Defendant-Appellant's Objection to Third-Party Defendant-Appellee's Proposed Desegregation Plan

Public Court Documents
April 15, 1970

Cite this item
Defendant-Appellant's Objection to Third-Party Defendant-Appellee's Proposed Desegregation Plan preview

2 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Alexander v. Holmes Hardbacks. Defendant-Appellant's Objection to Third-Party Defendant-Appellee's Proposed Desegregation Plan, 1970. 6cd9c05b-cf67-f011-bec2-6045bdd81421. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/cc31d4a4-7ca7-4b7f-af5d-e02d2863d53b/defendant-appellants-objection-to-third-party-defendant-appellees-proposed-desegregation-plan. Accessed August 27, 2025.

    Copied!

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

HATTIESBURG DIVISIOR 

BUF CRD # A. 15k, ET AL, 

Va. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendants CIVIL ACTION NO, 2034 

VE. 

MILTON EVANS, SUPERINTENDENT, 

FORREST COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

Third-Party Defendant 

DEFENDANT-APPELIANT'S OBJECTIONS TO 
“THIRD-PARTY DEFEND DART-APPELLEE'S 
PROPOSED PLAN OF DESEC RE IGATION 

  

  

  

     

  

The United States of America, defendant-sppellant herein, 

fully makes the following objections to the proposed desegregation 

plan prepared by the Forrest County School Board 

il. The proposed plan is based on zones which tend to minimize 

rather than maximize desegregation 

» 

2. The proposed plan results in the overcrowding of 

the underutilizztion of the best physical facility in the school district, 

and use of a totally inadequate facility. 

that the plan was nol divised to satisfy educa-~ 

tional criteria. The burden of showing the plan to be free of racial discrimie 

nation and motivation has not been met, 

For these reasons the plan is constitutionally inadequate. The 

United States therefore recommends that the plan developed by the Office 

Education and on file in this case be implemented as the terminal desegregation 

plan for the 1970-71 school year. In the alternative, the United States 

recommends that the school board de required to seek the ald and advice of 

the Office of Education in developing an altemative desegregation plan. 

 



 
 

 
 

3 ¢ 
: 

§ 
§ 

; 
§ 

£ 
: 

i 

i 

  
 
 

ile ,k 

 
  
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
  
 

 
 

8
 

k 
do a

 

& 
2 

oo 
¥ 

oe 
3 

' 
’ 

" 
4 

boo 
. 

4
 

pl 
©} 

-~ 
-
—
 

¢ 
¢ 

Ui 

% 

 
   

. 
ped 

a
 

" 
px 

h
e
 

F
e
 

p
d
 

A 
- 

i
 

pike. 
Xs 

alt 
L 

row 
{ 

, 
- 

#1 
bd 

B
y
 

We 
3 

iA 
i 

LE 
8

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top