Hill v. Franklin County Board of Education Joint Appendix
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1966
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Hill v. Franklin County Board of Education Joint Appendix, 1966. a4e0833c-b89a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/a9e5ea8f-0e02-4e70-98a9-9801eeb2f713/hill-v-franklin-county-board-of-education-joint-appendix. Accessed July 31, 2025.
Copied!
Nos. 17,647, 17,648, 17,649
IN THE
Imtpfr (Enart af Appeals
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL HILL, et ah,
Plaintiffs,
—and—
MRS. VIRGINIA SCOTT,
Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee,
FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et ah,
Defendants-Appellants,
No. 17,647.
SAMUEL HILL, et ah,
—and—
Plaintiffs,
MRS. THERESA KIN8LOW,
Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant,
FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et ah,
Defendants-Appellees,
No. 17,648.
SAMUEL HILL, et ah,
—and—
Plaintiffs,
MRS. VIRGINIA SCOTT,
Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant,
FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et ah,
Defendants-Appellees,
No. 17,649,
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, WINCHESTER DIVISION.
JOINT APPENDIX
PAT B. LYNCH
LYNCH and LYNCH
15 College Street
Winchester, Tennessee 37398
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants
in No. 17,647 and for Defendants-
Appellees in Nos. 17,648 and
17,649
JACK GREENBERG
JAMES M. NABRIT, I I I
MICHAEL J. HENRY
10 Columbus Circle
New York, N. Y. 10019
AVON N. WILLIAMS, JR.
Z. ALEXANDER LOOBY
McClellan-Looby Building
Charlotte at Fourth
Nashville, Tennessee
Attorneys for Intervening Plaintiff-
Appellee in No. 17,647 and for
Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellants in
Nos. 17,648 and 17,649
I N D E X
Motion to Reinstate Upon Active Docket, for Further
Relief, and to Add or Intervene Additional Plain
tiffs (Filed February 25, 1966) ....................... ..... 6a
Pre-Trial Memorandum Opinion and Order of C. G.
Neese, D.J. (Filed July 20, 1966) ........ ........... . 21a
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III, Sub-
Section (d) : Minutes of the Board of Education
of Franklin County .................. ............................... 25a
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III, Sub-
Section (d) (3): Non-Tenure Teachers 1965-1966,
Franklin County School System ............................. 31a
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III, Sub-
Section (d) (5) : Applications for Teaching Posi
tion of Mrs. Theresa Kinslow ..... ............ ............. 40a
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966 .......... 46a
Deposition of Rozzelle Leavell, August 19, 1966 ...... 81a
Transcript of Hearing of August 25, 1966 ........... 100a
Plaintiff’s Witnesses:
Mrs. Virginia Scott—
Direct ............................................................. 104a
Cross ..................... 119a
Redirect ....... 133a
Recross ................... 135a
PAGE
Docket Entries and Clerk’s Certificate of Record on
A p p ea l...................................................... ........................ la
11
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—
Direct ......................
Cross ....................... .
Redirect .................
Recross ....................
Defendant’s Witness:
Louis Scott—
Direct ......................
Cross ....................... .
Redirect ..................
Recross ................... .
Plaintiff’s Witnesses:
Mrs. Dimple Johnson—
Direct ......................
Cross ........................
Mrs. Lincola Johnson—
Direct ......................
Miss Ruth Arnold—
Direct ......................
Peggy Woodson Ramsey-
Direct ......................
Cross ........................
Redirect ..................
Recross ....................
Mrs. Frances Cannon—
Direct ......................
Cross ........................
138a
154a
162a
163a
PAGE
. 165a
. 194a
. 239a
. 243a
248a
251a
252a
255a
261a
265a
266a
266a
267a
270a
Ill
Rev. George Smith—
Direct ............................................................. 271a
Cross .................................................... 273a
Redirect ............... 275a
Recross ............................................................ 276a
Fred Blackwell—
Direct .......... 276a
Cross .............................................- ................ 281a
Exhibit 1-1: Letter of Superintendent to Mrs. Vir
ginia Scott, August 17, 1965 ..................................... 289a
Exhibit 1-12: Letter of Superintendent to Mrs. Vir
ginia Scott, August 31, 1965 ................................... 290a
Memorandum Opinion of C.G. Neese, T).J. (Filed
September 30, 1966) ............................................. 291a
Judgment of C. G. Neese, D.J. (Filed October 3,
1966) ............................ 297a
Notice of Appeal of the Franklin County Board of
Education, et al.............. 298a
Notice of Appeal of Mrs. Theresa Kinslow ............... 299a
Notice of Cross Appeal of Mrs. Virginia Scott ...... 300a
PAGE
Docket Entries and Clerk’s Certificate of
Record on Appeal
[C aption O m itted ]
I, Karl D. Saulpaw, Jr., Clerk of the United States
District Court, for the Eastern District of Tennessee,
do certify that the following papers numbered one through
twenty-four, in the case of Samuel Hill, et al. and Mrs.
Theresa Kinslow and Mrs. Virginia Scott, Intervenors
vs. County Board of Education of Franklin County, et ah,
Civil Case No. 668, constitute the record on appeal in
this ease.
I n T estim ony W h ereo f , I have hereunto set my hand
and seal of said Court, at Greeneville, Tennessee, this
nineteenth day of December, 1966.
K arl D. S aulpaw , J r., Clerk
By: / s / N ancy R ussell
N ancy R u ssell ,
Deputy Clerk
1966
DATE PROCEEDINGS
2- 25 Ptlf. motion to reinstate ease on active docket
and for further relief, filed. Service by counsel (1).
3- 3 Hearing on motion to reinstate case. Plaintiff
proof presented; defendant proof; defendant to
submit modification of former plan; plaintiff al
lowed 10 days to file brief; defendant allowed
10 additional days to respond. Case restored to
docket. Plaintiffs’ petition for injunction with
drawn by plaintiff. Court to hear case as soon
as possible after being notified by attorneys that
they are ready for hearing.
2a
Docket Entries and Clerk’s Certificate of
Record on Appeal
1966
DATE PBOCEEDINGS
3-15 Pltf. memorandum brief, filed. Service by counsel.
3-22 Memorandum of order, filed by the Court. Service
by clerk (2).
3-25 Deft, brief in opposition to intervention by addi
tional pltfs., filed. Service by counsel.
7- 20 Order, Neese, D.J., granting motions of Mrs. Joyce
Eady and Mrs. Theresa Kinslow to intervene as
pltfs.; adding action to docket for sounding on
8/1/66, filed. Service by clerk (3).
8- 17 Pretrial order filed. Service by clerk (4).
8-22 Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law
submitted by defendants, filed. Service by counsel.
8-22 Information by defendant required by pretrial or
der filed. Service by counsel (5).
8-22 Plaintiffs-intervenors’ exceptions to pretrial order
filed. Service by counsel (6).
8-22 Intervenors proposed findings of fact and conclu
sions of law filed. Service by counsel.
8-22 Intervenors trial brief filed. Service by counsel.
8-25 Deposition of T. K. Stewart, filed.
8-25 Deposition of Rozzelle Leavell, filed.
8-25 Trial to the Court. Plaintiff proof begun; one
defendant witness called by the Court and ex
amined on methods of standards of practise of
3a
Docket Entries and Clerk’s Certificate of
Record on Appeal
1966
DATE PROCEEDINGS
the County School Board; pltf. proof completed;
no proof by the defendants. Counsel asked to
stipulate, if possible, a reasonable attorney fee
for atty. for the plaintiffs.
8- 29 Ten subpoenas on behalf of the intervenors re
turned executed, and filed.
9- 8 Affidavit of Pat B. Lynch, filed (7).
9- 8 Affidavits of Avon N. Williams, Jr. (8), Henry W.
Hooker (9), George Barrett (10) and Frank C.
Gorrell, filed (11).
9-30 Opinion, Neese, D.J., that pltf. Virginia Scott
have judgment against the defts. for $286.80 and
$1,000.00 as counsel fees and that all relief is
denied pltf. Mrs. Theresa Kinslow, filed. Service
by clerk (12).
10- 3 Clerk’s entry of judgment, filed. Service by
clerk (13).
10-10 Order, Neese, D.J., that, no more than 60 days
herefrom, the defendant board adopt, place in
effect immediately, and keep in effect, standards
for the employment and dismissal of teachers,
which shall be applied alike to all present and
future teachers employed or dismissed by the
defendants; that a copy thereof be filed with the
clerk of this Court forthwith; and that, upon her
proper application, such standards be applied in
determining the qualifications of Mrs. Virginia
4a
1966
DATE
10-31
10-31
10- 31
11- 3
11- 3
11- 9
11-14
11- 14
12- 5
12- 7
Docket Entries and Clerk’s Certificate of
Record on Appeal
PROCEEDINGS
Scott for any vacancy in grades one through nine
which now exists or comes to exist in the said
system. Entered in C. 0. Book 7, p. 82 and filed.
Service by clerk (14).
Notice of appeal by Franklin County Board of
Education, et al., from the judgment entered on
Oct. 3, 1966, filed. Service by counsel (15).
Motion for stay of execution filed by defendants.
Service by counsel (16).
Cost and supersedeas bond filed by defendants.
Service by counsel (17).
Pltf. Kinslow notice of appeal, filed. Service by
clerk (18).
Pltf. cost bond, filed. Service by clerk (19).
Deft, motion for production of transcript under
Rule 75(b), filed. Service by counsel (20).
Pltf. cross appeal, filed. Service by counsel (21).
Pltf. bond for costs on appeal (cross), filed (22).
Standards adopted by the Board of Education of
Franklin County, Tenn., pertaining to the em
ployment and/or retention of teachers, filed. Ser
vice by counsel (23).
Transcript, filed (24).
I, Karl D. Saulpaw, Jr., Clerk, U. S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee do hereby certify
that the depositions of T. K. Stewart marked number 25
and of Rozzelle Leavelle marked number 26, constitute
the amended record on appeal sent at the request of plain
tiff counsel in the case of Mrs. Virginia Scott and Mrs.
Theresa Kinslow v. County Board of Education of Frank
lin County, Tennessee, Winchester Division Case No. 668,
this the twelfth day of January, 1967.
K arl D. S aulpaw , J r ., Clerk
By: / s / N ancy R ussell
N ancy R ussell ,
Deputy Clerk
5a
Docket Entries and Clerk’s Certificate of
Record on Appeal
6a
(Filed February 25, 1966)
Come now the original plaintiffs, and also the interven
ing plaintiffs hereinafter named, by their undersigned at
torneys, and move the Court to reinstate this case upon
the active docket, to add Mrs. Virginia Scott, Mrs. Joyce K.
Eady, and Mrs. Theresa Kinslow, as additional and/or in
tervening plaintiffs in the case, and to grant further relief
as follows:
a. Enjoining defendants and each of them, their agents,
employees, successors, and all parties in active concert and
participation with them, from continuing to maintain and
operate the Townsend, Hillcrest and Mt. Zion Schools as
segregated all-Negro schools with all-Negro faculties and
student bodies;
b. Enjoining said defendants, their agents, employees,
successors and all persons in active concert and participa
tion with them, from encouraging the continued racial segre
gation of said Townsend, Hillcrest and Mt. Zion Schools
under defendants’ “Freedom of Choice” desegregation plan
by (1) assigning exclusively Negro teachers to said all-
Negro schools on the basis of race; (2) discharging Negro
teachers, including the intervening plaintiffs, Mrs. Virginia
Scott and Mrs. Joyce K. Eady, solely because of loss of
enrollment of Negro students in said Negro schools and
defendants’ refusal to transfer said Negro teachers to
formerly white schools as faculty members, while hiring
new white teachers for said formerly white schools; (3)
refusal to employ new teacher applicants, including the in
tervening plaintiff, Mrs. Theresa Kinslow, because of the
Motion to Reinstate Upon Active Docket, for
Further Relief, and to Add or Intervene
Additional Plaintiffs
7a
necessity of assigning such new Negro teachers to formerly
white schools, while employing large numbers of new white
teachers with lesser or no better qualifications than said
Negro teacher applicants for assignment to said formerly
all-white schools; (4) sending official notices of pre-registra
tion for high school students for the 1966-67 school term
only to parents of school children in said three Negro
schools so as to require only Negro children to make a
choice as between entering an all-Negro high school or en
tering a desegregated formerly white high school, while
not notifying, requiring or permitting any white child to
make such a choice as between attending such formerly
white or Negro high schools; (5) continuing to maintain
and operate segregated all-Negro bus routes, with buses
operated by Negro bus drivers to serve said three all-Negro
schools, while employing mostly white bus drivers on all
the other bus routes serving formerly white schools;
c. Requiring defendants to discontinue the use of Towns
end School as a high school not later than the beginning
of the 1966-67 school year and enjoining defendants from
permitting or requiring Negro high school students to at
tend said school, same being a sub-standard educational
facility created, maintained and operated by defendants as
a part of and pursuant to a past and/or present policy of
racial discrimination against Negro school children;
d. Requiring defendants to reinstate the intervening
plaintiffs, Mrs. Virginia Scott and Mrs. Joyce K. Eady, as
teachers in the Franklin County School System and to pay
them the compensation which they have lost as a result of
their wrongful discharge by defendants for the school year
1965-66;
Motion to Reinstate Upon Active Docket, for Further
Relief, and to Add or Intervene Additional Plaintiffs
8a
e. Requiring the defendants to employ the intervening
plaintiff, Mrs. Theresa Kinslow, as a teacher in the Frank
lin County School System and to assign her and all other
Negro teachers and applicants for employment to teaching
assignments in the schools of said system without segre
gation or discrimination because of race or color.
As grounds for said motion, the plaintiffs and interven
ing plaintiffs show the following:
1. On February 19, 1965, and on April 17, 1965, the
Court approved a substitute plan of desegregation of
Franklin County, Tennessee, schools, as amended, which
provided, in part, as follows:
“II
“Beginning with the 1965-66 school term, which term
commences in the Fall of 1965, all elementary schools
operated, maintained, and controlled by the Franklin
County Board of Education, encompassing grades 1
through 8, shall be totally desegregated, and shall, be
ginning as of that time, be maintained as desegregated
schools.
III
“Enrollment in the various schools of the county shall
be by free choice of the parents or guardian of the
respective children, and each school facility will be
filled up to its desirable maximum capacity on a first-
come, first-served basis, without regard to the race or
color of the child whose enrollment is sought therein.
IV
“Prior to accepting applications for enrollment, the
Superintendent of Education of Franklin County, or
Motion to Reinstate Upon Active Docket, for Further
Relief, and to Add or Intervene Additional Plaintiffs
such persons as may be designated by Mm, shall send
written notices to the patrons of every child eligible
for enrollment in grades 1 through 8 in the .Franklin
County School System, notifying said parents or guard
ians that their children or wards are eligible for enroll
ment in a school of their choice without regard to race
or color. Notice to all patrons shall be mailed simul
taneously.
V
“The Superintendent of Education of Franklin County,
the Board Members thereof, or any other person under
their control will completely and totally refrain from
doing or performing any act, thing, or deed designed
toward the discouragement of any child or patron to
make application for enrollment in any school.
VI
“At the beginning of the 1965-66 school term, as afore
said, all of the teaching and supporting personnel en
gaged in the operation of the grade schools shall also
be desegregated and employed without regard to race
or color.
VII
“Beginning with the aforesaid 1965-66 school term, all
busses transporting children to and from any school,
be the same grade or high school, will be desegregated
and there will be no further operation of a bi-racial bus
system to separately accommodate white or Negro chil
dren.
VIII
“Beginning with the 1966-67 school term, all high schools
operated by the Franklin County Board of Education
Motion to Reinstate Upon Active Docket, for Further
Relief, and to Add or Intervene Additional Plaintiffs
10a
shall he completely desegregated and all provisions
applicable to the desegregation of the grade school shall
he then implemented and complied with in the desegre
gation of the high schools. This shall also include en
rollment on a first-come, first-served basis, and on a
free choice basis, the giving of notice to all children
or their parents alike, and the refraining on the part
of the School Board from doing any act, deed, or tiling-
designed to discourage freedom of choice in enroll
ment.
“All teaching or supporting personnel connected with
the high schools shall he employed on a desegregated
basis without regard to race or color at the beginning of
the 1966-67 year.”
2. Elementary school desegregation under the foregoing
plan resulted in no white children choosing to attend any
formerly Negro school, hut many Negro children attending
the Negro Townsend, Hillcrest, Thorogood and Mt, Zion
Schools chose to transfer to and/or attend formerly white
schools at the beginning of the 1965-66 school year. With
this loss of enrollment, the defendants closed the Thorogood
School, discharging two Negro tenure teachers, Mrs. Helen
Campbell and Mrs. Virginia Harvell, who had been assigned
there; discharged Mrs. Henrietta Staten, a Negro tenure
teacher who had been assigned to Hillcrest Schools; dis
charged the intervening plaintiff, Mrs. Virginia Scott, a
Negro non-tenure teacher who had been teaching for twenty
years in the Mt. Zion School; discharged the intervening
plaintiff, Mrs. Joyce K. Eady, a Negro non-tenure teacher,
who had been teaching for two and one-half years in the
Motion to Reinstate Upon Active Docket, for Further
Relief, and to Add or Intervene Additional Plaintiffs
11a
Townsend School; and refused to employ the intervening
plaintiff, Mrs. Theresa Kinslow, a graduate of Tennessee
A. & I. State University, Nashville, Tennessee, with a B. S.
degree in Elementary Education, a permanent professional
teachers certificate issued by the State of Tennessee, De
partment of Education, in 1959, and four years teaching ex
perience as substitute and/or regular teacher in Davidson
County, Tennessee, Madisonville, Kentucky, and Hopkins
ville, Kentucky, who had made timely and proper applica
tion for employment by defendants in the 1965-66 school
year. In addition, defendants refused to reinstate, Mrs.
Peggy Ann Woodson, a tenure teacher who had been em
ployed in the Kennerly School for four years prior to the
closure of that school by the defendants at the beginning of
the 1964-65 school year, under pressure of a Court order
in this case to desegregate said school. When defendants
closed said Kennerly school, as aforesaid, they wrongfully
discharged Mrs. Woodson, while at the same time employ
ing new non-tenure white teachers to fill teaching positions
for which she was qualified. On June 7,1965, Mrs. Woodson
brought to the attention of the Board again the fact of
her wrongful discharge in 1964 and requested reinstatement
as a teacher for the school year 1965-66, which request was
denied. At the beginning of the 1965-66 school year, de
fendants employed approximately twenty-eight new white
non-tenure teachers for the 1965-66 school year to fill vacan
cies for which said Negro teachers and/or applicants were
fully qualified. Following a letter by counsel for the plain
tiffs to the Secretary of the United States Department of
Health, Education and Welfare in behalf of said teachers
and teacher applicants, the defendants reinstated Mrs. Hen
rietta Staten, Mrs. Helen Campbell, Mrs. Virginia Harvell,
Motion to Reinstate Upon Active Docket, for Further
Relief, and to Add or Intervene Additional Plaintiffs
12a
and Mrs. Peggy Ann Woodson, as teachers in the Franklin
County School System for the 1965-66 school year. How
ever, defendants have refused and still refuse to reinstate
the intervening plaintiffs, Mrs. Virginia Scott, and Mrs.
Joyce K. Eady, as teachers or to employ the intervening
plaintiff, Mrs. Theresa Kinslow, and other Negro tenure
teacher applicants, as teachers in said school system. Upon
information and belief, plaintiffs and intervening plaintiffs
aver that defendants retained in employment many white
teachers in said school system for the school year 1965-66
who are less or no better qualified educationally and pro
fessionally and who have lower seniority than the said
intervening plaintiffs, Mrs. Virginia Scott and Mrs. Joyce
K. Eady, and other Negro teachers similarly situated, and
who are teaching in positions which said plaintiffs and
other Negro teachers similarly situated are qualified to fill.
Plaintiffs and intervening plaintiffs further aver, upon in
formation and belief, that defendants hired, as aforesaid,
about twenty-eight new white non-tenure teachers for the
school year 1965-66, who are teaching in positions which
said intervening plaintiffs, Mrs. Virginia Scott, Mrs. Joyce
K. Eady, and Mrs. Theresa Kinslow, are all better or
equally qualified to fill. Defendants customarily utilize ob
jective educational and professional standards of compari
son in determining which white teachers to discharge in
event of abolition of teaching positions, and which white
teacher applicants to employ, but defendants refused to
employ such objective standards with regard to the inter
vening plaintiffs and respectively discharged and/or re
fused to hire them solely because of race or color, thereby
granting white teachers and teacher applicants a preference
on account of race or color, in deprivation of the rights of
Motion to Reinstate Upon Active Docket, for Further
Relief, and to Add or Intervene Additional Plaintiffs
said intervening plaintiffs and other Negro teachers simi
larly situated in whose behalf they sue, secured by the Due
Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and
by the Civil Eights Act of 1964, Section 601, et seq.
Said action of the defendants in employing, discharging,
and assigning teachers on the basis of race, and especially
in maintaining all-Negro faculties at Townsend, Hillcrest
and Mt. Zion Schools has encouraged and/or caused the
continued complete racial segregation of said schools and
retention of their character as Negro schools. Such con
tinued racial designations and aspects have discouraged
and discourage any white children from choosing to attend
these schools under the defendants’ “Freedom of Choice”
desegregation plan, while encouraging Negro children to
attend said segregated schools and at the same time
adversely affect the quality and character of the educa
tion received by Negro children in these segregated schools,
and violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
of said Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Con
stitution and the aforesaid provision of the Civil Eights
Act as well as constituting non-compliance with the afore
said order of this Court directing total desegregation of
the schools, employment of teaching and supporting per
sonnel on a desegregated basis, and abstention by the
defendants from discouragement of the choice of any child
or patron for enrollment in any school. The foregoing-
rights of the original plaintiffs and other Negro school
children, similarly situated, are likewise and similarly
affected by the above said specific action of the defendants
in discharging and refusing to employ the intervening
teacher plaintiffs and teacher applicant and giving a
Motion to Reinstate Upon Active Docket, for Further
Relief, and to Add or Intervene Additional Plaintiffs
14a
preference on account of race to white teachers and
teacher applicants.
3. On or about 18 February 1966, defendants mailed
letters dated 15 February 1966 to parents of Negro school
children attending Townsend, Hillcrest and Mt. Zion
schools informing them of an official pre-registration to
be held at said three Negro schools on March 2, 1966,
for the purpose of their choosing the high school they
would attend for the 1966-67 school term. Enclosed in
said letters were listings of the curriculum offerings in
Franklin County High School and Huntland High School,
the two white high schools, and the high school depart
ment of the all-Negro Townsend School. Upon informa
tion and belief, plaintiffs aver that no such letters or
notices have been sent to any parents of children attend
ing any of the formerly white schools in Franklin County
requiring or requesting them to choose the high school
they will attend for the 1966-67 school term on a deseg
regated basis. In the past, defendants have pursued a
practice of sending a representative from the white high
schools in the Spring of each year to each white elementary
school to register high school students for the ensuing
year. This practice was not pursued for Negro students
and all Negro students were automatically assigned by
defendants to the high school department of Townsend
School pursuant to defendants’ segregation policies. For
the school year 1965-66, Negro students completing elemen
tary courses in the Sewanee Public School on a deseg
regated basis in the 1964-65 school year, were registered
for high school in the Spring of 1965 on a segregated
basis in the Sewanee School by a representative from
Motion to Reinstate Upon Active Docket, for Further
Relief, and to Add or Intervene Additional Plaintiffs
Townsend School while at the same time all such white
children were there registered in a separate room by a
representative from Franklin County High School in the
Spring of 1965. All other Negro students entering High
School were automatically assigned by defendants to Town
send High School for said 1965-66 school year in accord
ance with past practice. The aforesaid sending of written
notices only to parents of said Negro children in said
all-Negro schools requiring only these parents to exercise
a choice as between an all-Negro high school and two
desegregated white high schools, while not sending any
such notices to parents of children attending formerly
white elementary schools or requiring these latter parents
to make any such choice, is racially discriminatory, en
courages the continued segregation of the said Townsend,
Hillcrest and Mt. Zion Schools, and violates the rights
of plaintiffs and the class they represent, secured by the
Fourteenth Amendment, The Civil Eights Act of 1964, and
the aforesaid order of this Court.
4, Plaintiffs further aver, upon information and belief,
that the high school department of the said Townsend
School is a sub-standard and inferior educational facility
in all its aspects; that said facility was and is being
created, maintained, and operated as a part of and pur
suant to defendants’ past policy of racial discrimination
and segregation against Negro children and for the pur
pose of providing education only to Negro school children
on a segregated basis; that said facility does not meet
minimum State requirements for a high school to provide
an adequate education to school children, whereas the
Franklin County High School created and maintained in
Motion to Reinstate Upon Active Docket, for Further
Relief, and to Add or Intervene Additional Plaintiffs
16a
the past by defendants for the exclusive use of white
school children does meet such requirements; and that
the defendants have a duty under the Fourteenth Amend
ment to the Constitution of the United States and the
Civil Eights Act of 1964 to eliminate said racial discrim
ination and the past effects thereof, by discontinuing the
maintenance and operation of said sub-standard and in
ferior high school educational facilities at Townsend
School.
5. Plaintiffs aver upon information and belief that not
only do defendants encourage Negro children to remain
in said all-Negro schools by assigning all Negro faculties
to said schools, but defendants also thereby discourage
any white children from choosing to attend said schools
and, by defendants’ refusal to employ Negro teachers and
assign Negro teachers to formerly white schools in propor
tion to the Negro school population, Negro children are
thereby discouraged from choosing to attend said formerly
white schools, and white children are deprived of the op
portunity to see Negro persons in positions of respect and
authority in the school system, thereby adversely affecting
the quality of the education received by both Negro and
white children in said desegregated formerly white schools.
6. Defendants continue to maintain at least three all-
Negro bus routes as follows: (1) from Estill Springs and
Asia community to Hillcrest and Townsend Schools; (2)
from Sewanee and Cowan areas to Townsend School, and
(3) from Belvedere area to Townsend School. Upon in
formation and belief, these bus routes are operated by
two Negro bus drivers, Messrs. Edward Jones and Nelson
Motion to Reinstate Upon Active Docket, for Further
Relief, and to Add or Intervene Additional Plaintiffs
17a
Simmons, and are completely segregated, carrying only
Negro children to these all-Negro schools. The practice
of maintaining these all-Negro routes, with Negro bus
drivers assigned, retains an aspect of racial discrimination
and segregation in the school system and encourages the
continued segregation of schools involved, in violation
of the aforesaid order of the Court and of the Constitu
tional and statutory rights of the plaintiffs mentioned
hereinabove.
W herefore , p la in tif fs p r a y :
1. That the Court reinstate this case upon the active
docket.
2. That the Court issue immediately a temporary re
straining order specifically and immediately restraining
and enjoining all defendants in this case, their agents,
employees and successors, and all persons in active con
cert and participation with them, from carrying out said
pre-school registration of Negro children in Townsend,
Hillcrest and Mt. Zion Schools on March 2, 1966, pending
further orders of the Court.
3. That the said intervening plaintiffs, Mrs. Virginia
Scott, Mrs. Joyce K. Eady, and Mrs. Theresa Ivinslow,
be added and joined as additional and/or intervening
plaintiffs in this case, their claims herein involving com
mon questions of law or fact with the main action as
set forth hereinabove, and that this motion be treated as
any pleading deemed necessary under Rule 24(c) FRCP.
4. That this Court advance this motion upon the docket
for immediate hearing and that upon the hearing defen
Motion to Reinstate Upon Active Docket, for Further
Relief, and to Add or Intervene Additional Plaintiffs
18a
dants, and each of them, their agents, employees, suc
cessors and all parties in active concert and participation
with them, be immediately and specifically enjoined:
(a) from continuing to maintain and operate the Town
send, Hillcrest and Mt. Zion Schools as segregated
all-Negro Schools with all-Negro faculties and stu
dent bodies;
(b) from continuing to maintain segregated faculties
or staff in any of the schools, from assigning or
dealing in any manner with Negro or white teachers
or school personnel on a racially segregated or dis
criminatory basis, and from assigning, refusing to
assign, employing, refusing to employ, discharging,
refusing to discharge, transferring, refusing to trans
fer, demoting, or otherwise dealing with teachers
or other school personnel adversely because of school
desegregation or in any manner tending to en
courage, promote or retain racially segregated school
faculties or other racial segregation in the school
system;
(c) from sending official notices of pre-registration for
high school students or any other students for the
1966-67 school term or any other school term solely
to parents of Negro school children or to parents
of children in Negro schools, without sending the
same notices to all other parents or school children
in the school system requiring them likewise to make
such choices, and without making absolutely clear
that all school children in the school system may
select the school they desire to attend as an ab
solute right and without regard to race or color
Motion to Reinstate Upon Active Docket, for Further
Relief, and to Add or Intervene Additional Plaintiffs
19a
and without being subject to any form of official
encouragement, discouragement, or coercion by or in
the school system;
(d) from continuing to maintain and operate any segre
gated all-Negro bus routes, or from assigning Negro
bus drivers to bus routes on the basis of the race
or color of the driver to be assigned or the race
or color of the children or any proportion of the
children who ride said buses.
5. That an injunction issue requiring the defendants
to discontinue the use of Townsend School as a high
school not later than the beginning of the 1966-67 school
year and enjoining defendants, their agents, employees,
suppressors, and all parties in active concert and partic
ipation with them, from permitting or requiring Negro
high school students to attend said school and from
permitting or requiring Negro students to attend any
school in the Franklin County School System which is a
sub-standard and inferior educational facility created and
previously operated by defendants under its past policy
of racial segregation, and still attended only by Negro
school children.
6. That an injunction issue requiring the defendants
to reinstate two intervening plaintiffs, Mrs. Virginia Scott
and Mrs. Joyce K. Eady, as teachers in the Franklin
County School System and to compensate them for loss
of earnings during the school year 1965-66 resulting from
their wrongful discharge; and also requiring the defen
dants to employ the intervening plaintiff, Mrs. Theresa
Kinslow, and to compensate her for the income she would
Motion to Reinstate Upon Active Docket, for Further
Relief, and to Add or Intervene Additional Plaintiffs
Motion to Reinstate Upon Active Docket, for Further
Relief, and to Add or Intervene Additional Plaintiffs
have earned during said 1965-66 school year if defendants
had not wrongfully refused to employ her.
7. That an injunction issue requiring the defendants
to reorganize or present a plan for the reorganization
of teacher and staff personnel employment and assign
ment so as to provide for the employment and assignment
of Negro and white teachers to each school in the Franklin
County School System in the approximate proportion that
the total number of Negro school children bears to the
total number of white children in said school system, said
integrated plan of assignment and employment to be ef
fective not later than the beginning of the 1966-67 school
year.
8. That the plaintiffs be awarded a reasonable attorneys
fee for their attorneys in this proceeding as well as their
reasonable costs.
9. That plaintiffs be granted such other, additional or
further relief as may seem fit and proper to the Court.
/ s / Illegible
A von N. W illia m s , J b .
Z. A lexander L ooby
J ack Greenberg
J ames M. N abrit, III
D errick A . B e l l , J r .
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
21a
Pre-Trial Memorandum Opinion and Order of
C. G. Neese, D.J.
(Filed July 20, 1966)
The original complaint herein was filed on July 2, 1963.
An injunction was sought against the continued operation
by the defendants of a compulsory bi-racial public school
system, or, in the alternative an order of this Court re
quiring the defendants to adopt seasonably a plan of
complete reorganization wherennder all public schools of
Franklin County, Tennessee would become a single, non-
racial educational system.
The defendants filed a plan of desegregation on Octo
ber 31, 1963, an amended and supplemental plan on April
14, 1964, a supplement to the amended and supplemental
plan on July 13, 1964, and a substitute plan on January 22,
1965. VI of the substitute plan provided that:
“At the beginning of the 1965-1966 school term, * * *
all of the teaching * * * personnel engaged in the
operation of the grade schools shall * * * be deseg
regated and employed without regard to race or
color.”
Included in VIII of the substitute plan was the provision
that:
“ * * * All teaching * * * personnel connected with
the high schools shall be employed on a desegregated
basis without regard to race or color at the beginning
of the 1966-1967 school year.”
The substitute plan was approved by the Court, subject to
certain modifications (not here pertinent) on February
22a
19, 1965 and was finally approved, as modified by the
Court, on April 17, 1965.
Mrs. Virginia Scott, a Negro, was a teacher at the
Mt. Zion (grade) school on all of the above dates, but
had never attained tenure status. Her teaching contract
was not renewed at the beginning of the 1965-1966 school
year, see VI of the substitute plan of desegregation,
quoted supra.
Mrs, Joyce K. Eady, a Negro, had been a teacher at
Townsend High School for two-and-one-half years, but had
not attained tenure status at the beginning of the 1965-
1966 school year. Her teaching contract was renewed
at the beginning of the 1965-1966 school year, see VIII
of the substitute plan of desegregation, quoted supra.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow, a Negro, applied to the defen
dants for a teaching position at Franklin County High
School before the beginning of the 1965-1966 school year
but was not employed, see VIII of the substitute plan of
desegregation, quoted supra.
These three Negresses sought on February 25, 1966
to intervene herein, for the purpose of seeking, inter alia,
an injunction requiring the defendants to reinstate and
compensate Mrs. Scott and Mrs. Eady for their respec
tive losses of income and to employ Mrs. Kinslow and
compensate her for her loss of prospective income. In
a hearing on March 3, 1966, the Court granted the motioit
of Mrs. Scott to intervene as a plaintiff herein and took
under advisement similar motions as to Mrs. Eady and
Mrs. Kinslow.
u * * * Upon timely application anyone may be per
mitted to intervene in an action: * * * (2) when an
applicant’s claim # * * and the main action have a ques
Pre-Trial Memorandum Opinion and Order of
C. G. Neese, D.J.
23a
tion of law or fact in common. * * * In exercising its
discretion the court shall consider whether the interven
tion will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of
the rights of the original parties.” Rule 24 (b), Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, the Court may grant the
motions of Mrs. Eady and Mrs. Kinslow to intervene or,
in the alternative, permit each or both of them to file a
supplemental complaint. Griffin v. Board of Supervisors
of Prince Edward County, C. A. 4th (1964), 339 F. (2d)
486, 493 [5].
Until March 3, 1966, this action had been retired from
the trial docket for nearly one year. So, there is no delay
or prejudice of an adjudication of the rights of the original
parties involved. In retiring the action, the Court had
said:
“ * * * ‘[T]he free public schools must be main
tained and operated as a racially nondiscriminatory
system # # ’ in accordance with the plan as finally
approved by the Court. ‘ * * # During the period of
transition from a segregated to a nonsegregated sys
tem the school authorities must exercise good faith
# * * ’, Hill v. County Board of Education of Franklin
County, Tenn., D. C. Tenn. (1964), 232 F. Supp. 671,
673; and this Court will resume jurisdiction any time
it appears that there is anything less than full im
plementation of the constitutional principles involved.”
Memorandum Opinion and Order of April 17, 1965.
If the defendants are guilty, as alleged by these teachers,
of discriminatory practices in respect to the employment,
discharge or assignment of faculty, not only are these
Pre-Trial Memorandum Opinion and Order of
C. G. Neese, D.J.
24a
teachers entitled to relief, a serious question would be
raised also as to whether the defendants have violated
their own substitute plan of desegregation, as approved
by this Court. In any event, the respective claims of these
teachers and the main action herein have in common
questions of fact, if not law, and this is the proper pro
ceeding for the adjudication of those claims. Accordingly,
The motions of Mrs. Joyce K. Eady and Mrs. Theresa
Kinslow to intervene as plaintiffs herein hereby are
G baktted. The clerk will add this action to the docket
for sounding in the Federal Building, Winchester, Ten
nessee, on Monday, August 1, 1966 at 11:00 o’clock in
the forenoon.
All other matters are reserved.
E n teb :
/ s / C. G. N eese
United States District Judge
Pre-Trial Memorandum Opinion and Order of
C. G. Neese, D.J.
25a
Page 99, 1965
Franklin County Board of Education
Regular Session
Thursday Night August 12, 1965 at 7 :30 P.M.
The Franklin County Board of Education met Thursday
Night August 12, 1965 at 7 :3Q P.M. with all members
present. The minutes of last meeting were read and a
motion was made by Mr. Rufus Smith and seconded by
Mr. L. J. Morris that the minutes be amended to correct
the motion pertaining to election of janitors as follows:
Names of janitors for Capitol Hill School and Belvidere
School should be deleted.
1. A motion was made by Mr. Howard Garner and sec
onded by Dr. Couser that Mrs. Betty Rose be transferred
to Deeherd Public School.
Motion carries unanimously.
2. A motion was made by Mr. Howard Garner and sec
onded by Mr. Rufus Smith that James Douglas resigna
tion be accepted.
Motion carries.
3. A motion was made by Dr. Couser and seconded by
Mr. Tom Faris that the following teachers be elected:
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III,
Sub-Section (d ) : Minutes of the Board of
Education of Franklin County
Mrs. Sandra Powers.................. -F.C.H.S.
Mrs. Jerry S. White.................. ....F.C.H.S.
26a
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III,
Sub-Section (d): Minutes of the Board of
Education of Franklin County
Mr. James Painter...............
Miss Mildred Gifford...........
Miss Gloria Blanco...............
Mr. Aaron Buckley...............
Mrs. Francis Ross.................
Mrs. Nancy Rose..................
Mrs. Angie P. Fuller...........
Mr. Richard Soderbom.........
Mrs. Kathleen Wood—..........
Mrs. Peggy Soderbom.........
Mr. Witt Fox, Prin..............
Mrs. Ethel Hobba..................
Mr. Homer W. Martin, Prin
Mr. Bethel Clark, Prin........
Mrs. Beatrice Swann.............
Miss Martha Kinsey.............
Mrs. Julia Running...............
Mrs. Walter Garner.............
Mrs. Frances C. Cannon.......
Motion carries.
....F.C.H.S.
....F.C.H.S.
....F.C.H.S.
....F.C.H.S.
....Capitol Hill
....Estill Springs
....Estill Springs
....Huntland
....Huntland
....Belvidere
....Keith Springs
....Keith Springs
.....Winchester Springs
....Center Grove
....County Wide Librarian
— Sherwood
....Sewanee
....EMR-Decherd
....Mary Sharp
4. A motion was made by Mr. L. J. Morris and seconded
by Dr. Couser that Theresa Kinslow be elected to fill the
vacancy at Townsend School.
McDaniel...... ..... No Garner....... ........ No
Morris........... ..... Yes Allen....... . .. No
Spaulding...... ......Pass Smith......... .. . No
Couser........... ......Yes Faris.......... ........ Yes
Motion fails to carry.
Winchester Springs
27a
5. A motion was made by Mr. Allen and seconded by
Mr. Rufus Smith that the following custodians be elected:
Mr. Landenberger.............................. Capitol Hill
Page 102, 1965
Franklin County Board of Education
Special Session-Monday Night August 23,1965 at 7 :00 P.M.
The Franklin County Board of Education met Monday
Night August 23, 1965 at 7 :00 P.M. with all members
present. The minutes of last meeting were read and a
motion was made by Mr. Rufus Smith and seconded by
Mr. Boyd Spaulding that the minutes of the last meeting
be amended to the election of the following:
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III,
Sub-Section (d): Minutes of the Board of
Education of Franklin County
Mrs. Stella Templeton..................Belvidere School
Mrs. W. D. Allen...........................Nurse FCHS
Miss Sarah Virginia Jones.........FCHS
Mr. Billy St. John....................... FCHS
Motion carries.
2. A motion was made by Mr. Rufus Smith and seconded
by Mr. W. D. Allen that the following teachers be dis
missed due to lack of enrollment.
Mrs. Virginia Scott
Motion carries unanimously.
3. A motion was made by Dr. Couser and seconded by
Mr. Howard Garner that Thorogood School be closed.
Motion carries unanimously.
28a
4. A motion was made by Dr. Couser and seconded by
Mr. Howard Garner that Annie Miller Shedd be trans
ferred to Cowan Public School.
Motion carries.
5. A motion was made by Mr. Garner and seconded by
Mr. Rufus Smith that there will be no transferring from
one school to another effective August 16, 1965 Huntland
and Mt. Zion and August 23, 1965 for all other schools
without first being considered by the Superintendent and
if further consideration is needed, the entire Board.
Motion carries unanimously.
6. A motion was made by Dr. Couser and seconded by
Mr. Smith that the following teachers be placed on the
preferred list until further notice.
Mrs. Helen Campbell
Mrs. Virginia Hai’vell
Mrs. Henrietta Staten
Unanimous.
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III,
Sub-Section (d): Minutes of the Board of
Education of Franklin County
7. A motion was made by Mr. L. J. Morris and seconded
by Mr. Tom Paris that the
be elected:
Mr. Mickey Powers
Mrs. Howard Brown
Mrs. Thurman Jones
Mr. Milton Kennedy
following substitute teachers
Mrs. Mary Glaus Lake
Miss Evelyn Anderson
Mrs. J. B. Summers
Mrs. Frances Summers
Mrs. Ross Willis
Motion carries.
29a
8. A motion was made by Mr. Garner and seconded by
Mr. Smith that the executive committee be instructed to
inform the Tullahoma School Board that students living
in Franklin County may enroll in the Tullahoma City
Schools as in the past provided they furnish their own
transportation, and in turn Franklin County will accept
students from Tullahoma City Schools on the same basis,
provided further that this agreement is ? ? ?
Page 104, 1965
Franklin County Board of Education Special Session
Tuesday Night, August 31, 1965 at 7 :30 o’clock
The Franklin County Board of Education met in special
session Tuesday night August 31, 1965 at 7 :30 o’clock
with all members present except Mr. L. J. Morris. The
minutes of last meeting were read and approved as read.
1. A motion was made by Dr. Charles Couser and seconded
by Mr. W. D. Allen that the people sponsoring the Man
power training program known as “Comet” be allowed
to use the Thorogood School provided they will keep the
building in good repair, and pay all utilities.
Unanimous.
2. A motion was made by Mr. Smith and seconded by
Mr. Garner that the plan for Capital outlay expenditures
for 1965-66 be approved.
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III,
Sub-Section (d): Minutes of the Board of
Education of Franklin County
Motion carries.
30a
3. A motion was made by Mr. Rufus Smith and seconded
by Mr. Tom Faris that the following janitors be elected:
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section 111,
Sub-Section (d): Minutes of the Board of
Education of Franklin County
Herbert Fraker....................... Belvidere
Mrs. Clara Simmons............... Mt. Zion
Herbert Wiseman................... Maple Grove
Lindsey Hannah..................... Center Grove
Motion carries unanimously.
4. A motion was made by Mr. Howard Garner and
seconded by Mr. W. D. Allen that the following teachers
be replaced at the following schools:
Mrs. Virginia Harvell................ Mary Sharp
Mrs. Peggy Woodson.................Sewanee
Mrs. Helen Campbell...... ...........Clark Memorial
Mrs. Henrietta Staten................Decherd
Allen............ yes Couser.......................yes
Garner........ ............yes McDaniel.................. yes
Smith.......... .............yes Faris.........................pass
Spaulding................ yes
Motion carries.
