Brooks v. County School Board of Arlington County, Virginia Appellees' Brief and Appendix

    U n ite d  S ta te s  C ourt ot A p p e a ls
F or the F ourth Circuit

IN THE

No. 8708

Gloria B rooks, et ah., Appellants 
v.

County S chool B oard of A rlington County, V irginia 
et al., Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division

APPELLEES' BRIEF AND APPENDIX

J ames H. Simmonds
1500 North Courthouse Road 
Arlington, Virginia

F rank L. B all 
1437 North Courthouse Road 
Arlington, Virginia

Attorneys for Appellees

P ress of B y r o n  S. A d a m s , W a sh in g t o n , D. C.



INDEX TO BRIEF

Page
Statement of the Case .....................................................  1
Questions Involved ...........................................................  5
Argument on Sub-question (a) of Question 2—Legality 

of Hoffman-Boston D istr ict...................................... 6
Argument on Sub-question (b) of Question 2—-Legality 

of Right to Transfer to Schools Having Racial 
Majority of the Transferee...............................   11

Argument on Action of Court in Dissolving the Injunc­
tion Issued in 1956 and Dismissing the Case from 
the Docket .................    16

CASES CITED
Allen v. School Board of Charlottesville, 203 F. Supp.

225 ........................................................................... .12 15
Briggs v.’ Eliiott’ 132 F. Supp.’ 776 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !  i l l ’ 14 
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 139 F. Supp.

468 ....................................................... 10,11,12,13,14,15
Goss v. School Board of Knoxville, 301 F. 2d 1 64 ........13,14
Kelley v. Board of Education of the City of Nashville,

270 F. 2d 209, certiorari denied, 80 S. Ct. 293 . . .  .13,14 
Maxwell v. County Board of Education of Davidson 

County, Tenn., 301 F. 2d 828 ...................................  14

CASES CRITICIZED
United States v. Swift, 286 U.S. 1.06, 52 S. Ct. 460, 76 

L. Ed. 999, cited on page 15 of Appellants’ B r ie f.. 18

VIRGINIA STATUTES CITED 
Regular Session 1956

Statute Abolishing Elected School Boards, pages 
949, 950 .........................................................................  3

Special Session 1956
Chapter 68, Providing for Closing of Schools in case

of Integration .............................................................  4
Chapter 70, Setting Up a State Pupil Placement 

Board with Exclusive Authority to Assign Pupils 4 
Chapter 71, Cutting Off the Expenditure of Funds 

to Schools in Case of Integration............................  4



IN THE

U n i t e d  S t a t e s  Court  of  A p p e a l s
P oe the F ourth Circuit

No. 8708

Gloria Brooks, et al., Appellants
v.

County School B oard of A rlington County, V irginia, 
et al., Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division

APPELLEES' BRIEF

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The facts in this case are very simple and taken in their 
due course are not difficult to comprehend and construe. 
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decisions of 1954 and 1955 in 
the integration cases, Virginia operated a racially segre­
gated school system, and the school authorities in the 
County of Arlington, as a school district, were under legal 
obligation to follow the laws of the state under which they 
held office and consequently, of course, the school system in



2

Arlington was administered on what is commonly referred 
to in this case as a dual system of separate and distinct 
schools for the white and Negro races.

For the purpose of administering the educational system 
of the County, the area was divided into school attendance 
districts. One of the districts set up has been referred to 
in these proceedings from the beginning as the Hoffman- 
Boston District. It was divided into two parts, to-wit, the 
northerly district and the main district. The main Hoff­
man-Boston District had been originally laid out, the nec­
essary building had been erected and the schools were 
operated for the benefit of a large community, mostly pop­
ulated by Negroes in the southerly part of the County. The 
Northerly part of the Hoffman-Boston District included 
what is generally known as Hall’s Hill, a very much 
smaller Negro section in the northern part of the county. 
There are also some scattered Negro residents in other 
areas. The main Hoffman-Boston District contained 
the only Negro junior and senior high schools and 
also an elementary school, and the buildings within the 
northern part of the district were for elementary pupils 
only. As a result for administrative purpotses, the Negroes 
throughout the County entitled to enter junior and senior 
high schools attended the facilities in the southern or main 
Hoffman-Boston District and the elementary scholars of 
the Negro Race attended the Negro school nearest to 
their residence.

The schools for white children were at first established 
in very definite well knit residential communities. The 
population began its great increase in the 30’s and has 
proceeded at a very rapid rate ever since and, consequently, 
there have been many new attendance districts established 
for the white schools. The community for which the main 
Hoffman-Boston District had originally been laid out to 
serve also showed some considerable growth in residents 
but they were generally contained in the same geographical



3

area. Consequently there have been practically no changes 
in the main Hoffman-Boston District. It still serves a 
well knit community with facilities to take care of the 
students in the neighborhood for which it was originally 
designed. The Negro children in all of the remainder of 
the County now attend the Langston Elementary School 
which serves the Negro settlement at Hall’s Hill and for­
merly white schools which are set up in the geographical 
school attendance districts in which their homes are located.

After the Supreme Court’s decision of 1955, a commis­
sion was set up in Virginia, known as the G-ray Commis­
sion, to study and report on a state policy. Assuming 
that the recommendations of this Commission would be 
followed by the Virginia Legislature, the Arlington County 
School Board on January 14, 1956, adopted a resolution 
providing that integration would be permitted in elemen­
tary schools in the County in the fall of 1956 and in 
high schools in the fall of 1957.

This action of the School Board created a furor in the 
Legislature and the latter by an Act approved March 
31, 1956, (Acts of Assembly of Virginia 1956, pages 939-50) 
took away from the County of Arlington its authority 
to elect its school board and provided that thereafter 
counties in the Arlington classification should select the 
school trustees by the governing body, to-wit, the County 
Board and provided that no school board for any county 
or city should be elected by popular vote.

Before the resolution passed by the County School Board 
in January 1956, could be put in force to govern the school 
session of 1956-1957, the Legislature was called into special 
session and passed a number of acts, the most severe of 
which provided for the closing of the public schools in any 
county in which a Negro was actually admitted to a for­
merly all white school; for the cutting off of public funds 
to any county in which any integration took place; and 
for setting up a State Pupil Placement Board in which



4

all the power of enrollment or placement of pupils in 
and the determination of school attendance districts for 
the public schools in Virginia was vested. The local 
school boards and the division superintendents of schools 
were thereby divested of all authority then or at any fu­
ture time to determine the school to which any child should 
be admitted. (Acts of Assembly, Special Session 1956, 
Chapters 68, 70 and 71).

From this time on until the above enactments were de­
clared illegal by the courts, the County School Board 
was operating with two swords over its head, to-wit, (1) 
the injunctive order issued by this Court to the effect 
that no child should be forbidden to enter a school strictly 
because of his race or color and (2) the provisions of the 
law to the effect that the local school boards were entirely 
devoid of any power or authority to admit pupils and the 
other enactments closing schools and cutting off the reve­
nues under the conditions stated. I f  they had admitted 
the students as ordered by this Court at any time prior 
to 1959, the schools would have been closed and they would 
have been acting in violation of the state law which they 
had sworn to obey and, on the other hand, if they refused 
to obey the injunction which required them to do the thing 
which state law forbade, they would have been subject to 
penalties by this Court. As soon as these state laws were 
out of the way, the Legislature in its extra session of 
1959 by enactments becoming effective March 1, 1960, pro­
vided for the placement of pupils by the local boards under 
rules and and regulations promulgated by the State Board 
of Education. It was sometime before these rules were 
promulgated by the State Board, but promptly after that 
promulgation the School Board in Arlington County 
adopted placement rules putting the attendance areas 
strictly on a geographical basis providing that students 
should be placed and assigned to the school districts in 
which they reside with the single exception that a child 
should be permitted to attend a school in which his race



is in the minority but not compelled to do so, (See Ex­
hibit B, Appellants’ Appendix 91a)

From the date of the adoption of the said Exhibit B 
forward, the schools of Arlington County have been on a 
completely integrated basis and no person has been denied 
entrance in any school because of his race or color.

