Stell v. Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education Supplemental Brief for Appellants

    MM?
I  i .

B0A1UJ3; OF 
EDUCATION

I)#, ,1

IHATOKOOG





.. .  . ..











In t h e

Imtefr States (Emtri ni Appeals
F oe t h e  S ix t h  C ircuit

Nos. 15,038-039 (_ t ■'£ - n

--------------------- ------------------------
J ames J o n ath an  M app , et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,
—v.—

T h e  B oard op E ducation  op th e  C it y  op C hattanooga, 
H am ilton  Co u n ty , T ennessee , et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

J am es J on ath an  M app , et al.,
Plaintiffs-Cr oss-Appellees,

—v.—
T h e  B oard of E ducation  of th e  C it y  op Chattanooga, 

H am ilto n  Co u n ty , T ennessee, et al.,
Defendants-Cross-Appellants.

BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS AND 
PLAINTIFFS-CROSS-APPELLEES

Constance B aker  M otley
J ack  Greenberg
L eroy D . Clark

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

A von N. W illiam s , J r .
Z. A lexander L ooby

327 Charlotte Avenue 
Nashville 3, Tennessee

B ruce B oynton
431 East Ninth Street 
Chattanooga 2, Tennessee

Attorneys for Appellants





Statement of Questions Involved 
on Plaintiffs’ Appeal

1. Whether the court below erred in sustaining the 
motion of the defendants-appellees to strike from the 
complaint allegations with respect to the assignment of 
teachers, principals, and other professional school per­
sonnel on the basis of race, and portions of the prayer 
of the complaint seeking to enjoin racial personnel as­
signments ?

The District Court answered this question “No”. The 
Plaintiffs-Appellants contend the answer should be 
“Yes”.

2. Whether the court below erred in refusing to require 
immediate desegregation of the Chattanooga Technical 
Institute, a two-year course beyond the high school level, 
and the Kirkman High School, the City’s only technical 
high school, both of which are limited to white students.

The District Court answered this question “No” . The 
Plaintiffs-Appellants contend the answer should be 
“Yes” .



n

Counterstatement of Questions Involved on 
Defendants’ Cross-Appeal

1. Whether the court below erred in disapproving that 
provision of the Desegregation Plan which provides for 
the continued operation of dual school zones throughout 
the entire period of transition to single school zones and 
disapproving that provision which requires parents to 
notify the board of their intention to have their children 
continue to attend the segregated school to which they 
were previously assigned under the dual zone system or to 
attend the desegregated school to which they will be re­
assigned under a single zone system?

The District Court answered this question “ No” . The 
Plaintiff s-Cross-Appellees contend the answer should 
be “ No”.

2. Whether the court below erred in disapproving, on 
the record and evidence in this case, that provision of the 
Desegregation Plan which permits transfers from desegre­
gated schools based wholly upon the race and color of the 
majority of the children in the school?

The District Court answered this question “No”. The 
Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellees contend the answer should 
be “No” .



I l l

INDEX TO BRIEF

PAGE

Statement of Questions Involved on Plaintiffs’ Appeal.. i

Counterstatement of Questions Involved on Defen­
dants’ Cross-Appeal __________   ii

Statement of Pacts.......... ....... .......................... .............. 1

A r g u m e n t : D irect A ppeal ......................................    14

A rgu m en t  : Cross A p p e a l ........................................      23

Co n c l u s io n ............................................................................................ 27

Cases:
T able op A uthorities

Augustus v. Board of Public Instruction of Escambia. 
County, Florida, No. 19408 (July 24, 1962) ..........  15

Boson v. Rippy, 285 F. 2d 4 3 ................ ........ ............11, 26
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U. S.

249 ..............................................................................  17
Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. United 

States, 201 F. 2d 819 ...................................... .....  14
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1, 7 .................................21, 25
Edwards v. Kings Mountain Memorial Hospital, 118 

F. Supp. 417 .......................................................... 14
Gibson v. The Board of Education of the City of

Nashville, 272 F. 2d 763-766 .........................   24
Goss v. Board of Education of the City of Knoxville, 

Tennessee, 301 F. 2d 164 .....................................21, 25



PAGE

Kelly v. Board of Education, 270 F. 2d 209, cert, 
denied 361 U. S. 924 ___ ___ ____ ____________ __11,

King v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New 
York, 114 F. Supp. 700 ............ ....... ...... .................

Kinnear Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 
214 F. 2d 891 ........................ ......... ..........................

McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U. S. 637 ..
Maxwell v. County Board of Education of Davidson 

County, Tennessee, 301 F. 2d 828 .............................

Northeross v. Board of Education of the City of 
Memphis, 302 F. 2d 818 ............... .........................17,

Norwood v. Tucker, 287 F. 2d 798 (8th Cir. 1961) ....
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 ..............................

Sipuel v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U. S. 637 ....
State of Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, 

350 U. S. 413 ...................................................... .....
Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629 .............................

U. S. v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 141 F. Supp. 118 ....
Wilkinson v. Field, 108 F. Supp. 541.........................

25

14

15

19

25

24
24

19

19

20
19

15
15



I n  th e

finite (Hxmxt uf Appeals
F oe t h e  S ix t h  C ircuit 

Nos. 15,038-039

J am es J o n ath an  M app , et al.,
Plaintiff s-Appellants,

— v .—

T he  B oard op E ducation  op th e  C ity  of C hattanooga, 
H am ilto n  C o u n ty , T ennessee , et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

J am es J o n ath an  M app , et al.,
Plaintiffs-Cr oss- Appellees,

T he  B oard op E ducation  op th e  C ity  op C hattanooga, 
H am ilto n  C o u n ty , T ennessee, et al.,

Defendants-Cr oss- Appellants.

BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS AND 
PLAINTIFFS-CROSS-APPELLEES

Statement of Facts

The present appeals, Nos. 15,038 and 15,039 are from a 
final judgment and decree entered in this cause on April 
20, 1962 by the United States District Court for the East­
ern District of Tennessee, Southern Division (Wilson, D.J.), 
approving a Plan of Desegregation of the public schools 
in the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee (Sla-SGa).1

The appeal by plaintiffs below (No. 15,038) involves 
issues presented by an interlocutory order entered May

1 Unless otherwise indicated citations are to Plaintiffs’ Appendix.



2

16, 1960 sustaining- a motion to strike certain portions of 
the complaint, and by the final judgment’s failure to re­
quire immediate desegregation of a two-year technical 
training course offered in the City of Chattanooga at the 
Chattanooga Technical Institute and immediate desegrega­
tion of the City’s technical high school, “Kirkman.” (These 
plaintiffs-appellants will be referred to hereafter as the 
plaintiffs.)

The cross-appeal, No. 15,039, has been taken in this case 
by the Board of Education of the City of Chattanooga, 
Tennessee (referred to hereafter as defendants) appealing 
from that part of the final order which: (1) failed to
approve the plan for continued operation of dual school 
zone lines until a system of single zones is established 
over a six-year period, and requiring parents to notify 
school authorities before a specified date whether their 
children will either enroll in the newly desegregated school 
to which they are assigned under the single zone plan or 
will continue in the segregated school to which they were 
previously assigned under the dual zone plan; and (2) 
disapproves a provision of the Desegregation Plan which 
permits children to transfer from desegregated schools 
where the majority of children in the school are of the 
opposite race.

The instant brief is in support of the plaintiffs’ first ap­
peal (No. 15,038), and is a reply to the defendants’ cross­
appeal (15,039). A single appendix accompanies this brief.

There have been two prior appeals in this case, both 
taken by the school authorities. The first appeal was taken 
by the defendants-appellees on December 2, 1960 following 
an order by the court below denying defendants’ motion 
for summary judgment, granting plaintiffs’ motion for 
summary judgment, directing defendants to submit a plan 
of desegregation before December 20, 1960, and providing



3

for a hearing thereon in the District Court on January 9, 
1961. Before that appeal could be heard it was necessary 
for defendants to submit their plan of desegregation which 
they did on December 20, 1960 and a hearing was held 
thereon on January 23, 1961 instead of January 9, 1961. 
Following this hearing, the District Court tentatively dis­
approved the plan submitted and ordered the defendants 
to submit, within 60 days, another plan. An appeal was 
taken from this order on February 10, 1961. Before either 
appeal could be heard defendants submitted a second plan 
on March 23, 1961.

Thereafter, on November 13, 1961, this court affirmed 
both judgments of the court below. Mapp v. Bd. of Educa­
tion of City of Chattanooga, 295 F. 2d 617 (6th Cir. 1961).

The first plan (87a-93a) submitted December 20, 1960, 
provided that in the school year 1962-3 compulsory segre­
gation would be abolished in selected schools in Chatta­
nooga in grades 1, 2, and 3 (88a). The selected schools 
were to be announced by October 1, 1961, permitting an 
entire school year to elapse before any desegregation took 
place (88a). Thereafter, beginning in 1963, one additional 
grade would be desegregated in the selected schools (88a). 
After the 1962-63 school year, desegregation was to be 
effected in other schools in accordance with plans to be 
submitted (89a).

Desegregation was to be effected in these selected schools 
by the establishment of a single system of school zones 
(89a). The plan provided that in the period of transition 
to single zones, children might continue the practice of 
attending schools to which they were zoned by the dual 
school zone system. These dual school zones were to re­
main in existence until single zone lines were in full and 
complete operation, although no terminal date had been 
fixed (89a).



4

The plan further provided that parents desiring to en­
roll their children in desegregated schools should file a 
written “ Notice of Intention” with the defendant board 
prior to January 1, 1962. Transfers would he granted 
to a student from a desegregated school for good cause 
shown, good cause being “where the majority of students 
in that school or in his class are of a different race.”

Finally, the plan provided for continuance of the “pro­
gram of elucidation” commenced by the defendant board 
in July 1955 (91a).

The District Court’s judgment of January 27, 1961 was 
that the first plan did not meet the requirements of the 
Brown decision. However, the court did not then reject 
the first plan but gave defendants a right to file an alter­
nate plan, within 60 days, and reserved to defendants the 
right to a reconsideration of the first plan.

The second plan submitted by defendants on March 23, 
1961 was, in essence, a grade a year plan providing for 
desegregation in all schools in the first grade in September 
1961.

Consequently, on January 5, 1962, following this court’s 
affirmance of the two orders of the District Court direct­
ing defendants to bring in a plan, and rejecting the first 
plan, defendants filed an amendment to the original plan 
of December 20, 1960. This amendment is entitled: “ Im­
plementation of and Amendments to the Original Chatta­
nooga Plan of Desegregation, Submitted to the United 
States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, 
Southern Division, on December 20, 1960” (20a-23a). Ac­
cording to this instrument, the first plan had been im­
plemented as follows: 1) between April and July 1961 
defendants had conducted a complete school census; 2) 
the defendant board announced at a special meeting on



5

September 30, 1961 the single school zone lines which 
would be in operation in selected schools in the school 
year 1962-63; 3) the defendant board also announced the 
names of the 16 schools which were to be desegregated 
in grades one through three upon the opening of school in 
September 1962-63; 4) forms to be used to give the board 
written notice of intent to enroll in a new school to which 
a pupil might be zoned under the new single zone system 
were distributed to all schools; 5) pupils and parents were 
notified of these developments; 6) the superintendent and 
his staff conducted many meetings to insure full under­
standing of the plan and the steps taken to implement 
same.

In addition to the foregoing, denominated “ implementa­
tion,” the original plan was modified in two respects: 1) a 
definite date (September, 1962) was set as the date for 
desegregation of six special programs, such as the classes 
for the multiple-handicapped, the severely mentally re­
tarded, etc. All elementary schools were to be desegre­
gated in grades one through four in September 1963 on 
the basis of single zones. No further desegregation steps 
were outlined, although the first order of the court below 

had expressly required defendants to 
include vocational training in their plan. A pre-trial con­
ference had been previously scheduled for January 5, 
1962, the day this implemented and amended plan was 
filed. This conference resulted in an order requiring 
defendants to amend their plan to provide for desegrega­
tion of vocational training within 10 days from the date 
of the order.

Thereafter, on January 15, 1962 defendants filed a 
document entitled, “Amendment to Original Chattanooga 
Plan of Desegregation, Filed December 20, 1960, as



6

Amended January 5, 1962, With Regard to Vocational 
Trailing” (24a-26a). By this amendment, defendants com­
mitted themselves to a minimum desegregation rate of one 
additional grade each year after all elementary schools 
are desegregated in grades one through four in Septem­
ber 1963-64 school year. The desegregation of each addi­
tional grade, beginning with the fifth grade in 1964, was 
to take place throughout the system with the result that 
all elementary schools would he desegregated in grades 
one through six in September 1965. The plan then pro­
vided that in September 1966 desegregation would com­
mence in junior high school and continue each year there­
after through grades seven, eight and nine. Desegregation 
of the senior high school, including Kirkman Technical 
High School, was to commence in September 1969, con­
tinuing a grade-a-year thereafter until the senior class 
was desegregated in September 1971. The plan was that 
all schools be desegregated nine years after its commence­
ment. Attached to this amendment was a report adopted 
by the defendant board at its regular meeting on January 
10, 1962 at the suggestion of the superintendent. This 
report, according to the amendment, “ Summarizes the 
historical development of the varied curricula at the four 
senior high schools presently operated by the Chattanooga 
board, said report revealing that the courses offered at 
City High, Howard High, Kirkman Technical Institute, 
and Brainerd High varied in a substantial degree for 
various reasons only remotely influenced by race” (em­
phases added) (25a-26a). In this report the defendant 
board contended that vocational education should not be 
singled out for special consideration as a part of the 
desegregation of Chattanooga’s city schools. Contained 
in this report is a chart listing the courses offered in the 
four high schools. A study of this chart reveals the defi­
ciencies in the technical or vocational program offered



7

Negroes at Howard High, the city’s only Negro high school, 
as compared with the technical program offered whites 
at Kirkman (33a-38a). This chart also demonstrates the 
limited academic programs available to Negroes at Howard 
High School as against the broader and more comprehen­
sive academic program afforded whites at Brainerd and 
Chattanooga high schools.

The original plan, of which the January 15, 1962 docu­
ments were amendments also provided that, on or before 
a specified date, parents of children who might attend a 
desegregated school as a result of the institution of a 
system of single zones, were to notify the school author­
ities of their intention to enroll their children in the newly 
desegregated school (90a). Failing such notification, the 
child presumably remained in the segregated school to 
which he was zoned under the dual line system. Parents 
of children entering school for the first time apparently 
had the right to notify the defendant board of their inten­
tion to enroll their children in the school in which such 
child would be enrolled under the new single zone system 
or of their intent to have that child enroll in the segregated 
school which he would have been eligible to attend hut for 
the elimination of segregation.

As the opinion of the court below points out (69a-70a) 
this consent provision appears to relate only to the 16 
elementary schools selected for initial desegregation in 
September 1962, but this is not clear from a reading of 
the plan. However, it now appears that defendants have 
abandoned their appeal from that part of the judgment of 
the court below which precludes them from requiring any 
such notice of intention in the plan, as this ruling is not 
argued in their brief. In its opinion, the court ruled with 
respect to the notice of intention as follows:



8

The court does expressly disapprove of so much of 
the defendants’ proposed admission plan as would re­
quire any student or parent to apply for, or consent 
to, implementation of desegregation in accordance with 
the plan (79a).

Defendants’ notice of cross-appeal filed on May 18, 1962, 
states that it is “ limited strictly to paragraphs 9 and 13 
of said judgment as same may constitute disapproval of 
the admission and transfer provisions of the Chattanooga 
Plan of Desegregation as amended, particularly, Sections 
IV, ‘The Interim Operation of Present School Zones’ and 
VI, ‘Privilege of Transfer’ in original plan filed Decem­
ber 20, 1961” .

The brief of defendants on their cross-appeal is devoted 
entirely to the validity of the transfer provision as set forth 
in Section VI of their plan and which provides as follows:

1. Upon receipt of applications as provided in existing 
school board policy, transfer of students in desegregated 
schools may be granted when good cause therefor is shown.

2. The following will he regarded as some of the valid 
reasons for good cause for transfer:

(a) When a student would otherwise be required to 
attend a school where the majority of students in that 
school or in his class are of a different race.

(b) When, in the judgment of the board, upon recom­
mendation of the superintendent, it is in the best inter­
est of the student, and the board policy, to transfer him 
from one school to another (90a-91a).

Subparagraph (b) is not in dispute on this appeal.
Although defendants do not discuss the validity of the 

notice of intention provision in their brief, they request a



9

reversal of the judgment below to the extent that it dis­
approves of “ the admission and transfer provisions” of 
their plan. (See Brief for defendants-appellants in No. 
15,039, pp. 5-6.)

Defendants’ plan of December 20, 1960, as amended Jan­
uary 5 and 15, 1962, was not adopted by the court below. 
After a hearing on the merits of defendants’ plan on Feb­
ruary 1 and 2, 1962, that court rendered an opinion disap­
proving the notice of intention and the transfer provisions. 
It approved the plan with the following modifications 
(81a-82a):

(1) The desegregation in September of 1962 of the first 
three grades in 16 selected elementary schools as designated 
by name in the defendants’ First Plan is amended. The fol­
lowing special programs will also be desegregated in Sep­
tember 1962: Class for multiple handicapped; classes for 
orthopedically handicapped children; authorization for the 
United Cerebral Palsy Program to be desegregated; classes 
for perceptually handicapped; classes for severely mentally 
retarded; class for educable mentally retarded at the G. 
Bussell Brown School.

(2) The desegregation in September of 1963 of the first 
four grades of all elementary schools.

(3) The desegregation in September 1964 of the remain­
ing grades in all elementary schools.

(4) The desegregation in September of 1965 of the first 
year of all junior high schools.

(5) The desegregation in September of 1966 of the re­
maining grades in all junior high schools.

(6) The desegregation in September of 1967 of the first 
year in all high schools.

(7) The desegregation in September of 1968 of the re­
maining grades in all high schools.



10

(8) The desegregation in September of 1969 of the Chat­
tanooga Technical Institute.

(9) The Board of Education may adopt any admission 
or transfer plan as may in its judgment be reasonable or 
proper for the operation of the Chattanooga Public Schools; 
provided, however, that no admission or transfer plan may 
be based upon race and have as its primary purpose the 
delay or prevention of desegregation in accordance with the 
plan herein approved.

(10) The map of the proposed single school zones as 
attached to the defendants’ First Plan as amended is ap­
proved, with the School Board having the right to modify 
zones from time to time in accordance with their general 
policies and practices and without regard to purely racial 
factors.

(11) Within 60 days after implementing each annual step 
of the plan herein approved the School Board shall report 
to the Court as to progress under the plan to the date of 
the respective report. This cause will be retained within 
the jurisdiction of the Court and this order will be subject 
to modification from time to time as may appear just and 
proper.

(12) This order shall provide only for the minimum rate 
of desegregation and defendants shall at all times be vested 
with the discretion to proceed with desegregation at an 
accelerated rate. Except as herein expressly provided the 
defendants shall not be otherwise restrained by this order.

In disapproving the continuance of dual school zone lines, 
the provision requiring parents to notify defendants of their 
intention or to give consent before a specified date, the 
court ruled:

“ The initial provision . . . says in effect that for the 
school year beginning in September 1962, students



11

residing within a desegregated school zone who had 
formerly been attending a different school, may enroll 
in the desegregated school provided that his parents
give consent before a specified time.

#
“ It speaks of ‘single zone’ schools, but then refers to 

‘schools desegregated by the School Board’ as though 
these were different schools. No school becomes a 
single zone school until it is desegregated, and then 
only as to the grades desegregated. In short, the pro­
vision is not only somewhat confusing, but the Court 
is unable to understand the reason for any such pro­
vision in the Plan. As was recently held in the case 
of Northeross, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
6 Cir., ------ - F. 2d ------ , students ‘cannot be required
to apply for that to which they are entitled as a matter 
of right.’ ”

Disapproval of the transfer provision was predicated 
upon the testimony of the superintendent as to the resegre­
gation effect of a similar provision in the Nashville, Ten­
nessee plan (Appendix p. 43a) approved by this court in 
Kelly v. Bd. of Education of Nashville, 270 F. 2d 209 (6th 
Cir. 1959), cert, den., 361 IT. S. 924, and the Fifth Circuit’s 
contrary decision in Boson v. Bippy, 285 F. 2d 43 (5th Cir. 
1961). The court below held:

It does appear that a similar transfer provision was 
approved by the Court in Kelly v. Board of Education 
case. However, the Court in that case held as it did 
“ on the evidence before us.”

In the record of the present case there was evidence 
by the witness, Dr. Weinstein, that the Nashville trans­
fer plan had operated to minimize progress under the 
desegregation plan.

The Court.. . disapproves of so much of the transfer 
plan proposed by the defendants as permits transfers



12

based only upon students being in a racial minority in 
any particular school.

The plaintiffs urged the court below to require immediate 
admission of Negroes to the Kirkman High School and to 
require the immediate desegregation of a two-year tech­
nical course at Chattanooga Technical Institute, but the 
court ruled that “ the same reasons which have herein been 
held to justify delay in the desegregation of academic 
courses in high school would also justify delay in the 
desegregation of vocational courses” (80a). Although the 
court below found that the Chattanooga Technical Institute 
is limited to white students, it permitted this institute to be 
desegregated as the next annual step following desegrega­
tion of the high schools (80a).

The motion to strike the allegations of the complaint in 
this case relating to the assignment of teachers on the basis 
of race came before the court below (Darr, D.J.) in May 
1960. At that time, the court struck from the complaint 
the following:

1. Plaintiffs, and members of their class, are injured 
by the policy of assigning teachers, principals and 
other school personnel on the basis of race and color 
of the children attending a particular school and the 
race and color of the person to be assigned. Assign­
ment of school personnel on the basis of race and color 
is also predicated in the theory that Negro teachers, 
Negro principals and other Negro school personnel 
are inferior to white teachers, white principals and 
other white school personnel and therefore, may not 
teach white children.”

2. “Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, 
employees and successors from assigning teachers, 
principals and other school personnel to the schools



13

of the City of Chattanooga on the basis of the race and 
color of the person to be assigned and on the basis of 
the race and color of the children attending the school 
to which the personnel is to be assigned

3. “ the assignment of teachers, principals and other 
school personnel on a nonracial basis,”

The court ruled that these allegations were not material or 
pertinent and therefore did not raise a justiciable question 
(Appendix pp. 16a-17a). The superintendent testified, how­
ever, on his deposition, which was subsequently admitted 
into evidence (see Pre-Trial Order), that teachers are 
assigned on the basis of race and color; that a Negro with 
the title of supervisor assists in the improvement of the 
quality of education in Negro schools; that there are no 
Negroes in administrative or clerical positions; that there 
are two Negro helping teachers assigned to Negro schools 
(39a-42a),

The superintendent also testified on the final hearing on 
the plan on February 1-2, 1962 that there are no plans for 
desegregating teachers (40a).



14

ARGUMENT: DIRECT APPEAL 

I
Whether the court below erred in sustaining the motion of 

the defendants-appellees to strike from the complaint alle­
gations with respect to the assignment of teachers, princi­
pals, and other professional school personnel on the basis of 
race, and portions of the prayer of the complaint seeking 
to enjoin racial personnel assignments?

The District Court answered this question “No.” The 
Plaintiffs-Appellants contend the answer should be 
“Yes.”

Plaintiffs submit that the Court below erred in granting 
Defendants’ motion to strike the allegations of the com­
plaint directed towards the non-racial assignment of teach­
ers and other school personnel. As a general proposition, 
the motion to strike parts of a complaint is not favored and 
in most instances will only be successful when attacking 
obviously frivolous and prejudicial matter. Edwards v. 
Kings Mountain Memorial Hospital, 118 F. Supp. 417; 
King v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, 114 
F. Supp. 700. As this court noted in Brown & Williamson 
Tobacco Corp. v. United States, 201 F. 2d 819:

Partly because of the practical difficulty of deciding 
cases without a factual record it is well established 
that the action of striking a pleading should be spar­
ingly used by the courts . . . The motion to strike should 
be granted only when the pleading to be stricken has 
no possible relation to the controversy.

The issue of whether plaintiff’s complaint could properly 
request desegregation of the school system (as evidenced 
by racial assignment of teachers) presented serious ques-



15

tions of law and fact. A substantial question of law existed 
as to plaintiffs’ standing to request relief beyond non- 
racial assignment of pupils. An additional, and serious 
question of fact, which could only be resolved upon the pres­
entation of evidence existed as to plaintiffs’ claim of in­
jury to Negro students ensuing from the continuance of a 
major vestige of the segregated school system. It is a 
generally accepted proposition that the summary nature of 
a motion to strike renders it an improper instance for the 
settlement of serious questions of law and disputed ques­
tions of fact. Wilkinson v. Field, 108 F. Supp. 541; U. 8. v. 
Crown Zellerbach Corp., 141 F. Supp. 118. Further, de­
fendants can make no showing of prejudicial harm resulting 
from a full hearing on the issue of teacher segregation, and 
this is a necessary element when a motion to strike is to 
be sustained. Kinnear Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Refin­
ing Co., 214 F. 2d 891, 894. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, 
may be seriously prejudiced by the entertainment of such 
a motion for their complaint against racial assignment of 
teachers may be mooted by their admittance to schools 
where they will be taught by white teachers. Therefore 
as a threshold matter the granting of defendants’ motion 
was improvident.

All of these factors noted above were fully considered 
in the Fifth Circuit case of Augustus v. Board of Public 
Instruction of Escambia County, Florida, No. 19408 (July 
24,1962) in which a portion of a complaint directed towards 
racial assignment of teachers was held to be improperly 
dismissed under a motion to strike. The Court of Appeals 
there stated:

Whether as a question of law or one of fact, we do not 
think that a matter of such importance should be de­
cided on motion to strike. . . .  We hold, therefore, that, 
at the then stage of the proceeding, the district court



16

erred in sustaining defendants’ motion to strike the 
allegations relating to the assignments of teachers, 
principals and other school personnel on the basis of 
race.

The posture of this case differs from Augustus in one 
important particular. Although the district court sustained 
defendants’ motion to strike, testimony of the superintend­
ent, at the trial and on deposition, was permitted to be 
made a part of this record. This testimony firmly estab­
lishes defendants’ policy of assigning teachers and other 
school personnel on the basis of race.

Plaintiffs contend that given this state of the record, 
this court may upon finding the motion improperly granted, 
decide the issue upon the merits. This is an appropriate 
remedy, for the evidence relied on is completely supported 
by defendants’ own testimony and further establishes that 
defendants have no plan or intention to assign teachers on 
a non-racial basis at any time in the future. Such a proce­
dure is further dictated by the totality of circumstances 
attendant on this case: plaintiffs’ initial complaint to de­
segregate . the Chattanooga public schools was served in 
April, 1960 and as of August, 1962, desegregation has been 
achieved in no measure whatsoever. Further, defendants, 
who have been fully aware of their obligation since the 
Brown decision of 1954 to proceed with all deliberate speed, 
have spent five years “ educating the citizenry” while de­
segregating not one school in the city. When under court 
direction to proceed more concretely toward desegregation 
they have authored many dilatory plans whose main effect 
was to integrate in the slowest, most piece-meal fashion and 
retrogress to resegregation through racial transfer pro­
visions. The remedy plaintiffs propose would require 
defendants to assume their responsibility to discontinue 
the racial assignment of school personnel which further



17

postpones plaintiffs’ full enjoyment of their constitutional 
rights.

As regards the grounds upon which this court may find 
that teacher segregation is a violation of plaintiffs’ con­
stitutional rights, plaintiffs submit that Brown v. Board of 
Education of Topeka, 347 U. S. 483, affirmatively requires 
the cessation of segregation in the entire school system. 
From the very beginning the Supreme Court approached 
these cases as an attack on segregation in the entire educa­
tional system as opposed to the right of individual Negro 
pupils to be admitted to white schools maintained by states 
under the separate but equal doctrine.

This was the very reason for setting these cases down 
for re-argument in 1954 after the court’s first pronounce­
ment that further enforcement of racial segregation in 
public schools is unconstitutional. Upon re-argument, 
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U. S. 249, 
the court again made clear that what was contemplated in 
these cases was a reorganization of the school system on 
a non-racial basis.

This court itself recognized the full import of the Brown 
case in North-cross v. Board of Education of the City of 
Memphis, 302 F. 2d 818, when it stated:

In May 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States 
decided that “Separate educational facilities are inher­
ently unequal,” and that segregation of the races in 
separate schools deprived the minority group of the 
equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Four­
teenth Amendment. Brown v. Board of Education, 
347 U. S. 483, and further, the first Brown case decided 
that separate schools organised on a racial ha-sis are 
contrary to the Constitution of the United States.



18

It is a matter of common knowledge that the assignment of 
Negro teachers to Negro schools is one of the major ways 
in which the educational system is maintained on a segre­
gated basis. The harm inflicted on Negro children does not 
emanate solely from the fact that they attend school only 
with other Negroes, but is generated by the knowledge 
that their race is separated as an imputation of inferiority. 
If teachers are assigned on the basis of race, then obviously 
the policy of segregation continues as a reminder of the 
formerly imposed racial discrimination, and the Negro 
students have not been relieved of the source of their 
harm—a segregated school system. Therefore, the rights 
they assert are not solely the rights of the teachers, but 
are personal and central to their relief.

Consequently, the rights secured by the Supreme Court’s 
decision in the Brown case could not have been so incom­
plete as merely to secure the right to attend a “white” 
school in a racially segregated system. School authorities 
cannot, therefore, be heard to say that they have no duty to 
eliminate racial discrimination in the school system and 
may continue to operate segregated schools, assign teachers 
on the basis of race and, in short, do business as usual.

Teachers are an integral part of the school system and 
the mandate to end racial discrimination in the school 
system clearly carries with it the duty to end the policy of 
assigning teachers on the basis of race.

II

Whether the court below erred in refusing to require 
immediate desegregation of the Chattanooga Technical In­
stitute, a two-year course beyond the high school level, 
and the Kirkman High School, the City’s only technical 
high school, both of which are limited to white students.



19

The District Court answered this question “No” . The 
Plaintiffs-Appellants contend the answer should be 
“Yes” .

The defendants operate two educational institutions, 
Kirkman Technical High School and Chattanooga Techni­
cal Institute at which only white students may receive tech­
nical and vocational training. The Chattanooga Technical 
Institute provides two years of advanced training beyond 
the high school level. The only institution at which Negroes 
may receive any vocational training is Howard High School 
which has a combined academic and vocational curriculum. 
It is undisputed that there are vocational training courses 
given at Kirkman High School which are not available in 
the Negro high school.2 There is absolutely no provision 
for Negroes to obtain two years of technical training be­
yond high school, as provided for whites at the Chattanooga 
Technical Institute.

The issue here is fairly simple. As an outgrowth of the 
doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, it was recog­
nized that where the state could not provide equal facilities 
however separate, Negroes could not be subjected to dep­
rivation of educational opportunities permitted all other 
citizens, and immediate admission of Negro plaintiffs to 
formerly all-white schools was ordered. Sweatt v. Painter, 
339 H. S. 629; Sipuel v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 H. S. 
637; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U. S. 637. 
In the Sweatt case, the State of Texas had opened a law 
school for Negroes, which the court, however, found unequal 
in staff, library, and curriculum to the University of Texas 
Law School which was limited to whites. The court stated:

2 The following courses are given at Kirkman High School and 
are not available to Negroes at Howard High School: Machine 
Shop, Sheet Metal, Welding, Drafting, Electricity, Commercial 
Art, Industrial Chemistry, and Printing.



20

. . . petitioner may claim his full constitutional right: 
legal education equivalent to that offered by the State 
to students of other races. Such education is not avail­
able to him in a separate law school as offered by the 
State.

We hold that the Equal Protection Clause of the Four­
teenth Amendment requires that petitioner be ad­
mitted to the University of Texas Law School.

