion on the concept of free choice of schools as a method 
of student assignment in the school system? A. Well, my 
opinion on that has undergone some change over a period of 
time, I guess as everybody who has worked with a 
particular problem of desegregation. At one time I felt that 
free choice was desirable, that a person, that in operating 
a school that he ought to have the same freedom of going to 
school that a housewife would have in going to a grocery 
dore, just go wherever she pleased. However, you can’t 
operate a school system on that basis, at least not entirely, 
lou have to have some kind of restrictions about who can 
attend certain schools, else you will have some schools

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



374a

vacant and some schools very overloaded, so as you have 
moved into the desegregation area, I have come to the 
conclusion that free choice is not a satisfactory way to 
operate schools. It puts a burden, it has put a burden upon 
the negro students that shouldn’t be placed on them and it 
also places a burden sometimes upon white people that 
shouldn’t be placed on them.

Q. Your change in evaluation then, as I understand it 
from your response, is that the only thing you find wron* 
with the freedom of choice concept is that it fails to achieve 
desegregation, is that correct?

[24] Mr. Gorman: No, the witness didn’t testify 
to that.

A. I didn’t say that.

Mr. Gorman: I object to the form of that question. 
Mr. Philips: All right. Let him explain then.

A. It does fail to achieve desegregation but it also places a 
burden upon a person making a choice that shouldn’t be 
placed on him.

Q. Well, what burden is this? A. Well, let’s illustrate. 
Suppose you lived in an area where there was an all-black 
school and you wanted to go to that school and you would 
be the only white person in that school. The pressures from 
your friends and your society would make it such or might 
make it such that you just, that you would not choose to go 
to that particular school.

Q. And so you feel that it, taking your example— A. 
That it places a burden upon the individual that I think 
should be assumed by the officials operating the agency.

D eposition  o f Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



375a

Q. You think it’s important then to set up a structure to 
relieve me of having to exercise my choice? A. Well, I 
think it’s important not to place an excessive—

Mr. Gorman: I am going to object again to the 
question. The witness didn’t testify as you have 
phrased the question.

Mr. Philips: I am asking him another question, if 
he feels that [25] it is necessary then to set up a 
structure to relieve me of the responsibility or the 
burden of making my own choice.

A. I think it’s necessary to relieve you from the social 
pressures that would come to you from making a choice and 
the situation would be applicable to black and white.

Excuse me. I have been working with this thing so long, 
I say black. If you would prefer negro, just put negro in 
every time I have said it. They have switched over down 
our way and they use black and white.

Mr. Philips: We have had a problem here with—
Mr. Gorman: Whatever Mr. Crawford would like.
Mr. Crawford: Colored, negro or black, either 

one it doesn’t matter. Call it by any name but most 
of them prefer black, even as white as I am.

Q. All right. Now, let’s move on to another expression of 
your opinion, Dr. Hall. What is your opinion on an 
artificial arrangement of student assignment, whether it be 
bussing students or gerrymandering school districts in an 
unnatural manner or whatever the arrangement may be,

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



376a

an artificial arrangement for the sole purpose of increasing 
the extent of integration?

Mr. Crawford: Now, we are going to object to 
that question as to form. It is not clear as to what 
this witness has to answer [26] as to his opinion, and 
the phrasing of that question, the words used, is sug­
gesting that there has been gerrymandering by the 
H.E.W.

Mr. Philips: I am not suggesting anything. I am 
asking his opinion on a certain situation.

Mr. Crawford: Well, the form of the question 
suggests that.

Mr. Philips: I am not suggesting anything. I am 
asking what his opinion is on such an arrangement 
if it should exist.

A. Well, my personal opinion is that everything possible at 
this particular time in our society should be done to 
encourage desegregation, and in saying that I am aware 
that neither blacks nor whites like the idea but I think both 
of them are going to have to do some giving in order for it 
to be accomplished.

Q. Well, by that do you—how do you relate that to my 
question as to your opinion as to whether it is desirable to 
resort to an artificial arrangement? A. Well, as I under­
stood it, in your question you asked what did I think of 
gerrymandering boundaries in order to achieve desegre­
gation, and I thought I said that I favored it.

Q. I wasn’t sure from your answer. What is your opinion 
as to the desirability of a transfer policy allowing transfers

D eposition  o f  Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



377a

of students for good cause without race as a factor? [27] 
A. In opinion that would be essential to operate a school 
system. There are, when you deal with thousands of people 
—well, we have a couple of hundred thousand in our school 
system in Dade County and you have got seventy-five 
thousand here, there are always some individuals who with­
out regard to race, and you can’t anticipate in advance the 
reason, so for justifiable cause not based on race then I 
would think such a policy would be good.

Q. What is your opinion based on your experience as to 
the desii ability of having a small minority of one racial 
group, regaidless of which it is, assigned to a school with a 
large majority of the other group? A. That is where I 
would prefer some kind of balance that you were talking 
about awhile ago. I think it is better to have a considera­
ble number of both races, both black and white races, in a 
particular school.

Q. Do you think it is undesirable to have a small minority 
of white students in a school with a great majority of negro 
students? A. No, no more so than I feel the same way 
about the blacks.

Q. Well, that is the next question I was going to ask. 
You think it is undesirable whether the minority is white 
or black? A. There again you come to certain kinds of 
values. You asked [28] me if I thought, asked me what I 
thought, and if I had my preferred situation, I would say 
have a considerable number of each race in a school.

Q. Well, with relationship then I gather you say that the 
next preferable thing would be to have the small minority, 
and then the next preferable would be to not have any of a

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



378a

minority race? A. Well, I don’t know whether I would go 
that third step but I think you are getting into the opera­
tion of a school where you would release certain people 
because they are a minority and you get into all those prob­
lems and I don’t think at this time—let’s see, I have under­
gone a change there, too, in my own thinking. I went 
through it when I was a superintendent. We had what we 
called a, we had a transfer policy that would allow anybody 
regardless of race to transfer to any other school where 
they had room if he would furnish his own transportation. 
They had gone that far on that freedom of choice, but I 
came to the conclusion after working with that for a while 
that that policy had to he discontinued.

Q. Well, this is a little bit different from what I am talk­
ing about, the concept of having a small minority of negro 
students assigned irrevocably to a school or a small minor­
ity of white students. Do you think that is desirable or un­
desirable? [29] A. That is not as desirable as having a 
larger number.

Q. Well, do you think it is desirable or undesirable?

Mr. Gorman: He has already answered the ques­
tion.

A. Yeah. Well, I don’t have a thought on it. You run into 
a case like this, you will have a school system that only has 
one person of a race. For instance, if you were in—what 
is some country?—Liberia, if you wanted to go to school, 
you would be the only one of the race.

D eposition  o f  Dr. J oe Hall on July 15, 1969



379a

Q. I am talking about Mobile, Alabama. A. Well, you 
didn’t say that.

Q. I thought we were dealing at least with the United 
States. A. Oh, I ’m sorry.

Q. I am not trying to be facetious but I thought we were 
all at least— A. Well, you have got situations of that kind 
say in Washington, D. C., or places like that. I think they 
ought to go to a school, if they live in the community, that 
there would be no necessity for a transfer.

Q. Then you don’t see any undesirability of placing a 
small minority of one race in a school with a large majority 
of the other race? A. I think I tried to say that just as 
clearly as I could. I  [30] see some undesirable things about 
it but they are not as undesirable as the recourse would be.

Q. In other words, they are undesirable except for your 
feeling of the necessity to achieve desegregation ? A. I 
expect that would probably say it, yes.

Q. Okay. What is your professional opinion, Dr. Hall, 
on the general proposition of taking elementary school stu­
dents, youngsters, out of their neighborhood to a distant 
school removed from their neighborhood, as a general prop­
osition? A. As a general proposition I would not think 
it would be too good. As a specific proposition, though, I 
would.

Q. As a specific proposition to achieve desegregation you
think it would? A. Yes, and to achieve some other things 
yes.

Q. What is your professional opinion, Dr. Hall, on the 
neighborhood school concept generally? A. I think maybe 
all of us m education have been brought up with the idea 
that the neighborhood school was a good idea, and that the

Deposition o f  Dr. Joe S a il on July 15} 1969



380a

community and the school should work together as a total 
situation, and again I have undergone some change in my 
thinking because in your metropolitan areas your neighbor­
hoods break down and you just don’t have the neighbor­
hood any more even though you may have a group of people 
that live [31] close together.

Q. Okay. What is your professional opinion, Dr. Hall 
on the concept—and I am not sure that I have it right, 
but on the concept of articulation, which I understand to 
be a concept of students moving in some sort of regular 
relationship to each other through the school program as 
well as being broken up about every year or so and sepa­
rated off into a different direction? A. Well, I think it is 
a good thing to progress regularly through the school sys­
tems, though in our school system and I assume here, most 
everywhere where you have all these military people in and 
out, you change your locations all the time.

Q. What I have in mind I think in the concept is where 
students identify with a school and progress through ele­
mentary school and give or six grades rather than being 
assigned to a different school each year. A. Well, I think 
that progression, if it follows along together, is good.

Q. Do you have any professional opinion from the stand­
point of your experience in the desegregation process as to 
whether it’s desirable or undesirable to have a substantial 
majority, a substantial minority of white students in a 
school with a majority of negro students in the particular 
school? [32] A. No particular opinion.

Q. No particular opinion? In that respect I have in mind 
by substantial minority say thirty percent, thirty-five per­

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



381a

cent, forty percent white minority and an otherwise negro 
majority. You have no opinion on that? A. No particular 
opinion.

Q. Have you ever had any opinion on that? A. Yes, I 
suppose so. I guess it has grown a little bit out of my back­
ground and environment. I have had an opinion on that. 
I have sometimes felt that a school, if it went over your 
fifty percent mark with blacks, would resegregate and the 
community would then become black just while holding the 
same boundaries, while holding the same boundaries, and 
there is some indication that that has occurred. For in­
stance, in Mobile there are schools that were once all white 
which gradually turned black. Then I have sometimes 
thought also that the school system had an obligation, what­
ever its share of the responsibility was, to help to stabilize 
the community and not to encourage that type of thing 
where people sell their homes and move and all that sort 
of business, and if they get back to that very first question 
when you asked me about balancing, if you could balance 
all over, then the schools would not be having any effect 
upon your real estate property [33] or values or anything 
of that sort. It would help to stabilize the community.

Q. You think then it is desirable to set up this racial 
balance then to stabilize the community? A. Well, that is 
one value. I find it hard to answer your question just in 
terms of one value. You see, you have a whole group of 
values and you are bringing them out here one at a time, 
and to isolate one from the other, when you get down to 
making a final judgment, you have to bring all these values 
in, hut that would achieve one value. That would help in

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



382a

the stabilizing of your community to whatever extent the 
schools are responsible for the, what is occurring in the 
community itself. Now, sometimes that occurs without 
the schools having anything to do with it.

Q. Then you think it would be desirable to work towards 
that in the school systems? A. Yes. I think it would have 
some values, yes.

Q. Can you give us your opinion based on your experi­
ence as to the effect on a group of students who are say 
lower achievers who are assigned into a school with a group 
who are achievers on a higher level and are placed thus into 
competition? Have you had any experience with that? A. 
Oh, yes.

[34] Q. What has been the result? A. Well, you have 
that in every classroom in every school system in the 
United States. You have people of varying abilities in the 
classroom, and the teachers in elementary schools, they 
work systematically with three or four groups and they 
alter their groups with respect to the type of subject matter 
they are handling and all that sort of thing.

Q. Do you find any undesirable effects where a group of 
lower achievers, where there is a marked difference in the 
achievers, on the two groups of students? A. Well, not 
unless they are what you call mentally retarded or unable, 
or emotionally unstable, so in throwing those two things 
out, there is no particular problem.

Q. Assume that you had a gap or say two or three years 
as far as their educational achievement level between one 
group of students and another that were placed in the same 
class— A. You have that all the time.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



383a

Q. Do you find that undesirable? A. Well, no.
Q. You don’t find anything undesirable about it? A. 

Well, no. I would have to say, if you want a direct answer, 
I would have to say no because you couldn’t operate a 
school without—there is no classroom that I know of any­
where that [35] doesn’t have that variation in it. They 
will not have a group that are completely homogeneous, 
and even there in a group that are completely homogeneous 
by intelligence, they will have that variation in the various 
subject areas. In any group of thirty kids you will have 
a range of at least three years in some different subjects.

Q. Between, say within a group of thirty kids you would 
have a range— A. Of at least three years, yes.

Q. Now, you mean a range with one student being on the 
lower end of the scale as compared with the top student, 
or a group half being on the lower end of the scale and 
half being on the top end? A. Well, some might be, in one 
subject area some might be ahead and in another subject 
area some of them might be.

Q. I am talking now about in elementary school. A. 
That is what I am talking about. You take the matter of 
arithmetic and reading, one student might be more ad­
vanced than the other in arithmetic and the other might 
be more advanced in reading or what-have-you.

Q. You don’t find then any undesirable effect on either 
the higher achievement group or the lower achievement 
group by placing the two groups together in a classroom 
situation? [36] A. No, sir. As a matter of fact, I hap­
pen to be a product myself of a school that had eight grades 
in one classroom and there were certain advantages of that 
and certain disadvantages.

Deposition o f  Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



384a

Q. Where did you go to school, please, sir? A. I gness 
my first year of school was in Valleyhead. I was born in 
Mintone, Alabama, and then I went to school in northeast 
Georgia way out in the country about thirty miles north 
of Athens until I was about twelve years old, and then I 
went into a graded school after I was in about the sixth 
grade, I mean where we had a whole grade in one class­
room, but my first five years it was all of us in one room.

Q. And you didn’t find any drawbacks there, did yon! 
A. No, sir. As I said, there are certain advantages and 
certain disadvantages.

Q. "Was this an integrated school? A. No, sir, not in 
northeast Georgia when I went to school.

Q. Dr. Hall, I will ask you for another expression of your 
professional opinion as to the desirability of forcing white 
students to attend a formerly negro school and vice versa 
if they do not wish to do so ? A. I think I would have to 
say that I would favor requiring them to attend.

[37] Q. You think you would? A. Because every expe­
rience I have had, I mean we have built a new school and 
everybody wants to stay in the old one, and as soon as they 
get over there and get settled, why, they get just as happy 
within a month but they don’t like the idea but it works out 
all right once they get settled.

Q. All right. Now, you have explained that in terms of 
a new school. Would your opinion be the same with ref­
erence to an old established school? A. Yes.

Q. Requiring and forcing negro students to go into an 
otherwise all-white neighborhood to attend a school when 
they did not wish to and vice versa? A. Yes.

D eposition  o f  Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



385a

Q. You think this is desirable? A. Yes. Most of the 
objections I have run across from the community has been 
whites going to all-black schools, which in a way seems to 
me to negate some of the former arguments that all schools 
were equal which so many contended for so many years.

Q. And you don’t see any undesirability in this? I realize 
you think it’s desirable but— A. I see some, I see a com­
munity reluctance, yes, because I have [38] run across 
that repeatedly but I don’t think that the school officials can 
give way to that reluctance and I don’t think there would 
be anything bad about it once it’s accomplished. I think it’s 
sort of the dread of the unknown or something. Once they 
get in it, then in a short time everything is running all 
right.

Q. What do you think then accounts for resegregation? 
A. Most of the resegregation with which I have had expe­
rience has been community rather than school. That is, 
what they call blockbusting and the people would begin to 
move away, and that’s where most of my experience lies.

Q. You haven’t found or you haven’t had any experience 
then with resegregation in terms of people moving to avoid 
one school and attain another? A. Just a little, yes. More 
in advance of the fact. I mean they move before they have 
even gotten into the school. There is a feeling that goes 
around the community. I guess that would come back a 
little bit too, if the school system were going to be a part 
say in the stabilizing of the community, it would really be 
better if you are going in terms of social planning, if you 
wanted to go so far as that, to just desegregate all the 
schools and then there wouldn’t be any of this fleeing or

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



386a

moving, but I guess that is one reason somewhere [39’ 
in this report that we were inclined to feel that this was 
just an opinion and certainly we are not social engineers 
or anything of that kind, but it would seem to us that unless 
the Mobile school system and the Mobile planners took some 
positive steps, that the whole area east of the Expressway 
was apt to become black and the area west of the Express­
way was apt to become white unless somebody went out and 
really did some work on it because you could kind of see 
the movement that way.

Q. Now, as I recall, the plan that you submitted involved 
moving negro students out of the area east of the Express­
way? A. Into the area west, and part of that was—

Q. How does this stabilize the community? A. This 
would have the effect of showing them that it won’t do anv 
good to move west of the Expressway because we are still 
going to be going to school with these black people and 
there wouldn’t be any point in moving. That is purely so­
cial and not educational, but also it does deal with the whole 
planned development of a community and I would—I know 
I was working in one school system where they were talking 
about desegregating the school and before they had even 
begun to do anything, people began to put their houses up 
for sale and they were going to move over to this other 
place, and if the word [40] had gotten out that this other 
place would be desegregated, too, then there wouldn’t have 
been any point in all of this real estate droppage.

Q. Now, do you think that it is essential in the deseg­
regation of a school system to eliminate every all-white 
school and every all-negro school? A. Let’s say that I

D eposition  o f  Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



387a

would say that that was one of those desirable things but 
I don’t think it’s essential to meet the requirements of the 
law.

Q. As you understand the requirements of the law, you 
don’t think that it is necessary? A. I was told by several 
people for me not to start interpreting law so I had better 
not say what my understandings of the law are, but at least 
I have to operate in the framework of what I understand 
the law to be and I would think it would be desirable both 
—I guess I made this statement earlier, that it is desirable 
for all young people to have the experience of going to 
school with—and this really needs to he a part of your total 
educational planning. That is the only thing that I see it 
really in the long run, unless the people know each other 
and have experience with them, that in the way, one thing 
that our schools have done through the years, it has been 
a great melting pot where people have known each [41] 
other in addition to teaching reading, writing and arith­
metic.

Q. You think it is desirable then to seek to eliminate— 
A. Both all-white and all-black schools.

Q. Both all-white and all-black schools? A. And to do 
your very best, yes.

Q. Is this what you sought to do in the plan for Mobile? 
A. To the extent we could, yes, within reason. I have read 
the newspaper and I guess they don’t even consider that 
within reason, but within reason, yes.

Q. Okay. Is this what you did in Miami in your own 
school system? A. Not at the time, no, but as I said, the 
whole thing has gone through an evolutionary process, the

Deposition o f  Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



388a

concepts of desegregation. We went through a process of 
freedom of choice type of thing that everybody thought 
would have in it some possibilities. Then we went through 
the process of asking ourselves if we had never had a dual 
school system, would we have a school there, and if the 
answer was no, we closed that school, but the—

Q. Wait a minute. Let me ask you this. I don’t mean 
to cut you off but getting back to a specific question. When 
did you eliminate in the Miami system the existence of all 
all-white and all all-black schools? [42] A. They haven’t 
been eliminated. They aren’t eliminated in this Mobile 
plan.

Q. How many are there in the plan you submitted for 
Mobile ? A. I think there are five.

Q. How many are there in Miami, do you know? A. Not 
right off-hand. There are more than that.

Q. Could you give me some general idea? A. No, I 
couldn’t.

Q. At the time you were superintendent could you give 
me some general idea? A. Not without looking it up.

Q. Just within, can you give me a ballpark figure as to 
your recollection? A. I wouldn’t want to give an opinion 
on that. I would rather look it up and I can look it up for 
you. I always thought of it the other way, of the ones that 
I was eliminating rather than the ones that I had left.

Q. All right. How many did you eliminate? A. Well, 
we closed down four former all-black high schools and quite 
a number moved into desegregated schools.

Q. Well, would you say that seventy-five percent of your 
schools—  A. I think at the present time there is one all­
black high school and one nearly all-black.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



389a

[43] Q. What about all-white? A. There is one all- 
white and two others that are nearly all-white.

Q. And that was for the 1968-69 school year that they 
existed in Miami? A. That was the last year, yes. One of 
those had resegregated.

Q. How about the year before that, do you remember? 
Was it roughly the same? A. I believe we had a couple 
of all-blacks that we closed down. Now, I am swearing to 
these things, that I am telling the whole truth, but the tim­
ing on these things—what I am saying is true but the time 
may not be true, the exact time. (Pause) I have eliminated 
all but one black high school. We had twenty-two schools 
and I have eliminated all of them but one and then one 
other, though, became resegregated but I don’t think the 
schools were responsible for that. That is what I was going 
into because I think it was just a community movement.

Q. All right. W ho contacted you with reference to your 
working in the Mobile school system? A. Mr. Jordan, 
J. J. Jordan.

Q. J. J. Jordan. When did he contact you? A. On Fri­
day, June the 6th.

[44] Q. And how did he contact you? A. By telephone.
Q. And what did he ask you to do? A. He asked me

if I would come out here and direct a survey for the study 
of the Mobile school system for the Office of Education and 
I guess he said that it was, that it had to be done in thirty 
days or something like that.

Mr. Gorman: I will have a running objection to 
the hearsay.

Deposition o f  Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



390a

Q. A ll right. Now, when did you come to Mobile? A. On 
the 10th. Yes, on July the 10th. I ’m sorry, June the 10th. 
I ’m sorry, June the 10th.

Q. Yes, June the 10th. A ll right. Prior to the time you 
came to Mobile did you discuss this with anyone else that 
you were coming to Mobile? A . Only with Dr. Stolee.

Q. Dr. Stolee. Identify him fully, if you will. A. He is 
the Director of the Florida School Desegregation Consult­
ing Center and is my immediate superior. S T 0  L double 
E, Dr. Michael Stolee.

Q. Okay. And after you talked with Mr. Jordan on June 
the 6th, when did you talk with him about this again, do you 
recall ? A . Oh, shortly after I got here. He was in Tampa. 
His wife was in the hospital and I  called him, I  don’t recall 
the exact [45] time. He told me that he would come out 
just as soon as he could to assist and I told him all we were 
going ahead and doing. He gave us a sort of an outline 
of the kind of thing that he had wanted done and then we 
proceeded to work on that basis.

Q. W hat information were you given prior to coming to 
Mobile about the Mobile school system? A. Well, just 
about its size, about how, its approximate size, the ap­
proximate number of students, the approximate number of 
schools, and whether it was a County unit or an individual 
unit, and whether it was under court order or under 
H .E .W ., and what the, a little bit of the nature of the prob­
lem though not all of the nature of the problem.

Q. W hat was the nature of the problem? A. Well, the 
nature of the problem was that it was a study that had been 
ordered by the court.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



391a

Q. Is that all you have reference to when yon say the 
nature of the problem? A . W ell, the other part was that, 
that I didn’t know about, was that the school system didn’t 
want us. A t least I gathered that after I  got here from  
some of the comments that I heard in the paper and from  
some of the School Board members, because I  had always 
been in the proposition where I  had always [46] been 
asked in by the school system rather than by the court. 
It was the first time I  had had that situation.

Q. Did Mr. Jordan tell you in advance whether you were 
being called in by the school system? A . No, we didn’t go 
into that detail but I had worked on enough on them and 
be bad seen enough of my reports that he knew that I  would 
know how to proceed, I  guess, when I got here.

Q. Wien you got here, were you under the impression 
that you had been invited by the school system? A . No, 
I wasn’t under the impression one way or the other. It just 
hadn’t crossed my mind.

Q. Had you had any contact with the Mobile school sys­
tem before you came here? A . Not greatly. I  had met the 
Superintendent at meetings but I  didn’t know much about 
the school system.

Q. Other than that, you didn’t have any knowledge of the 
school system? A . No.

Q. What was your opinion, if any, of the Mobile school 
system before you came here? A . W ell, that they had a 
good school system.

Q- Any other opinion? A . No, none in particular. I  
don’t know that I had even thought [47] about it enough 
to have an opinion one way or the other.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



392a

Q . Has your opinion changed or is it still the same! 
A . W hat is that?

Q. Your opinion, you said you thought they had a good 
school system.

Mr. Gorman: I think he further qualified that and 
said he is not sure whether he had an opinion at all, 

Mr. Philips: Read back the last two or three ques­
tions and answers.

A . No, my opinion hasn’t changed.
Q. Okay. That’s all right then. W hat instructions were 

you given? W hat were you told to do? What directions 
were you given? A . I  was given the general directions 
that we needed a report similar to many that they had been 
doing up in South Carolina, that we ought to have about 
five or six sections to the report, one giving something of 
the background of the community, and another giving the 
basic data about the school system, particularly as it was 
related to desegregation, some information about the finan­
cial structure of the school system, and about the course 
of study, and then with that as a background, to develop 
some kind of a plan for desegregation along the lines of the 
court order.

[48] Q. All right. W hen you came to Mobile, Dr. Hall, 
what plan of action or procedure did you—  A. I had been 
told by Mr. Jordan that the financing of the study would 
be through the University of South Alabama Center, I for­
get its exact title. It ’s a project very similar to the one, 
and that they might have, they would probably have some

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



393a

information and that I ought to find my way around, have 
a chat before I started with a Dr. Bjork, B J 0  R  K , who 
is the Director of that Center, and he might have some in­
formation about the Mobile school system, and that I did 
when I got here on the 10th. I didn’t get here until about, 
oh, 3:30 or 4:00 o’clock. I drove from Orlando, and I re­
ported to him or talked to him briefly and asked him where 
the school offices were and who was heading up the school 
program and what-have-you, and then I believe it was the 
next day that I made contact with Mr. McPherson.

Q. Did you have any specific information concerning the 
school system, about the school system from Mr. Bjork? 
A. He had a lot of data, yes. He had copies of the court 
orders. I guess the Center keeps those for all school sys­
tems here, and he had copies of the maps that had, of the 
July 29th court order, the boundaries for the elementary 
and junior high schools, and information about the freedom 
of choice for the high schools [49] and for the rural area, 
and then he also had a copy of the building study that the 
court had, that the school system had given to the court 
which gave a school by school description of each building 
and, oh, he had data about the number of pupils by grade 
level in each school that somebody had, I  think it had been 
part of the court order. That information was all on file 
there in the office and I looked it up.

Q. Did he say where he acquired this information? A . I  
didn’t ask him.

Q. Do you know where he acquired this information? A .
I assume he got it from the courts as part of it, or he might 
have gotten it from the school system, I  don’t know. It was

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



394a

just mimeographed, it was duplicated stuff. I  assume he 
got it from the school system but I  don’t know. I did get 
myself similar kinds of information from the school system 
later and it turned out to be, some of it to be the same thing.

Q. Now, as I  understand it, your purpose was to conduct, 
as you described it or as you characterized it, a study of 
the Mobile school system? A . On desegregation, yes.

Q. On desegregation. And then what to do after con­
ducting the studies? W hat then? A . To develop a plan, 
help develop a plan, work according to [50] the— at that 
point I moved over onto my own and to work cooperatively 
with the school system in developing a plan, if possible, to 
be presented thirty days after June the 3rd, so I assumed 
that was July the 2nd, and so then I  met with representa­
tives of the school system, Mr. McPherson, and we talked 
through plans and we determined that any information that 
I wanted should be requested in writing and I indicated 
some of the kinds of data that I would need and then ve 
set up a procedure for proceeding with the planning.

Q. W hat sort of reception did you get by Mr. McPherson! 
A . Very cordial, very nice.

Q. W ere they cooperative in working with you? A. Cer­
tainly in providing all data, yes.

Q. Did you come in, Dr. Hall, with any instructions as 
to what should or should not be included in the details of 
the plan that you were going to develop? A . No, sir.

Q. W hat basis then did you use to develop the plan? A. 
W ell, the basis that we agreed on in conference was that—

Q. No, I mean what—

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



395a

Mr. Crawford: Let the witness answer. I object 
to that. Let him finish his answer.

Mr. Philips: The witness is not responding to my 
question.

[51] Mr. Crawford: Yes, the witness is answer­
ing your question.

Q. What basis were you attempting to achieve that with?

Mr. Crawford: Now, we object to that. A  specific 
question was asked this witness and this witness was 
attempting to answer it and I don’t think the witness 
was giving the answer you wanted and you inter­
rupted him.

Mr. Philips: I will withdraw that question and re­
phrase my question, Mr. Crawford.

Mr. Gorman: I ’m sorry. I  would like for the wit­
ness to be able to finish the answer. Finish the an­
swer, please, and then you can rephrase the question.

Q. What were you attempting to achieve when you came 
into the school system ? W hat result were you attempting 
to achieve, Dr. Hall?

Mr. Gorman: Excuse me. I f  I could ask the wit­
ness to finish his answer to the question—

Mr. Philips: You will have a chance to cross- 
examine him on anything you want to.

Mr. Gorman: I think it is improper to interrupt 
the witness while he is in the midst of answering a 
question. I  request the court reporter to read the

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



396a

portion of his answer that he was giving and let Mm 
determine whether or not he had answered.

Q. A ll right. Go ahead. [52] A . I don’t remember what 
I  was saying.

Q. I  don’t either, but go ahead.

Reporter: W hat basis then did you use to develop 
the plan? W ell, the basis that we agreed on in con­
ference was that—

Q. A ll right. Go ahead and finish your answer. A. Was 
that the school system being more familiar with the school 
system and being under the same court order would first 
develop a plan, and then we would look at that to see what 
further needed to be done about it. There was disagree­
ment on the procedure from that point forward, and at that 
point we set up a schedule to do this. I  guess we suggested 
that we would then look at the plan, both the school sys­
tem’s staff and the staff we would have with us for the 
study, and try to answer three questions from this plan. 
One, could boundary lines he altered to achieve greater de­
segregation? Two, could there be any pairing of schools 
that might achieve greater desegregation? Or three, could 
the grade levels of any particular school be changed to 
effect desegregation? And we didn’t agree on that pro­
cedure so we had to do that part on our own.

Q. A ll right. Now, what were you attempting to achieve 
in the development of the plan ? A . To achieve as much de­
segregation as possible.

[53] Q. A ll right. And what were the priority of factors 
or values that you had in mind in the development of the

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



397a

plan? What was the primary objective? A . The primary 
objective was to desegregate the schools.

Q. To achieve as much desegregation as possible? A . 
Yes.

Q. What about other educational factors ? A . W ell, cer­
tainly those were involved. I believe we— in terms of the 
school organization and structure and what-have-you, to fit 
all those in together as much as possible.

Q. But they were secondary to the achievement of de­
segregation? A . Not necessarily, no. I  mean they were 
part and parcel of the same thing.

Q. Well, as you set out in your work, where there was a 
departure and you could remain only faithful to one or the 
other, either consistent with the objective of achieving max­
imum desegregation or remaining consistent to educational 
principles, which was paramount? A . I don’t believe we 
ran across a case of that sort.

Q. Had you run across a case of that sort, which would 
have been paramount?

Mr. Gorman: That’s hypothetical and it calls for 
a conclusion of the witness based on facts not pres­
ent in the record.

[54] Mr. Philips : He is an expert witness.

A. Well, I don’t know. The schools exist for the purpose 
of education and the question just didn’t, that particular 
question didn’t come up.

Q. All right. W hat about the relative values of your ob­
jective of achieving desegregation and the objective of com­

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



398a

ing up with a plan that is administratively feasible, which 
was the most important ? A . Again both of them are part 
and parcel of the same thing.

Q. So you didn’t find any conflict then? Everything von 
came up with was administratively feasible? A. Yes.

Q. And educationally sound? A . Yes.
Q. Okay. Your instructions—  A . I might say, I might 

add on this point that there was some plans that the school 
system already had that called for the expenditure of sums 
of money, and we assumed that the school system, since 
they had those plans, had that money and that the money 
would be available to spend. I  mean I  could go specifically, 
For example, the school system was proposing to build a 
new high school called Toulminville or something of that 
sort, and a new elementary school I believe to replace
[55] Howard or to add to Howard. Now, it was assumed 
that those funds would be available to be spent somewhere 
or the other.

Q. A ll right. Now, your primary purpose when you came 
in, were you instructed to develop a plan to desegregate 
the school system? Is that the primary instruction you 
were given? A . Yes. That was the court order. The in­
structions were in the court order. W e had the same in­
structions as the school system had here. W e were both 
working under the same court order.

Q. W hat information did you gather while you were 
here? A . Beg your pardon?

Q. W hat information did you gather while you were 
here? A . I gathered the information about the schools, 
their locations, what they, the size of them, their capacities,

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



399a

and the number of pupils by race in each school, the num­
ber of pupils that were transported, the number of mem­
bers of the faculty of each race in each school, and a whole 
host of things that are all included, most of them are in­
cluded in the report. Then I  went myself on Saturdays and 
Sundays to visit. I  visited all the schools in the rural area 
and I visited several schools in the metropolitan area but 
not all of them.

Q. How many would you say you visited in the metro­
politan area? A. Oh, I  would say twenty.

[56] Q. Which ones? A . W ell, I specifically visited the 
Vigor and Blount and Carver and Bienville, however you 
pronounce that school, and also Williamson and Craighead 
and Toulminville and, oh, I forget all of them.

Q. These are the only ones you can think of? A . The 
only ones I can think of right off, yes, but there were a 
number of others I  just don’t remember.

Q. Who else did you talk to other than Mr. Bjork and 
Mr. McPherson during the time you were working on the 
Mobile project? A . You mean since I  was in Mobile?

Q. Yes. A. W ho else in Mobile?
Q. Yes, with reference to this matter. A . W ell, not spe­

cifically with reference to this I  talked with the dean out 
there—what is his name, Hadley, a Dr. Hadley? Is that 
his name?

Q. At the University of South Alabama? A . Yes. Is that 
his name?

Q. Yes. But specifically with reference to this who did 
you talk to? A. W ell, I talked to some fellow that drove 
me around all day, a fellow by the name of, gosh, Wheeler, 
but just about things [57] in general, nothing specific

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



400a

about it. He took me, he drove me all day long one day, 
and then they have a young man there in the Center by the 
name of Nallia. I  just talked with him generally about it, 
A s a matter of fact, I did ask him to gather the data and 
write the material for Chapter One— that is, the Mobile 
background of it. He went down to the Chamber of Com­
merce and various other places on that Chapter One.

Q. W ho is this? A . Nallia, N A L L I A ,  Bill Nallia.
Q. And where is he located? A . He is at the University 

of South Alabama.
Q. Is he a professor or a student? A . I  am not sure. He 

works in the Center, I  think.
Q. You don’t know whether he is a professor or a stu­

dent? A . W ell, I  don’t know just exactly what his title is, 
no.

Q. And he wrote one of the chapters of the report? A. 
Yes. He wrote the Chapter One or gathered the data for 
the Chapter One.

Q. A ll right. W ho else? A . Now, you mean, you are 
talking about here in Mobile or people that I brought in?

Q. No, I  am talking about here in Mobile. A. Well, as 
far as that— well, of course, there were secretaries, [58] 
I don’t even remember their names. W e had three. One of 
them was named—

Q. That’s all right. You needn’t go into that. Who else! 
A . Then there was a fellow by the name of Davis, a man 
by the name of Davis who did some research for us, and—

Q. Where is he located? A . I  think he’s a student out at 
South Alabama.

Q. Give me his full name, if you have it. A. Well, I don t 
have it. Let’s see. Don, I  believe.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



401a

Q. How would you contact him? A . Don. I f  I wanted to 
try to reach him, I  would call the University of South 
Alabama.

Q. And just ask for Davis? A . W ell now, wait a minute. 
I may have something here that would be better. (Pause) 
But his work was more superficial. He did some mimeo­
graphing and some counting, counting figures for us.

Q. You mentioned previously he did some research. A . 
Looking up this data about this Chapter One. There was 
a lot of information on it.

Q. Do you know if he is a student or a professor? A . I  
am sure he is a student, a graduate student. I ’d call 344- 
3100 and extension 286 or 287, but he was not involved in 
[59] the, in any of the decision making. He just was sort 
of an errand boy.

Q. All right. W ho else? A . That’s all.
Q. Did you talk with any school teacher? A . No.
Q. Or any school principal? A . No.
Q. Any student? A . No. I  was told to do all my talking 

to Mr. McPherson.
Q. Or any school patron or citizen? A . No.
Q. Any of the Mobile City Planning Commission? A . I 

didn’t. I think some of our reseachers went down there.
Q. Who did? A . I don’t know whether they talked to 

them or not. I  said I  think maybe they did.
Q. But you don’t know? A . No, I don’t know.
Q. Who would it have been? A . W ell, it would have been 

M ia or Davis or Bjork or some of them who were doing 
this Chapter One.

Q. All right. W ho are some of them? [60] A . I just 
said.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



402a

Q. W hen you said, you named three and then said or 
some of them. A . Or whoever else they might have had. 
I  don’t know who they had digging up the— if you have 
read the report, the Chapter One is about Mobile Countv, 
and so we just gave them that project, gave Dr. Bjork 
that project.