The Appellants’ statements on page 19 o f their brief to 
the effect that the School Board had a long prior history 
of disobedience to the July 31,1956 injunction during which 
the courts were compelled to strike down “ a sophisticated 
series of evasive schemes and maneuvers designed to frus­
trate the original desegregation order”  are not supported 
by facts. At no time has the court failed to recognize 
that the County School Board was acting in good faith 
under extremely trying conditions.

With the passage of the rules and policies as to ad­
missions and procedures for placement or assignment of 
pupils set out in said Exhibit B, the transition period from 
a desegregated school system to an integrated system in 
the County of Arlington was completed.

QUESTIONS INVOLVED

1. The main question involved is whether the permanent 
injunction granted by this Honorable Court in 1956 against 
racial discriminations was porperly dissolved by this Court 
in view of the fact that the transition period has elapsed 
and the schools of Arlington are now fully integrated.

2. Subordinate to the main question but necessarily em­
bodied therein are the two further questions (a) whether 
the Hoffman-Boston District is a proper geographical pupil 
placement area and (b) whether the provision permitting 
pupils in a racial minority in any school to transfer out­
side of that school district where the same provision applies 
to all races and colors is valid.



6

We believe that the simplest method of presenting these 
questions is not to follow the above order of statement 
but discuss the Hoffman-Boston District first, the racial 
minority rule second and the main rule third. These 
questions are, of course, interrelated.

HOFFMAN-BOSTON DISTRICT

The Hoffman-Boston District was established prior to 
1948. Because of the segregated system that was then in 
force, another small district covering the Negro community 
of Hall’s Hill was considered for administrative purposes 
to be a part of the Hoffman-Boston District. This small 
district which we have heretofore referred to as the north­
ern end of the Hoffman-Boston District was eliminated 
during the pendency of these proceedings, and the children 
of high school age in that district are now assigned to 
formerly all-white schools. The validity of the Hoffman- 
Boston District as at present constituted has been the sub­
ject of investigation in this litigation and its present boun­
daries have been approved and accepted by the trial court 
as a proper geographical layout.

In the hearing of February 5, 1962, now appealed from, 
Mrs. Campbell, who was then Chairman of the School 
Board and had also served previousi terms as a member, 
stated that the criteria for setting up the school attend­
ance district were the capacity of the school, the accessi­
bility, transportation, and safety of the pupils (Appellees’ 
Appendix, p. 17).

Mr. Joy, a former Chairman and still a member of the 
School Board, stated that the district lines were laid out 
to include “ all or none”  of a natural neighborhood within 
the area of a particular school and that among the criteria 
was the capacity of the school, the walking safety, the 
accessibility and the avoidance of unnecessary change. 
(Appellees’ Appendix pp. 3-4). At another hearing in this 
case, Mr. Joy stated, “ We feel very strongly, however, that



7

in tlie interest of maintaining equivalent balance among 
the schools within the community, of providing the best 
possible education, that the south Hoffman-Boston Dis­
trict was, as set up, is a logical ungerrymandered district 
which represented the best judgment on the matter of at­
tendance areas.”  (Appellees’ Appendix, p. 15) Again 
Mr. Joy said, “ The south Hoffman-Boston area, as was 
established, is a logical attendance area for the Hoffman- 
Boston School.”  (Appellees’ Appendix, p. 15) (See also 
Dr. Joy, Appellees’ Appendix, pp. 2-4, etc.)

In its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed on 
September 17, 1958, by the trial court herein, the Court 
commented on the Plaintiffs’ contention that the Hoffman- 
Boston District was illegally maintained as follows:

“ Plaintiffs urge that invalidity of the assignments 
is conclusively established by the result, that is, that 
all Negro pupils remain in the Hoffman-Boston School. 
Though plausible, the argument is not sound. Actu­
ally, the principal reason for the result is the geo­
graphical location of the residences of the plaintiffs, 
indeed of the entire Negro population in Arlington 
County. It is confined to two sections, the Hoffman- 
Boston area and the previous, small northern division 
of the Hoffman-Boston, several miles apart. Hoffman- 
Boston is by far the larger Negro area. This situa­
tion seemingly would be frequently found in areas, 
like Arlington County, urban in character.
“ It occurs, too, from the relatively small Negro popu­
lation in the County. The condition now does not differ 
greatly from that noted in this court’s opinion of Sep­
tember 1957. Then there were 1432 Negroes in all 
of the County’s schools. This compared to some 21,000 
white students. The latter are scattered throughout 
the County. The concentration of Negro population 
is confirmed in this case by the fact that only one white- 
school parent was available to testify as a resident of 
Hoffman-Boston district.”



And later on:
‘ ‘ The court is of the opinion that Attendance Area, 
Overcrowding at Washington and Lee, and Academic 
Accomplishment clearly are valid criteria, free of 
taint of race or color. It concludes also that these 
criteria have been applied without any such bias. It 
cannot say that the refusal of transfers on these 
grounds is not supported by adequate evidence.”  (Ap­
pellants’ Appendix 56a, 57a)

In the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by 
the trial court on July 25, 1959, the Court states:

“ The criteria used by the School Board in 1958, and 
then for the most part approved by the court, have 
been employed by the Board in the present assign­
ments. The criteria are still approved.”  (Appel­
lants Appendix 68a)

In the same statement of Findings of Fact and Conclu­
sions of Law, the Court ruled that the applications of 
pupils 2, 3, 4, 9, 14, 15, 18, 23, 24 and 25 were all being 
denied because they live outside of the districts of the 
schools they sought to enter. All of them lived within the 
Hoffman-Boston School area. The Court in approving 
the Hoffman-Boston geographical attendance district then 
said:

“ Considering school bus routes, safety of access and 
other pertinent factors, it cannot be found that the 
School Board’s assignments are arbitrary or predi­
cated on race or color. The bounds of Hoffman-Boston 
district do not deprive those within it of any advantage 
or privilege.”  (Appellants’ Appendix 71a)'

Again in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 
filed September 16, 1960 (Appellants’ Appendix 80a, etc.), 
the Court comments upon the attendance districts.

Judge Lewis in his Memorandum Opinion at the hearing 
on which this appeal is based stated as follows:

8



9

“ Originally, school boundaries were established by 
taking into consideration the size and location of the 
physical plant, the number of pupils to be accomodated, 
the distance between the residence of the child and 
the school, the traffic encountered en route, together 
with the purpose of carrying neighborhoods into the 
schools intact. These criteria have been followed in 
the establishment of attendance areas for new schools 
as erected and in the amendments1 of old attendance 
areas when and as necessitated.
“ There is no evidence in this case to sustain the charge 
that the geographical boundaries of the Hoffman-B os- 
ton and Langston schools were either established or 
are being maintained to perpetuate segregation. ’ ’ (Ap­
pellants ’ Appendix 157a)

We do not admit that the question of the validity of the 
Hoffman-Boston District is still open. Judge Bryan and 
Judge Lewis have both held that the district is a proper one. 
All of the testimony of members of the School Board is to 
that effect. The decisions of Judge Bryan have been con­
sistently appealed and consistently approved by this Hon­
orable Court. The question of the legality of this district, 
therefore, has already been litigated in these proceedings, 
has been sustained and the finding of the Court has been 
approved on appeal.