In all of the above cases, the court refused to permit de­
fendants’ promises to equalize facilities in the future to 
modify the order for immediate admission. In Sipuel v. 
Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the court stated:

“ The state must provide (legal education) for her in 
conformity with the Equal Protection Clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment and provide it as soon as it 
does for applicants of any other group” (at p. 631).3

Immediate admission where discrimination had produced 
demonstrably unequal facilities was the law prior to the 
Brown decision. Brown took on the further task of requir­
ing desegregation in public schools even absent a showing 
of inferior plant and other educational facilities. A post- 
Brown decision, State of Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Board 
of Control, 350 U. S. 413, is the latest case to apply the 
rule of prompt and immediate admission. This case dis­
tinguished the second Brown decision of 1955 which re­
quired “all deliberate speed” and held the rule of prompt 
admission was not modified where the state provides edu­
cational training for white persons which was not available 
presently in any form to Negroes. Such a holding was not 
limited to deprivation of collegiate or graduate school edu-

3 It is to be noted that defendants here, have made no promises 
to make the curriculum at the Negro high school equal to that 
of the white high school during the deferment of desegregation.



21

cation for Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1, 7, which concerned 
admission to public schools stated:

Of course, in many locations, obedience to the duty of 
desegregation would require the immediate general 
admission of Negro children, otherwise qualified as 
students for their appropriate classes, at particular 
schools.

This court passed on the identical issue in Goss v. Board 
of Education of the City of Knoxville, Tennessee, 301 F. 
2d 164. In that case, the Fulton High School, which was 
limited to white students, offered some technical and voca­
tional courses which were not available in any Negro high 
school. Defendants proposed, as do defendants here, to 
reach the desegregation of this school pursuant to a stag­
gered desegregation plan for all schools which would have 
postponed desegregation of Fulton High School for nine 
years. The district court specifically rejected this solution. 
On appeal this court stated approvingly:

Judge Taylor wisely withheld approval of the plan 
insofar as it denied Negro students the right to take 
the technical and vocational courses offered at Fulton 
High School. The board should, as he suggested, 
present within a reasonable time a plan that would 
permit all Negro students who desire and are qualified 
to have an opportunity to take the special courses of 
this high school (at p. 168).

The court below based its acceptance of deferred desegre­
gation for vocational schools on testimony which attempted 
to justify the unavailability of various courses on the 
ground that employers would not hire Negroes with these 
skills. This argument is infirm on several grounds. The 
strength of the statement is questionable, since no Negroes 
have ever received such training, and consequently the



22

opportunity for refusing them employment has been nil. 
Further, Negro students are permanently disabled from 
even attempting to break down any racial barriers in em­
ployment because at the outset they are deprived of proper 
training. Given such training, they might achieve the 
gradual breakdown of racial barriers, especially with grow­
ing federal controls on racial discrimination in many areas 
of private employment.4 In addition to the practical as­
pects, it can never be legitimate, in terms of the constitu­
tional obligation to provide equal training for all students, 
for an educational system to impose racial discrimination 
on students as a reflection and reinforcement of supposed 
discrimination such students will meet on graduation.

Kirkman High School and Chattanooga Technical Insti­
tute, therefore, present a separate and more pressing need 
for desegregation and should be dealt with immediately 
outside the general plans for desegregation. This source of 
social and economic injury to the Negro community war­
rants immediate attention.

4 Executive Order 10925 bars private employers who receive 
Government contracts from denying employment to qualified per­
sons because of race.



23

ARGUMENT: CROSS APPEAL 

III
Whether the court erred in disapproving that provision 

of the Desegregation Plan which provides for the continued 
operation of dual school zones throughout the entire period 
of transition to single school zones and in disapproving 
that provision which requires parents to notify the board 
of their desire to have their children continue to attend 
the segregated school to which they were previously as­
signed under the dual zone system, or to attend the de­
segregated school to which they will be reassigned under 
a single zone system?

The District Court answered this question “No”. The 
Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellees contend the answer should 
be “ No”.

Defendants are appealing from so much of the judgment 
below as disapproves their plans:

(1) To continue racial school zone lines during the 
period a school proceeded to full integration; and
(2) To require parents to make known their desire by 
a specific date, to send their children to a school open 
to all races under the newly drawn zone lines.

The plan is in essence one of leaving all children in their 
present segregated schools during the “ transition” period 
and requiring those who wish the opportunity to go to a 
desegregated school to make formal request for such. The 
defendants’ plan as such differs little from other school 
boards’ attempt to justify the continuance of segregated 
schools because a pupil placement law was available 
through which Negro parents could request transfer of 
their children to white schools. These laws have repeatedly



24

been held not to constitute a reasonable start towards 
compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision. North-cross 
v. Board of Education of the City of Memphis, 302 F. 2d 
818; Norwood v. Tucker, 287 F. 2d 798. As stated in 
Gibson v. The Board of Education of the City of Nashville, 
272 F. 2d 763-766, plans which require requests for transfer 
where racial zone lines are maintained by the school board, 
are not “ inconsistent with a continued policy of compulsory 
racial segregation.”

Defendants cannot defend their policy by claiming it is 
“voluntary” and not compulsory segregation if Negro 
parents do not make the request for transfer to a “ desegre­
gated” school for Negroes have no more right to request 
attendance at solely “Negro” schools than have whites to 
request attendance at solely “white” schools. They there­
fore cannot permit requests from parents to modify the 
obligation of the state to discontinue the maintenance of 
“Negro” and “ white” schools. Goss v. Board of Education 
of the City of Knoxville, Tennessee, 301 F. 2d 164. The 
duty to desegregate a school system which the state has 
actively segregated, in violation of the constitution, is on 
the defendant school board, not the individual plaintiffs. 
Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 300; Cooper v. 
Aaron, 358 U. S. 1, 7. As the court below stated, quoting 
from Northcross v. The Board of Education of the City of 
Memphis, 302 F. 2d 818, students “ cannot be required to 
apply for that to which they are entitled as a matter of 
right.”

The court’s decisions in Brown and Cooper established 
the right of all children to freedom from state-imposed 
educational segregation based on color. They make plain 
the state’s duty, not merely to afford an election to be 
unsegregated, but to affirmatively cease the organization 
of the school system on the basis of race. Nor do the de­
cisions contemplate an arrangement perpetuating segre-



25

gation subject to individual application by which desegre­
gation can be achieved only in isolated instances. The de­
fendants are attempting to shift to the individual a re­
sponsibility the constitution imposes on them. Behind this 
attempt is a hope that the Negro community will be qui­
escent and fail to apply for transfers, thus allowing the 
pre-existing pattern of segregation to continue. An evasive 
scheme, however ingenious, should not be permitted to 
nullify the right of plaintiffs to attend school on a non- 
segregated basis. Cooper v. Aaron, supra.

IV
Whether the court below erred in disapproving, on the 

record and evidence in this case, that provision of the 
Desegregation Plan which permits transfers from desegre­
gated schools based wholly upon the race and color of the 
majority of the children in the school!

The District Court answered this question “No” . The 
Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellees contend the answer should 
be “No”.

As a part of defendants’ original plan submitted on 
December 20, 1960, they proposed to permit transfer from 
desegregated schools when “good cause” was shown. One 
reason taken as such good cause occurs:

When a student would otherwise be required to at­
tend a school where the majority of students in that 
school or in his class are of a different race.

A racial transfer plan identical to this has been approved 
by this court on previous occasions. Kelly v. Board of 
Education, 270 F. 2d 209, certiorari denied 361 TJ. S. 924. 
Maxwell v. County Board of Education of Davidson County, 
Tennessee, 301 F. 2d 828; Goss v. Board of Education of 
the City of Knoxville, Tennessee, 301 F. 2d 164.



26

Another circuit has disapproved such a plan, Boson v. 
Rippy, 285 F. 2d 43, and an application for certiorari in 
the Maxwell and Goss cases is pending in the Supreme 
Court of the United States for resolution of the conflict 
in circuits. Plaintiffs do not abandon their argument that 
the transfer plan, to any extent it is availed of by parents, 
must work toward re-segregation. The affirmance of the 
court below, however, may be had without reference to the 
validity of the plan on its face.

In the Goss case, this court sustained the racial trans­
fer plan, reasoning that only in its application may it be 
violative of constitutional rights. The court forthwith, 
however, admonished defendants “ that it cannot use this as 
a means to perpetuate segregation” (at page 168). To 
insure this rule, responsibility was left to the trial court 
to evaluate the transfer provision as an operating mecha­
nism :

“The trial judge retains jurisdiction during the transi­
tion period and the supervision of this phase of re­
organization may be safely left in his hands” 5 (at p. 
168).

The court below expressly accepted the standard set by this 
court in the Kelly case and prohibited the use of the racial 
transfer plan on the basis of evidence before it that the 
plan would operate to perpetuate segregation.

It does not appear that a similar transfer provision 
was approved by the Court in Kelly v. Board of Edu­
cation case. However, the Court in that case held as 
it did “ on the evidence before us.”

5 Such delegation is in line with the second Brow n  decision 
which counseled that district courts which handled desegregation 
cases from their inception were best equipped to perform the 
judicial function of assaying what constituted good faith imple­
mentation of desegregation.



27

In the record of the present case there was evidence 
by the witness, Dr. Weinstein, that the Nashville trans­
fer plan had operated to minimize progress under the 
desegregation plan.

The Court. . .  disapproves of so much of the transfer 
plan proposed by the defendants as permits transfers 
based only upon students being in a racial minority 
in any particular school.

The District Court’s order that the racial transfer rule 
was not to be a part of the general desegregation plan was 
probably a decision that no side mechanism be allowed to 
decelerate a rate of integration which was the bare mini­
mum of defendants’ obligation. Absent the transfer rule, 
the court was assured of total desegregation of the school 
system within seven years. Within the area of discretion 
the District Court made the decision to remove any factors 
which might disrupt the schedule and make progress 
toward desegregation more halting and uncertain.

CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court 

below should be reversed as to Appeal No. 15,038 and 
affirmed as to Appeal No. 15,039.

Respectfully submitted,
Constance B ak es  M otley
J ack  G reenberg
L eroy D . Clark

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

A von N. W illiam s , Jr.
Z. A lexander L ooby

327 Charlotte Avenue 
Nashville 3, Tennessee

B ruce B oynton
431 East Ninth Street 
Chattanooga 2, Tennessee

Attorneys for Appellants









I n  t h e

United States (iliwrt nt A rea ls
F oe th e  S ix t h  C ircuit

No. 14,444

J am es J o n ath an  M app ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

—versus—

T h e  B oard of E ducation  of th e  C it y  of Chattanooga, 
H am ilto n  C o u n ty , T ennessee, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

appeal from  th e  u n ited  states district court for th e

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, SOUTHERN DIVISION

APPENDIX TO APPELLEE’S BRIEF

Z. A lexander L ooby 
A von W illiam s

327 Charlotte Avenue 
Nashville, Tennessee

C onstance B aker  M otley 
T hurgood M arshall  

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee



f\2_ ; .* ̂
4 ., /D u I Tj /55 5" T Cr  ̂ \  

|7. <a—j- *  S-£^~ ~..... ; ‘

/!) /J

2 j f  { r

/ 4 '  A r & lr v K -  S’X j l  (p*f>,



INDEX TO APPENDIX
PAGE

Statement of March 31, 1956 ........ ........ .......................  4b-

Statement of July 9, 1958 ................................................ 8b

Statement of March 7, 1960 ............................................  10b

Excerpts From Depositions ............................................  12b

W itnesses :
Pages o f
Original Printed
Record Page

Dr. John Walter Letson
Direct ..............................................  3-37 12b

Recalled
Cross................................................ 105-108 57b
Redirect ..........................................  108-117 60b

William D. Leber
Direct .............................................. 47-76 23b
Cross........................................   76-87 44b
Redirect ..........................................  87-92 53b

Dean Petersen
Direct ..................................-........... 120-126 64b
Cross .............................................. 126-135 68b
Redirect ..........................................  135-141 75b
Recross ..........................................  141-142 79b

Mrs. Sammie C. Irvine
Direct ....................... -.....................  143-145 80b
Cross ......................... ....................  146 81b

Supplem entary Statement o f  October 12, 1955 .......... lb



11

George C. Hudson

Pages o f 
Original 
Record

Printed
Page

Direct .................... ...............  148-152 82b

Raymond B. Witt
Direct .............................. ...............  153-155 86b
Cross ......................... ...............  155-158 88b
Redirect .................... ...............  159-168 90b



Supplementary Statement of October 12, 1955 
October 12, 1955

Chattanooga P ublic  S chools 
413 East Eighth Street 

Chattanooga 3, Tennessee

October 12,1955

S u pplem en tary  S tatem en t  by  th e  C hattanooga B oard 
of E ducation  w it h  R eference to th e  D ecisions of th e  
U nited  S tates S uprem e  C ourt of M ay  17,1954, and M ay  31, 

1955, on th e  S u bject  of R acial D iscrim ination  
in  th e  P ublic S chools

On July 23 we released a statement of policy concerning 
our position with respect to the Supreme Court decisions 
on racial discrimination in the public schools. The Board 
reaffirms its stated policy. We are interested primarily in 
the welfare of all the children in the city schools.

We are in the second phase of our announced procedure, 
giving consideration to the selection of members of the 
advisory committee who will assist us as we study the 
problem and seek a solution. As soon as the committee has 
been selected and organized, we will begin public meetings 
to counsel with interested Chattanooga citizens seeking 
their viewpoints and advice.

It is evident that some people have misunderstood our 
original statement of policy. We have had several sugges­
tions offered as possible solutions to our problem. For 
example, some people have questioned why we did not 
adopt a plan similar to that being tried in some southern 
cities where certain schools will be designated for each 
race and some for both white and Negro children, with 
attendance being on an optional basis. We believe our posi­
tion is better since it leaves us free to find and accept this



2b

or any solution that might be superior. Moreover we are 
in a position to draw from the people of Chattanooga the 
answers that they finally believe to be the wisest and best 
for this community.

The Supreme Court clearly recognized that each school 
board would have its different problems because no two 
communities are exactly alike. That also means that if a 
problem is different, its solution may necessarily be differ­
ent from the solution in another community. That is what 
we think the Supreme Court said in its decision.

Once the Court recognized that the problem varied with 
each community, it directed each school board to counsel 
with the people of its own community in order to determine 
exactly what the problem is in that particular community. 
Now, as we read the Court’s decision, this means that the 
Court recognizes that racial discrimination can end only 
when the majority of the citizens are willing for it to end. 
That is why we want to secure the view of our fellow citizens 
with the aid of the interracial advisory committee, repre­
senting our best citizens of varying points of view. We 
will welcome interested groups from all over the City to 
come and discuss this most serious problem with us and the 
advisory committee. We want ideas and suggestions from 
everyone; for, as we understand the Supreme Court’s 
decision, this is what the Court intended for us to do first.

The Court has placed control of the situation in our 
hands as long as we act in good faith, and we intend to act 
in good faith at all times. This is of the utmost importance. 
It is also important that we be able at all times to prove 
our good faith in a court of law. We can decide whether 
our community should take a little step or a big one or a 
series of little steps over a period of years. But once the 
Court decides we are not acting in good faith, the Court 
will tell us what to do.

Supplementary Statement of October 12, 1955



3b

We are responsible for the educational opportunities of 
all 24,000 children in the City schools. In everything we 
do we must always have their welfare in mind. This means 
that our obligation to a Negro child is no greater and no 
less than our obligation to a white child. In other words, 
we do not know the answers, but we do know that we must 
not penalize a Negro child in his educational opportunities, 
nor must we penalize a white child.

Therefore, we shall in the near future name our inter­
racial advisory committee and be ready to begin considera­
tion of this question in search for the answers. In the 
hearings that will be held we shall not sit formally as a 
board of education but as a committee of the whole. Our 
regular chairman, even though he has adopted a position 
contrary to the policy of the Board, will sit with us and 
participate with all the rights and privileges and courtesies 
to which he is entitled and which are enjoyed under the law 
by any other Board member. We are convinced that every­
one will come to realize that it is far better for the Board 
of Education to retain the responsibility for arriving at 
a decision as to what is best for our children and our com­
munity instead of having some drastic action imposed upon 
us. The Court itself opened the way for each community 
to solve its problem in its own way so long as the effort is 
carried on in good faith each step of the way. This we 
intend to do.

Chattanooga B oard of E ducation

R. E . B iggers 
A lf J. L aw , J r .
W. I). L eber 
H arry M ilder 
R aymond  B. W it t , J r .
M rs. J . B. (S am m ie  C.) I rvin e , Secretary 
H arry A lle n , Commissioner and Chairman

Supplementary Statement of October 12, 1955



4b

Chattanooga P ublic S chools 
413 East Eighth Street 

Chattanooga 3, Tennessee

March 31,1956

S tatem en t  of M arch  31, 1956, by th e  Chattanooga B oard 
of E ducation w it h  R eference to th e  D ecisions of the  
U nited  S tates S upreme Court of M ay 17,1954, and M ay 31, 

1955, on th e  S u bject  of R acial D iscrim ination  
in  th e  P ublic S chools

Events in the last year have convinced the Chattanooga 
Board of Education that the community will not accept any 
form of integration within the City schools at any time 
within the near future. We, therefore, take this opportunity 
to report to the community our decision to postpone any 
change in the public schools for a period of at least a few 
years probably five years or more. Because of organiza­
tional problems confronting the schools now, the decision 
could not be longer postponed, and we feel that the public 
is entitled to have this information without delay.

We believe this to be in harmony with the spirit of the 
two U. S. Supreme Court rulings on the question.

We believe our decision will not harm any child of either 
race. We believe this action to be a good faith compliance 
with the supreme law of the land.

Following the Supreme Court decision of May, 1955, we 
announced, after careful thought and consideration, our 
statement of policy regarding the matter of segregation in 
the operation of our public school system. As we started 
our search for an answer, we said that there would be no

Statem ent o f  M arch  3 1 ,  1 9 5 6



5b

change in the operation of our schools for the school year 
commencing in September, 1955.

We have proceeded in good faith, in line with our an­
nounced policy, to seek a solution to our problem. We have 
talked with many people; we have studied the law; we have 
taken note of plans and developments in other communities ; 
we have observed every development; for in our hearts and 
in our prayers this problem has been constantly with us. 
We have asked every citizen of Chattanooga to help us in 
our efforts to find a legal solution which would harm no 
child of either race, and we are grateful to those good 
citizens who have shared their thinking with us. From the 
outset we have realized that the answer must be found in 
the hearts of the citizens of our community.

We have said that we will comply with the law. We have 
said that this means we will comply with the law as we 
understand it as we read the words used by the United 
States Supreme Court. As a result of all that has happened 
in our community and elsewhere, we are firmly convinced 
that any measure of integration within the foreseeable 
future would do the community irreparable damage. The 
cause of public education has already suffered severe 
damage. Hasty action could result in harm to the welfare 
of our children to an extent unknown. The quality of all 
education at all levels would suffer. No one would gain. 
Everyone would lose from too hasty action.

As a Board of Education, our duty is not to make the law 
or to say the law is right or wrong. It is our duty to operate 
the schools to the best of our ability for the benefit of the 
children within the legal framework that binds us. Our 
personal feelings have no proper place in the decision to 
comply with the law.

Statement of March 31,1956



6b

We do not believe the Court will require us to take a step 
that will destroy much of the progress the public schools of 
Chattanooga have made during the last 25 years.

We do not believe the Court will require us to take a 
step that we believe in good faith would be detrimental to 
the well-being of all of our children.

In this dilemma, our primary responsibility is to make 
the problem clear to the community. This is what the 
Court’s words mean to us. Before any problem can be 
solved, the exact nature of the problem must be known 
to those who must solve it. Some 150,000 Cliattanoogans are 
involved in this problem; and every single one has an 
opinion on the problem. Yet events have proven that this 
issue is so close to the hearts of all of us that emotions 
prevent a discussion of the issue. It has proven impossible 
to discuss the question in a calm manner with many people. 
Sooner or later our emotions overcome us.

As a result, we have not been able to make the problem 
clear to our fellow citizens. Misunderstanding has increased 
almost daily. Normal friendly relations have worsened.

Your Board hopes this breathing spell may restore a 
spirit of good will to our community, an atmosphere where 
free discussion is possible without bitterness and hate. We 
feel that such a period is essential if the problem is ever to 
be solved without results that none of us would knowingly 
seek.

The Court told us to elucidate the problem. To date that 
has been impossible. Yet that first step is essential. Were 
we to skip the first step of making the problem clear, we 
would be violating the Court’s ruling.

During this period of time we will exert every effort to 
improve our schools, yet working always within the frame-

Statement of March 31,1956



7b

Statement of March 31,1956

work of the law as we understand it. For the future only 
the people of this community and developing circumstances 
here and elsewhere can point the way to a fair solution.

Chattanooga B oard of E ducation

R. E. B iggers 
A lf J. L aw , J r .
W . D . L eber 
H arry M iller  
R aym ond  B. W it t , Jr.
Mrs. J. B . (S am m ie  C .) I rvine , Secretary 
H arry A l le n , Commissioner and Chairman



8b

Chattanooga P ublic S chools 
Chattanooga, Tennessee

July 9,1958

Every single decision of the Chattanooga Board of Edu­
cation is made with one objective in mind—to provide the 
best possible education for all of the children in Chat­
tanooga.

The decision of the U. S. Supreme Court on the question 
of racial discrimination has confronted the community with 
a serious decision. Each Chattanooga citizen must accept 
his responsibility to help solve this grave problem.

The position of this Board on the question of compliance 
with this decision is a matter of public record and needs no 
reiteration. In the meantime, public education must go 
forward. It must be improved for the benefit of all.

We are in a period of transition and no one knows the 
time element. We must move in good faith to continue and 
improve public education and to minimize tension. We are 
certain education cannot take place in an atmosphere of 
tension and bitter conflict.

Your School Board has been and now is attempting to 
make the problem clear to the community. All citizens 
must know exactly what our problem is before we can go 
about working out a solution.

In our combined judgment it would be extremely unwise 
to comply with the recent request to integrate our public 
schools at the beginning of the next school term, and it is 
our decision that the request be denied.

Statem ent o f  July 9 , 1 9 5 8



9b

Statement o f July 9,1958

We shall continue to do our best to meet our grave 
responsibility to all the children in the Chattanooga public 
school system. With God’s help, it can be done.

Chattanooga B oard of E ducation

R. E . B iggers 
George C. H udson , Sr.
(Mrs. J. B.) S am m ie  C. I rvine 
Alf J. L a w , Jr.
W illiam  D . L eber 
R aymond  B . W it t , J r .
F. H. T rotter, Commissioner and Chairman



10b

C hattanooga P ublic S chools 
Chattanooga, Tennessee

March 7,1960

To th e  C itizen s  oe Chattan ooga :

The Chattanooga Board of Education denies the recent 
demand for “total integration” of the Chattanooga Public 
Schools with the conviction that to do otherwise would be 
premature and to the detriment of the vast majority of 
white and Negro children.

The school board has never questioned the legality of the 
Constitutional principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, 
although individual members of the board may have ques­
tioned the wisdom of the decision. The Court recognized 
that implementation of these principles would require the 
solution of varied problems. It placed upon the school 
board the responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and 
solving them. In attempting to make the problems clear 
to the community, we are in the first stage of compliance 
with the Supreme Court’s decision. This step has not been 
completed and cannot be completed by the school board 
alone.

The Board of Education has been delegated the responsi­
bility for public education in this community. We are con­
vinced that a substantial majority of the people we serve 
strongly prefer the continuation of our schools in accord­
ance with the historical pattern. We are also fully aware 
that a substantial minority of the community desires com­
pliance with the Supreme Court’s decision. Ordinarily the 
wishes of the majority would be a clear directive to the

Statem ent o f  M arch  7 , 1 9 6 0



lib

school board. When the wishes of the majority are in direct 
conflict with the Constitution of the United States, we know 
that the Constitution must somehow prevail. There could 
be no law if each community had the right to interpret the 
Constitution in its own way.

Your school board has attempted to elucidate the prob­
lem and will continue in its efforts. We have met many long 
hours with various groups—pastors, business leaders, a 
representative union group, Negro groups—always working 
toward understanding of the Court’s action and its signifi­
cance to the community.

We earnestly seek your understanding.

Chattanooga B oard of E ducation

S. D ean  P etersen , Commissioner and Chairman 
G eorge C. H udson , Sr.
(Mrs. J. B .) S am m ie  C. I rvine 
A lf  J. L a w , J r .
W illiam  D . L eber 
B aymond  B . W itt , J r .

Statement of March 7,1960

1



12b

Excerpts From Depositions

# ^  ^

D r. J ohn  W alter L etson , being first du ly  sw orn , was 
exam ined and deposed  as fo l lo w s :

Direct Examination by Mrs. Motley:
D. Mr. Letson, would you state your full name and posi­

tion for the record, please! A. John Walter Letson, 
Superintendent of Schools, City of Chattanooga.

—4—
D. How long have you been the Superintendent! A. 

Since November 1957.
D. Are you one of the defendants in this lawsuit! A. 

Yes.
# # # # #

— 21—

D. Now you said that you have been here since 1957, I
—22—

believe! A. Right,
D. That’s September 1957! A. November.
D. November 1957. Since you have been Superintendent 

of Schools here has the Board adopted any resolutions 
relating to integration of schools! A. Yes, the Board has, 
has issued two statements, if I remember correctly.

D. Do you remember when they were issued? A. One 
last summer. I don’t remember the exact date. It’s a 
matter of record, however. One was issued this school year, 
sometime in February, if I remember correctly.

D. So you think there are a total of two statements 
issued by the Board relating to integration? A. Yes, since 
I have been here.

D. We’d like to get the statements at the end. We don’t

— 3—



13b

need it right now. Now since you have been Superintendent 
have you worked on any plan or plans for desegregating 
the schools? A. Yes.

D. What are those plans? A. I have been a part of a 
series of meetings that the Board has held in regard to 
this problem since, since I ’ve been in Chattanooga.

D. You’ve attended a series of meetings? A. Yes.
—23—

D. With the Board? A. Yes.
D. Has any plan been approved or adopted or suggested? 

A. The Board of Education has, did state its position be­
fore I came to Chattanooga that established rather clearly 
its purpose and intention. It did say that it was the inten­
tion of the Board of Education to comply with the Supreme 
Court’s decision.

In the intervening period of time the Board of Education 
has been working, and I have been a part of that plan, to, 
to follow the instructions of the Supreme Court in im­
plementing that decision.

The Board of Education has certainly been in the process 
of, of elucidating the problem and doing many things to 
develop a community understanding of the problem and 
its solution.

D. Now let’s see if we can be a little more specific. In 
addition to announcing an intention to comply with the 
Supreme Court’s decision, specifically what has the Board 
done with respect to that intention ? Has it held any public 
meetings ? Has it published any documents ? Has it devised 
any plan? Has it studied any plans? A. It certainly has 
studied plans. It has held a number of meetings. They have 
not been public meetings. It has proceeded according to a

—2 4 -
plan in its desire and in its effort to live up to that original 
statement.

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct



14b

D. Well, other than meetings with the Board itself, 
you’re saying that there have not been any public meetings 
on this question? A. But there have been a number of 
private meetings.

D. You mean the Board has met privately with persons 
who are not members of the Board? A. Oh, yes.

D. How many such meetings do you think there have 
been in the last three years? A. It would have to be a 
guess. It’s a matter of record. I—I would say six, seven, 
eight.

D. Are these community interest groups? A. Yes.
D. Citizens groups? A. Yes.
D. Now in addition to meetings, has the Board published 

any documents on this question? That is, in addition to 
the resolutions which we know we have copies of here, but 
has the Board put out any informational material for the 
benefit of the community? A. Not during the three years 
that I have been here.

D. Now specifically, what plans has the Board studied? 
A. There was a review of the Little Rock plan, Nashville

- 2 5 -
plan, certainly published materials of general application 
in regard to this problem have been a matter of interest 
and concern and information for the Board.

D. Has any specific plan been approved? A. Other than 
that the Board of Education is proceeding according to its 
plan to develop an acceptance of its original position, which 
is that it was going to comply with the Supreme Court’s 
decision.

D. Now since this suit has been filed has any plan or 
change in plan been made? A. No change. A further con­
sideration of the problem and the steps that the Board has

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct



15b

taken and is contemplating taking in the accomplishment 
of its original position.

D. Has the Board discussed this problem with the 
teachers at these joint meetings that you refer to? A. 
No, not the Board itself. It has been a subject of some 
consideration by various groups in the school system.

D. Now getting back to this plan that you say the Board 
adopted, when did the Board adopt this plan, do you recall 
or do you know? A. I could only speak from the record. 
It was soon after the original Supreme Court decision, ’54.

Mr.Witt: ’Fifty-five.

By Mrs. Motley.
D. And now in addition to the meetings which you spoke 

of a moment ago with community interest groups, has the
- 2 6 -

Board done anything further or additional to implement 
this plan that you talk about? A. Not to my knowledge. 
The intention and desire of the Board of Education was 
to proceed to the limits of time and ability to develop a 
community understanding of the problem.

D. Now in developing this community understanding of 
the problem, what techniques, specifically, have they been 
using at these meetings, for example? A. A series of 
meetings, first with ministerial groups. A discussion meet­
ing that went into the background of the problem, tried to 
assess the position of our community in relation to that 
problem, and attempted to develop an understanding on the 
part of the people in attendance of what the problem actu­
ally is and how progress might be made toward the accom­
plishment of that original position.

D. Now in addition to meeting with the ministerial 
alliance, what other community groups have you met with,

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct



16b

specifically? A. A number of informal groups with out 
specific organizational connection, but groups that the 
Board felt would be instrumental and informational in 
helping with this problem.

D. What about the Parent Teachers Association? Have 
you met with them? A. Not as an organization.

—27—
D. Have any of these meetings involved Negro citizens? 

A. Yes.
D. What Negro citizen groups have you met with? A. 

The ministerial group, of course, number one. The edu­
cational group representatives from our own staff and our 
own administrative staff throughout the school system, and 
a few other meetings that were, that involved some, both 
white and colored people, but they were not organizational , 
in the sense that they had an organizational tie.

D. Now what happens at these meetings? Do you have 
school administrators who’ve had experience in integration 
to come and speak to the groups ? A. No.

D. Or what? A. No. It’s an informal discussion among 
the members of the Board of Education and those in at­
tendance on the problem.

D. You’ve had no professional assistance, in other words? 
A. No.

D. In the development of this plan? A. No other, no.
I think the answer should be no.

D. Now as a result of these meetings that the Board has 
had with respect to its plan, has it arrived at any con­
clusions, formulated any steps? A. No formal ones that

- 2 8 -
have, no formal ones that have been placed in writing, other 
than those public statements that I previously mentioned.
I would say that in general the Board came away from most

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct



L / }  u y

17b

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct

of these meetings with, with a clearer understanding of 
the size of the problem and its difficulty.

D. Has the Board studied the possible use of the Ten­
nessee pupil assignment law? A. Not in detail. It has been 
a matter of record, of course, and has been a topic of con­
sideration and discussion on a few occasions.

D. But that law hasn’t actually been used here, has it? 
A. It has not been placed in effect at the present.

D. Now since you’ve been the Superintendent, do you 
know whether the Board has received any petitions from 
citizen groups to comply with the Supreme Court decision 
and desegregate the schools? A. Yes, on one occasion.

D. When was that? A. Last summer.
D. The summer of ’59? A. Yes.
D. From whom or from what group did the Board receive 

such a petition? A. I don’t remember the specific name. 
I know Mr. Carter was one of the participants. I think 
Mr. Mapp was also one of the participants.

—29—
D. We’d like to get a copy of that petition, too. A. Yes.

Mr. Craig: You will supply it?
The Witness: Yes, we will supply it.

By Mrs. Motley:

D. Now did the Board ever reply to that petition? A. 
Yes. That’s one of the statements that—

D. One of the public statements? A. Yes.
D. That you have ref erred to ? A. Yes.
D. Now have any Negro parents ever requested assign­

ment of their children to the white schools here? A. To 
my knowledge, not until the present case came into the 
picture.



18b

D. Now this petition that you referred to a moment ago 
which you said the Board received last summer from Mr. 
Mapp and Mr. Carter, now Mr. Mapp is one of the Plaintiffs 
in the lawsuit, I understand? A. Yes.