31a
Key: Name of Teacher—1
Degree—2
Teaching Experience—3
School Assigned—1
Date of Employment—5
Grades Taught—6
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III,
Sub-Section ( d ) ( 3 ) : Non-Tenure Teachers 1965-66,
Franklin County School System
1. Mrs. Marion Noody
2. A.B.—May, 1965
3. None
4. Alto
5. August, 1965
6. 3-5
1. Miss Helen Stevens
2. 126 quarter hours
3. 21 years
4. Anderson
5. 1945
6. 1-4
1. Mrs. Frances Hunter
2. B.S. plus 3 quarter hours
3. None
4. Belvidere
5. 1965
6. 7-8
1. Mrs. Peggy Soderbom
2. B.S. plus 18 semester
hours
3. 7 years
4. Belvidere
5. August, 1965
6. 4-6
1. Mrs. Stella Templeton
2. 91 quarter hours
3. 36 years
4. Belvidere
5. 1950
6. 1-3
1. Mrs. Ethel Woodson
2. 95 quarter hours
3. 15 years
4. Broadview
5. 1962
6. 5 and 6
32a
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III,
Sub-Section (d)(3): Non-Tenure Teachers 1965-66,
Franklin County School System
1. Mrs. Frances Ross
2. 103 quarter hours
3. 6 years
4. Capitol Hill
5. 1937
6. 1-2
1. Virginia Scott
2. 153 quarter hours
3. 29 years
4. Mt. Zion
5. 1945
6. 1 and 2
1. Mrs. Evaline Holder
2. 140 quarter hours
3. 241/2 years
4. Center Grove
5. 1951
6. 3-4
1. Mrs. Grace Amacher
2. 154 quarter hours
3. 22 years
4. Clark Memorial
5. 1950
6. 4th
1. Miss Betty Carol Clark
2. B.S.
3. 2 years
4. Clark Memorial
5. 1963
6. 6th
1. Mrs. Grace Garner
2. 152 quarter hours
3. 7 years
4. Clark Memorial
5. 1960
6. 4th
1. Mrs. Joyce Gunn
2. 107 quarter hours
3. 2 years
4. Clark Memorial
5. 1963
6. EMR P rimary
1. Mrs. Judith Payne
2. B.S.
3. 2 years
4. Clark Memorial
5. 1964
6. 5th
1. Mr. Danny Smith
2. B.S.
3. 1 year
4. Clark Memorial
5. 1964
6. 7 and 8
1. Mrs. Lillian Smith
2. 96 quarter hours
3. 13 years
4. Clark Memorial
5. 1956
6. 5th
33a
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III ,
Sub-Section (d)(3): Non-Tenure Teachers 1965-66,
Franklin County School System
1. Mr. Roland C. Tipps, Jr.
2. 146% quarter hours
3. 5 years
4. Clark Memorial
5. 1961
6. Physical Education, 3-8
1. Mrs. Ruby Todd
2. 141 quarter hours
3. 19 years
4. Clark Memorial
5. 1948
6. 3rd
1. Mrs. Beverly Tomlin
2. B.S.
3. 5 years
4. Clark Memorial
5. 1961
6. EMR—I ntermediate
1. Mrs. Anna Warmbrod
2. 105 quarter hours
3. 24 years
4. Clark Memorial
5. 1942
6. 7 & 8 Math
1. Mr. Melvin Allison
2. 135 quarter hours
3. 3 years
4. Cowan
5. 1963
6. 7th Science
1. Mrs. Janie Gonce
2. 101 quarter hours
3. 8 years .
4. Cowan
5. 1961
6. 4 & 5
1. Mrs. Nelverna Roggli
2. 124% quarter hours
3. 10 years
4. Cowan
5. 1942
6. 4
1. Mrs. Hessie Jarvie
2. A.B.
3. 4 years
4. Decherd
5. 1962
6. 4
1. Mrs. Betty K. Rose
2. 163% quarter hours
3. 12 years
4. Decherd
5. 1960
6. 1
1. Mrs. Eliza White
2. 124 quarter hours plus 6
semester hrs
3. 23 years
4. Decherd
5. 1957
6. 5th
34a
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III,
Sub-Section (d)(3): Non-Tenure Teachers 1965-66,
Franklin County School System
1. Mrs. Dixie Cunningham
2. B.S.
3. No Experience
4. Deeherd
5. 1965
6. 3rd
1. Mrs. Angie Fuller
2. M.A.
3. 1 year
4. Estill Springs
5. 1965
6. 7 & 8
1. Mrs. Nancy Rose
2. B.S.
3. 2 years
4. Estill Springs
5. 1965
6. 7th
1. Miss Judith Tipps
2. 82 semester hours
3. 1 year
4. Estill Springs
5. 1964
6. 4
1. Mrs. Yicie Weaver
2. 104% quarter hours
3. 16 years
4. Estill Springs
5. 1958
6. 1st
1. Mr. Ralph Askins
2. M.A.
3. 5 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1964
6. Coach, Math
1. Miss Gloria Blanco
2. B.S.
3. 5 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1965
6. Spanish
1. Mrs. Betty Blevins
2. B.S.
3. 8 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1963
6. Health
1. Aaron Buckley
2. Permit
3. 26 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1938
6. Band
1. Mrs. Sadie Chandler
2. B.A. plus 11 semester
hours
3. 2 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1964
6. EMR
35 a
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III,
Sub-Section (d)(3): Non-Tenure Teachers 1965-66,
Franklin County School System
1. Mr. Arnold Farley
2.
3. 9 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1964
6. Post Graduate
Electronics
1. Mrs. Mildred Gifford
2. Masters M.R.E.
3. 23 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1965
6. English
1. William Jackson
2. B.A.
3. 2 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1964
6. Math
1. Thomas A. Jackson
2. B.A.
3. None
4. Franklin County High
5. January, 1965
6. Math
1. Alton Roger Jolley
2. B.A. plus 6 quarter hours
3. 3 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1964
6. History
1. Miss Sarah Virginia
Jones
2. B.A. and 5 semester
hours
3. None
4. Franklin County High
5. 1965
6. English
1. Mrs. Annie Lou
Kayvonfar Hulsey
2. M.A. and 6 quarter hours
3. 7 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1963
6. Math
1. Mrs. Frances Knies
2. M.A.
3. 11 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1963
6. Chemistry
1. Mrs. Bobbie Sue Little
2. B.S.
3. 3 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1962
6. Commer. & English
36a
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III,
Sub-Section (d)(3): Non-Tenure Teachers 1965-66,
Franklin County School System
1. Mrs. Maureen Nagnan
2. A.B.
3. None
4. Franklin County High
5. 1965
6. General Science
1. Mr. Charles Maurer
2. Shop Certificate
3. 1 year
4. Franklin County High
5.
6. Trade Shop
1. Mr. Robert Osteen
2. M.A.
3. 3 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1965
6. Ind. Arts
1. Mr. Jim Painter
2. M.A.
3. 6 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1965
6. Math
1. Mrs. Sandra Powers
2. B.A.
3. 2 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1965
6. Science
1. Mr. Jackie Reavis
2. B.S.
3. 3 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1965
6. P. E. & Health
1. Mr. Billy St. John
2. M.A.
3. 23 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1965
6. Arith. and History
1. Mrs. Mary Lou
Warmbrod
2. 118 quarter hours
3. 35 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1930
6. English
1. Mr. Ellis Wallace
2. B.S.A.
3. 9 years
4. Franklin County High
5. 1965
6. Agriculture
1. Mrs. Jerry White
2. B.S.
3. 1 year
4. Franklin County High
5. 1965
6. Health
37a
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III,
Sub-Section (d)(3): Non-Tenure Teachers 1965-66,
Franklin County School System
1. Mr. James L, Green
2. M.A.
3. 4 years
4. Huntland
5. 1964
6. Principal
1. Mrs. Minnie Broyles
2. B.8. and 7 semester
hours
3. 6 years
4. Huntland
5. 1965
6. 3-4
1. Mrs. Ruth Eichenberger
2. 90 quarter hours
3. 25 years
4. Huntland
5. 1964
6. 6th
1. Mrs. Roy Holder
2. 172 quarter hours
3. 25 years
4. Huntland
5. 1945
6. 2nd
1. Miss Rowena Matthews
2. 153% quarter hours
3. 28 years
4. Huntland
5. 1953
6. 6th
1. Mr. Richard Soderbom
2. B.A.
3. 2 years TJ. S. Army
4. Huntland
5. 1965
6. 7
1. Miss Kathleen Wood
2. B.S.
3. 1 year
4. Huntland
5. 1965
6. Home Economics
1. Mr. Witt Fox
2. B.A.
3. 16 years
4. Keith Springs
5. ? 1 ? I
6. 5-8
1. Mrs. Ethel Hobba
2. 27 semester hours
3. 3 years
4. Keith Springs
5. 1962
6. 1-4
1. Mrs. Lura Black
2. 139 quarter hours
3. 16 years
4. Liberty
5. 1949
6. 1-4
38a
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III,
Sub-Section (d)(3): Non-Tenure Teachers 1965-66,
Franklin County School System
1. Mr. Gilbert Clark
2. 128 quarter hours
3. 35 years
4. Maple Grove
5. 1950
6. 5-8
1. Mrs. Frances Cannon
2. B.S.
3. 4 years
4. Mary Sharp
5. 1965
6. 1
1. Mrs. Suzanne McDowell
2. B.S. & 6 quarter hours
3. 6 years
4. Mary Sharp
5. 1964
6. 2
1. Mrs. Jessie Lee Sells
2. I l l quarter hours
3. 14 years
4. Mary Sharp
5. 1957
6. 2
1. Mrs. Mary Ruth
Woodard
2. 103 quarter hours
3. 4 years
4. Mary Sharp
5. 1964
6. 1
1. Mrs. Eileen Smith
2. 117 semester hours
3. 3 years
4. Oak Grove
5. 1964
6. 1 & 2
1. Mrs. Anne Elwood
2. B.A.
3. 2 years
4. Sewanee
5. 1963
6. 2
1. Mr. Audrey Goldfinch
2. B.S.
3. 7 years
4. Sewanee
5. 1963
6. 7 & 8
1. Mrs. Cora Mae Green
2. 90 quarter hours
3. 16 years
4. Sewanee
5. 1956
6. 1
1. Mrs. Novella More
2. B.C.
3. 17 years
4. Sewanee
5. 1965
6. 1
39a
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III,
Sub-Section (d)(3): Non-Tenure Teachers 1965-66,
Franklin County School System
1. Mrs. Nancy Paulos
2. B.S.
3. 3% years
4. Sewanee
5. 1963
6. 2
1. Mrs. Julia Running
2. MME
3. 10 years
4. Sewanee
5. 1965
6. 7-8
1. Mrs. Mary Somerville
2. B.S.
3. 2% years
4. Sewanee
5. 1965
6. 7
1. Mrs. Peggy Woodson
Ramsey
2. B.S.
3. 6 years
4. Sewanee
5. 1965
6. Librarian
1. Mr. Don Garner
2. 94 quarter hours
3. 25 years
4. Sherwood
5. 1951
6. 7-8
1. Mr. Roy Dukes
2. B.S.
3. None
4. Townsend
5. 1965
6. Science
1. Mr. Homer Wayne
Martin
2. B.S. & LL.B.
3. 4 years
4. Winchester Springs
5. 1965
6. 8th
1. Mrs. Martha Skirven
2. M.M.E.
3. 2 years
4. Winchester Springs
5. 1965
6. 5 & 6th
1. Mrs. Marie Garner
2. 90 quarter hours
3. 2 years
4. Dechard Special
Education
5. 1965
6. EMR
40a
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section III,
Sub-Section ( d ) (5 ) : Application for Teaching
Position of Mrs. Theresa Kinslow (I)
F r a n k lin C ounty B oard or E ducation
W in c h est e r , T en n essee
I. General Information
Name (in full) (Mrs.) Theresa S. Kinslow
Date Jan 19, 1965
Present Address 119 No William St. Hopkinsville, Ky.
Tel. No. 886-1850
Permanent Address 805 Gem St Winchester Tenn.
Tel. No. 967-3953
Age 29 Height 5 ft. 7 in. Weight 135 Sex Female
Condition of Health Good
Bace: Negro Marital Status Married
II. Training
Schools Attended
High School Townsend Major Study
Length of Time 4 yrs.
Date of Graduation May 1955
Degree or Credits
Teachers College
University Tenn. A&I State Major Study Elem. Ed.
Length of Time 4 yrs.
Date of Graduation Aug. 1955
Degree or Credits BS Degree
Other Training
Type of Certificate Held
Professional Tennessee and Provisional Kentucky
41a
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section 111,
Sub-Section (d)(5): Application for Teaching
Position of Mrs. Theresa Kinslow (I)
Subjects certified to teach: (important) Grades 1—9
School preferred
First Choice Second Choice
High School Subjects preferred
Elementary Grades preferred Primary
If elected to the above position, will you cooperate with
the principals, teachers, superintendent, and county board
of education in order to have the best school possible? Yes
Will you abide by the Rules and Regulations of the
State Board of Education and the county board of educa
tion? Yes V No
Will you cooperate by joining local, state, or national
teacher associations? Yes V No
III, Training Experience
High School No. years V Elementary V No. years 4 yrs.
Present position
Christian County Schools, Hopkinsville, Ky.
Reason for leaving
List extra curricula interests Sports
IY. References (Superintendents, principals, or super
visors who know your work)
Name Mr. Rozell Leavell
Address 914 E. 1st St Hopkinsville, Ky.
Position Principal
42a
Pre-Trial Order Court Information, Section 111,
Sub-Section (d)(5): Application for Teaching
Position of Mrs. Theresa Kinslow (I)
Mrs. Iclella B. Irvin
167 Vine St. Hopkinsville, Ky.
Position Negro Supervisor
(List additional references on back)
V. Please fill out all blanks carefully and completely and
return to Superintendent of Schools. If new in the system
enclose an unmounted photograph. In case of appoint
ment, you will be notified.
T hebesa S. K inslow
Signature of Applicant
43a
F r a n k lin C ounty B oard of E ducation
W in c h est e r , T en n essee
I. General Information
Name (in full) Theresa S. Kinslow
Date 11/11/65
Present Address 805 Gem Street, Winchester, Tenn.
Tel. No. 967-3953
Permanent Address 805 Gem St., Winchester, Tenn.
Tel. No, 967-3953
Age 30 Height 5 ft. 7 in. Weight 140 lbs. Sex Female
Condition of Health Good
Race Negro Marital Status Married
II. Training
Schools Attended
High School Townsend Major Study General
Length of Time 4 yrs.
Date of Graduation June 1955
Degree or Credits Earned Diploma
Teachers College
University Tenn. A&I State Major Study Elem. Educa
tion
Length of Time 4 yrs.
Date of Graduation Aug. 9, 1959
Degree or Credits Earned B.S.
Other Training
Type of Certificate Held
Tenn. Professional & Kentucky Provisional
Application for Teaching Position of
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow (II)
44a
Subjects certified to teach or grades: (important)
Grades 1 through 9
School preferred
First choice Any school in County second choice
High School Subjects preferred
Elementary Grades preferred 1st, 2nd or Third
If elected to the above position, will you cooperate with
the principals, teachers, superintendent, and county board
of education in order to have the best school possible? Yes
Will you abide by the Rules and Regulations of the
State Board of Education and the county board of educa
tion? Yes V No
Will you cooperate by joining local, state, or national
teacher associations? Yes V No
Will you provide transcript upon request? Yes V No
III. Teaching Experience
High School No. years Elementary V No. years 4
Present position Unemployed
Reason for leaving
Name & address of last school taught
Gainesville Elem. Hopkinsville, Kentucky
List extra curricula interests Physical Ed.
IY. References (Superintendents, principals, or super
visors who know your work)
Name Mr. Rozell Leavell
Address North 1st St. Hopkinsville, Ky.
Position Principal
Application for Teaching Position of
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow (II)
45a
Mrs. Elizabeth Wade
Christian County Board of Educ. Hopkinsville, Ky.
Supervisor
Mrs. Dimple Johnson
Route 2, Belvidere, Tenn.
(List additional references on hack.)
Please fill out all blanks carefully and completely and
return to Superintendent of Schools. If new in the system,
enclose an unmounted photograph. In case of appoint
ment, you will be notified.
Application for Teaching Position of
Mrs: Theresa Kinslow (II)
T heresa S. K inslow
Signature of Applicant
46a
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
A p p e a r a n c e s :
For the Plaintiffs:
Hon. A von W illia m s , J r .
Looby & Williams
Attorneys at Law
McCellan-Looby Building
Charlotte At Fourth
Nathville, Tennessee
For the Defendants:
H on . P at B. L y n ch
Lynch & Lynch
Attorneys at Law
Winchester, Tennessee
The deposition of T. K. S tew art , taken by notice at the
offices of the Superintendent of Education in Hopkinsville,
Kentucky, beginning at 3:00 P.M. on August 19, 1966, to
be used as evidence on behalf of the Defendants in the
above styled case.
All formalities as to notice, caption and certificate are
waived. All objections as to relevancy, competency, and
materiality, and all other objections, excepting as to the
frame of the question, are reserved for the hearing.
It is agreed that, since the Court Reporter taking the
deposition is not a Kentucky Notary, the oath may be
waived but that the Court Reporter may sign the name
of the witness to the deposition when the same shall have
been transcribed.
47a
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(P- 1)
— 1—
T. W . S tewabt, b e in g f irs t d u ly sw o rn , te s tif ied as
fo llo w s :
Direct Examination by Mr. Lynch:
Q. Will you state your name please, sir? A. T. W.
Stewart.
Q. Mr. Stewart, do you hold any official position with
the Christian County Kentucky Educational Department?
A. I am Superintendent of the Christian County Educa
tional Department. We call it Christian County Schools.
Q. Christian County Schools? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In that capacity, Mr. Stewart, do you have in your
office and available to you the records and data per
taining to teachers who now are in or who have pre
viously taught in the Christian County School System?
A. Yes.
Q. Particularly, do you have a record pertaining to
the past teaching record of Mrs. Theresa Kinslow? A.
We have.
Q, Did Mrs. Theresa Kinslow formerly teach in the
Christian County Schools? A. She did.
Q Over what period of time did she teach in that
system? A. She taught-—
Mr. Williams: Excuse me just a moment. I want
to ask for the rule insofar as Mrs. WTade is con
cerned.
Mr. Lynch: All right. Mrs. Wade, you will have
to step out until we conclude this deposition then
48 a
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(P- 2)
— 2—
because when the rule is asked for one witness
cannot hear the testimony of another.
(Mrs. Wade retired from the room.)
Mr. Lynch: For the sake of the record is there
any question relative to the testimony thus far
given by Mr. Stewart?
Mr. Williams: Oh, of course not.
Mr. Lynch: All right.
Q. Continuing on Mr. Stewart, and perhaps repeating
that question, according to the records over what period of
time has Mrs. Theresa Kinslow been a teacher in the pub
lic school system of Christian County Kentucky? A. She
taught two years.
Q. And what were those years? A. 68-64 and 64-65, I
believe.
Q. All right, sir. Now, state whether or not you have any
recollection of having received a telephone call from a Mr.
Scott, who proported to be Superintendent of Education for
the Franklin County School System in Winchester, Tennes
see, in the latter part of 1965?
Mr. Williams: This is objected to as being leading
and suggestive.
Mr. Lynch: All right, I’ll refrain the question.
Q. State whether or not you have had any telephone con
versations with Mr. Louis Scott? A. Yes, I have.
Q. To the best of your recollection, what is the approxi
mate time of the first conversation relative to Mrs. Kiri slow
that you had with Mr. Scott? A. I don’t remember the
49a
time. It has been several months, but I couldn’t say what
time.
Q. Do you have a record of that! A. No.
—3—
Q. Well, you used the term several months. At what
period of the year would you estimate that this first con
versation took place! Was it winter or otherwise!
Mr. Williams: This is objected to inasmuch as he
has testified that he did not recall the time.
Mr. Lynch: Now, go ahead and answer.
A. I don’t remember the time. I didn’t keep a record of it
because it was a telephone conversation but it was several
months. It wasn’t recently.
Q. What was the nature of that telephone call!
Mr. Williams: Before he answers his question I
want to object for the sake of the record to evidence
of a telephone conversation inasmuch as it is in
competent.
Mr. Lynch: Now go ahead and answer it.
A. He asked if Mrs. Kinslow had taught for me and I told
him that she had. I couldn’t say just what order the ques
tions came but he asked in the conversation if we had re
hired her or would hire her again and I said we wouldn’t.
Mr. Williams: All of this is objected to as being
incompetent.
Mr. Lynch: Go ahead.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 2, 3)
50a
A. He asked on what basis and I told him on the basis of
statements from her principal and from her supervisor of
teachers who worked with her and who said that—
Mr. Williams: This is objected to as being incom
petent and to be hearsay.
Q. Now, that would be, Mr. Stewart, a good objection.
We are not asking now for conversations with other people
but my question is simply whether or not you informed Mr.
Scott, pursuant to his inquiry, that Mrs. Kinslow was either
- A —
a good teacher and satisfactory or otherwise? A. We said
she was not satisfactory.
Mr. Williams: We object on the same basis that it
is incompetent and irrelevant to any issue in this
case, and also, the continuing objection as the tele
phone conversation is incompetent and has not been
qualified for introduction in evidence.
Mr. Lynch: Well, I thought we were going to re
serve exceptions until the hearing of cause.
Mr. Williams: Yes, but I want to make sure my
objection is made.
Mr. Lynch: All right.
Q. Now, do you have in your possession a record pertain
ing to Mrs. Kinslow that gives any information relative to
your faillure to re-employ her in your system? A. We
have a copy of the letter that we sent to Frankfort which
shows the people who we did not rehire at the end of the
64-65 year. It shows the ones that retired, the ones that
resigned, and the ones that we failed to re-elect.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 3, 4)
51a
Q. Does it show the reason for failure to re-elect? A.
For the ones not re-elected because of unsatisfactory teach
ing and I have three of them here. Mrs. Kinslow is one
of those.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 4, 5)
Mr. Williams: This is objected to as being in
competent.
Q. Do you have that record in your hand? A. Yes.
Q. And will you file a copy of that record as Exhibit
# 1 to your testimony? A. Yes.
Mr. Williams: The intervenor objects.
—5—
(The record above referred to was marked ex
hibit 1 for identification and filed in evidence.)
Mr. Williams: May I see the record?
Mr. Lynch: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Yes, we object to the introduction
of that document.
Mr. Lynch: All right.
Q. What system do you use, Mr. Stewart, in order to
determine whether or not a teacher should be re-employed
in your Christian County Kentucky School System? A.
We, here, depend quite a bit on the principal and on the
supervisor to inform us of how our teachers are doing and
we base our judgment on that and on what observations we
make. In Mrs. Kinslow’s ease, it is based upon Mrs. Idella
Ervin and Mr. Rozzelle Leavell.
Q. And who was the principal of the school in which Mrs.
Kinslow taught? A. Mr. Leavell.
52a
Q. Now, without relating conversations, and statements,
and words, given to you by those rating teachers, simply
state whether or not their recommendations were that the
teacher, Mrs. Kinslow, be re-employed or otherwise.
Mr. Williams: This is objected to as being incom
petent.
Mr. Lynch: Go ahead and answer.
A. They recommended that she not be rehired and we based
our opinion upon that.
Q. And this is the record that you keep that reflects that
recommendation, is that right! A. Yes.
Mr. Williams: I object to this as being leading.
— 6—
Mr. Lynch: I will rephrase the question.
Q. Is this the only record that you have in your office
pertaining to the reason for your failure to re-employ Mrs.
Kinslow!
Mr. Williams: Objected to as being leading.
Mr. Lynch: Go ahead and answer.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you, yourself, Mr. Stewart have any personal
contact or personal knowledge of Mrs. Kinslow’s teaching
ability or her cooperation in her school work! A. I de
pended on these people that we mentioned.
Q. They had direct contact! A. Yes, they had direct
contact.
Q. Then, you yourself had none, is that right! A. Of
course, I have passed by and I have been in her class room
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 5, 6)
53a
but I have never been there long enough to place a judg
ment on the time that I was there.
Q. And you did then, several months ago, relay this in
formation to Mr. Scott? A. I did.
Mr. Williams: That question is objected to as be
ing leading.
Mr. Lynch: I will rephrase the question then, for
the sake of the record.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 6, 7)
Q. State whether or not this is the same information
which you relayed to Mr. Scott several months ago? A.
This is the same information.
Mr. Lynch: You may cross examine.
Cross Examination by Mr. Williams:
— 7 -
Q. Mr. Stewart, do you have a system whereby principals
annually assign their teachers specified ratings such as
superior, excellent, poor, or average? A. We have not had
a written record of that.
Q. How then do you determine in a school what a princi
pals recommendations are in regard to the faculty of that
particular school? A. In our system we depend quite a
bit upon our principals recommending even new teachers
and rehiring of old teachers and in most cases it is just by
word of mouth, I don’t require written statements. Our
principals are interviewed, our teachers that are applying,
they are working with the ones that are all ready hired, and
they make their recommendations on what they observe.
Q. And you have no formal meetings with the principals
to obtain these recommendations? A. Yes, the principals
54a
come in and sit down and talk it over but I don’t have a
written record of those.
Q. Did you have such a conference with Mr. Leavell in
1963-64? A. If I ’m not mistaken, Mr. Leavell recommended
her first in 1963-64, the first year she taught for us.
Q. On what date did you have that conference? A. I
don’t remember the exact date.
Q. You mean you keep no memorandum of these confer
ences? A. That is correct.
Q. And so you don’t know and could not tell the Court
— 8—
as to what date you had a conference with Mr. Leavell in
which he recommended Mrs. Kinslow’s discharge, could
you? A. No, not the exact date.
Q. How many teachers did he have in his school at that
time? A. I would have to go to the record but just an
estimate I would say about fifteen, fourteen or fifteen.
Q. Do you remember what if any other teachers were
not recommended? A. I believe she is the only teacher
from Gainsville. Then we have two other teachers that were
not elected because they were not satisfactory, Glencoe
Johnson and Peggy Woodson.
Q. You say that they were not in the Gainsville School?
A. Glencoe Johnson, I believe, was in the Durrt Avenue
School.
Q. And Mrs. Woodson was in what school? A. I would
have to refer to the record.
Mr. Williams: Let the record show that Mr. Stew
art is investigating from the records and as to his
question.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 7, 8)
55a
Q. Have you satisfied yourself on that now Mr. Stewart?
A. They are looking it up now.
Q. In order to save time while they are looking it up I
will go on. Now then, do you recall whether or not you em
ployed any new teachers for Gainsville School that year?
That is for the ensuing year, 1965-66. A. I am sure I did.
Glencoe Johnson was at the Gainsville School.
Q. And Mrs. Woodson was at which school? A. West
Carver.
Q. Had Mrs. Woodson previously taught at Gainsville
School? A. I don’t believe she did.
—9—
Q. Would you likewise check on that for us? A. Yes.
Q. But you just don’t recall what date you had this con
ference with Mr. Leavell? A. Peggy Woodson just taught
for us one year and she did teach at Gainsville.
Q. And you are investigating whether or not you em
ployed any new teachers at Gainsville? A. Yes.
Q. All right, now Mr. Stewart, were you during 1963-64
operating a racially segregated school system? A. Your
last question?
Q. Were you, during the school year 1963-64, operating a
racially segregated system in Christian County?
Mr. Lynch: Of course, we would want to inter
pose an objection for the sake of the record on the
ground that that would be completely immaterial to
the issues in this lawsuit.
Mr. Williams: And I will state to the record that
we will show it to be relevant on the questions in
which the superintendent is testifying.
Mr. Lynch: Let him go ahead and answer it.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 8, 9)
56a
Mr. Williams: You may go ahead now and answer
that question, Mr. Stewart.
A. All right, the new teachers added to Gainsville this
year was Carrie B. Gore, Mrs. Bobbie Means, no scratch
Mrs. Bobbie Means, Betty Jones, and Thelma Brooks.
Q. Now that you have your record there, how many
teachers did you have in the Gainsville School? A. Fif
teen.
— 10—
Q. For both years, that is 64-65 and 65-66? A. That
was fifteen in 64-65.
Q. Well, how many did you have in 65-66? A. Thirteen.
Q. So that you actually had a reduction in your teaching
force in Gainsville School? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, to go back to my original question, state whether
or not you operated a segregated school system in 63-64
school year? A. Some of our schools were integrated that
year.
Q. Under a plan for desegregation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it a freedom of choice plan for desegregation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was the first year your plan was instituted?
A. No, we had had a plan before. We had started out—I
would have to go back to the records to be sure what year.
We started with the first grade and then the next year we
went to the second, and I believe the next year we went one
through twelve. We started one year at a time and then
we went to all twelve grades. The first year under the free
dom of choice we did not have any Negro pupils to change
schools.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 9, 10)
57a
Q. That was in about 1962 or 1963! A. I would need
the exact record.
Q. Now, do yon recall what year it was that all twelve
grades were desegregated? A. I will get the record for
the date. I know from the tone of questions you are asking
you are trying to say, did we get rid of her because of the
— 11-
beginning of desegregation and it was not. Actually, we
added a teacher to the—
Mr. Williams: Well, I haven’t asked that. I will
ask this question while we are waiting. The reason
I was waiting was I started before and you started
to answer and then the record was brought in and
you never did answer my question.
Q. In the 64-65 school year, did you have any white
teachers in the Gainsville Elementary School? A. No.
Q. In the 65-66 school year did you have any white
teachers in the Gainsville Elementary School? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The 65-66 school year was the first year you began
your faculty desegregation, is that right? A. Let me say
this, the teacher was actually a principal and was a class
room teacher.
Q. Yes, sir. But the 65-66 school year was the first year
you began your faculty desegregation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you assign any Negro teachers to white
schools that year? A. Yes.
Q. How many? A. One. In fact, we just started. We
put one white teacher in the Negro school and one Negro
teacher in the white school.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 10, 11)
58a
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(PP- 11, 12)
Q. And I will ask you whether or not that was action on
your part or if the faculty desegregation was pursuant to a
requirement of the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare? A. Yes.
— 12—
Q. State whether or not you were advised by the Depart
ment of Health, Education and Welfare that you would
have to intensify your efforts later on in obtaining desegre
gation of faculty and staff?
Mr. Lynch: We object on the grounds that it would
be completely hearsay and also that it would be com
pletely irrelevant to the issues of this suit. Now, go
ahead and answer the question.
Mr. Williams: Subject to the objection, go ahead.
A. They just said that we would have to make some start
toward faculty desegregation and as well as I recall nothing
about when or how we would have to take further steps.
Q. You did understand at that time you would be re
quired to take further steps? A. Yes.
Q. And having in mind Mr. Stewart that in the light of
that many of your Negro teachers—Having in mind, Mr.
Stewart, that you would be assigning Negro teachers in
some instances to teach white pupils where this had never
been done before, state whether or not you began to scruti
nize your Negro non-tenure teachers rather carefully to
see— A. No, no, I did not. Let me say this. We did not
scrutinize the Negro teacher any more than we did the
white teacher as far as deciding whether they would be
good teachers and should go on to tenuring contract.
59a
Q. Let me ask you this. I notice this document that you
introduced as exhibit 1 is addressed to Mr. Pierre Jackson
of the Kentucky Human Rights Commission. Will you state
for the record how you happened to be writing this letter?
A. Of course, we have to make reports in Kentucky about
our Negro teachers that are hired or fired or resigned or
whatever might happen to them. Mr. Jackson was a—I
—13—
forget his title, anyway he is in charge of that and we sent
that to him for his information. Now that question about
the year, will it be all right to go back to that again?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
A. Beginning with the school year 1960 and 1961.
Q. You began your grade a year desegregation then in
60 and 61 and how long did that progress? A. Until—one
grade at a time until we opened from one through twelve.
Q. And that was in the 65-66 school year that you opened
one through twelve, is that correct? I believe that is what
I heard the young lady say. A. Well, if she said 65-66, I
believe she is wrong. Let me call her in again. I believe we
did that in 64-65.
Q. Will you let us see that record? Your record when you
desegregated all twelve grades. A. Yes, sir. It was in
64-65. That 65-66 that you were talking about was when we
went further with it.
Q. You desegregated the faculty didn’t you? A. Yes,
sir, and we stopped paying tuition for our students who
had been going to Addax. The year before though, 64-65,
I am certain, and we can verify it.
Q. What was Addax, a Negro high school in an adjoin
ing community? A. Yes.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 1 2 , 13)
60a
Q. And you were paying tuition for Negroes to enroll
there? A. Yes, and we stopped paying tuition and they
—14—
started attending the white high school.
Q. Now, I notice that Mr. Rozzelle Leavell, was the princi
pal of the Gainsville School, was retired at the end of the
64-65 school year, according to this exhibit 1 that you in
troduced here. Was there any special reason for his retire
ment? A. I believe he was sixty-nine. He retired on his
own. Nobody requested him to retire.
Q. Did you at that time and do you now and have you
ever had any Negro principals in schools that were formerly
white schools? A. No.
Q. Have you ever had a Negro principal at a school
wherein there were white teachers on the faculty? A. Yes.
Q. When? A. Well, we had, the last year and in the
summer school the Headstart, the Negro principal and we
had two white teachers working with him—
Q. That was a special program— A. And again this
year in the summer school and the Headstart and this com
ing year we have one already hired and we think we will
have several white teachers to teach under a Negro princi
pal—
Q. On a regular basis? A. Yes, on a regular basis.
Q. And this coming year will be the first year that you
will be on a regular basis? A. Yes, on a regular basis.
Q. With a Negro principal? And that is in a Negro
school, is it not? A. Yes, sir.
—15—
Q. Now, how many white teachers were not re-elected as
not being satisfactory teachers at the end of the 1964-65
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 13, 14, 15)
61a
school year? A. I could not tell you the exact number
without going to the record.
Q. Didn’t you furnish that information to Mr. Pierre
Jackson also? A. He didn’t ask for that, no.
Q. You just made an attempt to explain the number of
Negro teachers who were dropped at the end of that year.
But it is true that you needed less Negro teachers at the
Gainesville Elementary School in the year 1965 than you did
in the previous year, is it not? A. Yes.
Q. You were still on a freedom of choice basis at that
time, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. On that freedom of choice basis, did you have a pre
school registration in the spring to determine how many
children would be assigned or were going to attend school
in the fall? A. We have pre-school registration every year.
It is not too satisfactory because of the beginning students.
Q. When is that registration held? A. It is not the
same every year, usually about in April or May each year.
Q. About the latter part of April you would say? A.
—1 6 -
Yes.
Q. And it is based on that, that you will assign your
teachers or employ teachers for a particular school for the
next year? A. Actually not, no, because there is normally
not enough difference—
Q. But it is true that if for instance you had an average
daily enrollment of the school to justify twenty teachers
and then in the pre-school enrollment it showed that all of
those students were transferring to other schools and you
would probably have an average daily enrollment to justify
only ten the next September. You would drop some of those
wouldn’t you? A. We have not had that situation yet.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 15, 16)
62a
Q. Well, you evidently did have some situation like that
at Gainesville, did you not, since you did have a reduction
in teaching force there, in the two exceptions? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any records as to how many non-tenure
teachers you had in the Gainesville Elementary School at
the end of the 64-65 school year? A. I will have to check
on that.
Q. While she is looking that up Mr. Stewart, have you
ever at any time prior to the notice of discharge that you
gave Mrs. Kinslow, had you ever at any time had her in for
a conference and advised her that her teaching was un
satisfactory or anything like that ? A. I have not. I under
stood—
Q. Well,—
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(PP- 16, 17)
Mr. Lynch: Let him go ahead and answer.
—17—
Mr. Williams: I object to any hearsay.
Mr. Lynch: Well, go ahead and answer and finish
your statement.
A. I understood that she had been so informed.
Q. You understood that from whom, sir? A. From the
principal.
Q. Mr. Leavell? A. Yes, and Mrs. Ervin.
Q. Would it surprise you to know that Mr. Leavell says
he recommended Mrs. Kinslow? A. It certainly would.
Q. It would? You say that he did not? A. Yes.
Q. But you kept no records on it, is that correct? A.
Yes.
Q. Now, had you ever known Mr. Louis Scott? Do you
know Mr. Louis Scott personally? A. Mr. Louis Scott. I
63a
don’t recall him now. I may know him. The name may ring
a bell.
Q. I am referring to Mr. H. Louis Scott, Superintendent
of the Schools down in Franklin County. A. Oh,—
Q. You have never met him have you! A. I have never
met him.
Q. You never heard his voice before his alleged telephone
call to you, is that correct! So, if I had called you up or
someone whose voice you hadn’t heard today had called you
up stating that he was Louis Scott and he actually was not,
you would not know the difference would you? And as a
matter of fact, you could not identify Mr. Scott’s voice to
day, could you? A. I suppose not.
—18—
Q. Now, what is Mrs. Idella Ervin? A. She is retired
now but she was—We called her Supervisor of Teachers.
Q. Is she a Negro or white woman? A. A Negro.
Q. She is still living, is she not? A. Yes.
Q. Does she live here in Hopkinsville? A. Yes.
Q. She was the Negro supervisor that you had? A. Yes.
Q. You were operating with a white supervisor and a
Negro supervisor? A. Yes, they worked together.
Q. But they supervised respectively the white and Negro
teachers, did they not? A. No, no,—
Q. Well, in what respect—
Mr. Lynch: Let him go ahead and answer it.
A. The white supervisor visited all the schools and Mrs.
Ervin went to the schools when she was needed but she did
work more with the Negro schools.
Q. As a matter of fact, the white supervisor was a super
visor and Mrs. Ervin was her assistant in the Negro schools,
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 17, 18)
64a
was she not? A. Yes, but she did work with the other
teachers also.
Q. What did Mrs. Ervin ever supervise without any white
—1 9 -
teacher in assistance? A. Pardon?
Q. What supervision did Mrs. Ervin ever have over any
white teacher? A. Well, when they had their meetings, the
Negro teachers and the white teachers, and they would all
work together. She would work in the office here when they
would come into the office to ask questions about different
things. They went to the schools together sometimes.
Q. Mrs. Ervin did not supervise any white teachers in
the class rooms, did she? A. Well, in the class rooms?
Q. Yes. A. I won’t say no and I won’t say yes, because
I don’t know.
Q. You don’t think so, do you? A. Well,—
Q. You think you had Mrs. Ervin supervising white
teachers by herself in the class room? A. I say I don’t
know. If they were in the same schools she might have went
in and observed the teaching because they all thought a lot
of Mrs. Ervin because she was a pretty good person to work
with and everything. I won’t say that she didn’t.
Q. Do you have a record as to the exact date that you
hired Mrs. Carrie B. Gore, Miss Betty Jones and Miss
Thelma Brooks, the new teachers you say you hired for
the Gainesville School for the 65-66 school year? A. I will
have to get the record.
Q. If you could do it, I would also be grateful if you
— 20—
could tell me how many non-tenure white teachers were
discharged because their teaching was not satisfactory at
the end of the 1964-65 school year. A. Of course, our rec
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 18, 19, 20)
65a
ords won’t show all that left because they were unsatis
factory because sometimes they resign on their own. The
ones that were not on continuing contract, that was your
question wasn’t it?
Q. Well, yes. If you can tell me how many white teachers
were discharged. A. Well, you asked me awhile ago about
how many teachers were on continuing contract at Gains-
ville didn’t you?
Q. Yes, I did ask you that. A. All right. Carrie Gore
was a new teacher. She wasn’t. Myrtle Kindrix wasn’t.
Virginia Ponderix wasn’t. James Steakly wasn’t. Annie L.
Strickland wasn’t. Lillian Odom wasn’t. Martha D. Frank
lin wasn’t. Bobbie Means wasn’t. Ruth L. Bright wasn’t.
Gladys Whitney wasn’t. Betty H. Brooks was. Gleneola
Johnson wasn’t. Theresa Kinslow wasn’t and Lucille Leav-
ell wasn’t. Rosie James was.
Q. Well, now wait a minute. You named that Carrie Gore
was not a new teacher then in 1965-66. You had her in 64-65,
didn’t yon? A. Yes.
Q. Did you have Betty Jones in 64-65? A. No.
Q. Are you sure you didn’t, sir? A. Not on this list.
Q. For 1964-65? A. No.
— 21—
Q. Oh, let me ask you this then. Was Mrs. Betty Jones
in the system in 64-65 and in a school other than Gainsville ?
A. I don’t see her on the list. Just a minute, I want to be
sure.
Q. You were not able to ascertain whether Mrs. Betty
Jones was in the system or not, were you Mr. Stewart, in
the 64-65 school year? A. I don’t see her name.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 20, 21)
66a
Q. Let me ask you this. How many Negro schools did you
have that year? A. Lafayette, Gainsville, Durrts, and
Carver. That is four is it not?
Q. Yes. And these were all elementary schools! A. Yes.
Q. Where is Addax High School? A. Addax?
Q. Yes, where is it located? A. It is located in Hopkins
ville.
Q, Is this a county school system we are dealing with
here? A. Yes.
Q. You are the superintendent of the county schools? A.
Yes.
Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Stewart. Were any of the
teachers that you let go at the end of the 64-65 school year
residents of Kentucky, any of these three Negro teachers?
A. Really, I don’t know. That didn’t enter into it so I just
don’t know.
Q. It didn’t enter into it at all that all three of these
teachers were residents of Tennessee rather than Kentucky?
— 22—
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you keep any records on where your teachers come
from? A. Well, of course, I imagine they are on their
record and the application with everything else.
Q. Can you obtain within a short period of time and
furnish to us the figures regarding the student enrollment
at Gainsville Elementary School in the 1964-65 school year
and in the 1965-66 school year? A. I will get the enroll
ment for Gainsville. What year did you say?
Q. 63-64, 64-65, and 65-66. I believe you are going back
to answer the question as to when you desegregated all
twelve grades in the county school system here. A. Yes,
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(PP- 21, 22)
67a
and all twelve grades became—that was July 15, 1963 when
we started that. That is when the board entered it into the
records.
Q. Yes, sir. When did it actually go into effect ? A. That
following fall, and this was July 15, 1963,
Q. I t went into effect in September 1963, the 63-64 school
year? A. Yes, sir. This is taken from the Minutes.
Q. After you—let me see that letter—Mr. Stewart, I
will hand you a letter addressed to Mrs. Kinslow and dated
May 13, 1965, which proports to be signed by you and ask
you if that is a letter which you mailed to Mrs. Kinslow
under your signature and if you will file this as exhibit 2
to your testimony? A. Yes, sir.
—23—
(The above mentioned letter was marked exhibit
2 for identification and filed in evidence.)
Q. Mr. Stewart, do you recall Mrs. Kinslow seeking a
consultation with you after receipt of that letter? A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember the substance of the conversation
between the two of you in that conference? A. I think the
substance of it, I think so.
Q. Will you state what the substance of it was? A. She
questioned the reasons for letting her go and she told me at
that time that she had not been informed that she was not
giving satisfactory service.
Q. And state whether or not that it is true that you did
not give her at that time any specific reasons for her dis
charge? A. We gave her the reason that she was not giv
ing satisfactory work.
Q. You stated that to Mrs. Kinslow at that time? A.
Yes.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 22, 23)
68a
Q. Do yon recall that specific thing, Mr. Stewart? Do
yon deny that you refused at that time to give her any
reason at all for her discharge and stated that you would
let her know a little later on. Do you deny that, sir? A.
Yes.
Q. Well, when she raised the question about her per
formance, did you arrange for any conference between her
and Mr. Leavell, her principal, whom you said had recom
mended her discharge? A. No, I did not.
Q. Do you have those figures now? A. 1963-64, 478;
1964-65, 472; 1965-66, 368.
— 24—
Q. Now, do you know where those Negro pupils went
to, those who left Gainsville in the 65-66 school year, where
did they register, Mr. Stewart? A. Well, some of them
went to Sinking Forks School.
Q. Is that a white school? A. Yes.
Q. What was the name of that school ? A. Sinking Forks
School.
Q. About how many of them do you estimate went there?
A. I would say about twenty-four or twenty-five.
Q. And where would you say the rest of them went? A.
I can’t account for where all of them went.
Q. In other words, they may have gone to various other
schools? A. A few went to Highland, where I think they
have about eight or ten over there. And some just probably
moved out, I don’t know.
Q. There wouldn’t have been that many that just moved
out suddenly that year would they? A. I doubt it. Some
of them went to Sinking Fork and some to Highland.
Q. What other white schools would you say might have
been recipients of these students? A. Well, I think they
are probably the only two.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 23, 24)
69a
Q. Let me ask you this. Did you assign any Negro teach
ers in the Sinking Fork School? A. I did not.
Q. Did you employ any Negro teachers in the Highland
School? A. I did not.
—25—
Q. As a matter of fact, even today you don’t have a single
Negro teacher in a white school, as of now, no Negro teacher
has taught a white child in this county except for the Head
start, that is correct isn’t it? A. As a regular teacher, no.
Q. And isn’t it true that this letter that you wrote to
Mr. Pierre Jackson was in response to an inquiry because
of the large number of Negro teachers you discharged at
the end of the 64-65 year pursuant to the faculty desegre
gation coming into effect in the 65-66 school year? Isn’t
that true, Mr. Stewart? A. Say that again.
Q. I said wasn’t it pursuant to an inquiry from the
Human Rights Commission regarding the number of Negro
teachers you suddenly dropped in this system including
some of the principals out there? A. There wasn’t a prin
cipal in there.
Q. Wasn’t Mr. Leavell a principal out there? A. Not
that we fired. He just resigned.
Q. Yes, sir. How many other principals are there among
those who resigned? A. There were not any of them old
enough to resign.