We have every reason to believe that the actual residents 
of the Hoffman-Boston District are satisfied with its boun­
daries. This is very strongly evidenced by other facts 
indicated in the record. In the spring of 1961, pursuant 
to state law, the School Board considered an attendance 
area map for the distribution of the pupils1 in the County 
system. Public hearings were held after due notices in 
the local newspaper and also distributed through the 
pupils of tlhe schools. Citizens were notified that they 
could come and look at the maps. The maps were dis­
played. Many citizens did come, some of whom were 
Negroes. The number included Mrs. Hamm who is one 
of the Plaintiffs in this case (erroneously referred to in



10

the transcript as Mrs. Hume). No Negroes raised any 
objection to the Hoffman-Boston District. Apparently the 
district has not only the approval of the Court but the very 
definite approval of the community which is not denied 
by any evidence herein. This type of a hearing has been 
held every five years when the regular decennial national 
census is taken and at the midway break between the same 
when there is an estimated or local census taken. Thereis 
no evidence whatever that there has ever been any objec­
tion raised at any of these meetings concerning the l lolT- 
man-Boston District. (Testimony of1 Elizabeth B. Camp­
bell, Appellees’ Appendix, pp. 19-20, 25-26).

In the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 
139 F. Supp. 468, the District Court of Kansas reviewed a 
somewhat similar situation and said:

“ It was stressed at the hearing that such schools as 
Buchanan are all-colored schools and that in them there 
is no intermingling of the colored and white children. 
Desegregation does not mean that there must be in­
termingling of the races in all school districts. It 
means only that they may not be prevented from inter­
mingling or going to school together because of race 
or color.”

Every time the District Court in the instant case has re­
fused on geographical grounds to transfer an applicant 
from the Hoffman-Boston District to another district, it 
has upheld the layout of the Hoffman-Boston District as 
a valid attendance district; and each time this Honorable 
Court has approved the action of the lower court as above, 
it, too, has approved the district as a proper one. This 
question, therefore, which has either been passed upon 
directly by the Court at former hearings and the ap­
proval o f which has been inherent in each of the decisions 
regardless of whether the question was specifically dis­
cussed in the opinion, is in our opinion no longer an open 
question but has been definitely decided in previous steps 
in this case. No change of conditions has been shown by



11

tihe Appellants to warrant this Honorable Court in chang­
ing the ruling on this question.

We submit, therefore, that the Hoffman-Boston District 
is a proper geographical pupil placement area laid out 
with due regard to the boundaries of the natural com­
munity which it serves and with effect being given to the 
questions of accessibility, transportation, safety and con­
venience of the people served within its boundaries.

IS THE RIGHT TO TRANSFER BECAUSE OF RACIAL 
MINORITY A VIOLATION OF THE APPELLANTS' 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?

This question is not a new one in litigation in various 
sections of the country concerning application of the Su­
preme Court’s decision in the Brown case. This rule of 
transfer has been definitely upheld by the United States 
District Court for the Western District o f Virginia and by 
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in several cases.

As a preliminary, the attention of the Court is directed 
to the per curiam opinion in Briggs v. Elliott, 132 F. Supp. 
776, mentioned by the learned District Judge in his Mem­
orandum of Opinion in this case. Mr. Justice Parker, in 
commenting upon the Brown case, stated that the Supreme 
Court had not decided that the states must mix persons of 
different races in the schools or must deprive them of the 
right of choosing the schools they attend. He goes on to 
say that what the Supreme Court had definitely decided 
was that a state may not deny to any person on account 
of race the right to attend its schools and that the Con­
stitution did not require integration but merely forbids 
discrimination. Especially apropos of the present situ­
ation was Mr. Justice Parker’s statement:

“ It does not forbid such segregation as occurs as 
the result of voluntary action. It merely forbids the 
use of governmental power to enforce segregation.”



12

“ The Constitution forbids the use of governmental 
power to enforce segregation. The 14th Amendment 
is a limtiation upon the exercise of power by the 
state or state agencies, not a limitation upon the 
freedom^ of individuals . . . Nothing in the Constitu­
tion or in the decisions of1 the Supreme Court takes 
away from the people freedom to choose the schools 
they attend.”

The difference between using the power of the state to 
forbid a person to enter its schools on account of his race 
on the one hand and the voluntary act of an individual 
pursuant to his own wishes in seeking a transfer is very 
marked. In the Brown case the Court was dealing entirely 
with the question of the state or one of its agencies saying 
to a child you shall not enter here because of your color, 
while in the rule under consideration the child is not being 
denied any right but is simply being allowed to exercise 
his own choice without compulsion or duress.

In Allen v. School Board of Charlottesville (Western 
District of Virginia), 203 F. Supp. 225, Judge Paul had 
under consideration a school plan that provided that all 
students (white and Negro) would be enrolled initially 
in the school district in which they lived and that pupils 
of either race being in the minority could transfer to a 
school where their race was in the majority. In Charlottes­
ville at that time Jefferson District was heavily populated 
by Negroes and the other districts of the city had a ma­
jority of whites. One hundred forty white pupils living 
in Jefferson District were transferred to other schools 
under this rule and fifty Negro students living in districts 
where the prevailing majority were wThite were transferred 
to Jefferson where the Negro race predominated. The rule 
provided that this type of transfer would be made by the 
Superintendent of Schools upon the application of the 
child involved or its parents.

The Court mentioned as an alternative to this policy all 
children could be assigned strictly on a geographical basis



13

with no transfers allowed which would result in enforced 
integration of all schools and commented that “ it is not 
believed that the law requires this, nor, apparently is it at 
present desired by a majority of either race.”  The Court 
proceeded to hold that this type of a rule would not violate 
the decision in the Brown case or the Constitution and that 
the rule itself wTas permissible and not discriminatory.

In Kelley v. Board of Education of the City of Nashville, 
United States Court of Appeals, 6th circuit, 270 F. 2d 209, 
228, 229, 230, certiorari denied, 80 S. Ct. 293, the rule under 
review was practically word for word identical with the, 
one at issue in the instant case. The Appellants charge 
there, as the Appellants do here, that this was an evasive 
scheme to circumvent the Brown decision and perpetuate 
segregation. The Court upheld the rule and stated that 
where a free choice was provided it was proper and not 
forbidden by the Supreme Court decisions and mentioned as 
many others have that the courts have not held that there 
must be intermingling of the races in all school districts.

In its opinion the Court said:
“ There is no evidence before us that the transfer 
plan is an evasive scheme for segregation. If the 
child is free to attend an integrated school and his 
parents voluntarily choose a school where only one 
race attends, he is not being deprived of his constitu­
tional rights.”

The above ruling has been passed on twice since the 
Kelley case by the 6th Circuit -Court of Appeals. The first 
case is that of Goss v. School Board of City of Knoxville, 
301 F. 2d 164. The Court upheld the rule and reaffirmed 
its ruling in the Kelley case on a similar provision with 
the additional comment:

“ This transfer provision functions only on requests 
with the students or their parents and not with the 
Board.”



14

A similar rale was before the same court in Maxwell v. 
County Board of Education of Davidson County, Tenn., 
301 F. 2d 828, the Court expressly adhered to its ruling in 
the Kelley rase and the Goss case and upheld the rule.

In the instant case Judge Lewis has gone very carefully 
into this question and has called attention to the fact that 
the evidence in this case indicates that a substantial num­
ber of both Negro and White parents desire the right to 
send their children to a school in which a majority of their 
race attend. (Appellants’ Appendix 164a). He reaches 
the same conclusion that Judge Paul does in very similar 
language and soundly applies the holding of Justice Parker 
in the Briggs case and the decisions of the 6th Circuit 
Court of Appeals above cited.