D. Now in that petition did he request at that time that 
the Board desegregate the schools? A. Yes.

D. Or did he request specific assignment of his children?
—30—

A. As I recall the petition it was a general request that 
the Board desegregate the schools in Chattanooga.

D. Now after that petition, did Mr. Mapp ever request 
an assignment of his children to a white school? A. Not 
to my knowledge.

D. Did Mr. Mapp ever come to your office and say that 
he wanted his child assigned to a white school? A. Not 
until the existing case came into the picture.

D. Well, you mean he filed his case and then he came to 
you and asked for an assignment? A. No. No. He asked 
for the placement of his child previous to the beginning of 
this lawsuit.

D. Now— A. But that was not following the petition 
last summer, however. That was the point I was making.

D. It was not following the petition? A. It was not 
immediately following that petition.

D. But first he sent a general petition asking for desegre­
gation. Do I understand you correctly? A. Yes.

D. After— A. Which was answered by the Board.
D. Which was answered by the Board? A. (Witness 

inclined his head.)
D. Now after that, he came in person to your office? A.

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct

D. And requested assignment of his children to a white 
school? A. Yes.



19b

D. Is that correct? A. Yes.
D. Now what happened with respect to that request that 

he made in person? A. It was referred to the Board of 
Education.

D. And what action did the Board take on it? A. The 
Board issued a statement the following—I’m probably in 
error. I ’m not sure. I don’t think the Board did issue a 
statement following that request.

D. Did they send him a letter or anything? A. No.
D. Did they call him up and tell him anything? A. To 

my knowledge, no.
D. Now in addition to Mr. Mapp, who else among the 

Negro parents has ever come to your office in person and 
requested assignment of his or her children to white 
schools ? A. Reverend Kirnon and Mrs. Maxey.

D. Now they appeared also in person in your office? A. 
Yes.

D. And that was after this petition of last summer? A. , 
Yes.

—32—
D. Now with respect to this petition which you say Mr. 

Mapp and Mr. Carter signed, is it possible that that was 
the summer of ’58 instead of ’59? A. Yes, that’s—yes, I 
thing it was. It was in ’58. Also let me correct my state­
ment a moment ag*o.

D. Sure. A. There was a statement made by the Board 
following the request by Mr. Mapp and others to enroll 
their children. There was a statement issued.

D. In writing? A. In writing, issued by the Board, and 
a copy of it was forwarded to the persons involved.

Mr. Witt: You want that?
Mrs. Motley: We’d like to get a copy of that state­

ment.

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct



20b

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct 

By Mrs. Motley:
D. So that your statement now is that Mr. Mapp sent a 

petition to the Board in 1958? A. Yes.
D. Originally? A. Yes.
D. The Board issued a statement with respect to that in 

’58? A. Yes.
D. And then two years later, 1956, he appeared in person

—3 3 -
in your office, is that right ? A. You mean’60?

D. In 1960, I meant to say. A. Yes. I don’t recall the 
date of that appearance, but it’s a matter of record.

D. That was this year? A. Yes.
D. Now when Mr. Mapp and Reverend Kirnon and Mrs. 

Maxey came to your office and requested assignment of their 
children to a white school, did they have children enrolled 
in the public school system at that time ? A. Yes.

D. Do you know what school their children went to 
school, what schools their children were enrolled in? A. 
Orchard Knob, to my knowledge, although I think one was 
in the group transferred to East Fifth Street by, trans­
ported to East Fifth Street this year.

D. Well, why was this person transported, or a child 
transported? A. In an effort to relieve an overcrowded 
situation at the Orchard Knob School, we utilized some 
space at the East Fifth Street School and the children were 
transported there.

D. Now you say Mr. Mapp and Reverend Kirnon and 
Mrs. Maxey had children in the Orchard Knob School when 
they came to your office? A. I ’m not certain. It is my

- 3 4 -
understanding that they had children in the Chattanooga 
public schools, and I ’m sure that, that some of those, some



21b

of the children involved were at East Fifth Street, al­
though they were a part of the Orchard Knob School.

D. Now. A. For a part of this year.
D. Isn’t it that after they came to your office they were 

transported or transferred to the East Fifth Street School? 
A. No, that transfer had been made previous to—

D. Their coming? A. Previous to their coming.
D. And that transfer was made on the basis of the fact 

that the Orchard Knob School was overcrowded? A. Yes.
D. Now isn’t it true that there was a white school called 

the Glenwood School which was under-enrolled at that time 
to which they might’ve been assigned? A. The three 
children, or the children involved could possibly have been 
assigned in terms of space to the (Kenwood School.

D. And is it not a fact that they requested assignment of 
their children to the Glenwood School? A. Yes.

D. And at the time they requested that, there was space
—35—

there for them? A. Yes, space for the three involved. Not 
space to relieve the overcrowded situation at Orchard 
Knob.

D. Well, how many under-utilized classrooms did you 
have in the Glenwood School at that time? A. They aren’t 
un-utilized classrooms. They are classrooms with an en­
rollment that could be expanded.

D. How many such classrooms would you say? A. Well, 
I wouldn’t—it would be my guess without looking at the 
record and the distribution of existing enrollment, that 

f three or four of those classrooms could accept a few addi­
tional children without exceeding the desirable level.

D. Now their request, the transfer was denied on the 
basis of race, wasn’t it? A. It was referred to the Board 
of Education and the Board’s statement answered that 
request.

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct



22b

D. I see. Now at the present time what is the enrollment 
in the G-lenwood School and what is its capacity, do you 
know? A. I would prefer to look at the record before giv­
ing that answer.

D. Well, we’d like to get that also at the end. Now when 
Mr. Mapp and Mrs. Maxey and Reverend Kirnon came to 
your office, what specifically took place? A. They told, 
they told me of their desire for their children to be enrolled

- 3 6 -
in the Glenwood School. I told them that the request would 
be referred to the Board of Education.

D. You didn’t discuss with them the problem that their 
children were Negro and the schools white? A. (Witness 
shook his head from side to side.)

D. That never occurred to you? A. Not at that occasion, 
not at that time.

D. You made no statement to them regarding the race of 
their children? A. I ’m not sure that I understand your 
question.

D. Now Mr. Mapp and Reverend Kirnon and Mrs. Maxey 
are Negroes, are they not? A. Yes.

D. As far as you know? A. Yes.
D. They came to your office and requested assignment of 

their children to a white school? A. Yes.
D. And you mean this was never discussed that their 

children were white, or Negro and wanted to go to a white 
school? A. Well, it was understood and known, of course. 
I don’t think we particularly discussed it at that particular 
time. Certainly it was a matter of common knowledge on 
the part of all of us.

D. Now let me ask you this: Normally when a request
-—37—

for transfer is made, do you normally refer those requests 
to the Board? A. No.

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct



23b

D. What procedure do you follow when you receive a 
request for transfer? A. We make it normally on the 
basis of the attendance area in which the children are as­
signed. There can be exceptions from that attendance only 
for reasons that are believed to be justified.

That decision is normally made by the staff. A handi­
capped child or for some particular reason that makes it a 
difficulty for that child to attend the school in that area is 
taken into consideration as the decision is made.

*  *  # # #

—47—
M r . W illiam  D. L eber, being’ first duly sworn, was 

examined and deposed as follows:

Direct Examination by Mrs. Motley:

D. Mr. Leber, would you state your full name? A. 
William D. Leber, L-e-b-e-r.

D. Are you a member of the Board of Education of the' 
City of Chattanooga? A. Yes.

D. How long have you been a member of the Board? A. 
Since August of 1954.

D. Since you’ve been a member of the Board, has the 
Board adopted any resolutions regarding desegregation of 
the schools of Chattanooga? A. Yes.

D. I ’m going to show you this document and ask you 
whether you recognize it. A. These are all the statements, 
aren’t they ?

D. The first statement in the booklet which is entitled 
“Official Statements of the Chattanooga Board of Educa­
tion on the Supreme Court Decisions of May seventeenth, 
1954, and May thirty-first, 1955,” contains a statement dated 
July twenty-second, 1955. A. Yes.

D. And you were a member of the Board at that time?

William D. Leber—Direct



24b

William D. Leber—Direct

A. Yes.
D. Now the next statement is dated October twelfth, 1955. 

Do you see that? A. Yes ma’am.
D. And you were a member of the Board at that time ? A. 

Yes.
D. The next statement is dated November fifteenth, 1955, 

and you were a member of the Board at that time? A. 
Yes.

D. Next statement is dated March thirty-first, 1956. 
Were you a member of the Board at that time? A. Yes.

D. The next statement is dated July ninth, 1958. Were 
you a member of the Board at that time? A. Yes.

D. Final statement is dated March seventh, 1960. Were 
you a member of the Board at that time? A. Yes.

D. Are you familiar with all of these statements? A. 
Yes, I am. I couldn’t repeat them, I mean. I ’d have to read 
them.

D. Now since July twenty-second, 1955, when the first 
statement was adopted, would you tell us what the Board 
has done with respect to integration, specifically? A. Yes. 
We have attempted to elucidate the community in regard

—49—
to desegregation. We’ve met with numerous groups, com­
munity-interest groups; groups that have come to us to 
talk about the situation since that time.

D. Have you done anything other than talk to community- 
interest groups? A. Nothing specifically except bringing 
the community to an awareness of the problem, talking 

vY among ourselves and talking to individuals. Other than 
J that, nothing specifically except moving the community 

toward the time of compliance, full compliance.

—48—



25b

D. At these meetings have there been any professional 
persons discussing desegregation, how it’s effected, and so 
forth? A. When you speak of “ professional,” you mean 
outside professional groups?

D. Yes. A. No.
D. Now specifically, what problems, if any, were dis­

cussed at these meetings? A. The change in the customs 
that this community has observed for a period of a hundred 
and fifty (150) years, or a hundred (100) years, whatever 
the time may be; unaccustomed as the people would be to 
this change, to try to get them to accept the change that will 
be necessary in full compliance, and that sort of thing.

— 50—
D. Well, what has the Board done to try to get the com­

munity to accept the decision. I don’t understand. Specif­
ically what, what have you done? A. I think specifically 
what we’ve attempted to do is to get the leadership of the 
community to bring the community behind the school board, 
to get them behind the school board. We need, we needed 
the responsible people of the community to help in this 
matter, to talk to the people and get them to understand, the 
people that they may be the leader of. For instance, a min­
ister of a church or a person that employs a lot of people, 
for example. A person that’s active in community affairs, 
that meets with groups of people like civic clubs and one 
thing and another, to get them to back the school board 
openly.

D. So that since 1955 until the present you have been 
meeting with community leaders, is that right? A. Yes.

D. Now let me call your attention to the second statement 
dated October twenty-second, 1955, the third paragraph of 
that statement. It says this: “ It is evident that some people 
have misunderstood our original statement of policy.” Now 
it isn’t clear to me from reading this exactly what the Board

William D. Leber■—Direct



26b

had in mind by “ some people have misunderstood their 
original policy.”  A. You say it’s not clear to you?

—51—
D. No. What prompted the statement? A. In our orig­

inal statement, if you notice the first few paragraphs or 
the first paragraph, in fact, stated that, well, let’s see. It 
wouldn’t be the first paragraph. Let’s see. “ The Chat­
tanooga Board, we have come to a decision.” Yes, it is the 
first paragraph, that we would comply with the decision of 
the United States Supreme Court on the matter of integra­
tion of public schools.

So many people just read that paragraph, and from that 
first statement the manner in which the community received 
it was, well, I don’t know exactly how to explain it, was com­
pletely to the reversal of the way some of us expected it to 
be received. It was received with violence, a violent re­
action, you might say.

D. Well. A. Not any violent—
D. What violence? A. Not any physical violence, but— 

so we felt after the first statement—
D. Well, what, excuse me. Would you explain what you 

mean by violence? You say the statement was received with 
violence? A. Violent reaction.

D. Violent— A. I changed that from violence to violent
—5 2 -

reaction, and I mean the people who were—I’m speaking in 
my own behalf and not for anyone else—people who were 
my friends became, they called me names. They—they 
seemed to be not my friends any more. The groups in which 
I moved denounced the decision that the school board had 
made.

The community in general was, as I viewed it, was in an 
uproar over this fact that we’d stated we’d comply, and they

William D. Leber-—Direct



27b

saw no reason for me having made such a statement, so 
after that we felt, I felt with the others it was necessary that 
we make another statement.

D. Did any group send any written statements to the 
Board? A. Yes.

D. Opposing the Board’s position? A. Numbers of them.
D. Do you have those? A. I—
D. In the records ? A. I don’t. I ’m not sure that we have 

kept those in the record. We received them individually 
and not as a group. I don’t believe we received them as a 
group.

D. Now I want to direct your attention to the statement 
of November fifteenth, 1955; it refers here to the establish­
ment of an Interracial Advisory Committee. Is that com-

—53—
mittee still in existence? A. No. It hadn’t been discharged 
but it’s—it hadn’t been active.

D. How long has that committee been inactive? A. Since 
its first meeting.

D. And its first meeting was November fifteen? A. Yes.
D. Nineteen fifty-five? A. (Witness inclined his head.)
D. And that was a public organizational meeting? A. 

Yes, it was a public, not an organizational meeting. It was 
a public meeting that this statement was to be read to them, 
and the purpose of the Interracial Advisory Committee was 
outlined in that statement.

D. Did the committee ever actually meet? A. Yes. They 
met that night.

D. On November fifteenth? A. Yes.
D. Nineteen fifty-five? A. Yes.
D. Now who was on that committee, do you recall? A. 

I can’t recall the names, but they were people from all 
sections of the city, representing all walks of life, and they

William D. Leber—Direct



fatter u P  »

28b

William D. Leber—Direct

were divided according to the ratio of the division of Negro 
and white children in the schools.

We had about two-thirds white, I think, and one-third
—5 4 -

Negro on the, on the Interracial Advisory Committee. They 
were chosen. Do you wish me to read them!

D. How many names do you have there! A. I think 
there’s about thirty-five (35), isn’t there, Raymond!

D. Well, we could probably get a copy of that. I don’t 
think it will be necessary for you to read those names. We’d 
like to get a copy of that, Mr. Witt. A. Thirty-five I think 
is right.

D. And the thirty-five people on that advisory committee!
A. Yes.

D. And they have not met since the opening or organiza­
tional meeting! A. Not as an advisory committee. On that 
Interracial Advisory Committee there were forty (40) 
people; twenty-eight (28) white and twelve (12) Negro.

D. Now what happened at that first advisory counsel 
meeting other than the reading of this statement by the 
chairman! A. If I remember correctly, the chairman didn’t 
even get to finish his reading of his statement because it, 
it resulted in a riot, name-calling, almost physical violence, 
in a general uproar, throwing of stink bombs. It ended in 
a complete riot, and we feared for the safety of some of the

- 5 5 -
people on the Interracial Advisory Committee.

D. You mean the members of the committee rioted! A. 
No.

D. Or outside the— A. The people attended, outside 
people.

D. Oh, members of the public rioted! A. Yes.



29b

D. Is this the reason why there have not been any meet­
ings since that time? A. With the Interracial Advisory 
Committee, we felt that, that this, at that time, that this 
question was so filled with emotion that we could not hold 
a public meeting where we could discuss it.

D. Have you held any private meetings of the advisory 
committee? A. No.

D. Was there any police protection at that first meeting, 
public meeting of the advisory committee? A. No. We 
did not anticipate that we would need police protection, 
and we did not call on the police department. We didn’t, 
in fact, know that there would be such a large attendance 
of people present. There was a little notice put in the 
paper about it. We did not put it there, however, but it was 
put there, and we didn’t ask for police protection.

We weren’t too sure whether, how—whether we could
—56—

depend on the police or not. We didn’t know whether we 
needed them or not or whether they’d come or whether 
they’d send them or what-not, so we just didn’t have any.

D. You didn’t know whether you could depend upon the 
police and you didn’t know whether they would come if 
you sent for them? Did you ever make any inquiries— A. 
No.

D. —of the police chief? A. As I said, we discussed it 
but finally decided that we wouldn’t probably need them, 
and we didn’t ask for them.

D. In other words, because of this hostility evidenced at 
the meeting to your proposal, you just never called your 
advisory committee again? A. No. That’s right.

D. Now that was five years ago? A. Yes.
D. Now what’s the reason for not calling the advisory 

committee now, 1960, five years later? A. From the, on

William D. Leber—Direct



30b

the basis of which I just stated, that we felt that if we called 
the advisory committee together it would of necessity have 
to be a public meeting. When the school board meets it’s 
supposed to be a public meeting, and as we felt we could 
not hold these meetings in public, so therefore you might 
say we went underground and at no time did the school 
board meet after that as a group in—we met in small

- 5 7 -
groups and with small, small groups of individuals of com­
munity-interest people.

D. Well, are you saying that you have not had a public 
meeting of this advisory committee since ’55 because you 
fear that you could not have a public meeting without this 
rioting! A. That’s right.

D. How do you know that, since you haven’t had any 
meetings— A. Well now.

D. —in five years? A. I, for one, was not willing to 
attempt it after that first meeting.

D. Now do you have anything other than your mere 
assertion that you could not get the cooperation of the 
police? A. Do I have?

D. At future meetings? A. I didn’t say that.
D. Do you have any— A. I didn’t say that for future 

meetings. I said for that meeting.
D. Well, let me ask you this: Has the Board ever at­

tempted to get the cooperation of the police in connection 
with any meetings of the Board? A. No, we never.

—58—
D. On this question? A. No, we never have.
D. So that, so that since 1955 the Board has not made 

any effort to get this, to have a meeting, rather, of this 
Interracial Advisory Committee? A. No.

William D. Leber—Direct



31b

D. Let me direct your attention to the statement dated 
March thirty-first, 1956. The opening statement says 
“Events in the last year have convinced the Chattanooga 
Board of Education that the community will not accept any 
form of integration within the city schools at any time 
within the near future. We therefore take this opportunity 
to report to the community our decision to postpone any 
change in the public schools for a period of at least a few 
years, probably five years or more.”

What investigation or study or survey did the Board 
make to determine that the community would not accept 
any form of integration within the city schools at any time 
in the foreseeable future, and what study or survey did 
the Board make to determine that it would be at least five 
years before there could be any integration in the com­
munity? A. Well, subsequent, or rather after the Inter­
racial Advisory Committee riot, after our first statement, 
the community was in such an upheaval according to the 
people that talked with us individually, according to the 
number of people that called the school office, according 
to the pronouncements by people from, I ’d say, even pulpits,

- 5 9 -
in meetings held by people that were running for office, by 
the general talk in any group that you happened to be 
present, and a number of us at that time were very active 
in civic affairs, going to numerous meetings most every 
night in the week meeting with different people, and the 
general upheaval and as it concerned the schools, led us to 
believe the wisdom of making such a statement.

D. Did somebody make a report of this to the Board? 
Did the Superintendent make a report? A. No.

D. In which he documented this? A. We made a report, 
we talked it ourselves. It was in, every time we got to-

William D. Leber—Direct



32b

gether it was necessary that we talk about this situation. 
In fact, if I remember correctly, the school Superintendent 
at that time could not properly run the schools for trying 
to answer the questions as to what the school board was 
going to do the coming year, and so on, and so forth, and 
it was necessary that we have a time when we could settle 
the community, if we could, so that we could talk about this 
matter in a peaceful atmosphere and carry our elucidation 
problem faster and probably get to a place that we could 
talk even to our friends about it.

D. Now what was the basis for the decision that it would 
be probably five years or more? A. Of course, that, in our

—60— '
own mind we felt that it would take that long for the com­
munity to settle down, that—

D. Well, how did you arrive at the figure five years as 
opposed to some other figure? A. Well, I don’t know that 
I could say just exactly why the five years. That we say a 
period of at least a few years and probably five, on the basis 
that it would take that long to elucidate the community to 
even get a semblance of peaceful atmosphere in which to 
move toward this full compliance that we talked about in the 
first statement.

D. Now it’s been four years, a little more than four years, 
hasn’t it? A. Yes.

D. Since you made this statement? A. (Witness in­
clined his head.)

D. So you think that the Board is now ready to follow 
its original determination to integrate the schools? A. 
Well, I—I don’t—I don’t know whether you could say, as 
you realize, that the school board is an agent of the com­
munity. We represent both Negro and the white people 
of this community, and until at least I ’m speaking for my­

William D. Leber—Direct



33b

self now, until I feel that the least harm that can be done 
to either a Negro child or a white child will be when I ’ll 
move for full compliance, and until our elucidation process 
which we’re now in proves to us that we can move with the 
least harm to education in the City of Chattanooga, that’s

—61—
when I think we’ll move, or when I ’ll move. Whether it be 
five years I don’t, I ’m—I couldn’t say.

D. Well, how do you measure this! How are you going 
to be able to tell? A. I think the events of the last sixty 
(60) days would be a good, or maybe ninety (90) days 
now, I ’m not sure just how long ago it’s been, would be a 
good example of whether or not the community’s ready for 
it or not, if—

D. What’s happened in the last ninety days? A. Well.
D. Which affects this problem? A. These sit-ins at 

Kress’s, for example. If one store can create a situation 
whereby thousands of people milling and fighting and tear­
ing at one another, if a few sit-ins can cause that what would 
integration of forty-seven schools be?

D. So that what you actually do is to judge by the amount 
of hostility which you feel is present in the community? 
A. No.

D. Before implementing this plan? A. I wouldn’t say 
that. Until this time not one person has come, I ’d say, I 
might take that back, “ one person.” Not more than, not as 
many as five people have publicly said that this should be 
done now, and the leadership of the community has not 
moved behind us. We know that.

D. In other words, you are saying that it’s not up to
—62—

the Board to decide when integration shall take effect, but 
it’s up to the community to decide? A. No, I didn’t say

William D. Leber—Direct



34b

that, but after all, we are the agents of the community and 
if the members of the community could get rid of this Board 
if they wanted to.

D. Is the Board elected or appointed by the Mayor? A. 
I-—I couldn’t answer that on a yes-or-no question. It’s— 
the members are selected by a screening committee which 
is presented to this Board. The Board then nominates and 
sends to the Mayor and Commissioners, and they appoint.

D. Well, it’s a sort of self-perpetuating Board? A. You 
might call it that.

D. Isn’t it? A. Yes.
D. And it isn’t elected by the people? A. No. But we, 

the screening committee is representative of the community.

Mr. Witt: The Commissioner of Health.
The Witness: Huh?
Mr. W itt: The Commissioner of Health.
Mr. Meacham: The Commissioner of Health.
The Witness: Yes, there’s one exception, the Com­

missioner of Health and Education who is, by his 
office, Chairman of the Board. He’s elected by the 
people.

—63—
By Mrs. Motley:

D. Now since March thirty-first, 1956, when you issued 
this statement to the effect that integration would not take 
place at any time in the near future, has the Board done 
anything other than hold meetings to determine whether 
there has been a change in the community attitude toward 
the Board’s policy? A. No, they haven’t done anything 
except hold meetings and receive, not formal receipt of the 
community, various groups in the community or various

William D. Leber—Direct



35b

individuals in the community as talking to individual 
members of the Board.

D. Has the Board made any studies to see to what extent 
there would be integration or desegregation in the com­
munity? A. No. Not a formal study, no.

D. Has the Board instructed the Superintendent to de­
vise any plan? A. No. We feel that we have a plan, that 
we’re in a plan of compliance at the present time.

D. Well, what is your plan? A. Elucidation, at the 
present time. We are—

D. By “ elucidation” you mean talking to the community? 
A. Yes, trying to.

D. Trying to win over the community? A. Trying to, 
yes.

D. Now did I understand you to say a few moments ago 
that not as many as five individuals have requested the

- 6 4 -
Board to integrate? A. No.

D. Recently? A. I didn’t say that. I said not as many 
as five have publicly stated that they thought—

Mr. W itt: White community.
The Witness: Huh?
Mr. Witt: White community.
The Witness: White, white community, of the 

white community.

By Mrs. Motley:
D. Now don’t you have some group here known as the 

Community Relations Counsel composed of white persons 
which has requested desegregation recently? A. There has 
been a group. Now as to what the name, I I couldn t 
definitely say that that was the name, but we have had a

William D. Leber—Direct



36b

group appear before the Board to request that we inte­
grate, but there again, they have not made it known to the 
community that they wished us to integrate. They want us 
to integrate without—and they, they stay in the background.

D. When did they appear before the Board? A. I would 
say about thirty (30) to forty-five (45) days ago, or maybe 
it was just previous to this suit. I ’m not quite sure, but I 
think it—

D. And that group is composed of whites, is it? A. Yes.
—65—

D. Do you know who the chairman is? A. I should know, 
but I can’t recall his name.

Mrs. Irvine: Shavin.

By Mrs. Motley:

D. They represent more than five people, don’t they? 
A. I think they do, but now remember I said five. They 
have not publicly stated.

D. Does this statement of theirs appear in the minutes 
of the Board? A. No. We did not meet as a board. Thej  ̂
made no formal request. They just talked to the Board 
members, they talked to us as individuals in a group.

D. Now let me direct your attention to the statement 
dated July ninth, 1958, and ask you if that’s the statement 
issued by the Board after Mr. Mapp and Mr. Carter pre­
sented a petition to the Board asking for desegregation 
of the schools. A. Yes sir, that’s it.

D. Now Mr. Mapp and Mr. Carter are Negro citizens of 
Chattanooga, aren’t they? A. Yes. I ’m not sure that Mr. 
Carter is at the present time a citizen of Chattanooga. I 
think he moved, since moved.

D. Now let me direct your attention to the statement

William D. Leber—Direct



37b

dated March seventh, 1960, and ask yon if that is the state­
ment issued by the Board in response to the request of Mr. 
Mapp, Reverend Kirnon, and Mrs. Maxey to have their 
children assigned to white schools? A. Yes, that’s it.

— 66—

D. Now what was that statement based on? Did the 
Board make any survey or study to determine that the 
demand for total integration is premature? A. It was not 
made on a formal survey, but again the community arose 
with the publication of the fact that integration had been 
asked for, and anyone on this Board was aware of the fact 
that to do what was asked to be done would bring dire 
results to the school system of Chattanooga.

D. Now. A. And all education.
D. How were they aware of that fact? How— A. I beg 

pardon?
D. How was the Board aware of that fact? A. Aware?
D. You say everyone on the Board was aware of the fact 

that to integrate would bring dire results. How were you 
aware of that fact ? A. By—-

D. On March seventh, 1960? A. By people of the com­
munity talking to individuals, by letters to the editor, by— 
in the newspapers, the general tone of the community. We 
—we don’t just stay at home.

D. Was there anything other than talk that you went on? 
Did you go on anything other than people talking? A.

—67—
What else would you—

D. I mean to who talked the loudest? A. What do you 
have? Like what, for instance, here? Like what? Go on 
what?

D. Did you make any study or survey to determine— A. 
I said we made no formal study.

William, D. Leber—Direct



38b

D. Other than this talk ? A. No.
D. You just go by what you read in the newspaper? A. 

No. I said we went by talking with individuals, by groups 
of people in which we moved, and in that manner. The 
people where we worked, where I work, and—

D. In other words, there’s been no formal determination 
that integration is premature. This is just informal off-the- 
cuff community talk, newspaper talk sort of thing? A. I 
wouldn’t say it was newspaper talk. It’s the actual contact 
with citizens which, in the movement of our daily lives, 
both at work and in church and community activity.

D. How many newspapers do you have here? A. Two.
D. Are they both opposed to the Board’s position? A. 

I ’m not sure that either one of them are opposed to the 
Board’s position.

D. Has either newspaper supported the Board’s position? 
A. I think both newspapers have supported the Board’s

- 68-

position. I—now you, when you—you may be talking about 
one thing and I may be talking about another. I ’m talking 
about the situation which we are now in, in compliance 
with the Supreme Court’s decision.

D. Both newspapers have supported your statement that 
you will comply with the Supreme Court? A. They did 
not. You didn’t ask me that question.

D. I ’m sorry. I guess you misunderstood me. I asked 
you whether— A. No, they did not support the original 
statement. Both newspapers did not.

D. Did one? A. I think one did, yes.
D. And the other opposed? A. Yes.
D. Now in addition to the newspaper which opposed your 

position, do you have a list of organizations or individuals

William D. Leber—Direct



39b

who opposed your position? A. I haven’t got a written 
list, but I have it in my mind, as far as I ’m concerned.

D. Do you have communications from organizations op­
posing your position in your files? A. I have had many 
communications, many communications.

D. Are they a part of the official records of the Board? 
A. No.

—69—
D. Now since this suit has been filed has the Board 

made any plan for compliance with the Supreme Court’s 
decision? A. Again, I wish to state that we feel we are 
complying with the Supreme Court decision.

D. You feel that you are complying with it by talking 
to people in the community? A. Yes. Elucidation.

D. And is that, that’s the extent of your understand­
ing of the Supreme Court’s decision? A. No.

D. That all the school boards have to do is talk to 
people in the community? A. No.

D. And when the people in the community get ready to 
desegregate the schools the Board should then desegregate 
the schools? A. No. However, the Supreme Court set 
down three rules.

D. What three rules— A. And made other—
D. —are you referring to? A. Elucidation, assessing, 

and solving.
D. Well, you’ve been elucidating. Have you been as­

sessing the problem? A. We’ve attempted to, yes. I
- 7 0 -

think we have. I think we’ve assessed it.
D. And what is your conclusion? A. That the com­

munity is not ready for integration.
D. And this is based on what? A. On the school 

board’s assessing of the situation in Chattanooga.

William D. Leber—Direct



40b

D. Now how did you assess the situation? A. I told 
you that once before. Talking with groups and moving 
in the community.

D. Oh, I see. Now have you done any solving of the 
problem? You said the third was solving, I think. A. 
No, we haven’t solved it. The problem’s still unsolved. 
I mean the way it—as far as full compliance is con­
cerned.

D. Is there any integration at all in the Chattanooga 
community in any public facility? A. I—I ’m not sure.

D. What about the buses? A. I—I was just fixing to 
say, unless you were talking about the buses. I think 
they have taken the signs down off the buses.

D. Now has there been any violence in connection with 
that? A. Well, yes, there has. Not too much, but not—

D. Where? A. Not too much.
—71—

D. Where? A. There’s been—
D. Where has there been violence? A. There’s been 

times when flare-ups have resulted.
D. Where? Where?

Mr. Meacham: Cutting.
The Witness: Huh?
Mr. Meacham: Cutting on the bus.
The Witness: Cutting and things like that. I 

couldn’t specify the time or the place, but it has 
happened.

By Mrs. Motley.

D. How many times has it happened? A. Well, I— 
I don’t know. It’s probably happened more than I know

William D. Leber—Direct



41b

about. Some of those things don’t get in the paper. It’s 
been in the paper several times.

D. Well, if it were a major disturbance it would cer­
tainly be in the paper, wouldn’t it? A. I believe it would, 
yes.

D. So that there haven’t been any major disturbances 
in connection with desegregation of the buses, isn’t that 
true? A. Major, no.

D. How long has that been in effect, desegregation of 
the buses? A. I think that’s been about possibly four 
years, I think, maybe. I ’m not sure.

—72—
D. About four years? A. I think so. Or maybe—

Mr. Meacham: Eieven (11) years.
The Witness: Maybe—
Mr. Meacham: Eleven years.
The Witness: Huh?
Mr. Meacham: Eleven years.
Mrs. Motley: Eleven years?
The Witness: You mean desegregation?
Mr. Meacham: They didn’t pass that ordinance 

till the 1949 code.
Mrs. Motley: Desegregating the buses?
Mr. Meacham: The City—
The Witness: But they didn’t take those signs 

down now.
Mr. Meacham: The City of Chattanooga has, for 

your information, has utterly no segregation ordi­
nance on its books, and has not had since 1949.

Mrs. Motley: All segregation ordinances?
Mr. Meacham: They were—
Mrs. Motley: Have been repealed?

William D. Leber—Direct



42b

Mr. Meacham: They were omitted and repealed 
with publication of the 1949 code.

Mrs. Motley: I see.
Mr. Meacham: It took several years for people

—73—
to discover that, though.

By Mrs. Motley:

D. The school board, has the school board ever dis­
covered that, Mr. Leber!

Mr. Meacham: We’ve still got the State laws.

D. That the City has no segregation ordinances? A. 
They still—

D. And repealed all of them eleven years ago? A. I 
wasn’t aware that they were that old, but I knew that 
they had, that the City of Chattanooga had no ordinances 
at the present time.

