Draft Brief
Working File

12 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Green v. New Kent County School Board Working files. Draft Brief, 1967. 889d5c49-6d31-f011-8c4e-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/af34eb49-aace-4d5f-86d5-1d281ac03df3/draft-brief. Accessed July 30, 2025.
Copied!
Sad Ao A : 1 vi . 4 \ JY i + Wh FIN ¥ d al, 1 1 < ALA . YY | < b y ’) TY A ait A KAA LAN : p= My \ : \ + Ms 1 | 1 "nl vA 4 . 21s > 84 | WEI y y — . 1 al TTD TA A RIN] Wd 2 1X1 § ad eA ANN L he A ; my ¥ % * ard 4 : \ > . i 3 ~ at Fe . 3 X 3 In ”, 3» ion, Oo i) rs o a3 4 ER wi WW syed o d (&) - F t p e (4) -~ - % 5 ] $d Q Ie ood : hq {i 3 [¢ 3 : = dud vl r wd 0) ge! = h : ot g ~~ ot 4 i £1 3 $ d wy x : 4 MY A. BH \ @ 3 60 v q : 3 oil (¢)] h e d 4 33 ( i P m I r - | | § nd ed = et | on > . g p d ud] oe o d \ p J ™ - : Fe > [+] 0 . |] wd (® “a apd QO 6] + bh}! J 8] © : a d ; fey yohad ‘ r d 4d lo" § O od Ls orl 4 Qa o p A J ¥ oy a Ee £ - Ped A o n on: s o t h A= an of Oo op fed ~ (& J ¥ ~ ~ o d £ { 4a oO) L ¥ > rd +} ; “ 3 0 £ ¢ - | 3 i (@ a N a , ah I , Le e k A h , L l i o . ™ I E T I i U U a . L e — § t mits or will be within the age limits to attend, and pt To . O v » Y ¥ ! * 48 } possess or upon reaching such age limit will possess all qualifications and satisfy all requirements for admission to, said public schools. 3. Adult plaintiffs are Negroes, are citizens of the Fa 2 United States and are residents and taxpayers of and domi- ciled in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the above mentioned political subdivision thereof. Each adult plaintiff who is named in the caption as next friend of one or more of the infant plaintiffs is a parent, guardian or person standing in loco parentis of the infant or infants indicated. — 4. The infant plaintiffs and their parents, guardians and persons standing in loco parentis bring this action in their own behalf and, there being common questions of law and fact affecting the rights of all other Negro children attending public schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia and, particularly, in the said political subdivision, similarly situated and affected with reference to the matters here involved, who are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring all before the Court, and a common relief being sought as will hereinafter more fully appear, the infant plaintiffs and their parents, guardians and persons stand- ing in loco parentis also bring this action, pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as a D & a Pgs ner hahal€ Af all arthar Necrae children attend- C lass action on behalf of all other Negro cniidren acena- 1 1 ~ 7 4 y I" 3 21% 2 Ie: a Trim wh on 3 do do a an x : fe fo ou am 4 Tae 3 = on Vala TaTal i ng or wno hereafter will attend public SChNOOL! Y > 55 § 1 5 vs OQ 1% , a > '® iL 4 3 H 3 1 V ft i i ¥ ¥ ¥ t i 5. Further, the adult plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure fro med as a class action on behalf of those of the citizens and tax- payers of said political subdivision who are Negroes; the tax raised contribution of persons of that class toward the establishment, operation and maintenance of the schools con- trolled by the defendant school board being in excess of $10,000.00, The interests of said class are adequately represented by the plaintiffs. 111 6. The Commonwealth of Virginia has declared public education a state fumction. The Constitution of Virginia, Article IX, Section 129, ‘provides: "Free schools to be maintained. The General Assembly shall establish and maintain an effi- cient system of public free schools throughout the State." Pursuant to this mandate, the General Assembly of Virginia has established a system of public free schools in the Common- wealth of Virginia according to a plan set out in Title 22, Chapters 1 to 15, inclusive, of the Code of Virginia, 1950. The establishment, maintenance and administration of the pub- lic school system of Virginia is vested in a State Board of Education, a Superintendent of Public Instruction, Division Superintendents of Schools, and County, City and Town School Co d ca d iv 7. The defendant School Board exists pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia as an administrative department of the Commonwealth, discharging governmental functions, and is declared by law to be a body corporate. Said School Board is empowered and required to establish, maintain, control and supervise an efficient system of public free schools in said pelitical subdivisiom, to pro- vide suitable and proper school buildings, furniture and equipment, and to maintain, manage and control the same, tO determine the studies to be pursued and the methods of teach- ing, to make local regulations for the conduct of the schools and for the proper discipline of students, to employ teachers, to provide for the transportation of pupils, to enforce the school