Boyd v. Pointe Coupee Parish School Board Brief of Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors; Motion for Leave to File and Brief for Plaintiffs as Amici Curiae; Transcript of Proceedings

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

NO. 71-3305

YVONNE MARIE BOYD, et al..
Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Intervenor- 
Appellant,

v.
POINTE COUPEE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Eastern District of Louisiana

' *

BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS 
AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS

A. P. TUREAUD
1821 Orleans Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana 70116
MURPHY BELL
1438 East Boulevard
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and 
Pi aintiff-Intervenors



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

NO. 71-3305

YVONNE MARIE BOYD, et al..
Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-lntervenor- 

Appellant,
v.

POINTE COUPEE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Eastern District of Louisiana

BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS 
AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS

ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
The United States, appellant herein, states the issue as 

follows:
"Whether the district court erred in holding that 

the Pointe Coupee Parish School District is a unitary 
school system when the evidence showed that Singleton 
faculty ratios were not met in some schools and that in 
one attendance area segregated schools resulted from 
the assignment of students by achievement test scores."

Plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors respectfully suggest that
the answer to that question is in the affirmative and that the



judgment below must be reversed.
STATEMENT

The statement contained in the Government's brief ade­
quately sets forth the facts of this case except that we should 
add the following: in connection with the 1970 appeal dismissed 
without prejudice by this court (Govt.'s brief at page 3), the 
original plaintiffs were granted leave to file a brief amicus 
curiae in support of the plaintiff-intervenors' appeal. That 
brief is reprinted as Appendix A, infra.

The failure of plaintiffs or plaintiff-intervenors to 
appeal from the judgment below which is presently on review 
should in no way be taken to indicate acquiescence with that 
judgment. Very frankly counsel representing plaintiffs and 
plaintiff-intervenors herein are engaged in numerous other 
school desegregation cases in this and other circuits; addi­
tionally, they are laboring without the able services of Mr. 
Tureaud who is seriously ill. Under these circumstances, no 
appeal was filed for purposes of simplicity since the Govern­
ment was going to appeal and raise the issues.

It is not clear from the Government's brief whether the 
record includes the transcripts of the hearing on August 11, 
1971, and we are submitting that transcript to the court as 
Appendix B, infra.

ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors support the position 

of the appellant United States of America in this case. We 
believe it is controlled by Lemon v. Bossier Parish School

- 2-



Board, 444 F.2d 1400, 446 F.2d 911 (5th Cir. 1971). Rather
than unduly lengthen this brief with new arguments, we have 
simply reprinted as Appendix A hereto the brief amici curiae 
filed by plaintiffs on the appeal in 1970 which was dismissed 
"without prejudice to further proceedings in the district 
court as may be warranted in this school desegregation case."

The district court refused to consider the application of 
Lemon to this matter because it took the position that this 
court's dismissal without prejudice was in fact a ruling on the 
merits. See Appendix B, pages 62-63.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in the brief of the United 

States and those contained in the prior brief of plaintiffs as 
amici curiae, and, in light of the above, plaintiffs and 
plaintiff-intervenors respectfully pray that the judgment below 
be reversed with the instructions suggested by the Government.

Respectfully submitted.

A. P. TUREAUD
1821 Orleans Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana

MURPHY BELL
1438 East Boulevard 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

JACK GREENBERG
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

-3-

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 
and Plaintiff-intervenors



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this day of December, 1971,

I mailed copies of the foregoing Brief of Plaintiffs and 
Plaintiff-Intervenors to Mr. John F. Ward, Jr., Burton, Roberts 
& Ward, 206 Louisiana Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 
and Gerald F. Kaminski, Esq., Department of Justice, Washington, 
D. C. 20530 by United States Mail, postage prepaid.

Norman J. Chachkin 
Attorney for Plaintiffs and 
Plaintiff-Intervenors

van

-4-



l\ THE
>-;tTrr> P'T'ATES CO’ KT II’ APPEALS 

' ' THE FIF'j H C’ i F . V T T 
O. 304 6~

YVONNE MARTE BOYD, et tl . ,
Pla inh 1 f fs,

UNITED STATES OF AMERI?A,
plaintif f-intervenor,

EMMITT DOUGLAS an 3 CHARLES HARRIS,
plainti ff s-lntervenors-Appellants, v .

POINTE COUPEE PARISH SCHOOL BD., et al.,
De fendants-Appellees.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 
AND BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS AS AMICI CURIAE

A.P. TUREAUD 
1821 Orleans Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKtN
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Amici
Cur i?e



the

' '"'ATES COl RT •' Kl Pl.;.'.:' 
THE FIFrjH CIRCUIT 

MO. 3(46

YVONNE MARIE BOYD, et al.,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
EMMITT DOUGLAS and 
CHARLES HARRIS,

Plaintiffs,
Plaintif f-lntervenor,

Plainti f fs-intervenors-Appellants,

POINTS COUPEE PARISH SCHOOL RI ., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

MOTION OF PLAILTIFFS 
FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICI CURIAE

Plaintiffs below, Yvonne M a n e  Boyd, et al., by their 
undersigned counsel, respectfully pray that this Court permit 
them to file a brief as ami'’i curiae on this appeal in support 
of the appellants, who vere plaintiffs-intervenors below.

Proposed amici are directly interested in the determination 
..f U u >  appeal since it affects the rights which they have 
sought Lo enforce since the^ comnen :ed this litigation. In 
fact, amici and plaintiffs-interven irs are equally aggrieved 
by the order appealed from; amici a; plaintiffs would also have 
filed a Notice of Appeal froi that order within the time limits 
prescribed by Part III of this Cour ts Singleton decision^but

—/ Singleton v. Jackson Municipal S parate School Dist , 419 F 2d 1?11 (5th Cii. 19GO). ’ ----------



for the fact that they wer" not aware of the entry of the 
order by the cou t be Low until ifter the prescribed period 
had pa&t.-od. Uaii-i » in delay he '_n: ;dont ion of this appeal 
by seeking leave to file N tice of Appeal out of time, plaintiffs 
below desire to present thoir position to this Court as amici 
cur ida in support of the appellants.

Counsel foi all parties have expressed their consent to 
the filing of a brief by plaintiffs as amici curiae but written 
consent has not been secured in time for compliance with Rule 
29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Plaintiffs’ participation on this appeal as amici curiae 
will not delay or impede the consideration or disposition of 
this cause but will, we hope, assist the Court in the resolution 
of the issues presented and advance the ultimate termination of 
this litigation.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs Yvonne M a n e  Boyd, et al. respectfully
seek leave of this Court to file their brief as amici curiae 
herein in support of the appellants.

1821 orleans/Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

- 2 -



TABU OK CONTENTS

Page

i diJ Iv.. ^ t wi • <— o • • ............ .. 11

Other A u t h o r i t i e s .............................. iv
Interest of F mi c i .........  1
Issues presented for Review .................  2
S t a t e m e n t .................   2
ARGUMENT

The District Court Erred in Approvinq 
the School Board's proposal to Reestablish 
Racially identifiable Schools in Pointe 
Coupee parish .............................. 7
The Poirte Coupee parish School Board
May Not Constitutionally Assign
Stuients to School Buildings on the
Basis of the:r Achievement Test
S c o r e s .....................................12
The District Court Should be 
instructed to Hold Hearings Before 
Approving Contested Modifications 
to School Desegregation plans ............ 15

Conclusion . . .   17
Certificate of So. vi ci - • . . . . * » • •  18



of ca: esT it)L«

Alexander v. Holmes County toard of Oduc.,
396 U.S. 19 (1969)...................... 4,

Allen v. Board of Public Instruction of
Broward County, No. 30032 (5th Cir.,
August 13, 1 9 7 0 ) .........................3,

Boyd v. pointe Coupee parish School Bd.,
420 F . 2d 379 (5th Cir. 1 9 7 0 ) ........... 3

Brown v. Board of Educ., 349 U.S. 294 (1°55) .9
Brunson v. Board cf Trustees of School

District No. 1, No. 14,571 (4th C:r.,
June 5, 1970).............................10

Carter v. West Feliciana parish School Bci.,
396 U.S. 290 (1970)  4.

Chicago, M. & St. P.R.Co. v. Polt, 232
U.S. 165 (1915) ......................... 16

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) .........9
Gaston County v. United States, 345 U.S.

285 (1969)...............................14
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 u . S .  254 ( 1 9 7 0 ) .  . . . 1 6

Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U . S .  385 (1914). . . .15
Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent

County, 391 u . S .  430 (1 9 6 8 ) .....................................11

Hall v . St. Helena parish School Bd.,
417 F.2d 801 (5th Cir.), cert, denied,
39C U.S. 904 (19 69) ....................2,

Hall v. West, 335 F.2d 481 15th Cir. 1964). .15
Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate

School Dist., 409 F.2d 682 (5th Cir.),
cert, denied, 396 U . S .  940 (1969). . . .8

Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate 
School Dist., No. 29165 (5th Cir.,
August 12, 1 9 7 0 ) ........................7

Hi Ison v. Ouzts, No. 30184 (5th Cir.,
August 20, 19 7 0 ) ........................7

1 1

pajje 

1 1 , 16 

7

1 1 , 16

13

b, 7



Taolu ot oases (continued)

Page
Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401 (D.D.C.

1967), aff'd sub nom. Smuck v. Hobson,
1C: I . ?'i 175 (O.C. Cir 19C'>)...........13

interstate Cetane roe Comm'n Louisville
& N.R. Co., 227 u.S. 88 (1912).........16

Keyes v. School Hist. No. 1, Denver, 30?
F. Supp. 279 (D. Colo. 1 9 6 9 ) ...........10

Lemon v. Bossier parish Schooi Bd., No.
30447 (5th Cir., September 2, 1970). . .14, 17

Monroe v. Board of Comm'rs of Jackson, 391
U.S. 450 (1968)  9, 10

Monroe v. Board of Comm'rs of Jackson,
Civ. No. 1327 (W.D. Tenn., July 23,
1970) ................................... 14

Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468 (1936).16
Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities

Comm'n, 301 U.S. 292 ( 1 9 3 7 ) ...........15, 16
Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate 

School Dist., 419 F.2d 1211 (5th
Cir. 1 9 6 9 ) .............................. 3, 14, 15

United States v. Board of Educ. of Baldwin
County, 423 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1970). .11, 12

United States v. Carroll County Bd. of
Educ., Civ. No. GC-6541-K (N.D. Miss.,
July 6, 1970) .......................... 9

United States v. Hinds County School Bd.,
No. 28030 (5th Cir., November 7, 1969) .11

United States v. Indianola Municipal
SeparuLu School Dist., 410 F.2d 626 
(5th Cir.), cert, denied, 396 U.S.
1011 (1969) ............................ 8

United States v. Sunflower County School 
Dist., No. 29950 (5th Cir., August 
13, 1 9 7 0 ) ............................14

United States v. Tunica County School Dist.,
421 F. 2d 12 3? (5th Cir. 1970) .........14

Valley v. Rapides parish School Bd., No.
29237 (5th C.r., March 6, 1970)........8

i n



Ot.’i' l 'iU,unties

Hul ]()<•!', H.A., A Hi u  ir ot Negro Education
m  the South (Piaeaer, 1967)   1 3

Initial Findings and Recommendations on 
Testing and Ability Grouping As Discriminatory 
Practices (Nat’1 Education Program Associates,1 9 6 9 ) ............................................ 1 3

Some views on Aptitude and Achievement 
Testing and Ability Grouping as a Strategy 
for Desegregation (Nat1 I Education Program 
Associates, 1969) ............................... 1 3



.v THE
]■' • nv !, CT̂ j-Kj; COURT or »P PEAT 9 

i OR Til : l'l FTH CIRCU IT 
10. J C 4 f //

YVONNE MARIE EoiL, et al.,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
EMMITT DOUGLAS and 
CHARLES HARRIS,

vs .

Plaint 1 f fs,
plainti ff-intervenor ,

plaintif fs-intervenors-Appellants,

POINTE COUPEE PARISH SCHOOL BD., et al.,
De fendants-Appellees.

BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS AS AMICI CURIAE

Interest of Amici

Amici curiae are the plaintiffs below in this litigation 
involving the desegregation of the public schools of Pointe 
Coupee Parish, Louisiana, and as such are directly affected
by the determination cf this appeal.

the order from which appeal was taken approved the motion 
oi appellees Pointe coipee parish School Board, et al., filed 
on or about August 10, 197C, to substitute a different plan of 
desegregation for that approved and ordered into effect by the 
district court's decrea of July 25, 1969. Amici opposed said
Motion below in writing on August 21, 1970. The same date, the 
district court, withovt hearing, approved the board's substitute 
plan but afforded amiti no notice thereof; consequently, amici



did not i 1 le Not i • Aureal t« tl ' r C: ur*

Presented l^r kuview

1. Whether a school district in the process of implementing 
a contiguous pairing plan which will completely desegregate the 
school system may reestablish racially identifiable schools in 
order to entice white students to return to the school system.

2. Whether a school district which has not completely 
eliminated its dual system of schools may, consistent with the 
Constitution, assign students to school buildings and to 
differentiated curricular programs on the basis of their scores 
on nationally normed standardized achievement tests.

3. Whether a district court may properly approve contested 
modifications by school boards of desegregation plans previously 
held constitutional, without affording the parties the opportunity
for an evidentiary hearing.