D. Has the Board taken that into consideration in its 
assessment of whether the community is ready for— A. 
I think it has.

* * # # *
—74—

By Mrs. Motley:

D. You heard Doctor Letson’s testimony, did you not? 
A. Yes.

D. Did you hear him testify that he thought the Board 
had met seven or eight times with these community- 
interest groups? A. Yes.

D. Does that conform with your recollection of the 
number of times the Board has met in the last— A. 
Since he’s been here. We met.

William D. Leber—Direct



43b

D. Oh. A. We met.
D. Since he’s been here now? A. We met before he 

came.
D. How many times all told wonld you say the Board 

has met since 1955 with these groups? A. I—I tell you, 
that would be a hard thing to say definitely. We would 

, like—I think we have a record of that. I would judge 
at least twelve (12) or fourteen (14) times, or maybe

—7 5 -
more than that, even.

D. Do these meetings appear in the minutes, or any 
record of these— A. No, the Board doesn’t meet offi­
cially, only small groups. You see, each of us live in 
different sections of the city, and we’ll take a few of us 
live in one section will take a group and meet in the homes 
and talk about the situation. Some of us have conflict­
ing—

D. Do you report to the Board then, as a whole, on 
your meetings? A. No, we don’t make any formal report.

D. Now let me ask you this: Has the Board, as a 
board, sitting in a board meeting, ever had any meetings 
with these community-interest groups other than this ad­
visory counsel? A. Yes.

D. When was that? A. Well, I think, I think that the 
Board was in session. Now it may not have been. We 
had, we met with a group from Saint Elmo, a Negro 
group, P. T. A. group. Let’s see. I don’t know. It 
may’ve been one, one or so other times. The Board was 
in session, of course, at the time that Mr. Carter and 
Mr. Mapp made their request, and we were in session 
when we answered it, and that’s about the extent, I think.

D. So that the only time the Board has met in session 
has been with Negro groups, is that right? A. I ’m not

William D. Leber—Direct



44b

William D. Leber—Cross

—76—
sure. I—I am not sure that that, that that is right. My 
memory doesn’t, I can’t answer that definitely.

I). But you can’t recollect any meeting with any white 
groups when the Board was in session, can you? A. Well, 
of course we have white groups at all of our meetings, 
and I ’m not sure that that question has or has not come 
up at our official meetings.

*  # # # #

Cross Examination by Mr. W itt:

X. Mr. Leber, are you a member of a labor union? 
A. Yes sir.

X. Which union ? A. International Typographical Union. 
X. Do you participate in union affairs? A. Yes sir.
X. Would you describe the reaction, as you perceived 

it, of the organized labor in this community to the school 
board’s decision of July twenty-second, 1955, to comply 
with the Supreme Court’s decision? A. Yes. At that 
time the C. A., A. F. of L., C. I. 0. was not a joint group. 
I was a member of the A. F. of L. and the Central Labor 
Union was a body of people where all the A. F. of L. 
unions had delegates that transacted business for the 
unions of the area, and in Chattanooga particularly, things 
that were of interest.

—76a—

(The following was dictated over the telephone to 
the reporter by Mr. Raymond Witt on June 9, I960:)

“During the noon recess the attorneys all repaired 
to Judge Darr’s chambers wherein he ruled that 
the Defendants had the right to examine witnesses 
following the direct examination of the Defendants



45b

by the Plaintiffs’ attorneys, and reserved until a later 
date the right to assess the cost of such examinations 
to the proper party.

“Attorneys for the Plaintiffs noted their exceptions 
to Judge Darr’s ruling.”

William D. Leber—Cross

—77—
They had a meeting, they held meetings two times a 

month, and the first meeting they held after the original 
decision of the statement that the school board made, a 
resolution was introduced to the C. L. U., Central Labor 
Union, praising the school board for its decision to com­
ply with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States.

The Labor World at that time was printed once a 
week, and in the following issue of the Labor World an 
editorial was written praising the decision of the school 
board.

There were very few delegates attending that meeting 
where this resolution was adopted on the strength of, on 
account of the fact that it was summertime and we do 
not have such a very good attendance in the summertime. 
I believe afterwards a count was made of twenty-two 
people being present.

The following meeting, the hall was full. The temper 
of the delegates were of such nature that they would not 
allow any other business to be transacted at C. L. U. ex­
cept to take up this resolution that had been passed by 
the preceding body.

—78—
The meeting at that time rescinded the action of the 

previous meeting, and instead of praising the school board 
they denounced it and, and said they’d have no part in such



46b

an affair and they thought that we were completely out of 
order in doing what we did. They, at the meeting that’s 
what took place. Just about what took place.

X. Was this a surprise to you? A. It was absolutely. 
It was a surprise to a number of us who, I knew in my 
thirty (30) some-odd-years of membership in the union, 
I felt that if one group of people would support such a 
decision it would be the labor group, because the parent 
organization, A. F. of L., for the past twenty-five years in 
national conventions had passed resolutions saying that 
integration of the public schools should be a fact, and I 
thought that, with the integrated meetings of the C. L. U. 
delegates, with labor working side by side with Negro and 
white, that a decision to integrate the school system would 
be accepted but while I am more, my—my connections are 
more with the labor group and church groups, probably, 
than any other groups, I have been denounced in labor 
most violently.

In fact, I couldn’t even, up to two years after that decision 
I couldn’t’ve even been elected chairman of my chapel. In 
fact, people passing by me at work threw vindictive darts 
at me, by word of mouth, in the fact that I had a part in 
this decision. I was very much surprised.

—79—
X. Did you attend a meeting with a group from the 

school board and the executive committee of the Central 
Labor Union at a later date? A. I did.

X. Did the executive committee of the Central Labor 
Union indicate any support for the school board? A. None 
whatsoever, in that they would openly support the school 
board in its decision. I think that no support openly would 
come from it. All of them said that they hoped it wouldn’t 
happen and offered no visible means of support.

William D. Leber—Cross



47b

X. Is your union integrated locally? A. We do not 
have any Negroes in our local union.

X. Are there any integrated local labor unions? A. I ’m 
not sure that I could answer that exactly. I just really don’t 
know. I know that they have a few Negro delegates to the 
C. L. C. which is now the combined group of A. F. of L., 
C. I. 0. at the central labor counsel meetings once a month. 
Now whether they’re integrated unions, I don’t know.

X. In the private meetings that you have testified that 
the school board has held, would you describe how those 
meetings were conducted? A. Yes. The manner in which 
we followed was that the Board would tell the group pres­
ent what, what they—what the plan was, what the problem 
was. Would go into the various meetings that the Board

—80—
had had in discussing the statements that we’d made, why 
we made them, and I—I think generally that’s about the 
way that it was, was handled, and—

X. Have you met with a group of Methodists, white 
Methodist ministers? A. Yes.

X. Bid this group indicate approval of the school board’s 
position? A. I ’m not too sure whether they approved the 
school board’s position or not. They did not say that they 
would in any way help the school board or in any way 
publicly support integration or at any time would they 
mention it in their churches, as they were willing to listen. 
They were, they patted us on the back for a job well done 
up to now, hoped we could continue to do a good job, and 
as far as that was concerned just count them out.

X. Bid they offer the Board any support? A. None that 
I can recall at all. None whatsoever.

X. Bid you meet with a group of Presbyterian ministers ? 
A. I did.

William D. Leber—Cross



48b

X. Did you meet with a group of Cumberland Presby­
terian ministers, white? A. I—I believe I was at that 
meeting, yes.

X. Did you meet with a group of Baptist ministers ? A. 
I believe it was the First Cumberland, First Presbyterian

- S i -

ministers’ group I did not meet with, and I met with the 
Baptists.

X. Did you meet with a group of Episcopal ministers? 
A. Yes.

X. Did you meet with a group in Mr. Harry Miller’s 
home? A. Yes.

X. Do you consider, do you have any evidence that you 
can testify to of any progress that has been made toward 
community acceptance of this decision in recent years ? A. 
No. In fact, it’s, it’s a little, if you want to use the words, 
discouraging that the leadership of the community is com­
pletely devoid of its responsibility in this case, or this 
problem. No visible support was given. Even some went 
so far, some preachers even went so far as to say “Before 
I ’ll bring this up in my church I ’ll have a call in my 
pocket to another church before I ’ll even mention it.”

X. Are you speaking of white ministers? A. White 
ministers.

X. Why do you consider the leadership of the community 
to be particularly important? A. I think the leadership, 
the leadership of the community is important in that they 
are the ones that usually have the pulse of the people in 
which they move amongst at the tip of their fingers. The 
preachers. We’ve always felt that they stood for law and

—8 2 -
order, and I think they do; that they always stood for 
what’s right and what’s wrong; and I believe they do; but

William D. Leber-—Cross



49b

yet at the same time in this question of integration or 
desegregation they just don’t seem to want to, to have any­
thing to do with it.

In fact, a number of them have told me so, that they 
just were not going to mention it in their church, and that 
was that, and they just intimated that I just as well quit 
talking about it, as far as they were concerned.

X. Has one of the purposes of these meetings been to 
encourage, accept, the acceptability, the acceptance of the 
fact that compliance is inevitable? A. Yes, it has, and I 
think that, that the elucidation process that we’ve been 
through has brought the extreme, if you want to use the 
extremes at both ends to a closer understanding of the prob­
lem.

Maybe in one meeting we might have somebody that 
would say “Well, why don’t you just go ahead and inte­
grate?” And then maybe we’d have ten or twelve that would 
just hold their hands up in holy horror, and with those two 
extremes I think that we have gotten those that refuse to 
see, before refused to see the problem to understand it a 
little bit better.

Yet at the same time they seem to want to hold back. 
They don’t want to get out in front themselves. They don’t 
want to be known to be identified with it. They want us to

- 8 3 -
get up on the—and do it and just leave them out of it, and 
if, if that’s the only way that it can be done.

X. Ho you believe there has been an increase in the 
number of people who believe the decision, compliance is 
inevitable? A. Yes.

X. In recent years? A. I think they have. I think that 
there’s, that there’s a greater understanding exists at the 
present time in the City of Chattanooga. I think that, as

William D. Leber—Cross



50b

an example, there has been some integrated meetings. I 
was asked previously were there any public meetings and 
I, maybe I misunderstood the question. I don’t know 
whether you’d consider some meetings public meetings or 
not, but take for example at our education counsel we had 
some integrated meetings.

I think the, some groups have met at the Episcopal 
Church. I think maybe some of the other churches have 
have had integrated meetings. I don’t think these were 
meetings for show, just for show. I think they were sincere 
meetings of the two groups coming together trying to solve 
their mutual problems in an area in which they’re both 
interested, and I don’t believe that could’ve happened five 
years ago, and I think that the school board could be 
responsible for the understanding and the coming together 
in a great measure. It may not’ve been entirely, but I think 
in a great measure that could’ve been.

—84—
X. How have you found out that more people consider 

compliance inevitable? A. Well, I think the way I found 
out is by this elucidation process that we’re in, of meet­
ing with the people.

X. No, I mean how, of your own personal knowledge, 
from what has happened to you? A. Well, you mean as 
fas as I move in the labor union, or just personnel on 
the street, or—

X. You’ve made the statement in answer to the ques­
tion that more people consider compliance to be inevit­
able. I would like for you to detail the facts upon which 
you arrived at that conclusion. A. Well, to enumerate 
them I—I guess I ’d say that I ’ll go to my labor union.

William D. Leber—Cross



51b

I think that there’s a greater feeling among the member­
ship of my union, of which there are a hundred and sixty- 
five (165) in Chattanooga, is that if I go to a meeting 
I take great part in their plans, that it is inevitable.

X. Do they tell you this? A. Yes. Not all of them, 
but a good many of them do. I think that five years ago 
they, of course they wouldn’t even speak to me hardly, 
but now I can be elected, and I am at the present time 
chairman of my chapel, which shows that the condition 
is improved.

They seem to think that the school board has done a
- 8 5 -

good job in, in bringing understanding among the races. 
In my church, I belong to Centenary Methodist Church, 
which is quite a large church and I ’ve been a member 
there a long time and I know a number of people there, 
and in talking to them which there’s a great bull session 
every Sunday morning on the front of the church, a 
number have said they don’t like it but it seems to be 
inevitable, and a number without saying at first have said 
that it’s inevitable.

People that I have never met before and I ’m intro­
duced as a member of the school board have said that 
they feel like it’s inevitable, and I believe that that’s the 
manner in which I ’ve— (breaking off).

X. Is it in your opinion, in your understanding of the 
school board’s position, is the school board waiting for 
complete agreement of the total community to comply? 
A. Absolutely not. We know that there could never be 
complete agreement. I think that I, for one, on the school 
board member, am waiting until we feel that least harm 
can be done to the school system and to individuals and 
the school pupils and teachers and one thing and another

William D. Leber—Cross



52b

before we move to full compliance. We can never hope 
to have a hundred percent compliance.

X. Have you made any personal efforts on a man-to­
man basis to convince your acquaintances of the necessity

— 86—

of compliance? A. Yes, I have. I’ve—-I’ve talked and 
talked and talked to a number of people and I—just any 
number. I couldn’t begin to estimate how many people 
I have talked to.

X. Would you say twenty-five (25) ? A. I ’d say more 
than twenty-five. Maybe I ’ve talked to the same person 
twice, but I ’d say it was nearer a hundred (100).

X. In your opinion has this gradual change toward 
improvement in the community’s attitude progressed to 
the point where you think the Board could order imme­
diate desegregation? A. No, I do not.

X. What percentage of the white leadership would you 
think the Board would have to have supporting it before 
the Board could move? A. That might be difficult to 
answer in that, in the churches if we just had one or two 
white churches of leading white churches with a member­
ship, of a rather larger membership to come out and say 
that this is the thing we must do; if a few civic clubs 
would go on record as saying that this is the thing that 
must, we must do; if—if we could.

I—I don’t know whether you’d call it leadership or not, 
in politics of the community. When a man can run for 
county judge and on the basis of sit-in receive fifteen 
thousand (15,000) votes after he’d been disbarred, dis­
qualified, held up and we might say even ridiculed to the 
community for some of the things he’s done, you might 
consider that the people that vote are the leaders of the

William D. Leber—Cross



53b

William D. Leber—Redirect

- 8 7 -
community, and I ’d say that at least we should have a 
majority of the voters of the community in favor of in­
tegration.

X. You say “ in favor of it.” Do you mean to say ap­
proving desegregation? A. Approving, yes. Approving 
some method of desegregating the school system.

X. Would you draw any distinction between being, ac­
cepting the decision or approving it or being resigned 
to it? A. Yes, I ’d draw a distinction between that. I 
think that acceptance would not necessarily mean in favor 
of it. I think that it would mean resigned to it and they 
would not do violence to the physical set-up of the school 
system where children could go home in safety, or be in 
school in safety, without the police or some sort of pro­
tection being provided for them, and I—I believe that 
would be resignation rather than complete acceptance on 
the— (breaking off).

X. How many people have told you that they are in 
favor and urge integration in the white community? A. 
I—I ’d say less than twenty (20).

Mr. Witt: That’s all.

Redirect Examination by Mrs. Motley:

ED. Now Mr. Leber, in addition to this community 
hostility that you refer to during the course of your testi-

— 88—

mony, has the Board relied on anything else in post­
poning desegregation here? A. I ’m not sure that I get 
what you mean.

Mrs. Motley (to the reporter): Would you read 
the question back, please?



William D. Leber—Redirect

(The reporter read the question.)
I

The Witness: I’m—I’m not too sure that, of 
course, the hostility of the community and the harm 
that it could do to the school system as a result 
of this hostility, causing the deterioration in the 
type of education that the children, both white and 
Negro, would receive, if that’s what you mean, yes. 
The hostility has, is the basis on which I say that 
has caused me to postpone desegregation.

By Mrs. Motley:

RD. Now I ’d like to understand your testimony. Is it 
your testimony that the climate of opinion has improved 
here in the last five years, or that the climate of opinion 
has deteriorated! Which is it! A. I would say that the 
climate, up until a few months ago, we thought or I thought 
had improved immeasurably. Of course there’s a difference 
in possibly judging whether or not the climate has im­
proved by what might happen in private situations like the 
sit-in or in the school situation, but I believe that more 
people feel the inevitability of integregation in Chattanooga 
today than they did five years ago.

RD. Now since this suit was filed would you say that
—89—

there has been an improvement in the attitude of the people, 
or a deterioration of that attitude! A. I believe that this 
suit caused some deterioration in the attitudes. I think 
that, whether I could judge that the attitude of the people 
was a lasting one or not, for the moment some of them got 
real mad, some of them that I thought were ready, we’ll 
say, for integration, and I think it had a stiffening attitude



55b

toward some people rather than letting it go on. They 
thought we were doing—

ED. Has this been discussed at the Board meeting, this 
stiffening attitude1? A. I don’t know that it has been dis­
cussed officially at our Board meetings. We discussed it, 
I think, individually.

ED. Now let me ask you this: Have you read any of the 
opinions of the Supreme Court on segregation— A. Yes.

ED. —in schools? A. I have.
ED. Which ones have you read? A. Well, we have 

several. I believe I read the Little Eock opinion, and now 
understand I ’m not a lawyer, and I ’m not sure that I 
understood the opinion; and I read the Nashville one, I be­
lieve. Didn’t you supply that?

Mr. W itt: That’s the Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Witness: Circuit Court of Appeals, and I be-

—90—
lieve we had some briefs on a case out in Texas, may­
be Dallas, I belieye.

By Mrs. Motley:

ED. Did you ever read the opinion of the Supreme Court 
in the Brown case in May 1955? A. No, I never read that.

ED. Did you ever read— A. Oh, well now, no.
ED. —the major decision itself? A. Let me take that 

back. I ’m not sure whether I read that case.

Mr. Meacham: That’s the original case.
The Witness: Huh?
Mr. Meacham: That’s the original case.
The Witness: Yes, that’s the original case. Yes.

William D. Leber—Redirect



56b

William D. Leber—Redirect 

By Mrs. Motley.

ED. There were two decisions in connection with the 
original case. There was a decision in ’54 in which they 
announced the principle of segregation in schools as uncon­
stitutional. Then there was a second opinion in 1955 in 
which they— A. I think that must’ve been the one I read, 
that second opinion.

ED. Discussed the type of decree to be issued in these 
cases. Do you remember reading that? A. I think I—I 
think that ’55 was the one that I read.

—91—
ED. But you also remember the Little Eock case? A. 

Yes.
ED. And do you remember the Little Eock case, they said 

that the desegregation plan could not be suspended be­
cause of the community hostility? A. Yes, but if it’s my 
understanding of that case, of course, I, not going into it, 
the school board had ended, I mean they were in a manner 
of suspension themselves. They weren’t doing anything. 
We’re working at this case. We’ve got this plan and we’re 
working at it. We’re not dragging our feet. We don’t want 
to drag our feet.

ED. But you understand that the Supreme Court has 
said that community hostility cannot suspend or delay 
implementation of the constitutional principle. You under­
stand that this question has already been decided by the 
Supreme Court, don’t you? A. No, I didn’t understand it 
that way.

ED. You don’t understand that the Supreme Court’s al­
ready ruled on— A. In other words, I was connected 
jointly. I mean the, the working of the school board with 
the hostility of the community. The—



57b

ED. You don’t understand the Supreme Court’s already 
ruled that you can’t rely on community hostility as a basis 
for not moving. You don’t understand that?

—92—
Mr. Meacham: Well, in one case.
The Witness: I—I don’t understand that gener­

ally, no.

By Mrs. Motley:

ED. You don’t? A. (Witness shook his head from side 
to side.)

Dr. John Walter Letson— Recalled—Cross

Mrs. Motley: Well, we don’t have any further 
questions.

Mr. Witt: I don’t have any further questions.

(Further this deponent saith not.)
 ̂  ̂  ̂ ^

—93—
Db. J o h n  W alter L etson , recalled, was examined and 

deposed further as follows:

Cross Examination by Mr. W itt:
# # # * •

—105—AE,w w w w
X. Has the Board made any effort, so far as you know, 

to provide the leadership to secure the understanding of the 
community to the inevitability of compliance with the Su­
preme Court’s decision? A. Mr. Witt, I ’d like to say that 
in my judgment and my—I know in terms of my experience,



58b

I have never worked with a group that I felt was any 
more sincere in its delineation of this problem and in its 
attack on this problem than has been this Board of Educa­
tion. I would say that that has been true from the day that 
it was my privilege to become acquainted with this group 
up until the present, and I would also like to say that there 
has never, in any experience that I have had with this 
Board of Education, been any indication of subterfuge or 
duplicity in the approach it has made to this question.

Mrs. Motley: Excuse me. (To the reporter:)
—106—

Would you read the previous question?

(The reporter read the previous question.)

Mrs. Motley: Thank you.
The Witness: And in that, in that answer, Mr. 

Witt, in speaking of the apparent sincerity of this 
group, I would say that it has certainly attempted 
to provide the leadership in bringing, helping to 
bring this community forward in understanding of 
the complexity and the eventual acceptance of this 
solution.

By Mr. W itt:

X. In your analysis of the situation and from your ex­
perience what importance, importance do you attach to 
the position of the white leadership of the community in 
the solution of this problem and eventual compliance? A. 
Chattanooga has a rather unique problem as compared with 
most other communities of its size and nature, and that is 
the relationship with public and private schools that is

Dr. John Walter Letson— Recalled—Cross



59b

somewhat different from the one you’ll find in the average 
community.

This relationship creates a very definite problem in terms 
of the financing of public education in Chattanooga. A con­
siderable portion of the leadership of this community by 
individual decision is not a part of the public school sys­
tem in that their children attend private schools.

This has had an impact upon the financing of education 
in Chattanooga, and I think any degree, anything that would

— 107—
accelerate that process or further that process would make 
the problem of financing public education in this City even 
more difficult.

X. How would you define community leadership in the 
sense that you are using the word? A. Those people who, 
through their influence, have an impact upon the thinking 
and actions of other people.

X. For example? A. Thinking of the owner of a large 
business, or the manager of a large business, to some de­
gree, has an influence upon the thinking of his employees. 
The ownership of the mass media, of course, influences to 
some degree the thinking of the people. In terms of 
finances, the people who are best able to provide the re­
sources are those who would be in leadership positions.

X. Would you include any religious group in this leader­
ship structure? A. Yes, because I certainly think that the 
leaders, that the pastors are very influential individuals 
in terms of the thinking of our community and in terms 
of influence in the thinking of our community.

X. Of your own knowledge, do you know of any white 
pastor who has publicly supported the school board from 
his pulpit? A. To my knowledge there has been none in 
Chattanooga.

Dr. John Walter Letson—Recalled—Cross



60b

X. Of this leadership group that you defined, where did 
the large percentage of their children attend school? A. 
The private schools.

X. Of your acquaintance, based upon your acquaintance 
with the community sector or segment of the community 
leadership, do they support the school hoard’s decision to 
comply, publicly or privately? A. I would say that it 
is my very definite opinion that they do not, and I would 
comment as Mr. Leber did that there is a distinction be­
tween acquiescence and opposition hut in, in a great ma­
jority of the cases I would say that there has been and there 
still is vigorous opposition.

There may have been some growth in the acceptance 
of the inevitability of this change, hut there has been very 
little growth in the, in the acceptance of it in the sense 
that it implies approval.

# # * * #

Redirect Examination by Mrs. Motley:

RD. Doctor Letson, in the three years that you’ve been 
here, do you know of anything other than community hos­
tility on which the Board has relied to postpone desegrega-

—109—
tion? A. I know that the Board has been very conscious 
of what would be the result of, of a move in this direction 
in terms of its effect upon individual students.

ED. And this is the only reason why the Board has not 
desegregated the schools, because there was this community 
opposition? A. Community opposition and this related 
question of, of its effect upon the over-all school system, 
because the Board has been very conscious of this, of this 
financial problem and what would be, in its opinion, in-

Dr. John Walter Letson—Recalled—Redirect

— 108—



61b

evitable damage to the educational opportunities that could 
be provided for all boys and girls if there was an action 
in this direction before the community had reached a point 
of general acceptance.

# # # # #
—113—

Ry Mrs. Motley:

ED. Now Doctor Letson, how much more time, in your 
opinion, is going to be needed before the Board can de­
segregate the schools here in Chattanooga? A. I can’t an­
swer that question. I would certainly say that it will re­
quire less time than it, than appeared to be the case when

—114—
I came to Chattanooga.

ED. And as far as you have been able to determine, there 
are no obstacles to desegregation here in Chattanooga other 
than this community hostility about which you spoke at 
great length? A. I would certainly say that there are 
some additional obstacles that apply to the individual 
children involved, and I say, I say this as it applies to 
children of either race: There is no more, no greater
tragedy that could happen in the life of any child than 
to be rejected by his peers and if, if this is accomplished 
or is done before there is a general readiness on the part 
of children, school system, the damage that will be done 
to the individual pupils involved from, from an educational 
and emotional standpoint will be very great.

In the consideration of this Board of Education that, 
that point has been discussed, it has been considered, and 
again not limited in terms of race but discussed in terms of

Dr. John Walter Letson—Recalled—Redirect



62b

our over-all administrative policies for the administration 
of the school system.

It has its implications in many aspects of, of the ad­
ministration, and it is certainly every educator’s hope that 
conditions will be such in all of our schools that will be 
conducive to the maximum growth and development of every 
child.

ED. Well, this supposed rejection of, I suppose you
—115—

assume Negroes would be rejected by whites, that’s—

Mr. Witt: Not necessarily.
The Witness: Not necessarily am I saying that, or 

assuming that.

By Mrs. Motley.

ED. Or vice versa, you say? A. No, I ’m not saying it 
either way. I ’m saying that it is certainly an educational 
problem to be considered in the decision as to whether we 
proceed in this direction. It may work the other way round.

ED. I don’t— A. The Negroes may reject the whites. 
I mean it works either way, but if it is—

ED. Well. A. If it is a fact—
ED. All this rejection you’re talking about stems from 

the segregated pattern, doesn’t it? It’s all based on that, 
this rejection of people because of color? Isn’t that based 
on segregation, the fact that they have been set aside? A. 
To some degree I think you’re right, but I wouldn’t say 
that it’s the only answer. We have the same problem in 
our white schools with some children now, and in the Negro 
schools with some children now.

ED. Oh, you already have this problem of rejection on 
the part of children for other reasons? A. It’s, it’s always

Dr. John Walter Letson—Recalled—Redirect



63b

a part of education, yes. It’s a basic part of education and
—116—

a basic problem that—
ED. So that this wouldn’t be any new problem to you, 

then, would it? A. Wouldn’t be new. It would merely be 
a complication.

Mr. Meacham: Acute.

By Mrs. Motley:

ED. Doctor Letson, I believe you stated during the course 
of your testimony that all of the meetings of the Board are 
required to be public meetings? A. All meetings of the 
Board where there is an action taken.

ED. Now this meeting on March seventh, 1960, was that 
a public meeting at which the Board took action on the ap­
plication of these Plaintiffs for assignment of their children 
to school? A. At the time that it was made a matter; of 
the record and at the time that the Board officially acted 
upon it, it was a public meeting.

ED. Now was March seventh a regular meeting day of 
the Board when this resolution or statement was adopted? 
A. I don’t think so.

ED. So that the public was not generally aware, was it, 
that the Board was having a meeting at which action was 
going to be taken, when this statement was drawn up ? A. 
It was officially made a part of the record at the regular 
Board meeting following that, that day.

—117—
ED. So that when this statement was drawn up it was 

not a public meeting, was it? A. No, not at the—not at 
the time that the Board worked on it. At the time that 
the Board officially adopted it, it was a public meeting.

Dr. John Walter Letson—Recalled—Redirect



64b

RD. Now isn’t it a fact that this statement was released 
to the press prior to that official meeting? A. Yes, it was.

—120—

Dean Petersen—Direct

M b . D ean  P etersen , b e in g  first du ly  sw orn , w as exam ined 
and deposed  as fo l lo w s :

Direct Examination by Mr. Williams:
D. This is Mr. Dean Petersen? A. Right.
D. Mr. Petersen, I believe yon are Chairman of the 

Board of Education of Chattanooga, are you not? A. 
That’s right.

D. Mr. Petersen, are you also the Commissioner of Edu­
cation of the City of Chattanooga? A. I am.

D. Will you explain, if you please, the system of govern­
ment in the City of Chattanooga? A. The City govern­
ment of Chattanooga consists of a mayor and four com­
missioners: Commissioner of Public Works, Streets, and 
Sewers, one. Commissioner of Fire and Police. Commis­
sioner of Parks and Playgrounds. And fourth, the Com­
missioner of Education and Health. That’s my position. 
And the Mayor is the Chairman and the Fiscal or Finance 
Commissioner.

D. Yes. And this, this Commission sits as a board or 
counsel? A. That’s right.

D. From time to time, does it not? A. That’s right.
—121—

D. And has the general supervision of all governmental 
affairs for the City of Chattanooga? A. That is right.

D. Yes sir. Now as Chairman of the Board of Educa­
tion, how long have you been the Chairman of the Board



65b

of Education? A. Since April the twentieth, 1959, thirteen 
months and eleven days.

D. Were you— A. Twelve days.
D. Were you on the Board prior to that time? A. No, 

I was not.
D. Did you hold any public office prior to that time? A. 

No.
D. Yes sir. A. This is my first public office, yes sir.
D. Yes sir. Since you have been Chairman of the Board 

what plan or plans has the Board formulated to deal with 
the question of desegregation of the schools? A. Well, as 
has been stated by the Superintendent and by Mr. Leber, 
we are in the process of elucidating.

D. Yes sir. And by this, and by this you mean this proc­
ess of meeting privately with what you deem to be respon­
sible community leaders in an attempt to get them to agree

— 122—

with the decision? A. To agree.
D. Is that correct, sir ? A. Yes.
D. Yes sir. A. In substance.
D. Yes sir. And except for that, the Board has not con­

sidered or formulated any plan for compliance with the 
decision of the Supreme Court relating to segregation in 
public schools, has it? A. The Board has been in this proc­
ess of elucidation since I have been on the Board. Of 
course, I—all I know before April the twentieth, 1959, is 
hearsay, what they have told me, and of course I have read 
the statements—•

D. You have— A. —that they have made.
D. Yes sir. You have read the resolutions, the previous 

resolutions that were made by the Board, I presume, sir? 
A. Yes.

Dean Petersen—Direct



66b

D. Yes sir. And you have attended the Board meetings? 
A. I have attended—

D. And— A. —all of the official Board meetings.
D. Yes sir. A. Since I have been a member.
D. Yes sir. And you have heard, in the deliberations,

— 123—

the discussions, as to what progress the Board had made 
thus far and what it had done? A. Yes.

D. And you have never heard in any Board meeting any 
indication that the Board had done anything further than 
what you have just testified that it had done and was doing? 
A. Yes.

D. Is that correct, sir? A. That’s right.
D. Yes sir. Mr. Petersen, I previously mentioned the 

Commission, the City Commission, and I believe that you’ve 
testified that that Commission does handle the govern­
mental affairs of the City? A. That’s right.

D. And as Commissioner of Education and Health you 
bring your problems to the Commission, the Commissioner, 
the other Commissioners bring their problems there and 
you all discuss them together and try to work out on a co­
operative basis the best program for the government of the 
City, is that correct, sir? A. That is correct.

D. And when you are called upon by some other Commis­
sioner to perform some function which is related to some­
thing that he’s doing, you do your best to afford full co­
operation to the end that the governmental affairs of the

- 124-

City may be properly integrated and carried out, is that 
correct, sir? A. If I believe in—

D. Yes sir. A. —in what he is proposing, yes. I have 
a vote which is the same as any other vote.

D. Yes sir. Well, in your capacity as Chairman of the

Dean Petersen—Direct



67b

Board of Education and as Commissioner of Education, 
if you bad a problem relating to law enforcement in con­
nection with the schools or with the health department of 
the City, you would and could call upon the Police Com­
missioner to take care of that for you and to cooperate 
with you in carrying it out, would you not, sir? A. We, we 
expect—

D. Yes sir. A. —the Police Commissioner to uphold 
law and order.

D. Yes sir. A. In our City.
D. And you would be entitled to that cooperation on the 

part of the Police Commissioner, would you not, sir? A. 
That is right.