The Brown case and the present case are dealing with 
denial of rights. It is now very definitely the law of the 
land that discrimination cannot be exercised by a public 
body in dealing with the civil rights of the people. The 
only civil right involved in these proceedings is: the right of 
the Negro to enter a public school of Arlington County 
which under the appropriate and legal rules he would be 
entitled to enter and the power of the Court is in­
voked to enjoin a public body infringing upon his 
civil right to do so. We are dealing entirely with 
inhibitions. The rules laid down by the County School 
Board and now in force provide for a completely integrated 
system and under those rules any Negro child can enter a 
school in his geographical district in exactly the same man­
ner as any white child can. Before the rule is called into 
play, the child who desires a transfer must already be in an 
integrated school. There must be both white and Negro 
pupils. Having asserted his right to enter that school 
and that right having been recognized, accomplished and 
his entrance permitted, this rule then gives him the free­
dom if he so desires, to transfer to a school in which his 
race is in the majority. There is no attempt here to



15

perpetuate segregation for the schools o f Arlington County 
are already completely integrated under the rules laid 
down by the County School Board. I f  it so happens that 
white families move into the Hoffman-Boston District 
(and there is nothing to prevent it) their children would 
be definitely assigned to the Hoffman-Boston School. If 
colored children are reared in the Washington-Lee Dis­
trict (as they are), they would be assigned to Washington- 
Lee High School. Likewise, in all the other districts in 
the County. This freedom of choice, therefore, only arises 
after the civil right to enter a school without restriction 
as to race is recognized.

In the Brown case the Court states that the denial of 
a Negro’s right to enter a school simply because of his 
race or color gave to the Negro applicant an inferiority 
complex, the bad effect of which could hardly be 
estimated. There is no such inferiority complex in­
volved in this rule of transfer. He is already given 
an equal position in the school in his original assign­
ment to an integrated school. There is nothing humili­
ating to him in the situation. Having satisfied his 
demand or his civil rights, the rule then opens it up 
to his1 free choice as to whether he shall stay in that 
school or move to one in which his race prevails. 
No right, therefore, is denied to him. His freedom of 
choice under these circumstances is simply held open to 
him to exercise if he so desires.

This same choice is open to everyone without regard 
to race or color, and so long as the school authorities 
keep the current of free choice clear and uncontaminated, 
the rule is proper and legal and by no means discrimina­
tory.

That the rule is a wise one is shown in the Charlottesville 
case where it has been used widely by both races apparently 
to the satisfaction of all. That no one has appeared 
and testified in this1 case, either parent, student or



16

expert, against this rule indicates that it will be wisely 
used here. Judge Lewis specifically points out that 
“ there is no evidence in this case indicating the voluntary 
transfer provision of the Arlington rules of admission 
either has been or will he used to perpetuate racial dis1- 
crimination. ’ ’

We, therefore, submit on this particular question that 
it is not in any wise in conflict with the decisions of the 
Supreme Court; that it is a fair rule; that it does not deny 
anyone any civil right; that it is not discriminatory; and 
that it is in keeping with the freedom of choice which is 
one of our fond traditions; and that, therefore, it is legal 
and was properly approved by the lower court.

THE LOWER COURT WAS PLAINLY RIGHT IN DISSOLV­
ING THE INJUNCTION ISSUED IN 1956 AND DIS­
MISSING THIS CASE FROM THE DOCKET

We will not labor the Court with a long discussion on 
this question. The Supreme Court recognized there would 
be many local questions arising in the enforcement of its 
decision. On these questions it held that the school author­
ities have the primary responsibility of elucidating, assess­
ing and solving these problems and that the governing 
constitutional principle involved is that a student shall 
not be denied because of his color the right to attend any 
school which he is otherwise entitled to attend.

The function of the courts is to consider whether the 
action of the school authorities constitutes good faith im­
plementation of the governing constitutional principles.

With regard to the jurisdiction of the district courts, 
the Supreme Court very wisely states that it would be 
limited to the period of transition from a segregated 
system to an integrated system. When this period of 
transition is completed, there is no need of retaining the 
cases upon the docket or exercising any further jurisdiction 
over the matter and, in fact, the Supreme Court contem­



17

plates a definite restriction to the period of transition 
only.

Judge Lewis in his opinion (Appellants’ Appendix 166a) 
stated:

“ None of the plaintiffs in this case are now asserting 
a denial of any constitutional right. All issues raised 
by the pleadings have been adjudicated. All pupils 
residing in Arlington County are assigned to the school 
district in which they reside, regardless of race or 
color. All of the facilities and activities under the 
control of _ the Arlington County School Board are 
being administered on a non-diserkninatory basis— 
education, athletic, dramatic, social.”

All of the evidence in this case supports this conclusion 
of the trial judge and there is not a scrintilla of proof 
to the contrary.

In this case the dismissal is justified for two reasons 
(1) the transition period has elapsed and (2) the condi­
tions have completely changed and neither the injunction 
nor the pendency of the case is any longer needed.

The Appellants in their brief maintain that the only 
changed condition relied upon by the Defendant in support 
of its motion to dismiss “ is a claim of obedience to the 
injunction” . The facts do not at all support this state­
ment. When this case began, Arlington was operating 
under a segregated system. As it proceeded, the state 
laws were changed so as to forbid the local school board 
to make any placements or assignments in the schools. 
Statutes were enacted to cut off school funds and close the 
schools in case of any integration. All of these things 
are now passed. Segregation has faded into integration, 
the school fund provision has died of illegality and the 
school closing enactment has passed away from the same 
malady. The only change sought in this litigation was 
a change from the segregated to an integrated system. 
It has been completed. It was started before this suit



18

was even filed by tlie county school board when they had 
authority to make placements. It was completed as soon 
as the authority was returned to the county school board, 
and today the plan of integration as spelled out in the 
school board regulations for admissions and transfers is 
free of any racial taint or any discriminatory provision 
and this case is totally lacking in proof of any discrimina­
tion whatever since the plan was adopted.

The case of United States v. Swift (Appellants’ Brief 
15) which seems to be wholly relied upon by the Appellants 
is not at all in point. That case was brought because of 
anti-trust violations and was a continuing decree relating 
to a matter over which the jurisdiction of the courts had 
no limit in time. Here we have, however, the question of 
transition of certain functions of a public body with the 
time limited in the jurisdiction of the courts strictly to 
the period of transition. In other words, the transition 
having taken place, the whole matter over which the courts 
have jurisdiction is complete and ended. There is no 
need for the case to remain on the docket because there 
is nothing else to do. There is no need for the injunction 
because the transition sought by the injunction has been 
completed.

The fact that the Arlington School Board has acted in 
good faith has been observed by the Court in the memo­
randa filed with its conclusions. There is not a single one 
of the Plaintiffs asserting any denial of any constitu­
tional right. In short, questions involved in the litigation 
have been resolved and the limitation placed by the Su­
preme Court on the district courts has expired with the 
completion of the transition. The policy, custom, usage 
and practice of segregation on which the injunction of 
July 31, 1956, was issued has vanished into history and 
there is not a vestige of it left. It is plain, therefore, that 
the continuing supervision of the Federal Court by reason 
of said injunction constitutes an unnecessary and undesir­



19

able interference by the Federal government with officials 
of the sovereign State of Virginia in the conduct of a 
purely local, non-federal activity.

It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the District 
Court was plainly right in terminating the injunction and 
striking the case from the docket.

Respectfully submitted,

James H. S immgnds 
1500 North Courthouse Road 
Arlington, Virginia

F rank L. B ale 
1437 North Courthouse Road 
Arlington, Virginia

Attorneys for Appellees



APPENDIX



Page
Excerpt from Testimony of Thomas Edward Ratter .. 1
Excerpt from Testimony of Barnard J o y ......................1-12
Excerpt from Testimony of Elizabeth B. Campbell .. 12-21

INDEX TO APPENDIX



Excerpts from Testimony of Thomas Edward Rutter

September 11,1957
Questions By Mr. Robinson:

Q. Mr. Rutter, you gave some testimony before the last 
recess as to how you would formulate for white and 
Negro students respectively just to districts. Now the 
processes that have been employed for formulating school 
districts for both elementary and secondary students, for 
both whites and Negroes, of the present processes that 
you have used, have been used for the—isn’t something 
brand new—they have been used for some period of time, 
have they1? A. That’s correct.