Q. So if they talked with them, it would have been only 
with reference to Chapter One? A . That’s correct.

Q. All right. In your development of the other chapters 
of the report, did you or anybody else talk with the City 
Planning Commission on that aspect of it? A . No.

Q. How about the ^Regional Planning Commission? A, 
No, sir.

Q. The City Commission? A . No, sir.
Q. The County Commission? A . No, sir.
Q. The P .T .A . Council? A . No, sir.

Mr. Gorman: I  will object to all those questions-
Mr. Philips: You are a little late to object to the 

questions.
[61] Mr. Gorm an: And move that they be stricken 

and the answers in that the question went not only 
to the witness’s knowledge but whether anyone else 
talked to these people.

A . And also the question was that we were instructed to 
deal entirely with Mr. McPherson.

Q. Instructed by whom? A . By Mr. McPherson.
Q. You mean to tell me—  A . About anything that had to 

do with the schools.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



403a

Q. Anything from the school system? A . Anything from  
the school system.

Q. Yon mean to tell me you did not go to the City Plan­
ning Commission because Mr. Pherson had instructed you 
not to? A. No, sir, that would not have had any bearing 
on that. I was talking about the schools.

Q. If you had wanted to go to the City Planning Com­
mission—  A . I f  I had wanted to go to the P .T .A . or to 
the City, or to a school teacher or what-have-you on some 
of those questions, I  would have first asked Mr. McPherson.

Q. And did you ask him to do so? A . No.
Q. What about the City Planning Commission, would you 

have asked him to deal with them? [62] A . No.
Q. What about the Housing Board? A . No, sir.
Q. Did you consult with them at all? A . No.
Q. Did anyone under your knowledge, anyone working 

with you? A. Not to my knowledge unless they did it in 
connection with Chapter One.

Q. Dr. Hall, the desegregation plan now that you have 
submitted to the court— well, before I  go into that, let me 
pursue another line of thought. W e have asked these ques­
tions of you concerning your contact with people in Mobile. 
What about people outside of Mobile, with whom have you 
had contact in connection with this matter? A . W ith, we 
had a Dr. Woodward— is that his name? Yes, Woodward, 
a Dr. Woodward from the University of Alabama who came 
in and helped with the preparation or did the major part 
of the work on the preparation of the chapter on school 
finance. We had a Mr. Blue from Auburn, Auburn Univer­
sity, who did a lot of work in connection with map making 
and the development and checking of tables, and—

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



404a

Q. Did he come to Mobile to do that work? A. Yes, and 
we had a Dr. Michael Stolee who came in to help with 
[63] the desegregation plan itself, and a Dr. Weincoff, 
W E I N C O  double F , I believe, Dr. Weinkoff from the 
University of South Alabama who also came in and worked 
with the desegregation plan itself. Of course, Mr. Jordan, 
and then we conferred with others such as Mr. Anrig and 
members of his staff.

Q. Mr. Anrig? A . Yes.
Q. W ho is he? A . He is the— well, he is the head of all 

this Title IV  business in Washington. Now, just what his 
title is, I  am not completely clear but he is the head man 
anyhow. He would be what— excuse me, do you know his 
name or title?

Mr. Gorman: I am not sure whether he is called 
the director. He is the head of all the Title IV opera­
tion there.

Q. Dr. Anrig? A . A  N  E  I  G, Gregory, Mr. Gregory 
Anrig, or Greg, we called him Greg.

Q. And other members of his staff, you said? A. Yes. I 
don’t know their names.

Q. How many other members of his staff? A. Oh, I 
would say three or four others.

Q. W ere they here in Mobile? A . No.
[64] Q. Did you confer with them up there or by tele­

phone? A . No, in New Orleans.
Q. In New Orleans? W hen was this? A. Saturday, I 

think it was the 29th.
Q. The 29th? A . June 29th.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



405a

Q. Okay. To whom did you report directly with refer­
ence to your work? A . Mr. Jordan.

Q. What was your purpose in conferring with Mr. Anrig? 
A. Well, Air. Anrig is Air. Jordan’s superior. He is the 
representative of the Office of Education and would have 
to assume, I guess, final responsibility for anything we do.

Q. And what was the nature of your contact with him? 
What did you do ? A . To review the general developments 
of the plan.

Q. Did he give you any instructions or directions or sug­
gestions? A. There were some, yes.

Q. What? A . One of them to stay away from expressing 
my opinion on legal matters.

Q. What else? A . I  had something in there that this, 
according to the court [65] this seems to, according to 
our interpretation what the Judge said seems to mean so 
and so and he just said that wasn’t our business, to let the 
lawyers do what the things were. I think you would prob­
ably find that further information about him would be 
better obtained from Air. Jordan because I was in and out 
of the room a good bit of the time working on two or three 
different things. I know you have subpoenaed Air. Jordan 
so I would think you would get more information from him 
on that.

Q. Perhaps I  will go into that with him but I  would like 
to know from you what the nature of your contact was and 
"hat instructions he gave you? A . W e had written a pre­
liminary report and he made a few suggestions. The only 
one I recall specifically is the one I  just remembered, 
though I do remember there were two or three other points 
of a similar kind. I  guess two or three times in something

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



406a

I had written I  had made reference to the law and what- 
have-you and he told me to stay away from that, to let you 
lawyers do that.

Q. Did you report to him and at that time did you have 
a map indicating—  A . Yes.

Q. W hat you had developed! A . Yes.
[66] Q. Did he suggest any changes in these, in the sub­

stance of your approach? A . Yes.

Mr. Gorman: This is— okay, fine, go ahead.

Q. W hat suggestions? A . W ell, one of them, and I notice 
it is still in the report—

Mr. Gorman: Let me state here that this is hear­
say and my objection is a running one to the conver­
sations as might have been or what might have been 
said to Dr. Hall.

A . There is one on page ninety-eight that is still in the re­
port. W e didn’t get it out of the written. W e got it out of 
the map, but I  wanted to correct that one thing. Under a 
school called Whistler it says the Whistler attendance zone 
is made up of two non-contiguous areas.

Mr. Craw ford: W hat page are you on?

A . Page ninety-eight. That should be struck because at the 
time I  remember there was a plan to, the basic plan had, 
there was some more room in that building and they were 
looking for room, and the plan had taken some students in 
a very round-about way to that school, and he thought that

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



407a

was impractical and should be eliminated. It was quite an 
involved procedure. It wasn’t just going from one place 
to another, but in order to get there, you had to go way 
around the country. You couldn’t [67] there like the crow 
flies or anything like that.

Q. A you-can’t-get-there-from-here sort of situation? A. 
That’s right, and he thought that was impractical and 
thought it should be eliminated and we did eliminate it 
from the map but I  note it’s still in there. That first sen­
tence ought to really be struck.

Q. He was the one that you submitted your entire pre­
liminary plan to for approval? A . Yes.

Q. And this was on the 29th of June? A . Yes. I  think 
he also made the suggestion there, if I  recall right, and I  
want you to verify this with Mr. Jordan, that the legality 
of transportation was a matter for the courts and for the 
lawyers to decide and we ought to put some kind of state­
ment in there to that effect, that that question needed to be 
answered by the court and not by us, and the court had 
said you can, had said desegregate the schools. Now, they 
didn’t say do it by transportation and they didn’t say to 
use transportation or not to use transportation but it was 
very evident that, if you were going to desegregate some 
of those schools, you were going to have to use some trans­
portation. Now, that one there never has been a clear-cut 
answer on it. They just said desegregate them but not how.

[68] Q. This preliminary report you submitted, did he 
keep that or did he return it to you? A . Oh, we brought 
it back.

Q. Who has that? A . I don’t know who has it.
Q. Who had it when you last saw it? A . About ten dif­

ferent people. I  mean we were, we took the preliminary

Deposition of Dr. Joe Ilall on July 15, 1969



408a

report and then we started mimeographing it with correc­
tions. W e had another lady from the Washington office 
who was very good at editing and, at least I  thought so, I 
have found a few mistakes in here, but at any rate she just 
took it apart and handed some to one, we had three secre­
taries and some to one and some to another. W e were in a 
rush to get the thing mimeographed. W e had then at that 
point set up a conference for Tuesday morning and we had 
to he ready for that conference.

Q. Where was this work done? A . A t Brookley, Brook- 
ley Air Force.

Q. This is where you made your headquarters ? A. Yes. 
There were some facilities out there that are owned by the 
University now, I  guess. They were in the process of 
changing it, by the University of South Alabama. Nov, 
the University of South Alabama was not involved in this 
study [69] directly except the parts of the thing, except 
the financing of the thing. They have a Title IV  project,

Q. How would I get a copy of this preliminary report! 
A . I  don’t think you can.

Q. Has it been destroyed? A . I would assume so because 
I  mean it was not considered to have any value. I have 
some parts of it in here, some parts that I had written that 
in my personal pride I  thought were better than some 
of the things were edited into so I  just kept them in case 
I  needed to use them again, but I  have got some parts of 
it right in here. I ’ve got a part of Chapter Five in here. 
Although at the time we talked over there, the best thing 
we had was the maps and we talked from the maps and 
not from any preliminary draft. W e  had a preliminary 
draft of all of the chapters except the Chapter Five. I had

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



409a

written some stuff, some material for the Chapter Five 
which I had sent to Mr. McPherson for his review, just a 
kind of an outline, and I  think this was Mr. Jordan’s de­
cision, he didn’t like it so he substituted or they substituted 
other material for this Chapter Five so it never did get 
into the report.

Q. Do you know who wrote this other material? A . 
Yes. Different ones helped.

[70] Q. Who composed the other material? A . W ell, 
I would say the primary composer was Mr. Jordan. I  
helped write some parts of it, and Mr. Weincoff wrote good 
parts of it, Dr. Stolee wrote some parts of it, or at least 
the data or the information about it.

Q. All right. While you were in New Orleans with the 
maps in your discussion with Mr. Anrig, were changes made 
in the maps as a result of these discussions ? A . The one 
thing about those kids going up to Whistler, that change 
was made, and then the plan for the rural area, they asked 
us to review that again and made some suggestions about 
what to do if we could.

Q. Who asked you to review it again? A . Mr. Anrig  
and some of the people on his staff.

Q. What was wrong with it? A . W ell, there was an all- 
white—let’s see. Two or three things came up. One, 
whether Calcedeavor was a black school or a white school, 
and then another one was that there was a school called 
Griggs that was all-white and a school just— what is it, an 
island, some island— Hollinger’s Island was virtually all 
white. There were a considerable number of blacks in Davis 
and Burroughs, and they just asked us to check to see if 
there wasn’t some kind of way where some of those pupils

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



410a

[71] could be placed in Griggs to integrate Griggs and 
Hollinger’s Island, to see if we could, and I  guess on the 
final analysis we did not. W e drew an arrow and said if it 
could be done, do it but that we did not have time to 
finish that.

Q. You did not have time to make the determination! 
A . To make the determination, that’s right.

Q. A ll right. W ho else did you talk to besides Mr. Anrig 
and the several people you have mentioned? I believe yon 
said there were several others. A . Yes, sir.

Q. W ho else have you talked to outside of Mobile? A. 
I  think that is all. That is all I can recall right off.

Q. Now, Dr. Stolee and Dr. Weincoff, when did they come 
to Mobile? A . Weincoff was here— well, they both were 
here Thursday and Friday, the 26th and 27th.

Q. Thursday and Friday, the 26th and 27th of June? A. 
That’s right.

Q. Had they worked on the project prior to coming to 
Mobile? A . Yes, they knew they were coming and we 
had sent them just some preliminary data, like I had sent 
them a copy of the material and the rough draft we had 
on it up until that time to give them a little background 
on the situation. W e had all the maps. Mr. McPherson 
had given us spot maps of the [72] metropolitan area and 
we had all the maps, and then we—

Q. Excuse me. B y spot maps you mean maps locating 
the—  A . Pupil locater maps, I believe you all call them, 
yes, and really are by numbers rather by spots, and then 
we also had the proposals which the school system had 
made in compliance with the court order, together with 
the figures that, with the approximate figures that would

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



411a

be in each school, and we had all of that data which was 
available and worked from that data in interpreting any 
new kind of arrangements that could be set up.

Q. Who actually drew— Dr. Stolee and Dr. Weincoff then 
worked on this on Thursday and Friday when they were in 
Mobile? A . Yes.

Q. Who actually drew the maps setting out the attend­
ance areas represented by your report? A . W ell, I would 
say that that was a sort of a cooperative undertaking. W e  
would sit there and look and study and analyze and some­
body would go up and say could you do it this way or 
could you do it that way.

Q. All right. When were these drawn? A . W hen were 
these maps drawn?

Q. Yes. A . On that Thursday and Friday.
[73] Q. All right. W ho were the people— you say it 

was a cooperative process. W ho were, name the people 
who were involved in this cooperative process? A . W ell, 
I would say the ones who were involved in the line drawing 
were those four, Stolee, Weincoff, Jordan and Hall.

Q. By Hall you are referring to yourself? A . To myself, 
yes, and the—

Q. And the decisions where to place the lines ? A . W ell, 
we had some other people like Mr. Blue that we would 
say if you did this, how many people are involved and so 
they would go count.

Q. Checking the figures? A . Yes.
Q. Who was involved in the decision making process as 

to where to locate the lines ? A . The four.
Q. You and Dr.—  A . Stolee, Weincoff and Jordan.
Q. Okay. When did Dr. Stolee arrive in Mobile? A . On 

Thursday night.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



412a

Q. And when did Dr. Weincoff arrive in Mobile? A. 
Thursday noon about, right after, shortly after noon. In- 
cidentally we worked practically all night that night plus 
practically [74] all night Friday night and all day.

Q. Do you think the desegregation plan that yon sub­
mitted to the court is the best desegregation plan for the 
Mobile public school system? A . I  would think that there 
could probably be some adjustments in it that would im­
prove it.

Q. Do you think you had adequate time to do what you 
were called upon to do ? A . In terms of what we did, yes.

Q. W hat did you do? Explain your answer a little bit 
further. A . W ell, we proposed certain things that could 
be done in one year, and then we— that is, starting Sep­
tember the 1st, certain things that could be done. We pro­
posed certain other things that could be done a year later, 
but we stated that the boundaries might have to be shifted 
one way or the other a little to get your figures and capaci­
ties right.

Q. Is this because you didn’t have time to locate them 
specifically? A . That is part of it. Part of it is between 
now and then there will be some changes. I  mean there 
are changes every year.

Q. W ell, I am talking about September now. You have 
recommended something for September. There won’t be 
any change back and forth between now and the opening 
of school in September, [75] will there? A . There could 
be, there could be. Just like in the July 29th court order 
you went back to the court and got a change made in one 
of the schools, Morningside School, and so if some obvi­
ous improvement could be made, then it could be adjusted

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



413a

or it certainly would be my recommendation that were ad­
justments were warranted, that the court ought to permit it.

Q. Well, the maps you have submitted then don’t rep­
resent any definite recommendations as to locations or lines ? 
A. Yes, they represent a definite location hut they also 
indicate that the probabilities are they may have to be 
shifted a little. I  have never seen a school system yet where 
you didn’t have to make some adjustments, but the basic 
ideas are all there and sound and I would think that prob­
ably the people in the school system could make some ad­
justments one way or the other.

Q. For what purposes, why would you make adjustments, 
in order to reconcile school capacities with the enrollment—  
A. Yes.

Q. Based on the lines ? A . Yes.
Q. What other factors would you think would necessitate 

an adjustment? [76] A . W ell, that is the only factors I  
can think of right off.

Q. So the only reason you didn’t definitely locate the 
lines then is—  A . W e did definitely locate the lines but 
we said that also that there might need to be slight adjust­
ments in them.

Q. Do you think you had sufficient time to develop, to do 
the work you were called on to do? A . No, sir, there is 
never time to do anything thoroughly. I  think there was 
sufficient time to develope the basic concept but I don’t 
think there was sufficient time to work out all the details.

Q. What was the basic concept that you developed with 
reference to the rural schools? A . W ell, the basic concept 
there, we took the proposals made by the school system to 
see if they met the desegregation plans and then made ad­
justments in them where we didn’t think they fully met

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



414a

them, and we made one that just seemed like better adminis. 
tration bnt that was not really a desegregation matter.

Q. W hat changes did you make in the school system pro­
posal? A . In the rural?

Q. Yes. A . In the rural we changed Burroughs which 
was virtually an all-black school down near Theodore, if 
you know the school, and [77] it was a one to six virtually 
all black and we said we could not go with that, there had 
to be an integrated school, so we made it a six to eight 
school instead of a one to six and took the junior high out 
of Theodore and put the junior high in Burroughs, the 
seventh and eighth grade, and the sixth grade out of Davis 
and put it in Burroughs and then that integrated all of the 
schools. A t the same time in a personal conversation with 
Mr. McPherson I  said if you’ve got a better way to do this, 
just to get it integrated, well, that will be fine but we just 
couldn’t leave it all black.

Q. The only reason for the change then was to avoid 
leaving it an all-black school? A . Yes.

Q. W hat other changes were made? A . Well, the only 
other changes we made, we suggested that the seventh to 
twelfth, I  mean the sixth through eighth attendance lines 
in, for Citronelle be the same as the senior high, and then 
the consolidation of Mount Vernon and Delsaw be for a 
one to five setup but also include Calcedeaver in the one to 
five, and then drop down a little further south and pick up 
some of the Lee students.

Q. W hy was this change made? A. W ell, it seemed like 
better administration, better operation. [78] The Calce­
deaver children were virtually all on busses already. That 
whole school is transported already and it just seemed

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



415a

like a better operation to us to put it that way. Now, there 
was a big question came up, though, about the Calcedeaver 
children are listed as white and Delsaw, the Delsaw-Mount 
Vernon area is predominantly black, and by putting the 
Calcedeaver children in you’ve got a greater number of 
white, these people who are classified as white. I  don’t 
know whether they are white or not.

Q. And you recommended closing the Calcedeaver school? 
A. Yes. Now, the County plans, their general plans were 
to build a one to eight school, a consolidated school to re­
place Delsaw and Mount Vernon.

Q. For September? A . No.
Q. Well, let me ask you this: The change that was re­

quired or recommended in connection with the Burroughs 
School that you have mentioned and Calcedeaver, in Bur­
roughs was in order to avoid having an all-black school. 
Who made the determination that a change would have 
to be made in order to accomplish that result? A . Mr. 
Jordan and I.

Q. Did you feel that it was necessary to avoid having an 
all-black [79] school? A . Yes.

Q. Did you feel that the court order requires that? A . 
Yes.

Q. Can you show me in the court order where it says 
that! A. Well, it just says maximum desegregation or 
something like that or positive or whatever the words are.

Q. Did you interpret that to mean that you must elimi­
nate— A. Black school wherever possible.

Q. All-black schools and all-white schools? A . No, sir. 
I didn’t interpret it that way but wherever possible.

Q. Wherever possible? A . Where you could do it, do it 
and we felt that this was one place that it could be done.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



416a

Mr. Gorman: Let’s take a short break.
Mr. Philips: A ll right. Let’s take five minutes.

(Eecess)

Q. W e were talking about, I  guess, the Burroughs situa­
tion and the sole reason for requiring the change in what 
the School Board proposed there was to avoid the exist­
ence of an all-negro or all-black school? A . That’s right.

[80] Q. W as that the primary criteria that you used in 
your development of the whole plan? A . Well, that was 
what we considered the court order was all about, yes.

Q. A s I  understand it, the court order talked in terms of 
desegregating the school system, not eliminating all-negro 
or all-black or all-anything else. A . W ell, there again I 
don’t want to get into interpreting legal matters, but all 
that preface that went on before the thing where he threw 
out all your boundary lines, where the Circuit Court, you 
had drawn boundary lines, the Judge himself, as I under­
stood it, for the elementary and the junior high schools 
for the metropolitan area, and the way I  read it in the pre­
liminaries to it, they had thrown everything out and said 
start over or words to that effect, and then he said, I don’t 
know, what are those words, positively or affirmatively or 
something like that—

Mr. Crawford: W hat court order are you talking 
about?

Mr. Philips: W e are discussing the one he was 
working with.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969

A . The June 3rd.



417a

Mr. Crawford: June 3rd?
Mr. Philips: Yes.

A. The June 3rd court order said positively or aggres­
sively or [81] something.

Q. Well, that’s all right. I know what the order says. 
I was just interested in your interpretation of it and what 
you would—  A . W ell, I  was told not to but you couldn’t 
help but do a little of it.

Q. Well, you have got to interpret it to know what to 
do, haven’t you ? A . That’s right, and it just seemed to us, 
it seemed to us to say or it seemed to me to say, and every­
body else in this, that what you have done isn’t satisfactory, 
now do more, and that seemed to be the meat in the coconut 
so far as the court was concerned.

Q. Among the doing more did you interpret it to mean 
the necessity of eliminating any school that was all-black 
or any school that was all-white ?

Mr. Gorman: I am going to object to that ques­
tion. You are asking this witness, who is an educa­
tional expert, to give a legal opinion—

Mr. Philips: I  am asking him to give the basis 
upon which he proceeded and he’s got to proceed on 
some assumption or on the basis of some criteria, and 
I don’t mean to be argumentative but this is what I  
want to know.

[82] A. Well, the basis on which we proceeded was to 
eliminate as many black schools as you could within 
son.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969

rea-



418a

Q. As the primary criteria? A . W ell, that that is what 
the court order was about.

Q. Is that what you took as the primary criteria! A, 
Yes, and by within reason, I  mean with a sound educa­
tional program.

Q. W hat about the elimination of all all-white schools, 
was that also—  A . That would be a question of philosophy 
which I  expressed my opinion on, that I personally thought 
that I had not seen anything in the courts about eliminat­
ing all-white schools. There was some kind of opinion that 
the Fifth Circuit rendered sometime ago that said there 
wouldn’t be any all-black schools hut we wound up, as we 
said here, with five and we couldn’t see any way within 
reason of eliminating those five. Now, I don’t know whether 
the court will throw it out and say eliminate those five or 
whether they will— I don’t know what they will do with it 
but we said we did the best we could.

Q. Now, you said just then you hadn’t seen anything in 
the courts about this, that or the other, I don’t remember 
the exact proposition. A . About white schools.

[83] Q. You are then drawing on your interpretation of 
court decrees in formulating your criteria as to what you 
did? A . Yes, you have to—

Q. Your interpretation of court decrees, not only this 
one but other court decrees, is that correct? A. Yes, that’s 
correct. That’s correct and—

Q. W hat criteria did you use, if you will name them, in 
arriving at the attendance areas that you recommended 
to the court? A . The criterion of promoting as much inte­
gration as possible, together with a sound administratively 
feasible educational program.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



419a

Q. All right. Promoting as much integration as pos­
sible— A. And with no greater expenditure of funds than 
bad been previously contemplated by the school system.

Q. All right. W hat are the specific criteria that you ad­
hered to beyond promoting as much integration as possible? 
A. Well, we—

Q. Specific criteria. Just to say a sound educational pro­
gram is—  A . W ell, we used as a guideline that the school 
system was trying to work toward a one to five system, a 
one to five elementary setup. Then we ran into places, all 
right, could you pair without interrupting that one to five 
sequence—  [84] that is, have maybe two grades in one 
school and three in the other, and so we decided that was 
still within the framework of sound educational policy, that 
you could so pair, and if that would produce greater de­
segregation, that could be done, and so also the question 
came up—

Q. Let me ask you this, and I  will let you go ahead and 
enumerate the others, but let me ask you about that one. 
Would you ordinarily recommend such a pairing as you 
have described if you weren’t dealing with the desegrega­
tion process? A . No.

Q. All right. Go ahead to the next one. A . But we were 
dealing with desegregation.

Q. Go ahead with the next one. A . Then the question 
came up then about the Blount-Vigor thing, as to whether 
it wouldn’t be better to make one of them say just a ninth 
and tenth grade school all by itself and the other one 
an eleventh and twelfth grade school all by itself, and we 
realized the problems you run into with extracurricular 
activities and athletics and bands and what-have you, and

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



420a

they were so close together as the crow flies, about two- 
tenths of a mile between those two school grounds. It’s 
a long way around the way you have to drive, that we 
thought that for their extracurricular programs and things 
that involved all [85] of them together, but the school sys­
tem in its operation would probably basically put all ninth 
and tenth grades in one place and all eleventh and twelfth 
graders in the other so that it wouldn’t have to be a com­
plete changing of campuses between every class and every 
period.

Q. So you basically paired these schools? A . Basically 
but put them together administratively for anything they 
needed to be together administratively for, and the same 
thing was true in— what was it— Williamson-Craighead. 
Williamson and Craighead was— yes, Williamson and Craig­
head.

Q. W ould you ordinarily do this sort of thing in a school 
system except for the desegregation process? A. No, I 
wouldn’t think you would. Unless you had that in mind, 
you would not.

Q. W hat other criteria now did you adhere to? A. Well, 
I  think I have named them.

Q. Okay. Those that you have named are all the criteria 
that you adhered to? A . They are all I  can think of at 
the moment.

Q. A s a basic principle do you believe a liberal transfer 
policy is a desirable thing in a school system? A. Before 
school starts.

Q. Before school starts? [86] A . Not after school starts. 
I believe once he has made his course, he ought to stick 
to it for a year.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



421a

Q. In your development of your study and recommenda­
tions did you have knowledge or gather knowledge concern­
ing the Board’s long-range plans in connection with the 
school system? A . A  good many of them, maybe not all 
of them.

Q. Where did you acquire this information? A . W ell, 
one was in this report to the, that the Board submitted 
about its plans for the use of the different, that the school 
system submitted to the Court about its plans for the 
use of buildings, and particularly in the rural area I talked 
with the people at the School Board about what they saw 
the developments were.

Q. Who specifically did you talk to? A . Mr. McPherson 
specifically.

Q. Did you have any other source or any other knowledge 
concerning the long-range plans? A . No.

Q. What do you consider, Dr. Hall, as a desegregated 
school system? W hat do you consider an integrated school 
system? When have you achieved an integrated school 
system?

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969

Mr. Gorman: Now, I  will object to that question. 
That is a legal question and this witness doesn’t 
have the cognizance or the [87] expertise to—

Mr. Philips: He was told to achieve a desegre­
gated school system and he acted toward doing that. 
I would like for him to tell me what he was attempt­
ing to do and when he thinks it will have been 
accomplished.

A. Wien you have gone just as far as you can to relieve 
desegregation within reason.



422a

Q. Would you give me an example of this? A. Now, 1 
don’t know what the— you see, this thing has changed as 
we have gone along or maybe it has been clarified, I am 
not sure. When we first started off, it dealt only with pupils 
it didn’t deal with staff at all the first few years of these 
court orders, and then it got into staff. I remember the first 
court order that we had, that all we had to do was just 
to notify every pupil that he could go to whatever, that 
he could apply to go to any school that he wanted to. That 
was the first court order. Then as they have moved this 
thing along, they have gotten further and further or more 
stringent in their interpretations. Now—
Q. So you have a changeable standard, I gather? A. 

Yes, I think— I don’t know whether you would say the rules 
have been changed or the rules have been clarified but, for 
instance, at one time in our own school system we had a 
de- [88] segregated school system by the definition at that 
time but by the present definition it’s no longer desegre­
gated, so you get additional understandings. Now, so far 
as I am personally concerned, when you have gone just as 
far as you can possibly go within reason, then you have 
desegregated. Now, it could well be, though, that we left 
these five all-white schools and it could well be that the 
court would say that that is not going far enough. At one 
time you could ask yourself these questions, and if you 
could answer them affirmatively, you were all right. One, 
if we hadn’t had a dual school system, would I have built 
this school in this particular spot, and if you said no, it 
wouldn’t have been built here, then you eliminated that 
school and then you had that problem resolved.
Q. You mean you closed that school? A. If you closed, 

if you eliminated that school, and now, now the question

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



423a

is coming up all over the country, as you know, and cer­
tainly we have it in our own community and I haven’t 
seen the answers to it. If you have a community of say 
three miles wide and seven miles long and it’s solid black 
and there are twenty-five thousand pupils in it and you 
need to build some schools, should they be built in that 
community or should they be built out somewhere else in 
order to achieve desegre- [89] gation, and that’s a problem 
that is confronting the whole educational profession and 
the answers yet are not clear cut on that.
Q. What is your opinion? A. If you— excuse me, there’s 

one other question I said you could ask yourself. Have I 
made any distinction because of race, and if you answered 
that no, but the general interpretations, as I have gathered 
along at least for a period of time, I don’t know how long 
this will be, but in the process of eliminating the dual school 
system, you must not only, you must take race into con­
sideration. It’s a paradoxical point but you must count 
noses and take race into consideration rather than just 
ignoring race, and you must do that both for faculty and 
for students, and I assume that there would be some ulti­
mate time out here after you achieve your goal, then when 
you would completely ignore both and proceed along that 
point, but there is a period of time that we are going 
through now where the courts are saying you must take 
race into consideration. Now, excuse me, but I wanted to 
bring that out. Now, what is your question?
Q. Well, I was trying to get around to get you to tell me, 

if you could, when you have a desegregated school system. 
What is a desegregated school system? [90] A. Well, that 
one I have been trying to find out.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



424a

Q. And yon can’t tell me? A. No. That is one question 
we are asking yon all to try to get the court to say here 
if— you see, this court has ruled, as I understand it, it 
seemed to me to be a sort of an in-between thing in some 
decisions that there would be no all-black schools in the 
south or in the Fifth Circuit, and I have racked my brains 
how you could do that, and they haven’t spelled out, they 
haven’t said you have to bus to do it. They just said there 
would be none. Now, in this proposal here there is some 
bussing introduced. It’s a minimal amount and we did 
not go so far as to go what we call cross-bussing. We were 
— well, we just haven’t reached the point, or at least I 
haven’t reached that point in my own philosophy to think 
that is good educationally, to haul people out of one commu­
nity and out of another. Now, we did one-way bussing but 
not cross-bussing in this proposal and we did it in those 
places where the school system was proposing to build, to 
put new construction— that is, in this plan, in this write-up 
that I am talking about they were planning to replace 
the Emerson School, said they had been wanting to rebuild 
the Emerson School a long time, and we simply said if 
you are going to have desegregation, the place to build 
it is not there but [91] build it over here so you would 
have the same capital outlay cost to build it over here, 
and the same thing with Howard, and the same thing 
with Toulminville.
Q. You refer to the same capital outlay cost. Do you 

take into account there the fact that in one instance over 
$200,000.00 and the other almost $200,000.00 in land acqui­
sition which will then be lost at those existing sites? A. 
Well, I wouldn’t say those would be lost because, if they

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



425a

cost $200,000.00, then they have that value, either to some 
other public agency or to some private group if they 
wanted to sell, and the chances are you could buy addi­
tional sites, at least this has been my experience, I haven’t 
checked it here in Mobile, for whatever you could realize, 
you could buy more land out than you could in because 
the land in is usually higher than the land out, and I am 
all in favor of keeping land in in the hands of some public 
agency because we are running into the shortage of parks 
and everything else in facilities, but—
Q. Did you make any studies of land values in Mobile? 

A. No, sir.
Q. Did you make any inquiry into land values? A. No, 

but I am just going on what is generally the situation.
Q. All right. We have gotten kind of far afield from 

the orig- [92] inal question that I have asked you. Let 
me try to—  A. Excuse me. Let me get back here. You 
originally asked me what did this court order say and 
I understand that—
Q. That’s all right. I am confident that you can read 

the court order to me. A. And I was going to tell you 
ivhat I thought it meant. We keep coming around to that.
Q. You can’t now tell me what you thought it meant 

without reading the court order? A. Well_
Q. Well, can you or can’t you? Can you tell me now 

without reading the court order? A. Yes.
Q. What? A. I have already told you.
Q. Okay. Then there is no point in reading the court 

older. A. All right. (Pause) This is all the preliminaries, 
isn’t it? Where does it get down to the order itself?

Mr. Crawford: The meat is right over here.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



426a

A. I don’t find what I am hunting anywhere. Anyhow, 
they threw ont— what I was simply saying, that I inter­
preted it to mean— yeah, there are the words that I am 
looking for right there. I wonder why I couldn’t see it. 
“The District Court shall [93] forthwith request the Office 
of Health, Education and Welfare to collaborate with the 
Board of School Commissioners in the preparation of a 
plan to fully and affirmatively desegregate all public schools 
in Mobile County, urban and rural.” Now, that—
Q. That is what I asked you. A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell me when you fully and affirmatively 

desegregate a school system? A. Well, that is what we 
thought this plan did and I am also saying that the Court 
may say it doesn’t, but when we had gone as far as you 
could within reason in the desegregation of the schools, 
and by in reason—
Q. And what do you mean by that, “going as far as 

you can in the desegregation of the schools”? Does that 
mean simply getting as many negro children with as many 
white children, or what does it mean? A. That is—yes, 
providing student bodies that are racially mixed.
Q. On a ratio or what? A. I guess in your preference, 

if you had your preference, yes, it would be the ratio of 
the whole thing but you can’t do that within reason, at 
least I don’t think you can.
[94] Q. But that would be the ultimate that you would 

shoot for? A. Yes, I guess you would say that that’s, 
it seems to be what the court is saying, at least in my 
interpretation of what they are saying, and you are asking 
me what I feel about that.
Q. Do you feel then under the court order what you 

are required to try to accomplish then is a racial balance

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



427a

in the school system based on a ratio of the total student 
population? A. That would be the ultimate, yes.
Q. Then you think that was what you were supposed 

to work towards? A. We were supposed— I thought we 
were supposed to work just as far as we could to creating 
a desegregated situation, yes.
Q. And by a desegregated situation you mean a racial 

balance? A. A racial mix, yes.
Q. A racial balance, a ratio? A. Well, I guess if you 

could take the ultimate, you would say a balance but we 
certainly didn’t come up with any balance.
Q. Well, what I am talking about is what you were 

working towards. A. Well, we were working towards a 
racial mix.
Q. To desegregate the school system as far as you could? 

A. Yes.
Q. And that you interpreted to mean ultimately, in the 

ultimate, a racial balance? A. No, we didn’t interpret it 
to mean—

[95] Mr. Gorman: Wait a minute. You have 
asked that question at least forty times during the—  
Mr. Crawford: A racial mix and not balance. You 

are leading him by trying to get him to say balance.
Q. When you have got a racial mix, when can you tell 

me that the racial mixture is a desegregated school sys­
tem? What racial mixture is a desegregated school 
system? A. I have no guide to just— if you have a con­
siderable number of both races in a school, then you have 
a racial mix but I wouldn’t set a definite percentage.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



428a

Q. So then you don’t think there is any definite per- 
centage? There is nothing the school system can look to 
and say we have done all we can do, as you phrase it! 
A. That’s right.
Q. Now, what about the resegregation? Suppose y o u  

do all you can do and then human nature takes its course 
and people resegregate—

Mr. Gorman: Now, I will object to that.
Mr. Crawford: We are going to object to that 

because that calls for some facts that are not in 
issue here. That calls for what would happen in 
the next twenty years or ten years, and this man 
was ordered to follow the decree as of now, and I 
think that is asking for a supposition that he is 
not compe- [96] tent to answer.
Mr. Philips: He says that he has experienced the 

phenomenon of resegregation and I would like his 
opinion on it.
Mr. Crawford: Only as it relates to a general 

area but not specifically to Mobile, and that is my 
objection.

Q. What do you do when you have resegregation! Do 
you still have a desegregated school system or do you 
start over again? A. Can I talk now? I mean I was 
waiting until—
Q. Yes. I am not trying to bewilder you with it but— 

A. Yeah. Well, basically what you are saying is can you 
ever say that you have arrived and the problem is solved, 
and I used to think you could say that about a lot of 
school problems but I believe this is probably one of

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



429a

those problems where it is going to be a persistent prob­
lem just as the education of children is persistent, and 
probably there would have to be further adjustments made 
at some time in the future.
Q. Okay. Now, if you will, you have the court order 

in front of you—  A. Now, there was a big argument over 
in Columbia, over in South Carolina, they were telling me 
about as to whether de facto, about de facto and de jure. 
If it was de jure, then that was caused by a school that 
was built for blacks and it had to be eliminated. If it 
was de facto where it had developed, [97] but I don’t 
know what the decision was or whether there has been 
any decision or whether there is a difference in it or not.
Q. Is there any significance to you in this? A. Well, 

it was in a w a y .  We are talking social philosophy now 
a little bit—
Q. Well, let’s talk education. A. Well, you have to, in 

order to talk education you have to take some of the 
other problems of society into mind also and relate edu­
cation to the society’s problems. Now, actually I guess 
what people say now is that the black man has complete 
freedom of choice as to where he will live, but that time 
hasn’t quite arrived yet either in spite of— I mean I just 
know of a number of cases in my own community, and I 
am sure you can find them in other communities, so some­
times society itself is responsible for the resegregation as 
such.
Q. Well, let me ask you this question: You have the 

court order there. If you will, show me in this court 
Older where it calls upon you to make recommendations 
mth reference to desegregation of faculty? A. That is 
in that basic statement that I just read you.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



430a

Q. Read it to me again, if yon will. A. Positively and— 
what were those words? You found it. I  [9 8 ] couldn’t 
find it before. “Of a plan to fully and affirmatively de­
segregate all public schools in Mobile County, urban and 
rural”.
Q. And you interpreted that to mean the involvement 

of faculty also? A. All other court orders deal with 
faculty and students. Every one of them I have seen. 
As a matter of fact, prior court orders in this case have 
dealt with faculty. They weren’t mentioned here but I just 
assumed that it did but whether—
Q. Were you aware of whether or not faculty had been 

an issue before the court when this court order was issued! 
A. No, sir. All I read was that statement that says to 
prepare a desegregation plan, and a desegregation plan, 
all of them that I have worked on, both in court and out 
of court, and I have worked on a number, is not con­
sidered complete unless it involves staff.
Q. Did someone tell you to include staff and faculty? 

