Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education Appendix to Appellants' Brief
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1965

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education Appendix to Appellants' Brief, 1965. e9b88b6c-c59a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/b1e181c8-cf51-4f3a-a620-87f0b7e0e6c8/swann-v-charlotte-mecklenberg-board-of-education-appendix-to-appellants-brief. Accessed June 17, 2025.
Copied!
I n the Initeft States (Cmui nf Appeals F oe the F oheth Circuit No. 10,207 James E. Swann, et al., Appellants, —v.- The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, a public body corporate, Appellee, —and— The North Carolina Teachers A ssociation, a corporation, Intervenor. APPENDIX TO APPELLANTS’ BRIEF Conrad O. Pearson 203% East Chapel Hill Street Durham, North Carolina J. Levonne Chambers 405% East Trade Street Charlotte, North Carolina Jack Greenberg Derrick A . Bell, Jr. 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York Attorneys for Appellants INDEX TO APPENDIX Complaint ........ la Answer ................................................................................ 9a Interrogatories .......................................................... 15a Answers to Interrogatories ............................. ....... ...... 20a Table 1 Attached to Answers to Interrogatory # 1 25a Table 2 Attached to Answers to Interrogatory # 2 30a Table 3 Attached to Answers to Interrogatory # 5 32a Table 4 Attached to Answers to Interrogatory #16 ............................................................... 33a Exhibit “A ” Attached to Answers to Interrog atory # 6 ........ 37a Exhibit “B” Attached to Answers to Interrog atory # 1 1 ................... 48a Exhibit “ C” Attached to Answers to Interrog atory # 1 1 ................................................. 50a Plan for Compliance With Title VI, etc. ....................... 53a Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections, etc. .......... 58a Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion for Extension of Time, etc. ............................................................... 60a Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time, etc. ................... 62a PAGE Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction ........... 63a Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction ........... 65a Exhibit “ A ” Attached to Foregoing Answ er...... 70a Exhibit “B” Attached to Foregoing Answer ...... 73a Exhibit “ C” Attached to Foregoing Answer ...... 76a Exhibit “ D” Attached to Foregoing Answer ...... 79a Exhibit “ E ” Attached to Foregoing Answer ...... 82a Exhibit “ F ” Attached to Foregoing A nsw er...... 85a Exhibit “ G” Attached to Foregoing Answer ...... 88a Exhibit “H” Attached to Foregoing Answer ...... 91a Exhibit “ I” Attached to Foregoing Answer ....... 94a Memorandum of Decision and Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction..... .................... .... ......... ....... 97a Motion to Intervene, etc. .......... .... .... ......... ................. . 100a Complaint in Intervention .... ........................................ 102a Answer to Motion to Intervene ..... ........ ................. . 106a Answer to Complaint in Intervention ...................... 107a Interrogatories ............................ .................... ................ 109a Answers to Interrogatories ........_T..... .... ..................... 112a Exhibit “ A ” Attached to Interrogatories—Pupil Assignments ......... ............... ................................ 115a ii PAGE Exhibit “ B” Atached to Interrogatories—Pupil Assignments .......................................-.................. 128a Exhibit “ C” Attached to Interrogatories— Staff Report .................................................................... 142a Memorandum of Decision........................................ -...... 145a Judgment .................................................... -...................... 155a Notice of Appeal .......................-................................ -.... 156a Letter Dated August 19, 1965 From Brock Barkley .... 157a Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal ......................... 158a Order on Motion for Injunction .................................... 164a Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips.............................. 167a Transcript of Proceedings ...................................... 193a Plaintiffs’ Opening Statement .... 193a Defendant’s Opening Statement ........... 194a TESTIMONY Plaintiffs’ W itnesses: Reginald A. Hawkins Direct ........................................................ 200a Cross ............. 221a Lewis I. Kramer Direct ............................................ ................ „ 233a Cross .................................................................... 274a I l l PAGE IV Defendant’s W itnesses: Dr. A. Craig Phillips Direct ........... ..... Cross _________ __ Redirect ................. Robert Carpenter Hanes Direct ...................... Cross ........ .......... Frank Dowd, Jr. Direct ........ ......... Cross ......- ........ David W. Harris Direct .................. — Cross ....... ........... .... Betsy McC. Kelly Direct ........ ............. PAGE 292a, 348a 335a,367a ........ 412a ........ 413a ........ 415a ........ 421a ........ 421a ____ 426a ........ 429a 436a EXHIBITS Plaintiffs’ E xhibits:* Defendant’s E xhibits : A for Identification—Instructions B—Map .......................................... C—Drawing ------ -------- --------- ---- D— Photograph ....................... ....... E to Q— Photographs ... ............. . T—Sheets of Paper ....... ............. Offered Page . 304a . 322a . 325a . 366a . 367a . 367a Omitted from Record. I n th e Inttzb States Dtslrtrt (Emtrt F oe the W esteen Disteict of Nobth Caeolina Chaelotte Division Civil A ction N o................ James E. Swann and E dith Swann , minors, by their parents and next friends, Rev. and Mbs. Daeiits L. Swann ; Reginald A. H awkins, Je., W ayne B. H awkins and L oeena B. H awkins, minors, by their parents and next friends, De. and Mbs. Reginald A. H aw kins; E zea M. Mooee, B eveely J. Mooee and M. J. Mooee, minors, by their parents and next friends, Rev. and Mbs. E. J. Mooee ; W anda Neal, a minor, by her parents and next friends, M b. and Mbs. A. D. Neal; Maey Deloees O’Reae, W ayne O’Reae, W anda D. O’Reae and Debbye C. O’Reae, minors, by their parents and next friends, Me. and Mbs. V ance O’Reae; Donald Cunningham, Ronald Cunningham, Beveely Cun ningham, E eic Cunningham and Babby Cunningham, minors, by their mother and next friend, Mbs. T. M. C u n n in g h a m ; Daniel C. Campbell, Je ., a minor, by his parents and next friends, Mb. and Mbs. Daniel C. Campbell; Daeeyl Beice H ood, a minor, by his parents and next friends, Rev. and Mbs. Calvin H ood; Sula E. Hendebson, a minor, by her father and next friend, Rev. E lo L. H endebson; Cynthia Polk, Camilla Polk, Joseph Polk and James K. Polk, Je., minors, by their father and next friend, Mb. James K. Polk, Plaintiffs, T h e C haelotte-M ecklenbubg B oaed of E ducation , a public body corporate, Defendant. Complaint 2a I This is a proceeding for a permanent injunction, enjoin ing the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, its members and its Superintendent, from continuing the policy, practice, custom and usage of discriminating against the plaintiffs and other Negro citizens of the City of Charlotte and the County of Mecklenburg, North Carolina, because of race or color. II The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to Title 28, U. S. C. §1343(3), this being a suit in equity authorized by law, Title 42 U. S. C. § 1983, to be commenced by any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to redress the deprivation under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of a State of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The rights, privileges and immunities sought herein to be redressed are those secured by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. III The plaintiffs in this ease are James E. Swann and Edith Swann, minors, by their parents and nest friends. Rev. and Mrs. Darius L. Swann: Reginald A. Hawkins. Jr.. Wayne B. Hawkins and Lorena B. Hawkins, minors, by their parents and next friends. Dr. and Mrs. Reginald - Ezra ' Moore. Revere Moore arc ... . Moor-. nors. their parents and next friends. Re- Complaint 3a and Mrs. E. J. Moore; Wanda Neal, a minor, by her parents and next friends, Mr. and Mrs. A. D. Neal; Mary Delores O’Rear, Wayne O’Rear, Wanda D. O’Rear and Debbye C. O’Rear, minors by their parents and next friends, Mr. and Mrs. Vance O’Rear; Donald Cunningham, Ronald Cunningham, Beverly Cunningham, Eric Cunning ham and Barry Cunningham, minors, by their mother and next friend, Mrs. T. M. Cunningham; Daniel C. Campbell, Jr., a minor, by his parents and next friends, Mr. and Mrs. Daniel C. Campbell; Darryl Brice Hood a minor, by his parents and next friends, Rev. and Mrs. Calvin Hood; Sula E. Henderson, a minor, by her father and next friend, Rev. Elo L. Henderson; Cynthia Polk, Camilla Polk, Joseph Polk and James K. Polk, Jr., minors, by their father and next friend, Mr. James K. Polk. Plain tiffs are Negroes and bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all other Negro children and their parents in the City of Charlotte and County of Mecklen burg, North Carolina, who are similarly situated and affected by the policy, practice, custom and usage com plained of herein. Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States and of the State of North Carolina. All plaintiffs reside in the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and the minor plaintiffs and other minor children similarly situated are eligible to attend the public schools of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System, which are under the jurisdiction, management and control of the defendant. The members of the class on behalf of whom plaintiffs sue are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all individually before this Court, but there are common questions of law and fact involved, common grievances arising out of common wrong- and common Complaint 4a relief is sought for each member of the class. The plain tiffs fairly and adequately represent the interest of the class. IV The defendant in this case is the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, a public body corporate, organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina. The defendant Board maintains and generally supervises the public schools in the City of Charlotte and County of Mecklenburg, North Carolina, acting pursuant to the direction and authority contained in the State’s constitu tional provisions and statutes. As such, the Board is an arm of the State of North Carolina, enforcing and exercis ing State laws and policies. Y Defendant, acting under color of the authority vested in it by the laws of the State of North Carolina, has pur sued and is presently pursuing a policy, custom, practice and usage of operating the public school system under its jurisdiction on a racially discriminatory basis, to w it: A. Defendant maintains and operates school zone lines, for the assignment of students to the various schools, which have been drawn on a racial basis with the purpose and effect of limiting racial mixing of students. B. Defendant maintains and follows the practice of yenrdtrtug and encouraging those students who reside in a integrated school district to transfer to a school within a district where only students of their -*nee and color •cside iid attend. :u dear violation >c me Constitution Complaint 5a of the United States as interpreted in Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 683. C. Defendant makes assignment of principals, teachers and other professional personnel on the basis of race and color. Negro principals, teachers and other profes sional personnel are assigned to schools reserved for Negro students and white principals, teachers and other professional personnel are assigned to schools reserved for white students. Complaint VI On or about December 9, 1964, several Negro parents, including adult plaintiffs herein, petitioned the defendant Board on behalf of their children, requesting that the Board immediately take steps to eliminate the racially discriminatory practices complained of herein. On Decem ber 11, 1964, receipt of this petition was acknowledged by the Board, in a letter by the Superintendent, who fur ther advised that the matter would be brought to the attention of the Board. No further reply has been received by plaintiffs, nor has the Board taken steps to eliminate its racially discriminatory practices. Bather, the Board has taken steps to extend and to perpetuate its racially discriminatory policies and practices with respect to the assignment of students and teachers. VII Plaintiffs have made reasonable efforts, as set forth above, to communicate their dissatisfaction, with the racially discriminatory policies of defendant, but without effecting an- mange Plan: b . v. ia 1:17 further 6a attempts would prove futile in providing the relief plain tiffs seek herein. Complaint VIII Plaintiffs see here the elimination of all racially dis criminatory practices of defendant Board, the reorganiza tion of the school system into a unitary nonracial system wherein the educational opportunities offered by the de fendant are made available to students without regard to race or color, wherein there are no racial designations in the assignment of teachers, principals, and other pro fessional school personnel, and wherein school plans, operation, and all school activities are free from racial designation and restrictions. IX Plaintiffs and members of the class which they represent are irreparably injured by the acts o f defendant eom- piaiued of herein. The continued operation of racially gerrymandered school roue dues in. Charlotte and Ifeek- eaburg County. North Carodiua. the continued ow ration % m U transfer nhai,, the aaŝ aaMgah of teachers-, 'oruieipa.s ami other :-etes$:cna_ school personnel ;n a • - ■ ' t ' - r r 'reseat- vchtea. -are secured I® d b * hy nfc* W n^.. and Fates-. Tn»ceetion Clauses u the Facrteeam. .w se& utau; s- die Cbastitrdnofi. of the Ftuoad Fnooe- Ute- 'it. v. trfis amf asBBliwBs - '.ibb. tf ttit Funv.uuv: > and -%si4; w tE bik u x .r-Ti^ertsd.'. uttii b y ~2es n,-. i.ut C- .... ^ 7a by such uncertainties and delays as to deny substantial relief, would involve a multiplicity of suits, cause further irreparable injury and occasion damage, vexation and in convenience to the plaintiffs and those similarly situated. W herefore, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court advance this cause on the docket and order a speedy hear ing of the action according to law and, after such hearing, enter a preliminary and permanent decree enjoining the defendant, its agents, employees and successors and all persons in active concert and participation with them: 1. From maintaining and operating racially drawn school zone lines and attendance districts; 2. From maintaining or sanctioning policies and prac tices permitting students on the basis of race to transfer from racially mixed schools and school districts to racially segregated schools; 3. From assigning teachers, principals arid other pro fessional school personnel to the public schools under their jurisdiction on the basis of race or color. In the alternative, plamt.'rs pray that this CV-rt enter a decree directing defendant to present a eoreplete plan within & period of time which will permit Its ImpPsmecta- tfofi. during the school year of Itho-dd. reorganizing tee entire system of Chaar&sUSt and ifeafetderg County. Xorsfc Care Ena. into a urrary system which - r i ^ cr-r«-e a plan for n e a&efgasaent of jwpis- teacners- p iw m td snd other sohrel persitmei oel a asezastti cases ^ i - the ^ -r h a r t r. of svy tther racial. SseriEkahm . in t ie TcenhtiL «C the sehyi system <ar rrrrirna, when k rases m rm?e *r •'.aflwr- Complaint 8a Plaintiffs pray that if this Court directs defendant to produce a desegregation plan, this Court will retain juris diction of this case pending Court approval and full and complete implementation of defendant’s plan. Plaintiffs pray that this Court will allow them their costs herein, reasonable counsel fees and grant such other, further and additional or alternative relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, C onrad 0 . P earson 203% Bast Chapel Hill Street Durham, North Carolina J. L evonne Chambers 405% East Trade Street Charlotte, North Carolina J ack Greenberg D errick A. B ell , J r.* 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Complaint ' Captions, signatures and certificates of service on all subsequent plead ings are omitted. 9a The defendant, answering the Complaint of the plaintiffs, says and alleges: F irst Defense The Complaint fails to state a claim or cause of action against the defendant upon which relief can be granted. Second Defense In the Complaint as filed, the plaintiffs undertake to maintain a class suit whereas under the facts alleged and the law they are not entitled to maintain such a class action. Third Defense The plaintiffs have failed to first seek any relief which they may demand by resorting to the rules and regulations prescribed by the defendant pursuant to law for the assign ment and reassignment of pupils. F ourth Defense There is no basis for affording the plaintiffs the relief they demand with respect to teaching personnel for the rea son that no teacher is a party to this suit as such and the teachers and the course of instruction they give in the schools attended by the minor plaintiffs are in no wise inferior to or less qualified than teachers and courses of instruction in all other schools in the Administrative Unit. F ifth Defense The plaintiffs demand future relief on the basis of al legations as to past assignment policies and any hearing Answer 10a by the Court on the merits should be based on assignment policies currently being formulated for school operations beginning with the forthcoming school term. Sixth Defense The defendant, answering the particular allegations of the Complaint of the plaintiffs and by way of a further answer and defense, alleges: 1 . The allegations of paragraph I are denied. 2. The allegations of paragraph II are denied. 3. It is admitted the minor plaintiffs are citizens of the United States and the State of North Carolina and reside in the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Caro lina, and are eligible to attend the Public Schools of the Mecklenburg County School Administrative Unit; and this defendant alleges that such of the minor plaintiffs as are actually enrolled in said schools have been enrolled pur suant to their assignment thereto by the defendant solely on the basis of their residence in attendance areas estab lished by the defendant without regard to racial considera tions. This defendant further alleges that no one of the minor plaintiffs in attendance upon said schools has hereto fore voiced any objection to his or her assignment nor ap plied for reassignment to any other school in the exercise of the right and privilege so to do for which reasonable Answer 11a rules and regulations of the defendant provide. Except as herein admitted, the allegations of paragraph III are de nied. Answer 4. The allegations of paragraph IV are admitted except this defendant alleges that it has exclusive original juris diction in the matter of assigning pupils to its several schools. 5. The allegations of paragraph V and subsections A. B. and C. thereof are denied except as the same may be herein after admitted in the defendant’s further answer and de fense. 6. Answering the allegations of paragraph VI, the defen dant alleges that it has received in its official capacity a communication from the National Association for the Ad vancement of Colored People by Mrs. U. S. Brooks, Presi dent of the Charlotte Branch thereof, to which was attached the signatures of a number of persons, among whom were some of the parents of the minor plaintiffs in this action; that said communication sought no specific relief in their behalf. The information contained in said communication as well as that contained in communications from other school patrons and received at public hearings has been and is being carefully considered and weighed by the defen dant in the course of deliberations in which it has been engaged and is now engaged for the purpose of establishing its school enrollment and assignment policy for the forth 12a coming 1965-66 school term. Except as herein admitted, the allegations of paragraph VI are denied. 7. The allegations of paragraph VII are denied for that this defendant holds regular meetings which are open to all school patrons and it has always stood ready and willing and now stands ready and willing at all proper times to hear any and all patrons of the Public School System who may seek any change in any policy established by the de fendant. 8. The allegations of paragraph VIII are denied. 9. The allegations of paragraph IX are denied. A nd foe a F ubther A n sw er and D efense , th e D efendant A lleg es : 1 . Over an extended period of time this defendant has moved progressively and as rapidly as administrative and school facility problems would permit toward a goal of full compliance with the requirements of federal law in its pupil enrollment and attendance policies. In 1963 it em barked upon a program of establishing attendance areas msec upon geographical factors along with each chela c" such area attending or having the right to attend the school sorving such area, Ik that year attniritaw aureate for twelve schools for the ;A * r i year Answer 13a 1963-64 with the public announcement that the defendant’s policy contemplated the progressive extension of similarly established attendance areas. The defendant did greatly extend this policy for the school year 1964-65 by creating attendance areas on a strictly geographical basis for some fifty schools. Minutes of the defendant for May 31, 1963, and May 14, 1964, record the decisions of the defendant with respect to this program and declared its purpose to extend the same. Answer 2. For a considerable period of time prior to the institution of this action the defendant was engaged in extensive deliberations looking to the enlargement of this program and the establishment of broad attendance policies for the school year 1965-66, and said deliberations have been con tinued and are now in progress and this defendant expects to have such program and policies fully formulated and established before the end of the current school term; and this defendant is informed and believes and so alleges that such facts have been well known to the plaintiffs. W herefore, having fully answered the Complaint of the plaintiffs, the defendant prays the Court: 1. That this Action be dismissed. 2. That no injunction, temporary or permanent, be issued against it upon the Petition of the plaintiffs. 3. That this Court hold and adjudge that no basis exists, nor has any proper legal ground been shown, for maintain ing class action in this ease. 14a 4. That further proceedings in this action he stayed and held in abeyance until a hearing on any questions of law or fact raised by the pleadings and on the merits of the case may be had in the light of school attendance and pupil assignment policies to be established by the defendant for the forthcoming school year and thereafter. 5. That this defendant recover its costs and that it have such other and further relief as it may be entitled to receive. Answer 15a To: B rock B arkley , E sq. 820 Law Building Charlotte, North Carolina Plaintiffs request that the defendant, the Charlotte- Mecklenburg Board of Education, answer under oath in accordance with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following interrogatories: 1. List for each public school in the City of Charlotte and County of Mecklenburg, North Carolina: a. Grades served in each school; b. Number of Negro pupils in attendance as of the most recent date for which figures are available for each school; c. Number of white pupils in attendance as of the most recent date for which figures are available for each school; d. Average class size for each school during the 1964-65 school year (most recent available figures); e. Anticipated or projected enrollment of Negro and white pupils at each school for the 1965-66 school year; f. Number of Negro teachers and other administra tive or professional personnel employed as of the beginning of the 1964-65 school year at each school; Interrogatories 16a g. Number of white teachers and other administra tive or professional personnel employed as of the beginning of the 1964-65 school year at each school; h. Number of Negro and white teachers and other administrative or professional personnel antici pated or planned for the 1965-66 school year; i. The planned pupil capacity of each school; j. Pupil-teacher ratio at each school during the 1964-65 school year (most recent available figures). 2. List for each school having Negro and white pupils in attendance: a. The name of the school; b. The number of Negro pupils in attendance at the school; c. The number of white pupils in attendance at the school; d. I f the school is otherwise predominantly white in attendance, the date the Negro pupil or pupils were assigned; e. If the school is otherwise predominantly Negro in attendance, the date the white pupil or pupils were assigned. * * * * * 5. As to each school to which students are assigned by the Board, including, if any, schools located out side of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District, please provide the following information for the 1964-65 school year: Interrogatories 17a a. The name of each school which has been ac credited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools; b. Percentage of students entering each school, who, based upon size of past graduating classes, are likely to graduate. 6. Give the standards employed, as to each school, if such standards vary with different schools, to deter mine the initial assignment of children to a par ticular public school: a. When a child enters the school system at the first grade level; b. When a child enters the school system at an upper grade level; c. When a child is promoted from elementary school to junior high school; d. When a child is promoted from elementary school to high school; e. When a child is promoted from junior high school to high school; f. When a child changes residence from one place within the school district served by the Board to another place within the district served by the Board; g. When a child moves into the district served by the Board from another school outside of the Board’s jurisdiction. 7. State whether school zones, attendance lines or some geographic definition determines or is a factor in Interrogatories 18a assignment or transfer of pupils to either or all of the public schools under the jurisdiction of the Board. 8. I f the answer to Interrogatory 7 is in the affirmative, attach a map describing said school zones, attend ance lines or geographic definition with respect to each such school, or if this is not possible, state where such a map may be located, if available, and when such map may be inspected. 9. If the answer to Interrogatory 7 is in the affirmative, list for each school zone or attendance area the number of Negro school children regardless of grade currently residing in such zone or attendance area and the number of white school children re gardless of grade currently residing in such zone or attendance area. 10. If the answer to Interrogatory 7 is in the affirmative, state what standards or criteria were used to deter mine school zones or attendance areas. 11. If the answer to Interrogatory 7 is in the negative as to either school or all schools, state whether school zones, attendance lines or some geographic definition of assignment to the public schools have ever been employed by the Board and, if so, state when use was discontinued, specifically referring to minutes of Board meetings or other public records where this can be verified. 16. State any course, programs, or facilities, if any, which are available at schools attended by white Interrogatories 19a Interrogatories pupils only (or predominantly by white pupils) which are not available at schools attended by Negroes only (or predominantly by Negroes). Please take notice that a copy of such answers must be served upon the undersigned within fifteen (15) days after service. Dated: February 9, 1965. 20a The defendant, The Oharlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, by its Superintendent of Schools and Secretary to the Board, answers the Interrogatories served upon it by the plaintiffs on the 9th day of February, 1965, as fol lows : 1 . Interrogatory No. 1. Attached hereto, identified as Table 1, is a table listing all schools presently in operation within the Mecklenburg County Administrative School Unit, the number of negro pupils and the number of white pupils in each school, the average class size, the number of negro and the number of white professional employees in each school and the pupil ratio in each school, the same serving as an answer to subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), and (j) of Interrogatory No. 1. With respect to subsections (e), (h) and (i), the defendant is unable to answer the same for that the projected enrollment of negro and white pupils at each school for the forthcoming school year cannot be anticipated at this time, nor can the number of white and negro teachers and other administrative or professional personnel for such year nor the planned pupil capacity for such year be anticipated; except that the normal annual increase in school population has varied be tween 2300 and 3400 in recent years, and such increases require a corresponding increase in teacher personnel. 2. Interrogatory No. 2. Attached hereto and identified as Table 2 is a table listing the schools attended by both white and colored pupils, the number of negro pupils in attendance and the number of white pupils in attendance at each of said schools and the approximate period of as signment to predominately white and predominately negro Answers to Interrogatories 21a pupils, the period as to each school being indicated by asterisks which appear in said table. The figures within parenthesis, in each case, refer to the number of pupils who were assigned or enrolled but later withdrew from a particular school. All of the pupils assigned, excepting fourteen negro and two white pupils, became enrollees. # * # # * 5. Interrogatory No. 5. Attached hereto and identified as Table 3 is a listing of each school which has been ac credited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Sec ondary Schools and the percentage of students entering each school likely to graduate. 6. Interrogatory No. 6. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit “A ” is a complete copy of Rules and Regulations governing initial assignment of children to the Public Schools within the Mecklenburg County Administrative School Unit, including particular public schools, and govern ing initial entry at the first grade level and at upper grade levels including promotion from elementary school to junior high school, from junior high school to high school, change of residence, new residents, which Exhibit fully answers subsections (a), (b), (c), (e), (f) and (g) of said Inter rogatory No. 6, except that the defendant knows of no situa tion (Interrogatory 6-d) when a child would be promoted from an elementary school to a high school as distinguished from a junior high school. Except as set forth in these regulations, no particular standards are involved other than that the pupil be qualified from an academic and mental standpoint to enter the particular grade to which such child may be assigned. Answers to Interrogatories 22a 7. Interrogatory No. 7. As set forth in Exhibit “A ” , attendance areas have been established for all schools within the Mecklenburg County Administrative School Unit, the boundaries of which areas have been established on a geographical basis, with certain temporary exceptions noted in said Exhibit. 8. Interrogatory No. 8. As set forth in Exhibit “ A ” these attendance areas have been platted on three maps officially adopted by the defendant, one map for elementary schools, one map for junior high schools and one map for senior high schools. These maps are on display in the office of the Superintendent and are available for inspection at any time during business hours by any interested person. Smaller prints for distribution are not yet available but will be within a short period of time, and, when available, prints will be furnished counsel for the plaintiffs. 9. Interrogatory No. 9. It is impossible to list for each school zone or attendance area the number of negro children currently residing therein and the number of white children currently residing therein. Racial factors were not con sidered in the establishment of such attendance areas, and, therefore, no effort was made by the defendant to either count or estimate the number of negro or white children within any given area. In the absence of any general assign ment of pupils under the new regulations, no school has a record of pupil enrollment in new attendance areas; and attendance figures are collected by individual schools. An exception would be where there is no change in an attend ance area boundary. 10. Interrogatory No. 10. Boundaries of such areas were determined on a basis of natural land marks, such as streets Answers to Interrogatories 23a or creeks, safety factors in travel between school and home, the area which could be most conveniently and efficiently served by any particular school, the location of a particular residential development with reference to a particular school, etc. but no effort was made to draw a circle and put a school in the exact middle thereof as such would be not only impracticable but impossible in the establishment of attendance areas. 11. Interrogatory No. 11. Under the former dual system the defendant, of course, made assignments of pupils to the Public Schools according to traditional methods then in effect, there then being a number of overlapping attendance areas. For the school year 1962-63, the defendant, through committee action, established attendance areas for Dilworth and Bethune Elementary Schools and assigned all pupils within each attendance area to the school serving such area with an option to transfer at the election of the pupil. For the 1963-64 school year, the defendant created twelve more attendance areas on a geographical basis. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit “ B” is a copy of a Resolution establish ing such areas, giving the names of the affected schools and containing option privileges, said Resolution being incorpo rated in the Minutes of a meeting of the defendant held on May 31, 1963. For the school year 1964-65, the defendant created new attendance areas on a geographical basis for forty-three additional schools. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit “ C” is a copy of a Resolution adopted by the de fendant creating such areas, naming the schools and con taining an option privilege, said Resolution being incorpo rated in the Minutes of the defendant for a meeting held on May 14, 1964. Said attendance areas continued in exist- Amwers to Interrogatories 24a Answers to Interrogatories ence until the establishment of new attendance areas gen erally as set forth in Exhibit “ A ” . Henceforth, the rules and policies set forth in Exhibit “A ” will control. * * * * * 16. Interrogatory No. 16. Attached hereto is a table, identified as Table No. 4, prepared by the Research Depart ment of the defendant and which undertakes to provide the information for which this interrogatory apparently calls. Dated: April 14, 1965. TABLE 1. ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORY #1 , CIVIL ACTION NO. 1974 (Answers a-d, f, g and j for each public school, March 6, 1965) it School Grades served (a) Negro pup i1s (b) ..... Alexander Junior 7-9 c/Alexander Street 1-6 342 Ashley Park 1-6 cj 0a i n 1-9 Ba rr i nger 1-6 C> Serryh i 1 1 1-6 Bethune 1-6 343 B i cidl ev i 11 e 1-6 434 Bill ingsvi1le 1-9 729 c. Sriarwcod 1-6 2 Chantilly 1-6 ^ Clear Creek 1-7 Cochrane Junior 7-9 c^Col 1 i nswood 1-6 Cornel ius 1-6 C^Cctswold 1-6 Coulwood Junior 7-9 3 Crestdale 1-6 97 C • Dav i dson 1 -6 Marie Davis 1-6 808 C- Der i ta 1-6 6 Devonsh i re 1-6 2 D i1 worth 1-6 100 Double Oaks 1-6 703 Druid Hills 1-6 520 Wh i te Average Profess ional Pupi1 - pupi1s class Emolovees Teacher s i ze Negro Wn i te rat io (c) (d) .... .If)___ J s ) ____ (J) 577 25.1* 28.9 20.0 31.1 14.1 24.2 654 3 U 22.9 28.6 674 28.1 28.2 23,9 604 28.8 24.8 24.4 1026 29.3* 39.6 25.9 9 25,1* 17.6 20.0 31.0 17.2 25.2 26.0* 32.1 22.7 582 29.1 23.9 24.4 445 29.7 18.8 23.7 207 29.6 9.6 21.6 872 30.1 35.4 24.6 375 28.8 16.1 23.3 241 26.8 11.3 21.3 631 30.0 25.0 25.2 574 26.2* 27.1 21 .3 24.3 5.0 19.4 178 29.7 , 7.8 22.8 26.9*3 34.3 23.6 892 28.8 35.4 25.4 474 29.6 19.5 24.4 401 25.0*? 23,8 21.1 29.3 28.2 24.9 30.6 20.7 25.1 L' East Mecklenburg High 10-12 Eastover 1"6 Eastway Junior 7-9 E1 i zabeth 1"6 Enderiy Park 1-6 1782 28.7 704 30.6 1046 28.3 „ 5 448 23.8*2 368 30.7 79.2 27.1 43.2 22.9 14.9 22.5 26.0 24.2 19.3 24.7 Fa i rvi ew First Ward Garinger High Alexander Graham Junior C, J. H. Gunn High Hording High Hawthorne Junior C* H i ckory Grove H i gh1 and O Hoski ns 1 -6 1-6 10-12 7-9 1-12 10-12 7-9 1-6 1-6 1-6 702 473 2 696 25 2 2266 1048 1002 670 530 273 342 29.3* 2 26.3 26.7* 26.9 26,8* !.Z 26.4* 24.0 29.4 25.0* 28.5* 28.0 22.8 33.6 100.0 43.8 48.0 33.9 21.7 14.0 14.7 25.1 20.7 22.7 23.9 20.7 20.9 20.5 24.4 19-6 23.3 *Speci al educat ion~cTass^(es)^Jncl uded j, ^ ^ ° f ' * *Th i s column shows Pupil — .■■ 25a Table 1 Attached to Answers to Interrogatory # 1 26a Table 1 Attached to Answers to Interrogatory # l (See Opposite)!®" P. 2 TABLE 1. (Answers School £>Huntersvi1le Huntingtowne Farms Q y ! d 1 ew i 1 d irwin Avenue Junior ^ Amay James (y Ada Jenkins '.akev i ew C- '.ansdowne L i ncoln He i ghts Cy Long Creek (y Matthews Junior £, McClintock Junior Merry Oaks A i dwood teflon tel a i re Morgan Myers Park Elementary Myers Park High Myers Street Nations Ford C y Newel 1 C> North Mecklenburg High Af. Northwest Junior Oakdal e d-Oakhurst Oaklawn Park Road <L Paw Creek Piedmont Junior C. P i nev i 11 e O P i newood £. Plato Price Junior Plaza Road Quai1 Hoi low Junior Rama Road Ranson Junior Second Ward High Sedgefield Elementary Sedgefield Junior Selwyn ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORY #1, CIVIL ACTION NO. 197^ a-d, f, g and j for each public school, March 6, 1965) Grades Negro Wh i te Average Professional Pup i1 - served pup i1s pup i1s class Employees Teacher s i ze Negro Wh i te ratio (a) (b) (c) (d) (f) _ M ---- (J) 1-6 553 29.1 * 22.9 24.1 1-6 358 29.8 15.1 23.7 1-6 592 29.6 23.9 24.8 7-9 785 2 1.8*3 42.7 1.0 18.0 1-4 360 27.7 15.5 23.2 1-7 431 30.8 17.0 25.4 1-6 400 26.7* 18.5 21.6 1-6 633 31.7 23.9 26.5 1-6 783 32.6 29.1 26.9 1-6 423 30.2 17.6 24.0 1-9 937 27.6 39.7 23.6 7-9 1273 27.7 51.5 24.7 1-6 538 29.9 . 21.9 24.6 1-6 560 26.7*3 24.9 22,5 1-6 720 28.8 29.1 24.7 1-6 305 25.4* 14.9 20.5 1-6 575 27.4 24.9 23.1 10-12 31 1772 29.6 . 76.7 23.5 1-6 820 29.3* 32.2 25.5 1-6 513 28.5 21.6 23.8 1-6 463 30.9 18.3 25.3 10-12 1 1155 23,2 51.8 22.3 7-9 773 27.6 33.7 22.9 1-6 402 28.7 17.2 23.4 1-6 548 28.8 22.8 24.0 1-6 666 30.3 26.0 25.6 1-6 1-6 7-9 1-6 121 583 793 291 364 30.7 30,5 , 18.7* 28.0* 22.7 30.3 26.8 16.2 25.7 26.2 15.4 22.5 1-6 719 30.0 25.4 28.1 25.6 19.9 5-9 1-6 505 400 24.0* 28.6* 17.7 22.6 21.8 7-9 766 25.5 18.7 23.6 1-6 442 29.5 7-9 7-12 9 1411 658 26.7 26.1* 70.0 30.0 1.5 21.8 22.2 19.7 24.3 1 -6 7-9 1-6 3 6 526 920 531 29.4 26.5 29.5 40.5 21.9 22.9 24.2 27a 28a Table 1 Attached to Answers to Interrogatory #1 (See Opposite)83^ TABLE 1. ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORY #1, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1974 (Answers a-d, f , g and j for each public school, March 6, 1965) School Grades served (a) Neg ro pup i1s (b) Wh i te pup i1s (c) Average class s i ze (d) Professional EmD1ovees Negro White If)_____k)______ Pup i1 - Teacher ratio (8)____ Seversv i 1 1 e 1-6 96 229 27.1 14.8 22.0 Shamrock Gardens 1-6 536 29.8 21.9 24.5 C Sharon 1-6 591 31.1 22.9 25.8 oSmith Junior 7-9 1115 25.9 48.6 22.9 ^ South Mecklenburg High 10-12 30 1430 24.7 72.0 20.3 JJpaugh Junior High 7-9 1 930 25.2*4 42.5 21.9 Starmount 1-6 481 28.3 20.9 23.0 fl,Statesville Road 1-6 650 29.5 25.9 25.1 c_ Steele Creek 1 -6 222 27.8 10.7 20.7 C, Ster 1 ing High 1 -1 2 699 25,9* 33.9 20.6 c Thomasboro 1-6 885 29.5 46.1 34.3 25.8 C- Torrence-Lytle High 1 -1 2 1005 27.2* 21.8 Tryon Hills 1-6 324 27.0 15.0 21.6 Tuckaseegee 1-6 631 31.5 25.8 23.9 26.4 University Park 1-6 700 31.8 2/. 1 Villa Heights 1-6 23 594 25.7* 8.3 28.3 21 .8 Wesley Heights 1-6 214 26.8 2.2 20.4 West Charlotte High 10-12 1560 30.0 65.0 2.0 23.3 6- West Mecklenburg High 10-12 1 1270 27.6 34.9 6 1.4 20.7 Williams Junior 7-g 752 25.9 21.5 W i1 more 1 -6 6 323 27.4 15.4 21 .4 C. W'i 1 son Junior 7-9 1064 26.6 45.6 23.3 d Wi ndson Park 1-6 1 679 30.9 25.8 26.4 Wi nterf ield 1-6 455 30.3 14.8 18.7 24.3 Wood 1 and 1 -6 360 30.0 24.3 t' Wood 1 awn 1-6 283 25.7 18.6 49.9 19.6 14.0 20.2 1sabel1 a Wyche York Road H i gh Zeb Vance 1-6 7 -12 1-6 383 1041 465 25.5*o 26.7* 29.1 ZU c o 20.9 23.7 1 -1 2 20.341 51.995 Z L 3 . & 1 * 3 .2263^0 2 1 ^ 3 *This asterisk in column j indicates one or more specia classes somewhat accounting for less class s^e. of b =>nd c divided by sum of *This column shows Pupi1-Professional ratio or sum _f and £. 29a Table 2 Attached to Answers to Interrogatory # 2 (See Opposite)!®" TABLE 2. (School ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORY s Having Negro and White at End of Sixth Month, #2, CIVIL ACTION NO, 1974 Pupils in Attendance March 6, 1965) School Pupi1s in Attendance Date Duoils assianed - - Negro(*) Wh i te(*) Neqro (if White (if predominantly white) predominantly Negro (a) (b) (c) (d) __________________ (e)_______________ Bethune El. 343 9 (+2) irk Griarwood El. 2 (+1) 582 -’wV Coulwood Jr. HS 3 574 ** Deri ta El. 6 892 VoV Pupils were individually Devonsh ire E1„ 2 474 ** assigned by School Board - **Before school opening D i1 worth E1 . 100(+10) 401 *** (14 schools) Cl izabeth El. 5 448 **** Garinger Sr. HS 2 2266 ** ***Before and after school Hawthorne Jr. HS 25 (+10 670 *** opening (7 schools) H i ghland E1. 2 273 ** *>v**After school opening (2 schools) Myers Park Sr. HS 31 (+4) 1772 *** North Meek. Sr. HS 1 1155 **** Piedmont Jr. HS 121 (+14) 291 A A Ranson Jr. HS 9(+l) 658 VoV Sedgefi eld El. 3 526 ** Sedgefield Jr. HS 6 (+1) 920 VoV Seversvilie El. 96 (+4) 229 Vr-'oV South Meek Sr. HS 30 (+15) 1430 *** Herbert Spaugh Jr. HS 1 930 Villa Heights El. 23(+3) 594 *** West Meek. Sr. HS 1 1270 V-'r Wi1 more El. 6 323 VnV W i ndsor Park El. 1 679 ** Total 819(64) 17,366(+2) * i nd i cates except i ng 14 of additional numbers which were Negro and 2 of white pupils, assigned by School Board: become enrol lees. A1 1 the a s s ig n e d , 31a 32a Table 3. A nswers to I nterrogatory # 5 , Civil A ction N o. 1974 Schools Accredited by Southern Association of Schools and Colleges* Table 3 Attached to Answers to Interrogatory # 5 Per Cent Entering 10th Graders Who Name of Accredited School Graduate A. Integrated schools (and year accredited) Garinger Senior High (1913) 77% Myers Park Senior High (1952) 94% North Mecklenburg Senior High (1953) 75% South Mecklenburg Senior High (1961) 83% West Mecklenburg Senior High (1953) 75% B. Other accredited schools East Mecklenburg Senior High (1953) 79% Harding Senior High (1946) 70% Second Ward Senior High (1937) 58% West Charlotte Senior High (1948) 68% York Road Senior High (1962) 63% * Among the 23 schools having pupils individually assigned by the School Board, only Senior High Schools are accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools (n ow nam ed Southern Association of Schools and Colleges). 33a Table 4. A nswers to I nterrogatory # 1 6 , Civil A ction No. 1974 Status of Courses, Programs and Facilities of Schools Table 4 Attached to Answers to Interrogatory # 1 6 Item Courses—Elem entary 1-6 Programs Facilities (General) Predominantly Negro Predominantly white la. All schools have classroom teach ers for all state required courses: All are self-contained classes lb. All schools have (shared accord ing to size) teachers to enrich the program (art, library usage, mu sic, physical education and reme dial reading) lc. Certain centrally located schools have classes for the retarded (11 classes in predominantly Negro schools and 19 classes in predomi nantly white schools) ld. There are six classes for the tal ented (2 at Elizabeth and 4 at Myers Park Elementary) le. These programs (lb -ld are avail able to all pupils, also, in the sum mer school lf. All new schools share equally ac cording to classrooms in the facil ities to equip them lg. Each principal in old schools pre sents his needs for budget review 34a Table 4 Attached to Answers to Interrogatory $16 T able 4. (Coni’d) Item Predominantly Negro Predominantly white and action is based on size and needs of each school wherever it is located lh. See facility assets report (below) Courses Junior High N ogrsats IV o schools have self-contained 7th grade classes sharing- in enrichment as the elementary grades—Ada -Jenkins N and Clessr Creek fur). AC other sc 'ce - ea ••• C .1 ;r - • g ~~ -- Che lunree :Cgh CCrrgram eonsiscs of svre .a mange-social studies bases tocsign argmsge. argnm sa, nhysssd. sjdtieanofc. w » veetyiete * sjx-amr dh.- -V ttSrde*-;i. t^B sW S t. m i? S3XB$$$BZr 'ytognyn -its rttem v ss- tra * a il at Ct- % Ce* 46NSS6 t.v. - S- Sss ■ SS aftMRS ' vs v s S*? ~\ esjfi - Ĉ—. ŜssSSSifc. sin n_ sajauMts- w*c jess re --- -- - v a s ' :: ;CS W' t '̂ S&C 35a Table 4 Attached to Answers to Interrogatory #16 Table 4. (Coni’d) Item Predominantly Negro Predominantly white — .1-; —J. H. Gunn has only 146 pupils in senior high served by 10 professional staff (or 15 pupils per staff) —Sterling has only 66 pupils in senior high served by 8 professional staff (or 8 pupils per staff) — Torrenee-Lytle has 235 pupils in sen ior high served by 14 professional staff (or 17 pupils per staff). These may be compared to —West Charlotte having 1560 pupils, 67 professional staff for 23 pupils per staff ) and to —Garmger .taring 2268 pupils. 100 professional staff or 2$ oupi-s per staff Toe- janor*,* *v : vtax/no son s. ovoe-pt d fe ske% haw Jmt n or?&a ssatf iasogratt» for ea* jnnu. Krt. T'disreiv**-: eomtaiuy, jKrgp- s-itwi- alary ejrn pyp>.. iitr eafli-y*- v* y-iir smijtttyuuW’ J.ftltyr m t ErKOiaruva- ItessseziesL ar anssn #aft nmune- oev rrmu' wit u "in -sgruar or-j^eatt of id ^ 'gedt ter ± — •• r v -• - mine a-; Id. lx lx. satin'* 36a Table 4 Attached to Ansivers to Interrogatory #16 TABLE 4 (Cont’d) Status of Courses, Programs and Facilities of Schools Facility Assets Report of all schools who per pupil have least and most facilities: A. Schools with less than $400 facility assets per pupil served Negro (3) No. Profes sional No. Pupils Crestdale 5.0 97 —57 employees affected or Myers Street 32.2 820 57 of 877 = 6.5% Zeb Vance 19.6 465 —1382 pupils affected White (4) No. Profes sional No. Pupils or 1382 of 20,341 = 6.8% Berryhill 39.6 1026 —124 employees affected Derita 35.4 898 or 124 of 2263 = 5.5% Hoskins 14.7 342 —3151 pupils affected or Thomasboro 34.3 •885 3151 of 51,995 = 6.1% Schools with more thani $1600 facility assets per pupil served Negro (1) No. Profes sional No. Pupils Affected Williams Jr. 34.9 752 —4.0% of employees (N) White (4) Coulwood Jr. 27.1 3 + 574 —3.7% of pupils (N) — .2% of pupils (N) — 7.1% of employees (w) Davidson* 7.8 178 Harding Sr. 48.0 1002 Myers Park Sr. 76.7 31 + 1772 —6.8% of pupils (w) Total 159.6 34 (N) 3526(w) * Davidson School is not used to capcacity due to lack of pupils in the area. Note: This computation was derived from the audit of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education, June 30, 1964. 37a Adopted 3/11/65 Be It Resolved By The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education: 1. Attendance Areas Attendance areas are hereby established for all schools within the Mecklenburg County Administrative School IJnit (with the temporary exceptions hereinafter noted under the article entitled “ E xceptions” ) and the bound aries thereof are hereby established as shown on those three certain maps this day exhibited to the Board and approved by the Board. These maps are identified and designated as follows: “Map No. 1, Attendance Areas for Elementary Schools” , “Map No. 2, Attendance Areas for Junior High Schools” and “ Map No. 3, Attendance Areas for Senior High Schools” . The Chairman and Secretary of this Board shall each affix his signature to each map in his official capacity and the official seal of the Board shall be affixed, as evidence of its adoption by the Board. A copy of each map shall be kept at each school in the attendance areas shown thereon. The maps shall be open to public inspection in the office of the Superintendent and at the schools. 2. Assignment of Pupils All pupils within any attendance area shall be assigned to the school of his or her grade within such attendance area. Assignment for any forthcoming school term shall be made not later than the last school day of the preced- Exhibit “ A” Attached to Answers to Interrogatory i^6 38a ing school term. In the case of children enrolled during such term, notice of assignment may he given by noting the same on the report card of the pupil. Except for beginners, pupils not then enrolled shall be assigned at the time of their application for enrollment. 3. Assignment from Pre-School Clinics Beginners (children entitled to enrollment under G. S. 115-162) may attend any pre-school clinic but shall be assigned to the first grade of the school in the attendance area where the parent resides. Written notice of each assignment shall be given by mail to the parent at the same time as the report card notice to pupils already enrolled. (The word parent as used in these regulations shall denote the parents, if living together, or the parent or person in loco parentis with whom the pupil resides). 4. Free Choice of Transfer After original assignment, the parent of any pupil may apply to the Board for reassignment of such pupil to any school serving his or her grade and located in any other attendance area. Any such request for transfer shall be allo’wed as of course to the extent that the facilities and accommodations of the chosen school will permit. Application may be made for Choice I, Choice II and Choice III and transfer will be permitted, in the order of choice, to the school having the facilities and accom modations to admit such child or children. Requests for transfer shall be on a printed form available at the office Exihibit “A ” Attached to Answers to Interrogatory # 6 39a of the Superintendent or at any school office. When signed, the form may he delivered or mailed to the prin cipal of the school of original assignment or to the office of the Superintendent. No reason need be given therefor. Application for transfer or reassignment shall be made not later than June 30 in the case of original assignments made on or before June 20. Pupils originally assigned thereafter shall make application for transfer within ten days after receipt of the notice of the assignment. If there should be requests for transfer to a particular school by- more pupils from other attendance areas than the trans feree school can accommodate, proximity to the school shall be the controlling factor. 5. Transfers Limited in Case of New Schools In the case of mass assignments of pupils to newly opened schools in newly created attendance areas, the Board may deny the request for the transfer of any pupil back to the school in which he was previously enrolled, if, in the judgment of the Board, it appears that the number of transfer requests is of such volume as to unduly reduce the enrollment in such new school or interfere with the orderly administration thereof. 6. Varsity Athletics A student who exercises the privilege of free choice under these regulations and is granted transfer to a senior high school (grades 10, 11 , or 12) other than the senior high school serving the attendance area in which he re- Exihibit “A ” Attached to Answers to Interrogatory # 6 40a sides, shall not be eligible for participation in varsity athletics for the duration of the first school year of as signment in the chosen school: Except that where by reason of changes in the boundaries of attendance areas a pupil is originally assigned to a school other than the one in which he was previously enrolled, such pupil, if he chooses to return to said school and is assigned accord ingly, shall be immediately eligible for varsity participa tion. This rule shall also apply to rising tenth graders, who, but for the change in the attendance area boundaries, woud be entitled to enrollment in the school to which transfer is requested. The Director of Physical Education and Athletics shall administer the above regulations pertaining to athletic participation and shall maintain appropriate records in his office and shall require that similarly appropriate records be kept in the individual senior high school offices pertaining to total athletic participation eligibility. School Capacity to be Determined A rated capacity shall be established and adopted by the Board for each school facility in the Mecklenburg County School Administrative Unit prior to the date of initial assignments for any ensuing school term. Under normal circumstances, additional assignments of students from outside the official attendance area of each specific school will be limited to a total anticipated enrollment to be established as of July 1 in each year not to exceed the rated capacity of the school plus five per cent of such capacity in elementary schools and ten per cent of such capacity in secondary schools. This limitation shall not Exihibit “A ” Attached to Answers to Interrogatory # 6 41a apply to new residents in an attendance area. In elemen tary schools (grades 1-6) there shall also he a rated capacity for each grade. The Board will act upon transfer requests immediately after determination as of July 1 of the anticipated enroll ment for an ensuing term, as hereinabove provided for, and the determination at that time shall control notwith standing subsequent changes in enrollment at any school. 8. Transportation Where transportation is provided in any school attend ance area the school buses will not normally operate beyond the boundaries of such attendance area, and, therefore, it will not be practicable to transport a pupil residing in one attendance area to the school of his choice in another attendance area. Provided, however, that a pupil residing in any attendance area and attending a school in another attendance area may have transportation to such school from any regular stop for receiving pupils and from the school to any regular stop for discharging pupils within such attendance area. Exihibit “A ” Attached to Answers to Interrogatory #6 9. Enrollment Continues for School Term Any child enrolled in any school after original assign ment or by transfer after original assignment shall remain in the school of enrollment for the school term, and no subsequent transfer will be permitted except for a change of residence from one attendance area to another or for other good cause shown. In the event of change of resi- 42a dence, the pupil may elect to remain in the school of enroll ment for the remainder of the school term. A pupil en rolled in a school in an attendance area other than that of his or her residence shall he advanced, at the appro priate time, to the junior or senior high school, as the case may be, serving the attendance area in which the pupil resides. This provision shall not have the effect of denying such pupil the right of transfer to another school of his grade and choice at the end of the term of the school in which the pupil is enrolled. 10. Exceptions There exist attendance areas, serving certain schools in Mecklenburg County, which now overlap and embrace territories which include the attendance areas of other schools. The schools with attendance areas which overlap other attendance areas are Sterling School, Torrence- Lytle School and J. H. Gunn, which are known as union schools providing instruction at the elementary, junior high and senior high school level in grades one through twelve, the York Road Junior-Senior High School, the Plato Price and Billingsville Schools which combine elementary and junior high school courses of instruction, Crestdale Elementary School, Ada Jenkins Elementary School, Amay James Elementary School and Woodland Elementary School. The revision of the attendance areas from which these schools draw pupils so as to eliminate overlapping and to permit the children in these schools to be assigned according to geographically drawn attend ance areas will be undertaken as soon as a building con struction program, planned with that end in view and now Exihibit “A ” Attached to Answers to Interrogatory # 6 43a underway, may be completed; not later, according to exist ing plans, than the beginning of the school term 1967-68. In the meanwhile: (a) The senior high school program at Sterling- School shall be discontinued as of the close of the current school term, 1964-65, and the pupils in those grades assigned to the school or schools serving the attendance area or areas in which they reside. (b) The 10th grade program at Torrence-Lytle School shall be discontinued at the close of the present school term. The entire senior high program at this school shall be discontinued by the close of the 1966-67 term, depending upon the ability of the Board to complete its building program in that area by the close of that term. Bising 10th grade pupils at Torrence- Lytle School shall be assigned to the senior high school serving the area in which they reside. Rising 11th and 12th grade pupils shall be assigned to the Torrence-Lytle School for the 1965-66 term. Upon the discontinuation of the senior high school program by the end of the 1966-67 term the remaining students shall be assigned to the senior high school serving the area in which they reside. (c) Upon the completion of the Northeast Senior High School, the J. H. Gunn Senior High School pro gram will be discontinued. At that time the rising 10th, 11th, and 12th grade students at J. H. Gunn Senior High School shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. (d) The rising 7th, 8th and 9th grades at Torrence- Lytle Junior High School will be discontinued by the Exihibit “A ” Attached to Answers to Interrogatory # 6 44a end of the 1966-67 term. At that time these students shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. (e) The rising 7th, 8th and 9th grades at Sterling- Junior High School will be discontinued by the end of the 1966-67 term. At that time these students shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. (f) Upon the completion of the Albemarle Road Junior High School, the rising 7th, 8th and 9th grades at J. H. Gunn Junior High School will be discontinued. At that time these students shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. (g) Upon the completion of the Albemarle Road Junior High School, the Crestdale Elementary School will be discontinued. At that time the children (grades 1 -6) attending that school shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. (h) By the end of the 1966-67 school term, new attendance areas, based on good faith consideration of geographical factors only, shall be established for the Sterling Elementary School, the Torrence-Lytle Elementary School, the J. H. Gunn Elementary School, and the Ada Jenkins Elementary School. These attend ance area boundaries shall be contiguous with other elementary school attendance areas adjacent to these areas. The children attending these schools at the time the attendance areas are established shall then be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside; or Exihibit “A ” Attached to Answers to Interrogatory # 6 45a By the end of the 1966-67 school term the Sterling Elementary School, the Torrence-Lytle Elementary School, the J. H. Gunn Elementary School, and the Ada Jenkins Elementary School shall be discontinued and the children attending these schools shall be as signed to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. (i) Upon the completion of the Southwest Senior High School, the Plato Price Junior High School (grades 7-9) shall be discontinued and the children attending that school in those grades shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. At this time, also, new attendance areas (or a new attendance area) shall be established, based on good faith consideration of geographical factors only, for the Amay James and Plato Price Elementary Schools. The boundaries of these new areas (or this new area) shall be contiguous with other elementary school attendance areas adjacent to these areas (or this area). (j) Upon the completion of the Southwest Senior High School, a new attendance area, based on good faith consideration of geographical factors only, shall be established for the Woodland Elementary School. The boundaries of this attendance area shall be con tiguous with the boundaries of the adjacent attendance areas and children attending the Woodland Elemen tary School at that time shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which the children reside. (k) Upon the completion of the Southwest Senior High School, the York Road Senior High School Exihibit “A ” Attached to Answers to Interrogatory #6 46a program will be discontinued. At that time the rising 10th, 11th and 12th grade students at York Road Senior High School shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. (l) Upon the completion of the Southwest Senior High School, a new attendance area, based on good faith consideration of geographical factors only, shall be established for the York and Road Junior High School. The boundaries of this attendance area shall be contiguous with the boundaries of adjacent attend ance areas and children attending the York Road Junior High School at that time shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which the children reside. (m) Upon the completion of the East Central Junior High School, the Billingsville Junior High School shall be discontinued and the children attending that school shall be assigned to the school serving the area in which the children reside. 11. Effective Bate and Duration of Rules and Regulations These rules and regulations shall control the assign ment and reassignment of pupils for the forthcoming 1965- 66 school term and shall be and remain in full force and effect until amended, modified or altered by the Board and due public notice thereof given. Upon the opening of new schools, the policies set forth herein shall prevail in the establishment of new attendance areas for such schools. Exihibit “A ” Attached to Answers to Interrogatory # 6 47a Exihibit “A ” Attached to Answers to Interrogatory #6 12. Notice of Rules and Regulations These rules and regulations shall be spread upon the Minutes of this Board and notice of their adoption by the Board shall be given promptly after adoption by causing a copy thereof to be published once a week for two weeks in the Charlotte Observer and The Charlotte News and by such other means as the Board may consider desirable to give adequate and effective notice of the same. 48a On motion of Mr. Dowd, seconded by Mr. Huntley, and carried, the Board adopted the following resolution: W hereas the administrative officers of this Board have recommended that attendance areas be established for cer tain schools on a geographical basis, and, with the advice and consent of members and committees of this Board, have extended to all elementary pupils in such schools who heretofore have been enrolled in a school other than one located within such attendance area the option to attend the school serving the new attendance area or to continue in the school in which they have been enrolled: It is now, therefore, R esolved: 1. The action of the administrative officers in establish ing such attendance areas is approved and confirmed, and such areas are hereby established, and all elementary school pupils within each of such attendance areas are extended the right and privilege of attending the school serving such area. 2. All elementary school pupils within each of such at tendance areas who heretofore have been enrolled in a school other than the one serving the new attendance area shall have the option of continuing in the school in which they have been enrolled or of attending the school in the new area. New pupils in the attendance areas concerned are also covered by the option provision. 3. The administrative officers arc authorized and di rected to recommend to this Board the assignment of pu pils within all new attendance areas upon the basis of the exercise of such option. Exhibit “ B” Attached to Answers to Interrogatory # 1 1 49a 4. The new attendance areas to which this resolution applies shall be served by the following schools: Morgan Elementary School Elizabeth Elementary School Alexander Street Elementary School Villa Heights Elementary School Chantilly Elementary School Billingsville Elementary School Wilmore Elementary School Isabella Wyche Elementary School Zeb Vance Elementary School Wesley Heights Elementary School Seversville Elementary School Biddleville Elementary School R e s o l v e d further that all attendance areas heretofore es tablished on a geographical basis by this Board shall be continued and assignments of pupils made to the schools within such areas on the basis of residence within such areas subject to the option privilege heretofore in effect and as set forth in this resolution. * * * * * Exhibit “B” Attached to Answers to Interrogatory #11 50a On motion of Mr. Belli, seconded by Mr. Dowd, and car ried, the Board adopted the following resolution: W h e r e a s the administrative officers of this Board have rec ommended that attendance areas be established for certain schools on a geographical basis, and, with the advice and consent of members and committees of this Board have ex tended to all elementary and junior high school pupils in such schools who heretofore have been enrolled in a school other than one located within such attendance area the op tion to attend the school serving the new attendance area or to continue in the school in which they have been en rolled. It is now, therefore, R e s o l v e d : 1. The action of the administrative officers in establishing such attendance areas is approved and confirmed, and such areas are hereby established, and all elementary and junior high school pupils within each of such attendance areas are extended the right and privilege of attending the school serving such area. 2. All elementary and junior high school pupils within each of such attendance areas who heretofore have been enrolled in a school other than the one serving the new attendance area shall have the option of continuing in the school in which they have been enrolled or of attending the school in the new area. New pupils in the attendance areas concerned are also covered by the option provision. 3. The administrative officers are authorized and directed to recommend to this Board the assignment of pupils within all new attendance areas upon the basis of the exercise of such option. Exhibit “ C” Attached to Answers to Interrogatory # 1 1 51a Exhibit “ C” Attached to Answers to Interrogatory #11 4. The new attendance areas to which this resolution ap plies shall be served by the following schools: Elementary Schools Ashley Park School Briarwood School Collinswood School Cotswold School Double Oaks School Driftwood School Druid Hills School Eastover School Enderly Park School Fairview School First Ward School Highland School Huntingtowne Farms School Idlewild School Lansdowne School Lincoln Heights School Marie Davis School Merry Oaks School Midwood School Milton Road School Montclaire School Myers Park Elem. School Myers Street School Oakhurst School Oaklawn School Park Road School Pinewood School Plaza Road School Rama Road School Selwyn School Shamrock Gardens Sharon School Starmount School Thomasboro School Tryon Hills School University Park Windsor Park School Junior High Schools Alexander Graham Junior High School Hawthorne Junior High School Irwin Avenue Junior High School Northwest Junior High School Piedmont Junior High School Williams Junior High School 52a Exhibit “ C” Attached to Answers to Interrogatory #11 R e s o l v e d further that all attendance areas heretofore es tablished on a geographical basis by this Board shall be continued and assignments of pupils made to the schools within such areas on the basis of residence within such areas subject to the option privilege heretofore in effect and as set forth in this resolution. R e s o l v e d further that the Board reserves the right to make assignment of pupils irrespective of the privileges herein granted when exceptional circumstances may make such action advisable. 53a Plan for Compliance With Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Adopted by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, Mecklenburg County School Administrative Unit, Charlotte, North Carolina I. Proposed Policy Governing Assignment of Pupils in the School Administrative Unit. The plan adopted by The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education for com pliance with Title VI with respect to pupil personnel is set forth in Rules and Regulations adopted by the Board on March 11, 1965, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit “A” . As to all schools In the 109- school system of Mecklenburg County except nine, these Rules and Regulations are not regarded as a plan but as a permanent policy established by the Board and the plan, as a supplement thereto, applies to the nine schools listed as exceptions. II. Proposed Policy Governing Employment and As signment of Staff and Professional Personnel. In addition to these Rules and Regulations, the Board of Education on April 13, 1965, formally adopted a commitment resolu tion with respect to integration of staff and professional personnel reading as follows: “ R e s o l v e d by The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education that, in recognition of the requirements of law, the development of a policy be undertaken looking to the ultimate employment and assignment of all staff and pro fessional personnel without regard to race or to factors other than training, competence and fitness.” III. Maps to Show Attendance Zones. The maps re ferred to in the Rules and Regulations are in process of being reduced to smaller prints for distribution, and as soon as these are available copies will be sent forward as supplements. Attendance area boundaries were deter 54a mined on the basis of natural landmarks— streets, creeks, railroad tracks, safety factors in travel between school and home, the area which could be most conveniently and efficiently served by any particular school, the location of new real estate subdivisions, etc. IV. Notice of Regulations. Exhibit “A” contains pro visions for publication once a week for two weeks in both local daily newspapers. In addition, it is the purpose of the Board to distribute a concise statement of free choice privileges with the year end report cards and among new first graders. V. Certification. This is to certify that the plan for compliance referred to above and attached as Exhibit “A ” was adopted by The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education in special session on March 11, 1965, and the commitment resolution with respect to employment and assignment policy quoted above was adopted by the Board in regular session on April 13, 1965. C o m p l i a n c e I n f o r m a t i o n : N o n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n F e d e r a l l y A s s is t e d P r o g r a m s I. Organization of School System Mecklenburg County, which includes the City of Char lotte, North Carolina, is served by a single, consolidated public school system administered by The Charlotte-Meck lenburg Board of Education. The total population within the corporate limits of the City is estimated at 230,000; the total population of the County, including that within the City, is approximately 305,000. The public school Plan for Compliance With Title VI, etc. 55a system has 109 schools with a total enrollment in excess of 72,000. In addition, it is estimated between 4000 and 5000 school age children are enrolled in parochial and other chnrch and private schools. For several years, the public school population has been showing an annual in crease varying from 2300 to 3400 pupils. These increases have made necessary constant expansion of school facil ities at a cost of several million dollars. There is no kindergarten system. II. Racial Characteristics of School Population Of the 72,000 plus pupils enrolled in the school system, approximately 52,000 are white pupils and 20,000 plus are negro pupils. The residential pattern within the City is a sharply segregated one. Of the 20,000 negro youngsters, it is estimated that approximately ten to twenty per cent of them live in what would basically be white residential areas. A smaller percentage of white pupils live in what would basically be negro residential areas. Two tables furnished the plaintiffs in an integration suit against the Board of Education pending in Federal Court give a graphic picture of the current racial status within the public schools. There is attached hereto a table, identified as Table No. 1, listing all schools within the County wide system, grades, number of white pupils enrolled, number of negro pupils enrolled, average class size, number of professional employees, negro and white, and pupil-teacher ratios. There is also attached a table identified as Table No. 2 listing the schools having both white and negro pupils in at tendance. The schools listed in Table 1 are all of the schools over which the Board has jurisdiction. It has no control, of course, over parochial or other private schools. No Plan for Compliance With Title VI, etc. 56a pupil has been assigned from the public schools of this County to the public schools of another Administrative Unit or County. The schools listed in Table 1 are all operated for a 9-months or 180-day term in accordance with State law. In addition, the Board operates an extensive summer school attended by several thousand children, specific buildings being selected as the location for particular classes, and the pupils being chosen on the basis of ap plications for particular classes. These schools are com pletely integrated. III. Racial Characteristics of Teaching and Administrative Staffs The racial division of teachers is shown in Table 1. The latest figures show that for the current regular term six white teachers are teaching full time in all negro or predominately negro schools and two white teachers are teaching part time; one negro teacher is teaching part time in an all white or predominately white school. These teachers are working in the fields of English, Science, Elementary Education, Distributive Education, Driver Education, and Counseling. For the past two summers, negro teachers have taught mixed classes in the Special Interest Program, Corrective Reading Program and Speech Therapy. Plans now under way for the 1965 sum mer school contemplate a continuance of the integrated staff. In addition to the teaching staff, negroes serve as principals, supervisors, and negro secretarial personnel has been employed in the central office. Professional activities, such as grade level conferences, principals and general staff meetings, subject matter area Plan for Compliance With Title VI, etc. 57a meetings, general faculty meetings, workshops, the system wide advisory council and the like were fully integrated three years ago. The advisory council is composed of a teacher from each of the 109 schools. IV. School Bus Routes and Practices Under State law, transportation by school buses is pro vided for certain schools and for children in such schools residing more than 1% miles from the school in which enrolled. Children entitled to transportation ride the bus to and from the school in which enrolled without regard to race. V. History of Transition Period Under the former dual system, school attendance areas were overlapping and assignments of pupils were made by the traditional methods then in effect. For the school year 196.2-63, the Board of Education established attendance areas for two schools on a strictly geographical basis. For the 1963-64 school year, the Board created twelve more attendance areas on a geographical basis and for the school year 1964-65, the Board created such areas for forty-three additional schools. In the new pupil assignment regula tions, submitted herewith as the Board’s plan for integra tion, attendance areas created on a strictly geographical basis are established for all schools except for the nine schools referred to in the new regulations and as to which a plan has been developed looking to the elimination of the overlapping attendance areas which they serve within a period of two years. Dated April 15, 1965. Plan for Compliance With Title VI, etc. 58a The defendant moves the Court to extend until the 1st day of May, 1965, the time in which to file objections to the interrogatories served on the defendant or in which to answer said interrogatories for the following reasons, to wit: 1. Said interrogatories were served on the attorney of record for this defendant on February 9, 1965, and, as pro vided by Rule 33, require answers thereto within fifteen days from and after said date. For the most part, said in terrogatories contemplate the prosecution of this action on the basis of school enrollment and assignment policies of this defendant existing in the past with a demand for infor mation as to plans for the future. 