Q. How many people named on that letter, Mr. Stewart,
are principals? Principals in the 64-65 school year? A.
Rozzelle Leavell is the only one and he resigned, he was
sixty-nine.
Q. He was sixty-nine? A. Yes.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 24, 25)
70a
Q. What is your regular age to retire? A. Well, we have
them to retire at sixty-two through sixty-nine and seventy.
Seventy is the compulsory retirement age.
—26—
Q, So he would not have been required to resign until
the end of the end of the 65-66 school year? A. He was
not required to retire. He resigned on his own free will.
Q. He just resigned on his own free will? A. Yes, that
is right. In fact, there were none of those who retired
asked to retire.
Q. Let me ask you this. In the 64-65 school year and
prior to that—
Interruption: Telephone call to Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Williams: I would object to talking with any
supervisor or any supervisor of Mrs. Wades attempt
ing to talk with you and her about her testimony
here on or during the course of this deposition some
one calling in which Counsel discussed what he ex
pected Mrs. Wade to testify and then Mrs. Wade was
called. I would like the record here to show that.
Mr. Lynch: Let the record also show that Mrs.
Wade was not present at the time this conversation
was held with another person. Now go ahead.
Mr. Williams: I didn’t make that clear that after
the conversation between Mr. Lynch and the other
person in which Mr. Lynch discussed what he wished
Mrs. Wade to testify to then the telephone call was
referred to Mrs. Wade.
Mr. Lynch: Let the record show that I didn’t tell
anybody what I wished Mrs. Wade to testify to.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 25, 26)
71a
Mr. Williams: Then I would like to go into more
detail, Counsel.
Mr. Lynch: Lets get this deposition out of the
way first then.
A. You asked the question awhile ago that I have the an
swer to now about if there were any white teachers that
—27—
were discharged at the same time, and there were two,
Emogene Ratcliff and Norma C. Cherry.
Q. Two white teachers were discharged for unsatisfac
tory teaching? A. Yes.
Q. Does that show in your Minutes? A. Yes.
Q. Sir? A. The Minutes show that these are the teach
ers who will not be back next year.
Q. It does not show that these teachers were discharged
for unsatisfactory— A. That was the reason.
Q. Well, as a matter of fact then you keep no records,
no written records, of when teachers are discharged because
their teaching is unsatisfactory? You keep no written rec
ords of it, do you? A. Well, we keep a record of when
they are discharged.
Q. Ordinarily then in your Minute entry and in this in
stance your Minute entry does not reflect that these teachers
were discharged because of their unsatisfactory work, do
they? A. No.
Q. So, the only records that you have of any teachers
being discharged for unsatisfactory teaching is this letter
that you wrote to the Human Rights Commission, the State
Human Rights Commission, that is correct isn’t it? A.
Yes.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 26, 27)
72a
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 28, 29)
—28—
Q. Regarding the Negro teachers only, that is correct
isn’t it! A. Yes.
Q. Now, do yon have in your record a letter of inquiry
that you received from Mr. Jackson to which you made
this response? A. I don’t think it was in a letter, I think
it was a telephone conversation.
Q. In other words, he called you up and asked you to
write him a letter— A. He asked me about it and I told
him I would write him a letter. He didn’t send me a letter.
Q. Did he ask you why you were losing so many Negro
teachers that year, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. Now then, Mr. Stewart, how many grades did you have
in the Gainsville School in the 64-65 school year and prior
to that? A. One through eight.
Q. How many grades did you have in that school in the
65-66 year? A. One through eight.
Q. You continued your grades one through eight, so
then the loss of enrollment was actually a loss in enrollment
of students rather than grades, wasn’t it? A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you contemplate reducing the number of
grades in the Gainsville Elementary School for the year
65-66? A. No.
Q. You never contemplated that at any time, did you?
A. No.
—29—
Q. Now, Mrs. Elizabeth Wade was an elementary super
visor in your school system, wasn’t she? A. Yes.
Q. Does she remain so? A. Yes.
Q. Is she still an elementary supervisor? A. Yes.
73a
Q. Was she the white supervisor with whom you say
Mrs. Idella Ervin Worked? A. Yes.
Q. How long had Mrs. Wade been a supervisor? A.
Since 1956, I believe.
Q. Since 1956 and prior to that had she been a teacher?
A. Yes.
Q. For how many years? A. I don’t know. I wasn’t
in the superintendent’s office prior to that.
Q. Are you familiar with Mrs. Wade’s handwriting? A.
I am not a good expert on handwriting.
Q. Well, I will hand you a document which has been
marked as exhibit 1-A before the Court in this case and ask
you if that proports to be a letter in Mrs. Wade’s own
handwriting?
Mr. Lynch: We object to that on the basis of two
grounds, number one, the Court has sustained an
objection to that letter because of the date it bears,
and number two, because this gentleman has not qual
ified as an expert and has not said that he would
recognize this to be the handwriting of Mrs. Wade.
—30—
Q. I will ask you now, Mr. Stewart, if you do recognize
Mrs. Wade’s handwriting there on that letter? A. I
couldn’t say that I do.
Q. How long have you been a superintendent here, sir?
A. Since 1956.
Q. And you have been working with Mrs. Wade on a
daily basis since 1956? A. Yes.
Q. And you don’t recognize her handwriting? A. I
couldn’t swear that that is her handwriting.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 29, 30)
74a
Q. Do you mean to tell me that as your elementary super
visor, doesn’t she work closely with you, Mr. Stewart?
Mr. Lynch: We object—
A. You are talking about handwriting not Mrs. Wade.
Q. Well, let me ask you whether Mrs. Wade makes signed
reports to you! A. When she does, most of the time it is
typed.
Q. She doesn’t sign her reports? A. Well, yes.
Q. How frequently? Wouldn’t you say that you do have
a chance to look at Mrs. Wade’s handwriting or that you do
look at Mrs. Wade’s handwriting practically every day in
this office? A. Let me say that usually with Mrs. Wade
when she hands me a report I consider it hers and I don’t
pay too much attention to her signature.
Q. Well, I will ask you this. Did Mrs. Wade discuss this
request of Mrs. Kinslow’s with you before she responded
to Mrs. Kinslow’s request for a recommendation back in
March? A. I can’t recall if she did. I have heard some
thing about it since but I can’t recall.
—31—
Q. But you did know that Mrs. Wade had written a letter
of recommendation for her, didn’t you? A. I know that
she has told me that she did.
Q. Now then, how many times did you ever visit Mrs.
Kinslow’s class room when she was teaching out here? A.
Well, as I have said earlier, I never stayed in her class
room long, I can’t say how many times, I have been by her
room.
Q. Would it be correct then to say that you have never
been in her class room more than once or twice? A. I
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 30, 31)
75a
wouldn’t say that. I don’t know how many times I have
been in her class room.
Q. How many teachers do you have in your school sys
tem? A. About two hundred and forty at that time.
Q. Did you visit all of their class rooms? A. No, not
at that time, no. I ’m saying that out there at Gainsville,
you go out there—if you go out there and Mr. Leavell is
there he usually carried you around to all the class rooms.
Q. How many schools do you have in your school system?
A. Twelve.
Q. A total of how many pupils? A. At that time about
six thousand.
Q. About how many times a year would you say you
would visit a single school in the school system? A. Well,
I really never stopped to think about how many. If there is
some reason for me to go, or if some of these that are closer
to town such as Gainsville, I go more often than some of
—32—
the others.
Q. There would be some schools that you would not
visit at all, wouldn’t there ? A. Oh, no. I visit every school
during the year.
Q. Would you say you visited Gainsville School to go in
the class rooms more than once or twice a year? A. I would
say I went in the class rooms, just to go in for a few min
utes, not to sit down and observe more than twice a year.
I really don’t remember, but I know that every time I went
out there and talked with Mr. Leavell we went through.
Q. But it was not on the basis of your visit to a class
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 31, 32)
76a
room, was it? A. Not on the basis of sitting down and
supervising.
Q. Now, then, in what respect was Mrs. Kinslow’s teach
ing unsatisfactory? A. Well, just say she was not getting
the job done.
Q. Well, what do you mean by that? In what respect was
her teaching unsatisfactory, Mr. Stewart? What objective
criteria did you use. A. I based my decision on the report
of Mrs. Ervin and Mr. Leavell.
Q. So that you did not discuss, and did not discuss with
Mrs. Kinslow any particular respect in which her teaching
was not satisfactory? A. Not before she was notified.
Q. After she was notified, what did you tell her that was
unsatisfactory about her teaching? A. I didn’t spell it
out.
Q. And right now you cannot spell out a single thing
— 33—
that you know of or have learned that renders Mrs. Kins
low’s teaching unsatisfactory, can you? You can’t spell it
out, can you? A. I personally, base my opinion on what
they said.
Q. All right, sir.
Mr. Williams: I believe that is all.
Re-direct Examination by Mr. Lynch:
Q. Mr. Stewart, except for the fact that this was asked
of you on cross examination I would not have the right to
bring it up but the way was paved under cross examination,
state whether or not you discussed this so called recommen
dation that is proportedly written by Mrs. Wade at some
time after it was proportedly given?
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 32, 33)
77a
Mr. Williams: Well, in the first place, I object to
leading questions and secondly, to any discussion as
to the content of any discussion between them.
Mr. Lynch: Now this was raised on cross examina
tion so proceed.
Mr. Williams: I didn’t open it though.
Mr. Lynch: Go ahead.
A. It has been discussed recently.
Q. Did you know anything about it having been given
before it was given? A. I don’t believe that it was dis
cussed before.
Q. All right, now you say it was discussed recently—
Mr. Williams: I want the record to show that
Mr. Stewart paused for a long time, many seconds,
before giving his last answer.
—34—
Q. Now, Mr. Stewart, without quoting words and without
testifying to hearsay, state what this recommendation was
purportedly given for?
Mr. Williams: That is objected to as being abso
lutely incompetent.
Mr. Lynch: Well, you are subject to your excep
tion. Go ahead and—
Mr. Williams: That is objected to as being in
competent because he can’t possibly know that.
Mr. Lynch: All right.
Mr. Williams: It would be foolish for him to try
to testify regarding the intent of something that
somebody else did.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 33, 34)
78a
Q. According to the reasons related to you by Mrs. Wade,
for what purpose was this recommendation given? Was it
for a teaching or a non-teaching position?
Mr. Williams: That is objected to as being lead
ing and, also, Counsel is not only leading him now
but he sat in here in a telephone conversation which
lasted five minutes telling someone why he wanted
Mrs. Wade to testify as he is now attempting to get
this superintendent to testify.
Mr. Lynch: Now that that argument has been
made, go ahead with your answer.
A. Mrs. Wade told me that she thought it was for some
position other than teaching.
Mr. Williams: This is objected to as being highly
incompetent.
Mr. Lynch: That is all.
—35—
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Williams:
Q. Mr. Stewart, you say that you don’t believe that you
knew about Mrs. Wade writing this letter at the time she
wrote it, is that right ? A. Yes.
Q. Are you positive? A. Yes, I ’m fairly positive.
Q. You think then that at the time— A. Sometimes
when letters come in asking for recommendations, and I
don’t know if this was a letter or a telephone conversation,
but when they do and it is a letter that comes in and she
knows more about the situation than I do, I ask her to
write the recommendation and I don’t discuss with her
what she writes.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 34, 35)
Q. So that ordinarily you don’t interfere with her recom
mendations, and at the time she wrote this she had not
probably had any consultation with you whatever, had she ?
A. As I say, I don’t recall.
Q. You doubt seriously that you had had any consulta
tion with her? If she had had any consultation with you
you would probably not have let her write it, would you?
A. I say this, that I don’t try to tell people what to do in
things that don’t concern me.
Q. Yes, sir, but if she had had a consultation with you
about this letter you probably would not have permitted
her to write it. A. Well, if she had consulted with me—
Mr. Lynch: We object to the probabilities as
speculative testimony.
— 36—
A. If she had told me she was going to write this in regard
to some work other than teaching, I would not have said
anything about it, no, because—
Q. Well, I didn’t ask you what she was writing it in re
gard to— A. Well, that was the reason she would have
discuss it—
Q. If she had told you that she was going— A. As far
as I know, the letter there, as far as her character and
everything I would agree to that.
Q. Yes, sir. But suppose there was no discussion about,
suppose Mr. Lynch hadn’t put the germ in your mind about
some other work, and the question just came up in thesq
circumstances you wouldn’t have let her write it, would
you? A. If she came in here and ask me about writing a
letter for a teaching position and if she had ask me, I think
I would have suggested that she didn’t.
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 35, 36)
80a
Q. Sir? A. I would have suggested that she would not
recommend her.
Q. And you would have done that because you had al
ready told the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission
that you discharged this Negro teacher for not performing
satisfactory teaching. A. No, not for that reason.
Q. And, as a matter of fact, the reason you are here today
testifying is to cover your skirts, so to speak, Mr. Stewart?
A. No, it is not.
Q. I see.
—37—
Mr. Williams: O.K.
Mr. Lynch: That is all.
Mr. Lynch: Now, as a notation and not as part of
this deposition but let the record reflect the telephone
conversation which I received was from a person who
purported to be Mrs. Wade’s attorney and who in
formed me that he had in turn had instructed Mrs.
Wade not to give her deposition inasmuch as she was
not on notice, so I can not take her deposition.
Mr. Williams: She was not on what?
Mr. Lynch: She was not on notice, so I can not
force her deposition and I can not take her deposition.
F u r t h e r t h i s d e p o n e n t s a it h n o t .
Deposition of T. K. Stewart, August 19, 1966
(pp. 36, 37)
81a
Deposition of Rozzelle Leavell, August 19, 1966
A p p e a r a n c e s :
For the Plaintiffs:
H on . A von W illiam s , J r.
Looby & Williams
Attorneys at Law
McClellan-Looby Building
Charlotte At Fourth
Nashville, Tennessee
For the Defendants:
H on . P at B. L y n ch
Lynch & Lynch
Attorneys at Law
Winchester, Tennessee
The deposition of R ozzelle L eavell, taken by notice at
914 East 1st Street in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, beginning
at 5:00 P.M. on August 19, 1966, to be used as evidence
on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the above styled case.
All formalities as to notice, caption and certificate are
waived. All objections as to relevancy, competency, and
materiality, and all other objections, excepting as to the
frame of the question, are reserved for the hearing.
It is agreed that, since the Court Reporter taking the
deposition is not a Kentucky Notary, the oath may be
waived but that the Court Reporter may sign the name
of the witness to the deposition when the same shall
have been transcribed.
82a
R ozzelle L eavell, b e in g f ir s t d u ly sw o rn in , te s tif ied as
fo llo w s :
Direct Examination by Mr. Williams-.
Q. What is your address here? A. 914 East 1st Street.
Q. This is Mr. Rozzelle Leavell? A. That is right.
Q. Will you spell your name for the benefit of the court
reporter? A. R o z z e l l e L e a v e l l . We prounonce it
as Leavel in Kentucky and leave the L alone.
Q. Mr. Leavell, where do you live? A. In Hopkinsville,
Kentucky, at 914 East 1st Street.
Q. How long have you lived here in Hopkinsville? A.
Seventy years.
Q. That is your entire life? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your occupation? A. Well, I taught school
for forty-three years. I was principal out there, the head
teacher for the eight grades and became principal. I was
out there thirty years.
Q. Of what school? A. Gainsville Elementary School.
Q. And that was one of the schools in the Christian
County School System here? A. Yes.
Q. And you say you were principal out there for thirty
—2—
years? A. In Kentucky, you must have eight teachers in
the schools to become principal, less than eight teachers
you become the head teacher. I was the head teacher and
principal out there for thirty years.
Q. What is your educational and professional back
ground? A. Well, I finished Tuskegee Institute in 1915,
and I have been around some of the smaller schools in
Deposition of Rozzelle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(pp. 1, 2)
—1—
83a
Kentucky. I was up at Greenville but I did not complete
and get a degree but it did not lessen my school career.
Q. Now then, was Mrs. Theresa Kinslow a teacher under
your supervision? A. She was.
Q. Was that during the school year 63-64 and 64-65,
during those two years? A. I was of the opinion that
she had been there three years but it was two, is that right?
I was thinking it was three years.
Q. Now, in your supervision of Mrs. Kinslow will you
state for the record what you found to be the quality of
her performance as a teacher? A. In the case of our
schools we had several teachers brought from Tennessee
State University over to Gainsville and in that number
Mrs. Kinslow came and I found her to be an excellent
teacher. She was very cooperative and many times in
special activities, such as the Physical, I would ask her to
do those extra things that she didn’t have to do and what
ever I requested her to do, she did it. And as far as Mrs.
Kinslow in my book, she is excellent, an excellent person.
She has high morals, she is cooperative, and she made a
good job at Gainsville.
—3—
Q. Did she perform her teaching duties ably? A. I
thought so far as my ability was a—
Q. And would that be true in regard to her academic
teaching? A. Well, we had here in our school—our schools
were visited by the supervisor, Mrs. Wade, and, of course,
they had five or six books to complete and that wTas a new
feature in the schools, and we had three primary teachers
and I didn’t see any perturbance in the make-up of the
organization in the three rooms. They all carried out
Deposition of Roszelle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(pp. 2, 3)
84a
their requests and orders as far as the school system is
concerned, as far as my knowledge of it.
Q. Now, is it customary in the school system, Mr. Leavell,
for the principals to recommend the retention or the dis
charge of the teachers? A. Of late in Kentucky, in the
last two or three years, in our schools, the Negro schools,
we have had more voice than we did have previously.
Q. Did you recommend Mrs. Kinslow’s retention in the
school system? A. Well, as far as I was concerned, I
wasn’t asked.
Q. You never had a conference with Mr. Stewart or Mrs.
Wade? A. No. I was of the opinion that they fired Mrs.
Kinslow and another lady down there.
Q. Would that have been Mrs. Glencola Johnson? A.
I was of the opinion that they were let go because of here
in Kentucky, the integration of the schools—Many of the
schools that they closed—
—4—
Mr. Lynch: We want to object to his impressions
or understandings.
Mr. Williams: All right, subject to his objection,
go ahead and tell what you were going to tell.
A. During that time they, in other places, closed down
schools for our people and one down here at Crofton that
was closed up and they had two teachers that they had to
place somewhere and I was of the opinion that it was
done because they were out of state, that would have been
the easiest.
Q. Now, lets get this clear, Mr. Leavell. I believe you
are a Negro, are you not? A. Yes.
Q. And the superintendent of the school system is a
Deposition of ttozselle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(pp. 3, 4)
85a
Deposition of Roszelle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(pp. 4, 5)
white person, Mr. Stewart? A. Yes.
Q. Prior to the 1965-66 school year, did they have any
desegregation of teachers at all in this county? Were all
the teachers segregated? A. I don’t think so. I think
last year, that was the first year—
Q. No, it was the 65-66 school year that they started.
And I believe they also had a freedom of choice school
desegregation.
Mr. Lynch: We object to framing the questions.
Q. Now, you have stated they closed the Negro school
and transferred two Negro teachers to the Gainsville
School and you believe they let Mrs. Johnson and Mrs.
Kinslow go because they were out of state and they had
to have somewhere to put these other two teachers?
—5—
Mr. Lynch: We object to framing the question
and the fact that it demands a conclusion.
Q. Do you know whether or not it is true at the pre
school registration at the end of the 64-65 school year that
it was disclosed that there would be a loss of enrollment
over at the Gainsville School?
Mr. Lynch: Objection to framing the question.
A. Well, I don’t think I could answer that because I wasn’t
there the next year. They placed another principal and I
wouldn’t know.
Q. You retired at the end of the 64-65 school year? A.
That’s right.
86a
Q. I understand that you did not retire because of pres
sure, is that right? A. No, as far as my relationship,
I thought they were tops. As far as my relationship with
the administration of it.
Q. Well, Mr. Leavell, have you ever at any time said
to the principal or any supervisor that Mrs. Kinslow’s
performance as a teacher was unsatisfactory? A. No, I
haven’t.
Q. Have you ever at any time given any report on her—
A. It may have been—I want to be fair. The first year
that was 1963-64, I came to Mrs. Kinslow room and we
discussed making good and I suggested to her the things
that I would do if I were to stay there. I remember once
I was a state teacher. You know how it is when you have
five substitute teachers and the substitutes are bad and
somebody wakes up one morning and feel that they are
feeling bad and call you, and that is the only time I
have ever said anything to Mrs. Kinslow. I don’t think
—6—
she ever did it anymore.
Q. You mean that she did not call you until the morn
ing and tell you about it. A. That’s right.
Q. Did that happen on one occasion or two? A. That
is common with a lot of the teachers but that is the only
time I ever had anything to say to her and from then on—
Q. And that was during her first year? A. Yes. And
she had a beautiful room, she brought things from Nash
ville or somewhere, you know, teaching aids, and she kept
a beautiful room. As far as the relation between she and
myself and the school, she was very cooperative.
Q. And it is your testimony that you have never con
veyed any recommendation to the superintendent or to
any supervisor—
Deposition of Roszelle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(pp. 5, 6)
87a
Mr. Lynch: We object to framing the question.
Q. With regard to her performance with her pupils,
did they seem to be performing satisfactorily? A. Yes,
very excellent.
Q. In your opinion, she was an able teacher?
Mr. Lynch: We object to framing the question.
A. I was surprised—I was of the opinion that she was
working.
Q. You were of the opinion that she had wrork down
in Tennessee? A. I was surprised that she did not have
work. Nashville consumed several of the teachers that
taught at Gainsville.
—7—
Q. Do you know Mrs. Elizabeth Wade? A. I do.
Q. Was she the supervisor in the city school system?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did she visit your school and supervise the teachers
at Gainsville? A. She came occasionally.
Q. Did she seem likewise to approve of Mrs. Kinslow’s
work?
Mr. Lynch: We object to what she said.
Q. Insofar as your consultation with Mrs. Wade was
concerned, were you aware that she was likewise satisfied
with Mrs. Kinslow’s—- A. That’s what I thought, that’s
the way I accepted it. ;
Q. Do you know of any reason why Mrs. Kinslow would
have been dropped other than the desegregation of the
Deposition of liozselle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(pp. 6, 7)
88a
faculty in the Christian County Schools? A. I don’t see
where it would have been possible.
Q. Then, it is your opinion that it was the desegrega
tion of the faculty that caused that, is it?
Mr. Lynch: We object to the framing of the
question and the conclusion—
A. Now, the faculty wasn’t—let’s see—these other two
people were of my race.
Q. Yes, but their schools were closed as a result of—
oh, I see, in your opinion it was the desegregation, the
freedom of choice and the closure of the Negro schools.
A. That’s right.
Deposition of Rosselle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(pp. 7, 8)
Mr. Lynch: We object to the framing of the ques
tion.
—8—
A, There was no feeling in that whatsoever. As far as
my insight would allow. It was just a matter of you
know—
Q. There were no feelings with regard to whom? A.
On the part of the white administration or on the part
of we people at Gainsville. As we saw it, it was a matter
of making room for some teachers who had tenure.
Q. At what school was that? A. Crofton Elementary
School.
Q. Let me ask you whether or not you have had any
correspondence either by way of your writing or by way
of receiving a letter from Mr. H. Louis Scott, Super
intendent of Schools down in Franklin County? A. Yes,
I have.
89a
Q. When was that? A. I don’t know, but I filled out
an application and sent it back to this gentleman.
Q. An application for Mrs. Kinslow? A. He sent me
a blank to fill out relative to Mrs. Kinslow.
Q. As her former principal? A. Yes.
Q. And this was pursuant—state whether or not this
was pursuant to her having given you as a recommenda
tion on the application blank. A. He called me and I
think my wife answered.
Q. All right, now on that application that you filled
out and mailed in to Mr. Scott, did you give Mrs. Kinslow
a good or bad recommendation? A. As far as my vocab
ulary is concerned—
Q. What kind of recommendation did you give her?
—9—
Mr. Lynch: The witness will speak for himself.
A. I gave her a good one.
Q. Now, did you say that he called you subsequently
to that? A. He called and asked for me and I was out
and my wife told him I was out.
Q. Someone by the name of H. Louis Scott had called
and asked for you? You have so been advised by your wife?
A. I was of the opinion that she had been put in a school
because we spoke as well as words to the gentleman.
Q. You spoke as well as you had words to the gentle
man? A. Yes.
Q. But you never did return the phone call or talk with
him by telephone, did you? A. No, my wife spoke to
him and he asked for me and she spoke to him about
the young lady.
Deposition of Rosselle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(pp. 8, 9)
90a
Q. Do you recall how long ago it was that you received
this recommendation blank and returned it to Mr. Scott?
A. I don’t remember if it was in June or about the time
they usually send these out.
Q. Of last year? A. I think it was this year. I re
ceived one from Texas for Mrs. Means and I sent them
both back at the same time.
Q. You think it was June of 1966? A. Something like
that.
Q. You don’t remember receiving one in June of 1965?
A. I don’t know. In the past two years I have been having
quite a bit of that. I don’t keep a record of it.
Q. But you do know that any time you have sent in a
— 10-
recommendation for Mrs. Kinslow that it has been good,
don’t you? A. I think Mrs. Kinslow is a very fine per
son and she has given this town her moral support.
Q. And is she a fine teacher also? A. I think so. That
is my impression.
Q. Well, in your opinion are you able to judge whether
based on your experience as an educator, are you able to
judge whether a teacher is excellent or not? A. Well, I
had forty-three years of it. I was principal at the elemen
tary school here in Hopkinsville for three years, I taught
manual training at the high school up there for nine years,
and I was out at Gainsville for thirty years. My contacts in
Hopkinsville have been with the very best people with
both races. I can get anything I want around here.
Mr. Williams: Very well. Thank you, Mr. Leavell.
Deposition of Ro&zelle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(pp. 9, 10)
91a
Cross Examination by Mr. Lynch:
Q. Mr. Leavell, how old did you say you are now, sir?
A. Seventy.
Q. Seventy years old. A. I had to come out didn’t I?
Q. Well, you have already answered the very nest ques
tion I was going to ask you. You have a seventy year
compulsory retirement age in Kentucky, do you not!
A. Yes.
Q. And nobody asked you to retire, nobody dismissed
— 11—
you, did they? A. The editor of the paper wanted to
know if they did. They gave me a wonderful write-up in
the paper of all my accomplishments. They didn’t do it
all in one paper, they said there would be some more
in tomorrows edition. My relation with my white brothers
here are excellent.
Q. All right, then the answer to my question would be
that no one asked you to resign or retire, did they? You
did that because of the compulsory retirement age, didn’t
you? A. I was sixty-nine and would be seventy in Feb
ruary, and I just took advantage of it.
Q. And everybody hated to give you up, didn’t they?
A. They gave me a nice present over at the office and
a dinner.
Q. How long have yon been working with Mr. Stewart,
Mr. Leavell? A. Mr. Stewart came in and came out there
and requested me to work with him. I was very glad to
know that he wanted me with him, and I retired last year,
so I was with him all the time with the exception of last
year.
Q. What is the entire term of his tenure and how long
Deposition of Rozzelle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(pp. 10, 11)
92a
has he been there? A. He has been there quite awhile.
The papers will be after him, too.
Q. Have you known him for years? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was your relationship with his close and harmonious?
A. Very close and harmonious. He was principal down at
Sinking Forks at first.
Q. Do you regard him as being a man of truthfulness
— 12—
and good character and—
Mr. Williams: We object to this as being irrele
vant and incompetent.
A. With me, he has been all right. But you know some
times the average fellow can turn the vocabulary around
to suit the situation.
Q. Do you know of anything in his background that is
derogatory toward his reputation of truthfulness and
veracity?
Mr. Williams: We object to this as being incom
petent.
A. As far as a white man and a Negro, my relationship
with him, you know I would be on the inside.
Q. Have they been good? A. I would have some kind
feelings for Mr. Stewart. He has been nice to me.
Q. And you say, Mr. Leavell, that during the last sev
eral years that it has been the policy of the schools to
ask the principals to make recommendations as to the
teachers they want to retain and those they do not want
to retain? A. Do you want me to tell you the truth on
that?
Deposition of Rosselle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(pp. 11, 12)
93a
Q. Sure. I want you to tell the truth on everything.
A. Prior to two years ago the administration placed the
teachers they wanted placed and I tried to go along. They
called me in and I tried to go along.
Q. Now, for the last two years you say that they have
asked you for recommendations as to who you would
retain and who you would discharge, is that right! A.
Yes, sir. I had the privilege—a teacher who resigned that
did not cooperate as she should. They would remove her.
Nothing was said about it. I had about two like that in
—13—
my thirty or forty years experience.
Q. And did they go along with your recommendation!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, then the teachers that you retained and
the teachers that you discharged were normally your
recommendations weren’t they! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, when did you first learn that—I believe you
said that you did not suggest to Mr. Stewart that Mrs.
Kinslow be dismissed. You didn’t suggest that? A. No,
sir.
Q. Did you have any conversations with him that would
have led to that! You say that they have, for the last
two years, been abiding by your recommendations? A.
Well, up at that school—all through the years I told them
what I wanted and whatever I wanted you know how to
go about getting it.
Q. And they would do it? A. And they would do it.
Q. Now, when Mrs. Kinslow was not retained did you
object to it? A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Well, you say you always got what you wanted how
do you explain the fact that you— A. I will be frank with
Deposition of Rosselle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(pp. 12, 13)
94a
you. When the . board let them go, I was through with
them. I didn’t ask them any questions at all.
Q. But now if I understood it, you said for at least
the last two years they would call you in, and you would
have a conference, and you would make reeommenda-
—14—
tions, and they would ask you who you wanted to keep
and who you wanted to let go, and you said they co
operated with you. A. Well, we never did—in my case,
well, since all this came up that we just brought in—
Q. Well, how do you account for the fact that Mrs.
Kinslow was let go if that was not in keeping with your
desires'? A. Well, I was of the opinion, as I first stated,
that that was because she lived in Tennessee. We had
brought—there was a shortage of teachers in Kentucky
and a lady came here—what’s that lady’s name down at
Providence—she came here from Nashville and my neigh
bor asked me if I would recommend her and I did and
the shortage of teachers came about and this woman was
a pillar of the church and she recommended several people
down at the Tennessee State University and they called
me and they were called, they were needed, and they were
given jobs here and since then Nashville has given employ-
mnt to—all of them wanted to get in there, and there was
a girl, I forget her name—
Q. Well, we are getting into a little bit of a far field.
A. Yes, O.K.
Q. Now, you did say that the board has been very
cooperative with you in two years at least in following your
recommendations. A. Now in Kentucky we did not have
direct contact with the board, it was through the super
intendent.
Deposition of Rozzelle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(pp. 13, 14)
95a
Q. Through the superintendent? A. Yes, and he was
very very cooperative.
Q. All right, sir. He did what you asked him to do!
—15—
A. In most cases.
Q. Well,— A. There are some things you know that
we have asked, you knowT what I mean.
Q. Yes, I know. But in the teachers and in the teaching
staff he did cooperate, didn’t he? A. Yes.
Q. Now, when Mrs. Kinslow was not employed, did
you go to him and say, look, I recommended Mrs. Kinslow,
I want her hack, did you do that? A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Why?
Mr. Williams: This is objected to—
A. I was of the opinion that they were making room for
these other people.
Q. I see. When did you first learn that the records of
the superintendent’s office reflected the fact that her teach
ing was not satisfactory! A. Well, I never had that privi
lege.
Q. You didn’t know that yet! A. No.
Q. Now, if Mr. Stewart says that he let Mrs. Kinslow
go because you told him that her teaching was not satis
factory, is that right or wrong? A. It is wrong.
Q. You really believe that? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know a Mrs. Idella Ervin? A. Yes, she was
a visiting teacher.
—16—
Q. Did she have any supervisory authority over your
teachers? A. Yes, she had all the authority over our
teachers. She was between the one race and the other.
Deposition of Rosselle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(pp. 14, 15, 16)
96a
Q. Did you ever have a discussion with her relative to
Mrs. Kinslow? A. Well, we may have—I don’t remember
ever saying anything as derogative to her ability, we just
sat up there and talked, you know.
Q. Did you ever talk to her about Mrs. Kinslowf A.
Well, I don’t know. It might have been sometime when
we would get up there talking and discussing things you
know—I don’t remember saying anything about Mrs.
Kinslow that would be of such that would cause her to
lose her job.
Q. Well, in thinking back over some of those conversa
tions, do you think you ever said anything relative to—
A. There was not but one thing that I said about Mrs.
Kinslow and I said it to her then and I said it to her in
the class room. She was down once or twice and she
called me that morning that she wouldn’t be there, and,
of course, you know how it is finding an extra person.
Maybe Mrs. Ervin was there that morning. And then I
went to Mrs. Kinslow and told her, didn’t I tell you!
And it didn’t happen anymore.
Q. Was that in the nature of a reprimand? A. No, I
just wanted her to make good.
Q. Well, I mean you were correcting her, you were
reprimanding her. A. I just wanted her to know that we
didn’t approve of that.
—17—
Q. That’s right, and you say that Mrs. Ervin was there
at that time perhaps! A. Yes, that is right.
Q. And she was. Now, that was not quite satisfactory
or to your liking, was it? A. What was that?
Q. Her failure to report about having a substitute that
morning?
Deposition of Rozselle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(PP- 16, 17)
97a
Mr. Williams: He has already fully explained—
A. That is just a mild something. You know how it is
with little things like that, it gives you a headache and
you wouldn’t know that something like this was coming
up.
Q. Did you ever relate that to Mr. Stewart! A. I don’t
know if Mrs. Ervin did or not, I didn’t.
Q. Did you! You don’t know if Mrs. Ervin did or not!
A. I am quite sure, you know if she was in there that
she did.
Q. It would have been her duty to have done that,
wouldn’t it! A. Yes, I guess.
Q. Then you are sure that she did! A. I imagine that
she did.
Mr. Williams: Well, I object to that.
Q. Now, other than that you say that Mrs. Kinslow’s
character, of course, was not in question. Did her children
in her room, did they seem to learn as rapidly as they
should and properly! A. Well, I was of the opinion that
—-18—
they did. I will be very frank with you. I was of the
opinion that they did. I thought that she was an excellent
young lady. She was here two years and I was of the
opinion that she was an excellent person.
Q. Now you did not ever have an occasion to review
her record in the superintendent’s office! A. No.
Q. On how many occasions was she guilty of this thing,
of not reporting to work and not giving you an advance
opportunity of having a substitute teacher! A. She
called me early in the morning, twice wasn’t it!
Q. Did this happen several times! A. Well, yes, maybe
two or three times.
Deposition of Rozselle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(pp. 17, 18)
98a
Q. Well, enough to become a little irritating to you!
A. It is hard to get substitutes you know. Now that power
had just been turned over to me, to get the substitutes.
I had never had anything to do with it and you know they
were scarce and hard to get.
Q. Mr. Leavell, I will just ask you a point blank ques
tion. Do you think there is any discrimination here be
cause of your race against you or the teachers of your
race or Mrs. Kinslow!
Mr. Williams: That is objected to as being in
competent.
A. That would be a sixty-four dollar question.
Q. All right. A. There are just lots of things that,
I have been here all of my life, you know there are limita
tions to. In my generation, I know how to accept it, I
know how to get along. If I don’t get it one way, I will
get, I know how to go around and get it.
—19—
Q. Well, I believe you are doing all right. A. Yes.
Q. You said something about receiving a letter from
Mr. Louis Scott, and you thought that it was around
June of this year, is that right! A. Somewhere like that.
It was a form asking me to recommend this young lady.
Q. Something like a history blank! A. Yes, something
like that.
Q. And that was in June of this year! A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, sir. A. Yes, and he has since called.
Q. Would it be possible that you kept a copy of that!
A. No, sir, they send just the blank you know. Oh, I have
had five or six of them this year so I, the teachers, there
was a young man that taught there last year who has
Deposition of Rosselle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(pp. 18, 19)
99a
gone to Toledo and he didn’t want to go through the office
and lie had worked under me, so they accepted my recom
mendation.
Mr. Lynch: I have no further questions.
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Williams:
Q. You remember distinctly filling out this recommenda
tion and sending it to Mr. Scott down in Franklin County?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Counsel is bugged on these one or two or three
little incidents where the young lady called you in the
morning that she would not— A. That is the only objec
tion that I had.
Q. It was my understanding that this was during the
first year of her employment, is that right? A. She was
excellent to me, yes.
— 20—
Q. She was an excellent teacher, is that correct? A.
She was excellent to me and to her class room. I wouldn’t
have any—
Q. And those incidents where she called early in the
morning about not being able to get there, they did not
occur anymore after you had corrected her?
Mr. Lynch: Objection to framing the question.
Q. Well, did they occur anymore after you had corrected
her? A. No.
Mr. Williams: I believe that is all.
Mr. Lynch: That is all.
Deposition of Rozzelle Leavell, August 19, 1966
(pp. 19, 20)
F u rth er T h is D epo n en t S a ith N ot.
100a
Transcript of Hearing of August 25, 1966
(pp. 1, 3)
—1—
The above-entitled case came on for trial before the
Hon. C. G. Neese, Judge of the above-styled court, at
Winchester, Tennessee, on Thursday, August 25, 1966, at
9 :00 o’clock A.M., pursuant to notice.
A p p e a r a n c e s :
Avon W illia m s , Esq.
appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs and
Intervenors
Pat B. L y n ch and B en L y n c h , Esqs.
appeared on behalf of the Defendants
—3—
The Court: Is there any preliminary matter to come to
the attention of the court before the case for trial is called?
Case the case, please, Clerk.
The Clerk: For trial, Civil Action No. 668, Samuel Hill
and others, Mrs. Joyce K. Eady and Mrs. Theresa Kins-
low, plaintiffs, versus County Board of Education of Frank
lin County, et al., Defendants.
The Court: Are the plaintiffs ready?
Mr. Williams: The plaintiffs are ready, your Honor.
The Court: And the defendants?
Mr. Lynch: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: Swear the witnesses.
Is the rule requested?
Mr. Williams: Yes, your Honor, it probably would be
better to have it.
The Court: All right.
(Thereupon the witnesses were duly sworn and put un
der the rule, and retired from the Courtroom.)
101a
Mr. Williams: There is at least one witness who is
under subpoena, and whom I do not know personally: Mrs.
Ruth Arnold.
— 4 —
I wanted to check and see if she was here.
Mr. Lynch: Your Honor, Miss Ruth called me this morn
ing and asked me to relate to the Court the fact she is
principal of the Mary Sharp School just near us here,
and to state that she had to get things started there and
anticipated she would not be immediately needed, and she
would be a little late, if that is not too inconvenient.
Mr. Williams: No objection, your Honor.
Is Mrs. Frances Cannon here?
Mrs. Cannon: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: If the Court please, we have at least
two witnesses under subpoena that are not here as yet.
I understand they had to get registered this morning and
are on their way, if counsel has no objection, Mr. Fred
Blackwell and Rev. George Smith, I believe.
The Court: Is there any objection to that procedure?
Mr. Lynch: No.
Mr. Williams: They are my witnesses.
The Court: It will be your responsibility to see that
they go under the rule when they come in.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch: May it please the Court, members of the
—5—
School Board are present and are defendants in this case.
Mr. Williams: Yes, they are parties.
The Court: Yes, sir.
Gentlemen, if you will approve the Pre-Trial Order as
originally submitted to you and then the Court will take
up the matter of the amendments. With regard to the
The Court’s Instructions
(pp. 3, 4, 5)
102a
exceptions by the intervenors, the Court understands that
Mrs. Eady wishes to withdraw her claim. Is that correct!
Mr. Williams: That is correct, your Honor. She so
advised me and I have tendered a full copy of her letter
to the exception and furnished adversary counsel a copy.
The Court: That portion of the exception will be granted
and the case dismissed as to plaintiff Joyce K. Eady.
Now, Mr. Lynch, is there any objection to the second
exception by the plaintiff with regard to the income and
expenses of Mrs. Kinslow and Mrs. Scott for the school
year ’65-’66 being stipulated!
Mr. Lynch: No, your Honor, we have no objection to
the stipulation.
The Court: That will also be granted.
Mr. Lynch: With respect to that stipulation, we would
— -6—
like to reserve the right of cross examination to determine
the accuracy. We do not have any proof as to the accuracy
of these amounts stated and would like to reserve the
right to examine on those.
The Court: All right, the Court will allow you that
privilege. .......
As to 3(a) of the exceptions, and 3(b)., are there any
objections by the defendants to those exhibits!
Mr. Lynch: No, your Honor.
The Court: Those exhibits will be admitted.
What is the next number, do you gentlemen know?
Mr. Williams: If your Honor please, I do not; I am
sorry.
The Court: Will the Clerk please see what the next
number is.
The Court’s Instructions
(pp. 5, 6)
103a
Mr. Williams: I believe it is 1-9, if your Honor please;
I am not positive.
The Court: The last one according to the Pre-Trial
Order seems to be 1-6.
Mr. Williams: If the Court will look under Plaintiffs’
exhibits, it goes up to 1-8 under Plaintiffs’.
The Court: That’s right. These will be marked 1-9 and
—7—
1-10, respectively.
Will you submit those now, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: All right, sir.
The Court: As to 3-C, Mr. Lynch, is there any objec
tion to the newspaper clipping?
Mr. Lynch: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: That will be denied then and the proposed
exhibit will be marked 1-10 for identification only.
Now, as to 4-A, additional witnesses, is there any objec
tion to any of those witnesses?
Mr. Lynch: No, I think not, your Honor. We received
a list of these together with a brief synopsis of their
testimony and I will interpose no objection.
The Court: All right, sir.
That will be granted and the Pre-Trial Order will be
amended accordingly.
There were no exceptions by the defendants? I see none
in the file. Is that correct?
Mr. Lynch: No exceptions made, your Honor.
The Court: Call your first witness for the Intervenors.
Mr. Williams: At this time, your Honor, before calling
witnesses, I would like to return to the Clerk Exhibits 1-1,
— 8—
1-7 and 1-8 for identification, which were filed at the time
The Court’s Instructions
(pp. 6, 7, 8)
104a
of the. pre-trial and handed to me by the Clerk for safe
keeping pending the trial.
The Court: All right. Are you going to present these
claims as to the remaining intervenors individually or
collectively !
Mr. Williams: With the Court’s permission, I would like
to present them collectively because some of the testimony
of the witnesses will overlap.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Williams: At this time the intervenors would like
to call Intervenor Mrs. Virginia Scott to the stand.
Mr. Lynch: May it please the Court, by way of observa
tion, it was noted that this witness was, in fact, not sworn
when the other witnesses were sworn. I think it was an
oversight. I believe it would be well for her to be sworn.
The Court: Yes, swear the witness, please, Clerk.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Direct
(pp. 8, 9)
Thereupon—M bs. V irginia S cott was called as a witness
on behalf of the Intervenors, and after being first duly
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
—9—
Direct Examination by Mr.'Williams:
Q. This is Mrs. Virginia Scott! A. Yes, sir, I am.
Q. Speak up—you may remain seated, Mrs. Scott, but
try to talk as loudly as you can for counsel must be able
to hear you.
How old are you, Mrs. Scott! A. Fifty-nine.
Q. Where do you reside! A. In Tullahoma.
Q. State of Tennessee! A. Tennessee.
Q. What is your occupation! A. Well, my occupation
was teacher; that is my occupation.
105a
Q. All right, will you state, if you will, your educa
tional background; where were you educated and to what
extent?
The Court: Hasn’t the Court already made find
ings as to this?
Mr. Williams: I don’t recall if there was a find
ing.
Mr. Lynch: Yes, your Honor, that finding has
— 10—
already been made.
The Court: I don’t believe it will be necessary to
prove anything that the Court has already found,
Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, as I under
stand the Pre-Trial Order supplants the pleadings.
The Court: That’s right.
Mr. Williams: The only thing I was able to find
in the Pre-Trial Order relating to Mrs. Scott’s quali
fications is in paragraph III (a), page 5, wherein
it was stated that she was a teacher of Mt. Zion
School, but never attained tenure status.
The Court: Well, in the Court’s memorandum of
July 20, 1966, it was found that Mrs. Virginia Scott,
a Negro, was a teacher at Mt. Zion Grade School
on all of the above dates as being dates having to
do with integration plan in this system, but had
never attained tenure status. Her teaching contract
was not renewed at the beginning of 1965-1966 school
year.
I just don’t want you to repeat a lot of things
that are already in the record.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for lntervenors—Direct
(PP- 9, 10)
106a
Mr. Williams: I understand, your Honor. I will
try to avoid that.
