Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board Motion to Advance, Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and Motion for Summary Disposition

    (Emnl nf %  States
O ctober T erm , 1969

No.

IN  TH E

R obert Carter, et  a l .,
Petitioners,

W est F elician a  P arish  S chool B oard,
— —  Respondent.

S haron  L y n n e  George, et a l .,
„  Petitioners,

C. W alter  D avis, President, East Feliciana 
Parish School Board,

---------  Respondent.
I rm a  J. S m it h , et a l .,

Petitioners,

C oncordia P arish  S chool B oard,
U nited  S tates op A merica , Respondents.

MOTION TO ADVANCE, PETITION FOR WRIT OF 
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT 
OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, AND 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION

R ichard B. Sobol 
Richard T. Seymour 

1823 Jefferson Place, N. W. 
Washington, D. C. 20036

George M. Strickler, Jr.
606 Common Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

Murphy W. Bell 
214 East Boulevard

Of Counsel: Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70002
Norman C. A maker 
Melvin Zare 
Norman J. Chachkin 

New York, New York

Dated: December 9, 1969

Robert F. Collins 
344 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

Attorneys for Petitioners

P ress of Byron S. A dams Printing, Inc., W ashington, D . C.

9



INDEX
Page

M otion T o A dvance ...................................................- ...............  1

P etition  for W bit  of C ebtiorabi to the U nited  S tates 
C ourt of A ppeals fob the F if t h  C i r c u i t ......................... 3

Opinions Below ...........................................................  4

Jurisdiction ................................................................. 4

Question Presented.....................................................  4

Constitutional Provision Involved ...........................  5

Statement .................................................................

Reasons for Granting the W r it .................................  7

I. The Decision of the Court Below To Postpone 
Disestablishment of Dual Segregated School 
Systems Until September, 1970 Conflicts With 
This Court’s Decision in Alexander v. Holmes 
County Board of Education............................ 7

II. The Decision of the Court Below Conflicts With 
an En Banc Decision of the Fourth Circuit 
Court of Appeals ............................................... 42

Conclusion ...................................................................  46

M otion fob S u m m a r y  D is p o s it io n ............................................  17



11 Index Continued

Page
Appendix A Opinion and Order of the Fifth Circuit 

Court of Appeals in Singleton v. Jackson Munici­
pal Separate School District et al. (December 1, 
1969) ...................................................... . .............. i a

Appendix B Opinion and Order of the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals in Hall v. St. Helena Parish 
School Board et al. (May 28, 1969)........................  16a

Appendix 0
Part 1 Opinion and Order of the District Court for 

the Western District of Louisiana in Conley v. Lake 
Charles School Board et al. (July 8, 1969)...........  30a

Part 2 Opinion and Order of the District Court for 
the Western District of Louisiana in Smith v. 
Concordia Parish School Board (August 1, 1969). . 40a

Appendix D
Part 1 Opinion and Order of the District Court for 

the Eastern District of Louisiana in Carter v. West 
Feliciana Parish School Board (July 25, 1969) . . 56a

Part 2 Opinion and Order of the District Court for 
the Eastern District of Louisiana in George v. 
Davis, President, East Feliciana Parish School 
Board (July 25, 1969) ........... ..............................  61a

Appendix E Opinion and Order of the Fourth Circuit 
Court of Appeals in Nesbit v. Statesville City 
Board of Education et al. (December 2, 1969) . . 87a

Appendix F Opinion and Order of the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals in United States v. Hinds County 
School Board (November 7, 1969) ........................  9i a

Appendix 6
Part 1 Present Racial Composition of Student 

Bodies and Faculties of the East Feliciana Parish 
School System ........................................................  97a

Part 2 Present Racial Composition of Student
Bodies and Faculties of the West Feliciana Parish 
■School System ..........................................................  9ga

Part 3 Present Racial Composition of Student
Bodies and Faculties of the Concordia Parish 
School System ..........................................................  99a



Index Continued iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases : Page
Adams v. Mathews, 403 F.2d 181 (5th Oir. 1968)......... 7,11
Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 90

S.Ct. 29 (1969) ................................................  1 passim
Conley v. Lake Charles School Board, 293 F.Supp. 84

(W.D. La. 1968) ................  7,11
Conley v. Lake Charles School Board, C.A. No. 9981

(W.D. La. July 8, 1969) ................    13
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County,

391 U.S. 430 (1968) ..................................................  6
Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board,------F.2d —

Nos. 26450 and 27303 (5th Oir. May 28, 1969) . . .  4, 7,
11,15

Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board, 303 F.Supp.
1224 (E.D. La. 1969) .............................................. .7,11

Hall y . St. Helena Parish School Board, 303 F.Supp.
1231 (E.D. La. 1969) .........................    5,12-13

Nesbit v. Statesville City Board of Education, —__ F.2d
___ , No. 13,229 (4th Cir. December 2,1969) . . . . . .  13

Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dis­
trict, ___ F.2d------, No. 26285 (5th Cir. December
1, 1969) .............................................................. . . . 4 , 9

United States v. Hinds County Board of Education,
___ . F .2d___ , Nos. 28030 and 28042 (5th Cir. No­
vember 7, 1969) ........................................................ 8

C o n stitutional  P rovision :

Constitution of the United States, Fourteenth Amend­
ment ..........................................................................  5

O ther A uthority  :

United States Commission on Civil Rights, Federal En­
forcement of School Desegregation (1969) ........... 11



^ u p r o t t ?  ( S I m t r t  u !  t l j r  I t m t T f r  Biatts
O ctober T erm , 1969

IN THE

No.

R obert C arter, et  a l .,
Petitioners,

v.
W est F eliciana  P arish  S chool B oard,

Respondent.

S haron  L y n n e  George, et al .,
Petitioners,

y.

C. W alter D avis, President, East Feliciana 
Parish School Board,

Respondent.

I rm a  J. S m it h , et al .,

y .
Petitioners,

Concordia P arish  S chool B oard,
U nited  S tates oe A m erica , Respondents.

MOTION TO ADVANCE

Petitioners, by their undersigned counsel, respect­
fully move that the Court advance its consideration and 
disposition o f these cases. They present issues o f na­
tional importance about which different United States 
Courts o f Appeals have recently divided in their in­
terpretation of Alexander v. Holmes County Board of



0

Education, decided by this Court on October 29, 1969.* 
These issues require prompt resolution by this Court 
for the reasons stated in the annexed petition for a 
writ o f certiorari, and in the annexed motion for sum­
mary disposition.

W h e r e fo r e , Petitioners pray that the Court:

1. Consider this motion immediately;

2. Shorten the time for filing respondents’ response 
to the annexed petition and motion to seven days; and

3. Consider the annexed petition and motion as soon 
after receipt o f responses as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

R ichard  B. S obol 
R ichard  T. S eym our

1823 Jefferson Place, N.W. 
Washington, D. C. 20036

George M. S trickler , J r .
606 Common Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

M u r p h y  W. B ell  
214 East Boulevard 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70002

R obert F. Collins 
344 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Attorneys for Petitioners

N orman  J . C h a c h k in  
New York, New York

Dated: December 9, 1969

Of Counsel:

N orman  € .  A maker 
M elvin  Z arr

U.S. , 90 S. Ct. 29.



IN THE

^uprrmr Court of %  llmtrfr i ’tatro
O ctober T erm , 1969

No.

R obert Carter, et a t .,

Y.
Petitioners,

W est F elician a  P arish  S chool B oard,
Respondent.

S haron  L y n n e  George, et a l .,
Petitioners,

v.
C. W alter  D avis, President, East Feliciana 

Parish School Board,
Respondent.

I rm a  J. S m it h , et a l .,

v.
Petitioners,

Concordia P arish  S chool B oard,
U nited  S tates oe A merica , Respondents.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Petitioners pray that a W rit o f Certiorari issue to 
review the judgment o f the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered in these cases 
on December 1, 1969.



4

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion and order o f the United States Court of 
Appeals for the F ifth  Circuit of which review is sought 
is unreported and is reproduced in Appendix A .1 The 
orders of the United States District Court for the W est­
ern District o f Louisiana and of the United States 
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana 
which were reviewed in the court o f appeals in these 
three cases are unreported and are set forth in A p ­
pendices C and D. The opinion and order o f the court 
of Appeals, in Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board, 
pursuant to which these district court orders were en­
tered, is unreported and is set forth in Appendix B.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction o f this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. §1254(1). The judgment o f the court o f ap­
peals was entered on December 1, 1969.

QUESTION PRESENTED

In light of the decision o f this Court in Alexander v. 
Holmes County Board o f Educationf did the court 
o f appeals err in authorizing segregated student en­
rollment in these cases until September, 1970, where 
there are o f record unitary desegregation plans, de­
veloped by the Office of Education o f the Department 
o f Health, Education and W elfare?

1 Singleion v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District,
F. 2d , No. 26285 (December 1, 1969) (hereinafter Singleion). 
This opinion, reprinted beginning at la, decided a total of sixteen 
school desegregation cases in six states, including the three cases 
brought here by this petition. The cases were consolidated below 
for argument and decision. 2

2 U.S. , 90 S. Ct. 29 (October 28, 1969) (hereinafter 
Alexander).



0

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

This case involves the Equal Protection Clause of 
Section 1 o f the Fourteenth Amendment to the Consti­
tution o f the United States.

STATEMENT

These three Louisiana school desegregation cases 
were filed in 1965. Today, the systems remain almost 
totally segregated as to both student and faculty as­
signments.3 Pursuant to orders o f the district courts,4 
the Office of Education o f the Department o f Health, 
Education and W elfare, in July o f this year, submitted 
plans for the complete disestablishment o f these dual

3 Of ten schools in the East Feliciana Parish school system, six 
traditionally all-black schools remain all-black and enroll over 
ninety-six percent of the parish’s black students. Less than four 
percent of the black students attend the five traditionally white 
schools. Of eighty-two white teachers in the system, only eight 
teach in black schools; four of the 101 black teachers are in pre­
dominantly white schools. See Appendix G, part I.

The West Feliciana Parish school system has five schools. 
Ninety-one percent of the system’s 1,699 black students attend 
three all-black schools. Four of the eighty-four black teachers in 
the system are employed in the two predominantly white schools; 
only one white teacher is assigned to an all-black school. See 
Appendix G, part IT.

The Concordia Parish school system is comprised of thirteen 
schools, four of which are all-black. Eighty-one percent of the 
system’s black students attend these four schools. Of the 191- 
white teachers in the system, twenty-two teach in the black schools 
and thirty-eight of the 151 black teachers are employed in pre­
dominantly white schools. See Appendix G, part III.

* See Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board et al, 303 F. Supp. 
1231 (E.D. La. June 9, 1969). The order in the Western District 
of Louisiana school cases calling for HEW participation in the 
formulation of plans is not reported, but appears in the Record 
at



6

systems at the beginning o f the 1969-70 school year.” 
W hile recognizing that the H E W  plans provided for 
unitary school systems, the district courts adopted in­
stead school board plans which scarcely affected the 
numbers of black students attending formerly white 
schools and did nothing about the racial isolation o f 
the all-black schools in these parishes.6

Petitioners appealed these district court orders to 
the United States Court o f Appeals for the Pifth 
Circuit. On December 1, 1969, the court o f appeals, 
sitting en banc, reversed, but failed to order imple­
mentation o f the H E W  plans, or any other plans for 
the disestablishment o f the dual systems o f student as­
signment, until September, 1970.7 The court o f ap-

5 HEW proposed that predominantly white and all-black schools 
in all three parishes he “ paired”  so that all students in each grade 
level in a given attendance area would attend a single school. 
Attendance zones were proposed for several geographically remote 
schools in Concordia and West Feliciana. Petitioners have filed 
ten copies of the HEW plans for each of the three cases with the 
Clerk of this Court.

6 The plans adopted by the district courts provided for the 
enrollment of over eighty-five percent of the students in the systems 
by freedom of choice. The exceptions to freedom of choice were 
that, in Concordia, some black students were transferred into white 
schools; in East and West Feliciana, mandatory attendance zones 
for several rural elementary schools were established. These zones 
failed to result in integration of any all-black school. See Ap­
pendices C-2, D-l, D-2, G-l, 6-2.

7 The petitioners have been seeking implementation of this 
Court’s decision in Green v. County School Board of New Kent 
County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968), since June 1968. At that time, 
petitioners moved in the district courts for the implementation of 
unitary plans, in lieu of freedom of choice, at the beginning of the 
1968-69 school year. The district courts declined to rule on these 
motions prior to the opening of school in September 1968. Relief 
for the 1968-69 school year was denied by the court of appeals, 
but the district courts were ordered to adopt unitary plans to



7

peals ordered that new plans for student desegregation 
be submitted to the district courts on January 6, 1970. 
At the same time, the court ordered that all steps neces­
sary to convert to unitary systems, other than the re­
assignment o f students, be completed by February 
1, 1970. Petitioners here seek review of the decision 
o f the court o f appeals authorizing a further substan­
tial delay in pupil desegregation. Specifically, peti­
tioners seek the implementation o f the H E W  plans for 
student assignment simultaneously with the other steps 
ordered by the court o f appeals on February 1, 1970.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

I. The Decision of the Court Below To Postpone Disestablish­
ment of Dual Segregated School Systems Until September, 
1370, Conflicts With This Court's Decision in Alexander v. 
Holmes County Board of Education

In Alexander, this Court reversed the Fifth Circuit’s 
approval o f two-step desegregation plans which delayed 
until the fall of 1970 the complete conversion o f thirty 
Mississippi school districts into unitary systems. This

replace freedom of choice for the 1969-70 school year. Adams v. 
Mathews, 403 F. 2d 181 (5th Cir. 1968). In November and De­
cember 1968, the two district courts denied petitioners’ motions 
for supplemental relief, despite Green and Adams v. Mathews, and 
permitted the school boards to retain freedom of choice plans. 
Conley v. Lake Charles School Board, et al., 293 F. Supp. 84 
(W.D. La. 1968) ; Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board, et al., 
303 F. Supp. 1224 (E.D. La. 1969). These decisions were reversed 
by the Fifth Circuit in Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board, 
et al., Nos. 27303 and 26450 (May 28, 1969), cert, denied, 38 
U.S.L. Week 3133 (Nov. 10, 1969), reprinted in Appendix B. In 
Hall, the court of appeals remanded with instructions that new 
plans, providing for unitary, non-racial school systems, be adopted 
for implementation at the commencement of the 1969-70 school 
year. The refusal of the district courts to comply with that man­
date resulted in the decision of the court of appeals from which 
review is here sought.



8

Court explicitly held, in terms as terse and precise as 
the English language permits, that the conversion to 
unitary systems was to he accomplished not in the fall 
o f 1970, but “ at once” .8

The court o f appeals’ opinion in these cases ex­
plicitly recognizes the controlling effect o f Alexander.9 
But, in reaching its decision, the lower court departed 
from both Alexander, and its own decision on remand 
of the Alexander cases,10 by mandating two-step plans 
which delay conversion to unitary systems until Sep­
tember 1970:

The Court has concluded that two-step plans are 
to be implemented. One step must be accomplished 
not later than February 1, 1970 and it will include 
all steps necessary to conversion to a unitary sys-

8 Alexander, 90 S. Ct. at 29.
9 “ The rule of [Alexander] is to be found in the direction to this 

court to issue its order ‘ effective immediately declaring that 
each of the school districts . . . may no longer operate a dual 
school system based on race or color, and directing that they 
begin immediately to operate as unitary school systems within 
which no person is to be effectively excluded from any school 
because of race or color.’ We effectuated this rule and order 
in United States v. Hinds County School Board, 5 Cir., 1969, 
— F. 2d — , [Nos. 28,030 and 28,042, slip opinion dated Nov. 
7, 1969]. It must likewise be effectuated in these and all other 
school cases now being or which are to be considered in this 
or the district courts of this circuit.”

Singleton, slip opinion at 8; Appendix A, infra, at 2a.
10 United States v. Hinds County School Board, et al., Nos. 28030 

and 28042, November 7, 1969. This opinion and order is reprinted 
herein as Appendix F at 91a. The Alexander decision was inter­
preted by the court of appeals to require desegregation by Decem­
ber 31, not only in the fourteen cases before this Court, but also 
in sixteen other school desegregation cases in the Southern District 
of Mississippi that were part of the Fifth Circuit proceedings 
reviewed by this Court in Alexander.



9

tern save the merger o f student bodies into unitary 
systems. The student body merger will constitute 
the second step and must be accomplished not later 
than the beginning of the Fall Term, 1970.11

Why % The court’s sole explanation was that:

[ I ] t  will be difficult to arrange the merger of 
student bodies into unitary systems prior to the 
Fall 1970 Term in the absence o f merger plans.12

But in each of these three cases, there are unitary plans 
in the record that were prepared and submitted to the 
district courts in July o f this year by the Office o f Edu­
cation o f the Department o f Health, Education and 
W e lf a r e —the identical situation as that which existed 
in the Alexander cases.13

The court below discounted these plans because none 
were “ submitted in light o f the precedent o f Alexander 
y. Holmes County'"A  Neither, o f course, were the plans 
that were implemented in the Alexander cases. The 
point is not whether the plans were submitted before 
or after this Court’s decision in Alexander, but whether

11 Singleton, slip opinion at 10; Appendix A, infra, at 4a.

12 Id.

13 In other eases decided in the same opinion by the court below 
there are not such plans in the record. But petitioners do not 
mean to suggest that Alexander relief should be available only 
where there are preexisting plans for unitary systems. The court 
below ordered that unitary plans in all sixteen cases be filed with 
the district courts no later than January 6, 1970. Since there will 
then be unitary plans in all of the cases, there is no reason why these 
plans should not be implemented on February 1, 1970. 14

14 Singleton, slip opinion at 9; Appendix A, infra, at 3a.



10

they provide for prompt and effective conversion to 
unitary school systems. There is no dispute about the 
efficacy o f the plans to disestablish the dual systems in 
these districts.15 16

Although the court o f appeals paid lip service to 
the principle o f pendente lite relief adopted by this 
Court in Alexander/ 6 it failed to heed this mandate, 
and delayed conversion until September, 1970, after a 
new round o f plans are submitted, litigated, and ap­
pealed. Thus, once again, segregation will be the 
status quo pending further litigation.

In shaping its order for the Alexander districts, the 
court below allowed seven weeks for conversion to 
unitary systems. The decision o f the court to allow 
nine months for conversion in these cases constitutes a 
reincarnation o f the deliberate speed doctrine which

15 Indeed, although it does not seem to be relevant under this 
Court’s decision in Alexander, petitioners note that these three 
districts involve simple school systems, each with thirteen schools 
or less, and less than 7,000 students. The HEW  plans involve the 
simple combination of closing-, pairing and zoning schools.

It is plain that these school districts are a good deal less com­
plicated than several of the districts that were involved in this 
Court’s Alexander and the lower court’s Hinds County orders. 
See infra at 92a.

16 “ The Tenor of the decision in Alexander v. Holmes County is 
to shift the burden from the standpoint of time for converting 
to unitary school systems. The shift is from a status of litiga­
tion to one of unitary operation pending litigation. The new 
modus operandi is to require immediate operation as unitary 
systems. Hearings on requested changes in unitary operating 
plans may be in order but no delay in conversion may ensue 
because of the need for modification or hearing. ’ ’

Singleton, slip opinion at 8; Appendix A, infra, at 2a-3a.



11

this Court in Alexander held is no longer constitution­
ally permissible.17

17 Alexander, 90 S. Ct. at 29.
In other respects, the decision of the court below is in conflict 

with Alexander. In Alexander, this Court took the extraordinary 
step of providing that plans for the disestablishment of the dual 
system, once adopted, could be amended only by the court of ap­
peals. Although this Court did not so state, it is apparent that 
the reason for this action was the history of intransigence by the 
district court involved. As petitioners argued to the court of 
appeals in these cases, the history is identical here.

After this Court’s decision in Green, the district courts here 
first refused to consider motions for supplemental relief prior to 
the beginning of the 1968-69 school year. See Adams v. Mathews, 
403 F. 2d at 188. They then, despite a court of appeals instruc­
tion to abandon freedom of choice plans in cases such as these, 
where they had not been effective to eliminate all-black schools, 
see Adams, 403 F. 2d at 188, 189, upheld the continued use of 
freedom of choice. Conley v. Lake Charles School Board, et al., 
supra, note 7 ; Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board, et al., supra, 
note 7.

The court of appeals reversed these decisions in Hall v. St. 
Helena Parish School Board, supra note 7, and again instructed 
the district courts to adopt plans, in lieu of freedom, of choice, 
that would accomplish a unitary system in time for the opening 
of the 1969-70 school year.

The plans adopted by the district courts did not even purport 
to achieve this result. See note 3, supra; Appendix 6 , infra. In 
adopting the plan for the West Feliciana Parish school system, 
Judge West commented that this plan “ will not, for the school 
year 1969-1970, bring about the degree of mixing of the races 
in the schools of West Feliciana Parish obviously contemplated 
by the Court of Appeals . . . ”  Appendix D, Part 1, infra at 56a.

The United States Commission on Civil Rights recently exam­
ined the handling of school desegregation eases by several Fed­
eral district judges, including both district judges who have han­
dled the eases here involved, and concluded:

A small minority of Federal judges, however, have indicated 
by their past judicial actions that they will not, where school 
desegregation or other civil rights cases are concerned, dis­
charge their responsibilities impartially.