Statemen

This case was among those decided sub nom. Hall v. St.
Helena parish School Bd., 417 F.2d 801 (5th Cir. 1969). In 
accordance with the mandate of this Court, representatives of 
the Department of Health, Kducati oi and Welfare (HEW) visited 
Pointe Coupee parish during the sunnier of 1969 and drafted a 
desegregation plan whirh was submitted to the district court.
Since the* parish was do i l< d into n e  geographically distinctive

_ > _



u LLui idai u.’vj Jj c j : , t:a . .1 \ >• L.unj r > i u ldciaij , idcuLi liable white
and black school, the h ew Plan proposed the pairing of each

2/group of schools with grade restructuring.- After the Pointe 
Coupee Parish School Board failed to propose any alternative 
desegregation plan except free choice, the district court on 
July 25, 1969 entered an order cirecting the implementation
of the H.E.W. pairing plan over a two-year period. During 1969-70, 
the schools were tc be paired lr grades 1-6 while free choice 
would continue in gradis 7-12. 'll grades were to be paired 
effective 1970-71.

The school board ippealed. Disposition of its appeal was 
delayed pending determination bv the full Court of the cases 
decided sub nom. Singliton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School 
Dist., 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1969), and on January 6, 1970, 
this Court affirmed tne district court’s July 25 order. Boyd 
v. Pointe Coupee parish School Bd., 420 F.2d 379 (5th Cir. 1970).

in the meantime, tne Supreme Court of the United States 
had decided Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S.
19 (1969). On November 26, 1969, plaintiffs filed a "Motion for 
Immediate Relief" in the district court, seeking acceleration 
of the implementation date for the entire HEW plan to the begin­
ning of the second semester of the 1969-70 school year. On 
the same day, November 26, 1969, the district court denied the
motion.

plaintiffs did not apueal that denial but suggested that

2/ Cf. Allen v . Board of Public Instruction of Broward County, 
No. 30032 (5th Cir., August 18, 1970).



appropriate! d i «r> ■ s 11 1 o •> f the cr-ho l 1/. .a rd * ~ pending appeal 
in accordance' w.tu Alexander an i Cai tei v. West Feliciana parish 
School Bd,, 396 U.S. 290 (1970) would include a direction from 
this Court that the HEW painnc. plan be fully implemented by 
the second semester of the 1969-70 school year. Response of 
private plaintiff' to Memorandum of united States in Nos. 26450, 
28570, 28637 and 28411. However , the Court's mandate merely 
affirmed Judge West's Jul/ 25 rider.

October 10, 1969, following the 
school board of a "Freedom of Choice 
and Charles Harris were permitted to 
as plaintiffs.

declaration by appellee 
Holiday " Emmitt Douglas 
intervene in this litigation

August 10, 1970, appellees filed a Motion in the district
court proposing the following modifications to the desegregation 
plan ordered into effect by the district court on July 25, 1969:

a. Creatmq separate vocational and academic
twelve-grade campuses in the Batchelor-Innis 
area of the parish, with students to be 
"assigned to their curricula based on their 
past performances in the classroom, past 
standardized test scores, and principal-teacher- 
counselor opinion."

b„ Zoning the Morganza-LaBarre area of the parish 
for grades 1-8 producing an estimated enrollment 
70% black at Morganza and 90% black at LaBarre, 
the traditionally black facility.

c. Zoning tha poydras-Rosenwald area for grades
1-12 producing an estimated enrollment 32% black 
at poydra 5 and 94% black at Rosenwald, the
1.1 ad it ion 111 y black school.

a. Zoning tiu Rougon-St. Alma area of the parish
for orades 1-6, subject to a free transfer option, 
producing an estimated enrollment 51% black at 
Rouru r m i  80% black at St. Alma, the traditionally 
blac> school.



Revisin'! the HKW [jairinq plan for the 
Va wcrtld-Liviriia area of the parish without 
substantial effect upon racial composition of the two schools.

A'irT,1ct 21. 1970, plaintiffs filed their Opposition to
this motion (toqether with their opposition to a similar 
motion filed by west Baton Rouge parish School Board). Plaintiffs 
objected both to the reestablishment of racially identifiable 
schools in all sections of the parish except Livonia-Valverda 
and also to the proposal to use testing as a means of assign­
ment in the Batchelor-innis area. The district court approved 
the modifications the same date but plaintiffs did not receive 
notice of the order of the district court. Plaintiffs were also 
unaware of the appeal by plaint1 ffs-intervenors until appellees' 
Motion to nismiss that appeal and Opposition to Motion for 
Summary Reversal were served upon them and received on or about 
September 16, 1970.

At that time plaintifs sent the following telegram to 
the members of this panel:

Please be advised that plaintiffs Boyd 
et al. were neve: notified either of August 
21 district court order or August 31 Motion 
for Summary Reversal. Had we been so advised 
we would also have filed Notice of Appeal and 
sought summary reversal. plaintiffs do not 
wish at this point however to delay considera­
tion of the appeal, which we urge has merit.
We will furnish the court with copies of our 
opposition to the school board's request for 
modification, which we filed with the district 
court on the same day that the plan was 
approved, and we request the court's favorable 
consideration of the arguments which we sought 
to bring to the attention of the district court.

-5-



That Motion tor Sn ora r\ Revo vs 11 h u . t }. \ been ruled upon
as we prepare this brief.

No actual attendance f o .m  :es are available for the 
first semester of the 1970- 71 school year because the orders 
of the district court since this Court's Hall remand have not 
included any reporting pro*-i1 or .

- 6 -



a r g u m e n t

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN 
APPROVING THE SCHOOL BOARD'S 
PROPOSAL TO REESTABLISH 
RACIALLY IDENTIFIABLE SCHOOLS 

IN POINTE COUPEE PARISH

This is an almost classically simple school desegregation 
case. prior to 1969-70 Pointe Coupee parish operated a 
completely dual school system with overlapping attendance 
areas between five sets of "white" and "black" echools in 
different areas of the pansh maintained by various devices, 
including freedom of choicB. Hall y. St. Helena Parish School 
—  •* 417 F.2d 801 (5th Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 396 U.S. 904 
(1969). The H.E.W. plan which the district court ordered 
implemented in two steps by decree of July 25, 1969 would, 
when fully implemented, completely eliminate the dual school 
system by establishing only one school serving each grade level 
in each area of the parish. This would be accomplished by 
the recognized educational tool of contiguous pairing and grade 
restructuring, which has consistently been sanctioned by this 
Court. E.g,, Hall, supra; Allen v. Board of Public Instruction 
of Broward County, supra: Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate 
School Dist., No. 29165 (5th C-r., August 12, 1970); Hilson 
v. Ouzts, No. 30184 (5th Cir., August 20, 1970).

Half the pairirn was implemented in the 1969-70 school
11 - Giao -s / - 1 2 v-*rc due to be paired effective 1970-71
wler the district court's order c: July 2->, 1969. Since



onrolJ ment it tnose grade levels during 19^9-70 was still 
ce, the wa.- at least to that

- - school system. it has never operated as

d ■ t < ’ ' i n
extent still a dual
a completely mitary school system.

In this context, the unavoidable consequence of the board's 
proposals is to recreate the dual system in grades 1-6 as well 
as The board's zones reestablish racially identifiable

in the Batchelor-innis area. However, the formerly black 
schools in the other three areas of the parish (Rosenwald, St. 
Alma and LaBarre) are each projected to enroll significantly 
higher proportions of black students than the "white" schools 
with which they would have each been paired under the Court's 
July 25, 1969 order.

No contention was made in the board's motion suggesting 
these changes that the zones were drawn for the purpose of 
oromoting desegregation. See, e ,g., Paris v. Board of School 
Cgmm'rs of Mobile County, 393 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1969);
Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate School Dist., 409 F.2d 
<>82 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 396 U.S. 940 (1969); United 
States v. Indianola Municipal Separate School Dist., 410 F.2d 
• b> (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 396 U.S. 1011 (1969); Valley v.
' rf1 * • Par ̂ sh Schoo I Bd. , No. 29: 37 (5th Cir., March 6, 1970).

The only justification for the proposal to revert to a 
u >i school structure was the hop< that this would entice

not affected by he changes, nc r is specific zoning proposed

- 8 -



Very nearly the same contentions were rejected by Judge
k i •> th • e t'■ >-• ,n mi strict of Mississippi:

On the oasis of the figures shown, 
there has been a flight of whites from 
these schools from the first six grades, 
and I cannot fairly hold from this evidence 
that this plan may be justified longer under 
the consideration that it xs necessary to save the public schools. if saving the 
public schools is to be determined by the 
number of whites that stay in a system, not even this plan is going to save it. The 
fact that a significant number of white 
children in the first six grades have 
already left the public schools under this 
plan leads the court to believe that possibly 
an even greater number of whites will leave 
when the existing plan takes effect for the 
upper six grade . So, the plan cannot be 
justified under the vague heading that it is 
necessary to sa-e the public schools.

United States v. Carroll bounty Bd. of Educ.. Civ. No. GC-6541-K
(N.D. Miss., July 6 , 1970j (slip opinion at pp. 4—5)(sex separation)

"White flight" is one expression of resistance to 
integration, but the Supreme Court has held over and over that 
Ihe courts must nut permi community hostility to "intrude 
on the application of constitutional principles." Brown v.
Board of Educ., 349 U.S. 294, 300 (1955); Cooper v. Aaron,
358 U.S. 1 (1958). The Court specifically directed itself 
to this problem in Monroe * r . Board of Comm1 rs of Jackson, 391 
U.S. 450, 459 (1968):

We are frankly told in the Brief that without the transfer option it is apprehended that 
white students will flee the school system 
altogether. "But 11 should go without saying that the vitality o‘ these constitutional 
principles cannot tx allowed to yield simply 
because of disagreement with them." Brown II, at xud.



Whit'■•vo 'he desirafci'it/ of white students
 ̂ -r school »or in : )i 3 parish or in 

an-/ schorl district, -he law te n  i Ls -heir return only to a 
constitutionally operate 1 system. 'The force of the holding 
[ m  Monroe, supra) is inescapabli: dissidents who threaten
to leave the system may not be enticed to stay by the
p remise
Bnmson
] 1, '>71

of an unconstitutlona1 though palatable plan." 
v . Board of Trustees of School Dist. No. 1, No.
1th iir., dune 5 , 1970)(Sobeloff, j., concurring).
I, too, am dismayed that the remaining 
white pupils in the Clarendon County 
schools may well now leave. But the 
road to integration is served neither 
byccK/ert capitulation nor by overt 
compromise, such as adoption of a schedule of optimal mixing.

Ibid..

The proposed change of assignment method from pairing 
under the HEW plan back to zoning reflecting long-established
racial patterns is equivalent to abandonment by a school 
board of a desegregation ilan it had formerly adopted, 
permitting segregation to continue uncorrected. in Keyes 
v * School Dist. No. 1, Deiver, 303 F. Supp. 279 (D. Colo. 
1969), the court held tha ; such action constituted an inde­
pendent Fourteenth nmendmint violation.

Finally, we note that representatives of H.E.W. were



1 ' convinced t r.at in/ attempt 
uo loturn La/ parallel grades, reflective 
of the former iual structure, despite 
inclusion of some of both ethnic groups 
in the schools where their race is in 
the minority, would be contrary to recent 
Court decisions inasmuch as the re are more 
effective approaches to desegregating the 
children in this parish. Neither ofthe 
five natural geographical areas contains 
sufficient numbers of students for two 
schools with parallel grades. we strongly 
suggest that the Board, both as a group 
and as representatives of particular 
wards, abandon this idwa and work toward 
a unitary plan for each of the above- 
mentioned areas.

(Letter from Messrs. Miller, Lee and Kendrick, H.E.W.
Regional office in Dallas, to Mr. warren Braud, Superintendent, 
dated July 20, 1970 and attached as Exhibit "D" to appellees1 

August 10 motion in the district court)(emphasis supplied).

Since the H.E.W. olan if fully implemented will
dismantle the dial system, it shmld be ordered reinstated 
by this Court, because "the obligation of every school district 
is to terminate dual school systems at once and to operate 
now and hereafter only unitary schools." Alexander v.
Holmes County Bd. of Educ., supra; Carter v. West Feliciana 
parish School Bd., 396 U.S. 290 (1970); Green v. County 
S ihool Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968); United 
States v. Board of Educ. of Baldwin County, 423 F.2d 1013 
(5th cir. 1970). On remand to this Court in Alexander, supra, 
the school districts involved were ordered to implement HEW 
plans during the school year. 3 3e United States v. Hinds 
County School Bd., No. 28030 (5th Cir., November 7, 1969).
The Court in Baldwin County, supra, in ordering the implementation

- -1 -



Of the n.rc.W. St tted:

S i i < •<? t 11' * l fK w plan s i }<■ ■ out ■>» 
currently available that gives any 
promise of >nding t’ne du ll s /st 
v/n ru-t - rdor its iripler.cnta1 1 
desire its defects

*'-3 t\24 at 1014. C-"er the H.E.W. alternative to the plan 
approved below, the district court's ruling permitting the 
reversion to racially identifiable schools is constitutionally
impermissible. Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent County. 
supra.