Q. iSay during the entire term of office that you have 
occupied the office? A. I think it antedates that.

Q. Beg pardon? A. It goes beyond that.
Q. Goes back beyond that. Thank you very much. That 

is all.

APPENDIX

Excerpts from Testimony of Barnard Joy

July 21, 1960
Questions By Mr. Siramonds:

Q. Now, Dr. Joy, you mentioned that on each data sheet 
there was item marked school district. Will you, please, 
explain somewhat in detail to the Court how these school 
districts or attendance areas are arrived at? A. In any 
large school system it has the problem of equitable dis­
tribution of its students among its school buildings. With­
out attendance areas the teacher in one school might have 
40 pupils, while the teacher in the nearby school might 
have only 20. The establishment of attendance areas in 
the means by which teaching loads and educational op-



2

portunity are equalized. In the case cited an attendance 
line between these two schools should be drawn so that 
there is a class size of abont 30 in each of the two schools. 
Attendance areas have been used in Arlington for many 
years and there have never been dual areas. One criteria 
in their establishment is to keep them as constant as pos­
sible. There are some educational readjustments and to 
parents and children very disturbing, family and social 
disruptions when even though their place of residence re­
mains the same, the children are moved from one school 
to another before graduation.

The basic procedure in establishment of attendance areas 
is to determine total enrollment. Twelve thousand, for 
example, to determine the number of classrooms available, 
400 for example, and divide enrollment by classrooms to 
determine average class size. In the examples cited, 
12,000 divided by 400 gives 30. Each school is then assigned 
a quota. By multiplying its number of classrooms by the 
average class size for the system. In our example a 
6-classroom building would have a quota of 180. A 
12-classroom school a quota of 360, and a 20-classroom 
school a quota of 600. Location of each school building 
and its quota is put on the map. The number of students 
in each block is put on the map. Alternative lines between 
schools are tried to get a total map on which each school’s 
quota and the number of students living within the attend­
ance area are the same. Distance from the school is the 
first but not the only criteria in drawing attendance area 
lines between schools.

The 6-room school must have a smaller area, not to 
exceed its quota of 180. The 20-room school will have a 
much larger area to include' its quota of 600. It is in­
evitable that the line drawn between these two would be 
closer to the small school. This means; that some students 
living 6 blocks from the small school and 10 blocks from 
the large school will be in the attendance area of the 
large school. Some of the more important considerations



3

other than size and distance are walking safety and natural 
neighborhoods. To avoid having children cross major 
streets or highways, such streets or highways are fre­
quently used as the lines between two schools. I f  this 
were not done, Arlington would need many more school 
crossing guards than it has today. Small children living 
in a suburban area associate themselves with other chil­
dren in the neighborhood play groups. As they go to 
school they feel more secure and undertake school work 
more readily if they attend the same school as their 
playmates.

A  criteria in establishing lines is, therefore, to include 
all or none of a natural neighborhood within the attendance 
area of a particular school, determining which neighbor­
hood goes to which school is a matter of judgment, but is 
usually determined by one or more of the other criteria 
which are size, distance, walking safety and avoidance of 
unnecessary change.

While size of -the area in terms of pupil population is 
the major criteria, the application of the other criteria 
results in minor deviations which in some cases give one 
20-room school an enrollment of 640 or 32 per class and 
another an enrollment of 560 or 28 per class.

In summary, let me say that the establishment of at­
tendance areas is an absolute essential in providing rela­
tively equal educational opportunity for all children in 
a large school system, that many months of work assem­
bling and analyzing data on alternatives precede the estab­
lishment of areas, that changes in one school area affect 
other schools, that changes from year to year should not 
be made without good reason and that selection among 
possible alternatives is a matter of judgment that requires 
careful consideration of several important criteria.

Questions By Mr. Beeves:
The Court: Well, that was my error in following your 

testimony.



4

Now let me ask you one more question. How long 
have the school districts been in effect which are now 
represented on these four charts, exhibited on the board!

The Witness: Well, school attendance areas have been 
in effect since I have been on the Board for twelve and a 
half years.

Looking at the senior high chart, this school attendance 
here for the Yorbtown Senior High School is on the map 
for the first time in 1960-61 because the Yorktown Senior 
High School is just now being completed and is the school 
which will be occupied for the first time. Prior to this 
the map was divided into three school districts. When 
I  came on the Board twelve years ago we had a much 
larger district for Swanson which then existed.

The Court: Let me stop you right there on the senior 
high school. How long had the three areas been in effect, 
leaving out the Yorktown!

The Witness: The three areas had been in effect about 
six or seven years because Wakefield was occupied about 
six or seven years ago. I t ’s been newly built during this 
period.

The Court: Now, the condition of Yorktown District, 
does not diminish the Wakefield District as it existed prior 
to Yorktown’s coming into being, does it!

The Witness: I think it does. I can’t be 100 per cent 
sure, but whenever you get a new school in the picture, 
it tends to affect the lines for all the other schools.

The Court: Now will you tell me about the junior high 
school.

The W itness: The junior high schools when I came on the 
Board, we had a much larger area for Stratford. We had 
some junior high school pupils attending Washington-Lee. 
We had a much larger area for Jefferson. We had a Hoff- 
man-Boston area. Since coming on the Board, why, we have 
had new schools at iStratford, Williamsburg, Kenmore and 
Glunston which have changed the shape of the lines and the 
attendance areas because the enrollment during this period



5

in the junior highs has grown from about 2,000 when I 
came on the Board in ’48 to about 6,000 now. And the 
setting up of these attendance areas, it has been a process of 
first of all building new schools to keep up with the in­
creasing enrollment, trying to locate them as best we can 
to serve that enrollment. But then when yon had a new 
school and a certain capacity, you put down the capacities 
for all of your schools, plotted all of your pupils, and tried 
to give to each school the number of pupils that it was 
equipped to handle so that they would all have equal loads.

The Court: Well, then, the junior high school plats as 
it appears on the board is effective for the first time in 
the next session1?

The Witness: No, this as it appears, I believe, is un­
changed from last year. We, and I think maybe unchanged 
from the year before—we occupied Gfunston Junior High 
School in the fall of ’58 or ’59. I think this has been in 
effect about two years. Our last junior high school was 
this one and in ’58—now there have been similar changes 
on the elementary map and they are much too numerous 
to try to explain because we have had during this twelve- 
year period that I have been on the Board, this school is 
new, and we could go down, the list; this school is new, 
this school is new, this school is new.

The Court: Well, then, it is correct to say that there are 
numerous changes that will be effective for the first time 
this session in the elementary schools?

The Witness: No, there have been no, no elementary
schools this year. There were some changes in the chart 
in this map, I blieve, in the fall of ’59 because we had an 
addition here. But this is—were minor. The changes in 
the elementary schools in -the last three or four years have 
been very minor, because our problem and what this in­
volves is that the increasing enrollment grew out of the 
war babies, who first came into the elementary schools, so 
that our markedly increased enrollment in the elementary 
schools were in the years ’48 to ’56. Then our enrollment



6

since then has stayed level. It is, during the [period when 
you’re building new schools, take care of increasing enroll­
ment, that you have to change these attendance areas. 
Once your enrollment becomes level and your school planned 
adequate, then your attendance areas essentially remain the 
same so that these haven’t changed much in four years. 
Then the load moved on into the junior high where it is 
at the present time. This hasn’t changed much in the two 
years, and the senior high which has not yet received the 
brunt of the war babies was changed this year as we got 
the new school in preparation for that big increase that 
comes at that time.