U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, Federal Enforcement of School 
Desegregation (1969) at 40. The Commission went on to say



II. The Decision of the Court Below Conflicts With an En 
Banc Decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

On December 2, 1969, the day after the decision of 
the court below in these cases, the Court of Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, unanimously 
arrived at an interpretation o f this Court’s decision 
in Alexander which conflicts squarely with the inter-

that “ a number of Southern Federal judges have demonstrated a 
pro-segregation bias”  that, for most, “ has led to . . . judicial 
abdications of duty . . . The examples from the Eastern and 
Western Districts of Louisiana cited by the Report indicate a 
lack of sympathy to the need for prompt relief in school desegre­
gation. Id. at 41-43.

In an opinion issued after the May 28, 1969 remand in Hall, 
Judge West stated, inter alia:

I have, in prior decisions concerning these cases [stated] . . . 
that any order such as the one the Court of Appeals now 
mandates me to issue is contrary to law, purely and simply. 
I reiterate that this is still my belief.

* # #
There is no requirement in the law, as embodied in the Con­
stitution of the United States or as enacted by Congress, save 
for the court-made law of this Circuit, that there be no 
all-white schools or no all-negro schools.

% * * *
The constitutional rights of all pupils must be protected and 
they are indeed protected in the best possible way by . . . 
[a]n honest, unfettered freedom of choice [which] protects 
the rights of all pupils regardless of the resultant makeup 
of the student bodies involved.

# #
The decree which I have been ordered to enter in these eases 
will be entered only because of the mandate directed to me 
by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I fervently hope, 
however, that the school boards involved will seek redress 
from these orders from both the Congress and the Supreme 
Court of the United States. . . . The issue is simply whether 
or not the Federal Courts, by judicial decree, shall be allowed 
to continue to substitute their version of what they think the



pretation of the court below. In Nesbit v. Statesville 
City Board o f Education, et a! . ,18 * the Fourth Cir­
cuit ordered school districts to submit unitary plans

law ought to be for what the legislative branch of the Gov­
ernment has decreed it to be.”

Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board, supra n. 4, 303 F. Supp. at 
1234-1235.

In an opinion issued by Judge Dawkins in the Western District 
of Louisiana cases on July 8, 1969, he stated:

We have not yet seen in writing the specific plans to be sub­
mitted by the school boards and HEW. At this moment, all 
we know is what we have seen or heard in the press, TV, or 
radio, which is quite fragmentary.

Nevertheless, from what we thus have observed, it would 
appear strongly at first blush that, educationally, what HEW 
has proposed to the various boards is either “ outrageous, 
utterly unrealistic or totally impossible economically.”  And 
if this indeed is the case, you may rest assured that we judges 
will not—the words are WILL NOT— accept or approve them.

Appendix C, Part 1, infra at 37a.
In that opinion, Judge Dawkins also praised Rep. Joe D. 

Waggonner of the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana, 
for using his influence with the executive branch to obtain a re­
laxation of school desegregation guidelines. Commenting on that 
relaxation—the July 3, 1969 joint statement of the Attorney Gen­
eral and of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare— 
Judge Dawkins stated:

‘ ‘ All of us— black and white alike—owe a debt of eternal grati­
tude . . .  to the untiring efforts of many, many good people of 
all political ties who have worked tirelessly behind the scenes 
to bring this about.”

Id. at 32a. The complete opinion is reprinted in Appendix C, 
beginning at 30a.

The petitioners suggest that, in light of this background, the 
failure of the court of appeals to retain jurisdiction over these 
eases is in further conflict with the Alexander decision.

18 No. 13,229 (December 2, 1969) (hereinafter Nesbit). This
opinion and order is reprinted herein as Appendix E, infra, at 87a.



14

by December 8, 1969 for complete implementation no 
later than January 31, 1970.

The clear mandate o f the [Supreme] Court is im­
mediacy. Further delays will not be tolerated in 
this circuit.19

There is a clear conflict between the decisions of 
the Fourth Circuit and the Fifth Circuit. Where the 
Fifth Circuit allowed additional months for the reliti­
gation o f unitary desegregation plans— even in cases 
such as these in which there were already unitary 
H E W  plans in the record— and allowed nine months 
for their implementation, the Fourth Circuit ordered 
that unitary plans be developed in six days and im­
plemented “ no later than January 31, 1970.”  20

This Court generally treats conflicting decisions of 
Federal courts o f appeals as a consideration in favor 
o f the issuance o f a writ o f certiorari.21 Here, this 
consideration is far stronger than is customarily the 
case, rising to the level of necessity for review in this 
Court. W hat confronts the Court is not a conflict on 
some point o f law which is o f relatively little immedi­
ate or practical concern to the communities involved, 
but a conflict concerning the requirements, as to time, 
o f a judicially mandated social, educational and psy-

19 Neshit, slip opinion at 2; Appendix E, infra, at 87a.
20 Id., slip opinion at 5; Appendix E, infra, at 89a,
Following Alexander, the Fourth Circuit in Nesbit also ruled

that amendments to unitary desegregation plans would not become 
effective until approved by the court of appeals. The Fifth Circuit 
in Singleton failed to adopt such a provision in the face of a far 
greater record of resistance in the district courts. See note 17, 
supra.

21 See Rule 19(1) (b) of the Rules of this Court,



15

ehological upheaval o f major proportions in Southern 
school districts. In  school districts in which dual sys­
tems are still maintained, it is fair to say that the 
question o f when the dual segregated systems will be 
abolished is the foremost public question on the minds 
o f black and white parents and students.22 Disestab­
lishment o f these systems, when disestablishment comes, 
will require substantial and sometimes painful read­
justments. There have been threats of violence and 
resistance. It is obvious that these problems are ex­
acerbated when neighboring school districts, on iden­
tical facts, are granted additional delay.

There is not a single reason why these cases should 
not be treated in the same way as the cases before the 
Fourth Circuit in Nesbit or as the thirty cases from  
the Southern District o f Mississippi covered by the 
lower court’s Hinds County order on the the remand 
of Alexander.23 In view of the stakes involved, this 
Court can not allow different treatment to go un­
corrected.

22 Although only three school districts are involved in this peti­
tion, many more districts will, of course, be affected by its dis­
position. On remand from the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Hall v. 
St. Helena Parish School Board (Appendix B, infra, p. 16a), 
unitary desegregation plans were prepared bw IIBW ’s Office of 
Education for thirty-three Louisiana school districts. With very 
few exceptions, these plans were not adopted and dual systems 
remain. Many of these cases are pending before the Court of 
Appeals. In addition, thirteen other cases directly governed by 
the lower court’s opinion in these cases and many other cases 
in the Fifth Circuit will undoubtedly be governed by the court’s 
approval of further delay.

23 See note 10, supra.



16

CONCLUSION

Petitioners respectfully pray that a writ of certi­
orari be granted.

Respectfully submitted,
R ichard  B. S obol 
R ichard  T. S eymour

1823 Jefferson Place, N.W. 
Washington, D. C. 20036

George M. S trickler , J r .
606 Common Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

M u r p h y  W . B ell  
214 East Boulevard 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70002

R obert F. C ollins 
344 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

Attorneys for Petitioners
Of Counsel:

N orman  C. A m a k e r  
M elvin  Z arr 
N orman  J. Ch a c h k in  

New York, New York
Dated: December 9, 1969



IN THE

^tfprrmr (ta rt 0! tljr Mtutrfc Stairs
O ctober T erm , 1969

No.

R obert C arter, et al .,
Petitioners,

v.
W est F eliciana  P arish  S chool B oard,

Respondent.

S haron  L y n n e  George, et a l .,
Petitioners,

V.

C. W alter D avis, President, East Feliciana 
Parish School Board,

Respondent.

I rm a  J. S m it h , et a l .,
Petitioners,

v.
Concordia P arish  S chool B oard,

U nited  S tates of A merica , Respondents.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION

Petitioners, through undersigned counsel, respect­
fully move that, following a grant o f a writ o f certi­
orari, this Court:

(1) Summarily reverse the decision o f the court be­
low and direct that court to order the implementation 
of the existing H E W  plans by February 1, 1970 ; or



3.8

(2) Treat petitioners’ petition for certiorari and the 
responses filed thereto as briefs on the merits, and set 
the matter for oral argument at the earliest oppor­
tunity so that a decision may be rendered in time for 
the implementation o f complete unitary plans by Feb­
ruary 1, 1970.

The issue before this Court is solely whether the de­
cision o f the court below, postponing desegregation 
until September of 1970, can be reconciled with the de­
cision o f this Court in Alexander v. Holmes County 
School Board.* Because the current school year will 
soon be half over, the question will become moot if 
it is not decided expeditiously. A  meaningful decision 
can not be rendered under a normal schedule for brief­
ing and argument.

The court o f appeals has set February 1, 1970 as 
the deadline for the desegregation o f faculties and 
other facilities in these systems. This date corresponds 
closely with the beginning o f the second semester o f 
the current school year. As that court recognized,** 
these changes will themselves require students to dis­
continue with teachers with whom they had been sched­
uled to study for the full year. I f  there are to be 
student reassignments this school year, plainly they 
should be accomplished simultaneously with the other

* U.S. , 90 S. Ct. 29 (Oct. 29, 1969).
** Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, No. 

26285 (December 1, 1969), slip opinion at 10, note 1; Appendix A, 
infra, at 4a, note 1.



19

required changes. This can be effected only i f  this 
matter is given summary disposition.

Respectfully submitted,
R ichabd B. S obol 
R ichard T. S eymour

1823 Jefferson Place, N.W. 
Washington, D. C. 20036

George M. S trickler , J r .
606 Common Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

M u r p h y  W . B ell  
214 East Boulevard 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70002

R obert P . C ollins 
344 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

Attorneys for Petitioners
Of Counsel:

N orman  C. A m aker  
M elvin  Z arr 
N orman  J . C hacilkin  

New York, New York
D ated: December 9, 1969



APPENDIX



APPENDIX A

IN THE

U n i t e d  S t a t e s  Cour t  of  A p p e a l s
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

N o . 2 6 2 8 5

DEREK JEROME SINGLETON, ET AL,
Appellants,

versus

JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE 
SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Southern District of Mississippi

And 15 Companion Cases, Including 
Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board 

George v. Davis, President, East Feliciana Parish School Board 
Smith v. Concordia Parish School Board

(December 1, 1969)



2a

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, WISDOM, GEWIN, BELL, 
THORNBEREY, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINS­
WORTH, GODBOLD, DYER, SIMPSON, MORGAN, 
CARSWELL, and CLARK, Circuit Judges, EN BANC.*

PER CURIAM: These appeals, all involving school 
desegregation orders, are consolidated for opinion pur­
poses. They involve, in the main, common questions of law 
and fact. They were heard en banc on successive days.

Following our determination to consider these cases en 
banc, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Alex­
ander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 1969, -----
U.-S____ , 90 S.Ct____ , 24 L.Ed.2d 19. That decision super­
vened all existing authority to the contrary. It sent the doc­
trine of deliberate speed to its final resting place. 24 L.Ed.2d 
at p. 21.

The rule of the case is to be found in the direction to this 
court to issue its order “ effective immediately declaring that 
each of the school districts . . . may no longer operate a dual 
school system based on race or color, and directing that 
they begin immediately to operate as unitary school systems 
within which no person is to be effectively excluded from 
any school because of race or color.” We effectuated this rule 
and order in United States v. Hinds County School Board,
5 Cir., 1969, ___  F.2d ------, [Nos. 28,030 and 28,042, slip
opinion dated Nov. 7, 1969], It must likewise be effectuated 
in these and all other school cases now being or which are 
to be considered in this or the district courts of this circuit,

The tenor of the decision in Alexander v. Holmes County 
is to shift the burden from the standpoint of time for con­
verting to unitary school systems. The shift is from a 
status of litigation to one of unitary operation pending liti­
gation. The new modus operandi is to require immediate

#Judge Wisdom did not participate in Nos. 26285, 28261, 28045, 
28350, 28349 and 28361. Judge Ainsworth did not participate in 
No. 28342. Judge Carswell did not participate in Nos. 28763 and 
27983. Judge Clark did not participate in No. 26285.



3a

operation as unitary systems. Suggested modifications to 
unitary plans are not to delay implementation. Hearings on 
requested changes in unitary operating plans may be in 
order but no delay in conversion may ensue because of 
the need for modification or hearing.

In Alexander v. Holmes County, the court had unitary 
plans available for each of the school districts. In addi­
tion, this court, on remand, gave each district a limited 
time within which to offer its own plan. It was apparent 
there, as it is here, that converting to a unitary system in­
volved basically the merger of faculty and staff, students, 
transportation, services, athletic and other extra-curricular 
school activities. We required that the conversion to unitary 
systems in those districts take place not later than Decem­
ber 31, 1969. It was the earliest feasible date in the view 
of the court. United States v. Hinds County, supra. In three 
of the systems there (Hinds County, Holmes County and 
Meridian), because of particular logistical difficulties, the 
Office of Education (HEW) had recommended two step 
plans. The result was, and the court ordered, that the first 
step be implemented not later than December 31, 1969 
and the other beginning with the fall 1970 school term.

Because of Alexander v. Holmes County, each of the cases 
here, as will be later discussed, must be considered anew, 
either in whole or in part, by the district courts. It happens 
that there are extant unitary plans for some of the school 
districts here, either Office of Education or school board 
originated. Some are operating under freedom of choice 
plans. In no one of the districts has a plan been submitted 
in light of the precedent of Alexander v. Holmes County. 
That case resolves all questions except as to mechanics. The 
school districts here may no longer operate dual systems 
and must begin immediately to operate as unitary systems. 
The focus of the mechanics question is on the accomplish­
ment of the immediacy requirement laid down in Alexander 
v. Holmes County.



4a

Despite the absence of plans, it will be possible to merge 
faculties and staff, transportation, services, athletics and 
other extra-curricular activities during the present school 
term. It will be difficult to arrange the merger of student 
bodies into unitary systems prior to the fall 1970 term in 
the absence of merger plans. The court has concluded that 
two-step plans are to be implemented. One step must be 
accomplished not later than February 1, 1970 and it will 
include all steps necessary to conversion to a unitary sys­
tem save the merger of student bodies into unitary systems. 
The student body merger will constitute the second step 
and must be accomplished not later than the beginning of 
the fall term 1970.1 The district courts, in the respective 
cases here, are directed to so order and to give first priority 
to effectuating this requirement.

To this end, the district courts are directed to require 
the respective school districts, appellees herein, to request 
the Office of Education (HEW) to prepare plans for the 
merger of the student bodies into unitary systems. These 
plans shall be filed with the district courts not later than 
January 6,1970 together with such additional plan or modi­
fication of the Office of Education plan as the school district 
may wish to offer. The district court shall enter its final 
order not later than February 1, 1970 requiring and setting 
out the details of a plan designed to accomplish a unitary 
system of pupil attendance with the start of the fall 1970

1 Many faculty and staff members will be transferred under step 
one. It will be necessary for final grades to be entered and for other 
records to be completed, prior to the transfers, by the transferring 
faculty members and administrators, for the partial school year in­
volved. The interim period prior to February 1, 1970 is allowed for 
this purpose.

The interim period prior to the start of the fall 1970 school term 
is allowed for arranging the student transfers. Many students must 
transfer. Buildings will be put to new use. In some instances it 
may be necessary to transfer equipment, supplies or libraries. 
School bus routes must be reconstituted. The period allowed is at 
least adequate for the orderly accomplishment of the task.



5a

school term. Such order may include a plan designed by 
the district court in the absence of the submission of an 
otherwise satisfactory plan. A copy of such plan as is 
approved shall be filed by the clerk of the district court 
with the clerk of this court.2

The following provisions are being required as step one 
in the conversion process. The district courts are directed 
to make them a part of the orders to be entered and to also 
give first priority to implementation.

The respective school districts, appellees herein, 
must take the following action not later than Feb­
ruary 1, 1970:

DESEGREGATION OF FACULTY AND 
OTHER STAFF

The School Board shall announce and imple­
ment the following policies:
1. Effective not later than February 1, 1970, the 
principals, teachers, teacher-aides and other staff 
who work directly with children at a school shall 
be so assigned that in no case will the racial com­
position of a staff indicate that a school is intended 
for Negro students or white students. For the re­
mainder of the 1969-70 school year the district shall 
assign the staff described above so that the ratio 
of Negro to white teachers in each school, and the

2 In formulating plans, nothing herein is intended to prevent the 
respective school districts or the district court from seeking the 
counsel and assistance of state departments of education, university 
schools of education or of others having expertise in the field of 
education.

It is also to be noted that many problems of a local nature are 
likely to arise in converting to and maintaining unitary systems. 
These problems may best be resolved on the community level. The 
district courts should suggest the advisability of biracial advisory 
committees to school boards in those districts having no Negro school 
board members.



6a

ratio of other staff in each, are substantially the 
same as each such ratio is to the teachers and other 
staff, respectively, in the entire school system.

The school district shall, to the extent necessary 
to carry out this desegregation plan, direct mem­
bers of its staff as a condition of continued em­
ployment to accept new assignments.

2. Staff members who work directly with children, 
and professional staff who work on the adminis­
trative level will be hired, assigned, promoted, paid, 
demoted, dismissed, and otherwise treated without 
regard to race, color, or national origin.

3. If there is to be a reduction in the number of 
principals, teachers, teacher-aides, or other profes­
sional staff employed by the school district which 
will result in a dismissal or demotion of any such 
staff members, the staff member to be dismissed 
or demoted must be selected on the basis of ob­
jective and reasonable non-discriminatory stand­
ards from among all the staff of the school district. 
In addition if there is any such dismissal or demo­
tion, no staff vacancy may be filled through recruit­
ment of a person of a race, color, or national origin 
different from that of the individual dismissed or 
demoted, until each displaced staff member who is 
qualified has had an opportunity to fill the vacancy 
and has failed to accept an offer to do so.

Prior to such a reduction, the school board will 
develop or require the development of non-racial 
objective criteria to be used in selecting the staff 
member who is to be dismissed or demoted. These 
criteria shall be available for public inspection 
and shall be retained by the school district. The 
school district also shall record and preserve the 
evaluation of staff members under the criteria.



7a

Such evaluation shall be made available upon re­
quest to the dismissed or demoted employee.

“ Demotion” as used above includes any reassign­
ment (1) under which the staff member receives 
less pay or has less responsibility than under the 
assignment he held previously, (2) which requires 
a lesser degree of skill than did the assignment he 
held previously, or (3) under which the staff mem­
ber is asked to teach a subject or grade other than 
one for which he is certified or for which he has 
had substantial experience within a reasonably 
current period. In general and depending upon the 
subject matter involved, five years is such a reason­
able period.

MAJORITY TO MINORITY 
TRANSFER POLICY

The school district shall permit a student attend­
ing a school in which his race is in the majority to 
choose to attend another school, where space is 
available, and where his race is in the minority.

TRANSPORTATION

The transportation system, in those school dis­
tricts having transportation systems, shall be com­
pletely re-examined regularly by the superintend­
ent, his staff, and the school board. Bus routes 
and the assignment of students to buses will be de­
signed to insure the transportation of all eligible 
pupils on a non-segregated and otherwise non- 
discriminatory basis.

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND 
SITE SELECTION

All school construction, school consolidation, and 
site selection (including the location of any tempo­
rary classrooms) in the system shall be done in a



8a

manner which will prevent the recurrence of the 
dual school structure once this desegregation plan 
is implemented.

ATTENDANCE OUTSIDE SYSTEM 
OF RESIDENCE

If the school district grants transfers to students 
living in the district for their attendance at public 
schools outside the district, or if it permits trans­
fers into the district of students who live outside 
the district, it shall do so on a non-discriminatory 
basis, except that it shall not consent to transfers 
where the cumulative effect will reduce desegrega­
tion in either district or reinforce the dual school 
system.

See United States v. Hinds County, supra, decided Novem­
ber 6, [sic] 1969. The orders there embrace these same re­
quirements.

II
In addition to the foregoing requirements of general ap­

plicability, the order of the court which is peculiar to each 
of the specific cases being considered is as follows:

NO. 26285 — JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
This is a freedom of choice system. The issue presented 

has to do with school building construction. We enjoined 
the proposed construction pending appeal.

A federal appellate court is bound to consider any change, 
either in fact or in law, which has supervened since the 
judgment was entered. Bell v. State of Maryland, 378 U.S. 
226, 84 S.Ct. 1814, 12 L.Ed.2d 822 (1964). We therefore 
reverse and remand for compliance with the requirements 
of Alexander v. Holmes County and the other provisions 
and conditions of this order. Our order enjoining the pro­
posed construction pending appeal is continued in effect



until such time as the district court has approved a plan for 
conversion to a unitary school system.

NO. 28261 — MARSHALL COUNTY AND HOLLY 
SPRINGS, MISSISSIPPI

This suit seeks to desegregate two school districts, Mar­
shall County and Holly Springs, Mississippi. The district 
court approved plans which would assign students to schools 
on the basis of achievement test scores. We pretermit a dis­
cussion of the validity per se of a plan based on testing ex­
cept to hold that testing cannot be employed in any event 
until unitary school systems have been established.

We reverse and remand for compliance with the require­
ments of Alexander v. Holmes County and the other pro­
visions and conditions of this order.