laws, and to perform numerous other duties, activities and functions essential to the establishment, maintenance and operation of the public free schools in said political gubdivision. (Constitution of Virginia, Article IX, Section 133; Code of Virgimia, 1950, as amended, Title 22.) The names of the individual members of the defendant School Board are as stated in the caption and they are made defendants herein in their individual capacities. oO Lp 4 fe de 14 3 © fo | O. ® = O nh 0p A - 3 ” & P i d [17 ] 8, The defendant Division Sup whose name as such is stated in the caption, holds office - = gm go Im mn f wd feagded sows 1 a po = i ™ ved vores 2 1 4 4 ; pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of 73 emery 4 4a g £3 ad fans stranded oy ~nFEd mn an Es nn pang la 1 £ ~ 4 virginia as an administrative QOIiricer OI Lhe PULLLL 1T€ Fy arnhamnl <7 SL anf Udvroidni:z {§ as ov 3 § he pa $ " v4 2a > : SCNOOL System Ol virglila LONE TL. ¥ Oo] : g.ilnila 1 TY £ rd A, ¢ ( o F PGE - He is under the authority, supervision and control of @ acts pursuant to the orders, policies, practices, customs and herein as an individual and in his official capacity. 9, A Virginia statute, kmown as the Pupil Placement k b £3 5 4 ~) 3 METER ml { Pa £ Pe f= Bom oo 1 & Act, first enacted as Chapter 70 of the Acts of the 1956 . > ed 2 . ; 3 L's - - [8 = hh 1 3 ! 3 7 H 1 : Extra Session of the General Assembly, viz, Article 1.1 of Chapter 12 of Title 22 (Sections 22-232.1 through 22-232.17) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, confers or pur- ports to confer upon the Pupil Placement Board all power of enrollment or placement of pupils in the public schools im Virginia and to charge said Pupil Placement Board to per- form numercus duties, activities and functions pertaining to the enrollment or placement of pupils in, and the determina- tion of school attendance districts' for, such public schools, except in those counties, cities or towns which elect to be bound by the provisions of Article 1.2 of Chapter 12 of Title 22 (Sections 22-232.18 through 22-232,31) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that in executing its power or purported power of enrollment or placement of pupils in and determination of school districts for the public schools of said political subdivision, the Pupil >lacement Board will follow and approve the recommendations of the defendant School Board unless it appears that such ou ph pp Fo Np —- pu 4 en ~ + - Rs ore any 05 Po — & CSL 4 Lie 4a 8 DL igs L110 Of &8& Ne M LO UD are. » & OH ¥ Cove we 11. The procedures provided by the Pupil Placement Act do not provide an adequate means by which the plaintiffs may obtain the relief here sought. Vv 12. Notwithstanding the holding and admonitions in Brown v. Boerd of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) and 349 U.S. 294 (1955), the defendant School Board maintains and operates a biracial school system in which certain schools are desig- nated for Negro students only and are staffed by Negro per- sonnel and none other, and certain schools are designated for white students or primarily for white students and are staffed by white personnel and none other. This pattern continues unaffected except in the few instances, if any there are, in which individual Negroes have sought and obtained admission to one or more of the schools designated for white students. The defendants have not devoted efforts toward initiating nonsegregation in the public school system, neither have they made a reasonable start to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system, as under paramount law it is their duty to do. Deliberately and purposefully, and solely because of race, the defendants continue to re- quire or permit all or virtually all Negro public school children to attend schools where none but Negroes are en- rolled and none but Negroes are employed as principal or Bo me d teacher or administrative assistant and to require all white public school children to attend school where no Negroes, or at best few Negroes, are enrolled and where no Negroes teach J - or serve as principal or administrative assistant ev ( F S \. Heretofore, petitions signed by several persors milarly situated and conditioned as are the plaintiffs with respect to race, citizenship, residence and status as tax- payers, were filed with the defendant School Board, asking the School Board to end racial segregation in the public school system and urging the Becard to make announcement of its pur- pose to do so at its next regular meeting and promptly there- after to adopt and publish a plan by which racial discrimina- tion will be terminated with respect to administrative personnel, teachers, clerical, custodial and other employees, transportation and other facilities, and the assignment of pupils to schools and classrooms. 