Morris v. Williams Records and Briefs

    _ t
 

n 
* 

j 
ki

. 1
*L

 *













District Court of the United States
WESTERN DIVISION OF THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

IN THE

Susie Morris_____________ _____ |_____Plaintiff,

v. No. 585—Civil Docket 

Robert M. W illiams, et al- ___ ___Defendants.

ABSTRACT BY DEFENDANTS

J. F. Loughborough,
W illiam N ash,
Of Rose, Loughborough, Dobyns 

& House,
For Defendants.

DEMOCRAT P. A  L . C O ., L ITT L E  R O O K*j|^H »n



V  . V '

\#Jk#

'UTS
X X  ?

■;M■m

x k , •
AfAji' "‘XXV'''

k '̂Vi

;
; c  f  ' ■\/<A*W r <- - ■ >

W i ! ;  • i ! A  , .

W m
,m

i t ' - 1 1 11V v  '■ /  i  ■ ■■'■■■ <-„ # § / i  j ;  I ,,  . I '  J 7

1 ' M I X  " ■' ' 1 ’X  . i a
' ; ■ .. . :■ . • ■-■■,./ id - :: SAS-Jys. ■■ ,

V t V X  -• ‘  <1 '  ‘1 . j  ' .  _ K ? X a v  1 '  - c *  < y ' 1 •  v .  >

'
/  /  1 . ; ;  ;> A v

'.v I X
\

-  v ,  t ’ *  ;  # > ■■ X : ' / ■ ■■■;• ' ' ; ■  . ■■' •
\  ' f t f e * 1 ' 1 5 ’’ ] /  ‘ S' , A .

' ■' ■ i . , t ' ~a ;.v.1 A sM B S i?«48/ts- -jw

A .  V

A, ;y :?5sS| v f

' x  ̂ 'x a “ : .a' , v ' : ; ) ■••; v . • ; .• y : \  v .vv k ,  . ' a ;, k -  ‘t . ' \  { ■/ : - A : '

v -  '  '.*  '  > »  v +  a .  ,  v . : . '  i .  ,  1 ^

t: V. ^  i  f e  ' s ' & : ’ I r/i '. :' W’ f H\ ^ . A.)
r : • - I ..- ': , A-a ■ - ' i 1 ff

' ' '\,f. * ', ' ‘A  , '■ A 1 , 8f
■

■

s te t
rp\-a'va ' • [ a,, s

i  -  f a t , ,, tv..,, ,
{& '' S I \ * Igf, • 1 • <■:. -r;iW-T"'

. . . . . . .  fw ....... ' .. ■ ■ ■ /,* u



IN THE

District Court of the United States
WESTERN DIVISION OF THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

Susie Morris________________________ Plaintiff,
v. No. 585—Civil Docket 

Robert M. W illiams, et al-----------Defendants.

ARSTRACT BY DEFENDANTS

ABSTRACT OF TESTIMONY
A great length of time has elapsed since the 

trial of this cause, and it occurs to us that the 
Court would welcome an abstract of the testi­
mony to read in connection with the brief and 
for his own consideration. The plaintiff does 
not undertake to furnish one, so that we have 
taken the liberty to prepare a candid abstract 
of all of the testimony, as follows:

Crawford Greene, sworn as a witness on 
behalf of the plaintiff, testified on

direct examination

I am State Director of School Administra­
tion. We have the County Record of Pulaski



2

County which includes the Little Rock portion 
submitted by the Little Rock School System (2). 
I have here the teacher data blanks giving the 
salary per month, number of months contract, 
position, years’ training, kind of license, their 
experience from 1935 and 1936 to 1941-1942 (3).

(The sheets for 1935 to 1942, giving this 
data, were admitted without objection into evi­
dence and are exhibits 1A to 1G, inclusive) (5).

The statistical portion is compiled by my 
division of the Department of Education. Every 
report has tables showing the expenditure per 
school child in Pulaski County. To arrive at 
that figure, each County Supervisor turns into 
us information about each school district in his 
county, and that information, among other 
things, includes enrollment, average number 
and average daily attendance, receipts and ex­
penditures. From these, tables are compiled on 
a County basis, then on a Statewide basis, and 
we arrive at certain figures (6). I have the aver­
age expenditure in Pulaski County for white 
and colored schools as compiled by the State 
Commissioner of Education for the biennium 
1939-1940. This report is not broken down into 
districts.

(Defendants objected to the admission of 
these records on the ground that they show aver­
ages for the County and do not show the specific



averages for the defendant school district) (7 
and 8).

This shows that the expenditure per child 
reflected in the reports of the County Super­
visor is $53 per white and $37 per negro child. 
The revenue per child available was $47 on an 
average (8). I do not have the figures showing 
the average salary per teacher in the special 
school district for Little Rock. I have the fig­
ures showing the average salaries for junior 
white colleges in the State of Arkansas.

(The Court overruled defendants’ objec­
tion made on the ground that these were fig­
ures for the State and not for the defendant 
school district) (9).

In 1939-1940, the average salary of ele­
mentary teachers, white $526, negro $331; high 
school teachers $856 for white teachers and for 
the negroes $567; for all teachers, elementary 
and high school, $625 for white and $367 for 
negro (9).

3

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Offhand, I couldn’t say what negro colleges 
in Arkansas are accredited by the North Central 
Association, but I don’t believe that any negro 
college in Arkansas is accredited. It is the chief 
accrediting association (10). There are others, 
but the North Central accredits all of our high 
schools and colleges generally (11).



4

E. F. Jennings, sworn as a witness on be­
half o f the defendants, testified as follow s on

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I have been on the School Board about a 
year and a half and at the present time, I am 
President of the Board (12). As I understand 
them, the duties of the School Board are the op- 
ration of the Schbol District, looking after the 
personnel and doing all of the necessary duties 
in looking after the functioning of the School 
District. It has the entire supervision of the 
Public School System, including the appointing 
and fixing of salaries of individual teachers. 
The funds come from taxes and are expended 
by order of the School Board. It has charge of 
the distribution of the Public School funds in 
this District. We maintain separate schools for 
white and colored pupils, and all of the teachers 
in the white schools are of the white race (13), 
and all teachers in the negro schools of the ne­
gro race. The Superintendent and the person­
nel committee make a formal report to the 
Board for the appointment of individual teach­
ers, and they recommend the salary. I do not 
believe that the report to the Board designates 
negro teachers as negro teachers. When the 
Board comes to consider the appointment of an 
individual teacher, it knows whether the teacher 
is white or colored by reason of the school the 
teacher teaches in. I know an individual teacher



5

to be appointed at Dunbar would be a negro 
teacher and that a teacher to be appointed to a 
white school would be a white teacher (14). I 
don’t recall any specific case where there is a 
salary difference in employing new white and 
new negro teachers. I don’t recall what salaries 
they were given. I know approximately what 
salaries they got. I think the record will show 
that new negro teachers get less than new white 
teachers. The reason is difference in qualifica­
tions and ability and training. I never went into 
the qualifications of any of the teachers. I fol­
lowed the recommendation of the personnel 
committee (15). It did not strike me funny that 
all negro teachers got less. I did not think they 
were all qalified as well as the white teachers. 
Possibly some might be, but I didn’t go into the 
individual teachers’ qualifications; that is, it 
was not a matter of the work of the Board. I do 
not think it is the policy to pay negroes less than 
white people in the same occupation. I remem­
ber a deposition taken a week ago (16), as fol­
lows :

“Q. We assume they are both equally fit, 
a white and a negro teacher, then would you be 
in favor of paying the negro teacher less be­
cause you could get him for less?

“A. Not necessarily, I would say because 
the prevailing rate of pay is less for colored 
teachers.



6

“Q. Do you mean it is the custom in this 
community to pay negroes less?

‘ A. Probably so.
“Q. And the School Board is following 

that general custom?

“A. They are hiring teachers at a price 
they can afford to pay.” I remember that testi­
mony. I still say that it depends upon the occu­
pation. I have been on the Board since the 
spring of 1941. Several teachers have been ap­
pointed last year and this year (17). At the 
meeting of July 30, 1941, the following candi­
dates were elected: Dixie Dean Wyatt, home 
economics, $900; Lucille Hobbs, commercial, 
$900; W. L. Myer, band, $900; Frances Vogler, 
English, $981.27. I do not remember them. If 
they were in the minutes, that was done.

At the same meeting, the following were 
elected: elementary, Mary Alice Hood, teacher, 
$810; Bessie Benson, transfer from clerk to 
teacher, $810; Juanita Street, transfer from 
part-time to full-time, $675. I couldn’t say that 
they were all white teachers because I don’t re­
member. In the minutes, where it appears 
merely elementary or junior high or senior 
high, that has always been white. The minutes 
designate the colored as colored schools. Where 
there is no designation, I assume they are white 
(18). The minutes show: “Colored schools, Eu­



7

nice Brumfield, mathematics, $630; M. J. Mc- 
Callop, shop, $630; Mildred Works, home eco­
nomics, $630; Marjorie Bush, elementary, $615.” 
We had to pay the white teachers $900 to get 
them, and we could get the colored teachers for 
$630.

We operate on a budget and try to keep 
from spending any more than we can (19). I 
don’t think that it would be legal to hire colored 
teachers in the white schools. I don’t know that 
we have not hired any white teachers below a 
minimum, we have no minimum I know of. 
We have not hired any white teachers below 
$610. I do not know that we have ever discussed 
raising these salaries. I don’t know that I ever 
saw any petition filed by the negro teachers. I 
do not remember it being discussed. I remem­
ber in 1941 there was a supplementary payment 
to teachers (20). To the best of my recollection, 
it was distributed to negro teachers on a dollar 
and a half per unit and three dollars to white 
teachers per unit. It was distributed on a test 
basis. Efficiency, qualifications and other 
things arrived at by the teachers themselves 
were taken into consideration. I could not say 
that there were any negro teachers on the com­
mittee. I have not tried to find out. I am inter­
ested in what salaries the negro teachers are 
getting (21). I have never questioned whether 
they are getting less than white teachers. An­



8

other supplemental payment was made in 1942 
on the same basis as the first one. I do not re- 
eall any distinction between white and colored 
teachers when the Board was presented with 
the report. The figure of one dollar and a half 
per unit to the colored teachers and three dollars 
per unit to the white teachers was given, but I 
do not recall any distinction. Apparently, it 
was double for the white teachers than what it 
was for the colored teachers. I think there were 
a lot of other reasons than the race of the teach­
er involved, as the amount of remuneration the 
teachers were receiving then (22). I understand 
that there was a basis worked out for the distri­
bution of this money. I didn’t participate in 
working out the basis and I am not familiar 
with the details. They worked out a unit that 
was applied to both the white and the negro 
teachers alike. On the basis of that unit, the 
white teacher was given twice as much per unit 
as the colored. When you come to fix that, you 
take into consideration qualifications and abil­
ity of the person getting it. As a whole, I think 
the white teachers more valuable than the col­
ored teachers. That consideration is not based 
on race (23). I think all of the white teachers 
are more responsible and valuable than all the 
negro teachers, but I still don’t think that it is 
grounded on race. Whether there are several 
negro teachers in Dunbar High School with bet­
ter qualifications than teachers in the white high



9

school would depend upon your definition of 
qualifications. I am not qualified to say that 
there is any teacher in the negro high school as 
qualified as the worst teacher in the white high 
school. The report was left to the teachers, and 
I didn’t consider the mechanics of it, except the 
disbursements (24). I don’t know of any negro 
teacher new to the System that has been given 
as much as the least paid white teacher. I don’t 
know that the plaintiff in this case gets less 
than any white teacher in the School System. 
Once a year, a list of salaries of teachers is put 
into the records.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

I was elected to the School Board in Decem­
ber, 1940, and took office in the spring of 1941 
and have served since then (25). I am now 
President; I took this office in the spring of this 
year. Other than in the capacity of being a 
School Board member, I have not personally 
considerel the individual qualifications of 
school teachers in our System. The Superin­
tendent has the function of making a prelimi­
nary investigation of applicants and is charged 
with this responsibility by the School Board it­
self (26). I do not purport to understand fully 
what he does in making his investigations. After 
he has made his investigation, it is left to the per­
sonnel committee to pass upon. I do not know



10

of my own knowledge exactly what the person­
nel committee does in making its investigation 
of applicants, because I have not been on the 
committee. The personnel committee recom­
mends to the Board the employment of certain 
teachers. It does not itself actually amploy 
teachers and fix the salaries, that is done by ac­
tion of the Board (27). I don’t recall any time 
when the personnel committee has reported that 
certain applicants should be paid certain sal­
aries because they are white or certain salaries 
because they are colored. There is no fixed sal­
ary schedule that I have ever seen used in em­
ploying teachers for the first time. I don’t know 
of any fixed salary schedule for renewing con­
tracts each year. I have never seen such a sche­
dule. I have never served as Secretary of the 
School Board (28). I have never assisted in 
preparation of the minutes of the School Board 
meetings. The only designation I know of for 
teachers is the school to which they are assigned. 
I could not say that it was the policy of the 
School Board in listing new teachers to list the 
colored teachers last and to designate them as 
such. I am not able to say what has been the 
policy in that connection prior to my time. It 
would take an examination of the minutes to 
disclose whether any such policy was in exist­
ence. Since I have been on the Board, it has 
never discussed a policy of paying colored 
teachers less than white teachers because they



11

are colored (29). If applicants were recom­
mended by the personnel committee as having 
the same teaching qualities and being equally 
desirable as teachers and recommended the 
same salary, and one was white and one was 
colored, I would accept the recommendation of 
the committee, unless there was something that 
I knew about it. The petition filed by the negro 
teachers must have been before I came on the 
Board, because I recall no such petition. I think 
a few cases have been called to my attention 
where a colored teacher gets more than some 
white teachers, but I could not be specific and 
say I knew definitely, personally, everyone. I 
have not undertaken personally to mak a criti­
cal examination of all the salaries paid in the 
System.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

I am positive I don’t remember a petition 
of the negro teachers coming before the Board. 
There may have been such petition, but I cer­
tainly don’t remember ever seeing it or know 
anything about it. Since I have been on the 
Board, I have never questioned the fact that all 
new negro teachers get less than new white 
teachers. I have not gone into the qualifications 
of any teacher other than from the records of 
the personnel committee. It does not give the 
qualification of the teacher, but merely the 
name of the teachers and the school and salary



12

(32). So far as I am concerned, I have left sal­
aries entirely to the personnel committee.

Mrs. W. P. McDermott, sworn as a witness 
on behalf of the defendants, testified as follows 
on:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I have been on the Board since about 1922, 
and during that time, I have been a member 
of the personnel committee on several occa­
sions, and I am acquainted with the procedure 
of the committee. When it is called together, 
the superintendent presents the committee with 
a list of teachers and the positions he is recom­
mending them for, together with their qualifi­
cations showing the schools they are graduates 
of, the degrees they hold, their personality and 
traits and other things, and each person is dis­
cussed as an individual. The committee never 
calls in the teachers; that is left to the superin­
tendent, although sometimes the applicants do 
see the members of the personnel committee 
(34), but I don’t recall that they have seen the 
committee while it was meeting. I do not know 
the plaintiff in this case. In some instances, in­
creases were made in the past. I think there 
have been occasions, two or three, when we 
have given increases to all teachers. I would 
not say that in these blanket increases, there has 
been no question as to qualifications or ex­
perience of these teachers. We have given some



13

increases, both to white and colored teachers 
(35). In each instance, the least amount has 
been given to the negro teacher. I did not work 
out the increase, but that was worked out by 
or with the finance committee. The minutes 
for May 21, 1927 (36), show that all white 
teachers, with the exception of six, received a 
flat increase of $75. I would say that is on the 
basis of their pay. I would not say it was im­
possible for a negro teacher to get more than 
$50. They did not get it, but I would not say 
that it was impossible. All of them got it re­
gardless of how good they might be. The same 
rule applied to the negro teachers. It is ap­
parently true that the worst white teacher at 
that time got more than the best negro teacher. 
It is not true that the only basis for classifica­
tion used is race. Another basis is their flat pay 
(37). In order to qualify for the $75, it is not 
true that the only thing the teacher had to do 
was to be white. All of the white teachers got 
$75. They were in a different bracket of pay. 
It was on a basis of salary they were then 
drawing. They were all getting more than the 
negro teachers. Prior to that time, there was a 
difference between the white and colored 
teachers and the salary they were receiving. I 
have not figured out whether or not it was wider 
after that time. There was a difference (38). 
As a member of the personnel committee, I can



14

give a reason why the plaintiff and twenty-four 
other teachers in the Dunbar High School got 
less salary than any white teacher in the School 
System. The difference is in their qualifica­
tions. I didn’t know that there are several white 
teachers in the high school and elementary 
grades that hold no college degrees. I imagine 
that it is true that there are several in both the 
high school and elementary schools with less 
teaching experience than seven years. As to 
why Susie Morris, with a degree from an ac­
credited college, and with some graduate work 
and seven years’ experience gets less than white 
teachers with no college education and seven 
years’ experience, it takes something more than 
a college degree to make a teacher (39). I do 
not know the teaching ability of Susie Morris. 
I know the teaching ability of some of the white 
teachers and some I do not. I fixed the salaries 
for teachers last year upon the recommendation 
of the Superintendent whose duty that is and 
who has close contact and knowledge of their 
teaching ability. Mr. Scobee probably had not 
visited any teachers before last year because he 
just came here. So far as the salaries for 1941-42 
were set on the basis of the ability of the teach­
ers to teach, the other Superintendent knew the 
teachers very well (40). As regards the salaries 
for 1942-43, the basis of ability of the indi­
vidual teacher is all that we have to go by. We



15

have the recommendation of the Superintend­
ent. I wouldn’t know whether there are some 
negro teachers in Dunbar better qualified than 
some white teachers. I have not had them along 
side each other, and I am not a teacher. It has 
been the policy of the personnel committee in 
recommending new teachers to recommend 
lower salaries for negro teachers than for new 
white teachers. That is true up to this year (41). 
It has been true since I have been on the com­
mittee. The reason for that is that there is a 
difference in their qualifications. Whether a 
mathematics teacher in Dunbar High School 
with an M.A. from the University of Michigan 
and several hours on his Ph.D. is better qual­
ified than a white teacher with a B.S. would 
depend entirely upon ability to give to the stu­
dents the knowledge they have, the leadership, 
culture, and the things that go into the elements 
of making a teacher. If I know nothing about 
the ability of either teacher, perhaps the negro 
teacher would be entitled to more on the basis 
of his record in an accredited school (42). If a 
negro teacher with five years’ experience in 
teaching outside of Little Rock, with a degree 
from Talladega College in Alabama, which is 
accredited, has the same experience in teaching 
as a white teacher with an A.B. from a similarly 
accredited school, I can give no reason for his 
receiving less salary. In fixing the salaries for



16

last year, Susie Morris was given a salary of 
$70 (probably meant to be $706); and a teacher 
in a junior high school, Miss Lillian Lane, with 
an A.B. and no experience at all was given 
$900. We took the recommendation of the 
superintendent who has considered the quali­
fications not only of degree, but other things, 
experience and everything else they have to 
offer, and their recommendations that showed 
their past experience (43). Without knowing 
on what the superintendent’s recommendation 
is based, I could not give the reason for the dif­
ference in salaries. Miss Marie B. Jefferson, 
without a degree, four years college, half year 
experience in Little Rock, and eight years in 
Missouri was given $945. I happen to know 
that teacher personally and she had unusual 
ability and leadership and was teaching music 
and other subject-matter that made her a very 
valuable person. She had other experience than 
the one-half year’s experience. I don’t know 
about Miss Rhoda Wharry, A.B., with no ex­
perience in Little Rock, two years elsewhere, 
and who was given $900. In regard to Mr. H. B. 
Campbell, M.S., with fourteen years’ experience 
in Little Rock and $859, which is less than Miss 
Lillian Lane, with no experience and only an 
A.B., as I say, I do not know what rule the super­
intendent uses to arrive at his recommendation. 
I have never questioned him why negro teachers



17

get less than white teachers (44). I remember 
the supplemental payments made from a fund 
received from the State. A system of evaluating 
the teacher according to experience and salary 
and degree was arrived at, so that each teacher 
got so many units according to the way they 
fit in the schedule. That basis was the same as to 
the white and colored teachers as to the units. I 
could not testify that white teachers received 
twice as much as the colored teachers. The col­
ored teachers received less than the white teach­
ers. It is not because of a policy of the Board 
that they receive less than the white teachers, 
but because the Board believed that they are 
less qualified as a whole (45). As a whole group, 
the colored teachers have less qualifications, 
and for that reason, the negro teachers drew 
one-half. With regard to H. A. Scott with an 
M.A. from the University of Michigan, which is 
as high as any white school in Arkansas, I think 
that the negro teacher has to prove that he has 
the qualifications of the white teacher. The 
white teachers do not have to prove themselves 
to get the minimum any more than they have 
to prove themselves to get whatever they got. 
I do not think that it is true that for the first 
year, the white teacher doesn’t have to prove 
teaching ability to get the minimum of $810 
(46). I don’t know of any instance where a 
new negro teacher has gotten the minimum for



18

white teachers. A salary schedule was con­
sidered around 1928 for the payment of negro 
salaries. There were several cuts of teachers’ 
salary during the depression, and then after 
that, there was some replenishing of those cuts. 
The teachers have gone on a more or less regu­
lar salary with not many increases (47). There 
have been very few increases as to negro teach­
ers too. It probably is true that negro teachers 
that come in at less salary are still trailing 
below the white teachers. I don’t think it would 
be true in every case that regardless of how 
good a teacher he could be and regardless of 
how many degrees he may get, he would still 
be trailing behind the white teacher he came 
in with. If Susie Morris came into the Sys­
tem and the others came in for $810 mini­
mum, I don’t know whether Susie Morris 
would always be below the white teacher. I 
believe that the negro teachers always have the 
least salary when recommendations are made. 
On an occasion or two, we questioned the super­
intendent as to that, and he always put it on the 
basis of their preparation and ability to deliver; 
that is, the majority of them are not just as well 
prepared. That is not altogether based on the 
school they come from. I have never heard of 
any comparison of white and negro teachers 
from the same school. I would classify the 
School of Southern California along with the



19

schools in Arkansas. The same is true of the 
University of Kansas, University of Michigan, 
Yale University and Columbia. They are su­
perior to our schools in some instances (49). I 
do not know whether several of the negro 
schools in the South and East are rated similar 
to these schools in Arkansas which are ac­
credited. If several of the negro teachers now 
teaching in the System have taken work and 
have received degrees in these schools, I will 
repeat what I said, just educational training 
doesn’t make a teacher; it takes a lot of back­
ground and a lot of culture and a lot of other 
things. Prior to the filing of this case, I never 
received a detailed report giving the rating of 
the teachers on ability. I don’t believe that the 
personnel committee has received such reports 
in the past (50). I have not sat down with a 
list of the teachers, white and colored, and 
fixed the salary according to the teaching 
abilities; the superintendent does that. I am 
not a teacher, and I am not educated for it, and 
I could not rate the teachers. The salaries are 
based on their ability I would say, not only on 
their education, but on the general ability of 
the teacher. With that line of reasoning, then 
Susie Morris and these other twenty-four teach­
ers who get less than any white teacher in the 
System would be inferior to all of them. To 
explain the fact that a study hall teacher who



20

does no teaching at all gets more salary than 
Susie Morris or any other of these twenty-four 
teachers, she must have many qualifications. 
To compare her to a teacher, she must have 
more qualifications (51). I don’t know whether 
it is true that she has no certificate and no 
degree. If that is true, I don’t know just what 
her duties have to be, and therefore, I can’t 
give the reason why she gets more than Susie 
Morris. As a matter of fact, I follow the recom­
mendation of the superintendent. That is what 
we employ him for. The personnel committee 
has never sat down at any one time and gone 
over the ratings of every teacher in the System.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

I have been Executive Secretary of the 
Family Service Agency since July 16. That goes 
into all family difficulty, marital difficulty, 
parent and child difficulties, anything that deals 
with the family (52). It is some of the very 
highest order of social service work. I have 
been in social service work more than twenty 
years. My first work was head of the Juvenile 
Court of Pulaski County from 1921 to 1941. 
There I handled all types of dependencies and 
delinquencies in cases of neglect of family and 
moral difficulty, for both white and colored 
people. I had on my staff two colored people 
(53). This was a full-time employment. I



21

did not simply handle office routine; we did 
a great deal of case work which goes to the 
home of the client. I went personally many 
many times, and the staff workers went into 
the homes. This was true for the colored as 
well as for the white. It was my practice to have 
staff discussions relative to cases with the work­
er making the official interview and handling 
the case. I studied home environment and back­
ground and always wrote up in the record what 
the home situation was (54). When I left juve­
nile court work, I organized the Civil Military 
Auxiliary, which later became the U.S.O., work­
ing -exclusively with white soldiers, although I 
did give some work to the colored soldiers. I 
held this latter position until I took over my 
present work July 6,1942. I go into the homes of 
the families of both races (55). We have had 
occasion to make sixty-seven visits to negro 
homes, to see whether or not they were to be 
given help. I consider that I have a background 
for an appraisal of people. I came to the Little 
Rock School Board in June, 1922, a little over a 
year after I began handling juvenile court work, 
and I have been continuously on the School 
Board since that time, serving as President, 
Secretary, and in other capacities. I have serv­
ed on the personnel committee a great many 
times, more than in any other capacity, perhaps 
because they thought I could render more capa­
ble service on that than anyone else (56). In



22

performing my duties there, I have found my 
experience in these other occupations of value; 
it gives me an insight into appraising them. It 
helps me to determine whether a particular in­
dividual might be a good teacher. I determine 
in a way what they have to give to the group 
they-teach. You can tell if you have much con­
tact with them something of their inner re­
sources, their personality, their characteristics, 
and whether they are capable really of interest­
ing and holding the interest of the children they 
teach. I think it helps me to evaluate character, 
the foundation of every teacher. You are not 
able to make an appraisal altogether only*on a 
paper report. Somebody must have had per­
sonal contact. Just a report that you read 
doesn’t convey anything much on the personal­
ity of the individual (57). Mr. Hall had had per­
sonal contact with applicants, not once but 
many times, and sometimes we had personal 
contact with them. Because of that, we had con­
fidence in our superintendent and in his judg­
ment. We would discuss these matters with the 
superintendent. An effort to determine the na­
ture of the applicant’s character was funda­
mental (58). We would discuss with the super­
intendent the teaching abilities of the appli­
cants. In my deliberations, I have not given any 
effect to the question of color. We have not 
considered it. In the deliberations of the com­
mittee as such, I have never heard an individual



23

member express opinion on applicants based 
on color. There has been no predisposition on 
the part of the committee deliberately to give 
colored teachers less salaries. I recall no time 
when the committee refused to employ an appli­
cant at a salary less than one assigned by the 
superintendent because of color (59). The color 
question would have no effect, no consideration 
at my hands. It is the quality of work and serv­
ice they could give. I know fairly well the sche­
dule of salaries now paid to teachers in our 
School System. When I say “Schedule”, I mean 
the payroll. These are not paid according to a 
schedule. If I made a critical analysis of the 
salaries paid to our teachers, and if I became 
convinced personally that they were discrimi­
nated against by race or color, I would try to 
make an adjustment. I believe I am able to 
speak for the personnel committee as a whole. 
I cannot recall any time when the personnel 
committee recommended to the School Board 
to employ colored teachers at less salary because 
they are colored (60). The question of employ­
ing applicants and assigning salaries on the 
basis of color has never been discussed in a per­
sonnel meeting or in a School Board meeting. 
I take my duty as a member of the personnel 
committee and School Board rather seriously. 
I think I have been absent very few times dur­
ing these years, and those in case of illness. It 
is not a part of my function as a member of the



24

personnel committee to visit classrooms. After 
a teacher has been employed, we take the recom­
mendation of the superintendent on salaries be­
cause that is his duty (61). We donf have any­
thing to do with renewal contracts. They are 
prepared by the Clerk of the Board under the 
direction of the superintendent. The finance 
committee considers what amount shall be paid 
the teachers for the following year. The work 
of the personnel committee is confined to the 
new teachers (62). A salary schedule was con­
sidered by the School Board in 1928 or 1929, but 
I cannot remember that it was ever adopted. 
The minutes should show whether or not it was. 
There is not any fixed salary schedule in opera­
tion by the Board, and has not been for a period 
of the last ten or twelve years (63). What sal 
aries the superintendent may offer applicants 
is largely left to his judgment. I do not know of 
any instance in which the School Board has 
specifically limited the superintendent in the 
salaries. The School Board has not, to my 
knowledge, instructed the superintendent that 
be must offer a minimum of $810 to white 
teachers or $615 or $630 as a minimum salary 
to colored teachers. I have heard no comment 
by the School Board on the fact that teachers 
were employed at these salaries (64), except a 
regret that we can’t  pay all teachers more 
money. I think that blanket increases of May 
21. 1927, or about that time, were not made on a



25

fixed salary schedule. 1 think that cuts after 
1929 were on the percentage basis. Salaries of 
teachers have never been equal to what they 
were in 1929 (65). It is more accurate to say 
that these were restorations of salary and not 
blanket increases. I am not able to say from 
memory whether any white teachers have been 
employed within the last seven years who did 
not have college degrees. That would be a mat­
ter of record. In a comparison of a teacher of 
mathematics at Dunbar, having an M. A. from 
Michigan with a teacher of mathematics in 
Senior High School with a B. A., on that basis 
alone, I cannot tell anything about their respec­
tive teaching abilities. Holding a degree indi­
cates to me that they had a certain training in 
school, but in my field, sometimes it does not 
qualify a person trying to do a real good job, 
and I presume it holds in other fields (66). In 
evaluating the qualifications of candidates for 
teaching positions, as a member of the person­
nel committee, I do not necessarily give one de­
gree as a degree more weight than another. I 
think a Masters Degree, of course, gives one a 
greater knowledge than a A.B., and of course 
that is the first thing you consider. The second 
thing would be personality, character, resource­
fulness to bring out interest, and a great many 
things that go into the consideration of a teach­
er than just a degree. You can’t make a real



26

good comparison of two people whom you do 
not know merely on the basis of degrees. To 
compare Susie Morris with several white teach­
ers, I would have to know the background of 
both women, their scholastic attainments, their 
standing in the community, their former en­
vironment, and a great many things about them 
(67).

I did not assist in making the plan for dis­
tribution of supplemental income. I do not 
know exactly of my own personal knowledge 
to what extent these amounts compare with the 
percentage of salary. I am not able to give an 
opinion on whether the salary of colored teach­
ers lags behind without a detailed examination 
of the minutes (69). The salaries for the ensu­
ing years are based on the recommendation of 
the superintendent and the instruction of our 
finance committee. I have never heard the 
question of color discussed by the Board in con­
nection with his recommendations. I consider 
the basis of these recommendations to be their 
qualifications, their teaching ability (70). The 
minutes for July 29, 1929, list negro teachers 
first, white teachers last (71). The colored 
teachers are so designated in the minutes. I 
know of no general policy of listing colored 
teachers last. The minutes for August 28, 1937, 
list first a white teacher, second, a colored 
teacher, then two white teachers (72).



27

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

When I was head of the Juvenile Court, the 
homes I visited were of families that had delin­
quent children, and at the present time, I visit 
homes in the substratum level of economic in­
come, but delinquencies are found in all homes, 
homes of the poor class and people more finan­
cially stable. If I knew the background of ne­
gro teachers, I think I would have some idea 
about the value. I am not sure that I know more 
about the background of white teachers than I 
do of the background of negro teachers as a 
whole. I know some of them intimately on both 
sides (72). I know some negro teachers that 
have as good background that would compare 
with some white teachers that I know. In con­
sidering the general character of a teacher, 
whether or not she is a church member, and 
regularly attends church is just an indication. 
It is a desirable characteristic, but you could be 
of good character and not attend church. I take 
into consideration standard of living. I don’t 
mean by that economic standard either, but 
standard of living, attitude towards a great 
many things. To evaluate character, I consider 
truthfulness, loyalty, dependability; all of these 
go into it. These are intangible things. They are 
hard to put your fingers on, but very easily 
recognized as a whole (73). If a negro teacher 
has been a member of church ever since she



2 8

was a child, if she sings in the choir, is a regular 
member, is a member of the Y.W.C.A. and 
works in it on several committees, is recognized 
as being a member of a negro sorority of nation­
al standing; if she works in the community, in 
the community chest and things like that, and 
the U.S.O., those are all indications of good 
character and interest in her environment. 
When the question of teacher’s salary is recom­
mended to the personnel committee, it does not 
in all cases check behind the recommendation 
of the superintendent. When a teacher is once 
appointed and when it comes time to fix the 
salary for the next year, the committee does not 
go into the qualifications of the individual 
teacher if the work has been satisfactory, but 
leaves it to the superintendent. The question of 
race or color has never been discussed (75). I 
think it is possible for the superintendent to 
handle a system of paying negroes lower sal­
aries simply because of race or color, but I don’t 
think he has. I think the superintendent does 
not use race or color. I do not know of my own 
knowledge. He has never shown it in his rela­
tion to the Board. I do not know what is going 
on in his mind when he is fixing these salaries 
prior to the time he makes the report to the 
personnel committee, but I am very sure, be­
cause I think he is a just man and very fair 
(76). There was a salary schedule presented but 
never adopted in 1928. The minutes of May 21,



29

1929, refer to a teacher’s salary schedule, but 
one was never adopted (77). In regard to an in­
crease of $100 to all white teachers and $50 to all 
negro teachers, that was probably in keeping 
with a percentage of what they were being paid.
I do not know exactly how they reached that. 
The negro teachers were getting approximately 
less than the white teachers in 1929. To give 
the negroes, who were getting less, less than the 
white teachers would be on a percentage basis. 
I do not know that it was considered to pay the 
lowest teachers more in order to raise them up 
to the higher teachers (78). According to that 
article on that one particular occasion, it would 
not be possible for any negro teacher to get $100, 
but all the white teachers would get $100 apiece. 
Whether one got $100 or $50 was not at all race, 
because going back, I said that the original sal­
ary was in accordance with preparation and 
ability, and the salary increases were granted on 
that ratio (79). I don’t know the efficiency of 
all the white teachers or colored as of 1929.

I remember the petition filed by negro 
teachers last year for equalization of salaries. 
No action was taken by the Board, except by im­
plication, and that was that what little money it 
had had already been allocated. The finance 
committee made the report, and we said nothing 
because we had no money. I don’t know that 
we would pay negro teachers the same salary



30

as we pay the white teachers; we have never 
had the money (80). It is not true altogether 
that the lack of money tends to keep the negro 
teachers’ salary down. It might be construed 
that their abilities as teachers are very unequal 
is the main thing. I think there are some very 
good, well qualified and efficient negro teachers 
in the School System (81).

(Defendants objected to plaintiff’s counsel 
examining witness on “groups” of teachers, and 
the Court ruled the question incompetent.)

I do not know all the negro teachers and I 
do not know all of the white teachers, so I could 
not say that in my opinion, all negro teachers 
are inferior to all white teachers in the System. 
Whether a majority of the negro teachers are or 
are not inferior to the majority of the white 
teachers, I would have to judge them on an indi­
vidual basis. I think that it is true that for the 
past several years, the white teachers new to the 
System have been paid not less than $810, and 
that negro teachers new to the System have been 
paid between $615 and $630 (83). There is no 
minimum and no maximum schedule. I suppose 
that a majority fall within that bracket, because 
I suppose we set that up as what we can pay 
with the money we have and according to the 
qualifications of the individual we employ. I 
don’t know that regardless of qualifications, we 
have not paid any negro more than $630, with



31

one exception, in the last seven years. I think 
that the teachers are hired on an individual basis 
and their salaries are fixed on an individual 
basis. When the last list of teachers was ap­
pointed, we took their qualifications into con­
sideration (84). Some were probably better 
than others. I don’t know that they were all 
given $810. I don’t know that none were given 
any less than that. I cannot give any reason why 
the entrance salary is $615 and $630 for negroes 
and $800 for white teachers except that these 
salaries are set up in consideration of what they 
have to sell. I think perhaps the negro teachers 
do not have the same qualifications; they may 
have the same academic training. The majority 
of the wrhite teachers perhaps have better and 
more cultural background. I think all of the 
qualifications have to be taken into considera­
tion for that difference between $615 and $810 
(85). I have checked into the background of 
one negro teacher since I have been on the 
School Board, but not sufficiently well to make 
a statement. I have not checked into the back­
ground of the white teachers with that particu­
lar thing in view. It is possible for me to esti­
mate the background of the negro teachers by 
my general knowledge of their past, their en­
vironment, and so forth (86). I would think 
that it would be a very good background for a 
negro teacher to be brought up in a home where 
a father was school principal and the mother



32

was a school teacher. The members of the 
Board do not go into that in fixing salaries. 
The members of the personnel committee do 
not. The only person who would do that would 
be the superintendent and the principal of the 
school (87). Reading from the deposition, page 
144, taken Saturday a week ago:

“Q. Can you give any reason why they 
made one type of increase to the white teachers 
and a lower increase to the negro teachers as a 
group?

“A. On the basis that the white group had 
a better all-round qualification.

“Q. But there were some individual ne­
groes who had just as good qualifications as 
some white teachers.

“A. There may have been.
“Q. During the period you have been on 

the Board, you have testified that negro teach­
ers were paid less entrance salary.

“A. That is true.”
I remember that and I have not denied it 

anywhere. I think the white teachers as a group 
have better qualifications than negro teachers 
as a group (88).

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

I think that the Board would pay the col­
ored teachers the same amount as they pay the



33

white teachers with similar qualifications that 
are now in our System, if, in the judgment of 
the Board, the colored teachers were exactly 
equivalent in teaching ability, and if we had the 
money. We would make an adjustment of the 
salaries if we were convinced that the teaching 
abilities of the negro teachers now employed 
were the same as the white teachers now em­
ployed. When I testified last Saturday, as read 
a moment ago, in using the term “grouping,” I 
meant those that are actually in the employment 
of the school and not all colored teachers gen­
erally and not all white teachers generally. I 
woud not at all undertake to make any general­
ization about all colored teachers as a group. My 
reference to group is predicated solely upon the 
individual as an individual. I don’t know how 
long white teachers new to our System have 
been paid $810. I am sure that white teachers 
have been employed for the first time at a fig­
ure less than $810 and colored at a figure less 
than $615 (90). The minutes of June 29, 1936, 
show a list of teachers recommended for em­
ployment. I think there is one colored woman 
here, but I can’t say. There is no distinction at 
all. Salary for the first teacher recommended is 
8678, for the next one, $756, for the next one, 
$756 (91), $786, $810, $810, $810. There is a 
part-time teacher at $35 per month, and one at 
$855, and one at $746, one at $855 and one $756. 
The School Board did not predetermine that the



34

superintendent should recommend or employ 
teachers at these figures. The minutes for Sep­
tember 26, 1936, show a list of teachers recom­
mended for employment. They are Miss Edith 
Leidy, at $1,125, Edward Garbacz, at $150 a 
month; Andrew Hunter, colored, $590; Eva Mae 
Richmond at $590; Mildred Frampton, colored 
clerk, $590; M. V. Hawkins, clerk, $40 a month 
(92). Minutes for November 28, 1936, list the 
names of teachers recommended for employ­
ment as follows: Martha Jean Stanley, $755; 
James Pilkington, $837; Blanch D. Crawford, 
$755. With one exception, the figures are less 
than $810. In answering the question whether 
the colored teachers had the same thing to sell 
as the white teachers, I considered them as spe­
cific individuals now employed in our schools.

“By the Court: Q. Now, Mrs. McDermott,
you said that you were one of the personnel 
board there and the superintendent would have 
the supervision of looking after the passing of 
teachers who applied for positions there, and 
you said the qualifications that were considered 
by you in order to make them a good teacher to 
draw the salaries that had been fixed there. Did 
you and the superintendent or the personnel 
board and the superintendent discuss the ideas 
as to what the superintendent should consider 
in fixing the salaries of the teachers?

“A. Yes, sir, I think that has all been under 
consideration (93).



35

“Q. The ideas you have expressed of the 
qualifications, were they discussed with the 
superintendent?

“A. Yes, sir, he would state what their 
qualifications were.

“Q. He would state their qualifications?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. And you would have an opportunity 

to consider whether he had considered all of the 
qualifications the personnel committee had had 
in mind?

“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Were they discussed with him from 

time to time.
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. When you testified to the qualifica­

tions of these teachers, you base it on the state­
ment of the superintendent and the ideas of the 
personnel committee?

“A. Just general system, understanding” 
(94).

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

I do not know whether all new white teach­
ers have been paid a minimum of $810. The 
minutes of June 24, 1938, show a list of teachers 
and their salaries. In that list, the different 
teachers there are paid more than $810. Some



36

of them were principals and that is generally 
more than the others, but that is the practical 
maximum at the white schools. Miss Florence 
Byrd was promoted from clerk to a teacher at 
$810. Miss Mildred Thompson is designated as 
a substitute, but she is given $810 (95). As of 
that date, all of the white teachers were given 
$810 or more. The minutes of July 30, 1938, is 
another list of general teachers and principals, 
and one clerk. From the minutes, all of the ne­
groes in the group were paid $615 and all of the 
white teachers not less than $810. The minutes 
of August 27, 1938, gives another list of nine 
teachers and one clerk, and it appears that of the 
white teachers, none are paid less than $810, and 
the only negro teacher is $720. The minutes of 
December 20, 1938, show two negroes appoint­
ed, one a regular teacher and one a substitute 
teacher, both at $615 (96). I think that since 
May, 1938, it has been the policy to pay white 
teachers a minimum of $810, and the policy to 
pay negro teachers less than that minimum. In 
appointing teachers, we took the application 
blank into consideration and the material sub­
mitted along with it (97). In addition, we had 
the superintendent’s report. I do not remember 
the appointment of the plaintiff in this case. 
Generally, we took a look at applications to see 
what the qualifications are, and we have not 
seen the person, of course. It is difficult, but 
we have to depend upon the report of the super­



37

intendent on the points we consider, and we 
have to work along that basis. It might happen 
that in the material in the application blank, we 
have to hire a white and colored teacher of the 
same qualification (98). If the colored and 
white teachers are given different salaries it it 
because we think the white teacher is more thor­
ough than the other. We do it on an individual 
basis. Since I do not know either Susie Morris 
or Lillian Lane, I could not make an honest 
opinion from just reading these applications 
(99). We do not know all the individual teach­
ers when we fix their salaries. On the basis of 
what is contained in these applications, it might 
be true that they are at least equal, but there 
might be other things in it that may not make 
them equal. I do not know Miss Rhoda E. 
Wharry or Miss Susie Morris. The application 
of Miss Wharry shows on the third page under 
question “Lowest salary a year you would ac­
cept” a figure $800. I do not know why we paid 
her more than that figure (100). These applica­
tions are taken into consideration, but, of 
course, our final determination is made because 
of the superintendent’s personal contact with 
them and his report. We have never had any 
personal contact with the majority of them. Ac­
cording to Miss Wharry’s application, she had 
college work at Arkansas State Teachers College 
with a B.S.E. and six weeks’ training in the Uni­
versity of Colorado. She has two years’ experi­



38

ence outside of the School System. I can give 
no reason why she is paid more than Susie Mor­
ris because there is so much that goes into the 
making of a teacher. Unless you have had a 
personal contact, there is no way for you to 
judge them.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

In using the word “policy” in paying white 
teachers at least $810 and “policy” for paying 
the colored teachers at least $615, the use of the 
word “policy” was the language of Mr. Mar­
shall. It has not been the custom or policy of 
the School Board to pay any minimum salary, 
in any sense. Those minimum salaries referred 
to were special minutes and do not make any 
policy at all. There is no such policy (102). I 
do not know what salary the plaintiff receives. 
The application of the plaintiff shows that she 
is willing to accept a beginning salary of $540. 
I cannot remember at what salary she was em­
ployed. If she were employed at a salary great­
er than that, we considered she had the ability 
to earn it. If Miss Wharry was employed at a 
salary of more than $800, she had additional 
ability to earn the money.

The personnel committee meets once a 
month for an hour or two (103). R. C. Hall was 
superintendent at the time the plaintiff was em­
ployed. If Miss Wharry was employed prior to



39

1941, he would be superintendent when she was 
employed. In examining the application, the 
personnel committee had before it the recom­
mendation from the superintendent. He always 
makes a prior investigation including a person­
al interview with the applicant. He was very 
careful about obtaining knowledge of the appli­
cant’s capabilities and was able to give the com­
mittee such information as the committee de­
sired to have (104). His reports were in detail 
for the most part. The committee has requested 
additional information on certain applicants, 
both colored and white. There have been occa­
sions when the committee was not satisfied with 
the information presented, and the superintend­
ent would make an additional investigation and 
report. In determining salaries, the subject 
matter taught is a factor. If one applicant 
teaches music and another teaches English, they 
cannot be exactly equal as teachers. The fact 
that they teach different subjects could be con­
sidered in fixing salaries (105). The application 
of the plaintiff shows that she was employed at 
the time she made application at a salary of 
$765 and offered to come here for a salary of 
$540. The application for Rhoda E. Wharry 
shows that she was employed elsewhere at the 
time the application was made and she was re­
ceiving $900 and offered to come here for $800 
(106).



40

Dr. R. M. Blakely, being first sworn as a 
witness on behalf o f the defendants, testified as 
follow s on

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I am a physician and have been a member 
of the School Board a year last March. I am 
now Secretary and have been since March of 
this year (107). New teachers have been ap­
pointed since I have been on the Board. So far 
as I know, all of the white teachers who have 
been appointed have been paid $810. Some ne­
gro teachers who have been employed during 
the time that I have been on the Board have 
been paid less than $810 and some have not. I 
don’t know of any that have been appointed 
for more than that. I am not sure that they have 
all received less (108). On the average, they run 
between $615 and $630 for negro teachers and 
for white teachers from $810 up. I thought the 
reason was the qualifications when we decided 
to pay that salary. I did not check their qualifi­
cations; that wasn’t one of my functions. I 
would not put myself as being in a position of 
knowing the qualifications of a teacher (109). I 
remember in 1941 there was a distribution of 
supplemental money. I understand that quota 
of twice as much to white as to colored. I saw 
the report and I thought it was based on the 
amount of salary that the individual teachers 
received. When the first one came, I wasn’t



41

Secretary of the Board. Since I have been Sec­
retary, there was another distribution of sup­
plemental money on the same basis (110). I 
didn’t know per teaching unit the negro teach­
ers got half as much as white teachers. It was 
not my particular duty to make that adjustment 
or to figure it out as to why it was that way 
(111). I considered my duty as a member of 
the Board to watch how the money is spent. It 
is my idea that race or color has never en­
tered into it since I have been a member of 
the Board. In regard to paying the white teacher 
twice as much as the negro teacher if both are 
between $600 and $1,100, if both have an A.B. 
and both have from two to seven years’ experi­
ence. That would depend, I am sure, upon the 
ability of the teacher to teach. A lot of people 
with an A.B. wouldn’t be able to teach at all and 
wouldn’t be a teacher at all (112). It is not my 
duty as a member of the School Board to re­
ceive the application of a teacher. It is one of 
my functions to see that the School Board runs 
within its means, and it was my duty to distri­
bute supplemental teaching money for teachers’ 
salary. If money is distributed on the basis of 
one-half per unit to negro teachers that is given 
to white teachers, I thought it was based on the 
amount of salary they drew. I never heard race 
mentioned in the distribution of it (113). I 
never gave any thought what a white teacher 
would have to do to qualify for three dollars



42

per unit. When the money was ready for dis­
tribution, somebody moved that we distribute 
it on a basis to be arrived at, but it wasn’t my 
duty to figure that out. I passed on it when it 
was presented. I knew how much was going to 
be distributed (114).

CROSS-EXAMINATION

I do not receive a salary as a member of 
the Board, or as Secretary, and none of the other 
members of the School Board receive salaries. 
I have not seen a fixed salary schedule used by 
the Board in fixing salaries. So far as I know, 
there is none (115). I do not recall that the 
Board has ever indicated to the superintendent 
a figure which he may not go below in em­
ploying teachers. So far as I know, the Board 
has never told Mr. Scobee that a certain teaching 
job carried a fixed salary which he had to pay. 
The question of race or color has never been 
discussed in the Board meeting in fixing sal­
aries. I would not pay a colored teacher less 
simply because he is colored; it has always been 
my opinion that salaries have been based upon 
qualifications, and color had nothing to do with 
it at all (116). This has been my personal in­
clination. When I came on the Board, all teach­
ers were already under contract, and they have 
only signed one contract since then (117). With 
reference to the bonus distribution, in spite of 
the arbitrary fixing of the amount at $3.00 and



43

$1.50, it is my understanding that the results 
would be about the same on a percentage basis 
of salaries paid. This is what I mean when I 
say it is based on the amount received. Some­
one gets twice as much as someone else or drew 
twice as much bonus. In other words, the white 
teacher drawing twice as much bonus would 
receive twice as much salary.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

I did not arrive at that figure because of 
my understanding that negro teachers get less 
than white teachers (119). I don’t know the de­
tails at arriving at that particular. I don’t know 
what basis is used, except there was a unit sys­
tem, but I didn’t have all of that unit system ex­
plained to me. We had a small amount of 
money to be distributed and wanted to distri­
bute it equitably. It is clear in my mind the ne­
gro teacher didn’t get as much as the white 
teacher (120). It wasn’t mentioned at the time 
because this person was colored and the other 
was white, that had nothing to do with it as far 
as I know. I don’t know what was said on the 
point that a negro got $1.50 and a white teacher 
got $3.00 per unit. I don’t think I read the plan 
over. I heard the figures given and I voted on it. 
There was a great deal of detail in there and I 
didn’t go into all of that (121).

Mrs. W. S. Rawlings, sworn as a witness on 
behalf of the defendants, testified as follows on



44

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I am a member of the School Board and 
haye been since 1934 (122). I have served on 
the personnel committee. It was a part of that 
committee’s duty to pick out teachers for parti­
cular jobs and fix salaries, and I have consider­
ed the question of individual teachers and their 
salary. It is not true in all cases that as to new 
teachers, we pay white teachers more than ne­
gro teachers. It depended on the individual. It 
is true that all of the negro teachers employed 
since 1938 have ranged between $615 and $630. 
I think it is correct that during that time, no 
white teacher has been employed at less than 
$810. The reason for the difference is qualifica­
tions, background, training, all of the things 
that go to make a teacher. Some people fall into 
one category and some into another. I wouldn’t 
say that all the negroes fell into one category, 
but I wouldn’t say all the white teachers fell into 
one category. I coudn’t name them as individ­
uals, but I think we have some very good negro 
teachers in the System. I couldn’t say that they 
are paid less than beginning white teachers. 
You cannot use any one yardstick as to qualifi­
cations for all negro teachers, nor can you as to 
all white teachers. I know that there are some 
negro teachers in the System from accredited 
schools, and some from non-accredited schools 
(124). I do not remember the year and I do not



45

remember the definite amount of blanket in­
creases of salaries given to both white and ne­
gro teachers. I remember that there was an in­
crease, but I do not remember the definite 
amount. If the record shows that it was more 
for the white teachers than for the negro teach­
ers, it must be true. There has been no salary 
schedule discussions since I have been on the 
Board. I came in after the depression (125). 
The records for March 30, 1936, show that I was 
present and show a resolution adopted upon the 
motion made by Mrs. McDermott and seconded 
by me (126). It seems that all white teachers 
got a minimum of $67.50 increase, and the col­
ored teachers a increase of $45. Under that 
grouping, the colored teacher didn’t get $67.50. 
Under this resolution, the colored teachers are 
precluded from getting it. It is not true that be­
cause the teacher is colored, he cannot get as 
much as the white teacher, because in the begin­
ning, it was based on qualifications. If there 
have been some cases where there has been an 
injustice, the Board has always tried to rectify it 
(128). According to that, the white teachers up 
to $900 can get an increase. A white teacher 
getting $700 and a colored teacher getting $700, 
the white teacher would get $67.50 and the col­
ored teacher would get nothing. The reason for 
that is the same reason I have given all the way 
through. The negro teacher and the white teach­
er coming into the System come in at unequal



46

salaries. Under this resolution and other blank­
et increases, it does happen that the colored 
teacher takes a good deal less than the white 
teacher getting over that. Whether that is true 
in all cases, I cannot say (129). That is the gen­
eral rule. I remember that on May 11, 1930, 
there was an increase of one-eighth of the last 
salary cut, and then in April, 1940, there was an­
other increase on the individual salary basis. It 
is possible that the colored teachers got less than 
the white teachers on their salary percentage 
basis; the least amount of money is always least. 
I think there are some negro teachers as good as 
some of the white teachers, but I think there are 
some not as good (130). The reason why, the 
academic level being the same and the school 
taught being the same, there isn’t a negro teach­
er getting the salary of a white teacher, is more 
than simple education and training; experience 
also goes into the making of a teacher. Coming 
to the supplementary payment, it was prepared 
by a group of teachers on the basis of training, 
experience and salary. I think the committee of 
teachers was composed wholly of white teachers 
(131). We don’t mix committees in this City. 
It is a matter of opinion that the negro teachers 
were entitled to representation in the group that 
was to distribute the money. The Board re­
ferred it to Mr. Scobee and the group to work it 
out. It was not referred to the Colored Teachers 
Association. I think it is true that the grouping



47

was arranged for payment according to degree, 
experience, and salary they were getting so as to 
make units for each. I think the same yardstick 
was used for both white and colored teachers 
in arriving at the units (132). After the units 
were arrived at, the white teacher was given 
$3.00 per unit and the colored teacher was given 
$1.50 per unit, but I think when you finally 
work it out on the percentage proportion, the 
proportion is practically the same. The plaintiff 
in this case has an A.B., seven years’ experience, 
salary $706. Experience from two to seven 
years is entitled to one point, an A.B. five points, 
and salary of $700 to $1,100 six points, which 
makes a total of twelve points. A white teacher 
teaching in the System seven years, with an A.B. 
has twelve points. With these same qualifica­
tions, the plaintiff gets one and one-half times 
twelve, or $18, and the white teacher gets $36 
(133). If you compare the amount of money 
that Susie Morris gets for her salary, it would 
be practically the same percentage of salary as 
all negroes. The thing that keeps the plaintiff 
with twelve units from getting $36 goes back to 
her salary, and her salary is based on the things 
I have suggested (134). There are some white 
teachers in the School System getting less than 
$1,100. Some new teachers with seven years’ 
experience, salary between $700 and $1,100 and 
an A.B. would get the $36. Susie Morris may not 
be as good a teacher. According to that set-up,



48

a white teacher with no experience at all, re­
gardless of teaching ability, would get $86 (185). 
As between these two teachers, I cannot tell you 
what additional conditions prevent them from 
getting the same amount. It is your statement 
and not mine that race is in there, that the col­
ored teacher gets $1.50 and the white teacher 
gets $3.00. The race question never came into 
it. The race question has never come into any 
of our conferences. Nobody has ever said any­
thing about the race question or the fact that 
she is a negro in any meeting I have ever been 
to. It was not put on race (138). I don’t think 
that color or negro is used in any one of the ex­
hibits. The one that says $1.50 was sent to col­
ored teachers and the one that says $3.00 was 
sent to the white teachers.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

I came on the School Board in 1934 and 
have been on it continuously since then. I have 
served as Vice-president and Secretary, and I 
have been on the various teacher committees 
and other committees (139). I have never seen 
a fixed schedule used by the Board. The School 
Board has never instructed the superintendent 
to use certain figures for minimum salaries. 
There has never been any discussion in the 
meeting of the Board on the question of race or 
color in fixing salaries. During the time I have 
served on the personnel committee, there has



49

never been a discussion relative to race or color 
in fixing the salaries. In my capacity as a mem­
ber of the teachers committee, I had in mind the 
applicant’s qualifications as a teacher, their 
educational background, their training, their 
aptitude, their cooperative qualities and things 
of that kind; these are intangibles that you can’t 
exactly put your finger on in selecting a teacher 
(140). We use our best judgment in trying to 
evaluate the applicant. When Mr. Hall had a 
meeting of the teachers committee, he had a 
list of vacancies, and he had considered appli­
cants for particular positions. He took all the 
applicants and went over them and decided 
which ones were the best, and we talked with 
regard to their background and educational 
qualifications, their length of service as teach­
ers. In every case, these applicants had been in­
terviewed by Mr. Hall, and I am sure the same 
thing pertains to Mr. Scobee. Sometimes they 
were not only interviewed once but two or three 
times to make sure that the best judgment was 
being used, and sometimes if there was a doubt 
in our minds about the candidates, we wanted 
to be absolutely fair and Mr. Hall would see 
them two or three times more (141). Mr. Hall 
gave his finding in such instances. If the com­
mittee had personal knowledge of a person, we 
would give that for what it was worth, but there 
was never any discrimination. The salary rec­
ommended for a given applicant was never re-



50

duced by reason of color. If a teachers commit­
tee had before it for consideration two appli­
cants, who, in its best judgment, had equal qual­
ifications, the same background, the same apti­
tude, and if they were teaching similar subjects, 
the committee would be willing to pay them the 
same salaries regardless of color (142). The 
salaries were reduced when I came on the 
Board, but I don’t think we have cut the salaries 
since. I think they have been upped a little bit, 
but I wouldn’t be sure of that; over a period of 
years it is hard to remember. In the minutes of 
March 30, 1936, at which meeting I was present 
and about which I have testified, the resolution 
is for a salary adjustment (143). It was not the 
intention of the Board to increase salaries but 
to adjust salaries on the basis of salary cuts. 
The first paragraph provides for an adjustment 
of 150% of the respective salary adjustment cut 
in 1935, made in 1936. It is placed on a percent­
age basis. The latter part of the resolution deals 
only with teachers coming into the System for 
the first time since then or employed at a sal­
ary too low to be cut. I have not endeavored 
personally to make a critical analysis of all the 
salaries paid the teachers now in the Public 
School System. This would be necessary in 
order to make a detailed comparison of one 
teacher with another.

The salaries for 1941-1942 were fixed in April 
or May of 1941 (146). School is usually out



51

sometime in May, and if they don’t get their 
contracts by that date they are automatically re­
employed. I think that the distribution of this 
bonus did not enter into the question of fixing 
salaries for the year, 1941-42. The second bonus 
was distributed in the spring of 1942. It did not 
enter into the contemplation of the School 
Board in fixing salaries for the year in question. 
We have to live within our budget, and we have 
to figure our expenses according to reasonable 
expectancy (146). The committee met at least 
once a month, and when there were vacancies 
and a need, we were subject to call. I was pres­
ent at the meeting of July 27, 1935, according 
to the minutes (147). The following teachers 
were presented for election: E. L. Belger, Jr., 
colored, $60 a month; Danice Moulden, colored, 
$60 per month, vice Lvnett Wiggins at $60, not 
accepted; Kathleen Breit, $688, vice Mary Alice 
Darr, at $811, leave of absence; M. F. Moose at 
$1,600, vice Keneth Bird at $1,881, leave of ab­
sence. The colored teachers are listed first.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

Whether colored teachers are listed first is 
a matter of chance for whoever keeps the min­
utes (148).

M u r r a y  0 . Reed, sworn as a w itness on be­
half of  the defendants, testified as fo llow s on



52

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I am a member of the School Board and 
have been for little over three years. I have 
been President and Secretary. During that time, 
there has come up the question of the appoint­
ment of teachers to different schools in Little 
Rock and the fixing of salaries. I don’t think 
that it is true that since I have been on the 
School Board, all white teachers new to the 
System have been employed at not less than 
$810. I think in some instances, they have been 
paid less (149). I didn’t know that all negro 
teachers are paid between $615 and $630, with 
one exception of $675. I think most of the 
negro teachers new to the System are paid less 
than the white teachers new to the System. I 
guess there are many reasons within my mind; 
the qualifications are entirely different in most 
cases, personalities are different, their ability 
to teach is different, supervision necessary in 
connection with the School System of the 
colored teachers is entirely different; there are 
many differences. I think that some negro 
teachers new to the School System come from 
accredited colleges (150). They have been paid 
less than white teachers coming from ac­
credited colleges, but that is also true as between 
white teachers. I wouldn’t know whether a 
majority of the teachers in the white high school 
are paid $900 and a majority of the elementary



53

schools are paid around $810. There is quite a 
wide range of salaries between various teach­
ers. It is my idea that all teachers are paid on 
the individual basis. I think if all of them were 
paid on the individual basis, it could so happen 
that nine-tenths of the negro teachers would 
fall into a group between $615 and $630 because 
of the various differences, some of which I 
have mentioned (151). I don’t put these differ­
ences as to race. There is nothing in my mind 
that stops me from thinking that a negro grad­
uated from Michigan University would be just 
as qualified as a white teacher graduated from 
Michigan or as to their teaching ability or char­
acter. It is not a fact that the personnel com­
mittee just recognizes the teacher’s race and 
school. Race and school are not all that are on 
the report. In the first place, the report is made 
to the committee by the superintendent of the 
school (152). The report of the personnel com­
mittee to the Board gives the name of the teach­
er, position, qualifications, education, ex­
perience and such things as that and the salary, 
as I recall, the number of degrees and from 
what school, etc. That is the written part of the 
report. It does go into the report. I don’t know 
that it does in every instance. In the minutes 
of the Board of August 26, 1942, there is a list 
of candidates recommended and elected. I see 
nothing in there about their qualifications.



54

That is not the verbatim committee report and 
doesn’t purport to be the report of the com­
mittee, because the names and salaries and the 
sheet of the committee report might contain 
this information. It is discussed by the Board 
at the meeting where they are employed, but I 
guess it doesn’t get into the actual minutes about 
their qualifications (153). We discussed the 
qualifications of the individual teacher. The 
Board does not in every instance, but the com­
mittee does. We accept the report of the per­
sonnel committee and adopt it. Frequently we 
do read the qualifications of each teacher. If 
we don’t, we receive the recommendation of the 
superintendent. We discuss various individuals 
and their qualifications, personality, character­
istics and various other things. The school the 
individual comes from is one of the things that 
is considered by the committee. It also dis­
cusses experience, or lack of experience, and 
the recommendation of the school from which 
the teacher comes. It also takes into considera­
tion personality. We consider, of course, that 
we have a position that is vacant, the type of 
person required to fill that vacancy, and these 
things are studied by the superintendent and a 
recommendation made, and we discuss these 
points with the superintendent, what he thinks 
about it, and with ourselves. Frequently, ap­
plicants come to see members of the committee



oo

(155), individually. I think that it is usual in 
the majority of the cases to refer the matter of 
personality to the superintendent. The com­
mittee considers age, qualifications, the posi­
tion to be filled, apparent qualifications for 
that particular work. The committee naturally 
considers the salary the teacher was receiving 
in the previous position. It is not necessarily 
controlling. We try to consider the basis (156). 
It is a very informal meeting, and we discuss 
most anything and everything that we think 
would have a bearing on the matters or condi­
tions. Relative to the figures of $810 and $900, 
and of $615 and $630, the district has a certain 
amount of money derived from taxation that 
we can spend, and the finance committee goes- 
into the budget and lets the Board and the per­
sonnel committee know what we have, and that 
is divided the best we can among the various 
teachers. In dividing it up, a less amount is set 
aside for colored teachers than for the white 
teachers, but we don’t have so many colored 
teachers. I think that would tend to be a less 
amount for the individual teachers. The rea­
son is individual qualifications (157). I think 
there are instances where the colored teachers 
come from a good school, have the same num­
ber of years of experience, the same degree and 
teach the same subject. I think that there are 
some colored teachers getting the same as white



56

teachers in the same bracket. If Susie Morris 
and twenty-four others in the high school are 
getting less than any white teacher, it is be­
cause these teachers were not as good as to 
individual background, but I don’t know the 
individuals. I cannot point out particular in­
stances, but we have some white teachers not as 
efficient as others, and we have discussed that. 
I don’t recall that we released a teacher in home 
economics for inefficiency and let her resign. 
It may be so (158). I think that the personnel 
committee has taken up the question of white 
teachers that were inefficient. We don’t keep a 
teacher that is inefficient; we adjust salaries. 
We adjust all of them. I think there are several 
white teachers with less than an A.B. Probably 
those teachers would be superior in some cases 
to colored teachers with an A.B. In many in­
stances, it would be true that a white teacher 
with no college degree would be better than a 
colored teacher with an A.B. degree from a 
colored school on grounds of qualifications, on 
many grounds. We have many excellent teach­
ers, who have no degrees at all. College training 
is a part of the qualifications (159). A person 
with a degree would probably be a better in­
structor than a person without a degree, but 
the fact that a person has a degree doesn’t mean 
that he is a good teacher if other things are 
lacking. There is no absolute way to know



57

what kind of a teacher a person will be who 
has had no past experience. If the committee 
had a position to be filled and two applicants, 
one with a college degree from an accredited 
school, and one without a college degree, both 
with no experience, I would take the one with 
the degree (160). If I hired both, possibly I 
would pay the higher salary to the one with the 
degree, assuming the positions to be filled were 
the same. If one was going to junior high 
school and one was going to Dunbar, and all 
things being equal, I would think the person 
with the degree would be paid some more (161). 
If a negro teacher with an A.B. and no ex­
perience and a white teacher with no degree 
and no experience teaching in elementary 
school are considered, whether the negro 
teacher should be paid more than the individual 
white teacher all depends upon various things 
we have talked about. There are several things 
that control instances when negro teachers with 
degrees have been paid less than white teachers 
with no degree. A degree from some schools 
doesn’t equal a degree from some other. Pos­
sibly a teacher from the University of Kansas 
is entitled to more pay than a white teacher 
with no degree at all. As to Mr. James B. Scott, 
teaching mathematics at Dunbar, with an M.A. 
from the University of Kansas, working on a 
Ph.D., who gets $753.25, and a white teacher by



58

the name of Clayton Elliott, with a B.S., teach­
ing in the junior high school, with six years of 
experience and who receives $1,234.25, that 
comes down to another detail (162). This man, 
Elliott, has been a coach in addition to his teach­
ing. Various things might enter into that. The 
colored man might have more there if you are 
going to assume that everything else is equal. 
I know Mr. Elliott and I don’t know the other 
fellow. As to Mr. F. M. Gardner, white teacher 
in the junior high school, with a B.S., four years 
of experience in Little Rock, three elsewhere, 
salary $1,260, I cannot explain the difference. 
But I don’t know either of these, although there 
are plenty of differences which would justify 
a difference in salary. I helped to fix these 
salaries. I don’t know what information I 
actually had in mind in that individual case. 
Fifty-four and one-third hours are approxi­
mately two years of college (163). I don’t know 
N. F. Tull, with fifty-four and one-third hours, 
no degree, teaching junior high school, with a 
salary of $1,653, which is almost $900 more 
(than Scott). The salary is greatly controlled in 
all of these cases by the recommendation of the 
superintendent. Since I have been on the Board, 
we have made a good many changes and adjust­
ments. One of the main things the members 
of the School Board have to do is to receive com­
plaints from people who want their salary



59

changed. We have had some negro applicants 
or teachers in the System who have degrees 
from accredited colleges that rank along with 
Arkansas schools. They come from what they 
call accredited schools, but most of the schools 
we don’t consider as good as some of the others. 
Their education doesn’t cost them as much 
(164). It is not true that the criterion for 
how much education one gets is the cost. I do 
not think our committee is better able to rate 
the school than the Association of Colleges, 
whose duty it is to rate schools, but we have a 
good many men, for instance, from Arkansas 
Baptist College, and I don’t consider a B.S. from 
that school as good as from the University of 
Arkansas or the University of Michigan or Yale. 
I don’t recall that we have any colored teachers 
from the University of Arkansas or the Uni­
versity of Southern California. I didn’t know 
that Mr. Lewis came from Yale. It is generally 
the duty of the superintendent to go into the 
qualifications of the negro teachers. We accept 
his recommendations (165). I only know what 
he says is his basis for recommendation. If he 
uses a yardstick of race or color, I would not 
know it.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

I took office on the School Board in March, 
1939 (166). I have served as President, Secre-



60

tary, and Chairman of the Personnel Commit­
tee, which position I now hold. During this 
time, 1 have not found that there is a fixed 
schedule for salaries. The School Board has 
never instructed the superintendent so far as 
I know as to any particular limit or minimum 
salaries. The personnel committee has to do 
with the personnel and employing and re­
employing teachers. We meet practically every 
month and sometimes several times to consider 
vacancies or any personnel matter that may 
arise during the year in the employing of 
teachers. The superintendent usually makes 
the investigation of that teacher’s educational 
training, experience and other qualifications 
and submits that recommendation to the com­
mittee. It meets and discusses that report and 
also other information it may have in regard­
ing the applicant. Sometimes, of course, the ap­
plicant visits the members of the committee. 
Then we pass on that application and make 
recommendations to the Board. We consider 
the superintendent’s recommendation very 
carefully. We question him about the basis of 
his recommendation. There are six members 
on the School Board, three on the personnel 
committee and three on the finance committee 
and there is no overlapping (168). The other 
members of the Board, other than members of 
the personnel committee, frequently ask ques-



61

tions with reference to qualifications and ex­
perience of the applicants. Of course, it is not 
discussed as fully as it is in the personnel meet­
ing. They do not inquire into the committee 
reports. I do not recall that the superintendent 
has ever recommended a specific salary for a 
specific applicant and stated that it is based on 
color. I recall no occasion on which the teach­
er’s committee has refused to follow the recom­
mendation of the superintendent on the grounds 
of color. I recall no occasion on which the 
School Board itself has refused or failed to 
follow the recommendation of the committee 
or the superintendent on the ground of color
(169) . Not to my recollection has race or color 
ever been discussed by the teacher’s committee 
or in the Board meetings prior to the filing of 
this suit. In selecting an applicant as a teacher, 
the basis of consideration is qualifications. 
That would be training, experience of the 
teacher, education, school or university or col­
lege from which the applicant comes, per­
sonality, apparent ability, and qualifications to 
perform the particular duties of the position 
applied for, age, and various other things that 
might enter into the qualifications of a teacher
(170) , character, recommendation, and things 
of that sort. In fixing the salary for a specific 
teacher, we have in mind the duty to be ful­
filled, the type of position, and qualifications



62

would enter into that. I do not consider the 
question of race or color as an element nor does 
the committee nor the School Board. We have 
a certain amount of fixed revenue and other 
revenue for the school district and the finance 
committee meets and makes up the budget. Cer­
tain parts of that budget are set aside for teach­
ers’ salary and certain part for capital outlay, 
maintenance, and various subdivisions that 
make up the budget, which comes to the Board 
for approval (171). The sum set aside for 
teachers is not broken down into white and 
colored teachers. It is just one lump sum. I do 
not know of any particular sum that is set aside 
and designated for the use of employing white 
teachers only, or for employing colored teach­
ers only. If two candidates presented them­
selves for election, and in my judgment they 
were equally qualified in all respects, in all 
these intangibles which I have mentioned, teach 
the same subject in the same type of school, and 
the only difference between them is that one 
is white and one is colored, I would be willing 
to pay them the same salary. I do not recall 
that we have ever found two applicants who are 
equal in the judgment of the committee (172). 
In comparing a colored teacher who has a 
degree with a white teacher who has none, it is 
a little hard to say what significance should be 
given to a degree. Some regard should be given



63

to it. It does not necessarily mean that the 
degree denotes a better teacher. There are good 
teachers in our System who have no degree. 
This is true with one race as with the other. As 
between James B. Scott, teaching mathematics 
in Dunbar, and Clayton Elliott, teacher of 
mathematics in junior high and who receives 
substantially more salary. I know Mr. Elliott 
personally (173). I understand that he is a 
coach, boys’ advisor, and has quite a bit of addi­
tional duties to his regular teaching. This takes 
extra time. I do not know whether James B. 
Scott performs any additional duties. I think 
he does not, but I am not positive. In fixing the 
salaries, the School Board and the teacher’s 
committee take into consideration extra time 
and extra qualifications. They enter into it and 
would justify a higher salary for one over an­
other. As between James B. Scott and N. F. 
Tull, I do not know Mr. Tull personally. I don’t 
think that I am in a position to make a critical 
analysis of all the teachers and their salaries. I 
can make a general analysis, but we leave the 
greater part of that to the superintendent (174). 
The School Board is a policymaking Board, and 
we necessarily delegate to the superintendent 
the detailed duties. The School Board does not 
have time to make a critical analysis of the 
teachers and their salaries. It does require re­
ports of the superintendent. He files these re-



64

ports and they are gone over and studied by the 
Board individually (175). Usually, that is be­
fore the meetings and they are discussed at the 
meetings. I remember that there have been sev­
eral occasions when the School Board has em­
ployed teachers at a higher salary than that 
recommended by the superintendent. If the 
superintendent recommended a white teacher 
new to the System and recommended salary at 
$830, the teacher’s committee would not lower 
it to $810 (176), and if the recommended salary 
was $800, it would be the disposition of the 
committee to leave it at that figure. If a colored 
teacher new to the System was recommended 
at a figure of $600, the committee would proba­
bly accept it, and if the recommendation was 
for some other figure, say $645, it would be the 
disposition of the committee to accept.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

I am a practicing attorney in Little Rock. 
It is not true that when the recommendations 
are made by the superintendent to the personnel 
committee, the individual teachers are desig­
nated as to their race. Sometimes, they are 
designated by schools (177). Most of the mem­
bers of the committee know which schools are 
white and which are colored. I think I know 
most of them. I don’t think I could tell you all 
of the colored schools. I can probably look



65

down the list of teachers as recommended by 
the superintendent and pick out the white and 
colored teachers by looking at the school beside 
the names. I do not recall specifically that on 
the report of the personnel committee, prior to 
this year, the teachers were labeled negro who 
were negro. As Chairman of the Personnel 
Committee, I went over the report of the com­
mittee before it was made to the Board (178). 
The minutes of May 29, 1940, show the pro­
motion of Herbert H. Denton, shown as a col­
ored teacher at $706. Sometimes the Board 
designates teachers as to their race, not every 
time. I don’t think it is the general rule. The 
minutes of June 6, 1940, show a number of 
teachers. I see one designated as negro. I do 
not know whether there are others colored or 
not. I see three teachers at $615 each additional 
teachers in the negro schools. I know that they 
were negroes, but they are not designated one 
by one as negroes. All teachers appointed in 
negro schools are negroes (179), so if the report 
designates the teacher for a negro school, I un­
derstand that teacher is a negro. I do not know 
of any negro teachers being appointed to white 
schools or vice versa. That is prohibited by law 
in this State. The minutes of July 31,1940, show 
three teachers appointed and designates them 
all as negroes (180). The minutes of August 28, 
1940, show a list of new teachers. I see one



6 6

designated with “col.” It shows Capitola Wilson 
new, and I suppose she is negro. The report 
of the day following shows one colored teacher. 
I am not sure that the rest are white. Some of 
them are white. I cannot tell by the salaries that 
they are white (181). If there is one in a group 
marked colored and the others are not marked, 
it might mean that the others are white teachers, 
but 1 see in this list just one which I know is 
colored and marked colored. In general, it is 
true, but might not be true in every instance 
that a list of teachers with negro marked after 
them are colored teachers and teachers with 
nothing marked after them are always white 
teachers (182). I do not do the actual writing 
of the reports of the committee, but the clerk 
does. I did not actually prepare them, but I 
presented them. I am familiar with what is in 
the report. I didn’t put the designation of negro 
after the teachers myself; I suppose the clerk 
put it there for her own assistance to show 
where they go. Negro teachers are designated 
as negro or colored in the office of the Board 
for the convenience of the clerical staff to keep 
up with teachers, where they go and who they 
are (184). I think it is for the information of 
the clerks and secretaries. I think it is true that 
the personnel committee and the Board in put­
ting on a teacher knows what race the teacher 
is. I think the question of race comes into some



67

consideration to some extent in the mind proba­
bly and the experience of the superintendent 
in recommending teachers (184). The per­
sonnel committee has never discussed or con­
sidered race. We know what race the teacher 
is when discussing the individual. The same 
is true for the Board. I think I can explain why 
white teachers fall into a category of $810 to 
$900 in this way: The best explanation is the 
superintendent of the schools is experienced in 
dealing and working with teachers, white and 
colored. He finds that we have a certain amount 
of money and the budget is so much, and he 
finds that he has to pay a certain minimum to 
some white teachers qualified to teach, and the 
best he can do about it is around $800 to $810 
to $830, whatever it may be. In his experience 
with colored teachers, he finds that he has to 
pay a certain minimum amount to get a col­
ored teacher qualified to do the work. He finds 
that about $630, whatever it may be. He would 
offer that to the white teacher, if the white 
teacher would accept it. He would frequently 
offer less than $810, but they don’t accept it. I 
cannot testify that on the applications of sev­
eral of the white teachers who have been ap­
pointed there is a statement that they will accept 
less salary (186). I don’t see those applications 
or read them frequently. Sometimes we offer 
colored teachers more than $615 and white



6 8

teachers $810; sometimes less, but usually we 
offer them around that figure. I remember sev­
eral instances in which we have paid more. I 
cannot point out the specific case, but I know 
there have been such cases. I do not think that 
because we can get colored teachers for this, 
the colored teachers have to suffer for it. They 
are willing to accept less, and we are limited 
by our financial structure. The taxation is 
limited, and we have to do the best we can (187). 
The negro can live cheaper . There are various 
reasons. There are many evidences here in the 
city that the negro can live for less than the 
white person. The negroes probably pay the 
same price for clothes as anybody else. I am 
not placing the reason for offering less salary 
on economic basis and saving money for the 
district. We probably would, in many cases, 
offer the white teacher less if he would take 
it. Bargaining on the part of the school au­
thorities does not start at two different figures 
between the white and the negro (188). I un­
derstand the superintendent bargained with 
colored teachers at $810 in the days of the de­
pression, but I wasn’t a member of the Board 
at that time. Teachers came to see me about an 
adjustment of things, and claimed they were 
employed at lower figures than others. Since 
I have been on the Board, I do not know of any 
instance where the personnel committee has



69

been bargaining in its own mind. The discus­
sion on salary items was handled by the super­
intendent. There were several instances when 
the committee raised it (189). I don’t recall any 
individual case where white teachers have been 
offered less than $810 since I have been on the 
committee. I remember some discussion of a 
letter, but I don’t remember the petition itself 
of the negro teachers in May of 1939. I think 
that was probably referred by the office to the 
finance committee, and the committee made 
some report to the Board that no raises or ad­
justments could be made during that period, 
but I don’t recall that ever coming to the Board 
for action. I don’t remember one in 1941. I 
don’t think it came to the Board for official 
action (190). If we had more money in the 
school budget, we would follow the same prac­
tice we have been following. If the minutes 
show that since 1939, there have been no negro 
teachers appointed at a salary of more than 
$675, then they are correct (191). The minutes 
of August 21 show the appointment of Miss 
Wharry at a salary of $900 (192). Her applica­
tion shows that she was teaching in Malden, 
Missouri, 1935 to 1941, and her salary there was 
$900. She agreed to teach here for $800. Fre­
quently applicants change their minds as to the 
amount they will accept after they file applica­
tion. These applications may be on file for



70

many months, and when finally employed or 
from discussion with the superintendent, they 
change their mind as to the amount. I do not 
know that that is true in this case (193).