NO. 28045—  UNITED STATES V. MATTHEWS 
(LONGVIEW, TEXAS)

This system is operating under a plan approved bĵ  the 
district court which appears to be realistic and workable ex­
cept that it is to be implemented over a period of five years. 
This is inadequate.

We reverse and remand for compliance with the require­
ments of Alexander v. Holmes County and the other pro­
visions and conditions of this order.

NO. 28350 — JEFFERSON COUNTY AND 
BESSEMER, ALABAMA

These consolidated cases involve the school boards of 
Jefferson County and the City of Bessemer, Alabama. Prior 
plans for desegregation of the two systems were disap­
proved by this court on June 26, 1969, United States of 
America v. Jefferson County Board of Education, et al.,
—— F.2d____ (5th Cir. 1969) [No. 27444, June 26, 1969],
at which time we reversed and remanded the case with spe­
cific directions. The record does not reflect any substantial



10a

change in the two systems since this earlier opinion, and it 
is therefore unnecessary to restate the facts. The plans ap­
proved by the district court and now under review in this 
court do not comply with the standards required in Alex­
ander v. Holmes County.

We reverse and remand for compliance with the require­
ments of Alexander v. Holmes County and the other pro­
visions and conditions of this order.

NO. 28349 — MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
On June 3, 1969, we held that the attendance zone and 

freedom of choice method of student assignment used by 
the Mobile School Commissioners was constitutionally un­
acceptable. Pursuant to our mandate the district court re­
quested the Office of Education (HEW) to collaborate with 
the board in the preparation of a plan to fully desegregate 
all public schools in Mobile County. Having failed to reach 
agreement with the board, the Office of Education filed its 
plan which the district court on August 1, 1969, adopted 
with slight modification (but which did not reduce the 
amount of desegregation which will result). The court’s 
order directs the board for the 1969-1970 school year to 
close two rural schools, establish attendance zones for the 
25 other rural schools, make assignments based on those 
zones, restructure the Hillsdale School, assign all students 
in the western portion of the metropolitan area according 
to geographic attendance zones designed to desegregate all 
the schools in that part of the system, and reassign ap­
proximately 1,000 teachers and staff. Thus the district 
court’s order of August 1, now before us on appeal by the 
plaintiffs, will fully desegregate all of Mobile County 
schools except the schools in the eastern portion of metro­
politan Mobile where it was proposed by the plan to trans­
port students to the western part of the city. The district 
court was not satisfied with this latter provision and re­
quired the board after further study and collaboration with 
HEW officials, to submit by December 1,1969, a plan for the



11a

desegregation of the schools in the eastern part of the 
metropolitan area.

The school board urges reversal of the district court’s 
order dealing with the grade organization of the Hillsdale 
School and the faculty provisions.

We affirm the order of the district court with direc­
tions to desegregate the eastern part of the metropolitan 
area of the Mobile County School System and to otherwise 
create a unitary system in compliance with the require­
ments of Holmes County and in accordance with the other 
provisions and conditions of this order.

NO. 28340 — EAST AND WEST FELICIANA 
PARISHES, LOUISIANA

East Feliciana is operating under a plan which closed one 
rural Negro elementary school and zoned the four remain­
ing rural elementary schools. All elementary students not 
encompassed in the rural zones, and all high school students, 
continue to have free choice. Majority to minority trans­
fer is allowed on a space-available basis prior to beginning 
of the school year.

The plan has not produced a unitary system. We reverse 
and remand for compliance with the requirements of 
Alexander v. Holmes County and the other provisions and 
conditions of this order.

West Feliciana is operating under a plan approved for 
1969-70 which zones the two rural elementary schools. These 
schools enroll approximately 15 per cent of the students of 
the district. The plan retains “ open enrollment” (a 
euphemism for free choice) for the other schools. The plan 
asserts that race should not be a criterion for employment 
or assignment of personnel. However, the board promises 
to seek voluntary transfers and if substantial compliance 
cannot be obtained by this method it proposes to adopt 
other means to accomplish substantial results.



This plan has not produced a unitary system. We reverse 
and remand for compliance with the requirements of Alex­
ander v. Holmes County and the other provisions and con­
ditions of this order.

NO. 28342 — CONCORDIA PARISH, LOUISIANA
The plan in effect for desegregating this school district 

has not produced a unitary system. It involves zoning, pair­
ing, freedom of choice and some separation by sex. We 
pretermit the question posed as to sex separation since it 
may not arise under such plan as may be approved for a 
unitary system.

This plan has not produced a unitary system. We reverse 
and remand for compliance with the requirements of Alex­
ander v. Holmes County and the other provisions and con­
ditions of this order.

NO. 28361 — ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST 
PARISH, LOUISIANA

This school district has been operating under a freedom 
of choice plan. The parish is divided into two sections by 
the Mississippi River and no bridge is located in the parish. 
The schools are situated near the east and west banks of 
the river.

A realistic start has been made in converting the east 
bank schools to a unitary system. It, however, is less than 
adequate. As to the west bank schools, the present enroll­
ment is 1626 Negro and 156 whites. The whites, under free­
dom of choice, all attend the same school, one of five schools 
on the west bank. The 156 whites are in a school with 406 
Negroes. We affirm as to -this part of the plan. We do not 
believe it necessary to divide this small number of whites, 
already in a desegregated minority position, amongst the 
five schools.

We reverse and remand for compliance with the require­
ments of Alexander v. Holmes County and the other pro­
visions and conditions of this order.



NO. 28409 — BURKE COUNTY, GEORGIA
The interim plan in operation here, developed by the 

Office of Education (HEW), has not produced a unitary 
system. The district court ordered preparation of a final 
plan for use in 1970-71. This delay is no longer permissible.

We reverse and remand for compliance with the require­
ments of Alexander v. Holmes County and the other pro­
visions and conditions of this order.

NO. 28407 —  BIBB COUNTY, GEORGIA
This is a freedom of choice system on which a special 

course transfer provision has been superimposed. Special 
courses offered in all-Negro schools are being attended by 
whites in substantial numbers. This has resulted in some 
attendance on a part time basis by whites in every all-Negro 
school. Some three hundred whites are on the waiting list 
for one of the special courses, remedial reading. The racial 
cross-over by faculty in the system is 27 per cent.

The order appealed from continues the existing plan with 
certain modifications. It continues and expands the elective 
course programs in all-Negro schools in an effort to en­
courage voluntary integration. The plan calls for a limita­
tion of freedom of choice with respect to four schools about 
to become resegregated. Under the present plan the school 
board is empowered to limit Negro enrollment to 40 per 
cent at these schools to avoid resegregation. Earlier a panel 
of this court affirmed the district court’s denial of an injunc­
tion against the quota provision of this plan pending hear­
ing en banc. The prayer for injunction against continuation 
of the quota provision is now denied and the provision may 
be retained by the district court pending further considera­
tion as a part of carrying out the requirements of this order.

It is sufficient to say that, the district court here has em­
ployed bold and imaginative innovations in its plan which 
have already resulted in substantial desegregation which 
approaches a unitary system. We reverse and remand for



14a

compliance with the requirements of Alexander v. Holmes 
County and the other provisions and conditions of this 
order.

NO. 28408 — HOUSTON COUNTY, GEORGIA

This system is operating under a freedom of choice plan. 
Appellants seek zoning and pairing. There is also an issue as 
to restricting transfers by Negroes to formerly all-white 
schools. Cf. No. 28407—Bibb County, supra. In addition, ap­
pellants object to the conversion of an all-Negro school into 
an integrated adult education center. As in the Bibb County 
case, these are all questions for consideration on remand 
within the scope of such unitary plan as may be approved.

We reverse and remand for compliance with the require­
ments of Alexander v. Holmes County and the other pro­
visions and conditions of this order.

NO. 27863 — BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA

This system, is operating on a freedom of choice plan. The 
plan has produced impressive results but they fall short of 
establishing a unitary school system.

We reverse and remand for compliance with the require­
ments of Alexander v. Holmes County and the other pro­
visions and conditions of this order.

NO. 27983 — ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA
This is another Florida school district where impressive 

progress has been made under a freedom of choice plan. The 
plan has been implemented by zoning in the elementary 
schools in Gainesville (the principal city in the system) for 
the current school year. The results to date and the building 
plan in progress should facilitate the conversion to a uni­
tary system.

We reverse and remand for compliance with the require­
ments of Alexander v. Holmes County and the other pro­
visions and conditions of this order.



15a

111
In the event of an appeal or appeals to this court from 

an order entered as aforesaid in the district courts, such ap­
peal shall be on the original record and the parties are en­
couraged to appeal on an agreed statement as is provided 
for in Rule 10(d), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 
(FRAP). Pursuant to Rule 2, FRAP, the provisions of 
Rule 4(a) as to the time for filing notice of appeal are sus­
pended and it is ordered that any notice of appeal be filed 
within fifteen days of the date of entry of the order ap­
pealed from and notices of cross-appeal within five days 
thereafter. The provisions of Rule 11 are suspended and it 
is ordered that the record be transmitted to this court 
within fifteen days after filing of the notice of appeal. The 
provisions of Rule 31 are suspended to the extent that the 
brief of the appellant shall be filed within fifteen days after 
the date on which the record is filed and the brief of the ap­
pellee shall be filed within ten days after the date on which 
the brief of appellant is filed. No reply brief shall be filed 
except upon order of the court. The times set herein may be 
enlarged by the court upon good cause shown.

The mandate in each of the within matters shall issue 
forthwith. No stay will be granted pending petition for re­
hearing or application for certiorari.

REVERSED as to all save Mobile and St. John The 
Baptist Parish; AFFIRMED as to Mobile with direction; 
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part as to St. 
John The Baptist Parish; REMANDED to the district 
courts for further proceedings consistent herewith.



16a

APPENDIX B

IN THE

U n i t e d  S t a t e s  Cour t  of A p p e a l s
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

N o s .  2 8 4 5 0  a n d  2 7 3 0 3

LAWRENCE HALL, ET AL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Infervenor-Appellant,

versus

ST. HELENA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees.

(Civil Action No. 1088)

And 37 Companion Cases, Including 
Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board 

George v. Davis, President, East Feliciana Parish School Board 
Smith v. Concordia Parish. School Board



17a

(May 28,1969)
Before BROWN, Chief: Judge, GfODBOLD, Circuit 

Judge and CABOT, District Judge
GODBOLD, Circuit Judge: We have before us appeals 

from three district court decrees covering thirty-six parish 
school systems and two city school systems, all in the state 
of Louisiana. These cases were submitted and argued April 
21,1969, two years after the en banc decision of this court in 
Jefferson II,1 and eleven months after the decision of the 
United States Supreme Court in Green v. School Bd. of New 
Kent County.1 2 All of the school districts involved are under 
the uniform decree that Jefferson II required for school 
systems in the Fifth Circuit operating under freedom of 
choice plans.

I. Background
Twenty-nine of the districts are appellees in appeals from 

an en banc decision3 of the District Court for the Western 
District of Louisiana, which declined to order modification, 
requested on the authority of Green, in existing desegre­
gation plans.4

1 United States v. Jefferson County Bd. of Edue., 372 F.2d 836 
(5th Cir. 1966) [hereinafter, Jefferson I], aff’d with modifications 
on rehearing en lane, 380 F.2d 385 (5th Cir.) [hereinafter, Jeffer­
son II],  cert, denied sub. nom., Caddo Parish Seh. Bd. v. United 
States, 389 U.S. 840, 19 L.Ed. 2d 103 (1967).

2 Green v. County Sch. Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 20 
L.Ed. 2d 716 (1968).

3 Conley v. Lake Charles Seh. Bd., 293 F. Supp. 84 (W.D. La. 
1968).

4 By order of January 9, 1969, without opinion, this court, after 
a poll of its members, denied the motion of appellants in the West­
ern District eases that those cases be heard by the court en banc. 
Cleveland v. Union Parish Sch. Bd., 406 F.2d 1331 (5th Cir. 1969). 
The dissenting opinion to that order appears in 406 F.2d at 1333.

Both the Western District and the Eastern District cases were 
among those consolidated on appeal in Adams v. Mathews, 403 F.2d 
181 (5th Cir. 1968).



18a

Eight parishes are appellees in similar appeals from a 
decree of the District Court for the Eastern District of 
Louisiana..5 6

The Tangipahoa Parish School Board is appellant in an 
appeal from another decree of the Eastern District8 direct­
ing it to change from a Jefferson-decree freedom of choice 
plan to one calling for the assignment of students “by adop­
tion of geographic zones, or pairing of classes, or both.”

We begin with principles both basic and familiar to all 
who are concerned with the complex problem of ending the 
dual school system in the South. There can be no doubt of 
the duty of school boards to act affirmatively to abolish all 
vestiges of state-imposed segregation of the races in the 
public schools. United States v. Indianola Municipal Sepa­
rate Sch. Dist., 5 Cir. 1969,___ F.2d____  [No. 25655, Apr.
11, 1969]; Henry v. Clarks dale Municipal Separate Sch.
Dist., 5 Cir. 1969,------F .2d------- [No. 23255, Mar. 6, 1969]
Adams v. Mathews, 403 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1968); Jefferson 
II, supra.

The respective burdens and roles of school boards and 
district courts are articulated in Green itself:

. . . The burden on a school board today is to come 
forward with a plan that promises realistically to 
work, and promises realistically to work now.

The obligation of the district courts, as it always 
has been, is to assess the effectiveness of a pro­
posed plan in achieving desegregation. There is no 
universal answer to complex problems of desegre­
gation ; there is obviously no one plan that will do 
the job in every case. The matter must be assessed 
in light of the circumstances present and the op­
tions available in each instance. It is incumbent 
upon the school board to establish that its proposed

5 _ _ _  F. Supp. . . (E.D. La. 1969).
6—_ F.Supp______ (E.D. La. 1969).



19a

plan promises meaningful and immediate progress 
toward disestablishing state-imposed segregation.
It is incumbent upon the district court to weigh 
that claim in light of the facts at hand and in light 
of any alternatives which may be shown as feasible 
and more promising in their effectiveness. Where 
the court finds the board to be acting in good faith 
and the proposed plan to have real prospects for 
dismantling the state-imposed dual system “at the 
earliest practicable date,” then the plan may be 
said to provide effective relief. Of course, where 
other, more promising courses of action are open 
to the board, that may indicate a lack of good faith ; 
and at the least it places a heavy burden upon the 
hoard to explain its preference for an apparently 
less effective method. Moreover, whatever plan is 
adopted will require evaluation in practice, and the 
court should retain jurisdiction until it is clear that 
state-imposed segregation has been completely re­
moved.

20 L.Ed.2d at 724.

If under an existent plan there are no whites, or only a 
small percentage of whites, attending formerly all-Negro 
schools, or only a small percentage of Negroes enrolled in 
formerly all-white schools, then the plan, as a matter of law, 
is not working. Henry v. Clarksdale, supra; Adams v. 
Mathews, supra.

The good faith of a school board in acting to desegregate 
its schools is a necessary concomitant to the achievement 
of a unitary school system, but it is not itself the yardstick 
of effectiveness.7

7 ‘ ‘ Here the district court found that the school board acted 
in good faith. But good faith does not excuse a board’s non-com­
pliance with its affirmative duty to liquidate the dual system. Good 
faith is relevant only as a necessary ingredient of an acceptable 
desegregation plan. ’ ’

Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal. Separate Sch. Dist., supra at 
.—. [Slip op. at 2].



20a

The majority of the school boards involved in these ap­
peals did not begin any type of desegregation of their 
schools prior to being ordered to do so for the 1965-1966 
school year.8 All have been operating for the 1967-68 and 
1968-69 school years under Jefferson-decree freedom of 
choice plans for pnpil assignment, which under numerous 
decisions of this circuit are required to be uniform.

All now know, judges, lawyers and school boards, that 
freedom of choice, Jefferson variety or otherwise, is not a 
constitutional end in itself but only a means to the consti­
tutionally required end of the termination of the dual school 
system. Green, supra; Jefferson II, supra. Since Green this 
court explicitly has rejected freedom of choice plans that 
were found to be demonstrably unsuitable for effectuating 
transition from dual school systems to unitary nondiscrim- 
inatory systems. See, e.g., Anthony v. Marshall County Bd.
of Educ., 5 Cir. 1969, ____ F .2d____  [No. 26432, Apr. 15,
1969]; United States v. Greenwood Municipal Separate 
School Dist., 406 F.2d 1086 (1969). See also Graves v. Wal­
ton County Bd. of Educ., 403 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1968); Bd. 
of Public Instruction of Duval County v. Braxton, 402 F.2d 
900 (5th Cir. 1968).

II. The Western District Cases

The Western District Court, sitting en banc, found that 
the operation of Jefferson-type freedom of choice in the 
school districts before it “has real prospects for dismantling 
the dual system at the earliest practicable date. . . .” and 
concluded that the best method available to eradicate the

8 Twenty-two of the school boards were ordered to integrate their 
school systems beginning with the 1965-66 school year. Two boards 
commenced with the 1964-65 school year. Nine began in 1966-67, and 
five did not begin until the 1967-68 school year.



21a

Appellants in the Western District cases contend that the 
statistical record manifestly reveals that the dual system 
continues and that freedom of choice has failed to produce 
meaningful results. They urge that the statistical record 
requires reversal when considered in light of Green and the 
cases in this circuit following Green.

The appellee school boards insist that Green does not 
foreclose the continuation of their Jefferson-decree freedom 
of choice plans. They read the statistics as revealing that 
progress, though in most instances statistically nominal, has 
been made toward the elimination of the dual system. They 
urge that the district court appropriately could conclude 
that the uniform Jefferson-decree freedom of choice plans 
under which they are operating do provide the effective 
relief referred to by Green, because, in the language of 
Green, they are operating in good faith and under plans 
which have real prospects for dismantling the state-imposed 
dual system “at the earliest practicable date.” 20 L.Ed.2d 
at 724.

We turn to the facts. In the Appendix to this opinion we 
set out the best statistical data made available to this court 
for the 1967-68 and 1968-69 school years, and such data as 
presently is available for 1969-70 (recognizing that the lat­
ter necessarily is not complete: see note 2. to the Appendix.) 
In the current school year, 1968-69, in every one of these 
school districts there is at least one all-Negro school, in 
most districts many more than just one.

In all of the twenty-nine districts, for the current school 
year, only two white students exercised their freedom of 8

8 “ With every ounce of sincerity which we possess we think 
freedom of choice is the best plan available. We are not today 
going to jeopardize the success already achieved by casting aside 
something that is working and reach blindly into an experimental 
‘ grab bag. ’ ”  293 F. Supp. at 88.

dual system of schools in these districts is freedom of
choice.8



22a

choice by electing to attend all-Negro schools. To the extent 
data is available for the 1969-70 school year, from choice 
forms already exercised and reported to ns since oral argu­
ment of these cases, no change of substantial consequence 
in this situation can be projected. See Appendix.

The number of Negro students attending formerly all- 
wliite schools has risen slightly since the adoption of the 
Jefferson-decree plans, but for the current school year the 
percentage this represents of the total Negro student popu­
lation is minimal—only five of these twenty-nine systems 
have more than ten percent of their Negro children attend­
ing formerly all-white schools. Four parishes have less than 
one percent integration.

In no instance does the data made available to us for ex­
pected 1969-70 pupil assignment vary the situation existent 
for the current year sufficiently that compliance with consti­
tutional standards can be projected.

We do not abdicate our judicial role to statistics. But 
when figures speak we must listen. It is abundantly clear 
that freedom of choice, as presently constituted and operat­
ing in the Western District school districts before us, does 
not offer the “ real prospect” contemplated by Green, and 
“cannot be accepted as a sufficient step to ‘effectuate a tran­
sition’ to a unitary system.” 20 L.Ed.2d at 726-727.

In addition the boards are required to examine other al­
ternatives. The presence of other and more promising 
courses of action at the least may indicate lack of good faith 
by the board and place a heavy burden on the board to ex­
plain its preference for an apparently less effective method. 
Green, at 20 L.Ed.2d 724. If there are reasonably available 
other ways promising speedier and more effective conver­
sion to a unitary non-racial system, freedom of choice must 
be held unacceptable. Id. at 725. Anthony v. Marshall 
County, supra; United States v. Greenwood, supra.

We reverse and remand these cases to the district court 
in order that a new plan may be put into effect in each 
school district. The obligation is upon the school boards to



23a

come forward with realistic and workable plans, and the
assessment and initial review and approval or rejection of 
each plan is for the district court, not for this court, re­
moved as we are from “ the circumstances present and the 
options available in each [of twenty nine] instance[s].” 
Green, supra, 20 L.Ed.2d at 724; Anthony v. Marshall 
County, supra; United States v. Greenwood, supra; Adams 
v. Mathews, supra; Bd. of Public Instruction of Duval 
County v. Braxton, supra; Henry v. Clarksdale, supra.10 11 
This is not to say that the district court on the scene may 
not, if it thinks best, require a uniform approach by all 
districts.31

There are many methods and combinations of methods 
available for consideration, either on a district-by-district 
basis or on a uniform basis if the district court so directs. 
Some of these are geographic zoning if it tends to disestab­
lish the dual system, Davis v. Bd. of School Comm, of 
Mobile, Ala,, 393 F.2d 090 (5th Cir. 1968),12 pairing of

10 See the concurring opinion of Judge Rubin in Duval County:
“  Green emphasizes that school officials have a continuing 

duty to take whatever action may be necessary to provide 
‘ prompt and effective disestablishment of a dual system. ’ If 
one method is ineffective, they are to try another. Hence, no 
single plan is or can be judicially approved as a catholicon.