A. Well, I guess— I raised the question with Mr. Jordan 
and he said yes, he said we should.
Q. Was it called to your attention that this court order 

didn’t mention faculty specifically? A. Yes.
Q. Was it called to your attention that faculty was not 

an issue [99] before the court when it issued this order? 
A. Yes.
Q. Who called that to your attention? A. Mr. McPher­

son, I think it was.
Q. Did somebody else call to your attention any counter­

information indicating that that was incorrect? A. No, 
nothing other than just this statement we read here, pre­

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



431a

pare a complete plan, and I have seen no plan yet that 
has been acceptable in court or ont that didn’t include 
faculty. However, if it’s a moot issue, that would be up 
to the court, but we just considered that a part of what 
we were asked to do.
Q. Okay. Did you go to court and ask for clarification 

on it! A. No, sir.
Q. Who did you ask for clarification on it, anybody? 

A. Just ourselves. I would like to go to the court but 
I wasn’t sure about protocol. I mentioned this to the— I 
would like to ask the court several questions but I didn’t 
want to, I didn’t know whether you were allowed. I would 
like to have asked the Circuit Judge here just what he 
meant but it would be questions you are asking me and 
I think would be better asked of him, and if he would say, 
then we would all know which way to go.
[100] Q. That is interesting. In dealing with the faculty 

aspect of it, did you have occasion to review the existing 
personnel policies of the School Board? A. Yes. Well, 
not in detail. I reviewed some of them.
Q. What did you review? A. The basic general plan. 

I guess I did this more by talk than I actually looked 
at any written documents. I don’t remember looking at 
any written documents. I don’t remember looking at any 
written documents on it, just I talked with them about 
what the plans were.
Q. Who did you talk to? A. Mr. McPherson.
Q. The only information you have then on the Board’s 

personnel policies is from your discussion with Mr. Mc­
Pherson? A. That’s correct.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



432a

Q. Did you ask him if the Board had a definite per­
sonnel policy overall? A. I don’t recall whether I did or 
not.
Q. Did you think that relative to inquire whether they 

might have some existing policy before recommending a 
new policy? A. Not particularly. I judged— I did read 
in the court orders, the court order of March 12th some 
year, I believe it was, that had some materials in it about 
faculty. I can verify that if it’s important.
[101] Q. If it’s in the court order, then it’s before the 

court.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969

Mr. Gorman: I think all of this is set out in 
the plan as well.

A. Yes, I believe it’s in the book there, what the court 
order of March 12th— March 12th, yes, that’s right.
Q. All right. This is a court order. Let me ask you— 

A. But I didn’t know whether this court order still ap­
plied because in the July 29th court order the Judge just 
made a passing remark about faculty and activities and 
buildings, I believe. He said they were covered in a pre­
vious court order, and I didn’t have the Judge Thomas’s 
order but in discussing it I gathered that his order was 
based upon the March 12th—

Mr. Gorman: Could I help him?
A. The March 12th Circuit Court.
Q. You needn’t read the order. A. Oh, yes, I am sure 

you know it by heart.



433a

Q. Yes, I’ve got a copy of it. A. Yes, so I assumed 
that one still prevailed.
Q. You didn’t inquire about any additional policies or 

any written policies then overall dealing with faculty and 
staff that the School Board might have? A. No.

Mr. Philips: Let’s take a short recess.
(Becess.)

[102] Q. Let’s put this on the record. If you will, re­
state what you have just said.

Mr. Crawford: Now, I am going to object to this 
unless a specific question is asked. He was saying 
that this was off the record and we were supposed 
to be in recess.

Q. All right. That section of the report dealing with fac­
ulty, does that reflect your wording of that report, that 
portion of the report? A. No, sir. There are several topics 
there that I would have changed the “shall” to a “should” 
—in other words, as a suggestion rather than a seeming 
order.
Q. You would then change, where what you have sub­

mitted, the report, says “shall”, you would change it to 
“should”? A. Yes.

Mr. Crawford: Where is that found?
A. Right there.
Q. "Whose wording is that, Dr. Hall? A. Mr. Jordan, 

I guess.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



434a

Q. You don’t know for sure? A. 106. No, sir. All I 
know is I got it from him and the only— well, it’s sort of an 
insignificant point but—
Q. Who wrote this section on faculty? A. The prinei. 

pals, teachers, teacher aids and other staff who [103] 
work directly with children of a school shall be assigned, 
and I would have just said “should be assigned”, that’s all 
Q. Who wrote the section on faculty? A. Mr. Jordan 
Q. Mr. Jordan? Okay. A. I had written a previous sec­

tion that was rougher than this and he— well, it had the 
shall and the should, but the final ruling was that this one 
would replace that.
Q. What portions of this plan did you actually, do you 

take credit for? A. As the sole author?
Q. Yes. A. Or as the principal officer?
Q. Yes. A. I would take credit for Chapter Two—
Q. What chapter is that? A. In its entirety.
Q. What chapter is that? A. That is the status of things 

as they now are. I would take credit for reviewing Chap­
ters One, Three and Four, which are the background for 
Mobile, I mean I did editorial work on that and made sev­
eral changes, and Chapter Three I made some changes, 
that’s the finance chapter, and Chapter Four, I take [104] 
about half credit for Chapter Four.
Q. Which chapter is Chapter Four? A. That’s the 

course of study.
Q. Which is the chapter with the recommendations for 

the attendance areas and the lines and—  A. That’s Chap­
ter Five. Chapter Five, I would take— -well, that was a 
cooperative project. I would have to take full respon­
sibility as the director of the study for Chapter Five and

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1999



435a

also this chapter here. I just said I would have changed 
a few words.
Q. You take full responsibility for it hut whose work 

does it represent? A. Well, it represents the combined 
work of these, this Chapter Four, of these four people, 
I mean Chapter Five of the plan, the combined work of the 
four people I mentioned before, Stolee and—
Q. Who made the primary decisions in the location and 
composition of the attendance? A. Well, the final deci­
sions, the head man was Mr. Jordan.
Q. Who made the working decisions? I am sure he had 

to approve it, he had to approve anything you did. A. The 
working decisions on what ?
Q. On the location of attendance area lines, the com­

position of—  [105] A. That was a cooperative thing. I 
don’t know if you can understand that fully but here are 
four people working together and you try out something 
here and try it a different way, and to say which one did 
the final thing, I know of no way to say that. That was 
a cooperative thing, and Chapter, this section on personnel, 
the prime officer was Mr. Jordan but all of us—
Q. The same four? A. Pitched in— no, I’m sorry, just 
the two, plus Mr. Anrig.
Q. Okay. Now, did Mr. Anrig have to approve every­

thing? A. No, except in broad terms. I guess he would be 
stuck with everything that is in it but it’s just like Pres­
ident Nixon is stuck with everything that everybody does 
but—
Q. But these things were submitted to him for review, 
"ere tliey not? A. Yes, and he was, at the same time he 
"as lêiewing about twenty other plans so he was dealing 
in broad general things and not—

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



436a

Q. Twenty other plans across the country? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what other plans? A. Well, Louisiana 

and Mississippi— Louisiana, I guess. They were in New 
Orleans so I guess they were working in Louisiana [106] 
or in New Orleans particularly.
Q. Was there an effort made to make these plans coin­

cide? A. No, no effort made to make them jive. However, 
I think there are certain standard wordings that crop np 
in a number of reports.
Q. A canned form or a standard phraseology? A. I 

imagine that, I guess I’ve done myself, I said I had done 
about ten counties. Now, I usually alter a few words but 
the basic idea, it comes out in each one of them.
Q. This basic form that was in usage, was this your form 

or was this somebody else’s form? A. I don’t even know 
that there is a form. I said the probabilities are. For in­
stance, Mr. Jordan had just finished doing twenty some odd 
schools or thirty or some number in Columbia, in which the 
general problems— of course, you will have specific com­
munities that will have variations, but the general things 
would run consistent in all of them.
Q. These in South Carolina that he had been dealing 

with, as well as the ones in Mississippi and Louisiana that 
Mr. Anrig was working on at that time—  A. Yes, and I 
guess others, too. I know Air. Jordan has got, right now 
he has got several school systems in Alabama and several 
in Mississippi that they are working on, and if there [107] 
is not some similarity between them, it would be amazing 
to me, I mean once you have worked through a program.
Q. Which ones in Alabama are you working on now, do 

you know? A. No. It was in the paper, Jefferson County, 
not Birmingham but—

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



437a

Mr. Gorman: The City of Bessemer.
A. Well, it’s a county.

Mr. Gorman: It’s in Jefferson County.
A. Jefferson County which does not include the City of 
Birmingham, and then there are a couple of others similar 
in that same general area. It was in the paper here. I saw 
it in the paper. I forget what they are.
Q. Dr. Hall, how long were you in Mobile? A. I was 

here for twenty-eight days.
Q. You came here when?

Mr. Crawford: This is repetitious. He has al­
ready said June 10th.

A. Yes, June 10th.
Q. And when did you leave? A. July 3rd, or about 

July the 4th. I was here all day the 3rd but then I took 
some things with me to do after I left and so I worked on 
up through the 7th.
Q. Were you here constantly throughout that time or 

were you in [108] other places? A. No, I was— well, 
Iran out to, for one thing. I made a speech in Jacksonville, 
I think. Yeah, I had to go to Jacksonville. This was a com­
mitment I had made but I took my work along and worked 
on the plane.
Q. When was this, the 23rd or the 16th? A. The 16th.
Q. What about on the 23rd? A. The 23rd? The 23rd 

I went over to Edgewater Beach but I was only gone about 
three hours, four hours.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



438a

Q. Was there any other time that yon left Mobile or were 
you in Mobile constantly other than those two occasions 
that you have mentioned? A. No, I think I was here con­
stantly, and the fact that I was away those times didn’t 
mean anything because I was working on the stuff. All 
I had to do was stop long enough to make a speech.

Mr. Philips: Let’s take that five minute break 
that I started a half an hour ago.
Mr. Crawford: Now, don’t say anything while 

we’re on the break, Dr. Hall, or he’s going to call yon 
back on the record.
(Eeeess)

Q. Dr. Hall, do you consider as an important criteria 
in the [109] assignment of students within reasonable 
bounds filling schools to capacity but not over-filling the 
schools in order to make sure that all students are housed! 
A. Yes, that sounds—
Q. It’s almost elementary, isn’t it? A. Yes. Although 

a common practice is in most of your larger school systems 
they have portable classrooms that are just as good, that 
they can move around.
Q. That’s what I had in mind when I said within reason­

able bounds, that you are frequently over-filled slightly. 
A. Right.
Q. You think any desegregation plan then to be prac­

tically workable in your figures that you are dealing with 
in the assignment of students to schools have got to be 
accurate within bounds, should they not? A. They should 
be, yes, reasonably so.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



439a

Q. Were your figures accurate that you were working 
with! A. Seasonably so. There may, I believe I indicated 
in the report that there was some degree of error in trans­
ferring them but within reason I think they were.

Mr. Philips: I have no further questions.
A. Do you have something particular in mind! Do you find 
some error we made ?

[110] Mr. Philips: Well, I am not through evalu­
ating it. I probably will.

A. Well, if you do find one, I think you ought to tell us and 
then we -would probably, we would try to correct it.

Mr. Philips: I probably will find some. I was just 
interested in a general concept.

A. If you or the members of the school system found some 
error, I think you would have an obligation to tell us.

Mr. Philips: I am sure we would if we did.
On Cross Examination by Mr. Gorman:
Q. Let me just go over a couple of things here. Now, 

Doctor, when you were working on this desegregation plan, 
you had, you did certain work yourself, is that correct? 
A. Yes.
Q, And you had several staff people doing work along 

similar lines while you were working, is that correct? A. 
Bight.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



440a

Q. And the staff people included personnel from the Uni­
versity of Alabama? A. The University of Alabama spe­
cifically requested that they not be involved in any of the 
vital parts of the desegregation study so we did not ask 
them to participate in any way [111] in any of that.
Q. But you did get some—  A. But they did do help. In 

other words, if we would draw a map and said we need 
another copy of it, then they would make that for us but 
they had nothing to do with the map-making itself.
Q. Dr. Woodward did some help with respect to— A. 

He did practically all of the— yes, I would say he did prac­
tically all the chapter on finance.
Q. And you also had some assistance from the University 

Center at Auburn, one or two of the people there? A. One 
man came down and worked the full time, yes. Well, not the 
full time. He was here a week or two. I don’t know exactly 
how long he was here.
Q. And you also had assistance from the Atlanta office 

of the Office of Education? A. Yes.
Q. That is Mr. Jordan’s office? A. Yes.
Q. And the University of South Alabama?

Mr. Philips: I think all of this— he has already 
gone over all of this, Walter. This is totally repe­
titious.

Q. Now, after contact had been made with the School 
Board, the [112] School Board or the school officials sub­
mitted plans, desegregation plans to you and your staff, 
is that correct? A. That’s correct.

Mr. Philips: You say the School Board submitted 
them to you?

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



441a

A. No, the school officials he said, I thought, the representa­
tives of the school system, the staff. They were staff pro­
posals. I don’t know whether the Board had seen them or 
not.
Q. Now, were those proposals both with respect to the 

rural and the metropolitan schools? A. Yes, at different 
times.
Q. And what did you do with those proposals? A. Let’s 

see. We had set up a schedule in our conferences that the 
rural, that we would have a conference for the rural pres­
entation on Wednesday, I don’t know what day— let me 
see now. Let me get my dates straight. Anyhow, the pres­
entation on the rural was made and then the— maybe, I 
don’t know the day of the week. Maybe it was Friday. 
And then we set up a conference for the presentation of 
the metropolitan on the following Wednesday, and then we 
would have a joint conference on Friday of that week in 
which we would work out all of the details, but the repre­
sentatives of the school system felt that they shouldn’t par­
ticipate in that, that we ought to develop our own plans 
separately, so we did not work with [113] them on that.
Q. I see. Then you planned to take the proposals that 

had been made by the school officials and suggest, study 
them and suggest any modifications or adjustments that 
you thought were appropriate? A. Well, our basic plan 
had been that with our consultant, I mean my basic plan 
had been, I won’t say our, that with our consultants that 
we would take Friday and work through everything that 
we had up until that time and make proposals trying to 
answer the three questions that I indicated previously and

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



442a

that we would just all sit around and do that together. 
Now—
Q. When you say “we”, you mean—  A. I mean the 

school staff and our staff would work at that, but they indi- 
cated they did not wish to participate in that kind of a con­
ference, so then we had to develop conferences or work out 
our own plans and then bring them back subsequently, and 
so we had set that up for Friday so then we had to post­
pone it until the following Tuesday.
Q. All right. In your contact with the school officials 

have they suggested any specific modifications or adjust­
ments to the proposal that you have submitted to them! 
A. No, sir. There have been no suggestions for modifica­
tion of [114] anything that we have—

Mr. Philips: Those will be submitted to the court, 
Walter, as you well know.

Q. Now, with respect to transporting students as part 
of a desegregation program, do you feel as an educator 
or do you believe as an educator that it is educationally 
sound to use transportation to achieve a desegregated learn­
ing situation? A. Could I make a little lengthy statement 
on that?
Q. Sure. A. We have talked a good bit in education 

about what we call compensatory education for those who 
are in need of special help and we have set up, many of 
us have set up a number of plans. Some of them have been 
quite costly to do this job of compensatory education. Now, 
my opinion is, and this is only an opinion, that the most 
satisfactory compensatory program for our ghetto black;

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



443a

would be to be placed in a school with white children, and 
that money expended to do that would be more rewarding 
than hiring extra teachers or giving extra materials or 
what-have-you, and so I would, I guess I would answer your 
question that, yes, I think it would be a valuable educational 
experience, particularly for the young negro pupils at this 
time, to be placed in schools with white pupils.
Q. All right. Even if this would mean transporting them? 
[115] A. Yes, even if this meant transporting them.
Q. Now, with respect to the attendance lines that were 

proposed in the plan which was developed by you and your 
staff, Mr. Philips referred to artificial arrangements of 
attendance zones and mentioned gerrymandering. A. We 
call it, we use the term “non-contiguous”.
Q. And Mr. Philips I think mentioned gerrymandering 

zones and gerrymandering has lost its original definition 
and has a lot of other connotations, and I would just like 
to go into that a little bit. Now, when you said that you re­
drew the lines to encourage desegregation or to permit fur­
ther desegregation, was this done merely as an alteration 
or an adjustment of the lines keeping still within sound 
educational principles when the alterations were made, or 
did you disregard educational principles when you formu­
lated the attendance zone lines to further desegregate ? A. 
What we did we thought would give the best educational 
program for the young people who were involved. In most 
cases it was adjustment of lines but there were a few what 
we call non-contiguous areas that were a group of pupils 
who would go out to different schools to provide a desegre­
gated situation in those schools.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



444a

Q. Now, with respect to your testimony concerning pos. 
sible future [116] adjustments that would he necessary or 
might be necessary in the attendance zone lines, you indi­
cated that there are changes I guess daily in the location of 
students and from year to year. Now, what data did you 
have when you were locating students! Was that data 
based on last year’s enrollments and the location of stu­
dents the last school year? A. We had that data plus a 
pupil locater maps, but we actually, in the plan which had 
been presented to us by the school staff for the desegrega­

tion of the schools in the metropolitan area, they had the 
grade levels for each school and the attendance and the 
anticipated attendance figures. They indicated there was 
some small error in translating that, but we used that 
basically and then we used about two or three techniques 
in trying to determine the actual membership. For ex­
ample, if they had a school with grades one through six 
in it and it had six hundred pupils and we were proposing 
to just take the sixth grade out, we used the rough figure 
of five hundred pupils that would be in that school. Now, 
that won’t always hold but it’s a close enough figure where 
you won’t be off much in your calculations, and then we 
tried to balance our figures against the figures that we had 
from the school system.
Q. And these are the types of adjustments that might 

be necessary [117] after the start of school or once it’s 
known definitely how many students there are in each grade 
where the grade structure has been changed, is that cor­
rect? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, with respect to—  A. And we would also—in 

some instances we necessarily in the time we had, we had

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



445a

to short-circuit. For example, if you had grades ten, eleven 
and twelve and the pupil locater maps that they had were 
for, that they had with which they had provided us, were, 
each map had a separate grade on it, and so we would count 
one grade off the map and then multiply it by three or what­
ever number of grades. Rather than count every map, try 
to count all the pupils that are on every map, and that 
will, of course, lead to some error but not a significant 
error.
Q. Now, with respect to the change that was made by 

you and your staff in the proposals that were submitted 
by the School Board in the rural schools and particularly 
the change in the Burroughs School, now you testified, I 
believe, when asked by Mr. Philips, that the reason for this 
change was in order to eliminate an all-negro school. Was 
the change that was, that you proposed also an education­
ally sound one? A. Yes, it was educationally sound. As 
a matter of fact, it was [118] more in line with what they, 
with the general plan, a pattern for the school system, 
which is a five-three-four basic structure, and this proposed 
a three grade school at Burroughs which would have fitted 
right in with their long-range plan.
Q. Now, with respect to the faculty provisions that are 

in the plan, you mentioned that these were included; how­
ever, the wording you felt should be “should” rather than 
“shall”. A. For our report, yes.
Q. Now, is the reason for that, you mentioned—

Mr. Philips: I think you are going to lead him a 
little too much there, Walter.
Mr. Gorman: This is cross-examination.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



446a

Mr. Philips: I realize that but this is not an ad­
verse witness.
Mr. Gorman: It is cross-examination.
Mr. Philips: I realize that. Let him state his rea­

son without suggesting the reason.
Q. Let me finish my question. In answering Mr. Philips’ 

question you said that you did not want to make it an order, 
that’s why you would rather use “should” than “shall”. 
Do you feel or do you believe as an educator that the type 
of faculty assignments recommended by your report or 
proposal are educationally sound and should be imple­
mented? A. Yes, and this is a very small thing. I shouldn’t 
have brought [119] it up but to— I think what I meant, we 
were making a report to somebody and my preference for 
a way of wording it would be “it is suggested that the 
Board adopt the following policy” and then read the words, 
or if you are just going to write the policy, then start it 
“the Board should adopt the policy” which would say thus 
and so.
Q. So it wouldn’t appear to be a direct order from you 

and your staff? A. That’s right. We are not issuing or­
ders. We are just giving a report. That was land of a 
minor thing.
Q. With respect to the proposal as a whole, have you 

and your staff proposed any attendance zone lines or grade 
structures or assignments that you believe are not educa­
tionally sound? A. Let me say no and then amplify that, 
If I were organizing a school system, we have two schools 
set up that I would try to work out some other plan for, 
and that was a school called Hillsdale and a s c h o o l — it’s an

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



447a

all eighth grade school and we have another one up in the 
north—
Q. Clark? A. Clark? Well, anyhow, there were two just 

plain eight giade schools and I would try as time went on 
to work away from just a one-grade school. I think you 
can carry on an effective educational program in the light 
of other values that are in [120] the report that it would 
be sound educationally, but in the long-run I think I would 
work to get out of that one-grade school.
Q. But these are sound under the present circumstances ? 

A. Yes.
Q. Now, you have mentioned some of the criteria that 

were used in formulating attendance zone lines and you 
mentioned capacity of schools and location of students. Did 
yon also consider hazards such as highways and rivers and 
streams? A. To the best of our ability, yes. We recognized 
that while we had before us constantly while we were work­
ing a map which showed where the flow of traffic and the 
main arteries and where the problems of getting from one 
place to another existed, and so we did take that into con­
sideration, yes.

Mr. Gorman: I have nothing further at this time.
On Cross Examination by Mr. Craw ford:

Q. I have very few questions which could be answered 
yes or no. Dr. Hall, in your proposed plan did you take into 
consideration the School Board’s prior plans, present plan, 
information and data received from the School Board as 
well as from other sources in developing the present pro­
posal? A. Yes.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



448a

[121] Q. Now, why is it so difficult to leave five black 
schools all black? A. Well, that would have gotten us into 
the problem of cross-bussing which I said we did not pro­
pose, but those facilities had to be used, and in order to 
make room for white pupils at these facilities, you would 
have had first to haul the blacks, transport the blacks out 
somewhere and then transport whites back to these schools, 
and at this point in our educational philosophy we have not 
been willing to go to the cross-bussing idea.
Q. Well now, are you aware of the fact that within the 

last five years the School Board transported black students 
fifty-two miles passing white schools in order to reach a 
black school fifty-two miles away? A. Yes, sir, I was aware 
of that.
Q. Would you consider that a good policy of the School 

Board and good educational bussing? A. Well, let me make 
this comment on that, if I may. At the time that program 
was started, it was required by law and had the support 
both of law and of the communities—
Q. Which communities ? A. Well, the black and the white 

communities.
Q. And where did you get the information that it had 

the support [122] of the black community? A. Well, that 
is— I don’t know that it had the support. It didn’t have the 
objections. I am talking about— now I am talking about 
prior to ’54 when the whole thing started.
Q. No, I am speaking of within the last five years. A. 

Well, within the last five years I assume that it did not 
have the support of the black community and so I am not, 
I didn’t want to get involved in that. I was trying to trace

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



449a

your history. Now, at the present time the bussing of 
pupils in the opposite direction does not have the support 
of law, even in the Civil Rights Act, and in, I don’t know 
about this particular community but in many communities 
where I have worked it doesn’t have the support of the 
citizens in the community. I mean either the—
Q. Which citizens are you speaking about? A. I mean 

either the white or the black. I am talking about this cross­
bussing, to bus out and bus back. Now, as I said, I’m not, 
I don’t know about Mobile whether it would have the sup­
port of the blacks or whether it would have the support of 
the blacks or not, and it doesn’t have the, the cross-bussing 
doesn’t have the financial support or the legal support or 
the community support unless something in this case de­
cides that it does have the legal support. That was one 
[123] of the points I said in my earlier testimony that had 
not been fully clarified about all this business.
Q. Well then, are you aware of the fact that the court in 

the June 3rd order ordered you to desegregate all of the 
facilities and then you omitted five schools? A. I am aware 
of what that court order said, yes.
Q. And you deliberately failed to desegregate five pre­

dominantly or all-black schools? A. We could see no way 
to do it within what we used, the rule of reason.
Q. So then on all other schools that you have desegre­

gated with a great majority— that is, in terms of racial—  
you did it with all educational, sound educational reason­
ing then, is that correct ? A. That was the position that we 
took, yes.
Q. All right. Now, are you taking the position that you 

and your staff had sufficient time to develop a desegrega­

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



450a

tion plan— that is, the basic concept of snch, that you have 
had sufficient time to do that? A. Yes, we had sufficient 
time to develop the concepts. We said it would take more 
time to work it out.
Q. Now, in doing that, this proposal, would it have been 

necessary for you to have been in Mobile twenty years to 
do that? [124] A. No, sir.
Q. Five years? A. No.
Q. So you didn’t have to be an old Mobilian and working 

in the School Board office in order to do the job that you 
and your staff did, is that right? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, did you diligently attempt to follow the Fifth 

Circuit Court’s order of June 3rd in developing the plan! 
A. Yes, we diligently followed it to the extreme limits of 
reason.
Q. Now, in Chapter Five you made some suggestions for 

plan implementations. Did you find in the past that any 
of the suggestions for plan implementation had been used 
by the School Board as a matter of policy for the past five 
years or six or seven years? A. I am not clear on what 
you are talking about.
Q. Well, when you discussed this with Mr. McPherson or 

any member of the administrative staff of the School Board, 
did you learn that as a result of each decree for the past 
five years or six years that they attempted to fully inform 
the citizens and the community about the legal requirements 
of school desegregation and their plans to comply with the 
legal [125] requirements?

Mr. Philips: I hardly think he is in a position to 
interpret this.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



451a

Mr. Crawford: Well, I am asking did he discuss 
it with McPherson.
Mr. Philips: That is not the question you asked.

A. I gained the impression— now, see if this comes any­
where near answering your question. I gained the impres­
sion that the school officials, Mr. McPherson and the others 
with whom I have talked, were not opposed to desegrega­
tion, that they, but that they felt that what they were pro­
posing met the requirement of making no distinction in 
race.
Q. Well, did it? A. Well, according to our interpreta­

tion of what the court was saying it did not but they inter­
preted that it did so I guess that is the point that is up for 
argument.
Q. I call your attention to page twenty-one of the report 

and the following pages there where you have listed 
amongst other things the ratio of white students and black 
students in certain schools which were predominantly either 
black or white schools. Would you interpret those statistics 
as saying that they made no good faith effort in trying to 
desegregate the Mobile County school system? A. No, sir. 
It would depend on this business of this definition [126] 
that he was trying to get me to give. One definition, and 
I don’t want to put words in the School System’s mouth, all 
I can tell you is my impression of the definition they felt 
was being used, was that boundaries for a school would be 
drawn and no distinction would be made in the pupils in 
attendance at that school because of race, and if it hap­
pened that all of them turned out to be white or all of them 
turned out to be black, that was just a happenstance and 
not deliberately planned to avoid desegregation.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



452a

Q. But that was a fact, though, wasn’t it? A. Now, I 
gather that impression and I certainly don’t want, I mar 
be way out of line in trying to get that impression. Now 
the thing that we had, though, the impression of the defini­
tion was, as we interpreted what the court said, it had to 
be more aggressive than that and a more positive thing 
and just drawing lines was not enough but that the schools 
actually had to be integrated or desegregated, and I guess 
that is the essential difference in the interpretation. I know 
I was asked if the school system, if the people in the school 
system couldn’t draw as good a plan as we could or a better 
plan, and I said they certainly ought to be able to but it all 
depends on what the definition is, and the definition of de­
segregation, where you make no distinction because of race, 
doesn’t seem in this [127] case to be sufficient for the court, 
that it must be, that race must be a factor and that desegre­
gation must result. Now, I guess that is the basic difference 
in the whole argument.
Q. Well now, your position is now that it is very clear 

to you and you have interpreted that the orders of the June 
3rd order of the Fifth Circuit that says that they must 
desegregate all facilities, that the plan that you have pro­
posed so follows that order, is that correct? A. It follows 
our interpretation of that order and does everything that 
could be done within what we call legitimate responsible 
reasoning. It still left those five all-black schools and we 
c< mid not figure out a way to do that without getting into 
the problem of cross-bussing and we didn’t have a legal de­
cision yet on busses.
Q. Well, didn’t you say previously that in order to help 

the black students and in order to achieve full educational

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



453a

opportunities for both black and white, that the schools 
should not be all black or all white? A. Yes, sir. I said 
educationally that is sound, yes.
Q. Then on what criteria or what basis are you leaving 

five black schools other than the bussing? A. That’s right. 
We didn’t have anywhere to put them.
[128] Q. Well then, couldn’t you do it by bussing? A. 

You could do it by cross-bussing.
Q. Is there anything in the court decree that says you 

cannot bus or cross-bus? A. No, sir.
Q. Well then, you have not really complied with the 

court’s decree then? A. Well, I guess the court will prob­
ably tell us if we haven’t.
Q. Well, I mean in your opinion, based on your defini­

tion or understanding of what the court said, and you left 
five black schools unsegregated? A. We tried and we 
could not figure out any way and we spent hours and hours 
trying to figure it out.
Q. Then the students in those five black schools will for­

ever and continue to suffer from good educational oppor­
tunities? A. No. We made this general statement, that 
any new construction should be, not be in the areas in the 
black residential areas, but as buildings were replaced, that 
they ought to be out where they would be mixed. Now, 
that is a long-range part of it but it—
Q. Well, what about those students in school now that 

will soon be out of school and in the community, they will 
then continue to suffer as those in the past for the lack of 
better educational [129] opportunities then? A. That’s 
right, and the only recommendation, the only part I can 
say at all to justify that is—
Q. Well, isn’t it a fact—

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



454a

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969 

Mr. Gorman: Let him finish his answer.

A. Is that the school system ought to make a strong effort 
there for other aspects of compensatory education, which 
I said I didn’t think were as effective as the integration.

Q. When you say compensatory, you mean give those 
pupils some money or what do you mean? A. I mean give 
them power, give them more teachers, more books, more 
help of every kind that you can in a situation of this kind, 
and they would, I think they would be fully justified in 
spending more money in those schools, and again you run 
into this problem of treating all people equally but I think 
I can make a just case in justifying additional expenditure 
of funds and materials in those five schools.

Q. Dr. Hall, isn’t it an educational principle or concept 
that you educate fully the child, the whole child? A. Yes,

Q. That has been a principle for how long? A. Well—
Q. By educators? [130] A. As long as I have been in 

education.
Q. And how many students are over there at those five 

schools? A. I don’t know the exact numbers. I would 
guess about four or five thousand but I don’t know the 
exact numbers.

Q. So those four or five thousand black students will go 
lacking of development of the full child while waiting on the 
School Board to make up its mind about building another 
school, is that right? A. Well, that’s—the only plan we 
had for that was compensatory education of a different 
type and it would not involve the integration situation.

Q. Now, have you discussed with Mr. McPherson or any 
member of the School Board, member of the Board or ad­



455a

ministrative staff, about the implementation of your sug­
gestions which is found in the back of that proposal? A. 
No, other than to give them a copy of the report and to indi­
cate the time schedule.

Q. And are you aware of the fact that as a result of news 
releases that just the opposite is taking place? A. I am— 
to this morning. I read this morning’s paper but I haven’t 
seen any other papers about this thing. I don’t know what 
is happening.

Q. Then based upon what you read in this morning’s 
paper about [131] the School Board’s policies and issues 
and statements made, have you read enough to form an 
opinion that the School Board does not have or does not 
intend to follow any good faith orders or implementation of 
school segregation or desegregation? A. The things I 
read in the paper, there was an editorial and some com­
ments by a Congressman. I didn’t see anything about, I 
haven’t read anything about the School Board itself. I had 
the feeling in both the Congressman’s statement and the 
editorial that the Congressman seemed to be talking about 
the Civil Rights Act and not to distinguish between that 
and the court. He was talking about civil rights and the 
H.E.W. and all that sort of business, and this is something 
different and I thought the paper in its editorial should 
have picked up the difference, but this suit is not based on, 
as I understand it, based on the Civil Rights Act but it is 
based on the Constitution and court principles.

Q. Have you found anything in the School Board’s file 
oi a discussion verbally what Mr. McPherson or Super­
intendent Burns or any member of the School Board that 
reflects that they have been responsible to the community

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



456a

in the implementation of any of the School Board’s plans 
within the last five years?

Mr. Philips: I am going to object to that because 
the question [132] implies that he has examined the 
School Board’s file and there is no testimony that 
he has examined any such file. You refer to a file. 
There is no implication in the question as to what 
file and no implication that it implies that he ex­
amines files. I think he has testified that he hasn’t. 
It implies that he has talked with School Board mem­
bers and I think he testified that he hasn’t, and it 
implies that he has talked with Dr. Burns and he 
has not testified that he has. I don’t know whether 
he has or not.

Mr. Crawford: Well, I am asking him.

A. I have talked with Dr. Burns and I have talked with 
Mr. McPherson and both of them made similar statements 
to me, that they were not opposed to desegregation or in­
tegration, that they were moving ahead in a way that they 
seemed to be quite proud of, and that they were not object­
ing, that they had followed, they were saying they had fol­
lowed the court orders they had received to the letter. They 
did express some little feeling that the court orders com­
ing at times when they did had caused quite an additional 
expenditure of funds, that if the court orders had come 
earlier or later, that they would not have had that, that 
they could have handled them without the additional ex­
pense involved.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Roll on July 15, 1969



457a

Q. Now, back to the five schools that are left all black, 
when [133] in your opinion can the School Board effec­
tively bring about desegregation of those schools in terms 
of months or years ? A. I don’t, I am not in a position to 
give a time statement on it. We did suggest that no build­
ings be replaced. Now, what the, just for a period of time, 
just the economics of the thing, of building additional 
schools, unless there are funds forthcoming from a source 
that is not now available, it would be a considerable period 
of time, and that is the reason I suggested that they go all 
out with a compensatory educational program in those 
schools.

Q. Well now, do you stand to be— A. I would—
Q. Excuse me. You would what? A. I would stamp 

them in accordance, the schools in accordance with the pro­
posals made for faculty desegregation and I would put 
additional staff in those schools through my Elementary- 
Secondary Education Act funds and through other pro­
grams, and then I would try to scrape up some additional 
funds from somewhere to make those schools show places 
and not only, I mean I don’t mean that in terms of a place 
to show but I mean a place where real education is going 
on. I mean it is possible, you see, in an all-black situation 
to produce with compensatory education, and I have had 
some experience on [134] this because I have tried it—if 
you put the power in there to get at least the aspect of the 
school program with which so many people are concerned, 
that is your subject matter content in those programs. I 
tried to put them in an all-black elementary school. I put 
just a lot of extra power in there, more than you could 
ever afford to do on a mass basis, but in a mathematics

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



458a

program with fifth grade students in an all-black school, 
and they did become the best mathematics pupils in the 
county and they retained that right on through school 
but it took one heck of a lot of—well, I ’ll not say money. 
Actually it wasn’t money. It was materials and additional 
teachers to do it, but that compensatory thing will work 
in that respect.

Q. Well, is it your experience that if the black students 
in similar situations as the five schools we have discussed 
are given an opportunity, that they could within a short pe­
riod of time or within a reasonable period of time achieve 
the level of the white students in the other schools which 
were formerly all-white schools? A. Yes. I guess I would 
say yes.

Q. Well, what you are saying then, is it correct in saying 
that basically those black students are not necessarily re­
tarded or slow learners—that is, because of the conditions 
or the [135] facilities upon which they had to attend school 
that make them, that would be as stated previously by you, 
I believe, a little behind the white students? A. Yes. I 
think there are a whole series of factors including your 
home life, your educational level of your pupils, and the 
aspirations in the community that have been brought over 
a period of years and the opportunities that were open, a 
whole variety of things that are factors in that, but I don’t 
believe it’s any, that the average under-achievement, of 
which everyone is aware, of the negro pupils is an inherent 
characteristic. I think they have the ability and all kinds 
of things need to be done to pull it out.