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

I am not able to recall the facts as to every 
teacher employed since I have been on the 
School Board. I do not recall any teacher em­
ployed at a salary of $615 equal in ability to any 
teacher employed at a higher figure. I don’t 
know that there is a practice by the superin­
tendent or the teacher’s committee or the Board 
to employ specific teachers at a figure they will 
take. If the applicant specifies a salary which 
is out of line with the ability of that applicant 
and the judgment of the committee, the com­
mittee does not pay the salary. If the applicant 
specifies a salary lower than the committee 
thinks her ability justifies, the committee does 
not in every case pay the amount requested 
(195). Regardless of the amount of money 
which the School Board may have on hand for 
the payment of salaries, we try to pay them 
about the same if they are equal. Of course, 
we pay all we can, giving regard to the amount 
of money we have. We try to pay as much as 
the budget will allow, all teachers about the 
same in accordance with their abilities.



71

Susie C. Morris, sworn as a witness in her 
own behalf, testified as follows on:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I came into the System under the name of 
Susie E. Cowan and I am the same individual 
as Susie C. Morris (196). I am thirty-three years 
old and was born at Eudora, Arkansas. My 
father was a teacher and principal of the school 
in Eudora. My mother was a teacher in Eudora 
also. We moved to Little Rock about 1923, and 
at that time, I was attending Tupelo College in 
Mississippi, which is part of the high school
(197) . I completed the high school training 
there and went to Talladega College in Alabama 
beginning 1926. It is accredited by the South­
ern Association of Colleges and Secondary 
Schools. I graduated with honors from 
Talladega in English in 1930 and taught in How­
ard County, Arkansas, in Toilette Training 
School and then the Town School at Nashville, 
from 1930 to 1932, teaching English and history
(198) . Then I taught at Lincoln Academy in 
North Carolina under the American Missionary 
Association. I taught there 1934-1935 and at the 
end of the summer of 1935 went to the Atlanta 
School of Advanced Education taking practical 
observation in teaching, progressive classroom 
procedure in secondary schools and methods in 
teaching English. All of them are in connection



72

with my regular teaching. I completed six 
hours that summer, two semester hours for 
each grade, and made A in practical observa­
tion and methods of teaching, A in classroom 
procedure in secondary schools, and B in 
methods of teaching English (199). The Atlanta 
University is accredited. I went from Atlanta 
to Little Rock and signed a contract to teach in 
this System before I left for California. I had 
a discussion with Superintendent Hall before 
that time. Mr. Hall made no personal visit to 
my home. Mr. Hamilton came to my home to 
see mp. He is a supervisor (200) . We discussed 
teaching, and the contract was sent to me early 
in the summer, and I refused to sign it because 
of the salary. Before I came here, I was offered 
the job because the chairman of the English 
department recommended me, and a member 
of my family was given an application and 
contract. It was sent to me, and I was told that 
my salary would be $60. I refused to sign the 
contract and had a discussion with Mr. Hamil­
ton. I had several discussions with Mr. Hall, 
and I was told my experience made no differ­
ence in the entrance salary here. He agreed 
to pay me $68. The figure $840 as the lowest 
amount I would accept was placed on the ap­
plication blank after I received the information 
from Mr. Hamilton and others as to the salary 
level (201). I would be living here with my



73

parents, and formerly 1 had lived away from 
home. I was employed as chairman of the 
English department. I am still chairman. I 
was not for one year, because when I came 
here, two teachers were away studying. I fol­
low a course of study in teaching, probably 
coming from the School Board, but it was given 
to me when I came. We have revised the course 
(202). I hold a study hall with from 300 to 500 
pupils one period each day, and the rest of the 
time, I am teaching, except for one free period 
a day. I have extracurricular work. My being 
chairman of the English department is extra 
and I am supervisor of the Bearcat, the student 
publication (203). I confer with the subchair­
man of the English Department and do most 
of the work in the English department. I have 
general supervision of the student paper, which 
I should think is to keep up the good will in 
the community as well as in the school. I am 
chairman of the public relations committee, 
which tries to interpret the schools of the com­
munity by publicizing school activities that the 
parents would be interested in, and we plan to 
contact organizations that would be of service 
to us in putting over our program. This is done 
after school hours (204). I am co-chairman of 
the committee on curricular revision, which 
studies trends of education and try to adapt our 
curriculum to the trend. I am Secretary and



74

Treasurer of the athletic association and have 
complete control of all the tickets for the games 
of the association. 1 handled about $3,000 last 
year in helping to keep up the financial pro­
gram. I don’t have much time for other 
extracurricular work. Last year I was chair­
man of the senior committee. I had charge of 
the commencement activities in the school. I 
had a committee with me, and I was chairman 
(205). I am sure that Mr. Scobee attended those 
exercises. Most of the Board members did. 
Mr. Hamilton said that he was very well pleased 
with it. During my teaching career in Little 
Rock, I have often talked to parents about the 
pupils, and in many instances, I have visited 
the home. So far as I know, there has only been 
one complaint by a parent which had to do 
with the purchase of textbooks (206). I got 
permission from Mr. Hall to introduce a new 
textbook in the 12A course in literature. We 
had difficulty in buying it in the bookstore here 
because it is not used in Little Rock High School, 
and I made provisions to order the books for 
the library so we could get the library discount. 
The librarian quoted the price to us from her 
catalogue, and the money was sent directly to 
the librarian and the books ordered through 
her. but it seems from the company to whom 
she sent the order that the books were cheaper 
than she quoted and there was one pupil who



75

did not report it correctly to his parents, and 
they reported to Mr. Scobee by letter. There 
was an investigation, and I went to Mr. Scobee’s 
office and explained it, and he asked me to 
write a letter of explanation and I did. Mr. 
Hamilton said that everything was clear. This 
particular parent had reported several teachers 
from Dunbar (207). I am a member of the 
Mount Zion Baptist Church, and I have been 
singing in the choir since I was a little kid. I 
belong to the Business and Professional 
Womens Division of the YWCA. I have also 
worked in the Community Chest. I belong to 
the National Sorority, Delta Siga Theta Sorority, 
composed of college women for negroes. Other 
members are Mrs. Mary McLeoud Bethune, for­
mer president of the National Federation of 
Negro Womens Club, and president of Cork- 
mon-Bethune College in Florida and director 
of negro NYA. Sarah Rogers is also a member
(208) . I am chairman of the committee on 
chapters for the entire organization, and it is 
part of my duties to accredit schools so far as 
the sorority is concerned. I am president of the 
local chapter. I do not personally know Mr. 
Scobee. He has been in my classroom one time 
in May of 1942, after the answer was filed
(209) . He was there from 2:05 to 2:15, ten 
minutes. Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Lewis were 
with him. I was teaching 12A literature at the



76

time he was in there, and I was attempting to 
introduce a new lesson for the next day. I had 
finished the assignment for that day and I was 
just teaching, which is pretty difficult. I had 
assigned several children to do research work. 
I had the students to make reports from the 
library, and I had requested the students to take 
notes in order to do this library work. It is not 
definitely an English assignment. This is one 
of the accepted methods of teaching that par­
ticular project. I was introducing the assign­
ment for the next day by giving some historical 
background (210).

CROSS-EXAMINATION

I came into the Public School System in 
the fall of 1935, in August. I was married on 
July 19, 1936. My husband was a school teacher 
in Memphis (211). I divorced him in Decem­
ber, 1939, in Pulaski County Chancery Court. 
I was the plaintiff and since then, I have not 
remarried (212). I have been chairman of the 
committee on the Bearcat a year. I was ap­
pointed in the fall of 1941. I was appointed 
chairman of the English department when I 
came here, and there has only been one year 
when I have not served as chairman. This is 
the second year I have been on the public rela­
tions committee (213). I am co-chairman of 
the committee for revision of the curriculum



77

and was appointed in the fall of 1942. I served 
on the committee on commencement exercises 
every semester, but I was chairman last year. 
The commencement was held in May of 1942.
I have had some opportunity to observe class­
room work and have an ability to judge teach­
ers (214). I have made an appraisal of my 
own teaching. All teachers do that. It is a mat­
ter of good teaching practice. It may be at one 
time she has a class that is rather dull, and she 
may have to change her methods, and a class 
may fail to get a particular assignment, and 
she may have to see what is the matter with that. 
Evidence of plans is a legitimate test of ability 
(215). On a teacher rating of from one to five, 
on use of teaching plans, I would assign my­
self to group one; development of objective, 
one; subject-matter of scholarship, one (217); 
maintenance of class standard, keeping the 
teaching quality at a level to cause the students 
to strive to do better, one, because I take par­
ticular pains in trying to reach all students. 
All students don’t have the same abilities you 
find out. Use of recognized teaching methods 
is a legitimate test, and I would rate myself 
one (217); class atmosphere, one; recognition 
of individual difference of students, one; pupil 
response, one, over a period of a year (218). 
Skill in questioning students is a legitimate test, 
and I would rate myself one; attention to room



78

conditions, one; this is having windows open 
and shades even and floor clean. Professional 
relationship among the teachers is a legitimate 
test, and I would rate myself one. it is difficult 
for a teacher to rate herself on esteem of 
parents, because I don’t know what all the 
parents think (219). In so far as I can tell, and 
the superintendent and supervisor and prin­
cipal understood that one instance, I would rate 
myself one. Class organization is a legitimate 
test, and I would rate myself one; use of teach­
ing material and distinguishing that from use 
of recognized methods, one; community ac­
tivities, one. Personal example is a good test, 
and I would rate myself one or above (220). On 
these several tests, 1 would give myself a rating 
of one, which is at the top of the bracket. It 
does not leave very much room for improve­
ment on a rating sheet, but I was asked to rate 
myself.

I have alleged that I have been discriminat­
ed against and that the discrimination is in sal­
ary on the basis of race and color (221). I don’t 
know the names of the white teachers with 
whom to compare myself. I heard the name of 
Lillian Lane yesterday. I don’t know any white 
teachers. The only thing that impressed Lillian 
Lane on me is that the lawyers used that yester­
day making the comparison when we entered 
the System. I know that there has been discrimi-



79

nation against me. I can’t point out any, I don’t 
have the statistics. I can’t name any white teach­
er as to whom I have been discriminated 
against. I have been discriminated against as 
compared to all teachers of English in high 
school, and as compared to all teachers who 
have been teaching six years in the high school. 
We were on different salaries (222). I am not 
able to name the teachers of English in the Lit­
tle Rock High School. I am not able to name 
any teachers who entered the School System 
when I did except Lillian Lane. I think that the 
discrimination now exists in that I now receive 
less salary than the teachers of English in the 
Little Rock High School, and the difference is 
based only on race and color. Some of the sal­
aries may be different as based on difference 
in qualifications and teaching ability. If some 
of the salaries are different for that reason, 
there is no discrimination. The difference in 
salaries can’t be based on differences in teach­
ing abilities and difference in training and dif­
ference in degree and be a discrimination (223). 
I think in spite of that, they are governed solely 
by discrimination. If a teacher with a masters 
degree entered here at the same time I did, I 
would expect that teacher to get a teachers sal­
ary for masters degree. If a teacher with an A.B. 
entered the same time, I think that I would get 
the same salary if I had the same qualifications 
from an accredited school. In an official study,



80

qualifications would be established by reading 
the application. It would be limited practically 
to that for a new teacher. I don’t have any rea­
son to believe that the superintendent or the 
teachers committee make any investigation of 
the teachers’ application (224). I was offered a 
job before I came here, and I don’t know wheth­
er they investigated my background or not. I 
have no knowledge of any investigation. I am 
sure that the superintendent in my own parti­
cular case wrote to various schools at which I 
was professionally employed as a teacher. I do 
not know whether he made any investigation 
other than to interview me and to write to these 
schools. I don’t know whether my application 
was fully discussed in the teachers committee. 
I mentioned that a teacher with an M.A. teach­
ing English might be entitled to a higher salary. 
I should think that there is a fixed schedule of 
salaries in the Little Rock Public School System. 
That just seems reasonable to me to have some 
way. I have seen such a salary schedule for col­
ored teachers. I don’t have one with me; mine 
is at home (225). If a teacher in the Little Rock 
High School has an M.A., has been teaching a 
longer period and has been teaching a special 
subject, the case is different. I don’t know 
Catherine Brink, teaching English in the Senior 
High School (226). She has an M.S., which is 
comparable to an M.A., has been teaching for 
thirteen years and receives a salary of $1,710.



81

The fact that she has an M.S. and thirteen years 
as compared to my six makes a difference. I 
am not prepared to say exactly how much dif­
ference. I feel that I have been discriminated 
against as compared with Catherine Brink. I ad­
mit she has been teaching longer and teaching 
another subject, and I am not prepared to say 
how much I have been discriminated againsts. I 
do not think she should have $1,500 (227). I 
don’t know how much she should have, and I 
don’t know the System of giving salaries. There 
must be some system. Any school board would 
have some system. That is the only reason I 
have for saying that it has a system other than 
I have seen the school schedule. It was given 
to us. I suppose it is in force. Mary Craig 
teaches in the Senior High School, has an M.A. 
and seventeen years’ experience (228). If the 
School Board has no system, I am not discrimi­
nated against as compared with her, but if it 
has a system, I am. I am sure the School Board 
must have a system. That is the only basis I 
have for saying that, and I have seen the sche­
dule for the negro salaries. She is listed as hav­
ing a salary of $1,752; as compared to what I 
get, it is not a fair salary for her. It would take 
some time for me to say where I would place 
her salary, because that would take some con­
sideration. I would have to work out a system. 
Helen Hall has an M.A., teaches in the high 
school, has seven years’ experience and receives



82

a salary of $1,348. My answer is the same for 
her, because I would have to study the case, but 
I would say a teacher with an M.S. with no ex­
perience would fall below a teacher with an M.S. 
with some five or ten years’ experience. But so 
far as intangibles, I could not count on them 
(229). I would not disregard the intangibles; 
I would consider them, but not in hiring a teach­
er. I would go into these; it is very difficult to 
go into the background of people. It is a matter 
of judgment and discretion. I do not believe 
one person could analyze definitely one individ­
ual in a short period of time. To analyze an in­
dividual, it would take quite some time, because 
every activity and every experience a teacher 
has may have some bearing on his reaction. I 
know there are a great many teachers in the 
School System, and it would entail a great many 
years of study of the individual. That is the 
reason why I don’t see how the superintendent 
could, because he couldn’t have time (230). In 
any school system, the number of members on 
the board and the number of supervisors are 
limited. I would not have the teachers commit­
tee and the superintendent employ and pay sal­
ary on the basis only of degree. If a teacher had 
no experience, the personnel committee could 
interview the person, discuss the person with in­
dividuals who may know him, may ask for 
written recommendations if it has some bear­
ing. After that has been done, it still would be



83

a matter of judgment and discretion in passing 
on those intangibles. That judgment and dis­
cretion would still have to be exercised by the 
School Board (231). It would have to do the 
best it could on that working basis. I imagine 
that there are around 400 teachers in the Public 
School System, which would mean a large num­
ber of applications. The work of the superin­
tendent in employing teachers and the work of 
the teachers committee in reviewing them would 
necessarily be a task, but I don’t think the re­
sults would be arrived at by classifying these 
teachers in this manner, that this teacher is 
worth $60 or $67.50. No committee could arrive 
at an exact scientific figure dealing with these 
intangibles, and as a last analysis, it is still a mat­
ter of judgment and discretion. It may be good 
or bad discretion, but it is still a matter of discre­
tion and judgment on the part of someone 
(232). In employing a teacher for the first time, 
if she has a B.A. or an M.A., or has had other ex­
perience, or if she had no experience, but deal­
ing with the intangibles, it is not all a matter 
of judgment on the part of the Board. There is 
no mechanical device by which you can arrive 
at it. Part of it can be mechanical. A teacher 
with an A.B. from an accreditel school with no 
experience would fall into a certain bracket. A 
degree from Talladega is equivalent to an A.B. 
from the University of Chicago. It follows very 
closely the course of study that the University



84

of Chicago has. I would say that it is equivalent 
to an A.B. from Harvard. I would rather have 
it than one from Columbia (233). It is equiv­
alent to an A.B. from the University of Arkan­
sas. If two schools are accredited, regardless of 
anything else, an A.B. is the same. If one appli­
cant has an A.B. from one college and another 
from another, and one was an honor student 
and the other merely passed, that would not 
show up in the degree, but still it would be an 
A.B. The A.B. does not show the qualities of 
training, because it is pretty hard to decide what 
an individual has obtained from a course and 
does not show up in marking. An A.B. does not 
automatically show the quality of a teacher, but 
it seems to me that there must be some starting 
point for judging (234). I would give A.B. de­
grees from accredited schools the same number 
of points if I were rating them. Janette Har­
rington has an M.A. with thirteen years’ experi­
ence and $1,552, teaching in the Senior High 
School. I consider that I have been discriminat­
ed against as to her. It would take a whole lot 
of study to determine to what extent I have been 
discriminated against. It wouldn’t be a matter 
of judgment (235). There must be some intang­
ibles, I would say the atmosphere perhaps that 
a teacher can create, poise. That is a matter of 
judgment, but it is hard to say whether a teach­
er has $50 worth of poise or $55 worth. It would 
still be a matter of judgment. You would have



85

lo have a system, but the system would still 
have a matter of judgment. In the Senior High 
School there is a teacher by name of Elizabeth 
Huckaby with an M.A., eleven and one-half 
years’ experience with $934. I feel I have been 
discriminated against as to her. I would like 
to have a masters degree, but in that, I have been 
discriminated against on the A.B., I don’t have 
the money. Therefore, I remain in the A.B. 
bracket (236). In the Senior High School, Caro­
lyn Broadhead with an A.B. and fourteen years’ 
experience has a salary of $1,498. I consider 
that I have been discriminated against as to her. 
I have done graduate work. I have no work to­
ward a degree as such. As to the difference of 
her fourteen years as compared with my six 
years, I am sure seniority means something in 
the System, if there is a system (237). In com­
paring our salaries, if she were inferior to me in 
certain teaching abilities, I don’t think that 
should be considered. I don’t think different 
abilities should be considered in a comparison. 
If a teacher falls too far below the quality, the 
teacher should be released. In comparing my 
position with that of Carolyn Broadhead, I 
would only consider the salary, the degree and 
the number of years. I wouldn’t have a teacher 
who couldn’t keep up. There is a difference in 
teaching abilities. I think that would be very 
unfair to have a difference in the salary (238). 
I would consider what she is teaching for rat-



8 6

ing the teacher, but not in the salary. In the Sen­
ior High School, Helen Key teaches English with 
an A.B., three years’ experience. Comparing 
my position with hers, I would limit it to degree 
and number of years of experience. If she has 
a higher salary than I have, then I say clearly 
that here is a case of discrimination, and I would 
base that discrimination solely on the fact that 
I have the same degree, and I have been teaching 
longer (239). In the Senior High School, Fran- 
cile Oakley, with a B.S., and who has been teach­
ing twelve years, receives $1,194. In comparison 
with her, I say that I have been discriminated 
against. The only things to be considered are 
the degree and experience, and the salary should 
be based on degree and years of experience. An­
other teacher is Mary Piercey, A.B., three years’ 
experience, with a salary of $1,122. I say the 
same in reference to her, and I base it solely on 
the degree and years of experience in consider­
ing the salary (240). Another teacher of Eng­
lish with an A.B. is Mildred Stalnaker, fifteen 
years’ experience and $1,506. I think that her 
salary is justifiable in comparison with mine. 
To tell what she should receive, I would have 
to work out a system. It would be based only on 
degree and experience as far as her salary is 
concerned. My answer would be the same with 
reference to another teacher of English with a 
degree of B.S., fifteen years’ experience and 
$1,350 (241). With reference to whether there



87

are more applicants for the position of English 
teacher to some other position, the summer I 
came into the System, Mr. Hamilton told me 
there were many applications for that job. I 
wouldn’t know how many applications there are 
for various teaching jobs. English is recognized 
as an ordinary academic subject and was re­
quired at the college I attended. It is required 
in most accredited colleges. Music requires dif­
ferent capabilities of teaching from the subject 
of English but no more. Carpentry requires dif­
ferent type of training (242). It would take a 
different type of training to teach any special­
ized branch. I would not give any consideration 
to these different types of training in compar­
ing applicants and fixing salaries. I would con­
sider a degree in music comparable to a degree 
in English if I were devising a system (243). If 
I had two vacancies in my school, one for music 
and one for English, and I had applicants before 
me, I would not pay any attention to the subject 
matter to be taught. I would pay them the same 
regardless of subject matter. I think I have been 
discriminated against as to Mary Clifford in the 
Senior High School with an A.B., six years’ ex­
perience and teaching music, and receiving $945 
(244). I would say that I would automatically 
be entitled to the same salary if she has a com­
parable degree and teaching the same number 
of years. I am not an authority on that; if I 
was going to do that, I would study what other



88

systems are doing. Because I say that, I consid­
er I have been discriminated against (245). I 
don’t know that the School Board considers only 
degrees and experience when teachers enter the 
System, but for beginning teachers, I guess they 
would all start in together. I am not an author­
ity on rating, but in my opinion, all A.B. Degrees 
are equivalent if they are from accredited 
schools (246). Philander-Smith is a member of 
the North Central Association, but I think it is 
not accredited. I am sure Shorter College and 
Arkansas Baptist College have no rating. I am 
not sure about the Pine Bluff Agricultural and 
Mechanical College. I think we have some Phil­
ander-Smith teachers. I really don’t know the 
scholastic rating of the teachers. Philander- 
Smith grants degrees. I have not gone into the 
question whether an A.B. from Philander-Smith 
is equivalent to an A.B. from Talladega (247). 
I would assume that a degree from a non-ac- 
credited school doesn’t have as much value as 
that from an accredited school, but I don’t know 
about Philander-Smith. If I were fixing salaries 
for two teachers, one with a degree from an ac­
credited school and one with a degree from a 
non-accredited, I would not make any differ­
ence in the salary for a beginning teacher. I 
think that an A.B. is an A.B., regardless of the 
school it comes from, if you are hiring the 
teachers. There is some desirability in attend­
ing a college that is accredited. I have looked at



89

this rate sheet that I call a salary schedule. It is 
headed “Special Adjustment Plan” (248). It is 
listed as an adjustment, but it is a schedule. It 
is not signed by any official of the Little Rock 
School Board or by the superintendent. It does 
not show that it comes from the office of the 
Little Rock School Board. I know that it comes 
from the office of the Little Rock School Board.
I don’t know who prepared it; I take it for grant­
ed that the members of the School Board did. I 
assume it was, because we could take our sal­
aries and they would fall right in here, for in­
stance (249), I was making $706, and I would 
fall right here in the seven years’ experience, 
A.B. Under this paper I call a schedule, I would 
ieceives $682, but I received $706. If this is a 
schedule, my salary is higher than the schedule, 
because the superintendent gave me an $8.00 in­
crease. My salary would still be higher than the 
salary mentioned there. I remember that in the 
spring of 1940 there was an adjustment of sal­
aries made generally in the School System. It 
was made in May, 1940 (250). The only thing I 
remember is that I got $11.00 for that year. It 
came directly from the School Board. The 
$11.00 is supposed to be based on that plan. I 
am under the impression that this was the salary 
schedule enforced to all colored teachers. We 
have some teachers who receive more than this. 
The highest person with masters degree here is 
$750 (251). The allegation in the complaint



90

that I have been discriminated against in the 
payment of salary and the salary is based on 
schedule is not made on this schedule. I make 
no construction about this schedule, but it was 
given me. It does not form a basis for my idea 
that I am discriminated against. I am not basing 
my allegation of discrimination altogether on 
this instrument, not on any instrument. I am 
basing it on the fact that colored teachers with 
the same amount of experience and the same 
training are paid less. If this is not a salary 
schedule and not any act of the School Board, 
my allegation to that extent is not erroneous. I 
said that I based my allegation somewhat on 
this as a salary schedule (252). If this should 
prove not to be a salary schedule, my allegation 
is not somewhat wrong. It is still right, because 
we still get the salaries. The most that could 
happen is that I be just mistaken on this piece 
of paper perhaps, but we still get the salaries.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

I got a copy of this plan out of my mailbox 
(253). I usually get bulletins from the School 
Board in that mailbox. I know of my own per­
sonal knowledge that all of the teachers in Dun­
bar found it in their mailboxes. I have never 
discussed it with Mr. Hamilton. It has been re­
ferred to in my presence and in the accrediting 
association we have discussed it. I received it 
in my mailbox in Dunbar (254).



91

(This plan was introduced in evidence as 
plaintiff’s exhibit No. 4, page 255.)

The fact that I have been teaching more 
than six years in the System, that I am head of 
the English department for Dunbar with the ex­
ception of one year, the fact that I get less sal­
ary than any white teacher in the System in my 
mind forms a basis for my belief that I am dis­
criminated against. The fact that Lillian Lane 
with only an A.B. and no experience gets $900 
which is $194 more than I get, gives rise in my 
mind that I am discriminated against. The same 
is true as to Mrs. Catherine Lee, a white teacher 
with an A.B., three years’ experience, with 
$1,060, and Mrs. Wharry with no experience and 
a B.S.E. (256). The same is true as to Helen Key 
with no experience in Little Rock, with $1,122; 
Miss Mary Piercy, A.B., three years’ experience 
in Little Rock, with $1,122; Miss Flora Armitage, 
twenty-seven years’ experience and two years of 
college and twice my salary. I do not think this 
is justified. It is not my object as plaintiff in 
this suit to attempt to obtain a salary schedule 
or a basis of salary on any particular method 
(257). I am only trying to stop discrimination 
as to race.

CROSS-EX AMIN ATION

My object in this suit is to eliminate dis­
crimination which I believe to exist as against 
colored teachers, and in considering discrimina­



92

tion as to teachers in the Little Rock School Sys­
tem, I consider only degrees and years of ex­
perience (258). I couldn’t go on any other basis. 
I would have to have some place to start. I don’t 
believe in intangibles. It would take years of 
study to go into that. I would leave them out in 
fixing basic salaries.

John H. Lewis, sworn as a w itness on be­
half o f the plaintiff, and testified as follow s on

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I am principal of Dunbar High School and 
have been for thirteen years. I received my 
Bachelor of Arts De gree at Morris-Brown Col­
lege at Atlanta, Georgia. After teaching five 
years, I was employed at the high school at 
Cuthbert, Georgia, and one year in the high 
school department of Morris-Brown. I entered 
Yale Divinity School. I was there three years 
with a major of social science and anthropology 
and ethnology. After completing my work in 
Yale, I entered the University of Chicago con­
tinuing my emphasis on social science and also 
education (260). I took at Yale and also at Chi­
cago during the summer work in the history of 
education, principles of education, theories of 
teaching and materials and methods under Coz- 
elle at Yale, Koose at Chicago, and Revis and 
Freeman in tests and measurements. After 
completing my work at Chicago, I was asked to



93

go back to Morris-Brown. I got my Master of 
Art Degree, and went back to Atlanta and taught 
there three years as head of the department 
of sociology. On completing those years, 
I served as principal of the high school at Lin­
coln, Missouri, and also at the same time, pas- 
tored a church there. I then went to California 
for one year as pastor of one of the largest 
churches. While there, I took non-credit work 
at the University of Southern California in edu­
cation. After I had been there one year, I was 
asked to go to Morris-Brown College as presi­
dent, and I was president eight years (261). We 
had there some thirty or more teachers having 
a course, a high school and college at that time. 
After I had been there eight years, I resigned 
and went back to the same church in California. 
I had been there just one year by invitation of 
the people to return when I was offered the 
principalship of Dunbar High School and Dun­
bar Junior College upon the recommendation of 
three gentlemen of the Rockefeller Foundation 
and the General Education Board; Mr. Jackson 
Davis, field representative of the General Edu­
cation Board; Dr. James P. Dillard, representa­
tive of the Jeames Fund; and Mr. Walter I. Hill, 
supervisor of Negro Education in Georgia. 
Dunbar is fully accredited by the North Central 
Association, and in order to be accredited and 
to retain its rating, the teachers meet the re­
quirements of the North Central Association



94

(262). We have some four or five who are not 
graduates of accredited schools. In no case do 
we employ a teacher unless thoroughly approv­
ed by the North Central Association. That is 
the same association which accredits the high 
schools, and we follow the same standards. We 
have forty-two teachers altogether. If we hire 
a teacher from Philander-Smith or Shorter Col­
lege, that teacher is approved by Mr. Scobee 
and Mr. Cox (263). It has been my duty to ap­
praise the teaching ability of teachers. During 
the entire period, I have had at least 150 teach­
ers under me, and I have had to appraise that 
many teachers over and over again. I know 
Susie Morris and have had an opportunity to ob­
serve her very carefully. I have observed her 
extra-curricula work, and in my opinion, she 
is a superior teacher (264). I have had no occa­
sion to find fault with her since she has been in 
my school. I am certain I have been able to get 
around to every teacher on an average of at 
least once a month or more. I average perhaps 
twenty minutes. I visit Susie Morris about that 
often and have observed her teaching different 
types of subjects and English and different 
classes. I have never made any complaint to 
the School Board about her (265). My opinion 
today is that she is a very capable teacher. I 
have seen her plans for teaching. She is a thor­
oughly progressive teacher that follows modern 
progressive methods, the methods approved by



95

the Chicago University. I think she has object­
ives, and I think she develops them. I have 
checked as to her scholastic scholarship attain­
ments at Atlanta and Chicago. Atlanta and Chi­
cago ranked her up as superior, around A or A- 
minus. Her maintenance of class standards is 
excellent, use of recognized methods is excellent, 
class atmosphere good (266). She recognized in­
dividual differences as any superior teacher 
does and takes steps to correct and help the 
weaker children. Pupil response is good. 1 
think her skill in questioning is about perfect. 
Her attention to room conditions, windows and 
ventilation is good, but that is no part of a super­
ior teacher. Her professional relations are ex­
cellent. I have had occasions very frequently to 
hear her discussed by parents; it was very favor­
able. Her class organization is good, and her 
use of materials is very good (267). She is very 
active in her community relationship, and 
makes an excellent personal example.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

I don’t have a Doctor’s Degree. I have a 
Bachelor’s Degree and a Master of Arts Degree. 
I have several honorary degrees, but only earn­
ed degrees is all I have. I have a degree in Divin- 
ty from Yale, and I have been the pastor for 
churches (268). I consider myself among those 
colored teachers who have been discriminated 
against in the payment of salary.



96

“Q. In comparison with whom have you 
been discriminated against?

“A. I have not checked accurately the list, 
but in observing the list, as I see it (stops)—

“Q. Are you able to mention any specific 
teacher in the schools of Little Rock?

“A. Perhaps I am not able to mention any 
specific teacher, but” (stops).

I consider that I have been discriminated 
against as compared to Mr. Larson of the Senior 
High School. He is the only person in a compar­
able position (269). I do not know what degree 
is held by Mr. Larson, or what school he attend­
ed, and I do not know definitely how long he 
has been here. I know he has been here more 
than 20 years (270). I do not know definitely 
whether he has been here almost 30 years. He 
has been here longer than I have. He receives 
approximatly $4,000. There are around 1,500 
students in Dunbar High School with junior col­
lege. In high school proper, that is in the upper 
three years, there are about 700 students. In 
part, we have a separate staff of teachers for the 
junior college, for some teach entirely in the 
junior college and some teach in both schools. 
The students in junior college pay fees, and it 
is expended to meet the salary of the junior col­
lege teachers primarily (271). None of it is 
spent on my salary. I am paid entirely from the



97

funds of the Public School System. I am allow­
ed to give two hours in religious education in 
Dunbar Junior College. The administrative 
head of the junior college is F. 0. Roberts, and 
he is paid by the junior college proper. I don’t 
know how many students there are in Little 
Rock Senior High School, but there must be 
around 2,000 or a little more. I understand Mr. 
Larson is president of the Little Rock Junior 
College (272). I do not know whether he is paid 
from funds of the Little Rock School System. 
I think he has a Master of Arts Degree from Chi­
cago where I received my degree, and it is a 
comparable degree to mine. He has been em­
ployed in the System longer than I have, but 
that doesn’t affect the amount paid us. I don’t 
know about him. I don’t know whether it 
should affect the amount of salary paid to him. 
It doesn’t affect us.

“Q. Do you know that?
“A. In many cases, while as—I am sure 

there is a little bonus attached (273).”
I have been in a position in which I have 

employed teachers. In evaluating applicants, I 
consider first of all scholarship measured by 
academic and professional training in the best 
schools. My first consideration is scholarship in 
terms of their undergraduate and graduate 
training, their subject matter and their knowl­
edge of the profession. I get their credits, their



98

transcripts and check those credits. If we want 
an English teacher, I check her work in English, 
and if she is a major in English, or a minor, as 
the case may be, then certainly she is familiar 
with all of the other subject matter for this 
(274). I check the nature of her academic work 
with the college from which she comes. That 
is not entirely the measurement of scholarship 
I use, but it enters into it. I would check her 
academic work and her professional work, of 
course, having in mind if she has done any 
writing. Her professional attitude enters into it. 
Her attitude is not a matter of scholarship, but 
I would check into it. I would take her academic 
work and whether she has done research work. 
In employing teachers, I certainly do not con­
sider all A.B.’s the same. Some of them might 
not be worth the paper they are written upon, 
depending upon the credits of the school (275). 
If the school is accredited by the Southern or 
North Central Association, we accept their 
standards. On the face of it, if you have two 
A.B.’s from the University of Arkansas, appar­
ently they are the same, but other things enter 
into it. I was at Yale, and we had men come up 
from Talladego. Those men came to Yale and 
Harvard and Chicago without reducing their cre­
dits. I would rather have them from Talladega 
than from Yale or Harvard. There is no school in 
the South that is superior to Talladega. All de­
grees from Talladega are not of the same value.



99

All A.B.’s as such, are of the same value, if you 
don’t take into consideration anything else. 
Their credits show up inthe transcript. In ad­
dition to scholarship, I would take into account 
experience (276). The number of years would 
he part of it, but experience is not measured en­
tirely on terms of years or terms of activity, 
but in achievement and in terms of other things. 
These are too hard to evaluate, so much so that 
very few people attempt to measure any intang­
ibles. I don’t know whether I would make any 
effort to measure that if I were employing 
teachers and fixing the salaries. It is very diffi­
cult to fix salaries on teaching ability. It is a 
fair thing to do if it is done by people who can 
carry it out and who can actually rate them. In 
fixing bases for salaries, I would go into that. 
I would have in view the experience and train­
ing. I would have to consider what is taught
(277) . Scholarship, training and experience are 
the starting point for applicants. Training and 
experience from a first-class school carry with 
them character and some other things in gen­
eral. I have found a teacher with an A.B. who 
was not a good teacher, and teachers with A.B.’s 
who were good. If I were asked to fix a salary 
schedule, I would give a very considerable study
(278) . You can’t do that offhand. As to the in­
dividual, I would consider his training and 
scholarship. I would look into character and 
personality so far as I could. If it were left to



100

me, I would not employ a teacher that did not 
have personality. I would not say that all appli­
cants do have personality. There would be var­
iations. I would not weign these variations in 
personality. They are too variable to weigh. It 
is hard to weigh character, it is hard to define, 
it is too relative (279). We do attempt to do it 
with teachers generally, speak of good moral 
character, but we are not able to evaluate char­
acter and ideals completely. I would be very 
cautious about including weighing of character 
as a measurement of employing teachers. Those 
three things will cover the whole thing if you 
expand them sufficiently, because character 
means all of these. In weighing them, it is 
necessary to exercise judgment and discretion 
(280), and that has to be done by the one who 
examines and employs. Mr. Larson has had 29 
years’ experience here. That additional length 
of experience should be considered in connec­
tion with his salary. If the high school had a 
larger student body than Dunbar, his adminis­
trative difficulties would be greater. It seems 
reasonable that the administrative duties should 
be a factor fairly to be considered in fixing sal­
aries (281). My salary is $2,742.17. If Mr. Lar­
son’s salary is $3,712.50, which is about $1,000 
more than mine, I couldn’t say that his salary is 
greater than it should be.

“A. I couldn’t say that, it is not more than 
it should be, it is not.



101

“Q. Do you consider it out of proportion 
in comparison with your own salary?

“A. I should say “yes”—or (hesitate).

“Q. Now, then, to what extent is it out of 
proportion?

“A. I would have to do a little bit of 
mathematics.”

In passing on these matters, the additional 
experience, the larger student body, and the 
greater administrative duties, judgment would 
have to enter into it (282). If the School Board 
fixes his salary and mine, there would have to 
be some judgment exercised surely. There is 
net a single colored school in the State that is 
accredited by the accrediting agencies. They are 
accredited by the State but not by the agencies 
(283). The purpose of accrediting by the State 
is for the purpose of teachers’ license and has no 
bearing on the credit. I remember recently that 
I, Mr. Hamilton, and Mr. Scobee discussed the 
teaching abilities of the plaintiff. It was had 
about the first of May. Mr. Scobee, Mr. Hamil­
ton and I observed a number of teachers, and 
we came back to my office and held a confer­
ence on a good many of these teachers, but not 
all. I do remember that we had a conference on 
Susie Morris. We discussed a rating for her and 
took notes, but I know nothing of any rating 
there. I did not make any notes of that discus-



102

sion; we simply discussed it (284). I wouldn’t 
say that I have any specific or formalized rat­
ing sheet. I think I did rate them. The School 
Board has never furnished me one. This is the 
first one I have seen. In visiting classrooms, 
a trained observer can form some estimate in 
five minutes. You have to stay there some little 
time to get a reasonable estimate of the teacher. 
A number of visits over a period of time would 
form a sufficient basis. I have not been before 
the School Board on any matter of discipline in 
connection with my work as principal (285). 
I have been before the School Board once in 13 
years. We dropped a teacher because he was 
incompetent and he held me responsible for it 
and made a report to the School Board. He was 
in charge of night school funds, and it is a fact 
that some three or four times during that year, 
before he had reported these funds to the treas­
urer, I had four or five times borrowed from 
that fund, and gave him my I.O.U. for it. When 
I put the money back, I didn’t take up the nota­
tion. When he was dropped, he reported to Mr. 
Hall and to other members of the School Board. 
They investigated, and they knew he had re­
ported it, because he was prejudiced, and it was 
cleared up. It didn’t go any further (286). This 
was with his knowledge and consent. I don’t 
know of any other teachers who borrowed from 
this fund. I talked to Mr. Hamilton about it; I 
don’t recall that I talked to anyone else about it.



103

This was three or four years ago (287). I am 
not prepared to compare Susie Morris with 
white teachers in the Little Rock Senior High 
School. I have not observed any of them. I have 
observed only Miss Morris and other teachers in 
other junior schools.

“Q. In fixing her salary, and in fixing the 
salaries of other teachers, would the School 
Board have to use some discretion as it would 
have to use in fixing yours and Mr. Larson’s 
salary?

“A. I am not sure they would have to do 
that, I—(stops). I don’t know what they would 
have to do, I—(stops).

“Q. Would you ask the School Board not 
to use any judgment or discretion in fixing sal­
ary?

“A. I hope they will use judgment (288).”

I am sure that the total amount I borrowed 
wouldn’t amount to $25.00. In other words, at 
intervals, I would say, let me use three or four 
dollars until next week, and I would give him a 
note, and I wouldn’t collect them, and when he 
was dropped, he turned them over to Mr. Elliott, 
and he turned them over to Mr. Reed, and they 
found that he was prejudiced. He was a colored 
man. This borrowing extended over a period 
of three or four months (290). This money be­
longed to the School Board, it was night school



104

money. Not a dime was ever found wanting. I 
have been there thirteen years, and you can 
come any day and not a penny is found missing. 
If there is a penny missing, I would resign to­
day. If the School Board could check one penny 
short, I would walk down and resign the school.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

If I came across inefficient teachers at Dun­
bar, I would attempt to get rid of them as I did 
on one occasion. I would not deliberately keep 
what I considered an inefficient teacher at Dun­
bar (291).

R. T. Scobee, sworn as a w itness on behalf 
of the defendants, testified as fo llow s on

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I am superintendent of schools of Little 
Rock and one of the defendants in this case. I 
took office on February 1, 1941. Before that 
time, I was Superintendent of Schools in Jeffer­
son City, Missouri (292). I have been in the 
field of administration of public school systems 
since 1923. I have had occasion to appoint 
teachers, to fix salaries quite a bit in the various 
school systems, and have studied some on that 
question. In administrative school circles of 
public school system, experience, training, in­
formation concerning the individual fitness of 
the candidate, all of the things that the employ-



105

ing agency can find out about the individual or 
to form a judgment or the facts are generally 
considered necessary to be used in fixing teach­
er’s salaries. Among the generally accepted 
media for fixing the salaries, rating of teaching 
ability is not generally used (293). I don’t think 
I know of any school system where it is used 
for that purpose. I am a member of the National 
Educational Association, and am familiar with 
it and its work. In the several surveys it has 
made, it has found that ratings are not used in 
fixing salaries. I believe that I have found some 
instances where sex differentiation is used. I 
have not found situations in which race is used 
as a medium for fixing salaries (294). In the 
Little Rock Public School System, all the schools 
are in the same system, white and colored. I 
try to see the same type of education is given in 
both the negro and white schools. The same 
type of education is given in the elementary for 
the colored and for the white pupils, and in the 
high schools the same. The junior colleges are 
not recognized by Arkansas law. In some sense, 
I administer the junior colleges and try to give 
the same study (295). The junior white college 
is accredited and Dunbar is not. I don’t know 
why. I try to give them the same teaching. The 
schools are open the same number of days a 
week and open and close on the same hours. I 
would say that a graduate of the negro junior 
college has received much the same training as



106

the graduate of the white junior college (296). 
Generally, it is the practice to pay more for high 
school teachers than for elementary teachers. 
There has not been any complete change in the 
salaries of the teachers since I came into the 
System in 1941. There have been a few adjust­
ments, but in the main, they are much the same. 
To a certain extent, if salaries before I came 
were based solely on the grounds of sex, they 
still would be going on the same grounds.

In the majority of cases, I have not had 
much of an opportunity to study the situation 
so as to make any adjustments necessary (297). 
If, prior to my coming into the System, differ­
ence was based solely on the grounds of race, 
the same difference would be carried on today 
in many cases. I have visited most of the negro 
elementary schools for the purpose of observ­
ing the teachers in their teaching and have ob­
served the teachers as time permitted. I have 
been in the Capitol Hill School, South End 
School, in Gibbs School on several occasions. I 
have not observed the teaching of all the ele­
mentary school teachers, and I have not observ­
ed the teaching of all the teachers in Dunbar. 
In my own personal knowledge, I would be un­
able to estimate the teaching ability of all the 
negro teachers (298).

When there is a vacancy in any school, we 
look over all the applicants which the informa-



107

tion indicates would fit that position, and we 
select a few of the ones that in our judgment 
would be best fitted for us and investigate these 
candidates. When I say investigate, we obtain 
all the information possible to obtain upon 
them, and select one applicant for the position. 
In selecting an applicant for a teaching position 
in the white high school, we consider only white 
applicants, and for teaching in Dunbar, only ne­
gro applicants. After the selection of the teach­
er, in fixing the salary of that teacher we have 
in the budget of the District a certain amount 
set aside for instructional purposes, and it is 
the business of the superintendent with the per­
sonnel committee to divide that money up so 
that it will fit the proportion made by the 
Board (300). We arrive at the figure of $800 
generally by determining the type of work that 
applicant is to do. To some extent, we take into 
consideration the amount that the applicant 
puts on the application blank as the least 
amount she will accept, however, in many cases, 
that is not the guiding factor at all. In many 
cases, we pay them more than the amount they 
say they will accept, because in our judgment, 
they are worth more. We pay them what they 
are worth so far as we are able to determine. 
Since I have been superintendent, I have not 
come across any negro applicant, where regular 
teaching is concerned, from manual training to 
a principalship, who would be worth $810 (300).



108

I think that all we have hired are worth less than 
that. They have had degrees from accredited 
schools, years of experience, and compare with 
some of the white teachers, but I think they are 
not worth as much as the white teachers because 
using the fact of judgment, I do not think they 
were worth that. I used all of the things I found 
out about them as an individual. As for ex­
ample, it might have been their scholarship, it 
might have been their training, or their person­
ality. I have not come across some that have as 
good personality as white teachers (301). I do 
not find any that have had everything that the 
white teacher has since I have been here. I had 
one white teacher, M abel Thom as, about whom 
I made a mistake. She was a Home Economics 
teacher, and I paid her $900 or something like 
that. It was an error in my judgment in paying 
her almost $200 more than Susie Morris. One 
thing that permitted me to make this mistake 
was that her recommendations were better than 
her subsequent experience proved. Some rec­
ommendations are not so good. It is my judg­
ment that no colored teacher that has been hired 
since 1941 is worth the limit I have paid to white 
teachers. When I say worth to the System, I 
mean a general statement of worth to the Sys­
tem, and not worth within the budget of the 
System (302). I do not take into consideration 
the fact that I can get them cheaper. The evi­
dence in the last year has borne that out, how­



109

ever. I take it into consideration to a certain ex­
tent, because we have to keep the budget balanc­
ed. If colored teachers were worth the same in 
my judgment, I would be willing to pay the 
same money to them as I do to the white. I 
have not definitely checked the teachers that are 
compared with the plaintiff in this case (303). 
I think that it is true that Susie Morris and 
twenty-four other negro teachers in the Dunbar 
High School get less salary than any white teach­
er in the System. I do not necessarily consider 
that every one of these teachers is inferior to 
every other white teacher, because I haven’t had 
an opportunity to observe either one of them.

“Q. Do you think that Susie Morris and 
these twenty-four other teachers in the Dunbar 
are less valuable to the School System, all of 
whom have experience of years and college 
degrees, for the most part, from an accredited 
school, are less valuable to the School System 
than a white teacher with no experience?

“A. . Not as a group, as individuals there 
might be a difference.”

I account for the fact that they get less 
because the group, as such, is made up of a 
number of individuals (304). Bernice Bass 
teaches Home Economics and is a good teacher. 
She only gets $720 and has just been raised to 
that.



110

“Q. And how can you explain the fact 
that she gets less than the worst white teacher?

“A. Well, we were making adjustments.

“Q. Well, taking those you know about, 
do you consider Miss Bernice Bass as valuable 
to the School System of Little Rock as the worst 
teacher you have, white teacher you have in 
the School System?

“A. Would you name an individual?
“Q. Name an individual?
“A. Yes.”
I know M. C. Moser, teaching in Senior 

High, with an A.B. and who gets $1,536.98. 1 
consider him more valuable because he is a 
better teacher (305). Mrs. G uy Irby  is a substi­
tute and is not on a regular salary. I consider 
her more valuable, because she is a most ex­
cellent mathematics teacher. According to this 
(defendants’ Exhibit No. 5) she has no ex­
perience. She has always been carried as a 
substitute since I have been here. As the cir­
cumstances stand, I consider her more valuable 
than James D. Scott, with an M.A., teaching at 
Dunbar, because we have to have a good mathe­
matics teacher we can call suddenly. I believe 
that I recall Miss Jewell Stone, a study hall 
keeper and not a teacher. I don’t know whether 
she is more valuable to the System than M iss



Ill

Bass. The only thing I can give you about her 
is her long tenure (306). In making these deci­
sions, I am using my best judgment. Mrs. Cath­
erine Lee teaches in East Side Junior High with 
six years’ experience and receives $1,060. I 
have not observed her work. I do not know 
how she happened to get more. So far as I am 
concerned, the salaries are not set up on race. 
I do not know how these figures were arrived 
at. So far as the total amount of money spent, 
I am trying to carry on as I found it. I have 
made very few changes. I don’t know any place 
where I have raised one up to the white level 
(307). I did not raise Miss Bass to the white 
level. I think that she is a very good teacher. 
I paid $900 to Miss Rhoda Wharry, B.S.E., 
teaching English, with no experience in Little 
Rock, two years outside, because I thought she 
was worth it. I believe that all of the white 
high school teachers I have employed I have 
paid $900. I have paid all white elementary 
teachers $810, and some more than that, but I 
do not recall any below that . Most of the negro 
teachers have been paid either $615 or $630, and 
those I paid more were given more because 
they teach specialized subjects, and I thought 
they were worth more (308). Since I have been 
here, I have stayed within these two levels. As 
a general statement, I do not believe that negro 
teachers are only worth $615 and $630. I know



112

Miss H. B. Campbell at Dunbar, but I have not 
observed her teaching, and I do not know that 
she is a Bachelor of Science. She has fourteen 
years’ experience and receives $859, $41 less 
than paid any of the white teachers with an 
A.B. or less. This may or may not be justified, 
depending upon the kind of teacher she is. I 
could not say that it is not true that I have a 
single white teacher in the School System with 
a Master’s degree getting $4,000. The Master’s 
teaching English are Miss Louise Beasley, eleven 
years’ experience, receives $1,338.40; Miss Edith 
Leidy, five years’ experience in Little Rock, re­
ceives $1,243; Miss Emma Scott, fifteen years, 
receives $1,350; Miss Minnie Lee Mayhan, five 
years’ experience in Little Rock, and receives 
$1,128.75; Miss Evelyn Clauson, five years’ ex­
perience, receives $1,045. All of the white 
teachers teaching English in the white high 
school, with M.A.’s, receive from $1,045 up, and 
Miss Campbell receives $859. I do not know the 
reason for that.

I do not know and have not observed James 
Scott’s teaching. I do not recall S. P. Massie as 
an individual. I have visited the class of J. L. 
Wilson, and he is a pretty good teacher. In the 
face of my limited investigation, I would dislike 
to decide on whether he is as good as some of the 
science teachers in the white high school (309 
and 310). I think he has an M.A., and he has had



113

nine years in the Little Rock School System. I 
think that the payroll would bear it out that 
I have employed white teachers of less ex­
perience and less degrees and have given them 
more money than I am paying him, that is, 
more than $1,039. It may be true that I have 
a teacher, E. A. Bowen, at the West Side Junior 
High School, no college degree, eighteen years’ 
experience, who receives $1,882. I am not sure 
how those figures came about. I have not com­
pletely carried on those figures as I found them, 
but in the main, so far as the budget would per­
mit (311). All the changes I have made would 
appear in the minutes. I believe that for the 
teachers at Dunbar, those having degrees from 
accredited colleges is better than two to one. 
In the main, they do the same work as the 
teachers in the high school. They use the same 
textbooks in the main, and follow the same 
courses of study. I don’t know why they get 
smaller salaries than the white teachers, except 
some of them are not as good teachers. I don’t 
know about some of them. In fixing up the 
salaries for 1941-1942, I did not fix them en­
tirely on the basis of their teaching ability, nor 
entirely on the basis of merit (312). In some 
cases, merit enters into it, 1940-1941. I have 
observed the teaching at Dunbar, and I have 
visited the office. I could not fix the salaries 
of the teachers at Dunbar on any merit basis,



114

but my funds are limited. I am not in a posi­
tion to know how the salaries I met when I 
came here were set up. Since I have been here, 
in considering a position of the white schools, I 
consider white teachers, and in the colored 
schools, I consider negro teachers, and when I 
make the recommendation to the personnel 
committee, I designate the school. They know 
the difference (313). When the personnel com­
mittee’s report is made to the Board, I doubt if 
the Board knows it in all cases, because they 
don’t go into the personnel committee’s report 
in detail. I don’t know whether the Board al­
ways designates the teacher as colored or white. 
I have not paid much attention to it.

The petition of the negro teachers to have 
their salaries equalized is on file. No action was 
taken. I do not recall whether I wrote the City 
Teachers’ Association. The signature on this 
letter of May 19, 1941, is mine; I think the min­
utes will reflect this (314). I believe that the 
original of the petition presented by the negro 
teachers is on file in the Board office. I will 
check this against it and see if it is a copy. I 
am not sure, but I believe that the petition set 
out and alleged that there was discrimination 
in the City against the race. I told them that I 
was trying to maintain the sta tus quo. The 
finance committee considered it and by impli­
cation denied it (315).



115

I remember the supplementary payment 
for money received from the State in 1941. The 
majority of it came from State funds. I ap­
pointed a committee to bring a recommendation 
to the superintendent and Board for the dis­
tribution of this money (315). The members 
were W. S. Hays, principal of Oakhurst; Eula 
McCreight, a primary teacher in Mitchell; Mabel 
Irvine, junior high school teacher at East Side; 
Olive Smith, an elementary teacher at Forest 
Park, and Helen Hall, a teacher in the Senior 
High, all white teachers. This money was to be 
distributed to both white and colored teachers, 
and I referred it to a teacher’s committee to 
get a basis. I don’t recall the reason why I 
didn’t refer it to negro teachers for advice. I 
wouldn’t say that I didn’t want their advice 
(316). This committee made a report which 
was presented to the finance committee and 
then to the Board which adopted it. Plaintiff’s 
Exhibits 3A and 3B were sent out by me, after 
the Board had made the apportionment on the 
basis of the report (317). I think that they are 
identical with regard to every figure except five 
and seven. Exhibit 3A said $1.50 per point 
would be awarded to each teacher and 3B says 
$3 per point to each teacher. 3A was sent to the 
colored teachers and 3B to the white teachers, 
so that under this rule, all white teachers got 
$3 per unit, and all negro teachers $1.50 per



116

unit. I don’t know that the factor in determin­
ing whether teachers got $3 or $1.50 was the 
race of the teacher. The Committee turned in 
the report and figured out the amount for each 
individual teacher and presented the report to 
the business office. The individual teachers 
are taken and points they are entitled to, 
and besides race, I see nothing that would 
determine whether the teacher would get $1.50 
or $3 at that point. Susie Morris has six 
years’ experience and would get one point; 
an A.B. and would get five points (319); 
with $706 for six points, or a total of twelve 
points, and being colored, she would get $18. 
Teachers without experience would receive 
nothing, because all the employees had to be on 
assignment one year. Mrs. Catherine Lee, a 
white teacher in junior high, with six years’ 
experience with one point, an A.B. for five 
points, $1,060 for six points (320), a total of 
twelve and would get $36. I don’t see anything 
that kept Susie Morris from getting $36, except 
she is colored. I think a representative of the 
Negro Teachers Association came to me and 
made an objection to this method of distribu­
tion. We made another distribution this year on 
the same basis. I don’t know that there is dis­
crimination because of race. The committee 
would have to answer that (321). I don’t see 
any other basis than race. I am not sure that



117

there was any other reason than race. That was 
the committee’s idea. I think that it was a mat­
ter of chance that I named representatives of 
each level ot school, elementary, high school 
and junior high. I did not do that to get a cross- 
section. I think they were rather chosen by 
their leadership in the profession. I don’t know 
whether all those teachers are in the white 
teachers association. It might have been ad­
visable to refer this to some negro teachers, but 
I didn’t do it (322). I don’t know as I ever 
thought about it (323).

CROSS-EXAMINATION

I succeeded Mr. Hall as superintendent of 
the Public School System. I have very little 
personal knowledge of how the School System 
was conducted prior to the time I came. Mr. 
Hall is confined to his home by illness, so that 
he is unable to make his appearance in Court. 
He is unable to see company. I called upon 
him two or three times in the last week, and 
have not been let in (323). I graduated from 
the Forest High School, Forest, Missouri. I am 
a native of Missouri. I graduated from the high 
school in 1918 and went to the University of 
Missouri for about five years, obtaining two 
degrees, Bachelor of Science and Education, and 
Master of Arts. I obtained the Bachelor of 
Science and Education degree about 1923, and



118

the Master of Arts degree in 1927 (324) . Upon 
receiving the B.S.E., I was principal of a junior 
high school in C'hillicothe, Missouri, and was 
there two years, through 1921-1923. From there, 
I went to the superintendency at Paris, Missouri, 
about 1923, and was there until January, 1935. 
While I was there in 1928 through 1931, I went 
to Columbia University, New York, and ob­
tained a Master of Arts degree (325). I have 
qualified twice for the Master of Arts degree. 
I left the Public School System of Paris., Mis­
souri, in 1935, and went to the State Department 
of Education of Missouri, located in Jefferson 
City. I was City Superintendent in Paris, and 
the type of work there was generally the same 
on a smaller scale as the work I have been doing 
here. Then I was assistant to the State Super­
intendent of Education (326). This work was 
all administrative. I was director of certain 
departments that had general supervision of 
the school finances of the State. I served in this 
capacity for six years and then went to the City 
Principalship of Jefferson City, in 1937. Paris, 
Missouri, is a town of about 2,000 people and 
Jefferson City is about 23,000 or 25,000. I served 
as superintendent in Jefferson City from 1937 
until February, 1941, when I came here. I be­
lieve there were 135 or 140 teachers in my ad­
ministration in Jefferson City, and of that num­
ber, six or seven w ere colored, one small school



119

(327). A salary schedule was developed during 
my administration in Jefferson City. It was a 
single salary schedule and applied the same 
for white teachers as for colored. When I came 
to the City of Little Rock, I remember distinctly 
asking the Board of Education whether there 
was a salary schedule, and I was told “no.” 
Since I have been here, I have looked over the 
minutes of the School Board, beginning about 
1925, and I didn’t find any schedule in the min­
utes (328). I found no directions on the part 
of the School Board fixing minimum salaries 
at which teachers should be employed. During 
the time that I have been here ,the School Board 
has never indicated to me any figure at which 
teachers must be employed.

No figure was designated by the Board for 
the employment of white or colored teachers. 
Only in a general sense am I subject to the direc­
tion of the finance committee in employing 
teachers. It has never instructed me as to the 
figures to be observed in the employment of 
teachers (329). During the time I served as 
superintendent at Paris, Missouri, I recom­
mended teachers like I do here. During the 
time I served at Jefferson City, I interviewed 
applicants for teaching positions and made 
recommendations, and I do this now. In em­
ploying teachers, the details of the procedure 
through which I go are as follows: There are



120

fixed numerous applications for potential posi­
tions. These applications are filed on the regu­
lar commercial application blank, and when a 
vacancy occurs, they are sorted out, and the 
ones that seem on the basis of the information 
given on the blank to be nearest, most likely to 
fit the situation acceptably, are investigated. 
This investigation is an effort on my part to 
find out all I can about the individual. It con­
sists usually of a personal interview; if she is a 
graduate of a school, we get a report of the 
placement bureau as to her fitness; then on the 
blank is given a number of names of people 
whom she knows and whom she certifies as 
being able to speak of her; letters are written 
individually to these persons. Questions are 
asked the candidate, college transcripts are 
examined, and if everything has been exhaust­
ed, if time permits, the judgment is formed, and 
the one selected from the group whom we con­
sider professionally the best able to perform the 
work which the vacancy calls for. Information 
on this candidate is presented in some detail to 
the personnel committee and the Board of 
Directors, and at that time, I am questioned if 
they don’t know the candidate. In some cases, 
they do know the candidate, because we have 
many local candidates, and I answer these ques­
tions on the basis of the information which I 
have obtained. Then the personnel committee,



121

acting upon that, presents the recommendation 
to the Board, which is the employing agent. 
These application blanks are the same for the 
one race as for the other. I make the same type 
of investigation for the one as for the other. If 
the applicant has any experience elsewhere be­
fore coming here, I like a statement from some­
one who has observed her experience (331). I 
obtain this information from her superintend­
ent or supervisor. Often a letter is desired from 
one who has observed their experience. I ask 
for that, because it helps me to form a judg­
ment and substitute it in lieu of my own ob­
servation. In considering the academic record 
of an applicant from a given college, I like to 
get at least two statements and sometimes four, 
if they are available, from the supervisor from 
whom she has had her major work at the col­
lege. From my experience in conducting such 
investigations, I think it is the best we have. 
It has some things wrong with it, because any 
teacher in a new system is something of a 
gamble, but it is the best we have, I think. I 
know of no better procedure in employing a 
teacher. Generally, applicants with degrees are 
preferred (332). If experience of the applicant 
was under desirable circumstances, we give 
consideration to it. The degree and experience 
are only basic and the starting point. We go 
much further than that. You have got to know



122

more about the teacher as an individual before 
you can form a judgment. There are many 
people with degrees who can’t teach school. A 
lot of intangibles enter into it, honesty, sym­
pathy, personality, ability to get along with 
people, ability to give directions, conversational 
methods; any number of things enter into the 
net worth and the whole picture of a teacher 
candidate (333). I have never considered the 
fact that the applicant has an A.B. as con­
clusive evidence of character. We would 
like to get something that would indicate char­
acter from someone who knows the individual. 
I try to find all I can about the individual pro­
fessionally, and the applicant’s ability to use 
educational plans is one point of interest that 
enters into the professional estimate of a candi­
date. The candidate’s ability to develop an ob­
jective in teaching is a part of her professional 
equipment. Where the applicant has had pre­
vious experience, I try to ascertain the person’s 
ability to maintain class standards. I ask the 
superintendent or principal that question. My 
investigations also cover the point of use of 
recognized teaching methods. That is particu­
larly true in the case of candidates without ex­
perience and coming to us from placement bu­
reaus. I like to check that through their practice 
teaching (334). Ability to recognize individual 
differences comes largely from the director or



123

practice teacher, or from an experienced teach­
er or from the supervisor who knows their 
work. On appraisal as to pupil response, of a 
particular candidate, we try to get that second­
hand from people who have observed the can­
didate’s work. I try to make an appraisal of the 
applicant’s skill in questioning. If the applicant 
is an experienced teacher, it is very valuable 
to appraise the professional relationship. If 
they are inexperienced, that is a question of 
their attitude towards their profession as de­
veloped in the school, but we definitely do try 
to find that out (335). In examining an appli­
cant that is new to the System, if he has never 
had any teaching experience, I am not able to 
make a determination relative to esteem of 
parents. If the applicant has done practice 
teaching, I am able to make an appraisal of that 
person’s use of teaching material. We like to 
know about community activities of the appli­
cant and inquire into it usually by letter from 
someone who knows the applicant. In the ma­
jority of cases, we have response to our letter; 
there are always some who never reply. We 
look upon personal example as one of the ele­
ments of character and attempt to weigh it in 
interviewing the applicant. If the applicant 
doesn’t look right, we evaluate accordingly. I 
think that all of these elements would be gen­
erally recognized as necessary for considera-



124

tion. Some of these are objective and some are 
intangible (336). With regard to those that are 
objective, there is always room for the exercise 
of discretion and judgment. I would say that 
degrees and experience, the experience being 
determined by the number of years only, are 
two factors in interviewing and recommending 
candidates, and are very limited in getting the 
full picture of the candidate’s work. In recom­
mending applicants in the Public School Sys­
tem of Little Rock, I would not take into con­
sideration only the degrees and number of years 
they have taught. In my capacity as superin­
tendent, 1 also recommend salaries for appli­
cants (337). In recommending specific salaries 
for specific individuals, I base my findings on 
my judgment as determined by the sum total 
of all things that enter into the forming of that 
judgment. Generally, I base the figure I recom­
mend on the same consideration I did for the 
employing of the teachers. In recommending 
salaries to correspond with the teaching ability 
of the applicant, I do the best I can do in so far 
as I am able to determine what those teacher’s 
abilities are. I am an ex-officio member of the 
teacher’s committee, and I always sit with them. 
Frequently the committee has requested addi­
tional information. I do not recall any specific 
occasions on which the committee has disagreed 
with any of my recommendations. I have a



125

general recollection of occasions when they 
would question my recommendations (338). In 
my discussions with the teacher’s committee, 
the question of race or color has never entered 
into the deliberations. I attend the School Board 
meetings and have missed one since February 1, 
1941. I have never heard the question of race 
or color injected into a Board meeting. The 
question of race or color has never been raised 
in connection with fixing salaries. If I had 
bet ore me two applicants for teaching posi­
tions, teaching the subjects in schools of the 
same level, if in my judgment, the two appli­
cants were equal in all of the things that I con­
sider in connection with employing teachers, 
and if the only difference was color, I would 
recommend the same salary (339). I have here 
in the courtroom the application blanks of the 
teachers that I have employed. I don’t think I 
would be able to recall offhand all of the details 
in connection with every teacher that I have 
recommended for employment since I have 
been here; there are too many. I recommended 
for employment Bernice Britt (340). At the 
time I recommended her, I thought she would 
make an acceptable candidate. The home eco­
nomics supervisor in whose department she was 
teaching and the high school principal both re­
ported that she was ineffective and inefficient. 
She is not now with the System. Van Homard



126

teaches auto and aviation mechanics and re­
ceives $1,350, and he is worth more than that 
(341). Mattie Kincaid has a degree in business 
administration from the University of Arkansas 
in some commercial work. I do not find her 
salary. I remember her as an individual though 
quite clearly. Eunice Brumfield has been em­
ployed since I came. I think she has a B.S.E. 
If Mattie Kincaid has a B.S.E. and is employed 
at $945 and Eunice Brumfield has an A.B. teach­
ing science and is employed at $630, there must 
have been in my original judgment certain fac­
tors that caused it to be recommended in that 
manner. I recall that Mattie Kincaid taught 
commercial and had had some experience in 
commercial offices downtown which made her 
more valuable to us (342, 343). There is a dif­
ference of $315 in the salary, and in my best 
judgment, I thought that difference justifiable 
at the time. None of the negro colleges in Ar­
kansas are accredited by the accrediting associa­
tion. I have applicants coming before me who 
have degrees from Arkansas colleges. In some 
cases, I recommend for employment applicants 
who have such degrees (343). Generally, we 
consider the college or work done in the Uni­
versity of Arkansas superior to that done in the 
Philander-Smith and evidently the accrediting 
agency thinks the same thing. In recommend­
ing salaries, I consider that factor. One from an



127

accredited institution is more valuable than one 
from a non-accredited institution. Levels of 
$615 and $630 in employing colored teachers 
seem to be about the place where we would ob­
tain candidates that would be acceptable in my 
judgment, and that is what they were worth 
(344). The work of a personnel committee in­
cludes the recommendation for renewals of con­
tracts. It recommended renewal of contracts 
this year. I have ready a report to the School 
Board covering the teachers for the previous 
year. I have not yet presented it to the personnel 
committee (345). We have a new law now that 
requires action upon teachers’ contracts prior 
to June 1; otherwise the contract is auto­
matically renewed. I have prepared a rate sheet 
since I have been here. My purpose in preparing 
it was to survey the situation and find out what 
I could about individual teachers and look into 
their improvement. I think ail administrators 
made an effort to evaluate their teachers. I pre­
pared the one on the desk in the summer of 
1941 for the evaluation of teachers. Gathering 
information for the rating of teachers, I gave 
copies to the supervisors, and I take copies of 
them myself when I have an opportunity to 
visit, and the composite of the judgments of all 
those who have had an opportunity to observe 
the teachers are put together in one general re­
port in my office (346). Quite frequently, I



128

consult the principals of the various schools. 
The general report is the result of the composite 
of individual ratings of individual supervisors. 
These rating sheets were given to the super­
visors and superintendents along in the fall of 
1941, because they were set up on an annual 
basis. I delivered them to the supervisors and 
sponsors before this suit was filed. In the fall 
of 1941, we had conferences with supervisors 
and sponsors with reference to rating or 
evaluating teachers. We discussed it at one of 
our staff meetings. I think that this practice 
has been continuous during the year (347). De­
fendants’ Exhibit No. 1 is a copy of the rating 
sheets which I developed in the summer of 1941. 
I think it has the same subject-matter as de­
veloped in the summer of 1941, and it is the 
same rating sheet that was given to supervisors 
and sponsors for evaluating the teachers. In 
practically all cases, there has been a rating 
sheet completed for each teacher in the Public 
School System. These sheets are in my office 
(349). I have a completed rating sheet for the 
white as well as the colored teachers, including 
all of the schools in the School System. The in­
formation was compiled this year by the indi­
vidual supervisors and principals and then a 
composite developed as a result of the compila­
tion and conference with them and myself. It 
was developed as a result of observation, com­



129

mittee meetings, and observations of the work 
ot each individual. I did not visit each class­
room in the City of Little Rock during the 
course of the year. There are about 425 teach­
ers and the number of classrooms will be about 
the same as the number of teachers (351). I 
participated in the compilation of information 
for the rating sheets for each individual. In 
some cases, the principal of each school par­
ticipated in the rating sheets. This is true of 
Dunbar. I rely very largely upon the super­
visors, the sponsors, and the principals in ob­
taining information relative to teachers. Our 
System is too large for me to have intimate 
knowledge of every teacher. I think a rating 
sheet has been compiled for the plaintiff in this 
case. Mr. Hamilton and Professor Lewis assist­
ed in the preparation of the rating sheets. We 
met as a group, and in that group, we discussed 
the individual teachers in Dunbar that I had ob­
served (352). I did not prepare this sheet my­
self; it was prepared as a result of our confer­
ences. The ratings, as a rule, are by agreement 
with everyone in attendance. The sheet was 
prepared at the time of the conference and in 
the presence of those who were there. I had 
the sheet before me and was checking it as I 
was discussing each individual point with them. 
This is the exact sheet that was prepared so far 
as I know, and so far as I can tell or determine.



130

The sheet has been made a part of the files and 
records of the School Board (355). It is a part 
of the files of the District (356).

(Much of the testimony on the last page or 
two of the transcript and for pages through 
360 deal only with qualifying the rating sheets 
for an exhibit. This applies particularly to the 
sheet of Susie Morris.)

We have set up here five degrees of effi­
ciency (on the rating sheet). No. 1 is the best 
and No. 5 is the poorest, so that the degrees of 
efficiency are in numerical order (361). As a 
result of the conference, on the question of 
plans, she was given a rating of three (362). On 
the point of development of objective on which 
she rated herself as one, I concluded she was 
four. Part of that was substantiated by that 
visit on that day. On the point of subject-matter, 
scholarship, which she rated herself as one, I 
concluded that she was four. On the mainte­
nance of class standard, on which she rated 
herself as one, I concluded that she was four. 
On the point of use of recognized methods on 
which she rated herself as one, I concluded that 
she was three; on class administration, four; 
on recognition of individual difference, four; 
pupil response, five; on skill in questioning, 
four; on attention to room conditions, five; on 
professional relations, four; on esteem of 
parents, four; on class organization, four; on



131

use of teaching materials, four; on community 
activity, four; and on personal example, four. 
On a composite rating, 1 have about four. I 
have prepared for presentation to the Little 
Rock School Board a composite report of all 
of the teachers in Little Rock Public School 
System at the close of the scholastic year, 1941- 
1942 (364). That report is a part of the official 
school record, but has not yet been presented. 
It is made up by a tabulation of all of the teach­
ers in the Little Rock School System one column 
of which has a composite rating for each teach­
er. It also shows training and experience in 
Little Rock and salary. The report was made 
up in my office, and it is copied from individual 
rating sheets in my office (365).

(Pages 365 through 374 cover arguments 
between counsel and before the Court on the 
admissibility of the composite rating sheet, ap­
parently defendants’ Exhibit No. 3.)

I recommended for employment Rhoda 
Wharry. The records show that her qualifica­
tions are that she has a Bachelor of Science and 
Education degree, and first year in Little Rock 
(375), two years’ experience elsewhere. She re­
ceives a salary of $900. In my best judgment, I 
think she was worth that. In arriving at that 
figure, I analyzed all of these elements that en­
tered into her application, made an investiga­
tion of all colleges and of all qualities that I



132

could find that would throw light upon her as 
a teacher, and as a result of that information 
concluded that she would be worth that to the 
District. I think I wrote to the schools from 
which she obtained her degree. I checked on 
her previous experience. This materially af­
fected my decision to employ her. She had a 
good record elsewhere (376). In employing her, 
besides the fact that she had a B.S.E. and two 
years’ experience elsewhere, I interviewed her 
personally. I judged her personality and asked 
her numerous questions about her fitness for 
the work and about her methods of teaching, 
what she knew about textbooks and materials 
of teaching. I presumed our interview lasted 
half an hour or three-quarters perhaps. In so 
far as I could, I tried to evaluate her on the same 
basis of the rating sheet, because we had the 
same ones already in service.

I still believe she was worth the sum of 
$900. She is not in the Little Rock Public School 
System; she resigned last spring to go into the 
USO. Her services were entirely satisfactory. 
I think I recommended her for a renewal of her 
contract (377). I employed M. J. McCallop. He 
had a Bachelor of Science degree from Kansas 
State Teachers College. It is a comparable 
degree to that held by Rhoda Wharry. He had 
only practice teaching for previous experience 
and was employed to teach industrial arts, I



133

think at a salary of $630. In recommending 
his employment and salary other than his 
degree and matter of teaching experience, I 
viewed him at Pittsburg, Kansas. I made a trip 
to Pittsburg and talked to him half an hour on 
such matters, and in which I asked him all the 
questions which 1 ask any other candidate, and 
I had before me the report of his teachers and 
the statement from the one who had directed 
his practice teaching, and on the basis of all of 
this information, I recommended him (378). In 
my judgment, $630 was what he was worth. I 
am not still of that opinion. I had to request 
his resignation in the middle of the year. This 
was not upon my own initiative; it was the 
recommendation of the principal and super­
visor. The action was done with my approval. 
It was a mistake in judgment. I employed 
B ernice B ritt in Little Rock High School (379). 
She had a B.S., ten years of experience in other 
schools, for home economics. In investigating 
her qualifications, I followed the same pro­
cedure as in the two previous cases. I inter­
viewed her and had letters and called some of 
her former superintendents. I checked on her 
previous experience in college. I think I recom­
mended her for $945. She taught home eco­
nomics. We did not re-elect her and were not 
willing to renew her contract. I employed 
E unice  B ru m fie ld  in Dunbar High School (380).



134

She had a BA. from Talladega, some graduate 
work at Fisk University, and she had taught two 
terms in Tennessee. I made the same investiga­
tion relative to her qualifications as in the other 
cases. She taught science, and I recommended 
her for $630. In my estimation, she was worth 
that. I do not think she was worth $700. I did 
not think that she was worth any more than 
$630. She has been here one year and my opin­
ion has not altered. I still think she was em­
ployed at a salary commensurate with her 
ability (381). I recommended Van H om ard  to 
teach auto and aviation mechanics. There is no 
other teacher for this subject in the School Sys­
tem. He was employed for $1,350, and in my 
judgment, he was worth that amount. We 
couldn’t hardly replace him at all now. I em­
ployed M attie K incaid, a Bachelor of Science 
degree in business administration in the Uni­
versity of Arkansas and some experience in 
private industries. She taught commercial 
(382). I made an investigation of her similar 
to the others outlined. I thought she was worth 
about $945 to the Little Rock Public School Sys­
tem. She had had previous experience in a busi­
ness office in Little Rock. In this particular 
work, that experience is important because the 
students are being trained in general for com­
mercial positions, and a commercial teacher 
who has training in commercial activities makes



135

a better teacher generally. She has been in our 
System just this year. She resigned to go back 
to private employment. She could make a 
whole lot more money. We would have offered 
to renew her contract. In my judgment, she is 
still worth the $945 (383). I recommended 
Claude Hefley for employment. He has a B.S. 
and a number of years’ experience in the Fort 
Smith High School in the same type of position 
for which he was employed here. He is a voca­
tional teacher and was presented to me by his 
supervisor as one of the best in Arkansas. He 
was employed at $1,800. I think about half of 
this comes from the Little Rock school funds. 
The other fund comes from Federal and State 
vocational fund (384). I recommended M ary 
Pence Parsons, B.S. from an accredited college. 
She has a very strong major in Physical Edu­
cation, forty or fifty hours college work, two 
years of experience at Fort Smith schools. I 
checked that. I found she was very successful 
and left them there of her own volition. I con­
ducted the same type of investigation for her 
as already outlined. She was employed at a 
salary of $900. In my best judgment, she was 
worth that. She is s'till here (385). Mattie Kin­
caid was recommended for $945 and Mary 
Pence Parsons for $900; they both teach in high 
school. The difference is that Mary Pence Par­
sons has two classes a week at Junior College



136

and for that day, she left her duties in the 
Senior High School. In fixing her salary, as far 
as possible, I took into consideration the divi­
sion of her duties. I recommended A. L. Scruggs. 
He is an industrial teacher, a graduate of our 
own school with a number of years’ experience 
as a printer in one of the local print shops (386). 
For this particular purpose, this experience is 
better than general teaching experience; he gets 
out the school paper and runs the school print 
shop and gets out the forms and things for the 
school in addition to teaching. He was recom­
mended at $2,280. A portion of this comes from 
Federal and State funds. In my best judgment, 
he is worth the amount paid by the Little Rock 
School Board. We couldn’t replace him if he 
should go to the army or anything. Ju lie  Mae 
A very, at East Side Junior High School has been 
employed since I have been here. She had a 
Bachelor degree from Arkansas State Teachers 
College (387). This is an accredited college. 
She had a year’s experience and came to us very 
highly recommended, both as to scholarship and 
success at teaching, and her subsequent disposi­
tion has proved that because she is now library 
assistant at a salary over 'twice as high as we 
could pay her. She has left our School System. 
She was employed at $900, and in my best judg­
ment, she was worth that. I would be very 
happy to have her back at that amount. I recom-



137

mended Wade L. Davis, (388), A.B., twelve 
years’ experience at Harrison, Arkansas, both as 
a teacher and principal. He obtained his degree 
at the University of Arkansas, an accredited 
school. I investigated his qualifications in the 
same manner previously outlined. He was em­
ployed to teach mathematics at a salary of 
$1,125, and in my best judgment, he was worth 
that amount. We have re-employed him, and I 
think he is still with us. He was employed at 
$1,125, and Julie Mae Avery was employed at 
the sum of $900, both teaching in the same 
school. I account for the difference in that he 
had ten years’ more experience than she had, 
and he had acted as principal of the school; he 
was more familiar with the organization of 
schools than she was, and he could take larger 
share of active lead in the school (389). I think 
his teaching ability is superior. That would 
affect the salary recommended for him. I 
recommended Lillian Lane, at East Side Junior 
High School to fill out the unexpired term of 
another teacher, and she was only here three 
months. She is no longer employed in the School 
System; she went into defense industry. She 
had an A.B. from Hendricks College, an ac­
credited school, some experience in Albuquer­
que, New Mexico, in 1938,1939 and 1940, but she 
was here such a short time, I hardly considered 
her a regular member of our staff (390). She



138

taught English and history at a salary of $100 
a month, or an annual salary of $900. It is our 
general policy to get the best substitute teachers 
we can find, and it is very frequently the case 
that it is more difficult to get a substitute teach­
er for two or three months than it is to get a 
teacher for a longer period of time. I recom­
mended D ixie D. Speer, at East Side Junior High, 
B.S., in home economics from the University 
of Arkansas, taught one semester in the Uni­
versity High School at Fayetteville, Arkansas 
(391). I made a similar type of investigation 
of her as already outlined, and recommended 
her for a salary of $900, I believe. She married 
and is no longer a candidate for re-election in 
our School System. She was here only one year. 
I would be very glad to recommend her for re­
employment at that figure. I recommended 
Mrs. B. B. W illiam s, at East Side Junior High 
School, A.B., as a substitute to fill an unexpired 
term, and we re-elected her this year. I very 
carefully checked her qualifications in the same 
manner as already outlined (393). She teaches 
Latin. The availability of good Latin teachers 
is very limited. I do not know why, except that 
in many schools throughout the country, Latin 
has ceased to be an important part of the cur­
riculum. The teachers no longer train for it in 
the number they did some years ago. I recom­
mended her for employment at a salary of $900,



139

because in my judgment, she was worth it. In 
my best judgment, I think she is still worth that 
amount. M ary Alice D iinkin , at East Side Junior 
High, was employed during the time I have been 
here. She had completed a Bachelors degree at 
the University, at the Oklahoma Agricultural 
and Mechanical College, a division of the Uni­
versity of Oklahoma. She received the degree 
the spring we employed her and has a degree 
now. I very carefully checked her qualifica­
tions in the same manner as already outlined. 
She was employed to teach instrumental music. 
She is the only woman band director we have 
had. I recommended her at a salary of $900. 
That seems to be the figure which, in our judg­
ment, she would be worth. The School Board 
has never indicated to me that I must employ 
white teachers in junior high at $900. Very fre­
quently, I am asked why I pay specific salaries 
to certain teachers (394). She is still in our Pub­
lic School System, and in my judgment, at this 
time, I would say that she is worth the sum of 
$900. Mrs. G uy Irb y  is a substitute teacher. She 
is a good mathematics teacher and is the only 
one we have available. She has an A.B. degree. 
I do not know from what school (395). She 
was employed at the regular pay we pay all the 
substitutes, $5 a day. In my judgment, she is 
worth that amount of money, and her availa­
bility makes her a very desirable person (395,



140

396). W oodrow  K ing , at West Side Junior High, 
was employed during my tenure. He had a 
degree at the Arkansas Teachers College, 1 be­
lieve. He was industrial arts teacher, and we 
took him in an emergency before he had fin­
ished school, and employed him at a salary of 
$900. In my judgment, at that time, he was 
worth that amount of money. He might have 
been worth more in the emergency. He is not 
a part of the Public School System; he went to 
the defense industry. I would be glad to re­
employ him (396). I recommended M arguerite  
Pope, at West Side Junior High. She was a B.S. 
in business administration from the University 
of Arkansas, had some commercial experience, 
and taught commercial subjects. She was em­
ployed at a salary of $900, and I made the same 
investigation of her as I have outlined. In my 
best judgment, she was worth $900. Under the 
circumstances, she might have been worth more. 
She is gone now. I did not request her resigna­
tion. I would be glad to have renewed her con­
tract (397). W illard  Meger, at West Side Junior 
High, was employed during my tenure. He had 
a Bachelor of Music from Southwestern Col­
lege, of Coffeyville, Kansas, an accredited col­
lege. I checked on him in the same manner as 
I have outlined. He was employed at a salary 
of $900. In my best judgment, he was worth 
more. He went to the army, and I gave him



141

leave of absence. Mrs. E leanor Crook, Pulaski 
Heights Junior High, was employed during my 
tenure (3S8). I made a check on her, and she 
has a very valuable asset. She has a double 
major. I mean, she can teach either English or 
mathematics. She was employed at a salary of 
$900. In my best judgment, she was worth more 
than that. E than Gill, at Pulaski Heights Junior 
High, was employed during my time here. He 
had a Master of Arts degree. I had to call him 
out of retirement in order to get a band man. 
He was down in Old Mexico. He was employed 
at a salary of $900 (399). We found him to be 
worth that amount of money. A teacher with 
an M.A. was employed at $900, and so many 
B.A.’s were employed at tfie same figure. I ac­
count for the fact that there is a difference in 
degrees, and that is only one of the items or fac­
tors which enter into the teacher’s training. I 
cannot and do not automatically give a higher 
pay on higher degrees. He is still a member of 
the Public School System. In my best judgment 
at this time, I think he is worth $900. I recom­
mended Mari) N ance Fair, at Kramer, (white), 
B.S.E. from the University of Arkansas, two 
years’ experience as music supervisor for the 
Fayetteville School System (400). I very care­
fully checked on her qualifications. She was 
employed to teach music at a figure of $810. 
She was worth that amount of money; she



142.

might have been worth more. I recommended 
her for $810 when she had a degree, and I 
recommended a salary of $900 for some other 
teachers with comparable degree in junior high 
schools, because in our judgment, the service 
she performs for the District would not be as 
valuable as others. She is still a member of the 
System, and in my best judgment at this time, 
she is still worth that amount of money. Cath­
erine Thw eatt, at Kramer, was employed during 
my tenure as a substitute and finished out an 
unexpired term (401). She was here for three 
or four months, and during that time, she was 
employed at $90 a month. I made the same type 
of investigation for her as for the others. In 
my judgment, she was not worth more than 
$90 a month. I recommended Mrs. L ew is Gard­
ner, at Rightsell, (white). She has a Bachelor 
degree from the Arkansas State Teachers’ Col­
lege, and has been teaching continuously there, 
third and fourth grades, since 1928, and in other 
schools, the last eleven years of which was in 
the Robinson High School, a part of the Pulaski 
County District. I made a thorough check of 
her qualifications and recommended her at 
$810 (402). In my best judgment, I think she 
will be worth more than that. She has only been 
with us three months, and we are still waiting 
to see how she develops. B etty  O benshain, at 
Lee, has a Bachelor of Science degree with a



143

major in primary education from Arkansas 
State Teachers College and one year’s ex­
perience at Sheridan, Arkansas. I made the 
same investigation for her as for the others 
(403). She was employed at $810, and in my 
best judgment at that time, she was worth that. 
My opinion now is that my original judgment 
has been justified. She was worth substantially 
more than that amount. M ary Delia Carrigan, 
at Parham, (white) was employed during my 
tenure. She has an A.B. from Hendricks Col­
lege, and had, I believe, two summers of grad­
uate work at Columbia University, and she had 
already had three years of third grade work at 
Hope, Arkansas. She was employed to teach the 
third grade at a recommended salary of $855. 
In my best judgment, she was worth that sum 
of money (404). I recommended employment 
of Betty Obenshain with a Bachelor of Science 
degree for $810, and Mary Delia Carrigan with 
a Bachelor of Arts degree for $855. The distinc­
tion was that Miss Carrigan had had more train­
ing in special methods at the graduate level. 
She had had additional experience, and all these 
factors caused a development of judgment as 
to the difference in these salaries. I have the 
same opinion at this time. M artha Thom as  
M itchell, at Parham, (white) was employed dur­
ing my tenure. She has a B.S.E. from the Ar­
kansas State Teachers’ College and taught half



144

a year in Augusta, two years in Springdale, and 
was teaching fourth grade at Blytheville, Ar­
kansas, when she came to us, which was in the 
middle of the year (405). She was receiving 
$765 a year at Blytheville and was employed 
here at $810. In my best judgment, she is en­
titled to that much money. I do not think she 
was entitled to substantially more than that. 
She is still in the System.