II
The Pointe Coupee Parish 
School Board May Not Consti­
tutionally Assign Students 
To School Buildings On The 
Basis of Their Achievement 

Test Scores

the Batchelor-1nm s area of the parish, appellees 
proposed to establish two twelve-grade schools, one empha­
sizing vocational training and tie other academic preparation. 
Students would be assigned to thtse buildings, and to these 
different curricular preparations, on the basis of their 
scores on nationally normod standardized achievement tests.
'ihe school board provided no projection of enrollment at 
the two schools although it proposed to make assignments on 
the basis of past test scores. We suggest it did not do so 
because the vocational school will be overwhelmingly black.

There are many problems wit l the school board's proposal 
but it is difficult to go very deeply into them without

i 2-



a.,ha v in a ha : ■>: ;
below. We shall 
tutional question 
order with resper 
upon more narrow

r*; unity to maV a., e •/ . lent iary showing 
merely sketch the dimensions of the consti- 
smce we believe that the district court's 

t to Batche1 >r-Tnnis should be reversed 
grounds (see ir fra) .

Vocational education has traditional 1/ been regarded 
in the South as the parti cula*' province of Negro children, 
it is no mere coincidence tnat the blacx. school, not the 
w m t e  school, is proposed for use as the vocational training 
center. See Bullock, H.A., A History of Negro Education in 
the South (Praeger, 196"). Furthermore, the weight of 
educational authority holds that nationally normed standardized 
achievement tests are discriminatory when given to culturally 
and educationally deprived children, such as black children, 
and are therefore notably unreliable as guides for curricular 
placement. This is particularly true where the grouping 
proposed involves assignments by buildings rather than by 
specific subject matter. See initial Findings and Recommen­
dations on Testing and Ability Grouping As Discriminatory 
Practices and Some Views on Aptitude and Achievement Testing 
and Ability Grouping as a Strategy for Desegregation (Nat'l 
Education program Associates, 1969)(studies done for the 
United States gffice of Education) .

We submit that the district's proposal is the same form 
of tracking condemned as unconstitutional in Hobson v.
Hansen, 269 F. Sutjp. 40] (D.D.C. 1967), af f ' d sub nom. Smuck
v. Hobson, 408 l- . M  i 75 (D.C. Cir. 1969) . To assign and lock

-15



in students: t>. v .cat 101 U programs on the basis of their 
academic achievement i.n a segregated setting is to penalize 
black children for condition? over which they had no 
control. See Gaston County v. Uni ted States, 345 u.S. 285 (1969) 
This verv kind of proposal -- to mak^ a formerly black school 
a vocational school -- was rejected in Monroe v. Board of 
Comm'rs of Jackson, C m  No. 1327 (W.D. Ttnn., July 23,
1970).

However, this Court need not decide these broad issues 
on this notably bare record. Reversal of the order below 
is required by thi.s Court's decisions in Singleton v. Jackson 
Municipal Separate School Dist., supra; United States v.
Tunica County School Dist., 421 F.2d 1236 (5th Cir. 1970); 
and United States v. Sunflower County School Dist.. No.
29950 (5th Cir., August 13, 1973). As we have pointed out 
above, the H.E.W. plan has never been completely implemented 
in pointe Coupee parish. Secondary grade assignments during 
the 1969-70 school year continued to be made on a free choice 
basis, and the system clearly remained a dual one, falling 
within the ruling in Sinqieton that "testing cannot be 
employed in an^ event until unitary school systems have been 
established" as applied in Tunioa and Sunflower.

Similar relief in the nature of an injunction pending 
appeal restraining operation of such a plan in Plain Dealing, 
Louisiana was granted in Lemon /. Bossier parish School Bd.,
No. 30447 (5th Cir., September 2, 1970). We urge this Court 
to apply the same rulin' to Pointe Coupee parish.

-14



[ i r

Th« District Court Should Bo
i‘i-U etc d To Hold H> 11 ings 
Befor'' A{. provi ng Cent : -t ~ j 
Modifications to Sen j . Den 

reqstion Plans

Much of the diffict ltv in isolating and addressing 
the issues on this appeal stems from the failure of the 
district court to hold any evidentiary hearing whatsoever 
before approving the mocifications submitted at nearly 
the last moment by the school board.

In light of this Court's accelerated and summary 
procedures in school desegregation appeals, see part III 
of Singleton, 419 F.2d at 1222. the district court's failure 
to hold a hearing assumes even greater significance.

There can be no doubt that the procedures followed by 
the district court in tl is case do not comport with the 
fundamentals of due process. "The funadmental requisite
of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard." 
Grannis v. Qrdean, 234 l.S. 385 (1914). Important rights 
may not bo adjudicated cn the basis of the privately 
acquired Knowledge oi the judge where a litigant is given 
no opportunity to make a shoving about contested matters. 
Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n. 301 U.S. 
292 (1937). Due process is olainly not satisfied where 
one 1 it leant commuricates the vital facts to the court on an 
informal or ex pan e ba is. See Hall v. West. 335 F.2d 
481, 48 j-84 (5t.h C:r. 1984) . A fair and open hearing is

- Ir



vital to the integrity of judicial proceedings. "Nothing 
can he treated as evidence which is not introduced as such."
Mf.rj_._u . i ._L St . '.e: , 298 U . - . -m >>-, . 4 3 1 ,1 9 3 3 ).
I; i tor s t.-, iit- Commerce Cormissi m  . Louisville & N.R. Co..
2 2 7 ,J-S - 3 3 ~’l )) - ,,r!he n  jht to such a hearing is one of
the 'rudiments of fair j lay* (Chicago, m . & St. P.R. Co. v.
Poht, 232 U.S. 165, IbR) assured to every litigant by the 
Fourteenth Amendment as a minimal requirement." Ohio Bell 
-̂j-eP*lone C°» v - Public Utilities Commission, supra at 304.
"in almost every setting where important decisions turn on 
questions of tact, due process requires an opportunity to 
confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses." Goldberg v.
Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269 (1970).

We disagree with the government [in its Memorandum of
_United States on Motion of Appellants for Summary

Reversal] as to the proper disposition of this appeal. we 
agree upon and emphasize the necessity for a hearing below, 
but we think that appellants are entitled to judgment in 
their favor as a matter of law. At the very least, Alexander 
and Carter require that the original July 25, 1969 order be 
reinstated pendente Lite whiLe Judge West holds such hearings 
as may ho necessary -oncerning the boa-d's proposed modifications.

-  1 6 -



^tTOLUSi U N

WHEREFORE, lor r.h ■ roreqoinq reason 
respectfully support, the position of the 
herein and snqqest to f/c Cojrt that the'

■i,'r Mf A.. -I , i.yyi, be rev . or
district court's onqi * 1 or ier of July 
reinstated. See Lemur. \ . Bossier parish

?. amici 
appellants 
district court's 
• oated and the 

25, 1969 be 
School Bd.. supra.

r Respect fully subiTY.tte3 ,

> . P . TUREAUD /
1821 Orleans Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

v-ACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
10 Columbus circle 
New York, New York 10019

attorneys for Plamtiffs- Amici Curiae



■ 'P.PTi J'ICAIT. OF SEFVICF.

I hereby certify that on this 21st day of October, 
1970, I served the foregoing Motion for Leave to File 
and Brief for Plaintiffs as Amici Curiae upon counsel 
for the parties to this action by mailing two copies 
thereof. United States first class postage prepaid, to 
each of the following:

Hon. jack p. F. GiemiJlion 
Attorney General of Louisiana 
State Capitol Building 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
Samuel c. Cashio, Esq.
District Attorney 
18th Judicial District 
Plaquemine, Louisiana 70764
John F. Ward, Jr., Esq.
206 Louisiana Avenue
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802
Murphy w. Bell, Esq.
1438 East Boulevard 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Frank D. Allen, Jr., Esq.
United States Department of Justice 
1723 Masonic Building 
333 St. Charles Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

-18-



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

BATON ROUGE DIVISION

YVONNE MARIE BOYD, et al 
versus

POINTE COUPEE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, 
et al

CIVIL ACTION # 3164

Transcript of Proceedings in above entitled and numbered 
cause heard in Open Court on August 11, 1971, at the United 
States Courthouse, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, before the Honorable 
E. GordonWest, United States District Judge, presiding.

APPEARANCES:
Murphy W. Bell, Esq.,

Attorney for Intervenor, Esomitt J .  Douglas

Norman Chachkin, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs

John F. Ward, Jr., Esq.
Attorney for defendants

Frank D. Allen, Jr., Esq.,
Attorney for United States of America

Reported by
Felix L. Olivier, Official Court Reporter

-oOo-



- 2-
THE COURT: Call the two cases for this morning, please.
THE DEPUTY CLERK: Civil Action 1068, Lawrence Hall, et

al versus St. Helena Parish School Board, et al; and 3164,
Civil Action, Yvonne Marie Boyd et al versus Points Coupee 
Parish School Board.

THE COURT: All right, gentlemen, which one of these
cases will be the shortest? I don't want either one of them 
to take too much time.

MR. CHACHKIN: Your Honor, I am Norman Chachkin, and I 
represent the plaintiffs in the St .Helena case. I have 
two very short witnesses. I also have oral argument, and 
I would like to go first, if I may.

THE COURT: Well, I want the shortest case first.
Which one will be the shortest?

MR. CHACHKIN: Pointe Coupee will be the shortest.
THE COURT: Pointe Coupee.
MR. WARD: We have several witnesses. We filed a

motion to dismiss.
THE COURT: Well, I don't need any witnesses, gentle­

men, on any facts that are not contested. If there are facts 
to be shown and there is no evidence to rebut it, I want the 
facts simply stated as facts. I have heard this case now for 
some ten or twelve years, and I'm getting kind of sick of it 
and I don't mean to hear a lot of witnesses just to rehash 

what we have heard over and over and over again.



-3-

All right, the St. Helena case will be first -- 
I mean the Pointe Coupee Parish case will be first.

MR. WARD: In connection with that, I have
prepared a motion for summary judgment, because I believe 
it is disposable under a Motion for Sumnary Judgment. '

THE COURT: On the whole case, you mean?
MR. WARD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: The motion is denied. You may file it.
The motion for summary judgment is denied.

All right.

Now, I think there is another motion of interven­
tion, is that correct?

MR. WARD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Motion of intervention -- Motion to set
the intervention aside is granted. Mr. Douglas is not a party 
to this lawsuit. He was allowed in this suit in 1969, as I 
recall it, in connection with a so-called freedom-of-choice 
day in Pointe Coupee Parish. Under the rules, the opposing 
parties were never served with any notice of the intervention 
and under the rules it’s mandatory that opposing parties be 
served. I was not here at that time and the matter was 
handled by another judge of the Eastern District of Louis­
iana who granted the motion to intervene in 1969.

Now, my appreciation of that motion is and there 
are cases to substantiate this position, that that motion



-4-
of intervention had effect only for the specific purpose the 
intervention was sought; and the intervention was sought at 
that time for the purpose of protesting the so-called freedom- 
of-choice day to be held in Pointe Coupee Parish. When that 
matter was over, the intervention was over. I have made it 
a practice and have been affirmed on every occasion, of dis­
allowing interventions in these suits, particularly where the 
United States Government is a party to the suit, and they are 
in this case.

All parties are properly protected and represented 
by the present parties. Now, I have refused white interven­
tions by the hundreds, because parents of students in all of 
these cases have sought to intervene in these cases, and I 
would have liked to have allowed them to intervene to have 
their say; but because of the unmanageability of such situa­
tions, I have refused to allow the intervention of the white 
parents who have requested it. I likewise refused to allow 
intervention of Mr. Douglas or any of the negroes who wanted 
to intervene in these cases. Their interests are being pro­
tected as are the interests of the white people by the present 
parties. So, if intervention was properly granted, which I 
seriously doubt, in 1969, because of no notice having been 
given, even assuming that that notice -- that that interven­
tion were proper, I now hold that that intervention was limited 

to the purpose for which it was intended, and that was to pro-



-5-
test that particular activity in Pointe Coupee Pariah.

Now, it doesn't really make a great deal of dif­
ference, because of the fact, of course, the Government is 
in this case; the Government has filed a similar motion in 
this case today, and aside from the question of representa­
tion, it doesn't make a great deal of difference anyway.

The motion of the Government, even though the 
Defendant says he is not prepared to oppose that motion,
he must be prepared or he will lose by default, because it 
will come up today.

MR. WARD: May it please the Court, although it
is true that the Government, as of yesterday, did file 
a motion for supplemental relief, it is not the same motion 
filed by the intervenor.

THE COURT: Well, I will let him amend his motion
now orally, if he wishes, so that the matter may be brought 
before the Court today.

I'm going to dispose of this matter, gentlemen, 
and you might as well recognize it now. I'm going to dis­
pose of these cases, and I'm not going to put them off on 
technicalities to give somebody another week and another week 
and they you come back and say to me, "School starts tomorrow 
it's too late for us to do anything." It is not too late now 
and we are going to do something now.

So you may proceed on the Pointe Coupee matter



- 6-

if you are ready. Tell me what the problem is, and we will 
dispose of it.

MR. WARD: I would like to know, your Honor, from
the Government whether or not they intend to amend their 
motion to have their motion cover

THE COURT: I'm sure they will tell you right now.
MR. ALLEN: May it please the Court, I am Frank Allen.