Q. Now, to the administrative staff, in your report you 
listed at the personnel office at administration that you

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



459a

found as of December 17th, 1966, they had seventy-seven 
white persons in the administrative staff and thirteen negro 
persons in the administrative staff. Do you feel on the 
basis of those figures alone that it is shown a lack of con­
cern about the black schools? A. No, sir, not on the basis 
of that. I have felt that school systems or school officials 
have problems, that in dealing with both the white com­
munities and the black communities, and that the black 
community is apt to look with skepticism [136] even though 
everything may be all right, but unless there are some 
black people present, and I know of nothing in any laws 
or decrees or anything that have been said that you have 
to employ black people, but as purely a public relations 
matter I think school systems would be wise to have, to 
seek out and find some black people for their top staff just 
from the public relations angle even though they may not 
do any different from what had been previously done.

Q. Well, based upon the figures quoted as found on tables 
two-eight as it relates to the administration, do you feel that 
or is it your opinion, professional opinion, that if the School 
Board had wanted to deal more fairly with the predomi­
nantly black schools in light of the black supervisors would 
have more knowledge of what is required in black schools 
or what is lacking in black schools, that it should have 
had black supervisors and other black persons on the ad­
ministrative staff to deal more effectively with the pre­
dominantly black schools or all-black schools? A. Well, 
you get into that definition again of making no distinction 
because of race, and so I ran into this problem in my own 
school system, that they said make no distinction because 
of race. Then you would start looking for people to fill

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



460a

various positions, and most of the employment agencies 
around [137] the country and most of the people where 
you would get recommendations from if you sent out­
side the school system would send you white people. I 
mean, you know, so—

Q. All right. Now—

Mr. Philips: Let him finish his answer.

A. Let me just finish that.

Mr. Crawford: But that is irrelevant and imma­
terial to the question.

Mr. Philips: You asked Dr. Hall the question and 
he is responding to the question. Let him finish his 
answer.

A. I think it will be before I get through, so I think there’s 
a period of time when the school systems would be wise to 
say fill positions with qualified people and with a certain 
number of them, fill them with black people, and then after 
you have gone beyond that time, I don’t know what the 
time is, say four or five years, but, all right, you’ve gone 
beyond that time, then you can become color blind in your 
selection of employees, but just as a matter of course, sup­
pose one of those positions came open right now, the 
chances are that no black people would apply to fill it and 
the chances are also that if they sent applications all over 
the United States, that they would come back and the great 
majority of anybody who responded to it, was interested 
in the position, would [138] be, they would be -white people

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



461a

so they have a very difficult time, recognize that, of getting 
them and I have advised boards, not as a matter of law 
but as a matter of public relations, that they ought de­
liberately to set a policy that would enable them to seek 
highly qualified, capable negro people for some of these top 
positions, but if you start out and say we’re color blind and 
we’re going to take them, well, then you come back with 
the same color you’ve got.

Q. Well then, how can you distinguish that statement in 
light of the fact that you have as on table three, seventy- 
seven white and thirteen negroes and when you have almost 
one-third or better negro school pupils? A. Well, I would 
say that—now, I don’t have any basis for a judgment. I 
would just say, though, that—well, I have no basis for say­
ing anything about Mobile one way or the other on that 
particular point.

Q. Well, I mean if you just looked at the statistics alone. 
A. But just as a matter of general principle, you could say 
—I’ll put it that why—that if they sought the most quali­
fied people and were color blind, then these were the people 
that they came up with, but you could also say that they 
had discriminated against blacks. Now, just—you could 
make either kind of judgment from it, but I was saying that 
from the ex- [139] perience that I have had, if you go seek­
ing—you see, if you use this definition that you will be 
color blind in your selection, then with the structure that 
you have, the chances are that you will come up with a 
white person. You will have a lot more to choose from, and 
as a guideline I think Boards would be wise, I don’t know 
of any laws that require it, but they would be wise to set a

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



462a

certain percentage of blacks and fill the positions with well 
qualified black people.

Q. Then you are suggesting that the Board do that? A. 
Well, I don’t know anything about that point, but if they 
asked me, I would suggest it but they probably won’t ask 
me. I have told other Boards that, yes. I have told other 
Boards, I have written a stronger statement than that. I 
have told other Boards in some of the reports that I have 
written that the number of, that the personnel in the posi­
tions of principals and positions of, top staff positions 
should approximate about the same ratio as the pupil popu­
lation in the schools.

Q. Did you so recommend that to the Mobile County Pub­
lic School System? A. Well, that isn’t in this report here.

Q. I know that but I am saying would you so recom­
mend that?

Mr. Philips: I think the report reflects his recom­
mendations.

A. Well, if somebody asked me to, I would, yes, but I don’t 
think [140] it’s—I ’ll be frank with you, I don’t think it’s 
required by law.

Q. Well, I didn’t say that. I asked you would you recom­
mend that? A. Yes. I recommended it to my own Board. 
Now, I couldn’t get them to approve it but I recommended 
it anyway.

Q. Well then, can you account for the difference in the 
specialized courses that are offered at all-white schools 
and are not offered at—at all predominantly white schools, 
white schools where you have two negroes in a student body

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



463a

of three hundred, and the lack of such in the predominantly 
or all-black schools, where these specialized courses are 
offered in one as opposed to the other consistently? A. 
Yes, I can account for that in a number of ways.

Q. How can you account for that? A. The basic or re­
quired courses, as I understood it—

Q. I said specialized courses. A. I know, I am going to 
get to that. Are required of all schools. Now, the special­
ized courses are up to the individual school. For example, 
if the principal and the faculty and the students want a 
course in say creative writing, they can have it.

Q. Well, Doctor, are you speaking of what is done in 
Mobile County or what is done generally from your expe­
rience? [141] A. No, I am talking about in Mobile County.

Q. I see. A. And so—at least this is my understanding 
now, but if the—

Q. Is that documented or is this just what was told you?

Mr. Philips: Wait a minute. Let him finish his 
statement.

A. Yeah, it’s in that section on the course of study, I think, 
the policies under which they operate, so that the initiative 
for the additional specialized courses comes from the school 
as they want these special courses, so either those all-black 
schools did not feel the need for these courses and did not 
have enough pupils who were interested or they did not 
pursue the, aggressively pursue it, but there would be no, 
there is no County controlling policy that would prevent 
them from having it. They could have the course—they 
could have the course if they wanted it. We suggested in

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



464a

there that the County probably ought to take a little more 
aggressive action to see that they did give consideration to 
some of these specialized courses in these schools because 
it may be that the leadership that they now have is not 
pushing it hard enough.

Mr. Crawford: I believe that is about all.

A. But, you see, in most school systems, if you have got a 
qualified teacher and you’ve got thirty kids, you can offer 
any course you want to, but if you’ve only got five kids that 
[142] want a course, you can’t afford to offer it because 
that, you’ve got to have that teacher load going along there 
and that teacher has got to handle a hundred and fifty or a 
hundred and sixty pupils a day. Now, if some teacher 
wants to teach an extra period or something and handle a 
group of five or six, but there has to be the interest in the 
course. Now, some schools and some teachers, some depart­
ment heads, are responsible for stimulating interest in 
these courses and these specialized courses, and so you 
could attribute it then to a more aggressive action on the 
part of the teachers and the principal and the school in the 
specialized courses, and I ’m not even saying it’s better for 
them to take creative writing than it is straight old English 
or some other course, but that is the way the specialized 
courses get in.

Q. Then are you saying that in Mobile County public 
schools the principals and faculty of just the high schools, 
of Williamson, Dunbar, Central, Blount, and Mobile County 
Training School, did not request these specialized courses 
is why they didn’t get them as it is opposed to Vigor,

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



465a

Murphy and Davidson? A. I could not answer that ques­
tion specifically. I could say from what I understand the 
way the policy operates they could have had the courses if 
they wanted them and had enough students to have them, 
and maybe they don’t want them. Maybe [143] they made 
a judgment on them and sometimes some of these schools 
will come up with some of these specialized courses and 
they aren’t worth a hoot.

Mr. Crawford: Now, I am speaking principally 
and my question relates to the proposals in tables 
four-two, four-two-a, four-two-b on through four- 
two-g, which I would like to—

A. Well, what I am saying, my understanding—

Mr. Crawford: Let me finish, please.

A. Yes, I ’m sorry.

Mr. Crawford: Which I would like to introduce 
into the records in support of your answers to my 
questions.

Mr. Philips: The report is already in the court, 
Mr. Crawford, the full report.

Mr. Crawford: Well, rather then encumber this 
record, then give specific reference to those tables, 
and the court reporter will so note that, and also the 
one on pupil administrative staff, I think I made 
reference to that. I have no further questions.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



466a

Redirect Examination by Mr. Philips:

Q. Dr. Hall, with reference to compensatory education, 
just to clear up something in my own mind, you said for 
those who are in need of help or for those who need this 
compensatory [144] education, the most satisfactory way 
to your mind to do it is to place negro students in schools 
with white students, and you said in this instance with the 
number of students you found the best way to do that was 
by bussing of the negro students, taking them from the 
area where they lived to get them to this white school was 
the best way to accomplish this compensatory education. I 
mean is that an accurate statement of what you said! A. 
Yes, that is an accurate statement, but when we went into 
the other five, there wasn’t any room.

Q. All right. Now, let me ask you this: How do you de­
termine what school, what student is in need of compensa­
tory education! How did you determine it in this instance! 
Did you review the record of each student and say well 
bus this one and not bus that one, this one needs compen­
satory education and we’ll bus him but the other one doesn’t 
so we won’t bus him? A. No, sir. We just took it by areas.

Q. You just made the broad assumption then that every­
body, every student in this area needed compensatory edu­
cation? A. Yes.

Q. Whether he was an F student or an A-plus student or 
whatever? A. Well, I—

[145] Q. In this context? A. In the, as we are talking 
about this thing, you see, these other five schools, I think 
we, I agreed with the question there that they were going 
to be deprived and I saw no way of resolving it, but be­
cause you can’t help everybody, there is no reason why you 
shouldn’t help somebody.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



467a

Q. No, I am talking about these in the schools where you 
have given them the compensatory education, these that you 
are bussing out, that you recommend the closing of the 
school and bussing out. You just arbitrarily assumed that 
every student in that school is in need of compensatory 
education? A. Well, I wasn’t quite, I think I made a more 
fundamental statement than that earlier, that in the total, 
the development of the total child, reference was made here, 
in our society today, I thought it was better both for white 
and the black pupils to have experiences in school of being 
associated with each other. Now, this is not necessarily, 
that doesn’t necessarily involve compensatory in the usual 
sense of the word. You think of compensatory, if a person 
is two years behind in reading, to help him catch up, but 
this would, being put in that situation would help him 
catch up.

Q. Well, what do you mean “ compensatory” ? Do you 
mean compensatory and then you mean simply—  [146] 
A. By compensatory I mean a lower reading level, a lower 
arithmetic level or what-have-you, that’s right.

Q. Well then, every one of these students that you rec­
ommend the bussing for, you have assumed or taken the 
premise that they need this compensatory education ? A. I 
would assume that all of the students needed it and these 
are the only ones that we can handle.

Q. Okay. You referred to a situation in your own school 
system where you had taken a group of students and con­
centrated them, put the power to them, I believe you 
phrased it. You could do this with most any group of stu­
dents, couldn’t you? A. Yes, I think so.

Q. If you had the facilities and the funds and simply con­
centrated the effort on making a super-student, you could

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



468a

do this with any student within reasonable bounds ? A. Yes, 
I think you could.

Q. You mentioned adjustments being necessary in the 
lines of the attendance areas as they have been submitted 
to the court. Do you have in mind the possibility of adjust­
ments being necessary in connection with the operations of 
the school system this coming year or did you have refer­
ence to adjustments the year after? A. For this coming 
year I would say no particular necessity for [147] adjust­
ments in boundary lines.

Q. You think they are adequate and satisfactory just as 
they are ? A. That would be my opinion, hut if in exploring 
it they found out it was off somewhere, then everybody 
would be foolish not to change it, as long as you haven’t 
got—all factors being equal. In other words, if we made an 
error and have got two hundred too many pupils in one 
school and two hundred too few in another, and you could 
move the boundary line over, well, it would be foolish not 
to do it, and I want to say that we are not above maldng 
errors. Good gracious.

Q. Were these attendance area lines, just as a basic prin­
ciple, drawn on a non-racial basis or on a racial basis? A. 
Well, it depends on what your definition is. They were 
drawn to get desegregation so I would say you would have 
to say the element of race was in there.

Q. They were drawn on a racial basis as opposed to a 
non-racial basis? A. Yes, depending on what your defini­
tion is all along the line.

Q. All right. Now, did you or anybody working under 
your direction make any effort to trace out the locations of 
these lines where you had drawn out, trace out—I mean by

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



469a

going out and observing them physically, where the lines 
you put on the map would lie in reality? [148] A. In some 
of them we did. In most of them we tried to follow as 
closely as we could lines which the school system is already 
using.

Q. Which ones did you trace out, do you have any— A. 
Oh, I wouldn’t remember. Take the Murphy-Williamson, 
the line between Murphy and Williamson that we drew. We 
drew it, I think, on the same line that they are now using 
for ninth graders.

Q. Well, I am not talking about those in which you used 
the same line position but I am talking about whether or 
not you actually went out and traced out in the street, went 
out and followed where your lines would lie? A. No. No, 
we used the maps for that and then—we drove around a lot 
but not specifically to trace out a line.

Q. So as far as you know then, some of these lines you 
have may go through the middle of shopping centers and 
things of this nature. You have no way of knowing whether 
they do or do not? A. Well, they might—no, I have no way 
of knowing whether they do or not except we generally fol­
lowed a pattern that had been previously developed by the 
School Board.

Q. But when you deviated from that, then you were out 
in an area where you had no knowledge of just where that 
line would lie, is that correct? [149] A. That’s correct.

Q. With relationship to shopping centers, commercial 
areas, heavy traffic arteries or natural barriers or hazards ? 
A. Well, we tried to avoid all natural barriers, at least as 
far as we could find them on our maps.

Q. Those which you observed on the maps? A. Yes.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



470a

Q. Were your lines drawn with any regard to the exist­

ence of commercial transportation lines, bus lines? I am 
not talking about what might exist but— A. No, other than 
—well, the junior and senior highs basically followed the 
same pattern that you now have, you see, that you already 
have. Now, the elementary schools where we varied them, 
we did not.

Q. Do you have any knowledge of the bus routes, com­
mercial city bus lines in Mobile? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you make any inquiry into that? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you have any knowledge of the flow of traffic in­

sofar as residential to commercial? A. Yes.
Q. Where did you acquire that information? [150] A. 

We acquired it from studying the maps and just talking 
with different people around here and going around and 
looking where the—

Q. Who did you talk with? A. Well, we talked with some 
of the people from the University of South Alabama and 
asked them where the, how the traffic flowed and the way 
you could get from here to there, and where we had a real 
question about it, where it deviated from the plan that they 
were now using, we would check that.

Q. How many did you check? A. Oh, I don’t know. I 
couldn’t answer that.

Q. Was it a hundred? A. No, I am sure it wasn’t a 
hundred.

Q. Ten? A. Maybe about ten. That would be nearer 
than a hundred.

Mr. Philips: I have no further questions.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



471a

Recross Examination by Mr. Gorman:

Q. I just have one area briefly here. Now, your testimony 
with respect to compensatory education and with respect to 
drawing the lines and the educational considerations in 
drawing them and obtaining an integrated education is a 
little bit confused in my mind. Is it accurate to say that 
as an edu- [151] cator you believe that a higher quality of 
education or educational opportunity can be obtained where 
an integrated educational set up or situation is involved 
rather than all one race? A. Yes.

Q. Now, so in drawing the lines then you had two con­
siderations. You had the consideration of placing as many 
children in the optimum educational environment to study, 
is that correct? A. Right.

Q. And in addition to that and as a separate thing in my 
mind—and now tell me if this is what you as an educator 
believe—this will create a situation where those who are in 
need of a compensatory educational situation will obtain 
it, say by placing students who were previously in all-black 
schools who are behind the white students in an integrated 
education, is that correct, so that you have a compensatory 
factor in addition to just placing children in an optimum 
educational environment? A. Yes. Could I illustrate what 
I am talking about ?

Q. Well, let me pursue this just a little further. A. All 
right.

Q. I just wanted to get the distinction clear that in draw­
ing these lines you did not assume that every black student 
m [152] a previously black school needed a compensatory 
situation? A. No, I didn’t say that, I don’t think.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



472a

Q. But that if any of those who were now placed in white 
schools or integrated schools were behind, it would have a 
compensatory factor as well? A. Yes.

Mr. Gorman: Okay. Thank you. That’s all. Now, 
if you want to comment further on that, go ahead.

A. Well, I don’t know as it’s necessary. I was going to 
talk about expense.

Mr. Crawford: Let’s go ahead.
Mr. Philips: All right. That will be all.

Deposition of Dr. Joe Hall on July 15, 1969



473a

In the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F or the S outhern D istrict of A labama 

Southern D ivision 

Civil Action No. 3003-63

Deposition o f Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969

B irdie M ae Davis, et al.,

and
Plaintiffs,

United States of A merica, by Ramsey Clark, 
Attorney General, etc.,

Plaintiff'-Interne,nor,

B oard of S chool Commissioners of 
M obile County, et <d.,

and
Defendants,

J. T wila F razier, et al.,

Defendants-Intervenors.

A p p e a r a n c e s  :

For Plaintiffs—
Crawford & F ields

By: V ernon Z. Crawford, Esq.



474a

For Plaintiff-Intern enor—
W alter Gorman, Esq.

For Defendants—
P illans, B eams, T appan, W ood & R oberts 

B y: A bram L. P hilips, Jr., Esq.

A lso Present:

James A. M cP herson, Associate Superintendent, 
Mobile County Public School System

B obby R. Clardy, Board of School Commissioners 
of Mobile County

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969

[4] Jesse J. Jordan, having been first duly and legally 
sworn, testified on his oath as follows:

On Direct Examination by Mr. Philips:

Q. State your full name, if you will, please? A. Jesse 
Joseph Jordan.

Q. And your address? A. My home address?
Q. Yes. A. 782 Pinehill Drive, Smyrna, Georgia.
Q. And your office address? A. Number 50 Seventh 

Street Northeast, Atlanta, Georgia.
Q. How old are you, Mr. Jordan? A. Forty-six in July. 
Q. Are you married? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have children? A. One.
Q. How old is the child? A. Twenty-two.
Q. What is your employment, Mr. Jordan? What do yon 

do? A. I am employed with the Department of Health,



475a

Education and Welfare in the Office of Education in the 
Bureau of Elementary and Secondary in the Office of 
Title IV.

[5] Q. And what is the Office of Title IV ? A. Title IV 
is the Technical Assistance Program funded under the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Q. What does your primary work consist o ff A. Lend­
ing assistance to school systems on problems incident to 
desegregation. It takes two forms. One is in the form of 
in-service training programs, institute programs. The other 
is in the form of developing, assisting school systems in 
developing desegregation plans.

Q. Mr. Jordan, have you talked with anybody prior to 
coming here today about the subject of this deposition? A. 
I have talked with Mr. Gorman.

Q. Who is Mr. Gorman? A. Mr. Gorman is the attorney 
for the Defense Department, the Justice Department, I 
beg your pardon.

Q. Is he regularly attached to your office as an attorney? 
A. No, sir.

Q. Does the Department of Health, Education and Wel­
fare have its own attorneys? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, Mr. Jordan, your subpoena required you to be 
here at ten o’clock yesterday. A. Yes, sir.

[6] Q. And you were not here at that time. On whose 
direction did you not appear at that time? A. Mr. Gorman 
called me and asked me about whether I was going to be 
here or not. I was in town. I had responsibilities involving 
court cases in Mississippi that I needed to attend yester­
day, and I asked him if it would be all right, if he could 
get it changed until today for my personal convenience in 
working with these other cases. He said that he did.

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



476a

Q. Did you contact anybody else about that other than 
the attorney for the United States Department of Justice? 
A. No, sir.

Q. When did you first discuss the subject of this depo­
sition with Mr. Gorman? A. Yesterday by telephone about 
changing it until today and then last night.

Q. Have you discussed the deposition with the attorneys 
for any of the other parties? A. No, sir.

Q. Give us your background, if you will, Mr. Jordan 
from an educational standpoint and a professional stand­
point? A. I have a bachelor degree with a major in math 
and a minor in science and education from Auburn Uni­
versity with a master’s degree in school administration 
from Auburn University. I [7] have been a teacher, prin­
cipal, director of school transportation, director of Federal 
programs, director of maintenance and operation, and as­
sistant superintendent.

Q. Have you ever been the superintendent of a school 
system? A. No, sir.

Q. Where were you assistant superintendent? A. Cobh 
County, Georgia.

Q. Cobb County. What is the major city in Cobh County? 
A. Marietta. However, this is not— Marietta is a city sys­
tem within Cobb County.

Q. How large a system is Cobb County? A. Approxi­
mately forty thousand students.

Q. How long were you assistant superintendent? A. As­
sistant superintendent, I went with Mr. Paul Sprayberry 
who was superintendent in 1955 and I remained in the cen­
tral office and I was there in various categories until 1967.

Q. Prior to that time what position did you have? A. I 
was a principal in the same school system.

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on Jvdy 16, 1969



477a

Q. H igh  sch oo l p r in c ip a l o r  e lem e n ta ry  s ch o o l p r in c ip a l?  
A. E lem entary s ch o o l p r in c ip a l.

Q. And prior to that time? A. Prior to that time I was 
a teacher.

Q. In the same system? [8] A. No. I was in the Mar­
ietta city system which is in the same county but a separate 
school system.

Q. Okay. And since leaving the assistant superinten­
dent’s position, what has been your professional back­
ground? A. When I left Cobb County in 1967, the first 
thing I spent three months writing a Title IV, I beg your 
pardon, a Title III project covering twenty-three school 
systems. I contracted with the twenty-three school sys­
tems to write a Title III project covering all twenty-three. 
I spent three months doing that. At the completion of that 
time I went to work with the Office of Education. I went 
with the Office of Education in the SAFA program. That’s 
federal funds for impacted areas. I was with SAFA for 
six months at the end of which time I transferred to the 
position I am in now.

Q. The Title III program, what is that? A. Title III is 
under public law 8910, the Elementary-Secondary Act. 
Title III is for integrated programs in education.

Q. What school systems were you writing the Title III 
program for? A. For the Seventh District of Georgia. 
It is the twenty-three school systems comprising the Sev­
enth District of Georgia. That is the northwest corner of 
Georgia.

Q. Okay. Now, what is your position presently? [9] A. 
I am the, what is called the Senior Program Officer in the 
Title IV office of Atlanta, in the Atlanta division. That is 
region four, Federal region four.

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



478a

Q. When was your first contact with the Mobile, Ala­
bama, Public School System? A. I can’t recall the exact 
date.

Q. All right. Let me rephrase that. When was your first 
contact with the Mobile County Public School System with 
reference to an order of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 
requiring the intervention of the Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare into the school system? A. I re­
ceived a call from Dr. Anrig in Washington, who is my 
immediate superior, saying that the court order had been 
issued. We were very short of staff help because of the 
heavy work load. I contacted Dr. Joe Hall from the Uni­
versity of Miami to act as a consultant for us to direct 
the Mobile study. Dr. Hall came to Mobile and made the 
original contacts. I believe, I am not positive but I think 
that was somewhere around July 10th, I mean June 10th. 
Then a week later I joined Dr. Hall here.

Q. That was on June 17th? A. Approximately.
Q. Approximately? [10] A. I don’t recall the exact date, 

and my first actual contact with the school officials was 
the next day in which I believe I met with Dr. Hall, Mr. 
McPherson and others.

Q. Prior to your call from Dr. Anrig in Washington, 
who you say is your immediate superior, what preparation 
had been made for dealing with the Mobile system? A. 
Prior to that call?

Q. Yes. A. I hadn’t made any preparation. I didn’t know 
about it prior to that call.

Q. Had you had any information at all concerning the 
Mobile school system prior to that? A. No, sir.

Q. What did Dr. Anrig instruct you to do? A. Hein-

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



479a

structed me to assign someone to make contact with the 
school system and start the work.

Q. What work? A. The work following the court order, 
the directions given in the court order.

Q. What were his exact words as near as you can re­
member? A. This has been a long time ago and we talk 
over the telephone nearly every day. He told me that there 
had been, as I recall, that there had been a court order 
issued requesting us and [11] the school system to develop 
a plan which would be submitted to the court and that we 
should follow through with the court order.

Q. Who interpreted the court order? A. Who inter­
preted the court order ?

Q. Yes. You were to follow through on it. Who inter­
preted it? A. Well, we obtained a copy of the court order 
and read it and followed it to the best of our ability.

Q. Who was “we” ? A. Dr. Hall and myself and the other 
consultants that we used.

Q. Who were they? A. Dr. Larry Weincoff from the 
University of South Carolina, and Dr. Michael Stolee from 
the University of Miami, and Dr. Woodward from the Uni­
versity of Alabama.

Q. These people were the ones called upon to interpret 
the decree? A. No. They were called on to assist in de­
veloping the plan.

Q. Who interpreted the decree? A. I don’t know that 
anyone interpreted it in that sense. Dr. Hall and I read 
it and simply followed it to the best of our ability. No one 
interpreted it to us. We didn’t go to an attorney or any­
thing and ask anybody to interpret it to us. We are not 
lawyers and we didn’t work with lawyers.

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



480a

Q. Someone had to interpret it to determine what it re­
quired. [12] This is what I had in mind. Who did that? 
A. Dr. Hall and myself did this.

Q. Okay. And on what basis did you interpret the de­
cree? A. Well, as we understood the court order, we were 
to develop a plan of desegregation to present to the School 
Board for their study and suggested changes which would 
I believe the court order said affirmatively desegregate the 
schools.

Q. And what did you interpret that to mean? A. We in­
terpreted that to mean that our plan should result in 
maximum desegregation consistent with educational prin­
ciples.

Q. What was the—in your interpretation of the decree 
and your development of a procedure to follow the decree, 
what was your primary concern? A. Our primary concern 
was to achieve maximum desegregation consistent with 
administrative principles.

Q. And do you feel that the plan that has been developed 
and submitted to the court does that? A. Yes, sir. It is 
one plan that will do that, we think.

Q. Do you think it is totally consistent Avith good admin­
istrative procedure? A. Yes, sir, we think it is. In the 
viewpoint of the consultants we used, that we discussed it 
with, they thought it was.

Q. Do you think it is? [13] A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Do you think it is totally consistent with good edu­

cational principles? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Totally consistent with all good educational factors! 

A. Yes, sir.

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



481a

Q. It is not inconsistent in any way to good adminis­
trative procedure? A. Well, not to my knowledge, no.

Q. And not inconsistent in any way with good educa­
tional practice? A. No, sir, not that I know of.

Q. Who had the final authority, Dr. Jordan? Excuse 
me— A. Mr. Jordan.

Q. I ’m sorry. I f I lapse over and call you Dr. Jordan, 
please forgive me. I am not trying to he— A. It doesn’t 
make me mad. It flatters me, hut I don’t want to be called 
something I ’m not.

Q. I am not trying to be facetious with you and I am 
not trying to put you on. It’s just that I have— A. Most 
of the people that work in this program are doctors.

Q. And I mean no disrespect by it. Who had the final 
authority with reference to the interpretation of the plan, 
I mean the interpretation of the court order in the develop­
ment of the [14] plan? A. Before we submit any plan to 
a school system, we clear it personally with Dr. Anrig.

Q. Who had the final authority below Dr. Anrig? A. I 
assume that would be myself. I don’t submit a plan until 
he gives his approval on it.

Q. And it’s you who determines what, who ultimately 
determines what will he submitted to him? A. Yes, sir. I 
submit it to him. He studies it, suggests, makes suggested 
changes on it, sometimes changes it, and then we make 
those changes and submit it.

Q. Okay. All right. Now, other than Dr. Anrig and Dr. 
Stolee and Dr. Weincoff, you mentioned Dr. Hall and your­
self. Who else worked on the development of the plan 
that you developed for the Mobile school system? A. On 
the plan itself?

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



482a

Q. Yes, sir. A. That’s all.
Q. Was there anyone else you conferred with about the 

plan? A. Dr. Woodward did the financial study as part 
of the plan. Much of the demographic study was provided 
by the University of South Alabama.

Q. By demographic, if you will define that a little closer! 
[15] A. I believe that is Chapter One of the plan.

Q. That concerns the general background of the Mobile 
area? A. Statistics about the Mobile area, yes, sir.

Q. Did you give them any specific directions as to what 
they would develop in the demographic study? A. No, sir. 
I merely asked them to develop the demographic back­
ground for us.

Q. Do you have any knowledge of their source material! 
A. No, sir.

Q. Now, who developed the actual desegregation portion 
of the study, the actual arrangement of attendance areas 
and this aspect of it? A. You mean the actual zones?

Q. Yes. A. Well, I don’t think any one person developed 
all of them. All of us were working in one room together. 
We had maps on the wall, the pupil locater maps on the 
wall. We took the zones that were given to us by the 
school system and everybody would suggest a change and 
discuss it and make other changes. I know that any one 
person of the group—it was a joint effort.

Q. Of who? A. Of Dr. Hall, Dr. Stolee, Dr. Weincoff and 
myself.

[16] Q. Who suggested the location of students by trans­
porting them by bus in this system? A. You mean who 
made the original suggestion?

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



483a

Q. Yes. A. I don’t recall. It just evolved in the dis­
cussion. I don’t recall who brought it up first.

Q. Was it your interpretation that this was permissible 
under the decree or required under the decree? A. No, sir, 
I didn’t know. My personal opinion was that the decree 
asked that each school be fully or effectively or affirma­
tively desegregated. To get those particular children in 
a better atmosphere and also to desegregate those schools, 
it appeared to us that transportation was the only way. I 
don’t know whether this is legal or not. We suggested it 
and then put language into it to say that we didn’t know. 
We were not attorneys. We didn’t have the advice of at­
torneys. It was not available to us, and so we suggested 
that if it were legal, this was one way to do it, and if it 
were not legal, it would require other ways.

Q. Does the Department of Health, Education and Wel­
fare have attorneys available to it? A. The Department 
has attorneys, yes, sir, but we do not have attorneys avail­
able to consult on this. My interpretation [17] of court 
orders has been with quite a number of them now, has been 
that the court order appears to me, and I am not a lawyer, 
but it appears to me that it tells us to work with the 
school system and it doesn’t tell us to work with anybody 
else, and so I have not contacted attorneys in H.E.W. or 
plaintiff’s attorneys or lawyers, period.

Q. Or attorneys for the school system? A. Well now, 
I have talked with attorneys for the school system in vari­
ous cases because they would be with the school people 
and I interpreted that as being a part of the school, but 
other than talking with the attorneys of the various school 
hoards, I haven’t talked with them, with other attorneys.

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



484a

Q. All right. Did you talk with attorneys for the Mobile 
School Board? A. No, sir. My only contact was with Mr. 
McPherson, Dr. Burns and other members of the staff. I 
believe you did attend one meeting we had with Judge 
Martin.

Q. Judge Thomas. A. I ’m sorry. I ’m thinking about an­
other court. Judge Thomas, that’s correct. I have to be 
in Judge Martin’s court tomorrow.

Q. Mr. Jordan, I want to get your personal opinion on 
some things as an educator or whatever you are. I would 
like to have your [18] personal professional opinion on 
several things. What is your personal professional opinion 
on the bussing of students in order to achieve a racial bal­
ance in the school system? A. In order to achieve racial 
balance ?

Q. Yes. A. I don’t think you should bus to achieve, 
merely to achieve racial balance. I think the school sys­
tems have bussed over the years to achieve better educa­
tion and I think that the best compensatory education yon 
can have, for instance, is bussing disadvantaged children 
into a more advantaged neighborhood for education. Dr. 
Morrill Weinberg, who has done some research on this, 
indicates that the children do far better when they are put 
in another environment.

Q. What is compensatory education? A. Well, com­
pensatory education to me and to various educators would 
have various definitions of it, but to me it’s education to 
bring students up to a higher level than presently exists.

Q. I see. And is that the definition of compensatory edu­
cation as you spoke of compensatory education in your 
previous answer? A. In this sense, yes.

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



485a

Q. In your previous answer you referred to compen­
satory education. A. Yes.

Q. And this is the definition of compensatory education 
as you [19] were using it in that answer? A. In that 
sense, yes, sir.

Q. Okay. How do you determine, in the Mobile plan 
how did you determine, Dr. Jordan, that all of these stu­
dents were in need of compensatory education? A. Well, 
I don’t know that they are in need of compensatory edu­
cation. Our thinking was that they would probably achieve 
better in a different setting.

Q. But you had no knowledge of their achievements? 
A. No, sir. I did not study testing results or anything of 
this nature.

Q. You were just assuming that they needed compen­
satory education— A. I was basing that on the—

Q. And you were going to give it to them whether they 
needed it or not?

Mr. Gorman: Now, that is not what he testified to 
at all, Mr. Philips. I wish you would refrain from 
characterizing his testimony.

Q. What is your opinion, Mr. Jordan— A. I was go­
ing—

Q. Let me finish the question. What is your opinion as 
a professional educator of allowing students to attend 
school on the basis of their choice of school, free choice 
of school? [20] A. Free choice?

Q. Yes. A. Well, for many, many years, for more years 
before anyone ever discussed free choice, students were

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



486a

assigned by attendance areas and depending on the grade 
structure of the school. If free choice resulted in the right 
in effective desegregation and good education, free choice 
is probably workable. I know personally of no instance 
where presently freedom of choice is working.

Q. Working in what respect? A. In the respect that the 
legal requirements for desegregation are being met.

Q. Do you know any instance where free choice has failed 
to work under any educational criteria, where it has failed 
in giving other than maximum integration of school sys­
tems? A. Well, I believe that a desegregated education is 
far superior to a segregated education, and any system that 
results in all-white or all-black schools to my way of think­
ing would be inferior education to desegregated education.

Q. Mr. Jordan, you refer to totally desegregating the 
school system. What is a totally desegregated school sys­
tem? Mr. Crawford is interested particularly. A. Well, 
to me personally, and this is to me personally, a deseg- 
[21] regated school system is one in which it has lost its 
racial identifiability. That is where the general public does 
not identify it as an all-white or an all-black school.

Q. Now, I am talking about a school system. A. Well, 
when every school loses its recial identifiability, that would 
be a desegregated school system.

Q. When does every school lose its racial identifiability? 
A. When it is no longer identified as a white or a black 
school.

Q. Identified by who and how do they identify it? A. 
Well, I would suggest that if you asked if Emerson School 
was an all-white or an all-black school, everyone would 
identify it as an all-black school. If Emerson were deseg­

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



487a

regated to the point where it was no longer recognized by 
the community as an all-white or an all-black school, then 
it would be effectively desegregated.

Q. Is there any particular point when a school is no 
longer all white or all black? A. You mean in terms of 
numbers?

Q. Yes. A. I don’t think you could determine it on the 
basis of numbers.

Q. What do you determine it on? A. On the basis of its 
identifiability.

Q. All right. Based on that criteria, Mr. Jordan, how is 
the [22] school system, how can you determine when a 
school system has reached maximum desegregation? A. 
When it has lost its racial identifiability. I don’t know any 
better way of saying it.

Q. Well, that is fairly general. We have got Bienville 
School, for example, that had at one time been a tra­
ditionally white school. I don’t know whether you are fa­
miliar with it or not. This past year enrollment was 
roughly fifty-fifty negro and white, but it’s still identified 
as an all-white school, identified as a white school tra­
ditionally. Is that a desegregated school or isn’t it? A. 
Well, I haven’t seen the school in session but I would as­
sume that a school that is fifty-fifty, then the school body 
would be a desegregated school, yes, sir.

Q. Even though everybody still identifies it as a white 
school ? A. I think that if the school remained desegregated 
foi a period of time, it would be recognized by the com­
munity as a desegregated school.

Q. So you would recognize the fifty-fifty as a deseg­

D e p o s i t io n  o f  J e s s e  J . J o r d a n  o n  J u ly  16, 1969



488a

regated school? A. Yes, sir, but I don’t think the ratio 
determines whether it’s desegregated or not.

Q. But you do recognize the fifty-fifty? A. Yes, sir.
[23] Q. All right. How about sixty-forty? A. I don’t 

know. I don’t think I could answer it on the basis of num­
bers. You can go fifty-fifty, sixty-forty and then get down 
to ninety-ten.