14. Representatives of the plaintiff class forwarded said petitions to the defendant School Board with a letter, copy of which was sent to each member of the defendant School Board, part of which is next set forth: "# %* In the light of the following and other court decisions, your duty [to promptly end racial segregation in the public school sys- tem] is no longer open to question: Brown v. Bd. of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Brown v. Bd. of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) Bradley v. Schoel Bd. of the City of Richmond, 317 F 2d 429 (4th Cir. 1963) Bell v. Co. School Ed. of Powhatan Co., 321 F 2d 494 (4th Cir. 1963) We call to your attention the fact that im the last cited case the unyielding refusal of the County School Board of Powhatan County, Virginia, to take any initiative with regard to its duty to desegregate schools resulted in the board's be- ing required to pay costs of litigation including compensation to the attorneys for the Negro school children and their parents. We are advised that upon a showing of a deliberate refusal of indivi- dual school board members to perform their cleax duty to desegregate schools, the courts may require them as individuals to bear the ex- pense of the litigation. "In the case of Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526 (1963) the Supreme Court of the United States expressed its unanimous dis- satisfaction with the slothfulness which has followed its 1955 mandate in Brown v. Board of Education, saying: 'The basic guaranties of our Constitution are warrants for the here and now and, unless there is an overwhelmingly compelling reason, they are to be promptly fulfilled.'" 15. More than two regular meetings of the defendant School Board have been held since it received the petitions and letter above referred to, Neither by word or dead has the defendant School Board indicated its willingness to end racial segregation in its public school system. Vi 16. In the following and other particulars, plaintiffs suffer and will continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result of the persistent failure and refusal of the defaend= ants to initiate desegregation and to adopt and implement a plan providing for the elimination of racial discrimination in the public school system, 17. Negro public school children are yet being edu- cated in inherently unequal separate educational facilities specially sited, built, equipped and staffed as Negro schools, in violation of their liberty and of their right to equal protection of the laws. 18. Negro adult citizens are yet being taxed for the support and maintenance of a biracial school system the very existence of which connotates a degrading classification of the citizenship status of persons of the Nagro race, in vio- lation of the Fourteenth Amendment tn the Conatitution. “8 19. Public funds are being spent and will be spent by the defendants for the erection of schools and additioms to schools deliberately planned and sited so as to insure or facilitate the continued separation of Negro children in the public school system from others of similar age and qualifi- cation solely because of their race, contrary to the pro- visions of the Fourteenth Amendment which forbid govermental agencies, whether acting ingeniously or ingenuously, to make any distinctions between citizens based on race. 20. This action has been necessitated by reason of the failure and refusal of the individual members of the defendant School Board to execute and perform their official duty, which since May 31, 1955 has been clear, to initiate desegregation and to make and execute plans to bring about the elimination of racial discrimination in the public school system. VII WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray: A. That the defendants be restrained and enjoined from failing and retusing £0 adopt and forthwith implement a plan which will provide for the prompt and efficient elimi- nation of racial segregation in the public schools operated by the defendant School Board, including the elimination of any and all forms of racial discrimination with respect to administrative personnel, teachers, clerical, custodial and other employees, transportation and other facilities, and the assignment of pupils to schools and classrooms. a B. That pending the Court's approval of such plan the defendants be enjoined and restrained from initiating or pro- ceeding further with the construction of any school building or of any addition to an existing school building or the pur- chase of land for either purpose to any extent not previously approved by the Court. C. That the defendants pay the costs of this action including fees for the plaintiffs’ attorneys in such amounts as to the Court may appear reasonable and proper and that the plaintiffs have such other and further relief as may be just. \ bh —————tet———————— << Of Counsel for Plaintiffs wi 10 »