I represent the United States, Plaintiff-Intervenor in this 
matter. It was our plan, if called upon, to support the mo­
tion of the plaintiff-intervenor, Mr. Douglas. However, we 
did not subpoena any witnesses; we have no evidence to pre­
sent on that particular motion.

THE COURT: Well, gentlemen, let me tell you this
in both of these cases, and then you can govern yourselves 
accordingly:

The ruling of this Court is simply going to be this, 
and I can tell you now before I hear any evidence of any kind, 
that the only purpose that evidence could serve in this case 
would be to establish which parts of these things should not 
need to be done, but it certainly wouldn't be needed to de­
termine what must be done.

The schools in these two parishes will be totally 
integrated at the beginning of this next session, using pair­
ing of schools, grouping of schools, bussing where necessary, 
in order to bring about the proper d is t r ib u t io n  o f  students



-7-
in every single, solitary last school in these parishes.
The busses will be integrated; the teachers will be integrated 
on the proportion of blacks and whites in the total system.

Now, I am not going to sit up here and perform abor­
tions on the law with regard to these integration suits. I 
want that thoroughly understood. Everybody has had ten years 
to bring this about; and when I ordered in these schools be­
fore that they be integrated in accordance with the Supreme 
Court dictates and then we still come up with schools 99X 
black, and other schools where practically all the white 
children go to other schools, under one guise or another, 
it simply will not stand muster. That's all there is to it. 
There is nothing else to it. There will be no transfers al­
lowed from one school to another except on a majority to 
minority basis. Because I am not going to sit up here and 
hear you tell me that you have assigned these students but 
you can t make them go to those schools because they trans­
ferred to another school. They either will go to those 
schools or they will leave the public school system and go 
to private schools. Now, it's just that simple; and I am 

not going to listen to loop holes that some lawyer 
might point out that I can find or he can find in the Swann 
decision or any other decision, because I'm sick and tired 

trying to use and find loop holes for one side or the 
other to evade what is clearly the mandate of the United



- 8-
States Supreme Court. We are at the end of the line. We're 
crossing the finish line. I want these suits finished; I 
want them dismissed. I want to say that I no longer have 
jurisdiction over them and I hope the day comes mighty mighty 
soon, and possibly after we get through with these cases we 
can be through with these two suits.

Now, gentlemen, I will hear no argument contrary 
to what I have just said. Now, if evidence is necessary to 
prove anything else, go right ahead with it.

Now, the Pointe Coupee Parish case can be brought
up.first.

MR. CHACHKIN: May it please the Court, we are faced 
with a procedural problem. I represent the plaintiffs in 
Pointe Coupee Parish, also I haven't filed anything because 
plaintiff-intervenor had filed the motion. I would orally 
adopt that motion joining in their request.

THE COURT: All right. You may do so.
MR. ALLEN: May it please the Court, I would

like at this time to orally move to amend our motion to 
seek alterations to the plan of student assignment; and 
with respect to an opinion about the evidence, I would rely 
solely on the results as expressed in the records. And 
when I say the records, I include also the document which 
was attached to the motion that I filed yesterday which re­
flected student assignments and . faculty assignments as of



-9-
last fall. I understand in the faculty assignments there is 
some slight change Hr. Ward has told me about and we will 
agree with those facts, and to those particular figures as of 
this time, and with that, I offer no further evidence.

I have a copy of this document, if the Court would 
can

like to have it. It/be marked and introduced in evidence.
THE COURT: You might do that if you wish.
MR. ALLEN: Hark that Plaintiff-Intervenor Exhibit 1.
THE DEPUTY CLERK: Would you describe what it is?
MR. ALLEN: Yes. It is a copy of the report submitted

by the Superintendent of Pointe Coupee Parish to the Depart­
ment of HEW last fall, reflecting the student enrollment in 
the schools as of that time and the faculty assignments as 
of that time.

I believe I showed it to Mr. Ward and I believe 
he said he had no objection.

MR. WARD: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. Anything you wish to say,

Mr. Ward, go right ahead.
MR. WARD: Do you want me to use the podium?
THE COURT: Yes, please.
MR. WARD: If it please the Court, I will try to

be brief, but for the record only, I would like to enter my 
objection to being required to proceed when the intervention 
has been dismissed and therefore the pleading was not before



- 10-

the court; and on the Government's supplemental motion on 
faculty which was only filed yesterday, I had no knowledge 
that they were going to file it until Monday afternoon.

THE COURT: Are you in a position to show or even
state, Mr. Ward, that the faculty assignments in these schools 
is in fact in accordance with the Supreme Court directive that
the per centage of white to negroes for each school will be 
the same or substantially the same as the percentage of white 
and negroes in the entire system? Because if you are not
prepared to say that, of course, it doesn't make any difference 
whether you object or not, the objection will certainly have 
no merit, because that is a requirement.

MR. WARD: If your Honor please, in the motion for
summary judgment which I have filed, there is an affidavit 
by Superintendent Breaux and an Exhibit A, containing the 
statistics for the schools both on student enrollment and 
on faculty at the present time, at the end of the '70-'71 
school session.

Just briefly I'll give you the faculty percentages 
for each school.

Labarre Elementary, 63 per cent black, 36 per cent 
white. By the way, in that school system as a whole, as of 
this year, the percentage parlshwlde is  approxim ately 66 
per cent black and 34 per cen t w h ite , in  the system as a w hole.



- 11-

At Labarre Elementary, 63 per cent black, 36 per 
cent white.

Livonia, 26 per cent black, 73 per cent white.
Morganza, 47 per cent --

THE COURT: Well, of course, Mr. Ward, these don't
mean anything to me, because I don't know whether -- The 
oniy question I want to know is that the same percentage 
that there are white; and colored teachers there are in the 
entire system.

MR. WARD: It is not the exact percentage.
THE COURT: I would be interested in the deviations

rather than in the percentages in the schools. The percen­
tages mean nothing to me. What are the deviations?

MR. WARD: All right. 63 per cent black at
Livonia is .3 or a per cent off 66 per cent which is the 
overall ratio.

THE COURT: Well, that sounds pretty good. I don't
think you have anything to worry about.

MR. WARD: At Morganza High, it's 47 per cent
blacks, instead of 66, which is the exact numerical ratio 
that would be required, although again Singleton says "sub­
stantially the same."

At Rougon, it's 45 per cent black; at St. Alma,
87 per cent black. At Upper Pointe Coupee, 75 per cent 
black. At Valverde, 46; at Rosenwald, 96 percent black.



- 12-

Poydras, 37 per cent black; and Livonia, 26 per cent black.
The exact ratio*.overall, if you are going to go by exact 
numerical figures would be 66 per cent. So you can see the 
variances on the faculties.

Now, to get to the motion for supplemental relief, 
now filed, it makes only two demands. One, it complains of 
the existence presently of three schools of the ten schools 
operated by Pointe Coupee Parish with all black student bodies 
and it complains of the fact that of the five supervisory po­
sitions which Pointe Coupe Parish is able to afford, four of 
those are white and only one is black.

Let's take the supervisors first, because I believe 
I can dispose of it more quickly. Plaintiff merely misinter­
prets Singleton and misinterprets Carter versus West Feliciana 
Parish. All Singleton said with regard to the distribution 
of faculty is that to disestablish your dual faculty system, 
you had before, you should assign your teachers to each school 
in the system so that the proportion of white and black teachers 
in each school in the system is substantially the same as the 
proportion of white and black teachers in the system as a 
whole. The second thing that it said was that where there is 
a reduction in force due to converting to a unitary school 
system, that any dismissals or demotions that must be made 
because of having to  reduce your force, should be made on the 

basis o f  o b je c tiv e  c r i t e r i a  comparing the s t a f f  as a whole.



-13-
This school system -- although there are complaints 

of letting black teachers go all over the State -- this school 
system has completely integrated its system and has not dis­
missed or demoted a single black educator. Now, with respect 
to these supervisors -- and by the way, as your Honor knows, 
in Carter versus West Feliciana, the Fifth Circuit specifically 
said once you have assigned these teachers, you do everything 
on the basis of merit, without regard to race and no discrimi­
nation. It sets no ratios and specifically says there is no 
permanent systemwise ratio that you must maintain. Now, at­
tached to the Exhibit to Superintendent Breaux' affidavit, is 
also a list of these supervisory personnel, showing four to 
be white and one to be black.

Superintendent Breaux was appointed Superintendent 
in the Spring of 1969. All of these appointments except one 
were made subsequent to his being made superintendent; one,
Mrs. Didier, has been supervisor of child welfare and atten­
dance since 1947. If your Honor will look, and you don't have 
a copy of that in front of you -- but the qualifications of 
these personnel, all of them, everyone of them, all five, 
have at least twenty years experience in education. All but 
one have served either as an assistant principal or principal; 
all but one, all four of the white supervisors have a master's 
degree in education plus t h i r t y  hours of graduate work on top 
of a master's. The negro s u p e r v is o r , B u ck lero y, has a m a ste r's



-14-
but does not have the thirty hours. It can hardly be said 
that any of these supervisors are not eminently qualified for 
the positions they hold. I might point out also, in the Pointe 
Coupee School System, there are five black principals and five 
white ones. I would also advise the Court that in Mr. Breaux's 
affidavit, he shows that the school board had already approved 
the creation of an additional supervisory position and that he 
had already planned to recommend to the Board the appointment
of a particular negro educator to that position based upon 
his qualifications. So I respectfully submit that plaintiff 
has simply misinterpreted the law, but even if they hadn*t 
misinterpreted the law, that on these facts, every one of 
these supervisors are eminently qualified and there is no 
showing whatsoever of any discrimination because of race in 
the selection of these supervisors.

THE COURT: I am much more interested in the 91 per
cent black faculty in Batchelor and the 96 per cent black 
faculty in Poydras and the 87 per cent black faculty in 
St. Alma, particularly in view of the fact that St. Alma
and Batchelor are one hundred per cent negro student enroll­
ment .

MR. kJARD: I don't believe those 96 -- There is 
only one place where there is 96 per cent bUck faculty, 
if your Honor please, and that is Rosenwald.



-15-
THE COURT: 
MR. ALLEN:

Well, according to this it’s Poydras. 
If the Court please, I think that what

happened is the copy you are looking at, the figures for
RosenwaId and Poydras are reversed. The copy I filed yes 
terday --

THE C0URT: Well, that makes more sense along the
line that it shouldn't. Because that means that you've 
got 91 per cent negro teachers in Batchelor which is a 
100 per cent negro students; and you've got 96 per cent 
in RosenwaId which is all black; and you've got 87 per cent 
in St. Alma, which is all black. Now, that accounts for 
2,400 negro students in totally all black schools, with 
91, 96, and 87 per cent of their faculty all black. Now, 
how in the world can you say that that even comes close to
the substantial requirement of compliance under Swann and 
the other cases?

MR. WARD: I don't know how your Honor is
ing the figures Mr. Allen gave you.

interpret-

THE COURT: I am just reading them; that's all.
MR. WARD: Well, the figures filed by Superintendent

Breaux which are up-to-date figures as of the end of this 
school session, not last October, show for example at Batchelor 
that Batchelor and Innis are now one school under your court 
order of last summer. It is the Upper Pointe Coupee school;
and we show a ratio of 75 per cent black 24 per cent white 
teachers, operating at the Upper Pointe Coupee School.



-16-
Now, the Justice Department won't agree that we have 

got a right to operate those two campuses as one school, as 
one operation; but whether they agree to it or not, your Honor 
approved it and the Fifth Circuit did not reverse.

THE COURT: Let's assume that you're operating the
same, that gives you, if you combine the two of them, accor­
ding to this, you've got 1,065 colored students as compared 
with 247 white students; and then you've got a 91 per cent 
colored faculty, if you combine them.

MR. WARD: No, I've got a 75 per cent black faculty
if I combine them according to the Superintendent's figures, 
as of the end of the past school year.

THE COURT: Now, when you talk about operating them
as one school, they are two separate buildings?

MR. WARD: That's correct.
THE COURT: How are the students assigned for those

buildings ?

MR. WARD: They go back and forth between both of
them for various parts of the curriculum.

THE COURT: And how are the classes, are there any
all black classes?

MR. WARD: I don't believe so, no, sir.
THE COURT: And what would be the percentage of blacks

and whites in the classes?

MR. WARD: In the whole school?



-17-
THE COURT: 
MR. WARD: 

your Honor. I

In each class in these schools.
I can't give you that exact information 

do not have a class by class breakdown; but
9

let's go back and look as the history of Pointe Coupee for 
just a minute in view of this motion. With the advent of 
Hall versus St. Helena in the Spring of 1969, this Court 
ordered Pointe Coupee Parish School Board to come up with 
a plan different from freedom-of-choice. It ordered HEW 
to come in and look at the Pointe Coupee system and come 
up with a plan, jointly if they could. Tfrey couldn't 
agree; HEW filed a plan, it was basically a pairing plan 
that called for the pairing of each of the two schools
throughout the system. That plan would totally integrate 
the system.