2. As set forth in its Answer, this defendant is now en gaged, and has been engaged since November, 1964, in an extended review and reconsideration of all such policies looking to the establishment of a broad new program con trolling the enrollment and assignment of pupils in its schools for the forthcoming and successive school terms, and it is now contemplated that this program -will have been formulated and publicly announced, and submitted to the Court as a defense to this action not later than the first day of April or the first day of May of this year. It is to be presupposed that any hearing of this case on its merits will be based upon a program or policy then in effect rather than upon any allegations of any past program or policy; and the effect thereof may well be to render moot and objectionable many of the questions propounded by the plaintiff. Motion Motion 3. To extend or enlarge the time within which this de fendant may answer said interrogatories or in which it may file objections thereto would not unduly delay a hearing of this case on its merits or deny the plaintiffs any relief to which they may be entitled before the opening of the forthcoming school term, which will not occur until late August or early September, and it would enable the Court to pass upon the case on the basis of current rather than past policies of the defendant. W h e r e f o r e , the defendant prays the Court that it may be granted until May 1, 1965, in which to file objections to the interrogatories or in which to answer those that are to be objected to. Dated February 18, 1965. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Interrogatories Come now the plaintiffs, by their attorneys, and, in oppo sition to defendant’s motion for extension of time until May 1,1965, to answer interrogatories filed by plaintiffs, respect fully show the Court as follows: 1. By this action, filed on January 19, 1965, plaintiffs sought an injunction against the racially discriminatory practices of defendant in the operation and administration of the C’harlotte-Mecklenburg public schools. 2. Answer to the complaint was filed by defendant on February 5, 1965. 3. On February 9, 1965, plaintiffs served interrogatories on defendant requesting, inter alia, information concerning its policies regarding assignments of students, teachers and professional school personnel, the school zone lines or at tendance areas of defendant, and the specific steps taken or planned by defendant to eliminate racial discrimination in the Gharlotte-Mecklenburg public schools since the Su preme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 4. Defendant has requested an extension of time to an swer interrogatories, contending (1) that the plaintiffs contemplate prosecuting this action on the basis of past practices of defendant with a request for information as to future plans; (2) that defendant is now engaged in an extended review of its policies contemplating establishing a broad new program which it hopes to present to the Court not later than April 1, 1965 or May 1, 1965; (3) that any consideration of this case on the merits will be based upon the policies of defendant then in effect; and (4) that the 61a Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Interrogatories extension requested will not unduly prejudice plaintiffs with respect to relief for the forthcoming school term. 5. The plaintiffs seek here relief against defendant’s discriminatory practices commencing and being imple mented during the ensuing school term. 6. The information sought by plaintiffs’ interrogatories, particularly with respect to school zone lines or attendance areas and assignment of teachers and professional school personnel, will require further study by plaintiffs in prep aration of their case in the hearing of this cause on the merits. In this connection, the policies and practices of defendant with respect to the assignment of students, teachers and school personnel which are presently in force are pertinent and material to the hearing of this cause on the merits and such information is presently available to defendant. Such information will also be pertinent and material to any consideration of any future policies and practices adopted by defendant. 7. To extend the time for defendant answering the inter rogatories of plaintiffs until May 1, 1965, particularly with respect to the information now available to defendant, would seriously and unduly prejudice plaintiffs in the prep aration of their case and in the relief they seek for the ensuing school term. No basis whatever is set forth in defendant’s motion, and none is known to plaintiffs, to justify extending the time for defendant furnishing plain tiffs with the information now available to defendant which is sought by plaintiffs’ interrogatories. W h e r e f o r e , p l a i n t i f f s r e s p e c t f u l l y p r a y t h a t th e e x t e n s io n o f t im e r e q u e s t e d b y d e f e n d a n t b e d e n ie d . 62a Order The defendant having filed a written Motion, supported by Affidavit, praying the Court that it may be granted until May 1, 1965, in which to file objections to the Interroga tories filed by the plaintiffs herein or in which to answer those Interrogatories that are not to be objected to, and the plaintiffs having filed a written Answer, supported by Affidavit, objecting to said Motion; and the Motion being heard and considered, and good cause being shown for al lowing an extension of time as prayed for by the defendant: It is, therefore, O rdered that the defendant may have until the 15th day of April, 1965, in which to file objections to said Interrogatories or in which to answer those that are not to be objected to. Dated March 11th, 1965. / s / J. B. C r a v e n , Jr. United States Judge for the Western District of North Carolina 63a Come now the plaintiffs, by their undersigned attorneys, and respectfully move the Court for an order preliminarily enjoining the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education from making assignments of Negro students to Sterling, Torrenee-Lytle, J. H. Gunn, York Road Junior-Senior, Plato Price, Billingsville, Crestdale Elementary, Ada Jen kins Elementary, Amay James Elementary, and Woodland Elementary Schools, pending hearing of this cause on the merits, and, as grounds therefor, show the following: 1. This cause was initially filed by Negro plaintiffs on January 19, 1965, seeking an order enjoining the racially discriminatory practices of the defendant in the operation and administration of the public schools under its jurisdic tion. Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the defendant maintained racially drawn school zone lines, permitted stu dents assigned to racially mixed schools to be transferred out of such schools on the basis of race and made racial assignments of teachers and school personnel. 2. Defendant has adopted a plan, which it has filed in this cause, providing for the assignment of some students according to a single set of school zone lines and the assign ment of Negro students, presently enrolled or residing in districts previously established in the following schools, solely according to their race and color: Sterling, Torrenee- Lytle, J. H. Gunn, York Road Junior-Senior, Plato Price, Billingsville, Crestdale Elementary, Ada Jenkins Elemen tary, Amay James Elementary, and Woodland Elementary. 3. Defendant has set June 2, 1965, the date for final dis tribution of report cards, as the date for making the purely racially discriminatory assignment of such students. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 64a 4. Defendant contends that the rights of these students will be protected, if, following these racially discriminatory assignments, these students are permitted to request trans fers to other schools, but despite the initial discriminatory assignments, no assurance exists that any effective recourse is available to these students to attend schools on the same conditions as white students similarly situated. Moreover, defendant has proposed no change in its racially assigned school bus routes to provide transportation for those stu dents desiring to attend integrated schools, no assurance that following its assignments, space will be available for those students desiring to transfer or that space will be made available on a nonracial basis, and no change in its racial assignments of teachers and school personnel. 5. A hearing on the merits in this cause has been set for July 12, 1965. It would impose no undue hardship upon the defendant to restrain its racial assignments of these students pending hearing on the merits in this cause, while denial of the relief prayed for herein would effectively de prive the plaintiffs and others of their class clear consti tutional rights at least for another school term. W h e r e f o r e , plaintiffs respectfully pray the Court to enter a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendant’s pro posed racial assignments of Negro students to Sterling, Torrence-Lytle, J. H. Gunn, York Road Junior-Senior, Plato Price, Billingsville, Crestdale Elementary, Ada Jen kins Elementary, Amay James Elementary, and Woodland Elementary Schools pending hearing of this cause on the merits and for such other, further or alternative relief as to the Court may appear equitable and just. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 65a The defendant answers the Motion of the plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction, filed herein on the 25th day of May, 1965, and alleges: 1. It is admitted this action was initially instituted, seeks the relief and that the Complaint contains allegations as set forth in this paragraph. Except as admitted, para graph 1 is denied. 2. It is admitted that the plaintiff, on the 11th day of March, 1965, adopted rules and regulations creating con tiguous, geographically drawn attendance areas for all schools within the Mecklenburg County School Adminis trative Unit except for the ten schools mentioned in this paragraph of the Motion, hut otherwise paragraph 2 is denied as alleged, the defendant alleging the truth to be as set forth in its Further Answer. 3. Paragraph 3 is denied except as the facts with respect to the allegations of said paragraph may he fully stated in the defendant’s Further Answer. 4. Paragraph 4 is denied except as the facts may be fully stated in the defendant’s Further Answer. 5. It is admitted that this cause has been set for trial on its merits for July 12, 1965, but otherwise paragraph 5 is denied, the defendant alleging the truth to be as set forth in its Further Answer. And as a Further Answer to the Motion of the Plaintiffs for a Preliminary Injunction, the Defendant Alleges: 1. After prolonged study of many problems involved, the defendant on the 11th day of March, 1965, adopted Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 66a comprehensive rules and regulations governing enrollment, assignment and transfer of pupils by which attendance areas were established on a strictly geographical basis without regard to racial considerations for 99 out of the 109 schools in the Mecklenburg County School Adminis trative Unit. Attendance areas were not changed for the ten schools referred to in the Motion. As to these schools, the attendance areas which they serve overlap some of the geographically established attendance areas. The rules and regulations spell out with particularity the plans of the defendant for eliminating these overlapping areas and are incorporated, with respect to each school, in the notice of assignment for each school prepared for distribution with report cards by delivery to pupils on June 2, 1965. Copies of these notices for all ten excepted schools are attached hereto and identified as Exhibits “A ” through “I ” , inclusive. 2. The rules and regulations adopted by the defendant provide that any child in any school, including any one of the excepted schools, may apply for transfer to any other school of his or her grade without giving any reason therefor, and such request for transfer will be complied with to the extent that the accommodations of the chosen school will permit. Every child is allowed three choices so that if any one school is over crowded, the child might be assigned to a second school or a third school where accommodations are available. Within recent days the Board, after careful study, has established enrollment capacities for each school, and it has calculated on the generous side in order to be as liberal and circumstances may possibly permit in honoring transfer requests. These capacities have been purposely established in advance of the time set for transfer requests in order to avoid even Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 67a the appearance of such calculations being influenced by the number of requests which may later be received. Of course, it cannot be determined in advance whether a school accommodations problem will or will not arise, but if any of the plaintiffs or those of the class they purport to represent are disturbed in their rights by the lack of accommodations the Court will be as free to act then as now and with a more comprehensive grasp of all problems involved and perhaps with fewer pupils being effected. 3. With respect to children assigned to any one of the ten schools having overlapping attendance areas, any child may request transfer to his or her grade in another school serving a geographically drawn area in which the child also resides, and in the event of transfer such child will be free to ride the school bus or buses serving the school within that area. 4. The defendant has not as of this time made assign ments of teachers to the several schools. Any complaint of the plaintiffs with respect to this subject should cer tainly await a trial of the whole cause on its merits. The allegations of the Motion with respect to teacher assign ments are not sufficient to justify an Order restraining the assignment of pupils. 5. With two exceptions, the schools referred to in the Motion are located in rural sections of Mecklenburg County and draw pupils from widely scattered areas. The ten schools serve about one-fifth of the total negro school population of Mecklenburg County. 6. The Board has been extensively engaged over a considerable period of time in arranging for pupil assign Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 68a ments which customarily have always been made, as to pupils enrolled, on the last day of the school term. Forms of report cards and forms of notices and transfer requests have already been distrbuited among the 109 schools of the System for delivery to the pupils on June 2, 1965. For the Court now to restrain the defendant from making as signments for the ten excepted schools would disrupt and disorganize the entire assignment procedure in all schools. Being unable to ascertain the number of requests for trans fer from the excepted schools, it could not match transfer requests from pupils in other schools with accommodations in schools to which transfer might be sought, certainly until too late in the summer to properly organize for the term beginning in late August or early September. Besides, such order of restraint would create a condition of un certainty for pupils in the excepted schools and would create communications problems for the defendant involv ing efforts to give later notice by mail rather than per sonal delivery; whereas action by the defendant in ac cordance with its accustomed schedule could be corrected by the Court later in the summer, should correction be found necessary. 7. Copies of the rules and regulations were available to and actually in possession of counsel for the plaintiffs within days after the adoption of the same by the defen dant on March 11, 1965. A copy of said rules and regula tions was filed in the record of this case and additional copies furnished counsel for of the purpose of the defen dant to make such assignments with respect to pupils of the ten excepted schools not later than the last day of the current school term. Notwithstanding this notice, they have permitted the defendant to proceed with and to com- Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 69a Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction plete all preparations therefor except for actual delivery, and have not sought the interference of the Court until seven days before the date set for distribution in which period is a Saturday and a Sunday. No injury would result to any of the plaintiffs or the class which they pur port to represent by permitting the assignment notices to go forward as scheduled and deferring the Judgment of the Court until it can review the whole program of the defendant upon the trial of this cause upon its merits. W h e r e f o r e , having fully answered, the defendant prays the Court that the relief demanded in the plaintiffs’ Motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. 70a Exhibit “ A” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS 720 East Fourth Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 June 2, 1965 Special Notice to Parents of Children Assigned to the Sterling School (grades 1-9): Your child has been assigned to the Sterling School (grades 1-9) for the 1965-66 school term in accordance with an assignment plan adopted by the Charlotte-Mecklen- burg Board of Education on March 11, 1965. The plan provides that, “after original assignment the parent of any pupil may apply to the Board for reassignment of such pupil to any school serving his or her grade and located in any other attendance area” and that “any such request for transfer shall be allowed . . . to the extent that the facilities and accommodations of the chosen school will permit.” A simple form is found on the back of this notice for your use if you are not satisfied with the assignment of your child and want to request reassignment. This re quest for reassignment must be made not later than June 30, 1965. Parents are assured that school personnel will neither favor nor penalize any pupil because of the choice he makes in the exercise of his rights under this plan. The Sterling School boundary lines continue to overlap boundary lines of other schools serving the same area. The plan adopted by the Board of Education provides for the elimination of this overlapping not later than the begin 71a ning of the school term 1967-68. In the meanwhile, (1) the senior high school program at Sterling School shall he discontinued as of the close of the current school term, 1964-65, and the pupils in those grades assigned to the school or schools serving the attendance area or areas in which they reside; (2) the rising 7th, 8th, and 9th grades at Sterling Junior High School will be discontinued by the end of the 1966-67 term. At that time these students shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside; (3) by the end of the 1966-67 school term, a new attendance area, based on good faith consideration of geographical factors only, shall be estab lished for the Sterling Elementary School; OR by the end of the 1966-67 school term the Sterling Elementary School shall be discontinued and the children attending this school shall be assigned to the school serving the area in which they reside. A full copy of the adopted policy of the Board of Educa tion on school assignment along with maps showing school attendance areas may be found in the office of each school of the system and at the Board of Education office. / s / David W. Habeis David W. Harris, Chairman Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education / s / A. Cbaig Phillips A. Craig Phillips, Superintendent Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Exhibit “A ” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 72a THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS REQUEST FOR PUPIL TRANSFER Exhibit “A ” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pupil’s last name Street First name Middle name Telephone City and State School last attended .................... ............................................ Original assignment for 1965-66: Grade.....School............... Date of original assignment ................................ Request for transfer 1st Choice ................... ................ ............... School 2nd Choice ............. ..... ................ ..... ...... . School 3rd Choice ....... ...... ..... ....... ...... ........... . School Signature of adult with whom pupil lives.......................... Relationship to pupil .......... ......... ...... Mail or deliver by June 30, 1965, to any school office or to the Pupil Assignment Office, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 720 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Do not write in this space For school official receiving Assignment .......................... Date .......................... Signature ..... ..................... request: Date Received or Postmarked: .... By Whom Received: 73a CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS 720 East Fourth Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 June 2, 1965 Special Notice to Parents of Children Assigned to the Torrence-Lytle School (grades 1-9 and grades 11-12): Your child has been assigned to the Torrence-Lytle School (grades 1-9 and grades 11-12) for the 1965-66 school term in accordance with an assignment plan adopted by the Charlotte-Meeklenburg Board of Education on March 11, 1965. The plan provides that “after original assign ment the parent of any pupil may apply to the Board for reassignment of such pupil to any school serving his or her grade and located in any other attendance area” and that “any such request for transfer shall be allowed . . . to the extent that the facilities and accommodations of the chosen school will permit.” A simple form is found on the back of this notice for your use if you are not satisfied with the assignment of your child and want to request reassignment. This request for reassignment must be made not later than June 30, 1965. Parents are assured that school personnel will neither favor nor penalize any pupil because of the choice he makes in the exercise of his rights under this plan. The Torrence-Lytle School boundary lines continue to overlap boundary lines of other schools serving the same area. The plan adopted by the Board of Education pro vides for the elimination of this overlapping not later than the beginning of the school term 1967-68. In the meanwhile, (1) the 10th grade program at Torrence-Lytle School shall be discontinued at the close of the present school term. The entire senior high program at this school shall be Exhibit “ B” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 74a discontinued by the close of the 1966-67 term, depending upon the ability of the Board to complete its building pro gram in that area by the close of that term. Rising 10th grade pupils at Torrence-Lytle School shall be assigned to the senior high school serving the area in which they reside. Rising 11th and 12th grade pupils shall be assigned to the Torrence-Lytle School for the 1965-66 term. Upon the discontinuation of the senior high school program by the end of the 1966-67 term the remaining students shall be assigned to the senior high school serving the area in which they reside; (2) the rising 7th, 8th, and 9th grades at Torrence-Lytle Junior High School will be discontinued by the end of the 1966-67 term. At that time these students shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside; (3) by the end of the 1966-67 school term, a new attendance area, based on good faith consideration of geographical factors only, shall be estab lished for the Torrence-Lytle Elementary School; OB by the end of the 1966-67 school term the Torrence-Lytle Elementary School shall be discontinued and the children attending this school shall be assigned to the school serv ing the area in which they reside. A full copy of the adopted policy of the Board of Educa tion on school assignment along with maps showing school attendance areas may be found in the office of each school of the system and at the Board of Education office. / s / D a v id W. H a r r is David W. Harris, Chairman Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education / s / A. C r a ig P h i l l i p s A. Craig Phillips, Superintendent Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Exhibit “B” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 75a THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS REQUEST FOR PUPIL TRANSFER Exhibit “B” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pupil’s last name First name Street Middle name Telejdione City and State School last attended ................................................... Original assignment for 1965-66: Grade.....School Date of original assignment ................... ............ Request for transfer 1st Choice ....... ............................................ School 2nd Choice ................... ............ ................. School 3rd Choice ..... ............................... ............ School Signature of adult with whom pupil lives............ . Relationship to pupil............. Mail or deliver by June 30, 1965, to any school office or to the Pupil Assignment Office, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 720 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Do not write in this space For school official receiving Assignment ......................... r81’Mst: Date .......................... Date Received or Postmarked: .................. By Whom Received: ............. Signature 76a Exhibit “ C” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS 720 East Fourth Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 June 2, 1965 Special Notice to Parents of Children Assigned to the J. H. Gunn School (grades 1-12): Your child has been assigned to the J. 11. Gunn School (grades 1-12) for the 1965-66 school term in accordance with an assignment plan adopted by the Charlotte-Mecklen- burg Board of Education on March 11, 1965. The plan provides that “ after original assignment the parent of any pupil may apply to the Board for reassignment of such pupil to any school serving his or her grade and located in any other attendance area” and that “any such request for transfer shall be allowed . . . to the extent that the facilities and accommodations of the chosen school will permit.” A simple form is found on the back of this notice for your use if you are not satisfied with the assign ment of your child and want to request reassignment. This request for reassignment must be made not later than June 30, 1965. Parents are assured that school personnel will neither favor nor penalize any pupil because of the choice he makes in the exercise of his rights under this plan. The J. H. Gunn School boundary lines continue to over lap boundary lines of other schools serving the same area. The plan adopted by the Board of Education provides for the elimination of this overlapping not later than the be ginning of the school term 1967-68. In the meanwhile, (1) upon the completion of the Northeast Senior High 77a School, the J. H. Gunn Senior High School program will he discontinued. At that time the rising 10th, 11th, and 12th grade students at J. H. Gunn Senior High School shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside; (2) upon the completion of the Albemarle Road Junior High School, the rising 7th, 8th, and 9th grades at J. H. Gunn Junior High School will be discontinued. At that time these students shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside; (3) by the end of the 1966-67 school term, a new attendance area, based on good faith considera tion of geographical factors only, shall be established for the J. H. Gunn Elementary School; OR by the end of the 1966-67 school term the J. H. Gunn Elementary School shall be discontinued and the children attending this school shall be assigned to the school serving the area in which they reside. A full copy of the adopted policy of the Board of Educa tion on school assignment along with maps showing school attendance areas may be found in the office of each school of the system and at the Board of Education office. / s / D a v id W . H a r r is David W. Harris, Chairman Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education / s / A . C r a ig P h i l l i p s A. Craig Phillips, Superintendent Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Exhibit “ C” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 78a Exhibit “C” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG- SCHOOLS REQUEST FOR PUPIL TRANSFER Pupil’s last name First name Middle name Street Telephone City and State School last attended ............................................................... . Original assignment for 1965-66: Grade.....School ........... Date of original assignment ...... ..... ....... ............ Request for transfer 1st Choice ........ ..... ...... ............... ..... ..... . School 2nd Choice ........ .......... ............... ......... ..... School 3rd Choice __________ ____________ ____ School Signature of adult with whom pupil lives.......................... Relationship to p u p il......... .......... ..... Mail or deliver by June 30, 1965, to any school office or to the Pupil Assignment Office, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 720 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Do not write in this space For school official receiving Assignment ....... ................... request: Date Received or Postmarked: Date Signature By Whom Received: 79a Exhibit “ D” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS 720 East Fourth Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 June 2, 1965 Special Notice to Parents of Children Assigned to the York Road Junior-Senior High School (grades 7-12): Your child has been assigned to the York Road Junior- Senior High School (grades 7-12) for the 1965-66 school term in accordance with an assignment plan adopted by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education on March 11, 1965. The plan provides that “after original assign ment the parent of any pupil may apply to the Board for reassignment of such pupil to any school serving his or her grade and located in any other attendance area” and that “any such request for transfer shall be allowed . . . to the extent that the facilities and accommodations of the chosen school will permit.” A simple form is found on the back of this notice for your use if you are not satisfied with the assignment of your child and want to request reassignment. This request for reassignment must be made not later than June 30, 1965. Parents are assured that school personnel will neither favor nor penalize any pupil because of the choice he makes in the exercise of his rights under this plan. The York Road Junior-Senior High School boundary lines continue to overlap boundary lines of other schools serving the same area. The plan adopted by the Board of Education provides for the elimination of this over lapping not later than the beginning of the school term 1967-68. In the meanwhile, (1) upon the completion of the 80a Southwest Senior High School, the York Road Senior High School program will be discontinued. At that time the rising 10th, 11th and 12th grade students at York Road Senior High School shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside; (2) upon the completion of the Southwest Senior High School, a new attendance area, based on good faith con sideration of geographical factors only, shall be established for the York Road Junior High School. The boundaries of this attendance area shall be contiguous with the boundaries of adjacent attendance areas and children at tending the York Road Junior High School at that time shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which the children reside. A full copy of the adopted policy of the Board of Educa tion on school assignment along with maps showing school attendance areas may be found in the office of each school of the system and at the Board of Education office. / s / D a v id W . H a r r is David W. Harris, Chairman Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education / s / A. C r a ig P h i l l i p s A. Craig Phillips, Superintendent Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Exhibit “D” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 81a THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS REQUEST FOR PUPIL TRANSFER Exhibit “D” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pupil’s last name First name Middle name Street Telephone City and State School last attended .................... —-......................... Original assignment for 1965-66: Grade..... School Date of original assignment .......-............—........ Request for transfer 1st Choice ........................................ -......... School 2nd Choice ............. -.......................... —.... School 3rd Choice .......................... -----..... -........... School Signature of adult with whom pupil lives.......... -.............. Relationship to pupil ................ -........ Mail or deliver by June 30,1965, to any school office or to the Pupil Assignment Office, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 720 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Do not write in this space For school official receiving Assignment .......................... request: Date .......................... Date Received Signature .......................... or Postmarked: ....... ........... By Whom Received: ............. 82a CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS 720 East Fourth Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 June 2, 1965 Special Notice to Parents of Children Assigned to the Amay James School (grades 1-4) and the Plato Price School (grades 5-9): Your child has been assigned to the Amay James School (grades 1-4) or the Plato Price School (grades 5-9) for the 1965-66 school term in accordance with an assignment plan adopted by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Ed ucation on March 11, 1965. The plan provides that “after original assignment the parent of any pupil may apply to the Board for reassignment of such pupil to any school serving his or her grade and located in any other attend ance area” and that “any such request for transfer shall be allowed . . . to the extent that the facilities and accom modations of the chosen school will permit.” A simple form is found on the back of this notice for your use if you are not satisfied with the assignment of your child and want to request reassignment. This request for re assignment must be made not later than June 30, 1965. Parents are assured that school personnel will neither favor nor penalize any pupil because of the choice he makes in the exercise of his rights under this plan. The Amay James School and the Plato Price School boundary lines continue to overlap boundary lines of other schools serving the same area. The plan adopted by the Board of Education provides for the elimination of this Exhibit “ E” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 83a overlapping not later than the beginning of the school term 1967-68. In the meanwhile, upon the completion of the Southwest Senior High School, the Plato Price Junior High School (grades 7-9) shall be discontinued and the children attending that school in those grades shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. At this time, also, new attendance areas (or a new attendance area) shall be established, based on good faith consideration of geographical factors only, for the Arnay James and Plato Price Elementary Schools. The boundaries of these new areas (or this new area) shall be contiguous with other elementary school attendance areas adjacent to these areas (or this area). A full copy of the adopted policy of the Board of Educa tion on school assignment along with maps showing school attendance areas may be found in the office of each school of the system and at the Board of Education office. / s / P a v id W . H a r r is David W. Harris, Chairman Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education / s / A. C r a ig P h i l l i p s A. Craig Phillips, Superintendent Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Exhibit “E ” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 84a THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS REQUEST FOR PUPIL TRANSFER Exhibit “ E” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pupil’s last name First name Middle name Street Telephone City and State School last attended ............ ....................................... Original assignment for 1965-66: Grade..... School Date of original assignment .................... ....... . Request for transfer 1st Choice ................... ................................ School 2nd Choice ...... ......... ............. .................... School 3rd Choice ..................... ..... ............. ........ School Signature of adult with whom pupil lives Relationship to pupil .......................... Mail or deliver by June 30, 1965, to any school office or to the Pupil Assignment Office, Charlotte-Mecklenhurg Schools, 720 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Do not write in this space For school official receiving request: Date Received or Postmarked: .................. Assignment Date Signature By Whom Received: 85a CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS 720 East Fourth Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Exhibit “ F” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction June 2, 1965 Special Notice to Parents of Children Assigned to the Billingsville Junior High School (grades 7-9): Your child has been assigned to the Billingsville Junior High School (grades 7-9) for the 1965-66 school term in accordance with an assignment plan adopted by the Char- lotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education on March 11, 1965. The plan provides that “after original assignment the parent of any pupil may apply to the Board for reassign ment of such pupil to any school serving his or her grade and located in any other attendance area” and that “any such request for transfer shall be allowed . . . to the extent that the facilities and accommodations of the chosen school will permit.” A simple form is found on the back of this notice for your use if you are not satisfied with the assign ment of your child and want to request reassignment. This request for reassignment must be made not later than June 30, 1965. Parents are assured that school personnel will neither favor nor penalize any pupil because of the choice he makes in the exercise of his rights under this plan. The Billingsville Junior High School boundary lines con tinue to overlap boundary lines of other schools serving the same area. The plan adopted by the Board of Educa tion provides for the elimination of this overlapping not later than the beginning of the school term 1967-68. In 86a the meanwhile, upon the completion of the East Central Junior High School, the Billingsville Junior High School shall he discontinued and the children attending that school shall be assigned to the school serving the area in which the children reside. A full copy of the adopted policy of the Board of Educa tion on school assignment along with maps showing school attendance areas may be found in the office of each school of the system and at the Board of Education office. / s / D a v id W . H a r r is David W. Harris, Chairman Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education Exhibit “F ” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction / s / A. C r a ig P h i l l i p s A. Craig Phillips, Superintendent Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 87a THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS REQUEST FOR PUPIL TRANSFER Exhibit “F ” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pupil’s last name First name Middle name Street Telephone City and State School last attended .......................................... ........ Original assignment for 1965-66: Grade.....School Date of original assignment ...................... ....... - Request for transfer 1st Choice ........- ......................................... School 2nd Choice ....... ............................... .......... School 3rd Choice ................................................. School Signature of adult with whom pupil lives.......... - Relationship to pupil ............. Mail or deliver by June 30, 1965, to any school office or to the Pupil Assignment Office, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 720 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Do not write in this space For school official receiving Assignment .......................... rc,»uost: Date .......................... Date Received or Postmarked: .................. Signature By Whom Received: 88a CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS 720 East Fourth Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Exhibit “ G” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction June 2, 1965 Special Notice to Parents of Children Assigned to the Crestdale School (grades 1-6): Your child has been assigned to the Crestdale School (grades 1-6) for the 1965-66 school term in accordance with an assignment plan adopted by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education on March 11, 1965. The plan provides that “after original assignment the parent of any pupil may apply to the Board for reassignment of such pupil to any school serving his or her grade and located in any other attendance area” and that “ any such request for transfer shall be allowed . . . to the extent that the facilities and ac commodations of the chosen school will permit.” A simple form is found on the back of this notice for your use if you are not satisfied with the assignment of your child and want to request reassignment. This request for reassignment must be made not later than June 30, 1965. Parents are assured that school personnel will neither favor nor penalize any pupil because of the choice he makes in the exercise of his rights under this plan. The Crestdale School boundary lines continue to overlap boundary lines of other schools serving the same area. The plan adopted by the Board of Education provides for the elimination of this overlapping not later than the begin ning of the school term 1967-68. In the meanwhile, upon the 89a completion of the Albermarle Boad Junior High School, the Crestdale School will be discontinued. At that time the children (grades 1-6) attending that school shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. A full copy of the adopted policy of the Board of Educa tion on school assignment along with maps showing school attendance areas may be found in the office of each school of the system and at the Board of Education office. / s / D a v id W. H a e r is David W. Harris, Chairman Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education Exhibit “G” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction / s / A. 'C r a ig P h i l l i p s A. Craig Phillips, Superintendent Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 90a THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS REQUEST FOR PUPIL TRANSFER Exhibit “ G” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pupil’s last name First name Middle name Street Telephone City and State School last attended ...................................................-............. Original assignment for 1965-66: Grade----School .............. Date of original assignment ................................ Request for transfer 1st Choice ........................ -.......................... School 2nd Choice .... .......... ....... .................... ...... School 3rd Choice ........... ....................— ........... School Signature of adult with whom pupil lives ......... ................. Relationship to pu p il.......................... Mail or deliver by June 30,1965, to any school office or to the Pupil Assignment Office, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 720 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Do not write in this space For school official receiving Assignment .......................... re9uest: Date ....................... Date Received Signature ........................... or Postmarked: ................ - By Whom Received: 91a CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS 720 East Fourth Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Exhibit “ H” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction June 2, 1965 Special Notice to Parents of Children Assigned to Ada Jenkins School (grades 1-7) : Your child has been assigned to the Ada Jenkins School (grades 1-7) for the 1965-66 school term in accordance with an assignment plan adopted by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education on March 11, 1965. The plan provides that “after original assignment the parent of any pupil may apply to the Board for reassignment of such pupil to any school serving his or her grade and located in any other attendance area” and that “any such request for transfer shall he allowed . . . to the extent that the facilities and ac commodations of the chosen school will permit.” A simple form is found on the back of this notice for your use if you are not satisfied with the assignment of your child and want to request reassignment. This request for reassignment must be made not later than June 30, 1965. Parents are assured that school personnel will neither favor nor penalize any pupil because of the choice he makes in the exercise of his rights under this plan. The Ada Jenkins School boundary lines continue to overlap boundary lines of other schools serving the same area. The plan adopted by the Board of Education provides for the elimination of this overlapping not later than the beginning of the school term 1967-68. By the end of the 1966-67 school term, a new attendance area, based on good 92a faith consideration of geographical factors only, shall be established for the Ada Jenkins School; OR by the end of the 1966-67 school term the Ada Jenkins School shall be discontinued and the children attending this school shall be assigned to the school serving the area in which they reside. A full copy of the adopted policy of the Board of Educa tion on school assignment along with maps showing school attendance areas may be found in the office of each school of the system and at the Board of Education office. / s / D a v id W. H a r r is David W. Harris, Chairman Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education Exhibit “H” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction / s / A. C r a ig P h i l l i p s A. Craig Phillips, Superintendent Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 93a THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS REQUEST FOR PUPIL TRANSFER Exhibit “H” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction .................. . ................... ........ Pupil’s last name First name Middle name Street Telephone City and State School last attended ......... ....... -....................................... Original assignment for 1965-66: Grade.....School....... Date of original assignment ............................... Request for transfer 1st Choice ......... ..... -...... -...................... ----- School 2nd Choice ........................-....................... School 3rd Choice ................................................. School Signature of adult with whom pupil lives......................... Relationship to pupil ......................... Mail or deliver by June 30,1965, to any school office or to the Pupil Assignment Office, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 720 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Do not write in this space For school official receiving Assignment .......... .............- request: Date .......................... Date Received Signature ........................- or Postmarked: .................. By Whom Received: ............. 94a CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURGr SCHOOLS 720 East Fourth Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 June 2, 1965 Exhibit “ I” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction Special Notice to Parents of Children Assigned to the Woodland School (grades 1-6): Your child has been assigned to the Woodland School (grades 1-6) for the 1965-66 school term in accordance with an assignment plan adopted by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education on March 11, 1965. The plan provides that “after original assignment the parent of any pupil may apply to the Board for reassignment of such pupil to any school serving his or her grade and located in any other attendance area” and that “ any such request for transfer shall be allowed . . . to the extent that the facilities and ac commodations of the chosen school will permit.” A simple form is found on the back of this notice for your use if you are not satisfied with the assignment of your child and want to request reassignment. This request for reassignment must be made not later than June 30, 1965. Parents are assured that school personnel will neither favor nor penalize any pupil because of the choice he makes in the exercise of his rights under this plan. The Woodland School boundary lines continue to overlap boundary lines of other schools serving the same area. The plan adopted by the Board of Education provides for the elimination of this overlapping not later than the beginning of the school term 1967-68. In the meanwhile, upon the completion of the Southwest Senior High School, a new 95a attendance area, based on good faith consideration of geo graphical factors only, shall be established for the Wood land Elementary School. The boundaries of this attendance area shall be contiguous with the boundaries of the adjacent attendance areas and children attending the Woodland Ele mentary School at that time shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which the children reside. A full copy of the adopted policy of the Board of Educa tion on school assignment along with maps showing school attendance areas may be found in the office of each school of the system and at the Board of Education office. / s / D a v id W. H a r r is David W. Harris, Chairman Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education / s / A. C r a ig P h i l l i p s A. Craig Phillips, Superintendent Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Exhibit “1” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 96a THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS REQUEST FOR PUPIL TRANSFER Exhibit “I ” Attached to Answer to Motion for Preliminary Injunction ....................................1 ....................................... ... ......... Pupil’s last name First name Middle name Street Telephone City and State School last attended ...........-....................... ........ ..... Original assignment for 1965-66: Grade — School Date of original assignment ................................ Request for transfer 1st Choice ................—.............................. School 2nd Choice ............ ............ ......................... School 3rd Choice ... ...................... ......... ............. School Signature of adult with whom pupil lives.......................... Relationship to pupil .......................... Mail or deliver by June 30, 1965, to any school office or to the Pupil Assignment Office, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 720 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Do not write in this space For school official receiving Assignment — ................... . re(luest: Date .......................... Date Received Signature ........................... or Postmarked: .................. By Whom Received: .......... . 97a This motion is considered under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Rule No. 8. The case is another school case which was begun Jan uary 19, 1965. Answer was filed February 5, 1965. On February 19, 1965, the defendant School Board asked the court to enlarge the time within which the defendant might answer interrogatories until May 1,1965, so that the School Board could base its answers to the questions on a new program controlling the enrollment and assignment of pupils in its schools which had been under consideration since November 1964. In order that such a program could be formulated, officially adopted, and publicly announced, and its provisions incorporated within the answers to the propounded interrogatories, this court enlarged the time for answering the same until April 15, 1965. Nothing is to be gained in this constitutional field by litigating past history, and it is advantageous to all concerned to focus attention on what is currently being done and being planned rather than what has been done in the past. On March 11, 1965, the School Board adopted its con templated new plan: comprehensive rules and regulations governing enrollment, assignment and transfer of pupils for all of its 109 schools in the Mecklenburg County School administrative unit. For 99 of these schools attendance areas were established on a strictly geographical basis. The remaining 10 schools apparently adhere (temporarily) to the old dual attendance zones and these 10 schools serve about one-fifth of the total Negro school population of Mecklenburg County. Elimination of these overlapping areas within a maximum two year period is part of the plan. Quite possibly the trial will narrow itself largely to Memorandum of Decision and Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction 98a consideration of how much and how soon action must be taken with respect to such elimination. Although the plan was adopted March 11, 1965, and re ceived wide publicity soon thereafter, plaintiffs waited until May 26, 1965, to file a motion for preliminary in junction to restrain the implementation of the plan with respect to the ten schools. The entire case is now set for trial on the merits on July 12, 1965. To allow the pre liminary injunction at this time is to judge the case first and hear it afterwards. Even in the constitutional area, preliminary injunctions are seldom used to change the status quo. If it be assumed that failure to enjoin implementation of the School Board plan will work to the detriment of plaintiffs and others of their class, there is no showing that such detriment is irreparable. The court can as effec tively protect the rights of plaintiffs on July 12 as it can now. The plan will not actually go into operation until September 1965. This is a tremendously large and complex school system. It would be absurdly presumptuous for a district judge, inexperienced in the administration of schools, to disrupt by entry of a preliminary injunction, without a hearing, a carefully considered plan of school operation governing 109 school units. There has been no purposeful delay in the hearing and consideration of this case. From the filing of the complaint to the final trial there will have elapsed less than six months. Counsel for plaintiffs took in excess of eight weeks after knowledge of the plan to seek re straint of its implementation. Within six more weeks there can be a complete trial on the merits. We do not yet Memorandum Decision and Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction 99a Memorandum Decision and Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction have instant justice. Under such circumstances, there can be no justification for trial by affidavit. The motion for preliminary injunction is denied. This 31st day of May, 1965. J. B r a x t o n C r a v e n , Jr., Chief Judge United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina 100a Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for Leave to Be Added as a Party-Plaintiff The above named applicant for intervention respectfully moves the Court for an order permitting it to intervene as a party-plaintiff in this cause and permitting its proposed complaint in intervention annexed hereto to be filed in order to assert the matters set forth therein upon the following grounds: 1. Applicant for intervention is a professional teachers association, organized as a private, non-profit, membership corporation. The applicant has a membership of approxi mately 12,500, most of whom are Negro teachers, teaching in the public schools of North Carolina, including the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System, the defendant here in. One of the objectives of the applicant is to support the decisions of the United States Supreme Court on segrega tion in education and to work for the assignment of students to classes and teachers and other professional personnel to professional duties within public school systems without regard to race, and to work against discrimination in the selection of such professional personnel. The association is the medium by which its members express their views on issues affecting public education and their employment. By virtue of this group association individual members are enabled to express their views and to take action with respect to controversial issues relating to racial discrim ination. Said intervenor wishes to assert here the right of its members teaching in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System not to be hired, assigned or dismissed on the basis of their race or color. 101a Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for Leave to Be Added as a Party-Plaintiff 2. Applicant for intervention should be permitted to in tervene as a party-plaintiff in this action upon the following grounds: (a) Applicant for intervention and its members are members of the class who will or might be affected by the relief prayed for by the original plaintiffs herein. (b) Applicant for intervention and its members have a substantial interest in the subject matter of this action. (c) Applicant for intervention and its members may be bound by any judgment in this case relating to desegregation of pupils and teachers. (d) The claims of applicant for intervention and that of the original plaintiffs herein present common questions of law and fact. (e) Intervention will not to any extent delay or preju dice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties who are represented by the same counsel. W h e r e f o r e , it is prayed that an order be entered per mitting the above named applicant to intervene as a party- plaintiff pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or in the alternative permitting the applicant to be added as a party-plaintiff pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and permitting its pro posed complaint in intervention, attached hereto, to be filed. 102a I Intervenor adopts and reasserts the allegations of Para graph I of the original complaint herein. II This is a proceeding for a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, its members and its Superintendent from con tinuing the policy, practice, custom and usage of discrim inating against the plaintiffs, members of intervenor’s association and other Negro citizens of the City of Char lotte and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, because of race or color. III Intervenor is a professional teachers association, organ ized as a private, non-profit, membership corporation pur suant to the laws of the State of North Carolina. Said intervenor has a membership of approximately 12,500, most of whom are Negro teachers, teaching in the public schools of North Carolina, including the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public School System. One of its objectives is to support the decisions of the United States Supreme Court on seg regation in public education and to work for the assignment of students to classes and teachers and other professional personnel to professional duties within the public school system without regard to race, and to work against dis crimination in the selection of such professional personnel. The intervenor is the medium by which its members express their views on issues affecting public education and their employment. By virtue of this group association individual Complaint in Intervention 103a members are enabled to express their views and to take action with respect to controversial issues relating to racial discrimination. Said intervenor asserts here the right of its members teaching in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System not to be hired, assigned or dismissed on the basis of their race or color. IV Intervenor adopts and reasserts the allegations of Para graph IV of the original complaint herein. V Intervenor adopts and reasserts the allegations of Para graph V of the original complaint herein. Intervenor further alleges that defendant’s proposed plan of desegregation, filed in this cause, makes no provision for the elimination of its racially discriminatory practices with respect to teachers, principals and school personnel. VI Intervenor seeks here the elimination of all racially dis criminatory practices of defendant Board, including its policy of hiring, assigning and dismissing teachers, prin cipals and professional school personnel on the basis of race and color. Intervenor further seeks the reorganization of the school system into a unitary nonracial system where in the educational opportunities and employment offered by the defendant are made available to students, teachers and professional school personnel without regard to race or color, wherein there are no racial designations in the employment and assignment of teachers, principals and other professional school personnel, arid wherein school Complaint in Intervention 104a plans, operation, and all school activities are free from racial designation and restrictions. VII Intervenor and its members are irreparably injured by the acts of the defendant complained of herein. The con tinued operation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Sys tem on a racially discriminatory basis violates the rights of intervenor and its members secured to them by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The injury which intervenor and its members suffer as a result of the actions of the defendant is and will continue to be irreparable until enjoined by this Court. Any other relief to which intervenor and its members could be remitted would be attended by such uncertainties and delays as to deny substantial relief, would involve a multiplicity of suits, cause further irreparable injury and occasion dam age, vexation and inconvenience to the intervenor and its members. W h e r e f o r e , intervenor respectfully prays that this Court advance this cause on the docket and order a speedy hearing of the action according to law and, after such hearing, enter an order permanently enjoining the defendant, its agents, employees, successors and all persons in active concert and participation with them from hiring, assigning, releasing or dismissing intervenor and its members teaching in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System on the basis of race or color, from maintaining a biracial school system and from continuing any other practice, policy, custom or usage on the basis of race or color. Complaint in Intervention 105a Intervenor further prays that this Court retain jurisdic tion of this cause pending full and complete compliance by the defendant with the order of the Court, that the Court will allow the intervenor its costs herein, reasonable coun sel fees and grant such other, further and additional or alternative relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable and just. Complaint in Intervention 106a Answer to Motion of the North Carolina Teachers Association, a Corporation, to Intervene or Be Added as a Party Plaintiff The defendant answers the Motion purportedly filed on behalf of a North Carolina corporation known as the North Carolina Teachers Association, Inc., and alleges: 1. The defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 1 and therefore denies the same, and the defendant alleges that the subject matter of this action does not deal with any issue involving any personal or property rights of the corporation under the Constitution and Laws of the United States nor with any threat of injury, irrepairable or otherwise, to said corporation. 2. The allegations of paragraph 2 are denied. W h e r e f o r e , the defendant p r a y s the Court that the Motion of said corporation to intervene or be added as a party plaintiff in this action be denied. This the 8 day of June, 1965. Answer to Complaint in Intervention Without waiving its exception to the order of the Court permitting the North Carolina Teachers Association, a corporation, to intervene in this cause, the defendant, within the time allowed by the Court, answers the allega tions of the Complaint of the intervenor and alleges: 1. The defendant adopts and reasserts the allegations of paragraph 1 of its Further Answer and Defense con tained in its original Answer herein as its answer to para graph 1 of the Complaint of the intervenor. 2. The allegations of paragraph 2 are denied. 3. Answering the allegations of paragraph 3, the defen dant admits that the intervenor is a private, non-profit membership corporation organized and existing under the laws of North Carolina and that its membership is com posed of negro teachers and professional personnel em ployed in the public school systems of North Carolina but the remaining allegations of said paragraph are denied, and it is expressly denied that the objectives of the cor poration as set forth in its Charter contain any provision for advocacy by the intervenor with respect to practices pursued in the employment of teachers, whether discrimina tory or noil-discriminatory. 4. In answer to paragraph 4 of the Complaint of the intervenor, the defendant adopts and reasserts the allega tions of paragraph 4 of its original Further Answer and Defense. 5. In answer to paragraph 5 of the Complaint of the intervenor, the defendant adopts and reasserts the allega 108a tions of paragraph 5 of its original Further Answer and Defense and it further denies the allegations contained in the second paragraph of intervenor’s Complaint. 6. The allegations of paragraph 6 of the intervenor’s Complaint merely set forth the alleged purpose of the inter vention in this action by the intervenor and do not require an answer by this defendant. 7. The allegations of paragraph 7 are denied. W herefore, having fully answered, the defendant prays the Court that the relief demanded by the intervenor be denied and that this action be dismissed and that the defendant recover its costs. Answer to Complaint in Intervention 109a To: Brock Barkley, Esq. 820 Law Building Charlotte, North Carolina Plaintiffs request that the defendant, the Charlotte- Mecklenburg Board of Education, answer under oath in accordance with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following interrogatories: 1. List for each elementary school in the school system, for the 1965-66 school year: (a) The number of students, by race, residing in each district; (b) The rated capacity for each elementary school; (c) The criteria used in determining rated capacity; (d) The number of students, by race, initially as signed for the 1965-66 school year to each school; (e) The number of students, by race, at each ele mentary school who have requested reassignment to another school outside of their district; (f) The number of students, by race, at each ele mentary school, who have been reassigned, for the 1965-66 school year to a school outside of their district, the school to which they have been assigned, and the method by which these students will be transported to school; (g) The anticipated enrollment at each school for the 1965-66 school year. Interrogatories 1 1 0 a 2. List for each junior high school in the school system, for the 1965-66 school year: (a) The number of students by race, residing in each district; (b) The rated capacity for each school; (c) The criteria used in determining rated capacity; (d) The number of students, by race, initially as signed for the 1965-66 school year to each school; (e) The number of students, by race, at each junior high school, who have requested reassignment to another school outside of their district; (f) The number of students, by race, at each junior high school, who have been reassigned, for the 1965-66 school year, to a school outside of their district, the school to which they have been as signed, and the method by which these students will be transported to school; (g) The anticipated enrollment at each school for the 1965-66 school year. 3. List for each high school in the school system, for the 1965-66 school year: (a) The number of students, by race, residing in each district; (b) The rated capacity for each school; (c) The criteria used in determining rated capacity; (d) The number of students, by race, initially as signed for the 1965-66 school year to each school; Interrogatories 111a (e) The number of students, by race, who have re quested reassignment to another school outside of their district; (f) The number of students, by race, who have been reassigned, for the 1965-66 school year, to a school outside of their district, the school to which they have been assigned, and the method by which these students will be transported to school; (g) The anticipated enrollment at each school for the 1965-66 school year. 4. Please attach attendance areas or maps describing the school zones or attendance areas for each school having attendance areas for the 1964-65 school year, or if this is not possible, state where such maps may be located or when they may be inspected. 5. Please state the number of Negro teachers and pro fessional school personnel who have been assigned for the 1965-66 school year to formerly all-white schools. 6. Please state the number of white teachers and pro fessional school personnel who have been assigned for the 1965-66 school year to formerly all-Negro schools. 7. Please state, for the 1965-66 school year, the number of teachers, by race, who have been employed for the first time in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Sys tem. P lease take notice that a copy of such answers must be served upon the undersigned within fifteen (15) days after service. This the Int err o gat ones day of June, 1965. 112a The defendant, The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, by its Superintendent of Schools and Secretary to the Board, answers the Interrogatories served upon it by the plaintiffs on the 24th day of June, 1965, as follows: 1. Interrogatory No. 1: (a) Records of students are not kept by race and it is impossible, therefore, to answer subparagraph 1 (a). It is generally known that there are all negro residential areas and all white residential areas, and the general division of the population by such areas is as well known to the plaintiffs as to the defendant. (b) The maximum capacity for each school is shown on Exhibit “B” attached. In elementary schools maximum capacity is determined by adding to the rated capacity five percent (5%) of such rated capacity. (c) See section 7 of School Assignments Regulations furnished with Answers to earlier Interrogatories and staff work paper hereto attached as Exhibit “C” . (d ) , (e) and (f) See Exhibit “A ” attached. The statis tical data contained in Exhibits “A ” and “B” contains all of the detailed information the Board has been able to compile as of this date. It should be borne in mind that the deadline for filing transfer requests was June 30 and that since that date a Saturday, Sunday and holiday has intervened. In answer to the latter part of Interrogatory 1 (f) with reference to school transportation: all pupils attending school in the attendance area of their residence will be provided with bus transportation without regard to race if the area in question is served by buses. As for Answers to Interrogatories 113a children residing in one attendance area and attending school in another see section 8 of the new Assignment Regulations. (g) See Exhibit “A ” . 2. Interrogatory No. 2: Exhibits “A ” , “B” and “ C” provide the answers to these Interrogatories to the same extent and in the same manner that they do to the Interrogatories contained in Interroga tory No. 1 and subsections. The answer to the latter part of Interrogatory 2 (f) is the same as that to Interrogatory 1 (f). As to 2 (b) maximum capacity is ten percent (10%) above rated capacity. 3. Interrogatory No. 3: Exhibits “B” and “ 0 ” apply to Interrogatory No. 3 and subparagraphs thereof in the same manner and to the same extent as they do to Interrogatories 1 and 2. The answer to the latter part of Interrogatory 3 (f) is the same as that to Interrogatory 1 (f). As to 3 (b) maximum capacity is ten percent (10%) above rated capacity. 4. Interrogatory No. 4: Only working maps were ever made of attendance areas in effect for 1964-65 school year and these were discarded after descriptions of the areas were reduced to writing. 5. Interrogatory No. 5: With the exception of pending requests for transfer to a new school station, previously employed teacher per sonnel have been assigned to the same schools for the Answers to Interrogatories 114a 1965-66 school year as those in which they taught in the 1964-65 school year. 6. Interrogatory No. 6: The answer to Interrogatory No. 6 is the same as to Interrogatory No. 5. 7. Interrogatory No. 7: As of this date, approximately 348 white teachers and approximately 14 negro teachers have been employed for the first time to serve during the school year 1965-66. NOTE: All statistical data in Exhibits “A ” and “B” which show a division by race are predicated upon the basis of estimates the defendant is in a position to make. Pupil records are not kept by race and do not indicate the identities of pupils by race. It is necessary to rely upon the supposition that a child coming from an all negro school is a negro child and upon information based upon the personal observations of principals and teachers. Answers to Interrogatories Dated July 8, 1965. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS Charlotte, North Carolina PUPIL ASSIGNMENT 1965-66 SCHOOL No. of pupiIs initially assigned for 1965-66 White Negro Transfer requests White Neqro Transf reques a 11owe Whi te er ts d Neqro Pupils, received by transfer White Negro Anticipated I965-66 enrol 1 ■ ment Whi te Negro A lexander J r . 581 1 6 0 6 0 20 6 595 7 XT Alexander S t r e e t 15 287 15 2 15 2 0 it8 0 333 V A shley Park 663 0 21 0 21 0 lit 0 656 0 IV Bain 706 _ j k . 9 0 9 0 15 0 712 0 W B a rr in ger 606 10 0 10 0 50 0 646 0 w B e r r y h i l l 1010 0 15 0 15 0 8 2 1003 2 r r Bethune _____ 12_ ____ 0 9 0 0 21 10 355 rr / B i d d l e v i l l e 0 — M J __ 0 19 0 19 0 9 0 421 rV B i l l i n g s v i l l e 6 __ B I _ 6 23 - 6 23 0 3 0 721 rv • Briarwbffa ^ 613 2 9 0 9 0 19 5 623 7 -r- k , C h a n t i l ly t. 432 2 8 0 8 0 10 1 434 3 ~r C lea r Creek 202 0 9 0 9 0 2 0 195 0 y C°chr^j^p Junior 901 1 2 1 2 1 62 10 961 10 ' T C (S’l^n s wo od 37*+ 0 0 ■ it 0 8 0 378 0 ------ \— . / i;/ C o r n e l iu s 258 0 l*t 0 14 0 2 2 246 2 XT v Cotsw old 673 0 72 0 72 0 19 0 620 0 7 / Coulwood J u n io r 610 3 8 0 8 0 39 30 641 33 A 115a Exhibit “ A” Attached to Answers to Interrogatories (Pupil Assignment 1965-66) 1 1 6 a E xhibit ” Attached to A n sw ers to Interrogatories (See Opposite) SCHOOL No. of pupils initially assigned for 1965-66 Transfer requests Transfer requests a 1 lowed PupiIs received by transfer Anticipated 1965-66 enrol 1 ■ ment Whi te Neqro Whi te Neqro -White Neoro White Negro Whi te Neqro Crestdale 0 91 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 87 / t / Davidson 178 0 1 0 1 0 8 0 185 0 vr j Marie Davis 0 823 0 11 0 11 0 1 0 813 A/ 1 Derita 899 19 10 1 10 1 59 4 948 22 i r — __1 1 Devonshire, 535 2 24 0 .2 4 0 14 2 525 4 J T H DiIworth 399 109 71 5 71 5 15 1 343 105 XT — _ Double Oaks 0 788 0 5 0 5 0 3 0 786 A/ Druid H ills 4 468 4 0 4 0 0 17 0 485 M East Mecklenburg 1833 2 26 2 26 2 123 4 1930 4 XT Eastover 543 0 10 0 10 .0 117 1 650 1 j T / iastway Jr. 1022 0 12 0 12 0 111 1 1121 1 XT / Eli zabeth 312 89 39 10 39 10 56 0 329 79 XT Enderly Park 296 0 5 0 5 0 65 0 356 0 - 4 ------- l W Fai rview 0 738 0 25 0 25 0 2 0 715 a/ First Ward 1 410 1 0 1 0 0 20 0 430 a/ Garinqer 2265 59 68 ' 1 68 1 52 7 2249 65 ----------LX._____ Tf Alexander Graham 1031 1 9 0 9 O j 83 17 1105 18 r r - 2 - 117a 118a Exhibit “A ” Attached to Answers to Interrogatories (See Opposite)BST SCHOOL No. of pupi1s initially assigned for 1965-66 Transfer requests Transfer requests a 1 lowed PupiIs received by transfer Anticipated I965-66 enroll ment White . Neqro Whi te Nearo White Nearo White Negro Whi te Neqro J . H. Gunn 0 730 0 40 0 40 0 17 0 707 * hi H arding 937 16 56 0 56 0 149 13 1030 29 r r Hawthorne J r . 853 104 13^ 6 134 6 10 4 729 102 J 7 H ick ory Grove 536 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 534 0 w Highland 339 2 44 0 . 44 0 7 1 302 3 H oskins 357 0 12 0 12 0 10 6 355 6 H u n te r s v ille 533 0 15 0 15 0 10 1 528 1 r T y Hunt. Farms 382 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 390 0 w Id le w ild 526 0 3 0 3 0 20 0 543 0 W Irw in A ve. J r . <*7- 816 47 29 47 29 0 49 0 836 /V Amay James 1 363 3 3 1 3 0 0 0 360 frf Ada Jen kin s / 0 ¥+9 0 9 0 9 0 1 0 441 hi Lakeview 376 3 10 0 10 0 19 0 385 3 r r Lansdowne 667 0 1 0 1 0 6 0 672 0 W L in c o ln H e ig h ts 0 757 0 18 0 18 0 17 0 756 N : T C reek 414 0 21 ' 0 21 0 9 0 402 0 V 909 0 8 0 8 0 18 1 919 1 if / -3 - 119a 1 2 0 a Exhibit “A ” Attached to Answers to Interrogatories (See Opposite)!®” SCHOOL No. of pupi1s Initially assigned for 1965_66 T ransfer requests Transfer requests a 1 lowed PupiIs received by transfer Ant icipated I965-66 enroll ment ‘ Whi te Neqro Whi te Neqro -While .