E lizabeth  M cCuistion, at Garland, (white), 
was employed during my tenure. She had an 
A.B. from Hendricks College with honors. She 
had done her practice teaching for a semester 
in the schools of Plummerville, Arkansas, and 
had had considerable work and interest in so­
cial service during the summers she was attend­
ing Henderson (406). She was employed to 
teach literature appreciation at $810.

“Q. Mr. Scobee, how do you account for 
the fact that a graduate of an accredited college 
and one who graduated with honors should be 
paid the same amount apparently as some other 
of those others who were just graduated?

“A. Well, there are other things that enter 
into the selection of a teacher besides the mere 
record of a school.”

You cannot graduate all A.B.’s and teach 
them the same thing. You cannot take teachers 
off an assembly line like a machine. In my best



145

judgment, she was worth $810. This is still my 
opinion. She is not a member of the Public 
School System; she is working in re-settlement 
administration. I would be willing to employ 
her at that figure now (407). Mrs. R a ym o n d  
Sm oot, at Forest Park, (white), was employed 
as a substitute and finished out the unexpired 
term of Miss Olive Smith, who went into reli­
gious education. She was not classified for reg­
ular employment. I made the same full com­
plete investigation of her qualifications. She 
has an A.B., I believe, from Fuller Univer­
sity, an accredited college. She was employed 
at $90 a month, and in my best judgment, I 
think she was entitled to that much money. This 
is still my opinion. I don’t think she would be 
entitled to more than that, and she is no longer 
with us. Susan Belford, at Pfeifer School, 
(white), was employed during my tenure (408). 
She graduated from Little Rock Junior College 
and from Texas State College, where she receiv­
ed a B.S. She had a major in primary education 
and did her practice teaching in the demonstra­
tion school of the Texas college. She had one 
year’s experience as a teacher in the Mary Dodge 
private school in Little Rock. I checked her 
other qualifications as to character, personality, 
and teaching ability. She is employed to teach 
third grade. She also has music in Pfeifer 
School in addition to her other subjects (409). 
She is employed at $810.



146

“Q. Mr. Scobee, how do you account for 
the fact that a teacher with a degree and teach­
ing third grade having additional duties in 
handling the music to be paid at the same salary 
as some other teachers of third grade with de­
grees?

“A. We don’t make distinction in the posi­
tion. The distinction was based on the individ­
ual being employed in our judugment, as it is 
placed upon the individual.”

I think she has great potentialities of devel­
opment, but she is still quite new. Stella Grogan, 
Wilson, (white), was employed during my ten­
ure. She had three and a half years of training 
at Arkansas State Teachers College with a de­
veloping major in intermediate education. She 
had been teaching continuously since 1925, hav­
ing ten years in the Mablevale Grade School, 
teaching upper grade work, and this grade 
school is part of the Pulaski County System. 
From 1936 to 1941, she was teaching upper grade 
work in the Clinton School (410). She was em­
ployed at $810. I account for the fact that I 
offered her $810 in view of the experience she 
had at that time, that her training was incom­
plete after analysis of all the factors, and I in­
terviewed her a time or two, getting all the in­
formation I could, and in my judgment, that 
was all that she was worth to us. It is still my 
opinion. D oris Soard, Oakhurst, (white), was



employed during my tenure. She was substitute 
and finished out an unexpired term. I checked 
her qualifications. She was employed at $810, 
and in my best judgment at that time, she was 
worth that amount. We employed her (for a 
new year), and she left after the new contract 
was tendered her (411). In my best judgment, 
I wouldn’t think that she was worth more than 
$810. Mrs. Roger W ills  was employed during 
my tenure at Opportunity School and was trans­
ferred to Peabody before the term was over. 
Her health broke down and a substitute had to 
finish the year. She is on assignment at Pfeifer 
School now. This is really the first year she has 
been on assignment. I very carefully investi­
gated her qualifications. Her salary this year is 
$810, and in my best judgment, she is not worth 
substantially more than that. I have not omit­
ted any teachers in the white schools that I have 
employed so far as I can recall (412).

I employed Ind ia  E lston  at Dunbar. Her 
qualifications are that she has a Bachelor of 
Arts Degree from Philander-Smith College and 
a Master of Science Degree from the Atlanta 
University. Philander-Smith is not an accredit­
ed school; the other is. She has a major in sci­
ence, taught one year in the Chicot County 
Training School, two years in the Sevier County 
Training School, and one year in the Hillside 
Grade School. I don’t know where that is. She



148

was employed to teach science and biology at 
$630. In my best judgment, she was worth that 
much money to the Little Rock Public School 
System, but I do not think she was worth sub­
stantially more than that (413). I am still of 
that opinion. E than  Gill, having an M.A., was 
employed in Pulaski Heights Junior High for 
band work at $900, whereas it also appears 
that India Elston has an M.S., which is compar­
able, teaches science at $630 only. I can account 
for the difference in the salary in the individ­
uals. Ethan Gill had many many years’ experi­
ence as a band director in the schools of Kansas, 
and his experience has been very successful, 
and his recommendations to us were of the 
highest order. My conclusion as to their respec­
tive abilities was that the potential teaching abil­
ity of Ethan Gill would be of more value than 
potential teaching ability of India Elston. Of 
the two positions, a teacher of science or a band 
master, it is easier to fill the science position 
(414). This is so because most band directors 
are men and most of them are in the Armed 
Services, and many science teachers are women 
and not eligible for Military Service. India El­
ston is still in the Public School System. I em­
ployed 0 . N. Green, at Dunbar High School, as 
an industrial teacher at $675. I made an investi­
gation of his qualifications at the time I employ­
ed him (415). I recommended the figure of 
$675 because I thought he was worth it. In my



149

best judgment, I do not think he is worth sub­
stantially more than that. I don’t believe that I 
would be willing to pay him $810. I employed 
Tessie Lew is, at Dunbar. Her qualifications are 
that she has a Bachelors Degree from Dillard 
University, New Orleans, an accredited college. 
She taught one term in Homer, Louisiana, and 
one term at College Station, Arkansas. She 
teaches English (416). I made the same type of 
investigation for her as for the others. I recom­
mended $630, and in my best judgment at that 
time, she was worth that to the School System. 
In my best judgment, she was not worth more 
than that. My opinion at this time is substantial­
ly the same. E lizabeth  M cQ uistion has a Bache­
lors Degree from Hendricks and teaches Eng­
lish, at $810, and Tessie L ew is  with the same de­
gree from an accredited college, is employed at 
$630. When all of the factors are put together, 
my judgment dictated that one was worth more 
than the other. Color did not enter into my con­
sideration (417). Color did not enter into my 
consideration in any of these colored teachers 
I have already discussed. If, in my judgment, 
Tessie Lewis had been worth substantially more 
than the figure noted, I would have recommend­
ed it to the Board. P in k y  Parr, at Dunbar has 
an A.B. I do not recall the college. She was 
teaching mathematics. She was employed as a 
substitute at $630. In my best judgment, she 
was not worth that teaching that subject matter.



150

She was not worth more than that, because we 
felt that she was somewhat misplaced and sent 
her to the elementary school (418). Mrs. Guy  
Irby, teaching at West Side Junior High School, 
is also a substitute teacher of mathematics and 
has an A.B., as also has Pinky Parr. Yet the one 
is employed at $630 and the other at $900, a sub­
stantial difference. Mrs. Irby was a good teach­
er, superior in many respects to Miss Parr as 
subsequent developments proved. This is how 
I account for the difference. I still use Mrs. Irby 
as a substitute teacher. I do not still use Pinky 
Parr as a substitute teacher. She has been trans­
ferred to the elementary school. It is a different 
level of teaching, and in our opinion, she would 
be better prepared for that work than she would 
be for Dunbar High School. I do not know at 
what salary she is now employed, but I think it 
is the same salary. D aniel P. Tyler, Dunbar, has 
been employed during my tenure (419). He has 
a Bachelors Degree from Talladega with a major 
in biological science. He has only practice 
teaching in the high school at Talladega. I made 
a rather careful investigation for him as for the 
others. It involved the writing of letters to check 
on his references and his past experience. Por­
tions of this correspondence appear with these 
applications. After a decision is made, we gen­
erally close the files with the exception of the 
application blank which is the final document. 
Some of these have not been cleared and some



151

have. By clearing the file, I mean that confi­
dential correspondence is taken out and destroy­
ed and only the original application is kept 
(420). I don’t know how long this has been done 
in the School System. It has been my practice 
to clear them so far as the new ones were con­
cerned. Daniel P. Tyler was employed to teach 
biological science, at $630. In my best judgment 
at that time, I do not think that he was worth 
substantially more. My opinion now is that he 
is still worth that. He is a member of the Public 
School System. Julia Mae Avery, East Side Jun­
ior High School, recommended by me, has a 
B.S.E., as compared to Tyler’s A.B., with appar­
ently the same relative teaching experience, 
teaching science, the same subject as taught by 
Daniel P. Tyler. She was employed to teach in 
the junior high at $900, whereas the other was 
employed to teach in the high school for $630. 
Their position is somewhat comparable because 
Dunbar is a senior high school. Aside from their 
teaching level, I think Miss Avery a superior 
teacher to Mr. Tyler. I formed a judgment from 
all of the information at hand. After a year’s 
experience with each of them, I do not think 
that Daniel P. Tyler is worth $900(422). I would 
not be willing to give him a renewal contract 
for $900. Mildred Works, Dunbar, has been em­
ployed during my tenure. She has a Bachelors 
Degree from the Agricultural and Mechanical 
College at Pine Bluff, not an accredited college.



152

She had one-half year experience in Barnes 
School and one year’s experience in the Liza 
Miller School. She teaches home economics at a 
salary of $630. In my best judgment at that 
time, she was not entitled to substantially more 
than that, because for one reason, we had diffi­
culty in getting her approved by the Commis­
sion for the North Central Association to whom 
the credits of non-accredited colleges are re­
ferred before we employ them, and after a care­
ful analysis of her transcript, they decided she 
could teach (423). In my best judgment, she 
was not entitled to substantially more than $610. 
My opinion at this time, is that that was about 
right.

Bernice Britt was employed during my ten­
ure to teach home economics in the Senior High 
School. She has a B.S. degree, as has Mildred 
Works, the colored teacher. Both were new to 
the System for the first time and teaching the 
same subjects, and one was paid $945 and the 
other only $630. At the time the two were em­
ployed, the information on Bernice Britt was 
that she was a better teacher than we found her 
to be (424, 425). At that time, I believed her to 
be worth the sum of $945. After the year was 
out, we concluded that we had paid her entirely 
too much, and her contract was not renewed. 
I would not be willing to renew it for $900. I 
would not renew it for $500. H om er W instad, 
Dunbar, was employed during my tenure (425).



153

He is not in our Public School System now; he 
is in the Army. The record shows that he had 
two years’ college work and was employed to 
teach woodwork in the industrial arts at a fig­
ure of $630. In my opinion, I think that he was 
worth that much to the Public School System. 
I do not think he was worth substantially more. 
P auline Johnson, Bush, was employed during 
my tenure. She has a Bachelors Degree from 
Langston, Oklahoma, not an accredited school, 
(426, 427). In examination of applications for 
applicants, we refer to the Educational Direc­
tory of U. S. Office of Education to see if col­
leges are accredited. This is part of the regular 
working tools of my office. She had done some 
intermittent substitute teaching in our schools. 
She lists a few days in 1941. Apparently she has 
never had a definite assignment as a teacher 
prior to her coming to us (427). I made for 
her the investigation similar to those previously 
outlined. She was employed to teach the first 
grade at Bush at a salary of $615. In my best 
judgment, at that time, she was not entitled to 
substantially more than that. She is still a mem­
ber of our School System. My opinion now is 
that she is improving, and we thought it justifi­
able to renew her contract at the same basis, but 
I do not think that she is worth any more than 
that. Betty Obenshain, with a B.S. from an ac­
credited college, compared with a B.S. of Paul­
ine Johnson, apparently from a non-accredited



154

college, both new to the System at the same time, 
one teaching IB and the other 2B and 2A, were 
employed one at $810 and the other at $615. 
IB, 1A and 2B are comparable levels (428). I 
account for the difference in that in my best 
judgment, the training of the two candidates 
has been entirely different. One from a school 
that enjoys a wide reputation for the training 
of primary teachers. I refer to Arkansas Teach­
ers College and to Betty Obenshain. Langston 
was not in that position to give the same type of 
training to Miss Johnson. That is not the only 
difference between the two. In analyzing the 
individuals, Miss Obenshain had one year ex­
perience and Miss Johnson had no former ex­
perience, and as a result of all of the factors, 
my judgment determined the salary I recom­
mended in both cases (429). I would not be 
willing to employ Pauline Johnson at $810. I 
do not recall my colored teachers that I have 
overlooked for the school year of 1941-1942.

Mr. Lewis, principal of Dunbar High 
School, has testified that he has been discrimi­
nated against on the grounds of race and color, 
and that the discrimination takes the form of 
receiving less salary on account of race and col­
or, as compared with Mr. J. A. Larson, principal 
of Senior High School. I know them both quite 
well. They both have the Master of Arts Degree 
from the same institution (430). The reports



155

show that he has been here 29 years, and that 
Mr. Lewis has been here 13 years. The total en­
rollment for Dunbar for the year 1941-1942 was 
1,438 and for the senior high 2,812. As far as 
general responsibilities are concerned, the two 
positions are comparable; as for the amount of 
work and size of the schools, they are not com­
parable. The duties are increased by the size 
of the school in similar proportion (431). I 
w'ould say that the senior high school has the 
heavier responsibility because of its enormous 
size. The records of the two men have been 
satisfactory since I have been here (432). With 
reference to keeping Mr. Lewis under observa­
tion, I examined the school, and I visited often; 
I made a particular point to do that. I would 
say that I visited Dunbar the first year I was 
here perhaps oftener than I did some other of 
the schools. I did not make a particular point 
to keep Mr. Larson under observation. Mr. Lar­
son receives a salary of $3,712 and Mr. Lewis a 
salary of $2,742. I account for the difference 
generally in two ways; one because of the long 
period of service of Mr. Larson, which is over 
twice as much as Mr. Lewis; the other is that 
the size of his school is a greater responsibility 
(433). In my best judgment, I think that Mr. 
Larson is entitled to a salary of $3,712. I should 
think that he is entitled to some more than that. 
In my best judgment, I think that Mr. Lewis is 
entitled to the salary of $2,742. In my best judg-



156

ment, he might be entitled to substantially more. 
In my best judgment, the salaries are not out of 
proportion to their respective responsibilities.

Clayton Elliott, white teacher, has a B.S., 
has taught six years in our System, teaches 
mathematics, whereas, James D. Scott, has an 
M.A., has taught eight years in our System, 
teaching mathematics. It appears that the white 
teacher has a salary of $1,234 and the other $753. 
As to accounting for the difference in salaries, 
I know one factor that has entered into the larg­
er salary is that Elliott was a full-time coach of 
the East Side Junior High School, and he carried 
that load in addition to his regular academic 
classes, and I do not think Scott has that assign­
ment. When I say full-time coach, I mean for 
all sports, basketball, football and track. Gen­
erally, this is run over a period of the year, as 
one season closes the other opens up.

F. M. Gardner, white, has a B.S., taught four 
years and teaches mathematics. As to Mr. Scott 
(435), I am able to account for the difference 
partially by the fact that Gardner is assistant 
coach and spends one hour a day during the day 
extra on that work. Last year when that salary 
was made up, he taught one extra class over the 
regular six. That is the customary load. In my 
best judgment, it would tend partially to ac­
count for the difference. As far as I know, the 
question of color does not enter into the differ-



157

ence. In my own estimation, F. M. Gardner is 
worth to the School System the sum of $1,260.
I would say that he is not worth substantially 
more than that. In my best judgment, James D. 
Scott is worth $753 to the System. He is not 
worth very much more than that.

N. F. Tull, white, has less than two years’ 
college credits, whereas, Mr. Scott has an M.A. 
Tull has taught 17 years in our System, and Mr. 
Scott 8 years, and both teach mathematics. Mr. 
Tull receives $1,603, and Mr. Scott $753 (436). 
Some of the difference is due to the fact that 
Mr. Tull has a lot of administrative duties in 
that school. He has charge of the workrooms, 
and acts as advisor to the boys, does some of the 
social work in the school, and that might be part 
of the reason. It is customary to pay for extra 
duties. In my best judgment, Mr. Tull is not 
worth any more than the sum of $1,603.

Rhoda Wharry has a B.S.E., and the plain­
tiff a B.S. Rhoda Wharry was employed new 
to our System during my tenure, and the plain­
tiff has had six years here and some experience 
elsewhere. They teach the same subject, Eng­
lish, yet the one was paid $900 as an entrance 
salary, whereas, the other, after six years’ ex­
perience was paid $706 (437). When all of the 
factors of the situation were taken into account, 
I concluded that Rhoda Wharry’s recommenda­
tion was worth $900 to the District. She is one of



158

the teachers who has resigned. She is now in the 
U.S.O. somewhere. In my best judgment, Susie 
Morris is not worth $900 to the Public School 
System. With the present information that I 
have in hand, I would not recommend her to 
the School Board for $900. Lillian Lane holds a 
Bachelors Degree as does the plaintiff, and she 
was new to our System, whereas the plaintiff 
has six years’ tenure, both teaching English; 
yet one receives the sum of $900 for her first 
annual salary, and the other $706 after six years’ 
tenure. I thought that Lillian Lane was worth 
that much under the circumstances. She was 
in the System a short time. It was worth a great 
deal to have a teacher for two or three months 
(438). She had good recommendations, and the 
principal reported that she did a fair job while 
she was here.

H elena K ey  has an A.B., three years in our 
System, and receives $1,102, whereas the plain­
tiff has an A.B., six years’ experience, and re­
ceives $706. In my opinion, Helena Key is 
worth more than Susie Morris (439). I checked 
her record this morning, and I believe that she 
has now completed the requirements for Master 
of Arts Degree. The records show that she had 
thirteen years’ prior service before she came 
here. In my best judgment, Helena Key is worth 
the sum of $1,102. I think she might be worth 
substantially more.



159

M. C. Moser, (white), has a B.A., thirteen 
years in our System, teaches algebra, and re­
ceives $1,536, whereas Bernice Bass, (colored), 
has a B.S., five years’ experience in our System, 
teaches home economics, and receives $639. I 
account for the difference in that Mr. Moser has 
been in the System over twice as long as Miss 
Bass; he has to my knowledge some extra duties 
with reference to acting athletic director at the 
high school (440). Bernice Bass does not have 
extra duties to my knowledge (440). I consider 
Mr. Moser the better teacher of the two. In my 
judgment, Mr. Moser is entitled to $1,536, but 
not substantially more. In my best judgment, 
Bernice Bass is entitled to $639. She is entitled 
to more. I believe I raised her to $720. In my 
best judgment, Bernice Bass is not worth more 
than $720 at the present time. If she deserves 
it, she will be raised accordingly, as long as it 
is within my power to recommend. At this time, 
I would not recommend her for a salary of 
$1,536 (441). Mrs. Guy Irby has a B.A., is a 
substitute teacher in mathematics and receives 
$900, and Bernice Bass has a B.S., five years’ 
experience here, teaches home economics, now 
receives $720. It is not quite correct to say that 
Mrs. Irby is new to the System. She has been 
substituting for a number of years, and my pre­
vious study shows that she is a very satisfactory 
mathematics teacher, and it is worth a great 
deal to have a teacher of that superiority sub­



1G0

ject to call. In my best opinion, the difference 
is justified. Mrs. Irby has also been compared 
to Mr. James D. Scott, who has an M.A., eight 
years’ teaching mathematics and receives $753 
(442). I can account for the difference. As I 
previously stated, Mrs. Irby is a very superior 
teacher. Mr. Scott has an M.A., whereas Mrs. 
Irby has only a B.A. Degrees do not determine 
what teachers are. I consider her superior to 
Mr. Scott because of her adaptability (443). 
Jewell Stone is a teacher in East Side Junior 
High, two years of college work, 18 years’ ex­
perience in the System, teaching studyhall, and 
receives $907. Bernice Bass has a B.S., five 
years of experience here, teaches home econom­
ics, and receives $638, recently increased to $720. 
I do not believe that these are comparable posi­
tions. Miss Bass is an academic teacher, Miss 
Stone a studyhall keeper and librarian, teaches 
no classes, has different duties entirely to those 
of Miss Bass. Miss Bass requires a different type 
of training from Miss Stone. Oftentimes, it is 
not more difficult to be an academic teacher 
than a studyhall teacher (444). The difference 
is made by administrative duties, the disciplin­
ary duties of maintaining order, assigning li­
brary reference work, and the larger number of 
individuals at any one time means larger re­
sponsibility for the studyhall keeper. In my best 
judgment, Jewell Stone is worth $907, but I don’t 
think they are comparable positions. She is



161

worth more than that. In my best judgment, I 
believe Bernice Bass is not worth more than 
$720; if I thought she had been, I probably 
would have recommended more (445). I have 
been invited to compare H. B. Campbell, of 
Dunbar High School, who holds an M.S., and 
teaches English, with other Masters of English 
in the Senior High School. I do not think that it 
is possible to compare an individual with a 
group of others. It has not been my practice to 
do so; we compare them as individuals. In or­
der to arrive at a comparative relationship be­
tween H. B. Campbell and the other teachers 
holding Masters Degrees, I think they will have 
to be considered as individual teachers, instead 
of as a group. I suppose you could employ 
teachers by groups and pay them by groups, but 
it would not be in my opinion a good way to do 
it (446).

To the best of my information, defendants’ 
Exhibit No. 5 are the copies prepared at the desk 
of Mr. Lewis in conjunction with Mr. Hamilton 
at the time I visited Dunbar High School and 
visited a number of teachers there (447). There 
is an individual rating sheet Tor the individual 
teachers at Dunbar. Part of these are in my 
handwriting and part of them are not. For those 
that are in my handwriting, I form my con­
clusions on the basis of my visit and with the 
result of the conference with Mr. Hamilton and



162

Mr. Lewis. I recall that I didn’t get to finish the 
job that day. We were working at it several 
days, and Mr. Hamilton, being the supervisor, I 
delegated to him the responsibility of complet­
ing the study. I am prepared to say that these 
that are in my handwriting were made at the 
time all three were present. The one for Susie 
Morris is in my handwriting (448). After they 
were prepared, they were given to Mr. Hamil­
ton, the supervisor of the school, and he was 
asked to prepare a formal report. They came 
back into my possession typewritten. This par­
ticular set came back into my possession. He 
returned them, and I think they have been in 
the files in my office (449). The first rating 
sheet is for Lester Bowie, Dunbar (450). The 
sheet is in my handwriting. The difference as 
it appears in this form and in the form of de­
fendants’ Exhibit No. 2 is the gradation in five 
columns on this sheet, three on that one for re­
assignment purposes. The points are identical 
(451). Defendants’ Exhibit No. 6 is the indi­
vidual data card, kept for all teachers after their 
employment, for Susie Cowan changed to Susie 
Morris in 1936. This is the only copy the School 
Board has. It is a part of the official records 
of the School Board. It shows that she was em­
ployed at S620. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2B is the ap­
plication blank of Susie Cowan, or Morris, 
which was filed and which was kept on file in 
the office as part of the permanent records of



163

the office (452). It shows that she was willing 
to be employed at $540. It indicates that she was 
employed at $765. So far as I know, there are a 
few colored teachers in the Little Rock Public 
School System who receive as much or more 
salary than white teachers of comparable posi­
tions.

Ella Dickey has two years’ college training, 
thirty-three years’ experience in Little Rock, no 
experience elsewhere, teaches 6B and 5A, re­
ceives $1,012.77, (colored), and Marion Cobb, 
(white), has two and one-half years’ college 
training, fourteen years’ experience in Little 
Rock, no experience elsewhere, 6A grade and 
$977.65 (453). The 6A grade is comparable to 
6B and 5A. In my best judgment, the difference 
there could be accounted for by the longer ten­
ure of Ella Dickey. There is not a great deal of 
difference between the two in teaching ability. 
In my best judgment, Marion Cobb is entitled to 
$977, and Ella Dickey to $1,012. I wouldn’t be 
sure that Marion Cobb is entitled to substantially 
more than $977. In my opinion, there was prob­
ably not any discrimination as between the two 
teachers in respect of their teaching abilities 
(454).

Mary Frances Shelton has a B.S.E., thirteen 
years here, none elsewhere, teaches 5A and 5B 
and receives $982.28. In comparing her with Ella 
Dickey, both teach on a comparable teaching



164

level. In my best judgment, Miss Shelton is a 
very superior teacher. She has twice as much 
training at the college level as Ella Dickey. That 
would contribute materially to level the differ­
ence in tenure (455). In my best judgment, Miss 
Shelton is worth $972. I think she is worth sub­
stantially more. As between these two teachers, 
in comparison to their training and teaching 
ability, I would say that Ella Dickey receives 
more salary than Mary Frances Shelton.

Emma Pattillo, (colored), has a B.S., twen­
ty-seven years of experience here, none else­
where, teaching literary appreciation, receives 
$1,012.77 (456). The teaching levels are not 
comparable. In my best judgment, the differ­
ence in salary is not justifiable. I think Mary 
Frances Shelton should have more salary than 
she now has. I believe Emma Pattillo is worth 
$1,012.77 to our School System, but not substan­
tially more. If any discrimination of salary ex­
ists between these two teachers, it exists in favor 
of Emma Pattillo.

Cornelia Bruce, colored, has no college 
training (457), thirty-two years’ experience 
here, seven years elsewhere, teaches IB and 1A 
and receives $1,195.49. Margaret Farmer, two 
years of college work, eighteen years’ ex­
perience here, none elsewhere, teaching 3A, a 
white teacher, receives $1,198.41. The white 
teacher has $2.92 more. Generally speaking,



165

they are teaching on the same levels. In my best 
judgment, Margaret Farmer is worth to our 
School System the sum of $1,198. I think she is 
worth substantially more. In my best judgment, 
I don’t think that Cornelia Bruce is worth to our 
School System the sum of $1,195. I think she 
is worth some less. As between these two teach­
ers, if any discrimination exists, Cornelia Bruce, 
the colored teacher, is favored (458).

Compared with Cornelia Bruce, Jewell 
Owen, (white), has one year of college, fifteen 
years’ experience here, ten years elsewhere, 
teaches 4A, and receives $1,120.28. I would say 
that they teach similar teaching levels, but not 
exactly comparable, because they did not both 
happen to be in the same department. In my 
best judgment, Jewell Owen is worth the sum of 
$1,120 to the School System. She is probably 
worth some more. As between the two teachers, 
if there is any discrimination, it is in favor of 
Cornelia Bruce, the colored teacher (459). In 
comparing Vera Murphy with Mary F. Shelton, 
Vera Murphy, colored teacher, has two years 
of college work, thirty-two years’ experience 
here, none elsewhere, teaching 6A and 6B, and 
receives $1,012.77. Miss Shelton, white teacher, 
has a B.S.E., 13 years’ experience here, none 
elsewhere, teaching 5A and 5B, and receives 
$982.28. In my best judgment, Mary F. Shelton 
is entitled to a salary of $982 based on her ability



166

and is worth substantially more. I do not know 
why no more has been paid to these teachers 
who appear to be worth more. In my best judg­
ment, Vera Murphy is entitled to $1,012. I do 
not think she is worth substantially more (460). 
As between the two teachers, if a discrimination 
exists, I think it exists in favor of Vera Murphy, 
the colored teacher. When it appears that Vera 
Murphy has taught for a period of thirty-two 
years, compared to the white teacher’s thirteen 
years, I say this because there are other factors 
involved in that, and entering into that besides 
the bare fact of tenure. The difference in train­
ing accounts for some of it.

Emma Ingram, colored, has two years’ col­
lege training, thirty-four years’ experience here, 
none elsewhere, teaches first grade, and receives 
$1,012.77. Mrs. J. B. Dickinson, white, slightly 
more than three years’ college training, sixteen 
and one-half years of experience here, one year 
elsewhere, teaches 2B and receives $975.50 
(461). In my best judgment, Mrs. Dickinson is 
worth to our School System as much as $975. I 
think she is worth more than that. In my best 
judgment, I think Emma Ingram is worth to 
our System $1,012. I don’t think she is worth 
substantially more. They are teaching in com­
parable teaching levels. As between the two of 
them, if any discrimination exists, I think it 
exists in favor of Emma Ingram, colored teach­
er (462).



167

I did not prepare the plan of the distribu­
tion of the bonus money (462). I was familiar 
with the plan and recommended it for adoption 
after it was presented by the committee for two 
or three reasons. In the first place, it was pre­
pared by a committee of our leading teachers, 
and the encouragement of them seemed desir­
able. Another reason is that it was a special 
payment that had nothing to do with contract 
salaries or the status of the individual teachers 
with reference to their contract; and then, I ran 
a few percentage figures, in thinking in terms 
of all teachers in the System, and the amount of 
percentage on the basis of their present salary 
did not seem out of line. Under the distribution 
plan, teachers would fall into many groups 
(463). Within a single bracket, the white teach­
ers would get twice as much as the colored. That 
would not be exactly true on a percentage basis, 
because there are variable salaries in each 
group. To that extent, the distribution plan is 
unfair to the colored teacher. As between teach­
ers within different brackets, the comparison 
between the two would flatten out and become 
less different on an individual basis. When I 
recommended the plan of distribution to the 
School Board, I did not have in mind race and 
color. I do not recall any discussion in the 
meeting of the School Board as to the differ­
entiation between the two classes. They raised 
the question once as to the amount that each in-



dividual received as to comparison with their 
present salary. I think I indicated to them that 
as a whole, the comparative figures for the 
teachers were not much different (464). I 
could have been mistaken in my analysis at 
that time. I recall the petition for adjustment in 
salaries filed by the colored teachers in the 
spring of 1941. I do not recall exactly when it 
was filed, but it was probably filed before Mr. 
Jennings became a member of the School 
Board. There were about $14,800 in the first 
distribution, and in the second distribution 
about $40,000. The total budget for teachers’ 
salary is approximately $590,000. I do not know 
how much of that would go to colored teachers 
(465). Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 4 is not a schedule 
in use by the Little Rock Public School Board 
for the fixing of salaries. I never saw this docu­
ment until the opening of the trial. I have seen 
no similar document prior to this trial. I have 
not used any similar document in preparing or 
recommending salaries (466).

(Pages 466 through 468 cover argument of 
counsel on admissibility of exhibit.)

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

These rating sheets that were handed out 
in September, 1941, were to be used through the 
school year between September and when 
school closed in May. These rating sheets show



169

the impression that who ever made them out, 
went over the teaching for the entire school 
year. They were put into the composite form 
sometime after the close of the school year, the 
first week or two of June of 1942 (468). The 
list of teachers for the school year 1941-1942 
were elected in the spring of 1941 and assigned 
to the schools by the Board in the August meet­
ing of 1941 for the 1941-1942 school year. The 
list of teachers and their salaries for the school 
year of 1942-1943 was adopted by the School 
Board about May, 1942. Since that day, with 
exception of a few new teachers appointed to 
the System, there have been very few changes. 
I believe they show up in the July and August 
minutes (469).

(470 and 471 cover further arguments on 
admissibility of rating sheets.)

I was not present at the time each one of 
these rating sheets was made out. The original 
notes for the rating sheets for the teachers at 
Dunbar were taken in the presence of Mr. Lewis. 
There was no material disagreement. Subse­
quent to that, I asked Mr. Lewis for a grouping 
of his teachers. I am ,not sure that his group 
was in direct opposition to this grouping of 
mine. I didn’t consider it. I do not know wheth­
er a copy of it is in the office. After I prepared 
these rating sheets, I left them with Mr. Hamil­
ton, and he put them in final form (472). I did



170

not have anything to do in preparing the final 
forms. To a certain extent, Mr. Hamilton had 
to use his own judgment as to the five column 
sheet and as to Susie Morris. I did not mark her 
on the five sheet basis. I marked her on the 
three-point basis. As a matter of fact, I marked 
all of the teachers at Dunbar on the three-point 
basis. The man who did the actual rating on 
the five-column sheet on the Dunbar teachers 
was Mr. Hamilton. When I visited Miss Morris’ 
class, I did not look at her lesson plan.' I can 
decide what she has as a plan by evidence of her 
class lesson plan (473). I have only talked to 
one of the parents of the students of Susie Mor­
ris. I believe it was a fellow by the name of Tay­
lor. He is the same one about which she testified. 
He hasn’t complained to me about practically 
every teacher at Dunbar. This is a part of my 
basis for putting her in column four. I am talk­
ing about the recommendation of the super­
visor. So as to that, I did not mark her of my 
own personal knowledge, except to that extent 
(474). Her community activity is hearsay with 
me, I trust the supervisor for that. I obtain in­
formation on professional relations from the 
principals. On maintenance of class standards, 
I think I could judge whether or not or what 
the standard would be. I wasn’t in Susie Morris’ 
class over fifteen minutes. I do not think it is 
enough time. I think it is an indication of her 
ability as a teacher, but I wouldn’t be satisfied



171

with its completeness. I would not be willing 
to fix her salary solely on that. I examined the 
minutes (of the School Board) looking for a 
salary schedule (475). I think I checked back 
to about 1925. The minutes of January 31, 1938, 
uses the word “schedule”, but what 1 know of 
this would be purely from the records. I see the 
word “schedule” several times. The record says 
that all new teachers to be employed at not less 
than 67.5 per cent of the schedule of 1928, or 
$90 a month (476). It says also that the schedule 
for new teachers shall be ultimately $810 for 
the elementary, junior high $910, and senior 
high $945. I think the word “schedule” appears 
elsewhere in the minutes. I wouldn’t think that 
the statement, “schedule for new teachers shall 
be elementary $810, junior high $910 and senior 
high $945 as being what is generally accepted 
in administrative school circles as a minimum 
salary schedule. I would consider that as an ef­
fort to set a definite scale or standard for one 
year, for the year in which that was made. I 
can name no white teacher that has been ap­
pointed since that time at less than $810. I can 
name a junior high teacher that has been ap­
pointed at less than $910 (477). I believe Rhoda 
Wharry was at $900, a beginning teacher. I ap­
pointed some senior high teachers at $900. For 
elementary teachers, with some subjects, I have 
stuck to $810, not in every case, I am sure. The 
fact that white teachers new to the System em-



172

ployed in elementary schools have not been paid 
less than $810 in my opinion is not conceded to 
limit the schedule of the salary, in spite of the 
fact that it appears in that schedule (minutes) 
(478). It is true that Susie Morris gets less than 
any white teacher, even an elementary school 
teacher. Generally speaking, high school teach­
ers are paid more than elementary (479). Gen­
erally speaking, Susie Morris would be entitled 
to more than the average elementary teacher. 
She does get less than any elementary white 
teacher, even though new to the System with no 
experience at all. I don’t consider her, in my 
judgment, worse than any white teacher. I 
didn’t fix her salary. I recommended the salary 
she was to receive from the personnel commit 
tee for this year (480).

“Q. Why did you recommend the salary 
for Susie Morris less than any salary you recom­
mended for any white teacher in the School 
System?

“A. The real reason was that we had this 
suit pending, and we did not want any changes.”

This suit was not pending in May, 1940. 
At that time, I had very insufficient evidence on 
all of the teachers, and I would not risk my 
judgment. I was using the judgment of a pre­
decessor. I am ready to risk my judgment, not 
absolutely on all teachers, because I do not have 
all of the information. I do not have as much as



173

I would like to have on Susie Morris (481). The 
record shows that Susie Morris has an A.B. with 
six years’ experience here and five years out 
side at $706 (481). The record also shows that 
Lillian Lane had an A.B., appointed last year, 
with no experience. The application indicates 
that she does have some experience. There is a 
disagreement between the two, an error some­
where I suppose. I think the error will be here 
rather than in the application. In making up 
the salaries for these teachers, generally speak­
ing, I use the application blank (482). When I 
reappointed them, I did not check each applica­
tion blank, so if there is any error in that com­
posite, there will come out an error on the sal­
ary schedule. According to this, (application), 
Miss Lane has about ten years’ experience. It 
just appears on the application blank. She was 
here such a short time, all the information was 
not verified. It is understandable how she could 
get $900.

Marie Paul Jefferson had four years’ col­
lege training with a degree from Central Col­
lege, Fayette, Missouri, an accredited school. 
She got her degree in 1932 according to the rec­
ords (483). It is a four year degree. The com­
posite sheet shows four. She was here only a 
short time. There are two mistakes on the com­
posite sheet.

Miss Catherine Lee has an A.B., comparable 
to Susie Morris’ degree. The degrees are the



174

same, but I don’t know of what institution. They 
are both from accredited schools and could not 
be any better (484). She has been teaching the 
same number of years as Miss Morris, whereas 
the plaintiff has five years’ outside the State. 
Miss Lee has two years’ outside the City. Miss 
Lee’s salary is $1,060, and Miss Morris’ $726. I 
can’t give any definite reason for that.

Miss Rhoda Wharry has a B.S.E., teaches in 
Pulaski Heights, no experience here, two years’ 
elsewhere, and page 3 (of the application) 
shows that she is willing to come for a salary of 
$800. I paid her $900. She is paid $194 more 
than Susie Morris, because at the time I thought 
she was worth $900 (485). At that time, I had 
never seen Susie Morris teach. I arrived at that 
conclusion on the evidence presented in the ap­
plication and as a result of my investigation of 
the candidates. I think it is highly possible that 
a candidate with no teaching experience in Lit­
tle Rock and with only two years elsewhere and 
with a comparable degree would be worth more 
than a teacher that has been teaching in Little 
Rock. I would not say that would be an excep­
tion to the rule. I do not have any white teach­
er in the senior high school getting less than 
$900. I do not necessarily consider all of my 
teachers in the System better teachers than the 
new teachers. We pay some teachers with ex­
perience in our System in the white schools

t



175

more than we pay new white teachers, and some 
we do not (486). I do not have any white teach­
ers in the Senior High that I pay less than $900 
(486).

“Q. And that is the minimum that you hire 
white teachers in the high schools for?

“A. I hire them for what I consider them 
to be worth.”

I have not hired any for less than $900. I 
have teachers in the white high school that are 
getting less than new teachers. I don’t think 
that I have any teacher in the white high school 
with six years’ experience that I pay as I pay a 
new white teacher. I do not consider Miss 
Wharry as more valuable than all white teach­
ers I already have in the high school. I do con­
sider her more valuable than Susie Morris for 
the purpose of election (487). I mean by “for 
the purpose of election” because Susie Morris’ 
salary was set before I had anything to do with 
it (487). In fixing salaries, I try to evaluate ex­
perience; some experience is valuable and some 
is not. Experience in Little Rock is worth some­
thing. I don’t think I personally know a teacher 
in the Dunbar High School by the name of Clar­
ice Little, twenty-six years’ experience, A.B., 
teaching English. She gets almost $70 less than 
Miss Wharry, new to the System. I don’t know 
the circumstances back of which Miss Little’s 
salary was originally set. I cannot give an ex-



176

planation why Miss Little gets almost $70 less 
than Miss Wharry (488). Miss Flora Armitage, 
a white teacher in the junior high school with 
only two years college and twenty-seven years’ 
experience gets $2,729. She has no college de­
gree and twenty-seven years’ experience, which 
is just one year more than Miss Little. I have 
testified that in a similar situation, I would be 
inclined to give a little more for a degree in ex­
planation of a difference in salaries. When I 
fixed these salaries, I did know that Miss Armi­
tage is a very good teacher, and I knew that Miss 
Little was not quite so good. I have the records 
for Miss Little (489). I am not judging what 
kind of a teacher she is by the record. The rec­
ord was before me in 1940-1941. All I had be­
fore me in 1940-1941 was these facts. Still I 
recommended Miss Little for $700 less than Miss 
Armitage. I think the answer will be the same, 
but in 1941,1 had insufficient evidence to make 
any changes in the salaries. I do not remember 
in 1942 checking up on Miss Little. I don’t have 
any better information this year than I did last 
year. There was not any change in these sal­
aries this year except a very few.

In explaining the difference between Mr. 
Scott, who teaches in Dunbar with an M.A. and 
Mr. Elliott, who was head coach in high school, 
and (yome other mathematic teachers who were 
assistant coaches (490). I do not know that Mr.



177

Scott is an assistant coach at Dunbar. I know 
that Dunbar does not have as elaborate a sche­
dule. I do not altogether know what the teach­
ers at Dunbar are doing. The information is not 
complete. I think I would not be in a position 
to rate the additional work the white teachers 
do as over against the additional work the ne­
gro teachers do.

Mr. Bigbee is in charge of the business man­
agement of the finances of the high school. Mr. 
W. N. Ivy is hall disciplinarian I think (491). M. 
C. Moser has some duties in connection with the 
athletic department. I don’t know of any extra 
duties for Clara Cobb. Miss Clara Cobb, 
(white), does not do anything extra, and she has 
less training than M. C. Moser, (colored), she 
gets more money. Miss Cobb has been here 
twenty-eight years. It is not altogether on extra 
work that I pay extra money. Wade L. Davis 
had some extra duties with reference to admin­
istrative things about the building. Mary Reig- 
ler, (white), is in one of the junior high schools 
and does not have any outside duties. She has 
thirty years’ experience, one of the best we have 
(492). I don’t think I have observed Mr. Scott’s 
teaching.

Mr. Scott has an M.A. from an accredited 
school, eight years’ experience in Little Rock, 
four and one-half years’ elsewhere, and yet he 
gets $753.25, which is less than any white teach­
er in the System. I have no explanation on that.



178

Mr. J. H. Gibson, A.B., a mathematics teach­
er at Dunbar, has seventeen years’ experience in 
the System, gets $979.02 (493). William Ivy has 
a B.M.E. with seventeen years’ experience. This 
is a degree, Bachelor of Mechanical Engineer­
ing, and he teaches mechanics. He has the 
same experience as Gibson. Mr. Ivy gets 
$1,854.46 and Mr. Gibson, negro teacher, $979.02.
I know that Ivy is a very good teacher, a strong 
disciplinarian, and a valuable man in the high 
school. I think Mr. Gibson is a very good teach­
er, but I do not think he is as good as Ivy. I 
have observed Mr. Ivy and Gibson for a short 
time. As to the amount of $600 difference be­
tween them, I could not say. It is very difficult 
to put down in dollars and cents intangible 
things (494). N. F. Tull, (white), does not have 
any college degree, fifty-four and one-third 
hours, which is less than half an A.B. In com­
paring Gibson and Tull, we have Gibson with 
more than twice as much education, the same 
number of years of experience in the Little 
Rock schools and elsewhere, yet Gibson, the 
colored teacher, gets $979.02, and Tull, the white 
teacher, gets $1,603.55. I do not know the reason 
for that. Mr. Tull is very valuable in his direc­
tion of the boys’ work in business, and the boys’ 
activity in the senior high school. I do not know 
what extra curricular work Mr. Gibson does, so 
I cannot compare the extra work of Mr. Tull as 
to Mr. Gibson (495). If it had been as outstand­



179

ing as Mr. Tull, I am sure it would have been 
called to my attention, but it has not been.

Miss Wooley has a B.S., eleven years’ ex­
perience here and none outside and has $1,440. 
Gibson, with an A.B., six years here and four 
outside, only gets $979.02. In my judgment, I 
believe Miss Wooley was worth more (496).

I think it would be very comparable to com­
pare one science teacher with other science 
teachers. J. L. Wilson teaches at Dunbar, a ne­
gro teacher with an M.A., eighteen years’ experi­
ence, nine in Little Rock and nine outside, and 
receives $1,039.50. Miss Julia Mae Avery, East 
Side, has a B.S., which is less than Mr. Wilson’s 
degree, which is from an accredited school, so 
that Mr. Wilson has more training, more educa­
tional background (497). He has nine years 
more experience in Little Rock as a teacher and 
eight years more experience outside of Little 
Rock, and Miss Avery gets only $139 less than 
he does. She is getting a great deal more than 
he is now. She left to go to the library, but 
while she was here, she was paid $900. I think 
her ability to command that salary, (else­
where), would be an indication of her ability 
with us.

Miss Eleanor Cook is no longer with us. 
Everything else being equal, I wouldn’t place 
any value on five years’ experience. I would 
have to know more about the circumstances



(498). Everything being equal, I wouldn’t place 
a value on it.

Everette C. Barnes, (white), has an A.B., 
and Mr. Wilson has an M.A., so that Mr. Wilson 
has more educational qualifications than Mr. 
Barnes. Mr. Wilson has nine years’ experience 
in Little Bock, and Mr. Barnes has fourteen, 
which give Mr. Barnes five more years in Lit­
tle Rock, but Mr. Wilson has nine years outside 
of Little Rock, and Mr. Barnes only has two 
years outside of Little Rock. Mr. Wilson has 
eighteen years and Mr. Barnes has sixteen years’ 
experience. Mr. Barnes, a white teacher, gets 
$1,372.70, while Mr. Wilson, a colored teacher, 
gets $1,039.50. It is practically true that both of 
them run the science departments for their re­
spective schools (499). I explain the $700 differ­
ence in that Mr. Barnes has more extra activities 
to make him more valuable. At the present time, 
he is advisor of the visual education activities 
for all the senior high school, and he has done 
a lot of work in visual education, and he also 
has duties in connection with the athletic de­
partment. Then he has direction of the science 
department. I think that his activities show that 
he is worth $700 more than Mr. Wilson.

Miss Vera Lescher, at West Side, (white) 
has an A.B. and after 1941-1942, I paid her 
$1,148. I account for the difference between 
that and 1,039 that Wilson gets in that she is a

180



181

very good science teacher and has been taken 
over by the Standard Oil Company for research 
work in the research laboratory recently, which 
seems to justify our opinion that she was a good 
teacher (500). I did not know when I fixed her 
salary that she was getting ready to go to the 
Standard Oil Company, but I did know that she 
was a good teacher, and I know Wilson was a 
good teacher. I still think he was a good 
teacher.

I said that there were several negro teach­
ers getting the same salary or more salary than 
white teachers on a comparable basis, because 
that is true. In arriving at a comparable basis, 
I consider all of the factors that I have had 
about the teacher’s experience and training 
abilities, ability to teach, all of the things that 
make up that factor (501). I do not know how 
many negro elementary schools I have visited 
for the purpose of observing the teachers. I 
have not been in all of them (501). I do not 
recall whether I have been in Bush School for 
the purpose of observing teachers. I have visited 
some of the teachers at Bush School. I do not 
know exactly how many. Elizabeth Hamilton 
is a negro in Gibbs School, has a B.S.E., six 
years’ experience in Little Rock, ten outside, 
teaches 5B and 5A and has a salary of $706 
(502). Nancy Jackson has an A.B., five years’ 
experience in Little Rock, none outside, teaches



182

music in Gibbs at a salary of $665. Danice Lee, 
at Capitol Iiill has an A.B., six years’ experience, 
none outside, teaches 3B, and receives $665.50 
(503). Sarah Rice, at the same school, has an 
A.B., seven years of experience here, none else­
where, teaches 5B, gets $645.24. In comparing 
these teachers with comparable white teachers, 
it would be fair to use the training, experience 
and grade taught to determine comparable 
basis. Miss Verna Finn, at Pulaski Heights 
Grammar School, has an A.B., five years’ ex­
perience in Little Rock, three elsewhere, teaches 
3A, 3B and 2A, and has $933. I cannot account 
for the fact that the salary is higher than any of 
the four elementary teachers mentioned above. 
Miss Ruth Jones of Centennial has an L.I. degree 
issued by a teachers college on school years of 
training. It is a two-year degree (504). An A.B. 
degree is four years. She has half the training 
of the four negro teachers mentioned before. 
She has been five years in Little Rock, five years 
elsewhere, teaches 4B, and I happen to know 
that she handles the art department and re­
ceives $846. In her case, she was a very good 
teacher.

Miss Thelma Clapp has an A.B., six years’ 
teaching in Little Rock, four years’ experience ' 
elsewhere, teaches 6A and receives $997. To ex­
plain why she gets more than the four negro 
teachers mentioned above, she is better than



183

they are. I think that she is better than all four
(505) . I would hesitate to measure the value of 
it. She is worth substantially more. It is true 
that I estimate the figures.

Miss Lucille Holman, at Parham, has a 
B.S., eight years’ experience in Little Rock, none 
in other schools, teaches art, and receives 
$1,014.18. She has perhaps a slightly higher 
bracket than a regular elementary teacher. In 
this particular case, I transferred her to one 
of the junior high schools to take charge of the 
art department. That would account for the 
salary.

Miss Verna Harper, at Garland has a B.S.E., 
five years’ experience in Little Rock, ten years 
elsewhere, teaches 5B and 4A and has $1,041
(506) . To account for that salary being more 
than those of the four negro teachers in the 
same group, I have information to the effect 
that she is a very good teacher, superior to these 
other teachers. I don’t have definite informa­
tion as to Miss Elizabeth Hamilton, the negro 
teacher; I don’t have definite information as to 
Miss Nancy Jackson. I have definite informa­
tion on Miss Danice Lee. I received it from a 
conference with her sponsors. I do have some 
information on her. I would be in as good a 
position as anybody to compare these colored 
teachers with Miss Verna Harper.



184

Miss Edith Hardage has an A.B., seven 
years’ experience, one year elsewhere, teaches 
1A and 2B, and receives $960 (507). I don’t 
know how to account for her, she is gone now. 
I do not know what made that figure of $960 
which is above the negro.

Miss Georgia Wade, at Fair Park, has an 
A.B., seven years’ experience here, five years 
elsewhere, teaches 4A and 5B, and receives 
$1,041. She is white. I do not know how to 
account for the fact that she gets $400 more 
than any of the other negro teachers. I am not 
familiar with her work. I do not have any yard­
stick in my mind to account for that.

Miss Jeanne Dupree, Oakhurst, has a B.S., 
six years of experience here, three elsewhere, 
teaches first grade, and receives $960 (508). I 
do not know how to account for the fact that 
she gets $200 more without knowing about the 
others. I do know she is a very fine primary 
teacher. I consider her in the highest group of 
teachers we have. I cannot explain how it is 
that she gets less than Miss Georgia Wade.

I made a number of comparisons between 
teachers that had been in the System for quite 
some number of years. I think there was some 
relation between salaries and the number of 
years they had been teaching, but I don’t know 
that they would be definite enough to ascribe



185

a mathematical value to them. There is a ten­
dency for more experience to have the higher 
salary. That is very generally a normal ten­
dency in the School System.

Cordelia Davis, a negro teacher, at Gibbs
(509) , has an A.B., twenty-six years’ experience 
here, six outside, with $884.71. It would be fair 
to compare her with twenty-six-year-old teacher 
and twenty-nine-year-old teacher in the ele­
mentary school level if you were developing 
comparisons on that basis. The other informa­
tion you can use for comparison other than that 
is the information you might have as to their 
teaching ability. I don’t have any information 
as to the teaching ability of Cordelia Davis
(510) . Miss Emma Pattillo, with twenty-seven 
years of experience at Gibbs is a very good 
teacher and receives $1,012.77. Miss Pauline 
Jordan, at Pulaski Heights Grammar School, has 
an A.B., twenty-six years’ experience, one year 
less than that of Miss Pattillo, no experience 
elsewhere and teaches 5A and literature appre­
ciation, which is also her home room, and re­
ceives $1,429.72. I have no explanation to offer 
for that. They have been here a long time, and 
I do not know the facts on which the original 
salaries were placed (511). Miss Autry (white) 
has an A.B., twenty-four years’ experience and 
two outside, teaches 2B and 1A and receives 
$1,391.98. She has the same degree as Miss Pat-



186

tillo. They are comparable if they are both in 
the same type of institution. They are so far as 
I know. I have not checked it. Miss Autry has 
twenty-four years and Miss Pattillo has twenty- 
seven years ’experience in Little Rock, and as 
to outside experience, Miss Pattillo has none 
and Miss Autry two. I do not know of any ex­
planation on my part for the difference in the 
salary. I wouldn’t know whether it could be on 
degree and would not say unless I knew. The 
experience is similar. I don’t know whether the 
difference could be on race or not (512). I don’t 
know that one was white and one was colored 
could have been taken into consideration. I 
would not admit that. I just simply do not know 
(512).

Miss Mary Schriver, at Lee School, has an
A. B., twenty-one years’ experience here and 
three elsewhere. She teaches 5B and receives 
$1,354.08. Miss Schriver is white and Miss Pat­
tillo is a negro. I give no reason at all for that 
difference.

Miss Grace Hagler, at Forest Park, has a
B. S., twenty-six years’ experience in Little 
Rock, four elsewhere, teaches 1A and has 
$1,418.84. They have comparable degrees so 
far as I know from the records. The experience 
is fairly similar. I have no explanation to offer 
for the $400 difference in salary (513).



187

I feel that I can give the name of a negro 
teacher who had more salary than a white 
teacher with comparable qualification and 
years’ experience. I don’t know as to com­
parable degree and years of experience, because 
other factors would enter into the valuation of 
teachers. Offhand, I cannot give the name of 
any negro teacher teaching comparable grade, 
elementary school, who is getting as much 
salary or more salary than a white elementary 
school teacher with comparable degree and 
years of experience; I would have to consult 
the records. I will look for it (514).

Miss Vera Murphy, at Bush, has two years’ 
college, thirty-two years’ experience here, none 
elsewhere, and receives $1,012.77. Miss Fannie 
Cline, Pulaski Heights, white, has two years’ 
training, which is apparently comparable to 
two years’ training for Miss Murphy if it is 
from institutions of equal rating. Miss Murphy 
has thirty-two years’ experience and Miss Cline 
has thirty-three (515), and Miss Cline has one 
year of experience outside, which would make 
two years difference. Miss Murphy, negro, gets 
$1,012.77, and Miss Cline, white, gets $1,455.41. 
I cannot account for that from memory off­
hand.

It is comparable to compare Miss Murphy 
with other teachers teaching about as long as 
she has.



188

Gertrude Dill, at Pulaski Heights, has one 
year less training than Vera Murphy, about 
eight years less experience here and two years 
more outside, so that approximately Miss Mur­
phy has eight years difference (516). Miss Mur­
phy, negro, gets $1,012.77, and Miss Dill 
$1,306.29. I don’t know any reason for that.

Miss Maude Hairston, Pulaski Heights, has 
one more year’s training than Miss Murphy, but 
ten years less of experience in Little Rock. She 
has three years more experience outside. They 
are comparable on basis of tenure, but one is 
teaching upper grades and one is teaching 
primary. We don’t make any distinction now. 
That could account for the difference (516). 
Miss Nell Jones (white) has had two years’ 
training, which is comparable, twenty-three 
years’ experience here, which is nine years less 
than Miss Murphy, and two years’ experience 
outside, which is more than Miss Murphy, so 
the difference between the two would be seven 
years in favor of Miss Murphy, yet Miss Jones 
is getting $1,402.89 and Miss Murphy $1,012.77. 
I cannot account for the difference.

I don’t have a yardstick for fixing elemen­
tary school teachers’ salaries. I arrive at the 
figure on the things we do for all teachers (518). 
I don’t think it is harder to fix the salaries for 
the elementary teacher than for the high school 
teacher. As to those elementary teachers with



189

good college degrees, we use the recommenda­
tions of the principals and supervisors and 
sponsors, and in so far as possible, what I can 
see about them. In fixing the salary for two 
teachers, I would like to know about both of 
them. If I have two people in the System that 
I have confidence in; one is talking about one 
teacher and the other is talking about another, 
it would be hard to decide between the two 
which is the best. It is a different proposition 
where the same person is talking about the two. 
There is a unity of standard there which you 
don’t have in the other case (519). Mr. Larson 
supervises the white senior high school. Each 
individual principal supervises the white junior 
high schools. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Hamilton joint­
ly supervise Dunbar. Mr. Hamilton is usually 
there half of the day, and the rest of the day he 
is the principal of an elementary school, so 
any information I get from Little Rock High 
School, I get from one person and from Dun­
bar, I get from two. I make a composite of the 
two from Dunbar, except that in our System, I 
assume that Mr. Hamilton takes precedence. I 
mean of the two, he is my point of contact in 
the Dunbar School; however, Mr. Lewis can 
come any time he wants to see me, and I fre­
quently contact Mr. Lewis without Mr. Hamil­
ton (520). I consider Mr. Hamilton competent 
and qualified to pass upon high school teachers.



190

I have gone into his qualifications. He has a 
B.S.E. from the University of Cincinnati. 1 
don’t think that he has an M.A. 1 think he is 
competent and qualified to supervise Mr. Lewis 
by long experience he has had as an adminis­
trator. 1 don’t know how long he has been prin­
cipal of the elementary school. 1 think he has 
also been principal of one of the secondary 
schools at one time. He is not now. I wouldn’t 
call it odd (521). The methods of teaching are 
different in high school and elementary school. 
I have to mix them all the time. 1 don’t have the 
supervisors of the white elementary schools 
supervising the high school, and likewise, I 
don’t have Mr. Larson supervising the elemen­
tary schools, because there is a difference in 
the teaching of the two divisions or types of 
schools.

As I understand it, the majority of the sup­
plementary money came from increase in the 
5tate revenue and came from the State Depart­
ment of Education. In so far as it was public 
money, I felt obligated under the same rules as 
the other money I distributed for the School 
Board (522). The Attorney General of Arkan­
sas ruled it was within the discretion of the local 
Board to distribute it. According to that ruling, 
if I remember right, I believe we could dis­
tribute it on the basis of so much to the teachers 
in one school and so much to the teachers in



191

another school I think, legally, under the terms 
of his opinion, it would have been possible to 
have distributed more to white persons than to 
negro persons. 1 didn’t go into the Fourteenth 
Amendment. I try to keep these schools equal 
around Little Rock as a matter of right and jus­
tice (523). I don’t think that we used race defi­
nitely in the distribution of the money. In the 
same bracket, it is true that white teachers get 
twice as much as colored teachers. I don’t know 
whether being a negro teacher settled it or not. 
We figured out yesterday that Miss Susie Mor­
ris had a total of twelve units (524). I am not 
sure that I could say what there was that kept 
her from getting $36. I am not sure that the 
thing that kept her from getting $3 is the fact 
that she is colored. I do not see anything else. 
1 don’t think that I can imagine anything else. 
I made the distribution pursuant to the order 
of the Board (525). If there are two teachers 
with twelve units apiece, teacher A and teacher 
B, the thing that determines whether teacher A 
gets $18 or $36 is, according to the report of 
the committee, whether he is white or colored 
(526, 527).

(It was stipulated by counsel for the re­
spective parties that in his comparison on the 
teachers named by Mr. Marshall, Mr. Scobee 
gave his answer without reference to the rating 
column of defendants’ Exhibit No. 1, and that



192

if he had referred to the rating column, his an­
swer would have been entirely different.)

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

1 had never seen plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 until 
i came to Court (529). The document said that 
“the minimum entrance salary is now estab­
lished at $615.” Practically all the negro teach­
ers I have hired for the elementary schools have 
been hired at the figure of $615. I remember 
reading from the minutes of the School Board 
of 1937 the statement that the minimum sal­
aries shall be $810. I am not able to identify the 
exact date. It is true that since I have been here, 
that all white teachers who are new to the Sys­
tem in the elementary schools have been paid 
not less than $810 (530). I think all that our 
files have on application blanks of teachers new 
to the System are there in those. Our general 
policy is not to retain them very long, except 
the application blanks. As to the new ones, that 
is as complete as I have in the files, and the 
other things I would have to go on besides that 
would be the information that we developed at 
the time the candidate was being considered for 
the position. There would be letters and inter­
views, verbal conversations and telephone 
calls. I think that would be more or less on 
what I would classify as the intangibles (531). 
It is true that none of the negroes that I have



193

appointed in my mind had the teaching caliber 
oi the white teachers 1 have appointed. In some 
cases, I did not send for recommendations or 
for information from the schools for all of the 
teachers that I have hired. There was no reason 
for it. It is not the custom to send for all of 
them. I sent for them where we felt we could 
have a supplement to the information. I ex­
pect that it would be true that two teachers ap­
plying, both with A.B. degree, and I sent for 
the recommendations of their teachers, and I 
got the recommendations of one, and they are 
very high, and I do not get any recommenda­
tion concerning the other, the applicant whose 
application I sought and obtained would appear 
to be the better teacher (532). If I did not send 
for the recommendation of a particular teach­
er, the information on that would be incom­
plete. I appointed Miss Nancy Jane Isgrig. I 
can identify this as her application blank. This 
is not all the written data concerning her. I had 
some other information. I recalled distinctly in 
her case, statements from one of the professors 
at Hendricks. I called the professor and asked 
him about her. He gave me a very high recom­
mendation as to her (533). That was taken into 
consideration in fixing her salary. I do not 
guess that the application blank of Miss Eunice 
Brumfield is all the information I had on her 
at the time I appointed her. The appointment



194

was made after a personal interview. I do not 
recall that I wrote to any of her professors. I 
fixed her salary on the information there and 
the result of the interview. I offered Miss Isgrig 
$810 for teaching in Fair Park, an elementary 
school. Miss Isgrig is white. I offered Miss 
Brumfield $630 (534). She teaches at Dunbar. 
They are not the same type of schools. One is 
elementary and one is a high school, and the 
general custom is to pay higher salaries for high 
school teachers, everything else being equal. To 
explain why I offered Miss Isgrig more than 
I offered Miss Brumfield, I thought she was 
worth more. It was based on the information I 
had and the telephone conversation with the 
professor was part of it. So far as her applica­
tion is concerned, Miss Isgrig’s qualifications 
are that she had two years at junior college, two 
years at Hendricks, and graduated with a B.S. 
According to her application, Miss Brumfield 
had an A.B. fro mTalladega (535), an accredited 
school and similar to Hendricks in the accredit­
ing agency. Miss Brumfield has done twenty- 
seven hours in graduate work in mathematics 
in Fisk University, an accredited school, and 
comparable to the school from which Miss Is­
grig took her undergraduate work. On the basis 
of training and professional qualifications, Miss 
Brumfield’s professional qualifications exceed 
Miss Isgrig’s. I am not sure that I made an effort



195

to get additional information from the school 
on Miss Brumfield. 1 don’t recall any (536). It 
doesn’t appear here, but there is a lot that does 
not appear there. I said that we have much 
that is treated as confidential and is not treated 
as a record (537). I am just as interested in 
getting the best teachers for Dunbar as I am 
in getting the best teachers for the other high 
schools. 1 remember recommending Miss Betty 
Obenshain for her appointment at $810. I of­
fered her more than 1 offered Miss Brumfield 
because I thought she was worth more. I used 
as a basis for arriving at the conclusion all the 
information I had at the time the appointment 
was made. Perhaps there is some of that in­
formation attached here (application). This 
form of application was not sent by me to the 
people. I have not used these forms since my 
administration, that is, 1940. This application 
had been pending a year before my tenure 
(539). I don’t recall that I had recommenda­
tion blanks. I don’t see anything further in the 
folder that would give me reason to give her 
more than Miss Brumfield. Miss Brumfield has 
more professional training than Miss Oben­
shain. The personal interview with Miss Oben­
shain was a large part of it. The other was what 
other information I had at hand. I don’t know 
what there is at the present time. I don’t recall 
whether I tried to find out from her teachers



196

what kind of teacher she was. I do in many 
cases. I cannot now testify definitely as to 
what, in my mind, made me think she was a 
better teacher. The appointment was over a 
year ago (540).

Miss Stella Grogan was appointed during 
my administration. There is nothing in the ap­
plication blank which would justify my giving 
her more than Miss Brumfield except perhaps 
longer experience. I offered her $810. Miss 
Grogan is white. At the present time, I am not 
sure why I offered her $810.

I recommended Miss Dixie Jane Wyatt, 
B.S. in home economics from the University of 
Arkansas (541). Bernice Bass, the home eco­
nomics teacher at Dunbar had several years of 
experience (541). Miss Wyatt, now Dixie Dean 
Spears, receives $900. She had practically no 
experience, one semester. I paid her more than 
I paid Miss Bass because I thought she was 
worth more. I used as a basis for arriving at 
that conclusion all of the facts that I had at the 
time the appointment was made (542). Per­
haps I should have said information, the result 
of my interview and the information I had 
from the placement bureau or college, my esti­
mate of her work. I think that Miss Bass is a 
good teacher. If everything else was equal, I 
would think that of two good teachers being 
considered, the one with the more experience



197

would be preferable. As to gambling on Miss 
Wyatt, we always gamble on new teachers. At 
that stage, I was not gambling on Miss Bass. 
I was willing to gamble on a teacher and pay 
her a hundred and some dollars more than I 
would pay a teacher I knew about. That 
is one of the risks of my job (543). The major­
ity of the information I received about Miss 
Bass was from other people. They were people 
in my School System that I had faith and confi­
dence in. I am still willing to pay this new 
teacher and gamble on her and pay her more. 
I was likewise willing to gamble on Miss Britt, 
and made a bad mistake.

I think I recall Mr. Otis Thackery Harris. 
He has now gone to the army. He has a degree 
from Hampton Institute, Hampton, Virginia, 
an accredited college. In his file, there is a long 
letter from the placement bureau of Hampton 
about his qualifications (544). I offered him 
$630 as a teacher at Dunbar. In that case, I had 
something in addition to his application blank, 
to which I give some credit. That is one of the 
factors. Mr. Harris didn’t succeed in getting 
above $630, because as a result of the interview, 
I did not think he was worth more than that. 
The interview partly determined what salary 
they were going to get. I would say that it 
determines a large part (545). I cannot find out 
much about the teacher’s ability from an inter-



198

view outside of my estimate of their character 
and personality. You can ask your professional 
questions and it will give you inside knowledge 
and what they know about the general picture 
of education, and you can get a fairly good idea, 
and I gamble, in my opinion, on that. It is not 
true that I am not willing to gamble over $630 
on a negro teacher. So far, I have not. I think 
the record shows that I have not taken a gamble 
on any white teacher under $810 since I have 
been here. Mr. Harris was here a short time 
and went to the Military Service (546). I don’t 
recall whether the recommendation from the 
professor for Miss Isgrig was better than this 
one for Mr. Harris. I believe it was of a higher 
order; although I thought his a good recom­
mendation. I don’t think I ever gave more 
credit to Miss Isgrig’s recommendation than I 
did to Mr. Harris’ . I paid Miss Isgrig more. 
They have comparable professional qualifica­
tions and neither had any previous experience. 
The difference in the salary brackets is my 
judgment (547). It is my judgment now. I 
doubt if there is anything in the blank on Miss 
Rhoda Wharry to justify my paying her more 
than Miss Brumfield or Mr. Harris. I used my 
professional evaluation of her to pay her more. 
Most of it came from my personal interview.

The application of Miss Elizabeth Axley 
shows that she has an A.B. from the University



199

of Arkansas. At this point, I think she is equal 
to Mr. Harris and a little bit behind Miss Brum­
field (548). She had some experience. She has 
taught in the West Side Junior High School for 
four years and left in 1930. This is thirty-one 
months. She had been out of the teaching pro­
fession since 1930. A part of that time, she had 
been a school clerk. I paid her more because I 
thought she was worth what we gave her. To 
determine that, I observed her work as a clerk 
and had numerous interviews. A good clerk 
does not necessarily make a good teacher. Most 
of the difference comes from the interview 
(549). Miss Tessie Lewis was appointed since 
I have been here, at Dunbar, a negro teacher 
with a salary of $630. Her application blank 
shows that she has a Bachelor’s credit from 
Dillard University, an accredited college (530), 
and has comparable professional qualifications. 
The records show one year experience in 
Homer, Louisiana. I don’t recall whether I had 
information on her standing at Dillard or not. 
I can give no reason why she falls in the $630 
level, except in my judgment, that is what she 
was worth. If I had before me a recommenda­
tion from the head of the practice school at 
Dillard saying that she was the best teacher ever 
to go through Dillard, it might have changed 
my recommendation (551). I do not recall that 
I asked for it. It is not true that as between



200

the two groups, I wrote to get the recommenda­
tion and the reputation as to white teachers and 
not as to colored teachers. I think perhaps it is 
true so far as I have been asked by you (Mr. 
Marshall). I have every reason to believe that 
an A.B. awarded from Dillard would be a good 
degree. That would be true about the degree 
of Miss Isgrig. I asked about Miss Isgrig because 
I did not think my information was complete 
enough. I don’t recall about the additional in­
formation I had about Miss Lewis (552). I know 
I had information that each had an A.B. I don’t 
know whether I did or did not get more infor­
mation on Miss Isgrig and not any on Miss 
Lewis. The file might or might not show it 
here. If I were getting the information, I would 
not have telephoned Dillard. I would have sent 
a wire or a letter, and according to my routine 
in the office, the chances are that it would ap­
pear in this application blank. It does not ap­
pear. I am not sure that it is the conclusion that 
I did not get any further information. There is 
some further information on her here. If she 
taught a year under our rules and regulations, 
the transcript would be filed. I do not know that 
the transcript was filed before she was appoint­
ed (553). The transcript might have been there 
and it might not. If it was there, it was 
taken out and put in the regular files for in­
formation as required by the rules of the Board.



201

So far as all of these teachers we have examined, 
my judgment is the controlling factor as to 
what makes the difference.

We make no definite distinction in the com­
mercial subjects as to salary. I appointed Miss 
Marguerite Pope. Her application blank shows 
that she has a B.S. in business administration 
from the University of Arkansas, which is com­
parable to an A.B. Her experience is one 
semester (554). She says that she will accept 
$85 per month. I appointed her at a salary of 
$900, which is more than $85 a month, because 
I thought she was worth it. We have many ap­
plicants that offer to take much less than we 
pay them, so that doesn’t enter into my mind 
very much. As to what makes her worth so 
much to the School System, I thought she was 
worth more. That is my judgment, and she was 
worth more because I put all the things to­
gether that I knew about her. I recall that her 
application shows that she was a cum  laude  
graduate. That would affect my judgment some 
(555). As a result of the interview, she demon­
strated to me that I could risk the judgment of 
that much on her. As a matter of fact, it so 
happens that the intangible idea in my mind, 
namely, my judgment, determined this to a 
great extent. I cannot say why* my judgment 
always runs along in certain figures, namely, 
$615 and $630 for negroes, and $810 and $900



202

for white teachers. I feel sure that race does 
not enter into it. I will deny that race enters 
into it at all. Race does not enter into it at all 
in the formation of my judgment. I do know 
which teachers are white and which teachers 
are colored when I am sizing them up. I know 
it from the application blank (556). Sometimes 
I know it from the picture filed with the ap­
plication. I know it from personal interview. 
I remember appointing Miss Martha Thomas. 
She has a B.S.E. from Arkansas State Teachers 
College, which is comparable to Miss Brum­
field’s degree from Talladega. She has three 
years and one-half experience at a salary of 
$810. She is white (557). To explain the differ­
ence between her salary and Miss Brumfield’s, 
I thought that at the time of the appointment, 
she was worth more. I don’t think the differ­
ence is in the application. The difference is in 
my mind, in my judgment.

Miss Mary Pence Parson has a B.A. in 
Physical Education from the University of 
Maryland with three years’ experience in the 
Fort Smith High School. She was willing to 
take $700; I gave her $900, which was $200 
more than she was willing to work for, because 
I thought she was worth it (558). One would 
deduce from the application that Miss Parson, 
in her own mind, considered herself as worth 
just $70 a year more than Miss Brumfield. I



203

decided to give her the $200 more than Miss 
Brumfield because she was worth more. I 
doubt if I can give anything tangible to go on 
other than what is in my mind.

I remember appointing David Garner Lloyd 
Foster, a negro, with a B.S .in industrial arts 
and education from Hampton Institute with 
one year’s experience in West Charlotte High 
School. His application does not show what 
salary he would accept (579). I paid him at the 
rate of $765, and he served only a few days as 
I recall. I paid him higher than the usual salary 
for Dunbar School teachers for beginning 
teachers, partly because of the subject he was 
teaching and partly because I thought he was 
a good man. He was teaching industrial arts. 
There is frequently a difference made in the 
subject, between this and regular subjects. No 
difference is made for the white or colored 
teachers. Figures will show that the industrial 
teachers got more than the regular teachers. 
That partly accounts for the fact that he got 
more (560). He was here only a few days when 
he went into the Military Service and was mus­
tered out and then drafted back. I would not 
compare these teachers that I have appointed 
in vocations and printing and subjects like that 
with regular classroom teachers. I get a part of 
the money I pay the colored teachers from the 
Federal Government under the Smith-Hughes



204

and Lever Act. I don’t compare the vocation 
and printing teachers with anybody in the negro 
high school. They are not on a comparable 
level (561). I don’t know that I have any voca­
tions in the Dunbar High School, so I cannot 
compare vocation teachers. We have some 
printing done at Dunbar. I do not recall 
whether I have a regular printing teacher. I 
don’t believe I could compare the printing 
teacher at the high school with anybody at 
Dunbar.

1 appointed Miss Wanda Leatherman, 
white, with a B.S. with minor as primary edu­
cation from the Texas State Teachers College 
for Women, an accredited school, with only 
practice teaching in the college schools amount­
ing to about four months. At the time of my 
appointment, I had information from her col­
lege to show what kind of a practice teacher she 
made. It is not here (562). I don’t recall 
whether I had a record of Miss Brumfield. I 
happened to remember her in this case because 
it is just a recent appointment. I think she pre­
sented it without writing. I don’t have here 
which way I got my information on this. On 
this basis, I decided she (Miss Leatherman) was 
worth $810. As part of the reason I paid her 
more than I paid Miss Brumfield and the other 
negro teachers new to the System is the fact 
that I remembered the statement from her prac­



205

tice teacher, and I had the information from 
the placement bureau which does not appear 
in the application blank (563).

Nancy Dowell, a white teacher, with an 
A.B. from Hendricks College, qualified a little 
less than Miss Brumfield, and has done grad­
uate work, one semester’s experience in prac­
tice teaching, Forest Park School, receives $810. 
I gave her more in my judgment of her (564). 
I don’t know whether I had any other informa­
tion or not (565).