The school board filed a majority plan, which was
basically freedom-of-choice, which your Honor rejected.
Your Honor also rejected the HEW plan. The school board
in addition presented to the Court the four plans which it 
had also considered which -- but none of which had gotten 
a majority vote on the board. They are referred to as the 
minority report. They were basically the same as the HEW 
plan, a pairing of the schools within the system, although 
there was a slight deviation in grade-level structure of 
these schools, but very minor. It basically did the same 
thing as the HEW plan, with the same estim ated a n tic ip a te d



-18-
student enrollment. Your Honor, instead of approving those 
plans which were spread out over a four year period, you ap­
proved them but you pulled them together to be implemented 
in two years; for the 1969-70 school years, grades 1 through 
6 in all schools were to be paired. Then at the '70-'71 
school year, the other grades 7 through 12 would be paired. 
Pointe Coupee School Board implemented your 1969 order imnd-v 
diately on receiving it. They implemented it, despite the 
fact of their schools being barricaded, padlocked, and their 
having to go hire -- not only call out the State Police and 
the Federal Marshals, but they had to go to New Orleans, 
hire their own security guards, get those padlocks taken 
off those gates, and those barricades removed.

The schools were opened so that all the children 
who wanted to attend the public schools could do so. At the 
end of that first year, of that plan, the enrollment had
dropped from 2500 black students and 2300 white students, 
to only 680 white students. As a result of that plan, instead 
of having the five black schools you previously had under the 
dual system and the five predominantly white schools, you 
now had at the end of the 1979-70 school year four all black 
schools, one 99 per ce n t b la c k , and on



-19-
The Board worked all spring trying to find a plan 

that would help save their school system. They appointed 
bi-racial committees in each area of the parish. And your 
Honor must, as you know -- this is a rural parish and it is 
somewhat isolated within itself; the Atchafalaya spillway 
splits it; Batchelor is way up at one end, and the school 
is pretty much separate.

They established bi-racial committees in each area. 
They invited HEW to come in and work with them, which they 
did. Those bi-racial committees together came up with a 
plan which they presented to this court in the Sumner of 
1970, prior to the '70-'71 school year. At that time, your 
Honor, although you turned down modifications requested by 
two other school boards, you granted the modifications re­
quested by Pointe Coupee Parish School Board. The inter- 
venor here noticed an appeal and filed motion for sunmary 
reversal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The 
Court of Appeals refused to reverse your Honor and let the 
plan stand. That is the plan the system is presently opera­
ting under. As a result of the modifications that the Board 
had worked up with bi-racial committees and with educational 
consultants from Southwestern Institute of Louisiana, as I 
recall, instead of 680 white students left in the system as 
they had at the end o f  the previous year, they now have a c ­

cord in g to  s t a t i s t i c s  f i l e d  by the Superintendent Breaux



- 20 -

some 1238, as I recall. Instead of having four all black 
schools, one 99 per cent black, and one 88 per cent black, 
they, at the end of the 1970-71 school year, they only had 
three all black schools, and those three are Labarre, Rosen- 
wald High, and St. Alma. Everyone of those schools under 
both your court order of '69 and the modifications of '70 
were completely Integrated. Students were assigned to those 
schools and were required to go to those schools. The other 
schools in the system, according to the statistics filed by 
Superintendent Breaux, at the end of the '70-'71 school 
year, Livonia High 158 black, 172 white; Morganza High,
233 black, 168 white; Poydras, 218 black, 222 white; Rougon, 
329 black, 143 white; Upper Pointe Coupee, 962 black, 241 
white; Valverde, 196 black, 298 white. You can't get those 
schools much more integrated than that.

THE COURT: You sure can't, but in the other three,
the other three make up a total of 43 per cent of all the 
negroes in the parish attending all black schools.

MR. WARD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: 43 per cent.
MR. WARD: We have assigned to those three schools

even under the 1970-71 plan with your modifications which 
you permitted

THE COURT: Now, you just bear in mine one thing,
Mr. Ward, that when you talk about modifications that I made 
or when you talk about approval of the Fifth Circuit Court of



- 21 -

Appeals, you're talking about modifications made on represen­
tations that this would work; and the approval of the Court 
of Appeals was made on the representation that the projections 
of the School Board would be carried out. And, of course,ob­
viously they have not been carried out, because you know and 
I know that you wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance of having 
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals approve a plan that would 
end up with 43 per cent of the negro students in the parish 
attending all negro schools. You know that and so do I.
Let's be realistic about it.

MR. WARD: Yes, sir. Let's be realistic, and let's
don't let semantics get involved. Polnte Coupee School Board 
said when they presented the modifications to you that they 
would assign children according to those plans and they thought 
this would attract the white children back to the school sys­
tem. They believed that and they did that; and it attracted 
white children back to the school system. They doubled their 
white enrollment with those modifications --

THE COURT: You can get all the white students back,
Mr. Ward, there's no problem, all you've got to do is go back 
to total complete segregation and you'd have them all back. 
There'8 nc question about that. I'm not impugning the good 
faith of the St. Helena School Board or the Pointe Coupee 
School Board, either one. I think that if there has been any­

one who has bent over backwards to give the school boards



- 22 -

cvery possible benefit of the doubt, end to give then every 
chance to work out their own plan rather than imposing on 
them a HEW plan, or any plans that have been drawn by the 
plaintiffs, it has been me, because I have done that; and I 
have commended the school boards in numerous opinions for 
the work they've done and the fact that they are diligent, 
they are honest, they are sincere, they have tried. And so 
have I. But the fact of the matter is we are down to the 
wire, and they have got to realize just as I have got to 
realize that the schools must be integrated in accordance 
with the latest pronouncements of the Supreme Court whether 
you like it, whether they like, or whether I like it.
That is the law. They have said now they must pair schools, 
group schools, bus students, do whatever is required to bring 
about this type of integration; and now that is where we are 
now.

MR. WARD: All right. We are one step beyond that,
your Honor. We have already done that in Pointe Coupee.

THE COURT: Well, we have to do it again, because
the way you did it last time didn't work.

MR. WARD: And it didn't work in 1969 under the
HEW pairing plan.

THE COURT: All you have to do, Mr. Ward, is tell
the Supreme Court that, and if they believe you, I'm  sure 
they will reverse the Swann case.



-23-
MR. WARD: Your Honor, in the Swann case gives it

back to the District Court for you to use your discretion.
THE COURT: They said "Use your discretion as long

as you do it our way." That's what the Swann case says.
MR. WARD: The Swann case talks all the way through

about -- again it goes back to Brown. It talkes about State 
imposed segregation, State discrimination. The Pointe Coupee 
School Board, the only State agency involved, has assigned 
all children in the system, white and black, to Integrated 
schools, and the children refused to go to three particular 
schools, where is there any State action that resulted in; 
those three schools being all black with all black student 
body?

THE COURT: You know the answer to that.
MR. WARD: I do not.
THE COURT: Well, you ought to, if you read any of

the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, 
because I used the same arguments in my opinions. I've used 
them in dissenting opinions. You understand, I say dissenting 
opinions. And the argument has been very clear -- I don't 
agree with it, but the argument is there, and all they say there 
is the difference between de facto segregation in the south and 
de facto segregation in the north. They continue to say that 
de facto segregation in the north is a hangover from the prior 
de jure desegregation, which as far as I'm concerned is a 
lot of poppycock, but that is what they say. And after all



-24-
their word is the last word. You know what their argument 
is; so do I.

MR. WARD: Your Honor, but your argument which you
have made, albeit in dissenting opinions before, have now
gotten support from the United States Supreme Court in the 
Swann decision. Listen to it.

THE COURT: I would like to see it.

MR. WARD: Let me read you the language from Swann:
At some point these school authorities -- this is toward the
end of their opinion -- At some point these school authori­
ties and others like them should achieve full compliance with 
this Court's decision in Brown I. The systems will then be 
unitary in the sense required by the decision in Green and 
Alexander. It does not follow that comnunities served by 
such systems will remain demographically stable for in a 
growing mobile society few will do so. Neither school au­
thorities or district courts are constitutionally required 
to make year by year adjustments of the racial composition 
of student bodies once the affirmative duty to desegregate 
has been accomplished and racial discrimination, State dis­
crimination through official action is eliminated from the 
system. This does not mean that federal courts are without 
power to deal with future problems; but in the absence of a 
showing that either the school authorities or some other agency 
of the State has deliberately attested to fix or alter demo­



graphic patterns to affect the racial composition of the schools 
further intervention by a district court should not be necessary 

And there is not one allegation in any of these mo­
tions that says the Pointe Coupee Parish School Board has done 
anything deliberately or otherwise to affect the racial composi­
tion of these schools to maintain segregation. There is simply 
no allegation of fact before this court to show that. We've 
done just the opposite; we've assigned the students in a pair­
ing plan, which in Pointe Coupee Parish, integrates as fully 
as you can integrate. There is no plan -  bussing or anything 
else -- that will integrate the schools in Pointe Coupee, the 
ten small schools, any more than pairing. We have paired.

THE COURT: Let me ask you this: You show a total
enrollment of 4,932 students; how does that compare with 
the total educables in Pointe Coupee parish? Now, what 
are the.total:educables? In other words, what I'm asking 
is how many students are going to private schools in Pointe 
Coupee Parish?

MR. WARD: In Pointe Coupee Parish, you have in
the parochial schools a total of a thousand, and in other 
private schools a total of 832.

THE COURT: So you have got 1832 students attending
private schools?

MR. WARD: Yes, sir.

Is that right? So you have 4932 attend-THE COURT:



-26-
ing the public schools.

MR. WARD: Yes, sir, the intervenor's children
attend private school.

THE COURT: Now, you say that this is -- these changes
are made because they want to make these changes. Now, has 
the school board permitted all of these students to transfer 
back to Rosenwald High School making 1175 at Rosenwald High 
School, and if so, under what provision were they allowed to 
transfer back there?

MR. WARD: Well, Rosenwald High School is one of
the two schools complained of as having an all black student 
body.

THE COURT: Your figures show that, your exhibit,
shows 1175 black, no white. That is what your figures show.

MR. WARD: At the end of the '70-'71 school year,
Rosenwald, yes, that's correct.

THE COURT: All right. Now, how did they get back
there if they were assigned on a proper basis to start with, 
how did they get back there?

MR. WARD: They were assigned originally with the
modification in the previous plan -- the modified plan showed 
an anticipated enrollment at Rosenwald of 1179. That is in 
the heart of New Roads; it's a large school. And the previous 
HEW plan --

THE GQURT: No, what I  want to  know is  whan, a t  what



-27-
point —  at what point was Rosenwald High School integrated 
on a percentage basis of whites to blacks in the school sys­
tem or in the population rather? At what point was that in­
tegrated? Because what you’re talking about in the Swann 
case, and of course what the Supreme Court said, is that 
if you establish a unitary system and if the schools are 
properly integrated, properly integrated, and then if stu­
dents leave without the assistance of the State, no State 
action, then you should not concern yourself with that; 
but if they are permitted to leave by allowing them to 
transfer, knowing that when you allow the transfers that 
what you are going to do is end up with a totally segrega­
ted school, I question very seriously whether you can con­
scientiously say that that is done without state sanction 
or without state intervention.

Now, how did you -- Was Rosenwald ever actually 
operated in class with 60 per cent colored and 40 white, 
or whatever the percentage is up there?

MR. WARD: To answer your question, your Honor:
within the power and authority of this school board, which 
is limited to assigning children within the public school 
system who choose to attent the public schools, Rosenwald 
was integrated under the HEW pairing plan instituted -- 
similar to the HEW pairing p la n , instituted by this Court 
in the summer o f  1969, when i t s  enrollm ent assign ed  by the



-28-
school board, under your court order, was 1163 black students 
and 171 white students, with the school serving grades four 
through twelve. Those students were assigned -- white students 
were assigned there; none of them showed up. They left the 
public schools. The Pointe Coupee School Board can't stop 
that. We have no authority to compel someone to send their 
children to the public schools. We can't compel Mr. Douglas 
to send his children to the public schools. They are going 
to the private, more segregated, less integrated schools, with 
no black faculty that exists in Pointe Coupee Parish. We 
can't compel it. He himself said it. He has that right to 
send his children where he wants to. He made that statement 
to the School Board at their meeting last month.

These children refused to go to this school.
We came back and asked for modifications to try to help in­
tegrate these schools. Instead of having four all black and 
one 99 per cent black, we were able to get white kids back 
in the public schools, where we only got three left that have 
all black student bodies. The School Board believes that if 
this plan is left alone now, given a chance to work -- it 
has only been in operation a year -- the enrollment in the 
private schools dropped after this plan was approved a t the 
beginning of the last school year. Our white stu d en t enroll­
ment jumped from 682 tp over 1200. I t  has doubled. We've 
still got a thousand stu d en ts to  go to  g e t back where we were,



-29-
but this school board thinks as honestly and sincerely as 
anything in the world that if this plan is left alone, they 
gradually see a change in attitude, they believe they will 
get the kids back into the school system, and you can have a 
viable, unitary system in which all the schools are integra­
ted. If this plan is thrown out now, just before school 
st®rts, and I don't know what would be imposed or what we 
would have to do -- there is no way you can integrate the 
schools any more than by pairing the schools which was 
done. If the students won't go, we can't make them go.
We feel we will lose the ones we have got back plus all of 
the rest of them, plus our faculty, if this plan is changed 
and some sort of -- I don't know even what you could put 
in different from what we are doing now that would get the 
schools any more integrated.