“ Brown I  and all of its successors, as well as Green, Mon­
roe, and Raney, contemplate that school plans will be prepared 
by local officials and school boards, not by courts. But if local 
officials fail to assume their responsibilities under the Consti­
tution, district courts must continue to attempt to formulate 
the plans that should be prepared by school officials based on 
their expert knowledge, training and skill.”  (Citations 
omitted.) 402 F.2d at 908.

11 See, e.g., the discussion of Whittenberg v. Greenville County 
School District, (D.C. S.C., March 31, 1969), at note 14, infra, and 
accompanying text.

12 But a plan which contributes toward preserving segregated 
schools by incorporating zones corresponding to racially separate 
residential patterns is unacceptable. Fnited States v. Indianola, 
supra.



24a

grades or of schools, educational clusters or parks, discon­
tinuance of use of sub-standard buildings and premises, 
rearrangement of transportation routes, consolidation of 
schools, appropriate location of new construction, and ma- 
jority-to-minority transfers. The resources of the Educa­
tional Resources Center for School Desegregation, at New 
Orleans, are available to the boards and may he utilized.13 
We set out in the margin the approach recently taken by the 
United States District Court for the District of South Caro­
lina, sitting en banc in Whittenberg v. Greenville County
School District, ------ F.Supp. ------ (D.C. S.C. March 31,
1969) a case concerning 22 of the 93 school districts in 
South Carolina.14

13 A  hearing has not yet been held on whether the Center’s plan 
will be adopted. At least two district judges in Louisiana have or­
dered the use of the facilities of this center. Tangipahoa Parish, be­
fore us on this appeal, was ordered on October 15, 1968 to produce 
a plan for the 1969-70 school year for unitary operation of its school 
system. When the school board informed the court that it was un­
able to find a plan better than the one in existence, the court ap­
pointed the Center to prepare a plan.

In Harris v. St. John the Baptist Parish ,Seh. Bd., Civ. No. 
13212 (E.D. La. Apr. 23, 1969), the school board, after it did not 
come up with a plan of its own, was ordered to consult with the 
Center. A  hearing was set on the Center’s plan. The board came in 
with two plans of its own. The district judge accepted one of 
the board’s plans, which incorporated some of the Center’s sug­
gestions.

14 The district court directed that all school districts submit to the 
Office of Education, HEW, their existing method of operation, along 
with any changes proposed by them, and to seek to develop in con­
junction with HEW  an acceptable plan of operation “ conformable 
to the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs . . . and consonant in 
timing and method with the practical and administrative problems 
faced by the particular districts. ”  If a plan is agreed upon by the 
school district and HEW, the South Carolina district court will 
approve it unless the plaintiffs show it does not meet constitutional 
standards. If the school district already is operating under a plan 
approved by HEW, it will be adopted by the court absent a show­
ing of constitutional infirmity. I f  no agreed plan is developed, the 
court will hold a hearing and enter its decree, considering the re­
spective proposed plans of the district, the plaintiffs, and HEW.



We are urged by appellants to order on a plenary basis 
for all these school districts that the district court must 
reject freedom of choice as an acceptable ingredient of any 
desegregation plan. Unquestionably as now constituted, ad­
ministered and operating in these districts freedom of 
choice is not effectual. The Supreme Court in Green recog­
nized the general ineffectiveness of freedom of choice.15

15 The Supreme Court said: “  [T]he general experience under 
‘ freedom of choice’ to date has been such as to indicate its ineffec­
tiveness as a tool of desegregation.”  20 L.Ed. 2d at 725.

See also the opinion of District Judge Heebe in Moses v. AVash- 
ington Parish School Board, 276 P. Supp. 834 at 851-852 (E.D. La. 
1967):

“ If this Court must pick a method of assigning students to 
schools within a particular school district, barring very unusual 
circumstances, we could imagine no method more inappropriate, 
more unreasonable, more needlessly wasteful in every respect, 
than the so-called ‘ free-choice ’ system.

“ Under such a system the school board cannot know in ad­
vance how many students will choose any school in the system 
—it cannot even begin to estimote the number. The first prin­
ciple of pupil assignment in the scheme of school administration 
is thus thwarted; the principle ought to he to utilize all avail­
able classrooms and schools to accommodate the most favorable 
number of students; instead, this aim is surrendered in order to 
introduce an element of ‘ liberty’ (never before part of efficient 
school administration) on the part of the students in the choice 
of their own school. Obviously there is no constitutional ‘ right’ 
for any student to attend the public school of his own choosing. 
But the extension of the privilege of choosing one’s school, far 
from being a ‘ right’ of the students, is not even consistent with 
sound school admininstration. Bather, the creation of such a 
choice only has the result of demoralizing the school system it­
self, and actually depriving every student of a good education.

‘ ‘ Under a ‘ free-choice ’ system, the school board cannot know 
or estimate the number of students who will want to attend any 
school, or the identity of those who will eventually get their 
choice. Consequently, the board cannot make plans for the 
transportation of students to schools, plan curricula, or even 
plan such things as lunch allotments and schedules; moreover, 
since in no case except by purest coincidence will an appropriate 
distribution of students result, and each school will have either



26a

But in that ease, concerning only a single district having 
only two schools, the court declined to hold “ that ‘freedom 
of choice’ can have no place in . . .  a plan” that provides 
effective relief, and recognized that there may be instances 
in which freedom of choice may serve as an effective device, 
and remanded to the district court with directions to require 
the board to formulate a new plan.115

While we have directed most of our discussion to pupil 
assignment, integration of faculty is of equal importance, 
and the boards must come forward with affirmative plans in 
that regard. “ [;T]he school board must do everything within 
its power to recruit and reassign teachers so as to provide 
for a substantial degree of faculty integration,” which in­
cludes withholding of teacher contracts if necessary, United 
States v. Indianola, supra; United States v. Greenwood, 
supra. The pattern of teacher assignments to a particular 
school must not be identifiable as tailored for a heavy con­
centration of either Negro or white students. Davis v. Mo- * 16

more or less than the number it is designed to efficiently handle, 
many students at the end of the free-choice period have to be 
reassigned to schools other than those of their choice—this time 
on a strict geographical-proximity basis, see the Jefferson Coun­
ty decree, thus burdening the board, in the middle of what 
should be a period of firming up the system and making final 
adjustments, with the awesome task of determining which stu­
dents will have to be transferred and which schools will re­
ceive them. Until that final task is completed, neither the board 
nor any of the students can be sure of which school they will 
be attending; and many students will in the end be denied the 
very ‘ free choice’ the system is supposed to provide them.”  
(Emphasis in original.)

16.See Davis v. Mobile County, supra, in which this court required 
a zone plan for urban areas but left freedom of choice in effect in 
rural areas. See also the dissenting opinion to the denial of en banc 
hearing in the instant cases, 406 F.2d at 1338-39: “ I am not sug­
gesting that freedom of choice should necessarily he abandoned in 
favor of zoning . . . There is nothing necessarily unconstitutional 
about freedom of choice or geographic zoning or a combination of 
the two.”



bile County, supra; United States v. Greenwood, supra; 
United States v. Indianola, supra.

Also a plan which will “ effectuate a transition to a ra­
cially nondisci'iminatory school system” must include effec­
tual provisions concerning staff, facilities, transportation 
and school activities—the entire school system.

III. The Eastern District cases
In the Eastern District cases the district judge concluded 

that freedom of choice was working well and was the best 
available method for the school boards to reach their con­
stitutional obligations.

Appellants and the school boards make the same conten­
tions in these cases as were made in the Western District 
cases. Again, the statistical evidence makes abundantly 
clear that the freedom of choice plans as presently consti­
tuted, administered and operating, are failing to eradicate 
the dual system. See Appendix. For the current year not 
one of these districts has as many as ten percent of its 
Negro students enrolled in formerly all-white schools. The 
1969-70 data shows that Iberville Parish has achieved ten 
percent, up from 9.2% for the current year. In all these dis­
tricts no white student chose to attend an all-Negro school 
in the current year, and none has chosen an all-Negro school 
for 1969-70. Forty-six all-Negro schools exist in these par­
ishes in 1968-69. As in the Western District, the partial 
1989-70 data supplied to this court does not indicate any 
real chance of attainment of constitutional standards in 
1969-70. The boards must adopt new plans.

In addition, in evaluating the plans before him the district 
judge did not apply the standard of whether the plans are 
working but rather that of whether they could work. This 
is an erroneous standard. When testing the sufficiency of a 
plan that has been in operation sufficiently long to produce 
meaningful empirical data, that data must be considered 
and a determination made of whether the plan is effectuat­
ing a transition to a racially non-diseriminatory school sys­
tem. And Green requires the district judge to weigh the



28a

existing plan in the light both of the facts at hand and of 
any alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more 
promising. The district court must consider the alterna­
tives.

Also, the district court erred in holding that segregation 
which continues to exist after the exercise of unfettered 
free choice is “ de facto” segregation and as such constitu­
tionally permissible.

These cases must be reversed and remanded under the 
same directions as the Western District cases.

IV. The Tangipahoa Parish case
Pursuant to Green the district court required the Tangi­

pahoa School Board to present a new plan to replace the 
existing freedom of choice plan which on October 15, 1968 
it found to be ineffective. The court conducted hearings, 
similar to those now mandated to be held in the Western 
District and for the other Eastern District eases, and ap­
proved a new plan. This court has said repeatedly what we 
say in this opinion, that the responsibility for structuring 
and administering existing and new plans for disestablish­
ing the dual system is upon the school boards and the ad­
ministrators, and the primary responsibility for assessing 
and reviewing the plan and adopting necessary changes is 
upon the district court on the scene rather than at the ap­
pellate level. In the Tangipahoa case the district court cor­
rectly applied this policy, after a review of the facts. We 
affirm its decision.

V
Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish, No. 27391, is AFFIRMED. 

All other eases are REVERSED and REMANDED to the 
district courts with the following instructions.

(a) These cases shall receive the highest priority.
(b) No later than thirty days from the date of the man­

date each school board shall submit to the district court a 
proposed new plan for its school district to be effective with



29a

the commencement of the 1969-70 school term. Provided, 
however, if the district court desires to require a uniform 
type of plan, or a uniform approach to the formulation of 
plans, or issue instructions to the boards of methods that it 
will or will not consider, or other appropriate instructions, 
it shall enter its order to that effect within ten days of the 
date of the mandate. If the district court enters such an 
order the maximum time for filing plans shall be thirty days 
from the date of such order.

(c) The parties shall have ten days from the date a plan 
is filed with the district court to file objections or suggested 
amendments thereto.

(d) For plans as to which objections are made or amend­
ments suggested, or which in any event the district court 
will not approve without hearing, the district court shall 
commence hearings beginning no later than ten days after 
the time for filing objections has expired.

(e) New plans for all districts effective for the beginning 
of the 1969-70 school term shall be completed and approved 
by the district courts no later than July 25, 1969.

Because of the urgency of formulating and approving 
plans to be effective for the 1969-70 school term it is ordered 
as follows. The mandate of this court shall issue immedi­
ately. This court will not extend the time for filing petitions 
for rehearing or briefs in support of or in opposition there­
to. Any appeals from orders or decrees of the district court 
on remand shall be expedited. Any appeal may be on the 
original record. The record on any appeal shall be lodged 
with this court and appellant’s brief filed, all within thirty 
days of the date of the order or decree of the district court 
from which the appeal is taken.



30a

APPENDIX C 
PART 1

IN  T H E  U N IT E D  STATES D ISTR IC T COURT FOR T H E  

W E STE R N  D ISTR IC T OF L O U ISIA N A

Civil Action No. 9981

R ic k e y  D ale C on ley , et  al 
v.

L ake C harles S chool B oard and  Calcasieu P arish  
S chool B oard, et al

And 33 Companion Cases, Including 
Smith, v. Concordia Parish School Board

U. S. District Court 
W estern District of Louisiana 

Filed
July 8. 1969 

Alton L. Curtis, Cleric 
By: / » /  T. W. Thompson

Chief Deputy Cleric

To A ll  S chool B oards N amed A bove, to A ll  C ounsel , and 
M ost E specially  to A ll  R epresentatives of H E W , and 
th e  C itizen s  of th e  W estern  D istrict  of L ou isian a .

STATEMENT BY BEN C. DAWKINS, JR., CHIEF 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, WESTERN 
DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, ISSUED INITIALLY 
IN MID-EVENING OF JULY 3, 1969, RELATING 
TO THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CASES.

P reface

More than fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court—over­
ruling all of its earlier decisions to the contrary—decided 
that segregated public schools no longer were constitu­
tionally permissible. There have been myriads of Supreme 
Court and lower appellate court decisions on that subject 
since then, the most recent one, as to the above-captioned 
School Boards directly affecting the Louisiana schools, 
having been rendered May 28, 1969.



31a

The sum and substance of the law now—as decided by 
Congress and the higher courts—is that the initial ap­
proach ot “ all deliberate speed”  no longer is valid, and 
that “ Freedom of Choice”  alone is not working fast 
enough. Accordingly, in these cases the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals, at New Orleans, now has held, as of 
May 28, 1969, that other more expeditious steps, such as 
zoning and pairing of schools, must be used.

Against that background, on July 3, 1969, we were asked 
by The Shreveport Times to make some comment, specifi­
cally insofar as a new joint national policy statement had 
been issued only a few hours earlier that date by HEW 
Secretary Finch and Attorney General Mitchell (with the 
approval of President Nixon), the chief enforcement of­
ficers directly involved, relaxed substantially the time 
deadlines theretofore fixed by HEW as fall 1969, so as to 
allow a little more time for full implementation of total 
desgregation.

As Chief Judge of this Federal District Court, and after 
full consultation with our other two Judges, Honorable 
Edwin F. Hunter, Jr., of Lake Charles, and Honorable 
Richard J. Putnam, of Lafayette, this judge hurriedly 
prepared such a comment, which got considerably garbled 
in dictating it to The Times by telephone, with the Times’ 
representative doing the best he could taking it down 
on a typewriter. The statement was read back by another 
Times staff member, where corrections were made, but due 
to pressures of time on all concerned, it still came out 
somewdiat garbled, both in The Times and possibly even 
more so in newspapers who received it by wire service. 
The accurate statement should have read as follows:

# #  *

We hope it will be understood quite clearly that we 
judges of this federal district court can make no more than 
a general comment upon the new policy guidelines an­
nounced today in Washington.

This is so because we three judges now have pend­
ing before us some 30-odd cases involving litigation con­



32a

cerning desgregation of schools in the Western District 
of Louisiana.

To all nonlawyer citizens who may not know this, we 
suggest that they ask any lawyer or judge of the State 
courts, who will confirm that it would be highly unethical 
for us at this stage to comment upon or discuss publicly 
and specifically the situation concerning any particular 
school district.

In general, however, we can state without reservation 
that the new policies issued today (July 3rd) give all 
of us—federal courts, school boards, parents of school ag*e 
children, and even those of pre-school age grandchildren, 
such as my own four grandchildren, three of whom are not 
yet in school—a sort of new breath of fresh air to replace 
the virtually intolerable situation all of us were faced with 
prior to the new policy developments announced today.

We say this with great gratitude—political considera­
tions being entirely beside the point—from nearly all of 
the mature, thoughtful citizens of both races.

All of us—black and white alike—owe a debt of eternal 
gratitude, not only to the obvious compassion of President 
Nixon, Secretary Finch and Attorney 'General Mitchell— 
but to the untiring efforts of many, many good people of 
all political ties who have worked tirelessly behind the 
scenes to bring this about. Among the forefront of these 
highly effective people have been our own congressmen 
and senators, elected by all of us to represent the true 
feelings of the vast majority of all citizens, white and 
Negro alike.

Lauds Waggonner

To this judge, however, greatest credit of all belongs 
to Honorable Joe D. Waggonner of the 4th Congressional 
District. We have talked and conferred with him many, 
many times in the past five weeks since the May 28 de­
cision of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans,



which for all practical purposes generally has ruled out 
“ freedom-of-choice”  as an unacceptable method of achiev­
ing total desegregation as decreed by the Supreme Court 
and Congress.

This means eventual abolishment of our formerly dual 
system and conversion of it into a unitary system where 
there are no ‘ ‘ black schools”  and no “ white schools”  as 
such, but simply schools. Congressman Waggonner in our 
judgment has accomplished, by his untiring, unceasing ef­
forts, an almost superhuman task in bringing home to the 
right people at the right time, the true facts of educational 
life, not only in Louisiana, but in the entire nation.

It is only from the militants—liberals, Socialists or 
by whatever name they should be labeled—that we now 
hear complaints as to the new guidelines. In our judgment, 
these militants—always noisy and often quite articulate— 
should be regarded nationwide as a tiny, tiny fragment 
of our entire citizenry, who somehow seem to capture the 
spotlight in their protests in our news media, and while 
they have the constitutional right to speak their piece, 
they are outnumbered everywhere in our great nation by 
the Great Silent Majority.

Of course, notwithstanding strong disagreement by many, 
the Supreme Court and higher appellate courts have the 
final say-so, as to what the Constitution means or does 
not mean. Let’s face it together. Under our system of 
government under law, and not by man alone, it is the best 
form of government ever devised by man, not only in our 
own time, but in the long history of mankind.

We must live by law or we shall be destroyed as a 
civilization, either from without or within. It is indeed 
the last best hope we have, based, in our nation, upon the 
eternal principles of the essential dignity and respect of 
each man for the other and his rights.

Let us not mislead you—segregation as a way of life 
obviously is gone forever in this land of ours. Many dif­



34a

ficult, even tormenting, days lie ahead of us. But the 
United States of America, under this system, has grown 
in less than 200 years to be the most powerful, the richest, 
the most providential, nation for all of its people of any 
nation on the face of the earth.

We must sustain our indissoluble Union of .States and 
our Constitution which were established for us by our 
forefathers. They decreed in 1789 that we should have 
a government regulated according to nature’s laws, fore­
ordained by Almighty Uod Himself.

Now, we are on a new threshold in our glorious—but 
on rare occasions inglorious—history. We must meet with 
great circumspection and deep insight the challenges that 
lie ahead, not just against our outward enemies on foreign 
soil, but perhaps even more forcefully against those who 
would destroy us from within.

Solemn Obligation

This duty, this solemn obligation of American citizen­
ship, rests upon each and every one of us in both our 
private and public lives. We must, indeed we impera­
tively must, put down the wanton violence which often grows 
from internal discontent which so frequently is generated 
by foreign forces insinuating themselves into our society 
or by laziness, slothfulness, immoral attitudes, and the 
ingrained idea of some that the world, meaning us tax­
payers, owes them a living, just because they are here by 
no choice of their own.

This is so wrong, so utterly wrong! But we must re­
mind you again that the root cause of such attitudes grows 
not from our system of government, which at times has 
seemed to try to be all things to all people, but from a 
lack of fundamental understanding that, regardless of 
a few words in the Declaration of Independence, all men 
are NOT created equal except in equality of opportunity



35a

for growth, physical, spiritual and material, under our 
Constitution.

In essence, Man is what he is born, what he has tried 
to do for himself and what he is educated to be, whether 
it be doctor, lawyer, merchant, chief, or laborer or even 
thief.

That brings us back to the initial point-—our system of 
education, which is the most important feature personally 
in all our lives. Without it, any or all are lost. Living 
itself is a constant process of education, whether it be hard 
or easy, rough or sleazy. We must, we must—maintain 
our system of public education, which, together with our 
constitutional precepts, has exalted us to the highest stand­
ard of living over-all of any nation in the world.

It was this judge’s displeasure to visit the Soviet Union 
—Communist Russia—about one year ago. We saw the 
so-called show places and past glories of Leningrad and 
Moscow, the old Czarist palaces and all else they pointed 
to with pride, and which they did not themselves create; 
but we also saw the countryside, with its sod-roofed hovels, 
its collective farms and the like. While we must and do 
respect Soviet scientific achievements, and indeed all of 
us fear them in the field of intercontinental ballistic mis­
siles, above all else we could not escape observing the faces 
of the Russian people themselves. Never, anywhere, any­
time, have we seen such obviously miserable, totally regi­
mented people. No one ever smiled, even at each other. 
They were totally brainwashed.

They knew nothing of the material comforts of the out­
side world. They knew nothing of the wonder of America 
—where even the smallest home sprouts a TV antenna, 
and at least one automobile in front of it, and where few 
people comparatively really go hungry or are poorly fed. 
What a place Russia was and is ! It was like an entrance 
into Dante’s Inferno and when we left, even upon arriving



86a

at its little satellite Finland, it was as if one were emerging 
into bright sunlight from deep darkness where—-in Fin­
land—there were laughing young mothers, pushing peram­
bulators, rosy cheeked children, well dressed and groomed, 
clean and clear eyed.