Questions By Mr. Beeves:
Q. Dr. Joy, referring to the school districts on the senior 

high map, that is, Exhibit 1960-E, as I understand it, there 
are presently or at least for the forthcoming school year 
there are four high schools serving the Arlington County, 
is that correct'? A. That is correct.

Q. Yorktown, Wakefield, Washington and Lee and Hoff- 
man-Boston? A. That is correct.

Q. And the geographic boundaries of these school dis­
tricts, if  I  understood you, are relatively the same as they 
were except for the boundary which now encompasses York­
town, which will he in operation for the first time this com­
ing school year? A. That is right.

Q. Now I am pointing to what is the Hoffman-Boston 
Senior High District which appears to be something of an 
irregular-shaped island in the middle of Wakefield District. 
Would that he an apt characterization of this? A. It is 
at one side of the Wakefield District.

Q. Well, what I am—let me refer to it another way. A. 
There are—this is Government property over here.

Q. Well, there is, there appears to be on this map an 
area which would be southeast of the Hoffman-Boston Dis­
trict? A. That is right.



7

Q. Which is a part of the Wakefield District? A. That is 
right.

Q. So that now would it also be correct to say that the 
Hoffman-Boston Senior High School District is the only 
high school district which exists within another high school 
district? A. Because of the fact that this, this is non­
residential property, it is not within another high school 
district. In other words, this is essentially unzoned area 
here because it is nonresidential area.

Q. But all of the other high school districts including 
Wakefield have a dividing line which is contiguous to two 
districts. In other words, the dividing line, there is a divid­
ing line between Wakefield and Washington and Lee? A. 
Yes.

Q. There is a dividing line between Washington and Lee 
and Yorktown? A. Yes.

Q. But Hoffman-Boston, all of its boundaries' are within 
the Wakefield District? A. There is a dividing line between 
Hoffman-Boston and Wakefield; this portion over here is 
a nonresidential portion.

Q. Well, at least, as these lines are drawn on the map, 
all of the boundaries of Hoffman-Boston are within the 
Wakefield area; at least, there are no other lines which 
would indicate to the contrary? A. That is right.

Q. Now can you tell us, sir, what is the high school class 
size pupil-teacher ratio, whichever standard you use for 
Hoffman-Boston? A. The expected pupil-teacher ratio for 
Hoffman-Boston next year will be one teacher per 18.7 
pupils.

Q. And what is the ratio for Wakefield? A. One teacher 
per 20.9 pupils. In other words, class size is smaller in 
Hoffman-Boston.

Q. Well, now I think you told us previously that in de­
termining school districts one of the standards, or one of 
the criteria that was used was an effort to equalize pupil 
distribution among the several schools that might be af­
fected, is that correct, sir? A. That is correct.



8

Q. Well, now can yon tell ns when the Hoffman-Boston 
District as it now exists was first created insofar as yon 
know! A. Insofar as I know it was created prior to my 
becoming a member of the Board in 1948 on generally its 
present lines.

Q. Well, now, as it is presently created, then, or as it 
was created then at the time yon first knew it, has there 
been any adjustment of this district to reflect an effort to 
equalize the pupil-teacher ratio between this district and 
Wakefield? A. The adjustment in this area has been that 
of building additional classrooms at Hoffman-Boston to 
take care of the attendance within the area.

Q. I see, so that you have made, there has been no effort 
to, let’s say, redraw the line in such a way as it might 
include pupils from Wakefield in order to reduce the pupil- 
teacher ratio at Wakefield in comparison with Hoffman- 
Boston? A. One of the basic criteria used in establishment 
of attendance areas is that of avoiding change, if possible. 
And in this particular case we avoided change by building 
classrooms. This is something we try to do everywhere.

Q. And you do that, notwithstanding the pupil-teacher 
ratio at Wakefield apparently has not been able to keep 
pace, that is, the reduction in that with additional class­
rooms that you have built at Hoffman-Boston? A. I think 
it was earlier pointed out in my testimony that frequently 
the application of other criteria would give a range as much 
as from 28 to 32, around 30. In other words, 4. Here are 
maximum range on the junior and senior high schools, a 
range of 18.7 to 21.7 which exists at Kenmore Junior High, 
and is well within the concept of relatively equal situation.

Q. Well, now isn’t it also a fact, Dr. Joy, that the bound­
aries of the Hoffman-Boston District as they originally 
existed were set or established in order to include sub­
stantially, the substantial bulk of the Negro population as 
it then existed under our separate school system? A. I 
assume that those lines were set in line with the important 
criteria of neighborhood groups.



9

Q. And the neighborhood group factor involved with 
Hoffman-Boston. School at that time was the factor of race, 
isn’t that correct, sir? A. The play group, the neighbor­
hood group does sometimes break down on that basis.

Q. Now since 1954, or since 1956, when the Arlington 
County School Board has been under injunction by this 
Court to eliminate race as a factor in school assignments, 
has ithe Board reconsidered the existing boundaries of the 
Hoffman-Boston School District in any formal action? A. 
In no f  ormal action.

Q. So that the boundaries as they existed at the time 
when they were established to conform to neighborhood 
or racial patterns and as they exist today are substantially 
the same? A. They are substantially the same.

Q. With no reconsideration in eliminating that possible 
factor? A. Well, of course, the observation would be true 
in that we always try to observe the neighborhood relation­
ship factor.

Q. Now we speak of the neighborhood relationship fac­
tor. Let’s take the Hoffman-Boston School which is here, 
on a neighborhood-factor basis, let’s assume we have a 
Negro student living in this area. Now would the neigh­
borhood-factor basis relate that student more closely to this 
school or to, say, Wakefield School, which ;is here? A. I 
explained that the neighborhood-relationship factor was 
one in which, in a particular neighborhood, we would like 
to send a neighborhood to a single and a particular school. 
Now every school draws to several neighborhoods. Some 
of which are unrelated to each other, but within a single 
neighborhood, a neighborhood being a much smaller unit 
here. I  don’t know how many neighborhoods you would 
find here but possibly 10 or 15 and we don’t like to break 
up any one of those and send part one place, part another.

Q. Well, now may I ask you, Dr. Joy, for your knowl­
edge and observation of the population and its distribution 
in Arlington County, would it be fair to state that that 
characteristic of description most common to the neighbor-



10

hood which encompasses or which is encompassed within 
the Hoffman-Boston School District would he that of racial 
identification! A. This is a common factor, yes.

Q. That is the most common factor; wouldn’t that be 
true, for school purposes, play purposes! In other words, 
within the Hoffman-Boston District, going back now to the 
fact that the—it originally was created to serve the sep­
arate but equal school system—that the neighborhood 
factor most common to those pupils or students still living 
within that district would be that of race! A. Well, I 
don’t know as you can say one factor is more common than 
another. This was a common factor.

Q. Could you suggest any other that might be, that might 
distinguish, let’s say, the Hoffman-Boston School District 
neighborhood from the other neighborhood adjacent to it! 
A. Well, the common factor in all neighborhoods is prox­
imity of residence of the group.

Q. Well, on the basis of proximity of residence I think 
as we indicated on the map there would be some residences 
within the Hoffman-Boston School District which would be 
closer, let’s say, to Wakefield than it would to the Hoffman- 
Boston! A. Proximity of residence to each other is the 
factor in development of the neighborhood.

Question By Mr. Beeves:
Q. Now with reference to the junior high school map, 

and here we have a Hoffman-Boston Junior High School 
which I assume is in the same building, is that correct, sir! 
A. This is in the same building.

Q. Bight. Now here again your testimony generally with 
respect to the history of the school district boundaries 
which appear to be substantially the same on both maps, 
would be the same! A. That is right.

Q. In other words, that this was the school district orig­
inally created under the separate-buit-equal system, and 
that there has been no substantial change! A. There have 
been some but no substantial.