Q. How do you determine then—the only way you could 
determine then, as you say, is by racial identification of the 
schools. Now, did you make any survey in Mobile before 
you started your work among the people to determine their 
racial identification of every school in Mobile? A. No, sir.

Q. As far as you know, Mobile had a totally desegregated 
school system then, did it? A. Before we came to Mobile, 
I have no idea what Mobile had.

Q. All right. After you got to Mobile? A. Well, after 
I got to Mobile, I took the charts that we had, the infor­
mation given us by the school system and their amounts 
and used them as a start.

Q. And did they have a result of a survey as to how 
people identified schools, is that—  A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. What did they contain? A. What did what contain?
Q. In determining, these charts and maps and things that 

you looked [24] at, did they have public opinion surveys 
giving how people identified schools or did they simply 
state the statistics of enrollment? A. No, we identified 
schools that had no white enrollment at all as identifiable 
as black schools, all black schools.

Q. A  school that had some white enrollment, is that 
identified as an all-black school? A. I don’t—by numbers 
I can’t, I don’t know how many it would take.

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



489a

Q. This is what I am trying to find out from you. You 
say you identify schools as to whether they are deseg­
regated or not on the basis of how the public identifies 
them, and you came into the system and you made no 
effort to determine how the public identified schools, you 
used figures. A. Yes, sir, that’s correct.

Q. What did you consider was the primary directive of 
the decree, the court decree, Mr. Jordan? A. To fully and 
affirmatively desegregate the schools in the school system 
consistent with sound administration practices.

Q. Do you consider a transfer policy allowing transfers 
for good cause non-racial in character a good educational 
policy? A. Yes, sir. I think we recommended a transfer 
policy.

Q. Did you recommend a transfer for good cause non- 
racial in char- [25] acter? A. We recommended a majority 
to minority transfer.

Q. That is transfer on a racial basis, isn’t it? A. Well, 
that is where a student could transfer from a school in 
which his race was in a majority to a school in which his 
race is in a minority, white or black.

Q. That is then setting it up on a racial basis, isn’t it, 
taldng race into account in order to determine whether the 
transfer will be granted? A. Well, it applies to both races, 
yes, sir.

Q. But it is on a racial basis, isn’t it, a racial criteria? 
A. Yes, sir, that is to, it is to assist students in transfer­
ring from a majority to a minority situation.

Q. The way you determine under that how to grant the 
transfer is on a racial basis, isn’t it? You take your race 
into account to determine whether he’s eligible for the

D e p o s i t io n  o f  J e s s e  J . J o r d a n  o n  J u ly  16, 1969



490a

transfer, don’t you? A. Well, it could be white or black, 
either one.

Q. But you do take his race into account, don’t you? 
I ’m not saying whether it’s white or black. I ’m asking you 
if it’s transfer on a racial basis? A. Well, if I understand 
what you are saying, I assume so, yes, sir.

[26] Q. Well, you wrote it. I didn’t. A. Well, I was not 
thinking in terms of a racial basis necessarily. I was think­
ing in terms of all students.

Q. Well, all students but you determine his race to de­
termine whether he’s eligible for transfer? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the transfer policy that you recommended, Mr. 
Jordan, didn’t set it up in terms of where there might 
exist a school containing a majority of negro students. 
You said you set it up on the basis of whether there was 
a majority of negro or a majority of white students, is that 
correct? A. I don’t have that transfer policy in front of me.

Q. Well, I am asking you what you recommended. I can 
read the policy and I am sure you can, too. I want to 
know—  A. If you will let me look at it, I can refresh my 
memory. I don’t recall exactly what it says.

Mr. Gorman: I think that the recommendations 
that they made are clear from the submission that 
they proposed and they should be clarified.

A. Well, I work on many of these and I don’t recall ex­
actly sometimes in detail the wording of each of them.

Q. Now, you said that you felt a transfer policy allow­
ing a transfer for good cause, any good cause, non-racially 
oriented was [27] a good transfer policy. A. I think that 
within any school system there arises from time to time

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



491a

special haidship cases that should be considered, a situa­
tion, a family situation or where an individual may work 
or the fact that he may be moving. I think that hardship 
situations exist, and where a hardship situation exists in a 
given family, they should be taken into consideration re­
gardless.

Q. And you think under a desegregation plan a school 
system should be free to grant such transfers? A. On those 
hardship cases, yes, sir.

Q. Did you include such a provision in the plan sub­
mitted in regard to Mobile? A. Of course, I don’t recall 
exactly what I wrote in that, what was written on that 
transfer. I will be glad to check one of them and refresh 
my memory.

Q. As Mr. Gorman says, it speaks for itself. I am just 
interested in whether you have any recollection of what 
you recommended in it. A. Of that particular clause I 
don’t remember the wording.

Q. Okay. I am interested in your personal professional 
opinion as to whether it is desirable or undesirable as a 
general proposition to take young elementary school stu­
dents, say the first, second and third grades, out of their 
neighborhoods and trans- [28] port them to other areas to 
attend school? A. I think that this is desirable if they 
obtain better education where they are being transferred to.

Q. Okay. What is your opinion generally on the neigh­
borhood school concept? Do you think that is desirable or 
undesirable? A. I think it depends—I think it depends on 
the neighborhood. In some neighborhoods where it might 
be a deprived neighborhood, I think there is some definite 
advantage in taking the children out of that neighborhood 
mto a more advantaged neighborhood for education.

D e p o s i t io n  o f  J e s s e  J . J o r d a n  o n  J u ly  16, 1969



492a

Q. And do yon assume a deprived school as well as a 
deprived neighborhood or just a deprived neighborhood! 
A. Well, a deprived neighborhood, now it quite often hap­
pens that the school in a deprived neighborhood is also 
a deprived school.

Q. Assuming that it’s not, you still think it’s better? A. 
I think it’s better to take them to the point where they 
can get the better education. Now, firmly believing, based 
on research, that desegregated education is superior to 
segregated education, if a community school results in seg­
regated education, then I think that is bad education.

Q. All right. Assuming you’ve got a school system where 
your [29] enrollment is entirely white, do you think it 
desirable to stick with the neighborhood school concept! 
A. I think the same would hold. If the children in the de­
prived neighborhood, and assuming that the neighborhood 
is all white, can obtain better education and achieve better 
education outside that neighborhood, they should he carried 
out.

Q. You then don’t agree with the neighborhood school 
concept? A. No, sir, I didn’t say I didn’t agree with the 
neighborhood school concept. I said that where it is a 
deprived neighborhood and better education can be achieved 
elsewhere, then they should go there.

Q. All right. Now, what study did you make of the neigh­
borhoods in Mobile before formulating the plan that you 
have submitted to the court? A. We did not make any in­
tensive study of neighborhoods. We visited a number of 
schools in a number of neighborhoods and we based it on 
the impressions that we got.

Q. Okay. Mr. Jordan, are you familiar with the term

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



493a

‘ articulation as it is used in connGction with education? 
A. Well, I am not sure what sense you are using it in.

Q. All right. The sense I have in mind is the movement 
of students through an educational process as a regular 
group rather than being separated and moved to one school 
one year and [30] another school another year. Are you 
familiar with it in that sense? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is your opinion of articulation? A. Well now, 
you are asking what is my opinion where the students move 
together or separately?

Q. Well, I am asking your opinion as to where the stu­
dents move through a regular process of schools rather 
than being detached from each other and moved to a dif­
ferent school every year? A. Well, I think it depends on 
your grade organization, and as I recall, the Mobile plan 
was set up basically on a five-three-four involving school 
complexes, and X think most children in most zones would 
move together through the educational process.

Q. All right. Do you think it desirable or undesirable 
to have students attend a different school each year? A. 
Well, I think it depends on what the grade structure is. 
I wouldn’t think it would be desirable for a student to 
attend twelve different schools in twelve years.

Q. Do you think it would be undesirable then to put them 
m a school for one year’s time? A. In the Mobile plan we 
have several complexes set up where they would be in one 
school one year.

[31] Q. Do you think that is desirable as an educational 
concept? A. I think it’s desirable in this particular case.

Q. Well, do you think it’s desirable as a general educa­
tional concept? A. I think it’s a concept that is used fre­
quently throughout the country.

D e p o s it io n  o f  J e s s e  J . J o r d a n  o n  J u ly  16, 1969



494a

Q. For what purpose? A. Based on many factors, everv 
school system varies. I know that I have run into, I don’t 
recall all the exact names but there is every conceivable 
grade organization imaginable today.

Q. What was your purpose in using it in Mobile? A. 
That fit the educational and desegregation plan the best 
based on capacities.

Q. Would you have recommended that in Mobile if yon 
had not been attempting to maximize desegregation in the 
school system? A. Well, I don’t know. I don’t know what 
I would have recommended if I had been doing a pure 
educational study not under a court order. We were trying 
to follow the court order as well as educational practices.

Q. I f you had been doing a pure educational study under 
the court order, would you have recommended schools with 
a grade organizational structure of one year only? [32] A. 
I f I was striving to achieve a set organizational pattern, 
it probably would have resulted in some, yes, sir. I don’t 
know whether it would have or not. I didn’t make that type 
of study.

Q. Well, do you think generally schools of a one year 
grade structure is a desirable thing, is a desirable edu­
cational concept? A. I wouldn’t deliberately set out to 
establish one grade structures in schools, no. These one 
grade structure schools in Mobile are really part of an 
overall complex, school complex.

Q. In your experience with desegregation, Mr. Jordan, 
have you found it generally desirable or undesirable to 
have a very small minority of one racial group or another 
in a school with a majority of the other? A. Generally 
speaking, I find it undesirable to have a small minority of 
any race.

Deposition of J e s s e  J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



495a

Q. In a school with a large majority of the other? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Whether the small minority is white or black? A. 
White or black, yes, sir.

Q. Did you interpret the court decree as requiring ab­
solutely or as absolutely as you could do it the elimination 
of every all-negro school? A. Yes.

[33] Q. And every all-white school? A. Yes.
Q. What was the status of desegregation in this Cobb 

County school at the time that you left it? A. They were 
in compliance at the time I left.

Q. In compliance with what? A. H.E.W. guidelines.
Q. Did they have any all-negro schools? A. When I 

left, I believe there was one that has since been closed.
Q. Did they have any all-white schools? A. There are 

some all-white schools in Cobb County. The percentage of 
black students in Cobb County overall is small.

Q. How many schools do you have in Cobb County? A. 
I believe at the time I was there, there were fifty-five. 
Now, there may be more now.

Q. When did you leave there? A. In ’67.
Q. When in ’67 ? A. January the 1st.
Q. January the 1st? A. Yes.
Q. So your last experience was in 1966? A. Right.
[34] Q. The ’66-’67 school year? A. Yes.
Q. And you say there were fifty-five schools at that time? 

A. I believe that is correct, the best I recall.
Q. And one all-negro and how many all-white schools 

" eie there at that time? A. I don’t recall exactly how many 
there were. We didn’t have— Cobb County never had a

D e p o s it io n  o f  J e s s e  J . J o r d a n  o n  J u ly  16, 1969



496a

black high school or a junior high school prior to the 1964 
Civil Rights Law.

Q. How many negro students did you have? A. Let me 
see. There were about two thousand.

Q. Out of forty thousand? A. Yes, sir. That’s approxi­
mately, give or take a few, I don’t remember exactly. I 
think there were seventy students left in the all-black 
school which I understand is now closed.

Q. Did you think it necessary in Cobb County to elimi­
nate, in order to achieve a desegregated school system to 
eliminate every all-white school? A. Well, it wouldn’t be 
possible to eliminate all all-white schools because you don’t 
have enough black students to go around.

Q. But you said in order to have a fully desegregated 
school system, you must eliminate every all-white school? 
A. That’s right. Some of them will not be desegregated 
there [35] because there are not that many black students. 
The same is true in Mobile. Now, there are some all-white 
schools in Mobile, too, that we could not avoid because— 
there were also some all-black schools left in Mobile, all 
black and all white both.

Q. Do you think the school desegregation plan that you 
devised and submitted to the court for the Mobile school 
system is the best desegregation plan available for that 
school system? A. I feel that the plan is a workable plan.

Q. That wasn’t what I asked you. A. It’s not the only 
plan that could be devised.

Q. That’s not what I asked you. A. It’s the best plan 
that we could devise at the time.

Q. But do you feel that it is the best plan that could he 
devised for Mobile? A. I don’t know.

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



497a

Q. I am asking yonr opinion. A. Well, I frankly don’t 
know. It was the best I was able to come np with.

Q. It was the best yon were able to come np with? A. 
Yes, sir. It was the best that the consultants that I used 
and I were able to come up with.

Q. Do you feel like someone else could come up with a 
better [36] plan? A. I feel like frankly that if the admin­
istration of the school system would work on a plan with 
the aim in mind of eliminating under the same criteria 
we did of fully desegregating all schools, that they prob­
ably would come up with a different plan that would be 
every hit as good or better.

Q. Were there any restrictions on your operations, Mr. 
Jordan, that prevented you from coming up with a better 
plan? You expressed it in terms of the best plan you could 
come up with at the time. What restrictions were there 
that— A. Well, there were no restrictions. I think the 
school system’s position was that they couldn’t do the type 
work we were doing. I can appreciate their position. 
Frankly, I would have preferred, when we were sitting 
there drawing lines and changing maps, to have had Mr. 
McPherson and a few of his personnel there helping us 
change the lines.

Q. Was there any restriction from the standpoint of 
time? Did you have all the time you needed? A. Time was 
a factor. The time was very limited and we had to work 
night and day.

Q. If you had had more time, do you think you might 
have done a better or a more thorough job? A. We could 
have gotten more in depth in curriculum and other [37] edu­
cational factors. Whether we would have come up with a 
better plan, I don’t know.

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



498a

Q. You don’t think then any more time would have helped 
you? You are satisfied that you had sufficient time to do 
the job that you did? A. We had sufficient time based on 
doing just a desegregation plan. Now, we did not have 
time to make correlating studies that you could make that 
would support the overall plan. We did not get deeply 
into curriculum. Had there been more time, we would have 
made an effort to meet with the curriculum people and—

Q. But you didn’t need any more time to handle the de­
segregation part of it, you had sufficient time and used 
sufficient time to do that? A. We put in enough manhours 
to make that sufficient by working night and day and week­
ends and Sundays and every other day.

Q. To have had another week or another month of time 
would have been of no assistance to you? A. I don’t know 
that it would have materially changed the plan, no, sir. 
I can’t project what we would have done in another week.

Q. You were talking about your single grade schools 
being a part of a complex. What complex is the Hillsdale 
School a part of? [38] A. I  would have to look at the 
maps.

Q. All right. Let me refresh your memory. Hillsdale 
School is in the western part of town. A. Yes, it’s in the—

Q. The very extreme western edge, almost on the City 
limits in the western section. A. Yes, I know where it is 
but I don’t recall the names of the other schools right near 
there.

Q. But it is part of a complex? I f you will show me 
which complex it is a part of? A. Yes, sir. We were think­
ing of this being a whole high school complex, this being 
a whole, no, I mean elementary, junior high complex or 
middle school complex.

D e p o s i t io n  o f  J e s s e  J . J o r d a n  o n  J u ly  16, 1969



499a

Q. All right. Now, you say “ this” and you are waving 
your hand around the map. A. Scarborough, Hillsborough 
and Azalea Road.

Q. Scarborough, Hillsdale and Azalea Road being a 
junior high complex? A. Right, and the same thing with 
Trinity Gardens, Prichard, Mobile Training and Clarke. 
I’m sorry I can’t recall those names from memory.

Q. That’s all right. I can’t either sometimes. Now, in 
formulating your attendance areas did you draw the lines 
on a non- [39] racial basis or on a basis taking race into 
account? A. We took race into account.

Q. Now, Mr. Jordan, in your efforts to provide compen­
satory education, and you may want to refresh yourself 
from your maps, is there any area where you bussed stu­
dents to provide this compensatory education that involved 
anything other than taking groups of negro students and 
bussing them? A. Well, I think the term “ to provide com­
pensatory education” is not exactly right. To provide 
better education than they are getting now.

Q. I was just using your term and Dr. Hall’s term. I 
just wanted you to tell me if there was any instance where 
you—and you said you were bussing them to provide this 
compensatory education, and I wanted to know if there 
was any area or any group of students that you are pro­
viding this compensatory education for other than bussing 
groups of negro students? A. No, sir. Well now, wait a 
minute. That may not be exactly true. In the County sec­
tion—

Q. I am talking about in the urban portion of the system 
and I wasn’t attempting to cross you up on that. A. All 
right.

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



500a

Mr. Philips: Let’s take a break for a few minutes.

(Recess.)

[40] Q. Mr. Jordan, are you familiar with any provisions 
of the Civil Rights Act that prohibit the bussing of stu­
dents on a racial basis, for racial purposes? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you feel that the plan you submitted to the 
court is in violation of that or consistent with that? A. 
I have no idea.

Q. You have no idea? A. The court order, as I saw it, 
asked that the schools be desegregated.

Q. Did you consider the court order as requiring you to 
do this consistent with applicable provisions of law and 
Congressional Acts ? A. Well, I didn’t know. I didn’t know, 
so we put it in as a recommendation with the statement 
that it would have to be up to the legal authorities to 
determine whether it was legal or not. Frankly, I didn’t 
know. The consultants that we used couldn’t see any way 
other than that to achieve full, so we put it in with the 
statement that it would have to be up to the lawyers and 
the court to determine whether that was legal or not.

Q. Are you familiar with any Congressional enactment 
in the Appropriations law which provides no part of the 
funds contained [41] in this act may be used to force 
bussing of students in violation of any school or to force 
any student attending any elementary or secondary school 
to attend a particular school against the choice of his or 
her parents in order to overcome racial imbalance? A. 
Yes, sir, I have read that.

Q. What is that? A. Sir?

D e p o s i t io n  o f  J e s s e  J . J o r d a n  o n  J u ly  1 6 , 1969



501a

Q. What is it, where is it contained? A. I don’t know 
the exact number or anything. I have a copy of what you 
have just read.

Q. Where is it, a Congressional enactment, or what is 
it? A. It came out of the Federal Register so I assume 
that it’s a Congressional enactment. I ’m not positive.

Q. Did you feel in your interpretation of the court order 
and your development of a plan for the Mobile school 
system, did you feel bound to adhere to this Congressional 
enactment? A. We felt that we should obey the court order 
and developed the plan as near as possible to the court 
order, stating that we were uncertain as to its legality and 
leaving it to the court to make the decision. I couldn’t 
anticipate what the court had in mind.

Q. Did you state that you were uncertain as to the le­
galities [42] of this particular enactment in the plan? A. 
No, sir, I didn’t know. No, we said that—

Q. Your statement of uncertainty only dealt with bussing, 
didn’t it? A. Right.

Q. So you didn’t make any qualifying statement of un­
certainty with reference to these other things? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you take them into account at all in the plan? 
A. No, sir. We just simply tried to develop the plan as we 
saw it around the court order.

Q. And that is based on your interpretation, without any 
legal interpretation? A. Yes, sir, my interpretation and 
Dr. Anrig’s interpretation.

Q. What did you draw on in your interpretation? A 
Sir?

Q. What did you draw on, what information, what knowl­
edge did you draw on in interpreting the decree? A. We

D e p o s i t io n  o f  J e s s e  J . J o r d a n  o n  J u ly  16, 1969



502a

just simply read it and tried to follow it as we understood 
what we read.

Q. You didn’t attempt to interpret it in the light of any 
outside information at all? A. No, sir.

[43] Q. Just the bare paper there before you? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. How many personnel, how many men do you have in 
your office, Mr. Jordan? A. In my personal office?

Q. Yes, working with you or under you in your area of 
responsibility. A. Let’s see. We just brought on a new 
man Monday and counting myself and the new man we 
brought on Monday, I have ten.

Q. And how many school systems are you presently work­
ing with in compliance with these court orders to prepare 
these— A. With these court orders?

Q. Yes. A. Well, the count may be different today than 
what it was yesterday because I haven’t seen the mail and 
I think some more have come in, but as of yesterday we 
had twenty-five in South Carolina, five in Georgia, four 
in Alabama, and thirty-two in Mississippi.

Q. Were all of these—you are working on all of these 
at the same time you are working on Mobile? A. No, sir, 
not all of them. We were working on some of them, not 
all of them, no.

Q. All of them were in your office under your jurisdic­
tion at [44] that time? A. Yes, sir. Of course, we weren’t 
using just the ten people in this office. We were using con­
sultants from throughout as we did in Mobile. Now, that 
count may be different, as I say, today than it was yester­
day.

Mr. Philips: I have no further questions.

D e p o s i t io n  o f  J e s s e  J . J o r d a n  o n  J u ly  16, 1969



503a

On Cross Examination by Mr. Gorman:

Q. Now, Mr. Jordan, with respect to your conversations 
with lawyers from the Justice Department concerning the 
Mobile plan, you mentioned that you talked to me about 
this plan. Just when did you talk with me concerning this? 
A. Last night.

Q. For about how long, do you remember? A. As I re­
call, it was about an hour.

Q. Did you talk to me at any time previous to that about 
the proposed plan for the Mobile system? A. No, only on 
the telephone the day before about changing the date that 
I was to be here.

Q. I see. And at that time did I call you to ask if the 
deposition, if you had received a request to be deposed? 
A. Yes.

Q. And did you at that time tell me that it would be 
much more [45] convenient for you if—

Mr. Philips: I think you are leading a little too 
much.

Mr. Gorman: Well, this is cross examination.
Mr. Philips: I realize it’s cross examination but 

it’s not an adverse witness and don’t lead him.
Mr. Gorman: Well, I think I am entitled to on 

cross examination.
And did you—what request did you make of me at 

that time?

A. Well, yesterday we were, I had a meeting in Mobile 
with about eighteen people, consultants coming in from 
various parts of the country that we were setting up 
work to begin in the Mississippi court cases. They were

D e p o s i t io n  o f  J e s s e  J . J o r d a n  o n  J u ly  16, 1969



504a

all arriving yesterday morning and it would have been 
most inconvenient to me not to be able to meet them and 
form the teams and get them started out on the road, so 
I asked you if you could get me changed until today, but 
if you couldn’t, that I would appear and, Mr. Philips, I 
appreciate that.

Mr. Philips: I am glad to accommodate you. My 
whole purpose in going into that is not to show that 
you were not cooperative in appearing but simply 
to show that any pleas that you had in that regard, 
you immediately turned to the Justice Department 
rather than somebody else.

Q. Now, in addition to the Mobile plan, have you worked 
on other [46] school, developing desegregation plans for 
other school systems? A. Yes, sir.

Q. About how many plans have you worked on of this 
nature? A. You mean by myself alone?

Q. Well, that you have directly worked on either by your­
self or with some assistance from other people. A. Well, 
I suppose I have been involved in developing plans for 
fifty school systems at least at this point, court orders and 
otherwise.

Q. About how many of those fifty were either you or 
your office brought into by way of court orders—that is, 
orders that directed H.E.W. to provide systems? A. I be­
lieve twenty-one approximately. I can only be approximate 
on these figures. I can’t be exact. I would have to dig out 
the records on those.

Q. Of these approximately twenty-one systems, have you, 
how many plans have actually been submitted either to the 
school boards or to the courts? A. Have been submitted?

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



505a

Q. Tes, sir. A. Oh, they all have been submitted.
Q. And have some of these plans been adopted by the 

school sys- [47] terns without a direct court order to adopt 
them? A. Well, in the court order districts in South Caro­
lina which were the first ones we worked on, out of the 
twenty-one court orders the school systems and I sub­
mitted jointly four. We had four plans that we agreed on. 
In the others there were agreements to varying degrees 
and they are still in the process of being heard. Of the 
ones that we have done that did not involve court orders, 
I am trying to remember now, Tift County in Georgia, 
Twiggs County in Georgia, are a couple that we worked on 
at the invitation of the superintendents that they adopted 
that were not court orders. Valdosta is another one we 
have recently completed. I don’t know whether the board 
has adopted it yet or not. The superintendent seems to 
think they would. I don’t know whether they have yet or 
not.

Q. As an educator do you believe that if transportation 
of students is necessary in order to provide a desegregated 
education or learning environment for students, that such, 
the value, the educational value of obtaining a desegre­
gated learning environment outweighs any inconvenience 
or educational problems with such transportation ? A. It is 
my belief that desegregated education is better than segre­
gated education, and if we have to do some bussing to 
achieve that, I think it’s better.

[48] Q. That is outside of any compensatory educational 
advantages it might have for particular students? A. Stu­
dents, research has shown that students achieve better in 
a desegregated setting.

D e p o s i t io n  o f  J e s s e  J . J o r d a n  o n  J u ly  16, 1969



506a

Q. Now, did the plan you proposed rule out the possi­
bility of transfers for educational reasons, tranfer of stu­
dents? A. I am not sure I understand that.

Q. All right. In the plan that you proposed Mr. Philips 
asked you whether or not you believed that transfers for 
non-racial reasons, educational reasons, were desirable for 
any school system. Now, does the plan that you propose 
rule out the possibility of any such transfers? A. Well, I 
am not sure what you mean by educational reasons. I think 
an educational reason is the majority-minority. I think that 
is an educational reason. In addition to that, as I indi­
cated, I think that the other transfers that would be jus­
tified is hardship cases.

Q. Now, in response to Mr. Philips’ questions you in­
dicated that in drawing up the plan that was proposed by 
you and your staff for the Mobile system, that you pri­
marily used the decree which ordered H.E.W.—

Mr. Philips: His testimony was that he used the 
decree entirely.

Q. Now, did you also use your past experience that you 
have had [49] with formulating desegregation plans for 
other school systems when you worked on this Mobile 
plan? A. Yes, I used what background I have plus the 
background of all the consultants. I felt it necessary to 
have several competent educators with me.

Mr. Gorman: I have no further questions. Do 
you have anything further?

Mr. Philips: Just a very few.

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



507a

On Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Philips:

Q. You said that in your philosophy that a desegregated 
education is superior to a segregated education, I believe 
you said. How long have you had that philosophy? A. 
Well, I don’t know exactly when I first, when the Civil 
Rights Act of ’64 was when I first began to read on it. 
I was greatly impressed by Dr. Morrill Weinberg’s study 
in this field published under Phi Delta Kappa which is 
the professional educators’ fraternity. Dr. Weinberg, 1 
don’t know him personally, of course, but I have read his 
reports over a period of years and of several thousand 
schools, made quite a research into the area of education 
and desegregation, and his conclusion on that study was 
that students, that disadvantaged students—

Q. Now, I am not asking for his opinion. I am asking 
for— [50] A. Well, those are my opinions based on his 
studies.

Q. How long have you had—you have had that philos­
ophy then since 1964? A. Well, I have had that philos­
ophy, I can’t give you a date. I have had it for several 
years.

Q. Well, give me a date as near as you can, within a 
year?

Mr. Gorman: He just said that he couldn’t give 
you a given time.

Mr. Philips: Well, I think he can.

A. Well, it’s something that evolves as you go along. You 
change, educational theories and practices change as you 
move along.

D e p o s i t io n  o f  J e s s e  J . J o r d a n  o n  J u ly  16, 1969



508a

Q. Has it been since the Civil Rights Act of 1964? A. 
Yes, sir. That brought it to a head. That is when we first 
began to critically examine the situation.

Q. Now, you mentioned, I have forgotten, I can’t re­
member the man who made the study, are you familiar— 
what is the name of the man whose study you referred 
to as influencing your thinking? A. Dr. Weinberg.

Q. Dr. Weinberg? Are you familiar with any other 
studies in this field? A. Yes, sir, Dr. Coleman’s report.

Q. Do you agree or disagree with the Coleman report! 
A. I agree.

[51] Q. Entirely? A. I think so. I don’t recall any 
particular point that I disagree.

Q. Is it inconsistent in any respect with Dr. Weinberg’s 
study? A. Yes, sir.

Q. It is inconsistent? A. It is consistent. They reached 
similar conclusions.

Q. There is no inconsistency in the Coleman report and 
the Weinberg report? A. Well, if you—I am not com­
petent to answer that question. Their conclusions are 
similar.

Q. Okay. Are you familiar with any studies on this 
subject by Dr. Vanderhaag of Fordham University? A. 
No, sir.

Q. Are you familiar with any study or any writings on 
this subject by Dr. Hill, President of Peabody College? A. 
I have read articles of his. I am not familiar with his 
detailed studies.

Q. All right. Do you think his studies and his philoso­
phies and his writings— A. I am not familiar enough 
with Dr. Hill’s philosophy to know exactly what his philos­
ophy is.

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



509a

Q. Do you consider him an authority in this field? [52] 
A. I do not know Dr. Hill personally.

Q. Do you consider him an authority in this field? A. I 
do not know. I am not certain. I know the name, that is 
all.

Q. How about Dr. Vanderhaag, do you consider him to 
be an authority in this field? A. Well, I think he is 
recognized as an authority by many educators.

Q. Do you recognize him as an authority?

Mr. Gorman: He has just testified that he doesn’t 
know Dr.—

A. Well, I am not familiar enough with that particular 
study to—

Q. I was asking about Dr. Vanderhaag. We had dis­
cussed Dr. Hill previously. I am asking you—you said 
many considered Dr. Vanderhaag an authority and I am 
asking you if you consider him an authority. A. I don’t 
know enough about his work. I would assume so, yes, sir. 
I am not familiar enough with his writings to know.

Q. Now, you said you have this philosophy that a de­
segregated education is superior to a segregated educa­
tion. What is a desegregated education? A. It is edu­
cation in a school that does not have racial identifiability. 
I think if we are going to live in a desegregated [53] so­
ciety, then I think it is extremely important that our chil­
dren go to desegregated schools.

Q. What is your thinking on resegregation? Suppose 
you set up an absolutely perfect desegregation plan, then 
it operates into resegregation. Do you think you must

D e p o s it io n  o f  J e s s e  J . J o r d a n  o n  J u ly  16, 1969



510a

then re-do your desegregation plan to desegregate again? 
A. Well, of course, if a plan results in resegregation, your 
problems are still great. Hopefully the best solution is 
to try to devise a plan that will not create that situation. 
I don’t know whether this one does or not. Hopefully it 
does not, but if a school system resegregates after de­
segregation, then, of course, it has a continuing problem.

Q. And you think the best thing to do to begin with is 
to try to devise a plan that would not tend to result in re­
segregation? A. Yes, sir. If you could devise a plan 
that would effectively desegregate every school, then it 
would not be as likely to resegregate as it would if 
some were desegregated and others weren’t.

Q. Suppose it did resegregate, you have only told ns 
that you would have a continuing problem. We are quite 
aware of that. What we want to know from you, the ex­
pert, is what would you do when they resegregated? [54] 
A. I think that would depend on the circumstances and 
on the court order and what the situation was. I don’t 
think I could give a general answer. This is a problem 
that the City of Atlanta is wrestling with now. They 
went through a desegregation process and a resegrega­
tion process. They are now seeking ways to overcome this, 
and I think each system would have to be taken indepen­
dently.

Q. Okay. You mentioned some counties in Georgia that 
you had worked on desegregation plans without the benefit 
of court order, Tift County, Twiggs County, and Valdosta 
which I assume is a city system. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would you name the others? A. I don’t recall, Mr. 
Philips. I could dig it out of my records and send you 
a list of them.

Deposition of Jesse J. Jordan on July 16, 1969



511a

Q. Would you do that? A. Yes, sir. I don’t recall the 
exact—those are ones that I personally worked on but 
our office has worked on a number.

Q. If you would send me all of those, a list of all of 
those, I would he grateful. A. All right. I will have to 
have time to do it, though. I ’ve got to go to Mississippi. 
I am not exactly positive of the date I will get them here, 
hut I will do it.

[55] Q. All right. Perhaps you can call someone in your 
office and get them to do it. A. There’s no one in my 
office. They are all in Mississippi. That’s where I ’m fixing 
to be.

D e p o s i t io n  o f  J e s s e  J . J o r d a n  o n  J u ly  16, 1969

Mr. Philips: Okay. I think that is all. I don’t 
have anything else. Thank you very much, Mr. Jor­
dan.

*  *  #  #  #



512a

It is difficult for one unschooled in the field of education 
to implement a plan to operate the Mobile County Public 
School System in any fashion, but I am confronted with 
doing just that in what I hope will be a practical and 
workable way within the law.

The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have inter­
preted the law. We may agree with their interpretation or 
not, but we must follow it.

In approaching this task, which is without doubt the most 
difficult as well as important that I have ever encountered, 
I have called upon any and every source at my command 
for assistance.

The Department of Health, Education and Welfare, with 
inadequate time, has filed a plan with which I can agree 
in part and disagree in part. It contains some provisions 
which I think are both impractical and educationally un­
sound. HEW readily acknowledges that this plan is not 
perfect and invites the School Board to suggest improve­
ments. The School Board has filed absolutely no plan for 
the assistance of the court. The professional staff of the 
Mobile Public School System did, as authorized by the 
School Board, work with HEW in attempting to formulate 
such a plan, but their efforts did not meet with the ap­
proval of the School Board. The court has the benefit of 
such work, but wishes to make it clear that such was never 
approved by the School Board, though the end results in 
many areas were substantially in accord with HEW.

With eight years of litigation, entailing countless days 
and weeks of hearings in court, it has been clearly estab­
lished that the Mobile County School System must forth­

District Court Order of August 1, 1969



513a

with be operated in accordance with the law of the land. 
What this school system needs is to educate children legally, 
and not to engage in protracted litigation. After all, the 
children are the ones in whom we should be most inter­
ested. With this in mind, I get to the business at hand.

The plan filed by HEW calls for its implementation by 
the beginning of the 1969-70 school term of all rural schools 
and all metropolitan areas west of Interstate Highway 65. 
It clearly states that its plan for all metropolitan areas 
east of 1-65 cannot possibly be implemented before the 
1970-71 school term. In this, the court is in complete agree­
ment.

As to the rural schools and all metropolitan areas west 
of 1-65, the Court Orders, A djudges and Decrees the fol­
lowing plan under which the Mobile County School System 
will operate, beginning with the school term of 1969-70:

I.

Attendance area zones for all rural schools of the Sys­
tem, elementary, junior high and high schools, are directed 
in accordance with maps hereto attached, marked Exhibits 
1,2 and 3.

H .
Attendance area zones for the metropolitan schools lo­

cated west of 1-65, elementary, junior high and high schools, 
are directed in accordance with maps hereto attached, 
marked Exhibits 4, 5 and 6.

IH .
Attendance area zones for the metropolitan elementary 

and junior high schools located east of Interstate Highway

D is tr ic t  C o u r t  O r d e r  o f  A u g u s t  1 , 1969



514a

65 shall he the identical zones as those utilized for the past 
school year, 1968-69.

IV.
The metropolitan senior high schools located east of In­

terstate Highway 65, including the Toulminville High 
School, shall operate under the freedom of choice desegre­
gation plan and each student shall attend the school which 
was selected during the recent choice period of May, 1969; 
however, every senior high school student living west of 
Interstate Highway 65 must attend the senior high school 
serving his attendance area, notwithstanding the student’s 
choice to attend a high school located east of Interstate 
Highway 65.

Y.

The court is not satisfied with the Plan set out by HEW 
for the metropolitan schools lying east of 1-65 for imple­
mentation for the 1970-71 school term. The court knows 
that further study will result in a far better and more 
practical, as well as legal, plan.

VI.
The School Board is hereby ordered to file with the court, 

not later than December 1, 1969, a suggested desegrega­
tion plan for all of the metropolitan schools located east 
of 1-65. This plan shall be formulated by the School Board 
in consideration of the mandate of the Fifth Circuit Court 
of Appeals of June 3, 1969 and after further study and col­
laboration with HEW officials. The School Board is hereby 
ordered to file a detailed progress report to the court on

District Court Order of August 1, 1969



515a

October 10,1969 and November 20, 1969 outlining the steps 
taken in formulating the plan.

The court fervently hopes that the decree herein entered 
and the plan of December 1, 1969 will end further litigation 
for the public school system of Mobile County.

vn.
F aculty

For the 1969-70 school term and subsequent years, the 
faculty of each school, including the principals, teachers, 
teacher’s aides, and other staff members who work directly 
with the children, shall have a racial composition not iden­
tifiable as a school for negro or white students.

For the upcoming year, the School Board shall assign, 
as far as is educationally feasible, the staff described above 
so that the racial composition of each school’s faculty shall 
reflect substantially, the racial composition of the teachers 
in the entire school system.

Staff members who work directly with children, and pro­
fessional staff who work on the administrative level, shall 
be hired, assigned, promoted, paid, demoted, dismissed and 
otherwise treated without regard to race, color, or national 
origin, except to the extent necessary to erase segregation.