Mr. Brotherton, white, has a B.S. from Ar­
kansas State Teachers College in Education and 
from the George Peabody School for Teachers, 
an accredited school (566). Mr. Wilson, at Dun­
bar, has a Master’s degree. I agreed to pay Mr. 
Brotherton $1,575. I am paying Mr. Wilson 
$1,039. He has nine years’ experience in the 
Little Rock School System, and nine years out­
side of Little Rock. He is a good teacher. The 
qualifications are the same (567). Mr. Brother- 
ton has a total of about seven years of ex­
perience and a little bit over, which is less than 
Mr. Wilson had here in Little Rock. Generally 
speaking, in evaluating experience, we give 
more credit for experience in Little Rock than 
outside. To explain why I paid Mr. Brotherton 
more as a new teacher than I paid Mr. Wilson, 
Mr. Brotherton is assistant coach in the senior 
high school (568), and his administration and



206

experience as superintendent and principal, we 
considered made him more valuable. There are 
several assistant coaches in the white high 
school. I named about four yesterday and this 
is another one we have to have for all the boys 
up there. I think in general sometimes being 
assistant coach enters into the consideration for 
their salary. I don’t know whether that enters 
into the salary of any of the Dunbar teachers 
who happen to be assistant coaches. I have 
no report of the number of assistant coaches. 
In fixing the salary of the white teachers, it is 
probably true that I take into consideration the 
fact that they are assistant coaches, and in this 
case, it is definitely so. He was hired for that 
definite purpose. In fixing the salary of the 
negro teachers, I tried to find out if they were 
assistant coaches, and if they were hired for 
that specific purpose. I have no report on what 
individuals in Dunbar are assistant coaches 
(569). I don’t know all of the individuals at 
the white high school who act as assistant 
coaches, but I do know some of them. It proba­
bly enters into the consideration of the salaries. 
In this case, specifically it did. The fact that I 
take into consideration as to the white teachers 
and do not take into consideration as to the 
colored teachers would tend to make a differ­
ence in salary.

Miss Mary Lee Wilson was appointed just 
recently. She is a white teacher with an A.B.



207

from the College of the Ozarks, not an ac­
credited school. On the face of her professional 
qualifications, they are much less than Miss 
Brumfield’s, who is a graduate from an ac­
credited school with graduate work in another 
accredited school (570). She has twenty-four 
months in school in Lamar, which is probably 
three years’ experience, and she has two years 
or eighteen months in the schools of Rogers, 
Arkansas. She was a music teacher with a total 
of five years’ experience. She has been em­
ployed as music and auditorium teacher in one 
of the smaller schools at $810. She is paid more 
than Miss Brumfield because I thought she was 
worth that. I am willing to risk it that she is 
worth more than a negro teacher in the ele­
mentary system who has been teaching for five 
years (571). I believe we do pay some new 
white teachers more than I pay all colored teach­
ers who have been in the System four or five 
years teaching academic subjects. There is 
Vera Eason, appointed this year teaching com­
mercial at senior high school. We don’t make 
any difference on this subject (572). I said that 
industrial teachers who had had training in a 
commercial office were worth more money. I 
don’t think the comparison would be exactly 
the same with a regular teacher. In paying new 
teachers less than I pay the new teacher with 
experience, their experience frequently enters



208

into my determination in judgment (573). I 
don’t think that there are any instances where 
I have put new white teachers without any ex­
perience over a white teacher with experience 
(573). I consider these white teachers, as indi­
viduals, as being better teachers than the negro 
teachers with experience in Little Rock. A part 
of the teachers in Dunbar get less than $810. 
I don’t think that it is true that the teachers in 
Dunbar who are getting less than that with ex­
perience running into a number of years are 
less valuable than these new teachers. I pay 
them less than I pay the new white teachers 
because I think they are worth less. 1 have to 
gamble on a teacher (574). We have to gamble 
as to replacements. I think that it is correct that 
I have paid every new white teacher more than 
some negro teachers already in the System, and 
good teachers.

Mrs. Douglas, white, is a graduate of Texas 
State College for Women in Denton, Texas, an 
accredited school, in home economics. She 
doesn’t specifically mention her degree (576). 
I think she has a degree, but she doesn’t have 
any better degree than that of Miss Bass. For 
experience, she has ten months in Cotton Cen­
ter High School, Cotton Center, Texas, and 
supervisor of home economics of the NYA 
project for the term of six months some place 
in Texas. I employed her to teach home eco­



209

nomics at East Side Junior High School at a 
salary of $990. I don’t know what other in­
formation I had besides her application blank, 
except what I derived from the interview (577). 
During the interview, she demonstrated to me 
that she would be a capable risk. I know Ber­
nice Bass is a good teacher. I was gambling on 
this one. I offered her more than I offered Miss 
Bass, based on my interview (578).

Miss Catherine Mitchell was appointed a 
little over a month ago. She is white, has a B.S. 
in physical education from Baylor University, 
an accredited school, with no formal experience 
except as a director of a girls’ camp. I would 
not compare that with actual teaching in public 
schools (580). She was hired to teach physical 
education at Senior High School at $990. I do 
not usually pay more for physical education 
teachers. I don’t recall a physical education 
teacher at Dunbar High School.

Mrs. Alfie Peacock, white, has been ap­
pointed since I have been here at $810 in the 
elementary schools (581). She has an A.B. from 
Hendricks and one eight weeks’ course at 
Wheaton College. It is accredited. I would say 
that her degree and Miss Brumfield’s degree 
and the degree of the other negroes are com­
parable. She reported twenty-three months in 
the sixth grade of the Dumas Public School, 
Dumas, Arkansas. That would be over two



210

years on a nine-month basis, and is little less 
than three on a eight-month basis. I agreed to 
pay her $810 because I thought she was worth 
it (582). I did not have anything there in the 
application that would limit the value of it. I 
do not have anything else other than my own 
personal interview (583).

Mrs. Lena Mae Crain has been appointed 
since I have been superintendent to Wilson 
Elementary School. She is white, her salary is 
$810. She has a B.S.E. from the Arkansas State 
Teachers, two years at Hughes, Arkansas, and 
about two eight-month terms in the Burdette 
Schools, Burdette, Arkansas, a few months over 
four years in all. In my judgment, I thought 
she was worth $810. I think there is nothing 
else outside of the information I obtained at 
the personal interview (584). I remember ap­
pointing Miss Michey Johnson, a negro, in the 
high school, at a salary of $630. She has a 
diploma from the Dunbar Junior College of 
Little Rock and has completed the requirements 
for the A.B. at Wiley College, Marshall, Texas, 
an accredited school. She says the diploma will 
be conferred on June 2, 1942. This application 
was evidently filed prior to that time, and she 
did finish her college work last spring (586). I 
think she has an A.B. now. She has no ex­
perience except practice teaching. I don’t know 
what kind of a practice teacher she made. I



211

don’t think I tried to find out. I don’t recall in 
this case whether I did or not. On the basis of 
her record and these other application blanks 
of teachers who have been considered without 
experience and comparable training, in my 
judgment, I thought she was worth $630 com­
pared with the $900 offered to teachers in the 
white high school. In my judgment, she is 
worth less than $900. I thought she was worth 
about $630 (587). I had a talk with her. I doubt 
that I had a personal interview with this teacher. 
There may have been seven negroes appointed 
since I have been here that I did not interview. 
In some instances, they couldn’t have the bene­
fit of talking to me. Of two teachers with the 
same qualifications and experience, one having 
a good interview and making a good impres­
sion, and one not so fortunate to have an inter­
view, it might be that the one who didn’t have 
an interview might get less salary. I rely largely 
on the supervisor to tell me what kind of teach­
ers I have at Dunbar. The home economics 
sponsor told me that Miss Bass is a good teacher. 
I have to rely on her (588). I paid her less than 
the new home economics teachers I hired that I 
didn’t know anything about except an inter­
view with her, because in the exercise of my 
judgment, that was the conclusion I reached. I 
often try in the case of all home economics 
teachers to have the supervisor interview them



2 1 2

also and elaborate my judgment. As to home 
economics teachers, I would say that their 
demonstration on the job would be worth more 
than talking to the teacher. This year I raised 
Bernice Bass to $720. This is partly on the 
recommendation of the supervisor that she was 
a very good teacher. I have every reason to be­
lieve that she is a good teacher (589). As to the 
white home economics teachers I hire, I did not 
know either myself or from a supervisor as to 
what kind of teacher she was. The only thing I 
had to go on was what I got from talking to 
her and from what the sponsor got from talk­
ing to her. I don’t know what investigation the 
sponsor made in addition to that. From that, I 
decided that she was worth more than Miss Bass. 
As to the rating sheets, they are subjective rat­
ings and cannot be measured mathematically. 
There are probably some mistakes in there. 
Miss Britt is rated a three average (590). She 
was so bad I had to let her go. I have not used 
the rating and have not claimed definite 
accuracy for it. They are always lacking when 
from opinion. They are used primarily for 
the purpose of helping the teacher, pointing out 
the weaknesses of the teacher and are given to 
the teacher so that she knows her rating. I do 
not know what the practice is in giving the 
rating to the teacher. In many cases, it is given 
the teacher. It is also given to the supervsior to



213

have the supervisor help the teacher (591). I 
don’t believe they are ever used for the pur­
pose of fixing salary. It would be rare in­
stances if they were. These rating sheets were 
not given to the teacher. Copies of them were 
not given to them. The only instructions I have 
given the supervisors is that this would be the 
basis for analysis for improving the various 
points they feel needed improving. I think they 
do that. They have been supervisors for a long 
time. I rely on their judgment as to that. I said 
that you couldn’t rate teachers in groups. I 
think salary levels could be fixed on two items, 
experience and qualifications (592). In Jeffer­
son City, I paid them on a schedule on these 
two items alone as to salary. You can set up an 
arbitrary rating if you want to. In those sys­
tems where they use them with a fixed salary 
schedule, I think it is true that they use these 
rating sheets where there is a fixed salary 
schedule. These rating sheets are professional 
documents aimed at the improving of the pro­
fessional ability of the teacher. I won’t testify 
as to their absolute accuracy. They are opin­
ions. It is difficult to determine what the 
accuracy of an opinion is.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

I do not have before me all the verbal and 
written evidence that I had before me at the



214

time I made my investigation of these appli­
cants who were subsequently appointed (593). 
In some cases I had written testimony before 
that I do not now have. After the appointment 
has been made, 1 do not consider it valuable in­
formation, and it is confidential information 
anyway, so it is destroyed. Most of these folders 
contain only the applications and picture and 
letter appointing the applicant, and some don’t 
have that much. In some cases, we receive 
forms of recommendation from the colleges 
these teachers have attended, and from the re­
placement bureau, some we did not. Some are 
in the files when the colleges do not request 
that they be returned, and in some cases, they 
are returned. It is not my policy to keep the 
letters of recommendation written from the dif­
ferent colleges. After the appointment, it is my 
policy to destroy those (594). I am not able to 
say now with reference to each application what 
I had before me at the time I appointed or 
recommended for appointment. There are too 
many of them. At the time I made my recom­
mendation, I exercised my best judgment. The 
question of color did not enter into that. I have 
said that Bernice Britt and Mr. McCallop were 
mistakes of judgment on my part. I do not re­
call any others during the year as absolutely 
as those two were. Some teachers justify your 
best judgment and some do not, but the degree



215

of variance is rather wide. In my interviewing 
and examining candidates, I do not necessarily 
accept degrees as being comparable, but when 
I say comparable, I mean comparable from the 
standpoint of credit basis (595). In interview­
ing applicants for appointment, if one was an 
honor student and another was a reasonably 
good student, it would depend on what my im­
pression of the candidate was with a cum  laude, 
what he had besides the records. Some very 
excellent students don’t make good teachers, 
but in general, the better student makes the 
better teacher. The rating sheets in evidence do 
tend to show the respective teaching abilities 
of the individual teachers. They are designed 
for that purpose.

“Q. Do they form a test by which to judge 
the suitability of salaries as compared to teach­
ing ability?

“A. Oh, I would say they would measure 
in the sense the same factors upon which worth 
is determined.”

I think they are the best measure of sub­
jective judgment we have (596).

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

It is my policy to destroy the information 
in these application blanks in some cases, at 
least the new ones. In a majority of the cases



216

handed to me it is still there, and it is in many 
cases. What I was trying to infer is that the files 
are not complete. I think that in some of them, 
I destroyed it and in some I did not. My inten­
tion was to destroy it. I do not have a definite 
policy. The only policy we have is that the in­
formation we have after the appointment is 
made is not significant. The folder is left to 
the clerks in the office, but from our standpoint, 
we do not care whether it is in there or not, but 
would prefer it to be cut because it is not sig­
nificant. I don’t recall anyone about which I 
testified this morning where there is some writ­
ten information that wasn’t in the folder. Some 
of the old application blanks have information 
in them (579).

S u s ie  M o r r is , a  w i t n e s s  o n  h e r  o w n  b e h a l f  
r e c a l l e d ,  t e s t i f i e d  a s  f o l l o w s  o n

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

I was granted a divorce in December, 1939. 
My husband’s name was Robert Morris (598). 
I went to the Chancery Court here in Little Rock 
and depositions were taken and everything else 
pursuant to getting a divorce, and everything 
else was turned over to my lawyer. I don’t re­
member the Judge’s name. It was in the Court 
House here. My attorney was J. R. Booker, and 
to my knowledge, it was granted by the Chan­
cery Court.



217

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
I left it entirely in the hands of my lawyer 

(599). I told him to get me a divorce. I went to 
the Court House and was asked some questions 
and was told I had a divorce, but I have not mar­
ried since and have had no reason to look on 
the record (600).

Here the plaintiffs announced they rested.
Whereupon the defendants, to sustain the 

issues on their part, introduced evidence as fol­
lows:

R o b e r t  M. W il l ia m s , b e in g  f i r s t  d u l y  
s w o r n ,  t e s t i f i e d  a s  f o l l o w s  o n

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I am a member of the Little Rock School 
Board. I am General Agent for the John Han­
cock Mutual Life Insurance Company of Bos­
ton. Mr. Jennings is a representative of Chrys­
ler and Plymouth. Mr. Murray 0. Reed is an at­
torney, and Mrs. McDermott is now head of the 
Family Service Bureau. She was formerly Pro­
bation Officer. Mr. Blakely is a practicing phy­
sician. Mrs. Rawlings was formerly a school 
teacher, she is a widow and has independent 
means of her own (601). This covers all of the 
Board members. I have been on the Board since 
March, 1939. My first two years, I served as Sec­
retary, and the third year I served as President. 
I don’t think I have ever served on the teachers



2 1 8

cominiltee. During the time that I have served 
on the Board, 1 have not found that the Board 
has in use a teachers’ salary schedule of any 
kind. I have never seen such a schedule and 
none has been discussed at the Board meetings 
((502). The Board has never instructed the sup­
erintendent or the teachers committee to use 
certain figures in employing teachers. The 
question of race and color has never been dis­
cussed at the Board meetings or at a teachers 
committee. Usually, the Board adopts the rec­
ommendations of the teachers committee, and 
occasionally some Board members asked a 
question about their recommendation. The rec­
ommendations of the personnel committee are 
presented and somebody brings up the name 
of this teacher, and then the general Board 
adopts it (603). The Board recommends teach­
ers on the qualification basis and the recom­
mendations of the superintendent, the super­
visors and the personnel committee as to their 
fitness, qualifications and ability to teach in the 
public schools. I absolutely do consider the 
teaching ability as part of their qualifications. 
Personally, I do pay attention to the question 
of character. I lay a great deal of stress on char­
acter. Applicants frequently come to see me 
first and to discuss the probability of getting on 
the School Board and to solicit my support or 
interest. I do not attempt to pass upon the 
character of applicants (604). That would be



219

impossible with at least three or lour hundred 
teachers. It would be impossible to bring be­
fore the Board the contracts of salary and go 
into detail. The work is delegated to the super­
intendent and the supervisors and the princi­
pals. 1 served on a committee to investigate cer­
tain activities of Mr. Lewis at Dunbar. The 
committee called Mr. Lewis before it. Some ir­
regularities had been reported to us, and we 
desired to discuss them with Mr. Lewis. He 
came before the Board (605).

(Plaintiff objected to introduction of testi­
mony to show irregularities of Mr. Lewis; the 
Court sustained the objection, pages 605-607.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION

I have not been in a position to pass on 
qualifications or to make appraisal of character 
and standing of teachers in toto, but individual­
ly, I have. I examined the qualifications of Mrs. 
Runyan. Recently she made application and 
talked to me about it. It turned out we recom­
mended her, but her husband received some sort 
of job and was removed from Little Rock, and 
she did not take it. She was never employed 
and did not come into the System (608). I can­
not recall specifically any other teachers. I 
wouldn’t say that I haven’t evaluated them. 
When I first got on the Board, there was quite a 
number of them. I have only had occasion to



2 2 0

pass on salary recommendations from the re­
port of the personnel committee that comes to 
the Board. I don’t recall that I have differed 
with the committee on its recommendation. 
There have been times when I have thought 
twice. I don’t know as I ever noticed before I 
got here in this court room that negro teachers 
began at a salary of $615 and $630 (609). I have 
noticed it since I came into the courtroom, and 
from the testimony that teachers in negro high 
schools began at $630. I have also noticed that 
teachers in the white high school begin at a sal­
ary of $810. I have it in mind that they begin 
in the senior high at $900. The policy of the 
Board has been to adopt the recommendation 
of the superintendent and the personnel com­
mittee since 1939 (610).

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

I have never seen plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 4. 
I have not seen such an instrument in a meeting 
of the School Board. To my knowledge, the 
School Board has. never adopted a schedule 
which that purports to be (611).

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

As a member of the School Board, I am 
willing to rest upon the minutes as to the adop­
tion of this document (612).



2 2 1

C h a r l e s  R. H a m il t o n , sworn as a witness 
on behalf of the defendants, and testified as 
follows on

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I have been supervisor of Dunbar High 
School and principal of Garland School and di­
rector of the school census. I graduated from 
the Lebanon University several years ago and 
went to Wilmington College and took my B.S. 
there. It is located in Ohio. It is a Christian col­
lege, and I went then to the University of Cin­
cinnati and there had my college credits evalu­
ated. I did not obtain a degree from the latter 
college, but I did go there five summers, I be­
lieve, and got all my academic credits, with the 
exception of the final approval of the thesis for 
a Master of Arts Degree. I did not obtain a de­
gree, because after I had submitted and started 
on the thesis, they asked me to do further work 
on it. They asked to do some work on it that 
would entail work in Ohio during the school 
year. I did not feel that I could do that work on 
School Board time (613). I have been a profes­
sional educator over 30 years. I began at Ron­
deau, near Texarkana, Arkansas, and was there 
four months. I took sick with typhoid fever and 
could not complete the term. I went from there 
to Fouke, Arkansas, a high school, and came to 
Little Rock in 1911. I have been principal of 
Garland School, principal of Mitchell School



2 2 2

and principal of the Teacher Training School, 
which was Rose School before it became the 
Junior College (614). At the same time, I was 
supervisor of arithmetic and went around to all 
of the schools; then I was principal of West Side 
Junior High for two years, and then for five 
years after that, I supervised the colored schools 
all over, including elementary and primary and 
junior college. I was the General Education 
Board Supervisor of the program for five years, 
partially under the Little Rock School Board. 
An effort was made to extend the time and give 
us more money, and half of my salary and half 
of the salaries of several of the teachers was 
paid through the General Education Board. 
After that five years, they changed the program 
and added the principalship of Garland School, 
which is an elementary school, and my entire 
salary after that came from the School Board 
(615). My present work is principal of Garland 
School and supervisor of Dunbar High School 
and Director of the Census. I don’t know just 
the exact hours I spend at Dunbar. I go there 
somewhere near the middle of the noon and 
usually stay until school is out (616). I don’t 
miss very many days over the period of a week, 
unless I am working on the census. As super­
visor, I do a little administrative consultation 
with Professor Lewis. I go to the rooms and 
supervise; I hold meetings of the teachers once 
or twice a month, unless we are disturbed and



223

do not have them. I do anything that will 
help supervision. We get our courses of study, 
and we hold meetings for conferences. I think 
I have visited every teacher’s room in Dunbar.
I do not keep an accurate record. There are 40 
odd teachers there. I try to apportion my time 
among them. I may go into the classroom and 
somebody call me out, and I may go in there 
and stay ten, fifteen or twenty minutes, and I 
may stay a period of forty minutes (617). I 
think I am personally and professionally ac­
quainted with each of the teachers at Dunbar. 
I went there about 13 years ago, exactly the 
same month Professor Lewis did, and I have 
been there since. I was given a rating sheet for 
the purpose of rating the teachers’ abilities in 
April, I think (618). Prior to the school year of 
1941-1942, I was in the habit of rating teaching 
ability, and I have done that for a long time, 
many years, but it may not be in the same man­
ner. We have had a rating sheet like defendants’ 
Exhibit No. 1 for some time (619). I was given 
this rating sheet early in the year, but I can’t 
recall whether it was before the suit was filed. 
We have had rating sheets of various kinds. We 
have had several like this one. When Mr. Hall 
was superintendent, we had rating sheets (620). 
Defendants’ Exhibit No. 5 is the rating sheet, 
showing the teacher’s name, the school and the 
grade (621). Her name is in my handwriting. 
It was compiled at Dunbar April 1. Mr. Lewis



2 2 1

and Mr. Scobee and I were there. I brought it 
from the meeting and took it to Mr. Scobee’s 
office, and it has been in possession of the 
School Board since then. I made no changes in 
it (622). This particular sheet is divided into 
three columns (623). It is my best judgment 
that this is my handwriting on this sheet. The 
first point is evidence of plan. It is number two, 
development of objectives is two, subject- 
matter of scholarship is one, maintenance of 
class standards is two, use of recognized meth­
ods is two, class atmosphere is two, recognition 
of individual difference is two, pupil response 
is two, skill in questioning is two, attention to 
room condition is two, professional relations is 
two, esteem of parents is one, class organization 
is two, use of teaching materials is two, com­
munity activities is two, personal example is 
two. On the three-column tabulation, 2 would 
represent the average teacher. She (Susie 
Morris) has three l ’s and the rest are 2’s. 
That indicates that she is slightly better than 
the average teacher (625). I have marked all of 
the rating sheets in my own handwriting. At 
the time the rating of Susie Morris was compil­
ed, Mr. Lewis concurred in the rating. The ques­
tion of salary was not considered in making 
these individual ratings (626). I consider J. L. 
Wilson a good teacher, one of the best in Dun­
bar. I think Mr. Scott is a very good teacher



225

(628). I wouldn’t think that the teachers of 
Dunbar and Garland are on a comparable basis. 
So far as teaching abilities are concerned, they 
may be compared as to certain things; they 
have plans. Development of objective would be 
a comparable ground. So would subject matter 
and scholarship, maintenance of class stand­
ards, use of recognized methods (629). The use 
of plans probably would be different in the dif­
ferent schools (629). You get a different re­
sponse from a senior high school class and from 
a primary class. I have no objection to compar­
ing teachers at Dunbar with teachers in Garland, 
except there is a difference in classrooms; one 
is a high school, junior high, and one is primary 
and elementary.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

I believe I started working on my Masters 
Degree in 1929 (630). I went five summers alto­
gether on graduate work. I have all of the aca­
demic work. The thesis has not been approved 
yet. Several of the teachers I supervise have 
degrees from accredited colleges, comparable 
to the University of Cincinnati, as University 
of Kansas. Mr. Scott not only has a Masters De­
gree, but has worked on his Ph.D. (631). He is 
under my supervision. There are twelve teach­
ers in the elementary school of which I am prin­
cipal. There are around 400 students in my 
school. I do not know that I have ever complain­



2 2 6

ed to Miss Susie Morris about her teaching. It 
may be that I have complimented her on her 
teaching. A majority of 'the teachers are average 
teachers. Miss Morris is an average teacher ac­
cording to that plan (632). I consider her an 
average teacher. On a five-column basis, I 
would rate Miss Morris average (633, 634). 
When I rated her in April, I considered her a 
little better than average. I agreed to that with 
Professor Lewis. He did not say she was just 
an average teacher, but we agreed on these opin­
ions together. I don’t remember that Mr. Lewis 
said to me that Miss Susie Morris was an average 
teacher. I imagine he gave her a rating; we were 
there together. I don’t remember his saying 
what group she was in (634). Subsequent to that 
rating sheet, I did not ask him to send in a list. 
I received a list; I didn’t know what it was. I 
had not requested it. I do not remember that 
Susie Morris is on that list. These markings are 
my judgment with Professor Lewis. On evi­
dence of plans, I see their plans when they come 
in to me. I have not looked at Susie Morris’ les­
son plan. Not all plans are written out. They do 
have written plans. I have not seen her written 
plan (635). The development of objective 
means that in every class the teacher attempts 
to develop certain things, depending upon the 
class she is teaching. You can tell soon after you 
go into the class whether she has some objective. 
I think her supervisors have watched her devel­



227

opment of objectives. I have never told her 
what course to follow. On this particular 
course, I have discussed objectives with her 
(636). I have an idea as to the difference in 
teaching, including the difference between in­
tellectual approach and objective approach. I 
think I could rate the courses on a point like 
that. My general work gives me that idea. Some 
of it is the graduate work that I have done for 
my M.A. I have not built up any one lesson plan 
for Susie Morris from beginning to end. In her 
classroom, you can see and hear them. I think 
I have done something other than walk into 
Susie Morris’ classroom and look at the level of 
where the shades were and the class board. I 
have supervised (637). I have looked at how 
she was teaching and compared it with another 
teacher. I don’t recall specifically finding some­
thing that she was not doing just right. In so 
far as I know, she was doing things right in her 
teaching. I was a principal of a white junior 
high school about 14 years ago. I think the 
methods of teaching in high school have chang­
ed since then. I have tried to keep abreast (638). 
I graded her as two on use of recognized meth­
ods. I considered what you read about and what 
educators have said. When you talk about 
methods, you talk about approach to a subject. 
Her department helps to develop the course of 
study she followed. She was chairman. I don’t 
appoint the chairman, Mr. Lewis does (639). I



228

don’t supervise that. Mr. Lewis knows the teach­
ers; he knows who is best. I don’t attempt to 
know them. I can rate them, because I have 
visited them and supervised them, and I also 
do some administrative work. I always talk 
with Professor Lewis about the teachers. When 
I find an inefficient teacher, I talk to him about 
it. I do not necessarily recommend that she 
leave. I talk to Mr. Scobee, because that is my 
duty (639). I know who are the assistant 
coaches at Dunbar. To a certain extent, I know 
which teachers do extra curricula work. Upon 
recognition of individual differences, I gave 
Miss Morris two. I based it on the methods that 
she used, for this child and this child, and I 
think I have seen her take the so-called “slow” 
child and give him special attention (641). I 
don’t know that she is one teacher where every 
child gets individual attention. I don’t pretend 
to know all about her. You must remember this 
is half of my opinion, the other half is Profes­
sor Lewis’. I cannot state positively that Profes­
sor Lewis gave me the information for the rat­
ing sheet on Susie Morris, but it seems to me 
that we agreed on it. That is what I thought we 
did. We both got down there together (642). I 
did not take the three-column sheet and put it 
on a five-column sheet. I made one in compari­
son with the elementary school teachers (643). 
I testified that it was practically impossible to 
do it. I did the best I could. In comparing the



229

two, I think she is inferior to the elementary 
school teachers. The methods might be differ­
ent in some cases. English is taught as a special 
subject beginning about the third grade. You 
do not use exactly the same methods of teaching 
English in the third grade as in high school 
(644). As a general rule, for both you will have 
certain objectives and certain plans. The course 
of study is entirely different. Class administra­
tion would be better. You are supposed to have 
as much diagram in the elementary school as in 
the high school. You don’t ask the same ques­
tions in the high school as you do in the elemen­
tary. The two are not comparable (645). I com­
pared each teacher in general with Susie Morris. 
I believe I was asked to make this comparison 
in May of this year. I was asked to compare 
other teachers at Dunbar with elementary teach­
ers (646). These are intangibles. I compared 
science teachers with them as I knew teachers 
in general. There is nothing comparable be­
tween teachers of science in high school and 
teachers in the elementary grades, except the 
plans that a teacher has, type of teaching that 
she does. I don’t have to see plans. I can judge 
it from the way they teach. I compared each 
teacher in Dunbar, and made a five-column rat­
ing sheet. I think that is defendants’ Exhibit 
No. 5, and I think I used it in making the five- 
column sheet. I don’t recall what rating is Susie 
Morris’. I heard Mr. Scobee’s rating, and I



230

think mine was the same. I testified that Susie 
Morris was a little better than the average teach­
er, but I was comparing the elementary teach­
ers when I made this. It is on a different basis. 
In comparing her with elementary school teach­
ers, she is around average, maybe a little below. 
I have some very good teachers at my elemen­
tary school. I think they are above the average 
(648). I use the same test to decide Garland 
teachers are above average as I use to rate teach­
ers at Dunbar. The teachers in Dunbar are not 
above the average with comparison with the 
teachers at Garland (649). I don’t know that 
I can right off-hand name here the teachers in 
Dunbar that I consider above average teachers 
in comparison with the teachers at Garland. 
To make a rating, you don’t just do it right off 
the reel. In comparing the teachers at Dunbar, 
I compared them with a group of white teachers 
that I thought were high caliber teachers. That 
is what I was asked to do (650). In comparing 
Susie Morris with the teachers at Garland, I 
reached the conclusion that she was around an 
average. In my own mind, as of this moment, 
in comparison with them, I think she would be 
right around average, maybe a little less (651). 
In my mind, I would put her a little below three, 
on a five-column basis. In comparison with 
Garland teachers, I would put Mr. Wilson 
around average. I consider him one of the best 
teachers at Dunbar (652). In comparing him as



231

a science teacher with the teacher who teaches 
6B or 6A, there are only a few things that I can 
compare, not in all things. I could compare him 
with a music teacher, so far as plans are con­
cerned, and so far as organization, but, of 
course, they are not comparable in a way. You 
could compare him with a 2B teacher in plans 
in organization of classroom. In comparing 
teaching plans for chemistry and teaching plans 
for the second grade, you could consider wheth­
er they have a field lesson (653). In 2B, the 
teacher teaches all of the subjects, and the sci­
ence teacher teaches only science. They teach 
other things. I think Mr. Wilson teaches in all 
sciences. There are very few teachers who 
teach nothing but science. I don’t think it is 
possible to compare him accurately with teach­
ers in the grades. I don’t remember when Susie 
Morris was hired or going to her house to ask 
her to take a job in 1935. I have not prepared a 
rating sheet for the Garland School teachers 
(655). In comparing a teacher at Dunbar with 
a teacher at Garland, I compared them on each 
item (656). On evidence of plan, I rated her 
two, on general use in Garland, nothing specific. 
That is true generally on these items. When I 
first rated Susie Morris, she was a little better 
than the average, and when I rated her against 
the exceptionally good white Garland teachers, 
elementary teachers, she is just average. I don’t 
know the last time I went in Miss Morris’ room.



232

I go in there frequently (657). As far as I re­
call, she was doing all right as a teacher at that 
time. After I found out that she was a little be­
low average, I did not tell her that, because these 
are confidential reports. I don’t know that I 
found her lacking in some individual item, she 
was average. I think I do know what an average 
teacher is. An average teacher is not exception­
ally good in all things. Above the average is ex­
ceptional. If I can, I help an average teacher to 
get to be a better teacher (658). I do most of my 
work through Professor Lewis. I have not said 
to him, “You go down and help Susie Morris.” 
I have not said this since the rating sheet. I 
consider Miss Gwendolyn Floyd an exceptional­
ly good teacher (659). I don’t know how she 
would rate with the teachers in my school. I 
doubt whether anyone would come in close or 
near. I consider them very perfect teachers, and 
I don’t know that way about others. Some of 
them are in class one. Some of them in Dunbar 
are in class one in certain items. I do not con­
sider any teacher in my school one in all items. 
If they are rated one in all items, that would be 
in disagreement with my opinion. I do not think 
any teacher in Dunbar is number one in all 
items. I would put Miss Floyd in class one in 
some items (660). She would be an average in 
comparison with the Garland teachers. When 
I say she is a very good teacher, I mean she is a 
very good teacher until I compare her with my



233

teachers. I don’t think anybody at Dunbar is 
above the average when I compare them with 
my teachers. Mr. Scott and Mr. Wilson are not 
(661). I \fould say in my own mind now, in 
comparison of my teachers that Mr. Wilson is 
around average, not better. When I say average, 
I mean average as to the level of all my teachers 
in my school. Taking everything into considera­
tion, I do not consider him as good as some of 
the teachers in my school (662). I don’t think 
anybody in Dunbar is. I have not taught sci­
ence in high school; I have supervised it. I had 
just the chemistry in a regular A.B. I didn’t 
major in chemistry. I would think myself capa­
ble of setting a judgment on teaching ability of 
a teacher teaching chemistry with an M.A. I an; 
familiar with general methods of teaching 
chemistry (663). While Mr. Wilson is holding a 
laboratory, I can watch on evidence of plan as 
to what he is trying to do. I try to find out what 
he is trying to do. I do this by observing the 
children as they do what he tells them to do. 
When I go in, if a teacher is developing a prep­
aration, I probably would not understand that 
thing. I couldn’t criticise him on that one thing. 
If he was developing some substance in his lab­
oratory, I wouldn’t understand that special 
thing, not right then. It might be true if I stay­
ed in ten or fifteen minutes (664). I have not 
taken any courses in laboratory technique, and 
could not pass upon a particular technique. I



234

could tell if he had a good class. I knew how 
to use a Bunsen Burner when I was taking 
chemistry more than thirty years ago, and I 
knew about the use of flask. I do not altogether 
know how to use a distillery. I did not major in 
biology. I supervise biology in Dunbar. I have 
done no extra work in it (665). The only knowl­
edge I have of biology I have gotten entirely 
from supervising classes. I do no supervising in 
the white high school. I could not compare Mr. 
Wilson with any teacher of biology in the white 
high school. I get my knowledge of plans in the 
biology room from observation as to what he is 
doing. I would compare what he is doing with 
what the elementary school teacher is doing in 
my school. I would compare just general teach­
ing of any subject. Teaching is all not done ex­
actly alike in any subject. Probably it would be 
entirely different, but the technique of teach­
ing would be simplified in the classroom. You 
cannot take a classroom teacher of a primary 
grade and put him in the biology lab and let him 
teach biology lab (666). The same would be 
true in chemistry lab. The general methods are 
not different, but the technique of teaching the 
subject is. They ask questions and elicit an­
swers. Organization in class is similar. The or­
ganization of chemistry lab is not similar to or­
ganization of a primary class, but you can tell 
whether they are organized. It is entirely dif­
ferent. In chemistry lab, they are all around do­



235

ing different things. I took mathematics, but 
I did not major in math (667). I did not study 
methods of teaching math; I took a class in the 
methods of teaching subjects. When you try to 
get a mathematics teacher, you try to get one 
who is trained in teaching mathematics. A per­
son with an M.A. in the methods of teaching 
mathematics would know more about teaching 
mathematics than I do, but that doesn’t mean 
that he can do it. We assume they can. I super­
vise music in general in Dunbar. I don’t attempt 
to supervise the methods of teaching music. I 
find out by asking the sponsor. I don’t know 
very much about the methods of teaching 
bricklaying or carpentry. I can rate these teach­
ers by methods of teaching and plans that they 
have (668). I compare Baker Shelton, who 
teaches bricklaying with the teachers in general 
in my school. I do not have anyone teaching 
bricklaying, but in supervising, you take it all 
into consideration. I was assigned the job of 
rating Dunbar teachers, by the superintendent 
and the School Board. I don’t know how much 
Lewis visits. I know how much I visit, and I 
know that he is in the school longer than I am 
(669). He has lots of administrative work to do. 
I would put my judgment above his profession­
ally. Instances are when I have consulted with 
him about what I have seen in the rooms and 
asked him if he would look after it. I don’t 
know that he has ever come back and said that



236

the teacher is all right. I do not know any in­
stance where my judgment and his have been at 
odds on a teacher (670). Mr. Lewis was not 
present when I made a comparison between the 
Dunbar teachers and mine. Mr. Lewis was pres­
ent at the time each one of his teachers at Dun­
bar was rated. I, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Scobee 
visited several of th e teachers’ rooms together, 
but not all of them that day. Our visits varied 
from ten to fifteen minutes, and they were made 
in April. I don’t remember Susie Morris’ as one 
of the first rooms we went in (671). Mr. Scobee 
asked me to compare the Dunbar teachers with 
mine. That’s all I had, and general information, 
as anyone generally knows one. No reason was 
given to me, but I have done that before with 
Dunbar alone and mine rating teachers. I have 
turned it over to the superintendent. I have not 
rated them on these subjects, but I have on 
others. I have put them in different groups, but 
not like this (672). This was something new. 
The first time I saw defendants’ Exhibit No. 5 
was in April of 1942. We have had some other 
sheets before that. That was the first time I saw 
the three-column sheet, there have been others 
(673). I know that I never saw this one with 
three columns until April, 1942. I may have had 
others with three columns something like that, 
but I am not sure. I know about the complaint 
Mr. Taylor made concerning Susie Morris (674). 
Mr. Scobee gave me a letter that he had received.



237

I took it out to Professor Lewis, and we asked 
her about it. I believe I left it. At that time, I 
was satisfied with the investigation, that there 
was nothing wrong with anything Miss Morris 
had done. I did not say that the only mistake I 
made was opening the first letter of Mr. Taylor. 
I don’t know that Mr. Taylor made complaints 
about other teachers. He used to teach out there 
and was dismissed (675). I don’t remember any 
other complaint from parents about Susie Mor­
ris. I don’t remember ever'talking to any par­
ent about Susie Morris. In estimating the item 
under esteem of parents, so far as Miss Morris 
is concerned, the supervisors just hear things in 
general. I don’t know what I have heard about 
her. In comparison, as a rule, on esteem of 
teachers, she is average because I don’t hear 
anything. If you hear good, you rate her high; 
if complaints, you probably rate her low. I do 
not spend very much time in the negro com­
munity where I would hear teachers discussed 
outside of high school. Most of mine would be 
based upon what I heard in the school. I 
wouldn’t hear a discussion of her among the 
parents, but I would hear the results maybe 
(676). I investigated her with Professor Lewis. 
I don’t know what he said the parents thought 
about her, on that item; it is an estimate that I 
made, and it is based on the fact that I didn’t 
hear anything. I know Miss Little, who teaches 
at Dunbar (677). I don’t remember that I have



238

repeatedly said that she is one of the best teach­
ers of English in the Little Rock School System. 
I do not remember ever telling Mr. Lewis that. 
I consider her good. On a three-column rating 
sheet, I make an estimate of three for her (678). 
As of the present time, I would say she is an 
average teacher (679, 680). I don’t know where 
I would place her on the five-column sheet. Just 
as she teaches every day without any compari­
son, I would say that she was an average teacher 
plus (680). At the time I compared these Dun­
bar teachers with the teachers in my school, I 
had before me my own ideas. I had nothing 
written. On a five-column sheet, as of this 
time, as comparing her with the teachers of 
Garland, I would put her in three on evidence of 
plan; three in development of objective; prob­
ably two in subject matter and scholarship, 
three in maintenance and class standards (682); 
use of recognized methods, three; class atmos­
phere, two; recognition of individual differ­
ence, four; pupil response, three; skill in ques­
tioning, four; attention to room conditions, 
three; professional relations, three (682, 683); 
esteem of parents, three; class organization, 
four; use of teaching material, four; community 
activities, three. If I thought she was doing all 
right and no one ever said anything, I would 
say she was an average teacher in the way of 
community activities. I have what I got here 
from Professor Lewis. I would put her in three



239

on that item, because I hadn’t heard anything 
ol her, and also in community activities; they 
take up money and work with the P.T.A. and 
such things as that. That is community activity, 
and selling tickets for the show or looking up 
their score. I would put her in three for person­
al example (684). I didn’t figure any averages 
out. On the same basis, I would put Susie Mor­
ris in three in evidence of plans, two for devel­
opment of objective, three for subject matter 
and scholarship; three for maintenance of class 
standards; three lor use of recognized meth­
ods; three for class atmosphere, and two for 
recognition of individual differences (685); 
three for pupil response; four for skill in ques­
tioning; four for attention to room conditions; 
three for professional relations; three for es­
teem of parents; three for community activi­
ties; three for personal example (686). I don’t 
know that there is a little difference in the rat­
ing between this and the one made in Mr. Lewis’ 
office. The one is Mr. Lewis’ and isn’t mine 
alone. It is a combined judgment, and this is 
mine alone. I would rely on the three-column 
rating sheet. I compared the Dunbar teachers 
with the elementary teachers to the best of my 
ability, but it is practically impossible to do it 
for different subjects (687).

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

There were two of these rating sheets. The 
first one was made up in collaboration with Mr.



240

Lewis (690). We sat around Professor Lewis’ 
desk, Mr. Scobee, Professor Lewis and myself 
after we had visited the teachers. When Mr. 
Scobee was there, he and I checked as we have 
already discussed. As we discussed the teacher, 
we agreed on the rating before it was put down. 
There was no dissent when the rating figure 
was announced and was being put down. That 
was done in my presence and only I and Mr. 
Scobee put it down. No one except Mr. Scobee 
and I wrote on the sheet. Mr. Lewis did not 
(691). When the work was finished, there was 
no disagreement about what the rating should 
be. After that was done, the sheet was turned 
over to Mr. Scobee and he took them. The next 
thing that I heard was that Mr. Scobee asked 
me to rate the teachers of Dunbar in comparison 
with the teachers at Garland on the five-column 
sheet. I did that (692). I had my notes and I 
had my secretary, Miss Eason, typewrite in the 
dictation to her. She wrote it on the typewriter 
as I called it off. I stayed right there at the type­
writer, and as she finished my dictation, she 
took it out and put it on the table. When that 
was finished, I turned the sheet over to Mr. Sco­
bee just as she handed them to me from the 
typewriter (693).

(Counsel for plaintiff agreed that Miss 
Eason actually copied down what was told her 
and that it be unnecessary to call her for that 
proof) (694).



2 1 1

I did not prepare individual rating sheets 
for the teachers at Garland. I discussed the 
teachers from time to time with Mr. Scobee just 
as I would in a consultation with the superin­
tendent. In observing teachers in classroom ac­
tivities, it is not necessary that one he able to 
teach the specific subject he is judging in order 
to judge how well or poorly it is being taught 
(695). We have had rating sheets during all my 
time here, before this one was made up. The 
rating and subjects were somewhat similar to 
those here. This was no particular innovation. 
The number three sheet was made up and 
shown to me before this suit was brought.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

I have a sample of defendants’ No. 5 before 
April (695). We had a principals meeting prior 
to April 1, 1942. Mr. Scobee gave out some rat­
ing sheets, and I think this was a sample. It 
was last year that this rating sheet was shown 
to me, and I am sure of that. I was given a sam­
ple rating sheet. They discussed it, as I remem­
ber, in the principals’ meeting (696). We have 
discussed different kinds of rating sheets at dif­
ferent times. This was the first one I received 
with which to make a report. We had rating 
sheets before April that we used for our own 
satisfaction. They were somewhat different. 
It was early in the year that I first used this 
sheet to rate teachers (697). The first time that



242

I used it to rate the teachers was about April. 
I have not been using the sheet all along to rate 
teachers at Dunbar. I first compared the teach­
ers at Dunbar with the teachers at Garland in 
May of this year. I had a sample rating sheet 
before April (698). I did not use it to rate teach­
ers prior to April. I looked at the rating sheet 
and studied it and rated the teachers at the end 
of the year. We have used other types of rat­
ing sheets at other times. I went over each item 
on the sheet in the presence of Mr. Lewis. I 
don’t know that I asked him directly for his 
opinion, but he was there in consultation. It 
was an agreement as I understood it. There was 
no objection (699). I think in general it was 
just like we would sit around here and discuss 
the matter, and someone would say about what 
is the grading on that teacher. Lewis would say, 
or one of us would say, “about two,” and Mr. 
Scobee would usually say, “Is that about right?” 
It is my recollection that I asked Mr. Lewis about 
each one of these items on each teacher (700). 
On the rating sheet for the plaintiff, I don’t re­
member what was said on each item or who said 
it (701).

(Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 13 introduced, page
702.)

I haven’t shown Mr. Lewis the five-column 
rating sheet. On defendants’ Exhibit No. 13 
which is the rating by Mr. Lewis, I don’t see the



243

name of Lester Bowie. On defendants’ Exhibit 
No. 5, I estimate that he has a two. Miss Brum­
field appears as number two in plaintiff’s Ex­
hibit No. 13 and around that on defendants’ Ex­
hibit No. 5 (703). Mrs. Bush appears as number 
three on plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 13 and as three 
on defendants’ Exhibit No. 5. Edna Douglass 
appears in group two on both. India Elston ap­
pears number three on plaintiff’s No. 13 and 
about that on defendants’ No. 5 (704). Gwen­
dolyn Floyd appears as one on plaintiff’s No. 
13 and number two on defendants’ Exhibit No. 
5. Mr. Lewis rates her higher than I did. Mrs| 
Gravelly appears in group one on Exhibit No. 
13, and we gave her very close to one on defend­
ants’ No. 5. Miss Gillam appears in group two 
on defendants’ Exhibit No. 13 and about num­
ber two on defendants’ Exhibit No. 5 (705). She 
has one mark in the first column, seven in the 
second and eight in the third, and I consider that 
as two. Mr. John Gipson appears as number one 
on plaintiff’s Exhibit 13 and in group two on 
defendants’ Exhibit No. 5. Thelma Gibson ap­
pears in group two on plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 13. 
0. N. Green is in group two on both (706). An­
drew Hunter appears in group two on both. 
Owen Jackson appears in group two on each. 
Miss Olga Jordan is in group one on plaintiff’s 
No. 13 and two in defendants’ No. 5. Tessie 
Lewis appears in group two on each (707). Miss 
Little appears in group one in plaintiff’s No. 13



244

and on a line between one and two in defend­
ants’ No. 5. She has eight in column one, six in 
column two and two in column three. Susie 
Morris appears as one on plaintiff’s No. 13 and 
in group two on defendant’s No. 5. Miss Dor­
othy Moore in group one on plaintiff’s No. 13 
and group two on defendant’s No. 5 (708). Alice 
Terry is in one on plaintiff’s No. 13 and two on 
defendants’ No. 5. J. D. Russell appears in two 
on each. Grandetta Scott is in group one on 
plaintiff’s No. 13 and group two on defendants’ 
No. 5. B. T. Shelton is in group one on both 
sheets (709). D. P. Tyler is in group two on 
both sheets. Mildred Works also appears in 
group two on each. In several instances, the rat­
ings agree and in several instances, Mr. Lewis’ 
rating is higher (710). I received his rating be­
fore I made my five-column rating, but I did 
not take his ratings into consideration because 
I was not asked to do it (711). I account for 
differences in ratings on the ground that on 
my last rating sheet, I rated all teachers that I 
have supervised. On the last rating sheet, I took 
into consideration the Garland teachers. When 
the Dunbar teachers were compared with Gar­
land teachers, they fell down (713). In rating 
these teachers in one, it was based upon the gen­
eral supervision of the teacher as I visited her. 
In rating development of objective, I had in 
mind the regular standard methods of teachiing 
as I see it (714). Some teachers were excellent



245

in that group. In going over to Garland School, 
it was based according to what they are teach­
ing. In judging plans, they are compared to all 
plans. The rating on the five-column sheet was 
not necessarily a competitive rating. I compar­
ed them. I took them all and rated them and 
found where they belonged. I rated them as a 
whole. The ratings for April and May are dif­
ferent because there is a different group rat­
ing (715). We rate one against the other. I do 
not think that in my mind, it tends to rate white 
and colored teachers on different basis, but I 
am conscious of the fact that one is colored, but 
when I get to Dunbar, I don’t think of color in 
supervising (716). The theory of rating is that 
if this teacher rates better than this teacher, you 
so mark (717). In my mind, in rating a teacher 
in Garland, I compare each one with each teach­
er in Garland if I am rating them in a group, but 
also you rate according to what is in your judg­
ment, these intangibles. For some things, I 
think that educators agree that it is necessary 
to remove the competitive equation. I supervise 
teachers at Garland and there are elementary 
supervisors also (718). The supervisors come 
in at their discretion. There is no set time for 
them. We have supervisors coming in who 
would be in a position to rate the teachers. I go 
around my classrooms half a day supervising 
the classes. I am the administrator too. I don’t 
know whether I compared in my mind the



246

teachers at Garland with the teachers at Dunbar 
prior to May of this year (719). I don’t know 
that I considered them as two separate groups. 
I don’t know that I ever compared them for 
teaching ability. I might have had it in my mind 
before May of this year. This is the first time 
that I have ever been asked to put it on paper.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

In making up the three-column sheet, I did 
not ask Mr. Lewis each time, “Do you agree, yes 
or no?” (720). We sat down and made up the 
sheet together. He did not dissent from any rat­
ing I finally put down. He agreed to it. I was 
not with him when he made up his separate rat­
ings, and I don’t know how he arrived at it. I 
didn’t know what it was for, I didn’t ask him for 
it and paid no attention to it. At the time I made 
my rating, he agreed with me (721). Mr. Lewis 
has three groups and some generalities on his 
sheet. On the three-column sheet, there are ten 
or twelve items. In his letter, he incorporates 
just a few. Defendants’ Exhibit No. 8 is teach­
ers’ self-improved self-rating card. I go over 
these various items and endeavor to classify 
them. Sometimes a teacher makes one for her­
self, and sometimes I make one (722). I have 
used this prior to the suit. We have used several 
different types during the years in the past. On 
this exhibit, there is a column headed superior, 
satisfactory, and poor. This is a three-column



247

rating on the whole basis, and on the back of 
the sheet are a lot of instructions. I do not make 
up salaries, but I have an opinion that if two 
teachers have the same degree and the same 
length of service, and one is a poor teacher and 
one is a good teacher, they should not be paid 
the same salaries (723, 724). The degree and 
length of term are not looked on by me as a 
measure of a teacher’s capacity so far as work 
is concerned.

Miss A n n i e  G r i f f e y , sworn as a witness on 
behalf of the defendants, testified as follows on

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I am employed by the Little Rock Public 
School System as Assistant Superintendent, sup­
ervising the primary grades and auditorium 
(724), having in charge all first ,second and 
third grades. I have been so employed for thir­
ty-one years, having the same grades in charge, 
for both white and colored schools. The teach­
ing level of these three grades is generally the 
same. As supervisor, I visit the teachers, check 
on the type of work done in the classroom, meet 
with the teachers, send them outlines, assist in 
preparation of curricula (725). When I visit, 
I look at classroom management, pupil control, 
teachers’ attitude toward pupil, pupils’ attitude 
toward teacher, work periods, what is being ac­
complished during the work period, the teach-



248

ers’ presentation of objective, and like that. I 
hardly ever stay less than twenty minutes, de­
pending on why I am there ;if for organization­
al purposes, I may stay less time, and if for in­
spection of teaching ability and work accom­
plished, results obtained during the presentation 
period, or work done by pupils, I might stay 
sometimes twenty, sometimes thirty, and some­
times forty minutes. I always stay a whole 
period if inspecting work done by the class. I 
spend my entire time supervising schools and 
rooms (726), and do nothing but supervision. 
Sometimes I may visit teachers about every six 
weeks, and then sometimes I may be over two 
months, and then not more than twice a term, 
depending upon interruptions and office work. 
I visit some more than others to help them when 
they are not making good. I do teaching in the 
classrooms when I visit. I meet teachers other 
than in classroom visitations, as in conferences 
while I am in the school and in faculty meetings 
(727). I meet with them in groups and note the 
good and bad things I have seen, make criti­
cisms and suggest improvements in their plans. 
I prepared rating sheets for teachers under my 
sponsorship, which rating sheets were furnished 
me in the fall of 1941. I had discussed rating 
points with Mr. Scobee in the spring of 1941, and 
these were shaped into sheets in the fall of 1941. 
I received these sheets for discussion in the fall 
of 1941 and then received the sheets for rating



249

in the spring of 1942, about March or April 
(728). Defendants’ Exhibit No. 1 is the rating 
sheet by which I rated my teachers in the spring 
(1942). The first time I saw this sheet was in 
the spring of 1942, but I saw a three-column 
sheet in 1941, but the points on the two sheets 
were the same. I prepared a rating sheet for 
each teacher and turned the sheets over to Mr. 
Scobee. It is very hard to check your very best 
teacher, but my best all-round colored teacher 
is Mrs. Cornelia Bruce, in the Bush School (729). 
It is embarrassing to name the least efficient 
teacher, but my least efficient white teacher is 
Mill Hagler, at Forrest Park, and between Miss 
Hagler and Miss Bruce, Miss Hagler is better 
than Miss Bruce because she has more initiative 
and she handles material better. Miss Bruce 
teaches IB (730), and Miss Hagler teaches IB 
sometimes and 1A and has taught 2B. In my 
best judgment, there is no white teacher under 
my supervision inferior to Miss Bruce, taking 
all of the points. I have nothing to do with fix­
ing salaries, do not know how to fix salaries, 
and have had no experience in fixing salaries, 
and do not know what academic degrees the 
teachers have, but I am able to rate them as 
teachers (731).

CROSS-EXAMINATION

In my experience as a supervisor, if I want­
ed to estimate the teaching ability of an individ-



250

ual teacher according to my conscientious judg­
ment, it would take me several visits to her 
room. Those visits would have to be around 
twenty minutes. There are certain things I can 
tell when I enter the room; it takes me about ten 
minutes, sometimes five minutes. In order to 
be satisfied in my own mind with the rating of 
a teacher, I could not judge a teacher under 
twenty minutes and would have to visit her 
more than once. Leaving out the exceptionally 
good teachers and the exceptionally bad teach­
ers, that I could tell in five minutes (732). I 
would prefer to have a year to appraise a teach­
er’s teaching ability, and I would pass judgment 
on the teacher in two visits; I think that I could 
visit a teacher and in fifteen minutes pass judg­
ment on her, estimate her, and that it would be 
accurate according to the points on which I 
estimated her. On the points of defendant’s 
exhibit No. 1, I could rate a teacher on all of 
those items in a 15-ininute visit, but could not 
be definite or accurate, but I could estimate 
her and I could see whether the teacher was 
doing her job or not. I could very nearly 
decide within which group this teacher belong­
ed as to evidence of plans, development of ob­
jective, and subject matter of scholarships, in 
each one of those items (733). In developing 
objectives, there are daily objectives and there 
are ultimate objectives. A teacher who does not 
have an objective is not a teacher. You can tell



251

in a few minutes whether a teacher has an ob­
jective, and you can tell in a very few minutes 
whether she is getting that objective over or not. 
Teachers do very good one time and very bad 
another time, and if I were there on an off day, 
rating a teacher, and never came back, I would 
make a mistake. Very many times I have gone 
back and found teachers were very good teach­
ers, but in one particular class might be falling 
down (734). I am not asked to rate a teacher 
for the purpose of fixing salaries, but if I were 
asked, I would give the teacher more than fif­
teen minutes (735), and the benefit of more 
than one visit. In comparison with all of the 
points, (on the rating sheet), I do not think any 
negro in the elementary schools is as efficient 
as the least efficient white teacher. The colored 
teachers are not inferior teachers, but they are 
inferior in comparison with the white teachers. 
I do not think every white teacher is better, but 
make individual comparisons (735). I have 
never found one colored teacher as efficient as 
the (white) teachers. I do not have any very 
bad white teachers in my department. I have 
some average and around average teachers, but 
I do not have any below average teachers. I 
have some below average colored teachers. I 
do not recommend dismissal of below average 
teachers, colored or white, but I report that in 
some points, they are below average. There is 
no one teacher below average in everything



252

(736). In my mind, negro children in this town 
in elementary grades are not getting education 
inferior to those of the white children. Colored 
teachers are not as good in comparison with all 
of the points and the work they do. The white 
and colored teachers use the same course of 
study and follow it as best they can. I rated 
Miss Hagler and would put her uniformly in 
two and three, not a one at all (737). I do not 
know any white teachers I would rate four or 
five. I rated practically all of the colored teach­
ers in four and five, with points in three. This 
is the result of my visit to these teachers, and 
my own supervision over a period of years, 
comparing them with each other individually 
and comparing them with the white teachers. 
I make my rating on an individual comparison 
basis. I mean that I compare Mrs. Cornelia 
Bruce with white and colored teachers, and 
that decides the group into which she fell (738). 
Mrs. Cornelia Bruce is a IB techer, and I com­
pared her with IB teachers in colored schools 
and determined that she was my best IB teach­
er generally in the colored schools. If I had 
just compared her in the colored schools with 
IB teachers in the colored schools, and I was 
rating only colored teachers and making only 
colored comparisons, I would put her in one 
in comparison with all the other IB teachers. 
When I rated her with IB teachers in white 
schools, she is not one; she is in four with points



253

in three. It is not true that no white teacher in 
my mind was below three, some had points in 
three (739). I considered Mrs. Bruce inferior to 
all of the white IB teachers on many points in 
all she does. I judged them on the work done, 
their teaching ability, and I judged them accord­
ing to the work they did for me, and what con­
tribution they made to the colored children. 
They would make more contribution to the 
colored children if they were more efficient, 
and if I got some efficient teachers, I would be 
doing a better job f or the colored children (740).

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

In judging teachers on teaching ability, I 
applied the same standard for each group. Miss 
Hagler and Mrs. Bruce have been in the School 
System a number of years, and I have had an 
ample opportunity to observe both of them. I 
am unable to name right off those teachers who 
come from accredited schools. This does not 
enter into my judgment in trying to arrive at 
their teaching ability, but instead, I judge them 
on their classroom procedure, classroom results, 
and on what they do for the children in these 
schools. I consider teachers only on an individ­
ual basis (741).

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

I have never discussed with Mr. Scobee the 
rating of teachers and fixing of salaries (742).



254

I completed this particular rating of teachers 
in April, 1942, or in the spring, and turned the 
ratings over to Mr. Scobee before the election of 
teachers.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

The question of race or color never for 
one single minute entered into my ratings (743).

M r s . L. J. A l l is o n , sworn as a witness on 
behalf of the defendants, testified as follows on:

d ir e c t  e x a m in a t io n

I am employed by the System as principal 
of a school and sponsor of free reading. I have 
under my sponsorship all white and colored 
teachers in the free reading work for the ele­
mentary schools in the City from grades four 
through six. By free reading, I mean that chil­
dren each day have a period set aside without 
supervision and with access to any books on the 
shelf, the books having been very carefully 
chosen (744). This includes library work, and 
these books have to be very carefully chosen 
and cared for and graded for selective free 
reading courses, according to library standards. 
I have served as sponsor in secondary schools 
from 1930 to 1938, and as a sponsor for free 
reading in the elementary schools for the last 
two or three years. My total experience dates 
from 1930 as actually a teacher and sponsor of



255

this work, and for the last four years, I have had 
teachers in the elementary schools. As sponsor 
of free reading, I meet with the teachers, if I 
consider it necessary (745); I am expected to 
help make the list, and if I am asked to do so, to 
advise in any capacity pertaining to free read­
ing, and to inspect wherever I consider it neces­
sary. In some cases, I wait until I am asked to 
do them. I have no set policy. I may visit in a 
case where I have not been asked. It is my prac­
tice to visit classrooms in elementary schools, 
and to meet with the teachers in groups. With­
in the past school year, I have visited prac­
tically all of the classrooms. I made rating 
sheets for the purpose of rating teachers’ 
abilities and discussed these ratings with Mr. 
Scobee (746). When I visit classrooms, I have 
no set time to stay. When I go in, I observe 
very carefully to see what kind of books they 
have, the kind of tools with which they work, 
the response of the children, to see the children 
if I have a chance, and discuss the work with 
the teacher, and from the conference, I am able 
to determine a good deal. I examine the books 
in use, because this is one of the best indica­
tions of the work that is being done. I examine 
the books to see with what care they are han­
dled, because I think that it would be an indi­
cation of the interest and general consideration 
that the teacher has for her work. I do not al-



256

ways engage the teacher in conversation in the 
classrooms (747). I make an effort to judge 
teachers in their handling or recognition of indi­
vidual differences in pupils, and this is the most 
important thing in my work. I attempt to keep 
in contact with teachers by telephone conversa­
tions, letters and bulletins. I am well acquaint­
ed professionally with the teachers within my 
own group, some better than others (748). In 
my best judgment, the best negro teachers un­
der my supervision are Helen Ivey and L. M. 
Christophe. Their interest in their work and 
what I have seen indicates that they are inter­
ested and have done everything that I have sug­
gested. I think that the least efficient white 
teacher in my department is Elizabeth Goetz. 
I think that Elizabeth Goetz is inferior to Mr. 
Christophe and Miss Ivey, on the basis of the 
things that I mentioned in regard to Helen Ivey 
and Christophe. She does not do the things per­
taining to her work that they do (749). I un­
derstand that Miss Goetz is not now in the Pub­
lic School System. I requested that Miss Goetz 
be changed. Elizabeth Axley is the white 
teacher who would be next above Miss Goetz in 
efficiency. She teaches at Wilson School. She 
is not as good as Christophe and Helen Ivey in 
teaching ability in her particular work. She 
does not measure up as well as they did (750). 
She is not under my sponsorship for the current



257

school year (1942-1943). I cannot name any 
other white teacher in my department less effi­
cient than Christophe and Miss Ivey. I consider 
Mrs. Herd as the next most inefficient white 
teacher (751). As an all round teacher, I think 
that Mrs. Herd is the best of the three. In com­
paring teachers, the question of race or color 
has absolutely not entered into it. I always treat 
them as individuals. I have nothing to do with 
fixing salaries.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

I do not have a regular schedule in free 
reading (752). I try from time to time to visit 
generally the free reading courses. I visited 
Bush School prior to May, 1942. I have not put 
in any free reading courses in any of the colored 
schools. I visited some of the classes when this 
free reading was going on, and in some, I have 
not. I do not rate any teacher that I do not visit. 
I did not visit one school (753), and I did not 
rate those teachers. This was the East End 
School. I had conversations with the teachers 
there. In these rating sheets, I did not discuss 
the rating sheets of the individuals with the 
principals of their schools. These ratings are 
without consultation with the principal. I did 
discuss them with Mr. Scobee as individuals 
around the close of school. I rated the teachers 
during this year and turned the information



258

over to Mr. Scobee (754). I used the same rat­
ing sheet this year, so far as points are con­
cerned. It had the same points on it that appear 
on defendants’ Exhibit No. 1. I saw the rating 
sheet in September, 1941, at one of the staff 
meetings. I was told that it was to be used as 
a rating sheet for the year (page 755). I rated 
the teachers according to what I saw, whether 
it was ten visits or one. Sometimes I visited the 
individual negro teachers twice and sometimes 
once. I visited two schools twice, and Bush 
three times, Gibbs once, and stayed about thirty 
minutes in the room of the free reading teacher 
(756). I visited Capitol Hill once, and stayed in 
the school about forty-five minutes, and ob­
served the teachers in the classrooms about fif­
teen minutes. I spent several hours one day in 
Bush observing the teachers and helping with 
the work pertaining to free reading. I was there 
more than once, but on this one day, I spent 
several hours (757). I visited Stephens once 
for about an hour and did not observe the 
teacher, but depended upon a conference with 
her and looking at the setup. I had an oppor­
tunity to observe the teacher, Arnold, for proba­
bly ten minutes. I did not visit the East End 
School at all. I spent about thirty minutes at 
the South End (758), on visit in the spring of 
1942. I observed Miss Ivey for about forty 
minutes.



259

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

I think that the rating sheet was based on 
this year’s knowledge of teachers. I would not 
suppose that my previous knowledge of the 
teacher entered into the rating any. In rating 
a teacher, I used the same standards for one as 
for the other.

Miss M a u d e  H a y e s , sworn as a witness on 
behalf of the defendants, testified as follows on:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I am employed by the Little Rock School 
Board as principal of Centennial School, and 
for five years have been supervisor of art for 
all the schools, and for the last two years, just 
supervisor of art for all schools. (As we recall, 
Miss Hayes said that she had been supervisor 
of art and writing for all schools, but for the 
last two j^ears, j ust supervisor of art for all 
schools.) I am supervisor for colored and white 
schools for the fourth, fifth and sixth grades. 
I have nothing to do with the fixing of salaries 
and do not know the salaries or the college 
training of the teachers. I know the teachers 
within my group very thoroughly (761), be­
cause I do a lot of visiting. I try to go to each 
school each month. During the last two years, 
I have kept an accurate account of that, and 
I made 102 visits the last two years, and every



260

month I held a meeting with the white teachers, 
and very often served them a little tea and rest­
ed them up before they began their work. From 
five to five-thirty, I had a demonstration and 
tried to help them in new mediums I thought 
they should be working with, and I held a meet­
ing with the colored teachers the very same way 
at Gibbs School or Centennial School. I have not 
discriminated against them in any visits or 
monthly meetings (762). I was a teacher before 
I was a principal and started in the fifth grade, 
then taught in the sixth grade, and then was 
junior high principal. I taught art and arith­
metic. I taught art in the fourth, fifth and sixth 
grade in the schools. I taught all the courses 
and tried the children with many different 
mediums, frescoing, templing, graining, etch­
ing, soap carving, wood carving, blue printing, 
and spatter work, also raffia reed work, and all 
the time, I stressed original work, so as to 
integrate the art with the academic subjects, 
and also stressed original work (763). I worked 
with each teacher in these various mediums 
only at their meetings when they were all to­
gether. When I was supervisor, I visited the 
classrooms of the teachers, tried to inspire the 
teachers, and to size up what she was doing and 
to assist her in every possible way, to see 
whether the children were interested, if they 
were working, whether there was attention, and



261

I would hold private conferences with the 
teacher over the telephone lots of times, and 
lots of times in the classrooms, and I would 
talk with the principal about what was expected 
of her. I tried to work with the teachers that 
did not know how to teach right, and I would 
take the class and sit down with the children 
and try to get them the right solution. The ques­
tion of race or color never entered at all into 
it (764). Since I have been supervisor or spon­
sor, I ask the teacher to bring samples, and each 
teacher tells what she has been doing, and I 
judge where they have fallen down or im­
proved, and most of the time, I have demonstra­
tions where all take a lot of mediums and work 
with them. I have prepared rating sheets of 
teachers and have discussed them with Mr. 
Scobee. I had a rating sheet like defendants’ 
Exhibit No. 1 with the same wording early last 
year in Mr. Scobee’s first or second week, but 
right after school was opened (fall of 1941) 
(765). I think the first rating sheet might have 
been three columns, and the five-column rating 
sheet was sent out and was put on the bulletin 
board and the teachers all knew what points 
they were being rated on. All of the points on 
defendants’ Exhibit No. 1 were the same as on 
the one I saw in the fall of 1941 (766). In my 
best judgment, my best colored teachers are 
Miss Shropshire, Miss Pope and Mrs. Littlejohn.



262

Mrs. Littlejohn is very good in integrating aca­
demic subjects with art, and Miss Pope is good 
in designing work. Miss Shropshire is good in 
paper cutting and templing. In my best judg­
ment, my least efficient white teacher is Mrs. 
Bacon. Next perhaps would be Mrs. Hawley
(767) . The white teachers are better than the 
negro teachers I mentioned. In my best judg­
ment, Mrs. Hawley is better than Mrs. Shrop­
shire, because she uses more different mediums
(768) . This makes a difference, because a child 
should be given that many different mediums, 
to test the ones best suited. Some children can 
not work in one medium, and they should be 
exposed to a different medium so as to find 
one that they can handle. I do not know any 
white teacher under my sponsorship that is in­
ferior to Miss Shropshire, or inferior to Mrs. 
Littlejohn (colored),

CROSS-EXAMINATION

I am not prepared to say that among the 
colleges that train teachers for arts, the Uni­
versity of Kansas ranks among the top ones. I 
imagine that Kansas would be as good as any 
of the colleges in teaching art (769). I do not 
recall in the last two years having used colored 
teachers in demonstration lessons before white 
teachers, but I had a demonstration school. Two 
colored children did a nice piece of work in de-



263

signing, and several of the teachers went out 
to see them do it. I do not consider that a dem­
onstration lesson; it was not the whole depart­
ment (770). In the last two years, I have visited 
some of the colored art teachers and some I 
have not. I think that I visited Bush School, be­
cause Miss Pope was new there, and because Mr. 
Christophe asked me to come. I have been to 
Gibbs School in the last two years, perhaps two 
or three times, and observed the art teacher two 
or three times. I did not time myself, but I had 
the class in art one time, perhaps for twenty 
or twenty-five minutes, perhaps thirty. I have 
observed Mrs. Bacon many times (771), also 
Miss Hill. I have been to Capitol Hill School with­
in the past two years about twice and stayed 
much longer than fifteen or twenty minutes 
(772). I visited Miss Shropshire lots of times, 
not within the past two years, but I have seen 
her work during meetings within the past two 
years, and put some of my judgment on it. I 
have visited East End lots of times, not within 
the past two years. I visited South End one time 
last year . I did not observe the teacher, but 
observed the result of her teaching (773). The 
result is an accurate way to judge teaching 
ability. I see their work all of the time every 
month. The teachers bring in specimens of 
their work. Results is just one of the items upon 
which I judge them. I rated all of the teachers



264

teaching art in all of these grades. 1 did not dis­
cuss this rating with the principals of the negro 
schools. The rating was completed sometime 
in the spring, and turned over to Mr. Scobee 
(774). It has been my experience that some 
teachers bring work of their best students, so 
that it will look the best, and I want to see their 
best. I judge them on the basis of the child’s 
work, and that is what the teacher is doing. I 
do not rate foremost in my mind the amount of 
mediums the teachers can teach, or whether 
they teach the matter thoroughly, but all of it; 
it is all important, and I take all into considera­
tion. I have visited some of the white schools 
in the past few years (775). I did more than 
observing ten minutes, because I saw specimens 
constantly. The ones tend to get the higher rat­
ing that I thought better.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

Miss Shropshire (colored) works in tem­
pera, water color, glass work and some reed 
work, and colored paper work. She has a rating 
of only four (776). Mrs. Littlejohn (colored) 
works in tempera and some water colors. Mrs. 
Hawley (colored) works in marionette, paper 
mache, tempera, and water colors. Mrs. Bacon 
(white) works in composing and designing and 
stenciling on cloth and painting on cards, poster 
making for junior red cross work, water colors



265

and stippling, and she does quite a bit of wood 
carving and jig-sawing. In preparing the rat­
ings on white teachers, I do not consult the prin­
cipals of their respective schools.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

I did not consult any of the principals on 
the materials on defendants’ Exhibit No. 1 (page 
778).

V. L. W e r b , s w o r n  a s  a  w i t n e s s  o n  b e h a l f  o f  
th e  d e f e n d a n t s ,  t e s t i f i e d  a s  f o l l o w s  o n :

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I have been employed by the School Board 
for thirty-two years, first three years as prin­
cipal of Mitchell School and twenty-nine years 
as principal of Rightsell School (778). I began 
supervising social studies about 1919 rather in­
formally at first, and became supervisor in 
arithmetic about 1935, and about two or three 
years ago was changed, and I became known as 
a sponsor instead of supervisor. I have been 
constantly in a supervisory capacity since 1919 
in social studies, meaning history, geography, 
and civics, and I have had arithmetic for the 
last six or seven years. As sponsor, I hold meet­
ings with the departmental teachers, send bulle­
tins to them of anything that is of worth to 
them, and visit the teachers and visit the schools 
and teachers for observation and recommend



266

books and do such other duties as seem to be 
a part of supervision. I very seldom have dem­
onstration meetings, because I want to see what 
the teachers can do (779). Until this year (fall 
1942) I had under supervision all those of the 
elementary schools, both white and colored 
from grades four through six. I had a schedule 
by which I visited classes practically once a 
month. Within the past two or three years, my 
visiting has not been as regular as it had been. 
When I visit, I spend anywhere from five min­
utes to forty minutes, go in as quietly as pos­
sible so the teacher will not be disturbed and 
try to judge what the teacher is doing, and how 
she is doing it (780), and how the children react. 
Other than class visits, I have other checks, in 
that I have had monthly meetings and personal 
conferences with teachers. Usually I have one 
monthly meeting for all teachers, and in the last 
three years, the English sponsor and I have had 
the meetings together for an hour and a half. 
I have separate meetings with the colored 
teachers and with the white teachers, and do 
not discriminate in favor of one as against the 
other in holding meetings except one time I 
forgot a meeting and apologized for it. There 
was no intentional discrimination on race and 
color (781). I have nothing to do with fixing 
salaries; I do not know how salaries are fixed, 
and do not know whether any teachers have



267

come from accredited colleges. In the past, I 
have prepared rating sheets for my own satis­
faction. I do not remember exactly when I saw 
a rating sheet similar to defendants’ Exhibit 
No. 1, but it was sometime in the spring of 1942.
I recall discussions in the superintendent’s meet­
ings, where the staff met with the superintend­
ent, but those discussion meetings were bound 
to be in the fall of 1941 (782). I have discussed 
my teachers in conference with Mr. Scobee. 
Usually, I do not discuss them with Mr. Scobee 
unless there is something particularly wrong 
with individual teachers. I discussed the good 
teachers with Mr. Scobee, and in discussing 
teachers with him, I am asking for advice or 
information. In my ratings for individual 
teachers, I used the same teaching standards, 
and the question of race or color does not enter 
into my ratings of teachers. I am conscious that 
some are white and some are colored, but pro­
fessionally, I am not conscious of the distinc­
tion (783). According to my best judgment, I 
consider my best colored teacher to be Mrs. 
Caruthers, and say that she is best, because she 
measures up on all the points on the rating bet­
ter than others. In comparison with my other 
colored teachers, as to all round teaching, she 
stands very high in the upper border, and is the 
best that I can think of. My least efficient white 
teacher is a Miss Thompson at Parham (page



268

784). Mrs. Caruthers was a better teacher than 
Miss Thompson, because Miss Thompson was 
a new teacher and was sick some of the time. 1 
was not able to form a complete estimate of 
her teaching ability, but when I marked her in 
1941-1942, I could not give her a higher rating. 
She gave promise, and I would give her a better 
rating now. I consider her a good potential 
teacher, for she has poise and she handles the 
class with ease, and seems to have an insight 
into the elements of teaching, and I suppose 
that she will make a good teacher. Probably 
Mrs. Isgrig was the least efficient white teacher 
(page 785). She was a poorer teacher than Mrs. 
Caruthers, the colored teacher, because she did 
not seem to be at home in the fourth grade. She 
is now in junior high. She was probably teach­
ing out of her class level, which would make a 
difference in teaching ability. A teacher may be 
inefficient and not familiar with the subject- 
matter and the methods adopted for that grade 
or group, that is, she would be out of her field. 
She didn’t seem to be at home, and she was very 
pleasant and the children liked her, but she 
just couldn’t get it over. Last year there was 
probably one other teacher, Mrs. Adkins, who 
was less efficient than Mrs. Caruthers. She is 
no longer under my sponsorship, but has been 
promoted to junior high, and was probably out 
of her teaching level. It was very difficult to



269

judge her (page 786). I am unable to name any 
other white teacher less efficient than Mrs. 
Caruthers. With exception of the three teachers 
named, I can think of no other individual white 
teacher who is inferior to Mrs. Caruthers. I 
have under my sponsorship about seventy 
teachers.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

It is difficult to say how many times I 
visited the negro elementary schools in the year 
1940-1941. I visited Gibbs School, and the teach­
ers there are Miss Dickey, Miss Anthony and 
Mrs. Davis. I stayed there a period of from 
twenty to forty minutes (788). In my observa­
tion, I used the objective method because it is 
better, but I have used the subjective method 
too. There are times when the subjective 
method is necessary. In my meetings with the 
teachers, I did not consciously differentiate be­
tween the two methods. I have passed out data 
on the subjective and objective methods in the 
meetings. I had bulletins passed out in meet­
ings (789). I believe that I was at Capitol Hill 
three times last year, South End twice, East End 
once, Robert E. Lee once, Parham three or four 
times, because of a young teacher (790), and I 
do not remember the exact number of times I 
went to Garland. I went about an equal number 
of times to white and negro schools. I made an



270

evaluation of defendants’ Exhibit No. 7 (791), 
on negro teachers in the spring of 1942. I was 
handed this rating sheet in the spring of 1942 
for the purpose of appraisal. I did not make a 
memorandum every time as to my observation 
on negro teachers, but kept some of it in mind. 
I used my knowledge from every meeting and 
conference and my experience with the teachers 
for years in making appraisals. Most of my 
information came from an accumulation of 
observation from the past (792). Mrs. Isgrig 
was at Woodruff and entered in the fall of 1941. 
She was a new teacher and did not do so well. 
Miss Thomas was also a new teacher and did 
not do so well. Probably the longer teachers are 
in the System, the better they become, but not 
always. There are teachers who have been 
teaching for a long time that are no better than 
when they started. In my supervisory meet­
ings, I take up all points in which the teachers 
are in arrears, or on which they lack informa­
tion and try to improve them. The subject of 
discussion may not be something that is in ar­
rears, but something that is extra fine. Then 
sometimes there is something new that needs 
to be put over and I do that through telling 
them about it, or by reading it or by having a 
discussion of it, or by having a demonstration 
or something of that sort. I cannot help but be 
conscious of a differentiation in colored and



271

white, but this consciousness is all that there is 
to it, and in my evaluation, I do not consider 
it (794). I had my first conference with Mr. 
Scobee about rating sheets (defendants’ Ex­
hibit No. 1) in the spring of 1942, and the 
actual appraisal was in the spring of 1942. That 
is usual, and the usual custom. I had twelve 
teachers in my school and rated my own teach­
ers. No one else was in the conference; I was 
not assisted by any sponsor, except that many 
times a sponsor might drop in and talk to me 
informally about a teacher. I rated the negro 
elementary schools just like any other elemen­
tary school (795). Where I found anything defi­
cient, sometimes I discussed it privately with 
the teacher after a visit. I had a little card made 
out for my own work which I carried with me 
for that purpose (796). I do not know whether 
the other sponsors had these individual cards 
or not. I believe that some did have. My own 
card is simply a self-made rating sheet. I did 
not prepare the rating sheet in evidence yester­
day.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

I prepared this self-improving sheet myself 
and have been using such improvement sheet 
for seven, eight, or ten years (797). I have in 
my school a teacher by the name of Elizabeth 
Goetz. She is not there now, because I recom­
mended her transfer. She just was not filling 
the job.



272

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

I did not recommend the transfer of any 
negro teacher, because that was not in my pro­
vidence. My recommendation was in my own 
school. As supervisor, I have the authority to 
recommend transfer or dismissal and have ex­
ercised it, though very seldom. I have not re­
cently done so as to negro teachers, but have in 
the past (799).