The school system, the school board, the superin­
tendent, they are the only state agencies involved; they 
not only have taken no action, either deliberately or other­
wise, to recreate segregated schools or to cause any schools 
to resegregate, they have done everything in their power -- 
appointed bi-racial committees on their own, got HEW to come 
back and consult with them in the spring of last year -- to 
try to get changes in the first plan which had not worked, 
to make it work. They came up with one that they told this 
Court they believed would work. It did work. Not as much 
as they hoped for, but it got back —  it doubled their white



-30-
student enrollment in one year's time. We hope if left alone 
it will continue to attract the white children back and will 
not only build a viable educationally sound unitary school 
system in Pointe Coupee, but will also help the entire Points 
Coupee community, which is suffering economically because of 
this. Now, they can't control the people. They have had 
suits filed against them by white citizens as well as black. 
They have been harassed by white citizens as well as black.
Mr. Douglas has instigated boycotts and demonstrations on 
the streets; white citizens have done the same. The school 
board is in the middle and has consistently tried to do what 
the law says it should do and tried to build a good school 
system. They think they are in the process of rebuilding 
now, with progress.

The superintendent has only been there two years.
He was appointed superintendent with the retirement of Mr. 
Lorio right in the middle of this. All of the educational 
improvements that he knew, with his experience in the school 
system, that he wanted to put in when he became superintendent, 
he has almost been completely stymied because of this business, 
and this constant harassment of just before every school year 
another shake-up in his operations, plus the fact that they 
called for an election for just the renewal of a five mil 
maintenance tax from which they got their operating funds, 
it lost. It was defeated. Not a new tax, just one that was



-31-
already there and was about to expire. They called the elec* 
tion; it was defeated. This superintendent and his school 
board went to work and called the election again as quickly 
as they could so it could get on the tax assessor's roll, got 
out and worked in the conmunity and they passed it the second 
time around. That's the kind of school board that you've got 
before you; that's what they have done to try to comply with 
the decisions of the Court. And I think that under these cir­
cumstances, with what they have done, that the Swann decision, 
just as clearly as anything possibly could, says leave this 
school system alone. They have tried and what they have done 
is the most that they can do; and they are now not to be har­
assed any longer; it is not their fault that these schools, 
three schools happen to still be -- have all black student 
bodies, even though their faculties and all other extracurri­
cular activities are completely integrated.

For example in the '69-'70 school year, under the 
first HEW pairing plan, two of the schools -- Poydras for 
example -- couldn't field a varsity football team at all.
With the modifications that the court approved last summer, 
they fielded a varsity football team with twenty-two whites 
and twenty-three blacks on that varsity football team.

All of the schools which have track, baseball and 
basketball teams have integrated teams within the schools. 
Some, although one or two of the varsity teams, I think



-32-
Rosenwald is not an integrated team, it has no white students, 
they play the other schools in the system; they belong to one 
athletic association. Every facility, transportation, extra­
curricular activity, faculty, school construction -- of course, 
they haven't had any, because they don't have any money for 
new construction -- every item that the Supreme Court has 
talked about as a unitary integrated system, is completely 
integrated in Pointe Coupee Parish, the only exception is 
these three schools which have remained black from the very 
beginning because the white children simply will not go to 
them. We have assigned them and they have left the school 
system or moved out of the parish.

Obviously many of them have gone to private and 
parochial schools, and have left the system. The Board can't 
control that. I might point out to the court --

THE COURT: Have any of those white students who have
been assigned to any one of these three schools that have 
left the schools been allowed to attend another public 
school in Pointe Coupee Parish?

MR. WARD: No, sir. And I answer that positively
because I had them check this past week to be sure that 
they had not allowed these children to move from one school 
to the other, other than as provided for in your court order.
We have not -- You can look at the private school enrollment 

and see. We've got kids even going to the parochial schools
a  i . . .  # y  i



-33-
al̂ . the way in M^rksville. They've got a bus from the Catholic 
school in Marksville that comes ip.toPointe Coupee every school 
day to pick up kids. I know it's tough and admittedly morally 
wrong for parents to take children out of a school because they 
don't like that school, or its offerings, or its faculty, or 
whatever the reason may be, but this school board can't con­
trol it. We have no power, no authority to. I don't even 
believe this Court has the power or authority -- or the Su­
preme Court -- to compel to put their children in a particular 
school. They can either say "Go there, or you don't go to 
any school in the system." That is what the school board 
said: "Go there, or you don't go to any school in the sys­
tem."

Now, There are many elements of the Swann decision.
 ̂ think if anything is clear, the Supreme Court -- it 

didn't need to go back to Brown and reaffirm on the very 
first page of the decision that we're talking about elimina­
ting racially separate public schools established and main­
tained by state action. All the way through their decision 
they're talking about that.

And another thing, when they talk about the Char­
lotte case and its facts, they're talking about a school 
system that has never become unitary and has come with a 
proposed plan that on its face, as proposed by the school 
board, leaves one race schools. That is not the situation



-34-
hcre. The school board has not come to this court with a 
plan which on its face says we're going to have one race 
schools. It came to you with a plan that says every school 
is going to be integrated; and under the Swann decision, the 
very language of the court, that is an absolute distinction 
between this situation and the Swann decision.

I know when the Swann decision was released and 
it hit the newspapers, sure, all you read was bussing, bussing, 
bussing. But when you read the Swann decision, you see 
that the court is talking about school systems having a right 
to get out from under this constant harassment.

I submit respectfully that this school board has 
done everything to meet that requirement of the Swann decis­
ion, that a school system who by state action has done every­
thing to maintain an integrated unitary school system.
What segregation remains, if you want to call the fact that 
these three all black student bodies are segregated, is beyond 
the control of this school board and something for which they 
are not legally accountable or responsible.

I think the court may have noted the other day the 
decision in the Atlanta system. I might point out that imne- 
diately a^ter Swann, the NAACP filed motions with the Fifth 
Circuit in all of the school cases that were then pending 
and had been held up, asking the Fifth Circuit to either 

reverse immediately or to remand to the district courts with



-35-
specific directions requiring racial balance, et cetera, and 
so forth. The Fifth Circuit hasn't done this, though. All 
it has done is remand to the district court for compliance 
in light of Swann.

The Atlanta school system's last plan was sitting 
in the Fifth Circuit when Swann was handed down. The Fifth 
Circuit remanded back to the district court with those direc­
tions with minor adjustments, but basically to the district 
court it said "Review this plan and do what needs to be done 
in light of Swann."

The district court for the Northern District of 
Georgia, Atlanta Division, sat en banc to hear this Atlanta 
case. They refused to require of the City of Atlanta what 
is being required or asked of this court. Their opinion 
is particularly important because their school system, although 
much larger than this one, has got the same situation that 
this one has. They have been in court for thirteen years 
off and on with the desegregation plan, numerous times after 
time. They have 155 schools, of those 155 schools, 101 
are either over 90 per cent black or over 90 per cent white.
The judges sitting -- and the order and opinion is signed by 
two judges of the Atlanta Division -- and they say: When 
this suit began Atlanta had a pupil ratio of 70 per cent 
white and 30 per cent black and a predominantly white faculty. 
Today its racial complexion has reversed to 70 per cent black



and 30 per cent white; and its 4800 teachers are 60 per cent 
black and 40 per cent white. From an enrollment of 115,000 
students, it has dropped to 100,000 in the school year 
1970-71 during which it lost 7,000 white students and 
gained 1,000 black students.

The white students remaining are concentrated at 
the extreme northern and southern ends of the district 
and so forth.

Since 1961, it has annually achieved substantial 
temporary integration by the establishment or construction 
of line schools". However, 34 of those schools have gone 
from all white to 90 per cent or more black during the per­
iod. This "tinting process" is so rapid, that it sometimes 
occurs by the time a facility is deliberately located to 
achieve integration can be completed and occupied. Seldom 
does it last longer than two years..

Then the court goes on to say the cause of such 
frustrating results lies in factors completely beyond the 
control of school authorities. Segregated housing, whether 
impelled by school changes or not, remains the unconquerable 
for cf the racial idea of integrated public schools in the 
city. The white flight to the suburbs and private schools 
continues. The cause of such frustrating results lies in 
factors completely beyond the control of school authorities.

That s the s itu a t io n  in  P o in te  Coupee. We ln t e -



-37-
grated every school. The school board did everything it could 
to integrate every school. These three schools that now have 
all black student bodies -- the fact they do, is caused by 
factors completely beyond the control of this school board.
We are operating a unitary school system in every sense of 
the word. Our faculty ratios may not reach Singleton as is 
now required by the law. We will try to make adjustments.

I point out to the court that the Pointe Coupee 
School Board has tried to reach those figures, tried dili­
gently. When the first order of pairing was put in, our 
faculty was 120 white teachers. At the end of that first 
year it had dropped to 69. We now have it back up to 85; 
and we are diligently trying to meet those ratios and will 
continue to try. If we have to assign teachers, hopefully, 
they won t leave like they did before and we can meet these 
ratios, and certainly there is no question but the Board will 
try. They have been trying and I have advised them that they 
must try to meet these percentages. It is a problem, but 
it is not something -- it is not a question of the board not 
trying to do it.

With respect to the student assignments, this 
Board has done simply all that it can do. There is no plan 
that I have ever heard suggested by either the NAACP attorneys 
or the Justice Department, be it c a lle d  non-continuous p a ir in g ,  
or p a ir in g , or b u s s in g , or m u ltip le  con es, or t r i p l e  co n es, or



-38-
triple pairing, or quadruple pairing, or any of the educational 
parts, or anything else -- there is no plan that will integrate 
these schools any more than the pairing plan that was instituted 
the first year. The schools are very close to one another, 
usually a black and white school within two or three miles of 
each other, two by two.

The HEW people when they first came in said it's 
a perfect pairing situation; and that's what was done, and 
WHAM! we wound up with four all black schools, one ninety- 
nine per cent black and one eighty-eight per cent black.
Now, the school board's modification that you approved last 
summer has now reduced those to three all black schools. We 
have hopes for the future, but this we believe -- sincerely 
and firmly believe, and the community leaders in Pointe Cou­
pee and in New Roads sincerely believe, that the work of 
this School Board, this new plan that you approved and the 
Fifth Circuit did not reverse, and which has worked at 
least to the extent of reducing the all black schools or 
predominantly black schools from five to three -- if it's 
thrown out, then you will probably see a totally black 
school system, and totally black faculty in Pointe Coupee 
next year.

I don't believe that the Supreme Court intended 
that the district courts in the exercise of their equity 
jurisdiction should be required to compel school boards to



-39-
cons tan tly assign and reassign white students into predom­
inantly black schools, particularly in a parish where you 
have a majority blacks to begin with, time and time again, 
year after year, until finally there are no more white chil­
dren left in the Pointe Coupee School System; and then, I 
suppose it would be a unitary school system, although it 
would then be a totally one race system.

I think the issues are clear, if your Honor please. 
There is nothing else further that I can add. This school 
system has done everything I believe a school system can 
do. It had a unitary school system in 1969 and '70; it 
improved on it with a more realistic plan in 1970-71; that 
improvement resulted in less one race schools than it had 
previously.

I think instead of the plaintiffs condensing 
the school board and the intervenor condemning the school 
system, it ought to be commended for the job it has done 
under such adverse circumstances.

Thank you.

MR. ALLEN: If it please the Court, I would just
like to make a couple brief statements.

As the Court well knows, we came to Court this 
morning in support of a motion that was limited to seeking 
relief as to the faculty assignments in the Pointe Coupee 
school system. By virtue of your Honor's ruling as to Mr.



-40-
Douglas' status In this case, 1 now undertake to represent 
to some extent the position that he held.

First of all, I think that I would like to say 
something about the facts here. Mr. Ward talked about 
three all black schools and in fact Mr. Douglas in his pe­
tition,^ his figures mentions three all black schools. 
Throughout the proceedings here, since their plan was first 
filed, in their projected figures and in the figures which 
presumably they gave to Mr. Douglas which he used in his 
motion, and presumably in the figures that Mr. Ward filed 
this morning, which I don't have -- I don't have a copy of -  
they keep referring to Batchelor and Innis as one school. 
They combine the two schools in faculty figures and in stu­
dent figures. When the projections were filed with this 
court last fall, they projected enrollment for those two 
schools as if they were one school, because of their proposed 
plan that they would have a different course level. They 
would teach vocational courses at Batchelor and they would 
teach college prep courses at Innis. When the superintendent 
filed his report with HEW, he broke down the figures as to 
the two campuses, and that report shows that in fact there 
are no white children assigned to the Batchelor campus.

Now, I am told and I suspect that they do transfer 
students back and forth; that white students go over there 
to take their vocational courses. This, in effect, amounts



-41-
to part-time desegregation. The Court of Appeals has dealt 
with this same situation in other cases, one of which I cite, 
United States v. Board of Education of Webster County, 431 F. 
2 59, at page 61, the School Board there proposed the same 
situation of transferring the students for courses and this 
was held invalid. It is not desegregation. This is the sit­
uation, quite frankly, I am most concerned about; not do I 

/ object to their upgrading their vocational program, I'm all
for that --

THE COURT: Well, that is the plan that has just been
put into effect in Dallas, isn't it, where they attend sep­
arate schools, but they will go together for certain classes; 
so that is going to be up before the Court of Appeals again, 
isn't it?

HR. ALLEN: Well, it's going to be before the Court
of Appeals, that's right.

