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 July 19, 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.