H. W. M e a n s , s w o r n  a s  a  w i t n e s s  o n  b e h a l f  
o f  th e  d e f e n d a n t s ,  t e s t i f i e d  a s  f o l l o w s  o n

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I am in the employment of the School 
Board and have been for thirty-two years as 
principal of Peabody and sponsor for the lan­
guage art, that is, spelling and reading. I have 
been sponsor all those years, but for those speci­
fic subjects possibly three years, (page 800). I 
sponsor reading and language and spelling in all 
of the white and colored schools for the elemen­
tary grades four, five and six. I keep the course 
of study revised to meet changing conditions, 
attempt to keep the teachers indirectly or direct­
ly apprized of changing theories in practice and 
education as pertains to these particular sub­
jects and try, when called upon, to help the 
teachers solve their specific problems as they 
arise in connection with their work. I meet with 
any teachers as a whole, with the colored teach-



273

ers twice last 3:ear, and with the white teachers 
live times. I had more meetings scheduled than 
that, but they were called off by agreement. 
There are possibly two reasons for having met 
more times with the white teachers, because 
there are tifty-one white teachers in the depart­
ment and twenty-three colored teachers, more 
than twice as many white teachers, so that there 
would be an increase in problems in the larger 
group. It might have been cold when these par­
ticular meetings were held, or something like a 
committee meeting might have come up which 
prevented getting it done (802). I did not hold 
lewer meetings with the colored teachers be­
cause they were colored. I have nothing to do 
with fixing salaries. I have been using rating 
sheets for thirty-two years. In April, of 1942, 
a five-column rating sheet was placed in my 
hands (803). I saw a three-column rating sheet 
in the fall of 1941, October; I did not check it 
point by point, but I think that the points are 
the same. I prepared individual rating sheets 
for the teachers in my department and turned 
them over to the superintendent. I made the 
rating in the latter part of April. In my best 
judgment, I think that the best colored teachers 
in my department are Mrs. Caruthers and Miss 
Ivey (804). In my best judgment, I think that 
the least efficient white teacher in my depart­
ment is Miss Thompson of Parham School. In 
actual accomplishment of objectives, I would



274

say that Miss Thompson is probably not as good 
as Mrs. Caruthers, but in potentialities, I think 
she is better or as good. In comparison with 
Helen Ivey, I think the same statement is ap­
plicable. I do not think of any other white 
teacher inferior as a teacher to Mrs. Caruthers
(805) . In my best judgment, I do not think of 
any other white teacher in my department in­
ferior to Helen Ivey (colored). In preparing 
the rate sheets, the question of race or color did 
not enter into my deliberations.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

I supervise the same teachers as Mr. Webb. 
I did not confer with Mr. Webb in the rating of 
the teachers. I rated them individually. I did 
not consult the principals. One of the considera­
tions for the meeting is the benefit of improving 
their teaching. There are several considerations
(806) , as to improve the teachers and give the 
teachers an opportunity to state their general 
problems, or any individuals to state their 
problems pertaining to the department, and to 
give them an opportunity to express themselves 
as to the various procedures they have adopted, 
and give them an opportunity to make sugges­
tions as to any of these various procedures that 
they have inaugurated, and possibly to consider 
the information of certain committees, or to 
have a better organization, and also for the pur­
pose of presenting to them the various new



275

methods or changing methods. The primary ob­
ject has been the purpose of the teachers to do 
better teaching (807). I do not remember how 
many times I visited the colored schools. I visit­
ed Capitol Hill School, Stephens School and East 
End School. I did not visit Bush, but did visit 
Gibbs. I visited no other colored schools (808). 
( rated the teachers in the other schools on the 
response to various bulletins that were sent out. 
I rated them on the results of tests that were 
held, giving thought to it, and how it made the 
impression throughout the year on theory, and 
I checked with some of them, from time to time 
when the question came up, and I had a few 
telephone conversations and contacts with these 
other teachers who were not very close to the 
meeting. As far as giving a complete check, be­
ing perfectly satisfied that I am correct in my 
judgment of the teachers, I would have to go 
out in the classrooms and see their classroom 
work. I am not completely satisfied with the 
ratings I made this year, and I have never been 
satisfied with the ratings I made this year, and 
I have never been satisfied in judging the work 
of an individual (809). It is a hard job; nobody 
can do it satisfactorily (809). I can give an accu­
rate estimate of a teacher’s teaching ability in a 
shorter time than ten or fifteen minutes, but in 
my colored schools, I stayed longer than that. I 
cannot, by looking at a teacher and watching 
that teacher teach fifteen minutes, give an ac-



276

curate estimate of the teaching ability of that 
teacher on all of the levels in the rating sheet.
I could not sit there two hours and do it. I did 
not attempt to rate these teachers on all of the 
points on the sheet; I left some of them vacant, 
in both the white and colored ratings propor­
tionately (810). I did not visit all of the white 
schools any more than I made all of the colored 
schools; I am a sponsor to both. I did rate the 
teachers in my own school. To my knowledge, 
no one else rated them, but I suppose so. I turn­
ed these rating sheets over to Mr. Scobee, on all 
points on my own teachers. I should judge that 
the principals of the negro schools should be 
able to rate their teachers on all points.

By agreement between counsels, it was 
stipulated that Miss Griffey has under her sup­
ervision about 125 teachers, Miss Hayes about 
22, and Mrs. Allison about 30.

R u s s e l l  T. S c o b e e , called as a witness on 
behalf of defendants, testified as follows on

DIRECT EXAMINATION

On defendants’ Exhibit No. 3, under a col­
umn headed “rating” the marks appearing in 
that column are my own individual rating of 
teachers (812, 813). In compiling the ratings 
for these teachers in the Senior High School, I 
based my ratings on the recommendation of the 
principal, Mr. Larson. I have before me the in-



277

dividual rating sheets. These were prepared by 
Mr. Larson. To explain the mechanics through 
which I went, the secretary sat before me with 
a master copy. As she called the name of the 
teacher, going down the list, I told her what to 
write, and she wrote that in there on the basis 
of the information, whatever came from the 
high school principal. At the time I told her to 
place the figure on the rating sheet, in each in­
stance, I consulted the rating sheet of the prin­
cipal. I drew upon what other little information 
I had; if I had any personal information about 
the teacher, it colored it (813). I have visited a 
few of the classrooms in the Senior High School. 
In preparing the rating sheet figures for the 
three junior highs, in each instance, the proce­
dure was the same. I had before me the individ­
ual rating sheets prepared by the princial of 
the school in each instance. I have visited a few 
of the classrooms in these schools. I have made 
some effort to visit the teachers since I have 
been here. I have about 425 teachers. In pre­
paring the rating figures for the elementary 
schools, the procedure was very similar, except 
in those cases, I submitted to the sponsors and 
the supervisors to prepare the sheets at that time 
for me (814). I had visited some of the classes 
of the colored elementary schools. In some 
cases, I consulted with the principals. I had be­
fore me the individual rating sheets.



278

(Witness marked defendants’ Exhibit No. 
5 with an “s” for those sheets in his handwrit­
ing.)

When I made these rating sheets appearing 
in my handwriting, there were present C. R. 
Hamilton and J. H. Lewis. This meeting was 
held in Mr. Lewis’ office in the Dunbar High 
School. I think my ratings were done perhaps 
in two meetings (815). In arriving at the rating 
on the individual points, the three of us had dur­
ing these days visited certain of the teachers in 
the schools, then after we had visited a few of 
the teachers we would go to the office, I would 
have a blank sheet in front of me, and I would 
discuss with the other two men there the parti­
cular teacher in mind as to each point, and as a 
result of that discussion, I checked on this sheet. 
Apparently my checking of the points met with 
the approval of the entire group. I don’t recall 
any that could have registered as definite objec­
tions. Returning to defendants’ exhibit No. 3, 
the rating marks for Dunbar are my rating 
marks. I dictated the transcript to my stenog­
rapher. These ratings were based upon the re­
ports which the supervisor of the Dunbar High 
School presented to me (816). In preparing the 
ratings appearing in this composite report, I 
did not consult Mr. Lewis. Defendants’ Exhibit 
No. 5, in so far as I compiled it was compiled 
in the presence of and with the consent of Mr. 
Lewis. This is true in the case of the individual



279

sheets in my handwriting (817). On numerous 
occasions I have requested my principals to fur­
nish me groupings for their teachers. I think I 
made such a request to Mr. Lewis. I can’t say 
for sure, but I believe I have seen plaintiff’s Ex­
hibit No. 13 before. I think I saw it for the first 
time toward the close of school. The first para­
graph of the exhibit reads, “Mr. C. R. Hamilton, 
Supervisor Colored Schools, Little Rock, Arkan­
sas, Dear Sir: In attempting to rank Dunbar 
teachers on the basis of training, teaching tech­
nique, pupil response, cooperation in commun­
ity participation, I would group them as fol­
lows:” The purpose of my requesting this 
grouping was to obtain a ranking of the teachers 
within the individual schools. It had nothing to 
do with the general situation. It was an effort 
to obtain information for my purpose on the 
basis of individual schools (818). In requesting 
the information, I do not think I made any ref­
erence to rating sheets. I think it was an effort 
to obtain the opinion of the principal. I recall 
that I was asked by counsel for the plaintiff to 
compare certain teachers, and in doing so, I 
made the comparison without reference to the 
column or rating (819).

(Pages 819 and 820 mostly comment of 
counsel.)

For purpose of comparison, Verna Finn, 
white, A.B. five years’ experience here, three



280

years’ elsewhere, teaching 3B and 2A, rating 2 
plus, salary $933. Elizabeth Hamilton, (color­
ed), B.S., six years’ experience here, ten years’ 
elsewhere, teaching 5B and 4A, rating four, sal­
ary $706. Verna Finn receives a greater salary. 
In my best judgment, I think she is worth $933 
(821). On the basis of my estimate of teaching 
ability, Elizabeth Hamilton is not worth $933. 
In my best judgment, I would say Elizabeth 
Hamilton is probably worth some more.

Nancy Jackson (colored) A.B., five years’ 
experience here, none elsewhere, teaches music, 
rating four, has $665.50. Ruth Jones, (white), 
L.I., five years’ experience here, five years’ else­
where, teaching 4A, rating two minus, has $846. 
They are teaching different subjects, but it is 
not our policy to make any distinction as to the 
rating of these subjects. In my best judgment, 
Ruth Jones is worth $846 (822). In my best 
judgment, Nancy Jackson is not worth substan­
tially more than $665, but is worth some more. 
In my opinion, the difference in salary is not 
justifiable definitely as to dollars and amount, 
but I think a difference in the salary would be 
appropriate. On teaching ability, I think, in my 
judgment, Ruth Jones is worth more.

Thelma Clapp, (white), A.B., six years’ ex­
perience here, four elsewhere, teaching 6A rat­
ing two, receives $987. Dancie Lee (colored), 
A.B., six years’ experience here, one elsewhere,



281

teaching 3B, rating four minus, receives $665. In 
my best judgment, I think Thelma Clapp is 
worth $987. I think she is worth some more. In 
my best judgment, Dancie Lee isn’t worth sub­
stantially more than $665 (823). In my best 
judgment, on a comparative basis, I believe the 
difference is justifiable. I don’t think I would 
recommend Dancie Lee for a salary of $987.

Sarah Rice, (colored), A.B., seven years’ 
experience here, none elsewhere, teaching 5B, 
rating three minus receives $645.25. Lucille 
Holman, (white), B.S., eight years’ experience 
here, none elsewhere, teaching art, rating one 
minus, receives $1,014.18. So far as the compos­
ite record shows, they have comparable degrees, 
and Lucille Holman has been in the Public 
School System one year longer (824). In my 
best judgment, the one year more tenure does 
not justify the difference in the salary between 
these two. In my best judgment, the difference 
in salary is justifiable on the basis of superiority 
of Lucille Holman over the other teacher. In 
my best opinion, I think Lucille Holman is 
worth $1,014. I think perhaps she is worth sub­
stantially more. In my best opinion, I think 
Sarah Rice is worth substantially more than a 
salary of $645. I don’t believe there is any dis­
crimination there in salary (825). The con­
tracts for the school years 1941-1942 were made 
at the May meeting in 1941. It might have been



282

the April meeting of 1941. I made no recom­
mendation for changes in salary. My informa­
tion was so incomplete that I felt that it would 
be unfair on incompleteness of information to 
make recommendations involving salary. The 
renewal contracts of 1942-1943 were made the 
latter part of May, 1942. At the time I made my 
recommendation, the information for the vari­
ous rating sheets had practically all been turned 
in. I based my recommendation upon that in­
formation only to a slight extent (826). I did 
not base my recommendation entirely upon that 
information, because I felt that it was impos­
sible for me to have an honest professional 
judgment as a result of the information I had 
at that time in order to make a complete esti­
mate on that basis only for 425 teachers. It is 
impossible for me to know all of them as in­
dividuals. In my best judgment, the salary now 
paid to the teachers generally in the Little Rock 
Public School System are substantially in line 
with their teaching abilities. In my best judg­
ment, I have not found a discrimination based 
on race and color. I think I am prepared to 
make this statement on my reputation as a pub­
lic school administrator with twenty years’ ex­
perience (827). Verna Harper, (white), teach­
ing at Garland is paid $1,041 as compared with 
$706 paid to Elizabeth Hamilton, (colored), of 
Gibbs. Examining her rating and comparing it 
with Verna Harper, in my best opinion, I do



283

not think any discrimination exists in that par­
ticular case. In my judgment, Verna Harper is 
worth $1,041.99. Perhaps she is not worth sub­
stantially more.

Edith Hardage, (white), Forest Park 
School, has $960. I think no discrimination ex­
ists between her salary and that paid to Eliza­
beth Hamilton ($706). In my best judgment, I 
think Edith Hardage is worth $960. I think she 
is worth substantially more. I have not recom­
mended her for the higher salary because I 
haven’t enough information at hand to make a 
complete recommendation involving all phases 
of it.

Georgia Wage, (white), Fair Park, receives 
$1,041 as compared to $706 paid to Elizabeth 
Hamilton. Perhaps there is some discrimination 
as between individuals. Georgia Wage is prob­
ably not worth $1,041. This is in my best judg­
ment. In these comparative figures, the dis­
crimination probably exists in the favor of 
Georgia Wage, the white teacher (829). As be­
tween Elizabeth Hamilton, and Verna Harper 
and Edith Hardage, with whom I also compared 
her, in some cases the discrimination of salary 
favors the colored teacher. In some I believe 
they were about right. I think that it is true this 
is the first one that I have mentioned where the 
white teacher was favored.



284

Jeanne Dupree, (white), Oakhurst, receives 
$960, and Elizabeth Hamilton $706. The differ­
ence is justifiable, but I think it should be cor­
rected. I think Jeanne Dupree should receive 
a greater salary (830). In that case, it exists 
in favor of Elizabeth Hamilton, colored teacher.

Cordelia Davis, (colored), Gibbs, receives 
$884. Pauline Jordan, (white), Pulaski Heights 
Grammar School, receives $1,429, has an A.B., 
and has been teaching in our System for a per­
iod of twenty-six years. One teaches 5A and the 
other teaches 5B. I think the difference in sal­
ary is justifiable. I base the opinion on the in­
formation I have at hand as to evaluation of 
these teachers. I think Pauline Jordan is entitled 
to $1,429 (831). I think she is not worth sub­
stantially more. In my best judgment, I think 
that Cordelia Davis is worth substantially more 
than $884. I have probably not recommended 
any raises based on the rating.

Emma Pattillo, (colored), Gibbs, has an 
A.B., has been teaching here for twenty-four 
years, and receives $1,012. Esther Autry, 
(white), Centennial, has a B.S., and has been 
teaching twenty-seven years, and receives 
$1,391. In my best judgment, the difference in 
salaries is probably not justifiable. In my best 
judgment, I think Esther Autry is worth the 
sum of $1,391 (832). I think she is worth some 
more. In my best judgment, Emma Pattillo is



285

worth the sura of $1,012. She is worth some 
more. The discrimination is in favor of the 
white teacher. If general changes were being 
made, I would recommend some changes based 
on information I have. My recommendation 
would be that Emma Pattillo be increased.

Pauline Jordan, (white), teaches at Pulaski 
Heights Grammar School, and receives $1,410. 
In my best judgment some of the difference in 
her salary and that of Emma Pattillo is justifi­
able (833). If I were to make a recommenda­
tion, I think perhaps Emma Pattillo would be 
increased. I don’t believe I would increase the 
salary of Pauline Jordan. In this instance, I 
would say that the difference is in the favor of 
the white teacher. I am not able to say to what 
extent it is.

Mary Schriver, (white), Lee, receives $1,354 
and Emma Pattillo receives $1,012. In this case, 
I don’t think the difference is justifiable. I don’t 
think Mary Schriver is worth $1,354. If it were 
possible, I would recommend that the two sal­
aries be more nearly equalized.

Grace Hagler, (white), Forest Park, re­
ceives $1,418 and Emma Pattillo receives $1,012 
(834). There is a discrimination in their sal­
aries. I think in this case, Emma Pattillo should 
be raised some and Grace Hagler reduced. In 
other words, Emma Pattillo is one colored teach-



28 fi

er who is not receiving as much as she should 
receive.

Cordelia Davis, (colored), Gibbs, receives 
$884. Grace Hagler, the white teacher, receives 
$1,418. In my best judgment, I think the differ­
ence is justifiable. I base that opinion on the 
fact that Cordelia Davis is listed at a rating of 
four and Grace Hagler has a two minus. As be­
tween these two teachers, if there is any dis­
crimination, it is very slight (835).

Mary Schriver, (white), Lee, receives $1,354 
and Cordelia Davis, (colored), receives $884. In 
my best judgment, I think the difference exists 
in favor of Mary Schriver, the white teacher. 
I cannot state to what extent it exists.

Esther Autry, (white), Centennial, receives 
$1,391 and Cordelia Davis, (colored), receives 
$884. The difference is justifiable. I base my 
opinion on the fact that Miss Autry was rated 
as one, Cordelia Davis as four (836). As be­
tween these two teachers, I don’t think any dis­
crimination exists.

Fannie Cline, (white), Pulaski Heights 
Grammar School, in comparison with Vera Mur­
phy, colored, Bush School, each has two years 
of college training. The white teacher has been 
in our Public School System thirty-three years 
and the colored teacher thirty-two years. They 
each teach 6A. The white teacher receives $1,455



287

and the colored teacher $1,012. In my best judg­
ment, the difference is justifiable on the basis 
of these ratings. In my best opinion, Fannie 
Cline is worth $1,455.99. She is worth some 
more. I think on this basis that Vera Murphy is 
not worth substantially more than $1,012 (837).

Maude Hairston (white), Pulaski Heights 
Grammar School, has three years of college as 
against two years for Vera Murphy; the white 
teacher has been in our System for twenty-two 
years as against the thirty-two years of the col­
ored teacher; the white teacher teaches 1A and 
the colored teacher teaches 6A and 6B; the 
white teacher receives $1,380 as against $812 re­
ceived by the colored teacher. In my best opin­
ion, the difference is justifiable. I say this be­
cause there is a difference between abilities. In 
my best opinion, I think Maude Hairston is 
worth substantially $1,380, and not much more 
(838).

Nell Jones, (white), Pulaski Heights Gram­
mar School, has the same number of years of 
college training as Vera Murphy. She has been 
in our System for twenty-three years as against 
thirty-two of Vera Murphy and teaches 6B, 
which is the same grade taught by Vera Mur­
phy. The white teacher receives $1,402 as 
against $1,012 for the colored teacher. In my 
best judgment, this is justifiable on the basis 
that Miss Jones has a rating of two and Vera



288

Murphy of three plus. In my best judgment, 
Nell Jones is worth substantially the sum of 
$1,402, not substantially more. In my experi­
ence as a school administrator in dealing with 
and employing teachers and recommending sal­
aries, I find salary differences based on teach­
ing ability. That is rather a common thing in 
the experience of a school administrator (839). 
When I am sure of the facts in the case, the in­
equalities should be adjusted. I follow that 
practice. I find that it is true that adjustments 
are necessary from year to year.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

In giving my estimate of the teaching abil­
ities of the individual teachers in response to 
the question of Mr. Nash, I have used the com­
posite rating sheet, defendants’ Exhibit No. 3 
(840). These ratings are my ratings as deter­
mined by the information as my previous testi­
mony shows. I think they were put on there 
about the first week in June. Bernice Britt was 
asked to resign because of inefficiency prior to 
that time. The report filed with me gave her a 
rating of three. The rating, as my testimony 
has shown, came to me from the reports. I 
checked them over (841). After I checked them 
over as to matters of form, I put it down there. 
In that particular case, I assumed it came to 
me. As of the time I made the rating sheet, I 
did not consider Bernice Britt an average teach-



289

er. As of now, I do not consider her an average 
teacher.

M. C. Moser, (white), teaches mathematics 
in senior high school, has an A.B., has thirteen 
years here, seven years elsewhere and teaches 
algebra, rating two plus, and a salary of $1,536. 
On the basis of that, another mathematics teach­
er with an A.B., and the same kind of experience 
with a three minus rating would be paid some­
thing less (842). I have never attempted to fig­
ure how much less. All during my testimony, I 
didn’t say any definite amount in difference was 
justified on the basis of the rating. There is not 
so much difference between two plus and three 
minus. I would have to know the individual 
teacher. The rating does not entirely determine 
my judgment, only a small part of it, as my pre­
vious testimony shows. I took into considera­
tion also all I know about the candidates. Not 
all that I know about the candidate is included 
in the rating. I couldn’t give the approximate 
difference between three minus and two plus 
(843). Mr. J. H. Gibson, colored, Dunbar High 
School, has an A.B., like Mr. Moser. Mr. Gibson 
has seventeen years’ experience and Mr. Moser 
thirteen. Mr. Gibson has four more years’ ex­
perience. Mr. Gibson, the negro teacher, has 
four years’ experience outside of Little Rock, 
and Mr. Moser has seven outside (844). In total 
number of years, Mr. Gibson has one more year



290

in teaching experience, but Mr. Gibson is rated 
three minus and Mr. Moser is rated two plus. 
A very small difference exists. Up to that point, 
there is not much justification for the differ­
ence. I don’t think that the fact that Mr. Gibson 
is a negro and Mr. Moser is white is the explana­
tion. That is a fact. The information was be­
fore I prepared the salaries, this sheet was not 
(845). Mr. Gibson should be paid some more 
money. I didn’t recommend it because I felt 
my information was incomplete and I felt that 
there were other things and other cases where 
recommendations should be made as to all 
teachers, and until my information was com­
plete, I was unwilling to make any recom­
mendations. I think this material probably in­
fluenced my decisions in making my recom­
mendations for salaries this year, 1942-1943. I 
believe it changed Bernice Bass. I don’t recall 
any others. Miss Bass has a four plus. I can’t 
explain how she got a four plus and Miss Britt 
got a three. I did not rate either one of them. I 
did put these ratings there (846). She is a 
teacher that I thought enough about to raise her 
salary. Miss Britt gets a three, and I think so 
little of her that I got rid of her. In my mind, 
the accuracy of that rating sheet is not so good. 
I have been studying school administration 
some. I don’t recall any school system in the 
country that bases its salary on the rating of 
teachers similar to this. Little Rock does not



291

base its salaries on these rating sheets (847). 
Part of the individual ratings, the ones that I 
did personally, were made after the case was 
filed. These rating sheets were turned in to me 
approximately about the 15th day of May. That 
was after the case was filed. I do not recall 
that it was after the answer was filed. I con­
sulted with the lawyers and gave them the in­
formation for the answer. I believe it would be 
after both the complaint and answer. In many 
cases, it is true that these rating sheets, so far 
as individual rating figures, justify completely 
the difference in salary (848). This is true in 
practically all cases. It is true that the major 
part of the white teachers’ salaries are higher 
than the negro teachers’ salaries. The complet­
ed report was prepared after the answer was 
filed. I visited Dunbar and rated the teachers 
on April 1 or March 31. That was after the suit 
was filed (849). I made a three-column rating 
of teachers in Mr. Lewis’ office around about 
April. Then a five-column sheet was made up. 
I made a five-column sheet purely as a matter 
of having a little more refinement in the rank­
ing. We thought the five would be better than 
the three (850). On the three-column sheet, 
many of the negroes run about an average, 
some higher and some lower (850). Susie Mor­
ris rates fair, slightly better than average. She 
has not a single mark in the third column; when 
she gets up on the five-column, she went over



202

to four. I don't know how that happened. She 
was not rated while I was there. 1 do not recall 
where 1 would put her on a three-column sheet,, 
but 1 do not know. 1 did not see it prepared. 1 
got it from Mr. Hamilton. I did not give Mr. 
Lewis a live-column sheet to rate his teachers 
with. I don’t know why. I am interested in 
what he would rate his teachers. I think I asked 
him for a grouping of his teachers. I believe he 
sent it to me. I consulted it some. I didn’t take 
his recommendations completely. Between the 
two, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Lewis, I look upon 
Mr. Hamilton as Mr. Lewis’ superior officer, 
and I look to him. I don’t know whether Mr. 
Hamilton asked him to rate his teachers. I got 
the ratings from Mr. Larson for his school. I 
consider Mr. Larson a very good principal, and 
I consider Mr. Lewis a very good principal. I 
got the ratings from Mr. Larson for his teachers 
and not from Mr. Lewis. I considered Mr. Ham­
ilton better fitted to rate the teachers at Dunbar 
than Mr. Lewis (853). To rate a teacher, I con­
sider it necessary to know something about 
teachers. I think he has had more experience. 
He doesn’t have the advanced degrees of Mr. 
Lewis. I think the colleges of both are very good 
colleges. I think they are both accredited. On 
training basis, Mr. Lewis has a better profession­
al background. I don’t know how much train­
ing both have done in advance schools, such as 
high school and up. I have known both of them



only a year and u hall' (854). I don't have super­
visors lor the while high school. Not in all 
eases do I gel both lhe rating of the principal 
and supervisor. 1 was interested in Mr. Lewis’ 
rating or 1 would not have asked for it. 1 was 
not interested in the five-column sheet from 
Mr. Lewis. When I testified that these three- 
column sheets were prepared with the consent 
of Mr. Lewis, I mean that they were prepared as 
a result of our discussion of the individual 
teachers (855). I didn’t ask specifically for a 
“yes” or “no” answer on item by item. He didn’t 
object. He had an opportunity to object. I 
think my relations with Professor Lewis have 
been pleasant enough professionally for him to 
express himself. I believe that Mr. Hamilton 
rated all of the teachers at Dunbar. I think he 
rated the music. I think he supervised the music 
teacher. I think we had a supervisor of music 
during the last year (856). I think Mr. Hamilton 
is qualified to pass on a music teacher as to gen­
eral evaluations; specifically, I don’t believe he 
could as far as the subject matter. I don’t think 
he is a musician. I am not familiar with the or­
ganization of other districts. In Jefferson City, 
Missouri, the principal we had was a special 
supervisor. He had an M.A. I have perfect con­
fidence in Mr. Hamilton (857). I am willing to 
accept his judgment as to the teachers. As to 
Susie Morris, I followed his judgment, and I 
followed it about the other teachers. It might



294

have struck me peculiar that the ratings were 
different from the five-column sheet. Where a 
teacher ends up below or better than the aver­
age on one sheet and on the next sheet she ends 
up four, I would assume that the standards have 
changed. I don’t know whether it was his stand­
ards or his report. I based it on his report. I 
compare them with teachers in the white 
schools, because I assume that the analysis of 
his teachers is just as carefully done as Mr. Lar­
son’s (858). That is all that I have to compare 
them. Mr. Hamilton does not do any supervis­
ing over any white high schools. I don’t think 
he even goes over there on business. The pur­
pose of this is not to check each one against an­
other, but checking teacher against the same de­
tail. I told Mr. Hamilton to check the Dunbar 
teachers against the Garland Elementary School 
teachers, because he came to me and suggested 
that his information was somewhat incomplete, 
and the teachers of Garland School were the 
teachers with which he was better acquainted. 
I told him to use all the information he had. It 
wasn’t on a competitive basis. I told him to com­
pare them with the Garland teachers (859). You 
can’t compare a high school teacher with an 
elementary school teacher. All the teachers at 
Dunbar were rated. You can rate a lab teacher 
with a teacher in elementary school on teacher 
and pupil response, not always. If you did not 
happen to hear the pupil response you couldn’t



295

rate them on that. In my mind, as administra­
tor, I am willing to testify that it is in line with 
procedure to compile a rating sheet like defend­
ants’ Exhibit No. 5 and compare teachers in an 
elementary school and teachers in a high school. 
On these general things, I think a comparison 
can be made (860). I don’t think of the group 
and it has nothing to do with the salaries. As a 
general thing, rating sheets measure some of the 
elements that enter into salary, but as final 
means of doing it, they are not ever made. As 
to the salary of the teachers that I found fixed 
at the level when I came here and the ones have 
not been changed at all, in my estimation or 
evaluation of the individual, race or color did 
not have anything to do with fixing those sal­
aries, not as to anybody. My information on 
them is incomplete, but in so far as I have gone, 
that is right (861). I have no information prior 
to February, 1941. In my study of teachers’ sal­
aries, I will say that as elements qualifications 
and experience appear more often than any­
thing else. If I take the teachers and compare by 
professional qualifications and experience, in a 
good number of cases, it is true that the white 
teachers rank above the colored teachers. I 
didn’t find an exception. My information is 
that it is true when you compare them across 
that level. I couldn’t use it as a yardstick. It 
sometimes enters into salary schedules, but I 
don’t think anything of it. It may have when



296

you go down these Little Rock salaries, but I 
don’t think it has (863). When you go down 
and put them side by side on the basis of ex­
perience and qualifications, I haven’t analyzed 
it to explain the difference, I don’t know. I don’t 
know whether it can be explained on racial basis 
or not. I can give an exception to that. I still 
deny that race has entered into it at all so far 
as my conception of it is concerned. I can’t deny 
that race was in there when the salaries were 
first fixed, because I wasn’t here.

(Counsel agree to submit tables of salaries.)

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

I have never claimed any finality for the 
composite rating sheets. At the present time, 
I know of no better way to appraise the teach­
ers’ abilities with the number of individuals 
concerned. It is the best thing I have been able 
to find at the present time, and if I can get the 
information I want on it, it would be the best 
judgment (864). As an administrator in the 
Public School System, I have never employed 
teachers on a salary solely based on degrees 
and experience. I would not be willing to do it 
with the information I have had. It would be a 
highly risky business to employ applicants as 
teachers knowing nothing more about them 
than their degrees, the college from which they 
obtained them, and the number of years of



297

experience. I have worked both with Mr. Lewis 
and Mr. Hamilton in my capacity as superin­
tendent. I have confidence in Mr. Hamilton’s 
judgment. I have risked his judgment in the 
rating of teachers. I think I have greater confi­
dence in his judgment than I have in that of 
Lewis. This is true for reasons already stated, 
his long experience in supervision, his attention 
to the details of his job, and his administra­
tion, and his demonstration or information to 
me about his acquaintance with his responsi­
bility (865). That confidence has been created 
over the time I have known him, the same 
length of time I have known Mr. Lewis. In com­
piling the rating sheets the question of race or 
color never entered into my mind. The basic 
items of the rating sheet were signed up and 
assigned before the suit was filed. I honestly 
did not think of it in evaluating on the indi­
vidual points (866).

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

For the teachers in the white senior high, 
I think I have a report from Mr. Larson on a 
comparative basis. He compared his teachers 
with those like Professor Lewis’ report did. I 
don’t think he compared them generally with 
elementary schools. I have never employed 
teachers on a basis of experience and degree 
alone. I have never based their salaries on



298

degree and experience alone. The schedule in 
Jefferson City was adopted just before I left. 
I do not recall the details in it, but I do know 
training and experience were large elementary 
factors, but I am not competent to testify with­
out it before me (867). In salary schedules, I 
think degree and experience are the two items 
that appear more often than anything else. I 
don’t think I would be willing to follow a sys­
tem of paying salaries on that basis, because 
whatever schedules are set on such arbitrary 
basis are generally considered unsatisfactory. 
They are measuring sticks on which we have 
our doubts. I have a life membership in the 
American Educational Association. I have read 
some of the reports. A majority of the pro­
gressive school systems are perhaps following 
that schedule. We have no schedule and have 
used none since I have been here (868) . I don’t 
think we should employ teachers on that basis 
alone. There should be a method of evaluating 
services in addition to it. I would be opposed to 
fix salaries on these two items alone. I admit 
that I am in a minority. I think we ought to 
have in the treatment of teachers the right of 
discretion, somewhere by somebody, to evaluate 
them, and I don’t think that the lock step system 
of salary schedule that is being adopted in many 
places that take into account only tenure and 
training is complete. I would not be willing



299

to base it on my rate sheet. I would want some­
thing more than this rating sheet, this much and 
beyond that (869). I would want to know some­
thing about the applicant, and I would want it 
demonstrated too. We have to depend upon a 
human equation.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

According to degree and tenure only, a man 
might be the biggest crook in the world, and if 
he was working with you, he would get as much 
as the best man you have as long as he works 
for you. I don’t believe that is right (870). I 
believe in taking into consideration character 
and not putting them on a level or parity. That 
(component rating sheet) is not a schedule. 
With the information I have, I don’t see any 
salary discrimination. I have not seen any dis­
crimination there on account of race or color. 
Comparing Mr. Hamilton with Principal Lewis, 
just between the two men, I testify that I took 
Mr. Hamilton’s judgment. His judgment is 
good as between him and Mr. Lewis.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

Under the system of paying teachers on 
experience and degree, if I had a crook in the 
system, I would fire him if I found him (871).

J. H. Lewis, recall on rebuttal:



300

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Some time in April, Mr. Scobee, Mr. Hamil­
ton and 1 prepared a series of rating sheets for 
teachers in Dunbar. 1 have not seen them since 
that time (875). The rating sheet for Susie Mor­
ris is my evaluation of Susie Morris. It was not 
my estimation of her in April. Mr. Hamilton 
did not discuss the rating of teachers on the 
five-column rating sheet with me. He has not 
asked my opinion about my teachers. He asked 
me about the group, and I sent him a group, but 
he never asked me to rate on the five-column 
sheet. I still think that on these various points, 
she would measure up quite well (876).

S u s i e  M o r r is , r e c a l l e d  a s  a  w i t n e s s  in  h e r  

o w n  b e h a l f ,  o n  r e b u t t a l ,  t e s t i f i e d  a s  f o l l o w s  o n :

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I went to the University of Chicago this 
summer and took graduate work in methods of 
teaching English and idiovisual education. In 
methods of teaching English, we were required 
to outline courses as we were teaching them, so 
that the teachers would be able to criticize our 
methods of teaching in our outlines (877). I 
received an A, which is the highest that you get 
in the University of Chicago or any other uni­
versity. We were asked to use the same meth­
ods, our so-called teaching methods, and I did.



301

I have a copy of my transcript with me (878). 
On the other subject, idiovisual education, I 
received a B.

J a m e s  D. S c o t t , s w o r n  a s  a  w i t n e s s  o n  b e ­
h a l f  o f  th e  p l a i n t i f f ,  in  r e b u t t a l ,  t e s t i f i e d  a s  
f o l l o w s  o n :

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I have been teaching in Dunbar High School 
nine years (879). Before that, I taught two 
years and two summers in Austin, Texas, at 
Sam Houston College. I received my college 
training at the University of Kansas, A.B. and 
M.A. I majored in sociology and one of the 
phases of biology, science group. I have done 
work on a Ph.D. at the University of Kansas. 
At Dunbar, I teach biology, conservation of nat­
ural resources, a course in mathematics, phys­
ical education, health education and geography. 
I teach seven courses (880). I follow the same 
courses as for the other high school. Mr. Scobee 
has never been in my classroom. Mr. Hamilton 
comes in three or maybe four times a year. He 
opens the door and looks in and stops and 
walks out. He has never criticized my teaching. 
He has never said anything at all about my 
teaching. He has never helped me. I do 
extracurricular work, coach of the junior col­
lege basketball team, chairman of the athletic 
department of junior college, member of the



302

entertainment committee of the junior college 
students. I have charge of the records of the 
junior college students on the auditorium com­
mittee, and I have hall duty on my off period, 
checking order in the halls (881).

J o h n  H. G i p s o n , sworn as a witness on be­
half of the plaintiff, in rebuttal, testified as 
follows on:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I have taught at Dunbar seventeen years, 
and before that was principal at Hillside, North 
Little Rock (882). I have a degree, and I have 
done graduate work in the University of Kansas. 
I teach mathematics at Dunbar and I have one 
class of printing in in the afternoon. Mr. Scobee 
has been in my room once for about fifteen 
minutes. Mr. Hamilton was in my room once 
this year and once last year. He stayed about 
twenty minutes. I follow generally the course of 
study handed me by the School System, except 
last vear, we revised our schedule for Dunbar 
(883). In the revision I was working with the 
teachers at Dunbar at the request of Mr. Hamil­
ton. I receive $975. Seventeen years ago, I got 
$900. I receive $75 more after seventeen years. 
I am on the Bearcat committee, and I sponsor 
the City assembly committee, and I sponsor



I

the boys forum and Hi-Y Club. I have spon­
sored the debating club in previous years (884).

J. F. L o u g h b o r o u g h ,

W il l ia m  N a s h ,

Of R o s e , L o u g h b o r o u g h , D o b y n s  
& H o u s e ,

For Defendants.

303





IN THE

District Court of the United States
WESTERN DIVISION OF THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

S u s ie  M o r r is  —___________________Plaint i f f ,

V. Civil Docket No. 555

R o b e r t  M . W il l i a m s , e t  a l_______Defendants.

RRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS

J. F. L o u g h b o r o u g h ,

W il l ia m  N a s h ,

O f  Rose, Loughborough,  
D obyns  & House fo r  
Defendants .

D E M O C R A T F .  f t  L . C O . .  L IT T L E  R O C KD E M O C R A T  F .  f t  L . C O . .  L IT T L E  R O C K





Page
A. PRELIMINARY STATEM ENT_______________________ 1-28
B. PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF ______________________________ 28-41

1. Statement of F a c ts ______________________________  28
2. Method of Fixing Salaries________________________  30
3. New Teachers____________________________________ 32
4. Old Teachers_____________________________________ 37
5. Policy of Board in Past __________________________  40
6. Bonus Paym ents__________________________________ 41

C. ANALYSIS OF TESTIMONY ______________________ 42-121
1. Statement of Case __    42
2. Analysis of Testimony ___________________________  43

(a) Schedules___________________________________  44
1. Before February 1, 1941 ________________  44
2. After February 1, 1941 _________________  49

(b) Policy, Custom and Usage __________________  50
1. Before February 1, 1941 ________________  50
2. After February 1, 1941 _________________  56
3. Policy as Reflected in Testimony of

Supervisors _____________________________ 58
4. Policy with Reference to Grades Seven,

Eight and Nine ________________________  63
5. Policy as Reflected from Testimony of

Russell T. Scobee ______________________  68
(a) Summary of Mr. Scobee’s Testimony

on Schedules _________ .____________  68
(b) Summary of Mr. Scobee’s Testimony

on Policy _________________________  71
(c) Summary of Mr. Scobee’s Testimony

on His Own A ctions________________  73
(d) Comparison of Teachers____________  74

V

1. Applicants Recommended by Him 74
2. Teachers Already in the System 76

(a) Without R e f e r e n c e  to
Teaching Ability from the 
Rating Sheet ____________  76

(b) With Reference to Ratings
on Teaching Ability ______ 81

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i



Page
6. Policy as Reflected by the Testimony of 

the School D irectors___________________ 82-95
(a) E. F. Jennings ____________________  82
(b) Mrs. W. P. McDermott ____________  84
(c) Dr. R. M. B lakely_________________  90
(d) Mrs. W. S. Rawlings ______________  91
(e) Murray 0 . Reed __________________  91

(c) Testimony of Plaintiff on Schedule and Policy 96
(d) Testimony of John H. Lewis ________________  100
(e) Plaintiff’s Tables __________________________  102

D. ARGUMENT ________________________________ _____121-145
1. Purpose of Plaintiff’s Suit is to Compel Defendants

to Adopt a Salary Schedule Based Only on Training 
and Tenure ______________________________________  121

2. Schedules ________________    123
3. Policy ------------------------------------ -----------------------------  125
4. Answer to Plaintiff’s Argument on P olicy___________ 130

(a) General Policy ______________________________ 130
(b) Minimum Salaries __________________________  132
(c) Salaries of Older Teachers and Flat Increases_ 133

5. Answer to Plaintiff’s Argument on Rating Sheets __ 134
(a) Admissibility _______________________________ 134
(b) Weight --------------------------------------------------------- 139

E. THE OTHER TEACHER SALARY CASES _________ 146-155
1. The Mills Cases __________________________________  146
2. The Alston Case _________________________________  151
3. The McDaniel Case ___________________________ ___ 152
4. The Thomas Case ________________________________ 153
5. The Turner Case _________________________________  155

F. CONCLUSION _______________________________________  163

Index o f Cases

Alston v. School Board of Norfolk,
112 Fed. (2d) 992_____________________________ 15, 152, 153

20 American Jurisprudence, Page 863, Section 1024______135, 136
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued



Page
Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U. S. 207_____________________________ 4, 6
Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S. 442, 447________________________  14
Chaires et al v. City of Atlanta, 164 Ga. 755, 139 S. E. 559__  13
Claybrook et al v. City of Owensboro et al, 16 Fed. 297_______ 13
Cumming v. Richmond County Bd. of Education,

175 U. S. 528, 545____________________________________  166
Davenport v. Cloverport, 72 Fed. 689, (D. C. K y.)___________ 13
Douglass v. City of Jeannette (decided May 3, 1943)__-_____ 4
Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377__________________________  11
Federal Cases, 30 (18, 260)________________________________  11
Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization.

307 U. S. 496__________________ _________1___________  3> 4
Hamilton et al v. Regents of the University of California,

293 U. S. 245_____________________ ______________ _____  U
Heim v. McCall, 239 U. S. 175_____________________________  6
Ins. Co. v. Weides, 14 Wall. 375, 380________________________  138
Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700____________________________  11
McCabe v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 235 U. S. 151______________  13
McDaniel v. Board of Instruction,

39 Fed. Supp. 638 (D. C. F la .)_____________________ 15, 152
Mills v. Lowndes, 26 Fed. Supp. 792, 800_______________9, 15, 146
Mills v. Foard of Education,

30 Fed. Supp. 245------- 15, 16, 17, 27, 125, 130, 146, 149, 150
Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, etc., 305 U. S. 337________ 13
Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 397_______________________  14
Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587__________________________  14

. People ex rel. Fursman v. City of Chicago, et al, 116 N. E. 158 8
Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U. S. 530__________________  11
Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U. S. 354__________________________  15
Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Company,

312 U. S. 496___________________________  _________ 9
R. C. L. 24, Page 613 (General rule in relation to employment 

of school teachers) ____________________________________ 7
Rose’s Notes _____________________________________________  138
Seattle High School, etc., v. Sharpies, 293 Pac. 994____________ 7
Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36___ _____________________11, 12
Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303____________________  13
Thomas v. Hibbitts et al,

46 Fed. Supp. 368 (1942) Tenn------------------------- 16, 153, 154
Turner v. Keefe (D. C. Fla.) (decided April 16, 1943)

16, 26, 70, 87, 122, 125, 138, 140, 155-161, 165
U. S. C. A., 28, 695_______________________________________  136
Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313___________________________  13

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

iii



C  i: .

** iV 'i'i

: ' .  r J J .......



IN THE

District Court of the United States
WESTERN DIVISION OF THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

S u s ie  M o r r i s ______________________________Plaint i f f ,

v. Civil Docket No. 555

R o b e r t  M . W il l ia m s , e t  a l ________ Defendants.

BRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS

A. P r e l im in a r y  S t a t e m e n t

The testimony in this case and documents 
introduced have been transcribed, and make a 
transcript containing some 1115 pages. This 
testimony was taken in open court last Septem­
ber, and the Court will certainly need an ab­
stract of it. Plaintiff has not prepared or fur­
nished one, and so we have prepared one and 
have had it printed in a separate pamphlet, and 
will present it to the Court with this brief. It 
will contain about 275 pages of print.

The case is important and also novel. The 
first of similar cases was brought in 1939, more



2

than seventy years after the ratification of the 
Fourteenth Amendment. It was contended in 
all of the other cases, and is contended in this 
that the right to the judgment asked is based on 
the equality clause in the Fourteenth Amend­
ment; and declaratory judgment and injunc­
tion is asked for in this suit.

It is contended by plaintiff and admitted 
by defendant that the public school districts in 
the State of Arkansas are State agencies.

The language of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment invoked by plaintiff to justify a cause of 
action is that no State shall “deny to any per­
son within its jurisdiction the equal protection 
of the laws.”

Plaintiff claims that the equal protection of 
the laws is denied her on account of her race 
and color, in that because of State law, or cus­
tom of administrative officers having  the force  
o f law, she and other negro teachers in the pub­
lic schools of the defendant district are dis­
criminated against in favor of white teachers 
so le ly  on account of race or color in the matter 
of salaries paid. The contention of plaintiff 
seems to be that salaries of teachers in the pub­
lic schools should be based solely on the college 
degrees they have obtained and the years of 
teaching experience they have had. The con­
tention of defendants is that there are many



3

other elements entering into the worth of a 
teacher and the salary he or she should be paid, 
involving character, disposition, industry, and 
many other things.

The point was raised in defendant’s an­
swer that the Court did not have jurisdiction 
because the amount involved did not exceed 
$3,000 exclusive of interest and costs. At the 
time of that pleading the several opinions in 
Hague v. C om m ittee fo r  Industria l Organiza­
tion, 307 U. S. 496, indicated that the majority 
of the judges deciding the case held the opinion 
that where the suit involved a property right it 
was necessary that more than $3,000 be in­
volved. In that case two of the judges did not 
participate in the case, two of them dissented 
on the ground the bill should have been dis­
missed on its merits, and the remaining five de­
cided the case and announced the reasons for 
their decision. Justice Roberts wrote an opin­
ion, concurred in by Justice Black, that the 
federal courts had jurisdiction in all civil rights 
cases without regard to the amount in dispute. 
Justice Stone wrote an opinion, concurred in 
by Justice Reed, and concurred in by the Chief 
Justice, that if the case involved personal liberty 
and not property rights, and was not susceptible 
of pecuniary valuation, there was jurisdiction 
without regard to the value of the matter in 
dispute, but if the litigation involved property



4

rights the $3,000 limitation applied; the opinion 
concluding (p. 531):

“* * * Whenever the right or immunity 
is one of personal liberty, not dependent 
for its existence upon the infringement of 
property rights, there is jurisdiction in the 
district court under Section 24 (14) of the 
Judicial Code to entertain it without proof 
that the amount in controversy exceeds 
$3,000. * * ”
However, in the later case of Douglass v. 

City o f  Jeannette, decided by that court May 3, 
1943, there is the holding that the district courts 
have jurisdiction of suits brought under the 
civil rights act without the allegation or proof 
of any jurisdictional amount, stating that was 
held in the C. I. O. case, supra.

Thus, that point of jurisdiction is no longer 
in this case.

Until the recent school teacher cases it has 
been uniformly held by the courts, including 
the Supreme Court of the United States, that 
no one has a constitutional right to employ­
ment by the State or any of its agencies, includ­
ing municipalities, in any of its work; and that 
failure to employ one, or any of the terms of the 
employment, do not involve constitutional 
rights.

In A tk in  v. Kansas, 191 U. S. 207, it ap­
peared that the statutes of Kansas provided



5

that eight hours should constitute a day’s work, 
and made it unlawful for any one to do public 
work requiring the laborer to work longer than 
eight hours a day. It was contended that this 
limitation deprived the workman of his rights 
under the Constitution to pursue his calling and 
enter into any contract desired, and that the 
statute of Kansas unreasonably interfered with 
the exercise of his rights, and thereby denied 
him the equal protection of the law. The court 
expressly refrained from considering or de­
ciding whether such a statute would be legal in 
its application to private work, but held that it 
properly applied to public work, as the person 
applying therefor had no constitutional right 
to the employment and had to take or leave the 
employment under the terms imposed by the 
statute; the court saying (p. 223):

“If it be contended to be the right of 
every one to dispose of his labor upon such 
terms as he deems best—as undoubtedly it 
is—and that to make it a criminal offense 
for a contractor for public work to permit 
or require his employe to perform labor 
upon that work in excess of eight hours 
each day, is in derogation of the liberty 
both of employes and employer, it is suffi­
cient to answer that no employe is entitled, 
of absolute right and as a part of his liberty, 
to perform labor for the State; and no con­
tractor for public work can excuse a viola­
tion of his agreement with the State by do­
ing that which the statute under which he



6

proceeds distinctly and lawfully forbids 
him to do.”

In H eim  v. McCall, 239 U. S. 175, there was 
before the court a statute of New York provid­
ing that only citizens of the United States 
should be employed on public work, and that 
of those preference should be given to the citi­
zens of New York. It was contended that this 
was unconstitutional and violated the rights of 
liberty of contract, and also that provisions of 
the first part of it violated the provisions of a 
treaty with Italy that its citizens should enjoy 
“the same rights and privileges as are or shall be 
granted to the natives.” In disposing of these 
contentions the court said (p. 191):

“The contentions of plaintiffs in error 
under the Constitution of the United States, 
and the arguments advanced to support 
them, were at one time formidable in dis­
cussion and decision. We can now answer 
them by authority. They were considered 
in A tk in  v. Kansas, 191 U. S. 207, 222, 223. 
It was there declared, and it was the prin­
ciple of decision, that ‘it belongs to the 
State, as guardian and trustee for its peo­
ple, and having control of its affairs, to 
prescribe the conditions upon which it will 
permit public work to be done on its be­
half or on behalf of its municipalities.’ 
And it was said, ‘No court has authority to 
review its action in that respect. Regula­
tions on this subject suggest only consid­
erations of public policy. And with such



7

considerations the courts have no con­
cern.’ ”

In its relation to the employment of school 
teachers, the general rule is stated in 24 R. C. L., 
page 613, as follows:

“* * * The board has the absolute right 
to decline to employ * * * any applicant for 
any reason whatever or for no reason at 
all. It is no infringement on the constitu­
tional rights of anyone for the board to 
decline to employ him as a teacher in the 
schools, and it is immaterial whether the 
reason for the refusal to employ him is be­
cause the applicant is married or unmar­
ried, is of fair complexion or dark, is or is 
not a member of a trades union, or whether 
no reason is given for such refusal.”

In Seattle High School, etc., v. Sharpies, 
293 Pac. 994, the school directors adopted a re­
solution not to employ a teacher who was a 
member of the American Federation of Teach­
ers or any local thereof. The plaintiff there 
complained that the resolution was unconstitu­
tional. In that case it was argued that the re­
fusal to make a contract violated the Fourteenth 
Amendment. Of that the court said (p. 996):

“* * * The right of freedom of contract 
as it exists in this case to refuse for any 
reason or no reason at all to engage the 
professional services of any person is in 
no sense a denial of the constitutional right 
of that person to follow his chosen profes-



8

sion. * * * Nor can the courts be success­
fully invited into a consideration of the 
policy of the resolution, for that would 
lead to supervisory control of judgment 
and discretion in the selection and employ­
ment of teachers which the statute has 
given exclusively to the board of directors.”

A similar question was involved in People  
ex  rel. F ursm an  v. City o f  Chicago, et al, 116 N. 
E. 158, where in the selection of teachers the 
board of education discriminated between 
those who were and those who were not mem­
bers of any federation or union. Of that the 
court said (p. 160):

“* * * It is no infringement upon the 
constitutional rights of any one for the 
board to decline to employ him as a teacher 
in the schools, and it is immaterial whether 
the reason for the refusal to employ him is 
because the applicant is married or un­
married, is of fair complexion or dark, is 
or is not a member of a trades union, or 
whether no reason is given for such refusal. 
The board is not bound to give any reason 
for its action. It is free to contract with 
whomsoever it chooses. Neither the Con­
stitution nor the statute places any restric­
tion upon this right of the board to contract, 
and no one has any grievance which the 
courts will recognize simply because the 
board of education refuses to contract with 
him or her. * * *”
Against these principles, established over 

quite a period of time, there are the cases, simi-



9

Iar to the one here, where the courts have 
taken jurisdiction of a case like this on com­
plaint made that a school board had discrimi­
nated against the colored teachers in the amount 
of salaries paid solely on the ground of their 
race and color. Not much discussion is shown 
of the point in any of these cases, but, of course, 
in all of them the point must have been con­
sidered. Those holdings alone, in the face of 
other authority, indicate a serious question in 
the construction of a constitutional provision, 
that will properly be by the court deferred un­
less its decision is absolutely necessary for the 
disposition of this case. And if, as we most 
seriously contend, no case is made on the merits, 
there is no occasion for the court to delve into 
this question. In many cases the Supreme Court 
has stated that the courts should not undertake 
to decide a question of constitutionality of State 
action unless no alternative to the adjudication 
of it is open. (See R ailroad C om m ission  o f  
Texas v. P ullm an  C om pany, 312 U. S. 496).

The novelty of a claim such as the present 
one for equal salaries in schools was noted and 
commented on in the opinion of Judge Chesnut 
as follows in the first case of M ills v. Low ndes, 
26 Fed. Supp. 792, 800, hereinafter further re­
ferred to:

“Whether a pub lic  em p loyee  as such
is entitled to invoke the equal protection



10

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is a 
question on which there is little available 
judicial authority, and there seems to be no 
reported case in which a public school 
teacher of any class has heretofore invoked 
this federal constitutional provision. In 
legal theory at least schools are maintained 
for the benefit of school children and not 
for the benefit of teachers. Counsel stated 
that they have been unable to find any au­
thority on the point and an independent 
search has met with no greater success. In 
view of the fact that the Amendment 
(Fourteenth) has been in force for 75 
years, the absence of authority on the point 
is itself rather significant in its indication 
that it has not heretofore been thought the 
Amendment applied to such a case. * * *” 
(Italics supplied).
This case does not involve a question of 

privileges and immunity, but of equal protec­
tion of state laws. The distinction between the 
privilege and immunity clause and the equal 
protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment 
should be noticed as the latter involves un­
equal laws impairing rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment has uniformly 
been recognized as giving guarantees against 
State action that would (1) abridge the privi­
leges or immunities of citizens of the United 
States; (2) deprive any one of life, liberty or 
property without due process of law; (3) deny 
to any person the equal protection of the laws.



11

It was early decided, and consistently ad­
hered to, that the privileges and immunities re­
ferred to were not those fundamental in State 
citizenship, but only those that owe their ex­
istence to the Constitution and laws of the 
United States. (P rudentia l Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 
259 U. S. 530).

It is a declaration that the State shall not 
abridge those that citizens of the United States 
are entitled to. (M ahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 
700).

They are those that arise out of the nature 
and essential character of the federal govern­
ment; (D uncan  v. M issouri, 152 U. S. 377; 
Slaughter-H ouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, the leading 
case often referred to); and that they were only 
that limited class which depended immediately 
on the Constition of the United States. In the 
Slaughter-H ouse Cases it was stated that they 
were few in number and of little importance to 
the great mass of the colored race (p. 77). They 
are all attempted to be stated in 30 Fed. Cases, 
No. 18, 260.

The distinction was recently noted and reit­
erated in H am ilton  v. R egen ts o f  the U niversity  
o f C alifornia, 293 U. S. 245, where there was 
before the court an order of the regents of the 
University of California, adopted under State 
law, providing that every able-bodied male stu-



12

dent should complete a course in military sci­
ence. A student objected to the order on religi­
ous and conscientious grounds. The court ruled 
that his rights were not privileges and immuni­
ties, but, if any, was the right to liberty under 
the due process clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment; saying (p. 261):

“The ‘ privileges and immunities’ pro­
tected are only those that belong to citizens 
of the United States as distinguished from 
citizens of the States—those that arise from 
the Constitution and laws of the United 
States as contrasted with those that spring 
from other sources.”
For instance, if a litigant claimed the right 

to protection on the seas and in foreign coun­
tries, and to pass from state to state they would 
be privilege or immunities within that language 
of the Fourteenth Amendment. If he claimed 
he was discriminated against on account of race 
or color in matters of common right, his com­
plaint would be based on the provision of the 
Constitution requiring the States to give equal 
protection of the laws, (Slaughter-H ouse Cases, 
supra, page 81). The distinction is worth keep­
ing in mind here, and we discuss this back­
ground in some detail as showing that if plain­
tiff claims race discrimination by custom, it 
must be custom so clearly and unmistakably 
established by those in charge—the school di­
rectors—as to have the force of law.



13

Under the equality clause in the Fourteenth 
Amendment it has been held that negroes have 
been denied equal rights by State action in the 
following: exclusion from service on grand 
juries by custom (V irginia  v. Rives, 100 U. S. 
313); exclusion from service on petit juries by 
statute (Strauder v. W est Virginia, 100 U. S. 
303); right of negroes to travel and have equal 
accommodations in pullman cars (McCabe v. 
A. T. & S. F. R y. Co., 235 U. S. 151); to have 
equal educational facilities (M issouri ex  rel. 
Gaines v. Canada, etc., 305 U. S. 337, being a 
case of a student in the Missouri State Law 
School); a tax on white property owners for 
schools for white children, and no school for 
colored children, was struck down in D aven­
port v. Cloverport, 72 Fed. 689 (D. C. Ky.); a tax 
on white people to support schools for white 
children and a tax on colored people devoted to 
a school for colored children condemned in 
C laybrook et at. v. City o f  O w ensboro et at., 16 
Fed. 297; in Chaires et at. v. City o f  A tlanta, 164 
Ga. 755, 139 S. E. 559, a city ordinance prohibit­
ing colored barbers from barbering white chil­
dren was held bad.

It was early authoritatively held that the 
equal protection of the laws clause in the Con­
stitution included the action of executive offi­
cers of a State and the subordinate agencies of 
the State persisted in until they became in ef-



14

feet enforcement of laws of the State. (Neal v. 
Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 397). This ruling was 
affirmed in Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S. 442, 447; 
and in many subsequent cases.

It is ruled and reiterated in opinions that 
the discrimination must be solely on account of 
race and color. In all of the cases where unlaw­
ful discrimination was ruled, the claimed dis­
crimination was either expressly admitted, not 
denied or no substantial evidence offered to 
disprove a prim a  facie  case.

Thus, in N orris v. Alabam a, 294 U. S. 587, 
involving a review of the conviction of negroes 
in the State court, the testimony showed that no 
negro had ever been on the petit jury in the 
State court. The court held that was prim a  facie  
evidence of the claimed discrimination. There 
was very little testimony attempting to justify 
the exclusion of negroes from the jury lists. 
There was direct and specific testimony that 
there were in fact negroes in the county quali­
fied for jury service. The court found that the 
negroes were not excluded from the jury lists 
because of age or lack of esteem in the com­
munity for integrity or judgment, or because 
of disease, or want of any other qualification. 
The court found that the evidence for a genera­
tion or longer showed no negro had been called 
for service, and that during that time there 
were qualified negroes, and that no names of



15

negroes were placed on the jury roll; and testi­
mony showing the lack of appropriate consid­
eration of the qualifications of negroes estab­
lished the discrimination, which the Constitu­
tion forbids.

The facts in Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U. S. 
354, were similar. There the laws did not ex­
clude negroes from either grand or federal 
juries, but under custom only one had ever 
served on either. It was shown there were many 
qualified to serve, and that negroes constituted 
twenty-five to fifty per cent of the population. 
The court held—overruling the State court— 
that there was prim a  facie  showing of discrimi­
nation against the negroes in the selection of 
jurors, and no substantial proof to overcome it.

The cases involving the question of dis­
crimination in salaries of negro teachers are:

M ills v. Low ndes, 26 Fed. Supp. 792, 
(D. C. Md.) decided March 1, 1939;

M ills v. Board o f E ducation, 30 Fed. 
Supp. 245, (D. C. Md.) decided 
November 22, 1939;

A lston  v. School Board o f  N o rfo lk , 112 
Fed. (2d) 992 (C. C. A. 4th) de­
cided June 18, 1940;

M cD aniel v. B oard o f  In struction , 39 
Fed. Supp. 638, (D. C. Fla.) de­
cided July 3, 1941;



16

Thom as  v. H ibbitts et al, 46 Fed. Supp. 
368 (Tenn.) decided 1942;

T urner  v. K eefe, (D. C. Fla.) decided 
April 16, 1943.

In  each and all o f  these cases except the 
last, T urner  v. K eefe, there was either a de fin ite  
schedule o f  salaries, no t according to nam es but 
according to positions, expresslg  f ix e d  by sta t­
ute or resolu tion  o f  the school board fo r  the  
teachers in the w hite  schools and those in the  
negro schools, and the salaries fo r  negro teach­
ers hold ing  sim ilar positions were substan tia lly  
low er than the salaries fo r  w hite  teachers. The 
sole classification in the schedule was accord­
ing to race. There is the qualification that in 
the Maryland case of M ills v. Board o f  E duca­
tion, 30 Fed. Supp. 245, there was a minimum 
salary schedule, and the plaintiff in that case, 
a principal, was paid less than the minimum 
provided by the legal schedule  for white teach­
ers. There was the further point commented 
on in that case that the custom of the school 
authorities had uniformly fixed the salaries of 
negro teachers lower than those of white teach­
ers; and there was no testimony justifying it, 
but the superintendent of schools stated it was 
on account of race and color.

In ruling there was discrimination shown 
in that case (30 Fed. Supp. 245) the court took 
occasion to say (p. 251):



17

“* * * I wish to make it plain, how­
ever, that the court is not determining what 
particular amounts of salaries must be 
paid in Anne Arundel County either to 
white or colored teachers individually; nor 
is the Board in any way to be prohibited by 
the injunction in this case from exercising 
its judgment as to the respective amounts 
to be paid to individual teachers based on 
their individual qualifications, capacities 
and abilities, but is only enjoined from dis­
crimination in salaries on account of race 
or color.”
On the merits the case narrows to a single 

issue of fact. Does the proof show that the 
school authorities wilfully arranged the salaries 
of the teachers who were white and negro so 
that the salaries of the negro teachers were less 
than the salaries of the white teachers, where 
the negroes were as well qualified as the whites; 
and that th is d iscrim ination  was solely on ac­
coun t o f  race or color? Plaintiff has the bur­
den of proof to establish that it does. She filed 
the suit on the theory that there was a fixed 
schedule of salaries for white teachers and one 
for negro teachers. That is her testimony (R. 
252, 253), and she also testified that where they 
had the same college degrees and the same 
years of experience they should be paid the 
same salaries. John H. Lewis, principal of the 
Dunbar High School, testified that his opinion 
was that degrees and length of service only



18

should be looked to in fixing salaries; that other 
characteristics, so-called intangibles, were too 
vague to be considered (289, 290). Witnesses 
James H. Scott and John H. Gibson merely tes­
tified to the degrees they had obtained and 
their length of service as teachers.

These were the only witnesses produced by 
plaintiff except Crawford Greene who only tes­
tified to some state and county statistics.

The complaint shows the suit was brought 
on the understanding and basis that there was 
a fixed schedule of compensation for teachers 
and principals in the public schools of Little 
Rock which provided a lower scale of salaries 
for negro teachers and principals than for white 
teachers and principals of equal qualifications 
and experience and performing the same duties; 
the complaint in that regard reading:

“13. Pursuant to the policy, custom 
and usage set out above the defendants act­
ing as agents and agencies of the State of 
Arkansas, have established and maintained 
a salary schedule used by them to fix the 
amount of compensation for teachers and 
principals in the public schools of Little 
Rock, which provides a lower scale of sal­
aries for negro teachers and principals than 
for white teachers and principals with 
equal qualifications and experience and
performing essentially the same duties. * * *”



19

Plaintiff failed to produce proof showing 
any salary schedule.

Defendant’s witnesses were: the School Di­
rectors: Mrs. W. P. McDermott, a member since 
1922, outstanding in social work and the civic 
life of this community; Mrs. W. S. Rawlings, a 
member since 1934, formerly a school teacher; 
Robert M. Williams, a member since March, 
1939, General Agent for the John Hancock Mu­
tual Life Insurance Company; Murray 0. Reed, 
a member since 1939, an outstanding lawyer in 
the community; Dr. R. M. Blakely, a member 
since 1941, an outstanding practicing physician 
in the community; E. F. Jennings, a member 
since March, 1941, a representative of Chrysler 
and Plymouth automobile agencies; and Rus­
sell T. Scobee, Superintendent of the schools, 
who has had 20 years experience in school ad­
ministration and who has twice qualified for 
an M.A. degree, and who is a life member of 
the National Educational Association. Three of 
the directors form the personnel committee to 
consider and recommend teachers’ salaries, and 
the other three form the finance committee. As 
a board of six, they select teachers and fix their 
salaries. They all serve without pay.

The School Supervisors: Miss Annie Grif­
fey, Mrs. L. J. Allison, Miss Maude Hayes, V. L. 
Webb, H. W. Means, and Charles R. Hamilton. 
They supervise the conduct of all elementary



20

schools and Dunbar by the teachers, and with 
the principals of the White High School and the 
Junior High Schools made up the rating sheets 
rating each of the teachers in the school district 
by name.

Each of the Directors and the Superintend­
ent testified positively there was no schedule 
of salaries for teachers according to the posi­
tions held; that the salaries of the teachers were 
fixed according to the teaching ability, char­
acter, disposition, and other elements showing 
their ability and worth individually as teach­
ers, in addition to their college degrees and 
length of service qualifications; and each posi­
tively testified that there was no discrimina­
tion against any negro teacher on account of 
race or color. Each of the Supervisors testifiied 
that they used the same standards of judgment 
for the Colored as for the White teachers in 
making up the rating sheets showing the abil­
ity, character and disposition of the teachers 
and showing their value or worth as teachers.

Plaintiff contends that the testimony of 
these witnesses, who manage the schools and 
know what they are talking about, is not to be 
believed.

In the record will be found many refer­
ences to college degrees and to accredited 
schools.



21

It is probably a matter of common knowl­
edge, and will not be disputed, that degrees 
from accredited schools are considered more 
important, as showing the training, than- are 
degrees from schools not accredited. An ac­
credited school is one that complies with the 
requirements generally recognized by the ac­
crediting agency.

There are six accrediting agencies, ar­
ranged geographically: (1) Association of
American Universities; (2) North Central Asso­
ciation of Colleges and Secondary Schools; (3) 
Middle States Association of Colleges and Sec­
ondary Schools; (4) New England Association 
of Colleges and Secondary Schools; (5) South­
ern Association of Colleges and Secondary 
Schools; (6) Northwestern Association of Sec­
ondary and High Schools.

None of the Arkansas Colleges for negroes 
are accredited schools.

In the Little Rock School system there are 
86 negro teachers. 50 of them do not have de­
grees from and did not do their college work 
in accredited schools.

There are some 320 white teachers in the 
system, and none of them are without degrees 
from, or college work in, accredited schools, 
except those who teach special subjects not 
taught in colleges, such as cosmetology, auto-



22

mobile mechanics, aviation, band, and other 
specialty matters of that kind.

It is our contention that school officials in 
fixing salaries of their teachers are not re­
quired, under Arkansas laws, to fix salaries 
based solely upon college degrees and years of 
service as teachers, and that they not only have 
the right to, but should, take into account many 
other elements, including character, disposi­
tion, industry, manners and other character­
istics in the make-up of the individual, that con­
tribute to or detract from his or her worth as a 
teacher.

We respectfully submit that is self-evident.
If that is right, and the defendants have the 

right to fix the salaries of the individual teach­
ers in the Little Rock School District according 
to their real worth and value as teachers, and 
are not required to adhere to an arbitrary 
standard of college degrees and length of serv­
ice, we submit that plaintiff’s case is complete­
ly answered on its merits, and there is no 
ground on which to sustain her contentions 
here.

Showing the fallacy of the contention of 
plaintiff that the salaries of school teachers, of 
all people, should be fixed on the basis of arbi­
trary qualifications of college degrees and years 
of experience, we refer to plaintiff’s principal



23

witness, John H. Lewis, principal of the negro 
high school, who had Master’s degrees from im­
portant colleges, and in addition a D.D. degree. 
He also had many years of experience as a 
teacher. Notwithstanding those qualifications 
of degrees and years of teaching experience, he 
admitted on the witness stand that he had bor­
rowed from one of the teachers at various 
times trust funds belonging to the school dis­
trict in that teacher’s hands, the misappropria­
tion of which amounted to embezzlement (pp. 
285, 288, 290, 291).

Defendant’s case has been presented with 
much detail, and we ask the earnest considera­
tion by the Court of the testimony in the record.

In dealing with the testimony in the rec­
ord, the brief of plaintiff picks out an expres­
sion here and there from witnesses for the de­
fendant that seem to favor the contention of 
plaintiff, elicited during the course of long 
cross-examinations; but these expressions are 
statements disconnected from all of the testi­
mony of the witnesses, and even from the con­
text in which they were made, and are mislead­
ing. Also, part of a group of facts is emphasized 
without mentioning the other facts in the 
group, that completely nullify the reference to 
part. For instance, it is stated that previous to 
the time the rating sheets were prepared in the 
fall of 1941 a petition had been presented by the



24

negro teachers asking that their salaries be 
raised; giving rise to an inference that the sheets 
were prepared because the petition had been 
filed. A petition of that kind was presented to 
the School Board in the spring of that year (p. 
190); and similar petitions had been presented 
practically every year; in 1939 (p. 1003); in 
1938 (p. 995); and in 1937 (p. 985); etc.

As stated, the director-defendants are in 
complete accord that the defendant district has 
no fixed salary schedule. A minute search of 
the minutes of the Board will not show one. 
They are in as complete accord that race and 
color have never influenced them in fixing the 
salary of any teacher within the district. They 
employ teachers and fix salaries upon the basis 
of training, experience, teaching ability, per­
sonality, character and other proper qualifica­
tions.

The procedure by which teachers are em­
ployed and salaries fixed is as follows: The 
superintendent has in mind the same qualifica­
tions for employment as the director-defend­
ants, namely: training, experience, teaching 
ability, personality, character, sympathy, abil­
ity to get along with people, ability to give di­
rections, and other intangibles. For a given 
vacancy, he considers a number of applications, 
interviews applicants, examines their college 
records, obtains recommendations from place-



25

ment bureaus where possible, obtains recom­
mendations from those who have seen the ap­
plicant teach, and in general, obtains all infor­
mation possible to determine the fitness of the 
applicant for employment and the basis for 
salaries. He uses the same method for the one 
race as for the other, and in every instance, 
satisfies himself as to the candidate’s qualifica­
tions.

He then makes his recommendation to the 
personnel committee of three Board members. 
The committee questions him, sometimes re­
quires additional information, satisfies itself 
that the applicants are qualified and that their 
salaries are proper, and then makes its recom­
mendation to the Board. The Board itself does 
somewhat check the recommendations, but as 
a rule, follows the recommendations of the per­
sonnel committee.

The plaintiff in this case is a colored 
teacher in the Public School System, and she 
has alleged first, that the defendants operate 
under a fixed salary schedule discriminatory 
as to her, and second, that they have a policy, 
custom, and usage of discrimination against her 
because she is colored. Her allegation that there 
is a schedule is based upon a mimeographed 
bulletin found in her mail-box labeled “Special 
Adjustment Plan,” and upon her general belief 
that any school district would have a system,



2 6

that it must have a system. She later added a 
set of minutes for 1938 about which she did not 
know when she filed the suit. Her allegation 
that there is a policy, custom and usage of dis­
crimination is not based upon knowledge ot 
any situation involving herself and any white 
teacher, except she knows there is a difference 
in salary, and she has been told that she receives 
less than any white teacher in the School Sys­
tem.

In the case of T u rn er  v. K eefe, et al, decided 
by the U. S. D. C., Southern District of Florida, 
December 16th, 1942, it appears that the Board 
of Public Instruction for the County of Hills­
borough, Florida, adopted a plan for rating its 
teachers subject to annual revision by a com­
mittee, based upon a number of qualifications. 
Judge Barker had this to say of it and the plan:

“While the method adopted by the de­
fendants is apparently new, nevertheless 
it provides a satisfactory yardstick for the 
uniform determination of salaries without 
race distinction solely upon (1) physical 
health, personality and character, (2) 
scholarship and attitude, (3) instructional 
skill and performance, (4) years of college 
attended and (5) years of teaching experi­
ence. A lthough  the court does n o t assum e  
to be versed  e ither in the ph ilo sophy  o f  
teaching or in the various m ethods o f  de­
term in in g  teacher e ffec tiven ess , the m eth o d  
set fo r th  in the n ew  schedule w o u ld  appear



27

to be sound  fro m  an educational stand ­
po in t and one that shou ld  tend  to advance  
instructional standards o f  th is co u n ty .” 
(Emphasis supplied).

And again:
“College degrees conferred upon one 

and years of teaching experience do not of 
themselves qualify one for the profession 
of teaching or of supervising of teaching 
and do not constitute the sole criteria for 
admeasurement of teacher worth. In addi­
tion to said factors, the ability to impart 
knowledge to pupils, as well as one’s own 
temperament, patience, instructional skill 
and performance, disciplinary ability, 
physical health, personality and character, 
interest in work, dependability and schol­
arship, attitude, tolerance, habits and other 
factors may also be considered and 
judged.”
It will be noted that of these qualifications 

provided in the schedule and mentioned by the 
Court, the qualification of physical health is 
the only one not specifically mentioned by the 
defendants here.

We offer this quotation and the one from 
the Mills case, 30 Fed. Supp. 245, on the matter 
of policy, custom and usage to emphasize the 
broad discretion which the employing agency 
has in fixing the respective amounts to be paid 
to individual teachers based on their individual 
qualifications, capacities and abilities aside



28

from  the question o f race and color, and to 
show that the Courts recognize qualifications 
other than training and tenure.

We offer them also as a judicial test, to be 
applied constantly by the Court to the great 
volume of detailed testimony here.

B. Plaintiff’s Memorandum Brief

The pleadings are substantially as set out 
in plaintiff’s memorandum brief with two ex­
ceptions which should be noted. In the answer 
to plaintiff’s paragraph No. 13B, the analysis 
should show “denied salaries are fixed in whole 
or in part on race or c o lo r”

The analysis of defendants’ answer to 14b 
and 14c should state that the answer denies that 
there is a discriminatory practice on the part of 
the defendants, not that a discriminatory prac­
tice is unconstitutional.

1. Statement of Facts

Plaintiff offers what purports to be a state­
ment of facts, but without furnishing an ab­
stract of all of the testimony, selects out of their 
context parts of the testimony that seem best to 
support her theory of the case, and does so in 
such a way as to present what is in reality mis­
leading statements. The first part of this brief 
is a comment on the p la in ti ff’s sta tem ent o f  
facts and follows the order of plaintiff’s brief.



29

In opening, the plaintiff undertakes to 
show the relative amounts spent on the educa­
tion of white and colored children, and the rela­
tive amounts spent on salaries for white and 
colored teachers. In doing so, plaintiff deals 
with figures covering the County of Pulaski 
and the State of Arkansas, and does not offer 
figures dealing only with the defendant district. 
Plaintiff admitted that she had no figures only 
for the defendant district, (7), and defendants 
objected specifically, (8), to the use of County 
and State figures to show the amount spent on 
education of children and on teacher’s salaries 
in defendant district. In order to show the rela­
tive sums so spent, plaintiff should show the 
total amount spent by the district, the number 
of white children, the number of colored chil­
dren, the number of white teachers, and the 
number of colored teachers within the district. 
If it is important for plaintiff’s case for her to 
show the relative sums so spent, then accurate 
information was available to the plaintiff 
through the records of the defendant district, 
and the testimony of Mr. Greene, the witness, 
on County and State figures is wholly inadmis­
sible to show what was spent in the defendant 
district. Plaintiff took discovery depositions 
before the trial and could have obtained this 
information at the same time. It is submitted 
that all testimony dealing with the County and



30

State averages for sums spent on children and 
salaries of teachers is inaccurate as applied to 
the defendant district, that accurate informa­
tion could have been obtained by the plaintiff, 
and that the testimony is inadmissible and 
should not be considered by the Court in the de­
termination of this case.

2. Method of Fixing Salaries

Plaintiff emphasizes that in the fixing of 
salaries, the recommendations of the superin­
tendent alw ays designates the teachers by race, 
that the report of the personnel committee to 
the board alw ays designates the individual 
teachers by race, and that race is in the minds 
of the personnel committee in the fixing of sal­
aries. This is unimportant but is not true. A de­
tailed reading of the reports of the superintend­
ent and of the personnel committee will show 
that the race is not always designated (91, 92, 
177). Race is often designated, either specifi­
cally or by mentioning schools which neces­
sarily designates race, because applicants for 
teaching positions are employed, not as a group 
and in general, but are employed to fill specific 
vacanices in specific schools, (141), and men­
tioning the vacancies and the schools neces­
sarily informs the personnel committee as to 
race. Not only is this not objectionable, but it 
is necessary to enable the superintendent, the



31

personnel committee, and the board to pass on 
the qualifications of the applicant, and to fix 
salaries, because the subject taught, as English 
or mathematics, and the school in which it is 
taught, (170), as Mitchell, a grammar school, or 
a Junior High, must be considered and weighed 
to determine the qualifications and to fix sal­
aries. The designation of race is used solely as 
a convenience for the office clerks, (184), and 
not in fixing salaries, and the annual reports to 
the county supervisor on forms prepared in the 
office of the State Department of Education 
require a showing of race for the purposes of 
statistics (p. 92 of discovery depositions.

The fact of race is necessarily in the minds 
of personnel committee in fixing salaries, as is 
the fact of sex, the age of the applicant, and 
other facts. It is not the aw areness of race that 
must form the basis of plaintiff’s contention, 
but showing that the awareness specifically in­
fluences the Board to fix a lower salary for 
colored teachers as a matter of practice and 
policy. Every member of the School Board and 
the superintendent unequivocally deny that 
race or color influence the fixing of salaries, as 
quoted specifically elsewhere herein.

Little change was made in the 1941-1942 
salaries, because Mr. Scobee, the superintend­
ent, was new to the system, having been here 
only four months, (292). Changes made were



32

based on merit, (313), and defendants show by 
other facts set forth in this memorandum brief 
that the salaries for 1941-1942 and for 1942-1943 
were not based on discrimination of race as a 
policy, and that is the sole question here in­
volved. The salaries for 1942-1943 were much 
the same, because this suit had been filed, and 
plaintiff would argue that any change made 
was made solely in view of this suit.

3. N ew Teachers

All defendants did deny that a salary sched­
ule was ever used in fixing the salaries of new 
teachers, or of teachers old to the System, and 
R. T. Scobee specifically denied that he had 
ever seen plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 4 offered by 
plaintiff to show a schedule until he came to 
Court, (529). R. M. Williams, the only defend­
ant director who testified after the introduction 
of the exhibit, also stated positively that he had 
never before seen such an instrument, (611). 
Furthermore, that exhibit does not appear any­
where in the minutes of the defendant district 
as having been considered or adopted by the 
district, and R. T. Scobee (466), and R. M. Wil­
liams (611), both testified that no schedule like 
plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 4 had ever been adopted 
by the Board. Plaintiff found this exhibit in 
her mailbox at school, and she inferred there­
from that it came from the defendant district,



33

and this is the only evidence offered to show the 
source of the exhibit. Moreover, plaintiff’s own 
testimony is that she and other teachers at Dun­
bar received more than the salary listed for 
them on Exhibit 4, which shows that it is not a 
schedule of the Board, or if it was, that it is not 
followed by the Board, (250, 251). The exhibit 
is headed, “Special Adjustment Plan,” and the 
plaintiff testified that there was a general ad­
justment of salaries in 1940, (250, 251).