— 11—
If the defendants at this time intend to abandon
any contention regarding any reason for the dis
charge of Mrs. Scott bearing on her qualifications
as a teacher, this would not be necessary, but in the
absence of that, if your Honor please, I don’t believe
the Court’s findings quite cover their contention
which was that she was—she had taught in the sys
tem for several years—
The Court: Glo ahead, Mr. Williams. Let’s move
as rapidly as possible.
Mr. Lynch: May it please the Court, I believe
that your memorandum was changed in the Pre-Trial
Order. You quoted there that she was dismissed.
In your Pre-Trial Order you state “her teaching
contract was cancelled after four days of the begin
ning of the 65-66 school year. That is correct, and
that was correct in your Pre-Trial Order.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Now, Mrs. Scott, did you complete your elementary
and secondary education? A. Yes.
Q. Did you go to College? A. Yes.
Q. Where? A. A & I State.
— 12—
Q. How many years? A. Three years.
Q. And I believe the records submitted by the defen
dants show that you have to your credit 153 quarter hours
credit at A & I, is that correct? A. That’s correct.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Direct
(pp. 10, 11, 12)
107a
Mr. Williams: May I have the exhibits for iden
tification 9 and 10?
(Documents handed to Mr. Williams.)
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mrs. Scott, I hand you exhibit No. 1-9. Will you look
at that, please. Is that a permanent professional teaching
certificate issued to you by the State of Tennessee! A.
The State College, yes. And then after this I got the cer
tificate I attended some more quarters. That—
Q. That certificate indicates you have 107 quarter hours,
but I take it— A. I attended more.
Q. And you attained the total of 153, is that correct?
A. That’s right.
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, we offer
that for introduction as evidence in this case.
—13—
The Court: Is that one of them there was no
objection to?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
The Court: It is already in.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Now then, Mrs. Scott, the information furnished us
by the defendants shows you have had as of the 1965-’66
school year twenty-nine years teaching experience. Was
that approximately correct! A. Approximately correct.
Q. And of that approximately how many years have
you taught in the Franklin County School System as of
the 1965-’66 school year. A. Twenty years at that school.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Direct
(pp. 12, 13)
108a
Q. Now then, yon had—was that twenty consecutive
years? A. Twenty consecutive years.
Q. And at what school had you taught? A. Mt. Zion.
Q. For all those twenty years? A. For all the twenty
years.
Q. How many teachers were there in that school? A.
There were two. When I went there, there was one, and I
made the second one. After I taught there several years,
they consolidated and brought in a third teacher. It was
—14—
a three-teacher school.
Q. Was that an all Negro school? A. All Negro school.
Q. Completely segregated as to faculty and student body?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Hid it remain so through the 1965-66 school year?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Do you know how many other schools in the Frank
lin County School System remained so segregated for that
period of time? A. I don’t know, I believe—
Q. If you don’t know, don’t answer.
Now then, did you—
Mr. Williams: I would like to have Exhibits 1-1.
If your Honor please, may I assume that your
procedure here, I assume where there is no objec
tion made to the exhibit in the pre-trial order, and
it is marked 1-1 that it is already in evidence?
The Court: Unless it is marked for identification
only, it is in evidence, and its authenticity and
—15—
admissibility have been stipulated.
Mr. Williams: All right, sir.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Direct
(pp. 13, 14, 15)
109a
Q. I would like to hand you Exhibit 1-1 previously intro
duced.
The Court: It is not necessary to reintroduce it.
The Court will consider it in.
Mr. Williams: She may have to read something,
if your Honor please.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mrs. Scott, after you had signed your contract in
May for the 1965-66 school year, did you report for duty
at Mt. Zion School? A. Yes, I worked four days, or five
days.
Q. Now, at that time, what was the custom with regard
to the registration of children; did they have a pre-school
registration in April or May, or did the children report
the first day of—Friday before the first day of school?
A. They reported Friday before the first day.
Q. Are you aware of the approximate number of students
you had had in Mt. Zion School in the previous year that
is -64-65 school year? A. Well, I think we had 80 or some
thing like that in that neighborhood.
Q. Now then, when the students reported in August,
—16—
1965, for the beginning of 65-66 school year, did you have
that number; did you have eighty? A. I didn’t have that
number. I think the first day sixty something reported,
and then the next day it was down to forty something.
Q. Do you know where those children went to? A. Yes,
they went to Huntland.
Q. Was that pursuant to the freedom of choice deseg
regation plan that the defendants had? A. That’s right.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Direct
(pp. 15, 16)
110a
Q. Did Mt. Zion school open or did Mt, Zion school open
earlier than other schools in the system? A. Yes, it had
been customary previous to this year, I think, that Mt.
Zion and Huntland school opened a week or two weeks
ahead of time for the cotton picking season, out two weeks.
Q. So that that school would have opened about the first
week or ten days in August? A. In August.
Q. Of 1965? A. Yes.
Q. All right, after these twenty some odd Negro students
transferred to Huntland School, did you receive any com
munication from the principal or from the School Board?
— 17—
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. How long did you teach? A. I taught—
Q. During the term? A. —five days, I believe it was.
Q. Why did you stop teaching? A. Well, after that they
sent me this letter here where due to the enrollment, drop
in enrollment, and so on, there wasn’t enough students for
three teachers, so my time was up that day I got the letter.
They sent it to me.
Q. Now, in the twenty years that you had taught there,
Mrs. Scott, had you ever received a reprimand or been
the subject of any action that you know of on the part of
the defendants reflecting on your ability as a teacher? A.
No, never.
Q. Now, after the receipt of that letter, did you hear
anything further from the defendants prior to the 31st
day of August, 1965? A. No, nothing prior to that.
Q. On the 31st day of August, 1965, did you receive a
communication—wait just a minute—take a look at that
letter and state whether or not that is the letter you re
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Direct
(pp. 16, 17)
111a
ceived from the superintendent of the School Board! A.
- 1 8 -
Yes, it is. I received this.
Q. Sometime on or after the date appearing thereon?
A. Yes, after the 31st, I received it, yes.
Mr. Williams: Subject to the defendants objec
tion, we would like to introduce that as the next
exhibit.
The Court: Any objection?
Mr. Lynch: No, your Honor. It was not previ
ously introduced.
The Court: Mark this 1-12.
(Thereupon the letter referred to was received
in evidence and marked “Exhibit 1-12”.)
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mrs. Scott, where is Keith Springs School? A.
Well, it is away up on top of the mountain there. It is
about eight miles, I guess, from Winchester, or something
like that, nine or eight miles, and it is away up. It is a
very rugged road, curvy, and—
Q. Is it south of Winchester or southeast, southwest, or
how? A. Southeast of Winchester, and it is on top of the
mountain. You go up a lot of hills and mountains.
—19—
Q. Is it in a kind of a deserted area, kind of a sparsely
populated area?
Mr. Lynch: We object to the leading and prompt
ing of this witness. We want to be lenient, but that
is just suggesting an answer.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Direct
(pp. 17, 18, 19)
112a
The Court: Don’t suggest an answer.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Is the area well populated or just sort of sparsely
populated! A. It is sparsely populated, just so few
houses up there, sparsely populated.
Q. All right. And that is a— A. All white neighbor
hood.
Q. All white school and all white neighborhood! A. All
white neighborhood.
Q. Any Negroes live up there at all! A. No Negroes
at all, and any trouble you might have, car trouble or
anything, you would have trouble getting help.
Q. State whether or not you considered it actually physi
cally dangerous! A. As physically dangerous. There is
no place for me to stay up there. If I got up there and it
started snowing and I couldn’t get down, or down and
couldn’t get up, absolutely dangerous. That is why I
didn’t—
— 20—
Q. Approximately how far was that from your home in
Tullahoma! A. Well, I guess that is about thirty miles
from my home, twenty-nine or thirty.
Q. So you would have had a sixty mile drive, roundtrip
drive every day! A. That’s right, something like that.
Q. Did the superintendent ever call you in and actually
offer you this job! A. No, he sent me that letter.
Q. Did you ever go down and discuss it with him? A.
No, I didn’t.
Q. That was for the reasons which you have stated ? A.
Which I have stated, I couldn’t take the job under those
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Direct
(pp. 19, 20)
113a
conditions. I couldn’t get there, and it was absolutely
dangerous, and there was no place to stay in an all white
neighborhood; no place to stay under any circumstances.
Q. What is the attitude of the white people in that par
ticular area toward Negroes, friendly or do you know7 the
attitude of the white people in that particular area toward
Negroes with regard to friendliness or unfriendliness; yes
or no. Do you know their attitude? A. Well, I don’t actu
a l -
ally know the attitude. I have heard what people said.
The Court: Don’t answer except what you know.
The Witness: Okey.
By Mr. Williams-.
Q. But you do know it is segregated all white? A. All
white community.
I do know as I passed by that they hollered remarks,
you see, and I know it wouldn’t be the place for me.
Q. As you passed by what? A. As, you know, as I pass
they holler remarks, you know.
Q. You know then; you have passed through that area?
A. Yes, I passed through and they hollered, “Hey, go on
Nigger.”
Q. You have heard such remarks? A. Yes, I have heard
such remarks, and I know.
Q. Mrs. Scott, have the defendants ever even so much
as called you for substitute work since discharging you in
this fashion? A. No, they have not.
Q. Did you know that three—I am leading— State
whether or not there were any other Negro teachers who
Mrs. Virginia Scott—■for Intervenors—Direct
(pp. 20, 21)
114a
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Direct
(pp. 22, 23)
— 22—
were discharged at the same time you were discharged?
A. Not at the same time, because the other schools started
a week later.
Q. When the other schools started, state whether or not
there were some? A. Yes, after the other school started,
there were several Negroes.
Q. Was Mrs. Helen Campbell one of those? A. Yes.
Q. And Mrs. Virginia Harvell? A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Henrietta Stapleton? A. Yes.
Q. Were there any tenure teachers? A. Yes, I suppose
so.
Q. Now, did you all come down to Nashville and con
sult me at that time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall what we did at that time? A. Well—
Q. Do you recall my dictating a telegram? A. You dic
tated a telegram.
Q. To where? A. To Franklin County—
—23—
Mr. Lynch: We object, if your Honor please, as
that would be self-serving and a matter of which
these people are not aware.
The Court: Objection sustained.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. State whether or not you authorized me at that time
to make a formal complaint to the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch: Object to what she authorized him
to do.
115a
The Court: Objection sustained. I don’t think
that has any place in here.
I would like to know though, Mrs. Scott, what
grades had you been teaching at Mt. Zion?
The Witness: The first and second grades.
By Mr. Williams-,
Q. Mrs. Scott, what grades were you certified to teach?
A. Well, elementary, but all the time I had taught first
and second grades.
Q. But you were qualified for one through nine, is that
right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mrs. Scott, were you ready, willing and able at all
—2 4 -
times during the 1965-66 school year to perform your teach
ing duties in accordance with your contract? A. Yes, I
was ready.
Q. And you were willing and able to do so? A. Willing
and able to do it.
Q. And you remained right there in Tullahoma? A. In
Tullahoma, right.
Q. And the defendants knew your address and knew
exactly where you were all the time? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch: We object to what the defendants
could have known.
The Court: Objection sustained.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Was your address on file with the defendants, Mrs.
Scott? A. Yes, my address was permanent.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors-—Direct
(PP- 23, 24)
116a
The Court: Mr. Williams, is the reason she never
did attain in this twenty years tenure status is that
she did not have her degree?
Mr. Williams: That is correct, yes, sir, and a
teacher could attain limited tenure, I think, under
the tenure statute, but they have to keep on going,
can’t—she went back from time to time, but he has
to keep on until he earns his degree.
—25—
The Court: Then she had no status under the
teacher tenure?
Mr. Williams: That’s right.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. That is correct, is it not, Mrs. Scott, that you had
no tenure status? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Or did you have limited tenure status? A. I don’t
know what I had. I hadn’t been back to school for several
years, but I only went about four years ago to a reading
conference, but I hadn’t attended any regular school.
Q. You hadn’t attended—
Mr. Lynch: If I might interrupt, the statement
made by counsel here is neither the law nor the fact
in this case. If you want to hear it at this time I
will express it.
The Court: I would like to know why.
Mr. Lynch: Under the teaching law, a certificate
teacher may obtain limited tenure and that limited
tenure may become permanent providing the teacher
complies with certain additional educational stand
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Direct
(pp. 24, 25)
117a
ards from year to year to increase her status and
to continue her education.
Mrs. Scott did have limited tenure. She lost her
- 2 6 -
limited tenure because she continued no education
since the year 1948.
The Court: This would be sort of a conditional
tenure ?
Mr. Lynch: Limited tenure is conditional and is
predicated upon her continuation of her education.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. So that you actually had no tenure status at the time;
you were a non-tenure teacher because you hadn’t con
tinued the necessary number of quarter hours each year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. To convert from limited tenure to permanent tenure,
is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were there many other white teachers in this system
in that same condition, Mrs. Scott? A. Well—
Q. If you know? A. I don’t know. I couldn’t just say
that I know.
Q. Did you ever at any time, Mrs. Scott, were you ever
called in for any conferences with the superintendent? A.
No.
Q. Regarding your qualifications or anything else? A.
- 2 7 -
No, my teaching ability, no, I had never been called in by
any of the superintendents I worked with during those
twenty years.
Q. Now, after your discharge or at the time of your
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Direct
(pp. 25, 26, 27)
118a
discharge, did the superintendent call you in at any time!
A. No, sir.
Q. I believe Mt. Zion School was closed the following
year! A. Yes.
Q. And your discharge left two teachers there, is that
correct! A. That’s correct.
Q. And were they white persons or Negroes! A. Ne
groes.
Q. Did the student body remain Negro during the 1965-
66 school year! A. That’s right.
Q. Did the school operate in that fashion during that
year with two Negro teachers and reduced number of
Negro pupils! A. That’s right.
Q. Do you know when the Mt. Zion School was discon-
—28—
tinued! A. Do I know when it was?
Q. Yes, when it was closed? A. It was closed this year,
the Mt. Zion School when they closed all Negro schools.
Q. State whether or not that was after we had filed this
intervening petition of this case contesting this? A. Yes,
that was after; that was this year.
Q. That was in February of this year? A. I mean, in
April or May sometime during the end of the school year
that they closed it.
Q. Yes, but I am asking you to state whether or not
at a hearing before this Court in February, 1966, at
Manchester, after this petition, this intervening petition
was filed—after the petition was filed both by the original
plaintiffs and the intervenors, the counsel for the defen
dants then made a statement in open court that they were
going to close the school.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Direct
(pp. 27, 28)
119a
Mr. Lynch: May it please the Court, I object.
The record speaks for itself.
The Court: The Court will judicially notice its
own records.
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
The Court: Cross examine.
—29—
Cross Examination by Mr. Lynch:
Q. Mrs. Scott, as you have testified here, you taught at
Mt. Zion for a long long time, didn’t you? A. Long time,
that’s right.
Q. How long were you there? A. I was there about
twenty years, went there in 1945.
Q. During that period of time, your experience was
limited to that of teaching the first and second grades,
wasn’t it? A. That is the grades I taught, yes, sir.
Q. You did teach the first and second grades? A. When
I first went there, I taught the fourth grade. There was
only two teachers and we divided the enrollment. After
the enrollment increased, then I had the first and second.
Q. Now, you say that your teaching experience now in
cludes 153 quarter hours at A & I, is that right? A. Yes,
that’s right.
Q. Your certificate shows 108 quarter hours, does it
not? A. I hadn’t attained those others when the certificate
was issued.
—30—
Q. When did you attain the additional hours? A. Well,
I don’t know, it was in the 30’s and 40’s, something like
that, just different.
Q. Do you have a record of that that you could present
us with?
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Cross
(pp. 28, 29, 30)
120a
Mr. Williams: I object to that, if your Honor
please. Objection is made by the intervenors be
cause on the information which the defendants have
furnished themselves to the Court, they reflect Mrs.
Scott as having 153 quarter hours, and we presume
they would not present false information to the
Court.
The Court: Objection overruled. This is cross
examination. I don’t know what counsel has in mind,
but it is proper cross examination.
Mr. Lynch: May I state to the Court what I do
have in mind?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Lynch: The teacher tenure law was adopted
in 1954 and a teacher had a three year period of
time during which she was placed on limited tenure
for the period ’54 to ’57, and during that period of
time had the opportunity to do additional educa
tional work and thereby obtain or keep up her
—3 1 -
limited tenure.
Now, my question is simply this. If we have
overlooked any educational work that was performed
by Mrs. Scott during the years ’54 through ’57, she
would be entitled to present that in order to preserve
her status. That is the reason I asked her that.
The Court: Objection is overruled.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. Do you have that, Mrs. Scott? A. No, I don’t.
Q. Were any of these additional hours at A & I, that
is the difference between 108 hours as reflected upon your
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Cross
(pp. 30, 31)
121a
certificate, and the 153 hours as reflected upon your edu
cational records with the Department of Education, were
any of those obtained during the years 1954 through ’57?
A. I don’t know. Once I believe in ’50 something, I just
can’t remember to be exact, I don’t have that in mind.
The Court: What is the date of that certificate
that has been made an exhibit?
Mr. Lynch: The certificate is dated 1929, but it
only shows 108 hours, but somewhere between 1929
and as our records reflect, which are on file as an
exhibit, 1948, she obtained additional hours bring
ing her to a status of 153 quarter hours, but none
obtained since ’48, according to our records. That
—32—
is the reason I was wondering—
The Court: Does a teacher just get one certificate
from the State Department?
Mr. Lynch: Yes, sir, and then the reports from
her educational institution are sent in to the Depart
ment to supplement that certificate, to keep her in
conditional status.
By Mr. Lynch-.
Q. Mrs. Scott, you don’t have anything to offer us to
show you obtained anything during the period ’54-’57, do
you? A. No, I have nothing.
Q. So, you think our records are correct and that you
got nothing since ’48, is that right? A. Yes, only I went
to a reading conference, but I didn’t get any credit for that.
Q. That is not a credit course? A. No, that wasn’t a
credit course.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Cross
(pp. 31, 32)
122a
Q. All right, now, you knew then of our tenure status,
didn’t you? A. I knew I had a permanent certificate and—
Q. I am not referring to your certificate, but I am re
ferring to your tenure status. You knew what kind of a
position you were in from the standpoint of tenure, didn’t
you? A. Well, yes.
—33—
Q. And you elected not to continue your education so as
to keep you in tenure, didn’t you? A. Nothing had been
said about it. My work was satisfactory and nothing had
been said that you must go on.
The Court: Try to answer his questions, please
ma’am. Did you understand the question?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: In other words, you could have gone
back if you had chosen to?
The Witness: Uh huh.
The Court: And gotten this tenure, couldn’t you?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: He is asking you if you chose not to
do that. Do you understand?
The Witness: Well, I didn’t do that.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. Mrs. Scott, you have taught for twenty years in the
Franklin County School System or approximately that
many years, haven’t you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. During all of this period of time you lived in Coffee
County, did you not? A. Yes, sir.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Cross
(PP- 32, 33)
123a
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors-
(pp. 34, 35)
-Cross
—34—
Q. At any time during that entire period of time did
you board in Franklin County? A. No.
Q. You commuted daily? A. That’s right.
Q. You did that for twenty years? A. Yes, I did that.
Q. And during this twenty year period of time, state
whether or not it has been the practice of the Franklin
County School Board—I don’t know about the full period
of twenty years, you perhaps do, hut in the recent years,
at least, you have been contracted with annually to teach
in a specified school, haven’t you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Your contract would say that we contract with Mrs.
Scott or Mrs. so and so to teach at a specified school?
Mr. Williams: I object, your Honor. The contract
speaks for itself.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Mr. Lynch: Well, not by way of argument, but
by way of inquiry, I was referring to the past
period of time. We have included the contract for
—35—
the current years or the years past and prior to
that time.
Mr. Williams: Well, your Honor—
The Court: The Court thinks that is the only
important thing, the contract with which we are
concerned here.
By Mr. Lynch'.
Q. You say that in August, 1965, you were employed as
a teacher at Mt. Zion School? A. Yes, I was.
124a
Q. Now, in 1965-66 school year, a freedom of choice
plan had been announced and adopted by the School Board,
had it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You knew of that, didn’t you? A. Yes, I knew it.
Q. Now, where is Ml. Zion with respect to the Hunt-
land School? A. Huntland School is about five miles down
further from that.
Q. Down in the same area? A. Yes, in the same area.
Q. Now, because of that geographical location, that be
ing the cotton end of the county, those schools in that area
of Franklin County, and those schools in that area of
—36—
Lincoln County, by custom and by practice always open a
little earlier than the other schools in order that they might
have what they call a “cotton pickin vacation,” didn’t they?
A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. Now, that is that period of time the families need
their children at home to pick cotton? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, the Huntland School then opened exactly at the
same time as the Mt. Zion School, didn’t it? That is cor
rect, isn’t it? A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. Now, under this freedom of choice plan, you say the
first few days approximately sixty children reported to
Mt. Zion? A. Yes, sixty something.
Q. And that justified three teachers, didn’t it? A. Well,
not quite.
Q. Didn’t quite justify three? A. No.
Q. But you had three there? A. Yes, had three.
Q. Now, after a few days under this freedom of choice
plan, that enrollment began to shift from Mt. Zion to Hunt-
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Cross
(pp. 35, 36)
125a
land, didn’t it? A. The next day they decided to not come
— 37-
back from Huntland.
Q. You say they decided. Who decided? A. I guess the
children. I don’t know who decided, the children didn’t come
hack. I guess the parents was the one that decided it, I
imagine, but they didn’t come back the second day. Sixty
some registered the first day and the next day it was down
to forty something.
Q. First, I want to ask you, Mrs. Scott, you don’t think
that was something encouraged by the School Board, do
you? A. No.
Mr. Williams: That is objected to as calling for
an improper conclusion on her part.
The Court: Objection sustained. She made it
clear to the Court that they lost about twenty stu
dents there right at the beginning of the year.
By Mr. Lynch-.
Q. Do you know of any facts at all, Mrs. Scott, that you
contend that that shift constituted or was designed for
any discriminatory purpose against you?
Mr. Williams: That is objected to, if your Honor
please.
The Court: Objection overruled. He asked if she
knew. If she knows, she can testify. If she doesn’t
- 38-
know, she can’t testify.
The Witness: Do I know what?
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Cross
(pp. 36, 37, 38)
126a
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Cross
(pp. 38, 39)
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. Do you know of any facts that would lead you to
believe that this was a design for the purpose of dis
criminating against you, this shift in population of student
enrollment? A. Maybe not discriminating against me, but
as the shift of the load went one place another teacher
had to be employed. I feel like I could have been con
sidered. Then the other schools in Franklin County had
not opened and they didn’t know what shift might be made
and I feel like I could have been placed.
Q. Well, do you know of any facts that would lead you
to believe that this was a design or a plan for the purpose—
A. You mean plan for Negroes to go from Mt. Zion to
Huntland?
Q. For the purpose of discriminating against you?
Mr. Williams: Object to that as being irrelevant,
if your Honor please.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Let me ask the question.
Mrs. Scott, when these twenty students left Mt.
Zion and went down to Huntland, do you know
—39—
whether or not there was any additional teacher or
teachers added at Huntland?
The Witness: There was an additional teacher
hired at Huntland.
The Court: About that time?
The Witness: Well, during the school year a
number of teachers, about twenty or something was
hired, new teachers during the school year, non
tenure teachers.
127a
The Court: Are you talking about throughout the
system ?
The Witness: Yes, throughout the system.
The Court: I am talking about Hunt land. When
you got your notice about the 17th of August, as I
recall, wasn’t it?
The Witness: That’s right, 17th of August.
The Court: About when was some new teachers
hired by the Board to take the students that had
left Mt. Zion and went to Huntland?
The Witness: Well, after the enrollment increased,
I was told—of course, I didn’t go down there and
I don’t know it to be actually a fact, but a teacher
was hired.
By Mr. Lynch-.
Q. As I understand, you don’t purport to know that,
—4 0 -
do you Mrs. Scott? A. What?
Q. You don’t purport to know that a teacher was hired
at Huntland?
The Court: She says she doesn’t.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. Now, let’s get back to your contract. You were teach
ing at Mt. Zion? A. Yes.
Q. And there were two other teachers there? A. That’s
right.
Q. Who were they? A. Mrs. Dimple Johnson and Mrs.
Lyda K. Gray.
Q. Were they both tenure teachers? A. Yes, they were.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Cross
(pp. 39, 40)
128a
Q. At that school then, Mrs. Scott, you were, from the
standpoint of qualifications and tenure status, at the foot
of the list, weren’t you? A. Yes.
Mr. Williams: That’s objected to.
The Court: The objection is overruled. I think
it is very obvious that Tennessee has a tenure
teacher law. You had two tenure teachers there
and one non-tenure, and I think Mrs. Scott, as she
says, recognizes she was at the bottom of the list.
—41—
Mr. Williams: She wasn’t asked if she recognized
it, he is asking if it was true?
The Court: Objection overruled. There is no jury
here and the Court is going to try to sift these
things down.
By Mr. Lynch-.
Q. Now, Mrs. Scott, you were aware and were notified,
were you not, just immediately after your discharge or
release from Mt. Zion School that there were two permit
teachers in the whole system, weren’t you? A. No, sir.
Mr. Williams: I object, if your Honor please, as
repetitious. She introduced a copy of the letter.
The Court: Objection overruled.
Please don’t interrupt unless there is something
that really affects the substantial interest of your
client. Let the Court get the picture here.
Go ahead, Mr. Lynch.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Cross
(pp. 40, 41)
129a
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Cross
(pp. 41, 42, 43)
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. When did you receive that letter! A. I received the
letter the 17th.
Q. When did you receive the letter relative to your dis
charge? A. The 17th, that is when I received the letter
—42—
of my discharge.
Q. Did you receive both of these letters the same day?
The Court: This is dated August 31st. You got
it sometime after August 31st?
The Witness: After August 31st. That came
through the mail, and I got the other one the 17th.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. Let’s compare a little bit the mileage you had been
travelling from your home in Tullahoma to Mt. Zion with
the mileage you would have had to travel to Keith Springs.
How far is your home in Tullahoma from Mt. Zion? A.
Well, it is about 22 or -3 miles, one way.
Q. All right, then, Mt. Zion is about eight miles beyond
Winchester. Is that right? A. Well, they say six.
Q. All right, now, how far is it from Winchester to
Keith Springs? A. Well, it is around eight or nine miles,
something in that neighborhood.
Q. Do you know that to be true? A. Yes, I know that
to be true about that distance.
—43—
Q. Is six miles approximately accurate? A. Six miles
accurate to where?
130a
Q. From Winchester. I say, is that approximately accu
rate to Keith Springs? A. No, sir, it is more than six
miles.
Q. Have you ever been there? A. Yes, I have been
there.
Q. When were you there? A. I was there a few days
ago, and then I was there—I have been there twice.
Q. All right, what approximate times have you been to
Keith Springs? A. What?
Q. At what approximate times? A. I went through
there to see about—and went back again to see it in
event something came up, and it is around—
Q. I asked you for times. A. Well, I have been there
twice.
Q. When? A. I went there, let’s see, I don’t know, last
year sometime, and then I went there this week.
Q. Let me ask you this. About what time last year
were you at Keith Springs? A. Well, it was after I got
—44—
this letter of August 31st.
Q. How long after you got that letter? A. A day or so,
not too long, after talking to different ones about the
place, I thought I will see, and did, and I decided it was
no place for me.
Q. Mrs. Scott, did you go to the school? A. No, I didn’t
go in.
Q. Did you contact— A. I didn’t contact a soul.
Q. The principal there? A. No, I didn’t contact a soul,
I was just riding around and just looking to see the situa
tion and how far, and how it was, and I saw the road was
too rugged and too curvy, not a good road, and mountain
ous, and I knew during bad weather, the least little bit, I
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Cross
(pp. 43, 44)
131a
couldn’t get up and down that mountain, so I just said
no need to consider anything about that because your life,
I guess, is more important than taking a risk on that
place. You have been up there, I suppose?
Q. The teacher commutes there daily, does she not? A.
Well, some can make it better than others. I felt like I
couldn’t do that on account of that curvy road, and if I
—45—
was ever stranded and no place in the world for me to
stay up there. That was one main problem.
Q. You said you never stayed at Mt. Zion? A. I didn’t
say I never stayed there. I have stayed at Mt. Zion, but
as a rule I commute daily. Yes, I have stayed at Mt. Zion,
and I have stayed in Winchester if the weather got bad
for that matter, and any time I was stranded, I could stay
in Mt. Zion.
Q. Now, you were notified of two permit teaching posi
tions in the county, were you not? A, Yes, one in music,
and one there. I was notified of one in that same letter,
a band teacher at Franklin County High, and a permit
teacher up there.
Q. Did you know those were the only two permit teach
ers in the system? A. Well, I didn’t know that. I just
knew what the letter said where they wrere that I could
get a job.
Q. Are you certificated for music? A. No.
Q. You said somebody hollered some derogatory remark
at you? A. Yes.
Q. When was that? A. “G-o on Nigger.”
—46—
Q. When? A. Some children at the school.
Q. When? A. That was the past—that was Tuesday.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Cross
(pp. 44, 45, 46)
132a
Q. You mean just recently? A. Yes, I mean recently.
Q. You had already declined this position then? A. Oh,
yes, I had declined, and I had been up there before.
Q. From and after this time, from the time that you
were offered another position, did you ever from that
time forward up to the time you filed this intervening
petition, did you ever renew your application, file an ap
plication, write a letter, or contact the Board or super
intendent in any manner asking that you be further con
sidered for a teaching position in the Franklin County
School System? A. No.
Mr. Williams: Objected to as being irrelevant.
The Court: Objection overruled. It is not irrele
vant.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. Did you ever? A. File for what now?
Q. From and after the time that you declined the posi-
—47—
tion that they offered you, did you from that time up until
the filing of your intervening petition ever contact the
Board, the superintendent, or anyone else by way of writ
ing a letter, making personal contract, or by filing a re
newed application? A. No, I didn’t. It stated in the letter
if he could ever help me, he knew it, and because he never
notified me he needed me for anything.
Q. In his letter he stated he would be glad to help you
further if he could? A. In that letter of dismissal, yes.
Q. Did you ever ask for it? A. No, I didn’t.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Cross
(pp. 46, 47)
Mr. Lynch: That’s all.
133a
Redirect Examination by Mr. Williams:
Q. Did lie ever offer you any lielp ?
Mr. Lynch: We object to the suggestion of an
answer or the prompting of the witness by counsel.
The Court: I think in view of cross examination
the question is proper. Objection overruled.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Did he ever offer you any help or any substitute work?
A. No, never offered me any work, substitute work or
anything.
— 48—
Q. This work that you did for the Federal Anti-Poverty
Program, what was the nature of that work? A. It was
survey work, general survey of people whose incomes were
three thousand or less a year, and then I worked on the
Medicare Program for a few months.
Q. Did that involve going around and knocking on doors,
physical work? A. Yes, going around knocking on doors,
going in homes, that was for medicare, going in each home
and finding people who hadn’t signed up for Medicare and
try to influence them to. Then this summer, that was in
July, I worked as a Team Captain of the Home Program
of that same organization.
Q. State whether or not you would consider that inferior
or superior to the teaching work that you had been doing
with the defendants?
Mr. Lynch: May it please the Court, I do think
this is entirely immaterial.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Redirect
(pp. 47, 48)
134a
The Court: Objection sustained, what she would
consider it. She can describe the nature of the two
positions and it is up to the Court to decide whether
it is inferior or superior. A. Well, it was inferior.
Mr. Williams: The Court has sustained the ob
jection.
— 49—
Q. This last type of work you said you were doing, you
said at first you were interviewing, going into homes and
interviewing on Medicare, and something else? A. Yes,
drop-out children.
Q. School dropouts? A. Yes.
Q. And then you said you were doing something else?
A. Well, this summer I was working with the head-start
program, team captain of the home front visitors, and I
had twelve visitors working. I was the team captain,
visiting in schools where they had the head-start program,
and visiting the parents of the children and help out with
different problems the teacher might have. I could go—
Q. State whether or not that still involved knocking on
doors? A. Yes, it still involved knocking on doors.
Q. Did you knock on a few doors or a great many doors?
A. Well, a number of doors, number of each child, each
parent open up the door.
Q. What was the area you had to cover? A. Well, I
covered Manchester City, I worked in the City, and worked
- 50-
in and out of one school with fifty-nine families, three
teachers and fifty-nine children there were involved.
Q. That was in this team captain work? A. That was
team captain work.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Redirect
(pp. 48, 49, 50)
135a
Q. How about the other work? A. The other work, I
was working along doing survey work, going from house
to house inquiring as to income and circumstances, and
see and help those people refer.
Q. In what area, what area did you cover! A. That
area was Tullahoma.
I had all of Tullahoma.
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
The Court: Any recross?
Mr. Lynch: Yes, your Honor.
Recross Examination by Mr. Lynch:
Q. I overlooked asking you about this, Mrs. Scott. You
on direct examination referred to certain teachers that you
said had been discharged. You mentioned Mrs. Campbell,
Mrs. Harwell and Mrs. Staton. Where were they teaching?
A. Mrs. Staton was teaching at Decherd, and Mrs. Camp
bell was teaching, I believe, at Cowan.
Q. Mrs. Campbell? A. Mrs. Campbell was teaching at
Cowan.
—51—
Q. Do you or not know that all of these teachers are
tenure teachers? A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you not also know that as soon as the freedom of
choice plan stabilized itself and it was ascertained where
the shift of student population was to be located that
everyone of these teachers were put in other schools fol
lowing the shift of those children? A. Well, they were
put in a few days after they went to Nashville and put in,
and after that we all went to Nashville together and they
were put back in a few days.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Recross
(PP- 50, 51)
136a
Q. Mrs. Scott, I don’t know where nor when you went,
but I just asked you this: Do you not know that every
one of those teachers were put into teaching positions
following the levelling of the student enrollment and before
the institution of any proceeding here in this court!
Mr. Williams: Objected to, your Honor.
The Court: He asked if she knew.
A. I know they went to Nashville when I went to Nashville
and after that, shortly after that I heard they had teaching
positions. I heard they had a letter from Keith Springs.
Q. I am not asking what you heard. Do you know!
—52—
The Court: Tell what you know.
A. I know they went to Nashville when I did to see Attor
ney Williams. I know that. And after that they were hired.
Q. Were they hired before any petition was filed in
this cause of action in which you are a party? A. Well,
I had filed mine first. I was the first let out, but we all
went down there to see this attorney, and then he called
or sent a letter to the Board or something, and after
that they were hired.
Q. Do you know those things to be true to your own
knowledge? A. Do I know them to be true?
Q. Do you know those thing’s to be true, you said of
your own knowledge that somebody wrote a letter out
here and after that they were hired? A. I know we went
down there and they filed it just as I did. I know that.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Recross
(pp. 51, 52)
Mr. Lynch: That’s all.
137a
The Court: Mrs. Scott, you were to be paid in
1964-65 for ten months. Is that right?
The Witness: Right.
The Court: What was your salary to be per
month?
The Witness: $382.00.
—53—
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, the reason
I didn’t bring that out, I think it is on that contract.
The Court: It just says here “State schedule and
county supplement.” I didn’t know what it was.
The Witness: That’s right, it didn’t put the salary
on there.
The Court: This witness is excused.
Call your next witness.
Mr. Williams: May it please your Honor, will the
Court indulge me—I overlooked a rather important
question on redirect. It is a single question and I
would like to ask it.
The Court: All right.
Redirect Examination by Mr. Williams:
Q. Mrs. Scott, state whether or not you had already been
advised of your discharge prior to receipt of that letter
of August 17, 1965? A. No, I hadn’t been; no, sir.
Q. Had you already quit teaching at that time! A. I
hadn’t quit teaching. The attendance teacher brought me
that letter down to school about 12:00 o’clock that day of
—54—
the 17th.
Q. You had been teaching five days at that time? A.
That’s right.
Mrs. Virginia Scott—for Intervenors—Redirect
(pp. 52, 53, 54)
138a
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
The Court: Do you remember how much you drew
for the five days'?
The Witness: $95.50.
The Court: All right. Anything further!
Mr. Lynch: No further questions.
The Court: The witness is excused.
Call your next witness, please.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 54, 55)
Thereupon Mbs. T hebesa K inslow was called as a wit
ness on behalf of the intervening petitioners and after
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as fol
lows :
Direct Examination by Mr. Williams:
Q. This is Mrs. Theresa Kinslow? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your age, Mrs. Kinslow? A. Thirty-one.
Q. You are married? A. Yes, sir.
—55—
Q. Mother of how many children? A. One child.
Q. What is your address? A. 805 Penn Street, Win
chester, Tennessee.
Q. How long have you lived in Winchester? A. Two
years.
Q. Where did you live prior to that time? A. Belve
dere, Tennessee.
Q. Have you lived in Franklin County all your life? A.
Yes, other than when I was in school and working away
from home.
Q. Will you state briefly your educational background?
A. I began school there and when schools were consoli
139a
dated I graduated from the Eighth Grade at Mt. Zion and
I finished High School at Townsend, and from there to
Tennessee A & I State.
Q. All those elementary and secondary schools were pub
lic schools in Franklin County Tennessee, were they not?
A. Yes.
Q. And A & I, Tennessee A & I State University at
Nashville? A. Yes, sir.
— 56—
Q. Were you graduated from Tennessee A & I State?
A. Yes.
Q. What year? A. 1959.
Q. With what degree? A. B. S.
Q. Are you certified in any manner by the State of Ten
nessee Department of Education? A. Yes, I have a pro
fessional certificate in grades 1 to 9.
Q. And that is the document introduced here as an ex
hibit?
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 55, 56)
Mr. Williams: May I see the exhibit? I believe
it is Exhibit 1-10, please?
The Court: This is in evidence, isn’t it?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
The Court: If it is in evidence yon can’t add any
thing to it. I will be glad for you to read anything
you want to bring out.
Mr. Williams: I think it speaks for itself.
Q. That certificate qualifies you to teach elementary
grades from what elementary grades; what grades are you
certified to teach? A. Grades 1 to 9, in elementary school.
140a
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 57, 58)
—57—
Q. What professional experience have you had as a
teacher? A. I taught first grade three years.
Q. Where? A. One year in Madisonville, Kentucky,
and—
Q. For what school system? A. That was Hopkins
County Board of Education.
Q. Where else? A. The Christian County Board of Edu
cation, Hopkinsville, Kentucky.
Q. How many years did you teach there? A. Two
years.
Q. What years did you teach at Madisonville? A. ’61-62.
Q. And what school years at Hopkinsville? A. 63-64,
64-65.
Q. Now then, the year of 64-65, school year, at the end
of the 1964-65 school year, what happened; was a pretrial
school registration conducted in the schools at Hopkins
ville in the county schools of Christian County? A. Only
for the first grade in the school that I worked in.
Q. Do you know whether or not the enrollment in the
school wherein you worked reduced substantially in the
- 5 8 -
year 1964-65 going to the year 1965-66, whether it reduced
substantially in the year 1965-66, the year that you left
there? A. No.
Q. You don’t know that. All right. Were you a tenure
teacher there? A. No.
Q. Were you dismissed there at the Christian County
School System? A. Yes.
Q. Did you inquire as to the reason for your dismissal?
A. Yes, but I was not given a reason.
U fa
Q. Of whom did you inquire? A. The superintendent,
the principal, and the elementary adviser.
Q. Who was the elementary adviser? A. Mrs. Eliza
beth Wade.
Q. What were you advised by these officials? A. Mrs.
Wade told me that she—
Mr. Lynch: I didn’t understand the question.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. What were you advised by these officials?
Mr. Lynch: I object to that, what she was ad-
—59—
vised by some officials in Kentucky.
The Court: What would this have to do with it
any way, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: If counsel makes no question about
the reason of her discharge.
The Court: Don’t worry about counsel; worry
about the Court.
Mr. Williams: It is relevant because it is my un
derstanding counsel travelled all the way to Ken
tucky to take a deposition to attempt to establish
that she was discharged on account of her services
were unsatisfactory.
The Court: Wouldn’t it be proper to bring this
out on rebuttal?
Mr. Williams: All right.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 58, 59)
142a
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 59, 60)
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Now, Mrs. Kinslow, it is already in evidence—no, it
isn’t.
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court at this
time, we would like to offer and have received in
evidence as a Collective Exhibit a document which
was filed by the defendants with us, and I presume
the Court has been furnished a copy of it—pursuant
to paragraph 3 of the Pre-Trial Order.
Mr. Lynch: May it please the Court, that was
—60—
ordered filed as a part of the Pre-Trial Order.
The Court: That is what I thought.
It is already filed and a part of the record.
I know this practice may be confusing to you, but
when something is made a part of the Pre-Trial
Order or when there is an exhibit offered, it becomes
a part of the record. You don’t have to do anything
more.
Mr. Williams: And can be treated by the Court
as evidence?
The Court: Yes, it is treated by the Court as evi
dence. It is evidence.
Mr. Williams: Then I may presume the original
copy of this is or has already been filed?
The Court: You may not only presume it, you
may know it.
Mr. Williams: Very well, thank you.
That is a very convenient procedure, your Honor.
The Court: We find it very helpful.
143a
I would like for you to recommend it to some of
your courts in Nashville in the City.
Mr. Williams : Yes, sir.
If your Honor please, since I am not from the
—6 1 -
hills of East Tennessee myself, your remarks re
garding the rural nature of this court don’t phase
me at all, sir.
The Court: The difference in us is, you left the
country and went to the city, and I left the city and
went to the country.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mrs. Kinslow, it is in evidence here that you filed a
regular application with the defendants in January, 1965?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you do that, sir; why did you come down
here and file an application? A. This is my home here
and I was seeking employment where I could be at home.
Q. Does your husband work here? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who is your husband? A. Willie Kinslow. He is
employed at AEO.
Q. And has been for how many years? A. Four years.
Q. Do you have a home here? A. Yes.
Q. And so you wanted to be at home. Is that correct?
—62—
A. Yes, sir.
Q. After you filed your application in January, did you
receive any communication whatsoever directly or indi
rectly from Mr. Scott, the superintendent, or any Board
Member that spring? A. Soon after application was filed?
Q. Yes. A. No.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 60, 61, 62)
144a
Q. When did yon first receive your first communication
from anybody regarding this? A. That was in August,
last August.
Q. What was that communication? A. It was a tele
phone call from Mr. Blackwell stating that he had been
talking to—
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 62, 63)
Mr. Lynch: I object to telephone calls from some
unidentified person.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. You can’t state what Mr. Blackwell told you. As a
result of Mr. Blackwell, did you call any one of the defen
dants? A. I called Mr. Morris, Mr. L. J. Morris.
Q. What grades did you teach in Madisonville ? A.
First grade.
Q. And that was true in Hopkinsville also? A. True.
—63—
Q. What was the nature of the conversations between
you and Mr. Morris? A. When I called him, I told him
that Mr. Blackwell had informed me that he had—
Mr. Lynch: Objected to, your Honor.
Q. You told him— A. That I had been informed there
was a vacancy at Mary Sharp.
Mr. Lynch: I want to interpose an objection here,
your Honor.
The Court: Don’t tell what Mr. Blackwell told
you. Just tell us your conversation with Mr. Morris.
145a
A. Well, I called him concerning a vacancy at Mary Sharp,
and he said he did have a vacancy there, and suggested
that I contact the superintendent, Mr. Scott. I called Mr.
Scott, and he said no, he did not have a vacancy there;
that Mr. Morris tilled that vacancy in June.
Mr. Williams: That was in August?
Q. That was in August? A. In August.
Q. Do you know the approximate day? A. Around the
first week in August, I don’t remember the date.
—64—
Q. You called, I believe you said, Mr. Morris as a re
sult of the conversation with Fred Blackwell? A. Yes.
Q. Now then, after you talked with Mr. Scott and he
said Mr. Morris filled the vacancy in June, then what did
you do, if anything? A. I called Mr. Blackwell.
Q. As a result of your further conversation with Mr.
Blackwell, then what did you do? A. I received a call
from Mr. Morris later on that afternoon.
Q. State the conversation between you and Mr. Morris?
A. Well, he stated that they did have this vacancy there.
Q. At Mary Sharp? A. Yes.
Q. Did he say what grade it was in? A. No, he didn’t
say what grade.