D. Mr. Petersen, you heard the testimony here of Mr. 
Leber to the effect that the Board was attempting, well, 
and you have testified yourself that the Board was attempt­
ing to wait until they could obtain a climate of acceptance 
of the decision before they took any steps toward it, toward

- 1 2 5 -
desegregation? A. (Witness inclined his head.)

D. Now I will ask you, sir, how much more time is it 
your opinion that the Board needs before it takes any af­
firmative steps to comply with the Supreme Court decision? 
A. I can’t say exactly how many years or months, weeks, 
or days. I don’t know.

D. Well. A. But I do know of the hostile atmosphere, 
because I have lived in this community for forty-seven (47) 
years and I think I know the people pretty well.

D. Well, you are not a part of that hostile attitude your­
self, I ’m sure. As a member of the Board you take the 
position in accordance with this first statement that the 
Board intends to comply with the law. A. I haven’t—

Dean Petersen—Direct



68b

D. Do you not, sir? A. I haven’t been accused of being 
a part of the asmosphere. My record is open.

D. Yes sir. A. And has been.
D. Mr. Petersen, do you know of anything that the Board 

has relied on since you have been a member of the Board, 
other than this hostile attitude on the part of the com­
munity? A. That is the main thing.

— 126—

D. Yes sir. A. But it has many facets.
D. Yes sir. You’ve considered all, all the facets that 

you can think of, of the community hostility, but it all comes 
back to the fact that you just aren’t, you just feel like the 
people don’t want it, is that it, sir? A. Yes. We—we—-I 
feel like that.

Mr. Williams: Yes sir. Thank you. Thank you, 
sir.

Cross Examination by Mr. Meacham:

X. Commissioner, let me clarify a matter or two here. 
At the outset you related the names of the various Commis­
sion posts, but I believe the names you gave were the ones 
under the older law and most of those names have now been 
changed. As a matter of correcting that, why, the Com­
missioner of Public Works, Streets, and Airports is the 
correct name of that department? A. (Witness inclined 
his head.)

X. The Department of Public Utilities, Grounds, and 
Buildings is the correct name for another department? 
A. That I called Parks and Playgrounds.

X. That was the old name. And the Health and Educa­
tion is correct? A. (Witness inclined his head.)

X. As is Fire and Police? A. Fire and Police. I was

Dean Petersen—Cross



69b

Dean Petersen—Cross

—127—
aware of the fact that I wasn’t stating them right, and I 
thank you for correcting me there.

X. Now under the charter of the City of Chattanooga its 
government is managed by this Board of Commissioners, 
and under the law is it not true that this Board of Commis­
sioners can act only throug'h the minutes of its meetings, 
the action taken reflected in those minutes, and as indi­
viduals the Commissioners have no power! A. That’s 
right.

Mr. Williams: Well, I, well, that’s all right.
Mr. Meacham: It’s just a matter of record. That 

is the charter law.
Mr. Williams: That’s all right.

By Mr. Meacham:
X. Now Commissioner, does the City Commission of 

Chattanooga have any control over the public schools! A. 
The City Commission appropriates the money for the public 
schools. The City Commission does not attempt in any way 
to run the public schools from the standpoint of personnel, 
administration, or anything of that sort.

X. Under the charter amendment of 1941 which created 
the independent school board, the only function that the 
City Commission has at the present time is to appropriate 
money for its operation and to confirm nominations of suc­
cessor Board members, is that correct! A. Right, and to,

—128—
and to approve property purchases, things of that kind.

X. But it has no power or responsibility for the admin­
istration and operation of the schools! A. That’s in the 
hands of the Superintendent and his staff.



70b

X. And it has no power to make— A. And the Board.
X. It has no power to make policy for the management 

of the schools? A. That’s right.
X. That’s vested in the school board? A. That’s in the 

school board.
X. How do you have any powers over the school by 

virtue of your office as Commissioner of Health, Education 
and Health, while the Board is not in session? A. I do not.

X. Ho you have any power of administration of the 
schools? A. I do not.

X. Your power is entirely as a member and ex-officio 
Chairman of the Board of Education? A. That is right.

X. And I believe you are the odd member and cast a vote 
only when there’s a tie? A. There isn’t any reason to cast

—129—
a vote, for me to cast a vote unless there is a tie.

X. That’s right, A. I am entitled to cast a vote if I wish. 
If I wish to express my opinion, I can vote, regardless of 
what the result is.

X. Now Commissioner, prior to the time you entered 
public life, became a member of the City Commission, what 
was your occupation? A. I was a principal of Red Bank 
High School, which is a county high school in one of our 
adjoining municipalities, township of Red Bank-White Oak.

X. Prior to that time had you been in the City educa­
tional system? A. One time I was Supervisor of Athletics 
and Physical Training for the City of Chattanooga, and the 
football coach at the Chattanooga or City High School.

X. And prior to that time I believe you taught and 
coached at Central High School? A. That’s right.

X. The large county high school? A. For sixteen (16) 
years I was coach and teacher at Central High School, 
Athletic Director.

Dean Petersen—Cross



71b

X. Now I believe yon were asked about, in your opinion 
was the Board of Education basing its entire course in this

—1 3 0 -
matter upon the hostile attitude or atmosphere of the City. 
Have you been in contact with few or many people who have 
expressed their position in this matter? A. Mr. Meacham, 
I have been in contact with a great many people. During 
my campaign for this office I met a lot of people in all walks 
of life, of course, and I did not realize until that time that 
so many people were interested in so many ways in this 
problem that we’re talking about, but I certainly have run 
into and I—I hear, as every other member of this Board 
hears every day of my life, I—I hear people pro and con 
discussing this problem. Everybody is interested in it, it 
seems, or most everybody, and we have different shades of 
opinion about it, different ideas as to what should be done.

X. In your opinion is this hostile attitude diminishing to 
any extent at the present time? A. I think it’s diminishing 
in some quarters, and I thing the sit-in strikes has intensi­
fied it in other quarters, and if I may, since you have asked 
a question or brought up this point, Mr. Williams asked 
about did I think it was entirely the hostile attitude that 
motivates the Board in what it’s doing now and what it 
has been doing, this process we call elucidation, I would 
like to say that the members of this Board have over and 
over again in our discussions brought up the fact that they 
want to do the thing which will not hurt the children of the

—1 3 1 -
City of Chattanooga, regardless of race. Over and over 
again that has been mentioned from so many angles, so 
that I—I would be amiss if I left that out of my testimony 
here today.

X. In your opinion, if there were a hasty step taken to

Dean Petersen—Cross



72b

integrate the schools immediately, is there any likelihood 
that the school system here might be destroyed or abolished? 
A. Well, I—I think it’s possible if the people who furnish 
the money would not continue to furnish the money. I 
think that most of our people, regardless, want to see our 
public schools kept, kept open here. A great many of them 
do, anyway. Some who would not.

X. Now you read the Chattanooga News-Free Press, I 
assume? A. Yes, I read the Free Press and the Times.

X. Are you familiar with the editorial policy of the Chat­
tanooga News-Free Press with reference to the establish­
ment of private schools by grants from the state to in­
dividual pupils? A. Yes, I am.

X. Is that part of the atmosphere in this community? A. 
A segment of it.

X. About what percentage of the people of Chattanooga 
would you indicate the News-Free Press represents or 
whose opinion they reflect? A. Well, I don’t know that I

- 1 3 2 -
can do that accurately. I heard a statement just recently 
to the effect that they, circulation of the Chattanooga Free 
Press is ten thousand (10,000) more daily than that of the 
Chattanooga Times at the present. I think that will answer 
your question maybe in part.

X. And did you hear the editor or publisher of that 
paper say that the policies that he had pursued were de­
signed to fit the majority of the people here? A. I did.

X. Is that part of the atmosphere of this community 
that certain high and powerful groups are willing to estab­
lish private schools to the detriment or possible extinction 
of public schools? A. That was what was said.

X. That’s been a published pattern for the last several 
months, has it not? A. Yes. You might say more than 
that. Certainly for the last several months.

Dean Petersen—Cross



73b

X. As to the private schools,— A. Yes.
X. ■—of course? A. Yes.
X. Desegregation has been a target— A. Right.
X. —of that paper for many years? A. Right.

—133—
X. Now during this period of some thirteen (13) months 

that you’ve been a member of the Board, the discussions 
that you’ve had with various public groups and the citizens 
as a whole that you’ve come in contact with, in your opinion 
is it possible peacefully, with good order and no damage 
to the schools, to desegregate them as of this time? A. I 
—I couldn’t say yes that I believe that at this time. I be­
lieve that we would have extreme difficulties if we would 
desegregate completely at this time.

X. February of this year, were the police forced to 
turn fire hoses upon a mob here in the City? A. It was, 
yes.

X. What did that grow out of? A. On our main street. 
The sit-down.

X. In your opinion has that helped or hurt the cause of 
desegregation here? A. I think it has hurt it more than 
it has helped it, because—

X. Now then. A. Because the police and fire depart­
ments, of course, were part of the police department at the 
time, because they did what they did some of our Negro 
people think that it will be an easy thing to control what­
ever may happen in case of desegregation, and I think that 
they are mistaken in that idea. No matter, the police force

—1 3 4 -
in Chattanooga, as in many other cities in the United States, 
as is lacking in numbers, we all feel, those who know any­
thing at all about our government feel that we should have 
more policemen than we have, and if we should have de­
segregation, why, it’s quite possible that even though the

Dean Petersen—Cross



74b

colored people do have great faith now, some of them, in 
our police department, I doubt that the police department 
could physically do what they would expect them to do in 
certain events.

X. On this occasion in February I believe that the 
auxiliary police reserve and firemen were called out to 
handle the situation?

Mr. Williams: I didn’t hear that question. Pardon 
me.

By Mr. Meacham:

X. I believe that auxiliary police and firemen were called 
out in addition to the regular officers to help cope with the 
situation? A. That’s right, every one available.

X. Now I understood you to say, direct examination, 
that you did not base your opinion that immediate desegre­
gation could not be had solely on this question of violence 
or hostility. Do you have any other bases upon which you 
place that opinion? I believe you’d already mentioned the 
possible closing or in effect destruction of the school sys­
tem. A. I said—

—135—
X. Or anything with reference to the individual pupils? 

A. I said that it is possible that the schools could be dam­
aged seriously due to lack of finances that the people of 
this community or any other community ceased, they don’t 
believe in what’s going on to the point where they refuse 
to support them, if they withdraw their children from the 
schools and send them to private schools that there is a 
possibility that our public school system would be hurt to 
the point where it couldn’t function at all as it is fuctioning 
now, and therefore the children of both races would be 
severely hurt.

Dean Petersen—Cross



75b

Now I didn’t, in your question there, I doubt if I got the 
full implication of what you mean. If you would restate it, 
why—

X. Well, what I was referring to was whether in your 
opinion hasty and forceable desegregation of the schools 
might injure some of the pupils either physically or psy­
chologically? A. Why, certainly, in addition to the phy­
sical, the emotional, or psychological damage to them would 
very likely occur to possibly large numbers of the children. 
I—I believe that.

Mr. Meacham: That’s all.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Williams:

ED. Mr. Petersen, you’ve heard Doctor Letson’s state­
ment that the Negro population of the school comprises ap-

—136—
proximately thirty-nine percent of the entire population? 
A. Yes.

ED. Would you say that the Negro population of Nash­
ville comprises approximately the same percentage of the 
population, I mean of Chattanooga, comprises approxi­
mately the same percentage of the population of Chat­
tanooga? A. Now you’re a little bit mixed up.

ED. In other words, I ’m asking you, sir,— A. Start 
again, please.

ED. —if you know what approximately is the percentage 
of the Negro population in Chattanooga. A. The late, 
the latest report that we have had has been 39.7.

ED. Yes sir. Approximately, that’s— A. That is, in 
the—in the—

ED. In the City proper? A. In the schools, now.

Mr. Meacham: Thirty-five (35) in the City.

Dean Petersen—Redirect



76b

Dean Petersen—Redirect 

By Mr. Williams:

ED. Well, the— A. It’s thirty-five.
ED. Then you would say that the population in the City, 

that the total Negro population in the City is a little less? 
A. Than—

ED. But about the same amount as the Negro population 
in the schools? A. Well.

—137—
ED. Yes sir. A. The Negro population in the schools 

is a little bit more.
ED. Yes sir. It’s about a third? A. By some—
ED. It’s about a little over a third? A. A little over a 

third.
ED. Yes sir. A. Eight.
ED. Now the schools are financed through appropriations 

which are made by the Board of Commissioners of the City 
of Nashville, is that not correct, sir?

Mrs. Motley: Chattanooga.
The Witness: You mean Chattanooga?

By Mr. Williams:

ED. Of Chattanooga. I ’m sorry. I can’t get away from 
my home town, Mr. Petersen. A. Most of our money is 
collected by the county and by the state. Most of our reve­
nue comes from the state and county.

ED. Oh, I see. A. This year the direct appropriation 
from the City of Chattanooga in round numbers was just a 
little bit more than six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000). 
We have two million eight hundred thousand (2,800,000) 
plus from the county and a little bit less from the state

—138—
this year for total budget of a little bit more than six mil­
lion dollars ($6,000,000).



77b

ED. Then, then a substantial proportion of your schools, 
school funds come from the state which has no connection 
with the City of Nashville except—

Mrs. Motley: Chattanooga.
The Witness: Chattanooga.

By Mr. Williams:

ED. City of Chattanooga, except that Chattanooga is a 
governmental subdivision ? A. That’s right. Of course, we 
send the money to Nashville. We send the money over 
there.

ED. I guess that’s why I keep mentioning Nashville. A. 
We send a whole lot more than we get back.

ED. Yes sir. A. As every big county does.
ED. Well, these funds come from state taxes which are 

returned to Chattanooga1? A. To Hamilton County and to 
Chattanooga.

ED. Yes sir. A. Yes.
ED. And of the funds which are contributed by the City, 

they are obtained from the taxation of this better than one- 
third Negro population also, are they not? A. It’s mostly 
from property owners.

ED. Yes sir. A. In Chattanooga.
—139—

ED. And there are a considerable portion of the Negro 
people who are property owners, are there not, sir? A. 
There are—

ED. Yes. A. —quite a few.
ED. Yes sir. A. I couldn’t tell you the percentage.
ED. And— A. I don’t know.
ED. And most of these funds which come from state 

taxation are based on the sales tax, are they not, sir? A. 
Sales tax.

Dean Petersen—Redirect



78b

Bean Petersen—Redirect 

RD. Yes sir. A. Gasoline tax.
RD. Which is applicable to the Negro? A. Cigarettes. 
RD. Yes sir. A. And so on.
RD. Now Mr. Petersen, you said that one of your con­

siderations in connection with this community hostility was 
that you didn’t want to hurt little children, is that correct, 
sir? A. That’s right.

RD. Yes sir. And if it should he true that thirty-nine 
percent of the children in your school system are being hurt

— 140—

then that would and should he a major consideration which 
the Board ought to take into consideration, should it not, 
if thirty-nine percent are being hurt by segregation, then 
that would be a factor that you’d want to take into con­
sideration, would it not, sir? A. (No audible reply.)

RD. Sir? A. I am—I do not admit that—
RD. I see. Yes sir. A. -—that that thirty-nine percent 

of the children are being hurt.
RD. Then if you— A. We have good schools.
RD. Then— A. For—
RD. Then—

Mr. Meacham: Let him—
Mr. Williams: You—
Mr. Meacham: Let him answer.
Mr. Williams: Pardon me, sir. Pardon me, sir.

By Mr. Williams:

RD. Go ahead, sir. A. You might as well say on the 
other hand that sixty-one percent are being hurt.

RD. Yes sir. It would be your opinion that if the schools 
were integrated that the sixty-one percent who are white

— 141—

would be hurt then, is that correct, sir? A. Possibly.



79b

ED. Yes sir. And then you do disagree with the Supreme 
Court decision, do you not, sir? A. I do.

RD. Yes sir. A. Yes.
ED. And as a matter of fact, Mr. Petersen, when you ran 

for the office, you ran on an opposition to integration plat­
form, did you not, sir? A. I made the statement that I did 
not want to see the operation of the schools changed.

RD. Yes sir. And that has a part in the part that you 
have played in the deliberations of the Board since you 
have been Chairman, the Chairman of the Board in con­
nection with the action, any action which the Board may 
have taken or not taken, does it not, sir? Well, what I ’m 
trying to say is your feeling in that regard as expressed in 
your platform has had a part to play in the actions which 
you’ve taken as a member of the Board? A. I have not 
changed my mind.

Mr. Williams: Yes sir. That’s it. That’s all.

Recross Examination by Mr. Meacham:

EX. You have joined in and agreed with the policy that’s
—142—

been announced by this Board since you’ve been a member, 
have you not? A. As to what’s been done by this Board 
since I ’ve been on it, I—I agree to, yes, the statements that 
have been made.

EX. You take no responsibility, though, for what was 
done before? A. I cannot take responsibility for what 
was done before I became a member of the Board.

Mr. Meacham: That’s all.
(Further this deponent saith not.) 

* * * * *

Bean Petersen—Recross



Mrs. Sammie C. Irvine—Direct

—143—
M bs. S am m ie  C. I rvin e , being first duly sworn, was ex­

amined and deposed as follows:

Direct Examination by Mrs. Motley:
D. Mrs. Irveen.

Mr. Craig: Irvine.

D. I ’m sorry. It’s Irvine. A. Irvine.
D. Irvine? A. (Witness inclined her head.)
D. How long have you been a member of the school 

board? A. Since it was created in 1941.
D. Now I ’m going to ask you to look at the little docu­

ment, blue-covered document in front of you, which con­
tains the official statements of the Board of Education on 
the Supreme Court’s decision, and direct your attention to 
the statement dated March thirty-first, 1956. A. March?

D. Thirty-first. A. Yes.
D. Nineteen fifty-six. A. All right.
D. Now were you a member of the school board at that 

time ? A. I was.
—144—

D. Did you participate in the adoption of this statement? 
A. I did.

D. Now isn’t it a fact that at the time this statement 
was adopted the Board had actually abandoned its original 
intention to integrate the schools and had decided to drop 
the whole matter for a while? A. Not, not changing their 
minds on our, our plan and what we were going to do.

D. Now isn’t it true that the statement itself says that 
“ Events in the last year have convinced the Board of 
Education that the community will not accept any form of 
integration within the City schools at any time within 
the near future” ? A. Yes.



81b

Mrs. Sammie C. Irvine—Cross

D. “We therefore take this opportunity to report to the 
community our decision to postpone any change in the 
public schools for a period of at least a few years, probably 
five years or more” ? A. I consider that a postponement, 
but just still holding to our decision.

D. So that on March thirty-fist, 1956, the Board had actu­
ally postponed its plan to integrate, hadn’t it? A. Well, we 
realized that the time was not right.

D. And this was based upon this community hostility?
—145—

A. Largely.
D. What happened at that meeting and all? A. Yes.
D. Is there anything on which the Board relied other 

than community hostility? A. Well, I can—
D. To reach this decision? A. In thinking of it from my 

own personal point of view, which goes back to the ques­
tion of hostility, I was—had such an experience of what 
had formerly been my very close friends socially and whose 
homes I ’d been in and had been in my home that were 
just so very much opposed to anything that I was doing.

D. So that this decision to postpone was then based 
upon what your friends had said and the hostility that you 
had met individually? A. Well, that was the way I would 
have of judging the feeling of citizens that I knew well.

D. And that was the basis of this statement there? A. 
Well, with all of us. It was a combined statement, of course.

D. Yes. A. With all of us.

Mrs. Motley: All right. That’s all.

Cross Examination by Mr. W itt:
—146—

X. Just one question, Mrs. Irvine. A. Uh-huh.
X. You’ve testified that the community hostility con-



82b

cerned you, Mrs. Irvine, but did you not also give primary 
concern to the results of this community hostility1? A. Oh, 
yes.

X. What results did you foresee? A. Well, we had con­
tinually, from the beginning, said that we, in our state­
ments, that we wouldn’t—were determined not to do any­
thing that would hurt a white child or a colored child and 
that that, from the—all of the evidence that was coming 
to me was just what was happening even on, among adults, 
but it would be a result of our trying to integrate at this 
time.

X. Well then, was your decision then based in the final 
analysis on your own conception of your responsibility to 
all the children? A. Indeed.

X. It was this responsibility which was your primary 
consideration? A. That’s right.

X. The community hostility merely influenced your judg­
ment as to this? A. That’s right.

# # # *  #

—148—
M r . G e o r g e  C. H u d s o n , being first duly sworn, was ex­

amined and deposed as follows:

Direct Examination by Mrs. Motley:
D. Mr. Hudson? A. (Witness inclined his head.)
D. How long have you been a member of the Board? A. 

About three years.
D. About three years? A. June or July of 1957.
D. Now since you have been a member of the Board do 

you know of anything on which the Board has relied other 
than community hostility to postpone integration here in

George C. Hudson-—Direct



83b

Chattanooga? A. All of the things that I ’m familiar with 
have been mentioned here already.

D. I ’m sorry, I can’t hear you. A. All of the things 
with which I ’m familiar have already been mentioned here.

D. You have— A. That is, the.—
D. You have nothing to add other than this community 

hostility as the basis for the postponement? A. I am in 
fear, which is one of my primary considerations, that it 
will damage the children involved.

—149—
D. What will? A. Desegregation.
D. How will it damage the children? A. Emotionally by 

being ostracized, rejected, not accepted.
D. How do you know this? A. Well, I ’ve never been 

in a position of being rejected.
D. This is— A. Rejected.
D. This is all conjecture on your part. I mean you 

don’t have any scientific study or survey? A. Oh, no, 
I ’m not a scientist.

D. I mean you just, this is all conjecture, isn’t it, on 
your part? A. No, not necessarily.

D. What is it based on, then, that this will happen? A. 
It’s based on reading, on sociologists and others with re­
gard to what happens to people when they’re rejected, not 
accepted in their group; a knowledge of how I think I 
would feel under similar circumstances. It’s not scientific, 
of course.

D. What psychologists or sociologists have you read? 
A. I can’t give you any text. I can’t give you any, the 
names of any books or any authors on the subject.

D. But the Board hasn’t made any study, really, to de-
—150—

termine the effects of integration or what it might be on

George C. Hudson—Direct



84b

children here, has it? A. The Board is made up of pro­
fessional and business people who have very little time to 
do research in other fields.

D. And so that you really don’t know what the effects 
of integration will be, do you? A. There are a lot, a great 
many things I don’t know.

Mrs. Motley: Do you want to read the question, 
please ?

(The reporter read the last question.)
The Witness: Not from personal experience.

By Mrs. Motley:

D. Now I think you mentioned that you felt that some of 
the children might be rejected? A. Yes.

D. Which group were you referring to? A. I think it 
could happen in either group, where there’s a large ma­
jority one way, some small minority in another.

D. Have you studied or has your Board studied integra­
tion in some other communities like Baltimore or Washing­
ton and other places? A. We have done a great deal of 
reading on the subject, yes. We have never made trips to 
those areas to get first-hand information.

— 151—

D. Has the Board given any consideration in the last 
three years to the effect of segregation on Negro children 
that the Supreme Court talked about? A. Well, that’s 
your whole problem, isn’t it? If I understand your ques­
tion. Certainly we’ve discussed it.

D. Yes. The psychological damage incurred? A. Oh, 
yes.

George C. Hudson—Direct



85b

D. You say you’ve discussed it? A. (Witness inclined 
Ms bead.)

D. Now you say the Board has considered the psycho­
logical damage to Negro children involved. What conclu­
sion has the Board reached with respect to that? A. We 
didn’t ever take a vote on it, hut I think there is some 
unanimity of agreement that any such ostracism on the 
part of others, one group of school children from another 
group of school children resolves in an emotional disturb­
ance to the one who’s been ostracised.

D. And this includes the present system of segregation, 
the Negroes are set aside, the basis of that? A. I ’m in­
clined to think on the basis of conversations with some of 
my Negro friends that it occurs not only between white and 
Negro but between groups of whites and groups of Negroes. 
Anybody that has, who is different from someone else is 
going to be withdrawn from, and to some extent ostracised

—152—
D. So that you’re talking about a problem which is not 

going to result from integration, but a problem that we 
have as people, as human beings— A. I—

D. •—anyway? A. I think that’s true. I think it’s, it’s a 
larger problem on, on the differences in race, but the prob­
lem exists also in cases of foreigners who do not speak 
English well, who speak broken English, who cannot fit well 
into the pattern of the group with which they are as­
sociated. That sort of thing.

Mrs. Motley: Well, I think that’s all.
Mr. Witt: No questions.
Mrs. Motley: Thank you.
(Further this deponent saith not.)

# # # # #

George C. Hudson—Direct



86b

Raymond B. Witt—Direct

—153—
M e . R aymond  B. W it t , b e in g  first du ly  sw orn , w as ex ­

am ined and d eposed  as fo l lo w s :

Direct Examination by Mr. Craig:

D. We bad some discussions leading up to this deposi­
tion that we’re taking now. That’s true, isn’t it? A. Yes 
sir.

I). I ask you specifically, sir, if you didn’t express to 
me a sort of fear or apprehension of some untoward inci­
dent as a result of our taking depositions at all, and speci­
fically here at this place? A. Mr. Craig, in all of my legal 
representation of any client I feel that it is my responsi­
bility to analyze all of the possibilities in any situation and 
then attempt to be prepared for any eventuality, no matter 
how remote it may be. This was the sense in which I made 
this comment to you.

D. Yes sir. A. I merely recognized that this was a pos­
sibility.

I). And suggested that maybe some place in the Federal 
Building would be safer? A. Yes sir, I did.

D. I ask you if the other members of the Board, I mean 
if you got that opinion from other members of the Board 
or if they had your same fears? A. I think I ’ll have to 
take complete responsibility for that.

—154—
D. Now would you or not say that you assessed the 

situation rightfully or wrongfully? A. Very fortunately 
I assessed that the possibility was, was remote and it did 
not occur, thank you, so far.

D. Based on that, do you think that maybe your assess­
ment of the situation as it existed and the possibilities of 
any hostility on the part of the community might’ve been



87b

assessed wrong? A. Of course, Mr. Craig, I realize the in­
herent weaknesses in any one individual’s assessment of a 
total community.

D. Pardon me, and may I say that I was thinking in 
terms of the whole Board, the whole Board’s assessment 
of the situation as it did or might exist under a program 
that would desegregate the schools prior to this time? A. 
It is my considered judgment that the present members of 
this school board have a better evaluation of this total com­
munity on the question of integration than any other peo­
ple in the whole world, because of their peculiar position 
and not because of the ability particularly of any member of 
the Board or the Board together.

It’s merely because of the focal point that they happen 
to hold in this community, and that in their judgment of 
this situation they represent virtually thousands of factual 
situations which to them all add up to their judgment;

—155—
whether it’s right or wrong, this is the situation.

D. But you did decide, and I mean the Board as a whole, 
after you had this organizational meeting of this Inter­
racial Advisory Committee, that your assessment of the 
situation in Chattanooga had been wrong when you made 
your first announcement? A. When we made our first 
announcement, if you’re referring to the statement of July 
the twenty-second, 1955.

D. Yes sir. A. The Board’s assessment of the com­
munity had been of an extremely limited nature, because 
if you will recall the final, what I refer to as implementa­
tion decision of the Supreme Court, I believe, was handed 
down on May thirty-first, 1955, and our statement was given 
to the public on July twenty-second, which was approxi­
mately seven and a half weeks later. So the Board had had

Raymond B. Witt—Direct



88b

Raymond B. Witt—Cross

an extremely limited opportunity to assess the community’s 
reaction to this decision. We live with the continuing knowl­
edge that our assessment may be completely wrong, but 
still it must, we are the ones that must make this.

Mr. Craig: That’s all, sir.
The Witness: Thank you, sir.

Cross Examination by Mr. Meacham:

X. Mr. Witt, I want to ask one thing here. Isn’t there 
another factor in this matter that the City at large is losing

—156—
rapidly its white population, moving into the county, 
against whom no suit’s been filed?

Mrs. Motley: I didn’t hear the end of that.
Mr. Meachan: Moving into the county against 

whom no suit has been filed.
Mrs. Motley: Oh.
The Witness: Well, based upon the school attend­

ance data for the current school year, this is cer­
tainly a reasonable explanation, plus the observation 
of the development, I mean the west side redevelop­
ment and the shift in population there, I think it’s 
safe to assume, of course I could not make a flat 
statement without a very thorough survey that this 
is true, but based upon the limited information I 
have I think it is true, and I think it will prob­
ably continue.

By Mr. Meacham:

X. This loss of population naturally is going to result in 
lowering the revenues of the City of Chattanooga to pro-



89b

Raymond B. Witt—Cross

vide funds for schools, isn’t it? A. I think that will be 
true.

X. And one reason that these people have moved is be­
cause of the threat or imminence of integrated schools. Is 
that part of it? A. That would be—

Mr. Craig: His opinion.
The Witness: —certainly an opinion that, from 

my acquaintance with the talking with people in the
— 1 5 7 -

community, that certainly the vast majority of them 
would prefer to not be in a situation where their 
children would go to school with Negro children, and 
therefore it’s probably that this is part of their 
decision.

X. Well. A. Of course, I—
X. Among our adjoining municipalities, are there any 

Negro citizens in Red Bank-White Oak, to your knowledge? 
A. I don’t, I can’t answer that question.

X. Are there any in East Ridge? A. I can’t answer that 
question. I don’t think so, but I don’t know.

X. Now you were asked about your assessment, and of 
course you’ve heard testimony today about the. hostile at­
titude. Did you receive a communication this morning in 
that vein? A. Unfortunately, yes. I ’m sure it was a crank, 
but nevertheless I got it.

X. Would you care to exhibit that at this time? A. 
(Witness removed an object from his brief case.) It’s harm­
less in a sense. (All counsel examined same.) This is, of 
course, nothing but an annoyance, but it’s a very simple 
thing for somebody to object to.

(Discussion had off the record.)



90b

Raymond B. Witt—Redirect

X. Back on the record, then. One more question, Mr. 
Witt. You’ve been on this board for how many years'?

—158—
A. Since 1953.

X. In your opinion, based upon your knowledge of the 
community atmosphere, feeling, the ingrained, more rea­
soned customs of the people in this section, is the time ripe 
for desegregation of the schools at the present moment1? 
A. No. There’s no, in my opinion, to do it now would be, 
well, I ’ll say this: It would be—I would not be discharg­
ing my responsibility, as I see it, to both the white children 
and the Negro children of this community if I voted to 
desegregate the schools at the present time.

X. Have you been encouraged by the developments, the 
voluntary public integrated meetings that have been held, 
the fact that the education and gospel that the school board 
has been spreading is beginning to take some root? A. 
This is a two-edged sort of thing. What I call the intel­
lectual or the mental acceptance of inevitability of com­
pliance has in my opinion, from what people have said to 
me voluntarily and otherwise, there has been a marked 
development or increase in the numbers of people who now 
have come to the mental acceptance of the fact that it’s 
inevitable, but the basic tragedy that I see in it is by the 
same token I see a developing attitude among white peo­
ple of the intensity of their feelings towards the Negro 
race which is extremely unfortunate, but it exists.

—159—
Redirect Examination By Mrs. Motley:

RD. Mr. Witt, you’re a lawyer, aren’t you? A. Sup­
posed to be, yes ma’am.

RD. And I assume that you’ve read the Supreme Court’s



91b

decisions on school segregation, haven’t you? A. The ma­
jority of them, yes.

ED. Did you read the Supreme Court’s decision of May 
twenty-four, 1955, the second Brown suit? A. Yes.

ED. May thirty-one. A. Yes ma’am.
ED. Nineteen fifty-five. A. Yes ma’am.
ED. Then you know, don’t you, that the Supreme Court 

has already ruled that opposition to the principle of non- 
segregation will not be permitted to set that principle aside, 
don’t you? A. No.

ED. You don’t know that? A. I think you would find 
that in the law schools that decision of the Supreme Court 
in the Little Eock case, I believe is what you’re referring to.

ED. No, I ’m referring to the decision of May thirty-one, 
1955.