Plaintiff states that “for years it has been 
the policy of the personnel committee to rec­
ommend lower salaries for negro teachers than 
for white teachers new to the System,” (page 
10 of plaintiff’s memorandum brief). Plain­
tiff cites page 41 of the transcript of Mrs. Mc­
Dermott’s testimony for authority for this state­
ment, and gives no other citation. A reading of 
the transcript shows that counsel for plaintiff 
asked the witness a leading question framed in 
the alternative, and her answer is in the alterna­
tive, is ambiguous, and is not responsive to the 
question. On pages lOlff, the same witness tes­
tified on that particular point, that the use of 
the word “policy” is that of plaintiff’s counsel 
and not hers, and she states positively that the 
School Board has never had a “policy” or “cus­
tom” to pay any minimum salary, or to pay 
any “group of teachers” a minimum salary.



34

Plaintiff (still page 10 of the memorandum 
brief) mentions the “schedule” adopted in 1938, 
(plaintiff says 1937), and relies extensively on 
it as a schedule for white teachers, just as she 
relies on plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 as a schedule for 
colored teachers. This was before Mr. Scobee 
was employed. He denies that any schedule 
was given to him, (327, 328), and that he fol­
lowed any schedule, (868). He did not follow 
this “schedule” of 1937, but acted directly con­
trary to it, for within one year and four months 
he employed a very great many teachers in 
junior high at less than $900, (387-398, inclu­
sive), and one teacher in Senior High at less 
than $945, (385).

On page 11 of plaintiff’s memorandum 
brief, she mentions defendants’ contention that 
salaries are based on certain intangible facts 
and discusses the method of arriving at those 
facts. Defendants all testified that applicants 
were selected and salaries were fixed upon the 
basis of character, quality and length of experi­
ence, quality of teaching ability, appearance, 
personality, and other such characteristics. 
Plaintiff gives an example of two teachers in 
which one had an extensive investigation and 
the other did not. This is merely a hypothetical 
situation, and the admission is that in such a 
case they would not be equally treated, but it is 
not an actual case, showing actually what hap-



35

pened. Plaintiff states that additional informa­
tion was seldom sought as to negro applicants, 
and cites page 588 as authority for the state­
ment. We are unable to find anything in the 
context to justify that statement. The rest of 
the paragraph is argument and will be con­
sidered in the argument herein.

Mr. Scobee did make mistakes as to white 
teachers, but he also made mistakes as to col­
ored teachers, (379), and was compelled to rec­
ommend dismissal, (379). He does not claim to 
be infallible, only that race has never deter­
mined recommendations of salaries. He did 
admit that some new white teachers were paid 
more than some negro teachers, naming them 
individually, (559, 570), but he did not admit 
that the qualifications of the negro teachers 
were equal, and said that the specific white 
teachers concerned were worth more, in his 
opinion, than the specific colored teachers con­
cerned, (559-571). The essence of the defend­
ants’ position is that defendants have treated 
each teacher, white or colored, as an individual, 
and have employed each teacher and fixed that 
teacher’s salary on an individual basis, white 
or colored, upon the qualifications above set 
forth, and without the question of race or group 
being considered. We mention this here to em­
phasize that nothing in the testimony shows that 
the defendants have dealt with the teachers as



36

white in contrast with teachers as colored, or 
in groups of one as against groups of the others.

On pages 12 and 13 of her memorandum 
brief, plaintiff assumes that no colored teacher 
is receiving as much salary as any white teacher, 
of same qualifications, but limits “qualifica­
tions” to degree and tenure, and to show the 
cause for this, cites the testimony of Mrs. Mc­
Dermott that white teachers have better back­
ground and a more cultural background, and 
testimony of Murray 0. Reed and E. F. Jen­
nings that on a bargaining basis, the superin­
tendent has been able to obtain colored teachers 
for less salary. If plaintiff’s assumption were 
true, the reasons cited do not show a policy  to 
penalize the colored teachers because they are 
colored. If, as a fact, a particular teacher has 
more cultural background than another indi­
vidual teacher, it is for the Board to say in its 
discretion whether that fact shall influence em­
ployment and salary, regardless of whether one 
is white or colored. The other testimony shows 
only a freedom of contract and does not show 
a prohibition as a matter of policy against the 
employment of colored teachers because they 
are colored. These same witnesses also state 
that salaries are in no part based on race or 
color. Contrary to the assumption, however, 
several colored teachers do receive more than 
several white teachers, as a matter of fact, and 
on the basis of merit, as shown later herein.



37

Plaintiff states on page 12 of the mem­
orandum brief that it has been the policy of the 
Board to offer colored teachers less because 
they will take less, and cites page 186, this being 
the testimony of Mr. Reed. It is submitted that 
the context does not justify that statement. The 
word “policy” is the word of the plaintiff and 
not of the witness, and there is no language in 
that context to show a policy. The answer of 
the witness to the counsel’s question was that 
less salary had been offered to white applicants 
and that they did not accept it.

It must be said for Mr. Jennings also that 
he had been on the Board a short time and had 
never served on the personnel committee, (12, 
27).

Finally Mrs. McDermott also testified, (89, 
90), that if the Board thought two teachers had 
exact qualifications and abilities, the Board 
would pay the same salary, regardless of color.

4. Old Teachers

We devote a separate portion of this brief 
to an analysis of plaintiff’s tables, and say here 
only that on the whole, those tables are not in 
fact based upon equal qualifications.

Mr. Scobee makes no admission that no 
negro teacher is paid a salary equal to a white 
teacher of equal qualifications and experience.



38

He does say that on the basis only of profes­
sional qualifications, which plaintiff has used 
consistently to mean academic training and ex­
perience, he thinks that in a good number of 
cases, the white teachers rank above the colored 
teachers. We suppose that he means rank above 
colored teachers in amount of salary paid. Dur­
ing the trial, he was unable to check for specific 
examples, (862).

It is admitted that plaintiff and twenty- 
four other negro high school teachers are paid 
less than any white teacher in the system, but it 
is not true, as stated by plaintiff, that Mr. Scobee 
was unable to explain this or to deny that the 
reason m ig h t have been race and color. On 
page 304, as cited by plaintiff, Mr. Scobee re­
fuses to deal with the plaintiff and twenty-four 
other colored teachers as a group, but insists 
upon treating them as twenty-five separate in­
dividuals regardless of color, and says that as 
individuals, there might be a difference to jus­
tify their being considered less valuable than 
specific individual white teachers, and he tes­
tified at great length on those differences for 
many of those individuals. Mr. Scobee admitted 
in his comparison of individual colored teachers 
with individual white teachers that some of the 
individual colored teachers were underpaid on 
the basis of their merit, (822, 825, 832), just as 
some of the individual white teachers were un-



39

derpaid, (822, 825, 830), blit the fact that there 
are some individual colored teachers underpaid 
does not make a pattern of a policy to underpay 
all colored teachers because they are colored. 
As mentioned, by comparison of individual 
teachers, some white teachers are underpaid in 
proportion to the salaries paid colored teachers 
(830, 831).

Neither can we find the context on page 
313 to justify the statement that the salaries of 
the teachers in the colored high school were not 
fixed on the basis of merit because Mr. Seobee’s 
funds were limited. He does testify that in most 
part 1941-1942 salaries were the same as before, 
(311), and he adds independently of any ques­
tion that his funds were limited. We submit 
that what he meant was that increases, whether 
for white or for colored teachers, were limited 
by his limited funds. A reading of the several 
pages, 311ff, will show this. Furthermore, he 
had been here only four months and was un­
willing to make changes on the basis of his in­
formation, (292).

We also submit that Mr. Scobee does not 
say that if race determined the fixing of salaries 
before he came, the same would be true today. 
What he says, (298), is that if a difference was 
based solely on the grounds of race, the same 
would be carried on in many cases. This is 
quite different from saying that race is the basis



40

of fixing salaries today. Regardless of what was 
done before, Mr. Scobee testified positively that 
never in any single instance has the element of 
race or color entered into his fixing any salary, 
(303, 556, 864), and this same testimony is given 
repeatedly by members of the Board.

Furthermore, he says that the 1941-1942 
salaries were not based entirely on merit and 
were not based entirely on teaching ability, and 
he says, (312), that he did not know some of 
the teachers individually. This testimony does 
not justify plaintiff’s statement that the salaries 
were not fixed on any  basis of merit. The tes­
timony shows that merit and teaching ability 
were considered, but that it was not the entire  
basis, because he had been here only four 
months and did not know all of them. This, too, 
is a far different thing from saying that colored 
teachers are paid less solely because they are 
colored.

Plaintiff also speaks of blanket increases 
over a period of years, (page 14 of memoran­
dum brief), but these were not increases, they 
were percentage restorations of salaries from 
the cuts of the depression, (65, 66).

5. Policy of Board in Past

Plaintiff devotes considerable analysis to 
the policy of the Board in the past, but we think 
it desirable to deal with this phase in our own



41

statement and argument rather than to com­
ment upon it here.

6 . B o n u s  P a y m e n t s

We think that it is true that under the dis­
tribution of the bonus payments, the colored 
teachers, as a whole, received less than the 
white teachers. It can be easily demonstrated 
that as between brackets individual colored 
teachers received more than individual white 
teachers, but within the brackets, the colored 
necessarily received less. The plan was devised 
by a teacher group and approved by the Board 
under a general understanding that on an aver­
age, the colored teachers received the same pro­
portion as the white teachers, (133, 464). While 
representatives of the Negro Teachers Associa­
tion may have called on Mr. Scobee, although 
this is not certain, (321), it was not shown to 
him that actual inequality existed. The Board 
members, who did not provide the method, un­
derstood that the negro teachers received pro­
portionately the same amount of money as the 
white teachers. It is submitted, however, that 
these bonus payments stand on their own and 
have nothing to do with the selection of teachers 
and fixing their salaries.

«



42

C. ANALYSIS OF TESTIMONY
1. Statement of Case

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants have 
established and maintained a salary schedule 
to fix the amount of compensation for teachers 
and principals in the public schools of Little 
Rock, that the schedule provides a lower scale 
of salary for negro teachers and principals than 
for white teachers and principals with equal 
qualifications and experience and performing 
essentially the same duties, (No. 13 of plain­
tiff’s complaint). Plaintiff also alleges that the 
defendants over a long period of years have 
consistently pursued and maintained and are 
now pursuing and maintaining a policy, cus­
tom or usage of paying to negro teachers and 
principals in the public schools of Little Rock 
less salary than to white teachers and principals 
in said system possessing the same professional 
qualifications, licenses and experience, exercis­
ing the same duties and performing the same 
services as negro teachers and principals and 
that the discrimination is based solely upon race 
and color, (No. 10 of plaintiff’s complaint.)

Defendants deny that they have established 
and maintained at any time a salary schedule 
and deny that there is now a salary schedule 
used to fix the amount of compensation for 
teachers and principals, white or negro, in the

*



43

public schools of Little Rock, and deny that any 
salaries paid to any negro teachers or principals 
is fixed in whole or in part on race or color, 
(No. 10 of defendant’s answer). Defendants 
also deny that they have over a long period of 
time, or at any time, persistently pursued and 
maintained, and deny that they now pursue and 
maintain a policy, custom or usage of paying 
negro teachers and principals less salary than 
white teachers and principals possessing the 
same professional qualifications, licenses and 
experience, exercising the same duties and per­
forming the same services, and deny that any 
difference in salary is based in whole or in part 
on race or color, (No. 7 of defendant’s answer).

For the purpose of the brief, the above 
states the whole case and the issues on the 
merits.

2. Analysis of Testimony

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants have 
maintained and now maintain a schedule and 
policy of discrimination. Since Russel T. Scobee 
became superintendent in February, 1941, nec­
essarily both schedule and policy must be con­
sidered before and after that time. We think 
that it must be conceded that whatever sched­
ule might have been adopted and whatever pol­
icy might have been followed before that time, 
if, since that date, there has been no schedule



44

or policy of discrimination, then the plaintiff’s 
complaint is without merit and must be dis­
missed for want of equity.

(a) SCHEDULES 
1. B e f o r e  F e b r u a r y  1, 1941

In discussing salary schedule, it is neces­
sary to know what is meant by the term. Plain­
tiff does not define it, but its meaning may be 
found in the decisions in the several teachers’ 
salary suits. A salary schedule for this purpose 
is a formal schedule provided by a state statute 
or specifically adopted by the school board and 
predetermines what salary a teacher will have 
by applying to the schedule, the teacher’s years 
of college training, and the number of years of 
experience in teaching. Discretion of the em­
ploying agency in fixing the salary is elimi­
nated under the schedule, and if the teacher is 
employed at all, the salary is automatically 
fixed and follows as a matter of course. It may 
be noted here that in each of the reported cases 
of teachers’ salary suits, there was a formal 
schedule fixing in whole or in part the salaries 
paid to teachers, with one arbitrary range of 
salaries for white teachers and another for col­
ored teachers.

In the present case, there is no allegation 
in the pleadings, or other contention that a



45

schedule exists by statute. As noted above, 
plaintiff does allege that the defendants have 
established and maintained a salary schedule, 
that that schedule is used to fix the amount of 
compensation paid to teachers and principals, 
and that it provides a lower scale of salary for 
negro teachers and principals than for white 
teachers and principals with equal qualifica­
tions and experience and performing essenti­
ally the same duties. In the statement of facts 
in her memorandum brief, plaintiff does not 
deal with salary schedules, but confines the 
brief to policy, custom and usage, so that we 
think that it may be taken that plaintiff aban­
dons her contention that there has ever existed 
or now exists a formal schedule adopted by the 
School Board by which to fix salaries of teach­
ers. Nevertheless, in view of plaintiff’s allega­
tions in this suit, and the facts of the other de­
cided cases which will be reviewed in argu­
ment herein, we think it desirable to review the 
testimony on the point of salary schedules.

Each of the defendant school directors posi­
tively testify that the Board has never adopted 
a salary schedule, as later quoted at length. 
These directors can be expected to testify only 
as to the times during which they have served, 
but a minute search of the minutes of the 
School Board for a period of ten to fifteen years 
back does not reveal a schedule adopted by the



46

Board. The word “schedule” is used from time 
to time, but a reading of the context each time 
shows that the word is not used in the sense it 
has in this action. One witness explained its 
use by saying that they used it as meaning pay­
rolls, (60), that is, a list of teachers by name 
and their several salaries.

In 1926, the superintendent recommended 
that B.A. teachers without experience get $100, 
$110 and $115, according to assignment to ele­
mentary, junior high, or senior high school, 
respectively, (891). That is a long time ago, but 
it is noted that the recommendation was appli­
cable to both races, and there is not one word 
of discrimination on race or color. It is true that 
named white teachers and that named colored 
teachers were individually employed at salaries 
less than those amounts. This does not show 
that this schedule, if it was one, was discrimina­
tory, but it does show that it was never fol­
lowed, and every director-defendant has in­
sisted that there was no schedule and that none 
was ever followed.

The minutes of January 31, 1938, contain 
language that make it appear that the School 
Board at one time had a formal salary sched­
ule, (990). This language is contained in a rec­
ommendation of a teachers’ committee in seek­
ing to obtain adjustments in salary and a sched­
ule to cover the employment of new teachers.



47

It recites that there was a schedule in 1928, and 
that it was in effect for two or three years, but 
became inoperative with the depression. As 
stated above, a detailed examination of the rec­
ords of the School Board shows no such sched­
ule, and none was ever introduced at the trial 
of this case. Mrs. McDermott, the only defend­
ant then on the Board, is positive that one was 
only considered and never adopted, (63). This 
recommendation of 1938 was adopted by the 
School Board, (990), and it provided that all 
new teachers shall be employed at not less than 
$90 a month, and that the salary for new teach­
ers in elementary schools shall be $810 a year, 
for junior high $910, and for senior high $945 a 
year, (991). There is no language, either in the 
action of the Board or in the recommendation 
of the teachers’ committee, to show a distinc­
tion in race or color. This was adopted about 
two years before Mr. Scobee was employed as 
superintendent. A list of teachers employed 
after the adoption of this recommendation will 
show that the recommendation was never ob­
served, for a great many junior high teachers 
and one Senior High teacher were employed at 
less than the recommended amounts, (387-398, 
385). The only respect in which it appears that 
it might have been observed was that new ele­
mentary teachers were employed at a minimum 
of $810, but Mr. Scobee testified that he recom-



48

mended the payment of $810 for certain indi­
vidual teachers, because he thought those indi­
vidual teachers were worth substantially that 
and no more, (404, 411, 412ff).

Other than these two instances, over a 
period of sixteen years, the minutes contain 
nothing that can be construed as a schedule. 
These two apply only to new teachers in fixing 
minimum beginning salaries and apply as well 
to white as to colored teachers. These were 
never followed.

Pages 839 through 1115 of the transcript are 
extensive excerpts from the minutes of the 
Board beginning in 1926 and down to the date 
of the trial. They contain several salary lists of 
teachers by name for school years, (1024ff, 
1051ff). It is impossible to devise any schedule 
of any kind that will fit these salary lists. Mr. 
Scobee, a trained administrator, so. testified, 
(68 & 69 of discovery depositions). Any test 
applied, on the basis of any qualifications, espe­
cially those only of college training and experi­
ence, will show that it is impossible to measure 
them by a schedule, and that there are as great 
differences within the list of white teachers as 
there are within the list of colored teachers, 
and as great differences within the list of white 
teachers as there are in a comparison between 
white teachers and colored teachers. If the



49

Court will examine the list above mentioned, 
and use defendants’ Exhibit No. 3 for degrees 
and experience, this condition will be readily 
apparent. It does not show a policy of dis­
crimination on the basis of race or color. What 
it does show is that the Board has fully exer­
cised its discretion in good faith in fixing the 
salaries of teachers according to its estimate 
of their teaching worth, regardless of race or 
color.

2. After February 1, 1941

The minutes of the School Board after Mr. 
Scobee’s employment as superintendent contain 
no references to salary schedules. The defend­
ant directors are emphatic in their testimony 
that since Mr. Scobee has been here, no sched­
ule has been adopted. This is important, be­
cause Mr. Jennings and Dr. Blakely have be­
come directors since that time, (12, 107); their 
knowledge is limited to what has happened 
during the time they have been on the Board, 
and they state positively that no schedule has 
been adopted or has been followed. Mr. Scobee 
states that he made an examination of the min­
utes to see whether any salary schedule was in 
effect and found none, (328), and he states fur­
ther that none has been adopted since he has 
been here, and that the Board has never given 
him any directions of any kind in recommend-



50

ing salaries, either for the white applicants or 
for the colored applicants, (329).

Mr. Scobee testified that it is impossible to 
take any list of salaries and fit them in with 
any conceivable type of schedule, (68 & 69 of 
discovery depositions), and he has devoted time 
and study to school administration and to the 
study of salary schedules, (863, 293, 294).

(b) POLICY, CUSTOM AND USAGE 
1. B e f o r e  1941

At the outset, we think it useful to repeat 
the length of experience of the present indi­
vidual Board members, defendants herein.

Robert M. Williams has been on the Board 
since March, 1939, (602). Murray 0. Reed, since 
March, 1939, (166); Mrs. W. P. McDermott, since 
1922, (34); Mrs. W. S. Rawlings, since 1934, 
(122); Dr. R. M. Blakely, since March, 1941, 
(107); and E. F. Jennings, since March, 1941, 
(26). Mrs. McDermott, from her long tenure, 
more than twenty years, is in the best position 
to know what has been the policy, custom and 
usage of the School Board in fixing salaries, 
especially so in view of the fact that she has 
been almost continuously on the personnel com­
mittee, (56).

The salaries of teachers in the system 
reached their highest point in 1929 and have



51

never been restored to that point (65). As stated 
above, in connection with schedules, the min­
utes do not show that those salaries were fixed 
by formal schedule, and Mrs. McDermott testi­
fied that they were not so fixed (63). The first 
salary cut was on April 30, 1932, and was a ten 
per cent cut, except that clerks drawing less 
than $75 a month were not cut, and teachers 
who had failed to make six additional semester 
hours in the three years past were cut an addi­
tional $75. It was also provided that male jani­
tors, white and colored, should receive $60 per 
month (937,938). This was strictly a percentage 
cut and treated all alike, white or colored, and 
specifically mentioned that janitors, white and 
colored, should receive the same salary. The 
policy of the Board was to treat all alike. The 
second cut was on May 27, 1933, and was also 
a percentage cut (945, ff). This was the last cut. 
Certainly, to this point, it cannot be said that 
there was a discriminatory policy.

Thereafter, the excerpts from the minutes 
of the School Board, fully set forth in the tran­
scripts, reflect a continual struggle to bring 
those salaries back to the 1929 level.

The first restoration of salary was made on 
March 21, 1934, when the Board restored one- 
fourth of the salary cut of May 27, 1933 (960). 
On June 19, 1934, the Board adopted a recom­
mendation of the teachers’ committee of the



52

School Board, dated May 25, 1934, adjusting the 
salaries of certain individuals who were all 
principals and were receiving new assignments 
(967, 968). On the same date, it increased by 
$30 the salaries of eight white teachers who were 
new to the system and who were receiving less 
than $688, because they were employed after 
the salary cut, and necessarily could not receive 
a percentage restoration of the salary cuts.

On May 6, 1935, the second restoration of 
salary cuts was made by restoring one-fourth 
of the cut of May 27,1933 (972). This made one- 
half, or fifty per cent, restoration of that par­
ticular cut, and was on a percentage basis. It 
recognized that there were teachers new to the 
System and who would not participate in this 
restoration because they were employed after 
the cut, and so the Board provided for each 
one of them an increase of $30 (972). This ap­
plied to colored as well as to white teachers, and 
is equal treatment,' showing that there was no 
policy of discrimination on the basis of race 
or color. As a matter of fact on a percentage 
basis the colored teachers were favored. Fur­
thermore, it was recognized that even with the 
restoration of one-fourth of the cut, and the 
payment of $30 to each not participating in the 
restoration, there were still inequalities, and the 
Board gave the teachers’ committee power to 
act in adjusting salaries of any  teacher whose 
salary it thought should be adjusted (972, 973),



53

and that the adjustments be added to the check 
of May 1, 1935 (973). To this point also, May 1, 
1935, no discrimination can be shown.

The next restoration of salary was on 
March 30, 1936, when the restoration was one 
hundred and fif ty per cent of the previous res­
toration (978), which had been a twenty-five 
per cent restoration. This restoration amounted 
to thirty-seven and one-half per cent of the cut 
of May 27, 1933, or a total restoration of eighty- 
seven and one-half per cent of that cut, but 
applied only to those teachers who were in the 
System at that time and received that cut. The 
Board recognized that there were many for 
whom the restoration would be inadequate, and 
made an effort to equalize only the lower brack­
ets, both for white and colored teachers. White 
teachers receiving $832, or less, were increased 
$67.50, and all white teachers receiving more 
than $832 and less than $900 were increased to 
$900. All colored teachers who received $655, 
or less, were increased $45, and all colored 
teachers receiving more than $655 and less than 
$700 were increased to $700. It is clear from 
this, that if there is any discrimination, it is 
against those teachers, white and colored, who 
received salaries in higher brackets, for the 
largest increases are given to those who received 
the least. This is not a discrimination based 
on race or color.



54

At the same time, the Board again recog­
nized that there were those who were employed 
after the last adjustment and so provided for 
each eligible white teacher to receive $45, and 
for each eligible colored teacher to receive $30. 
Whether this is discrimination or not depends 
upon the percentage figures, and not merely on 
the difference in the specific increases them­
selves. Where the difference between salaries 
was less than two-thirds, then these increases 
would favor the colored teacher. The fact that 
there is this possibility denies a policy of dis­
crimination against colored teachers because of 
race and color. It explains, also, how impos­
sible it is to fit any salary list into a “schedule.”

The next blanket restoration of salary was 
on May 11, 1938, when the Board restored one- 
eighth of the cut of May 27, 1933 (995 ff). 
Eighty-seven and one-half per cent had pre­
viously been restored, so that this one-eighth, or 
twelve and one-half per cent restoration, com­
pletely restored that particular cut. This leaves 
only the original ten per cent cut unrestored. 
All of these cuts and restorations were on a per­
centage basis and all were treated alike, both 
white and colored.

The only variations from the percentage 
restoration were adjustments of salaries ol 
those who were new to the system and within 
the lower brackets, and there the increases



favored those who received less salaries over 
those receiving more salaries. It'is to be noted 
that these are not blanket increases, as plain­
tiff calls them, but percentage restorations and 
adjustments.

The above sets out the policy, custom and 
usage of the School Board as shown from the 
excerpts of the minutes (888-1115), from 1926 
to 1940, and it is impossible to fashion from the 
actions of the School Board a policy, custom, or 
usage to discriminate against colored teachers 
because of their race or color.

2. After February 1, 1941
The Committee on Teachers and Schools 

made a study of every school and every teacher, 
white and colored, in the School System, and as 
a result of that study made a detailed recom­
mendation on April 29, 1940, of salary adjust­
ments (1011), and this recommendation was 
adopted (1017). The Court will note from a ref­
erence to the transcript that a great many teach­
ers were involved and that considerable care 
was given to the adjustment. This committee 
was composed of members of the School Board 
(1011). Whatever might have been the policy, 
custom and usage in the past, the adoption of 
the recommendation of April 29, 1940, under­
took to adjust and equalize all salaries. That 
date must necessarily mark a new point after 
which to determine whether discrimination

55



56

exists. If there has been no discrimination since 
that date, then plaintiff’s action is without merit. 
The teachers were listed by schools, and it is 
obvious from examination of the adjustments, 
that they were not on a mechanical basis of col­
lege training and experience only. For example 
(1011), compare John Axtell and Paulena 
Litzke. They have the same degree except the 
second has less semester hours; the second had 
no experience in Little Rock as against three 
years of the first, the second had one year total 
experience less than the first. In other words, 
everything is in favor of the first on a mechan­
ical basis, but the second, who had received less 
salary before, received a larger increase and it 
was sufficient to give her a larger total salary 
than the other received. If John Axtell were 
colored, plaintiff would claim discrimination. 
This is not an isolated case. For example (1011), 
compare Mrs. L. Beasley and Murphy Mears. 
Each has an M.A. degree. The first had 168 
semester hours against the other’s 160; three 
years in Little Rock, as against the other’s five 
and one-half; four years elsewhere against the 
other’s two. Except for semester hours, the sec­
ond one clearly has a superior claim; yet the 
first receives a larger increase and is still given 
a larger total salary. These two example are 
taken from the white teachers, but (1015), com­
pare Eloise Bradford and Thelma Bryant. They 
have the same degree; the first has one more



57

semester hour, no experience in Little Rock, 
against the other’s one and a half years; four 
and one-half years elsewhere against the other’s 
two and one-hall years. On account of experi­
ence in Little Rock, the advantage is with the 
second, and they receive the same salary, but 
the committee recommended a larger increase 
for the first, to give her a larger total salary. 
If she were white, plaintiff would claim the 
other discriminated against. If it is said that 
comparisons must be made between the white 
and colored, then the answer is that two of the 
members of that committee (1011) are defend­
ants herein, and all defendants positively testify 
that in their deliberations the question of race 
or color never entered, and that in fixing sal­
aries they acted only on teaching abilities, char­
acter, and the other qualifications above set out.

From examination of the figures, it is clear 
that the committee was a committee to adjust 
salaries, and it did adjust salaries, both for 
white and for colored teachers as in its discre­
tion it thought the salaries ought to be. Thus 
whatever the previous policy might have been, 
any policy of discrimination based on race and 
color would have to begin subsequent to these 
adjustments made on April 29, 1940.

The 1940-1941 contracts, according to cus­
tom, were made in May, 1940, and those con­
tracts reflect this adjustment. Mr. Scobee be-



58

came superintendent February 1, 1941, and was 
here four months when the 1941-1942 contracts 
were made, and he testified at that time he 
did not have sufficient information to make any 
material changes (481, 826). Then, too, the sal­
aries had been fully adjusted just a year before. 
Before the 1942-43 contracts were made, this suit 
had been filed, and the Board was reluctant to 
make changes in view of that fact. Thus, it is 
impossible to show anything after the adjust­
ment date to make discrimination. From Mr. 
Scobee’s testimony as a whole, it is reasonable 
to think that if this suit had not been filed, some 
adjustment would have been made in the sal­
aries of both colored and white, but those ad­
justments would have been made on the basis 
of teaching ability.

3. Policy a s  Reflected in the Testi­
mony of the Supervisors

Policy is a regular course of action consist­
ently followed over a considerable period of 
time. Plaintiff alleges on the part of the de­
fendants a policy of discrimination on the basis 
of race and color ancf seeks to prove that alle­
gation by showing what the action of the School 
Board has been. Defendants deny any policy of 
discrimination, but say that in fixing salaries, 
the School Board has consistently had in mind 
many qualifications, but never race or color, 
and have also traced their policy through the



59

minutes of the School Board. Since all the de­
fendants insist that salaries have been fixed 
on the basis of professional training, length and 
quality of experience, teaching ability, char­
acter, personality and such other qualities in so 
far as they could determine, a test is how well 
individual white teachers compare with individ­
ual colored teachers. One group, as such, can­
not be compared with the other, as such, be­
cause the defendants have never treated them 
by groups, but always as individuals, whether 
white or colored. As individuals, if they are of 
the same comparative abilities and are equal in 
other qualifications, but the salaries of the 
white teachers much larger, then the plaintiff 
has force in her contention; but if, as individ­
uals, they differ in ability and in other qualifi­
cations, and if the salaries on the whole favor 
those individuals of superior ability and quali­
fications, then the contention of the defendants 
is well sustained.

From the nature of the circumstances, it is 
obvious that no one unconnected with school 
affairs is in a position to make such a test. Then 
the test must be made, if one is made, by school 
personnel, and this test can be made and was 
made by the supervisors who have in charge 
all of the teachers of the grammar school grades. 
It is pointed out that these supervisors were not 
appointed after or in view of this litigation, but 
that these and similar school administrators



60

were used and supervised the teachers, white 
and colored, long before any of the negro teach­
ers’ salary suits were filed (725, 745, 761, 779, 
800).

In substance, these supervisors or sponsors 
show a thorough acquaintanceship with the 
teachers under them, some sponsors more so 
than others, but each testified to an experience 
of several years with the teachers under him 
or her. They testify that they do not employ 
teachers, do not fix salaries, and do not know 
from what schools the teachers come. They testi­
fy, each, that race or color does not enter into 
their dealings with teachers, and does not af­
fect their judgment of their teaching ability. 
They have a thorough acquaintanceship with all 
teachers through the first six grades. Miss Grif­
fey has all teachers, white and colored, through 
the first three grades (725), and grades four 
through six, white and colored, are under the 
sponsorship of Mrs. Allison, Miss Hayes, Mr. 
Webb, and Mr. Means. In some instances, they 
overlap, as with Mr. Webb and Mr. Means (806), 
but all teachers through the first six grades are 
under these sponsors, and all of the teachers 
were rated by them, and the ratings delivered 
to Mr. Sc.obee (729, 726, 765, 783, 804). They also 
testify specifically that they discussed the rat­
ing sheet and the teachers with Mr. Scobee. 
They testify, each, that they first discussed these 
rating sheets with Mr. Scobee in the fall of 1941



61

before this suit was filed, and made their rat­
ings in the spring of 1942, as was the custom. 
All, except Mrs. Allison, testified that their rating 
was based upon their total knowledge of and 
experience with the teachers under them, and 
Mrs. Allison testified that her rating was based 
on the years’ experience, and she did not at­
tempt to rate those whom she had not observed 
or with whom she had had no contact for the 
past year (753).

Miss Griftev testified that her least efficient 
white teacher was more efficient than her most 
efficient colored teacher (731), and she did this 
without knowledge of salary or college degree 
(731). It appears that the white teacher has a 
B. S., thirty years’ total experience, and receives 
$1,418. The colored teacher has no degree, 
thirty-nine years’ total experience, and receives 
$1,195 (defendants’ Exhibit No. 3).

Mrs. Allison testified that there were two 
white teachers less efficient than her two most 
efficient colored teachers (749, 750). It appears 
that both white teachers receive less salary than 
the two colored teachers, although this is not a 
fair basis, for the two colored teachers are also 
principals now, but one of these two white 
teachers is no longer in the Public School Sys­
tem. Her third least efficient white teacher is 
more efficient than her two most efficient colored 
teachers, and she receives a larger salary, has a 
higher degree than one of the colored teachers,



62

and has taught almost as long as both of the 
colored teachers put together (defendants’ Ex­
hibit No. 3).

Miss Hayes testified that her two least effi­
cient white teachers were more efficient than 
her two most efficient colored teachers and went 
into detail to explain just exactly how they were 
more efficient (767, 768, 776). Both white teach­
ers receive more salary than one of the two 
colored teachers, but one of the colored teachers 
receives more salary than one of the white teach­
ers, and almost as much as the other (defend­
ant’s Exhibit 3).

Mr. Webb testified that there were only 
three white teachers less efficient than his most 
efficient colored teachers; that one was new and 
had been ill some of the time, and that the other 
two were teaching out of their level and were 
no longer under his sponsorship (784, 785).

Mr. Means testified that there was only one 
white teacher less efficient than his two most 
efficient colored teachers, and it happens that 
she was the same new teacher who had been ill 
some of the time (704, 805). Her salary was 
more than that of one of the colored teachers 
and less than that of the other.

The testimony for the defendant is that 
they employed teachers and fixed salaries based 
upon teaching abilities and other qualifications 
and not upon race and color. This is supported



63

by the testimony of the sponsors who do not 
know the salaries or degrees of the teachers 
through the first six grades, but who do know 
through long observation and contact their 
teaching abilities. In last analysis, their testi­
mony is that there are only five white teachers 
through the first six grades less efficient than 
the most efficient colored teachers. Of those five, 
one is no longer with the Public School System; 
one was ill for a part of the year and was new to 
the System; and two were teaching out of their 
level, and have since been placed in their level. 
There could be no better evidence that the sal­
aries are in ratio with teaching ability and 
worth of the teachers in the Public School Sys­
tem. This Court, having in mind the character 
and accomplishments of the individual mem­
bers of the School Board, all defendants and wit­
nesses herein, and the work of these sponsors, 
certainly cannot think that they deliberately 
entered into a scheme to commit perjury, but 
must believe that within their best discretion, 
the defendants have endeavored to fix salaries 
as best they can upon the teaching abilities and 
other qualifications of the teachers, white or 
colored.

4. Policy W ith Reference to Grades 
Seven, Eight and N ine

There is no adequate independent testi­
mony on the teachers within the grades of the



64

junior high schools, these being grades seven, 
eight and nine. The reason is that there are no 
colored junior high schools and there are no 
common supervisors for these grades. For 
colored students, grades seven and eight are a 
part of Dunbar High School, so that Dunbar 
High School carries the students through six 
years. There are three junior high schools for 
white students with separate faculties and dif­
ferent locations. There is no one supervisor for 
these junior high schools and for the same 
grades with Dunbar High School. The rating 
sheets introduced into the testimony constitute 
the only means by which a comparison of teach­
ers within these grades can be obtained. Mr. 
Scobee testified that the form of rating sheet 
used was introduced and discussed in the fall 
of 1941 (347), that from time to time he dis­
cussed with the various principals their various 
teachers (813, 814), and that the three princi­
pals prepared the ratings of their respective 
teachers and submitted them to him in the 
spring of 1942 (814). These individual rating 
sheets were assembled by Mr. Scobee himself 
into the composite sheet designated in defend­
ants’ exhibit No. 3 (813, 814). The exhibit desig­
nates the junior high, the name of the teacher, 
teachers’ degree or college training, years’ ex­
perience here and elsewhere, and the rating of 
that teacher on teaching ability. The sheets were 
not prepared as a check on salaries, but as a



65

means to study the teacher and to improve 
teaching (346), but they must necessarily show 
something of that teacher’s ability. It is impos­
sible to show by a mechanical yardstick the 
exact teaching ability of any person, and the dif­
ficulty increases disproportionately in trying 
to show the teaching ability of every teacher 
within any public school system, but rating 
sheets of various types have long been in use; 
teachers are familiar with them and they consti­
tute the only means of arriving at an approxi­
mation of a teacher’s ability and worth as a 
teacher. Thus, defendants’ exhibit No. 3 with 
regard to white junior high schools gives the 
only possible test of teaching ability and for 
each teacher a ratio between salary and teach­
ing ability with a background of college train­
ing and experience.

An examination of this exhibit shows first 
that the salaries of the teachers cannot possibly 
be fitted into any arbitrary salary schedule. 
Neither does it disclose any set policy with ref­
erence to these particular teachers, and the vari­
ations in salary are understood only when one 
remembers that salaries were at their highest in 
1929, were cut ten per cent and then cut a sec­
ond time on a graduated basis, restored by per­
centage allotment, adjusted as to salaries with­
in the lower bracket, and as to those who came 
into the System after 1929,and then finally all



66

salaries completely adjusted in April, 1940. This 
is all shown above, and the treatment was the 
same for colored as for white teachers.

Teachers in the white junior high schools 
might be compared with teachers in Dunbar 
High School, but this is hardly fair to either 
unless the age level of the students, the subjects 
taught, and other such facts are shown in each 
case. It is our insistence that the salaries have 
never been fixed by race or color, but are fixed 
upon qualifications and teaching ability. As to 
these teachers, the answer to the allegation that 
colored teachers have been discriminated 
against on race and color is for Mr. Scobee to 
take each colored teacher in Dunbar High 
School and compare that teacher with every 
teacher in the white junior high schools. He did 
not do this on the stand, but the Court will recall 
and the records show that he did compare great 
numbers of colored teachers, as individuals, 
with individual white teachers, and he consist­
ently states, both on direct (866, 871) and cross- 
examination (861, 864, 331) that in not one 
single instance has his judgment ever been in­
fluenced by race or color. We leave the Court 
to study defendants’ exhibit No. 3 as to teachers 
in the white junior high schools, and if he wishes 
to compare them with teachers at Dunbar High 
School, having in mind that the exhibit does not 
show age level, we invite attention to Susie Mor-



67

ris in comparison first, with all teachers of Eng­
lish who have taught six years, and all other 
teachers who have taught six years, regardless 
of subject. The only white English teacher with 
an A.B. degree or its equivalent who has taught 
six years is Catherine Lee, of West Side Junior 
High School. She receives more salary than the 
plaintiff, but she is listed as having much higher 
teaching ability. The only other teacher with 
an A. B. degree or its equivalent with six years’ 
experience is Clayton Elliott of East Side Junior 
High School. He teaches mathematics and re­
ceives a higher salary. It will be noticed that 
with less teaching experience, he receives more 
salary than the white English teacher, although 
he is not rated so high on teaching ability. He 
is also full-time year-around coach and was em­
ployed for that purpose in addition to his aca­
demic teaching. These salaries are consistent 
with the ratings on teaching ability and the sub­
ject taught, admitting that it is difficult to judge 
teaching ability and remembering also that it is 
impossible for a school board to exercise dis­
cretion with mathematical exactness.

We invite the same comparison of the plain­
tiff with white teachers having less teaching 
experience, and it will show either that the white 
teacher has a Masters Degree, or is teaching a 
more difficult subject, or both, and it is defend­
ants’ position that either justifies a higher sal­
ary, if a higher salary is received.



68

5. P o l ic y  a s  R e f l e c t e d  f r o m  T e s t i­
m o n y  o f  R u s s e l l  T . S c o b e e .

Defendants take the position that before 
Mr. Scobee was employed, they did not discrimi­
nate against colored teachers by reason of race 
or color. Mr. Scobee cannot have first hand in­
formation about what was done before he came, 
but he does know and testifies at length about 
what has been done since he came here on Feb- 
ruray 1, 1941. He sees all teacher-applicants in 
the first instance, interviews them, and recom­
mends salaries; he is an administrator; he has 
unusually excellent qualifications for his work; 
he has been here since February 1,1941; he goes 
thoroughly into detail as to each teacher em­
ployed since he has been here. Under these cir­
cumstances, we submit that his testimony is en­
titled to very great weight.

(a) S u m m a ry  o f  Mr. Scobee’s T estim o n y  
on Schedules.

Mr. Scobee’s testimony is clear and consist­
ent on the matter of salary schedules. He testi­
fied that when he came to Little Rock for inter­
view with the School Board on the question of 
his employment as superintendent, he asked 
whether the District acted under a salary sched­
ule, and he was told by the School Board that it 
did not (328). This was before his employment, 
and when he was only a prospective superin­
tendent of the schools.



69

After he was employed as superintendent, 
and before this suit was filed, he examined the 
minutes of the District from about 1926, and 
did not find any salary schedule in the minutes 
(328). This statement by a trained administra­
tor employed to administer our School System 
is entitled to great weight.

It is one of his duties to recommend appli­
cants and their salaries for teaching positions. 
Neither the Board nor any single member of 
the Board ever directed him to use a salary 
schedule in recommending salaries, not even a 
minimum salary for new teachers, white or 
colored (329).

He testified that he never saw plaintiff’s 
exhibit No. 4 claimed to be a schedule for 
colored teachers until he took the stand in this 
trial (466). This was a mimeographed sheet 
found by plaintiff in her school box stating that 
minimum entrance salaries were $615 and $630. 
If, in fact, this were a schedule, Mr. Scobee did 
not use it, because he employed one industrial 
arts teacher at $765 (580) and another at $675 
(416), and these cannot be reconciled on any 
basis of the so-called schedule. The exhibit 
shows on its face that it is a salary adjustment 
plan. It is submitted that this sheet has no place 
in this case. A logical explanation of its origin 
is that it came from the Negro Teachers’ Asso­
ciation.



70

The minutes of 1938 show that the School 
Board approved and recommended a schedule 
of $810 for new elementary teachers, $910 for 
new junior high teachers and $945 for new high 
school teachers (991). This does not contain 
a word as to race and color, and was adopted 
before Mr. Scobee came. He was never directed 
by the Board or any member to go by this so- 
called minimum schedule. In fact, he did not 
go by it. In the short space of a year and four 
months, he employed many new junior high 
teachers at less than $910 and one new high 
school teacher at less than $945 (387-398, 385). 
If this were a schedule, then clearly he did not 
follow it and his testimony is that he never fol­
lowed a schedule.

He testified that in his experience as a 
school administrator, he has never employed 
teachers and fixed their salaries only on basis 
of training and experience (846, 867). He fur­
ther states that he is not willing to do this now 
(865, 868). He says that other elements must be 
considered and he names them. They are the 
elements upon which the defendant has sought 
to employ teachers and fix their salaries, name­
ly, training, experience, teaching ability, integ­
rity, personality, and other intangible qualities 
(293, 301, 333, 408). These are all approved in 
the Turner case. He further says that in em­
ploying teachers and fixing salaries on the basis



71

of these elements, there must be someone final­
ly to exercise judgment and discretion, both in 
employing teachers and in determining what 
each teacher shall receive (869). Although she 
denies it, what plaintiff really seeks from this 
action is to compel the defendant district to 
adopt a single salary schedule and to base sal­
aries automatically only upon training and ex­
perience. This is specifically contrary to Mr. 
Scobee’s best judgment and wishes (868), con­
trary to the wishes of the individual members 
of the School Board, and contrary to the Court 
holdings on the point.

(b) On Policy.

Mr. Scobee admits that he does not know 
what policy existed before he came in Feb­
ruary, 1941 (862). Since he has been employed 
as superintendent, he has attended all Board 
meetings except one, and he has never heard 
race or color discussed at any Board meeting 
(339). It has never been suggested that he pay a 
teacher a certain salary because that teacher 
was white or colored, and his recommendation 
of salaries has never been questioned on the 
ground that a teacher was white or colored 

ml ^ —(330- From February 1, 1941, to February, 
Sf 1942, when the suit was filed, is a long time for

2-3 f  °
' this purpose, and it shows what the policy of the 

Board was.



72

He states that he substantially maintained 
the 1941-1942 salaries because he had been here 
about four months and did not have sufficient 
information on which to base a complete modi­
fication of the salaries. Before the 1942-1943 
salaries could be fixed, this suit was filed. He 
still did not make substantial changes because, 
as he says, he was not satisfied with the infor­
mation he had (481), and because this suit had 
been filed. Any change he might have made 
would have been interpreted in the light of this 
suit. His action is entirely reasonable under the 
circumstances.

He stated that it was his policy to recom­
mend salaries for what he thought the applicant 
was worth, regardless of color (303). In fixing 
salaries for renewal contracts, he also stated 
that it is his policy to recommend what he 
thought each teacher was worth (338, 411, 418, 
487). In employing applicants for a teaching 
position, he stated that if two applicants were, 
in his best opinion, in every way equally quali­
fied, and the only difference was race and color, 
he would recommend the same salary for them 
(339). This is also the testimony of the defend­
ant Board members.

It is clear from his testimony that he is will­
ing to recommend higher salaries for colored 
teachers if he finds they are worth more (418, 
441). He made such recommendation for Ber*



73

nice Bass, and next to the plaintiff herself, he 
was examined on this teacher more than any 
other.

(c) On H is Own Actions.

He states many times, on direct examina­
tion (866, 871), and on cross-examination (861, 
864, 331), that never in a single instance has his 
recommendation been influenced by race or 
color. He makes the same type of investigation 
in the qualifications of a colored applicant as 
for a white applicant. It was attempted to show 
by the information contained in folders, that his 
information for colored teachers was not as 
complete as for the white applicants. He stated 
that much of the written information was con­
fidential and that after a teacher was employed, 
it was usually returned to the applicant’s college 
or placement bureau, or was destroyed, that it 
was his policy to destroy all the confidential 
information (420, 421). This has been done in 
many of the cases, not in all, and he admitted 
that he could not recall on the stand all of the 
information he had before him on each teacher 
he recommended for appointment (340, 540, 
541, 594).

His testimony shows a willingness to rec­
ommend salaries for teachers based on their 
teaching abilities and on all other factors he 
thinks proper when he has completed his in-



74

vestigation (338). We submit that in view of 
this evidence, in view of the fact that Mr.. 
Scobee has been here only since February, 1941, 
of the use of rating sheets which began before 
this suit was filed, and of his declared willing­
ness to modify salaries when he has complete 
information, this action of the plaintiff is en­
tirely premature without reference to anything 
before Mr. Scobee’s tenure. Plaintiff’s whole 
action in filing this suit under these conditions 
was unwise, first because it was filed before 
Mr. Scobee could complete his study of teachers 
in the System, and second, because it had the ef­
fect of paralyzing salaries, and interfering with 
the adjustment of salaries for at least two years’ 
time.

(d) Com parison o f  Teachers.
1. A p p l ic a n t s  R e c o m m e n d e d  b y  H i m .

His testimony shows that he gave for each 
type of applicant the same type of investiga­
tion, not always to the same extent, but the same 
type of investigation pursued far enough in 
each case to enable him to form a judgment as 
to the applicant’s fitness for teaching and as to 
the applicant’s worth to the System as a teacher 
(438, 331). He states that at the time he rec­
ommended applicants, he recommended what 
he thought the applicant was substantially 
worth as a teacher. He made mistakes both as



75

to colored and white teachers, and he corrected 
those mistakes by having the teachers resign 
or not renewing their contracts (341, 378, 380). 
In making the mistake, he erred both as to 
teaching ability and in fixing the amount of the 
salary. If a mistake was made on the first, the 
second necessarily followed. He stated that he 
would not employ one of the white teachers as 
to whom he was mistaken, even at a salary of 
$540 (425). It is not a part of his contract, how­
ever, to be infallible.

When he testified at the trial, he had had a 
year’s experience with those teachers, and after 
a year’s contact with them, appraised their 
teaching ability as of the time he testified. He 
said that a few of them were worth some more 
than the amount for which he recommended 
them (396ff). He thought that most of them 
were worth only what he had first recom­
mended for them (396ff). In two or three in­
stances, he thought at the time of trial that he 
had made a mistake in employing the particular 
teachers, and they are no longer with the Sys­
tem (341, 378). In every instance, in his best 
judgment, at the time of employing these col­
ored teachers, and, in his best judgment, at the 
time he testified, he thought the white teachers 
better qualified as individuals and worth the 
difference between what was paid the colored 
teachers and what was paid to them, not as a



76

group, but as individuals (396ff). He made the 
statement that not a single colored teacher is as 
good as any white teacher he has employed 
(301, 530). *

( 2 ) .  T e a c h e r s  A l r e a d y  i n  t h e  S y s t e m .

(a) W ith o u t R eference  to Teaching  
A bility  fro m  the R a ting  Sheet.

Immediately the difference in salaries paid 
to white and colored teachers is accounted for 
in a vast number of cases, merely on the basis 
of training and tenure, plaintiff’s own test for 
fixing salaries. An examination of defendants’ 
Exhibit No. 3 shows that in the white high 
school, there are only two teachers listed as 
teaching English with six years or less experi­
ence in Little Rock. This test is selected because 
Susie Morris is an English teacher with six 
years’ experience in Little Rock. Of these two 
teachers, one has since secured an M. A., so that 
a difference is automatically justified. Since 
there is no arbitrary schedule, the difference 
must exist in the mind of some person qualified 
and authorized to recommend salaries, in this 
case Mr. Scobee. The other teacher has eight 
years more total experience than Susie Morris, 
so that on the basis of tenure, a difference is 
justified as to the second teacher, and on the 
same basis, namely, the judgment of some



qualified and authorized administrator to make 
recommendations.

All of the other English teachers in the 
white high school either have M. A. Degrees or 
many times the experience of Susie Morris, 
either being sufficient to justify a difference in 
salaries. To say that she receives less than any 
white teacher in the high school sounds as if 
discrimination may exist, until it is realized that 
there is no t a single English  teacher in the  
w hite  high school w ho has only an A. B. w ith  no  
m ore than a total accum ulation  o f  eleven years’ 
experience.

The only other teachers in the white high 
school with six years’ experience or less and 
only with an A. B. Degree, (this test being se­
lected because these are the qualifications of 
Susie Morris), are as follows:

1. B. S. teaching music, a specialized sub­
ject, for which it is difficult to obtain 
teachers.

2. B. S. teaching home economics, whose 
contract was not renewed on account of 
her inefficiency. This was one of Mr. 
Scobee’s mistakes.

3. B. S., teaching music.
4. B. S., football coach.
5. B. S., teaching bookkeeping, a special­

ized subject.
6. A teacher without degree teaching avia­

tion.

77



78

7. B. S., teaching commercial science.
8. B. A., librarian.
9. A teacher without degree teaching cos­

metology, a special subject.
10. B. S., teaching occupational courses.
11. B. S., teaching P. E.
12. A teacher without degree teaching auto­

mobile mechanics.
13. B. M., teaching band.
14. B. A., teaching shorthand.
15. A teacher without degree teaching print­

ing.
These are fifteen from a list of eighty-one 

teachers. Not a single one of them teaches an 
academic subject, such as English. The point is 
that they are the only ones, from a standpoint 
of experience to be compared with Susie Morris, 
but not one of them is on a comparable basis. 
Furthermore, of those fifteen, the Federal Gov­
ernment contributes to the salaries of five, and 
one is outright a football coach without teach­
ing any subject.

Plaintiff likes to say that there are the 
plaintiff and twenty-four other teachers at Dun­
bar receiving less than any white teacher in the 
Public School System. This sounds as if dis­
crimination must exist, and, in fact, it must, if 
the salaries were based upon a fixed formal 
salary schedule, or if the only standards for



79

fixing salaries are arbitrarily fixed on degrees 
and years of experience. There have been many 
comparisons already, and it would be impos­
sible here to compare these twenty-five with 
every white teacher in the Public School Sys­
tem, but an analysis shows that of these twenty- 
five colored teachers, only eight of them have 
been in the System six years or longer. Only 
one teaches a subject outside the academic 
group. In the white high school, there is only 
one academ ic teacher of six years of experience 
in Little Rock with only an A. B. other than the 
fifteen listed above who do not teach academic 
subjects, and with whom no fair comparison 
can be made. Tenure, plaintiff’s own test, im­
mediately explains a lot of difference in these 
salaries.

Of these seven colored teachers left in Dun­
bar, only one has an M. A. He teaches math 
and has been in the System eight years. The 
only fair comparison is with those in the white 
high school teaching math. All teachers in the 
white high school receive more salary, but they 
are as follows:

1. M. A. with thirty-six years’ experience.
2. M. A. with fourteen years’ experience.
3. B. S. with twenty-eight years’ experience, 

and he is also the assistant principal.
4. B. M. E. with seventeen years’ experi­

ence.



80

5. A. B. with thirteen years’ experience.
6. M. S. with twelve years’ experience.
7. M. A. with twenty-one years’ experience.
With whom, then is the M. A. from Dunbar 

to be compared? There is not a single math 
teacher in the white high school with only eight 
years’ experience, and of the seven teachers 
there, three only have an A. B. or equivalent 
degree, and one of those three is the assistant 
principal with twenty-eight years’ experience in 
Little Bock alone. Of the two others, one has 
more than twice his experience and the other 
almost twice.

When individuals are compared on an in­
dividual basis, the apparent discrimination dis­
appears. In these cases, a difference in salary 
is clearly justified on tenure and experience 
without reference to rating on teaching ability. 
Already the defendants have made numerous 
comparisons with elementary teachers which 
we need not repeat. Mr. Scobee admitted on the 
stand that in several instances, which would 
probably be increased if a comparison were 
made between each teacher with every other 
teacher on the basis of training and experience 
alone, the different salaries could not be ac­
counted for. This was offered only as between 
white and colored teachers, but even a cursory 
examination of defendants’ Exhibit No. 3



81

shows that the same is just as true, or even 
more so, within the list of white teachers by 
themselves and within the list of colored teach­
ers by themselves. This alone denies a policy 
of discrimination against colored teachers be­
cause of race and color.

(b) W ith  R eference  to the R atings on 
Teaching A bility .

Of course, these ratings are not infallible. 
Mr. Scobee said that they were the best he could 
obtain (864). The sheet was prepared before 
the suit; much of the information was gathered 
before the suit. All sponsors, except one, tes­
tified that they rated the teachers on their total 
knowledge and information of the teachers un­
der them. All had been using rating sheets for 
many years. The composite sheet represents the 
sum total of all the information that Mr. Scobee 
had been able to obtain. Even as to Dunbar, 
principal in this controversy, the composite 
sheet represents his own knowledge (816), 
Hamilton’s judgment (816), and Lewis’ judg­
ment (852). Plaintiff in her brief states that 
these ratings completely harmonize the differ­
ence in salaries, and that when the ratings on 
teaching ability are used, every single salary is 
justified. This is not true, for on the basis of 
these ratings, as to teaching ability, Mr. Scobee 
testified as to several colored teachers who



82

were receiving less money than they were en­
titled to receive on the basis of their own merit, 
and as to white teachers with whom he com­
pared them (130, 832). He also testified that 
some colored teachers receive too much (458), 
on the same basis, and that some white teachers 
receive too much (829), and some too little 
(830). It must be remembered also that none 
of the sponsors fixed salaries and none of them 
knew what salaries were paid.

It is not claimed that the ratings are abso­
lutely accurate; they can be made more accu­
rate. They do not show in all cases that the dif­
ferences in salaries in any group are completely 
justified, but they do show that generally, the 
differences are justified. Certainly they show 
one thing, and that is that colored teachers are 
not discriminated against on the basis of race 
or color.

6 . P o l ic y  a s  R e f l e c t e d  b y  t h e  T e s t i­
m o n y  o f  t h e  Sc h o o l  D ir e c t o r s .

(a) E. F. Jennings.

Although he was president of the Board at 
the time of the trial, Mr. Jennings was not in a 
position to know much about the method of se­
lecting teachers and fixing salaries except as 
he saw it through the meetings of the Board. 
He had been on the Board a year and a half, 
but had never served on the personnel commit-



83

tee (26), and did not know what type of in­
vestigation Mr. Scobee made (27). He knew that 
the personnel committee recommended teach­
ers and salaries (21); that there was no sched­
ule for salaries (28); that the question of race 
and color was never discussed in any Board 
meeting, and that no salary was ever fixed by 
the Board based upon race or color (29). He 
did not know whether colored teachers were 
listed and designated as such in the minutes of 
the Board (29). He always left up to the per­
sonnel committee the question of qualifications 
of teachers and their salaries (32, 33). He does 
have a very definite understanding that salaries 
are based upon qualifications, ability and train­
ing (15). When he was closely pressed by plain­
tiff’s counsel for other reasons for differences 
in pay, lie did say that they could get colored 
teachers for the salaries offered, and that they 
were trying to save money (19). This statement 
was made, after a pressing examination, by 
one of the two Board members out of six who 
had been on the Board the shortest time and had 
never been on the personnel committee. If his 
statement really shows anything, it shows an 
intention not to pay teachers more than they 
are worth, even though the Board may have 
the money.

The School Board is a policy-making Board 
(175). Mr. Jennings is a business man serving



84

on the Board without pay. Although he may not 
know how teachers are selected and salaries 
fixed, certainly as president of the Board, he 
would know whether salaries were fixed by a 
schedule or by a policy based upon color. We 
think that his statement that there is neither a 
schedule nor a policy in fixing salaries must be 
conclusive.

(b) Mrs. XV. P. M cD ermott.

The Court will recall that Mrs. McDermott 
is unusually well qualified for membership on 
the School Board. She was elected first in June, 
1922, and has been continuously on the Board 
since that time. This was shortly after she en­
tered juvenile court work, and during that time, 
she served in every capacity on the Board, but 
probably she served on the personnel commit­
tee most in view of her qualifications in social 
work (56). Without our repeating her record, 
the Court will remember that she has been con­
tinuously in social work since 1922, except for 
three months with the U.S.O., which was social 
work in a way, so that practically the last 
twenty-one years of her life have been devoted 
to a work that enables her to understand and 
appraise people, with a willingness to test rec­
ommendations of a superintendent and to know 
whether or not the teachers are being discrimi­
nated against on the basis of race or color (57).



85

Her work enabled her to determine what teach­
ers have to give to the groups they teach. It 
helped her to determine personality and 
whether they are capable of interesting chil­
dren, and helps her to evaluate character, which 
she considered an important qualification (57). 
The personnel committee discusses these quali­
fications with the superintendent (58). We men­
tion these things somewhat at length, because 
we think Mrs. McDermott’s own qualifications 
for serving on the Board and judging the policy 
of the Board are without impeachment.

She testified positively that a salary sched­
ule was considered about 1928 or 1929, but that 
it was never adopted, and that the minutes 
would reflect the schedule, if, in fact, there 
were one (63).

There is not a fixed salary schedule now 
and there has been none for the last ten or 
twelve years (63). The School Board does not 
try to tell the superintendent how the salaries 
are to be fixed. It has never instructed him to 
recommend minimum salaries for white teach­
ers at $810 and minimum salaries for colored 
teachers at $615 and $630 (64). Not only was 
there no schedule for the superintendent to fol­
low, but the School Board has never had a pol­
icy to pay any minimum salary to any teacher 
( 1 0 2 ) .



86

She testified that in their deliberations, she 
and the personnel committee have never given 
any consideration to race or color, that no mem­
ber of the committee has ever expressed an 
opinion on an applicant based upon race or 
color, that there has never been any disposi­
tion on the part of the committee to give colored 
teachers less salaries; that she recalled no time 
when the committee refused to employ an ap­
plicant or recommend a salary less than the one 
recommended by the superintendent, because 
of color (59). She stated further that in her 
consideration, the question of color would have 
no effect (60).

She recalled no time when the personnel 
committee offered to the Board a recommenda­
tion that a colored teacher be employed at less 
salary because he was colored (60). This ques­
tion has never been discussed by the personnel 
committee or the School Board (61). She stated 
that on an occasion or two, she questioned the 
superintendent why the salary recommended 
for the colored applicants was less than for 
white applicants, and he always put it on the 
basis of their preparation and ability to deliver 
(48, 49). We think that her testimony that race 
and color were never considered by herself, by 
the personnel committee, or by the School 
Board should be conclusive that they were not.

She describes the procedure for selecting



87

teachers and fixing salaries. Recommenda­
tions are based upon applicant’s qualifications 
and teaching ability (70). An effort is made to 
determine the nature of the applicant’s char­
acter (68). Although she thought training was 
a necessary qualification, she thought it took 
something more than a college degree to make 
a teacher (40). Just educational training does 
not make a teacher; it takes a lot of background, 
a lot of culture, and a lot of other things (50). 
Significant here is the language of the Court in 
the Turner case, supra, “college degrees con­
ferred upon one and years of teaching experi­
ence do not of themselves qualify one for the 
profession of teaching.” She did not consider 
a colored teacher with an M. A. necessarily bet­
ter qualified than a white teacher with a B. S.; 
it would depend entirely upon ability to give 
the students the knowledge they have and other 
elements, the leadership, culture, and the things 
that go into the elements of making a teacher 
(42). Two teachers, one white, and one colored, 
were paid more salary than they offered to 
take in their applications, and she based it upon 
ability to earn it (103). When the committee 
was called together, the superintendent pre­
sented the committee with a list of teachers and 
the positions for which he recommended them 
together with their qualifications showing the 
schools from which they graduated, the degrees



88

they held, their personality, and other things, 
and each person was discussed as an individual 
(34). The committee met once a month and 
met for an hour or two, most of the time from 
4:30 to 6:00 (103). This was done when Mr. 
Hall was superintendent. The committee had 
before it the recommendation of the superin­
tendent. He always made a prior investigation 
and had a personal interview. He made a 
strenuous effort to obtain knowledge of the ap­
plicant’s capabilities (104). The reports were 
in detail for the most part. Sometimes the com­
mittee requested more information, both as to 
white and as to colored applicants, and the 
superintendent made additional investigation 
and reports. Subject-matter taught, as for ex­
ample, music and English must be considered 
(105). The committee had the applications be­
fore them and examined them (98).

In response to questioning by the Court, 
she stated that the superintendent and person­
nel committee discussed what the superintend­
ent would consider in fixing salaries (93). The 
committee and the superintendent discussed 
the qualifications of applicants. The superin­
tendent would state the qualifications of the 
applicants and the committee would have an 
opportunity to consider whether the superin­
tendent had considered all of the qualifications. 
They were discussed with him from time to



89

time. Her own testimony as to qualification of 
teachers was based on the statement of the su­
perintendent and the ideas of the personnel 
committee (94).

Mrs. McDermott did not purport to be ac­
quainted with all the teachers, with their college 
degrees, or length of experience, or to be able 
to compare them on the stand. Neither had she 
made a critical study of salaries, but she stated 
that if she made a critical analysis of the sal­
aries paid, and if she became convinced per­
sonally that colored teachers were discrimi­
nated against by race or color, she would try to 
make an adjustment, and she thought she could 
speak for the personnel committee (60).

The plaintiff, in her brief, attempts to 
make something of the following in Mrs. Mc­
Dermott’s testimony:

“Q. If you had the money, would you pay 
the negro teachers the same salary as you pay 
the white teachers?

“A. I don’t know. We have never had the 
money.”

But the rest of that testimony is as follows:
“Q. Well then, Mrs. McDermott, is it true 

then that the question of lack of money tends to 
keep the negro teachers’ salaries down?

“A. Not altogether.
“Q. Well, is that part of it?



90

“A. It might be so construed their lack of 
ability as teachers are very unequal is the main 
thing, I would say.”

She testified further that if the School 
Board thought that the colored teachers in the 
System were exactly equivalent in teaching abil­
ity, it would pay the colored teachers the same 
salaries, and that if she was convinced that the 
teaching ability of the negro teachers now em­
ployed was the same as the white teachers now 
employed, she would make an adjustment in 
the salaries (89).

(c) Dr. R. M. B lakely .

Dr. Blakely was elected to the School Board 
and took office in 1941, so that he has been on 
the Board the same length of time as Mr. Jen­
nings. He was secretary at the time of the 
trial, and had been since March, 1942, or after 
the filing of the suit (107). He did not employ 
teachers and did not know how to judge quali­
fications of a teacher himself, but he did under­
stand the teachers were employed and the sal­
aries fixed on the basis of their qualifications 
(109). He had never seen a fixed salary sched­
ule; so far as he knew there was none (115). 
The question of race or color had never been 
discussed in a Board meeting fixing salaries. 
It has always been his opinion that salaries are 
based on qualifications and that color had noth­
ing to do with it at all (116).



91

(d) Mrs. W . S. Raw lings.

Mrs. Rawlings was elected to the Board in 
1932, and has served continuously since that 
time in various capacities, such as vice-presi­
dent, secretary, and as a member of the person­
nel committee (139). She has never seen a fixed 
salary schedule and the School Board has never 
instructed the superintendent to use certain 
figures for minimum salaries. There has never 
been a discussion in a meeting of the School 
Board, or of the personnel committee (140), on 
the question of race or color in fixing salaries. 
She bases her judgment of a teacher on educa­
tional background, training, aptitude, coopera­
tive qualities, and intangibles. She fully sup­
ports Mrs. McDermott and Mr. Scobee as to the 
method of selecting teachers and fixing salaries 
(141, 142). If two candidates were equally 
qualified in all respects, she would recommend 
the same salaries irrespective of color (142).

(e) M urray 0 . Reed.

Mr. Reed testified that he never found a 
fixed schedule and the Board has never in­
structed the superintendent as to particular 
limits or minimum salaries to be used in em­
ploying teachers (167). He considers qualifica­
tions for teachers to be training, experience, 
education, personality, apparent ability and 
qualifications to perform the particular duties



92

of the position applied for, and he would take 
into consideration the school from which the 
applicants come, their age, and various other 
things that might enter into the qualifications 
of a teacher (170). But he does not think that a 
degree necessarily makes a teacher (173), and 
he thinks that a teacher without a degree can 
be superior to a teacher with a degree (159). 
All of the teachers are paid on an individual 
basis (151), of the duties to be filled, the type 
of position and qualifications, but not on race 
or color (171). The Board itself discusses quali­
fications of the individual teachers, and in some 
instances, frequently reads the qualifcations of 
the candidates, discusses their personality, 
characteristics and various other things. It also 
accepts the recommendations of the personnel 
committee (164). The personnel committee is 
composed of three members and is half of the 
School Board (168), and this committee dis­
cusses the school from which the candidate 
comes, experience or lack of experience of the 
candidate, and the recommendations of the 
school from which the candidate comes, the 
personality of the candidates, and fitness for 
the particular positions (155). It discusses al­
most anything and everything that it thinks 
would have a bearing on matters or conditions 
(57).

Neither the Board or the committee ever 
discussed race or color before the suit was filed



93

(170). He admits that the district only has a 
certain amount of money to spend on teachers’ 
salaries, that less is set aside for the colored 
teachers than for white teachers, because there 
are fewer colored teacher (157), but there is 
nothing in his testimony to show that less is 
paid to colored teachers as individuals because 
they are colored. When the budget is prepared 
an amount is set aside for salaries, but that 
amount is not broken down into amounts for 
white and colored teachers (172). No particular 
sum is set aside for employment of white teach­
ers alone or for employment of colored teach­
ers alone.

He was asked to justify the salaries of a 
number of individual teachers and was asked 
to justify the salaries of the colored teachers 
as a group. He stated that he thinks on the basis 
of qualifications that he had outlined, that it 
was possible for nine-tenths of the negroes to 
fall in a bracket of $615 and $630 (151), and of 
course, this is perfectly possible.

As did the other defendant-directors, he 
stated his willinginess to pay equal salaries to 
applicants equally qualified regardless of race 
or color (172).

He admitted that he is not in a position to 
make a critical analysis of teachers’ salaries for 
all of the teachers in the School System and says



94

that it is left to the superintendent (174). The 
Board is a policy-making Board, and neces­
sarily delegates to the superintendent the de­
tailed duties of handling its policies (175). The 
Board does require the superintendent to ana­
lyze salaries; he does so and files his reports for 
the Board to study, and the Board studies them 
(175 and 176). The Board does not automati­
cally approve salaries recommended by the su­
perintendent. He recalled that there have been 
occasions when the committee did not accept the 
salaries recommended by the superintendent 
and recommended higher salaries which were 
approved by the Board as a whole (176). If 
the superintendent recommended an entrance 
salary for a white teacher at $830, the commit­
tee would not cut it to $810 (176), and if he rec­
ommended it to be $800, the committee would 
probably approve it. If he recommended an 
entrance salary for a colored teacher at $600, 
the committee would probably accept it, and if 
he recommended it to be $645, the committee 
would not disapprove it (177). This clearly 
shows neither a schedule or a policy.

Probably because Mr. Reed was chairman 
of the personnel committee, plaintiff makes 
much of the practice of the committee to list 
white teachers first and colored teachers last, 
and to designate them as colored or to name 
the schools, and argues from that that color and



95

race are present in the minds of the committee 
and influence the recommendations. As a mat­
ter of fact, colored teachers are not always 
listed last (72, 148). The formal report is pre­
pared by the clerks of the Board and designa­
tion of teachers by color and school is for their 
convenience in listing teachers and keeping rec­
ords (183, 184). There will never be any way to 
eliminate in the minds of the Board the fact that 
an applicant is or is not colored, no more than 
it is possible for the fact of sex to be eliminated. 
As we have said, it is not the awareness of race, 
but discrimination based on race that must 
make the plaintiff’s case.

He does testify somewhat on the necessity 
of the Board to obtain teachers within the 
limits the Board is able to pay (185 ff), but he 
remained steadfast in his assertion that white 
and colored teachers are paid on the basis of 
their qualifications as determined by the Board 
(186). He is unwilling as a member of the 
Board to increase automatically the salaries of 
the colored teachers now in the System (191), 
but regardless of the amount of money which 
the Board may have on hand for the payment 
of salaries, if the personnel committee thinks 
in its judgment that applicants are of equal 
teaching ability, it tries to pay them about the 
same. It tries to pay as much as the budget will 
allow, all teachers about the same in accord­
ance with their ability (196).



96

We submit that this is all that can be asked 
of any School Board.

( c )  T e s t i m o n y  o f  P l a i n t i f f  o n  S c h e d u l e  
a n d  P o l ic y .

The plaintiff alleges that she has been dis­
criminated against on the basis of race and 
color, and on the stand testified that this dis­
crimination exists, but it is clear that in her 
own mind, she is unable to tell how or as to 
whom she has been discriminated against. She 
could not name any teachers with whom to in­
vite comparisons, and she could not point out 
any discrimination, but she felt that she had 
been discriminated against as compared to all 
English teachers and as to all teachers with six 
years of experience in the Senior High School, 
because they receive different salaries (222). 
She admits some of the salaries might be dif­
ferent on the basis of difference in qualifica­
tions, training and ability, and that if some of 
the salaries be different for that reason, there 
is no discrimination (223). If the differences 
in salaries were based on differences in teach­
ing abilities and differences in training and 
degrees, she admits that there could be no dis­
crimination (224). She would not have the 
personnel committee and the superintendent 
employ and pay teachers solely on the basis of 
degree. If the applicant had no experience, the



97

personnel committee could interview the per­
son, could discuss the person with individuals 
who may know him, may ask for written rec­
ommendations that will have some bearing. 
After that has been done, it would still be a 
matter of judgment and discretion in passing 
on those intangibles (231), which she would not 
disregard (230). No committee could arrive at 
an exact figure on intangibles and in last ana­
lysis, it is still a matter of judgment or discre­
tion on the part of someone, whether good or 
bad (232). She recognizes that there are a great 
many teachers in the Little Rock Public School 
System, that there are a very great many appli­
cations, and that it is a difficult task for a su­
perintendent and a committee to consider them 
all (230, 231, 232). The only part that could be 
mechanical would be degrees from accredited 
colleges (233), even though some applicants 
might have graduated with honors and would 
receive a better training (234).

She thought that she had been discrimi­
nated against as to a teacher in the senior high 
school having an M. A. with thirteen years’ ex­
perience and who receives $1,552 salary (235). 
It will be noted that this teacher has a higher 
degree and more than twice the experience of 
the plaintiff. She asked to be compared with 
teachers with B. A. degrees (236), and men­
tioned the name of a white English teacher with



98

a B. A., fourteen years of experience, receiving 
a salary of $1,498. She thinks she is discrimi­
nated against as to this teacher. She thinks that 
this teacher should have something for senior­
ity (287), but if there is a difference in teach­
ing ability as between the two, this should not 
be considered so far as salary is concerned 
(239). The basis of all of her statements as to 
discrimination is that she receives less salary 
and that salaries should be based upon degree 
and experience (241). As to teachers with higher 
degrees or more experience, she thinks that a 
difference is justifiable, but she cannot say 
what difference there should be in salary, ex­
cept that she is discriminated against.

Her testimony on plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 
shows her state of mind. Her allegation of dis­
crimination is largely based on its being a 
schedule (252, 253), but if it is not a schedule, 
she says it makes no difference, and that she is 
still the victim of discrimination (252). Her own 
testimony clearly shows that it is not a schedule. 
It is headed “Special Adjustment Plan” (249). 
It does not show that it comes from the School 
Board, or that it was prepared by the school 
office (249). She only knows that it was re­
ceived in her mail box (254). According to this 
plan, she should receive $682. She said she had 
been promised a raise of $8, but even so, she still 
receives more than the plan called for, because



99

her salary was $706 (250). She remembers that 
in May, 1940, there was a general adjustment 
of salaries in Little Rock (250). She knows that 
there are other negro teachers also receiving 
more than the plan calls for (251). Her position 
is absolutely untenable. Her whole idea that 
there is a schedule for colored teachers is based 
on this exhibit, and we submit that it passes 
out of the case.

We briefly summarize her testimony on the 
two points, the schedule and policy. She has 
never seen a schedule for white teachers, but 
thinks that the School Board must have one. She 
has seen the schedule for colored teachers, 
plaintiff’s exhibit No. 4. She would employ 
teachers on the basis of training and experience 
and would not disregard the intangibles, and 
these intangibles would be a matter of judg­
ment and discretion to be determined by some­
one. There should be interviews of applicants 
and written recommendations. If the differ­
ences in salary exist on the basis of difference 
in training, experience and teaching ability, 
then there could be no discrimination (see par­
ticularly pages 223, 224). At the same time sal­
aries should be fixed on degrees and experience. 
We submit to the Court that her testimony does 
not make out a schedule and that her statements 
of policy are in conflict.



100

(d) T e s t im o n y  o f  J o h n  H. L e w i s .

Mr. Lewis, principal of Dunbar High School 
for thirteen years, had a number of degrees, his 
highest being an M. A. from the University of 
Chicago.

Mr. Larson is the only person in the Public 
School System with whom he is on a comparable 
basis (269). Dunbar has about 1,500 in the high 
school and the junior college section together, 
and about 700 in the high school proper (271). 
He considers that he is discriminated against 
as to Mr. Larson (269).

Larson has an M. A. from the same school 
as Lewis (273). He has been here twenty-nine 
years (281), and receives about $1,000 more 
than Lewis (282). He has a school almost twice 
as large when the junior college students are 
taken from Dunbar (it must be remembered 
that Dunbar Junior College has its own person­
nel not accountable to Lewis) (272). Lewis ad­
mits that Larson has more administrative diffi­
culties to handle and that this should be an item 
in fixing salaries. He also admits that the long 
tenure of Larson (more than twice as much as 
his) should make a difference in salary (281). 
He thinks that Larson is entitled to his salary 
of $3,712.50. He is reluctant to say that this is 
out of proportion to his own (282). He thinks 
that all of these items are subect to judgment



101

and discretion (282). We submit to the Court 
that a reading of his testimony on this point 
shows that he does not actually think that there 
is any discrimination in his salary.

The plaintiff offers Lewis as one qualified 
to employ teachers. He would not employ teach­
ers on degrees alone, but would go so far as to 
check the very nature of their scholarship as 
reflected by their college transcript (275). He 
would also check attitude of the applicant. He 
does not consider all A. B. degrees the same; 
some are not worth the paper they are written 
upon (275). Not even all A. B. degrees from ac­
credited schools are worth the same; other 
other things enter into it. Not even all degrees 
from Talladega are the same (276). We empha­
size this because this is the very theory and 
practice of Mr. Scobee and contrary to plain­
tiff’s strict test that all A. B.’s from accredited 
schools are the same.

Mr. Lewis would also consider experience
(276) . Experienre is not measured entirely in 
the terms of years and activity, but in achieve­
ment and in terms of other things. They are in­
tangibles and hard to evaluate. He admits that 
these intangibles are used in fixing salaries. It 
is a fair thing to do if it is done by people who 
can carry it out and who can actually rate them
(277) , character (278), and personality (279). 
It is necessary to use judgment and discretion



102

in weighing these qualifications, and it must be 
done by the one who employs teachers (280, 
281).

We submit to the Court that this theory 
as ultimately developed by him is the theory 
and practice of the defendants.

( e )  P l a i n t i f f ’s  T a b l e s .

Plaintiff has in the appendix to her brief 
eighteen comparative tables showing on their 
face that some colored teachers are paid less 
than white teachers and leaving an inference 
that therefore colored teachers are discrimi­
nated against. It is not sufficient for plaintiff’s 
case to show that some colored teachers are paid 
less than some white teachers, unless plaintiff 
also shows that the salary is less solely on ac­
count of the race and color of the teacher. These 
tables are based only upon academic training 
and experience and contain none of the intangi­
ble elements that necessarily make a teacher. 
John H. Lewis, principal of Dunbar, said that 
he would consider character and personality, 
and he goes further than the defendants in say­
ing that not only would he distinguish between 
degrees from accredited and nonaccredited 
schools (275), but he would distinguish as be­
tween degrees in the same school (275), and 
would check the credits of the applicant to de­
termine what the scholarship of the applicant



103

had been at the school in question (275). The 
plaintiff herself says that it would be fair to 
consider the atmosphere created by the teacher 
and her poise (236), and that accredited schools 
should be distinguished from nonaccredited 
schools (224). The defendants themselves con­
tend that in addition, teaching ability, the very 
reason for the teacher’s existence, should be 
considered. None of these additional qualifi­
cations show in any of the plaintiff’s tables.

We invite the Court’s attention to tables 
twelve through eighteen. The faculty data 
(pages 1095 ff) were compiled by consent of 
counsel and give the academic training and col­
leges of the teachers in the Little Rock Public 
School System. It does not cover a few teachers, 
because their applications were introduced into 
evidence and were in the hands of the reporter 
when the clerk of the School Board compiled 
this data. These tables studied in connection 
with the faculty data illustrate how impossible 
it is to attempt to classify, employ and pay 
teachers by a mechanical schedule.

Tables twelve through fifteen compare 
teachers with “comparable” degrees, but there 
is nothing in the tables themselves to show 
whether the degrees are, in fact, comparable. 
It so happens that in table twelve, the data does 
not cover the first two negro teachers, but the 
last two teachers are not from accredited



104

schools. The white teachers have degrees from 
accredited schools. Mr. Lewis and the plaintiff 
both say that degrees from accredited schools 
cannot be compared with degrees from non- 
accredited schools.

This is better seen in table thirteen, for 
there all four negro teachers did some or all 
their work in nonaccredited schools, and all of 
the white teachers are from accredited schools. 
Immediately the tables break down when this 
fact is added, for the plaintiff and Mr. Lewis ad­
mit that this can account for a different sal­
ary, the amount to be in the discretion of the 
employing agent.

In table fourteen again, all three colored 
teachers did all or part of their work in non­
accredited schools, and all of the white teachers 
in accredited schools.

In table fifteen, only one colored teacher 
had her degree and work in accredited schools. 
The others did all or part of their work in non­
accredited schools. The white teachers did their 
work in accredited schools.

Tables sixteen through eighteen cover 
teachers without degrees. In table sixteen, all 
of the colored teachers except one, as to whom 
we have no information (Majorie Bush), did 
all or part of their work in nonaccredited 
schools, and the white teachers did theirs in ac­
credited schools.



105

Exactly the same situation is true in table 
seventeen, Bertha Lee being the teacher as to 
whom we have no information, and in table 
eighteen, the colored teachers, without excep­
tion, did part or all of their work in nonaccredit- 
ed schools, and the white teachers did theirs in 
accredited schools.