So it is, even more so with us. We must emerge from 
racial disharmony into mutual understanding among our 
population, no matter what the color of a person’s skin 
may be. We must help underprivileged people, black or 
white, when they are unable to help themselves. In our 
public schools, where some mental laggards cannot help 
their condition by themselves, we must upgrade them as 
best we can by intensive remedial programs. We must 
give them proper training to the limit of their ability. 
One step further, we must upgrade our so-called average 
learners by enrichment of their educational opportunities 
so that many present C-average learners who are poten­
tially A-graders and also need help because of possible 
environmental disadvantage, may reach the full limit of 
their capabilities.

And, finally, at the same time, sound educational prin­
ciples seem to dictate that the so-called rapid learners, 
those who naturally are endowed with superior attainment 
capabilities, are given full opportunity to develop accord­
ing to their inborn talents, regardless of race, and not be 
held back to the least common denominator within their 
schools.

In other words, while it now is the law of the land, as 
established both by the Supreme Court edicts and by the 
Congressional Civil Eights Act of 1964, we may not dis­
criminate because of race, but we may do so within our 
schools according to scientifically proven ability, or lack 
of it, as the case may be, ever trying to be helpful to all.

This philosophy, which we believe to be educationally 
unquestionable, now brings us to the general matter of



37a

plans for the future, education-wise, in the Western Dis­
trict of Louisiana. Specifically, we will not require sub­
stantial bussing* of students, over long distances, or un­
reasonable assignments to other schools, simply to achieve 
a racial balance, for such is expressly prohibited by the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

We have not yet seen in writing the specific plans to 
be submitted by the School Boards and HEW. At this 
moment, all we know is what we have seen or heard in 
the press, TV or radio, which is quite fragmentary.

Nevertheless, from what we thus have observed, it would 
appear strongly at first blush that, educationally, what 
HEW has proposed to the various boards is either “ out­
rageous, utterly unrealistic or totally impossible eco­
nomically.’ ’ And, if this indeed is the case, you may rest 
assured that we judges will not—the words are WILT. 
NOT—accept or approve them. At the other end of the 
spectrum., we have been advised informally that a few 
local boards will submit no plans at all, or only token 
plans, as required by our order of June 5 pursuant to 
the mandate of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

If such is true, then that, too, is utterly unrealistic and 
ridiculous! We know, however, that some far-thinking 
boards, who do understand jfiain English, in good faith 
will submit plans as required by the Fifth Circuit decree, 
on July 5.

It appears, therefore, that we probably will have to 
conduct separate hearings for each school system. We 
have advised the judges of the Court of Appeals that 
we undoubtedly will need additional time beyond its July 
25 deadline as contained in its decree of May 28.

All but one of these judges have indicated unanimously 
that such additional time will be granted to this court 
upon our formal or informal application.

We shall get this if it is needed.



38a

We are entering a new order in these cases on July 5 
requiring both the boards and HEW (plaintiffs’ attorneys, 
government or private, are not to be permitted to partici­
pate in these discussions) to meet with one another im­
mediately and negotiate seriously and fairmindedly.

We have been informed by the new policies issued today 
and by the head of the regional office of HEW at Dallas 
that thoroughly trained educators, of a practical mind, will 
participate with the boards in giving the obviously-neces- 
sary consideration and serious, in-depth advice to each 
board. These negotiations, under our July 5 order, if 
necessary, may continue until July 21, when we will then 
receive reports as to points of agreement or disagreement, 
and will determine whether it will be necessary for us 
to conduct hearings with live witnesses, maps showing 
locations and schools and children of both races, proposed 
district zoning, etc.

Of course, in our June 5 order, we allowed plaintiffs’ 
counsel 10 days from the final reports within which to 
object or to make further suggestions, and this will be 
done.

In any event, under the new policy guidelines issued 
today, which give us considerably more elbow room than 
was available before, we believe we can obtain from every 
board, HEW and plaintiffs, over-all plans which will cover 
the entirety of desegregation but which may be imple­
mented as follows:

1. Substantial implementation in the fall of 1969;

2. Definite commitments to further implement or com­
plete, if necessary, the achievement of such plans bv the 
fall of 1970;

And, 3. Final implementation, in exceptional cases, by 
no later than the fall of 1971.



39a.

We Judges shall be available, as needed, during the 
course of these negotiations, to MEDIATE points of pos­
sible difference between the Boards and HEW.

It should be remembered, by all concerned that, as courts, 
we possess inherent powers to enforce our lawful orders 
by all necessary means, and we shall not hesitate to ex­
ercise such powers, if persuasion fails. This is not in­
tended as a threat to anyone, but merely to remind HEW 
and the 'School Boards, that our lawful orders will be 
enforced, as compassionately but as firmly as possible, which 
goes almost without saying.

That is all (even if too long) we can say at this time.
This is an Order which supplements our Order of July 

5, 1969 and is to be followed to the letter.
T h u s  Obdebed and D ecbeed, at Shreveport, Louisiana, 

this 8th day of July, 1969.

F ob th e  Court

/ s /  B e k  C. D a w k ik s , Jb.
Ben C. Dawkins, Jr., Chief Judge



40a

APPENDIX C 

PART 2

IN  T H E  U N IT E D  STATES D ISTR IC T COURT FOR T H E  

W E ST E R N  D ISTR IC T OF L O U ISIA N A  

M ON ROE D IVISION

Civil Action No. 11577 

I r m a  J. S m i t h , e t  a l ., Plaintiffs,

v.
C o n c o r d i a  P a r i s h  S c h o o l  B o a r d , e t  a l ., Defendants.

Opinion and Order

(entered 1 August, 1969)
This cause is one of the cases consolidated for appeal to 

the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, under the 
style of “ Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board,”  Docket 
No. 26450 and No. 27703. In Hall, the Court of Appeal [sic] 
reversed the decision of this Court which had approved the 
continuance of a freedom of choice plan for the purpose of 
eliminating the vestiges of the dual school system formerly 
operated in Concordia Parish. The case was remanded for 
further hearings in this Court.

This Court, on 5 June 1969, entered an order requiring 
the defendant school board to consult with the United States 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), 
and, after such consultations, to submit new plans prior to 
the 5th of July, 1969.

This time was extended 16 days, and on 8 July 1969 a 
supplemental order was issued by this Court.

An informal conference was conducted by this Court on 
16 July 1969, and this matter was heard formally in Court 
on July 29 and July 30, 1969. On the basis of the evidence 
introduced, the plans submitted by the defendant school



41a

board, and the record of this case, the Court makes the 
following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND 
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Concordia Parish School Board operates 13 pub­
lic schools. There are approximately 7000 students in the 
system, approximately 3868 of whom are white and 3227 
are Negro.

2. In the public schools of the Ferriday-Clayton area ap­
proximately 65% of the pupils and teachers are Negro and 
3591 of the pupils and teachers are white, and this fact, 
together with the locations and capacities of the schools, 
condition of the transportation facilities, and other relevant 
factors shown by the record, make these exceptional cases 
within the contemplation of the 8 July 1969 order of this 
Court so as to require final and full implementation no later 
than the fall of 1971.

3. The plan submitted by the defendant school board re­
flects that for the 1969-70 school year there will be substan­
tial integration of students, faculty and transportation.

4. The original plan submitted by the HEW is rejected 
as unworkable and impractical. If adopted, there is grave 
danger that it would create an all Negro, or substantially 
all Negro, public school system and thwart the objectives 
enumerated in the desegregation cases.

5. The plan filed by the defendant school board in the 
record of this case on 30 July 1969 meets the requirements 
of law for effectively dismantling the dual school system of 
Concordia Parish completely at the earliest practicable date 
within the standards set out in Green v. New Kent County, 
Ya. (36 L.W. 4476).

6. The plan submitted by the defendant school board is 
acceptable to the HEW insofar as the degree of integration 
is concerned except that the HEW does not take a position



42a

on the time element and the separation of sexes, which are 
matters left by them with the Court.

It Is T herefore O rdered, A djudged and D ecreed :

I .

That the plan of the Concordia Parish School Board filed 
in evidence in this cause on 30 July 1969, a copy of which is 
annexed hereto as Exhibit A , be and it is hereby approved 
and ordered to be immediately implemented, and the de­
fendants, their agents, officers, employees and successors, 
and all those in active consort and participation with them, 
be and they are permanently enjoined from discriminating 
on the basis of race or color, creed or national origin in the 
operation of the Concordia Parish school system.

II.
The transportation system will be integrated to coincide 

with and implement the plan herein approved, and busses 
shall be routed to accomodate [sic] all students without 
consideration of race or color, creed or national origin con­
sistent with said plan.

in.
That all teachers shall be employed and assigned to the 

various schools in the school system without consideration 
of race or color, creed or national origin, except as required 
by the plan for the purpose of elimination of the former 
dual system.

IV.
T ransfers

(a) Majority to Minority Transfer Policy. The defend­
ants shall permit a student (Negro or white) attending a 
school in which his race is in the majority to choose to at­
tend another school where space is available and where his 
race is in a minority.

(b) Transfers for Special Needs. Any student who re­
quires a course of study not offered at the school to which



he has been assigned may be permitted, upon his written 
application at the beginning of any school term or semester, 
to transfer to another school which offers courses for his 
special needs.

(c) Transfers to Special Classes or Schools. If the de­
fendants operate and maintain special classes or schools 
for physically handicapped, mentally retarded, or gifted 
children, the defendants may assign children to such schools 
or classes on a basis related to the function of the special 
class or school. In no event shall such assignments be made 
on the basis of race or color or in a manner which tends to 
perpetuate a dual school system based on race or color.

V.
S ervices, F acilities , A ctivities and P rograms

No student shall be segregated or discriminated against 
on account of race or color in any service, facility, activity, 
or program (including transportation, athletics, or other 
extra-curricular activity) that may be conducted or spon­
sored by the school in which he is enrolled. A student at­
tending school for the first time on a desegregated basis 
may not be subject to any disqualification or waiting period 
for participation in activities and programs, including ath­
letics, which might otherwise apply because he is a transfer 
or newly assigned student except that such transferees shall 
be subject to longstanding, non-racially based rules of city, 
county, or state athletic associations dealing with the eligi­
bility of transfer students for athletic contests. All school 
use or school-sponsored use of athletic fields, meeting rooms, 
and all other school related services, facilities, activities 
and programs such as commencement exercises and parent- 
teacher meetings which are open to persons other than en­
rolled students, shall be open to all persons without regard 
to race or color. All special educational programs con­
ducted by the defendants shall be conducted without regard 
to race or color.



44a

VI.
F acu lty  and S taff

(a) Faculty Employment. Race or color shall not be a 
factor in the hiring, assignment, reassignment, promotion, 
demotion, or dismissal of teachers and other professional 
staff members, including student teachers, except that race 
may be taken into account for the purpose of counteracting 
or correcting the effect of the segregated assignment of 
faculty and staff in the dual system. Teachers, principals, 
and staff members shall be assigned to schools so that the 
faculty and staff is not composed exclusively of members of 
one race. Wherever possible, teachers shall be assigned so 
that more than one teacher of the minority race (white or 
Negro) shall be on a desegregated faculty, the decision of 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in the Bes­
semer Case; and the Ruling of the Supreme Court in Carr 
vs. Montgomery shall be followed.

(b) Dismissals. Teachers and other professional staff 
members may not be discriminatorily assigned, dismissed, 
demoted, or passed over for retention, promotion, or re­
hiring, on the ground of race or color. In any instance 
where one or more teachers or other professional staff 
members are to be displaced as a result of desegregation, 
no staff vacancy in the school system shall be filed [sic] 
through recruitment from outside the system unless no such 
displaced staff member is qualified to fill the vacancy. If, as 
a result of desegregation, there is to be a reduction in the 
total professional staff of the school system, the qualifica­
tions of all staff members in the system shall be evaluated 
in selecting the staff member to be released without con­
sideration of race or color. A report containing any such 
proposed dismissals, and the reasons therefor, shall be filed 
with the Clerk of the Court, serving copies upon opposing 
counsel, within five (5) days after such dismissal, demotion, 
etc., as proposed.

(c) Past Assignments. The defendants shall take steps 
to assign and reassign teachers and other professional staff 
members to eliminate the effects of the dual school system.



R eports to th e  Court

The defendants shall serve upon opposing counsel and 
file with the Clerk of the Court within 15 days after the 
opening of schools for the fall semester of each year, a re­
port setting forth the following information:

(i) The number of faculty vacancies, by school, that 
have occurred or been filled by the defendants since the 
order of this Court or the latest report submitted pur­
suant to this sub-paragraph. This report shall state 
the race of the teacher employed to fill each such va­
cancy and indicate whether such teacher is newly em­
ployed or was transferred from within the system. The 
tabulation of the number of transfers within the system 
shall indicate the schools from which the transfers were 
made. The report shall also set forth the number of 
faculty members of each race assig-ned to each school 
for the current year.

(ii) The number of students by race, in each grade of 
each school.

VIII.
N ew  C onstruction

The defendants, to the extent consistent with the proper 
operation of the school system as a whole, shall locate any 
new school and substantially expand any existing schools 
with the objective of eradicating the vestiges of the dual 
system.

IX.
The Marshal shall serve each of the defendants herein 

with a copy of this decree.
T hus D one and S igned , in Chambers, in Shreveport, Lou­

isiana, on this the 1st day of August, 1969.
/ s /  B en  C. D a w k in s , J r .

Judge



46 a

T H E  U N IT E D  STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR T H E  W E ST E R N  DISTRICT OF LO U ISIA N A  

M ON ROE DIVISION

Civil  A ction No. 11,577

I rm a  J. S m it h , et  al .

vs.

Concordia P arish  S chool B oard, et a l .

Pursuant to the Order of this Honorable Court dated 
8 July 1969, the following plan was approved by the Con­
cordia Parish School Board for submission to the Court in 
compliance with the applicable desegregation orders.

PROPOSED PLAN FOR 1969-70 SCHOOL YEAR 
(PHASE ONE)

V  id alia  A rea

1. Vidalia Elementary School—Grades 1-5. Capacity 
with three temporary buildings—700.

Projected Enrollment (White) .......................  622
Negro students living in north and west Vidalia 

area presently being bused will be trans­
ported to Vidalia Elementary School instead 
of Concord ......................................................  78

Total Projected Enrollment..............................  700

2. Vidalia Junior High School—Grades 6-8. Capacity 
with two temporary buildings—422.

Projected Enrollment (White) .......................  366
Negro students living in north and west Vidalia 

area presently being bused will be trans­
ported to Vidalia Junior High School instead 
of Concord ......................................................  46

Total Projected E n rollm en t.................................  412



47a

3. Yidalia High School—Grades 9-12. Capacity with six 
temporary buildings—443.

Projected Enrollment (White) ........................  405
Negro students living in north and west Vidalla 

area presently being bused will be trans­
ported to Yidalia High School instead of 
Concord .......................................................... 30

Total Projected Enrollment ............................  435
4. Concord High School—Grades 1-12. Capacity—592.

Former Projected Enrollment (Negro) .........  705
Less Negro students who live beyond the city 

limits of Vadalia who will be transported to 
Yidalia Elementary, Yidalia Jr. High and 
Yidalia High .Schools ...................................  —154

Total Projected Enrollment.............................. 551

R idgecrest A rea

Ridgecrest Elementary School—Grades 1-6. Capacity 
336. This is a new school.

Students who formerly attended Ferriday Ele­
mentary School and Ferriday Junior High
School .............................................................  303

Negro students who live in close proximity of 
the Ridgecrest School ...................................  33

Total Projected Enrollment.............................. 336

Clayton  A rea

Clayton Elementary School—Grades 1-6. Capacity 168.
Projected Enrollment (White) ........................  84
White students who ride buses that presently

go by the Clayton School.............................. 41
Negro students who live in close proximity of

the Clayton School ......................................... 43

Total Projected E nrollm ent.................................  168



48a

M onterey A rea

Monterey High School—Grades 1-12. Capacity with one
temporary building—456.

Projected Enrollment (White) ........................  390
Negro students who live in immediate vicinity 

but heretofore have been transported to 
Ferriday ..........................................................  58

Total Projected Enrollment..............................  448

F erriday A rea

1. Ferriday Elementary School—Grades 1-6. Capacity 
821. This school was formerly Grades 1-5. With the open­
ing of the Eidgecrest Elementary School, the organization 
has been changed to 1-6.

Projected Enrollment (White) ............................. 658
Negro students who live north of Ferriday in 

the Lake St. John area would be transported 
to Ferriday Elementary School..................... 96

Negro students living on Concordia Drive would 
be transported to Ferriday Elementary 
School .............................................................. 67

Total Projected Enrollment..................................  821

2. Ferriday Junior High School—Grades 7-8. Capacity 
448.

Projected Enrollment (White) ........................  383
Negro students who live north of Ferriday in 

the Lake St. John area would be transported 
to Ferriday Junior High School................... 33

Negro students living on Concordia Drive would 
be transported to Ferriday Junior High 
School .............................................................. 32

Total Projected Enrollment ...............................  448



49a

3. Ferriday High School—Grades 9-12. Capacity with 
seven temporary buildings—644.

Projected Enrollment (White) ........................  586
Negro students who live north of Ferriday in 

the Lake St, John area would be transported 
to Ferriday High School.....................  45

Negro students living on Concordia Drive would 
be transported to Ferriday High School . . . .  13

Total Projected Enrollment...................  644

4. Ernestine Washington Elementary School—Grades
1-6. Capacity 1400.

Projected Enrollment (Negro) ........................  1340
Less: Students transported to Ferriday Ele­

mentary School ...................................  —163
Students going to Eidgecrest......  —33

Total Projected Enrollment ............................ 1144

5. Sevier Junior High School—Grades 7-8. Capacity 448.

Projected Enrollment (Negro) ........................  423
Less: Students transported to Ferriday Jr.

High School ......................................... —65

Total Projected Enrollment....................  358

6. Sevier High School—Grades 9-12. Capacity with
temporary buildings 644.

Projected Enrollment (Negro) ........................  646
Less: Students transported to Ferriday High

School ..................................................  58

Total Projected Enrollment................... 588



50a

FACULTY 
1969-70 School Year

All faculty will he integrated as previously proposed 
ie—at least four of the opposite race in all schols except 
for the small school at Clayton which will be proportion­
ately integrated as to faculty, and the Ferriday schools 
which will have six teachers of the opposite race.

TRANSPORTATION 
1969-70 School Year

Transportation will be substantially integrated during 
the 1969-70 school year.



51a

PROPOSED PLAN FOR 1970-71 SCHOOL YEAR 
(PHASE TWO)

VIDALIA AREA
The Vidalia area will be totally integrated as reflected by 

the charts below:
V idalia J un ior  H ig h  S chool (G ir ls) G rades 1-6

GRADES 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL

WHITE 76 58 59 60 59 62 374
NEGRO 32 38 32 31 42 41 216
TOTAL 108 96 91 91 101 103 590

V idalia E lem entary  S chool (B oys) Grades 1-7
GRADES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL

WHITE 71 88 77 56 65 54 67 478
NEGRO 32 27 37 37 30 37 31 231
TOTAL 303 115 114 93 95 91 98 709

V idalia H ig h  S chool (G irls) Grades 7-12
GRADES 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL

WHITE 59 74 47 55 33 37 305
NEGRO 24 24 25 26 19 20 138
TOTAL 83 98 72 81 52 57 443

C oncord S chool (B oys) Grades 8-12
GRADES 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL

WHITE 67 48 53 28 29 225
NEGRO 28 31 25 18 18 120

TOTAL 95 79 78 46 47 345
The faculties will be totally integrated according to the 

racial composition of the Vidalia area.
School transportation will be totally integrated.



52a

RIDGECREST AREA
All students, Negro and white, Grades 1-6, living in the 

Ridgecrest area will attend the Ridgecrest Elementary 
School.

All boys, Negro and white, Grades 7-8, will attend the 
Ferriday Jr. High School. This would be eight (8) Negro 
boys and sixty-eight (68) white boys.

All girls, Negro and wdiite, Grades 7-8, will attend Sevier 
Jr. High School. This would be twenty-seven (27) Negro 
and one hundred fifty-five (155) white students.

The faculty will be integrated according to the racial 
composition of the student body.
CLAYTON AREA

The plan for 1969-70 fills the Clayton School to capacity. 
The 1970-71 plan projects an enrollment of eighty-four (84) 
white and eighty-four (84) Negro students. This enroll­
ment would be determined according to students living in 
close proximity to the Clayton School.

An additional one hundred twenty-two (122) Negro stu­
dents in Grades 1-6 will be transported to the Ernestine 
Washington Elementary School in Ferriday. Thirty-six 
(36) Negro boys in Grades 7-8 would be transported to the 
Ferriday Jr. High School, and thirty-eight (38) Negro 
girls in Grades 7-8 would be transported to the Sevier' High 
School. Fourteen (14) white girls in Grades 7-8 would 
attend Sevier Jr. High School. Thirteen (13) white boys 
in Grades 7-8 would attend Ferriday Jr. High School. 
Fifty-seven (57) white students in Grades 9-12 would at­
tend Ferriday High School.

The faculty will be integrated according to the racial 
composition of the student body.
MONTEREY AREA

All students, Negro and white, living in the Monterey 
School District would be assigned to the Monterey High 
School. This would be one hundred forty-one (141) Negro 
students and three hundred ninety-two (392) white students.

The faculty will be integrated according to the racial com­
position of the student body.