—160—
Mr. Meacham: Brown against Topeka.
Mrs. Motley: Brown against Board of Education. 
Mr. Meacham: Board of Education.
The Witness: I am aware of the fact that mere 

hostility was mentioned, but there was also other 
phraseology in the decision reconciling public and 
private interests with all deliberate speed, the 
eventual, the implementation of constitutional princi­
ples that are additional factors that require con­
sideration to the one you mentioned. Of course, 
I ’m fully aware of—

By Mr. Motley:
ED. They specifically eliminated community hostility or 

disagreement— A. I think the—
ED. -—with the Supreme Court’s decision. A. I think 

the word—

Raymond B. Witt—Redirect



92b

Mr. Meacham: That was the Little Rock case.
The Witness: I think the adjective—
Mrs. Motley: What?
Mr. Meacham: That was the Little Rock case.
The Witness: Now wait a minute. I think the word 

that was used was “mere,” the mere hostility of the 
community will not be allowed to—

By Mrs. Motley:
RD. Disagreement with this decision. A. Yes.
RD. Is that what they said? A. Yes, the mere disagree-

—161—
ment will not be allowed to, in effect,—

RD. To set aside the principle? A. That’s right.
RD. Words to that effect?

Mr. Williams: It goes without saying that the 
mere—

The Witness: Disagreement.
Mr. Williams: —disagreement with the principles 

will not be allowed to yield because of disagreement 
with them.

Mrs. Motley: That’s right.
The Witness: That’s right. Well, of course,—

By Mrs. Motley:
RD. That’s all you’ve been talking about, isn’t it, mere 

disagreement with the decision? A. No.
RD. What have you been talking about? A. We’ve 

been, I think that what the Board has been talking about 
is the results of this hostility as foreseeable and as the 
Board is able to prejudge them, and the responsibility that

Raymond B. Witt-—Redirect



93b

the Board will have to assume for its decision. The hostility 
is a reality.

This Board is acting in a representative capacity. This 
Board owes a responsibility, a sworn responsibility to all 
the citizens of this community. Our individual feelings are 
completely irrelevant in the matter, and we’re attempting

—162—
as best we know how to discharge our responsibility to the 
citizens of this community and to the Supreme Court of the 
United States, and as we see it, the discharge of these re­
sponsibilities are in basic conflict with each other in this 
community.

ED. You represent the Negroes in this community, or 
just whites? A. We attempt to represent the Negroes and 
the whites.

ED. What other Board decisions do you have pending 
approval of the community? You have any other Board de­
cisions which are resting or pending approval of the com­
munity? A. Our, our position is not the approval of the 
community, that we are—we are awaiting the approval of 
the community.

ED. What is your position? A. Our position—
ED. That’s what I understood you to say. A. No. Our 

position is that, as I understand it, is that we must, this 
Board must have some public tangible support from a sub­
stantial jDortion of the white community before we can act 
in such a way as to not harm the school system and the 
community.

ED. Where do you find that in the Supreme Court’s de­
cision? A. It’s not in there.

ED. It isn’t in there? A. In so many words.
ED. Is it? A. No.

Raymond B. Witt—Redirect

— 163—



94b

RD. And then in the March 1956 resolution of the Board, 
were you a member of the Board then? A. I was.

RD. When they decided to postpone it for a period of 
five years because of events of the preceding year? A. Yes.

RD. Now those events that are referred to, they’re re­
ferring to community hostility, aren’t they? A. Yes.

RD. And the Board’s postponed its plan dependent, be­
cause of community hostility, did it not? A. It postponed 
the physical placing of Negro and white children in the 
same classroom. It did not in any way postpone or slow 
down its attempt to make the problem clear to the com­
munity and try to get community understanding of the 
problem so that the community then could move toward an 
acceptance of what we have said from the beginning was 
inevitable.

RD. You mean the plan included the placement of Negro 
children in white schools? A. No, I do not. I mean, I am 
distinguishing between, when you use the word “plan” 
the implication is, as I understand it, that plan means the

—1 6 4 -
moment when, the time when Negro and white children 
will be in the same classroom.

RD. That’s right. A. Plan, as we see it, is a transition 
period in which we attempt, the best we know how, with the 
limited resources we have, to provide the leadership to the 
thinking community to come to an acceptance of its in­
evitability.

In this community you have had a constant reiteration 
day after day, “you don’t have to do it, you don’t have to do 
it,” and we have been attempting to get across to the 
community that it is inevitable, that it has got to be done, 
and until the community leadership—we aren’t concerned, 
we aren’t particularly worried about what some fringe 
group says, but until the community leadership, the peo-

Raymond B. Witt—Redirect



95b

pie with whom we associate from day to day and the people 
that normally or in some instances nsed to be our friends 
say “We will support you, and we will support you and 
take the risk,” how can the Board act?

Rib. But your plan never included the actual placement 
of Negroes in the schools? A. Oh, of course. Absolutely.

BD. It did or did not? A . This, this will be a step in the 
plan. The only time we’re, the only thing we’re disagreeing 
with you on is when.

BD. Well, what did you postpone in 1956 when you
—165—

adopted that resolution? A. There were rumors.
BD. Postponing for five years, what did you postpone? 

A. There were rumors in the community that certain 
schools would be desegregated or that we would be de­
segregated and there was a certain—it was creating an 
atmosphere in the community that was unhealthy, and since 
we did not think that then was the time to move we decided 
to tell the community about it in an attempt to lessen the 
tension in the community and develop a climate in which 
two people could talk to each other.

BD. In other words, what you postponed in 1956 was any 
intention to place Negroes in white schools, is that right? 
A. We postponed at that time the time when you would 
put, that’s right. In other words, he would, we would con­
tinue with our elucidation plan as we saw it, but the time 
when any Negro children, any white children would be put 
together, we said probably five years. We don’t know.

BD. So that in 1956 you postponed the time when Negro 
children would actually be placed into white schools, is that 
right ? A. I think that’s right.

BD. And that postponement was based upon community 
hostility, wasn’t it, which arose during the previous years,

Raymond B. Witt—Redirect



Raymond B. Witt—Redirect

—166—
you said? A. It was based upon community hostility and 
a balancing of our conflicting responsibilities that we had 
to balance.

ED. That you had to balance? A. That’s right.
ED. Now you read the Supreme Court’s decision in the 

Little Eock case, didn’t you? A. Yes ma’am.
ED. And there the school board had postponed a de­

segregation plan because of community hostility, had it 
not? A. That’s correct.

ED. And the Supreme Court ruled in that case that the 
school board could not postpone the desegregation plan 
because of community hostility, didn’t it? A. It did not—

Mr. Meachain: I thought they just asked for two 
and a half years. They didn’t actually postpone it.

Mrs. Motley: They wanted to postpone it for two 
and a half years.

Mr. Meacham: Two and a half years, and that’s 
what they were asking for, but they hadn’t done it.

Mrs. Motley: Well, the District Court had granted 
it. That’s how it got to the Supreme Court of the 
United States.

Mr. Meacham: They were sued.

By Mrs. Motley.

ED. So that the answer, the question is the Supreme
- 1 6 7 -

Court’s already ruled that you can’t postpone any desegre­
gation plan because of community hostility, hasn’t it? A. 
In that, no, I don’t think so. Of course, that—

ED. What did they rule? A. I think that the law of the 
Little Eock case before the Supreme Court is that in any



97b

situation where the full force of the state government and 
all the officials of a state are thrown against and contrary 
to the constitution of the United States as interpreted by 
the Supreme Court and the entire power of the federal 
government that there can be no answer but that the state 
will have to yield, and to me that was the decision in the 
Little Rock case, and the Little Rock school board was 
merely caught in between two mammoth forces over which 
they had no control.

ED. And you don’t have that situation in Tennessee, do 
you, where the whole power of state government is pitted 
against your effort— A. No, and we’re—

ED. —to desegregate? A. We’re thankful that we do 
not.

Mr. Meacham: Yet.
The Witness: Yet. Of course, the Legislature 

meets in January.

By Mrs. Motley:

ED. But you think that you will probably have it here in 
the local community, that opposition to your decision? A.

—1 6 8 -
Well, that’s one thing I don’t think I have to think. I think 
I know that.

ED. And there’s nothing else upon which the Board 
places this postponement other than community hostility, 
is there? A. And the results of that community hostility.

Mrs. Motley: I think that’s all.
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
(Further this deponent saith not.)

*  # *  #  #

Raymond B. Witt—Redirect





r \

r \



/^ \

3 8



No. 14,517

In the
Itutpii States! (Emtrl of Appeals

For The Sixth Circuit

Jam es Jo n ath an  M app and D eborah L ’T an y a  M app, 
m inors, by Jam es R . M app, their father and n ext friend; 
Pless M axey, J r .,  a m inor, by his m other and n ext friend, 
Mrs. Josephine M axey; Kathy K irnon, a m inor, by her  
father and n ext friend, T h e  R everend H . H . K irnon,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.

T h e  B oard  of Education  of the C ity of Chattanooga, 
H am ilton C ounty, T ennessee; Dean Petersen, C hairm an of 
the B oard of Education  of the City of Chattanooga; George  
C. H udson, Sr., Mrs. J .  B. Irvine, W illiam  D. L eb er, R ay­
m ond B . W itt, J r .,  C orley R . Y oung, and G ordon K ellett, 
M em bers of the B oard of Education of the C ity of C hatta­
nooga; and B ennie C arm ichael, Superintendent of Schools 
of the C ity of Chattanooga, Tennessee,

Defendants-Appellants.

B R I E F  A N D  A P P E N D IX  F O R  A P P E L L A N T S

W I T T ,  G A IT H E R , A B E R N A T H Y ,  
C A L D W E L L  & W IL S O N  

R A Y M O N D  B. W I T T ,  J R .
1234 V olunteer Bldg.
Chattanooga 2, Tennessee  

A ttorneys for T h e  Board of Education  
of the C ity of Chattanooga, 
H am ilton County, Tennessee.

Court Index Press, Inc. — Law Printers — 809 Walnut St. Cincinnati 2, Ohio.









S T A T E M E N T  O F  Q U E S T IO N  IN V O L V E D

Since the U n ited  States Suprem e C o u rt has placed the 
prim ary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and  
solving such varied local school problem s as m ay be in­
volved in the full im plem entation of the constitutional 
principles enunciated  in B row n , et al v. B oard  o f  E d u ca ­
tion  o f  T o p ek a , Kansas> 347 U . S. 483  (1 9 5 4 ), 349  U . S. 
294  (1955) upon local school authorities, in this instance, 
the defendant Chattanooga B oard of Education , w hen such  
a B oard  submits a Plan of D esegregation representing the  
sum total of its efforts to discharge such responsibility in 
good faith and in conform ity with the criteria  of im ple­
m entation set forth  in the second B row n  decision, is not 
a D istrict C ou rt required to hear such proof as is offered  
by a defendant B oard in support of its Plan of D esegre­
gation as a necessary requisite to obtaining the facts upon  
w hich to m ake the judicial appraisal required  of the Dis­
tric t C o u rt as to  w hether the defendant B oard has dis­
charged the prim ary responsibility placed upon such  
B oard by the U n ited  States Suprem e C ou rt, particularly  
when the actions and plans of such defendant to  be so 
appraised m ust necessarily involve facts and conditions 
peculiar to  the local com m unity, and finally, req u ire a 
B oard judgm ent of factors incapable of precise deter­
m ination?

T h e  D istrict C o u rt answered this question “ N o ” . 
A ppellant contends the answer should have been “Yes” .





I N D E X

Statem ent of Q uestion I n v o lv e d ............................................  i

Statem ent of F a c t s ...........................................................................  2

A rgu m en t —

P O IN T  I — Since the U n ited  States Suprem e  
C o u rt has placed the prim ary responsibility for 
elucidating, assessing, and solving such varied  
local problem s as m ay be involved in the full im ­
plem entation of the constitutional principles 
enunciated in B row n , e t al. v. B oard  o f  E du cation  
o f  T o p ek a , Kansas, 347 U . S. 483  (19 5 4 ), 349 U.S. 
2 9 4  (1955) upon local school authorities, in this 
instance, the defendant Chattanooga B oard of 
Edu cation , when such a B oard subm its a Plan of 
D esegregation representing the sum  total of its 
efforts to discharge such responsibility in good  
faith and in conform ity w ith the criteria  of im ple­
m entation set forth in the second B row n  decision, 
is not a D istrict C o u rt required  to hear such proof 
as is offered by a defendant B oard in support of its 
Plan of Desegregation as a necessary requisite to  
obtaining the facts upon w hich to make the judici­
al appraisal required  of the D istrict C o u rt as to 
w hether the defendant B oard has discharged the 
prim ary responsibility placed upon such Board  
by the U n ited  States Suprem e C ou rt, particularly  
w hen the actions and plans of such defendant to 
be so appraised m ust necessarily involve facts and  
conditions peculiar to the local com m unity, and  
finally, require a B oard judgm ent of factors in­
capable of precise determ ination?

T h e  D istrict C ou rt answered this question “N o ”.

A ppellant contends the answer should have been
“Y es.” .......................................................................................... 7

Relief ..........................................  14



CASES C IT E D
Page

Brow n, et al. v. B oard  of Education  of T op ek a, K an­
sas, 347  U .S. 483  (19 5 4 ), 349 U .S. 2 9 4  (19 5 5 ) . .7 ,  8, 10 

Kelly v. B oard of Education  of the C ity of Nashville,
270  F. 2d  2 09 , Sixth C ircu it (19 5 9 ) at p. 2 2 4  . . 10-11

C ooper v. A aron , 358 U . S. 1, at p. 2 5 ..................................  10

IN D E X  T O  A P P E N D IX

C hronological L ist of R elevant D ocket Entries . . . .  la
T h e  Chattanooga Plan of D e se g re g a tio n ........................ 3a
D efendants’ B rief in Support of its Plan of D esegrega­

tion ....................... ..................................................................... 9a
O rder of Ju d ge D arr, D istrict J u d g e .................................. 37a



In  the

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Sixth Circuit

N o. 14 ,517

Jam es Jo n ath an  M app and D eborah L ’T an y a  M app, 
m inors, by Jam es R . M app, their father and n e x t friend; 
Pless M axey, J r .,  a m inor, by his m other and n ext friend, 
Mrs. Josephine M axey; Kathy K irnon, a m inor, by h er  
father and n ext friend, T h e  R everend H . H . K irnon,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

vs.

T h e  B oard of E d u cation  of the C ity of Chattanooga, 
H am ilton  County, T ennessee; D ean Petersen, C hairm an of 
the B oard of E ducation  of the C ity of C hattanooga; G eorge  
C . H udson, Sr., Mrs. J .  B . Irvine, W illiam  D. L eb er, R ay­
m ond B. W itt, J r .,  Corley R . Y oung, and G ordon K ellett, 
M em bers of the B oard of Education of the C ity of C h atta­
nooga; and B ennie Carm ichael, Superintendent of Schools 
of the C ity of Chattanooga, T ennessee,

Defendants-Appellants.



2

B R I E F  F O R  A P P E L L A N T S

S T A T E M E N T  O F  F A C T S

T h e  com plaint in this action was filed in the U nited  
States D istrict C o u rt for the E astern  D istrict of Tennessee, 
Southern Division, on A p ril 6, 1960, by Jam es R . M app, 
Mrs. Josephine M axey, and the R everend H . H . K irnon  
for th eir m in or children invoking jurisdiction pursuant 
to provisions of T itle  28, U n ited  States Code, Section 1343
(3), being a suit in equity authorized by law, T itle  42 , 
U nited  States Code, Section 1983, to be com m enced by 
any citizen of the U n ited  States or o th er person w ithin  
the jurisdiction thereof, to redress the deprivation under  
color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom  o r usage 
of a state of rights, privileges, and im m unities secured by 
the Constitution and laws of the U n ited  States. T h e  rights, 
privileges, and im m unities sought to be secured by this 
action are rights, privileges and im m unities secured by 
the due process and equal protection  clauses of the F o u r­
teenth A m endm ent of the Constitution of the U n ited  
States. (A pp’t. A 7 )1

T h is case concerns the racial desegregation of the public 
schools in the City of Chattanooga. T h is  was a proceeding  
for a perm anent in junction enjoining defendant Board, 
its m em bers and the Superintendent of Schools of C hatta­
nooga from  continuing the operation of a com pulsory  
bi-racial school system and for o ther relief. Plaintiffs are  
all citizens of the U n ited  States, State of T ennessee, re ­
siding in Chattanooga, H am ilton County, Tennessee. 
Plaintiffs are all m em bers of the N egro race. T h e  action  
was brought on their own behalf and on behalf of oth er

'  Appellants’ appendix filed with the Circuit Court, No. 14,444, 
February 21, 1961, at page 7a.



3

Negro children and their parents in the City of Chatta­
nooga who are similarly situated. The minor plaintiffs 
are eligible to attend and do presently attend public 
schools in Chattanooga under the jurisdiction, manage­
ment, and control of the defendants. Defendants are as 
set forth in the caption.

Plaintiffs contend that the operation of a compulsory 
bi-racial school system in Chattanooga violates the rights 
of the plaintiffs and members of their class which are 
secured to them by the due process and equal protection 
clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Con­
stitution.

The plaintiffs state that the injury which they and the 
members of their class suffer as a result of the operation 
of a compulsory bi-racial school system is irrevocable and 
will continue to irrevocably injure plaintiffs and their 
class until enjoined by the Court.

The plaintiffs requested a decree enjoining defendants, 
their agents, employees and successors:

(1) from operating a compulsory bi-racial school sys­
tem in Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee;

(2) from continuing to maintain in a dual scheme or 
pattern of school zone lines based upon race and 
color;

(3) from assigning pupils to schools in the City of 
Chattanooga on the basis of the race and color of 
the pupils;

(4) from assigning teachers, principals, and other 
school personnel to the schools in the City of 
Chattanooga on the basis of the race and color of 
the person to be assigned and on the basis of the 
race and color of the children attending the school 
to which the personnel are to be assigned;



4

(5) from approving budgets making available funds, 
approving employee and construction contracts, 
and approving policies, curricula and programs 
which are designed to perpetuate or maintain or 
support a school system operating on a racially 
segregated basis. (App’t. A 13)

In the alternative, plaintiffs prayed that the Court in a 
decree direct defendants to present a complete plan within 
a period of time to be determined by the Court, for the 
reorganization of the entire school system of Chattanooga, 
Hamilton County, Tennessee, into a unitary non-racial 
school system. Plaintiffs further asked that the Court re­
tain jurisdiction pending Court approval and full and 
complete implementation of defendants’ plan.

On April 26, 1960, defendants moved to strike from the 
plaintiffs’ complaint certain portions thereof with regard 
to the assignment of school teaching personnel and other 
personnel on the basis of race or color. Said motion to 
strike was sustained.

Depositions of the defendants were taken on June 1, 
1960, by plaintiffs’ attorneys. The answer of defendants 
was filed on June 7, 1960. (App’t. A 16). Defendants ad­
mitted the operation of a bi-racial school system and sub­
mitted that the defendant Board since July 22, 1955, had 
been actively working with and carrying forward a plan 
for elucidating, assessing, and ultimately solving with all 
deliberate speed the problem of achieving a desegregated 
school system in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Defendants in 
said answer briefly outlined the actions taken by defend­
ants in implementing its plan of elucidation.

Defendants’ plan submitted that its actions constituted 
a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance but 
that in its judgment additional time was necessary. De-



5

fendants also requested the C ou rt to approve its plan for  
elucidation thereby giving the necessary tim e in w hich  
to elucidate, reconcile and bring ab ou t acceptance of a 
plan for desegregation of the school system.

O n Ju n e  7, 1960, a m otion for a trial w ith an advisory  
ju ry  was filed by defendants.

. O n Ju n e  20, 1960, plaintiffs filed a m otion for sum m ary  
judgm ent with accom panying affidavits and brief in 
sfipport of said m otion. (A pp’t. A  35).

O n Ju ly  8, 1960, defendants subm itted a m otion for 
sum m ary judgm ent on the basis that the facts did n ot w ar­
ran t a class action and that the adm inistrative rem edies 
under the Tennessee Pupil A ssignm ent Law  had not been  
exhausted by plaintiffs. B rief in support thereof was at­
tached. (A pp’t. A  55).

O n Ju ly  15, 1960, plaintiffs’ reply to defendants’ m otion  
for sum m ary judgm ent was filed along w ith m em orandum  
of points and authorities in opposition to the m otion. 
(A pp’t. A  63).

O n Ju ly  20, 1960, oral argum ents were heard on the 
m otions for sum m ary judgm ents and defendants subm itted  
a brief in opposition to plaintiffs’ m otion for sum m ary  
judgm ent. (A pp’t. A  75).

O n O ctober 21, 1960, the D istrict C o u rt filed its m em or­
andum  on said m otions denying defendants’ m otion and  
granting plaintiffs’ m otion for sum m ary judgm ent and  
fu rth er d irecting defendants to subm it a plan for desegre­
gation of the schools of the City of C hattanooga before  
the 20th  day of D ecem ber, 1960, and providing for a 
hearing on defendants’ plan to be held in the D istrict 
C ou rt on Jan u ary  9, 1961. (A pp’t. A  97). A n appropriate  
ord er was filed on N ovem ber 3, 1960. (A pp’t. A  100).

A  m otion was filed by defendants on N ovem ber 28, 
1960, (A pp’t. A  101) for an am endm ent to the order



6

granting a discretionary appeal. A  brief in support of 
said m otion was also filed. (A pp’t. A  102). An ord er  
denying said m otion was entered on D ecem ber 6, 1960. 
(A pp’t. 107a).

On D ecem ber 2, 1960, defendants filed a notice of appeal 
in the office of the C lerk of the D istrict C o u rt in C h atta­
nooga and also filed an appropriate cost bond. (A pp’t. 
A  116).

On D ecem ber 8, 1960, a m otion to stay judgm ent pend­
ing appeal was filed by defendants. (A pp’t. A  107).

O n D ecem ber 13, 1960, plaintiffs filed a m em orandum  
in opposition to defendants’ m otion to stay judgm ent 
pending appeal. (A pp’t. A  108).

O n D ecem ber 14, 1960, the C ou rt filed a m em orandum  
on m otion to suspend injunction  denying the m otion. 
(A pp’t. A  112).

O n D ecem ber 19, 1960, an appropriate ord er was en­
tered  with regard  to the denial of the stay. (A pp’t. A 115).

On D ecem ber 20, 1960, the C hattanooga Plan of D e­
segregation was filed, (p. 3a of appendix). Plaintiff’s 
objections to said plan and brief in support thereof were  
filed on D ecem ber 30, 1960. O n Jan u ary  3, 1961, Ju d ge  
D arr reassigned the hearing to Jan u ary  23, 1961. On  
Jan u ary  19, 1961, defendants filed a brief in support of 
th eir Plan of D esegregation as filed, (p. 9a of appendix).

O n the date set for the hearing, Ju d g e D arr delivered  
a m em orandum  opinion from  the bench in open cou rt 
p rior to the introduction of any proof, holding that the 
Plan as subm itted does not m eet the requirem ents of the 
C ourt. O n Jan u ary  27, 1961, an ord er was entered to 
said effect and requiring defendants to subm it an alternate  
plan w ithin sixty days. (p. 37a of appendix).

T h ereafter, notice of appeal was properly filed with cost 
bond.



7

D efendants contend that the D istrict C o u rt com m itted  
substantial e rro r as follows:

In  failing to hear proof offered by defendants in  
support of and justification of the design and stru ctu re  
of the Plan of Desegregation as subm itted by defend­
ants, and in disapproving such Plan w ithout hearing  
such proof.

A R G U M E N T  

P O I N T  I

Since the U n ited  States Suprem e C o u rt has placed the 
prim ary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and  
solving such varied local school problem s as m ay be in ­
volved in the full im plem entation of the constitutional 
principles enunciated  in  BROWN, ET A L . v. BOARD OF 
E D U C A T IO N  OF TOPEKA, KANSAS, 347 U. S. 483 
(1954), 349 U . S. 294 (1955) upon local school authorities, 
in  this instance, the defendant Chattanooga Board of E d u ­
cation, w hen such a B oard  subm its a P lan  of D esegregation  
representing the sum  total of its efforts to discharge such  
responsibility in good faith  and in conform ity with the  
criteria  of im plem entation set forth  in  the second BROWN 
decision, is not a D istrict C ou rt required  to hear such proof 
as is offered by a defendant B oard  in  support of its P lan  
of D esegregation as a necessary requisite to obtaining the  
facts upon which to m ake the judicial appraisal required  
of the D istrict C o u rt as to  w hether the defendant B oard  
has discharged the prim ary responsibility placed upon  
such B oard  by the U n ited  States Suprem e C ou rt, p articu ­
larly w hen the actions and plans of such defendant to be  
so appraised m ust necessarily involve facts and conditions 
peculiar to the local com m unity, and finally, req u ire a



8

Board judgment of factors incapable of precise determin­
ation?

The District Court answered this question “No”. 
Appellant contends the answer should have been “Yes”.

T h e  language of the U n ited  States Suprem e C o u rt in 
the second B row n  decision is clear and unam biguous as it 
places prim ary respon sib ility  upon local school authorities  
for elucidating, assessing, and solving the varied local 
school problem s involved in the full im plem entation of 
the constitutional principles req u irin g  the rem oval of racial 
discrim ination from  a public school system. T h is  respon­
sibility m ust be discharged in good faith. I t  is also clear  
that D istrict C ourts are to make a judicial appraisal of the 
actions of local school authorities, such as defendant B oard  
of Edu cation , to determ ine w hether o r n ot such B oard has 
m et such responsibility in good faith.

Is it possible to  make such an appraisal w ithout hearing  
the proof offered by the defendants? T h e  Suprem e C ou rt 
specifically recognized the “com plexities” facing school 
boards operating bi-racial school systems. (S49 U . S. 294, 
299). T h e  defendant B oard was presented w ith an awe­
some responsibility—H ow  to rem ove racial discrim ination  
and also m aintain an efficient school system providing a 
quality education?

If the possible detrim ental im pact upon the school sys­
tem  resulting from  the rem oval of racial discrim ination  
could be disregarded, the problem  becam e relatively  
simple. B u t how could a school board show total disregard  
for the educational program  of all the children of the  
com m unity, for to provide such a program  is its sole reason  
for existence?

H as D efendant B oard acted in good faith in this di­
lem m a? Has it assumed “the prim ary responsibility”



9

placed upon it by the Suprem e C ourt? (supra, at 299 ). 
W h at steps did it take to define the “varied local school 
problem s” (supra, at 29 9 ) involved in the rem oval of 
racial discrim ination from  its school system? Did it make 
these problem s clear to its com m unity? H ow  did it go 
about assessing and evaluating such problems? A re there  
problems? A re they of substance? W h a t solutions are  
proposed? A re the solutions reasonable and practicable?

Does the Chattanooga Plan of Desegregation reflect a 
“facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private  
needs”? (supra, at 300). W h at public needs? W h at p ri­
vate needs?

Does the Plan recognize “ the personal interest of the 
plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as prac­
ticable on a non-discrim inatory basis”? (supra, at 300). 
H ow  did defendants in terp ret “as soon as practicable”? 
W as this interpretation  made in good faith or did defend­
ants indulge in sophistry?

Does the C hattanooga Plan “properly take into account 
the public interest in the elim ination of such obstacles in 
a systematic and effective m an n er”? (supra, at 300). Is 
this the “public interest” in a national sense, o r does it 
refer to the citizens of Chattanooga, o r a com bination  
thereof?

Does such Plan reflect that com m unity disagreem ent has 
caused a yielding of the vitality of the constitutional p rin ­
ciples involved? Has defendant B oard given weight to 
“public and private considerations” in the design and  
structure of the Plan of Desegregation? (supra, at 300).

H ave the defendants carried  the burden of establishing  
that the tim e required by the Plan “is necessary in the 
public in terest” to carry ou t the ruling in an effective 
m anner “and is consistent with good faith com pliance at 
the earliest possible date”? (supra, at 300).



10

H ave the defendants m ade a “constructive use of tim e” 
and do they propose to do so during the fu rth er period of 
transition? (C o o p er  v. A a ro n , 358  U . S. 1, at 25).

Since courts were authorized to consider school adm in­
istration problem s in m aking this judicial appraisal, was 
n ot it incum bent upon school officials to carefully analyze 
such adm inistrative problem s in designing and stru ctu rin g  
its P lan of D esegregation? D id the defendants concerned  
perform  this function? A nd how thoroughly and carefully? 
Is not this one elem ent of proof bearing directly upon de­
fendants’ assum ption of the responsibility placed upon  
them?

Defendants respectfully contend that the D istrict C o u rt 
com m itted  e rro r in refusing defendants th eir day in court. 
In  so doing, the Suprem e C o u rt decisions in the B row n  
cases were incorrectly  in terpreted  and applied by said 
D istrict C ou rt. In view of the ch aracter, quality and com ­
plexity of the factual findings inherent in a judicial 
appraisal of w hether “the action of school authorities con ­
stitutes good faith im plem entation of the governing  
constitutional principles” , defendants contend that a Dis­
tric t C o u rt cannot discharge its judicial responsibility in 
the instant situation w ithout being provided with all the 
evidence as to w hat the facts are in C hattanooga, w hat the 
defendants did and propose to do, and why. (349  U . S. at 
299).

T h e  language of the B row n  D ecision s  as referred  to  
above, is sufficiently clear that no additional case authority  
would appear necessary to prove the rightness of defend­
ants’ resistance to the D istrict C o u rt’s refusal to hear the 
evidence.

T h e  following quotations from  K elly  v. B oard  o f  E duca­
tion  o f  th e C ity o f  N ash ville , 270  F. 2d 2 09 , Sixth C ircu it 
(1959) support this position:



11

“T h erefo re , a con sid era tion  o f  th e sch oo l p rob lem s  
confronted by the B oard of E d u cation  of the C ity of 
Nashville, and the so lu tion s  arrived at by the B oard, 
is necessary  to a determ ination of the controversy be­
fore us.” (Em phasis ours) (at 215)

“T h e  reasons why the school authorities supported  
this plan and considered it best, under the circu m ­
stances, are pertin en t to the determ ination of the  
issues before us, inasm uch as the solution of such  
school problem s is the prim ary responsibility of the 
local school authorities. Brow n v. B oard of E d u ca­
tion, supra.” (at 216)

“ Cases involving desegregation, like other cases, de­
pend largely upon the facts. W h ile  the law has been  
stated, perhaps, as definitely as it can be stated at 
the present tim e, by the Suprem e C ou rt, nevertheless, 
its application depends upon the facts of each p ar­
ticu lar case. ‘(Because) of the Sreat variety of local 
conditions, the form ulation of decrees in these cases 
presents problem s of considerable com plexity’. Brow n  
v. B oard of Education , 347  U . S. 4 8 3 , 495 , 74  S. Ct. 
686 , 692 , 98  L . Ed. 8 7 3 .” (at 225)

T h e  clear im port of these quotations is that a D istrict 
C o u rt m ust hear proof as to the consideration given local 
school problem s by the local school authorities, as well 
as the local solutions proposed for these local problem s. 
T h e  C hattanooga Plan of Desegregation is the end result 
of such considerations, and as such cannot contain its own 
justification. T h is property is left for the proof to be 

subm itted.
A dditional support for defendants’ contentions that 

e rro r was com m itted  in the refusal to hear proof is found  
in the following quotations from  the case of K elly  v . B oard  
o f  E d u ca tion  o f  th e C ity o f N ash ville , su pra :



12

“ F o r this reason decisions applying the desegregation  
doctrine in o th er cities or areas w here different condi­
tions obtain are of little  value. L o ca l con d ition s  call 
fo r  th e ap p lica tion  o f  a local rem ed y  (Em phasis 
ours) (at 225 ).

“ * *  * Because of the n atu re of the problem s and  
the local conditions, the school authorities often find 
th at action taken by o th er school districts is inappli­
cable to the facts w ith w hich they are dealing. * * * 
T h e  public interest m ust be considered along with  
all the facts and conditions prevalent in the school 
district. Educational standards should not be low­
ered .” (Q uoting from  a decision by Ju d g e  Jo h n  J .  
Park er in B riggs  v. E llio tt , D. C ., 132 F . Supp. 776). 
(at page 226).