Q. Go on. A. He did say that there was a vacancy; that
he had talked to someone about that vacancy, but they
had refused to take the position; that he would call me
back in a little while and let me know. He was going to
make a call to contact this person again to see.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 63, 64)
146a
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow-—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 65, 66)
—-65—
Q. All right, now then, did yon hear anything- further
from Mr. Morris? A. Yes, he called me back a little bit
later.
Q. A little bit later that day? A. That day, the same
night, around 6 :00 or after, maybe, somewhere in that
time of day, and he said that this person was not coming
and he suggested that I send a transcript to the super
intendent.
Q. That is the person to whom was to fill the vacancy
at Mary Sharp was not coming, and— A. The person he
had talked to about the position.
Q. All right, now then, did you follow his instructions
and send a transcript to Mr. Scott? A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever hear anything further from it? A. No.
Q. Has Mr. Scott even so much as written you a letter?
A. No.
Q. Courtesy letter in reply? A. No.
Q. Have you ever discussed it with Mr. Scott, you
— 66—
personally? A. I went in to talk to Mr. Scott and he
suggested I file another application.
Q. Was that when the November application was filed?
A. Yes, that was the reason for the November applica
tion.
Q. You went in to ask him why he hadn’t employed
you? A. No, didn’t ask why I hadn’t been employed. I
went in to talk about the possibility of other employment
or vacancies, or employment.
Q. You mean vacancies other than Mary Sharp? A.
Yes. That had been filled at that time, so I was inquiring
further, if there was anything else should come up.
147a
Q. And he advised you to send another application!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you did that, of course? A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear anything further from Mr. Scott? A.
No.
Q. Now, is Mary Sharp in the—do you know what school
district this is in?
The Court: Mr. Williams, before you get into
—67—
another phase, let’s have a recess.
The Court has some other matters to take up and
it may be a little longer than fifteen minutes.
(Thereupon court recessed at 10:35 o’clock a.m.,
and reconvened at 10:50 o’clock a.m. and the fol
lowing proceedings were had:)
The Court: Continue your examination.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mrs. Kinslow, do you know or are you familiar with
a custom practiced by the Franklin County Board of
Education regarding the recommendation of teacher ap
plicants by Board Members from particular districts? A.
I think that has been the custom.
Mr. Lynch: We object to what she thinks.
The Court: Yes. It is something—do you know?
The Witness: Yes, that has been the custom.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. State what district Mr. Morris is from? A. The
First District.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 66, 67)
148a
Q. What district was the Mary Sharp school in? A. It
was in the First District.
Q. What district do you reside in? A. The First Dis
trict.
—68—
Q. Were you advised of that custom at the time or did
you know of that custom at the time Mr. Morris called
you up and told you there was a vacancy at the Mary Sharp
School? A. Yes.
Q. And indicated he would recommend you? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know who filled that vacancy at Mary Sharp?
A. Yes, Mrs. Frances Campbell.
Q. Was she a resident of Franklin County, to your
knowledge? A. To my knowledge, no.
Mr. Lynch: I object as being immaterial.
The Court: Objection sustained.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Do you know where she came from?
The Court: I don’t think this is material. The
question is, whether or not the Board acted ar
bitrarily and discriminatorily. It doesn’t make any
difference where she came from.
Mr. Williams: We propose to show, your Honor,
that it is relevant to show the extent of the defen
dants. Your Honor must recognize it is an ex-
—69—
tremely difficult to establish discrimination some
times.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 67, 68, 69)
149a
The Court: The Court understands that, but it
is going to have to be established. What the Court
is really interested in, Mr. Williams, is the stan
dards the defendants used in making their selec
tions and the standards they used in making their
necessary dismissals.
I think that is where the discrimination might
arise.
Mr. Williams: Of course, if your Honor please,
anything that would tend to show a failure to apply
any standards at all would certainly be relevant.
The Court: I am going to exclude the type of
testimony you are now trying to offer by this wit
ness.
Mr. Williams: Exception is not necessary.
The Court: That’s right.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Now then, Mrs. Kinslow, I neglected to bring out
what your activities were the year after you finished
college? A. I did substitute work.
Q. Where? A. Nashville, Davidson County School Sys
tem.
—70—
Q. Where was your husband at that time? A. He was
in school at A & I.
Q. Was that substitute work that you did regular sub
stitute work? A. Part of it.
Q. What part of it? A. I did regular substitute work
at John Henry School; that was working with the Fifth
Grade.
Q. For what period of time? A. About seven months.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 69, 70)
150a
Q. By “regular,” do you mean every day! A. Yes.
Q. You were called. Is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. And then for the remainder of the school year ap
proximately how frequently were you called? A. At least
three days out of the week, approximately.
Q. All right, fine. Now then, after you had this—after
you filed this application in November, 1965, with Mr.
Scott, when next, if at all, did you hear from Mr. Scott?
A. I went to his office. It must have been around the first
of July; I don’t remember when.
—71—
Q. Of 1966? A. Yes.
Q. For what purpose? A. To talk to him about possi
bilities of getting a job for this coming year.
Q. What happened at that time? A. He said—
Mr. Lynch: We would object to that in as much
as that is not a part of the pleadings, and neither
is it an issue in this case. We are limited to plead
ings and the allegations contained in this complaint.
The Court: The Pre-Trial Order has supplanted
the pleadings. Is anything about this claimed in
the Pre-Trial Order?
Mr. Lynch: I don’t believe so.
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, we con
tend that this has a bearing on the question of his
refusal to hire the complainant for the school year
1965. They are evidently making contention regard
ing mitigation of damages. She is certainly entitled
to show that she applied for employment through
him again for 1966 school year.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 70, 71)
151a
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 71, 72, 73)
The Court: I am afraid there is going to be an
—72—
awful lot of spinning of wheels unnecessarily. The
issue that the Court thinks is apparent here—as
you should know, Mr. Williams, from, the Court’s
action in the Lincoln County case, what standards
did the Board have, if any, in deciding which teacher
it is to keep; which teacher it is to hire, and things
of that sort, and whether or not this was dis
criminatory.
Of course, you can show if Mrs. Kinslow was a
qualified teacher, and I think you have done that,
but as to every place she taught in Nashville as
a substitute teacher, the first year her husband came
out, and those things, they don’t impress the Court.
Mr. Williams: Very well, your Honor.
The Court: If you feel like any of this is ma
terial, the Court will let you in the absence of the
Court put the witness back on the stand later on
and at this point in the record insert whatever you
want to insert as an offer of proof. I wish you
wouldn’t take the Court’s time.
Mr. Williams: I would like to make an offer of
proof.
The Court: You may do that. The Court won’t
be here.
—73—
Mr. Williams: I will say to the Court, my effort
is to bring out testimony regarding her conservations
with the superintendent in July and the summer of
1966 regarding employment in this school system
152a
at a time when he again employed numerous white
teachers.
The Court: Move along. The Court sustained the
objection to this question.
Mr. Williams: We except.
The Court: It is not necessary to except.
You are familiar with the federal rules, Mr. Wil
liams.
By Mr. Williams-.
Q. Now, Mrs. Kinslow, state whether or not you have
ever worked with Mrs. Lincola Johnson? A. Yes, I
worked with Mrs. Lincola Johnson during the 64-65 school
year at Hopkinsville, Kentucky.
Q. State whether or not you have worked in the same
school system with Mrs. Peggy Wilson Ramsey? A. Yes,
I worked with her during the 64-65 school year, not in the
same school, but in the same system.
Q. Now then, since you filed your application in January
of 1965, your first application, with the defendants in this
case, state whether or not you have continuously sought
employment with them both as a regular and substitute
—7 4 -
teacher? A. Yes.
Q. Have you done substitute work here in Franklin
County System? A. Yes, I have.
Q. On how many occasions and at what time? A. I sub
stituted one day at Mary Sharp. I don’t remember the
dates.
Q. Was that in the 1965-66 school year? A. Yes.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(PP- 73, 74)
153a
Q. After you had been turned down for employment!
A. Yes; approximately five days for Mrs. L. K. Gray at
Mt. Zion.
Q. Who was principal at Mt. Zion at that time! A. Mrs.
Johnson.
Q. What was this work you were doing for the Anti-
Poverty Program! A. That was survey work through the
OEO.
Q. What exactly did that consist of! A. Going around
from door to door talking to people with incomes less than
three thousand dollars a year.
Q. Talking with people what! A. Who had an income
of less than three thousand dollars.
—75—
Q. Was that work more or less physically strenuous
than teaching work, Mrs. Kinslow! A. It was more be
cause you had to travel.
Q. Do you know how far Tullahoma is from Winchester!
A. Fourteen miles.
Q. Are you familiar with the defendants’ transfer prac
tices with regard to white teachers in Franklin County!
A. I don’t believe I understand your question.
Q. Are you familiar with what happens in Franklin
County when white school loses some pupil enrollment and
the ADA, average day to day attendance is thereby ren
dered less and, therefore, a teacher must be removed from
that school! Are you familiar with the defendants’ prac
tice in such a case! A. No.
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
The Court: Cross examine.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 74, 75)
154a
Cross Examination by Mr. Lynch,:
Q. Mrs. Kinslow, as I understood your testimony, you
filed two applications for teaching in Franklin County
School System, one in January, 1965, and one in November,
1965! A. Yes, sir.
—76—-
Q. In January, 1965, you did file an application, copy of
which is exhibited and made a part of the Pre-Trial Order,
didn’t you? A. Yes.
Q. Now, up to that time what had been your teaching
experience? A. Since January?
Q. Up to the time of the filing of your January, 1965,
application, what had been your teaching experience? A.
First grade.
Q. One year in Madisonville, Kentucky, and almost two
years in Hopkinsville? A. Two years in Hopkinsville.
Q. You had had three full years of teaching experience?
A. Yes.
Q. In referring to your application from that time, did
you have any further teaching experience until November
of that year? A. Before then?
Q. No, between January application of 1965 and the No
vember application of 1965, you were not in teaching work,
were you? A. No, sir.
—77—
Q. So your teaching experience would have been the
same on both of those applications? A. In January, 1965,
I was working at Hopkinsville.
Q. Yes ma’am. A. Because I worked until school was
out that term.
Q. That made your two years? A. Yes, sir.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Cross
(pp. 75, 76, 77) '
155a
Q. So, actually in January, 1965, you had had two and
one-half years teaching experience, and in November, 1965,
you at that time would have had three years experience.
Is that right? A. Yes, full years.
Q. In referring to your January, 1965 application, it is
noted you put on there you had had four years of prior
teaching experience. Where did you get that? A. In
January?
Q. Yes, ma’am. A. When I went to work in Madison-
ville they gave me credit for one year’s teaching experience
in Nashville.
Q. You just got through saying—
Mr. Williams: Object to him arguing with the
witness.
The Court: Objection overruled.
—78—
Q. I understood you just testified that in January, 1965,
when you filed your first application, you had had two
and one-half years of teaching experience, but your appli
cation says you had four years of teaching experience ? A.
The January application?
Q. Yes ma’am. How do you reconcile that? A. At the
end of that year I would have had four years if I was given
credit for the substitute year.
Q. Well, according to your testimony up to that time you
actually had had two and one-half years experience, hadn’t
you? A. Two and one-half?
Q. Yes ma’am. A. Two and one-half regular school
years.
Q. Of teaching experience. A. To January it would
have been about two and one-half.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Cross
(PP- 77, 78)
156a
Q. And by the end of that year or in November, 1965,
you would have had three years, and would have completed
your two years at Christian County School System in Hop
kinsville? A. Yes, but the reason for the four years, like
I say, I had been given credit for the substitute work. He
said that would be used for experience, so that is why it
was on there, but actually regular teacher three years.
—79—
Q. Now, in January, 1965, or any time thereafter, were
you contacted by Professor John Hunt, or contacted by
anyone in his behalf? A. Will you repeat that question?
Q. Do you know Professor John Hunt? A. Yes.
Q. The principal of Townsend School for many years?
A. Yes.
Q. After your application of January, 1965, did either
Professor Hunt contact you, or anyone in his behalf con
tact you? A. No.
Q. Did you know that Professor Hunt made an investi
gation of your application pursuant to a request by Mr.
Scott, the superintendent? A. No.
Mr. Williams: I object to that, if your Honor
please.
The Court: On what ground?
Mr. Williams: As being irrelevant at this time
to any issue here.
The Court: Objection overruled. Go ahead.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. Did you know that? A. No.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Cross
(pp. 78, 79, 80)
—80—
Q. Do you now know it?
157a
Mr. Williams: That is certainly objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. Do you now know it! A. No.
Q. Have you talked with Professor Hunt about his hav
ing investigated this application of yours! A. No.
Q. Now, you say in June of 1965, you heard of an open
ing and you contacted someone, some member of the Board,
and you were told by one person it was filled, and by
another person it had not been filled, but you were told
by Mr. Scott that you ought to fill out another application,
which you did in November. Is that right! A. This was
in August.
Q. Your application was made in November? A. Yes,
but I was told about the vacancy at Mary Sharp in August.
Q. Did you know then in anticipation of the employment
of teachers in March under Title 1, that Mr. Scott, the
superintendent of education, made an investigation as to
your teaching background? A. No.
—81—
Q. Do you know Mr. Stuart, superintendent of educa
tion in the Christian County School System in Hopkins
ville, Kentucky? A. Yes.
Q. You were not reemployed in that system, were you?
A. No.
Q. Do you know why? A. Not until recently I didn’t
know why.
Q. Do you know why now? A. I know why—what he
said.
Q. Do you know what he said: what his records reflect?
Mr. Williams: That is objected to, if your Honor
please. The records will speak for themselves and
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Cross
(pp. 80, 81)
158a
your Honor can evaluate the record when counsel
puts them in evidence.
The Court: Objection overruled. He asked her if
she knew what the records reflected. She either
knows, or she doesn’t know.
Mr. Williams: I further object to it, if your Honor
please, because of the vagueness of the word “rec
ord.” Very frankly, it is the contention of the
intervenors what Mr. Stuart in his deposition claims
— 82—
is a record is nothing hut a report that he made to
the Civil Human Rights Commission of Kentucky
in response to an inquiry as to why he discharged
all his Negro teachers.
The Court: Objection overruled. Oo ahead.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. Do you know, Mrs. Kinslow? A. I know what he
said.
Q. What does his record reflect as the cause for your
failure to be reemployed in the system?
Mr. Williams: Objected to, if your Honor please.
The Court: Objection overruled, Mr. Williams.
I have overruled your objection. I don’t want you
to object to this question, or anything like it again.
Mr. Williams: I respectfully except, your Honor.
The Court: You do not have to except under the
federal rules, and it is improper to except.
We are going to have order in this.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Cross
(pp. 81, 82)
159a
Mr. Lynch: Will you answer the question, Mrs.
Kinslow.
The Witness: WTill you repeat the question?
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. WThat did the records reflect in the Christian County
School System as the cause for your not being reemployed?
— 83—
A. I know what a letter stated that Mr. Scott had received
from the school system.
Q. You saw the records, didn’t you?
What did that record say? A. Well, if that was a rec
ord he presented, it stated that my work had not been
satisfactory.
Q. Now, in conversations with Mr. Stuart, you know
that he had conveyed this information to Mr. Scott, don’t
you?
Mr. Williams: Objected to, if your Honor please.
That hasn’t even—
The Court: Just state the ground of your objec
tion.
Mr. Williams: The ground of my objection is that
counsel—that she cannot possibly know what a tele
phone call between two other individuals, and coun
sel is trying to get in through her evidence which
he wouldn’t be successful in getting in direct.
The Court: That is not a legal ground for an
objection. From what I heard, he asked if she knows,
and if she does not know, she can state so, and
that will end the matter.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Cross
(PP- 82, 83)
160a
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Cross
(pp. 83, 84, 85)
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. Do you know? A. Repeat that question,
—84—
Q. Do you know that Mr. Stuart conveyed the contents
of this record to Mr. Scott? A. Do I know that he did?
Q. Yes, ma’am?
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, may I
have the witness instructed not to attempt to answer
what she does not know of her own knowledge.
The Court: It is assumed the witness doesn’t ever
answer what she does not know.
Mr. Williams, we have had enough unnecessary in
terruptions. The Court wants your clients to pre
sent their cases fully, and the defendants to present
their case fully, and we can do this without all
this continual interruption.
Go ahead.
Did you know that this same information before
the letter was written was received by Mr. Scott
by telephone?
The Witness: No.
The Court: All right. She doesn’t know. Go on
with something else.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. The name of some teacher was mentioned here with
whom you worked in Kentucky School System. Was that
a Mrs. Lincola Johnson? A. Yes.
—85—
Q. In what capacity did you work with her? A. Mrs.
Johnson taught first grade in the same school where I
worked.
161a
Q. And yon mentioned another by the name of Mrs.
Ramsey. What capacity did you work with her inf A.
Mrs. Ramsey worked in that system in another school,
and the work we did together was in the workshop and
planning. She was teaching first grade also.
Q. You weren’t in the same school though physically?
A. No, not with Mrs. Ramsey.
Q. So far as teaching is concerned, you had no actual
contact with each other teaching? A. With Mrs. Ramsey?
Q. Yes. A. No.
Q. Do you know Mrs. Frances Campbell? A. Yes, sir.
Q. She is the teacher, I believe you said, was finally
selected to fill the position at Mary Sharp in which you
were interested. Is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know of her qualifications? A. No.
— 86—
Q. Do you contend that your qualifications are any bet
ter than her’s? A. I couldn’t. I didn’t know of her’s.
Mr. Williams: I object, your Honor.
The Court: Objection sustained. She says she
doesn’t know.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. You said Tullahoma was 14 miles from Winchester?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Assuming Mt. Zion is approximately eight miles be
yond Winchester, how far would it be to Mt. Zion?
Mr. Williams: Objected to as calling for an obvi
ous conclusion, and not evidence.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners—Cross
(pp. 85, 86)
162a
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners
—Redirect
(pp. 86, 87)
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. It isn’t 30 miles from Tnllahoma to Mt. Zion, is it?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Do you know where Keith Springs is? A. Yes.
Q. How far is it from Winchester to Keith Springs?
A. I don’t know.
Mr. Lynch: That’s all.
The Court: Any redirect?
Mr. Williams: Yes, your Honor.
—87—
Redirect Examination by Mr. Williams:
Q. Mrs. Kinslow, you have stated on cross examination
that you were made aware of a letter received by the
superintendent of the Christian County Kentucky School
System. Did you have any knowledge of such a letter be
fore just the other day when we went up there to take a
deposition at Mr. Lynch’s behest to take the deposition?
A. The first knowledge of that letter was at the Pre-
Trial Conference when it was marked for an exhibit.
Q. A letter received by the superintendent? A. A letter
from Mrs. Wade—Mrs. Wade’s name was signed on that
letter.
Q. Oh, you mean from Mrs. Wade to the superintendent
of Franklin County School System? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was your first knowledge of any such letter?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me ask you this. Did Mrs. Elizabeth Wade testify
when we went up there the other day with counsel? A.
No.
Q. She declined to testify, did she not? A. Yes.
163a
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow— for Intervening Petitioners
—Recross
(pp. 88, 89)
—88—
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
Recross Examination by Mr. Lynch-.
Q. Prior to your having taught in the Christian County
Kentucky System, you said you taught for one year at
Madisonville. Is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. What grade did you teach there? A. First grade.
Q. Why did you not continue on there? A. When I
went there, I was to replace a teacher that was on leave
for one year or eight months and one week.
Q. Did that teacher return? A. Yes. I went there with
the understanding that she would return.
Q. Did you apply for any further position in that sys
tem? A. No.
Mr. Lynch: That’s all.
The Court: The witness is excused.
I would like at this point to hear from the defen
dants on this matter of standards that the Board
adopted or employed in connection with the sub
stitute plan of desegregation. Part VI of the Sub-
—89—
stitute Plan provided that at the beginning of the
1965-1966 school term—I am not reading all of it
—all of the teaching personnel engaged in the op
eration of grade schools shall be desegregated and
deployed without regard to race or color.
Part VIII of the Substitute Plan, it was pro
vided that all teaching personnel connected with
the high schools shall be employed on a desegre
164a
gated basis without regard to race or color at the
beginning of the 1966-67 school year.
The Court at this time wants to hear evidence
from the defendants as to how this was implemented;
what, number one, were any standards adopted;
and number two, if so, what were the standards
adopted?
Mr. Lynch: May it please the Court, on that issue,
I think perhaps the first indication of the necessity
of the adoption of any formal standards that have
ever been received by any of us is perhaps in the
Lincoln County case. There have never been, upon
a review of all the minutes, there have never been
any official standards adopted.
There is no need of us trying to enter into any
deception. The Board speaks for its minutes. Upon
examination of the minutes there have been no for
mal standards adopted. There have been always
—90—
certain things considered, but in the implementation
of this plan, none of us, I think, ever picked up the
thought from the plan that that necessitated the
adoption of any formal standards of employment.
Of course, it does say that they shall be employed
or retained based upon factors other than race.
The Court: The Court would like to know if no
formal standards, what standards were actually ap
plied when the plan was implemented, and if there
is no evidence along that line, certainly what stan
dards were used as regards those two intervening-
plaintiffs.
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow—for Intervening Petitioners
—Recross
(pp. 89, 90)
165a
Mr. Lynch: Yes, sir.
The Court; I think this would be the proper time
to get it into the record.
Mr. Lynch: All right.
Come around, Mr. Scott.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 90, 91)
Thereupon Louis S cott was called as a witness by and
on behalf of the defendants, and after having been first
duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Lynch-.
— 91—
Q. For the sake of the record, is this Mr. Louis Scott?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you occupy any official position with Franklin
County Educational System? A. Superintendent of Edu
cation,
Q. Did you hold this position at the time of the adop
tion of the desegregation plans as amended from time to
time in this court? A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Scott, in a review of the minutes of the
Board of Education not only during your tenure, but dur
ing the tenure of your predecessors in the past or in the
office, have you been able to find any formal standards of
employment to be exercised in the employment of teachers?
A. Not any.
Q. In the adoption, of your plan of desegregation, state
whether or not you found therein a mandate for you to do
so, or if you recognized the necessity of doing so? A.
No, we did not see there any necessity.
Q. All right, sir, nowT, inasmuch as no formal standards
have been adopted, and inasmuch as your plan of de
166a
segregation does require that teachers be retained and/or
employed, based solely upon factors one time, factors of
—9 2 -
race. Now, state to the court what your procedure is
and what factors you do actually consider in weighing
one application against another, or in determining what
teacher shall be retained and what teacher shall not be?
The Court: Will you make that retroactive back
to the Spring of 1965, I guess it would be?
Let me ask this: These various school systems
operate different ways. In some of them the teachers
are elected in the spring for the ensuing school
term, but they do not actually sign a contract until
they sometime before they go down to get their
first paycheck. In other situations, they sign a con
tract in the spring, or certainly before the begin
ning of the new year, so the Court would need that
in there.
Mr. Lynch: I know that your Honor’s observa
tions are correct, and perhaps those things are even
alternated within a system. I know that is ab
solutely true.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. Now, let’s answer these specific questions first. What
has been the practice with respect to contracting with a
teacher in the educational system during the tenure of your
entire office, do you contract with the teachers to serve at
a specified school or in a specified system? A. Of course,
Louis Scott—for Defendants- Direct
(pp. 91, 92)
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 93, 94)
—93—
we use a contract that we get from the State Department
of Education, but we have always, since I have been super
intendent written into that contract the specified school.
Mr. Williams: This is objected to, if your Honor
please.
The Court: On what grounds, Mr. Williams; as
to what the practice has been!
Mr. Williams: If the Court please, I will object
to any of it regarding contracts which are not ex
hibited.
The Court: I will overrule your objection.
We are talking about now practice, custom, and
this is certainly admissible in any kind of litigation,
and in a situation like this where the Court has
the heavy burden of enforcing the law, it becomes
important to everybody’s rights to know how is
this done; how has it been done, and why.
Go ahead.
By Mr. Lynch-.
Q. Mr. Scott, now when by custom and practice are the
teachers selected for their specific schools?
The Court: Are you talking about at the present?
Take it back a little bit.
—94—
By Mr. Lynch-.
Q. When were teachers selected for their specific schools
beginning particularly with the selection of teachers for
the year 1965-66 regardless of when that selection was
168a
made? A. Well, of course, Mr. Lynch, the Board of Edu
cation has always tried to work with the State law and
election of teachers at least thirty days before the closing
of school.
Q. All right, sir, let’s pause right there. We do have a
statute, do we not? A. Yes.
Q. Requiring that teachers be selected at least thirty
days before the termination of the school year in which they
are currently teaching. Is that correct? A. Right.
The Court: That applies only to the ones in the
system, does it not?
Mr. Lynch: Yes, sir.
The Witness: That’s right.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. Now, in anticipation of the necessity of new teachers
for an ensuing year, and specifically beginning with the
year 1965-66, when did you, in fact, select teachers for the
school year 1965-66, regardless of whether that meant the
retention of teachers within the system or the employment
—95—
of teachers to be brought into the system. A. That was
done at the same time, of course, any new positions we
knew of.
Q. What was that time? A. That was in April or
March of each year.
Q. March and April? A. Yes, whichever case may be.
Q. Now, with specific reference to the 65-66 school year,
have you not filed in this cause exhibits of your official
minutes for the year 65-66, which are incorporated as a
part of this Pre-Trial Order, that sets forth the actual
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 94, 95)
169a
dates and the actual procedure of the selection of all the
teachers, for the year 65-66? A. Yes, selection of all
teachers were included in this.
Mr. Lynch: Now, we can prove this further, but
I would anticipate your Honor would perhaps like
to study those exhibits as a part of the Pre-Trial
Order, there was requested the filing of minutes
pertaining to the selection of teachers for the year
1965-66 the actual copy of the minutes is filed in
the record and is testimony, and I think will speak
for itself, after your Honor has an opportunity to
review them.
—96—
The Court: I notice at the meeting of March 11,
1965, there was an election of substantial number
of teachers, including the intervening plaintiff, Mrs.
Scott.
Mr. Lynch: Yes.
The Court: And just looking at the list, I would
assume that that would have been the bulk of them?
The Witness: Yes, that’s right.
Mr. Lynch: All right.
Q. Now, after your initial meeting in March, 1965, and
as student loads are further determined, was it necessary
to supplement that initial selection perhaps from time to
time by appointment or election of additional teachers
from schools? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: I object to the leading question,
your Honor.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 95, 96)
170a
The Court: Objection is sustained.
Don’t lead the witness. Just ask him what hap
pened.
By Mr. Lynch-.
Q. Are the minutes you have filed as exhibits to this
Pre-Trial Order insofar as you are able to determine, com
pletely accurate? A. Right.
—97—
Q. In March you selected the bulk of your teachers for
1965-66 school year? A. Right.
Q. Why was it necessary to make further or other selec
tions? A. Well, of course, after that particular election
there could have been someone resigned, or that we found
that was necessary, or maybe we didn’t quite fill them all
at that particular time, but at least this proposition of
resigning comes into it.
Q. All right, sir. Now, from and after the first filing of
your plans of desegregation, and from and after your first
selection of teachers, beginning with the 65-66 school year,
specifically, and thereafter, what was your method of selec
tion of teachers, what factors did you consider whether
formal or otherwise in the selection of teachers or in the
selection of additional teachers? A. It has always been
the practice of the Board of Education of Franklin County,
I feel, generally speaking, that first applications are taken
and there are conferences held with the principals of the
schools at which there might be an opening, and, of course,
if there is someone that is close that we know, and we
- 9 8 -
pretty well know of their abilities and that—
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 96, 97, 98)
171a
Q. I don’t believe you are answering my specific ques
tion, Mr. Scott. His Honor wants to know what factors—
The Court: Before you get into that, let me ask
one question.
I hate to interrupt you.
Now, these teachers that were elected at the meet
ing of March 11, 1965, when did the bulk of them
sign their contracts, or when were the contracts
offered to them?
The Witness: Your Honor, I am not real sure
about that. That has been something that has been
irregular in the school system.
We have a few times signed contracts in the spring,
or in May, before school closes. However, this par
ticular year, for instances, we haven’t signed a lot
of contracts as yet.
So, sometimes it varies. One time the contract will
be signed right away, and another time it might wait
until even the teachers open school.
The Court: With specific reference to your meet
ing of March 11, 1965, how was that supplemented;
did you notify each teacher of his or her election?
—99—
The Witness: Yes, sir. They were published in
the newspapers.
The Court: In the newspapers?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: And then do you recall that any of
them came in and wanted to sign up?
The Witness: I don’t recall, your Honor. I don’t
remember whether we even signed contracts in ’65
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 98, 99)
172a
in the spring or not right at this point. 1 would
have to go and check it.
The Court: Do you recall whether the contracts
were prepared?
The Witness: I am not sure about the 65-66 school
year—let’s see—yes, evidently were because the
signing of one there, yes.
The Court: Did you as an administrative matter,
were all of the contracts prepared for those who
had been elected at one time?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: And then the practice of all the teach
ers who have been elected insofar as they are
available asked to come in and sign a contract or
was a contract sent to them by mail, or just how
do you do that?
— 100—
The Witness: No, we do not send contracts by
mail. We notify these teachers through the principal
that their contract is ready to be signed, or through
meetings.
The Court: Sir?
The Witness: Or through a meeting of the teach
ers, something of that nature.
The Court: The point I am trying to make is or
determine are these contracts all prepared in ad
vance and it is just a matter of them being signed,
or if a teacher comes in, is the contract then pre
pared?
The Court: Usually the contracts are prepared
in advance.
Could I interrupt you just one more time?
Lo-uis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 99, 100)
173a
Mr. Lynch: Yes, sir.
The Court: I hate to interrupt you.
Now, in addition to what the minutes of March 11,
1965, show, which is the bare action that was taken;
in other words, a motion was made by Mr. Spauld
ing, seconded by Mr. Garner, that all of these teach
ers be elected to the 1965-1966 school term, could
you recall and give us the benefit of any discus
sion that was had at that time about the election of
— 101—
these teachers, either individuals or as a whole?
The Witness: Yes, your Honor, I will be glad to.
Usually, as I say, contacts are made with the
principal, and if any particular district in which a
particular teacher or position is being questioned,
where it is a new position or something, in other
words, if it is an old position, there is no question.
The Court: In other words, if it is a teacher that
is already in the system?
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: Then you would contact the princi
pal or someone would find out if this teacher’s ser
vices was satisfactory?
The Witness: Yes, sir. And, of course, when we
come into our meeting, then we read each name
separately and take time for a discussion with the
whole Board.
The Court: What is the general nature of that
discussion; in other words, what do you talk about
with reference to each of these teachers?
The Witness: Well, of course, the superintendent
is supposed to recommend first, and if I have rec-
Louis Scott—for Defendants-—Direct
(pp. 100, 101)
174a
Louis Scott—for Defendants-—Direct
(pp. 102, 103)
— 102—
ommended these teachers, I inform the Board to that
effect, and if there is other questions, of course,
time is taken there in the meeting for it as to qual
ifications, or how they are getting along, or are they
teaching already. Those are the procedures we use.
There is not just this thing of reading the names
quickly and close the meeting, no, sir.
The Court: What you have been saying so far
has to do with teachers who are in the system and
whom you have recommended for re-appointment.
Now, as to teachers are not going to he in the
system again, what happens in that connection; what
did happen at this meeting?
The Witness: Where a teacher would not be con
sidered again, or if it be someone being considered
even, usually conferences are held with the particu
lar Board Member if it is in a district—we do
have two or three schools where it is everyone’s
business, particular high school for instance. That
has always been considered to be all the Board Mem
bers’ business, but if it is an elementary school, at
Mary Sharp School, for instance, which we brought
up this morning, conferences are held with the
- 1 0 3 -
Board Member in that district previous to this meet
ing, and he usually at the meeting is informed as
to the desirability of a particular person being in
that position.
The Court: Do I understand from what you say
that you have members elected from various dis
175a
tricts or are they elected by the people of the
county as a whole?
The Witness: I am talking about before we come
to our overall election.
The Court: I am talking about now election of
Board Members.
The Witness: They are elected by districts.
The Court: Elected by districts?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: How many districts are there ?
The Witness: Eight.
The Court: Do I understand there is a practice
among the Board, except for certain schools, to
sort of make whoever the board member from that
district is, the Czar, he has the power to say yes
or no to a person?
The Witness: No, sir, that is not really the way
we have been operating. Of course, he has some
—104-
more of importance, I would guess, in that par
ticular district, but as far as the over-all employ
ment in that, it has been a practice that there has
been conferences with the superintendent, and there
is no actual—in other words, we employ teachers
from all around. He doesn’t necessarily put some
one in right in his district.
The Court: I understood Mrs. Kinslow to testify
that she got in touch with the Board Member from
the First District where the Mary Sharp School
was located, and that he told her that he had a
vacancy in the Mary Sharp School, and suggested
that she get in touch with you.
Did she get in touch with you?
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 103, 104)
176a
The Witness: Yes, your Honor. If you would
like, I would like to explain that, that the position,
if we check the minutes, the position was—there was
someone elected there from the previous year, and
this lady hadn’t officially resigned to me, and that—
The Court: As to your conversations with Mrs.
Kinslow, do you recall this conversation?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Did Mrs. Kinslow say to you sub-
—105—
stantially that Mr.—who was the board member?
The Witness: Mr. Morris.
The Court: —that Mr. Morris said that he had a
vacancy at the Mary Sharp School?
The Witness: I don’t remember if she told me
that or not. I do not.
The Court: But in any event she mentioned a
vacancy at Mary Sharp School?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: And you told her there was not a
vacancy?
The Witness: That’s right. At first, I told her
there was not a vacancy. I did not, know of a va
cancy.
The Court: And then in a subsequent conversa
tion with Mrs. Kinslow, as I understood her testi
mony, you were informed or you knew there was a
vacancy a there. Is that correct?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: In other words, the person who had
been there had by that time resigned?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 104, 105)
177a
The Court: Was anybody else on the Board con
sulted about Mrs. Kinslow’s employment besides Mr.
Morris ?
—-106—
The Witness: I think all of the members were
aware of—
The Court: I didn’t ask you about being aware,
I said consulted. Was this a Board action or was
this something you and Mr. Morris worked out and
then the Board adopted?
The Witness: Your Honor—
Mr. Lynch: Mr. Scott, I think in order to answer
that question, if you will refer his Honor to a copy
of some minutes that were actually there it will
show on some specified date, whether August or
not, I looked at it last night.
Mr. Williams: I object to counsel leading espe
cially during interrogation by the Court.
The Court: Objection is overruled, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Lynch: —August 13th, look at those minutes,
Mr. Scott.
The Witness: I don’t have it.
The Court: I see one on August 12th, and one
on August 23rd. I don’t see one on August 13th.
Mr. Lynch: August 12th.
The Witness: August 12th.
Your Honor, this notification took place before
—107—
the election there.
The Court: I don’t see anything in the minutes
of August 12th about Mrs. Kinslow. Maybe I am
overlooking it—oh, yes, “Motion was made by Mr.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 105, 106, 107)
178a
L. J. Morris, and seconded by Dr, Couser, that
Theresa Kinslow be elected to fill the vacancy at
Townsend School. McDaniel, No; Morris, Yes;
Baldwin, Pass; Couser, Yes; Garner, No; Allen,
No; Smith, No; Barris, Yes. Motion failed to
carry.”
What did the members of the Board talk about
when that motion was before the Board?
Mr. Lynch: That is what he wants you to tell him.
The Witness: Your Honor, I hadn’t recommended
Mrs. Kinslow up to this point.
The Court: What did they talk about? There is
bound to have been some discussion because here
you have a split vote in the Board. You had three
yes’s; four no’s, and one pass.
The Witness: Right.
The Court: I imagine that was a hot time.
The Witness: There was a discussion. I have
seen that day, your Honor.
The Court: What was the discussion?
— 108—
The Witness: The discussion was all over the
fact which was the person to employ in the posi
tions here as indicated here, at Mary Sharp School
and Townsend School.
A lady had talked with me—
The Court: Mr. Scott, you are getting away from
what the Court is interested in.
The Witness: All right; I am sorry.
The Court: What the Court wants to know, when
this motion was pending before the Board, what
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 107, 108)
179a
was the nature of the discussion; what standards
were talked about; what pro’s and con’s came up?
The Witness: Well, of course, as I said earlier,
Judge, your Honor, I did not recommend Mrs.
Kinslow.
Mr. Lynch: Tell him why.
The Witness: Why, first, I knew or had knowl
edge from two sources that she was not—
Mr. Williams: We object to hearsay evidence, if
your Honor please.
The Court: Objection overruled. I wish you would
let the Court try to get the truth of this matter, if
you will. I want you to protect your client’s interest.
There is no jury here. The Court has an unusual
- 1 0 9 -
duty to perform and you are making it a little bit
difficult to do that.
The Witness: I had called the superintendent of
education in Kentucky—
The Court: I am not too much interested in that.
Let’s begin with the fact that you did not recom
mend.
The Witness: I did not recommend.
The Court: Mr. Morris, regardless of what you
recommended, made a motion that Mrs. Kinslow be
elected to fill the vacancy at the Townsend School,
and at some point Hr. Kowser seconded the motion?
The Witness: Right.
The Court: That made it open for discussion,
did it not?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Tell me about the discussion?
Lotas Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 108, 109)
180a
The Witness: The diseusison was this, that I
informed the Board when they thought of placing
Mrs. Kinslow at the Townsend School, of the recom
mendations that I had received from the principal
of the school.
The Court: After you did that, then what hap
pened?
—n o —
The Witness: The Board was divided in the mat
ter to the extent as witnessed here. I, in my obser
vations, and inquiry, had based my opinion and I
think the majority of the Board, as shown here, did,
but there were several factors involved.
The Court: Mr. Scott, you are giving me a lot of
generalization. What was the discussion?
The Witness: The matter of her ability to do the
job well.
The Court: All right.
The Witness: The matter of whether she got along
in the school system in which she was from before
she applied there.
The Court: This is what I want to hear. Go ahead.
The Witness: And the matter of whether we had
other applicants, people wanting the same position.
The Court: All right.
The Witness: And the matter of—well, in other
words, the Board was concerned about the applica
tion, very much so, and in thinking of her quali
fications, I had the applications there and we dis
cussed them.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—-Direct
(pp. 109, 110)
181a
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. I l l , 112)
— Ill—
The Court: Was anything said about this was
her home country and she wanted to come back here
to live and teach?
The Witness: I don’t remember if anything was
said specifically about that, Judge, your Honor. Of
course, everyone knew she had lived here.
The Court: It wasn’t necessary to say that; every
one knew that.
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: Can you remember anything else now
except of her ability and her qualifications and her
past experience; can you remember anything else
that was discussed when this motion was before the
house?
The Witness: I don’t recall exactly, Judge, your
Honor, anything in particular.
The Court: Excuse me, Mr. Lynch. We are going
to have to adjourn in a moment. Would you like to
do so now before you go ahead.
Mr. Lynch: I would like to ask Mr. Scott one
more question.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. Following your normal practice of referring appli
cants to principals where they might possibly be employed,
did you further discuss the recommendation of the prin-
— 112—
cipal concerning this application? A. Right.
Q. What was it? That is what his Honor has been
asking you?
182a
Mr. Williams: We object to that, if your Honor
please.
The Court: On what ground?
Mr. Williams: We think the oral recommenda
tion of the principal is the rankest hearsay, your
Honor.
The Court: How else is this Court going to find
out what, if any, standards this Board used in act
ing on or taking the actions that they took?
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, I presume
that principal is still living and is still available
here in Franklin County and is in a position where
his testimony can be introduced and I can be per
mitted to cross examine him.
He is saying, we had the experience up in Ken
tucky with the superintendent who said the princi
pal recommended something to him and we went
over to the principal’s deposition, and he said, “I
recommended nothing of the kind about this very
lady.”
The Court: The objection will be sustained in
—113—
this instance as the witness will be available.
A. In my—
Mr. Lynch: The objection was sustained.
Q. Without saying what the principal said, was a rec
ommendation of the principal one of the factors that was
discussed also with the Board? A. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Louis Scott—for Defendants— Direct
(pp. 112, 113)
183a
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 113, 114)
The Court: Are you talking about the principal
of Townsend now’I
Mr. Lynch: Your Honor indicated you wanted to
recess.
The Court: Yes. The witness is temporarily ex
cused from the stand.
Does any other person wish to be heard before
this court is adjourned1?
Adjourn court until ten minutes past 1:00.
(Thereupon court adjourned, to reconvene at 1:10
o’clock p.m.)
— 114—
A fter R ecess
(Thereupon court reconvened at 1:10 o’clock p. m.,
pursuant to adjournment.)
The Court: Before the case on trial is called again,
is there any preliminary matter to come to the at
tention of the Court?
Call the case please, Clerk.
Mr. Lynch: Your Honor, perhaps this is a pre
liminary matter dealing with this case. I am getting
myself in somewhat of a bind here.
I have a criminal case, a murder case set for
tomorrow’. I wonder if we might try to anticipate
the remaining length of time required in the trial
of this case so I can send word to that court.
The Court: Mr. Williams, could you give us some
idea about how much time you think it might take
to present your contentions?
184a
Mr. Williams: If your Honor please, I would esti
mate the balance of my witnesses ought not to take
more than an hour or hour and a half at the most.
The Court: The Court is about through with the
Court’s examination.
Mr. Lynch: That’s fine.
The Court: You are not engaged in the case to-
—115—
morrow, are you!
Mr. Lynch: Yes, sir.
The Court: I am talking about the case in this
court tomorrow!
Mr. Lynch: Oh, no, sir.
The Court: Mr. Scott, will you take the stand
again, please, sir!
Thereupon Mb. L ew is S cott the witness on the stand
at the time of adjournment, resumes the witness stand, and
on being questioned, testified further as follows:
The Court: Mr. Lynch, before you start, could I
also interrupt you again!
Mr. Lynch: Yes, sir.
The Court: What was the date the action was
taken by the Board to dismiss Mrs. Scott, do you
recall, Mr. Lynch! It was sometime before the 31st
of August.
Mr. Lynch: August 17th, your Honor, as I recall,
or according to my notes.
The Court: Here is the special session of August
23, 1965, a motion was made by Mr. Eufus Smith,
seconded by W. D. Allen, that the following teachers
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 114, 115)
185a
be dismissed due to a lack of enrollment: Mrs.
—116—
Virginia Scott. Motion carried unanimously.
Now, Mr. Scott, do you have any recollection now
of what transpired at that meeting when Mrs. Scott’s
situation was discussed and when your need to re
duce your faculty at Mt. Zion was discussed?
The Witness: At that time, your Honor, the dis
cussion came up, was there another opening in the
school system at that time. Of course, there was not
at that time.
The Court: How long would you say this was dis
cussed?
The Witness: Your Honor, I don’t remember ex
actly how long.
The Court: Do you recall whether there was any
discussion at or before this time in this meeting as
to whether or not Mrs. Scott’s qualifications and
abilities should be compared with all of the other
teachers in the system rather than just those of Mt.
Zion?
The Witness: No, sir, the only discussion—there
was some discussion about the thing that has already
been introduced, I think, that Mrs. Scott had not
done anything to attain tenure in all the years she
had been here as a teacher, and that the Board
—117—
would like to see people and encourage them to go
back to school and to continue their education. That
has always been what the Board would like to see
done.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 115, 116, 117)
186a
The Court: Was Mrs. Scott sort of singled out
about this discussion, the matter of whether or not
she would be retained an issue, or other people who
had been around a long time and had not done addi
tional studying?
The Witness: Mrs. Scott was singled out, your
Honor, but, of course, the Board has been concerned
about all the teachers, whether they are trying to
improve their education or not, and she was singled
out in that particular time, the best I remember.
The Court: Was the discussion confined just to
Mt. Zion School in deciding whether or not to keep
Mrs. Scott, or was the entire system considered as
to whether or not Mrs. Scott might go to some other
school in the system?
The Witness: No, it was not confined entirely to
that school. Of course, the Board here has always
had the practice, as already mentioned to you, that
the teacher with the least qualifications and the most
— 118—
recently hired would be the first one to be dismissed
in case of lack of enrollment.
The Court: Is that on a per school basis?
The Witness: Yes, sir, that has been the practice
pretty well all these years.
The Court: Per school basis?
The Witness: Yes, sir, but at that time I know
there was a discussion that we did not have any other
openings even in the school system.
The Court: How long was it after that was it
Keith Springs School was mentioned?
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 117, 118)
187a
The Witness: I am not sure how long, but the
knowledge of a permit perhaps being there was
known and discussed, yes.