THE COURT: So there is some pretty good authority
that this is not a bad plan. It's a pretty capable judge

there that has put that into effect in that system.•
MR. ALLEN: Well, it appears to me that that judge is

directly in conflict with the Webster County case.
THE COURT: Well, we will have to wait and see, be­

cause I would rather take the Court of Appeals' ruling than 
yours on that. But let me ask you this: How often do we 
reintegrate these schools? What is your proposal on that?



-42-

How often do we reintegrate?
Yes.

I'm not sure I understand the question.
Well, simply put, we integrated the schools, 

every school was integrated, every student was assigned to an 
integrated school, the plan was approved by the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals; then certain students, white students, elec­
ted to leave certain schools; as a matter of fact, a total of 
1800 of them went to private schools, thus leaving certain 
schools segregated on a purely de facto basis, because no 
white students as I understand it, who left one of those schools 
was permitted to attend another public school, so there was no 
state action involved, and now we have some all black schools. 
Now, how often do we reintegrate? If we reintegrate now and
then students leave next year, what are you going to do next 
fall?

MR. ALLEN: 
THE COURT: 
MR. ALLEN: 
THE COURT:

MR. ALLEN: First of all, I don't accept the proposi­
tion that the schools were integrated as a result of this 
plan?

THE COURT: Well, they were; believe me they were.
The students were assigned, because that was done under the 
jurisdiction of this court and under the supervision of this 
Court and they were, in fact, assigned, unless you are charging 
every member of the school board with perjury; because they 
filed reports and they are -- they were a s s ig n e d , and the



43-
students did, in even far greater numbers than 1800 leave -- 
so that is an established fact. There is no question about 
the record showing that. They were integrated and on the basis 
of the projections, the Court of Appeals approved it. Now, 
it hasn't worked out that way, but not because the School 
Board has reassigned anybody, but because certain students
say "I'm not going to go to this school." Now, what is your
suggestion?

MR. ALLEN: Well, first let me say this about the
plan. First of all, I think that that analysis presupposes 
that for a period of time, what the School Board suggested 
would happen last suraner --

THE COURT: It did happen. When the schools started,
the students were assigned in that fashion. Now, that is 
a fact. They were assigned in accordance with the plan; 
but when school began, 1800 students said no. Now, what's 
your suggestion?

MR. ALLEN: Well, let me say that their j u s t i f i c a t i o n

of the plan is that it would attract back into the school 
system white students.

THE COURT: What I'm saying -- You're evading the
question. What's Jourosuggestion to attract these 1800 people 
back again? Do the same thing we did last August?

MR. ALLEN: Well, I don't have a suggestion as to
what --

THE COURT: Well, I'm sorry. If you don't have a



-44-

%

suggestion, I'm at * loss to know what to do also. So it 
looks as though we don't have a great decision to make.

MR. ALLEN: What I'm suggesting la --
THE COURT: You people are the ones complaining. Now,

tell me what you propose. You have to ask for the relief you 
want. What is the relief?

MR. ALLEN: What I propose is -- My particular concern
is the method of assignment of students at the Batchelor _
the so-called Batchelor-Innis Combination School.

THE COURT: You're not concerned with Rosenwald then?
MR. ALLEN: I'm concerned with these other schools, but

I admit they are more difficult problems.

THE COURT: Well, you tell me what your suggestion is.
You have to ask for the relief you want; and I want to know 
what relief do you want. What would you suggest as a realistic 
plan that promises to work realistically now, I think is the 
proper term?

MR. ALLEN: I think there should be an assignment of
students between the two campuses at Batchelor and Innis based 
on some method other than that by which they are assigning now.

THE COURT: Now, what would make you believe that it
would work, when that very thing was done at Rosenwald and St. 
Alma and Labarre a year ago, and it resulted in total complete 
resegregation? What would make you believe that it would work 
now? Why should I believe that it would work now, or why should



-45-
I believe that it should work now, or why should the 

School Board believe that it would work now?

MR. ALLEN: Well, it depends on your definition
of work. If work means attracting --

THE COURT: Work means -- you know what work means.
You say this isn't working because you've got all negro 
schools. You're the one that defining work. If you don't 
define it, we've got no problem. Because the School Board 
thinks it works, and I think it works; you say it don't.
Now, you've defined work as meaning that it don't work if 
you end up with all negro schools. Now, I'm all ears to 
know how to proceed with it. What should we do? What do 
you suggest?

MR. ALLEN: I think there is more to it than that.
I think the results are relative, but the results are 
actually the results in this case --we have reached the 
inevitable result of this plan.

THE COURT: What should we do?
MR. ALLEN: What we should do is devise a new method

of assignment for this particular thing.
THE COURT: What do you do? Do you chain them and

handcuff them and have a sheriff bring them to school and 
stand there and guard them and not let them leave the building 
if they say "I'm not going to go to t h is  s c h o o l ."  What do
you do in that case?



-46-
They made these assignments like they did before 

and they don't go, then what do you do?

MR. ALLEM: Well, if they definitely refuse to go,
I don't think there is anything you can do about it.

THE COURT: Okay. Now, isn't that what happened
with these 1800 students last year?

MR. ALLEN: I don't think that the plan as it was
conceived, although intending to accomplish the result of 
attracting the students back, I say the objective is not 
solely to attract students back, although I would hope to.

THE COURT: How would you change the plan to make
it work? What would be the difference in the assignments
you would make and the assignments we ordered them to make
las t summer ?

MR. ALLEN: Well, I think there have been several
methods of assignments that have been proposed.

THE COURT: Well, tell me one of them. I don't know
them. I'm trying to find out. What would be your method of 
assignment that you think would work better than the assign­
ment we made last time?

MR. ALLEN: The only alternative plan in the record
is the plan that was previously in effect, that is a non -- 
although it has been much criticized, the pairing of schools 
is a non-racial method of assignment of students; and the 
method of assignment of students when you're talking about



-47-
plan, to me is the crucial thing. That is the means by which
you judge.

THE COURT: And why would you believe that your plan
-  I haven't noticed the difference yet, but whatever the dif 
ference might be, why would your plan work better than the 
one we had last time?

MR. ALLEN: I don't know that it would work.
THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to waste my time fool-

ing with something that nobody thinks will work better than 
what we already have. I don't like change for change's sake,
you know.

MR. ALLEN: Well, I am not arguing to the Court that
this is not a difficult question, I know it is, and I cer
tainly --

THE COURT: You don't even begin to know how difficult
it is. You probably have never been in Pointe Coupee Parish, 
have you ?

MR. ALLEN: Yes, sir, I have been there.
THE COURT: Have you been up there?
MR. ALLEN: Let me at this point address myself briefly

to what brought us here In the first place, and that is our 
motion with regard to faculty --

THE COURT: Well, you wouldn't have any great objection
to leaving the student assignments like it is, because here

is anotherproblem: Looking down the slight discrepancy hetween

✓



-48-
what Mr. Bell filed or t;he Government filed, rather, and 
exhibit P-1 filed by the School Board, we will discuss 
them, but these figures are not big enough to make any real 
difference -- but here is the kind of distribution you've got 
of the only white stiidents^yoii'we got remaining in the system 
and of course, that is all you can deal with, 1244 roughly 
white students in the system, and you can't assign students 
who are not in the system, that's for sure. Now,of those 
1244, here's the way you've got them, 247 in one school,
170 in another, 122 in another, 131 in another, 179 in 
another, 283 in another, which seems to me to be a pretty 
honest attempt at even distribution of the white students 
among the schools involved. Now, you had students assigned 
to Batchelor and Labarre and Rosenwald and St. Alma, but 
as I say, those students comprising all or a portion of 
the other 1832 per educable students in the parish, they 
left. But even with them gone, how would you improve the 
situation by shuffling these 1244 students around7 How 
would you improve the situation by doing that? You have a 
pretty even distribution of the students throughout the sys­
tem, as far as students who are willing to remain in the sys­
tem are concerned.

MR. ALLEN: First of all the projections at these
schools which are now all black, in Labarre which is one of 
the all black ones, they projected 30 white and 238 black,



-50-
that I just talked about, non-racial, non-discriminatory, and 
we make that assignment --

MR. ALLEN: And the whites don't go?
THE COURT: -- and then the whites go, and when school

starts in the latter part of this month, you still have Rosen-
waId, St. Alma, Labarre and Batchelor totally black, what do 
we do then?

MR. ALLEN: If the assignment -- assuming that the
assignment method to start with is satisfactory, and the 
only reason that some of these schools are black is because 
the whites don't show up, I don't believe we would complain.

THE COURT: All right. So if that is what happened
last time, your complaint now would be ill-founded? Assuming. 

MR. ALLEN: Assuming a non-racial assignment to start
with?

THE COURT: Yes, assuming that this was a non-racial
assignment last time and that the resulting black schools is 
because certain white students didn't show up, like you just 
said if that happened next year, you wouldn't complain. As­
suming that that were a fact now, then your complaint on that 
score of student assignment is ill-founded now?

MR. ALLEN: Well, I guess the answer to that is obvious.
THE COURT: Of course,obviously yes.
MR. ALLEN: But I contend that that is not what hap­

pened .



-50-

//

that I just talked about, non-racial, non-discriminatory, and 
we make that assignment

MR. ALLEN: 
THE COURT:

And the whites don't go?
-- and then the whites go, and when school

starts in the latter part of this month, you still have Rosen-
wald, St. Alma, Labarre and Batchelor totally black, what do
we do then?

MR. ALLEN: If the assignment -- assuming that the
assignment method to start with is satisfactory, and the 
only reason that some of these schools are black is because 
the whites don't show up, 1 don't believe we would complain.

THE COURT: All right. So if that is what happened
last time, your complaint now would be ill-founded? Assuming. 

MR. ALLEN: Assuming a non-racial assignment to start
with?

THE COURT: Yes, assuming that this was a non-racial 
assignment last time and that the resulting black schools is 
because certain white students didn't show up, like you just 
said if that happened next year, you wouldn't complain. As­
suming that that were a fact now, then your complaint on that 
score of student assignment is ill-founded now?

MR. ALLEN: 
THE COURT: 
MR. ALLEN:

Well, I guess the answer to that is obvious. 
Of course,obviously yes.
But I contend that that is not what hap­

pened .



-52-
tioned something about supervisors. Frankly, I*m not -- I 
have no knowledge of the way in which the supervisors were 
assigned. I have no knowledge --

THE COURT: Well, I think that the supervisors, of
course, have to be assigned on the same basis as teachers 
and both of them, of course, require the question of quali­
fications. And incidentally, you may recall on the question 
of teachers, that in connection with either East ;or West 
Feliciana, I don't remember which one, where the School Board 
contemplated using a teacher qualification test for the pur­
pose of laying off teachers if they had to lay them off, 
and the negro plaintiffs in the case sought a restraining 
order and injunction, and we heard that case, and I held that 
they did have the right to use this test, as long as it was 
not the sole criterion, as long as it was one of several cri­
teria, to decide who was a qualified teacher. And then I 
held in that case at that time that there could be no discri­
mination, because when they laid teachers off they would have 
-- when they decided who would remain, they would have to have 
whites competing against whites, and negroes against negroes, 
thus maintaining the proper balance or ratio of white to negro 
teachers in the school system. That was my understanding of 
Singleton.

Much to my surprise, the Court of Appeals said I 
misunderstood Singleton. They said there «a. no requirement



-53-
that the ratio of faculty remain the same, as long as the 
first initial assignment was on a non-discriminatory basis 
that if you did as I said, tried to maintain the ratio as I 
thought the Court of Appeals had mandated, they said that 
would be putting am emphasis on race, and we couldn't put an 
emphasis on race; and so after that, it was purely a question 
of qualifications without discrimination as to race or color; 
and that the percentage did not have to remain the same, if 
the initial assignment was made properly.

So that seems to be the interpretation of Single* 
ton. I didn't interpret it that way, but they have inter­
preted it that way that you do not have to maintain the 
same ratio of white and colored teachers, as long as the 
initial assignments are made that way, then after that it's 
a question of not negroes competing against negroes, and 
whites against whites as I thought it would require in order 
to maintain the balance, the Court of Appeals said, "No,
that s not so." And they said I misunderstood the require­
ments of Singleton.

So I think you have to keep that in mind when 
you're talking about both faculties and supervisory positions.

MR. ALLEN: Well,I think that is also my interpreta­
tion, that if you have met the Singleton ratio, then your obli­
gation to hire, fire, promote and demote is on a non-racial, 
non-discriminatory b a s i s .  But I might suggest that Singleton



-54-
also says that it must be according to non-racial objective 
criteria, which the school board must formulate and make 
clear what their non-racial objective criteria are, because 
frequently, as everybody knows --

THE COURT: Well, of course. That has never been
questioned, in any event, in cases of criteria.

MR. ALLEN: It is very easy to make assignments --
personnel assignments on a purely subjective basis which 
doesn't give you much basis to --

THE COURT: Well, of course, and if that happens
that is matter for a specific complaint. We have had some 
of those complaints and we've heard them and we've resolved 
them. And I might say they have always been resolved without 
a great deal of difficulty, some one way and some the other, 
but those things have come up and they are subject to indi­
vidual complaints as long as the formula to be applied is 
properly laid down.

All right.