FERRIDAY AREA
Tlie Ferriday area will continue as the 1969-70 plan 

with the following exceptions:

The Ferriday Jr. High School will enroll all boys, white 
and Negro, Grades 7-8. The Sevier Jr. High School will 
enroll all girls, white and Negro, in Grades 7-8. The table 
shown below will reflect the composition of enrollment in 
these schools.

Transportation will continue as in 1969-70 plan, Avith the 
exception of Grades 7-8, which will be totally integrated.

F ebbiday J b . H igh  S chool (B oys) Gbades 7-8

GBADES 7 8 TOTAL

WHITE 118 105 223
NEGRO 106 91 197

TOTAL 224 196 420

S eviee Jb. H igh  S chool (G ib ls ) Gbades 7-8

GBADES 7 8 TOTAL

WHITE 99 98 197
NEGRO 113 79 192

TOTAL 212 177 389

The faculties of Ferriday Jr. High School and Sevier 
Jr. High School will be totally integrated. Faculties in 
the other schools in the Ferriday area will be integrated 
at a rate of 30% of the opposite race as reflected in the 
following chart:

SCHOOLS

Ferriday Elementary School 
Ferriday High School 
Ernestine Washington 

Elementary School 
Sevier High School

NEGEO W H IT E  TOTAL

8 19 27
10 23 33

43 18 61
22 10 32



54a

PROPOSED PLAN FOE 1971-72 SCHOOL YEAR 
(PHASE THREE)

VXD ALIA AREA
The Vidalia area wall remain the same as the 1970-71 

proposal—totally integrated by sex.

RIDGECREST AREA
The Ridgecrest area will continue to operate as in 1970-71. 

CLAYTON AREA
The enrollment for the Clayton School will reflect the 

racial composition of the Clayton community. The f aculty 
will also reflect the racial composition of the student body.

MONTEREY AREA
The Monterey area will continue to operate as 1970-71. 

The faculty will reflect the racial composition of the student 
body. Transportation will be integrated.

FERRIDAY AREA
Schools of the Ferriday area will be totally integrated as 

reflected by charts below:

W ashington  E lem en tary  S chool (B oys) G rades 1-6

GRADES 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL

WHITE 102 66 69 88 66 107 498
NEGRO 126 130 128 115 118 127 744

TOTAL 228 196 197 203 184 234 1242

F erriday E lem en tary  S chool (G ir ls ) Grades 1-5

GRADES 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL

WHITE 86 84 70 67 78 385
NEGRO 105 118 107 84 120 534

TOTAL 191 202 117 151 198 919



55a

S evier J un ior  H igh  S chool (G ir ls ) Grades 6-8

GRADES 6 7 8 TOTAL

WHITE 83 113 79 275
NEGRO 103 99 98 300

TOTAL 186 212 177 575

F erriday J u n io r  H ig h  S chool (B oys) Grades 7-9

GRADES 7 8 9 TOTAL

WHITE 106 91 87 284
NEGRO 118 105 117 340

TOTAL 224 196 204 624

F erriday H igh  S chool (G ir ls ) G rades 9-12

GRADES 9 10 11 12 total

WHITE 101 86 58 38 283
NEGRO 113 80 64 67 324

TOTAL 214 166 122 105 607

S evier H ig h  S chool (B oys) G rades 10-12

GRADES 10 11 12 TOTAL

WHITE 79 66 68 213
NEGRO 74 68 52 194

TOTAL 153 134 120 407

Faculties will be totally integrated. School transporta­
tion will be totally integrated.



56a

APPENDIX D 
PART 1

T H E  U N IT E D  STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EA STE R N  D ISTR IC T OF L O U ISIA N A  

BATO N ROUGE DIVISION

C ivil  A ction N umber  3248

R obert Carter, et a l . 

v.
W est F elician a  P arish  S chool B oard, et al .

ORDER—RE: SCHOOL DESECRATION PLAN 
FOR WEST FELICIANA PARISH

Pursuant to this Court’s order of July 11, 1969, the West 
Feliciana Parish School Board has presented to this Court 
a proposed plan for the desegregation of its public school 
system. HEW also submitted a proposed plan pursuant 
to this Court’s order of June 9, 1969, and plaintiffs, through 
their counsel, have opposed the Board’s plan and urged 
the adoption of the HEW plan. It is the contention of 
plaintiffs’ attorney that the Board’s plan merely continues 
a pattern of segregation in the school system of West 
Feliciana Parish, while the HEW plan proposed an immedi­
ate mixing of the races in all schools in the system on a 
percentage coinciding closely with the population percent­
ages in the community. This Court has studied these plans 
carefully, and while the plan submitted by the School Board 
will not, for the school year 1969-1970, bring about the 
degree of mixing of the races in the schools of West Felici­
ana Parish obviously contemplated by the Court of Ap­
peals, nevertheless, this Court is of the opinion that in 
accordance with the conditions hereinafter set forth, the 
proposed plan of the School Board for the 1969-1970 school 
year should be approved and adopted. There are certain 
local conditions existing in this particular area that were



obviously not considered in any way by the drafters of 
the HEW plan but simply must be given consideration 
before any realistic plan for the operation of that school 
system is adopted. For example, the use of St. Francis- 
ville High School recommended by HEW is completely 
unrealistic. It fails to consider either the capacity of the 
school or the nature of the physical facilities available. The 
HEW plan proposes assigning 883 students to that school 
which the drafters themselves state has facilities for only 
850 students. They propose assigning 475 students to 
Baines Junior High School when, according to their own 
plan, the school can accommodate only 450 students. They 
recommend closing two schools completely, Polk Elementary 
and Dawson High School, even though those facilities are 
sorely needed in order to accommodate the student body 
of West Feliciana Parish. It may well be that given time 
to make other suitable arrangements, those negro schools 
could ultimately be eliminated if sound educational policies 
called for it. But to suddenly order closure of those schools 
one month before the beginning of a school year, when 
such closure would result in serious overcrowding of other 
schools, would be indefensible, both economically and edu­
cationally speaking. It seems to me that anyone support­
ing such a drastic move on such short notice has little inter­
est in education of any kind. This Court must also take 
into consideration the fact that the elected School Board 
of West Feliciana Parish is composed of six white members 
and three negro members. The plan proposed by that 
Board was adopted by unanimous vote of all of the School 
Board members. The three negro members of that Board 
favor the retention of Polk and Dawson schools for this 
next school year, regardless of the fact that they will, in 
all probability, remain all negro schools. This Court has 
had no indication that the people of West Feliciana Parish, 
white or negro, favor the closure of those schools this year. 
The closure of those schools would be terribly disruptive of 
the entire educational system in that Parish and would



benefit no one. The only ones; advocating such a step are 
some of the out-of-state employees of HEW and an at­
torney of record who lives in New Orleans, Louisiana, 
Total desegregation of this system should not be ordered 
on a moment’s notice just to satisfy the wishes of absentee 
lawyers. It should be ordered immediately only if, under 
existing circumstances, sound educational principles call 
for it. This Court finds, as a fact, that in this particular 
case something less than the degree of integration that 
was contemplated by the Court of Appeals’ mandate of 
May 28, 1969, must be considered acceptable for the immedi­
ate future as long as such acceptance is conditioned upon 
a firm commitment being made within a reasonable time for 
the complete desegregation of the system by the commence­
ment of the following school year. Thus, this Court rejects 
the HEW plan as being completely unrealistic and unsound 
and approves and adopts the following provisions of the 
plan proposed by the West Feliciana Parish School Board, 
to-wit:

1. Effective with the commencement of the 1969-1970 
school year, Tunica School, which will be used for 
grades 1-8, will be zoned first for students from Ward 
7 and secondarily for a sufficient number of students 
from Ward 8 to fill said school to capacity.

2. I:>o 1 k-Rosenwaid School will be used for grades 
1-6 and will be zoned primarily for students from 
Wards 4 and 5 and secondarily for a sufficient number 
of students from Ward 9 to fill said school to capacity.

3. The remaining three schools, St. Francisviile 
School (grades 1-12), Dawson School (grades 9-12), 
and Bains School (grades 1-8), shall be operated on 
an open attendance basis for the school year 1969-1970 
only.

For the year 1969-1970, this will result in a substantial 
increase in integration in Tunica School and Polk School



59a,

as reflected on the projections prepared by the School Board 
and marked Exhibit “ A ”  and previously filed in the record 
hereof, and will increase the number of integrated schools 
from one in 1968-1969 to three in 1969-1970.

It Is T herefore Ordered that this plan, as above set 
forth, for the school year 1969-1970, be implemented by the 
West Feliciana Parish School Board.

While the Board did not give a firm commitment as to 
its plan for future desegregation for the school year 1970- 
1971, this Court recognizes the necessity for such a com­
mitment. Thus, the approval of the above plan is based 
upon the following conditions and order:

It Is F u rth er  Ordered that within ninety days after the 
opening of the 1969-1970 school year, the West Feliciana 
Parish School Board present this Court with a firm com­
mitment to bring about the total conversion of its entire 
school system to a unitary, non-diseriminatory system by 
the commencement of the 1970-1971 school year. If such 
a firm commitment and plan is not forthcoming within said 
ninety day period, this Court will then assume that the 
Board approves the implementation of the HEW proposed 
plan for the 1970-1971 school year. This additional time 
is given in this case in view of what the Court considers 
to be special problems and circumstances existing in West 
Feliciana Parish and in view of the fact that the present 
Superintendent of Schools in that Parish has been in office 
for less than forty-five days and has not had the time or 
opportunity to seriously consider the possibilities for the 
1970-1971 school year. It is expected that this time interval 
will enable the Board and the new Superintendent to review 
all possibilities for the complete disestablishment of a dual 
system of schools in West Feliciana Parish insofar as both 
teacher and student assignments is concerned and insofar 
as all school connected activities are concerned by the com­
mencement of the 1970-1971 school year, and to present to 
this Court, within that time, a firm commitment to accom­



60a

plish that end. Failing to do that, this Court will order 
the implementation of the HEW proposed plan for the com­
mencement of the 1970-1971 school year.

It Is F u rth er  Ordered that a copy of this order be 
served either personally or by mail upon all counsel of 
record in this case, and It Is F u rth er  Ordered that such 
service upon counsel of record shall be deemed notice to 
the parties hereto.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, July 25, 1969.
E. G-ordoh W est

United States District Judge



61a

APPENDIX D 
PART 2

U N IT E D  STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN  DISTRICT OF LO U ISIA N A  

BATO N ROUGE DIVISION

Civil Action Number 3253 
S haron  L y n n e  G eorge, et al 

versus

C. W alter D avis, P resident, E ast F elician a  P arish  
S chool B oard, et al

ORDER—EE: SCHOOL DESEGREGATION PLAN 
FOR EAST FELICIANA PARISH

Pursuant to this Court’s order of July 11, 1969, the 
East Feliciana Parish School Board has presented to this 
Court a proposed plan for the desegregation of its public 
schools. HEW also submitted a proposed plan pursuant 
to this Court’s order of June 9, 1969, and plaintiffs, through 
their counsel, have filed objections to the Board’s proposed 
plan and urged the adoption of the HEW plan. Since every 
conceivable argument has been made, at one time or another, 
during the many hearings on this matter before this Court 
during the last four years, and since serious time limitations 
were imposed upon both the parties to this suit and this 
Court by the mandate of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 
dated May 28, 1969, further hearings and oral arguments 
were considered unnecessary. Instead, the Court ordered 
each party to submit its plans, criticisms, objections and 
arguments in writing, after which the Court would take 
the matter under submission and render a decision by 
July 25, 1969, the deadline set by the Court of Appeals.

All of these plans, objections, and arguments have 
been carefully noted and considered, and this Court is of the 
opinion that, in the absence of a freedom of choice plan, 
which this Court sincerely believes to be legally and educa­
tionally sound, but which has been specifically rejected in



62a

this case by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the plan 
proposed by the East Feliciana Parish School Board is, for 
many reasons, the next best thing, and will come closer to 
accomplishing what is sought to be accomplished by the 
Court of Appeals, while at the same time taking into con­
sideration, to some extent at least, sound educational poli­
cies, administrative problems, and the economies of the 
situation, even though it is forced, by mandate, to prac­
tically eliminate completely the wishes and desires of the 
children and parents that the public schools are supposed 
to serve.

The Court finds as a fact that the drafters of the HEW 
proposed plan for this Parish completely and totally ig­
nored all sound educational principles, administrative 
problems with which the Board would be faced under their 
proposed plan, and the economics of the situation, and 
chose instead to mechanically assign numbers instead of 
children to the various schools in the system. The HEW 
team, who were complete strangers to the East Feliciana 
area, and who had never been connected with school ad­
ministration in a similar area, spent about six hours riding 
around looking at schools which were closed and locked, 
and then proceeded to claim some sort of expertise in the 
operation of the East Feliciana Parish School System. 
Their plan, in view of the complete lack of any considera­
tion being given to local conditions, or to the cost of im­
plementation, is indefensible. It deals only with numbers 
and not with students or realities. It provides for over­
crowding certain school for the sole purpose of effectuat­
ing a predetermined percentage mixing of races. The 
entire plan submitted for this Parish by HEW evidences 
a complete and total lack of understanding on the part of 
its drafters. They offered no suggestion as to where the 
hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to implement 
their plan would come from. To implement their plan 
would require a complete reassignment of all school per­
sonnel, the establishment of a completely new transport a-



tion system, the relocation of school furniture, the building 
of laboratories in some schools and the dismantling of them 
in others, and a myriad of other things that simply could 
not feasibly be accomplished between now and the last of 
August, when school begins. The detailed objections to the 
HEW plan contained in the affidavit of M. N. Williams, 
Superintendent of Schools for East Feliciana Parish, at­
tached hereto for reference, clearly set forth the inde­
fensibility of the HEW plan. This appraisal was made by 
an expert in the field of school administration in East 
Feliciana Parish and must be given great weight. The 
objections to the School Board’s plans, filed on behalf of 
plaintiffs, need no comment since they are not backed up 
by any reasoning whatsoever and were obviously prepared 
by someone who knew nothing whatsoever about the situa­
tion and who failed to give any consideration to the very 
real problems involved.

It being the opinion of this Court that the East Feliciana 
Parish School Board has acted in good faith in attempting 
to present a solution to the many problems involved, and 
it being the opinion of this Court that the plan proposed by 
the Board does, in fact, make substantial progress toward 
the immediate accomplishment of the things sought to be 
accomplished by the Court of Appeals, and it being the 
opinion of this Court that the implementation of the plan 
proposed by the Board will, within two or three years at 
the outside, bring about the complete desegregation of the 
entire school system, and it being the opinion of this Court 
that it would be unrealistic to require more of the Board 
and the people of East Feliciana Parish on such short 
notice, and lastly, it being the opinion of this Court that the 
plan proposed by the East Feliciana Parish School Board 
is in substantial compliance with both the orders of this 
Court and the mandate of the Fifth Circuit Court of 
Appeals:

It Is O rdered that the proposed plan for the operation 
of the public schools of East Feliciana Parish commencing



64a

with the beginning of the 1969-1970 school year, filed herein 
by the East Feliciana Parish School Board on July 22, 
1969, and made a part hereof by reference, and a copy of 
which is attached hereto, be, and it is hereby declared to 
be the plan under which said school system shall operate 
commencing with the beginning of the 1969-1970 school 
year, and,

It Is F u rth er  Ordered that the East Feliciana Parish 
School Board implement said plan, in its entirety, at the 
commencement of the 1969-1970 school year.

It Is F u rth er  Ordered that a copy of this order be 
served, either personally or by mail, on all counsel of record 
in this case, and It Is F u rth er  O rdered that service of this 
order upon counsel shall be deemed to be notice to the 
parties to this suit.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, July 25, 1969.
E . G ordon W est

United States District Judge

S tate oe L ouisiana 
P arish  oe E ast F eliciana

B efore M e , a Notary Public for East Feliciana Parish, 
Louisiana, personally appeared:

M. N. W illiam s  

who, being duly sworn, deposed that:
He is Superintendent of Schools for East Feliciana 

Parish. He was commissioned by the East Feliciana Parish 
School Board to prepare an affidavit for submission to the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Louisiana, in compliance with an order of that court of 
July 11, 1969, in the matter entitled “ Sharon Lynne George 
et al. versus C. Walter Davis, President, East Feliciana 
Parish School Board et al.,”  Civil Action Number 3253.



65a

On July 19, 1969 the East Feliciana Parish School Board, 
at a special meeting called for that purpose, at which 
meeting a quorum of the board was present and voted, 
approved for submission to the court the following P lan  
foe E ffectuation  of a U n itary , N on-discriminatory 
S chool S ystem  for E ast F elician a  P arish , L ouisiana . 
The plan set forth details for its operation, and includes 
certain provisions from the “ Desegregation Plan for East 
Feliciana Parish School District,”  previously filed with 
this court by the Department of Health, Education and 
Welfare.

Certain provisions of the latter plan, of H. E. W., have 
been omitted from the school board’s plan, and others have 
been altered before insertion in the plan. Detailed reasons 
for all such deviations or omissions are set forth herein, 
immediately before the details of the board’s own plan.

The plan of the school board, the critique of the H. E. W. 
plan, the provisions of the H. E. W. plan to which objec­
tions have been made, and detailed reasons for the objec­
tions, are as follows:

Critique of H. E. W. P la n , Objections 
T hereto , and  R easons for Objections

General Objections to HEW Plan

On June 9,1969, Judge West of the United iStates District 
Court ordered the East Feliciana Parish School Board in 
conjunction and cooperation with the experts of Health, 
Education and Welfare to prepare a new plan for the op­
eration of the parish schools to become effective with the 
commencement of the 1969-70 school year. The order re­
quired that the new plan meet the standards set forth by 
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in its decision of May 
28, 1969, giving due consideration to the practical and 
administrative problems of each defendant board.

Mr. James Ford of Arkansas and Mr. Robert Reynolds 
of Texas were assigned by HEW to work with the staff of



the East Feliciana Parish School Board on its plan. These 
gentlemen met with the Board on June 24 at which time 
they informed the board of their educational background, 
authority, methods or procedure, etc. The Superintendent 
and staff were directed by the board to fully cooperate 
with the HEW team in the preparation of a plan. After 
board adjournment at four o ’clock p. m., the team asked 
to be taken on a tour of the parish schools. The Superin­
tendent explained that school personnel would not be on 
duty at this hour and consequently the schools would be 
locked. After an explanation by the team that its members 
could see enough by looking in the windows, the Superin­
tendent visited the eleven schools in the parish with the 
HEW team, completing the visits at nine o ’clock p. m. On 
the morning of June 25 the office personnel completed a 
copy of the enclosed questionnaire with the exception of 
the program of studies in each school which the team 
stated was insignificant and not needed. At 10 :45 a. m., 
June 25, Mr. Ford and Mr. Reynolds arrived at the School 
Board office to pick up the completed questionnaires. They 
requested and were given a school tax district map and 
looked at transportation maps. A pupil location map was 
requested but was not available. At no time were there any 
discussions of possible plans or requests for information 
regarding practical and administrative problems of this 
particular school system. The team left the office at 12 -15 
p. m. after informing the Superintendent that the HEW 
plan would be sent to him by registered mail on or before 
July 3. The next contact with HEW came on June 30 
when the Superintendent was notified to come to the new 
Post Office building in Baton Rouge at 2 :00 p. m. on July 
2 to pick up and hear an explanation of the HEW plan. 
Mr. Don Phares and Mr. Walter Felps, school board mem­
bers, Mr. John Ward, board attorney, and Superintendent 
Williams met Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Ford at the appointed 
time and place and received the plan and an explanation 
of it.



The above detailed information of the workings of the 
HEW team in East Feliciana Parish may be of no conse­
quence other than as a comparison with procedures of the 
teams in other parishes. Nevertheless, it is inconceivable 
that two men, admittedly unfamiliar with Louisiana school 
laws and the East Feliciana Parish system could devise 
a completely new and different school system after working 
the parish for six and one-half hours. This in no way is 
intended as a reflection on the abilities of the team mem­
bers although their educational experiences and back­
grounds were in school systems entirely different from 
East Feliciana. Mr. Ford’s administrative experience is 
confined to am Arkansas system of 1000 students, approxi­
mately 20% of the students were negroes, most of whom 
were sent out of the district on a tuition basis until the 
formation of a unitary system. The East Feliciana system 
consists of 68% negro students and 63% negro teachers. 
Mr. Reynolds’ administrative experience in elementary 
and secondary schools was in Austin, Texas as a junior 
high principal. In this urban system of 15% negro students 
where several all negro schools still exist and with segre­
gated housing patterns typical of cities, school problems 
are quite different from those in rural East Feliciana. 
Fondest expectations under these circumstances were that 
the team would best utilize the facilities available within a 
workable administrative framework. This actually re­
quired very little educational expertise since the team’s 
stated prime responsibility was to desegregate the system. 
All that could be done was to fill existing classrooms with 
a mixture of students of both races. These minimal ex­
pectations were formulated without giving due considera­
tion to the emphasis placed by HEW on racial ratios in 
each school. Any resemblance of the HEW plan to the 
present school system is purely accidental. To put this 
plan into effect would mean a complete reassignment of all 
school personnel, the establishment of an entire new trans­
portation system, the relocation of most of the school



furniture, the adjustment of blackboards, bathroom equip­
ment, etc., to meet the needs of different age groups, al­
most complete redistribution of texts and library books, 
transfers of most student records and revisions of time 
schedules and programs of study. In addition to these 
physical changes the board and its professional staff are 
charged with educating and selling the public on the plan, 
the formulation of new objectives and philosophies to coin­
cide with the makeup of each new school and many other 
tasks which require much more than the allotted thirty 
days. (1969-70 session begins August 25.)