Neither the degrees of the colored teachers 
with degrees, or the training of those without 
degrees, are comparable to the training of the 
white teachers. There are forty colored teach­
ers listed in the tables twelve to eighteen. Of 
those forty, it is certain that thirty-five did their 
work in whole or in part in nonaccrediated 
schools; one received her degree from an ac­
credited school, and we have no information in 
the data as to the other four. All of the white 
teachers listed in those same tables did all of 
their work in accredited schools so far as the 
data shows. We submit to the Court that the 
tables which, on their face indicate discrimi­
nation when tested by plaintiff’s own standards, 
show clearly that discrimination does not exist. 
They are faulty in stating that degrees and 
training are comparable when such is far from 
the case, and they make no provision for the 
other qualifications which the plaintiff and 
Lewis both said that they would consider, and, 
of course, they rob themselves of practical ef­
fect by making no allowance for teaching 
ability.



106

Table one is merely a list of teachers in* 
the negro high school who receive less than any 
white teacher in the System. There are twenty- 
four of them. On first thought, this is arrest­
ing especially when it is seen that two of them 
have masters degrees, and this table would tend 
to show discrimination if the law were that 
teachers must be employed and salaries fixed 
only upon the basis of degree and experience. 
This is the plaintiff’s wish, but such is not the 
law, and is contrary to the policy and wishes of 
the defendants.

Of those twenty-four, it appears that eight 
of them were employed during Mr. Scobee’s 
tenure, which means that lie recommended their 
employment and their salaries. He testified as 
to every teacher employed during his tenure, 
and reviewed the qualifications and salary of 
each, and he stated that he made his investiga­
tions and held interviews, and in each case used 
his best judgment in recommending the salaries, 
that he acted the same for the colored as for the 
white, and that after a year’s contact with the 
teachers, still believed that his original judg­
ment was substantially correct, except in one or 
two respects where the teachers were no longer 
with the System. This accounts for one-third of 
these teachers. If, in fact, these teachers were 
paid what they are worth in the best judgment 
of a trained administrator, it would be a mon-



107

strous thing to compel a school board to pay 
them higher salaries on an arbitrary mechanical 
basis.

One of the other teachers, Edna Douglas, is 
from a nonaccredited school, and it will be noted 
that she has the longest experience of any in the 
group, some indication in itself that these 
teachers are paid on the basis of teaching ability 
and qualifications other than degrees and 
tenure.

There are three other teachers teaching 
nonacademic subjects, foods, laundry and li­
brary; these are not on a comparable basis. 
Furthermore, one of them, Lucille C. Bush, is 
from a nonaccredited school. Thus, out of the 
twenty-four teachers, twelve of them, on the 
face of the table and with reference to the fac­
ulty data and Mr. Scobee’s own testimony, are 
well accounted for, and deprive the table of its 
impressive appearance.

Table No. 9 is wholly invalidated. The one 
negro teacher is from a nonaccredited school 
and apparently has no work towards a higher 
degree. The one white teacher has a degree from 
an accredited school, and work done towards 
an M. A. (faculty data). Plaintiff would have 
it believed that on the basis of this table, the 
colored teacher should have at least the same 
salary, if all the experience of the white teacher



108

is considered, or twice as much salary if only 
experience in Little Rock is considered, yet by 
her own test of accredited and nonaccredited 
schools, the colored teacher immediately suf­
fers. A difference is justifiable, and that differ­
ence is in the discretion of the employing agent.

Table two taken by itself tends to indicate 
discrimination, but in fact it only shows how 
futile an arbitrary table is. Lillian Lane began 
teaching after the term had commenced and was 
here in an emergency for only a short time. Mr. 
Scobee testified that he paid her what was neces­
sary to obtain her for the emergency. Mr. Sco­
bee testified that Rhoda W. Wharry was worth 
more than he paid her, and she left the School 
System because she could command more 
money at the U.S.O. (377). Catherine Lee had 
two summers’ extra work to her credit which do 
not appear in the table. This additional train­
ing is a point to consider in fixing salaries. The 
actual pecuniary difference must necessarily 
rest under the discretion and judgment of the 
employing agent.

Table six is an interesting one, for at first 
glance it appears that the differences may not 
be reconciled, and on the face of the table alone, 
they could not. Yet there is no actual difficulty 
in the table. Of the colored teachers, only J. H. 
Gibson has imposing qualifications, but his de­
gree is not from an accredited school, and on



109

the basis of plaintiff’s own testimony and that 
of Mr. Lewis, his degree and seventeen years’ 
experience are deprived of much of their effect. 
The evaluation of that degree and of those 
seventeen years of experience must be left to 
the discretion and judgment of the employing 
agent.

This leaves four colored teachers to be con­
sidered in table six. Of the white teachers, all 
but four are removed from serious considera­
tion, for they have vastly longer experience, 
which by plaintiff’s own standard, justifies a 
difference in salary, as for example, against the 
seven years of experience of Anine Cox (the 
colored teacher with most experience), there is 
the low figure of thirteen years for Moser to 
the high figure of forty-six years for Calloway. 
The four white teachers to be considered in 
connection with the four colored teachers are: 
Wade L. Davis, w^hose twelve years’ experience 
includes teaching and principalship (389), 
which makes him valuable; Clayton Elliott, wrho 
is full-time coach for all athletics in his school 
for the wdiole year in addition to his teachings, 
and who was employed specifically in connec­
tion with his coaching work (435); F. M. 
Gardner, who is assistant coach in addition to 
his teaching (436); and Mrs. Guy Irby, who is 
not a regular teacher, but wdio is a substitute 
math, teacher wdth a great many years’ experi-



110

ence (although this table shows none) (442), 
and Mr. Scobee says that she is well worth the 
salary in order to have her always available 
(395, 396, 442). This salary is not her annual 
salary, but the basis for her pay when she does 
teach on a substitute basis.

Pinkie Parr (colored) appears to be a sub­
stitute teacher also, but Mr. Scobee testified that 
she was out of her element in the high school 
and was placed in the elementary school. We 
submit to the Court that in view of this addi­
tional information, this table is meaningless in 
an effort to show discrimination.

A critical examination of table eight makes 
it lose much of its force immediately when it is 
realized that of the colored teachers, the only 
one with an imposing position, Edna Douglass, 
comes from a school not accredited. With this 
in mind, there is no way by plaintiff’s standards 
to avaluate her degree and experience except 
by discretion of the employing agent. Of the 
white teachers, Everett Barnes and Vera Les- 
cher, with degrees from accredited schools and 
with fourteen and thirteen years of experience, 
respectively, must pass from any serious chal­
lenge, for their long experience is sufficient to 
give them a different salary in the discretion of 
the employing agent. E. A. Bowen, with almost 
four years of college work in an accredited 
school, and with twenty-two years of experi-



I l l

ence in Little Rock, also can be eliminated from 
any serious doubts.

The other two white teachers were em­
ployed by Mr. Scobee, and his testimony care­
fully covers their qualifications. He reaffirms 
his judgment that they were fully worth what 
he recommended for them. He also employed 
three of the colored teachers and recommended 
their salaries and reviewed them fully in his 
testimony, affirming as to them also after a year 
of experience with them that they were only 
worth substantially what he originally recom­
mended for them.

The above analysis accounts for twelve of 
the eighteen tables, and the only things con­
sidered were the tables themselves, the faculty 
data, and Mr. Scobee’s testimony on those teach­
ers employed during his tenure. Of those twelve 
tables, we think tables nine and twelve through 
eighteen, or eight of them, are completely in­
validated by plaintiff’s own standard, and that 
the other four tables are deprived of their ap­
parent significance to an extent to make them 
meaningless except to show that salaries cannot 
be fixed upon an arbitrary basis.

The other tables, three, four, five, seven, 
ten and eleven, have greater force when con­
sidered only by themselves and with no addi­
tional information, yet even as to them some of 
their effect is lessened merely by a scrutiny sim-

/



112

ilar to that of the other tables. For example, 
table four, Helena Key is listed as having an 
A. B., whereas, in fact at the time of the trial, 
she had qualified for her M. A. (117). Lillian 
Lane, Rhoda Wharry, Mary Paul Jefferson and 
Catherine Lee are included in this table as in 
table two, and the analysis of table two above 
eliminates the first two from consideration and 
justifies the fourth. Mary Paul Jefferson is 
shown not to have a degree in table four, but 
in table two she does have, and the latter is cor­
rect. Thus table four is not strictly correct in its 
information in two respects at least, and is com­
pletely explainable as to three of the white 
teachers.

Table eleven is interesting, for there the 
salaries of the colored teachers most nearly ap­
proximate the salaries for the white teachers, 
and curiously enough this is music, a subject in 
which it is recognized that colored people have 
unusual talent, indicating again the place of 
teaching ability in fixing salaries.

It is to be noted that in the above analysis 
no reference is made to teaching ability except 
for those teachers who were employed during 
Mr. Scobee’s tenure, and the reference is made 
to his testimony and not to the teaching ability 
as shown from the rating sheets. When the rat­
ing sheets are examined in connection with the 
six tables in some doubt (tables 3, 4, 5, 7, 10 and



11), more of the apparent discrimination dis­
appears.

It will be recalled that there were two sets 
of rating sheets prepared for Dunbar teachers. 
One was a three-column sheet prepared in the 
presence of Mr. Scobee, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. 
Lewis. Plaintiff argues in her brief that Lewis 
did not consent to these ratings of the teachers 
made in his presence, but Scobee and Hamilton 
both testify that they consulted Mr. Lewis, that 
the discussion was between the three of them, 
and that the ratings was the consensus of the 
opinion expressed by the three of them (352, 
448, 471, 671). Lewis does not himself deny 
having participated in these ratings. Certainly 
these rating sheets are admissible to indicate 
the teaching ability of the teachers considered. 
These three-column rating sheets were defend­
ants’ exhibit No. 5.

The second set of rating sheets was the five- 
column sheet compiled by Hamilton in his com­
parison of Dunbar teachers with the teachers 
of Garland School, and his ratings appear on 
the composite sheet, defendants’ exhibit No. 3. 
This set of rating sheets is admissible also to 
indicate the teaching ability of the teachers, but 
plaintiff contends that it is subect to the charge 
that it is not so reliable because it does not give 
complete effect to the ratings of Lewis. Of 
course both sets are admissible.

113



114

We duplicate table 11 for analysis and add 
the teacher rating. The figure in parenthesis 
for Lester Bowie is his rating from the three- 
column sheet. On this three-column sheet Bowie 
has one first, eleven seconds, and four thirds. 
On the basis of a five-column rating sheet run­
ning from highest ability denoted by 1— to the 
lowest ability denoted by a 5+. It is clear that 
his rating is less than medium, and our best 
estimate is about 4—, or less than a 3 denoting 
medium, and better than a 4. We offer no such 
rating for Ruth King, because she does not ap­
pear to have been rated on the three-column 
sheet.

TABLE 11
E xperience T eacher

School T eacher T ra in in g  L. R. O ther R a tin g S a la ry

Dunbar Bowie, Lester B.S. 5 4 4— (4— ) $ 850.00
Dunbar King, Ruth____ B.M.E. 4 5 3 730.00
S. H. Meyer, WillarcL4 0 1 2 900.00
S. H. Duncan,

Mary Alice__ 314C 0 0 2 900.00
S. H. Parker, Robert B.M. 1 0 2 945.00

The teacher ratings from the five-column 
sheets completely justify the difference in sal­
aries, and the rating from the three-column 
sheet for Bowie is so close to the rating from the 
five-column sheet that the difference in his sal­
ary as compared to the salaries to the others is 
completely justifiable, especially in view of the 
fact that the difference must be weighed in the 
discretion and judgment of the employing agent- 
We think that Table 11 is not particularly sig­
nificant, and that whatever information it does



115

give tends to support the theory of the defend­
ants in view of the nearness of salary, the simi­
lar teacher rating for Bowie, and the admitted 
high musical ability of colored people.

We also reproduce Table 7 wih the teacher 
ratings, and the rating for India Elston from the 
three-column sheet is given in parenthesis. She 
has two firsts, five seconds, and nine thirds. It 
is clear that she has more marks in the lowest 
bracket than in the other two brackets and the 
best composite rating we can assign to her on a 
five-column basis is about a 4+. We think it 
clear that she is somewhere between medium or 
three, and the lowest, or five. J. L. Wilson does 
not appear to have been rated on the three- 
column sheet.

TABLE 7
E xperience T eacher

School T eacher T ra in in g L. R. O ther R atin g S alary
Dunbar Wilson, J. L___ M.A. 9 9 3 $1039.50
Dunbar Elston, India__ M.S. 0 4 +  (4 + ) 630.00
S. H. Tillman, Marcia M.A. 15 8 2 + 1732.34
S. H. Berry, Homer_ M.A. 14 3 1— 1939.81
J. H. Warner,

Nita Bob_____ M.S. 3 0 1 1020.75
J. H. Clauson, Donald M.A. 14 3 1— 1702.77

We think again that the teacher rating can 
completely justify the difference in the salaries. 
Since Lester Bowie and India Elston are approx­
imately the same on both the five and the three- 
column rating sheets, there is some reason to 
believe that Wilson’s rating of a 3 is approx­
imately correct. If so, the differences in salary 
are justified in the discretion of the employing 
agent.



TABLE 4

School T eacher T ra in in g
E xperience 

L. R. O ther
T eacher
R atin g A ssignm ent S alary

Dunbar Little, Clarice ... __  ___ A.B. 26 1 4 +  (2) English $ 833.52
S. H. Broadhead, Catherine___ A.B. 14 8 1— English 1498.30
S. H. Key, Helena ___________ A.B. 3 13 1— English 1 1 2 2 .0 0

S. H. Oakley, F rancille__  __ B.S. 12 4 2 English 1194.10
S. H. Piercey, M ary__________ A.B. 3 16 1— English 1 1 2 2 .0 0

S. H. Stalmaker, Mildred ... _ . A.B. 15 7 2— English 1506.92
S.H . Stewart, Josephine ------- B.S. 13 7 1 — English 1533.00
J. H. Harris, Fanita _____  — B.S. 16 5 2 English 1391.87
J. H. Lane, Lillian ................. A.B. 0 2 English 900.00
J. H. Jefferson, Mary P. _____ 4 i/2 8 1— English 945.00
J. H. Hammett, Flora ___  ___ 2-C 27 0 2 English 1429.72
J. H. Lee, Catherine -----  ------ A.B. 6 2 1— English 1060.00
J. H. Wharry, Rhoda ________ B.S.E. 0 2 2 English 900.00

W
e reproduce Table 4 w

ith the teacher rat



117

We again point out that Helena Key had 
completed her masters work although she is 
listed with an A. B., and that Mary P. Jefferson 
had, in fact, an A. B. degree (see Table 2).

If the rating from the five column sheet is 
used, we suggest that a difference in salary is 
completely justified. The rating for the colored 
teachers from the three-colmn sheet is in paren­
thesis. She had eight firsts, six seconds and two 
thirds. She is some better than medium, repre­
sented by 3 on the five-column basis, but hardly 
as good as halfway between the highest ability 
and medium. She is about a 2, or perhaps not 
quite so good. If her teacher rating should be 
a 2, then we think that on a comparative basis 
Clarice Little is underpaid.

What plaintiff is doing, however, is that 
she is here selecting an isolated case, one teacher 
who shows up well on a comparative basis to 
suggest underpayment for all teachers. For the 
purpose of this table, plaintiff did not list all 
teachers of English in Dunbar High School with 
A. B. degrees which would have been the fair 
and comparable thing to have done. If, for ex­
ample, plaintiff had included Tessie Lewis, her 
picture would have been as follows: A. B., no 
experience here, three years elsewhere, rating 
of four from the five-column sheet, salary $630. 
On the three-column sheet, she had two firsts, 
nine seconds, and five thirds. It seems that she



118

is less than medium, so that on the five-column 
basis she would he about 4—, or of less teaching 
ability than any white teacher listed. Compar­
ing her then with the white teachers, a differ­
ence in salary is justified both on experience 
basis and on teaching ability.

Since Tessie Lewis is new to the System, if 
plaintiff had included Alice Perry, her picture 
would have been as follows: B. A., eleven years’ 
experience here, none elsewhere, 4+ from the 
five-column sheet, and salary $762.40. On the 
three-column sheet, she had three firsts and 
thirteen seconds, or clearly almost a medium of 
three on the basis of five columns. If she had 
either a 3 or a 3— (which is, of course, better 
than 3, a difference in salary is clearly justi­
fiable. Thus, we submit that Table 4 presents 
only an isolated case, and Mr. Scobee freely ad­
mitted that there were several cases in which 
both colored and white teachers were paid less 
than they were entitled to receive on the basis 
of teaching merit.

We reproduce Tables 3, 5 and 10 and offer 
no extensive comment because the colored 
teachers appear not to have been rated on the 
three-column sheets. We could not find them 
among the rating sheets composing the exhibit, 
and thus suppose that they were not rated. The 
ratings from the five-column sheet do show a 
difference in ability, and even if the difference



119

is not so wide as indicated, it would justify a 
difference in salary in the discretion of the em­
ploying agent.

With Table 10 plaintiff made a bad choice 
for comparison for Bernice Britt’s contract was 
not renewed by the will of the School Board, 
and Dixie D. Speer taught for only one year 
(393). The other two teachers are given the 
highest possible rating. The tables follow:



School T eacher
Dunbar 
S. H.
S. H.
S. H. 
S.H .
W. J. H. 
W. J. H.

Campbell, H. B. --------  ---------- -
Beasley, L ouise--------------------------
Hall, Henal — ----------------------
Leidy, Edith _________________  -
Scott, Emma ___________________
Mayhan, Etta Neal --------- ---------
Clauson, Evelyn -------------------------

School
Dunbar
Dunbar
S.H .
S.H .
S. H.
S. H.
S. H. 
S.H .

T eacher
Massie, S. P. -------------------- -........
Scott, James D. _________________
Armitage, F lo ra ------ ------------ -----
Berry, Euleen ---------------------- -----
Rivers, Ethyl ----------------------------
White, Claire T. ----------------- ------
Hermann, Joh n --------------------------
Irvine, Mabel ----------------------------

School
Dunbar 
W. S.H . 
W. S. H. 
W. S. H. 
W. S.H .

T eacher
Bass, Bernice ----------------------------
Chisholm, A llie --------------------------
Speer, Dixie D .--------------------------
Dupree, Grace ~ -........-.......- -
Britt, B ernice----------------------------

TABLE 3
E xperience T eacher

T ra in in g L. R. O ther R a tin g
M.S. 14 0 4 +
M.A. 5 3 1—
M.A. 11 6 1
M.A. 5 101/2 1—
M.A. 15 0 1—
M.A. 5 5 1
M.A. 5 5 2

TABLE 5
E xperience E xperience

T ra in in g L. R. O ther
M.A. 19 5
M.A. 3 4%
M.A. 36 1
M.A. 14 5V2
M.A. 12 8
M.A. 21 n y 2
M.A. 1 2
M.A. 221/2 4

TABLE 10
E xperience E xperience

T ra in in g L . R. O ther
B.S. 5 1
B.S. 4 0
B.Sc. 0 0
B.S. 2 9
A.B. 0 10

A ssignm en t S alary
English $ 859.77
English 1135.00
English 1348.40
English 1243.50
English 1350.96
English 1128.75
English 1045.00

T eacher R atin g S alary
4 $1142.55
4 + 753.25 t o
1 2115.00 o
1— 1634.00
2 + 1431.87
1— 1808.90
1— 992.25
1 1658.43

T eacher R a tin g S a la ry
4+ $638.50
1— 980.25
3 900.00
1— 939.75
3 945.00



121

D. ARGUMENT

1. P u r p o s e  o f  P l a i n t i f f ’s  S u i t  is  to

Co m p e l  D e f e n d a n t s  to  A d o p t  a  S a l -
LARY SCFIEDULE BASED O N L Y  ON
T r a in in g  a n d  T e n u r e .

Plaintiff denies that she is seeking to com­
pel the defendants to adopt a schedule (257), 
but it is clear that this is the very object of the 
plaintiff’s suit. In comparing her position with 
the position of white teachers, she says re­
peatedly “77ie on ly  th ings to be considered are 
the degrees and the experience, and the salary  
shou ld  be based on degree and years o f experi­
ence'” (239, 240, 241). She says that in order to 
determine what salaries should be paid, she 
would have to work out a system, and it would 
be based only upon degree and experience 
(241). At first, she says that only degrees from 
accredited colleges should count (246), but she 
finally states that so long as the applicants 
have A. B. Degrees, whether from accredited 
schools or not, they should have exactly the 
same salary (248). She states that any school 
board would have a system, that it must have a 
system (228).

Plaintiff would eliminate all discretion 
and judgment from the defendants, because 
there are around 400 teachers, and there must 
be a large number of applications (232); the



122

superintendent and the Board could not have 
time to analyze the applicants for that would 
take a great many years of study of the indi­
vidual (230). Instead of using discretion and 
judgment, they could use the mechanical basis 
of degrees (233).

Plaintiff’s counsel examined Mr. Scobee 
closely upon what salary schedules were based, 
and Mr. Scobee said salary schedules were 
based only upon degree and experience, that he 
is a member of the National Educational Asso­
ciation, and that its report is that salary sched­
ules are based on degrees and experience (867, 
868, 293, 294), that the Association has made a 
number of surveys and has found that ratings 
on teaching ability are not used (293, 294). The 
implication of his examination is inescapable 
that the questioner urged there should be a sal­
ary schedule here, based only upon degrees and 
experience. The T urner  case shows at least one 
schedule based on qualifications other than de­
grees and tenure alone.

We submit that the purpose of this plain­
tiff and of the colored teachers association who 
joined in the complaint is to compel the defend­
ants to adopt a fixed salary schedule based only 
upon college training and experience, and elimi­
nate the elements of teaching ability and all 
other qualifications now used by the defend­



123

ants. We admit, of course, that if the defend­
ants adopted a fixed salary schedule based only 
upon degree and experience, it should be and 
would be the same for one race as for the other, 
but the defendants insist that they have the 
right to fix the salaries of each individual 
teacher, white or colored, based upon that in­
dividual teacher’s real worth, considering de­
grees, the quality of the college training, the 
number of years of experience, the quality of 
that experience, the teaching ability, character, 
personality and all other elements they consider 
necessary in a teacher.

2 . S c h e d u l e s

We devote no extensive argument to sched­
ules because plaintiff does not argue that de­
fendants have a schedule for complete deter­
mination of all salaries, but only schedules for 
colored teachers and for minimum entrance sal­
aries. Plaintiff argues that plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 
is a salary schedule for colored teachers. This 
is the “Special Adjustment Plan” which was 
fully discussed in the analysis of testimony 
above. It was found by plaintiff in her mail­
box. It does not show that it came from the 
School Board. Mr. Scobee and Mr. Williams 
testified that they first saw it during this trial 
(466). It does not appear in the minutes of the 
School Board. The salary of plaintiff and many



124

other teachers in Dunbar are not in accord with 
it (291), and the testimony and record show 
that a general overall adjustment of all salary 
was made in 1940 (250). It is absurd to say that 
this exhibit, special adjustment plan, is a salary 
schedule for colored teachers provided and fol­
lowed by the defendants.

The minutes of 1938 show approval of a 
recommended schedule of $810 for new ele­
mentary teachers, $910 for new junior high 
teachers, and $945 for new high school teach­
ers (991). This is p la in t i f f ’s minimum salary 
schedule for entering teachers. In the first 
place, it shows on its face no discrimination, for 
color is not mentioned. In the second place, as 
a matter of practice, it has not been followed, 
for many new white junior high teachers have 
been employed at less than $910, and one new 
white high school teacher at less than $945 (387- 
398, 385). In the third place, every defendant 
director has denied that there is a schedule as 
a matter of Board authority and policy. If it 
was adopted as a schedule, it was never fol­
lowed, not even as to new white teachers.

We mention again that every director-de­
fendant specifically denied that there was any 
kind of a salary schedule, and the minutes of 
the School Board, copiously copied into the rec­
ords, do not contain one. We submit that in



this case, it is conclusively shown there is no 
fixed salary schedule.

3 . P o l ic y

Neither do we argue at length on policy, 
for we think that the policy of the defendants 
has been sufficiently treated in our analysis of 
the testimony. Defendants’ policy is to employ 
and fix salaries on the basis of training, ex­
perience, teaching, ability, character, personal­
ity, and other such qualities. They all so tes­
tified. These qualifications bear the stamp of 
court approval in the M ills and T urner  cases. 
They are not compelled to show and it could 
not be expected that all salaries are fixed with 
mathematical exactness based on these quali­
fications, or that all differences in salaries as a 
fact are in exact ratio with those qualifications. 
They are in substantial ratio. All teachers, 
white and colored, for the first six grades, are 
under the same sponsors. Those sponsors do 
not fix salaries, do not know what the salaries 
are, and do not know what degrees the teachers 
have, but they are thoroughly well acquainted 
with the teachers and have a thorough knowl­
edge of their ability. A reading of their testi­
mony shows this clearly. Yet they testify that 
only five white teachers they supervise are less 
efficient than the best colored teachers they 
supervise. One of those teachers is no longer in

125



126

the System, and three were teaching out of their 
level and have been transferred. A count from 
defendants’ Exhibit 3 show that there are un­
der these sponsors 161 white and 44 colored 
teachers, exclusive of principals. If, out of 161 
white teachers, only 5 are as good or worse 
than the best of 44 colored teachers, then clearly 
these salaries cannot be fixed on a mechanical 
basis, and as to these teachers, there can exist 
no policy or custom to discriminate on the basis 
of color or race. If this is true, it destroys plain­
tiff’s whole case.

The composite rating sheet is not absolute­
ly accurate, and probably could never be made 
so, but Mr. Scobee said it was the best he could 
obtain. It was not made for the purpose of fix­
ing salaries, but it shows a definite relationship 
between salaries and teaching abilities, and on 
the whole, it does show that the teachers receiv­
ing higher salaries are rated higher on teaching 
ability. This is not so in all cases, but as stated 
above, defendants are not compelled to show 
that in every instance, each salary is exactly 
fixed in proper ratio with every other salary. 
That is the desire of the School Board, but it does 
not pretend to have accomplished it. In the 
nature of things, it never can be accomplished.

We quote briefly from each defendant on 
these points of schedule and policy.



127

E. F. Jennings

“There is no fixed salary schedule that I 
have ever seen used in employing teachers for 
the first time, or for renewing contracts each 
year (28). Since I have been on the School 
Board, it has never discussed a policy of paying 
colored teachers less than white teachers be­
cause they are colored (29). If white and col­
ored applicants are recommended by the per­
sonnel committee as having the same teaching 
qualities and being equally desirable as teach­
ers, and if it recommended the same salaries, I 
would accept the recommendations (30).”

Mrs. W . P. M cD erm ott

“In my deliberations, I have not given any 
effect to the question of color. I have never 
heard an individual member express an opin­
ion based on color (659). If I became person­
ally convinced that teachers were discrimi­
nated against by race or color, I would try to 
make an adjustment. I speak for the Board 
(60). There is not any fixed salary schedule in 
operation by the Board, and there has not been 
any for a period of the last ten or twelve years 
(63).”

Dr. R. M. B lakely

“I have not seen a fixed salary schedule 
used by the Board in fixing salaries. So far as



128

I know, there is none (115). The question of 
race or color has never been discussed in fixing 
salaries. I would not pay a colored teacher less 
because he is colored (116).”

Mrs. W . S. R aw lings

“I have never seen a fixed schedule used 
by the Board. It has never instructed the su­
perintendent to use certain figures for mini­
mum salaries. There has never been a discus­
sion on the question of race or color in fixing 
salaries (140). If two applicants had the same 
qualifications but were of different race and 
color, the committee would be willing to pay 
them the same salary (142).”

M urray 0 . R eed

“During the time I have been on the Board, 
I have not found a fixed schedule for salaries. 
The Board has never instructed the superin­
tendent, so far as I know, to any set limit or 
minimum salaries (167). Not to my recollec­
tion, has race or color ever been discussed by 
the teacher committee or in Board meetings 
prior to the filing of this suit (170). I do not 
consider the question of color as an element 
nor does the Board (171). If there were two 
candidates and the only difference was color, 
I would be willing to pay the same salaries 
(172).”



129

R obert M. W illiam s

“During the time that I have served on the 
Board, I have not found that it has in use a 
teachers’ salary schedule of any kind. I have 
never seen such a schedule and none has ever 
been discussed at a Board meeting (602). The 
Board has never instructed the superintendent 
or the teachers’ committee to use certain figures 
in employing teachers. The question of race or 
color has never been discussed at a Board or 
teachers’ meeting (603).”

R. T. Scobee

“When I came to the City of Little Rock, I 
remember distinctly asking the Board of Educa­
tion whether there was a salary schedule and 
I was told ‘no.’ Since I have been here, I have 
looked over the minutes of the School Board 
beginning about 1925 and I did not find any 
schedule in the minutes (328). I found no di­
rections fixing minimum salaries at which 
teachers should be employed. During the time 
that I have been here, the Board has never in­
dicated any minimum salary (329). In my dis­
cussion with the teachers’ committee, the ques­
tion of race and color has never entered into 
the deliberation. I have never heard the ques­
tion of race or color injected into a Board meet­
ing. If I had two applicants who were just the 
same in all respects and the only difference was



130

color, I would recommend the same salaries 
( 3 3 9 ) . ”

Unless the Court can find that all of these 
defendants are deliberately committing per- 
ury, we submit that in their best belief there is 
no schedule and no policy to pay colored teach­
ers less because they are colored. If they do be­
lieve that there is no policy of discrimination, 
then there is none.

4 . A n s w e r  to  P l a i n t i f f ’s A r g u m e n t  o n  
P o l ic y .

a. General Policy

Plaintiff says that no one colored teacher 
receives so much salary as any white teacher 
of similar qualifications and experience and 
therefore, under the M ills case, there is dis­
crimination. In the first place, qualifications 
and experience were defined by fixed sched­
ules in the M ills case, and here they are not. In 
the second place, it is not for plaintiff but for 
defendants to define what qualifications shall 
govern the employment of teachers and the fix­
ing of their salaries. Under defendants’ defini­
tion of qualifications, the colored teachers are 
not underpaid except in a few admitted in­
stances, just as some white teachers are under­
paid. Plaintiff’s reference to the M ills’ case is 
inapt.



131

Plaintiff argues that defendants have had 
a general policy for many years to pay colored 
teachers less than white teachers and cites page 
41 of Mrs. McDermott’s testimony. She states 
later (102), that the use of the word “policy” 
was that of plaintiff’s attorney and not hers, 
and that there was no such policy.

Defendants admit that the fact that indi­
vidual colored teachers might have less cultural 
background than individual white teachers is a 
reason for paying those colored teachers less, 
but colored teachers as a group have never been 
contrasted with white teachers as a group (446, 
83, 90). Individual white teachers having less 
cultural background are also paid less for that 
reason (50, 67, 124). Moreover, this was given 
as only one of many reasons for differences in 
salaries (85).

Plaintiff’s whole argument on the “eco­
nomic theory” means merely that there is a 
freedom of contract between the superintend­
ent and the applicants. Defendants’ testimony 
on this is a very small part of their whole testi­
mony, but to some extent it is true with white 
as with colored applicants that the superintend­
ent must recommend a salary which the appli­
cant will accept. Moreover, the defendant who 
testified on this “economic” theory, specifically 
stated that he did not place on that theory, the



132

reason for offering less salaries to colored 
teachers. His language (188) is as follows: “I 
am not placing the reason for offering less sal­
ary on an economic basis and saving money for 
the district.”

b. M in im um  Salaries

Plaintiff still says that plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 
is a schedule for colored teachers, and the min­
utes of 1938 a minimum schedule for new white 
teachers. This has already been answered fully.

It is true that all white teachers employed 
by Mr. Scobee were employed at $810 or above, 
and that all new colored teachers employed by 
him were employed at less than $810. He states 
that he did not employ a single new colored 
teacher as well qualified as any white teacher 
he employed (301, 530). If this is true, then he 
should not be compelled automatically to pay 
the colored teachers the same salaries as he pays 
the white teachers. The Court will remember 
that Mr. Scobee carefully appraised each of 
these new teachers, and after a year’s experi­
ence with them, said he believed that his origi­
nal estimate was substantially correct.

Plaintiff makes unfair use of the hypothe­
tical case of examining two applicants. Mr. 
Scobee admitted that a difference in investiga­
tion might result in unfair recommendations 
of salaries. He did not admit that he pursued



133

different methods of investigation for white 
and colored applicants. A reading of his whole 
testimony of this point makes this clear,
c. Salaries o f Older Teachers and Flat Increases

Mr. Scobee did admit that no colored teach­
ers receives as much as any white teacher of 
the same qualifications and experience, but this 
is only under plaintiff’s definition of qualifica­
tions to mean years of experience and college 
training. Under defendants’ definition of quali­
fications to mean teaching, ability, personality, 
character and other such qualities, he made no 
such admission.

Plaintiff likes to refer to “blanket in­
creases.” There were no blanket increases 
after the first salary cut in 1932. There were 
percentage restorations of percentage salary 
cuts with adjustments for those who came into 
'the School System after the salary cuts. In our 
analysis of these restorations, above, we have 
followed these restorations and adjustments 
year by year, and we think it clear that no pol­
icy of discrimination is shown. We do not re­
peat that analysis here.

Plaintiff quotes testimony at length on 
page 32 of her brief, but this testimony con­
cerns action in 1927. Plaintiff cannot show the 
same testimony for any period after 1932.



134

5 . A n s w e r  to P l a i n t i f f ’s  A r g u m e n t  o n  
R a t in g  S h e e t s .

a. A dm issib ility

Rating sheets were discussed by Mr. Scobee 
and Miss Griffey in the spring or summer of 
1941 (341). The sheets were prepared in the 
fall of 1941 and had on them the same points 
as the rating sheets in evidence (728,49). They 
were discussed in faculty meetings in the fall 
of 1941 and were given to the sponsors for use. 
In February, 1942, this suit was filed. Were 
the sponsors to discontinue their use of the rat­
ing sheets because this suit had been filed? 
The purpose of the sheet was to determine 
teaching ability. The sponsors did not know 
salaries. Every sponsor testified. The sponsors 
rated the teachers and turned their ratings over 
to Mr. Scobee. He copied the rating on a com­
posite sheet for all teachers. Where he could, 
he added his own ratings.

The rating sheets were in the hands of Mr. 
Scobee before the 1942-1943 salaries were fixed, 
and he considered them to some extent (826, 
846). The composite rating sheet was prepared 
after the salaries were fixed.

It is clear that these sheets were in actual 
use before this suit was filed. Every sponsor 
was used to rating sheets. Can plaintiff say 
that every sponsor and Mr. Scobee deliberately



135

falsified these rating sheets to justify salary 
differences? Plaintiff intimates as much in her 
brief.

These rating sheets do not justify all sal­
aries. That of Mrs. Emma Pattillo is a notable 
example (832 ff).

It is true that these rating sheets were pre­
pared under the direction of the superintend­
ent. Who else would prepare them? They were 
prepared at the request of the School Board 
and were delivered to the members of the 
School Board (175). These rating sheets were 
elements to show the relationship between 
teaching ability and salaries, one of defend­
ants’ tests. They are clearly admissible and im­
portant to have in the case.

Arguing against the admissibility of the 
rating sheets plaintiff, in her brief (page 37) 
quotes from 20 A m erican Jurisprudence, page 
866, Section 1027 (erroneously shown Section 
886, page 1027). That quotation is not apt here 
as it is on the subject “Reports of Investiga­
tion” and refers to a report of investigation of 
fact made by a public officer and the effort to 
prove the fact by filing his report. It is merely 
held that such reports are not records unless 
made so by statute. The citation to support the 
text is of a Massachusetts case. There a man 
was indicted for keeping intoxicating liquors



136

for sale. The defendant denied they were in­
toxicating. The prosecution introduced certifi­
cates of the analysis made of them by the De­
partment of Health. The witness who made 
the analysis was not produced or offered for 
cross-examination. The court held the analysis 
was competent evidence because of the statute 
permitting it to be used.

These rating sheets are not only a public 
record of the school district but a very impor­
tant one made up for constant reference in 
comparing the teachers in the system. The ones 
who made the records testified to their correct­
ness and were available for cross-examination 
and were cross-examined. They were admis­
sible in evidence on several grounds. Referring 
to the text in 20 A m erican Jurisprudence  it is 
noted that they were admissible first as impor­
tant public school records:

“It is not essential that the keeping of 
a public record be required by statute if 
the record is one which is necessary and 
proper in the orderly conduct of the busi­
ness of the office. It is sufficient if it is 
kept in the discharge of a public duty.”

20 American Jurisprudence, page 863, 
Section 1024.

These rating sheet records were made in 
the ordinary course of business in the conduct 
of the schools and were well within the Act of 
Congress {28 U. S. C. A. 695):



137

“In any court of the United States * * * 
any writing or record, whether in the form 
of an entry in a book or otherwise, made 
as a memorandum or record of any act, 
transaction, occurrence or event, shall be 
admissible as evidence of said act, transac­
tion, occurrence or event, if it shall appear 
that it was made in the regular course of 
any business, and that it was the regular 
course of such business to make such 
memorandum or record at the time of such 
act, transaction, occurrence, or event or 
within a reasonable time thereafter. All 
other circumstances of the making of such 
writing or record, including lack of per­
sonal knowledge by the entrant or maker, 
may be shown to affect its weight, but they 
shall not affect its admissibility. The term 
“business” shall include business, profes­
sion, occupation, and calling of every 
kind.”
Being admissible under the Acts of Con­

gress it is admissible under the rules.
Rule 43.
The witnesses who made the rating sheets 

having testified to them and having been cross- 
examined, and their authenticity having been 
admitted, they would be admissible under the 
familiar rules of the Common Law.

“* * * How far papers, not evidence 
p er se, but proved to have been true state­
ments of fact, at the time they were made, 
are admissible in connection with the testi­
mony of a witness who made them, has



138

been a frequent subject of inquiry, and it 
has many times been decided that they are 
to be received. And why should they not 
be? Quanities and values are retained in 
the memory with great difficulty. If at the 
time when an entry of aggregate quantities 
or values was made, the witness knew it 
was correct, it is hard to see why it is not at 
least as reliable as is the memory of the 
witness.”

Ins. Co. v. W eides, 14 Wall. 375, 380.
See numerous cases in R ose’s notes.

The argument that the entries on the rating 
sheets in 1942 were made after the suit was in­
stituted is of no significance. They were made 
in the ordinary course of business in conduct­
ing the schools and at the proper time. It cer­
tainly could not be said that they should not 
have been made because there was then pend­
ing a law suit in which they might be evidence. 
It is legitimate argument to question their re­
liability and weight but certainly not to ques­
tion their admissibility.

The rating sheets before the court and on 
which it based its decision in Hilda T. T urner  v. 
Ed. J. K eefe  in the Florida District Court were 
made after the suit had been filed. (See copy of 
the opinion which is supplied to the court here­
with.)



139

b. W eight

Mr. Scobee did say that so far as he knew, 
teaching ability and other intangible qualities 
were not generally used elsewhere in fixing 
salaries, but he also said that so long as he is 
superintendent, he is absolutely unwilling to 
fix a salary schedule based only upon training 
and experience and eliminating teaching abil­
ity, personality, character and other such quali­
ties (868). The testimony on this point is as 
follows (864 f f ):

“Q. State whether or not as an administra­
tor in the Public School System you would be 
willing to employ teachers on a salary solely 
based on degrees and experience.

“A. I never have.
“Q. Would you be willing to do it, in fact?
“A. Not with the information I have had, 

no.
“Q. State whether or not you would be 

willing to employ applicants for teachers know­
ing nothing more about them than their de­
grees, the college from which they obtained 
them and the number of years of experience?

“A. It would be a highly risky business 
(864, 865).

“Q. Have yc<i ever based their salaries on 
degree and experience, alone?

“A. No (867).
“Q. Would you be willing to follow a sys­

tem of paying salaries on that basis?



140

“A. I don’t think so, because wherever 
schedules are set on such arbitrary bases, they 
are generally considered unsatisfactory. They 
are measuring sticks of which we have our 
doubt (868).

“Q. The question asked you was whether 
you were willing to employ teachers on that 
basis alone, and you said ‘no.’?

“A. I don’t think we should do it. There 
should be a method of evaluating services in 
addition to it.

“Q. The question is, if some of the schools 
do employ and do fix salaries of teachers, would 
you be opposed to fixing salaries on these two 
items alone?

“A. On these two items alone, the fixing 
of salaries on these two items alone, I would be 
opposed to that.

“Q. You admit you are in a minority?
“A. Very decidedly.
“Q. What else would you use?
“A. I think we ought to have in the treat­

ment of teachers the right of discretion, some­
where by somebody, to evaluate them, and I 
don’t think that the lock-step system of salary 
schedule that is being adopted in many places 
that take into account only tenure and training 
is complete.

“Q. And you would not be willing to base 
it on your rate sheet?

“A. I would not.
“Q. You would want something else?



141

“A. I would want something more than 
this rating sheet, this much and beyond that.

“Q. You would want to know something 
about the intangibles?

“A. I would want to know something 
about the applicant, and I would want it dem­
onstrated, too.

“Q. Therefore, you would depend upon a 
human equation?

“A. We have to do it (869, 870).”
This is the attitude of every director.

Mr. Scobee’s opposition to the lock-step 
system of selecting teachers on tenure and de­
gree is supported by at least one other Board 
of Public Instruction and by the Court in the 
T urner  case.

Plaintiff makes a pitiful effort to impeach 
the ratings of the sponsors. Mr. Webb did say 
that he was not satisfied with his own rating, 
and yet he has been rating teachers for 10 years 
(797). Plaintiff said that she had no room for 
improvement (221), but Mr. Webb admits that 
he can still improve.

Superintendent Scobee’s rating of this 
plaintiff on one visit of ten minutes, as stated 
by plaintiff, was not his own, but was a com­
posite with that of Lewis, her principal, and 
Hamilton (352).



142

Plaintiff implies that Mrs. Allison rated 
teachers she did not visit, but she did not rate 
those teachers (753).

Plaintiff tries to mislead in saying that 
Miss Hayes had not visited some negro schools 
in the past two years. She had group meetings 
of the teachers every month, one for the white 
and one for the colored, and treated them the 
same (762).

Certainly Mr. Webb said he was conscious 
his teachers were white and colored. This is in­
escapable. If there was no- “intentional” dis­
crimination, then there is no discrimination at 
all. He stated that it never to the slightest extent 
influenced his consideration.

Plaintiff says on page 40 of her brief that 
it was agreed that the better process would be 
to have the principals rate their own teachers, 
and cites page 811 of the transcript. This is not 
a true statement, as reference to page 811 will 
show. Hamilton, the witness, states the prin­
cipals would be able to rate their teachers on 
all points. There is no agreement as to better 
procedure.

Plaintiff further states that following this 
process, the white principals of both elemen­
tary and high schools rated their teachers. 
Neither is this a true statement. There is no 
statement in the transcript that the white ele­



143

mentary principals other than sponsors rated 
their teachers and turned their ratings in to Mr. 
Scobee.

It is true that the principals of the white 
high school and the junior high schools rated 
their teachers because there were no sponsors 
for those schools. There was no one else to rate 
those teachers.

Plaintiff makes a severe effort to discredit 
Hamilton. He is a man with more than 30 years’ 
experience in teaching and school administra­
tion. He did not obtain his master’s degree be­
cause he was asked to do additional work on his 
thesis, which would have to be done during the 
school year, and he did not feel at liberty to do 
that work on School Board time (613). Although 
he does not have an M. A., the School Board for 
years, and Mr. Scobee for the time he has been 
here, have been satisfied with him, and Mr. 
Scobee has complete confidence in him (521, 
853, 857). Plaintiff says that for some unex­
plained reason, he was asked to rate the teach­
ers at Dunbar. The reason is simple; lie was the 
sponsor (448, 520, 613).

It may be unfortunate that all teachers in 
Dunbar were not rated by the three men at one 
time. These ratings lasted over a period of two 
days, and Mr. Scobee was not present one day. 
Mr. Hamilton then rated the Dunbar teachers



144

with the teachers of his own school, the net re­
sult of which was that he found the teachers in 
his school to be better teachers, as teachers, than 
the teachers in Dunbar, with the result that the 
Dunbar teachers suffered in comparison. Per­
haps this was also unfortunate. If the defend­
ants had planned these ratings with their attor­
neys, as plaintiff seems to intimate, then we 
suggest that the defendants might have avoided 
these difficulties.

The significant fact, however, is that Lewis 
was asked to rate his own teachers, the very 
thing which the plaintiff says is right, but was 
not done.

Plaintiff’s attorney tried to impeach the 
three-column rating sheet of Messrs. Scobee, 
Hamilton and Lewis, by showing that the rat­
ings of Mr. Lewis alone were much higher. He 
was asked about twenty-two teachers, or al­
most half of the Dunbar teachers, but in fifteen 
of those instances, the groupings were the same 
(703, 710). This is not so bad when it is remem­
bered that the three-column ratings were a com­
posite.

We think that a reading of the testimony as 
a whole on the question of the rating sheet 
shows that the colored teachers have not been 
mistreated. A fairer group than the sponsors 
cannot be found, and they have all of the col­



145

ored teachers except those in Dunbar. Mr. 
Lewis rated his own teachers, and in many in­
stances agreed with those on the three-column 
rating sheet. A comparison of Dunbar teach­
ers with the elementary teachers in Mr. Hamil­
ton's school is unfortunate for them if, as 
teachers, they are inferior, but if in fact, they 
are inferior, as teachers, then there should be 
no quarrel if there is a difference in salaries.

E. T h e  Other  T eacher Salary Cases.

Plaintiff states that payment of less salary 
for negro Public School teachers because o f  
race is in violation of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment. This hardly admits of argument and 
needs no elaborate brief on the part of plaintiff 
to prove it. We admit it.

Plaintiff also says that there are several 
decisions of the United States Court establish­
ing the rule that the fixing of salaries for negro 
teachers in public schools at a lower rate than 
that paid for white teachers o f equal qua lifica ­
tions and experience and performing essenti­
ally the same duties on Ihe basis o f  race or color 
is violative of Ihe Fourteenth Amendment, but 
plaintiff does not seek a literal application of 
that statement, but instead wants to make it 
mean that when two teachers are employed 
having the same degrees and years of experi­
ence, they shall be paid the same salaries re­



146

gardless of any other elements. This is the point 
upon which we differ.

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to 
show that colored teachers are discriminated 
against on the basis of race or color. If any 
teacher is discriminated against, or to put it 
better, if there is a difference in pay, on the 
basis of teaching ability, personality, character, 
or attitude, then the discrimination is not in vio­
lation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and if 
such a teacher whose pay is less happens also 
to be colored, that additional fact does not then 
convert it into a violation of the Fourteenth 
Amendment.

The “negro teachers’ salary cases” have be­
come numerous and there are several reported 
decisions. In every one of these cases, there is 
a fixed arbitrary salary schedule, one for white 
teachers and one for colored teachers, under 
the application of which it is impossible for a 
colored teacher to be paid as much as a white 
teacher. We analyze them briefly.

1. The M ills Cases

In the first case, M ills v. Low ndes, 26 F. 
Supp. 792, (1939), in Maryland, the action was 
dismissed because it was brought against State 
officials and not against county officials who 
were held to be necessary parties. The action



147

sought an injunction against alleged discrimina­
tion as to colored teachers based upon race and 
color.

The same plaintiff then sued the county 
Board of Education and its superintendent, 
M ills v. Board o f  Education, 30 F. Supp. 245, 
(1939), alleging discrimination on the basis of 
race and color, and sought a declaratory judg­
ment to that effect and an injunction against 
such discrimination. The court entered a de­
claratory judgment that there was discrimina­
tion on the basis of race and color and granted 
an injunction against its continuance.

The facts in that case are entirely different 
from the facts in this case, and nothing there 
supports the plaintiff’s contention here. Mary­
land had a statute fixing minima salaries, one 
for white teachers and one for colored teachers, 
and the one for the colored teachers was lower. 
These were minima salaries, and each county 
could fix its own salaries so long as they re­
garded these minima. In 1937, the County Board 
of Education fixed salary schedules above the 
statutory minima and so provided one salary 
scale for white teachers and a lower one for col­
ored teachers. These were arbitrary schedules, 
and the sole factor that determined what salary 
a teacher received was color.

The plaintiff’s salary for the current year 
was $1,058, which was $103 more than the mini­



148

mum fixed for him by schedule. The salary for 
each of three white principals was $1,800, which 
was $250 more than the minimum for them as 
fixed by the schedule. Apparently, the four 
principals had schools of comparable size. The 
defendants justified the higher salary to the 
white principals as a matter of judgment of the 
Board that they had superior professional at­
tainments and efficiency, but the point is that 
the white teachers were entitled under their 
schedule to a minimum of $1,550 and the col­
ored teacher received only $1,058, and these 
differences in professional attainments and ef­
ficiency do not explain the difference between 
the salary actually paid to the colored teacher 
and the minimum salary provided by schedule 
for white teachers. In other words, regardless 
of professional attainments or how efficient or 
inefficient this colored teacher might be, if he 
were white, he would receive at least $1,550 in­
stead of the $1,058 which he did receive. There­
fore, color alone determined plaintiff’s salary.

Furthermore, the superintendent and the 
financial secretary of the Board both admitted 
that the discrimination in the county schedule 
was at least largely influenced by the fact of 
race or color.

The court found that under the practical 
application of the State statute, there was dis­
crimination, but refused an injunction in the



149

language prayed for “and for payment to the 
plaintiff or any other colored teacher or prin­
cipal employed by them a less salary than they 
pay any white teacher or principal employed 
by them, and filling an equivalent position in 
the public schools of Anne Arundel County.” 
In doing so, the court pointed out, page 249, 
that because teaching positions are equivalent, 
it does not follow that the persons filling them 
are necessarily equal in all respects in profes­
sional attainments and efficiency, and some 
range of discretion for determining actual sal­
aries for particu lar teachers is entirely permis­
sible to the board of education.

Compare the M ills case with this one. Here, 
there is no statute fixing minima salaries, and 
there is no schedule fixed by the defendant for 
determining arbitrarily what salary shall be 
paid to the teachers. Contrary to the testimony 
of the superintendent and financial secretary 
in the Mills case, the superintendent and each 
and every school director in this case positively 
testify that race and color have never influ­
enced the fixing of the salary of any teacher in 
the Public School System. Neither can plain­
tiff say that their testimony “substantially ad­
mits that race and color largely determines sal­
ary,” because many cases of individual com­
parisons show that on the basis of teaching abil­
ity, as between an individual white teacher and



150

an individual colored teacher, the colored 
teacher was paid more, and the sponsors for the 
elementary grades could only find five white 
teachers less efficient than the most efficient 
colored teachers.

The Court in the second M ills case states 
the position of the defendants here, that be­
cause two teachers teach the same subject and 
the same grade, it does not follow that they nec­
essarily have the same efficiency, and the Court 
pointed out that a range of discretion was per­
mitted in fixing actual salaries for particular 
teachers. Here the superintendent and direc­
tors have continuously based salaries upon the 
qualifications for each individual teacher re­
gardless of color and race.

In granting the injunction against dis­
crimination, the Court in the Mills case was 
careful to point out a second time in unmis­
takable language that it was not determining 
what particular amounts of salaries must be 
paid to white or colored teachers individually, 
and the board of education was not in any way 
to be prohibited from exercising its judgment 
as to respective amounts to be paid to individual 
teachers based on their individual qualifica­
tions, capacities and abilities, page 251.

The defendants here are making an honest 
effort to employ individual teachers and fix



151

their salaries on individual qualifications, ca­
pacities and abilities without reference to race 
or color or to any salary schedule.

2. The A lston Case

In Alston  v. School Board o f  City o f  N or­
fo lk , 112 F. (2d) 992 (1940), plaintiffs, a negro 
school teacher of Norflok, Virginia, and an as­
sociation of colored teachers of that City filed 
a complaint with allegations identical with 
many allegations of plaintiff in this case, and 
setting up in addition a fixed salary schedule 
as adopted by the School Board. The Court be­
low dismissed the suit on the theory that Alston 
and the School Board were the only necessary 
parties, and that Alston had waived such con­
stitutional rights as he was seeking to enforce 
by having entered into a written contract with 
the School Board to teach for a year at the sal­
ary fixed in the contract. On appeal, the Court 
held that Alston had not waived his right by the 
acceptance of the contract and remanded the 
case for further proceedings. There was no 
adjudication on the merits, but the Court stated 
that if the allegations of the complaint were 
established, the plaintiff would be entitled to a 
declaratory judgment that discrimination ex­
isted and to an injunction restraining it. It will 
be noted that in this case also there was a fixed 
salary schedule adopted by the School Board



152

under which one range of salaries was paid to 
white teachers and a lower one was paid to col­
ored teachers. This is not so in the present case.

The Court stated in the Alston  case, pages 
996 and 997, that plaintiffs were entitled to ap­
ply for positions as teachers and to have the d is­
cretion o f  the authorities to exercise la w fu lly  
and w ith o u t unconstitu tiona l d iscrim ination  as 
to the rate o f  pay  to be aw arded them  i f  their  
applications were accepted. The Court recog­
nizes that the Board has a discretion and only 
requires that it not be exercised unconstitu­
tionally by discriminating against colored 
teachers on the basis of race and color. The 
Court does not require equal pay without re­
gard to any other element such as the qualifica­
tions, capacities and abilities of each individual 
teacher oonsidlered individually. We submit 
that the Alston case does not prohibit the em­
ploying of teachers as individuals and the fix­
ing of their salaries on an individual basis of 
qualification, capacity and ability.

3. The M cDaniel Case

In M cDaniel v. B oard o f  P ublic  E ducation  
fo r  E scam bia C ounty, F lorida and  Others, 39 F. 
Supp. 638 (1941), plaintiff sought a declaratory 
judgment and an injunction upon allegations 
similar to the one in the Alston case and almost 
identical with some in this case. The defend­



153

ants moved to dismiss the complaint on the 
ground that it failed to state a claim upon which 
relief could be granted so that there was no 
hearing on the merits. The Court held that the 
complaint did state a good cause of action, de­
nied the motion, and allowed time for defend­
ants to answer.

The complaint set out a fixed salary sched­
ule adopted by the School Board, a rather com­
plicated one, but under which plaintiff alleged 
that practical application was and would be to 
pay negro teachers less compensation. This, of 
course, would be true under any fixed salary 
schedule where the only difference is color. In 
this case, there is no salary schedule fixing sal­
aries generally or minimum salaries only.

The Court adopted the language in theAl- 
ston  opinion as to the right of colored teachers 
to apply for teaching positions, and if elected, 
to have the Board exercise its discretion law­
fully and constitutionally in fixing salaries. We 
mention again that this requirement does not 
eliminate the fixing of salaries for teachers as 
individuals on the individual basis of their 
qualifications, capacities and abilities.

4. The T hom as Case
In T hom as  v. H ibbits, et al., 46 F. Supp. 368 

(1942) Tenn., a similar suit was filed and simi­
lar relief sought. For many years, the Board of



154

Education had employed teachers on a fixed 
salary schedule and had maintained separate 
salary schedules for white and colored teachers. 
In 1940, it adopted new schedules, one for teach­
ers in white schools and one for teachers in col­
ored schools, which was the same as one sched­
ule for white teachers and one for colored 
teachers, because white teachers taught only in 
white schools and colored teachers only in col­
ored schools. The salaries for the colored teach­
ers were uniformly much lower. The defend­
ants answered that the difference in salary was 
based solely upon the difference in types of 
schools and did not attempt to discriminate as 
to teachers in different types. This defense ap­
parently was abandoned. The defendants an­
swered further that the difference in pay was 
based solely upon an economic condition in that 
colored teachers were more numerous, their 
living conditions less expensive, and that they 
could be employed to work at a lower salary. 
The defendants also contended that if colored 
teachers were employed to teach in white 
schools, they would then be paid the same as 
white teachers teaching in white schools, but 
the Court found that this contention was incon­
sistent with their second defense that colored 
teachers were more numerous and would teach 
for less. The Court held that the difference in 
pay was based solely on race and color and en­



155

tered a declaratory judgment to that effect and 
granted an injunction against its continuance.

Thus the Thom as case is far different from 
the present case, for in that case there was one 
fixed schedule for white teachers and another 
and a lower one for colored teachers, so that 
the only difference could be race and color. 
In this case, it is impossible to make out a sal­
ary schedule of any kind. Furthermore, in this 
case, teachers are employed on an individual 
basis, and their salaries fixed on the individual 
basis of qualification, capacity and ability of 
each teacher.

5. The T u rn er Case

Thus tar all of the decided cases have been 
much alike in that in each there was one arbi­
trary salary schedule for white teachers and 
another and a lower one for colored teachers, 
but in the case of T urner  v. K eefe, et al, de­
cided April 16, 1943, by the District Court for 
Florida, there is a different set of facts. (We 
furnish herewith the May number of The Jour­
nal of the Florida Education Association which 
carries a copy of the opinion—page 10).

The plaintiff filed much the same type of 
suit and the defendants answered setting forth a 
number of defenses. While the suit was pend­
ing, the defendants were permitted to amend



156

and set up as a defense a new salary schedule 
adopted by the Board of Public Instruction and 
to show that under this new schedule, a com­
mittee had carefully reviewed the qualifications 
of each teacher and had fixed a salary based on 
those qualifications. Teachers were rated un­
der three general headings: physical health, 
personality and character; scholarship and at­
titude; instructional skill and performance. 
Under these three headings there were 29 sepa­
rate factors. The rate given on the various fac­
tors determined whether the teacher would be 
classified as Al, A2 or A3, the particular classi­
fication thus determining the basic salary to be 
paid. The schedule then provided for certain 
automatic increments which were fixed by the 
teachers’ years of college work and years of 
experience.

It will be noted that there are really three 
elements involved in this schedule: first, col­
lege training or degree; second, experience or 
tenure; and third, certain intangibles, such as 
personality, character, scholarship, attitude, in­
structional skill and performance, and physical 
health. With the exception of physical health, 
everyone of these qualifications consciously en­
tered into the consideration of the superintend­
ent and personnel committee in employing 
teachers and fixing their salaries in the present 
case. Physical health, of course, would have to



157

be a basic element at all events. Moreover, the 
rating sheet used in this case has 16 factors, 
whereas in the T urner  case 29 factors were 
used, which would serve to make a rating even 
more difficult.

The only difference is that in the Turner  
case, a fixed schedule was actually devised as­
signing a specific pecuniary value to these quali­
fications, whereas in this case employment of 
teachers and fixing of salaries is based upon 
these same qualifications except physical health, 
but within the discretion of the Board exercised 
through the superintendent and the personnel 
committee. As stated by Mr. Lewis and the plain­
tiff, intangibles must be within the discretion 
of someone. Although in the T u rn er  case those 
intangibles have been given specific pecuniary 
values, nevertheless the committee has a discre­
tion in the rating of 29 factors, and the exercise 
of that discretion necessarily affects the final 
pecuniary value arrived at for each teacher. 
Here that discretion is exercised by the Board 
through the superintendent and the personnel 
committee and that necessarily affects the pe­
cuniary value finally assigned to each teacher.

In the T u rn er  case, provision is made for 
annual revision of the salaries. The same is 
true in this case. No substantial revision has 
been made recently here, because in May, 1941, 
when the first revision could have been made,



158

Mr. Scobee had been here four months and was 
not satisfied with his information. He under­
took to gather that information in the form of 
rating sheets he devised in the fall of 1941, but 
this suit was filed early in 1942 and has been 
pending since, so that any changes made could 
not be on a satisfactory basis. We point out, 
however, that a complete salary revision was 
made in April, 1940, for all teachers, white and 
colored, within the Public School System, and 
the superintendent and director-defendants 
have testified that it is their policy to adjust 
salaries as adjustment is needed.

In the T u rn er  case, counsel for plaintiff 
conceded that this schedule was nondiscrimi- 
natory and fair on its face, thus admitting the 
validity of the test of intangibles, which the 
plaintiff in this case has not fully admitted. In 
the T urner  case, however, the counsel for plain­
tiff did contend that the schedule was not fairly 
administered. The Court found that it was. 
There is no schedule to be administered in this 
case, but we contend that the discretion of the 
Board has been fairly exercised through the 
superintendent and the personnel committee, 
and this contention is well established by the 
testimony of the sponsors for the elementary 
grades, whose testimony is indicative of the 
manner in which that discretion has been ex­
ercised for all teachers.



159

In the T urner  case, plaintiff argued that 
the committee considered the ratings of white 
teachers given by their principals, but generally 
rejected the ratings given to negro teachers by 
their principals. The Court rejected this argu­
ment because this was only one of the elements 
used by the committee in arriving at its decision, 
and because no testimony was adduced to show 
that the procedure followed by the committee 
was designed to accomplish discrimination 
against negro teachers, or that such did result 
therefrom. In this case, all elementary teach­
ers, white and colored, were rated by the same 
sponsors, so that their ratings were more uni­
form than if those teachers were only rated 
by their own principals. The principals of the 
white junior high schools rated their respective 
teachers, and in Dunbar the teachers were rated 
by the sponsor. The composite ratings of 
Messrs. Scobee, Hamilton and Lewis on the basis 
of 16 factors show that there is no intentional 
discrimination, or that discrimination has re­
sulted from the Board’s exercise of discretion.

In this case, the plaintiff emphasises that 
plaintiff and twenty-four other colored high 
school teachers receive less than any white 
teacher in the Public School System. In the T u r­
ner  case, the rating committee, which included a 
negro, put 84 per cent of the white teachers in 
class Al, 15 per cent in class A2, and 1 per cent



160

in class A3, but it put only 6 per cent of the 
negro teachers in class Al, 14 per cent in class 
A2, and 80 per cent in class A3. Necessarily, 80 
per cent of the negro teachers in that School Sys­
tem were on a parity with 1 per cent of the white 
teachers, and under the schedule, this means 
that they had the same basic classifications to be 
modified by college training and years of ex­
perience. It is easily probable that a great many 
of those teachers receive less than any white 
teacher in that system.

In the T urner  case, the Court found that the 
committee made its ratings without questioning 
what effect those ratings would have on salaries, 
but in this case the sponsors did not even know 
what salaries the teachers received.

In the T urner  case, the Court stated that 
many of the ratings lacked scientific accuracy 
inasmuch as several of the qualifications were 
subjective in nature, and that inaccuracies 
would result in inequalities of salaries paid, 
but the Court stated further that the evidence 
failed to indicate that these inequalities existed 
disproportionately among the group of negro 
teachers. This same statement is true in this 
case, except Mr. Scobee positively testified that 
inequalities were as great within the group of 
white teachers as within the group of colored 
teachers (68 and 69 of discovery depositions).



161

The Court specifically found that the fact 
that in rating the teachers, and hence fixing 
their salaries, much was left to the judgment 
of the committee did not make the procedure 
unsound from a legal standpoint.

The Court then found that the schedule was 
fair on its face, and was being fairly applied, 
and that the difference in salaries did not result 
from unconstitutional discrimination. The 
Court denied injunctive relief.

Plaintiff’s counsel, in examining Mr. Sco- 
bee, stressed the fact that schedules were in gen­
eral based only upon training and tenure, but 
Mr. Scobee testified further that he would not 
be willing to employ teachers and fix their sal­
aries only on that basis, that teachers could not 
be taken off an assembly line, and that he did 
not favor a lock-step method of selecting teach­
ers. The T urner  case well illustrates his theory 
of discretion in fixing salaries, and the sched­
ule based upon these intangibles met the Court’s 
approval. They are so applicable, we repeat the 
two quotations from the Court’s opinion cited 
earlier in this brief:

“While the method adopted by the de­
fendants is apparently new, nevertheless it 
provides a satisfactory yardstick for the 
uniform determination of salaries without 
race distinction solely upon (1) physical 
health, personality and character, (2)



162

scholarship and attitude, (3) instructional 
skill and performance, (4) years of college 
attended and (5) years of teaching experi­
ence. Although the court does not assume 
to be versed either in the philosophy of 
teaching or in the various methods of deter­
mining teacher effectiveness, the method 
set forth in the new schedule would appear 
to be sound from an educational standpoint 
and one that should tend to advance in­
structional standards of this county.

“College degrees conferred upon one 
and years of teaching experience do not of 
themselves qualify one for the profession 
of teaching or of supervising of teaching 
and do not constitute the sole criteria for 
admeasurement of teacher worth. In addi­
tion to said factors, the ability to impart 
knowledge to pupils, as well as one’s own 
temperament, patience, instructional skill 
and performance, disciplinary ability, phy­
sical health, personality and character, in­
terest in work, dependability and scholar­
ship, attitude, tolerance, habits and other 
factors may also be considered and judged.”
These are the only opinions in the negro 

teacher salary suits that have come to our at­
tention. We say again that there is not one 
statement in them limiting the action of the de­
fendants in this case in selecting teachers on 
an individual basis and fixing their salaries on 
their individual qualifications, capacities and 
abilities.



163

F. Conclusion

If plaintiff believed when she filed this suit 
that defendants had a fixed salary schedule for 
white teachers and another and a lower one for 
colored teachers, she quickly learned that she 
was mistaken; and even though she denies it, 
her purpose in maintaining the action is to com­
pel the defendants to adopt a single salary 
schedule based only upon college training and 
years of experience, and to eliminate from con­
sideration all intangible qualifications, such as 
teaching ability, personality, and character, and 
to remove from the Board all discretion in fix­
ing salaries. As a matter of law, the decided 
cases recognize that the Board does have a dis­
cretion in fixing salaries for the individual 
teacher based upon that teacher’s individual 
qualifications, capacities and abilities, and that 
this discretion is not to be fettered. As a matter 
of policy, the defendants have testified most 
emphatically that they would not employ teach­
ers and fix salaries only upon the basis of col­
lege training and years of experience and insist 
upon fixing salaries for each individual teacher, 
according to that individual teacher’s qualifica­
tions, capacities and abilities.

In this case, there is no fixed salary sched­
ule of any kind as alleged by plaintiff. If there 
were, the plaintiff would only be too happy to 
produce it. This she has not done. Neither is



164

there any schedule for minima entrance sal­
aries. Plaintiff has also alleged a policy of dis­
crimination, but a most careful and searching 
analysis of the testimony fails to show any such 
policy. It is true that since Mr. Scobee has been 
here, with two exceptions, no negro teacher has 
been employed at a salary in excess of $630 and 
that no white teacher has been employed at less 
than $810; but if, in fact, none of the colored 
teachers were worth $810 and if, in fact, the 
white teachers were worth $810, in the discre­
tion of the Board exercised largely through the 
personnel committee and the superintendent, 
then there is no discrimination on the basis of 
race and color. Mr. Scobee testified that in his 
best judgment he had not been able to employ 
a single colored teacher as efficient as any white 
teacher he had employed, and he testified fur­
ther that in his best judgment he recommended 
a salary for each teacher based upon what he 
believed that individual teacher to be worth on 
the basis of college training, experience, teach­
ing ability, personality, character and other 
such qualifications. After a year’s experience 
with those teachers, he confirmed his first judg­
ment with two or three exceptions. Who is bet­
ter qualified or in a better position to form a 
judgment upon the worth of teachers to the 
Public School System?



165

He testifies still further that his policy was 
the policy of the Board, and that he had acted 
in accordance with the Board’s directors.

Inequalities in salaries do exist, but they 
exist as much within the group of white teachers 
as within the group of colored teachers, and as 
has been pointed out in the Turner case, these 
result from dealing with subjective intangible 
qualifications, but do not constitute a discrimi­
nation where so existing within each group. 
These inequalities the defendants seek to elimi­
nate, as in the general revision of salaries in 
April, 1940.

The delicacy of any court, especially a Fed­
eral court, dealing with the merits of a situation 
involving not only the public schools but the 
selection of teachers in them is readily appre­
ciated.

The system for the conduct of public 
schools in Arkansas is very good and it is a 
matter of common knowledge that school direc­
tors are selected by the voters because of their 
patriotism, integrity and willingness to serve 
the public in such an important matter, taking 
much of their time, and to serve without pay. 
They have many problems to deal with in the 
proper conduct of a school, especially schools 
serving a population in a district as large as 
Little Rock’s Special School District.



166

The Supreme Court of the United States 
had occasion to comment upon the reluctance 
with which the Federal courts would interfere 
with the conduct of schools in the states in 
C um m ing  v. Bd. o f  Education, 175 U. S. 528, 545, 
stating:

“We may add that while all admit the 
benefits and burdens of public taxation 
must be shared by citizens without discrimi­
nation against any class on account of their 
race, the education of people in schools 
maintained by state taxation is a matter 
belonging to the respective states, and any 
interference on the part of Federal author­
ity with the management of such schools 
cannot be justified except in the case of a 
clear and unmistakable disregard of rights 
secured by the supreme law of the land.”
As has been noted, plaintiff completely 

failed to show a schedule of salaries for the 
white and negro teachers as she expected to 
show when she brought her suit. She then at­
tempted to rely upon a custom and usage of 
willful discrimination so definite in its nature 
and persisted in so consistently that the discrimi­
nation on account of race and color is clear and 
unmistakable. We respectfully submit this has 
fallen far short of that goal.

She has selected isolated instances, a re­
mark by witnesses here and there lifted from 
the context of a long examination, occasional



167

circumstances here and and there over a period 
as far back as 1926; distribution of a bonus ac­
cording to a plan worked out by a teachers’ 
committee; and has strung these together in 
argument as if indicating a settled course of 
dealing.

Against these are defendants’ positive testi­
mony of each of the directors and superintend­
ents that there has been no discrimination or ef­
fort toward discrimination on account of race 
and color; that the salaries conformed to the 
work of the teachers as shown by their rating 
sheets; the explanation of the several witnesses 
of the different worth of the various individ­
ual teachers showing the occasion for the dif­
ference in salaries.

In the adjudicated cases plaintiff can find 
no support for this one. In the cases where ne­
groes are excluded from juries it was not diffi­
cult to show there was no serious dispute of the 
fact that there were negroes qualified for jury 
service year after year. In the recent school 
teachers cases, as we have said more than once, 
there had been a fixed salary schedule made so 
by law or adopted and having the force of law. 
In the only case of this kind where the teachers 
were considered and rated on an individual 
basis, and that after suit was brought, was a 
Florida case in which the declaratory judgment 
and injunction was denied.



168

We submit to the Court that plaintiff has 
failed to show a fixed salary schedule of any 
kind or any policy of discrimination based upon 
race and color, and, therefore, that plaintiff’s 
complaint should be dismissed.

Respectfully submitted,
J. F. Loughborough , 
W illiam  N a sh ,

O f Rose, Loughborough, 
D obyns & House fo r  
Defendants.

l



District Court of the United States
The Western Division of the Eastern District 

of Arkansas

Susie Morris, and the City Teachers’ i 
A ssociation, of Little Rock, an unin­
corporated Association,

Plaintiffs,
v.

R obert M. W illiams, Chairman; Murray I 
O. R eed, Secretary; Mrs. W. P.McDer- \ Civil Docket 
mott ; Mrs. W. P. R awlings ; Dr. R. M. I  No' 555 
Blakely, and E. F. J ennings, consti- I 
tuting the Board of Directors of the I 
Little Rock Special School District, 1 
and R ussell T. S cobee, Superinten- I 
dent of Schools,

Defendants. I

■ —  -■ -  ....... 111 1 xw

MEMORANDUM BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF.

T hurgood Marshall,
69 Fifth Avenue, 

New York, N. Y.,
S cipio J ones,
J . R. B ooker,
Myles K ibbler,

Century Building,
Little Rock, Ark.,

Attorneys for Plaintiff.





TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE
P ast On e :

Statement of the Case__________________________ 1

P art T wo :
Statement of Facts____________________________  9

Method of Fixing Salaries____________________  9
. New Teachers______________________________  10
Old Teachers ______________________________  13
Policy of Board in Past_______________________  14
Bonus Payments ____________________________ 16

P art T hree—Argument :

I. Payment of less salary to Negro public school 
teachers because of race is in violation of Four­
teenth Amendment ________________________  18

II. The policy, custom and usage of fixing salaries of 
public school teachers in Little Rock violates the 
Fourteenth Amendment____________________  22

A. General policy of defendants____________ 23
Cultural Background ________________ 23
Economic Theory _________________  24

B. Minimum salaries for new teachers__ ___  25
C. Salaries of older teachers and flat increases 30

Blanket Increases on Basis of Race_____  32



11
PAGE

D. The discriminatory policy of distributing 
supplementary salary payments on an un­
equal basis because of race--------------------  33

III. The rating sheets offered in evidence by defen­
dants should not have been admitted in evidence 35

IV. The composite rating sheets are entitled to no
weight in determining whether the policy, custom 
and usage of fixing salaries in Little Bock is 
based on race______________________________ 38

How the Ratings Were Made in Little Rock__  39
Elementary Schools _____________________  40
High Schools____________________________  41
Ratings by Mr. Hamilton__________________  43

Conclusion—It is, therefore, respectfully submitted
that the declaratory judgment and injunction should
be issued as prayed for________________________  47

Appendix :
Table 1—Negro high school teachers getting less sal­

ary than any white teacher in either high or ele­
mentary school in Little Rock_________________  49

Table 2—A comparison of plaintiff with white high 
school teachers of English with equal and less ex­
perience and professional qualifications_________  49

Table 3—A comparison of English teachers in high 
schools of Little Rock with Master’s degrees____  50

Table 4—A comparative table as to years of experi­
ence of English teachers in high schools with A.B. 
degree or less________________________________ 50

Table 5—A comparative table of Mathematics teach­
ers in high schools with M.A. degrees----------------- 51



Ill

PAGE

Table 6—A comparative table of Mathematics teach­
ers in high schools with A.B. degrees or less_____  51

Table 7—A comparative table of Science teachers in 
high schools with M.A. degrees________________  52

Table 8—A comparative table of Science teachers in 
high schools with A.B. degrees or less__________  52

Table 9—A comparative table of History teachers in 
high schools with A.B. degrees or less___________ 52

Table 10—A comparative table of Home Economics 
teachers in high schools with A.B. degrees_______  53

Table 11—A comparative table of Music and Band 
teachers in high schools with A.B. degrees or less., 53

Table 12—A comparative table of elementary teach­
ers with A.B. or comparable degrees and 1-5 years 
experience in Little Rock_____________________  54

Table 13—A comparative table of elementary teach­
ers with A.B. or comparable degrees and 5-10 
years experience in Little Rock..__ ____________  54

Table 14—A comparative table of elementary teach­
ers with A.B. or comparable degrees and 10-20 
years experience in Little Rock_______________  55

Table 15—A comparative table of elementary teach­
ers with A.B. or comparable degree and more than 
20 years experience in Little Rock______________ 55

Table 16—A comparative table of elementary teach­
ers without degrees and less than 10 years experi­
ence in Little Rock__________________________  56

Table 17—A comparative table of elementary teach­
ers without degrees and from 10-20 years experi­
ence in Little Rock__________________________  57

Table 18—A comparative table of elementary teach­
ers without degrees and more than 20 years experi­
ence in Little Rock__________________________  58



IV

Table of Cases.

PAGE

Alston v. School Board of City of Norfolk, 112 F. (2d)
992 (1940) certiorari denied, 311 U. S. 693-----------21,27

Chamberlain v. Kane, 264 S. W. 24 (1924)----------------- 38
Hill v. Texas, 86 L. Ed. 1090----------------------------------  28
McDaniel v. Board of Education, 39 F. Supp. 638

(1941) _____________________________   27
Mills v. Board of Education, et al., 30 F. Supp. 245

(1939) ______________________________________19,27
Mills v. Lowndes et al., 26 F. Supp. 792 (1939)-----------  18
Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 397, 26 L. Ed. 574------------  28
Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U. S. 354, 83 L. Ed. 757---------  28
Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 85 L. Ed. 106, 108 (1940) 28
State v. Bolen, 142 Wash. 653, 254, P. 445----------------- 38
Steel v. Johnson, 115 P. (2d) 145, 150----------------------  38
Thomas Hibbets et al. v. School Board et al., 46 F. 

Supp. 368 ____________________________________ 25
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 (1886)----------------- 27

3720 American Jurisprudence 886, P. 1027



IN THE

District Court of the United States
The Western Division of the Eastern District 

of Arkansas

S usie Morris, and the City Teachers’
A ssociation, of Little Rock, an unin­
corporated Association,

Plaintiffs,
v.

R obert M. W illiams, Chairman; Murray
0. R eed, Secretary; Mrs. W. P. McDer- \  c iv il Docket

mott ; Mrs. W. F. R awlings ; Dr. R. M. /  No' 555
B lakely, and E. F. J ennings, consti- [
tuting the Board of Directors of the I
Little Rock Special School District, 1
and R ussell T. S cobee, Superinten- I
dent of Schools,

Defendants. I

M E M O R A N D U M  B R I E F  F O R  
P L A I N T I F F .

PART ONE.

Statement of the Case.

This is an action by Susie Morris, a Negro teacher in 
the public schools of Little Rock, on behalf of herself and 
the other Negro teachers and principals of Little Rock. 
The case seeks a declaratory judgment and an injunction 
against the Superintendent of Schools and the School Board



2

of Little Rock to restrain them from continuing the policy 
of discrimination against Negro teachers and principals in 
paying them less salary than white teachers and principals 
of equal qualifications and experience because of race or 
color.

The issues in the case are clear. A comparison of the 
complaint and answer in the case follows:

Complaint.
1. Jurisdiction in General.
2. Jurisdiction for declara­

tory judgment.
3. Citizenship of parties.
4. a. Plaintiff is colored—

a Negro.
b. Plaintiff is a tax­

payer.
c. Regular teacher in 

the Dunbar High 
Sc h o o l ,  a p u b l i c  
school in Little Rock 
operated by defen­
dants.

d. Class suit.
5. Plaintiff Teachers’ As­

sociation.

6. a. Little Rock Special 
School District ex­
ists pursuant to laws 
of Arkansas as an 
administrative d e - 
partment of state 
performing essential 
governmental func­
tions.

A nswer.
1. Denied.
2. Denied that there is any 

discriminatory policy.
3. Admitted.
4. a. Admitted.

b. Admitted.

c. Admitted.

d. Admitted.
5. Out of case by reason of 

ruling on motion to dis­
miss as to teacher’s as­
sociation.

6. a. Admitted.



3

b. Naming of Defen­
dants.

7. a. State of Ark. has de­
clared public educa­
tion a state function.

b. General assembly of 
Ark. has established 
a system of free pub­
lic schools in Arkan­
sas.

c. Administration o f 
public school system 
is vested in a State 
Board, Committee of 
Education, School 
Districts and local 
Supts.

8. a. All teachers in Ark.
are required to hold 
teaching licenses in 
full force in accord­
ance with the rules 
of certification laid 
down by the State 
Board.

b. Duty of enforcing 
this system is im­
posed on s e v e r a l  
school boards.

c. N e g r o  and wh i t e  
teachers and princi­
pals alike must meet 
same requirements 
to receive teachers’ 
licenses from State 
board and upon qual­
ifying are issued 
identical certificates.

b. Admitted except that 
R. M. Blakely and E. 
F. Jennings are now 
chairman and secre­
tary.

7. a. Entire paragraph
admitted.

b. Entire paragraph
admitted.

c. Admitted.

8. a. Admitted—but state 
these requirements 
a r e  minimum re­
quirements only.

b. Admitted.

c. Admitted.