If there is to be a reduction in the number of principals, 
teachers, teacher-aides or other professional staff employed 
by the school district, which will result in a dismissal or 
demotion of any such staff members, the staff member to be 
dismissed or demoted must be selected on the basis of 
objective and reasonable non-discriminatory standards 
from among all the staff of the school district. In addition, 
if there is any such dismissal or demotion, no staff vacancy

D is tr ic t  C o u r t  O r d e r  o f  A u g u s t  1 , 1969



516a

may be filled through recruitment of a person of a race, 
color, or national origin different from that of the indi­
vidual dismissed or demoted, until each displaced member 
who is qualified has had an opportunity to fill the vacancy 
and has failed to accept an offer to do so.

“ Demotion” as used above includes any reassignment (1) 
under which the staff member receives less pay or has less 
responsibility than under the assignment he held previ­
ously, (2) which requires a lesser degree of skill than did 
the assignment he held previously, or (3) under wdiich the 
staff member is asked to teach a subject or grade other 
than one for which he is certified or for which he has had 
substantial experience within a reasonably current period. 
In general and depending upon the subject matter involved, 
five years is such a reasonable period.

VIII.

The Toulminville School for the year 1969-70 is to be 
operated in the same grade level as it was last year.

IX.

The five per cent transfer provision for children of minor­
ity groups set out in the court’s plan of last year is com­
pletely deleted.

X.

P ublic N otice

The School Board shall publish or cause to have pub­
lished in the local newspaper, the complete text of this 
decree and the maps, identified as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 
and 6, to this court’s decree. The decree and maps shall

District Court Order of August 1, 1969



517a

be published once a day for three consecutive days, alter­
nating the morning and evening editions of the newspaper. 
In addition, the School Board shall post or cause to be 
posted in a conspicuous place in each school in the System, 
and at the offices of the School Board, copies of the map 
outlining the particular school’s area attendance zone. This 
notice provision also applies to those elementary and junior 
high schools, east of 1-65, which shall operate under last 
year’s attendance area zones.

Dated: August 1, 1969.

/ s /  Daniel H. T homas

D is tr ic t  C o u r t  O r d e r  o f  A u g u s t  1 , 1969

[Maps omitted. See original record]



518a

School Board Report to the Court Filed 
November 26, 1969

Come now the Defendants, the Board of School Com­
missioners of Mobile County, Et al, and file herewith the 
reports of information required by the court to be filed 
in the court on or before November 26, 1969 (being the 
same reports as paragraph V I of the court’s order of May 
13, 1968). The reports are attached hereto.



519a

ENROLLMENT REPORT 
MOB1T.F. COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

(Based on Net Enrollment -  S ept. 26, 1969)

School Board Report to the Court Filed November 26, 1969

SCHOOLS i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL

Adams White 38 42 36 54 42 234 240 686
Negro 28 30 31 36 29 75 82 311
T ota l 66 72 67 90 71 309 322 997

Alba White 100 110 141 119 124 149 171 134 150 119 102 95 1514
Negro 9 12 11 13 13 15 24 26 25 16 20 10 194
T ota l 109 122 152 132 137 164 195 160 175 135 122 105 1708

Arlington White 60 78 44 58 67 307
Negro 52 47 43 42 53 237
T ota l 72 125 87 100 120 544

Austin White 64 64 75 67 60 66 396
Negro 4 4 1 3 8 2 22
T ota l 68 68 76 70 68 68 418

Azalea Road White 500 539 1039
Negro 19 19 38
T ota l 519 558 1077

Baker White 55 60 63 70 82 64 114 133 96 87 78 67 969
Negro 9 8 8 8 7 10 9 14 11 4 5 4 97
T ota l 64 68 71 78 89 74 123 147 107 91 83 71 1066

Belsaw W hite 6 9 6 21
Negro 54 73 80 207
T ota l 60 82 86 228

Bienville White 46 43 30 56 35 52 262
Negro 42 54 53 49 47 54 299
T ota l 88 97 83 105 82 106 561

Blount White
Negro 454 416 439 284 300 1893
T ota l 454 416 439 284 300 1893

Brazier White
Negro 154 188 181 190 219 191 1123
T ota l 154 188 181 190 219 191 1123

Brookley White 81 81 84 82 90 81 499
Negro 15 12 5 18 13 12 75
T ota l 96 93 89 100 103 93 574

Burroughs White 26 37 38 36 27 28 192
Negro 52 46 52 52 37 51 290
T ota l ' 78 83 90 88 64 79 482

Calcedeaver White 25 26 29 30 27 22 159
Negro
T ota l 25 26 29 30 27 22 159



520a
School Board Report to the Court Filed November 26, 1969

- 2 -

SCHOOLS

C aldw ell

Carver

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TO!,,

White
Negro 26 46 58 76 59 49 314
T ota l 26 46 58 76 59 49 3k

White
Negro
T ota l

1
429 428 
429 429

1
85?
855

C entral White
Negro 
T ota l

391 434 364 281 m
391 434 364 281 lffi

Chickasaw White 55 77 82 84 98 98 MS
Negro 1 1 1

98
!

T ota l 55 78 83 84 99 49;

C hild  Guid. White 64
Negro 20
T o ta l 84

C itr o n e lle  White
Negro 
T ota l

Clark White
Negro 
T o ta l

Sf
8H

92 112 123 133 133 113 94 ffl
18 49 39 66 . 74 80 74 W

110 161 162 199 207 193 168 180

297 353 439 101
83 43 77 85

380 396 516 18!

Council White
Negro 96 88 107 91 99
T ota l 96 88 107 91 99

Craighead White 77 42
Negro 125 280
T ota l 202 322

Crichton White 83 89 74 105 79 77
Negro 46 40 36 39 36 40
T ota l 129 129 110 144 115 117

.Davidson White
Negro
T ota l

Davis Wkite 99 95 92 109 97 99
Negro 34 29 25 25 34 31
T ota l 133 124 117 134 131 130

Dickson White 117 136 149 157 150 126
Negro 27 29 43 26 38 30
T ota l 144 165 192 183 188 156

6Si
til

18
US
St
50;
2!

636 621 582 463
24 19 16 13

660 640 598 476

591
U!
W
MS
8!
112



521a

School Board Report to the Court Filed November 26, 1969
- 3 -

SCHOOLS i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL

Dixon White 32 48 46 41 41 249
Negro 32 32 29 35 26 35 189
T ota l 73 64 77 81 67 76 438

Dodge White 94 101 114 122 109 135 675
Negro 11 8 14 13 12 7 65
T ota l 105 109 128 135 121 142 740

Dunbar White 2 2
Negro 404 433 837
T ota l 406 433 839

Eanes White 323 398 245 966
Negro 35 73 26 134
T ota l 358 471 271 1100

Eight Mile White 74 43 53 58 64 66 110 118 586
Negro 16 14 12 13 12 12 12 19 110
T ota l 90 57 65 71 76 78 122 137 696

Eeerson White 1 1 1 1 4
Negro 43 52 63 81 57 58 354
T ota l 44 53 64 81 57 59 358

Evans White 54 54
Negro 87 87
T ota l 141 141

Fonde White 89 108 118 126 118 120 679
Negro 6 4 1 11
T ota l 95 108 118 130 119 120 690

Fonvielle White
Negro 190 199 195 230 180 215 1209
T o ta l 190 199 195 230 180 215 1209

Forest H ill White 87 96 108 139 130 560
Negro __
T ota l 87 96 108 139 130 560

Glendale White 77 94 80 86 77 94 508
Negro 26 23 25 23 22 30 149
T ota l 103 117 105 109 99 124 657

Gorgas White 1 1 2
Negro 170 187 204 207 203 182 1153
T ota l 170 187 204 208 203 183 1155

Grand Bay White 118 105 96 124 92 95 630
Negro 24 19 27 25 29 22 146
T ota l 142 124 123 149 128 117 776



522a
School Board Report to the Court Filed November 26, 1969

SCHOOLS i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL

Grant White i 1
Negro 225 244 272 276 257 1274
T ota l 226 244 272 276 257 12)5

G riggs White 132 156 163 138 142 134 665
Negro 7 5 9 7 7 6 41
T ota l 139 161 172 145 149 140 906

H all White
Negro 112 102 120 125 104 123 686
T ota l 112 102 120 125 104 123 686

Hamilton White 110 103 98 111 102 105 62)
Negro
T ota l 110 103 98 111 102 105 629

H ills d a le White 123 157 151 431
Negro 51 74 92 217
T ota l 174 231 243 648

H o ll . Is lan d  White 55 70 76 49 80 64 394
Negro 1 1 2
T ota l 56 71 76 49 80 64 396

Howard White
Negro 82 79 79 64 68 75 447
T ota l 82 79 79 64 68 75 447

In d . Springs White 87 76 83 90 107 77 520
Negro 3 1 2 2 3 1 11
T ota l 90 77 85 92 110 78 532

Lee White 100 84 89 81 115 469
Negro 26 28 19 20 26 119
T ota l 126 112 108 101 141 588

Leinkauf White 45 46 29 44 52 52 268
Negro 31 26 28 35 30 27 177

- T ota l 76 72 57 79 82 79 345

L ott White 86 84 106 100 89 465
Negro 23 27 33 40 22 145

T T ota l 109 111 139 140 111 610

Maryvale White 73 92 83 117 97 86 54!
Negro 7 13 8 10 11 6 55
T ota l ■ 80 105 91 127 108 92 603

M ertz White 77 77 78 74 83 72 461
Negro
T ota l 77 77 78 74 83 72 461



523a
School Board Report to the Court Filed November 26, 1969

SCHOOLS i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAI,

to. Co. Ili£ \ White 
Negro 
T ota l

116
40

156

113
49

162

105
55

160

100
43

143

97
34

131

71
30

101

602
251
833

lio, Co. Trng. White 
Negro 
T ota l

201
201

176
176

205
205

238
238

181
181

149
149

133
133

1283
1283

Hootgomery White
Negro
T ota l

202
11

213

231
9

240

182
4

136

172
6

178

787
30

817
Hornings id e White

Negro
T ota l

137

137

125

125

132

132

123

123

107

107

116

116

740

740
Ht. Vernon White

Negro
T ota l

20
74
94

17
53
70

19
71
90

15
70
85

13
90

103

84
358
442

Sarphy White
Negro
T ota l

490
69

559

731
88

819

690
47

737

691
35

726

2602
239

2841
Old Shell White

Negro
T ota l

34
14
48

50
25
75

41
19
60

27
16
43

55
18
73

42
20
62

249
112
361

Orchard White
Negro
Total

151
26

177

131
21

152

175
20

195

137
23

160

160
23

183

754
113
867

tens White
Negro
Total

158
158

175
175

180
180

179
179

200
200

208
208

1100
1100

’alaer White
Negro
T ota l

9
127
136

13
124
137

11
140
151

12
137
149

12
146
158

57
674
731

fillips White
Negro
Total

349
67

416

403
55

458

752
122
874

Richard White
Negro
Total

13
21
34

107
50

157

108
56

164

125
43

168

353
170
523

iain White
Negro
Total

195
20

215

234
31

265

225
15

240

254
32

286

232
9

241

156
5

161

1296
1 1 2 ’

1403



524a

School Board Report to the Court Filed November 26, 1969
- 6 - -

SCHOOLS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 IS
Robbins White 1 2 1 1 1

Negro 147 158 163 177 170 11
T ota l 148 160 164

CO 171 il

S t . Elmo White 192 244
Negro 30 24
T ota l 222 268 «

Saraland White 118 131 142 139 131 6
Negro 4 11 3 5 10
T ota l 122 142 145 144 141 8.

Satsuma White 269 297 221 212 151 in
Negro 61 62 71 44 29 s
T ota l 330 359 292 256 180 ur

Scarborough White 181 229 228 6
Negro 39 38
T ota l 220 267 228 ffi

Semmes White 69 76 64 99 69 119 246 246 R
Negro 1 1 11 12 s
T ota l 70 76 64 100 69 119 357 258 IE

Shaw White 355 337 318 232 1X1
Negro 60 76 47 54 2'
T o ta l 415 413 365 286 »

Shepard White 39 64 75 79 82 70
Negro 4 7 4 5 2 7
T ota l 43 71 79 84 84 77 Hi

Stanton Road White
Negro 121 170 169 180 159 178 ■
T ota l 121 170 169 180 159 178 J;

Tanner Wms. White 55 56 67 60 54 48 K
Negro 2 2 3 1 1
T ota l 57 58 67 63 55 49

Theodore White 135 127 345 353 287 219
Negro 48 59 64 69 54 41 31:
T ota l 183 186 409 422 341 260 It

Thomas White 27 44 36 40 33 42
r

Negro 19 20 13 18 20 11
T ota l ' 46 64 49 58 53 53

381 311 ® 
381 311 ®

T ou lra in v ille  White 
Negro 
T ota l

443
443



525a
School Board Report to the Court Filed November 26, 1969

- 7 -

SC8001S i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL

Trinity Gdiis. White ____
Negro 219 210 196 176 160 123 1084
T ota l 219 210 196 176 160 123 1084

tipr White 611 463 430 1504
Negro 113 57 25 195
Total 724 520 455 1699

Sashinfiton White . . . .
Negro 561 534 433 1528
Total 561 534 433 1528

iestlawn White 68 80 89 81 108 90 516
Negro — - •»
Total 68 80 89 81 108 90 516

ftistler White 27 29 23 73 29 46 227
Negro 31 30 44 62 33 31 231
T otal 58 59 67 135 62 77 458

Shitley White
Negro 70 77 87 85 76 395
Total 70 77 87 85 76 395

Hli White 125 125 142 139 126 657
Negro 31 28 38 33 45 175
Total 156 153 180 172 171 832

Williams White 80 80 84 90 67 96 497
Negro 11 11 9 6 14 9 60
Total 91 91 93 96 81 105 557

Siiliamson White 1 1
Negro 260 245 245 203 189 1142
Total 260 245 246 203 189 1143

Silaer White 44 55 53 58 59 64 333
Negro 14 9 9 11 9 7 59
Total 58 64 62 69 68 71 392

•oodcock White 32 37 40 53 44 33 239
Negro 14 14 20 27 20 24 119
Total 46 51 60 80 64 57 358

SAND TOTAL White 3232 3421 3554 3877 3626 3497 3647 3927 3843 3799 3356 2841 42620

Negro 2497 2629 2783 3023 2799 2793 2832 2848 2527 2532 1958 1663 30884

Total 5729 6050 6337 6900 6425 6290 6479 6775 6370 6331 5314 4504 73504



52Ga

EXPLANATION OF COLUMNS -  SUMMARY OF TEACHER ASSIGNKENTS AND VACAKCIP 
MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS -  MOBILE; ALABAMA

School Board Report to the Court Filed November 26, 1969

Column (1) 

( 2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)
(8) 

(»)

Name o f  s ch oo l and grade l e v e l .

Number o f  teachers assigned  fo r  1969-70 as o f  September 24, 1959

Number o f  w hite and non-white teachers ass ign ed . This column 
equals column ( 2 ) .

This column In d ica tes  number o f  teachers re s ig n in g  between Kay 3p 
1969 thru August 1969.

V acancies f i l l e d  by new teachers or t ra n s fe r s .

V acancies not f i l l e d  as o f  September 24, 1969.

New tea ch ers  assign ed  fo r  1969-70.

Number of transfers received from schools listed.

Number of transfers to the schools listed.



527a
School B

oard R
eport to the C

ourt Filed N
ovem

ber 26, 1969



SUiS-iARY OF TEACHER ASSIGNMENTS AND VACANCIES —  MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS - 1969-70 - AS OF SEPTEMBER.24, LVOV

S ch oo l jNo. Teachers W hite ITon- V acan cies V acan cies  F il ld d P resent No. New No. T ra n sfers N o.T ran sfers
A ssigned W hite Occurred W hite Non-White V acan cies Teachers F rom .. . T o . . .
69-70

Baker ( 1 - 12 ) •
Elen:. 1-5 11 10 1 5 5 c i 6 1 Lee 1 Tanner Wms.
S ec . 6-12 27 25 2 1 Hamilton 1 Shaw
S p ec . E c. 2 2 ' ;  j 1 Dunbar

AO 37 3

1 &ls£v
S ec . 6 -8 9 2 7 0 0 0 0 1 C alcedeaver 5 Mt. Vernon

1 Ht. Vernon 2 B ie n v il le
3 L o tt
1 Dodge

B ie n v i l le ,
'i l e a .  1 -6 17 11 6 4 1 1 2 Belsaw 1 Eanes

. . .

1 W hitley 1 W hitley

B lount 1 T cu lra in v ille 1 Voc.Rehab.
-  S ec. 8-12 69 67 5 1 3 2 1 C entral 1 Rain

S pec. Ed. A 2 1 . . _ 1 L o tt 2 V ig or
70 “ 68 2 Kurphy

E r a r ie r 1 Chickasaw 1 H o llin g ers  I o l .
Eiem. 1 -6 35 3 32 2 1 1 1 1 C alcedeaver 1 A ustin

i-
1 Ht. Vernon 1 W ilner

1_________
mmmmmrnau .... nr ■ i.n^w— 2 ........... . /

528a
School B

oard R
eport to the C

ourt Filed N
ovem

ber 26, 19
6

9



529a
School B

oard R
eport to the C

ourt Filed N
ovem

ber 26, 1969



SUMMARY OF TEACHER ASSIGNMENTS AND VACANCIES -- MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS - 1969-70 - AS OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1969

S chool

C en tra l 
S ec . 9-12 
S pec. Ed.

No. T eachers 
A ssign ed

W hite

2
0

"“ Non- 
W hite i

V acan cies
O ccurred

Vacan
W hite

c ie s  F i l le d  
NonrWhite

P resent
V acan cies

No. New 
T eachers

No. T ra n sfers  
F rom .. .

N o.T ra n sfers 
T o . . .

69-70

56
2

i:;

1 , 
54 

2
10 i 3 i 4

1 Theodore 1 B lount 
1 Rain 
1 V igor 
1 Murphy58 2 56

Chickasaw 1 W hitley 1 B ra zier
Elem. 1-6 15 12 3 3 0 1 • . . . . . . . 1 ............................. ......... ________________________________

Cl c r e n e lle 1 C lark 2 Mt. Vernon
S a c . ' 6 -12 .. 46 30 16 4 2 . 0 5 1 Satsuma 10 L o tt
S p ec. Ed. 1 1 0 —

47 31 16 13 L o tt
• 1 Semmes

1 Lee_ —  . - - - -  -  • - * ' ~ ' - * " ~ ---- —

K. J . C lerk 1 Dunbar 1 Rain ’ ..
S ec. 7 -5 47 43 4 9 3 : 0 8 1 Dunbar
Spec. Ed. 2 2 0 .. _ 2 M obile C o.T m i

49 . 45 4 1 P h i l l ip s
1 C itr o n e lle
1 Scarborough
1 H il ls d a le

- ------- ■ - ___ _______
1 Eanes

C ou n cil 1 W illiam sElc.tr.. 1-5 14 3 11 3 3 0 3 1 Tanner Wms.
1 Grand Bay

L = -
E ’ l  A R Y  O r

■----- — -=-------------- ■■
/  /

530a
School B

oard R
eport to the C

ourt Filed N
ovem

ber 26, i%
$



.«■: V IY OK TF-\CHrU ASSICWiKNTS AND VACANCIKS-----MOBIT.K COUNTY P1IIH.1C SCIIOOLU —___________VO — AiS O f af.t-lK'»«ir.K a / , , -

Scr.oc 1 jWo. Tecchei-a Whi tie in on — Vacancies Vacancies Filled Present No. New No. Transfers No.Xranafcm
An .Tinned White Occurred White Non-Uhi te Vacancies Teachers From... To__
6 9 -7 0

Craighead 1 M obile Co. High
- £c • 5-7 21 n 10 5 3 i 2 1 Carver
S pec. Ed. 3 2 l _ 1 S t . Elmo

24 13 l i

C r i c h t o n
E lea . 1-6 21 17 4 2 1 0 1 1 Emerson 1 D ickson
S pec. Ed. 2 2

23 19 4 * ’
1 Ind. Sprs. |

Davidson 1 Theodore
S ec . 9-12 92 85 7 18 12 2 l 14 1 Alba

2 Satsuna
1 Blounc
1 M obile Co. Trng

Davis 2 H elping Teacher 3 1 Burroughs
E len. 1-6 22 19 3 3 2 1 1 2 Burroughs
S p a ;. Ed. 1 1 0 . ...

23 20 3

d .R . D ickson 5 H ills d a le
E len. 1-6 29 23 6 1 1 0 l 1 1 C rich ton
S pec. Ed. 1 1 _ •_ 1 Howard

30 23 7

J ix cn 5 Alba 4 Alba
E len. 1-6 13 8 5 0 0 0 1 1 Westlawn 1 Grand Bay

1 P h i l l ip s
___ . _ . . . ------------ ------ --------- - -

•

Pago 5

531a
School B

oard R
eport to the C

ourt Filed N
ovem

ber 26, 1969



— RY °F TEACHER ASSIGNMENTS AND VACANCIES —  MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS - 1969-70 - AS OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1969
S ch ool

Dodge
Elam. 1—6

Nc. T eachers 
As s i  cried

White

18

Non-
White

r, 'v acan cies
Occurred

4

Vacar
W hite

2

i c ie s  F i l le d  
Non-White

P resent
V acan cies

(7 )No. New 
T eachers

( 8 )
No. T ra n sfers  

F rom .. .
N o .tra n s fe rs  

T o . . .
69-70

22 4 2

•

3
1 Indian Sprgs. 
1 Belsaw

1 Westlawn

S ec . 7 -8  
S p ec. Ed.

32
2

2 30
2

3 1 0 1
1 Theodore 
1 Murphy

1 Owens 
1 Baker

34 2 32 ~ 1 C hild  Guidance

EeC3S
S ec . 7 -9  
S pec. Ed.

41 
2 •

35
1

6
1

6 3 2 4
1 C lark 
1 B ie n v il le

1 M obile Co.Tm . 
1 Theodore

43 36 7 ■ ■ —

Si She M ile (l-3 >  
Elec.. 1-5 
S ec . 6 -8

13
10

9
10

4
0

2 1 0 i 0
1 W hitley  
1 F orest H i l l  
1 Lee

-

23 19 A

Elec-.. 1 -6  
S pec. Ed.

u
i 0

14
1

2 1 1 1 1 Alba 1 W hitley
16 1 15 ' 1 C rich ton

Evans
Spec. Ed. 14 7 7 4 4 0 1

1 Wilmer 
1 Satsuma

.

Eler.. 1 -6 20 18 2 4 3 0 3 1 Owens

----------------------------- 1

1 B rook ley  ,

! ......
1 ■  n ~  /

?s-oo

,og
2.
to•TO

©
Cb-  utO co
o  t os e»

to
<S>. C-*Cb

o
a

!|
*oJ3b

' ©*



;nv- . l  e - c h o r s Whi to Ron - V a c a n c ie s V a c a n c ie s  F i l l e d Fcosccnt No- tl ew N o. Tranr. fu ru  \ No .Train* lo c a  |
; A r .-in n cd W n i  e a VTlii t e Mon-X'Thi He V a c a n c ie s T ea ch ers F ro m .. .

6 5 -7 0 \
Cz:. . - i e i U \

: l e * .  1 -6 35 1 34 0 0 0 l 1 Burroughs 1 A r lin g ton  1
Sr-ac. E c. 0 3 !

1 37 . i
' : i c s t  H i l l 1 Semtnes 1 P h i l l ip s

. rr.. 1 -5 a. / 15 2 4 3 l 2 1 C alvert
j ? e c ,  Ed. 1 0 1

i e 15 3

■ i e r ja la
*

1 Grand Bay 1 W hitley
E le n . 1 -6 19 14 5 5 2 3 0 2 Robbins

1 Grant ______________ j

•DfPSS
Elam. 1 -6 34 1 33 0 0 0 0 1 Scarborough

Irar.d Bay 1 M obile  Co. High 1 G lendale
E le a . 1 -6 23 ■ 19 4 6 3 3 5 2 Dixon 1 M obile C o.H i.

1 C oun cil

.'.11a Grant 1 Alba 1 Leinkauf
E ls a . 1 -5 37 3 34 1 1 0 2 1 T ou lm in v ille 1 G lendale
S p ec. Ed. 3 0 3 _ _

40 3 37

J ;• i r j  r 1 Burroughs 1 M obile  Co.High
E .s a . 1 -6 27 22 5 6 1 3 2 2 Dawes Union 2 Burroughs

Page 7

533a
School B

oard R
eport to the C

ourt Filed N
ovem

ber 26, 1969



SUMMARY OF TEACHER ASSIGNMENTS AND VACANCIES —  MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS - 1969-70 - AS OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1969
(1)

S ch oo l

M all
E lea . 1 -6  
S p ec. Ed.

(2)
No. T eachers Assigned

69-70

20
_1_

21

W hit~ 111TTon-
W hite

18
1

19

(4 )
Vacancies
O ccurred

(5 )
V acan cies  F i l le d

W hite Non-White
n (6>P resent

V acan cies

(7 )No. New
T eachers

(8)
No. T ran sfers 

From .. .

1 M orningside

No .^Transfers 
T o . . . ________

1 M aryvale

Hamilton
E lea .  1 -5 18 15

1 Owens 1 Baker 
1 T i t l e  I  

H elping Tea,

H il ls d a le  
S ec . 6-3 
S pec. Ed.

I 26 15
0 111

12

Murphy
Scarborough
A zalea Road
X .J . C lark
Davidson
Alba
P richard

3 Orchard 
5 W ill 
5 D ickson 
1 P richard

h d l i r .g e r a J L ilandj
11 10

1 H elping Tee. 
3 S t . Elmo

Howarddcm. 1-6 1 H o llin g ers  I d ' .  
1 Dickson

Indian  Springs 
Elem. 1 -6 16 14

1 Semxnes 1 Dodge 
1 Davidson

534a
School B

oard R
eport to the C

ourt Filed N
ovem

ber 26, 1969



1 3 s . b i o . Tcaciiors Whice Vac unci, co Occurred

5

White

2

clea Filled Non—White

0

Sreocnt No. wow No. Trunnlcro | From... MTo / . T “ ,,CD \

L
1 E len . l ‘ -5

69-70

19 17 2 3

\
3 Adams 
i  E ight M ile 
1 Slisvj 
1 Eaker

t
Leinkauf

Tier-.. 1 - 6 13 ' 9 4 2 i 1 1 1 Grant

Xcsst L ott 12 C ltr o n e lle 13 C ltr o n e lle
Flera* 1-5 IS 12 6 3 . i 0 1 B elsav 1 Murphy

2 <I. 2 - 2 1 Mt. Vernon 1 T r in ity  C ir.a.
2 0 12 8 # 1 B lount

:vi ryva le
: i k .  1 - 6 18 15 3 3 . 2 1 1 1 H all -
S aec. Sd. 2 C 2 1 Old S h e ll

20 15 5

*tr
5 le a .  1 -6

.
14 12 2 1 0 0 0

*1
tin h i ia  County H id 1 Grand Bay 1 Craighead

r e e , 7-12 30 24 6 3 2 i 2 8 1 Thaodore 1 H ills d a le
2 S t . Elmo 1 Grsr.dBay
1 Burroughs 1 Murphy

—

■

•
Page 9

~

\

535a
School B

oard R
eport to the C

ourt Filed N
ovem

ber 26, 1969



(1)
School

M ob ile  County 
S ec . 6-12 
S p ec. Ed.

Tri

Montgomery 
S ec . 9-12

69-70

50
2

52

31

W hite 121
SUMMARY OF TEACHER ASSIGNMENTS AND VACANCIES — MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS -

(2)
Ho. T eachers 

Assign ed

28

TTon-
Whlte

44
2

4b

(4)
V acan cies
O ccurred

(5)
V acan cies  F i l le d  

W hite Non-White
n (6)P resent

V acan cies

(7)
N c. New 
Teachers

-  AS OF SEPTEMBER .24., 1969
( 8 )

No. T ra n sfers N o .tra n s fe rs
F rom .. . T o . . .  ____

1 Eanes 1 Davidson
2 Clark 1 Shaw
1 V igor 1 Satsuma
1 Adams
6 W hitley

1 Semites 
1 Dunbar 
1 Washington

1 Murphy

v orr.in g sid e  
E lea . 1 -6 23 22 3 ■ 1 W estlavn 1 K a il

y .  Vernon 
E lea . 1-5 13

2 C itr o n e lle  
1 Saraland 
5 Belsaw 
1 C aldw ell

1 B ra z ier  
1 Belsaw

-7 High 
Sec. 9-12 UO • 1 00 10
S p ec. Ed. 3 2 1

113 102 11

12
Dunbar 
Theodore 
B lount 
L o tt
Montgomery 
Semmes 

i  C entral 
1 S t . Elmo 
1 Washington 
1 M obile Co.
1 W illiam son 
1 T r in ity  Gardens

Dunbar 
P r in c ip a l -  
Calcerieaver 
Washington 
T i t l e  I  
H elping Tea. 
H il ls d a le

High

536a
School B

oard R
eport to the C

ourt Filed N
ovem

ber 26, 1969



= o 1 1 A s i i  piidd Whl ITS
Whl te

V acancies
O ccurred

V acan cies F il le d V roscnt
V acan cies

NoV "Mow 
T eachers

Mo. XrunaCcra \ Mo .Trana tort* » 
To . . . \White Non-Whi te "From. . .

Old S h e ll Road 
E l c r .  1 -6

f 6‘7-70 

11 9 2 0 0 0 0 9 - 1 K aryvale
•

Orchard 3 H il ls d a le 1 A .Prin .-A dam sj
ITle.ra, i - 5 26 • 21 5 2 2 0 2 1 Lee

i
*

CK-er.s 1 fonde
E len . 1 -6 34 2 32 3 0 0 - 2 a 1 Hamilton ■
S;joc . Ed. 2 2 1 E rook ley

36 2 34 1 W illiam s
1 Semmea

i'a l:: sr ;
Elan. 1-5 21 2 IS 2 0 0 a 1 1 G lendale
Spec. Ed. 1 1

22 2 20

?n i H ip s 2 Rain 1 Woodcock
?c. 7 -3 34 32 2 8 5 0 1 3 1 C lark

Spec. Ed. 2 1 1 1 Dixon
36 33 3 1 F orest Hill

■'.i chard 1 Hillsdale 1 H ills d a le
Sac. 6-5 20 16 4 1 1 0 1 1 2 Adams 1 B ie n v i l le
r e.-.. Ed. 1 1 0

21 17 4 '

‘ Fage 11

\

537a
School B

oard R
eport to the C

ourt Filed N
ovem

ber 26, 1969



SUMMARY Of TEACKhR ASSIGNMENTS AND VACANCIES —  MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS - 1969-70 - AS OF SEPTEMBER 24., 1969

S ch oo l No. T eachers 
A ssign ed

White

46
2

Non-
White

V acan cies
Occurred

Vacar.
W hite

c ie s  F i l le d  
Non-WHite

P resent
V acan cies

No. New | No. T ra n sfers  
T eachers F rom .. .

N o.T ranofera 
T o . . .

3 .  C. Rain 
S ec . 7-12 
Spec. Ed.

69-70

5 4 
2

8
0

13 9 3 2

.

16
1 Clark
2 Scarborough 
1 C entral

2 P h i l l ip s  
1 W illiam son

56 48 8 1 Blount 
1 Adams 
1 Murphy 
1 Montgomery 
1 V ig or

bb ins 
Elem. 1 -5 24 2 22 0 1 2 - 1 Shepard

2 G lendale

Saraland 
Elem. 1-5 21 19 2 3 1 - 1 - 1 Adams 

1 Mt. Vernon

Satsuma 
S ec . 3-12 
S pec. Ed.

52
7.

43
0

9
2

.6 3 3 - 8
7 Adams 
1 C alcedeaver 
1 M obile  C o.Trng.

1 H elping Tea, 
6 Adams
2 Davidscn

54 43 11 1 Evana 
1 C itr o n e lle

Scarborough 
S ec . 6 -8 29 27 2 S 3 0 4 -

4 H il ls d a le  
1 Stanton Road 
1 Rain 
1 T i t l e  I

H elping Tea* I
r
i _________________ I

-------------------------- 1

!
Vussa 12 I

538a
School B

oard R
eport to the C

ourt Filed N
ovem

ber 26,1969



|s'i:r..--s ( 1 -8 )  
:J eiT;. 1-5 
-c. 6*8 

S pec. Ed.

S ec . 9 -12

jh a -ird  
E lea . i - 6

■•a AMD VAC n ci loo i.r as  v-T lsi-n-- ii.it. «ny.

7o. Teacher Ass i fined

57

14

51

12

14 10

N o n - W h i t e V a c a n c i e s
N o .  N ew 
T e a c h e r s

li

N o .  T r a n a  From...
X C it r o n e lle  
1 Tanner Wins.
1 Stanton Road 
1 Owens

Baker 
Lee
T ou ltn in v ille  
W illiam son 
S t. Elmo 
Murphy 
Scarborough 
M obile  Co. Tragi 
H il ls d a le

1 Montgomery 
1 F orest H i l l  
1 Scarborough 
1 C itr o n e lle  5 
1 Murphy
1 A zalea Road j 
1 Indian Springs

1 V igor

1 Robbins 
1 Davec-Union

1 Burroughs.^

5tar.ton Road 
i l e a .  l - o

it. Elmo 
S.?c. 7-8

30

19 10

23 1 Scarborough 1 E ight M ile
1 Scmrr.es

4 H ollin g 'e rs  I s l . Murphy 
Theodore 
Alba 
Vigor 
Shaw 
M obile Co.High 
Eanes

Page 13

539a
School B

oard R
eport to the C

ourt F
iled N

ovem
ber 26, 1969



SUMMARY OF TEACHER ASSIGNMENTS AND VACANCIES —  MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS - 1969-70 - AS OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1969
(1) (2) m .S ch oo l KIo. T eachers 

A ssign ed
W hite Non-

W hite
V acan cies  1 
O ccurred |

V acan cies  F i l le d P re s e n t . 
V acan cies

No. New 
T eachers

No. T ra n sfers  
F rom .. .

N o .T ra n sfers  
To. . .

6

W hite Non-White

Tanner W illiam s 
E le c . 1 -6

69-70

9 3 i 0 0 2 0
1 Chickasaw 
1 C oun cil

1 Semmes

Theodore 
Sec. 7-12 
S pec. Ed.

66
2

61
1

5
1

12 7 1 1 14
2 Eanes
3 S t . Elmo

1 T r in ity  Gdns. 
1 Dunbar

68 62 6

•I

1 M obile  Co.Hig 
1 Baker .
1 Murphy 
1 Davidson 
1 C entral

Thcr. a s
Elen-.. 1-6 10 7 3 0 0 0 - 0 - -

T oo lr .ln v i l l a 1 Theodore 1 V ig or
S ec . 10-12 62 6 36 3 3 : o 1 A 1 V igor 1 E lount
Sr.ec. Ed. 1 C 1 1 W illiam son 1 Shaw

43 6 27 1 Grant

T r in ity  Gardens 2 V ig or 2 V ig or
S e c . 7-12 42 4 ■ 38 6 0 4 - 4 1 A za lea  Road 1 Murphy
S pec, Ed. 1 1 0 1 L o tt

43 5 38 1 Theodore

1

1

' \ Page 1*

540a
School B

oard R
eport to the C

ourt Filed N
ovem

ber 26,1969



y>
 co

 -cl
P r o r c a t

V a c a n c i e s
N o. Haw 
Teacher; F r o m .  . ._______ _

1 i>haw
1 C hild  Guidance
2 T r in ity  Gdns.
1 S t . Elmo
1 T o u lm in v ille
2 B lount 
1 C entral
1 W ashington

> .Tta n o iu r
To. L\2 T r i n i t y  Gdns. 

1 A .Princ.Bakex 
1 M obile  Co.TRr. 
1 Eanea 
1 A .P r in c ip a l 

Davidson 
1 T ou lm in v ille

1 Murphy 
1 Carver

1 V igor 
1 Murphy 
1 A za lea  Road

1 Dodge 
1 L o tt

1 M orningaide 
1 Dixon

1 Adams

1 G lendale 
1 Emerson

1 Chickasaw 
1 B ie n v i l le  
5 M obile Co.Trni 
1 E ight M ile

Page 1*

o r
c-c. 18-12 
p -■ c . Ed.

S cr, 7-5 
Ec.

- i 11 r.
i-6

= tiler
1-6

i-lclej’ 
E ler ' 1 -5  
S'pci . Ed.

6 9 - 7  C 

71

73

:r.‘*n |
'A d u lts )  . | 3

S3
1

16

60
2

62

13

11
2

13

541a
School B

oard R
eport to the C

ourt Filed N
ovem

ber 26, 1969



SUMMARY OF TEACHER ASSIGNMENTS AND VACANCIES —  MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS -  1969-70 -  AS OF SEPTEMBER 2 4 , 1969
(1 ) (2 ) 1 (31 <4>; (5 )

c i e s  F i l le d  
Non-White

_ (6 ) 
P resen t. 