The East Feliciana Parish school system consists of 
eleven schools. Two of these schools, West High and .Jack- 
son High, serve grades 1 -12. Clinton High serves grades 
7 -12 and East High contains grades 9 -12. Elementary 
schools consisting of grades 1 - 8 are Slaughter, Eeiley, 
Spears, Eighth Ward, Norwood, and East Elementary. 
Clinton Elementary serves grades 1 - 6. All of these schools 
currently operate the first six grades as self-contained class­
rooms. All seventh and eighth grades are departmental­
ized or semi-departmentalized to serve as a transitional 
period between self-contained classrooms and department­
alized high schools. All high schools have established and 
operating four year programs. This organizational struc­
ture is the result of many years of study, research, and 
experience within this rural system and is based on sound 
educational principles. The teachers in the system have 
been selected, assigned and trained for this structure. The 
HEW plan totally disregards any organizational structure 
and proposes a hodge-podge of school organization. The 
only apparent consideration was to fill existing classrooms 
with a racial mixture of students.

Each of the schools in the system has been located so as 
to best serve the children of the parish in accordance with 
the “ neighborhood school”  concept. Consequently, the 
schools are a vital part of each community, serving not



69a

only as the educational center but also as the social and 
cultural center. The HEW plan of restructuring the schools 
and dividing the students gives no consideration to this 
important value of the schools. When this is lost, it is 
reasonable to predict that it will be accompanied by the loss 
of public interest and support.

The HEW plan requires the use of most schools by 
students in grade levels other than those currently attend­
ing. The necessary conversion of classrooms and facilities 
along with the moving of equipment, texts and library 
books, etc., will require considerable time as well as creat­
ing an exorbitant financial burden. The plan also requires 
additional transportation. The East Feliciana Parish 
School Board does not have the necessary personnel to 
make this conversion in the limited time available nor does 
it have the financial resources the plan requires. It is 
estimated this plan would cost the school system an addi­
tional $250,000.00 to implement for the 1969-70 school year.

The HEW plan omitted any provision for classes for the 
Educable Mentally Retarded which has been an important 
port of our school program. The proposed restructuring 
of schools would seriously hinder this phase of the school 
program.

S pecific O bjections to th e  HEW P roposals 

II. Recommendations

The school board, staff was instructed to use a room 
capacity of 28 elementary students and 25 high school stu­
dents per standard classroom. The HEW plan used a 
figure of 30 for elementary and 25 for high school. This 
discrepancy accounts for some of the difference in the 
staff ’s rating and the HEW rating. Further reasons for 
a discrepancy here are apparently because HEW did not 
take into account variations in size of classrooms and 
special purpose rooms.



70a

II. Special note

A special note on page two of the plans calls for a divi­
sion of the parish with the dividing line to be established 
by the school board so as to establish and maintain the 
approximate ratios reflected in the plan. Since the line to 
be drawn would in effect divide the school population of 
the entire parish, such a line would be immensely difficult 
to establish. With a shifting and changing population, this 
line would be impossible to maintain.

II. (1) East High School to he grades 10-12

A. Rejected

B. Reasons:

The East High School for grades 10-12 is a combination 
of the former Clinton High School with grades 6-12 and 
the former East High School with grades 9-12. In both 
of these schools the administrative structure was based on 
a four year high school program. The three-grade pro­
posal will interrupt the continuity and damage the effec­
tiveness of the high school program of studies. In addi­
tion to this change the course offerings of the schools differ 
to meet the needs of their respective student bodies. 
Many students will be unable to continue their planned 
program of studies, seriously hindering their educational 
careers. The HEW team rated the capacity of East High 
at 450 students and assigned 494. To obtain the number 
assigned the team used the 1968-69 attendance figures in 
grades 10-12. For the session 1969-70 the figures for 
grades 9-11 should have been used to estimate the size of 
the student body. Using figures for these grades, the 
actual enrollment for East High will be 585 students, which 
is 135 above the rated capacity. East High lacks the facili­
ties to accommodate a senior high school of this size. A 
critical deficiency exists in the specialized areas such as 
science labs, shop areas, commerce departments, etc.



71a

A. Rejected
B. Reasons:
Clinton High School is a junior-senior high school con­

sisting of grades 7-12. The school organization is based 
on preparing the 7th and 8th grades for a four year high 
school program. The proposed structure will make it im­
possible to continue this plan. Students for the school 
will come from East Elementary, Spears Elementary, Clin­
ton Elementary, Reiley, Eighth Ward and Slaughter and 
remain from 1-3 years. The various school backgrounds 
and length of stay will make it extremely difficult for the 
school to analyze and meet the individual needs of the stu­
dents during the course of a session. The board’s rated 
capacity of the 30 year old plant is 325 students. The rat­
ing given by the HEW team was 504 and the assignment 
is for 535 students. Since the school has specialized fa­
cilities required for a high school, many rooms will not be 
fully utilized under the proposed restructuring. Most 
equipment must be moved as it is not adaptable to these 
grade levels.
II. (3) Clinton Elementary School be grades 5-6

A. Rejected
B. Reasons:
The Clinton Elementary School is serving as grades 

1-6 elementary school. The school now contains equipment 
and furniture to meet the needs of students in those grades. 
The new proposal would require converting several class­
rooms to the needs of older children. Changes must be 
made in blackboard heights, bathroom fixtures, size of 
desks, and numerous other things. Programs of special 
services now being offered such as special education for 
mentally retarded, remedial reading, vocal and instru­
mental music could be seriously hampered. The educa­
tional soundness of isolating grades 5 and 6 is questioned.

(2) C lin to n  H ig h  S c h o o l  be g r a d e s  7  - 9



72a

A. Rejected
B. Reasons:
East Elementary School is now serving as a grades 

1-8 school with facilities for special education for retarded 
children and a remedial reading program. This relatively 
new plant contains two classroom wings of 12 rooms each. 
One wing is designed for low elementary grades and one 
for grades 5-8. Fixtures, furniture and equipment in the 
upper elementary wing would have to be changed to meet 
the needs of the smaller children. The unnecessary con­
version of a modern 1-8 grade plant is a needless waste 
of upper elementary facilities and the public’s money. The 
time and expense involved in this conversion is discussed in 
the general objectives [sic].
II. (5) Eighth Ward Elementary School closed

A. Rejected
B. Reasons:
The Eighth Ward School is serving a heavily populated 

rural area as an elementary school for 317 students in 
grades 1-8 and as a community center. The plant consists 
of 15 classrooms, a cafetorium, a remedial reading room and 
a speech therapy room. The HEW team rated the plant in 
good condition. The team stated that the recommendations 
for closing this facility was based on their inability to 
find enough white students to adequately integrate the 
school. Closing this facility and assigning the students to 
the schools in Clinton would place an unnecessary burden 
on the Clinton schools.
II. (6) Reiley Elementary School be grades 1-2

A. Rejected
B. Reasons:
Reiley Elementary School is serving as an elementary 

school containing grades 1-8 and as a community center

II. (4) E a s t  E le m e n ta r y  S c h o o l to  b e  g r a d e s  1-4



for the attendance area. It is the cultural and social center 
of its patrons. The proposal to convert it to a school for 
grades 1 and 2 serving the students of two other areas will 
result in a complete loss of community interest and sup­
port for the school. Facilities would have to he altered to 
meet the needs of smaller children. Under the HEW plan, 
students in the Reiley School in grades 3, 4, and 5 will be 
bussed to Spears School, a distance of approximately 15 
miles and the 6th, 7th, and 8th grades will be bussed to 
Slaughter, a distance of 17 miles. First and second grad­
ers are to be bussed to Reiley from Slaughter and Spears 
schools. Some of these students live as much as 25 miles 
from the Reiley School. All of the schools involved in 
this triple-padring plan with Reiley are now serving their 
communities as grades 1-8 elementary schools. Under this 
proposal a child beginning school at Reiley would attend 
five different schools before completing high school. A 
family in the area could conceivably have each of their 
five children attending five different schools, being trans­
ported on 5 different buses, each leaving the home and re­
turning at different times. The expense of this cross 
bussing is prohibitive. The 1-2 structure of the schools is 
completely educationally unsound.

The plan directs the school board to create an elementary 
zone for the students attending Reiley, Spears and 
Slaughter. The schools are located across the southern 
section of the parish. This section is the fastest growing 
area of the parish. A line established now to fully utilize 
the facilities available would require constant alterations 
so as to avoid overcrowding of facilities. Establishment of 
this line and the pairing of these three schools would re­
quire a transportation system routed in an East-West di­
rection while the North-South line proposed in the special 
note on page 2 would require routing in a generally north- 
south direction within the districts created. This plan of 
bussing will minimize the possibility of combining routes



to serve both areas and result in additional expense for 
the transportation system.
II. (7) Spears Elementary School he grades 3-5

A. Rejected
B. Reasons:
The Spears Elementary School is serving its community 

as an elementary school for grades 1-8 and as a community 
center. The HEW proposal would convert it into a grades 
3-5 school for the children previously attending Reiley, 
Spears, and Slaughter. The bussing objection related in 
objections to Reiley also apply in this case. Changing to 
a grades 3-5 school would result in the loss of special fa­
cilities for both upper and lower grades now existent at 
the school and necessitate the conversion to use by students 
of different age groups. The time and expense of unneces­
sary conversion also applies here. The conversion and the 
resulting transfer of students would result in the loss of 
school spirit and community support. The educational 
soundness of a grades 3-5 structure is questioned.

II. (8) Slaughter Elementary School he grades 6-8

A. Rejected
B. Reasons:
The Slaughter Elementary School is a new elementary 

school for grades 1-8, scheduled for opening at the be­
ginning of the 1969-1970 school year. The HEW plan will 
convert it into a grades 6-8 school for students formerly 
of Reiley, Spears, and Slaughter. This school was con­
structed as a result of a concentrated effort and at con­
siderable expense to the citizens and taxpayers of the 
Slaughter tax district. Under the HEW plan the ma­
jority of students at the Slaughter School will come from 
other tax districts, and % of the students in Slaughter 
will be bussed to schools in other tax districts. Since

74a



75a

the children in Slaughter will be widely scattered, the 
school will lose its value as a community center, with the 
accompanying loss of community support. Objection to 
bussing in the objections to Reiley and Spears are applica­
ble to this school. The necessary conversion of facilities 
and equipment to use by students of other grade levels 
must be made here in a plant not yet used.

II. (9) West High School he grades 1-4 and 10-12

A. Rejected

B. Reasons:

West High is now serving as a grade 1-12 school in 
Jackson. HEW ’s plan proposes to convert it to a school 
for grades 1-4 and 10-12 for all students residing in Jack­
son-West High zone and students from the closed Nor­
wood'School. The school board’s rated capacity for West 
High is 675 based on the board’s plan to eliminate a poor 
facility for 125 students. HEW rated the plant capacity 
at 995 and assigned 955 students. As at East High these 
figures were taken from the 1968-69 school records for 
grades 10-12. If figures are taken from grades 9-11, the 
estimated enrollment will be 1,039 students on the campus 
of 8 acres. Facilities are completely inadequate for a 
student body of this size. A critical shortage exists in 
specialized facilities for high school such as science labs, 
shop area, etc. Although the campus is divided by a street 
separating the high school and elementary plants, many 
facilities must be used in common such as lunchroom, li­
brary, gym, vocal and instrumental music. The proposed 
combination of lower grades and higher grades on this 
campus would not be desirable. Existing lunchroom fa­
cilities make it utterly impossible to accommodate a stu­
dent body of this size. Students coming into the school 
in the upper grades would have their program of studies 
interrupted because of the difference in course offerings.



A. Rejected
B. Reasons:
Jackson High School is presently serving as a grades 1-12 

school in Jackson. The HEW proposal would require con­
version to a grades 5-9 school for all students in the Jack- 
son-West High zone and the closed Norwood School. 
Existent facilities and equipment for the lower and upper 
grades will have to be relocated or converted for use by 
different grade levels. Specialized facilities for high 
school vocational subjects cannot be used by these grade 
levels. The 5-9 grade structure is incompatible with this 
system’s educational philosophy and educational principles 
in general. It does not coincide with the parish plan for 
4-year high school programs. The playground area is 
totally inadequate for a student body of this grade level 
and size.

II. (11) Norwood School closed.
A. Accepted.

III. Desegregation of Faculty and Other Staff
1. Rejected. The board rejects the ratio requirements 

for teachers and staff and contends that race should be no 
criteria for employment or reassignment.

2. Accepted.
3. Rejected. This section is so detailed and specific in 

terminology, yet so indistinct and obscure in meaning that 
attempted implementation as set forth would seriously 
hinder day-by-day operation of the schools by the local 
administrators.

IV. Transportation
A. Accepted

II. (10) J a c k s o n  H ig h  S c h o o l b e  g r a d e s  5-9



V. School Construction and Site Selection
A. Accepted

VI. Majority to Minority Transfer Policy
A. Rejected
B. Reasons:
The board rejects this provision as written because it 

does not limit students to transfers only before the be­
ginning of school. Under the proposal transfers could be 
made at any time during a school year. In addition the 
provision is not clearly worded. The board’s alternative 
of this provision is set forth in Paragraph XI of the 
board’s plan.
VII. Attendance outside parish of Residence

A. Rejected in part
B. Reasons:
The board rejects this proposal as being unworkable 

and in fact unenforceable by the school board insofar as it 
applies to students transferring to schools outside the 
parish.
VIII. Suggestions for Plan Implementation

A. Rejected
B. Reasons:
It is submitted that these provisions are suggestions 

only, and not intended to be a part of the HEW “ plan”  
itself. The HEW representatives clearly indicated their 
intention to leave “ implementation”  of the plan to the 
school representatives. All of the suggestions are clearly 
intended to be implemental in nature, or courses of action 
which in their opinion would assist in implementation. 
The orders of the court require only a plan, and leave im­
plementation to the school board and school personnel. 
For these reasons, the board believes that the “ sugges­
tions”  are inappropriate for, and beyond the scope of, any 
plan.



78a

P lan  foe E ffectuation  of A U n itary , N on -D iscrim in a ­
tory S chool S ystem  for E ast F elician a  P arish , 
L ouisiana

It will be noted that this plan sets forth provisions to 
effect substantial progress in elimination of all-white and 
all-negro schools for the 1989-1970 school year. The plan 
is designed to not only eliminate all-white and all-negro 
schools, but to completely integrate all schools in the 
parish by the beginning of the 1971 school year.

Initially, it should be noted, as is set forth in greater 
detail in the foregoing objections, that the plan submitted 
by HEW can immediately be seen to be infeasible because 
of the limited physical facilities available in the parish for 
operation of schools. Negroes outnumber whites at every 
grade level, and, if Negroes and whites are to attend the 
same schools, not only more classrooms, but considerably 
larger schools will be necessary. Sound educational and 
administrative principles dictate the necessity for new 
school facilities to achieve the purpose and the result- 
ordered by the court.

Concerning the initial year 1969-1970, it should be noted 
that the plan calls for elimination of 3 formerly all Negro 
schools in the parish, and elimination of the only remain­
ing all white school in the parish, by zoning. Another 
formerly all-Negro school is being closed, in order to carry 
out the court’s order. Thus 5 of the parish schools which 
formerly had no racial mixing of students will now be inte­
grated to a substantial degree. Another 3 schools, all with 
predominantly white student enrollments, are expected to 
receive significantly greater numbers of Negro students as 
a combined result of the zoning and closing of other schools.

Finally, it should be noted that this plan is being sub­
mitted by the East Feliciana Parish School Board in order 
to comply with the orders of Court rendered previously in 
this matter. It is still the unanimous opinion of the board 
that, if it is necessary in the eyes of the courts to operate



the parish school system under a plan designed solely for 
the purpose of eliminating racial discrimination, the only 
plan which is conscionable and workable in accordance 
with recognized educational and administrative princi­
ples is the “ freedom of choice”  plan which the board has 
operated its schools under for the past two years. In 
addition, the board believes that there could be no fairer 
plan than freedom of choice, in that it gives every student, 
or every parent of a student, the right to choose the school 
which he desires, and the right for that student to attend 
that school and to obtain his education there. The East 
Feliciana Parish School Board firmly adheres to its belief 
that the only fair and workable school desegregation plan 
for its school system is freedom of choice.

However, for the reasons given in the foregoing criti­
cism, the plan submitted to the court, by HEW would lead 
to the educational and financial collapse of the school sys­
tem of the parish. The HEW plan has been clearly stated 
to be the only alternative to a plan of forced mixing of 
schools, and freedom of choice has been specifically and 
unequivocally ruled out as an alternative.

Hence, the following plan is submitted, not in the belief 
that it is the best plan for the East Feliciana Parish 
School System, but in the belief that it is the only alterna­
tive to the destruction of the system which would result 
with attempted implementation of the HEW plan.

D etails of P lan  foe 1969-70 S chool Y ear

I. All students in grades 1-8 residing within the follow­
ing zones will attend the schools within their respective 
zones, each of which has been drawn to accommodate the 
approximate capacity of each school therein. Such students 
will not be allowed to attend schools outside the zones in 
which they reside, except as provided in the majority-to- 
minority clause of Paragraph XI. The zone will include all 
students residing within the following boundaries for each 
school area, respectively:



80a

Reiley Elementary School Zone
Begin at the intersection of Louisiana Highway 958 with 

the south boundary of East Feliciana Parish, then follow 
Hwy 958 north to Hwy 959, then follow Hwy 959 east to a 
gravel road east of Blairstown, then north about one mile 
to a gravel spur road, then east to the end of the gravel 
spur, and along the section lines between 28 and 44 of 
T3S, R3E io the end of another gravel spur, and along 
this spur back to Hwy 959, and then to Kidd’s Creek. Then 
along Kidd’s Creek south to the south boundary of East 
Feliciana Parish, then along the parish line west to Hwy 
958.

Slaughter Elementary School Zone

Begin at the intersection of Louisiana Highway 964 with 
the south boundary of East Feliciana Parish, then north 
along Hwy 964 to Hwy 955. Then northeast along Hwy 955 
to Ethel, Louisiana. Then northeast along Hwy 19 to Red­
wood Creek, then south along Redwood Creek about a mile 
south of its intersection with Hwy 956, then east to a gravel 
road connecting Hwy 412 with Hwy 955, then south along 
the gravel road to Hwy 412, then south along the section 
lines between sections 2 and 3 and between sections 10 and 
11 of T4S, R1E to the south boundary of East Feliciana 
Parish, then along the parish line west to Hwy 964.

Eighth Ward Elementary School Zone
Begin at the intersection of Hwy 10 with the east bound­

ary of East Feliciana Parish, then west along Hwy 10 to 
a gravel road at its intersection with the section line be­
tween section 72 and 74 of T2S, R3E, then west along the 
gravel road for about two miles to a gravel spur road, then 
to the end of the gravel spur and northwest to the intersec­
tion of the Beech Grove Road with Hwy 67, then northwest 
to the intersection of section 21 of TlS, R2E with Beech 
Grove Road, then northwest along Beech Grove Road to



81a

Louisiana Highway 422, then west to Comite Creek, then 
north along Comite Creek to the north boundary of East 
Feliciana Parish, then east along the parish line to Amite 
River, then south along Amite River to Louisiana High­
way 10.

Spears Elementary School Zone

Begin at the intersection of Highway 10 with Hwy 955, 
then south along Hwy 955 to Hwy 957, then to the intersec­
tion of Hwy 957 with the section line between sections 25 
and 26 of T3S, R1E, then west to Redwood Creek, then north 
along Redwood Creek to Hwy 19, then north on Hwy 19 
to its intersection with Carter’s Creek, then north along 
Carter’s Creek to Battle Road, then east along Battle Road 
to a gravel spur road in Battle, then along the gravel spur 
road to its end, then northeast to the intersection of Hwy 
10 with Hwy 955.

II. Norwood Elementary School will be closed, and its 
former students will be absorbed by the school system ac­
cording to the proposals set forth below:

III. Any student outside the zones described in Para­
graph I, and any student in grades 9-12 within the zones 
has the option of open enrollment in any school outside the 
zones and serving his grade level.

IV. Students outside the zones, residing south of High­
way 10 and east of the Range Line between R2E and R3E, 
Greensburg Land District, have the option of enrollment 
as in III above, with the additional option of attending 
Reiley Elementary School if it serves his grade level.

V. Students outside the zones, residing west of Comite 
River south of its intersection with Louisiana Highway 67, 
have the option of open enrollment as in III above, with the 
additional option of attending Spears Elementary School 
if it serves his grade level.



82a

VI. A. Approximately two weeks prior to the scheduled 
opening date for parish schools, an open registration period 
shall he held at each school subject to open enrollment in 
the parish. Every student with the option of open enroll­
ment shall be allowed to select the school which he prefers 
at such time. This pre-school registration period will not 
be available to children within the closed zones unless the 
majority to minority transfer provisions of Paragraph XI 
applies. A prominent notice of the open registration period, 
and the reasons therefor, shall be published in the local 
newspaper at least 3 days prior to the scheduled date for 
the registration period.