11

Q. No substantial change, and here again I believe we 
have the Hoffman-Boston School District actually cutting 
across or truncating the Guns ton Junior High District, is 
that correct, sir! A. Yes, that is the Gunston Junior High 
District.

Q. So that this area here which represents the City of 
Alexandria and was not in your school system would indi­
cate that the western extremity of the Hoffman-Boston 
District, the Hoffman-Boston School cuts into and cuts 
aeros the Gunston Junior High District dividing it—well, I 
suppose this would be east and west. In other words, the 
Hoffman-Boston School District actually divides the Gun­
ston Junior High School District east and west down to 
the line of the Alexandria schools ! A. Seems so on the map 
more than in actual case because the main thoroughfare, of 
course, is Shirley Highway and, of course, this situation is 
not unusual if one will look at the elementary map where 
one sees a school district like Page surrounding a school 
district like Cherrydale which grows out of the fact that 
the capacity of this building is small and, therefore, you 
draw an area big enough to take care of the capacity of 
this building, is large, and so it has a different-shaped dis­
trict to take care of enough pupils to fill the school’s quota.

Question By Mr. Beeves:
Q. The Hoffman, the South Boston, the South Hoffman- 

Boston area district as it presently, as it exists up until the 
present time, has been used solely for the purpose of making 
assignment of Negro students! A. The South Hoffman- 
Boston area as was established is a logically attendance 
area for the Hoffman-Boston School.

In answer to question by the Oourt:
We feel very strongly, however, that in the interest of 

maintaining equivalent balance among the schools within 
the community, of providing the best possible education,



12

that the South Hoffman-Boston district was, as set up, is 
a logical ungerrymandered district which represents the 
best judgment on the matter of attendance areas.
* * * * * * * * * *

Excerpts from Testimony of Elizabeth B. Campbell, Chairman
of the School Board, at the Hearing on February 5th, 1982

Direct Examination 

By Mr. Simmons:

Q. Will you please state your name and address? A. 
Elizabeth B. Campbell, 2912' North Glebe Road, Arlington, 
Virginia.

Q. You have some position with the School Board of 
Arlington County? A. I am the Chairman of the School 
Board.

Q. Have you served on the School Board prior to your 
most recent term? A. Yes.

Q. Will you please tell the Court the years that you have 
served on the Arlington County School Board? A. From 
1947 to 1955, and then I was returned 3 years ago. This 
is my third year.

Q. Mrs. Campbell, calling your attention to your first 
term during the year 1949, were there any maps as such 
which set forth the attendance areas in the schools of 
Arlington County? A. Not that we could find.

Q. You don’t know what occurred before that time as 
far as going to school? A. No, sir.

Q. What was done at that time and why with respect to 
making attendance area maps? A. Well, we needed the 
attendance area maps because though there were attendance 
areas, Mr. Kemp seemed to be the person who knew where 
they were and we were increasing the staff and getting 
ready to build new schools to take care of the increased en­
rollment and needed the map for reference so the attendance 
maps were made.



13

Q. What were the principal purposes of making those 
attendance areas or what were the criteria used in arriving 
at attendance areas ? A. Our first criteria was the capacity 
of the school. It had to he. And the second consideration 
was the accessibility of the school. There was no bus trans­
portation at that time, no school bus transportation and 
then we tried to consider the safety of the pupils. There 
were in many instances no sidewalks. There were some 
main highways to be crossed. Those were the chief consid­
erations.

Q. Calling your attention to that first map, isn’t it true 
that the Hoffman-Boston District, School District as shown 
on that map for the southern part of the county is almost 
identical with the Hoffman-Boston High School Area that 
is shown on the present map? A. As far as I know. There 
have been no actions of the Board to change any of these, 
so they must have been related. Any changes would have 
been related to land.

Q. Was it necessary to have put all the colored high 
school students within an attendance area in 1949 if you 
want to do it for the purpose of segregation? A. Tes, sir. 
We had segregated schools in Virginia.

Q. I mean the colored children would have had to go to 
colored schools regardless of whether they were in attend­
ance area, would they not? A. Yes, because we had segre­
gated schools.

Q. Isn ’t it true that the attendance area around the 
Hoffman-Boston High School was made with respect to the 
capacity of that school and the safety of the children at­
tending the school?

Mr. Reeves: Objection, if Your Honor, please. I think 
this is a leading question.

The 'Court: I will admit it is a trifle leading.
Mr. Simmonds: Yes, sir.
The Court: Frame it otherwise, Mr. Simmonds.



14

By Mr. Simmonds:
Q. Mrs. Campbell, can yon tell us to what extent, if any, 

the actual lines around Hoffman-Boston were drawn insofar 
as any segregation requirement was concerned?

The Court: You mean in 1949?
Mr. Simmonds: 1949.
The Witness: We had a segregated school system, Mr. 

Simmonds.
The Court: That was not the question, in 1949, was it?
Mr. Simmonds : That is the point I am bringing out.
The Witness : We had a segregated school system.

By Mr. (Simmonds:

Q. But, nevertheless, in 1949 you did draw lines around 
Hoffman-Boston to indicate the capacity and safety ele­
ments? A. Oh, yes.

Q. That has remained fairly constant since, has it not? 
A. Yes.

Q. Now, Mrs. Campbell, was Mr. Rudder with the Arling­
ton School (System in 1949 when these attendance areas 
were first made up? A. No, sir.

Q. And do you recall when he first came with the school 
system? A. I don’t recall the year. Mr. Early was our 
first superintendent after Mr. Kemp and then Mr. Rudder 
succeeded Mr. Early.

Q. But, Mr. Rudder was after that first attendance map 
was gotten up, was he not? A. Oh, yes.

Q. So, he would not be in a position to know of his own 
knowledge the reasons why the area was set up, would he 
not?

Mr. Reeves: Objection, if Your Honor, please. I do not 
think this witness can tell what Mr. Rudder knew.

The Court: Objection sustained. It is obvious if he
were not there he could not have participated in it.

Mr. Simmonds: All right.
The 'Court: Objection sustained.



15

By Mr. Simmonds:

Q. Mrs. 'Campbell, in the spring of 1961, pursuant to 
state law did the Board consider an attendance area map 
for the distribution of pupils in the County? A. Yes.

Q. And do you know what was done prior to the' time the 
School Board adopted that attendance area map? A.We 
held public hearings. These were advertised as public 
hearings so that the citizens could come and look at the 
maps. The maps were there. We had many citizens who 
came in and talked about it because people do not like to 
change their attendance areas.

Q. Do you know whether there was any objection at any 
of these public meetings to the Hoffman-Boston attendance 
areas? A. There was not to my knowledge.

Q. Were you present at those meetings? A. I was 
present.

Q. Now, in connection with making changes in the at­
tendance area maps, what is the policy with respect to 
changing those lines or not changing them, Mrs. Campbell? 
A. First of all, we change as few as possible because people 
don’t like to change their schools. Most of them don’t. So, 
we make as little change as possible and that has always 
been the policy.

Q. But, at that meeting there was no objection to making 
the Hoffman-Boston District as it is shown on the map as 
it is in evidence today? A. No, sir.

Mr. Simmonds: That is all the questions we have at the 
present time.

Cross Examination 
By Mr. Beeves:

Q. You say that you were a member of the School Board 
in 1949, that was your first term? A. Yes, I was elected 
to the School Board.

Q. Do you recall, Mrs. Campbell, how much personal 
knowledge or personal participation you had in the drawing



16

of the school zones at that time? A. Well, I had a great 
deal.

Q. You did. You worked with the superintendent? A. 
The superintendent had the map of the schools that were 
then located. When we began to talk about building the 
new schools for increased enrollment then the new school 
board had participation.