V acan cies
Nô . ^New
T eachers

(8 )
No. T ran sfers 

F rom .. .
No A r a n s fe r s  

T o . . .
S ch oo l No. T eachers 

A ssign ed
W hite

17

Non-
W hite

V acan cies
O ccurred

Vacan
W hite

John W ill 
Elem. 1 -5

69-70

24 7 0 0 0 1 0 5 H il ls d a le 1 T i t l e  I  
H elp ing Tea.

Ad e l ia  W illiam s
1 1 

j 1 C oun cil
Elem. 1 -6 14 . 12 2 3 3 0 3

1
2 1 Owens -

W illiam son >
~1--------------------

1 1 Rain 1 Murphy
-  Sec'. 8-L2 ' 42 3 39 5 1 2 - 4 1 Adams 1 Shaw

S pec. Ed. ' 1X 1 0 1 T ou lm in v ille
43 4 39

.• l in e r 1 Owens 1 Evans
E lea . 1 -6 12 8 4 2 , 1: 1 - 2 1 B ra z ier
S pec. Ed. 1 1 0

13 9 4

dodcock
I Elem. 1-6 11 . 8 3 3 0 1 - 0 1 P h i l l ip s 1 A r lin g to n '
j -**c. Ed. '  1 0  • 1

12 8 4

I r .i lc  Guidance
1 S p e c .  Ed. 17 15 2 3 2 1 - 10 - 1 V igor

I
1 Dunbar

1

I 1 r-

542a
School B

oard R
eport to the C

ourt Filed N
ovem

ber 2
6,1969



543a

No. 26285

Opinion of Court of Appeals of December 1, 1969

Derek Jerome S ingleton, et al.,
Appellants,

—v.—

Jackson M unicipal Separate School D istrict, et al.,

Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

No. 28349

B irdie M ae Davis, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

U nited States of A merica,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,
—v.—

B oard of S chool Commissioners of 
M obile County, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,
T wila F razier, et al.,

Defendants-Intervenor-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF A LA BA M A

[and other cases]



544a

Opinion of Court of Appeals of December 1, 1969 

B e f o r e  :
B rown, Chief Judge,

W isdom, Gew in , Bell, T hornberry, Coleman, Goldberg, 
A insworth, Godbold, D yer, S impson, M organ, Carswell, 

and Clark, Circuit Judges, en banc.*

Per Cu r iam : These appeals, all involving school de­
segregation orders, are consolidated for opinion purposes. 
They involve, in the main, common questions of law and 
fact. They were heard en banc on successive days.

Following our determination to consider these cases en 
banc, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Alex­
ander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 1969, -----
U.S. ------ , 90 S.Ct. ------ , 24 L.ed.2d 19. That decision
supervened all existing authority to the contrary. It sent 
the doctrine of deliberate speed to its final resting place. 
24 L.ed.2d at p. 21.

The rule of the case is to be found in the direction to 
this court to issue its order “ effective immediately de­
claring that each of the school districts . . . may no longer 
operate a dual school system based on race or color, and 
directing that they begin immediately to operate as unitary 
school systems within which no person is to be effectively 
excluded from any school because of race or color.” We 
effectuated this rule and order in United States v. Hinds
County School Board, 5 Cir., 1969, ------  F.2d —-—, [Nos.
28,030 and 28,042, slip opinion dated Nov. 7, 1969]. It 
must likewise be effectuated in these and all other school

* Judge Wisdom did not participate in Nos. 26285, 28261, 28045, 
28350, 28349 and 28361. Judge Ainsworth did not participate in 
No. 28342. Judge Carswell did not participate in Nos. 27863 and 
27983. Judge Clark did not participate in No. 26285.



545a

cases now being or which are to be considered in this or 
the district courts of this circuit.

The tenor of the decision in Alexander v. Holmes County 
is to shift the burden from the standpoint of time for con­
verting to unitary school systems. The shift is from a 
status of litigation to one of unitary operation pending 
litigation. The new modus operandi is to require imme­
diate operation as unitary systems. Suggested modifica­
tions to unitary plans are not to delay implementation. 
Hearings on requested changes in unitary operating plans 
may be in order but no delay in conversion may ensue be­
cause of the need for modification or hearing.

In Alexander v. Holmes County, the court had unitary 
plans available for each of the school districts. In ad­
dition, this court, on remand, gave each district a limited 
time within which to offer its own plan. It was apparent 
there, as it is here, that converting to a unitary system 
involved basically the merger of faculty and staff students, 
transportation, services, athletic and other extra-curricular 
school activities. We required that the conversion to uni­
tary systems in those districts take place not later than 
December 31, 1969. It was the earliest feasible date in the 
view of the court. United States v. Hinds County, supra. 
In three of the systems there (Hinds County, Holmes 
County and Meridian), because of particular logistical dif­
ficulties, the Office of Education (HEW ) had recommended 
two step plans. The result was, and the court ordered, 
that the first step be implemented not later than December 
31, 1969 and the other beginning with the fall 1970 school 
term.

Opinion of Court of Appeals of December 1, 1969



546a

I

Because of Alexander v. Holmes County, each of the 
cases here, as will be later discussed, must be considered 
anew, either in whole or in part, by the district courts. 
It happens that there are extant unitary plans for some 
of the school districts here, either Office of Education or 
school board originated. Some are operating under free­
dom of choice plans. In no one of the districts has a plan 
been submitted in light of the precedent of Alexander v. 
Holmes County. That case resolves all questions except 
as to mechanics. The school districts here may no longer 
operate dual systems and must begin immediately to op­
erate as unitary systems. The focus of the mechanics 
question is on the accomplishment of the immediacy re­
quirement laid down in Alexander v. Holmes County.

Despite the absence of plans, it will be possible to merge 
faculties and staff, transportation, services, athletics and 
other extra-curricular activities during the present school 
term. It will be difficult to arrange the merger of student 
bodies into unitary systems prior to the fall 1970 term 
in the absence of the merger plans. The court has con­
cluded that two-step plans are to be implemented. One 
step must be accomplished not later than February 1, 
1970 and it will include all steps necessary to conversion 
to a unitary system save the merger of student bodies into 
unitary systems. The student body merger will constitute 
the second step and must be accomplished not later than 
the beginning of the fall term 1970.1 The district courts,

1 Many faculty and staff members will be transferred under step 
one. It will be necessary for final grades to be entered and for 
other records to be completed, prior to the transfers, by the trans-

Opinion of Court of Appeals of December 1, 1969



547a

in the respective cases here, are directed to so order and 
to give first priority to effectuating this requirement.

To this end, the district courts are directed to require 
the respective school districts, appellees herein, to request 
the Office of Education (HEW ) to prepare plans for the 
merger of the student bodies into unitary systems. These 
plans shall be filed with the district courts not later than 
January 6, 1970 together with such additional plan or 
modification of the Office of Education plan as the school 
district may wish to offer. The district court shall enter 
its final order not later than February 1, 1970 requiring 
and setting out the details of a plan designed to accom­
plish a unitary system of pupil attendance with the start 
of the fall 1970 school term. Such order may include a 
plan designed by the district court in the absence of the 
submission of an otherwise satisfactory plan. A copy of 
such plan as is approved shall be filed by the clerk of 
the district court with the clerk of this court.* 2

Opinion of Court of Appeals of December 1, 1969

ferring faculty members and administrators for the partial school 
year involved. The interim period prior to February 1, 1970 is 
allowed for this purpose.

The interim period prior to the start of the fall 1970 school 
term is allowed for arranging the student transfers. Many stu­
dents must transfer. Buildings will be put to new use. In some 
instances it may be necessary to transfer equipment, supplies or 
libraries. School bus routes must be reconstituted. The period 
allowed is at least adequate for the orderly accomplishment of the 
task.

2 In formulating plans, nothing herein is intended to prevent the 
respective school districts or the district court from seeking the 
counsel and assistance of state departments of education, uni­
versity schools of education or of others having expertise in the 
field of education.

It is also to be noted that many problems of a local nature are 
likely to arise in converting to and maintaining unitary systems.



548a

The following provisions are being required as step one 
in the conversion process. The district courts are directed 
to make them a part of the orders to be entered and to also 
give first priority to implementation.

The respective school districts, appellees herein, must 
take the following action not later than February 1, 1970:

Desegregation or F aculty and Other Staff

The School Board shall announce and implement 
the following policies:

1. Effective not later than February 1, 1970, the prin­
cipals, teachers, teacher-aides and other staff who 
work directly with children at a school shall be so 
assigned that in no case will the racial composition of 
a staff indicate that a school is intended for Negro 
students or white students. For the remainder of the 
1969-70 school year the district shall assign the staff 
described above so that the ratio of Negro to white 
teachers in each school, and the ratio of other staff in 
each, are substantially the same as each such ratio is 
to the teachers and other staff, respectively, in the 
entire school system.

The school district shall, to the extent necessary to 
carry out this desegregation plan, direct members of 
its staff as a condition of continued employment to 
accept new assignments.

Opinion of Court of Appeals of December 1, 1969

These problems may best be resolved on the community level. The 
district courts should suggest the advisability of bi-racial advisory 
committees to school boards in those districts having no Negro 
school board members.



549a

2. Staff members who work directly with children, 
and professional staff who work on the administra­
tive level will be hired, assigned, promoted, paid, de­
moted, dismissed, and otherwise treated without re­
gard to race, color, or national origin.

3. I f there is to be a reduction in the number of prin­
cipals, teachers, teacher-aides, or other professional 
staff employed by the school district which will re­
sult in a dismissal or demotion of any such staff mem­
bers, the staff member to be dismissed or demoted 
must be selected on the basis of objective and reason­
able non-discriminatory standards from among all the 
staff of the school district. In addition if there is any 
such dismissal or demotion, no staff vacancy may be 
tilled through recruitment of a person of a race, color, 
or national origin different from that of the individual 
dismissed or demoted, until each displaced staff mem­
ber who is qualified has had an opportunity to fill the 
vacancy and has failed to accept an offer to do so.

Prior to such a reduction, the school board will 
develop or require the development of non-racial ob­
jective criteria to be used in selecting the staff member 
who is to be dismissed or demoted. These criteria shall 
be available for public inspection and shall be retained 
by the school district. The school district also shall 
record and preserve the evaluation of staff members 
under the criteria. Such evaluation shall be made 
available upon request to the dismissed or demoted 
employee.

Demotion ’ as used above includes any reassign­
ment (1) under which the staff member receives less

Opinion of Court of Appeals of December 1, 1969



550a

p a y  o r  h a s  le s s  r e s p o n s ib i l i t y  th a n  u n d e r  the  a ss ig n ­

m e n t he  h e ld  p re v io u s ly ,  (2 )  w h ic h  re q u ire s  a  lesser 

d eg re e  o f s k i l l  th a n  d id  the a s s ig n m e n t  he  h e ld  pre­

v io u s ly ,  o r  (3 )  u n d e r  w h ic h  the  s ta ff  m e m b e r is  asked 

to  teach  a  su b je c t o r  g ra d e  o th e r  th a n  one  f o r  which 

he i s  ce rtified  o r  f o r  w h ic h  he  h a s  h a d  substantia l 

e xp e rie nce  w it h in  a  re a so n a b ly  c u r re n t  p e r io d . I n  gen­

e ra l a n d  d e p e n d in g  u p o n  the  sub jec t m a t te r  involved, 

five  y e a r s  is  su c h  a  re a so n a b le  p e r io d .

M ajority to M inority Transfer Policy
T h e  sch o o l d is t r ic t  s h a l l  p e rm it  a  s tu d e n t  attending 

a  sc h o o l in  w h ic h  h is  race  is  in  the m a j o r i t y  to  choose 

to  a tte n d  a n o th e r  schoo l, w h e re  sp ace  i s  ava ilab le , and 

w h e re  h is  race  i s  in  the  m in o r it y .

Transportation
T h e  t r a n sp o r t a t io n  sy ste m , in  th o se  sc h o o l d istricts 

h a v in g  t r a n sp o r t a t io n  sy ste m s, s h a l l  be com p le te ly  re­

e x a m in e d  r e g u la r ly  b y  the  su p e r in te n d e n t,  h is  staff, 

a n d  the  sc h o o l b o a rd . B u s  ro u te s  a n d  the  assignm ent 

o f  s tu d e n ts  to  b u se s  w il l  be d e s ig n e d  to  in su re  the 

t r a n sp o r t a t io n  o f a l l  e lig ib le  p u p i l s  on  a  non-segre- 

g a te d  a n d  o th e rw ise  n o n -d is c r im in a to r y  b a s is.

School Construction and Site Selection
A l l  sc h o o l c o n stru c t io n , sc h o o l co n so lid a t io n , and 

s ite  se lec tio n  ( in c lu d in g  the  lo c a t io n  o f  a n y  tem porary 

c la s s ro o m s )  in  the  s y s te m  sh a l l  be d on e  in  a  manner 

w h ic h  w il l  p re v e n t  the  re c u rre n c e  o f  the  d u a l school 

s t ru c tu re  once  th is  d e se g re g a t io n  p la n  is  implemented.

Opinion of Court of Appeals of December 1, 1969



551a

A ttendance Outside System of Residence
I f  the  sch o o l d is t r ic t  g r a n t s  t r a n s fe r s  to  s tu d e n ts  

l i v in g  in  the  d is t r ic t  f o r  th e ir  a ttendance  a t  p u b lic  

sc h o o ls  o u t s id e  the d is tr ic t ,  o r  i f  it  p e rm it s  t r a n s fe r s  

in to  the  d is t r ic t  o f  s tu d e n ts  w h o  liv e  o u ts id e  the d i s ­

trict, it  s h a l l  d o  so  on  a  n o n -d is c r im in a to ry  b a s is ,  e x ­

cept th a t  it  sh a ll  n o t  c o n se n t to  t r a n s fe r s  w h e re  the 

c u m u la t iv e  effect w il l  reduce  d e se g re g a t io n  in  e ith e r 

d is t r ic t  o r  re in fo rc e  the  d u a l sch o o l sy stem .

See United States  v. H inds County, supra, dec ided  N o ­

vem ber 6, 1969. T h e  o rd e r s  the re  em b race  these  sam e  re ­

qu irem ents.

I I

I n  a d d it io n  to  the  f o r e g o in g  re q u ire m e n ts  o f  g e n e ra l 

ap p licab ility , the o rd e r  o f  the c o u rt  w h ic h  i s  p e c u l ia r  to 

each o f  the spec ific  c a se s  b e in g  c o n s id e re d  is  a s  f o l lo w s :  

# # # # *

N o . 28349— M obile County, A l a b a m a

O n  J u n e  3, 1969, w e he ld  th a t  the a ttendance  zone  a n d  

freedom  o f  cho ice  m e th o d  o f  s tu d e n t  a s s ig n m e n t  u se d  b y  

the M o b ile  S c h o o l C o m m is s io n e r s  w a s  c o n s t itu t io n a lly  u n ­

acceptable. P u r s u a n t  to  o u r  m a n d a te  the d is t r ic t  c o u r t  re ­

quested the Office o f  E d u c a t io n  ( H E W )  to  co lla b o ra te  w ith  

the b o a rd  in  the p re p a ra t io n  o f  a  p la n  to  f u l l y  d e se g re g a te  

all p u b lic  sc h o o ls  in  M o b ile  C o u n ty .  H a v in g  fa i le d  to  re a ch  

agreem ent w ith  the b o a rd , the Office o f  E d u c a t io n  filed  it s  

plan w h ic h  the  d is t r ic t  c o u r t  on  A u g u s t  1, 1969, a d o p te d  

w ith s l ig h t  m o d if ic a t io n  (b u t w h ic h  d id  n o t  reduce  the

Opinion of Court of Appeals of December 1, 1969



552a

a m o u n t  o f  d e se g re g a t io n  w h ic h  w il l  re su lt ) .  T h e  co u rt’s 

o rd e r  d ire c t s  the b o a rd  f o r  the 1969 -1970  sc h o o l y e a r  to 

c lo se  tw o  r u r a l  schoo ls, e s ta b lish  a ttendance  zone s fo r  the 

25 o th e r  r u r a l  schoo ls, m a ke  a s s ig n m e n t s  b a se d  on  those 

zones, re s t ru c tu re  the  H i l l s d a le  Sch o o l,  a s s ig n  a ll stu­

d e n ts  in  the  w e ste rn  p o r t io n  o f  the m e tro p o l ita n  area 

a c c o rd in g  to  g e o g ra p h ic  a ttendance  zone s d e s ig n e d  to de­

se g re g a te  a ll  the  sc h o o ls  in  th a t  p a r t  o f  the sy stem , and 

r e a s s ig n  a p p ro x im a t e ly  1,000 te ache rs  a n d  staff. T h u s  the 

d is t r ic t  c o u r t ’s  o rd e r  o f  A u g u s t  1, n o w  b e fo re  u s  on  ap­

p e a l b y  the  p la in t if f s ,  w il l  f u l l y  d e se g re g a te  a ll o f M ob ile  

C o u n t y  sc h o o ls  except the sc h o o ls  in  the  e a ste rn  portion  

o f  m e tro p o l ita n  M o b ile  w h e re  it  w a s  p ro p o se d  b y  the plan 

to  t r a n sp o r t  s tu d e n ts  to  the  w e ste rn  p a r t  o f  the city. The 

d is t r ic t  c o u r t  w a s  n o t  sa t is f ie d  w ith  th is  la t te r  p ro v is io n  

a n d  re q u ire d  the  b o a rd  a f t e r  f u r t h e r  s t u d y  a n d  co llabora­

t io n  w ith  H E W  officials, to  su b m it  b y  D e c e m b e r 1, 1969, a 

p la n  f o r  the d e se g re g a t io n  o f  the sc h o o ls  in  the  eastern 

p a r t  o f  the  m e tro p o l ita n  area.

T h e  sch o o l b o a rd  u r g e s  r e v e r s a l  o f  the d is t r ic t  cou rt’s 

o rd e r  d e a l in g  w ith  the  g ra d e  o rg a n iz a t io n  o f  the H i l l s ­

d a le  S c h o o l a n d  the fa c u lt y  p ro v is io n s .

W e  a ffirm  the o rd e r  o f  the d is t r ic t  c o u r t  w ith  d irections 

to  d e se g re g a te  the e a ste rn  p a r t  o f  the m e tro p o l ita n  area 

o f  the M o b ile  C o u n t y  S c h o o l S y s t e m  a n d  to  otherw ise 

create  a  u n it a r y  s y s te m  in  co m p lia n ce  w ith  the require ­

m e n ts  o f  H olm es County  a n d  in  a cco rd a n ce  w ith  the other 

p r o v i s io n s  a n d  c o n d it io n s  o f  th is  o rd e r.

*  *  *  *  *

Opinion of Court of Appeals of December 1, 1969



553a

I I I

I n  the e ven t o f  a n  a p p e a l o r  a p p e a ls  to  th is  c o u r t  f r o m  

an o rd e r  en te red  a s  a fo re s a id  in  the d is t r ic t  co u rts ,  su c h  

appea l s h a l l  be on  the o r ig in a l  re c o rd  a n d  the p a r t ie s  a re  

en cou raged  to a p p e a l on  a n  a g re e d  sta tem en t a s  i s  p r o ­

v ided  f o r  in  R u le  1 0 (d ) ,  F e d e ra l  R u le s  o f  A p p e l la te  P r o ­

cedure ( F R A P ) .  P u r s u a n t  to R u le  2, F R A P ,  the p r o v i s io n s  

of R u le  4 ( a )  a s  to the tim e  f o r  f il in g  not ice  o f  a p p e a l a re  

su spend ed  a n d  it  i s  o rd e re d  th a t a n y  no tice  o f  a p p e a l be 

filed w ith in  fifteen  d a y s  o f  the date  o f  e n t ry  o f  the o rd e r  

appea led  f r o m  a n d  n o t ice s  o f  c ro s s -a p p e a l w ith in  five  d a y s  

thereafter. T h e  p r o v i s io n s  o f  R u le  11 a re  su sp e n d e d  a n d  

it is  o rd e re d  th a t the re c o rd  be t ra n sm it te d  to th is  c o u rt  

w ith in  fifteen  d a y s  a f te r  f il in g  o f  the notice  o f  appea l. 

The p r o v i s io n s  o f  R u le  31 a re  su sp e n d e d  to the e x ten t tha t 

the b r ie f  o f  the a p p e lla n t  sh a ll be filed  w ith in  fifteen 

days a f te r  the  date  on  w h ic h  the re c o rd  is  filed  a n d  the 

b rie f o f  the ap p e llee  sh a ll  be filed  w ith in  ten d a y s  a fte r  

the date  on  w h ic h  the b r ie f  o f  a p p e lla n t  is  filed. N o  re p ly  

b rie f s h a l l  be filed  except u p o n  o rd e r  o f  the court. T h e  

times se t h e re in  m a y  be e n la rg e d  b y  the c o u rt  u p o n  g o o d  

cause show n .

T h e  m a n d a te  in  each  o f  the w ith in  m a t te r s  s h a l l  is s u e  

fo rthw ith . N o  s ta y  w il l  be g ra n te d  p e n d in g  p e t it io n  f o r  

re h ea rin g  o r  a p p lic a t io n  f o r  c e rt io ra r i.

Reversed a s  to  a ll sa v e  M o b ile  a n d  St. J o h n  T h e  B a p ­

tist P a r i s h ;  A ffirmed a s  to  M o b ile  w ith  d ire c t io n ;  A f­
firmed in  p a r t  a n d  Reversed in  p a r t  a s  to  St. J o h n  T h e  

B a p t is t  P a r i s h ;  Remanded to  the d is t r ic t  c o u rt s  f o r  f u r ­

ther p ro c e e d in g s  c o n s is te n t  he rew ith .

Opinion of Court of Appeals of December 1, 1969



554a

Department of H ealth, Education, and W elfare 
R e g io n a l  Office

R o o m  526— M a i l  R o o m  404 

50  S e v e n th  S tre e t, N . E .

D e c e m b e r 1, 1969

H o n o ra b le  D a n ie l  H .  T h o m a s  

D i s t r i c t  J u d g e ,  U . S . D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  

f o r  the  S o u th e rn  D i s t r i c t  o f  A la b a m a  

M o b ile ,  A la b a m a  36601

D e a r  J u d g e  T h o m a s :

E n c lo s e d  p le a se  f ind  s i x  (6 )  co p ie s  o f  f o u r  (4 ) plans 

fo rm u la te d  b y  the  U .  S .  Office o f  E d u c a t io n ,  D epa rtm en t 

o f H e a lth ,  E d u c a t io n ,  a n d  W e lfa re ,  r e g a r d in g  the opera­

t io n  o f  sc h o o ls  in  M e t r o p o l i t a n  M o b ile  C o u n t y  Schoo ls.

S in c e re ly ,

Ernest E .  Bunch 
E r n e s t  E .  B u n c h  

A c t in g  S e n io r  P r o g r a m  Officer 

E q u a l  E d u c a t io n a l  O pp o rtun it ie s

Second HEW Report Filed December 1, 1969



555a

A  D E S E G R E G A T I O N  P L A N  F O R  T H E  

M O B I L E  C O U N T Y  S C H O O L  S Y S T E M

Second HEW Report Filed December 1, 1969

A  R E P O R T  T O  T H E  

S U P E R I N T E N D E N T

B y  the

Division of Equal Educational Opportunities 
U . S . Office of E ducation 

A t la n ta ,  G e o r g ia  30323



556a

Department of H ealth, Education, and W elfare 
R e g io n a l  Office

R o o m  526— M a i l  R o o m  404  

50  S e v e n th  S tre e t, N . E .

D e c e m b e r 1, 1969

D r .  C r a n f o r d  H .  B u r n s ,  S u p e r in te n d e n t  

B o a r d  o f  S c h o o l C o m m is s io n e r s  o f  M o b ile  C o u n t y  

B o x  1327

M o b ile ,  A la b a m a  36601 

D e a r  D r .  B u r n s :

E n c lo s e d  a re  f o u r  (4 )  co p ie s  o f  f o u r  (4 ) p la n s  re fe rr in g  

to  sc h o o ls  in  the  M e t r o p o l i t a n  a re a  o f  M o b ile ,  A la b a m a .

Y o u r  a tte n t io n  is  e lic ited  f o r  the  p u rp o se s  o f re v ie w  and 

a c t io n  in  te rm s  o f a c c o m p lis h in g  the m a n d a te s  o f the 

C o u r t s  r e g a r d in g  the  e s ta b lish m e n t  o f  “ ju s t  s c h o o ls” for 

the  p u p i l  p o p u la t io n s  w it h in  y o u r  sch o o l d is tr ic t .

E a c h  p la n  i s  se lf  e x p la n a t o ry  a n d  flex ib le  in  te rm s  o f more 

p re c ise  s o p h is t ic a t io n  th a t  w i l l  a ch ie ve  the  ob jective s of 

the  C o u r t  O rd e rs .

Second HEW Report Filed December 1, 1969

S in c e re ly ,

Ernest E .  Bunch 
E r n e s t  E .  B u n c h  

A c t in g  S e n io r  P r o g r a m  Officer 

E q u a l  E d u c a t io n a l  O pp o rtun it ie s



557a

Second H E W  R eport F iled  Decem ber 1 , 1969

Table of Contents

Recommended Plans for Desegregation
Plan A 
Plan B

Plan B— Alternative 
Plan B— I— A lternative



558a

M obile County, Alabama 
M etropolitan Schools

T h e  fo l lo w in g  p la n s  r e g a r d in g  the  e d u ca t io n a l system  

o f  M e t r o p o l it a n  M o b ile  is  e xh ib ite d  a s  a p p ro a c h e s  to solu­

t io n s  to p ro b le m s  o cc a s io n e d  b y  o r  in c id e n t  to  the desegre­

g a t io n  o f  the se  schoo ls.

I n  the m a in  the re  a re  f o u r  p la n s  p re sen ted . E a c h  o f these 

p la n s  d if fe r  in  su b sta n ce  o r  degree, a n d  in  m a n y  instances 

in  b o th  su b sta n ce  a n d  degree. H o w e v e r ,  a ll o f the plans 

a re  b a se d  u p o n  e d u c a t io n a l con ce p ts  p ro m u lg a te d  either 

re ce n t ly  o r  n o t  so  recen tly .

F o r  p u rp o se s  o f  id e n t if ic a t io n  the p la n s  c o n ta in e d  in  this 

r e p o r t  a re  e x h ib ite d  a s  f o l lo w s :

P la n  A

P la n  B

P la n  B — A lt e rn a t iv e  

P la n  B — I — A J te rn a t iv e

T h e se  p la n s  a re  p re se n te d  f o r  the  m o s t  p a r t  in  statistical 

e x h ib it  th a t  m a y  be u t il iz e d  f o r  c o m p a ra t iv e  purposes. 

E a c h  p la n  u se s  the m a jo r  v a r ia b le s  n e c e s s a r y  fo r  this 

ty p e  a n a ly s is ,  i.e., N a m e  o f  schoo l, g ra d e s ,  ca p a c ity  of 

schoo ls, s tu d e n t  p o p u la t io n  in  a  g iv e n  s c h o o l( s ) .  The 

s ta t is t ic s  u se d  in  a ll f o u r  (4 )  o f  the  p la n s  a re  based  in 

the  m a in  on  the  D e p a r tm e n t  o f  H e a lth ,  E d u c a t io n ,  and 

W e l f a r e ’s R e p o r t  to  the  S u p e r in te n d e n t  o f  M o b ile  C ounty’s 

S c h o o ls ,  J u ly ,  1968. C o n se q u e n t ly ,  the se  s ta t is t ic s  m ay  or 

m a y  n o t  a g re e  w ith  c u r re n t  f ig u re s  o f the  B o a r d  o f Edu­

cation . H o w e v e r ,  th e y  m a y  be  c o n s id e re d  a s  re la t ive  close 

a p p ro x im a te s  th a t  c o u ld  be u se d  a s  a  g u id e  f o r  a  more 

p re c ise  s o p h is t ic a t io n  in  th is  ve in .

Second HEW Report Filed December 1, 1969



559a

Second H E W  R eport Filed Decem ber 1 , 1969 

PLAN A

M obile County, Alabama 
Plan A

Elem entary, Senior H igh, and Junior H igh-M iddle Schools

T h is  p la n  sh o w s  a ll e x is t in g  sch o o l b u ild in g s  o f  reco rd , 

the g ra d e  s t ru c tu re  w ith in  each  school, the p e rm a n e n t  

capacity, a n d  w h e re  a va ilab le , the c a p a c it y  w ith  the u se  

of p o rta b le s, s tu d e n t  b re a k d o w n , b y  race, a n d  the n u m b e r  

of p o rta b le  u n it s  lo ca ted  a t each  sch o o l site.



560a

Second HEW Report Filed December 1, 1969

(S e e  o p p o s ite )  HSF*



composite - -X NC INFORMATION FORM

ST -
(O

■' /  ^
_ _  o f  S c h o o l

I
G r a c e s

C a p a c i  t v  
P e r m . W . P o r t s . !  „

S t u d e n t s  
N  T S t a f f  

M N
/ - 7 t  0 / 2 .  1 \ s /y 77. s y t

A'7/r//̂ /rV'/4/t/ £ , -  : / - / * - U 5 2 £ 7Sc O .  7 5 *

||

iPA/P7 /*/£. / -  ^ I |l 7 3 SSX 3~6 / 2 .
-  - / -  ^  1 k - | | j ? 5 3 0 6 /8 7. A„Pa/  Jrf.

/?77. / - £  ! 1 -T / o ii ^ 3  . m
{̂J Gidful .7 / -  L 1 S 7 o | U s r - o \ f X f "

~ iO.0fidOec/C / -  4>- - C ' l llgo So n o
l- - - - - - - - -

- - - - - & L224 > = ? 7c r 7o v

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7 -  JT 1 0 7 £ 32  y IS2, S 3 l
P / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -  / - . . r S  7  8 ■ 1 o SOc S6c

- Z - -  g  j ^ J Z I * S /  8 S i t
P// "j JT/j b -P _ _ / -  ^  I, TTZ. p a  3 /XT W y I
0/O 7 /VOL 1 o  'S s y /2W

P/?/c/sv f / C / -  6 -£ Z $  . \' Vo/ 0 3  7

561a
S

econ
d

 H
E

W
 R

ep
ort F

iled
 D

ecem
ber 1, 

1969



COMPOSITE SOI ED I NO INFORMATION FORM

Dm  E :  A
/  s*ss ,  s /4A r3 fCc^l-cT)

; - . a r . . r  o f  S c h o o l G r a d e s
C a p a c i t y  |j S t u d e n t s  

P e r n .  W . P o r t s .  || W N  T
S t a f f

V  N T C o r . r . e r . t s

/ / AS U- /Zr {/. / - A
I AAO&
r A Ao/t Ytsr 3  /sss-7-* 6/is.

(£/J■ Af/tA //'e’s/sA JS2 7 3 0 7/1-

/r  / : / — 7 8 2 S2r> JSS 7?35 /  A y  /*/>/£_

cS~f/7 / W ^  ,*✓  ^ / -  ^ /OZo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ \ ^ /077 //■SO 3  2ss/ss/7's.

H , e / /  fD . / -  ^ />30 1 o / / ? / 1 /3 / 2  As-As, 6 As

7^- <rm / -  d 8S<t \ / t/3& 73 f f  fiyfs) /} A±

s'/. ’ / - v - T S 7 S |! II <sz . L 8? 72c
i i A /Ts y-Aj 7, /a

3z>/o'l/(/s'/Ai- / -  L A SO ! b " V 7 H?, 7 2 /

/ - s r A>/7
1
1 0 vx/ 3 /2 / /  f a / *  /) J

/  ■
/ -  ^ //s~o 1 c> //7 7 / / 17 /  /7*y7s) //<ŝ

(L? >' r1s*/7̂~~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a  97,
' 1 
! 1

*
3 /3ct /3 a 2 ,3

A As i ~ ' - r E j
2 80S 8^7 j

/  <? //  |7 ’ / / / _  £ T 7 1.33 0 3 /3 729 l !  /  77s /*/6 Ag
/̂ -/s?s*",/V > , . / / -  < i  i! /5<S£? 1 i! si (A3 & <£ <23 1

_ _ _ _ _ L — fl- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
i f II

5
6

2
a

Second H
E

W
 R

eport F
iled D

ecem
ber 1, 1969



\ '..nr-: o f School Graces
i Capacity 
i Pern’.. V. Ports.

ij Students 
li W N T

Staff
i W ' K T Consents

f t / / o  J r  / -, / -  6  1 £ > / z |l 4 3 ~ 6  3

i
S O  3

e  / ? S y / -  *
ij
i ,5 1 V S 3 * 3 ■‘7 S 0

/
S D c d f Z - / -  4 il C - 7 8 7 3 2

•*7̂ ? A / d / £ / -  6 f i S c T f t / / 7 7 0

/ -  4 ! 4 o 9 \ s 9 / 2 / 7 / 7 3

U f t / c j T s o s v / -  4 7 / 6 1 7 7 2 - / . 7 7 3

/ / / J o f t / z . / -  4 J 7  O I » S86 S '  i  L

—
•

- Z  f t ?  t a b  U s

f t r o / s h ' c / / -  ^ g / t > 1 7 S o z 7 & 7

W , / * , - s / / 6 6 7 8 c > 0 7 3

f t / r r ' £ - /  f t  7 / / - s / * > < / o S o  7 /  f t f t / )  4 f t

/ -  6 J s r 4 7 7 V J ) 8
•

f t A / J S S U i / -  4 4 7 2 - .7 7 / 0 / / J 4 2  7 . / / T f l y / ^ J / z S

<f t ^ / c / ■ *)< / __ / -  ^ ___  i 4 o & <S 3S / / s r / 7 / 7  f t y - y U j / f S

"  ^  f  ' 
M / C / -  ^  !\ g  V o £ < / < / 7 8 / 2 X

/  / s - /  + ?  / £>v
■

|| 7 g / S °  - 1 ,r o f t!/ !o  '  j i » > ^ l t f ' \

563a
S

econ
d

 H
E

W
 R

ep
ort F

iled
 D

ecem
ber 1, 1969



♦ ; — • COV-POSITS ’ building information form

I'rt; t:__________ ____________
M  'jJ U  Sc./ce/&- 7 > <  n “th - meait,

o f  S c h o o l

^Jc free is
G r a d e s  !

C a p a c i t y
P e r m .  W .  P o r e s .

S t u d e n t s  
W N T

S t a f f
W  N  T C o m r . e n c s

7 -  , 9  ! • 7 7 7 ^ 7 3  9 y . 7 3 ? s

/ ■ & 7- 3  ! / / v e 983 J "7 10*1

/  Yfl't/t/ld- 7  I 73 8 _ /S 3 3 ^ 9 <S~*?

7 -  8 Jgo 939 / / 3 ? s /
—L- - - - - - - / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

7 - 8 /D&4 7 T 7 7 ^ 733

7 - 3 7 0 /S 7 ) / y  ?3 /7S3 IS

Mobile, [h'ttti b //, 7 -  S ’ <s~ < 7 SC S' S&8

/ k  /  /z/i L-<t 6 /  7 3 s 7 Jk3_. SSc

' 7 -  7 7 #  9 Ssi S2/ 9  7/y^l J<'±

7 -  8 3  S> 2- o VjLd <S2o 7  /3  >'7,J l /r£

y /J /r , 7 -3 /3 ? Z / 3 / * 7 7 3 7 /Sj> 0

7- 8 /O a T /O W y < 5 /OS? <S

//) /} 7-. 7 336, < 3 7 7 7 " TfrS

7 -  x >  l! 9frS /030 / /o /o
a  ' ? y /-— y  £d- 7 — s *  jj ^-^3- ..

J2J34
I / ^S -

564a
S

econ
d

 H
E

W
 R

ep
ort F

iled
 D

ecem
b

er 
1, 1969



v*. /£■/* < y \ s'j  ; j■ "  J  «'■
.■a:.-.-- o f  School

j
Graces

1 Capacity 
I Pern. V. Pores.

Students
Ii w n t

Staff
1 V N T Consents

^7- /?., 8 7 7 # U 0 3 ? 8 ^ 9 0

/ryJ ,/ / / i i  $o/</ 8 - / 2 [j 7 3 3 7 3 / / , - ? / 3 3 /
1

M e r b L 7 -  / 2
ii
! 3 7 o o

p 7 £ 7
1 7/---- ---

7 / 7
9 ^ 1 '

A ?  ( 'A / r s / l  L 7 - / 2
f
i / s a c |1 <9 i/,/4- 1/1/ 2  P * J i .