The Court: You think at the meeting of August
23rd there may have been some discussion about the
possibility for Mrs. Scott in Keith Springs?
The Witness: There was a discussion; yes, sir.
The Court: Do you recall that or do you not
recall it?
The Witness: I am not real sure what was dis
cussed, your Honor, but I believe there was a men
tion of it.
The Court: And at some further time, on Decem-
—119—
ber 31st, this letter was sent to—
The Witness: August 31st.
The Court: I mean August 31st, this letter was
sent to Mrs. Scott about the possibility of an open
ing there. Is that correct?
The Witness: Right.
The Court: All right.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. Mr. Scott, what is a permit teacher? You have used
that term. For the sake of the record, what is a permit
teacher? A. A permit teacher is one that cannot certify
according to state standards certification, either by not
having a degree and meeting the educational requirements,
or perhaps at the—no college work at all in either case.
Q. That is then a teacher that doesn’t even have a cer
tificate ? A. Right.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 118, 119)
188a
Q. Would that permit teacher have been definitely a per
son of less qualifications than Mrs. Scott? A. In this case,
definitely, yes, sir.
Q. Then was there comparison of Mrs. Scott with those
permit teachers?
Mr. Williams: I object to leading, your Honor.
— 120—
The Court: Yes, don’t lead the witness.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. State whether or not then there was any comparison
with Mrs. Scott and any other teachers in the school sys
tem even outside the Mt. Zion School? A. Yes, there was.
The Court: Will you develop that just a little bit
more as to when and where, the comparison made.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. Do you recall the occasion of that discussion, when
and where that was done? A. The occasion was this same
meeting we have been speaking of here.
Q. Do you recall that discussion? A. I recall a discus
sion about it. I am almost sure a discussion went on.
Q. Are you saying you don’t remember the particular
details? A. That’s right. I do not remember what the
details were in that.
Q. As a result of that discussion held in that meeting,
in August, then state whether or not a written offer of
this school was made?
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 119, 120)
189a
Mr. Williams: Objected to as being leading and
suggestive.
The Court: Well, we have in evidence the letter
— 121—
of August 31st. I think it is repetitious.
Mr. Lynch: All right.
Q. Were there any other permit openings in the entire
system? A. No, only the ones mentioned, the one job
and that. This was in the first grade position in Keith
Springs.
Q. What teaching position was held by the permit teacher
in Keith Springs? A. Grades 1 to 4.
Q. Was Mrs. Scott certificated to teach those grades?
A. Yes.
Q. Had her experience been involved with these particu
lar grades, or at least one or two? A. All of her teaching
was this kind, I think.
Q. Where is Keith Springs; what kind of road leads
there; what is the attitude of the people there; how far
is it; and what type of school facilities do they have? A.
Keith Springs is, I would say, it may be a little bit more
than six miles from Winchester. I am not sure of the
exact mileage, and along in that particular year, I believe
a nice oiled road had been built there, but the travel was
at least ordinary travel. And the school building is a nice
two-room school. It is a modern school building.
— 122—
Q. Brick or frame? A. Brick.
Q. Is it old or new? A. Built, I think, in 1955 or 1957.
Q. Modern in every respect? A. Modern.
Q. Heating system? A. Heating system.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 120, 121, 122)
190a
Q. Do you know of anything adverse or undesirable
about the attitude of the people in general in that area?
A. No, I do not,
Q. Did Mrs. Scott give you any reason for declining
that position? A. After the letter I did not hear from
Mrs. Scott at all and, therefore, we left her from our files.
Q. I want to ask you about your custom and practices
in that respect. What has been your custom and your
practice with respect to teachers who are offered a posi
tion in the system and either declined it or didn’t accept
it, are those applications retained on file constantly or
continuously, or are they dropped? A. Since this person
had been teaching for sometime and did not even answer
the letter at all, of course, we felt in that particular in-
—123-
stance, any way, we didn’t know where she had gone or
anything. Our practice has been, when people are gone,
we don’t just hold to the applications.
Q. Mr. Scott, with respect to the general practices in
your retention of teachers in Franklin County School Sys
tem from and after the beginning of the school term 1965-
66, or from and after the implementation of the first de
segregation plan in this entire system, how many Negro
teachers are not presently teaching in this system that
have taught in the system?
Mr. Williams: If your Honor please, if he is to
be allowed to go into that, then I want to renew my
request to be allowed to go into the conversations
of Mrs. Kinslow with the superintendent as of July,
1966.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 122, 123)
191a
The Court: As the Court suggested earlier, that
could very well be proper rebuttal.
This part of Mr. Lynch’s case, of course, is sub
ject to your cross examination and rebuttal. The
Court wants this issue thrashed out first.
Mr. Lynch: May it please the Court, I am trying
to show absence of pattern as was established in
the Hendersonville case.
The Court: All right, the Court overrules the
—124-
request of the defendant at this time, although it
is proper rebuttal. He may bring it in.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. Out of all the teachers that may have been trans
ferred and may have been temporarily dropped from the
very beginning of the implementation of the desegregation
system in Franklin County, Tennessee, how many of those
teachers still remain unemployed? A. I don’t know that
I can answer that or not, Mr. Lynch, without going back
and checking our files on that.
Q. Well, let me reverse it. It has been alleged in the
Complaint and testified to that Mrs. Campbell was sus
pended or temporarily dropped, or something. Is she in
the system? A. Yes.
Q. Where is she teaching, do you know? A. Mrs. Camp
bell is teaching at Clark Memorial School.
Q. And it has been suggested that a Mrs. Harvell was
perhaps suspended or temporarily dropped. Where is she
teaching? A. She is teaching at Mary Sharp School.
Q. It has been suggested that Mrs. Staton was tempo
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 123, 124)
192a
rarily dropped. Where is she teaching? A. Mrs. Staton
is teaching at Decherd public schools.
—125—
Q. When these three particular persons were tempo
rarily dropped because of the shifting of enrollment, were
they given any notification with respect to their status?
A. Yes.
Q. What? A. They were notified they were being placed
on a preferred list.
Q. Were they? A. Yes.
Q. Were they tenure teachers? A. Yes.
Q. And were they put to work in the system as soon as
the justification presented itself? A. Bight.
Q. Was there any compulsion with respect to it? A.
Not that I know of.
Q. In the consideration of teachers either to be retained
within the system or to be employed so as to be added
to the system, is race a factor or consideration in your
employment of retention?
Mr. Williams: We object to that as calling for a
self-serving conclusion.
The Court: Objection sustained to the question
- 1 2 6 -
in that form.
Mr. Lynch: You may ask him.
The Court: Let me get a couple of things clarified
in my mind before you cross examine him, Mr.
Williams.
Does the Court understand when you got down to
the lick log in the 1965-66 school year, that you had
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp. 124, 125, 126)
193a
eliminated all of your so-called certificated or per
mit teachers but two!
The Witness: That’s right, your Honor.
The Court: Wasn’t this quite a forward step with
Franklin County School System?
The Witness: No, sir, we had never had over two
or three at the most, maybe as many as four at
times, hut it just happened that year we were down
that low.
The Court: The Court had some recollection of
some indication in the earlier proceedings in this
case that the permit teachers were in greater num
ber.
Now, in going from Winchester to Mt. Zion, is
the most direct and best route through—I mean
Tullahoma to Mt. Zion, is the best and direct route
through Winchester?
—127—
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: How about Keith Springs?
The Witness: Yes, sir, same things.
The Court: You may cross examine.
Mr. Lynch: Your Honor, I might best clarify
one thing. Your Honor used the term “certificated
teachers” and “permit teachers,” I believe synony
mously. They are not the same.
The Court: Well, what the Court meant was
people who have not obtained tenure and teachers
who are teaching because you can’t get a better
qualified teacher from an educational standpoint.
Mr. Lynch: All right.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Direct
(pp . 126, 127)
194a
Cross Examination by Mr. Williams:
Q. Mr. Scott, as a matter of fact, at the time you dis
charged Mrs. Scott, you had thirty-two teachers, thirty-
two white teachers in the school system who did not have
degrees, didn’t you, based on this information you fur
nished here in your exhibit? A. I guess that is right.
Q. I counted them up. Would that be approximately
correct if I counted thirty-two of them? A. It could be.
—128—
Q. And of that thirty-two, twenty-five of those teachers
are juniors to Mrs. Scott in employment in the school sys
tem in the length of service in the school system, are they
not? A. I didn’t count them, but you could still be right
about that.
Q. And twenty-three of those twenty-five have fewer
credit hours at college than Mrs. Scott, haven’t they? A.
There again I assume that that is correct.
Q. And twenty-seven of the thirty-two have less teach
ing experience than Mrs. Scott, haven’t they? A. I have
never counted them.
Q, You didn’t make any analysis of this? A. Yes, I
made some analysis of it, but I didn’t count them up to
see what that is.
Q. And one, two, three, four of those teachers were
employed for elementary positions just the year before,
in 1964. Do you recall that? Do you recall Mrs. Ruth
Eichenberger ? A. Yes, teachers had to be replaced in
schools.
Q. Employed over at Huntland right close to where—
A. Right.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 127, 128)
195a
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 129, 130)
—129—
Q. And she only had ninety quarter hours as against
Mrs, Scott’s one hundred and fifty-three quarter hours?
A, I know she didn’t have a degree. She only had so many
years college work.
Q. Well now, it is true, is it not that the loss of enroll
ment at Mt. Zion that occasioned Mrs. Scott’s discharge,
arose from the transfer of Negro students to Huntland?
A. Right.
Q. On August 23rd when you say the Board talked about
Mrs. Scott, did they compare her qualifications with those
of Mrs. Ruth Eichenberger who had been just employed a
year before as against Mrs. Scott’s twenty years service!
A. This lady already had a contract. What could the Board
do?
Q. Mrs. Scott already had a contract too, didn’t she ? A.
Right.
Q. Now then, when was the first day of school for Mt.
Zion and Huntland in August, 1965? A. I am not sure
the first day, but the last part of August.
Q. As a matter of fact, it was the first part of August,
wasn’t it? A. Well—
—130—
Q. Your letter of discharge of Mrs. Scott is dated August
17th, and you paid her for five days, so she must have
been there five days. Isn’t that right? A. Yes, school
opened there earlier. Of course, we have changed that now.
Q. So that on March 12th you knew that Mt. Zion
School was going to be low in its enrollment, didn’t you?
A. By the same token, Huntland did not qualify for any
more positions.
Q. It didn’t? A. No, sir.
196a
Q. Well, sir, why is it then on August 12th you elected
Mr. Richard Soderbon to teach the Seventh Grade at Hunt-
land? A. He was there when school opened.
Q. August 12th, yes, but that same day right over at
Mt. Zion you had found out and knew you were going to
lose a teacher there, hadn’t you? A. Well, both schools
opened at the same time and the staff was there, and there
were no other teachers placed after that.
Q. You did not elect—do you have your Board meetings
in the morning? A. No, sir.
—131—
Q. You have them at night, don’t you, sir? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that you had on the morning of August 12, 1965,
there appeared a shortage of some twenty students at Mt.
Zion School, which fact you knew, and yet that same night
you had the Board elect a white teacher over at Huntland
where these Negro students had gone, to help take care of
them, didn’t you? A. The other fellow had already been
contacted and told to be there that particular morning.
Q. But Mrs. Scott was already under contract, wasn’t
she? A. Yes.
Q. Yes. A. But the other fellow same as was.
Q. You also elected that same night Miss Katherine
Wood to teach over at Huntland, didn’t you? A. That is
a Home Ec. teacher position.
Q. Home Ec. in elementary school? A. No, in the high
school.
Q. In the high school? A. Yes.
Q. At that time at Huntland, on August 23rd, when you
—132—
discharged—actually you had discharged Mrs. Scott be
fore that time, hadn’t you; you had written her a letter
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 130, 131, 132)
197a
telling her she was discharged. Will you tell the Court on
what authority you did that since the Board didn’t actually
vote to dismiss her until August 23rd? A. The superin
tendent must notify in case of lack of enrollment the par
ticular teacher that due to lack of enrollment he must dis
miss her until the Board acts on it.
Q. So you told her she was dismissed, didn’t you?
Mr. Williams: May I see that Exhibit E-l, I be
lieve—
The Court: I believe it is 1-1 instead of E-l.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Q. Do you have a copy of this before you, this letter
of yours dated August 17th, Mr. Scott! A. No, I do not.
Q. Will you take that and take a look at it and see if
that doesn’t appear to you to be a final letter telling her
not to report for work tomorrow, and it has been a pleasure
to work with her, and all that? A. Yes, which is, I believe,
still what the superintendent is supposed to do.
Q. But at that time you did not have any formal or in-
—133—
formal approval of the Board, did you? A. No, but the
Board did take up the matter at a later date.
Q. Yes, sir, at your suggestion, the Board took up the
matter on August 23rd. Is that right? A. Yes, I believe
so.
Q. And on August 23rd when you brought the matter
to the attention of the Board, did you tell her that you
had on the faculty over at Huntland where these Negro
children had gone, Mrs. Ruth Eichenberger who had been
employed in 1964 with ninety quarter hours to teach the
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 132, 133)
198a
Sixth Grade; Mrs. Roy Holder, who had been employed—
she wouldn’t be junior because she was employed the same
year as Mrs. Scott, in 1945, without a degree, one hundred
and seventy-two quarter hours, with only twenty-five years
teaching experience, and that you had Miss Rowena Mat
thews employed in 1953 with the same amount of quarter
hours as Mrs. Scott had, with less teaching experience and
teaching the Sixth Grade ?
Did you tell the Board you had those teachers on the
faculty at Huntland? A. I don’t know if I told them, but
I think they knew it.
Q. How would they know, Mr. Scott? A. Each board
- 1 3 4 -
member in that area knows pretty well what is on his
faculty.
Q. Was it discussed? A. Yes, we discussed it.
Q. Did you discuss the qualifications of these teachers?
A. Not to a great extent, no; not in that particular in
stance, because they knew who they were and how long
they had been there.
Q. As a matter of fact, if you didn’t discuss their quali
fications, how can you say you considered their ability to
teach, their teaching ability, Mr. Scott? A. They had been
discussed at previous meetings, at previous conferences,
but not necessarily at that particular meeting.
Q. Whose teaching qualifications had been discussed at
previous meetings? A. I am not certain of any particular
one.
Q. All right, sir. Now, with regard to Mr. Richard
Soderbon, the new teacher you had hired on August 12th,
you didn’t know anything at all about his teaching ability,
of your own knowledge, did you? A. Yes.
Louis Scott-—for Defendants—Gross
(pp. 133, 134)
199a
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 134, 135, 136)
Q. You did? A. Yes.
—135
Q. How? A. Well, he filed a formal application with us
earlier, much earlier in the summer.
Q. You just accepted what he said on his application?
A. No.
Q. How did you know? A. Because I called people
where he was working previously.
Q. You accepted hearsay on that? A. Well, I also dis
cussed the position with the young man and talked with
the board member of that particular school.
Q. Who was the board member at that particular school?
A. Mr. Boyd Spaulding.
Q. Now then, have you ever in your tenure as superin
tendent prior to this year had a personal conversation with
Mrs. Scott? A. Why sure, I visited the school in which
he was teaching several times.
Q. Did you ever at any time reprimand or express dis
approval of Mrs. Scott’s work in any official fashion what-
—136—
soever? A. No, I did not.
Q. Has her principal ever done so to you? A. No.
Q. So that insofar as you are concerned at any report
that you might have had, regarding Mrs. Scott, her teach
ing record was satisfactory, was it not? A. In the par
ticular school she was in.
Q. Why in the particular school that she was in, because
that was a Negro school? A. No. It was a rural school
with three teachers.
Q. Mr. Scott, you mean to tell me that you think or you
are propounding to this court an educational theory that
rural child needs less quality education than an urban
200a
child! A. No. I only am referring to it, I do not know
as to what or how Mrs. Scott would have done in any other
school because that is the only school she was in while I
was superintendent.
Q. And neither did you know how Mrs. Ruth Eichen-
berger would have done in any other school? A. Yes.
Q. You did? A. Yes. She taught in our county before.
Q. What about Miss Rowena Matthews? A. I only know
—137—
her as a teacher at the Huntland school.
Q. But as a matter of fact, specifically on the 23rd day
of August, 1966, you cannot tell the Court a single fact
which was discussed by any member of the Board relating
to a comparison of Mrs. Scott’s qualifications with those of
any other teacher in the system, can you? A. I mentioned
to you the fact that she had not kept up her college prep
aration.
Q. You have thirty-two others, white ones, don’t you,—
is there a single one of these—
Mr. Lynch: May it please the Court, we would
like for Mr. Williams to let him answer the ques
tions.
Mr. Williams: I am a little loud. I will quiet
down.
The Court: Mr. Scott was trying to make some
response to something you asked there.
Mr. Williams: Do you have an explanation, Mr.
Scott?
A. Only to the extent that these other people had already
been placed and this had been discussed in the Board meet
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 136, 137)
201a
ings several times about people being employed that had
not been working toward improving their education. We
—138—
did discuss it in regard to Mrs. Scott.
Q. All right, let’s get down to this, Mr. Scott. At that
time you had no white teachers at all at Mt. Zion School,
did you? A. No.
Q. You did not intend to place any white teachers there,
did you? A. Well, these people had been there previously
for several years.
Q. Mr. Scott, I think the Court wants to get at the facts.
A. I do not know what the intention was.
Q. Did you ever intend to place any white teachers at
Mt. Zion? A. I can’t tell you what the Board’s intentions
wrnre as a whole.
The Court: He is asking about your intentions.
A. (Continued) My intentions were not to place anyone
there at that time; that’s correct.
Q. As a matter of fact, you didn’t and never have in
tended to place any white teachers at any Negro school
in this county, have you? A. We placed white teacher in
a Negro school this past year.
—139—
Q. Where? A. At Hillcrest School and Decherd.
Q. Doing what? A. Teaching.
Q. Teaching what? A. Teaching fourth and fifth grades.
Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. Scott, rather than desegregate Hill-
crest, Thorogood and Townsend, that you closed down
those Negro schools? A. I am not in position to answer
what the Board, what all transpired there.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 137, 138, 139)
202a
Q. Will you then tell the Court how you were in a posi
tion to answer to the Court what factors the Board con
sidered in removing teachers then! A. Because those have
been general factors.
Q. Sir? A. Those have been general factors used over
and over.
Q. All right. And you say that they are or have the
ability to do this job well? A. Of course, there are several
others I can mention that we think of and try to work with.
Q. You think of them as you go along? A. They were
not written down, no, sir.
—140—
Q. What I am asking you, sir, what factors were con
sidered that night, the night you decided that the Board
discharged Mrs. Scott, cancel her contract? A. Nothing
only lack of enrollment and did not have another position
for her at that time.
Q. Those are the only two?
The Court: I don’t believe he understood the ques
tion. Wasn’t your question “What factors did the
Board consider deciding whether or not to discharge
Mrs. Scott, or some other person.” Is that what you
are driving at?
Mr. Williams: That is what he answered, I
thought.
The Court: I don’t believe he understood that.
The Witness: No, I didn’t understand that.
The Court: Answer that question, please. And,
again, for Mr. Williams and the Court, in deciding,
if you knew that you lost about twenty students at
Mt. Zion, and gained about twenty at Huntland—
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 139, 140)
203a
The Witness: Which did not warrant another
position.
The Court: But you knew of that; you knew you
were going to have to let one teacher go at Mt. Zion ?
—141—
The Witness: Right.
The Court: Now, it is Mr. Williams question,
and my question previously, what factors did the
Board take into consideration in your presence, or
that you know about in some other way, in deciding
that Mrs. Scott be the one to go?
The Witness: Judge, your Honor, the Board had
always elected that a particular school in this school
system, and, of course, this was in a School Board
Member’s district, and the other school in another
School Board Member’s district.
The Court: Isn’t that the real problem here, Mr.
Scott, that you are trying to carve this thing up so
one man rather than the entire Board has the say-
so in a school district; isn’t that the bottom of this
thing, honestly?
The Witness: Well, Judge, I think it has been
more so in the past than it has been since we had
to revamp and try to re-work our school system.
I don’t believe that is true now.
The Court: I just don’t know—do I understand,
and should Mr. Williams understand, that so far
as Mrs. Scott is concerned, the Board, in effect,
said, well, we have to let somebody go at Mt. Zion
—142-
School. We have two tenure teachers, and we have
one non-tenure teacher, so we will just let the non
tenure teacher go.
Louis Scott—for Defendants-—Cross
(pp. 140, 141, 142)
204a
Is that substantially what happened?
The Witness: Yes, Judge, I think you are right
there. Of course, there are other discussions held
and this thing about continuing the college work,
and she had been in the system a long time. Of
course, other have been—I realize that—and the
Board had insisted that other people do the same
thing.
The Court: That was discussed that night?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: May I interrupt here?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
The Court: Who was teaching the first or second,
or first and second, as the case may have been,
grades at Huntland at that time, or immediately
thereafter?
The Witness: The same teachers that had been
there for years.
The Court: May I have their names ? I have the
Huntland list here.
The Witness: You will have to give me time to
get it.
—143—
The Court: All right.
Mr. Williams: May I give you some help, if your
Honor please? I stayed up until 2:00 o’clock doing
a little analysis of this.
The Court: If you can point them out to him
it might be helpful.
The Witness: Now, the first and second grade,
that—
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 142, 143)
205a
The Court: I am now talking about what would
have been the second day of school there, I believe,
which would have been August 17th, would it not!
The Witness: I am not sure when we opened
school that particular year.
Mr. Williams: It seems to me it would have been
the 13th.
The Court: All right, August 13tli, or there
abouts.
The Witness: I believe we had Miss Jean Rut
ledge.
The Court: Was she a tenure teacher!
The Witness: Yes, I believe so. And we have
shifted Mrs. Margaret Owen to that position, and
I am not sure whether she was there at that par
ticular time or not.
—144—
The Court: Is she a tenure teacher?
The Witness: Yes, sir, and Miss Edith McClure.
The Court: Is she a tenure teacher?
The Witness: Yes, sir, I believe so. I hope I am
correct in that, and I believe that is right.
The Court: Mr. Williams, could you help him
by suggesting who else might have been in the first
and second grade.
Mr. Williams: I don’t have the first, but Mrs.
Roy Holder was the second grade teacher.
The Court: Is that right, Mr. Scott?
The Witness: That’s right.
Mr. Williams: Non-tenure.
The Court: Is she a tenure teacher?
The Witness: I am not sure about her.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 143, 144)
206a
Mr. Williams: She is listed on this report as a
non-tenure teacher.
The Court: Do you know how long she has been
in the system?
The Witness: She has been here since I have
been superintendent, and beyond that, a long time.
The Court: Do you know whether or not she was
junior or senior to Mrs. Scott?
—145—
The Witness: No, I do not, Judge.
The Court: Any others that you have there, Mr.
Williams!
Mr. Williams: Miss Rowena Matthews, 153 quar
ter hours, a non-tenure teacher; 28 years teaching
experience.
The Court: Twenty how long?
Mr. Wililams: Twenty-eight years, one year less.
The Witness: She is a Fifth and Sixth Grade
teacher, I believe.
Mr. Williams: She is teaching the Sixth Grade.
The Court: I am just interested in First and
Second right now.
Mr. Williams: That is all that appears from this
list.
The Court: All right. Now, Mr. Scott, would
you tell me the teachers at Huntland at that time,
or about that time—I don’t mean to pinpoint it on
that day, but if somebody was brought in a few
days later, I am interested in that too—who were
teaching through the Ninth Grade; in other words,
eliminate the First and Second Grades now and go
from three through nine.
Louis Scott—-for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 144, 145)
207a
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 146, 147)
—146—
The Witness: I can name them all.
Mrs. Gloria Zaugg.
The Court: G-a-u-g-g?
The Witness: G-a-u-g-g.
The Court: Tenure teacher?
The Witness: Yes.
Mrs. Nelle Turnes. This is one to twelve, your
Honor.
The Court: I need one to nine now.
The Witness: Nelle Turnes.
The Court: Was she tenure?
The Witness: I believe so.
The Court: All right. And, of course, we have
already named Miss Rowena Matthews already men
tioned.
The Court: All right, she is in the Fifth and
Sixth Grade?
The Witness: Right.
The Court: She is a non-tenure teacher?
The Witness: Right.
And Mr. Kenneth LaFevers.
The Court: Was he tenure?
The Witness: I believe he had acquired his tenure
by that time.
—147—
The Court: You believe he had?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right.
The Witness: And Mrs. Mary Collins.
The Court: Tenure?
The Witness: Tenure.
208a
The Court: All right.
The Witness: How many have I named here, six?
The Court: Well, altogether, you have named,
one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and
some of them were First and Second Grades.
The Witness: Mrs. Ruth Eichenberger.
The Court: Is she tenure?
The Witness: No, she was not tenure at that time.
The Court: Is she the one that was employed at
or about the beginning of that year?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Any others?
The Witness: I believe that gets all of them.
The Court: Was there any comparison at or be
fore this meeting we have been discussing here when
your action in discharging Mrs. Scott was approved
of the comparative qualifications from every stand-
—148—
point of Mrs. Eichenberger, Miss Matthews, and
Mrs. Scott?
The Witness: No, your Honor, there was not.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Williams: There are two additional people,
one of whom I mentioned before, Richard Soderbon,
a tenure teacher, employed August 12, 1965—no, a
non-tenure teacher, employed August 12, 1965. He
was employed to teach the Seventh. Then there was
a Mrs. Minnie Broyles employed March 11, 1965, to
teach Third and Fourth Grades.
The Court: Was Mrs. Broyles tenure?
The Witness: No.
Mr. Williams: She was non-tenure.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 147, 148)
209a
The Witness: She was employed in the sprint,
your Honor.
Mr. Williams: She was employed March 11th. She
had six years teaching experience opposed to Mrs.
Scott’s twenty-nine. Mr. Soderbon had two years in
some Army Training Center.
The Witness: Those people had degrees too, I
believe. I believe Soderbon did.
Mr. Williams: These two did have degrees.
The Court: At or about the time that Mrs. Scott
—149—
was discharged, was there any consideration by com
parison of the comparative qualifications of Mrs.
Scott on the one hand, and Mrs. Soderbon and Mrs.
Broyles on the other?
The Witness: Judge, I don’t think there was any
particular comparisons. Of course—
The Court: If they were compared, it had to be
particular.
The Witness: I guess so. Any way, these people
had degrees where the other lady did not.
The Court: Do I understand then that you made
a comparison?
The Witness: I made some comparison on that
particular score.
The Court: Did you point out to the Board at
that meeting, or prior thereto, that you had some
people here with degrees and Mrs. Scott did not
have a degree?
The Witness: I don’t remember whether we dis
cussed it in that fashion or not, Judge.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 148, 149)
210a
The Court: Mr. Scott, do you see what the Court
is driving at here?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: That there can be no distinction among
—150—
the members of the faculty under your own plan of
school desegregation and whatever standards are
going to he applied, have to he applied to everybody
alike. That is what the Court is trying to ask you.
You said you do not have any formal written
standards ?
The Witness: Right.
The Court: So, formal or informal, you are going
to need to think about that.
Go ahead, Mr. Williams.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Now, Mr. Scott, with particular reference to Mrs.
Kinslow, you employed fifteen new elementary teachers
on the 12th of August, didn’t you, fifteen brand new white
elementary teachers? A. The Board did.
Q. Now, had you noted that three of those new ele
mentary—you don’t make any question about Mrs. Kinslow
having a degree, do you? A. No, sir.
Q. Of those fifteen new white elementary teachers you
employed August 12, 1965, had you noted according to
your records three of them had absolutely no teaching ex
perience at all? A. I am sure I did.
Q. Mainly, Miss Dixie Cunningham. I am talking about
—151—
the elementary ones alone. Mrs. Miriam Moody at Alto,
Dixie Cunningham at Decherd, and Mrs. Frances Hunter
Louis Scott—-for Defendants—-Cross
(pp. 149, 150, 151)
211a
at Belevedere, no teaching experience at all, just right out
of college? A. I believe Mrs. Cunningham had had teach
ing experience.
Q. From your data furnished us here, it indicates she
had not? A. Well—I believe she does have.
Q. You didn’t make any comparison of that with Mrs.
Kinslow, did you? A. I made comparison with Mrs. Kins-
low from the very time she filed an application.
Q. Well, at the time you hired these three new white
non-tenure teachers with no teaching experience whatso
ever for the three rural elementary schools, did you con
sider the fact that at least Mrs. Kinslow had some teach
ing experience whereas you had no knowledge how these
teachers would perform? A. I had already knowledge, I
thought, of Mrs. Kinslow’s work.
Q. I am talking about the white teachers you employed.
A. I didn’t know for sure how they would perform, no.
—152—
Q. So you didn’t consider their ability to do the job
well? A. Yes, I did.
Q. You made an educated guess with regard to the white
teachers, is that right? A. Well, I think being in the
position of trying to decide whether the people are fitted
for the position, I think 1 have some reasons or some rea
son in which I and the Board together work on these
things, yes.
Q. Well, actually, did you ever at any time take up with
the Board specifically a comparison of Mrs. Kinslow’s
teaching qualifications with these teacher applicants? A.
1 do not remember whether I took it up exactly with those
two, but we discussed her as an employee in the school
system several times.
Louis Scott—•for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 151, 152)
212a
Q. Every time you discussed Mrs. Kinslow, it was in
the light of your recommendation that she not be employed,
wasn’t it? A. Not necessarily, but it came to that con
clusion.
Q. You say not necessarily. That is a very indefinite
answer. Could you tell us whether it was or wTas not in
the light of your recommendation that she not be employed?
—153—
A. It was in the light of my recommendation.
Q. That was based on your informal hearsay investiga
tions of her, wasn’t it? A. No.
Q. Well, have you ever seen her teaching a day in your
life? A. No, I didn’t watch her substitute; she substituted
two days for us.
Q. Did you know she had substituted in your school
system since you refused to employ her as a regular
teacher? A. Yes, I knew that.
Q. Did it ever occur to you that you might find out for
yourself whether this hearsay was true by the simple ex
pedient of going over and taking a look of how she per
formed in the classroom? A. Well, most of the time the
superintendent in this school system don’t have time to go
and look at one person, just ever so often.
Q. You don’t have time to pay attention to one teacher,
do you? A. Not unless I have good reason to.
Q. All right, I am going to ask you something, Mr.
Scott. If you will refer to your minutes under date of
June 1, 1965, it shows that a lady by the name of Miss
—154—
Betty Eose with twelve years teaching experience, and no
degree, and 163% quarter hours, was transferred from
Decherd School to Mary Sharp School to teach the First
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 152, 153, 154)
213a
Grade. Why did that occur? A. Well, Mrs. Rose re
quested a transfer, sir, and, of course, I have known her
as a teacher. Regardless of whether she had a degree or
not, she was a very good teacher.
Q. All right, sir. Then I will direct your attention to
your minutes of August 12, 1965, and ask if it doesn’t
reflect that Mrs. Betty Rose was transferred hack to
Decherd School on August 12, 1965, and that on that same
date Mrs. Frances Cannon was elected to Mary Sharp
School to teach the First Grade? A. Right.
Q. As a matter of fact, it is true just like Mrs. Kinslow
says, it was back in June when at Mr. Morris’ request she
called you up and asked you about that vacancy over there
at Mary Sharp, wasn’t it? A. Well, Mrs. Rose had not
been transferred as yet.
Q. Yes, sir, and I propose to you that you transfer Mrs.
Rose over there so as to put yourself in the position of
not having a vacancy until you could get Miss Cannon up
here from Florida, didn’t you? A. No, Mrs. Cannon had
—155—
called me before that transfer took place. Of course, Mrs.
Rose previously wanted Decherd School. She did not want
Mary Sharp and there was not a vacancy at that time at
Decherd School, and when she got to Mary Sharp and
found there would be a vacancy over at the other place,
she wanted to transfer there.
Q. Who created a vacancy over at Decherd School for
Mrs. Rose to transfer so conveniently in thirty days or so?
A. I don’t remember that.
Q. It doesn’t show on your minutes? A. We can an
ticipate—
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Gross
(pp. 154, 155)
214a
Q. There is not a thing on your minutes to show that
anybody resigned at Decherd, is there! A. Well, of course,
we anticipated an increase in enrollment there. We wouldn’t
transfer her over there without some reason.
Q. You mean an increase in enrollment at Decherd from
the previous year! A. Yes.
Q. Hadn’t Miss Betty Rose been there the previous year!
A. No. She had been at the Alto School.
Q. Well, did you elect her there in March, 1965! A. I
believe so.
—156—
Q. For the first time! A. No, she had been there for
several years at Alto School.
Q. I mean, did you elect her to Decherd in March, 1965!
A. No, not first.
Q. You deny that! A. She was elected at Alto.
Q. I direct your attention to your minutes of March 11,
1965—you are right. When did you elect her to Decherd!
A. She was transferred to Decherd from Mary Sharp
School.
Q. Transferred to Decherd from Mary Sharp School!
A. It all transpired in that particular summer of 1965.
The election—she had been teaching at Alto School for I
don’t know how many years, and she wished to move into
the Decherd School, and there was not a vacancy, we
thought, at that time, and she was placed in Mary Sharp
School. Actually, she did not want Mary Sharp School.
Q. Well, she doesn’t show on your minutes, does she,
Mr. Scott! I can’t find her on your minutes where she
—157—
was placed at Mary Sharp School. A. I don’t think she
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 155, 156, 157)
215a
was ever elected, but she was considered for the position,
yes.
Q. So you felt— A. She was eventually transferred
to Decherd, that’s right.
Q. You extended yourself quite a bit in order to conform
to Mrs. Rose’s desires, did you not! A. Well, of course,
I only work with the Board in whatever transaction takes
place.
Q. And you transferred her back to Decherd on account
of an adjustment in the enrollment? A. I think that was it.
Q. That was on the basis of your personal relationship
with Mrs. Rose? A. No.
Q. Well, why did you do that, sir? A. I don’t know.
You will have to ask the Board in regard to this. That
isn’t all my transaction.
Q. You were directed by the Board to transfer Mrs.
Rose there at her request on account of an adjustment of
the school population? A. I didn’t transfer her; the Board
did it.
Q. So then, it is true as a general proposition, and with
—158—
the matter of race aside, teachers are transferred from
one school to another where there is an adjustment in the
school population, are they not, sir? A. Well, of course
there are transfers, sure.
Q. Isn’t that true? A. Sure.
Q. Now, Mr. Scott, for the Title 1, non-tenure teachers,
as listed in your report here, you hired a total of twelve
in March of 1966, didn’t you? A. Right.
Q. Ten of those twelve—twelve elementary schools—ten
of them were white and two were Negroes. Had you noticed,
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 157, 158)
216a
Mr. Scott, of the white, eight had no college degrees; five
had completed only one year of college? A. Yes.
Q. One completed two years, and one completed four
years, and one had only a high school diploma? A. Yes,
hut previous to this, there was an attempt on the part of
people who brought suit against the Board could not be
considered at that time.
Q. In other words, it is true that you advised certain
persons, including one Rev. George Smith, that one rea
son you would not consider Mrs. Kinslow for employment
was because she was named in this as an intervening peti
tioner in this proceeding? A. I do not know if I advised
him or not.
—159—
Q. That was your position, is that correct? A. I would
say it was the Board’s position.
Q. That was the Board’s position? A. Yes.
Q. Was that likewise the Board’s position that they
would enjoy the immunity of a Court Order to receive
these Federal funds, but that they would likewise not offer
a position to Mrs. Scott because she was a part of this
lawsuit. Is that right? A. Of course, Mrs. Scott, you
mentioned her, we didn’t know where Mrs. Scott was. She
didn’t answer us or anything previously in the Fall of 1965.
Q. Mr. Scott, will you explain to the Court what efforts
you made to find Mrs. Scott other than writing her that
letter? A. I didn’t make any.
Q. Now then, I am glad we got to that. You said there
was nothing adverse or undesirable about the people in
Keith Springs community? A. I do not know of any
adversity there.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 158, 159)
217a
Q. Do you remember the original hearing in this case
in January, 1963, in the snow, when you and your lawyer
—160—
expounded at length to this Court about how the people,
especially in these mountainous communities would not put
up with having Negroes in school with them; that they was
—that that was a different way of life for them, and,
therefore, immediate desegregation wouldn’t work. Do you
remember saying that, Mr. Scott! A. I could have. I
don’t know whether I said it or didn’t say it nowT.
Q. If the record in this case shows you and several Board
Members said it, you wouldn’t deny it, would you! A. No.
Q. Well, why is it at that time you recognize the racial
attitude of these rural mountain dwellers in Franklin
County when you wanted to delay desegregation, but now
when you have another proposition in mind, you want to
say that they would welcome Mrs. Scott with open arms?
A. I think the reason being that two summers ago we
initiated a head-start program here and I think there was
quite a change and attitude and I know that students came
from Keith Springs community here and joined in with
the head-start program, and I think, of course, the situa
tion has changed considerably.
Q. You didn’t feel wdien you were making these state
ments back in 1963, you were talking about the parents
—161-—
as much as the students, weren’t you? A. I am sure, yes
—of course, it would be the parents and not the students.
Q. The parents didn’t come and take the head-start pro
gram, did they? A. They joined in.
Q. They needed head-start to? A. They came and sat
right here in the Mary Sharp School.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 159, 160, 161)
218a
Q- How many Negroes were enrolled in Keith Springs
School? A. None.
Q. How many Negro teachers are there in the Keith
Springs School? A. Only two teachers, and a sixty pupil
school, there are none.
Q. All right. Mr. Scott, Broadview is a rural school,
isn’t it? A. Yes.
Q. How many teachers do you have there? A. Four
teachers.
Q. All white? A. All white.
Q. Capitol Hill is a rural school, isn’t it? A. Yes.
—162—
Q. Teachers all white? A. Yes.
Q. Four teachers? A. Three teachers there; three regu
lar teachers.
Q. One of them is a Title 1? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then Center Grove is another rural school. Teachers
all white? A. Bight.
Q. Now then, let’s take Capitol Hill. You understand I
am just hitting this by spots, so as not to take up too
much time. You employed Mrs. Frances Ross at Capitol
Hill School on August 12, 1965, with 103 quarter hours
with six years experience, didn’t you. A. Yes.
Q. Why was it Mrs. Scott who had 153 quarter hours,
and 29 years of experience, with twenty years in your
system, that you wanted to send up on the mountain to
Keith Springs? A. Of course, school had already opened.
Q. No, sir, hut you knew on August 12th you were going
to lose a teacher at Mt. Zion. That had already been estab
lished? A. Yes.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 161, 162)
219a
—163—
Q. All right— A. And I promised the other lady—
Q. Why did you hire a new white teacher—you didn’t
even think of telling Mrs. Scott about this Keith Springs
situation at that time, did you? A. What do you mean,
didn’t think?
Q. Well, why isn’t it, if Keith Springs situation was
considered, why isn’t it reflected in your minutes either
of August 12th, or of August 23rd? A. It is always the
duty of the superintendent to inform people of permits
in the school system.
Q. Did you inform anybody other than Mrs. Scott? A.
I mean since she had lost her position, I did, yes. That is
what I am talking about.
Q. Why was it that you waited until the 31st, Mr. Scott?
A. There did not any other openings develop unless we
fired somebody else.
Q. Mr. Scott, as a matter of fact, the fact is—before I
get to that, Mr. Scott, did you have any communication
with the State Commissioner of Education about this? A.
I don’t recall if I did or did not. I am sure I did talk to
him about this.
—164—
Q. Isn’t it true after you discharged all of these Negro
teachers, seven of them as a matter of fact, the Commis
sioner of Education, at my request, got in touch with you?
A. I do not know.
Q. He may not have told you it was at my request, but—
A. I did not know it was at your request.
Q. —-but he did get in touch with you, didn’t he? A. I
got in touch with him. I don’t remember him getting in
touch with me.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 163, 164)
220a
Q. Well, I will ask you whether or not he didn’t tell
you that at least you better get those tenure teachers back
on? A. School hadn’t been in session very long there of
the regular—of the other schools.
Q. Mr. Scott, state whether or not Commissioner Whart
suggested to you that you better get the tenure teachers
back on if you wanted to keep your Federal funds flowing?
A. Attorney Williams, I don’t remember whether he stated
that to me or not. I know there was always that concern
with all school systems.
Q. You did have conversations with him about it? A. I
—165—
had conversations with him.
Q. Did you have any conversations with the Department
of Education and Welfare about it? A. Some correspon
dence to us, yes.
Q. About your discharging all of these Negro teachers?
A. We had—yes, we had correspondence.
The Court: Mr. Williams, the Court is only con
cerned with the discharge of Mrs. Scott, and the fail
ure of Mrs. Kinslow to be employed.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
The Court: I think I see your purpose, but limit
yourself all you can to that, please.
Mr. Williams: I will just ask this:
Q. Mr. Scott, how many Negro teachers, that is new
teachers, have you employed in the Franklin County School
System sine the 19— end of the 1964-65 school year? A.
Well, we employed one for sure, and re-employed him again
this year, but he has resigned.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 164, 165)
221a
Q. And he was a Title 1 teacher, wasn’t he? A. No.
And we employed two others besides that.
Q. You employed two other Title 1 teachers? A. Yes.
Q. Who was the one that you employed? A. A boy by
—166—
the name of Roy Dukes.
Q. You employed him for a Negro school, for Townsend
School, didn’t you? A. Yes, but he was re-employed here
this fall at Franklin County High School.
Q. And up until this school year when you abolished all
of your Negro schools, it was your policy to assign Negro
teachers to the Negro schools A. We were following the
Court Order on that and, of course, this year we had to
integrate the Nine through Twelve.
Q. There is no question, that was your policy to assign
Negro teachers at Negro schools A. That’s right; yes.
Q. And you have employed no Negro teachers—no new
Negro teachers except for two title 1 teachers, that is under
the Federal Aid to Education Act, and this one teacher
you employed for a Negro school and he resigned A. And
he was re-employed by at Franklin County High School
this year.
Q. Now, that includes both years, 65-66 and 66-67, does
it not? A. Yes.
Q. How many new white teachers have you employed,
—167—
new white non-tenure teachers ? A. I don’t know the exact
number.
Q. As a matter of fact, by a fairly accurate account, you
employed somewhere between 28 and 30 at the beginning
in August, 1965, didn’t you, for the 1965-66 school year?
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp . 165, 166, 167)
222a
A. I have not counted them. I guess you are right; I don’t
know.
Q. Didn’t you have some applications from Negro teachers
in addition to Mrs. Kinslow at that time? A. I may have
had other application, but not very many.
Q. Did you bring the information we requested by sub
poena? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you have that with you? A. I have all the lists
there in my file.
Q. Could you furnish us that at this time, sir, if you
have a list of your teachers, Negro and white teacher
applicants for the school year 1965-66? A. Sure can. It
is right there (indicating).
Mr. Lynch: While this is being compared, could
we take a five minute recess?
The Court: Let’s take a little longer than that.
—168—
We will take a recess until about twenty minutes
to 3 :00.
(Thereupon at 2:23 o’clock p. m. a short recess
was taken, after which court reconvened and the
following transpired:)
The Court: Resume your examination, Mr. Wil
liams.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mr. Scott, before I forget it, if Mrs. Kinslow had
been employed in your school system with her experience,
with her teaching experience, and her Bachelor’s Degree,
what would have been her salary for 1965-66 school year?
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 167, 168)
223a
A. I think that was given as evidence there, what it would
have been.
Q. I looked for it and couldn’t find it.
The Court: Would she have made the same that
Mrs. Scott would have made!
The Witness: Mrs. Kinslow?
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: No, she would have made more.
The Court: Tell us how much she would have
made, please?
The Witness: I believe that is in my file back
there somewhere.
The Court: Will you get it, please?
—169—
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch: You have it with the exhibits. It was
filed with the Pre-Trial Order.
Mr. Williams: Can you tell me what page it is,
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch: Not without going through this.
The Witness: I think it is in Mr. Lynch’s file
there. I don’t have it here. It is four thousand and
some odd dollars, I think. It is in that file, and if
I may get it—
The Court: Surely, you go ahead and get it.
The Witness: I can’t keep all of it in my mind.
Mr. Lynch: It is supposed to be filed. It is
$4,050.00.
The Court: That is gross, and less all kinds of
deductions ?
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 168, 169)
224a
Mr. Lynch: That is gross, your Honor. We do
not reflect the net figure by this. That is the gross
figure, and it is specified for a B. S. Degree teacher
with four years experience, relying upon the accu
racy of the application when filed, when, as a matter
of fact, now it is supposed to be calculated at three
years experience. That would make a difference.