Q. Who did the actual drawing, the Board or the super­
intendent? A. The superintendent.

Q. He did the drawing merely submitted to the Board 
for approval? A. That is right.

Q. So that you personally did not draw any of the lines? 
A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know of your own personal knowledge whether 
the lines as drawn in 1949 represented any change between 
then and as they were originally conceived and drawn? A. 
I wouldn’t know because Mr. Kemp, the superintendent, 
had all of these district lines in his head and we ask him 
to put them down.

Q. So, you don’t know whether they represented any 
change from the time they were originally drawn? A. No, 
sir.

Q. You stated, I think, that in drawing the lines or im­
proving or approving the drawing of lines— A. Yes.

Q. —that the members of the school board had in mind 
these criteria of capacity of school, accessibility, transpor­
tation and safety of pupils? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You also stated, I  believe, that in addition to these 
criteria as applied to the Negro schools there was a neces­
sity of course that Negro students where they live attend 
the schools? A. We were in an integrated, segregated 
system, Mr. Reeves, as you know, so the question was not 
raised.

Q. So, then the question of whether or not these schools 
were also accessible to the Negro student was not in issue 
either? A. No, sir.

Q. Or whether capacity— A. Capacity in the elementary 
schools was quite an issue.



17

Q. But, not in the Hoffman-Boston Junior-Senior High? 
A. Yes, that was issue there, too.

Q. Under the segregated system, did you. discuss any 
alternatives in the event there was not adequate capacity?

The Court: Are you talking about 1949?
Mr. Beeves: 1949, sir.
The Witness: No.

By Mr. Beeves:
Q. So, then the Hoffman-Boston was in whether or not 

in the light of the segregated system so far as Negro stu­
dents were concerned, Negro high school and junior high 
school? A. Mr. Beeves, if you knew the story in Arlington 
you would know one of the first things that we did was to 
improve the facilities at Hoffman-Boston and to make Hoff­
man-Boston the right capacity for the number of Negro 
students. This was one of the first things that the Board 
did.

Q. Whether they lived within the boundaries or not? 
A. Yes. Well, the Hoffman-Boston School was the school 
that was the high school for the Negroes in the segregated 
system.

Q. Whether they lived within the lines drawn around 
that school or not? A. Oh, yes. Actually there was only 
one Negro high school.

Q. As a matter of fact, the area in which it was located 
and around which the lines were drawn was also with the 
exception of this North Hoffman-Boston District the area 
in which the majority, if not all the Negroes in Arlington 
County, resided at that time, is that correct? A. No, sir. 
I  live in North Arlington and as I remember it, there was 
a large community in Halls Hill because we have the Lang­
ston School there.

Q. I am saying with the exception of the area that pre­
viously was called North Hoffman-Boston which was Halls 
Hill area the line as drawn around Hoffman-Boston School 
itself encompassed the geographical area in which most of



18

the Negroes in Arlington then lived with the exception of 
those in this other? A. I think so.

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Rudder was with the school 
system in any capacity in 1949? A. No, he was not.

Q. Do you know when he came? A. I just don’t know 
the year, but—

Q. Was it while you were still on the Board? A. Yes, 
I was still on the Board, I think it was 1955, 56.

Q. 'Could it have been 1952 as he testified? A. Well, he 
was the superintendent. He was the superintendent—I 
mean the principal of Washington and Lee High School, 
you see.

Q. iSo, he was in the school system? A. He was in the 
school system hut the principal of Washington and Lee 
High 'School is the principal of Washington and Lee High 
School.

Q. Agreed. But, he is an officer in the school system? 
A. Yes.

The Court: As principal, he has no responsibility inso­
far as the administrative policy is—of the school are con­
cerned, isn’t that correct?

The Witness: No, indeed.
By Mr. Reeves:

Q. But, as principal he would not have knowledge of the 
administrative policies? A. Not necessarily. Of certain 
ones. Not in the general lines that the school hoard and 
the superintendent of schools have.

Q. Would he have knowledge of them? A. No, sir.
Q. As it applied to him in the administering of one of 

the schools? A. He would have knowledge of what was 
necessary for his administration, Mr. Reeves.

Q. This notice that you say went out prior to the 1961 
meeting, do you know by whom that notice was sent out? 
A. It was advertised in the papers. It was sent out to the 
P T A ’s.

Q. My question is: Do you know by whom? A. It was 
authorized as a public meeting.



19

Q. My question is do you know by whom in the school 
administration the notice was sent out?

The Court: You mean who authorized it?
Mr. Beeves: No. Who actually sent it out.
The Witness: The School Board sent it out.

By Mr. Beeves:
Q. Do you know by whom it was sent out?
The Court: You mean the individual person?
Mr. Beeves: That is right.
The Witness: I couldn’t.

By Mr. Beeves:

Q. Do you know by whom it was prepared? A. Yes.
Q. By whom? A. It was prepared by Mr. Bogy in Beed’s 

office I imagine. That is the way all our notices are done. 
I can’t say specifically, Mr. Beeves. There was no differ­
ence between this notice and any other notice.

Q. Do you know what the notice stated? Do you know 
it stated that one of the considerations to be determined at 
these public hearings was approval of attendance areas, do 
you not? A. That was the purpose.

Q. That was included in the notice? A. That was the 
only purpose of the hearings.

Q. Did you see such a notice in any publication yourself? 
A. I think that I could say that I saw it in the Northern 
Virginia -Sun, Mr. Beeves.

Q. As you recall seeing it, did it include reference to 
the fact that the attendance areas would be— A. That was 
the only purpose.

Q. I am asking if you recall what you saw that was in 
there. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know whether it was a paid advertisement? 
A. No, sir.

Q. You don’t know? A. It was not.
Q. It was not. Was this then, so far as you know, just 

a story based on an announcement by someone in the school



20

board? I am trying to get the form of this notice, Mrs. 
Campbell, if you know. A. Yes.

Q. The reason I am asking that is because some of the 
people associated with this case have no recollection of 
having seen it. A. I  see. I can tell you that Mrs. Hume 
was there at the meeting and protested that she did not 
wish her children to be transferred from Stratford I think 
to Swanson. That was when we were discussing whether 
all the children from Halls Hill who were going to junior 
high school should go to Swanson—I mean to Stratford or 
some of them should go to Swanson. I recall this because 
we were really surprised that there was—

Q. —no objection? A. —that there was a discussion as 
to whether they should or should not go to Swanson. We 
thought that this was good.

Q. Insofar as you can recall being present at all of these 
meetings no one objected to the attendance area for any 
of the Negro schools? A. Except this one I am telling you 
about, Mrs. Hume.

Q. Do you know, Mrs. Campbell, whether notices of 
these meetings were sent in any form to the parents of 
school children or was it just public notice in the news­
papers? A. Well, I think they were sent through the 
schools as well as in the newspaper, but the reason I think 
this, Mr. Beeves, is because this is our policy about public 
meetings and this was just a public hearing.

Q. You make the policy but you don’t know exactly how 
it is carried out, is that true? A. This is the way it is 
usually carried out.

Redirect Examination 

By Mr. Simmonds:
Q. Do you recall whether or not Mr. Tucker was present 

at that meeting? A. No, I don’t, Mr. iSimmonds.
Q. You don’t recall? A. I don’t recall. There were a 

number of Negro persons present.



21

Q. Do you happen to— A. I remember Mrs. Hume be­
cause I know her quite well and we talked about it after­
wards.

Q. Do you happen to know of residences as far as com­
munities are concerned of other counsel at the table other 
than Mr. Tucker? A. No, I  don’t.

Mr. iSimmonds: All right.
The Court: Mrs. Campbell, just to complete the record, 

in your knowledge has there been a material increase in 
the population in Arlington from 1949 to 1960, particularly 
in and around the vicinity of what is referred to as Green 
Valley or the southside?

The Witness : Yes, sir.
The Court: There has been a material increase in both 

colored and white population, has there not?
The Witness: Yes, sir.

# # * # # # # # # #