//”;?///'! / //<.// //<£. / / - / Z 6  3  sJ o /  / 0  7 // 0  7 / £  fl//yr s

M c o J e  ftrr/rfy / * * # 9 -  / z 7 / 0 i 1 <2 7 / 0 7/0 r -
) / 

/ S ■ ? - / / 3  m / 1 II 0 / / f< / 7 7 w
1

/J/ 4  t> z / 0 -  / z / 7 ' / o j / s  a s  1 /£>/ / / 7 6/

/viNi-f-y/ ^ ,1 rJcrJ c 7 - / z 7 7 / , 1 o  . A s / a  37
/

Sn.y/ 7 - / 2 /i) 7 3 i M A  £2. / a J. 3S’r / &  /p'J s

S 3  / /i ti/ 9 - / z 9 2  & 1/ / 3 / / ? / / 3 3 2 / /  A * / S

7 7 V -/;/ . ' 5 -;. . / A L 14- b 7 'h
i j / * ?

i i  9

7 L C C

~7~~~----- A //9
1
- ^ 3  / A h A / 's

565a
S

econ
d

 I1E
W

 R
ep

ort F
iled

 D
ecem

b
er 1, 1969



566a

Second HEW Report Filed December 1 , 1969 

PLAN B

M obile County, Alabama 
Plan B

Senior High Schools

T h is  p la n  e x h ib it s  th ree  o r g a n iz a t io n a l g ra d e  structures 

f o r  the sc h o o ls  w ith in  th is  c a te go ry , i.e., 9-12, 10-12, and  12 

in  a d d it io n  to  ite m s o f  a n a ly s i s  a s  h e re in to  re fe rred . It  

a lso  p r o v id e s  f o r  the f o l lo w in g :

1. c o m b in in g  tw o  sch o o l centers,

2. c h a n g in g  tw o  (2 )  f o rm e r  h ig h  sc h o o ls  to junior 

h ig h -m id d le  schoo ls,

3. e s ta b l is h in g  one (1 )  12 g ra d e  sch o o l a n d  trans­

p o r t in g  the r e m a in in g  9-11 s tu d e n ts  to  contagiously 

zoned  sch oo ls, and,

4. se t t in g  g e o g ra p h ic  a tte n da n ce  zone s f o r  each school 

center.

Junior High—Middle Schools

T h is  c a te g o ry  u n d e r  th is  p la n  s u g g e s t s  b a s ic a l ly  the fol­

lo w in g  :

1. g e o g ra p h ic  zone s f o r  id e n tif ie d  sc h o o ls  w ith  the 

v a r ia b le s  a fo re m e n tio n e d ,

2. o r g a n iz a t io n a l g r a d e  s t ru c tu re s  o f  7 -8 ; 6 -9; 6-7, and 

tw o  (2 )  g ra d e  8 schoo ls,



567a

Second H E W  R eport Filed  Decem ber 1, 1969

3. d e p lo y in g  th ree  (3 )  sch o o l s t ru c tu re s  d if fe re n t ly  

th a n  f o r m e r ly  u sed , a n d

4. c o m b in in g  th ree  (3 )  se ts  o f  sc h o o ls  f o r  u t i l iz a t io n  

a s  s in g le  sch o o l ce n te rs  f o r  each  set.

Elem entary Schools

T h is  c a te g o ry  o f  sch o o ls  a re  e xh ib ite d  in  a d d it io n  to  the 

co n sta n ts  encouched  a s  re fe r re d  to  ab ove  w ith  the fo llo w ­

in g  a p p a re n t  fa c to r s  p re se n t :

1. the  c lo s in g  o f  th ree  (3 )  schoo ls,

2. o r g a n iz in g  g ra d e s  on  a  1 -6 ; 1-5 b a s is ,

3. d e p lo y in g  th ree  (3 ) sc h o o ls  d if fe re n t ly  th a n  

fo rm e r ly ,

4. in v o lv in g  o n e -w a y  t r a n s p o r t in g  o f  b la c k  s tu d e n ts  

f r o m  tw o  (2 )  a re a s  to n in e  (9 )  f o r m e r ly  a ll-w h ite  

o r  n e a r  a ll-w h ite  a ttenda nce  cente rs, and,

5. p a i r in g  o f  th ree  (3 ) se ts  o f  schoo ls.



568a

Second HEW Report Filed December 1, 1969

(S e e  o p p o s ite )  F i r 3



-
27/J  JJ/o/V’/iJ T*

/  r
. - • ' a o f  S c h o o l  | G r a d e s

C a p a c l zv
P o r n : .  W.  P o r e s .

i! S t u d e n t s  

M N T
S t a f f

W N T C o n v e n e s

E/f,f. &o Yjs/S
|{

/ - o *  ji 6/2 ¥73 /OA S  73 1
1

~̂SSAy /PsWr'A 6 -  S  ' \ S + + ! s  33 /66 S73/
•S/o J <? $. /  -  3  i S /6 il s i s VS 6 /0 . i

S o r /J £.
il „

/ - S  i l! /S o i /o s 236 8V

/ !  SS6 ~/"J
i

/  -  -5_ Wop, 1 J 3 / f / 4 </S

, 7) /  c/fS0 S/ /  - ■ - 3 " / / £
j

1 &SO u s- 80s

M M s c /j /r -------------- 7 7 / c  , JU  Y Y. \-~JJ Art*(  S s /, s/s'S
r ~

J v > 3

|

6PrO.'/ayW / - j - <?. 7 /  !

/
75*7

V

/  7 7 876 ■ 2 / W 8Je £

//Jill / -  7 u fi6>\ 6 7$ 3 7S' 7)73 9  //y'/W j 7/L£

/J a rfs /~ / J / / S S S 7 3 7 3  8 \S ?6 3S S ? ¥ / /2  /sr /*  6

//J /'S -jJ^, / - s 6 Ho _ _ u

.
/ V 2 o S 386

t S* »>fjs d ' 3 3  72
! li

: |l /  /  <7 ? s 27S\

/  nJ■Y>J Sflr / _  6 Wo 8 S 3  S 1 S3sr / / S /C .

sd’si’/ l / '  /Zr/g. / -  /  ! <3 Zo ! j: 66 3V 6

1
| i • '

, \ ( i
l V “ - ■ t\ ) ° j 1

569a
S

econ
d

 H
E

W
 R

ep
ort F

iled
 D

ecem
b

er 1, 1969



‘  ■ COMPOSITE ECHOING INFORMATION FOxM

I k  L  — m 'jJ L
i °c of School Graces

Capacity
Perm. V. Pores. •w

Studen
N

CS
T M

Scarf
N T Concerts

A  A , 7 -  9 a/ 7 C <7o"

S /l 'C e s - -  fOerJrt r/r. 9 -  s S 7C O 7 < ^ . / 7 V *

(!■ y /! ,  a /■)<?/! f /  --- -  J v 2- S Z ca/ ; . s '  / 4 7 S c  A L

— h () rJ u > e LL iz 7 - 3 A  7  7 9 / 9 7 c

7

A S .

7~Di/cS / o * s — d w b fii A S Z A 3 o / /> !" / / 7 * Z 2 /d C

/ / '  /)z>^S'*"/ /t* /V <T S <?- ~7t~ -A- /}/■>' / /  g -

/Hloll. / /  Co, TSAi/Jii^ i L -  7 / Z  6 0 1 1 7 ,
i

/  p e S 'l A- - - - - - - £--- SCI.U- - - - - - - j -

Z^Y/ C Zftrd Co- 7 {?/ L I S c /  Aa* As> //< -

a ?  e -  / I C <r
e>7 — /S. 1 ( 7>Y/<r / i / o  A! / • - Sc/r. a /

Jy IrJ.C-ry GfaJi-yJS

- - - - - - - - - -
A -  7 CA P

/
a /  o 7c 7  ■ .<- - - - - - — y - - - - - - - - - - - -

Y ' / h Y
8

S S / S S Z
^ 5 3 / r/<Z9»

7 0 7 7
i

U  Y cvY liY

/} ~ Z /? 7 r  c  Y o  <L i - 7 / o / Y / 3 3 % >

a / c 7  <//) / ^ X A V 7 A. 5 /
1!

YCSY/7<- Z  V- S #  'f /  s £  -  7 9 7  A ,<S3- / £ ? 7 / 7
; z  /  ■-, /, s -  A *  2* . -  7 , -  S' JZ.S’2- !| 7 7 3 / ^

.. . ■ .j
j ig  S ^ 7 -7 -6 C s S

570a
S

econ
d

 H
E

W
 R

ep
ort F

iled
 D

ecem
b

er 
1

, 
1

9
6

9



- C 'J I N F O R M A T I O N  F O R M

IV\H:____■
C O V .r 'O  S  I T S  S O I  T O  I  NO

—<=v- * £ ' r ~ . y ____

/•a ?.-:- of School
lj Capacity

Grades !i ?ern.' W. Pores.
Studer.es :

! w M T
S t;a f f

« !N T

/_  c  li W 2- S 7 Z - S 7 ¥ - 7-2. j r g  l v-5~~ / % v S / !/ i  / ' s
/

S t e Z f .______
; \\

/  -  5- ; || t5”7,f 7 S ~ i Z 3 & /i<3 7^6
1

b  * y  / 4  / / f £

/ / J //// / -  <s
I
! ¥ o $ 6 / S 7 j r  7/ 6s i /

- W h y / / / } / ? , __________ i /  -  j " !
!!

&  7 2 -  |j V ?2 /< r 6/7 !7 !
! /-vT  ' S / o ¥ 6 7 -

7 ? 7 0 z t r s o H r 7J" / 2> /'.< Z

/  . t  <r—y
f J / o 2 m / 4A  / - i +  P

■ :

/ - / / )  7 - L .

T ~ \

i 4 S 3

1
//•TF

_ c

I
_______________ 1

I
t i j '

< Z > !

1!
/  -  or Z O S #

IT ■
/ / ' O  1 \ 3 s o

n J
/̂ <5f

T - i
0? /̂ 2> J -s j/ )  / f  £

J ~  C '/  “ r  6 <!> /"✓  ---- ------------------\ A / > j S
/  if ‘

^^7 il
1
1

i h v u P /  -  S  !
i 1
y * Z  i

................
! U t3 / A 5 ~ & 3 s f i.

. d P & f  / S < ,

[
/ -  - r  j

T~
/ ¥ £ > £ >2 Z d R L

1 — I

/ }  j J  __ / / I!
c A s

i

' -----------------!t < z .C L ________~

571a
S

econ
d

 H
E

W
 R

ep
ort F

iled
 D

ecem
b

er 1, 1969



COMPOSITE SUIIDING INFORMATION FORM

4$
T f/ s ddjLl-4. vCw, (C/oM-.

of School
oe/r.T c.,/ l| Capacity

Grades !l Pern. W. Pores.
Students 

V N T
Staff

W • N I Conner.cs
: / /  / C L /  l : 2T ^Z> !H-O W/t-y'd- ■-----------------
/ 0 / . C/// Tori 2 / - v T 4 7 6 vO"3 e 7 ^ J fS 'S3 7 X /r 7j, £ Zj

C~r ' d / ~/> 0/ / -  v5" 722 4JS 3 4 2 7/6 /  />** /'■ //*-

/v '//o/id / -  cT //>Zo
■
/ / S o 6 fr>a fd/ /  /?-> /£.

—~T~0 W d / < // £_ ----- C//ri7 oj'/7<7 —  -̂ S" <? d, cr.■ /7"> < S r. L  /$ tS  *7

/z? O' s •? '7 > / -  O' a 7
/

7/3 476 <5 //'T'/'J //f _S

' fcss
,

£>/',/ e/^/rt ( / -  a~ /Jo-e /4/>8 43? f-3 / /36S /  As

14//474 / / - 6>'2 7/2 7/C 48/ 6,37 3  Ao 6 U s
/

/r? y '7.2 y 27 /s'. /  - ^  ll //-cT<S //26 // /e/2 /& 32 7 /%'/ 7-/4 / /7z-
----------------1-----------

/  -  v3' ■! /7 37 / 3 7 z /S 77 Ss 73^0 3  /#*■■//> & /£&

^ < A  ?
il

'

1 / - c iT /-4S 6 63 S S SS 7473

//) / P a/ U . / /  ? -------------- k *:* . 71 ,iv̂  S  ,1riiJ o ila 1 1C /e - ■) lc<J7j/\ - J .7 L -j/7;i R r -------- “ I,-------- R 11 1 7 li

572a
S

econ
d

 H
E

W
 R

ep
ort F

iled
 D

ecem
b

er 
1, 1969



o f  S c h o o l G ra d e s
j C a p a c i t y  i| S t u d e n t s  

? c - r r . . V.  P o r t s ,  i! W N T
S c a f  C

V N T

' 1 % : * ? - / 7  ii /• ;< ? Z /Z  (  7 3  s- ■79 7 ? ¥ /  3  /)> 7^/1^

fr *~i $•?/ /  -  l, t'Ar > <f i*}
l!

/ » - / * ?  I! > 2 ^ 6 2 , 1 /7 0 9 7 3 / . / 7 / r

j7 )//,-p  / t,
I

/ ^ -  / . ? , \/Y '/o / 3  60 2

7 7 L- _ _ _  ^  S
—7 ?  <g U / " / 4 \  \ S c -t /  ^ , '<  -

i 1 '

/O 0/ //trrtfJt! t //<* ______ i z \ & 3  3
/

3 3 s - 3  c. 9

Ml?/?. /  7 / L  - T ^ T / " !  /  j f c / 7 f / 7
-

(  6 L . . / . / ___________ II '  II
i s*

7

2
s 

’ 
\

__
_^

7 -  /Z  | \ f / o / II /3 o g 2?e>z 7370
, /

!r  / / ( / / /  / --------  dxllvii— v /  v / / « 7 ko/ 1

7 7 ) /fu ’ 1  S 0 i\J
i

9 - / z  ! / $ 9 3 - ? / ¥ 6  II/7 3 S 6 0 9 2 3 / 2 3  A * / '? /  /<~s

■7S/o/J ^  I 9 - / z  j 729
.

j //5~o ¥ 7 / /&ZA
- 1 ' r  y  '  .
/ .  "  /  -  S k ,//> i '

---------------------------- I 7 0 / 0 j| bife l i f t 1

| l * 1
_________

---------------J

5
7

3
a

S
econ

d
 H

E
W

 R
ep

ort F
iled

 D
ecem

b
er 1, 1969



574a

Second IIEW Report Filed  Decem ber 1 , 1969 

PLAN B— ALTERNATIVE

M obile County, Alabama 
Plan B — Altebnative

Senior H igh Schools

T h is  p la n  d if fe r s  f r o m  Plan B  in  the fo l lo w in g  m a n n e r :

1. it  d oe s n o t  in v o lv e  sch o o l a ttendance  o f  p u p i ls  out of 

the p re se n t  g e o g ra p h ic  zones, a n d

2. T o u lm in v il le ,  T r in i t y ,  G a rd e n s,  a n d  M o b ile  C o u n ty  

T r a in in g  S c h o o ls  a re  n o t  in c lu d e d  to se rve  sen ior 

h ig h  sch o o l studen ts.

Junior H igh— M iddle Schools

T h is  c a te g o ry  o f  sc h o o ls  u n d e r  th is  p la n  p ro v id e s  b asic ­

a l ly  f o r  the  fo l lo w in g  a s  c o m p a re d  to  Plan B  f o r  this 

g r a d e  le v e ls :

1. u t i l iz in g  the T o u lm in v i l le  S c h o o l in  the set (as 

e xh ib ite d ) in  l ie u  o f  F o n v ie l le  Sch oo l.

Elem en tary Schools

T h e  sc h o o ls  c o n ta in e d  in  th is  c a te g o ry  a s  u n d e r  this 

p la n  a s  o p p o se d  to  Plan B  s u g g e s t s  the  fo l lo w in g :

1. s tu d e n t s  a tte n d  p re sc r ib e d  g e o g ra p h ic  zones,

2. b la c k  s tu d e n ts  w h o  w e re  t ra n sp o r te d  f r o m  tw o (2) 

a re a s  w ith in  the  E a s t e r n  se c t io n  o f  the b e ltline  area 

a re  a s s ig n e d  to  n e a rb y  a n d  sc h o o ls  th a t were 

closed  o r  redeployed  a s  in d ic a te d  in  Plan B. 

(R e fe re n c e  to  T o u lm in v i l le  a n d  E m e rso n -C a ld -  

w e l l -H o w a rd  a re a s.)



cosrosixs; s-xicinc information form

$ ~ / ? / / * --^(*y*l

o f  S c h o o l

Szax*-l£
G rad e s

C a p a c it y  j! S tu d e n t s  
P e rn .  V. P o re s .  1! if N T

S t a f f
V N T

cAtP' A-ree7 - / f  / A  j! - ^ 7 2 S -fz . II S>¥ 7 2 . r s £ .
H i

/ -  5 - . 1 ^ T 7 ,V i z r * 0 7 5 2

—

Cfjt/l /7 W £> / -  6  || • / < ?£ L t 7 / ^ 3 5  / 7/ ̂ /,t3 7 - s

M am  / / / ; / £
l| (c/2 -

- J ' S  J . -

\
\ s t $ J o Q t 2  /%i-/'Dj î S,

- . / - f _ _ j 5 / 0 I U . ? 2 0 4 .V-

/./J<?<./- /aoj.j ____ / -  £  ![ S 'C 1 L r * r < 9 vTrtJ 1 3  /̂ t

dsc-Jh, —
jT z
p 2? ! & «v/u />s/\*v !/^/ f  Z '.  c ,

t

_____________

ll
1 1 /  

\4 ? 3 U 4

— ^ / r .V ------------------ 1

/ -  S  jj /JJZ- 4

_  1 ! . J

^  / / o s v •! 13 Sb <S 9

r

/ Z t f ij l , 3  /ZyT-fiS/r S

Ir /•'/** t> t~ - v . i L J VV2 . ___________u 4
S / S

1

v T - z / S */■  $A/?j6 /' s

L  < ? A  k~4 u -f
- Z - J 4 <fZ

1 1 
1 3 7 3 /cs- * 3 * 1

/ - < T  ! /Vf<L z /¥/?

d # / t / * e / /  I / - S  l! J - 7 $r> f */o / * 4 21|
1 !l

1! i ft

575a
S

econ
d

 H
E

W
 R

ep
ort F

iled
 D

ecem
b

er 1, 1969



COMPOSITE ECHOING INFORMATION FORM

AT) _  A/ 7°rt?/t tf E

— r ------------------

?•*?■<? o f  S c h o o l
l| C a p a c i t y

G r a d e s  !> P e r n : .  W.  P o r e s .
| S t u d e n t s  

W N T
S t a f f

W N t

Artasty A-y'A / -  S  !: V o S o yes' V a f 3  f /r / '* 6 /5
(O/d d) /?  A  /tend / -  6 -  1 * 7 6 33  a 39S S37

—

Z fb ,M /A s
(d  /  c./?■/■*? A / - s

•
7 /2 n s ¥ 3 / 3 /7 7/C • /  /sr/tt-i/z.

d)-d,j J-j, sj Wr/>d-
i

! / - v T /o ja /o  S o L ?ao ft)/, /  AtyA’7/a.

"7̂ ^  (J / <L / / A J  / - v 5 -  ; / / 7 0 Q /<z>o //SO 2  A y / " / / $
&rya e> / —  s .A id ... 2 f 63 </&/ i /  A‘y/t)b j-'j

______________________ f

—,

^  ? J - S U s j 93*? 73 i i3 i-S 7A -AU /  s

lOLiJet/ /  - s
< j / 2 - j: 2/L  

7o-p_ ii

48! 6 r/y
- ( ,. 5  AtU~■ty/> / i —

$)r
1

/ -  . 5 - //s~<z / / U  1 /c /a n
I

#3?.] i /  A sy/y A/z.

(dr r? AT*
] i| t  /3 $2 '1 /b /its tfco 3 A*y/U/ '5

( •ij !j ||
^ v , ; /  ^  Jj I

^  Pi / — ._5" !/Vf<£ 1/3S SSS- if/yas I
I l! « T- - ,,  . SI.-̂ ■̂gL=r_dA»A Vx'-V '* - A v —J d / A l s /v  --------

5
7

6
a

Second H
E

W
 R

eport Filed D
ecem

ber 1, 1969



7*
C ;iacl  c y

/r̂  .  (/f̂y _ _ _ _ /-3- 8  6'Z |  ■ - /  73 /££■ 7 7 5 r
_ _ _ _ _ /  - 5 "  j !  , 5 V * I  ZS3 73

i
i

c/<7 - / - > * ~  j  / / g \s<zs S
1»hJ.7 / - v T  ! i 7/5- / / 7 7 6 '

/ } / /  5  -r-Ji*/
|

/ - ^ r  I  4 7 7 3o/ 7 , 2 7 / l j

*T) / C/C S  t>A/ Z S !  , f / * . C/o ftoS
//fZ/jt/s? /frJ — —  V , <  T ' {

V  /  
Z'/'rZY

i  /
/ 4

■ __

Z-S  |  tfzc /  YC !
—

7 7 ? / /  7 V7L 7, /lyZsr 6 7r S
XJ/ZZ /' S  | |  S/t> / / 9  5 ^ 67? 6 7 Sr 7 /SrZa3 Zrs
-XrtrtsZ //'// I S ! S78 ? . ? g - 6<0j (cOt / 2 3cy/,jZ> /{ s
Z/J//S //t /& /'S ISO n /SI 3 sc

a *> z-s
!

J72.\ \/W * T }7s\
s  r  r  •L /Jc! ,/tsJ Zfi'trl'i', _ _ _ / -  &_ _ \

7o<? j  J
" ! ,53 r  X.53S !> " zrft 7 ftr 7a 3 /e s/  f

/ -  6  1 34o I3sc JVC i

. - / ! ^  L -
1!

I
i ! \V p°\ !

IT
i

5
7

7
a

S
econ

d
 H

E
W

 R
ep

ort F
iled

 D
ecem

b
er 1, 1969



COMPOSITE ESILOING INFORMATION FORM ( J )

/ 6 -  /V A  J iu  £_

V  /Vtcat 
Nar.it o f  S c h o o l G r a d e s

C a p a c i  t v

P e r n .  V .  P o r t s .
S t u d e n t s

! W N T
S t a f f

W N T

/ /J 7 -8 4  7 ^ f / 5 " < i ? 3 dS3
^/i Jrs. tJaa/azA. / -3 / 7 ^ o 7 < S * /7H
Cr/?U / f/ fd  ■ Z  J

~ • / y a// <rV if} C'i/ss /s _ ------------------- -

P/nflPS . r _________________3
/{J/I i/J‘ii-01') — r i

1

/  Gut to trt Vi 'll ^ 6 - 3 7777S
1

7(046 /S67 7 ^ 7

TT)s//j / ? / ? } ' ' — r 1

!

—

{?£'////'/> L b - 3 2^50
i
1 ! /Of*

k

/sc#

///ft. -5 /‘AS!? /<0a/ -  /

///)///f, /n. "77, 7 /  26o
j  ■

■ '  1 <732J3Z_ / Z iV /  /2,'7'j d/zl

/> sC / _____________ 6 - 7 //7
! !| .  

j i < 7  yc> 7//0 2>30 / 7 ^ 7 ^ / T k -

/?/? y s £ iC. 738-7.L / / ;
j ! i •

< # y  _  //sirfA/Sz ' i *- A V v / -

f"* .

/r / /Vr -/<, / - ~7
/

26$ I
7

3  g o £ 96 i/67o\
— Z-1-̂

i
I
I Z 7^  //T~ S>

1
£372 ’ I ^ S S f e f

!l
9r# vysA\ j |

5
7

8
a

S
econ

d
 H

E
W

 R
ep

ort F
iled

 D
ecem

b
er 1, 1969



c c y r o i .  :T i  B'JILSINC INFORMATION FOPOl

L'-\ / §  — /f/'r-e*’ /'>** 7-u

^ * '1 'J fis -‘-/-L
I ' . ‘.A T . iC  Of SchOOl

fCaiCA
Grades

V L9
Capacltv

fern. W. Pores.
Students 

W N T
ScafC

W N T Comr.er.es

A\z W /} /fir/),/ £ -  7 / 0 / f ? * 7 / 3 3 9 7  c

/- /V A t /W z . g ' 2 4 4 j /S 9 / 3 A 735

A -  7 9 * 4— r / S f w 7 2  S

ArSS///-~ 7 - Z A f A 3 7 * V2 3 /1 . 2  A A /i/iA s

1. A . -A /&■??- 1 7fI? 9 tL&2 /i/ifi’l

7” ! 1 / g */ A i A  i l l ' ■A 172.. \pe? ■nn Ill'll >

/b A A , / ' - ,'-v >jJr,.* V <■; IfL/ 1//. v;<- i-}HJ 7'A .
— j— ---- i

Is

*

'

' r
_____________

— — H

579a
S

econ
d

 H
E

W
 R

ep
ort F

iled
 D

ecem
b

er 1, 1969



COMPOSITE BOILSI NO INFORMATION FORM
& -/ / /  r ts e / y j 77A z

?/ ss/ s
i.'ar..v o f School Grades

Capacity
Perm. W. Ports. w

Studer
N

ts
T V

Scarf
N T Comments

________________ 9 - / P 4 V 9 g / Z 7 3 2 ■ 3 ' f 7 9 4 / 3  -S

/ / / / / r //a/ S  c»v- d ,  I r d J . / Q - / 2 2 0 0 2 7 x 7 7 0 7 2 7 3 7
'

L /

M l l r P h  </ ' / < 9 -  /  2 2 5 o c ' 4  V C 7 9 / 3 3 3 6 3

C / 3 2
-------------- " r _

2  a  4 /  n  tP '  A ( 0  U

/  r C c ?  / m , A  o  i l  £, i - 3
v /  t / / J  1 <9 ' / ,

/

; /  <C  / f ^ c ’ 4 r

/< 4 ? 4 4 r  / S  7 k
»_

7  i t  2 /  t i p
/  u  

y / 7 ' 0 i  s O ./ t C S A

s I

— ,— p
7 ~ \

' " > 6
J A / j U U t X ._______ ____ 7 - / 2 J 7 & /

1
i / s o t 3 S /  4 > s i w

/ y  / f j  /  -T v v j  _ j 2 jc J § ^ -

1

/ A , i / . f , ,/ / &  * k

*""217 2  / J 5 4  / V 9 - / Z / / > 4 3 2 / l i

—
/ 7 3 ,? 2 ~/ / 7 S 9

' J S / p o J 7 - / 2 7 2 9 / I S O 1 9 0 1 3  v i

i

< U  u ' r i A ■ s r i 14 d i '

i
i ---1------

—  l.

5
8

0
a

S
econ

d
 H

E
W

 R
ep

ort F
iled

 D
ecem

b
er 1, 1969



581a

Second H E W  R eport Filed  D ecem ber 1, 1969 

PLAN B-l ALTERNATIVE

M o b il e  C o u n t y , A l a b a m a  

P l a n  B - l  A l t e r n a t iv e

T h is  p la n  is  b a se d  p r im a r i l y  u p o n  the concep t o f  n o n - 

c o n t ig io u s  p a i r in g  o f  schoo ls. T h e se  sc h o o ls  a re  located, 

fo r  the m o s t  p a rt ,  in  a re a s  g e o g ra p h ic a lly ,  e conom ica lly , 

and p o s s ib ly  c u lt u r a l ly  o p p o s ite  each  other. I t  ta ke s  in to  

co n s id e ra t io n  su c h  fa c to r s  a s  the f o l lo w in g :

1. p e rn a m e n t  c a p a c it ie s  o f  schoo ls,

2. c a p a c it ie s  o f  sc h o o ls  w ith  p o rta b le  u n it s,

3. acce ss  to  th o ro u g h fa re s  f r o m  one  cen te r to  the other,

4. d is ta n c e s  tra ve lle d ,

5. s u it a b il i t y  o f  fa c ilit ie s ,

6. p o p u la t io n s  co n cen tra tion ,

7. n o n -u t il iz a t io n  o f  u n d e s ir a b le  sch o o l s ite s  a n d  

b u ild in g s ,

8. conven ience ,

9. u t i l iz a t io n  o f  the  p u b lic  sch o o l t ra n sp o r t a t io n  n e t­

w o rk ,

10. a s s ig n m e n t  o f  sm a lle r  c h ild re n  in to  sc h o o ls  w ith  

the fe w e r  s tu d e n ts  en ro lled ,

11. a  su g g e s te d  g ra d e  le ve l o r g a n iz a t io n  f o r  a ll ele­

m e n ta r y  ch ild re n , and,

12. u t i l iz a t io n  o f  sc h o o ls  w ith o u t  r e g a r d  to  race.



582a

Second HEW Report Filed December 1, 1969

(See opposite)



:**\;• E: PLAN B -  1 - ALTERNATIVE 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

c c - x r o s i i s  s a i ' - s i N C  i n f o r m a t i o n  f o r m  

M03ILE COUNTY, ALABAMA SCHOOL DISTRICT

i
o f  School ! Graces

Capacl tv
Term. . W. P orts .

j Students 1 S ta ff 
! W N T fry ,___,r . r -

F o n v ie lle  \ 3-5  ' 1190 4 00 666 1066

F orest H il l 1 -2

i

578 2 04 334 538
!

J----------------

Licnkauf N\ y 5
1

442 4 10 110 .5 2 0

Westlawn \
j»

1 -2  : 510
II

711 277 988

Hertz / 3 - 4 510 711 278 9S9

Hall \

—

1 -3  ' 1 22 4 691 458 1149

Maryvale S 6 - 5 612 ' 380 236 616
1

A rlin gton -C oun c^ l^ V 3 - 5 1054 737 437 1174

M orningside l - 2 j
” *

369 222 591

A ustin
1

4 - 5 403 311 139 4 50

Old S h ell Road 1 -3 676 31*2 178 4 90

C rich ton  \ 3 - 5 782 481 241 722 j

Shepard
«  !

566 6 10 I5 (j 560  J I

Caldw ell
‘I

1 -3  !l 578ji
j! 291

•
253: 566 i

j i

C/>. «*-!-> Rr-r»r»V1pv S 6 - 5  |j 662 j| 2 24 2 i s j  4 4 2
i

583a
Second H

E
W

 R
eport F

iled D
ecem

ber 1, 1969



COMPOSITE BUILDING INFORMATION LORN

DATE: PLAN B - I - A t l e r n a t l v e ___
(2 )

Name o f  School Grades
C apacity

Perm. W. P orts .
Students 

W N T
S ta ff

V N T Comments

Eight M ile  \ 1-2 340 98 250 348

Grant / 3-5 12900 197 1101 1293

Indian Springs 1-2 403 190 221 i l l

B r a z i e r  / 3 -5 1156 355 812 1167

R o b b in s -H a m ilt o r K 3 -5 1496 800 693 149 3

Chickasaw / 1 ,2 612 311 262 573

Orchard \ 4-5 316 313 639 952

Gorgas / 1-3 S84 449 461 390

Stanton Road ' 'X . 3-5 1020 491 491 982

D ickson / 1-2 816 —1.9.5__ 534 729

Dodge NSs\ 1-2 816 351 506 857

W illiam s 3 408 303 225 523

Oviens j / 4-6 1496 434 1100 1584
. .

—

584a
Second IIE

W
 R

eport F
iled D

ecem
ber 1, 1969



PLAN B -l-A lte r n a t iv e

3 INC INFORMATION FORM

DA
( 3 )

.'.at.-: o f  School Grades
Cana c l tv

Pc-rn. V. P o rts .
Students

1 W N T
S ta ff

W N I Comments

Emerson CLOSE '
!

Palm er-G lendale
|j

3 -5  || 1258 634 717 1351 i

Fonde 1-2 850 405 450 885

Thomas 1-2 272 123
1

235 358

W hitley / U) U1 ,612 273 341 614

W ill \ 3-5 816 ! 397 422 819 -

W histler 1-2 680
j!
ij A62 178 640

l
i
i

—

Hovard . CLOSE 1
|/

!
|

1

1
* • —•

i
i
i

% !
J

I j
i
i

1 ii i

585a
Second H

E
W

 R
eport F

iled D
ecem

ber 1, 1969



586a

In compliance with the orders and instructions to the 
School Board contained in this Court’s Decree of August 
1, 1969, the School Board now files its suggested desegre­
gation plan for all of the metropolitan schools located east 
of 1-65, for implementation for the 1970-71 school term.

As it has done on several occasions in the past, the 
School Board would once again respectfully call to the at­
tention of the Court its sincere and considered opinion 
that the best plan for the operation and desegregation of 
the Mobile County Public School System—the plan that 
will preserve to all students of the system and all citizens 
of the county, black and white alike, their constitutional 
rights, and at the same time is the most educationally 
sound and administratively feasible—is a plan providing 
for a method of student assignment based upon free choice 
of schools by all.

Having once again called this to the Courts’ attention, 
the School Board is nevertheless compelled by the orders 
of the Court to submit a suggested plan of student assign­
ment based upon geographic zones rather than freedom of 
choice. Under such duress the School Board, against its 
sincere and considered best judgment and contrary to the 
personal wishes and desires of each member of the Board, 
now submits such a suggested plan. There are attached 
hereto three maps representing the suggested plan: one 
labeled “ Metropolitan Attendance Areas, Elementary” 
(Map # 1 ) ;  one labeled “ Metropolitan Attendance Areas, 
Middle Schools” (Map # 2 ) ;  and one labeled “ Metropolitan 
Attendance Areas, Senior High” (Map # 3 ) . In arriving at 
the suggested plan for the schools east of 1-65, it has been 
necessary to suggest several changes with regard to schools

School Board Plan Filed December 1, 1969



587a

west of 1-65 in order to accommodate and fit with that 
which is suggested for east of 1-65. For the sake of con­
venience and clarity the attached maps reflect the entire 
metropolitan portion of the school system, not just that 
part of it east of 1-65, and the desegregation plan for 
the entire metropolitan portion of the school system.

In addition, these maps also reflect a suggested change 
in the composition of the Dickson, Will, Orchard, Hills­
dale and Scarborough attendance areas essentially unas­
sociated with the suggestions relating to east of 1-65.

The maps are prepared in a manner familiar to the 
Court. The basic maps are official “ City of Mobile” maps 
produced by the City Engineering Department. Attend­
ance area boundaries are superimposed in heavy, dark 
lines. The locations of schools are shown as dark dots 
or circles. The names of the schools (and thus of the 
attendance areas) are written in, as are the grades to be 
accommodated in each school.

School Board Plan Filed December 1, 1969

[Maps omitted—see original record.]



588a

It appearing to the Court that of the three maps filed 
on December 1, 1969 by the defendant Board of School 
Commissioners with its Suggested Desegregation plan for 
all metropolitan schools located east of 1-65, for imple­
mentation for the 1970-71 school term, that the elementary 
attendance area map (Map # 1 )  contains a minor error 
in a drawn line which was inadvertently made and has 
just been detected, it is now

O r d e r e d  and a d j u d g e d  by the Court that the defendant 
Board of School Commissioners is hereby allowed to sub­
stitute for the original Map # 1 , a corrected map show­
ing the proposed elementary attendance area, which will 
now be designated as Map # 1 -A  and attached to the 
original Suggested Desegregation plan, filed on December 
1, 1969.

Done at Mobile, Alabama this 4th day of December, 
1969.

District Court Order of December 4, 1969

/ s /  D a n i e l  H. T h o m a s  

Daniel H. Thomas 
Chief Judge

[Map omitted— see original record.]



589a

Plaintiffs, Birdie Mae Davis, et al., move this Court for 
an order requiring the defendant School Board to serve on 
all opposing counsel a copy of the maps attached to the 
School Desegregation Plan filed on December 1, 1969 and 
a copy of any amendatory maps filed subsequently. In sup­
port of this motion plaintiffs show the following:

1. The School Board’s failure to serve all opposing coun­
sel inevitably delays our response to the December 
1,1969 plan;

2. The School Board’s failure to serve all opposing 
counsel violates the December 13, 1969 Order of Jus­
tice Hugo Black, which Order required the School 
Board “ to take no steps which are inconsistent with 
or will tend to prejudice or delay full implementation 
of complete desegregation on or before February 1, 
1970” . Delay in serving opposing counsel is a step 
which prejudices full implementation of complete de­
segregation by February 1, 1970.

3. Plaintiffs have written to counsel for the School Board 
and requested copies of the maps attached to the De­
cember 1, 1969 plan, but counsel for the School Board 
has not responded.

Plaintiffs request that the Court act promptly on this mo­
tion.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Require Service of Desegregation
Plan Filed January 2, 1970



590a

Statistical Exhibits Submitted by the United States to 
the District Court on January 2 7 , 1970

See Volume III





RECORD PRESS, INC., 95 M ORTO N  ST., NEW  YORK, N. Y. 10014, (212) 243-5775

38











*



I .
 .

...
...

 >