Response to Motions for Summary Reversal and Consolidation

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

NO. 

BEATRICE ALEXANDER, et al., 
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

Ve 

THE HOLMES COUNTY BOARD OF 
EDUCATION, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees 

  

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES 
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN 

DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 
  

 



  

Ey 
¥ 
i 

3 

i 

RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY REVERSAL 
AND CONSOLIDATION 
  

  

I. 

The action by the Judges of the District Court 

below, in setting the motion for evidentiary hearing, 

does not contravene the decision of the Supreme Court 

of the United States in Green v. County School Board of 
  

New Kent County, Virginia, U.S. 201 .ed. 
    

2d 716, May 27, 1968; the Green case clearly contemplates 

that the circumstances and facts relative to any school 

system, under consideration, would be determinative of the 

plan best suited to effect desegregation of that particular 

system. The Court said in the Green case, as follows: 

"There is no universal answer to complex problems of 

desegregation; there is obviously no one plan that will do 

the job in every case. The matter must be assessed in light 

of the circumstances present and the options available in 

each instance. It is incumbent upon the school board to 

establish that its proposed plan promises meaningful and 

immediate progress toward disestablishing state~imposed 

segregation. It is incumbent upon the district court to 

weigh that claim in light of the facts at hand and in light 

of any alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more 

promising in their effectiveness. Where the Court finds 

the board to be acting in good faith and the proposed plan 

to have real prqspects for dismantling the state-imposed 

dual system 'at the earliest practicable date,’ then the 

plan may be said to provide effective relief." 

* * * * N\ 
% 

"We do not hold that ‘freedom of choice' can have no 

place in such a plan. We do not hold that a 'freedom-of- 

 



  

choice' plan might of itself be uncongtitutional, although 

that argument has been urged upon us." 

| The action of the Court below will not defeat the 

congtitutional mandate of the Supreme Court in the Green 

cage, but on the contrary, the summary reversal sought by 

Appellants here would deprive these Appellees of the right 

to present the facts and circumstances peculiar to their 

gchool system so that it might be determined by the Court 

below, or by thie Court if appealed, the plan which might 

be most effective and workable for the school system 

operated and maintained by Appellees; since facts and cir- 

cume tances relating to each school system might be so widely 

divergent, consolidation of this appeal, or appeals which 

might occur in the future regarding the Green case and 

implementation thereof, would deprive the Appellees herein 

of their right to be considered regarding their plan, based 

on the facts and circumstances that are peculiar to their 

system. 

IT. 

The "freedom-of-choice' plan is the only reasonable 

and feasible way in which the school system, here under 

consideration, can function. While it is correct that for 

the 1967-68 school year less than four per cent (4%) of the 

Negro pupils of Holmes County were enrolled in previously all 

white schools of the system, such four per cent (4%) placed 

approximately twenty per cent (20%) Negro student enrollment 

in the previously all white schools. There were only 910 

white students in the entire school system, as compared to 

5,301 Negro students; the white students constituting less 

than fifteen per cent (15%) of the total student population. 

It is arithmetically obvious that it is tmporsible Yo avoid 

predominately Negro schools in Appellees’ system, and that 

if the entire student population were housed in one building 

  
 



  

the aystem would be less than fifteen per cent (15%) 

integrated; it would be predominately Negro by something 

in excess of eighty-five per cent (85%). There are 

eleven (11) schools in the Appellees' system, serving a 

geographical area of 764 square miles, and it is evident 

that any plan requiring geographical zoning, pairing or 

consolidation of the system would result in gross confusion 

and chaos, and would have the certain effect of destroying 

all integration in the system, as well as extreme retro- 

gression of the welfare and economy of the entire area. 

We respectfully submit that summary reversal and 

consolidation should be denied the Appellants. 

Respectfully submitted 
? 

¢ 

AN 

  

alvin R. King 

‘ 

Attorney for 8 

 



  

CERTIFICATE 
  

The undersigned counsel of record for said Appellees 

hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing Response 

to Motions has been this day forwarded by United States Mail, 

postage prepaid, to Hon. Reuben V. Anderson, 538% North 

Farish Street, Jackson, Mississippi, 39202. 

This 8th day of August, 1968.