B. No preference shall be given to any student with the 
option of open enrollment for prior attendance at a school, 
and no choice shall be denied for any reason other than 
overcrowding. In case of overcrowding at any school, 
preference shall be given on the basis of the proximity of 
the school to the homes of the students choosing it, without 
regard to race or color. Standards for determining over­
crowding shall be applied uniformly throughout the parish. 
Any such student whose choice is denied will be promptly 
notified in writing and given his choice of any school which 
he is eligible to attend in the parish, serving his grade level, 
where space is available.

VII. The transportation system shall be completely re­
examined regularly by the superintendent, his staff, and the 
school board. Bus routes and the reassignment of students 
to buses will be designed to insure the transportation of all 
eligible pupils on a non-segregated and otherwise non-dis- 
criminatory basis. Buses for students not subject to zoning 
will be routed to the maximum extent feasible in light of 
the geographic distribution of students, so as to serve each 
student choosing any school in the parish, which he is eligi­
ble to attend.

VIII. Faculty staff assignments for the 1969-1970 school 
year will be made in such a manner that, as far as feasible,



the racial composition of the faculty and staff will not indi­
cate or suggest that the school is intended primarily for 
white or primarily for negro students. All schools within 
the parish will have integrated faculties for the 1969-70 
year, and formerly all-white or all-negro faculties will have 
significant numbers of faculty members of the race pre­
viously unrepresented. Future employment of teachers, 
administrators, and staff members mil be done without 
regard to race or color, and assignments of teachers in the 
future will be made likewise.

IX. Staff members who work directly with children, and 
members of professional staffs who work on the administra­
tive level, will be hired, assigned, promoted, paid, demoted, 
dismissed and otherwise treated without regard to race, 
color, or national origin.

X. The size and location of new school buildings and 
additions to existing buildings can significantly affect de­
segregation now and in the future. All school construction, 
school consolidation, and site selection (including the loca­
tion of any temporary classrooms) in this parish, including 
that planned for 1970 and years thereafter under this plan, 
shall be done in a manner which will prevent the recurrence 
of the dual school structure once this desegregation plan 
is implemented.

XI. Any student at, any school in the parish in which 
students of his race are in a majority, shall be allowed to 
transfer to any other school in the parish serving his grade 
level and with space available where students of his race 
are in a minority. Such transfer must be made prior to 
the beginning of a school year, in accordance with the pro­
visions of Paragraph VI A.

XII. If the school board grants a transfer into the parish 
of a student who resides outside the parish, for the student’s 
attendance at a public school in the parish, it shall do so 
on a non-discriminatory basis.

83a



Additional Steps Toward a Completely Unitary 
System for the Years 1970-71 and 1971-72

The East Feliciana Parish School Board, through its 
Superintendent, will commence, as soon as possible con­
sidering the imminent opening of schools on August 25, 
1969, to look for solutions to providing the physical facili­
ties necessary to completely unitize this school system 
while at the same time providing a quality educational 
system for all children.

This study will include submitting to the property-owning 
taxpayers of this parish a proposal asking for funds to 
build additional classrooms at existing facilities and/or 
construct new consolidated schools while converting existing 
facilities to more suitable uses.

The hoard’s studies to date indicate that complete con­
version to a unitary system, including faculty, can be ac­
complished more properly and smoothly over a three (3) 
year period commencing with the 1969-70 year, a:s outlined 
hereinabove, and completed with the 1971-72 year. This 
will also give the board time to hold the bond election pro­
posed and to complete construction of new facilities.

The board proposed to make periodic reports to the Court 
during this year as to the results of the studies and the 
status of the various proposals.

The Court is, of course, aware of the impossibility of 
making a reasonable and proper study of possible solutions 
to the many practical administrative, educational, and eco­
nomic problems involved in such a conversion in the ex­
tremely short time we have been allowed. Even the HEW 
representatives readily admitted that this time schedule 
was “ totally unrealistic.”  By instituting a plan which 
will ‘ ‘ effectuate a transition to a unitary non-discriminatory 
system”  over a three year period, the board will have time 
to make a thorough study and approach solution of these 
problems on an intelligent, reasonable basis from the stand­



85a

point of education, administration, economics and the wel­
fare of all children of the parish.

The following page shows the statistics required by the 
order of this court of July 11, 1969, regarding present 
racial makeup of the faculty and student body of each 
school in the parish, and expected racial makeup after 
implementation of the foregoing plan.
Racial Makeup of Faculty and Student Bodies of East Feliciana 

Parish Schools for 1968-69 and Expected Racial Makeup 
for 1969-70

No. No. Expected No. Expected No.
Students Teachers Students Teachers
1968-69 1968-69 1969-70 1969-70

W N T W N T W N T W N T
Slaughter 165 0 165 8 0 8 150 35 185 8 1 9
Reiley 0 235 235 0 10 10 20 235 255 2 9 11
Eighth Ward 0 317 317 0 14 14 27 348 375 2 14 16
Spears 0 270 270 0 12 12 33 302 335 2 12 14
Norwood 0 190 190 0 9 9 C L O S E D
Jackson High 736 11 747 37 2 39 710 52 762 37 4 41
West High 0 757 757 1 34 35 0 800 800 4 35 39
Clinton High 281 12 293 19 1 20 274 31 305 18 2 20
Clinton
Elementary 247 29 276 15 1 16 173 52 225 10 2 12

East
Elementary 0 632 632 2 24 26 0 612 612 4 22 26

East High 0 532 532 1 26 27 0 530 530 4 23 27

The above and foregoing plan, with accompanying objec­
tions to the previously submitted HEW plan, having been 
approved by the East Feliciana Parish School Board on 
July 19, 1969, is submitted in compliance with the order 
of the court of July 11, 1969, and with previous orders of 
this court and the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court



86a

of Appeals, on behalf of the East Feliciana Parish School- 
Board.

/&/ M'. N. W illiam s  
M. N. Williams 

Superintendent of Schools 
East Feliciana Parish, 
Louisiana

Sworn to and subscribed before me, in Clinton, Louisiana, 
on July 21, 1969.

/ s /  R obert A. Connell  
Robert A. Connell, 

Notary Public



APPENDIX E

U n i t e d  S t a t e s  Co ur t  of A p p e a l s
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

N o. 1 3, 2 2 9

HARRIETT D. NESBIT. ET AL. Appellants,
versus

THE STATESVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a public 
body corporate of Statesville, North Carolina, and A. D. 
KORNEGAY, Superintendent of Statesville City Public 
Schools, Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. 

Woodrow W. Jones, Chief Judge.

And 4 Companion Cases

(Argued December 1, 1969. Decided December 2, 1969).
Before H ayn sw o rth , Chief Judge, S obeloef, B ryan , 

W in ter , Craven , and B u tzn e r , Circuit Judges, sitting 
en banc.

P er C uriam  :

We consolidate these appeals for hearing and disposition 
in light of Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Educa­
tion, ------U.S. —-— (October 29, 1969). That recent de­
cision of the Supreme Court teaches “ [u]nder explicit 
holdings of this Court the obligation of every school district 
is to eliminate dual school systems at once and to operate 
now and hereafter only unitary schools.”  The clear man­
date of the Court is immediacy. Further delays will not 
be tolerated in this circuit. No school district may con­
tinue to operate a dual system based on race. Each must 
function as a unitary system within which no person is to 
be excluded from any school on the basis of race.



88a

We think that the urgency of the mandate of Alexander 
can he accomplished in the following manner and by the 
following time schedule, which we direct for these cases. 
Accordingly,

It is hereby A djudged, Ordered, and D ecreed :
1. Each of the school districts shall submit to the district 

court a plan for unitary schools on or before December 8, 
1969;

A. The plan for Statesville must provide for the elimina­
tion of the racial characteristics of Momingside School by 
pairing, zoning, or consolidation with Mulberry 'School;

B. In Reidsville, the district judge should select, with 
modifications if any, the pairing plan, on which the parties 
agreed in August 1968, the school board’s zoning plan, or 
any other method that may be expected most effectively to 
provide for a unitary school system;

C. For Durham, the district judge may accept the Larson 
plan with modifications and refinements that will achieve a 
unitary system, or any other method that may be expected 
to work;

D. In Halifax, the plan must provide for the elimination 
of racial characteristics in the secondary schools either by 
pairing, zoning, or by any other method that may be ex­
pected to work;

E. In Amherst, the plan must eliminate the racial char­
acteristics of the elementary schools either by pairing, zon­
ing, or by any other method that may be expected to work 
including assignment of Negro children to schools attended 
by neighboring white children;

F. All plans must include provisions for the integration 
of the faculty so that the ration of Negro and white faculty 
members of each school shall be approximately the same as 
the ratio throughout the system. In determining the ratio, 
exceptions may be made for specialized faculty positions;



2. The plaintiffs and the Department of Health, Educa­
tion, and Welfare may file response's to the plans on or 
before December 12,1969;

3. Each district judge shall conduct a hearing on De­
cember 15, 1969 to enable him to determine the effectiveness 
of a proposed plan or its modification;

4. On or before December 19, 1969, each district judge 
shall enter an order approving a plan selected by him to 
achieve immediately a unitary school system ;

5. The orders of the district judges shall be effective 
with respect to the school districts in North 'Carolina, which 
do not operate on a semester basis, at the end of the Christ­
mas vacation, and in any event no later than December 31, 
1969;

6. The orders of the district judges shall be effective with 
respect to the school districts in Virginia, which operate on 
a semester basis, at the end of the semester break, and in 
any event no later than January 31,1970;

7. On December 19, 1969, there shall be transmitted to 
the Clerk’s office of this court ten copies of the following 
papers in each case:

(a) The school board’s plan;
(b) The responses to this plan;
(c) The district court order with a copy of the plan 

approved by him;

8. On or before December 22, 1969, any party may file 
(with ten copies) objections to the order of a district court. 
The district court’s order, however, shall remain in full 
force and effect unless it is modified by an order of this 
court, which may be entered without further submission;

9. After a plan has been approved, the district court may 
hear additional objections or proposed amendments; pro­



90a

vided, however, that the parties shall comply with the ap­
proved plan in all respects while the district court considers 
the suggested modifications. No amendment shall be effec­
tive bef ore it has been approved by this court.

10. In Halifax and Amherst, the plaintiffs shall recover 
their costs and reasonable counsel fees, including reason­
able out-of- pocket expenses, to be determined by the district 
judge. In Statesville, Reidsville, and Durham, the appel­
lants shall recover their costs.

The judgments are vacated and the cases are remanded 
for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Let the mandate issue f orthwith.

Clem e n t  F . H ayn sw orth , J b ., 
Chief Judge, Fourth Circuit

S im o n  E. S obelofe,
United States Circuit Judge

A lbert Y. B ry a n ,
United States Circuit Judge

H arrison L. W in ter ,
United States Circuit Judge

J . B raxton  Craven , J r .,
United States Circuit Judge

J o h n  D . B tttzner, J r .,
United States Circuit Judge



91a

APPENDIX F

United S l a t e s  Co ur t  of  A p p e a l s
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

N o s .  2 8 0 3 0  & 2 8 0 4 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus
HINDS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,

Defendants-Appellees.

(Civil Action No. 4075(J))

And 24 Companion Cases

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of Mississippi

Bef ore B ell , T horn berry, and M organ, Cir cuit Judges.
P er Cu ria m  :

These cases, consolidated for order, are here for dis­
position in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in 
Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, No. 632, 
dated October 29, 1969. They involve 30 school districts in 
the Southern District of Mississippi. Suits to disestablish 
the dual school system were brought against fourteen of 
the school districts by private litigants: Anguilla, Canton, 
Enterprise, Holly Bluff, Holmes, Leake, Madison, Meridian, 
North Pike, Quitman, Sharkey-Issaquena, Wilkinson, Yazoo 
City, and Yazoo County. The suits with respect to the 
other sixteen school districts were government initiated.



92a

The scope of the problem of converting from dual to uni­
tary school systems in these districts may be seen from the 
following tables which reflect racial composition.

Group I
System White Students Negro Students
Amite 1461 2582
Anguilla Line 214 906
Canton Municipal 1326 3672
BDinds 6438 7489
Holly Bluff 240 483
Holmes 913 5355
Kemper 793 2060
Madison 1238 3376
N atehez-Adams 4494 5927
Noxubee County 872 3573
Sharkey-Issaquena 630 2002
South Pike 1135 2156
Wilkinson 779 2757
Yazoo County 1071 2495

G roup II
Enterprise 405 363
Franklin 1094 1075
Leake 2088 2224
North Pike 697 605
Quitman 1656 1490
Yazoo City 2014 2089

G roup III
System White Students Negro Students
Columbia City 1538 896
Covington 1998 1629
Forrest 4195 1062
Lauderdale 3063 1858
Lawrence 1942 1277
Lincoln 1671 1018
Marion 2064 1564
Meridian 6418 4405
Neshoba 2045 877
Philadelphia 969 548



93a

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed, effective immedi­
ately, that “ the school districts here involved may no longer 
operate a dual system based on race or color”  and each 
district is to operate henceforth, pursuant to the terms 
hereof, as a unitary school system within which no person 
is “ effectively excluded from any school because of race 
or color.”  Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Educa­
tion, supra.

To effectuate the conversion of these school systems to 
unitary school systems within the context of the order of 
the Supreme Court in Alexander v. Holmes County Board 
of Education, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that 
the fjermanent plans as distinguished from the interim 
plans prepared by the Office of Education, Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare, attached hereto and marked 
as Appendices 1 through 30 shall be immediately enforced 
as the plans of the respective systems subject to the follow­
ing terms, conditions, and exceptions:

(1) The time between the date hereof and December 31, 
1969 shall be utilized in arranging the transfer of faculty, 
transfer of equipment, supplies and libraries where neces­
sary, the reconstitution of school bus routes where indi­
cated, and in solving other logistical problems which may 
ensue in effectuating the attached plans. This activity shall 
commence immediately. The Office of Education plans will 
result in the transfer of thousands of school children and 
hundreds of faculty members to new schools. Many chil­
dren will have new teachers after December 31, 1969. It 
will be necessary for final grades to be entered and for 
other records to be completed by faculty members and 
school administrators for the students for the partial school 
year involved prior to the transfers. The interim period 
between the date of this order and December 31, 1969 will 
also be utilized for this purpose.

(2) No later than December 31, 1969 the pupil attend­
ance patterns and faculty assignments in each district 
shall comply with the respective plans.



94a

(3) As to the South Pike school district (App. 1), the 
plan suggested by the Office of Education shall be fully 
complied with except as to pupil assignment. The present 
pupil assignment and attendance pattern will suffice until 
the further order of this court. This system has 1135 white 
students and 2156 Negro students. Each of its seven 
schools are presently integrated. We conclude that a 
unitary system has been established as to pupil assign­
ment. The Office of Education plan in other respects will 
assure a completely unitary system.

(4) As to the Madison County system, the Office of Edu­
cation plan (App. 2) is modified as follows: Subsections 
4 through 8 of the Office of Education Recommended Plan 
for Student Desegregation 1989-70 are eliminated. In 
place of those subsections we substitute the geographic 
zoning arrangement for East Flora, Flora, Rosa Scott, 
Madison-Ridgeland, and Ridgeland Elementary set out in 
sections A.2 and A.3 (App. 2(b)) of the proposed plan of 
the Madison County Board of Education. All other pro­
visions of the Office of Education plan regarding Madison 
County are to become effective pursuant to the terms of 
this order.

(5) The attendance plan submitted by the Wilkinson 
County Board of Education will be considered by the court 
as a modification of the Office of Education plan (App. 3) 
upon a showing through a pupil locator map of the con­
templated racial characteristics of the schools for girls.

(6) The attendance plan submitted by the North Pike 
County Consolidated School District will be considered 
by the court as a modification of the Office of Education 
plan (App. 4) upon a showing through a pupil locator map 
of the contemplated racial characteristics of the Jones and 
Johnston Elementary schools.

(7) It appearing that the lack of buildings prevents the 
immediate implementation of the permanent plan of the 
Office of Education suggested for the Quitman Consoli­



95a

dated school district, the pupil attendance interim plan of 
the Office of Education for this district is authorized for 
use during the remainder of this school term (App. 5). 
The permanent plan shall be effectuated commencing in 
September, 1970. This relief is appropriate in view of the 
similarity between the proposed attendance plan of the 
school district and that of the Office of Education.

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that these respec­
tive plans shall remain in full force and effect until the 
further order of this court. They may be modified by the 
court through the following procedure. Honorable Dan M. 
Russell, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern 
District of Mississippi, is hereby designated to receive 
suggested modifications to the plans. No suggested modi­
fication may be submitted to Judge Russell before March 
1, 1970 and any such suggestion or request shall contem­
plate an effective date of September, 1970.

Judge Russell is directed to make full findings of fact 
with respect to any modification recommended or disap­
proved and these findings are to be referred to this court 
for its review. Pursuant to the terms of the order of the 
Supreme Court in Alexander v. Holmes County Board of 
Education, supra, no amendment or modification to any plan 
shall become effective without the order of this court.

This order is entered only after full consideration of the 
suggested plans of the Office of Education and those of the 
local school boards. It is apparent that in some instances 
the plans are cursory in nature. They were devised with­
out pupil locator maps. They do not contain information 
as to geographical area, transportation routes or dis­
tances. Some have not considered zoning. The school 
board plans are almost all without statistical data as to 
race. It is entirely possible that more effective plans can 
be devised on a local level and that these will insure the 
simultaneous accomplishment of maximum education and 
unitary school systems. To this end, and as an imprimatur



96a

of local consideration, it is suggested the school board 
sponsored requests for changes in plans show either Negro 
representation on school boards or prior consideration by 
a bi-racial advisory committee to the school board.

Nothing herein is intended to prevent the respective 
school boards and superintendents from seeking the further 
counsel and assistance of the Office of Education (HEW), 
or the assistance of the Mississippi State Department of 
Education, University Schools of Education in or out of 
Mississippi, or of others having expertise in the educa­
tion field.

The motion of counsel in those cases instituted by pri­
vate litigants for attorneys fees is held in abeyance for 
the present. The motion of the private litigants to require 
the filing of further plans by the Office of Education for 
use in the Hinds County, Holmes County and Meridian 
districts is denied.

Jurisdiction of these cases is retained in this court, pur­
suant to the aforesaid order of the [Supreme Court, to 
insure prompt and faithful compliance with this order. 
The court also retains jurisdiction to modify or amend 
this order as may be necessary or desirable to the end 
that unitary school systems will be operated.

I t I s So Ordered.

This 7th day of November, 1969.
G riffin  B. B ell 
Griffin B. Bell

United States Circuit Judge
H omer T hornberry 
Homer Thornberry

United States Circuit Judge

L ew is  R . M organ 
Lewis R. Morgan

United States Circuit Judge



APPENDIX G

PART I

P resent R acial C omposition  of S tudent  B odies 
and F aculties of th e  E ast F eliciana  

P arish  S chool S ystem  *

s t u d e n t s  f a c u l t y

SCHOOLS GRADES W HITE NEGRO W HITE NEGRO

Clinton
Elementary 1-6 190 30 12 1

Clinton High 7-12 235 13 19 1

Slaughter
Elementary 1-8 160 34 9 0

Jackson High 1-12 684 11 34 2

East Elementary 1-8 0 584 3 24

East High 9-12 0 522 3 24

Spears
Elementary 1-8 1 258 1 11

Eighth Ward
Elementary 1-8 4 322 1 14

Reiley
Elementary 1-8 0 240 1 9

West High 1-12 0 922 2 39

* Statistics taken from answers to plaintiffs’ interrogatories filed 
in district court on November 5, 1969.



98a

APPENDIX G

PART II

P resent R acial Composition  oe S tudent B odies 
and F aculties of th e  W est F eliciana  

P arish  S chool S ystem  *

STUDENTS FACULTY

SCHOOLS GRADES W HITE NEGRO W HITE NEGRO

St. Francisville 
High School 1-12 571 83 35 2

Tunica 1-7 150 63 7 2

Baines 1-8 0 947 1 47

Dawson 9-12 0 436 0 27

Polk-Rosenwald 1-6 0 170 0 6

* Statistics taken from answers to plaintiffs’ interrogatories filed 
with district court on November 7, 1969.



99a

APPENDIX G

PART III

P resent R acial C omposition  of S tudent  B odies 
and F aculties of the C oncordia Parish 

S chool S ystem  *

SCHOOLS GRADES

STUDENTS FACULTY

W HITE NEGRO W HITE NEGRO

Clayton
Elementary 1-6 74 44 6 1

Ridgecrest
Elementary 1-6 314 51 11 4

Monterey High 1-12 388 60 22 4

Vidalia
Elementary 1-5 595 77 26 4

Vidalia Jr. High 6-8 355 52 15 4

Vidalia High 9-12 355 34 19 3

Concord High 1-12 0 487 5 26

Ferriday
Elementary 1-6 586 125 27 6

Ferriday Jr. High 7-8 378 58 16 6

Ferriday High 9-12 579 64 27 6

E. Washington
Elementary 1-6 0 1049 6 45

Sevier Jr. High 7-8 0 354 5 15

Sevier High 9-12 0 553 6 27

* Statistics taken from report filed with district court by school 
board, October 6, 1969.



?