MR. CHACHKIN: May it please the Court, I will try to be 
very brief on behalf of the plaintiffs. I will point my re­
marks towards the Court's questions to Mr. Allen.

First of all with regard to whether or not the 
Court takes account of the actual enrollment this year as 
contrasted to the projections of the school board, I point 
out that in the Mobile case, the Supreaw Court noted that



the enrollment figures for the 1970-71 school year shows 
that the projection on which the Court of Appeals based its 
plan for Metropolitan Mobile were inaccurate, and went on 
to note that there were substantially greater number of 
black schools that had been projected, and they did not 
inquire in their opinion or suggest that it was the subject 
of inquiry whether this had happened entirely or partially 
or what part of those students left the system or to what
extent because white students were attending other schools 
in the system.

I would like to suggest plaintiffs' view of the 
facts of this case in light of Swann and it is as follows:

The HEW plan that was ordered into effect in a two- 
step process by this court beginning in 1969-70, paired con­
tiguous traditionally white and black schools in this parish. 
The plan was put into effect in grades 1 through 6, and there 
was a substantial drop in the attendance in the public schools 
of white students in those grades. This Court thereupon al­
lowed modification for the school year 1970-71, the effect of 
which was to return essentially to zoning between each paired 
school, with the exception of Batchelor and Innis which remained 
combined with students to be assigned according to a testing 
procedure and transferred back and forth.

THE COURT: Well, let me point this out to you: I'm
not really interested in all of that. I'm interested in the



-56-
problem at hand. What do we do If the schools become resegre­
gated because of the fact the whites move out and go to pri­
vate schools? Because I studied carefully the HEW <: ' ~
plan; I studied your plan; I studied the Government's plan, 
and 1 finally allowed the School Board to implement their 
plan; and that was an acceptable plan both to this court and 
the Court of Appeals. And the question now is whether or not 
it has worked. And if it has not worked, the question is 
What could you do that would be better. You liked the HEW 
plan, 1 didn't. One was as good as the other. It was a matter 
of choice and I took the position with all the school boards 
that where there was a matter of choice involved, and one plan 
was essentially as good .smother, that the operation of the 
schools should be left in the hands of the school boards and 
not in the hands of some New York lawyer or HEW, because they 
don't know anything about our problems, and the school board 
does. And I still take that position now. But, of course, 
as I said at the commencement of this hearing, the plan of 
the school board must meet the constitutional requirements.

Now, I ask you as I asked the prior gentleman, 
what do we do if we shift around 1244 students, shuffle them 
up again, what do we do next year if we are faced with the 
same thing? When is the ending?

MR. CHACHKIN: L e t me t r y  to  answer i t  as c le a r l y  as I  
c a n . I'm  not s u g g e s tin g  th a t we have to  d r a ft  a plan  based

l



-57-
on the 1244 white students who stay in the system.

THE COURT: Well, I think we must, because we have
lost the 1800 students, you see.

We’re talking now -- our plan has got to be confined 
to the school system; and the school system as presently com­
prised for the next year is 3688 negroes and 1244 whites.
Now, that is our school system and they are distributed as 
shown on both your exhibit and the Government’s —  and 
the plaintiff’s. Now, what are we going to do with those
students? I have no control over the other 1800 any longer, 
you see.

MR. CHACHKIN: I understand that, your Honor, and to 
answer your question directly, I must answer it in this fashion 
that had the HEW plan been fully implemented in all twelve 
grades and had all of the white students withdrawn, there was 
nothing for the court to do to compel the attendance of those 
white students back in the public schools. Or to take a lesser 
example, had all but one hundred white students withdrawn, I 
don't believe there is any requirement for the court the fol­
lowing year direct that those one hundred white students be 
distributed four, five or twenty or thirty, however it would 
work out between every school. But that, in plaintiffs’ view, 
is not the situation that we have.

THE COURT: What is the difference? In stead of a
hundred you heve got 1244. But a.lde fro» that, vhet'e the



-58-
difference?

MR. CHACHKIN: It is our position that there must be a
reshuffling based on the number of white students remaining 
in this system --

THE COURT: What would you have me do?
MR. CHACHKIN: -- had a proper order been entered -- 
THE COURT: What would you suggest?
MR. CHACHKIN: We would like to see the HEW plan -- 
THE COURT: Well, I don't like the HEW plan, I dis­

carded that in favor of a better plan submitted by the School 
Board. Now, with that out of the question, starting from 
scratch, looking at the figures we have here and the distri­
bution now, that is all we're talking about -- we have a dis­
tribution here, according to your figures, what do we do with
the current make up of the student body among these children? 
What would you suggest?

MR. CHACHKIN: Your Honor, it is our position that the 
current plan does not conform to the standards.

THE COURT: Why?

MR. CHACHKIN: Because under its own projections, it 
was designed to achieve schools, a set of schools that was 
above or very nearly majority white and another set of 
schools that was very predominantly black in order to make 
it acceptable for white students to stay in the system.
In other words, to compare it with the HEW pairing, each 

group of two schools under the HEW pairings would have sub-



-59-
stantially the same ratio

THE COURT: All right, let me ask you this: supposing
you took all the schools, total up the number of negroes, di­
vided them by the number of schools, and took the total number 
of whites and divided them by the number of schools and then 
assigned that number of whites and negroes to every school 
in the system; supposing we did that and then, supposing next 
year when school started the white students assigned to cer­
tain schools decided not to go, what would you< do then?

MR. CHACHKIN: I wouldn't do anything.
THE COURT: You would say everything was fine, you

have got a good system.

MR. CHACHKIN: I would say that the school system was 
operating unitary system to the extent --

THE COURT: So you would have no concern about the
students who leave the system, you would have no concern at 
all?

MR. CHACHKIN: It would concern me, but I don't believe 
there is anything legally that can be done. I would point 
out in West Baton Rouge Parish, an HEW plan has been imple­
mented and some figures that I have seen indicate that white 
students are slowing returning to the school system. It's 
our position that the school board's alternative proposed 
last year was an effort to entice white students to stay 
in the system by giving then schools to attend that were



-60-
tnajority or very nearly majority white, despite the fact 
that this is a predominantly black school system.

THE COURT: You say majority or very nearly majority.
Let me read you the figures.

234 blacks, 170 whites.
238 blacks, 222 whites.
361 blacks, 131 whites.
164 blacks, 179 whites.
195 blacks, 283 whites.

Is that very nearly majority, overwhelmingly 
white or black?

MR. CHACHKIN: I believe the projections were closer.
THE COURT: I'm using your figures.
MR. CHACHKIN: These are the actual enrollment figures.
THE COURT: That is all I'm concerned with. We're

not talking about projections. Projections mean nothing other 
than something we guess at to start out with; but the test is: 
Has it worked? And we have to look at the results to deter­
mine whether or not the system has worked. These are the 
figures. Now, does this show that this plan put into effect 
by the school board enticed white people back by putting them 
in schools where they would be an overwhelming majority of 
white students as compared with negroes in certain schools? 
That is all I asked you.

MR. CHACHKIN: Your Honor, what I  b e lie v e  i t  shows is



- 61-

that it enticed some white students back into the system by 
giving them a school to attend that would have a much more 
favorable, if not majority white, a much more favorable white 
representation than the adjacent traditionally black school 
which the School Board's own projection shows would be very 
predominantly black, and in fact none of the white students 
who were supposed under the zoning to attend those tradi­
tionally black schools where they would be in a very sub­
stantial minority compared to their neighbors at the adja­
cent school, attended that school. I don't think it's sur­
prising; I don't think that the School Board can claim that 
they didn't expect that to happen. The whole design of the 
alternative plan was to provide a great number of white stu­
dents at one of the schools --

THE COURT: That is purely a conclusion and a fig­
ment of your imagination, sir, as shown so clearly by the 
figures involved in this case. Purely and simply something 
to come in and argue about, because the figures don't bear 
you out. You keep talking about projections; I'm talking 
about actual current figures and they don't bear that out.

MR. CHACHKIN: Well, I don't want to press my disagree­
ment with the court about a conclusion from the facts. I 
think and what I am arguing about essentially is the suffi­
ciency of the plan that was put into effect last year on
its face.



THE COURT: I am more concerned -- The sufficient/ 
Of the plan on Its face has been approved by thl. Court and
the Court of Appeals. We are no. concerned with the worka- 
bility of the plan.

MR. CHACHKIN: Your Honor, I must read the Court of 
Appeals order on that appeal, it is ordered that appellee's 
motion to dismiss the appeal filed in the above styled and 
numbered cause is hereby granted without prejudice to further 
proceedings in the district court which may be warranted in 
this school desegregation case.

THE COURT: Well, of course. They have ordered us
to keep jurisdiction over everyone of these cases for the
last ten years, and we can open them at any time, and we
have been told to open them any time there is a com plaint

filed. And that is  what you have done is  f i l e d  a com p lain t.

But they dismissed the appeal and refused to upset the plan
that was put into effect, and it simply is not like the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to be denying an appeal in
a school case if they thought there was something wrong with
the plan, I'll tell you that, and nobody ought to know that 
better than you.

MR. CHACHKIN: I certainly agree with that, your Honor; 
however, it was a dismissal on the ground that the notice of
appeal was filed late.



-63-
THE COURT: They don’t care about the niceties of

procedures in the Court of Appeals if they think there has 
been something amiss in the question of a desegregation case 
in the schools. Now, don't try to make me believe that.
That would be a new twist for the Court of Appeals to be 
worried about whether or not there has been notice, when 
cases have been decided by telephone conversation.

MR. CHACHKIN: I continue to maintain, your Honor, 
that the Court of Appeals dismissal was not a ruling on the 
merits and I would point to a recent decision involving —  

the main issue taken up on that appeal was the fact of the 
Batchelor-Innis testing plan. In Lenmon versus Bossier 
Parish School Board, the Court of Appeals declared that 
a school district could not go to a testing plan in one 
part of the parish, after only one semester, under a uni­
tary plan -- that happened to be an HEW plan also. It sa*d:
We think at a minimum this means that the district in ques­
tion must have for several years operated as a unitary sys­
tem. So I think we are still back in the same position
and that the Court of Appeals decision doesn't foreclose 
our interest.

I m willing to deal with it on the basis of the 
actual enrollment. I think the actual enrollment shows 
that this plan has not worked. It has not worked as it was 
projected by the school board; and the actual results, as well,



-64-
I would maintain, as a projection --

THE COURT: Do you think if it worked like this in
New York, it would have been upset? If you had schools of 
this makeup in New York, would it have been upset, because 
students refused to go to one school or another?

MR. CHACHKIN: If students withdraw from the system, 
there is no way they can be made to attend; but I think that 
students who do attend the system at the time that a plan is 
first implemented -- and this was the first year that a uni­
tary plan -- or a plan considered to be unitary for all 
twelve grades was implemented, I think at least initially
and for several years that plan must work and eliminate one 
race schools.

THE COURT: In other words, if we can prove ourselves
innocent for a certain number of years, we can be treated 
the same as New York, is that right? Except that they don't 
have to prove themselves innocent for a period of years, is 
that supposed to be what you do?

MR. CHACHKIN: Well, I disagree with the de jure - de 
facto distinction as much as the court does; I don't believe 
there has ever been a case in the State of New York in which
the court has found de jure segregation and then allowed 
this sort of arrangement to continue. There have been very 
few cases. There are cases elsewhere in the north and I 
think the co u rts have r e je c te d  p laps p ro ffe re d  th a t would have



achieved these results.

In terms of our suggestion for action at this time,
I believe that there can be only one effective way to desegre­
gate the schools which remain all black and to desegregate the 
schools in Pointe Coupee Parish generally, and that is to pair 
each group of schools, Batchelor-Innis, and to eliminate the 

requirement which results of all black students to regular 
classes at Batchelor, Morganza-Labarre, Poydras-Rosenwald, 
Rougon and St. Alma, Livonia and Valverde; and to require 
that students in any particular grade level in the area 
presently served by each group of schools in a pair, handle 
one of those groups, and students in another grade level 
the other one.

I just want to go very briefly, the faculty, I 
certainly agree with everything that has been said before 
about the fact that the Singleton ratios are not met; and 
I don't think there is any dispute between the parties about 
the fact that they must be met.

I would just like to finally say, that as far as 
the supervisory personnel is concerned, that we do not read 
Singleton to require, I think, what Mr. Ward suggested- 
We were reading it to require -- our point simply was that 
in the past in the dual school system parishwide personnel 
were always white; and that, in effect, having four supervi­
sors who are white and one supervisor who is b la ck  in a ma-



- 66 -
jority black parish, amounted to proving a prism facie case 
of discrimination; and „e make no cialm that the white super- 
visors are unqualified, and we are very heartened at the re­
presentation that the next supervisor to be selected will be 
black, I think that if that happens, the District will have
gone a long way towards rebutting any inference of di.crimi- 
nation

m  COURT: All right. The St. Helena case.
-0O0 -

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE:
The undersigned in his capacity of Official Court Reporter, 
United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 
hereby certifies the above and foregoing sixty-six (66) pages 
constitute the transcript of his original stenographic record

“ade by hlm ln the ab° -  entitled and nurtured cause, heard 
In open court on August 11, 1971, before the Honorable E. 
Gordon West, United State. District Judge, presiding.'
Baton Rouge, Louisiana .
November 20, 1971. ^

®^^®ial Court Reporter.