-j-Jtegro Wh i te Negro Whi te Neqro M cC lin tock Jr. 1418 0 36 0 36 0 0 0 1382 0 I V Merry Oaks 544 0 20 0 20 0 2 0 526 0 W Midwood 497 0 17 0 17 0 17 0 497 0 I V M o n tc la ire 648 0 9 0 9 0 5 0 644 0 V\I Si.y Morgan 65 313 65 * 10 . 65 10 0 8 0 311 U Myers Park Elen . 573 0 11 0 11 0 36 0 598 0 W - ! M yers Park H igf 1716 153 143 17 143 17 120 26 1693 162 r r Myers S t r e e t 0 744 0 15 0 15 0 18 0 747 N ; N a tion s Ford 536 0 1 0 1 0 10 0 545 0 IV N ew ell 487 0 7 0 7 0 6 0 486 0 \\! N orth M eck len . 1127 128 6 1 6 1 16 24 1137 151 / ^ N orth w est J r . 36 808 36 37 36 37 0 47 0 818 A/ [ Oakdale 412 0 1 0 1 0 12 ,5 423 6 /'TV 1| Oakhurst 578 0 32 0 32 0 5 0 551 0 W | Oaklawn 0 711 0 31 0 31 0 13 0 693 N 1 Park Road 590 0 14 0 14 0 28 0 604 0 i V P Paw Creek 762 0 1 0 1 0 7 0 768 0 V -4- 121a Exhibit “A ” Attached to Answers to Interrogatories (See Opposite)!®" SCHOOL No. of pupi is initially assigned for 1965-66 Transfer requests Transfer requests a 1 lowed PupiIs received by transfer Ant i cipated 1965-66 enrol 1 ment Whi te Neqro Whi te Nearo -While Negro Whi te Negro White Neqro Piedmont Jr. ' 256 274 107 6 107 6 52 19 201 287 FT P i nevi1le 374 0 10 0 10 0 3 0 367 0 w Pinewood 686 0 4 0 4 0 22 0 704 0 W Plato Price 0 539 0 36 0 36 0 6 0 509 A / Plaza Road 284 0 9 0 9 0 57 2 332 2 rr Quai1 Hoi low Jr . 859 0 6 0 6 0 25 0 00r-'. 00 0 vV Rama Road 496 2 4 0 4 0 17 0 509 2 rr Ranson Jr. 749 33 38 4 38 4 16 4 727 33 7r Second Ward 125 1528 124 74 124 74 0 75 1 1529 j r Sedgefield El. 539 5 10 0 10 0 32 0 561 5 n Sedgefield Jr. 935 40 38 1 38 1 26 4 923 43 T T Selwyn 545 0 23 0 23 0 11 0 533 0 vZ S e v ersv i1le 36 220 24 4 24 4 7 10 19 226 rr Shamrock Gardens 517 0 13 0 13 0 28 0 532 0 w Sharon 576 0 9 0 9 0 1 0 568 0 ' W Smith Jr. 1222 0 19 0 19 0 4 0 1207 0 w South Mecklenburg 1638 122 122 3 122 ------------ - 3 30 3 1546 122 • „ 123a 124a Exhibit “A ” Attached to Answers to Interrogatories (See Opposite) 13?" SCHOOL No. of pupi1s initially assigned for 1965-66 T rans fer requests Trans fer reques ts a 1 lowed Pupi1s received by transfer Ant i ci 1965-66 ment pa ted enrol 1 Whi te Neqro Whi te Neqro Wh i te .Neoro Wh i te Negro White Neqro S p a u g h J r . 820 9 14 6 14 6 1 1 1 8 917 1 1 S t a r m o u n t 547 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 549 0 w S t a t e s v i l l e Roac 685 0 53 0 53 0 18 0 650 0 / S t e e l e Creek 219 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 220 0 / // S t e r l i n g 0 614 0 8 0 8 0 1 0 , O ,/ T h o m a s b o r o 968 0 48 0 48 0 6 0 926 0 / A / V 7 T o r r e n c e - L y t l e 0 969 0 35 0 35 0 10 0 944 h J T r y o n Hills 314 6 6 2 6 2 8 0 316 4 T u c k a s e e g e e 568 0 3 0 3 0 33 0 598 0 i . U n i v e r s i t y P a r k 5 709 5 8 5 8 0 34 0 735 /ilia H e i g h t s 553 105 40 16 40 16 15 12 528 101 1 "" W e s l e y H e i g h t s 38 203 38 0 38 0 0 6 0 209 / / West C h a r l o t t e 32 1753 32 78 32 78 0 20 0 1695 W e s t M e c k l e n b u r g 1250 85 29 5 29 5 65 4 1286 84 f" W i l l i a m s Jr. 5 313 5 34 5 34 0 29 0 808 W i l m o r e 365 21 46 0 ' 46 0 14 1 333 22 W i l s o n Jr. 1179 , 1 39 0 39 0 1 15 0 1155 1 -6 - 125a :126a Exhibit “A ” Attached to Answers to Interrogatories (See Opposite) SCHOOL No. of pupiIs Initially assigned for 1965-66 White Negro T ransfer requests White Nearo Transfer requests a 1 lowed V/hite Nearo Pupils received by trans fer White Negro Ant i c i pa ted I965-66 enrol 1 ment V/hite Negro Windsor Park 704 1 9 0 9 0 9 0 704 1 . t — W: field 59^ 0 18 0 18 0 1 0 577 0 w W o o d l a n d 0 350 0 31 0 31 0 7 0 326 W o o d l a w n 282 1 13 0 13 0 3 0 272 1 Is a b e l l a W y c h e _____ Z__ 371 7 1 7 1 0 6 0 376 N Y o r k Road 0 1094 0 18 0 18 0 51 0 1127 [ ! Z e b V a n c e 1 527 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 525 TOTAL 52826 21893 2222 697 2222 697 2139 780 527^3 21976 ColtBHi beaded "trooof er ceq« cots" 1 efers 4:o requ sets fo r trace fera icoa tuttae scho o l . C e i n a beaded aaae school. irtroaif ar req« 08&8 *1 lowed" refers to tre tsfer £ roa Colaaaa hooded "pupils recelv ed by tcansfei ,M refe :s to p ipils r eceived by nose school • , , -7 - 127a 128a Exhibit B” Attached to Answers to Interrogatories (Pupil Assignments— July 1, 1965) (See O pposite)^" 129a 130a Exhibit “B” Attached to Answers to Interrogatories (See Opposite)!®^ SCHOOL Ju ne 2 ' j As si gn me nt s __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Re qu es ts to En te r * Re qu es ts to j ■L ea ve j O >ca u CO <D i t C i t <✓> Crestdale 91 °J 4 y 87 Davidson 178 8 1 185 Marie Davis 823 1 11 813 Der i ta 918 63 11 970 Devonshi re 537 16 24 529 D ? 1 worth' 508 16 76 448 Double Oaks 788 3 5 786 Druid Hills 472 17 4 485 East Mecklenburg 1835 127 28 1934 Eastover 543 118 10 651 Eastway Junior 1022 112 12 11 22 Elizabeth 401 56 49 408 Enderly Park 296 65 5 356 Fa i rv i ew 738 2 25 715 First Ward 2+11 20 1 430 Gar i nger 2324 59 69 2314 Alexander Graham 1032 100 .9 11 23 Ma xi mu m C ap ac i t y 158_ 378 945 1008 756 504 756 567 1980 756 1 122 662 378 819 661 2079 1221 N u m b er A s s ig n e d • j 1 s t C h o ic e .! i .! <i) o "O • - a) o 1— C -C a) cn o _ Q ' — 2 </> D (A C ^ < CM N um be r- A ss i g n ed 3 rd C h o ic e G ra d e 12 & j E li g ib le : G e o g ra p h i- r. a 1 1 v __ __ __ O4-J -M C T) — ' 0) (l) (0 E c c cL_ •— LT) d c n . - 4-J •— oi 5) l in _ 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 14 2 0 0 2 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 1 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 5 0 0 13 1 1 8 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 9 1 9 9 7 3 0 0 0 --- ...---- . ------- ----------------- ..... ........... — .... . . . ..... 131a 132a Exhibit “B” Attached to Answers to Interrogatories (See O pposite)®^ S C H O O L i Ju ne 2 ' ] As si gn me nt s Re qu es ts to En te r Re qu es ts to Le av e O >* m i- 03 <d n c a ZJ Z) -0 </> Ma xi mu m Ca pa c i t y i 1 jN um be r " lA ss ig ne d ’ j ! 1 st Ch oi ce . | i . > <1>o • - <D o l c j : <D cn c_> _Q' —E ^ "O □ in cZZ < CN 0o “O •—. 0) o 1- C -C(!) cn o _Q — E <n T) ZJ CO L- Z < 0̂ 4> i N 0) -C - — CL 1 .£> H3<1) — t- > jj cn cn r— (0 — o — t- — <U (0 LU CD U 0 C 0 — 0) 4) (U E c c c - — cn J D l - +-»— </! (D L ui c£ O <C J . H. Gunn 730 17 1+0 7QZ. , . . 2 0 6 1 6 i _.. -Q _ _ ____ 0__ 0 Ha rd i ng 953 1 6 2 5 6 1059 1155 l i+ 5 17 0 0 1 0 Hawthorne Jr. 9 5 7 11+ li+0 831 1089 11+ 0 0 0 11 Hickory Grove 536 1 3 5 3k 539 1 0 0 0 0 •- Hi ghiand 3*+l 8 k b 305 378 8 0 0 0 0 Hoskins 357 16 12 361 378 16 0 0 0 0 - Huntersvi1le 533 11 15 529 756 11 0 0 0______ 0 Hunt. Farms 382 8 0 390 378 0 0 0 8 0 !d iewiId 526 20 3 5k3 630 20 0 0 0 0 j 1rwi n Ave.'Jr. 863 k 3 76 836 1221 1+2 6 1 0 15 / • Amay James 361+ ' 0 k 360 ' 1+10 0 0 0 0 0 Ada Jenkins k k 9 1 9 i+ i+ l • 1+1+1 1 0» 0 0 0 Lakeview 379 19 10 388 501+ ' 19 0 0 0 0 Lansdowne 667 6 1 672 630 0 0 0 6 0 Lincoln Heights 757 17 18 756 7-56 17 0 0 0 0 Long Creek k ] k 9 21 1+02 567 9 0 0 0 0 Matthews 909 19 . 8 920 1187 18 0 1 0 8 1 133a 134a Exhibit “B” Attached to Answers to Interrogatories (See Opposite) 8^° SCHOOL l/> 4-*co£ <M cOJ CD •- C IA 3 < Re qu es ts to En te r i ] Re qu es ts to j Le av e 1 O >> <00) f: c £ 3 3 "3 CO >>£ +-> 3 — £ O •- (0 X CL 05 OJ s : o McC 1 intock Jr. 1418 0 36 1382 1353_ Merry Oaks 544 2 20 526 567 M i dwood 497 17 17 497 693 Montclai re 648 5 9 644 788 Mo r ga n 378 8 75 311 378 Myers Park Elem. 573 36 11 598 630 Myers Park Hi gh 1869 146 160 1855 1980 M.yers Street 744 18 15 747 882 Nations Ford 536 10 1 545 756 Newe11 487 6 7 486 725 North Mecklenburg 1255 40 7 1288 1485 Northwest Jr' 844 47 73 818 ■ 924 Oakdale 412 17 1 428 441 Oakhurs t 578 5 32 551 630 Oaklawn 711 13 31 693 756 Park Road 590 28 14 604 630 Paw Creek 762 7 . 1 768 789 Nu mb er As si gn ed ' 1s t Ch oi ce . S Nu mb er As si gn ed ! 2n d Ch oi ce j i Nu mb er - ! As s i g ne d 3r d Ch oi ce i 1 o!> 1 04 a) _C — — CL _Q 05d) — L_ > ~ o c n c n . — 05 O — L - (D (U (J LU O U o4-» c ~o — ' 0)(D 05 £ C C c v - • - c n 3 c n — •— u i H) L i/ ) OC O <_ I 0 0 0 o I 0 2 0 0 0 ' i o ! 1 7 0 0 0 0 1. 5 0 0 0 0 - i 8 0 0 0 0 •••* 36 0 0 0 0 - 111 33 2 0 26 18 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 . 0 1 ' 6 0 0 0 0 35 3 2 0 15 44 2 1 0 3 17 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 9 4 0 0 1 0 27 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 • 135a 136a Exhibit “B” Attached to Answers to Interrogatories (See Opposite)*3?° SCHOOL *-»co £CM c o — C3 ui < Re qu es ts to En te r Re qu es ts to Le av e O(v̂ U <u d) £ C £ 3 3 “3 </> > - £ -M 3 — £ O • - 0 X CL 0 03 s : 0 Piedmont Jr. 530 71 113 488 924 P i nev i11e 37*+ 3 10 367 539' P i newood 686 22 4 704 756 Plato Price 539 6 36 509 684 Plaza Road 284 59 9 33*+ 473 Q.ua i 1 Ho 1 low Jr. 859 25 6 878 1188 «er------- Rama Road 498 17 4 511 756 Ranson Jr. 782 20 42 760 891 Second V/ard 1653 75 198 1530 1485 Sedgefi eld-Elem. 544 32 10 566 662 Sedgefield Jr. 975 30 39 966 '1188 Selwyn 545 11 23 533 - 630 Seversv i11e 256 17 28 245 378 Shamrock Gardens 517 28 13 532 567 Sharon 576 1 9 568 630 Smi th Jr. 1222 4 19 1207 1419 South Mecklenburg 1760 33 125 1668 1848 1 O O "O —0 O V - c _ c 0 cn 0 _Q — £ CO -M 3 (/> i f ) Z < — (N um be r 'A ss i gn ed 2n d C h o ic e jN u m be r- i (A s si g n e d !3 rd C h o ic e ' j I ! u!> 1 CM 0 S Z — — CL -Q CO 0 — > 'O CD CD — 0 — O — L- • • 0 nj (J U (J u77] 0 +J 4j c"O*— ”0 0 0 E c c c ^ CD 3 cn — oi 0 l. 0 < c ____ 1 6 9 2 0 8 3 0 - 0 0 3 2 0 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 •. 5 9 0 0 0 0 X * 2 5 0 0 ' 0 2 - 1 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 6 1 , t 31 1 0 0 3 28 1 1 0 21 11 0 0 0 0 " 1 7 0 0 0 0 ... ... _- ■ — - ------------ 28 0 0 0 1 ---------- — — — 1 0 0 0 6.....------- - ------------------- - — ~ • — ....... - ' 4 0 0 0 0.............. - — ......— ' ........ .......... - .......... 31 2 0 0 0 137a 138a Exhibit “B” Attached to Answers to Interrogatories (See O p p osite )^ " SCHOOL ! Ju ne 2 A ss i gn m en ts R eq ue st s to E nt er R eq ue st s to Le av e o > <00) nc [i=3 23 “5 </> Spaugh Jr. • 829 119 20 928 Starmount 547 3 1 549 Statesv i 11e Road 685 18 53 650 .Steele Creek 219 5 4 220 Sterling 614 1 8 607 Thomasbo’ro 968 6 48 926 Torrence-Lytle 969 10 35 944 Tryon H ills 320 8 8 320 Tuckaseegee 568 33 3 598 Un i vers i ty Park 714 34 13 735 V il la He i ghts 658 27 56 629 Wesley Heights 241 6 38 209 West Charlotte 1785 20 110 1695 West Mecklenburg 1335 69 34 1370 V/i 1 1 iams J r . 818 29 39 808 V/i Imore 386 15 46 355 Wi 1 son Jr. 1180 15 39 1156 M ax im um C ap ac i t y ' f Nu m be r " { A ss ig ne d ’ i 1s t C h o ic e. ! Nu m be r A ss i gn ed 2n d C ho ic e | a)o~u *—<D Ol- C -Ccu gio _a —!; 33 23 10 L-<. cr\ jG ra ce - I2 & E li gi b le : iG eo gr ap hi - rs 11 V — — - o4-» 4-»c-0 — 0) a) <o ec c cu — CD d cn •- — toa) to02 0 c 1188 116 3 0 oj 0 630 3 0 0 o 0 693 18 0 0 0 0 252 5 0 0 ° 0 •- 737 0 1 0 0 0 945 6 0 0 0 0 - 1037 10 0 0 0 4 378 8 0 0 0 0 t 630 33 0 0 0 0 756 33 1 0 0 0 756 27 0 0 0 0 2 52 6 0 0 6 0 1485 ; 0 0 0 20 39 t 1386 67 1 1 0 9 1188 28 1 0 0 4 539 15 0 0 0 0 1188 15 0 0 0 0 139a 140a Exhibit “B” Attached to Answers to Interrogatories (See Opposite) SCHOOL c o CM iCJJoc□ LA < Re qu es ts to En te r Re qu es ts to Le av e O >> c<̂ u 0) C: c IZ D 73-3 L/> Ma xi mu m Ca pa ci t y Nu mb er As si gn ed ' j1 st Ch oi ce . Nu mb er | As s i g ne d 2n d Ch oi ce ; 1 Nu mb er - As s i g ne d 3r d Ch oi ce | ui> i CNl 'd) _C T *— Cl ' _Q fO 0) — L_ >x> cn cn —Q O — i- — <u (0O UJ o u o4~» c~o<— ’ Q) <D <0 £ c c cV— •— cn 3 Dl-— t/> d) 1- IAQT O <C Windsor Park 705 9 9 705 756 9 0 0 0 l Wi nterfield 59*+ 1 18 577 756 1 0 ' 0 0 0 Woodland 350 7 31 326 378 7 0 0 0 0 Wood lawn 283 3 13 273 3*+7 3 0 0 0 0 . Isabella Wyche 378 6 8 37S 599 6 0 0 0 0 »»• York Road 109*+ 51 18 1127 1122 *+6 0 0 5 20 / 7 Zeb Vance 528 0 __3_ 525 50*t 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 7*+719 2919 •2919 7*+719 2626 108 9 176 3*+5 * T ansfers: 2919 ' • Re turned t 5 origin 11 ass i g iments:- 3*+5 > TOTAL 326*+ " ” T — ..-... ________________ 141a 142 a Exhibit “ C” Attached to Answers to Interrogatories (Staff Report on Capacity Study) STAFF REPORT ON CAPACITY STUDY BUILDING AND SITES COMMITTEE M a y 25, 1965 8:00 A.M. B o a r d R o o m In undertaking a study of the capacity of the individual schools in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg system, a number of factors have been brought to bear upon the problem. These factors have been: 1. The expressed desire of the Board of Education to adopt maximum capacities where possible and prac ticable so that the vast majority of free choice re quests may be honored after June 2. 2. The practical limitations of efficiency and good opera tion that are controlled by numbers of students to be served in any specific school. 3. A practical judgment as to the number of pupils to be normally housed in each teaching station. 4. A judgment on the maximum per cent of utilization which might be reasonably expected. 5. A number of actual teaching spaces at a given school. 6. Related square footage where it has bearing on capacity itself. Desire for Maximum Practical Capacity Because of the serious problems involved in the transi tion to full geographic assignment and the implementa tion of the free choice concept, it has been felt highly 143a Exhibit “ C” Attached to Answers to Interrogatories desirable from the very beginning that capacities be stretched as far as this can be possibly done. This simply means that the Board is anxious for most of the free choice requests to be honored in that the very philosophy of the assignment plan leans toward freedom of movement within the system under necessary limitations. This flexibility must be controlled only in terms of the limiting factors, of efficiency and operating procedure in the various schools. Because of this desire for maximum capacity, the number of pupils to be housed in each class, the per cent of utiliza tion which might be normally expected, and the identifica tion of teaching spaces in the various schools has been kept on the maximum side also. The number 30 has been used consistently in relating to the pupils to be housed in each teaching station. This is certainly a variable figure and, if lowered, would have the effect of lowering the total capacity of any given school. Whether or not a classroom will be in use every period of the school day is also a factor in determining capacity. A 100 per cent utilization factor has been assumed for both elementary and junior high schools in this study. For senior high schools 90 per cent utilization has been assumed. It is important to make clear that 100 per cent utilization of all teaching spaces throughout the day and throughout the year is a desired yet difficult to attain ob jective, particularly in the secondary schools. A much more realistic figure over a long period of time for the junior and senior high schools would come closer to 75 to 85 per cent utilization. This is something which needs considerable additional study before any final percentages can be established for our long range planning. Survey forms have been devised and utilized by each of the school principals in reporting the number of teaching spaces in the various schools. The forms were accompanied by 144a Exhibit “C” Attached to Answers to Interrogatories explanations so that the information gathered would be consistent for all schools. A considerable amount of time has been spent on the assessing of not only actual teaching- spaces but square footage involved and related informa tion which would help with an assessment of the number of spaces available for teaching purposes. In schools where construction now in progress will be completed by early fall the principal’s figures have been adjusted to reflect the additional space. Examples of this are Winter- field and Cochrane Junior High School. In most cases mobile units were left in their present locations and were counted as teaching spaces. Eight mobile units are presently held in reserve for difficult spots which will develop next fall. There exist more needs for these units than we have the actual units themselves yet we have held off in assigning these pending development of specific school areas. Three examples are on board which show how the com bination of number of teaching spaces, pupils per class, and percentage of utilization have been put together to arrive at a suggested rated capacity. These three examples in clude an elementary school, a junior high, and a senior high. Attached to this material is a recommended list, of actual capacities for adoption for the 1965-66 term. These recommended capacities have come out of the exten sive study which has been made over the past month and a half and which has been based on the factors discussed above. In accordance with the policy adopted by the Board of Education on March 11, a normal application of five per cent to the elementary rated capacity and 10 per cent to the secondary rated capacity would give the outer limits of acceptance of free choice youngsters into the various schools. 145a This is another school case. Our adversary system of justice is not well-adapted for the disposition of such controversies. It is to he hoped that with the implementa tion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act the incidence of such cases will diminish. Administrators, especially if they have some competence and experience in school adminis tration, can more likely work out with School Superin tendents the problems of pupil and teacher assignment in the best interests of all concerned better than can any District Judge operating within the adversary system. The question before this court, even within its equitable jurisdiction, is not what is best for all concerned hut simply what are plaintiffs entitled to have as a matter of constitutional law. What can he done in a school dis trict is different from what must he done. During March, 1965, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education proposed a plan to comply with the consti tutional mandate embodied in Brown v. Kansas City Board of Education. On April 11, 1965, the Board re solved as follows: “Resolved by the Charlotte-Mecklen burg Board of Education that, in recognition of the re quirements of law, the development of a policy be under taken looking to the ultimate employment and assign ment of all staff and professional personnel without regard to race or to factors other than training, competence and fitness.” During the trial counsel for the School Board, the Chairman of the Board, and the Superintendent of Schools modified the proposed plan of March 11 to in clude in it the resolution with respect to teachers and staff set out hereinabove. Plaintiffs’ complaints with respect to the plan as modi fied are: Memorandum of Decision 146a (a) Certain school districts have been gerrymandered to prevent the mixing of the races in the schools; (b) There are no administrative problems sufficient to justify the proposed delay in geographical zoning of ten schools which are excepted from the plan; (c) The above quoted amendment with respect to de segregation of teachers and staff looks to the far distant future and ought to be effective at once. Most of the testimony at the trial, lasting a day and a half, dealt with alleged gerrymandering and the ex cepted schools. The testimony and the subject matter is exceedingly complex. This is not a simple school system. There are 109 schools in the district. On June 2, 1965, the Board sent a notice to the parents and/or guardians of every child in the system assigning the children in 99 schools according to geographical zones. In addition each parent was advised that any child, without regard to race, and without regard to minority or majority of race in any particular school, might freely transfer to another school of his choice. In summary, with respect to the 99 schools, and excepting 10 schools, all the children were assigned according to their place of residence in a geo graphical zone, and all children were accorded the privi lege of transferring to another zone—without the necessity of giving any reason for the requested transfer. The privilege of free transfer extended to the children in the excepted schools. By reason of geography, it happened that 1,955 Negro children were initially assigned to schools largely popu lated by white children (hereinafter called for convenience “ integrated” schools). In addition, 262 Negro children Memorandum, of Decision 147a elected to transfer from schools entirely or almost entirely populated by Negro children (hereinafter called for con venience “Negro” schools), making a total of 2,217 Negro children being assigned, either initially or by reason of transfer, to integrated schools. However, 91 of these Negro children elected to be reassigned to a Negro school so that there now remain for the school year beginning September, 1965, approximately 2,126 Negro children in 43 integrated schools in the system. One school is racially “balanced” , i.e., about one-half white and one-half Negro. Approximately 396 white children, under the geo graphical plan, were initially assigned to Negro schools. All, or practically all, of them requested transfer and were transferred out of the Negro schools to an integrated or white school. There are about 75,000 children in the entire system. Over the last several years enrollment has increased ap proximately 3,000 children per annum, requiring the addition of approximately 70 classrooms each year. Thirty million dollars has been spent or committed in a period of approximately five years for new construction. Racially, about 52,000 are white children and the remainder are Negro. Excepted Schools The 10 schools excepted from the plan are Negro schools. Several new schools in the area of the excepted schools are being built and are expected to be completed by September, 1967, and most probably by September, 1966. Until these new schools are available the 10 excepted schools cannot be permanenlty rezoned. If the Negro children in these 10 schools were incorporated into the geographical zone plan now most of them would have to Memorandum of Decision 148a be assigned to yet another school next year or the year after. In the opinion of the Board multiple assignment changes are disruptive to the child and the school ad ministration. It takes time to appraise and evaluate schools and their proper locations, and thereafter to in telligently determine upon abandonment, restoration or replacement of a given school. It does not seem unreason able, in view of the complexity of the entire system, to approve a maximum delay of two years and a probable delay of only one year for the purpose of making these difficult determinations and to facilitate a degree of permanence in the rezoning to be achieved. Lacking special competence and experience in public education, it would be presumptuous for a District Judge to brush aside the determination of these problems by the Board and its staff, absent a clear showing of an arbitrary re fusal to grant plaintiffs their constitutional rights. There is no such showing. The Board is just as determined as are plaintiffs that the 10 schools will be incorporated into a geographical plan. The disagreement is only as to when. It is not suggested that the right granted to the Negro children in the 10 excepted schools to request transfer out of those schools is a sufficient compliance with the constitution. A freedom of choice plan in order to be constitutional must include correctives at the time of initial assignment. This, however, is only an interim plan and for a very short period—probably only a period of one year with respect to most of the schools. The excep tion of the 10 schools will be approved in accordance with the plan but without prejudice to the right of plaintiffs to renew their motion next summer and to request re examination at that time of the progress made. Memorandum of Decision 149a Memorandum of Decision G-errymandering The gerrymandering contention is exceedingly intricate and complex. Plaintiffs’ expert witness (Mr. Louis Kramer) necessarily testified abstractly from a study of the plan and the maps available to him and without per sonal knowledge of the Mecklenburg terrain. He was commendably candid in stating that he had not spent enough time to be able to recommend generally a new and better zoning pattern. If Mr. Kramer, competent and experienced in the field of education, does not feel able to intelligently alter the general zoning pattern, it seems unikely to me that a District Judge could intelligently do so based upon information made available to him in only a day and a half. Even so, Kramer’s testimony with re spect to particular schools has been carefully considered and compared with the testimony of Dr. A. Craig Phillips, Superintendent of Schools. The maps have also been studied with respect to the allegations of gerrymandering and the limited testimony in support thereof. It is fair to say that most of Kramer’s testimony is ad hoc: The results with respect to mixing of the races are assumed to be intentional where little mixing occurs. But there is no testimony tending to show that boundary lines were chosen for the purpose of diminishing integration—unless it be assumed that the result proves the unlawful intention. I am unwilling to make the assumption. Kramer testified with respect to gerrymandering about Lakeview Elementary School, Thomasboro Elementary School, Paw Creek Elementary School, Ashley Park Elementary School, Barringer Elementary School, Newell Elementary School, Eastover Elementary School, Berry Hill Elementary School and Billingsville Elementary 150a School. With respect to many of these schools, notably Thomasboro, Paw Creek, Ashley Park, Newell, Eastover and Berry Hill, changing the line questioned by the expert witness would not result in a greater mixing of the races but instead would merely throw certain students into an other similar zone with respect to racial composition. The objections to these lines are irrelevant. For example, in Thomasboro, Paw Creek and Ashley Park, enlarging the zones in accordance with the contention of plaintiffs and the testimony of Mr. Kramer would not increase the number of Negroes in these schools until the excepted schools are incorporated into the zoning plan. For another example, changing the line of Eastover Elementary School in accordance with Mr. Kramer’s testimony would result simply in putting a few more white students in the already heavily white Elizabeth zone. As a general proposition, it is undoubtedly true that one could deliberately sit down with the purpose in mind to change lines in order to increase mixing of the races and accomplish the same with some degree of success. I know of no such duty upon either the School Board or the District Court. The question is not whether zones can be gerrymandered for the assumed good purpose of racial mixing, but whether gerrymandering occurred for the unconstitutional purpose of preventing the mixing of the races. I am unable to find from the evidence a sufficient showing of the unconstitutional purpose with respect to any school zone. The strongest case of plaintiffs is that of Billingsville zone. This is a zone which embraces a Negro housing pattern almost exclusively. Only six white children reside within the zone. Mr. Kramer insisted that the southern boundary line should be moved south to McAlwav Road and that the effect of the present line is to keep Memorandum of Decision 151a Negroes out of the Cotswold School. But the testimony plainly discloses that the southern line follows the new Belt Road surveyed route and that the streets in the Cotswold area dead-end at the boundary line and do not cross into Billingsville. The southern boundary, therefore, follows a natural geographical “buffer” zone between Cotswold and Billingsville. This is a housing pattern, and however unfortunate its existence may be, the fact remains that it does exist. To reiterate, the question be fore the District Court is not whether a “ better” zone might be established but simply whether the zone which was established is an arbitrary and unreasonable one based on race and without regard to natural boundary lines. Thus far it has not been held unconstitutional to assign children to a school on the basis of their residences in a cohesive and contiguous geographical area. The Board has done better than might be required in that it has allowed free transfer out of Billingsville to those Negro children who wish it. Cf. Taylor v. Board of Educa tion of City School District of City of New Rochelle, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 191 F. Supp. 181; Taylor v. Board of Education of City School District of City of New Rochelle, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 195 F. Supp. 231; Taylor v. Board of Education of City School District of City of New Rochelle, 2 Cir., 294 F. 2d 36. Considering all of the testimony I am unable to find from the evidence and by its greater weight that any of the geographical zones for the 99 schools incorporated in the plan have been gerrymandered for the purpose of avoiding the constitutional mandate, and I fail and refuse to so find. Many of the gerrymandering complaints of plaintiffs will be minimized when the other 10 schools are incor Memorandum, of Decision 152a porated into the zoning system. Probably, when this is done, the initial assignments of Negroes to integrated schools will about double. There are about 4,000 Negroes in the excepted schools and it is contemplated that about half of them will, next year or the year after, be initially assigned to integrated schools. Indeed, Mr. Kramer testified that the gerrymandering complaints relate entirely to schools that will be affected or are now affected by the status of the excepted schools except for five, i.e., Bast way Junior High School, Hawthorne Junior High School, Billingsville Junior High School, Barringer Elementary and Wilmore Elementary. Derita Elementary School is said to be gerrymandered because the zone is cut in two by 1-85. But this problem is related to the excepted schools and the Board intends to rezone next year when the new school at Hidden Valiev is completed. Assignment of Teachers and Staff The amendment to the plan with respect to assignment of staff and professional personnel is acceptable except with respect to when it shall be accomplished. The word "ultimate” contained in the resolution is disapproved and the Board will be directed to substitute in the resolution the word ‘•immediate” . In this connection it is worth while to quote from the opinion of Chief Judge Haynsworth in Bradley v. City of Richmond. 345 F. 2d, 310, 1965: "When all direct discrimination in the assign ment of pupils has been eliminated, assignment of teachers nay be expected to follow the racial pattern established in the schools." It is especially difficult to determine in a judicial pro- :-*s> the state of mind of an individual. The difficulty is Memorandum of Decision 153a multiplied by the number of members of the School Board and the administrative staff participating in decisions. Yet the attempt must be made to appraise the overall purpose of the Board with respect to its constitutional duty. Reference has already been made to much of the evidence said to indicate bad faith. This is counter-balanced by the record of this Board of Education, certainly since the superintendency of Dr. Phillips beginning in 1962. Since then much progress has been made in integrating school activities and faculty meetings. For the first time this year a joint and mixed baccalaureate service was held for graduating high school seniors. The photographs offered in evidence illustrate the testimony of interracial activity in the administration of the school system. It is perhaps worth noting that the Board has determined to zone the Crestdale Negro School geographically over the opposition of the Negro commetteemen and parents in that school who would prefer to keep it segregated. This does not sound like a School Board bent upon maintaining a segregated system. It is also worth noting that Morgan Elementary School was previously a Negro school de liberately gerrymandered under the former and now un lawful dual attendance zone system to keep out white children so as to separate the races, and that that has now been changed. The Board has now straightened the line to follow natural boundaries with the result that 65 white children were initially assigned to this previously all Negro school. This is scarcely consistent with the unsupported contention that this is a School Board deter mined to perpetuate unconstitutional segregation. I accept the testimony of Mr. David W. Harris, Chair man of the Board, that the zones are determined by (1) the location of the schools and (2) housing patterns, and Memorandum of Decision 154a that this was done without regard to race. In evolving its plan, the Board sought and obtained the advice and counsel of Inglehardt, Inglehardt and Leggett. Plaintiffs expert witness admits that this firm is competent and expert in the field of educational consultants. Considering all of the evidence, it is concluded that the plan proposed by the Board, as amended to incorporate the policy with respect to teachers and staff, is a sufficient compliance with the duty imposed upon the Board by the constitution as interpreted in Brown v. Kansas City Board of Education and subsequent decisions. The plan will be approved verbatim except for the change hereinabove indicated with respect to teachers and staff. It is a temptation to afford to the 4,000 Negro students in the excepted schools yet another opportunity to request transfer to a school of their choice. The School Board itself allowed these children 28 days within which time to request transfer. At the trial the following colloquy occurred in open court: Court: “ Is it fair to say that the plaintiffs do not ask the Court for that type of interim relief, namely, to order further freedom of choice for the students in the 10 ex cepted schools?” Mb. B e l l : “ I would think that in view of all of the testimony that that would be fair for the Court to conclude. We are more interested in having the schools included within the general zoning.” I hesitate to confer a benefit which is not sought. An appropriate judgment will be entered approving the plan. This 14th day of July, 1965. Memorandum of Decision /s / J. B. Craven, Jb. United States District Judge 155a Judgment Pursuant to the findings of fact and conclusions of law and the reasons expressed in a Memorandum of Decision filed herein today, the proposed plan of desegre gation submitted by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education is approved, except that the resolution with re spect to teachers and staff is Ordered to be amended so as to delete the word “ultimate” and substitute the word “ immediate” . Jurisdiction is retained to consider at appropriate in tervals, upon motion of the parties, implementation of the plan. This 14th day of July, 1965. /s / J. B. Craven, Jr. United States District Judge 156a Notice of Appeal I N o t ic e o p A p p e a l Notice is hereby given that J a m e s E. S w a n n , et al., Plain tiffs, above named, on this 15th day of July, 1965, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, from the Order approving a modified plan for de segregating the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools, entered by the United States District Court for the West ern District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, on July 14, 1965. II D e s ig n a t io n o p R e c o b d o n A p p e a l Plaintiff's, by their undersigned attorney, pursuant to Rule 75(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby designate all the original files and the complete transcript of the evidence in the subject case for inclusion in the record on appeal, including all pleadings, exhibits, affida vits, testimony, orders, notice of appeal and this designa tion. July 14, 1965. 157a Letter of August 19, 1965 From Brock Barkley August 19, 1965 Miss Elva McKnight Chief Deputy Clerk United States District Court Federal Building Charlotte, North Carolina B e: Swann vs Board of Education My dear Miss McKnight: On July 27, 1965 I filed with your office a designation of additional parts of the Becord on Appeal which included three maps showing school attendance areas. After Com municating with Mr. Chambers, I wish to withdraw the designation in so far as it applies to these three maps. I understand Mr. Chambers has agreed that we may stipu late outside of the record that either party may use the maps or refer to them in Briefs or argument without their presence as part of the record proper. Sincerely yours, / s / B rock B arkley Brock Barkley BB :mdb cc: Mr. J. LeVonne Chambers 158a Appellants, by their undersigned attorneys, respectfully move this Court for an injunction pending appeal, restrain ing appellee from continuing to make racial assignments of Negro students to the ten all-Negro schools and from refusing to include these schools within its plan for deseg regation of the public schools of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System, and, as grounds therefor, show the follow ing: 1. This action was initially filed by appellants on Janu ary 12, 1965, on behalf of themselves and others of their class seeking an order restraining appellee from continuing its policy and practice of operating the public schools of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System on a racially dis criminatory basis. Appellants alleged in their complaint that appellee School Board made racial assignments of students to the various schools, adopted geographical school zones for some schools which were gerrymandered accord ing to race, followed a practice of granting transfers to students in racially mixed schools based on race in viola tion of the Supreme Court’s decision in Goss v. Board, of Education, 373 U. S. 683, and made racial assignments of teachers and school personnel. 2. Appellants submitted interrogatories to appellee in February 1965; appellee moved the Court for extension of time to file answers to same through and including May 1, 1965 and was granted an extension of time until April 15, 1965. 3. Appellee adopted a plan of desegregation on March 11, 1965. The plan established geographical attendance areas for 99 of the 109 schools in the school system. Ten Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal 159a all-Negro schools were excepted from the plan. Appellee proposed to continue making racial assignments of Negro students to these schools, transferring Negro students, in many areas, across several white attendance zones for several miles to the ten excepted Negro schools, and per mitting these students to request transfer to other schools. The Negro students in the 10 excepted Negro schools con stitute one-fifth of the total Negro school population. 4. Because of the patent racially discriminatory practice with respect to the ten excepted Negro schools, appellants moved for a preliminary injunction on May 28, 1965, seek ing an order restraining assignment of students to these schools pending hearing of the cause on the merits. The motion for preliminary injunction was denied by the Dis trict Court on June 1, 1965. 5. On June 1, 1965, motion to intervene was filed by the North Carolina Teachers Association along with a Com plaint in Intervention challenging appellee’s racial assign ment of teachers and school personnel. 6. The cause came on for trial on July 12 and 13, 1965, upon stipulations of facts and oral testimony. Appellants introduced evidence showing the racially discriminatory practices of appellee in initially assigning the Negro stu dents to the ten excepted schools; that many of these students were being transferred across several white at tendance zones to the Negro schools; that in many instances Negro students were being bussed eight to ten miles; that the ten excepted Negro schools offered poorer facilities and curricula than comparable white schools in the area; that practically all of the Negro students in these schools Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal 160a could adequately be absorbed in the surrounding white schools without administrative problem to the School Board where better facilities and curricula are offered. Appellee offered evidence to the effect that plans for new school construction, which it felt would be completed in two years, would make it necessary to rezone the areas again and that it considered it educationally unsound to have to shift the students from one school to another. 7. Appellants also offered evidence to show that certain of the school district lines were racially gerrymandered and that teachers and school personnel were racially as signed. Appellee offered evidence to the contrary. 8. In an order, dated July 14, 1965, the District Court approved the plan submitted by appellee, except to amend the plan to require immediate nonracial assignment and employment of teachers and school personnel. The Court, recognizing this Court’s ruling in Wheeler v. Durham City Board of Education,------F.2d------- , 4th Cir. No. 9630, June 1, 1965, prohibiting initial racial assignments of students, nevertheless approved appellee’s racial assignments of Negro students to the ten excepted schools, reasoning that appellee did not contemplate this practice indefinitely. 9. Notice of appeal was filed below on July 15, 1965. 10. More than ten years have passed since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294. At this late date appellee proposes, and the District Court has accepted, a plan which provides for continued racial assignments of Negro students to ten of the one hundred and nine public schools in the school system by Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal 161a continuing the use of dual, overlapping attendance areas, a practice unequivocally reproved by this Court in 1962 in Wheeler v. Durham City Board of Education, 309 F.2d 630. See also Jeffers v. Whitley, 309 F.2d 621 (4th Cir. 1962); Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, 317 F.2d 429 (4th Cir. 1963); Bell v. School Board of Powhatan County, 321 F.2d 494 ( 4th Cir. 1963); Buchner v. County School Board of Greene County, 332 F.2d 452 ( 4th Cir. 1964). The District Court has approved this patently dis criminatory practice on the plea of additional time by appellee notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Griffin v. School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U. S. 218, (“The time for mere deliberate speed has run out” ) ; see also Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U. S. 263. To specific in quiries by the District Court whether appellee could dis continue these discriminatory practices at least by the beginning of the 1966-67 school term, appellee admitted that it could. Nevertheless, the District Court approved of continued racial assignment of Negro students to the ten excepted schools with no expressed time limitation imposed as to when these practices should cease. 11. The practice here approved by the District Court runs afoul of the minimum requirements of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare as steps that should be taken by school boards to continue receiving federal funds in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See General Statement of Policies Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Respecting Desegregation of Elementary and Secondary Schools, HEW, Office of Educa tion, April 1965, reprinted in Southern School News, May 1965, p. 8. Even such minimum steps as authorized in the Department’s Regulations are not accepted where, as here, Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal 162a administrative problems and circumstances would not pre vent the Board from going further in completely desegre gating the School System. Thus, despite the rulings of this Court prohibiting approval of the practices complained of herein (See, e.g., Wheeler v. Durham City Board of Educa tion, ------F .2d ------- , 4th Cir. No. 9630, June 1, 1965), the District Court here has invited by its ruling the type of Executive-Judicial conflict which the Fifth Circuit only recently in Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District,------F.2d------- , 5th Cir. No. 22,527, June 22, 1965, Price v. Denison Independent School District, ------ F.2d ------ , 5th Cir. No. 21,632, July 2, 1965, admonished the Dis trict Courts under its jurisdiction to avoid. 12. Appellants, and members of the class they represent, will be irreparably injured by the delay necessarily at tendant upon their appeal from the judgment of the District Court. Despite prompt dispatch of this appeal, it is unlikely that decision can be had prior to the beginning of the 1965-66 school year. Thus, unless this Court issues an in junction pending appeal, securing the rights of appellants which are firmly established by decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court, appellants, and those of their class, will continue to suffer irreparable injury without any legal justification. There will be no comparable injury to appellee by the issuance of the requested injunction. 13. The granting of this motion is necessary in aid of this Court’s jurisdiction and to preserve the effectiveness of any orders to be entered if appellants prevail upon appeal, and there is every likelihood that appellants will ultimately prevail upon appeal, the material facts being undisputed and the law applicable to these facts being settled. Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal 163a W h e r e f o r e , appellants pray that this Court will issue an injunction restraining appellee from making initial racial assignments of Negro students to the ten all-Negro schools excepted from appellee’s plan of geographical assignments and from refusing to include these schools within its plan of desegregation of the public school system. Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal 164a Order On yesterday the plaintiffs-appellants filed with the Clerk in Richmond a motion for an injunction pending appeal, and a supporting brief. Copies of the motion and brief were mailed to the attorney for the School Board on August 20 and received by him on yesterday, August 23. The papers and the record on appeal reached me in my chambers in Greenville, South Carolina, this morning, August 24. It appears from the record and papers that the initial assignments in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, school system are generally on a geographic basis. How ever, 10 of the 109 schools in the system are excepted. The pupils assigned to those schools are in areas which are included within the attendance zones of other schools. All pupils attending those 10 schools are given an unre stricted right, upon application, to transfer out. The School Board offered as an explanation of its failure to have zoned the 10 schools, that it began its zoning pro gram in 1963, when certain zones were established, and the number of zones was extended in 1964. Of the 10 remaining unzoned schools, the Board contended that it had plans to phase out some of them and to establish attendance zones for the remainder but doing so, it contended, was dependent in part upon the progression of the construction program which had been undertaken. Assignments for the school year 1965-66 on the basis of zones established for those 10 schools in general, contended the Board, would result in a second transfer of the pupils in the school year 1966-67 or 1967-68 at the latest, a result which the School Board thought undesirable. The District Court approved the School Board’s plan, stating that it found substantial evidence that the School Board was proceeding reasonably and in good faith. 165a Order The District Court’s order was dated July 14, 1965 and the notice of appeal was filed on July 15, 1965. The motion for an injunction pending appeal asks that the School Board be required to establish attendance zones for the 10 schools for which attendance zones have not yet been established. In a letter from counsel for the plaintiffs, an early hearing is requested while counsel for the School Board requests leave to prepare and file a response to the motion. I assume that the plaintiffs’ request for an early hearing is made in the expectation that an injunction pending the appeal might be issued in time to be effective for the school year 1965-66. It seems impossible, however, that an injunc tive order might be framed in time to be effected and com plied with during the first semester of the pending school year. I am informed that the teachers will report tomorrow, August 25, and that the pupils will report for the opening of school on Friday, August 27. Even with so little time, if it were a matter of the allowance of voluntary transfers, something might be done, but when the relief sought is the creation of attendance zones and a geographic reassign ment of pupils in accordance with them, the School Board would need a substantial amount of time to comply with an injunctive order after it was informed of its terms. If an order were issued in accordance with the motion therefor, it would result in a postponement of the opening of the schools or in a rather wholesale reassignment of the pupils in midsemester. Either consequence is undesirable from the standpoint of all the pupils concerned. Bearing in mind the fact that each of the pupils assigned to the 10 schools involved has been given an opportunity to transfer out, I think the motion does not call for precipitate 166a Order action which, if the requested relief should be granted, would be so disruptive to the school system. After consultation with my brother, Judge J. Spencer Bell who lives in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and who has authorized me to say that he shares the views herein expressed, I have concluded that a hearing on the motion should be postponed until the hearing on the merits. The hearing of the case will be advanced to the earliest possible session following the filing of briefs and the parties will have leave in their briefs to address themselves to the motion as well as to the merits. I t is so o r d e r e d . August 24, 1965 C l e m e n t F. H a y n s w o r t h , Jr. Chief Judge, Fourth Circuit 167a Dr. A. C r a ig P h i l l i p s , having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: Direct Examination by Mr. Chambers: Q. Will you state your name and occupation for the purpose of the record! A. A. Craig Phillips, Superin tendent of Schools, Charlotte-Meeklenburg Board of Education. Q. Do you also serve as secretary to the Charlotte- Meeklenburg Board of Education! A. I do. Q. How long have you been in the capacity of super intendent of schools! A. Completing my third year. This is three years. Q. That would mean you started as superintendent in 1962! A. I became superintendent July 1, 1962. Q. Were you serving with the Board of Education in any capacity prior to that time! A. From May 1st until July 1st I was employed by the Board of Education with out title to succeed Dr. Elmer G-arringer. I am not sure of the technical position. I was released from Winston- Salem to come here. July 1st was the effective date. Q. That was July 1, 1962? A. Yes. Q. In coming to the school system, would you of your own knowledge know whether the Board at that time was — 3— making assignments of all pupils in the school system according to race? A. I had no direct knowledge prior to coming to the school system of any basic policy of the system. Q. Beginning with the 1962-63 school year, would you say the Board at that time made assignment of pupils according to race? A. It was my understanding upon — 2— Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 168a assuming the role of superintendent in 1962 that the Board of Education of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools was going under the rules and regulations adopted undei the Pupil Assignment Act of the State of North Carolina. Q. That required, did it not, at least for pupils in school, that they be re-assigned back to the school they were at tending the previous school year? A. This is correct, yes. Q. Did it not also require that pupils who were enroll ing in schools for the first time, would be assigned as pupils were assigned previously, that is negro to negro schools and white to white schools? A. This is correct. Q. In other words, would you say that beginning with the 1962-63 school year with which you are familiar, there had been no basic change in the manner and method of assigning students except for the adoption of legislation by the North Carolina Assignment Act? A. Yes, there —4— had been a basic change. The change was in the—no change in concept of the initial assignment; the change came about in recognition of a request for change of assign ment, that assignment being approved where a child was living in an area served by the school to which he was requesting attendance. This was a basic change. I don’t know how far back it went but I assume back to— Q. Considering the initial assignment, how was the change— A. No change in initial assignment. The change came in recognition of a request for change of assignment by the individual. Q. That is the request for re-assignment? A. That's correct. Q. And this was only the policies adopted by the North Carolina Pupil Enrollment Act; that is recognition of the rights to transfer from one school to another following Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 169a initial assignment by the Board of Education? A. I think this is reflected in the local rules and regulations which was based on permissible concept of the Act. Q. Do you know of your own knowledge when those rules and regulations were adopted? A. No I don’t. It can be checked in the record. Mr. Barkley: You are talking about 1962 now? Mr. Chambers: 1962-63. A. Repeat that again please? — 5 — Q. The local rules regarding the right to transfer be ginning with the 1962-63 school year. A. This didn’t begin with the 1962-63 school year. It was my assump tion, although I have no first hand knowledge, not being here, that this began with 1957 recognition of the request of change of assignment. I believe this was the correct year. Q. Do you recall the criteria established by the Board in its policy covering applications of transfer? A. I wasn’t here at that time. Q. Do you recall the policy or criteria was established with the 1962-63 year? A. The administrative work which was my responsibility, was based upon the fact of residence of the youngsters applying for change of assign ment. Q. Was there any criteria or standard used? A. None to my knowledge. Q. When was the first time a negro was assigned by the Mecklenburg Board of Education to a formerly all white school? A. I don’t know quite how to answer it in that the two systems were separate systems. Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 170a Q. Had the Mecklenburg Board of Education made any assignments of negro students to formerly all white schools prior to September, 1962 ? A. Yes. Of my know ledge I don’t know exactly when or what schools but this is in the record somewhere I am sure. Q. Had the Charlotte School Board made any assign ment of negro students to a formerly all white school? A. When tailing about the Mecklenburg County unit, this was the Mecklenburg County unit that consolidated. I had no contact with the former Mecklenburg unit nor the hariotte city ttttt. Upon consolidation the consolidated -• -o-m vc- known in hs drst stages as tie Meekienfruig tunny ~mir. her me get ~ms -viigrir. When was tie ii-ecnemurg ' runrr 3«>ari ir Education md h e City if Charistm Ifc w l r f TKfhm iffre u n iiltm ft mm- mtmgpUS JL. ’g fe mSmamB taste ttc- h .“ 1 796Z x r I a> not knew tmir if ar~ rwn Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips ... 3' w m nr s m m k ~ u r « n iairdeaE. in- wt l e s a i u r p l a ® t Joani i f t» hat rnsse m An 3*css“»~ la? e w- sirw iae 'e e t r t g 3 E f t b t s n s : w e - 3 B K is s z - j * g - S 2 S * £ - tae aaesanm msrrs- «f da* -Itf- - *f 35s*cresa; i f usem tse s rrrwr t* -Aek A.. A*r£ ices? u s e r jBTrtttwiw: * « * « -raiis*. I r i f e 1~- c haafit^ saswot as i&. ISssemi «s S a n i aimtuSBaagys. : dfc- f i r <r bisvr.-tt > e » > 4B3s$e- uss M B isne- JoeiB * u»t -jjaty nscss: 171a years and years, been under the- jurisdiction of an agency of the state known as the Mecklenburg County Board of Education. These two were separate administrative school units. As of July 1, 1962, the two were consolidated so to speak but actually the former, or the Mecklenburg County Board of Education took over all of the City schools and the Board of School Commissioners of the City of Charlotte, the charter creating them, was repealed and it continued as the Mecklenburg County Board of Education until about 1961 when an act of the legislature changed the name to the Charlotte-Meeklenburg Board of Education. Q. Xow Dr. Phillips, let me retract a moment and ask a question I probably asked a moment ago. Do you know of your own knowledge, whether prior to 1960 the Meck lenburg County Board of Education had made any assign ment of negro students to a formerly all white school? A. Xo, I don’t know that. Q. Do you know of your knowledge, whether prior to 1960 the Board of School Commissioners of the City of Charlotte had made any assignment of negro students to a formerly all white school! A. Only by hearsay. Q. Beginning with the school year 1962-63. were any negroes assigned to or re-assigned to formerly all white schools? A. I have to check the records. I dont know how to answer that. There were some negro youngsters in predominantly white schools, but how many I don’t know. Q. Do you know of your own knowledge which schools presently existing in the school system were formerly Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 172a under the Mecklenburg County Board of Education? A. Yes. Q. Would you list these schools? A. I do not know right off the construction date of a few of the newest. Alexander Graham, Jr. I don’t know whether that was built before the consolidation or after. This is a two year span of time in here of consolidation. Bain, Berryhill, Briarwood, Clear Creek, Collinswood, Cornelius, Cotswold, Crestdale, Davidson, Derits, East Mecklenburg, J. H. Gunn, Hickory Grove, Hoskins, Huntersville, Idlewild, Ada —9— Jenkins, Landsdowne, Long Creek, Matthews, McClintock, Montclaire, Nation’s Ford, Newell, North Mecklenburg, Oakdale, Oakhurst, Paw Creek, Pineville, Pinewood, Plato Price, Sharon, Smith, South, Statesville Road, Steele Creek, Sterling, Thomasboro, Torrence-Lytle, West Meck lenburg, Wilson, Windsor Park, Woodland. To the best of my knowledge, that’s all of them. Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether the schools not named as formerly being under the Mecklen burg County Board of Education were formerly under the jurisdiction of the Board of School Commissioners of the City of Charlotte? A. Yes, with the exception of those built since the time of consolidation to the best of my knowledge. Q. And you do not know at this time which schools were or have been built since the time of consolidation? A. I can give you a list of them, of the ones that have been. It may have to be researched. Q. Do you know of your own knowledge, whether begin ning with the 1962-63 school year, teachers and school personnel were assigned according to race? A. They were assigned according to race, yes. Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 173a Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether the school budget or extra-curricular school activities and all school planning were designed on the basis of race? That is you planned the budget for West Charlotte High School on the basis it was a negro school? A. We don’t —10- budget by schools to start with so the total budget was always planned without regard to race directly. There was no implication of race in the budget as I understand your question. We do not budget school by school. Q. Were extra-curricular activities planned on the basis of race? A. Yes, so far as athletics are concerned they have been on the basis of race since 1962 to my know ledge, yes. Q. In effect then, the basic change or only change that existed in the school system beginning with the 1962-63 school year, was that the Board had adopted the plan which would permit the student to request and be re-as signed after the initial assignments by the Board? A. This was change in assignment. You need to re-phrase your question for me. Q. You stated that the Board beginning with 1962 or prior to 1962, and certainly with the 1962-63 school year, made initial assignments according to the same procedure they followed in prior years, is that correct? A. I indi cated they were working under the rules and regulations adopted under the Pupil Assignment Act. Q. And this was according to the race of the pupil? A. The initial assignment, yes. — 11— Q. And you had adopted the plan which would permit Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 174a the student to request and be re-assigned after the initial assignment! A. Yes. (Discussion off the record) Q. Are you saying Dr. Phillips, that beginning with 1962-63, that you had instituted a policy of assigning some students according to a unified geographical line! A. Yes. The Bethune School was the first instance of setting of geographical lines around a school and every child in the school district being assigned to it. Q. And although not positive, you think this began in 1962-63! A. That’s correct. Q. With the exception of that change which you think began in 1962-63, was there any other change that the Board had adopted relative to desegregation of the public schools of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg system! A. A num ber of things can be listed. Professional workshops, prin cipals, staff, all meetings of professional personnel were on an integrated basis. I can’t go back before 1962-63. I don’t know for a fact, but starting 1962-63 I know of my own knowledge staff meetings of all sorts were on an integrated basis. Q. Is there any other change whatsoever—any other change at that time! A. Summer school programs for —12— that summer were on an integrated basis, both pupil as signment and staff. Q. Beginning 1963! A. That would be the summer of ’63, yes. I could ascertain for sure about the summer of 1962. I believe that there was some integration in the summer program that summer but I can’t say for a fact. I am not absolutely sure. I do know in 1963 both staff Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 175a and pupils integrated in certain phases of the summer program. Q. You are stating that you believe there was some integration in the summer program in 1962? A. Yes. Q. And you know of your own knowledge that the sum mer school program for 1963 was integrated, both student and staff? A. That’s right. Q. Was there any other change in the system? A. We talked about pupils, we talked about teachers, staff, programs. I don’t know of any other area we haven’t covered. No, not to my knowledge. Q. Beginning with the 1963-64 school year, was there any basic difference or change in the method for assign ing students to the various schools? A. Yes, it was in this school year that the number of schools geographically established was increased. I think these numbers are in —13— the record, I believe to 12 officially. Q. Did you draw lines on the school maps with respect to these 12 schools for assigning students? A. Yes, lines were drawn to establish the geographical areas. These were not officially adopted but they were in the pupil as signment office and were adhered to. Q. Do you have copies of these maps presently avail able? A. No, not to my knowledge. They probably can be ferreted out of some of the old files. (Discussion off the record) Q. In the 1963-64 school year, did you still pursue a policy of permitting students after initial assignment, to request re-assignment to another school? A. Yes. Q. What criteria did you follow in that year to govern applications for transfer? A. No. 1, the Pupil Assign Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 176a ment Act, the so-called safety valve provision of the Pupil Assignment Act which was also part of the rules and regulations of the Board of Education was used as one criteria. A child not desiring to attend a school where there was racial mixing, could request assignment to an other school. The request for a specific school was not automatic. It was a matter of whether there was space available. Another criteria we used was typically emo- — 14— tional problems, transportation problems, hardship prob lems. These are the best descriptive terms I can use and these were pursued on the individual basis and evaluated by the staff and recommendations made to the Board of Education and acted upon officially by the Board of Education. There were administrative decisions based on normal recognized criteria such as emotional problems. These were done under the power provided the super intendent by the Board. Q. Did you permit the student who was assigned to a school in which his race was in the majority or entirely composed of members of his race, to transfer to another school! A. Say that again. Q. Did you permit the negro student who was assigned to a school that was predominantly or entirely negro, to transfer to another school! A. You’ve got two different questions there. There’s a difference between predominantly and entirely. Q. Did you permit a student in a school entirely negro, to transfer to another school? A. Depending on the re quest or reason. ' Q. How could he transfer? A. By request for assign ment. Q. Could he set out for instance, he wanted to go to an Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 177a integrated school! A. This reason was given but not —15— used as a basis of approval. Q. You mean the school board would deny an applicant setting out that as a reason? A. Yes. Q. Did you apply this same criteria to a negro student in a school predominantly negro? A. If he based his request on not wanting to attend a racially mixed school. Q. The situation where a negro student assigned by the Board to a school predominantly negro, who wanted to transfer to a school which might be predominantly white, could he indicate as a basis of the request for transfer, that he wanted to attend an integrated school and be transferred? A. He could indicate it, yes. I think you have to take the individual case because they are handled on the individual case. Q. Would that be a valid basis for transfer—that he wanted to attend an integrated school? A. It was not approved on that basis, that’s correct. Q. Would the same thing apply to a white student— that is in a school entirely white in attendance, that wanted to be transferred to a school that was predominantly or entirely negro? A. Yes. I don’t know of a case but it would have been treated the same way if it happened. (Discussion off the record) —16— Q. Dr. Phillips, did your same policy covering assign ments of faculty members and school personnel prevail in 1963-64? A. Yes. Let me qualify. I am not exactly sure when the first—I guess the bible teacher was the first place where a teacher of one race taught at least part of the time in a school of another race, serving youngsters Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 178a of another race. I am not sure this occurred in 1963-64, but I think it did. The summer school is the only place where teachers of both races taught youngsters either in mixed groups or solely one race or the other. Q. You had the same policy as you stated existed in 1963 summer school, in the 1964 summer school1? That is, students assigned without regard to race? A. Yes. Q. And faculty members assigned without regard to race? A. Yes. Q. Did your same policy governing extra-curricular school activities apply in 1963-64? That is extra-curricular activities planned and adopted according to the composi tion of the school? A. Basically this is correct. There were begun some activities which involved both negro youngsters and white youngsters, some mixed groups participating together, some meetings of student council officers together—this type of thing was begun in the 1963- —17— 64 term. Now we are talking about students here. * * * * * —19— * * * * * Q. Did you make any change in the method governing request for transfer in 1964-65? A. No, the same basic criteria. Q. The same practice you followed in 1963-64 covered 1964-65? A. That’s correct. Q. Did you make any change in the method of assigning- teachers and school personnel in 1964-65? A. During the school year of 1964-65, which is the year we find ourselves in now, I think the figure is eight white teachers are teach ing in either predominantly negro or full negro schools Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 179a serving the full negro population or predominantly negro. We have the actual dates of assignment. They could be made available to you. This is a teacher at West Charlotte - 20- Senior High School teaching English, a white teacher up at Second Ward teaching science, two elementary teachers at Wesley Heights, a teacher splitting time between East Mecklenburg Senior High and West Charlotte Senior High School. Bible teachers teaching North and Torrency-Lytle; this is a white teacher. Counsellors at Ervin Avenue Junior High School and staff people, a speech therapist, corrective reading. I don’t have any counting of young sters but supervisory people working with both white and negroes. These are the changes taken place during this school year. Driver education teaching at West Mecklen burg and Second Ward. Q. Did you have any negro teacher in the academic field teaching in a predominantly white school? A. Not in the regular term. Q. This negro driver you say is where? A. West Meck lenburg. Its a regular Second Ward. This is behind the wheel training. Q. Did you have any negro teacher or supervisor work ing any of the white or predominantly white schools? A. The co-ordinators for the system work with all teachers and this relates direct to youngsters. Our co-ordinating personnel because of shift in responsibility are working on a system-wide basis and without regard to race. We have no one at the director level of the negro race. We have no one at the assistant superintendent level of the - 21- negro race but all of our staff people are working on a system-wide basis. Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 180a Q. Did you, in the school year 1963-64, turn down any application for transfer on the basis that the school was overcrowded! A. In 1963-64 on the basis of being over crowded? I don’t know. I would have to check the actual records. Q. Do you recall of your own knowledge, whether in 1964-65 you turned down any applicant for transfer on the basis the school was overcrowded? A. I don’t know. I would say this would be a basis for turning down as signment and I would have to check the individual records but it would be one of the basic criteria for not assigning a youngster to a particular school. Actually, the assign ment policy provides for request for change of assign ment from a school and did not necessarily carry with it a request for assignment to a school. The Board re served the right to assign to a school that was most appropriate for that particular case. This would be a basic factor in assignment. Q. Do you mean if a student who was assigned to an integrated school, indicated that he wanted to go to an other school, that he would merely request assignment from a school and you would assign him to a segregated - 22- - school? A. That’s correct. Normally the individual indi cates the request. I am sure this happened but I don’t know of any specific case. Q. Do you know of your own knowledge that you have schools today that are overcrowded? A. Yes, a number of schools. Q. You don’t know of your own knowledge which schools those are, do you? A. We have a number of overcrowded situations and we can take them school by school. We are Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 181a working right now on some deficiencies of normal capac ity—been working at it for years. Q. You don’t know of your own knowledge whether you can say today you have some schools that are overcrowded? A. Yes we do have some that are overcrowded. Q. You don’t know of your own knowledge which schools those are? A. I can’t give you a complete list at this moment, no. Q. What basis do you use to determine whether a school is overcrowded? A. I was going to ask you to define what’s ‘overcrowded’. We have no specific routine defini tion of an overcrowded school at this point, no, if that’s what you are asking. We are working on that. —23— Q. You stated you constructed some schools since 1960 following consolidation. Did you, in the planning of those schools, decide how many students these schools would be able to hold or adequately accommodate? A. Yes. Q. Did you know whether the schools that you brought into the system with the merger, had a number of students that the schools were able to accommodate? A. I don’t have any knowledge of this because I wasn’t here when they merged. Q. When you came into the system in 1962-63, were you able to determine the number of students each school was able to accommodate? A. I don’t have a direct knowledge of a listing of specific activities, no. Q. There was some limit on the number of students? A. I think normal limits, yes. Q. And you had some figure or estimated figure on that? A. Yes. Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 182a Q. That is with respect to each school ? A. Yes. Q. And that’s the same thing today? You have some idea of the number you can adequately accommodate? A. That’s correct. —24— Q. What do you mean in your plan for governing assign ments of next year—rated capacity of each school? A. The best definition I can give you of rated capacity is a formal statement of capacity and this would be based on the best guess we have as to spaces and this would be square foot spaces, actual teaching spaces, how much multi purpose space or the larger library, etc., would affect the total capacity of a school and the Board has in its rules and regulations, instructed the staff to recommend a listing of rated capacities and the Board anticipates a normal capacity for each school which would be based on the spaces that are available. Q. You indicate that this space you are talking about is going to take into consideration both spaces in class rooms as well as spaces for other facilities of the school. A. That’s right from the elementary to junior high to senior high and also have some relation to the number of pupils to a teacher. Q. How does the rated capacity differ from the planned pupil capacity that we requested information concerning in the interrogatories? A. I am not sure what your actual question was, but I assume planned pupil capacity is the same as rated capacity. Its in the plan that’s been written. The limits as drawn would be presently above the rated - 2 5 - capacity. Rated capacity would be a base figure of normal Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 183a capacity and in any school there’s a certain need for flexion in terms of some overage. * * * * * Q. You stated in the interrogatories, your answers to the interrogatories that in drawing these school zone lines you used as a basis the natural land marks and streets or creeks, safety factors and travel between school and home and the area which could be most conveniently and effi ciently served by the particular school and location of the particular residential district with relation to a particular school. Did you also use the capacity of the school1? A. Our normal understood capacity, yes. Q. So you did use the capacity of the school in drawing the line? A. Normal capacity, yes. There’s a difference —26— between general understood capacity. This has always been a factor in the establishment of lines. Q. Did you also consider the number of students that would be in a particular area? A. In a general way, yes. Q. Did you have some idea about the number of students involved in each district? A. Of a general nature, yes. Q. And the committee that prepared this would have some idea also of the number of students involved in each dis trict? A. There’s no listing of any specific number of youngsters in an area. Q. Do you have any idea of the racial composition of a particular district? A. No. Q. How did you form the idea or opinion about the normal capacity of the school? A. Just as you read there, the normal area that would be served. I am not sure what you want. Q. You stated you used as a criteria in the drafting of a Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 184a school zone lines, the normal capacity of the particular school? A. Yes. Q. Therefore you had some idea about the number of - 2 7 - students that the school could serve. You also stated you used the general idea of the number of students within the particular district. A. That’s right. Q. I was asking you—did you form the opinion, or what information you used to form the opinion of the general number of students in the particular district. You have to have some idea about the number of students in the district. A. The normal pattern of the school serves the area that’s been there. There have been very few actual changes in lines on your maps if you look at them when you get them. Actually the number involved was an estimate from the standpoint of what school has been serving in the past and changes in the area, etc. that went with it. Q. You would have some idea generally at least, about the number of negroes in each particular district, would you not? A. You would have to define your concept of ‘some idea’. In the three years I ’ve been here I have some knowledge of the residential patterns of Mecklenburg County and the distribution of racial patterns as part of this knowledge, but not specifically in terms of the number of youngsters of a school area. We had some history of this in setting up geographical areas in 1963-64 and 1964-65. —28— Q. You say 1963-64 and 1964-65? A. Yes, the geograph ical areas set up. Q. You have these available also? A. In the official state record and I would have to check the comptroller’s office on this. Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 185a Q. Would your satistics show the number of districts used for 1964-65, the number of negro and white students! A. Aren’t these reflected in these statistics! Q. Would they reflect or do you have statistics of the number of negro and white students in the district for 1963-64! A. I suspect it can be compiled from the records. Q. You said that the 1965-66 plan with respect to the lines does not differ materially from the 1964-65, is that correct! A. I said there weren’t any major changes in large numbers. There are some changes in lines because of the first paragraph in the attendance area plan that was set out, but we won’t have any actual statistics on racial distribution unless we are required to count these upon the initial assignment of the youngsters in the area. You studied the pattern and know the basis upon which young sters will be initially assigned this coming year under this policy. If we are required to make a record of the numbers of negroes and white youngsters, this will be possible but we don’t intend to keep our records on that basis. —29— Q. One might say generally though, that you had approx imately the same number of negro and white students at tending integrated schools excluding requests for re-assign ment as you have this year! A. No, I think a study of the basic residential area would indicate no change in the num ber of lines with the residential areas which are basically negro in the same areas and basically white. I don’t have any direct specific information. Q. You said there has been some change, however minor, in the lines that existed for the 1965-66 school year! A. I didn’t use the word ‘minor’. # * * • # Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 186a * * * * * Q. What white school personnel serves the area of - 4 2 - Sterling School! A. The overlapping districts, since Sterl ing is grade 1 through 12, would include Pineville Ele mentary School, Nation’s Ford Elementary School, Quail Hollow Junior High, Smith Junior High School, South Mecklenburg Senior High School. I believe this is all in cluded in that area. Q. What about Torrence-Lyttlef A. It would serve grades 1 to 12 and overlaps the areas served starting at North Mecklenburg Senior High, Alexander and Ranson Junior High Schools, Huntersville, Long Creek, Statesville Road, Derita, Oakdale Elementary Schools. I believe that’s all. Q. And J. H. Gunn? A. J. H. Gunn School which serves grades 1 through 12 overlaps areas served by Garringer Senior High School, East Mecklenburg Senior High School, Cochran Junior High School, Clear Creek Elementary School. That’s grades 1 to 7. Part of Matthews grades 1 through 9. Eastway Junior High School, Idlewild Ele mentary School, Wonderfield, Hickory Grove, Windsor Park, Newell, Briarwood, Plaza Road, Shamrock Gardens, Merry Oaks, McClintock Junior High. Q. York Road Junior-Senior? A. York Road Junior- Senior High School overlaps with Harding Senior High, West Mecklenburg Senior High, Myers Park Senior High, Smith Junior High, Spaugh Junior High, Sedgefield Junior High. Q. And Plato Price and Billingsville ? A. Plato Price grades 1 to 9 overlaps Wilson Junior High, Colwood Junior Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips —41— 187 a High, Tuckaseg'ee Elementary, Berryhill, Thomasboro, Hoskins and Barringer. Q. And Billingsville ? A. Only the Junior High School. The elementary school does not overlap. The Junior High School overlaps Alexander Graham and McClintock. Q. You have four elementary schools that will not he affected and perhaps you can—Ada Jenkins. . . . A. Ada Jenkins overlaps Davidson and Cochran; Amay James with Barringer. Q. And Woodlawn? A. Amay James may overlap with Berryhill and Woodlawn overlaps with Paw Creek, Tucka- segee and part of Oakdale. * * # * # —48— * * * # * Q. With respect to transportation in the areas where the schools are not affected by the school zone lines or new school zone lines recently adopted by the Board, how have the children there been transported by the bus, pursuant to dual system of bus transportation—that is negro busses for negro students and white busses for white children? A. In the schools serving overlapping areas, there have been overlapping routes, yes. Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether this same system will be continued for the 1965-66 year! A. Only in the 9 exception areas listed here would there be any existing dual transportation. Q. With respect to these nine areas, you will have a continuation of negro busses for negro students? A. By necessity, by the busses serving these schools, going to those schools will be, yes. Q. With respect to the Crestdale school, what happens Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 188a to the junor and high school student next year? A. These will follow the same feeder pattern that they have followed without change in accordance with the exceptions and these - 4 9 - will have assignment to Gunn Junior High. Q. And Gunn is a negro school? A. Yes. Q. And this is the feeder system you followed prior to 1964? A. Right, but its geared for in the exceptions set out. Q. And does this same thing apply to the other schools? That is, do you propose to continue until you discontinue those schools? A. Which school are you talking about? Q. Let us consider Sterling High School. You state here though that the high school students I guess will be as signed according to the attendance area in which they re side. A. Rising tenth graders since the Sterling High School has been discontinued, will be assigned to a school serving the area in which they live. The majority which live in the South Mecklenburg area and a few in the York Road Senior High, the majority will be assigned. Q. What about the Woodland Elementary School? A. The rising seventh graders, most of them feed into at present, into the Plato Price Junior High School program. A few, I am not sure whether any would feed into the north-west. Q. Is Plato Price an all negro school? A. It serves negro youngsters, yes. —50— Q. And the rising junior high students from Amay James Elementary school? A. That is one through four. The rising fifth grader from Amay James would be assigned initially on report card to Plato Price. Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 189a Q. And we stated Plato Price is a negro school1? A. Yes and this is taken care of in the exceptions. Q. And the person completing grades at Ada Jenkins Elementary School? A. Actually we are proposing to move the seventh grade youngsters who have been as signed, the rising seventh who would have been assigned back to Ada Jenkins, grade 1 through 7, its our hope that those seventh graders will have initial assignments—I plan they be initially assigned to Torrence-Lyttle pending the completion of the exception but the rising eighth grader would initially be assigned to Torrence-Lyttle, that’s cor rect. Q. And Torrence-Lyttle is an all negro school? A. Cor rect. Q. What about the person completing grades at Plato Price Junior High? A. The rising tenth grader coming from Plato Price would be normally assigned to the York Road Senior High School. There are a few youngsters at Plato Price right now being assigned to West Charlotte — 5 1 - Senior High School. This would continue pending the completion of the exceptions. Q. And both of these senior highs that you mentioned are negro schools? A. Yes. Q. And the rising junior at York Road Junior-Senior High would go to the senior high pending the completion of the project? A. That’s right. Q. And the rising senior from Billingsville? A. Would be assigned to the Myers Park Junior High School. Q. And the Myers Park school is a predominantly white school? A. Its serving both white and negro, yes, and has been for a number of years. I would like to correct Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 190a one word in there—will attend or will go to, actually will be initially assigned to. Q. To make it clear in the record, this feeder policy that you just described, with the exception of the student leaving Billingsville going to Myers Park, was the feeder policy you followed prior to 1954, or certainly the policy you followed at the time you assumed the job? A. Yes. I wouldn’t speak for around 1954. Q. Was it the policy you followed at the time you be came superintendent? A. Yes. —52— Q. Dr. Phillips, could you briefly describe the condi tion of these nine schools that are left out of this plan? Are they in any way comparable to the white or pre dominantly white schools in the area? A. Let’s be specific. In what category? Can we take various categories? How do you measure schools? Are you talking about physically, about the teaching faculty, student achievement? Q. Can we consider the over-all plant and program at these schools and get an opinion from you of the program offered by the particular school in comparison with the white schools in the area? A. I don’t know how much detail you want. This would be the same thing if we took the 109 and tried to compare. Let me see if I can give you a general statement on it. I think you see the problem and each one is different. Let me make a general statement first. From the stand point of physical facilities, the facilities in the nine schools that are listed in the exceptions, with the possible excep tion of Crestdale, and even this when its compared with Hoskins and the Dilworth at this point is not vastly different in its physical facilities. Leave Crestdale out for just a minute. Basically physical facility-wide, the Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 191a Woodland and Plato Price, the Amay James, the Ada —53— Jenkins, Torrence-Lyttle, compare favorably with other schools of similar age in the school system and there is no differential here because of any racial factor that’s involved. This is physically. Program-wise the limita tions at the senior high school are directly related to the enrollment and this is the very factor that prompted the Board of Education to begin two years ago with this avowed plans to eliminate the Union School from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system. This is a matter of public record that this was established prior to the court’s decision. The senior high school limitation there for Sterling of course has been closed up this year. This was the smallest of the three. Torrence-Lyttle is the largest. On the basis of standards of size in other school systems in North Carolina and states like Nebraska, its larger than a majority of high schools in terms of number right now, yet the Board in its consideration of quality based on numbers of youngsters available for course offerings, has identified Torrence-Lyttle as one of the senior high schools that should be closed. Gunn is in a similar position, yet smaller than Torrence-Lyttle. Junior high school-wise, I think the same general statement applies with three junior highs involved plus Plato Price. We are not satisfied and have not been with split between the—well, with the alignment of the fifth through the - 5 4 - ninth grade at Plato Price. This is the basis again of the elimination of it in the exceptions. Limitation in course offerings come by limitations in number. Billingsville falls into this category and this is one of the basis of the plan that began two years ago for the creation of Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 192a the junior high schools to serve that general area. Ele mentary-wise, the elementary schools involved here, program-wise have the same class loads and some maybe lesser loads and this shows up in the total analysis in the materials so there’s no need to go into that. There’s no differential from the standpoint of numbers of young sters and the materials that are available. * * * * # —64— * * * * * Q. Dr. Phillips, do you have from any prior history in the administration of the school, any idea of the hous ing pattern of the particular district or families within the particular district which you might have used or con sidered in the drawing of the school zone line! A. Yes. Q. And this was a factor was it not, in the drawing or consideration in the drawing of the particular school zone lines! A. A general knowledge of the number of youngsters anticipated in a school district rvas a factor and always has been a factor in the drawing of the lines. * * * * * Deposition of Dr. A. Craig Phillips 193a Transcript of Proceedings # # # # * # Court: Do you wish to make an opening statement in this case, gentlemen, for the plaintiffs or for defendant? Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. Your Honor, this is a suit filed by Negro plaintiffs seeking to have enjoined specifically the assignment of students in the school system according to racially gerry mandered school zone lines, the use of a transfer system which permits or permitted students to transfer out of a school that was integrated to a school that was segregated, and the assignment of teachers and school personnel on a racial basis. The complaint in this action was filed on January 19, 1965, and the defendant filed an answer to the complaint on February 5, 1965, denying some of the allega- —9— tions in the complaint and the specific allegations to which I referred and asserting that it planned to adopt a plan that would eliminate some of the practices to which we referred. We filed a motion following the answers filed by the defendant to interrogatories filed by plaintiff in which the defendant enclosed a plan which it had adopted to eliminate what we alleged were the discriminatory practices it followed in the past requested that the Court preliminarily enjoin the assignment of Negro students to attend excepted schools as set out in the plan. This mo tion was disallowed and the cause now is before the Court on the merits in which we plan to show that the lines as drawn by the defendant in the plan submitted and the maps which it has filed with us have been drawn so as either to keep out of some of the schools in the school system Negro students or white students which would, if properly drawn, integrate some of the schools in the school system or integrate them more fully. We plan to show secondly that the School Board still has not eliminated its —8— 194a racially discriminatory assignment of teachers and school personnel and, thirdly, that the School Board has excepted without reason or just cause ten Negro schools in the school system. We plan to show that, there being no basis for the exceptions, that the School Board should be or dered to integrate immediately these ten excepted Negro schools. That is the contentions of the plaintiffs and the proposed order of proof. — 10— Mr. Barkley: If the Court pleases, I ’d like to call atten tion of the Court to the fact that they brought this action in January on the basis of the organization of the school system at that time. They asked for an immediate tem porary preliminary injunction. We filed an answer in which we set forth that since the previous October the defendant had been extensively engaged in the develop ment of its plan of complete integration through an ex tension of its geographic zones, quite a number of which it had established as far back as three years ago. The plaintiffs have called on us for a great mass of statistical matter. We would like to suggest that this is an action for an injunction, that it is seeking equitable relief here. As I understand it, an injunction acts presently and prospectively and what might have gone on heretofore in this school system is not material to the main issues of this case except as it may show motive on the part of the defendant, either good or bad. We propose to show and we contend that those lines on the map are not gerrymandered, that where some of them may appear irregular there are good reasons for that appearance and that in most cases where they do appear irregular they are not in areas of the city or county where to change them would have any effect on the enroll Defendant’s Opening Statement 195a ment of any child in any Negro school who is a white person or any Negro in a white school by reason of that change. — 11— We expect to show and we have a map here for that purpose that the City of Charlotte in particular is very sharply segregated itself in that you get away from certain highly populated Negro areas and there is only a scattered Negro population in the remainder of the county and that complaints of gerrymandering should be considered in the light of not whether the lines are straight or not straight, or whether the school is in the middle of a zone or at the edge of a zone as well as that is prejudicial to the rights of the Negro pupil that the line should not be drawn that way regardless of that fact. We expect to show that this Board has a record of moving progressively towards compliance with the law, that actually we admitted the first Negro pupils in the old Charlotte City Schools in 1957, we have had Negroes in white schools at all times since then. In 1962 we began this plan of setting up geographically drawn zones and assigning all the pupils living within that zone to the school serving the zone regardless of residence. We ex tended those zones in ’63 and again in ’64. I believe at the end of ’64 out of the hundred schools then—there have been schools added since that to 105—that we had com pletely rezoned about 60 or 70 of the schools. At the time this suit was brought and to the knowledge — 12— of the plaintiffs, we contend, the Board was engaged in the development of this new assignment policy. We did complete a completely new assignment policy embodied in the new regulations adopted in March of this year. We think that the plan is as fair as it is possible to make a Defendant’s Opening Statement 196a plan. I don’t understand the position of the opposition in some respects, whether they don’t like the geographical zoning system, whether they think we should have initial free choice. I only know that in the case of Bradley v. Richmond, which has been recently decided, in April I believe, and I believe that these attorneys did not appear, but the plaintiffs in that case were complaining because the Richmond Board did not have geographically drawn zoning boundaries. But in our plan we have divided the 99 schools of the system into attendance areas, assigning all pupils within a particular area to the school served by that area regardless of race. We have omitted tem porarily with a deadline which we have set ourselves, based upon construction requirements for which the money is available, for which the land has been acquired and for which plans are now on the drawing board, with the idea of relieving the situation with respect to those ten schools. Our plan, applying to the 99 as I say, provides for assignment according to residence in the area. After that has once been done, any child in any area without any reason for it can petition the Board for transfer to any - 1 3 - school in the county that he chooses. He can state his preference of three choices. Court: This is true of the children in the ten schools! Mr. Barkley: That is also true of the children in the ten schools. The only distinction between the children in the ten schools and those in the 99 is that those schools are Negro schools and they are first assigned to those schools. We sent a notice to every child in each one of the 10 schools by the report cards where they were en rolled, by letter where they were pre-schoolers setting forth that we proposed to abandon this school not later than a certain date and that in the meantime anyone who Defendant’s Opening Statement 197a desired transfer to another school could file a simple form requesting transfer and that form was attached, on the opposite side, on the back page of the notice to those pupils. Some of them have taken advantage of it. By the very act of rezoning our 99 schools we are bring ing into the predominantly white or the presently in tegrated schools some 1700 children who were not in the white or integrated schools last year. All together, with the pupils who were in last year and with the transfer requests, we will have 2526 children in round figures in either predominantly white schools or integrated schools. Those schools range from integrated school with 250 Negro pupils and 14 white children to schools where it —14— is 50% each way. Two or three schools are just about evenly divided on up to where there is one or two Negroes in a predominantly white school. That has all been brought about either by residence and not by race or by request for transfer regardless of race. We say that we have moved rapidly, that we have moved fully, that we have administered in good faith, that we have no tricks up our sleeves, that we propose to administer it in good faith, and we say that this system meets the requirements of law and has the approval of the decisions of the Supreme Court and of our Circuit Court most recently expressed in Bradley v. Richmond. As to the teachers, we have been going through a constant, steady program of preparing the different races in this county to receive teachers without regard to race. Our staff meetings are completely integrated. All activi ties that bring teachers together within our schools bring white and Negro teachers together and that includes the banquets, dinner meetings and all other activities in the Defendant’s Opening Statement 198a Colloquy way of meetings of teachers. We have got a show going on up here that we’d like for Your Honor to see. It’s a 12:30 each day at the Imperial Theatre where we have Negro teachers and white teachers in our Arts Depart ment training those children in the performance of a play in which white and Negro children participate. AVe have any number of photographs we propose to show in - 1 5 - due course of activities that have brought the teachers together and the children together. We have Negro teachers who have lectured white P.T.A. Associations; we have Negro teachers teaching white children in the Summer Schools that are now in progress in which some 12,000 children are now engaged. We are paving the way but we can’t do it all overnight. We have got eight or nine white teachers in Negro schools now and we think that under the ruling of the Court in the Bradley v. Rich mond case that today is not the proper time or place to decide what should be done in the way of teacher integration. This is a matter that we have no objection to the Court retaining jurisdiction in this case and review it a year from now or whenever it sees fit upon motion of the other side. We are here saying that we want to do what the Court thinks we ought to do. Court: All right. Call your witnesses for the plaintiff. Air. Chambers: Before we call witnesses we wanted to request counsel for the defendant that he stipulate or permit us to mark as exhibits some of the answers to interrogatories and depositions that would avoid some of the testimony we would have to get otherwise. Court: The interrogatories, I imagine, are in the court file. Air. Chambers: Yes, sir. 199a Colloquy — 1 6 - Court: By consent let all interrogatories and answers go into evidence. Any objection? Mr. Barkley: None for the defendant. Court: They are received in evidence. Mr. Chambers: We have depositions taken of Dr. Craig Phillips, the Superintendent, which we’d also like to stipu late into evidence. Mr. Barkley: No objection. Court: Let it be received. Mr. Chambers: One final thing, we have letters that were sent by the Board to the children in the 10 excepted schools attached to the answer filed by the defendant to our motion for preliminary injunction and these are also in the court records but we wanted to get these in evi dence as the letters that were sent to the students of the 10 excepted schools. Mr. Barkley: You want to introduce the letter that went to the parents of the children in each of the 10 excepted schools with regard to transfer rights? Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. Mr. Barkley: And the notice which I believe is on the opposite side of their request for transfer? Mr. Chambers: Bight. Mr. Barkley: We have no objection to that. Court: Beceived. — 1 7 — Mr. Chambers: We received, either in answer to the first or second set of interrogatories, three maps, one showing the elementary schools, the other showing the junior high and the third the senior high, and we wanted to make special reference that these, too, are included in the answer to the interrogatories. Mr. Barkley: I think that’s correct. We have the same maps probably a little clearer from the standpoint of 200a actual geographic lines than those lines show there. In other words, we have emphasized the lines somewhat. Court: Whose maps are these? Mr. Chambers: Those are ours. We have worked with them and prepared this evidence from them. Mr. Barkley: That’s all right. If the Court finds it can see better the lines, we do have them. Court: By consent let the record show that all maps, everybody’s maps are received in evidence. Mr. Chambers: We have subpoenaed seven witnesses and we have two others. Would the Court want to swear them all in at one time? Court: Yes, sir. (The witnesses are sworn.) R e g in a l d A. H a w k i n s , a w i t n e s s f o r th e p la in t i f f s , h a v i n g f i r s t b e e n d u l y s w o r n , w a s e x a m in e d a n d t e s t i f i e d a s f o l l o w s : —18— Direct Examination by Mr. Bell-. Q. State your full name and address, please. A. Regi nald A. Hawkins, 1703 Madison Avenue, Charlotte, North Carolina. Q. Are you a plaintiff in this case, Dr. Hawkins? A. Yes, I am. Q. How long have you been a resident of Charlotte? A. I have been an active resident of Charlotte for the past 18 years. I went to school here for four years. In 1941 I established my residence here. Q. What is your work? A. I am a practicing dentist and an ordained United Presbyterian Minister. Q. Do you have a dental office here in the city? A. Yes, 1218 Beatty’s Ford Road. Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct 201a Q. What is your responsibility and duties as a Presby terian Minister? A. I am ordained as an evangelist in the area of social education and action. I am active for my General Assembly on its Commission which involves over 10,000 churches in the United States. Q. Are you active at all in the Civil Rights movement? Mr. Barkley: I object to that. Court: Overruled. —19— A. Yes, I am active in the Civil Rights movement. I am Chairman of many Civil Rights groups; I have been active with all the national Civil Rights groups and I have led protests here in Charlotte for civil rights and have been accused of being responsible for bringing about many civil rights changes in the community. Q. What groups are you associated with? A. I am Chairman of the Mecklenburg Organization on Political Affairs; I am Chairman of the Citizens-Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee; I was Chairman of the Westside Parents Counsel; I am Chairman of the Job Opportuni ties For Better Security, which is a poverty group here in this community; I am on my church’s Commission, a member of its Executive Committee on Religion and Race; I am Vice-president of the Presbyterian Inter-racial Coun sel; I am a member of the N.A.A.C.P., Southern Leader ship Conference and Corps. Q. Do you know something about a Governor’s Good Neighbors Counsel? A. Yes. I am a member of Gov. Terry Sanford’s Good Neighbor Counsel. Q. Is this in the area of civil rights? A. This is in the area of civil rights statewide. Q. Would you review generally your involvement with the school desegregation efforts here in Charlotte? A. Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct 202a Well, as soon as the May 17, 1954, decision was handed — 20- down we became active for desegregation. We had been active against the School Board to bring about better quality education before 1954 but in 1954 I, along with other Negro citizens in this community, got petitions to ask that the School Board be desegregated in accordance with the May 17th ruling. I have filed petitions for my children every year since 1954 that we have filed petitions. Q. How many children do you have? A. I have four, one in college now. I have three in the present school sys tem. I have appeared before the School Board many times asking that they desegregate the schools in line with the court’s decision. I have led protests against the School Board because of their practices of segregation in mixed communities and now I am a plaintiff against the School Board because of this practice of segregation. Q. During all of your period of activity in your efforts to get the schools desegregated have you come in contact with many or few Negro people in the community? A. I say I have more or less come in contact with most people who have had children in school because we attempted, working night and day, to get Negro parents to file peti tions under the pupil assignment plan asking that their kids be allowed to attend desegregated schools which car ried me into more or less all the neighborhoods in Char lotte, and also, having worked with P.T.A. groups and — 21— having led a protest also, I came in contact with many parents and students in this city. Q. Where are your children attending school at the present time? A. I have one attending West Charlotte, one attending Northwest and one attending Oaklawn Ele mentary School. Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct 2 0 3 a Q. Are those Negro schools or white schools? A. They are all Negro. Q. You indicated that in the past you had made applica tion for transfer under the old plan, is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. Were any of the applications ever granted? A. They were never granted. Q. Now, I ask you whether you have made application under the new free choice transfer plan that the Board has recently put out. A. No, I did not make application under the present choice that was given this past June because I did not believe in the sincerity of the School Board in trying to bring about desegregation in the City of Charlotte. I considered this as a stratagem to get around the law, to further intimidate Negroes as they had done in the past with the pupil assignment plan and so forth, and I did not apply under this system because I am a plaintiff in this case and I did not believe in the sincerity of the School Board in bringing about desegrega tion. — 22— Mr. Barkley: If the Court please, I am going to ask that all of that answer be stricken except that he did not make application this year. That is simply a jury argument and not testimony. Court: Fortunately we have no jury. Mr. Barkley: I will ask Your Honor to instruct the Court to ignore it. Court: Gentlemen, I have a practice in non-jury cases that I believe is correct—not just this type of case but all non-jury cases—of being extremely liberal about the rules of evidence. I think the rules of evidence strictly applied can keep something Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct 204a out that ought to come in and is very relevant and very little harm is done by getting irrelevant mat ters into a record where there isn’t a jury to he confused by it. So, objection overruled. I do want to ask Dr. Hawkins to clarify the answer. I under stand that you say you did not apply because you doubted the sincerity of the Board and I think I understand you to mean that as a stratagem, that is, to permit your children to request transfer in stead of going straight to a geographical systqm but I ’m not sure. You don’t mean to say, do you, that if you applied for your children to go to a school of their choice that you think they wouldn’t grant the —2 3 - application! A. My experiences in the past have been, and I have been applying almost every year that we did apply, that they did not allow my children to go to the school that they requested and my wife and I decided that this, too, was a stratagem and that they would not be allowed to attend the school and we were a little apprehensive about the geographical plan and the freedom of choice plan they were talking about. Court: So your doubt of sincerity is in both respects. A. That’s right. Q. Would you explain to the Court perhaps in further response to the Court’s question, Dr. Hawkins, what you told me is your opinion based on your experience in deal ing with the Negroes and on the school desegregation problem as to the general reaction to this free choice plan Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct 205a coining, as it does, after a long period of experience with the transfer plans. A. In securing applications from other Negroes to apply for desegregated education and my own experiences, we had, more or less, been browbeaten. Every time that we applied for transfer of our children we had to undergo this procedure of getting it notarized and hav ing ten days and we had to appear before the School Board and every time that we appeared we were turned down. The names of the people were published in the newspapers, their addresses. Some of our people even —24— suffered economic reprisals because of their seeking trans fers and my experience and in conversation with others was the fact that this was a continuation and closely allied with the scheme that had been used under the pupil as signment plan. It followed the same type of procedure and we felt that we would not undergo this type of harrass- ment in order to seek desegregated education for our children. We thought it should be done on a more equitable basis. Because of the close link of the procedure we haven’t yet discerned any difference in this procedure other than the fact that we don’t have to appear before the School Board. But the responsibility for seeking a desegregated education still rests on the Negro parent. The Negro parent had to ask for this. Q. Let me ask you here, could you put in one, two, three fashion some of the reasons why your experience indicates that there is a significant burden on the Negro parents in having to seek these things! Court: Could you relate to what you say the bur den is now, if any, more than past history. I under stand your contention about the past. Reginald A. Hatvkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct 206a A. The burden now is the fact that the Negro parent had to fill in this letter, seek this request. I think they were given thirty days, up to June 30, to ask for a transfer, and we felt now that they would perhaps select one Negro - 2 5 - child and put that one Negro child in the all white school, in a strange environment where the child perhaps would undergo intimidation and harrassment and so forth, and many of these parents and myself did not know all the schools in Charlotte. We do not know which schools that we should request because we have not had access to all the 109 schools, and then there is fear in the community about economic reprisals. We have had parents fired seeking transfer for their children and so forth. It has been a bad experience and because of these difficulties because of the responsibility resting on the Negro parent and the School Board not assessing its own responsibility we felt that this, too, is a continuation closely allied to the pupil assignment plan that has been used in the past and we did not feel that this should be our responsibility to seek a desegregated education. This should be the responsibility of the School Board in a more equitable way. Q. I gather from your testimony that you have done this in the past, did you try this year to get the Negro parents to seek these transfers and, if so, how did the responses of the parents that you talked to differ from in the past years? A. It did not differ at all. Many of the parents who called me—many of them called me and talked with me about this new procedure—and the Negro is a little suspicious of this procedure. They were not at all —26— believing that this system is actually a scheme to bring about legal desegregation of the schools and they assume Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct 2 0 7 a more or less a laissez faire type of attitude because of past experiences. Some in the community did talk to Negroes trying to get them to leave their kids in the schools where they were assigned and so forth. And because of the brow beating and so forth in the past it’s been difficult to get Negroes to believe in this system. Mr. Barkley: I don’t want to keep disturbing the Court and I ’m not going to. I want to move again that all of that testimony be stricken as purely hearsay. My only concern is not the effect it may have on Your Honor but how it would appear in the record if this case goes up to a higher court. Court: Motion denied. I think it’s very helpful in lawsuits to let everybody say almost everything they want to say within reason. I think our rules of evidence are extremely antiquated and that is especially so where you don’t have a jury. We are not concerned with the possible arguments and the jurors, being unschooled in law, may be confused. I ’m not sure that’s so. I don’t see any reason to strictly apply rules of evidence in non-jury cases. Objection overruled. Q. Dr. Hawkins, I understand and I ’d like you to relate your answer to what you just said that there are some - 2 7 - Negro parents whose children were assigned by the School Board to desegregated schools who have sought and obtained transfers back to the old Negro schools. Now, how do you explain that? A. This did come up very clearly at our meetings. We have held meetings to try to find out the reason why. Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct 208a Court: May I interrupt you here. This year you didn’t apply. A. I didn’t but as a community leader I have been con sulted and have been in consultation with parents. Court: Did you try to encourage them to apply even though you weren’t applying! A. I didn’t encourage them either way. I listened to what they had to say. In our meetings I didn’t take an active part of seeking parents to apply under this procedure. But the reasons that they gave to us was the fact that they were afraid their children would be mistreated in the academic area. They did not think that any Negro teachers would be assigned to the schools and they had some bad experiences where Negro children, one or two, had attended all white schools and they had been put behind. They felt that the children’s academic rating would be altered and there had been some complaints about mistreatment in the schools and generally these parents were apprehensive for their own economic security wthere only one or two would be assigned to what was predominantly all white schools. And because of this - 2 8 - fear as a basic fear in the heart of the Negro because of what has been happening and they felt that the same thing would be applicable to the procedure that is now being instituted. I did not try to encourage them otherwise because my experiences in the past is that we have had to help to pay salaries and maintain Negroes who had actually suffered under the system of trying to get their children in school. Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct 2 0 9 a Q. Had you ever reached the conclusion that Negroes by and large aren’t really interested in desegregated education for their children? How about the children themselves? A. I would say that the basic Negro parent over 35 years of age might not be as enthusiastic about desegregation as the children. I have found in talking with the children that they are interested in a desegre gated education but I would not make the statement that all Negro parents, especially those over 35, are as en thusiastic about desegregated education because of past experiences as the children are interested in a desegregated education. Court: To protect the School Board let the record show a continuing objection by Mr. Barkley to hear say testimony. Objection overruled. Q. Now, notwithstanding your suspicion about the thing, you are cognizant of the fact that the Board has come up within the last few months with a new desegregation plan, is that correct? A. We appeared before the Board - 2 9 - last fall—our groups did—families did—and asked that they desegregate the schools according to the law. The Board, as I understand it, came out with this new plan and it was published in the newspapers sometime in March or April. We did not know what the plan was until actually June when we got these letters. They had talked about freedom of choice and a geographic plan but we did not know actually what the letter would state or what would happen until this past June. But we had heard all along through our appearances before the School Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct 210a Board they were working on a plan for desegregating the schools. Q. Have you become at least generally familiar with the provisions in the new plan? A. More or less generally. Q. Based on your review is there anything there that has caused you to alter your opinion or reinforce your opinion that you have already expressed here as far as the Board’s good faith on desegregation? A. As I said, personally I am not at all convinced that the School Board is sincere in bringing about desegregation in the City of Charlotte as it should, and I say this from having viewed the maps and having some knowledge of the Negro com munities in this area. Q. Well, let’s just take some of the aspects of the plan that are being contested here and indicate whether or —30— not they fit in with your view that the Board hasn’t changed or led you to believe that the Board has changed in your opinion. Are you familiar -with the fact that 10 former Negro schools in the county have been excepted from the zoning system that the Board has initiated? A. I am aware of that. Q. Now, based on your understanding of the community, what is the effect of that exception of these schools on the desegregation process? A. That makes us question the sincerity of the School Board very closely because these 10 excepted schools are in neighborhoods where you would have equal balancing of Negro and white pupils, where you have white kids going past Negro schools to go to formerly all white schools and you have Negroes going past formerly all white schools in order to get to Negro schools where you would have an equalization Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct 211a more or less of desegregation. These schools have asked to be excepted and more or less the lines have been ex tended where one or two Negroes might he included in what was formerly an all white school. And then from knowing that they speak of desegregated schools that have one Negro in a school or one white student in a school, they speak of this school as being a desegregated school and use the statistics, and by asking for the excep tion and knowing what would be the result if these schools —31— were included in the plan, I question and many of us question the sincerity of the School Board in trying to bring about an effective plan of desegregation. Q. Hasn’t the School Board indicated that while they have excepted the 10 schools for the next year or perhaps two years that all pupils within those schools have an opportunity to transfer to a desegregated school if they want to? A. In these excepted school areas most of our people are domestics, are menial workers. This takes in what was formerly the old county school system or some schools that are on the fringe area. Many of these people, their economic situation is below $3,000.00 which would consider them in the poverty area. Many of them work for people who have protested desegregation in this area. We had some white parents this year from Long Creek section and other sections of the county to complain about desegregation and we, from our experience, have learned that many of these Negroes are afraid to ask for freedom of choice for their children in the excepted school areas. This is a real problem. Court: None of your children happen to he in those 10 excepted schools? Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct 212a A. No, sir, none of them are. Most of the Negroes live in the western section of town but the 10 excepted schools are out in the county or right in the fringe areas where you have a greater mixture of Negroes and white because of housing intermixing there. — 32— Q. You say most of the Negroes live in the western section of town. What is the representation of Negro families in the other sections of the city? A. I would say anywhere from a third to a half of the Negroes live in the northwest or western section of Charlotte and the other half are more or less equally scattered accross the rest of the county in equal proportion. I don’t think that anyone has ever done a population survey. I would esti mate that there are around 75,000 Negroes in the county and we estimate anywhere from 25 to 35,000 of them are living in the western or northwestern sections of the city. Q. Would you have large sections of the city or any section where no Negroes would be found? A. Not in Charlotte. We have run surveys and we have not found —actually, if the school boundaries wrere drawn in a circle in order to populate the schools according to their maximum capacity there would not be a school in Charlotte that would not include more than one Negro child in that school. This has been our experience. Court: Say that again, I ’m not sure I understood you. A. From our investigation of the locations of the schools in Mecklenburg County, if a circle was adequately drawn— Reginald A. Hatvkins— for Plaintiffs—Direct 213a say a school would have a population of 600 students, if a —3 3 - circle was drawn to get 600 students for that school, what the maximum would be, there would not be a school in the City of Charlotte that would not have more than one Negro child in that school because Negro families live in most of the vicinities of this city, not in a con centrated area like they do in the northwest but in all of the sections Negroes live in Mecklenburg County except perhaps what might be a housing development but sur rounding that housing development or in that vicinity Negroes live. Q. Let me see if I can get at it this way. I think you are familiar with Exhibit A to the second set of answers to the interrogatories provided by the defendants, which exhibits indicates as to each school the number of pupils, white and Negro, who were initially assigned under the new zones for the 1965-66 school year. Now, I direct your attention to the Ashley Park School where the exhibit shows that 663 whites and no Negroes were initially as signed to that school and ask you if what you are indicat ing is that if you drew a circle around the Ashley School sufficiently broad so as to include 663 pupils of a grade level eligible to enter that school that whether in your opinion you would also include in that circle a goodly number of Negro families who have children within that grade level served by that school. A. That is correct. Q. On the Ashley Park situation, I use that as my illustration but as a matter of fact are there any Negroes —34— in the general area of the Ashley Park School! A. That’s right— Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct 214a I don’t see here what the maximum is allowed, the num ber of students. I see they have 663 students can you tell me the maximum capacity of that school! Q. I think on Exhibit B to the second set of interroga tories it indicates there is a maximum capacity of 725 pupils at Ashley Park. A. I would say that if they would draw a circle in the Ashley Park area to include 700 and some students that there would definitely be Negro students involved in that circle. Q. You indicate there are Negro children within the area of the school, do you of your own knowledge know where the children have been assigned! A. In the past! Q. No, for this year. A. No, I don’t know where they are going this year. I see here that none of them are as signed to Ashley Park. Q. Let me ask you whether or not it is correct that the Negro pupils in that area were formerly assigned to schools which this year are designated as excepted schools, perhaps Amay James or Plato Price. Are you familiar with that! A. Yes, that was the practice in the past. Those kids who lived in that area went to the Plato Price and Amay James Schools and from my knowledge the Amay James and Plato Price Schools— —3 5 - Court : It would help me—I’ve got enough historical background. In fact, no one contends, I am sure, that this Board was any different from any board in the south pre-1964, so it really would help me to state what now is. That’s what we’re concerned with. Q. I think my question was directed to now. I was ask ing, Dr. Hawkins, whether you, of your own knowledge, Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct 215a know that the Negro pupils that you speak of this year, Negro pupils within the Ashley Park area this year are going to be assigned to either Amay James or Plato Price. A. They are not assigned to Ashley Park, according to the record. Q. I will let you look at Exhibit A again. I notice on the Bain School there is listed 706 whites assigned and no Negroes. Are you familiar with the area of the Bain School and can you tell me whether there are Negroes living in that area! A. There are Negroes living in that area. Q. Do you know where they have been assigned to school this year? A. I know where they were assigned in the past but I don’t know where they are assigned this year; I know where they have been assigned in the past. Q. How about the Barringer School? A. There are Negroes living in the area of the Barringer School I know where they have been assigned in the past but I don’t know where they are going this year. —36— Q. In the past is it correct that they were assigned to the Amay James School? A. That is correct. Q. Do you know whether or not Amay James is one of the excepted schools? A. Yes, it is one of the excepted schools. Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct Court: You’re getting ahead of me now. Let me ask counsel, maybe you can stipulate. These three schools that have been mentioned, are there Negroes in the geographic zone for those schools? Mr. Bell: Unless we have the wrong information, within these schools, and there are several of them, predominantly white schools where no Negroes are 2 1 6 a assigned, there are Negroes in those areas hut they were previously attending one of the 10 excepted schools and for that reason this year will again be taken away from these zones and assigned to the excepted schools. Mr. Barkley: Ashley Park, Bain and Barringer Schools, the Negro children in those areas are in those excepted schools, have been, and the Board has made no change. Court: In the dual attendance zone you have asked to be allowed to maintain for another year or so ? Mr. Barkley: That’s right. —37— Q. Let’s look at the situation in the city. Turn on Exhibit A to the second page to the Eastover School. Court: Mr. Bell, as we go along I think it can be more meaningful if you tell me what your contention is going to be. I can relate the evidence and I will ask Mr. Barkley to reply to it. Mr. Bell: The first aspect is that there are several predominantly or almost all white schools which but for the excepted school policy would have a substan tial number of Negroes assigned to them. Court: I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. That’s admitted, is it not? Mr. Bell: The second area is as to schools located within the city where there are no Negroes assigned. Court: Wait a minute, these first three you men tioned I better write them down. Ashley Park and What? Mr. Bell: Bain and Barringer. Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct 217a Court: Are they outside the city! Mr. Bell: No. As I understand it, Your Honor, and correct me if I am wrong on this, they are within the city and there are at least 10 or 12 other all white schools in the same situation hut they don’t have Negro pupils assigned or have only one or two Negro pupils assigned because of this excepted school policy. —3 8 - Court: Now, then, what was the next one you were going to take up? Mr. Bell: We are going into situations within the city where Dr. Hawkins—this is a person knowledge able in the community but not an educational expert —and I am going to ask him whether there are schools where the Board has not assigned any Negro pupils but that where, based on his experience, he knows Negroes live within the school area. Court: The same as Ashley Park, Bain and Bar ringer. Mr. Bell: Except they would not be assigned be cause of the excepted school policy. Court: I see. This relates really to the contention of gerrymandering. Mr. Bell: That’s correct. Q. Let’s look at the Eastover School situation, Dr. Haw kins. The exhibit indicates that in the Eastover School there are 543 whites and no Negroes assigned. Are you familiar with the Eastover School area? A. Yes, I am. Q. Are there any Negroes living in the area of that school? A. All around it. Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiff s—Dir ect 218a Q. Are you yourself, or do you yourself know why no Negroes were assigned? Have you looked at the maps or —3 9 - are you otherwise able to indicate why that is? A. I ’ll give you my personal opinion. My personal opinion is that East- over is one of our high social economic areas in the city and that it is surrounded by one of our lowest social eco nomic communities, Negro, and I know that the people in this area complained about the kids using the playground and so forth and I feel they would have complained about Negroes attending the school. I believe that this is one of the reasons why no Negro children were assigned to East- over. They certainly live in the area of Eastover. Court: What is the shape of the geographic thing around Eastover? Is it square or does it look like a monkey or something? A. It looks like a monkey. It really makes some dips and so forth when you look at it. In one area it uses Randolph Road and then it skips over Randolph Road and it misses Billingsville altogether which is an all Negro community. It’s really shaped up. Mr. Bell: It might be helpful, in one instance or another, if we could have permission to have the witness step down and go to the map and, based on his knowledge of where Negroes live, trace the bound ary line of the Eastover School. (The witness goes to the map and discussion is had out of the hearing of the Court Reporter.) Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct —40— Q. Let’s look at one other example of this type, your opinion as to the type, the Selwyn School, which on the exhibit A indicates that there are 545 whites assigned to it and no Negroes. To your knowledge, Dr. Hawkins, are there any Negroes living in the immediate area of the Selwyn School? A. Yes, there are Negroes living in that area. Q. Where are they going to school, if you know? A. I would say perhaps some of them are going to Morgan School and some of them might have been going out to the Sterling School. Court: What is the shape of that district, square or like the old 10th District? A. From that map, I don’t remember. Q. Were some of the Negro pupils going perhaps to one of the excepted schools? A. Yes, Morgan Street. Mr. Bell: That would perhaps be one of our earlier examples, Your Honor. Mr. Barkley: He said there are Negroes in the Selwyn area? Court: Yes, he said there were Negroes in the Selwyn area. A. In the vicinity of Selwyn. Q. Let me turn from that point now, Dr. Hawkins. Are you familiar with the inter-scholastic athletic setup within —41— the defendant Board’s school system? A. Yes, I am. 220a Q. Are there interscholastic sporth between schools? A. Not between the public schools, no interscholastic activi ties between the public schools. There has been some activ ity between the church schools and perhaps some of the public schools. Q. 1 mean on any basis. A. On any basis they are com pletely separate. Q. Do the Negro teams from one school play the Negro teams from another school? A. That’s right. The whites play the white schools. Q. Do they have separate leagues? A. Separate asso ciations. Q. Has there been any change in that as far as you know? A. I was talking with the President of the Negro Associa tion, Dr. Armstrong, and there hasn’t been any change as of around June 14th. I couldn’t say whether there has been any change since June 14. Q. Do you know whether a Negro team from a Negro school has played any team from a white school? A. To, my knowledge Second Ward High School did play the Catholic High School in basketball this past year, several games, but to my knowledge I know of no other game be tween a predominantly Negro school and a predominantly white school. —42— Q. Is this Catholic school a predominantly white school? A. Yes. Q. Was that game accepted by the community? Were there any incidents? A. No incidents whatsoever. I un derstand the Negro school won but as far as racial inci dents, none whatsoever. Mr. Bell: No further questions of this witness. Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct 221a Cross Examination by Mr. Barkley: Q. Dr. Hawkins, you have been quite an active man in the Civil Rights movement in this area, haven’t you! A. In all areas, I hope. Q. You have been to Washington quite a number of times to testify before committees! A. I have had the privilege to have been invited to Washington several times to appear before Congressional committees. Q. You have been interviewed extensively by the news papers on various aspects of integration, have you not! A. That is correct. Q. You have issued statements to the newspapers quite frequently on various problems connected with integra tion, have you not! A. I have issued statements, press releases to the press and television stations relative to integration problems. Q. Now, do you know when the first Negroes were ad mitted in the old Charlotte school system? A. Yes, sir. —43— I led Dorothy Counts out of Harding High School and I got her application and my clothes were torn off of me trying to get away to keep her from being mobbed. That was in ’57. Q. The Board voluntarily allowed the transfer of those three pupils? A. We had been fighting the Board from 1954 to 1957 to get them to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision. Q. I’m not going to engage in an argument with you now, I ’d like for you to just answer my questions. I’m asking you about, 1957. A. Yes, we appeared with the parents in 1957 and the Board admitted three Negro children, Roberts, Hunter and Counts, to Alexander Graham, Central and Harding High School. Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Cross 222a Q. Now, there have been Negro children in the Charlotte system at all times since then, is that right! A. Been a few. Q. Now, when did you make your original application to enroll your children in a white school? A. When the first one was made, I think either ’56 or ’57. We filed petitions in ’55 and I think we filed petitions in ’56 and I made application in ’57 after the Pearsall Plan had been passed by the Legislature. The first school year following the Pearsall Plan I began to make application for mv children. 14 Q. Where were you living in 1957! A. Where I’m liv ing now, 1703 Madison Avenue. Court: What part of town is that! A. It’s in the northwest section. Q. Generally up in this area, up here! A. I take your word for it, I can’t see it. Q. It is a solidly Negro area! A. No, we have some white kids living in the Water Works there in my neigh borhood, white families living there. Q. You live near the WTater Works out on the Betty’s Ford Road! A. That is correct. Q. What school did you apply to in 1957 for your children, do you recall! A. Seversville and Harding High School. Harding High School was right at my back door at that time, right over the cemetery. I could throw a rock from my back yard to Harding. Q. The cemetery was between you and Harding? A. That’s correct. Q. When did you next apply? A. In ’58, every year. Reginald A. Hawkins— for Plaintiffs—Cross 223a Q. Did you apply for Seversville and Harding each time? A. The children that were in high school, I applied for the Harding High School. The children that were in the age of Seversville—I think the two boys were at that time—we applied for Seversville and the other child has just started school in the past two years. —45— Q. Seversville was an elementary school? A. Severs ville was an elementary and Harding was a high school. Q. And Harding was a high school. A. That’s correct. Q. And I believe that Biddleville Elementary School was located between your residence and Seversville School? A. Yes. I wanted my kids to go to the same place as those white kids were going. Q. But Biddleville was located between your residence and Seversville. A. It was on the other side of Betty’s Ford Road. Q. That was the nearest elementary school to you? A. It was the nearest elementary school, Biddleville was. Q. Now, how many blocks did you live, or do you live now, for that matter, from the Northwest Junior High School? Reginald A. Haivkins—for Plaintiffs—Cross Court: Was that formerly Negro! A. It’s still all Negro. I live about a mile from the North west School. Q. The Northwest School, that’s the junior high? A. That’s the junior high school. Q. And that was the school that your children regularly attended, the Northwest Junior, is that right? A. That is the one that my oldest boy was attending when he got of age but my daughter was attending West Charlotte which is about two miles from my home. 224a Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Cross —46— Q. Was West Charlotte there in 1957? A. Yes, sir, West Charlotte was built around ’51 or ’52. Q. Dr. Hawkins, let’s get to the Eastover boundary. Did you examine this boundary line real carefully here? A. The one that is on the map there I did. Q. Now, there is quite a large creek out in that vicinity, is there not, known as Sugar Creek? A. That is correct. Q. And then there is Randolph Road out there, is there not? A. That is correct. Q. And the Billingsville area you say is heavily Negro, that lies across the creek and across Randolph Road from the Eastover district, doesn’t it? A. Partly. Q. In other words, doesn’t the boundary that you’re complaining of, doesn’t it run down Randolph Road to Sugar Creek and then run up Sugar Creek? A. As I remember the line from that map, when it gets up past Billingsville then the line leaves Randolph Road and goes around that white community and then comes back up Randolph Road. Q. Have you examined that boundary real carefully? A. Well, I ’m not an architect. Q. I ’m not either but you can ascertain whether it runs down Randolph Road. It doesn’t. Part of it runs down —47— Randolph Road and it leaves Randolph Road. Q. And I ’ll ask you if Billingsville, the area you say is a Negro area in the vicinity, if it isn’t across Randolph Road and across Sugar Creek from the Eastover attend ance area. A. It’s a little ditch. Is that what you’re call ing a creek. This little foot bridge they got across Sugar Creek there, the highway runs across that little creek— that’s Sugar Creek—and then Billingsville area starts 225a at the creek and it goes all the way over to Old Monroe Road. Q. On the other side of Sugar Creek! A. It’s on the other side of Sugar Creek and encased by part of Sugar Creek and a part of Randolph Road. Q. And Sugar Creek is actually one of the largest creeks we have in this county, isn’t it? A. I got one back of my house larger than that. Q. You don’t concede Sugar Creek is one of the largest creeks we have in the county? A. I know that Ervin Creek is a lot larger, to my knowledge, than Sugar Creek is in that area. Mr. Bell: It might be helpful—perhaps counsel for defendant is confusing Sugar Creek, which is a very small stream of water, with Briar Creek which is relatively adjacent and which is a larger body of water. —48— Q. Well, the line runs down the large body of water whether it’s Sugar Creek or Briar Creek, doesn’t it? Court: It’s probably Briar Creek, isn’t it, look ing at this map? Mr. Barkley: It may be. A. Briar Creek is larger than Sugar Creek to my know ledge. Q. Now, on the Selwyn School, you say there are Negroes in the vicinity of Selwyn School. I’ll ask you if there is a Negro residing in any part of the Selwyn School zone or in any immediately adjoining zones? A. My state ment was that if you drew a circle to get possibly 700 Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Cross 226a and some kids needed to populate Selwyn School, you would have to include some Negro families in that area. I say there are none living in that zone now. Q. I ’d like to find where they are. A. They go to Morgan School. Selwyn School is on the other side of Queens Road, or in the Queens Road area where you’ve got this Negro community—the name slips me—out on Baldwin Avenue. Q. You say the Selwyn School! A. I am going to give you the borders of the area around Selwyn Avenue. This is the Selwyn Avenue School and between there you’ve got the Little Rock Negro community section where those kids go and have been going out to Sterling School. —49— Q. Find the Selwyn School for me and show us where any Negro population is to be found near that area. (The witness goes to the map.) Court: Let’s not try to take his answers here by consent until he gets back on the stand. (Discussion out of hearing of the Court Reporter. The witness returns to the witness stand.) Q. Dive me the Negro communities that you say are lo cated within the Selwyn area or close to it. It that Cherry- twon! A. You have Cherry, you have the Little Rock, the Negro community off Little Rock Road where you have those Negro families living in that area. You have Negroes living around Park Road and then as you go further you get into the Pineville area and you have Negroes living on the fringe of that Pineville area and the Charlotte City limits. Reginald A. Hawkins— for Plaintiffs—Cross 2 2 7 a Q. When you get out into the country you get into the exceptions, don’t you? A. I ’m telling you where people live. You asked me where did the people live. They live in all these areas. Q. I ’d like to tell you where Cherry is, for that matter. Mr. Chambers: Objection, this is arguing. Court: Overruled. Q. Don’t you know that Cherry is located between Queens Road and Morehead Street, that street in there and the - 5 0 - center of the City of Charlotte? A. I say that Cherry ap proximates what we call the Queens Road area, the Myers Park area. Cherry is right on the fringe of the Myers Park area. Q. On the fringe of the Myers Park area at the point near est the business section of Charlotte, isn’t it? A. I wouldn’t call that too near. Do you call the Charlottetown Mall the business section? I call the Square the business section of Charlotte. Q. Isn’t Cherry right near the Charlottetown Mall? A. Yes, but that’s not the business section. Q. Isn’t Charlottetown Mall three miles from Selwyn School? A. I would say that Cherry is as close to the main business section of Charlotte as it is close to Park Road Shopping Center. Q. All of us know where Charlottetown Mall is. A. But I wouldn’t call Charlottetown Mall the business section of Charlotte. Court: That’s just argument. Mr. Barkley hasn’t said that at all. He just asked you to relate it to the business section. Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Cross 228a Q. I will ask you again if Cherry is not three miles away from the Selwyn School. A. I don’t know the exact dis tance, how far away. Court: What would be your estimate? A. I ’d say a mile, mile and a half, Cherry area from the —51— Selwyn School vicinity, from Selwyn Avenue. Q. I ’m talking about Selwyn School. Court: How far from Selwyn School? A. I would estimate a mile, mile and a half. Q. Doctor, going back to Eastover for just a minute. I believe it shows here that Eastover has acquired one Negro pupil by transfer, is that right? A. It shows here East- over, you say? Q. Yes. A. It shows here Eastover said it didn’t have any Negroes there. It says, Number of transfers, Negroes, none; Transfer requests, none; Number of Negro pupils assigned, none. Q. Pupils received by trasfer. Look over there and see if it doesn’t say one. A. One, that’s right. Q. There must be some Negro father in the City of Char lotte who doesn’t think that his child is going to have all the ill treatment you think the others will have by going into a white school, a lone child. Do you know who the per son is? A. Yes, sir, I have an idea who he is. I think he is a plaintiff in this case. Q. Did you talk to him and try to persuade him not to request transfer? A. I took a no-position on advising parents pro or con relative to these last assignments. Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Cross Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Cross — 52— Q. Now, you say that you did not yourself file a transfer request for your children because you didn’t believe the Board would grant it, is that right! A. I didn’t believe that the Board was sincere in bringing about adequate desegregation in the schools. Court: You’ve told us that, I remember every word you said about it. Now he’s asking you . . . read the question back. (The question on Line 1 above is read by the Court Reporter) A. Right. Q. In other words, you weren’t willing to try out the Board to see whether it was acting in good faith at this time, were you! A. I have been browbeaten so in the past that I didn’t feel like undergoing that harrassment this year. Q. Didn’t you tell Dr. Phillips and I here in this court room back a couple of months ago that you were going to send your boy to Myers Park? A. I certainly mentioned that. My wife and I had a change of heart because of cer tain other things that happened to us in this community and we didn’t feel that we wanted to undergo any other harrassment in this community at this time. Q. You didn’t see fit to even give the Board a chance to see whether it would act in good faith or not? A. The only reason I can determine the future is by what has — 53— happened in the past and I certainly didn’t want to at this time undergo any further harrassment in this community. 230a Q. Did you know, Doctor, that all requests by Negro parents to transfer their children from all Negro schools to either integrated or predominantly white schools were allowed by the School Board except for five children who had applied to schools which were beyond the maximum capacity! A. I read that in the paper. Q. Now about athletics, haven’t they got some right good Negro athletes on the South Mecklenburg High School which is one of the large predominantly white high schools ? A. I think they had three basketball players last year. I know to my knowledge, knowing the boys personally, that three went out for the team. Q. Three on the South High basketball team. A. Three that went out for the team. Q. South High played Myers Park and Garringer and the other schools, did they not? A. That’s correct. Court: I didn’t understand. Is this three Negro players ? A. Three Negro basketball players that attended the South Mecklenburg High School, a predominantly white school. Court: They did play on the team? A. I think one or two made the team. The other one prob ably didn’t make it. I don’t know, we encouraged them to stay out. Q. One of them made the all-county team, didn’t he? A. I think so. He was mentioned. Q. It was a mixed team of whites and Negroes? A. That’s right. Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Cross 2 3 1 a . Q. Haven’t we got another Negro star that finally decided to stay at Myers Park High! A. Kirkpatrick you’re talk ing about! Q. Yes, Kirkpatrick. A. Yes, we heard that you raided our schools. I understand that he is. Q. Nobody compelled him to go to Myers Park, did they! A. I haven’t talked to him in recent weeks but there was quite a bit of talk in the Negro community about Kirk patrick and what was going on at Myers Park concerning Kirkpatrick. Court: Maybe he got a scholarship. A. Something of that order. Q. The white people didn’t use any force, did they! A. well, I wouldn’t want to say what the white people used. I hope that the many Kirkpatricks that we have in the Negro schools that they would be given the same opportun ity as Kirkpatrick was given. This is my concern. I think we have a lot of Kirkpatricks in the Negro schools. Q. Did you know that 153 Negro pupils were initially —55— assigned to Myers Park High School by reason of resi dence! A. T don’t know the exact number. I know there were quite a few. I thought there were more than 150 some actually. According to where they live there should be more than 150 because you have Griertown and surround ing areas near Myers Park High School where they have been going to Second Ward. We have many more kids than that attending Second Ward School and all of them should have been going to Myers Park School if they had done it on a geographical basis. Reginald A. Hawkins—for Plaintiffs—Cross 232a Q. In other words, Second Ward High School should have been a part of Myers Park High? A. Well, it should be because there’s a lot of students from Second Ward come from the surrounding areas of Myers Park School. Q. Now I ’ll ask you, talking about surrounding areas, isn’t Cherry about the nearest Negro section to Myers Park High? A. It’s pretty close. Cherry and Billingsville are pretty close to Myers Park. Q. Myers Park and Sehvyn are on the same land, for that matter. Isn’t that all one big tract of land that Selwyn and Myers Park are located on? A. In the same vicinity. Q. It would be just about the same distance from Myers Park High to Cherry as it would be from Cherry to Selwyn, —56— wouldn’t it? A. Selwyn is an elementary school and Myers Park is a high school. Q. You were talking about Cherry, that is the Negro sec tion that you described as nearer to Selwyn than any other. A. I say the same vicinity and that’s what concerns me be cause there were no Negro kids assigned to Selwyn Ele mentary and they were assigned to Myers Park High School. Q. You don’t think it was three miles between those two schools? Reginald A. Hawkins— for Plaintiffs—Cross Court: He said that. He said his estimate was a mile and a half. Mr. Barkley: I believe that’s all of this witness. Mr. Bell: No further questions. Court: You may step down. Thank you, sir. We will take a few minutes recess and then con tinue the session of court until 1 :00 o’clock. So we 2 3 3 a are not quitting for lunch now, just a very short recess and then we’ll resume. S hort R ecess Court: All right, call your next witness. Mr. Bell: Mr. Chambers is not here but with the permission of the Court and counsel for the other side I could perhaps handle the preliminaries. Court: Would you do that, yes, indeed. Mr. Bell: Mr. Chambers is prepared with the main line of questioning. Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct - 5 7 - L e w is I . K r a m e r , a w it n e s s f o r th e p la in t i f f s , h a v in g f i r s t b e e n duly s w o r n , w a s e x a m in e d a n d t e s t i f ie d a s follows: Direct Examination by Mr. Bell: Q. Would you state your full name and address, please, sir! A. Lewis I. Kramer, 42 Vassar Avenue, Providence, Rhode Island. Q- What is your profession, please! A. I am Principal of a senior high school, Mount Pleasant Senior High School in Providence. Q. Would you review briefly your professional ex perience in the field of education! A. I have— Q. Begin with your educational background and bring it up through your professional job experience, the various studies you participated in in the educational field, your professional associations and things of that nature. A. I have a Bachelors Degree from the University of Rhode Island; a Masters Degree in Education from Rhode Island College; I began my teaching connection with the Provi- 234a dence School System in 1932 which, with the exception of four years in the Navy during the war, has been continuous. I have been a classroom teacher; I have been a counsellor, head counsellor, Asst. Principal of the Senior High School; Principal of the Junior High School; Principal of the Senior High School; administrative ex- —58— perienee in that connection totalling about 12 years. I have been visiting instructor and lecturer at the University of Rhode Island Extension Program and am, and have been a visiting Professor on a parttime basis at the Graduate School at the Rhode Island College. I am a member of various educations organizations chiefly in volving principals associations such as the National Association, the Rhode Island Association, plus secondary school principals. I am Chairman of the Educational Policies Committee of the Rhode Island School Principals Association. I represent the Rhode Island School Princi pals Association at the New England Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. I am a delegate to the College Entrance Examination Board from the Rhode Island Association of Principals. I have done some work studies and am now currently involved in teaching a course which includes, among its various other aspects, the effect of integration on education. Q. Tell us how you came to be here today, at whose request and what preparations, what studies you have made for the testimony you are going to give today. A. Late Friday Dr. Martin Lieberman, who is Dean of Pi ofessional Studies at Rhode Island College and with whom I have done some work, asked me if I’d be willing to come down here today, to be here today to serve as a witness due to the fact that another witness who had Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 235a previously accepted found a conflicting emergency arrange- —59— ment. I received late Friday night some documents in the case including the initial interrogatories and answers thereto and some of the initial tables based on the 1964- 65 enrollments. I had Saturday in which to study the papers, left Sunday morning Providence, arrived here in the middle of the afternoon yesterday and was engaged in studying the maps furnished to me in connection with zoning distributions and other items connecting there with. I had the assistance at that time, because of the shortage of time and lack of knowledge of the community, from Mr. Hornbeck in connection with the location of schools and zone lines and others who were able to tell me something about the location of the Negro and white families in various areas. Court: Let the record show that without objec tion the examination is resumed now by Mr. Chambers. Direct Examination by Mr. Chambers (Continues:) Q. Are there general factors which school administra tors would look for in determining whether school zone lines are gerrymandered or drawn improperly with no educational value? A. Yes. Generally speaking con sidering the nature of the community and capacity of the school serving these communities and the census figures indicating future growth or city planning figures indicat ing urban renewal and physical changes related to the —6 0 - changes in the structure and including logical boundaries such as rivers or large heavily traveled streets and similar Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 236a types of natural obstacles, ordinarily one would be able to see where the logical path of these zone boundaries should occur. Q. Have you had the opportunity to consider the maps that have been drawn by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System in relation to the criteria you stated that a school administrator would consider? A. I did yester day insofar as the completion of the community and the location of the boundary lines were concerned and the manner in which they appeared to travel. Q. Do you feel that the amount of time that you have spent in preparation for your testimony today was suffi cient to enable you to testify with a fair degree of certainty about the lines! A. In terms of the manner in which the lines appear to be drawn in certain cases, yes. If I had to recommend a new pattern, it would re quire much more detailed study and a much better map. Q. You think that more time would just allow you to suggest in more detail how the lines should be drawn rather than change your opinion about the lines presently? A. It’s probable that I would be able to devote more study and find additional instances to which I would refer later but basically I didn’t feel that that was necessary. —61— Q. Are you generally familiar with the allegations of the parties in this proceeding? A. I am. Q. Are you familiar with the contentions of the plain tiffs and the contentions of the defendant? A. I am. Q. Would you tell us in some detail your observations of the lines as they presently appear in the maps drawn by the School Board as to their being gerrymandered or drawn without considerations of the factors you refer to Lewis 1. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 237a as proper criteria for drawing! A. There appear to me to be a number of cases where— Mr. Barkley: Objection. Court: Objection of the defendant to this line of questioning overruled. Mr. Barkley: Would Your Honor let the record show a continuing objection? Court: Let the record show a continuing objec tion to this type of testimony. Objection overruled. A. There appear to be a number of cases where lines are drawn in such a manner as to avoid what appeared to be logical boundaries and would appear to me to show, although I cannot guarantee as to the reasons for their doing it, in several of these cases the obvious results appear to be the inclusion or exclusion of certain white —62— or Negro students from schools which they would ordi narily attend and which, if they did attend, would integrate the school more so than they are now. Q. Would they have any other educational advantage if they were drawn as you feel they should have been drawn! A. Well, in some cases insofar as certain schools are concerned, where they may be perhaps eliminated, it would be economically feasible and desirable to do this since a biracial system is invariably more expensive than a uniracial system, and from the standpoint of the educational program in certain cases, the numbers of students enrolled in some of the Negro schools or the predominantly Negro schools would indicate that the kind of program offered would, without actually seeing the curriculum or program offered, would inevitably lead to Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 238a a reduced program and therefore an inferior program, and I would say that the benefits derived by the students themselves, insofar as superior educational program and facilities and insofar as their own personal development was concerned, would be improved. Q. Did you have occasion to consider whether drawing the lines differently would also have enabled the School Board to make more utilization of the schools then they are now? A. There are a number of cases where, if the lines had been drawn in what appeared to be, to me at least, a logical direction, it would have irtilized better —6 3 - certain schools which are now under-utilized to a con siderable degree. Court: Does this relate to, say, a school that is a hundred students under capacity? A. No. I am referring, in one case, at least, to a school which is a little over 50% filled, something like 448 as compared to a capacity of 925. Q. Mr. Kramer, would you point more specifically, then, to some of the instances you have discussed? A. Well, looking at the map, from what information I can get from this map— Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we’d like for Mr. Hornbeck to follow the lines as he testifies. Court: First of all, how many instances is he going to testify abount? Can you give me the names of the schools or the zones? A. Well, Lakeview Elementary- 239a Court: How many are there, roughly? A. About 10 elementary and about four or five junior high, one senior high. Court: Anybody got a list of them? A. I have no separate list, Your Honor. Court: Suppose he testifies now and then comes down later, perhaps, to illustrate the testimony on the map. Would that not work all right? —64— A. If Mr. Hornbeck at that time could use the pointer because he’s more familiar with the districts. Court: Any objection to Mr. Hornbeck using the pointer? Mr. Barkley: I don’t have any particular objec tion. Court: Well, let’s let him do that. If he makes an error about it, please interrupt and point it out. Mr. Barkley: I’d like for him to give his explana tion in the use of language rather than illustration. Court: We have a practical problem. If he comes down over here the Court Reporter simply can’t get it down and inevitably all of us get to talking at one time. Let’s get his testimony and then let him come and point it out. A. Your Honor, I was going to ask if, while I gave the testimony which could be recorded at the same time, for Your Honor’s benefit Mr. Hornbeck could be pointing out the areas so it migh save time. Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 240a Court: I ’ll let him do that. Objection by the School Board, objection overruled. Come around, Mr. Hornbeck. Gentlemen, if he makes a mistake, you point that out, please. (Mr. Hornbeck goes to the maps displayed.) Mr. Barkley: Hoes the Court have an objection to Dr. Phillips going over there? —65— Court: Not in the least. A. The Lakeview Elementary School which has, I believe, three Negro students, the northeast line starts at Rozzels Ferry Road and ordinarily I would think it should con tinue down on this rather substantial highway to Stewart Creek Road. Now, this is not done and whatever other reasons or effects it might have, if it were done it would throw white pupils into the all Negro Biddleville Ele mentary School which has room for about 150 students. Court: Is this in the northeast section, do you know? A. This is the northwest section. Court: Northwest, I mean. A. The Thomasboro Elementary School— Court: Your main criticism, then, is Lakeview line does not follow what? A. Does not follow the Rozzels Ferry Road. It starts on Rozzels Ferry Road and goes off whereas it would seem logical to stay on this substantial highway. Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 241a Q. Mr. Kramer, in each instance explain what the educational principle is or the standard that is violated by departure from the main highway. A. Unless there are reasons not available to me, it would not ordinarily be appropriate to leave a heavily traveled road which you have begun to use as a boundary and go off in another - 66- direction on a less heavily traveled road and include this heavily traveled road as part of the school district. Court: Wait a minute now. Lakeview, what’s its population, mostly white or mostly Negro! A. Three Negroes. Court: And if you followed Rozzels Ferry Road it would throw another 150 into it? A. I don’t know how many white pupils it would throw in there but there is room for 150 in the Biddleville Elementary. Mr. Barkley: I wonder if it would help to clarify this in the Court’s mind if Dr. Phillips were given an opportunity to explain the line. Court: I think it would help unless there’s objec tion. It’s a little unusual. You will have an op portunity to cross-examine later, of course. Mr. Bell: I think it would tend to break down into a general argument. It would probably be best to follow the usual procedure and let us make our direct statements and they can take notes and cross-examine later. Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 242a Court: I expect you’re right. Objection sustained. Mr. Kramer, in this school 3 Negroes? A. Yes, sir. Court: If you changed the line and followed Rozzels Ferry Road you say you don’t know how many Negroes? —67— A. No, I have no way of knowing how many white students live in the area that would thus be included. Court: But you do say that your examination of the school’s records shows that Lakeview is under-capacity by how much? A. Lakeview at the present time is under-capacity by about 115. Court: All right, go ahead. A. Thomasboro School, just west of the center— Q. Mr. Kramer, just one thing, with that line leaving Rozzels Ferry Road, which you criticized, does it follow a natural boundary or anything? A. It follows a smaller street along there for a while. I don’t know the name of that street. Thomasboro Elementary School, which is just west of center there, an all white elementary school. Now, there are Negro students living near this school who I understand are transported to the Amay James School for the first four grades or the Plato Price School for the second four grades, 5 to 9, and it would seem to me to be a measure of economy as well as a simple way of avoiding segregation if these students who lived Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 243a near the Thomasboro Elementary School were allowed to attend there instead of having them travel long distances by foot or by bus. Court: They are transported where? — 68— A. To the Amay James School for the first four grades, according to my understanding, and the Plato Price School, grades 5 to 9. Court: Are those 2 of the 10 excepted ones ? A. Yes, sir. Court: Well, as we go along I want to learn something from all the witnesses, if I can. You understand that the School Board plans to take in Amay James and Plato, I mean geographically, later on. A. I read what their proposals are. In my examination of the map I felt that I could go only by the geographic atmosphere of the map, Your Honor, without taking into account any proposals which have been made. Court: You are not prepared to testify what the effect would be a year or two years from now when the 10 excepted are brought in? A. No, sir, except that there seems to be no reason why, in some of these cases, these changes could not be made now without waiting for such new construction as may come up. In certain cases, it seems to me with regard to numbers that this could be effected at this time without Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 244a waiting for the proposed new construction. The Paw Creek Elementary School, which is all white in the north west section, in the same geographic area as the Woodland Elementary School, which is Negro. An examination of this area shows that these two schools are separated by - 6 9 - Mount Holly Road but children of both races live on both sides of this road. Yet the two schools are each segregated. Now, the south border of this zone, it seems to me, instead of going where it is should go along Paw Creek. The effect of this would be to put white students in the Negro Woodland School area. The Paw Creek seems to be a natural boundary in that case. Q. Mr. Kramer, would you indicate why the school zone lines should go along Paw Creek Road, as you suggested, or Paw Creek! A. What is the name of the southern boundary at the present time? Mr. Hornbeck: It goes along Paw Creek and then skips upwards north for— A. Following along Paw Creek would be a fairly straight line without ups and downs and it is a natural boundary, more so than the present one being used. Now, in Ashley Park, which was mentioned in previous testimony, there are Negro children who live in Ashley Park, according to my understanding, but there are no Negroes grades 1 to 4 assigned to the Ashley Park School. Court: Is Ashley Park all white? A. Ashley Park is an all white school. In attempting to to find out where these children go to school, I under Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 245a stand that they go quite a distance to the Amay James School, at least some of them, where they must he partially — 70— bussed because you have to cross two boulevards in order to get to the Amay James School, which appears to me to be an expensive procedure and, aside from other factors— Court: And that’s one of the 10 excepted. A. Yes, sir. According to the record I have of the Ashley Park School there is room for about 75 children. The Barringer Elementary School, which is all white, in the sort of west-southwest part of the district, has a south west line— Court: I’m sorry, I ’m trying to write this down because if I don’t I ’m going to have to wait on the record to be transcribed and delay this case ten days. That’s the reason for it. Give me the name of that. A. Barringer, an all white elementary school, has a south west line which I would think should be extended down to the city line where the railroad is, which is a natural boundary much more so than the present boundary being used. Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct Court: And this is an all white school! A. The Barringer School is all white, Your Honor. Court: And the boundary you object to is what! A. The southwest boundary. What street is that on? 246a Dr. Phillips: It is contiguous with the Amay James and Plato Price, the two exceptions. Court: Is there a street boundary or what, any thing you can designate! —7 1 - Dr. Phillips: It is contiguous with the other side of the creek. The creek line, Erwin Creek, conies down through here on this side. (Pointing to map.) Court: Which boundary are we talking about! A. The southwest boundary. Court: The southwest boundary is what! Dr. Phillips : This is the sewer plant, Your Honor. Court: The sewer plant is the southwest boundary and you say it should be what! A. The city line where the railroad tracks are. But this would have the effect of adding Negro pupils to the Bar ringer School. The line goes off. I couldn’t determine from that Map exactly the street or line it was on. Court: This again, Pm guessing, but the Negroes probably go to one of the excepted schools! A. Yes, sir, I believe that’s correct. Mr. Hornbeck: It’s possible also they can go to Marie Davis School, which is not an excepted school. A. In the northeast section the Newell Elementary, all white, where Negro pupils who live near the school and to the north of Newell, in the so-called Harrisburg area, Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs-—Direct 247a where there is a great deal of room, approximately 250 students short of capacity, but the Negro students who live in this area are bussed, as near as I can make out, quite a distance, as much as 8, perhaps even 10 or more —7 2 - miles, to the J. H. Gunn School, which is an excepted school. Here again, from the standpoint of school adminis tration, it is quite an expensive procedure both from the standpoint of the cost of bussing, from the standpoint of taking the children away from the neighborhood in which they live, and from the standpoint of the under utilization of a school currently in use. Now, the East- over Elementary School was mentioned earlier. It’s an all white school. As I looked at the map the eastern part of that zone starts down Randolph Road where I would think it would continue, but it suddenly cuts off and I could see no apparent reason and then it goes back in again. Now, whatever other reasons there are behind that, one of the effects would be to remove a small white com munity, including Durham Drive and streets nearby, from the largely Negro Billingsville School, or perhaps the Elizabeth School which is mixed and could take 250 more students. The Randolph Road seems to be a very logical line although there are other things to be considered in zoning a school system, but if you are using Randolph Road as a dividing line it would seem that you ought to keep on using it. Court: How many under-capacity is Eastover Elementary School! You said it a moment ago. A. I didn’t mention the capacity of the Eastover but I can give you the figure. Maximum capacity 756 and the Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 248a June 30 summary shows 651. Perhaps that’s not the one —73— you want. Court: Eastover Elementary. A. Yes, this one. The anticipated enrollment is 651 and the capacity is 756. Court: Under-capacity 105! A. That’s right, Your Honor. Whatever other reason there may be, as I say, the effect is to remove this small white community from the area serving the Billingsville School which is largely Negro or the Elizabeth School which is mixed. Court: Is Billingsville School one of the excepted schools! Dr. Phillips: Not the elementary, Your Honor, the junior high is. Court: What’s Billingsville, all Negro! Dr. Phillips: Yes, sir. A. Moving to the Berryhill Elementary School, which is in the western part. They have two Negro students there. This is a very large area geographically. Court: Is this elementary! A. This is elementary, Your Honor. It is a very large area geographically of an attendance zone and it includes therein the Amay James School, which has the Negro children who live near Berryhill. Amay James is one of Lewis 1. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 249a the excepted schools and it would seem that those students who live that close to the Berryhill School should be al- —74— lowed to go there. There is room there now for about a hundred students. There are ony two Negro students there now and the effect of allowing these students to go there would be to further integrate the school. The Ashley Park School, which is west of center, an all white school, the western line of this school zone, it would seem to me, should go straight down Ashley Eoad instead of weaving in and out the way it does. Ashley Road, so far as its prominance is concerned, from that standpoint alone, viewing nothing else, would be a satisfactory zone line, but the effect of this would be to throw some white children into an area which would be served by the Plato Price or Amay James Schools, both of which are Negro and are excepted schools. Of course, I really should say that I haven’t considered the viewpoint of the fact that these schools are excepted because, in looking at the geographical area, I haven’t excepted them. I have considered them as part of a geographical area near the schools. The Billingsville Elementary School— Court: That’s not excepted, is it! Dr. Phillips: It is not excepted, no, sir. A. Now, the southern line, dividing line of this school district, it seems to me to be cutting across no particular line of demarkation, whereas if this line were lowered to MacAlway Road, which is a good size thoroughfare, it would seem to me to be a more logical zoning line. —75— Mr. Barkley: You mean you could run the Billingsville line down McAlway Road? Letvis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 250a Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct A. Yes, sir. Court: Drop it down to McAlway. A. The effect of this is to keep Negroes out of the white Cotswold School district in the manner in which the line is now drawn. The white children just north of McAlway Road could go to Billingsville where there is room for about 145 children and there would be more room, if you were to remove the junior high school group, which is one of the items which I will refer to later on. Q. Mr. Kramer, would you explain more about the road that you were considering regarding the Billingsville Elementary district line? A. Well, from the map the road, the southern border of the Billingsville Elementary School area seems to cut across nowhere. I don’t seem to see on that map any natural boundary which would be a logical choice for an attendance zone if you were creating one. Whereas, if you moved it down a bit to the next logical line, which would be McAlway Road, it would seem to be a sensible procedure. Whatever was had in mind about this, I don’t know, but it’s observable effect to me as I look at it would be to throw some white children into a school now serving Negro children. Then this school, —76— which would be the receiving school, has room and would have even more if the junior high school were removed, which seems to me could be done. Court: I don’t understand. You’re suggesting enlarging the boundary by dropping down to Mc Alway Road. That would simply embrace more people in Billingsville Elementary and they would be white. Is that what you’re saying? 251a A. That’s right. I have noticed on several occasions and I cannot account for this and I think perhaps I should make this statement, that there are a number of cases of students who are assigned presumably because of geo graphic residence on a basis of one or two Negro children to an otherwise all white school. According to the table there are 7 schools which have had assigned 1 Negro by geographic designation and 8 schools which have been assigned 2 Negroes, making a total of 15 schools which would be all right except for the fact that each contain only 1 or 2 Negroes. By the same token, according to the figures I have read, there are 4 schools where 1 white has been assigned to an otherwise all Negro school, making a total of 19 schools which would be segregated 100% if it were not for 1 or 2 of minority students. Now, the average person involved in this work, reading this, would use the phrase commonly invoked called “token integra tion” , and I have no reason to know how or why these - 7 7 - students were assigned but it’s my feeling that if you have an area where one Negro family lives and there is one child in that area that can go to a school, it is most unusual to find only one family. I have no basis for investigating at this time but it would seem to me that if you have 15 school districts, and these are relatively large areas, it would be most unusual to find one or two families having children of a certain grade age would be living there. I’m not talking now about transfers, I’m talking about assignments on a geographic basis. This puzzles me very much. I have no answer for it except to say that one of the results of this procedure is to in crease by 19 the number of schools which are said to be integrated. Q. Your statements with regards to initial assignments, Letvis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 252a that is, that you have 19 schools with initial assignments of 1 or 2 white or Negro students would otherwise be entirely white or Negro? A. That’s correct. As I say, I have no answer for it. I can only answer as to the effect. The effect is to increase substantially the number of schools that might be listed as integrated schools. Court: Incidentally, have you added it up? What is the number that might be listed! Count them with these 19. Do you know that? A. No, Your Honor, I received this only late yesterday. —78— There are a number of other schools that have very small numbers assigned but I ’m limiting myself to what I thought were the most unusual cases such as 1 or 2. The Barringer School, which is white, starts down on Remount Road, which is a substantial thoroughfare. Now, again this pattern that I have noticed in other areas, it jogs off somewhere leaving a very substantial road and follow ing either no boundary at all or a less ostentatious boundary. Now, the effect this has is that it keeps white children in the Barringer School district where otherwise they would be in the Wilmore district which is mixed and which has room for another 180 students. So it would seem to me that if that line were— Court: Otherwise they would be in which one? A. They would be in the Wilmore district, which is a mixed district, which has room for about 180 students. It would seem to me that since the Barringer School is practically full, almost up to capacity, that in addition to the effect on the desegregation that the operation of Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 253a the school would be changed from an under-utilized school and a school almost to maximum to two schools where there would be room to move around. Court: Wilmore is under-capacity! A. By 180, Your Honor, 184 to be exact. I can turn now to the Derita school line up to the north. Now, that school line cuts across Interstate 85. - 7 9 - - Court: Is this elementary! A. Elementary, Your Honor. Now, cutting across a large highway like that is rather unusual and if the line were stopped, the southern line were made the city line, Inter state 85, the effect this would have would be to throw white pupils into the Negro Druid Hills School or the mixed Tryon Hills School and, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary as you would have in any case of this nature, it would seem that Interstate 85 would be a good place for the boundary. Court: If the boundary were 1-85 it would do what! A. Throw white pupils into the Druid Hills area, which is a Negro area, or the mixed Tryon Hills area. The Crestdale School, which is I believe one of the excepted schools, in the south-southeast part, grades 1 to 6, has all Negro students for a total of 87. Now right nearby is the Matthews School, 1 to 9, all white. Court: What do you mean nearby! Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 254a Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct A. Very close to it. Q. How dose to it, a mile, a hundred yards! Perhaps Dr. Phillips would know. Dr. Phillips: About half a mile. It’s in the Matthews community. That’s one of the excepted schools, Your Honor. Court: Which one is excepted! —80— A. Crestdale. Although I understand that future plans are made for the future to remove the children from the Crestdale School, there seems to be no apparent reason why the Matthews School, which is under-capacity by about 270 approximately, couldn’t easily take this 87 at this time, but the effect of this would be to integrate the Matthews School. Court: 87 Negroes in Crestdale Elementary? A. Yes, Your Honor. Court: And Matthews is how much under capac ity! A. 267, I think. In the north-northeast section, the Hickory Grove School, and there is a group of schools near there, Idlewild, Lansdowne, and Windsor Park. These are all elementary and all white. Court: Including Hickory Grove ? A. Yes, Your Honor. Now, the Negro children who live in these areas would go right by the Hickory Grove School 255a to go to the, I believe it’s the J. H. Gunn School, which is an excepted school. Court: Give me the names of the other three. A. Hickory Grove, Lansdowne, Idlewild and Windsor Park. The Negroes in this area go right by some of these schools. Court: They are all white ? A. All white. But there are Negroes in the area and they will go by one or more of these schools to go to the J. H. Gunn School. I don’t knouT whether they are transported or not. —8 1 - Court: Is the Gunn School one of the excepted schools ? A. Yes, Your Honor. Court: We better stop now and resume after lunch. Adjourn Court until 2 :30 P.M. R e c e s s f o b L u n c h (Mr. Kramer resumes the stand for further direct exami nation by Mr. Chambers.) Q. Mr. Kramer, I think that at the time of the lunch recess you were giving us some of your specific observa tions about various districts that you felt were gerryman dered. Would you like to continue with those? A. I have only one item further on the elementary school section, two items which actually involve one point. I noted that two Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 256a Negro students were assigned to the Rama Road School which is virtually surrounded by all white schools and I tried to imagine the situation that would exist that would make this happen under proper auspices and I was unable to guess what it might be. Court: Wait a minute. Two Negroes assigned to Rama Road School. A. Yes, sir. Court: Virtually surrounded by all white. Rama Road is also all white? A. Yes, sir, there are just two Negroes assigned to that school. Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct Court: Well, I don’t get the connection of the —82— surrounded by other white schools. In other words, all of them are white. A. The geographic area served is apparently heavily popu lated by white and, as I mentioned earlier, the aspect of having two Negro children who were assigned by virtue of geographic location to the Rama Road School would seem unusual. It would seem that there would be more Negro students there. Court: And there are more Negro students in an area right around that school? A. I would guess this should be the case. Court: Let’s don’t guess. Do you know? 257a A. No, sir, I do not. There were two Negroes assigned to the Bevonshire Elementary and to the Briarwood Elemen tary which are at the same address and, here again, I was puzzled as to the residential setup which would allow merely two Negro students to be assigned to two otherwise white schools. I ’d like to turn now to the junior high school part of the map. Referring now to the junior high school aspect of the Billingsville School, which has fewer than 200 students in the junior high school and which has, as I understand it, no suitable gymnasium and is lacking in some other facilities which one would expect to find at a proper junior high school. It would seem to me that these students could be sent at this time to other junior high schools which are not too distant such as Alexander Graham or McClintock or the Hawthorne or the Piedmont, and remove the junior —8 3 - high school facility completely from that school. By so doing, the students concerned would obviously receive a much more effective education with general benefit for all concerned. It would no doubt make more effective use of the Billingsville School with the older students removed. In general, schools which have such a wide age range in the same facility are not as desirable as schools where the age range is much closer to common interests and activities. Billingsville High School, which is a Negro School, the district line runs right next to the west side of the school, right near the west side of the school, Randolph Road. Now, ordinarily the only cae where you’d expect to find a district line running immediately next to one side of the school would be where a school happened to have been built at the edge of the town and you were forced to draw your students from a half-circle, so to speak, and, since Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 258a Billingsville is situated not in such an area, it would seem that a geographical line for attendance purposes drawn in this manner is very unusual. Now, Alexander Graham Junior High School, mostly white, has a wander ing line. Q. Mr. Kramer, are you leaving the Billingsville Junior High School? A. I was going to indicate where other students could be assigned to Billingsville from Alexander Graham. This line, which is on the boundary of the Alex ander Graham Junior High School, which is mostly white, —84— has a wandering line which, it seems to me, should logically go along Providence Road, a highway, all the way to Wendover Road. But instead it branches off be tween Andover Road and Vernon Drive and examination of that map indicates no particular reason why it should go off between those two streets. Now, if this line were drawn as I have indicated, the effect would he to throw white students from the Alexander Graham School area into Negro Billingsville. The Eastway Junior High School in the southeast part, a white school with one Negro student who transferred into it, it seems to me that this line ought to follow the County Club line which is in the same area and which is a natural line of demarka- tion, or else it should cut through Eastway Drive from north to south to exclude the Country Club, or follow Shamrock Drive, which is a natural boundary line. Any of these would have the effect of putting more white students in the Hawthorne Junior High School area which is mixed, although the Hawthorne Junior High School area has room for over 250 students. The line as it follows now starts out at the County Club and cuts in through Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 259a a couple of streets which do not seem to me to be a logical point of departure. Q. Mr. Kramer, one question about the Eastway School. Eastway is predominantly white or— f A. It was zoned as a white school—I shouldn’t say that. There were no - 8 5 - students assigned to the Eastway Junior High School. One Negro students transferred into it according to this figure. If the line were drawn in any one of what appear to me to be three logical choices superior to that which is shown now, any one of one them would have put more white students in the Hawthorne Junior High School which has plenty of room but which is a mixed school. Q. You stated earlier, you referred to Billingsville School as Billingsville High School, isn’t it a junior high! A. It has a junior high school group. The Second Ward is a Negro Junior High and Senior High. I believe, and the Piedmont Junior High School is mixed. I mention these two because there is a relationship. Second Ward is oversubscribed and the Piedmont School has 448 out of a capacity of 924, slightly more than 50%. Court: Second Ward is located to capacity and a little over? A. Yes, sir, it’s over. If a line were drawn down Trade Street, which is certainly a thoroughfare substantial enough to be considered as a separating line, this would reduce the Second Ward population in favor of Piedmont, but this would also have the effect of increasing the Negro percentage at the mixed Piedmont Junior High School, but it would remove the over-subscription, over-populatiqn at the Second Ward and bring the Piedmont School up above what is obviously a point just a little over 50%, Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 260a — 86— so that not only would the interests of the plan for desegregation be served but it would make for better- utilization of an under-utilized school and better utilization of an over-utilized school. Q. Does the line as presently drawn running down and branching off Trade Street, as you have described, follow a natural boundary? A. Well, it starts down on Trade Street, which seems to be logical, but then, as happened in other cases, instead of going down Trade Street all the way, it jogs in and out again on to North Tryon and then down to Sugar Creek. I don’t know why it jogged out and in again like that. As I say, if it followed Trade Street all the way down, which is a simple and fairly straight line and a large street, it would have had not only the effect I mentioned but the effect of further desegregation and I think it would save money and efficiency as far as the school is concerned and make for better education for all the stu dents in both schools. Spaugh Junior High, which is mostly white, and Plato Price, which is an excepted school, Negro, grades 5 to 9. Now, the line goes down Ashley Road but cuts off to include an area which contains some white and is held within Spaugh Junior High School. Ordinarily, if the line were drawn all the way down Ashley Road, they would be in an area which could be assigned to Plato Price. Although Plato Price is an excepted school, this doesn’t —87— alter the fact that it would be convenient for white children to go there. The question of the excepted schools, which bothers me for several reasons, but the fact that Negro children who live within a zoned geographical area have been assigned to excepted schools out of the area and, as I see it, in some circumstances so far away as to be trans Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 261a ported by bus. Now, there seems to be no apparent reason for the cutoff I mentioned. It goes to Wilson and then cuts off again, finally hitting Donald Boss Road through the golf course. In addition, the southern line, which I would think should go on West Blvd., goes off. I don’t know exactly what is there but on the map it seemed to be nothing, no reason at all for it going off there until it hits Erwin Creek. Now, one effect of this is that the Barringer Ele mentary School, which is white, sends its pupils to the Spaugh Junior High School, which is mostly white, instead of Sedgefield which is mixed. And looking at Sedgefield, the west line for Sedgefield Junior High School, it would seem to me, should reasonably follow Clanton and thereby cut off a Negro section which would then go to the Smith Junior High School where only one Negro was assigned. Mr. Barkley: I didn’t catch the name of the last school you mentioned. A. Would go to the Smith Junior High School where only one Negro was assigned. Ranson Junior High School seems to be drawn in a somewhat arbitrary — 88- manner in that the logical place for it to go would be Beattys Ford Road, or perhaps Bellhaven Road to Oak dale to Sunset Road. Q. Mr. Kramer, which line are you suggesting should follow Beattys Ford Road? A. The line on the west of the Ranson Junior High zone. Q. And which line the other road? A. Well, I ’m talking about the same line now. Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct Court: What does it follow? 262a Lewis /. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct A. You are pointing— Q. You say it should follow Beattys Ford Road? A. What is the name of that street! Is there anything there at all! Mr. Hornbeck: There is no street. A. There doesn’t seem to be any name there at all that I saw. There didn’t appear to be any natural boundary which that line should follow and there were two alter natives which might be logically used. If you went down Beattys Ford Road it would have the effect of putting Negroes in the Coulwood Junior High School which is white. And if the second alternative were used it would have the effect of putting white students into mixed Ranson Junior High School. Court: If you followed Beattys Ford Road it would do what to the students in Coulwood? A. If you follow Beattys Ford Road it would have the effect of putting Negro students into the Coulwood Junior - 8 9 - High School which is white. Mr. Barkley: That’s Ranson School? A. The Ranson Junior High School line. Court: Ranson is Negro or white? A. Ranson Junior High School, that’s a mixed school, is it not! 263a Court: Well, if you did what you said you’d just change Ranson from a mixed school to Coulwood as a mixed school, wouldn’t you? A. This would have the effect of taking some Negroes-— it would integrate the Coulwood School. Court: And maybe unintegrated Ranson, or you’re not sure of that? A. I don’t know the precise effect it would have. I don’t think it would take out all the Negro students. Q. Mr. Kramer, do you have the figures for Coulwood Junior High School, the racial composition? A. The Coulwood Junior High School had initially assigned to it 610 white students and 3 Negroes. Q. And the racial figures for Ranson? A. Ranson Junior High School originally had assigned to it 749 whites and 33 Negroes. The east boundary of the Ranson Junior High School, it seems to me, should go down Concord Road into North Tryon. It now appears to come down on no special road that I could determine. It would move some whites from the almost white Cochrane, where only —90— 1 Negro was assigned, to mixed Ranson. Now, Cochrane Junior High School, which is white, has a western line which should, I would think, be moved from its present position to follow North Tryon into Eastway Drive. The effect of this would be to throw white pupils, more white pupils into the mixed Ranson School. Mr. Barkley: Throw moi’e Negroes into Ranson? Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 264a Court: No, more white. That wouldn’t help any, would it? Ranson is already terribly unbalanced, if I may use such a controversial word, 749 white. A. But they would be leaving a junior high school, which is a white school. Court: Is Cochrane all white? A. Cochrane is a white school. There was 1 Negro as signed to it. To go back for a moment to the mixed Ranson School, junior high school, I would cut off the southern zone line at Interstate 85. Ordinarily a heavily traveled wide road like this is not considered to be a suitable boundary for a school if there are other schools available. This would throw some Negroes as well as whites into the Cochrane Junior High School which is now virtually white and under-utilized, or to the Hawthorne School, which is mixed and also under-utilized. The York Road Junior High School, which is all Negro—it is an excepted school—and is another case of a school used for Negroes —91— who live near to another school, in this case the Sedgefield School, which is mixed. I think I have one more school that I ’d like to mention. The Harding High School, which is mostly white, and West Mecklenburg, which is mostly white. I don’t know why the Harding zone line doesn’t follow the city limits on the west and include Negro children in that area. To identify the area, it is the area that serves the Amay James School. I know it’s elemen tary but just to point out where the children are. I don’t know why it doesn’t follow the city limits on the west and include Negro children instead of leaving Interstate 85 and just going off somewhere. Lewis 1. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 265a Q. Do you know presently where those students in the Amay James area that you referred to are going to school? A. No, I don’t know where they are going hut it would be logical for them to be included in that area where the Harding School is now. In general, from examination of these schools in the cases where I have indicated certain suggested changes in the zone lines and also even the closing of certain schools at this time, I can see no useful purpose in postponing the removal of students from schools which are obviously, from their numbers and lack of facilities in some cases, giving a sub-standard educa tion when, in some cases, these children could be moved and in one case a school closed immediately without doing anything else. Improved education results would accrue — 92— both as to achievement, both as to personality, both as to citizenship. I would think in years to come this would pay dividends to the community. I would say children who live in zoned areas who are taken out and bussed to distant schools, or schools with only one or two of a minority group in them to be registered as an integrated school, at least from my point of view, is not a fair ap praisal of the situation. Q. To refer back once to the school at York Road, you indicated that students there could be assigned to some other school without very much difficulty or you recom mended they be assigned to another school? A. York Road Junior High School, which is an all Negro excepted school, is being used for Negroes who live near Sedge- field, which is a mixed school, and those students could attend the Sedgefield School. Q. Do you have the figures there before you of the enrollment and maximum capacity of York Road? A. Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 266a Yes, I have it. York Road School is just over maximum. There are 1127 enrolled with a capacity of 1122 but the Sedgefield Junior High School has room for over 200, so that in many cases a double purpose would be served. Q. From your observations have you formed any con clusions regarding the similarities of departures from accepted standards in drawing school zone areas that you could state to the Court here would apply to the schools —93— you have discussed just a moment ago! A. From my observation of the map there are a number of cases where school zone lines begin at what seems to be logical divid ing lines, heavily traffic thoroughfares and things like that, where they suddenly jog off, sometimes off into nowhere where, according to the map, there is no particular obstruction or point of departure, sometimes into a much smaller demarkation line, sometimes they come right back in again to that same heavily traffic thoroughfare. Now, this has the effect of either excluding or including pockets. This is the effect, one effect. Q. You refer to pockets, you are meaning racial com positions! A. Yes. If these zone lines stayed on these heavily trafficked areas, which are natural boundaries, it would have the effect in many cases of including white students in a mixed or Negro School or including Negro students in a white school. Q. Mr. Kramer, from your studies and experiences, have you formed any opinion regarding the educational value to the students that would be served by redrawing or drafting the lines as you have proposed and promoting the integration in the school system here! A. If in the redrawing of the lines minority groups now in segregated schools were brought into integrated schools, there is Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 267a a considerable body of literature to show that in most cases —94— the results as to school achievement, as to behavior would be definitely improved without any lessening of achieve ment or behavior on the part of the majority group in the other schools. Q. Have you had any personal experiences in advancing or studying the educational advancement that would be obtained by students in the integration of schools? A. I have read, I have studied and, included in some of the work I am now doing, are some of the references in this con nection. There has been within the last two or three years, or even longer than that, a continuing study made in areas where integration has taken place with a view of just this kind and while in some cases, as a result of the extreme variation between the cultural levels of the minority groups as compared to the high socio-economic level of the white children where it has been to very extreme, in some of those cases the results have not been as favorable or as marked as they have been in the other areas. But the body of literature, by and large, in the majority of the cases and in the long run, indicates definite and substantial improve ment, particularly where efforts are made to bolster these minority children in their new environment. Q. Have you any recommendations regarding the ex cepted schools that were included in the plan of the School Board? A. Well, the truth of the matter is that I am very - 9 5 - much puzzled by their existence because their very existence mitigates against certain standards which the Office of Health, Education and Welfare has proposed. It seems to me, unless I have my information wrong, that certain Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 268a Federal funds under these conditions could conceivably be withheld. And so, from an economic standpoint alone, they are a very important aspect of this whole affair. More over, the fact that some new construction is being built at which time in the future sometime some of these or all of these, for that matter, may be discontinued, brings up the question as to whether or not all the construction that is planned is necessary. It would take more investigation than I have had time for to show that, but if you could close—and certainly in one or two occasions schools could be closed—at the present time. The one with 87 students could be closed and those youngsters go to Matthews. It is possible that an examination of this whole affair might show that it might not be necessary—if the schools that are being used or will be used are in good condition, I ’m not talking now about replacing sub-standard schools— there is a possibility that some of the new construction may not be as necessary as appears on the face of it. In addition to this, besides the possible economic value, in some cases even if they were to be replaced in the future, in some cases there appears to be no reason why some of them — 9 6 — couldn’t be changed now. In short, it seems to me that the areas of the excepted schools should just be another geo graphic area. I see no reason for maintaining these excep tions. The fact that some replacements may be made in the future, to me is not a good and sufficient reason at this time. Q. The School Board has proposed a plan for imposing on the geographical assignment as well as these 10 excepted schools, freedom of choice by which they permit those students initially assigned to the school, whether they are Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 269a attending the excepted schools or schools included in the geographical areas, have yon an opinion regarding this matter as a means toward desegregating the school system? A. In most cases freedom of choice is a myth. It’s a fic tion insofar as desegregation is concerned. What has hap pened in some school areas throughout the country is that you have had segregation followed by integration and then, because of freedom of choice, resegregation. Particularly where the rules allow a minority child to transfer from a school where he is a minority into a segregated school, this takes place very rapidly. Court: That’s hypothetical here. As I understand it, the plan here, any child can transfer. Isn’t that correct? A. That’s correct, Your Honor, and it is just this pro cedure which will inevitably create segregation or resegre- —97— gation even if there is a momentary change. This has been shown to happen in several communities where they had open transfer. One plan that has been advanced, which seems to have a great deal of merit, is to permit transfer under certain conditions while promoting integration, whereby you would establish maximums and minimums in percentages within schools from which or to which a child could transfer. In other words, for example, if you were to arbitrarily establish a 10% minimum for a minority group, you would not allow a child to transfer out of a school in which he was a minority member up to 10%. Up to 10% and until 10% was reached, they could transfer out. And by the same token you could use a maximum figure in another school to prevent segregation from occur Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 270a ring again during a process of integration. The ultimate result will be, in most cases where you have the free trans fer privilege under conditions which have in other com munities involved coercion, subtle or otherwise, and other aspects, will in time bring about a situation where you will have virtually segregated schools for the most part. Q. lias your review of the interrogatories and deposi tions here shown that what you are presently stating is true here with the freedom of choice in existence here? A. Well, from what I can see of the tables, from a brief study of them, number 1, it would seem that not too many . . . in many systems this is so . . . not as many Negro children - 9 8 - have requested transfer to white schools for any one of a number of reasons and in a system whereby, if I read it correctly, where when these new schools are built and if they are built in areas predominantly Negro, and if you have a policy which I understand to be the stated policy for the future, if children are not allowed to transfer back out of those schools into the school from whence they came, this may have the effect of perpetuating segregation in the new school. Q. I call your attention to Exhibit A attached to the answers. Lewis l. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct Court: Before you go on to that, I listened very closely to the answer but I really didn’t get the point of it. A. There is a policy, I believe, which was stated by the Board—and correct me if I’m wrong—where, when these new schools are built, no children will be allowed to trans fer out of them until a number is reached whereby the 271a school will have enough children to operate properly. In other words, if we were to establish that X school needed 500 students to operate efficiently, students who were as signed to this new school would not be permitted to trans fer out until at least 500 children had been assigned there to stay. Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct Court: And what’s your point? A. If these schools are built in a Negro district, it may be that some of these new schools will automatically become segregated schools since the children in them wouldn’t be —99— allowed to transfer out if they so desire to a white school. Q. Mr. Kramer, let me call your attention to Exhibit A attached to the answers of defendants to the interrogatories filed by the plaintiff. This exhibit shows the pupil assign ment for 1965-66. Look at the first column there showing the number of pupils initially assigned for 1965-66 at the Alexander Street School and tell the Court the number of students initially assigned there by race, and look at the last column showing the anticipated enrollment. A. The number of students initially assigned to the Alexander Street School were 15 white and 287 Negroes. Now, because there was freedom of transfer, in this case all the white students appeared to have transferred out, leaving a school which is entirely Negro. Q. Look at the Billingsville column. A. The same situa tion exists there where there were six white children as signed to the Billingsville School together with 741 Negroes. The transfer effect has been to remove all the white children from the school leaving it entirely Negro, which is the sort of thing I was trying to explain before when I said that 272a when you have the free transfer privilege, although it sounds all right on paper, it very often will work out to promote segregation. Q. Look at the third page of that exhibit, at Irwin Ave nue School, and tell the Court the figures you have there. — 100— A. The Irwin Avenue School had 47 white students as signed and 816 Negroes. The net result of the transfers has been to remove all the white students making the Irwin Avenue School an all Negro segregated school. Q. On the next page look at the Morgan column and tell the Court the figures you have there. A. We have identical situation of 65 white students and 313 Negro students but the net result of transfers has been to remove all 65 whites leaving Morgan an entirely segregated Negro school. Q. Down the list at the Northwest Junior High School, would you tell the Court the figures that you have there! A. At the Northwest Junior High School 36 white students and 808 Negro students were assigned. The net result of the transfer has been to remove all the white students leav ing the Northwest Junior High an entirely segregated Negro school. Q. Turn to Second Ward School and tell the Court the figures you have there. A. This is a classic example and Points up more vividly this aspect. There were 125 white students and 1528 Negro students assigned to the Second Ward School. 124 of the white students transferred out which leaves Second Ward with 1 white student, all the rest Negro, 1529. Q. Take one other example and look at the Wesley Heights School column on the following page. A. Wesley — 101- Heights School had 38 whites assigned and 203 Negroes. Lewis 1. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 273a The net result of transfers has been to remove the 38 whites leaving a completely segregated school. Q. Would you say, Mr. Kramer, that these figures sub stantiate your statements that the effect of this freedom of choice plan has been to maintain segregation in the schools rather than to. . . . ? A. I would say so. Any rule, no matter how fast it appears to be on paper, which, in its administration, tends to promote a segregated situation, is not a suitable rule. Q. Mr. Kramer, calling your attention to the depositions that were taken and filed in this case and the answers to interrogatories regarding teachers in the Charlotte-Meck- lenburg School System, it is stated in the exhibit attached to the first set of interrogatories, anwsers to the interroga tories, that the school system has approximately all Negro teachers assigned to Negro schools and all white teachers assigned to white schools, and in the depositions that the School Board has considered race in the assignment of teachers in the past. Have you any opinion regarding the education advantages in making assignments of teachers and school personnel on a non-racial basis? A. The assign ment of teachers on a racial basis will tend to slow up de segregation and the assignment of teachers on a non-racial basis, generally speaking, will make for improvements of - 102- instruction insofar as you have different models to be shown to the students. Negro children who have white teachers as models and white children who have Negro teachers as models will have a better understanding and will work out generally. It’s a picture of a more democratic organization and should work out better. Those systems which have tried out the shift of teachers from a racial Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 274a discriminatory basis to an integrated basis have reported that the results have been good. Mr. Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Kramer, your witness. Cross Examination by Mr. Barkley: Q. Mr. Kramer, going back to the history that you gave us of your career, what school are you principal of in Providence! A. The Mount Pleasant High School. Q. How long have you been in that school? A. As prin cipal five and a half years. Q. Now, then, you were also assistant principal? A. Prior to that time I was Principal of the Gilbert Stewart Junior High School for three and a half years. Q. That is in Providence? A. Yes, sir. Q. Assistant Principal? A. I was Asst. Principal for three years prior to that time at the Mount Pleasant Senior High School. —103— Q. Should we say, therefore, that your school experience has been largely in the City of Providence? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the population of the City of Providence? A. About 240,000, 250,000. Q. Same size city as Charlotte? Court: More or less. Q. What is the total school enrollment at Mount Pleasant School at this time? A. In September we expect about 2,150 to 2,200 students. Q. How many Negroes do you have enrolled in that school? A. Approximately 20 to 25. Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Cross 275a Q. How many Negro teachers do you have in that school? A. One. Q. That is an integrated teacher, I would take it. Since you have one Negro teacher in a white school I would say that would be an integrated teacher, wouldn’t it? Mr. Chambers: Objection. Court: Sustained. Q. Has your experience, insofar as actual experiences concerned in the matter of promoting integrated schools, confined to Providence? A. Yes, sir, my experience has been confined to Providence. Q. And what you have been giving us here by way of your opinion has been largely what you have read, what —10 4 - other people have written? A. Insofar as the opinions are concerned, much of it comes from what I have studied, insofar as integration is concerned. Q. You studied out of books that other people have written? A. That’s correct. Q. Now, have you testified before in a school integration suit? A. No, sir, 1 have not. Court: Before you leave Providence, I’m in terested—not in any improper way, it’s interesting to compare. Is there much Negro population in Providence? Are the 25 in your high school repre sentative of the relationship? A. No, Your Honor, it is not. Court: You’ve got other schools with much more Negro population? Leivis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Cross 276a A. That’s correct. More recently, as part of a staff, we have drawn zone lines for a new elementary school which is replacing two Negro elementary schools—that is, largely Negro—the proposition being to draw the lines in such a way as to insure the integration of the new school. There are sections of the city where there is a much higher per centage of Negro students in the school. Court: Because of the housing patterns. A. That’s correct, Your Honor. Court: I assume you’ve got straight geography in —1 0 5 - Providence ? A. We have concentrated areas. Court: I mean your plan of assignment is probably straight geography, no freedom of choice. A. We allow students to transfer from schools that are largely Negro into schools that are largely white and we allow students to transfer from one elementary school to another where there are pressing reasons, desirable rea sons, but there is not freedom of choice in this connection, not complete freedom of choice. Court: And some of your schools, because of the housing patterns, then, are very heavily Negro or even all Negro? A. No, sir, but a few are heavily Negro. Q. Did you say a few schools didn’t have any Negroes at all? A. No, sir, I did not say that and I doubt that there Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Cross 277a is such a school. Conceivably there could be, but I would doubt it. Q. Now, Mr. Kramer, if there were six white children initially assigned to Billingsville School, you would at tribute that to geography, would you not! A. I don’t know what I would attribute it to. I have to know actually the circumstances of the case. Q. You don’t know yourself whether that results from the Board’s geographical reorganization of the school sys tem or not! A. I wouldn’t like to say that was the case. —106— Q. In Northwest Junior High School, if it shows that there were 36 white pupils initially assigned to Northwest Junior High School you couldn’t say that that wasn’t the result of a new geographical area created by the Board, could you! A. I would have to take the word of the Board for such an assignment. I would be unable to make a state ment on my own. Mr. Bell: For the benefit of counsel, I don’t under stand the question and I don’t know whether the witness does either. Mr. Barkley: I ’m simply asking if the 36 or 45 or 200 white children initially assigned to an all Negro school as to whether that could or could not have been a result of the new geographical plan adopted by the Board. Court: I would expect that you would stipulate that it is, would you not! Mr. Bell: Is he saying the 36 he listed there are they the people who were assigned initially! Court: No. He’s referring, as I understand Mr. Barkley’s question, to the most recent testimony of Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Cross 278a Mr. Kramer with respect to Irwin Avenue, Morgan School, Northwest Junior High and Second Ward where 47, 65, 36 and 124 white children did elect to transfer out. The question is as far as putting white children in those dominantly Negro schools —107— weren’t they put there by reason of geography and I take it the answer is yes. Won’t you stipulate to that? They undoubtedly got there by reason of geographical zoning. Mr. Bell: Yes. A. The reason I have difficulty answering the question—• Court: I think we have agreed to it. Q. If it should appear from the evidence in this case that for the school year 1964-65 there were a total of about 780 Negro pupils in all of the integrated or predominantly white schools in Mecklenburg County and for the school year 1965-66 there are about 2,250 Negroes in integrated or predominantly white schools and it appears that the Board had established geographical attendance areas for the 1965-66 season, would you conclude that increase in Negro enrollment was the result of the establishment of new attendance areas? Mr. Chambers: Objection. Court: Overruled. Mr. Chambers: I gather that the defendant is asking whether the witness here is able to form an opinion from what he feels will be the evidence here. He hasn’t recited everything sufficient to form a basis. Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Cross 279a Court: Objection overruled. Let me ask you while you are on your feet, surely this is so, isn’t it? Mr. Chambers: He has used evidence here which —108— we would challenge, first the 780 and second the 2200 and some. Court: I understand that but the question in its ultimate thrust is simply why has it increased. Isn’t it because of the new geographical assignment situa tion? Mr. Chambers: It might be because of transfers. There were transfers imposed. This is another rea son why we objected. Court: Well, if he doesn’t know the best answer sometimes is just I don’t know. Maybe he doesn’t, I don’t know. Q. Is that your situation, you just don’t know? A. I wouldn’t like to make a positive statement on it. Q. In other words, you don’t have as positive an opinion about that as you have on these other subjects you dis cussed here, the opinions based upon what you have read in other publications? A. That is correct. Court: In your high school in Providence where you have just a few Negro students—you’ve got 22 or 25 I believe you said—if one of these Negro students wants to transfer out to another high school where maybe the balance is half and half or a lot more Negroes, will you permit him to do it? A. Yes, sir. Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Cross —109— 280a Court: How is that different from a white child in a school here being permitted to transfer! A. The question of integration in the City of Providence, or segregation, is apparently not a factor. The general regulations in the community, in the school, occupations, are not so discriminatory, apparently, as to make the situation develop to the point where the Negro community or the white community wants to change either one or the other. Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Cross Court: Does it not happen! I mean, take your high school, you just don’t have one of the 22 or 25 Negro students asking to transfer out! A. No. Actually, there are no Negro students living any where near the area that our high school ordinarily serves. These students come to us from more distant schools. Court: They are there, in other words, because they want to be. A. That’s correct, sir. Q. Mr. Kramer, you know nothing, I take it, of the building program that this defendant has on the drawing boards in the City of Charlotte! A. What I have read in the material which I received, sir. Q. Have you read about the Southwest Senior High School that the Board expects to let contracts for very shortly with the idea of being ready a year from now! — 110— A. If that’s in the transcript of this material then I ’ve seen it. Is that part of Exhibit A you’re referring to! Q. No. A. In your answer to the interrogatories! 281a Q. It is referred to in the assignment plan we have adopted. Court: Apparently his answer is he may have seen it but doesn’t recall particularly. A. That’s right, Your Honor. I read about a number of schools which are supposed to be available at some time in the future, which schools will be used to effectuate new geographical zones and reassignment of students. Q. You are not in a position to know whether it’s the purpose of the Board that that school is being constructed with the idea of absorbing all of the senior high school Negro population which would include York Road and any other Negro high schools in the southern part of the county, as well as white population? A. I would be unable to state that. Q. You don’t know that the Board has plans on the drawing board to construct a junior high school, East Central, located just east of Billingsville and a couple of blocks from McAlway Road to which you referred a while ago, which the Board proposes to use not only for the accommodation of all white people in that particular area but the junior high school students at Billingsville? A. I —I l l — was forced, Mr. Barkley, to confine myself to the informa tion that was available to me and the facts at hand and didn’t feel I could predicate upon future possibilities. Q. Was that information not communicated to you along with the rest of the information they gave you under which you might base your opinion? A. No because, although these statements of new schools being built were included in material that was given to me which I read, in an effort to look at geographic lines now and to discuss what is Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Cross 282a happening at the present time and for the coming school year, I felt I should confine myself to the things I could see and look at and not speculate as to what might happen in a year from now or two years from now or three years from now. Q. You haven’t had an opportunity to make a physical examination of the areas themselves? A. Not all of them. I took a ride through part of the town but I confined myself largely to the zone lines on the map. Q. Did you by any chance go out through what is gen erally known as the Johnson C. Smith area? A. I drove by the Johnson C. Smith School. Q. Did you know that perhaps one-half of the Negro population of this county resides in an area of some three or four miles centering around Johnson C. Smith Uni versity? A. No, sir, I don’t know that. — 112— Q. Do you have any plans to suggest by which Biddle- ville might be integrated other than to bus pupils from Biddleville over into the eastern parts of the city or county? A. No, I am not prepared to give positive recom mendations so far as any changing any more than I have indicated in my report to you based on the time I had. It would take a much more intensive study. These zone lines were drawn, I am sure, by people with a great deal of study and over a great deal of time. It would be pre- sumptious of me to say I could redraw those to serve another purpose without equal time. It is not so difficult to make a judgment of individual situations. Q. You are not going to suggest in any way that the Board of Education drew these lines in bad faith with the idea of excluding Negroes and preventing integration, are you? A. I am not suggesting anything, Mr. Barkley, Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Cross 283a but I will say that if a Board of Education had planned to draw lines in such a way as to circumvent the segrega tion law and have it appear on paper that there was compliance, there are resemblances between the situation as I see it and it would appear in such a case. Q. That’s your judgment about the matter? A. Yes, sir. - Q. And that judgment is based not on your personal experience as a teacher and administrator but on what you have read somewhere? A. That is correct. —113— Q. You speak here of your different proposals for re drawing lines that you say would promote integration and you say that in the long run would pay off. How long a run have you in mind? A. Most of the studies that I have seen show that within a year definite improvements, academically and otherwise, have been made without any negative change in the results of the population of the majority group already there. Q. What authorities did you get that conclusion from? A. In a book, “Research on School Desegregation” , pub lished in 1964, among the sections herein— Q. Where is that published and by whom? A. This is published by Integrated Education Associates, 343 S. Dear born St., Chicago, Illinois. Q. Do you know anything about that organization? I have never heard of that. A. This organization published research material and other material on progress in inte gration in the schools. It covers the various court cases and keeps you up to date on the literature. Every two months a pamphlet comes out which summarizes various court cases and reports from other cities, various cities, concerning integration of the schools. Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Cross 284a Q. Do you know who heads the company? A. I don’t know the name of the editor except that I do know the —1 1 4 - individual who wrote this particular book. Q. Who is he? A. His name is Meyer Weinberg. Q. Is he from Chicago? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, now, if they would permit you, if they would he willing to take advantage of your judgment in the field of integration, do you feel like you might be able to im prove the integration situation in Chicago somewhat? Mr. Chambers: Objection. Court: Objection sustained. Q. Mr. Kramer, a number of times I believe you said there were some 15 schools with only 1 or 2-— A. 19 schools. Q. With only 1 or 2 Negro students in it and you couldn’t understand how that would come about. Assuming, which is a fact, that prior to this year the Board has permitted transfers on the freedom of choice of the student, you would not say that those 1 or 2 children may not have gotten into those schools last year by the exercise of their own free choice in which event they would be initially assigned this year. You don’t know that, do you? Court: In the interest of shortening this matter, he doesn’t know. He said he doesn’t know how those children got in so there’s no use pursuing it. I —115— am sure you have witnesses who can and will at the proper time tell us. Mr. Barkley: I wanted to see if he had a reason. Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Cross 285a Court: He suggested that if it’s geography it’s a little strange hut he doesn’t know if it is geography. Is that right? A. That’s correct, Your Honor. Q. Most of these changes in boundaries which you have suggested I believe will have the effect of putting whites into Negro schools rather than Negroes into white schools, would they not? A. I didn’t compare them, Mr. Barkley, it may be so. I didn’t consider the one aspect as against the other. Q. You would change the Lakeview Elementary School boundary which would permit some white students into Biddleville. Court: This wouldn’t make a difference, would it ? Mr. Barkley: I don’t think it would but he seemed to lay great stress on that and I wanted to point that out to him. Q. The greater number of these schools that you find some dissatisfaction with the boundaries are the 10 schools that are excepted from the assignment plan, are they not? You have included all of those, as I understand your argu ment, and you say that they ought to be desegregated now rather than one or two years from now. A. Yes, sir. —-116- Court: Let me pursue that a moment. Speaking hypothetically—and I realize that you have said you haven’t really studied the future—but to the extent that you have been able to think about it, hypothetically, if the 10 excepted schools had not Lewis I. Kramer—-for Plaintiffs—Cross 286a been excepted, what do you think about the overall plan, would that make a big difference? A. It would make a substantial difference, Your Honor. Court: I want to be sure you meant what you said to Mr. Barkley just a moment ago as I understood you. All the instances that you referred to, each school that you took up and mentioned, do you mean to say that all of them relate to an excepted school? A. No, sir. Court: Simply most of them? A. A large number of them do, Your Honor. Court: I want to make sure I have got it in my notes. Could you tell me without taking too much time which ones don’t relate to the excepted schools? That is, your criticisms that are not related to the exceptions left out of the plan. A. I think Eastway Junior High School, which involves Hawthorne. I don’t think either one of them is an excepted school. Lewis l. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Cross Court: This is criticized schools not related to —117— the excepted schools, that is to say, even if the plan had not had any exceptions you would still be making these criticisms? A. That is correct. Eastway Junior High and Hawthorne Junior High are involved in one. Now, do I understand 287a that part of the Billingsville School is not excepted? May I ask the question? Mr. Barkley: The elementary part is not excepted. A. Then that portion which refers to the Billingsville Junior High School would he included in the list that Your Honor has referred to. Neither the Derita School or Druid Hills or Tryon Hills are involved in the excepted schools, are they, sir? Mr. Barkley: Yes, sir, all three of them are. A. Barringer Elementary and Wilmore. Court: Later on if you think of any others call it to my attention but for the present what you remem ber that we may say are not related to the excepted schools but still criticized are Eastway, Hawthorne, Billingsville Junior High, Barringer Elementary and Biddleville Junior High. Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, may I inquire if it would be permissable for us to submit to you a list of the schools not included? Court: Yes, please, with a copy to opposing coun- —118— sel. Excuse my having interrupted you so much in your cross examination. Q. Now, Mr. Kramer, as to Eastway, for instance, which is the first school you mentioned here in reply to His Honor’s inquiry, the only effect of any change in boundary in Eastway School would be to move some children from Eastway, which has only about 1 Negro, over to the Haw thorne School which has— Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Cross 288a Court: You’re talking about Bastway now! Mr. Barkley: Yes, sir. Q. I believe it’s 729 whites and 102 Negroes. The only effect of redrawing that boundary would be to put more white children from Eastway into the mixed school where there are about 109 Negroes, isn’t that right! A. It would have two effects, Mr. Barkley. Not only would you more completely integrate the Hawthorne School but you would move children from a school which is practically at maxi mum to a school which is, as I see it, under-populated. Q. Well, you’re not concerned with the efficiency of our school operation except as it pertains to race, are you! A. It would be very desirable from my point of view, if any changes I were to recommend not only were to promote desegregation but would also make for better education from any angle. Q. You weren’t brought down here for the purpose of —119— assisting the Board in making the facilities more efficient, were you! A. No, sir, I was not. Court: We can’t separate the two and, of course, shouldn’t try to. Q. Now, the only effect of redrawing the boundaries of Eastway would be to transform Hawthorne from a school where there are 729 white and 102 Negroes into a school in which there might be 8 or 900 whites and 102 Negroes, isn’t that right! A. It would increase the white population. Q. It would not increase the Negro enrollment at all! A. That’s correct, sir. Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Cross 289a Q. In Billingsville, the only effect in the elementary schools, the only effect of changing the Billingsville line would he to move it back up the old Sardis Road, Randolph Road to McAlway Road and have the effect of putting some whites into Billingsville, isn’t that right? A. Well, doesn’t this also keep Negroes out of the Cotswold School as it is now if the southern line is left where it is? Are you talking about my comment concerning the line going to McAlway Road? Q. I ’m talking about the junior high school. Cotswold is not a junior high school. Court: Billingsville Junior High, less than 200 Negroes in that high school and nobody else. A. Are you talking about the 200 junior high school — 120- students in Billingsville? Court: Yes. A. My comment was that they could go elsewhere, Pied mont, Hawthorne. Court: Or Alexander Graham. Q. Now, would it not be also a good school operation to build a junior high school about McAlway Road and take in all of that area including Billingsville? A. It might well be. Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Cross Court: Including Billingsville and what else? A. A. G. and McClintock. (Answer by Mr. Barkley.) 290a Mr. Chambers: May I ask counsel to repeat that question? I didn’t understand it. Court: He asked if it would be a good idea to build a new school and combine Billingsville, in effect, and what else? Mr. Barkley: A. G. and McClintock. A. I should perhaps say in that connection that this as sumes that the schools presently there are not suitable or would not be suitable for use. Are you suggesting that if the schools there are suitable for use you would build another school? Q. I am not making any inquiry at all as to whether the school is suitable for use, I ’m just making inquiry as to whether to build a junior high school about McAlway Road — 121— that would be sufficiently large to accommodate from Billingsville, McClintock and A. G. wouldn’t be a good operation from the standpoint of integration and not effi ciency? A. If you wanted to limit it to integration, I think any such structure yes, if you wish to remove all other relatives. Q. Now, Mr. Kramer, have you been informed that this Board of Education, over a long period of years and in cluding schools now on the drawing boards, have been locating certainly with and largely upon the advice of the Inglehardt Firm? Are you acquainted with them! A. In- glehardt and Inglehardt? Q. Yes, Inglehardt and Inglehardt and Leggett. A. Yes, I know the firm. Q. That is a competent firm of school advisors, is it not, from the standpoint of construction and sites? A. Yes, Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Cross sir. 291a Q. And if it should appear that the location selected by the Board of Education for sites for schools which have been constructed and which are now on the drawing board, would you feel this Board has taken very good advice in locating their schools? A. I would say that Inglehardt and Inglehardt is a good firm to take advice from. Court: Well, I knew they had advising companies in every business but I didn’t know they did in the - 122- school business. Mr. Barkley: Yes, sir, they have a big operation. Court: Management consultants. Mr. Barkley: Yes, sir. Court: It’s an age of specialization, it really is. Mr. Barkley: I think they have planned all of the San Francisco schools, for example, over the years. Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, may I request a five minute recess? Court: Yes, sir. We’ll do better than that. We will take 10 or 15 minutes. S hort R ecess Mr. Barkley: We have no further questions. Court: Any redirect of Mr. Kramer? Mr. Bell: No redirect. Court: Counsel have agreed that he may be ex cused, is that correct? Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir. Mr. Barkley: Yes, sir. Mr. Bell: The plaintiffs will rest, Your Honor. Court: Is there evidence for the defendant School Board? Lewis I. Kramer—for Plaintiffs—Cross 292a Mr. Barkley: Yes, sir. (Witnesses for the defendant are sworn.) — 123- Dr. A. C b a ig P h i l l i p s , a witness for the defendant, having first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: Direct Examination by Mr. Barkley: Q. Give us your full name, please. A. Andrew Craig Phillips. Q. What position do you hold with the Charlotte-Meck- lenburg Board of Education? A. Superintendent of Schools. Q. How long have you held that position, Dr. Phillips? A. Completing my third year as Superintendent. Q. Can you tell us what was the status of the integra tion situation, if we can call it that, when you came here as superintendent ? A. Very briefly, Mr. Barkley, the pro gram that began in 1957 had progressed to the point where there were some beginnings being made in geographic assignment in 1962. Following the consolidation of the two systems two years prior to that the first steps were made in the concept of geographic assignment in the year 1962 and this was increased each year following, 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65. My only knowledge of the past has come through my having had experience in this state work ing in another school system and having a close associa tion in the total statewide movement in the implementation — 124— of the Supreme Court decision. This was about the status when I arrived. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 293a Q. Do you know what schools you set up on a geograph ical basis for the school year 1952-63? A. I would have to have my information in front of me to be specific. The first school was the Bethune School on North Graham Street and then this was followed with the Wesley Heights School and then, I believe, there were 12 all together the second year. They are in the minutes of the Board of Education and recorded there. Q. Now, do you recall approximately how many schools were set up on a geographically zoned system in the school year 1964-65? A. Approximately 64, I believe, was the number, Mr. Barkley. Q. Now, Dr. Phillips, beginning in the Fall of 1964, state whether or not any movement was undertaken by the Board looking to a reorganization of the assignment system with the idea of eliminating discrimination. A. Well, the in tent of the Board had been established prior to that, in simplest terms, to reach full geographic assignment for the entire system, and a good bit of the planning relating to the elimination eventually of the union school programs that did still exist at that time. Probably the first major step of significance related to the elimination or plans for elimination of the Sterling Senior High School and then following this the plans for elimination of one grade at the —125— Torrence-Lytle High School with a number of steps spelled out as plans for the elimination eventually of the union school there and at the Gunn School. These plans were made early in that year. Q. Now, the schools that you have referred to, were they what is commonly known as the rural schools back in the days when the city and county schools were separate? A. Yes, sir. They were the rural Negro schools, grades 1 Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—-Direct 294a to 12, in the far northern area and the far eastern area and the southern areas. Court: Is that what you mean by a union school ? A. Yes, sir, grades 1 to 12. Court: They are eliminated now! A. They are in the process of being eliminated now. The Sterling Senior High School has already been closed up, grades 1 to 9 still exist under the exception plan. Grades 1 to 9 and grades 11 and 12 still exist at the Torrence- Lytle School. Grade 10 was eliminated in this plan and the youngsters were assigned to the North Mecklenburg Senior High and grades 1 to 12 at Gunn. Q. That assignment is for this coming 1965-66 school term! A. Yes, sir. Q. When were the grades eliminated at Sterling! A. Last year the youngsters were given the option of attend ing South Mecklenburg Senior High School, which was the —1 2 6 - school identified serving that southern area. Q. What was the complexion of that school! A. South Mecklenburg is predominantly white and approximately 31 to 40 of these youngsters chose to go ahead to South Mecklenburg. 55 or 60 stayed at the Sterling School and about 19 attended the York Road Senior High School. This was under the old option plan where, prior to initial assignment, they were given the option of attending school. The notice said, your residence is in the South Mecklen burg attendance area. You have the option of attending South Mecklenburg, returning to Sterling or going to Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 295a York Road, and then the notice said and the information was that the Board did intend to close the Sterling Senior High School within the next year or two. That has taken place now. The Sterling School has been closed, the senior high school. Q. I believe that it was closed as of this year, beginning with next year. A. Yes, sir. All of these youngsters have been assigned to the school serving the area in which they live and the vast majority of them are now assigned to South Mecklenburg. I believe there are about 125 Negro youngsters at the South Mecklenburg school. Q. Now, Doctor, I believe it’s in evidence by reason of the introduction of the interrogatories, if the Court please, the assignment rules and regulations for the forthcoming - 1 2 7 - school term. A. Yes, sir. Mr. Barkley: Would the Court mind if I read the material parts of this? Court: No, sir. Q. Do you know what date this was adopted? A. March 11. This is the assignment plan? Yes, March 11. Q. I will just read the material parts of it : “Attendance areas are hereby established for all schools within the Mecklenburg County Administrative School Unit (with the temporary exceptions hereinafter noted under the article entitled “Exceptions” ) and the boundaries thereof are hereby established as shown on these three certain maps this day exhibited to the Board and approved by the Board.” Then the provisions for the signatures by the presiding officer. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 296a “All pupils within any attendance area shall be as signed to the school of his or her grade within such attendance area. Assignment for any forthcoming school term shall be made not later than the last school day of the preceding school term. In the case of children enrolled during such term, notice of as signment may be given by noting the same on the report card of the pupil. Except for beginners, pupils not then enrolled shall be assigned at the time of their application for enrollment.” “Beginners (children entitled to enrollment under —128— G.S. 115-162) may attend any pre-school clinic but shall be assigned to the first grade of the school in the attendance area where the parent resides. Written notice of each assignment shall be given by mail to the parent at the same time as the report card notice to pupils already enrolled.” “Free Choice of Transfer: After original assign ment, the parent of any pupil may apply to the Board for reassignment of such pupil to any school serving his or her grade and located in any other attendance area. Any such request for transfer shall be allowed as of course to the extent that the facilities and ac commodations of the chosen school will permit. Ap plication may be made for Choice I, Choice II and Choice III and transfer will be permitted, in the order of Choice, to the school having the facilities and accommodations to admit such child or children. Re quests for transfer shall be on a printed form available at the office of the Superintendent or at any school office. When signed, the form may be delivered or Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—-Direct 297a mailed to the principal of the school of original as signment or to the office of the Superintendent. No reason need be given therefor. Application for trans fer or reassignment shall be made not later than June 30 in the case of original assignments made on or before June 20. Pupils originally assigned thereafter shall make application for transfer within ten days after receipt of the notice of the assignment. If there —129— should be requests for transfer to a particular school by more pupils from other attendance areas than the transferee school can accommodate, proximity to the school shall be the controlling factor.” “Transfers Limited in Case of New Schools: In the case of mass assignments of pupils to newly opened schools in newly created attendance areas, the Board may deny the request for the transfer of any pupil back to the school in which he was previously enrolled, if, in the judgment of the Board, it appears that the number of transfer requests is of such volume as to unduly reduce the enrollment in such new school or interfere with the orderly administration thereof.” I am omitting one paragraph here. It has no racial purpose except to prevent varsity players from switching from one school to another. Mr. Bell: We would be willing to stipulate all this. Mr. Barkley: I thought the Court would like to hear it. It’s in the record. Mr. Bell: We don’t doubt that is the plan. Our only contention is that the zones under which the Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 298a persons are assigned are open to question; that the excepted schools are open to question and that the teachers should be desegregated. We don’t doubt that there are zone lines or that the people had the freedom of choice. We think the freedom of choice is not effective. —130— Mr. Barkley: We centered on the geography and the excepted schools. I take it transportation is not concerned any more. Mr. Chambers: Transportation is involved in the 10 excepted schools. Mr. Bell: Let me say this, it is in the insufficiency of the plan, not the fact of the plan. We don’t doubt the plan exists. We are arguing it is insufficient in three or four ways. Court: Three is what you said to begin with. Your allegation is gerrymandering, to begin with, with respect to certain school areas, and the excepted schools. Of course you say that’s wrong because there is no reason to postpone what ought to be done now. And then thirdly, teachers. Mr. Bell: That’s right. Mr. Barkley: Let me read the exceptions to see what provisions the plan makes with respect to the excepted schools. “There exist attendance areas, serving certain schools in Mecklenburg County, which now overlap and embrace territories which include the attendance areas of other schools. The schools with attendance areas which overlap other attendance areas are Ster ling School, Torrence-Lytle School and J. H. Gunn, Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 299a which are known as union schools providing instruction — 131— at the elementary, junior high and senior high school level in grades one through twelve, the York Road Junior-Senior High School, the Plato Price and Bil- lingsville Schools which combine elementary and junior high school courses of instruction, Crestdale Elemen tary School, Ada Jenkins Elementary School, Amay James Elementary School and Woodland Elementary School. The revision of the attendance areas from which these schools draw pupils so as to eliminate overlapping and to permit the children in these schools to be assigned according to geographically drawn at tendance areas will be undertaken as soon as a building construction program, planned with that end in view and now underway, may be completed; not later, ac cording to existing plans, than the beginning of the school term 1967-68. In the meanwhile: (a) The senior high school program at Sterling School shall be discontinued as of the close of the current school term, 1964-65, and the pupils in those grades assigned to the school or schools serving the attendance area or areas in which they reside, (b) The 10th grade program at Torrence-Lytel School shall be discontinued at the close of the present school term. The entire senior high program at this school shall be discontinued by the close of the 1966-67 term, depending upon the ability of the Board to complete its building program in that area by the close of that term. Rising 10th grade pupils at Torrence-Lytle School shall be assigned — 132— to the senior high school serving the area in which they Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 300a reside. Rising 11th and 12th grade pupils shall be assigned to the Torrence-Lytle School for the 1965-66 term. Upon the discontinuation of the senior high school program by the end of the 1966-67 term the re maining students shall be assigned to the senior high school serving the area in which they reside. (c) upon the completion of the Northeast Senior High School, the J. H. Gunn Senior High School program will be discontinued. At that time the rising 10th, 11th and 12th grade students at J. H. Gunn Senior High School shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. (d) The rising 7th, 8th and 9th grades at Torrence- Lytle Junior High School will be discontinued by the end of the 1966-67 term. At that time these students shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. (e) The rising 7th, 8th and 9th grades at Sterling- Junior High School vdll be discontinued by the end of the 1966-67 term. At that time these students shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. (f) Upon the completion of the Albemarle Road Junior High School, the rising 7th, 8th and 9th grades at J. 11. Gunn Junior High School will be discontinued. —133— At that time these students shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. (g) Upon the completion of the Albemarle Road Junior High School, the Crestdale Elementary School Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 301a will be discontinued. At that time the children (grades 1-6) attending that school shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. (h) By the end of the 1966-67 school term, new attendance areas, based on good faith consideration of geographical factors only, shall be established for the Sterling Elementary School, the Torrence-Lytle Ele mentary School, the J. H. Gunn Elementary School, and the Ada Jenkins Elementary School. These at tendance boundaries shall be contiguous with other elementary school attendance areas adjacent to these areas. The children attending these schools at the time the attendance areas are established shall then he assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside; or By the end of the 1966-67 school term the Sterling Elementary School, the Torrence-Lytle Elementary School, the J. H. Gunn Elementary School, and the Ada Jenkins Elementary School shall be discontinued and the children attending these schools shall be as signed to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. (i) Upon the completion of the Southwest Senior —134— High School, the Plato Price Junior High School (grades 7-9) shall be discontinued and the children attending that school in those grades shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. At this time, also, new attendance areas (or a new attendance area) shall be established, Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 302a based on good faith consideration of geographical fac tors only, for the Amay James and Plato Price Ele mentary Schools. The boundaries of these new areas (or this new area) shall be contiguous with other elementary school attendance areas adjacent to these areas (or this area). (j) Upon the completion of the Southwest Senior High School, a new attendance area, based on good faith, consideration of geographical factors only, shall be established for the Woodland Elementary School. The boundaries of this attendance area shall be con tiguous with the boundaries of the adjacent attendance areas and children attending the Woodland Elementary School at that time shall he assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which the children reside. (k) Upon the completion of the Southwest Senior High School, the York Road Senior High School pro gram will be discontinued. At that time the rising 10th, 11th, and 12th grade students at York Road Senior High School shall be assigned to the school or schools serving the area or areas in which they reside. —135— (l) Upon the completion of the Southwest Senior High School, a new attendance area, based on good faith consideration of geographical factors only, shall be established for the York Road Junior High School. The boundaries of this attendance area shall be con tiguous with the boundaries of adjacent attendance areas and children attending the York Road Junior High School at that time shall he assigned to the Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 303a school or schools serving the area or areas in which the children reside. (m) Upon the completion of the East Central Junior High School, the Billingsville Junior High School shall be discontinued and the children attend ing that school shall be assigned to the school serving the area in which the children reside.” Q. Dr. Phillips, has the school system undertaken the assignment of pupils under this plan for the forthcoming 1965-66 school term? A. Yes, sir, it has. A. Yes, sir, it has. Q. Tell us just what was done with regard to the assign ment, how it was done and to what areas, what schools they were assigned. A. First, prior to the June 2 assign ment, Mr. Barkley, the capacities were set as directed in the plan for the school system and then the mechanics were set up for the official assignment for the some 75,000 youngsters who were anticipated for the coming year. —1 3 6 - Maps—this map as is seen here, three of them, one ele mentary, one junior high and one senior high—copies were made of the master map which was signed by the Board Chairman and the Superintendent and hangs in the Board of Education Office, copies were made and sent to each of the 109 schools. The principals were, both through written instructions and verbal instructions, very carefully set up for the assignment of the pupils in accordance with the assignment plan and these simple instructions were to assign in the 99 schools, with the 10 exceptions, to as sign the children who resided in the specific school areas Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 304a to the school which served that area and this was gone over in right lengthy detail and copies of these instruc tions have been a part of the record. Q. Do you have a copy of the instructions here? A. Yes, sir, I do. That’s it right there, yes, sir. Q. That paper, does it contain the instructions that went out to all principals? A. Yes, sir, that were presented to them in a meeting of all the general staff and these were given to each of the principals and then discussed. Court: Let the Clerk mark it and give it an ex hibit number. (Defendant’s Exhibit A marked for identifica tion.) A. Then, Mr. Barkley, the principals met with their teach- — 137— ers and with their maps, with their emphasis on their own areas but having to be cognizant of all the areas because most of the schools had youngsters who had moved and prior to this time had lived in other areas. They made the actual assignment that went on report cards on June 2. We had prepared a letter to all parents, some 75 to 78,000 copies in total, and gave each of the principals the number needed to attach to each report card of each child. We actually instructed the principals to staple these to the report cards because of our general experience with young sters that if you don’t put it all together it doesn’t get home some of the time and we made extra effort to make sure that every parent had this instruction and that letter is in the file. Along with this, a special letter was drawn for each of the 10 exception areas which, in rather careful Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 305a detail, spelled out what the Board of Education’s plan did and what it set up for each of the 10 areas and that is also a matter of record. Q. That also is in the answers to the interrogatories? A. I think that’s correct. Q. Can you tell His Honor just briefly what those letters contained? A. The letter which went to all of the parents of the 75,000 boys and girls said that the Board of Educa tion had adopted a new policy on assignment for the Char- lotte-Mecklenburg Schools as of March 11 and actually —138— took a quote from the plan which you just read which indicated that attendance areas had been set for all of the schools with the 10 exceptions and these 10 exceptions were listed at the bottom of that letter, and with a state ment which said that an accompanying letter would be attached to the 10 schools. And the parent was told, again quoting from the plan, that following initial as signment every parent would have the right of free choice of transfer and this was spelled out in the letter. The letter also stated there would be no implication of no pressures whatsoever as far as the child or parent would be concerned from school personnel in any way as to whatever decision was made about choice. The letters that were sent to the 10 excepted schools spelled out in detail what would happen at each of these schools. I shall take the Sterling letter as an example. It was addressed to parents of children at Sterling School grades 1 to 9. It was not sent to grades 10, 11 and 12 because these children had been initially assigned in the main to South Mecklenburg because this was the area in which they lived. It then spelled out, quoting from the plan again, the factors involved in the plans for Sterling, Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 306a that Sterling would be closed, the senior high school, as of the end of this year; that the junior high school would be closed upon the completion of the Southwest Senior High School and that new lines, based on good faith consideration, would be set for the Sterling School. —139— And again it was spelled out to these parents that they had the right of choice of transfer following this initial assignment. The letter did state, in pointblank terms, that the Board still carried the overlapping school areas. This came out of the plan itself. And the letter really carried all of the information we could possibly present for the parents benefit and on the back of each of these was the form for request of transfer and they were told that was on the back and could be used if they requested a change. Q. Doctor, in addition to the notice to the parents on the report cards by the letter, was anything else done to advertise or give public notice of the text of the as signment plan? A. Yes, sir, very much was done. In accordance with the stipulation of the plan, the total plan was carried in the morning and afternoon press in two consecutive weeks as spelled out in the actual plan itself. In addition, close to a thousand copies of this plan were spread out all over Mecklenburg County. We have 545 school committeemen—five for each of the schools —and copies were given to each of the principals so that each school committeeman could have a full copy of this plan in addition to that one in the school itself, plus the 109 copies of this map put out in the schools. The news media, newspapers, radio and television, did —140— what I felt was a very capable job of expressing the Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 3 0 7 a Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct intent of the plan and specific provisions. So it was widely spread right after the adoption on March 11. Q. Can you give us the date that postcards, letters and request forms were sent to the parents! A. You mean the report cards! Q. Yes. A. June 2. Q. Were letters mailed to those pre-schoolers at the same time! A. A notice of assignment plus the letter explaining the Board’s action went to each of the pre school children who had been registered for first grade attendance for the coming fall, and actually our best figures showed us that we had all hut about 700 or less of those who were anticipated actually assigned on June 2 through a notice of assignment which is also in the record. Q. I believe the assignment plan provided that trans fer requests should be submitted by June 30! A. June 30, yes, sir. Q. Which gave about 28 days that the parents had in which to request transfer change! A. Yes, sir. Court: The transfer permission did apply to students in the excepted schools! A. Yes, sir. —141 - Court: And that was plain in the letter! A. Yes, sir. Actually they had two letters. They had the letter that went to all 75,000 plus the special letter that applied to their school. Court: Both said that they had the right to request transfer and it would be done as a matter of course! 308a A. Yes, sir, and both had copies of the form on the back. Q. Now, Doctor, this is after June 30, have you been able to get in sufficient reports showing the initial as signment of Negro children and white children as a result of this new assignment plan! A. Yes, sir. Following the June 30 deadline date for receipt of these requests for transfer, our staff has spent many an hour in the analysis of these choice of transfers and the figures re lating to assignment. Our most difficult problem has come about by the actual requests of the Court for a break down by race and the request from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare for a breakdown by race because we do not keep records now on the basis of race itself, and our only means of anticipating the youngsters who were Negro and who were white was to go to the schools which they had been attending the past, schools that had been identified in our overlapping system as we have come along as schools serving Negro children, and these figures have been compiled and are available for analysis. —142— Q. You said that the Court asked for these. Let’s blame it on Mr. Chambers. A. In the interrogatories, yes, sir. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct Court: I wasn’t aware I had asked. Q. Now, Doctor, are you able to state to the Court what your report shows as to the number of Negro children who were initially assigned as a result of the geographical zoning of the school system to integrated or all white schools'? A. Yes, sir. I would need my sheet here to be specific. I can be general but if you will give me the 309a black book there. (The book is handed to the witness.) In total, Mr. Barkley, the number of Negro pupils ini tially assigned to what would be called integrated schools was 1955 Negro youngsters. This included boys and girls who had been in attendance in a number of schools under the geographic plan that had existed prior to this and under the request for change of assignment. This figure was 1955. Q. That was initial assignment! A. That was initial assignment. Q. May I ask you, when you count the total number of initial assignments, do you first deduct the number of pupils who were assigned initially when these partic ular school grades were closed? A. No, it does not. I think this figure needs to be clarified. In total there were some 3200 requests for change of assignment made. This —143— is in the initial assignment. This is less the boys and girls, there were 345 youngsters in total who returned to the school of initial assignment because there was not room in the school to which they had asked entrance. These were not necessarily racial patterns. Let’s take the Second Ward, West Charlotte. Both of these are all Negro senior high schools. In the changing of the lines between West Charlotte and Second Ward on a geographic basis, there was a sizable number of youngsters assigned to West Charlotte for the first time who had been at Second Ward. These youngsters asked, under the free choice plan, to return to Second Ward and gave only one choice. Second Ward could not accommodate any of the first choices so these youngsters were assigned back to the West Charlotte which was their initial assignment. This worked both ways and it worked the same way be Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 310a tween Garringer and Second Ward, between Myers Park and Second Ward and actually a number of Negro young sters who were in the new Myers Park area and assigned to Myers Park—26 altogether—who asked to go back to Second Ward but only gave one choice, Second Ward, and because of the limitation of space they were assigned and show in this figure assigned to Myers Park. Q. Myers Park is a white high school! A. Yes, sir, predominantly white and with these 26 would be 150 or 160 Negro youngsters. —144— Q. Of those assigned back to the original schools, they would represent children who had requested the transfer from one Negro school to another Negro school or one white school to another white school! A. Yes, sir. Q. And there were about 345 of these! A. 345 of these. Q. Do you know how many Negro children requested transfer to a white school after the initial assignment! A. Mr. Barkley, I believe that the figure of 200—let me find the right sheet here, excuse me a minute—there were 262 requests of Negro youngsters to enter integrated schools or predominantly white schools. To the best of my knowledge this figure is correct. Again the problem, for example, the Piedmont Junior High School, which has a sizable number of both Negro and white, it was difficult to determine always which were Negro youngsters and which were white. But there were 262 requests to enter and to the best of my knowledge there were only 5 boys and girls who had requested by first choice and only choice to a white school who were denied. I have the names of these 5. There were 3 who were assigned to Second Ward who requested assignment to Garringer. There was not room at Garringer. They had no other Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 311a choice on the form so they were assigned back to Second Ward. There were two West Charlotte children, living- in the West Charlotte area by the geographic areas who —145— requested Garringer and were denied because Garringer didn’t have room for any first choices. Q. Doctor, I believe that thing that you have shows there were a great many more requests to transfer by pupils enrolled in white schools than those enrolled in Negro schools, is that correct! A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you explain why there were more among the children in white schools than those among the children in Negro schools! A. It’s important to take a look at the actual distribution as per the requests made through the interrogatories and H.E.W. The basic lists were made of Negro youngsters requesting or initially assigned to predominantly white schools. We do have a distribu tion of pupils who were returned to initial assignment. For example, East Mecklenburg had 13 students who were returned, white students who were returned to East Mecklenburg who wanted to go to Garringer like the youngers I just mentioned but who could not get into Garringer. They had been in Garringer and the line had changed them away from that school. They wanted to go back but could not go back because there wasn’t room. There were 10 youngsters returned to Eastwav Junior High School who probably requested McClintock Junior High School, again to fit the geographic concept because of the change of the lines. They had been in —146— McClintock, they were assigned anew to Eastway, they wanted to go back to McClintock, there wasn’t room and this was their only choice and they were sent back to Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 312a Eastway. There were 8 at Matthews who applied for McClintock who couldn’t get in and they were sent back. Q. Those are all white students? A. Yes, sir, these are all white. The majority of the returnees were Negro youngsters returned to their initial assignment from other Negro schools rather than from the white schools. Q. I believe there is a great preference among the pupils as between Second Ward and Irwin Avenue and West Charlotte, is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. All of them are in solidly Negro areas? A. That’s correct. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct Court: Initially there were 1955 Negro students assigned to mixed or previously white schools? A. Yes, sir. Court: And then, after the initial assignment, 262 Negro students asked to go into integrated schools and all were granted permission except the 5 you mentioned? A. Yes, sir? Court: Now then, how many Negroes, if any, asked to go back to what we might call for con venience a Negro school? —147— A. 91 requests to leave that made the balance of the 2126 total Negro students in integrated schools. Court: Those 91 asked to go back to an all Negro school ? A. Yes, sir. 313a Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct Court: If you start with your 1955 and add 257— A. 262. Court: No, 262 except for 5. A. The 5 were in addition to the 262. Court: 1955 plus 262 minus 91. A. That’s right, yes, sir. These are, by the way, in 43 schools altogether. The 2126 students are in the 43 schools. In addition, there were 15 schools that were predominantly Negro to which white children were initially assigned. Q. As a result of this geographical zoning! A. Yes, sir. Court: I ended up with 2126. A. Yes, sir, that’s right. Court: In 43 schools. A. Yes, sir. Court: And the 43, what’s your term for it, integrated! A. Integrated, yes, sir. Q. Doctor, before we get to the matter of the map of these excepted schools, can you give us the general trend —148— of the school population in Mecklenburg County from the standpoint of annual growth!—in recent years. A. Yes, 314a sir. On the average we would hit around 3000 new children each year. We reached our peak two years ago, I believe it was, when we hit 3700 new pupils. This was the heavy rise at the upper level in senior high school. We’re expect ing 2100 this year, approximately 21 to 2500 for the next two or three years and then an abrupt new growth again that will run on back up to 3000, 3500. Q. How long has that been going on! A. To the best of my knowledge, for the three year period of time the first year I was here it was 3300 or 3400 and it went up to 3700 and then has come back down. The growth has bene historically rather- large in this community. Q. I take it that is the increase in the net! A. Yes, sir.' Q. What do 2100 additional pupils make necessary in the way of additional classroom space! A. Well, in simplest terms this is about 70 to 75 new classrooms each year. It’s not quite that easy because the distribution pattern is not equal throughout the county because there are more rapidly growing areas in some sections of the county. So the problem is compounded by this concentra tion of growth and where a classroom in one area of the county might not be of help in the other, there is a need for more than 70 to 75 classrooms throughout the system. —149— This has all been a part of the total building program started back in December, 1962, with a report which called for approximatey thirty-five million dollars for the six year period up to 1970. Q. Do you know approximatey how much money you have invested in new building since ’62! A. Roughly we have thirty million dollars that will have been completed by September of 1967. We hope to finish most of it by Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 315a September, 1966, which is just the one year away. Ap- proximatey thirty million dollars. Court: How long a period! A. There was a vote of eight million four in 1961, then a vote of fifteen million six in 1963, then a five million six hundred thousand dollar allocation from the hundred million dollar bond program this past November, and then the remnants of about a five million dollar issue that was in 1960, ’59 or ’60, one of the two. We are completing expenditure of approximately thirty million dollars by next September and in total by September of 1967. Court: Approximately a five year period? A. Yes, sir. About five million dollars average per yeai> in expenditure in capital investment and new facilities. Q. Can you state whether this huge construction pro gram has been directed in any manner towards the development of the new assignment plan? A. Yes, sir, — 150— I think this has been real clear and clearly laid out in the plan itself. When the Board made its last clearcut decision to not build any facilities that would overlap or continue the concept of dual facilities, this plan was set up to produce school buildings where the children are and will be and all of the plan has been geared to this very idea and this can be documented by going right around the horn and talking about the new schools that are now being planned and will be ready, we hope, by September of ’66. Actually, we are just about a year and a half away from the completion of most of these facilities. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 316a Q. Doctor, can yon, without having to use the map again—I’m afraid that confuses the Court, it confuses me—if you could just locate these different projects. A. Yes, sir. Start down in the southwest comer, if we may, and we can go right around the map. Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, may I inquire if he is talking about new projects now planned or— ? Mr. Barkley: On the drawing board, I’d say. A. And I can identify where it is at this particular moment, if you want. The Southwest Senior High School is down in the lower lefthand corner and this is a protect for which about a million seven hundred fifty thousand dollars has been allocated. The architectural firm of Cameron & Associates is doing this job. It is in the final working —1 5 1 - drawing stages now and will be bid, we hope, in the next several weeks or at least the next month and a half. Court: What’s it near that I might know about! A. It’s on the Sandy Porter Road, down towards the river. Court: I’ve always been sorry that Charlotte is built on a bias. A. May I come over there and point to it! Mr. Barkley: It would help if you would point it out there. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct (The witness goes to the map.) 317a A. It’s right here, Your Honor. (Pointing.) Here’s the York Road Senior High School that we’ve mentioned several times. Here’s Pineville. Our South Mecklenburg High School is over here. West Mecklenburg Senior High School is here. This will be Southwest, this will be South. This will take in this whole area right here between West and South and will eliminate York Road Senior High School. This one is underway, the property has been bought, a 60-acre site, right here where my finger is. We move around this way, and an addition is being built right now and it’s about at the end of the preliminary drawings, for the West Mecklenburg Senior High School. This is to expand the facilities at West Mecklenburg to tie in with the growth for senior high school facilities when the York Road is eliminated here. And new lines must be drawn —152— when this school is completed to redistribute the children in this area, both white and Negro. But the York Road Senior High School, which is now Negro, would be eliminated and the youngsters assigned there will be basic ally distributed between Harding—those in the Harding area—those out in the West Mecklenburg area that we’ve heard something about today, those down in this area and some from the south area. Court: Will both of them serve mostly students outside the city limits? A. We have really ceased to be much aware of where the city limits are because we are a county-wide system but it will serve both. This has not been drawn specifically yet but the area for Southwest will be something like this, Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 318a a pieshaped area. Most of the other areas will be this same way. The West Mecklenburg area is here. Court: To get me oriented, where is uptown on that map! A. Right here. Court: Where is the Myers Park area! A. Myers Park is down in here. Here is the Myers Park High School, the Alexander Graham Junior High School and the Selwyn Elementary Schoo, right in this area. That’s southwest and it may he easier to come this way, southwest is here. We come around to the eastern area and a new school is being planned out in what is called the northeastern area on Wilson Grove Road and this —153— is the same size school as Southwest. The firm of Marsh and Hawkins are the architects, the property has been bought and the plans are probably a week or two ahead of Southwest. This is a new senior high school which will make it possible to eliminate the Gunn Senior High School and those youngsters will be assigned to the Northeast Senior High School, to the East Mecklenburg Senior High School and to Garringer because Gunn right now serves this whole area. This is the exception school, but the Northeast Senior High will make it possible to eliminate the Gunn Senior High and all these youngsters redis tributed. The Albemarle Road Junior High School is planned at the intersection of Delta Road and Lawyers Road out towards Albemarle. A 40-acre site has been purchased here and the firm of A. G. Odell has been con tracted for the plans here and the budget items have been Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 319a set up for this school. When that is completed in Sep tember of ’66, which is the anticipated date, the Matthews Junior High School, which we discussed a little while ago, will be discontinued. That will become a full elementary- school and the Crestdale elementary children would then become a part of the Matthews and Crestdale will then be discontinued, and these youngsters distributed between them. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct Court: Matthews, that’s the little town of Mat thews ? —154— A. Yes, sir. The coming inward, talking about Billingsville, right here, the Billingsville Junior High School, one of the excepted schools, is being taken care of with a new East Central Junior High School which is planned for right in here. It is in the hands of the Charles Connelly and Associates, architects, and they have the preliminary drawings going on this. The site is under condemnation right now and I haven’t heard the latest on it. It’s still in the courts, I think, under condemnation. This school will relieve the crowded conditions at McClintock, at Alexander Graham, and will eliminate the Billingsville Junior High School. This is anticipated to be ready in September of 1966. We have an elementary school, the Allenbrook Elementary School, which was just bid the other day and is under study now for the acceptance of the bid and will clear up the Woodland area and make it possible to rezone the Woodland area and make it con tiguous in the new area for Allenbrook and also will help to clear up the problem at Plato Price and Amay James. You see, when you come both ways and southwest, here, it will relate to the clearing up of these two areas. As 320a the plan lays it out, these will he redrawn to be contiguous on the basis of good faith considerations only with the Barringer and Ashley Park, which you have heard men tioned so many times. Hidden Valley is an elementary school and it’s about two weeks away from being bid for construction and it relates to the Derita School, we have —155— heard mentioned, it relates to the Druid Hills School, and one of the lines that I ’m sure that the consultant who was here questioned was off Interstate 85 which is an area that will be resolved when Hidden Valley is opened up in September of ’66. North Mecklenburg is slated for the other addition. North Mecklenburg Senior High School is right in here and this will make it possible to complete the transition that is taking place at Torrence-Lytle now. It’s already started, the 10th graders have already been assigned out of Torrence-Lytle, and the 11th and 12th graders will be assigned into North, and the junior high youngsters, with two junior highs serving the area, Ranson and Alexander, splitting these up would eliminate the Torrence-Lytle Junior and Senior High Schools completely. This would leave a decision for the Board to make in terms of eliminating the Torrence-Lytle facility completely, drawing a new line for it, and also drawing a new line for the xLda Jenkins or eliminating it completely. Mr. Barkley: I believe we gave the Court and we want to offer in evidence the Charlotte Planning- Commissions map showing the strictly solidly Negro areas. Mr. Chambers: Are you offering it now? Mr. Barkley: Yes. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 321a Mr. Chambers: Objection. Court: Overruled. Are you requesting authen ticity of it? Mr. Chambers: We are questioning whether the lines actually show the present racial patterns, housing patterns in the City of Charlotte, as I gather is the purpose of the offering. Court: I expect you better offer some testimony about it. If he’s questioning authenticity, it may not be admissable. Q. Can you point out generally the area of Mecklenburg County, which I believe would be mostly in Charlotte, which comprises the solidly Negro residential area? Court: This is the one that objection has been made to. Mr. Barkley: Yes, sir. A. Mr. Barkley, this is a map obtained from the Planning Office of non-white housing in 1960 and it basically follows the pattern of the map that was submitted to the Health, Education and Welfare as an indication of the racial pattern of residences. Q. Are you familiar with the residential racial patterns of the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County? A. In general, yes, sir. Q. Have you examined this map? A. Yes, sir. —157— Q. Can you state whether this map fairly represents the racial pattern of residence of the city and county? A. Yes, sir. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct —156— 322a Mr. Chambers: Objection. Court: Overruled. Mr. Barkley: We offer it for the purpose of illustrating the testimony. Mr. Chambers: Objection. Court: Let it be received for that limited pur pose. (Defendant’s Exhibit B received in evidence.) Q. Doctor, can you put the location there generally! A. Generally the heavy Negro residential area falls in this area right through here, Your Honor, which runs down into the center city. As you know, the great transition taking place in the center city itself with urban renewal and there is a great deal of moving of Negro families and most of this movement is in this direction. In addition to this, the fairly heavy single pocket relates to the Billingsville area. Court: Could you hold that up at the same time! Are both maps in the same relative position to each other! A. Yes, sir. Here’s the heavy green in the northwest. Here’s Interstate 85—this is Interstate 85 that runs across the top. —158— Court: Is that Johnson C. Smith area at the top! A. Yes, sir. Court: Then it drops down a bit and hits the McDowell Street area. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 323a A. Yes, sir. This is all downtown where there are no residences. This is the urban renewal area. And this is over in the Dilworth area, and then out towards Wilmore and then into the York Road area, and out into the Plato Price, Amay James area, and then over here to the Billingsville area. Court: That’s the only one I can’t orient myself about. A. Do you know where Chantilly is, the Merchandise Mart, the Coliseum? Court: Yes, sir. A. This is behind the Coliseum, across Monroe Road. Court: Behind the Coliseum? A. Yes, sir, south, behind it directly and then it covers an area between Monroe Road, or at least the railroad tracks and Randolph Road and goes out to where the belt road—this is one of the factors that the gentleman who was studying our lines was not aware of, the proposed belt road about which you’ve heard a great deal, I’m sure—it comes right across this back edge of this residen tial area. These areas of the real light green represent a small percentage and the only thing I know about this is this is the Methodist Home, a major recreation park - 1 5 9 - area through here and this represents a small group of Negro families in the Windwor Park area who were as signed to the Windsor Park Elementary School this year. Q. What kind of school is that? A. That is predomi nantly white. These children were assigned there on the Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 324a basis of geographic assignment. There are very few children in there. There is a movement of this residential pattern, and I ’m sure you’ve heard of this in recent days, and there is some complaint and controversy over the development of new residential areas on the other side. Court: Erwin Village f A. Yes, sir. Northwood and the development of Hyde Park and some of the others that relate to these schools, Longcreek and Oakdale is in here and some of the others. These children are all now going, except those right on the walking distance edge on this side, to Torrence-Lytle by bus. They would be reassigned to the schools serving their areas with this transition that is proposed in the plan and the ones in the Long Creek area would go to Long Creek and so forth on around. Now, there are spots—Torrence-Lytle has a little Negro development around it, and there are others, they are fairly small concentrations but they do exist in these areas in small quantities. This was prepared by our staff and very general. —160— Q. Are you familiar with the location of the small Negro settlements in the county? A. Yes, sir. Q. Does that drawing fairly represent the location of these settlements? Mr. Chambers: We’d like to object. Court: Overruled. A. Yes, sir. Mr. Barkley: We offer this for the purpose of illustrating the testimony. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 325a Mr. Chambers: Objection. Court: Overruled, let it be received. (Defendant’s Exhibit C received in evidence.) Q. Doctor, in this area you have described as being highly segregated Negro residential property, are there a number of schools located within that area! A. Yes, sir, large numbers because the population is high. Q. Is there any geographical way, other than bussing, that you could avoid a segregated school system in that area in the absence of the exercise of free choice? Mr. Chambers: Objection. Court: Overruled. A. No, sir, this would be the only way with the few ex ceptions of the youngsters near the water works. These youngsters have been assigned to the school serving the - 1 6 1 - area but there are not any white residential areas there. Q. Assuming that that area is as you represented by your testimony with reference to the map, upon the com pletion of this building program and the establishment of these new zones and the abandonment of these old schools, will there be any schools in the entire county that will not be integrated except possibly those schools in the solidly Negro area around Brooklyn and Johnson C. Smith? Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct Mr. Chambers: Objection. Court: Overruled. A. That is basically correct, Mr. Barkley. To the best of my knowledge, when the youngsters at Gunn and 326a Torrence-Lytle and Sterling where Woodland and the other are involved are redistributed under the plan, it’s highly unlikely that there would he any school that would not be integrated except those in this high concentration of Negro residences there. Q. Do you have any plans to build any schools in that area that will be a segregated school! A. Within any of the area in this section! Q. Yes, sir. A. No, sir. Q. Doctor, we have had considerable testimony with Mr. Kramer here about the location of boundary lines. Are you in a position to explain or locate the lines of any of these schools! A. Yes, sir. —162— Q. On the Lakeview School, which I believe was the first one, he said that the northeast line starts at Rozzels Perry Road, that it should continue to Steel Creek Road. Now, can you explain to us how the Lakeview line hap pened to he drawn! A. Yes, sir. If I could give a general statement of how this was done, I think it might help be cause the same thing would relate to all of the areas. When the decision was made to proceed with the complete as signment by attendance areas and the plan called for the Board to adopt attendance area lines, the staff went to work on the complete analysis of the system and the lines that would be needed for geographical assignment on the basis of good faith consideration only. Our business services department, which has an assistant superin tendent in charge of it and has a full time person in the planning side of it, along with every principal in the system and with every resource we could tap, went to work to develop the lines for the system on this basis of good faith consideration. I happened to have taken Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 327a the time myself to work directly with Mr. Morgan, our, Assistant Superintendent, so that I could be familiar with the development of these lines and I take direct responsi bility for the development of those that were recommended —163— to the Board of Education for adoption with the March 11th plan. The Lakeview line, as an example, was drawn with the basic distribution pattern of the area tied in with the natural boundaries, the railroad track, which is the line on that side in question by Mr. Kramer, with a major creek line that was also in question by Mr. Kramer, the movement of children toward a street and toward a school and a general concept of the capacity of the school and an understanding through experience and judgment of the size of the normal school area. All of these factors went into the establishment of the lines at Lakeview and all of the other 99 lines. Q. Will you state whether or not racial considerations were taken in the drawing of any of the lines? Mr. Chambers: Objection. Court: Overruled. A. No, sir, they were not, with the exception of the 10 schools that were outlined in the plan. Court: Mr. Kramer was especially critical that you had not followed Rozzels Ferry Road, do you have a comment about that? You started down Rozzels Ferry Road and then left it. A. Yes, sir. May I step down? Court: Yes, sir. (The witness goes to the map.) Anybody got a map of these questioned zones? Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 328a A. We’ve got the master original maps from which this one was done which are much easier to see. —164 - Court: All right. A. Your Honor, the Lakeview lines are right in here and the question Mr. Kramer raised was on the basis of Rozzels Ferry Road, Highway 16, which comes out this way. This is the railroad track that comes down here and branches off of it. Rozzels Ferry Road crosses the railroad right here and there is an open area through there and the railroad track goes right down this line and moves away from Rozzels Ferry Road at this point. And so this line, you see, instead of coming straight out here moved in here because all of these children, the only movement they could have is in this direction. Court: Without crossing the railroad! A. Yes, sir. To show the intent of the Board of Educa tion, originally the Seversville line, which is the school contiguous with Lakeview, this line ran up in here and picked out, gerrymandered, a little white development in here that had been built several years ago and the original lines, which the Board has admitted were set on racial basis a number of years ago, this original line went up in here and came back, and the Board has adopted this, clear-out line which goes down this creek and then out that road. This is a very typical example of the lines that we have run. Court: We are going down each one of them. It would help me to take the next according to Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 329a Dr. A. Craig Phillips— for Defendant—Direct —165— my notes. That’s Thomasboro Elementary. I don’t know there was any attack made on the lines. Paw Creek, Mr. Kramer testified that Mount Holly Eoad lies between Paw Creek and Woodland School and the south border of Paw Creek should follow Paw Creek but it does not. A. The Woodland School is right in here. You will note that the exception schools are not drawn. Woodland overlaps this area. The Paw Creek area is contiguous with the Tuckaseegee area. Both of these are predomi nantly white schools and the children have been reas signed to Woodland pending the completion of Southwest and the reorganization of all of this and a new line will be drawn in here between Paw Creek and Woodland so that Paw Creek, Woodland and Tuckaseegee and possibly Allenbrook, which conies out somewhere in here a new school, then there will be new school lines drawn for all of these areas, and Woodland will be redrawn. Court: You’re saying in effect that Mr. Kramer is right and that you’re just going to do it later. A. This is basically correct, yes, sir. I don’t know if the Mount Holly Road is right or not. There’s been no line drawn for the new Allenbrook School. Q. The new line will effect Amay James and Plato Price, is that right? A. Yes, sir, and then all of these schools - 1 6 6 - in here. Berryhill will be effected by it and a new set of lines will need to be drawn all the way through, but there will not be a Negro elementary school in the context of the exceptions as it is now declared. 330a Court: The next one that I have is Barringer where the boundary was questioned. Mr. Kramer said the sewer plant is the southwest boundary and it should be the railroad tracks. A. I ’m not sure that I know what Mr. Kramer is talking about and I don’t believe he does either. Court: He said that the boundary left Remount Road. Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we move to strike the last statement. Court: Motion denied. A. Your Honor, this line is contiguous with Berryhill and the Amay James School. It’s a new primary Negro ele mentary school right now and the Plato Price School is right here. When these changes are made, in connection with this whole massive change in the western area with Allenbrook coming in, then new lines will be drawn for either both of these schools or, as outlined in the plan, for one, either eliminating the whole one or making an area right in here that would serve. Court: So the Barringer boundary will be changed! A. Yes, sir. —167— Q. Have you pointed out the Barringer boundary yet? A. Yes, sir. I think Mr. Kramer questioned one other point in it, if I may, this little area back in here. I think he mentioned this line ought to have come down in be-, Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 331a tween Wilmore and Barringer. There is a long history, this has nothing to do with racial patterns whatsoever. There is a small group of children right in here on that side of Remount Road where a rather sizable industrial development has taken place. These children had been moved hack and forth between Barringer and Wilmore two, three or four times in the last several years when this new construction took place and the school got crowded and they were moved hack. After a great deal of debate this line was left as it was between Wilmore and Barringer. It had nothing to do with the racial make up of the two because these were in the main white children in this area. Court: Mr. Kramer mentioned Eastover elemen tary saying that one line starts down Randolph Road and then swings out to include Durham Drive in order to take in some white children. Do you have any comment about that? A. This is the Eastover School right here. This is the Billingsville Elementary School on the western edge of its district. This is Randolph Road. The old line, be fore these were changed, brought Eastover over into here to pick up a group of children and put them into Eastover. —168— Historically the Eastover area has grown and grown out this way to make use of the facilities because the number of children had declined. The line between Billingsville and Eastover is a natural boundary of Randolph Road and a large creek bed and the Mint Museum, you might know, is down through here. This line moved over when it reached the creek and went over to a line which is a Dr. A. Craig Philli-ps—for Defendant—Direct 332a valley, a gap, right down through. From that side every thing moves this way and this line was drawn between Elizabeth School and Eastover. It had nothing to do with Billingsville. The line between Billingsville and Eizabeth and between Billingsville and Eastover was this creek line and it goes straight across to the edge of Chantilly. Court: With respect to Ashley Park, Mr. Kramer testified that the west line should go straight down Ashley Road, that instead it weaves in and out. Would you point that line out? A. Here’s Ashley Park School right here. The line is be tween Ashley Park and Berryhill. It has nothing to do with Plato Price because Plato Price is one of the excep tion schools. This line he’s talking about, I assume, is this line right here. The distribution between Berryhill and Ashley Park has been a constantly changing one be cause of the transportation pattern prior to consolidation. Berryhill was a former county school. Ashley Park was —169— on the edge of the city. Under the annexation laws in 1955 General Assembly, the General Assembly said that the Board of Education could not take away from those children that had transportation because of annexation. Court: Is Berryhill an excepted school I A. No, sir, Berryhill is a white school. The excepted school is Plato Price and when that is rezoned this line will be redrawn completely in here. Court: Have we mentioned Billingsville Elemen tary? Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 333a Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct A. No, sir. Court: Mr. Kramer’s testimony is that the southern line should be lowered to McAlway Road, that the effect of the present line is to keep Negroes out of the white Cotswold School district. Do you have a comment about that? A. Yes, sir. Here is the Billingsville School. This line is drawn to follow the proposed belt road that is a four- lane road that comes through here. There is a wide area of nonresidential in there right now. Court: Where is McAlway! A. McAlway is on this side about down in here, sir. This is the belt road line in here. Could I take liberty of point ing out one other thing? This is the location of the proposed new junior high school and it is on this side of this and there will be movement of children both ways —170— and we are proposing to work with the people. Court: As I recall, Mr. Kramer’s testimony tended to show that in Derita Elementary School the line cuts across 1-85 and that if 1-85 was used it would throw out some white children that are in Druid Hills or into the Tryon Hills School. A. This is Derita and here’s Interstate 85. There’s a new school, Hidden Valley, the one I mentioned a little while ago, that will be bid in the next two or three weeks and it’s right in the middle of a large growing development. Already the line for the junior high school which is 334a located right in here has gone up Graham Street. The decision the Board made was to leave this for one more year because the reshuffling of all these elementary school children will have to be done when Hidden Valley is completed, but the white children in this area are already assigned to the Williams Negro Junior High School. Court: In other words, you’re saying Mr. Kramer might be right and you’re going to change that line! A. Yes, sir, that’s correct. Court: Gentlemen, those are the only notes that I see scanning mind about lines. Go ahead, Mr. Barkley, and then I think I’ll let you do an unusual thing. If you have some lines in question, suppose you cross examine on this subject. —171— Mr. Barkley: He had a few more lines down here that I had on mine. Billingsville, the line runs right near the left side of the school, I believe. Court: He said he had one school, the school was right over the line. Mr. Barkley: That was probably the Billingsville. Court: What comment have you about that? I remember the testimony, that it’s unusual for a school to be right on the line. A. It’s not really unusual, Your Honor in the pattern of distribution of children in an area for it to be closer to the line than the center. We were talking in the busi ness of circles. It’s impossible geometrically to draw a Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 335a circular line around the school district. Lines have to be drawn on these natural boundaries. Billingsville School is right off of Randolph Road, yet there is a major natural boundary through here where that wide space is where the Mint Museum and all that is located and there is no road movement, no road, no walkways of any sort either way. Even though it’s on the edge of the territory it makes a logical boundary between the two because there isn’t any movement both ways. Court: Mr. Chambers, Mr. Bell, do you have any questions about these boundary lines! If so, cross examine at this time since it’s hard to do it with —172— the maps and without restriction to your right for further cross examination later. Cross Examination by Mr. Chambers: Q. Dr. Phillips, on the Lakeview Elementary School line you said the reason you didn’t follow Rozzels Ferry Road is that you were following the railroad tracks straight down across Beattys Ford Road! A. No, to the creek. There was a housing development in here. Q. Do you know whether this housing development be tween this railroad track and this line is white or Negro! A. I understand it’s basically white. Q. And the Biddleville School is an all Negro School! A. I am not sure. Was this where the water works children were! It’s basically all Negro, yes. The number of children in here were assigned, I’m not sure how many remained, I don’t have that record. There is a fairly sizable white development right in here, Mr. Chambers. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 336a You know this development right off of Rozzels Ferry Road, this was into Biddleville. Q. You used this boundary here, the railroad track, as a natural boundary that you would normally follow in drawing a school zone line but is it not a fact that the students here normally cross this line here? A. That is not correct, not at the railroad track at this point. They cross up here where the railroad track has Beattys Ford - 1 7 3 - Road. Q. Interstate 85, is that a normal boundary line? A. Depending on whether there is an access. Q. Is there an access across here? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you not go up here, across Interstate 85, and draw students out of this area here baek to University Park School? A. Yes, we do and this is because of the walking access across here for this group of youngsters. This will be changed with the creation of the Hidden Valley School when Derita can be relieved, when States ville Road can be relieved and this whole area can be rezoned back into Statesville Road. Right now Long Creek comes down into here because of bus transportation. There was a choice here that had nothing to do with pro or con as far as race was concerned whether these children would be zoned into Long Creek along with the other Long Creek children and bussed all the way up here or con tinue for another year in the University Park. There are some white children, I believe, that live over in this area right here also. Q. This here is predominantly Negro? A. Yes, sir.- Q. And University Park is entirely Negro? A. That’s correct. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 337a Q. Is Hoskins white or Negro! A. Hoskins is white. —174— Q. Is Oakdale white or Negro? A. Oakdale is white basically. There are two or three youngsters, maybe five or six Negro youngsters. Q. Do you have an explanation for the line here not being used for these schools, to draw the schools up here on the other side of 1-85? A. Which one are you talking about? Q. The students in this section. You have a school the same distance away from the students in this section. A. This area right in here, Mr. Chambers, is separated— I don’t know whether you know this area or not but I have driven all over it—this area is separated by a deep ravine through where there is no movement across here at all. This is both Negro and white children in this area and they were zoned into Hoskins because of the move ment that goes this way rather than across University Park. This is not a racial pattern at all because these are both white and Negro. Q. In the Hoskins area? A. Yes, sir, Pennsylvania Avenue and all the rest. Q. How do you explain, Dr. Phillips, that you have 357 white students in Hoskins and no Negroes? A. They have either all asked to get our or something. Q. According to initial assignment for this year you have 357 white and no Negroes. A. Remember the initial —17 5 - assignment are less the children who asked to get out of here. Q. What do you mean less the students who asked to get out? I thought your initial assignments were made and then requests for assignment out. A. Whatever Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 338a Negro children are in this area—this is Hoskins—either have been assigned here or are in this Woodland-Plato Price complex and assigned back to these schools. They haven’t been in University Park at all. Court: The Negroes in that area may be in the excepted schools. A. They could be, yes, sir. Court: Mr. Chambers and I have the same under standing, initial assignment does not mean after transfer out. A. That’s correct. Q. What excepted school is in this area here, Doctor? A. These youngsters have been traditionally bussed, is it the Plato Price or Woodland? They have been coming in and then going back to West Charlotte. Q. Where is Plato Price located on the map? A. Right here. (Pointing.) Q. Now, you presently bus these students across the Hoskins line, the Lakeview line, the Thomasboro line or the Enderly Park line into— ? A. That’s correct, yes. —176— Q. What’s the name of that school? A. Plato Price. It could be that some of them are in Woodland, I ’m not sure. Q. Is there any space in any of those schools that they pass that would accommodate them? A. Yes. If they exercised the free choice, they could have gone. Q. Is there space for you to presently assign them initially in either of these schools or all of these schools Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 339a to which you can assign the students in the Hoskins area! A. The Board’s plan didn’t call for this, it called for the 10 exceptions. Q. I recognize that, Doctor, I’m asking now is it pos sible now to accommodate these students rather than transport them across the areas here into the Plato Price School! A. I think the record shows that all of the schools have space under the maximum capacity set by the Board, yes. May I describe one! Court: Yes, sir. A. Mr. Chambers, to follow through on the question, this shows the junior high that clear it up. Here’s Interstate 85 and the 5 through 9 concept at Plato Price involves some junior high school youngsters also. The Board, in adopting these geographic lines for the junior high school area, cleared up this line so that it comes right down Interstate 85. It was easier to relate this to the complex —177— of the elementary schools. Q. Dr. Phillips, you were talking about a ditch or some natural boundary that you considered in relation to the elementary schools over here. A. I was explaining to you the reason they have not traditionally gone to the Univer sity Park School. Q. How do you account for the students now crossing that line! A. For one thing, they are older students and the next thing, this eventually will come down that line. Q. Presently the junior high school students do cross that line. A. That’s correct, yes, sir. Q. Dr. Phillips, would you consider the line that you refer to with the Eastover School as not following the Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 340a Randolph Road, you stated that the line didn’t follow the Randolph Road because you were following a natural boundary? A. That’s correct. Court: Which school is this? Mr. Chambers: Eastover. Q. Where is that natural boundary, Doctor? A. The creek line here and a break, a ravine that goes down through here and the movement is out here. If anything, this line would have reflected back into Elizabeth School. This is one of those fringe area judgments that relates to the number of children there and the actual movement of children. It could go either way. —178— Q- Is Elizabeth presently Negro or white? A. Elizabeth is integrated. Q. Is Eastover presently Negro or white? A. It’s integrated. Q. Would the drawing of the line as proposed by Mr. Kramer increase the number of students in integrated schools? A. What kind of students? Q. Whether Negro or white? A. If the line were drawn this way and down Randolph Road, it would put this very small number—I don’t know the exact number, I expect it’s in the teens—into Elizabeth. It would not significantly make any difference. There is no way to run it back this way into Billingsville. Court: Are those white or Negro children? A. I think these are mostly in the main white in there as far as I know. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 341a Q. Do you have Negro children living in that area, Doctor? A. Which area? Q, In here. A. I don’t know. I assume they are all white. Q. Dr. Phillips, with the Billingsville School you stated the reason for drawing the line here where we see no apparent natural boundary is that you were anticipating the proposed new beltway? A. That’s correct. —179— Q. When is that beltway to he built? A. The projec tion is on the beginning of it within the next year to be completed within the next two or three years. We have that record in our office. Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether this area here really includes only Negroes? A. There are some white children in here. Q. How many white children were initially assigned to the Billingsville School? A. I don’t know. Q. Your records show that 6 students out of a total of 741 were white and were initially assigned to the Billingsville School. A. That’s how many were there. Q. This line, then, follows a predominantly what we might say almost entirely Negro residential area? A. That depends on the interpretation. It follows natural boundary lines around the school. Q. These natural boundary lines that you refer to en closes a Negro neighborhood? Court: With the exception of 6 children. Q. You say it’s normal for a school to he sitting on a line as the Billingsville school is presently situated? A. I did not say it was normal. I said it was not abnormal. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 342a Q. Is it not a fact that all of the schools here surround ing Billingsville School are entirely predominantly white? —180— A. They are predominantly white, yes. Q. Is there any natural boundary that you have fol lowed here that you have overlooked like the road running through here which would permit you to redraw the line and increase the number of white or Negro students in Chantilly or Billingsville that would bring the Billings ville School off the line here as presently situated? A. In my judgment the line is in the right place to serve the school without regard to race. Court: We might move faster in the morning. Adjourn court until 9:00 A.M. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross O vernight R ecess Tuesday, July 13, 1965 Court: All right. I think when we quit it was direct examination of Dr. Phillips. Mr. Bell: You had permitted us to interrupt for cross examination about the lines. Court: Do you want to continue that? Mr. Bell: Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Chambers, who has another case before you at 2:00 o’clock had to go out to the countryside and with your permission I ’ll carry on. Court: All right. Give me the name of the school, please, as you begin each series of questions. (Dr. Phillips returns to the witness stand for further cross examination.) 343a By Mr. Bell: Q. I direct your attention again to the Billingsville School, which is a Negro elementary school, and ask you to explain again how the zone lines came to he drawn in their present position. A. First you have to look at the relationship of the three schools that are serving the area in this area, Chantilly, Billingsville and Eastover. Q. The Chantilly School is a school where 432 white pupils and 2 Negroes were assigned, is that correct! A. That is correct. Q. The Eastover School is a school where 543 white children were assigned and no Negroes, is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. And the other one, the Oakhurst School, is that the other one. A. The Oakhurst School is off on this side. Q. The Oakhurst School is where there were 578 white children assigned and no Negroes assigned, is that correct? A. I don’t have the figures in my hand but whatever the figures are is correct. Q. In Exhibit A to the second set of interrogatories it indicates that the Billingsville School is a school where 741 Negroes and some 6 whites were initially assigned. —182— A. That is correct. Q. Now, would you carry on with your explanation! Court: He mentioned those that surround Bil lingsville, on the south what is that school? Mr. Bell: This is the Cotswold School. Court: How many white and how many Negro? Mr. Bell: According to Exhibit A there are 673 whites assigned there and no Negroes. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross — 181— 344a Court: And Elizabeth, how many whites and Negroes there! Mr. Bell: In Elizabeth Exhibit A shows that there are 312 whites and 89 Negroes assigned. A. Your question was how the lines were drawn at Billings- ville. This line at Randolph Road bounded on a bridge across the creek by a wide boundary of open land on this side. This is a creek line, a major creek, and a wide open space where there is no movement from here into that area at all. This is a railroad track straight out to where the belt road is proposed to come across. Those are the boundary lines for Billingsville School. Q. It’s your position, and correct me if I ’m wrong, that all of the zone lines on Billingsville for the Billingsville School follow what in educational terms would be con sidered natural boundaries! A. That is correct. —183— Q. Would you also agree that while they may be natural boundaries they also tend to be and are boundaries for racial neighborhoods! A. I think the figures show this is a Negro neighborhood with the exception of this small pocket on this corner, yes. Q. You say as to the southern boundary, rather than following what the witness Kramer suggested yesterday you followed a proposed road that is going to be built in the next couple of years, is that correct! A. Followed the proposed line of the belt road which is also a major open space between residential areas which has developed over a long period of time. Evidently Mr. Kramer didn’t drive in this area at all. The streets are all dead end from this area down into this particular large area where the belt road is going through. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 345a Court: I recall reading about that in the papers but it’s been changed once or twice, some contro versy about it. Is it settled now for that point? A. To the best of our knowledge, yes, sir, it is. Q. What is the basis for your knowledge on that? A. The news accounts and the decision made by the Highway Commission on this. Court: Was this particular section of the belt road the one in controversy that I read so much about ? A. No, sir. The major controversy was over here in the - 1 8 4 - country club area whether it was going straight down or swing back in. Court: Has this particular section ever swung back and forth? A. No, sir, not to my knowledge. This was the proposed plan. The contention has been whether it was coming across the golf course or around the golf course or through the proposed school site in here. Court: But as far as you know your testimony is that this particular section of the belt road was initially proposed and still is proposed? A. That’s correct, sir. Court: Do you know of anybody protesting it now? Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross A. No, sir. 346a Court: Any hearing scheduled! A. Not to my knowledge, no, sir. I might make the point that even if the belt road were not in this area, one of the decisions as a part of the belt road development was the open land that does exist through here. Whether this open land has been caused by racial patterns of residence is beyond my judgment but we assume this open land is here as a normal boundary for residential areas. Q. You don’t disagree with Mr. Kramer that his sugges tion that this southern zone line be the McAlway Road, which is an existing artery, would be bad from an educa- —185— tional standpoint, do you! A. Yes, 1 would disagree with him because there’s no way through here. McAlway Road runs through here and all the arteries are terminated as dead ends. This is a normal barrier to the movement of any traffic here. Q. What do you refer to as this! A. This line as drawn right there. I think you would have to drive through it to understand it and to see what’s there. The McAlway street up here above it does not open into this area at all. Court: You say up here above it, you mean be low it. A. Below it, yes, sir. Q. What consideration did the Board give in this par ticular line, in drawing this line, that the effect of it would be to maintain Cotswold and Billingsville as practically all segregated schools! A. I think this is clear, that the Board’s planning is built around the establishment of geo graphic areas without regard to race and this works both Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 347a ways. The lines were not drawn to bring race in or keep race out. The lines were drawn on the basis of good faith consideration and the Board did not take into account any desire or lack of desire to incorporate Negro and white simply because they were Negro or white. We really don’t have the records of which are Negro and which are white. —186— Q. You use this word good faith consideration today and yesterday. I want you to listen to my question and if you don’t understand ask me again because I think this is crucial. Did the Board in drawing the Billingsville line, in drawing any of these other lines, get together at any time officially or unofficially to your knowledge and pre pare these lines in a way so as to minimize the amount of desegregation that would take place? A. No, sir, they did not. Q. Is that your answer! A. That’s what I said, yes. Q. I don’t think it’s very funny, I think it’s a serious matter. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross Mr. Barkley: Objection to the statement. Court: Objection sustained. Q. Up on the Derita School zone line you indicated that the line now crosses Interstate Route 85 and you agreed with Mr. Kramer that the more traditional way in terms of school zone criteria would be to follow that but indi cated that you drew the line as you did because of the new school building, the Hidden Valley School, which you are planning to build next year, am I correct on that! A. I am not sure about the agreement with Mr. Kramer. I’m not sure what he said about the Derita area. There 348a is a school being planned right here in the Hidden Valley development which will change the lines of the whole —187— Derita line, it will change the Statesville Road line and it will also change the Druid Hills line. Q. But the effect, whatever your reasons, the effect of drawing the lines as they are now drawn prevents any amount of integration taking place in Piedmont, in the Cochrane junior schools, is that correct? A. I don’t know what you’re talking about there, Mr. Bell. I think you need to get hack in the right school. These are the junior high schools in this area here. Mr. Bell: I ’m sorry. We used this line and you had gotten on the other map. I might just save this until we get to the regular cross examination. I think most of this goes better with the regular cross examination. Court: All right. Direct Examination by Mr. Barkley (Cont’d .) : Q. Is this Randolph Road here? A. Yes, sir. Q. I’ll ask yoir can you give us your estimate of the dis tance along here in which there are no residences or build ings of any kind and how far back, according to the best of your recollection, this would extend this way and this way. A. Mr. Barkley, there are no homes on either side of Randolph Road all the way except one old home right —188— here on this corner of the property and one old home right here. All of this is open land, all of this is open land and nothing is fronting on Randolph Road. There Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 349a is about a block distance in here between the creek and the first residences that open back in this area. There is a rather wide breach in here. Q. I ’ll ask you if you know whether along here if this isn’t all vacant land in here! Court: He said so. Q. Then I’ll ask you if there isn’t a ravine that runs along here. A. Yes, sir, there is a ravine that runs through and this is where the highway people have chosen that area for the highway to go through. Q. Take the stand, please, Doctor. (The witness returns to the witness stand.) Dr. Phillips, this is more generally on these zoning lines. In the first place, let’s refer to the Thomasboro School, one of those that were mentioned. Now, is there any way that the Board could gerrymander Thomasboro School against any Negro school in that area or are the only schools effected the excepted schools? A. The only schools effected would be the excepted schools, the Woodland and possibly Plato Price, yes, sir. Q. Now, to go to Paw Creek, that’s out in the county, is it not! A. Yes, sir. Court: Is Woodland the same as Amay James? —189— A. No, sir, Woodland is the exception school above Amay James out in the middle western section. Court: Amay James is affected by Thomasboro as well as Woodland? A. Yes, sir, and Plato Price would be also because they overlap grades. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 350a Q. The Paw Creek School, is there any Negro School against which the Board could gerrymander the Paw Creek zone lines in that area? A. None except the Woodland School which is in that area and one of the exceptions. Q. Now, the Ashley Park School, is there any way that . . . is there any Negro school against which the Board might gerrymander Ashley Park? A. None other than the Plato Price-Amay James School, no, sir. Court: I think I understand but I want to be sure. What do you mean by no possibility of gerry mandering? Take Ashley Park, for example. You say there is no possibility of gerrymandering, just explain it to me in more detail. A. The only way to assure that there would be Negro children in the Ashley Park area would be to revise the lines to include parts of the Plato-Price-Amay James area. In other words, there would be no Negro children in schools now completely set up geographically serving Negro chil- —190— dren unless a line were drawn across other school lines to bring Negro children into the area. Court: But isn’t that always true of gerryman dering? A. Any gerrymandering would require a line which, in my opinion, would go beyond what would be normally considered the natural boundaries of an area, yes, sir, but the natural boundaries of Ashley Park are subject to change when the Plato Price-Amay James area is cleared up as an exception. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 351a Court: Three times here with respect to Thomas- boro, Paw Creek and Ashley Park you used the phrase no possibility of gerrymandering. That’s not true, is it? You could do it. A. You’d have to draw it across another school line. Court: You always do with gerrymandering. A. But I mean across one to get to the Negro people. Thomasboro is adjacent to Hoskins, for example, and to get Negro children into Thomasboro you’d have to go across another school line. Court: Is it fair to say that Thomasboro, Paw Creek and Ashley Park, all of which are white? A. Yes, sir. Court: Are surrounded by other white zones? A. With the exception being the only Negro school serving the Negro children related to these schools. Court: Say that again. — 191— A. Can I go to the map again! Court: Yes, sir. (The witness goes to the map.) Mr. Bell: I think the testimony is that Ashley Park and some of the other schools have Negroes living near the schools. Court: Paw Creek is all white ? Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 352a A. Yes, sir, with the exception of the school right in the center. Woodland is in the center of the Paw Creek area. The point is that in order to incorporate other Negro chil dren other than the ones that are in this area, here’s Oakdale which is predominantly white which has a scat tering of Negro children who are going up this way and coming and coming back this way. Court: Is it your testimony then, take the south border of Paw Creek, if you straightened it out and take, for example, half of Tuckaseeegee you say you wouldn’t get any more Negroes probably into the Paw Creek area. A. No, sir, until the Woodland School is cleared up. Wood land is right in the center and it has children coming from this whole area. Court: So your testimony is that if you make Paw Creek zone bigger in any direction you still don’t pick up any Negroes until you abandon Amay James and Woodland and so on? A. That’s right. —192— Q. Doctor, is it also true that you would have to cross other attendance areas to possibly reach any Negro area? A. Yes, sir, with the exception of the exception schools. Q. Dr. Phillips, the Newell School, is there any attend ance area of a Negro school bounding the Newell where the line might be gerrymandered with a result that Negro children could be brought in? A. No, sir, the same situa tion would exist and the Gunn School, which serves the Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 353a entire eastern segment of the county, would be involved and Gunn is one of the exception schools. Q. The Berryhill School was mentioned, is there any attendance area for the Negro school or an integrated school. . . . I ’ll leave out integrated, to keep Negroes out! A. It would be the same situation. Q. Now, is there any Negro community within any rea sonable distance that could be kept out by gerrymandering Ranson Junior High! A. No, sir, the same situation would exist. The Torrence-Lytle Junior High School serves the entire Negro population for the northern area from roughly the Interstate 85 from 49 upwards. It’s one of the exceptions and planned for assimilation into Ranson and Alexander. Q. I believe you testified yesterday that aside from Bil- lingsville and York Road, which are excepted schools, and the schools in the heavily concentrated Negro population —193— on the west, that there are no so-called Negro schools against which the gerrymander in the remainder of the area except for the excepted schools, is that right! A. That’s correct. I ’d like to qualify one point, Mr. Barkley, on the Ranson Junior High School line and in the readjust ment of the children from Torrence-Lytle. It’s conceivable that the one Negro residential area, which was identified yesterday north of Interstate 85, will be in the Ranson School area. This is that Northwood area, the Ervin de velopment, Hyde Park and this sort of thing, and this is basically a Negro residential area but has both white and Negro residences there. Court: I ’m sorry, I’m not sure I get the drift of that. If you change the Ranson line you might pick up more Negroes, right! Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—-Direct 354a A. If the line were brought back to Interstate 85, which is probably the logical line between Ranson and Northwest, which is in the center of the northwest Negro area, then it would incorporate more Negro youngsters who are now at Torrence-Lytle or might be at Northwest under free choice. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct Court: Torrence-Lytle is going to be abandoned? A. Yes, sir, the 10th grade has already been abandoned. Court: What do you think you will do with Ranson, probably change that line? A. Yes, sir, this is contemplated. May I go back to the - 1 9 4 - map one more time ? Court: Yes, sir. (The witness goes to the map.) A. Here’s Interstate 85 and the Ranson Junior High School is somewhere right in here and the Alexander Junior High School is up here. Both are new junior high schools and have plans for additions. These two junior high schools would serve junior high school students from roughly this area through here and there is some fairly growing Negro residential area right in here that has traditionally gone down to Northwest across Interstate 85 or gone all the way to Torrence-Lytle up in the northern area. Court: So you will drop the boundary of Ranson to pick them up? A. Yes, sir. (The witness goes back to the witness stand.) 355a Court: Is that the community I call the Erwin Village ? A. Yes, sir, it’s called Northwood actually. Q. I believe they built it very rapidly in that area? A. Yes, sir. May I add that it will probably become a part of the Statesville Avenue Elementary School. This relates back to the Hidden Valley new school that we were dis cussing a moment ago so that Interstate 85 will become the line between them. Q. Doctor, it was suggested yesterday the boundary of the Eastway School might he changed which would result —195- in more whites being transferred to Hawthorne which is a mixed school. Can you give us the present enrollment by race in Hawthorne! A. Yes, sir. Hawthorne at this point has 102 Negro youngsters and about 700, I believe, whites. Q. What would be the effect of transferring more whites into the Hawthorne School! A. It would simply make the ratio larger, more whites to less Negroes from that stand point. It would just move whites from Eastway to Haw thorne. Q. I believe it was also suggested yesterday that by change of boundary that more whites could be transferred from Cochrane to Ranson which is a mixed school. Do you have your figures there showing the number of pupils white and Negro in Ranson! A. Ranson had about 33 Negro youngsters. 33 were originally assigned and 4 asked to enter by choice and 4 asked to leave by choice which left 33. Ranson has been integrated since its beginning. Q. Would the effect be the same at Ranson as it would have been at Hawthorne? A. Yes, sir, it would simply increase the ratio larger. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 356a Court: If you changed the Cochrane boundary you just put more whites into Ranson! A. Yes, sir. Q. I believe it was also suggested yesterday that the boundaries between Barringer and Wilmore might be — 1 9 6 — changed to transfer more whites from Barringer into Wilmore which is, I believe, a mixed school. A. Yes, sir. Court: This is a junior high school? Mr. Barkley: No, sir, an elementary school. A. Wilmore has 22 Negro youngsters, Mr. Barkley, and this would serve to only add more whites to the present Wilmore number. I think I might say, Mr. Barkley, in answer to that question also that in each of the instances the Board, through the staff, gave no indication it wanted a specific number of white children or a specific number of Negro children in any school. This was not the intent of the Board, to reach any particular ratio of white and negroes in any assignment line. Q. Doctor, I believe the opinion was expressed yester day by . . . Court: Before we leave Barringer, if you did what Mr. Kramer suggested—he said the boundary should be the railroad track— A. That was down on the other end of the attendance area and this related to the Amay James-Plato Price. This line will be revised. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 357a Court: He also testified that the boundary leaves Remount Road to take in whites into the Barringer zone who would otherwise be in Wilmore. A. Yes, sir. There are about 13 children in there and these children had been moved back and forth and it was simply —197— a matter of not moving them again. It’s a very small residential area. Court: If you did what Mr. Kramer said it would put 13 white children into Wilmore. A. Yes, sir. Court: What’s its setup numerically! A. Wilmore has about 400 youngsters, I think. Court: Is it all white or all Negro! A. No, sir, it has about 22 Negro youngsters in it. Court: Doing what he said would add about 13 white children to Wilmore. A. Yes, sir. Court: Which has how many white? Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct A. 22. Court: 22 white? A. I ’m sorry, 22 Negro. 358a Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct Court: How many white! A. 333. Q. Doctor, let’s go to another school district that I don’t believe Mr. Kramer mentioned yesterday, the Morgan Street School. Can you come over to the map and point out for us the former boundary of the Morgan Street School and the new boundary? Court: This is one you say he did not mention? Mr. Barkley: No, sir. —198- Court: Sure you want to go into it? Mr. Barkley: Yes, sir. A. Mr. Barkley, the Morgan Street School is down in the part of the center city right behind the Charlottetown Mall area. Q. Near Cherry? A. Near Cherry. There is a Negro residential area right in around the school and it’s ad jacent to a sizable white residential area. Q. Is that what is known as the Myers Park area? A. It’s known as the city edge of the Myers Park residential area. Court: Not McDowell Street? A. No, sir. This is our Meyers Street Elementary. Mor gan Street is one step over from this. Queens Road West runs right through here and traditionally this line had come across and cut off a small section of white residen tial area. The back yards of the white residences were separated from the Negro residences with a ravine through the back and traditionally, with the lines drawn on the 359a basis of race in the past, this line came across this corner. This is a white residential area, Henry and Bromley right here. Also traditionally this line that comes now up More- head veered off in a little area called Greenwood Cliffs and Harding Place which was another white residential area, and the Dilworth line turned around this way, and the Myers Park Elementary line came in this way and moved over and picked that white area up. In the estab- —199— lishing of the geographic lines on good faith considera tion the Board of Education drew this line straight down Queens Road right to the extension of Morehead, which is Kings Drive, and came straight up Morehead and came across the wide ravine between the Meyers Street and Morgan Street and included some 65 white children who were initially assigned to the Morgan School based on these good faith consideration. I think it’s significant this is an example of what has been done. Court: Morgan Elementary? A. Yes, sir. Q. I want to ask you my special question. Do you know an attorney named Brock Barkley? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know what his connection with the Board has been for some years? A. He has been the attorney for the former Charlotte City Board for some years, a former board member and is now attorney for the Charlotte- Mecklenburg Schools. Q. Do you know where he lives with reference to that area? A. Mr. Barkley lives in this area on Bromley, right in that area. Q. Doctor, the opinion was expressed here yesterday by Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 360a the witness Mr. Kramer that the zoning lines appeared to him to have been drawn with the idea of preserving or — 200— promoting segregation. Do you have an opinion satis factory to yourself as to the purpose of the Board to preserve or promote segregation in the drawing of these lines that appear on the map? A. It is my firm opinion, Mr. Barkley, that this was not taken into consideration in any way in the setting of these lines by the Board. Q. Who did you have to draw the lines for you? A. Mr. Barkley, there were a number of us involved in the basic legwork done on the maps. Mr. J. D. Morgan, Asst. Supt., and myself carried the major load of actually ending up with the decisions on the maps that were recommended to the Board, but a number of staff people were involved and we depended a great deal on the 109 principals in the vari ous schools and their experiences over a number of years relating to transportation, movement of youngsters and all of the factors that come into play on the actual drawing of lines. Q. Can you give us an estimate of how long it took you to complete the maps ? A. I don’t know howT I would count the hours, Mr. Barkley, but many, many hours were spent by staff members and l would imagine it -would run into the hundreds of hours that were spent in study street by street and line by line in each of the attendance areas. Q. Did you receive any special instructions from the — 201- Board as to how the lines should be drawn? A. The Board simply instructed the staff to draw the lines in accordance with the assignment plan developed by the Board and that they were to be drawn on good faith consideration only. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 361a Q. And did you give similar instructions to those that were under you? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. You mentioned bus service, Dr. Phillips. What pro vision is being made for hauling or transporting Negro children on busses serving the attendance area in which they are located where white children may be also! A. With the exception of the 10 schools that are listed, the children attending a school area that is served by bus transportation under state law will all ride on the same busses, the same routes, the same locations, without regard to race whatsoever. There will be no dual system in the areas set up under the attendance plans, 99 areas. Under the 10 exceptions the dual system will necessarily continue until these are completed, the exceptions eliminated, be cause of the difference in routes. Court: Do you have generally school bus trans portation in the city? A. About 30 to 32,000 of our 75,000 youngsters, yes, sir. That is in the former county area and in line with the - 202- legislation in 1955. Court: That is not in the city limits ? A. No, sir, not in the city limits. Q. Let’s touch upon the matter of capacity. When and how do you establish the maximum capacities controlling the transfer of students or the assignment of students ? A. Mr. Barkley, in Section 7 of the plan entitled “School Ca pacity to be Determined” the Board wrote into the plan this statement: “A rated capacity shall be established and Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 362a adopted by the Board for each school facility in the Meck lenburg County School Administrative Unit prior to the date of initial assignments for any ensuing school term.” And it went on to say: “Under normal circumstances, addi tional assignments of students from outside the official attendance area of each specific school will be limited to a total anticipated enrollment to be established as of July 1 in each year not to exceed the rated capacity of the school plus five per cent of such capacity in elementary schools and ten per cent of such capacity in secondary schools.” Now, the staff took this guideline from the plan and with some general directions from the Board which involved No. 1, a clearcut desire on the part of the Board to adopt what it called maximum capacities where possible and practicable so that the vast majority of free choice requests could be honored after June 2. This was the basic element, —203— simply saying let’s give the maximum capacity we can stand, the arm bursting room, if this is a good description of it, so that the bast majority of free choices, whether they are Negro or white, it didn’t make any difference, so that the vast majority of free choices could be honored. This was without knowledge of how many requests were going to be made and not having had the experience of open free choice, the Board of Education was in the dark as to the number of free choices that would come in, whether it was going to be a hundred or ten thousand. But they did instruct us to develop a list of capacities which was at the largest side rather than tight capacities, and this is the reason that our capacities that have been set are on the outside of really ideal limitations for a school. We have counted in every teaching space we can set up in each of tlie schools. This is mobile units, this is partitioned Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 363a classrooms, it’s every space we have. The Matthews School was mentioned yesterday in the discussion about having more room. Actually the Matthews School has been counted in terms of every temporary space we can have there so the maximum capacity is really beyond the ideal or satis factory level. We took these school by school, working with our key staff people, again working with our principals. We asked each to give us a listing of every space available in the school. We used an average of 30 pupils per teach ing station and then in the senior high school only we —204— applied a 90% utilization figure to this because the senior high school has more difficulty using every space every hour of the day. We applied what we call the rated capacity based upon the number of stations and the 30 students per and at the senior high the 90% and the elementary and junior high 100%, and then added 5% to the elementary schools for overage and 10% to the secondary schools for overage. Through this the Board adopted a list at its May 27 meeting of the maximum capacities against which the free choices, initial assignments would be applied, and it was out of this that the decisions were made on the schools that were closed to any additional free choice and I think there were only 12 of the 109 schools in the end result. Because the maximum capacities had been set on the high side there were only 12 that had any limitations for young sters to attend under free choice. Q. Doctor, with reference to curricular activities and extracurricular activities in the schools, what has the Board done in an effort to prepare white children and Negro children for integration and to promote a spirit of cooperation among them in preparation for the integration as it comes? A. Mr. Barkley, if I may express an opinion, Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 364a I think this is probably the most vital element of this Board’s basic concept of its responsibility as far as the —20 5 - initial Supreme Court decision was concerned, responsi bility to the boys and girls of Charlotte-Mecklenburg and its later responsibilities under the Civil Bights Act. In my opinion, it has granted to its staff—and when I say staff I’m talking all the way from the Superintendent down through the teaching faculty—it has granted, with some emphasis, the privilege and the opportunity of moving into a number of areas of using youngsters in various types of activities jointly, and teachers and all of our activities, in an effort to move toward this business of mutual under standing and being able to work together and working toward the eventual complete geographic assignment and complete integration of the school system. There are a number of instances that I might point up. I think you might have a few pictures we have taken from our very large library of shots of classrooms and this sort of thing and which our Director of Public Relations maintains, such things as at the student level our recently created festival officers, our Charlotte-Mecklenburg Voices, a 110 voice group of Negro and white youngsters from all of our senior high schools, bringing together from time to time student body officers. An example of real good evi dence of this last year the cheerleaders from all the vari ous junior and senior high schools were brought together for a half-day workshop on the conduct of youngsters at athletic events and that type of activity. This was com- —206— pletely integrated as all of these type of activities have been for the last three years. In the teacher groups all of Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 365a our professional activities are carried on in an integrated manner without even any thought of any other process. The only groups which have not been working on an inte grated basis formally are the professional teacher organi zations and we even have trouble getting two of the white groups together and I don’t know how we can get the other. These are professional organizations that are com pletely separate from the administration of the school system. Q. Does the Board have any control of them? A. No, sir, the Board has no control over the professional organi zations whatsoever. These are the Negro classroom teachers association, two white classroom teachers associations, one serving what was predominantly the city group and one the former county group. There are two A.C.E.—this is Association for Childhood Education—a white branch and a Negro branch and they are very close now to joining together. But these are the only groups, the N.C.E.A. and the N.C.T.A.—the N.C.T.A. is one of the organizations mentioned in this suit—are still separate, but other than that the operation of the Board of Education, the profes sional work, is all carried on on a completely integrated basis. I could spend another hour talking about all the different kinds of activities, our Advisory Council, our —207 - Salary Study Committee, our Curriculum Study Committee, our School Committee groups, we have a Theatre Arts Workship which you mentioned just yesterday that again today will be on from 12:30 to 1 :00, which is an integrated group from the standpoint of pupils and teachers working in the area of the performing arts, and just on and on this kind of thing. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 366a Q. Would you like to invite His Honor to attend that show at 12:30? A. I sure would, yes, sir, and if it’s legal I’ll pay his quarter to get in. Q. Doctor, I want to show you a picture here and ask you if you can tell me what that is a picture of. A. This is a shot among, I guess, 25 or 30 that the staff took of our kickoff dinner for new school committees September a year ago which was representative of the 545 school com mitteemen who served the entire system. Mr. Bell: I am cognizant of the Court’s philosophy but T think we should register our objection to the material and testimony now being introduced as ir relevant to the specific issues in this case. Mr. Barkley: I haven’t offered it yet. Mr. Bell: I presume you didn’t bring it here just to show it to me. In addition, it’s a self-serving declaration. Mr. Barkley: We offer this for the purpose of — 208— illustrating the testimony of Dr. Phillips. Court: Objection overruled. Let it be received. (Defendant’s Exhibit D received in evidence.) Q. Dr. Phillips, I show you another photograph and ask you what that is. Court: In the interest of time are all these photo graphs somewhat similar or offered somewhat for the same purpose? Mr. Barkley: All for the same purpose, if the Court please. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Direct 367a Court: Exhibit them to counsel and if they do fairly depict what they purport to depict they may be received in evidence for the purpose of illustrat ing the testimony, but exhibit them first to counsel. She can mark them later while we go on to something else. Let them be received in evidence for the pur pose of illustrating the testimony. (Defendant’s Exhibits E through Q received in evidence.) Q. Dr. Phillips, I show you these several sheets of paper here—I don’t believe these are in evidence, I just want to offer them in evidence—and ask you to state what they are. A. These are copies of the letters which were sent out to the 75,000 children, the first letter, the rest of them are the individual letters sent to the individual exception schools. Mr. Barkley: We would like to offer these into —209- evidence. I do that because this is attached to the answer of the motion for preliminary injunction. Court: Let them be received in evidence. Give them an exhibit number. (Defendant’s Exhibit T received in evidence.) Mr. Barkley: That’s all that we have of Dr. Phillips. Cross Examination by Mr. Bell: Q. In regards to the testimony you were just giving I understand that up until this year the Board maintained segregated baccalaureate and commencements, is that cor Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 368a rect? A. There is a history of Baccalaureate services. Initially, baccalaureate was carried on in the individual schools by the individual high schools. Three years ago the pattern of baccalaureate was one large baccalaureate service for all of the white graduates of the predominantly white schools. There were one or two Negro graduates that year and they were in that baccalaureate. The three former city predominantly Negro high schools carried on a joint baccalaureate in the Ovens Auditorium. The three union schools, which are being eliminated, carried on their own baccalaureate in their own schools. Two years ago the Negro schools were joined together at their request in a joint Baccalaureate in the Coliseum and the predominantly white schools had a joint baccalaureate so there were two baccalaureate services on a particular Sunday. This past — 210- year, under a working arrangement with the ministerial association in the community and through a great deal of deliberation over the responsibility level of carrying on baccalaureate service, a joint baccalaureate service was held this year under the sponsorship of the ministerial associa tion and under the general agreement of the Board of Edu cation and actually for the first time a complete baccalaure ate service for all graduates in the community was held in the Coliseum. Q. Then, all of this history aside, until this suit was filed there was no joint baccalaureate service, is that right? A. The suit had nothing to do with it. Q. The suit was filed before that time? Court: The suit was filed in January. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross A. Yes. 3 6 9 a Q. Is the same thing true about the joint commencement? A. There is no such thing as a joint commencement. Each school has its own commencement exercise. I sat through 12 of them so I know. Q. How about the faculty meetings? I gather some pro gress has been made on general teachers meetings so they are no longer held on a segregated basis. A. Mr. Bell, I have been here for three years and all faculty meetings of all sorts have been integrated the three years I have been here. To my knowledge the first full convocation of all — 211- faculty was held in the spring prior to my coming under the direction of Dr. Elmer Garringer and the Governor came and spoke to the joint faculties of the Charlotte- Mecklenburg Schools. Since 1962 all faculty meetings of all sorts, both small and large, have been held on a com pletely integrated basis. Q. On a city-wide basis that would be true, is that cor rect? A. On a county-wide basis. Q. As far as your weekly or bi-weekly meetings in the schools because of the way the Board has continued to assign teachers, except for one or two instances they are still all Negro meetings or all white meetings, isn’t that correct? A. Each school has its own faculty meetings without regard to what the makeup of the faculty is. What ever the faculty makeup in the particular school, this faculty participates in the normal weekly or bi-weekly meetings of faculty. On many occasions both Negro and white staff members meet with these individual groups and have met with them. The kinds of meetings I’m talk ing about are the system-wide or area-wide meetings and they are all on a completely integrated basis. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 370a Q. You told us that there was last year the assignment of a few white teachers to a Negro school, is that correct? A. It hasn’t been mentioned yet. You mean in the interroga tories? Q. I think there was some mention in the interrogatories — 212— about it. A. There were 8 white teachers teaching in pre dominantly Negro schools this past year. Q. 8 fulltime teachers? A. Yes, sir. I ’ll have to get the figures, they are in the interrogatories. There were 2 or 3 of them working in two schools, the bible teacher and distributive education teacher. There was an English teacher at West Charlotte, a Science teacher at Second Ward, two at Wesley Heights Elementary School, a Negro Driver Education teacher teaching at both Second Ward and West Mecklenburg, which is predominantly white, bible teachers teaching at East and West Charlotte, I be lieve, and North and Torrence-Lytle. Q. Let’s limit it for the moment to the number of teachers who were fulltime teachers, not specialized teachers, who were assigned to schools. There were first of all no Negro fulltime teachers assigned to predominantly white schools, is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. There were how many white teachers assigned on a fulltime basis to Negro schools? A. These are the ones I just went through. An English teacher at West Char lotte. . . . Court: If you know was it 8 or 7 or 6? A. 4 full time teachers, Negro teachers teaching in white schools. Q. Tell us, if you know, in line with the type response Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 371a —213— you were making to the last questions by defense counsel how many teachers are you currently planning to assign on a desegregated basis for this fall, on a fulltime basis? A. These plans have not been made specifically by the Board of Education. Q. You mean teachers haven’t been assigned for the fall term? A. The teachers who have returned have been generally reassigned to the schools they have been serving. The new teachers have not been assigned with the excep tion of two or three. Q. I understand there are some 375 or close to 400 new teachers hired for this year, is that right? A. Up to this point to the best of my knowledge 348 white teachers and 14 Negro teachers have been employed for the 1965-66 term. These are new teachers. We have reemployed the vast majority of the teachers who indicated they wanted to return to employment. Q. How about the assignment of these new teachers? A. They have not been assigned yet. Q. Is there any reason for not assigning those teachers as yet? A. Several reasons. One right now is the very serious question in this community about the budget limi tations and the employment and assignment has been held up for the last several weeks pending decisions on the numbers of teachers to be available to the system for next year. The other basic decision will relate to the very —214 - specific area where these teachers are to be assigned. The Board has not made this decision yet. Q. I had gotten the impression some place that the Board was awaiting the outcome of this litigation before they assigned these new teachers. Am I correct in that ? Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 3 12a A. No. I don’t know where you got that impression. That’s not correct in my opinion. Q. Let me just ask you, based on your knowledge of the school system, if this Court were to order the new teachers to be assigned on a basis of qualifications and where their skills could best be used and without regard to race, would you find administrative difficulty in so assigning them! Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross Mr. Barkley: Objection. Court: Overruled. A. The Board has adopted in the words that are in the April 13 decision the statement in recognition of the re quirements of law the development of a policy be under taken looking to the ultimate employment and assignment of all staff and professional personnel without regard to race or to factors other than training, competency and fitness. The teachers who have been employed, new teachers who have been employed for the 1965-66 term have been employed solely on this basis, on terms of qualification and without regard to race or to factors other than training, competency and fitness. Any decisions on actual assign ment of these teachers will follow in this line with this - 2 1 5 - policy, and it is contemplated, although no specific num bers have been established or no specific patterns that teachers will be assigned on the basis of qualifications with out regard to race. Q. I was following about half-way through that but I don’t know if I got all of it. . . . Mr. Barkley: Let her read the answer to him. 373a Q. I ’d like to ask him another question. It is my under standing in line with your resolution that for the first time this year have been hired on a basis of qualifications and without regard to race, is that correct? A. This was my statement, yes. Q. Now, the second part of it is, and here I got a little fuzzy, that you are also, without regard to what the Court does, going to assign these teachers to the schools on the same consideration, that is without regard to race, just on the basis of qualifications. A. No. I think you misquoted. I didn’t say without regard to what the Court does. Q. Well, the Court is certainly not going to tell you to not assign them on a non-segregated basis. The issue be fore the Court is whether the Court shall order you to assign them on a non-segregated basis this year. My ques tion is whether the Court orders it for this year or not whether it is your response that you are going to assign —216— them on a non-raeial basis. A. The Board made no com mittment about what it’s going to do at this point about how many or what it’s going to do about the assignment. It has no specific policy on this at this point. Q. I ’m going to ask you again the question I asked you before the objection to which was overruled. If the Court were to order you to assign the new teachers that you have hired for this year on a basis of qualifications and with out regard to race, would you find any administrative or other difficulty in so assigning those teachers? Court: If you can answer yes or not and then you may explain. A. I think the answer is no clearly but I would say that in my understanding of the Board’s general responsibility Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 374a for the employment and assignment of personnel, it must maintain the responsibility of judgment in terms of where teachers are assigned and which teachers are employed and this doesn’t have anything to do with race as much as it does the judgment on the particular qualifications of an individual and their particular age and experience and the particular needs of an individual school. Our experience, Your Honor, so far, outside' of the regular school program, has been a very satisfactory one in the use of key Negro teachers teaching predominantly or all white youngsters in summer school program and special - 2 1 7 - programs. Our experience has been a good one and we don’t anticipate any specific heavy problems within the judgment of numbers and locations of teachers with the using of Negro teachers with white children or white teachers with Negro children. Q. I am not sure I understood your first answer. Let me ask you this way, of the 14 or 15 new Negro teachers that you have hired, do you now contemplate or is there any likelihood any of the new teachers will be assigned to predominantly white schools on a fulltime basis! Mr. Barkley: I object to that on the ground that he has answered that fully. Court: Overruled. A. I think it’s conceivable that all 14 or 1 of the 14 or 4 of the 14 or 10 of the 14 or any of the 348 white might be assigned to Negro, white or integrated school situations. Q. Wouldn’t there have to be a policy change on this before you could assign the first Negro teachers to the predominantly white school! A. The Board already, in Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 375a its summer school program which is under its direct juris diction, assigned Negro teachers to teach predominantly and all white groups. This started three years ago. Q. But the Board has not yet on a fulltime basis as signed even the first Negro teachers to a predominantly - 2 1 8 - white school on a fulltime basis during the regular school year, is that right? A. It did the first one this past year, teaching in both Negro and white schools, the Driver Ed ucation teacher. Q. I was speaking of classroom teachers assigned to one school on a fulltime basis. Now, the Board hasn’t done that yet, has it? A. If I may correct one statement that I made, Your Honor. There are 6 of the white . . . Q. Dr. Phillips, please answer the question that I asked. Court: Please do come back to Mr. Bell’s ques tion. Has the School Board yet assigned a Negro teacher to a predominantly white school on a full time basis? A. No, sir, it has not. Q. My second question is, and I don’t want to cut you off but I would like to get the answers to my questions, is there any possibility that this is going to be done this year? A. I have already answered that, I believe. Q. You have said yes and no. Court: Mr. Bell, I believe you have forgotten his answer, he did say yes, there is definitely a pos sibility, as I understood him. Q. Is there a probability that this is going to occur? A. How do you define that? Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 376a Court: That’s for you to define. If you don’t - 2 1 9 - know, just say you don’t know. A. I think the best word is that there is a possibility, yes. The Board has not adopted a specific policy and said that it will assign a specific Negro teachers to a white school yet it is a possibility. Q. Will some further action by the Board be required before this can be done? A. I think it could be either way. I am not sure there is specific policy statement that is going to be required to initially assign a Negro teacher to an all white school. Q. Does that mean that as of right now you, as Super intendent, lack that authority! Could you assign? A. No, sir. I think that under the liberal policy, the general policy of the Board of Education in allowing the move ment in the summer program and the movement this past year, it is conceivable this could be done. We have not explored this in terms of actual authority. Court: Is it fair to say that you think you have the authority but as a matter of wisdom you might consult them? A. Yes, sir, you said it extremely well. Q. You indicated clearly no in response to my question about having any administrative or other difficulties. Did you mean that there will be administrative difficulties in doing this or there will not be? A. Not be is the answer — 220— to your question. Q. Based on the experience you have had thus far in the summer school program and in your experience last Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 377a year, you foresee no difficulties in assigning, if the Court so orders you to assign, all of the teachers you have hired this year on a basis that does not include race! A. I added this, within the good judgment of the staff and the Board of Education in the placement of these people, which is basic to the placement of any teachers. The fac tor of good judgment has to come into it. Q. Does good judgment include race! A. No. Q. Then there is no administrative problem based on race that would prevent you from assignment of these . . . Court: He answered that no, as I understood him. Q. You talked about this matter of rated capacity, in determining rated capacity because you wanted to be able to grant all of the transfer requests that you possibly could. How many white pupils requested transfer from initial assignment to Negro schools! A. I don’t have that figure right at hand. I think it’s in here. Q. I think it isn’t. I think we skipped over it yesterday. Court: What is your contention! It might refresh your memory. Do you have one! — 221— Mr. Bell: There is sort of a gap in that informa tion. I think we have the . . . Court: Well, somebody’s got it. Who has it! Mr. Bell: We have the total number of white pupils who obtained transfers but there isn’t a show ing of how many of these were white assigned to Negro schools. Q. Do you have that information! A. To the best of my knowledge, Your Honor, I don’t have the statistics . . . Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 378a unless you do have them there . . . of the white to move. We assume from a general observation of the requests for transfer, and I did work personally with these all the way through, we assume that the vast majority of the white youngsters who were assigned to Negro schools or pre dominantly Negro schools requested a change from that assignment. Court: But it’s not unfair to say that virtually all of the requested white transfers were from predominantly Negro schools. A. That’s correct. Court: So what’s that total! Mr. Bell: The total, I believe, is 2222. A. This is all of the transfers of white children. Most of the transfers would have been from white to white. The point I ’m making is whatever number . . . — 222- Court: Inadvertently you said just the opposite a moment ago. Perhaps you misunderstood. A. I did because the listing of the 2222 white transfers requests includes in the main requests from one white to another white or predominantly white. It also includes . . . Court: Well, we’re going to have to get it exact. The total requested white transfers is 2222. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross A. Yes, sir, that’s correct. 379a Court: Somebody perhaps knows how many repre sent white transfers out of predominantly Negro schools. Do you have a contention about it! Mr. Bell: Yes, sir. It is my contention that in the general figures, although I haven’t been able to total them up as to which white children were trans ferring out of Negro schools, that the major benefit of this transfer plan that they worked so had to make available to everybody by increasing the school capacities, worked in favor of permitting white children to get out of Negro schools. Court: I meant in terms of number. Do you con tent that most of the 2000 fall in that catagory? Mr. Bell: I think that virtually all of them do. I don’t doubt, as testimony was yesterday, that some wanted to go back to Barringer or had been changed from East Mecklenburg to Barringer or Eastway to McClintock . . . —223- Court: Is the figure available? A. Yes, sir, I think it could be tied up. If I can get one of our school people to take the figures that are listed on this pupil assignment sheet, Exhibit A, that are pre dominantly Negro, starting with Alexander Street, we can assume that 15 white transfer requests who are not there in the anticipated enrollment would be the 15 white children who were initially assigned to the Alexander Street School, and it is assumed from this figure that all 15 asked to go to another school. I wonder, Mr. Bai kley, if it would be appropriate for Mr. Anderson to take this and to roughly run through. These would be the pre dominantly Negro schools. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 380a Court: Do that please. You’ve got a total of 2222 white requested transfers. How many Negro re quested transfer were there! A. 697 Negro transfers. Now, these would not necessarily all be Negro youngsters asking to move from white schools. Court: I understand. In fact, we got that yester day. There were 267 Negroes that asked to go to integrated schools and all of them were granted except 5. A. May I cite one other example of the reason this is complicated and must be tallied this way. At the Cotswold Elementary School, which we mentioned several times and which is totally white, there were 72 requests for transfers. —224— They were requested to go from Cotswold to another school. Q. On the matter of the 3 to 5, maybe a few more, I think 5 all told, who sought to go to Garringer and their requests were denied because Garringer was crowded and they did not make a second or Third choice. Do you know if any member of the staff or you called these parents and informed them they should have made a second or third choice! A. No, sir. The Board of Education in structed me and I, in turn, instructed the staff that they were not to be involved in any way in advising the parents in the expression of free choice, either pro or con, and this has been inherent in all of the Civil Rights legisla tion, no compulsion, pressures whatsoever would be pressed in any direction. The staff did not make any direct con tact with the parents of children who sent in free choice Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—-Cross 381a transfer requests to make any changes. It took them as they came in and handled them in this way. If there was a request that came in, either Negro or white, and there were plenty of both, that were incomplete in terms of not even stating a choice or having stated the same choice having already been assigned, and there were a number of these, our personnel office which handled this has in its files the correspondence it sent back to these parents, and this was both to Negro and white parents. It has nothing to do with the telling of hte parents, you have not requested a second or third choice. lit simply cor- —225— rected any inadequacies in the form other than the choices. Q. You just turned down the requests. Now, was there any knowledge these parents were given prior to making the request that Gar ringer would be full! Was there any way they could have known that Garringer would be overcrowded when they made their requests! A. These parents, Thomas, Kimbrell, Sloan, Huntley and Counsel, I assume, had their copies of the same letter that went to all 75,000 students in the system which specifically stated the steps that the Board had taken and the steps they could take and the fact that a form was on the back of that letter which gave three choices and the only limi tation that, the Board was placing on any student was the limitation of the capacity of the school. Court: You didn’t answer his question. His ques tion was was there any way the parents could know that Garringer would be overcrowded? A. No, sir. Q. So, as a matter of fact, here was an instance where you were able to send 5 more kids back to the Negro school Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 382a and in line with the policy on which you drew the zone lines and everything else yon promptly took the oppor tunity to not assign these kids to a desegregated school. A. You’ll have to ask your question because I can’t accept your assumptions in your question. You used the words able to. —226— Q. Yon didn’t call these parents and say do you want to make a second and third choice? A. We did not. Q. You considered that coercion? A. No, sir, I did not. If I had called it would have been coercion. Q. Now, you said that the Board, in drawing up these zone lines used only good faith consideration and you didn’t look to try to keep Negroes in Negro schools or whites in white schools. Now, you admit, of course, that the effect of excepting the 10 excepted schools from the operation of the zoning plan is in each instance resulting in the maintenance for this coming year of a great deal of segregation, isn’t that correct? A. No, sir, I do not. It amounts to about 4000 children in the 10 excepted schools which is about one-fifth of our total Negro pupil popu lation. It is a very small percentage of the total of 75,000 so I would not admit to the great deal. I ’ll admit, as it is spelled out in the plan, that the 10 excepted schools that exist in territories that now overlap and in areas that serve other schools. Q. If all of the school had been zoned using regular zoning criteria, isn’t it correct that the number of Negroes in formerly white schools and the number of whites in formerly Negro schools would have been doubled or tripled? A. I think Mr. Barkley brought this out yesterday, that Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 383a —227— once the exceptions are all cleared there will be very few schools in the total area that will not have a sizable number of Negro youngsters in them. Court: I appreciate that viewpoint but that is not in answer to the question. Read the question again. (The Court Reporter reads the question on Page 226, Line 21.) A. About doubled, Your Honor. This is an estimate but I expect about 2000, 2500 of the 4000 youngsters would be in predominantly white or integrated schools. Q. Isn’t it also true, Dr. Phillips, that the major con sideration the Board had in excepting these schools was the fact that if they had been included you would have had large numbers of white children assigned initially to these 10 excepted Negro schools? A. No, sir, that is not correct. Q. Is it true that whatever the Board’s reasons were had the 10 excepted schools been included you would have been required to assign large numbers of white children to those 10 excepted schools? A. No, sir, that is not neces sarily correct. Q. Not necessarily correct? A. No, sir. Q. Well, maybe we are differing on what large is. Ap proximately how many white pupils would have been as- siged to these 10 excepted schools had they not been ex cepted? —228— Mr. Barkley: I object on the grounds that it is purely speculative. Dr. A. Craig Phillips■—for Defendant—Cross 384a Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross Court: Overruled. Q. Can you give us any idea how many white pupils would have been assigned to the 10 excepted schools had they been included in the zoning scheme? A. Your Honor, I have to make one statement to qualify this before I answer the question. You have missed the point that a number of these schools are projected in the exception lor elimination and the Board at no time had contemplated the continuation of the schools so the figure would be ir relevant because the Torrence-Lytle and Sterling Schools are slated for elimination and it’s a possibility in the other schools that have been discussed so there is no way to give that kind of figure. Q. They are not eliminated this year, are they? A. No, they are not. The Sterling Senior High School is. Q. If you can, can you answer the question that I posed as to how many approximately white pupils would have been assigned to those schools? A. I can’t answer be cause I don’t know. Q. There would have been large number, would there not • A. No, sir, there would not have been large numbers to my knowledge. Q. Aren t many of these schools located near or in the —229— county areas? A. Yes, they are. Q. And do you disagree with the testimony to the effect that while there are identifiable concentrations of Negroes within the city in the northwestern section that there is a gieat deal of integration in the more sparsely popu lated rural areas? A. This is the basis of my answer to your question that it would not be large because it is sparsely populated. 385a Q. Yes, but the Negroes and whites don’t live in iden tifiable sections, they are fairly well integrated, isn’t that right! A. That’s what sparse means, yes, sir. Q. Had all of the 10 excepted schools been included in the zoning scheme there would have been goodly numbers of whites assigned to those 10 excepted schools. A. My answer would still be no, in my judgment. Q. How many would have been assigned! Would any of them have been assigned? A. I don’t know. Q. You have no idea at all? A. No. Q. Now, you say that all of the 10 excepted schools are due for elimination? A. No, I did not say that, no, sir. Q. I thought that was the testimony, that was why we —230— weren’t including them this year. A. If you will read the exceptions there are alternatives expressed on a num ber of exceptions. There are certain numbers of them that are slated actually to be closed or discontinued. There are others that have two alternatives, either discontinua tion or a rezoning of the area. This is spelled out in item 10 on page 6. Q. Let’s take Torrence-Lytle School. I gather from read ing newspaper clippings and talking to the people in the community that during the past school year there has been a great deal of commotion about the poor physical con ditions, the overcrowdedness, the inadequate facilities that exist at the Torrence-Lytle School. Have you received a lot of complaints and everything during the last year about Torrence-Lytle? A. We have had the problem of crowded conditions there as we have had at a number of schools, not in terms of poor facilities, no, sir. Q. Torrence-Lytle is not accredited, is it? A. No, sir, it is not. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 386a Q. And at lease last year it was overcrowded to the point where gymnasiums and auditoriums had to be used as classrooms, is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. And I note that notwithstanding this coming year —231— the 10th grade is going to be removed. A. Has been al ready. Q. When pupils start to school there will not be a 10th grade but nevertheless Torrence-Lytle is within 30 or 40 pupils of maximum capacity as far as assignments are concerned. A. I think that is correct, yes, sir. The maxi mum capacity is based, remember, on temporary spaces as well as normal spaces. Q. Which other of the excepted schools are not accred ited? A. Sterling Senior High School, Gunn Senior High School are not accredited by the Southern Association. Court: Torrence, Sterling and Gunn? A. Yes, sir. Sterling has been eliminated. Court: Already eliminated! A. Yes, sir. Q. Sterling is still a school as far as grades 1 to 9, isn’t it? A. Grades 1 to 9, yes. Q. What are the conditions out there 1 to 9, is that accredited? A. All of our elementary schools are accred ited by the state accrediting agency. None of our elemen tary schools in the system are accredited by the Southern Association. Q. How do you designate the conditions at the Sterling —23 2 - School as it now exists? A. Conditions that are there? Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 387a Q. That’s right. A. By eliminating the senior high school students we have relieved the overcrowded factor there. We still have the problem that we have in Matthews and in Bain and at Billingsville and Plato Price of con tinuing a junior high school which does not have enough youngsters to justify a full program. This has been in existence and is the background for the basic plan that the Board has set up for eliminating this. Q. Getting back to the implications of the first question, do you deny that the Board excepted these schools for reasons having to do with racial integration ? A. Yes, sir, Ido. Q. Now, you told the Court about the hundreds of hours that the Board and staff spent in drawing up these school zone lines. When did the Board give consideration to the school zone lines, was it at regular Board meetings? A. Yes. Its final consideration, its action was taken at reg ular Board meetings. Q. Were there minutes kept of the discussions and de cisions? A. Minutes of the action that was taken were kept, yes, sir, in line with the normal process of the Board. Q. You mean the final decision as to the lines? A. Yes, sir. —233— Q. Were there any minutes kept of the various prelim inary decisions that were made or discussions concerning where the zone lines should be? A. No, sir. It is not a practice of the Board of Education or any Board of Edu cation that I have known to keep minutes of deliberations and study groups. Q. Not all of these meetings were public meetings by any means, were they? A. The action meeting of tin Board was a public meeting, yes, sir. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 388a Q. I mean the meetings in which these matters were dis cussed and decisions made as to where these zone lines were to be drawn. A. The Board of Education—it is my understanding of the legal opportunities and responsibility —can meet in executive session at any time it wants to do so and any sessions that might have been held to discuss the maps or plan or any other problem with personnel, as I understand it, are within the legal rights of the Board of Education to hold executive sessions. Q. Well, then, is it correct that the Board did have ex ecutive sessions! A. They did have executive sessions on this and a number of other matters and continues to have them, yes. Q. Did the Board have executive sessions on this matter, sir? A. Which matter? — 234— Q. The decisions on the zone lines. A. Yes, it did have executive sessions. Q. Approximately how many of these sessions were held? A. To the best of my knowledge there were probably two work sessions by the Board, executive sessions, relating to the maps. I would say, Mr. Barkley, if it’s correct to say so, that the Board actually adopted pretty clearly the recommendations of the staff that were presented on the basis of the study that had been done by the staff. The action taken by the Board was not as a result, as you put it, of long hours by the Board of Education itself. The hours were put in by the staff and the Board recognizes the problems of individual block lines and this sort of thing. Q. Was it correct that the suggestions and the tentative plans prepared by the staff and principals were presented Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 389a to the Board for consideration at these executive sessions! A. That is correct, yes. Q. How many executive sessions did you say were held! A. I think I answered that. To the best of my knowledge, two. Q. Am I correct in assuming that these executive sessions were held prior to the adoption or announcement of the new plan and zone lines about March 9 or 10, early in March! A.Prior to the adoption of the plan! Court: In the interest of time, why does it matter! —235— Mr. Bell: Well, Your Honor, I have serious diffi culty, and that’s why I’m taking time, based on what I feel is fairly reliable information that there were several meetings, executive meetings, that Dr. Phil lips refers to. . . . Court: What’s wrong with that! You’ll have an ally in the Charlotte Observer, perhaps, on this sub ject but I don’t know of any rule of law that requires all meetings to be public. Mr. Bell: I would like to establish the fact there were meetings and now I’m trying to get at what took place in the meetings. Court: All right. I think you don’t want to pursue it too far. To me it’s irrelevant. We’re having a public meeting now but there’s nothing to prevent your requesting me to meet back here in chambers and lawyers often do that. I don’t see anything wrong with it. Q. Am I correct in saying, Dr. Phillips, that there were closer to eight meetings during the months preceding the Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 390a announcement of the new zone lines rather than two at which the Board met in executive sessions? A. No. I have answered to the best of my knowledge. There were two basic executive sessions by the Board itself. Q. Did the Board meet in the Board Room in the Admin- —236— istration Building? A. In the Administration Offices, in the Board Room and what we call the map room. Q. The Board met in the evening for these sessions? A. I don’t recall. We meet right often. Q. I’m talking about the two meetings that you can remember. When were they, in the evening? A. I don’t recall, Mr. Bell. Q. You don’t recall whether they were in the afternoon or evening? A. No, sir, I don’t. Q. How long were these meetings, Dr. Phillips? A. I don’t recall that either. Usually when the Board gets to gether to work and when the staff gets together to work they are several hours. I imagine they were several hours long but I don’t have a recollection. Q. Were they three, four hours in length? A. I doubt it, no. Q. Now, in these meetings, Dr. Phillips, isn’t it correct that the Board reviewed districts and indicated danger zones where you had to give special study because the pos sibility if you didn’t draw the line one way there would be desegregation in greater amounts than if you drew the line another way? A. No, sir, that is not correct. Q. It’s not correct, Dr. Phillips? A. I said it was not —237— correct, yes. Q. You don’t recall the designation of danger zones at all? A. Danger zones? Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant■—Cross 391a Q. That’s right. I don’t know what you’re talking about, danger zones. Would you define what you’re talking about! Q. Referring to areas that had to be given special at tention in order to prevent sizable number of Negroes being assigned to white schools and vice versa. A. No, sir. I have answered that and that is not correct. Q. Do you recall of placing of symbols to point up these areas where special attention had to be given! A. No, I don’t know what your source of information is. Q. Pins or maps! A. We used a number of pins to point up where the major changes in areas were made. They weren’t concerned to race by themselves. We had maps. Just as you have pins on your map, we had maps and pins that depicted where the major changes in the geographic lines were. It did not relate to race alone. Q. Was it pins that you were using, Dr. Phillips! A. We used little flag pins, yes. Q. Were they red flags? A. I don’t recall what color they were. Q. Were they multicolored, were they several colors! A. I’m not sure what colors they were. —238— Q. But you did use some flags on pins? A. Yes. Q. And how did you use those flags, Dr. Phillips? A. The same way they are used here, to depict. I assume your different colors depict different areas. Q. You were showing the locations of the schools on the map that you gave us that wasn’t nearly as clear and pre cise as the map you were using. How did you use the little pins on your map at executive sessions? A. What I an swered a minute ago. We used the pins to depict the areas where major changes were taking place in geographic lines. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 392a Q. What do you mean by major changes! A. Major changes. Q. Where there was a possibility of more desegregation or less desegregation! A. No, sir . . . no, sir. Q. I don’t understand what you mean by major changes, could you give us an illustration of it! A. Take the East Mecklenburg and Garringer lines. There was a major change proposed in the line between East and Garringer. The pr*oblem there was whether to make it this year or make it nest year when the Northeast Senior High School was to be completed. This is down in the eastern area. It’s not on this map, it would be on the senior high school map. —239— The whole southwest area was contemplated in this. This was red flagged in terms of the area to be studied for the new Southwest Senior High School and its relation to all the other schools. Q. This was sort of a determination about which schools should be excepted schools, isn’t that correct! A. No, sir, this didn’t have anything to do with the exceptions except that the new schools being constructed are related to the eventual assignment of those children in those areas which are in the excepted schools or being served by the excepted schools. Q. Then some of these major changes had to do with the excepted schools. A. Any change in line, with very few exceptions, in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg system, with the exception of the lower eastern area, would necessarily in volve some numbers of Negro and white children because as you have pointed out they are spread sparsely all over the county. So I don’t think I could make a statement that an area did not involve Negro and white children both. But they weren’t flagged this way in any way. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 393a Q. In your discussions when you were discussing where to make the major changes, is it your testimony that there was not consideration, no discussion about what the effect as far as integration or segregation would be from drawing —240— the line in one place or drawing the line in another place! A. Not specifically on that. I don’t think the Board of Education or anybody else could look at the map or draw lines without being aware of the basic areas That are being served, but the Board did not deliberate or whether this line here would eliminate or increase the numbers of Negro children. Q. You say not specifically centered on that. To what extent was this type of discussion ? A. To the same extent that everything else was considered in the total setting of the line. Q. Would you say that it was one factor that was dis cussed! A. What was one factor! Q. The factor of whether there was going to be more integration or more segregation. A. Not a factor in the decision, no, sir. Q. What do you mean, then, by not specifically! Court: We are about to run this thing into the ground. He says that they considered, coudn’t, un less they were stupid, ignore where residential pat terns are because they know where they are. Even I learned that in one day. So they considered that, had it in their minds and there was some discussion about it. Then he insists that that was not a factor in drawing the lines. That may not be so. You insist —241— Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross it was. 394a Mr. Bell: I should like to make a statement at this time both as representative counsel and as an officer of this court that I have been pursuing this line of questioning based on what I feel is fairly reliable information from persons who were present at these meetings to the effect that the discussions involving these special areas and marked with these little pin flags centered on the attempt to draw the lines in such a fashion so as to maintain as much segregation as possible and it may be necessary for us to call a few more witnesses on redirect. Mr. Barkley: I object to that statement and move that it be stricken from the record. He can subpoena the court to bring in anyone he wants. Court: Objection overruled. Mr. Barkley: I don’t want that in the record. Court: Not a thing improper with that. That’s simply one of the plaintiff’s contentions. Objection overruled. Mr. Bell: Could I just go over and get some things together? Court: Would you like to take a short recess? Mr. Bell: I think so. Court: All right. A few minutes recess and then - 2 4 2 - resume. S hort E ecess (Dr. Phillips returns to the -witness stand and further cross examination by Mr. Bell.) Q. On the matter of how many whites were initially as signed to Negro schools, my aids have figured 383 white Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 395a children were initially assigned to 16 Negro schools. What are your figures? A. 396. Court: Let me get this down, say it again. Mr. Bell: 396, I’ll accept that figure. A. White children assigned initially to predominantly Negro schools and requested transfers out of those schools and were allowed. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross Court: You had 2222 white transfer requests. A. Yes, sir. Court: You had 396 white children initially as signed to schools that were integrated or heavily Negro who requested to get out and did get out. A. Yes, sir. Court: Do you know how many white children initially assigned to so-called Negro schools who stayed in, if any? A. No, sir, I don’t know. Court: It wouldn’t be many. —243— A. No, sir, it would be very few or none. Court: Just a handful or none? A. Yes, sir. Q. So that the operational effect of the freedom of choice provision has prevented any actual desegregation with the 396a few exceptions you have mentioned of formerly Negro schools? A. I think the only conclusions we could draw is that under the free choice plan the vast majority or possibly all of the white children asked to go hack to predominantly white schools or integrated schools, no way to tell which way, Q. Now, as I understand it, from your figures there were some 52,826 white children initially assigned to schools this fall. A. That’s correct. Q. And of that figure— and I can’t do my percentages that fast but it seems fairly small—of that figure only 396 white children were initially assigned to Negro schools. A. That’s correct. Q. I mean under your zoning system. But you maintain your position that the zones were drawn without regard to gerrymandering? A. Yes. Q. I was asking you a little bit about your perhaps tentative plans on teacher desegregation. Turning to another issue in this case to see whether it might he —244— mooted by subsequent action of the Board, it is my under standing that the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, approves desegregation plans for compliance with Title 6 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that they have thus far refused to approve your plan and have indicated their particular concern about the 10 ex cepted schools, and I was wondering whether during the last few weeks or at any time recently the Board has made any decision or discussed the possibility of eliminat ing the excepted schools or any of them in an effort to comply with the H.E.W. standards. Mr. Barkley: Objection. Court: Overruled. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 397a A. No, it has not. The current status of the application with the Health, Education and Welfare Office is that the office notified our office that the plan was unacceptable at this time for reasons relating to the exceptions, ques tions about the boundaries and the statement concerning employment and assignment of personnel. But the person in charge of the North Carolina region has taken under advisement a complete review of the plan without asking for any changes in it at this point and the status of it right now is that it’s being reveiwed by Health, Educa tion and Welfare. Q. Just for the record, the newspapers speak in terms of the Board’s eligibility for the approximately five hun dred thousand dollars in Federal assistance. Is this figure —245— at all accurate or roughly accurate? A. That figure has been bandied around right much. The actual figures in volved with Federal dollars is much larger, actually a million three hundred thousand alone covering Mecklen burg County. Q. Would this exclude aid to which you would be en titled under the recently passed Federal Aid to Educa tion Act or including the Federal Aid to Education Act? There were several Federal statutes under which school boards were entitled to assistance prior to the recently passed legislation. Court: Again in the interest of time, this is certainly collateral to the issues. Perhaps we can end with a conclusion. Do you feel like you can get along without Federal money or feel that you must have it? Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 398a A. The Federal money that has been coming into the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools for a good while is a vital part of the financial program of the school system. It is important, yes, sir. Court: Is it fair to say that the Board does in tend to satisfy H.E.W.? A. Yes, sir. Q. Just to tie up some loose ends, while still on the excepted schools. I gather you just didn’t pull some names out of the hat, that there was some reason each of the - 2 4 6 - schools that was excepted was excepted, is that correct! A. Yes, that's correct. Q. OK. now just doing dow n very briefly, the Plato Price School I understand is in substandard condition, there are some old buildings which are utilized that don’t even have toilet facilities, is that correct? Court: Excuse me. don't want to interrupt too much but I do want to finish this lawsuit. If you can do so can you give us any general statement of general application to all 10 and tell us why were these schools picked out to be excepted and then Mr. Beil may come back for further details. A. I'll try to do it briefly. Your Honor. The number one proU m related to space available for the redistribution •>: tuese children. This was not the total factor. Number — tuere were seme serious yuestioiis about the educational tregrun :emg ottered in a number of these schools, as n i- ~esu relatei to tae senior oogh school program, a Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 399a small number of children. Number 3, tying in with the space available was the timing of a complete change of organization in these schools and that is why in some cases the elementary shift needs to come with the shift of the junior and senior high so that the whole area can be rezoned. These were the three major factors in these 10 exceptions. And all of the 10 exceptions were schools that were serving Negro children in the former county - 2 4 7 - system and are basically rural areas. Plato Price and Amay James are the closest schools to the inner city itself. They were all serving these areas. Court: Enumerate for me again those three rea sons. A. Space available for the redistribution particularly at the junior and senior high leval. May I add this to that, the construction program that was outlined yesterday is related to this, the new schools. The second is the educa tion program either being offered or attempted to be offered. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross Court; A t these 10? A. Yet, sir. C'mrt A:t being poor? A. T iwitifiwii m mam msismtm, ym, nr. The iterd mm the iryjme h i immr at wMtMbttian mA m- e n v i z s A i ' • v . : , ;v ' v a .v t r . j t : ■' ycrcisrster . • • - m vet sat '-ue vec. < ..v?. pe-.v-.r s V. vinrji*** « »*»aiw v - •» *v»..»- ' •« u‘*v son* 400a for the school contiguous with the other areas that have been drawn. Court: Say that again. A. The elementary school involved, Your Honor, have to alternatives still hanging as proposed in the plan, one of either complete discontinuation and the distribution of the children now in these elementary schools in other schools throughout the area or the creation of a new zone line for the elementary schools continguous with the other zones around it. - 2 4 8 - Court : Are you saying you just need a reasonable time to work out whether to abandon, whether to renew and restore and where to place schools'? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, back to Plato Price, this is one of the schools that I gather you are definitely going to abolish? A. It has not been set definitely, no, sir. It’s a strong possibility. Q. I see. Now, isn’t it correct that the students in the Plato Price could have been accommodated this year, grades 7 to 9, in the Spaugh School which many of the pupils pass in order to get to Plato Price and the balance of the pupil population accommodated in other schools in the vicinity where there is available space? A. I think the record shows, Mr. Bell, that under the maximum capac ities set by the Board there is space in all the junior high schools serving that area, yes. Q. So this would have been possible? A. It would have been possible, yes. Q. Then which of the three factors was it, or explain Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 4 0 1 a your action with regard to Plato Price in line with your standards for making excepted schools. A. This was the timing and the construction, two factors that were given. Court: Plato Price is a junior high school? —249— A. Yes, grades 5 to 9. It combines with Amay James in that area. With the completion of the Southwest Senior High School the York Road Senior High School, which would normally serve the major number of these children, would become a full junior high school contiguous with Spaugh and Sedgefield, and a new attendance area set for the York Road Junior High School. It was felt ad visable at this time that the 7th, 8th and 9th graders in the Plato Price area, the majority of which would be in the York Road Junior High School area, would better be moved then than at the present time. Some would be in the Spaugh area, some would be in Coulwood, some would be in Wilson. In fact, 30 youngsters, I believe, exercised free choice and selected Coulwood Junior High School which is far out and are being assigned there. Court: So Plato Price is going to be abandoned? A. This decision has not been made completely. The only problem in the abandonment of Plato Price is that there is one new section of the school and it could be that one of the alternatives here is that an elementary school could be developed there or a combination primary, elementary grammar school. Court: It looks like the junior high school at Plato Price is probably going to be abandoned. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 402a Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross A. That’s for sure. Court: Then these junior high school students — 2 5 0 - will then go to . . . ? A. The new York Road area or Spaugh or Coulwood or Wilson. Court: Next year or the year after? A. Conceivably next year and probably the fall a year from now. Q. Which grades go to the building I ’m talking about that is rundown and with no toilet facilities? A. I ’m not sure, Mr. Bell. The no toilet facilities is a little bit of distortion. The facilities are available in the main build ing. This is a former agriculture building. I ’m not sure but I can find out. Q. There is one of the junior high schools, isn’t that correct? A. I think this is correct. Q. I notice in some of the other situations that you knocked off the high school grades. At Sterling, in view of the availability of space in other schools and the condi tion of the facilities at least as to a grade or so at Plato Price, would it not have been possible to assign the students who otherwise would have to be assigned to this substand ard facility to some of the other schools? A. This could have been done. It was the judgment of the Board at this time that this was not a practical move in terms of. the total movement that will take place when the senior high school is built. Q. Why wasn’t it going to be practical in view of the conditions under which these children will have to endure Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—-Cross —251— their education for the next year or so! A. I think the best answer to the question is the third point of timing in terms of the movement of these children at the time when the whole junior high school is abandoned. This is a debatable question. Q. In the interest of time go on to the G-unn School. What were the factors in excepting the Gunn Scheool? A. Space, as far as the senior high school, space as far as the junior high school and the normal movement of all the youngsters at one time. The new Northeast Senior High that is to be ready September of 1966 would make it possible to redistribute all the children between Gar- ringer and East, and the new Northeast would serve that total eastern area, and the Gunn Senior High school children would be reassigned to all three of those senior highs because they come from that total area. The junior high is the same way with the new Albemarle Road Junior High School being built and then these children would be redistributed between Albemarle Road and McClintock Junior High Schools and possibly a few in the Cochrane area. Q. Isn’t the Bain Junior High School in that area! A. Bain is a very temporary place. It has the 7th grades there right now at the Bain School. Q. Wasn’t there space for the junior high at Gunn which I understand is another one of the older schools! A. The - 2 5 2 - junior high at Gunn has a better program than the 7th grade at Bain. If there were any priority, the 7th grade at Bain should be moved before the 7th grade at Gunn. Q. At Sterling you knocked off the high school but ex cepted grades 1 to 9. Couldn’t you get most of these pupils 404a into the Quail Hollow School or Davidson or Cornelius! A. Davidson is up at the other end of the county, about 36 miles and Cornelius is up the other end of the county. Q. I ’m sorry, let’s take the Quail Hollow. A. Yes, they could have been taken into Quail Hollow this fall. Q. What were the reasons why you didn’t do that? A. Timing with the movement into the elementary and the junior high school, but this is a possibility. Q. Now, Torrence-Lytle, we already talked about it being overcrowded and the poor facilities. Were these other fac tors involved as far as Torrence-Lytle was concerned? A. Space was the first involvement and timing the second, yes. Q. You talked about Crestdale as being a school out in the general vicinity of the Matthews School in which all of the Crestdale pupils would have fit, assuming Crestdale being a school in poor condition. Why was Crestdale an excepted school? A. Time and space with the movement of the junior high school children from the Matthews School it was felt this would be a better move at that time when it’s a full elementary at Matthews. Again this —253— is a matter of judgment. Q. Well, this element of judgment always seems to take place with the Negro schools. A. There are not but 10 exceptions involved in the system. Q. They are all Negro schools? A. That’s correct. Q. And each time you exercise your judgment in one of these things it prevents a degree of desegregation assignment from taking place although you indicate not for those reasons. A. Is that a question or a statement? Q. Now, how about the Ada Jenkins School? That, I gather, is a relatively new facility or has a new addition. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 4 0 5 a Why was that excepted? A. Ada Jenkins is a school serving Negro children in Davidson, the very top end of the county. It has both new and old facilities—all of them have old and new facilities—and this was excepted on the timing factor alone. Q. I ’m sorry, I don’t understand timing coming in on each one of these. I don’t understand where the timing comes in. You were doing all of the zoning back during the months preceeding March and why wasn’t there time to draw zone lines and assign these kids to the schools? A. It was simply the judgment of the Board that the timing was more correct to do it this way. Q. Is there time in your estimation between now and —254— the time school opens to go ahead and assign the pupils on a zoned basis? A. It is my judgment that the plan that the Board has set up is the best one for these decisions. Q. I am asking you whether there is now time in your estimation to go ahead and zone the schools and assign everyone the way you have assigned to the other 99. A. No, I don’t think there is adequate time to make the change appropriately and in the best judgment of the staff and the Board of Education. Q. You always give me these little extra words such as appropriate time. Let me ask you as I did the teachers, if the Court should order you to include the 10 excepted schools, could the Board do the job? A. If the Court ordered the Board to do the job, I assume the Board would have to do what the Court ordered it to do. Q. Now, the Woodland School, I understand, is a pretty nice looking school. A. Woodland School is a very fine elementary school, yes, sir. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 4 0 6 a Q. Why was it excepted! A. Timing again to tie in with the rezoning of the Plato Price and Amay James and the total area because the Woodland covers most of that same area. It’s an overlapping area. Court: Let me ask Mr. Bell this; right now are there Negro students in these 10 excepted schools who now wish they had exercised their freedom of - 2 5 5 - choice and want to do it! Mr. Bell: I can’t really answer the question. Of course, I can say this, that we tried to put our contentions in the record through the plaintiff Hawkins that the freedom of choice plan works to help the whites go hack to white schools for a lot of outside reasons . . . Court: I don’t want to cut you off but I under stand your contentions, that freedom of choice is a myth is your contention, of course, but you’re not able to answer my question, you just don’t know. Mr. Bell: I don’t know but I would think there would be a minimum of value in giving them another chance to exercise freedom of choice. I think the thing is the leadership hears all the time that the Board is really sincere and why don’t they assign, why do I have to risk this or that by asking for a transfer. Court: Is it fair to say that the plaintiffs do not ask the Court for that type of interim relief, namely, to order further freedom of choice for the students in the 10 excepted schools! Mr. Bell: I would think that in view of all of the testimony that that would be fair for the Court to Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 4 0 7 a conclude. We are more interested in having the schools included within the general zoning. - 2 5 6 - Court : Thank you, sir. Q. We are talking about the York Eoad School which tends to be fairly crowded and although there is space in some of the schools surrounding it—I think Sedgefield could take some of the junior high and Harding some of the senior high in that area-—in view of that, why was York Road not included within the zoning scheme? A. York Road Senior High School is to be eliminated at the end of this next year assuming the construction of South west is completed. York Road Junior High School, which was built originally for a junior high school in relationship to Sedgefield and Spaugh, would become the junior high school serving that geographic area in there. This would mean move back and forth for one year’s period of time and in the judgment of the Board this was not a wise thing to do. Q. Even when you build the new school a lot of students now assigned to York Road are going to be assigned to existing schools, isn’t that right? A. They are not all going to be assigned to the new school. A. The majority of them will be in the York Road area, yes, but there will be some in other areas. Q. But, nevertheless, you hold off reassigning any of them and leave them all at York Road School because of the reasons you gave? A. That is correct. They all had free choice. —2 5 7 - Court: Dr. Phillips, in your judgment is there any compelling reason why the Board should not be Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 4 0 8 a ordered to take these 10 excepted schools into the geographic zoning plan by September, 1966! A. Your Honor, in my judgment and, I think, in the plan ning it has been conceived September 1966 would see the completion of the thing and it would be correct to assume this, yes, sir. Court: Then is your answer that there is no compelling reason why that should not be ordered, that is, complete the zoning plan, and I say paren thetically, one way or the other, either with the new schools or putting some people in various schools mentioned like where there are vacancies, not filled to capacity. As I understand it, then, there is no compelling reason why the Board should not com plete its zoning plan in one more year. A. I think that’s correct. Court: You can do it one way or the other, either new construction or redefining of the lines! A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, on the Billingsville School we saw there that there are less than 200 students in Billingsville Junior High and this is supposed to be a pretty poor school, a lot of inadequacies as far as facilities are concerned. A. That is not correct. It’s a brand new facility that has —258— been built there and adapted for temporary junior high school use. Q. In terms of facilities you would expect to find in a junior high such as business courses and gymnasium and Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross 4 0 9 a things of that nature. A. There are limitations, yes. It’s better than some of the others. Q. I gather, and this was the testimony yesterday, that there are less than 200 pupils there and they could all go, he assigned to the Piedmont School, which is operated at half capacity with about 400 pupils, or perhaps to the Hawthorne School. Now, why would this school be ex cepted, why would you want to hold off on that in view of the conditions there and in view of the availability of space in schools where we would assume all facilities are available! A. It is my judgment, and the Board accepted this judgment, that educationally the move of one year and then into the new East Central Junior High School would not be of value to these youngsters and they are better off staying where they are. It’s a matter of timing, Mr. Bell, is the basic reason. Q. This matter of timing each time. Here’s a situation where you indicate that the facilities for junior high are somewhat less than adequate, that there is another school, the Piedmont, a white school, which is operating at about —2 5 9 - half capacity, and that there are other schools if you wanted to use them also and yet you say that timing and a matter of judgment cause you to make this an excepted school where Negroes are assigned back the way they were back through the years because of race. I can’t un derstand why this couldn’t have been done this year rather than next year as you now indicate to the Court you would be able to do it. Court: Do you have any comment! Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant—Cross A. No, sir. 4 1 0 a Q. You just can’t do it, you just feel you shouldn’t do it, it’s just your judgment? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, the Amay James School is a relatively recently constructed school, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what were your reasons for excepting that? A. The same basic reasons as the others. Amay James covers a rather large area and it must be built back into the geographic plan relating to the Plato Price and this is a decision that is still hanging as to whether new areas are to be drawn or the Plato Price abandoned completely. It’s a matter of timing. Q. Just to repeat as to the Crestdale which has a popula tion of grades 1 to 6 and only 87 students this year, your answer is that it is just a matter of judgment and you’d —260— rather wait until next year to take the action? A. It was the judgment of the Board that this would be the best decision, yes. Q. You talked about athletics yesterday and today and just to get it straight, as I understand it at the present time there are interscholastic athletics at the high school level and they are operated in two leagues, one league made up of the Negro schools, one league made up of the white schools, and they play each other and there is a Negro school champion and a white school champion, is that correct? A. There are two athletic associations in this state and up to this point our predominantly Negro schools have operated under the athletic association that controls their activities and the white have done likewise. We have begun some steps to eliminate this. It is a state wide problem. Q. Do you have an estimate as to when this would be Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant— Cross 411a eliminated? A. No, I can’t predict on it. I think in a fairly short time. Q. You indicated it was difficult for you to get the rec ords together that we have requested because all the records having to do with race as far as students are concerned have been abandoned. Is that so? Is it your contention in drawing these zone lines that you had no idea of the racial makeup of the communities ? A. Only general ideas ? Q General ideas? A. Yes. —261— Q. Your principals and your staff people had a little better than a general idea, right? A. Yes. Q. Did you say yes? A. The principals in the individual schools would be more knowledgeable than we would be at the central office. Q. I understand that traditionally each teacher has sort of a teacher roll or teacher register for the pupils as signed to her that has general information about the pupil and, at least in times past, indicated the race of the pupil. A. That’s correct. Q. Is it my understanding that this has been done away with, the racial designation? A. The State Board of Edu cation has just recently dropped its requirements for the maintenance of separate records of Negro and white. Q. And the Board now is going to follow through on that, is that right? A. That’s right. The Board of Edu cation has made every effort in past years to remove this as a problem. Dr. A. Craig Phillips—for Defendant-—Cross Mr. Bell: No further question. 4 1 2 a Redirect Examination by Mr. Barkley: Q. Doctor, he asked about athletics between the schools. - 2 6 2 - Will you state whether or not in Myers Park High School last term there were any Negro pupils participating in athletic events with white pupils? A. Yes, sir, there were five or six youngsters at the 10th grade level who partic ipated at the junior varsity program at Myers Park, 10th graders who were assigned there last year. Q. Do you know anything about basketball, baseball? A. They participated all the way through in all the athletic programs and were on a completely eligible basis. Q. Was any distinction drawn at all on a racial basis as far as athletics? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know of any distinction drawn at any of the high schools as to the racial composition as to pupils in the schools as to athletic participation? A. No, sir, they were not. Q. Well, now, Doctor, do you know whether or not there is any event such as track meets between Negro schools and white schools? A. This spring, Mr. Barkley, the girls athletic association throughout the system in all the schools set up our first system-wide track and field events. This was the first effort as to bringing together the schools and this was an event held this spring and very successfully done. Q. Let me just ask you one further question to clear - 2 6 3 - up the matter brought out in evidence here yesterday. Have you had occasion to measure the distance from Mor gan School, described as being a mile and a half from Dr. A. Craig Phillips— for Defendant—Redirect 413a Selwyn, out to the Selwyn School! Have you had occasion to check the distance! A. Yes, sir, I have measured that. It’s exactly 4 miles from the entrance of Selwyn School to the entrance of Morgan School. Q. Reference was also made to Little Rock as being in the close vicinity of Selwyn School. Do you know how far the Little Rock Road is from Selwyn School! A. I haven’t measured it, Mr. Barkley, but it’s all the way on the other side of the county, over in the western section of the county, out near the West Mecklenburg-Tuckaseegee- Paw Creek area. Q. Do you have an estimate of miles on that! A. I’d say 15, 18 miles from Selwyn School roughly, yes, sir. Mr. Barkley: That’s all. Court: Thank you, Dr. Phillips. You may step down. Robert Carpenter Hanes—for Defendant—Direct Court: Call your next witness for the School Board. R o b e r t C a r p e n t e r H a k e s , a w i t n e s s f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t , h a v i n g f i r s t b e e n d u l y s w o r n , w a s e x a m in e d a n d t e s t i f i e d a s f o l l o w s : Direct Examination by Mr. Barkley: —264— Q. What is your full name! A. Robert Carpenter Hanes. Q. What position do you hold with the Charlotte-Meck- lenburg School Board! A. I am assistant Superintendent for the secondary schools. Q. In other words, the operation of all of the high schools, junior high schools are under your control and 414a supervision? A. Yes, sir, the junior and senior high schools. Q. Doctor, do you have a record on Don Griggs who, I believe, was the first Negro student admitted to Myers Park High School and he was there alone, is that right? A. Yes, sir. I am familiar with Don Griggs record. Q. Do you know what Donald Griggs achieved while a student at Meyers Park insofar as National Honor Society is concerned? A. Well, he was a very good student. He was elected into the National Honor Society Chapter at Myers Park High School. This represents approximately the upper 10% of the student body. Q. Was he elected an officer of any clubs? A. Yes, sir. He was elected President, or an officer of the En gineers Club, which is an interest club at Myers Park. Q. Did he have any other activity out there in connec tion with the school? A. Yes, sir. He served as a photo grapher for the school annual at Myers Park High School. He also represented his home room in student activities. —265— Q. Find any evidence of being browbeaten out at Myers Park High School? A. No, sir. Q. Now, the Piedmont Junior High School, that’s also under your jurisdiction, is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know the status of the elective officers of the P.T.A. at that school for next year? A. I know who the officers are, yes, sir. Q. Is there a Negro mother who has been elected to one of the officers in the P.T.A. ? A. Yes, sir, there is. to one of the officers in the P.T.A.? A. Yes, sir, there is. I recall that she is a Vice-president for the P.T.A. for next year. Q. How about the 7th and 9th grades, whether there was any participation by Negroes from the standpoint Robert Carpenter Hanes—for Defendant—Direct 415a of being elected class officers? A. Negro students were elected to class officers for this past year in both the 7th and 9th grades at Piedmont Junior High. Q. What kind of a basketball team did Piedmont have last year? A. On the starting team 3 of the 5 starting- players on the team were Negroes. They played a very good season. They won the Sportsmanship Award, as a matter of fact, for their league of 10 junior high schools, not only for the conduct of the team but the conduct of the student body when games were played there. —266— Mr. Barkley: That’s all. Cross Examination by Mr. Bell: Q. Do you consider this Mr. Griggs was a better than average student? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you think that all Negro students are better than average or on a level with Mr. Giggs? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever gone into the Negro community or gone to Negro homes and talked to the parents about why they aren’t taking advantage of the transfer provision to send their children to Myers School or any of the other predominantly white high schools? Mr. Barkley: I object to that. Court: Overruled. A. No, sir, I have not. Q. Do you know anything about some of the fears and reservations that some of the parents had as to what might or might not happen to their children if they send them to integrated schools? Court: Or if they have such fears. Robert Carpenter Hanes—for Defendant—Cross 416a A. I do not know. I would imagine that perhaps they would. I do not know for a fact they have fears but I would imagine they would have the same kind of fears - 2 6 7 - anyone else would have going a new school situation. Q. What has the Board done in terms of a program that would show these parents what I am fairly sure the facts are, that most teachers are going to receive the pupil well, that they are going to treat them as they are going to treat the white pupils, that there is nothing that they need to be afraid o f! Has the Board undertaken any kind of program or have you undertaken any kind of program! A. Not any organized kind of program except for the fact that certainly the principals of all of our schools would be aware of the treatment of Negro students in integrated school situations, of their acception and of the way they have been performing and the re lationship with teachers. Q. This is in the main after they get there! A. Yes, sir. It would certainly be a view to students who come after them as to how they might expect to be treated. Q.Is there anything that you or your staff is doing to break down the understandable reservations Negro parents who have not sent their children to white schools would have about taking such action after all of these years! A. No, sir, I am not involved in such a plan. Q. You mentioned the Piedmont School. I gather that Piedmont School is a place where you have roughly as signed this year 256 white pupils and 274 Negroes, is that correct! A. Yes, sir. —268— Q. And that’s the only school that has that kind of a balance in the whole system, isn’t that right! A. Yes, sir. Robert Carpenter Hanes—for Defendant—Cross 417a Q. And it’s your testimony, I gather, that everything is working out fairly well, at least to this point as far as the Negroes becoming officers of the P.T.A. and Negro pupils elected to class officers? A. Yes, sir. Q. Does that generally reflect everything is going very well? A. In my judgment, yes, the program seems to be operating fairly well. Q. In your judgment, Dr. Hanes, would it also not be more likely that similar kinds of instances of successful integrated education or integrated schools would be ob tained in some of the other high schools if the percentages of Negroes and whites that were assigned there were more evenly balanced than they now are? Mr. Barkley: I object to that. That’s going into racial inbalance. You don’t have to achieve racial balance. Court: Overruled. A. I think the Negro students at Myers Park High School and South Mecklenburg Senior High School this past year have adjusted normally and have been a normal part of the student body just as have the Negroes at —2 6 9 - Piedmont Junior High School and there is a considerable difference in the ratio between South Mecklenburg and Piedmont. Court: In what respect, South Mecklenburg has just a very few Negroes? A. Yes, sir, some 30 or 40. Q. I was thinking of the situation where you have in many of the instances just 1 or 2 of the other race Robert Carpenter Hanes—for Defendant—Cross 418a being assigned to a particular school and generally that 1 or 2 choosing to go back to the school where they were coming from. My question was wouldn’t this tendency be lessened if there were more of each race assigned to the school, if the percentages were more even? A. I think that ultimately it depends on the individual student Don Griggs got along very beautifully as a student at Myers Park High School but we must judge him not so much as a Negro but as a capable young person. I think that this is ultimately what happens. Q. You are not indicating to me that we have over 200 Don Griggs assigned to the Piedmont School, are you? A. No, but I think among those 200 students we have good students, we have average students and not so good students and they are still individuals. Q. My question remains, based on your testimony, is there not better adjustment in terms of not only the Negroes but the white pupils in the Piedmont School than we have —270— had in some of the other schools where, having assigned just a few whites or a few Negroes, they tend to make applications for transfer back to the schools they came from or back to segregated schools? A. Well, I am not aware of any large numbers of Negro students who, once they have been in an integrated school, have re quested transfer back to a segregated school because of poor- treatment. Court: Let me see if I can shorten this. I think Mr. Bell’s last several questions relate to the situa tion where there are just 1 or 2 of the minority group in a school. He’s asking if there were more isn’t there less likelihood of those transferring out. Robert Carpenter Hanes—for Defendant—Cross 419a Where yon have just 1, 2 or 3 Negroes, say, and 700 white students, isn’t it more likely that the 1, 2 or 3 will transfer out than otherwise! A. I think that’s true. Q. This is certainly true of the white students, isn’t it, where in every case where you assigned just a few white pupils to a Negro school they all transfer right out of it! A. This is the case, yes, except that at Bethune where we have had— Q. A few who stayed there! A. Yes, sir. —271— Q. There were some newspaper clippings of comments by parents, white parents, some of whom indicated they were for integration but they were very reluctant to not choose transfer when they found their students were as signed to formerly Negro schools and they were only going to be a few white pupils there. I wonder if the Board is aware or the staff is aware of this kind of complaint and whether any action has been taken by the Board to correct this situation. Mr. Barkley: Objection. Court: Overruled. A. It has been our instructions, as we understood them, not to involve ourselves in encouraging students either to go to a particular school or not to go to a particular school. This would apply both to white as well as Negro students. Q. No, my question was not trying to get Negroes or the whites to go but whether, in the light of the fact of your apparent knowledge that white parents are not going Robert Carpenter Hanes—for Defendant—Cross 420a to leave their children in predominantly Negro schools when there are only a small percentage of whites assigned there, have you made recommendations as a staff member to the Board as to what can be done to alter that situation? A. No, sir. Court: Is it the plaintiffs’ contention that zones ought to be drawn so as to achieve, insofar as pos sible, racial balance? —272— Mr. Bell: I think that we don’t get into the ques tion of racial balance. I think we have the problem of a Board here that has been assigning pupils on the basis of race, who have the obligation under Brown to desegregate, to disestablish the segregated system. In that regard, where you have an op portunity to draw a line one way and it’s going to bring about desegregation and draw it another way that’s going to maintain segregation, then the Board has the obligation to draw that line, assuming no other educational factors, so as to promote the desegregation process. Our contention in this case is that the Board has not done this, that they have clearly drawn the lines in order to maintain se gregation, it hasn’t been a back and forth thing. Court: Is this a mostly yes or mostly no answer to my question? Mr. Bell: I would say the answer to your ques tion is yes. I was trying to indicate that it’s not a prime issue in this case. No further questions. Robert Carpenter Hanes—for Defendant— Cross 421a Frank Dowd, Jr., a witness for the defendant, having- first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: —273— Direct Examination by Mr. Barkley: Q. Mr. Dowd, your name is Frank Dowd? A. Frank Dowd, Jr. Q. You are a member of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education! A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Dowd, the suggestion has been thrown out here on cross examination of Dr. Phillips that the Board in connection with the preparation of this new assignment plan had divisions made on maps according to race in dicated by flags and things like that. Did you attend meet ings of the Board at which this desegregation plan was drawn up? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ever see any maps or other material that made any reference to racial consideration? A. No, sir. Mr. Barkley: Examine him. Cross Examination by Mr. Bell: Mr. Bell: I don’t know what defendant’s counsel was asking but I didn’t ask that at all. Court: Just ask questions. That’s not a fair com ment to this witness. Mr. Bell: I ’m sorry, Your Honor. —274— Q. Mr. Dowd, how long have you been a member of the Board? A. Approximately seven years. Q. What line of work are you in? A. I’m in the manu facturing business. Frank Dowd, Jr.—for Defendant—Direct—Cross 422a Q. You did attend, then, some meetings prior to the an nouncement of the Board’s new zoning plan, which meet ings were not publicized and which outsiders were ex cluded, is that correct? A. Some were and some weren’t. Q. I ’m interested in the ones in which the press and pub lic generally were excluded. How many such meetings did you attend? A. I really don’t know, sir. Q. Would it be as many as eight? A. No, sir. Q. Four? A. Something in that area, probably three, four. Q. These meetings were held in the evenings, weren’t they, Mr. Dowd? A. Counsel, I don’t recall. Some were in the evening and some were in the morning. Some were in full attendance with the press, which were in the morn ing. Q. Mr. Dowd, I would like to limit your responses to the meetings, so-called executive sessions, where the press was excluded, where no outsiders were present except members of the Board and the School Board staff. I ask again, how —275— many such meetings did you attend ? Mr. Barkley: Objection. A. I tried to answer to the best of my ability. Court: Sustained, he said three or four. Q. All right, then we got back into the breakfast meet ings with the press again and I wanted to exclude that type of meeting. Court: Of those three or four, how many were at night? Frank Dowd, Jr.—for Defendant—Cross 423a A. Your Honor, I don’t remember. Q. Do you remember whether any of them were at night! A. Yes, I ’m sure we had an evening meeting. Q. Were these meetings held in the regular meeting room in the Board! A. Regular Board Room. Q. Now, at these meetings, as I understand it, the staff members showed you tentative arrangements for the new school zones, is that correct! A. That is correct. Q. And there was discussion about the new school zones! A. That is correct. Q. Do you remember any reference to areas that were designated roughly or unofficially as danger areas! A. As danger areas! Q. That’s right. A. What do you mean by that, sir! —276— Q. I’m not sure, I ’m asking you. Court: Just if you remember the use of that word. A. No, sir, I do not. Q. Do you remember whether there were areas on the map of the city that you were using to construct the zones that were marked with small red pins! A. I recall areas which represented major changes from previous attendance areas which were marked with, seemed like to me it was a ribbon. I ’m not sure if it was a pin or a ribbon. Q. For the most part these designated the areas of major change, is that right, from the old sysem! A. Right. Q. And your old system was for the most part a dual boundary line, with boundary lines for Negro schools and boundary lines for white schools, isn’t that correct! Court: Certainly that used to be so. Frank DoivcL, Jr.—for Defendant—Cross 424a Q. So, if I am correct, you designated with some kind of marking the areas where there would be major changes from the old biracial system to the new single zone sys tem? A. Actually these changes represented natural boundaries and so forth of a new attendance area. Q. Yes, but what you were designating were changes from the old attendance areas to the geographical bound aries for the new attendance areas, isn’t that right! A. Yes. —277— Q. I ask you, Mr. Dowd, whether or not you spent some times considerable periods of time in discussing back and forth where the line should be drawn in each of these areas of major change. A. No, sir, we did not spend considerable time. We had so many areas to consider that, quite frankly, we had instructed our people to draw these attendance lines with no regard whatsoever to race and they presented them to us, the elementary first, the junior high next and the senior high next, and basically we accepted what was presented to us. Q. And this took place over three or four meetings, is that right? A. I think this took place at one meeting. Q. It’s your recollection. . . . A. I don’t recall seeing maps but at one meeting, attendance area maps. Q. The decisions as to where the lines would be drawn took place. A. Right. Q. Do you remember when the meeting was? A. No, I don’t. Q. It was prior to March, is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was it after January? A. I don’t remember. —278— Q. Was it before January? A. I don’t even remember Frank Dowd, Jr.—for Defendant—Cross 425a when we announced the areas but just shortly before the areas were. Q. Was it one week prior to the announcement? Was there an executive meeting held one week prior? A. Short ly before. Honestly, I couldn’t say whether it was a week or two weeks or one day. Q. What did you do concerning these lines at the prior closed meetings? A. I don’t recall seeing any lines at prior closed meetings. Q. Did you discuss the zoning lines at all in your recol lection? A. We discussed general policy which, I think, I have already related to you. Q. Was it with regard to the zone lines? A. Attendance areas were to be drawn up for each school irregardless of race. Q. Did you have three meetings at which you did noth ing but instruct the staff they were to draw lines without regard to race! A. I don’t remember whether we had three meetings or two meetings. Q. Would you like some time? You told us that you had three or four, that you remembered three or four meet ings. A. I have told you that I can recall one Board meet ing that we saw maps. I can definitely recall we outlined —279— the general policies in regard to the new attendance areas. I think I’d be telling you a misstatement if I actually pinned down we had another or another or another meeting be cause I do not remember. Q. In these discussions with the Board at these meetings do you recall whether or not there was discussions as to Avhether the line was placed in one area there would be so much integration or if it were drawn in another area there Frank Dowd, Jr.— for Defendant— Cross 426a would be. . . . ! A. No, sir, I can definitely remember that was not the case. Q. Are you saying no such discussions took place? A. That is not the case. Court: He says he can definitely remember that is not the case. Mr. Bell: That’s all. David W. Harris—for Defendant—Direct D a v id W . H a r r is , a w i t n e s s f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t , h a v i n g f i r s t b e e n d u l y s w o r n , w a s e x a m in e d a n d t e s t i f i e d a s f o l l o w s : Direct Examination by Mr. Barkley: Q. Your full name, please. A. David W. Harris. Q. In what official capacity are you connected with the —280— Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education! A. Chair man of the Board. Q. How long have you been Chairman of the Board? A. I ’d say three to four years. Q. Mr. Harris, will you please go ahead in your own words and just state the policy of the Board with reference to pupil assignments resulting in the plan that is now here before the court. A. Without going into a great deal of history of former county and city and what has taken place up until now, this Board did inherit a segregated system. Along with that it inherited the placement of schools in many cases that were in certain residential areas. We found, as a Board, when we got into the real serious prob lem of integration that it was real difficult to move schools and so we had to use the schools that we had and never 427a had enough schools. So we had to work with the schools that were presently built and were building and since we have started our plan of definite integration we have al ways placed schools where they would accommodate the students where they live and where it would not be in re gard to race. Now, the policy of this Board is to bring about integration as swiftly and as orderly as possible. The implication by the people who are bringing the charges is that we are trying to delay integration but I do know for a fact that we as individuals and as a Board believe that integration is the right policy, that is the just thing to do, —281— that we were involved in a plan to bring it about as soon as possible, and, regardless of Civil Bights or H. E. W. or whatever, we would still have had an integrated system as soon as we could. This has been our plan since way before civil rights action was taken and this is still our plan and we are still trying to do it as swiftly and as orderly as possbile. There are some that feel we are going too fast, there are some that feel we are going too slow but our basic decisions have been in regard to the welfare of the child. Much of the discussion has been why we have ex cepted schools. One of our most difficult problems in a fast growing community is transferring students from one school to another. This is not good education. It is diffi cult for a child to transfer from another school and we do this as seldom as possible. In these excepted schools in particular, we find that if we move a mass number of chil dren this year, knowing that next year we are going to have to move them again, we feel that this is detrimental to the child. This has basically been the reason we brought about these excepted schools and why we haven’t done it this year. Our excepted policy is that every one of these David W . Harris—for Defendant—Direct 428a excepted schools that can possibly be closed down and in tegrated by the end of next year will be done. We would have liked to have done it this year but we could not have done it and kept the educational advantages of the children because we thought it would be detrimental to the children —282— involved. This is our basic policy. I would like to answer any questions related to it but in the essence of time we believe in integration, we are for integration and we are trying to bring it about as swift as possible. Q. Mr. Harris, something was said about the H.E.W. and its requirements to obtain Federal funds. I ’ll ask you if this assignment plan wasn’t adopted before H.E.W. ever imposed any requirements with regard to certain com pliance. A. Absolutely, and would have been carried out regardless of what requirements had ever been made. This was not a result of any requirements of H.E.W. or Civil Rights. Q. And the suggestion here of our plan not complying with two grades being cut off at one time, our plan was adopted before that proposed by H.E.W. A. That’s true and I believe the majority of the community, both white and colored, know this and believe this. Court: Do you agree with Dr. Phillips answer to my question that by September, 1966, you can take in these excepted schools one way or the other! Q. I ’m sure, Your Honor, that we can. We plan to, if we possibly can. There may be one or two instances that still might conflict with the best interests of the child but we live year by year in the schools. It’s hard for us to antici pate exactly what our problems will be. But in the vast David W. Harris—for Defendant—Direct 429a majority of cases I’m sure we plan to do it anyhow. We’ll be ready. —283— Mr. Barkley: Examine him. Cross Examination by Mr. Bell: Q. Mr. Harris, you said your plan was adopted prior to the filing of this lawsuit? A. The plan of geographic desegregation was adopted, I think, in 1963, or perhaps earlier, but we have been in the process. This has been our policy, our stated policy, and it has been in the news papers and in the public meetings since that time. Q. You are not relying today on the plan you drew up in 1963, are you! A. Well, of course that has been im plemented as we went along. Our statement at the time was that we’d bring about orderly geographic desegrega tion of schools as soon as possible which was long’ before Civil Rights or H.E.W. Q. You don’t deny that after this suit was filed in Janu ary and after interrogatories were filed in February that you obtained an extension of time until sometime in April so as to complete the work on this plan? A. This plan was already in effect. We have always been in the process of developing this plan. Q. Why couldn’t you provide us with the plan when we asked for it in February? A. Because it wasn’t com plete. Of course, at that time the idea of the overall free- —284— dom of choice was a new item that had come in in light of H.E.W. Q. There have been some changes? A. Oh, as I say, there have been changes and developments. The first time that we developed this plan we couldn’t have developed it in its entirety. David W . Harris—for Defendant—Cross 430a Q. In the process of formulating these changes and ad ditions to the plan you don’t deny, do you, Mr. Harris, that the Board held a number of meetings at which the press and members of the public were excluded? A. We hold a number of meetings. We have held as many as five meetings in a day. We hold many meetings on many sub jects at all times. Which particular meetings are you re ferring to? Q. The question was whether or not you had held ex ecutive-type meetings prior to the announcement of the new plan at which the decisions were made as to where the zones were to be drawn. A. We did have meetings, yes. Q. Do you, as Chairman, recall how many such meetings you had? A. Since I have been Chairman? Q. No. How many meetings, executive in nature, at which decisions on the zoning were discussed and reviewed and finally finalized. A. This has been discussed. Some where in the vicinity of two or three perhaps, and when —285— we have a meeting we talk about many subjects, maybe four, five or ten subjects, relating to personnel and other wise. I would say perhaps at a couple of meetings ap proximately on this particular subject executive-type ses sions were held before our public meeting where it was discussed and adopted. Q. Were there any records or minutes kept of the dis cussions in the executive meeting’s? A. I doubt it se riously. I don’t really know. Q. At these meetings did the Board discuss the proposals as to where the zone lines should be placed as made, per haps, by your staff personnel? A. That’s right. Q. And is it also correct that at these meetings there were maps on which there were areas designated as areas David W. Harris—for Defendant—Cross 431a of greatest change! A. Not as such. This, I ’m sure, en tered into our discussion but— Q. I ’m sorry, what do you mean by not as such! A. Well, as I understand your question you meant that we designated certain areas of greatest change. We designated all areas of change. Q. You designated all areas of change! A. That’s right, by lines. Q. Were some given a lot more discussion than others! A. That’s true, some were. —286— Q. And were some of these areas marked with little red pins! A. Not that I recall. Schools were often marked with pins. We have junior high, senior high, elementary schools, new construction areas, we have various ways in which we mark maps but not any necessarily that I recall, I don’t recall whether these maps were actually marked with pins or flags or anything else. Q. Was there discussion at these meetings concerning the significance, as far as segregation or desegregation was concerned, about the placing of a particular line! A. No. As a matter of fact, we asked the administration not to tell us whether they were white or colored children involved but to indicate the concentration of population, where the people were, the population of the schools, the capacity of the schools and how they recommended that the lines be drawn. We did not want to know the per centage or number of white or colored. Q. We have had testimony during the last two days of several lines, a dozen or perhaps two dozen, where the lines were drawn in a fashion that seemed to depart from educational standards but which uniformly resulted in limiting the amount of desegregation that could take place. Now, the defense or the Board has— David W. Harris—for Defendant—Cross 432a Court: I f that is stated as a contention, it’s proper. Ask the question. —287— Q. The Board has indicated that all lines were drawn in connection with geography. Is it your position that all of these instances that we have talked about where the line was drawn in one way that defeated a certain degree of desegregation that this was all accidental, that there was no plan or design or scheme by the Board? A. It was not premeditated. As a matter of fact, outside of this suit I ’d say almost 100% of our complaints have been from white people and not from colored. I say it happens both ways and we could have a group come in here to tell us that we are favoring the colored people. You have the Negroes come in and tell us we are favoring the white. We had it both ways but the vast majority of our com plaints related to the drawing of our lines have come from white children, white families. Q. We had testimony a few moments ago of 52,800 white pupils assigned. Less than 400 of them, were initially as signed in Negro schools. Is it your contention this was all just a matter of accident, it was not the result of plan? A. It’s a matter of two things, the result of two situa tions. First of all, where the schools had been built, where they were and where the people lived and racial housing patterns are something that the School Board has no control over. Q. And what else, what is the other factor? A. Where the schools were built. Where the schools were and where —288— the people lived. Q. But there was no plan by the Board to take advan tage of where schools are built or where people live? A. David W. Harris—for Defendant—Cross 433a Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, if anything the Board would be inclined to lean over backwards to bring about integration faster rather than slower. It would be more favorable to the Negro child rather than less favorable. Q. You didn’t lean over backwards to bring about deseg regation as to the excepted schools, did you? A. Well, we think the excepted schools should be integrated and it is our plan to integrate them as soon as possible but because of the effect on the education of the child we eliminated them for one year. We hope at the most two years at the most. We think they should be integrated, too. Q. You said it was always for the good of the child and educational reasons that you excepted these schools. Ex plain how excepting the Crestdale School when there was a school completely adequate to take in the students was— ? A. I ’m glad you brought that up. We spent a full day al most with a group of Negro parents who came up here trying to talk us out of desegregating Crestdale. They wanted it to remain as a Negro school. The school com mittee, the principal and some of the parents came up to the Board of Education asking us to eliminate Crest dale from our integration plan. They wanted to maintain Crestdale as a Negro school and we sat there with them —289— and convinced them it was better for the education of the children if they went into an integrated school next year. They didn’t want to go in at all. The Negro parents wanted to maintain the school as a segregated school. We sat down, as a Board of Education and administra tion, and talked the Negro parents into agreeing and ac cepting our plan to desegregate the school, to close it out, because we told them the Negro children would get a better education in the Matthews School. This is actual fact. David W. Harris—for Defendant—Cross 434a Q. Bat you granted the request for one year, is that right? A. Granted the request? We had already told them it would he closed down at the end of the following year and they came in and objected and did not want it closed out then or ever. We talked them into accepting our desegregation plan, telling them it would continue as it was one year until we could get the junior high school out of Matthews. Incidentally, Matthews has about four mobile classrooms stationed there now indicating that it does not have enough permanent classroom space. We wanted to get the junior high out before we put the Crest- dale Elementary children in. Q. But the answer to the question, you granted the request that they made at least as to one year? A. We had already made that decision. It wasn’t a request that we granted. We did not grant their request that it be continued as a segregated school indefinitely. —290— Q. If this wasn’t at their request, why do you mention it? A. I am answering your question. Court: This is pure argument. He just said it was not at the request. They planned to do it a year from now and they are going to do it a year from now despite the objection to it. Q. What is preventing closing Crestdale right this minute? A. The junior high is presently in Matthews School. At Matthews School we have used the neighbor ing church for classroom space, we have four mobile classrooms there now, it does not have adequate good space, permanent space, to house all of the Crestdale students and do a good job of teaching. We figured the David W. Harris—for Defendant—Cross 435a students were better off remaining in their present class room situation for one more year rather than move them in Matthews before we moved the junior high out. Q. What is the space situation at Crestdale? A. I don’t recall exactly but there is adequate space for the children. I think there is some 87 students in four classes. Q. What is the condition of the building! A. It’s not good. That’s why we plan to close it out. It has been improved in recent years to make it satisfactory but it’s not up to the standards that we’d like to see. Q. Based on figures that the Board gave us there is adequate space— A. I think it’s been explained earlier that what we say is adequate space was greatly enlarged —2 9 1 - in order to accommodate any requests, Negro or white, on the free choice system. It was an attempt to help make the free choice work. Actually we have four mobile class rooms, is that not correct, at Matthews now which indicates that we do have a shortage of permanent classroom space at Matthews. Q. The figures that we have indicate that there are 247 spaces available that would be sufficient to take in the whole— A. They are substandard spaces. They are classrooms that weren’t intended to be classrooms. Q. You are not maintaining they are any more sub standard than the situation in which the pupils find them selves in at Crestdale! A. But they are organized as a school now and we thought it was better for them to stay where they are now. These are permanent spaces at Crestdale. Q. Are you aware of what kind of quality education you can provide in a school with 200 pupils? A. We are quite aware of it. David W. Harris—for Defendant—Cross 436a Q. It’s not very good, is it? A. Not very good. Mr. Bell: No further questions. Mr. Barkley: The defendant rests. Mr. Bell: I notice the time is going away but I —292— wanted to know were there any other members of the Board presently here. Do you want to try to finish now or come back! Court: Call your witnesses for rebuttal testimony of plaintiffs. Mrs. Betsy McC. Kelly—for Plaintiffs—Direct M b s . B e t s y McC. K e l l y , a w i t n e s s f o r p l a i n t i f f s , h a v i n g f i r s t b e e n duly s w o r n , w a s e x a m in e d a n d t e s t i f i e d a s f o l l o w s : Direct Examination by Mr. Bell: Q. Would you state your full name, please! A. Betsy McCloud Kelly. Q. And you are a member of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education! A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you held membership on the Board! A. Since December, 1964. Q. During the time since you have been a member of the Board, I gather, Mrs. Kelly, that the new plan of desegregation or the most recent addition of the plan of desegregation, which is here under attack, was devised and published, is that correct! A. Yes, sir. Q. I think I am correct in recalling that the plan was finally made public about March 9 or 10, some place in that area! A. I believe that’s correct. 437a —293— Q. Now, we have had testimony here this morning that prior to the time that the plan was published that the Board spent a goodly amount of time considering that plan. Were you present at the meetings when considera tion was given to the various aspects of the plan? A. Yes, sir. most of the meetings. Q. Now, I understand some of these meetings were public and some of the others were that we have been referring to as executive sessions and they took place with only the Board and staff members present without press or members of the public. Do you recall any such meetings! A. Yes, sir. Q. I understand also that at least some of the meetings were held in the evening at the Board Room in the Board of Education Building. Court: To help shorten it, I’m satisfied they were, everybody said so so far, no doubt in my mind about it. Q. Now, Mrs. Kelly, can you tell us, based on your recollection, how many such meetings you attended, these executive meetings, at which you discussed the new plan with particular emphasis on where the new zone lines were to be placed! A. As far as I recollect, I imagine there were about for or five. Q. You remember about four or five such meetings. Now, at these meetings was there designation of areas —294— on maps as areas of greatest change, areas switching over from the biracial system to the uniracial system? A. There was discussion of the areas of change. Mrs. Betsy McC. Kelly—for Plaintiffs—Direct 438a Q. Now, do you also recall whether or not these areas were designated on the map with red pins or red flags or something of that nature! A. I don’t recall what method of designation. Q. Do you remember whether they were designated at all? A. I don’t recall. Q. Now, Mrs. Kelly, I ask you whether or not as a part of these discussions there was taken into consideration, or the persons discussing took into consideration whether drawing lines in a particular way were going to have a helpful effect on desegregation or an unhelpful effect on desegregation? A. Well, actually the administration was responsible for drawing the lines. Q. The staff people? A. Yes, and it was hard for us as Board members to visualize some of the changed lines. In other words, it’s hard to understand these concepts unless you go out and see the various boundaries set up. What was your question, excuse me. Q. The question is whether or not there was discussion at these executive meetings as to whether placing a line in one particular area would bring about more or less desegregation. A. Well, that’s rather hard to answer. —295— I know it was discussed that putting the lines here or there would provide changes in the racial balance. There were many areas that were changed, for instance, that would include a minimal number of white families in a predominantly Negro school area and this fact was made note of. Q. In what way was it made note of? A. Well, it was just mentioned that this was the case, that in such and such a particular area there would now be a minimum number of white families now living who would there fore be assigned to a predominantly Negro school. Mrs. Betsy McC. Kelly—for Plaintiffs—Direct 439a Q. Isn’t it correct, Mrs. Kelly, that wherever it was possible a line was drawn so as to minimize the amount of desegregation assignments that would result! A. Well, I couldn’t render a judgment on that. Actually, as a Board member it’s very difficult to know whether the lines are drawn correctly or not. I would have to be honest and tell you that as a Board member it’s difficult for me to be in a position to judge whether a line has been honestly drawn, has been judiciously drawn. I would have to go out and view the physical boundaries myself, I ’m afraid. Q. Well, would you say that your position, as far as not really being able to determine how the lines were being drawn with regard to race, is typical of the position that most Board members find themselves in? A. I would cer- —296— tainly have to say so. I would not consider myself an expert in geographic school line drawing. Q. Well, now, is it correct or is it not correct, Mrs. Kelly, that the Board members understood these zone lines were going to be prepared by the staff in such a way so as to, let’s take this situation first, to limit as far as pos sible the number of white pupils who would he assigned to Negro schools? A. Well, I don’t know whether that was the understanding or not. I don’t remember that being the understanding. I think an attempt was made to draw the lines as honestly as possible to avoid gerry mandering, but whether or not, as I say, at this point I cannot honestly say that the lines we have drawn are not at this point open to some reconsideration. As I said, I ’m not an expert in line drawing. Q. Was it your answer that you think that the lines were drawn honestly but you really don’t know enough about it to know! A. I would have to say that, yes. Mrs. Betsy McC. Kelly—for Plaintiffs—Direct 440a Q. There is a line that is part of the zone for the Ranson Junior High School and also for the Derita Elementary School that we have had a lot of discussion about that followed Interstate Route 85 for a while and dips down and then back up in a fashion that prevents a lot of deseg regation from occurring that would otherwise have oc curred. Taking this as an example, do you recall any dis cussions at these executive meetings concerning how this line should be drawn? A. I don’t recall any specific —2 9 7 - suggestions. It’s difficult to recall all the things that were discussed. Q. Do you recall any similar situations with another zone line? . . . with any of the other school zones where there was specific discussion to the effect if we draw it this way it’s going to mean we have so much integration or segrega tion or if we draw it another way it will be a different result. A. No, Offhand I don’t. I know there was a lot of discus sion over the Eastover situation, Eastover and Billings- ville. Q. That was the situation we discussed early this morn ing where Billingsville is primarily a Negro school, is it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And Eastover is one of the schools that adjoins it that is practically an all white school, and the zone line between them, as I understand it, pretty well marks the zone line. . . . Mr. Barkley: Objection to him testifying. Court: Objection sustained. We’re doing an awful lot of that. Just ask her the question. Q. What was the nature of the discussion over the East- over and Billingsville zone? Mrs. Betsy McC. Kelly—for Plaintiffs—Direct 441a Mr. Barkley: I object to that. Court: Objection overruled. A. Well, I think there was just some discussion over the difficulty of the problem connected with this area. It seems to me it involved something concerning McAlway Road. —298— Q. Do you recall any more about the discussion, Mrs. Kelly? A. Well, . . . Q. Isn’t it correct that the discussion involved that if the line were drawn at McAlway Road there would be a lot more integration of both of those schools than if it was drawn where the Board finally drew it? A. I guess that’s possible. Mrs. Betsy McC. Kelly—for Plaintiffs—Direct Court: It’s not a question of what’s possible, it’s a matter of what you remember. A. Well, my recollection is so hazy that maybe I better say I don’t remember. Q. Now, do you remember or don’t you remember, Mrs. Kelly? Mr. Barkley: This is his witness, Your Honor. Court: Objection overruled. Go ahead. Q. Do you remember, Mrs. Kelly, or not? A. Well, I do recall that throughout our discussions the problem of putting a small number of white pupils into a predomi nantly Negro school was discussed and the problems in volved with this were discussed. Q. Well, isn’t it correct that this was a serious problem for the Board? A. Well, it is a problem any way you look at it. 442a Q. You have received numerous complaints from white parents, isn’t that right, about where their children were going to be assigned? A. It’s an accepted sociological fact —299— that it is more difficult to place a minority of white stu dents in a predominantly Negro school than the other way around, and from the psychological factors involved this is a more difficult problem facing a Board of Education. Q. And this is a problem that this Board faced up to, isn’t that right? A. Well, yes. Q. And that they did have quite a bit of discussion as to whether in drawing the zone lines in such a way so that only a few whites or a small number were going to be as signed to Negro schools, the results in the community that this would have, isn’t that correct? A. This whole prob lem was discussed but yet at the same time we were trying to provide for more desegregation throughout the system in every way. Q. But in this McAlway line controversy there was a decision to draw the line so as not to require the assign ment of a small group of white children to the Billingsville School, isn’t that right? A. I don’t recall. Q. Well, that’s how the line was drawn, wasn’t it, Mrs. Kelly? Mrs. Betsy McC. Kelly—for Plaintiffs—Direct Court: No doubt about how it was drawn. It’s whether she remembers and she says she doesn’t re member. —300— Mr. Bell: No further questions of this witness, Your Honor. Court: Any cross examination. 4 4 3 a Colloquy Mr. Barkley: I don’t think I want to cross exam ine a member of the School Board. Court: That’s not in your contract. Mr. Barkley: No, sir. Mr. Bell: I think in the interest of time and overall consideration of the case, Your Honor, that we would not pursue our original intention to ques tion each school board person on the subject we have been pursuing this morning. I guess in the in terest of time I would just say a few words and hand you my brief and rest our case. Court: It’s 7 minutes to 1:00 and I’m serious about my deadline. I have another case. I’ll be glad to adjourn and hear arguments as long as you wish to be heard at 2:30. You and Mr. Barkley can’t possibly say all you want to say in six minutes, that’s impossible. Adjourn court until 2:30. B e c e s s e o b L u n c h Court: Any further evidence for the plaintiffs? Mr. Chambers: No further evidence. Court: Any further evidence for the defendant - 3 0 1 - School Board? Mr. Barkley: No, sir. Court: The plaintiffs would be entitled under our practice to the opening argument and the concluding argument. You want to make one argument or two? Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, both would be rather short. We don’t plan to say very much. We have a 4 4 4 a Colloquy brief we’d like to submit at this time. We served a copy on counsel for the defendant. Court: You want to waive the opening? Mr. Chambers: We waive the opening. Court: The jury is with you, Mr. Barkley. (Arguments are heard by the Court.) Mr. Barkley: May the Court treat the proposed plan as being amended to include this resolution of April 13? As far as my authority to assure Your Honor, the Chairman says he is satisfied it will be agreeable to the Board and we will amend that reso lution at our next meeting or ratify what is done here today. Court: I am not going to do this except with your consent. If you consent, I will treat the pro posed plan as being amended to include this resolu tion of April 13 beginning “Resolved by” and ending “competence and fitness”—the one you read. Mr. Barkley: It was adopted for that purpose. - 3 0 2 - Court: It is an amendment to the proposed plan? Mr. Barkley: Yes, sir. (Further arguments are heard by the Court.) Court: Adjourn court, please, sir. MEILEN PRESS INC.