4

9. a. P u b l i c  schools of 9. a. 
Little Rock are un­
der direct control 
and supervision of 
defendants, acting as 
a n administrative 
dept, of State of 
Arkansas.

b. Defendants are un- b. 
der a duty to employ 
teachers, fix salaries 
and issue warrants 
for payment of sal­
aries.

10. a. Over a long period 10. a. 
of years defendants 
h a v e  consistently 
maintained and are 
now maintaining pol­
icy, custom and us­
age of paying Negro 
teachers and princi­
pals less salary than 
white teachers and 
principals possess­
ing the same profes­
sional qualifications, 
licenses and experi­
ence, exercising same 
duties and perform­
ing the same services 
as Negro teachers 
and principals.

b. Such discrimination b.
is being practiced 
against plaintiff and 
a l l  o t h e r  Negro 
teachers and princi­
pals in L. R.—and is 
based solely upon 
their race or color.

Admitted ( e n t i r e  
paragraph).

Admitted ( e n t i r e  
paragraph).

Denied.

Denied.



5

11. a. Plaintiff a n d  a l l  
other Negro teachers 
and principals are 
teachers by profes­
sion and are spe­
cially trained f o r  
their calling.

b. By r u l e s ,  regula­
tions, practice, usage 
and custom of state 
acting through de­
fendants as agents 
plaintiff and all other 
Negro teachers and 
principals are being 
denied equal protec­
tion of laws, in that 
solely by reason of 
race and color they 
are d e n i e d  equal 
compensation from 
p u b l i c  funds for 
equal work.

12. a. Plaintiff has been 
employed as a regu­
lar teacher by defen­
dants since 1935.

b. A.B. Degree from 
Talladega College, 
Talladega, Alabama.

c. Plaintiff holds a high 
school teacher’s li­
cense issued by State 
Board of Education.

11. a. Admitted—but state 
further that they dif­
fer a m o n g  them­
selves and as com­
pared to some white 
teachers and princi­
pals in degree of spe­
cial training, ability, 
character, profes­
sional qualifications, 
experience, duties, 
services and accom­
plishments.

b. Denied — and state 
that if in individual 
cases compensation 
paid to teachers var­
ies in amount it is 
based solely on spe­
cial training, ability, 
character, profes­
sional qualifications, 
experience, duties, 
services and accom­
plishments.

12. a. Admitted.

b. Admitted.

c. Admitted.



6

d. In order to qualify 
for this license plain­
tiff h a s  satisfied 
same requirements 
as those exacted of all 
other teachers white 
as well as Negroes.

e. Plaintiff exercises 
the same duties and 
performs services 
substantially equiva­
lent to those per­
formed b y  o t h e r  
holders of teachers’ 
licenses with equal 
and less experience 
receive salaries much 
larger than plaintiff.

13. a. Pursuant to policy, 
custom and usage set 
out above defendants 
acting as agents of 
State h a v e  estab­
lished a n d  main­
tained as s a l a r y  
schedule which pro­
vides a lower scale 
for Negroes, 

b. Practical application 
has been and will be 
to pay Negro teach­
ers and principals of 
equal qualifications 
and experience less 
compensation solely 
on account of race or 
color.

d. Admitted—but state 
in doing so plaintiff 
satisfied only mini­
mum requirements.

e. Denied and state if 
w h i t e  teachers in 
Little Rock receive 
salaries larger than 
plaintiff the differ­
ence is based solely 
on difference in spe­
cial training ability, 
character, profes­
sional qualifications, 
experience, duties, 
services and accom­
plishments, and in no 
part are based on 
race or color.

13. a. D e n y  defendants 
have ever had a sal­
ary schedule.

b. Denied salaries are 
fixed in whole or in 
part on color.



7

14. a. In enforcing a n d
maintaining the pol­
icy, regulation, cus­
tom and usage by 
which plaintiff and 
other Negro teach­
ers a n d  principals 
are uniformly paid 
lower salaries than 
white teachers solely 
on account of race 
and color, defendants 
a r e  violating th e  
14th Amendment and 
Sections 41 and 43 of 
Title 8 of U. S. Code.

b. To the extent that 
defendants act under 
color of statute said 
policy, custom and 
usage is unconstitu­
tional.

c. To the extent that 
defendants act with­
out benefit of statute 
is nevertheless un­
constitutional.

15. a. By virtue of discrim­
inatory policy, and 
schedule plaintiff is 
denied an equal par­
ticipation in the ben­
efit derived from that 
portion of her taxes 
devoted t o public 
school fund.

b. Solely on race or 
color.

c. Contrary to 1 4 t h  
Amendment.

14. a. Denied — deny that 
there is any salary 
schedule or discrim­
inatory practice.

b. Denied.

c. Denied. 

15. a. Denied.

b. Denied.

c. Denied,



8

d. Special and particu­
lar damage.

e. Without remedy save 
by injunction from 
this Court.

16. a. Petition on behalf of 
plaintiff and all other 
Negro teachers filed 
with defendants in 
March, 1941, request­
ing equalization, 

b. Petition denied on or 
about May 9, 1941.

17. a. Plaintiff and others
in class are suffering 
irrreparable injury, 
etc.

b. No plain adequate or 
complete remedy to 
redress wrongs other 
than this suit.

c. Any other remedy 
would not give com­
plete remedy.

18. a. There is an actual
controversy.

d. Denied.

e. Denied.

16. a. Admitted.

b. Admitted—but state 
reason for denial of 
petition w a s  that 
there is no inequality 
in salaries paid to 
white a n d  Negro 
teachers.

17. a. Denied ( e n t i r e  
paragraph).

b. Denied.

c. Denied.

18. a. Admitted.



9

PART TW O.

Statement of Facts.

The defendant School Board of Little Rock has general 
supervision over the school system in Little Rock including 
the distribution of the public school fund and the appoint­
ment and fixing of salaries of the teachers in the public 
schools of Little Rock. The public school fund comes from 
state taxes. Separate schools are maintained for white and 
colored pupils. All the teachers in the white schools are of 
the white race and all of the teachers in the colored schools 
are of the Negro race (14).

In the school district of which Little Rock is a part the 
per-capita expenditure per white child was $53 and per 
colored child was $37 for 1939-40. During the same period 
the revenue available was $47 per child. In Arkansas dur­
ing that period the average salary for elementary teachers 
was: white $526 and Negro $331; and for high school teach­
ers was $856 for white and $567 for Negroes (8-9).

All of the public schools in Little Rock, both white and 
Negro, are part of one system of schools and the same type 
of education is given in all schools, are open the same num­
ber of hours per day and the same number of days (296). 
The Negro teachers do the same work as the white teachers 
(312).

Method of Fixing Salaries.

The salaries of teachers are recommended by the super­
intendent to the Personnel Committee of the board after 
which a report is made by the Personnel Committee to the 
board for adoption (15). Neither the board nor the Per­
sonnel Committee interviews the teachers (34, 35, 156). In 
the fixing of salaries from year to year the board does not



10

check behind the recommendations of the superintendent 
(75). The recommendations of the superintendent to the 
Personnel Committee always designate the teachers by race 
(178, 180, 313). Likewise, the report from the Personnel 
Committee to the board always designates the individual 
teachers by race (182, 184, 313, 314). The race of the indi­
vidual teachers is in the minds of the members of the Per­
sonnel Committee in their consideration of the fixing of 
salaries (184, 185). The salaries for 1941-42 were not fixed 
on the basis of teaching ability or merit (312-313).

New Teachers.

Although all of the defendants denied that there was 
a salary “ schedule” as such, the plaintiff produced a salary 
schedule for Negro teachers providing a minimum salary 
of $615 (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4). Superintendent Scobee de­
nied ever having seen such a schedule but admitted that 
since 1938 “ practically all” new Negro teachers had been 
hired at $615. All new white teachers during that period 
have been hired at not less than $810 (530). For years it 
has been the policy of the Personnel Committee to recom­
mend lower salaries for Negro teachers than for white teach­
ers new to the system (41). This has been true for many 
years (41). Other defendants admitted that all new Negro 
teachers were paid either $615 or $630 and all new white 
teachers were paid a minimum of $810 (123, 129, 150, 308).

In 1937 the School Board adopted a resolution whereby 
a “ schedule” of salaries was established providing that new 
elementary teachers were to be paid a minimum of $810, 
junior high $910 and senior high $945 (476-477). Although 
Superintendent Scobee denied that the word “ schedule” 
actually meant schedule he admitted that since that time all 
white teachers had been employed at salaries of not less 
than $810 (477-478).



11

The difference in salaries paid new white and Negro 
teachers is supposed to be based upon certain intangible 
facts which the superintendent gathers by telephone conver­
sations and letters in addition to the information in the 
application blanks filed by the applicants (531). For ex­
ample, two teachers were being considered for positions, one 
white and one Negro. The superintendent, following his 
custom, telephoned the professor of the white applicant and 
received a very high recommendation for her. He did not 
either telephone or write the professors of the Negro appli­
cant. As a result he paid the white teacher $810 as an elemen­
tary school teacher, and the Negro teacher $630 as a high 
school teacher despite the fact that their professional quali­
fications were equal (530-533). Superintendent Scobee also 
admitted that where teachers have similar qualifications, if 
he would solicit recommendations for one and receive good 
recommendations and fail to do so for the other, the appli­
cant whose recommendations he solicited and obtained 
would appear to him to be the better teacher (532). He 
seldom sought additional information about the Negro appli­
cants (588), although personal interviews were used in the 
fixing of salaries (545) and played a large part in determin­
ing what salary was to be paid (545).

Superintendent Scobee testified that the employment and 
fixing of salaries of new teachers amounted to a “ gamble” 
(543). He admitted that he had made several mistakes as 
to white teachers and that although he was paying one white 
teacher $900 she was so inefficient he was forced to discharge 
her (847). During the time he has been superintendent Mr. 
Scobee, has never been willing to gamble more than $630 on 
any Negro teacher and during the same period has never 
gambled less than $810 on a new white teacher (546). Some 
new white teachers are paid more than Negro teachers with 
superior qualifications and longer experience (559, 570).



12

One of the reasons given for the differential in salaries 
is that Negro teachers as a whole are less qualified (45) and 
that the majority of the white teachers “ have better back­
ground and more cultural background” (85). Another de­
fendant testified: “ I  think I can explain that this way: the 
best explanation of that, however, is the Superintendent of 
the Schools is experienced in dealing and working with 
teachers, white teachers and colored. He finds that we have 
a certain amount of money, and the budget is so much, and 
in his dealing with teachers he finds he has to pay a certain 
minimum to some white teachers qualified to teach, a teacher 
that would suit in the school, and he also finds that he has 
to pay around a certain minimum amount in order to get 
that teacher, the best he can do about it is around $800 to 
$810 to $830, whatever it may be he has to pay that in order 
to pay that white teacher that minimum amount, qualified 
to do that work. Now, in his experiences with colored 
teachers, he finds he has to pay a certain minimum amount 
to get a colored teacher qualified to do the work. He finds 
that about $630, whatever it may be” (185-186).

Since it is the general understanding that the board can 
get Negro teachers for less it has been the policy of the 
board to offer them less than white teachers of almost identi­
cal background, qualifications and experience (186). Further 
explanations of why Negroes are paid less is that: “ They 
are willing to accept it, and we are limited by our financial 
structure, the taxation is limited, and we have to do the best 
we can” (187); and, that Negroes can live on less money than 
white teachers (188). The president of the board testified 
that they paid Negroes less because they could get them for 
less (19).

One member of the school board testified in response to 
a question: “ If you had the money, would you pay the



13

Negro teachers the same salary as you pay the white teach­
ers?” testified that: “ I don’t know, we have never had the 
money” (80).

Old Teachers.

Comparative tables showing the salaries of white and 
Negro teachers according to qualifications, experience and 
school taught have been prepared from the exhibits filed in 
the case and are attached hereto as appendices. According 
to these tables no Negro teacher is being paid a salary equal 
to a white teacher with equal qualifications and experience. 
This fact is admitted by Superintendent Scobee (862).

It is the policy of the defendants to pay high school 
teachers more salary than elementary teachers (297). I t is 
also the policy of the defendants to pay teachers with ex­
perience more than new teachers (610). It is admitted that 
the Negro teachers at Dunbar High School are good teachers
(312) . However, the plaintiff and twenty-four other Negro 
high school teachers with years of experience are now being 
paid less than any white teacher in the system including 
elementary teachers as well as teachers new to the system 
(304). Superintendent Scobee was unable to explain the 
reason for this or to deny that the reason might have been 
race or color of the teachers (304). He testified that he 
could not fix the salaries of the Negro high school teachers 
on any basis of merit because “ my funds are limited”
(313) .

Since Superintendent Scobee has been in office (1941) 
he has carried the salaries along on the same basis as he 
found them (297). He also testified that if the question of 
race had been the basis for the fixing of salaries prior to 
1941 then this would be true today (298). Although there 
have been a few “ adjustments” there have been no changes



14

in salary since 1941. The salaries for 1941-42 were not 
fixed on any basis of merit (312).

In past years Negro teachers have been employed at 
smaller salaries than white teachers and under a system of 
blanket increases over a period of years Negroes have re­
ceived smaller increases (129). The differential over a 
period of years has increased rather than decreased (130). 
One member of the board testified that “ I think there are 
some Negro teachers are as good as some of the white 
teachers, but I  think there are some not as good” (130-131). 
Another board member testified that he thought there were 
some Negro teachers getting the same salary as white 
teachers with equal qualifications and experience (158).

Policy of Board in Past.

Several portions of the minutes of the school board 
starting with 1926 were placed in evidence. In 1926 several 
new teachers were appointed. The white teachers were ap­
pointed at salaries of from $90 to $150 a month. Negro 
teachers were appointed at from $63 to $80 a month (888, 
889). Later the same year the superintendent of schools 
recommended that “ B. A. teachers without experience get 
$100.00, $110.00, $115.00, according to the assignment to 
Elementary, Junior High, or Senior High respectively” . 
Additional white teachers were appointed at salaries of 
from $100 to $200 a month and at the same time Negroes 
were appointed at salaries of from $65 to $90 (892, 893) in 
1927 all white teachers with the exception of six were given 
a flat increase of $75 per year and all Negro teachers were 
given a flat increase of $50 per month (896, 897).

On May 14, 1928 the school board adopted a resolution: 
“ all salaries for teachers remain as of 1927-1928, and in 
event of the 18 mill tax carrying May 19, 1928, the white



15

school teachers are to receive an increase of $100 for 1928- 
29 and the colored teachers an increase of $50 for 1928- 
1929” (899). During the same year three white principals 
were given increases of from $25 a month to $100 a year 
while one Negro principal was given an increase of $5 a 
month (900).

On May 21, 1929 the board adopted a resolution that: 
“ an advance of $100.00 per year be granted all white 
teachers, and $50.00 per year for all colored teachers, sub­
ject to the conditions of the Teachers’ salary” (907). Prior 
to that time Negro teachers were getting less than white 
teachers (78). According to this resolution all white teachers 
regardless of their qualifications received increases of $100 
each while all Negro teachers were limited to increases of 
$50 each (79). It was impossible for a Negro teacher to 
get more than a $50 increase regardless of qualifications 
(79). One reason given for paying all white teachers a $100 
increase and all Negro teachers $50 was that at the time 
the Negro teachers were only getting about half as much 
salary as the white teachers (80).

On April 30, 1932, all teachers’ salaries were cut 10% 
(937). On June 19, 1934, a schedule of salaries for school 
clerks was established providing $50 to $60 a month for 
white clerks and $40 to $50 a month for colored clerks 
(967). It was also decided that: “ white teachers entering 
Little Rock Schools for 1933-34 for the first time at a mini­
mum salary of $688.00, having no cut to be restored, be 
given an increase of $30 for the year 1934-35 (967). On 
June 28, 1935, at the time the plaintiff was employed white 
elementary teachers new to the system were appointed at 
$688 to $765 for elementary teachers and $768 for high 
school teachers while plaintiff and other Negro teachers 
were employed at $540 (973, 974).



16

On March 30, 1936 the school board adopted the follow­
ing recommendations: “ that the contracts for 1936-37 of 
all white teachers who are now making $832 or less be in­
creased $67.50, and all teachers above $832.50 be increased 
to $900, and that no adjustment exceed $900.” ; and “ that 
the contracts for 1936-37 of all colored teachers who now 
receive $655 or less be increased $45, and all above $655 be 
increased to $700, and that no adjustment exceed $700” . 
It was also provided “ that the salaries of all white teachers 
who have entered the employ of the Little Rock School 
Board since above salary cuts, or whose salaries were so 
low as not to receive any cut, be adjusted $45.00 for 1935- 
36” ; and “ that the salaries of all colored teachers who have 
entered the employ of the Little Rock School Board since 
the above salary cuts, or whose salaries were so low as not 
to receive any cut, be adjusted $30.00 for 1935-36” (978- 
979).

On April 25, 1936 it was decided by the school board: 
“ The contracts are to be the same as for 1935-36, except 
that those white teachers receiving less than $900.00, and 
all colored teachers receiving less than $700, who are to get 
$67.50 and $45 additional respectively, or fraction thereof, 
not to exceed $900 and $700, respectively” .

Bonus Payments.

In 1941 the school board made a distribution of certain 
public funds as a supplemental payment to all teachers 
which was termed by them a ‘ ‘ bonus ’ ’. This money was dis­
tributed pursuant to a plan adopted by the school board 
(136—see Exhibits A and 3-B). The plan was worked out



17

and recommended by a committee of teachers in the public 
schools (131). This committee was composed solely of white 
teachers (316) because, as one member of the board testi­
fied: “ We don’t mix committees in this city” (131) Super­
intendent Scobee testified that he did not even consider the 
question of putting some Negro teachers on the committee 
(322).

Under this plan there are three criteria used in deter­
mining how many “ units” a teacher is entitled to: one, 
years of experience, two, training, and three salary (see 
Exhibits 3-A and 3-B). After the number of units are de­
termined the fund was distributed as follows: each white 
teacher is paid $3.00 per unit and each Negro teacher is 
paid $1.50 per unit. After the number of units were deter­
mined the sole determining factor as to whether the teachers 
received $3.00 or $1.50 per unit was the race of the teacher 
in question (527).

After the 1941 distribution the Negro teachers went to 
Superintendent Scobee and protested against the inequality, 
yet, another supplemental payment was made in 1942 and 
the same plan was used (321).

In 1937 the Negro teachers filed a petition with the de­
fendants seeking to have the inequalities in salaries because 
of race removed. No action was taken other than to refer 
it to the superintendent (985). In 1938: “ Petition signed 
by the Colored Teachers of the Little Rock Public Schools, 
requesting salary adjustments, was referred to Committee 
on Teachers and Schools” (995). On May 27, 1939 a report 
was adopted by the school board which included the follow­
ing: “ Petition of colored teachers for increase in pay. Dis­
allowed” (1003).



18

PART THREE.

ARGUMENT.

I.

Payment of less salary to Negro public school 
teachers because of race is in violation of Fourteenth 
Amendment.

There are several decisions of United States Court which 
have established the rule that the fixing of salaries of Negro 
teachers in public schools at a lower rate than that paid to 
white teachers of equal qualifications and experience, and 
performing essentially the same duties on the basis of race 
or color is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The first case is Mills v. Lowndes et al., 26 F. Supp. 792 
(1939). This was an action for an injunction brought by a 
Negro principal in the public schools of Anne Arundel 
County, Maryland, against the state treasurer, comptroller 
and other state officials seeking to enjoin the distribution of 
the state “ Equalization fund” . It was alleged that the fund 
was distributed on the basis of a statutory salary schedule 
which provided a lower minimum salary for Negro teachers 
than for white teachers. Judge W. Calvin Chesnut dis­
missed the petition on the ground that the several counties 
and cities of Maryland were the units of education and what­
ever action there might be would have to be against these 
local units.

Judge Chesnut, however, ruled th a t:

“ The allegations of the complaint that the Mary­
land minimum salary statutes for teachers in public 
schools are practically administered in many of the 
Counties in such a way that there is discrimination



19

against colored teachers solely on account of race and 
color charges an unlawful denial of the equal protec­
tion of the laws to colored school teachers in Counties, 
if any, where such conditions prevail, . . . ” (26 F. 
Supp. 792, 805).

In the same decision the point was established that pub­
lic school teachers had the right to maintain this type of 
action:

“ I conclude therefore that the plaintiff does have 
a status, not as a public employee, but as a teacher by 
occupation which entitled him to raise the Consti­
tutional question; and if the complaint were made 
against the County Board of Education, which, it is 
alleged, is making the unjust discrimination between 
equally qualified white and colored teachers solely on 
account of their race and color, it would state a case 
requiring an answer.”

The next case was against the Board of Education of 
Anne Arundel County and the County Superintendent of 
Schools. Mills v. Board of Education et al., 30 F. Supp. 245 
(1939). This case was an action for a declaratory judgment 
and injunction. It resulted in a full trial on the merits after 
an answer was filed denying all of the essential allegations. 
At the trial it developed that Anne Arundel County had its 
own minimum salary schedule which was higher than the 
statutory schedule. The defendants maintained that the dif­
ferences in salary were not based on race but on differences 
in qualifications and services rendered. Judge Chesnut, in 
deciding this case by granting the injunction, held th a t:

“ The controlling question in this case, however, 
is not whether the statutes are unconstitutional on 
their face, but whether in their practical application 
they constitute an unconstitutional discrimination on 
account of race and color, prejudicial to the plaintiff.



20

We must therefore look to the testimony in this case 
to see how the statutes have been applied in Anne 
Arundel County. . . . The county scale fixes the 
minimum salary of a white principal of a comparable 
school at $1,550, and for a colored principal $995; hut 
in practice the County Board in many cases actually 
pays higher salaries to the principals of schools, in 
consideration of particular conditions and capacities 
of the respective principals. Thus the plaintiff’s 
salary for the current year has been fixed at $1058 
or $103 more than the minimum, and in the case of 
three white principals, mentioned in the evidence, the 
salary is $1880 per year, or $250 more than the mini­
mum. The defendants contend that the materially 
higher salaries of these white principals of schools 
comparable in size to that of which the plaintiff is 
principal is due to the judgment of the Board that 
the three white principals have superior professional 
attainments and efficiency to that of Mills; hut it is 
to be importantly noted that these personal qualities, 
while explaining greater compensation to the particu­
lar individuals, than the minimum county scale for 
the particular position, do not account for the differ­
ence between $1058 only received by Mills and the 
minimum of $1550 which by the County scale would 
have to be paid to any white principal of a compar­
able school. Or, in other words, if Mills were a white 
principal he would necessarily receive according to 
the county scale not less than $1550 as compared with 
his actual salary of $1058.” (30 F. Supp. 245, 248.)

“ I  also find from the evidence that in Ann Arun­
del County there are 243 white teachers and 91 col­
ored teachers but no one colored teacher receives so 
much salary as any white teacher of similar qualifica­
tions and experience.

“ The crucial question in the case is whether the 
very substantial differential between the salaries of 
white and colored teachers in Anne Arundel County



21

is due to discrimination on account of race or color. 
I  find as a fact from the testimony that it is. . . . ” 
(30 F. Supp. 245, 249.)

The third case was Alston v. School Board of City of 
Norfolk, 112 F. (2d) 992 (1940); certiorari denied, 311 U. S. 
693. In this case the Circuit Court of Appeals for the 
Fourth Circuit reversed the decision of the lower Court 
which had dismissed the complaint of a Negro teacher of 
Norfolk. The complaint was similar to the one in the Mills 
case (supra) and the instant case. The Alston case involved 
a salary schedule providing minimum and maximum sal­
aries.

In the opinion for the Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge 
P arker, after quoting pertinent paragraphs of the com­
plaint, stated:

“ That an unconstitutional discrimination is set 
forth in these paragraphs hardly admits argument. 
The allegation is that the state, in paying for public 
services of the same kind and character to men and 
women equally qualified according to standards which 
the state itself prescribes, arbitrarily pays less to 
Negroes than to white persons. This is as clear a 
discrimination on the ground of race as could well be 
imagined and falls squarely within the inhibition of 
both the due process and the equal protection clauses 
of the 14th Amendment. . . . ” (112 F. (2d) 992, 
995-996.)

There are no cases to the contrary. I t is, therefore, 
clear that the question of race or color cannot be used in the 
fixing of salaries of public school teachers. Whenever race 
or color is considered in the fixing of teachers’ salaries there 
is a violation of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Consti­
tution.



2 2

II.

The policy, custom and usage of fixing salaries of 
public school teachers in Little Rock violates the Four­
teenth Amendment.

The evidence in this case consists of the records of the 
school board including minutes and records of salary pay­
ments along with efforts of members of the school board to 
explain and contradict their own records. An examination 
of the list of salaries now being paid demonstrates clearly 
that Negro teachers are being paid less salary than white 
teachers of equal qualifications and experience.

After a full trial on the merits in the second Mills case 
(supra) Judge Chesntjt decided the case in favor of the 
plaintiff because:

“ I also find from the evidence that in Anne Arundel 
County there are 91 colored teachers but no one col­
ored teacher receives so much salary as any white 
teacher of similar qualification and experience.” 
(30 F. Supp. 245, 249.)

Comparative tables showing the salaries of white and 
Negro teachers according to qualifications, experience and 
school taught have been prepared from the exhibits filed in 
the instant case and are attached hereto as appendices. 
According to these tables “no one colored teacher receives 
so much salary as any white teacher of similar qualifications 
and experience.”  These facts were admitted by Superin­
tendent Scobee (862). This brings the instant case clearly 
within the rule as established in the Mills case, which rule 
was later approved by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Alston case (supra).

The present differential in salaries of white and Negro 
teachers is the result of a combination of discriminatory



23

practices of the defendants forming a policy, custom and 
usage extending over a long period of years. These prac­
tices have been:

A. A general over-all policy of paying Negro teachers 
less salary than white teachers.

B. A policy of fixing lower salaries for Negro 
teachers than for new white teachers without ex­
perience.

C. A system of flat salary increases providing larger 
increases for all white teachers than for any Negro 
teacher.

D. A system of distributing supplementary payments 
on an unequal basis because of race.

A . G eneral po licy  of defen dan ts.

The facts in the instant case are peculiarly in the hands 
of the defendants. It was, therefore, necessary to develop a 
large part of the plaintiff’s case by testimony from the 
defendants called as adverse witnesses.

The defendants have repeatedly classified teachers by 
race in fixing salaries. The defendants admitted that for 
many years it has been the policy of the Personnel Com­
mittee to recommend lower salaries for Negro teachers than 
for white teachers new to the system (41). This has been 
true for many years (41). Thus, Negro teachers are 
grouped together on the basis of race or color.

Cultural Background.

The defendants attempt to explain this differential in 
salaries in several ways. For example, one defendant testi­
fied that Negro teachers as a whole are less qualified (45); 
and that the majority of the white teachers “ have better 
background and more cultural background” (85).



24

Economic Theory.

Another defendant testified: “ I think I can explain that 
this way; the best explanation of that, however, is the 
Superintendent of the Schools is experienced in dealing and 
working with teachers, white and colored. He finds that we 
have a certain amount of money, and the budget is so much, 
and in his dealing with teachers he finds he has to pay a 
certain minimum to some white teachers qualified to teach, 
a teacher that would suit the school, and he also finds that 
he has to pay around a certain minimum amount in order to 
get that teacher, the best he can do about it is around $800 to 
$810, to $830, whatever it may be he has to pay that in order 
to pay that white teacher that minimum amount, qualified 
to do that work. Now, in his experience with colored 
teachers, he finds he has to pay a certain minimum amount 
to get a colored teacher qualified to do the work. He finds 
that about $630, whatever it may be” (185-186).

Further explanation is that since there is a general 
understanding that the board can get Negro teachers for 
less it has been the policy of the board to offer them less 
than white teachers of almost identical background, quali­
fications and experience (186). It was also revealed that 
Negroes are paid less because: “ They are willing to accept 
it, and we are limited by our financial structure, the taxation 
is limited, and we have to do the best we can” (188). The 
president of the board testified that they paid Negroes less 
because they could get them for less (19). Still another 
member of the board testified in response to a question: “ If 
you had the money, would you pay the Negro teachers the 
same salary as you pay the white teachers ? ’ ’ replied th a t: 
“ I  don’t know, we have never had the money” (80). Super­
intendent Scobee testified that he could not fix the salaries 
of Negro high school teachers on any basis of merit because 
“ my funds are limited”  (313).



25

In the case of Thomas Hibbets et al. v. School Board 
et al., 46 F. Supp. 368, which was decided by U. S. District 
Judge E lmer D. Davies, Judge of the District Court for the 
Middle District of Tennessee, the defendants offered as a 
defense on part of the Board of Education that the salary 
diff erential was an economic one and not based upon race or 
color; and also, that salaries were determined by the school 
in which the teacher was employed. In deciding these points 
Judge Davies wrote:

“ The Court is unable to reconcile these theories with 
the true facts in the case and therefore finds that the 
studied and consistent policy of the Board of Educa­
tion of the City of Nashville is to pay its colored 
teachers salaries which are considerably less than the 
salaries paid to white teachers, although the eligi­
bility and qualifications and experience as required 
by the Board of Education is the same for both white 
and colored teachers; and that the sole reason for 
this difference is because of the race of the colored 
teachers.” 46 F. (Supp.) 368.

B. M inim um  salaries for new  teachers.

All of the defendants denied that there ever has been a 
salary “ schedule” for the fixing of teachers’ salaries. The 
plaintiff, however, produced a salary schedule for Negro 
teachers providing a minimum salary of $615 (Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit 4). Superintendent Scobee denied ever having seen 
such a schedule but admitted that since 1939 “ practically 
all”  new Negro teachers had been hired at $615 while all 
new white teachers hired during the same period were paid 
not less than $810 (530).

In 1937 the School Board adopted a resolution whereby a 
“ schedule” of salaries was established providing that new 
elementary teachers were to be paid a minimum of $810 
(476-477). Although Superintendent Scobee attempted to



26

explain that the word “ schedule” did not mean schedule, 
he admitted that since that time all white teachers had been 
hired at salaries of not less than $810 (477-478).

The other defendants admitted that all new Negro 
teachers were paid either $615 or $630 and all new white 
teachers were paid a minimum of $810 (123, 129, 150, 308).

In the second Mills case Judge Chesnut held that a 
minimum salary schedule adopted by local school board 
providing a higher minimum salary for white teachers than 
for Negro teachers was unconstitutional. In the Alston 
case there was a local school board schedule with a minimum 
of $597.50 for Negro teachers new to the system and a mini­
mum of $850 for white teachers new to the system. The 
Circuit Court of Appeals after quoting paragraphs from 
the complaint which set out the minimum and maximum 
salary schedule decided:

“ That an unconstitutional discrimination is set 
forth in these paragraphs hardly admits argument. 
The allegation is that the state, in paying for public 
services of the same kind and character to men and 
women equally qualified according to standards 
which the state itself prescribes, arbitrarily pays 
less to Negroes than to white persons. This is as 
clear a discrimination on the ground of race as could 
well be imagined and falls squarely within the inhibi­
tion of both the due process and the equal protective 
clauses of the 14th Amendment.” (112 F. (ad) 992, 
995-996.)

In the instant case the defendants sought to escape the 
rule as established in the Mills and Alston cases {supra) by 
denying that they have a salary schedule in writing. They 
testified that all teachers, white and Negro, were hired on 
an individual basis without regard to race or color. All of 
the defendants denied that there was any written schedule 
establishing lower salaries for Negro teachers because of



27

race or color. They, however, admitted that in actual prac­
tice all Negroes were hired at either $615 or $630 while all 
white teachers were hired at not less than $810. The validity 
of their method of fixing salaries is determined by the 
actual practice rather than the theory.

“ • • • though the law itself be fair on its face and 
impartial in appearance yet, if it is applied and ad­
ministered by public authority with an evil eye and 
an uneven hand, so as practically to make unjust and 
illegal discrimination between persons in similar cir­
cumstances, material to their rights, the denial of 
equal justice is still within the prohibition of the 
Constitution. ’ ’

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 (1886).

This is the same theory which has been applied in all 
cases involving discrimination against Negro public school 
teachers which have come before the Federal Courts.

See:
Alston v. School Board (supra);
Mills v. Board of Education (supra);
McDaniel v. Board of Education, 39 F. Supp. 638 

(1941).

In the Mills case (supra) Judge Chesnut stated:

“  • . . In considering the question of constitution­
ality we must look beyond the face of the statutes 
themselves to the practical application thereof as 
alleged in the complaint . . . ”

In one of the latest cases involving the exclusion of 
Negroes from jury service it appeared that in Harris 
County, Texas, only 5 of 384 grand jurors summoned during 
a seven year period were Negroes and only 18 of 512 petit 
jurors were Negroes. In reversing the conviction of a



28

Negro under such a system, Mr. Associate Justice Black 
stated:

“ Here, the Texas statutory scheme is not itself 
unfair; it is capable of being carried out with no 
racial discrimination whatsoever. But by reason of 
the wide discretion permissible in the various steps 
of the plan, it is equally capable of being applied in 
such a manner as practically to proscribe any group 
thought by the law’s administrators to be undesirable 
and from the record before us the conclusion is in­
escapable that it is the latter application that has 
prevailed in Harris County. Chance and accident 
alone could hardly have brought about the listing for 
grand jury service of so few Negroes from among 
the thousands shown by the undisputed evidence to 
possess the legal qualifications for jury service

Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 85L; Ed. 106, 108 
(1940).

See also:
Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 397, 26 L. Ed. 574;
Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U. S. 354, 83 L. Ed. 757;
Hill v. Texas, 86 L. Ed. 1090.

Superintendent Scobee testified that the difference in 
salaries paid new white and Negro teachers has been based 
upon certain intangible facts, most of which he had for­
gotten by the time of the trial. Much of the information 
used in fixing salaries was from letters and telephone con­
versations in addition to the application blanks filed by the 
applicants (531). In actual practice this procedure itself 
discriminates against Negro applicants.

The testimony of Superintendent Scobee reveals the 
extent of this discrimination. Two teachers, one white and 
one colored, were being considered for teaching positions.



29

The superintendent, following his custom, telephoned the 
college professor of the white applicant and received a very 
high recommendation for her. He did not either telephone 
or write the professors of the Negro applicant. As a result 
he offered the white applicant $810 as an elementary teacher 
and the Negro $630 as a high school teacher despite the 
fact that their professional qualifications were equal (530- 
533).

The extent of the discrimination against Negro teachers 
brought about by this unequal treatment is emphasized by 
further testimony of Superintendent Scobee th a t:

a. Where teachers have similar qualifications, if he 
would solicit recommendations for one and receive 
good recommendations and fail to do so for the other, 
the applicant whose recommendations he solicited 
and obtained would appear to him to be the better 
teacher (532).

b. He seldom sought additional information about the 
Negro applicants (552).

c. Personal interviews were used in the fixing of salaries 
(545); and played a large part in determining the 
amount of salary (545).

d. He did not even interview all of the Negro applicants 
(588).

In another recent case involving the question of exclu­
sion of Negroes from jury service facts were presented 
which are closely similar to the facts presented by the de­
fendants in this case. In the jury case, Mr. Chief Justice 
S to n e  for the U . S . Supreme Court stated:

“ We think petitioners made out a prima facie 
case, which the state failed to meet, of racial dis­
crimination in the selection of grand jurors which 
the equal protection clause forbids. As we pointed



30

out in Smith v. Texas, supra (311 U. S. 131, 85 L. 
Ed. 86, 61 Set. 164), chance or accident could hardly 
have accounted for the continuous omission of 
Negroes from the grand jury lists for so long a 
period as sixteen years or more. The jury commis­
sioners, although matter was discussed by them, con­
sciously omitted to place the name of any Negro on 
the jury list'. They made no effort to ascertain 
whether there were within the County members of 
the colored race qualified to serve as jurors, and if 
so who they were. They thus failed to perform their 
constitutional duty-recognized by section 4 of the 
Civil Rights Act of March 1, 1875, 8 U. S. C. A. sec­
tion 44, and fully established since the decision in 
1881 of Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 26 L. Ed. 
567, supra not to pursue a course of conduct in the 
administration of their office which would operate to 
discriminate in the selection of jurors on racial 
grounds. Discrimination can arise from the action 
of commissioners who exclude all Negroes whom they 
do not know to he qualified nor seek to learn whether 
there are in fact any qualified Negroes available for 
jury service.” (Italics ours.) Hill v. Texas (supra).

In the instant case the practice of Superintendent Scobee 
outlined above is just as discriminatory as the policy and 
custom of the commissioners in the Hill case and in itself 
violates the 14th Amendment.

C. Salaries o f o lder  teach ers and  
fla t increases.

According to the tables of teachers’ salaries for 1941- 
42 attached hereto as appendices no Negro teacher is being- 
paid a salary equal to a white teacher with equal qualifica­
tions and experience. This fact is admitted by Superin­
tendent Scobee (862). These salaries for 1941-42 were not 
fixed on any basis of merit of the individual teachers (312).



31

All of the public schools in Little Rock, both white and 
Negro, are part of one system of schools and the same type 
of education is given in all schools, white and Negro (295). 
The same courses of study are used. All schools are open 
the same number of hours per day and the same number of 
days (296). The same type of. teaching is given in all schools. 
Negro teachers do the same work as the white teachers 
(312).

The defendants testified that there is a policy to pay 
high school teachers more than elementary teachers (297); 
and to pay teachers with experience more than new teachers 
(312). It is also admitted that the Negro teachers at Dun­
bar High School are good teachers (312). However, the 
plaintiff and twenty-four other Negro high school teachers 
of Dunbar with years of experience are now being paid less 
than any white teacher in the system (304). Superintendent 
Scobee was unable to explain this or to deny that the reason 
might have been race or color of the teachers (304).

The present differential in salaries between white and 
Negro teachers is the result of a long standing policy of 
employing Negro teachers at smaller salaries than white 
teachers and a system of blanket increases over a period of 
years whereby all Negro teachers have received smaller 
increases than white teachers (129). It is admitted that 
the differential has increased rather than decreased over a 
period of years (130).

Several portions of the minutes of the School Board 
starting with 1926 were placed in evidence. These minutes 
were digested and set out in the Statement of Facts under 
the heading “ Policy of the Board in P ast” . It is, therefore, 
not necessary to repeat these portions of the minutes in 
this section of the brief. We respectfully urge a re-reading 
of the above section of this Statement of Facts.



32

I t is clear from these portions of the minutes and the 
testimony of members of the School Board that it is and 
has been the policy of the School Board of Little Rock, not 
only to employ Negro teachers at a smaller salary than 
white teachers, but in addition there has been the policy of 
giving blanket increases which are larger for white teachers 
than for Negro teachers.

Blanket Increases on Basis of Race.

The defendants repeatedly admitted that all Negro 
teachers new to the system are employed at salaries less 
than white teachers new to the system. Defending the policy 
of giving larger increases to all white teachers than to any 
Negro teacher, the defendants testified that the differential 
in the increases was based upon the salaries being paid the 
two groups of teachers while at the same time admitting 
that the differential in salaries was based upon race or color 
of the teachers (37-39).

For example: One defendant testified as follows:
“ Q. So is it not true that the worst white teacher 

at that time got more than the best Negro teacher? 
A. No.

Q. Well, was there any other basis? A. Yes, the 
basis of their flat pay.

Q. I  mean in order to qualify for this, there are 
two amounts involved, $75 and $50, and in order to 
qualify for the $75, is it not true that the only thing 
you had to do was to be white? A. No.

Q. Well, the white teachers got $75? A. Yes, sir, 
just in a different bracket of pay.

Q. Different bracket? A. Different set-up. It 
was on a basis of salary they were then drawing.

Q. Well, weren’t they all getting more than the 
Negro teachers? A. Yes.

Q. So that prior to that time there was a differ­
ence between them, between the white and colored



33

teachers, in the salaries they were receiving and after 
that time the difference was even wider. A. I have 
not figured out whether it was wider or not, there 
was a difference.” (37-38.)

The inevitable result of this type of discrimination is 
likewise admitted by the defendants.

“ Q. So the Negro teachers that came in at less 
salary are still trailing below the white teachers. Is 
that true? A. It probably is.

Q. So, regardless of how many degress they might 
go away and get, they would still be trailing behind 
the white teachers they came in with. Would that be 
true? A. Not in every case, I don’t think.

Q. Can you give any exceptions? A. No.” (48).

D. The d iscrim inatory po licy  of d istribu tin g  
su pp lem en tary  sa la ry  paym en ts on an 
unequal basis because of race.

Further wilful disregard for the equal protection clause 
of the United States Constitution, is apparent in the policy 
of distributing supplementary payments to teachers in the 
Little Rock School System. It is admitted that the funds 
for the supplementary salary payments was received from 
state tax funds (522). These supplementary payments 
were distributed under the same policy as has been used 
in the fixing of the basic salaries of these teachers. Some 
of the testimony on that point was :

“ Q. And in distributing the public money didn’t 
you feel obligated under the same rules as the other 
money you disturbed for the School Board? A. So 
far as it was public money, yes.

Q. Why? You didn’t think you could distribute 
it any way you pleased, did you? A. No, but the At­
torney General of Arkansas ruled it was within the 
discretion of the Local Board to distribute it.



34

Q. Did you think you could distribute it on the 
basis of—so much to the teacher of one school and 
so much to the teacher of another school, on that 
basis? A. Well, according to the rule, if I remember 
right, said so, I believe we could.

Q. As to the rate, we are not concerned about that. 
Do you think you could distribute more to white per­
sons than to Negro persons? A. I think, legally 
speaking, under the terms of his opinion it would 
have been possible.

Q. Then you think the Fourteenth Amendment 
did not touch you? A. I did not go into the Four­
teenth Amendment.” (522-523.)

This type of total disregard for the Fourteenth Amend­
ment is characteristic of the entire policy of the School 
Board of the City of Little Rock and the Superintendent of 
Schools in administering public funds allotted for the pay­
ment of teachers’ salaries.

The facts concerning the distribution of the supple­
mental salary payments, 1941-1942, are not in dispute at all. 
The money obtained from public funds was distributed pur­
suant to a plan recommended by Superintendent Scobee and 
adopted by the School Board (136). (See Exhibits 3-A and 
3-B.) The plan was worked out and recommended by a 
committee of teachers in the public schools of Little Rock 
(131). This committee was composed solely of white 
teachers (316), because, as one member of the Board testi­
fied: “ We do not mix committees in this City” (131). 
Superintendent Scobee, who appointed the committee, tes­
tified that he did not even consider the question of putting 
some Negro teachers on the committee (322). Under this 
plan only three criteria were used in determining how many 
“ units” a teacher is entitled to. One, years of experience; 
two, training three, salary (see Exhibits 3-A and 3-B). After



35

the number of units were determined, the fund was dis­
tributed as follows:

Each white teacher was paid $3 per unit and each Negro 
teacher was paid $1.50 per unit. After the number of units 
were determined, the sole determining factor as to whether 
the teacher received $3.00 or $1.50 per unit was the race of 
the teacher in question (527).

Further evidence of the complete disregard for Negro 
teachers in Little Rock and for the Constitution of the 
United States, again appear from the fact that although 
representatives of the Negro teachers protested to Superin­
tendent Scobee against the inequality in the 1941 payment, 
yet, another supplemental payment was made in 1942, after 
this case was filed and the same plan was used (321). No 
effort at all has been made by the defendants to defend this 
violation of the United States Constitution other than the 
explanation that the opinion of the Attorney General of 
Arkansas permitted the discrimination.

III.

The rating sheets offered in evidence by defendants 
should not have been admitted in evidence.

Prior to the Spring of 1942 formal rating sheets were 
never used by the defendants (50, 52). Some supervisors 
used their own rating sheets in order to carry out their work 
of supervision. In the Fall of 1941, after the Negro teachers 
of Little Rock had petitioned defendants for the equalization 
of teachers’ salaries the supervisors along with the super­
intendent of schools prepared formal rating sheets of three 
columns for the purpose of rating the teachers (623). In 
the Spring of 1942 after this case was filed, the teachers 
were rated on the formal rating sheets. These rating sheets



36

according to Mr. Scobee were “ not for the purpose of fixing 
salaries” (470). The real purpose of the rating sheets 
according to Mr. Scobee, was “ to survey the situation and 
find out what I  could about individual teachers, looking to 
their improvement” (346).

Salaries for the year 1941-42 were not based on rating 
of teachers. The salaries for the school year 1942-43 were 
not changed from the salaries for the year 1941-42 with one 
exception. Salaries for the year 1942-43 were fixed in May, 
1942-43 (469-826), while the final reports of the rating sheets 
were not completed before June of 1942 (468).

The rating sheets prepared after the suit was filed and 
the answer filed and after consultation with lawyers for the 
school board on its face seemed to completely justify the 
difference in salary (848). Defendants’ Exhibit 5 which 
included the names, professional training, experience, rating 
and salary of each teacher in the Little Rock School system 
was on mimeographed sheets of paper in which the name of 
the teacher, the name of the school, the qualifications, ex­
perience and salary were mimeographed while the ratings 
were typed in subsequent to the preparation of the mimeo­
graphed sheets themselves (467).

It is, therefore, clear that: (1) Superintendent Scobee 
and his assistants actually completed the rating of teachers 
after he had given to his lawyers the factual information for 
the answer in this case; (2) the final composite rating sheets 
were mimeographed showing name of teachers, qualifica­
tions, experience, school taught and salary with blank 
spaces for ratings; (3) this material was before him when 
the ratings were made; (4) Superintendent Scobee admitted 
that on the levels of qualifications and experience a com­
parison will show that all Negro teachers get less salary 
(862); (5) the ratings were later typed in. An examina­
tion of this composite rating sheet will show that wherever



37

it appears that teachers with certain qualifications and ex­
perience (Negroes) get less salary than white teachers with 
equal qualifications and experience lower ratings for these 
teachers were typed in. As a matter of fact, Mr. Scohee 
testified that in practically all instances the rating figures 
prepared after the case and answer were filed seemed to 
completely justify the difference in salaries between white 
and Negro teachers (848-849).

The composite rating sheets should not have been ad­
mitted in evidence. They were prepared under the direc­
tion of the Superintendent and were not prepared for either 
the School Board or the general public. They were not pub­
lic documents. The ratings were not only hearsay but were 
conclusions and not facts. There is no statutory authority 
requiring the making of the rating sheets.

The law on this point is quite clear and has been set out 
as follows:

“ According to the theory advanced by some courts 
a record of primary facts made by a public official in 
performance of official duty is, or may be made by 
litigation, competent prima facie evidence as to the 
existence of the fact, but records of investigations 
and inquiries conducted either voluntarily or pur­
suant to requirement of law by public officers con­
cerning causes and effects and involving the exercise 
of judgment and discretion, expression of opinion, 
and the making of conclusions, are not admissible in 
evidence as public records.”

20 American Jurisprudence 886, p. 1027.

In the cases on this point the line is drawn between rec­
ords containing facts and those containing conclusions and 
opinions involving discretion. In the instant case the ra t­
ings were based solely on conclusions of several people and



38

did not contain facts. The records, therefore, were not 
admissible:

“ In order to be admissible, a report or document 
prepared by a jDublic official must contain facts and 
not conclusions involving the exercise of judgment or 
the expression of opinion. The subject matter must 
relate to facts which are of a public nature, it must be 
retained for the benefit of the public and there must 
be express statutory authority to compile the report.”

Steel v. Johnson, 115 P. (2d) 145, 150.

See also:

Chamberlain v. Kane, 264 S. W. 24 (1924);
State v. Bolen, 142 Wash. 653, 254 P. 445.

IV.

The composite rating sheets are entitled to no 
weight in determining whether the policy, custom and 
usage of fixing salaries in Little Rock is based on race.

Mr. Scobee testified that he did considerable studying on 
the question of school administration and that he had done 
quite a bit of studying on the question of methods of fixing 
salaries in various school systems. On the question of the 
proper methods of fixing salaries, Mr. Scobee testified that 
paying salaries pursuant to the rating of teachers’ ability 
was not used. He testified further that of the several school 
systems he had studied, he did not know of any other school 
system in the country using rating as a basis of fixing of 
salaries. He also testified that he was familiar with the 
several surveys conducted by the National Educational 
Association and that these surveys revealed that ratings 
are never used in fixing salaries (293-294).



39

As to the ratings used in this case and particularly the 
final rating sheets, Mr. Scobee’s response to a question by 
the Court was as follows:

“ Q. Whatever its contents are, you considered 
them in fixing salaries f A. Never at any time. This 
was not for the purpose of fixing salaries” (470).

Mr. Scobee testified further that “ I have not used the 
rating, and have not claimed definite accuracy for it.” 
These rating sheets were supposed to be used primarily for 
helping to correct teaching (591). These rating sheets are 
then supposed to be given to the individual teacher so that 
they can correct their teaching (591). However, according 
to Mr. Scobee, in response to a question as to whether or not 
ratings are ever used for the purpose of fixing salaries, 
replied, “ I do not believe they are ever used, be rare in­
stances if they were” (592). The following testimony of 
Mr. Scobee on this point is likewise quite interesting:

“ Q. Do you know of any school system in the 
country that bases its salary on a rating of teachers 
similar to that there [rating sheets] ? A. I  do not 
recall any.

Q. So Little Rock is novel in that? A. Little Rock 
is not basing its salary on these ratings.” (Empha­
sis ours.) (847.)

How the Ratings Were Made in Little Rock.

On several occasions Mr. Scobee testified that the par­
ticular ratings in question were not accurate and that there 
were too many personal elements involved to be accurate 
(591, 592, 847). Supervisor Webb testified that he was not 
satisfied with his own rating (809-810). Mr. Webb, under 
examination by his attorney, admitted that he transferred a 
white teacher in his school, Elizabeth Goetz, because “ she



40

just wasn’t filling the job” (799). However, on the com­
posite rating sheet Miss Goetz is rated as “ 3” which seems 
to justify her salary of $852. Superintendent Scobee testi­
fied that another white teacher, Bernice Britt, was so ineffi­
cient he had to discharge her yet her rating appeared on the 
composite rating sheet as “ 3” (847). This was the only 
way of justifying her salary.

One supervisor testified that in order to properly rate a 
teacher it would take several visits to observe the teacher 
and that each visit would have to be more than twenty min­
utes (732). However, Mr. Scobee “ rated” the plaintiff in 
this case after only one visit of ten minutes (209-210).

According to the evidence of the defendants one super­
visor testified that she would prefer at least a year of 
observation before undertaking the job of rating a teacher 
(733). However, Mrs. Allison testified that although she 
rated some Negro teachers she only visited these teachers 
about once a year (755); and, as a matter of fact, some 
Negro schools were not visited at all during the past school 
year (758). Mrs. Allison testified further that in rating 
these teachers she did not use any previous knowledge of 
the teachers’ ability (760).

Miss Hayes testified she had not visited some Negro 
schools in the past two years (771). Mr. Webb testified that 
durng the rating of teachers he was “ conscious that some 
were white and some are colored” (783). He, however, 
testified that there was “ no intentional discrimination” 
(781).

Elementary Schools.

In the system of rating used in Little Rock during the 
Spring of this year, it was agreed that the better procedure 
would be to have the principals rate their own teachers 
(811). Following this procedure the white principals of



41

both elementary and high schools rated their teachers (811- 
867). However, although the Negro principals were consid­
ered just as capable of rating their own teachers (811), the 
superintendent instructed the white supervisors who were 
also principals of white elementary schools to rate the Negro 
teachers as well as their own white teachers. These super­
visors did not even consult the Negro principals as to the 
ratings for their teachers. Mr. Scobee did not consult the 
Negro principals as to the final ratings of their teachers 
(711).

High Schools.

The teachers of the white high school were rated by the 
principal of the white high school:

“ Q. In compiling the rating for these teachers in 
the Little Rock Senior High School, on what basis 
did you base all the rating appearing in the system? 
A. Recommendation of the principal, Mr. Larson.

Q. Do you have before you the individual rating 
sheets? A. Yes.

Q. Who prepared these individual rating sheets? 
A. Mr. Larson.

Q. In arriving at the rating appearing on the 
sheet describe the mechanics through which you went. 
A. The secretary sat before me with the master copy. 
As she called the name of the teacher, going down 
the list, I told her what to write, and she wrote that 
in there on the basis of the information, whatever 
came from the High School Principal.

Q. At the time you told her the figure to place on 
the rating sheet, state whether or not in each instance 
you consulted the rate sheets of the principals. 
A. Yes” (813).

Now, let us compare this procedure with the method 
used in rating Negro high school teachers and the policy of



42

discrimination is clear. On questioning of Superintendent 
Scobee as to the final five-column rating sheet, he testified:

“ Q. You were not interested in Mr. Lewis? A. I 
was, or I would not have asked for it.

Q. I am talking about the five column sheet. A. 
No.

Q. You were not interested? A. No” (855).

On examination by his attorney Mr. Scobee testified that 
he requested Mr. Lewis as principal of the Negro High 
School to rate his teachers and that Mr. Lewis sent him such 
a rating for each of his teachers (818). Mr. Scobee however 
did not follow this rating of teachers as was done in the 
case of the rating of the white high school teachers by their 
principal (852-853).

The ratings of the white high school teachers were made 
by the principal on a comparative basis as among the teach­
ers in his high school (813). The ratings of the Negro high 
school teachers were likewise made by the principal on a 
comparative basis as among the teachers in his high school 
but they were not used by Mr. Scobee. An examination of 
the rating by Mr. Lewis, (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 13) will reveal 
that if those ratings had been used by Mr. Scobee and 
placed on the composite rating sheet it would have com­
pletely destroyed their defense to this action. In order to 
prevent this, and, we must bear in mind that all of this was 
taking place after the case was pending, a different plan 
was worked out for the Negro schools.

The original plan was to have all teachers rated on a 
three column sheet. Mr. Scobee visited the plaintiff and 
some other teachers in Dunbar during the Spring of this 
year and the teachers were rated on a three column sheet 
by Messrs. Scobee and Hamilton. Although Mr. Lewis was 
present he did not rate the teachers. Mr. Scobee assumed 
he agreed with the ratings because he did not “ object to



43

any of them”. An examination of these ratings by Mr. 
Lewis shows that they would destroy the theory of the de­
fendant’s case, so, Mr. Lewis was requested to rate his 
teachers and this was done. But, these ratings did not help 
the defendant ’s case. Then a five-column rating sheet was 
worked out and given to Mr. Hamilton as “ supervisor” of 
the Negro high school. From this point on Mr. Lewis is 
completely ignored as to the question of rating of his teach­
ers, although Mr. Hamilton was in the high school every 
day.

Mr. Lewis testified as to the time after the conference 
between the three of them in the Spring:

“ Q. Following that meeting, were you ever asked 
by anyone in the school system to confer with any­
one on the rating of teachers? I ask you specifically 
if Mr. Hamilton discussed the rating of teachers on 
a five column sheet with you? A. He has never done 
that.

Q. He has never asked your opinion about, it? A. 
He has not about any of my teachers” (876).

Ratings by Mr. Hamilton.

Mr. Hamilton holds a unique position. He is principal 
of a white elementary school and is a sort of part time 
supervisor of the Negro high school. He is a graduate of 
Wilmington College in Ohio and in response to a question 
by his attorney as to whether this college was accredited 
replied: “ It is a Christian college * # # ” (613). He has 
been working on his master of arts degree since 1929 and 
still does not have it (631). I t  is admitted that the majority 
of the teachers at Dunbar have degrees, others have work 
on their Ph D degrees (631). These teachers who are under 
his “ supervision” have better qualifications than Mr. Ham­
ilton (631). Mr. Hamilton’s professional qualifications are



44

far inferior to those of Mr. Lewis. As a matter of fact, 
Mr. Hamilton does not meet the new standards for even a 
high school principal. All of Mr. Lewis’ experience has 
been in school work above the elementary level. Practically 
all of Mr. Hamilton’s experience has been on the elemen­
tary level. However, for some unexplained reason Mr. 
Hamilton was finally chosen to rate the Negro teachers of 
Dunbar (854-855).

Mr. Hamilton while being examined by his attorney tes­
tified that the methods of teaching were different in elemen­
tary and high schools and that he did not want to compare 
Dunbar high school teachers with elementary teachers 
(630). On cross examination he testified:

“ Q. So, as a matter of fact, isn’t it true what you 
said on direct examination, you can’t compare a high 
school teacher with an elementary teacher? A. They 
are not comparable” (645).

Mr. Hamilton admitted he could not compare the Dunbar 
teachers with the teachers in the white high school (666). 
He also admitted he was not in a position to compare the 
science teachers at Dunbar because he had no experience 
in science except what he had learned in his regular college 
course (665-667). Despite this Mr. Hamilton at the request 
of Superintendent Scobee did compare the Dunbar teachers 
with his elementary teachers:

“ Q. You mean you compared Susie Morris with 
the elementary school teachers? A. Yes.

Q. I  thought you testified on direct examination 
that it was practically impossible to do it. A. I  did, 
therefore, I did it.

Q. You did the impossible? A. I  did the best I  
could” (644).

He never used the rating sheets in evidence to rate 
teachers at Dunbar prior to Spring of this year (698). The



45

first time was in May of this year (698). This was the first 
time he had attempted to compare Dunbar teachers with 
his elementary teachers (698).

The elementary teachers with whom the Dunbar teach­
ers were compared were far above average and Mr. Hamil­
ton testified that “ They rank very high” (650), and testi­
fied further:

“ Q. So that is it not a fact that in comparing 
these teachers at Dunbar you compared them with a 
group of white teachers that you thought were high 
caliber teachers? A. Yes, and I was asked to do it, 
that is what I  was asked to do.

Q. And that is what you did? A. I generally con­
sider them so” (650-651).

Mr. Hamilton testified further that: “ I would have to, you 
see my teachers, as I  said, were exceptional teachers. I 
doubt, where anyone would come in close or near, I would 
consider them a very perfect teacher, and I don’t know 
that way about others” (660).

Although Mr. Hamilton admitted that the competitive 
equation should not appear in ratings (718) he testified 
that the ratings of the Dunbar teachers was on a competi­
tive basis with his above average elementarv teachers 
(716).

When the Dunbar teachers were first rated on the three- 
column sheet in April they made one rating but when they 
were later compared with the above average elementary 
teachers of Mr. Hamilton’s school they rated less (713). 
Therefore, Mr. Hamilton admitted that as between the ra t­
ing on the three column sheet which was supposed to be 
the combined judgment of Messrs. Scobee, Lewis and Ham­
ilton, and the final rating as against his elementary teachers 
he would prefer the first rating made in Mr. Lewis’ office 
(687).



46

The procedure used in rating Negro teachers in Little 
Eock when compared with the system of rating the white 
teachers is certainly not the type of equal treatment re­
quired by the 14th Amendment to the United States Consti­
tution.

I t  is therefore quite clear after a review of the evidence 
presented by the defendants that the rating system inaugu­
rated by them after the case was filed is entitled to no weight 
on the question as to whether or not there is discrimination 
because of race involved in this case. As a matter of fact 
the rating system itself has been so conducted as to discrim­
inate against the Negro teachers.

The elaborate system of rating which it is alleged has 
been used in Little Eock, is just as discriminatory as a reg­
ular policy of paying less salary to Negroes than to white 
teachers. Mr. Justice F rankfurter, in a case involving an 
elaborate system to prevent Negroes from registering to 
vote in Oklahoma, commented on the Fifteenth Amendment 
as follows:

“ The Amendment nullifies sophisticated as well as 
simple-minded modes of discrimination.” Lane v. 
Wilson, 307 U. S. 275, 83 L. Ed. 1281, 1287 (1939).

One of the outstanding examples of the so-called “ rat­
ing” is that concerning the plaintiff in this case. Superin­
tendent Scobee after observing the plaintiff for twenty min­
utes rated her as a lower than average teacher and her final 
rating was lower than average. However, according to the 
uncontroverted evidence in this case, the plaintiff during the 
summer of this year attended the University of Chicago 
Graduate School which is recognized as one of the leading 
universities in preparing school teachers. One of the sub­
jects taken by the plaintiff was the “ Methods of Teaching 
English” . During this course she was required to outline 
courses as we were teaching them so that her professor



47

would be able to recognize her methods of teaching and her 
outlines. During this course Miss Morris used the exact 
same methods of teaching as she used at Dunbar and at the 
close of the course Miss Morris was given a mark of “ A ” 
which is the highest mark she could possibly rate (877-878).

Conclusion.

I t is, th erefore, resp ec tfu lly  su b m itted  th a t the  
dec la ra to ry  ju dgm en t and injunction should be issued  
as p ra y e d  for.

T hurgood Marshall,
69 Fifth Avenue,

New York City.

Scipio J ones,
Century Building,

Little Rock, Arkansas.
J. R. Booker,

Century Building,
Little Rock, Arkansas.

Myles A. H ibbler,
Century Building,

Little Rock, Arkansas, 
Attorneys for Plaintiff.

[Appendix follows]





49

APPENDIX.

TABLE 1.
N egro h ig h  sc h o o l  t e a c h e r s  g e t t in g  less  s a l a r y  t h a n  a n y
WHITE TEACHER IN EITHER HIGH OR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN

L it t l e  R o c k .

T ea ch er T  ra in in g
E x p e r ie n c e  

L . R . O th e r A s s ig n m e n t S a la ry

Bass, Bernice B.S. 5 1 H. E. $ 638.50
Brumfield, Eunice A.B. 0 0 Science 630.00
Bryant, Thelma A.B. 3Z l/a History 652.00
Byrd, Eva C. A.B. 8 0 Library 766.75
Bush, Lucille C. 3C 4 3 Laundry 730.00
Cox, Annie A.B. 7 5 M-E 766.75
Douglass, Edna B.S. 15 0 Science 737.96
Elston, India M.S. 0 f t 630.00
Garrett, Byrnice B.S. 3 4 Foods 655.50
Heywood, Vivian A.B. 9 0 English 706.00
Hunter, Andrew B.S. 5 0 Math. 665.50
Johnson, Byron A.B. 3 1 Science 631.75
King, Ruth B.M.E. 4 5 Music 730.00
Lewis, Tessie A.B. 0 3 English 630.00
Morris, Susie A.B. 6 5 English 706.00
Moore, Dorothy A.B. 6 1 L. 679.00
Perry, Alice B.A. 11 0 E. 762.40
Russell, John B.S. 1 7 Science 642.00
Scott, James D. M.A. 8 4 / Math. 753.25
Torrence, Rosalie B.S. 2 0 E. 652.00
Tyler, Daniel P. A.B. 0 z Science 630.00
Walker, Rose Mary A.B. 4 0 Science 652.00
Works, Mildred B.S. 0 2 Clothing 630.00
Winstead, Homer 2 yr. 0 Woodwork 630.00

TABLE 2.
A  COMPARISON OF PLAINTIFF WITH WHITE HIGH SCHOOL TEACH­
ERS of  E n g l is h  w i t h  e q u a l  a n d  less  e x p e r ie n c e  a n d  pro­

f e s s io n a l  QUALIFICATIONS.

T ea c h e r T ra in in g
E x p e r ie n c e  

L . R . O th er S a la r y

Morris, Susie A.B. 6 5 $ 706

Lane, Lillian A.B. 0 900
Warry, Rhoda W. B.S.E. 0 2 900
Jefferson, Mary P. A.B. Z 8 945
Lee, Catherine A.B. 6 2 1060



50

A p p e n d i x

TABLE 3.
A  COMPARISON OF ENGLISH TEACHERS IN HIGH SCHOOLS OF LlTTLE ROCK 

w i t h  M a s t e r ’s degrees .

S ch o o l T ea ch er
T  ra in ­

in g
E x p e r ie n c e  

L . R . O th e r
A s s ig n ­

m e n t S a la ry

N-Senior-H Campbell, H. B. M.S. 14 0 English $ 859.77
W-Senior-H Beasley, Louise M.A. 5 3 1135.00

it Hall, Henel M.A. 11 6 a 1348.40
a Leidy, Edith M.A. 5 10# ti 1243.50
it Scott, Emma M.A. 15 0 a 1350.96

W-Junior-H Mayham, Ella Neal M.A. 5 5 a 1128.75
it Clauson, Evelyn M.A. 5 5 1045.00

N-Negro W-White H-High School

TABLE 4.
A COMPARATIVE TABLE AS TO YEARS OF EXPERIENCE OF ENGLISH TEACHERS 

IN HIGH SCHOOLS WITH A.B. DEGREE OR LESS.

S ch o o l T ea ch er
T  ra in ­

in g
E x p e r ie n c e  

L . R .  O th e r
A s s ig n ­

m en t S a la ry

N-Senior-H Little, Clarice A.B. 26 1 English $ 833.52
W-Senior-H Broadhead, Catherine A.B. 14 8 it 1498.30

a Key, Helena A.B. 3 13 it 1122.00
a Oakley, Francille B.S. 12 4 it 1194.10
<t Piercey, Mary A.B. 3 16 a 1122.00
a Stalmaker, Mildred A.B. 15 7 1506.92
a Stewart, Josephine B.S. 13 7 a 1533.00

W-Junior-H Harris, Fanita B.S. 16 5 1391.87
it Lane, Lillian A.B. 0 a 900.00
it Jefferson, Mary P. 4 JA 8 a 945.00
a Hammett, Flora 2-C 2 7 0 1429.72
a Lee, Catherine A.B. 6 2 a 1060.00
a Wharry, Rhoda B.S.E. 0 2 a 900.00

N-Negro H-High SchoolW-White



51

A p p e n d i x

TABLE 5.
A  COMPARATIVE TABLE OF MATHEMATICS TEACHERS IN HIGH 

SCHOOLS WITH M.A. DEGREES.

T ra in -  E x p e r ie n c e  A s s ig n -
S c h o o l T ea ch er  in g  L . R .  O th er  m c n t S a la ry

N-Senior-H
( (

W-Senior-H

Massie, S. P. M.A.
Scott, James D. M.A.
Armitage, Flora M.A.
Berry, Euleen M.A.
Rivers, Ethyl M.A.
White, Claire T. M.A.
Hermann, John M.A.
Irvine, Mabel M.A.

N-Negro W-White

19 5 $1142.55
3 4 / 753.25

36 1 2115.00
14 5K 1634.00
12 8 1431.87
21 1 1 / 1808.90

1 2 992.25
2 2 / 4 (Sub) 1658.53

H-High School

TABLE 6.
A  COMPARATIVE TABLE OF MATHEMATICS TEACHERS IN HIGH 

SCHOOLS WITH X.B. DEGREES OR LESS.

E x p e r ie n c e
S ch oo l T ea c h e r  T ra in in g  L . R .  O th e r  S a la ry

N. Senior-H Cox, Annie A.B. 7 5 $ 766.75(( li Gipson, J. H. A.B. 17 4 979.02a a Gipson, Thelma B.S. 0 630.00 (Sub)a u Hunter, Andrew B.S. 5 0 665.50a (( Parr, Pinkie A.B. 0 630.00 (Sub)W. “ (( Bigbee, J. R. B.S. 28 10 2293.17(( (( Ivy, William B.M.E. 17 4 1854.46(( (( Moser, M. C. A.B. 13 7 1536.98
Junior<< H Cobb, Clare 2 /C 38 0 1754.41

(( Davis, Wade L. A.B. 0 12 1125.00U f ( Elliott, Clayton B.S. 6 0 1234.25u (( Gardner, F. M. B.S. 4 3 1260.00(( (( Tull, N. F. 54-1/3 17 4 1603.55(C it Irby, Mrs. Guy A.B. 0 900.00u (( Riegler, Mary 2C 30 0 1608.27
t( (t Calloway, Estelle 2C 46 0 1741.22



52

A p p e n d i x

TABLE 7.
A  COMPARATIVE TABLE OF SCIENCE TEACHERS IN HIGH SCHOOLS 

WITH M .A . DEGREES.

S c h o o l T ea ch er T ra in in g
E x p e r ie n c e  

L . R . O th e r S a la ry

N. Senior H Wilson, J. L. M.A. 9 9 $1039.50
a a Elston, India M.S. 0 630.00

W. Senior H Tillman, Marcia M.A. 15 8 1732.34
(( (( Berry, Homer M.A. 14 3 1939.81

Junior Warner, Nita Bob M.S. 3 0 1020.75
a a Clauson, Donald M.A. 14 3 1702.77

TABLE 8.
A COMPARATIVE TABLE OF SCIENCE TEACHERS IN HIGH SCHOOLS 

WITH A.B. DEGREES OR LESS.

E x p e r ie n c e
S c h o o l T ea c h e r  T ra in in g  L .  R .  O th e r  S a la ry

N. Senior H (1) Brumfield, Eunice A.B. 0 0 $ 630.00
ii “ (2) Douglass, Edna B.S. 15 0 737.96
( ( “ (3) Johnson, Byron A.B. 3 1 631.75
“ “ (4) Russell, John B.S. 1 7 642.00
it “ (5) Tyler, Daniel P. A.B. 0 630.00
a “ (6) Walker, Rose Mary A.B. 4 0 652.00

W. Senior “ (a) Barnes, Everett A.B. 14 2 1732.70
1-5 Junior H Avery, Julia Mae B.S. 0 1 900.00
(2) “ it Lescher, Vera A.B. 13 0 1148.00
1-5 “ (( Cooke, Mrs. Eleanor A.B. 0 0 900.00
W-Junior it Bowen, E. A. 33/4C(no degree) 22 4 1808.49

TABLE 9.
A  COMPARATIVE TABLE OF HISTORY TEACHERS IN HIGH SCHOOLS

WITH A.B. DEGREES.

E x p e r ie n c e
S c h o o l T ea ch er T  ra in in g L . R . O th e r S a la ry

N. Senior H. Gravelly, Treopia
W. Senior H. Stegeman, Hattie

B.S.
A.B.

26
13

0
12

$ 935.63 
1573.12



53

Appendix 

TABLE 10.
A  COMPARATIVE TABLE OF HOME ECONOMICS TEACHERS IN HIGH 

SCHOOLS WITH A.B. DEGREES.

E x p e r ie n c e
S c h o o l T ea ch er T ra in in g L . R . O th e r S a la r y

N. Senior H. Bass, Bernice B.S. 5 1 $ 638.50
W. Senior H. Chisholm, Allie B.S. 4 0 980.25a ( ( Speer, D ixie D. B.Sc. 0 0 900.00(( a Dupree, Grace B.S. 2 9 939.75

( (  ( ( Britt, Bernice A.B. 0 10 945.00

T A B L E  II.

A  COMPARATIVE TABLE OF MUSIC AND BAND TEACHERS IN HIGH SCHOOLS
WITH A.B. DEGREES OR LESS.

E x p e r ie n c e
S ch o o l T e a c h e r T ra in in g L . R . O th e r S a la ry

N. Senior H . Bowie, Lester B.S. 5 4 $ 850.00<( a King, Ruth B.M .E. 4 5 730.00
W. Senior H. Meyer, Willard 4 0 1 900.00a a Duncan, Mary Alice 3 ^ C 0 0 900.00u a Parker, Robert B.M. 1 0 945.00

\



54

' Appendix 

TABLE 12.
A COMPARATIVE TABLE OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS WITH A.B. OR 
COMPARABLE DEGREES AND 1-5 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN LlTTLE R oCK.

E x p e r ie n c e
N e g r o T ea ch er T ra in in g L . R . O th e rs S a la ry

it Pope, Francis B.S.E. 1 3 $ 615
it Lewis, John A.B. 1 0 615
a Johnson, Pauline B.S. 0 0 615
a

White
Wilkerson, Captiola B.S. 1 26 630

ii Fair, Mary Nance B.S.E. 0 2 810
a Threat, Kathryn A.B. 0 810
a Terral, Mrs. Floyd A.B. 1 2 810
a Gardner, Mrs. Lewis B.S. 0 810
a Obersham, Bettie B.S. 0 1 810
a Carrigan, Mary D. A.B. 0 3 855
a Street, Juanita A.B. 1 810
a Thomas Martha B.S.E. 0 810
a McCuiston, Elizabeth 0 0 810
a Smooth, Raymond A.B. 0 810
a Belford, Susan B.S. 0 0 810
a Crutchfield, Ann A.B. 1 0 810
a Isgrig, Nancy Jane A.B. 0 0 810
a Soard, Dorris A.B. 0 0 810

TABLE 13.
A  COMPARATIVE TABLE OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS WITH A .B . OR 
COMPARABLE DEGREES AND 5-10 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN LlTTLE ROCK.

E x p e r ie n c e
N e g r o T ea ch er T ra in in g L . R . O th e r s S a la ry

it Hamilton, Elizabeth B.S. 6 10 $ 706.00
it Jackson, Nancy A.B. 5 0 665.50
it Lee, Danice A.B. 6 1 665.50
a

White
Rice, Sarah A.B. 7 0 645.25

it Finn, Verna A.B. 5 3 933.
a Jones, Ruth L.I. 5 5 846.
a Clapp, Thelma A.B. 6 4 987.
a Holman, Lucille B.S. 8 0 1014.18
a Harper, Verna B.S.E. 5 10 1041.
a Hardage, Edith A.B. 7 1 960.
a Sittlington, Blanche B.M. 5 0 960.
a Wage, Georgia A.B. 7 5 1041.
a Dupree, Jeanne B.S. 6 3 960.



55

Appendix 

TABLE 14.
A  COMPARATIVE TABLE OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS WITH A .B . OR 
COMPARABLE DEGREES AND 10-20 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN LlTTLE ROCK.

N e g ro T ea ch er T ra in in g
E x p e r ie n c e  

L . R . O th e rs S a la ry

tt Patterson, Alva A.B. 12 5 $ 733.00if Touchstone, Bertha B.S. ny2 5 736.38«
White

Waters, Elnora A.B. 11 0 735.29
ft Mason, Bymice B.S. 14 2 1436.15ti Perimen, Bess A.B. 13 0 1045.28tt Reynold, Averell A.B. 12 0 1043.tt Kinlay, Francis A.B. ny2 0 1047.46

Willard, Beryl A.B. n 0 1041.61
Shelton, Mary H. B.S.E. 13 0 982.28Reeves, Jessie A.B. 12 0 1084.
Apple, Lorraine B.S.E. uy2 0 1108.58

TABLE 15.
A COMPARATIVE TABLE OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS WITH A.B. OR 
COMPARABLE DEGREE AND MORE THAN 20 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN

Little Rock.

E x p e r ie n c e
N e g ro  T ea c h e r  T ra in in g  L . R .  O th e r s  S a la ry

tt Davis, Corselia A.B. 26 6 $ 884.71tt Pattillo, Emma B.S. 27 0 1012.77tt Sampson, Gertuse A.B. 22 0 764.81tt Roundtree, Thesa B.S. 23 0 764.81ft

White
Gilliam, Cora A.B. 21 10 825.58

ft Chandler, Blanche B.S. 29 0 1603.90ft Jordan, Pauline A.B. 26 0 1429.72ft Walker, Marqurite A.B. 35 1 1634.91tt Junkin, Blanche B.S.E. 21 0 1276.35ft Autry, Ester A.B. 24 2 1391.98tt Schriver, Mary A.B. 21 3 1354.08ti Pearson, Alice L.I. 28 8 1536.96ti Hagler, Grace B.S. 26 4 1418.84tt Renfrow, Mina B.S. 29 1 1634.91



56

Appendix 

TABLE 16.
A  COMPARATIVE TABLE OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS WITHOUT DEGREES 

AND LESS THAN 10 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN LlTTLE ROCK.

E x p e r ie n c e
N e g r o T ea ch er T ra in in g L . R . O th e rs S a la ry

ii Burns, Cleo 2 6 0 $ 625.00
ii Bush, Marjorie 2 1 0 615.00
it Burton, Hazel 2 / 7 0 665.65
ii Green, Thelma 93-hr. 7 0 630.00
it Dander, Alice 3 9 0 645.25
it Wilson, Rosa 3 / 6 0 625.00<( Lee, Elnora 3 / 0 615.00

White
ii Pace, Josephine 2 6 6 879.00
a Arance, Leah 3 7 4 879.50
(t James, Mildred 2 9 0 906.00
a Jacobs, Louise 3 3 4 825.00
a Frost, Nell 1 7 / 3 825.00
a Smith, Willie 2 / 5 9 879.00
a Bond, Alice 2C 1 1 810.00
a Grogan, Stella 3 0 12 810.00
a Whitley, Winnie 66-hr. 4 13 879.00



57

A p p e n d i x

TABLE 17.
A c o m p a r a t iv e  t a b l e  of  e l e m e n t a r y  t e a c h e r s  w it h o u t  degrees 

AND FROM 10-20 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN LlTTLE R oCK.

N e g ro T ea ch er T ra in in g
E x p e r ie n c e  

L . R . O th e rs S a la ry
u Lee, Bertha 3K 13 17 $ 729.02Rutherford, Alice 2 15 0 678 10Abner, Irene C. 3 17 3 739.41Nichols, J. C. 3 15 0 678 10Collier, Bennie 3 14 14 667 79Conway, Essie 3 15 0 719 50Jordan, Sallie 2 15 0 678 10

White
White, Almeta 2 18 0 739.41

u Cobb, Marion 2 y 14 0 977 65Farmer, Margaret 2 18 0 1198.41Grayson, Mary Lee 2 16 0 1081 84Owen, Jewell 1 15 10 1120 28Brookfield, Cora 3 17 8 1276 35Bullington, Inez 3 19 6 1391 95Frankel, Caroline IK 20 10 1354 08Goodwin, Ernestine 2K 17 0 1198 41Park, Mildred 1 17 4 1238 22Toland, Brooks 2 13 0 977 40Lemon, Mrs. C. N. 2 11 4 1006 34Witsell, Cherry 3 12 0 949 85Murphy, Elizabeth 2 17 3 1288 34Woodard, Marie 54-hrs. 18 0 1120 26Pittman, Marjorie 2 14 0 1198 27Tunnah, Helen 1 18 0 1120.26



58

Appendix 

TABLE 18.
A  COMPARATIVE TABLE OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS WITHOUT 
DEGREES AND MORE THAN 20 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN LlTTLE ROCK.

E x p e r ie n c e
N e g r o T ea c h e r T ra in in g L . R . O th e r s S a la ry

ft Dickey, Ella 2 33 0 $1012.77
a Bruce, Cornelia 0 32 7 1195.49
tt Murphy, Vera 2 32 0 1012.77
a Ingram, Emma 2 34 0 1012.77
If Littlejohn, G. B. 2 37 21 1189.64
it Anthony, B. E. D. 3 26 0 833.52
a Curry, Norena 2 23 0 782.04
a Routen, Estelle 3 /2 21 1 772.37
a Lewis, Blanche 2 21 0 739.41

White
it Cline, Fannie 2 33 1 1455.41
it Power, Maggie 2 40 0 1536.99
tt Dill, Gertrude 1 24 2 1316.09
a Hairston, Maude 3 22 15 1380.15
ft Jones, Nell 2 23 2 1402.89
tt Oliver, Effie 2 21 8 1276.35
tt Bruner, Nell 2 22 0 1276.35
tt Davis, Katie M. 2 23 0 1286.32
tt Earl, Annie 3 2 2 y 2 9 1433.78
tt McDaniel, Emma Katie 2 s y i y^ 1371.60
tt Middleton, Opal 2 22 3 1611.34
if Dunnvant, Foe 2 23 0 1278.42
tt Lipscomb, Vanda 3 23 0 1377.04
it Brown, Amelia 3 22 0 1288.34
tt McKinney, Grace m 22 0 1276.35
a Martin, Claytie 2 24 1 1316.10



Lawyers Press, Inc., 165 William St., N.Y.C.; ’Phone: BEekman 3-2300







■—
—

------------------■—
T

f ■•■mr------------------—
 - 

T
f / 

»{ 
II 

v
im

m
*

. 
I 

—
 

. 
*■

.«! 
"n