“ ‘T h ese decisions serve only to dem onstrate that local 
school problem s are ‘varied ’ as referred  to by the  
Suprem e C o u rt’, and th at w hat w ould be a reasonable  
am ount of tim e to effect com plete integration in one 
city or area, m ight be unreasonable in an o th er.” 
(Q uoting with approval from  A a ron  v. C o o p er ,  243  
F . 2d  361 , 363 , E igh th  C ircu it), (at page 227).

T h e  defendant B oard has a “prim ary responsibility” .
T h e  D istrict C ou rt m ust m ake a “judicial appraisal” .
Guide lines for such appraisal have been outlined by the
Suprem e C o u rt:

“adjusting and reconciling public and private needs” 
“the public interest in the elim ination of such ob­
stacles in a systematic and effective m an n er”
“giving w eight to these public and private considera­
tions”
“p rom pt and reasonable start”
“carry  ou t the ruling in an effective m an n er”
“consider problem s related  to adm inistration”



13

A ll of the criteria  req u ire the exercise of judgm ent. D e­
fendants contend that since the D istrict C o u rt was to  m ake  
its appraisal w ithin such guidelines it followed th at D efend­
ant B oard  m ust also follow such criteria  in the process of  
discharging its prim ary responsibility. W h erev er and  
w henever the exercise of judgm ent is concerned, the good  
faith of those exercising such judgm ent is an essential p art 
of the total circum stances to be appraised. A nd w hen the 
application of generalized criteria  are involved in such  
judgm ents, specific factual proof as applied to  the p ar­
ticular situation is the only possible foundation for a 
judicial determ ination of good faith. T h e  D efendant 
B oard exercised judgm ent in the circum stances peculiar  
to C hattanooga. Unless the D istrict C o u rt is fully advised  
of the pertin en t facts considered by the C hattanooga B oard  
of Edu cation , its judicial appraisal w ould be founded on  
incom plete data. N o oth er conclusion is possible.

W ith o u t hearing the facts, the D istrict C o u rt can n ot be  
in a position to m ake a factual determ ination as to  the 
existence or absence of good faith upon the p art of D e­
fendant Board. A nd w ithout such determ ination, a ju d i­
cial appraisal of the judgm ent exercised by such Board, 
and reflected in its Plan of Desegregation, cannot have a 
solid foundation.

F o r exam ple, it would appear incontrovertible th at D e­
fendant B oard has an equal responsibility to both  white  
and N egro children insofar as the quality of educational 
opportunity  is concerned w ithin the Chattanooga School 
System. In  an attem p t to m eet this responsibility while 
effecting a radical change in the school system, D efendant 
B oard stru ctu red  its Plan of D esegregation in such a way as 
to provide a good educational environm ent in each de­
segregated classroom. Known or predictable factors con ­
trib u tin g  to tension w ithin a classroom  were isolated and



14

plans m ade to reduce such to an absolute m inim um . In  
essence this m eant that a classroom  w ould n ot only have 
to  be desegregated b u t integrated if the children in such  
classrooms were to have equal opportunities for norm al 
grow th and developm ent. Obviously, the details of such  
a procedure and the reasons therefor could  n ot be in cor­
porated w ithin the Plan of D esegregation. A nd the Dis­
tric t C o u rt could not be in a position to m ake a judicial 
appraisal of this factor w ithout h earing proof on this point.

O th er sim ilar judgm ents are reflected in the Plan of D e­
segregation. D efendants request the opportunity  to lay  
such facts before the C o u rt p rio r to having its Plan of 
Desegregation approved or disapproved.

R E L I E F

A ppellants respectfully request that the D istrict C o u rt  
be directed  to provide appellants an opportunity  to  pre­
sent proof in support and justification of the design and  
stru ctu re of its Plan of D esegregation p rio r to the finding 
of any facts and any decision approving o r disapproving  
said Plan of D esegregation, and th at such fu rth er relief 
be granted as the C o u rt m ay deem  equitable.

R espectfully subm itted,

T h e  B oard of E ducation  of the City  
of C hattanooga, H am ilton  C ounty, 
T ennessee, et al.
R A Y M O N D  B. W I T T ,  J R .

Its A ttorney



A P P E N D I X





CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES
1961

1-19 D efendants’ brief in support of its plan of de- 
segregation, filed. Service of copies m ade by counsel. 

1-23 T w o  copies of M em orandum , to M r. R aym ond
B. W itt, J r .,  from  B ennie C arm ichael, Supt. of C hattanooga  
P ublic Schools; 2 copies of R ecord  of A ctivities of C h atta­
nooga B oard  of E ducation  from  M ay 1, 1955 through  
Jan u ary  11, 1961, and a “Sum m ary of the evidence” de­
fendants are prepared to subm it as explanation and justifi­
cation of the Plan of D esegregation as presented by defts, 
filed.

1- 27 O rder, D arr, D .J ., that Plan of D esegregation does 
not m eet requirem ents but that it is not presently rejected ; 
that deft, will file an alternate plan w ithin 60 days; that 
the righ t of defts. to a reconsideration of the first plan, 
and the rights of the pltfs. o r defts. to except to present 
judgm ent is reserved; and that the operation of the in­
ju n ction  is suspended until term ination of the appeal, filed.
C . C. 11, p. 348-a.

2 -  10 N otice of A ppeal of the B oard of Education , City  
of Chattanooga, filed. Service of copies by Clerk to all 
attorneys of record.

2-10 Cost B ond in the sum  of $ 2 5 0 .0 0  filed.



2a

In  the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

For the Eastern District of Tennessee 
Southern Division

Civil A ction  N o. 3564

JA M E S  JO N A T H A N  M A P P  and D E B O R A H  L ’T A N Y A  
M A PP, m inors, by Jam es R . M app, th eir fath er and  
n ext friend,

and
P L ESS M A X E Y , J R .,  a m inor, by his m oth er and n ext  

friend, Mrs. Josephine M axey,
and

K A T H Y  K IR N O N , a m inor, by her father and n ext 
friend, T h e  R everend H . H . K irnon,

Plaintiffs,
vs.

T H E  B O A R D  O F  E D U C A T IO N  O F  T H E  C I T Y  O F  
C H A T T A N O O G A , H A M IL T O N  C O U N T Y , T E N ­
N E S S E E , a public body corporate,

and
D E A N  P E T E R S E N , C hairm an of the B oard of E ducation  

of the City of Chattanooga,
and

G E O R G E  C. H U D S O N , SR ., M RS. J .  B . IR V IN E , W I L ­
L IA M  D. L E B E R , R A Y M O N D  B. W I T T ,  J R .,  
C O R L E Y  R . Y O U N G  and G O R D O N  K E L L E T T ,  
m em bers of the Board of E ducation  of the C ity of 
C hattanooga,

and
B E N N IE  C A R M IC H A E L , Superintendent of Schools of 

the C ity of Chattanooga, Tennessee,
Defendants.



3a

THE CHATTANOOGA PLAN OF DESEGREGATION
(Filed  D ecem ber 20, 1960.)

Pursu an t to the O rder of this C o u rt entered on N ovem ­
ber 3, 1960, defendant B oard  of E d u cation  of the C ity of 
C hattanooga and B ennie C arm ichael, Superintendent, 
do hereby subm it the following plan of desegregation:

I. A Policy of Compliance
1. T h e  C hattanooga B oard of Education , since 1954, 

has been keenly aware of the overturn  of the long-estab­
lished doctrine of separate but equal facilities for the races. 
Its concern  has been of both a philosophical and practical 
nature.

A fter the Suprem e C o u rt decision of 1954, the B oard  
studied the issues of principle involved and, after serious 
and deeply sincere deliberation, publicly announced its 
in ten t to com ply with the decision.

T h e  greatest concerns were in m eeting the requirem ents  
of the ord er of the C ou rt to assess local conditions, to  
provide for com m unity-w ide elucidation of the local im ple­
m entation of the C o u rt’s decision, and to find practical 
means by which racial discrim ination could be abolished 
eventually in the Chattanooga City School System w ith the 
least dam age to the educational process.

Shortly after the B oard ’s announced intent to com ply  
with the Suprem e C o u rt decision, it appointed a biracial 
advisory council to assist in the task of assessment of local 
conditions and to elucidate to the com m unity the prob ­
lems of local im plem entation of the C o u rt’s decision. T h e  
object of the B oard in this action was to seek the solution  
of these problem s through the public forum , believing  
that through free, open, full and continuous discussion



of the problem , a solution w ould be developed. U n fo r­
tunately, en tren ch m en t on both sides of the question was 
so intense that the norm al processes of dem ocracy d eteri­
orated . In  spite of this, the B oard  has continued to hold  
m any m eetings w ith various groups, both form al and in­
form al, a t w hich the problem  has been discussed in depth  
w ith representative persons, m em bers of both races and  
at great length.

2. T h ese actions have constituted the B oard ’s first step  
in a plan of im plem entation of its publicly announced  
policy of com pliance.

T h e  B oard herew ith subm its the following and addi­
tional steps in its plan of desegregation.

II. A bolishm ent of Compulsory School Segregation Based 
U p o n  Race

1. Effective w ith the beginning of the school year, 1962- 
-63, com pulsory school segregation based upon race shall 
be abolished in selected schools of the Chattanooga Public  
School System; and students shall be adm itted  to these 
schools in grades one, two and three w ithout regard  to race  
in keeping w ith the procedures outlined in the following  
sections. In  addition, desegregation m ay be effected in  
certain  special program s. T h e  elem entary schools to be 
desegregated for the school year, 1962-63, will be announ­
ced by O ctober 1, 1961.

2. Beginning w ith each subsequent school year, one 
additional grade shall be desegregated in these schools,
i.e., grade four in Septem ber, 1963, grade five in Septem ­
ber, 1964, etc.

T'3. D esegregation will be effected in o th er schools and  
special program s after the 1962-63 school year according  
to plans to be subm itted to, and as approved by, the Dis-

4a
The Chattanooga Plan of Desegregation



The Chattanooga Plan of Desegregation

tric t C ou rt, said plans to be consistent w ith the general 
principles and provisions of these initial steps.

III. Establishm ent of a Single System of School Zones

1. T h e  C hattanooga B oard of E ducation  will conduct 
and analyze by Septem ber 1, 1961, a com plete school census 
of the entire City of Chattanooga.

2. O n the basis of the analysis of these data, a plan of 
single school zones based upon location and size of school 
buildings and school population w ithout regard  to race  
will be established and announced by O ctob er 1, 1961.

3. T h e  full and com plete application of these single 
zone lines w ithout regard to race is the goal of this plan  
and shall be achieved through the procedures outlined in 
Sections IV  and V , dealing with the In terim  O peration of 
Present School Zones and Admission to Schools by Single 
Zones, respectively.

IV . T h e  In terim  O peration of Present School Zones

1. In  the period of transition to single zones, children  
m ay continue the practice of attending schools to w hich  
they are zoned by existing Board policy.

2. School zones as now established, o r as they m ay be 
subsequently am ended by the B oard of Education , shall 
rem ain operative only until such a date as single zone lines 
are in full and com plete application.

V. Adm ission to Schools by Single Zones

1. Beginning with the school year, 1962-63, students in 
grades one, two and three residing w ithin a new single 
school zone w hich places the pupil in a different school 
than the one he would attend under existing zones, may 
enroll in his new single zone school provided:

5a



The Chattanooga Plan of Desegregation

(a) said school has been desegregated by the B oard  
of E d u cation ; and

(b) provided parents, guardians, o r those acting in  
the position of parents of students desiring to 
enroll in said schools, shall file a w ritten  notice  
of in tent w ith the B oard  of Edu cation , at its offi­
cial headquarters p rio r to Jan u ary  1, 1962 ; and

subject to the paragraph im m ediately following.

2. T h e  B oard  of Education , in accordance w ith exist­
ing policy, m ay adjust zone lines so as to m aintain sound  
and efficient organization of individual schools.

V I. Privilege of T ran sfer

1. U pon receipt of applications, as provided in existing  
school board policy, transfer of students in desegregated  
schools m ay be granted when good cause therefor is shown.

2. T h e  following will be regarded as some of the valid  
reasons of good cause for transfer.

(a) W h en  a student w ould otherwise be req u ired  to 
attend a school w here the m ajority  of students in 
that school or in his class are of a different race.

(b) W h en  in the judgm ent of the Board, upon the 
recom m endation of the superintendent, it is in

J T h e  best interest of the student, u n der board  
policy, to transfer him  from  one school to another.

VII. A  T im etab le  of Im plem entation T h ro u g h  a C on­
tinuing P rogram  of Elucidation

1. T h e  proper tim ing, continuation of the program  of 
study and elucidation and careful planning and organ­
ization of the school system are the essence of this plan. 
T h e  Board, superintendent and adm inistrative staff recog-

6a



nize and accept responsibilities for the developm ent of 
full understanding of the plan and its im plem entation — 
to the schools and classes affected, to the com m unity  at 
large, and particularly  to principals, teachers, parents and  
pupils.

2. M eetings concerning these problem s have already  
been held by the superintendent and staff w ith all p rin ­
cipals in the system. As the schools to be desegregated  
are identified, a planned and continuous program  of con­
ferences with the principals and teachers of the schools 
and classes im m ediately affected will be initiated  in ord er  
to develop a workable, equitable and successful transition  
to the single zones.

3. U pon the com pletion of the census, and the tentative  
identification of schools to be desegregated, the Board, 
superintendent and staff will organize both form al and in­
form al conferences with the com m unity leaders of the 
affected schools in ord er to study the application of the 
plan in each school and to provide data and suggestions 
w hich m ay help the B oard refine its judgm ents in the final 
selection of schools to be desegregated.

4. U pon receipt of w ritten notices of in ten t to enroll 
on the basis of the single zones, the Board, superintendent 
and staff will initiate' an intensive program  of elucidation  
of the specific plans under way for each school. T h is  p ro­
gram  of elucidation will involve specifically the teachers, 
parents, and pupils of the individual classes to be affected 
upon the opening of school in 1962-63. C om m unity lead­
ers will also be invited to join  in this program  of 
elucidation, designed to make the transition workable 
and successful.

5. T h e  B oard will exhaust every avenue of com m unica­
tion with the leaders and citizens of the com m unity at 
large, in ord er to obtain the im plem entation of this plan

7a

The Chattanooga Plan of Desegregation



8a
The Chattanooga Plan of Desegregation

tow ard the continued m aintenance and im provem ent of 
the efficiency and effectiveness of the instructional program  
of the C hattanooga Pu b lic Schools.

6. In  subsequent years, the program  of elucidation  
shall be continued in the follow ing schedule:
By O ctob er 1 — the publication of any m odification of ex ­

isting a n d /o r  single zones, after the analysis of cu rren t  
census data and discussion w ith com m unities affected. 
—T h e  publication of o th er and additional schools to  
be desegregated after full analysis of data and dis­
cussion w ith the com m unities affected.

By Jan u ary  1 — Submission of w ritten  statem ent of in tent 
to enroll.

From  Jan u ary  1 to O pening of School — Program s of elu­
cidation to the teachers, parents, and pupils involved  
and to the com m unity at large.

iening of School — Im plem entation of zone m odifica­
tions, desegregation of o th er and additional schools, 
and admission to schools on single zone basis.

T H E  C H A T T A N O O G A  B O A R D  O F  
E D U C A T IO N —
G eorge C. H udson  
M rs. J .  B . Irvine, Sr.
G ordon K ellett 
W illiam  D. L eb er  
R aym ond B. W itt, J r .
C orley R . Y ou n g
D ean Petersen, C hairm an of the B oard  
of Education
B ennie C arm ichael, Superintendent

R A Y M O N D  B. W I T T ,  J R .
A ttorney for Defendants

(D U L Y  C E R T I F I E D )



9a

(C A P T IO N  O M IT T E D )

DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS 
PLAN OF DESEGREGATION

I
The Principle Issue

T h e  principle issue in this hearing is w hether o r  not 
the Chattanooga Plan of D esegregation as presented m eas­
ures up to the criteria  outlined by the U n ited  States 
Suprem e C o u rt in B row n  v. B oard  o f  E d u cation  o f  T o p ek a , 
347 U.S. 483  (5-17-54), 349  U.S. 2 9 4  (5-31-55) and as en­
larged upon by the Suprem e C o u rt in C o o p er  v. A a ron , 
358 U.S. 1 (9-29-58) and specifically applied by the Sixth  
C ircu it in K elly  v. B oard  o f  E d u cation  o f  C ity o f  N ash ­
v ille , 270  F. 2d  209  (1 9 5 9 ), cert. den. 361 U.S. 924 . O ther  
decided cases m ay bear upon the issue involved b u t the 
above cases are of prim ary im portance.

II

Criteria of Compliance

Defendants subm it that the criteria  of com pliance are as 
follows and that the Chattanooga Plan of D esegregation  
meets these criteria  of com pliance:

1. I t  is “a prom pt and reasonable start tow ard full 
com pliance” . 349  U.S. 294 , 300.

2. I t  reflects an adequate consideration by the defend­
ants “of the com plexities arising from  the transition to  a 
system of public education freed from racial discrim ina­
tion ” . 349  U .S. 2 9 4 , 299 .

3. I t  reflects an adequate assum ption by the defendants 
of the prim ary responsibility for elucidating, assessing and  
solving the “varied local school problem s”, a solution of



10a
Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation 

w hich is necessary for the full im plem entation of the con ­
stitutional principles enunciated  by the U . S. Suprem e  
C ou rt in the B row n  Cases. 349  U .S. 294 , 299 .

4. T h e  Plan subm itted as well as the o th er acts of the  
defendants constitute good faith im plem entation of the  
governing constitutional principles. 349  U .S. 2 9 4 , 300 .

5. T h e  C hattanooga Plan reflects a “facility for ad­
justing and reconciling  public and private needs” . 349  
U.S. 294 , 300.

6. T h e  C hattanooga Plan recognizes “the personal in­
terest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as 
soon as practicable on a non-discrim inatory basis” . 349  
U.S. 294 , 300 .

7. T h e  Plan “properly takes into account the public  
interest in the elim ination of such obstacles in a system atic 
and effective m an n er” . 349  U .S. 2 94 , 300 .

8. T h e  Plan reflects that disagreem ent w ith the con­
stitutional principles has n ot caused a yielding of the  
vitality of such principles, supra, p. 300 .

9. T h e  Plan reflects that w eight has been given to pub­
lic and private considerations, supra, p. 300.

10. T h e  defendants have carried  the burden of estab­
lishing that the tim e required  by the Plan is necessary in 
the public interest to carry  ou t the ru lin g  in an effective 
m anner and is consistent w ith good faith com pliance at 
the earliest practicable date.

11. T h e  defendants have adequate plans to m eet the 
local school problem s and to effectuate a transition to a 
racially non-discrim inatory school system.

12. T h e  Chattanooga Plan will accom plish the transi­
tion to a school system m aintained on a racially non- 
discrim inatory basis as soon as reasonably practicable  
consistent w ith the public interest and the efficient opera­
tion of the schools. 270  F . 2d  2 0 9 , p. 212 .



Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation

13. C om m unity  opposition has been taken into account 
only to m inim ize effects of such upon the efficiency of the 
schools, supra, p. 212 .

14. D efendant B oard has m ade a “constructive use of 
tim e” and they do propose to so do during the fu rth er  
period of transition. 358 U.S. 1, p. 25.

III

D efendant B oard ’s Basic O bjective

T h e  C hattanooga Plan of D esegregation represents the 
com bined best wisdom and judgm ent of the Chattanooga  
B oard  of Education , its Superintendent and adm inistrative  
staff, as to the m axim u m  desegregation presently possible 
consistent with a m inim um  d etrim en t to public education  
in the com m unity, and at the same tim e providing the 
best possible base for expanding desegregation in an or­
derly fashion in the future while im proving the quality  
of public education in ou r com m unity.

T h is  has been defendants’ objective consistently since 
M ay of 1955. Every act has been evaluated as it m ight bear 
directly o r indirectly upon this objective. T h e  defendant 
B oard does not claim  infallible wisdom, nor does it claim  
that mistakes m ay not have been m ade, n or that mistakes 
will not be made as the im plem entation of this Plan p ro­
gresses. B u t defendant B oard does state that it has done 
the best it knew how to do, in the circum stances in which  
it found itself.

IV

What is the Law?

In h erent in the C hattanooga Plan is the assum ption that 
public education is of vital im portance to this com m unity,

I.

11a



12a

to the children of this com m unity, and to the nation. And  
fu rther, that the rights of 2 6 ,0 0 0  children are involved. 
T h e  Plan fu rth er assumes that no act should be taken, 
n or policy adopted, th at could be expected to have a 
detrim en tal effect upon the quality of educational oppor­
tunity for the 2 6 ,0 0 0  children.

T h e  Plan also assumes that racial discrim ination m ust 
be rem oved from  the C hattanooga school system.

T h is  Plan represents a judgm ent by the defendant C h at­
tanooga B oard of E d u cation  that com plete desegregation  
instantly w ould result in a severe d etrim en t to the cause 
of public education in C hattanooga for a substantial period  
of tim e, and, therefore, com plete desegregation im m edi­
ately is n ot advisable and is unwise.

T h e  Chattanooga Plan also assumes that the Suprem e  
C o u rt decisions in the B row n  Cases, supra, do n ot require  
im m ediate and com plete desegregation in order to com ply  
w ith the constitutional principles enunciated  in the two  
B row n  Cases. Im m ediate and com plete desegregation is 
n ot the law.

T h e  Plan also assumes that it is a basic tenant of the 
constitutional principles referred  to in the B row n  Cases 
th at the initial judgm ent on the ex ten t of desegregation  
possible and practicable in any given com m unity  is the  
prim ary responsibility of the local school authorities; and, 
fu rther, that this initial group judgm ent by the persons 
charged w ith the responsibility of operating a school system  
is entitled to substantial w eight if said school authorities  
have conducted themselves in a good faith  valuation of 
their circum stances and if the local school authorities are  
m aking a good faith effort to im plem ent the constitutional 
principles enunciated  in the B row n  D ecision s.

Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation



T h e  following quotation from  K elly  v. B oard  o f  E duca­
tion  o f  th e C ity o f  N ash ville , 270  F . 2d 2 09 , Sixth C ircu it 
(6-17-59) at p. 215  is p ertinent:

“ ‘F u ll im plem entation of the constitutional prin ­
ciples involved in this case required (a) solution of 
varied local school problem s. School authorities have 
the prim ary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, 
and solving these problem s * * * . ’ B row n  v. B oard  
o f  E d u ca tion , 349  U .S. 2 94 , 299 . T h erefore , a consid ­
era tion  o f the sch oo l p rob lem s co n fron ted  by th e B oard  
o f  E d u cation  o f  th e C ity o f  N ash ville , and the solu tion s  
arrived  at by th e B oard , is necessary to a d eterm in ation  
o f  th e con troversy  b e fo re  u s (Em phasis ours)

A gain at p. 216  in the same opinion:

“T h e  reasons why the school authorities supported  
this plan and considered it best, under the circum ­
stances, are pertinent to the determ ination of the 
issues before us, inasm uch as the solution of such 
school problem s is the prim ary responsibility of the 
local school authorities. B row n  v. B oard  o f  E duca­
tion , supra.”

T h e n  at p. 224 :

“ H olding that the appellees had carried  the burden  
of proof of establishing the validity of the School 
B oard ’s plan, and that it should, therefore, be ap­
proved, the cou rt, in its opinion, declared that ‘ it is 
n ot th e business o f  th e F ed eral C ou rts to op era te  th e  
p u b lic  schools  and they should intervene only when  
it is necessary for the enforcem ent of rights protected  
by the Federal Constitution. If the judgm ent of the 
School Board was clearly erroneous, or if it was not 
supported by the evidence, the C o u rt would be justi­
fied in finding that the defendants had not carried  
the burden of proof resting upon them  and that the 
School B oard ’s plan should be disapproved. H ow -

13a
Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation



14a

ever, where in this case, the judgment of the School 
Board is supported by the clear preponderance of the 
evidence, it would be an unwarranted invasion of the 
lawful prerogatives of the legally constituted school 
authority if the Court should undertake to set its 
judgment aside and substitute some other plan. A d ­
m ittedly the problem  is not susceptible o£ an easy 
solution. T h e  Suprem e C o u rt of the U n ited  States 
has made it clear that adjustm ent m ust be m ade in 
accordance w ith the exigencies of each case, and that 
the concept of ‘all deliberate speed’ is a flexible one. 
For this reason decisions applying the desegregation 
doctrine in other cities or areas where different condi­
tions obtain are of little value. L ocal conditions call 
for the application of a local rem edy.’ ” (Em phasis 
ours)

C ircu it Ju d g e M cA llister in the Nashville Case, supra, 
at page, 2 26 , includes a quotation from  the decision of 
Ju d ge Jo h n  J .  Parker in Briggs v. Elliott, 133 F . Supp. 776 , 
a portion of such quotation w hich is as follows:

“ ‘It (the Suprem e C ourt) has not decided that the 
federal courts are to take over or regulate the public 
schools of the states * # #.Because of the n ature of 
the problem s and the local conditions, the school au­
thorities often find that action taken by o ther school 
districts is inapplicable to the facts w ith w hich they  
are dealing # # * . T h e  public interest m ust be con ­
sidered along w ith all the facts and conditions preva­
lent in the school district. Educational standards 
should n ot be lowered. If the school authorities have 
acted and are proceeding in good faith, their actions 
should not be set aside by a co u rt so long as their  
action is consistent with the ultimate establishment 
of a nondiscrim inatory school system at the earliest 
practicable date’ ” (emphasis ours)

Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation



V

P u b lic E ducation  Must be Maintained and Efficiently
Operated

In  B row n  v. B oard  o f  E d u cation  o f  T o p ek a , supra, at p. 
493 , the following significent statem ent is set forth:

“T od ay, education is perhaps the most im portant 
function of state and local governm ents. Com pulsory  
school attendance laws and the great expenditures for 
education both dem onstrate ou r recognition of the  
im portance of education to ou r dem ocratic society. It  
is req uired  in the perform ance of ou r m ost basic 
public responsibilities, even service in the arm ed  
forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. 
T od ay  it is a principal instrum ent in awakening the 
child to cu ltu ral values, in preparing him  for later 
professional training, and in helping him  to adjust 
norm ally to his environm ent. In these days, it is 
doubtful that any child m ay reasonably be expected  
to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of 
an education. Such an opportunity, w here the state 
has undertaken to provide it, is a right which m ust 
be m ade available to all on equal term s.”

F rom  this, D efendant Board reasons that one of the con­
stitutional principles enunciated in this case is the im por­
tance of public education. From  this, defendant B oard  
fu rth er reasons that the m aintenance of an efficient school 
system providing a quality education is a cardinal prin ­
ciple that m ust be considered in any decision that a local 
school board may make. T h is requires a local board to 
make an evaluation of the negative im pact upon a school 
system resulting from  the rem oval of racial discrim ination  
in some form  of desegregation. It implies a balancing of 
the rights of the com m unity to a continued quality educa­

15a
Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation



tional program  against the rights of the plaintiffs’ and those 
sim ilarity situated to  have racial discrim ination rem oved  
com pletely from  such school system. D efendant B oard  
construes the Suprem e C o u rt’s decision to  req u ire that 
this evaluation be m ade by said B oard  and D efendant 
B oard believes th at if it had disregarded the probable or  
possible im pact upon public education resulting from  
desegregation that such could  be a violation of the p rin ­
ciples enunciated  by the Suprem e C o u rt in the B row n  
decisions.

I t  is req uired  that the im m ediate im plem entation of such  
constitutional rights in a public school system be balanced  
against the detrim ental im pact upon public education re ­
sulting from  desegregation for deterioration  in the quality  
of public education weakens the rights of the total com ­
m unity.

T h e  Nashville B oard evaluated the circum stances and  
factors existent in th eir own com m unity and cam e to the  
conclusion:

“T h a t a sudden o r ab ru p t transition to a desegre­
gated basis w ould engender adm inistrative problem s 
of such com plexity and m agnitude as to seriously u n ­
derm ine and im pair the educational system of the 
city .” K elly  v. B oard  o f  E d u ca tion , 270  F . 2d 2 09 , 6th  
C ir. (1959).

H ere is a specific criteria , th at is, the possible detrim en t 
to  an educational system resulting from  desegregation. 
T h is balancing of incom patible objectives is a responsi­
bility of a school board. T h e  D istrict C o u rt found:

“T h a t p rop er school adm inistration requires that 
the school board take into account the existence of 
this factor (the drastic ch aracter of the change im ­
posed by desegregation on a school system), n ot to

16a
Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation



17a

accede to  hostility or placate the opponents of de­
segregation, but in order to m inim ize the effects of 
such opposition upon the efficiency of the schools 
* # *_>> K elly  v. B oard  o f  E d u ca tion , supra, p. 224 .

B oth  the N egro and white children in the com m unity  
have a vital interest in the quality of educational oppor­
tunity afforded to them . T h is  vital interest is shared by 
th eir parents and the com m unity in general, as well as the  
nation. T h a t desegregation in Chattanooga will have a 
detrim en tal effect upon the quality of the educational 
program  is a certainty. T h e  local B oard m ust evaluate  
w ithin its judgm ent in good faith, (1) the possible d etri­
m ental im pact upon public education resulting from  vari­
ous degrees of desegregation against (2) the constitutional 
rig h t of plaintiffs and those sim ilarly situated to the full 
benefit of their constitutional rights. T h e  solution to such  
balancing of rights is a com prom ise w hich results in a 
m inim um  detrim en t to public education w ith the m axi­
m um  exten t of desegregation, based upon a good faith  
evaluation of all factors existing in C hattanooga pertinent 
to  such decision.

VI

During the Transition Period the Rights of Negroes 
are Qualified

T h e  principal difficulty arises from  different in terp reta­
tions of the significance of the Suprem e C o u rt’s decisions 
in the two B row n  Cases, supra. I t is apparently plaintiffs’ 
position that the law is that a N egro now has an unqualified  
righ t to be adm itted to schools on a racially non-discrim ina- 
tory basis. I t  is defendant Board of E d u cation ’s position  
that a N egro under such circum stances does not have an  
unqualified right. Such righ t is qualified by the language  
of the S econd  B row n  decision, supra, and also by the



Defendants’ Brief in Supp&rt of Its Flan of Desegregation 
decision of the Sixth C ircu it in the Nashville case. K elly  
v. Board o f  Education o f  the C ity o f  N a sh ville , supra. 
T h ese two decisions and the K elly  decision m ean th at a 
N egro has a righ t to be adm itted on a racially non-dis- 
crim inatory basis if his admission is consistent w ith the  
continued efficient operation of the school system to w hich  
he is being adm itted. U n d er one interp retation , carried  
to its extrem e, a board of education has no responsibility  
to take into consideration the com m unity  resistance to 
desegregation; and if to desegregate w ould m ean, in the 
best judgm ent of the board concerned, th at said school 
system w ould be destroyed and done away w ith, then this 
w ould n ot be a legally valid reason for refusing admission  
to a N egro child.

W h at legal grounds are there for the defendant B oard ’s 
position that this righ t is a qualified right? In  the first 
Brown decision, 347  U .S . 4 8 3 , at p. 4 9 3 , after the recitation  
by the co u rt of the facts and the sum m ary of the points 
brou gh t ou t by the plaintiffs and defendants, and p rior  
to any specific reference to the n atu re of its decision, the 
C o u rt stressed the im portance of public education to the 
nation in a ra th er lengthy paragraph. T h is  raises the 
question: Is the im m ediate granting of rights to a N egro  
of sufficient im portance that such should be granted in- 
stanter, com pletely disregarding the effect of such adm is­
sion upon a school system? If the Suprem e C o u rt m eant 
to disregard such possible effect or any consideration th ere­
of, then a N egro does have an unqualified right. O th er­
wise, such right is qualified in some m anner. T h e  exact 
and precise natu re of the various qualifications will be 
left to later consideration herein.