—170—
The Court: Do you have any table or anything
that can be consulted to get that figure?
Mr. Lynch: Yes, sir, but we don’t have it here.
We took it on four years experience, and now it is
three.
The Court: Could you get your lawyer to call
somebody and get that figure.
Mr. Scott: I think I can give you that, your
Honor.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Scott: It would be $50.00 less.
The Court: It would be $4,000.00?
Mr. Lynch: Four thousand even.
Mr. Scott: Right.
The Court: All right, sir.
Mr. Williams: Shall I proceed?
The Court: Yes.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mr. Scott, do you agree with the superintendent up
in Madisonville, according to Mrs. Kinslow’s testimony, if
assuming she taught regularly every day as a substitute
for seven months during that first year, and then for the
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 169, 170)
225a
remainer of the school year intermittently, as a substitute,
that being more than half of the year, would and should
—171—
be credited as a year’s teaching experience? A. We do not
credit any substitute work as teaching experience.
Q. You don’t do it. Now, then, Mr. Scott, isn’t it true
a gentleman by the name of James Cohen, who was em
ployed at the Townsend School, requested leave and was
given leave on the first day of June, 1965! A. Yes, I as
sume that is correct.
Q. That is reflected in your minutes, I believe, and that
is the thing that caused this opening for the employment
of Mr. Dukes, the single Negro that you said you employed
for the year? A. Yes.
Q. And that was at Townsend, an all Negro school. Now,
you employed—do you remember the date you employed
Mr. Dukes? A. For the 1965-66 school year?
Q. Yes, sir. A. I do not.
Q. I would like to direct your attention to your minutes
for August 12th, and ask you if it isn’t correct—August
12, and ask you—that is August 12, 1965, that at that time
that vacancy still existed at Townsend School, as reflected
by Item IV of your minutes on that date of which Mr.
—172—
L. J. Morris made an effort to get Mrs. Kinslow elected
for that position? A. Yes, but Dukes was hired as a Chem
istry—
Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Dukes’ application—
Mr. Lynch: May it please the Court, we would
like to have the witness answer.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 170, 171, 172)
226a
The Court: Mr. Scott, you are not speaking very
loudly. If you will speak louder than Mr. Williams
and I do, then we will know you are talking.
The Witness: I will yell it out.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Go ahead. A. Mr. Dukes was employed as a Chem
istry, Biology and all teacher with a secondary certificate
at the Townsend School.
Q. Seven to twelve? A. Seven to twelve.
Q. His application wasn’t made until April 21, 1966, was
it? A. I don’t know. I would have to look at the file.
Q. These application blanks you handed me are true and
correct? A. True and correct, yes, sir.
The Court: Excuse me a moment, Mr. Williams.
—173—
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mr. Scott, do you have any explanation, if this was
a position that Mrs. Kinslow couldn’t possibly fill, why Mr.
Morris made the motion, and Dr. Couser seconded it, that
she be elected to fill that vacancy at Townsend School?
A. That was not a vacancy and she could not fill it in the
first place.
Q. Well then, your minutes are not accurate, is that
right? A. I think the minutes are accurate, yes.
Q. Did you approve and sign these minutes, Mr. Scott?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this your signature at the bottom? A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Smith’s signature as Chairman of the Board?
A. Right.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 172, 173)
227a
Q. You do read them before you sign them? A. Yes, I
hope I do.
Q. So at the time you signed it, you agreed there was
a vacancy there, and at least this was the action taken
by the Board? A. That was the action taken by the Board.
—174—
Q. Now, why did you oppose this teacher’s election, Mr.
Scott? A. I have every reason to doubt she has not been
satisfactory in her work wherever she worked?
Q. That is why you oppose her employment at Townsend
School? A. I opposed that mainly because the principal
told me he did not want her there.
Q. Do you have the principal here today to testify as
a witness? A. No, I do not.
Q. You do have a practice that the Board Member in
the particular district recommends the teachers for that
district, ordinarily, don’t you? You consult with him?
A. I consult with them.
Q. Yes, sir, and Townsend, like Mary Sharp, is also
in the First District? A. Right.
Q. In Mr. Morris’ district? A. Right.
Q. Now, ordinarily, if the Board Member in that dis
trict recommends a teacher to fill that vacancy, all other
members of the Board go along with it, don’t they? A.
Not always.
—175—
Q. All right. Under what circumstances don’t they go
along with it? A. Whenever they know the person and
know it is not the thing they would like to do, I think they
vote what they think.
Q. They usually allow the member in his particular dis-
Louis Scott-—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 173, 174, 175)
228a
triet to select, don’t they! A. That is usually the practice,
yes.
Q. And the only reason they didn’t in this case was
because of your insistence that Mrs. Kinslow not be em
ployed? A. I do not know that was the only reason, no.
Q. That is the only reason that was discussed, wasn’t
it? A. The only reason discussed.
Q. That—I am saying that was the only reason dis
cussed at this meeting, wasn’t it? A. As far as I re
member, yes.
Q. And your lack of desire to employ Mrs. Kinslow was
not based on her papers or credentials, but based on some
hearsay information that you had obtained from some
body else? A. She gave references there, and, of course,
I checked some of the references by phone.
Q. Is it your custom to telephone references or to write
them a letter and get a written recommendation on a
—176-
party? A. I do a lot of mine by telephone.
Q. You don’t get a written recommendation? A. Not
in every case.
Q. Or written report? A. Not in every case, no.
Q. Do you in some cases? A. In some cases I do.
Q. Why didn’t you in this particular case when you
were going to rely on a recommendation of somebody else
for your own recommendation to the Board that this per
son not be employed? A. Since I have been superin
tendent, and we still do, allow the principals of each
school, if they know of a particular person, I go to them
and ask them to give me information and let them find out.
Q. Let me ask you this. You said something about the
principal at Townsend saying he didn’t want Mrs. Kinslow
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 175, 176)
229a
at that time. Had Mrs. Kinslow at that time ever spent
one day teaching at Townsend School! A. Not to my
knowledge.
Q. Will you explain to the Court how you assumed the
principal of the Townsend High School knew what he was
—177—
talking about! A. I think he had known her since she
was a little girl all the way through all her life.
Q. What were you relying on, were you relying on his
knowledge of her since she was a little girl or a profes
sional appraisal? A. I think he knew her and he checked
out—I gave him or showed him the application and he
checked the references also.
Q. You left it up to him to check the references? A.
Bight.
Q. Do you know whether he checked with the principal
who had had her under his supervision up in Kentucky?
A. I do not know. The only thing he told to me that he
didn’t recommend her for his school.
Q. Let me ask you this, did you write to her former
principal and ask him about her? A. I wrote later on,
yes.
Q. Wrote to her former principal up in Kentucky? A.
Yes.
Q. Did you receive a reply from him? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have a copy of that with you? A. I don’t
believe I have it with me.
—178—
Q. Did you receive it? A. There is a reply, yes, some
where. I don’t have it in my file.
Q. That reply was a favorable reply too, was it not?
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 176, 177, 178)
230a
A. He only answered a few notes on the back of the
paper that I wrote, yes, sir.
Q. And it was a favorable reply, was it not! A. Yes.
Q. Well, will you explain to the Court, Mr. Scott, why
you gave more credence to the statement of a Negro prin
cipal of a school here in which she had never taught and
never had any teaching contact with her as over and
against a recommendation of a teacher or principal who
had her under his supervision two years? A. I think he
checked farther than that one particular principal, and I
think he checked all of her employment.
Q. Well, you don’t have any personal knowledge of that,
do you? A. No, all I did, I relied on him whether he
would recommend Mrs. Kinslow.
Q. Well, could you explain to the Court why you made
such an issue out of this particular ease, Mr. Scott? A.
Well—
—179—
Q. What was so terrible about this young lady that you
had to make an issue out of this case? A. I have investi
gated other teachers just as thoroughly,
Q. Well, as a result of your investigation, can you point
to one defective thing about her character, her morals, or
her teaching ability, anything specific that you can say
as a result of your investigation and support by fact, I
would appreciate it if you would tell his Honor about it?
Mr. Lynch: May I have this passed to the witness?
The Court: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: I object to that as leading, if your
Honor please.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 178, 179)
231a
Louis Scott—for Defendants-—Cross
(pp. 179, 180)
The Court: It is not leading. His counsel is
here and he has a right to provide him with any
information he has available.
Mr. Williams: If your Honor please, I object to
his passing—and I assume he is passing a document
that has already been excluded from evidence here
by the Court.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Is that the letter from Mrs. Wade that you just
handed to him?
—180—
Mr. Lynch: May it please the Court, he just asked
if he knew anything detrimental about her teaching.
I just received and had just passed to the superin
tendent some communication, and in view of his
question, I would like for him to review it.
The Court: I am going to overrule the objection
in any event.
Mr. Williams: Well, I will withdraw the question,
your Honor.
The Court: We are getting into a dangerous area
here any way, Mr. Williams. I think that you have
a right and should inquire into all of the investiga
tions that Mr. Scott made to support his unfavor
able recommendation for the employment of Mrs.
Kinslow to the Board Members, but as to saying or
pointing to something immoral about this woman,
I don’t think we need to get into that.
Mr. Williams: If the Court please, I am simply
trying' to establish—-trying to get those gentlemen
to stop talking in generalities. If he has got some
232a
thing specific he has established by way of fact and
not hearsay about this young lady, then I think the
Court wants to know what that is, and I want to
know.
—181—
The Court: The Court is satisfied with what the
witness has said. He said he made an investigation
which you insist on, for some reason, referring to
as hearsay, and I suppose any investigation is some
what in the nature of hearsay. The only way you
can investigate someone is to find out what people
are saying, and the Court is satisfied on this point
as to why he did what he did.
Now, if you want to pursue it further, you may
do so. I want you to present your case fully, but
be careful in framing your questions.
Mr. Williams: Very well, your Honor.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mr. Scott, did you at the end of the—at the beginning
of the 1965-66 school year retain any Negro non-tenure
teachers at all in the system! A. We, of course—yes, we
had Mrs. Scott there that started out, but, of course, lack
of enrollment she had to be dropped.
Q. I am talking about after Mrs. Scott was discharged,
did you retain any Negro non-tenure teachers at all! A.
Yes, this fellow Dukes that came in, yes.
Q. And he was assigned to a Negro school one month!
A. Right.
—182—
Q. To fill a vacancy in a Negro school? A. Right.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 180, 181, 182)
233a
Q. Now then, have you ever assigned a white child to
any Negro school in this county? A. That was—no, but—
Q. No white child has ever attended any Negro school
in this county? A. No reason to.
Q. Why do you say there is no reason? A. We have
carried out our Court Order, which was the other way.
Mr. Lynch: Objected to as immaterial, your
Honor.
The Court: Objection sustained. We are trying
the claims of Mrs. Scott and Mrs. Kinslow.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Now then, will you relate, please, sir, the conversa
tions you had with Mr. L. J. Morris regarding Mrs. Kins-
low’s employment? A. Mr. Morris and I called one another
at various times during the summer, during the 1965-66
beginning of that school year during that summer, and I
don’t remember exactly how many conversations we had
back and forth. We had some.
Q. And Mr. Morris urged you more than once to go
ahead and employ this young lady? A. Who?
—183—
Q. Mr. Morris. A. Employ who?
Q. To employ Mrs. Kinslow? A. No, he didn’t urge me
to employ her.
Q. He never urged you to employ her at all? How did
you happen to be talking with him? A. She came in and
talked to me and she went and talked to him. Whenever
before that I had the lady from Florida that has been
brought into this that had talked with me. In other words,
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 182, 183)
234a
she started calling me as soon as her school was out in
Florida about a position, First Grade position.
Q. That was after May, 1965! A. Right.
Q. And you had had Mrs. Kinslow’s application since
January, 1965! A. I had already investigated Mrs. Kins-
low.
Q. You went all the way to Florida to get this lady— A.
She come to me. I didn’t go to her.
Q. Yes, sir, but you brought her all the way up here,
didn’t you! A. Well, Mrs. Kinslow was out of Kentucky.
— 184—
Q. I thought you said everybody knew Mrs. Kinslow!
A. She lived here, yes, previously, but I didn’t know her.
Q. This was her home, wasn’t it! A. I didn’t know her.
Q. You didn’t know she was born and reared here! A.
I didn’t know much about Mrs. Kinslow.
Q. So then, when you said awhile ago that all the Board
Members had already knew about her— A. They did.
Q. You weren’t accurate on that, were you! A. I think
so.
Q. Did you ever ask— A. I was away from the county
ten years and I didn’t know Mrs. Kinslow before she
applied.
Q. I think we have already brought out that as the Negro
children transferred to the white schools, you gradually
closed down all the Negro schools!
Mr. Lynch: I object to the immateriality of this,
your Honor.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 183, 184)
235a
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 184, 185, 186)
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mr. Scott, will you go ahead and tell now since coun
sel has gone into the question what conversations you had
with Mrs. Kinslow after November, 1965? A. Mrs. Kins-
—185-
low approached me after that, that is during this past
summer about employment, but at that time we were trying
to provide employment for all people, and in this moving
of schools, and I don’t believe the record shows that there
was any employments made until right before school opened
here. So—
Q. But you have employed several other new teachers,
haven’t you? A. Well, of course, by the same token, I have
so far never recommended Mrs. Kinslow.
Q. But you hired seven new white elementary teachers.
That is correct, isn’t it? A. I assume that it is.
Q. Two of them with no teaching experience, Donald J.
Walker at Sherwood and Katrina Miller at Liberty? A.
Bight.
Q. And one with no degree at all, Mrs. Katrina Miller
doesn’t have a degree? A. Bight.
Q. 129 quarter hours? A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Scott, will you explain to the Court your state
ment that Mrs. Scott’s failure to pursue her education was
a consideration, any consideration at all in her discharge
—186—
when just less than two months ago you hired a new white
teacher with less education than Mrs. Scott? A. Well,
how can I explain it?
Q. Yes. I ask you to explain it if you can. A. Mrs.
Kinslow—pardon me, Mrs. Scott did not bother to ask
236a
any more and, therefore, we did not continue her in our
flies. I mean, that was whenever she did not appear for
anything, for any reason after she was notified.
Q. Will you explain to the Court the rather remarkable
coincidence that the only record in your minutes—let me
rephrase that question. That the date of the letter which
you wrote advising Mrs. Scott of these two possible va
cancies at Keith Springs coincides exactly with the date
of your minutes entry which you employed, or re-employed
the three Negro tenure teachers, Mrs. Campbell, Mrs. Har-
vell and Mrs. Staten? A. I don’t think there was any con
nection with that at all.
Q. No connection at all, just a remarkable coincidence?
A. I wrote it in the morning, I am sure the letter, and it
was not written at the time of the Board Meeting.
Q. Prior to that time, Mr. Scott, Mrs. Scott had never
—187—
had any inclination? A. Inclination of what? Of the let
ter?
Q. Yes, of the position available at Keith Springs? A.
I do not know if she had any inclination of it or not.
Q. Now then, this so-called permit teacher was still there,
was she not, teaching? A. Of course, the permit teacher,
this lady only had a high school education.
Q. Yes. How long had she been teaching up at Keith
Springs? A. I believe she taught there the previous year.
Q. Now, you had several teachers whom you say you
discussed—you say you discussed this at the August 23rd
meeting or the August 12th meeting you discussed this?
A. I don’t remember which meeting it was now. I don’t
remember which meeting it was we discussed it. I guess
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 186, 187)
237a
it was August 12th. No, it had to be after that. It had
to be—
Q. It had to be the 23rd? A. I would suspect so.
Q. Now, on August 23rd, several of your schools—that
was the opening day for most of your schools, wasn’t it?
A. That would be very close to being correct. I don’t keep
— 188-
all these dates in mind in this place any way.
The Court: The 23rd was on a Monday.
The Witness: Yes. We opened school usually on
Friday. I think we did that year.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Well, would those teachers whom you elected on the
12th, would they have signed their contracts by that time?
A. On the 12th?
Q. The new teachers whom you elected on the 12th, the
ones you retained on the 12th, would they have signed their
contracts by the 23rd? A. I am not real sure whether
they had or not.
Q. Mr. Scott, you have prepared for me—are these photo
copies? A. Yes.
Q. Of the original application forms of people who
apply to you for teaching jobs for the 1965-66 school year?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have one stack listed “employed,” and the
other listed “not employed”? A. Right.
Q. First represents those applications which you hon
ored, and the second those you did not. Is that correct?
A. I think so.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 187, 188)
238a
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Cross
(pp. 189, 190)
—189—
Q. Will you introduce these as exhibits?
The Court: Any objection?
Mr. Lynch: No, your Honor.
The Court: Let them be filed and marked Exhibit
—Collective Exhibits 13 and 14, respectively.
(Thereupon the documents referred to were re
ceived in evidence and marked “Collective
Exhibits 13 and 14,” respectively.)
The Court: Is that all, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: That’s all, your Honor.
The Court: Any redirect?
Mr. Williams: One thing, your Honor.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. For the purposes of the record, Mr. Scott, referring
to this exhibit here that you filed for inclusion with the
Pre-Trial Order, to the information as to non-tenure
teachers for 1965-66, and the list of teachers which follows
from pages 1 of that particular portion of the exhibit,
through page—right on through to the end of it. All of
those people or teachers on there for both ’65 and ’66
school year are white teachers, are they not, unless they
were assigned to a Negro school? A. Well, Mrs. Scott’s
name appears on there.
Q. She was assigned to a Negro school? A. Yes.
—190—
Q. At least for that 65-66 year, every teacher who is
listed on here is a white teacher and is a non-tenure teacher,
239a
unless they are shown as being assigned to a Negro school?
In other words, that squares with your statement that no
non-tenure Negro teachers were assigned to anything other
than a Negro school except for Mrs.—except for— A.
Except to Title 1.
Q. With the exception of Title 1? A. Yes.
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
The Court: Any redirect?
Mr. Lynch: Yes, your Honor.
Redirect Examination by Mr. Lynch:
Q. Mr. Scott, I will ask you a few questions which I
am afraid may be confusing to his Honor.
The name of Mrs. Euth Eichenberger came up over and
over, and as I recall, she was referred to as a new teacher?
A. Yes.
Q. How long has she been in this system? A. Mr.
Lynch, I believe after thinking about it, I guess I answered
that incorrectly. She has been here for a number of years.
—191—
Q. Twenty years or more? A. I would guess so.
Q. Now, what happened to her teaching career that
caused you to list her as a new teacher as of that time?
A. Well, she was transferred.
Q. Didn’t she go on a short leave? A. Yes, she went
on a short leave of absence.
Q. And then re-employed? A. Re-employed.
Q. All right. Mr. Richard Soderbon, was he a degree
teacher? A. Yes.
Q. Was his contract in existence for teaching at Hunt-
Land at the time of the necessary dismissal of Mrs. Scott?
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Redirect
(pp. 190, 191)
240a
Mr. Williams: Objected to as leading, if your
Honor please.
The Court: Objection sustained.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. Did he have a contract? A. Mr. Lynch, I will see.
Sometimes people are elected and has not as yet signed
their contract.
Q. If you don’t know— A. I don’t know.
—192—
Q. Was Mrs. Minnie Broyles a degree teacher? A. I
believe so.
Q. Now, much conversation was held about a Mrs. Betty
Rhodes. There was some intimation here relative to her
transfer to Decherd under some suspicious circumstances
without the existence of a position. What created the posi
tion of the Decherd School? A. I am glad you brought
that up. I couldn’t think at the moment why we had a
vacancy there when that question was asked before.
We had needed a lady that was in the Decherd School
as a Librarian because—
Q. Who was the lady? A. Mrs. Glenn Swann, and after
placing her as a Librarian, then there was a vacancy at
Decherd School.
Q. Then you did not create one there for that purpose?
A. No position created, no.
Q. I want to ask you this. First, I believe it was stated
here that you had employed 28 to 30 white teachers at the
same time you had employed only three colored teachers
as new non-tenure teachers. Is that right? A. I have
never counted it, Mr. Lynch.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Redirect
(pp. 191, 192)
241a
Q. Assuming that is the correct number, what is your
—193—
approximate ratio here of white students to the Negro
students, or white teachers to Negro teachers? A. About
ten per cent.
Mr. Williams: We object to the mathematical
conclusion that the Court can reach itself.
The Court: You had better not depend on this
Court for any mathematics now.
Mr. Lynch: Nor one who stands in the presence
of the Court.
The Court: The Court will consider this evidence
as advisory, Mr. Williams.
What percentage did you say?
The Witness: I think our latest figures shown
previously established, and I don’t think it has
changed much, about ten per cent.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. Regardless of what teachers you employed, and re
gardless of what applications you had on file, Mr. Scott,
does your investigation, past or present, of Mrs. Kinslow
indicate that you will ever want her in this system up to
now?
Mr. Williams: This is objected to, your Honor.
The Court: On what ground ?
Mr. Williams: On the ground what his investiga
tion disclosed is irrelevant in view of his refusal to
- 1 9 4 -
support his investigation by facts.
The Court: Objection overruled.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Redirect
(pp. 192, 193, 194)
242a
A. All the inquiry I have made and inquiries answered,
these answers that came back like this—well, “Work un
satisfactory.” Next, “Poor rating.”
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, we object
to this.
The Court: Objection overruled. You brought it
out on cross examination and he has a right to
rebut it.
A. (Continued) Next—I think one important answer that
I received from the superintendent of schools in Christian
County, Kentucky, I did appreciate his answer. It was
this: It said that Mrs. Kinslow had not made the progress
that they had expected.
Q. Now, after having ascertained as a result of con
ference previously held here, that Mrs. Kinslow had done
substitute work for the Metropolitan area School System
in Davidson County, Tennessee, and after having just as
certained that recently, did you even make inquiry of them
relative to her work as a substitute? A. I did, and—
Q. Have you a letter before you received from anybody
within that department? A. Yes. I would like to go back
—195—
to just before that.
Mr. Williams: All this is objected to, if your
Honor please, on the ground that it is not—that it is
nowhere shown that he had any of this before him
at the time he, in effect, discriminated against Mrs.
Kinslow.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Redirect
(pp. 194, 195)
243a
The Court: The objection will be sustained on
that basis. The Court is interested in what was in
the superintendent’s mind at the time he recom
mended this woman not be employed, and what ap
parently was considered by the Board in deciding
not to employ her, and nothing else.
Mr. Lynch: For the purposes of the record, and
for the purposes of identification only, and subject
to your Honor’s ruling, I introduce now the letter
referred to from the Metropolitan area School Sys
tem.
The Court: Let it be marked for identification
only, Exhibit No. 1-15.
(Thereupon the document referred to was
marked “Exhibit 1-15 for Identification only.”)
The Court: Mr. Williams, under the Court’s
proceeding here, that means it is not admitted as
—196—
an exhibit, and is not considered by the Court. It is
only in the record for identification purposes.
Mr. Williams: Your Honor, I would like to have
an opportunity to see that after it is marked.
The Court: All right, sir.
Anything further?
Mr. Lynch: That’s all.
The Court: Anything further, Mr. Williams ?
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mr. Scott, as of the end of the year 1965 you had no
written communication from anyone regarding Mrs. Kins-
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Recross
(pp. 195, 196)
244a
low’s qualifications, did you? A. No, sir. I relied on tele
phone calls and the principal of Townsend School.
Q. As of that date the only thing you had done was to
make some telephone calls, a telephone call or calls? A.
Calls.
Q. To someone unidentified person or persons? A.
That’s right.
Q. And— A. I had asked Professor Hunt to look into
this matter.
Q. And asked him whether he wanted her, and he said,
—197-
no. Is that right? A. And showed him the application
and talked with him about it.
Q. When was that; what date was that? A. It was along
in the summer there, 1965.
Q. And at that time you had already made your own
investigation? A. I had made some myself; yes, sir.
Q. And you had determined you had pretty well made
up your mind at that time you didn’t want this young lady?
A. Eight.
Q. So, in asking Eev. Mr. Hunt, Professor Hunt to look
into the matter, you were simply seeking support from
someone of her own race for your own conclusions? A.
Well, at that time, naturally, the Board, if there was any
chance of employment at Ms school, Professor Hunt’s
school, the Board would have relied on his recommenda
tion just as well as mine, and I think Professor Hunt
checked more than one source. I know he answered me
that he had checked on her substitute work.
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
The Court: Anything further?
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Recross
(pp. 196, 197)
245a
Mr. Lynch: That’s all.
—198—
The Court: Mr. Scott, a little mathematics now,
Mrs. Scott was paid $95.50 for the work that she
did in the month of August, as I understood it?
The Witness: She was paid, Judge, your Honor,
for the number of days she was at the school, plus
the in-service training which she did.
The Court: How do you figure a part of a month?
Do you figure it on a school day basis or monthly
basis ?
The Witness: On the school days.
The Court: In other words, if she had worked in
school, or in-service training, or anything for which
she was entitled to be compensated and that came
out to be $95.50, that would be $9.50 a day. Is
that correct, a correct computation?
The Witness: I hope it is, Judge. I don’t know
if it comes out that exactly a day or not.
The Court: I am not asking you what it actually
was in her case, but assuming there were ten days
she was entitled to be paid for?
The Witness: That would be correct.
The Court: And the amount she was paid was
$95.50, you would divide the $95.50 by 10?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
—199—
The Court: That would be the school days even
though there had been a Saturday and Sunday, you
would divide it by 10 instead of 12?
The Witness: Yes, you would divide it by exactly
the number of days at work.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Recross
(pp. 197, 198, 199)
246a
The Court: Anything further?
The witness is excused.
Do you have any further witnesses to offer on
this particular point?
Mr. Lynch: That question?
The Court: Yes, we are back now to what stan
dards the Board applied at the time Mrs. Kinslow
was not hired, and Mrs. Scott was discharged.
Mr. Lynch: Your Honor, with reference to the
reasons for the failure to hire Mrs. Kinslow, we
would like to offer, but not read to your Honor,
the deposition of Mr. Stewart, Superintendent of
Schools, taken in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, just the
19th of this month.
The Court: Was Mr. Williams present?
Mr. Williams: I was present, but I objected to a
large portion of the testimony given in that depo
sition.
Mr. Lynch: He didn’t object to the taking of
— 200—
the deposition. He was there.
Mr. Williams: I don’t object to the taking of the
deposition.
The Court: Let it be filed as a part of the record.
Mr. Williams: I think counsel said he wanted to
offer it though and not read it.
The Court: There is no point in having it read
when the Court is going to read it. The Court will
note your objections at the time.
Mr. Lynch: We are not before a jury and I didn’t
want to bore the Court with the reading of it.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Recross
(pp. 199, 200)
247a
The Court: I don’t like to hear depositions read
when I can read them myself.
Anything further you have on this issue?
Mr. Lynch: Not at this time we don’t.
The Court: On this particular issue, Mr. Williams,
is there anything else you want to offer!
Mr. Williams: Yes, your Honor, we want to offer
the deposition of the principal in Hopkinsville,
Kentucky.
The Court: Was Mr. Lynch present when it was
taken ?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
The Court: Let it be filed.
— 201—
Anything else on this issue now!
Mr. Williams: On the reasons for the discharge,
yes, sir.
The Court: No, no. What we are talking about
now is what standards, if any, did the Board use
in taking action regarding these two intervening
plaintiffs.
Mr. Williams: I am saying to the Court that I
have testimony which would tend to rebut the in
ferences that the Board used as a reasonable stan
dard.
The Court: The Court would like to hear that at
this time.
Call your first witness on that point and, if neces
sary to recall any witness later on, you may do so.
Mr. Williams: I would like to call Mrs. Dimple
Johnson.
Louis Scott—for Defendants—Recross
(pp. 200, 201)
248a
Thereupon M bs. D im pl e J ohnson was called as a witness
by and on behalf of the intervening petitioners, and after
having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Williams:
— 202—
Q. State your name, age and address, please ma’am?
A. Dimple Johnson, Route 2, Belvedere, Tennessee. My
age, I would rather not—
Q. You can just say over a certain age. A. Well, over
thirty-five then.
Q. Pine. You are bettering Jack Benny one by four
years.
Mrs. Johnson, what is your occupation? A. Teacher.
Q. I believe you are a reluctant witness here under sub
poena today, are you not? A. Yes, I am subpoenaed.
Q. School is in session and you didn’t want to be away
from school today or to be involved? A. No, I did not.
Q. How long have you been a school teacher in and for
Franklin County School System? A. Ever since I finished
high school.
Q. Well, that refutes the 35 year age limit, does it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you say over thirty years? A. Yes.
—203—
Q. Now then, were you the principal of Mt. Zion School?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. For how many years ? A. Since ’49. —I am sorry, I
have to change that. We had consolidated school in ’49, and
in this building.
Mrs. Dimple Johnson—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 201, 202, 203)
249a
Q. You were the principal there for many years? A.
Yes, many years.
Q. And it is true that the intervenor, Mrs. Virginia
Scott, worked there under your supervision? A. Yes, she
did work there.
Q. State if you will whether or not, in your opinion, she
was a competent teacher at the time she worked under you,
Mrs. Johnson? A. Yes, she was.
Q. Was there ever any time she was reprimanded by the
Board or by you, admonished by virtue of lack of compe
tence or for any other reason reflecting on her professional
character? A. No, sir.
Mr. Lynch: I don’t believe that is in issue, your
Honor.
The Court: I understood they made no question
about Mrs. Scott’s competency as a teacher.
—204—
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Did Mrs. Kinslow work there as a substitute during
the year 1965-66, did she not? A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall how many days she substituted there?
A. I am not sure, but three or four.
Q. You have advised me that for that period of time
it is impossible for you to say what her ability would have
been as a regular teacher. Is that correct, Mrs. Johnson?
A. That is correct.
Mr. Lynch: We object to the statements made by
counsel what has been advised him.
The Court: Objection sustained. Just ask ques
tions, Mr. Williams.
Mrs. Dimple Johnson—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 203, 204)
250a
Mrs. Dimple Johnson—for Intervening Petitioners—Direct
(pp. 204, 205)
By Mr. Williams:
Q. I will ask you whether or not you have any opinion
or judgment regarding the competence of Mrs. Kinslow in
her capacity as a substitute teacher there when she served
under you? A. I have no criticism of the work that she
did as a substitute.
Q. Insofar as you—in your opinion, it was competent.
Is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q. What grade did she teach as a substitute; do you
—205-
recall what grade or grades? A. First through Fourth.
Q. Prior to 1965-66 school year, were there any Negro
teachers at all assigned to the faculties of white schools
in Franklin County that you know of?
Mr. Lynch: Object to that as being completely
irrelevant and immaterial.
The Court: I didn’t understand the question.
Would you mind repeating it, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I said, prior to 1965-66 school year,
was there any Negro teachers at all assigned to the
faculties of white schools in Franklin County?
The Court: I thought Mr. Scott had already testi
fied about that. It is just repetitious, isn’t it?
Mr. Williams: Very well, your Honor.
I think anything further that she could give would
be repetitious, your Honor.
The Court: Cross examine.
Mr. Williams: One question, your Honor.
251a
Mrs. Dimple Johnson—for Intervening Petitioners—Cross
(pp. 205, 206, 207)
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Did Mr. Scott ever come to you and ask your opin
ion or judgment about the teaching ability of either Mrs.
Virginia Scott or Mrs. Kinslow at any time during the year
or before the 1965-66 school year? A. I am not sure about
—206—
Mrs. Scott because we have been several years together.
The Court: Mr. Scott said he didn’t.
The Witness: I am not sure. I couldn’t say yes
or no to that question.
The Court: All right. Cross examine now, please.
Cross Examination by Mr. Lynch:
Q. Mrs. Johnson, at Mt. Zion School, there were three
teachers there, were there not! A. Yes, there was.
Q. And that was you, Mrs. Lyda Gray? A. That’s right.
Q. And Mrs. Scott? A. That’s correct.
Q. I don’t believe you literally meant something you said
or perhaps you did. How did you obtain your degree? A.
By attending A & I State College.
Q. Over a vast period of time? Was it by quarters or a
long period of time? A. By quarters over a long period
of time.
Q. Then you may have literally meant you have taught
school ever since you finished high school? A. Yes, sir.
—207—
Q. But you are degreed? A. Yes, I am.
Q. Is Mrs. Gray degreed? A. Yes.
Q. And the only undegreed teacher and the only non
tenure teacher at that school was Mrs. Scott? A. Yes.
Mr. Lynch: That’s all.
252a
The Court: Anything further?
Mr. Williams: No, sir.
The Court: Mrs. Johnson, in all the time that you
have been in the Franklin County School System do
you know of your own knowledge how the School
Board Members have decided who to keep and who
to let go, and who to hire, and who not to hire?
The Witness: No.
The Court: You don’t know anything about that?
The Witness: No, I don’t know.
The Court: All right. The witness is excused.
Call your next witness.
Mr. Williams: Call Mrs. Lincola Johnson.
Mrs. Lincola Johnson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 207, 208)
Thereupon M rs. L incola J ohnson was called as a wit-
— 208—
ness by and on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and after having
been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as fol
lows :
Direct Examination by Mr. Williams:
Mr. Lynch: Your Honor, if I understood you cor
rectly, we are limited to the issues as to the method
of employment and retention.
The Court: That is what I am trying very des
perately to do, and then I was going to go back and
resume where we ended your proof.
Mr. Williams: This is all these particular wit
nesses know and it is relevant on this particular
issue, I think.
The Court: Go ahead then.
253a
Mrs. Lincola Johnson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 208, 209, 210)
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Is this Mrs. Dimple Johnson! A. Lincola Johnson.
Q. I am sorry, this is Mrs. Lincola Johnson! A. Yes.
Q. And your address? A. My address is 2001 12th Ave
nue, South, Nashville, Tennessee.
Q. Do you mind giving your age? A. Thirty-eight.
— 209—
Q. What is your occupation? A. I am a classroom
teacher.
Q. Of how many years? A. Twelve years.
Q. By what school system are you presently employed?
A. I am presently employed by the Murfreesboro School
System.
Q. How long have you been there? A. One year.
Q. Are you acquainted with the intervenors, Theresa
Kinslow? A. Yes, I am.
Q. How did you become so? A. We were co-workers
at Bradley Elementary School—I am sorry, Grainsville
School in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, for one year.
Q. Would that be the 64-65 school year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. During the course of that year, will you state what,
if any, opportunity you have had to engage in activities
with or observe Mrs. Kinslow in activities that enabled
you to draw any conclusion about her professional ability?
Mr. Lynch: May it please the Court, for the sake
of expediency, toward trying to expedite this hear-
— 210—
ing, I object on the ground it is completely irrele
vant and immaterial. This hearing is whether or
not the School Board acted arbitrarily, and ca
priciously in failing to employ her.
254a
The Court: I understood Mr. Williams said he
could move faster if we would let him go this way,
so the Court is going to let him go this way.
Mr. Williams: I don’t see how counsel can ob
ject that this is irrelevant when he offered testi
mony of the superintendent in this very school sys
tem.
The Court: He has objected and the Court has
overruled his objection. Please ask another ques
tion or get an answer to that one.
A. We worked together as Physical Ed. teachers. We
shared group activities. We worked in workshops to
gether, and there were occasions when we had culminated
activities with the use of audiovisual aids, and that was
day to day contact.
Q. Did you ever plan projects together? A. Yes, we
did plan projects.
Q. Based on these associations with Mrs. Kinslow, were
you able to form a conclusion of your own regarding her
professional competence and ability? A. Based on these
things, I did.
— 211—
Q. What was that conclusion? A. I felt she was a good
teacher. That is my opinion that she was a good teacher.
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
The Court: Cross examine.
Mr. Lynch: No questions.
The Court: The witness is excused.
Call your next witness, please.
Mrs. Lincola Johnson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 210, 211)
255a
Mr. Williams: That is the last witness directly
on this issue.
We had a witness under subpoena and we would
like to call as a hostile witness, Mrs. Ruth Arnold,
the principal at Mary Sharp School, who declined
to talk to me out in the hall.
The Court: Just call her and we will see if she
is hostile. If so, the Court will let you cross
examine her as such.
Mr. Lynch: May I approach the Bench, your
Honor?
The Court: Yes.
(Thereupon counsel confer with the Court out of
hearing of the Reporter.)
The Court: Call the next witness, please.
Miss Ruth Arnold—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 211, 212)
— 212—
Thereupon Miss R u t h A rnold was called as a witness
by and on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and after being first
duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Williams-.
Q. Is this Miss Ruth Arnold? A. I am.
Q. Miss Arnold, you live in Winchester, Tennessee?
A. I do.
Q. Do you mind stating your age, or an age you are
over? A. I am fifty-six.
Q. I believe you are the principal of Mary Sharp Ele
mentary School, are you not? A. Mary Sharp Primary
School—First and Second Grades—First and Second Grade
School, Mary Sharp Primary School.
256a
Q. How long have you served in that capacity1? A. Ever
since the school has been there. I believe we came down
either ’52-53 term, or 53-54 term, but ’53, I believe.
Q. Miss Arnold, during the 1965-66 school year, do you
—213-
recall Mrs. Theresa Kinslow serving there as a substitute
teacher on an occasion in Mrs. Frances Cannon’s place?
A. She taught one day, I believe, as a substitute teacher.
Q. Did you observe her at all? A. I did not. I am a
full time teacher, as well as a full time principal, as well
as lunchroom supervisor, and administrator of the school.
I was teaching full time. I took Mrs. Kinslow up to the
children’s room and introduced her to the children and said,
“Children, Mrs. Kinslow is going to help you today. She
has a little boy in this classroom. Be sweet children.”
With that I didn’t see her any more that day with the
children. When I teach full time and have a school to
administer, and have a full teaching load, as full as any
other teacher, it is not possible to do administrative super
vision.
Q. That’s fine. Now, Miss Arnold, you then have no
basis upon which to form a professional judgment as to
Mrs. Kinslow’s teaching ability? A. No.
Q. Miss Arnold, did you—you had a vacancy in the
First Grade that occurred as of the 1965-66 school year,
did you not? A. Yes.
—214—
Q. Did that vacancy occur at the end of the ’64-65 school
year? A. The vacancy was when the 65-66 school term
began. We started off the year with another teacher, Mrs.
Cannon.
Miss Ruth Arnold—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 212, 213, 214)
257a
Q. What I am really driving at is this. How did the
vacancy occur, by resignation at the end of the year, or by
resignation during the previous year, or by increase of
student roll, or how? A. It did not occur by increase or
decrease in student load. It occurred by the teacher who
filled that place turning in her resignation to the School
Board. She did not turn the resignation in to me, but
to the School Board.
Q. Do you know the name of that teacher, Miss Arnold?
A. Mrs. Carolyn Franklin.
Q. Is that her married name? A. Wait a minute—her
married name.
The Court: Can’t that be stipulated?
The Witness: Carolyn Franklin Patterson.
Q. Do you recall when that was done? A. As I said,
it did not come to me.
Q. You are not aware— A. The resignation did not
come to me. The resignation went to the School Board.
—215—
Q. May we assume you first knew a new teacher was
coming to the school on the opening of school? A. No.
I knew the vacancy was there during the summer, but I
did not know the date on which Mrs. Patterson turned in
her resignation to the School Board, because it went to
the superintendent’s office rather than to me.
Q. Did you make any recommendation regarding the
filling of that vacancy? A. No, because I knew—I did
not know the applicants who were applying for the job.
Applications go to Mr. Scott and not to me.
Miss Ruth Arnold—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 214, 215)
258a
Q. Did you know or have any inkling how that position
was going to be filled until the Board elected and it came
out in the newspaper! A. I don’t know that I know just
when it came out in the newspaper.
Q. In August! A. Oh, yes, I knew it would be filled
before August, who the teacher was going to be.
Q. Do you have any idea what month you knew that,
Miss Arnold, and how you came to know it! A. Much
earlier in the year. I knew it earlier in the year. As to
setting a date, I don’t know that I know a date. I had no
—216-
occasion to remember the date in particular. I knew that
applications were coming into the superintendent’s office.
I had no occasion to remember the date in particular.
Q. I don’t think you understand what I am driving at,
or maybe you do and I don’t understand. What I am ask
ing really is, when did you first learn that Mrs. Cannon
was going to fill that position? A. There again I don’t
know that I know a date, but I knew it some weeks before
school started.
Q. Were you so advised by the superintendent or by
some Board Member? A. I went to the superintendent’s
office and asked, have you filled the vacancy at Mary Sharp,
and when Mrs. Cannon was going to be the teacher, I
was told when I went in and asked.
Q. Were you advised that Mrs. Kinslow had also made
application? Were you advised by the superintendent that
Mrs. Kinslow had also made application? A. I didn’t
know Mrs. Kinslow at that time; no.
Q. Were you advised by Mr. Scott a Negro applicant
had specifically asked about that position? A. No, I didn’t
Miss Ruth Arnold—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 216, 217)
259a
know Mrs. Kinslow at that time and there had been no
discussion of Mrs. Kinslow as a person.
Q. Aside from Mrs. Kinslow, did Mr. Scott mention
- 2 1 8 -
teachers and choosing between teacher applicants? A. Do
I know the Board’s policy in choosing teachers?
Q. Yes ma’am, do you know of any principles that you
know of that they apply? A. I don’t know that I would
answer Board’s policies. Board sets their own policies,
not me; not I.
When I apply, when I want a school, I put my applica
tion in with the Board of Education. I state my qualifi
cations, my reason for asking for the school, and it comes
through the Board, through the superintendent.
Q. You have no idea about the mechanics of their deci
sions? A. Of Board electing teachers?
Q. Yes ma’am. A. The teachers are recommended by
the superintendent, and voted on by the Board of Educa
tion.
Q. All right. A. On the qualifications which come in,
or at least mine have always been.
Q. In other words, your impression is the Board con
siders the qualifications of the teachers? A. And the per
sonality of the teacher, and the teacher goes and meets
with the superintendent, and the superintendent recom-
—219-
mends her to the Board. I have always gone to the Board
Member in the district in which I wanted to teach. I have
so stated my qualifications to that Board Member and let
him know me, let him judge me as a person, personality-
Miss Ruth Arnold—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 217, 218, 219)
wise.
26'0a
Q. That is the general practice? A. General practice
so far as I have been concerned in my experience.
Q. Usually if that Board Member is for you the rest
of the Board Members are? A. He usually, that Board
Member is familiar with his teacher, and the other Board
Members may be, or may not be. I live in a town in which
I have grown up and am pretty well known about, so when
a new person would come in, I am speaking from experi
ence of the way I have handled it.
Q. All right. A. A new person coming in, I don’t know
that I could say what that person would do. They might
go to all the Board Members. I don’t, because I am fairly
well—my family is fairly well known and I have lived
here myself. I said I was 56, and I have been around
here 56 years.
Q. Now, do you know what, if any, standards the Board
applies when there is a loss of a teaching position in at
tempting to determine who it is they are going to drop or
- 220-
discharge? A. There again that is the Board policy and
those standards are set by the Board. I have not sat in
on their board meetings and their policy meetings. I
think I have been to one board meeting and that con
cerned some requirements, some things I would like to
have for my school in the way of material things, requested.
Q. I t is, would you say, that in the event it became
necessary to reduce a teaching staff of a school at a par
ticular time— A. I would say that is the prerogative of
the board and not of the principal to set that policy.
Q. And with regard to who the Board should select. A.
It is not the principal’s.
Miss Ruth Arnold—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 219, 220)
261a
Q. And you don’t know how the board determines that!
A. I have never had in my school where I have been
teaching a drop in enrollment and so any school over the
county who has had a drop in enrollment, it is the pre
rogative of the Board to determine that, and not I.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Miss Arnold.
The Court: Any cross examination!
Mr. Lynch: I wouldn’t dare, not of Miss Ruth.
The Witness: Thank you.
The Court: The witness is excused.
— 221-
Call your next witness.
Peggy Woodson Ramsey—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 220, 221)
Thereupon P eggy W oodsox R amsey was called as a wit
ness by and on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and after having
been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as fol
lows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Williams:
Mr. Williams: I had intended to put this witness
on—
The Court: I thought you were going full steam
in presenting your entire case. I was trying to
limit this when I interrupted your presentation of
the case to the matter of standards.
Go ahead.
Q. Is your name Peggy Woodson Ramsey! A. That’s
right.
262a
Q. Mrs. Ramsey, you married in the past few weeks?
A. A month ago.
Q. How old are you? A. Twenty-nine.
Q. You have lived in Franklin County all your life?
A. Right.
— 222—
Q. What is your occupation? A. I am a teacher.
Q. Where are you presently employed? A. Sewanee
public school.
Q. You are a tenure teacher, I believe? A. I am.
Q. Are you acquainted with Mrs. Theresa Kinslow?
A. I am.
Q. How have you known her? A. I went to high school
with her, and college.
Q. You have known her all her life? A. Yes, sir.
Q. She lived here too? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you had any professional association with her?
A. Yes, I have.
Mr. Lynch: Your Honor, I have a request here
to call my office on an urgent matter. I don’t know
what it is.
The Court: We will take a recess. Let the Court
know when you return.
(Thereupon a short recess was taken, after which
—223-
court reconvened and the following proceedings were
had:)
The Court: All right, Mr. Williams.
Peggy Woodson Ramsey■—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 221, 222, 223)
263a
Peggy Woodson Ramsey—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 223, 224)
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mrs. Ramsey, I believe I asked you what professional
contacts you had had with Mrs. Kinslow in Kentucky!
A. In Kentucky we attended several workshops together
and faculty meetings.
Q. Were you also a First Grade teacher? A. That’s
right.
Q. In a different school! A. Yes, sir.
Q. By the same school system? A. Right.
Q. That by the Christian County Kentucky School Sys
tem ? A. Right.
Q. Based on your professional relationship with her,
are you able—were you and are you able to form an
opinion regarding her professional competence and ability!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is that opinion? A. She is a very good
teacher.
Q. What about her character? A. In my opinion, it
— 224—
is very good character.
Q. Do you know of any reason why she should be un
acceptable as a teacher for employment in a school sys
tem! A. None.
Q. I believe you were in the employment of the Franklin
County School System in 1963-64 school year when the
Court approved desegregation plan, weren’t you? A.
Yes.
Q. You were employed at Kennerly School, two-room
Negro segregated school maintained by defendants down
in Sewanee area? A. Yes, sir.
264a
Mr. Lynch: If yonr Honor please, we object on
the ground it is immaterial to the issue at hand.
The Court: I assume it is introductory, isn’t it?
Mr. Williams: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: All right. Objection overruled.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. When that school was closed, the Kennerly School
was closed, you were a tenure teacher at that time, were
you not? A. Yes.
Q. State whether or not you were summarily discharged
by the defendants in this case? A. I don’t understand.
—225—
Q. When the Kennerly School was closed pursuant to
the Desegregation Order of the Court at that time, state
whether or not you were fired by the School Board at that
time? A. I was discharged.
Q. That is what I mean, discharged. When you were
discharged, what did you do? A. I was told of a job open
by Mrs. Kinslow in Kentucky and I went to Kentucky.
Q. In the meantime, did you also contact me during
the year? A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did I, pursuant to my advice in the spring of 1965,
what did you do with regard to making application, or not
making application to the defendants? A. I made an ap
plication to Franklin County Board of Education.
Q. For reinstatement? A. For reinstatement.
Q. Did they grant that application immediately? A.
Not immediately.
Q. "When were you finally re-employed by the Franklin
Peggy Woodson Ramsey—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 224, 225)
265a
County Board of Education? A. The exact date, I don’t
know.
— 226—
Q. State whether or not it was at the same time Mrs.
Woodson, Mrs. Campbell, Mrs. Harvell and Mrs. Staten
were re-employed? A. At the same time.
Q. At what school are you now teaching? A. Sewanee
Public School in Sewanee.
Q. I believe you are assigned as a Librarian there or
are you teaching? A. I am teaching this year.
Mr. Williams : That’s all.
The Court: Cross examine.
Mr. Lynch: No questions.
The Court: The witness is excused.
Call your next witness, please.
Mr. Lynch: May I recall the last witness?
The Court: Yes, just as soon as the bailiff steps
back in.
Peggy Woodson Ramsey—for Plaintiffs—Cross
(pp. 225, 226, 227)
Thereupon P eggy W oodson R amsey, the witness that
just left the stand, resumed the witness stand, and on
being interrogated, testified as follows:
Cross Examination by Mr. Lynch:
—227—
Q. Just one question. You said you worked with Mrs.
Kinslow in the Christian County Kentucky School Sys
tem, but not in the same school. Is that right? A. That’s
right.
Q. And you attended some workshops with her and
266a
Peggy Woodson Ramsey—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
—Recross
(pp. 227, 228)
based upon this, you regarded her as a competent teacher?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did you at any time ever convey this information to
Mr. Scott or any member of the School Board? A. No, I
didn’t.
Mr. Lynch: That’s all.
Redirect Examination by Mr. Williams:
Q. Was Mr. Scott aware that you at the time of your
application for re-employment in the spring of 1965 that
you had been employed, or were employed in the Christian
County Kentucky School System? A. Did he know?
Q. Did you show that on your application? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did Mr. Scott ever ask you about Mrs. Kinslow’s
qualifications? A. No.
Q. Although he knew you had been teaching with her?
A. Yes.
—228—
Q. Where were you, right here in Franklin County?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he ever call you up on the telephone and ask
you about her qualifications? A. No.
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
Recross Examination by Mr. Lynch:
Q. Do you know whether or not you were listed on her
application as a reference? A. No.
Mr. Lynch: That’s all.
The Court: The witness is excused.
Call your next witness.
267a
Thereupon M rs. F rances Cannon was called as a wit
ness by and on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and after having
been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as fol
lows :
Direct Examination by Mr. Williams:
Q. State your name, please ma’am! A. Frances Cannon.
—229—
Q. And your address? A. Sewanee, Tennessee, Route 1.
Q. Do you mind giving your age? A. No, I do not; I
am 44.
Q. Mrs. Cannon, you are, I believe, a person who was
employed in the Franklin County School System for the
first time in the 1965-66 school year? A. Correct.
Q. Prior to that time, had you ever lived in Franklin
County? A. No, sir, I had not.
Q. At the time you—-immediately prior to the time you
came here, where had you been living? A. Duneden,
Florida.
Q. And you had been there for how long? A. One year.
Q. Did you make application for employment in the
school system here in Franklin County in 1965? A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall the approximate month of your appli
cation? A. I would say approximately May or June, the
end of the school year in Florida.
Q. Why did you make this application? A. My hus-
—230-
band had applied and accepted a teaching position at the
Sewanee Military Academy.
Q. Will you state whether or not after you mailed your
application in you received any telephone calls from Super
intendent Scott? A. I did not receive any from him, as
Mrs. Frances Cannon—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 228, 229, 230)
268a
well as I recall. I called his office first, when I found out
my husband was coming here, and he asked me to send him
an application and they mailed me one.
Then I called another time trying to get in touch with
him to see if he had heard anything or if the Board had
acted.
Q. Had the Board acted at that time? A. At the time
I called, the last time, he was on vacation in Florida.
Q. Now then, Mrs. Cannon, I believe you taught—you
were elected on August 12, 1965, were you not? A. I
don’t recall the date. I know I came the week the school
started. I don’t recall the exact date.
Q. You don’t recall exactly when that was? A. No. As
far as the date, actually, you know.
Q. I believe you are the holder of a B. S. Degree? A.
Correct.
Q. How many years teaching experience have you had?
—231—
A. Had I had when I came here?
Q. Yes ma’am. A. Three.
Q. And teaching the First Grade? A. First or Second.
Q. And you taught the entire year there at Mary Sharp
School, did you not? A. Yes.
Q. Then at the end of the last school year, you were
transferred and you are now assigned to Sewanee Public
Schools? A. Correct.
Q. Was that based on your request? A. It was.
Q. For what reason? A. Since we live in Sewanee and
plan to build a home there, I thought it would be to my
Mrs. Frances Cannon—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 230, 231)
convenience.
269a
Q. And the superintendent’s office is generally kind of
polite and very polite about that sort of thing if they can
arrange a transfer to make it more convenient; that if they
can assign you to a school that is more convenient to you,
they will do it! A. I can’t speak for anyone else.
—232—
Mr. Lynch: This is the intervenor’s witness, if
your Honor please, and I object to leading.
The Court: Objection sustained. She was going
to say, I think, she didn’t know.
Is that what you were going to say!
The Witness: I don’t know about anyone else.
I appreciated their consideration for me at my re
quest.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Do you know who took your place in the First Grade
at Mary Sharp for the ensuing year! A. You mean now?
Q. For the present year, yes. A. Yes, Mrs. Jean West
is teaching in my place.
Q. Was she transferred from another school? A. I be
lieve so.
Q. Now, Mrs. Cannon, I believe Mrs. Kinslow substituted
for you one day during the 1965-66 school year in the Mary
Sharp School? A. Yes.
Q. You were not there during that day? A. No, I was
not.
Q. I assume you did not notice any appreciable retro
gression in the progress of your children as a result of
her having substituted that one day? A. I don’t suppose
Mrs. Frances Cannon—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 231, 232)
270a
Mrs. Frances Cannon—for Plaintiffs—Cross
(pp, 233, 234)
—233—
so. I didn’t really know that she had been there until I
was filling out my report. I knew someone substituted, but
did not know it was Mrs. Kinslow until a week or so later,
I guess.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mrs. Cannon.
The Court: Cross examine.
Cross Examination by Mr. Lynch:
Q. Mrs. Cannon, when a vacancy was created at Mary
Sharp by your transfer to Sewanee, you said that was filled
by Mrs. Jean West! A. Isn’t that correct!
Q. Is that what you said! A. That is what I said.
Q. Is she a white person or a Negro! A. She is a Negro.
Mr. Lynch: That’s all.
The Court: Anything further!
Mr. Williams: No, your Honor.
The Court: The witness is excused.
Call your next witness.
Mr. Williams: If your Honor please, all the wit
nesses that I have left are on this question of—
mainly on the question of the circumstances of the
- 2 3 4 -
School Board firing or refusal to hire Mrs. Kinslow.
I can put them on rather rapidly and get rid of them,
if the Court will grant that indulgence.
The Court: Yes, sir, I want to hear everything
you have to offer.
Mr. Williams: Call Rev. George Smith.
271a
Thereupon R ev. George S m it h was called as a witness
by and on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and after being first
duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Williams:
Q. You are Reverend George Smith? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You live in Winchester? A. Decherd.
Q. And for how many years ? A. Thirty-six.
Q. How old are you? A. Thirty-nine.
Q. What is your occupation? A. I am a minister and
a fire fighter.
Q. Minister and what? A. Fire fighter, with the Fire
—235-
Department.
Q. Minister and a fire fighter. What churches are you
pastor of? A. Trinity Baptist Church in Howell, and
Baptist Church in Mulberry, and also the Assistant Pastor
in Eads Street.
Q. Here in Winchester? A. Huntland.
Q. Now then, are you—do you work for the Winchester
Fire Department? A. No, work for Arnold Engineering
Development Center.
Q. At Tullahoma? A. Yes.
Q. How long have you worked for them? A. Approxi
mately thirteen years.
Q. Are you a family man? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Wife and how many children? A. Wife and four
children.
Q. Rev. Smith, were you made aware of the teaching
vacancy in the school system here for the 1965-66 school
year, and, if so, how did you become aware of it? A. I
was just told there was a vacancy.
Rev. George Smith—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 234, 235)
272a
Rev. George Smith—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp. 236, 237)
—236—
Mr. Lynch: We object to what he was told.
The Court: Just information you got, not who
told you.
Mr. Williams: I would like to find out where he
got his information from, it might make it competent.
The Court: I think it is competent for him to
say he received information and then what he did
on the basis of what he received.
By Mr. Williams:
Q. Did you have a personal contact with Mr. Scott, the
superintendent thereafter? A. I did.
Q. When was that, and tell us what happened! A. It
was in a Board meeting in March when they elected all
the teachers.
Q. March, 1965? A. No. The conversation was in ’66.
Q. What was said? A. At the school board, after they
elected the teachers, I asked Mr. Garner,—I was school
board member from Decherd—why they didn’t hire Mrs.
Kinslow and the words he said was this: “I will ask Louis.”
He called Mr. Scott, and I asked Mr. Scott, and he told
me he was fixing to consider Mrs. Kinslow until she came,
her name came up on the lawsuit against him.
—237—
Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of a practice of
defendants transferring teachers from one school to an
other when there are adjustments in the enrollment of a
school? A. The question again, please.
Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of what the
Franklin County School Board ordinarily does when a
273a
school loses its enrollment and has to lose a teacher in
that particular school? A. I do.
Q. What is that knowledge? A. Teacher is transferred
to the next school where the majority of the children at
tend. That was the case of Perry Chapel and Hillcrest.
Q. That was the case of what now? A. Perry Chapel
School where my children used to attend, when it was
closed, Miss Staten was transferred to Decherd School
where most of the children went to school.
Q. And the same thing happened when Hillcrest was
closed? A. That’s right, when Hillcrest w7as closed Miss
Staten was transferred to Decherd, that’s right, Decherd
Public School. I mean, when the enrollment fell off there,
she was transferred to Decherd School, that’s right.
—238—
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
The Court: Cross examine.
Cross Examination by Mr. Lynch:
Q. Mr. Smith, are all ministers kind of in the fire
fighting business? A. In a way, yes, sir.
Q. I believe you said that you received information
sometime in March, 1966, that there might be an opening
somewhere in the system and you notified Mr. Garner to
this effect? A. No, I did not.
Q. What was it you said? A. I said I received informa
tion that there was an opening and I talked to Mr. Garner
in March, 1966.
Q. I misunderstood you. Now, you called Mr. Scott at
Mr. Garner’s suggestion? A. No, sir, I did not. I did
not say that.
Rev. George Smith—for Plaintiffs—Gross
(pp. 237, 238)
274a
Q. Tell me again what you said? A. I said we were
at the hoard meeting when they elected the teachers and
I asked Mr. Garner, and Mr. Garner said he would call
Mr. Scott who was a little way over in the same room.
Q. Oh, all right. Then did not Mr. Scott tell you that
—239—
he had considered Mrs. Kinslow? A. No, sir, he did not.
He said he was fixing to consider Mrs. Kinslow until her
name came up on the lawsuit against him.
The Court: Now, I don’t understand.
Did Mr. Scott tell you that directly or did he tell
Mr. Garner, and Mr. Garner told you that was what
Mr. Scott said.
The Witness: He told me that directly.
The Court: Mr. Scott did?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: When you said Mr. Garner was going
to call Mr. Scott, you meant he was going to mo
tion to him or get him over to talk with you?
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: You did have this conversation with
Mr. Scott?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right. I understand now.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. You said you did have this conversation with Mr.
Scott? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say you do know that it has been the practice
to put other teachers into openings, vacancies within the
—240-
system when the drop in enrollment in one school makes
Rev. George Smith—for Plaintiffs—Cross
(pp. 238, 239, 240)
275a
it necessary for that teacher to be cut off, is that right!
A. On two occasions I know that has happened.
Q. You mentioned two teachers, one was Mrs. Staton.
Is that right? A. That’s right.
Q. She was a Negro, wasn’t she! A. That’s right.
Q. When the school in which she taught made it neces
sary by reason of loss of enrollment that her job be dis
continued there, she was given another job where the
enrollment justified it, wasn’t she? A. On the first occa
sion, yes, sir.
Q. You mentioned someone else. Who was that? You
mentioned Mrs. Staton and Mrs. who? A. Just Mrs.
Staton.
Rev. George Smith—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
(pp . 240, 241)
The Court: She went to two different schools,
didn’t she?
The Witness: That’s right.
By Mr. Lynch:
Q. She was put on in an opening where the student
enrollment built up and justified it? A. On the first occa
sion, I reckon.
Q. She was a tenure teacher there, do you know that?
—241—
A. She is a tenure teacher.
Mr. Lynch: That’s all.
The Court: Any redirect?
Redirect Examination by Mr. Williams:
Q. Rev. Smith, are you also familiar with the situation
of Mrs. Ward and the school known as Asia School? A.
Yes, I am.
276a
Q. What happened to that school? A. She was trans
ferred to Townsend, another Negro school.
Q. When did that happen? A. The discontinuing of
the school, the dates, I just don’t know.
Q. They closed the Asia School down and didn’t dis
charge Miss Ward, but transferred her to Townsend along
with her pupils? A. That’s right.
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
The Court: Anything further?
Recross Examination by Mr. Lynch:
Q. Do you know where Miss Ward is now? A. I did
know—I am not sure, but I think she is at Clark Memorial.
—242—
Q. She is at Clark Memorial right now? A. I think.
Mr. Lynch: That’s all.
The Court: The witness is excused.
Call your next witness.
Fred Blackwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(p p . 241, 242)
Thereupon M e . F red B l a c k w e l l was called as a wit
ness by and on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and after being
first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Williams:
Q. Is this Fred Blackwell? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Please give your age and place of residence? A.
Age 46; residence 809 Gem Street, Winchester, Tennessee.
Q. What is your occupation? A. Custodian of Southern
Bell Telephone Company.
277a
Q. How long have yon been working in that capacity?
A. Twenty-six years.
Q. Mr. Blackwell, in 1965, were you at any time aware
of an application of Mrs. Theresa Kinslow made for em-
—243—
ployment in the Franklin County School System? Do you
know about it? A. To answer that, the only way I would
know about that application was through a conversation.
Q. With whom did that conversation occur? A. It oc
curred with L. J. Morris.
Q. Who is Mr. L. J. Morris? A. He was a member of
the Board of Education and Commissioner for the First
District.
Q. And one of the defendants in this case? A. Yes.
Q. What was the tenor of that conversation and approxi
mately when, what month in ’65, if you know? A. I would
rather say it was very latter part of July or first of
August, not being too sure, having no reason to know the
date.
Q. What did Mr. Morris say to you? A. The morning
in the conversation that I am speaking of, he said to me
at the Post Office where I believe he was employed and I
was picking up mail, “Fred, do you know or do you all
have a lady that is not working that would like to fill
a job in a teaching position in the primary department?”
And, of course, my answer—“Did I know one ?” My answer
was, “Yes, I believe I do.” He asked me who was this lady,
—244—
and I told him, give him her name.
Q. What name did you give him? A. I gave him the
name of Theresa Kinslow.
Q. What happened when you gave him her name? A.
Fred Blackivell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(p p . 242, 243, 244)
278a
He asked me if I could get in touch with her any way
soon, that he related the best I remember that Louis
Scott just called and told him a vacancy existed.
Q. In what school? A. In the Mary Sharp School.
Q. And then what? A. And if I could get in touch with
her right away, to go ahead and get in touch with her
and tell her to call the superintendent and make applica
tion for the job; that this particular school had a vacancy
and he called him and asked him what he was going to do
about it; that he didn’t have anyone in mind, and he
asked me, and when I did the same he told me to get in
touch with her.
Q. Did you convey that information to Mrs. Kinslow?
A. I conveyed that information by telephone.
Q. Do you know Mrs. Kinslow’s voice on the phone? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Now, after you conveyed that information to her by
telephone, did you have any further connection with the
—245-
matter at all? A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Tell what that is? A. Approximately an hour or
hour and a half later Mrs. Kinslow reached me back by
telephone and said she had called superintendent Scott
and that he said no vacancy existed, was I mistaken or was
I sure the school that the vacancy existed in. I told her
I was, and I was sure of what the Board Member had
told me; give me a little time and I would affirm it and
let her know.
Q. What did you do after that? A. I came back to the
Post Office and asked for Mr. Morris, I believe he came
to the back, and we talked and he told me definitely the
vacancy existed as far as he knowed and Louis hadn’t
Fred Blackwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp . 244, 245)
279a
been too long calling him. He had talked with him. If I
reached Mrs. Kinslow again to tell her to get an applica
tion and her credentials, get them on Mr. Scott’s desk and
if I would, give him Mrs. Kinslow’s telephone number,
that he would like to talk to her, either have her come to
see him.
Q. Did you convey that information to her by telephone?
A. Yes.
Q. This was about the first of August? A. Yes, sir.
—246—
I would have no way of knowing exactly the date, but
somewhere the first of August, I would say.
Q. Did you have any further conversation with Mrs.
Kinslow or with Mr. Morris? A. Yes, sir, I had further
conversation with both.
Q. What was that, briefly as you can express it, express
ing it fully, of course? A. Well, maybe the next conver
sation I had probably was with Mrs. Kinslow in the after
noon of the same day or next day, she being pretty close
neighbor, and she told me that she had seen Mr. Morris
and she had gotten some things to Mr. Scott’s office, what
ever it was she was supposed to get there, and she was to
see the principal of the school, Mary Sharp school, and
she was going. That was maybe my next conversation with
her.
The next conversation with Mr. Morris which may have
been a day or two later, I won’t say because I had seen
Mr. Morris mostly every day. He told me then, the next
conversation, as best I remember, that “It seemed that he
wasn’t going to be able to place Mrs. Kinslow at Mary
Sharp; that the superintendent and John Hunt had talked
to him and maybe the other board members, and they didn’t
seem to go along with it. He related to me that he didn’t
Fred Blackwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp . 245, 246)
280a
Fred Blackivell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
(pp . 247, 248)
—247-
know why; the school was in his district, and if I remem
ber correctly, he told me that it had been a policy, so far
as he knew, that a grammar school in his particular dis
trict of the commission usually got no interference from
the other board members as long as it was a grammar
school, but they all came together to elect a teacher for
the high school, but he would do what he could—did I
think Mrs. Kinslow would accept a position at Townsend.
My answer to him was, I would sure she would accept a
position anywhere; that she definitely wanted to work so
far as I know. That was the next conversation I had
so far as I recall.
Q. Was there any further conversations! A. Not un
til after the Board had met and Mr. Morris told me he
recommended Mrs. Kinslow; told me who seconded the
motion; and told me that she was turned down, and actu
ally the proceeding, I won’t try to say what he said unless
you agree to that.
Q. Did he state at that time that there was any reason,
that he knew of any reason why they had turned her down
like that? A. I don’t remember. I don’t recall right now
no reason he gave me that they turned her down; no, sir.
Q. Do you know anything further about this matter?
A. No, not definitely, I do not.
—248—
Q. Mr. Blackwell, do you know what the practice has
been in the past when there was a reduction in enrollment
in a school or closing of a school with regard to—so that
a teacher had to be lost or discharged in that particular
school? Do you know whether or what the Board’s prac
tice has been? A. No, sir, I do not. You mean if enroll
281a
ment dropped to where the teacher was actually lost in
the school?
Q. Do you know what the practice has been in selecting
the teacher to discharge or whether or not they would
transfer the teacher, or what? A. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
The Court: Cross examine.
Cross Examination by Mr. Lynch:
Q. I believe you said on the last conversation you had
with Mr. Morris that he said after bringing this matter
up with the superintendent it appeared that the superin
tendent and Mr. Hunt had decided they didn’t want Mrs.
Kinslow in the system. Is that what you said, or some
thing to that effect? A. I don’t believe I said that. I
named the two parties that were named, that they had
talked to him and he wasn’t going to be able to place her,
—249—
that was even at Mary Sharp; not Townsend.
Q. Who is Mr. Hunt? A. He was the principal of Town
send High School.
Mr. Lynch: That’s all.
The Court: Anything further?
Mr. Williams: No, your Honor.
The Court: The witness is excused.
Call your next witness, please.
Mr. Williams: Your Honor, that concludes our
proof in chief except in addition to those applica
tions, we also subpoenaed the minutes of the Board
showing the discharge and election of non-tenure
Fred Blackwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
(p p . 248, 249)
282a
teachers for the 64-65 school year. We would like
to make those an exhibit.
The Court: Are they here?
Mr. Lynch: May it please the Court, at the pre
trial conference, the 64-65 minutes were not required.
All minutes pertaining to the action of the Board
relative to employment and discharge of teachers
from ’65 on were mentioned at the pre-trial con
ference and made a part of the Pre-Trial Order,
and they are on file, with much work and much
time involved. Now, just recently, when the sub-
—250—
poena duces tecum was served on Mr. Scott, then
it was noted that the 64-65 minutes were there re
quested, and he absolutely hasn’t had time to pro
duce them yet.
Mr. Williams: He has them.
Mr. Lynch: I am sorry. He says he now has them
as of last night.
The Court: Any objection to the filing of them?
Mr. Lynch: None at all, your Honor.
The Court: Pile them as Collective Exhibit 1-16.
Call your first witness for the defendant.
Mr. Lynch: May it please the Court, in view of
the fact every member of the defendant Board was
subpoenaed by the intervenors, the superintendent
has been called, we feel that certainly the burden
of proof has not been borne by the plaintiff to
indicate that there has been any violation of the
plan, the defendant at this time rests.
The Court: All right. Do you gentlemen want
any time to supplement your briefs now that you
have heard the testimony?
Colloquy
(p p . 249, 250)
283a
Colloquy
(pp. 250, 251, 252)
Mr. Williams: We think this, if your Honor
please, that, frankly, I think the brief we have sub-
—251—
mitted is adequate.
I just want to say to the Court that I disagree
with counsel’s statement that we have the burden
of proof. I think at the present posture of the case
the burden of proof is on the defendant.
The Court: Well, he was not looking into the
Court’s mind when he made his statement, I am sure.
Mr. Lynch: If there is any doubt in the Court’s
mind, I would like time to brief it further. We think
there is a great difference in the facts surrounding
this case and we would like to supplement our brief.
The Court: Well, the Court would give you time
to do that, and without pre-judging or anything,
just so you gentlement will know the feeling the
Court has, the Court feels that the contract of Mrs.
Scott was wrongfully breached for a period—if I
have my arithmetic correct—eleven days, but that
the defendants have carried their burden of proof
that she was not justified in declining re-employment
in the letter of August 31st, which the Court as
sumes if she was in Tullahoma, she would have
gotten the following day, or September 1st.
So, if you gentlemen want to brief that question
—252—
further, or as to Mrs. Kinslow, the Court would be
glad to give you time to do it, although the Court
does think that you have rather adequate briefs on
both sides.
284a
Mr. Lynch: I will withdraw my request for addi
tional time. I am ready to quit.
The Court: All right.
Now, there is one other matter and that is the
reasonableness of attorney’s fees for Mrs. Scott’s
counsel, bearing in mind that this action was origi
nally brought on behalf of three intervening plain
tiffs, and that one of the intervenors dismissed her
claim, and, as indicated, the Court feels that per
haps without finally adjudging the matter that only
Mrs. Scott is entitled to any recovery.
The record of the defendants is not as good as
the Court would like to see in this matter of sin
cerely and genuinely doing away with segregation
of the school system, and as to—certainly as to
Mrs. Scott’s situation, the Court thinks it might im
press the defendants with the determination of this
Court to enforce the law. If they would be required
to pay a reasonable attorney’s fee to Mrs. Scott’s
counsel. She had to bring this action apparently in
order to get the relief to which she was entitled.
—253—
So, if you gentlemen have any suggestions about
how we might—do you think there is any way that
a reasonable attorney’s fee as to Mrs. Scott’s coun
sel could be agreed upon as to the amount without
waiving your right, of course, to disagree with the
Court’s imposition of the fee.
Mr. Lynch: Your Honor, if I understand your
initial statement, I think justifiably so, you say
that there was perhaps a 11-day interim there be
tween her contract was breached?
Colloquy
(pp . 252, 253)
285a
The Court: Yes, involving a minimal amount of
money, of course.
Mr. Lynch: Yes, very minimal.
Now, what would be a reasonable compensation to
compensate the necessity of filing a suit that has
resulted, or may have resulted in such a recovery
is hard for me to fix, in honesty. However, it should
not be such amount as would encourage the filing of
frivolous suits that has resulted in two of the three,
not normally in the third one, a case like this.
Of course, this also is necessary material expended
on the part of the county in the defense in these
matters. I don’t think it should be a thing that
—254—
would be in the nature of a penalty because of the
final results here and the encouragement for similar
results that might stem from it.
That is just my thinking.
The Court: Well, the Court doesn’t wish to get
into that matter except to say this, it is only under
the conditions mentioned that the Court has the
authority in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction to
assess any counsel fee against the defendants, and
the Court is hoping that desegregation of the pub
lic school system of Franklin County is going to
be carried along and implemented in better faith
that the Court feels like it has been done so far,
although the Court will have to say there has been
a vast improvement since we had our first hearing
in this matter.
The only thing the Court is now concerned with
is can you gentlemen reach any agreement as to a
reasonable fee under the circumstances?
Colloquy
(pp . 253, 254)
286a
Mr. Lynch: Are you suggesting that we try to
voluntarily in the absence of the Court?
The Court: Oh, yes, and it is not necessary, if
you will just let the Court know what you will
stipulate what a reasonable fee is under the circum
stances ; otherwise, we have to let the matter remain
- 2 5 5 -
open until proof can be offered on that issue.
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, in light
of the remarks that the Court apparently, in view
of the Court’s apparently placing some effect on our
failure to call other of the defendants, whose testi
mony whom we have introduced witnesses in regard
to statements—
The Court: I am not following you at all. I don’t
recall having said anything like that.
Mr. Williams: We would like to ask leave—
The Court: What are you talking about?
I haven’t said anything that should be construed
along the lines you are talking about.
Mr. Williams: If your Honor please, I gathered
from your Honor’s remarks that your Honor was
reaching a determination that we had not made out
a case as to Mrs. Kinslow.
The Court: This Court has stated very specif
ically, and as plainly as the Court knows how, the
Court is not prejudging anything. I am trying to
give you the benefit of the Court’s present thinking.
Both sides have rested and I have given you all day
long to offer your proof. I have given the defend
ants all day long to offer their’s, and things have
Colloquy
(p p . 254, 255)
287a
Colloquy
(P- 256)
—256—
to be terminated somewhere and I am not going to
re-open the evidence now, if that is what you have
in mind, except if this matter of fee can be disposed
of; otherwise, of course, the Court will have to open
the evidence and hear evidence as to what a reason
able fee for Mrs. Scott’s representation will be.
Mr. Williams: I will be glad to step outside with
counsel.
The Court: All right, you gentlemen can just stip
ulate, if you do agree, stipulate what would be a
reasonable fee in the event the Court decides the
matter as indicated.
Does any other person wish to be heard before
this court is adjourned!
Adjourn court until 9:00 o’clock in the morning.
(Thereupon court adjourned to reconvene on
August 26, 1966, at 9:00 o’clock a.m.)
T h e r e u p o n t h e t r ia l o f t h is m a t t e r w a s c o n c l u d e d a nd
THIS IS ALL OF THE TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS INTRODUCED IN
THIS MATTER.
288a
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
I hereby certify that I reported in shorthand the pro
ceedings in the matter of Civil Action No. 668, Samuel Hill,
and others, versus County Board of Education of Franklin
County, Tennessee, and others, which was heard before
the Hon. C. G. Neese, Judge, at Winchester, Tennessee,
on August 25, 1966; that pages 1 through 256 covers the
entire transcript, and is a true and correct transcription
of my shorthand notes of the said proceedings.
I further certify that I have no interest in this proceed
ing and am not related to any of the parties representing
the various people involved in the proceeding.
This the 6th day of December, 1966.
/s / G tjstava McC. S m it h
Official Court Reporter
—2 5 7 -
289a
Exhibit 1-1:
Letter of Superintendent to Mrs. Virginia Scott,
August 17, 1965
H. Louis S cott
Superintendent
BOARD OF EDUCATION
F r a n k l in C o u n t y
W in c h e s t e r , T e n n e s s e e
W a l t e r M cD a n ie l
Chairman
August 17, 1965
Dear Mrs. Scott,
It is with displeasure that I must give you this in
formation. Due to a lack of enrollment now and in the
forseeable future that is due to the integration move
ment a position will have to be left off at Mt. Zion School
effective today. Since you do not hold tenure and also
you have the least amount of teaching experience of the
faculty at Mt. Zion the Board will have to ask you not to
report for work tomorrow.
It has been a pleasure to work with you in the past
and I hope I might have that pleasure again. If there
is any help we can give you in locating other work please
let us know.
Sincerely yours,
/ s / H. Louis S cott
H. Louis Scott, Supt.
Franklin County Schools
290a
Exhibit 1-12:
Letter of Superintendent to Mrs. Virginia Scott,
August 31, 1965
W alter M cD an iel H. L ouis S cott
Chairman Superintendent
BOARD OF EDUCATION
F r a n k lin County
W in c h ester , T en nessee
August 31, 1965
Dear Mrs. Scott,
This is to notify you there are two teachers that will
need permits to teach in Franklin County. Mrs. Ethel
Hobba at Keith Springs teaching Grades 1-4 and Mr.
Aaron Buckley of F.C.H.S. teaching Band will be issued
permits unless a certified and qualified teacher applies
for the position. If you desire to be considered for either
of these two positions please inform me by mail. Under
the Tennessee Tenure law certificated and qualified teacher
must be considered over permits.
Sincerely yours,
/ s / H . Louis S cott
H. Louis Scott,
Supt. of Franklin County Schools
/ s / W alter M cD an iel
Walter McDaniel,
Chairman of Board
HLS :y
291a
(Filed September 30, 1966)
The intervening plaintiff Mrs. Scott has taught school
for 29 years, the last 20 years being in the Franklin
County, Tennessee public school system. She might have
attained conditional tenure status under Tennessee law,
but she did not meet the statutory and regulatory re
quirements of continuing her higher education. Thus, she
lacks the protection of the tenure law. For many years
she has been residing in Tullahoma, Coffee County, Ten
nessee, and commuting to Mt. Zion School in Franklin
County, Tennessee.
On June 5, 1965, the defendant Board re-elected Mrs.
Scott as an elementary school teacher at Mt. Zion School.
She participated in in-service training and was on duty
at this school on August 16, 1965, when more than 60 stu
dents reported to Mt. Zion, a three-teacher grade school,
to begin or continue their studies. Because of transfers,
etc., the enrollment at Mt. Zion was reduced to slightly
more than 40 on the second day of school, many of these
students having transferred to Huntland School in the
same geographical area.
At that time, state aid to local schools was made on the
basis of average daily attendance in a particular school,
and the remaining enrollment at Mt. Zion made it neces
sary to abolish one teaching position at that institution.
The other two teachers at Mt. Zion enjoyed tenure. The
defendant Superintendent dismissed Mrs. Scott on August
17, 1966, and at a special session of the defendant Board
on the evening of August 23, 1965, Mrs. Scott was formally
dismissed from her position “ * * * due to a lack of enroll
ment”. Mrs. Scott had been teaching first and second grade
students in this previously all-Negro school.
Memorandum Opinion of C. G. Neese, f)J.
292a
Mt. Zion and Huntland Schools were among those in the
Franklin County system which began terms earlier than
others in the County, so that a vacation could he taken by
the students and faculty while cotton picking was in prog
ress in the area later in the school year. Thus, the defend
ant Board members had at the time of Mrs. Scott’s dis
missal no clear picture of the school population in the
entire system.
However, neither did the defendants have in effect any
standards of employment and dismissal by which it could
he properly determined whether Mrs. Scott or some other
teacher in the system should he discharged. The Court
finds that Mrs. Scott was dismissed simply because she was
the only non-tenure teacher at Mt. Zion School. She was
qualified and certified to teach any and all grades one
through nine. Five non-tenure teachers with less experi
ence than Mrs. Scott were then teaching at Huntland
School, although two of these teachers were college grad
uates, and Mrs. Scott was not. Four of the Huntland
teachers were teching the same grades as Mrs. Scott.
Because the defendant Board had no definite objective
standards for the employment and retention of teachers
which were applied to all teachers alike in a manner com
patible with the requirements of the due process and equal
clauses of the federal Constitution, Chambers v. The Hen
dersonville City Board of Education, C. A. 4th (1966),-----
F. (2d) ----- [No. 10,379, decided on June 10, 1966], and
only compared with Mrs. Scott’s qualifications those of two
other Negro teachers at Mt. Zion when deciding which
teacher should he dismissed, the cancellation of Mrs. Scott’s
teaching contract was wrongful.
In a letter of August 31, 1965, ten school days after her
discharge, Mrs. Scott was offered a position teaching the
Memorandum Opinion of C. G. Neese, D.J.
293a
first and second grades at Keith Springs grade school by
the defendants. Tullahoma, Tennessee being only 14 miles
from Winchester, Tennessee, it is inferred by the Court
that Mrs. Scott received such letter in Tullahoma on Sep
tember 1, 1965.
Mrs. Scott made no response indicating an interest in
the Keith Springs position, claiming now that Keith
Springs was too far removed from her residence, that the
roads were too bad, that there was no place for her to stay
in Keith Springs in bad weather or other emergency situa
tions, and that there was danger in accepting a teaching
position in a remote, segregated and all-white area. She
testified that she had heard called out to her as she passed
the Keith Springs School in her automobile, “Hey! Go
on, Negro!”
The Court finds from the evidence adduced in a further
hearing on August 25, 1966, that none of these forebodings
were justifiable. Mrs. Scott had been driving through
Winchester for many years to reach her place of employ
ment at Mt. Zion, and would have taken the same route
to Keith Springs. The distances are relative. There is a
good oiled rural road from Winchester to Keith Springs.
She had customarily stayed in Winchester in previous
emergent situations. Public school desegregation had just
been commenced throughout Franklin County, and there
had been no racial disturbance attendant thereunto.
The intervening plaintiff Mrs. Kinslow is a college grad
uate, certified by the State of Tennessee to teach grades
one through nine. She had taught a part of one year fol
lowing her graduation as a substitute in the Davidson
County, Tennessee system, had taught one year in the
Hopkins County, Kentucky system, and two years in the
Christian County, Kentucky system. She made application
Memorandum Opinion of C. G. Neese, D.J.
294a
to the defendants for the succeeding school year of 1965-
1966, because Franklin County is her home and her hus
band is employed in that area. She listed four years’ teach
ing experience on her application, having been advised in
Davidson County that her part-year of substitute teaching
should be considered a full year.
The defendant superintendent made an investigation of
Mrs. Kinslow’s application and found that Mrs. Kinslow’s
teaching had been unsatisfactory elsewhere. He declined to
recommend her employment, but the defendant member
of the defendant Board elected from the district wherein
Mary Sharp School is located, notwithstanding the lack
of recommendation of the defendant superintendent, moved
Mrs. Kinslow’s election. In a split vote, the defendant
Board declined to elect Mrs. Kinslow. Her services have
since been utilized as a substitute teacher in the Franklin
County public school system, however.
This Court cannot say that the members of the defend
ant Board were either correct or incorrect in declining
to elect Mrs. Kinslow. This was an administrative decision
for such members to make, and the Court finds that there
is substantial evidence to support that decision. The Court
finds and concludes therefrom that the rejection of the ap
plication of the intervening plaintiff Mrs. Kinslow was not
capricious, nor founded on considerations of race, nor in
violation of her civil rights.
By specific reference, all previous findings of the Court
which are pertinent to the issues presented in this pro
ceeding hereby are adopted as a part hereof.
The Court further finds and concludes that the defen
dants have been guilty of “ # # * a long-continued pat
tern of evasion and obstruction * * * ” of the desegre
gation of the public schools of Franklin County, Tennessee.
Memorandum Opinion of C. G. Neese, D.J.
295a
In such event, it is an abuse of judicial discretion for
this Court not to award attorney’s fees as a part of
the costs. Bell v. School Board of Powhatan County,
Virginia, C. A. 4th (1963), 321 F. (2d) 494. The Court
is also disturbed about the evident delegation of the duties
devolving upon the defendant Board in the matter of
electing teachers to the board member in whose school
district a particular grade school is located. It is “ * * *
the duty of the county board of education:
“(1) To elect principals, * * * teachers * * * and other
employees * * * and to fix salaries for such authorized
positions * * *.
# # * # #
“(7) To dismiss teachers, principals, * * * and other
employees, upon sufficient proof of improper conduct, in
efficient service, or neglect of duty; provided, that no
one shall be dismissed without first having been given
in writing due notice of the charge or charges and an
opportunity for defense. * # * ” T. C. A. sec. 49-214.
Thus, it will be seen that each of these county officials,
while elected to represent the qualified voters of a partic
ular school district, is an essential part of the county
and state school system. The law requires the defendant
members of the school board “ * # # to act together as
a board. They cannot delegate to each other the per
formances of duty cast upon them by law. * * * Each * * *
must exercise his own will and purpose in person. * * * ”
State ex rel. v. Jones (1920), 143 Tenn. 575, 577-580
(headnote 3), 224 S. W. 1041; Morley v. Power (1882),
78 Tenn. 219, 10 Lea 219; Fine v. Stuart, C. Chan. App.
(1898), 48 S. W. 371.
In addition, although there has been marked improve
ment, see memorandum opinion and order of April 17,
Memorandum Opinion of C. G. Neese, D.J.
296a
1965, the Court is not yet convinced that the defendants
are exercising the desired degree of good faith in trans
forming the Franklin County school system from a segre
gated to a nonsegregated system. Cf. Hill v. County Board
of Education of Franklin County, Tenn., D. C. Tenn.
(1964) , 232 F. Supp. 671, 673. The Court is of the candid
opinion that, had it not been for the delegation of an
important facet of the duties of the defendant board to
its respective members within their districts, and had
there been extant the required good faith implementation
of its present desegregation plan, Mrs. Scott would not
have been compelled to seek relief in the courts. Bradley
V. School Board of the City of Richmond, C. A. 4th
(1965) , 345 F. (2d) 310.
The clerk will enter judgment for the intervening plain
tiff Mrs. Virginia Scott against the defendants for $286.80
and tax as a part of the costs against the defendants
the sum of $1,000.00 as counsel fees. All relief hereby
is denied the intervening plaintiff Mrs. Theresa Kinslow,
Buie 58 (1), Federal Eules of Civil Procedure.
F i l e :
/ s / C. G. N eese
United States District Judge
Memorandum Opinion of C. G. Neese, D.J.
297a
Judgment of C. G. Neese, D.J.
(Filed October 3, 1966)
This action came on for hearing before the Court,
Honorable C. G. Neese, United States District Judge,
presiding, and the issues having been duly heard and a
decision having been duly rendered,
It is Ordered and Adjudged that the plaintiff, Mrs.
Virginia Scott have judgment against the defendants for
$286.80 and tax as a part of the costs against the defen
dants the sum of $1,000.00 as counsel fees. The plaintiff,
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow is hereby denied all relief.
298a
Notice of Appeal of the
Franklin County Board of Education, e t al.
(Filed October 31, 1966)
Notice is hereby given that the Franklin County Board
of Education, George Wesley Rogers, R. H. Davidson,
Tom A. Faris, Howard Garner, James E. Terrill, Walter
McDaniel, Rufus Smith, and Boyd Spaulding, who to
gether, as such Board Members, constitute the County
Board of Education of Franklin County, Tennessee; and
Henry Louis Scott, County School Superintendent and/or
Superintendent of Public Instruction of Franklin County,
Tennessee, all of the named defendants in the captioned
cause, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Ap
peals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting at Cincinnati, Ohio,
from the judgment entered in this action on October 3,
1966, or so much thereof as awards a judgment in favor
of the Intervenor, Mrs. Virginia Scott, in the amount
of $286.80, and as taxes as a part of the costs against
the defendants the sum of $1,000.00 as counsel fees for
Intervenors’ counsel of record.
No other or further portion of said order is appealed
from.
This, the .......... day of October, 1966.
L y n c h a n d L y n c h
15 College Street
Winchester, Tennessee
Attorneys for Defendants
299a
Notice of Appeal of Mrs, Theresa Kinslow
(Filed November 3, 1966)
Notice is hereby given that the intervening plaintiff,
Mrs. Theresa Kinslow, hereby appeals to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the judgment
entered in this action on the 3rd day of October, 1966.
Z. A l e x a n d e b L ooby
A v o n N. W il l ia m s , J b .
327 Charlotte Avenue
Nashville, Tennessee 37201
J a c k Gb e e n b e b g
J a m e s M. N a b e it , III
Suite 2030
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
By /s / A v o n N. W il l ia m s , J b.
A v o n N. W il l ia m s , J b.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
300a
Notice of Cross Appeal of Mrs. Virginia Scott
(Filed November 14, 1966)
Notice is hereby given that the intervening plaintiff,
Mrs. Virginia Scott, hereby appeals to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the judgment
entered in this action on the 3rd day of October, 1966.
Z. A l e x a n d e r L o o bt
A v o n N. W il l ia m s , J r.
327 Charlotte Avenue
Nashville, Tennessee 37201
J a c k G r e e n b e r g
J a m e s M. N a b r it , III
Suite 2030
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
By / s / A v o n N. W il l ia m s , J r.
A v o n N. W il l ia m s , J r.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ME1LEN PRESS INC. — N. Y. 219