In  the first Brown decision, supra, at p. 4 9 5 , the C ou rt  
said that: “ * * * the form ulation of decrees in these 
cases presents problem s of considerable com p lexity .” If

18a



Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation 

the righ t of the N egroes was unqualified, then there  
w ould have been no necessity of considering any com ­
plexities that the C ou rt referred to in the language quoted  
above. A  consideration of the com plexities was necessary 
according to the C ou rt preparatory and prelim inary to 
the form ulation of decrees effectuating the righ t that the  
N egroes m ight have. It is defendants’ contention that 
the bare declaration of a right is of no substance w ithout 
the rem edy that effectuates that right and therefore the 
rem edy and the righ t are m erged and the n ature of the 
rem edy necessarily qualifies the right, or at least the tim e  
w hen, and the circum stances under which, the righ t will 
be fully m atured  to the benefit of Negroes. T h is is a prac­
tical m atter.

T h e  n ext pronouncem ent by the Suprem e C o u rt was 
M ay 31, 1955, in B row n , et al. v. B oard  o f  E d u cation  o f  
T o p ek a ,  349  U.S. 294 . T h e  last sentence in the first para­
graph of this decision gives the substance of this decision  
when the cou rt said: “ there rem ains for consideration the 
m anner in w hich relief is to be accorded.” T h e n  at page 
299  there is the following:

“T hese presentations were inform ative and helpful to  
the C ou rt in its consideration of the com plexities 
arising from  the transition to a system of public edu­
cation freed of racial discrim ination.”

Of w hat significance is the word “transition”? I t  certainly  
implies that im m ediate rem oval of racial discrim ination  
is n ot possible in public education and that there m ust be 
an interim  period of some tim e, varied according to local­
ities concerned, in which there will continue to be racial 
discrim ination. By inference such approves the continua­
tion of racial discrim ination to some degree and for some 
period of tim e. T h e  C ourt speaks of an eventual rem oval

19a



Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation 

of all racial discrim ination as a goal to be attained  at some 
point in the future. I t  certainly  follows that if such re ­
m oval of racial discrim ination is a goal, that u n til the tim e  
that goal is reached there will be racial discrim ination. 
A nd if there is racial discrim ination it necessarily means 
th at certain  N egroes will not have an unqualified righ t 
to admission to schools on a non-racial basis.

O n the same page the C o u rt refers to the “solution of 
varied local school problem s” . I t  goes on to place the  
responsibility on school authorities “for elucidating, assess­
ing and solving these problem s” . I t  fu rth er states th at the 
local courts will have to m ake the determ ination as to  
w hether o r n ot the acts of the local school board  in im ple­
m enting the governing constitutional principles constitutes 
good faith. T h e  words “elucidating, assessing and solving” 
all indicate a process, that is, a m ovem ent tow ard the a t­
tainm ent of the goal of the rem oval of racial discrim ina­
tion from  public school systems. H ere , again, the C ou rt 
is necessarily referring  to an indeterm inate period of tim e  
in w hich there will continue to be racial discrim ination  
in public school systems.

A t page 300 , 349  U .S. 2 9 4 , the Suprem e C o u rt speaks 
of courts being “guided by equitable principles” in “fash­
ioning and effectuating the decrees” , “facility for adjusting  
and reconciling public and private needs” ; “ the personal 
interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as 
soon  as p ra cticab le  on a non-discrim inatory basis” . (E m ­
phasis ours) F u rth e r along the C o u rt refers to the  
elim ination of a variety of obstacles in m aking the transi­
tion. I t  speaks of “ the public interest in the elim ination  
of such obstacles in a systematic and effective m an n er” . 
C ertainly, the C o u rt m ust have m eant here th at there were 
certain  obstacles that a school board w ould have to over­
com e before it could free its school system of racial dis-

20a



Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation 

crim ination . A nd again, it is obvious that d u rin g the  
tim e when these obstacles are being identified and are  
being rem oved, there will continue to be racial discrim ina­
tion and that the righ t of N egroes in such circum stances 
to admission to a school on a non-discrim inatory basis will 
n ot be an unqualified right. In  these circum stances N egroes 
will have to tem porarily forego their constitutional rights 
until such obstacles have been rem oved.

A gain, later in the same opinion, the C ou rt refers to  
“while giving w eight to these public and private considera­
tions.” It requires defendant boards to make a prom pt 
and reasonable start tow ard full com pliance. B u t here  
the language is to “ the defendants” . Is the prom pt and  
reasonable start requirem ent lim ited to defendants in the 
lawsuit that the Suprem e C o u rt was concerned w ith or  
does this prom pt and reasonable start apply to all school 
boards in the U n ited  States that at that tim e m aintained  
a bi-racial school system?

T h e  C o u rt w ent on to say that once such a start had  
been m ade that the courts m ight find that additional tim e  
was necessary and it placed the burden upon the defend­
ants in such a situation to establish that additional tim e  
was necessary in the public interest and that such tim e  
was consistent with the good faith com pliance at the earliest 
practicable date. H ere again the necessary im plication  
of the C o u rt’s language is, that during this additional 
tim e if such is proved to be necessary, there will be a 
continuation of racial discrim ination in the school system  
affected. I t  again follows that as long as there is racial 
discrim ination in such a school system that all N egroes 
will n ot have an unqualified righ t to adm ittance to certain  
schools. T h e n  at p. 301,  supra, the C ou rt stated:

“T h ey  will also consider the adequacy of any plans 
the defendants m ay propose to m eet these problem s

21a



and to effectuate a transition to a racially non-dis- 
crim inatory  school system. D uring this period of 
transition, the courts will retain  jurisdiction of these 
cases” .

From  this language it is obvious that local boards will have 
to form ulate plans to m eet the problem s. T h is  also pre­
supposes that they w ould have to do some thinking and  
analyzing in order to state w hat the problem s were before  
they could plan how they were going to m eet them . A ll 
of this again substantiates the fact that it is the law that 
there will be a period of tim e in w hich racial discrim ination  
will continue. A nd, if racial discrim ination continues, 
certain  N egroes will not have an unqualified rig h t to be 
adm itted  to schools on a non-discrim inatory basis.

T h e  n ext case of im portance is the case of C o o p er , e t al 
v. A a ro n , e t al, 358  U .S. 1, (1 9 5 8 ), the L ittle  R ock  case. 
In  any analysis of the m eaning of the words used by the  
Suprem e C o u rt in this decision, it m ust be rem em bered  
that this decision began w ith these words:

“As this case reaches us it raises questions of the high­
est im portance to the m aintenance of ou r federal sys­
tem  of governm ent. I t  necessarily involves a claim  
by the G overnor and Legislature of the State that 
there is no duty on state officials to obey federal cou rt 
orders resting on this C o u rt’s considered in terp reta­
tion of the U n ited  States C on stitu tion ” .

T hese are strong term s and it should be noted that the 
C o u rt states as a fact that the Arkansas governor and legis­
lature both affirmatively stated and claim ed that they had 
n o duty as state officials to o b ey  F ed era l C ou rt orders. At 
page 7, supra, the C o u rt points ou t that D istrict Courts 
are directed to require a prom pt and reasonable start

22a

Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation



Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation 

tow ard full com pliance. F u rth er along on page 7, supra, 
in speaking of the D istrict C ou rt the Suprem e C ou rt said:

“A fter analysis of the relevant factors (which, of 
course, excludes hostility to racial desegregation) (the 
C ou rt) m ight conclude that justification existed for 
not requiring the present nonsegregated admission of 
all qualified N egro children .”

E xactly  what is the m eaning of the parenthetical expression? 
It would seem that if this hostility to racial desegregation  
would affect the quality of the public school system, that 
it m ust be considered though it would not be sufficient 
justification for not doing anything. T h e  C ou rt goes on 
to  say:

“ In such circum stances, however, the C ou rt should  
scrutinize the program  of the school authorities to  
make sure that they have developed arrangem ents 
pointed toward the earliest practicable com pletion of 
desegregation and had taken appropriate steps to put 
th eir program  into effective operation.”

H ere, again, the language used refers to a process, a transi­
tion, and a period of time. A  prom pt start is required  and  
any plan m ust be diligently and earnestly pursued. T h e  
C ou rt goes on to say:

“State authorities were thus duty bound to devote 
every effort toward initiating desegregation and bring­
ing about the elim ination of racial discrim ination in 
the public school system.”

T h e  word “tow ard” and the phrases “bringing ab ou t” both  
refer to a period of tim e and a transition period.

T h e  following pertinent inform ation is found in an  
article entitled “T h e  U nited  States Suprem e C o u rt and

23a



24a

D esegregation”, by Paul H artm an , in T h e  M odern Law
Review , Ju ly  1960, at pages 356  and 357 :

“ In  term s of res jud icata , the second B row n  deci­
sion applies to the school districts w hich were defend­
ants in the cases before the cou rt. H ow ever, it is clear  
that its im portance, like that of the first B row n  deci­
sion, goes far beyond settling a dispute betw een the 
parties to the suits. T h e  opinion granting relief was 
m eant to  provide a b lu ep r in t fo r  th e ord erly  transi­
tion  from  racially segregated schools w herever they  
existed to schools open to pupils w ithout regard  to  
color o r race.

“A n  im p ortan t feature of this plan is the gradual 
im plem entation of the first B row n  decision declaring  
segregation unconstitutional. As noted above, the  
Suprem e C o u rt relied  on ‘equitable principles’ on  
authorizing this step-by-step approach. N o doubt, the 
cases before the Suprem e C o u rt in the segregation  
controversys were equity cases, since all plaintiffs ap­
plied for injunctions. H ence, the co u rt had at its 
disposal the broad discretionary powers granted to  
courts of equity. W h a t is n o v e l is that th e en jo y m en t  
o f  clear con stitu tion a l rights o f  individuals m ay be  
delayed  th rou gh  th e op era tion  o f  eq u ita b le  p rin cip les . 
T h a t the righ t to be free from  discrim ination is one  
that requires im m ediate im plem entation follows from  
Suprem e C o u rt decisions rendered  betw een 1938 and  
1950 in suits brought by N egroes w ho, because of 
their race, were refused admission to state-supported  
graduate schools. F inding that plaintiffs had been  
denied the equal protection  of the laws, the C ou rt 
stressed the ‘personal and present’ natu re of their con­
stitutional rights, and accordingly required  the grad­
uate schools to provide facilities for the N egro students 
suing for relief, as soon as they did for applicants of 
the white race. In  these cases the im m ediate im ple­
m entation did n ot present adm inistrative problem s; 
it involved nothing m ore than the admission of one

Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation



person—the plaintiff in each suit; furtherm ore, it was 
clear that the num ber of future qualified N egro claim ­
ants for admission to graduate schools w ould be 
lim ited.

“ In  contrast, it was obvious that the process of de­
segregation of public elem entary and high schools as 
req uired  under the first B row n  opinion w ould be an  
operation of gigantic proportions. In the year be­
tween the first B row n  opinion affirming the consti­
tutional right of the N egro pupil to equal protection  
of the laws, and the im plem enting decision, the tre ­
m endous difficulties of uprooting an old-established  
way of life in a large area of the U nited  States becam e  
all too clear. H e n c e , to so ften  th e im pact o f  the ru lin g  
th e S u prem e C ou rt d ev e lop ed  in the secon d  B row n  
decision  the co n cep t o f  gradualism  justified by the 
principle of flexibility governing the shaping of 
rem edies in equity. T h e  result was that the righ t of 
the individual N egro elem entary or high school pupil 
to im m ediate vindication of his ‘personal and present 
constitutional right had to  b e su bord in ated  to the  
in terest o f  th e w h ole  com m u n ity  in a sm ooth  and o r ­
derly transition to desegregate sch ools.”  (Em phasis 
ours)

Defendants subm it that we are concerned with qualified  
rights during a period of transition.

VII
T h e  C onstitutional R ights are Qualified by the P ublic

and Private Interest in an Efficient P ublic  
School System

T h is represents a practical view point upon the part of 
the Suprem e C ou rt in view of the radical nature of the 
change required  by its decisions. O nce it has been estab­
lished and accepted that these constitutional rights are

25a

Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation



Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation 

qualified during a transition period, the n ext logical step 
is to exam ine the n ature of these qualifications. W h at  
standard or standards m ust be m et by a local school board  
if it proposes a plan of desegregation th at does n ot grant 
im m ediate desegregation in all schools? T h e  w ording of 
the Suprem e C o u rt decisions do n ot set forth  a clear-cut 
standard or set of criteria . T h e  Suprem e C o u rt recognized  
the existence of “varied local school problem s.” I t  also 
recognized that these problem s would have to  be solved. 
T h e  C o u rt also referred  to a balancing of rights and in ter­
ests in referrin g  to “a facility for adjusting and reconciling  
public and private needs” ; “ the public interest in the  
elim ination of such obstacles in a system atic and effective 
m an n er” ; “giving w eight to public and private considera­
tions.” T h e  C o u rt also referred  to:

“ Problem s related  to adm inistration, arising from  
the physical condition of the school plant, the school 
transportation system, personnel, revision of school 
districts and attendance areas into com pact units to 
achieve a system of determ ining admission to public  
schools on a non-racial basis, and revisions of local 
laws and regulations w hich m ay be necessary in solving 
the foregoing problem s.”

T hese principles are guidelines for both local school boards 
and local D istrict C ourts, although they are perhaps p u r­
posely general in character.

If the price of desegregation is the abolition of public 
education, and if this is a co rrect interpretation  of the 
Suprem e C o u rt’s decisions, then the local school board  
need make no evaluation of the im pact of desegregation  
upon a school system. B u t if there is a degree of harm  to 
a school system and the educational process that is u n ­
acceptable while in the process of rem oving racial segre-

26a



gation, then the local school board m ust evaluate its com ­
m unity, the im pact of desegregation upon its com m unity, 
and design a plan of desegregation that will m aintain  a 
reasonably efficient school system and at the same tim e  
gran t the m axim um  im plem entation of constitutional 
rights of m em bers of the N egro race.

In  exercising this judgm ent, defendant B oard necessarily  
had to  evaluate factors incapable of precise determ ination. 
It is in this area that the good faith of the B oard is of the 
essence in the valuation of the B oard ’s perform ance of 
this specific responsibility.

W h en  the Suprem e C o u rt placed upon the school au­
thorities the prim ary responsibility for elucidating, assess­
ing and solving certain  local school problem s, the process 
that was set forth by the Suprem e C ou rt and required  
by it of local school boards, necessarily, would require the 
passage of a certain  am ount of tim e. T h is passage of time  
w ould be required because the discharge of the respon­
sibility laid upon school authorities by the Suprem e C ou rt 
would require school authorities to do certain  things as 
they made clear to their respective com m unities the p rob­
lems that were created by the Suprem e C o u rt’s decisions. 
Elucidating is a process. Assessing is a process. A nd, in 
the process of elucidating and assessing, the solution to  
problem s evolves in the minds of those who are necessary 
to the decision. N one of these responsibilities could be 
discharged by a school board instantly. I t  is basic that no  
problem  can be solved until the exact and precise nature  
of that problem  is carefully evaluated and determ ined. 
T h is was why elucidating was felt by defendant B oard to 
be a necessary first step in the process of com pliance with  
the Suprem e C o u rt’s decision. F o r  exam ple, defendants 
determ ined that the first necessary step was for the com -

27a

Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation



Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation 

m unity  to com e to the position of accepting the fact that 
com pliance w ith the Suprem e C o u rt’s decisions was inevi­
table and that there was no escape, no subterfuge, and no  
dodging that could be done. T h e  means by w hich a 
com m unity  arrives at such a conclusion are varied and  
different. D efendant B oard felt th at this intellectual 
recognition of the finality of the Suprem e C o u rt’s decision  
was necessary. Events in neighboring states and com m uni­
ties over a period of years assisted the com m unity to arrive  
at this decision of the acceptance of the inevitability of 
the Suprem e C o u rt’s decisions.

T h e  com m unity  has resisted desegregation. D id the 
Suprem e C o u rt d irect local school boards to com pletely  
disregard resistance to  desegregation, even though such  
resistance could be and probably would be reflected in  
m any ways so as to dam age public education seriously in 
a com m unity? T h e  m any ways in w hich resistance to 
desegregation is reflected in a com m unity  are often not sub­
ject to con trol by any group o r governm ent. W e  refer to 
the attitudes that can be reflected in the classroom  and  
on the playground and by parent-to-parent, all within  
behavior patterns that do not violate any law nor respond  
to  the application of force.

D efendant B oard has been constantly aware of the fact 
that education takes place prim arily  in the classroom. T h e  
atm osphere in a classroom , the spirit of the classroom, the 
relationship betw een the teacher and the students, and  
the relationship betw een the students and each other, are  
a necessary and vital part of the educational process. A ll 
efforts w ith regard  to public education are keyed to what 
happens in a p articu lar classroom. Psychological and in­
tangible considerations are involved, such as “those quali­
ties w hich are incapable of objective m easurem ent but 
w hich m ake for greatness in a law school” . Sw eatt v.

28a



P ain ter, 339  U .S. 629 . H ere is w here we m eet with term s 
such as environm ent, feeling of inferiority, m otivation, edu­
cational and m ental developm ent and such other term s 
frequently quoted by the Suprem e C o u rt in B row n  v. 
B oard  o f  E d u ca tion , supra.

In  the classroom defendants are speaking of integration  
as distinguished from  the term  desegregation. W e are  
speaking of acceptance in a psychological sense. In  foot­
note 11 in the first B row n  decision, D r. K. B. C lark was 
quoted in a paper given to the M id-Century W h ite  House  
Conference on Children and Y ou th  in 1950 entitled “Effect 
of Prejudice and D iscrim ination on Personality Develop­
m en t” . A t a recen t m eeting of the A nthropology Section 
of the A m erican Association for the A dvancem ent of 
Science (D ecem ber 1960), Professor K enneth B. C lark of 
the C ity College of N ew  Y ork  defined integration as “a 
subjective individual process involving attitudinal changes 
and ‘the rem oval of fears, hatred, suspicion, sterotype super­
stitions and m yths’ ” . D efendant B oard felt that it could  
not disregard the ultim ate im pact of desegregation upon  
the respective classrooms where desegregation will occur. 
In  its attem p t to discharge its responsibilities for providing  
educational opportunities to all children on an equal basis 
it has had this im pact in m ind and has felt its responsi­
bility to do all w ithin its power to lessen the im pact on 
the individual classrooms insofar as it is possible to so do.

VIII
What Factors Resulting from Desegregation 

Affect the Quality of Education

In  K elly  v. B oard  o f  E ducation  o f  th e C ity o f  N ash ville , 
supra, Ju d ge M cA llister included in the opinion m any

29a
Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation



references to factors that professional educators and school 
board m em bers cited  as having an im pact upon the quality  
of education. T h e  C o u rt in its opinion m entioned at 
p. 212  that:

“T h e  B oard of E d u cation  * * * endeavored * * * 
to  find a solution w hich w ould accom plish the transi­
tion as soon as practicable consistent w ith the public  
interest and the efficient operation of the schools” .

W h ile  it is true that the C ircu it C o u rt does n ot specifically 
approve this statem ent n eith er does the C o u rt im ply that 
the “efficient operation of the schools” is n ot  a desirable 
objective for the N ashville School B oard  to consider. 
T h ose portions of the Nashville B oard ’s testim ony that 
the C ircu it C o u rt include or refer to in its O pinion bear 
upon those factors that m ay be expected to have a d etri­
m ental effect upon the school system.

T h e  Superintendent of Schools, p. 2 1 7 , referred  to the  
plan as involving “less of this dam age to the children than  
any o ther plan we could propose” . H e also referred to the 
fact that the change “goes cou n ter to the feelings of a great 
m any people” . “T h e re  are a lot of adjustm ents to be 
m ade and # # * that this adjustm ent can be m ade w ith less 
friction * * * , it can be m ade m ore sm oothly, it can be 
m ade w ith less difficulty, psychologically, educationally, 
socially, and otherwise if it is done slowly” . F u rth e r along  
the Superintendent m ade this statem ent: p. 217

“I t is very im portant that there be betw een the two 
races and betw een individuals representing the two 
races a relationship of friendliness, cooperation, and  
respect such as I think we have had in the past *  *

H om ogeneous grouping was m entioned as a desirable 
educational objective and that quick desegregation would  
ru n  cou n ter to this objective.

30a
Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation



31a

V irtually  all of the testim ony in the N ashville case that 
was considered sufficiently im portant by the C ircu it C ou rt 
for specific recitation thereof in the opinion had to do w ith  
factors having a negative im pact on the educational en­
vironm ent in the classrooms. T hese were refences to:

“ tension affecting the teachers”
“new experience for the teacher”
“difficulties in securing teacher cooperation” 
“questions of teacher recru itm en t”
“ap titu d e”
“achievem ent”
“teachers cannot do their best in the m idst of excite­
m ent and turm oil and upheaval” .

A t page 2 20 , supra, the C ou rt referred to the Superintend­
e n t’s testim ony as follows:

“T h is business of teaching and working through  
teachers is not just a legal m atter. I t ’s a spiritual m at­
ter at base, and unless we can develop that rapport, 
w hich a teaching group m ust have to touch the lives 
of children, we are not a successful school system, how­
ever good our buildings m ay be or w hatever other  
physical features we may have * *

T hese and sim ilar factors have been taken into consider­
ation by defendant Board of Education in designing the 
Plan of Desegregation.

F rom  its own experience and from the experience of 
other com m unities, it is apparent that readiness for de­
segregation varies within a school system on a school-by­
school basis. Factors showing a great am ount of readiness 
of a particu lar school com m unity can be identified in 
advance and these favorable factors can be used in an 
intelligent fashion to develop greater readiness for the 
desegregation process. T h is is the reason for the Chatta-

Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation



nooga Plan of D esegregation lim iting  its original desegre­
gation to selected schools. T h e  purpose of the selection  
is to  introduce into the desegregated classrooms (when 
such occurs) the m axim u m  n u m b er of favorable factors in 
order th at the experience of the desegregated classrooms 
and schools will be an acceptable process for all persons 
concerned. I t will rem ove m any fears of the unknow n  
and it will dem onstrate the reality of an intelligent effort 
to rem ove racial discrim ination. H ere the School B oard  
finds itself in the field of sociology, psychology, and eco­
nom ics. T h e  schools to  be selected will be selected by 
the School B oard  w ith these criteria  in m ind, and w ith  
the ultim ate objective of dem onstrating to the com m unity  
the fact that desegregation will w ork and that m any of the 
fears that parents have of this process are n ot necessarily  
true.

I X

If Defendant Board’s Actions Constitute a Good Faith 
Implementation of the Governing Constitutional Principles 

the Plan Should be Approved Unless the Judgment is 
Clearly Erroneous or if it is not Supported by 

the Evidence

D efendant B oard is charged w ith the legal responsibility  
of operating a public school system for the citizens of C h at­
tanooga, Tennessee. A ncillary  to this duty and. ordinarily  
in harm ony therew ith it has a responsibility to operate in 
a m anner consistent w ith the laws of the State of T en n es­
see, the Federal laws, the C onstitution of Tennessee and  
the C onstitution of the U n ited  States. W h en  the desires 
of a vast m ajority  of its constituency were placed in direct 
conflict w ith its duty under the U n ited  States C onstitution, 
the School B oard faced a dilem m a of considerable m agni-

32a

Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation



33a

Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation 

tude. T h e  B oard consistently recognized its obligation to  
com ply. T h e  B oard ’s dilem m a was how to operate a school 
system w ithin the fram ew ork of the U n ited  States C on­
stitution when to do so w ould be cou n ter to the wishes 
of its constituency. O rdinarily, it is the School B oard ’s 
responsibility to operate in such a way as to p u t into  
effect in the school system the wishes of the people of 
C hattanooga. A nd when any public body continues to  
function cou n ter to the wishes of those whom it represents, 
such public body is replaced by a group responsive to the 
will of the m ajority of those citizens for whom  it acts.

T h e  C hattanooga B oard of Education found itself in  
this dilem m a in 1955 following the B row n  D ecision s, supra. 
A ny B oard of Education placed in such position that 
ignored either the m andate of the U nited  States Suprem e  
C ou rt or the m andate of those whom it represented and  
for whom it acted, would have been violating a legal re ­
sponsibility. T h e  only rem aining course for defendant 
B oard was to attem pt to reconcile what appeared to be 
irreconcilable. T h ere  was no other choice.

I t  is w ithin the reality of these paradoxical circum stances 
that defendant B oard of E d u cation ’s good faith m ust be 
judged. If defendant B oard had shown u tter disregard  
for the cause of public education, there would have been  
no dilem m a. On the contrary, if defendant B oard had  
refused to acknowledge any responsibility to the U nited  
States C onstitution there would have been no dilem m a. 
D efendant Board believed both of its contradictory respon­
sibilities to be of vital im portance. I t set out to m eet both  
responsibilities within the lim it of its capacities and legal 
authority. I t  should be rem em bered that at the tim e de­
fendant B oard originally took under consideration its posi­
tion and policies with regard to the two B row n  Decisions



in Ju n e  and Ju ly  of 1955 , that the only guides defendant 
B oard had were the words used by the Suprem e C o u rt in 
these two decisions.

T h e  good faith of the eleven individuals who have served  
as m em bers of the defendant B oard  during this period is 
a basic fact to be determ ined at the hearing. T h e  B oard  
exists as an agency of the people. T h e  B oard is responsible 
directly to the com m unity electorate. T h e  existence of 
this legal relationship has a d irect bearing on the exercise  
of good faith by defendants. T h e  join t judgm ents that 
defendants have rendered from  tim e to tim e were arrived  
at in this atm osphere and environm ent. T h e  realistics of 
the m yriad factors im pinging on defendant B oard  m ust 
necessarily be considered for such factors as grasped by said 
defendants were basic to the exercise of good faith.

“If the school authorities have acted and are p ro­
ceeding in good faith, their action should not be set 
aside by a co u rt so long as th eir action is consistent 
w ith the ultim ate establishm ent of a non-discrim i- 
natory school system at the earliest practicable date. 
B riggs  v. E llio tt , 133 F . Supp. 7 76 , 864 , 815 .

“ H olding that the appellees had carried  the burden  
of proof of establishing the validity of the School 
B oard ’s plan, and that it should, therefore, be ap­
proved, the cou rt, in its opinion, declared that ‘it is 
not the business of the Federal C ourts to operate the 
public schools and they should intervene only when  
it is necessary for the enforcem ent of rights protected  
by the Federal C onstitution. If the judgm ent of the  
School B oard was clearly erroneous, of it it was not 
supported by the evidence, the C o u rt would be justi­
fied in finding that the defendants had n ot carried  the 
burden of proof resting upon them  and that the School 
B oard ’s plan should be disapproved. H ow ever, when  
in this case, the judgm ent of the School B oard is sup­
ported by the clear preponderance of the evidence, it

34a

Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation



w ould be an unw arranted invasion of the lawful 
prerogatives of the legally constituted school authority  
if the C o u rt should undertake to set its judgm ent 
aside and substitute some other p lan’ K elly  v. B oard  
o f  E d u cation  o f  C ity o f  N ash ville , supra, approving  
D istrict C ou rt, p. 224 .

S U M M A T IO N

In C o o p er  v. A a ron , supra, page 20, Ju stice  Fran k ­
fu rter said:

“By w orking together, by sharing in a com m on  
effort, m en of different minds and tem pers, even if 
they do n ot reach agreem ent, acquire understanding  
and thereby tolerance of their differences * * #. T h e  
L ittle  R ock  School B oard had em barked on an ed u ­
cational effort  ‘to obtain public acceptance of its p lan’. 
T h u s the process of the com m unity’s accom odation  
to new demands of law upon it, the d ev e lo p m en t  of 
habits of accep tan ce  of the righ t of colored children  
to  the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 
Constitution, A m end. 14. had peacefully and prom is­
ingly begun.” (Em phasis ours)

T h en  at page 21 -

“T h e  use of force to further obedience to law is in 
any event a last resort and one not congenial to the 
spirit of ou r n ation .”

A gain at page 26  -

“T h a t the responsibility of those who exercise power 
in a dem ocratic governm ent is not to reflect inflamed 
public feeling but to help form  its understanding is 
especially true when they are confronted w ith a prob­
lem  like a racially discrim inating public school system. 
* * * Com pliance with decisions of this C o u rt is the 
C onstitutional organ of the suprem e law of the land,

35a

Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation



Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation

has often, th rou gh ou t ou r history, depended on active  
support by state and local authorities. I t  presupposes 
such su p p ort.”

T h e  Plan of D esegregation adequately m eets the test 
set forth  by the Suprem e C ou rt. T h e  defendant B oard has 
perform ed its function in good faith and w ithin the spirit 
of the Suprem e C o u rt decisions, particularly  as expressed  
by Ju stice  Fran k fu rter. T h e  Plan is supported by the 
evidence. I t  is consistent w ith the ultim ate goal of rem oval 
of racial discrim ination and the efficient operation of a 
public school system. It should be aproved.

R espectfully subm itted,

R aym ond B. W itt, J r .
1234  V olunteer B uilding  
C hattanoga, Tennessee

Ellis M eacham
324  H am ilton Bank Building  
C hattanooga, Tennessee

O f Counsel:

A nderson, M eacham  & Collins 
324  H am ilton Bank Building  
C hattanooga 2 , Tennessee

C E R T I F I C A T E  O F  S E R V IC E

T h is is to certify that on this 19th day of Jan u ary , 1961. 
I served upon A von W illiam s, J r . ,  Z. A lexan d er Looby, 
M cC lellan-Looby Building, 327  C harlotte A venue, N ash­
ville, T ennessee, and T h u rg o o d  M arshall, Constance B aker  
M otley, Suite 1790 T e n  Colum bus C ircle, N ew  Y ork  19, 
N ew  Y ork , attorneys for plaintiffs, a copy of D efendants’ 
B rief in Support of Its P lan of D esegregation, by m ailing

36a



Defendants’ Brief in Support of Its Plan of Desegregation

same to them  via air m ail, special delivery, in properly  
addressed envelopes w ith sufficient stamps affixed thereto.

A ttorney for D efendants

37a

(C A P T IO N  O M IT T E D )

JUDGMENT

T h is cause cam e on to be heard this 23rd  day of 
Jan u ary , 1961, before the H onorable Leslie R . D arr, 
U n ited  States D istrict Ju d ge, upon the entire record  and  
especially upon the plan for desegregation heretofore filed 
in this case by the defendants and the objections thereto  
filed by the plaintiffs; and the C o u rt being of the opinion  
that said plan, on its face, is not a m inim um  or reasonable 
start to desegregate the school system of C hattanoga with  
all deliberate speed, and that defendants should be required  
to subm it a second or alternate plan, b u t that the said first 
plan should not be finally rejected  pending the outcom e  
of an appeal by the defendants now pending in the C o u rt 
of Appeals for the Sixth C ircuit. It is therefore, O R D E R ­
E D , A D JU D G E D  and D E C R E E D , as follows:

1. T h e  said plan filed by the defendants in this case is 
n ot sufficient on its face to m eet the req uirem ent of the 
decision of the Suprem e C ou rt in B row n  v. B oard  o f  
E d u ca tion  (1935) 349  U.S. 294 , 75 S.Ct. 753 ; b u t said plan  
is n o t presently rejected, pending determ ination of the 
appeal by defendants now pending in the U nited  States 
C o u rt of Appeals.

2. T h e  defendant, Board of Education will file with  
this C o u rt an alternate, a second plan, within sixty (60) 
days from  date of this judgm ent.

3. T h e  righ t of defendants to a reconsideration of the 
first plan as it is or as am ended, and the rights of plaintiffs



Order of Judge Darr, District Judge 

o r defendants to  excep t to  the present ju d gm en t of the  
co u rt is reserved.

4. T h e  operation of the injunction , excep t for the  
req u irem en t herein  that the defendants subm it said second  
o r altern ate plan w ithin sixty (60) days, is suspended until 
the term in ation  of the appeal in this case now pending in 
the U n ited  States C o u rt of Appeals.

A pproved for E n try :
/ s /  (M rs.) C onstance B aker M otley  
/ s /  L ooby & W illiam s  
By A von W illiam s, J r .

A ttorneys for Plaintiffs.
R aym ond B . W itt, J r .

A ttorn ey  for Defendants.

S ig n e d :--------------------------
1 / 2 6 / 6 1  T h u rsd ay